Crypto Breaking

Bitcoin’s contentious BIP-110 upgrade track is showing tangible friction in the form of a widening chain split. According to the BIP-110 monitor, the enforcing (BIP-110 validating) branch has stalled at block 961,633 after producing only two blocks, while the non-enforcing branch has advanced to block 961,721—pushing the gap to 88 blocks.
As the disagreement persists through the period where difficulty adjustments cannot yet fully catch up, the episode is again highlighting how “mandatory signaling” mechanics can turn a soft-proposal into an operational contest between node policies and mining output.
Key takeaways
The enforcing BIP-110 branch halted at block 961,633, while the non-enforcing chain reached 961,721, widening divergence to 88 blocks.
BIP-110 nodes reject blocks that do not signal via version bit 4, while ordinary Bitcoin nodes accept both signaling and non-signaling blocks—enabling two simultaneous histories.
Mandatory signaling began at block 961,632, following a signaling rate of only 2.53% (51 out of 2,016 blocks) in the prior window.
Ocean records attribute the enforcing branch’s first two blocks to a pseudonymous mining group named Roughnecks using Ocean’s DATUM mining protocol.
Mandatory signaling is scheduled to continue through block 963,647, and enforcing nodes must mine through the remainder of the 2,016-block adjustment period before difficulty can respond.
A split driven by node policy and signaling
The divergence started right as BIP-110 moved into mandatory signaling. The BIP-110 monitor reported the latest state as of 10:19 am UTC, showing the enforcing branch’s last block at 961,633—about 12 hours after the branch produced its two-block output.
In the window immediately before mandatory signaling, only 51 of the previous 2,016 blocks signaled support for BIP-110. The 2.53% figure matters because it reflects how limited the share of blocks was that complied with the signaling requirement before the stricter rule took effect.
Under the BIP-110 mechanism, nodes enforcing the proposal reject blocks that do not signal the required version bit (version bit 4). By contrast, standard Bitcoin nodes do not apply the same rejection rule and therefore accept both signaling and non-signaling blocks. That asymmetry is what allows two competing chains to progress independently when miners do not consistently produce blocks meeting the enforcing criteria.
What changed at block 961,632
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that BIP-110 crossed key thresholds as “spam wars” around transaction-level policy heated up. Building on that context, the current episode is now anchored to a precise transition: BIP-110 entered mandatory signaling at block 961,632 on Saturday.
The proposal’s terms, including the way mandatory signaling is enforced, run through block 963,647, according to the BIP-110 documentation. This implies that miners and enforcing nodes remain in a regime where the enforcing branch can only be strengthened if sufficiently more blocks comply with the signaling requirement.
Importantly for traders and operators tracking chain health, progress is not instantaneous. The enforcing branch must continue mining through the remainder of the 2,016-block difficulty adjustment period before difficulty can adjust, making it harder for a smaller enforcing cohort to “catch up” quickly without a material increase in hashpower.
Mining attribution points to a small cohort
Ocean’s records on the relevant block history provide additional detail on who produced the early enforcing blocks. Ocean data associated the enforcing branch’s first two blocks with a pseudonymous mining group called Roughnecks.
Those blocks were reportedly mined using Ocean’s Decentralized Alternative Templates for Universal Mining (DATUM) mining protocol, as reflected in Ocean’s block information for the cited enforcing-branch block. The fact that only a limited number of enforcing-compliant blocks appeared before the stalling suggests—without proving intent—that the set of miners producing compliant blocks has been comparatively small.
That matters operationally: if compliance is concentrated among a niche subgroup rather than broadly distributed across the mining ecosystem, the enforcing branch can lag for long stretches—exactly what the current 88-block gap illustrates.
Why critics argue the rules risk unintended consequences
The BIP-110 controversy has long centered on whether forcing consensus-level behavior around signaling and block acceptance is worth the potential benefits. Prominent Bitcoin figures have criticized the change as potentially undermining neutrality and creating avoidable risks.
Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor told Cointelegraph that while he supports the proposal’s objectives, he argued its approach threatened Bitcoin’s “neutral rules” and consensus. Separately, Blockstream CEO Adam Back warned, also via Cointelegraph coverage, that a consensus-level change could damage Bitcoin’s credibility and potentially make certain unspent transaction outputs unspendable.
While today’s split is not a verdict on the broader debate, it does underscore how quickly policy-based enforcement can translate into practical chain divergence when signaling support is thin and hashpower distribution doesn’t align with the enforcing conditions.
For readers watching this closely, the question is less whether the debate exists—critics and supporters are both on the record—but how sustained the operational divergence becomes once mandatory signaling remains in place through block 963,647.
What to monitor next
Until the enforcing branch reaches a point where difficulty can adjust—or until miners meaningfully increase the share of compliant signaling—watch for whether the enforcing chain resumes producing blocks at a higher rate and whether the block gap continues to widen or begins to narrow before block 963,647.
This article was originally published as BIP-110 Enforcement Stalls: Two Blocks Mined as Miner Support Lags on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s BIP-110-enforcing branch has stalled after mining just two blocks, widening the separation from the non-enforcing chain to 88 blocks. The latest update from a BIP-110 monitoring dashboard shows the mandatory-signaling version of the network making extremely slow progress as it awaits further blocks to complete the current difficulty-adjustment window.
According to the BIP-110 monitor (updated at 10:19 am UTC), the enforcing branch was last seen at block 961,633 after a long gap since its previous block. In the meantime, the non-enforcing chain advanced to block 961,721, underscoring how thin the enforcement-side hashpower currently is.
Key takeaways
The enforcing branch produced only two blocks before stalling, while the non-enforcing chain continued forward, increasing the block-gap to 88.
The divergence began after BIP-110 entered mandatory signaling at block 961,632, during which only 2.53% of blocks in the preceding window signaled support.
Mandatory signaling is scheduled to continue through block 963,647, but difficulty adjustment won’t fully help until the enforcing side mines through the remainder of the 2,016-block adjustment period.
Mining activity on the enforcing branch’s early blocks was attributed, via Ocean records, to a pseudonymous group using Ocean’s DATUM mining protocol.
Where the chains split
The split traces back to the moment BIP-110 moved into mandatory signaling mode. Earlier on Saturday, BIP-110 entered mandatory signaling at block 961,632. During the preceding 2,016-block adjustment window, only 51 blocks—about 2.53%—signaled support.
This matters because, under the BIP-110 rules, enforcing nodes reject blocks that do not signal via version bit 4, while standard Bitcoin nodes continue to accept both signaling and non-signaling blocks. The result is that the enforcing branch can lag if insufficient miners actively produce signaling blocks during the mandatory phase.
Under the proposal documented in the BIPs repository for BIP-110, mandatory signaling continues through block 963,647. Enforcing nodes must mine through the rest of the 2,016-block adjustment period before difficulty can adjust on their branch—an environment where even a temporary shortage of supporting hashpower can create long delays.
Stalled progress and the role of adjustment windows
Even when enforcement rules are live, the network’s practical pace can remain constrained by the mechanics of Bitcoin’s difficulty targeting. The BIP-110-enforcing side can’t benefit from a difficulty change until it has advanced far enough within the current adjustment period.
Ocean’s records cited in the BIP-110 monitor coverage indicate that a pseudonymous mining group—Roughnecks—produced the first two enforcing-branch blocks using Ocean’s Decentralized Alternative Templates for Universal Mining (DATUM) mining protocol. Those two blocks appear to be the basis for the enforcing-side head seen at block 961,633, after which progress slowed materially.
With the non-enforcing chain reaching block 961,721, the distance between the two heads has grown quickly once the enforcing branch stopped producing frequent blocks. For miners and observers, this is a concrete reminder that “mandatory signaling” does not automatically translate into immediate, sustained block production on the enforcing side—especially if the number of miners willing to follow version bit 4 during the mandatory phase is limited.
What BIP-110 requires—and why critics warn
BIP-110’s stated mechanism is straightforward: enforce nodes require blocks to signal through a specified version bit, while ordinary Bitcoin nodes tolerate both signaling and non-signaling blocks. That design is intended to curb unwanted data patterns described in the broader debate around spam and template behavior.
Still, the approach has drawn notable resistance from influential figures in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Cointelegraph previously reported that Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor supports the general objectives but argued the proposal’s method threatens Bitcoin’s “neutral rules” and consensus integrity. Separately, Blockstream CEO Adam Back has warned that the consensus-level change could damage Bitcoin’s credibility and may make certain unspent transaction outputs unspendable, according to earlier Cointelegraph coverage.
The stalled enforcing branch provides a live illustration of how contentious or under-resourced changes can become when they rely on adoption by a critical mass of miners. If enforcement is accepted by fewer miners than required to keep block production competitive, the chain running enforcement rules can fall behind—even if the rules themselves are technically activated.
What to watch next
For now, readers tracking BIP-110 should focus on whether additional miners begin signaling in larger numbers as the mandatory window continues through block 963,647, and whether the enforcing branch’s block production improves before the next difficulty adjustment opportunity. If the hashpower supporting version bit 4 remains limited, the enforcing chain may continue to lag—turning a theoretical protocol enforcement into a practical question of miner participation.
This article was originally published as BIP-110 Branch Hesitates: Two-Block Stall Widens Bitcoin Gap on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Brazil’s central bank is introducing a new anti-fraud rule for cryptocurrency transfers, requiring regulated virtual asset service providers (VASPs) to temporarily “hold” certain outbound payments. The measure is designed to slow down potentially fraudulent flows that take advantage of cross-border speed and the complexities of self-custody transfers.
According to a statement from the Banco Central do Brasil (BCB), the rules will apply to funds received above $10,000—either in a single transaction or based on a customer’s total transactions over a day—when those funds are sent to foreign platforms or to customers’ self-custody wallets. The precautionary hold can last up to 24 hours, and providers will also need to hold other transfers that require additional review under their risk-management systems.
Key takeaways
Brazil’s central bank (BCB) will require up to 24-hour precautionary holds on certain VASP transfers tied to fraud prevention.
The rule targets transfers involving funds received above $10,000, measured by single transactions or daily aggregates.
Holds must also cover other transfers flagged for extra scrutiny under a provider’s existing risk policies.
The requirement takes effect Jan. 1, 2027, with VASPs required to disclose holds to customers and keep detailed records.
24-hour holds for high-value cross-border and self-custody transfers
The BCB says the framework applies when VASPs receive funds over the $10,000 threshold and then transfer them to either overseas providers or wallets held directly by customers. The central bank’s approach is effectively threshold-based: it covers not only one-off large transactions but also cases where multiple smaller moves add up to more than $10,000 in a day for the same customer.
Beyond the headline threshold, the rules also extend to “other transfers requiring further scrutiny” according to each provider’s risk-management policies. That language matters because it gives regulators flexibility to capture additional suspicious patterns even when transfers fall below the $10,000 number, as long as the provider’s compliance framework would normally treat them as higher risk.
When VASPs can release transfers early
A key operational detail is that the hold is not necessarily an automatic full 24-hour delay in every case. The BCB’s statement indicates that a VASP can complete its assessment and release a transfer before the 24 hours expire, as long as it follows parameters set out by the central bank.
Separately, VASPs will be expected to notify customers that a hold has been applied and to document relevant compliance activity. The BCB also requires providers to keep records related to fraud incidents, attempted fraud, and the corrective actions they take. For traders and users, the practical implication is that transfers to foreign platforms or self-custody wallets may become more variable in settlement timing—especially around higher-value or risk-flagged transactions—even if a provider ultimately clears the transfer quickly.
Brazil’s shift reflects a broader anti-scam push
Brazil’s central bank move comes as regulators globally respond to crypto scams that are enabled by fast settlement and the borderless nature of digital assets. The BCB’s approach mirrors a growing trend: slowing down or gating withdrawals and outbound transfers long enough to detect fraud patterns.
