TheCoinrise Media
8.7k Publicações
TheCoinrise Media
Square verificado+Denunciar
Bloquear Utilizador
#TheCoinrise: Your go-to news platform dedicated to the realms of #Bitcoin, #cryptocurrency, and #investing.
0 A seguir
10.5K+ Seguidores
5.2K+ Gostaram
Publicações
Ver tradução
Fed Drafts Stablecoin Rules Setting Issuer Qualifications and Capital ChargesThe draft proposal outlines who can issue a dollar-pegged stablecoin and presumes many yield-sharing deals are prohibited.
The Federal Reserve has drafted rules that would spell out who qualifies to issue a stablecoin under its regulatory umbrella. Reporting from crypto.news and Unchained indicates the proposal addresses both eligibility standards for issuers and the financial safeguards they would need to maintain.
According to Unchained, the draft includes capital charges that issuers would be required to hold against their stablecoin obligations. Capital charges of this kind are a standard tool in bank regulation. They require firms to set aside funds as a buffer against potential losses or operational failures.
Applying a capital charge framework to stablecoin issuers would mark a significant step toward treating them more like regulated financial institutions. It would also distinguish issuers from unregulated token projects that operate with fewer reserve or disclosure requirements.
The proposal also reportedly presumes that some yield-sharing arrangements between stablecoin issuers and outside parties are prohibited. Yield-sharing deals typically involve an issuer passing along a portion of the interest earned on reserve assets to exchanges, wallets, or other partners that distribute the token. Regulators have scrutinized these arrangements because they can function similarly to paying interest directly to stablecoin holders, a practice that federal stablecoin legislation has sought to limit.
The question of who can qualify to issue a stablecoin sits at the center of the broader debate over U.S. digital asset policy. Federal law passed in recent years established a licensing framework for payment stablecoins, but left many implementation details to banking regulators like the Fed. This draft appears to be part of that rulemaking process, translating statutory requirements into specific supervisory standards.
Because the material reviewed so far consists of drafted rules rather than a finalized rule, the exact scope of eligibility requirements and capital thresholds remains unclear. It is also not yet known which categories of yield arrangements would fall under the presumed prohibition, or whether exceptions might apply. Market participants, including banks and nonbank fintech firms exploring stablecoin issuance, are likely to watch closely as the proposal moves through further review and possible public comment.
Market Impact
If finalized, capital charge requirements could raise the cost of issuing a stablecoin, particularly for smaller or nonbank entities without existing capital buffers. This could concentrate issuance among larger, well-capitalized firms, including banks that already operate under similar regulatory regimes.
A presumption against certain yield-sharing deals could also affect the business models of exchanges and platforms that have relied on distribution partnerships to attract stablecoin users. Firms that depend on passing yield to customers or partners may need to restructure those arrangements once the rule's final scope becomes clear.
The Fed's draft rules signal that federal regulators are moving toward a more defined framework for stablecoin issuance, with capital requirements and yield restrictions as central features. The final shape of the policy, and its effect on both bank and nonbank issuers, will depend on how the proposal evolves before adoption.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Fed's draft stablecoin proposal cover?
It reportedly addresses who qualifies to issue a stablecoin, along with capital charges issuers must hold and restrictions on certain yield-sharing arrangements.
Why would capital charges matter for stablecoin issuers?
Capital charges require issuers to hold funds as a buffer against losses, a standard practice in bank regulation that could raise compliance costs for issuers.
What is a yield-sharing arrangement in this context?
It typically involves a stablecoin issuer sharing reserve interest income with exchanges or partners, a practice regulators have linked to paying indirect interest to holders.
Is the Fed's proposal final?
No. Reports describe a draft rule, meaning the final eligibility standards, capital thresholds, and yield restrictions could still change before adoption.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Olivia Hayes. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Fed Drafts Stablecoin Rules Setting Issuer Qualifications and Capital Charges appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
Fed Drafts Stablecoin Rules Setting Issuer Qualifications and Capital Charges
The draft proposal outlines who can issue a dollar-pegged stablecoin and presumes many yield-sharing deals are prohibited.
The Federal Reserve has drafted rules that would spell out who qualifies to issue a stablecoin under its regulatory umbrella. Reporting from crypto.news and Unchained indicates the proposal addresses both eligibility standards for issuers and the financial safeguards they would need to maintain.
According to Unchained, the draft includes capital charges that issuers would be required to hold against their stablecoin obligations. Capital charges of this kind are a standard tool in bank regulation. They require firms to set aside funds as a buffer against potential losses or operational failures.
Applying a capital charge framework to stablecoin issuers would mark a significant step toward treating them more like regulated financial institutions. It would also distinguish issuers from unregulated token projects that operate with fewer reserve or disclosure requirements.
The proposal also reportedly presumes that some yield-sharing arrangements between stablecoin issuers and outside parties are prohibited. Yield-sharing deals typically involve an issuer passing along a portion of the interest earned on reserve assets to exchanges, wallets, or other partners that distribute the token. Regulators have scrutinized these arrangements because they can function similarly to paying interest directly to stablecoin holders, a practice that federal stablecoin legislation has sought to limit.
The question of who can qualify to issue a stablecoin sits at the center of the broader debate over U.S. digital asset policy. Federal law passed in recent years established a licensing framework for payment stablecoins, but left many implementation details to banking regulators like the Fed. This draft appears to be part of that rulemaking process, translating statutory requirements into specific supervisory standards.
Because the material reviewed so far consists of drafted rules rather than a finalized rule, the exact scope of eligibility requirements and capital thresholds remains unclear. It is also not yet known which categories of yield arrangements would fall under the presumed prohibition, or whether exceptions might apply. Market participants, including banks and nonbank fintech firms exploring stablecoin issuance, are likely to watch closely as the proposal moves through further review and possible public comment.
Market Impact
If finalized, capital charge requirements could raise the cost of issuing a stablecoin, particularly for smaller or nonbank entities without existing capital buffers. This could concentrate issuance among larger, well-capitalized firms, including banks that already operate under similar regulatory regimes.
A presumption against certain yield-sharing deals could also affect the business models of exchanges and platforms that have relied on distribution partnerships to attract stablecoin users. Firms that depend on passing yield to customers or partners may need to restructure those arrangements once the rule's final scope becomes clear.
The Fed's draft rules signal that federal regulators are moving toward a more defined framework for stablecoin issuance, with capital requirements and yield restrictions as central features. The final shape of the policy, and its effect on both bank and nonbank issuers, will depend on how the proposal evolves before adoption.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Fed's draft stablecoin proposal cover?
It reportedly addresses who qualifies to issue a stablecoin, along with capital charges issuers must hold and restrictions on certain yield-sharing arrangements.
Why would capital charges matter for stablecoin issuers?
Capital charges require issuers to hold funds as a buffer against losses, a standard practice in bank regulation that could raise compliance costs for issuers.
What is a yield-sharing arrangement in this context?
It typically involves a stablecoin issuer sharing reserve interest income with exchanges or partners, a practice regulators have linked to paying indirect interest to holders.
Is the Fed's proposal final?
No. Reports describe a draft rule, meaning the final eligibility standards, capital thresholds, and yield restrictions could still change before adoption.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Olivia Hayes. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Fed Drafts Stablecoin Rules Setting Issuer Qualifications and Capital Charges appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
The Federal Reserve has drafted rules that would spell out who qualifies to issue a stablecoin under its regulatory umbrella. Reporting from crypto.news and Unchained indicates the proposal addresses both eligibility standards for issuers and the financial safeguards they would need to maintain.
According to Unchained, the draft includes capital charges that issuers would be required to hold against their stablecoin obligations. Capital charges of this kind are a standard tool in bank regulation. They require firms to set aside funds as a buffer against potential losses or operational failures.
Applying a capital charge framework to stablecoin issuers would mark a significant step toward treating them more like regulated financial institutions. It would also distinguish issuers from unregulated token projects that operate with fewer reserve or disclosure requirements.
The proposal also reportedly presumes that some yield-sharing arrangements between stablecoin issuers and outside parties are prohibited. Yield-sharing deals typically involve an issuer passing along a portion of the interest earned on reserve assets to exchanges, wallets, or other partners that distribute the token. Regulators have scrutinized these arrangements because they can function similarly to paying interest directly to stablecoin holders, a practice that federal stablecoin legislation has sought to limit.
The question of who can qualify to issue a stablecoin sits at the center of the broader debate over U.S. digital asset policy. Federal law passed in recent years established a licensing framework for payment stablecoins, but left many implementation details to banking regulators like the Fed. This draft appears to be part of that rulemaking process, translating statutory requirements into specific supervisory standards.
Because the material reviewed so far consists of drafted rules rather than a finalized rule, the exact scope of eligibility requirements and capital thresholds remains unclear. It is also not yet known which categories of yield arrangements would fall under the presumed prohibition, or whether exceptions might apply. Market participants, including banks and nonbank fintech firms exploring stablecoin issuance, are likely to watch closely as the proposal moves through further review and possible public comment.
Market Impact
If finalized, capital charge requirements could raise the cost of issuing a stablecoin, particularly for smaller or nonbank entities without existing capital buffers. This could concentrate issuance among larger, well-capitalized firms, including banks that already operate under similar regulatory regimes.
A presumption against certain yield-sharing deals could also affect the business models of exchanges and platforms that have relied on distribution partnerships to attract stablecoin users. Firms that depend on passing yield to customers or partners may need to restructure those arrangements once the rule's final scope becomes clear.
The Fed's draft rules signal that federal regulators are moving toward a more defined framework for stablecoin issuance, with capital requirements and yield restrictions as central features. The final shape of the policy, and its effect on both bank and nonbank issuers, will depend on how the proposal evolves before adoption.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Fed's draft stablecoin proposal cover?
It reportedly addresses who qualifies to issue a stablecoin, along with capital charges issuers must hold and restrictions on certain yield-sharing arrangements.
Why would capital charges matter for stablecoin issuers?
Capital charges require issuers to hold funds as a buffer against losses, a standard practice in bank regulation that could raise compliance costs for issuers.
What is a yield-sharing arrangement in this context?
It typically involves a stablecoin issuer sharing reserve interest income with exchanges or partners, a practice regulators have linked to paying indirect interest to holders.
Is the Fed's proposal final?
No. Reports describe a draft rule, meaning the final eligibility standards, capital thresholds, and yield restrictions could still change before adoption.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Olivia Hayes. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Fed Drafts Stablecoin Rules Setting Issuer Qualifications and Capital Charges appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
4
Ver tradução
Futures Brokers Can Now Invest Customer Funds in Tokenized Assets, CFTC SaysNew guidance permits onchain recordkeeping as Congress stalls on crypto market structure legislation
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has updated its rules to let futures brokers invest customer funds in tokenized assets. The change was issued through staff guidance rather than a formal rulemaking. It also allows firms to keep certain regulatory records on blockchain networks instead of traditional systems.
Futures commission merchants, the brokers that hold and manage customer collateral for derivatives trading, are the primary beneficiaries. Under the updated guidance, these firms can now direct client funds into tokenized versions of traditional assets. This includes instruments like tokenized money market funds or tokenized short-term debt, which exist as digital tokens on a blockchain but represent claims on real-world assets.
The recordkeeping change is separate but related. Brokers will be permitted to maintain certain books and records onchain, rather than solely through conventional databases. Regulators have historically required specific formats and custody arrangements for customer fund records. Allowing onchain recordkeeping signals a shift in how the agency views blockchain-based infrastructure for compliance purposes.
The guidance arrives at a moment when comprehensive crypto market structure legislation remains stalled in Congress. Lawmakers have debated for years how to divide oversight of digital assets between the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Bills addressing this question have repeatedly failed to advance to a vote, leaving regulatory agencies to act through existing authority instead.
By moving through staff-level guidance, the CFTC has sidestepped the need for a formal rule change or congressional action. This approach lets the agency respond more quickly to industry demand for tokenized asset products. It also reflects a broader pattern among U.S. regulators of using interpretive guidance to accommodate blockchain-based finance while legislative solutions remain uncertain.
