Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

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.

XRP traders clash over whether spot ETFs and escrow rules are draining exchange liquidity, with validators citing 16B XRP on CEXs versus viral 1.5B shock claims.

Summary

A viral post claimed XRP ETFs had cut exchange balances to 1.5B coins, projecting a 2026 supply shock tied to the proposed CLARITY Act.​ An XRP Ledger validator countered that major exchanges collectively hold about 16B XRP, arguing markets remain liquid and highly responsive to new supply.​ Other traders pointed to escrow unlocks, ETF custody wallets and institutional accumulation as factors that could still tighten effective circulating supply over time. A debate over XRP supply constraints has emerged among cryptocurrency market participants following circulation of exchange balance data and claims that exchange-traded funds are rapidly depleting available liquidity.

XRP and supply constraints A Dec. 27 post on social media platform X from account unknowDLT stated that XRP ETFs are absorbing supply, with approximately 1.5 billion XRP (XRP) remaining on exchanges and roughly 750 million absorbed in recent weeks. The post projected a potential supply shock by early 2026, linking the forecast to proposed regulatory legislation referred to as the “Clarity Act.”

An XRP Ledger dUNL validator operating under the name Vet disputed the analysis on Dec. 28, providing data indicating exchange balances closer to 16 billion XRP rather than 1.5 billion. According to Vet’s response, the higher figure represents XRP readily available to market participants.

Vet stated that exchange balances and order-book liquidity fluctuate based on price movements and market incentives, arguing that supply shock scenarios require immediate allocation imbalances rather than gradual accumulation trends. The validator noted that XRP holders can transfer tokens to exchanges within three to four seconds, creating dynamic rather than static supply conditions.

“Markets are too dynamic to statically plot movements,” Vet wrote in the Dec. 28 post, adding that buying pressure of varying magnitudes can produce different price effects depending on market conditions.

Questions regarding wallet identification accuracy emerged during the discussion. Cryptocurrency commentator Zach Rector raised concerns about specific data points in the exchange balance calculations. Vet responded that the published figures should be considered conservative estimates, citing Upbit as holding approximately 2 billion XRP across four wallet addresses, representing only a portion of that exchange’s total holdings.

Market participant Dman Trader countered that effective circulating supply could tighten due to custody structures, escrow release schedules, and institutional accumulation patterns. The account referenced monthly escrow mechanics and claimed ETF holdings stored in dedicated XRP Ledger wallets represent approximately 1% of total supply accumulated over recent months.

Vet acknowledged that Ripple facilitates supply transfers for ETFs according to company reports, but maintained that genuine supply shocks require immediate allocation imbalances rather than steady institutional buying. The validator stated that with 16 billion XRP on exchanges and additional billions in Ripple operational accounts, sufficient liquidity exists for current market demand.

The exchange highlights differing interpretations of on-chain data and market structure within the XRP trading community following the launch of spot XRP ETFs in the United States. Exchange balance trends and their implications for price discovery remain subjects of ongoing analysis among market participants.

Citron says Brian Armstrong quit backing the CLARITY Act to shield Coinbase’s stablecoin yields, as DC, Ripple, and tokenization firms race to rewrite the bill.

Summary

Citron alleges Armstrong withdrew Coinbase’s support for the CLARITY Act to protect its stablecoin yield business from regulated tokenization rival Securitize.​ Armstrong warns the bill could ban tokenized equities, expand SEC control over DeFi, and end stablecoin rewards, arguing he’d rather see no bill than a bad one.​ Ripple’s Brad Garlinghouse and DC insiders say the bill might recover if banks, Coinbase, and Democrats strike a deal on stablecoin yields and tokenized securities rules. Citron Research on Thursday accused Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong of opposing the Senate’s CLARITY Act to protect the exchange’s stablecoin yield business from new competition, as debate over the bill intensified in Washington and across the crypto industry.

Citron Research In a post on X, Citron Research stated that Armstrong’s recent comments on CNBC showed concern about competition from tokenized securities firm Securitize, which holds the licenses needed to operate in that market. Citron alleged that Coinbase wants regulatory clarity without opening the door to rivals, claiming the crypto firm is pushing back because a revised version of the bill could favor Securitize over Coinbase.

