TheCoinrise Media

The latest inflow figure caps a stretch that has pulled in $2.8 billion and helped offset earlier outflows
U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs added $191 million in net inflows, according to figures reported across multiple outlets tracking daily fund flow data. The inflow extends a six-day streak of positive activity that has now accumulated roughly $2.8 billion, based on Cointelegraph's reporting.
Cointelegraph characterized the $191 million figure as a slowdown compared to the pace seen earlier in the streak. Blockchain.News, by contrast, framed the same window as evidence of a surge tied to a rebound in institutional demand. Both descriptions point to the same underlying inflow data but emphasize different parts of the trend.
CoinDesk reported that the ETF complex has erased a $5.8 billion hole, referring to an earlier period of net outflows that had weighed on the funds. That recovery suggests the recent streak of inflows has not just added new capital but has also reversed losses accumulated during a prior stretch of redemptions.
Spot Bitcoin ETFs have become a primary channel through which institutional and retail investors gain regulated exposure to Bitcoin without holding the asset directly. Daily flow data for these products is closely watched as a proxy for sentiment among larger, more risk-conscious investors. Sustained inflows are generally read as a sign of renewed confidence, while outflow periods can signal caution or profit-taking.
The six-day streak comes after a period in which the ETFs saw net redemptions large enough to create the $5.8 billion shortfall cited by CoinDesk. Fund flows in the ETF market have shown volatility throughout the year, reflecting broader swings in risk appetite across crypto and traditional markets alike. The latest figures indicate that capital has been returning to these products, even if the pace on any single day has varied.
Market participants often parse daily inflow numbers alongside the broader multi-day trend to judge whether demand is accelerating or cooling. The differing characterizations from Cointelegraph and Blockchain.News illustrate how the same $191 million figure can be read as either a deceleration or a continuation of positive momentum, depending on the comparison point used.
Custody providers, exchanges, and asset managers overseeing these ETFs have not issued separate statements addressing the specific inflow figures cited in this reporting cycle. The data reflects aggregate flows across the suite of U.S.-listed spot Bitcoin funds rather than any single issuer's product.
Market Impact
Sustained net inflows into spot Bitcoin ETFs can influence Bitcoin's spot market by absorbing available supply through authorized participant creation activity. A six-day streak totaling $2.8 billion suggests steady demand from the fund channel, even as the daily pace has fluctuated between reports of slowing and surging activity.
The recovery from a prior $5.8 billion outflow period, as described by CoinDesk, indicates that ETF-driven demand remains sensitive to broader market conditions and can reverse quickly in either direction. Investors and market watchers will likely continue monitoring daily flow data for signs of whether the current streak extends or fades in coming sessions.
The $191 million inflow figure adds to a recent run of positive flows for U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs, though observers differ on whether it signals accelerating or slowing demand. Continued tracking of daily and cumulative flow data will help clarify the trend's durability.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does $191 million in net inflows mean for spot Bitcoin ETFs?
It means investors added $191 million more to these funds than they withdrew on the day in question, contributing to a broader multi-day inflow streak.
Why do reports describe the same data differently?
Cointelegraph framed the figure as a slowdown compared to earlier days in the streak, while Blockchain.News described the broader period as a surge, reflecting different comparison points within the same data set.
What is the $5.8 billion hole referenced by CoinDesk?
It refers to an earlier stretch of net outflows from spot Bitcoin ETFs that reduced the funds' overall assets, which the recent inflow streak has since offset.
How are spot Bitcoin ETF flows tracked?
Fund flow data is compiled from daily creation and redemption activity reported by ETF issuers and aggregated by market data providers and news outlets.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Ethan Mercer. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post US Spot Bitcoin ETFs Post $191M in Net Inflows Amid Six-Day Streak appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

A AMBCrypto e a The Cryptonomist EN cobrem o hack do Duelbits de US$ 7M, mas citam valores diferentes de USDT roubados pelo atacante.
A AMBCrypto e a The Cryptonomist EN cobrem o hack do Duelbits de US$ 7M, mas citam valores diferentes de USDT roubados pelo atacante.
Sobre o que todas as fontes concordam
Hack de cripto na Duelbits drena US$ 7M enquanto o cassino fica offline
O atacante recebeu 836 ETH… 97.000 USDC, 31.500 DAI e 12,4 bilhões de SHIB.
Uma perda de 8,1 BTC da carteira BTC da Duelbits foi detectada mais tarde.
A maior parte dos tokens roubados foi trocada por Ether e reunida em um único endereço.

Reports point to a security incident on the NFT marketplace, with one outlet citing a whitehat rescue of thousands of tokens.
Magic Eden, one of the largest NFT marketplaces in the crypto industry, is facing scrutiny after reports of a possible security exploit. According to crypto.news, thousands of non-fungible tokens moved through the platform for 0 ETH, a pattern that typically signals a flaw in transaction logic or listing mechanics rather than legitimate sales.
Transfers for zero value are a recognized red flag in NFT markets. They often indicate that an attacker found a way to move assets without paying the seller's asking price. Such incidents can stem from smart contract bugs, approval exploits, or manipulated listing data on a marketplace's front end.
The Cryptonomist reported a separate but related detail: a possible whitehat rescue operation that may have preserved 3,832 NFTs during the incident. Whitehat rescues occur when security researchers or allied actors intervene quickly, moving vulnerable assets to safety before bad actors can claim them. The tactic has become more common across decentralized finance and NFT platforms in recent years.
At this stage, the full scope of the Magic Eden incident is not settled. It is unclear how many NFTs were affected in total, which collections were involved, or whether any assets were permanently lost. The relationship between the 0 ETH transfers described by crypto.news and the rescue figure cited by The Cryptonomist has not been fully clarified across the available reporting.
Magic Eden has built a significant footprint across multiple blockchains, including Solana, Ethereum, and Bitcoin-based NFT standards. Its scale makes any marketplace-level vulnerability consequential, since a single exploit can touch a wide range of collections and holders simultaneously. Marketplaces of this size are frequent targets precisely because a flaw affecting core listing or transfer functions can be leveraged repeatedly before it is patched.
NFT exploits differ from typical token hacks in one important respect. Instead of draining a liquidity pool or bridge, attackers often exploit approval permissions or metadata that dictate how an asset can be listed, priced, or transferred. A flaw allowing 0 ETH transfers would suggest that the marketplace's pricing or payment verification logic was bypassed in some fashion.
Historically, incidents involving mass zero-value transfers have prompted marketplaces to pause certain contract functions, revoke compromised approvals, or coordinate with security firms to trace stolen assets. Whether Magic Eden has taken any of these steps has not been confirmed in the available reporting.
The crypto industry has seen a string of NFT marketplace vulnerabilities in past years, ranging from listing manipulation to signature replay attacks. Each case has underscored the importance of smart contract audits and rapid incident response, particularly for platforms handling high volumes of daily transactions.
Market Impact
A confirmed exploit at a marketplace of Magic Eden's size could weigh on NFT trading volumes in the short term, as holders and traders reassess platform security. NFT markets are highly sentiment-driven, and reports of mass zero-value transfers can quickly dampen listing activity even before losses are fully quantified.
If the whitehat rescue figure cited by The Cryptonomist is confirmed, it could limit the financial fallout for affected collectors and support confidence that intervention mechanisms in the NFT ecosystem are improving. Broader market impact will likely depend on how quickly Magic Eden clarifies the scope of the incident and communicates any remediation steps to users.
Details of the Magic Eden incident are still emerging, and readers should treat early figures on affected NFTs and rescued assets as preliminary pending further confirmation from the platform.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happened on Magic Eden?
Reports indicate a possible exploit on the NFT marketplace, with thousands of NFTs reportedly transferring for 0 ETH instead of their listed prices.
What is a whitehat rescue?
A whitehat rescue is when security-minded actors move vulnerable digital assets to safety during an exploit, preventing them from being claimed by attackers.
How many NFTs were reportedly saved?
The Cryptonomist reported that a whitehat rescue may have preserved 3,832 NFTs, though this figure has not been independently verified by other reporting.
Has Magic Eden confirmed the exploit?
Available reporting describes the incident as a possible exploit under investigation, without confirmation from Magic Eden on its full scope or cause.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Sophia Bennett. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Magic Eden Probes Possible Exploit After Thousands of NFTs Transfer for 0 ETH appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

