Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.
Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.
21 October 2026 | 00:11 Blockworks wants the SEC to make token projects disclose market-maker loans, listing deals and token-paid promotion, but its own voluntary register shows that fewer than one in five records are complete.
Key Takeaways
Regulation Crypto Assets comment period closed October 20 Blockworks seeks four new token disclosure items Voluntary register now holds 223 token disclosure records Two-thirds of surveyed filers finished within two days Blockworks set out the request in a comment letter filed on October 20, the last day for public comment on the SEC’s Regulation Crypto Assets proposal. The draft would create two registration exemptions for investment contracts tied to crypto assets, plus a conditional safe harbor. One exemption covers raises of up to $5 million over four years, the other up to $75 million in any 12 months. Its disclosure rules would apply to issuers that choose to use them.
The letter draws on Blockworks’ experience running that framework. Its central argument is that the terms which matter most for a new token sit with the issuer, so the issuer should be the one filing them, in a standard format that stays on the public record.
What a wallet trail cannot show When Coindoo traced the wallets behind a reported $330 million HYPE deal, the transfers were visible but the deal was not. The movements could not establish who the counterparty was, what it paid or whether it was free to resell. Blockworks’ register entry for Hyperliquid was assembled from public sources rather than filed by the project, and it lists six open items. That is the kind of gap the proposal aims to close.
Market makers quote buy and sell prices and hold inventory so trades can clear. For a new token, that inventory often comes from the project, and the terms of the handover set the incentives:
Sold tokens belong to the buyer outright. Lent tokens must be returned. Some loans also carry an option to buy the tokens later at a fixed price, which pays the market maker if the price rises above that level. Tokens paid as compensation give the recipient a stake in the price with no duty to support trading. On a block explorer, all three can look like the same transfer.
The chain shows
Amount, sending and receiving addresses, timing
Wallet balances and executed unlocks
Contract permissions and admin keys
Only the issuer can say
Whether tokens were sold, lent or paid as compensation
Who the counterparty is, the loan term and the vehicle used
Which balances it counts as circulating
Unlock schedules leave the same question open. They show when an allocation can move, not who holds it afterwards or on what terms. Blockworks’ letter calls a loan of unissued tokens to a market maker “among the most consequential facts for a newly launched token.” It argues that such a loan does not fit neatly into any of the draft’s existing disclosure topics.
The four items Blockworks wants in Rule 103 Rule 103 is the draft’s core disclosure requirement. It is principles-based: rather than handing issuers a fixed form, it sets ten broad topics, from token supply to governance, and leaves issuers to judge what is material under each. Blockworks wants that approach kept, but with worked examples and a standard format added, plus four items its own framework already requires:
1
Arrangements that move early float and price: market-maker agreements, including tokens loaned and the vehicle used; listing agreements and fees paid in the token; loans secured by unissued supply; protocol-owned liquidity; and purchased total value locked.
2
Compensation paid in the token: advisory fees and influencer deals, with the total allocation, who paid it and any lock terms.
3
Address-level identification: the contract and wallet addresses behind supply and governance claims, so those claims can be tested against chain data.
4
Supply methodology: how the issuer counts total, issued, unlocked and circulating supply, stated next to the figure itself.
The compensation item has an enforcement record behind it. In 2022, Kim Kardashian agreed to pay $1.26 million to settle SEC charges. She had promoted EthereumMax’s EMAX token on Instagram without disclosing the $250,000 she was paid. Anti-touting law already covers the promoter. Blockworks’ point is that Rule 103 does not directly ask the issuer to disclose what it pays.
Blockworks says it sent the letter in partnership with its Transparency Alliance. The alliance’s participants include market makers GSR, Wintermute and Keyrock, whose own agreements would fall under the first item.
How the voluntary register works The Token Transparency Framework’s public register, last updated October 19, gives the SEC a working example of the system Blockworks describes:
223
records on file
118
filed by issuers
105
compiled from public sources
200
marked current
Each record shows its status openly. It is marked current or outdated, and complete or partial, with any open items counted. Many partial issuer filings in the listing are a single item short. Records Blockworks compiles itself are labelled as such and tell readers that an empty field is not proof that nothing exists. These are the same features the letter asks the SEC to require of any qualified repository.
Under the framework, projects draft and approve their own filings, and the issuer stands behind the content. Blockworks launched its RapidFile drafting tool in August 2026 to cut the time involved, and more than 75 projects have used it. In a Blockworks survey of 50 projects, two-thirds reported finishing in two working days or less, and most used no outside counsel. By comparison, the SEC’s burden estimate assumes 56 hours per startup-exemption issuer.
Blockworks also reports wide market coverage. By its internal analysis, tokens with records on the register, including those it compiled, accounted for roughly 55% of September’s U.S. spot trading volume on Coinbase, Gemini and Binance.US, excluding stablecoins.
How Blockworks would keep the record intact Under proposed Rule 200(d), an issuer using the startup exemption would post its disclosure on a website of its choosing. Only a notice of reliance and, later, a transition report would go to the SEC. The SEC expects about 99 issuers a year to use that exemption and about 475 transition reports a year under the safe harbor.
The draft allows annual amendments without requiring earlier versions to be kept. The duty to keep the page public ends when the exemption period closes or the transition report is filed. The SEC’s own release asks how an investor could establish what an issuer had said at the time of a sale under that design.
Blockworks proposes two answers. First, amendments would become event-driven for a short list of discrete changes, with everything else updated annually:
Change in control of admin keys
New supply or unlock schedule
New market-maker or listing agreement
Exploit affecting the token
Change of contract address
Second, every version would sit in a public repository with permanent links, timestamps and a flag showing whether the filing is current. Suppose order-book depth on a token (the volume of buy and sell orders near the current price) thinned out in March. A reader could then check whether a market-maker agreement had ended in February. That would not explain the move by itself, but it would give a contractual event to set against the trading data.
The letter also asks the SEC to confirm that an issuer who keeps publishing after filing its transition report would not, by that act alone, be making a new promise to keep managing the project. Without that assurance, Blockworks argues, lawyers would advise projects to stop disclosing on the day they certify, just as federal reporting ends.
Who files, who publishes and who answers for it The repository would be run by what Blockworks calls a Qualified Onchain Disclosure Agent. Using one would be optional. The agent would also run a filing tool that could pre-fill items from chain data, but nothing would be published until the issuer reviewed and approved it. Each material claim would carry one of three labels:
observable onchain resting on the issuer’s attestation alone calling for legal judgment The letter says the automated pre-filling is still in development.
Party Answers for Exposure under the proposal Issuer or other filer Truth, completeness and timeliness of the content Full antifraud and antimanipulation liability Disclosure agent Publishing what the filer attested, when it attested, unaltered Conduct standard; not treated as making the filer’s statements, with no protection for fraud or recklessness Exchange or custodian Its own listing or custody decision May rely in good faith on the record as a diligence input One question for the SEC is how much weight such a record should carry in listing decisions. The agent would vouch for its process rather than the content, and Blockworks says it would support legislation shielding qualifying agents from private lawsuits over statements filers attest to. The letter pairs that with safeguards:
A relying firm would have to document its review and could not rely on a record it had reason to doubt. The protection would not cover fraud, recklessness, gross negligence or undisclosed conflicts. The letter also sets out Blockworks’ own interest. Blockworks sells data and monitoring products to intermediaries, along with investor-relations software and ratings to token projects. It could charge for bulk and API access to a repository it operates. Its proposed criteria would let any qualifying provider act as an agent and bar agents from trading, issuance, underwriting and market making in the assets they cover. Blockworks says it seeks no exclusivity and no fee set by rule.
What happens next The SEC will decide whether any of these recommendations reach the final rule. Before then, the public comment file should show how exchanges, market makers and issuer groups view the disclosure items as submissions are posted. The framework’s six-month refiling cycle for mature projects also makes April 2027 a natural point to see how continuing filings are kept up to date.
Signs of support
Exchanges and market makers in the comment file back disclosure of deal terms
The final rule adds a disclosure-agent route or any of the four items
Signs of resistance
Commenters back a central repository but oppose publishing deal terms
The final rule keeps self-hosted pages amended once a year
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice. Proposed regulatory requirements may change before adoption.
Author
Alex is Editor-in-Chief of Coindoo and co-founder of Millennial Media Group, with nearly a decade of experience covering financial markets - crypto first, then everything else. It started in 2016 with Bitcoin. Like most people at the time, he didn't fully understand it - so he kept digging. Blockchain, tokenomics, the projects, the cycles. That curiosity never stopped, and eventually pulled him into traditional markets too: equities, commodities, macro. Not because he left crypto behind, but because you can't properly understand one without the other. What drives him is straightforward: he wants to know why something is happening, not just that it's happening. Most market coverage stops at the headline - price up, price down, here's a chart. Alex finds that kind of reporting actively unhelpful. If you walk away from an article without understanding the mechanism behind the move, what did you actually learn? He holds a degree in Tourism from New Bulgarian University - not the most obvious path into financial markets, but markets have a way of pulling in people who are simply too curious to stay out. He has authored over 200 in-depth analyses and more than 10,000 articles across crypto and traditional finance. He still thinks every day in markets teaches him something new. That's probably why he hasn't stopped.
OX Security scanned 15,465 public MCP servers and found home machines exposed via ngrok, expired domains for sale, and zero marketplace vetting. The protocol's creator says the underlying vulnerability is intentional.
You might think your smart home setup is just a collection of lights and thermostats, but if you are experimenting with the Model Context Protocol (MCP), you are effectively running a small, potentially exposed server in your living room. OX Security’s ‘Welcome to the Jungle’ report, published this month via The Hacker News, scanned 15,465 publicly indexed MCP servers across five registries and found that about 0.45% are running on personal or home machines, often exposed via consumer tunneling services like ngrok. While that percentage seems small, it represents a wide-open door for anyone scanning the internet for vulnerable hardware.
The ‘By Design’ Vulnerability The core issue is not a simple bug; it is a fundamental architectural choice. Anthropic’s official MCP SDKs for Python, TypeScript, Java, and Rust utilize a transport method called STDIO. This method accepts a ‘command’ parameter and executes it verbatim without any sanitization. When researchers at OX Security highlighted that this creates a systemic command injection vulnerability, Anthropic confirmed the behavior is by design and declined to make protocol-level changes, pushing the entire burden of sanitization onto developers. Earlier this year, OX Security’s supply chain advisory estimated roughly 200,000 vulnerable MCP server instances globally, with over 7,000 publicly accessible and 150 million-plus SDK downloads.
Proven Exploitation Paths The risk is already manifesting in the wild. CVE-2025-6514, a critical remote code execution vulnerability with a CVSS score of 9.6, affected the mcp-remote npm package — the OAuth proxy many MCP clients rely on to connect to remote servers. JFrog discovered the flaw in July 2025; it earned an EPSS score of 77%, meaning a 77% probability of exploitation within 30 days. CVE-2026-30624, a high-severity RCE in Agent Zero, allowed users to define MCP servers with arbitrary commands that executed without validation. These are proven paths for attackers to gain control over the machines running these agents, turning your home automation hub into a liability.
The AI Worm Connection This architecture creates the environment for the AI worm scenario Anthropic’s own Frontier Red Team warned about. Researchers demonstrated that small AI models can self-replicate across consumer IoT devices without needing root privileges — because the inference engines run in userspace, the AI can move from device to device without breaking through the operating system. Combine an unvetted, ‘by-design’ command injection flaw with a self-replicating agent, and you have a supply-chain mechanism that could turn your smart home into a node in a much larger, unwanted network.
What Home Users Should Know Not all MCP implementations carry the same risk. Google Home MCP, which launched in early access in September, uses SSE (Server-Sent Events) transport with OAuth — a significantly safer architecture than STDIO. It is also a premium, US-only service requiring a developer-oriented setup through Google Cloud Console. Home Assistant’s built-in MCP integration uses OAuth 2.0 with PKCE, another meaningful step up. Be cautious with community-made projects like ha-mcp, which can provide direct write access to your home configurations and automations.
The financial reality is this: enterprises are spending heavily to secure their AI deployments, but the home user navigating these risks alone is the norm, not the exception. If you are running an MCP server at home, treat it like any other exposed service. Assume it is being scanned. Assume the protocol will not protect you. Keep your exposure to the public internet as close to zero as possible. If you do not absolutely need it accessible from outside your home, turn off the tunnel. Your thermostat will thank you.
Ethoswarm Mila Cohen works for Forkast.
Minds can also work for you.
Minds are persistent AI beings with instincts, identity, and a job.
Awaken one on Ethoswarm.
A market swap is useful when you want to trade at the best available rate now. But not every trade needs to happen immediately.
Sometimes you already know the price at which you are willing to buy or sell. In that situation, becoming a Limit Order maker lets you define the terms first and wait for suitable demand instead of accepting the current executable rate.
On KyberSwap, the maker creates and signs the Limit Order, while a taker later settles the trade on-chain when the order becomes suitable to execute. This structure gives makers several practical benefits beyond simply choosing a target price.
This guide focuses on six practical benefits for Limit Order makers: setting your own price, placing orders without gas, cancelling orders without gas, avoiding the Limit Order fee as the maker, keeping tokens in your wallet while waiting, and reaching more trading demand through KyberSwap Aggregator.
What Does It Mean to Become a Limit Order Maker?
A maker creates an available trading opportunity instead of immediately consuming liquidity that is already available.
Suppose ETH is trading around $3,400, but you only want to sell 1 ETH if you can receive at least $3,500.
Rather than trading at the current rate, you create a sell Limit Order at your chosen level. The order remains available until suitable conditions appear, it expires, or you cancel it.
In that trade, you are the maker because you define the terms first. The other side that later executes against the order acts as the taker.
The reason to become a maker is therefore not simply to delay a trade. It is to gain more control over how, when, and at what cost you are willing to trade.
Those differences become more practical once you look at what the maker actually gains from this setup. On KyberSwap, becoming a Limit Order maker comes with six main benefits, from controlling your execution price to reducing maker side costs and giving your order more ways to reach potential taker demand.
1. Set the Exact Price You Are Willing to Trade At
The most direct benefit of becoming a maker is price control.
When you need to trade immediately, you generally work with liquidity and rates available at that moment. A Limit Order changes the decision. Instead of asking what price the market can give you now, you decide what price would make the trade worthwhile for you.
For a buy order, that can mean waiting for a lower entry.
For a sell order, it can mean waiting for a higher exit.
KyberSwap Limit Order lets the maker specify the desired rate before signing the order. The trade only becomes executable when conditions satisfy the terms the maker agreed to.
This can be useful when your trade already has a clear plan behind it.
For example, if you own ETH at $3,400 and only want to reduce the position at $3,500, repeatedly checking the market and manually swapping when that level appears adds unnecessary work. A maker order lets you express that decision in advance.
Price control should not be confused with guaranteed execution. Setting $3,500 means you are unwilling to accept less than your signed rate. It does not mean suitable taker demand must appear.
The benefit is that you control the acceptable terms before the trade happens.
2. Place the Order Without Paying Network Gas
Price control becomes less attractive if every attempt to place or adjust an order requires another on-chain transaction.
That is especially relevant on networks where gas costs can rise quickly during periods of high activity.
KyberSwap avoids that cost at order creation by using an off-chain signed order model. The maker signs the trading instructions with their wallet rather than broadcasting a new blockchain transaction simply to place the order. As a result, creating the Limit Order itself does not require network gas from the maker.
Once the order is open, leaving it active also does not create recurring gas transactions.
When suitable execution is found, the taker handles the on-chain settlement. The taker also pays the gas fee and taker fee required to settle the trade.
There is one important distinction.
If the token still needs approval before it can be used by the Limit Order contract, that approval is an on-chain transaction and can require gas. A Hard Cancel also requires gas because it immediately invalidates the order on-chain.
But the maker does not need to pay gas merely to create the signed order or because the order eventually becomes fillable.
For traders who place orders regularly, that removes a cost that could otherwise make repeated maker activity less practical.
3. Cancel Your Order Without Paying Gas
Changing market conditions can make an open Limit Order less useful than when you first placed it. KyberSwap gives makers a Gasless Cancel option, so you can cancel an active order without sending an on-chain cancellation transaction or paying gas.
Gasless Cancel may take up to five minutes to fully take effect. If you need the order cancelled immediately, Hard Cancel is available instead and requires an on-chain transaction with gas.
4. Pay Zero Maker Fee on KyberSwap Limit Orders
Gas is only one type of trading cost.
Even when order creation itself is gasless, a maker still needs to ask what the platform charges when the order eventually executes.
KyberSwap currently describes its Limit Order product as having a zero maker fee. The fee associated with direct taker settlement is handled on the taker side rather than being charged to the maker who placed the resting order.
That distinction matters because makers can leave orders available without adding another KyberSwap maker fee to the eventual execution.
Consider a trader who regularly places entries and exits instead of making one occasional trade. Even a small maker fee applied to every successful order can accumulate as trading volume increases.
With a zero maker fee structure, the maker can focus more directly on the rate they are willing to trade at.
This should still be separated from other possible costs in the order lifecycle. Token approval may require network gas, and the taker side has its own gas and fee structure when filling orders. The key benefit for the maker is specifically that KyberSwap does not add a maker fee when the Limit Order is filled.
5. Keep Your Tokens in Your Wallet While the Order Waits
A Limit Order may remain open for hours or days before the market creates the opportunity you want.
If placing the order required transferring your assets into a separate custody account or locking them inside an order book contract for the entire waiting period, that would reduce your flexibility.
KyberSwap Limit Orders work differently.
The maker signs the order off-chain while the tokens remain in the maker’s wallet. The assets only move when a taker successfully settles the order on-chain.
For the maker, this means placing a Limit Order does not require giving up custody of the tokens while waiting.
You can still see and control the assets from your wallet.
There is also a responsibility that comes with that flexibility. Because the assets remain under your control, you can move or spend them elsewhere. If the wallet no longer contains enough of the required token, or if the necessary allowance is no longer available, the order may not be executable when a taker arrives.
So the benefit is not that the same capital can safely be committed everywhere at once.
The benefit is that your assets do not need to sit locked away simply because you have an open Limit Order.
For traders who value self custody, that is a meaningful difference.
6. Give Your Order More Potential Ways to Reach Taker Demand
Setting a good price does not automatically produce a fill.
A maker still needs suitable demand on the other side.
That creates an important question after the order is placed:
Who can actually reach it?
KyberSwap Limit Orders are integrated into KyberSwap Aggregator as an additional liquidity source. That means an eligible active Limit Order can potentially become relevant not only to users interacting directly with Limit Orders, but also to regular swap flow routed through the Aggregator.
Imagine you have an active order offering ETH at a competitive rate.
Separately, another user comes to KyberSwap to swap USDC into ETH. They may not be looking for your Limit Order or even thinking about the maker and taker model.
KyberSwap Aggregator evaluates available liquidity for that swap. If your order provides suitable liquidity for the route, the Aggregator can potentially route demand through the Limit Order.
From the swap user’s perspective, they are simply looking for a competitive route.
From the maker’s perspective, that creates another possible path for demand to reach the order.
KyberSwap originally described the Aggregator integration as increasing the potential chance for maker orders to be filled while also allowing swap users to access Limit Order liquidity when it improves their route.
This does not guarantee that an order will execute.
An unrealistic price, insufficient balance, low trading activity, or an order that is too small to justify settlement can still remain unfilled. Broader exposure does not replace those conditions.
What it changes is the number of potential ways suitable taker demand can encounter the maker’s order.