Earlier this year, Japan’s Financial Services Agency and National Police Agency asked crypto exchanges to restrict withdrawals in certain circumstances after users deposit fiat currency or buy digital assets. The Japanese authorities outlined expectations that exchanges require customers to pre-register withdrawal addresses, impose a waiting period for newly added addresses, and adopt additional measures such as customer-specific withdrawal limits and stronger monitoring. They also pointed to security practices including phishing-resistant multifactor authentication and checks to ensure the name of a bank remitter matches the account holder of the crypto transaction.
However, the Japan steps are not binding, and exchanges retain flexibility over how they implement restrictions based on their operations and exposure to misuse. Brazil’s plan, by contrast, is framed as an explicit central-bank requirement with a clear effective date and compliance obligations.
What to watch as the rules approach 2027
With the BCB rules scheduled to begin on Jan. 1, 2027, VASPs operating in Brazil will need to ensure their transfer monitoring systems can reliably identify the threshold conditions—particularly the “single transaction or daily total” logic tied to inbound funds above $10,000. They also need workflows for customer notification and for maintaining compliance records on fraud-related events and responses.
For users, the biggest day-to-day impact is likely to be around transfer timing and the need for clarity from providers when outbound moves are paused for review. For investors and market participants, these kinds of rules can affect how quickly capital moves through on-ramps, custody, and exchanges—potentially changing risk pricing, liquidity expectations, and the practical usability of cross-border or self-custody transfers during periods of heightened scam activity.
The next question for Brazil’s crypto market is how strongly providers will apply holds under the broader “risk-management” portion of the framework, and whether central bank guidance will specify further operational parameters that determine when transfers can be released early. Those details will likely shape how disruptive compliance becomes in practice—and how effectively it deters fraud without unduly burdening legitimate users.
This article was originally published as Brazil’s new crypto rules impose up to 24-hour transfer holds for fraud checks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Brazil’s central bank has approved new rules that require virtual asset service providers (VASPs) to temporarily freeze certain crypto transfers before sending funds to foreign platforms or self-custody wallets. The precautionary hold is designed to give firms time to review suspected fraud and suspected illicit behavior.
According to a note published by the Banco Central do Brasil (BCB) on Friday, the requirement takes effect on Jan. 1, 2027 and will apply to transfers where the amount received by a customer exceeds $10,000, either as a single transaction or based on the customer’s total activity in a day. In addition to that threshold, VASPs must also place holds on other transfers flagged for enhanced scrutiny under their risk-management systems.
Key takeaways
Brazil’s BCB will require VASPs to implement precautionary holds of up to 24 hours on certain outbound virtual asset transfers.
The initial trigger is $10,000 in value received, measured per transaction or aggregated across daily customer activity.
Holds also cover transfers marked for review under a provider’s existing risk-management policies.
VASPs must inform customers about holds and maintain records of fraud incidents and remediation steps.
Japan’s earlier anti-scam measures exist, but they are non-binding—a key difference from Brazil’s approach.
How the 24-hour hold will work
Under the BCB’s framework, VASPs must apply precautionary holds to certain transfers once the underlying conditions are met. The central bank’s statement specifies that the rules cover funds received above $10,000, either in a single transaction or through the accumulation of transactions over the course of a day.
The BCB also requires providers to place holds on additional transfers that need further evaluation under their own risk policies. In other words, the $10,000 threshold is not the only gate: the central bank expects VASPs to treat certain flagged activity more cautiously, even if the threshold is not the only factor.
Providers will be allowed to complete their assessment and release a transfer before the 24-hour window ends, as long as they follow parameters set out by the BCB. That gives firms flexibility in cases where they can quickly clear the transfer after review.
Operational duties for VASPs
The BCB’s note makes clear that the hold mechanism comes with compliance obligations. VASPs must:
Notify customers when a transfer is subject to a hold.
Keep records of fraud incidents, attempted fraud, and the corrective actions taken in response.
These requirements matter for users and firms alike because they effectively formalize what providers must do when suspicious cross-border activity is detected. For traders and businesses relying on fast settlement, the policy introduces a potential delay on outbound transfers routed to foreign venues or self-custody addresses when the relevant conditions apply.
Why this is being tightened now
The central bank’s move reflects a broader shift among regulators as they confront scams that leverage the speed and global reach of digital assets. Crypto transfers can settle quickly across borders, which can help legitimate users—but it also creates opportunities for criminals to move funds before counterparties can intervene.
Brazil’s rules are part of a larger international pattern where regulators seek to slow down or add friction at key stages of the transfer process, particularly when money is leaving regulated custody environments for higher-risk destinations such as self-custody wallets.
That context is especially important for investors and service providers: while blockchain activity is transparent, reversing losses is often difficult. Measures like precautionary holds aim to reduce the chance that funds are sent to the wrong addresses in the first place.
Comparisons: Japan’s withdrawal delays and Europe’s scam warnings
Brazil’s action follows similar anti-scam developments elsewhere. In Japan, the Financial Services Agency and the National Police Agency asked crypto exchanges to restrict withdrawals after customers deposit fiat or buy digital assets. As reported earlier by Cointelegraph, Japanese authorities urged exchanges to implement controls such as requiring customers to preregister withdrawal addresses and applying a waiting period before newly added addresses can be used.
Other safeguards discussed in Japan include customer-specific withdrawal limits, stronger monitoring, phishing-resistant multifactor authentication, and checks intended to confirm that a bank remitter’s name matches the crypto account holder.
However, the Japanese measures are not binding. Exchanges can decide how to implement protections based on their own operations and exposure to misuse, which stands in contrast to Brazil’s regulatory timing and threshold-based structure.
In Europe, regulators have also highlighted risks tied to impersonation and fraud. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted warnings about criminals impersonating watchdogs and crypto firms, including instances involving fake websites and the misuse of identity and logos in falsified documents. While those reports focus more on deception surrounding licensed providers, they point to the same underlying issue: scammers adapt quickly to user demand, especially when people are looking for regulated access points.
What to watch next
With Brazil’s hold rules scheduled to begin on Jan. 1, 2027, VASPs will likely adjust transfer flows, customer communications, and fraud-review processes well before the effective date. Users sending large transfers to foreign services or self-custody wallets should watch how providers interpret the $10,000 trigger and what criteria they use to classify additional transfers as “requiring further scrutiny.”
This article was originally published as Brazil Weighs 24-Hour Crypto Transfer Hold to Curb Fraud on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BTCPay Server has taken a defensive step for Bitcoin Lightning users, temporarily blocking public remote connections to Lightning Network nodes running LND after attackers reportedly exploited a critical vulnerability to steal credentials and move funds.
The project said Lightning payments can still be processed, but external wallets—such as Zeus—will be unable to connect via a BTCPay Server domain or a Tor onion address in Docker-based deployments until BTCPay decides it is safe to re-enable that remote access pathway.
Key takeaways
BTCPay Server has temporarily restricted public remote access to LND nodes in Docker deployments to reduce the chance of further credential misuse.
Version 2.4.2 installs LND 0.21.1 and automatically regenerates Lightning “macaroon” credentials for standard BTCPay installations.
Operators are urged to look for signs of compromise, including unauthorized payments, unexpected channel closures, unfamiliar peers, and mismatches between onchain/Lightning balances.
Deployments that expose LND through routes outside BTCPay—such as a user-managed reverse proxy, Tor service, or forwarded ports—must rotate credentials separately.
Why BTCPay is limiting remote access
In a statement shared by BTCPay Server on X, the team said the restriction is designed to prevent external wallets from reaching affected Lightning nodes through BTCPay’s publicly exposed endpoints. The immediate concern is not the Lightning protocol itself, but how remote access can be abused when attackers gain control over the credentials that authorize actions on an LND node.
BTCPay emphasized that the change is intended to be temporary. It also indicated its plan is to bring remote access back once it determines it is safe—an important operational detail for service providers that rely on broad wallet connectivity for day-to-day payments.
What version 2.4.2 changes in LND authentication
BTCPay’s fix centers on credential rotation. According to the project’s security guidance, attackers were able to obtain “macaroon” credential files without proper authentication. Macaroons are the authorization artifacts LND uses to control access to node capabilities. If an attacker acquires them, the potential outcome is full take-over of the LND node and the ability to move funds.
BTCPay said version 2.4.2 addresses the issue by installing LND version 0.21.1 and automatically regenerating macaroon credentials on standard BTCPay setups. For operators, this is significant because it reduces the likelihood of lingering compromised credentials after an update—though it does not eliminate the need for active incident checks.
The project advised operators to verify whether compromise attempts occurred by reviewing several common indicators: unauthorized payments, unexpected channel closures, unfamiliar peers, and discrepancies between their records and either onchain or Lightning balances.
Actions operators must take beyond updating BTCPay
BTCPay’s instructions also draw an important line between what the software controls and what an operator configures. The team stated that installing the update does not automatically close access routes managed independently by the operator. If an LND node is exposed through other paths—such as a reverse proxy configured by the operator, a Tor service not run through BTCPay, or a forwarded port—then credential rotation may need to happen separately.
That distinction matters because it changes the practical remediation workflow. Updating BTCPay may fix the credential lifecycle for standard deployments, but it may not fully protect a node that is independently reachable. For operators, the key is to inventory how their LND node is reachable and ensure authorization material is rotated everywhere that the node can be accessed.
Reported impacts from operators
BTCPay’s warning is not theoretical. At least two operators publicly reported that their Lightning nodes were drained after the incident.
Foundation CEO Zach Herbert said the Lightning node associated with the hardware-wallet company’s setup was drained overnight. He later clarified that the company’s hot wallet was unaffected, while its Lightning channels were closed and funds were swept. The operators did not disclose the amount lost.
Bitcoin publication Citadel21 also reported that its Lightning node had been swept, without specifying the size of the loss.
While these reports are limited, they underline the risk that credential compromise can translate into direct fund movement via Lightning channels—reinforcing why BTCPay is restricting public remote access and why operators are being asked to check channel and peer activity closely.
Broader security implications for Bitcoin users
BTCPay’s incident comes amid a wider pattern of security problems affecting popular Bitcoin products. The BTCPay breach is described as part of the most recent wave of vulnerabilities impacting Bitcoin-adjacent tooling, following a Coldcard hardware-wallet flaw that was linked to more than $100 million in confirmed losses, as referenced in earlier coverage by Cointelegraph.
In other words, the underlying Bitcoin network is not the target; the failures occur in the surrounding systems—wallets, custody interfaces, and node management software—that users depend on to interact with the protocol.
For Lightning operators, the immediate next steps are clear: update to BTCPay Server version 2.4.2 (or apply the relevant fixes), verify that macaroon credentials are rotated as expected, and actively audit for unauthorized payments, unexpected channel behavior, unfamiliar peers, and balance mismatches. As BTCPay evaluates when to restore remote access, operators should also monitor how their own exposure routes outside BTCPay are configured—because those may determine whether the risk has truly been eliminated.
This article was originally published as BTCPay Limits Remote Lightning Access After Reported Node Drains on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BTCPay Server has temporarily blocked public remote connections to Lightning Network nodes running the Lightning Network Daemon (LND) after attackers exploited a critical vulnerability to obtain credentials and move funds. The project says Lightning payments can still proceed, while it works to make remote access safe again.
In a security-driven update, BTCPay Server announced that version 2.4.2 installs LND version 0.21.1 and automatically regenerates the “macaroon” credential files used to control LND on standard deployments. Operators are also urged to inspect their nodes for signs of compromise, including unauthorized payments, unexpected channel closures, suspicious peers, and mismatches between recorded balances and what’s actually present onchain or in Lightning.