The exchange halted withdrawals after a hot wallet compromise, with its CEO pointing to IP address clues.
Bitget's chief executive publicly confirmed a security breach affecting $351.6 million in digital assets. The funds were held in the exchange's hot wallet infrastructure, according to the company's disclosure. Hot wallets are connected to the internet for faster transaction processing, which makes them more exposed than offline cold storage.
The exchange responded by suspending customer withdrawals shortly after detecting the breach. Suspending withdrawals is a standard containment step exchanges take to stop further outflows while they assess the scope of a compromise. It also gives security teams time to trace the movement of stolen funds across blockchains.
Bitget's CEO said the company suspects North Korean state-linked hackers were behind the intrusion. The suspicion is based on IP address clues uncovered during the investigation, according to the CEO's statement. North Korean hacking groups, most notably the Lazarus Group, have been repeatedly linked by investigators and government agencies to major cryptocurrency thefts over the past several years.
Those groups have historically targeted exchange hot wallets, bridge contracts, and custodial infrastructure to extract large sums quickly before assets can be frozen or traced. Stolen funds are often laundered through mixers, cross-chain bridges, and decentralized exchanges to obscure their origin. Attribution in these cases is frequently difficult to confirm with full certainty, even when technical indicators like IP addresses point in a particular direction.
The $351.6 million figure places this incident among the larger hot wallet breaches reported in the crypto industry this year. The exact breakdown of which assets were affected, and whether any funds have since been recovered or frozen, was not detailed in the available disclosures. Bitget has not specified a timeline for restoring withdrawal functionality.
Exchanges that suffer large breaches typically face pressure to demonstrate they can cover user losses from company reserves, insurance funds, or external backers. How an exchange handles the aftermath, including communication with affected users and any compensation plans, often shapes its long-term reputation more than the breach itself. Bitget's next public updates are likely to focus on the investigation's findings and any steps taken to secure remaining customer funds.
Market Impact
A breach of this size on a major exchange typically raises short-term concerns among users about counterparty and custody risk. Withdrawal suspensions can trigger anxiety even among unaffected users, since they limit access to funds regardless of whether an individual account was compromised. Traders and depositors often react by moving assets to other platforms or into self-custody until an exchange restores full functionality and clarifies the scope of losses.
The suspected North Korean link, if substantiated by further investigation, would add this incident to a broader pattern of state-linked theft targeting the crypto industry. That pattern has already drawn attention from regulators and law enforcement agencies internationally. Continued high-profile breaches tend to intensify calls for stronger custody standards, proof-of-reserves practices, and closer scrutiny of exchange hot wallet management across the industry.
Bitget's investigation into the breach and its attempts to trace the stolen funds are ongoing. Further details on recovery efforts, withdrawal restoration, and any formal attribution are expected as the exchange continues its review.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Bitget confirm about the security breach?
Bitget's CEO confirmed a breach affecting $351.6 million held in the exchange's hot wallets, prompting an internal investigation and a suspension of withdrawals.
Why does Bitget suspect North Korea was involved?
The CEO cited IP address clues uncovered during the investigation as the basis for suspecting North Korean state-linked hackers, though the exchange has not confirmed final attribution.
Are Bitget's withdrawals still suspended?
Bitget suspended withdrawals following the breach as a containment measure while it assesses the incident. No confirmed timeline for restoring withdrawals was disclosed.
What is a hot wallet and why is it a target for hackers?
A hot wallet is a cryptocurrency wallet connected to the internet, used for faster transactions. Its connectivity makes it more vulnerable to hacking than offline cold storage wallets.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Grace Mitchell. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Bitget Confirms $351.6 Million Security Breach, Suspects North Korean Hackers appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

