Crypto Breaking

The European Central Bank is positioning the upcoming digital euro pilot as more than a payments experiment: ECB Executive Board member Piero Cipollone says the project could help the euro area build “sovereignty” over core payments infrastructure that remains dependent on non-European third parties.
In an interview with Italy’s Milano Finance published by the ECB on Saturday, Cipollone argued that Europe has learned—through sectors like energy and defense—that essential services cannot rely indefinitely on external providers. He linked that lesson directly to payments and reiterated that ensuring smooth system operation becomes harder when critical services depend on outside actors.
Key takeaways
Cipollone framed the digital euro pilot as a step toward European-controlled payments infrastructure and operational resilience.
He said Europe’s dependence on third parties makes it difficult to guarantee the “smooth functioning” of payment systems.
The pilot is planned to use real transactions carried out by ECB and national central bank staff.
The ECB’s ability to issue a digital euro depends on legislative negotiations in Brussels concluding.
Why the ECB is talking about “sovereignty”
Cipollone’s remarks center on a concept the ECB has used in various forms: operational and strategic control over systems the bloc considers essential. While he acknowledged that sovereignty does not require shutting out third-party providers, he said it does mean having the ability to choose and depend on European capability when necessary for critical services.
He compared payments to other policy-sensitive areas where, according to his argument, Europe has concluded that external reliance can create risk. The ECB executive board member said Europe has seen this in energy and is “seeing it today with defense,” adding that payments face similar concerns.
“In recent years Europe has learned that, for some essential services, we cannot rely only on third parties,” Cipollone said. “And the same is true for payments.”
A pilot built around real transactions
The ECB’s digital euro work is now moving into a pilot phase scheduled for next year, with live operational testing rather than purely simulated activity. Cipollone said the pilot will involve real transactions executed by ECB and national central bank staff.
According to the ECB’s preparation plans mentioned in coverage of the pilot, there are 36 market operators involved in the preparation process, including seven from Italy. The ECB is also inviting e-commerce and mobile-commerce operators to take part, indicating the pilot is meant to test practical integration points for merchants and consumer-facing payment flows rather than only internal back-office processes.
For Cipollone, the central issue is that the smooth functioning of payments is one of the ECB’s responsibilities. If critical components are tied to non-European parties, he suggested it becomes harder to ensure consistent performance and oversight—especially when disruptions could affect day-to-day economic activity.
Dependence on non-European providers and strategic vulnerability
Cipollone previously warned about the strategic risk stemming from Europe’s reliance on non-European payment infrastructure. In an April public lecture held in Latvia, he said that two-thirds of euro-area card transactions are governed by non-European companies.
While the Saturday interview does not offer a new quantitative update on card market structure, it connects that earlier statement to the digital euro rationale: a European digital euro could reduce dependency and provide an infrastructure that Europe can better control.
That framing matters for investors and industry participants because it links the project to more than consumer adoption—placing it within broader questions of risk management, regulatory capacity, and the strategic importance of payment rails in a cross-border economy.
What needs to happen before issuance
Even if a pilot proceeds, the ECB’s path to a digital euro launch is conditional on the legislative process. Cipollone said the ECB Governing Council can only decide on issuing a digital euro after negotiations in Brussels conclude.
He told Milano Finance that the regulation is hoped to be adopted by the end of the year. The interview suggests that once the legislative track is finalized, the Governing Council would then be positioned to take a formal decision on issuance.
For market participants, this timeline is significant because it outlines a key gate: technical readiness during the pilot does not automatically translate into issuance. Compliance, legal authority, and the final regulatory framework remain central to whether— and how—any digital euro could move from testing to rollout.
Readers should watch the legislative negotiations in Brussels closely, since the ECB’s ability to proceed beyond the pilot depends on them. The next question is also whether the pilot’s operational results will strengthen the ECB’s argument that European-controlled rails can deliver the reliability it says is harder to guarantee when critical payments functions are dependent on third parties.
This article was originally published as ECB Official Flags Digital Euro Role in Safeguarding EU Sovereignty on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

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.

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.

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.

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal has escalated a Senate investigation into Tether’s alleged relationships with a marketing company linked to former White House crypto adviser Bo Hines. The probe centers on claims that Tether entered into a $6.3 million marketing arrangement with Nxum, and that the dealings may have involved lobbying coordination around pending stablecoin legislation.
In a letter to Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino, Blumenthal said the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is requesting records and information covering contracts, payments, communications, and lobbying activity involving Tether and Nxum. Blumenthal also pointed to allegations that messaging between parties indicated direct coordination on efforts related to the GENIUS Act, a bill intended to regulate stablecoins.
Key takeaways
Blumenthal’s letter asks for Tether records tied to Nxum, including contracts, payments, communications, and lobbying activity.
The senator alleges the arrangement may have involved improper coordination around the GENIUS Act stablecoin legislation.
Hines is accused of not divesting a stake in Nxum while working on stablecoin-related policy discussions and later joining Tether in a strategic role.
Tether told Cointelegraph that an external counsel found no evidence of wrongdoing after a prior internal investigation.
Upcoming U.S. midterm politics could affect the scope and leverage of investigations into crypto-industry conflicts.
What the Senate subcommittee is seeking
According to Blumenthal, the subcommittee’s request is aimed at reconstructing how the Tether–Nxum relationship functioned in practice. The letter demands documents and information related to “contracts, payments, communications, and lobbying” between Tether and Nxum, which Blumenthal connects to Bo Hines’ activities.
The senator’s concerns were amplified by an earlier Wall Street Journal report, referenced in the Cointelegraph coverage, which described a $6.3 million deal between Tether and Nxum.
Blumenthal’s stated framing is that the investigation fits into broader allegations about the Trump administration’s alleged “self-enrichment and self-dealings with cryptocurrency firms.” The implication for investors and market participants is straightforward: stablecoin issuers operate under intense political scrutiny, and questions about influence-buying or regulatory capture can directly affect perceived compliance risk and reputational standing.
Blumenthal’s allegations around GENIUS Act lobbying
Blumenthal asserted that Hines did not divest his one-third stake in Nxum while allegedly coordinating with Nxum using encrypted messaging applications. The senator claimed these communications were used to coordinate lobbying, advocacy, and pressure campaigns targeting members of Congress who were opposed to, or sought changes to, stablecoin legislation.
In addition, Blumenthal alleged that the messaging purportedly demonstrated direct coordination between Tether and Nxum’s efforts concerning the GENIUS Act. The letter includes the claim that Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino demanded Nxum “obliterate” opponents of the bill.
“The highly unusual terms and nature of Tether’s business relationship with both Nxum and Bo Hines raise alarming ethical and legal concerns, indicating that Tether was likely well aware of the illegality and impropriety of issuing payments to a current White House official with such a direct role in shaping cryptocurrency legislation that was instrumental to its business.”
Tether’s response and the timeline of key personnel
Tether has rejected the allegations. A Tether spokesperson told Cointelegraph that the company was aware of the claims and that an external counsel “found no evidence of wrongdoing” after a previous “in-depth internal investigation.”
The dispute also intersects with personnel transitions described in the coverage. Blumenthal noted that Hines worked as executive director on the President’s Council of Advisers on Digital Assets from January to August 2025, before leaving to become a “strategic adviser” at Tether. After that, Hines later became CEO of Tether US.
The article also references another senior figure: Harry Jung, described as a crypto adviser in the Trump administration. Jung left his role in July 2026 and joined Nxum as a managing director in August.
For market observers, these details matter because stablecoin governance and regulatory engagement are closely watched. Even when investigations do not lead to findings, the combination of alleged cross-linked relationships—between policy staff, outside firms, and a major issuer—often affects how counterparties, lawmakers, and regulators assess a company’s risk profile.