Key takeaways
BTCPay Server 2.4.2 restricts public remote connections to LND on Docker deployments, preventing external wallets from connecting via BTCPay domains or Tor onion addresses.
The update automatically installs LND 0.21.1 and regenerates LND macaroon credentials on standard BTCPay installations.
Operators should monitor for unauthorized payments, unexpected channel closures, unfamiliar peers, and balance discrepancies as indicators of theft.
If an operator exposes LND through their own reverse proxy, Tor service, port forwarding, or other routes outside BTCPay, credentials must be rotated separately.
Why BTCPay moved to block remote LND access
BTCPay Server’s advisory centers on a specific failure mode: a critical vulnerability that, according to BTCPay, allowed an unauthenticated remote attacker to obtain the macaroon credential files that authorize control of an LND node.
Those credentials are effectively the key material that lets a party manage or act on behalf of the node. BTCPay warned that exposed credentials could enable attackers to take control of the LND instance and move funds.
To reduce the attack surface while remediation is rolled out, BTCPay temporarily restricted public remote connections to Lightning nodes running LND software through BTCPay-managed endpoints. In its statement, BTCPay highlighted that the change blocks external wallets—including Zeus—from connecting through a BTCPay Server domain or a Tor onion address in Docker deployments.
Importantly for day-to-day operators, BTCPay said Lightning payments can continue. The restriction is framed as a stopgap measure until the project believes it is safe to restore the prior remote-access functionality.
What the 2.4.2 update changes for operators
BTCPay’s fix is delivered through version 2.4.2. The project says this release installs LND version 0.21.1 and automatically regenerates macaroon credentials on standard BTCPay installations.
That automatic rotation is designed to address the core risk identified in the security advisory: attackers who acquired credentials could use them after the fact unless the underlying authorization artifacts are replaced. By updating both the LND version and the credentials used for control, BTCPay is effectively forcing the authorization state to reset for typical deployments.
Alongside the software changes, BTCPay provided a targeted checklist for operators to validate that compromise has not occurred. The project advised checking for:
Unauthorized payments, which would indicate someone managed the node outside the operator’s intent.
Unexpected channel closures, which can signal hostile channel management or forced routing behavior.
Unfamiliar peers, which may reveal that an attacker established connections to the node.
Discrepancies between what operators expect and what appears in their onchain or Lightning balances.
Crucially, BTCPay also addressed a deployment reality: not every operator exposes LND only through BTCPay’s own routing. For those running their own reverse proxy, Tor service, forwarded port, or alternative access path, BTCPay said installing the update does not close access routes managed independently. In those cases, operators must rotate credentials separately for any LND exposure outside BTCPay-controlled endpoints.
Public reports of losses, without disclosed amounts
After the vulnerability and remediation became part of the public conversation, at least two operators reported losses linked to their Lightning nodes being swept, though neither disclosed the amount taken.
Foundation CEO Zach Herbert stated that the hardware-wallet company’s Lightning node was drained overnight. He later clarified that its hot wallet was unaffected, while its Lightning channels were closed and the funds were swept—suggesting the compromise was confined to Lightning-channel controls rather than broader wallet infrastructure.
Separately, Bitcoin publication Citadel21 reported that its Lightning node had been swept. Like Herbert’s comments, the publication did not provide figures for how much was lost.
While the reports do not establish the scale of the incident across all BTCPay users, they do reinforce the advisory’s practical implication: credential exposure can translate into actionable control over Lightning funds, and remediation needs to happen quickly and thoroughly.
Security incidents keep targeting Bitcoin infrastructure around the network
BTCPay’s incident is the latest in a run of security problems affecting popular Bitcoin products. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph highlighted a Coldcard hardware-wallet flaw associated with more than $100 million in confirmed losses, underscoring that the targets have tended to be software and infrastructure components built around Bitcoin—not the Bitcoin protocol itself.
This pattern matters because it shifts risk away from “Bitcoin as a network” and toward the systems people use to interact with it: wallets, node operators, payment servers, and bridging software between users and blockchain operations. In practice, that means the most valuable defenses are often operational—timely patching, correct credential rotation, careful exposure management, and continuous monitoring for anomalies.
BTCPay’s temporary restriction of remote access can be read as another step in that operational defense model: reduce inbound paths that could allow credential abuse, even as updates roll out and operators harden their setups.
For now, the most important thing for BTCPay operators is to apply version 2.4.2 and verify their exposure paths, then audit their nodes for the specific compromise indicators BTCPay listed. Readers should also watch for whether BTCPay restores remote-access features once it determines the remaining risk has been fully mitigated for the relevant deployment types.
This article was originally published as BTCPay Limits Remote Lightning Access After Attackers Steal Funds on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110 has entered its mandatory-signaling window, but miners are signaling support at a fraction of the level needed to credibly move the network to a new consensus regime. According to a BIP-110 monitor, support was present in just 51 of the 2,016 blocks preceding block 961,632—about 2.53%—far below the 55% threshold required for early activation.
As of block 961,632, nodes enforcing BIP-110 started rejecting blocks that do not set version bit 4. Ordinary Bitcoin nodes, however, continued to accept both signaling and non-signaling blocks. A smaller “BIP-110 branch” appears to have emerged, but it quickly fell behind the chain that most miners are extending.
Key takeaways
Miners signaled BIP-110 support at about 2.53% in the run-up to block 961,632, well under the 55% early-activation requirement.
Starting at block 961,632, enforcement nodes reject blocks missing version bit 4, while non-enforcing nodes still accept them.
A minority enforcing branch formed but has not gained sufficient momentum to become the dominant chain.
BIP-110 aims to impose temporary limits on transaction/script and data sizes to curb non-monetary on-chain bloat, especially inscriptions.
Mandatory signaling begins, but the signal is weak
The core mechanics of BIP-110’s current phase hinge on miner signaling through version bit 4. During the defined mandatory-signaling window—blocks 961,632 through 963,647—nodes enforcing the proposal apply stricter rules: they reject blocks that do not carry the expected signal. The monitor data indicates that support during the prior 2,016-block period was too low for a sustained competitive chain to plausibly form.
Because the dominant chain is still being extended without broad signaling, the long-term viability of any rival branch depends on whether miners materially increase their participation. With limited support, a BIP-110 branch would at best advance slowly and could stall if miners continue extending blocks that enforcement nodes will not accept.
This is why the milestone matters beyond the immediate block height: it tests whether a contentious consensus change can move forward—or meaningfully alter behavior—without broad miner backing. That dynamic also raises the risk of an operational split: enforcing nodes could follow a chain that enforces BIP-110 rules, while the majority chain continues to follow the default rule set.
BIP-110’s proposed restrictions target on-chain data growth
BIP-110 was drafted by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm and is designed to introduce additional consensus restrictions intended to last roughly one year. The proposal focuses on constraining how much data different parts of a transaction can carry, including limits on output scripts and specific data-bearing elements.
In broad terms, it would:
Limit most new output scripts to 34 bytes.
Cap OP_RETURN outputs at 83 bytes.
Restrict certain data pushes and witness elements to 256 bytes.
Temporarily limit several Taproot-related features.
Importantly for users and wallet developers, outputs created before activation would be exempt from the new restrictions. Supporters of BIP-110 argue that these constraints would reduce incentives for inscriptions and other non-monetary data patterns that increase storage and bandwidth demands on node operators.
Criticism centers on network division and rule mismatches
Not everyone agrees that limiting data sizes is the right path. Critics—including Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and Blockstream CEO Adam Back—have argued that BIP-110 could divide Bitcoin and lead to situations where some nodes reject transactions that are permitted under the network’s existing rules. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph highlighted their concerns in an article titled “Bitcoin leaders Michael Saylor and Adam Back rebuff BIP-110 proposal.”
The enforcement model during the signaling window heightens that concern. With enforcing nodes refusing non-signaling blocks, the network’s practical behavior can diverge even before a proposal’s restrictions fully take effect. This raises a key question for participants: whether the enforcement boundary will remain a technical footnote or become a persistent source of disagreement over block space usage.
Timing details and a discussed fallback
BIP-110’s deployment schedule defines several important points:
Block 963,648 marks the beginning of its locked-in state.
Block 965,664 is when the transaction restrictions would begin to take effect.
The version-bit mechanism is also a centerpiece of the proposal’s strategy. BIP-110 uses version bit 4 for miner signaling, with the mandatory-signaling window already underway. The current miner support level—about 2.53% in the monitor’s measured period—suggests that early activation is not likely to happen without a sharp change in miner behavior.
Separately, BIP-110 proponents have discussed contingencies. On Aug. 1, Bitcoin developer Chris Guida rebased preliminary code for a proof-of-work change originally written by Bitcoin Knots maintainer Luke Dashjr. Guida later described the code as a contingency if miners opposed BIP-110, though he did not set an activation date at the time.
While that fallback discussion does not change the current signaling reality, it underlines the central tension of the moment: supporters want a path to limit certain on-chain data behaviors, while opponents worry about the consequences of contentious rule enforcement in a system that relies on miner consensus and network-wide agreement.
Going forward, readers should watch whether miner signaling meaningfully climbs as the locked-in and effect windows approach. If signaling remains low, the conflict could stay confined to a small enforcing subset; if it rises, the schedule could accelerate a much broader—and more operationally significant—change in what blocks are accepted.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin BIP-110 Moves to Mandatory Signaling After Low Miner Support on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Donald Trump has warned that China could gain control of the global crypto sector as the US delays major market rules. The president stressed that America must protect its leadership in digital assets while lawmakers struggle with the CLARITY Act. His remarks add pressure on Congress as negotiations continue over regulations, ethics rules, and illicit finance provisions.
Trump Links Crypto Leadership to US National Strategy
Trump has placed cryptocurrency among the technologies that could shape America’s economic position in coming years. He also compared the strategic importance of crypto with artificial intelligence and urged the US to maintain leadership. Meanwhile, his administration continues to promote digital assets as an important part of the American technology sector.
The president warned that China could strengthen its position if the US slows crypto development. He also pointed to growing competition among countries seeking greater influence over emerging digital technologies. Therefore, Trump argued that restrictive policies could weaken America’s position while other nations expand their crypto industries.
Trump has also defended his administration’s approach toward digital asset regulation and innovation. He argued that excessive restrictions could discourage new businesses and push technological activity toward foreign markets. However, lawmakers continue to debate how the US should balance innovation with stronger safeguards across the crypto sector.
Clarity Act Faces Continued Senate Delays
Trump’s comments arrive as the CLARITY Act remains stalled in the US Senate. The market structure bill seeks to establish clearer rules for digital assets and define responsibilities across federal regulators. However, lawmakers have yet to resolve several major disputes surrounding the legislation.
Senate negotiations have focused on ethics requirements, illicit finance measures, and other provisions within the bill. These disagreements have slowed progress and reduced the chances of an immediate floor vote. At the same time, lawmakers continue working on changes that could secure broader support for the legislation.
The delay creates another challenge for Trump’s broader crypto agenda and his push for American leadership. A prolonged legislative process could leave the industry without a comprehensive market structure framework. Meanwhile, competing jurisdictions could use regulatory clarity to attract crypto companies, capital, and blockchain development.
Trump Challenges Ethics Concerns Over Crypto
Trump has also criticized proposals that could restrict his participation in crypto-related businesses while serving as president. The ethics debate has become another issue within the wider negotiations surrounding the CLARITY Act. Lawmakers have considered measures designed to address potential conflicts involving public officials and digital asset interests.
The president has indicated that his businesses remain under his family’s management during his administration. He has also said that he does not discuss government matters with his children. Consequently, Trump maintains that the ethics provisions should not prevent the US from advancing its digital asset sector.
