Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

PANews, July 16 – According to SoSoValue data, the overall crypto market sectors trended narrowly sideways. The RWA sector stood out with a 24-hour gain of 6.40%, as Ondo Finance (ONDO) rose 15.92% and Centrifuge (CFG) rose 2.87%. Meanwhile, Bitcoin (BTC) edged up 0.19%, briefly breaking through $65,000 during the session; Ethereum (ETH) rose 2.92%, breaking above $1,900.

Other sectors that performed well include: the DeFi sector, which posted a 24-hour rise of 0.96%, with ZeroLend (ZERO) surging 28.87%; and the PayFi sector, up 0.32%, with eCash (XEC) gaining 13.68%.

In other sectors, the Meme sector slipped 0.07%, but Pump.fun (PUMP) rose 1.53%; the CeFi sector fell 0.13%, while Mantle (MNT) held relatively firm, up 1.69%; the Layer1 sector fell 0.23%, with Injective (INJ) rallying 3.24% intraday; the Layer2 sector fell 0.34%, with MegaETH (MEGA) bucking the trend to rise 2.39%; and the SocialFi sector fell 2.43%, with Gram (GRAM) declining 2.36%.

Arizona lawmakers are weighing a bill that would let the state keep digital assets in a reserve instead of selling them off, and XRP is one of the names on the list.

The proposal would place those assets under the state treasurer’s control, and it could also let the state earn extra returns through staking, airdrops, or limited lending if the move does not raise financial risk.

What The Fund Would Hold SB1649 creates a Digital Assets Strategic Reserve Fund made up of digital assets that are held by, confiscated by, or surrendered to Arizona.

The bill text also says the treasurer could deposit state-held digital assets through a secure custody solution or an approved exchange-traded product, then administer the fund directly.

Source: LegiScan It defines “digital asset” broadly enough to include Bitcoin, XRP, stablecoins, nonfungible tokens, Dash, Internet Computer, Ravencoin, Chia, eCash, Monero, and other digital-only assets that meet the bill’s fair-value test.

That fair-value test is built around adoption, annual transactions, annual transaction value, and development activity. In plain terms, the bill tries to sort assets by market use and technical strength before they can be treated as reserve holdings.

The wording is broad, but it is not an open-ended invitation to buy anything. It sets a screening standard first.

BTCUSD trading at $1.31 on the 24-hour chart: TradingView A Bill That Keeps Moving The measure has already cleared the House Rules Committee and is headed to a full House vote. Arizona legislative tracking shows the committee approved it 8-0 on March 30, after earlier Senate action sent it across the chamber. That means the bill is still alive, but it is not law yet.

The House step matters because it moves the proposal closer to the finish line. The bill would give the treasurer authority to manage the fund, and it would also allow digital assets reported as abandoned property to be delivered in native form to the state or its custodian.

If those assets sit unclaimed long enough, staking rewards and airdrops could be shifted into the reserve fund.

Why XRP Is In The Mix XRP has drawn extra attention because it is named directly in the bill, not implied through a broad crypto category. The same section that lists Bitcoin also lists XRP alongside several other assets that could qualify under the reserve framework.

Featured image from Meta, chart from TradingView

Paul Sztorc, a Bitcoin developer, will develop eCash, a BTC clone, as a solution to the problems in Bitcoin.

25.04.2026 - 19:30

Update: 25.04.2026 - 19:30

Bitcoin developer Paul Sztorc has announced a new hard fork plan that could create a fundamental change to the network.

This upgrade, called “eCash,” is scheduled to launch in August, and the project aims to create a Layer 1 network as an alternative to Bitcoin, along with seven Layer 2 scaling solutions (Drivechains).

According to information shared by Sztorc, after the hard fork, existing Bitcoin (BTC) holders will be able to exchange their assets for eCash at a 1:1 ratio. It was stated that the new chain’s Layer 1 node software will be largely a copy of the Bitcoin Core client, while continuing to use the SHA-256 algorithm. However, it was also announced that the initial difficulty will be reduced to increase mining participation.

Another notable aspect of the project is the integration of seven Layer 2 solutions aimed at increasing transaction capacity. This structure is planned to support both higher transaction throughput and optional on-chain privacy features.

Sztorc argued that eCash differed from forks like Bitcoin Cash, which emerged in 2017, stating that the project aimed to “solve Bitcoin’s long-standing problems.” However, this approach sparked disagreements within the community.

One particularly controversial proposal was to “manually redistribute” a portion of the approximately 1.1 million BTC believed to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto to early participants. Some Bitcoin supporters strongly opposed this plan, arguing that it would constitute interference with the assets on the original chain.

*This is not investment advice.

Follow our Telegram and Twitter account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data!

Veteran Bitcoin developer Paul Sztorc, known for his long-standing proposals to innovate Bitcoin’s infrastructure since 2015, is once again making waves in the crypto community. After years of discussion with little traction, Sztorc is now pushing forward with a plan he calls the “eCash hard fork.” Under this initiative, a new blockchain based on Bitcoin’s code would be created, and existing Bitcoin holders would receive an identical amount of eCash tokens on this new network, free of charge.

The most controversial element of Sztorc’s proposal is the intended use of coins held in the wallets of Bitcoin’s anonymous founder, Satoshi Nakamoto. Sztorc suggests distributing these dormant coins to incentivize and attract new users to the eCash network. This plan, however, has sparked heated debate among Bitcoin enthusiasts, with many arguing that reallocating Satoshi’s funds violates property rights and undermines the principles of decentralization.

In defense of the controversial proposal, Sztorc has stated that utilizing a portion of these coins is necessary to properly incentivize early collaborators and participants in the project. According to details provided so far, more than half of Satoshi’s coins would remain unassigned to investors until after the fork. The process by which these funds would eventually be distributed has not yet been clarified, leaving technical specifics unresolved.

Peter McCormack, a prominent Bitcoin advocate, voiced his disapproval: “Taking Satoshi’s coins would be both wrong and disrespectful. Plus, the eCash name is already used for Lightning payments. These are poor choices.”