Why the midterm outcome could change the pressure
Blumenthal’s ability to drive investigative activity depends partly on committee and congressional control. While he is the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections could influence how much authority he and other Democrats may have in pursuing inquiries related to alleged crypto conflicts of interest.
As of Friday, election prediction markets reportedly favored Democratic retaking of majority control of both chambers of Congress in 2027. Cointelegraph notes that event contracts on Kalshi and Polymarket reflected 92% and 68% chances for Democrats on Kalshi for the House and Senate, respectively. The U.S. Election Day is on Nov. 3.
In practice, that means the next political phase could determine whether requests like Blumenthal’s letter lead to deeper document production, hearings, or broader scrutiny of stablecoin policy and the industry’s Washington relationships.
Wider political scrutiny over crypto-linked influence
Beyond this specific dispute, the article situates the investigation within ongoing allegations that the Trump administration and its affiliates may be reaping financial benefits tied to crypto policy decisions. It notes that President Trump, his family, and members of his administration continue to face scrutiny over accusations that they profit from policies over which they have control or influence.
Cointelegraph’s coverage also references disclosures that Trump reported earning $1.4 billion from investments related to crypto in 2025.
Readers should watch for how Tether responds to the Senate’s document requests and whether the investigation expands beyond contract and communications records to include findings tied to lobbying strategy around the GENIUS Act. The next key uncertainty is whether political control after the midterms increases the likelihood of public hearings or additional subpoenas.
This article was originally published as US Senator Questions Tether After Reported Deal Involving Ex-Adviser on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

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.

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is preparing to revise its voluntary disclosure program, with plans to reduce penalties and speed up case resolution for taxpayers who come forward to address tax noncompliance—potentially including violations involving cryptocurrencies. The development was reported by Forbes, citing comments from IRS Criminal Investigation Chief Jarod Koopman.
Koopman said the agency is working toward introducing the updated program before December. The IRS’s goal, as described in the report, is to resolve cases within 120 days after taxpayers complete the submission process required to participate.
Key takeaways
The IRS is considering lower penalties and faster timelines for its voluntary disclosure program, with a reported target of resolving cases within 120 days after submission.
IRS leadership indicated digital assets would be handled under the same voluntary disclosure framework as other tax issues, rather than through a dedicated process for crypto.
Details on the magnitude of penalty reductions were not provided, but the reported direction is toward substantially lower consequences than the current program.
Legislators are also advancing a separate track for crypto taxpayers through the proposed Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act, which would treat unintentional reporting errors differently from willful noncompliance.
What the IRS overhaul would change
According to Forbes, the IRS Criminal Investigation division is planning an overhaul designed to make the voluntary disclosure route more attractive by addressing two pain points: penalty levels and the time required to reach resolution. Koopman told attendees at the UCLA Extension Tax Controversy Conference that the revised approach would aim to resolve cases within 120 days after taxpayers finish the required submission steps.
While the IRS official did not specify exact penalty amounts, the report says the agency intends penalties under the revised program to be substantially lower than those currently imposed. The IRS is also reportedly considering settlement flexibility, including installment plans or offers in compromise for outstanding tax liabilities.
For taxpayers weighing disclosure versus other options, the main practical question is how the promised timeline and penalty reductions would work in real cases—especially for individuals and entities with complex records. The current voluntary disclosure pathway is described by Forbes as a process that can take a year or longer, particularly where investigation and evaluation are involved.
How cryptocurrencies fit into the IRS program
A central detail in the report is that the IRS does not appear to be planning a separate voluntary disclosure procedure tailored exclusively to digital assets. Koopman’s remarks, as summarized by Forbes, suggest that cryptocurrencies would be treated through the same voluntary disclosure framework used for other categories of tax noncompliance.
This matters for crypto participants because the IRS’s existing voluntary disclosure program is meant for taxpayers whose willful failure to comply could expose them to criminal prosecution, rather than those who made unintentional mistakes. In that context, the IRS’s approach could be seen as keeping crypto enforcement aligned with broader criminal investigation standards—even if the program’s mechanics and penalties are changed.
That said, if the IRS truly narrows penalties and shortens the resolution window, the revised process may reduce the deterrent effect that comes from high costs and long uncertainty. Traders, long-term holders, and businesses with reporting gaps will still need to carefully evaluate their facts, because whether conduct is willful versus accidental can determine which framework they should pursue.
A separate legislative track for “honest mistakes”
While the IRS would reportedly use its existing voluntary disclosure structure for digital assets, lawmakers are considering an alternative designed specifically for crypto-related tax issues. Forbes notes that a separate voluntary disclosure program is under consideration in Congress—described in earlier coverage by Cointelegraph as including situations where taxpayers made unintentional reporting errors.
In particular, Section 502 of the proposed Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act would reportedly create a process for correcting past violations with defined penalties. The proposal is positioned as different from the IRS’s current program because it targets both correction and penalty rules for crypto taxpayers, including those whose errors were not willful.
According to the provided context, the bill cleared the House Ways and Means Committee in September. If enacted, it would add a second disclosure route—one aimed at defined remediation for crypto tax reporting gaps, rather than focusing primarily on willful noncompliance and the risk of criminal prosecution.
The divergence between these tracks sets up a practical tension for crypto taxpayers: the IRS revision could make its willfulness-oriented program less punitive and faster, but the legislative proposal suggests there is still demand for a distinct mechanism for unintentional mistakes.
Why the timing and structure matter for crypto taxpayers
For crypto investors and service providers, the biggest impact of the IRS overhaul may be procedural rather than conceptual. The reported 120-day resolution goal suggests the IRS is looking to reduce the lag between submission and outcome—an issue that can be particularly costly for taxpayers who need clarity for planning, compliance remediation, and personal or business cash management.
The other key factor is uncertainty around penalties. Koopman’s comments, as reported by Forbes, point toward “substantially lower” penalties, but without specific figures taxpayers cannot yet estimate savings or compare the revised process to other options. That means readers should treat any near-term assessment as incomplete until more details are released—either in formal IRS guidance or through the program’s updated rules.
Meanwhile, legislative developments may continue to move on a different timetable than the IRS’s administrative changes. If the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act advances, crypto taxpayers may ultimately have to choose between an IRS pathway tied to willfulness standards and a statutory remedy aimed at correcting errors with defined penalties. In the interim, the most important watch items are how the IRS defines the updated eligibility boundaries for digital asset cases and whether the agency provides clearer guidance on penalty calculations.
Crypto-related tax compliance has often been shaped as much by uncertainty as by complexity. If the IRS follows through on a faster, lower-penalty voluntary disclosure approach before December, it could reduce uncertainty for taxpayers considering remediation—but readers should still monitor legislative progress on the proposed crypto-specific program, since it would address a different class of reporting problems.
This article was originally published as IRS to Reduce Tax Disclosure Penalties, Including for Crypto: Forbes on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Initia, a layer-1 blockchain built to support interconnected rollups, has halted operations after researchers reported an exploit that allegedly enabled an attacker to mint unauthorized tokens and convert them into crypto assets worth more than $2.6 million.
The network was stopped at 3:41 p.m. UTC on Friday, according to an announcement from Initia on X. The team said it is coordinating with security researchers, validators, and exchanges to assess the full scope of the incident.
Key takeaways
Initia paused its layer-1 and rollups at 3:41 p.m. UTC after reports of an unauthorized token-minting exploit.
Security researcher Spreek first flagged the issue, alleging minted tokens were converted into roughly $2.6 million in other assets.
D2 Finance later described the mechanics as minting 2 million AUSD tokens without sufficient backing, followed by cross-chain withdrawals.
The stolen value appears to have been consolidated into an Ethereum wallet, according to D2 Finance.
Initia has not publicly confirmed the full losses or the exact root cause, leaving timelines and impact on users unclear.