Coinbase formally withdrew support for the crypto market structure bill on January 14, with Armstrong listing several objections in a public statement. These included what he described as a de facto ban on tokenized equities, expanded government access to DeFi user data, a shift of power away from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) toward the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and draft language that could end stablecoin rewards. Armstrong stated that Coinbase would “rather have no bill than a bad bill,” adding later the same day that he remained optimistic about possible changes.

Crypto YouTuber George Tung, known as CryptosRUs, defended Armstrong, arguing that banks are resisting stablecoins due to competition. Tung pointed to the gap between average U.S. savings account yields and stablecoin yields backed by short-term Treasuries, stating that clear rules should allow banks and crypto firms to compete.

The Senate Banking Committee postponed its scheduled markup of the crypto market structure bill on January 15. Committee chair Tim Scott said discussions were continuing across party lines and with industry, but no new date was set.

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said during remarks at a CfC St. Moritz panel that Coinbase had raised “fair concerns” but expressed surprise at the strength of Armstrong’s opposition to the bill. Garlinghouse added that most of the industry was still engaged and trying to work through the issues.

Journalist Eleanor Terrett reported that tensions remain high behind the scenes, with some lawmakers, staffers, and industry players still angry about how the Banking Committee markup collapsed. However, she noted a belief among some stakeholders that the bill could recover if a deal on stablecoin yield is reached between banks, Coinbase, and Democrats in the coming days.

Terrett added that the tokenized securities provision, known as Section 505, may be less contentious than initially thought. Some tokenization firms now say the language was taken out of context, while Armstrong and others have expressed hope that it could be changed or removed entirely, with the outcome of these adjustments possibly determining whether the CLARITY Act progresses or stagnates.

Bitget launches Gracy AI, an animated digital human modeled on CEO Gracy Chen to guide users on market cycles, strategy, and career decisions rather than price calls.

Summary

Bitget unveils Gracy AI, an animated digital human built around CEO Gracy Chen’s decision-making approach and leadership mindset for crypto users. The tool prioritizes market cycles, strategy, career paths, and uncertainty management over chart-watching or short-term price prediction, acting as a contextual guide. Gracy AI anchors Bitget’s Universal Exchange roadmap, tying into themed conversations like Valentine’s Day and Chinese New Year to keep AI interactions personal and timely. Cryptocurrency exchange Bitget has launched Gracy AI, a digital assistant designed to replicate the experience and decision-making process of Chief Executive Officer Gracy Chen, the company announced.

https://twitter.com/GracyBitget/status/2022242184573890597?s=20

The AI tool represents the first animated digital human in the cryptocurrency sector created to provide leadership-oriented guidance through direct user interactions, according to the company. The technology aims to address market cycles, strategy development, career considerations, and decision-making frameworks rather than focusing on chart analysis or short-term market signals.

Gracy AI builds on GetAgent, Bitget’s existing AI platform for analytics and decision support. The new tool shifts focus toward interpretation and contextual understanding, allowing users to explore industry direction, uncertainty management, and decision-making approaches during volatile market conditions. The system does not predict prices but rather assists users in developing clearer analytical frameworks, the company stated.

“A big part of my job is listening to user concerns, getting close to the details, and helping people understand what’s really happening in the market,” Chen stated. “The team built Gracy AI around that same approach so more users can connect, learn and grow feeling supported by me and the team.”

The launch forms part of Bitget’s broader AI development roadmap within its UEX transformation initiative. While GetAgent established the exchange’s capabilities in analytics and decision support, Gracy AI represents the user-facing component of the strategy, emphasizing understanding over execution.

To accompany the launch, Bitget is introducing themed conversation modules tied to cultural moments. Valentine’s Day features self-care-focused interactions, while Chinese New Year includes guided conversations addressing goals, perspective, and planning. The campaigns aim to position AI interaction as personalized and contextual rather than transactional, according to the company.