The liquid restaking protocol accuses the cross-chain messaging firm of failures tied to a major loss of user funds
Kelp DAO, the liquid restaking protocol behind the rsETH token, has filed a lawsuit against LayerZero and a co-founder of the cross-chain messaging network. The legal action centers on an exploit reported to have drained roughly $292 million in value tied to rsETH. Kelp DAO argues LayerZero bears responsibility for failures connected to the incident.
LayerZero operates as interoperability infrastructure, allowing tokens and messages to move across different blockchains. Protocols like Kelp DAO rely on such bridges to keep restaked assets synchronized across networks. When cross-chain messaging systems fail or get exploited, the consequences can cascade into the protocols built on top of them.
One report on the matter referenced an entity called Evercrest in connection with the lawsuit against LayerZero, while other coverage identified Kelp DAO directly as the plaintiff pursuing claims tied to the rsETH losses. The exact corporate or legal relationship between Kelp DAO and Evercrest, if any, has not been detailed in available reporting. Readers should treat the naming discrepancy as an open question pending further clarification from the parties involved.
The $292 million figure represents one of the larger losses attributed to a single exploit event in the restaking sector this year. Restaking protocols pool staked ether and related assets, then extend that value across additional networks and applications to generate further yield. That layered structure has expanded the attack surface available to exploiters, since a vulnerability in a single dependency, such as cross-chain messaging, can expose funds across an entire ecosystem of connected products.
Legal action against infrastructure providers marks an escalation in how DeFi protocols respond to exploits. Historically, many hacks were addressed through negotiated bounty payments, community treasury reimbursements, or silent write-offs. A formal lawsuit signals that affected parties increasingly view courts, rather than on-chain governance alone, as a venue for recovering losses and assigning liability.
LayerZero has not issued a public response detailed in current reporting. The company has positioned itself as core infrastructure for cross-chain applications, and any liability finding could carry implications well beyond its relationship with Kelp DAO, given how widely its messaging protocol is integrated across decentralized finance.
The case also raises broader questions about how responsibility gets allocated when multiple layers of software, from token contracts to bridging protocols, contribute to a single point of failure. Courts have limited precedent for resolving disputes rooted in smart contract architecture and multichain design.
Market Impact
A lawsuit of this size could pressure LayerZero's reputation among protocols that depend on its messaging infrastructure for cross-chain operations. Developers evaluating interoperability providers may factor in litigation risk alongside technical security audits going forward.
For rsETH holders and the broader liquid restaking market, the case underscores the financial exposure tied to infrastructure dependencies. Any court findings on liability could influence how future protocols structure indemnification, insurance, or risk-sharing agreements with third-party infrastructure vendors.
The lawsuit places renewed scrutiny on the security responsibilities of cross-chain infrastructure providers within the restaking ecosystem. Further details on both the plaintiff's identity and LayerZero's response are expected as the case proceeds.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Kelp DAO's rsETH token?
rsETH is a liquid restaking token issued by Kelp DAO, representing staked and restaked ether that can be used across other DeFi applications.
What role does LayerZero play in this dispute?
LayerZero provides cross-chain messaging infrastructure that protocols like Kelp DAO use to move assets and data between blockchains, and it is named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
Why is there confusion over who filed the lawsuit?
Different reports have named either Kelp DAO or an entity called Evercrest as the plaintiff, and the precise relationship between the two has not been clarified in available reporting.
How much was reportedly lost in the exploit?
Reports cite a loss of approximately $292 million tied to the rsETH exploit at the center of the lawsuit.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Sophia Bennett. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post $292 Million rsETH Exploit Prompts Kelp DAO Lawsuit Against LayerZero, Co-Founder appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

Toda fase forte de alta do mercado segue o mesmo padrão. Primeiro, os líderes acordam. Em seguida, o capital se espalha para fora, recompensando os projetos que vinham construindo em silêncio enquanto a atenção estava em outro lugar. Essa segunda onda é, muitas vezes, onde são obtidos os ganhos mais dramáticos, e há sinais de que ela já começou. A Cardano registrou um dos seus movimentos semanais mais fortes em meses, e o HYPE da Hyperliquid está apenas abaixo do recorde que estabeleceu nesta semana. Os compradores claramente voltaram, e eles estão buscando a próxima oportunidade.

The agreement ties Akamai's infrastructure business to the growth of Anthropic's AI models rather than a standard cloud contract.
Akamai Technologies has entered into an agreement with Anthropic worth $11.6 billion, according to reports from Cryptopolitan and Forkast. Both outlets indicate the deal's total value could climb as high as $20 billion over time.
The arrangement marks one of the largest infrastructure commitments tied to a single AI company disclosed this year. Anthropic, the developer behind the Claude family of AI models, has been expanding its compute needs rapidly as demand for its products grows. Akamai, long known for content delivery networks and edge computing, has been building out cloud and infrastructure services aimed at large-scale AI workloads.
Forkast's reporting frames the agreement differently than a typical cloud services contract. Instead, the outlet describes it as a bet on the underlying model layer of the AI stack. That framing suggests Akamai's exposure goes beyond simply renting out servers. It implies a deeper financial and strategic tie to Anthropic's trajectory as a model developer.
The scale of the deal reflects a broader pattern in the AI infrastructure market. Model developers such as Anthropic and OpenAI have signed multibillion-dollar compute agreements with hyperscalers and specialized infrastructure firms over the past two years. These contracts often involve long time horizons and escalating value tiers, similar to the range described between $11.6 billion and $20 billion in this case.
Such structures allow both parties to hedge against uncertainty. Anthropic secures guaranteed access to compute capacity as it scales its models. Akamai, in turn, locks in a major customer commitment that can justify continued capital expenditure on infrastructure buildout. The exact terms determining how the deal could grow from $11.6 billion to $20 billion have not been detailed in available reporting.
The deal arrives amid intensifying competition among cloud and infrastructure providers to secure AI developer partnerships. Companies including Amazon, Microsoft, and Google have each pursued similar large-scale agreements with model developers. Akamai's entry into this tier of dealmaking signals its ambition to be counted among infrastructure providers serving frontier AI labs, rather than remaining primarily a content delivery specialist.
For Anthropic, the agreement adds to a growing list of infrastructure partnerships supporting its model training and inference needs. The company has previously disclosed relationships with other major cloud providers. Diversifying its infrastructure base across multiple partners can reduce dependency risk and improve negotiating leverage on pricing and capacity.
Neither Cryptopolitan nor Forkast detailed specific payment schedules, contract duration, or the precise mechanisms by which the deal's value could expand toward $20 billion. Readers should treat the $20 billion figure as a potential ceiling rather than a confirmed outcome.
Market Impact
Large infrastructure commitments of this size tend to be closely watched by investors assessing the durability of AI-related capital expenditure. A deal of this magnitude, if fully realized, would represent a significant revenue stream for Akamai and a substantial cost commitment for Anthropic.
The agreement also reinforces a broader market narrative in which infrastructure providers are increasingly tying their growth prospects to the success of specific AI model developers. That dynamic can amplify both upside and downside exposure. If Anthropic's model business expands as expected, Akamai stands to benefit from a long-term customer relationship. If growth slows, the value of the arrangement could fail to reach the higher end of the reported range.
The Akamai-Anthropic agreement underscores how deeply infrastructure and AI model development have become intertwined. Further details on contract terms may emerge as both companies report financial results in coming quarters.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the total value of the Akamai-Anthropic deal?
Reports place the deal's initial value at $11.6 billion, with potential to grow to as much as $20 billion over time.
Is this a standard cloud computing contract?
Forkast's reporting characterizes it as more than a typical cloud contract, describing it instead as tied to Anthropic's underlying model business.
Why does this deal matter for the AI infrastructure market?
It reflects a broader trend of infrastructure providers signing multibillion-dollar agreements with AI model developers to secure long-term compute demand.
Are the exact terms of the deal publicly known?
Available reporting has not disclosed detailed payment schedules or the specific conditions under which the deal's value could reach $20 billion.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Benjamin Clarke. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Akamai Secures $11.6 Billion Deal With Anthropic, With Value Potentially Reaching $20 Billion appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