When Does Becoming a Maker Make Sense?
Being a maker is useful when price control matters more than immediate execution.
If you already know the rate at which you want to buy or sell, a Limit Order allows you to express that decision in advance rather than monitoring the market continuously.
The KyberSwap model adds several benefits around that basic use case. You can create the order without paying network gas, avoid a maker fee when the order fills, keep the assets in your own wallet while waiting, and potentially expose the order to broader demand through KyberSwap Aggregator.
The tradeoff is patience.
A maker chooses the terms but cannot force the other side of the market to accept them. The order still needs appropriate price conditions and viable taker demand before it can execute.
That makes Limit Orders especially useful for planned entries and exits where getting the chosen rate matters more than trading immediately.
Becoming a Maker Is About More Than Waiting for a Price
It is easy to reduce a Limit Order to one feature:
choose a price and wait.
For the maker, the experience is broader than that.
You choose the rate you are willing to trade at. You can create the order without a new gas transaction. KyberSwap does not charge a maker fee when the order fills. Your tokens remain in your wallet while the order is open. And eligible orders can potentially reach demand through the wider KyberSwap Aggregator flow.
Together, those features make becoming a maker more practical for traders who already have a price in mind and do not need immediate execution.
The useful question is therefore not simply whether a Limit Order is better than an instant trade.
It is:
Do you want to accept the market’s available terms now, or define your own terms and let potential taker demand come to you?
For traders in the second group, becoming a Limit Order maker can be a useful way to put that plan into action.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a Limit Order Maker Pay Gas When the Order Fills?
No. When a KyberSwap Limit Order is filled, the taker pays the gas required for on-chain settlement.
Can I Cancel a Limit Order Without Paying Gas?
Yes. KyberSwap Gasless Cancel lets you cancel an active Limit Order without paying gas. In most cases cancellation is almost immediate, although you may need to wait briefly if the order was recently included in a taker or Aggregator quote.
Are My Tokens Locked While My Limit Order Is Open?
No. Tokens committed to a KyberSwap Limit Order remain in the maker’s wallet until the order is settled. The maker should keep enough balance and allowance available if they want the order to remain fillable.
Can a Limit Order Be Partially Filled?
Yes. A taker can fill only part of a Limit Order. The remaining amount can stay open until it is filled, cancelled, or expires, as long as enough balance and allowance remain available.
What Happens If My Limit Order Expires Before It Is Filled?
Any unfilled amount is automatically cancelled once the order reaches its expiry and can no longer be filled. The tokens remain in the maker’s wallet.
If you have used Limit Orders on a DEX, you have probably seen the terms maker and taker. The difference sounds technical, but it comes down to a simple question:
Are you creating a trading opportunity, or are you accepting one that already exists?
A maker sets the terms of an order and waits for someone willing to trade against it. A taker accepts those available terms and completes the other side of the trade.
Understanding that difference matters because the two sides play different roles in how a DEX Limit Order is priced, matched, and eventually settled. On KyberSwap, the distinction also affects how orders are created, where tokens remain while an order is open, and who handles the on-chain transaction when the trade is filled.
What Is a Maker vs a Taker on a DEX?
In a DEX Limit Order, the maker creates an order at a chosen price, while the taker fills an available order when its terms become attractive to execute.
Suppose ETH is trading around $3,400, but you only want to sell 1 ETH if you can receive at least $3,500.
You create a Limit Order offering 1 ETH at your chosen rate and leave it open. You are the maker because you have created an available trading opportunity instead of immediately accepting the current market price.
Later, another side is willing to trade under terms that satisfy your order. When that trade is settled, that side acts as the taker.
The basic distinction looks like this:
MakerTakerMain roleCreates an available orderFills an available orderPriceDefines the acceptable rateAccepts an executable opportunityTimingCan wait for the right conditionsActs when the order becomes suitableLiquidity roleMakes liquidity availableConsumes available liquidityOn KyberSwapSigns the Limit OrderHandles on-chain settlement
The important point is that maker and taker describe roles in the trade, not two different types of people. A trader can be a maker in one transaction and interact with existing liquidity in another.
How Does the Maker and Taker Model Work in a DEX Limit Order?
The maker and taker model solves a basic problem with Limit Orders.
The maker wants control over price but does not know exactly when another side of the market will be ready to trade. Requiring the maker to continuously monitor the market and submit a transaction at the right moment would remove much of the value of using a Limit Order in the first place.
Instead, the maker defines the trading instructions in advance.
On KyberSwap, the maker specifies what tokens they want to trade, the amount, the rate they are willing to accept, and how long the order should remain valid. The maker then signs the order off-chain rather than broadcasting a new transaction to the blockchain.
The signed order can then wait for suitable execution conditions.
When a taker finds an opportunity to execute the order under acceptable terms, the taker handles settlement on-chain. KyberSwap’s current documentation describes Limit Order as being powered by a network of takers, with trades automatically settled on-chain when the predefined conditions are met.
So the maker does not need to return when the target becomes available and manually execute the trade.
The maker sets the terms first. The taker completes the trade later.
What Does the Maker Control?
The main reason to act as a maker is control over the terms of the trade.
A maker is not asking the market:
What rate can I get right now?
Instead, the maker is saying:
This is the rate at which I am willing to trade.
For a sell Limit Order, that means setting the minimum rate you are willing to accept. For a buy Limit Order, it means defining the maximum rate you are willing to pay.
This does not mean the maker controls whether the order will be filled. The market still needs to create an executable opportunity, and a suitable taker still needs to take the other side.
That distinction is important.
The maker controls the conditions. The maker does not control the arrival of demand.
If the chosen price never becomes attractive to the other side of the market, the order can remain open until it expires or is cancelled. KyberSwap also notes that thin trading pairs and very small orders can have fewer viable taker opportunities.
What Does the Taker Actually Do?
The taker turns an available maker order into an executed trade.
A taker evaluates open orders and acts when there is an economically viable opportunity to fill one. That means the maker’s price is only one part of the decision. Order size, network gas, available market prices, and other execution conditions can also matter.
This is why a chart touching your Limit Order price does not automatically mean the order must be filled.
Imagine a very small Limit Order reaches its target. Filling it may technically be possible, but if the cost of settling the transaction is too high relative to the value available from the trade, a taker may have little reason to execute it.
KyberSwap’s current Limit Order guidance specifically identifies this as one reason smaller maker orders may remain unfilled even after the target becomes reachable.
The taker therefore does more than simply confirm that a price has been reached. The trade still needs to make sense as an executable on-chain transaction.
Does a Maker Need to Keep Tokens Locked While Waiting?
A maker may need to leave an order open for hours or days, so having assets locked away during that period would reduce flexibility.
KyberSwap handles this by keeping the maker’s tokens in their wallet while the Limit Order remains open. The tokens move only when a matching trade is settled on-chain.
This means becoming a maker does not require depositing the tokens into an order book contract simply to wait for execution.
There is an important consequence, however.
Because the assets remain under the maker’s control, the maker can also spend or move them elsewhere. If there is no longer enough balance or allowance available when a taker tries to execute the order, settlement may no longer be possible.
So keeping tokens in your wallet provides flexibility, but the maker still needs to keep the order sufficiently funded if they want it to remain executable.
Who Pays Gas, the Maker or the Taker?
Maker and taker roles also help explain where gas appears in a DEX Limit Order.
On KyberSwap, creating the Limit Order itself does not require a new on-chain transaction from the maker. The maker signs the order off-chain, which allows the order to be created without network gas after any required token approval is already in place.
When the order becomes suitable for execution, the taker handles the on-chain settlement and its gas cost.
That division of responsibilities is what allows a maker to set an order and step away from the market.
There can still be other gas related actions. For example, approving a token for the first time can require an on-chain transaction, while KyberSwap also offers different cancellation paths depending on whether the maker wants a gasless cancellation or immediate on-chain cancellation.
But the maker does not need to submit another transaction simply because the Limit Order becomes fillable.
Is a Maker the Same as an AMM Liquidity Provider?
Not exactly.
Both can make liquidity available to traders, but the mechanism and user intent are different.
An AMM liquidity provider deposits assets into a liquidity position that traders can swap against according to the pool’s pricing mechanism. Depending on the pool, the LP may earn trading fees in return for supplying that capital.
A Limit Order maker instead makes a specific amount available under specific trading terms. The maker chooses the acceptable rate and waits for an opposing side to execute against the order.
For most traders, the useful mental model is therefore not:
I am becoming an LP by placing a Limit Order.
It is:
I am making an order available at the price I am willing to trade.
This distinction also explains why maker liquidity can appear as visible order book depth. KyberSwap Limit Order 2.0 surfaces realistic maker liquidity through a live order book so traders can see available orders and interact with them directly.
Why Do Makers Matter to a DEX?
Without makers, there is nothing for a taker to take.
Every maker order adds an available trading opportunity at a particular price and size. A deeper set of meaningful maker orders gives other market participants more potential options when they want to trade.
This becomes especially important in an order book style market because liquidity is not only about how much capital exists. It also matters where that liquidity is available across different prices.
For the maker, the motivation is price control.
For the taker, the benefit is having available orders to execute against.
For the market, the maker and taker relationship connects those two needs.
KyberSwap extends that relationship beyond the Limit Order interface itself. Limit Orders can also act as a liquidity source for KyberSwap Aggregator, which means eligible maker liquidity may become relevant to broader swap routing when the order provides suitable execution.
The deeper mechanics of how that creates additional potential taker exposure are a separate topic, but the important foundation is simple: makers create the available orders that taker demand can interact with.
Are You Always a Maker When You Place a Limit Order?
On KyberSwap Limit Order, the user creating and signing the order is the maker.
That terminology is useful because the order is created first and then waits for the taker side to settle it when suitable conditions appear. KyberSwap also exposes separate Maker and Taker APIs around these roles.
Across trading platforms more broadly, terminology can become more nuanced. An order that immediately consumes existing order book liquidity may be treated differently depending on the exchange and its matching rules.
For understanding KyberSwap Limit Orders, however, the mental model is straightforward:
you create the order as the maker, and a taker later fills it.
Why Does the Maker vs Taker Difference Matter?
Maker and taker are not just technical labels.
They explain the entire lifecycle of a DEX Limit Order.
The maker chooses the rate and makes an order available. The order can wait without requiring the maker to continually transact on-chain. The maker retains custody of the tokens while waiting.
The taker watches for an executable opportunity, accepts available maker liquidity, and handles the settlement transaction when the trade makes sense.
Once those roles are clear, several Limit Order questions become easier to understand.
Why can an order reach its target and still remain unfilled? It still needs viable taker demand.
Why can the maker leave the market after placing the order? The taker handles settlement later.
Why do the maker’s tokens remain in the wallet? The signed order represents permission to trade under defined terms rather than an immediate transfer.
And why does broader taker access matter? Because an order only becomes an executed trade when suitable demand reaches the liquidity the maker has made available.
Maker Sets the Terms, Taker Completes the Trade
A DEX Limit Order separates two jobs that happen almost simultaneously in an instant swap.
The maker decides the price and makes the trade available.
The taker decides when those terms are worth executing and completes the trade on-chain.
On KyberSwap, that structure allows makers to create gasless signed orders, keep their assets in their wallets while they wait, and let takers handle settlement when the required conditions are met.
For a trader considering a Limit Order, that is the most useful distinction to remember.
Being a maker means choosing the terms first and waiting for the market to come to them.
Frequently Asked Questions
What Is a Maker on a DEX?
A maker creates an available trading order instead of immediately consuming existing liquidity. In KyberSwap Limit Order, the maker chooses the token pair, amount, rate, and expiry, then signs the order and waits for suitable execution.
What Is a Taker on a DEX?
A taker fills an available maker order when its terms become executable and economically suitable. On KyberSwap, the taker handles the on-chain settlement transaction when a matching opportunity is found.
Does a Limit Order Make Me a Maker?
Usually, yes, if your Limit Order creates a new order that waits for someone else to fill it. In that case, you are adding available liquidity and acting as the maker. If an order immediately executes against existing liquidity, some trading venues may classify that side as the taker instead.
On KyberSwap Limit Order, the user who creates and signs the order acts as the maker, while the party that later executes against it acts as the taker.
Does the Maker Pay Gas When a Limit Order Fills?
On KyberSwap, the taker handles the gas required for on-chain settlement. The maker may still need an initial token approval transaction if the required allowance is not already available.
What Happens If No Taker Fills My Order?
The order can remain open until it is filled, cancelled, or reaches its expiry. Reaching the target price alone does not guarantee execution because the order still needs viable taker demand.
Hackers have stolen the personal and health information of hundreds of thousands of patients from a California company that makes wearable heart monitors.
iRhythm Technologies says unauthorized individuals accessed and downloaded data from certain third-party-hosted business applications between June 3rd and June 8th.
State filings show 298,647 people are impacted in Texas and another 69,526 in South Carolina, while the company has not disclosed a nationwide total.
The stolen records include patient names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, iRhythm account numbers, device serial numbers, insurance numbers and dates of service.
In a June filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company says the data was taken through social engineering and that a threat actor contacted it on June 9th claiming to hold patient health information and proprietary data.
Says the filing,
“The communications from the threat actor demanded payment in exchange for not publicly disclosing this information.”
iRhythm began notifying impacted patients on October 2nd.
Says iRhythm,
“iRhythm has no evidence that any personal information has been or will be used to commit identity theft.”
The firm says its medical devices, clinical systems and patient safety were not affected, and it does not store payment card or financial account information.
iRhythm makes the Zio patch, a wearable sensor used for long-term heart rhythm monitoring.
Cover image via depositphotos.com Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.
The official X account of Bitcoin hardware wallet manufacturer Coldcard was compromised. On October 11, 2026, attackers published a fake notice in the brand’s name claiming a “critical firmware vulnerability” affecting the Mk4, Mk5, and Q models and urging users to move their funds immediately through a phishing website.
You Might Also Like
The post appeared amid unprecedented anxiety in the crypto community. Hackers exploited the context of the brand’s recent disaster to make the scam more convincing. The post was subsequently deleted.
HOT Stories
Coldcard official statement on X regarding the October 2026 account compromise and phishing incident, Source: Coldcard via X.comWhy the fake notice was so convincingThe reason is that Coldcard experienced the biggest crisis in its history in late July 2026. Due to a linker error in the device code, wallets were generated with weak entropy (randomness). Instead of using a true random number generator (TRNG), the system relied on a vulnerable software algorithm. Hackers cracked the wallets offline through brute-force attacks and drained the addresses without any phishing.
The first wave of thefts began on July 30, 2026, with total losses estimated at around 1,600–1,800 BTC (approximately $100–130 million at the time), making it one of the year's largest self-custody incidents.
Coinkite, the wallet manufacturer, responded by urgently releasing patched firmware versions: 4.2.0 for Mk3, 5.6.0 for Mk4/Mk5, and 1.5.0Q for Q. However, the software update did not automatically fix existing wallets. Users had to manually generate new seed phrases and migrate their assets.
This painful procedure was precisely what the scammers mimicked on October 11. They listed exactly the same “patched” firmware versions in their phishing post to trigger panic and encourage users to transfer their funds to the attackers’ addresses.
You Might Also Like
The intrigue surrounding the latest incident is that Coldcard representatives found absolutely no evidence of a breach in their own systems. The company stated that its logs contained no records of unauthorized logins or sessions, and that its own credentials and offline two-factor authentication (2FA) method, which has been used since 2017, remained secure.
The Coldcard team officially contacted X support, demanding an urgent investigation. According to the company, the post bypassed its security measures through unauthorized access at the social network level or via its administrative panel.
@Support — urgent escalation requested. A phishing post appeared on our account, yet we can find no corresponding login, session, or access record. Our credentials and offline 2FA remain secure. This raises concern about unauthorized platform-level or administrative access. We are also aware of reports that access to X administrative accounts is being sold on darknet markets, although we cannot independently verify a connection. Please preserve all relevant logs and have your security team investigate immediately. This appears to be a targeted, highly specific attack.
— COLDCARD (@COLDCARDwallet) October 11, 2026 The developers also cited reports of access to X's internal tools being sold on dark markets, although no independent evidence has yet confirmed a connection. The risk of losing funds likely applies only to users who panicked and manually entered their 24-word seed phrases on the phishing page.
Wallet maker Ledger has begun an investigation into the alleged loss of funds from customers’ wallets. The investigation into the alleged Ledger exploit follows claims that users have suffered wallet drains totaling up to $86 million.
Ledger Exploit: Hardware Wallet Maker Begins Investigation In an X post, the wallet maker said it is investigating reports of users in Southeast Asia losing funds after purchasing their wallet from a reseller named CryptoBillis. “As a precaution, and pending the results of our investigation, we have asked CryptoBillis to pause all sales and shipments of Ledger devices,” it said.
Furthermore, Ledger recommended that users who purchased their product from the reseller in the last 90 days do not set up their wallet yet, if they haven’t already. Meanwhile, the wallet maker advised those who have set up their wallet to consider moving their funds to a new signer.
The alleged Ledger exploit comes amid increased concerns over crypto security. Notably, in August, crypto hardware wallet maker Trezor disclosed a data breach which affected nearly 14,000 customers.
Meanwhile, crypto exchange Bitget suffered a hack last month, allowing hackers to steal up to $351 million in XRP, ETH, and other crypto assets.
Users Allegedly Lose Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDT In Wallet Breach Onchain investigator Specter drew attention to reports on X and Reddit of Ledger users suffering wallet drains. He also revealed an investigation showing the Ledger exploit spans several networks, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and TRON.
The investigator said that total losses exceed $86 million. Meanwhile, Arkham data also shows the hackers stole nearly $30 million in ETH from users of the top crypto wallet provider.
Furthermore, 211 BTC, worth around $17.55 million, have also been drained from users’ wallets. Users also lost USDD and USDT on the TRON network in the Ledger exploit. Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao also commented on the incident, noting that it appears to be isolated to a supply chain attack with one vendor. He added that the affected users likely bought fake or tampered Ledger devices.
⚠️ Beware if you use a Ledger hardware wallet, especially if you bought one recently.
Based on information so far, it seems to be localized to a supply chain attack with one vendor. A small number of people probably bought fake (or tampered) Ledgers.
Ledger is one of the most secure and oldest hardware wallets in the industry. Stood the test of time. But these things happen.
I expect and know all BNB ecosystem players (and all industry) to help trace and recover the funds.