The Gracy AI release follows Bitget’s ongoing integration of artificial intelligence across its platform, including AI-powered market insights, automated trading tools, and GetAgent’s volatility navigation features. The company stated the new tool extends its approach by incorporating experience and perspective into an accessible conversational interface as Bitget develops its Universal Exchange platform.

WLFI proposes 180-day staking, ~2% APR to align governance and USD1 arbitrage.

Summary

Unlocked WLFI must be staked at least 180 days to vote. Node (10m WLFI) and Super Node (50m WLFI) tiers add OTC USD1 access, incentives. Target ~2% APR from treasury; 7-day vote, 1b WLFI quorum for approval. World Liberty Financial (WLFI) has introduced a governance reform proposal that would require token holders to stake their assets to participate in voting, according to a proposal document released by the organization.

The WLFI Governance Staking System proposes linking influence and rewards to token lock-up duration, representing a potential shift in how governance power is distributed within the WLFI ecosystem, the document stated.

Under the proposal, holders of unlocked WLFI tokens would be required to stake their tokens for a minimum of 180 days to vote on governance matters. Voting power would be calculated using a square root formula that factors in both the amount of tokens locked and the remaining duration of the lock-up, according to the proposal.

Participants who stake their tokens and vote at least twice during their lock period would be eligible for a base reward of approximately 2% annual percentage rate, funded directly from the WLFI treasury, the proposal stated.

The proposal introduces two participation tiers for large stakeholders. The Node Tier would require a minimum stake of 10 million WLFI tokens and provide access to over-the-counter conversion pathways for stablecoins such as USDT and USDC into USD1, along with additional rewards tied to conversion volume, according to the document.

The Super Node Tier would require a minimum stake of 50 million WLFI tokens and provide priority access to the WLFI team for partnership discussions and potential economic incentives, the proposal stated.

According to the proposal document, the system aims to redirect arbitrage value back into the ecosystem. The proposal states that institutional market makers captured a significant portion of arbitrage opportunities during the expansion of the USD1 stablecoin.

The proposal is open for a seven-day community vote and requires a minimum quorum of 1 billion eligible voting tokens to pass. If approved, implementation would roll out in three phases, beginning with the activation of governance staking for all holders of unlocked WLFI tokens, according to the proposal.

The dollar index fell below 100 as traders sold the greenback after the Fed meeting, with USD/JPY sliding on rising BOJ hike and intervention risks and mixed signals for emerging markets and Bitcoin.

Summary

DXY slid 0.5% to 99.79 and USD/JPY dropped 1% to 158.22 as traders unwound crowded dollar longs after the Fed flagged sticky inflation but acknowledged rising macro uncertainty. Markets now eye a possible BOJ move toward 1% and FX intervention if USD/JPY threatens 160, shifting rate divergence away from a one-way dollar trade. A weaker dollar gives only limited relief to crypto, with Bitcoin still down over 4% around $71,313 as the Fed’s higher-for-longer stance and oil shock overshadow FX tailwinds. The U.S. Dollar Index (DXY) fell below the psychologically significant 100 level on Thursday, sliding 0.5% to 99.79 as markets digested the aftermath of Wednesday’s Federal Reserve meeting and recalibrated positions across currency markets. USD/JPY dropped 1% to 158.22, one of its sharpest single-session declines in weeks, as a combination of post-FOMC profit-taking, rising rate divergence expectations, and the looming prospect of Bank of Japan intervention weighed on the dollar against the yen.

The move is notable precisely because of its direction. As recently as last week, the DXY had broken back above 100 for the first time since late 2025, driven higher by safe-haven demand from the Iran conflict and inflation fears stemming from the Strait of Hormuz disruption. That rally had pushed USD/JPY as high as 159.40 during Tuesday’s Asian session. Thursday’s reversal therefore represents a meaningful technical breakdown, with the 100 level now flipping from support to resistance.