Tokenization has grown as a use case in traditional finance over the past several years. Asset managers and banks have issued tokenized versions of Treasury bills, money market funds, and other instruments. Proponents argue tokenization can speed settlement and improve transparency around ownership and collateral. Critics have raised concerns about custody risk, liquidity mismatches, and the lack of established legal precedent for tokenized claims during a bankruptcy or default.
The CFTC oversees derivatives markets, including futures, swaps, and related brokers. Its jurisdiction touches how customer collateral backing derivatives positions is held and invested. Any change to those rules affects a wide swath of trading firms, clearinghouses, and institutional clients who rely on futures markets for hedging and speculation.
Industry participants have pushed regulators for years to clarify how tokenized instruments fit into existing custody and collateral frameworks. The latest guidance suggests the agency is willing to treat tokenized assets similarly to their traditional counterparts, provided certain conditions are met. Details on exactly which tokenized products qualify, and what safeguards apply, are expected to be clarified as brokers begin implementing the guidance.
Market Impact
The guidance could accelerate institutional adoption of tokenized assets within regulated derivatives markets. Futures brokers now have a clearer path to offer tokenized collateral options to clients, potentially boosting demand for tokenized money market and debt products. Firms that already issue tokenized instruments may see increased interest from brokers seeking approved uses for customer funds.
The timing, alongside stalled legislation in Congress, suggests regulators are willing to advance digital asset policy through administrative action rather than wait for lawmakers. This could reduce near-term regulatory uncertainty for firms operating in tokenized markets, though the underlying legal framework governing digital assets broadly remains unsettled until Congress acts.
The CFTC's move gives futures brokers a formal pathway to use tokenized assets and blockchain-based recordkeeping, filling a gap left by stalled legislation. How quickly the industry adopts these options, and what further clarifications follow, will shape the next phase of tokenization in regulated derivatives markets.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the CFTC change with this guidance?
The agency issued staff guidance letting futures brokers invest customer funds in tokenized assets and keep certain records on blockchain networks.
Who does this guidance affect?
It primarily affects futures commission merchants, the brokers responsible for holding and managing customer collateral in derivatives markets.
Why did the CFTC act now instead of waiting for Congress?
Crypto market structure legislation has stalled in Congress, so the agency used staff-level guidance to address tokenization within its existing authority.
Does this guidance apply to all cryptocurrencies?
No, the guidance concerns tokenized versions of traditional assets, such as tokenized money market funds or short-term debt, not cryptocurrencies generally.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Amelia Brooks. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Futures Brokers Can Now Invest Customer Funds in Tokenized Assets, CFTC Says appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
Futures Brokers Can Now Invest Customer Funds in Tokenized Assets, CFTC Says
New guidance permits onchain recordkeeping as Congress stalls on crypto market structure legislation
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has updated its rules to let futures brokers invest customer funds in tokenized assets. The change was issued through staff guidance rather than a formal rulemaking. It also allows firms to keep certain regulatory records on blockchain networks instead of traditional systems.
Futures commission merchants, the brokers that hold and manage customer collateral for derivatives trading, are the primary beneficiaries. Under the updated guidance, these firms can now direct client funds into tokenized versions of traditional assets. This includes instruments like tokenized money market funds or tokenized short-term debt, which exist as digital tokens on a blockchain but represent claims on real-world assets.
The recordkeeping change is separate but related. Brokers will be permitted to maintain certain books and records onchain, rather than solely through conventional databases. Regulators have historically required specific formats and custody arrangements for customer fund records. Allowing onchain recordkeeping signals a shift in how the agency views blockchain-based infrastructure for compliance purposes.
The guidance arrives at a moment when comprehensive crypto market structure legislation remains stalled in Congress. Lawmakers have debated for years how to divide oversight of digital assets between the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Bills addressing this question have repeatedly failed to advance to a vote, leaving regulatory agencies to act through existing authority instead.
By moving through staff-level guidance, the CFTC has sidestepped the need for a formal rule change or congressional action. This approach lets the agency respond more quickly to industry demand for tokenized asset products. It also reflects a broader pattern among U.S. regulators of using interpretive guidance to accommodate blockchain-based finance while legislative solutions remain uncertain.
Tokenization has grown as a use case in traditional finance over the past several years. Asset managers and banks have issued tokenized versions of Treasury bills, money market funds, and other instruments. Proponents argue tokenization can speed settlement and improve transparency around ownership and collateral. Critics have raised concerns about custody risk, liquidity mismatches, and the lack of established legal precedent for tokenized claims during a bankruptcy or default.
The CFTC oversees derivatives markets, including futures, swaps, and related brokers. Its jurisdiction touches how customer collateral backing derivatives positions is held and invested. Any change to those rules affects a wide swath of trading firms, clearinghouses, and institutional clients who rely on futures markets for hedging and speculation.
Industry participants have pushed regulators for years to clarify how tokenized instruments fit into existing custody and collateral frameworks. The latest guidance suggests the agency is willing to treat tokenized assets similarly to their traditional counterparts, provided certain conditions are met. Details on exactly which tokenized products qualify, and what safeguards apply, are expected to be clarified as brokers begin implementing the guidance.
Market Impact
The guidance could accelerate institutional adoption of tokenized assets within regulated derivatives markets. Futures brokers now have a clearer path to offer tokenized collateral options to clients, potentially boosting demand for tokenized money market and debt products. Firms that already issue tokenized instruments may see increased interest from brokers seeking approved uses for customer funds.
The timing, alongside stalled legislation in Congress, suggests regulators are willing to advance digital asset policy through administrative action rather than wait for lawmakers. This could reduce near-term regulatory uncertainty for firms operating in tokenized markets, though the underlying legal framework governing digital assets broadly remains unsettled until Congress acts.
The CFTC's move gives futures brokers a formal pathway to use tokenized assets and blockchain-based recordkeeping, filling a gap left by stalled legislation. How quickly the industry adopts these options, and what further clarifications follow, will shape the next phase of tokenization in regulated derivatives markets.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the CFTC change with this guidance?
The agency issued staff guidance letting futures brokers invest customer funds in tokenized assets and keep certain records on blockchain networks.
Who does this guidance affect?
It primarily affects futures commission merchants, the brokers responsible for holding and managing customer collateral in derivatives markets.
Why did the CFTC act now instead of waiting for Congress?
Crypto market structure legislation has stalled in Congress, so the agency used staff-level guidance to address tokenization within its existing authority.
Does this guidance apply to all cryptocurrencies?
No, the guidance concerns tokenized versions of traditional assets, such as tokenized money market funds or short-term debt, not cryptocurrencies generally.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Amelia Brooks. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Futures Brokers Can Now Invest Customer Funds in Tokenized Assets, CFTC Says appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has updated its rules to let futures brokers invest customer funds in tokenized assets. The change was issued through staff guidance rather than a formal rulemaking. It also allows firms to keep certain regulatory records on blockchain networks instead of traditional systems.
Futures commission merchants, the brokers that hold and manage customer collateral for derivatives trading, are the primary beneficiaries. Under the updated guidance, these firms can now direct client funds into tokenized versions of traditional assets. This includes instruments like tokenized money market funds or tokenized short-term debt, which exist as digital tokens on a blockchain but represent claims on real-world assets.
The recordkeeping change is separate but related. Brokers will be permitted to maintain certain books and records onchain, rather than solely through conventional databases. Regulators have historically required specific formats and custody arrangements for customer fund records. Allowing onchain recordkeeping signals a shift in how the agency views blockchain-based infrastructure for compliance purposes.
The guidance arrives at a moment when comprehensive crypto market structure legislation remains stalled in Congress. Lawmakers have debated for years how to divide oversight of digital assets between the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Bills addressing this question have repeatedly failed to advance to a vote, leaving regulatory agencies to act through existing authority instead.
By moving through staff-level guidance, the CFTC has sidestepped the need for a formal rule change or congressional action. This approach lets the agency respond more quickly to industry demand for tokenized asset products. It also reflects a broader pattern among U.S. regulators of using interpretive guidance to accommodate blockchain-based finance while legislative solutions remain uncertain.
Tokenization has grown as a use case in traditional finance over the past several years. Asset managers and banks have issued tokenized versions of Treasury bills, money market funds, and other instruments. Proponents argue tokenization can speed settlement and improve transparency around ownership and collateral. Critics have raised concerns about custody risk, liquidity mismatches, and the lack of established legal precedent for tokenized claims during a bankruptcy or default.
The CFTC oversees derivatives markets, including futures, swaps, and related brokers. Its jurisdiction touches how customer collateral backing derivatives positions is held and invested. Any change to those rules affects a wide swath of trading firms, clearinghouses, and institutional clients who rely on futures markets for hedging and speculation.
Industry participants have pushed regulators for years to clarify how tokenized instruments fit into existing custody and collateral frameworks. The latest guidance suggests the agency is willing to treat tokenized assets similarly to their traditional counterparts, provided certain conditions are met. Details on exactly which tokenized products qualify, and what safeguards apply, are expected to be clarified as brokers begin implementing the guidance.
Market Impact
The guidance could accelerate institutional adoption of tokenized assets within regulated derivatives markets. Futures brokers now have a clearer path to offer tokenized collateral options to clients, potentially boosting demand for tokenized money market and debt products. Firms that already issue tokenized instruments may see increased interest from brokers seeking approved uses for customer funds.
The timing, alongside stalled legislation in Congress, suggests regulators are willing to advance digital asset policy through administrative action rather than wait for lawmakers. This could reduce near-term regulatory uncertainty for firms operating in tokenized markets, though the underlying legal framework governing digital assets broadly remains unsettled until Congress acts.
The CFTC's move gives futures brokers a formal pathway to use tokenized assets and blockchain-based recordkeeping, filling a gap left by stalled legislation. How quickly the industry adopts these options, and what further clarifications follow, will shape the next phase of tokenization in regulated derivatives markets.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the CFTC change with this guidance?
The agency issued staff guidance letting futures brokers invest customer funds in tokenized assets and keep certain records on blockchain networks.
Who does this guidance affect?
It primarily affects futures commission merchants, the brokers responsible for holding and managing customer collateral in derivatives markets.
Why did the CFTC act now instead of waiting for Congress?
Crypto market structure legislation has stalled in Congress, so the agency used staff-level guidance to address tokenization within its existing authority.
Does this guidance apply to all cryptocurrencies?
No, the guidance concerns tokenized versions of traditional assets, such as tokenized money market funds or short-term debt, not cryptocurrencies generally.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Amelia Brooks. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Futures Brokers Can Now Invest Customer Funds in Tokenized Assets, CFTC Says appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
1
Ver tradução
Polymarket Faces Illegal Gambling Lawsuit From New York, Fires Back With Its Own SuitState regulators accuse the prediction market platform of running unlicensed gambling, and Polymarket has filed its own countersuit.
New York state authorities have sued Polymarket, alleging the platform runs an illegal gambling operation within the state. The filing was reported by Crypto News Australia and Crypto Daily on September 25, 2026. Unchained added that Polymarket has filed a countersuit against New York in response.
Polymarket allows users to trade on the outcomes of real-world events, from elections to sports results to economic data releases. The platform frames these trades as prediction markets rather than bets, a distinction that has become central to its regulatory battles. New York's lawsuit challenges that framing directly, treating the trades as wagers subject to the state's gambling laws.
The dispute is not Polymarket's first brush with US regulators. The platform previously settled with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and barred American users from its main product. It later moved to reenter the US market through a regulated exchange structure, aiming to operate under federal commodities oversight rather than state gambling statutes.
That strategy sits at the heart of the current conflict. Federal commodities regulation and state gambling law can point in different directions for the same product. Prediction markets occupy a gray zone between the two, and different regulators have reached different conclusions about which framework applies.
New York's move follows broader scrutiny of prediction and event-contract platforms across the country. Other operators offering similar products, including sports and election-outcome contracts, have faced comparable questions from state gaming regulators. Some states have argued that event contracts function identically to sports betting or other regulated gambling activity, regardless of how a platform structures the trade.
Polymarket's decision to countersue, as described by Unchained, signals it intends to contest New York's position rather than adjust its operations to comply. The company has previously argued that its structure and oversight place it outside traditional gambling regulation. How a court weighs that argument against state gambling statutes could shape the legal footing for other prediction market operators.
