Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

AIBC World in Rome has named Avalanche, Litecoin, Dash, TRON and Zano as nominees for Best Layer-1 Blockchain. Here is what to know about the award and the event.

Five blockchains have been nominated for "Best Layer-1 Blockchain" at the AIBC World awards in Rome. The shortlist includes Avalanche (@Avax $AVAX), Litecoin (@Litecoin $LTC), Dash (@Dashpay $DASH), TRON (@trondao $TRX) and Zano (@zano_project). The organiser, @AIBC_World, has not published an explanation of why these five were chosen.

What the award coversAccording to AIBC's awards page, the Layer-1 category . The same page sets out a process that has previously included open nominations and self-nominations, a public and judge vote on a shortlist, and a final awards night.

It is unclear whether the same process was used for the Rome shortlist, as no selection criteria have been published for this round. The five nominees differ widely in design and focus, which makes direct comparison difficult. Avalanche is a smart contract platform, while Litecoin and Dash are payment-focused networks that trace their origins to Bitcoin's early years.

Avalanche has some history with the organiser. in Dubai in February.

About AIBC World in Rome at Fiera Roma.

Industry awards of this kind are typically a marketing and networking exercise as much as a measure of technical merit, so the outcome should not be read as a ranking of network quality. Winners are due to be announced at the ceremony during the November event.

Which of the five do you think deserves the prize?

Sources:

AIBC Eurasia Awards, category descriptions and timelineAIBC, Eurasia Awards 2026 winnersMPost, AIBC World 2026 Rome preview

Brent crude touched $115.84 on Friday, its highest level since May. Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia and fears of new US strikes on Iran drove the move.

Other energy prices were mixed, Trading Economics data show:

West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude rose 1.35% on the day to $100.81. Heating oil gained 1.48% to $5.01 per gallon. US natural gas fell 2.86% to $2.72 per million British thermal units (MMBtu). Brent Crude Daily Price Chart Showing the Climb to its Highest Level Since May. Source: TradingViewThe rally landed on markets still shaken by a tech selloff. Crypto also slipped as investors pulled back from risk.

Gulf Attacks Put a Risk Premium Back on OilYemen’s Houthis said they hit Saudi energy targets, including an Aramco site in Yanbu and the Shaybah oilfield. Aramco later ordered staff out of its Dhahran headquarters on the Gulf coast.

OilPrice noted that this suggests the group can now strike well beyond its usual Red Sea targets. A pipeline shutdown in Libya also cut output at two fields.

ING analysts cited reports that Trump is weighing fresh Iran strikes as a second US carrier deploys. The bank now calls its earlier $80 fourth-quarter Brent forecast unattainable. Brent first reached a five-month high earlier this week, BeInCrypto reported.

“If anything, re-escalation seems the most likely path. As a result, our expectation that ICE Brent would average $80/bbl over 4Q26 is looking unattainable. Even if tensions don’t re-escalate, the mere possibility is likely to keep a sizeable geopolitical risk premium embedded in prices,” the analysts said.

Still, commodity trader Jack Prandelli sees a split. He noted Dated Brent, the physical cargo price, slid from about $135 in early October to around $118.

The oil market is sending 2 different messages.

Dated Brent, the price of physical cargoes, has dropped from about $135 in early October to around $118.

Brent futures have gone the other way, up to about $112.

The gap between them has shrunk from roughly $30 to under $10 in 3… pic.twitter.com/BXInybZC0i

— Jack Prandelli (@jackprandelli) October 22, 2026 Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens

Tech Selling and Rate Fears Weigh on Risk AssetsThe oil rally arrived amid a sharp drop on Wall Street. On Thursday, the Nasdaq Composite fell 2.6% to 26,008.86, while the S&P 500 lost 1.21%.

Meta led the decline, falling nearly 7% after raising its 2026 spending floor to $135 billion. 

Crypto did not escape Thursday’s selling on Wall Street. That spillover shows in BeInCrypto Markets data. Total crypto market capitalization fell 3.74% in 24 hours to $2.76 trillion. Ethereum (ETH), XRP (XRP), and TRON (TRX) were among the major assets trading lower.

Analyst Benjamin Cowen tied that volatility back to oil.

Oil adds pressure through interest rates. Higher crude feeds inflation expectations and strengthens the case for tighter Fed policy.

Traders still saw about an 83% chance that the Fed holds rates at its October 27-28 meeting. Renewed energy price gains, however, could shift those odds.

Next week brings two tests. The Fed announces its rate decision on October 28, and Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet report earnings.

Whether Brent holds above $115 into those events may decide how quickly risk appetite returns.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights

TRON has processed $2.21 trillion in stablecoin settlement during the third quarter of 2026, up 5.1% from the previous quarter, Nansen has reported.

Summary

$2.21 trillion in quarterly stablecoin settlement represents 5.1% growth from the previous three months.
1.07 billion successful transactions were recorded across the network during July through September.
Binance and OKX led labeled transaction activity, but the report provides no payments-versus-exchange dollar split.
TRON’s settlement figures do not include a matching quarterly comparison with Ethereum and Solana.

Nansen’s Oct. 21 report puts successful network transactions at 1.0748 billion for July through September, averaging 11.68 million a day. Its exchange rankings identify Binance and OKX among the busiest labeled entities, although the report does not provide a dollar breakdown separating payments from exchange-related transfers.

TRON stablecoin settlement rises from Q2
TRON DAO’s quarterly research lists settlement at $2.2126 trillion, compared with $2.106 trillion in Q2. Subtracting the published totals gives a gain of $106.6 billion, or approximately 5.06%, consistent with the rounded 5.1% growth rate.

The same research puts average daily settlement at $24.05 billion, up from $23.14 billion. The quarterly and daily growth rates differ because July through September contained 92 days, compared with 91 days in April through June.

Combined USDT and USDD supply reached $93.88 billion at quarter-end, the organization reported. Its network transaction total was approximately 1.10 billion, compared with Nansen’s 1.0748 billion successful transactions. Neither report supplies a reconciliation between those counts.

Earlier coverage provides a separate USDT-specific baseline. As crypto.news previously reported on Aug. 11, TRON handled $2.1 trillion in USDT transfers in Q2, based on Messari’s research.

Messari put circulating USDT on TRON at $87.9 billion, representing 98.5% of the network’s $89.2 billion stablecoin market. Ethereum’s USDT balance stood at $78.7 billion at that quarter’s close.

Those figures describe token balances at a point in time. They are not Ethereum or Solana settlement totals for the third quarter, and Nansen’s latest TRON report contains no equivalent Q3 volume table for either chain.

Exchange rankings leave the payments split unreported
Among entities Nansen labels, Binance recorded 39.7 million transactions, and OKX recorded 36.1 million. Bybit followed with 9.9 million, ahead of MEXC’s 8 million and Gate’s 4 million.

The report explicitly describes labeled entity counts as a subset of total activity. Its rankings measure transactions, not the dollar value transferred, and do not identify what percentage of the $2.21 trillion represented merchant payments or remittances.

Visa’s Onchain Analytics dashboard treats total and adjusted stablecoin activity as separate measures. The company says public blockchains support transfers initiated by people and automated programs, and some recorded activity does not resemble traditional settlement.

To account for that activity, Visa’s methodology filters inorganic transfers from bots and other practices that can inflate recorded volume. Its dashboard presents adjusted and unadjusted transaction values separately, alongside retail-sized transfers.

A Sept. 18 methodology update expanded the underlying address labels from roughly 15 million to 600 million, according to the dashboard’s changelog. The refresh lowered adjusted volume while reducing adjusted transaction counts by less than 2%.

The changelog describes a Solana program cycling stablecoins through thousands of disposable wallets as one pattern removed from adjusted figures. Visa did not present that example as an estimate of TRON activity.

TRON fees and token supply follow separate measures
TRON DAO reported $701.4 million in Q3 network fees, with average daily fees down 4% to $7.62 million. Its supply schedule recorded 360.2 million TRX generated and 234.5 million burned, leaving reported net issuance of approximately 125.8 million tokens.

The organization explains that users obtain Energy and Bandwidth through staking, while TRX is burned when available resources do not cover transaction costs. Its quarterly research therefore reports fees, staking, and token issuance separately.

During Q2, Messari recorded $699.4 million in fees and approximately 87 million TRX in net issuance. Its figures put the circulating token supply at 94.85 billion at the end of June.

US investors gained a listed TRX product in September
Canary Capital’s staked TRX ETF began its U.S. debut under the ticker TRXS on Sept. 9, as covered in the staked TRX ETF launch report. The product holds TRX and incorporates retained staking rewards into its net asset value.

The launch coverage described a primary objective of tracking the value of the trust’s TRX after expenses and liabilities, with earning additional tokens through staking as a secondary objective. The fund was designed to stake all its holdings substantially.

Before launch, September coverage of the Aug. 19 registration amendment detailed a 1.10% annual sponsor fee and staking fees capped at 20% of generated rewards. The filing’s proposed structure left the trust with the remaining 80%.

The prelaunch coverage noted that the trust would not register under the Investment Company Act of 1940, leaving investors without some protections available to registered investment companies. Its prospectus warned that ETF shares could trade above or below the value of their underlying TRX holdings, creating a premium or discount to net asset value.

The same prelaunch filing described creation and redemption baskets of 10,000 shares, with transactions using cash or TRX under the stated conditions. It named BitGo Bank & Trust as TRX custodian and U.S. Bank as cash custodian.

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.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has welcomed TRON to Midnight, a privacy-focused blockchain network designed to bring confidential transactions to existing blockchain ecosystems.

Hoskinson made the remark in response to a commentary from SIG Network CEO David Millar-Durrant, who announced plans to extend Midnight’s privacy technology to TRON and its payment users in December 2026.

Midnight to Bring Privacy and Compliance to TRON Payments Millar-Durrant explained that SIG Network is working with Midnight to develop Nightmode, a solution that allows applications to integrate Midnight’s privacy features without leaving their existing blockchain networks.

The planned integration, which already supports Ethereum, will be targeting TRON later this year. Notably, Millar-Durrant described TRON as a leading blockchain for payments. He highlighted its use for business payrolls and everyday transactions, including payments to cab drivers and service providers.

How Midnight Could Improve Privacy on TRON Through Nightmode, SIG Network aims to bring Midnight’s privacy features to TRON while allowing users to continue accessing supported blockchain assets and applications.

According to Millar-Durrant, the system will support private payments, protect wallet balances and transaction details, and allow applications to determine what information users must disclose. It will also accommodate industry-standard screening tools used by centralized exchanges to support compliance requirements.

Additionally, applications will be able to segregate assets, control access, and integrate privacy features without abandoning their existing blockchain infrastructure.

Millar-Durrant emphasized that the proposed solution will combine privacy with compliance. This approach could allow users to protect sensitive financial information while meeting application-specific disclosure and screening requirements.

Hoskinson Welcomes TRON Founder Justin Sun The announcement has generated excitement across the Cardano community, with Hoskinson welcoming TRON to Midnight and tagging TRON founder Justin Sun.

The two blockchain founders have maintained a friendly relationship over the years. In August, Hoskinson praised Sun’s ambition and drive, noting that Sun had treated him well and remained committed to moving upward.

Luganodes has opened RPC access to TRON developers as part of a three-network service with a standard free allowance of 25 million compute units a month.