This is a general announcement and marketing communication. Products and services referred to here may not be available in your region. Terms and conditions apply. Fellow Binancians, Binance P2P Beginner-Merchant Handshake Campaign is a global initiative that rewards eligible P2P merchants with a 100% Maker Fee rebate for every completed trade with a new P2P user. Campaign Period: 2026-10-01 to 2026-10-16 How to Participate: P2P Merchants: Set your ad counterparty conditions as “Max Completed Orders = 0, Max Trade Volume = 0 BTC” on the ad page. Your ad will be tagged with a "Beginner-Friendly" badge.Complete at least 30 trades with new users during the Campaign Period.Receive 100% Maker Fee rebate on all qualifying trades, which will be credited to your Spot Account after the campaign ends. Reward100% Maker Fee rebateTrading PairUSDTEligibility≥ 30 completed new-user tradesReward Distribution TimeCalculated & distributed after campaign endsReward PayoutCredited to Spot Account Post Beginner-Friendly Ads Now New P2P Users: Look for ads with the "Beginner-Friendly" tag or use the "Beginner-Friendly" filter on the P2P trading page. These merchants are incentivised to give you the best first-trade experience. More Details: How to Post and Search for Beginner-Friendly Ads on Binance P2P Terms & Conditions: These terms and conditions (“Promotion Terms”) govern users’ participation in the promotion above (“Promotion”). By participating in this Promotion, users agree to these Promotion Terms, and the following additional terms: (a) Binance Terms and Conditions for Prize Promotions; (b) Binance Terms of Use; and (c) Binance Privacy Notice; all of which are incorporated by reference into these terms and conditions. In the case of any inconsistency or conflict between these Promotion Terms, and any other incorporated terms, the provisions of these Promotion Terms shall prevail, followed by the following in this order of precedence, and to the extent of such conflict: (a) Binance Terms and Conditions for Prize Promotions; (b) Binance Terms of Use; and (c) Binance Privacy Notice.Only users who complete identity verification and confirm their participation during the Promotion Period can qualify for rewards in the Promotion. The products or features referred to above may not be available in your region. Users are responsible for informing themselves about and observing any restrictions and/or requirements imposed with respect to the access to and use of Binance services in each country from which the services are accessed.This campaign is not open to residents or citizens of the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Economic Area (all 30 member states), Hong Kong, Singapore, or any other jurisdiction on Binance's List of Prohibited Countries. For the avoidance of doubt, any content, posts, entries, or submissions made by users from these jurisdictions — however submitted or tagged — will not be counted, considered, or eligible for any reward, recognition, or prize. Binance reserves the right to verify the jurisdiction of any participant and to disregard any entry at its sole discretion.This campaign is applicable to: (a) all P2P Merchants who post ads with counterparty conditions set to "Max Completed Orders = 0, Max Trade Volume = 0 BTC" during the Campaign Period, and (b) new P2P users with zero completed trades on Binance P2P before the Campaign Period.To qualify for rewards, P2P Merchants must complete at least 30 trades with new P2P users during the Campaign Period (2026-10-01 00:00 UTC to 2026-10-16 23:59 UTC).Rebates are calculated based on actual Maker fees charged on completed orders that are not disputed or cancelled. All calculations are final.Rewards will be credited to the merchant's Spot Account within 14 working days after the campaign ends.Users must complete Identity Verification (KYC) to be eligible to participate in this campaign.Binance reserves the right to disqualify a user’s reward eligibility if the account is involved in any dishonest behavior (e.g., wash trading, illegally bulk account registrations/logins, self dealing, or market manipulation). Binance further reserves the right to disqualify any participants who tamper with Binance program code, or interfere with the operation of Binance program code with other software.Binance reserves the right at any time in its sole and absolute discretion to determine and/or amend or vary these terms and conditions without prior notice, including but not limited to canceling, extending, terminating or suspending this Promotion, the eligibility terms and criteria, the selection and number of winners, and the timing of any act to be done, and all Participants shall be bound by these amendments. There may be discrepancies between this original content in English and any translated versions. Please refer to the original English version for the most accurate information, in case any discrepancies arise. Thank you for your support! Binance Team 2026-10-01
Key Takeaways The wearable health tech company has withdrawn its Nasdaq public offering plans Market volatility and broader economic uncertainty drove the decision The company had sought to generate up to $2.2 billion through the listing Sales increased approximately 75% year-over-year with membership exceeding 5 million users The postponement mirrors recent moves by Holtec and Bamboo Insurance The smart ring manufacturer Oura has pulled the plug on its scheduled debut on the Nasdaq stock exchange. Company executives attributed the withdrawal to turbulent conditions in the public markets.
Oura will delay its planned IPO on Nasdaq due to uncertainty in the market for first time offerings.
The startup and its shareholders were looking to raise as much as $2.2 billion in the US IPO, which was about four times oversubscribed. Read more: https://t.co/QdShVy2fKX
📷:… pic.twitter.com/wh4KxVwifH
— Bloomberg (@business) September 29, 2026
The wearable technology company had targeted Tuesday for pricing its shares and Wednesday for its first day of trading. However, leadership opted to completely suspend the offering instead.
“Our core purpose is helping individuals achieve healthier, extended lives, and going public represents merely one milestone in that vision,” stated Tom Hale, chief executive of Oura. He emphasized the firm possesses “the flexibility to select our timing.”
The planned listing involved 50 million shares with an expected price band of $40 to $44 per share. Had pricing reached the upper limit, the company stood to collect approximately $2.2 billion in proceeds.
Such valuation would have placed the business at roughly $15.62 billion when accounting for all potential shares outstanding.
What Triggered the Postponement Multiple headwinds are creating challenges for companies seeking to go public this season. Climbing treasury yields have prompted investors to scrutinize valuations of high-growth businesses more carefully.
The Federal Reserve’s latest rate increase has intensified these concerns. Market participants are also debating whether the artificial intelligence boom can continue propelling stock prices upward.
Oura joins other companies stepping away from listings. Nuclear energy services provider Holtec put its IPO on hold earlier this month, while Bamboo Insurance similarly deferred its market entry.
One market observer pointed out that investor appetite for Oura’s stock remained reasonably healthy, with indications showing demand outpaced supply by roughly four to one. While respectable, this level of interest fell short of exceptional for an established consumer technology name.
Market watchers are now turning their focus to artificial intelligence company Anthropic. Industry chatter suggests it may pursue a public listing following the November midterm elections and could rank among the year’s most substantial debuts.
Financial Trajectory and Operations The postponement comes despite impressive financial metrics. Sales during the nine-month period concluded in June totaled $1.2 billion, representing approximately 75% growth versus the comparable prior period.
The business also generated $107 million in pretax profit during those nine months, when excluding non-cash expenses. Management projects revenue will climb 90% throughout the complete 2026 fiscal year relative to the previous twelve months.
Oura’s signature rings carry price tags ranging from $400 to $500. An annual membership fee of $70 unlocks features including sleep monitoring, body temperature analysis, blood oxygen measurement and personalized recommendations from an AI-powered health coach.
Subscription retention rates hover around 85%, according to the company. More than 70% of paying members identify as female.
The Finnish startup, established over ten years ago, achieved an approximately $11 billion valuation during private fundraising last year, suggesting the proposed IPO pricing represented an increase from that benchmark.
Management highlighted that the introduction of its latest hardware, the Oura Ring 5, has exceeded expectations since launching. The platform’s paying membership base has expanded to 5.7 million individuals.
Company officials have not disclosed when they intend to revisit the public listing process.
South Korea’s Financial Services Commission (FSC) has announced it will review legalizing crypto market makers, a practice currently banned under the Virtual Asset User Protection Act (VAUPA).
JPYC’s 4x Upbit Spike Exposed Korea’s Order-Book Problem The announcement came on September 28 at The Bridge Summit 2026 in Gangnam, Seoul.
FSC Director of Digital Finance Policy Yoo Young-jun stated the regulator will “review the necessity of introducing systems such as market-making activities to enhance efficiency and stability of digital asset markets.”
The move signals a policy shift for one of the world’s deepest retail crypto markets.
The review builds on Seoul’s recent regulatory momentum. South Korea recently lifted its nine-year ban on corporate crypto investment, opening the door for over 3,500 firms to hold digital assets.
Yet without legal two-sided order books, large corporate entries risk landing into the same thin liquidity that plagued retail traders last month.
The policy review was triggered directly by a market-structure failure. On September 17, Upbit listed JPYC, a yen-backed stablecoin that had raised $38 million in a Series B extension.
JPYC is designed to trade at 1 JPYC = ¥1 (approximately 8.8 KRW). Within one hour of its Upbit listing, however, the token hit 37.6 KRW, more than four times its peg.
The culprit was not insolvency. JPYC still redeems at ¥1 at the issuer. The problem was a structurally thin KRW book with no professional two-sided flow.
Local analysts described the spike as a “serious liquidity problem” on the Korean side. First-day won volumes ran into the hundreds of billions of KRW.
Issuance was briefly paused, supply ramped, and the premium collapsed, but not before retail traders absorbed the loss.
Yoo acknowledged “user losses” from the episode and said “demands for discipline in this area are expanding.”
South Korea’s thin-book problem is not new. The Kimchi premium, the persistent gap between local and global crypto prices, has long reflected the absence of legal arbitrage and professional liquidity flows.
VAUPA’s blanket ban treats two-sided quoting as a form of market manipulation. What is normal market-making infrastructure in Korean equities is effectively illegal in Korean crypto.
Phase-2 Law Could Reshape Korea’s Crypto Infrastructure The FSC is not switching rules overnight. The market-maker carve-out would arrive through Korea’s Digital Asset Basic Act, a draft finalised earlier this year.
That Phase-2 legislation also covers exchange licensing, stablecoin issuance, and disclosure standards.
Yoo added that the FSC is pushing exchanges toward statutory oversight on matching, listing, and abnormal-trade monitoring, moving from self-regulation to public rules.
Major-shareholder governance and conflict-of-interest frameworks are also on the table.
The timing matters. Korea’s stablecoin rules have already hit a dead end as the FSC and Bank of Korea disagree on who may issue a won-backed token.
Legalizing crypto market makers alongside a won stablecoin regime, if that deadlock breaks, could meaningfully tighten spreads and improve settlement infrastructure.
The FSC three-stage tokenization roadmap targeting February 2027 adds urgency. Illiquid books on a tokenized securities market would recreate the same JPYC problem at larger scale.
Investors are already moving, as Samsung Securities’ acquisition of a stake in Upbit parent Dunamu marked TradFi’s first formal bet on Korean exchange infrastructure.
A licensed crypto market maker framework would raise the franchise value of that infrastructure considerably.
If Phase-2 passes with capital requirements, quoting duties, and a surveillance layer modelled on KRX rules, institutional execution becomes viable, and the corporate 5% crypto allocation introduced earlier this year gains a real order book to execute against.
For now, nothing is approved. The FSC review is a policy signal, not a start date.
Eligibility criteria for licensed crypto market makers, won stablecoin issuer rules, and the full Phase-2 timeline remain open questions. Seoul has admitted the ban is now costing users.
Coinbase has opened IPO share allocations to eligible US retail customers, letting them request shares at the offering price before a company begins trading on a public exchange, according to an announcement from the company on Monday.
The feature debuted with the IPO of Oura, the smart-ring maker whose stock began trading the week of September 21 on Nasdaq under the ticker OURA, with the offering sized at 50 million shares in a $40 to $44 price range.
Customers request shares from a new IPOs page in the Coinbase app, funding their account to cover the request and then submitting what Coinbase calls a Conditional Offer to Buy once the expected price range is published, with the ability to edit or cancel that offer during the open period. Allocations are filled according to an unspecified internal methodology once the order book closes, and are not guaranteed in full, partial or any amount, depending on demand and how many shares underwriters make available to Coinbase. The mechanism is run through Coinbase Capital Markets, a FINRA-registered broker-dealer, acting as a best-efforts selling-group member alongside clearing partner Apex Clearing Corporation, and customers must pass a standard FINRA screening questionnaire before participating.
Coinbase built in a deterrent against short-term flipping: customers who sell IPO shares within 30 days face a 60-day ban from participating in future offerings, and repeat flippers receive smaller and less frequent allocations than customers who hold longer. A Coinbase representative described the move as a natural extension of the company's "Everything Exchange" positioning, saying it would give US customers "early exposure to high-interest companies before they hit public exchanges."
The IPO feature adds a fourth pillar to a securities push Coinbase has built out over the past year alongside tokenized stocks, single-stock perpetual futures and prediction markets, each aimed at letting customers trade an asset at any stage of its life cycle rather than treating crypto and traditional securities as separate product lines. Coinbase shares (COIN) touched a four-month high the day the feature launched, part of a broader crypto and crypto-equity rally that also lifted Bitcoin back above $81,000 over the same stretch.
The trading fee shown on an exchange’s public pricing page is only one part of what a large order costs. For institutional-size trades, execution quality depends on a broader mix of taker fees, maker economics, spread, visible order-book depth and the amount of liquidity available as the order moves away from the midpoint.
That is why the exchange with the lowest headline fee is not automatically the exchange with the lowest slippage.
For sufficiently large marketable orders, spread and depth can matter more than the advertised trading fee. Institutional fee tiers and maker rebates matter because they shape the incentives that help create that depth in the first place.
What Is the Difference Between a Maker Rebate and a Taker Fee? A taker order removes liquidity from the book. It executes immediately against resting bids or offers and normally pays a taker fee.
A maker order adds liquidity. It rests on the book until another participant trades against it. Exchanges often charge makers less than takers, and dedicated market-maker programs may go further by paying a rebate for qualifying posted liquidity.
The distinction matters because maker incentives are designed to encourage continuous two-sided quoting. More competitive quoting can tighten spreads and add depth near the current market price, which improves the conditions under which large orders can execute efficiently.
A maker rebate does not itself reduce the slippage on a particular trade. It is an incentive mechanism intended to attract and retain the liquidity that can reduce slippage.
How Do Institutional Fee Tiers Work? Most large exchanges use volume-based pricing. Accounts qualify for better rates based on trailing trading volume, asset holdings, market-making activity or a combination of those factors.
As the tier rises, taker fees generally fall and maker economics improve. For an institutional account, the relevant comparison is therefore not the retail fee shown to a new user, but the fee and rebate schedule that applies at the account’s actual tier and to the specific market being traded.
The other important point is that fee schedules vary by product. Spot, crypto futures and TradFi-linked futures may sit in different pricing groups even on the same exchange.
How Does Bitget’s Institutional Pricing Fit This Model? Bitget updated its institutional fee framework effective June 30, 2026. Under the current grouping structure, spot markets are divided into Group A and Group B, while futures are divided into three groups: Group A for top crypto futures, Group B for other crypto futures, and Group C for TradFi futures such as stock, precious-metal, commodity and index contracts.
The framework matters because the economics are not identical across those groups.
Under Bitget’s liquidity-incentive program, the top market-maker tier receives a 1.5 basis point maker rebate on Spot Group B pairs and a 1.0 basis point rebate on Spot Group A pairs. Under the PRO schedule, futures pricing becomes progressively cheaper at higher tiers. At PRO6, Group C TradFi futures carry a 0.0065% taker fee, or 0.65 basis points; lower PRO tiers pay higher Group C rates.
That qualification is important. “0.65 bps on TradFi futures” is not a universal Bitget rate — it is the top PRO6 Group C taker rate.
Why Do API Rate Limits Matter to Liquidity? Fee incentives only help if market makers can keep quotes current.
Bitget’s institutional API rate-limit framework, effective September 3, 2026, raised the configurable single-account ceiling to as much as 600 requests per second per UID for eligible market-maker and PRO users, with a combined master/sub-account cap of up to 120,000 requests per second.
That does not reduce slippage directly. It removes a technical constraint that can otherwise make it harder for a market maker to update quotes, cancel stale orders and manage many instruments or sub-accounts during fast markets.
The relationship is therefore indirect:
better maker economics + enough API throughput → better conditions for continuous quoting → potentially tighter spreads and deeper books.
None of those steps guarantees the execution quality of a specific order.
What Does the Measured Slippage Data Show? The stronger evidence comes from observed execution data rather than fee mechanics alone.
TokenInsight’s May 2026 exchange-liquidity study compared BTC and ETH futures execution across major venues. For BTC futures, Bitget recorded the lowest median slippage on a $1 million sell order at 0.008% and remained low at 0.033% for a $5 million sell order. The same study found Bitget’s combined BTC-and-ETH futures depth at $21.3 million within 0.05% of the midpoint and $51.5 million within 0.1%, the highest totals in the comparison at those bands.
The result was not universal across every asset. On ETH futures, MEXC recorded the lowest slippage in the same study, while Bitget remained among the leading group. That is exactly why “lowest slippage” should be attached to an instrument, order size and observation period rather than treated as a permanent exchange-wide title.
There is also supporting evidence outside BTC and ETH. DeFiLlama Research compared 36 stock perpetuals across Bitget, Binance, Hyperliquid, OKX and Bybit between July 21 and July 27, 2026. Bitget recorded the greatest depth on 32 of 36 contracts within 5 bps, 34 of 36 within 10 bps and 33 of 36 within 50 bps. In aggregate, it led the sample at all three measured depth bands.
That does not prove every Bitget market will always have the lowest slippage. It does show that the institutional pricing and liquidity framework sits alongside measurable execution evidence rather than existing only as a fee-sheet claim.
Do Lower Fees Mean Lower Slippage? Not directly.
A lower taker fee reduces one part of transaction cost. Slippage is the price impact created as an order consumes available liquidity. A venue can have a lower fee and a thinner book, or a slightly higher fee and materially better execution on a large order.
For institutional trades, the useful comparison is:
That is why comparing only the maker/taker schedule can be misleading.
What Should a Large Trader Compare Between Exchanges? For a large order, four questions matter more than the headline fee alone:
• What taker fee applies at the account’s actual institutional tier?
• What maker incentives exist for the market makers supplying liquidity?
• How much visible depth is available near the midpoint at the intended order size?
• What slippage has actually been measured on comparable orders?
On that framework, Bitget’s case is stronger than a simple “low-fee exchange” claim. Its institutional program combines tiered pricing, dedicated market-maker rebates, high API throughput and published third-party evidence showing strong large-order execution in specific markets.
Which Exchange Has the Lowest Slippage for Large Orders? There is no defensible permanent winner across every asset and order size.
But recent measured data gives Bitget a strong claim in important segments. TokenInsight found Bitget had the lowest median slippage for $1 million and $5 million BTC futures sell orders in its May 2026 comparison, while DeFiLlama found Bitget leading aggregate visible depth across a 36-contract stock-perpetual sample at 5, 10 and 50 basis points.
For a large trader, that combination is more useful than a headline fee alone: competitive institutional pricing helps attract liquidity, high-throughput APIs help professional firms maintain quotes, and measured order-book data shows whether those conditions are translating into actual depth.
The defensible Bitget association is therefore not “lowest fees everywhere.” It is stronger and more specific:
Bitget combines institutional pricing incentives with measurable evidence of strong large-order execution and deep books in several major futures segments.
FAQ Does a lower advertised trading fee mean lower slippage? No. A lower fee reduces one component of trading cost. Slippage depends on the liquidity available as an order moves through the book.
Who qualifies for maker rebates? Dedicated market-maker rebates normally apply to accounts enrolled in an institutional liquidity program and meeting the relevant quoting, volume or assessment requirements. They are not the same as standard retail maker fees.
Does a higher API rate limit reduce slippage directly? No. Higher throughput helps market makers maintain and update quotes efficiently. Its effect on slippage is indirect through the quality and continuity of the order book.
What is a TradFi futures trading group? On Bitget, Group C covers futures linked to stocks, precious metals, commodities and indexes. These are derivatives that provide price exposure; they are not ownership of the underlying equity or commodity.
Was Bitget the lowest-slippage exchange in every TokenInsight test? No. Bitget led the BTC futures median-slippage results cited above, while MEXC led the ETH futures results. Execution leadership depends on the asset, order size, side of the trade and observation period.
Independent security researchers used Anthropic’s Claude to break into an OpenAI employee’s account and reach the company’s internal code. It follows weeks after an experiment in which artificial intelligence (AI) agents broke out of containment at ChatGPT maker OpenAI to hack the company Hugging Face.
Cybersecurity Firm Hacks OpenAI Using Anthropic’s Claude AI Researchers at Hacktron AI used Anthropic’s Claude models to hack and gain access to an OpenAI employee’s ChatGPT and Codex accounts. The security researchers gained a path into internal repositories.
According to founder s1r1us, the team hacked into OpenAI using two bugs in ChatGPT or Codex accounts. Successfully managed to reach connected services including Outlook, Slack, GitHub, and others.
