Crypto Breaking
20.5k 投稿
Crypto Breaking
厳選トピック確認済＋報告
ユーザーをブロック
Get real-time cryptocurrency news, blockchain updates, market analysis, and expert insights. Explore the latest trends in Bitcoin, Ethereum, DeFi, and Web3.
6 フォロー
32.9K+ フォロワー
31.7K+ いいね
投稿
すべて
引用
記事
翻訳参照
Netanyahu Suggests Blockchain to Mitigate Financial Sanctions RiskIsrael’s election campaign has taken an unexpected turn as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that blockchain and cryptocurrencies could help the country withstand potential international financial sanctions. Speaking on Friday to Channel 10’s economic network, Netanyahu framed “blockchain” as an alternative to sanctions and said Israel is exploring its use alongside digital assets.
His comments have triggered rapid pushback from political figures and Israel’s central bank, while also intensifying scrutiny of whether cryptocurrencies could realistically function as a national-level safeguard against restrictions on Israeli financial activity. The debate now sits at the center of the pre-election conversation leading up to Israel’s Oct. 27 vote.
Key takeaways
Netanyahu said Israel is considering blockchain and cryptocurrencies to reduce pressure from potential sanctions, calling blockchain “an alternative to sanctions.”
The Bank of Israel rejected the idea, stating cryptocurrencies “cannot be used as a route for bypassing sanctions.”
Opposition figures quickly criticized the plan as a national security risk, while commentators argued crypto cannot replace a formal financial system.
Western sanctions aimed at Israeli settlement goods could expand beyond the settlements, increasing the political urgency around financial resilience.
The dispute highlights a core tension: the privacy and transfer mechanics of crypto versus enforcement and compliance realities in sanction regimes.
Netanyahu positions blockchain as economic “defense”
Netanyahu’s remarks came as concerns grow that sanctions already directed at goods tied to West Bank settlements could widen to cover more of Israel’s economy. As reported by The Times of Israel, economists and industry figures warned last month that the measures could extend into Israel proper.
In that context, Netanyahu told Channel 10 that “blockchain is an alternative to sanctions,” and described the technology as a “national strategic tool.” According to CryptoJungle, Israel’s largest crypto media platform, the framing suggests a shift in the government’s posture—from a view of digital assets as an investment topic to an element of the country’s broader economic defense strategy.
Still, the key question for readers and market participants is not whether crypto networks can move value, but whether such movement meaningfully helps a sanctioned economy in practice—particularly under internationally coordinated enforcement.
Bank of Israel and candidates challenge the “bypass” narrative
Several candidates seeking to replace Netanyahu and the head of the Bank of Israel responded quickly to dispute the proposal’s premise. One of the most direct criticisms came from Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar party, who posted on X that the “BibiCoin vision” poses a threat to national security.
On the institutional side, the Bank of Israel issued a statement rejecting the idea that cryptocurrencies could be used to circumvent sanctions. As reported by Globes, the central bank said crypto “cannot be used as a route for bypassing sanctions,” underscoring that the mechanism does not provide a reliable escape hatch from legally mandated restrictions.
This matters for governance and compliance because sanctions are not only about payment rails; they also involve legal accountability, banking relationships, intermediary controls, and enforcement. Even if crypto transfers occur outside traditional banking channels, the broader financial system often still connects to the “on/off ramps” where fiat conversion and custody happen.
Street reactions and media scrutiny intensify
The controversy spilled beyond official statements. At an anti-government rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening, attendees discussed Netanyahu’s blockchain claim publicly. One rallygoer, Aryeh Cohen, said an economy that depends on the “dark web” would not make Israel safer or morally better than its opponents. Another attendee, who identified herself only as Pnina, suggested that the next step would involve the Bank of Israel “living ‘neath the law.”
Media criticism also focused on what cryptocurrencies can and cannot do. In an X post highlighted by Nadav Eyal, a Yediot Ahronot columnist, Eyal argued that while digital currencies can move value outside some conventional banking channels, they do not substitute for a national financial system. He pointed to limits such as the lack of credit lines to banks, the inability to replace international capital markets, and the fact that they do not compel foreign companies to violate sanctions.
That argument reflects a practical constraint: capital markets depend on regulated intermediaries and relationships that are often the direct targets of sanction regimes. Without access to those channels, crypto’s usefulness as an economic stabilizer may be narrower than political rhetoric suggests.
CryptoJungle founder: blockchain can be tracked—and Israel isn’t built to evade sanctions
CryptoJungle founder Ben Samocha told Cointelegraph on Sunday that crypto and blockchain-based solutions are not a tool for bypassing sanctions. He cited lessons from enforcement actions—most notably, the U.S. Treasury’s approach toward Iran—arguing that blockchain investigation can enable tracking of illicit funds, blocking fiat entry points, and even freezing assets.
Samocha also argued that Israel’s economy is not positioned to bypass sanctions using crypto, a claim that aligns with the central bank’s rejection of the “bypass” framing. If enforcement can reach the fiat gateway and intermediaries, then crypto can shift activity rather than neutralize sanctions pressure.
For investors and builders, the implication is that the compliance landscape may be more important than the underlying technology. Even where transfers are possible on-chain, the risk of exposure through exchanges, custodians, payment processors, or counterparties remains a major determinant of whether any “sanctions resistance” strategy is workable.
As readers watch the political debate progress into the final weeks before the election, the next developments to track are whether Netanyahu’s proposal translates into concrete policy steps, and how regulators—both in Israel and abroad—signal their approach to crypto compliance in any expanding sanction scenario.
This article was originally published as Netanyahu Suggests Blockchain to Mitigate Financial Sanctions Risk on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Netanyahu Suggests Blockchain to Mitigate Financial Sanctions Risk
Israel’s election campaign has taken an unexpected turn as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that blockchain and cryptocurrencies could help the country withstand potential international financial sanctions. Speaking on Friday to Channel 10’s economic network, Netanyahu framed “blockchain” as an alternative to sanctions and said Israel is exploring its use alongside digital assets.
His comments have triggered rapid pushback from political figures and Israel’s central bank, while also intensifying scrutiny of whether cryptocurrencies could realistically function as a national-level safeguard against restrictions on Israeli financial activity. The debate now sits at the center of the pre-election conversation leading up to Israel’s Oct. 27 vote.
Key takeaways
Netanyahu said Israel is considering blockchain and cryptocurrencies to reduce pressure from potential sanctions, calling blockchain “an alternative to sanctions.”
The Bank of Israel rejected the idea, stating cryptocurrencies “cannot be used as a route for bypassing sanctions.”
Opposition figures quickly criticized the plan as a national security risk, while commentators argued crypto cannot replace a formal financial system.
Western sanctions aimed at Israeli settlement goods could expand beyond the settlements, increasing the political urgency around financial resilience.
The dispute highlights a core tension: the privacy and transfer mechanics of crypto versus enforcement and compliance realities in sanction regimes.
Netanyahu positions blockchain as economic “defense”
Netanyahu’s remarks came as concerns grow that sanctions already directed at goods tied to West Bank settlements could widen to cover more of Israel’s economy. As reported by The Times of Israel, economists and industry figures warned last month that the measures could extend into Israel proper.
In that context, Netanyahu told Channel 10 that “blockchain is an alternative to sanctions,” and described the technology as a “national strategic tool.” According to CryptoJungle, Israel’s largest crypto media platform, the framing suggests a shift in the government’s posture—from a view of digital assets as an investment topic to an element of the country’s broader economic defense strategy.
Still, the key question for readers and market participants is not whether crypto networks can move value, but whether such movement meaningfully helps a sanctioned economy in practice—particularly under internationally coordinated enforcement.
Bank of Israel and candidates challenge the “bypass” narrative
Several candidates seeking to replace Netanyahu and the head of the Bank of Israel responded quickly to dispute the proposal’s premise. One of the most direct criticisms came from Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar party, who posted on X that the “BibiCoin vision” poses a threat to national security.
On the institutional side, the Bank of Israel issued a statement rejecting the idea that cryptocurrencies could be used to circumvent sanctions. As reported by Globes, the central bank said crypto “cannot be used as a route for bypassing sanctions,” underscoring that the mechanism does not provide a reliable escape hatch from legally mandated restrictions.
This matters for governance and compliance because sanctions are not only about payment rails; they also involve legal accountability, banking relationships, intermediary controls, and enforcement. Even if crypto transfers occur outside traditional banking channels, the broader financial system often still connects to the “on/off ramps” where fiat conversion and custody happen.
Street reactions and media scrutiny intensify
The controversy spilled beyond official statements. At an anti-government rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening, attendees discussed Netanyahu’s blockchain claim publicly. One rallygoer, Aryeh Cohen, said an economy that depends on the “dark web” would not make Israel safer or morally better than its opponents. Another attendee, who identified herself only as Pnina, suggested that the next step would involve the Bank of Israel “living ‘neath the law.”
Media criticism also focused on what cryptocurrencies can and cannot do. In an X post highlighted by Nadav Eyal, a Yediot Ahronot columnist, Eyal argued that while digital currencies can move value outside some conventional banking channels, they do not substitute for a national financial system. He pointed to limits such as the lack of credit lines to banks, the inability to replace international capital markets, and the fact that they do not compel foreign companies to violate sanctions.
That argument reflects a practical constraint: capital markets depend on regulated intermediaries and relationships that are often the direct targets of sanction regimes. Without access to those channels, crypto’s usefulness as an economic stabilizer may be narrower than political rhetoric suggests.
CryptoJungle founder: blockchain can be tracked—and Israel isn’t built to evade sanctions
CryptoJungle founder Ben Samocha told Cointelegraph on Sunday that crypto and blockchain-based solutions are not a tool for bypassing sanctions. He cited lessons from enforcement actions—most notably, the U.S. Treasury’s approach toward Iran—arguing that blockchain investigation can enable tracking of illicit funds, blocking fiat entry points, and even freezing assets.
Samocha also argued that Israel’s economy is not positioned to bypass sanctions using crypto, a claim that aligns with the central bank’s rejection of the “bypass” framing. If enforcement can reach the fiat gateway and intermediaries, then crypto can shift activity rather than neutralize sanctions pressure.
For investors and builders, the implication is that the compliance landscape may be more important than the underlying technology. Even where transfers are possible on-chain, the risk of exposure through exchanges, custodians, payment processors, or counterparties remains a major determinant of whether any “sanctions resistance” strategy is workable.
As readers watch the political debate progress into the final weeks before the election, the next developments to track are whether Netanyahu’s proposal translates into concrete policy steps, and how regulators—both in Israel and abroad—signal their approach to crypto compliance in any expanding sanction scenario.
This article was originally published as Netanyahu Suggests Blockchain to Mitigate Financial Sanctions Risk on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
His comments have triggered rapid pushback from political figures and Israel’s central bank, while also intensifying scrutiny of whether cryptocurrencies could realistically function as a national-level safeguard against restrictions on Israeli financial activity. The debate now sits at the center of the pre-election conversation leading up to Israel’s Oct. 27 vote.
Key takeaways
Netanyahu said Israel is considering blockchain and cryptocurrencies to reduce pressure from potential sanctions, calling blockchain “an alternative to sanctions.”
The Bank of Israel rejected the idea, stating cryptocurrencies “cannot be used as a route for bypassing sanctions.”
Opposition figures quickly criticized the plan as a national security risk, while commentators argued crypto cannot replace a formal financial system.
Western sanctions aimed at Israeli settlement goods could expand beyond the settlements, increasing the political urgency around financial resilience.
The dispute highlights a core tension: the privacy and transfer mechanics of crypto versus enforcement and compliance realities in sanction regimes.
Netanyahu positions blockchain as economic “defense”
Netanyahu’s remarks came as concerns grow that sanctions already directed at goods tied to West Bank settlements could widen to cover more of Israel’s economy. As reported by The Times of Israel, economists and industry figures warned last month that the measures could extend into Israel proper.
In that context, Netanyahu told Channel 10 that “blockchain is an alternative to sanctions,” and described the technology as a “national strategic tool.” According to CryptoJungle, Israel’s largest crypto media platform, the framing suggests a shift in the government’s posture—from a view of digital assets as an investment topic to an element of the country’s broader economic defense strategy.
Still, the key question for readers and market participants is not whether crypto networks can move value, but whether such movement meaningfully helps a sanctioned economy in practice—particularly under internationally coordinated enforcement.
Bank of Israel and candidates challenge the “bypass” narrative
Several candidates seeking to replace Netanyahu and the head of the Bank of Israel responded quickly to dispute the proposal’s premise. One of the most direct criticisms came from Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar party, who posted on X that the “BibiCoin vision” poses a threat to national security.
On the institutional side, the Bank of Israel issued a statement rejecting the idea that cryptocurrencies could be used to circumvent sanctions. As reported by Globes, the central bank said crypto “cannot be used as a route for bypassing sanctions,” underscoring that the mechanism does not provide a reliable escape hatch from legally mandated restrictions.
This matters for governance and compliance because sanctions are not only about payment rails; they also involve legal accountability, banking relationships, intermediary controls, and enforcement. Even if crypto transfers occur outside traditional banking channels, the broader financial system often still connects to the “on/off ramps” where fiat conversion and custody happen.
Street reactions and media scrutiny intensify
The controversy spilled beyond official statements. At an anti-government rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening, attendees discussed Netanyahu’s blockchain claim publicly. One rallygoer, Aryeh Cohen, said an economy that depends on the “dark web” would not make Israel safer or morally better than its opponents. Another attendee, who identified herself only as Pnina, suggested that the next step would involve the Bank of Israel “living ‘neath the law.”
Media criticism also focused on what cryptocurrencies can and cannot do. In an X post highlighted by Nadav Eyal, a Yediot Ahronot columnist, Eyal argued that while digital currencies can move value outside some conventional banking channels, they do not substitute for a national financial system. He pointed to limits such as the lack of credit lines to banks, the inability to replace international capital markets, and the fact that they do not compel foreign companies to violate sanctions.
That argument reflects a practical constraint: capital markets depend on regulated intermediaries and relationships that are often the direct targets of sanction regimes. Without access to those channels, crypto’s usefulness as an economic stabilizer may be narrower than political rhetoric suggests.
CryptoJungle founder: blockchain can be tracked—and Israel isn’t built to evade sanctions
CryptoJungle founder Ben Samocha told Cointelegraph on Sunday that crypto and blockchain-based solutions are not a tool for bypassing sanctions. He cited lessons from enforcement actions—most notably, the U.S. Treasury’s approach toward Iran—arguing that blockchain investigation can enable tracking of illicit funds, blocking fiat entry points, and even freezing assets.
Samocha also argued that Israel’s economy is not positioned to bypass sanctions using crypto, a claim that aligns with the central bank’s rejection of the “bypass” framing. If enforcement can reach the fiat gateway and intermediaries, then crypto can shift activity rather than neutralize sanctions pressure.
For investors and builders, the implication is that the compliance landscape may be more important than the underlying technology. Even where transfers are possible on-chain, the risk of exposure through exchanges, custodians, payment processors, or counterparties remains a major determinant of whether any “sanctions resistance” strategy is workable.
As readers watch the political debate progress into the final weeks before the election, the next developments to track are whether Netanyahu’s proposal translates into concrete policy steps, and how regulators—both in Israel and abroad—signal their approach to crypto compliance in any expanding sanction scenario.
This article was originally published as Netanyahu Suggests Blockchain to Mitigate Financial Sanctions Risk on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
84
記事
翻訳参照
Netanyahu Suggests Blockchain Could Help With Financial SanctionsIsrael’s election campaign has spilled into crypto policy after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested the country could lean on blockchain and cryptocurrencies to withstand the economic pressure of possible international sanctions.
Speaking to Israel’s Channel 10 economic network on Friday, Netanyahu said Israel is exploring blockchain technology and digital currencies as a way to reduce “strains on the economy” that could result from any further sanctions, framing blockchain as an “alternative to sanctions.” The remark has immediately drawn pushback from regulators, opposition politicians, and major media voices.
Key takeaways
Netanyahu told Channel 10 that Israel is considering blockchain and cryptocurrency to help manage the fallout of potential sanctions.
The Bank of Israel rejected the idea, saying cryptocurrencies cannot be used to bypass sanctions.
Opposition candidates and commentators warned that “crypto as sanctions evasion” could pose security and economic risks.
Economists and industry figures have previously cautioned that sanctions targeting settlements could expand to affect Israel’s wider economy.
From investment to “economic defense”
Until now, discussion of crypto in Israeli political circles has often focused on investment, industry growth, and how to regulate digital assets. Netanyahu’s comments appear to shift the framing toward resilience under external financial constraints, describing blockchain as a “national strategic tool.”
His rationale ties directly to the risk of sanctions. A dozen Western countries have already announced measures targeting goods associated with Israeli settlements in the West Bank, citing Jewish settler attacks on Palestinians and an increase in settlement construction approved by Netanyahu’s right-wing government. According to The Times of Israel, those steps could broaden to cover Israel proper, with economists and industry figures warning that the impact would not remain limited to the settlements sector.