How the alleged exploit worked
The initial public warning came from blockchain security researcher Spreek, who reported that an attacker minted tokens without authorization and then converted approximately $2.6 million into other assets, noting that more funds were still in motion.
DeFi platform D2 Finance then reported additional details, saying the exploit involved a vulnerability that allowed the creation of unbacked tokens—specifically, minting 2 million AUSD without sufficient backing. According to D2 Finance, the attacker used cross-chain transfers to withdraw about 1.4 million AUSD, 105 Ether (ETH), and 1.08 million USDC to Ethereum.
Where the funds appear to have landed
D2 Finance further said the stolen assets were consolidated into an Ethereum wallet holding approximately 1,135.5 ETH, which it valued at $2.73 million. The firm attributed the problem to a vulnerability in a Move function that allegedly permitted the attacker to create unbacked tokens and then exchange them for assets on Ethereum.
While these figures are tied to D2 Finance’s analysis and Initia has not independently published an official loss estimate, they provide a concrete picture of the likely attack path: mint, transfer across chains, then consolidate liquid assets on Ethereum.
Network halt raises questions for rollup-dependent apps
Initia’s stated response was immediate: halting its layer-1 and rollups after the security incident. That decision matters because Initia is designed to run a network of interconnected rollups, often described as “Minitias,” meaning many application flows may depend on the underlying chain’s availability and safety.
As of the halt, Initia had not publicly confirmed the estimated losses or the precise cause of the exploit, and the timeline for restoring network operations remains uncertain. The incident also underscores how token-minting vulnerabilities can become fast-moving events when they enable immediate conversion into other liquid assets—particularly when cross-chain bridges or withdrawal paths are involved.
Market reaction and what to watch next
In the hours following the incident, Initia’s native token, INIT, briefly fell to around $0.115 before rebounding above $0.15, based on CoinGecko data. At the time of writing, the token was trading near $0.1496, up about 14% over the previous 24 hours, though price moves during security incidents can reflect a mix of market positioning and rapidly changing expectations rather than confirmed recovery details.
With the core technical picture still not officially confirmed by Initia, traders and users will likely focus on follow-up updates: whether the team identifies and patches the specific Move function vulnerability, the total amount of assets affected (including any funds still being moved, as initially described by Spreek), and how validators and exchanges plan to coordinate risk controls during the halt. Until Initia publishes its own findings, much of the impact assessment will remain tied to the external analyses already shared publicly.
This article was originally published as Initia Pauses L1 and Rollups After Reported $2.6M Exploit on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Initia has paused operations of its layer-1 network and rollups after security researchers reported an exploit that allegedly enabled unauthorized token minting and the drainage of crypto funds. The halt was initiated at 3:41 p.m. UTC on Friday, according to a post from Initia on X, as the team coordinated with validators, exchanges, and external researchers to assess the damage.
While Initia has not yet provided a full account of the incident, reports from blockchain analysts and DeFi participants suggest the attacker minted unbacked tokens, converted them across chains, and consolidated proceeds on Ethereum. The event has also spilled into Initia’s token market, where the native INIT token briefly dropped before rebounding.
Key takeaways
Initia halted its layer-1 and connected rollups at 3:41 p.m. UTC Friday following a reported security incident.
Security researcher Spreek said an attacker minted tokens without authorization and converted roughly $2.6 million into other assets.
D2 Finance reported the mint involved 2 million AUSD tokens and that about 1.4 million AUSD, 105 ETH, and 1.08 million USDC were bridged/withdrawn to Ethereum.
The incident has been linked (by D2 Finance) to a Move-function vulnerability that allegedly allowed creation of unbacked tokens.
Initia has not yet confirmed the final loss estimate, the exact technical cause, or the timeline for resuming operations.
Network pause after reported minting exploit
Initia’s team said the network was stopped at 3:41 p.m. UTC on Friday after a security incident. In the same announcement, the project indicated it was working with security researchers, validators, and exchanges to understand the full scope of what happened and to reduce the risk of further damage.
According to blockchain security researcher Spreek, the exploit involved an attacker minting tokens without authorization. Spreek’s initial report, shared on X, also described the attacker converting approximately $2.6 million into other assets, with additional funds reportedly still in motion.
For investors and users, the practical significance of the pause is straightforward: when a layer-1 and its rollup ecosystem stop producing or finalizing activity, wallets, DeFi protocols, and trading venues that depend on that chain’s availability may face delays, stuck positions, or reduced liquidity. Until Initia provides more details, market participants are left to monitor how quickly assets can be identified, frozen, or returned.
Details from DeFi platform D2 Finance
Following Spreek’s disclosure, DeFi platform D2 Finance published its own account of the mechanics and scale of the exploit. D2 Finance claimed the attacker took advantage of a vulnerability that allowed minting 2 million AUSD tokens without sufficient backing. The firm further reported that the attacker then used cross-chain transfers to withdraw roughly 1.4 million AUSD along with 105 ETH and 1.08 million USDC to Ethereum.
D2 Finance said the stolen assets were later consolidated into an Ethereum wallet holding about 1,135.5 ETH, which the firm valued at approximately $2.73 million. D2 Finance attributed the root issue to a Move function vulnerability that allegedly permitted the creation of unbacked tokens and their subsequent exchange for Ethereum-based assets.
It’s worth noting the asymmetry in the public numbers: Spreek referenced “approximately $2.6 million,” while D2 Finance later cited a consolidated value near $2.73 million. These figures may reflect different accounting methods, timing, or asset conversion rates, but they at least align on the broader magnitude—suggesting millions of dollars were involved.
What’s confirmed—and what remains unclear
As of the reports, Initia has not publicly confirmed the estimated losses or the precise technical cause. The company has also not provided a clear restoration timetable, leaving participants to watch for updates on (1) which smart contract(s) are implicated, (2) whether additional funds remain in addresses tied to the attacker, and (3) how the chain will be brought back safely.
Cointelegraph was unable to contact Initia for further comment through its official X account at the time of publication. That means the most detailed operational and technical explanations so far come from third-party observers rather than from Initia’s own incident response.
For users, the uncertainty is more than academic. If an exploit involved the minting of unbacked tokens, projects and counterparties that interacted with those tokens—directly or through liquidity pools—may need to assess exposure and decide whether they will seek remediation. Traders, meanwhile, may need to account for the possibility of delayed withdrawals or temporary asset valuation distortions while the chain is offline.
INIT token volatility as trading digests the halt
The incident has already affected Initia’s token performance. According to CoinGecko data, INIT briefly fell to around $0.115 on Friday before recovering to above $0.15. At the time of writing, the token was trading near $0.1496, up roughly 14% over the previous 24 hours.
That rebound does not necessarily signal that the exploit is contained or the final losses are limited; token prices often move on shifting expectations about incident severity, the speed of remediation, and the broader risk appetite of crypto markets. Even so, the volatility underscores how quickly operational disruptions and security incidents can change sentiment.
Investors should also be cautious about reading too much into short-term price action. Without an official assessment from Initia—covering confirmed theft amounts, affected protocols, and the remediation plan—market participants remain exposed to additional announcements that could reverse sentiment.
What to watch next
Next, the key signals are whether Initia confirms the reported Move-function vulnerability, publishes a clearer estimate of total losses, and sets expectations for when layer-1 and rollups will resume. In parallel, users should monitor whether the Ethereum wallet(s) associated with the attacker’s proceeds show signs of being liquidated or otherwise moved as incident response ramps up.
This article was originally published as Initia Suspends Blockchain After Reported $2.6M+ Exploit Drain on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Senator Richard Blumenthal has asked Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino to provide documents and information to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations after a Wall Street Journal report alleged that the stablecoin issuer signed a $6.3 million marketing deal tied to Bo Hines, a former White House crypto adviser.