The debate now combines regulatory policy, national competition, and ethics concerns around crypto. Trump continues pushing for US leadership, while Senate lawmakers seek agreement on the CLARITY Act. As negotiations continue, the final legislation could shape how America regulates crypto and competes with China in digital technology.
This article was originally published as Trump Warns China Could Challenge US Crypto Leadership as Clarity Act Stalls on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) has entered its mandatory-signaling phase, but miners have sent the required signal in only a small fraction of recent blocks—raising doubts about whether the contentious ruleset can gain enough support to sustain a rival chain.
According to a BIP-110 monitor, at block 961,632 on Saturday miners signaled support in just 51 of the preceding 2,016 blocks, equivalent to 2.53%. That falls well below the 55% threshold the mechanism expects for early activation. While nodes enforcing BIP-110 began rejecting blocks that did not set version bit 4, standard Bitcoin nodes continued accepting both signaling and non-signaling blocks—creating a potential split between enforcing and non-enforcing participants.
Key takeaways
BIP-110 moved into a mandatory-signaling enforcement window at block 961,632, with enforcing nodes rejecting blocks lacking version bit 4.
Miners signaled only 2.53% of the time in the preceding 2,016 blocks—far under the 55% level referenced for early activation.
A BIP-110-compliant minority chain briefly emerged but quickly lagged behind the dominant chain.
The proposal aims to temporarily restrict on-chain data to reduce storage and bandwidth pressure, but critics warn it could force rule-divergent behavior across the network.
Mandatory signaling begins, but miner participation stays low
The immediate consequence of BIP-110’s start is procedural and practical: once block 961,632 was reached, nodes enforcing the proposal began applying stricter block acceptance criteria. Specifically, they reject blocks that do not set version bit 4 in their block version field.
By contrast, ordinary Bitcoin nodes continued following the existing consensus rules, accepting blocks regardless of whether version bit 4 was set. That difference matters because it turns a signaling experiment into an enforcement stress test—one where participants can end up on different views of “valid” blocks depending on which rules they choose to enforce.
The BIP-110 monitor data also suggests the enforcement did not immediately attract sufficient miner support to sustain momentum. With only 51 signaling blocks out of 2,016 before the window began, proponents would need a significant change in miner behavior to avoid a situation where a BIP-110 branch advances slowly—or stops producing blocks—while the non-enforcing majority chain continues.
What BIP-110 is trying to change on-chain
Written by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm, BIP-110 proposes additional consensus restrictions that are intended to last for roughly one year. The proposal is designed to target the way Bitcoin scripts carry data, particularly where large payloads increase the workload for network participants.
In broad terms, BIP-110 would:
Limit most new output scripts to 34 bytes.
Cap OP_RETURN outputs at 83 bytes.
Restrict certain data pushes and witness elements to 256 bytes.
Temporarily limit several Taproot-related features.
The proposal also includes an exception for legacy outputs: unspent transaction outputs created before activation would not be affected. That detail is important because it reduces the risk of instantly “breaking” already-existing UTXOs, shifting the impact toward new transaction construction after the proposal takes effect.
Supporters have argued that these limits would discourage practices they view as non-monetary—such as inscriptions and other uses that can increase storage and bandwidth costs for node operators. The proposal’s framing is that congestion and resource pressure should be addressed at the consensus level, rather than relying on voluntary policy restrictions.
Why the current phase tests a contentious consensus change
Mandatory-signaling windows are designed to show whether miners are willing to align their blocks with a new ruleset. In this case, the numbers are stark: 2.53% signaling in the monitored window preceding block 961,632 implies that miners are not broadly coordinating around BIP-110.
The result is a practical dilemma for supporters: without a substantially higher share of miner participation, an enforcing chain may struggle to grow. The source notes that a minority branch did appear but quickly fell behind the dominant chain, underscoring how difficult it is to maintain a separate chain when the majority of block production does not follow the same rule signals.
This is also where the proposal’s broader network implications come into focus. If enforcing nodes reject transactions or blocks that non-enforcing nodes accept, a consensus disagreement can emerge—not necessarily as a permanent fork, but as a period in which participants experience different validity rules.
The milestone is therefore less about whether BIP-110 is “right” in principle and more about whether supporters can make a contentious consensus change real without broad miner backing. If that coordination fails, the episode may still be valuable as a signal of how powerfully miner alignment is required for soft-fork style proposals that rely on version-bit signaling and enforcement behavior.
Pushback from major voices and a possible fallback path
The proposal has faced strong criticism from prominent figures in the Bitcoin ecosystem. The article notes that Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and Blockstream CEO Adam Back argued that BIP-110 could divide Bitcoin and lead nodes to reject transactions that the network’s existing rules would otherwise permit. Earlier coverage on Cointelegraph also highlighted the ongoing dispute around spam and data-heavy usage of block space.
On the technical timeline, BIP-110’s deployment schedule uses version bit 4 and assigns block numbers to key states. The mandatory-signaling window runs from blocks 961,632 through 963,647, during which enforcing nodes reject blocks that do not include the signal. The specification then defines block 963,648 as the beginning of its “locked-in” state and block 965,664 as the point when its transaction restrictions take effect.
The source also points to discussions of a wider contingency. On Aug. 1, Bitcoin developer Chris Guida rebased preliminary code for a proof-of-work change originally written by Bitcoin Knots maintainer Luke Dashjr. Guida described the code as a contingency if miners opposed BIP-110, while stating that no activation date had been set. The details underscore that supporters and builders have considered alternatives if the signaling track does not achieve the needed coordination.
For now, however, the immediate reality is that the signaling signal is weak, and the cost of running enforcement rules without matching miner behavior is that compliant blocks may not keep pace with the chain produced by the majority.
Going forward, investors, traders, and node operators should watch how miner signaling evolves across subsequent windows, whether the enforcing chain continues to lag or disappears entirely, and whether developers continue to refine any contingency approaches if consensus support remains fragmented.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin BIP-110 Turns Mandatory Signaling as Miners Stay Under 3% on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The CLARITY Act has moved closer to a Senate floor vote after Majority Leader John Thune filed a cloture motion. The filing sets up Senate consideration of the digital asset market structure bill after the August recess. Meanwhile, lawmakers continue talks over stablecoin yield rules and ethics provisions before the Senate takes up the legislation.
Clarity Act Advances Toward Senate Vote
Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed the cloture motion early Saturday, August 8, for H.R. 3633. The measure covers the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which seeks clearer federal rules for digital assets. Therefore, the filing creates a procedural path for the Senate to consider the bill in September.
The move follows Thune’s decision to postpone Senate consideration until lawmakers return from the August recess. However, the cloture filing keeps the legislation positioned for action when the Senate reconvenes. The Senate can now prepare for a floor process after lawmakers complete their recess.
The CLARITY Act would establish a federal framework for digital assets and define regulatory responsibilities. It would also provide clearer rules for crypto exchanges and other digital asset businesses. As a result, the bill could reshape how federal agencies oversee parts of the crypto market.
Senate Negotiations Continue Over Key Provisions
The cloture filing does not end negotiations over provisions that remain unresolved within the CLARITY Act. Lawmakers continue discussions over rules covering stablecoin yields, which have become a major point of disagreement. Meanwhile, banking groups have pushed for changes to the current language.
The stablecoin yield provision could influence how digital asset companies offer returns through certain products. Banks have raised concerns about the competitive impact of those provisions on traditional financial institutions. Therefore, lawmakers may continue negotiations before the Senate begins its floor debate.
The bill also contains an ethics agreement that lawmakers continue to review during the negotiations. However, reports indicate that the White House has not provided a final position on that proposal. Consequently, lawmakers still face several policy issues before they can secure broad support.
Clarity Act Sets September Legislative Path
The latest procedural move follows several days of uncertainty around the Senate timeline for the legislation. Senate leadership had previously indicated that lawmakers would not vote on the bill before the August recess. Now, the cloture filing places the measure on track for consideration after the Senate returns.
The Senate must still complete its procedural steps before lawmakers can hold a final vote. Moreover, senators need enough support to advance the bill through the chamber and resolve outstanding disagreements. The cloture process therefore marks progress, but it does not guarantee final passage.
The CLARITY Act remains a major part of the broader effort to create federal crypto market rules. Its passage could define regulatory roles and establish requirements for digital asset market participants. For now, Senate leaders have placed the legislation on the September agenda while negotiations continue.
This article was originally published as Clarity Act Advances as Thune Files Cloture for September Senate Vote on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Clarity Act has moved closer to a Senate floor vote after Majority Leader John Thune filed a cloture motion. The filing sets up Senate consideration of the digital asset market structure bill after the August recess. Meanwhile, lawmakers continue talks over stablecoin yield rules and ethics provisions before the Senate takes up the legislation.
Clarity Act Advances Toward Senate Vote
Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed the cloture motion early Saturday, August 8, for H.R. 3633. The measure covers the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which seeks clearer federal rules for digital assets. Therefore, the filing creates a procedural path for the Senate to consider the bill in September.
The move follows Thune’s decision to postpone Senate consideration until lawmakers return from the August recess. However, the cloture filing keeps the legislation positioned for action when the Senate reconvenes. The Senate can now prepare for a floor process after lawmakers complete their recess.
The Clarity Act would establish a federal framework for digital assets and define regulatory responsibilities. It would also provide clearer rules for crypto exchanges and other digital asset businesses. As a result, the bill could reshape how federal agencies oversee parts of the crypto market.
Senate Negotiations Continue Over Key Provisions
The cloture filing does not end negotiations over provisions that remain unresolved within the Clarity Act. Lawmakers continue discussions over rules covering stablecoin yields, which have become a major point of disagreement. Meanwhile, banking groups have pushed for changes to the current language.
The stablecoin yield provision could influence how digital asset companies offer returns through certain products. Banks have raised concerns about the competitive impact of those provisions on traditional financial institutions. Therefore, lawmakers may continue negotiations before the Senate begins its floor debate.
The bill also contains an ethics agreement that lawmakers continue to review during the negotiations. However, reports indicate that the White House has not provided a final position on that proposal. Consequently, lawmakers still face several policy issues before they can secure broad support.
Clarity Act Sets September Legislative Path
The latest procedural move follows several days of uncertainty around the Senate timeline for the legislation. Senate leadership had previously indicated that lawmakers would not vote on the bill before the August recess. Now, the cloture filing places the measure on track for consideration after the Senate returns.
The Senate must still complete its procedural steps before lawmakers can hold a final vote. Moreover, senators need enough support to advance the bill through the chamber and resolve outstanding disagreements. The cloture process therefore marks progress, but it does not guarantee final passage.
The Clarity Act remains a major part of the broader effort to create federal crypto market rules. Its passage could define regulatory roles and establish requirements for digital asset market participants. For now, Senate leaders have placed the legislation on the September agenda while negotiations continue.
This article was originally published as Clarity Act Advances As Thune Files Cloture For September Senate Vote on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has filed cloture on a motion to bring the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act—known as the CLARITY Act—to the Senate floor, setting up a pivotal procedural vote tied to the next legislative window. The move comes as lawmakers prepare to return to Washington after the August recess, with the Senate expected to reconvene on Sept. 15.
Under Senate rules, invoking cloture requires a 60-vote threshold, meaning Republicans will need support from Democrats to clear the procedural hurdle. The filing does not automatically translate into final passage; instead, it is designed to advance the bill for consideration and potentially a later vote on the legislation itself.
Key takeaways
John Thune filed cloture to take up the CLARITY Act, a procedural step requiring 60 votes.
The Senate is expected to reconvene on Sept. 15, with the vote anticipated shortly after.
Cloture clears a path for consideration but does not guarantee the bill will ultimately pass.