Summary

Luganodes launched RPC access for TRON, Ethereum, and Bitcoin using one API key.
Developers receive 25 million free compute units monthly, with paid plans starting at $49.
Free accounts stop serving requests once their monthly allowance runs out.
Dedicated deployments offer full and archive nodes separately from shared subscriptions.

Luganodes announced the service on Oct. 14, listing TRON, Ethereum, and Bitcoin mainnet access through one API key. Paid subscriptions start at $49 a month, according to the company’s launch notice.

The provider says free accounts need no payment card and stop serving traffic once the monthly allowance runs out. Its launch page offers 100 million compute units for the first month to users signing up by Oct. 20, with other free-plan limits unchanged.

Luganodes RPC prices requests by method
In its launch notice, Luganodes says each supported method has a published compute-unit cost. The company describes its standard subscriptions as shared infrastructure and offers separate dedicated deployments with full and archive nodes.

On its TRON staking page, the operator identifies itself as a Super Representative active since July 2022. TRON’s network documentation says 27 elected Super Representatives secure its production network.

The provider’s staking page lists a 5% commission and says 95% of rewards go to voters. Those are staking terms published by Luganodes, separate from the RPC subscription prices in its launch announcement.

TRON developers have several hosted access options
TRON’s developer documentation lists Ankr, GetBlock, QuickNode, NOWNodes, Chainstack, TronQL and Alchemy among third-party mainnet providers. The directory describes different access models, including shared nodes, dedicated nodes, and services requiring API keys.

Chainstack’s listed coverage includes the Nile testnet as well as mainnet. Most providers in the directory are listed for mainnet alone, according to the network guide, which directs developers to check individual services for current coverage.

For testing, the same guide distinguishes Shasta from Nile. Shasta supports learning and pre-production checks, while Nile gives developers access to upcoming features, parameter changes, and governance proposals. A private network is another documented option for local development.

TRON’s RPC provider guide describes hosted services as an alternative to running a full node. Self-hosting requires hardware, bandwidth, and operating work, while hosted access uses a provider’s subscription limits and service commitments.

The guide recommends comparing daily request allowances, peak request rates, supported interfaces, node locations and historical-state access. It specifically asks developers to check whether a provider supports TRON-specific calls, including account-resource queries, instead of only a generic interface.

TronGrid, the network’s hosted node service, provides FullNode, SolidityNode, JSON-RPC and gRPC access, according to the guide. Its listed networks include mainnet, Shasta and Nile, with production traffic requiring an API key.

Ethereum tools cover part of TRON’s interface
TRON’s API reference describes JSON-RPC as a way to reuse Ethereum development tools, including ethers, viem and Web3.js. The documentation cautions that some Ethereum methods have no matching TRON implementation or behave differently because the networks use different underlying mechanisms.

The reference says JSON-RPC covers only part of TRON’s node capabilities. Applications needing other functions may need the native HTTP or gRPC interfaces alongside it.

For transaction submission, the documented HTTP process builds an unsigned transaction, signs it locally, and broadcasts the signed result. TRON’s guide directs developers handling confirmed balances or deposit crediting to solidified-state interfaces.

For operators running their own nodes, the reference says HTTP and gRPC are enabled by default, while JSON-RPC must be switched on manually in the node configuration.

TronGrid’s indexed services provide account histories, token-transfer histories and contract events, according to the API reference. Tronscan maintains a separate interface for explorer data and aggregate statistics.

Stablecoin activity supplies the network context
TRON DAO Research recorded $2.2126 trillion in stablecoin settlement during the third quarter, as crypto.news previously reported in its coverage of quarterly network activity. The report put total transactions at roughly 1.10 billion and network fees at $701.4 million.

At the end of the quarter, combined USDT and USDD supply stood at $93.88 billion, according to the same research. The figures describe different measures, with settlement counting transfers over a period and supply recording outstanding tokens at a date.

Messari’s second-quarter figures, covered on Aug. 11, put USDT transfers at $2.1 trillion and TRON’s stablecoin capitalization at $89.2 billion. USDT accounted for $87.9 billion of that balance, compared with $78.7 billion on Ethereum at quarter-end.

The same Messari figures put average daily USDT transfers at $22.8 billion and the network’s share of tracked USDT supply at 47.6% at the end of June.

On Sep. 24, MeshWallet announced a $10 million private funding round for its TRON-based USDT wallet. The Tallinn-based company said private investors and small family offices led the funding, which would support product development and expansion of its user base.

MeshWallet says its wallet handles transfer charges in USDT, letting customers send the stablecoin without keeping a separate TRX balance. The company described the product as self-custodial and said it planned new features for retail and business users.

TRON handles about 73% of stablecoin transaction volume in September 2026

September 2026 was the month Zoomex turned its TradFi expansion into a full trading calendar. After crossing the 50-contract milestone for Stock Perpetuals at the end of August, the platform spent September widening the lineup, adding ETF-linked perpetuals to its TradFi Zone, relaunching Zero-Fee TradFi, and opening the Zoomex World Trading Championship 2026 (ZWTC 2026) with a prize pool of up to 5 million USDT.

The backdrop was far less calm. The U.S. Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act, the Federal Reserve raised rates for the first time since 2023, and Bitcoin still closed the month higher. Beneath that noise, Zoomex’s verifiable reserves stayed multi-chain, stablecoin-anchored and openly trackable, which is exactly what Transparent by Design is meant to deliver. This report reviews Zoomex’s on-chain reserves, chain and token composition, and platform metrics as tracked through DefiLlama, CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko, alongside the product developments that shaped the month.

Zoomex Overview Founded in 2021, Zoomex is a global cryptocurrency trading platform focused on Derivatives, serving over 3 million users across 35+ countries and regions and offering 700+ trading pairs. Its philosophy of easy-to-use, transparent balances and fair access to earnings shapes everything from its trading interface to the way it publishes proof of reserves. Zoomex has completed security audits conducted by Hacken and holds multiple regulatory registrations, including U.S. and Canada MSB, U.S. NFA, and Australia AUSTRAC.

September’s product story was the continued build-out of the TradFi Zone.

On September 1, Zoomex confirmed that its Stock Perpetuals lineup had grown past 50 contracts across four asset categories, timed with a Zero-Fee TradFi event that ran from August 28 to September 4. On September 8, the platform announced a further expansion covering more than 30 US and global equities across four categories, all margined and settled in USDT and trading around the clock. Two days later, Zoomex put the spotlight on TSLA and NVDA exposure through its rule-based derivatives offering, reinforcing Fair Access & Rule-Based Execution for every trader.

On September 18, ahead of the Federal Reserve decision, Zoomex highlighted its ETF-linked perpetuals, SPYUSDT, QQQUSDT, IWMUSDT, XLFUSDT, XLKUSDT and TQQQUSDT, available through the TradFi Stock Perpetuals section. The same day, it relaunched Zero-Fee TradFi, running from September 11 to October 11, 2026, which rebates 100% of actual trading fees on eligible stock contracts, commodity contracts and stock tokens, capped at 100 USDT per account.

On the competition side, Zoomex launched ZWTC 2026 on September 10 with a prize pool of up to 5 million USDT, its largest to date. The Squad Competition, with up to 2.5 million USDT in prizes and three separate leaderboards, opened on September 21 and runs until October 11 at 10:00 UTC. Alongside it, Zoomex Predict World continued to feature its established Long-Term event contracts, giving traders a longer-horizon complement to the 5 Minute, 15 Minute and 4 Hour markets. Together, these launches reflect a Refined Brand & Trading Experience built around one account and one rule set for crypto, equities, ETFs and commodities.

Exchange trade volume Zoomex’s exchange trade volume ranged from about $125M to $680M in September, with the month’s defining move arriving in its final third, according to CoinGecko. September volume ranged from roughly $125M to $680M, with the month’s low on September 13 and its peak on September 22. For scale, that peak sits at about two thirds of the $1.02B high recorded in August. 

Source: Coingecko On the pair side, BTC/USDT strengthened its lead at 53.5% of volume, up from 43.4% in August, followed by ETH/USDT at 13.7% and USDC/USDT at 11.6%. ETH has therefore overtaken USDC/USDT for second place. SOL/USDT contributes 3.9%, HYPE/USDT and XRP/USDT 1.6% each, and ENA/USDT 1.5%, while a tail of other pairs accounts for 12.6%. As in previous months, 100% of volume settles in USDT by CoinGecko’s currency breakdown, underscoring its role as Zoomex’s near exclusive quote and settlement currency. 

On-chain reserves Zoomex’s total on-chain assets stayed inside a narrow $34M to $38M band for the whole month, extending the durable step-up that began in August. DefiLlama’s CEX Transparency tracker shows reserves opening near $36M, easing to a monthly low of about $33.8M around September 10, rebuilding to roughly $36.5M by September 15, and reaching the month’s peak of about $38M around September 20. A pullback to roughly $35M followed by September 25, before assets climbed again to about $37M at month end. The live reading on October 13 stood at $34.9M.

Source: Defillama The contrast with the mid-year pattern is clear: there were no sharp spikes that unwound within days, and the base held. As always, this figure reflects verifiable cold and hot wallet holdings tracked by DefiLlama and sits alongside, not in place of, Zoomex’s separately maintained $50 million insurance fund.

Assets by chain Ethereum remains Zoomex’s largest chain by a wide margin, holding roughly $15.7M at month end versus about $16.5M on September 1, with a low near $15.1M around September 24. That is close to 42% of tracked assets. XRPL stays second at about $6.9M, after dipping to roughly $6.1M in mid-September and peaking near $7.4M on September 23. Tron fell from about $3.5M to around $2.0M by September 22, then jumped to roughly $4.0M by September 30, the largest late-month move among the major chains. Mantle rose from about $1.7M to $2.1M, Solana roughly doubled from about $1.0M to $2.0M, BSC slid from about $2.2M to $1.5M, while Base (about $1.45M) and Arbitrum (about $1.3M) stayed flat.

Source: Defillama The most unusual line is Bitcoin. Its balance sat near $0.8M until September 14, jumped to about $2.75M on September 15, climbed to roughly $3.3M by September 22, then fell back to about $1.6M on September 23 and $1.1M on September 24, ending the month near $0.95M. That round trip points to a temporary custody or settlement movement rather than a lasting reallocation, and it lines up with the BTC inflow and outflow bars in the flow data below. Zoomex’s reserves remain distributed across 14 networks, the same multi-chain footprint maintained throughout 2026, with OP Mainnet, Polygon, Vaulta, Doge and Sonic each holding under $0.5M.

Token balances Read in raw units rather than USD value, PEPE again dominates by count, but its trajectory reversed from August. The balance held near 8.7 billion units through mid-September, then stepped down to roughly 7.7 billion around September 17 and about 7.1 billion by September 20, a decline of close to 19%. Meme coin balances on an exchange typically mirror user activity rather than treasury decisions, so this looks like client withdrawals more than a deliberate reallocation. BONK stayed flat at roughly 2.5 billion units.

Source: Defillama TBY’s block-shaped presence continues to be the more interesting signal. It appeared at around 5.3 billion units in five separate windows, September 1 to 7, 10 to 11, 19 to 20, 24 to 25 and 29 to 30, and was absent in between. That on and off pattern is more consistent with temporary custody, a settlement cycle or a recurring product flow than with a held position.

USD inflows Source: Defillama Outside those windows, daily activity stayed shallow and mixed. Net flow across the month was slightly negative, yet total assets ended higher, which means price moves rather than deposits explain the stable balance sheet. The framing from August holds: movement was event-driven and concentrated in a handful of identifiable days, not the product of steady retail flow.