In a Thursday letter to Ardoino, Blumenthal said the subcommittee is seeking records covering contracts, payments, communications, and lobbying activities involving Tether and Nxum, Hines’ company. The senator framed the inquiry as part of broader concerns about conflicts of interest and “self-enrichment and self-dealings with cryptocurrency firms” connected to the Trump administration’s crypto policy influence.
Key takeaways
Blumenthal’s letter requests records and information on Tether’s arrangements with Nxum, including contracts, payments, communications, and lobbying efforts.
The inquiry is linked to allegations from a Wall Street Journal report about a $6.3 million marketing agreement connected to Bo Hines.
Blumenthal cited claims that encrypted messages show coordination on lobbying around stablecoin legislation known as the GENIUS Act.
The senator argues Tether’s relationship with Nxum and Hines raises ethical and legal concerns, particularly given Hines’ prior role in the White House.
Political control after the 2026 midterms could affect investigative leverage for Democrats in future congressional oversight.
Blumenthal escalates oversight of Tether and Nxum
Blumenthal’s letter states that the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is demanding “records and information related to contracts, payments, communications, and lobbying” between Tether and Nxum, the marketing company associated with Bo Hines. Blumenthal described the overall matter as connected to allegations of improper financial ties between crypto firms and individuals with influence over crypto policy.
While the letter points to a central business relationship between Tether and Nxum, it also emphasizes the role that communications and lobbying activity may have played during the legislative process. The senator’s concerns appear aimed not only at payments under contracts, but at how those payments could intersect with efforts to shape stablecoin regulation.
Allegations center on GENIUS Act lobbying and coordination
In the letter, Blumenthal said that Hines did not divest his one-third stake in Nxum, despite stepping away from the White House. The senator also claimed that Hines worked closely with Nxum through encrypted messaging applications to coordinate lobbying and advocacy directed at members of Congress who opposed— or sought changes to—pending stablecoin legislation.
Blumenthal further alleged that the reported communications show Tether coordinating Nxum’s lobbying efforts related to the GENIUS Act. He specifically referenced a claim that Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino demanded Nxum “obliterate” the legislation’s opponents.
“The highly unusual terms and nature of Tether’s business relationship with both Nxum and Bo Hines raise alarming ethical and legal concerns, indicating that Tether was likely well aware of the illegality and impropriety of issuing payments to a current White House official with such a direct role in shaping cryptocurrency legislation that was instrumental to its business.”
The subcommittee’s request for communications and lobbying-related records suggests that lawmakers are seeking evidence that goes beyond the existence of a contract—potentially focusing on intent, coordination, and how influence may have been exercised during the legislative cycle.
Bo Hines’ revolving-door roles come under scrutiny
According to the letter’s referenced timeline, Bo Hines served as executive director on the President’s Council of Advisers on Digital Assets from January to August 2025 before leaving the White House to join Tether as a “strategic adviser.” After that, he became CEO of Tether US. The same period of movement, along with overlapping relationships between Tether, Nxum, and Hines, is a key element of Blumenthal’s concerns.
The article also notes that Harry Jung—another crypto adviser connected to the Trump administration—left his position in July 2026 and joined Nxum as a managing director in August. Together, these changes are being used in the oversight narrative to highlight how personnel transitions between policy roles and industry-linked entities can raise conflict-of-interest questions during rulemaking and legislative battles.
Cointelegraph attempted to reach Tether for comment on the investigation and the underlying report but did not receive an immediate response.
What midterm politics could change for investigators
Blumenthal, described as the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, has limited authority compared with the majority party. Still, the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections could influence how much oversight power Democrats gain—potentially expanding the subcommittee’s ability to pursue additional questions about alleged ties between crypto industry participants and the Trump administration.
As of Friday, election-related event contracts on prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket reportedly favored Democrats retaking majority control of both chambers of Congress in 2027. Kalshi’s odds were cited as 92% for the House and 68% for the Senate. The article also notes that US Election Day is set for Nov. 3.
For market participants, this matters because heightened oversight can translate into more scrutiny of stablecoin issuers, lobbying practices, and how legislative frameworks are shaped—particularly if lawmakers believe disclosures, ethical barriers, or conflict rules may not have been followed.
Readers should watch for Tether’s response to Blumenthal’s document request and for what the subcommittee ultimately uncovers regarding the alleged GENIUS Act lobbying coordination; the legal and ethical implications will likely depend on the specifics contained in the communications and payment records being sought.
This article was originally published as US Senator Questions Tether After Reported Deal With Ex‑Trump Aide on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto industry leaders are split on a fundamental question: was self-custody ever meant to be truly beginner-friendly? While advocates argue that easier controls and clearer user flows are essential for Bitcoin’s long-term growth, critics point to recent real-world wallet incidents and the inherent complexity of securing keys correctly.
In interviews with Cointelegraph, Safe Labs CEO Rahul Rumalla and Bitcoin custody executive Michael Tanguma both discussed what “self-custody for everyone” should mean—but they differ sharply on whether the responsibility model should change as users get broader access to Bitcoin.
Key takeaways
Executives disagree on whether self-custody was designed for newcomers, with some saying it was never intended to be beginner-first.
Hardware wallet security has been challenged by incidents involving recovery phrases and firmware flaws, keeping investor concerns about device trust front and center.
Multisignature wallets can improve resilience, but they add coordination and recovery complexity—and may still fail if signers are socially engineered through the same compromised interface.
Seedless wallet designs reduce reliance on recovery phrases, yet they shift risk to device safety and transaction confirmation UX.
Beginner access vs. security reality
Self-custody remains one of Bitcoin’s most defining narratives: users can “be their own bank.” Yet recent hardware wallet incidents have highlighted that “offline keys” do not automatically eliminate every threat to safe ownership.
Cointelegraph reported that some Ledger devices were targeted by implants that enabled attackers to steal recovery phrases, including through Ledger incidents detailed by Cointelegraph. Separately, a Coldcard firmware bug was linked to a scenario where attackers could recreate private keys and steal funds, as described in Cointelegraph’s Galaxy analysis coverage.
Against this backdrop, Michael Tanguma, CEO of Bitcoin custody provider Onramp, compared Bitcoin custody to personal computers in the 1970s—when users needed more technical skill to assemble and operate systems. He argued that self-custody “was never designed with newcomers in mind” and said simpler designs helped expand computer adoption. In his view, Bitcoin faces a similar adoption challenge.
Safe Labs CEO Rahul Rumalla pushed back, saying self-custody “does not mean doing everything yourself” and that being able to own and control assets is “the whole point of crypto.” For Rumalla, the path forward is not abandoning self-custody, but making it more usable without asking every holder to become a security expert.
Multisig: stronger by design, harder by practice
Multisignature (multisig) wallets distribute authorization across multiple keys. In theory, that reduces the odds that a single compromised key results in a total loss. In practice, the operational overhead can be a barrier—especially for inexperienced users or groups.
Justin Hutzler, chief technology officer of Synergy Network, told Cointelegraph that “traditional multisig implementations can introduce additional complexity involving signer coordination, key backups, recovery procedures, and transaction approvals.” Each of those steps creates additional points where users can misunderstand, misconfigure, or fail to follow the correct workflow.
There’s also a limit to what multisig can protect against. Rumalla said multiple signers cannot prevent every attack—particularly if all signers are deceived into signing the same malicious transaction through a shared compromised interface. That distinction matters for investors and users: multisig can improve resilience to certain key-loss scenarios, but it does not automatically solve human-targeting threats or compromised UX surfaces.
Seedless wallets cut one risk—then relocate others
Seedless wallet designs aim to remove the recovery phrase from the center of self-custody by using the wallet’s physical components as the access layer. Tangem described this approach as simplifying custody by eliminating the need to manage a recovery phrase; instead, users must safeguard the devices.
Cointelegraph reported that Tangem generates a private key on one card and creates backup copies stored on up to two additional devices. Tangem confirmed to Cointelegraph that losing every card would permanently lock users out of their funds, while also stating it had received no reports of users losing all their cards.