Bank of Israel: crypto can’t route around sanctions
Netanyahu’s proposal was met with immediate skepticism from the country’s central bank. In a statement, the Bank of Israel said cryptocurrencies “cannot be used as a route for bypassing sanctions.” The response directly undercuts the idea that digital assets offer a reliable escape hatch from international compliance regimes.
In parallel, opposition figures attacked the concept as a national security threat. Yashar party leader Gadi Eisenkot wrote on X that the “BibiCoin vision is a threat to national security,” using a play on Netanyahu’s nickname.
Criticism spreads from rallies to mainstream commentary
The controversy quickly moved beyond official institutions. At an anti-government rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening, attendees discussed the blockchain statement in pointed terms, with one rallygoer arguing that an economy depending on “the dark web” would leave Israel no better than its adversaries. Another participant suggested that the Bank of Israel would be forced to respond, implying that regulators should not allow illegal financial workarounds.
Media commentators were similarly direct. Yediot Ahronot columnist Nadav Eyal wrote on X that digital currencies can move value outside some traditional banking channels, but argued they are not a substitute for a national financial system. He added that cryptocurrencies do not provide credit lines to banks, do not replace access to international capital markets, and do not persuade foreign companies to violate sanctions that bar them from doing business with Israel.
CryptoJungle founder Ben Samocha also pushed back. In remarks to Cointelegraph on Sunday, he argued that crypto and blockchain-based solutions are not the right tool for bypassing sanctions. He pointed to precedent from the US Treasury’s enforcement efforts against Iran, saying that blockchain investigation can help track illicit funds, block the fiat on-ramps, and enable freezing actions.
Why the debate matters for investors and policymakers
While the comments are political, they carry practical implications for anyone operating in or around Israel’s financial system. If policymakers treat cryptocurrencies as a sanctions-evasion instrument, it could change how banks, payments firms, and compliance teams approach risk—potentially tightening scrutiny rather than easing access to international financial rails.
Just as importantly, the Bank of Israel’s rejection highlights a core tension: blockchain transparency can make certain illicit flows easier to trace, even if digital assets can move value across networks. That means the “workaround” narrative may collide with enforcement capabilities—especially when sanctions regimes are designed around economic chokepoints like correspondent banking and regulated on-ramps.
For markets, the episode also illustrates how quickly crypto can become intertwined with geopolitics. Netanyahu’s remarks arrive amid concerns—raised previously by observers including The Times of Israel—that sanctions targeting settlements could broaden and affect the broader economy. In such scenarios, investors typically pay close attention not only to statements about adoption, but to whether regulators signal that crypto will be constrained, supervised, or treated as an unacceptable channel for sanction evasion.
As Israel approaches the Oct. 27 election, the key uncertainty is whether Netanyahu’s “blockchain as alternative to sanctions” framing will translate into policy proposals—or remain campaign rhetoric—while the Bank of Israel’s position sets the likely compliance boundary. Readers should watch for follow-up actions from regulators and for how other candidates articulate their stance on digital assets, especially around the practical question of whether crypto can be used in ways that international partners and domestic authorities will tolerate.
This article was originally published as Netanyahu Suggests Blockchain Could Help With Financial Sanctions on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Netanyahu Suggests Blockchain Could Help With Financial Sanctions
Israel’s election campaign has spilled into crypto policy after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested the country could lean on blockchain and cryptocurrencies to withstand the economic pressure of possible international sanctions.
Speaking to Israel’s Channel 10 economic network on Friday, Netanyahu said Israel is exploring blockchain technology and digital currencies as a way to reduce “strains on the economy” that could result from any further sanctions, framing blockchain as an “alternative to sanctions.” The remark has immediately drawn pushback from regulators, opposition politicians, and major media voices.
Key takeaways
Netanyahu told Channel 10 that Israel is considering blockchain and cryptocurrency to help manage the fallout of potential sanctions.
The Bank of Israel rejected the idea, saying cryptocurrencies cannot be used to bypass sanctions.
Opposition candidates and commentators warned that “crypto as sanctions evasion” could pose security and economic risks.
Economists and industry figures have previously cautioned that sanctions targeting settlements could expand to affect Israel’s wider economy.
From investment to “economic defense”
Until now, discussion of crypto in Israeli political circles has often focused on investment, industry growth, and how to regulate digital assets. Netanyahu’s comments appear to shift the framing toward resilience under external financial constraints, describing blockchain as a “national strategic tool.”
His rationale ties directly to the risk of sanctions. A dozen Western countries have already announced measures targeting goods associated with Israeli settlements in the West Bank, citing Jewish settler attacks on Palestinians and an increase in settlement construction approved by Netanyahu’s right-wing government. According to The Times of Israel, those steps could broaden to cover Israel proper, with economists and industry figures warning that the impact would not remain limited to the settlements sector.
Bank of Israel: crypto can’t route around sanctions
Netanyahu’s proposal was met with immediate skepticism from the country’s central bank. In a statement, the Bank of Israel said cryptocurrencies “cannot be used as a route for bypassing sanctions.” The response directly undercuts the idea that digital assets offer a reliable escape hatch from international compliance regimes.
In parallel, opposition figures attacked the concept as a national security threat. Yashar party leader Gadi Eisenkot wrote on X that the “BibiCoin vision is a threat to national security,” using a play on Netanyahu’s nickname.
Criticism spreads from rallies to mainstream commentary
The controversy quickly moved beyond official institutions. At an anti-government rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening, attendees discussed the blockchain statement in pointed terms, with one rallygoer arguing that an economy depending on “the dark web” would leave Israel no better than its adversaries. Another participant suggested that the Bank of Israel would be forced to respond, implying that regulators should not allow illegal financial workarounds.
Media commentators were similarly direct. Yediot Ahronot columnist Nadav Eyal wrote on X that digital currencies can move value outside some traditional banking channels, but argued they are not a substitute for a national financial system. He added that cryptocurrencies do not provide credit lines to banks, do not replace access to international capital markets, and do not persuade foreign companies to violate sanctions that bar them from doing business with Israel.
CryptoJungle founder Ben Samocha also pushed back. In remarks to Cointelegraph on Sunday, he argued that crypto and blockchain-based solutions are not the right tool for bypassing sanctions. He pointed to precedent from the US Treasury’s enforcement efforts against Iran, saying that blockchain investigation can help track illicit funds, block the fiat on-ramps, and enable freezing actions.
Why the debate matters for investors and policymakers
While the comments are political, they carry practical implications for anyone operating in or around Israel’s financial system. If policymakers treat cryptocurrencies as a sanctions-evasion instrument, it could change how banks, payments firms, and compliance teams approach risk—potentially tightening scrutiny rather than easing access to international financial rails.
Just as importantly, the Bank of Israel’s rejection highlights a core tension: blockchain transparency can make certain illicit flows easier to trace, even if digital assets can move value across networks. That means the “workaround” narrative may collide with enforcement capabilities—especially when sanctions regimes are designed around economic chokepoints like correspondent banking and regulated on-ramps.
For markets, the episode also illustrates how quickly crypto can become intertwined with geopolitics. Netanyahu’s remarks arrive amid concerns—raised previously by observers including The Times of Israel—that sanctions targeting settlements could broaden and affect the broader economy. In such scenarios, investors typically pay close attention not only to statements about adoption, but to whether regulators signal that crypto will be constrained, supervised, or treated as an unacceptable channel for sanction evasion.
As Israel approaches the Oct. 27 election, the key uncertainty is whether Netanyahu’s “blockchain as alternative to sanctions” framing will translate into policy proposals—or remain campaign rhetoric—while the Bank of Israel’s position sets the likely compliance boundary. Readers should watch for follow-up actions from regulators and for how other candidates articulate their stance on digital assets, especially around the practical question of whether crypto can be used in ways that international partners and domestic authorities will tolerate.
This article was originally published as Netanyahu Suggests Blockchain Could Help With Financial Sanctions on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Speaking to Israel’s Channel 10 economic network on Friday, Netanyahu said Israel is exploring blockchain technology and digital currencies as a way to reduce “strains on the economy” that could result from any further sanctions, framing blockchain as an “alternative to sanctions.” The remark has immediately drawn pushback from regulators, opposition politicians, and major media voices.
Key takeaways
Netanyahu told Channel 10 that Israel is considering blockchain and cryptocurrency to help manage the fallout of potential sanctions.
The Bank of Israel rejected the idea, saying cryptocurrencies cannot be used to bypass sanctions.
Opposition candidates and commentators warned that “crypto as sanctions evasion” could pose security and economic risks.
Economists and industry figures have previously cautioned that sanctions targeting settlements could expand to affect Israel’s wider economy.
From investment to “economic defense”
Until now, discussion of crypto in Israeli political circles has often focused on investment, industry growth, and how to regulate digital assets. Netanyahu’s comments appear to shift the framing toward resilience under external financial constraints, describing blockchain as a “national strategic tool.”
His rationale ties directly to the risk of sanctions. A dozen Western countries have already announced measures targeting goods associated with Israeli settlements in the West Bank, citing Jewish settler attacks on Palestinians and an increase in settlement construction approved by Netanyahu’s right-wing government. According to The Times of Israel, those steps could broaden to cover Israel proper, with economists and industry figures warning that the impact would not remain limited to the settlements sector.
Bank of Israel: crypto can’t route around sanctions
Netanyahu’s proposal was met with immediate skepticism from the country’s central bank. In a statement, the Bank of Israel said cryptocurrencies “cannot be used as a route for bypassing sanctions.” The response directly undercuts the idea that digital assets offer a reliable escape hatch from international compliance regimes.
In parallel, opposition figures attacked the concept as a national security threat. Yashar party leader Gadi Eisenkot wrote on X that the “BibiCoin vision is a threat to national security,” using a play on Netanyahu’s nickname.
Criticism spreads from rallies to mainstream commentary
The controversy quickly moved beyond official institutions. At an anti-government rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening, attendees discussed the blockchain statement in pointed terms, with one rallygoer arguing that an economy depending on “the dark web” would leave Israel no better than its adversaries. Another participant suggested that the Bank of Israel would be forced to respond, implying that regulators should not allow illegal financial workarounds.
Media commentators were similarly direct. Yediot Ahronot columnist Nadav Eyal wrote on X that digital currencies can move value outside some traditional banking channels, but argued they are not a substitute for a national financial system. He added that cryptocurrencies do not provide credit lines to banks, do not replace access to international capital markets, and do not persuade foreign companies to violate sanctions that bar them from doing business with Israel.
CryptoJungle founder Ben Samocha also pushed back. In remarks to Cointelegraph on Sunday, he argued that crypto and blockchain-based solutions are not the right tool for bypassing sanctions. He pointed to precedent from the US Treasury’s enforcement efforts against Iran, saying that blockchain investigation can help track illicit funds, block the fiat on-ramps, and enable freezing actions.
Why the debate matters for investors and policymakers
While the comments are political, they carry practical implications for anyone operating in or around Israel’s financial system. If policymakers treat cryptocurrencies as a sanctions-evasion instrument, it could change how banks, payments firms, and compliance teams approach risk—potentially tightening scrutiny rather than easing access to international financial rails.
Just as importantly, the Bank of Israel’s rejection highlights a core tension: blockchain transparency can make certain illicit flows easier to trace, even if digital assets can move value across networks. That means the “workaround” narrative may collide with enforcement capabilities—especially when sanctions regimes are designed around economic chokepoints like correspondent banking and regulated on-ramps.
For markets, the episode also illustrates how quickly crypto can become intertwined with geopolitics. Netanyahu’s remarks arrive amid concerns—raised previously by observers including The Times of Israel—that sanctions targeting settlements could broaden and affect the broader economy. In such scenarios, investors typically pay close attention not only to statements about adoption, but to whether regulators signal that crypto will be constrained, supervised, or treated as an unacceptable channel for sanction evasion.
As Israel approaches the Oct. 27 election, the key uncertainty is whether Netanyahu’s “blockchain as alternative to sanctions” framing will translate into policy proposals—or remain campaign rhetoric—while the Bank of Israel’s position sets the likely compliance boundary. Readers should watch for follow-up actions from regulators and for how other candidates articulate their stance on digital assets, especially around the practical question of whether crypto can be used in ways that international partners and domestic authorities will tolerate.
This article was originally published as Netanyahu Suggests Blockchain Could Help With Financial Sanctions on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
106
記事
翻訳参照
Bitcoin Price Crash Below $80K: Liquidations, ETF Outflows and Fed UncertaintyBitcoin fell below $80,000 on Saturday, October 24, as forced liquidations and fund withdrawals increased selling pressure. The cryptocurrency dropped 1.91% over 24 hours to $79,994.97 during the initial decline. Meanwhile, upcoming Federal Reserve decisions, US economic data, and tensions involving Iran added pressure across digital asset markets.
The decline pushed Bitcoin below a key psychological price level for the first time since October 15. Leveraged traders faced mounting losses as falling prices reduced the value of their positions. At the same time, withdrawals from Bitcoin exchange-traded funds signaled reduced exposure through regulated investment products.
The broader cryptocurrency market also weakened during weekend trading, with several major tokens posting losses. Market data placed total cryptocurrency market capitalization at approximately $2.68 trillion, down 2.19%. However, the available figures do not establish how much each individual factor contributed to Bitcoin’s decline.
Leveraged Bitcoin Liquidations Accelerate Selling Pressure
Cryptocurrency liquidations reached approximately $219 million within one hour as Bitcoin dropped below $80,000. More than $200 million in leveraged long positions faced liquidation within just 15 minutes. These forced closures added selling pressure as traders struggled to maintain the collateral required for their positions.
Leveraged long positions allow traders to gain greater market exposure using borrowed funds or margin. However, exchanges can automatically close positions when losses reduce account equity below required maintenance levels. Therefore, a rapid price decline can trigger forced sales and intensify downward momentum across cryptocurrency markets.
The reported liquidation figures highlight the risks associated with excessive leverage during volatile trading sessions. Meanwhile, the Crypto Fear and Greed Index stood at 42, indicating neutral overall sentiment. Although that reading did not signal extreme fear, forced closures demonstrated the pressure facing leveraged market participants.
Bitcoin ETF Outflows Exceed $635 Million
US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded approximately $635.6 million in net outflows on October 22. BlackRock’s IBIT accounted for around $254.1 million in withdrawals, while Fidelity’s FBTC recorded approximately $217.5 million. These figures marked a reversal from the positive flows reported during the previous trading session.
Withdrawals continued on Friday, with another $137.9 million leaving US spot Bitcoin ETFs before weekend trading. Consequently, the products logged several sessions of substantial outflows during a period of falling cryptocurrency prices. The withdrawals also reduced the amount of capital retained in these investment vehicles.
Spot Ethereum ETFs faced similar pressure, recording approximately $110.6 million in net outflows on October 22. BlackRock’s ETHA accounted for around $75.5 million of that total, according to the reported figures. Together, the Bitcoin and Ethereum fund movements reflected weaker demand through these investment products during the period.
Federal Reserve Meeting and US Elections Add Market Pressure
The Federal Reserve scheduled its next policy meeting for October 27–28, placing interest rates at the center of market attention. Additionally, US personal consumption expenditures inflation data for September was due on October 29. These events could influence expectations for borrowing costs, financial conditions, and demand for risk-sensitive assets.
Higher interest rates can reduce the appeal of assets that offer no conventional income, including Bitcoin. Conversely, expectations of lower borrowing costs can support demand for riskier investments when other conditions remain favorable. However, the upcoming policy decision does not independently explain the cryptocurrency’s latest price decline.
The US midterm elections scheduled for November 3 introduced another source of uncertainty for digital asset markets. Congressional control could influence future cryptocurrency legislation and financial market oversight. Still, the election’s approaching date alone does not establish a direct link to Saturday’s selloff.
Iran Tensions Add Pressure Across Cryptocurrency Markets
Geopolitical tensions involving Iran provided another potential source of pressure during the cryptocurrency decline. President Donald Trump raised the possibility of further military action against Iran in remarks reported on October 23. However, the remarks did not establish a specific timetable or confirm an imminent military operation.
Any escalation could affect energy markets, inflation expectations, and demand for assets exposed to financial risk. In turn, changes in broader market conditions could influence cryptocurrency trading alongside other risk-sensitive investments. Still, the available information does not quantify the direct effect of Iran-related developments on Bitcoin’s price.
The selloff extended beyond Bitcoin, as Ethereum fell below $2,300 during the reported decline. XRP traded near $1.25, while Solana dropped below $100 as losses spread across major digital assets. Dogecoin and Cardano also weakened, highlighting the breadth of the market downturn.
What the Bitcoin Decline Means for the Cryptocurrency Market
Bitcoin’s move below $80,000 coincided with leveraged liquidations, substantial ETF withdrawals, and several approaching economic events. Together, these developments provided multiple possible sources of selling pressure during the weekend session. However, their individual contributions remain difficult to separate using the reported figures alone.
The latest decline also showed how leverage can intensify price movements when market conditions deteriorate. Meanwhile, ETF outflows indicated that some capital left regulated cryptocurrency investment products during the same period. Economic policy expectations and geopolitical tensions added further uncertainty to an already weak trading environment.