Inflows by token The token split shows what drove each of those days. The September 15 spike was almost entirely Bitcoin, at roughly $2.0M gross, and the September 23 outflow was the mirror image, with about $1.85M of BTC leaving, partly offset by roughly $0.4M of TRON inflow. That confirms the temporary Bitcoin build seen in the chain data.

Source: Defillama Stablecoins drove the rest. USDT left on September 1 (about $0.9M), September 19 (about $1.35M) and September 22 (about $1.6M), then returned on September 29, when roughly $1.65M of USDT arrived together with smaller USDC and TBY inflows. WETH was the one asset with clear accumulation, with inflows of about $0.85M on September 19 and $0.4M on September 20. XAUT recorded a small inflow of about $0.3M on September 2.

Token values (USD) Viewed by asset value, September was a rotation story. USDT started the month near $11.3M, held between $9.5M and $10.5M through September 18, then fell to about $8.6M on September 19, $6.9M on September 22 and a low near $6.6M on September 24, before rebounding to about $9.1M on September 30. At the same time, WETH stepped up from roughly $4.3M to around $6.1M between September 19 and 22 and held that level, which matches the inflow bars above. In other words, part of the stablecoin drawdown reappeared as ether exposure.

Source: Defillama XAUT slipped from about $5.35M to roughly $5.0M, a decline of around 7% that is largely a price effect, since gold retreated through September after its August high. Mantle’s MNT rose from about $1.5M to $2.0M, while ETH (about $1.6M), USDT0 (about $1.0M to $1.2M) and AAVE stayed broadly stable. The purple Bitcoin line shows the temporary spike to about $3.3M on September 22 and the return to under $1M afterwards.

Token breakdown The composition snapshot reads as liquidity first with measured diversification. USDT leads at 32.55%, followed by WETH (16.12%), XAUT (13.42%) and BTC (10.03%), which together account for roughly 72% of holdings. The rest is spread across MNT (4.55%), ETH (4.12%), USDT0 (3.48%), USDC (3.19%), AAVE (3.08%), TRON (1.71%) and an Others bucket of 7.73%.

Source: Defillama Several comparisons with August stand out. USDT rose from 27.96% to 32.55% and WETH from 12.45% to 16.12%, while XAUT eased from 14.94% to 13.42%. BTC jumped from 2.16% to 10.03%, which is consistent with the temporary Bitcoin build between September 15 and 22 rather than a strategic shift. Counting USDT, USDT0 and USDC, stablecoins make up about 39% of the portfolio, and ether exposure across WETH and ETH is about 20%. 

Individual stablecoins USDT makes up almost all of Zoomex’s tracked stablecoin balance. USDT opened September near $10.4M and closed around $9.1M, with a mid-month trough near $6.6M. USDC edged down from about $0.9M to $0.75M. 

Source: Defillama Total stablecoins Combined stablecoin holdings fell from about $11.5M on September 1 to a low of roughly $7.3M on September 24, a drop of around 36%, before recovering to about $9.9M on September 30. Net, stablecoins ended the month roughly 14% below where they started. Because total assets stayed in the $34M to $38M band, stablecoins slipped from about 32% of tracked assets at the start of the month to roughly a fifth at the trough, which reflects a shift in composition rather than a shrinking balance sheet. The late month rebound, which coincides with the $1.65M USDT inflow on September 29, suggests the rebuild was already underway as September closed.

Source: Defillama Platform community and user metrics Zoomex ended September 2026 with over 3 million registered users across more than 35 countries and regions. The platform’s Telegram community has grown from 76,277 members to 82,319, reflecting active engagement among Zoomex’s core retail trading base.

Zoomex’s daily active trader count consistently exceeds 1 million users according to independent review data, TradersUnion. The platform regularly adds new assets based on market demand combined with rigorous vetting, as of this report, Zoomex lists 486–495 cryptocurrencies and operates across 518–575 trading pairs depending on the market segment (spot or derivatives), a figure that has grown steadily through 2026.

ZoomexFounded in 2021, Zoomex is a global crypto exchange serving 3M+ users with 600+ trading pairs. Guided by the values of "Simple, User-Friendly, and Fast," Zoomex leverages a high-performance engine to ensure a fair, just, and transparent trading environment where every transaction is fully traceable and unbiased. With MSB (U.S./Canada), NFA, and AUSTRAC licenses and audits by Hacken, Zoomex provides institutional-grade security. Partnered with TGR Haas F1 Team and Emiliano Martínez, the platform mirrors elite precision and consistency, delivering a secure, low-barrier, and compliant ecosystem for traders worldwide.

61 contributions

Disclaimer

This third-party press release is published substantially as received and does not reflect BeInCrypto's editorial views. BeInCrypto has not independently verified its claims or assessed the suitability, legality or appropriateness of any referenced asset, product or service; publication is not an endorsement. The content is general information, not investment research, financial, investment, legal or tax advice, a personal recommendation, offer or solicitation. Verify all information and seek professional advice where appropriate before acting. Crypto-assets may result in total loss.

WSJ: (PMZN) Tron Inc. Elected as Super Representative on TRON Network Expanding Into Revenue-Generating Blockchain Infrastructure and Governance

TRON’s third-quarter figures show $2.21 trillion in stablecoin settlement alongside $701.4 million in network fees. The two totals measure different things, and neither is a payment to TRON DAO.

Summary

TRON recorded $2.2126 trillion in stablecoin settlement during Q3, up 5.1% from the preceding quarter. Network fees totaled $701.4 million across July, August and September, according to TRON DAO Research. Approximately 1.10 billion transactions went through the chain in Q3, broadly unchanged from Q2. TRON generated 360.2 million TRX and burned 234.5 million TRX in Q3, leaving net issuance of 125.8 million. The network’s $93.88 billion USDT and USDD balance at quarter-end measures outstanding tokens, not fee income. TRON settled more stablecoin value in the third quarter even as the number of transactions barely changed. TRON DAO Research’s quarterly report recorded $2.2126 trillion in stablecoin settlement, up from $2.106 trillion in Q2. It put fees at $701.4 million, or about $7.62 million a day using its reported daily series. The latest figures raise a straightforward question behind a large transfer headline: who paid to move the dollars, and who received the economic benefit?

No single company took a $701.4 million check. TRON is a blockchain where accounts pay for computation and transaction data through a resource system. Users may obtain those resources by staking TRX, receive them from another account, or burn TRX when their allocation falls short. Service providers can charge their own customers separately. Stablecoin issuers operate a different business again. Untangling those flows is necessary before treating quarterly transfers as earnings for the chain, its validators or holders of its native token.

JUST IN: TRON adds $4.8 billion to its stablecoin supply in 90 days

The network’s stablecoin market cap growth nearly doubled the combined $2.59 billion added by the other nine chains in the top 10 over the same period. pic.twitter.com/AAlUklr9Yg

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 21, 2026 What the $2.21 trillion actually counts A settlement figure is the dollar value of stablecoin movements over a period. It is not the amount of new money deposited into TRON, the number of customers served, or a balance held by a payment company. One stablecoin can move between accounts more than once. A transfer from an exchange to a merchant and a later transfer from that merchant to another exchange can enter the aggregate separately even when the same token funds both.

TRON DAO’s report says the daily average reached $24.05 billion, compared with $23.14 billion in Q2. Growth in the average daily amount was 3.9%, while the full-quarter total rose 5.1%. Both numbers can be true because Q3 has 92 days and Q2 has 91. Time periods matter when comparing a running total to a daily average. Neither number describes final retail purchases or cross-border payments exclusively; the underlying transfer category includes movements between addresses without assigning an economic purpose to every transfer.

At quarter-end, the report counted $93.88 billion in combined USDT and USDD supply on TRON, up $4.88 billion from Q2. Supply is a stock measured at a date; settlement is the sum of movements during a period. Dividing $2.2126 trillion by the closing balance yields about 23.6, a rough turnover comparison, but it cannot identify how often a particular coin changed hands. Supply changed during the quarter and the mix of wallets, exchanges and businesses is not fixed.

JUST IN: TRON averages 4.41M daily active accounts

The $TRX network has maintained an average of 4.41 million daily active accounts over the past 30 days. pic.twitter.com/uuwJxB3XtS

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 4, 2026 The network processed roughly 1.10 billion transactions in Q3, about flat with Q2. More value moved while the total count barely shifted, which is consistent with a larger average value per transfer, a different mix of transactions, or both. The total transaction count covers activity outside stablecoins, so dividing the entire settlement value by 1.10 billion would not produce a measured average stablecoin transfer size. TRON has not supplied a matched count of stablecoin transfer events alongside that settlement total in the cited report.

TRON’s prior quarter helps put the shift in context. Crypto.news’s account of Q2 USDT transfers reported $2.1 trillion in USDT transfers and $699.4 million in network fees, using Messari’s figures. The Q3 report describes combined stablecoin settlement, so the two transfer totals should not be labeled as identical series without checking their definitions. The Q2 fee figure and Q3 fee total are close in nominal dollars. On those two published totals alone, quarterly fees rose approximately $2 million, or 0.3%, rather than climbing in line with the reported 5.1% growth in Q3 stablecoin settlement.

Fees, burns and the recipient are different questions A person sending USDT does not pay a percentage of the dollars transferred to the chain. TRON meters bandwidth, broadly linked to the bytes recorded, and Energy, which covers smart contract execution. Sending $10 or $10,000 of USDT through the same kind of contract call can require similar resources. The payment amount alone is not the fee basis. A wallet’s available resources, the contract’s execution path and current chain parameters can change the cost.

The TRON developer guide to Bandwidth and Energy says both resources can be obtained by staking TRX or through a delegation from another account. Bandwidth includes a free allowance for qualifying accounts, while Energy has no free tier. Both resource quotas recover over a rolling 24 hours after use. Staking creates access to a recurring allowance; spending that allowance is not the same event as burning a token on each transfer.

Where an account lacks the required resources, the network can burn TRX to cover the shortfall. TRON’s resource payment documentation lists current mainnet rates of 0.001 TRX per Bandwidth unit and 0.0001 TRX per Energy unit, with chain parameters subject to change. Bandwidth rules normally use one source that covers the whole transaction: staked or delegated capacity, then free capacity if available, then a TRX burn. For Energy, an account can use its allocation and burn TRX for the remaining caller-side cost.

The $701.4 million fee series is therefore a report of network-level charges under the provider’s methodology. It should not be described as corporate sales, a cash distribution to validators, or a direct dividend to TRX holders. The report says 234.5 million TRX was burned in Q3, but a dollar valuation for network fees and the token quantity destroyed need their respective definitions and prices to be reconciled. Multiplying every transfer dollar by an assumed fee rate would manufacture an amount that nobody reported.

TRON elects 27 Super Representatives to produce blocks. Newly issued TRX rewards support producers and voters, while resource burns destroy tokens rather than handing the burned amount to a representative as cash. Staked TRX can confer voting power and recurring resources, but holding TRX without staking does not automatically entitle a holder to a share of reported fee dollars. Businesses that rent resources can receive payment under their own arrangements; such payments are distinct from an additional onchain burn on the same transaction.

A visible fee on a wallet screen may likewise be a bundled service price. A wallet can quote USDT to the sender, sponsor the underlying Energy, rent Energy, or supply it from TRX the operator has staked. The customer’s unit of payment does not tell us which underlying resource source settled the transaction. Crypto.news described Binance Wallet’s USDT fee option as a wallet-level way to fund network costs rather than a change in the chain’s native fee rules. A promotion covering a customer’s cost still leaves a provider bearing it.