However, seedless does not automatically fix transaction authorization risk. Cointelegraph quoted Zach Herbert, CEO of Foundation, who said seedless backups can preserve self-custody—but criticized Tangem’s lack of a built-in screen. Without a dedicated display, users may rely on their smartphones to verify transaction details before approving.
Herbert’s concern was direct: “An attacker does not need to extract your private key if they can trick you into authorizing a transaction that empties your wallet.” That frames an important trade-off for buyers evaluating wallet designs: reducing recovery-phrase exposure does not eliminate the broader question of whether users can reliably confirm what they are signing.
Rumalla’s broader point—that self-custody shouldn’t require users to become security specialists—becomes especially relevant here. If the user experience relies too heavily on external devices or non-dedicated verification flows, it may shift the security model toward social engineering and interface deception rather than cryptographic safeguards alone.
What to watch as wallet makers compete
With hardware wallet supply-chain concerns still part of the public conversation and competing architectures emphasizing different trade-offs, the next phase of self-custody innovation may hinge less on claiming “offline equals safe,” and more on designing workflows that minimize user error and deception risk. For readers deciding how to hold crypto, the key question going forward is whether usability improvements reduce the need for specialized security knowledge while still enabling trustworthy transaction confirmation.
As new wallet features roll out, investors and users should watch for evidence around two areas: how products handle recovery and device-loss scenarios in practice, and how transaction verification is implemented—especially the extent to which user confirmation depends on potentially compromised screens or interfaces.
This article was originally published as Was Crypto Self-Custody Built for Beginners? A Usability Review on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin slipped again at the start of Friday’s US session, briefly falling below $81,000 as broader risk sentiment softened and energy markets accelerated. At the same time, Brent crude climbed to a fresh seven-month high, underscoring how geopolitical risk is feeding directly into macro conditions that traders watch for crypto exposure.
Market data cited by TradingView showed BTC/USD down to around $80,988 before recovering toward $81,600. The near-term focus for many traders is whether Bitcoin can reclaim its 50-day simple moving average near $81,781—an inflection point that could determine whether recent weakness holds or extends.
Key takeaways
BTC briefly dipped under $81,000 during the Wall Street open before rebounding toward roughly $81,600.
Brent crude surged to about $116 per barrel for the first time since March 19 amid Middle East tensions.
US stocks fell at the open, while the 10-year Treasury yield stayed under 5%, supporting—but not fully stabilizing—risk appetite.
Traders are watching the $81,781 level (50-day SMA); failure to reclaim it by the daily close could invite retests lower.
Recent analysis highlights a potential support zone between $80,000 and $81,500 tied to spot Bitcoin ETF cost basis concentration.
Stocks soften as oil prices push higher
Bitcoin’s dip tracked a broader shift at the open. According to TradingView data referenced in the report, BTC/USD slipped to $80,988 before moving back toward $81,600. US indices were also weaker: the S&P 500 was down about 0.6% and the Nasdaq Composite about 0.2% at the time of writing, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell roughly 1.4%.
One reason the decline did not immediately look like a full risk-off collapse was that bond yields remained comparatively contained. The US 10-year Treasury yield was below 5% and had reached 4.939% on Thursday, its lowest level since Sept. 23, according to the same market snapshot.
Still, the macro driver gaining attention was energy. WTI crude moved above $102 per barrel—its highest since Sept. 16—while Brent crude climbed nearly 3% to around $116. Brent last traded at that level in mid-March, reflecting the market’s pricing of heightened supply and disruption risk tied to Middle East tensions.
Economist Robin Brooks, in analysis published via Substack, argued that the rise in prices occurred alongside oil flows approaching pre-war levels for many nations, noting a “huge risk premium.” He described the current pricing as a notable decoupling between prices and flows since the start of the war, suggesting that geopolitical fear may be dominating fundamentals in the short term.
Why macro volatility matters for Bitcoin’s near-term chart
For traders, the connection between traditional markets and Bitcoin often shows up quickly when rates, equities, and commodities all move in tandem. In this session, weaker equity performance and higher oil prices created a more cautious tone, while cooling bond yields helped limit the magnitude of the selloff.
Bitcoin’s intraday behavior appears to fit that framework: the move below $81,000 looks less like an idiosyncratic crypto catalyst and more like a response to shifting expectations across broader markets. That matters because if oil-driven risk premia keep rising while equities remain fragile, Bitcoin could face additional downward pressure even if yields do not continue climbing.
Conversely, if bond yields stay anchored and equity weakness fades, BTC may find it easier to stabilize around key technical levels instead of slipping further. That makes the 50-day moving average a practical checkpoint for short-horizon decision-making.
Traders zero in on the 50-day SMA near $81,781
Technical commentary in the report emphasized the importance of Bitcoin reclaiming its 50-day simple moving average at $81,781. Keith Alan, cofounder of crypto trading platform Material Indicators, said bulls are attempting to retake that moving average by the daily close. If they do not, Alan pointed to the possibility of a support test in the $78,000 to $80,000 area.
The $81,781 level is significant because moving averages often act as dynamic resistance or support during trend transitions. When price is hovering just below or above such averages, traders typically watch not only direction, but also how quickly Bitcoin can regain the level and hold it on a closing basis.
That closing-basis focus is also a clue about what could change next: a failure to reclaim the 50-day SMA could signal that the current weakness is not yet “spent,” increasing the odds of a deeper move. A successful reclaim, however, would suggest selling pressure is easing and that the market may be willing to defend the trend line rather than unwind further.
Spot ETF cost-basis area adds a potential floor
The report also referenced earlier coverage from Cointelegraph that identified a meaningful support range between $80,000 and $81,500. That zone was described as important because it aligns with the aggregate cost basis for investors in spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs).
This matters because cost-basis-driven demand can change the probability of how far a market falls during a technical breakdown. If BTC revisits the $80,000 to $81,500 region and ETF-linked holders are positioned to absorb selling, price may stabilize sooner than it would in a purely technical selloff.
At the same time, support zones are rarely guaranteed—especially when macro variables such as oil and equity volatility remain in play. The immediate question for traders is whether Bitcoin can first reclaim the 50-day SMA; if it cannot, the market may test that lower cost-basis window for confirmation.
Going forward, readers should watch two things closely: whether BTC can recover and close above the $81,781 50-day SMA, and whether the oil-led risk premium narrative continues to push crude higher alongside weak equity sentiment. The interaction of those factors could determine whether the current dip resolves into a range or develops into a deeper correction.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Holds Above $81K as Brent Oil Reaches March High on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

New York Attorney General Letitia James has asked a court to compel the founders of the defunct crypto and forex trading platform NovaTech—Cynthia and Eddy Petion—and related entities to pay $1.37 billion tied to a Ponzi scheme. The request follows a default ruling issued after the defendants did not respond to the lawsuit.
According to a Thursday court filing, the AG seeks the return of roughly $1.13 billion in investor funds, plus $232.5 million in interest. If granted, the judgment would mark another major enforcement action aimed at recovering losses for victims of NovaTech and a related scheme, AWS Mining.
Key takeaways
The New York AG is seeking a $1.37 billion court order against NovaTech founders Cynthia and Eddy Petion and associated companies.
The filing requests $1.13 billion in returned investor funds plus $232.5 million in interest.
Default liability was entered in August 2025 after defendants failed to respond to the AG’s lawsuit.
The complaint alleges roughly $1.16 billion was deposited into NovaTech crypto wallets from August 2019 to May 2023, with only about $26 million routed to the trading provider B2Broker.
The motion also asks for about $6.15 million, including interest, relating to AWS Mining, which collapsed in 2019.