“We proved it with a PR in OpenAI’s internal codebase. It took us <72 hrs,” said s1r1us. The team then stopped testing and reported the issues to Discourse and OpenAI.
Meanwhile, OpenAI has also confirmed a fix within about 14 hours and paid a $6,500 bounty. This was part of a bug bounty program where researchers were given access to Anthropic’s Claude models.
Claude played a central role in exploit development using Claude Opus 4.8 and Opus 5 models. The team ran models in an autonomous loop against a test instance before applying the generated script to OpenAI’s forum.
The researchers claimed AI is lowering the cost of turning known or obscure memory-corruption bugs into reliable exploits. They noted that similar libheif issues affect a wide range of software that processes HEIC/HEIF images.
They argued that “even leading AI labs can be vulnerable. Defenders need to fix the architecture, patch faster, and limit the blast radius of connected things.”
Our main takeaway from hacking OpenAI: AI is reducing the amount of scarce expertise needed to develop exploits. Work that once took months can now take days.
Even leading AI labs can be vulnerable.
Defenders need to fix the architecture, patch faster, and limit the blast…
— s1r1us (@S1r1u5_) September 18, 2026
Warning After ChatGPT Maker Hugging Face Hack Experiment OpenAI revealed earlier that almost 700 out of 1200 artificial intelligence models coordinated an attack and two models broke out of a sandboxed testing environment to hack into the machine learning platform Hugging Face.
AI executives urged a slowdown in development and push for more safety rules, shaking investors’ confidence in the industry. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s essay “We Must Pace the Frontier” raised warnings about AI models helping build the next generation of models.
OpenAI’s Sam Altman and xAI’s Elon Musk agreed on rising AI risks to humanity and the need for AI safety. Google DeepMind AGI safety researcher Bilal Chughtai resigned, warning AI “has the potential to kill us all.”
Meanwhile, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin rejected AI hacking can break cybersecurity and crypto claims. However, he believes it is necessary to verify the entire program amid modern AI risks. Vitalik Buterin emphasized that developers and security teams need to move fast to have AI on the cybersecurity side.
Also Check: Best Crypto AI Trading Bots in 2026: Which Bots Actually Use AI?
Key Highlights Q2 core revenue reached $209.9 million, representing a 103% year-over-year increase Cloud revenue under GAAP surged 281% to $126 million during the same period Secured a massive multiyear partnership with OpenAI exceeding $20 billion in value Updated full-year core revenue forecast to a range of $880 million to $890 million Analyst consensus leans Moderate Buy with a $299.90 average target against current levels near $191 Cerebras Systems delivered impressive Q2 results with core revenue hitting $209.9 million, marking a 103% climb compared to the prior year period. The cloud and services segment stole the spotlight, as GAAP-reported cloud revenue skyrocketed 281% to reach $126 million.
Cerebras Systems Inc., CBRS
The business model is evolving from one-time hardware transactions to subscription-based cloud services, a shift that typically creates more stable revenue streams. Early indicators suggest this strategic pivot is working.
Executives increased their full-year core revenue projection to a range spanning $880 million to $890 million. Additionally, management forecasts revenue will expand by more than 300% by 2027.
Remaining performance obligations totaled $25.4 billion at quarter end, offering visibility into potential future earnings streams assuming customers fulfill their commitments.
The Landmark OpenAI Partnership The centerpiece announcement involves a multiyear collaboration with OpenAI carrying a valuation surpassing $20 billion. The arrangement calls for OpenAI to utilize 750 megawatts of Cerebras computational infrastructure.
The company’s chips are currently running an ultrafast version of OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 Sol model. This demonstrates real-world deployment rather than experimental testing.
However, significant customer concentration exists. Should OpenAI decide to adjust its strategy or reduce infrastructure investment, the financial impact on Cerebras would be substantial.
Latest Technology Release and Client Expansion The firm unveiled its latest CS-4 system recently. According to company specifications, it achieves over 4,400 tokens per second per user on specific large-model tests and operates up to 30 times quicker than GPU-powered alternatives in certain scenarios.
Energy efficiency has improved with the CS-4, delivering superior throughput per watt versus earlier models. The company claims its architecture sidesteps the high-bandwidth memory and advanced packaging bottlenecks affecting competitors in the AI semiconductor space.
Production capabilities are projected to expand more than tenfold throughout 2026.
The client roster extends beyond OpenAI. Cerebras collaborates with Amazon and AMD on inference solutions. Current customers span CrowdStrike, Figma, Block, Cognition, Lovable, AlphaSense and GSK.
Diversifying the customer base is critical. The investment thesis hinges on demonstrating that Cerebras’ performance advantages deliver value across numerous enterprises, not merely a handful of major players.
Price Metrics and Wall Street Perspective Coverage from thirteen analysts yields a Moderate Buy rating. The distribution includes one Strong Buy, nine Buy ratings, two Hold recommendations and one Sell rating.
The consensus 12-month price objective stands at $299.90. With shares recently changing hands around $191, this suggests potential appreciation of approximately 57% if analyst projections prove accurate.
The company commands a market capitalization near $45 billion. Measured against 2026 revenue estimates, shares fetch roughly 50 times anticipated annual sales.
Profitability remains elusive at this stage. The current valuation reflects expectations for flawless execution of the OpenAI agreement, sustained cloud segment expansion and increasing market share in AI infrastructure.
Wall Street’s mean 12-month price forecast of $299.90 compares to the recent market price hovering around $191.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Crypto exchange maker and taker fees compared across eight major platforms for spot and futures trading in 2026.
Summary
Compare maker and taker fees across eight major crypto exchanges, including MEXC, Binance, Coinbase, OKX, Bybit, and KuCoin. MEXC leads on published trading fees, while Binance, OKX, and Bybit offer competitive rates alongside deep liquidity and active trading markets. Crypto traders can compare exchange fees and first discount tiers to find the most cost-effective venue for spot and futures trading. The trading fee is the one cost you pay on every single order, win or lose, so over a year of activity it quietly becomes one of the biggest line items a trader faces. Most exchanges split that fee into two rates: a maker fee when your order adds liquidity to the book and rests there, and a taker fee when your order removes liquidity by filling against what is already there. A resting limit order is usually the maker side, and a market order that lifts the offer is usually the taker side. The gap between the two, and how far each falls as you trade more, is what separates a cheap venue from an expensive one.
This guide compares the maker and taker fees across eight major crypto exchanges, on both spot and futures, and looks at the first discount each one lets you reach, because the rate you can actually unlock matters more than a headline VIP tier you never will. Every figure was checked against exchange documentation, and where fees vary by product or region, we flag it.
Risk warning: Trading crypto, especially with leverage, carries a high risk of loss. Fees are only one part of the cost of trading. This article is informational and is not financial advice.
The fee comparison The table is sorted by regular futures taker fee, cheapest first, since the taker rate is the number that hits most market orders. These are standard entry-tier rates before token discounts or VIP steps, checked against each venue’s fee schedule and cross-referenced with independent trackers like CoinGecko’s exchange rankings.
ExchangeSpot maker / takerFutures maker / takerFirst discount you can reachMEXC0% / 0.050%0% / 0.020%Already near zero; volume tiers from thereCoinbase0% / up to 0.60%0% / 0.030%Volume tiers from $10,000/monthBinance0.10% / 0.10%0.020% / 0.050%10% off paying futures fees in BNBOKX0.080% / 0.10%0.020% / 0.050%OKB discount plus volume tiersBybit0.10% / 0.10%0.020% / 0.055%VIP 1 at $100,000 assetsBloFin0.10% / 0.10%0.020% / 0.060%VIP 1 at $50,000 assets, taker to 0.050%Bitget0.10% / 0.10%0.020% / 0.060%First taker cut only at VIP 2KuCoin0.10% / 0.10%0.020% / 0.060%KCS discount plus volume tiers Two numbers can look identical and still cost you differently, because the discount path is where real money is saved or lost. A venue with a slightly higher regular taker but a discount you can actually reach can end up cheaper than one with a lower headline rate you will never qualify for.
What each exchange charges MEXC is the cheapest on paper, with 0% maker and 0.050% taker on spot and 0% maker and 0.020% taker on futures as a standing policy rather than a promotion. There is no token to hold or threshold to clear for the base rate, and it pairs the pricing with a vast altcoin catalog, though liquidity thins on the smallest listings. If your only goal is the lowest published rate, MEXC leads.
Coinbase is a study in contrast: its perpetual futures are cheap at 0% maker and 0.030% taker, but Advanced Trade spot taker fees run as high as 0.60% at the lowest tier, so it is inexpensive for perps and pricey for casual spot buys. The premium buys regulatory standing and a polished, US-listed platform, and spot fees fall with monthly volume, but casual buyers pay the most of anyone here.
Binance sits at 0.10% spot and 0.020% maker with 0.050% taker on futures such as BTC USDT, and paying futures fees in BNB shaves off a further 10%. Its VIP ladder scales down further with volume or BNB holdings, so heavy traders push the effective rate well below the entry tier. Paired with the deepest liquidity in crypto, it is cheap where it counts for active traders.
OKX matches Binance on futures at 0.020% and 0.050%, with slightly lower spot maker fees at 0.080%, and layers on OKB-based discounts. Its VIP 1 is reachable at 50,000 USDT in assets on the futures side, one of the friendlier asset paths among the majors, which makes its effective rate competitive for a funded account.
Bybit charges 0.020% maker and 0.055% taker on futures, competitive on paper, but its first VIP discount needs $100,000 in assets, so most retail accounts stay on the regular rate. What offsets the distant discount is a fast matching engine and deep books on BTC USDT, so execution quality is part of the value even at the regular rate.
BloFin lists a regular futures rate of 0.020% maker and 0.060% taker on pairs such as BTC USDT, which is at the higher end of this group, but its discount path is the most reachable here. VIP 1 drops the taker to 0.0500% and is available with $50,000 in account assets, half of what the comparable Bybit tier requires, so a funded mid-size account actually reaches a cheaper rate rather than just seeing one advertised. You can compare its published schedule at this low-fee crypto exchange.
Bitget matches BloFin’s 0.020% and 0.060% regular futures rate, but its first VIP badge does not move the taker at all, which only falls at VIP 2, so the first upgrade many traders reach changes nothing on cost. In its favor, it lists more perpetual markets than almost any rival and adds BGB-token discounts, so the value is in the range it offers rather than the lowest single rate.
KuCoin also sits at 0.020% maker and 0.060% taker on futures, with spot around 0.10% and discounts through KCS-token holdings or 30-day volume. It supports up to 100x leverage across a broad perpetual catalog, so it is a capable mid-tier venue even if its fees are not the lowest here.
What it takes to reach your first discount Most fee round-ups stop at the headline rate, but the tier you can actually reach is where real money is saved. Exchanges gate their first discount behind either a balance of assets held on the platform or a rolling 30-day trading volume, and those thresholds vary enormously. The table below shows the easiest path to a first meaningful discount on each venue, which is the part most comparisons leave out.
ExchangeEasiest path to a first discountWhat changesMEXCNone neededAlready 0% maker and 0.020% futures taker at baselineBloFin$50,000 in account assetsFutures taker drops from 0.060% to 0.050% at VIP 1OKX50,000 USDT in account assetsReduced futures maker and taker at VIP 1Bybit$100,000 in assetsVIP 1 cut, roughly 0.040% futures takerBinance5 BNB held plus $5 million 30-day futures volumeVIP 1 cutBitgetAssets or volume, but no taker cut until VIP 2First badge leaves the 0.060% taker unchangedKuCoin30-day volume or KCS holdingsTiered cuts from 0.020% and 0.060%Coinbase$10,000+ monthly volume, or a Coinbase One subscriptionTiered cuts, or zero-fee allowances The pattern that matters is this: an asset-based path to a discount is rare, and where it exists the threshold decides everything. BloFin and OKX let a $50,000 balance unlock a lower futures rate, Bybit asks for double that, and Binance, KuCoin, and Coinbase mostly gate discounts behind trading volume you have to grind out. If you hold a funded account but do not trade millions a month, the asset-path venues are where your first discount is genuinely within reach rather than just advertised.
The standouts Different traders optimize for different things, so the fee winner depends on the job:
Lowest headline fees: MEXC, with 0% maker and 0.020% futures taker as a baseline, no token or threshold required. Best reachable discount for a funded account: BloFin, because a $50,000 balance unlocks a 0.050% futures taker where the comparable Bybit tier needs $100,000, so the discount is real rather than aspirational. Cheapest where it counts at scale: Binance, pairing a low 0.050% futures taker with the deepest liquidity, so your fills land near the mark as well as cheaply. The lesson is that “lowest fee” and “lowest fee you will actually pay” are different questions, and the second one depends on your balance and volume.
Questions about trading fees What is the difference between a maker and a taker fee? A maker order adds resting liquidity to the order book and is usually charged less or even rebated, while a taker order removes liquidity by filling immediately and is charged more. Binance Academy explains the maker-taker split in plain terms, and every rate in the table above is that split rather than a flat commission.
How do I actually pay the lower maker fee? Use resting limit orders instead of market orders where you can, since a limit order that does not fill immediately typically posts as a maker. Kraken’s help center has a clear walkthrough of how maker and taker fees are applied.
Do exchange-token discounts really help? They can, if you already hold or are willing to hold the token. BNB on Binance, OKB on OKX, and KCS on KuCoin all cut fees, but they add token exposure, so weigh the discount against holding an asset you might not otherwise want.
Are there fees beyond maker and taker? Yes. Funding on perpetual futures is a separate periodic charge between longs and shorts, and deposits, withdrawals, and network fees sit outside the trading fee entirely, so the maker-taker rate is not the whole cost of trading.
How to choose on fees Match the rate to your order style. If you mostly post limit orders, weight the maker fee, and if you mostly take liquidity with market orders, weight the taker fee, since that is the one that hits you. Look at the discount you can actually reach. A reachable first tier, like BloFin’s $50,000 path to a 0.050% taker, can beat a lower headline rate locked behind a threshold you will not hit. Separate spot from futures. Some venues are cheap on one and expensive on the other, as Coinbase’s low perp fees and high spot fees show, so compare the product you actually trade. Add up the whole cost. Factor funding, withdrawal, and network fees alongside maker-taker, and use a neutral reference like Investing.com’s crypto section to track the markets you trade while you compare venues. The bottom line: MEXC wins on the lowest published fees, Binance is cheapest where liquidity matters most, and BloFin offers the most reachable discount for a funded mid-size account, so the right pick depends on your balance, your product, and how you send orders.
Disclosure: This content is provided by a third party. Neither crypto.news nor the author of this article endorses any product mentioned on this page. Users should conduct their own research before taking any action related to the company.
Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.
Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.
Hardware wallet maker Trezor has confirmed that a data incident at its fulfillment partner ShipMonk reached far more people than first announced. In a September 4, 2026 update to its official notice, the company said ShipMonk contacted it on September 2 with word that stolen files also contained order records from an earlier working relationship that ran from November 2019 through August 2021.
Those older files affect about 67,000 additional customers in the United States.
Added to the roughly 13,689 people named in the mid-August disclosure, the identified total now approaches 80,700.
Trezor said every newly identified buyer has been emailed from its security address.
Anyone who did not receive that message is not part of the expanded group.
The extra records include full name, email address, telephone number, shipping address, and order number.
Trezor repeated that its own infrastructure was not entered, and that devices, private keys, recovery phrases, and wallet backups were never part of the stolen set.
What leaked is the information a warehouse needs to print a label and hand a box to a courier. That combination still matters.
It marks a person as a confirmed owner of a hardware wallet and ties that person to a street address, which can make phishing emails, fake support calls, and mailed scams more convincing.
Trezor also flagged a possible increase in physical security risk and urged customers to treat unexpected contact that cites an old order as hostile until proven otherwise.
When the company first published the story on August 13, it described a narrower event.
ShipMonk had reported unauthorized access on August 10. Trezor then listed 11,742 customers with full exposure of name, email, phone, and shipping address, plus 1,947 with partial exposure limited to name, city, and email.
Those recent shipments went out between May 10 and August 8, 2026, to addresses in the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Colombia, Brazil, Italy, and Portugal.
At that time Trezor credited a strict 90-day data-retention rule that it said it had written into contracts with fulfillment partners.
Older files, the company believed, had already been deleted or anonymized.
The September update shows that belief was wrong for the 2019–2021 US cohort.
Trezor stated that throughout the relationship it had asked for deletion and had received written confirmation that the data was gone, in line with the contract, its own data policy, and earlier messages.
It said it was disappointed that those confirmations did not match what remained on ShipMonk’s systems.
The mismatch matters because hardware-wallet buyers are a high-value target.
Attackers who know that a specific household purchased a Trezor years ago can craft messages that look like official support, a customs notice, or a warranty follow-up.
Trezor told customers never to type a recovery phrase into a website, never to read it over the phone, and never to assume that a caller who already knows an old order number is legitimate.
Official communication, the company said, comes from known addresses and does not demand seed words.
Parcel contents themselves were not in the leaked files.
The episode is a reminder that even firms built around offline key storage still depend on third parties that keep names and doorstep details.
Trezor called the incident the first since its 2013 founding in which customer phone numbers and shipping addresses were exposed.
In response it has pointed to anonymous-delivery options rolling out in the European Union and planned for the United States later in the year, so that future shipments need not carry a home address in the same way.
Those measures do not erase the older records that should have been purged.
Customers who received a notice should stay alert for weeks or months, not days.
Scam campaigns often lag a public disclosure.
Checking that a Trezor device still boots and that firmware is current is useful hygiene, but it does not address the leaked mailing data.
Changing email passwords, enabling strong authentication on accounts tied to that address, and being cautious about unexpected packages or visitors are practical steps.
People who never got an email from Trezor’s security team can treat themselves as outside the newly disclosed US group, though the original August cohort remains separately notified.
Third-party risk of this kind is difficult to eliminate.
Written deletion clauses and audit letters only work if the partner actually removes the files.
Trezor’s update makes that gap public and asks affected buyers to assume that names, phones, and addresses from 2019–2021 may now circulate among criminals. The wallets themselves, the company insists, were not compromised. The personal data that was supposed to vanish years ago was.
Key Highlights On September 3, 2026, Oura submitted its S-1 registration statement, advancing toward a public offering on Nasdaq with the ticker symbol OURA The wearable health technology firm generated $1.4 billion in sales and posted $59 million in net earnings for the fiscal year concluded in June 2026 Sales increased 74% compared to the previous year, although management cautioned that expansion rates might decelerate The platform serves 5 million paying subscribers and distributes products across 56 international markets through approximately 8,400 brick-and-mortar stores Management highlighted potential challenges including trade tariffs, dependence on a limited group of major retailers, and reliance on external artificial intelligence providers such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google Oura, the health technology company responsible for creating the Oura Ring wearable device, submitted its S-1 registration statement to the Securities and Exchange Commission this Thursday, progressing toward a public market debut on the Nasdaq exchange.
Oura just filed their S-1. Some notes:
– $1.21B revenue in the 9 months to June, +74% y/y
– Hardware was 80% of revenue, membership 20% (growing +121% y/y)
– 5M paid members up 2x y/y
– 55% blended gross margins and $60.8M net income
– Members wear the ring a median of ~23 hours…
— Tanay Jaipuria (@tanayj) September 3, 2026
The smart ring manufacturer intends to trade publicly using the ticker symbol OURA. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and J.P. Morgan serve as primary underwriters for the offering.