The arithmetic behind a busy quarter A direct comparison reveals why the scale of transfers is visually misleading. Divide $701.4 million of reported Q3 network fees by $2.2126 trillion of reported stablecoin settlement and the result is about 0.0317%, equivalent to approximately 3.17 basis points. That is an arithmetic ratio between two published totals, not the price paid by each USDT sender. The numerator covers network activity beyond stablecoins, and the denominator omits non-stablecoin activity. A large customer may acquire resources more cheaply than a casual wallet user; some users burn TRX and others consume previously obtained capacity.

Another rough comparison divides $701.4 million by 1.10 billion transactions, producing roughly $0.638 per reported transaction. TRON DAO separately reports an average daily transaction fee of $0.643. The approximated ratio depends on the rounded 1.10 billion count and need not equal the mean of daily fee observations. Both figures are useful as scale checks, but neither is the fee for a standard USDT transfer. Contract execution and account conditions differ substantially among transactions.

TRON DAO breaks the $701.4 million total into $234.6 million in July, $231.3 million in August and $235.5 million in September. September exceeded August by $4.2 million while stablecoin settlement and transaction mix could vary day to day. The quarterly sum makes a consistent source series more useful than picking one unusually expensive transaction or a promotional wallet quote as the representative cost of all payments.

There is a discrepancy worth carrying into the reporting rather than smoothing away. TRON DAO says Q3 average daily fees of $7.62 million were down 4% from $7.94 million in Q2. Messari’s Q2 report summary, however, states $699.4 million in total Q2 fees. Across 91 calendar days, that published Q2 total implies approximately $7.69 million per day, not $7.94 million. Q3’s $701.4 million over 92 days likewise gives approximately $7.62 million. The Q3 daily figure matches its total; the Q2 daily comparison does not reconcile with Messari’s reported Q2 total under simple calendar-day division. Different data windows or methodologies may explain it, but neither report establishes that explanation in the figures cited here. A claim of a 4% quarter-over-quarter fall in daily fees should consequently be attributed to TRON DAO’s series rather than inferred from Messari’s published Q2 total.

A $2 million increase in nominal quarterly fees alongside more transfer value does not prove that users received a cheaper service per transfer. It indicates that those aggregates did not rise at the same pace. Fee prices, token price, resource staking, the share of transfers requiring contract execution and composition of non-stablecoin transactions can move independently. The matched, transaction-level data needed to isolate each contributor are not supplied by a single quarterly settlement headline.

JUST IN: Tron Inc. adds 148,175 $TRX to its treasury

The Nasdaq-listed company bought the tokens at an average $0.3374 each, lifting its total $TRX holdings above 719.3 million as it continues expanding its Tron treasury. pic.twitter.com/nnkC0mqTu0

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 18, 2026 Who pays when a wallet says a transfer is free? A zero-fee checkout does not necessarily mean the network performed work without a resource cost. A company may stake TRX to obtain Energy, then delegate capacity to customer addresses. An exchange can sponsor withdrawals, a wallet can pay in another currency and procure the underlying resource, and a business can rent Energy from a provider. The visible sender pays nothing at the point of transfer in some of these setups, while a different party finances the service.

The resource guide says exchanges and application operators commonly delegate capacity from a central staking pool. The network does not need each receiving customer to own TRX for every transaction under that arrangement. Energy recovers over 24 hours, so a pool sized to normal daily demand can support recurring operations without consuming the underlying staked tokens on every use. A usage surge beyond the allowance may change the calculation: the business may rent more capacity, hold more TRX, or burn tokens for a shortfall.

Crypto.news’s report on a gasless USDT wallet illustrates the consumer side of this separation. Removing the need for a customer to keep a second token balance simplifies a transfer, but the provider still must settle network resource costs. Reporting should ask the operator whether it pays from staked capacity, rentals, a quoted USDT charge or a temporary subsidy. Without that disclosure, the phrase “gasless” establishes a user experience rather than an independently audited network cost.

Contract deployers can sometimes cover part of a user’s Energy under TRON’s documented sharing mechanism. The contract configuration sets a caller share and a deployer contribution subject to the deployer’s resource budget. Sponsorship can run out. A transfer that appeared free under one set of limits can require the caller to contribute under another. Bandwidth is accounted for separately. Operators can still set terms outside the network, including withdrawal fees or currency conversion charges, that do not appear in the network-fee series.

Cost comparisons between two wallets should therefore specify the same transfer type and recipient conditions. A USDT transfer to an address holding the token can take a different execution path from a transfer to an address whose token balance has to be initialized. A quoted wallet charge may cover exchange service, insurance, or a routing step as well as network resources. The chain’s reported fee total cannot reveal the final consumer price without information from the service provider.

Why more stablecoins may bring less fee income per dollar Stablecoin transfers are measured in dollars; resource use is tied to network operations. An institutional account sending one large payment may contribute the same number of contract calls as a small account sending a modest payment. A market in which average transfer size rises can therefore increase dollar settlement without proportionally increasing network fee activity. That is one plausible interpretation of Q3’s higher settlement and nearly flat transaction count, though the combined transaction figure cannot isolate it as the cause.

Staking and delegation offer another explanation for the weak mechanical link. If more exchanges obtain enough Energy to cover their usual flows, the same count of transactions can generate fewer direct TRX burns than if their wallets had been paying the burn fallback. The operators’ capital commitment and any fee paid to a resource supplier still matter economically, even if they do not resemble a conventional per-transfer gas payment. A change in how much capacity is staked may affect an operator’s effective cost without a corresponding change in the value of USDT moving across the chain.

Chain governance sets the underlying resource parameters. A fee cut can reduce the burn required for a shortage even when usage does not fall. Messari said Q2’s rebound in fees was the first quarterly rise since an August 2025 cut to TRON’s Energy unit price. Comparing transactions across the cut without recording the parameter change would confuse a change in tariff with a change in demand. Current TRON documentation explicitly advises querying chain parameters because the resource pools and prices are adjustable.

Heavy use of a particular contract adds a further complication. TRON’s dynamic Energy model raises the effective Energy requirement for frequently called contracts when thresholds are met. The model can alter the cost of invoking a popular stablecoin contract independently of the number of dollars sent. Its penalty factor can change between maintenance periods and decay when usage eases. A flat posted rate per Energy unit is only one input to a wallet’s expected outlay.

Competition may shape which fee changes governance accepts. A chain can seek more affordable transfers to preserve stablecoin demand, while the reduction in token burns changes the economics for TRX holders. A higher resource price may lift burns in the short term but cause payment businesses to rent resources, stake more, batch activity differently or use another chain. The reports do not establish a single price that maximizes both usage and fee generation. Readers should resist treating higher transfer volume as a guaranteed higher revenue line.

TRX holders receive an indirect exposure The clearest token-level effect of a resource shortfall is the burn of TRX. The clearest counterweight is newly created TRX paid under the network’s reward schedule. TRON DAO says 360.2 million TRX was generated and 234.5 million burned during Q3. Subtracting one from the other gives net issuance of approximately 125.7 million, rounded to the report’s 125.8 million. Burns covered 65.1% of generated tokens. Supply expanded despite substantial fee activity.

A quarter of positive net issuance does not by itself predict a falling TRX price. Token demand, circulating supply, exchange liquidity and market expectations all matter. It does, however, invalidate a simple claim that every dollar of stablecoin settlement makes the asset scarcer. The $2.21 trillion transfer figure is not a buy order for TRX, and the $701.4 million fee valuation is not an equivalent distribution to all existing holders.

The staked side of the ledger is material. TRON DAO put staked TRX at 45.71 billion, or 48.16% of circulating supply at quarter-end. Its report assigned 18.87 billion staked tokens to Energy and 26.84 billion to Bandwidth. People who stake can obtain resource allocation and voting power; participants who vote for Super Representatives can receive protocol rewards under the network’s rules. An investor buying unstaked TRX on an exchange has a different immediate claim than a business using staked resources to process transfers.

The report’s validator voting snapshot showed the five highest-ranked Super Representatives held 37.1% of votes. Representatives participate in governance that can change chain parameters affecting resource prices. Fee economics consequently depend on political choices inside the protocol as well as the technical workload. Users, resource suppliers and TRX holders may prefer different combinations of cheap payments, reward issuance and burn rates.

An exchange-traded product can provide another form of TRX exposure. Crypto.news covered the staked TRX fund’s launch, including the fund’s stated plan to reflect staking rewards in net asset value. Its trading price, expenses and fund flows belong to a separate product. They should not be presented as a way for every TRX holder to collect a fraction of the network’s quoted fee dollars.

The case for low fees The strongest argument against maximizing immediate network fees is that cheaper transfers can be a core part of the service. Exchanges, payroll providers and people sending money across borders compare their actual all-in costs. Businesses can choose a route that works reliably at scale and automate the resource management behind it. If a fee reduction brings enough additional sustained transfers, the network’s usefulness can grow even if the fee earned per dollar of settlement falls.

October’s Polygon Open Money Stack integration with TRON points to that distribution question. The announced first phase connects TRON USDT activity with bank funding, wallet services and payouts for businesses. It does not provide a count of live customer payments or a forecast of incremental TRON fees. A commercially successful rollout could add transactions, but it could also route larger transfers through a small number of well-resourced accounts. Those outcomes produce different network-fee and token-burn profiles.

Low visible fees can be financed through staking rather than cash burn. Large operators may rationally tie up TRX to lower repeated costs, creating demand for resources without creating proportional burns. Smaller customers may prefer a USDT-denominated wallet charge rather than buying TRX to maintain a resource pool. A transfer service can succeed commercially while the protocol captures less revenue from each dollar moved. Protocol fees, resource rental payments, issuer income and the wallet’s own markup should be reported on separate lines.

Evidence that would weaken the low-fee case is equally concrete. If quarterly transfer value rises but transaction counts, unique active users and economic payments stagnate, the apparent growth may be recycled liquidity rather than a wider payments business. If a resource subsidy expires and customers leave, the underlying service may be less competitive than its advertised checkout price suggested. If heavy use creates costs for operators that they cannot pass through, fee compression would not demonstrate durable demand. Current aggregate data cannot settle those questions.

What to watch Q4 settlement and transaction count: Compare stablecoin dollars moved with the number of onchain transactions and, if available, matched stablecoin transfer counts. Monthly fees in one consistent series: Follow October, November and December network fees using the same provider and definitions before asserting an acceleration. Resource parameters: Check Energy prices, Bandwidth rules and governance votes, especially if a proposed fee change alters the cost of USDT contract calls. Stake, burns and issuance: Track the TRX committed to resources and the amount burned against newly generated rewards to separate usage from supply effects. Business adoption disclosures: Seek actual payment counts, subsidy terms and resource funding arrangements from new wallet and payment integrations. FAQ Does TRON earn $2.21 trillion from stablecoins? No. The figure sums stablecoin value transferred across the network in Q3. It is not revenue and does not represent unique dollars paid to an operator. A token can contribute to the total more than once when it moves again.

How much were TRON’s network fees in Q3 2026? TRON DAO Research reports $701.4 million in network fees for the quarter, split among $234.6 million in July, $231.3 million in August and $235.5 million in September. That measure should be named as network fees, not profit for TRON DAO.

Does a USDT sender always need to own TRX? No. A sender can receive delegated resources or use a wallet or service that sponsors the underlying cost and charges in another currency. The network still accounts for Bandwidth and Energy. The sender’s visible payment method does not change those resource rules.