Read against each other, the week's regulatory record shows an argument for lighter identity checks in the US and an actual rule demanding heavier ones in Brazil.
Read against each other, the week's regulatory record shows an argument for lighter identity checks in the US and an actual rule demanding heavier ones in Brazil.
A Commissioner's Argument Is Not the Same as a Rule Change
SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce has argued that current know-your-customer requirements for crypto firms collect more personal data than necessary, and has proposed that cryptographic tools, including zero-knowledge proofs, could satisfy identity and anti-money-laundering checks while limiting data exposure. That is a position taken by one sitting commissioner, not an agency rule, a proposed rulemaking, or a vote. The story was picked up widely, carried by outlets including Coin Edition, Coindoo, Cryptopolitan and crypto.news, but volume of coverage does not convert a commissioner's stated view into binding policy. Nothing in the reporting indicates the SEC has opened a rulemaking process on this basis, so what exists on the record is an argument, not a change to what firms must actually collect.
That distinction matters because it sits directly against what is happening elsewhere in the same window. If Peirce's case were current US policy, it would represent a loosening of identity-verification obligations across the industry. It is not current policy. It is a stated position from one commissioner, and the record should be read that way until a rulemaking or order says otherwise.
Brazil's Reporting Mandate Is Already in Force, Not a Proposal
Brazilian authorities have introduced a rule requiring reporting of cryptocurrency transactions above $10,000 that involve self-custody wallets, extending oversight that had previously focused on exchanges to transfers where users hold their own private keys. This is not commentary or a discussion paper; it is a mandate, reported by Bitcoin.com News, Coinfomania and crypto.news, that changes what self-custody users in Brazil are now required to disclose. The operative line is the threshold and the scope: transactions above $10,000, and wallets outside exchange custody, are now inside the reporting net where before they were not.
Set against Peirce's argument for lighter-touch identity checks, Brazil's rule moves in the opposite direction, applying more scrutiny to exactly the kind of self-directed holding that KYC-minimisation proposals are meant to protect. Neither document overrides the other; they simply describe two different regulators pointing in two different directions in the same week.
Ondo's Product Restriction Shows What US Rules Currently Bar
Ondo Finance has introduced tokenized investment portfolios built on strategies developed by BlackRock, and reports indicate the offering is restricted to non-US traders at launch. That restriction is itself a fact about the current regulatory environment: it is the constraint a company is building around today, not a prediction about what may change. Read against Peirce's argument, the gap is instructive. A commissioner can argue for a lighter identity-verification regime, but a firm launching a BlackRock-linked tokenized product is still designing its access rules around the restrictions that exist now, not the ones being proposed.
That gap is the actual news here, and it is why the Ondo item belongs in the same edition as the Peirce and Brazil records rather than in a product roundup. It documents, through a company's own launch decision, that no loosening has yet reached the rulebook that governs who can hold this kind of product in the United States.
The item to hold onto is Brazil's rule, because it is the one document in this set that is already in force and already extends a reporting obligation, while the US-side material is either an argument for future change or a company's accommodation of restrictions that still stand.
Stories in this edition
Publisher counts are as at publication and keep moving; each story page carries the live number.
Crypto Firms Should Collect Less KYC Data, SEC's Peirce Argues 2 independent publishers — shows a commissioner's stated position, not an enacted rule, on identity-verification requirements
Brazil Mandates Reporting of Self-Custody Crypto Transactions Above $10,000 2 independent publishers — documents an actual mandate extending reporting obligations to self-custody transfers
Ondo Finance Rolls Out Tokenized Portfolios Built on BlackRock Strategies 2 independent publishers — evidences what current US regulatory restrictions permit through a company's own product design
The item to hold onto is Brazil's rule, because it is the one document in this set that is already in force and already extends a reporting obligation, while the US-side material is either an argument for future change or a company's accommodation of restrictions that still stand.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Liam Carter. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post SEC Commissioner Argues for Less KYC Data While Brazil Mandates More of It appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

The central bank moves to formalize reserve backing and capital requirements for dollar-pegged tokens as GENIUS Act implementation advances
The Federal Reserve has proposed reserve and capital requirements for stablecoin issuers, according to reports from Cryptopolitan and Crypto News Australia. The proposal falls under the GENIUS Act, the federal law that established a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins in the United States.
The GENIUS Act set out baseline requirements for how stablecoin issuers must back their tokens and who may issue them legally. It gave federal regulators, including the Fed, authority to write detailed rules implementing those requirements. This proposal represents one of the central bank's first concrete steps toward filling in that framework.
Reserve rules typically govern what assets issuers must hold to back each token in circulation. Capital rules address how much additional buffer an issuer needs beyond those reserves to absorb losses or operational shocks. Together, these two pillars determine how safe a stablecoin is meant to be under law, and how closely its issuer resembles a traditional regulated financial institution.
Stablecoins have grown into a core piece of crypto market infrastructure. Traders use them to move value between exchanges without touching traditional banking rails. Reserve and capital standards matter because past stablecoin failures and depegging events have shown what happens when backing assets are unclear or insufficient.
The GENIUS Act itself was designed to bring legal clarity to an industry that had largely operated without a unified federal framework. Its passage was seen as a milestone for crypto's integration into mainstream finance. Rulemaking by agencies like the Fed is the next phase, translating statutory language into specific compliance obligations for issuers.
Details of the proposed reserve composition requirements and capital thresholds were not fully specified in initial reporting. Both outlets described the move as part of the Fed's broader effort to tighten oversight of the sector under its new statutory mandate. Further specifics are expected to emerge as the rulemaking process continues, likely including a public comment period before any final rule takes effect.
Market Impact
Formal reserve and capital standards could reshape how stablecoin issuers manage their balance sheets, potentially affecting yield structures and operational costs. Issuers that already hold conservative, liquid reserves may face fewer changes than those with less transparent backing.
For the broader crypto market, clearer federal rules could reduce uncertainty that has weighed on institutional adoption of stablecoins for payments and settlement. However, until final rule text and compliance deadlines are published, market participants are likely to treat this as a preliminary regulatory signal rather than a settled framework.
The proposal signals that federal regulators are moving from statutory authorization to detailed rulemaking under the GENIUS Act. Market participants will be watching for the specific reserve and capital thresholds once the Fed releases fuller details.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the GENIUS Act?
The GENIUS Act is a federal law that created a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins in the United States, giving agencies like the Federal Reserve authority to write implementing rules.
What do the proposed Fed rules cover?
According to reports, the proposal addresses reserve requirements, which govern what assets must back stablecoins, and capital requirements, which set additional financial buffers for issuers.
Why do reserve and capital rules matter for stablecoins?
These rules aim to ensure stablecoins remain fully backed and issuers can absorb losses, reducing the risk of depegging or issuer insolvency affecting token holders.
Has the Federal Reserve finalized these rules?
No. The reports describe a proposal stage, meaning further rulemaking steps, including possible public comment periods, are likely before any rules take final effect.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Ethan Mercer. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post New Reserve and Capital Rules for Stablecoins Proposed by Fed Under GENIUS Act appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