Bitcoin’s immediate performance will depend partly on market demand, trading liquidity, and developments surrounding monetary policy. ETF flow data and liquidation figures will also help explain whether selling pressure persists beyond the weekend. For now, the drop below $80,000 marks a significant setback for Bitcoin and reflects broader weakness across cryptocurrency markets.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Price Crash Below $80K: Liquidations, ETF Outflows and Fed Uncertainty on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Bitcoin Price Crash Below $80K: Liquidations, ETF Outflows and Fed Uncertainty
Bitcoin fell below $80,000 on Saturday, October 24, as forced liquidations and fund withdrawals increased selling pressure. The cryptocurrency dropped 1.91% over 24 hours to $79,994.97 during the initial decline. Meanwhile, upcoming Federal Reserve decisions, US economic data, and tensions involving Iran added pressure across digital asset markets.
The decline pushed Bitcoin below a key psychological price level for the first time since October 15. Leveraged traders faced mounting losses as falling prices reduced the value of their positions. At the same time, withdrawals from Bitcoin exchange-traded funds signaled reduced exposure through regulated investment products.
The broader cryptocurrency market also weakened during weekend trading, with several major tokens posting losses. Market data placed total cryptocurrency market capitalization at approximately $2.68 trillion, down 2.19%. However, the available figures do not establish how much each individual factor contributed to Bitcoin’s decline.
Leveraged Bitcoin Liquidations Accelerate Selling Pressure
Cryptocurrency liquidations reached approximately $219 million within one hour as Bitcoin dropped below $80,000. More than $200 million in leveraged long positions faced liquidation within just 15 minutes. These forced closures added selling pressure as traders struggled to maintain the collateral required for their positions.
Leveraged long positions allow traders to gain greater market exposure using borrowed funds or margin. However, exchanges can automatically close positions when losses reduce account equity below required maintenance levels. Therefore, a rapid price decline can trigger forced sales and intensify downward momentum across cryptocurrency markets.
The reported liquidation figures highlight the risks associated with excessive leverage during volatile trading sessions. Meanwhile, the Crypto Fear and Greed Index stood at 42, indicating neutral overall sentiment. Although that reading did not signal extreme fear, forced closures demonstrated the pressure facing leveraged market participants.
Bitcoin ETF Outflows Exceed $635 Million
US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded approximately $635.6 million in net outflows on October 22. BlackRock’s IBIT accounted for around $254.1 million in withdrawals, while Fidelity’s FBTC recorded approximately $217.5 million. These figures marked a reversal from the positive flows reported during the previous trading session.
Withdrawals continued on Friday, with another $137.9 million leaving US spot Bitcoin ETFs before weekend trading. Consequently, the products logged several sessions of substantial outflows during a period of falling cryptocurrency prices. The withdrawals also reduced the amount of capital retained in these investment vehicles.
Spot Ethereum ETFs faced similar pressure, recording approximately $110.6 million in net outflows on October 22. BlackRock’s ETHA accounted for around $75.5 million of that total, according to the reported figures. Together, the Bitcoin and Ethereum fund movements reflected weaker demand through these investment products during the period.
Federal Reserve Meeting and US Elections Add Market Pressure
The Federal Reserve scheduled its next policy meeting for October 27–28, placing interest rates at the center of market attention. Additionally, US personal consumption expenditures inflation data for September was due on October 29. These events could influence expectations for borrowing costs, financial conditions, and demand for risk-sensitive assets.
Higher interest rates can reduce the appeal of assets that offer no conventional income, including Bitcoin. Conversely, expectations of lower borrowing costs can support demand for riskier investments when other conditions remain favorable. However, the upcoming policy decision does not independently explain the cryptocurrency’s latest price decline.
The US midterm elections scheduled for November 3 introduced another source of uncertainty for digital asset markets. Congressional control could influence future cryptocurrency legislation and financial market oversight. Still, the election’s approaching date alone does not establish a direct link to Saturday’s selloff.
Iran Tensions Add Pressure Across Cryptocurrency Markets
Geopolitical tensions involving Iran provided another potential source of pressure during the cryptocurrency decline. President Donald Trump raised the possibility of further military action against Iran in remarks reported on October 23. However, the remarks did not establish a specific timetable or confirm an imminent military operation.
Any escalation could affect energy markets, inflation expectations, and demand for assets exposed to financial risk. In turn, changes in broader market conditions could influence cryptocurrency trading alongside other risk-sensitive investments. Still, the available information does not quantify the direct effect of Iran-related developments on Bitcoin’s price.
The selloff extended beyond Bitcoin, as Ethereum fell below $2,300 during the reported decline. XRP traded near $1.25, while Solana dropped below $100 as losses spread across major digital assets. Dogecoin and Cardano also weakened, highlighting the breadth of the market downturn.
What the Bitcoin Decline Means for the Cryptocurrency Market
Bitcoin’s move below $80,000 coincided with leveraged liquidations, substantial ETF withdrawals, and several approaching economic events. Together, these developments provided multiple possible sources of selling pressure during the weekend session. However, their individual contributions remain difficult to separate using the reported figures alone.
The latest decline also showed how leverage can intensify price movements when market conditions deteriorate. Meanwhile, ETF outflows indicated that some capital left regulated cryptocurrency investment products during the same period. Economic policy expectations and geopolitical tensions added further uncertainty to an already weak trading environment.
Bitcoin’s immediate performance will depend partly on market demand, trading liquidity, and developments surrounding monetary policy. ETF flow data and liquidation figures will also help explain whether selling pressure persists beyond the weekend. For now, the drop below $80,000 marks a significant setback for Bitcoin and reflects broader weakness across cryptocurrency markets.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Price Crash Below $80K: Liquidations, ETF Outflows and Fed Uncertainty on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The decline pushed Bitcoin below a key psychological price level for the first time since October 15. Leveraged traders faced mounting losses as falling prices reduced the value of their positions. At the same time, withdrawals from Bitcoin exchange-traded funds signaled reduced exposure through regulated investment products.
The broader cryptocurrency market also weakened during weekend trading, with several major tokens posting losses. Market data placed total cryptocurrency market capitalization at approximately $2.68 trillion, down 2.19%. However, the available figures do not establish how much each individual factor contributed to Bitcoin’s decline.
Leveraged Bitcoin Liquidations Accelerate Selling Pressure
Cryptocurrency liquidations reached approximately $219 million within one hour as Bitcoin dropped below $80,000. More than $200 million in leveraged long positions faced liquidation within just 15 minutes. These forced closures added selling pressure as traders struggled to maintain the collateral required for their positions.
Leveraged long positions allow traders to gain greater market exposure using borrowed funds or margin. However, exchanges can automatically close positions when losses reduce account equity below required maintenance levels. Therefore, a rapid price decline can trigger forced sales and intensify downward momentum across cryptocurrency markets.
The reported liquidation figures highlight the risks associated with excessive leverage during volatile trading sessions. Meanwhile, the Crypto Fear and Greed Index stood at 42, indicating neutral overall sentiment. Although that reading did not signal extreme fear, forced closures demonstrated the pressure facing leveraged market participants.
Bitcoin ETF Outflows Exceed $635 Million
US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded approximately $635.6 million in net outflows on October 22. BlackRock’s IBIT accounted for around $254.1 million in withdrawals, while Fidelity’s FBTC recorded approximately $217.5 million. These figures marked a reversal from the positive flows reported during the previous trading session.
Withdrawals continued on Friday, with another $137.9 million leaving US spot Bitcoin ETFs before weekend trading. Consequently, the products logged several sessions of substantial outflows during a period of falling cryptocurrency prices. The withdrawals also reduced the amount of capital retained in these investment vehicles.
Spot Ethereum ETFs faced similar pressure, recording approximately $110.6 million in net outflows on October 22. BlackRock’s ETHA accounted for around $75.5 million of that total, according to the reported figures. Together, the Bitcoin and Ethereum fund movements reflected weaker demand through these investment products during the period.
Federal Reserve Meeting and US Elections Add Market Pressure
The Federal Reserve scheduled its next policy meeting for October 27–28, placing interest rates at the center of market attention. Additionally, US personal consumption expenditures inflation data for September was due on October 29. These events could influence expectations for borrowing costs, financial conditions, and demand for risk-sensitive assets.
Higher interest rates can reduce the appeal of assets that offer no conventional income, including Bitcoin. Conversely, expectations of lower borrowing costs can support demand for riskier investments when other conditions remain favorable. However, the upcoming policy decision does not independently explain the cryptocurrency’s latest price decline.
The US midterm elections scheduled for November 3 introduced another source of uncertainty for digital asset markets. Congressional control could influence future cryptocurrency legislation and financial market oversight. Still, the election’s approaching date alone does not establish a direct link to Saturday’s selloff.
Iran Tensions Add Pressure Across Cryptocurrency Markets
Geopolitical tensions involving Iran provided another potential source of pressure during the cryptocurrency decline. President Donald Trump raised the possibility of further military action against Iran in remarks reported on October 23. However, the remarks did not establish a specific timetable or confirm an imminent military operation.
Any escalation could affect energy markets, inflation expectations, and demand for assets exposed to financial risk. In turn, changes in broader market conditions could influence cryptocurrency trading alongside other risk-sensitive investments. Still, the available information does not quantify the direct effect of Iran-related developments on Bitcoin’s price.
The selloff extended beyond Bitcoin, as Ethereum fell below $2,300 during the reported decline. XRP traded near $1.25, while Solana dropped below $100 as losses spread across major digital assets. Dogecoin and Cardano also weakened, highlighting the breadth of the market downturn.
What the Bitcoin Decline Means for the Cryptocurrency Market
Bitcoin’s move below $80,000 coincided with leveraged liquidations, substantial ETF withdrawals, and several approaching economic events. Together, these developments provided multiple possible sources of selling pressure during the weekend session. However, their individual contributions remain difficult to separate using the reported figures alone.
The latest decline also showed how leverage can intensify price movements when market conditions deteriorate. Meanwhile, ETF outflows indicated that some capital left regulated cryptocurrency investment products during the same period. Economic policy expectations and geopolitical tensions added further uncertainty to an already weak trading environment.
Bitcoin’s immediate performance will depend partly on market demand, trading liquidity, and developments surrounding monetary policy. ETF flow data and liquidation figures will also help explain whether selling pressure persists beyond the weekend. For now, the drop below $80,000 marks a significant setback for Bitcoin and reflects broader weakness across cryptocurrency markets.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Price Crash Below $80K: Liquidations, ETF Outflows and Fed Uncertainty on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
106
記事
元顧問が関与したとされる取引報道を受け、米上院議員がテザーに疑問呈すコネチカット州選出のリチャード・ブルーメンソール上院議員は、テザーと、ホワイトハウスで暗号資産担当顧問を務めたボー・ハインズ氏に関係するマーケティング会社との関係疑惑をめぐる上院の調査を強化した。調査の焦点は、テザーがNxumと630万ドルのマーケティング契約を結んだとの主張と、この取引に、審議中のステーブルコイン関連法案をめぐるロビー活動の連携が関わっていた可能性だ。
ブルーメンソール氏はテザーのパオロ・アルドイノ最高経営責任者（CEO）宛ての書簡で、上院常設調査小委員会が、テザーとNxumに関わる契約、支払い、通信、ロビー活動について、記録と情報の提出を求めていると述べた。また、当事者間のメッセージから、ステーブルコインを規制することを目的とした法案「GENIUS法」に関連する取り組みについて、直接連携していたことが示唆されたとの疑惑にも言及した。
元顧問が関与したとされる取引報道を受け、米上院議員がテザーに疑問呈す
コネチカット州選出のリチャード・ブルーメンソール上院議員は、テザーと、ホワイトハウスで暗号資産担当顧問を務めたボー・ハインズ氏に関係するマーケティング会社との関係疑惑をめぐる上院の調査を強化した。調査の焦点は、テザーがNxumと630万ドルのマーケティング契約を結んだとの主張と、この取引に、審議中のステーブルコイン関連法案をめぐるロビー活動の連携が関わっていた可能性だ。
ブルーメンソール氏はテザーのパオロ・アルドイノ最高経営責任者（CEO）宛ての書簡で、上院常設調査小委員会が、テザーとNxumに関わる契約、支払い、通信、ロビー活動について、記録と情報の提出を求めていると述べた。また、当事者間のメッセージから、ステーブルコインを規制することを目的とした法案「GENIUS法」に関連する取り組みについて、直接連携していたことが示唆されたとの疑惑にも言及した。
ブルーメンソール氏はテザーのパオロ・アルドイノ最高経営責任者（CEO）宛ての書簡で、上院常設調査小委員会が、テザーとNxumに関わる契約、支払い、通信、ロビー活動について、記録と情報の提出を求めていると述べた。また、当事者間のメッセージから、ステーブルコインを規制することを目的とした法案「GENIUS法」に関連する取り組みについて、直接連携していたことが示唆されたとの疑惑にも言及した。
81
記事
翻訳参照
IRS to Ease Tax Disclosure Penalties, Including Crypto Reporting: ForbesThe U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is working on a substantial update to its voluntary disclosure program, with plans to cut penalties and speed up case resolution for taxpayers who come forward to address tax violations—an approach that would also cover cryptocurrency-related noncompliance. The changes were reported by Forbes in a Friday piece outlining remarks from senior IRS leadership.
Jarod Koopman, the chief of IRS Criminal Investigation, said the agency intends to introduce a revised version of the program before December. He added that the IRS is targeting resolution within 120 days after a taxpayer completes the required submission process.
Key takeaways
The IRS plans to revise its voluntary disclosure program before December, aiming to resolve cases within 120 days of submission completion.
According to Jarod Koopman, digital assets would be handled under the same voluntary disclosure framework as other types of tax noncompliance, not via a separate crypto-specific process.
Koopman indicated the revised penalties would be “substantially lower” than current levels, though specific amounts were not provided.
The IRS is reportedly considering expanded settlement options, including installment plans and offers in compromise.
Legislators are also weighing a separate crypto-focused disclosure pathway under the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act, which would address unintentional errors with defined penalties.
A faster pathway for taxpayers who come forward
For the IRS, the voluntary disclosure program is designed primarily for taxpayers facing exposure to criminal prosecution due to willful failure to comply with tax laws. Forbes reported that the current process can take a year or longer to complete, and that the IRS is seeking to streamline outcomes for eligible participants.
Koopman’s remarks at the UCLA Extension Tax Controversy Conference outlined the intent to move away from drawn-out timelines. Under the proposed approach, taxpayers would submit the required materials through the disclosure process, and then the IRS would work toward resolution within 120 days after the submission is completed.
For investors, traders, and builders interacting with crypto markets, the practical significance lies in predictability. Tax enforcement decisions often hinge not just on what happened, but on how quickly parties can resolve exposure. A shorter resolution window can reduce uncertainty for taxpayers who are trying to close out compliance gaps and avoid escalating disputes.
Digital assets likely stay inside the existing IRS framework
While crypto tax compliance is a recurring issue in U.S. policy discussions, Koopman indicated the IRS does not plan to create a separate disclosure procedure specifically for digital assets. Instead, Forbes reported that digital assets would be treated through the same voluntary disclosure procedures used for other forms of tax noncompliance.
That distinction matters because the IRS voluntary disclosure program is not framed as a catch-all mechanism for every kind of reporting problem. According to the reporting, the program is aimed at willful failures—rather than unintentional mistakes—meaning taxpayers’ eligibility depends on the facts that surround their reporting decisions.
Koopman’s comments also suggest the IRS is looking for operational reform—lower penalties, quicker timelines, and potential settlement flexibility—rather than redefining the underlying category of behavior that qualifies for relief.
Lower penalties and possible settlement flexibility
Koopman reportedly said penalties under the revised program would be “substantially lower” than those currently imposed. He did not provide numerical figures, so taxpayers should treat the statement as directional rather than specific guidance on what a particular case would cost.
Forbes also reported that the IRS is considering whether taxpayers could settle outstanding liabilities using installment plans or offers in compromise. If adopted, these options could be meaningful for crypto-related taxpayers whose liabilities may involve complex records—such as transactions across multiple venues or periods—where paying in full immediately may not be feasible.
Even without penalty figures, the direction of travel points to a more negotiable compliance experience. For eligible taxpayers, this could lower the barrier to addressing past tax problems proactively instead of waiting for enforcement action.
Congress is debating a separate route for crypto mistakes
While the IRS appears set to handle digital assets within its existing voluntary disclosure framework, lawmakers are considering legislation that could create a distinctly crypto-oriented pathway for certain taxpayers. Forbes reported that Congress is working on a separate voluntary disclosure program under the proposed Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act.
Specifically, Section 502 of the proposed act, as referenced in the reporting via earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, would establish a process for correcting past violations with defined penalties. The bill is positioned to cover crypto taxpayers—including those who made unintentional reporting errors—rather than focusing solely on willful noncompliance.
According to the description in the source materials, the bill cleared the House Ways and Means Committee in September. If the proposal advances, it could reduce ambiguity for taxpayers whose conduct does not fit the willfulness-focused design of the IRS program.
This creates a policy tension worth watching: the IRS update appears geared toward changing how the current program functions—speed and penalty levels—while Congress could, in parallel, offer a separate compliance track tailored to digital asset reporting, including accidental errors. For taxpayers, the availability of two potential pathways—one administrative via the IRS and one potentially legislative—could significantly affect strategy, depending on whether their situation aligns with willful failure or unintentional misreporting.