Default ruling sets up a recovery push
The AG’s latest move comes after the court found the Petions and related entities liable by default in August 2025. Default judgments typically occur when defendants do not participate in the litigation, leaving the court to decide based on the evidence and claims presented by the plaintiff—in this case, the New York Attorney General’s Office.
In its Thursday filing, the Attorney General frames the request as a path toward returning investor funds and compensating victims for the delay and value lost over time through interest. For investors, these steps matter because a favorable ruling is often a prerequisite for meaningful recovery efforts, including potential asset tracing and enforcement actions.
How NovaTech allegedly operated
In describing the scheme, the AG’s office said more than 11,000 New Yorkers lost tens of millions of dollars through NovaTech and an earlier crypto mining operation known as AWS Mining. The complaint alleges promoters targeted Haitian and other immigrant communities, using prayer groups as well as social media and WhatsApp channels to market the program.
According to the AG, the promotional pitch included promises of high returns and recruitment bonuses—elements commonly associated with Ponzi-style schemes because they incentivize early participants to bring in others, often regardless of any legitimate underlying trading or investment activity.
The filing further states that investors deposited about $1.16 billion into NovaTech’s crypto wallets between August 2019 and May 2023. Yet, only about $26 million of that amount was deposited with the platform’s trading provider, B2Broker, for trading, as described by the attorney general. The large discrepancy is central to the AG’s argument that the platform did not operate as a bona fide trading service.
Deposits, trading flows, and the gap investors couldn’t withdraw
The AG’s account of fund flows may help explain why withdrawals became impossible when the platform collapsed. NovaTech ultimately went down in 2023, leaving tens of thousands of investors unable to access their money.
While the filing’s figures focus on wallet deposits and routing to the trading provider, the practical takeaway for investors is that “on-chain” activity alone does not confirm legitimate investment outcomes. In NovaTech’s case, the AG alleges that most of the money was not used for trading in the way customers were led to believe.
The motion therefore seeks not only to establish responsibility but also to quantify damages. By asking for both the return of principal and interest, the Attorney General’s office is effectively arguing that victims should be made whole as closely as possible for the funds tied up over years.
A second target: AWS Mining and related losses
Alongside NovaTech, the Attorney General’s motion also extends to AWS Mining. The filing separately seeks about $6.15 million, including interest, over the earlier scheme.
As described in the AG’s broader case, AWS Mining collapsed in 2019. NovaTech then collapsed in 2023. The two failures are linked in the complaint, and the AG’s efforts reflect a broader pattern of enforcement aimed at recovering funds across multiple related offerings.
The Petions and related entities were sued as part of the AG’s action filed in June 2024 against NovaTech, AWS Mining, and other associated companies. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph discussed the lawsuit and the alleged issues surrounding NovaTech’s representations.
Settlement activity shows parallel pressure on promoters
Separately, four individuals who allegedly recruited investors into NovaTech agreed to pay nearly $6 million in settlements designed to benefit victims, according to the New York Attorney General’s Office. While that amount is far smaller than the $1.37 billion request directed at the founders and related entities, settlements can still play an important role in victim recovery and can reduce the number of remaining disputes.
For victims, the larger question is how any recovered funds—whether from settlements or from enforcement of a judgment—are allocated. Cointelegraph reported that it sought comment from the New York Attorney General’s Office on distribution mechanics and enforcement steps, but had not received a response by the time of publication.
What happens next for enforcement and victim recovery
The court will need to decide whether to grant the AG’s requested order and the specific scope of the recovery amounts. Even with a judgment, investors will still need to rely on enforcement and asset recovery efforts—processes that can take time and may be influenced by the availability of recoverable funds. Readers following the case should watch for developments on how the court frames liability and how the AG plans to distribute any recovered assets to NovaTech victims.
This article was originally published as New York AG Wants $1.37B From NovaTech Founders in Ponzi Case on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

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.

Bitcoin hovered below $82,000 ahead of the US Wall Street open on Friday, extending a pullback that followed renewed market worries about financing costs for AI-linked infrastructure. After slipping more than 3% on Thursday, BTC briefly traded under $81,000 as broader equities weakened.
Trading data compiled by Cointelegraph/TradingView showed the pair stabilizing after a drop of about 3.2% on Thursday, with Bitstamp printing a low near $80,840. The selloff was mirrored in risk assets, where attention turned again to the health of neocloud and AI infrastructure spending.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin held below $82,000 after Thursday’s decline pushed it briefly under $81,000, with Bitstamp lows around $80,840.
CoreWeave’s sharp move—down to 17-month lows and about 15.5% lower for the week to date by the end of Thursday’s US session—revived concerns about credit stress in AI infrastructure.
Crypto markets saw heavy leverage unwinds: $336 million in total liquidations over 24 hours (to noon UTC), including $281 million from long positions.
US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded net outflows of $635 million on Thursday, the largest single-day drawdown since late June, according to Cointelegraph coverage of ETF flow data.
AI financing stress spills into market sentiment
A central driver behind the renewed risk-off tone was the market’s focus on whether AI infrastructure spending remains sustainable as capital becomes more expensive. Crypto trading firm QCP Capital argued that concerns about profitability and the cost of insuring major players against default have started to spill across the broader neocloud infrastructure complex, feeding into equity weakness.
CoreWeave, a neocloud provider, stood out among the decliners. By Thursday’s close in the US, its stock was down about 15.5% for the week to date and was trading at levels last seen around May 2025. The weakness was also linked to a Bernstein downgrade, cited in the report as moving a price target from $74 to $51.
The same pressure was visible beyond single-stock moves. QCP Capital noted that credit stress spreading across neocloud infrastructure is contributing to wider equity market weakness as investors reassess capital expenditure commitments and expected profitability for technology firms dependent on ongoing AI infrastructure buildouts.
Markets look to capital scarcity highlighted by Nvidia
That view is consistent with concerns voiced by Nvidia’s leadership. In comments reported by CNBC on Thursday, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang described a “scarcity of capital” affecting neocloud buildouts specifically. He said demand for capital exceeds availability.
Crypto-related coverage earlier this week had already flagged a related theme in corporate spending: Cointelegraph previously pointed to Tesla reporting lower-than-expected capital expenditure even as its Q3 results broadly met market expectations. In that context, QCP Capital said capex figures “reinforced concerns that elevated financing costs will constrain the pace of artificial intelligence infrastructure buildout” and could reduce return profiles for capital-intensive projects.
For Bitcoin traders, the significance is straightforward: when equity markets reprice growth expectations—especially in sectors tied to heavy upfront investment—liquidity and risk appetite often tighten, raising the odds of volatility in highly liquid, macro-sensitive crypto markets.
Leverage unwinds and ETF outflows deepen the downside
The crypto selloff translated quickly into market structure. CoinGlass data, as reported by Cointelegraph, showed cross-crypto liquidations totaling $336 million over the 24 hours leading up to noon UTC, including $281 million of long positions. The pattern suggested traders were caught off guard as BTC returned toward the lower boundary of its recent trading range.
Bitcoin’s local zone had been roughly between $80,000 and $87,000, and Thursday’s move back toward the lower end proved costly for leverage. This matters because liquidations can create feedback loops: long positions forced out reduce bids, which can drive prices lower and trigger additional stop-outs or margin calls.
Spot Bitcoin ETF flows also reflected fading demand. Cointelegraph reported that US spot Bitcoin ETFs experienced net outflows of $635 million on Thursday. The figure was described as the largest single-day drawdown since late June, underscoring that the pressure was not limited to spot crypto exchanges—traditional allocation vehicles also saw investors pull capital.