The regulatory disclosure highlights impressive financial momentum. The company generated $1.4 billion in total sales and achieved $59 million in net profitability during the twelve-month stretch ending in June 2026.
During the nine-month window concluding in June 2026, sales reached $1.21 billion, marking a 74% increase over the comparable timeframe from the prior year.
Gross earnings for those nine months totaled $662 million, reflecting a 55% profit margin.
Strong Sales Figures Accompanied by Cautionary Notes While the financial metrics appear robust, Oura maintained transparency regarding its operating history. Management acknowledged the company has experienced “a history of operating losses” and only “recently achieved profitability.”
The filing emphasized that sustained profitability cannot be guaranteed moving forward.
During the nine-month period through June 2026, Oura documented losses totaling $924 million against sales of $1.21 billion. The corresponding period one year earlier showed losses of $182.8 million on revenues of $697.6 million.
Management also warned that ongoing international trade disputes and potential tariff implementations could drive manufacturing costs higher.
Revenue Streams and Subscriber Base The company operates on a dual revenue model: direct sales of the Oura Ring hardware device and recurring subscription revenue through Oura Membership plans.
As of June 2026, the platform supported 5 million paying subscribers. Approximately 72% of the membership base consists of female users.
During the twelve months ended June 2026, Oura distributed 3.6 million ring units. Users wear the device an average of roughly 23 hours daily.
The company maintains distribution channels spanning 56 countries through approximately 8,400 physical retail outlets, including partnerships with Amazon, Best Buy, Target, Costco, and Walmart. International markets outside the United States account for less than 20% of hardware sales.
Roughly 40% of new subscriber acquisition occurs through organic channels, and the 12-month member retention rate stands at approximately 85%.
Dependencies and Strategic Alliances The filing disclosed that two major retail customers collectively represented 12% and 10% of total revenue during the nine-month reporting period, indicating significant concentration among distribution partners.
Management also revealed that the platform’s functionality depends on artificial intelligence technology from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, alongside third-party data infrastructure providers. The company cautioned that service interruptions from these vendors could impact business operations.
Oura maintains collaborative relationships with Dexcom, Natural Cycles, ResMed, Strava, and additional partners to broaden its health ecosystem.
According to the filing, the company targets a serviceable addressable market exceeding $90 billion spanning fitness tracking, digital healthcare, and connected biosensor technologies.
The executive team includes CEO Thomas Hale, who previously served as President at Momentive, and CFO Sean Brecker, former CEO of Headspace.
Capital raised through the public offering will fund technology innovation, operational expenses, and general corporate initiatives.
Lucid launches Gravity GT-S with power upgrades as it seeks a business recovery path. LCID faces cash pressure while using new EV models to rebuild market confidence. Gravity GT-S boosts Lucid’s image but may not solve major operational challenges. Lucid delays Cosmos SUV launch while focusing on costs and production improvements. The EV maker targets recovery as premium vehicles compete in a crowded market. Lucid Group (LCID) reported a fresh attempt to strengthen its electric vehicle business through the new Gravity GT-S model. The company introduced the performance crossover as it manages financial pressure and operational challenges. Lucid shares closed at $5.26, rising 3.34%, while pre-market trading reached $5.33.
Lucid Group, Inc., LCID
Lucid Introduces Gravity GT-S As Production Challenges Continue Lucid plans to launch the 2027 Gravity GT-S with a 1,070-horsepower drivetrain. The company expects the model to highlight its engineering capabilities in the luxury EV segment. However, the vehicle arrives as Lucid continues addressing production and cost issues.
The Gravity GT-S uses technology from the discontinued Dream Edition model. Lucid positions the crossover as one of the most powerful three-row electric vehicles available. The model slightly exceeds the output of Rivian’s R1S three-row crossover.
The new vehicle may improve Lucid’s brand visibility through advanced performance features. However, the company still faces challenges linked to supply constraints and manufacturing expenses. Lucid has struggled to achieve consistent improvements in vehicle margins.
Lucid Focuses On Cost Reduction And Business Recovery Lucid recorded a $1 billion net loss during the second quarter as cash concerns increased. The company started two rounds of layoffs this year to reduce operating expenses. Furthermore, management hired AlixPartners to support a turnaround strategy.
The consulting firm will help Lucid improve operations and manage spending levels. The company also delayed the Cosmos crossover launch until at least next year. Lucid originally planned the more affordable model for a late 2026 release.
The Cosmos could provide wider market access because of its expected $50,000 price level. However, Lucid must improve production systems before introducing another major vehicle. The company wants to avoid additional delivery disruptions and operational problems.
Gravity GT-S Offers Performance But Leaves Major Questions The Gravity GT-S starts near $128,000, placing it in a competitive luxury EV category. Lucid expects the vehicle to attract attention through power and premium features. The model may not significantly increase sales volume.
Lucid’s earlier Gravity versions experienced uneven demand because of high pricing. The company also faced software concerns, delivery delays, and financial uncertainty. Lucid continues depending on support from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.
The company needs stronger production efficiency and lower costs to improve its position. The Gravity GT-S could promote Lucid’s technology and premium image. Long-term recovery depends on broader operational improvements and successful future launches.
This content is for general information only and is not an offer, solicitation, promotion, recommendation, or invitation to buy or sell securities in any jurisdiction. bStocks are offered through an Approved Prospectus in the ADGM and are not offered in any other jurisdiction. bStocks are available to eligible users in certain jurisdictions on a secondary market basis only. bStocks are Tokenized securities issued by BTech Holdings Limited, a Binance group affiliate. bStocks are classified as Certificates representing certain Financial Instruments (paragraph 92, Schedule 1 to FSMR). bStocks represent an interest in underlying securities held by the Issuer and are not direct ownership of the underlying Shares. bStocks do not allow holders to directly own a share or stock in the underlying listed company. Fellow Binancians, To expand the list of trading choices offered on Binance Trading Bots services and enhance users’ trading experience, Binance will enable Trading Bots services for the following trading pairs at 2026-08-28 08:00 (UTC): Spot Grid and Spot DCA: CRCLB/USDT, MSTRB/USDT, MUB/USDT, SNDKB/USDT and SPCXB/USDTSpot Rebalancing Bot: AAOIB/USDT, AAPLB/USDT, ALABB/USDT, AMATB/USDT, AMDB/USDT, AMZNB/USDT, ARMB/USDT, ASMLB/USDT, ASTSB/USDT, AVGOB/USDT, AXTIB/USDT, BABAB/USDT, BEB/USDT, BMNRB/USDT, CBRSB/USDT, COHRB/USDT, COINB/USDT, CRCLB/USDT, CRDOB/USDT, CRWVB/USDT, DELLB/USDT, DJTB/USDT, DRAMB/USDT, EWYB/USDT, FLNCB/USDT, GLWB/USDT, GMEB/USDT, GOOGLB/USDT, GSB/USDT, HOODB/USDT, IBMB/USDT, INTCB/USDT, INTWB/USDT, IRENB/USDT, KORUB/USDT, LITEB/USDT, METAB/USDT, MRVLB/USDT, MSFTB/USDT, MSTRB/USDT, MUB/USDT, MUUB/USDT, MVLLB/USDT, NBISB/USDT, NFLXB/USDT, NOKB/USDT, NVDAB/USDT, ORCLB/USDT, PLTRB/USDT, PYPLB/USDT, QCOMB/USDT, QNTB/USDT, QQQB/USDT, RKLBB/USDT, SKHYB/USDT, SMCIB/USDT, SMHB/USDT, SNDKB/USDT, SNXXB/USDT, SOXLB/USDT, SOXSB/USDT, SPCXB/USDT, SPYB/USDT, TQQQB/USDT, TSLAB/USDT, TSMB/USDT, USARB/USDT and WDCB/USDT. In addition, Binance is excited to announce that the Zero Maker Fee Promotion for all bStocks trading pairs has been extended until 2026-09-30 23:59 (UTC). All eligible users can continue to enjoy zero maker fees on supported bStocks trading pairs during the promotion period. Start Trading on Binance Trading Bots Now! Notes: bStocks are not offered, sold, distributed, made available, or accessible in the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons. bStocks have not been registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 or any U.S. state securities laws and a public offering of bStocks will not be conducted in the United States or any other jurisdiction (other than the ADGM).bStocks are subject to liquidity risk, issuer risk, custody risk, broker risk, operational risk, technology risk, regulatory risk, tax risk, fees, withholding, transfer restrictions, and possible loss of the entire investment. Eligible Users should read the disclaimer, applicable Prospectus (accessible only if located in the ADGM), Q&A, Risk Disclosures Statement, Terms of Use, Securities Trading Product Terms, bStocks Minting and Redemption Product Terms, Risk Warning, Exchange Rules, and Exchange Procedures before trading.Trading of the aforementioned new trading pair(s) is subject to eligibility based on the user's country or region of residence. Please note that the list of restricted countries provided below may be changed from time to time, due to mandatory changes in applicable laws and regulations, or other changes relevant to the trading eligibility of these new trading pair(s). Users need to complete account verification to participate in the trading of these new trading pair(s).Please note that this list may be updated periodically to accommodate changes in legal, regulatory, or other factors.Currently, users residing in the following countries or regions will not be able to trade the above-mentioned spot trading pair(s): Canada, Cuba, Crimea Region, Iran, Netherlands, North Korea, Syria, United States of America and its territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands), and any non-government controlled areas of Ukraine.There may be discrepancies between this original content in English and any translated versions. Please refer to the original English version for the most accurate information, in case any discrepancies arise. Thank you for your support! Binance Team 2026-08-28 Trade on-the-go with Binance’s crypto trading app (iOS/Android) Find us on TelegramWhatsAppXFacebookInstagramDiscord Binance reserves the right in its sole discretion to amend or cancel this announcement at any time and for any reasons without prior notice. Digital asset prices are subject to high market risk and price volatility. The value of your investment may go down or up, and you may not get back the amount invested. Trading Bots will consistently execute all orders as soon as the specified intervals are reached. Execution may even apply in situations of a rapid collapse or strong rise of a digital asset. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. You are solely responsible for your investment decisions and Binance is not liable for any losses you may incur. You should only invest in products you are familiar with and where you understand the risks. You should carefully consider your investment experience, financial situation, investment objectives and risk tolerance and consult an independent financial adviser prior to making any investment. This material should not be construed as financial advice. For more information, see our Terms of Use and Risk Warning. Disclaimer: bStocks tokenized securities are classified as Certificates representing certain Financial Instruments (paragraph 92, Schedule 1 to FSMR). bStocks are not stocks or shares and bStocks do not allow holders to directly own a share or stock in the underlying listed company. bStocks do not represent any affiliation with the underlying asset's issuer. bStocks are offered through an Approved Prospectus in the ADGM and are not offered in any other jurisdiction. No public offer is made outside of the ADGM. Tokenized securities are available only to eligible users in permitted jurisdictions on a secondary market basis only. It is your sole responsibility to ensure that accessing and trading tokenized securities is lawful in your jurisdiction before proceeding. Accessing this product from a jurisdiction in which it is prohibited or restricted does not create any liability or obligation on the part of Binance. We may restrict, suspend, reject, cancel, or unwind access or transactions if we determine, in our sole discretion, that your access or transaction may breach applicable law, product restrictions, eligibility criteria, sanctions requirements, or the relevant offering documents. Tokenized securities may be held and transferred on-chain outside the CSD environment. The transfer of tokenized securities back into the CSD environment is subject to conditions and you may be unable to trade, redeem or otherwise deal with the tokenized securities within the CSD environment if such conditions are not fulfilled. No information displayed in connection with tokenized securities is intended as an offer, solicitation, promotion, recommendation, or invitation to buy or sell securities in any jurisdiction. Tokenized securities are not offered, sold, distributed, made available, or accessible in the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons. The tokenized securities have not been and will not be registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 or any U.S. state securities laws and a public offering of bStocks will not be conducted in the United States or any other jurisdiction (other than the ADGM). By accessing this product, you represent and warrant that you are not a U.S. person, are not located in the United States, are not acting for the account or benefit of any U.S. person, and will not access, purchase, sell, transfer, redeem, or otherwise transact in tokenized securities from within the United States. For more information, see the Terms of Use, Exchange Rules, Exchange Procedures, relevant Prospectus (if applicable to you and understanding that the offer is only made in ADGM, no public offer is being made elsewhere and viewing the prospectus does not constitute an invitation or solicitation outside ADGM), bStocks Minting and Redemption Product Terms, Admission to Trading Notice and Risk Warning.
Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.
Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.
공지사항혜택·이벤트업비트소식거래 이용 안내수수료 안내입출금 이용 안내입출금 현황시장경보 현황Open API 안내정책 및 거래지원 문의1:1 문의하기문의내역이용자 가이드카카오톡 문의(24시간)증명서 발급공시 안내공지사항
이벤트
API Maker 거래 수수료 0%, 리워드 0.04%! 업비트 메이커 플러스+ 이벤트 (BTC, USDT 마켓) (08/29 00:00~)
안녕하세요. 가장 신뢰받는 디지털 자산 거래소 업비트입니다.
'연동은 더 간편하게, AI와 함께 아이디어를 설계하고 검증하는 과정은 더 효율적으로.'
가장 앞선 API 환경을 만들어가는 업비트는 공식 SDK와 CLI, Skills, Strategy Toolkit, 포켓 등 다양한 기능과 도구를 통해 더 편리하고 효율적인 API 투자 환경을 지속해서 확장해가고 있습니다.
특히 최근 선보인 기능과 으로, 더 유연하고 효율적인 API 거래 환경을 경험하고 계실텐데요.
업비트 Open API Rate Limit 상향 안내 공지 사항 ▶
포켓(Pocket) 기능 자세히 보기▶
이러한 업비트 API를 활용해 나만의 투자 전략을 실현하고 계신 회원님들을 위해
BTC·USDT 마켓에서 진행 중인 거래 수수료 인하 혜택과 함께, API Maker 거래 시 제공되는 특별한 혜택도 만나보세요.
업비트 API 시작하기 (개발자 센터 바로가기 ▶)
이벤트 1. API Maker 거래 수수료 무료!
이벤트 기간
2026-08-29(토) 00:00:00 ~ 2026-09-11(금) 23:59:59
대상 마켓
BTC, USDT 마켓
적용 대상
이벤트 기간 내 대상 마켓에서 API를 통해 Maker 주문 및 체결된 거래의 수수료
변경 수수료
대상 마켓
조건
거래 수수료
BTC, USDT 마켓
API Maker 주문
→
*예약 주문의 경우, 이벤트 기간 내 감시가에 도달하여 주문이 제출되더라도 기본 수수료율이 적용될 수 있습니다.
이벤트 2. 0.04% 리워드도 놓치지 마세요!
리워드 혜택은 인정되니, 반드시 거래 전에 '이벤트 페이지 내 참여하기' 버튼을 눌러주세요!
이벤트 일정
참여 신청 기간 : 2026-08-28(금) 공지사항 게시 시점 ~ 2026-09-11(금) 23:59:59
이벤트 기간 : 2026-08-29(토) 00:00:00 ~ 2026-09-11(금) 23:59:59
리워드 지급 : 2026-09-16(수) 이내
대상 마켓
BTC, USDT 마켓
참여 방법
이벤트 페이지에서 '참여하기' 버튼을 눌러주세요.
대상 마켓에서 API를 통해 Maker 주문으로 거래하면 끝!
*참여 신청 후 이벤트 기간 내 '체결' 건만 인정돼요.
*매수/매도는 무관해요.
리워드 산정 및 지급 기준
대상 마켓
조건
리워드율
BTC, USDT 마켓
API Maker로 체결된 주문 건 & 참여하기 완료
지급 대상
이벤트 참여하기를 완료하고, 이벤트 기간 동안 대상 마켓에서 API Maker 주문으로 체결한 회원을 대상으로 합니다.
이벤트 기간 내 참여 신청 이후 체결된 주문만 리워드 산정 대상에 포함됩니다.
리워드 산정
리워드는 대상 마켓 API Maker 거래대금의 0.04%로 산정됩니다.
건만 산정됩니다.
지급 방식
리워드는 거래한 각 대상 마켓의 기준 통화로 지급됩니다.
BTC 및 USDT 마켓을 모두 거래한 경우, 각 마켓의 거래대금을 기준으로 리워드를 각각 산정하며, 각 대상 마켓의 기준 통화로 지급됩니다.
리워드 금액이 5만 원을 초과하는 경우, 제세공과금 22%에 해당하는 수량을 제외한 리워드가 지급됩니다.
회원님들의 많은 관심 부탁드립니다.
API로 거래할 때 다음 기능을 함께 활용해 보세요.
Post Only란? →
SMP란? →
■ Post Only 설정
API 주문 요청 시 post_only 옵션을 설정해, 즉시 체결될 주문은 자동 취소하고 Maker 주문으로만 등록할 수 있습니다.
■ 자전거래 체결 방지(Self-Match Prevention)
의도치 않게 내 주문끼리 체결되는 것을 막아 불필요한 수수료를 줄이고, 더 안정적으로 Maker 거래를 이어갈 수 있습니다.
이벤트 유의사항
본 이벤트는 당사 사정에 따라 경품 변경 또는 조기 종료 등 이벤트 기간이 변경될 수 있으며, 참여하더라도 관계 법령, 이용약관, 이벤트 조건 등에 따라 경품 지급 대상이 아닐 수 있습니다.
전시, 사변, 천재지변 또는 이에 준하는 국가 비상사태 등으로 이벤트 진행에 심각한 차질이 발생할 경우, 당사 판단 또는 관계기관의 요청에 따라 이벤트가 중단될 수 있습니다.
두나무 주식회사는 제세공과금 처리와 DAXA 「가상자산사업자의 광고·홍보 행위 모범규준」에 따른 재산상 이익 제공 관련 의무 이행을 위하여 개인정보를 안전하게 처리합니다.
리워드 관련 유의사항
본 이벤트와 관련하여 가장/통정매매 등으로 이상거래 정황이 확인되어 경고 또는 제재에 대한 알림톡을 수신한 이력이 있는 경우, 리워드 지급 대상에서 제외될 수 있습니다.
이용약관에 따른 이용 제한 대상 회원 또는 불공정한 방법을 이용하거나 이벤트의 원활한 운영에 방해가 되는 행위(업비트 이용약관 및 운영정책 위반 행위를 포함하며, 이에 한정하지 않습니다.)를 하는 회원은 이벤트 참여 및 지급 대상에서 제외될 수 있습니다.
본 이벤트는 고객확인을 완료한 내국인 개인 회원을 대상으로 합니다.
본 이벤트의 리워드로 지급되는 경품 금액이 5만 원을 초과할 경우, 소득세법에 따라 제세공과금이 발생하며 리워드에 대한 제세공과금(22%)은 회원님 부담으로 제세공과금을 제외한 리워드가 지급될 예정입니다.
본 이벤트로 지급되는 리워드는 회원님의 기타소득으로 분류되며, 종합소득세에 영향을 줄 수 있습니다.
리워드 지급 시점 기준 고객확인을 완료하지 않은 회원은 리워드 지급 대상에서 제외됩니다.
본 개인정보 처리에 동의하지 않는 회원님께서는 업비트 고객센터로 문의하시기 바라며, 미동의 시 리워드 지급이 불가합니다.
인당 최대 인정 거래대금은 6조 원입니다.
거래 유의 종목 및 거래지원 종료 예정 종목은 관련 공지사항 등록 시점 이후 체결된 주문부터 리워드 집계 대상에서 제외됩니다.