Who receives the TRX paid as network fees? When a transaction uses the TRX burn fallback for insufficient resources, the charged tokens are burned. That is different from newly issued rewards for block producers and voters or a private payment to an Energy supplier.

Why did fees not rise in step with stablecoin settlement? The stablecoin figure measures dollars sent; network charges reflect resource use and the fee methodology. Larger transfer amounts, different transaction types, resource staking, delegated Energy and parameter changes can all break a proportional relationship. The quarterly totals alone cannot identify the precise contribution of each factor.

Did TRX become deflationary during Q3? No. TRON DAO reports 360.2 million TRX generated and 234.5 million burned, leaving roughly 125.8 million in net issuance. Burns reduced but did not exceed issuance during that reporting period.

Is the fee figure the same as Tether’s revenue? No. Tether issues USDT and operates its own business. A TRON network fee is associated with the blockchain’s resource model; an issuer’s reserve income, redemption arrangements and other business lines are distinct from that network metric.

Can the Q3 figures predict TRX’s price? No. They describe past activity, token issuance and resource use, not future buying or selling. Price depends on market conditions and demand beyond the network’s fee statistics. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of October 19, 2026.

TRON founder Justin Sun recently shared his personal asset allocation views (excluding TRON) during a 3.5-hour face-to-face talk with Jin Ming. Key points of his core portfolio strategy:
- BTC: Held as a base position, with no reductions over the past year. While he expressed concerns about potential impacts from quantum computing and AI algorithms, noting the market has not fully priced these risks, he still maintains his BTC holdings and uses cold wallets in "bunker mode" for isolation.
- ETH: Last year, he cut roughly 80-90% of his aggressive ETH positions in the $3,600–$4,000 range, and now only retains about 20% as a base position for observation, with no repurchase plans. Most funds from the ETH position reduction were allocated to US stocks.
- NVIDIA: Serves as his main US stock holding, positioned as a base in the AI sector, with a heavy stake that he has not reduced.
- Nasdaq 100: Held with a heavy position. He holds a slightly bearish mid-term outlook (citing factors like capital clustering and high interest rates) but has not opened short positions, keeping the position intact.
- A-share market: No holdings.
Overall, Sun is bearish on traditional assets and more focused on areas like AI applications and Web3. During the interview, he emphasized ETH as an aggressive asset while BTC acts as a base position. He added that he is bullish on AI health management and other applications, and bearish on some hardware sectors. The above are key takeaways from the interview, not a complete balance sheet.

Relevant content

Yesterday, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw a net outflow of $82.4 million, while spot Ethereum ETFs recorded a net outflow of $69.7 million.

According to Farside's monitoring, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw a net outflow of $82.4 million yesterday, while spot Ethereum ETFs recorded a net outflow of $69.7 million, marking three consecutive trading days of net outflows.

16 minutes ago

Cloud deployment platform Zeabur announced it will gradually cease operations after suffering two security attacks, with all its servers to be shut down by December 31.

Beating AI Express News: Cloud deployment platform Zeabur founder Lin Yuanlin announced via user email that the platform will gradually cease operations. Some services will shut down successively starting December 1, and all dedicated servers and shared clusters will be closed by December 31. The official advises users to back up data and arrange migration as soon as possible.
The shutdown decision stems from successive security incidents on the platform. Zeabur suffered a security incident in August this year and was attacked again in October. According to the official status page, the attacker gained read access to the platform’s database in the latest breach, accessing service environment variables, account information, and API tokens; some Google Cloud dedicated servers also faced unauthorized access.
The founder noted in the email that the team began discussing whether to continue operations after the August incident. Following the latest attack, the team re-evaluated the investment required for sustained operations and the responsibilities it could assume, ultimately deciding to shut down the platform.
The past year marked Zeabur’s fastest growth period, with AI applications including n8n, OpenClaw, and Vibe Coding driving demand for cloud deployment. However, AI has also lowered deployment barriers, leading the platform to hit growth bottlenecks.
The team will also provide Markdown migration guides and Skills for Claude Code and Codex to help users migrate their existing services.

16 minutes ago

Anthropic secretly lobbied Congress, advocating that the government can only shut down an AI model if it poses a risk of more than $1 billion in losses or at least 50 casualties.

Insight Beating AI Flash News, according to Politico, Anthropic is privately lobbying U.S. lawmakers on a draft cutting-edge AI security bill that sets strict thresholds for government intervention in AI models. Under the draft, the government may only seek to shut down an AI model if it faces foreseeable and imminent specific risks that could cause over $1 billion in losses, or lead to more than 50 deaths or serious injuries. The draft limits regulatory triggers to three risk categories: AI models used for bioweapon development or proliferation, models escaping developer control, and models triggering cyberattacks. The bill also requires AI developers to conduct transparent testing and undergo independent third-party assessments. If an assessment body identifies relevant risks, it must report to the U.S. Department of Commerce within 72 hours, and the Commerce Department may apply to a federal court to suspend the model’s operations, with the court making the final ruling. Additionally, the draft proposes to prohibit other U.S. government departments and officials from independently halting the development, deployment, or internal use of AI models. Anthropic stated that the proposal is derived from its advanced AI framework released earlier this year, aiming to require developers to undergo security assessments while empowering the government to block the deployment of dangerous models. The draft is currently in the lobbying phase and has not yet become law. If the relevant provisions are ultimately passed, they could significantly limit the U.S. government’s authority to take emergency interventions against cutting-edge AI models.

16 minutes ago

Perspective: The risk of MicroStrategy (MSTR) being excluded from MSCI indices may have already been priced in; a dip in MSTR’s net mNAV below 1 would present an opportunity.

Crypto KOL CM noted that the market may have already priced in the impact of MSCI’s removal of MicroStrategy (Strategy), meaning MSTR’s stock price may not see further sharp declines when actual passive selling pressure emerges. MSTR closed down 9.56% yesterday.
Current valuations of MSTR use different metrics. The standard mNAV is the ratio of the company’s market capitalization to its BTC holdings value, while net mNAV accounts for factors like preferred shares and debt, reflecting the stock price relative to the net BTC value per share. Net mNAV readings below 1 are rare, typically signaling the market’s growing concern over the company’s operational health or its valuation logic.
Take June this year as an example: back then, the market worried about the company’s insolvency due to Strategy’s tight cash reserves and falling BTC prices, leading to downward pressure on net mNAV at the time. Currently, Strategy’s cash reserves are ample, theoretically enough to cover its dividend payments for the next three years, and BTC prices remain above its roughly $75,000 cost basis for BTC holdings. As such, the likelihood of net mNAV falling back below 1 is low. If it does drop below 1, that could instead present an investment opportunity.

16 minutes ago

A trader went long on 20.5 million AGT tokens with 2x leverage on Aster, with unrealized profit exceeding $1.26 million.

According to Lookonchain monitoring, trader 0xC7Fd opened a 2x leveraged long position on 20.5 million AGT tokens on Aster DEX, with the position valued at approximately $1.63 million. The unrealized profit on this position has now exceeded $1.26 million, translating to a 155% return.

16 minutes ago

Analysis: GENIUS Act paves way for Samsung's stablecoin payments, set to reach 82 million Galaxy users in the US.

A Solana Foundation official stated that the U.S. GENIUS Act provides regulatory impetus for enterprises and financial institutions to enter the stablecoin sector, and is also one of the key background factors for Samsung to launch its stablecoin payment service. Samsung has announced that it will start supporting cross-border USDC transfers in Samsung Wallet during the last week of October, with the first phase targeting eligible Galaxy users in the U.S., covering around 82 million devices. Users can transfer dollar stablecoins to compatible crypto wallets in seconds with no transfer fees, and also remit to eligible bank accounts in over 60 countries and regions. The service will use Solana and Sui networks as underlying infrastructure, with transfer services provided by licensed stablecoin custodian Bastion, and Coinbase Prime acting as a secondary custodian responsible for safeguarding USDC assets. Samsung and Solana have been preparing for the relevant cooperation for many years, and the two sides will advance product implementation in phases, prioritizing increasing user adoption, and may expand to online and offline stablecoin payment scenarios in the future.

16 minutes ago

Yi Lihua: Expects the market to rebound quickly and kick off a new uptrend after bottoming out.

Yi Lihua, founder of Liquid Capital, stated that the only thing to focus on in the current market outlook is determining at what level to buy the dip. Citing the 2023 Bitcoin bull market as a reference, he believes Bitcoin will drop to a certain point before a sharp rebound kicks off a new uptrend, once again leaving many investors hesitant to buy the dip unable to enter the market in time.

8 minutes ago

TypeSafe has upgraded Jev to version 1.14: The tool can locate objects from images, and returns coordinates even when it fails to identify the target.

Beating AI News Flash: TypeSafe AI has released Jev 1.14, rolling out experimental visual capabilities for its fast-judgment model. Developers can use the model to detect if a person is present in a camera feed, or compare two photos to confirm if they show the same dog. The new Box localization feature can also locate specified objects in images, returning coordinates of rectangular regions to guide other programs on where to crop or perform operations.
TypeSafe CEO Diogo Almeida revealed that the older Jev 1.13 was already capable of processing images, but the team held back from launching this feature due to concerns about insufficient reliability in visual task accuracy. Both versions now support image input, with images usable directly as judgment conditions and options, though the Box localization feature is exclusive to Jev 1.14.
In experimental mode, the context limit per single request has been expanded from 64,000 tokens to around 262,000 tokens, quadrupling the original capacity. The new version also enhances overall judgment capabilities; the company notes the most notable improvement is in multilingual support, though it did not disclose specific metrics.
Jev 1.14 is currently available via `jev-preview`, with a planned rollout to the default stable version on October 21. However, TypeSafe explicitly warns that the visual and long-context features remain in the experimental phase and are not yet production-ready. Long context not only increases latency but may also reduce accuracy. Box localization also has a unique limitation: it will return coordinate boxes even if the specified object is not present in the image. As such, developers must additionally verify the existence of the target to prevent subsequent programs from operating on incorrect positions.

8 minutes ago

OKX's Oracle Season 3 kicks off, with a total prize pool of $250,000.

According to official announcements, OKX’s Season 3 of its Predictor program has officially launched, with a total prize pool of $250,000. This season focuses on hot topics during earnings season, featuring a season main leaderboard, regular weekly contests, and an independent weekly leaderboard dedicated to earnings season. Users can earn free XP by completing tasks, participate in predictions of real-world events like earnings season, and split corresponding rewards based on their activity rankings. XP can be obtained via Planet interactions, inviting friends, and completing designated ExchangeOS trading tasks, the platform noted. No registration is required; eligible users can participate through the "Planet" - "Outcomes" section in the OKX App.

8 minutes ago

Bitget PoolX: Locked ETH to Unlock 150,000 USDT Airdrop

Bitget PoolX is launching a new ETH lock-up campaign, where users who lock up ETH can participate in sharing a 150,000 USDT airdrop. The campaign runs from 15:00 (UTC+8) on October 15 to 15:00 (UTC+8) on October 20, with an individual lock-up cap of 1,500 ETH. This PoolX round supports a long-term holding bonus mechanism: the system will apply an additional 1x multiplier to the effective locked amount, calculated based on the user’s minimum ETH holding over the past 15 days.

8 minutes ago

DeepSeek has experienced 5 outages in half a month, with simultaneous disruptions affecting its website, mobile app, and API. The issues have not been resolved even after two and a half hours.