The crypto exchange's chief executive pointed to state-linked actors as the probable source of one of the year's largest hacks.
Bitget's chief executive has said North Korean hackers were very likely behind a breach that drained approximately $350 million from the exchange. The statement, confirmed across separate reports, marks one of the largest disclosed thefts at a major crypto trading platform this year.
Reporting on the incident varies slightly on the exact figure, with some outlets citing $350 million and others putting the loss at $351 million. The small discrepancy likely reflects timing differences in how the stolen funds were valued, or rounding across different reporting windows.
The CEO's attribution to North Korea aligns with a well-documented pattern. State-linked hacking groups tied to North Korea have been implicated in numerous crypto thefts over the past several years. Investigators and blockchain analytics firms have repeatedly traced stolen funds back to wallet clusters associated with these groups, often citing similarities in attack methodology, laundering techniques, and infrastructure reuse.
Exchanges remain a prime target because they concentrate large amounts of user funds in hot wallets and custody systems. A successful breach at this scale raises immediate questions about the security architecture protecting customer assets, and about how custodians balance liquidity needs against exposure to theft.
The use of the phrase "very likely" rather than a definitive confirmation is notable. Attribution in crypto hacks is difficult to prove with certainty in real time. Investigators typically rely on on-chain forensics, comparisons to previously identified hacker wallets, and behavioral patterns rather than direct evidence of identity. Final attribution often takes weeks or months, and sometimes involves government agencies or specialized blockchain forensics firms.
Bitget has not yet detailed the exact mechanism of the breach, such as whether it involved a compromised private key, a smart contract exploit, or a social engineering attack on internal staff. Details of this kind typically emerge in follow-up disclosures as internal investigations and third-party audits progress.
The scale of the reported loss places this incident among the more significant exchange hacks in recent memory. Losses of this magnitude can affect user confidence, prompt regulatory scrutiny, and pressure exchanges to strengthen custody practices, including multi-signature wallets, cold storage allocation, and withdrawal monitoring systems.
Market Impact
A theft of this size at a major exchange typically triggers short-term volatility in the affected platform's native token and can dent broader confidence in centralized custody models. Traders often watch for follow-on effects such as withdrawal freezes, liquidity strains, or emergency reserve announcements as exchanges attempt to reassure users.
Beyond Bitget itself, incidents attributed to North Korean hacking groups tend to draw attention from regulators and law enforcement agencies tracking state-sponsored cybercrime. Renewed scrutiny could accelerate industry-wide discussions about proof-of-reserves requirements, insurance mechanisms, and stricter custody standards across exchanges.
As investigations continue, further details on the breach's method and any recovery efforts are likely to shape how the industry responds to this latest large-scale theft.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much was reportedly stolen from Bitget?
Reports place the loss at approximately $350 million, though one source cited a figure closer to $351 million.
Who is believed to be responsible for the hack?
Bitget's CEO said North Korean hackers are very likely responsible, though full confirmation of attribution had not been established at the time of reporting.
Why are North Korean hackers frequently linked to crypto exchange breaches?
State-linked North Korean hacking groups have been repeatedly connected to crypto thefts in past years, based on on-chain forensics and recurring laundering patterns identified by investigators.
Has Bitget explained how the breach occurred?
Specific technical details about how the breach happened had not been disclosed publicly at the time this story was reported.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Grace Mitchell. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Bitget CEO Says North Korean Hackers ‘Very Likely’ Behind $350M Exchange Breach appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

Jack Dorsey's fintech company joins the x402 ecosystem, giving autonomous software a Bitcoin-based way to pay for services
Block, the payments company led by Jack Dorsey, has brought Bitcoin Lightning Network support to x402. The protocol is designed to let software, including AI agents, pay for digital services automatically. The integration was reported by Cointelegraph and crypto.news on September 25.
x402 builds on an old but rarely used piece of internet infrastructure: the HTTP 402 status code, originally reserved for "Payment Required" responses. The protocol repurposes that code to let a server request payment directly from a requesting program, without a human clicking through a checkout page. That design fits a world where AI agents increasingly need to transact on their own, buying data, compute, or API access without manual approval at each step.
Until now, x402 activity has centered on stablecoins, which offer price stability useful for pricing services in dollar terms. Block's addition of Lightning gives the protocol a Bitcoin-native settlement option. Lightning is a layer built on top of Bitcoin that enables fast, low-cost transactions, a feature suited to the small, frequent payments AI agents might generate.
Block has spent years building Bitcoin and Lightning infrastructure through units such as Spiral and TBD, alongside its consumer-facing Cash App and Square businesses. Its involvement signals that established payments firms see a role for Bitcoin in emerging machine-to-machine commerce, not just as an investment asset. It also positions Lightning as a competitor, or complement, to stablecoin rails already active in the space.
The broader push toward AI-agent payments reflects growing interest across the crypto industry in giving autonomous systems direct access to money movement. Rather than a person authorizing every transaction, an agent could theoretically pay for a resource the moment it needs it, settling the bill in real time. Protocols like x402 aim to standardize how that request-and-payment exchange happens across different services and payment methods.
Details on transaction volume, specific partners, or a rollout timeline for Block's Lightning integration were not included in the initial reporting. The extent to which developers building AI agents adopt Bitcoin Lightning over stablecoin alternatives within x402 remains to be seen.
Market Impact
For Bitcoin, the integration extends Lightning's use case beyond peer-to-peer payments and merchant settlement into the growing market for AI-agent transactions. If adoption follows, it could add a new source of on-chain and off-chain Lightning activity tied to machine-driven commerce rather than human spending.
For the broader x402 ecosystem, Block's participation adds credibility from a major payments company with deep Bitcoin infrastructure experience. It also introduces competition between Bitcoin Lightning and stablecoin-based settlement as the default choice for AI-agent payments, a dynamic that could shape how future machine-to-machine payment standards develop.
Block's move places Bitcoin Lightning alongside stablecoins as an option for AI agents settling payments through x402, with adoption trends likely to determine its practical impact.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is x402?
x402 is a payment protocol that repurposes the HTTP 402 'Payment Required' status code, allowing software such as AI agents to pay for digital services automatically.
What did Block add to x402?
Block integrated Bitcoin Lightning Network support into x402, giving the protocol a Bitcoin-based payment rail alongside existing stablecoin options.
Why does Bitcoin Lightning matter for AI agents?
Lightning enables fast, low-cost Bitcoin transactions, which suits the frequent, small payments that autonomous AI agents may need to make for data or services.
Who is behind Block's Bitcoin and Lightning work?
Block, led by Jack Dorsey, has built Bitcoin and Lightning infrastructure for years through units including Spiral and TBD, alongside its Cash App and Square products.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Olivia Hayes. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Block Adds Bitcoin Lightning Support to x402 Payment Protocol for AI Agents appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