Integrating Drivechains for scalabilityThe new eCash chain is essentially a direct copy of Bitcoin’s current blockchain, but with a key difference: it will include the “Drivechains” upgrade, first introduced by Sztorc in 2015 and formally proposed in 2017 and 2019. Drivechains enable the addition of sidechains to the Bitcoin network, allowing users to experiment with new features and conduct transactions under alternate rules, while maintaining core blockchain security. This technology has the potential to boost innovation, scalability, and flexibility within the wider Bitcoin ecosystem.

This design allows new features to be tested and deployed without altering the main Bitcoin chain. As a result, developers can innovate more freely, while the original Bitcoin remains stable and secure for users who prefer minimal change.

Hard fork history and eCash launch timelineHard forks are not new to the cryptocurrency landscape. One of the most notable examples occurred in 2017, when debates over Bitcoin block size culminated in the launch of Bitcoin Cash. That split arose from differing opinions on whether to raise the 1MB block size limit, ultimately resulting in two separate blockchains. The planned eCash hard fork differs in that it not only introduces a new token, but also targets more ambitious structural changes through the inclusion of Drivechains.

According to Sztorc’s roadmap, the eCash fork is slated to occur at block 964,000 on the Bitcoin chain in August 2026. Bitcoin holders with balances, for example, of 4.19 BTC would automatically be eligible to claim an identical amount of eCash on the new network. A dedicated tool will be made available for users to securely separate their BTC and eCash tokens post-fork.

Developer Josh Ellithorpe highlighted the risks: “eCash paves the way for potential seizure of anyone’s coins in the future—not just Satoshi’s. It also misrepresents the BCH split and raises trademark disputes.”

With community opinion divided and both legal and ethical concerns surfacing, the fate of the new chain remains uncertain. The coming months will determine whether Sztorc’s vision gains traction, or if opposition within the Bitcoin community will prevail.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.

Paul Sztorc wants to fork Bitcoin into a new chain called eCash and reassign part of Satoshi Nakamoto’s 1.1 million dormant BTC to early investors — the Bitcoin community is calling it theft.

Posted April 27, 2026 at 6:31 am EST.

Long-time Bitcoin developer Paul Sztorc has announced plans to hard fork Bitcoin into a new chain called eCash, set to launch in August at block height 964,000.

Every BTC holder at the time of the fork would automatically receive an equal amount of eCash on the new chain. A coin-splitter tool will be released to help users cleanly separate their holdings. The new chain will run on a near-copy of Bitcoin Core software using the same SHA-256 hashing algorithm, but with a reduced initial mining difficulty and seven layer-2 scaling networks called Drivechains, a technology Sztorc first proposed in 2015 and has been trying to merge into Bitcoin Core ever since.

This story is an excerpt from the Unchained Daily newsletter.

Subscribe here to get these updates in your email for free

The funding mechanism for eCash, however, has the Bitcoin community up in arms. Sztorc intends to manually reassign “fewer than half” of Satoshi Nakamoto’s estimated 1.1 million BTC, worth nearly $40 billion at current prices, to investors in the new chain before the fork goes live. The goal is to give early contributors a tangible incentive and build momentum before launch, he said.

“This will no doubt be a controversial decision,” Sztorc wrote on X, “but I think it is necessary, and in fact, ideal.”

Podcaster and Bitcoin advocate Peter McCormack called the proposal “theft and disrespectful,” adding that eCash is already a name used in the Lightning‐adjacent payments space. Critic “PakoVM” predicted the project would collapse within two or three years.

Others warned that touching Satoshi’s coins, even on a forked chain, sets a precedent that could be applied to any dormant address in the future. Josh Ellithorpe, chief technology officer at Pixelated Ink, wrote that the move shows the team “can and will steal coins,” adding that “now it’s Satoshi, but it could be anyone later.”

Sztorc has since posted a second version of the proposal that does not involve Satoshi’s coins, though the final structure has not been confirmed. No miners, exchanges, or major ecosystem participants have yet signaled they will support the chain.

A planned bitcoin hard fork called "eCash," which includes a mechanism to reassign early BTC believed to be mined by Satoshi Nakamoto, is stirring debate ahead of its expected August launch.

The project's creator, LayerTwoLabs founder and CEO Paul Sztorc, said on Friday that the fork would create a new chain that mirrors bitcoin's history and give existing bitcoin holders an equivalent number of eCash.

This is similar to past bitcoin hard forks, including the 2017 split that created Bitcoin Cash, when disagreements over how to scale the network led to the fork and creation of BCH.

But while that fork primarily involved changes to the blockchain's block size, something Sztorc has called a "temporary fix," his aims for eCash build on ideas for the Bitcoin network that he has been advocating for for years. 

Sztorc is the author of BIP300/301, or "Drivechains," which he sees as a way to expand Bitcoin functionality by allowing multiple second-layer "sidechain" networks to operate alongside it. 

Despite support from early Bitcoin developers like Adam Back, the proposal, first pitched in 2017, has failed to capture broad support.

The eCash fork would essentially act as a testing ground for these features.

Satoshi's bitcoins That said, the philosophical debate on Bitcoin's identity and function has taken a back seat to criticisms over one particular part of the fork involving coins tied to the Bitcoin network's creator, the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto.

In particular, Sztorc plans to "reassign" a portion of eCash tokens based on "Patoshi pattern" coins, referencing the roughly 1.1 million BTC believed to have been mined by Satoshi Nakamoto in the network’s early days.

Sztorc said the project would only allocate 600,000 eCash to Satoshi, with the remaining 500,000 to go toward seeding the new ecosystem to avoid what he described as a "zombie project" problem, where forks struggle to attract contributors before launch.

There was no further breakdown of how those coins would be distributed beyond indicating that a portion would go to early "investors" in the project.

Sztorc pushed back in a follow-up X post on Monday, saying the fork does not touch any existing bitcoin balances.

"We do not take any of Satoshi’s BTC," he wrote. "We gift Satoshi 600,000 eCash … BTC balances are untouched by eCash."

He added that many of the earliest coins are likely abandoned, pointing to their lack of movement over more than a decade, and argued that critics were overstating the implications.

The Block reached out to Sztorc for comment.

"It is fun to virtue signal about property rights," Sztorc said, adding that information circulating "in the heat of the moment" may not be reliable.