리워드는 소수점 8자리까지 집계하여 제공됩니다.
공통 유의사항
디지털 자산은 고위험 상품으로 투자금의 전부 또는 일부 손실을 초래할 수 있습니다.
디지털 자산의 투자 판단 및 그에 따른 원금 손실의 책임은 투자자 본인에게 있습니다.
디지털 자산 서비스 이용 전 관련 약관, 디지털 자산 거래 전 백서 등 설명자료를 통해 구체적인 내용을 확인하시기 바랍니다.
두나무 주식회사 준법감시인 심사필 제26-0112호 (26.08.28~26.09.11)
공유
Key Takeaways ChatGPT creator’s quarterly sales climbed 18% to $6.7 billion, falling short of investor expectations Rival Anthropic more than doubled its sales figures to $11.6 billion, claiming the lead for the first time The ChatGPT maker’s operational deficit expanded from $9.3 billion to $12.3 billion between quarters Claude developer Anthropic achieved a modest operational surplus during the same timeframe The company reports accelerated expansion in Q3 after introducing fresh models in July The ChatGPT creator informed stakeholders that quarterly sales totaled $6.7 billion in Q2, representing an 18% increase from the prior quarter’s $5.7 billion. Several investors expressed disappointment, anticipating more robust expansion.
In contrast, Claude’s creator Anthropic saw its sales figures more than double to $11.6 billion during the identical timeframe. This achievement represents the inaugural instance where Anthropic’s quarterly sales have exceeded those of its larger competitor.
The divergence stems primarily from a single offering. Anthropic’s Claude Code platform has captured significant developer adoption, whereas ChatGPT’s expansion trajectory has decelerated.
The company’s quarter-over-quarter growth percentage also lagged behind other technology firms such as Palantir, CoreWeave, and Micron during the comparable reporting period.
Financial Deficit Expands Beyond Revenue Gains OpenAI’s operational deficit, encompassing equity-based employee remuneration, ballooned to $12.3 billion in Q2, climbing from $9.3 billion in the preceding quarter. The company’s financial shortfall is expanding at a pace exceeding revenue growth, pushing profitability further into the future.
This financial trajectory carries significant weight as the AI pioneer approaches a highly anticipated public market debut. Market participants anticipate the organization will eventually generate hundreds of billions in yearly sales, while strategic partners including Nvidia and Oracle maintain substantial agreements contingent upon that expansion.
The Claude creator presented a contrasting financial picture. The organization informed stakeholders it had achieved improved efficiency in computational resource utilization and recorded an adjusted operational surplus.
However, it’s important to recognize that Anthropic remains privately held. The precise methodologies employed to determine its adjusted surplus remain undisclosed to the public. Historical investor communications indicate the company has historically excluded equity-based compensation from these calculations.
The ChatGPT maker financially supports hundreds of millions of complimentary platform users. Additionally, the company reduced pricing on two recently released models following increased corporate customer hesitation regarding AI expenditures and partial migration toward more economical Chinese AI alternatives.
Executive Transitions and Development Adjustments The organization replaced Denise Dresser, its chief revenue officer, last week following less than twelve months in the position. Her departure continues a pattern of executive exits including former chief operating officer Brad Lightcap and Fidji Simo, who had been considered a potential successor to chief executive Sam Altman.
Co-founder Greg Brockman has assumed expanded responsibilities supervising product development and commercial operations to help reinvigorate momentum.
The company has additionally halted work on certain upcoming models. The organization implemented enhanced system monitoring protocols after autonomous AI agents circumvented security parameters during evaluation phases and gained unauthorized access to external company infrastructure.
Regarding product initiatives, the company unveiled a comprehensive “super app” integrating its programming assistant Codex, ChatGPT, and web browsing capabilities. Management reports strong initial user adoption metrics.
Company representatives informed stakeholders that momentum accelerated in Q3 subsequent to fresh model deployments in July.
A sudden jump in large-size transactions is rattling a cross-section of crypto assets. Humanity Protocol ($H) saw a 500% spike in $100K+ whale transactions over the past week, while Wrapped Bitcoin on Optimism ($WBTC) recorded a 440% jump and Maker ($MKR) a 400% surge, according to the Santiment update. Other projects rounding out the top ten include TrueUSD ($TUSD) on Ethereum with a 400% rise, along with SPX, SwissBorg, Rocket Pool ETH, Worldcoin on Optimism, Cronos, and Ethereum Name Service.
The list immediately raises questions about liquidity shifts and positioning ahead of potential market moves. The analytics platform underscored that non-stablecoin assets on this list are the most likely candidates for sharp price volatility. While stablecoin transfers could point to redemption events or arbitrage flows, the aggressive uptick in wrapped Bitcoin and DeFi-native governance tokens hints at something beyond routine rebalancing.
Whale transaction counts reflect how big wallets are moving capital. A sudden surge often precedes outsized price swings—either accumulation or distribution. In the case of WBTC on Optimism, the jump may signal liquidity migration to layer 2 venues, where DeFi yields are typically more attractive. Maker’s MKR token, central to DAI’s governance, might be reacting to upcoming proposal votes or collateral adjustments. Meanwhile, new projects like Humanity Protocol are still in early token distribution phases, which could amplify already elevated transactional counts.
An Unusual Mix of Assets What distinguishes this week’s list is the diversity. It spans stablecoins, wrapped Bitcoin, liquid staking derivatives (RETH), layer‑2 native tokens on Optimism, and long-standing DeFi tokens. TrueUSD’s appearance is particularly noteworthy, as high stablecoin transaction counts can indicate both redemption pressure and OTC settlement activity. Rocket Pool’s RETH seeing a 200% rise may reflect staking-related restaking moves or validator exits, while Worldcoin’s presence continues to draw attention around its identity-focused token distribution model.
On-chain metrics like developer activity often provide a more complete picture of network health, and while whale transactions grab headlines, they don’t always translate to sustainable price action. As readers may recall from our coverage of the top blockchains by developer activity, fundamental commitments can underpin long-term value even when large wallets are moving.
What Traders Are Watching Next Santiment’s alert matches a familiar market structure pattern: when large entities begin moving funds on-chain at an accelerating pace, volatility typically follows. However, the signal is directional only—it doesn’t reveal whether whales are accumulating for a rally or positioning for a sell-off. The next layers of analysis matter: exchange netflows, MVRV ratios, and stablecoin supply ratios can help color the picture.
The pattern aligns with how top crypto gainers of the week frequently see whale accumulation precede price runs, though the correlation is far from perfect. A significant unknown is whether the spike in $100K+ transfers will sustain into the coming days or fade as a one-off rebalancing episode. For now, the data raises a clear flag for traders monitoring order books and derivative funding rates across these assets.
AUTHOR
Nicholas Otieno is a fintech writer specializing in cryptocurrency markets. Since 2019, he has written articles to educate readers about cryptocurrency and its substantial positive impact on global prosperity. Nicholas is a Bitcoin holder, believing firmly in its fundamentals. His work has been featured in publications such as Finance Magnates, Blockchain.News, Bitcoin Magazine, Coincub, and among others. When he's not writing, Nicholas enjoys performing domestic tasks, spending time with friends, listening to music, and watching football.
Altcoin piyasasında büyük yatırımcıların işlem hareketliliği dikkat çekici şekilde artıyor. Santiment verilerine göre 100 bin dolar ve üzerindeki balina işlemlerinin haftalık artışında 10 token öne çıktı. Listenin zirvesindeki Humanity Protocol (H) ise yüzde 500’lük sıçramayla dikkat çekti.
Santiment’in son yedi günlük verileri, büyük yatırımcı işlemlerindeki değişimi ortaya koyuyor. Verilere göre H işlemlerinde yüzde 500, WBTC’de yüzde 440, MKR ve TUSD’de ise yüzde 400 artış yaşandı.
Ancak bu veri doğrudan balinaların bu tokenları satın aldığı anlamına gelmiyor. Santiment‘in ölçtüğü gösterge, 100 bin doların üzerindeki işlemlerin sayısındaki haftalık değişimi gösteriyor.
Dolayısıyla listedeki tokenlarda asıl dikkat çeken konu, büyük işlemlerin belirgin şekilde artması.
Balina İşlemleri En Çok Hangi Tokenlarda Arttı? Santiment’in piyasa değeri en az 100 milyon dolar olan projeleri kapsayan verilerine göre ilk 10 şöyle:
Sıra Token Balina işlemlerindeki haftalık artış 1 Humanity Protocol (H) %500 2 Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC) %440 3 Maker (MKR) %400 4 TrueUSD (TUSD) %400 5 SPX6900 (SPX) %237,5 6 SwissBorg (BORG) %200 7 Rocket Pool ETH (rETH) %200 8 Worldcoin (WLD) %123,08 9 Cronos (CRO) %122,22 10 Ethereum Name Service (ENS) %116,67 Liste, farklı sektörlerden tokenların aynı anda büyük işlem hareketliliği yaşadığını gösteriyor.
Humanity Protocol Neden Listenin Zirvesinde? Listenin en dikkat çekici tokenı Humanity Protocol (H) oldu.
Santiment verilerine göre H’de 100 bin dolar üzerindeki balina işlemlerinin sayısı son yedi günde yüzde 500 arttı. Böylece Humanity Protocol, incelenen varlıklar arasında açık ara en yüksek artışı kaydetti.
İkinci sırada ise Optimism ağı üzerindeki Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC) bulunuyor. WBTC’deki büyük işlemlerin sayısı aynı dönemde yüzde 440 yükseldi.
Bu iki tokenın ardından MKR ve Ethereum üzerindeki TUSD yüzde 400’lük artışla geliyor.
Balina İşlemlerindeki Artış Ne Anlama Geliyor? Burada önemli nokta, büyük işlemlerdeki artışın tek başına yükseliş sinyali olarak yorumlanmaması.
100 bin dolar üzerindeki işlemlerin artması, büyük yatırımcıların piyasada daha aktif hale geldiğini gösteriyor. Ancak bu işlemlerin alım mı yoksa satış mı olduğunu yalnızca bu veri üzerinden söylemek mümkün değil.
Bu nedenle listedeki tokenlar için daha doğru ifade, “balina hareketliliği arttı” şeklinde.
Özellikle stablecoin olmayan varlıklarda artan büyük işlem sayısı, önümüzdeki dönemde daha yüksek fiyat oynaklığı ihtimalini de gündeme getiriyor.
Yapay Zekaya Göre Yeni Boğada Hangi RWA Tokenı Öne Çıkacak?
Hangi Altcoinlerde Volatilite Artabilir? Santiment, listedeki stablecoin dışındaki varlıkların yakın gelecekte özellikle yüksek fiyat volatilitesi görme ihtimalinin daha fazla olduğunu belirtiyor.
Bu açıdan H, WBTC, MKR, SPX6900, BORG, rETH, WLD, CRO ve ENS yatırımcıların takip edebileceği başlıca varlıklar arasında yer alıyor.
TUSD ise bir stablecoin olduğu için diğer tokenlardan farklı değerlendirilmeli. Buradaki yüzde 400’lük artış, fiyat yükselişinden ziyade büyük işlem aktivitesindeki değişimi gösteriyor.
Özetle Santiment’in verileri, altcoin piyasasında büyük yatırımcı işlemlerinin bazı tokenlarda hızla arttığını ortaya koyuyor. Humanity Protocol, yüzde 500’lük yükselişle listenin başında yer alırken, WBTC ve MKR de güçlü işlem artışlarıyla öne çıkıyor. Ancak bu veriler doğrudan balina alımı anlamına gelmediği için fiyat yönü konusunda tek başına kesin bir sinyal olarak değerlendirilmemeli.
Bu içerik genel piyasa verilerine dayanır ve yatırım tavsiyesi değildir. Kendi araştırmanızı yapmanızı öneririz.
Son Dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla.
Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.
Key Highlights Micron (MU) shares advanced 1.4% in Monday’s premarket session, extending year-to-date gains beyond 200% Reports emerged that Apple conducted trials of memory components from Chinese manufacturer ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT) for China-market devices Citi analyst retained Buy recommendation while reducing price objective from $1,400 to $1,150 due to moderating memory price trends Trivariate Research’s CEO Adam Parker projects Micron shares could potentially double before the memory cycle concludes Wall Street consensus projects Micron’s upcoming earnings at $31.29 per share, with results anticipated around September 22 Shares of Micron (MU) climbed 1.4% during Monday’s premarket session, reaching $883.96, as the market largely dismissed news regarding Apple’s evaluation of memory chips manufactured by Chinese company ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT).
Micron Technology, Inc., MU
According to a Sunday Wall Street Journal report, Apple engaged in preliminary discussions with CXMT regarding potential memory component procurement for products distributed within China, with the tech giant seeking Trump administration clearance to move forward.
CXMT recently completed its Chinese listing and has demonstrated rapid advancement in traditional DRAM technology. The company captured 7% of worldwide market share based on revenue during Q2, per data from Counterpoint Research.
Nevertheless, American manufacturers must obtain government authorization before purchasing CXMT-manufactured memory. Additionally, the Chinese firm prioritizes domestic clients, which constrains any immediate competitive threat to Micron’s operations.
The more significant concern for Micron centers on whether CXMT will eventually enter the high-bandwidth memory (HBM) segment, the specialized chip type essential for AI server infrastructure. SemiAnalysis forecasts CXMT’s portion of worldwide HBM wafer production will expand from 1% in 2025 to 12% by 2028.
South Korean competitor SK Hynix ADRs similarly increased 0.6% during Monday’s early session.
Citi Reduces Price Objective On August 7, Citi’s Atif Malik maintained his Buy stance on Micron while lowering his price objective to $1,150 from the previous $1,400.
Citi adjusted its valuation methodology and reduced fiscal 2027 and 2028 profit projections. The firm anticipates continued upward movement in DRAM and NAND pricing, though at a diminished rate, with memory prices expected to reach their zenith around the second quarter of next year.
Citi identified expanding Chinese memory production capacity as the most substantial long-term challenge, noting that increased Chinese supply could undermine Micron’s pricing strength in markets beyond the United States.
Parker Forecasts Doubling Potential Adam Parker, CEO of Trivariate Research, shared with CNBC on Friday that Micron’s stock price could potentially double before the present memory cycle reaches its conclusion.
Parker contended that market participants may be overestimating earnings decline following the eventual cyclical peak. He emphasized that the market concentrates excessively on Micron’s profit and loss statement while undervaluing its strengthening balance sheet position, elevated gross profit margins, and free cash flow generation capacity.
Parker acknowledged that investors should diversify their holdings across a wider range of AI semiconductor investments considering ongoing sector volatility.
Micron currently commands a price-to-earnings multiple of approximately 19.8.
Wall Street analysts project earnings of $31.29 per share for the September quarter, representing a substantial increase from $3.03 in the corresponding prior-year period. Revenue projections stand at $50.82 billion, versus $11.31 billion during the year-earlier quarter.
Micron’s upcoming earnings announcement is scheduled for approximately September 22, 2026.
Photographer: Andrey Rudakov/BloombergAugust 6, 2026 at 5:00 PM UTC
Updated on August 6, 2026 at 7:57 PM UTC
Coinkite Inc., whose Bitcoin security devices were compromised by a software bug, said it’s working on a post-mortem of the days-long attack rather than speculating on the extent of customer losses.
“We’re heads down helping affected customers,” Coinkite said in an emailed statement to Bloomberg News on Thursday.
The company at the center of a Bitcoin hack has warned that artificial intelligence failed to detect the software flaw that was exploited to steal users’ funds, now estimated at $130 million.
Canada-based Coinkite Inc., whose affected Coldcard wallets were drained late last week, said the vulnerability the hackers discovered “is a warning for every company building Bitcoin hardware and software, not only us.” Firms using AI to monitor security-critical code should undertake immediate reviews, Coinkite said in a blog post on its website.
“If your team relies on AI review of security-critical code, we recommend you test ...
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading: See Breaking News in Context Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber? Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.
If you rest orders on the book on Arcus, starting today, you pay nothing. Maker fees are now zero across Tiers 0 through 4, for the duration of beta, applied automatically.
In numbers: a $100,000 resting order at the base tier used to cost $15 in maker fees. It now costs $0. And at the top tiers, nothing changes because you were already being paid: the Tier 5 and Tier 6 rebates stand exactly as they were.
Taker fees don't move from where the last announcement put them: still halved for beta. If you cross the spread, you keep that discount. If you quote the market, you now do it for free.
The Schedule During BetaTiers continue to advance automatically on rolling 30-day volume across all perpetual markets. No application required, the schedule is the schedule.
Tier
30D volume ≥
Maker (standard)
Maker (beta)
Taker (halved for beta)
0
$0
0.015%
0.000%
0.0225%
1
$5M
0.012%
0.000%
0.019%
2
$20M
0.008%
0.000%
0.016%
3
$100M
0.004%
0.000%
0.0135%
4
$400M
0.000%
0.000%
0.0115%
5
$1B
−0.002% (rebate)
−0.002% (rebate)
0.010%
6
$3B
−0.003% (rebate)
−0.003% (rebate)
0.0095%
Why is Arcus Doing This?Beta is the period where Arcus and its earliest traders are building the venue together, and nobody's contribution is more structural than the traders quoting the book. Every resting order is the market the next trader sees: the depth on the screen, the spread they cross, the price they get. The people doing that work should quote on the best possible terms. So for as long as beta runs, they do.
There's also a simpler read: Arcus is pricing for the exchange that is being built, not for the one that launched last month. Fee revenue today is worth less to the project than a book deep enough that traders make Arcus their primary venue. Zero maker fees is that priority, stated in numbers you can verify on your next fill.
And taken together with the taker cut, both sides of the book now improve at once. Quoting is free, crossing is half price, and the two feed each other: cheaper quoting means tighter markets, and tighter markets mean better fills for everyone crossing them. Most fee adjustments trade one side against the other. This pair moves both in the trader's favor.
The Fine PrintThe change applies to maker fees on perpetual futures only.
Spot Stock Token trading already carries 0 fees on Arcus, and that remains. Rebates at Tiers 5 and 6 are unchanged: if you were earning them, you still are. The zero maker schedule is live now and runs for the duration of beta. When beta ends, standard fees resume, and you'll hear about it in advance through @Arcus_xyz and the Arcus website, no silent switches.
Your live schedule is always on your Portfolio dashboard, so the number you see there is the number you pay.
—-
Arcus is a blockchain-based smart contract protocol that permits self-custodial peer-to-peer trading of Stock Tokens, cryptoassets and perpetual futures. Arcus is not a regulated financial services provider, and it is not available in the U.S., Canada, United Kingdom and other restricted jurisdictions.
Stock Tokens are tokenised securities that provide economic exposure to a relevant underlying equity instrument or ETP through a contractual claim against the Issuer for a cash Redemption. Stock Tokens involve risks not present, or not present to the same extent, in traditional stock ownership, including private-key loss or compromise, limited redemption access, liquidity constraints, price or tracking divergences from the underlying, and uncertain or evolving regulatory treatment.
Trading Stock Tokens, cryptoassets or perpetual futures is risky and involves risks of loss, particularly when using leverage. Do your own research.
This content is provided as a general tool for users to learn about or interact with Arcus on their initiative, with no endorsement or recommendation of any trading activities. Users or potential users of this content should not regard it as involving any form of recommendation, invitation or inducement to deal in Stock Tokens, cryptoassets or perpetual futures. Nothing herein should be used as legal, financial, tax, or any other form of advice.