What to watch next
Taxpayers with crypto exposure should pay close attention to whether the IRS publishes concrete details before December—especially eligibility criteria, the scope of “substantially lower” penalties, and how installment plans or offers in compromise would work in practice. At the same time, readers should monitor the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act’s legislative progress, since a separate crypto-specific corrective process could materially change the choices available to those dealing with past mistakes.
This article was originally published as IRS to Ease Tax Disclosure Penalties, Including Crypto Reporting: Forbes on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
IRS to Ease Tax Disclosure Penalties, Including Crypto Reporting: Forbes
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is working on a substantial update to its voluntary disclosure program, with plans to cut penalties and speed up case resolution for taxpayers who come forward to address tax violations—an approach that would also cover cryptocurrency-related noncompliance. The changes were reported by Forbes in a Friday piece outlining remarks from senior IRS leadership.
Jarod Koopman, the chief of IRS Criminal Investigation, said the agency intends to introduce a revised version of the program before December. He added that the IRS is targeting resolution within 120 days after a taxpayer completes the required submission process.
Key takeaways
The IRS plans to revise its voluntary disclosure program before December, aiming to resolve cases within 120 days of submission completion.
According to Jarod Koopman, digital assets would be handled under the same voluntary disclosure framework as other types of tax noncompliance, not via a separate crypto-specific process.
Koopman indicated the revised penalties would be “substantially lower” than current levels, though specific amounts were not provided.
The IRS is reportedly considering expanded settlement options, including installment plans and offers in compromise.
Legislators are also weighing a separate crypto-focused disclosure pathway under the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act, which would address unintentional errors with defined penalties.
A faster pathway for taxpayers who come forward
For the IRS, the voluntary disclosure program is designed primarily for taxpayers facing exposure to criminal prosecution due to willful failure to comply with tax laws. Forbes reported that the current process can take a year or longer to complete, and that the IRS is seeking to streamline outcomes for eligible participants.
Koopman’s remarks at the UCLA Extension Tax Controversy Conference outlined the intent to move away from drawn-out timelines. Under the proposed approach, taxpayers would submit the required materials through the disclosure process, and then the IRS would work toward resolution within 120 days after the submission is completed.
For investors, traders, and builders interacting with crypto markets, the practical significance lies in predictability. Tax enforcement decisions often hinge not just on what happened, but on how quickly parties can resolve exposure. A shorter resolution window can reduce uncertainty for taxpayers who are trying to close out compliance gaps and avoid escalating disputes.
Digital assets likely stay inside the existing IRS framework
While crypto tax compliance is a recurring issue in U.S. policy discussions, Koopman indicated the IRS does not plan to create a separate disclosure procedure specifically for digital assets. Instead, Forbes reported that digital assets would be treated through the same voluntary disclosure procedures used for other forms of tax noncompliance.
That distinction matters because the IRS voluntary disclosure program is not framed as a catch-all mechanism for every kind of reporting problem. According to the reporting, the program is aimed at willful failures—rather than unintentional mistakes—meaning taxpayers’ eligibility depends on the facts that surround their reporting decisions.
Koopman’s comments also suggest the IRS is looking for operational reform—lower penalties, quicker timelines, and potential settlement flexibility—rather than redefining the underlying category of behavior that qualifies for relief.
Lower penalties and possible settlement flexibility
Koopman reportedly said penalties under the revised program would be “substantially lower” than those currently imposed. He did not provide numerical figures, so taxpayers should treat the statement as directional rather than specific guidance on what a particular case would cost.
Forbes also reported that the IRS is considering whether taxpayers could settle outstanding liabilities using installment plans or offers in compromise. If adopted, these options could be meaningful for crypto-related taxpayers whose liabilities may involve complex records—such as transactions across multiple venues or periods—where paying in full immediately may not be feasible.
Even without penalty figures, the direction of travel points to a more negotiable compliance experience. For eligible taxpayers, this could lower the barrier to addressing past tax problems proactively instead of waiting for enforcement action.
Congress is debating a separate route for crypto mistakes
While the IRS appears set to handle digital assets within its existing voluntary disclosure framework, lawmakers are considering legislation that could create a distinctly crypto-oriented pathway for certain taxpayers. Forbes reported that Congress is working on a separate voluntary disclosure program under the proposed Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act.
Specifically, Section 502 of the proposed act, as referenced in the reporting via earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, would establish a process for correcting past violations with defined penalties. The bill is positioned to cover crypto taxpayers—including those who made unintentional reporting errors—rather than focusing solely on willful noncompliance.
According to the description in the source materials, the bill cleared the House Ways and Means Committee in September. If the proposal advances, it could reduce ambiguity for taxpayers whose conduct does not fit the willfulness-focused design of the IRS program.
This creates a policy tension worth watching: the IRS update appears geared toward changing how the current program functions—speed and penalty levels—while Congress could, in parallel, offer a separate compliance track tailored to digital asset reporting, including accidental errors. For taxpayers, the availability of two potential pathways—one administrative via the IRS and one potentially legislative—could significantly affect strategy, depending on whether their situation aligns with willful failure or unintentional misreporting.
What to watch next
Taxpayers with crypto exposure should pay close attention to whether the IRS publishes concrete details before December—especially eligibility criteria, the scope of “substantially lower” penalties, and how installment plans or offers in compromise would work in practice. At the same time, readers should monitor the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act’s legislative progress, since a separate crypto-specific corrective process could materially change the choices available to those dealing with past mistakes.
This article was originally published as IRS to Ease Tax Disclosure Penalties, Including Crypto Reporting: Forbes on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Jarod Koopman, the chief of IRS Criminal Investigation, said the agency intends to introduce a revised version of the program before December. He added that the IRS is targeting resolution within 120 days after a taxpayer completes the required submission process.
Key takeaways
The IRS plans to revise its voluntary disclosure program before December, aiming to resolve cases within 120 days of submission completion.
According to Jarod Koopman, digital assets would be handled under the same voluntary disclosure framework as other types of tax noncompliance, not via a separate crypto-specific process.
Koopman indicated the revised penalties would be “substantially lower” than current levels, though specific amounts were not provided.
The IRS is reportedly considering expanded settlement options, including installment plans and offers in compromise.
Legislators are also weighing a separate crypto-focused disclosure pathway under the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act, which would address unintentional errors with defined penalties.
A faster pathway for taxpayers who come forward
For the IRS, the voluntary disclosure program is designed primarily for taxpayers facing exposure to criminal prosecution due to willful failure to comply with tax laws. Forbes reported that the current process can take a year or longer to complete, and that the IRS is seeking to streamline outcomes for eligible participants.
Koopman’s remarks at the UCLA Extension Tax Controversy Conference outlined the intent to move away from drawn-out timelines. Under the proposed approach, taxpayers would submit the required materials through the disclosure process, and then the IRS would work toward resolution within 120 days after the submission is completed.
For investors, traders, and builders interacting with crypto markets, the practical significance lies in predictability. Tax enforcement decisions often hinge not just on what happened, but on how quickly parties can resolve exposure. A shorter resolution window can reduce uncertainty for taxpayers who are trying to close out compliance gaps and avoid escalating disputes.
Digital assets likely stay inside the existing IRS framework
While crypto tax compliance is a recurring issue in U.S. policy discussions, Koopman indicated the IRS does not plan to create a separate disclosure procedure specifically for digital assets. Instead, Forbes reported that digital assets would be treated through the same voluntary disclosure procedures used for other forms of tax noncompliance.
That distinction matters because the IRS voluntary disclosure program is not framed as a catch-all mechanism for every kind of reporting problem. According to the reporting, the program is aimed at willful failures—rather than unintentional mistakes—meaning taxpayers’ eligibility depends on the facts that surround their reporting decisions.
Koopman’s comments also suggest the IRS is looking for operational reform—lower penalties, quicker timelines, and potential settlement flexibility—rather than redefining the underlying category of behavior that qualifies for relief.
Lower penalties and possible settlement flexibility
Koopman reportedly said penalties under the revised program would be “substantially lower” than those currently imposed. He did not provide numerical figures, so taxpayers should treat the statement as directional rather than specific guidance on what a particular case would cost.
Forbes also reported that the IRS is considering whether taxpayers could settle outstanding liabilities using installment plans or offers in compromise. If adopted, these options could be meaningful for crypto-related taxpayers whose liabilities may involve complex records—such as transactions across multiple venues or periods—where paying in full immediately may not be feasible.
Even without penalty figures, the direction of travel points to a more negotiable compliance experience. For eligible taxpayers, this could lower the barrier to addressing past tax problems proactively instead of waiting for enforcement action.
Congress is debating a separate route for crypto mistakes
While the IRS appears set to handle digital assets within its existing voluntary disclosure framework, lawmakers are considering legislation that could create a distinctly crypto-oriented pathway for certain taxpayers. Forbes reported that Congress is working on a separate voluntary disclosure program under the proposed Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act.
Specifically, Section 502 of the proposed act, as referenced in the reporting via earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, would establish a process for correcting past violations with defined penalties. The bill is positioned to cover crypto taxpayers—including those who made unintentional reporting errors—rather than focusing solely on willful noncompliance.
According to the description in the source materials, the bill cleared the House Ways and Means Committee in September. If the proposal advances, it could reduce ambiguity for taxpayers whose conduct does not fit the willfulness-focused design of the IRS program.
This creates a policy tension worth watching: the IRS update appears geared toward changing how the current program functions—speed and penalty levels—while Congress could, in parallel, offer a separate compliance track tailored to digital asset reporting, including accidental errors. For taxpayers, the availability of two potential pathways—one administrative via the IRS and one potentially legislative—could significantly affect strategy, depending on whether their situation aligns with willful failure or unintentional misreporting.
What to watch next
Taxpayers with crypto exposure should pay close attention to whether the IRS publishes concrete details before December—especially eligibility criteria, the scope of “substantially lower” penalties, and how installment plans or offers in compromise would work in practice. At the same time, readers should monitor the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act’s legislative progress, since a separate crypto-specific corrective process could materially change the choices available to those dealing with past mistakes.
This article was originally published as IRS to Ease Tax Disclosure Penalties, Including Crypto Reporting: Forbes on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
52
記事
IRS、暗号資産を含む税務開示の罰則を軽減へ：フォーブス米国内国歳入庁（IRS）は、自主的開示制度の改定を準備している。税務上の不遵守に対処するため自ら申告する納税者を対象に、罰則を軽減し、案件の解決を迅速化する計画で、暗号資産に関する違反も対象に含まれる可能性がある。この動きは、IRS犯罪捜査部門のジャロッド・クープマン長官の発言を引用し、フォーブスが報じた。
クープマン氏によると、同庁は12月前に改定プログラムを導入することを目指している。報道によれば、IRSの目標は、納税者が参加に必要な提出手続きを完了してから120日以内に案件を解決することだ。
IRS、暗号資産を含む税務開示の罰則を軽減へ：フォーブス
米国内国歳入庁（IRS）は、自主的開示制度の改定を準備している。税務上の不遵守に対処するため自ら申告する納税者を対象に、罰則を軽減し、案件の解決を迅速化する計画で、暗号資産に関する違反も対象に含まれる可能性がある。この動きは、IRS犯罪捜査部門のジャロッド・クープマン長官の発言を引用し、フォーブスが報じた。
クープマン氏によると、同庁は12月前に改定プログラムを導入することを目指している。報道によれば、IRSの目標は、納税者が参加に必要な提出手続きを完了してから120日以内に案件を解決することだ。
クープマン氏によると、同庁は12月前に改定プログラムを導入することを目指している。報道によれば、IRSの目標は、納税者が参加に必要な提出手続きを完了してから120日以内に案件を解決することだ。
73
記事
260万ドル相当のエクスプロイト報告を受け、InitiaがL1とロールアップを停止相互接続されたロールアップを支えるために構築されたレイヤー1ブロックチェーンのInitiaは、攻撃者が不正なトークンを発行し、260万ドル相当を超える暗号資産に換えることを可能にしたとされるエクスプロイトが研究者から報告された後、運用を停止した。
InitiaがXで発表したところによると、ネットワークは金曜日のUTC午後3時41分に停止された。チームは、事案の全容を把握するため、セキュリティ研究者、バリデーター、取引所と連携していると述べた。
主なポイント
不正なトークン発行を可能にするエクスプロイトが報告されたことを受け、InitiaはUTC午後3時41分にレイヤー1とロールアップを停止した。
260万ドル相当のエクスプロイト報告を受け、InitiaがL1とロールアップを停止
相互接続されたロールアップを支えるために構築されたレイヤー1ブロックチェーンのInitiaは、攻撃者が不正なトークンを発行し、260万ドル相当を超える暗号資産に換えることを可能にしたとされるエクスプロイトが研究者から報告された後、運用を停止した。
InitiaがXで発表したところによると、ネットワークは金曜日のUTC午後3時41分に停止された。チームは、事案の全容を把握するため、セキュリティ研究者、バリデーター、取引所と連携していると述べた。
主なポイント
不正なトークン発行を可能にするエクスプロイトが報告されたことを受け、InitiaはUTC午後3時41分にレイヤー1とロールアップを停止した。
InitiaがXで発表したところによると、ネットワークは金曜日のUTC午後3時41分に停止された。チームは、事案の全容を把握するため、セキュリティ研究者、バリデーター、取引所と連携していると述べた。
主なポイント
不正なトークン発行を可能にするエクスプロイトが報告されたことを受け、InitiaはUTC午後3時41分にレイヤー1とロールアップを停止した。
153
記事
報告された260万ドル超の資金流出を受け、Initiaがブロックチェーンを一時停止セキュリティ研究者が、不正なトークン発行と暗号資産資金の流出を可能にしたとされる脆弱性の悪用を報告したことを受け、Initiaはレイヤー1ネットワークとロールアップの運用を一時停止しました。InitiaがXに投稿した内容によると、停止は金曜日の午後3時41分（UTC）に開始され、チームはバリデーター、取引所、外部の研究者と連携し、被害状況の調査にあたっています。
Initiaはまだこのインシデントの全容を明らかにしていませんが、ブロックチェーン分析担当者やDeFi参加者の報告によると、攻撃者は裏付けのないトークンを発行し、複数のチェーン間で交換した後、得た資金をイーサリアム上に集約したとみられます。この事件はInitiaのトークン市場にも波及し、独自トークンのINITは一時下落した後、反発しました。
報告された260万ドル超の資金流出を受け、Initiaがブロックチェーンを一時停止
セキュリティ研究者が、不正なトークン発行と暗号資産資金の流出を可能にしたとされる脆弱性の悪用を報告したことを受け、Initiaはレイヤー1ネットワークとロールアップの運用を一時停止しました。InitiaがXに投稿した内容によると、停止は金曜日の午後3時41分（UTC）に開始され、チームはバリデーター、取引所、外部の研究者と連携し、被害状況の調査にあたっています。
Initiaはまだこのインシデントの全容を明らかにしていませんが、ブロックチェーン分析担当者やDeFi参加者の報告によると、攻撃者は裏付けのないトークンを発行し、複数のチェーン間で交換した後、得た資金をイーサリアム上に集約したとみられます。この事件はInitiaのトークン市場にも波及し、独自トークンのINITは一時下落した後、反発しました。
Initiaはまだこのインシデントの全容を明らかにしていませんが、ブロックチェーン分析担当者やDeFi参加者の報告によると、攻撃者は裏付けのないトークンを発行し、複数のチェーン間で交換した後、得た資金をイーサリアム上に集約したとみられます。この事件はInitiaのトークン市場にも波及し、独自トークンのINITは一時下落した後、反発しました。
56
記事
元トランプ政権側近との取引報道を受け、米上院議員がテザーに説明要求リチャード・ブルーメンソール上院議員は、ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナルの報道で、ステーブルコイン発行元のテザーがホワイトハウスの元暗号資産担当顧問ボー・ハインズに関連する630万ドルのマーケティング契約を結んだと伝えられたことを受け、テザーのパオロ・アルドイーノCEOに対し、上院常設調査小委員会へ文書や情報を提出するよう求めた。
木曜日にアルドイーノ氏へ送った書簡で、ブルーメンソール議員は、小委員会がテザーおよびハインズ氏の会社Nxumに関わる契約、支払い、通信、ロビー活動の記録を求めていると述べた。同議員は、この調査について、利益相反や、トランプ政権の暗号資産政策への影響力に関連する「暗号資産企業との自己利益の追求や不公正な取引」に対する、より広範な懸念の一環だと位置づけた。
元トランプ政権側近との取引報道を受け、米上院議員がテザーに説明要求
リチャード・ブルーメンソール上院議員は、ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナルの報道で、ステーブルコイン発行元のテザーがホワイトハウスの元暗号資産担当顧問ボー・ハインズに関連する630万ドルのマーケティング契約を結んだと伝えられたことを受け、テザーのパオロ・アルドイーノCEOに対し、上院常設調査小委員会へ文書や情報を提出するよう求めた。