Os novos produtos on-chain estão atualmente disponíveis apenas para traders fora dos Estados Unidos, de acordo com informações divulgadas sobre o lançamento.
A Ondo Finance começou a oferecer carteiras tokenizadas construídas em torno de estratégias de investimento originalmente desenvolvidas pela BlackRock, de acordo com reportagens da Cryptopolitan e da CryptoSlate. A medida amplia o esforço da Ondo para levar produtos tradicionais de gestão de ativos às “rails” de blockchain, uma estratégia que a empresa vem perseguindo por meio de produtos tokenizados de tesouraria e de fundos anteriores.
A Ondo construiu sua reputação ao converter instrumentos financeiros tradicionais em tokens baseados em blockchain. Seus produtos existentes têm se concentrado em grande parte na exposição a títulos do Tesouro dos EUA tokenizados, atraindo investidores que buscam acesso on-chain a instrumentos convencionais que rendem juros. As novas carteiras representam uma expansão para produtos de investimento baseados em estratégias, e não apenas exposição a um único ativo.

CEO Gray Chen says spoofed transfers, not stolen private keys, enabled the attack.
Bitget has confirmed a major security breach resulting in losses of approximately $351.6 million. The exchange said hackers drained funds from wallets spanning multiple blockchain networks. Some reports place the total closer to $350 million, while others cite $352 million, reflecting the difficulty of tallying losses across chains in real time.
According to Bitget, the stolen assets were swapped through various protocols shortly after the breach. This is a common tactic used by attackers to convert illicit funds into harder-to-trace tokens. Moving funds across chains and swapping them quickly also complicates efforts by investigators to freeze or recover assets.
CEO Gray Chen addressed the incident directly, stating that the breach did not involve stolen private keys. Instead, he said the attackers used spoofed transfers to siphon funds from exchange wallets. This distinction matters. Private key theft often points to weaknesses in custody or hardware security. Spoofed transfers suggest a different kind of vulnerability, likely tied to how transaction requests are verified and authorized.
An internal investigation cited by crypto.news points to a backend breach as the likely entry point for attackers. Backend systems typically handle transaction processing, wallet management, and internal authorization checks. A compromise there could allow attackers to insert fraudulent transfer instructions without needing direct access to private keys.
The scale of the loss places this incident among the larger exchange breaches in recent years. Multi-chain attacks of this size raise questions about how exchanges secure the infrastructure connecting different blockchain networks. Cross-chain bridges and internal transfer systems have repeatedly been targeted by hackers because they often present more complex attack surfaces than single-chain wallets.
Bitget has not yet detailed the full scope of user impact or outlined a compensation plan, based on available reporting. Exchanges facing breaches of this magnitude typically face pressure to reassure users quickly, both to maintain trust and to limit withdrawal pressure. How Bitget communicates next steps, including any asset freezes achieved with the help of other platforms, will likely shape user and market reaction in the coming days.
The incident also arrives amid continued scrutiny of exchange security practices industry-wide. Regulators and users alike have grown more attentive to how platforms safeguard hot wallets, backend systems, and transfer authorization processes. A breach of this size on a major exchange is likely to renew those conversations.
Market Impact
A loss of this size on a major exchange could affect user confidence in Bitget specifically, and potentially in centralized exchange security more broadly. Traders often react to breach news by moving assets to other platforms or into self-custody, at least temporarily. This can pressure exchange liquidity and trading volumes in the short term.
The method described, spoofed transfers rather than private key theft, may also prompt other exchanges to review backend transaction authorization systems. If competitors or infrastructure providers implement additional safeguards in response, it could influence how exchange security is evaluated by users and partners going forward.
The full picture of how the breach occurred, and how much of the stolen funds might be recovered, remains under investigation. Bitget's next disclosures will be closely watched by users and the wider industry.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much did Bitget lose in the breach?
Reports place the loss at approximately $351.6 million, with some figures citing $350 million to $352 million depending on the source and timing of the tally.
Were user private keys stolen in the attack?
No. Bitget CEO Gray Chen said the breach occurred through spoofed transfers rather than compromised private keys.
What happened to the stolen funds?
Hackers reportedly drained wallets across multiple blockchain networks and swapped the stolen assets shortly after the breach, a common method used to obscure the trail of stolen crypto.
What caused the breach according to Bitget's investigation?
Bitget's internal probe points to a backend system breach as the likely source, rather than a direct compromise of wallet private keys.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Grace Mitchell. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Bitget Loses $351.6 Million in Multi-Chain Breach, Funds Swapped and Drained appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

Commissioner suggests zero-knowledge proofs could verify identity without collecting excess personal data.
SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce has renewed calls to rethink how crypto firms verify customer identities. She argued that existing know-your-customer, or KYC, frameworks demand more personal information than regulators actually need. Her comments point toward a broader debate over how financial oversight should adapt to digital asset markets.
Peirce specifically raised zero-knowledge proofs as a potential solution. This cryptographic method allows one party to prove a fact, such as being over a certain age or holding sufficient funds, without revealing the underlying data itself. Applied to KYC, it could let platforms confirm a user meets legal requirements without storing sensitive documents or personal records.
The proposal touches both KYC and anti-money-laundering, or AML, obligations. These rules require financial institutions to verify identities and monitor transactions for suspicious activity. Crypto firms currently comply using methods borrowed largely from traditional banking, which often means collecting passports, addresses, and other identifying documents.
Peirce's argument centers on a tension between compliance and privacy. Collecting large volumes of personal data creates security risks. Data breaches at exchanges and other financial platforms have exposed customer information in the past, raising concerns about how firms store what they collect. Reducing the amount of data gathered could lower that exposure while still meeting regulatory goals.
Her position reflects a broader philosophical stance she has taken during her tenure at the SEC. Peirce has previously advocated for regulatory approaches that account for the unique technical properties of blockchain systems, rather than applying legacy financial rules without modification. Cryptographic privacy tools like zero-knowledge proofs are native to blockchain infrastructure, making them a natural fit for this kind of rethink.
The suggestion does not represent a formal SEC rule or policy proposal at this stage. It reflects Peirce's individual perspective as a sitting commissioner, offered as part of ongoing discussion about how market structure and compliance frameworks should evolve for digital assets.
Market Impact
Any shift toward cryptographic privacy tools in KYC processes would affect exchanges, custodians, and other regulated crypto platforms that currently bear the cost of traditional identity verification. Reduced data collection requirements could lower compliance overhead and cybersecurity risk for these firms if adopted.
The idea remains at an early, conceptual stage. Markets are unlikely to react immediately, since no rulemaking process has been initiated. Industry participants who build identity verification infrastructure may watch closely, given the potential for zero-knowledge-based compliance tools to become a competitive differentiator.
Peirce's remarks add to an ongoing conversation about aligning crypto compliance with the technology's underlying privacy capabilities. Whether her proposal advances beyond commentary will depend on future SEC rulemaking and broader regulatory consensus.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce propose?
She suggested that crypto firms could use cryptographic tools, including zero-knowledge proofs, to meet identity verification requirements while collecting less personal data than current KYC rules demand.
What is a zero-knowledge proof in this context?
It is a cryptographic method that lets a person prove they meet a requirement, such as identity verification, without revealing the underlying personal data itself.
Does this change current KYC or AML rules for crypto firms?
No formal rule change has occurred. Peirce's comments reflect her individual view as an SEC commissioner rather than an adopted agency policy.
Why does data collection in KYC processes matter?
Traditional KYC requires firms to store sensitive personal documents, which creates risks if that data is breached or mishandled.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Amelia Brooks. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Crypto Firms Should Collect Less KYC Data, SEC’s Peirce Argues appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