Disclaimer: The Block is an independent media outlet that delivers news, research, and data. As of November 2023, Foresight Ventures is a majority investor of The Block. Foresight Ventures invests in other companies in the crypto space. Crypto exchange Bitget is an anchor LP for Foresight Ventures. The Block continues to operate independently to deliver objective, impactful, and timely information about the crypto industry. Here are our current financial disclosures.

© 2026 The Block. All Rights Reserved. This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Peter Sztorc, a long-time developer, has defended his Bitcoin hardfork plans via eCash, dismissing recent claims of plans to steal Satoshi’s 1.1 million BTC. 

In a statement on the 28th of April, Sztorc clarified, 

We do not take any of Satoshi’s BTC. We **gift** Satoshi 600,000 eCash, instead of gifting 1.1 million. That is **600k more** than Satoshi got from Litecoin, Ethereum, Solana, Tether, etc (ie, 0).

Source: X  A hard fork happens when a blockchain splits into two separate entities, each operating independently. Sztorc’s eCash Bitcoin hard fork proposal was floated last week, and it’s scheduled to go live in August at block height 964,000.  

Per his plan, the split allows BTC holders to have eCash on a 1:1 basis. That means, after the hard fork, users holding 2 BTC will also receive 2 eCash. The new chain will feature Ethereum‑style Layer 2 ‘drivechains,’ making it programmable for smart contracts. 

According to Sztorc, the drivechains will enable various applications, including privacy, quantum resistance, prediction markets, and more. But some community members strongly slammed the hard fork plans. 

Bitcoin hard fork plan elicits criticism According to Peter McCormack, a BTC investor and chairman of Real Bedford FC, Sztorc’s plans were ‘poor choices.’ He claimed that the hard fork’s planned 1:1 redemption for Satoshi Bitcoin for eCash was ‘theft and disrespectful.’ 

Besides, the Lightning Network already uses a privacy feature called ecash, which could likely confuse the community. 

Source: X In response, however, Sztorc claimed that Satoshi Nakamoto’s BTC coins will remain intact. However, about 600K of his 1.1 million ‘gifted’ eCash tokens will be sold to fund the project. 

Will eCash escape past Bitcoin hard fork failures? But this is not the first attempt to improve the Bitcoin network via hard forks. In 2017, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin Gold (BTG) were proposed to ensure cheap transfers and decentralized mining, respectively. 

BCH succeeded in enabling faster, cheaper transactions. However, it didn’t build enough trust, leading to a decline in price and hash rate relative to the original Bitcoin network. On the other hand, Bitcoin Gold has become irrelevant after suffering multiple 51% security attacks amid low hashrate. 

In 2018, another hard fork, Bitcoin SV (BSV), also failed to gain traction to achieve its larger blocks (up to 2 GB) to enable massive data and millions of transactions. Top exchanges like Coinbase delisted the token. 

In fact, other proposals, like Mt. Gox’s hard fork, didn’t even see the light of day. It remains to be seen whether eCash will escape pitfalls suffered by past hard forks. 

Final Summary Peter Sztorc clarified that the eCash Bitcoin hard fork is a 1:1 ‘gift’ of tokens and not a theft of Satoshi’s BTC.  However, the community has raised ethics and viability concerns ahead of the August implementation. 

The Bitcoin community is abuzz with debate following the announcement of a new blockchain fork called eCash, raising questions about the fate of Satoshi Nakamoto’s substantial coin holdings. Scheduled to occur in August at block height 964,000, the fork will create a complete copy of the Bitcoin blockchain’s history, granting current BTC holders an equivalent amount of eCash. As with previous forks in Bitcoin’s history, users will automatically receive assets on the new chain proportional to their existing BTC.

Satoshi’s coins at the heart of a new controversyWhat sets the eCash fork apart from earlier splits is the handling of approximately 1.1 million BTC attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto, which have remained untouched since 2009 and are viewed as a symbol of fairness and transparency in the community. Under normal circumstances, these coins would also be duplicated as eCash. However, LayerTwo Labs CEO Paul Sztorc has proposed allocating only 600,000 eCash to Satoshi’s presumed addresses, diverting the remaining 500,000 eCash to early project investors instead.

This proposal has triggered an intense ethical dispute regarding property rights. In response to accusations of “theft” circulating on X (formerly Twitter), Sztorc emphasized that there is, from a technical perspective, no misappropriation involved.

Satoshi’s untouched holdings are considered the most important collateral at the core of Bitcoin. The fact that even the network’s creator has never accessed their coins is evidence that the same rules apply to everyone. While selling the rights to these coins to finance a new project might not be technically an abuse, it is widely seen as morally questionable.

Beau Turner, CEO of Abundant Mines, told CoinDesk that Bitcoin was built upon universal property rights, emphasizing that any interference targeting Satoshi’s coins constitutes a major ethical error.

“Bitcoin was created to safeguard everyone’s inviolable property rights. Any suggestion that seizes the creator’s coins represents such a grave mistake that it’s difficult to comprehend how this idea even surfaced,” he remarked.

As the community discusses the fork, concerns have also emerged about restricting or freezing unspent coins in old, often insecure addresses, particularly those linked to Satoshi. These debates are regarded as especially sensitive issues for Bitcoin’s immutability and the broader social contract underpinning the network.

Ethics debated across platformsIn Bitcoin culture, the inviolability of Satoshi’s holdings carries deep significance. Vijay Selvam, author of “Principles of Bitcoin,” has argued that freezing these assets in any way fundamentally undermines Bitcoin’s monetary principles.

“Freezing Satoshi’s coins would irreversibly harm Bitcoin’s monetary attributes. Once such a precedent is set, users will never again feel fully assured that their assets are safe, always fearing potential future infringements.”

Selvam further warned that the fork’s approach threatens Bitcoin’s status as “digital gold,” as the stability and reliability expected by future generations are put at risk by such measures.

Paul Sztorc’s prior proposals for adding sidechains via BIP300 and BIP301 also failed to gain broad community backing. The eCash fork is now seen as both an alternative path and a means to press the community, should his earlier projects continue to be sidelined.

Sztorc has stated he might abandon the eCash plan if these sidechain proposals are approved by the Bitcoin network. To date, however, Bitcoin’s developer community has taken no steps in this direction.