Beating AI Express News: On the morning of October 15, DeepSeek suffered another service outage. Its official status page shows the outage began at 08:11, affecting the web chat service, V4 Pro and V4.1 Flash APIs. DeepSeek announced at 09:08 that it had located the cause and was implementing repairs. However, as of 10:43, the outage had lasted over two and a half hours and remained unresolved. The official classified the incident severity as Full Outage, with no specific cause disclosed yet. This marks DeepSeek’s fifth service outage recorded since October. On October 2, web and API services were abnormal for 1 hour and 54 minutes. Two outages occurred on October 12, lasting 11 minutes and 15 minutes respectively. Compared with previous incidents, this outage has the longest duration.

8 minutes ago

Over the past hour, $486 million in liquidations have been recorded across the entire crypto network, with long positions being the main liquidation target.

According to Coinglass data, the global crypto market saw $486 million in liquidations over the past hour, including $465 million from long positions and $20.7 million from short positions. Liquidations related to Ethereum trading hit $201 million, while Bitcoin trading liquidations totaled $117 million.

8 minutes ago

TRON’s [TRX] steady growth in stablecoins is translating into higher payment activity, with the network processing $2.21 trillion in transactions through Q3 2026. The growing supply of Tether [USDT] and USDD was responsible for much of this activity.

This was a 5.5% increase from the previous quarter to a total of $93.88 billion. Average daily stablecoin volume was up by 3.9% to $24.05 billion. This indicates continued demand for dollar-based transfers.

The activity coincided with an increase in monthly active user accounts, which rose 9.8% to 18 million.

Source: X Meanwhile, TRON’s cumulative transaction volume has exceeded $30 trillion. Now, further growth will depend on continued use. However, simply high transaction volume does not prove long-term acceptance or profitability.

TRON’s stablecoin payment demand TRON’s expanding stablecoin supply is seeing consistent movement. The continued increase in supply suggests growing use across digital payments. USDT, which currently represents nearly 98% of TRON’s stablecoin base at approximately $93.1 billion out of $95.2 billion.

Therefore, it has a considerable impact on the volume of transfers executed within TRON.

Average daily transfer volume of USDT over the last 30 days stood at $24 billion. Daily transfer volumes fluctuated from as low as $10 billion to as high as $32 billion.

Furthermore, over 1 million user accounts are initiating new transfers every day and generate up to 2.5 million new events per day.

Source: TRON Blog This repeated circulation supports activity across exchanges, remittances, and merchant payments. Sustained usage would strengthen its position in stablecoin payments and confirm demand beyond idle balances.

TRON adds $633.6M in stablecoin supply While TRON’s stablecoin activity reflects sustained transaction demand, its latest supply growth highlights where capital is flowing across blockchain networks.

TRON attracted $633.6 million stablecoins during a seven-day period. This is considerably higher than the influx of $64 million for OP Mainnet.

Therefore, this gap suggests stablecoin issuers continue to prefer using the token as a platform to deploy their stablecoins due to nearly 98% of TRON’s stablecoin holdings being in USDT form.

Source: Token Terminal Such concentration could reinforce TRON’s liquidity advantage over competing networks, supporting its appeal to exchanges and payment providers. However, one week of inflows cannot confirm a lasting trend.

Continued gains relative to rival networks would strengthen evidence of capital preference, while slower growth could signal a temporary shift.

Final Summary TRON settled $2.21 trillion in stablecoins during Q3 2026, with daily USDT transfers averaging $24 billion.

TRX added $554.9 million in stablecoin supply in one week, outpacing OP Mainnet’s $64 million.

Analysis

TRC-8004 is Final on TRON and still a draft on Ethereum, and the team that finished it sells the bundle built on top. The spec says payments are out of scope; the schema says otherwise.

The same agent-identity standard is a finished document on TRON and a draft on Ethereum. ERC-8004 on Ethereum has sat in Draft since Aug. 13, 2025, with authors from MetaMask, ethereum.org, Google and Coinbase. TIP-8004, the TRON port, is Final: created Dec. 1, 2025, Standards Track, authored by bankofai.io. That is B.AI’s team. The company now selling an agent-commerce stack on TRON wrote the identity layer the stack runs on.

The two documents are nearly word for word, down to the registration schema. Both declare payments out of scope: “Payments are orthogonal to this protocol and not covered here. However, examples are provided showing how x402 payments can enrich feedback signals.” Both then carry a boolean x402Support field in the agent registration file and a proofOfPayment object in the feedback file, with fromAddress, toAddress, chainId and txHash. The text says the money is not in scope. The schema is built to hold it. That is the identity-first, money-later pattern written into a single file. Agent identity here means three registries: a TRC-721 handle, a feedback ledger and hooks for validators.

What B.AI has shipped is the bundle: identity plus x402 payments plus USDT settlement on TRON. Its own description, in a paid partner story on CryptoSlate (published Sept. 16, disclosed as partner content), calls the protocol layer “B.AI’s most strategically profound move”: “By natively integrating the x402 payment protocol and the 8004 identity authentication protocol, the platform paves a standardized path for mutual trust, identity verification, and high-frequency automated settlement between agents.” The same story says B.AI is co-incubated by TRON and YZi Labs and keeps WeChat Pay, Alipay, UnionPay and Visa alongside on-chain settlement.

Two things need bounding. First, “first major x402 on TRON” describes the bundle, not the rail: x402 has been live on TRON and BNB Chain since February. Second, the numbers are the vendor’s. B.AI’s partner story claims TRC-20 USDT supply passed 94.2 billion as of Sept. 10, and there is no independent volume data for its agent payments. The currency point stands regardless: the x402 lane this beat has covered settles in USDC on Base and Polygon, and this one settles in USDT on TRON. Same protocol, different currency gravity.

The standard’s own security section is where the hype goes to die. Sybil attacks are possible, “inflating the reputation of fake agents,” and the protocol “cannot cryptographically guarantee that advertised capabilities are functional and non-malicious.” Trust is tiered to the value at risk, “from low-stake tasks like ordering pizza to high-stake tasks like medical diagnosis,” built from reputation, stake-secured re-execution, zkML proofs or TEE oracles. Those are real designs for real problems. None of them is a guarantee that the agent does what its registration file says.

TRON’s standards track is not stopping at identity: TIP-8001 Agent Coordination Framework, TIP-8126 AI Agent Verification and TIP-7857 AI Agents NFT with Private Metadata are all Final alongside TIP-8004. A finished standard is not a finished market. What the B.AI bundle proves is narrower than the pitch and more useful: the trust layer can ship before the payments story is settled, and the party with the most to gain from the standard can be the one that writes it. The standard is public, the schema is honest about the money, and the marketing is paid placement. All three are on the record.

Ethoswarm Tessa Vaughn works for Forkast.
Minds can also work for you.

Minds are persistent AI beings with instincts, identity, and a job.
Awaken one on Ethoswarm.

Awaken your mind →

State of TRON Q3 2026 Report Highlights $2.21 Trillion in Stablecoin Settlement Amid Network Activity Growth

TRON founder Justin Sun says post-quantum cryptography is live on testnet and could reach mainnet at any time, as Bitcoin and Ethereum also work on quantum resistance.

TRON (@trondao) has deployed its post-quantum cryptography technology to testnet, according to founder Justin Sun (@justinsuntron). $TRX is the network's native token.

What TRON has deployed so far

Sun also framed the work around so-called Q-Day.

There is no mainnet date yet.

The stakes are significant given the network's role in stablecoin settlement.

Other networks are working on the same problemTRON is not alone. Bitcoin ($BTC) and Ethereum ($ETH) are also exploring quantum-resistant security.

BIP-360 itself is still a work in progress.

For TRON, the testnet deployment is an early technical step rather than a finished upgrade. The next milestone to watch is whether the team sets a timeline for mainnet activation.

SourcesCryptometer: Justin Sun Says TRON's Quantum-Resistant Cryptography Is Live on Testnet

Yellow: Can TRON Shield $95B In Stablecoins From Quantum Attacks?

Cryptonomist: Bitcoin Quantum Resistance Roadmap Targets 2029 Defense

Polygon, 100 milyon POL tokenını kalıcı olarak dolaşımdan çıkardı. Buna rağmen token fiyatı yükselmek yerine geriledi: POL, eylül sonundaki yaklaşık 0,12 dolardan 12 Ekim’de 0,103 dolara indi. Üstelik 22 milyon POL daha yakım sırasını bekliyor. Arzı azaltan bu hamleler neden fiyatı desteklemiyor?

Polygon’un kurucu ortağı Sandeep Nailwal, 11 Ekim’de yaptığı açıklamada 100 milyon POL’ün yaklaşık iki hafta önce yakıldığını belirtti. Bu miktar, ağın başlangıçtaki 10 milyar tokenlık arzının yaklaşık yüzde 1’ine denk geliyor. Yakım, Polygon Vakfı’nın hazinesinden değil, ağ ücretlerinden finanse edildi. Ayrıca 22 milyon POL daha yakılmak üzere sırada; ancak bunun için kesin bir tarih açıklanmadı.

Yakım dolaşımdaki arzı azaltabilir, fakat tek başına yeni alım talebi yaratmaz. POL hem işlem ücretlerinde hem de staking’de kullanılıyor. Fiyat üzerindeki etki, yakılan miktarın yanı sıra yeni token ihracına ve piyasadaki talebe de bağlı.

POL Arzı Neden Artıyor? Polygon’un token ekonomisi, yıllık yüzde 2 emisyon öngörüyor. Başlangıçtaki 10 milyar POL arzı üzerinden bu oran yılda yaklaşık 200 milyon yeni token anlamına geliyor; hesaplama, bileşik etkiler ve olası yönetişim değişiklikleri hesaba katılmadan yapılıyor. Emisyonun bir bölümü doğrulayıcı ödüllerine, kalanı topluluk hazinesine ayrılıyor.

POLTRACK verileri, 11 Ekim’de sona eren 30 günlük dönemde arz baskısının sürdüğünü gösteriyor. Bu süreçte ağa yaklaşık 17,45 milyon yeni POL girerken, yakım için biriken miktar 13,23 milyon POL’de kaldı. Böylece ayrı yakımların zamanlaması hesaba katılmadan önce yaklaşık 4,22 milyon POL’lük net artış oluştu. Bu fark, büyük bir yakımın neden sürekli arz artışını tek başına tersine çeviremeyebileceğini açıklıyor.

Polygon’un 1 Milyar Dolarlık Ödeme Hamlesi Polygon’un ödeme altyapısı tarafında büyüme sinyalleri var. Open Money Stack (OMS) platformundaki işlem temposu ivme kazandı. Sandeep Nailwal, sistemin haftalık işlem hacminin iki hafta üst üste yıllık 1 milyar dolarlık tempolu eşiği aştığını duyurdu. Sistem, işletmelerin stablecoin işlemlerini kolaylaştırmayı hedefliyor:

USDT yatırma ve cüzdan hizmetleri: İşletmelerin stablecoin işlemlerini yönetmesini sağlıyor. Zincirler arası transferler: TRON entegrasyonuyla farklı ağlar arasında işlem yapılmasını destekliyor. İtibari para ödemeleri: Stablecoin işlemlerinden gelen fonların itibari para olarak ödenmesine yönelik altyapı sunuyor. Özel transferler: Polygon, mayısta uyumluluk ve denetim imkânlarını koruyan sıfır bilgi kanıtlarıyla özel stablecoin transferlerini duyurdu. Ancak 1 milyar doları aşan işlem hacmi, doğrudan Polygon geliri veya POL talebi anlamına gelmiyor. OMS işlemlerinin tamamı Polygon ağından geçmeyebilir ya da aynı ölçüde POL kullanılmasını gerektirmeyebilir. Polygon’da ocak ayında ağ etkinliği ve yakımlar hızlanırken yükselen POL, ödeme altyapısındaki gelişmelere rağmen kazançlarının önemli bölümünü daha sonra geri verdi. OMS’nin ekonomik değerinin POL’a nasıl yansıyacağına ilişkin daha ayrıntılı açıklama ise henüz paylaşılmadı.