木曜日にアルドイーノ氏へ送った書簡で、ブルーメンソール議員は、小委員会がテザーおよびハインズ氏の会社Nxumに関わる契約、支払い、通信、ロビー活動の記録を求めていると述べた。同議員は、この調査について、利益相反や、トランプ政権の暗号資産政策への影響力に関連する「暗号資産企業との自己利益の追求や不公正な取引」に対する、より広範な懸念の一環だと位置づけた。
木曜日にアルドイーノ氏へ送った書簡で、ブルーメンソール議員は、小委員会がテザーおよびハインズ氏の会社Nxumに関わる契約、支払い、通信、ロビー活動の記録を求めていると述べた。同議員は、この調査について、利益相反や、トランプ政権の暗号資産政策への影響力に関連する「暗号資産企業との自己利益の追求や不公正な取引」に対する、より広範な懸念の一環だと位置づけた。
42
記事
暗号資産の自己保管は初心者向けに作られたのか？ 使いやすさを検証暗号資産業界のリーダーたちは、根本的な問いをめぐって意見が分かれています。そもそも自己保管は、初心者にも本当に使いやすいものとして想定されていたのでしょうか？ 支持派は、ビットコインの長期的な成長には、より簡単な操作方法と明確なユーザーフローが不可欠だと主張します。一方、批判派は、最近実際に起きたウォレット関連の事故や、秘密鍵を正しく管理することにつきまとう本質的な複雑さを指摘しています。
Cointelegraphのインタビューで、Safe LabsのCEOラフル・ルマラ氏と、ビットコインのカストディ業務に携わるマイケル・タングマ氏は、どちらも「誰もが自己保管できる」とはどういう意味であるべきかについて語りました。しかし、より幅広いユーザーがビットコインを利用できるようになるにつれて、責任のあり方も変えるべきかどうかについては、両者の見解が大きく異なります。
暗号資産の自己保管は初心者向けに作られたのか？ 使いやすさを検証
暗号資産業界のリーダーたちは、根本的な問いをめぐって意見が分かれています。そもそも自己保管は、初心者にも本当に使いやすいものとして想定されていたのでしょうか？ 支持派は、ビットコインの長期的な成長には、より簡単な操作方法と明確なユーザーフローが不可欠だと主張します。一方、批判派は、最近実際に起きたウォレット関連の事故や、秘密鍵を正しく管理することにつきまとう本質的な複雑さを指摘しています。
Cointelegraphのインタビューで、Safe LabsのCEOラフル・ルマラ氏と、ビットコインのカストディ業務に携わるマイケル・タングマ氏は、どちらも「誰もが自己保管できる」とはどういう意味であるべきかについて語りました。しかし、より幅広いユーザーがビットコインを利用できるようになるにつれて、責任のあり方も変えるべきかどうかについては、両者の見解が大きく異なります。
Cointelegraphのインタビューで、Safe LabsのCEOラフル・ルマラ氏と、ビットコインのカストディ業務に携わるマイケル・タングマ氏は、どちらも「誰もが自己保管できる」とはどういう意味であるべきかについて語りました。しかし、より幅広いユーザーがビットコインを利用できるようになるにつれて、責任のあり方も変えるべきかどうかについては、両者の見解が大きく異なります。
82
記事
ブレント原油が3月以来の高値、ビットコインは81,000ドル台を維持金曜日の米国市場が始まると、ビットコインは再び下落し、幅広いリスク選好の後退とエネルギー市場の値動きの加速を受け、一時81,000ドルを下回りました。同じ頃、ブレント原油は7カ月ぶりの高値を更新。地政学的リスクが、暗号資産への投資判断でトレーダーが注視するマクロ環境に直接影響していることが浮き彫りになりました。
TradingViewが引用した市場データによると、BTC/USDは一時約80,988ドルまで下落した後、81,600ドル付近まで持ち直しました。多くのトレーダーが当面注目するのは、ビットコインが81,781ドル付近にある50日単純移動平均線を回復できるかどうかです。この水準が、最近の弱含みが続くのか、さらに進むのかを左右する転換点となる可能性があります。
ブレント原油が3月以来の高値、ビットコインは81,000ドル台を維持
金曜日の米国市場が始まると、ビットコインは再び下落し、幅広いリスク選好の後退とエネルギー市場の値動きの加速を受け、一時81,000ドルを下回りました。同じ頃、ブレント原油は7カ月ぶりの高値を更新。地政学的リスクが、暗号資産への投資判断でトレーダーが注視するマクロ環境に直接影響していることが浮き彫りになりました。
TradingViewが引用した市場データによると、BTC/USDは一時約80,988ドルまで下落した後、81,600ドル付近まで持ち直しました。多くのトレーダーが当面注目するのは、ビットコインが81,781ドル付近にある50日単純移動平均線を回復できるかどうかです。この水準が、最近の弱含みが続くのか、さらに進むのかを左右する転換点となる可能性があります。
TradingViewが引用した市場データによると、BTC/USDは一時約80,988ドルまで下落した後、81,600ドル付近まで持ち直しました。多くのトレーダーが当面注目するのは、ビットコインが81,781ドル付近にある50日単純移動平均線を回復できるかどうかです。この水準が、最近の弱含みが続くのか、さらに進むのかを左右する転換点となる可能性があります。
35
記事
ニューヨーク州司法長官、ポンジ事件でNovaTech創業者に13億7,000万ドルを請求ニューヨーク州司法長官のレティシア・ジェームズ氏は、破綻した暗号資産・外国為替取引プラットフォーム「NovaTech」の創業者であるシンシア・ペティオン氏とエディ・ペティオン氏、および関連企業に対し、ポンジ・スキームに関連する13億7,000万ドルの支払いを命じるよう裁判所に求めた。この申し立ては、被告側が訴訟に応じなかったことを受けて下された欠席判決に続くものだ。
木曜日に提出された裁判資料によると、司法長官は、投資家資金およそ11億3,000万ドルに加え、利息2億3,250万ドルの返還を求めている。認められれば、この判決は、NovaTechと関連するスキーム「AWS Mining」の被害者の損失回復を目的とする、また一つの大規模な執行措置となる。
ニューヨーク州司法長官、ポンジ事件でNovaTech創業者に13億7,000万ドルを請求
ニューヨーク州司法長官のレティシア・ジェームズ氏は、破綻した暗号資産・外国為替取引プラットフォーム「NovaTech」の創業者であるシンシア・ペティオン氏とエディ・ペティオン氏、および関連企業に対し、ポンジ・スキームに関連する13億7,000万ドルの支払いを命じるよう裁判所に求めた。この申し立ては、被告側が訴訟に応じなかったことを受けて下された欠席判決に続くものだ。
木曜日に提出された裁判資料によると、司法長官は、投資家資金およそ11億3,000万ドルに加え、利息2億3,250万ドルの返還を求めている。認められれば、この判決は、NovaTechと関連するスキーム「AWS Mining」の被害者の損失回復を目的とする、また一つの大規模な執行措置となる。
木曜日に提出された裁判資料によると、司法長官は、投資家資金およそ11億3,000万ドルに加え、利息2億3,250万ドルの返還を求めている。認められれば、この判決は、NovaTechと関連するスキーム「AWS Mining」の被害者の損失回復を目的とする、また一つの大規模な執行措置となる。
48
翻訳参照
Stablecoin Subscriptions Are Growing, but Failed Payments Remain a ChallengeStablecoins are increasingly being used for more than individual transfers. Payment providers are adding recurring billing features that let customers authorize future charges from a crypto wallet, potentially making stablecoins a practical payment method for software subscriptions, memberships and online services.
The shift has accelerated over the past year. Stripe announced stablecoin subscription payments in October 2025, initially in private preview for US businesses. In 2026, Cloudflare documented support for USDC recurring and usage-based billing, while WalletConnect announced support for Confirmo Subscribe in July. These developments address a limitation of ordinary wallet payments: one successful transfer does not create an ongoing billing relationship.
From Individual Transfers to Recurring Authorization
A typical stablecoin transfer requires a wallet owner to authorize a payment. That is straightforward for a single purchase, but monthly billing becomes cumbersome if a customer must approve every renewal manually.
Recurring payment systems instead ask the customer to approve a defined payment arrangement at checkout. Depending on the provider, this can involve a smart-contract permit or spending allowance. The system can then attempt scheduled charges without requiring a fresh wallet signature each month.
The distinction matters for subscriptions priced in dollars but collected in stablecoins. A $20 monthly plan requires the payment system to track the renewal date, amount, authorization and customer status. Blockchain settlement confirms that tokens moved; it does not, by itself, maintain those subscription records.
A Wallet Authorization Is Not a Payment Guarantee
The new billing arrangements still face failed payments. A customer may spend the balance needed for the next renewal, revoke an authorization or reduce the permitted amount. Blockchain network problems and provider-side checks can also delay or prevent a charge.
Cloudflare’s stablecoin billing documentation specifically lists insufficient funds, revoked approvals and wallet screening as failure cases. It says subscriptions can enter a payment-recovery process and, where a card is already on file, Cloudflare may fall back to that card.
For a merchant, the operational question is what happens after a failed attempt. Does the platform retry? Does it notify the subscriber? Is access paused immediately, or does a grace period apply? Those decisions affect customer retention regardless of the payment network used.
Payment Confirmation Must Reach the Merchant
A buyer seeing a successful wallet transaction is only part of checkout. The merchant’s billing system must reliably match that transfer to the correct order and update the account once the payment is confirmed.
Providers generally support payment-status lookups and event notifications so merchants can reconcile a charge even if the customer closes the browser. A return to a success page should not be treated as proof that a transaction settled: confirmation belongs in a server-side verification process.
Notification failures introduce a separate risk. A payment can succeed on-chain while an application temporarily misses the update. Systems need retries and duplicate-event protection so that the same payment does not accidentally provision a service twice or create conflicting billing records.
Refunds Remain a Separate Workflow
Stablecoin payments also differ from card payments after settlement. A confirmed on-chain transfer generally cannot be reversed through the card-network chargeback process. A voluntary refund usually involves sending a new transfer back to the customer, with the merchant retaining the evidence needed to reconcile it.
Cloudflare says it returns eligible stablecoin refunds in USDC to the wallet used for the original payment. Other providers may use different procedures. Merchants still need clear policies for cancellations, partial refunds and disputes, particularly when subscriptions span multiple billing periods.
What Changes for Subscription Businesses
The emerging services suggest that recurring stablecoin billing is moving beyond one-off crypto checkout. Stripe has announced subscription support through its billing platform, Cloudflare describes it as an available payment option, and Confirmo has introduced a recurring product for wallet-based customers.
Adoption will depend on more than fast settlement or low network fees. Subscription businesses also need reliable renewals, customer communication, refund procedures, accurate reporting and support when payments fail. Providers that deliver those capabilities can make stablecoins easier to operate alongside existing payment methods; those that do not may simply shift familiar billing problems onto a different network.
This article was originally published as Stablecoin Subscriptions Are Growing, but Failed Payments Remain a Challenge on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Stablecoin Subscriptions Are Growing, but Failed Payments Remain a Challenge
Stablecoins are increasingly being used for more than individual transfers. Payment providers are adding recurring billing features that let customers authorize future charges from a crypto wallet, potentially making stablecoins a practical payment method for software subscriptions, memberships and online services.
The shift has accelerated over the past year. Stripe announced stablecoin subscription payments in October 2025, initially in private preview for US businesses. In 2026, Cloudflare documented support for USDC recurring and usage-based billing, while WalletConnect announced support for Confirmo Subscribe in July. These developments address a limitation of ordinary wallet payments: one successful transfer does not create an ongoing billing relationship.
From Individual Transfers to Recurring Authorization
A typical stablecoin transfer requires a wallet owner to authorize a payment. That is straightforward for a single purchase, but monthly billing becomes cumbersome if a customer must approve every renewal manually.
Recurring payment systems instead ask the customer to approve a defined payment arrangement at checkout. Depending on the provider, this can involve a smart-contract permit or spending allowance. The system can then attempt scheduled charges without requiring a fresh wallet signature each month.
The distinction matters for subscriptions priced in dollars but collected in stablecoins. A $20 monthly plan requires the payment system to track the renewal date, amount, authorization and customer status. Blockchain settlement confirms that tokens moved; it does not, by itself, maintain those subscription records.
A Wallet Authorization Is Not a Payment Guarantee
The new billing arrangements still face failed payments. A customer may spend the balance needed for the next renewal, revoke an authorization or reduce the permitted amount. Blockchain network problems and provider-side checks can also delay or prevent a charge.
Cloudflare’s stablecoin billing documentation specifically lists insufficient funds, revoked approvals and wallet screening as failure cases. It says subscriptions can enter a payment-recovery process and, where a card is already on file, Cloudflare may fall back to that card.
For a merchant, the operational question is what happens after a failed attempt. Does the platform retry? Does it notify the subscriber? Is access paused immediately, or does a grace period apply? Those decisions affect customer retention regardless of the payment network used.
Payment Confirmation Must Reach the Merchant
A buyer seeing a successful wallet transaction is only part of checkout. The merchant’s billing system must reliably match that transfer to the correct order and update the account once the payment is confirmed.
Providers generally support payment-status lookups and event notifications so merchants can reconcile a charge even if the customer closes the browser. A return to a success page should not be treated as proof that a transaction settled: confirmation belongs in a server-side verification process.
Notification failures introduce a separate risk. A payment can succeed on-chain while an application temporarily misses the update. Systems need retries and duplicate-event protection so that the same payment does not accidentally provision a service twice or create conflicting billing records.
Refunds Remain a Separate Workflow
Stablecoin payments also differ from card payments after settlement. A confirmed on-chain transfer generally cannot be reversed through the card-network chargeback process. A voluntary refund usually involves sending a new transfer back to the customer, with the merchant retaining the evidence needed to reconcile it.
Cloudflare says it returns eligible stablecoin refunds in USDC to the wallet used for the original payment. Other providers may use different procedures. Merchants still need clear policies for cancellations, partial refunds and disputes, particularly when subscriptions span multiple billing periods.
What Changes for Subscription Businesses
The emerging services suggest that recurring stablecoin billing is moving beyond one-off crypto checkout. Stripe has announced subscription support through its billing platform, Cloudflare describes it as an available payment option, and Confirmo has introduced a recurring product for wallet-based customers.
Adoption will depend on more than fast settlement or low network fees. Subscription businesses also need reliable renewals, customer communication, refund procedures, accurate reporting and support when payments fail. Providers that deliver those capabilities can make stablecoins easier to operate alongside existing payment methods; those that do not may simply shift familiar billing problems onto a different network.
This article was originally published as Stablecoin Subscriptions Are Growing, but Failed Payments Remain a Challenge on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The shift has accelerated over the past year. Stripe announced stablecoin subscription payments in October 2025, initially in private preview for US businesses. In 2026, Cloudflare documented support for USDC recurring and usage-based billing, while WalletConnect announced support for Confirmo Subscribe in July. These developments address a limitation of ordinary wallet payments: one successful transfer does not create an ongoing billing relationship.
From Individual Transfers to Recurring Authorization
A typical stablecoin transfer requires a wallet owner to authorize a payment. That is straightforward for a single purchase, but monthly billing becomes cumbersome if a customer must approve every renewal manually.
Recurring payment systems instead ask the customer to approve a defined payment arrangement at checkout. Depending on the provider, this can involve a smart-contract permit or spending allowance. The system can then attempt scheduled charges without requiring a fresh wallet signature each month.
The distinction matters for subscriptions priced in dollars but collected in stablecoins. A $20 monthly plan requires the payment system to track the renewal date, amount, authorization and customer status. Blockchain settlement confirms that tokens moved; it does not, by itself, maintain those subscription records.
A Wallet Authorization Is Not a Payment Guarantee
The new billing arrangements still face failed payments. A customer may spend the balance needed for the next renewal, revoke an authorization or reduce the permitted amount. Blockchain network problems and provider-side checks can also delay or prevent a charge.
Cloudflare’s stablecoin billing documentation specifically lists insufficient funds, revoked approvals and wallet screening as failure cases. It says subscriptions can enter a payment-recovery process and, where a card is already on file, Cloudflare may fall back to that card.
For a merchant, the operational question is what happens after a failed attempt. Does the platform retry? Does it notify the subscriber? Is access paused immediately, or does a grace period apply? Those decisions affect customer retention regardless of the payment network used.
Payment Confirmation Must Reach the Merchant
A buyer seeing a successful wallet transaction is only part of checkout. The merchant’s billing system must reliably match that transfer to the correct order and update the account once the payment is confirmed.
Providers generally support payment-status lookups and event notifications so merchants can reconcile a charge even if the customer closes the browser. A return to a success page should not be treated as proof that a transaction settled: confirmation belongs in a server-side verification process.
Notification failures introduce a separate risk. A payment can succeed on-chain while an application temporarily misses the update. Systems need retries and duplicate-event protection so that the same payment does not accidentally provision a service twice or create conflicting billing records.
Refunds Remain a Separate Workflow
Stablecoin payments also differ from card payments after settlement. A confirmed on-chain transfer generally cannot be reversed through the card-network chargeback process. A voluntary refund usually involves sending a new transfer back to the customer, with the merchant retaining the evidence needed to reconcile it.
Cloudflare says it returns eligible stablecoin refunds in USDC to the wallet used for the original payment. Other providers may use different procedures. Merchants still need clear policies for cancellations, partial refunds and disputes, particularly when subscriptions span multiple billing periods.