While it remains uncertain whether the fork will have lasting value, the accompanying social pressure and ethical debates have become the dominant issues. Previous Bitcoin forks have failed to maintain parity with the original chain; the eCash project, by focusing on Satoshi’s coins, once again challenges the ethical legacy embedded within Bitcoin’s design.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.

The Bitcoin community is gripped by heated debate after news broke of an upcoming fork called eCash. Scheduled for August at block height 964,000, the fork will duplicate the entire Bitcoin blockchain. Every BTC holder at the time of the split will receive an equal amount of the new asset, eCash, reflecting their Bitcoin balance. Like previous Bitcoin forks, this means users will automatically own new coins on the new chain, matching their original holdings.

Satoshi’s coins under scrutinyWhat sets the eCash fork apart from past forks lies in its treatment of nearly 1.1 million BTC believed to be owned by Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. These untouched assets have stood as a symbol of fairness and transparency in the Bitcoin community since they have not moved since 2009. Traditionally, these coins would be mirrored as eCash in the new chain. However, LayerTwo Labs CEO Paul Sztorc has proposed that only 600,000 eCash should be credited to Satoshi’s addresses, with the remaining 500,000 distributed to early contributors funding the eCash project.

This proposal has sparked an intense ethical debate over ownership rights. Responding to accusations of “theft” on X, Sztorc firmly denied any wrongdoing, stating the move would not amount to technical theft.

The untouched coins belonging to Satoshi are the bedrock collateral of Bitcoin’s foundation. Even the network’s founder never moved his coins, proving the rules applied equally to everyone. Selling rights to these coins to fund new projects, even if not a technical violation, is ethically contentious.

Community concerns about rights and ethicsBeau Turner, CEO of Abundant Mines, told CoinDesk that Bitcoin’s core principle is universal property rights, arguing that any intervention targeting Satoshi’s coins would be a grave ethical misstep.

“Bitcoin was created to uphold inviolable property rights for everyone worldwide. Any proposal that seizes the founder’s rightful coins is such a major error, it’s difficult to understand how it’s even up for discussion.”

At the same time, the community is also wrestling with related issues about freezing or restricting old, less-secure addresses—especially those thought to belong to Satoshi. These conversations are pivotal in view of Bitcoin’s unchangeability and social contract.

Ethical lines drawn across platformsWithin the Bitcoin ethos, the untouchability of Satoshi’s coins holds special significance. Vijay Selvam, author of Principles of Bitcoin, insists that freezing these coins, no matter the justification, would fundamentally damage the monetary principles of Bitcoin.

“Freezing Satoshi’s coins inflicts irreparable harm on Bitcoin’s monetary attributes. Once this happens, users can never truly trust that their assets are safe, always fearing the next violation of rights.”

Selvam emphasized hopes that Bitcoin would serve as a lasting and reliable store of value across generations, akin to digital gold, but warned that such forks threaten this vision and undermine Bitcoin’s claim as the digital equivalent of gold.

Paul Sztorc’s previous attempts to integrate sidechains to Bitcoin via BIP300 and BIP301 failed to gain widespread community support. Now, the eCash fork is perceived both as an alternative plan and as leverage, should those proposals remain sidelined.

Sztorc remarked he might abandon the eCash plan if BIP300 and BIP301 become active in the network. However, the developer community has yet to respond to this call.

Uncertainty persists over whether the fork will create lasting economic value. For now, social pressure and ethical frictions seem to outweigh technical or financial factors. Unlike previous forks, which struggled to retain value, eCash places renewed focus on the ethical legacy of Bitcoin by targeting Satoshi’s coins.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.

Recently, the eCash project has sparked heated debate within the Bitcoin ecosystem. Unlike a typical Bitcoin fork, eCash is being called a new airdrop. The proposal, brought forward by Paul Sztorc, has split the community, with developers and major infrastructure providers warning of potentially dangerous consequences.

eCash launches as separate blockchainSergio Lerner, co-founder of Rootstock Labs, emphasizes that eCash does not take any assets directly from Bitcoin, but rather is launched as an entirely new blockchain asset. While Lerner opposes typical Bitcoin forks, he states his main concern with eCash is its attempt to target Bitcoin’s existing user base through an airdrop instead of creating a true chain split.

“An airdrop to UTXO holders doesn’t benefit Bitcoin users. Instead, it exposes them to substantial risks, since they have to move their cold storage funds and interact with unfamiliar applications,” explains Lerner.

Airdrops of this kind are very rare in Bitcoin and have caused confusion in the past. Because the distribution relies on the set of “unspent transaction outputs” (UTXO), it creates significant operational risks, especially for those Bitcoin holders who do not wish to move their old holdings. Additionally, if users choose to claim the tokens, the risk of encountering illicit transactions rises.

Replay protection missing raises concernsThe biggest concern within the community is eCash’s lack of robust replay protection on the Bitcoin network. Since both blockchains have similar transaction formats, any valid transaction on one could be accepted on the other. This could result in users unintentionally executing the same transaction on both networks, putting their assets at risk.

Dan Held views the project’s proposal to reallocate coins thought to belong to Satoshi as “a marketing move designed for impact” and argues the absence of replay protection makes it extremely dangerous for users to claim their tokens.

Technical security is not the only criticism. The distribution method itself is under scrutiny, as many users hold assets through exchanges or custodians. Determining key ownership becomes complex, and there is a risk that new tokens may never reach some rightful owners, or may be claimed by unintended parties. This creates challenges for sidechains and institutional platforms operating on Bitcoin, potentially requiring new coordination efforts or major software updates to safely split coins between the two networks.

Community boundaries and ethical debateIn eCash’s funding mechanism, a portion of the coins expected to belong to Satoshi on the new chain is allocated to early investors. Lerner labels this practice unethical and unnecessary. Jay Polack, from the strategy team at VerifiedX, a Bitcoin sidechain project, notes that this move is part of a broader trend questioning the basic ownership structure of Bitcoin itself.

“Bitcoin’s true ownership cannot be altered. This kind of initiative is fundamentally opposed to Bitcoin’s core principles,” Polack says.

Ultimately, the incident shows Bitcoin is as influenced by social norms as it is by software or consensus mechanisms. While eCash does not represent a major technical change for Bitcoin, it has ignited debate about the types of experiments that should be permitted within the ecosystem. The Bitcoin community’s response to new projects is shaped not only by code, but also by user behavior and the culture that has evolved around the network.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.