The outcome may also influence how other states approach similar platforms. A ruling against Polymarket could embolden additional state actions. A ruling in the company's favor could reinforce the argument that federally regulated exchange structures preempt state gambling claims.
Market Impact
A prolonged legal fight between New York and Polymarket could create uncertainty for the broader prediction market sector. Investors and platform operators watching the case may delay expansion into new states pending clarity on which regulatory framework governs event contracts.
The dispute could also affect how other prediction market platforms position themselves relative to state versus federal oversight. Firms that have pursued similar exchange licensing strategies may face comparable challenges if New York's argument gains traction in court.
The case sets up a legal test over whether event-based trading counts as gambling or falls under commodities regulation, with implications reaching beyond Polymarket alone.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is New York alleging against Polymarket?
New York's lawsuit alleges that Polymarket operates an illegal gambling business within the state, according to reporting from Crypto News Australia and Crypto Daily.
How has Polymarket responded to the lawsuit?
Polymarket has filed a countersuit against New York, according to Unchained, indicating it intends to contest the state's claims in court.
Why is it unclear whether prediction markets count as gambling?
Prediction markets let users trade on event outcomes, which can resemble both commodities trading and wagering. Federal regulators have at times treated Polymarket under commodities law, while state gambling statutes may classify similar activity differently.
Has Polymarket faced US regulatory action before?
Yes. Polymarket previously settled with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and restricted US users before later pursuing a regulated exchange structure to reenter the American market.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Amelia Brooks. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Polymarket Faces Illegal Gambling Lawsuit From New York, Fires Back With Its Own Suit appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
Polymarket Faces Illegal Gambling Lawsuit From New York, Fires Back With Its Own Suit
State regulators accuse the prediction market platform of running unlicensed gambling, and Polymarket has filed its own countersuit.
New York state authorities have sued Polymarket, alleging the platform runs an illegal gambling operation within the state. The filing was reported by Crypto News Australia and Crypto Daily on September 25, 2026. Unchained added that Polymarket has filed a countersuit against New York in response.
Polymarket allows users to trade on the outcomes of real-world events, from elections to sports results to economic data releases. The platform frames these trades as prediction markets rather than bets, a distinction that has become central to its regulatory battles. New York's lawsuit challenges that framing directly, treating the trades as wagers subject to the state's gambling laws.
The dispute is not Polymarket's first brush with US regulators. The platform previously settled with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and barred American users from its main product. It later moved to reenter the US market through a regulated exchange structure, aiming to operate under federal commodities oversight rather than state gambling statutes.
That strategy sits at the heart of the current conflict. Federal commodities regulation and state gambling law can point in different directions for the same product. Prediction markets occupy a gray zone between the two, and different regulators have reached different conclusions about which framework applies.
New York's move follows broader scrutiny of prediction and event-contract platforms across the country. Other operators offering similar products, including sports and election-outcome contracts, have faced comparable questions from state gaming regulators. Some states have argued that event contracts function identically to sports betting or other regulated gambling activity, regardless of how a platform structures the trade.
Polymarket's decision to countersue, as described by Unchained, signals it intends to contest New York's position rather than adjust its operations to comply. The company has previously argued that its structure and oversight place it outside traditional gambling regulation. How a court weighs that argument against state gambling statutes could shape the legal footing for other prediction market operators.
The outcome may also influence how other states approach similar platforms. A ruling against Polymarket could embolden additional state actions. A ruling in the company's favor could reinforce the argument that federally regulated exchange structures preempt state gambling claims.
Market Impact
A prolonged legal fight between New York and Polymarket could create uncertainty for the broader prediction market sector. Investors and platform operators watching the case may delay expansion into new states pending clarity on which regulatory framework governs event contracts.
The dispute could also affect how other prediction market platforms position themselves relative to state versus federal oversight. Firms that have pursued similar exchange licensing strategies may face comparable challenges if New York's argument gains traction in court.
The case sets up a legal test over whether event-based trading counts as gambling or falls under commodities regulation, with implications reaching beyond Polymarket alone.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is New York alleging against Polymarket?
New York's lawsuit alleges that Polymarket operates an illegal gambling business within the state, according to reporting from Crypto News Australia and Crypto Daily.
How has Polymarket responded to the lawsuit?
Polymarket has filed a countersuit against New York, according to Unchained, indicating it intends to contest the state's claims in court.
Why is it unclear whether prediction markets count as gambling?
Prediction markets let users trade on event outcomes, which can resemble both commodities trading and wagering. Federal regulators have at times treated Polymarket under commodities law, while state gambling statutes may classify similar activity differently.
Has Polymarket faced US regulatory action before?
Yes. Polymarket previously settled with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and restricted US users before later pursuing a regulated exchange structure to reenter the American market.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Amelia Brooks. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Polymarket Faces Illegal Gambling Lawsuit From New York, Fires Back With Its Own Suit appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
New York state authorities have sued Polymarket, alleging the platform runs an illegal gambling operation within the state. The filing was reported by Crypto News Australia and Crypto Daily on September 25, 2026. Unchained added that Polymarket has filed a countersuit against New York in response.
Polymarket allows users to trade on the outcomes of real-world events, from elections to sports results to economic data releases. The platform frames these trades as prediction markets rather than bets, a distinction that has become central to its regulatory battles. New York's lawsuit challenges that framing directly, treating the trades as wagers subject to the state's gambling laws.
The dispute is not Polymarket's first brush with US regulators. The platform previously settled with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and barred American users from its main product. It later moved to reenter the US market through a regulated exchange structure, aiming to operate under federal commodities oversight rather than state gambling statutes.
That strategy sits at the heart of the current conflict. Federal commodities regulation and state gambling law can point in different directions for the same product. Prediction markets occupy a gray zone between the two, and different regulators have reached different conclusions about which framework applies.
New York's move follows broader scrutiny of prediction and event-contract platforms across the country. Other operators offering similar products, including sports and election-outcome contracts, have faced comparable questions from state gaming regulators. Some states have argued that event contracts function identically to sports betting or other regulated gambling activity, regardless of how a platform structures the trade.
Polymarket's decision to countersue, as described by Unchained, signals it intends to contest New York's position rather than adjust its operations to comply. The company has previously argued that its structure and oversight place it outside traditional gambling regulation. How a court weighs that argument against state gambling statutes could shape the legal footing for other prediction market operators.
The outcome may also influence how other states approach similar platforms. A ruling against Polymarket could embolden additional state actions. A ruling in the company's favor could reinforce the argument that federally regulated exchange structures preempt state gambling claims.
Market Impact
A prolonged legal fight between New York and Polymarket could create uncertainty for the broader prediction market sector. Investors and platform operators watching the case may delay expansion into new states pending clarity on which regulatory framework governs event contracts.
The dispute could also affect how other prediction market platforms position themselves relative to state versus federal oversight. Firms that have pursued similar exchange licensing strategies may face comparable challenges if New York's argument gains traction in court.
The case sets up a legal test over whether event-based trading counts as gambling or falls under commodities regulation, with implications reaching beyond Polymarket alone.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is New York alleging against Polymarket?
New York's lawsuit alleges that Polymarket operates an illegal gambling business within the state, according to reporting from Crypto News Australia and Crypto Daily.
How has Polymarket responded to the lawsuit?
Polymarket has filed a countersuit against New York, according to Unchained, indicating it intends to contest the state's claims in court.
Why is it unclear whether prediction markets count as gambling?
Prediction markets let users trade on event outcomes, which can resemble both commodities trading and wagering. Federal regulators have at times treated Polymarket under commodities law, while state gambling statutes may classify similar activity differently.
Has Polymarket faced US regulatory action before?
Yes. Polymarket previously settled with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and restricted US users before later pursuing a regulated exchange structure to reenter the American market.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Amelia Brooks. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Polymarket Faces Illegal Gambling Lawsuit From New York, Fires Back With Its Own Suit appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
2
Ver tradução
Securitize Puts ARK Invest’s $1.3B Venture Fund on Ethereum BlockchainThe ARK Venture Fund, known as ARKVX, now exists in tokenized form, giving blockchain-based exposure to holdings that include OpenAI and Anthropic stakes.
ARK Invest has moved its flagship venture fund onto Ethereum, tokenizing the roughly $1.3 billion vehicle through a partnership with Securitize. The fund, referred to in reporting as ARKVX, is now available in a blockchain-based format alongside its existing traditional structure.
ARK Venture Fund is notable for its exposure to some of the most closely watched private technology companies. Its holdings reportedly include stakes in OpenAI and Anthropic, two firms at the center of the artificial intelligence boom. Tokenizing a fund with this kind of exposure gives blockchain-based investors indirect access to assets that have historically been reserved for institutional or accredited investors.
Securitize has built its business around bringing traditional financial products onto public blockchains. The firm has worked with other asset managers on similar tokenization projects, generally by issuing a blockchain-native representation of fund shares while the underlying assets remain governed by existing securities frameworks. That structure allows investors to hold and potentially transfer fund exposure using blockchain infrastructure, without altering the fund's underlying legal ownership.
The decision to use Ethereum specifically reflects the network's continued dominance in the tokenized asset space. Ethereum hosts the largest share of tokenized treasuries, funds, and other real-world assets currently on public blockchains. Asset managers exploring tokenization have repeatedly gravitated toward Ethereum because of its established infrastructure, liquidity, and developer ecosystem.
This tokenization effort fits into a broader pattern of traditional asset managers experimenting with blockchain-based fund structures. Firms across the industry have increasingly looked to tokenize money market funds, credit products, and now venture capital vehicles. Proponents argue tokenization can improve settlement speed, expand distribution, and create new forms of secondary liquidity for otherwise illiquid assets.
Venture funds are typically among the least liquid investment vehicles available to the public, given their long lock-up periods and private holdings. Tokenization does not automatically solve that illiquidity, since the underlying private company stakes still require exits or secondary sales to be converted into cash. What tokenization changes is the wrapper around fund ownership, not necessarily the liquidity of the assets inside it.
ARK Invest, led by Cathie Wood, has built a public profile around exposure to disruptive technology, including artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and blockchain infrastructure. The firm's decision to tokenize ARKVX signals continued interest in bridging its investment strategy with blockchain-native distribution methods.
Market Impact
The tokenization of a fund holding stakes in OpenAI and Anthropic could draw fresh attention to Ethereum's role as infrastructure for real-world asset products. It may also reinforce interest from other asset managers considering similar structures for private equity or venture exposure.
For investors, the practical impact centers on access and structure rather than valuation, since the underlying assets and their private-market values are unchanged by tokenization. Any secondary market activity in the tokenized shares would depend on regulatory permissions and platform support, both of which remain works in progress across the tokenized fund sector.
ARK Invest's move places one of its most closely watched funds inside the expanding tokenized asset ecosystem on Ethereum. The step reflects a broader industry trend toward blending traditional fund structures with blockchain-based distribution.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ARK Venture Fund?
It is a closed-end fund managed by ARK Invest that holds stakes in private technology companies, reportedly including OpenAI and Anthropic, alongside other holdings.
What does tokenizing the fund actually change?
Tokenization creates a blockchain-based representation of fund shares through Securitize, while the fund's underlying assets and legal structure remain governed by existing securities rules.
Why did ARK Invest choose Ethereum for this tokenization?
Ethereum currently hosts the largest share of tokenized real-world assets, making it a common choice for asset managers pursuing similar blockchain-based fund structures.
Does tokenization make the fund more liquid?
Not automatically. The fund's underlying private company stakes still require traditional exits or sales, so liquidity depends on future secondary market development for the tokenized shares.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Noah Sullivan. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Securitize Puts ARK Invest’s $1.3B Venture Fund on Ethereum Blockchain appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
Securitize Puts ARK Invest’s $1.3B Venture Fund on Ethereum Blockchain
The ARK Venture Fund, known as ARKVX, now exists in tokenized form, giving blockchain-based exposure to holdings that include OpenAI and Anthropic stakes.
ARK Invest has moved its flagship venture fund onto Ethereum, tokenizing the roughly $1.3 billion vehicle through a partnership with Securitize. The fund, referred to in reporting as ARKVX, is now available in a blockchain-based format alongside its existing traditional structure.