What to watch next as the range battle continues
With BTC still capped below $82,000 after Thursday’s breakdown attempts, investors are likely to track whether the neocloud “credit stress” narrative continues to worsen in equities and whether ETF outflows persist. If leverage liquidations cool and ETF flows stabilize, the market could regain room to test the upper end of the $80,000–$87,000 range; if not, the downside could remain vulnerable to further macro-driven repricing.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Trades Sideways After 3% Drop as AI-Driven Market Weakness Persists on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

New York Attorney General Letitia James has moved to recover more than $1.3 billion connected to the NovaTech crypto and forex trading scheme, asking a court to require NovaTech’s founders, Cynthia and Eddy Petion, and related entities to pay $1.37 billion. The request includes the return of roughly $1.13 billion in alleged investor funds plus $232.5 million in interest, according to a court filing submitted Thursday.
The lawsuit’s procedural path has been swift. In August 2025, the court found the Petions and affiliated companies liable by default after they did not respond to the claims. The new motion focuses on the amount the court should order and expands the effort to recover additional funds tied to an earlier collapsed scheme.
Key takeaways
The New York Attorney General is seeking $1.37 billion from NovaTech’s founders and related companies, including $1.13 billion in returned funds and $232.5 million in interest.
The liability finding stems from an August 2025 default judgment after Cynthia and Eddy Petion failed to respond to the lawsuit.
The filing alleges investors deposited about $1.16 billion into NovaTech between August 2019 and May 2023, but only about $26 million was deposited with trading provider B2Broker.
The AG’s motion also seeks approximately $6.15 million, including interest, tied to AWS Mining, which collapsed in 2019.
According to the AG, more than 11,000 New Yorkers lost tens of millions of dollars through NovaTech and AWS Mining, with recruitment efforts aimed at immigrant communities.
What the AG is asking the court to order
In the Thursday filing, New York’s top prosecutor argues for a large monetary judgment tied to the alleged Ponzi scheme. As outlined by the AG, the amount requested is $1.37 billion in total damages—comprised of approximately $1.13 billion in investor funds and $232.5 million in interest.
The filing also describes the mechanism of the alleged fraud: investors placed money into NovaTech accounts, and the AG claims that only a small fraction of those deposits was actually used for trading activity. Specifically, the court motion states that from August 2019 through May 2023, investors deposited about $1.16 billion into NovaTech’s crypto wallets, while only about $26 million was deposited with the platform’s trading provider, B2Broker, for execution.
Allegations of investor losses and recruitment tactics
The AG’s broader complaint, filed in June 2024 (as earlier coverage by Cointelegraph noted in relation to licensing and misrepresentation claims), described a strategy aimed at building trust and expanding recruitment through community-based channels. According to the AG’s account, promoters targeted Haitian and other immigrant communities using prayer groups, social media, and WhatsApp.
The complaint alleges that the scheme encouraged participation through promises of high returns and recruitment bonuses. As the AG’s office later stated, more than 11,000 New Yorkers lost tens of millions of dollars through NovaTech and an earlier crypto mining scheme called AWS Mining.
NovaTech itself collapsed in 2023, leaving large numbers of investors unable to withdraw funds. AWS Mining had already collapsed years earlier, in 2019, before NovaTech’s 2019–2023 deposit window cited in the new filing.
Default liability and the parallel case over AWS Mining
One of the most consequential developments in the NovaTech matter is the default ruling. In August 2025, the court held the Petions and related companies liable by default after they did not answer the lawsuit. With that liability already established, the focus shifts to how much money the court should require the defendants to pay.
The Thursday motion also extends beyond NovaTech. It seeks about $6.15 million, including interest, tied to AWS Mining. That scheme collapsed in 2019, and the AG’s filings describe it as part of a broader pattern of alleged crypto-related fraud affecting New Yorkers.
Settlements from recruiters and what victims may receive
Alongside the effort to secure a large judgment against the founders and affiliated entities, the AG’s office reported separate settlements involving four individuals who recruited investors into NovaTech. Those agreements, according to the AG, require nearly $6 million in payments intended to benefit victims.
Cointelegraph previously sought comment from the New York Attorney General’s Office about how any recovered money would be distributed to victims and what enforcement steps might follow the judgment, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
For investors and victims watching the case, the key question is not only whether a judgment is entered, but how collectible the amounts are in practice—particularly given that the defendants did not participate in the litigation and that the alleged scheme involved complex flows of funds through crypto wallets and exchanges.
In the Thursday filing, the AG cites investor deposits into NovaTech wallets and describes limited movement of funds into trading activity via B2Broker.
Why this update matters for crypto enforcement
This latest motion underscores how state prosecutors are still working to convert fraud allegations into concrete recoveries, even when defendants fail to defend themselves in court. The detailed accounting—such as the comparison between total deposits into NovaTech wallets and the smaller amount said to have been routed to trading—helps anchor the AG’s request for damages and may strengthen the likelihood of an enforceable order.
At the same time, the case illustrates a familiar enforcement tension in crypto fraud: large nominal judgments can be difficult to realize if assets are dispersed, unavailable, or already depleted. The settlements reported by the AG, plus the default liability finding, indicate an ongoing push to compensate victims—while the next phase will likely center on whether and how courts and prosecutors can track, recover, and distribute funds at scale.
Going forward, readers should watch for the court’s response to the AG’s monetary request and any subsequent enforcement steps—especially how the state plans to handle victim distribution and asset recovery after the default judgment and parallel claims tied to AWS Mining.
This article was originally published as NY AG Pursues $1.37B From NovaTech Founders Over Alleged Ponzi on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Self-custody is often promoted as the “default” way to hold Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies—but a growing debate among industry executives is testing that assumption. In recent comments to Cointelegraph, Safe Labs CEO Rahul Rumalla argued that self-custody was always meant for everyone, while Onramp CEO Michael Tanguma said the model still isn’t built for newcomers.
The disagreement comes as real-world hardware wallet incidents have underlined that “self-custody” doesn’t automatically mean “risk-free.” According to Cointelegraph, implants in some Ledger devices were linked to stolen recovery phrases, while a Coldcard firmware bug allegedly enabled attackers to recreate private keys and drain funds. The question for investors and builders now is less whether self-custody is valuable, and more how it can be made usable without quietly increasing other attack surfaces.
Key takeaways
Executives disagree on whether self-custody was designed for beginners or whether the current approach mainly serves experienced users.
Multisignature (multisig) can improve security, but it adds operational complexity that may challenge new users.
Even multisig doesn’t fully eliminate risk if all signers can be deceived through a compromised or misleading interface.
Seedless wallet designs reduce exposure to seed phrases, but they shift responsibility to physical device safety and may rely on phone-based transaction verification.
Usability vs. “be your own bank”
Bitcoin’s appeal for many holders is that it enables users to control their assets directly, without intermediaries. Rumalla emphasized that the principle remains central: owning and controlling funds is “the whole point of crypto,” he told Cointelegraph.
However, Tanguma framed the problem differently. In his view, self-custody was never designed for people who are new to the technology. He compared the evolution of Bitcoin custody to the early era of personal computers in the 1970s, when assembling and operating systems required technical skills. As computers became more accessible, the idea of “users as mechanics” gave way to simpler interfaces for everyday owners.
Rumalla responded by saying self-custody should be possible for everyone, and clarified that “self-custody does not mean doing everything yourself.” That nuance matters for practical adoption: it suggests a path where users can retain control while still relying on interfaces, tooling, or structured backup flows that reduce human error.
Hardware wallet incidents sharpen the debate
The push for better usability is occurring alongside reminders that hardware wallets—and the broader concept of keeping private keys offline—aren’t a complete shield.
Cointelegraph previously reported that “implants” in some Ledger devices were associated with recovery phrase theft, undermining the assumption that offline key storage automatically prevents compromises. In another case highlighted by Cointelegraph, a Coldcard firmware issue was linked to an attacker’s ability to recreate private keys and steal funds.
For investors, these incidents shift the decision-making process from a simple question (“Is this a hardware wallet?”) to a more nuanced one (“How is signing verified, and what does the system do when the software or supply chain is compromised?”). For builders, they also reinforce that usability improvements must be engineered alongside stronger verification and recovery protections—not treated as separate concerns.