What Changes for Subscription Businesses
The emerging services suggest that recurring stablecoin billing is moving beyond one-off crypto checkout. Stripe has announced subscription support through its billing platform, Cloudflare describes it as an available payment option, and Confirmo has introduced a recurring product for wallet-based customers.
Adoption will depend on more than fast settlement or low network fees. Subscription businesses also need reliable renewals, customer communication, refund procedures, accurate reporting and support when payments fail. Providers that deliver those capabilities can make stablecoins easier to operate alongside existing payment methods; those that do not may simply shift familiar billing problems onto a different network.
This article was originally published as Stablecoin Subscriptions Are Growing, but Failed Payments Remain a Challenge on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
27
記事
NY州司法長官、ポンジ疑惑でNovaTech創業者に13億7,000万ドルを請求ニューヨーク州司法長官のレティシア・ジェームズ氏は、NovaTechの暗号資産・外国為替取引スキームに関連する13億ドル超の回収に向けて動き、裁判所に対し、NovaTech創業者のシンシア・ペティオン氏とエディ・ペティオン氏、および関連法人に総額13億7,000万ドルの支払いを命じるよう求めた。木曜日に提出された裁判所の書類によると、この請求には、投資家から集めたとされる資金約11億3,000万ドルの返還に加え、利息2億3,250万ドルが含まれている。
この訴訟の手続きは迅速に進んでいる。2025年8月、ペティオン夫妻と関連企業が請求に応答しなかったため、裁判所は欠席により責任を認めた。今回の申し立ては、裁判所が命じるべき金額に焦点を当てるとともに、以前破綻したスキームに関連する追加資金の回収に向けた取り組みを拡大するものだ。
NY州司法長官、ポンジ疑惑でNovaTech創業者に13億7,000万ドルを請求
ニューヨーク州司法長官のレティシア・ジェームズ氏は、NovaTechの暗号資産・外国為替取引スキームに関連する13億ドル超の回収に向けて動き、裁判所に対し、NovaTech創業者のシンシア・ペティオン氏とエディ・ペティオン氏、および関連法人に総額13億7,000万ドルの支払いを命じるよう求めた。木曜日に提出された裁判所の書類によると、この請求には、投資家から集めたとされる資金約11億3,000万ドルの返還に加え、利息2億3,250万ドルが含まれている。
この訴訟の手続きは迅速に進んでいる。2025年8月、ペティオン夫妻と関連企業が請求に応答しなかったため、裁判所は欠席により責任を認めた。今回の申し立ては、裁判所が命じるべき金額に焦点を当てるとともに、以前破綻したスキームに関連する追加資金の回収に向けた取り組みを拡大するものだ。
この訴訟の手続きは迅速に進んでいる。2025年8月、ペティオン夫妻と関連企業が請求に応答しなかったため、裁判所は欠席により責任を認めた。今回の申し立ては、裁判所が命じるべき金額に焦点を当てるとともに、以前破綻したスキームに関連する追加資金の回収に向けた取り組みを拡大するものだ。
38
記事
暗号資産の自己管理は初心者向けに設計されていない：設計上のトレードオフビットコインやその他の暗号資産を保有する「デフォルト」の方法として、自己管理が推奨されることは多い。しかし、業界幹部の間で議論が広がり、その前提が揺らいでいる。Cointelegraphへの最近のコメントで、Safe LabsのCEO、Rahul Rumalla氏は、自己管理は当初から誰もが利用できるものとして想定されていたと主張した。一方、OnrampのCEO、Michael Tanguma氏は、この仕組みは依然として初心者向けに作られていないと述べた。
実際に起きたハードウェアウォレットの事故により、「自己管理」が必ずしも「リスクがない」ことを意味しないという認識が強まる中で、こうした意見の食い違いが浮き彫りになっている。Cointelegraphによると、一部のLedgerデバイスに埋め込まれた不正なプログラムがリカバリーフレーズの窃取に関与したほか、Coldcardのファームウェアのバグによって、攻撃者が秘密鍵を再現し、資金を引き出せたとされている。今、投資家や開発者に問われているのは、自己管理に価値があるかどうかというよりも、別の攻撃対象領域を気付かぬうちに広げることなく、どうすれば使いやすくできるかという点だ。
暗号資産の自己管理は初心者向けに設計されていない：設計上のトレードオフ
ビットコインやその他の暗号資産を保有する「デフォルト」の方法として、自己管理が推奨されることは多い。しかし、業界幹部の間で議論が広がり、その前提が揺らいでいる。Cointelegraphへの最近のコメントで、Safe LabsのCEO、Rahul Rumalla氏は、自己管理は当初から誰もが利用できるものとして想定されていたと主張した。一方、OnrampのCEO、Michael Tanguma氏は、この仕組みは依然として初心者向けに作られていないと述べた。
実際に起きたハードウェアウォレットの事故により、「自己管理」が必ずしも「リスクがない」ことを意味しないという認識が強まる中で、こうした意見の食い違いが浮き彫りになっている。Cointelegraphによると、一部のLedgerデバイスに埋め込まれた不正なプログラムがリカバリーフレーズの窃取に関与したほか、Coldcardのファームウェアのバグによって、攻撃者が秘密鍵を再現し、資金を引き出せたとされている。今、投資家や開発者に問われているのは、自己管理に価値があるかどうかというよりも、別の攻撃対象領域を気付かぬうちに広げることなく、どうすれば使いやすくできるかという点だ。
実際に起きたハードウェアウォレットの事故により、「自己管理」が必ずしも「リスクがない」ことを意味しないという認識が強まる中で、こうした意見の食い違いが浮き彫りになっている。Cointelegraphによると、一部のLedgerデバイスに埋め込まれた不正なプログラムがリカバリーフレーズの窃取に関与したほか、Coldcardのファームウェアのバグによって、攻撃者が秘密鍵を再現し、資金を引き出せたとされている。今、投資家や開発者に問われているのは、自己管理に価値があるかどうかというよりも、別の攻撃対象領域を気付かぬうちに広げることなく、どうすれば使いやすくできるかという点だ。
49
記事
AIによるバグ発見の加速を受け、Bitcoin Coreがセキュリティポリシーを更新Bitcoin Coreは、セキュリティ脆弱性の開示方法を見直していると発表し、現代のAIツール、特に大規模言語モデルによって、一部の欠陥がはるかに容易に発見・再現できるようになっていることを認めました。Bitcoin開発者メーリングリストへのメールで、Bitcoin Coreの開発者Antoine Poinsot氏は、詳細を長期間の公開猶予期間中に秘密にしておく従来の方法では、場合によっては安全性をほとんど高められなくなったと主張しました。
更新されたポリシーでは、「容易に発見可能」と判断された脆弱性について、保守対象となっているすべてのメジャーバージョンで修正を迅速化し、アップデートと同時にセキュリティ勧告を公開します。それ以外のバグについては、引き続き深刻度とソフトウェアのリリースサイクルに応じた時間ベースのスケジュールに従います。
AIによるバグ発見の加速を受け、Bitcoin Coreがセキュリティポリシーを更新
Bitcoin Coreは、セキュリティ脆弱性の開示方法を見直していると発表し、現代のAIツール、特に大規模言語モデルによって、一部の欠陥がはるかに容易に発見・再現できるようになっていることを認めました。Bitcoin開発者メーリングリストへのメールで、Bitcoin Coreの開発者Antoine Poinsot氏は、詳細を長期間の公開猶予期間中に秘密にしておく従来の方法では、場合によっては安全性をほとんど高められなくなったと主張しました。
更新されたポリシーでは、「容易に発見可能」と判断された脆弱性について、保守対象となっているすべてのメジャーバージョンで修正を迅速化し、アップデートと同時にセキュリティ勧告を公開します。それ以外のバグについては、引き続き深刻度とソフトウェアのリリースサイクルに応じた時間ベースのスケジュールに従います。
更新されたポリシーでは、「容易に発見可能」と判断された脆弱性について、保守対象となっているすべてのメジャーバージョンで修正を迅速化し、アップデートと同時にセキュリティ勧告を公開します。それ以外のバグについては、引き続き深刻度とソフトウェアのリリースサイクルに応じた時間ベースのスケジュールに従います。
29
記事
翻訳参照
Ethereum Pushes Back Glamsterdam Hoodi Testnet Launch Over Security RisksEthereum developers have delayed the “Glamsterdam” hard fork scheduled for the Hoodi testnet after researchers flagged gas-related security risks that may affect how smart contracts behave when transactions fail.
According to a statement from the Ethereum Foundation (EF) on Oct. 22, the upgrade—initially set for Oct. 26—will be postponed to give teams time to investigate how certain proposals interact with already-deployed contracts on Ethereum. The delay adds fresh uncertainty to Glamsterdam’s broader roadmap, with developers previously pointing to an early December window for a potential mainnet schedule after successful Hoodi testing.
Key takeaways
The Ethereum Foundation postponed the Glamsterdam hard fork on Hoodi testnet, originally due Oct. 26, to investigate security implications tied to gas behavior.
Security firm ChainSecurity warned that two Glamsterdam proposals (EIP-8037 and EIP-8038) could weaken defenses against insufficient gas griefing.
Researchers say the proposed gas changes could allow contracts to continue after failures in ways that existing safeguards don’t account for.
Ethereum teams had been considering an early December mainnet direction, contingent on Hoodi test outcomes that now remain in flux.
EF delays Hoodi deployment while contract interactions are reviewed
The Ethereum Foundation said the Glamsterdam upgrade on Hoodi has been pushed back so developers can examine “how some proposals interact with smart contracts deployed on Ethereum.” In practical terms, this means teams want more clarity on whether the upgrade’s gas model changes create unexpected execution paths for contracts written under older assumptions—especially around what happens after a transaction fails.
That review matters because smart contracts often encode security logic based on how transaction execution consumes gas and how failures propagate. If those assumptions no longer hold, safeguards can become incomplete, and user-facing functionality may behave differently than developers intended.
ChainSecurity highlights risks from EIP-8037 and EIP-8038
Earlier, on Oct. 13, ChainSecurity published an analysis warning that two proposals included in Glamsterdam—EIP-8037 and EIP-8038—could undermine protections against insufficient gas griefing.
According to ChainSecurity, the new rules could enable gas to be returned to a contract after an operation fails. In the firm’s view, this could interfere with existing security checks that rely on the amount of gas remaining during a transaction.
Insufficient gas griefing is a class of attack where a malicious caller deliberately provides too little gas for a legitimate smart contract operation to succeed. If protections assume a failure will halt or roll back specific contract behavior in a particular way, then a change in gas handling could allow contracts to “continue” where they previously would have stopped—potentially leaving contracts in a state that records a failure as if it were final.
ChainSecurity provided a concrete example: an affected contract might remove a user’s claim or disable the user’s ability to retry, even though the original operation could have been valid under normal conditions.
Importantly, ChainSecurity stated that Glamsterdam would not make every gas-related security check unreliable. Some safeguards might still function, but developers would need to audit their contracts to ensure they correctly account for the upgrade’s revised gas rules.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the Ethereum Foundation had also warned that the Glamsterdam gas model might break wallets, indexers, and gas estimators that depend on fixed assumptions. The new postponement indicates that even beyond tooling, contract-level security assumptions are now a central concern.
Community pressure follows “serious” concerns and a larger set of examples
After ChainSecurity’s warning, contributors reacted with urgency. In an Oct. 21 GitHub comment, pseudonymous security researcher pcaversaccio described the risks as “serious” and urged a reassessment of the hard fork.
Then on Friday, ChainSecurity said it had identified “13 real-world examples” and was coordinating responsible disclosure with affected projects. The firm did not provide details of those examples or name the impacted entities in its public statement. However, it urged developers to check their contracts as soon as possible.
For Ethereum users and integrators, the practical implication is that the risk isn’t limited to purely theoretical edge cases. Even without published details, the existence of multiple real-world scenarios increases the chance that widely used contracts could require updates or configuration changes once Glamsterdam activates.
What this means for Glamsterdam’s timetable
Glamsterdam is not the first stage of the process. Cointelegraph previously reported that the upgrade had already been activated on the Sepolia testnet on Oct. 6, ahead of the now-postponed Hoodi deployment.
With Hoodi delayed, teams lose a key validation step: verifying that gas-model changes work as expected under the conditions that mimic mainnet behavior. Ethereum developers had been considering an early December timeframe for finalizing a mainnet schedule, reportedly after successful Hoodi testing. That sequencing now looks less certain, since the EF is explicitly waiting for more investigation into how proposals interact with deployed smart contracts.
For investors and builders, the takeaway is that “testnet activated” does not automatically mean “mainnet safe.” The current situation highlights how upgrades involving execution and gas semantics can introduce security and compatibility issues that only become clear after deeper review and broader analysis across contract logic.
Readers should watch for additional technical findings from the Ethereum Foundation and any further disclosures from ChainSecurity about which contract patterns are most affected and what mitigations developers should apply before the next testnet or mainnet decisions.
This article was originally published as Ethereum Pushes Back Glamsterdam Hoodi Testnet Launch Over Security Risks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Ethereum Pushes Back Glamsterdam Hoodi Testnet Launch Over Security Risks
Ethereum developers have delayed the “Glamsterdam” hard fork scheduled for the Hoodi testnet after researchers flagged gas-related security risks that may affect how smart contracts behave when transactions fail.
According to a statement from the Ethereum Foundation (EF) on Oct. 22, the upgrade—initially set for Oct. 26—will be postponed to give teams time to investigate how certain proposals interact with already-deployed contracts on Ethereum. The delay adds fresh uncertainty to Glamsterdam’s broader roadmap, with developers previously pointing to an early December window for a potential mainnet schedule after successful Hoodi testing.
Key takeaways
The Ethereum Foundation postponed the Glamsterdam hard fork on Hoodi testnet, originally due Oct. 26, to investigate security implications tied to gas behavior.
Security firm ChainSecurity warned that two Glamsterdam proposals (EIP-8037 and EIP-8038) could weaken defenses against insufficient gas griefing.
Researchers say the proposed gas changes could allow contracts to continue after failures in ways that existing safeguards don’t account for.
Ethereum teams had been considering an early December mainnet direction, contingent on Hoodi test outcomes that now remain in flux.
EF delays Hoodi deployment while contract interactions are reviewed
The Ethereum Foundation said the Glamsterdam upgrade on Hoodi has been pushed back so developers can examine “how some proposals interact with smart contracts deployed on Ethereum.” In practical terms, this means teams want more clarity on whether the upgrade’s gas model changes create unexpected execution paths for contracts written under older assumptions—especially around what happens after a transaction fails.
That review matters because smart contracts often encode security logic based on how transaction execution consumes gas and how failures propagate. If those assumptions no longer hold, safeguards can become incomplete, and user-facing functionality may behave differently than developers intended.
ChainSecurity highlights risks from EIP-8037 and EIP-8038
Earlier, on Oct. 13, ChainSecurity published an analysis warning that two proposals included in Glamsterdam—EIP-8037 and EIP-8038—could undermine protections against insufficient gas griefing.
According to ChainSecurity, the new rules could enable gas to be returned to a contract after an operation fails. In the firm’s view, this could interfere with existing security checks that rely on the amount of gas remaining during a transaction.
Insufficient gas griefing is a class of attack where a malicious caller deliberately provides too little gas for a legitimate smart contract operation to succeed. If protections assume a failure will halt or roll back specific contract behavior in a particular way, then a change in gas handling could allow contracts to “continue” where they previously would have stopped—potentially leaving contracts in a state that records a failure as if it were final.
ChainSecurity provided a concrete example: an affected contract might remove a user’s claim or disable the user’s ability to retry, even though the original operation could have been valid under normal conditions.
Importantly, ChainSecurity stated that Glamsterdam would not make every gas-related security check unreliable. Some safeguards might still function, but developers would need to audit their contracts to ensure they correctly account for the upgrade’s revised gas rules.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the Ethereum Foundation had also warned that the Glamsterdam gas model might break wallets, indexers, and gas estimators that depend on fixed assumptions. The new postponement indicates that even beyond tooling, contract-level security assumptions are now a central concern.
Community pressure follows “serious” concerns and a larger set of examples
After ChainSecurity’s warning, contributors reacted with urgency. In an Oct. 21 GitHub comment, pseudonymous security researcher pcaversaccio described the risks as “serious” and urged a reassessment of the hard fork.
Then on Friday, ChainSecurity said it had identified “13 real-world examples” and was coordinating responsible disclosure with affected projects. The firm did not provide details of those examples or name the impacted entities in its public statement. However, it urged developers to check their contracts as soon as possible.
For Ethereum users and integrators, the practical implication is that the risk isn’t limited to purely theoretical edge cases. Even without published details, the existence of multiple real-world scenarios increases the chance that widely used contracts could require updates or configuration changes once Glamsterdam activates.
What this means for Glamsterdam’s timetable
Glamsterdam is not the first stage of the process. Cointelegraph previously reported that the upgrade had already been activated on the Sepolia testnet on Oct. 6, ahead of the now-postponed Hoodi deployment.