ARK Venture Fund is notable for its exposure to some of the most closely watched private technology companies. Its holdings reportedly include stakes in OpenAI and Anthropic, two firms at the center of the artificial intelligence boom. Tokenizing a fund with this kind of exposure gives blockchain-based investors indirect access to assets that have historically been reserved for institutional or accredited investors.
Securitize has built its business around bringing traditional financial products onto public blockchains. The firm has worked with other asset managers on similar tokenization projects, generally by issuing a blockchain-native representation of fund shares while the underlying assets remain governed by existing securities frameworks. That structure allows investors to hold and potentially transfer fund exposure using blockchain infrastructure, without altering the fund's underlying legal ownership.
The decision to use Ethereum specifically reflects the network's continued dominance in the tokenized asset space. Ethereum hosts the largest share of tokenized treasuries, funds, and other real-world assets currently on public blockchains. Asset managers exploring tokenization have repeatedly gravitated toward Ethereum because of its established infrastructure, liquidity, and developer ecosystem.
This tokenization effort fits into a broader pattern of traditional asset managers experimenting with blockchain-based fund structures. Firms across the industry have increasingly looked to tokenize money market funds, credit products, and now venture capital vehicles. Proponents argue tokenization can improve settlement speed, expand distribution, and create new forms of secondary liquidity for otherwise illiquid assets.
Venture funds are typically among the least liquid investment vehicles available to the public, given their long lock-up periods and private holdings. Tokenization does not automatically solve that illiquidity, since the underlying private company stakes still require exits or secondary sales to be converted into cash. What tokenization changes is the wrapper around fund ownership, not necessarily the liquidity of the assets inside it.
ARK Invest, led by Cathie Wood, has built a public profile around exposure to disruptive technology, including artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and blockchain infrastructure. The firm's decision to tokenize ARKVX signals continued interest in bridging its investment strategy with blockchain-native distribution methods.
Market Impact
The tokenization of a fund holding stakes in OpenAI and Anthropic could draw fresh attention to Ethereum's role as infrastructure for real-world asset products. It may also reinforce interest from other asset managers considering similar structures for private equity or venture exposure.
For investors, the practical impact centers on access and structure rather than valuation, since the underlying assets and their private-market values are unchanged by tokenization. Any secondary market activity in the tokenized shares would depend on regulatory permissions and platform support, both of which remain works in progress across the tokenized fund sector.
ARK Invest's move places one of its most closely watched funds inside the expanding tokenized asset ecosystem on Ethereum. The step reflects a broader industry trend toward blending traditional fund structures with blockchain-based distribution.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ARK Venture Fund?
It is a closed-end fund managed by ARK Invest that holds stakes in private technology companies, reportedly including OpenAI and Anthropic, alongside other holdings.
What does tokenizing the fund actually change?
Tokenization creates a blockchain-based representation of fund shares through Securitize, while the fund's underlying assets and legal structure remain governed by existing securities rules.
Why did ARK Invest choose Ethereum for this tokenization?
Ethereum currently hosts the largest share of tokenized real-world assets, making it a common choice for asset managers pursuing similar blockchain-based fund structures.
Does tokenization make the fund more liquid?
Not automatically. The fund's underlying private company stakes still require traditional exits or sales, so liquidity depends on future secondary market development for the tokenized shares.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Noah Sullivan. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Securitize Puts ARK Invest’s $1.3B Venture Fund on Ethereum Blockchain appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
ARK Invest has moved its flagship venture fund onto Ethereum, tokenizing the roughly $1.3 billion vehicle through a partnership with Securitize. The fund, referred to in reporting as ARKVX, is now available in a blockchain-based format alongside its existing traditional structure.
ARK Venture Fund is notable for its exposure to some of the most closely watched private technology companies. Its holdings reportedly include stakes in OpenAI and Anthropic, two firms at the center of the artificial intelligence boom. Tokenizing a fund with this kind of exposure gives blockchain-based investors indirect access to assets that have historically been reserved for institutional or accredited investors.
Securitize has built its business around bringing traditional financial products onto public blockchains. The firm has worked with other asset managers on similar tokenization projects, generally by issuing a blockchain-native representation of fund shares while the underlying assets remain governed by existing securities frameworks. That structure allows investors to hold and potentially transfer fund exposure using blockchain infrastructure, without altering the fund's underlying legal ownership.
The decision to use Ethereum specifically reflects the network's continued dominance in the tokenized asset space. Ethereum hosts the largest share of tokenized treasuries, funds, and other real-world assets currently on public blockchains. Asset managers exploring tokenization have repeatedly gravitated toward Ethereum because of its established infrastructure, liquidity, and developer ecosystem.
This tokenization effort fits into a broader pattern of traditional asset managers experimenting with blockchain-based fund structures. Firms across the industry have increasingly looked to tokenize money market funds, credit products, and now venture capital vehicles. Proponents argue tokenization can improve settlement speed, expand distribution, and create new forms of secondary liquidity for otherwise illiquid assets.
Venture funds are typically among the least liquid investment vehicles available to the public, given their long lock-up periods and private holdings. Tokenization does not automatically solve that illiquidity, since the underlying private company stakes still require exits or secondary sales to be converted into cash. What tokenization changes is the wrapper around fund ownership, not necessarily the liquidity of the assets inside it.
ARK Invest, led by Cathie Wood, has built a public profile around exposure to disruptive technology, including artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and blockchain infrastructure. The firm's decision to tokenize ARKVX signals continued interest in bridging its investment strategy with blockchain-native distribution methods.
Market Impact
The tokenization of a fund holding stakes in OpenAI and Anthropic could draw fresh attention to Ethereum's role as infrastructure for real-world asset products. It may also reinforce interest from other asset managers considering similar structures for private equity or venture exposure.
For investors, the practical impact centers on access and structure rather than valuation, since the underlying assets and their private-market values are unchanged by tokenization. Any secondary market activity in the tokenized shares would depend on regulatory permissions and platform support, both of which remain works in progress across the tokenized fund sector.
ARK Invest's move places one of its most closely watched funds inside the expanding tokenized asset ecosystem on Ethereum. The step reflects a broader industry trend toward blending traditional fund structures with blockchain-based distribution.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ARK Venture Fund?
It is a closed-end fund managed by ARK Invest that holds stakes in private technology companies, reportedly including OpenAI and Anthropic, alongside other holdings.
What does tokenizing the fund actually change?
Tokenization creates a blockchain-based representation of fund shares through Securitize, while the fund's underlying assets and legal structure remain governed by existing securities rules.
Why did ARK Invest choose Ethereum for this tokenization?
Ethereum currently hosts the largest share of tokenized real-world assets, making it a common choice for asset managers pursuing similar blockchain-based fund structures.
Does tokenization make the fund more liquid?
Not automatically. The fund's underlying private company stakes still require traditional exits or sales, so liquidity depends on future secondary market development for the tokenized shares.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Noah Sullivan. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Securitize Puts ARK Invest’s $1.3B Venture Fund on Ethereum Blockchain appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
3
Ver tradução
Order Book Depth for Bitcoin and Ether on MEXC Doubles in Months Since JulyA new TokenInsight report also credits the exchange with the deepest BTC and ETH futures books among tracked platforms in September.
MEXC's spot market liquidity for Bitcoin and Ether has expanded sharply since the summer. Finbold reported that order book depth for both assets on the exchange more than doubled between July and late September. Order book depth measures how much buy and sell volume sits near the current market price. Deeper books generally mean traders can execute larger orders without moving the price much.
A separate assessment from TokenInsight, covering exchange performance through September, placed MEXC at the top of its futures depth rankings. The report measured combined BTC and ETH futures depth at $21.03 million for MEXC, the highest figure among the exchanges TokenInsight tracked that month. The same report also found MEXC recorded the lowest slippage of any platform surveyed for a silver-linked trading pair, at 0.002%.
Slippage refers to the gap between an expected trade price and the price actually executed. Low slippage typically signals a market with ample resting orders and tight spreads. For traders moving sizeable positions, both depth and slippage figures are practical indicators of execution quality rather than abstract statistics.
The timing of this liquidity growth is notable. Crypto markets have seen periods of thinning liquidity on some venues this year, as trading activity has shifted unevenly across exchanges. A doubling of spot depth over roughly two months suggests MEXC has been attracting more market-making activity, more retail and institutional order flow, or both, during that window.
Order book depth and slippage are among the metrics analysts use to compare exchange market structure. They sit alongside trading volume, open interest, and custody arrangements as ways to gauge how resilient a platform is under stress. An exchange with deep books is generally better positioned to absorb large trades without triggering outsized price swings, which matters to both retail traders and larger institutional participants.
TokenInsight's September report evaluated multiple exchanges across spot and derivatives categories, and MEXC's showing in the futures depth and slippage categories adds another data point to its recent liquidity trend. Neither Finbold nor TokenInsight attributed the improvement to a single cause, such as a specific product launch or incentive program. The reports focused on the measured outcomes rather than the underlying drivers.
For market participants, these figures offer a snapshot rather than a guarantee of future conditions. Liquidity metrics can shift quickly with changes in trading volume, volatility, or competitive dynamics among exchanges. Still, a sustained doubling in spot depth over several months is a meaningful signal about where trading activity has been concentrating in the crypto derivatives and spot landscape this cycle.
Market Impact
Deeper order books on a major exchange like MEXC can influence where traders choose to route large orders, particularly for Bitcoin and Ether, the two most heavily traded crypto assets. Improved depth and lower slippage reduce execution costs for high-volume traders and market makers, which can in turn attract further liquidity in a self-reinforcing cycle.
For the broader exchange landscape, rankings like TokenInsight's futures depth and slippage figures feed into how institutional desks and algorithmic traders assess venue quality. If MEXC's liquidity advantage persists, it could shift some trading volume away from competitors, though such rankings can change from month to month as market conditions evolve.
The reported growth in MEXC's order book depth and its September ranking for futures liquidity point to a period of strengthening market structure at the exchange, though continued monitoring will show whether the trend holds.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does order book depth measure?
Order book depth measures the volume of buy and sell orders resting near the current market price. Greater depth allows larger trades to execute with less impact on price.
What did the TokenInsight September report find about MEXC?
TokenInsight reported MEXC had the deepest combined Bitcoin and Ether futures order book depth among tracked exchanges, at $21.03 million, and the lowest slippage recorded for a silver-related pair, at 0.002%.
Why does lower slippage matter to traders?
Lower slippage means trades execute closer to their expected price, reducing hidden costs, which is especially important for traders moving large positions.
Did the reports explain why MEXC's liquidity grew?
No specific cause was given in the reporting. Finbold and TokenInsight presented the measured depth and slippage figures without attributing the change to a particular product or event.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Noah Sullivan. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Order Book Depth for Bitcoin and Ether on MEXC Doubles in Months Since July appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
Order Book Depth for Bitcoin and Ether on MEXC Doubles in Months Since July
A new TokenInsight report also credits the exchange with the deepest BTC and ETH futures books among tracked platforms in September.
MEXC's spot market liquidity for Bitcoin and Ether has expanded sharply since the summer. Finbold reported that order book depth for both assets on the exchange more than doubled between July and late September. Order book depth measures how much buy and sell volume sits near the current market price. Deeper books generally mean traders can execute larger orders without moving the price much.
A separate assessment from TokenInsight, covering exchange performance through September, placed MEXC at the top of its futures depth rankings. The report measured combined BTC and ETH futures depth at $21.03 million for MEXC, the highest figure among the exchanges TokenInsight tracked that month. The same report also found MEXC recorded the lowest slippage of any platform surveyed for a silver-linked trading pair, at 0.002%.
Slippage refers to the gap between an expected trade price and the price actually executed. Low slippage typically signals a market with ample resting orders and tight spreads. For traders moving sizeable positions, both depth and slippage figures are practical indicators of execution quality rather than abstract statistics.
The timing of this liquidity growth is notable. Crypto markets have seen periods of thinning liquidity on some venues this year, as trading activity has shifted unevenly across exchanges. A doubling of spot depth over roughly two months suggests MEXC has been attracting more market-making activity, more retail and institutional order flow, or both, during that window.