The idea of Bitcoin sidechains, first introduced by researchers at Blockstream and later materialized by Rootstock in 2018, represents one of the most promising paths to extend Bitcoin’s functionality without altering its ethos or base-layer properties.

Drivechains, more precisely described as hashrate escrows or hashrate locks, are one of the approaches proposed to enable more decentralized sidechains. Paul Sztorc invented the idea of drivechains in 2015 and in 2016, I introduced an early drivechain proposal based on the COUNT_ACKS opcode. Later that same year, Paul presented his own drivechain design. Since then, the concept of hashrate escrow has been widely discussed and debated across Bitcoin forums and conferences. Ultimately, no consensus emerged to incorporate it into Bitcoin, and the community continued exploring alternative approaches to sidechains. More recently, the emergence of BitVM and platforms such as BitVMX has renewed interest in trust-minimized sidechain constructions.

However, Paul Sztorc did not accept the lack of consensus around his proposal. He founded a company to pursue drivechains and continued development using investor funding. From a startup perspective, this path predictably creates a competitive dynamic between the proposed system and Bitcoin itself. Instead of deploying sidechains using alternative bridging mechanisms to attract real users and demonstrate product–market fit—potentially strengthening his position within the Bitcoin ecosystem, he prioritized the technology over adoption. As a result, the success of his company has become tightly coupled to the deployment of drivechains, making that outcome effectively irreversible, regardless of whether it is the best direction.

Before proceeding, it is important to clarify that the eCash project is not a Bitcoin hard fork as some have claimed. eCash is a new blockchain. It is not a Bitcoin hard fork because

it does not attempt to appropriate the Bitcoin brand, and it distributes a new token to bitcoiners rather than directly extracting value from them. However, there are three critical design choices that makes eCash hostile and harmful to bitcoiners: 

eCash cannot be merge-mined with Bitcoin (even if eCash sidechains can be merge-mined with eCash!) so it competes with Bitcoin hashrate. eCash transaction replay protection is only partially implemented (it does not clearly separate the domains of transaction signatures). eCash initial coin distribution is not an airdrop, as claimed, but a forkdrop. An airdrop typically distributes new tokens based on a snapshot of an existing ledger—account balances in EVM systems or the UTXO set in Bitcoin, while ensuring that transactions on one chain cannot be replayed on another. This is not the mechanism being used here: bitcoin transactions are valid on both chains until an eCash transaction breaks this entanglement. I refer to this approach as a forkdrop. 

From the three design decisions mentioned follow several serious consequences, many of which are highly controversial and, in my view, detrimental to the broader ecosystem:

eCash mining decreases Bitcoin’s security budget and can destabilize both chains.
This is a direct consequence of eCash not being merge-mined with Bitcoin. While eCash internal drivechains can be merge-mined with the eCash base layer, the base chain itself operates as an independent proof-of-work network competing for SHA-256 hashpower. This design choice directly undermines Bitcoin’s security model: instead of extending Bitcoin’s security budget, it diverts it into a parallel chain.This creates structural risks. Competing for the same hashpower can lead to oscillations in mining allocation—similar to what has historically occurred between Dogecoin and Litecoin before stable merge-mining equilibria emerged. Such oscillations can destabilize both networks in the short term and weaken their security assumptions. More broadly, the approach is divisive: rather than aligning incentives to reinforce Bitcoin as a single security anchor, it fragments them across competing systems. Forkdropping does not help bitcoiners and instead exposes them to significant risk.
Claiming the forkdrop generally requires moving bitcoins from cold storage to hot storage and executing scripts created by unknown eCash developers rather than trusted Bitcoin developers, often on less secure hardware. There are many ways this process can fail, and users may end up losing both their bitcoins and their eCash tokens. Forkdropping is not a fair distribution mechanism.
The custodians controlling UTXO keys are often not the rightful economic owners, but intermediaries. Because institutional bitcoin custody typically involves strict security procedures, those intermediaries may be unable or unwilling to split funds and recover the associated eCash coins. This places users who hold bitcoin through custodians at a disadvantage. If users attempt to withdraw funds to self-custody in order to claim the forkdrop, they may lose the security protections the custodian provides. The entire splitting event creates disruption. Even if intermediaries can perform the split, the procedures may be risky and largely untested, since such events occur only rarely. The splitting problem is especially severe for highly secure sidechains such as Rootstock.
Coins in these systems may be protected by HSM-based custody systems that do not expose private keys by design. In that case, splitting funds may require a hard fork of Rootstock itself to introduce a one-time migration or splitting procedure. That would require months of planning, and testing such procedures is inherently difficult. If the Rootstock community does not permit this, then some users may attempt to capture the sidechain’s share of eCash by pegging in bitcoin-only UTXOs and pegging out coins valid on both chains. Another possibility is that users rush to peg out before the UTXO snapshot date, depleting the vault UTXOs because change outputs must confirm before reuse. This could create an unnecessary run to exit before the deadline. Similar issues could affect other systems such as Citrea and Liquid Network. eCash is a premined coin.
Early investors may receive coins instantaneously and without any vesting mechanism. That exposes all other participants to greater volatility and uncertainty, while creating pressure to act quickly. Rushed decisions in these contexts often lead to mistakes and loss of funds. Paul chose to use Satoshi’s coins (those in the Patoshi pattern I identified).
In my view, this is morally objectionable and unnecessary. New coins could have been created to compensate early investors instead of allocating value taken from an existing party. Even if one argues that the owner may be deceased or permanently absent, nobody truly knows. Replay protection was not fully implemented.
Paul did not provide replay protection for Bitcoin transactions, but only for eCash transactions. This means bitcoin users may accidentally lose their eCash forkdrop simply by transacting normally on Bitcoin. That places pressure on users to take defensive action, increasing the likelihood of mistakes and losses. The eCash transaction format should have been changed so that signatures could never be valid on both chains. The proposed drivechain design is not the best possible implementation.
I am not particularly satisfied with the BIP he proposed. Back in 2016, I proposed an alternative drivechain BIP that I believe is more flexible and better aligned with the stateless nature of Bitcoin Script [1].  In my view, the Bitcoin community’s rejection of BIP300 was not only about opposition to the concept of drivechains itself, but also about the fact that the proposed implementation was far from the best possible design. To summarize, I strongly disagree with the eCash fork on technical, moral, and user-fund security grounds.