Negotiations have stalled over disagreements, including ethics provisions and how stablecoin-related rewards should be regulated.
Lawmakers are reportedly working on a bipartisan ethics addendum to address concerns tied to the president’s crypto-related financial interests.
Procedural push puts the CLARITY Act back on the calendar
According to the U.S. Senate Daily Press, the Majority Leader’s office confirmed that Thune filed cloture on the motion to bring the CLARITY Act to the Senate floor for consideration. The Senate Daily Press is tied to the daily publication of official Senate floor scheduling and related procedural matters, making it a direct channel for confirming when actions like cloture are submitted.
Cloture matters because it addresses debate length and related parliamentary tactics. With 60 votes required to invoke cloture, the bill’s fate in the chamber hinges on whether enough senators across party lines agree the legislation should move forward for lawmakers to debate and vote on substance.
Thune’s filing effectively repositions the CLARITY Act for action after negotiations failed to produce a deal before the August recess. Lawmakers now have additional time leading up to the September session—when procedural momentum can become substantive momentum, if the outstanding policy issues can be resolved.
Why the bill is politically and structurally significant
The CLARITY Act is widely described as a landmark effort to create a more uniform federal framework for how digital assets are categorized and overseen. The bill’s core aim is to establish a federal market structure for digital assets and clarify how regulators should apply existing securities and commodities laws.
In particular, the legislation is positioned to delineate when particular crypto assets fall under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission versus the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That clarity is a major concern for market participants because regulatory ambiguity can complicate product development, market access, and compliance strategies.
While the procedural step now puts the bill back into focus, the filing also underscores that the legislative path is still conditional. Even if senators clear cloture, the CLARITY Act could still face further obstacles in a later floor vote depending on whether negotiators can bridge remaining disagreements.
The sticking points: ethics rules and stablecoin-related provisions
The road to a compromise has been complicated by disputes over multiple elements, including ethics provisions and rules governing stablecoin rewards. The ethics question has been particularly difficult, according to reporting referenced in the original coverage: lawmakers have been unable to settle on proposed restrictions that would limit government officials—and their families—from issuing or profiting from digital assets while in office.
These provisions are more than technical language. Ethics rules can become a defining political battleground because they shape how lawmakers manage perceived conflicts of interest, especially in a sector where public officials may hold or interact with crypto investments.
Beyond ethics, stablecoin rewards have also reportedly been a source of friction. While the specific policy details are not laid out in the available text, the inclusion of stablecoin-related reward rules indicates that negotiators have to align on how certain yield or incentivization mechanics should be treated under U.S. oversight.
Until those issues are resolved, the CLARITY Act’s movement in the Senate may be best understood as a procedural advance—an effort to keep negotiations alive rather than a guarantee that consensus is close.
Reported attempt to break the ethics impasse
To address the ethics impasse, lawmakers have reportedly been working on a bipartisan addendum. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph referenced a proposal aimed at addressing Democratic concerns about President Donald Trump’s crypto-related financial interests, with Bloomberg reporting that the approach would require the president to divest from certain crypto-related businesses.
The rationale for such an addendum is straightforward: rather than relying solely on broad restrictions on officials and their families, negotiators may seek a targeted solution tied to the president’s holdings. The shift matters because it could alter the negotiation dynamics between parties—potentially allowing the ethics language to become more politically acceptable while still addressing conflict-of-interest concerns.
However, the existence of a proposed ethics framework does not itself confirm that the final language will be agreed upon or adopted. The next procedural vote will signal whether enough senators believe the bill is worth taking up despite remaining uncertainties, and it may also pressure negotiators to finalize language quickly enough to avoid further delays.
What to watch after Sept. 15
With the Senate expected to reconvene on Sept. 15 and the cloture vote anticipated soon after, the immediate question is whether Democrats will provide the additional votes needed to reach the 60 threshold. If they do, lawmakers can proceed to debate substance—but readers should still watch for how ethics and stablecoin-reward provisions evolve, since those items have been central to the breakdown in earlier negotiations.
This article was originally published as US Senate Set to Advance CLARITY Act on Sept. 15 After Thune Files Cloture on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Demand for US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) accelerated sharply over the past week, according to Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas. The renewed inflow momentum arrives after months of uneven participation, rekindling a key question for market watchers: whether institutional appetite is broadening again—or whether this is a temporary swing in investor behavior.
At the same time, the discussion around custody remains unsettled after a high-profile Coldcard hardware wallet incident in which attackers reportedly stole about $116 million in Bitcoin. The security breach has renewed attention on the trade-offs between self-custody and regulated products like spot ETFs.
Key takeaways
Bloomberg’s Eric Balchunas said spot Bitcoin ETFs drew about $1 billion in net inflows for the week, the strongest since April.
Balchunas described the rebound as the third-best weekly performance since last October—an era he called Bitcoin’s “silent IPO.”
A Coldcard security exploit linked to vulnerable firmware has put self-custody concerns back in focus.
Balchunas suggested the hack could help drive some investors toward spot ETFs, though he cautioned that the link is not proven.
Spot Bitcoin ETF inflows rebound after a patchy stretch
Balchunas posted that US spot Bitcoin ETFs took in roughly $1 billion in net inflows over the week ending Saturday. He said the result was the strongest weekly showing since April and ranked as the third-best week since last October, when he referred to Bitcoin’s “silent IPO.”
The “silent IPO” framing comes from investor Jordi Visser, who popularized the idea in November. In Visser’s view, early Bitcoin holders were gradually selling into expanding demand from ETFs and other institutional channels. The effect, under the theory, was enough additional supply to keep Bitcoin comparatively constrained even as new capital continued to enter via regulated vehicles.
That context matters for interpreting this week’s improvement. The source notes that ETF flows had deteriorated in earlier periods of stronger demand, making the recent rebound more noticeable. For traders and portfolio managers, consistent ETF inflows tend to be easier to track and model than broader, decentralized participation, so a return to stronger weekly demand can quickly change sentiment around the near-term positioning of institutions.
Coldcard hack refreshes the custody debate
The ETF story is unfolding alongside a major security incident involving Coldcard, a Bitcoin hardware wallet developed by Coinkite. The exploit reportedly resulted in about $116 million worth of Bitcoin being stolen, with the attack tied to a flaw in how affected devices generated wallet keys. According to the earlier coverage referenced in the source, attackers were able to compromise funds held in wallets created using vulnerable firmware.
On Friday, Balchunas argued that the Coldcard incident could ultimately strengthen the case for spot Bitcoin ETFs—particularly for investors who prefer not to manage the technical responsibilities that come with self-custody. He pointed to the observed surge in ETF inflows following the hack as a possible connection.
In his comments, Balchunas explicitly acknowledged the limitations of drawing conclusions from timing alone. “Correlation does not imply causation,” he said, but added that, over the long term, he can’t imagine there aren’t some investors who migrate from cold storage to ETFs.
For market participants, this is a meaningful mechanism to watch: a single security incident can influence risk perception across the broader custody ecosystem. Even when the affected devices are limited to specific conditions, the reputational impact can push some users toward a custody model backed by regulated intermediaries—especially those evaluating whether the operational burden of holding Bitcoin directly is worth the benefits.
What to watch next: whether inflows persist and custody concerns evolve
Even with this week’s strong ETF numbers, the key question is durability. Balchunas’ “silent IPO” concept suggests that ETF demand and investor selling behavior can interact in ways that keep price action subdued relative to capital inflows. The rebound in net flows therefore doesn’t automatically resolve the larger balance between new institutional purchases and supply from earlier holders—but it does reintroduce a tailwind to demand that was less pronounced in earlier weeks.
Separately, the Coldcard episode raises a second uncertainty: whether the custody shift Balchunas hinted at becomes visible in sustained ETF inflow patterns, or remains anecdotal. Investors watching the next cycle of weekly flows may want to compare whether inflows continue to strengthen over multiple reporting periods, and whether risk communication around hardware wallets changes in response to the incident.
Until regulators clarify broader standards and until the market sees how persistent the post-hack behavior proves to be, the combination of improving ETF demand and renewed custody concerns will likely remain a central driver of how Bitcoin’s institutional narrative develops.
Going forward, readers should track whether the next several weeks of spot Bitcoin ETF flows match this week’s strength—and whether custody-related headlines translate into measurable, sustained shifts in investor allocation between self-custody and regulated products.
This article was originally published as US Spot Bitcoin ETFs See Best Week Since April as Flows Hit $1B on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Demand for US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) surged this week, according to Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas, reviving a narrative that had gone quiet after months of more inconsistent buying. At the same time, a recent security incident tied to Coldcard has put crypto self-custody back under the spotlight—an issue that some ETF investors may be weighing more carefully.
Balchunas said Saturday that the spot Bitcoin ETFs pulled in roughly $1 billion in net inflows for the week. He described it as the funds’ strongest performance since April and the third-best week since last October, when he referred to the phenomenon as Bitcoin’s “silent IPO.”
Key takeaways
Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas reports about $1 billion in weekly net inflows for US spot Bitcoin ETFs, the strongest since April.
Balchunas framed the earlier October period as Bitcoin’s “silent IPO,” suggesting ETFs can pull in institutional-style demand without obvious market fanfare.
A widely discussed Coldcard hardware wallet hack—connected to about $116 million stolen—has reignited concerns around the security burdens of self-custody.
Balchunas said the hack could support the case for spot ETFs among investors wary of technical custody responsibilities, though he stressed the link is not proven.
Spot ETF inflows rebound after a softer stretch
The renewed buying matters because it helps clarify what has been happening beneath the surface of Bitcoin’s price action. Even when new capital enters through ETFs, the relationship to spot market momentum can be muted if supply is being sold off concurrently—something that investors have been trying to explain over recent months.
Balchunas tied this week’s momentum to the contrast with prior periods. In his view, earlier demand dynamics contributed to a broader “changing of the guard,” where earlier Bitcoin holders increasingly monetized positions as ETF and other institutional inflows grew. He linked this to the term popularized by investor Jordi Visser in November: Bitcoin’s “silent IPO.”
The phrase captures an idea that the ETF ramp behaves less like a noisy retail mania and more like a steady institutional distribution channel—keeping Bitcoin from reacting dramatically while significant flows accumulate.
In that context, the standout feature of this week is not simply that inflows turned positive, but that they represent the strongest showing since April and rank among the best weekly results since last October. That suggests the ETF pipeline is capable of re-accelerating, even if the broader period has been uneven.
Coldcard hack revives the self-custody debate
While ETF flows grabbed attention, the week’s backdrop included a major security incident involving Coldcard, a Bitcoin hardware wallet from Coinkite. The exploit is reported to have led to the theft of roughly $116 million worth of Bitcoin, according to prior reporting that connected the theft to a vulnerability in how affected devices generated wallet keys. Attackers allegedly compromised funds by targeting wallets created using vulnerable firmware.
On Friday, Balchunas suggested the aftermath could influence investor behavior. In a discussion carried in a separate report, he argued that the security and technical responsibilities of self-custody may push some investors toward spot Bitcoin ETFs, particularly those who prefer to outsource custody and operational risk to traditional market structures.
Crucially, Balchunas framed the potential connection as speculative. He acknowledged that correlation does not prove causation. Still, he said, “long-term I can’t imagine there aren’t some who migrate over,” implying that even partial behavioral shifts—if they occur—could show up in ETF demand over time.
What investors should watch: flows, behavior, and persistence
This is where the story becomes more than a one-week data point. ETF inflows are typically driven by a mix of institutional allocation patterns, advisor workflows, and broader risk appetite. A temporary rebound can happen without signaling a structural turn. However, Balchunas’s framing of both the “silent IPO” period and the current resurgence suggests he believes the market is cycling between phases of strong demand and quieter distribution.