Order book depth and slippage are among the metrics analysts use to compare exchange market structure. They sit alongside trading volume, open interest, and custody arrangements as ways to gauge how resilient a platform is under stress. An exchange with deep books is generally better positioned to absorb large trades without triggering outsized price swings, which matters to both retail traders and larger institutional participants.
TokenInsight's September report evaluated multiple exchanges across spot and derivatives categories, and MEXC's showing in the futures depth and slippage categories adds another data point to its recent liquidity trend. Neither Finbold nor TokenInsight attributed the improvement to a single cause, such as a specific product launch or incentive program. The reports focused on the measured outcomes rather than the underlying drivers.
For market participants, these figures offer a snapshot rather than a guarantee of future conditions. Liquidity metrics can shift quickly with changes in trading volume, volatility, or competitive dynamics among exchanges. Still, a sustained doubling in spot depth over several months is a meaningful signal about where trading activity has been concentrating in the crypto derivatives and spot landscape this cycle.
Market Impact
Deeper order books on a major exchange like MEXC can influence where traders choose to route large orders, particularly for Bitcoin and Ether, the two most heavily traded crypto assets. Improved depth and lower slippage reduce execution costs for high-volume traders and market makers, which can in turn attract further liquidity in a self-reinforcing cycle.
For the broader exchange landscape, rankings like TokenInsight's futures depth and slippage figures feed into how institutional desks and algorithmic traders assess venue quality. If MEXC's liquidity advantage persists, it could shift some trading volume away from competitors, though such rankings can change from month to month as market conditions evolve.
The reported growth in MEXC's order book depth and its September ranking for futures liquidity point to a period of strengthening market structure at the exchange, though continued monitoring will show whether the trend holds.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does order book depth measure?
Order book depth measures the volume of buy and sell orders resting near the current market price. Greater depth allows larger trades to execute with less impact on price.
What did the TokenInsight September report find about MEXC?
TokenInsight reported MEXC had the deepest combined Bitcoin and Ether futures order book depth among tracked exchanges, at $21.03 million, and the lowest slippage recorded for a silver-related pair, at 0.002%.
Why does lower slippage matter to traders?
Lower slippage means trades execute closer to their expected price, reducing hidden costs, which is especially important for traders moving large positions.
Did the reports explain why MEXC's liquidity grew?
No specific cause was given in the reporting. Finbold and TokenInsight presented the measured depth and slippage figures without attributing the change to a particular product or event.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Noah Sullivan. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Order Book Depth for Bitcoin and Ether on MEXC Doubles in Months Since July appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
MEXC's spot market liquidity for Bitcoin and Ether has expanded sharply since the summer. Finbold reported that order book depth for both assets on the exchange more than doubled between July and late September. Order book depth measures how much buy and sell volume sits near the current market price. Deeper books generally mean traders can execute larger orders without moving the price much.
A separate assessment from TokenInsight, covering exchange performance through September, placed MEXC at the top of its futures depth rankings. The report measured combined BTC and ETH futures depth at $21.03 million for MEXC, the highest figure among the exchanges TokenInsight tracked that month. The same report also found MEXC recorded the lowest slippage of any platform surveyed for a silver-linked trading pair, at 0.002%.
Slippage refers to the gap between an expected trade price and the price actually executed. Low slippage typically signals a market with ample resting orders and tight spreads. For traders moving sizeable positions, both depth and slippage figures are practical indicators of execution quality rather than abstract statistics.
The timing of this liquidity growth is notable. Crypto markets have seen periods of thinning liquidity on some venues this year, as trading activity has shifted unevenly across exchanges. A doubling of spot depth over roughly two months suggests MEXC has been attracting more market-making activity, more retail and institutional order flow, or both, during that window.
Order book depth and slippage are among the metrics analysts use to compare exchange market structure. They sit alongside trading volume, open interest, and custody arrangements as ways to gauge how resilient a platform is under stress. An exchange with deep books is generally better positioned to absorb large trades without triggering outsized price swings, which matters to both retail traders and larger institutional participants.
TokenInsight's September report evaluated multiple exchanges across spot and derivatives categories, and MEXC's showing in the futures depth and slippage categories adds another data point to its recent liquidity trend. Neither Finbold nor TokenInsight attributed the improvement to a single cause, such as a specific product launch or incentive program. The reports focused on the measured outcomes rather than the underlying drivers.
For market participants, these figures offer a snapshot rather than a guarantee of future conditions. Liquidity metrics can shift quickly with changes in trading volume, volatility, or competitive dynamics among exchanges. Still, a sustained doubling in spot depth over several months is a meaningful signal about where trading activity has been concentrating in the crypto derivatives and spot landscape this cycle.
Market Impact
Deeper order books on a major exchange like MEXC can influence where traders choose to route large orders, particularly for Bitcoin and Ether, the two most heavily traded crypto assets. Improved depth and lower slippage reduce execution costs for high-volume traders and market makers, which can in turn attract further liquidity in a self-reinforcing cycle.
For the broader exchange landscape, rankings like TokenInsight's futures depth and slippage figures feed into how institutional desks and algorithmic traders assess venue quality. If MEXC's liquidity advantage persists, it could shift some trading volume away from competitors, though such rankings can change from month to month as market conditions evolve.
The reported growth in MEXC's order book depth and its September ranking for futures liquidity point to a period of strengthening market structure at the exchange, though continued monitoring will show whether the trend holds.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does order book depth measure?
Order book depth measures the volume of buy and sell orders resting near the current market price. Greater depth allows larger trades to execute with less impact on price.
What did the TokenInsight September report find about MEXC?
TokenInsight reported MEXC had the deepest combined Bitcoin and Ether futures order book depth among tracked exchanges, at $21.03 million, and the lowest slippage recorded for a silver-related pair, at 0.002%.
Why does lower slippage matter to traders?
Lower slippage means trades execute closer to their expected price, reducing hidden costs, which is especially important for traders moving large positions.
Did the reports explain why MEXC's liquidity grew?
No specific cause was given in the reporting. Finbold and TokenInsight presented the measured depth and slippage figures without attributing the change to a particular product or event.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Noah Sullivan. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Order Book Depth for Bitcoin and Ether on MEXC Doubles in Months Since July appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
17
Ver tradução
30-Day Ordeal Ends as Samourai Wallet Co-Founder Is Moved AgainReports indicate a fresh custodial move follows a month-long detention episode tied to the privacy wallet case.
A co-founder of Samourai Wallet is reportedly facing a new transfer, according to Cointelegraph and crypto.news, following what both outlets describe as a 30-day ordeal. Neither report provides extensive detail on the destination of the transfer or the precise nature of the preceding month-long period.
Samourai Wallet was a Bitcoin privacy tool designed to obscure transaction trails through coordinated mixing services. United States authorities shut the platform down in 2024, charging its founders with operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The case became a flashpoint for debates over financial privacy tools and their legal treatment under U.S. law.
The prosecution targeted Samourai's Whirlpool and Ricochet features, which authorities alleged were used to launder proceeds from illicit activity. Defenders of the project argued the wallet served legitimate privacy needs for ordinary users, not solely criminal actors. That tension between privacy technology and regulatory enforcement has persisted throughout the case's progression.
The new reports of a transfer following a 30-day ordeal suggest continued movement within the legal or custodial process surrounding one of the co-founders. Without further specifics from official channels, it remains unclear whether this refers to a change in detention facility, a court-related transfer, or another procedural step tied to the ongoing proceedings.
Cases involving crypto privacy tools tend to draw close attention from developers, civil liberties advocates, and industry lawyers. Outcomes in such prosecutions often influence how other privacy-focused projects assess their own legal exposure. A prolonged detention period, followed by a further transfer, can also raise questions among observers about due process timelines in cases involving novel financial technology.
The crypto industry has watched the Samourai Wallet prosecution closely since the initial charges were filed. Its outcome could shape how regulators approach other non-custodial or privacy-enhancing wallet software going forward. Developers of similar tools have expressed concern that aggressive enforcement could chill innovation in privacy-preserving financial technology more broadly.
As of this reporting, official statements from the Department of Justice or defense counsel addressing the specific transfer had not been independently detailed by either outlet. Readers should expect further clarification as the case proceeds through the court system. The broader legal questions about privacy tool liability remain unresolved regardless of this particular procedural development.
Market Impact
Direct market impact from this development appears limited, since it concerns individual legal proceedings rather than a protocol, token, or exchange event. However, the Samourai Wallet case continues to serve as a reference point for how U.S. authorities may treat privacy-focused crypto infrastructure. Developers and investors involved in privacy coins or mixing-adjacent technology may watch the case's progression for signals about future enforcement risk.
Sentiment among privacy-technology advocates could be affected if the case is perceived as dragging on without clear resolution. That said, no direct price or trading volume effects have been reported in connection with this specific transfer news.
Further details on the transfer and the broader Samourai Wallet prosecution are likely to emerge as court proceedings continue. The case remains a closely watched example of how regulators are handling privacy-oriented crypto software.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Samourai Wallet?
Samourai Wallet was a Bitcoin privacy wallet that used mixing features, including Whirlpool and Ricochet, to obscure transaction histories for users.
Why are the Samourai Wallet co-founders facing legal action?
U.S. authorities charged the co-founders in 2024 with operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
What does the reported 30-day ordeal and transfer refer to?
Reports from Cointelegraph and crypto.news indicate a co-founder faced a new transfer after a month-long period, though specific details have not been fully disclosed.
Does this news affect cryptocurrency markets directly?
There is no reported direct market impact tied to this specific development, as it concerns individual legal proceedings rather than trading activity.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Grace Mitchell. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post 30-Day Ordeal Ends as Samourai Wallet Co-Founder Is Moved Again appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
30-Day Ordeal Ends as Samourai Wallet Co-Founder Is Moved Again
Reports indicate a fresh custodial move follows a month-long detention episode tied to the privacy wallet case.
A co-founder of Samourai Wallet is reportedly facing a new transfer, according to Cointelegraph and crypto.news, following what both outlets describe as a 30-day ordeal. Neither report provides extensive detail on the destination of the transfer or the precise nature of the preceding month-long period.
Samourai Wallet was a Bitcoin privacy tool designed to obscure transaction trails through coordinated mixing services. United States authorities shut the platform down in 2024, charging its founders with operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The case became a flashpoint for debates over financial privacy tools and their legal treatment under U.S. law.
The prosecution targeted Samourai's Whirlpool and Ricochet features, which authorities alleged were used to launder proceeds from illicit activity. Defenders of the project argued the wallet served legitimate privacy needs for ordinary users, not solely criminal actors. That tension between privacy technology and regulatory enforcement has persisted throughout the case's progression.
The new reports of a transfer following a 30-day ordeal suggest continued movement within the legal or custodial process surrounding one of the co-founders. Without further specifics from official channels, it remains unclear whether this refers to a change in detention facility, a court-related transfer, or another procedural step tied to the ongoing proceedings.
Cases involving crypto privacy tools tend to draw close attention from developers, civil liberties advocates, and industry lawyers. Outcomes in such prosecutions often influence how other privacy-focused projects assess their own legal exposure. A prolonged detention period, followed by a further transfer, can also raise questions among observers about due process timelines in cases involving novel financial technology.
The crypto industry has watched the Samourai Wallet prosecution closely since the initial charges were filed. Its outcome could shape how regulators approach other non-custodial or privacy-enhancing wallet software going forward. Developers of similar tools have expressed concern that aggressive enforcement could chill innovation in privacy-preserving financial technology more broadly.
As of this reporting, official statements from the Department of Justice or defense counsel addressing the specific transfer had not been independently detailed by either outlet. Readers should expect further clarification as the case proceeds through the court system. The broader legal questions about privacy tool liability remain unresolved regardless of this particular procedural development.
Market Impact
Direct market impact from this development appears limited, since it concerns individual legal proceedings rather than a protocol, token, or exchange event. However, the Samourai Wallet case continues to serve as a reference point for how U.S. authorities may treat privacy-focused crypto infrastructure. Developers and investors involved in privacy coins or mixing-adjacent technology may watch the case's progression for signals about future enforcement risk.
Sentiment among privacy-technology advocates could be affected if the case is perceived as dragging on without clear resolution. That said, no direct price or trading volume effects have been reported in connection with this specific transfer news.