[1] https://github.com/rsksmart/bips/blob/master/BIP-R11.md

Update 12/05/26: An early version of this article did not make it wholly clear that it was indeed Paul Sztorc who invented the concept of drivechains. To clear up any ambiguity on the subject, Paul Sztorc did invent drivechains and an edit was made to clarify this. Ps. Paul Sztorc invented drivechains.

In 2025, the ecosystems that thrive aren’t the loudest — they’re the most strategic, the most focused, and the ones building lasting value. Ecosystem health today is increasingly measured by the depth of developer engagement, not the size of token airdrops or surface-level metrics. Marketing has evolved too: AI tools, grassroots community operations, and hybrid content strategies are replacing short-lived, high-gloss campaigns.

As crypto becomes a fixture in national policy and economic frameworks, credibility and trust within ecosystems have emerged as the new currencies of growth.

There’s no one-size-fits-all playbook anymore. To uncover what’s actually working today, we spoke with growth leaders from Sui, Avalanche, Syscoin, Manta Network, and others. 

This report helps to shed some light on the ongoing trends in the crypto-related marketing and find out which of them are setting the pace for the next wave of sustainable growth.

TL;DR: In 2025, the ecosystems thriving aren’t the loudest. They’re the most strategic, most focused and most aligned with long-term value. Ecosystem health is increasingly tied to the depth of developer engagement, not the size of token airdrops or vanity metrics. Marketing has evolved. AI tools, grassroots community ops, and hybrid content strategies are replacing high-gloss, short-cycle campaigns. With crypto entering national policy agendas and economic frameworks, credibility and ecosystem trust are new growth currencies. There’s no one-size-fits-all. We spoke with growth leaders from Sui, Avalanche, Syscoin, Manta Network and others to uncover what’s actually working. Back in 2024, crypto felt like it was everywhere and nowhere all at once.

Timelines were flooded with debates, L1 vs. L2, monolithic vs. modular, liquidity this, fragmentation that. Almost everyone had a hot take and every project was scrambling for a flash of attention that barely lasted longer than a tweet.

You could launch a project, nail the narrative, get your retweets and podcast mentions and still wake up the next day with no real momentum.

It wasn’t sustainable and deep down, most teams knew it.

And yet, behind the scenes, something foundational shifted.

For the first time, crypto became a serious topic in policy rooms.

The U.S. government announced a strategic crypto reserve. The SEC greenlit Bitcoin and Ether ETPs, signaling a long-awaited shift in regulatory posture. Lawmakers started treating blockchain not as a niche asset class, but as infrastructure and a core component of national strategy. Suddenly, crypto had a seat at the big table.
That was the moment the growth playbook started to change.

Fast-forward to 2025, ecosystems that had been optimizing for virality started asking tougher questions:

What does long-term credibility look like? How do we show up to policymakers and enterprises, not just degens and influencers? Can we measure our health beyond just wallet counts and discord headcounts? To find answers, we spoke with ecosystem leaders across 10 blockchain networks, from early-stage innovators to mature platforms. Despite technical and strategic diversity, they shared one common mindset: They’re building like they plan to be here in five, ten, twenty years.

This is post-hype crypto and the rules have changed.

Key highlights and critical findings

Marketing budgets are all over the place: Some teams are grinding with less than $100K a year while others are spending $10 million and up. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach, but the gap speaks volumes.  Hybrid teams are the new normal: The smartest teams are optimizing for speed, adaptability, and high-context execution. They’re ruthlessly prioritizing talent that moves the needle, not just fills roles. Builders are the flywheel: Growth teams are channeling most of their energy into developer outreach such as grants, hackathons, ambassador programs, and local language support are common plays.  Audience alignment: In an oversaturated, narrative-heavy market, cutting through the noise to reach the right set of audience is still one of the biggest hurdles. Tactics are getting sharper:  AI-powered marketing, community-based onboarding, and incentive models like “watch-to-earn” are emerging as key differentiators in creating sticky, engaging experiences. Research Methodology To understand what’s driving ecosystem growth in 2025, we went straight to the source in conversations with ten executives across active, forward-thinking blockchain networks including Sui, Avalanche, Manta Network, Syscoin, eCash, and CrossFi Chain.

Our findings are structured across five critical themes:

→ Strategic Priorities

→ Growth Challenges

→ Team Structures

→ Marketing Tactics

→ Budget Allocation

These are the pressure points where ecosystems are being tested, where they’re iterating and where the shift from hype to health is most visible.

The answers weren’t surface-level. 

They were honest, revealing, and at times, surprisingly candid.

Section 1: The Evolving Landscape of Crypto Ecosystems 1.1 From Noise to Nuance Not long ago, crypto felt like a winner-takes-all race.

Ethereum and Bitcoin dominated headlines, while new chains clawed for attention with a flashy feature or a viral announcement.

But that playbook has changed.

Today, the landscape is more fragmented and more alive than ever.

Upstart chains can gain real traction in months. Niche ecosystems are finding staying power by serving focused communities with precision: real dev support, localized outreach, unique tooling, and use cases that resonate with people who actually build.

It’s no longer about being the biggest. 

It’s about being the most relevant to the audience that matters.

Source: Market share distribution among top ecosystems.

The momentum has shifted from mass appeal to mission-driven growth.

The ecosystems making progress are the ones listening, serving and playing the long game.

1.2 Key growth metrics and benchmarks Among surveyed ecosystems, developer adoption has become the north star metric.

While TVL remains a benchmark, leading teams are shifting toward engagement depth over vanity counts. Grants, hackathons, and local campaigns outperform short-term airdrops in both onboarding and retention.

1.3 Critical Challenges Facing Ecosystem Growth Source: Top Barriers to Ecosystem Adoption Identified by Executives

Based on direct feedback, the top challenges for ecosystems today are:

Difficulty reaching the right audience  Oversaturation of the crypto landscape Budget constraints and limited runway for experimentation While blockchain infrastructure is improving,especially with L2 scalability and better dev tooling, the biggest challenges aren’t technical anymore.

They’re strategic.