For traders and long-term allocators, the practical question is whether this week’s improvement marks a continuation or a rebound followed by another slowdown. The “strongest since April” and “third-best week since last October” descriptors indicate a meaningful spike relative to recent history, but the durability of that spike will depend on whether ongoing capital inflow stays steady.
Meanwhile, the Coldcard incident adds a different kind of variable: perceived operational risk. Hardware wallets are widely used precisely because they reduce exposure to exchange custody failures, but high-profile vulnerabilities can change how comfortable some investors feel handling keys themselves. Balchunas’s argument is that—over time—investors uncomfortable with custody mechanics may consider ETFs a simpler alternative.
Yet, it’s also possible that self-custody concerns are already priced into broader behavior, meaning the effect on ETF demand may be gradual rather than immediate. That makes future inflow trends the key test: if inflows keep outperforming earlier weeks consistently, the market impact of custody-related security narratives could become clearer.
Read together, the two threads—ETF demand rebounding and custody concerns resurfacing—underline a single theme: Bitcoin’s access channels are still evolving. Spot ETFs offer a regulated wrapper, while self-custody remains the route for those who want direct key control. The next phase will likely hinge on how quickly investors shift between those modes and whether ETF inflows sustain at elevated levels beyond this week.
This article was originally published as US Spot Bitcoin ETFs Deliver Best Week Since April, $1B Net Inflows on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US Senate Majority Leader John Thune has filed cloture on a motion to bring the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act—commonly referred to as the CLARITY Act—to the Senate floor, setting up a procedural vote that is expected after the chamber reconvenes. The move is intended to restart momentum for one of the most closely watched pieces of pending US crypto legislation and could shape how lawmakers debate digital asset regulation in the coming months.
According to the Senate Daily Press, Thune’s filing follows failed efforts to reach a deal ahead of the August recess. The Senate is expected to reconvene on Sept. 15, giving negotiators additional weeks to resolve open disputes before the Senate votes on whether to advance the bill for consideration.
Key takeaways
Thune filed cloture on the motion to take up the CLARITY Act, with a procedural vote expected after the Senate returns on Sept. 15.
Cloture requires 60 votes, meaning Republicans likely need at least some Democratic support to clear the procedural hurdle.
The cloture vote is about advancing the bill for consideration, not about final passage of the CLARITY Act.
Negotiations have stalled over ethics provisions and rules tied to stablecoin rewards, among other issues.
Lawmakers have reportedly explored a bipartisan ethics addendum linked to the president’s crypto-related financial interests.
A procedural step toward Senate debate
The Senate Daily Press confirmed that Thune filed cloture, a mechanism that sets up a vote to end debate and allow the Senate to move toward taking up legislation. Because cloture requires 60 votes, the outcome will serve as an early test of whether the CLARITY Act can attract cross-party backing beyond its Republican sponsors.
Even if the procedural vote succeeds, it would not mean the bill is guaranteed to pass. As the filing’s purpose indicates, cloture addresses whether the Senate will consider the legislation, rather than whether it will ultimately approve it.
What the CLARITY Act would change
The CLARITY Act is widely regarded as a landmark framework for US crypto regulation. If enacted, it would aim to establish a federal market structure for digital assets and clarify how US federal oversight should apply across different categories of tokens.
In particular, the bill is intended to delineate when crypto assets are treated as securities versus when they are treated as commodities, along with clarifying the respective roles of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). For market participants, that distinction matters because securities and commodities oversight can lead to very different compliance expectations, enforcement priorities, and product approvals.
Why negotiations stalled before the August recess
While the Senate has the CLARITY Act on its agenda, the effort to bring it to the floor has been complicated by policy disagreements. The most prominent sticking point has involved ethics provisions designed to restrict government officials and their families from issuing or profiting from digital assets while in office.
Separate from the ethics debate, negotiations have also reportedly been complicated by disagreements over rules governing stablecoin rewards. Those disputes have helped explain why lawmakers were unable to finalize a package before the August recess and instead pushed unresolved issues into the post-recess window.
Thune’s cloture filing suggests Senate leaders believe the bill can move forward procedurally even as some substantive disagreements remain—at least long enough for lawmakers to debate the remaining differences on the record.
An ethics addendum aimed at the president’s interests
To address the impasse, lawmakers have reportedly worked on a bipartisan ethics addendum intended to meet Democratic concerns connected to President Donald Trump’s crypto-related financial interests. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that negotiations included efforts to shape an addendum that could provide ethics guardrails acceptable to both parties.
According to a report by Bloomberg referenced in that earlier coverage, the proposal would require the president to divest from certain crypto-related businesses. Separately, a post by Eleanor Terrett shared context around the cloture filing, underscoring that the Senate process is advancing again but that major policy questions remain.
For investors and crypto industry participants, the practical importance of these ethics terms is that they can determine whether the bill gains the cross-party support needed to survive procedural hurdles. If ethics provisions remain contentious, the Senate could see additional delays even after cloture is filed.
What to watch next
With the Senate expected to reconvene on Sept. 15, the immediate focus will be whether Republicans can secure the 60 votes necessary for cloture and whether negotiators can narrow remaining disagreements—particularly around ethics and stablecoin reward rules—before any final consideration vote. Even after cloture, the CLARITY Act’s path to passage remains uncertain, so market participants should watch for how the text changes between procedural motion and any subsequent Senate floor action.
This article was originally published as US Senate Set to Advance CLARITY Act in September After Thune Cloture on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

As Forex Expo Dubai prepares for its 9th Edition on 22–23 September 2026 at Dubai World Trade Centre, the event has unveiled a Gold Lucky Draw, with 150 grams of 24K gold set to be won across the two-day expo.
Open exclusively to Verified Traders, Introducing Brokers (IBs), and Affiliates, the lucky draw rewards attendees while adding to an event already built around learning, networking, and business growth.
With 33 winners set to take home a share of 150 grams of 24K gold, this year’s Gold Lucky Draw will be distributed across the following prize categories:
1 winner of a 50grams 24K Gold Bar
2 winners of 10grams 24K Gold Bars
10 winners of 4grams 24K Gold Bars
20 winners of 2grams 24K Gold Coin
While lucky draw winners will take home gold, every participant will have the opportunity to build new partnerships, gain fresh market insights, and connect with companies shaping the future of online trading.
Five Halls. One Global Trading Landscape
Across five halls, Forex Expo Dubai 2026 will bring together 250+ exhibitors and 100+ speakers, featuring leading brokerages, fintech companies, liquidity providers, payment providers, trading technology firms, and financial services companies from around the world.
Attendees can discover new products and services, compare trading platforms, meet solution providers, and engage directly with businesses driving the evolution of online trading.
For those looking to stay ahead of the curve, the conference programme will feature discussions on market trends, regulation, trading strategies, and the future of online trading.
Raising the Standard for Industry Events
The 9th edition introduces expanded experiences designed around the needs of its key attendee groups.
Verified Traders gain access to dedicated seminar sessions, the Traders Lounge, and the Traders Clinic, where they can pre-book one-to-one sessions with market experts.
Introducing Brokers can participate in the dedicated IB Programme, connect with brokers to discuss partnership models and rebate structures, and access the IB Lounge for focused networking.
Beyond these dedicated experiences, attendees can explore live product demonstrations, private meeting zones, pre-bookable meetings through the official event app, and side events taking place before and after the expo — creating more ways to learn, build relationships, and discover new opportunities.
*T&C Apply
About Forex Expo Dubai
Forex Expo Dubai is one of the region’s leading gatherings for the global online trading and fintech industry, bringing together brokerages, fintech innovators, traders, investors, payment providers, IBs, affiliates, and online trading technology companies under one roof. The expo provides a platform for business networking, technology showcases, industry insights, and conversations shaping the evolution of modern finance.
This article was originally published as Win Up to 150 Grams of Gold at Forex Expo Dubai this September 2026 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

HONG KONG — August 3, 2026 — Bitcoin Asia 2026, Asia’s largest Bitcoin conference, today released its full conference agenda and announced Changpeng Zhao (CZ) as the newest addition to its speaker lineup for the two-day event taking place August 27–28 at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre (HKCEC). The event is organized by BTC Inc., a subsidiary of Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA), and presented by Metaplanet.
The full agenda, now live at asia.b.tc/agenda, maps out two days of main stage keynotes, panels, and programming tracks including the Bitcoin for Corporations Symposium, Deal Day, the Deal Flow Zone, and the Open Source Hub. Attendees can now plan their conference experience session by session ahead of the August event.
CZ joins other headliners on the confirmed speaker roster. Founder of Giggle Academy, CZ has spent recent years focused on education and mentorship initiatives within the Bitcoin ecosystem, alongside advising governments on regulation and tokenization. He is also the founder of Binance.
CZ will take the Nakamoto Stage on August 27 from 3:00pm to 3:30pm. Immediately following his session, CZ will hold a live signing for his memoir, Freedom of Money: A Memoir of Protecting Users, Resilience, and the Founding of Binance, in the Expo Hall. Exact location within the Expo Hall to be announced.
“Too often we talk about Bitcoin with an over emphasis on adoption in the West. Bitcoin is a global phenomenon and the Asian market is crucial to its growth, success, and narrative. We are proud to, once again, bring together the East and West bitcoin communities, with great leaders like CZ, Simon, Balaji, and many more, to write the next chapter in bitcoin’s history, and continue to foster and invest into the growth of Bitcoin,” said Brandon Green, CEO of BTC Inc.
This year’s programming centers on the convergence of Eastern and Western Bitcoin ecosystems at a defining moment for institutional adoption, with sessions spanning macro and monetary policy, corporate treasury strategy, Bitcoin infrastructure, and the regulatory landscape across Asia.
Additional speakers and programming details will be announced in the weeks ahead. Ticketing and full event information are available at asia.b.tc. Press credentials can be requested at asia.b.tc/contact/press-pass.
About BTC Inc.
BTC Inc. is the world’s leading Bitcoin media enterprise, operating Bitcoin Magazine, the Bitcoin Conference, and Bitcoin for Corporations. Through its media, events, and educational platforms, BTC Inc. delivers trusted news, research, and experiences that advance Bitcoin adoption among individuals, institutions, and enterprises worldwide.
BTC Inc. is a subsidiary of Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA), a publicly held Bitcoin company that owns and operates a global portfolio of Bitcoin-native enterprises.
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements in this press release constitute forward-looking statements, as defined under U.S. federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “estimate,” “project,” “predict,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “potential,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “may,” “plan,” “will,” “seek,” “target,” or the negative of such terms or other variations thereof. However, the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements in this press release include, but are not limited to, statements regarding BTC Inc.’s business plans and strategies, including plans for new products, services, and media platforms; projected or targeted audience size, reach, impressions, and distribution; expected launch dates and production schedules; the Company’s advocacy positions and the expected outcomes of industry and regulatory engagement; and the anticipated role and growth of Bitcoin-related media, events, and educational services.
These forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain and involve numerous assumptions and risks. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected include, but are not limited to: (i) the volatility of Bitcoin prices and its effect on audience interest, advertiser demand, and the commercial viability of Bitcoin-focused media; (ii) changes in audience size, engagement, or platform distribution that could affect BTC Inc.’s reach or revenue; (iii) the risk that new products or services, including new media platforms, may not launch on schedule, achieve projected audience levels, or generate anticipated revenue; (iv) the risk that advocacy or industry engagement efforts may not achieve their intended outcomes; (v) dependence on third-party distribution platforms whose policies, algorithms, or terms of service may change; competition from other media companies and content providers; (vi) the evolving regulatory environment for digital assets and its potential impact on BTC Inc.’s operations, content, and audience; (vii) reliance on key personnel and creative talent; the risk that projected audience metrics, impressions, or distribution figures may not be achieved or sustained; (viii) risks associated with the integration of BTC Inc. into Nakamoto Inc.’s operations following the February 2026 acquisition; (ix) general economic conditions and their impact on advertising and events revenue; and (x) other important factors detailed in Nakamoto Inc.’s Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and other documents that are filed, or will be filed, with the SEC and that are or will be available on Nakamoto’s website at www.nakamoto.com and on the website of the SEC at www.sec.gov.