Further details on the transfer and the broader Samourai Wallet prosecution are likely to emerge as court proceedings continue. The case remains a closely watched example of how regulators are handling privacy-oriented crypto software.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Samourai Wallet?
Samourai Wallet was a Bitcoin privacy wallet that used mixing features, including Whirlpool and Ricochet, to obscure transaction histories for users.
Why are the Samourai Wallet co-founders facing legal action?
U.S. authorities charged the co-founders in 2024 with operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
What does the reported 30-day ordeal and transfer refer to?
Reports from Cointelegraph and crypto.news indicate a co-founder faced a new transfer after a month-long period, though specific details have not been fully disclosed.
Does this news affect cryptocurrency markets directly?
There is no reported direct market impact tied to this specific development, as it concerns individual legal proceedings rather than trading activity.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Grace Mitchell. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post 30-Day Ordeal Ends as Samourai Wallet Co-Founder Is Moved Again appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
A co-founder of Samourai Wallet is reportedly facing a new transfer, according to Cointelegraph and crypto.news, following what both outlets describe as a 30-day ordeal. Neither report provides extensive detail on the destination of the transfer or the precise nature of the preceding month-long period.
Samourai Wallet was a Bitcoin privacy tool designed to obscure transaction trails through coordinated mixing services. United States authorities shut the platform down in 2024, charging its founders with operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The case became a flashpoint for debates over financial privacy tools and their legal treatment under U.S. law.
The prosecution targeted Samourai's Whirlpool and Ricochet features, which authorities alleged were used to launder proceeds from illicit activity. Defenders of the project argued the wallet served legitimate privacy needs for ordinary users, not solely criminal actors. That tension between privacy technology and regulatory enforcement has persisted throughout the case's progression.
The new reports of a transfer following a 30-day ordeal suggest continued movement within the legal or custodial process surrounding one of the co-founders. Without further specifics from official channels, it remains unclear whether this refers to a change in detention facility, a court-related transfer, or another procedural step tied to the ongoing proceedings.
Cases involving crypto privacy tools tend to draw close attention from developers, civil liberties advocates, and industry lawyers. Outcomes in such prosecutions often influence how other privacy-focused projects assess their own legal exposure. A prolonged detention period, followed by a further transfer, can also raise questions among observers about due process timelines in cases involving novel financial technology.
The crypto industry has watched the Samourai Wallet prosecution closely since the initial charges were filed. Its outcome could shape how regulators approach other non-custodial or privacy-enhancing wallet software going forward. Developers of similar tools have expressed concern that aggressive enforcement could chill innovation in privacy-preserving financial technology more broadly.
As of this reporting, official statements from the Department of Justice or defense counsel addressing the specific transfer had not been independently detailed by either outlet. Readers should expect further clarification as the case proceeds through the court system. The broader legal questions about privacy tool liability remain unresolved regardless of this particular procedural development.
Market Impact
Direct market impact from this development appears limited, since it concerns individual legal proceedings rather than a protocol, token, or exchange event. However, the Samourai Wallet case continues to serve as a reference point for how U.S. authorities may treat privacy-focused crypto infrastructure. Developers and investors involved in privacy coins or mixing-adjacent technology may watch the case's progression for signals about future enforcement risk.
Sentiment among privacy-technology advocates could be affected if the case is perceived as dragging on without clear resolution. That said, no direct price or trading volume effects have been reported in connection with this specific transfer news.
Further details on the transfer and the broader Samourai Wallet prosecution are likely to emerge as court proceedings continue. The case remains a closely watched example of how regulators are handling privacy-oriented crypto software.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Samourai Wallet?
Samourai Wallet was a Bitcoin privacy wallet that used mixing features, including Whirlpool and Ricochet, to obscure transaction histories for users.
Why are the Samourai Wallet co-founders facing legal action?
U.S. authorities charged the co-founders in 2024 with operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
What does the reported 30-day ordeal and transfer refer to?
Reports from Cointelegraph and crypto.news indicate a co-founder faced a new transfer after a month-long period, though specific details have not been fully disclosed.
Does this news affect cryptocurrency markets directly?
There is no reported direct market impact tied to this specific development, as it concerns individual legal proceedings rather than trading activity.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Grace Mitchell. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post 30-Day Ordeal Ends as Samourai Wallet Co-Founder Is Moved Again appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.
1
ETFs Spot de Bitcoin nos EUA Registram US$ 191M em Entradas Líquidas em Meio a Sequência de Seis DiasO mais recente número de entradas encerra um período prolongado que atraiu US$ 2,8 bilhões e ajudou a compensar saídas anteriores
ETFs spot de Bitcoin nos EUA adicionaram US$ 191 milhões em entradas líquidas, de acordo com números divulgados por várias publicações que acompanham os dados diários de fluxo de fundos. A entrada prolonga uma sequência de seis dias de atividade positiva que agora acumulou aproximadamente US$ 2,8 bilhões, com base na reportagem da Cointelegraph.
A Cointelegraph caracterizou o valor de US$ 191 milhões como uma desaceleração em comparação com o ritmo observado anteriormente na sequência. A Blockchain.News, por outro lado, descreveu a mesma janela como evidência de uma alta ligada a uma recuperação na demanda institucional. As duas descrições apontam para os mesmos dados subjacentes de entradas, mas destacam partes diferentes da tendência.
ETFs Spot de Bitcoin nos EUA Registram US$ 191M em Entradas Líquidas em Meio a Sequência de Seis Dias
O mais recente número de entradas encerra um período prolongado que atraiu US$ 2,8 bilhões e ajudou a compensar saídas anteriores
ETFs spot de Bitcoin nos EUA adicionaram US$ 191 milhões em entradas líquidas, de acordo com números divulgados por várias publicações que acompanham os dados diários de fluxo de fundos. A entrada prolonga uma sequência de seis dias de atividade positiva que agora acumulou aproximadamente US$ 2,8 bilhões, com base na reportagem da Cointelegraph.
A Cointelegraph caracterizou o valor de US$ 191 milhões como uma desaceleração em comparação com o ritmo observado anteriormente na sequência. A Blockchain.News, por outro lado, descreveu a mesma janela como evidência de uma alta ligada a uma recuperação na demanda institucional. As duas descrições apontam para os mesmos dados subjacentes de entradas, mas destacam partes diferentes da tendência.
ETFs spot de Bitcoin nos EUA adicionaram US$ 191 milhões em entradas líquidas, de acordo com números divulgados por várias publicações que acompanham os dados diários de fluxo de fundos. A entrada prolonga uma sequência de seis dias de atividade positiva que agora acumulou aproximadamente US$ 2,8 bilhões, com base na reportagem da Cointelegraph.
A Cointelegraph caracterizou o valor de US$ 191 milhões como uma desaceleração em comparação com o ritmo observado anteriormente na sequência. A Blockchain.News, por outro lado, descreveu a mesma janela como evidência de uma alta ligada a uma recuperação na demanda institucional. As duas descrições apontam para os mesmos dados subjacentes de entradas, mas destacam partes diferentes da tendência.
4
Hack da Duelbits: Relatórios Divergem sobre o Valor de USDT RoubadoA 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.
Hack da Duelbits: Relatórios Divergem sobre o Valor de USDT Roubado
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.
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.
132
Magic Eden investiga possível exploração após milhares de NFTs serem transferidos por 0 ETHRelatórios apontam para um incidente de segurança no mercado de NFTs, com uma fonte citando um resgate whitehat de milhares de tokens.
A Magic Eden, um dos maiores mercados de NFTs na indústria cripto, está sendo analisada após relatos de um possível exploit de segurança. Segundo a crypto.news, milhares de tokens não fungíveis foram transferidos pela plataforma por 0 ETH — um padrão que normalmente sinaliza uma falha na lógica das transações ou nos mecanismos de listagem, e não vendas legítimas.
Transferências de valor zero são um sinal de alerta reconhecido nos mercados de NFTs. Elas frequentemente indicam que um atacante encontrou uma forma de mover ativos sem pagar o preço pedido pelo vendedor. Esses incidentes podem decorrer de falhas em contratos inteligentes, exploração de permissões (aprovação) ou de dados de listagem manipulados na interface do front-end de um marketplace.
Magic Eden investiga possível exploração após milhares de NFTs serem transferidos por 0 ETH
Relatórios apontam para um incidente de segurança no mercado de NFTs, com uma fonte citando um resgate whitehat de milhares de tokens.
A Magic Eden, um dos maiores mercados de NFTs na indústria cripto, está sendo analisada após relatos de um possível exploit de segurança. Segundo a crypto.news, milhares de tokens não fungíveis foram transferidos pela plataforma por 0 ETH — um padrão que normalmente sinaliza uma falha na lógica das transações ou nos mecanismos de listagem, e não vendas legítimas.
Transferências de valor zero são um sinal de alerta reconhecido nos mercados de NFTs. Elas frequentemente indicam que um atacante encontrou uma forma de mover ativos sem pagar o preço pedido pelo vendedor. Esses incidentes podem decorrer de falhas em contratos inteligentes, exploração de permissões (aprovação) ou de dados de listagem manipulados na interface do front-end de um marketplace.
A Magic Eden, um dos maiores mercados de NFTs na indústria cripto, está sendo analisada após relatos de um possível exploit de segurança. Segundo a crypto.news, milhares de tokens não fungíveis foram transferidos pela plataforma por 0 ETH — um padrão que normalmente sinaliza uma falha na lógica das transações ou nos mecanismos de listagem, e não vendas legítimas.
Transferências de valor zero são um sinal de alerta reconhecido nos mercados de NFTs. Elas frequentemente indicam que um atacante encontrou uma forma de mover ativos sem pagar o preço pedido pelo vendedor. Esses incidentes podem decorrer de falhas em contratos inteligentes, exploração de permissões (aprovação) ou de dados de listagem manipulados na interface do front-end de um marketplace.
2
Bitget Confirma Brecha de Segurança de US$ 351,6 Milhões e Suspeita de Hackers Norte-CoreanosA exchange interrompeu os saques após uma invasão de carteira quente, com seu CEO apontando pistas relacionadas a endereços de IP.
O principal executivo da Bitget confirmou publicamente uma violação de segurança que afeta US$ 351,6 milhões em ativos digitais. Os recursos estavam mantidos na infraestrutura da carteira quente do exchange, de acordo com a divulgação da empresa. As carteiras quentes ficam conectadas à internet para um processamento de transações mais rápido, o que as torna mais expostas do que o armazenamento offline em cold storage.
A exchange respondeu suspendendo saques dos clientes pouco depois de detectar a violação. Suspender saques é uma medida de contenção padrão que os exchanges adotam para interromper novas saídas enquanto avaliam a extensão de uma possível invasão. Isso também dá tempo às equipes de segurança para rastrear o movimento de fundos roubados entre blockchains.
Bitget Confirma Brecha de Segurança de US$ 351,6 Milhões e Suspeita de Hackers Norte-Coreanos
A exchange interrompeu os saques após uma invasão de carteira quente, com seu CEO apontando pistas relacionadas a endereços de IP.
O principal executivo da Bitget confirmou publicamente uma violação de segurança que afeta US$ 351,6 milhões em ativos digitais. Os recursos estavam mantidos na infraestrutura da carteira quente do exchange, de acordo com a divulgação da empresa. As carteiras quentes ficam conectadas à internet para um processamento de transações mais rápido, o que as torna mais expostas do que o armazenamento offline em cold storage.
A exchange respondeu suspendendo saques dos clientes pouco depois de detectar a violação. Suspender saques é uma medida de contenção padrão que os exchanges adotam para interromper novas saídas enquanto avaliam a extensão de uma possível invasão. Isso também dá tempo às equipes de segurança para rastrear o movimento de fundos roubados entre blockchains.
O principal executivo da Bitget confirmou publicamente uma violação de segurança que afeta US$ 351,6 milhões em ativos digitais. Os recursos estavam mantidos na infraestrutura da carteira quente do exchange, de acordo com a divulgação da empresa. As carteiras quentes ficam conectadas à internet para um processamento de transações mais rápido, o que as torna mais expostas do que o armazenamento offline em cold storage.