Most teams aren’t struggling with what to build but with how to position, differentiate, and communicate.

“It’s no longer enough to be technically sound. Ecosystem success depends on whether you can communicate value to developers, users and partners in the clearest, most compelling way possible.” – — Matthew Schmenk, Ecosystem Growth Lead, Avalanche

Section 2: Marketing & Growth Strategies “Marketing in crypto used to be noise. Now it’s systems thinking – who you reach, how you reach them, and why they stay.”- The Lunar Strategy Team

Ecosystem marketing in 2025 isn’t about dropping a flashy campaign, running a paid KOL loop, and hoping it sticks. Today, marketing is infrastructure.

It’s the connective tissue between ecosystem layers: builders, users, tokenholders, institutions driving onboarding, retention, and legitimacy. 

Let’s break it down:

2.1 Choosing the Right Growth Model Source: Percentage of Ecosystems Using External Agencies vs. In-House Teams

According to our survey:

60% use a hybrid model (in-house + agency) 40% operate with fully internal teams 2.2 Analysing the Pros and Cons Hybrid models allow for speed and flexibility while maintaining institutional knowledge. Fully in-house teams prioritize cohesion but may lack bandwidth or breadth of expertise.

2.3 Marketing Budget Allocation Across Ecosystems

Annual budgets vary widely:

<$500K: Primarily in-house with lean teams $500K–$1M: Hybrid setups with agency retained for campaigns $5M+: Full-stack growth teams covering PR, events, KOLs, paid media, SEO and more What’s changing in 2025 isn’t just how much teams spend, it’s how precisely they deploy capital:

Early-stage: lean, localized execution Mid-tier: AI tooling, content ops, ambassador focus Mature: brand systems, KOL pipelines, segmentation
“In 2024, we spent $2M and didn’t know what moved the needle. In 2025, we’re spending half that – with 3x the return – because we track the full funnel.” — Ecosystem CMO

Section 3: Driving Ecosystem Adoption As ecosystems compete for market share, one truth is becoming increasingly clear: developers are the new power users. 

Ecosystem health is now largely measured by the number and quality of developers actively building, contributing, and shipping.

3.1 Developer Acquisition & Retention Across the board, developer evangelism and hackathons ranked as the most effective levers for attracting high-quality builders. In 2025, 9 out of 10 ecosystem leaders called them “critical” or “highly effective.”

But incentives alone aren’t enough. 

The modern developer is motivated by clear value exchange and personal growth, not just payouts.

Here’s what’s working now:

Hackathons with real-world utility On-chain recognition (e.g., badges, NFTs) IRL builder meetups with funded follow-through In short, developer outreach is all about frictionless onboarding, compelling challenges, and a clear value exchange.

Also, programs that combine monetary reward + mentorship + visibility are far outperforming “spray-and-pray” grants.

Case Highlights:

eCash: Turned its internal engineers into public-facing magnets for talent. Builders engage because they trust the humans behind the chain. Syscoin: Hosts regionally targeted AMAs → feeds directly into localized hackathons → devs connect directly to mentors. Sui: “Watch-to-Earn” onboarding that rewards learning with gas fee discounts, NFTs, and access to future funding rounds. Takeaway: Attracting developers is about storytelling. The ecosystems seeing long-term success are those building not just incentives but infrastructure, identity and upward mobility.

While developer acquisition drives infrastructure growth, community engagement fuels longevity. Every successful ecosystem in 2025 has one thing in common: a loyal, activated community with a clear identity.

Source: The Most effective community growth tactics

While growth tactics vary, one truth stands out: the most resilient ecosystems pair online engagement with offline connection.

Top tactics driving community growth:

Strategic partnerships and cross-promotion Ambassador programs built around values, not vanity Hybrid content strategies that blend memes, education, and culture Gated experiences (e.g., token-holders-only Discord channels, NFT access passes for IRL events) But community size alone isn’t a success metric. 

In fact, ecosystems like Sui and Syscoin consistently outperform larger chains on key ecosystem health metrics not because they’re bigger, but because they’re tighter:

Higher TVL per wallet Greater contributor-to-user ratio More active builders per community member Case Study: Syscoin’s grassroots events across APAC led to a 30% increase in wallet retention among new users, with ongoing community-led workshops in 5+ cities.

3.3 The Role of Kaito in Ecosystem Brand Building In 2025, brand strategy has moved beyond logos and Twitter handles.

The Kaito framework, designed to optimize ecosystem mindshare is fast becoming a differentiator for projects seeking credibility and cohesion.

Source: Kaito mindshare metrics across top ecosystems

Adoption Snapshot:

Only 10% of surveyed ecosystems are currently using a structured Kaito strategy However, 40% are actively exploring adoption in the next cycle Projects like Berachain that adopted early Kaito brand structuring reports increased developer trust, faster community onboarding and stronger alignment between technical and community narratives.

Strategic Approaches to Kaito Optimization:

Clear “voice pillars” that reflect ecosystem values Unified messaging across technical, enterprise, and community verticals Scalable content kits and assets to empower contributors to amplify the brand Resource: The Ultimate Brand Playbook for Dominating Kaito Mindshare

Section 4: Marketing Channels & Tactics Today, ecosystems aren’t asking “How do we go viral?”

Instead, they’re asking “How do we show up with the right message, in the right format and to the right audience consistently?”

The new growth stack includes:

Influencer alignment by audience layer PR as a funnel driver, not a vanity boost Social media as ecosystem UX AI and segmentation to fine-tune delivery Let’s break down the mechanics behind the ecosystems getting it right.

4.1 Influencer Marketing Effectiveness Influencer marketing remains effective, only if you get the tier right.

Source: ROI comparison across influencer tiers

Key Takeaway: 

Nano Influencers (1K–10K): ~4.2x ROI Micro Influencers (10K–50K): ~3.9x ROI Macro/Mega Influencers: Significantly lower returns due to saturation and high CPM Nano and Micro influencers (1K–50K followers) outperform all others in ROI due to stronger niche focus, higher engagement, and lower cost-per-activation.