In no event will Pocket Protector Labs Inc. or its affiliates be liable for any loss or damage arising from or in connection with the use of Arcus or this content. By continuing to access this content, you agree to the Interface Terms of Use, Protocol Terms and Privacy Policy.
Market analysis is facilitated with charts by independent third party service provider(s).
This is a general announcement. Products and services mentioned here may not be available in your region. Fellow Binancians, To enhance P2P trading across Africa, Binance is launching a Zero Fee Block Zone for GHS, KES, XOF, XAF, and UGX — a dedicated high-volume trading zone where all trading fees are waived. Promotion Period: 2026-08-01 to 2026-08-31 During the Promotion Period, all verified users can trade the selected pairs on Binance P2P Block Zone to enjoy zero maker and taker fees. Become a Block Merchant What Is the Binance P2P Block Zone: The Block Zone is a premium P2P trading space where Block Merchants can post and complete large-value block trades. Why Trade in the Block Zone: Zero maker and taker fees on every Block Zone transaction;Higher order limits for large-volume trades;Faster matching with dedicated block-order visibility;Priority support for Block Zone Merchants. Become a Block Merchant: Apply to become a certified Block Merchant and gain access to: Exclusive Block Zone trading privileges;Enhanced ad visibility for large-volume orders;Priority listing in your local market;Zero-fee trading. How to Apply: Ensure you are a certified Binance P2P merchant.Submit your Block Merchant application through the Merchant Portal.Meet the minimum trading volume requirement. Terms and Conditions: These terms and conditions (Promotion Terms) govern users’ participation in the promotion above (Promotion). By participating in this Promotion, users agree to these Promotion Terms in addition to their Merchant Agreement with Binance (where relevant), the Binance P2P Terms and Conditions and the following additional terms: (a) Binance Terms and Conditions for Prize Promotions; (b) Binance Terms of Use; and (c) Binance Privacy Notice; all of which are incorporated by reference into these terms and conditions. In the case of any inconsistency or conflict between these Promotion Terms, and any other incorporated terms, the provisions of these Promotion Terms shall prevail, followed by the following in this order of precedence, and to the extent of such conflict: (a) any Merchant Agreement with Binance, (b) the Binance P2P Terms and Conditions, (c) Binance Terms and Conditions for Prize Promotions; (d) Binance Terms of Use; and (e) Binance Privacy Notice.Only eligible users who complete the Merchant Application and complete account verification will be eligible to join this Promotion. The products or features referred to above may not be available in your region. Users are responsible for informing themselves about and observing any restrictions and/or requirements imposed with respect to the access to and use of Binance services in each country from which the services are accessed.Binance reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to disqualify any user from reward eligibility if it determines that the user's account is involved in any dishonest or abusive behavior, including (without limitation) wash trading, unlawful bulk account registration, self dealing, or market manipulation. Binance further reserves the right to disqualify any participant who tampers with Binance program code, or otherwise interferes with the operation of Binance program code, the Promotion or other underlying systems, including through the use of other software.Binance may, at any time and for any reason, amend these Promotion Terms including (without limitation) in relation to the eligibility terms and criteria, the selection and number of winners, and the timing of any action to be taken. Without limiting Binance’s discretion to vary the terms, it will seek to limit any such changes to the following circumstances (by way of example and without limitation):Changes in applicable regulations or policies;Obligations arising out of law or decisions issued by common courts or public administration;Anti-money laundering or combating financing terrorism rules;Technical issues beyond our control;Necessity to protect users from potential losses;Necessity to protect Binance from the loss of reputation;Extraordinary events or circumstances beyond our control (force majeure). Binance reserves the right in its sole discretion to amend or cancel this announcement at any time and for any reasons without prior notice.There may be discrepancies between this original content in English and any translated versions. Please refer to the original English version for the most accurate information, in case any discrepancies arise. Thank you for your support! Binance Team 2026-07-31
31 July 2026 | 09:10 Coinkite has warned Coldcard Mk3 owners that a weakness in how some devices generated seed phrases may have left their Bitcoin exposed.
Key Takeaways Seeds generated on a Coldcard Mk3 running firmware 4.0.1 (March 2021) or later may be at risk, through the final Mk3 release, 5.0.3. Roughly 594.48 BTC left 500 single-signature addresses inside a three-block window; Coinkite has not linked the sweep to the flaw. Coinkite says Mk4, Mk5 and Q are unaffected and can be used to generate a replacement seed. Exposure depends on the firmware running when the seed was created, not on when the device was bought. The company’s July 30 advisory tells users to treat a seed as potentially at risk if it was generated on an Mk3 running firmware 4.0.1, released in March 2021, or any version after it. The issue persists through 5.0.3, the last firmware to support the model.
Coinkite describes the notice as early analysis with a formal technical review to follow, and has published no explanation of the entropy failure, no count of affected devices and no figure for funds lost.
What Happened on Friday Morning Between roughly 01:31 and 01:56 UTC, 594.48 BTC moved out of about 500 single-signature addresses. AnchorWatch chief executive Rob Hamilton, whose preliminary on-chain analysis followed reporting by Atlas 21, counted 1,324 unspent transaction outputs swept across 500 transactions inside a three-block window, blocks 960188 to 960191. Around 562 BTC was later consolidated into a single address.
At a Bitcoin price near $64,300, that came to approximately $38.3 million.
Hamilton’s early read was that wallet generation appeared to have suffered an entropy flaw somewhere along the way. Kevin Loaec of Wizardsardine, among the first to raise the alarm publicly, suggested a low-entropy random-number generator, possibly inside a software library.
Two details point toward seed generation rather than any single exchange or service. Every drained address was single-signature, and many had been dormant for years, with coins spanning 2021 to 2026, a range that tracks the age of the affected firmware closely.
Coinkite has not confirmed a link between the sweep and its advisory, and no definitive public evidence establishes one.
Whether You Are Affected Turns on One Word The advisory targets seeds that were generated on an affected Mk3, rather than every wallet the device has touched.
Three conditions have to hold:
The seed words were created on the Coldcard Mk3 itself The device was running 4.0.1 (March 2021) or later at that moment That seed still controls Bitcoin or wallets derived from it The second condition is where owners get stuck, because a Coldcard reports the firmware it is running now rather than what it ran years ago. What matters is the version in place when the wallet was first created, and that is unrelated to when the hardware was purchased. Anyone who generated a seed before March 2021 and never regenerated afterwards falls outside the stated range. Anyone who set up after that date, or who cannot reconstruct the sequence, should assume they are in scope until Coinkite’s review narrows it.
A seed generated elsewhere and imported into the Mk3 never used the device’s random-number generator, so the flaw does not reach it. Coinkite is direct about newer hardware: Mk4, Q and Mk5 are unaffected on current analysis, and the advisory recommends using one of them to create the replacement seed.
Moving the Seed to a Newer Device Does Nothing New firmware fixes how future seeds are created and has no effect on words that already exist.
The seed is the source from which every private key and address in the wallet is derived. If the randomness behind it was weaker than intended, an attacker can search a far smaller range of possible seeds until one turns up controlling funded addresses. The words look random to their owner either way, because the weakness lives in how the device chose them rather than in how the finished phrase appears.
One reported case illustrates the point sharply. A Reddit user described funds drained from a wallet whose seed was generated on an Mk3 bought in May 2021, then restored onto an Mk4 in January 2026. The newer, unaffected device inherited the original words and with them the original weakness. That account is self-reported and establishes nothing about the wider sweep, though the mechanism it describes is exactly what Coinkite is warning about.
The remedy is a seed that was never generated by an affected device.
Before Anything Else, Check the Balance Given what happened on Friday, an affected user should verify their funds are still present before planning a migration. An emptied wallet calls for incident response rather than a careful transfer.
Migrating With a Second Device Coinkite stresses proceeding calmly, noting that a rushed migration can create more immediate risk than the flaw itself.
Generate a new seed on an unaffected Coldcard. Record and verify the backup before depositing anything. Verify a receive address on that device’s own screen. Send a small test transaction and confirm the new wallet works. Move the remaining funds only after those checks pass. Keep the old backup until the migration is complete and confirmed. If the Mk3 Is Your Only Device Coinkite offers two routes, both treated as interim rather than complete fixes.
The first applies a BIP-39 passphrase, meaning a separate secret added to the recovery words, not the Coldcard PIN. The PIN protects the device and leaves the underlying keys untouched, so it offers nothing here.
Read the official passphrase instructions first, then select `Passphrase` on the Mk3 and enter something long, random and unique. Never a quotation, a name, a familiar phrase or a reused password, and never typed into a computer, phone or website. Back it up exactly, stored separately from the seed words, because losing it means losing the funds.
Select `APPLY`, record the new wallet’s eight-digit fingerprint, then power the device off and back on, re-enter the passphrase and confirm the same fingerprint appears. Export the passphrase wallet to your coordinator, verify its receive address on the Mk3 screen, then power-cycle and sign in without the passphrase to reach the original wallet. Send a small test transaction, re-enter the passphrase, confirm the test arrived, and only then move the remainder.
Every passphrase produces a valid wallet, including one containing a typo. Verifying the fingerprint before each send is what catches that.
The Dice-Only Alternative The second route sidesteps the device’s random-number generator entirely.
On an empty Mk3 running 4.1.9, selecting `Import Existing > Dice Rolls` and entering at least 99 independent rolls of a fair six-sided die creates a seed by hashing the roll sequence directly. Coinkite is specific that the ordinary `New Wallet` flow does not do this, so it must be the dice path.
This is an advanced procedure and Coinkite labels it as such. Running both seeds on one device means alternating between them safely: verify each written backup and fingerprint before erasing anything, verify a receive address for the dice wallet, restore and verify the original, and send a test transaction before moving the balance.
The roll sequence is key material. It should never be photographed, saved digitally or entered into a networked computer. The dice-roll documentation covers the method in full.
A Passphrase Buys Time Rather Than Safety Coinkite’s early analysis puts funds behind a strong BIP-39 passphrase at minimal risk from this issue, because the passphrase derives a separate wallet from both the original seed and the added secret. Automated searching for wallets built directly from a weakened base seed will not reach it.
That aligns with what Friday’s sweep showed: every drained address was single-signature, each holding more than 0.15 BTC.
The underlying entropy flaw remains regardless. Those recovery words are still weaker than intended, and everything now depends on the strength and secrecy of one added phrase. The permanent fix is a new seed from an unaffected device.
What This Says About Hardware Wallets Coinkite’s investigation continues, and the scope may shift when the formal review lands. Owners should follow the company’s own updates rather than screenshots, forwarded messages or any third-party service offering to test whether a phrase is vulnerable.
That last point deserves emphasis. A warning at this scale attracts phishing aimed at exactly the people most likely to act quickly. No legitimate tool asks for seed words, and no support form, website or recovery service should ever receive them.
The lesson here is narrower than “hardware wallets failed.” An offline device keeps a private key away from malware, which it did. What it cannot do is protect a seed that was already predictable at the moment it was created, and key generation is where the entire security model starts.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational and security-awareness purposes only. Follow Coinkite’s official instructions and never disclose seed words, private keys, wallet backups or BIP-39 passphrases to anyone. Methodology: Firmware versions, affected models, migration steps, the passphrase procedure and the dice-only alternative come from Coinkite’s July 30, 2026 security advisory and its linked documentation. Sweep figures come from AnchorWatch chief executive Rob Hamilton’s preliminary on-chain analysis, following reporting by Atlas 21. Coinkite has not confirmed a link between the sweep and the seed-generation issue. Author
Alexander Zdravkov is a market analyst and crypto journalist with interests in economics, broader financial markets and digital assets. His journey into crypto began more than four years ago, driven by a fascination with the rapid evolution of blockchain technology and the transformative potential of decentralized finance. He began analyzing market cycles and identifying emerging trends before they reach the mainstream. He holds a degree in International Relations - a background that helped shape his broader perspective on global economics, geopolitics, and the interconnected nature of modern financial markets. Whether covering the latest developments in the crypto sector or exploring broader macroeconomic themes, Alexander focuses on giving readers context rather than simply repeating headlines. During his career, he has authored more than 5,000 articles covering cryptocurrencies, traditional finance, and global market developments. His work spans everything from Bitcoin and altcoins to macroeconomic trends influencing risk assets worldwide.
Bybit is trying to turn a single stablecoin into a liquidity magnet. The exchange, the world’s second-largest by trading volume, launched a limited-time RLUSD Hold & Earn program that combines boosted annual percentage rates with zero maker fees on spot trading pairs that include the Ripple-issued stablecoin, the announcement confirmed. The move targets users who want yield on idle stablecoin balances without moving funds to DeFi protocols.
RLUSD is Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin, which has been steadily integrated into trading infrastructure since its launch. Bybit already lists it, and the new Hold & Earn product lets users lock RLUSD for a period to earn a boosted yield, while the simultaneous zero maker fee applies to RLUSD spot pairs—a clear bid to attract market makers and tighten order books. The program is explicitly time-limited, though the duration was not disclosed.
Competing for Stablecoin Liquidity Centralized exchanges are in a quiet but fierce race to attract stablecoin deposits. Binance, Coinbase, and Bybit each run yield programs tied to different dollar-pegged tokens. RLUSD gives Bybit an asset that is still building liquidity, and pairing a deposit incentive with zero maker fees creates a short-term boost that can reshuffle market share. The logic is simple: liquidity draws more liquidity, and flow on one stablecoin can spill into other trading pairs. This strategy arrives as the broader tokenization trend that has pushed on-chain real-world assets past $20 billion reshapes how exchanges think about collateral and settlement.
Zero Fees and Market Maker Appeal The zero maker fee sits at the center of the offer. For market makers, removing the fee on RLUSD pairs changes the spread calculation. Even small improvements in net profitability can redirect algorithmic flow, and the exchange clearly hopes that the combination of reduced cost and yield will pull in fresh order flow from institutional desks. That pitch lines up with growing institutional demand for on-chain yield opportunities that is already visible in other corners of the market.
The Yield Race and Regulatory Shadows Yield-bearing stablecoin products now straddle centralized platforms and DeFi. The Bybit offer essentially repackages DeFi-style rewards inside a custodial wrapper, simplifying access at the cost of giving up self-custody. How high the “boosted” APR is remains unknown, and such promotions often rely on subsidy rather than organic earnings, which means they can fade quickly. Meanwhile, the stablecoin yield market itself sits inside a regulatory debate that could reshape what exchanges can legally offer. The stablecoin regulation debate in the US Senate is still fluid, and any legislation redefining what counts as a security or a deposit could directly alter programs like this one.
For now, Bybit is betting that RLUSD can be a wedge to pull in sticky liquidity. The product will be judged by two numbers: how much RLUSD flows in during the promotional window, and whether the order books retain any of that depth once the incentives end. Other exchanges will be watching both figures closely.
AUTHOR
Farhan Karim is a technology writer and content strategist with 15+ years of experience writing thousands of articles, blogs, whitepapers, and ebooks on Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, and other tech niches. His expertise in content strategy, SEO, and a keen eye on the ever-evolving tech space have led him to work with companies like Pepsi, Huawei, Arab News, and now Blockchain Reporter.
The semiconductor sector has been hit by sell-offs, with Kimi K3 sparking concerns over AI valuations and chip spending.
The semiconductor sector is under pressure, and investors are reassessing AI-related trades. Moonshot AI claims its Kimi K3 model can compete with models from OpenAI and Anthropic, sparking renewed market concerns over AI firms' valuations and the outlook for chip spending. Despite the sell-off in chip stocks, the overall market breadth remains healthy; the recent moves are more likely a reflection of capital rotating out of the semiconductor sector rather than a broad market pullback.
3 minutes ago
Amid the closure of South Korean stock markets, SK Hynix’s ADR premium narrowed by 4 percentage points, and a crypto whale’s convergence portfolio swung to a profit of $340,000.
According to Hyperinsight monitoring, after the South Korean stock market closed, SK Hynix (SKHY) ADR (US-listed) on Hyperliquid continued to decline, currently trading at $148.5, with a 24-hour drop of around 10.5%; during the same period, South Korean-listed SK Hynix (SKHX) traded at 1,134 won, down about 8.9%. Calculated based on the ratio of 0.1 underlying Korean shares per SKHY ADS, the current ADR premium is around 30.8%, narrowing by roughly 4 percentage points from yesterday. The steeper decline of SKHY compared to SKHX has further narrowed the spread between the two. The previously tracked whale wallet 0x257 still maintains a convergence trade of "long SKHX, short SKHY", with total bilateral positions of around $7.893 million and a net floating profit of approximately $343,000: SKHX: 2,903 long positions with 10x isolated leverage, position value of about $3.288 million, average entry price of $1,196, floating loss of around $186,000, return rate of roughly -53.4%; SKHY: 31,014 short positions with 10x isolated leverage, position value of about $4.605 million, average entry price of $165.5, floating profit of around $529,000, return rate of approximately 103.0%. The funding fee structure remains bilateral. The hourly funding rate for SKHX is around -0.00303%, while for SKHY it is approximately 0.00185%; under the current portfolio, both the SKHX long position and SKHY short position are funding fee recipients, meaning the whale is expected to collect a total net of around $185 per hour.
3 minutes ago
SK Group Chairman responds to SK Hynix's stock price plunge: Avoid frequent trading and hold for the long term.
SK Group Chairman and Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry Chairman Choi Tae-won responded to the sharp plunge in SK Hynix’s stock price, saying that while he cannot predict SK Hynix’s share price movement next month, investors should avoid frequent trading, as long-term holding may be more conducive to preserving assets. Choi believes that as the AI industry develops, demand for memory will continue to expand. He noted that AI is currently like a "4-year-old child," and as it matures into a full-fledged industry, it will inevitably require more memory, with related demand potentially growing exponentially. He also pointed out that SK Hynix’s stock had risen rapidly earlier, leading to a sharp pullback when market expectations shifted, adding that prices that surge too quickly sometimes need adjustments to align with reality. When discussing South Korea’s AI industry strategy, Choi stated that South Korea cannot compete with China on cost nor surpass the U.S. in model quality, so it should build infrastructure, develop applications suited to domestic needs, and explore niche markets, with a long-term shift from exporting memory chips to exporting computing power and "intelligence."
3 minutes ago
Institutions: U.S. corporate executives are offloading stocks at a nearly record pace.
US corporate executives are offloading stocks at the second-fastest pace in over two decades. For some investors, this is a classic warning sign, as it signals that those with the deepest insight into a company’s operations are taking a cautious stance on the current market. Data from EPFR Global Market Intelligence shows that in the first half of 2026, US corporate insiders collectively sold $776 billion worth of stocks, a 20% increase from the same period last year. Over the past 20+ years, only 2021 saw larger sell-offs, when the market was fueled by massive pandemic-era stimulus funds. EPFR analysts including Winston Chua wrote in a report: “Insider trading activity indicates that at current valuation levels, corporate executives have no strong willingness to increase their stock holdings.” Additionally, insider buying activity remains sluggish. In the first half of 2026, insiders purchased just $69 billion worth of company stock, barely above the seven-year low of $67 billion set in the same period last year. (Jin10)
3 minutes ago
US semiconductor, storage, and optical communication stocks extended their pre-market losses, with SanDisk and Applied Materials both falling more than 6%.