Multisig: stronger by design, harder in practice
Multisignature wallets require multiple keys to authorize a transaction, a structure intended to limit the damage from a single compromised component. But executors who spoke to Cointelegraph stressed that multisig can be difficult to implement and operate safely.
Synergy Network’s CTO, Justin Hutzler, warned that traditional multisig implementations can create additional complexity around signer coordination, key backups, recovery procedures, and transaction approvals. In other words, improving security often requires more moving parts—each of which can become a source of confusion or mistakes for non-experts.
There’s also the question of how multisig behaves under real attacks. Rumalla noted that multiple signers still cannot prevent every scenario if all of them are deceived by the same compromised interface. That observation points to a deeper issue: multisig is robust against certain key-compromise pathways, but it may not protect users from social-engineering or from malicious software that manipulates what signers believe they are approving.
Seedless wallets remove one risk, shift others
Another approach to beginner-friendly self-custody is reducing or eliminating dependence on recovery phrases. Tangem highlighted its seedless design as an attempt to simplify ownership by removing the need to manage a traditional recovery phrase. Instead, users secure access by protecting physical devices.
According to Cointelegraph, Tangem says a private key is generated on one card, with backup copies stored on up to two additional devices. The company confirmed that if users lose every card, they would be permanently locked out of funds. Tangem also told Cointelegraph it had not received reports of users losing all of their cards.
But a seedless design doesn’t automatically solve the signing problem. Foundation’s CEO, Zach Herbert, argued that while seedless backups can preserve self-custody, Tangem’s approach lacks a built-in screen. As Herbert put it, the reliance on smartphones for transaction verification introduces a vulnerability: an attacker might not need to extract a private key if they can trick a user into authorizing a malicious transfer.
That critique underscores a recurring tension in wallet design: reducing one class of risk (for example, seed phrase theft) can concentrate risk elsewhere—especially around user confirmation and trusted display/verification. The most secure workflow is ultimately the one that reliably shows users what they’re signing, even when surrounding software is untrusted.
Executives appear to agree on one core point: making self-custody work for everyday users requires careful engineering, not just new backup formats or extra signing steps. For readers, the most important watch items are whether wallet products pair usability features with stronger transaction verification and clearer protections against interface-based deception—especially as hardware wallet incidents continue to shape expectations.
This article was originally published as Crypto Self-Custody Not Built for Beginners: Design Tradeoffs on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin Core says it is revising how it discloses security vulnerabilities, acknowledging that modern AI tools—especially large language models—can make certain flaws far easier to find and reproduce. In an email to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List, Bitcoin Core developer Antoine Poinsot argued that the traditional approach of keeping details secret for an extended embargo period no longer provides much added safety in some cases.
Under the updated policy, vulnerabilities judged “easily discoverable” will receive faster fixes across all maintained major versions, with security advisories released alongside the updates. Other bugs will still follow time-based schedules tied to severity and software release cycles.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin Core is moving away from long disclosure embargoes for flaws that are “easily discoverable,” including issues that can be found with “a simple LLM prompt,” according to the updated policy.
For the new category, fixes should be rolled out as soon as possible across all maintained major versions, with advisories published at the same time as the fix.
Low-severity vulnerabilities will be disclosed two weeks after a fixed major version is released, while medium/high issues will be disclosed two weeks after the last affected release reaches end-of-life.
Bitcoin Core indicates critical bugs are handled outside the standard policy, likely through an ad-hoc process.
Why Bitcoin Core is changing its disclosure approach
Historically, many open-source projects use disclosure embargoes: they keep vulnerability details private for a period to give users time to upgrade before the broader public learns what to look for. Poinsot told the Bitcoin Development Mailing List that this approach can delay the availability of a fixed release without providing meaningful protection when vulnerabilities are straightforward to rediscover.
In the email, Poinsot said that the embargo period “achieves little but it delays the availability of a fixed release,” adding that Bitcoin Core would therefore adjust its disclosure policy to account for this reality.
The underlying shift is tied to how security research is changing. Poinsot noted that AI-assisted discovery efforts can rapidly surface bugs, compressing the time between “unknown flaw” and “practically usable exploit path.” That environment changes the value of withholding details: if attackers can reproduce the issue quickly anyway, delayed disclosure may primarily postpone defensive updates rather than meaningfully reduce risk.
How the updated policy will work
Bitcoin Core’s updated security advisory policy, posted on its security advisories page, introduces a clear distinction between vulnerabilities that require traditional scheduling and those that don’t.
Under the new classification, “easily discoverable” vulnerabilities will be fixed promptly across all maintained major versions, and the corresponding security advisory will be published alongside the updates. Bitcoin Core explicitly describes this category as covering issues that can be found with minimal effort, including through a “simple LLM prompt.”
The policy also preserves disclosure timelines for other vulnerabilities based on severity and release lifecycle:
Low-severity vulnerabilities: disclosed two weeks after the release of a major version containing the fix.
Medium and high vulnerabilities: disclosed two weeks after the last affected release reaches “End of Life,” which is typically a year after the fix ships in the new major version.
Bitcoin Core also stated that critical bugs are not covered by the standard schedule, saying they would most likely require an ad-hoc procedure instead. This implies that the project expects the most dangerous issues to trigger a different operational response than routine patching and timed advisory publication.
What this means for users running older releases
One of the most consequential practical implications of disclosure timing is upgrade pressure—especially for systems not updated immediately. Bitcoin Core previously reflected an approach in which secrecy around vulnerability details could limit how quickly fixes were backported, leaving users to wait until the next major release cycle for relief. Poinsot’s argument focuses on removing that friction when AI tools reduce the protective value of secrecy.
By prioritizing prompt backporting for “easily discoverable” issues, Bitcoin Core is effectively trying to shorten the window in which operators remain exposed due to their version staying on older release lines. For node operators, wallet integrators, and any downstream systems dependent on Bitcoin Core releases, the update underscores that “waiting for the next major version” may be less defensible for some bug classes.
That said, the policy change is not an across-the-board move to immediate disclosure for every vulnerability. Bitcoin Core’s distinction by severity suggests that it still intends to balance transparency and operational readiness, with the biggest acceleration reserved for cases where the difficulty of finding the flaw is already low.
The broader context: AI security research is pressuring the whole stack
The timing of Bitcoin Core’s policy update aligns with increasing reports of AI-generated vulnerability discovery across the Bitcoin ecosystem. In August, the volunteer Bitcoin Red Team reported nearly 5,000 potential issues across 390 projects, noting that only about a fifth of its findings had been reproduced at the time. Other development circles responded to AI-driven reports by urging operators to upgrade or even take nodes offline while waiting for verified remediation.
Cointelegraph previously reported that Core Lightning developers urged operators to upgrade or take nodes offline after multiple AI-generated vulnerability reports, while another coverage highlighted instances where technical details were withheld for two weeks. Although those stories refer to different software components and disclosure decisions, they reflect a shared tension: when AI tooling rapidly produces plausible vulnerabilities, developers must decide how to prevent premature disclosure from causing panic or unnecessary disruption—without letting the defensive timeline drag.
Bitcoin Core’s revised stance indicates it believes that, for certain bug types, the equilibrium has shifted. If adversaries can quickly find the same weaknesses using widely available tools, delaying fixes becomes a bigger liability than publishing details immediately with patches.
Looking ahead: watch how “easily discoverable” is applied
Bitcoin Core’s policy introduces a category that depends on practical classification—what counts as “easily discoverable” and how consistently that standard is applied. The next advisories released under the updated approach will be the clearest test of how the project operationalizes the rule and how quickly maintained versions receive synchronized fixes.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Core Updates Security Policy as AI Speeds Bug Discovery on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

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.

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.