A exchange respondeu suspendendo saques dos clientes pouco depois de detectar a violação. Suspender saques é uma medida de contenção padrão que os exchanges adotam para interromper novas saídas enquanto avaliam a extensão de uma possível invasão. Isso também dá tempo às equipes de segurança para rastrear o movimento de fundos roubados entre blockchains.
4
Exploração de US$ 292 milhões do rsETH dá início a processo da Kelp DAO contra a LayerZero e cofundadorO protocolo de recomposição líquida acusa a empresa de mensagens entre cadeias de falhas ligadas a uma grande perda de fundos dos usuários
A Kelp DAO, o protocolo de recomposição líquida (liquid restaking) por trás do token rsETH, protocolou uma ação judicial contra a LayerZero e um cofundador da rede de mensagens entre cadeias. A medida legal se concentra em uma exploração reportada como tendo drenado aproximadamente US$ 292 milhões em valor ligados ao rsETH. A Kelp DAO argumenta que a LayerZero é responsável por falhas associadas ao incidente.
A LayerZero opera como infraestrutura de interoperabilidade, permitindo que tokens e mensagens se movam entre diferentes blockchains. Protocolos como a Kelp DAO dependem dessas pontes para manter os ativos recompostos (restaked) sincronizados entre redes. Quando sistemas de mensagens entre cadeias falham ou são explorados, as consequências podem se propagar para os protocolos construídos sobre eles.
Exploração de US$ 292 milhões do rsETH dá início a processo da Kelp DAO contra a LayerZero e cofundador
O protocolo de recomposição líquida acusa a empresa de mensagens entre cadeias de falhas ligadas a uma grande perda de fundos dos usuários
A Kelp DAO, o protocolo de recomposição líquida (liquid restaking) por trás do token rsETH, protocolou uma ação judicial contra a LayerZero e um cofundador da rede de mensagens entre cadeias. A medida legal se concentra em uma exploração reportada como tendo drenado aproximadamente US$ 292 milhões em valor ligados ao rsETH. A Kelp DAO argumenta que a LayerZero é responsável por falhas associadas ao incidente.
A LayerZero opera como infraestrutura de interoperabilidade, permitindo que tokens e mensagens se movam entre diferentes blockchains. Protocolos como a Kelp DAO dependem dessas pontes para manter os ativos recompostos (restaked) sincronizados entre redes. Quando sistemas de mensagens entre cadeias falham ou são explorados, as consequências podem se propagar para os protocolos construídos sobre eles.
A Kelp DAO, o protocolo de recomposição líquida (liquid restaking) por trás do token rsETH, protocolou uma ação judicial contra a LayerZero e um cofundador da rede de mensagens entre cadeias. A medida legal se concentra em uma exploração reportada como tendo drenado aproximadamente US$ 292 milhões em valor ligados ao rsETH. A Kelp DAO argumenta que a LayerZero é responsável por falhas associadas ao incidente.
A LayerZero opera como infraestrutura de interoperabilidade, permitindo que tokens e mensagens se movam entre diferentes blockchains. Protocolos como a Kelp DAO dependem dessas pontes para manter os ativos recompostos (restaked) sincronizados entre redes. Quando sistemas de mensagens entre cadeias falham ou são explorados, as consequências podem se propagar para os protocolos construídos sobre eles.
3
Artigo
Principais criptos para grandes ganhos: Cardano e HYPE disparam enquanto a rede INVEST (INVST) avança para o estágio 3 ...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.
Principais criptos para grandes ganhos: Cardano e HYPE disparam enquanto a rede INVEST (INVST) avança para o estágio 3 ...
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.
219
Akamai fecha acordo de US$ 11,6 bilhões com a Anthropic, com potencial para chegar a US$ 20 bilhõesO acordo vincula o negócio de infraestrutura da Akamai ao crescimento dos modelos de IA da Anthropic, e não a um contrato de nuvem padrão.
A Akamai Technologies celebrou um acordo com a Anthropic no valor de US$ 11,6 bilhões, segundo reportagens do Cryptopolitan e do Forkast. Ambos os veículos indicam que o valor total do negócio pode subir para até US$ 20 bilhões ao longo do tempo.
A parceria representa um dos maiores compromissos de infraestrutura ligados a uma única empresa de IA divulgados este ano. A Anthropic, desenvolvedora da família de modelos de IA da linha Claude, tem ampliado rapidamente suas necessidades de computação conforme a demanda por seus produtos cresce. A Akamai, conhecida há muito tempo por redes de entrega de conteúdo e computação de ponta, vem construindo serviços de nuvem e infraestrutura voltados para cargas de trabalho de IA em larga escala.
Akamai fecha acordo de US$ 11,6 bilhões com a Anthropic, com potencial para chegar a US$ 20 bilhões
O acordo vincula o negócio de infraestrutura da Akamai ao crescimento dos modelos de IA da Anthropic, e não a um contrato de nuvem padrão.
A Akamai Technologies celebrou um acordo com a Anthropic no valor de US$ 11,6 bilhões, segundo reportagens do Cryptopolitan e do Forkast. Ambos os veículos indicam que o valor total do negócio pode subir para até US$ 20 bilhões ao longo do tempo.
A parceria representa um dos maiores compromissos de infraestrutura ligados a uma única empresa de IA divulgados este ano. A Anthropic, desenvolvedora da família de modelos de IA da linha Claude, tem ampliado rapidamente suas necessidades de computação conforme a demanda por seus produtos cresce. A Akamai, conhecida há muito tempo por redes de entrega de conteúdo e computação de ponta, vem construindo serviços de nuvem e infraestrutura voltados para cargas de trabalho de IA em larga escala.
A Akamai Technologies celebrou um acordo com a Anthropic no valor de US$ 11,6 bilhões, segundo reportagens do Cryptopolitan e do Forkast. Ambos os veículos indicam que o valor total do negócio pode subir para até US$ 20 bilhões ao longo do tempo.
A parceria representa um dos maiores compromissos de infraestrutura ligados a uma única empresa de IA divulgados este ano. A Anthropic, desenvolvedora da família de modelos de IA da linha Claude, tem ampliado rapidamente suas necessidades de computação conforme a demanda por seus produtos cresce. A Akamai, conhecida há muito tempo por redes de entrega de conteúdo e computação de ponta, vem construindo serviços de nuvem e infraestrutura voltados para cargas de trabalho de IA em larga escala.
3
Comissária da SEC defende menos dados de KYC enquanto o Brasil exige maisLendo lado a lado, o registro regulatório da semana mostra um argumento em favor de verificações de identidade mais leves nos EUA e uma regra efetiva exigindo as mais pesadas no Brasil.
Lendo lado a lado, o registro regulatório da semana mostra um argumento em favor de verificações de identidade mais leves nos EUA e uma regra efetiva exigindo as mais pesadas no Brasil.
O argumento de um comissário não é a mesma coisa que uma mudança de regra
A comissária da SEC, Hester Peirce, argumentou que os requisitos atuais de saiba seu cliente (KYC) para empresas de cripto coletam mais dados pessoais do que o necessário, e propôs que ferramentas criptográficas, incluindo provas de conhecimento zero, poderiam atender a verificações de identidade e de prevenção à lavagem de dinheiro, limitando a exposição de dados. Essa é uma posição defendida por um comissário em exercício, não uma regra da agência, nem uma proposta de rulemaking, nem um voto. A matéria foi amplamente repercutida, com veiculação em publicações como Coin Edition, Coindoo, Cryptopolitan e crypto.news, mas o volume de cobertura não transforma a visão declarada por um comissário em uma política vinculante. Nada na reportagem indica que a SEC tenha aberto um processo de rulemaking com base nisso; portanto, o que existe nos registros é um argumento, não uma mudança no que as empresas devem efetivamente coletar.
Comissária da SEC defende menos dados de KYC enquanto o Brasil exige mais
Lendo lado a lado, o registro regulatório da semana mostra um argumento em favor de verificações de identidade mais leves nos EUA e uma regra efetiva exigindo as mais pesadas no Brasil.
Lendo lado a lado, o registro regulatório da semana mostra um argumento em favor de verificações de identidade mais leves nos EUA e uma regra efetiva exigindo as mais pesadas no Brasil.
O argumento de um comissário não é a mesma coisa que uma mudança de regra
A comissária da SEC, Hester Peirce, argumentou que os requisitos atuais de saiba seu cliente (KYC) para empresas de cripto coletam mais dados pessoais do que o necessário, e propôs que ferramentas criptográficas, incluindo provas de conhecimento zero, poderiam atender a verificações de identidade e de prevenção à lavagem de dinheiro, limitando a exposição de dados. Essa é uma posição defendida por um comissário em exercício, não uma regra da agência, nem uma proposta de rulemaking, nem um voto. A matéria foi amplamente repercutida, com veiculação em publicações como Coin Edition, Coindoo, Cryptopolitan e crypto.news, mas o volume de cobertura não transforma a visão declarada por um comissário em uma política vinculante. Nada na reportagem indica que a SEC tenha aberto um processo de rulemaking com base nisso; portanto, o que existe nos registros é um argumento, não uma mudança no que as empresas devem efetivamente coletar.
Lendo lado a lado, o registro regulatório da semana mostra um argumento em favor de verificações de identidade mais leves nos EUA e uma regra efetiva exigindo as mais pesadas no Brasil.
O argumento de um comissário não é a mesma coisa que uma mudança de regra
A comissária da SEC, Hester Peirce, argumentou que os requisitos atuais de saiba seu cliente (KYC) para empresas de cripto coletam mais dados pessoais do que o necessário, e propôs que ferramentas criptográficas, incluindo provas de conhecimento zero, poderiam atender a verificações de identidade e de prevenção à lavagem de dinheiro, limitando a exposição de dados. Essa é uma posição defendida por um comissário em exercício, não uma regra da agência, nem uma proposta de rulemaking, nem um voto. A matéria foi amplamente repercutida, com veiculação em publicações como Coin Edition, Coindoo, Cryptopolitan e crypto.news, mas o volume de cobertura não transforma a visão declarada por um comissário em uma política vinculante. Nada na reportagem indica que a SEC tenha aberto um processo de rulemaking com base nisso; portanto, o que existe nos registros é um argumento, não uma mudança no que as empresas devem efetivamente coletar.
176
Novas Regras de Reservas e Capital para Stablecoins Propostas pelo Fed Sob a Lei GENIUSO banco central passa a formalizar a cobertura de reservas e os requisitos de capital para tokens atrelados ao dólar à medida que avança a implementação da Lei GENIUS
O Federal Reserve propôs requisitos de reservas e de capital para emissores de stablecoins, de acordo com relatos do Cryptopolitan e do Crypto News Australia. A proposta se enquadra na Lei GENIUS, a lei federal que estabeleceu uma estrutura regulatória para stablecoins de pagamento nos Estados Unidos.
A Lei GENIUS estabeleceu requisitos básicos sobre como os emissores de stablecoins devem lastrear seus tokens e quem pode emiti-los legalmente. Ela deu às autoridades reguladoras federais, incluindo o Fed, a autoridade para criar regras detalhadas para implementar esses requisitos. Essa proposta representa um dos primeiros passos concretos do banco central para preencher essa estrutura.
Novas Regras de Reservas e Capital para Stablecoins Propostas pelo Fed Sob a Lei GENIUS
O banco central passa a formalizar a cobertura de reservas e os requisitos de capital para tokens atrelados ao dólar à medida que avança a implementação da Lei GENIUS
O Federal Reserve propôs requisitos de reservas e de capital para emissores de stablecoins, de acordo com relatos do Cryptopolitan e do Crypto News Australia. A proposta se enquadra na Lei GENIUS, a lei federal que estabeleceu uma estrutura regulatória para stablecoins de pagamento nos Estados Unidos.
A Lei GENIUS estabeleceu requisitos básicos sobre como os emissores de stablecoins devem lastrear seus tokens e quem pode emiti-los legalmente. Ela deu às autoridades reguladoras federais, incluindo o Fed, a autoridade para criar regras detalhadas para implementar esses requisitos. Essa proposta representa um dos primeiros passos concretos do banco central para preencher essa estrutura.
O Federal Reserve propôs requisitos de reservas e de capital para emissores de stablecoins, de acordo com relatos do Cryptopolitan e do Crypto News Australia. A proposta se enquadra na Lei GENIUS, a lei federal que estabeleceu uma estrutura regulatória para stablecoins de pagamento nos Estados Unidos.