With Hoodi delayed, teams lose a key validation step: verifying that gas-model changes work as expected under the conditions that mimic mainnet behavior. Ethereum developers had been considering an early December timeframe for finalizing a mainnet schedule, reportedly after successful Hoodi testing. That sequencing now looks less certain, since the EF is explicitly waiting for more investigation into how proposals interact with deployed smart contracts.
For investors and builders, the takeaway is that “testnet activated” does not automatically mean “mainnet safe.” The current situation highlights how upgrades involving execution and gas semantics can introduce security and compatibility issues that only become clear after deeper review and broader analysis across contract logic.
Readers should watch for additional technical findings from the Ethereum Foundation and any further disclosures from ChainSecurity about which contract patterns are most affected and what mitigations developers should apply before the next testnet or mainnet decisions.
This article was originally published as Ethereum Pushes Back Glamsterdam Hoodi Testnet Launch Over Security Risks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
According to a statement from the Ethereum Foundation (EF) on Oct. 22, the upgrade—initially set for Oct. 26—will be postponed to give teams time to investigate how certain proposals interact with already-deployed contracts on Ethereum. The delay adds fresh uncertainty to Glamsterdam’s broader roadmap, with developers previously pointing to an early December window for a potential mainnet schedule after successful Hoodi testing.
Key takeaways
The Ethereum Foundation postponed the Glamsterdam hard fork on Hoodi testnet, originally due Oct. 26, to investigate security implications tied to gas behavior.
Security firm ChainSecurity warned that two Glamsterdam proposals (EIP-8037 and EIP-8038) could weaken defenses against insufficient gas griefing.
Researchers say the proposed gas changes could allow contracts to continue after failures in ways that existing safeguards don’t account for.
Ethereum teams had been considering an early December mainnet direction, contingent on Hoodi test outcomes that now remain in flux.
EF delays Hoodi deployment while contract interactions are reviewed
The Ethereum Foundation said the Glamsterdam upgrade on Hoodi has been pushed back so developers can examine “how some proposals interact with smart contracts deployed on Ethereum.” In practical terms, this means teams want more clarity on whether the upgrade’s gas model changes create unexpected execution paths for contracts written under older assumptions—especially around what happens after a transaction fails.
That review matters because smart contracts often encode security logic based on how transaction execution consumes gas and how failures propagate. If those assumptions no longer hold, safeguards can become incomplete, and user-facing functionality may behave differently than developers intended.
ChainSecurity highlights risks from EIP-8037 and EIP-8038
Earlier, on Oct. 13, ChainSecurity published an analysis warning that two proposals included in Glamsterdam—EIP-8037 and EIP-8038—could undermine protections against insufficient gas griefing.
According to ChainSecurity, the new rules could enable gas to be returned to a contract after an operation fails. In the firm’s view, this could interfere with existing security checks that rely on the amount of gas remaining during a transaction.
Insufficient gas griefing is a class of attack where a malicious caller deliberately provides too little gas for a legitimate smart contract operation to succeed. If protections assume a failure will halt or roll back specific contract behavior in a particular way, then a change in gas handling could allow contracts to “continue” where they previously would have stopped—potentially leaving contracts in a state that records a failure as if it were final.
ChainSecurity provided a concrete example: an affected contract might remove a user’s claim or disable the user’s ability to retry, even though the original operation could have been valid under normal conditions.
Importantly, ChainSecurity stated that Glamsterdam would not make every gas-related security check unreliable. Some safeguards might still function, but developers would need to audit their contracts to ensure they correctly account for the upgrade’s revised gas rules.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the Ethereum Foundation had also warned that the Glamsterdam gas model might break wallets, indexers, and gas estimators that depend on fixed assumptions. The new postponement indicates that even beyond tooling, contract-level security assumptions are now a central concern.
Community pressure follows “serious” concerns and a larger set of examples
After ChainSecurity’s warning, contributors reacted with urgency. In an Oct. 21 GitHub comment, pseudonymous security researcher pcaversaccio described the risks as “serious” and urged a reassessment of the hard fork.
Then on Friday, ChainSecurity said it had identified “13 real-world examples” and was coordinating responsible disclosure with affected projects. The firm did not provide details of those examples or name the impacted entities in its public statement. However, it urged developers to check their contracts as soon as possible.
For Ethereum users and integrators, the practical implication is that the risk isn’t limited to purely theoretical edge cases. Even without published details, the existence of multiple real-world scenarios increases the chance that widely used contracts could require updates or configuration changes once Glamsterdam activates.
What this means for Glamsterdam’s timetable
Glamsterdam is not the first stage of the process. Cointelegraph previously reported that the upgrade had already been activated on the Sepolia testnet on Oct. 6, ahead of the now-postponed Hoodi deployment.
With Hoodi delayed, teams lose a key validation step: verifying that gas-model changes work as expected under the conditions that mimic mainnet behavior. Ethereum developers had been considering an early December timeframe for finalizing a mainnet schedule, reportedly after successful Hoodi testing. That sequencing now looks less certain, since the EF is explicitly waiting for more investigation into how proposals interact with deployed smart contracts.
For investors and builders, the takeaway is that “testnet activated” does not automatically mean “mainnet safe.” The current situation highlights how upgrades involving execution and gas semantics can introduce security and compatibility issues that only become clear after deeper review and broader analysis across contract logic.
Readers should watch for additional technical findings from the Ethereum Foundation and any further disclosures from ChainSecurity about which contract patterns are most affected and what mitigations developers should apply before the next testnet or mainnet decisions.
This article was originally published as Ethereum Pushes Back Glamsterdam Hoodi Testnet Launch Over Security Risks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
60
記事
翻訳参照
Switzerland Moves Toward First Spot Bitcoin ETF, Aiming for Nov.Switzerland has taken a notable step toward mainstream access to spot Bitcoin by approving the country’s first retail-focused spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF). FINMA, the Swiss financial regulator, confirmed on Tuesday that it has cleared a spot Bitcoin fund for public offering, with trading expected to begin in November.
While FINMA did not name the issuer in its announcement, BIT Asset Management later said its Bitcoin Fund ETF (BBIT) is expected to start trading on SIX Swiss Exchange next month. The product is designed to hold Bitcoin directly rather than tracking exposure through debt-like instruments, a key distinction for investors comparing crypto ETP structures across Europe.
Key takeaways
FINMA approved Switzerland’s first spot Bitcoin ETF for retail investors, with trading expected to start in November.
BIT Asset Management said its Bitcoin Fund ETF (BBIT) will be listed on SIX Swiss Exchange and will hold Bitcoin directly.
The fund is structured as a Swiss collective investment scheme with investor assets “ring-fenced,” reducing exposure to issuer balance-sheet risk.
FINMA highlighted that while Bitcoin trading history and liquidity support the approval, the asset remains highly volatile even in ETF wrappers.
This approval follows FINMA’s earlier allowance of cryptocurrency funds since 2021, but it marks the first time the regulator has cleared a fund dedicated exclusively to Bitcoin.
FINMA clears a retail spot Bitcoin product for Switzerland
FINMA’s approval represents the regulator’s first green light for a spot Bitcoin ETF aimed at retail investors in Switzerland. The regulator said it had approved a fund that invests directly in Bitcoin, but it did not disclose the issuer at the time of the announcement.
According to BIT Asset Management, that approval corresponds to its Bitcoin Fund ETF (BBIT). The firm expects the ETF to begin trading on SIX Swiss Exchange in November, describing the product as approved for public offering in Switzerland only.
The regulatory milestone matters for Swiss investors because it broadens the range of regulated options for obtaining Bitcoin exposure in a familiar brokerage format. Just as importantly, the approval signals that FINMA is willing to move beyond broader “multi-crypto” approaches toward single-asset Bitcoin vehicles—provided the liquidity and trading record are sufficient.
Why the structure may matter: direct Bitcoin vs. issuer-risk products
In explaining its fund, BIT Asset Management drew a line between its ETF and many other crypto listings in Europe that are structured as exchange-traded products (ETPs). The company said that most of the region’s Bitcoin offerings are debt instruments, which can expose investors to issuer risk.
By contrast, BIT Asset Management said the Bitcoin Fund ETF is a Swiss collective investment scheme in which assets are held separately from those of the fund management company. The company characterized those assets as “ring-fenced” for investors.
For market participants, this distinction can be more than technical. When crypto exposure is packaged inside different legal structures—whether as debt instruments or as separately ring-fenced fund assets—the main risk drivers can differ. Investors tend to focus on whether the product’s value depends on the issuer’s obligations or whether the underlying holdings are segregated by design.
FINMA’s rationale: liquidity and trading history, but volatility remains
FINMA noted that it has previously allowed cryptocurrency funds that invest primarily in baskets of digital assets since 2021. However, the regulator said this is the first approval of a fund that invests only in Bitcoin.
In the approval framework, FINMA pointed to Bitcoin’s trading history and higher trading volume compared with other cryptocurrencies as factors supporting its decision. In other words, the regulator’s clearance appears tied to evidence that Bitcoin is liquid enough—and established enough in trading markets—to support a product that targets only one asset.
Even so, FINMA emphasized that Bitcoin stays highly volatile regardless of whether investors access it through an approved ETF. That reminder is likely to be especially relevant for retail participants who may expect ETF wrappers to reduce risk simply because the product is regulated and exchange-listed.
More applications in the pipeline
FINMA also indicated that other providers have submitted applications for Bitcoin ETFs. The regulator’s decision therefore functions not only as a milestone for Switzerland’s current market, but also as a signal for what criteria future applicants may need to meet.
For traders and fund allocators, the question now shifts from “whether” Bitcoin ETFs can launch in Switzerland to “how many” such products will follow and whether their legal structures will vary. Differences in custody approach, asset segregation rules, and the way exposure is delivered could meaningfully affect investor experience across listings.
As BIT Asset Management prepares for BBIT’s expected November start on SIX Swiss Exchange, investors should watch how the product is marketed to the public, how it is categorized within FINMA’s “other funds for alternative investments” framework, and how trading begins against the backdrop of Bitcoin’s ongoing volatility.
This article was originally published as Switzerland Moves Toward First Spot Bitcoin ETF, Aiming for Nov. on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Switzerland Moves Toward First Spot Bitcoin ETF, Aiming for Nov.
Switzerland has taken a notable step toward mainstream access to spot Bitcoin by approving the country’s first retail-focused spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF). FINMA, the Swiss financial regulator, confirmed on Tuesday that it has cleared a spot Bitcoin fund for public offering, with trading expected to begin in November.
While FINMA did not name the issuer in its announcement, BIT Asset Management later said its Bitcoin Fund ETF (BBIT) is expected to start trading on SIX Swiss Exchange next month. The product is designed to hold Bitcoin directly rather than tracking exposure through debt-like instruments, a key distinction for investors comparing crypto ETP structures across Europe.
Key takeaways
FINMA approved Switzerland’s first spot Bitcoin ETF for retail investors, with trading expected to start in November.
BIT Asset Management said its Bitcoin Fund ETF (BBIT) will be listed on SIX Swiss Exchange and will hold Bitcoin directly.
The fund is structured as a Swiss collective investment scheme with investor assets “ring-fenced,” reducing exposure to issuer balance-sheet risk.
FINMA highlighted that while Bitcoin trading history and liquidity support the approval, the asset remains highly volatile even in ETF wrappers.
This approval follows FINMA’s earlier allowance of cryptocurrency funds since 2021, but it marks the first time the regulator has cleared a fund dedicated exclusively to Bitcoin.
FINMA clears a retail spot Bitcoin product for Switzerland
FINMA’s approval represents the regulator’s first green light for a spot Bitcoin ETF aimed at retail investors in Switzerland. The regulator said it had approved a fund that invests directly in Bitcoin, but it did not disclose the issuer at the time of the announcement.
According to BIT Asset Management, that approval corresponds to its Bitcoin Fund ETF (BBIT). The firm expects the ETF to begin trading on SIX Swiss Exchange in November, describing the product as approved for public offering in Switzerland only.
The regulatory milestone matters for Swiss investors because it broadens the range of regulated options for obtaining Bitcoin exposure in a familiar brokerage format. Just as importantly, the approval signals that FINMA is willing to move beyond broader “multi-crypto” approaches toward single-asset Bitcoin vehicles—provided the liquidity and trading record are sufficient.
Why the structure may matter: direct Bitcoin vs. issuer-risk products
In explaining its fund, BIT Asset Management drew a line between its ETF and many other crypto listings in Europe that are structured as exchange-traded products (ETPs). The company said that most of the region’s Bitcoin offerings are debt instruments, which can expose investors to issuer risk.
By contrast, BIT Asset Management said the Bitcoin Fund ETF is a Swiss collective investment scheme in which assets are held separately from those of the fund management company. The company characterized those assets as “ring-fenced” for investors.
For market participants, this distinction can be more than technical. When crypto exposure is packaged inside different legal structures—whether as debt instruments or as separately ring-fenced fund assets—the main risk drivers can differ. Investors tend to focus on whether the product’s value depends on the issuer’s obligations or whether the underlying holdings are segregated by design.
FINMA’s rationale: liquidity and trading history, but volatility remains
FINMA noted that it has previously allowed cryptocurrency funds that invest primarily in baskets of digital assets since 2021. However, the regulator said this is the first approval of a fund that invests only in Bitcoin.
In the approval framework, FINMA pointed to Bitcoin’s trading history and higher trading volume compared with other cryptocurrencies as factors supporting its decision. In other words, the regulator’s clearance appears tied to evidence that Bitcoin is liquid enough—and established enough in trading markets—to support a product that targets only one asset.
Even so, FINMA emphasized that Bitcoin stays highly volatile regardless of whether investors access it through an approved ETF. That reminder is likely to be especially relevant for retail participants who may expect ETF wrappers to reduce risk simply because the product is regulated and exchange-listed.
More applications in the pipeline
FINMA also indicated that other providers have submitted applications for Bitcoin ETFs. The regulator’s decision therefore functions not only as a milestone for Switzerland’s current market, but also as a signal for what criteria future applicants may need to meet.
For traders and fund allocators, the question now shifts from “whether” Bitcoin ETFs can launch in Switzerland to “how many” such products will follow and whether their legal structures will vary. Differences in custody approach, asset segregation rules, and the way exposure is delivered could meaningfully affect investor experience across listings.
As BIT Asset Management prepares for BBIT’s expected November start on SIX Swiss Exchange, investors should watch how the product is marketed to the public, how it is categorized within FINMA’s “other funds for alternative investments” framework, and how trading begins against the backdrop of Bitcoin’s ongoing volatility.
This article was originally published as Switzerland Moves Toward First Spot Bitcoin ETF, Aiming for Nov. on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
While FINMA did not name the issuer in its announcement, BIT Asset Management later said its Bitcoin Fund ETF (BBIT) is expected to start trading on SIX Swiss Exchange next month. The product is designed to hold Bitcoin directly rather than tracking exposure through debt-like instruments, a key distinction for investors comparing crypto ETP structures across Europe.
Key takeaways
FINMA approved Switzerland’s first spot Bitcoin ETF for retail investors, with trading expected to start in November.
BIT Asset Management said its Bitcoin Fund ETF (BBIT) will be listed on SIX Swiss Exchange and will hold Bitcoin directly.
The fund is structured as a Swiss collective investment scheme with investor assets “ring-fenced,” reducing exposure to issuer balance-sheet risk.
FINMA highlighted that while Bitcoin trading history and liquidity support the approval, the asset remains highly volatile even in ETF wrappers.
This approval follows FINMA’s earlier allowance of cryptocurrency funds since 2021, but it marks the first time the regulator has cleared a fund dedicated exclusively to Bitcoin.
FINMA clears a retail spot Bitcoin product for Switzerland
FINMA’s approval represents the regulator’s first green light for a spot Bitcoin ETF aimed at retail investors in Switzerland. The regulator said it had approved a fund that invests directly in Bitcoin, but it did not disclose the issuer at the time of the announcement.
According to BIT Asset Management, that approval corresponds to its Bitcoin Fund ETF (BBIT). The firm expects the ETF to begin trading on SIX Swiss Exchange in November, describing the product as approved for public offering in Switzerland only.
The regulatory milestone matters for Swiss investors because it broadens the range of regulated options for obtaining Bitcoin exposure in a familiar brokerage format. Just as importantly, the approval signals that FINMA is willing to move beyond broader “multi-crypto” approaches toward single-asset Bitcoin vehicles—provided the liquidity and trading record are sufficient.
Why the structure may matter: direct Bitcoin vs. issuer-risk products
In explaining its fund, BIT Asset Management drew a line between its ETF and many other crypto listings in Europe that are structured as exchange-traded products (ETPs). The company said that most of the region’s Bitcoin offerings are debt instruments, which can expose investors to issuer risk.
By contrast, BIT Asset Management said the Bitcoin Fund ETF is a Swiss collective investment scheme in which assets are held separately from those of the fund management company. The company characterized those assets as “ring-fenced” for investors.
For market participants, this distinction can be more than technical. When crypto exposure is packaged inside different legal structures—whether as debt instruments or as separately ring-fenced fund assets—the main risk drivers can differ. Investors tend to focus on whether the product’s value depends on the issuer’s obligations or whether the underlying holdings are segregated by design.