Though, the Top-performing influencer strategies in 2025 blend:

Nano creators for authenticity (Twitter threads, walkthroughs) Mid-tier educators for onboarding and explanation (YouTube, LinkedIn) Selective mega partnerships for major announcements or enterprise plays Best for:

Early-stage projects Ecosystems entering new regions or subcultures Campaigns focused on developer credibility over hype The Lunar Amplification Method

Used by select top-tier ecosystems, the Lunar Amplification Method is a multi-tiered distribution system that combines:

AI-driven influencer matching Creator content kits (assets, talking points, tone guides) Performance-based tiers (creators earn more by driving on-chain action) It’s a system where the creator voice becomes a scalable growth vector backed by data, incentives, and trust.

4.2 Public Relations & Media Coverage Too many ecosystems view PR as a vanity move.

 The most effective teams treat it as distribution infrastructure.

This dual-axis chart illustrates how media coverage intensity correlates with:

Average Developer Sign-ups Total Value Locked (TVL) Growth
Investing in PR campaigns and consistent media exposure can significantly accelerate ecosystem adoption both in developer participation and capital inflow (TVL).

Key Takeaways:

Developer sign-ups scale from ~50 (Low coverage) to ~400 (Very High coverage). TVL growth jumps from 5% under low coverage to an impressive 45% with very high media presence. Higher media coverage directly correlates with a sharp rise in both developer sign-ups and TVL growth. Example: Manta Network launched its dev-focused ZK SDK and timed the announcement with coordinated earned media + regional hackathons = 3.2x increase in sign-ups over 14 days.

In 2025, ecosystems aren’t asking “should we be on [platform]?”

They’re asking how do we show up with the right content, for the right moment, on each platform?

This bar chart displays how frequently various social media platforms are mentioned as part of crypto ecosystem growth strategies.

Platform Highlights: Twitter dominates as the most commonly used platform  Telegram and Discord follow closely, suggesting strong emphasis on community interaction and support hubs. Lesser-used platforms like Reddit, YouTube and Facebook play a niche role in ecosystem marketing. However, crypto ecosystems should create platform-specific content:

Twitter: Memes, threads, real-time updates Telegram/Discord: Community health, AMAs, governance LinkedIn: Strategic partnerships, talent recruitment, ecosystem vision Section 5: Tokenomics & Incentive Design Ecosystems are moving beyond flat airdrops and short-term incentives, and instead architecting behaviorally intelligent tokenomics that reward commitment, skill and genuine contribution.

The question is no longer “What do we give?” but “What are we reinforcing?”

5.1 Effective Incentive Structures Incentives were once a shortcut for growth.

 Now, they’re shaping everything from user retention to governance alignment to ecosystem stickiness.

Source: This bar chart compares the perceived effectiveness of two major types of incentive mechanisms used in crypto ecosystems.

On-chain Incentives (e.g., token rewards, staking bonuses) Off-chain Incentives (e.g., swag, events, community grants) Key Takeaways: On-chain incentives clearly outperform off-chain methods in driving sustained ecosystem engagement. These often tie directly to network growth metrics such as TVL, active wallets, and user retention. Off-chain rewards can still be useful for short-term engagement, brand visibility, and community culture. Projects that tie incentives to measurable contributions and future value (e.g., governance power, access tiers) retain users longer than those offering flat token grants.

Case Examples:

Syscoin offers tiered rewards for contributor milestones Manta Network combines token drops with future airdrop eligibility tied to participation 5.2 Local Developer Hubs Ecosystem growth is global by default and regional by design.

Local developer hubs are now a critical piece of post-hype strategy.

Source: Geographic distribution of developer hubs

This chart highlights the regional presence of developer hubs across the globe, indicating where ecosystems are establishing a physical or community-driven footprint to support builders.

Regional presence is shaping ecosystem strength:

Asia-Pacific leads in number of hubs, driven by fast-growing developer ecosystems North America/Europe hold steady with mature infrastructure and funding access Latin America, MENA, and Africa show rapid interest but remain early-stage Why Local Hubs Work Lower onboarding friction (language, culture, regulation) Higher event turnout and contributor conversion More consistent retention through community anchoring Best Practices:

Launch hybrid events (online + local) Create language-specific docs and support Offer region-based grant programs tied to local needs Conclusion  Crypto in 2025 is quieter, deeper, and more intentional.

The ecosystems winning today are building context, culture, and trust, rooted in purpose where meaningful value, thoughtful execution, and trusted communities are taking center stage.

Our deep-dive conversations with builders, marketers and ecosystem leaders across ten blockchain networks uncovered three core principles that are setting the pace for the next wave of sustainable growth:

Developer-First, Always: The thriving ecosystems treat developers with genuine support, visibility, and growth paths. They’ve recognized that every successful builder brings ten more, creating a powerful flywheel effect and it’s the foundation everything else builds upon. Communities Over Crowds: The most dynamic ecosystems are building tight-knit, purpose-driven communities where members feel ownership and identity. They’re creating spaces where online connections lead to offline relationships and where shared values matter more than token price. Strategic Over Tactical: Leading teams build comprehensive growth systems where every channel, message, and touchpoint works together. They’re tracking full-funnel metrics and optimizing for lasting engagement, not just initial attention. We’re past the era of chasing “what’s working.”

The real question is: What’s worth building and who’s staying to build it with you?

So, focus on creating real value for the people who matter most to your ecosystem. Build with intention, authenticity and remember that in a market still finding its footing and the strongest position isn’t being the loudest voice but the most trusted one.

Because ecosystems aren’t websites.

They’re living systems.

About Lunar Strategy’s Ecosystem Launchpad Accelerator Lunar Strategy’s Ecosystem Launchpad Accelerator combines deep expertise in go-to-market strategy, ecosystem growth, and strategic advisory to help innovative Layer 1 and Layer 2 projects capitalize on the historic crypto market shift.

With 25+ years of combined experience across top ecosystems like Solana, Cardano, Mantle, Polkadot, and ICP, our team brings proven frameworks for:

Strategic developer acquisition & retention Localized builder communities & developer hubs Full-funnel growth campaigns (on-chain & off-chain) IRL activations that forge meaningful relationships Access to 1,000+ crypto-native KOLs & partners Media exposure that drives credibility and visibility Tailored roadmaps focused on sustainable TVL growth Apply for the Ecosystem Launchpad Accelerator

This is a rare window to redefine what successful ecosystem growth looks like. 

Let’s build something real, together.