New rule extends disclosure requirements to trades involving personal, non-custodial wallets.
Brazil has issued a new regulatory requirement obligating reporting of large cryptocurrency transactions involving self-custody wallets. The threshold for triggering the reporting obligation is set at $10,000, according to reports from Bitcoin.com News, Coinfomania, and crypto.news.
The rule marks an expansion of Brazil's approach to digital asset oversight. Previous reporting frameworks in the country have largely targeted centralized exchanges and licensed custodians. Those platforms already collect identifying information and monitor transaction sizes as part of standard compliance procedures. Self-custody wallets, where users control their own private keys without an intermediary, had generally fallen outside that direct reporting net.
Self-custody is a foundational feature of cryptocurrency for many users. It allows holders to move and store assets without relying on a bank, exchange, or other custodian. Regulators worldwide have increasingly scrutinized this feature, arguing that it can complicate efforts to track large transfers for anti-money-laundering and tax purposes. Brazil's new reporting mandate reflects that broader concern.
The $10,000 threshold echoes reporting triggers used in other jurisdictions for cash and financial transactions, including long-standing currency transaction reporting rules in the United States. By applying a comparable threshold to self-custody crypto trades, Brazilian authorities appear to be aligning digital asset oversight with existing frameworks for large-value financial movements.
The move comes as international bodies, including the Financial Action Task Force, continue to push member countries toward stricter monitoring of crypto transfers. The so-called travel rule, which requires identifying information to accompany crypto transactions above certain values, has been a recurring theme in global policy discussions. Brazil's action can be read as part of that wider trend, even though the specific mechanics of its new rule differ from the travel rule's focus on virtual asset service providers.
Details on enforcement mechanisms, reporting entities, and penalties for noncompliance were not fully specified across the available reporting. It remains unclear which parties bear the reporting burden when a transaction occurs directly between self-custody wallets without an intermediary platform. That ambiguity is likely to draw attention from industry participants and legal observers as implementation guidance emerges.
Market Impact
For crypto users in Brazil, the rule introduces a new compliance consideration for large transfers conducted outside centralized platforms. Traders and holders who rely on self-custody for privacy or control over their assets may need to adjust how they document and report qualifying transactions.
The policy could also influence how exchanges and wallet providers operating in Brazil design their compliance tools, particularly if regulators later clarify who is responsible for filing reports on peer-to-peer or wallet-to-wallet transfers. Broader market reaction has not been detailed in current reporting, and the rule's practical enforcement remains to be seen.
Brazil's decision to extend reporting requirements to self-custody wallet transactions signals a tightening of digital asset oversight in the country. How the rule is enforced, and how the industry adapts, will likely shape its real-world impact in the months ahead.
Frequently Asked Questions
What transactions does Brazil's new rule cover?
The rule requires reporting of cryptocurrency transactions above $10,000 that involve self-custody wallets, according to the reports.
What is a self-custody wallet?
A self-custody wallet is one where the user holds their own private keys, rather than relying on an exchange or custodian to manage their assets.
How does this differ from previous crypto reporting rules in Brazil?
Earlier requirements primarily applied to centralized exchanges and custodians, while this rule extends reporting obligations to transactions made through personal, non-custodial wallets.
Is this related to global anti-money-laundering standards?
The rule fits within a broader international push, led by bodies like the Financial Action Task Force, to increase monitoring of large crypto transfers, though its specific requirements differ from the FATF's travel rule.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Liam Carter. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Brazil Mandates Reporting of Self-Custody Crypto Transactions Above $10,000 appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

Uma nova proposta de privacidade tem como objetivo trazer transferências protegidas, há muito associadas ao Zcash, diretamente para o protocolo central do Bitcoin.
Pesquisadores do Bitcoin propuseram adicionar transações protegidas no estilo do Zcash à camada base do Bitcoin, de acordo com a CryptoSlate e a Bitcoin.com News. A ideia seria importar uma técnica de privacidade há muito associada a moedas dedicadas à privacidade para o próprio protocolo do Bitcoin.
Transações protegidas, como as usadas pelo Zcash, ocultam o remetente, o destinatário e o valor de uma transferência usando provas criptográficas. Já o livro-razão do Bitcoin, por outro lado, é totalmente transparente. Cada transação e o saldo de cada carteira podem ser rastreados na blockchain pública por qualquer pessoa com as ferramentas certas.