Because Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA) is the parent company of BTC Inc., investors in Nakamoto Inc. common stock should be aware that the performance and risks of BTC Inc.’s media, events, and educational operations may affect the consolidated financial results, reputation, and regulatory profile of Nakamoto Inc. and its subsidiaries. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made, and neither BTC Inc. nor Nakamoto Inc. undertakes any obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Asia 2026 Adds CZ to Speaker Lineup, Full Conference Agenda Released on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto is starting to shed its long-running “get rich quick” image as the industry shifts toward real-world tokenization, regulated-style trading products, and broader distribution channels, Nansen founder and CEO Alex Svanevik says.
On Cointelegraph Magazine’s “Trade Secrets” show, Svanevik argued that blockchains are moving from a mostly speculative “toy world” phase into a more practical era—where tokenized stocks and index-like trading tied to benchmarks such as the S&P 500 are becoming part of the mainstream conversation.
Key takeaways
Svanevik frames today’s shift as crypto entering a “real-world era” with tokenized traditional assets and benchmark-style trading.
He says Solana’s current public narrative—focused on meme coins—is “ridiculous,” and argues the ecosystem has long-term strength.
Regarding the Robinhood chain launched on July 1, Svanevik sees it as a serious contender to Base and doesn’t expect a token launch.
On Bitcoin, Svanevik suggests the market may be approaching a bottom around $60,000, while other analysts disagree on how far downside could still extend.
From “toy world” speculation to tokenized real assets
Svanevik’s core thesis is that crypto’s evolution is now being defined by its ability to support non-crypto assets and trading patterns that resemble conventional finance. In his view, the industry’s next phase will be characterized less by isolated retail hype and more by interoperability with widely recognized financial instruments and market structures.
He pointed to the growing availability of tokenized assets and products that mimic index exposure, noting that these developments reflect more than just another cycle of speculative demand. The “interesting spot” for blockchains right now, Svanevik said, is that they create room for non-crypto assets.
Solana’s “meme coin” label misses the bigger picture
While acknowledging the attention Hyperliquid has recently attracted, Svanevik singled out Solana as one of the strongest long-term blockchain ecosystems—despite Solana’s reputation for meme coins.
In the interview, he called the idea that Solana is “just for meme coins” completely misguided, arguing that there is far more underneath the surface. Svanevik emphasized what he described as an “incredible team” behind Solana and said that, in his assessment, the business development effort across the ecosystem is unusually strong.
At the same time, Svanevik drew a clear line between ecosystem performance and token price expectations. He said he is optimistic that Solana as an ecosystem will do well, but added that he doesn’t know what that necessarily means for SOL over the next twelve months—despite acknowledging that price might be expected to rise “intuitively” if the ecosystem strengthens.
Robinhood chain: traction without a token
Svanevik also discussed the Ethereum layer-2 network known as Robinhood chain, which launched on July 1. He suggested the project could “rise up” as a major competitor to Base, largely because of Robinhood’s distribution advantages.
However, he was not convinced Robinhood chain will introduce a token. Svanevik argued that a token may not be necessary if the goal is to bootstrap user adoption and create product momentum. In his view, many projects issue tokens specifically to generate excitement and accelerate early growth—an approach he doesn’t think fits Robinhood’s situation.
He also raised a practical contradiction: launching a token would be counterintuitive for a company that operates a major publicly traded stock on the Nasdaq. Svanevik’s comment was that value is likely better directed toward the existing HOOD stock rather than competing within the same corporate ecosystem through a new token.
“They’ve been able to launch Robinhood chain and get tons of traction without a token.”
Bitcoin: $60,000 as a potential cycle line in the sand
When asked about Bitcoin’s outlook, Svanevik said his personal view is that the market may be near a bottom. He pointed to the current level around $60,000 as potentially representing Bitcoin’s cycle low.
In the interview, Svanevik said he doesn’t expect Bitcoin to go back below $60,000—adding that, based on his long-term perspective, he expects Bitcoin’s role as a hedge against central bank money creation to remain intact. He also suggested he doesn’t see the broader monetary expansion cycle ending anytime soon, which underpins his reluctance to forecast a deeper breakdown.
Still, the market debate is active. The article notes that some analysts were divided on whether Bitcoin has already found a bottom after trading near $60,000 in early February, rebounding, slipping below the level again, and then moving broadly sideways since.
Earlier coverage referenced in the show interview included commentary from veteran investor Michael Terpin, who told Cointelegraph that Bitcoin could face additional declines before reaching rock bottom. According to Terpin’s comments on the Trade Secrets show, the asset could ultimately fall around “66%” from its October 2025 all-time high of $126,100—implying a move into the 40s.
“We still have more pain to go.”
The split between Svanevik’s “near bottom” view and Terpin’s warning of further downside highlights a key uncertainty for traders: whether current price behavior is consolidating near a true cycle low or merely pausing before another leg down.
For readers, the next watch items are straightforward: whether Solana’s long-term ecosystem narrative continues to hold up despite price volatility, whether Robinhood chain sustains traction without token incentives, and—most immediately—how Bitcoin behaves around the $60,000 area as market participants continue to argue over whether “bottom” has already arrived or is still ahead.
This article was originally published as Nansen Founder: Bitcoin Likely Won’t Trade Below $60K Again on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Coldcard is a Bitcoin-only hardware wallet created by Coinkite, a Toronto-based company specializing in ultra-secure self-custody hardware. The hardware wallet is marketed as a highly secure cold storage option for long-term Bitcoin users and has received plaudits from users and experts alike. However, the Coldcard exploit could change that perspective and have far-reaching implications for “self-custody,” a hill many in crypto choose to die on.
The Coldcard Exploit Timeline
Let’s get into the nitty-gritty of the exploit. On July 30, individual Bitcoin holders using Coldcard noticed that their wallets were inexplicably drained. Among them was author Jonathan Goodman, who lost $1.6 million in BTC to the exploit. Goodman’s post about the hack on X was possibly the first time the hack was discussed in the public domain. Meanwhile, blockchain intelligence firm Galaxy Research detected suspicious transaction waves in a 41-minute window, hours before Coinkite issued its first advisory regarding the exploit. Unlike most exploits, the Coldcard exploit unfolded in waves, with the number of affected wallets rising almost daily.
The vulnerability impacted several models, including the Mk2, Mk3, Mk4, Mk5, and Q. However, Coinkite products built on separate codebases, including Tapsigner, Opendime, and Satscard, were unaffected.
The first wave was detected on July 30, when a hacker or hackers began targeting Bitcoin held in Coldcard hardware wallets. The hackers drained 500 wallets in a 25-minute window during the first wave, siphoning around 594 BTC, worth around $38 million, to a new address. The numbers are staggering for such a small window, but this was just a prelude to what was to come. The first wave lasted 41 minutes and affected 1,196 wallets. As more data poured in, Galaxy Research pegged the first wave figures at 1,082.65 BTC stolen from 1,196 wallets, around 0.9 BTC from each wallet.
Galaxy Research detected two subsequent waves on July 31 and August 1, respectively. The hackers stole around 76 BTC from 1,477 wallets during the second sweep and 208 BTC from 1,912 wallets during the third sweep. A suspected fourth wave was detected on August 4, with researchers identifying an additional 600 wallets. Early estimates put losses at over $130 million, a figure that could increase as hackers continue targeting vulnerable addresses.
Wave Date Wallets Affected BTC Stolen 1 July 30 1,196 1,082.65 BTC 2 July 31 Roughly 1,477 76 BTC 3 August 1 1,912 208 BTC 4 (Possibly Ongoing) Detected by August 4 Over 600 Figure Not Publicly Available
A highly unusual aspect is the nature of the exploit. The BTC wasn’t stolen through an elaborate social engineering scheme or the usual phishing or exchange attacks that we usually see. It wasn’t even a supply chain compromise like the one that hit Ledger in 2023. This was a bug that sat undetected for five years, until someone, somehow, discovered it and used it to blindside Coldcard wallet users.
How Does The Coldcard Number Generator Work
Coldcard wallets generate their own randomness every time a user creates a new seed. The randomness underpins the security the wallets are known for. Any compromise to this randomness would prove disastrous, as the ongoing exploit has proved. These wallets are designed to generate and store private keys offline and are never directly connected to the internet. Instead, they communicate with the blockchain using an air-gapped environment through QR codes and MicroSD cards.
The Code That Started It All
At the heart of the exploit sits an innocuous firmware update pushed by Coldcard in March 2021. Firmware version 4.0.1 migrated Coldcard’s cryptography to libsecp256k1, the library underpinning Bitcoin Core, a sound decision by every definition of the word. However, this inadvertently moved seed generation to MicroPython’s Yasmarang PRNG, used on devices with no randomness chips.
You may be wondering why.
According to Block’s security and engineering team, the 2021 update changed how the firmware called its cryptographic library during the seed generation phase. The library misread a production build configuration flag that checks whether the hardware random number generator (RNG) was available. This event went unnoticed, and the firmware began generating “deterministic, pseudorandom seed phrases from a significantly smaller entropy pool without adding fresh entropy.”
Let me explain the preceding sentence. A hardware wallet typically uses two components: a physical randomness source embedded in the chip (TRNG) and an algorithm that uses true randomness from the TRNG to generate seed phrases (CSPRNG). Coldcard wallets use a hardware-based true random number generator built directly into its microchip. Additionally, users can add physical dice rolls to increase randomness.
When Coinkite pushed the 2021 update, the firmware reverted to a backup PRNG without alerting the user. The PRNG relied on the wallet’s UID instead of fresh entropy, making the output predictable. Here’s where the vulnerability comes in. If an attacker can determine a device’s possible UID, they could narrow down the seed phrases generated by the wallet.
So what effect did this have?
Seed phrases generated using firmware 4.0.1 looked like a standard 12- or 24-word phrase. However, the randomness of the underlying numbers was compromised, making them significantly weaker. A 12-word BIP-39 seed typically carries 128 bits of entropy. Let me put this unremarkable figure into perspective using a simple analogy. 128 bits of entropy effectively gives ~3.4 × 10³⁸ possible seeds. The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. If a hacker tried to brute-force 128 bits of entropy at a trillion guesses per second, it would take them 800 million times the age of the universe to run through all possible combinations.
Entropy fell to 72 bits on Mk4, Mk5, and Coldcard Q devices, reducing the possible seeds to ~4.7 × 10²¹. This is well below the 128-bit threshold and exploitable by determined hackers with time and resources. It fell even lower (40 bits) on Mk2 and Mk3 devices, well within the reach of an attacker with even modest resources.
Now, you may read this and think an upgrade could fix the vulnerability. Not exactly. A firmware update fixes the problem for seeds generated after the vulnerability was patched. However, seeds generated using firmware 4.0.1 remain vulnerable. Coinkite has recommended that all users who created seed phrases using the compromised firmware generate a new seed phrase and move their funds to a new wallet.
Details And On-Chain Analysis
Galaxy Research highlighted differences in transaction construction across the attack waves, suggesting multiple threat actors instead of a single entity. A TechCrunch report cited other blockchain monitoring firms to confirm Galaxy Research’s observation, stating that Coldcard wallets were targeted by at least a dozen hackers.