A Lei GENIUS estabeleceu requisitos básicos sobre como os emissores de stablecoins devem lastrear seus tokens e quem pode emiti-los legalmente. Ela deu às autoridades reguladoras federais, incluindo o Fed, a autoridade para criar regras detalhadas para implementar esses requisitos. Essa proposta representa um dos primeiros passos concretos do banco central para preencher essa estrutura.
CEO da Bitget Diz que Hackers da Coreia do Norte ‘Muito Provavelmente’ Estiveram por Trás do Brecha de US$ 350M na ExchangeO CEO da exchange de criptomoedas apontou atores ligados ao Estado como a fonte provável de um dos maiores hacks do ano.
O CEO da Bitget afirmou que hackers norte-coreanos foram muito provavelmente os responsáveis por uma violação que drenou aproximadamente US$ 350 milhões da exchange. A declaração, confirmada em relatórios separados, marca um dos maiores roubos divulgados em uma grande plataforma de trading de criptomoedas neste ano.
A reportagem sobre o incidente varia ligeiramente quanto ao valor exato: algumas fontes citam US$ 350 milhões, enquanto outras colocam o prejuízo em US$ 351 milhões. A pequena discrepância provavelmente reflete diferenças de tempo na forma como os fundos roubados foram avaliados ou arredondamentos entre diferentes janelas de apuração.
CEO da Bitget Diz que Hackers da Coreia do Norte ‘Muito Provavelmente’ Estiveram por Trás do Brecha de US$ 350M na Exchange
O CEO da exchange de criptomoedas apontou atores ligados ao Estado como a fonte provável de um dos maiores hacks do ano.
O CEO da Bitget afirmou que hackers norte-coreanos foram muito provavelmente os responsáveis por uma violação que drenou aproximadamente US$ 350 milhões da exchange. A declaração, confirmada em relatórios separados, marca um dos maiores roubos divulgados em uma grande plataforma de trading de criptomoedas neste ano.
A reportagem sobre o incidente varia ligeiramente quanto ao valor exato: algumas fontes citam US$ 350 milhões, enquanto outras colocam o prejuízo em US$ 351 milhões. A pequena discrepância provavelmente reflete diferenças de tempo na forma como os fundos roubados foram avaliados ou arredondamentos entre diferentes janelas de apuração.
O CEO da Bitget afirmou que hackers norte-coreanos foram muito provavelmente os responsáveis por uma violação que drenou aproximadamente US$ 350 milhões da exchange. A declaração, confirmada em relatórios separados, marca um dos maiores roubos divulgados em uma grande plataforma de trading de criptomoedas neste ano.
A reportagem sobre o incidente varia ligeiramente quanto ao valor exato: algumas fontes citam US$ 350 milhões, enquanto outras colocam o prejuízo em US$ 351 milhões. A pequena discrepância provavelmente reflete diferenças de tempo na forma como os fundos roubados foram avaliados ou arredondamentos entre diferentes janelas de apuração.
7
A Block adiciona suporte ao Bitcoin Lightning ao protocolo de pagamento x402 para agentes de IAA fintech de Jack Dorsey se junta ao ecossistema x402, oferecendo a softwares autônomos uma forma baseada em Bitcoin de pagar por serviços
A Block, empresa de pagamentos liderada por Jack Dorsey, trouxe suporte à Rede Lightning do Bitcoin para o x402. O protocolo foi projetado para permitir que softwares, incluindo agentes de IA, paguem por serviços digitais automaticamente. A integração foi reportada pela Cointelegraph e pela crypto.news em 25 de setembro.
O x402 se baseia em uma parte antiga, mas raramente usada, da infraestrutura da internet: o código de status HTTP 402, originalmente reservado para respostas de "Pagamento Necessário". O protocolo reutiliza esse código para permitir que um servidor solicite pagamento diretamente de um programa que fez o pedido, sem que um humano precise avançar por uma página de checkout. Esse design se encaixa em um mundo em que agentes de IA cada vez mais precisam negociar por conta própria, comprando dados, capacidade de computação ou acesso a API sem aprovação manual em cada etapa.
A Block adiciona suporte ao Bitcoin Lightning ao protocolo de pagamento x402 para agentes de IA
A fintech de Jack Dorsey se junta ao ecossistema x402, oferecendo a softwares autônomos uma forma baseada em Bitcoin de pagar por serviços
A Block, empresa de pagamentos liderada por Jack Dorsey, trouxe suporte à Rede Lightning do Bitcoin para o x402. O protocolo foi projetado para permitir que softwares, incluindo agentes de IA, paguem por serviços digitais automaticamente. A integração foi reportada pela Cointelegraph e pela crypto.news em 25 de setembro.
O x402 se baseia em uma parte antiga, mas raramente usada, da infraestrutura da internet: o código de status HTTP 402, originalmente reservado para respostas de "Pagamento Necessário". O protocolo reutiliza esse código para permitir que um servidor solicite pagamento diretamente de um programa que fez o pedido, sem que um humano precise avançar por uma página de checkout. Esse design se encaixa em um mundo em que agentes de IA cada vez mais precisam negociar por conta própria, comprando dados, capacidade de computação ou acesso a API sem aprovação manual em cada etapa.
A Block, empresa de pagamentos liderada por Jack Dorsey, trouxe suporte à Rede Lightning do Bitcoin para o x402. O protocolo foi projetado para permitir que softwares, incluindo agentes de IA, paguem por serviços digitais automaticamente. A integração foi reportada pela Cointelegraph e pela crypto.news em 25 de setembro.
O x402 se baseia em uma parte antiga, mas raramente usada, da infraestrutura da internet: o código de status HTTP 402, originalmente reservado para respostas de "Pagamento Necessário". O protocolo reutiliza esse código para permitir que um servidor solicite pagamento diretamente de um programa que fez o pedido, sem que um humano precise avançar por uma página de checkout. Esse design se encaixa em um mundo em que agentes de IA cada vez mais precisam negociar por conta própria, comprando dados, capacidade de computação ou acesso a API sem aprovação manual em cada etapa.
2
Ondo Finance Lança Carteiras Tokenizadas Baseadas em Estratégias da BlackRockOs 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.
Ondo Finance Lança Carteiras Tokenizadas Baseadas em Estratégias da BlackRock
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.
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.
99
Bitget perde US$ 351,6 milhões em violação multi-chain: fundos foram trocados e drenadosO CEO Gray Chen afirma que transferências falsificadas, e não chaves privadas roubadas, permitiram o ataque.
A Bitget confirmou uma grande violação de segurança, que resultou em perdas de aproximadamente US$ 351,6 milhões. A exchange afirmou que hackers drenaram fundos de carteiras abrangendo múltiplas redes blockchain. Alguns relatos colocam o total mais perto de US$ 350 milhões, enquanto outros citam US$ 352 milhões, refletindo a dificuldade de contabilizar perdas entre cadeias em tempo real.
De acordo com a Bitget, os ativos roubados foram trocados por meio de vários protocolos logo após a violação. Essa é uma tática comum usada por atacantes para converter fundos ilícitos em tokens mais difíceis de rastrear. Mover fundos entre cadeias e trocá-los rapidamente também complica os esforços dos investigadores para congelar ou recuperar os ativos.
Bitget perde US$ 351,6 milhões em violação multi-chain: fundos foram trocados e drenados
O CEO Gray Chen afirma que transferências falsificadas, e não chaves privadas roubadas, permitiram o ataque.
A Bitget confirmou uma grande violação de segurança, que resultou em perdas de aproximadamente US$ 351,6 milhões. A exchange afirmou que hackers drenaram fundos de carteiras abrangendo múltiplas redes blockchain. Alguns relatos colocam o total mais perto de US$ 350 milhões, enquanto outros citam US$ 352 milhões, refletindo a dificuldade de contabilizar perdas entre cadeias em tempo real.
De acordo com a Bitget, os ativos roubados foram trocados por meio de vários protocolos logo após a violação. Essa é uma tática comum usada por atacantes para converter fundos ilícitos em tokens mais difíceis de rastrear. Mover fundos entre cadeias e trocá-los rapidamente também complica os esforços dos investigadores para congelar ou recuperar os ativos.
A Bitget confirmou uma grande violação de segurança, que resultou em perdas de aproximadamente US$ 351,6 milhões. A exchange afirmou que hackers drenaram fundos de carteiras abrangendo múltiplas redes blockchain. Alguns relatos colocam o total mais perto de US$ 350 milhões, enquanto outros citam US$ 352 milhões, refletindo a dificuldade de contabilizar perdas entre cadeias em tempo real.
De acordo com a Bitget, os ativos roubados foram trocados por meio de vários protocolos logo após a violação. Essa é uma tática comum usada por atacantes para converter fundos ilícitos em tokens mais difíceis de rastrear. Mover fundos entre cadeias e trocá-los rapidamente também complica os esforços dos investigadores para congelar ou recuperar os ativos.
2
Empresas de Cripto Devem Coletar Menos Dados de KYC, Defende Peirce, da SECA comissária sugere que provas de conhecimento zero poderiam verificar a identidade sem coletar dados pessoais em excesso.
A comissária da SEC, Hester Peirce, renovou os apelos para repensar como as empresas de cripto verificam a identidade dos clientes. Ela argumentou que as estruturas atuais de “know-your-customer” (conheça seu cliente), ou KYC, exigem mais informações pessoais do que os reguladores realmente precisam. Seus comentários apontam para um debate mais amplo sobre como a supervisão financeira deve se adaptar aos mercados de ativos digitais.
Peirce levantou especificamente as provas de conhecimento zero como uma possível solução. Esse método criptográfico permite que uma parte prove um fato — como ter mais de uma certa idade ou possuir recursos suficientes — sem revelar os dados subjacentes em si. Aplicado ao KYC, ele poderia permitir que as plataformas confirmem que um usuário atende aos requisitos legais sem armazenar documentos sensíveis ou registros pessoais.
Empresas de Cripto Devem Coletar Menos Dados de KYC, Defende Peirce, da SEC
A comissária sugere que provas de conhecimento zero poderiam verificar a identidade sem coletar dados pessoais em excesso.
A comissária da SEC, Hester Peirce, renovou os apelos para repensar como as empresas de cripto verificam a identidade dos clientes. Ela argumentou que as estruturas atuais de “know-your-customer” (conheça seu cliente), ou KYC, exigem mais informações pessoais do que os reguladores realmente precisam. Seus comentários apontam para um debate mais amplo sobre como a supervisão financeira deve se adaptar aos mercados de ativos digitais.
Peirce levantou especificamente as provas de conhecimento zero como uma possível solução. Esse método criptográfico permite que uma parte prove um fato — como ter mais de uma certa idade ou possuir recursos suficientes — sem revelar os dados subjacentes em si. Aplicado ao KYC, ele poderia permitir que as plataformas confirmem que um usuário atende aos requisitos legais sem armazenar documentos sensíveis ou registros pessoais.
A comissária da SEC, Hester Peirce, renovou os apelos para repensar como as empresas de cripto verificam a identidade dos clientes. Ela argumentou que as estruturas atuais de “know-your-customer” (conheça seu cliente), ou KYC, exigem mais informações pessoais do que os reguladores realmente precisam. Seus comentários apontam para um debate mais amplo sobre como a supervisão financeira deve se adaptar aos mercados de ativos digitais.
Peirce levantou especificamente as provas de conhecimento zero como uma possível solução. Esse método criptográfico permite que uma parte prove um fato — como ter mais de uma certa idade ou possuir recursos suficientes — sem revelar os dados subjacentes em si. Aplicado ao KYC, ele poderia permitir que as plataformas confirmem que um usuário atende aos requisitos legais sem armazenar documentos sensíveis ou registros pessoais.
1
Inicia sessão para explorar mais conteúdos
Junta-te a utilizadores de criptomoedas de todo o mundo na Binance Square
⚡️ Obtém informações úteis e recentes sobre criptomoedas.
💬 Com a confiança da maior exchange de criptomoedas do mundo.
👍 Descobre perspetivas reais de criadores verificados.
E-mail/Número de telefone