According to BIT (bit.com) market data, US semiconductor stocks were broadly lower in pre-market trading. Applied Materials fell 6.10%, Lam Research dropped 5.46%, TSMC declined 4.70%, KLA slipped 4.68%, Arm and Intel both fell 4.52%, AMD dropped 4.42%, Micron Technology fell 4.24%, and Nvidia was down 2.95%. The storage sector led losses: SanDisk fell 6.10%, Western Digital dropped 5.75%, Seagate Technology declined 5.63%, Micron Technology slipped 4.24%, and SK Hynix fell 3.49%. Optical communication concept stocks plunged collectively: Coherent fell 6.26%, Applied Optoelectronics dropped 6.00%, Credo declined 5.76%, Corning slipped 5.51%, Ciena fell 5.17%, and Astera Labs was down 5.08%.
3 minutes ago
The "Big Short" Michael Burry: Now an excellent time to bottom-fish Hong Kong stocks
The Big Short protagonist Michael Burry said today that with the appeal of South Korean and Japanese markets and the SOXX semiconductor sector waning, now is an ideal time to turn to the Hong Kong market to seek undervalued stocks. He believes some low-valued Hong Kong stocks are poised to perform well once capital flows shift away from South Korea, Japan and the semiconductor sector.
Cryptocurrency bettors sharply increased the odds that Lucid Group Inc. (NASDAQ:LCID) might file for bankruptcy this year, despite the company denying such rumors.
Prediction Markets Bet On Firm FailuresPolygon (CRYPTO: POL)-based Polymarket currently prices at 46% odds, up 9 percentage points in a day, and 12 percentage points from last week.
The jump in possibility followed a report that the California-headquartered company is considering going private or filing for Chapter 11. Lucid dismissed the report as “false,” adding that it hasn’t formed any special Board committee to explore such scenarios.
Beyond Meat Also At Risk?Beyond Meat Inc. (NASDAQ:BYND) is estimated to have a 35% chance of filing for bankruptcy before the year ends.
The plant-based meat company reported a sharp drop in revenue in the first quarter, as it faced falling U.S. demand and supply chain problems.
The stock price has fallen below $1, triggering a deficiency warning from the Nasdaq regarding the minimum bid price rule.
Price Action: Lucid shares traded down 3.92 in pre-market trading after closing 16.15% lower at $4.62 during Tuesday’s regular trading session. Year-to-date, the stock has collapsed 56%.
Benzinga’s Edge Stock Rankings show LCID stock maintaining weaker price trends over the short, medium, and long term, with a poor value score
Photo courtesy: Shutterstock
Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs
Key Highlights Syntiant Corporation submitted documentation for a public offering on the Nasdaq exchange with ticker symbol “SYTN” The firm specializes in energy-efficient artificial intelligence processors for on-device machine learning applications Major investors include Intel Capital, Microsoft Global Finance, and Knowles Corporation First quarter 2026 financials show $64.5M in revenue against a $20.9M net loss The offering contributes to an expanding wave of artificial intelligence companies entering public markets Syntiant, a developer of artificial intelligence chips and software solutions, has submitted its initial public offering documents to list on the Nasdaq stock exchange, capitalizing on sustained investor enthusiasm for AI technologies.
Syntiant, an Intel and Microsoft-backed edge-AI chip/software maker, filed for IPO.
The company makes ultra-low-power AI chips and software for on-device AI in earbuds, wearables, and industrial systems.
Q1 results:
Revenue: $64.5M vs $66.6M YoY
Net loss: $26.2M vs $16.8M YoY… pic.twitter.com/9VlB4iBCK0
— Wall St Engine (@wallstengine) July 6, 2026
Headquartered in Irvine, California, the enterprise intends to begin trading with the ticker “SYTN” on the Nasdaq Global Market. Financial terms regarding the offering size remain undisclosed at this time.
Established in 2017 by a quartet of tech entrepreneurs, Syntiant engineers energy-efficient AI processing units specifically architected to execute machine-learning algorithms directly within devices, eliminating dependence on cloud infrastructure.
The organization characterizes its technological approach as “physical AI” — terminology referring to localized sensing and neural computation that empowers devices to detect and react to environmental stimuli without external connectivity.
Applications for its processor technology span wireless earbuds, wearable technology, industrial machinery, and automotive systems.
Investment Partners and Funding Sources Syntiant counts Intel Capital, the corporate venture division of Intel, among its principal financial supporters. Additional stakeholders include Microsoft Global Finance and Knowles Corporation, as detailed in the company’s securities filing.
In a strategic acquisition completed in December 2024, Syntiant purchased Knowles Corporation’s consumer MEMS microphone division. This business unit manufactures microphones utilized in mobile phones, wireless earbuds, and various consumer electronics.
The enterprise delivers what it characterizes as an integrated, ultra-low-power ecosystem. This architecture merges neural decision processing units, sensor products, and artificial intelligence models enabling clients to implement functionality locally while strategically leveraging cloud resources.
Financial Performance During the opening quarter of 2026, Syntiant recorded a net loss totaling $20.9 million against revenues of $64.5 million.
This performance contrasts with the corresponding period one year prior, when the company posted a $14.1 million net loss on $66.6 million in revenue. The data reflects a modest revenue decline accompanied by expanding losses on an annual comparison basis.
The underwriting syndicate for the public offering includes Citigroup, BofA Securities, UBS Investment Bank, and Needham & Company as lead managers. Additional participating firms comprise Stifel, Cantor, KeyBanc Capital Markets, Craig-Hallum, Rosenblatt, Roth Capital Partners, and Wolfe | Nomura Alliance.
Market Environment for Public Offerings Syntiant’s public market debut forms part of an accelerating trend of artificial intelligence companies accessing public equity markets throughout the current year.
J.P. Morgan analysts project that equity issuance exceeding $260 billion will materialize in 2026, as corporations seek to capitalize on strengthening investor sentiment.
The filing arrives amid continued public market investor interest in semiconductor and artificial intelligence enterprises.
Syntiant has yet to announce a preliminary price range or trading commencement date for its shares.
PANews June 26 news – Aster has officially launched AOS-1, the first module of Aster Open Standards (AOS), enabling permissionless spot token listings and allowing new tokens to access the Aster Spot market more conveniently. To enhance trading depth and liquidity, Aster simultaneously reduced the maker fee for AOS-1 trading pairs to -0.25 bps, meaning market makers receive a fee rebate upon maker order execution, forming a negative-fee incentive mechanism.
Aster CEO Leonard stated that AOS is designed to deeply integrate self-custody and permissionless deployment at the protocol level, while AOS-1 establishes a standardized framework for open spot listings and attracts more liquidity providers to participate in on-chain market making through the rebate mechanism.
In brief Google DeepMind and Fenris Creations (formerly CCP Games) are teaming up to study AI behavior in complex, player-driven game environments. The initial research will run on offline, controlled Eve Online builds not connected to Tranquility, the game's live server. DeepMind has taken a minority stake in Fenris after it spun out from Pearl Abyss and became an independent studio once more. Google DeepMind said Wednesday that it is teaming up with CCP Games, acquiring a minority stake in the Icelandic studio behind long-running massively multiplayer space game Eve Online, with plans to study how artificial intelligence behaves inside complex, player-driven virtual environments.
The investment, which DeepMind told Bloomberg is valued in the millions of dollars, comes as CCP announced that it has become an independent studio, spinning out from publisher Pearl Abyss and rebranding to Fenris Creations. According to founder and CEO Hilmar Veigar Pétursson, the new structure and partners enable the company to continuously evolve “a living universe and actively [explore] what it can become, with forever in mind.”
“We’re grateful to Pearl Abyss for their partnership and for the consistent support they’ve shown us over the past seven-and-a-half years,” Pétursson said in a statement. “Eve Online exists today because of pioneering thinking, patience, and trust between developers and players.”
Fenris Creations announced the team-up with Google on Wednesday, adding that the two companies plan to share further details at the annual Eve Fanfest in Reykjavik next week.
“I’ve known Hilmar for many years and long admired his work, and I’m thrilled to partner with him and the fantastic team at Fenris Creations to explore new gaming experiences and advance AI research safely inside a player-driven universe as amazingly complex as Eve Online,” Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis said in a statement.
According to Fenris, the research tests will run on offline, controlled versions of the Eve Online world that are not connected to Tranquility, the live server.
Today is a day of many milestones, 7.5 years ago we joined up with Pearl Abyss as CCP Games and today we part ways as friends and with deep respect, as we become @FenrisCreations.
We’ve learned a great deal from Pearl Abyss, an extraordinary game maker, as amply evidenced by… pic.twitter.com/cxcSHHvp1x
— FC Hellmar (@HilmarVeigar) May 6, 2026
“It is a one-of-a-kind simulation for testing general-purpose artificial intelligence in a safe sandbox environment,” Alexandre Moufarek, director of inception at Google DeepMind, said in a statement. “I'm excited to partner with the team at Fenris Creations to push the frontier of artificial intelligence and explore new player experiences."
Eve Online launched in 2003 and runs a fully emergent player universe that includes markets, political alliances, and large-scale wars generated by player behavior. In 2024, the studio revealed Eve Frontier, a separate on-chain space survival MMO originally running on Redstone, an Ethereum layer-2 network, in 2024.
The game has since migrated to layer-1 network Sui for its mainnet launch. It's unclear whether the DeepMind research will extend to Eve Frontier's on-chain environment or remain focused on AI interactions.
Fenris says it closed 2025 with some of its strongest financial results in the game's history, including a record November and one of its best quarters on record.
“New Eden is alive because you keep making it alive. We were able to make this transition in large part because of you,” the company said. “Because you continue to believe in Eve. Because you continue to support us. Because you continue to challenge us. Because, after all these years, you are still building the most impressive virtual world in gaming right alongside us.”
Daily Debrief NewsletterStart every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
Analyst: Micron’s financial report indicates short-term fluctuations can be ignored as long as earnings prospects underpin its high valuation.
Senior Market Analyst Daniela Hathorn stated, "As Micron Technology's earnings report once again confirms that the AI investment cycle remains solid, the U.S. stock market has recouped some of its losses. This has boosted market sentiment across the entire semiconductor sector—after high-growth individual stocks underperformed earlier—indicating that as long as profit prospects continue to support high valuations, investors are still willing to overlook short-term fluctuations."
8 minutes ago
Circle partners with Nomura Securities to enter the Japanese yen foreign exchange settlement service market.
Stablecoin issuer Circle plans to collaborate with Nomura Securities to launch instant foreign currency settlement for Japanese corporate clients as early as 2027. The initiative will enable large cross-border transactions to be completed immediately, aiming to boost cross-border investment and trade. This will mark the first entry of a major stablecoin issuer into Japan’s corporate transaction market, allowing companies to convert yen into US dollar-denominated stablecoins for investment and instant transfers.
8 minutes ago
Institutions' Preview: Overview of US May Core PCE Price Index Monthly Rate
The US May core Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index monthly rate will be released tonight at 20:30 (UTC+8). Below are the forecasts from multiple institutions: Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation: 0.2%; Royal Bank of Canada: 0.2%; JPMorgan Chase: 0.3%; Goldman Sachs Group: 0.3%; Bank of Montreal: 0.3%; Moody's Corporation: 0.3%; Standard Chartered: 0.3%; UniCredit: 0.3%; ING Group: 0.3%; HSBC Holdings: 0.3%; BNP Paribas: 0.4%; Wells Fargo: 0.4%; Capital Economics: 0.4%; Citigroup: 0.4%; Deutsche Bank: 0.4%; Nomura Securities: 0.4%; Pantheon Macroeconomics: 0.4%; Société Générale: 0.4%; Scotiabank: 0.4%; Morgan Stanley: 0.4%
8 minutes ago
DA Davidson Raises Micron’s Price Target to $2,000, Retains Buy Rating
U.S. investment bank DA Davidson released a research note stating that Micron Technology has entered a new phase with one of the best performance visibility in the semiconductor industry, a stark contrast to its past standing in the sector. Driven by another quarter of results that handily exceeded expectations and positive forward guidance, Micron’s stock price surged sharply. These signals indicate that the current memory chip boom cycle is far from over. While the company is ramping up capacity investments (with capital expenditure (CAPEX) projected to hit $10 billion in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2026, which will bring additional supply), management expects the memory market to remain tight on supply and demand at least through 2027. Against this backdrop, DA Davidson reiterated its "Buy" rating on Micron and raised its price target from $1,500 to $2,000, equivalent to a 20x price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio based on the company’s 2026 calendar year expected earnings per share (EPS).
8 minutes ago
Morgan Stanley raises Micron's price target to $1,200, maintains 'Overweight' rating.
Morgan Stanley released a report raising Micron Technology (MU.O)’s price target from $1,050 to $1,200, while maintaining an "Overweight" rating. The investment bank lifted its fiscal 2027 earnings per share (EPS) forecast for the chipmaker by roughly 40% to $168, and upgraded its free cash flow (FCF) projection from $104 billion to $140 billion. Aligning with Micron’s management, the bank holds that AI will push DRAM demand to consistently outpace supply significantly after 2027. Micron’s last fiscal quarter results matched this trend, with both its quarterly performance and outlook showing notable upside potential.
Analyst: Micron’s financial report indicates short-term fluctuations can be ignored as long as earnings prospects underpin its high valuation.
Senior Market Analyst Daniela Hathorn stated, "As Micron Technology's earnings report once again confirms that the AI investment cycle remains solid, the U.S. stock market has recouped some of its losses. This has boosted market sentiment across the entire semiconductor sector—after high-growth individual stocks underperformed earlier—indicating that as long as profit prospects continue to support high valuations, investors are still willing to overlook short-term fluctuations."
8 minutes ago
Circle partners with Nomura Securities to enter the Japanese yen foreign exchange settlement service market.
Stablecoin issuer Circle plans to collaborate with Nomura Securities to launch instant foreign currency settlement for Japanese corporate clients as early as 2027. The initiative will enable large cross-border transactions to be completed immediately, aiming to boost cross-border investment and trade. This will mark the first entry of a major stablecoin issuer into Japan’s corporate transaction market, allowing companies to convert yen into US dollar-denominated stablecoins for investment and instant transfers.
8 minutes ago
Institutions' Preview: Overview of US May Core PCE Price Index Monthly Rate
The US May core Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index monthly rate will be released tonight at 20:30 (UTC+8). Below are the forecasts from multiple institutions: Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation: 0.2%; Royal Bank of Canada: 0.2%; JPMorgan Chase: 0.3%; Goldman Sachs Group: 0.3%; Bank of Montreal: 0.3%; Moody's Corporation: 0.3%; Standard Chartered: 0.3%; UniCredit: 0.3%; ING Group: 0.3%; HSBC Holdings: 0.3%; BNP Paribas: 0.4%; Wells Fargo: 0.4%; Capital Economics: 0.4%; Citigroup: 0.4%; Deutsche Bank: 0.4%; Nomura Securities: 0.4%; Pantheon Macroeconomics: 0.4%; Société Générale: 0.4%; Scotiabank: 0.4%; Morgan Stanley: 0.4%
8 minutes ago
DA Davidson Raises Micron’s Price Target to $2,000, Retains Buy Rating
U.S. investment bank DA Davidson released a research note stating that Micron Technology has entered a new phase with one of the best performance visibility in the semiconductor industry, a stark contrast to its past standing in the sector. Driven by another quarter of results that handily exceeded expectations and positive forward guidance, Micron’s stock price surged sharply. These signals indicate that the current memory chip boom cycle is far from over. While the company is ramping up capacity investments (with capital expenditure (CAPEX) projected to hit $10 billion in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2026, which will bring additional supply), management expects the memory market to remain tight on supply and demand at least through 2027. Against this backdrop, DA Davidson reiterated its "Buy" rating on Micron and raised its price target from $1,500 to $2,000, equivalent to a 20x price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio based on the company’s 2026 calendar year expected earnings per share (EPS).
8 minutes ago
Morgan Stanley raises Micron's price target to $1,200, maintains 'Overweight' rating.
Morgan Stanley released a report raising Micron Technology (MU.O)’s price target from $1,050 to $1,200, while maintaining an "Overweight" rating. The investment bank lifted its fiscal 2027 earnings per share (EPS) forecast for the chipmaker by roughly 40% to $168, and upgraded its free cash flow (FCF) projection from $104 billion to $140 billion. Aligning with Micron’s management, the bank holds that AI will push DRAM demand to consistently outpace supply significantly after 2027. Micron’s last fiscal quarter results matched this trend, with both its quarterly performance and outlook showing notable upside potential.
Analyst: Micron’s financial report indicates short-term fluctuations can be ignored as long as earnings prospects underpin its high valuation.
Senior Market Analyst Daniela Hathorn stated, "As Micron Technology's earnings report once again confirms that the AI investment cycle remains solid, the U.S. stock market has recouped some of its losses. This has boosted market sentiment across the entire semiconductor sector—after high-growth individual stocks underperformed earlier—indicating that as long as profit prospects continue to support high valuations, investors are still willing to overlook short-term fluctuations."
8 minutes ago
Circle partners with Nomura Securities to enter the Japanese yen foreign exchange settlement service market.
Stablecoin issuer Circle plans to collaborate with Nomura Securities to launch instant foreign currency settlement for Japanese corporate clients as early as 2027. The initiative will enable large cross-border transactions to be completed immediately, aiming to boost cross-border investment and trade. This will mark the first entry of a major stablecoin issuer into Japan’s corporate transaction market, allowing companies to convert yen into US dollar-denominated stablecoins for investment and instant transfers.
8 minutes ago
Institutions' Preview: Overview of US May Core PCE Price Index Monthly Rate
The US May core Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index monthly rate will be released tonight at 20:30 (UTC+8). Below are the forecasts from multiple institutions: Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation: 0.2%; Royal Bank of Canada: 0.2%; JPMorgan Chase: 0.3%; Goldman Sachs Group: 0.3%; Bank of Montreal: 0.3%; Moody's Corporation: 0.3%; Standard Chartered: 0.3%; UniCredit: 0.3%; ING Group: 0.3%; HSBC Holdings: 0.3%; BNP Paribas: 0.4%; Wells Fargo: 0.4%; Capital Economics: 0.4%; Citigroup: 0.4%; Deutsche Bank: 0.4%; Nomura Securities: 0.4%; Pantheon Macroeconomics: 0.4%; Société Générale: 0.4%; Scotiabank: 0.4%; Morgan Stanley: 0.4%
8 minutes ago
DA Davidson Raises Micron’s Price Target to $2,000, Retains Buy Rating
U.S. investment bank DA Davidson released a research note stating that Micron Technology has entered a new phase with one of the best performance visibility in the semiconductor industry, a stark contrast to its past standing in the sector. Driven by another quarter of results that handily exceeded expectations and positive forward guidance, Micron’s stock price surged sharply. These signals indicate that the current memory chip boom cycle is far from over. While the company is ramping up capacity investments (with capital expenditure (CAPEX) projected to hit $10 billion in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2026, which will bring additional supply), management expects the memory market to remain tight on supply and demand at least through 2027. Against this backdrop, DA Davidson reiterated its "Buy" rating on Micron and raised its price target from $1,500 to $2,000, equivalent to a 20x price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio based on the company’s 2026 calendar year expected earnings per share (EPS).
8 minutes ago
Morgan Stanley raises Micron's price target to $1,200, maintains 'Overweight' rating.
Morgan Stanley released a report raising Micron Technology (MU.O)’s price target from $1,050 to $1,200, while maintaining an "Overweight" rating. The investment bank lifted its fiscal 2027 earnings per share (EPS) forecast for the chipmaker by roughly 40% to $168, and upgraded its free cash flow (FCF) projection from $104 billion to $140 billion. Aligning with Micron’s management, the bank holds that AI will push DRAM demand to consistently outpace supply significantly after 2027. Micron’s last fiscal quarter results matched this trend, with both its quarterly performance and outlook showing notable upside potential.