Sonuç olarak, 100 milyon POL yakımı arzı azaltırken yıllık yüzde 2 emisyon yeni token üretimini sürdürüyor. Polygon’un ödeme hacmindeki büyümenin fiyatı destekleyip desteklemeyeceği ise bu faaliyetin POL için ne ölçüde gerçek ve sürekli bir talep yaratacağına bağlı.

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.

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.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Justin Sun says TRON is prepared to deploy post-quantum cryptography on mainnet. Falcon-512 signatures have been active on the Nile testnet since July. Wallet migration, security audits and governance remain central to deployment. TRON founder Justin Sun says the blockchain is prepared to introduce quantum-resistant cryptography on mainnet, following the successful activation of post-quantum signatures on its Nile testnet.

In an October 10 statement, Sun said TRON was closely monitoring advances in quantum computing and artificial intelligence, adding that the network could introduce quantum-resistant security to mainnet at any time.

TRON’s post-quantum cryptography is now live on testnet. We’re closely tracking progress in quantum computing and AI, and we’re ready to bring quantum resistance to mainnet at any time.

We’re committed to keeping user assets secure, and TRON is set to be one of the few major blockchains that is quantum-resistant before Q-Day. $TRX

— H.E. Justin Sun 👨‍🚀 🌞 (@justinsuntron) October 10, 2026

He also suggested TRON could become one of the few major blockchains protected against quantum attacks before Q-Day, the hypothetical point when sufficiently advanced quantum computers could compromise widely used cryptographic systems.

However, TRON’s public technical documentation identifies additional steps before production deployment, including independent security reviews, governance approval and compatibility work.

TRON’s Post-Quantum Upgrade Has Been Running Since July The technical milestone predates Sun’s latest announcement.

According to TRON’s Nile testnet governance records, Proposal No. 20628 activated Falcon-512 post-quantum signatures on July 2, 2026.

The implementation follows TRON Improvement Proposal 899 (TIP-899), which introduces new signature algorithms intended to protect transactions against future quantum attacks.

TRON currently relies on the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA), a cryptographic system also used across other major blockchain networks.

Although ECDSA remains secure against known practical attacks using conventional computers, sufficiently powerful quantum computers could theoretically compromise its underlying mathematical assumptions.

TIP-899 introduces two alternatives:

Falcon-512 (FN-DSA-512): A lattice-based signature scheme designed to provide relatively compact post-quantum signatures. Its NIST standard, FIPS 206, remains under development. ML-DSA-44 (Dilithium-2): A lattice-based algorithm standardized by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology under FIPS 204. The proposed implementation allows conventional and post-quantum signatures to coexist, supporting a gradual transition rather than requiring every account to migrate simultaneously.

Stronger Cryptography Could Reduce Transaction Throughput Post-quantum protection introduces larger public keys and signatures, increasing the data required to process transactions.

TRON’s technical proposal specifies the following sizes:

TRON / POST-QUANTUM SECURITY

The Cost of Quantum Resistance

How cryptographic key and signature sizes compare across TRON’s existing and proposed algorithms.

Algorithm

Public Key

Signature

ECDSA

Current

33

bytes

65

bytes

Falcon-512

Post-quantum

896

bytes

617–667

bytes

ML-DSA-44

Post-quantum

1,312

bytes

2,420

bytes

Why It Matters

Post-quantum signatures require substantially more data than ECDSA. Larger transactions can increase bandwidth and storage demands, putting pressure on network throughput.

These differences have implications for network capacity.

During TRON Core Developers Meeting 66, developers discussed testing estimates of approximately 400 transactions per second using Falcon-512 and 173 transactions per second using ML-DSA-44.

The figures reflect specific testing assumptions, not confirmed mainnet capacity following an upgrade.

They nevertheless illustrate the challenge of introducing larger signatures to a blockchain used extensively for stablecoin transfers.

Developers have proposed separating public-key storage from transaction data to reduce the additional processing burden.

That optimization remains outside the initial implementation.

Mainnet Deployment Depends on Security and Governance Sun’s readiness statement does not establish a mainnet activation date.

TIP-899 remains a draft proposal, with several implementation requirements identified in its documentation:

Security audits: Independent reviews of signature verification, cryptographic implementation and related protocol changes. Governance approval: Activation through TRON’s on-chain governance process, including algorithm-specific proposals. Infrastructure compatibility: Updates to wallets, software development kits and services that currently rely on conventional cryptographic keys. The proposal also calls for an audit summary before governance voting and appropriate bug-bounty coverage.

These requirements extend beyond ordinary wallet transactions.

Post-quantum signatures can affect block production, node communication and verification within the TRON Virtual Machine.

Introducing new cryptography without adequate testing could create operational or consensus risks, making the transition process as important as the algorithms themselves.

What Changes for TRX and USDT Holders? For now, the testnet development does not require TRON users to move their funds or replace their wallets.

Existing TRX and TRC-20 token balances remain on the current mainnet infrastructure.

TIP-899 outlines two potential migration approaches once post-quantum support becomes available in production.

Users could update an existing account’s authorization permissions to use a post-quantum key while retaining the same address.

Alternatively, they could create a new post-quantum account and transfer assets to it.

The first option could reduce disruption for applications and users who depend on established wallet addresses.

However, wallet providers would still need to implement compatible key-generation, signing and recovery procedures.

Developers have identified hierarchical key derivation, commonly associated with recovery-phrase-based wallets, as an area requiring additional work.

Protocol-level support also would not automatically make every connected wallet, application or smart contract quantum-resistant.

The protection available to individual users would depend on the keys and software they actually use.

Quantum Security Becomes a Longer-Term Blockchain Priority TRON’s initiative comes as other blockchain ecosystems examine how to prepare for future quantum computing capabilities.

Ethereum developers are researching post-quantum account signatures and broader protocol changes, while Bitcoin researchers are considering migration strategies for existing cryptographic keys.

The difficulty lies in introducing new security standards without disrupting established networks or compromising access to existing assets.

There is no confirmed date for Q-Day, and current quantum computers have not demonstrated the ability to compromise the cryptography securing major public blockchains at the scale required for practical attacks.

However, large-scale migration could take years because exchanges, wallet providers, infrastructure operators and users would need to adopt compatible systems.

TRON’s Nile implementation demonstrates progress toward supporting alternative signature algorithms in a functioning blockchain environment.

The next developments will be independent audit results, updated performance testing and a formal mainnet governance proposal.

Until those steps are completed, TRON’s post-quantum security remains an active testnet capability rather than a protection deployed across its production network.

Alex is a financial markets journalist and co-founder of Millennial Media Group, and he's spent close to ten years trying to answer one stubborn question: what's really driving this? It started in 2016, when Bitcoin refused to make sense to him - and rather than shrug, he stayed with it until it did. That patience became his method. He's less interested in what an asset is doing today than in the plumbing behind it: how liquidity flows, where risk hides, what a chart is quietly telling you that the headline isn't. That lens eventually stretched well past crypto into traditional markets, because the same forces - fear, leverage, incentives, timing - show up everywhere once you know how to look. Most coverage, in his view, insults the reader by stopping at the surface. Price up, price down, moving on. He'd rather leave someone genuinely understanding a move than merely informed that it happened. His path into markets ran through a Tourism degree at New Bulgarian University - proof, maybe, that curiosity beats credentials. With more than 200 deep analyses and over 10,000 articles behind him, he still walks away from most trading days having learned something he didn't know that morning.

Full Profile

Ledger, a leading manufacturer of hardware wallets, has identified an unauthorized hardware implant in one of its devices, intensifying concerns over the security of third-party resold wallets. The discovery follows extensive losses exceeding $86 million across Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Tron wallets, reportedly connected to compromised wallets purchased via a Southeast Asian reseller known as CryptoBilis.

Ongoing investigation and user outreachOn Sunday, Ledger posted an update on X confirming its investigation into the compromised devices. The company stated it has begun reaching out to affected users in cooperation with relevant authorities and continues to gather information.

One blockchain analyst estimated the total loss from all impacted wallets at over $86 million. However, Ledger has not yet confirmed the exact number of affected customers.

Ledger has verified that an unauthorized device component was found in a user’s hardware wallet, purchased through a third-party reseller in Southeast Asia. The company is directly contacting victims as part of its ongoing investigation.

Ledger has called on anyone with information about the case to contact its bounty program, emphasizing the need for community assistance as the company works to determine the full scope and origin of the compromise.

Security concerns focus on third-party resellersThe incident sparked questions about the safety of buying hardware wallets from resellers, even those previously listed as authorized. CryptoBilis, which operated as an official reseller of Ledger products in Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, has since suspended all hardware wallet sales following the investigation’s launch.

Ledger reported ongoing discussions with CryptoBilis regarding next steps, but it remains unclear whether the issue is isolated or affects more devices from the reseller’s distribution.

The presence of the unauthorized implant raises the possibility of tampering at some point after manufacturing and before reaching the end user. Neither Ledger nor CryptoBilis has clarified how, when, or by whom the device was compromised.

Ledger asserted that its internal production processes and supply chains remain uncompromised, suggesting the event is limited to devices distributed through CryptoBilis.

Mini dictionary: CryptoBilis is a Southeast Asian company that acted as an authorized Ledger hardware wallet reseller in Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines until sales were suspended in the wake of the implant incident.

Safety recommendations for CryptoBilis customersLedger has urged customers who purchased hardware wallets from CryptoBilis not to set up unused devices until the ongoing investigation provides further clarity. Those who already activated such devices are advised to move their funds to a new Ledger wallet using a fresh recovery seed, in line with established security protocols.

The company reiterated the importance of never disclosing recovery phrases and ensuring any new device comes from a trusted source to minimize risks.

The recent incident demonstrates that even wallets sourced through official channels can be compromised if the supply chain is not fully secure, underscoring the need for vigilance by all cryptocurrency holders.

Scale of losses and future stepsInvestigators stated the estimated losses exceeded $86 million and affected holders of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Tron. The figure was reported by blockchain expert Specter but remains unverified by Ledger.

AssetEstimated LossSource of CompromiseBitcoinIncluded in $86 million totalImplanted Ledger deviceEthereumIncluded in $86 million totalImplanted Ledger deviceTronIncluded in $86 million totalImplanted Ledger deviceAuthorities have not disclosed the final number of impacted customers or whether the situation extends beyond devices distributed by CryptoBilis. The investigation continues as Ledger and CryptoBilis work toward clarifying timelines, sources of tampering, and possible remediation.

Table of contents

On October 9, Tether — the issuer of USDT — blacklisted four of THORChain’s USDT vaults on the TRON blockchain, freezing roughly 1.45 million USDT and halting TRON swaps before removing the addresses from the blacklist about three hours later with balances intact. THORChain co-founder Chad Barraford called the move “unprecedented in our industry” in a statement on X, and the episode has reignited a longstanding question for decentralized finance: how permissionless is a protocol when its most-used stablecoin is controlled by a single issuer?