A look at how fast each of today's stories moved from one newsroom to several, and what the pace of confirmation says about how solid each claim actually is.
A look at how fast each of today's stories moved from one newsroom to several, and what the pace of confirmation says about how solid each claim actually is.
The Sentencing Story Built the Widest Corroboration of the Set
The 12-year prison term for the Brooklyn man behind the $16 million Coinbase theft was first logged at 06:49 UTC on 24 September. By the time the corroboration record closed at 01:32 UTC the next day, the story had been carried by eight independent publishers — Bitcoin Magazine, Bitcoin.com News, BlockchainReporter, CryptoBriefing, CryptoSlate, Decrypt, The Block and TronWeekly — across ten feeds. That is close to nineteen hours to reach eight outlets, which for a court sentencing is the normal adoption curve for a fact already fixed by a judge, not a signal of urgency. It is, simply, the best-supported item published in this window, and the width of that spread is the point: a criminal sentencing does not need investigative confirmation, only wire pickup, and it got it in volume.
The IBM-Swift Link Crossed Fast, Which Fits a Coordinated Announcement
IBM's move to connect its Digital Asset Haven platform to Swift's blockchain ledger was, by the story's own account, reported by two outlets on the same day it broke. The corroboration record shows it had reached four independent publishers — Cointelegraph, Crypto News Flash, CryptoBriefing and Finextra Blockchain, alongside The Block — inside roughly fourteen hours. That is a short gap, and a short gap for an infrastructure announcement of this kind usually means a press release distributed to multiple newsrooms at once rather than a story that had to be chased and independently verified. Read against the sentencing story, the contrast is useful: slow-and-wide can mean settled fact, fast-and-wide can mean simultaneous release. Neither is weaker evidence, but they are different kinds of evidence, and a reader should not treat the speed of the IBM crossing as proof of scoop value.
Two Unrelated Stories Crossed at Almost Identical Speed
Citi's push of its Fed rate-cut forecast to June 2027 and the death of whistleblower Hsin-Ju Chuang were both first recorded within seconds of each other, at 08:28:01 and 08:27:55 UTC on 24 September, and both closed their corroboration windows at 00:11:58 and 00:11:55 — a gap of roughly fifteen hours and forty minutes each, reaching three independent publishers apiece. The Citi story was carried by Cryptonews.com, The Cryptonomist EN and crypto.news; the Chuang story by Cryptopolitan, The Cryptonomist EN and The Tokenist. Neither claim gained a fourth outlet in that window, which puts both at the lower end of confirmation for this set, and the Chuang story carries the additional caveat that reports disagree on the timing of her death relative to a promised evidence release. That disagreement is not resolved by having three publishers; it only means three publishers agree the death occurred, not what led to it.
The NYSE Tokenisation Story Has an Unresolved Count Itself
The report that NYSE and Blockchain.com are exploring round-the-clock tokenized US stock trading names four outlets in its publisher list — Crypto Daily, NewsBTC, UNLOCK Blockchain and crypto.news — but the independent-publisher count attached to the story is three. Taking the more conservative figure, the crossing took about fourteen hours and thirty-nine minutes to settle. That mismatch between the names on the page and the count in the record is itself worth flagging: it means the confirmation tally for this one is softer than the byline list suggests, and it should be read as three-outlet corroboration, not four, until the record squares itself.
Of the five stories tracked, only the Coinbase sentencing crossed into double-digit feed pickup, and that is the one worth holding onto this period — not because it is new, but because eight independent publishers agreeing on a fixed court outcome is the strongest evidentiary floor anything here has reached.
Stories in this edition
Publisher counts are as at publication and keep moving; each story page carries the live number.
12-Year Prison Term Handed to Brooklyn Man Over $16 Million Coinbase Theft 8 independent publishers — widest and slowest-building corroboration, treated as the best-supported claim
IBM Links Digital Asset Haven Platform to Swift's Blockchain Ledger for Tokenized Deposits 4 independent publishers — fast same-day crossing consistent with a coordinated release rather than a chased scoop
Citi Pushes Back Fed Rate Cut Forecast to June 2027, Raising Questions for Crypto 3 independent publishers — shows a capped, lower-confirmation crossing shared with an unrelated story
Crypto Whistleblower Hsin-Ju Chuang Dies Amid Unresolved Hack VC Allegations 3 independent publishers — flags unresolved timing detail that publisher count alone does not settle
Tokenized US Stock Trading Around the Clock Explored by NYSE, Blockchain.com 3 independent publishers — highlights a discrepancy between named publishers and the recorded corroboration count
Of the five stories tracked, only the Coinbase sentencing crossed into double-digit feed pickup, and that is the one worth holding onto this period — not because it is new, but because eight independent publishers agreeing on a fixed court outcome is the strongest evidentiary floor anything here has reached.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Victoria Reed. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post The Coinbase Sentencing Reached Eight Outlets, Everything Else Capped at Three or Four appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

Gigante de pagamentos descobre que a disposição do consumidor em usar stablecoins quase dobra quando proteção contra fraude e seguro de depósitos são adicionados.
A Visa divulgou resultados de um estudo indicando que a disposição do consumidor por stablecoins aumenta acentuadamente quando salvaguardas bancárias familiares são anexadas ao produto. De acordo com a empresa de pagamentos, a intenção declarada de adoção subiu de 36% para 56% quando os entrevistados foram informados de que proteção contra fraude e seguro de depósitos seriam aplicados.
A diferença entre esses dois números é significativa. Isso sugere que cerca de metade da relutância em relação a stablecoins hoje não se deve à tecnologia subjacente, mas à falta de proteções ao consumidor que as pessoas já esperam de contas bancárias e cartões tradicionais.

De quatro histórias apresentadas enquanto as mesas dos EUA estavam às escuras, apenas o relatório de liquidação de depósitos tokenizados obteve confirmação por terceiros; o restante está em dois veículos cada.
De quatro histórias apresentadas enquanto as mesas dos EUA estavam às escuras, apenas o relatório de liquidação de depósitos tokenizados obteve confirmação por terceiros; o restante está em dois veículos cada.
Depósitos tokenizados é a única história da noite a limpar três emissoras
A única história da noite a conseguir alcançar três editoras independentes é o relatório de que os maiores bancos do Reino Unido concluíram as primeiras transações interbancárias usando depósitos tokenizados, publicado pela CoinDesk, Coinpedia e PYMNTS Blockchain, com uma quarta fonte no The Cryptonomist EN que adicionou mais repercussão. Esse é o maior número de confirmações desta rodada, e isso importa porque se trata de uma alegação estreita e verificável: bancos moveram dinheiro regulamentado entre instituições em trilhos baseados em blockchain, e não uma aposta de mercado que pudesse ser debatida de um ou outro modo. Três emissoras reportando independentemente o mesmo fato operacional é suficiente para tratar o marco como um registro já consolidado, e não como uma simples abordagem de um único veículo. Nada aqui diz o que acontece a partir daí; apenas afirma que o evento ocorreu e que várias redações verificaram.

A ação acusa a plataforma de mercado de previsão de operar apostas sem licença, reabrindo uma disputa sobre quem regula os contratos de eventos.
O procurador-geral de Nova York processou a Polymarket, acusando a plataforma de mercado de previsão de facilitar jogos de azar ilegais, segundo a crypto.news. A ação acrescenta uma nova frente legal para uma empresa que já passou anos lidando com disputas sobre como seus produtos devem ser classificados nos Estados Unidos.
A Polymarket permite que os usuários negociem contratos ligados ao resultado de eventos do mundo real, incluindo eleições, resultados esportivos e dados econômicos. Os apoiadores descrevem esses contratos como uma forma de derivativo financeiro. Os críticos argumentam que eles funcionam como apostas diretas, apenas revestidas de linguagem de mercado.