Here is a breakdown of the attack waves that targeted Coldcard. However, these figures could change as analysts believe the exploit is ongoing and details of more affected wallets could emerge over time.
Galaxy Research flagged suspicious transactions detected on July 30, identifying around 594 BTC drained from 500 single-signature wallets. The first wave lasted for 41 minutes, targeting 1,196 wallets and draining 1,082.65 BTC.
The second wave followed the same pattern, with hackers draining 76 BTC from 1,477 wallets, taking the total to 1,158.66 BTC (~$75.1 million) from 2,673 addresses.
The third wave targeted 1,912 wallets, draining 208 BTC and taking the total to 1,367 BTC (~$88–89 million) across over 4,500 addresses.
The fourth wave could still be ongoing, with TRM Labs updating the figures to 1,816 BTC from over 5,200 addresses. These numbers could change as more reports come to light.
TRM Labs tracked the stolen BTC to a pool of addresses linked to the attackers. Surprisingly, the attackers have made very little attempt to move, launder, or mix the funds so far. This is likely because the attackers want to target as many vulnerable wallets as possible before worrying about laundering or mixing the stolen funds. A single deposit of 64.9 BTC on Wasabi and 200 ETH on Tornado Cash are the only laundering activity tracked so far.
This is probably why the exploit has not been attributed to groups like North Korea’s Lazarus that launder stolen funds within hours. Funnily enough, the hackers themselves are being inundated with spam messages, with one message offering to launder the stolen funds for a nominal fee.
Coinkite’s Response And Advisory
Coinkite issued several advisories as the scope of the exploit became clearer. The Coldcard manufacturer published a security advisory following the first wave. The initial advisory covered Mk3 devices and firmware 4.0.1 and 4.1.9. Coinkite released an updated advisory and firmware for Mk4/Mk5 (version 5.6.0 or later) and Coldcard Q (version 1.5.0Q or later). The advisory was updated again on August 1, confirming that the exploit had also impacted Mk2 devices. The latest advisory also narrowed the firmware impacted by the exploit and released a fixed firmware update for Mk2/Mk3 (version 4.2.0).
The update also officially recognized that seed phrases generated with at least 50 manual dice rolls contained enough randomness and were not at risk.
Coinkite has stressed that simply updating the firmware will not fix wallets that have already generated a seed. It advised users who generated a seed between March 2021 and the latest firmware update to treat their seed as compromised and move their funds to a new wallet or generate a new seed on a patched firmware.
Why Was The Coldcard Vulnerability Undetected For So Long
One of the biggest talking points of this entire episode is why nobody detected the bug, which was shipped in a firmware update in March 2021. One detail to remember is that Coldcard’s firmware is open source and publicly available. Coinkite speculated in one of its advisories that the bug may have been discovered during an AI-assisted review of the code. However, this theory is unconfirmed as of now.
The exploit adds to the ongoing conversation about hackers using AI systems to find and exploit vulnerabilities in already-reviewed code. Separately, several AI labs, including OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta, have revealed that their models access real systems during testing. These incidents occurred due to misconfigured environments allowing the models to gain internet access, or because the AI models exploited vulnerabilities during certain tests.
Some recent examples include:
One of OpenAI’s internal models accessed Hugging Face production infrastructure by breaking out of a test environment and exploiting a zero-day vulnerability.
According to one report in ALMCorp, an Anthropic audit revealed some Claude models, including Opus 4.7 and Mythos 5, accessed the internet and gained unauthorized access to systems of three organizations.
Meta’s Muse Spark AI model accessed an external company’s systems and altered internal data.
What Are The Implications For Bitcoin Self Custody
The Coldcard exploit could potentially change Bitcoin custody forever, raise questions about mass adoption, and highlight the complexities of self-custody. First, none of the affected users did anything wrong. They did not fall victim to a social engineering scam or click on a malicious link.
The incident has cast doubt on self-custody, a concept the Bitcoin and broader crypto community swears by. The exploit also reinforces the argument many have made that self-custody does not eliminate risk, it only relocates it. Some, including Taproot developer Udi Wertheimer, have argued that the community cannot assume that Bitcoin stored in cold wallets indefinitely is safe and users must remain vigilant about emerging threats.
The threat landscape has evolved as well. According to Blockaid, the majority of crypto losses this year have been attributed to key compromises and operational security features. The Coldcard exploit is an extreme example of the latter.
Moreover, the incident could push fence-sitters towards institutional and retail exposure to Bitcoin through spot Bitcoin ETFs.
However, self-custody advocates have pointed out that the exploit occurred because of a firmware bug, not a hardware flaw, arguing that self-custody is the safest way to store Bitcoin.
What Steps Can Coldcard Users Take
Coldcard users, especially those who have generated their seeds between March 2021 and Coinkite’s latest advisory, must follow the steps listed below.
Check the Model and Firmware – If you own a Coldcard Mk2, Mk3, Mk4, Mk5, or Q and generated a seed between March 2021 and the latest update, the seed may be compromised.
Update Firmware – Coinkite has released firmware updates for the affected devices. Mk2 and Mk3 users can update to version 4.2.0 and above. Mk4 and Mk5 users can upgrade to 5.6.0 and above, while Coldcard Q users can update to 1.5.0Q.
Check Entropy – Coinkite’s advisory states that the seeds of users who have used the Add Dice feature and completed 50 private, independent rolls are not at risk. However, if you have used fewer than 50 rolls, or not used the Add Dice feature at all, your seed may be compromised.
Recheck Passphrase – A BIP-39 passphrase adds another layer of security. However, users must ensure their passphrase is long, unique, and unrecorded. Shorter phrases cannot be deemed secure.
FAQs
What Caused The Coldcard Exploit
The root cause of the exploit was a bug that shipped in March 2021. The error altered how the firmware called its cryptographic library, causing it to revert to a weak software random number generator instead of relying on the Coldcard device’s source of entropy. This led to the key strength falling from the standard 128 bits to as low as 40 bits on some devices, making them susceptible to brute-force attacks.
Will Updating The Firmware Protect The Wallet From The Exploit
This is where things could get tricky for users. It is generally assumed that if the firmware has a bug, it can be updated to fix that bug. However, in Coldcard’s case, it’s only partially correct. A firmware update fixes the RNG issue moving forward, but does not retroactively fix seeds generated on the vulnerable software. Users should treat seeds generated between March 2021 and Coinkite’s latest update as compromised and move their funds after generating a new seed on an updated device.
Does The Hacker Need Physical Access To Exploit The Vulnerability
No, hackers can use brute-force attacks without needing access to the actual device.
Did The Exploit Impact Tapsigner, Satscard, Or Opendime Devices
No, these devices run on separate codebases and were not impacted by the exploit, which is limited to Mk2, Mk3, Mk4, Mk5, and Coldcard Q devices.
Has Anyone Claimed Responsibility For The Attack
No single entity has claimed responsibility for the exploit. Blockchain analysis revealed differences between transaction patterns, suggesting the involvement of multiple threat actors exploiting the same vulnerability.
Is My Coldcard Wallet Compromised
The Coldcard wallet is not compromised, and a firmware update fixes the vulnerability for new seeds. However, seeds generated between March 2021 and Coinkite’s latest update are vulnerable.
This article was originally published as The Coldcard Exploit: A Deep Dive Into One Of The Most Significant Hacks In Recent Memory on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Plans to issue stablecoins denominated in local currencies to reduce reliance on dollar-linked tokens may unintentionally make it easier to move value into “digital dollars,” according to a senior International Monetary Fund (IMF) official.
Speaking on Friday, IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz said that once local- and dollar-denominated stablecoins run on the same underlying blockchain infrastructure, users could swap between them through decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools, or peer-to-peer mechanisms.
Key takeaways
IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz warned that local-currency stablecoins could still funnel users into dollar stablecoins if both use the same blockchain rails.
Katz said cross-stablecoin interoperability could shift foreign-exchange activity away from traditional intermediaries like banks and currency dealers.
He suggested this dynamic could reduce friction in capital movement, affecting how authorities monitor and manage flows.
Katz noted adoption outcomes may differ by country, with local tokens potentially replacing dollar holdings in highly dollarized economies.
He urged regulators to enable compliant onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points to manage risks.
How shared blockchain infrastructure could enable “digital dollar” access
Katz’s core point is about infrastructure. In his remarks—delivered in a speech at the University of Cape Town—he argued that if local-currency stablecoins and dollar-backed stablecoins are deployed on the same blockchain framework, the practical barriers to conversion could fall sharply.
That matters because, in decentralized finance environments, conversion does not require a single centralized issuer or intermediary to broker every transfer. Katz specifically referenced common DeFi routes: decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools, and peer-to-peer swaps. Under that model, users could move between token types directly, turning what begins as local-currency issuance into an easier path to dollar exposure.
Potential implications for FX monitoring and capital-flow tools
The IMF official linked interoperability to a broader policy concern: where foreign-exchange activity happens. Katz argued that moving FX-related activity away from banks and traditional currency dealers could reduce “friction” that authorities currently rely on to monitor and manage capital flows.
In other words, the issue is not only which stablecoin a user holds, but how quickly and through what channels they can reposition into a different currency exposure. If swaps become routine onchain, regulators may find it harder to observe the flow of currency demand through traditional institutional pathways.
At the same time, Katz framed the shift as potentially reinforcing the broader category of FX-focused stablecoins. He said that local-currency stablecoins “might even accelerate the adoption of FX stablecoins,” a statement that underscores the possibility that currency-linked token ecosystems could become more integrated over time rather than remaining siloed.
Adoption unevenness: South Africa as a case study
Katz pointed to South Africa to illustrate how adoption can diverge across token types. He said dollar-backed stablecoins have gained only limited traction there, while rand-linked tokens have attracted even less demand.
He cautioned that it is still too early to draw definitive lessons from any single country, but he offered an explanation for why users might still prefer dollar tokens. In his view, many participants may choose dollar stablecoins due to factors like liquidity, network effects, and cross-platform or cross-border acceptance.
Those characteristics can translate into more efficient trading and easier settlement—particularly in environments where the local currency faces volatility, lower market depth, or weaker confidence in local issuances. Even if a policy objective is to reduce dependence on the dollar, market structure and user preferences can pull activity back toward the most “usable” asset in practice.
Regulatory framing: country risk differences and compliant onchain rails
Katz said risks vary by country. He suggested that in highly dollarized economies, stablecoins may largely substitute for existing dollar holdings rather than creating incremental demand for dollars. But in countries where dollar access is restricted and the economic policy framework is weaker, stablecoins could instead increase foreign-currency demand.
This distinction is important for policymakers because it affects what “success” looks like. If stablecoins mainly repackage dollars already held domestically, the macro impact might differ from a scenario in which stablecoins provide a smoother mechanism to access additional dollar exposure.
To manage these trade-offs, Katz urged authorities to build regulatory frameworks around practical access points. Specifically, he called for authorities to bring onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points within regulatory boundaries.
The policy takeaway is that banning activity is not the only route. Instead, the IMF official highlighted the need for rule-based access to onchain liquidity and conversion, so regulators can better understand flows and reduce the incentive for unregulated intermediaries.
Going forward, the key question for investors and builders is whether stablecoin issuers and blockchain platforms will prioritize interoperability across local- and dollar-denominated tokens—or isolate them through different infrastructure choices. Katz’s remarks imply that interoperability could materially change who ends up holding “digital dollars” and how quickly currency reshuffling occurs, so market participants should watch how regulators operationalize onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange controls in the jurisdictions most likely to experiment with local-currency stablecoin issuance.
This article was originally published as IMF Says Domestic Stablecoins Could Lift Demand for Dollar Tokens on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.