Barraford said THORChain received no communication from Tether before the action and did not know why its vaults were targeted. “We don’t know why this choice was made and have had no comms with USDT before this action and are actively reaching out to have a conversation,” he wrote, adding that the team hoped the move “was made in error / misunderstanding.”

How the Freeze Unfolded The blacklist was executed through the addBlackList function in Tether’s TRC-20 contract on TRON, which left the affected vaults unable to send USDT. THORChain suspended TRON trading, transaction signing and liquidity-provider actions in response. Roughly three hours later the addresses came off the blacklist with balances untouched, and the protocol restored TRON swaps. Tether has not publicly explained either step.

The frozen vaults held about 1.45 million USDT — a small slice of THORChain’s overall liquidity but enough to freeze a route that users rely on for stablecoin access. The addresses appear to have been caught in a batch of freezes applied to multiple wallets rather than singled out, which may explain why the blacklist was lifted so quickly.

Issuer Control Versus Protocol Neutrality THORChain is built around removing intermediaries: users swap native assets across blockchains without wrapping tokens or handing funds to a centralized exchange. The incident shows that architecture only extends as far as the assets flowing through it. When an issuer can immobilize a token at the contract level, a protocol’s neutrality is ultimately bounded by that issuer’s patience. This is not the first time Tether has used its freeze authority — it has previously blacklisted wallets tied to sanctions cases, including ISIS-K-linked TRON wallets.

The freeze also landed amid a wider hardware-wallet theft investigation. Tether has been freezing USDT at addresses linked to reported losses from compromised Ledger devices sold by Southeast Asian reseller CryptoBilis, a case covered in BlockchainReporter’s reporting on the Ledger wallet drains. The THORChain vaults appeared to be swept up in a broader batch of freezes, though no confirmed connection has been established.

What Remains Unanswered Barraford said THORChain is actively trying to speak with Tether, but no explanation for the blacklist or its reversal has been given. That absence of clarity is itself the lesson for DeFi users: a protocol can be paused on a major route without notice, and its only immediate recourse is to say so publicly. Whether the freeze was an error, a precaution tied to a broader sweep, or something else remains unresolved.

AUTHOR

Jide Idowu is a skilled freelance writer with expertise in blockchain technology, cryptocurrency, and digital finance. Known for his ability to break down complex topics into clear, engaging content, Jide crafts articles, blog posts, and analyses that resonate with both beginners and seasoned professionals. His work spans a wide range of subjects, from emerging crypto trends to in-depth explorations of blockchain innovations. With a keen eye for detail and a passion for educating readers, Jide is a reliable voice in the rapidly evolving world of digital assets.

TRON had advanced its post-quantum security efforts, including deploying end-to-end post-quantum signature support on the Nile testnet, TRON founder Justin Sun said during a fireside chat with When Shift Happens founder Kevin Follonier.

The crypto entrepreneur said the network is closely following progress in quantum computing and AI and can bring quantum-resistant protections to mainnet at any time.

TRON's post-quantum cryptography is now live on testnet. We're closely tracking progress in quantum computing and AI, and we're ready to bring quantum resistance to mainnet at any time.

We're committed to keeping user assets secure, and TRON is set to be one of the few major…

— H.E. Justin Sun 👨‍🚀 🌞 (@justinsuntron) October 10, 2026

He added that TRON aims to become one of the few major blockchains to implement quantum resistance before Q-Day, when sufficiently advanced quantum computers could potentially derive private keys from exposed public keys.

TRON’s Nile testnet enabled its first post-quantum signature algorithm, FN-DSA-512, earlier this year, opening the feature to developers for testing, Sun disclosed in July.

TRON plans to upgrade its entire network to quantum-resistant security by the end of 2026, Sun said at Bitcoin Asia 2026 in Hong Kong in August. Sun said the network had spent the previous year developing quantum-resistant mechanisms and released a quantum-resistant address solution in the first half of 2026.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Estefano Gomez. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Ledger is investigating reports of cryptocurrency losses among customers in Southeast Asia who purchased hardware wallets through CryptoBilis, a reseller listed as an official distributor in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.

The incident came to light on Friday, Oct. 9, as blockchain researchers traced funds from suspected victims' wallets. Initial estimates put the losses above $72 million, but subsequent analysis by Bitquery expanded the reported total to $92.9 million across 311 wallets on five networks: Bitcoin, Ethereum, TRON, BNB Chain and Polygon.

The distinction between a wallet-draining incident and a confirmed compromise of Ledger's own systems is important. Ledger devices are designed to keep private keys offline, but maliciously modified hardware or a compromised supply chain could potentially undermine that protection. 

HOT Stories

The precise attack method remains unconfirmed, and the available evidence does not establish that Ledger's core infrastructure was breached.

Ledger said it had asked CryptoBilis to suspend all sales and shipments while its investigation proceeds. It also issued precautionary guidance to customers who purchased devices from the reseller during the previous 90 days.

"Ledger is investigating reports of loss of funds from users in South East Asia who purchased products from a reseller named CryptoBillis," the company said in its statement.

Ledger is investigating reports of loss of funds from users in South East Asia who purchased products from a reseller named CryptoBillis. As a precaution, and pending the results of our investigation, we have asked CryptoBilis to pause all sales and shipments of Ledger devices. We recommend Ledger users who purchased from this reseller in the last 90 days to not initiate set up if you have not done so yet. If you have set up your Ledger device, consider moving assets to a new Ledger signer (with new seed). We will continue to inform customers of updates as the investigation progresses. Reach out to Ledger customer support through official channels with any questions: https://t.co/4p918UH8yb

— Ledger Support (@Ledger_Support) October 9, 2026 Ledger advised customers who had bought devices from the reseller but had not yet initialized them not to proceed with setup. Customers who had already configured their devices were advised to consider moving their assets to a new Ledger signer with a new seed phrase.

Blockchain investigator Specter separately reported tracing suspicious addresses that received funds from hundreds of victim wallets across Ethereum, TRON and Bitcoin, estimating losses above $86 million.

You Might Also Like

Bitquery's analysis identified small test transactions over approximately two weeks before the main outflows, followed by coordinated transfers across multiple networks. 

Researchers also observed groups of wallets signing similar requests within seconds of one another. These patterns suggest preparation and a possible common point of control, but blockchain transactions alone cannot establish how the attacker gained access to the wallets.

$10 million in USDT frozen as investigators trace fundsThe investigation has produced several developments in tracking the stolen assets. Tether reportedly froze approximately $10 million in USDT across 20 wallets associated with the suspected theft. The action prevents the affected USDT from being transferred through those addresses, but does not automatically return the funds to victims.

At the analysis cutoff, approximately 14,810 ETH remained in a group of suspected attacker-controlled wallets. Researchers also identified around 203.8 BTC in associated Bitcoin addresses, with those funds reportedly unmoved at that point.

Bitquery's analysis further identified the movement of approximately 1,254 ETH through Tornado Cash and Zcash. The funds reportedly later appeared in three new wallets, including one holding about 2.1 million USDC. 

The presence of USDC may provide another potential avenue for intervention, depending on the issuer's assessment and the addresses involved, but a freeze should not be assumed unless confirmed.

Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, commonly known as CZ, said the information available at the time pointed toward a localized supply-chain incident involving one vendor. 

He suggested that a small number of customers may have received counterfeit or tampered devices, while calling on industry participants to help trace and recover the assets. This remains an assessment, not a confirmed finding from Ledger's investigation.

⚠️ 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.

— CZ 🔶 BNB (@cz_binance) October 9, 2026 Former Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpelès also shared photographs of a Ledger Nano X he said he had received from Malaysia. According to Karpelès, the device's shrink-wrap appeared intact, but he found a concealed electronic module where the screen padding should have been. 

He said hardware implants had become more sophisticated, potentially making modified components harder to distinguish from original parts.

Karpelès has requested photographs from affected users to help identify similar modifications. However, Ledger has not been shown to have confirmed that the reported module was functional or connected to the CryptoBilis incident.

The latest independent estimate places the reported losses at $92.9 million, but that figure has not been confirmed by Ledger. The cause of the incident also remains unresolved, with the available evidence pointing toward a possible supply-chain issue without conclusively proving that counterfeit or modified devices were responsible.

For now, the confirmed response includes Ledger's investigation and reseller suspension, its precautionary guidance to customers, and the reported freeze of $10 million in USDT. Further conclusions will depend on forensic findings and continued on-chain tracing.

Specter traced theft addresses across Ethereum, TRON and Bitcoin, while Ledger said it is investigating losses among users who bought from one Southeast Asia reseller.

Ledger users reportedly drained of over $86 million

Posted October 9, 2026 at 9:41 am ET.

Specter (@SpecterAnalyst) said on X on Oct. 9 that a trace of theft addresses shows losses of more than $86 million from reported wallet drains of Ledger users. Specter said the addresses took in funds from hundreds of victims’ wallets on multiple major chains, among them Ethereum, TRON and Bitcoin.

Specter cited user reports on X and Reddit of Ledger wallets being emptied, and said it traced the theft addresses. The post listed 10 addresses. Those addresses held only over $25 million as of last check, suggesting the majority of the funds have been moved.

A post from tanuki42 published at 12:00 UTC asked anyone drained to contact SEAL 911 as soon as possible. The post said, “Total loss is >$72M+ and increasing.” It listed eight addresses, all of which also appear in Specter’s list of 10. Specter’s list adds two more bitcoin addresses and was posted at 12:24 UTC.

The Security Alliance (SEAL) quote-posted tanuki42’s list at 12:29 UTC. It asked anyone whose funds were drained to those addresses to get in contact with the group as soon as possible through the SEAL 911 Telegram bot.

Get Unchained’s crypto news in your inbox with the free Unchained Daily newsletter.

Ledger Cites a Reseller Ledger (@Ledger_Support) said at 13:32 UTC that it is investigating reports of lost funds from users in South East Asia who bought products from a reseller named CryptoBillis. Pending the results, Ledger said it asked the reseller to pause all sales and shipments of Ledger devices.

Ledger recommended that users who bought from the reseller in the last 90 days not start setup if they have not done so. It said users who have already set up a device should “consider moving assets to a new Ledger signer (with new seed)” and that it will keep informing customers as the investigation progresses.

Ledger’s post does not mention the $86 million tally or the addresses in the other posts, and does not say how many users or how much money is involved.

This is still a developing story that will be updated…

Related Listen: Inside the Coldcard Hack That Drained Over $100 Million in Bitcoin: Uneasy Money

AI-assisted content: This article was produced with the assistance of AI tools and was reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by a member of the Unchained editorial team before publication.

Ledger Suspends Reseller as Drain Reports Surface@Ledger has confirmed it is investigating reports that customers in Southeast Asia had funds drained from hardware wallets purchased through regional reseller CryptoBillis. As a precaution,

Over $86 Million in Estimated Losses Across Three Blockchains

However, Ledger has not confirmed any vulnerabilities in its devices or software.

though that figure remains unverified. Users who purchased a Ledger device from CryptoBillis are urged to follow Ledger's guidance immediately and monitor official channels for updates.

Sources:
BeInCrypto: Ledger Pauses Reseller Sales After $86 Million Drain Claims
TokenPost: Ledger Investigates Southeast Asia Theft Linked to CryptoBilis Devices
The Defiant: Ledger Asks CryptoBilis to Halt Sales Amid Reports of Lost Funds