FINMA’s rationale: liquidity and trading history, but volatility remains
FINMA noted that it has previously allowed cryptocurrency funds that invest primarily in baskets of digital assets since 2021. However, the regulator said this is the first approval of a fund that invests only in Bitcoin.
In the approval framework, FINMA pointed to Bitcoin’s trading history and higher trading volume compared with other cryptocurrencies as factors supporting its decision. In other words, the regulator’s clearance appears tied to evidence that Bitcoin is liquid enough—and established enough in trading markets—to support a product that targets only one asset.
Even so, FINMA emphasized that Bitcoin stays highly volatile regardless of whether investors access it through an approved ETF. That reminder is likely to be especially relevant for retail participants who may expect ETF wrappers to reduce risk simply because the product is regulated and exchange-listed.
More applications in the pipeline
FINMA also indicated that other providers have submitted applications for Bitcoin ETFs. The regulator’s decision therefore functions not only as a milestone for Switzerland’s current market, but also as a signal for what criteria future applicants may need to meet.
For traders and fund allocators, the question now shifts from “whether” Bitcoin ETFs can launch in Switzerland to “how many” such products will follow and whether their legal structures will vary. Differences in custody approach, asset segregation rules, and the way exposure is delivered could meaningfully affect investor experience across listings.
As BIT Asset Management prepares for BBIT’s expected November start on SIX Swiss Exchange, investors should watch how the product is marketed to the public, how it is categorized within FINMA’s “other funds for alternative investments” framework, and how trading begins against the backdrop of Bitcoin’s ongoing volatility.
This article was originally published as Switzerland Moves Toward First Spot Bitcoin ETF, Aiming for Nov. on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
49
記事
セキュリティリスクを受け、EthereumがGlamsterdamのHoodiテストネット公開を延期セキュリティ研究者がアップグレードのガス関連の仕組みに潜在的な欠陥があると指摘したことを受け、Ethereumの開発者はHoodiテストネットで予定されていたGlamsterdamハードフォークを延期しました。Ethereum Foundationによると、この延期は、特定の提案がトランザクション失敗時にスマートコントラクトへどのような影響を及ぼすかを各チームが検証する時間を確保するためです。
メインネットのスケジュールは、追加のテストとレビューの結果次第となりました。開発者は12月初旬を目指しており、Hoodiでの稼働が成功した後にハードフォークの日程を確定する予定でした。しかし、テストネットの展開が延期されたことで、その見通しは不透明になっています。
セキュリティリスクを受け、EthereumがGlamsterdamのHoodiテストネット公開を延期
セキュリティ研究者がアップグレードのガス関連の仕組みに潜在的な欠陥があると指摘したことを受け、Ethereumの開発者はHoodiテストネットで予定されていたGlamsterdamハードフォークを延期しました。Ethereum Foundationによると、この延期は、特定の提案がトランザクション失敗時にスマートコントラクトへどのような影響を及ぼすかを各チームが検証する時間を確保するためです。
メインネットのスケジュールは、追加のテストとレビューの結果次第となりました。開発者は12月初旬を目指しており、Hoodiでの稼働が成功した後にハードフォークの日程を確定する予定でした。しかし、テストネットの展開が延期されたことで、その見通しは不透明になっています。
メインネットのスケジュールは、追加のテストとレビューの結果次第となりました。開発者は12月初旬を目指しており、Hoodiでの稼働が成功した後にハードフォークの日程を確定する予定でした。しかし、テストネットの展開が延期されたことで、その見通しは不透明になっています。
35
記事
翻訳参照
Bitcoin Core Updates Security Policy as AI Improves Bug DiscoveryBitcoin Core developers are revising how the project handles the disclosure of security flaws, citing a growing reality: large language models (LLMs) can make certain vulnerabilities far easier to find quickly. In an email to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List, Bitcoin Core developer Antoine Poinsot said the traditional practice of long disclosure embargoes is becoming less useful when attackers may rediscover bugs almost immediately.
The update, described as part of Bitcoin Core’s changed disclosure approach, aims to deliver fixed software to users across maintained versions sooner—while still publishing security advisories in tandem with the updates for certain categories of issues.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin Core says LLMs can reduce the usefulness of disclosure embargoes by making some vulnerabilities “easily discoverable” quickly.
Under the updated policy, fixes for “easily discoverable” vulnerabilities will be released as soon as possible across all maintained major versions.
Security advisories for these issues will be published alongside the fixed releases, rather than after a delay.
Other vulnerability types will continue following severity-based disclosure timelines, including specific two-week rules for lower and medium/high risks.
Why Bitcoin Core is changing disclosure practices
Historically, security vulnerability disclosures often relied on embargo periods—holding back details until users had time to upgrade. Poinsot argued that this approach can work when rediscovery is difficult or slow. But when a flaw can be found readily through AI-assisted techniques, delay may not provide meaningful protection.
In his email, Poinsot said the embargo period “achieves little but it delays the availability of a fixed release,” explaining that fixes were previously difficult to backport to older software versions. As a result, users could end up waiting until the next major release to receive resolved code.
He said the project is updating its policy to reflect this change in the threat environment, where AI-assisted research accelerates how quickly flaws can resurface.
What the “easily discoverable” category means
Bitcoin Core’s updated policy clarifies how vulnerabilities will be classified and handled. According to the project’s security advisory policy page, issues deemed “easily discoverable” will trigger faster remediation across all maintained major versions.
The policy describes this classification as applying to vulnerabilities that can be discovered with minimal effort—explicitly noting examples such as finding bugs through a simple LLM prompt.
Instead of withholding details until a later date, Bitcoin Core will pair security advisories with the fixed releases for this category. The practical effect is that operators should not have to wait for a traditional disclosure window before they can plan upgrades around specific fixes and the associated risk context.
Severity-based timelines remain for other issues
While the “easily discoverable” category moves to a faster cadence, Bitcoin Core says not every vulnerability will be treated the same way. Other flaws will continue to follow disclosure schedules based on severity, spanning from critical issues that threaten Bitcoin’s fundamental security to lower-risk bugs with limited impact on individual nodes.
Per the policy, low-severity vulnerabilities will be disclosed two weeks after the release of a major version that contains the fix. Medium and high vulnerabilities will be disclosed two weeks after the last affected release reaches its “End of Life,” which is typically about a year after the fix is included in the new major version.
The policy also notes an exception: critical bugs are not covered by the standard schedule, because they are likely to require an ad-hoc procedure.
This structure suggests a balancing act: move quickly when attackers can rapidly reproduce the same weakness, but retain the established severity-based approach for vulnerabilities where the timing of disclosure still provides a meaningful window for defensive upgrades.
Broader pressure from AI-assisted security testing
The disclosure change arrives amid heightened attention on AI-assisted vulnerability research and its downstream consequences for secure software operations across the Bitcoin stack.
Earlier coverage referenced by the Bitcoin community includes the volunteer Bitcoin Red Team’s August report, which identified nearly 5,000 potential issues across 390 projects, though only around a fifth of the findings had been reproduced at that point. That scale underscored how rapidly software review can expand when automated and AI-assisted techniques are brought to bear.
In the same month, developers for Core Lightning urged operators to upgrade—or take nodes offline—after receiving multiple AI-generated vulnerability reports. Separate reporting from that period also described Core Lightning withholding technical details for two weeks, reflecting how different parts of the Bitcoin ecosystem have been grappling with the same tension: faster discovery versus the operational need to coordinate disclosure and patching.
Bitcoin Core’s updated policy can be read as an attempt to align disclosure mechanics with the reality that vulnerability discovery may no longer be constrained by time. If the window between “unknown to many” and “weaponized or widely understood” shrinks, embargoes may need to become shorter—or in some cases, effectively replaced by immediate disclosure alongside fixes.
What to watch next
Operators should pay close attention to how Bitcoin Core labels future advisories as “easily discoverable” and how quickly maintained releases incorporate fixes across multiple major versions. The longer-term question is whether this approach reduces risk without overwhelming users with earlier information—or whether it will reshape how all Bitcoin ecosystem projects coordinate patching when AI-assisted discovery becomes the norm.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Core Updates Security Policy as AI Improves Bug Discovery on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Bitcoin Core Updates Security Policy as AI Improves Bug Discovery
Bitcoin Core developers are revising how the project handles the disclosure of security flaws, citing a growing reality: large language models (LLMs) can make certain vulnerabilities far easier to find quickly. In an email to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List, Bitcoin Core developer Antoine Poinsot said the traditional practice of long disclosure embargoes is becoming less useful when attackers may rediscover bugs almost immediately.
The update, described as part of Bitcoin Core’s changed disclosure approach, aims to deliver fixed software to users across maintained versions sooner—while still publishing security advisories in tandem with the updates for certain categories of issues.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin Core says LLMs can reduce the usefulness of disclosure embargoes by making some vulnerabilities “easily discoverable” quickly.
Under the updated policy, fixes for “easily discoverable” vulnerabilities will be released as soon as possible across all maintained major versions.
Security advisories for these issues will be published alongside the fixed releases, rather than after a delay.
Other vulnerability types will continue following severity-based disclosure timelines, including specific two-week rules for lower and medium/high risks.
Why Bitcoin Core is changing disclosure practices
Historically, security vulnerability disclosures often relied on embargo periods—holding back details until users had time to upgrade. Poinsot argued that this approach can work when rediscovery is difficult or slow. But when a flaw can be found readily through AI-assisted techniques, delay may not provide meaningful protection.
In his email, Poinsot said the embargo period “achieves little but it delays the availability of a fixed release,” explaining that fixes were previously difficult to backport to older software versions. As a result, users could end up waiting until the next major release to receive resolved code.
He said the project is updating its policy to reflect this change in the threat environment, where AI-assisted research accelerates how quickly flaws can resurface.
What the “easily discoverable” category means
Bitcoin Core’s updated policy clarifies how vulnerabilities will be classified and handled. According to the project’s security advisory policy page, issues deemed “easily discoverable” will trigger faster remediation across all maintained major versions.
The policy describes this classification as applying to vulnerabilities that can be discovered with minimal effort—explicitly noting examples such as finding bugs through a simple LLM prompt.
Instead of withholding details until a later date, Bitcoin Core will pair security advisories with the fixed releases for this category. The practical effect is that operators should not have to wait for a traditional disclosure window before they can plan upgrades around specific fixes and the associated risk context.
Severity-based timelines remain for other issues
While the “easily discoverable” category moves to a faster cadence, Bitcoin Core says not every vulnerability will be treated the same way. Other flaws will continue to follow disclosure schedules based on severity, spanning from critical issues that threaten Bitcoin’s fundamental security to lower-risk bugs with limited impact on individual nodes.
Per the policy, low-severity vulnerabilities will be disclosed two weeks after the release of a major version that contains the fix. Medium and high vulnerabilities will be disclosed two weeks after the last affected release reaches its “End of Life,” which is typically about a year after the fix is included in the new major version.
The policy also notes an exception: critical bugs are not covered by the standard schedule, because they are likely to require an ad-hoc procedure.
This structure suggests a balancing act: move quickly when attackers can rapidly reproduce the same weakness, but retain the established severity-based approach for vulnerabilities where the timing of disclosure still provides a meaningful window for defensive upgrades.
Broader pressure from AI-assisted security testing
The disclosure change arrives amid heightened attention on AI-assisted vulnerability research and its downstream consequences for secure software operations across the Bitcoin stack.
Earlier coverage referenced by the Bitcoin community includes the volunteer Bitcoin Red Team’s August report, which identified nearly 5,000 potential issues across 390 projects, though only around a fifth of the findings had been reproduced at that point. That scale underscored how rapidly software review can expand when automated and AI-assisted techniques are brought to bear.
In the same month, developers for Core Lightning urged operators to upgrade—or take nodes offline—after receiving multiple AI-generated vulnerability reports. Separate reporting from that period also described Core Lightning withholding technical details for two weeks, reflecting how different parts of the Bitcoin ecosystem have been grappling with the same tension: faster discovery versus the operational need to coordinate disclosure and patching.
Bitcoin Core’s updated policy can be read as an attempt to align disclosure mechanics with the reality that vulnerability discovery may no longer be constrained by time. If the window between “unknown to many” and “weaponized or widely understood” shrinks, embargoes may need to become shorter—or in some cases, effectively replaced by immediate disclosure alongside fixes.
What to watch next
Operators should pay close attention to how Bitcoin Core labels future advisories as “easily discoverable” and how quickly maintained releases incorporate fixes across multiple major versions. The longer-term question is whether this approach reduces risk without overwhelming users with earlier information—or whether it will reshape how all Bitcoin ecosystem projects coordinate patching when AI-assisted discovery becomes the norm.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Core Updates Security Policy as AI Improves Bug Discovery on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The update, described as part of Bitcoin Core’s changed disclosure approach, aims to deliver fixed software to users across maintained versions sooner—while still publishing security advisories in tandem with the updates for certain categories of issues.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin Core says LLMs can reduce the usefulness of disclosure embargoes by making some vulnerabilities “easily discoverable” quickly.
Under the updated policy, fixes for “easily discoverable” vulnerabilities will be released as soon as possible across all maintained major versions.
Security advisories for these issues will be published alongside the fixed releases, rather than after a delay.
Other vulnerability types will continue following severity-based disclosure timelines, including specific two-week rules for lower and medium/high risks.
Why Bitcoin Core is changing disclosure practices
Historically, security vulnerability disclosures often relied on embargo periods—holding back details until users had time to upgrade. Poinsot argued that this approach can work when rediscovery is difficult or slow. But when a flaw can be found readily through AI-assisted techniques, delay may not provide meaningful protection.
In his email, Poinsot said the embargo period “achieves little but it delays the availability of a fixed release,” explaining that fixes were previously difficult to backport to older software versions. As a result, users could end up waiting until the next major release to receive resolved code.
He said the project is updating its policy to reflect this change in the threat environment, where AI-assisted research accelerates how quickly flaws can resurface.
What the “easily discoverable” category means
Bitcoin Core’s updated policy clarifies how vulnerabilities will be classified and handled. According to the project’s security advisory policy page, issues deemed “easily discoverable” will trigger faster remediation across all maintained major versions.
The policy describes this classification as applying to vulnerabilities that can be discovered with minimal effort—explicitly noting examples such as finding bugs through a simple LLM prompt.
Instead of withholding details until a later date, Bitcoin Core will pair security advisories with the fixed releases for this category. The practical effect is that operators should not have to wait for a traditional disclosure window before they can plan upgrades around specific fixes and the associated risk context.
Severity-based timelines remain for other issues
While the “easily discoverable” category moves to a faster cadence, Bitcoin Core says not every vulnerability will be treated the same way. Other flaws will continue to follow disclosure schedules based on severity, spanning from critical issues that threaten Bitcoin’s fundamental security to lower-risk bugs with limited impact on individual nodes.
Per the policy, low-severity vulnerabilities will be disclosed two weeks after the release of a major version that contains the fix. Medium and high vulnerabilities will be disclosed two weeks after the last affected release reaches its “End of Life,” which is typically about a year after the fix is included in the new major version.
The policy also notes an exception: critical bugs are not covered by the standard schedule, because they are likely to require an ad-hoc procedure.
This structure suggests a balancing act: move quickly when attackers can rapidly reproduce the same weakness, but retain the established severity-based approach for vulnerabilities where the timing of disclosure still provides a meaningful window for defensive upgrades.
Broader pressure from AI-assisted security testing
The disclosure change arrives amid heightened attention on AI-assisted vulnerability research and its downstream consequences for secure software operations across the Bitcoin stack.
Earlier coverage referenced by the Bitcoin community includes the volunteer Bitcoin Red Team’s August report, which identified nearly 5,000 potential issues across 390 projects, though only around a fifth of the findings had been reproduced at that point. That scale underscored how rapidly software review can expand when automated and AI-assisted techniques are brought to bear.
In the same month, developers for Core Lightning urged operators to upgrade—or take nodes offline—after receiving multiple AI-generated vulnerability reports. Separate reporting from that period also described Core Lightning withholding technical details for two weeks, reflecting how different parts of the Bitcoin ecosystem have been grappling with the same tension: faster discovery versus the operational need to coordinate disclosure and patching.
Bitcoin Core’s updated policy can be read as an attempt to align disclosure mechanics with the reality that vulnerability discovery may no longer be constrained by time. If the window between “unknown to many” and “weaponized or widely understood” shrinks, embargoes may need to become shorter—or in some cases, effectively replaced by immediate disclosure alongside fixes.
What to watch next
Operators should pay close attention to how Bitcoin Core labels future advisories as “easily discoverable” and how quickly maintained releases incorporate fixes across multiple major versions. The longer-term question is whether this approach reduces risk without overwhelming users with earlier information—or whether it will reshape how all Bitcoin ecosystem projects coordinate patching when AI-assisted discovery becomes the norm.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Core Updates Security Policy as AI Improves Bug Discovery on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
18
ログインして、さらにコンテンツを読む
厳選トピックで世界の暗号資産トレーダーの仲間入り
⚡️ 暗号資産に関する最新かつ有益な情報が見つかります。
💬 世界最大の暗号資産取引所から信頼されています。
👍 認証を受けたクリエイターから、有益なインサイトを得られます。
メール / 電話番号