The Post-FOMC Paradox The dollar’s weakness in the wake of a hawkish Fed statement appears counterintuitive on its surface — Powell raised the 2026 inflation forecast to 2.7%, signalled only one rate cut for the year, and explicitly cited the oil shock as a persistent inflationary risk. In a traditional macro framework, that combination should support the dollar. But currency markets have responded differently, focusing instead on three complicating factors.​

First, much of the hawkish repricing had already occurred in the days leading up to the FOMC meeting, with market expectations for Fed easing having compressed from two-to-three cuts earlier in the year to just one. With that narrative largely priced, the announcement became a sell-the-news event for dollar bulls who had positioned for upside. Second, Powell’s acknowledgement of heightened economic uncertainty — including the risk that the oil shock could simultaneously depress growth while keeping inflation elevated — raised fresh concerns about the dollar’s medium-term trajectory if the U.S. economy weakens while the Fed’s hands remain tied by inflation. Third, and critically, the divergence between the Fed and other major central banks is shifting.

The Bank of Japan held its policy rate unchanged at 0.75% on Thursday — its highest since September 1995 — but markets are pricing a rate increase to 1.00% by end-June. Mizuho Financial’s markets co-chief Kenya Koshimizu told Reuters in February that up to three BOJ hikes in 2026 are entirely possible. Japan’s Finance Minister has also stated explicitly that authorities stand ready to intervene in FX markets if yen weakness persists, with USD/JPY above 160 viewed as a potential trigger for BOJ action. Thursday’s 1% drop in USD/JPY, pulling the pair to 158.22, suggests markets are pre-empting that intervention risk.

The dollar’s stumble below 100 is also a signal to emerging markets and commodity-linked currencies. The Philippine peso breached the 60-per-dollar level on Thursday as oil costs weighed on the country’s import bill, while gold stabilised following a sharp 4% decline in the prior session. For crypto markets, a weaker dollar historically provides modest tailwind support — but with Bitcoin already down 4.62% to $71,313 on the day, macro headwinds from the Fed’s inflation posture are currently overwhelming any currency-driven relief.

NOT FOR RELEASE, PUBLICATION OR DISTRIBUTION, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART IN, INTO OR FROM ANY JURISDICTION WHERE TO DO SO WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE RELEVANT LAWS OR REGULATIONS OF THAT JURISDICTION.

THIS IS AN ANNOUNCEMENT FALLING UNDER RULE 2.4 OF THE CITY CODE ON TAKEOVERS AND MERGERS (THE "CODE") AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FIRM INTENTION TO MAKE AN OFFER UNDER RULE 2.7 OF THE CODE. THERE CAN BE NO CERTAINTY THAT ANY FIRM OFFER WILL BE MADE.

, /PRNewswire/ -- Prologis, Inc. ("Prologis") announces that on 16 June 2026 it sent a letter to the Board of SEGRO plc ("SEGRO") setting out the terms of an indicative all-share proposal, pursuant to which Prologis would acquire the entire issued and to be issued share capital of SEGRO (the "Combination").

On 23 June 2026, the Board of SEGRO unequivocally rejected the Combination proposal.

Under the terms of the Combination, SEGRO shareholders would receive for each SEGRO share:

0.084 new Prologis shares (the "Exchange Ratio")

Based on the Prologis share price of $145.3 and a GBP:USD exchange rate of 1.32 in each case at market close on 23 June 2026, being the last trading day prior to this announcement, the Combination implies a value of 925 pence for each SEGRO share and values SEGRO's entire issued and to be issued ordinary share capital at approximately £12.6 billion, representing:

a premium of 24.6 per cent to SEGRO's share price of 742 pence on 23 June 2026 (being the last trading day prior to this announcement); a premium of 26.7 per cent to the 1-month volume weighted average SEGRO share price of 730 pence as of 23 June 2026 (being the last trading day prior to this announcement); a premium of 31.4 per cent to the 3-month volume weighted average SEGRO share price of 704 pence as of 23 June 2026 (being the last trading day prior to this announcement); and a price equal to SEGRO's last reported EPRA NTA* per share of 925 pence as of 31 December 2025 Following completion of the Combination, SEGRO shareholders would hold approximately 10.5 per cent of Prologis' issued share capital.

Prologis believes that the Combination is a highly compelling opportunity for SEGRO shareholders. SEGRO shareholders would receive shares in the world's largest logistics REIT with a $140.9 billion market capitalisation, unlocking, on closing, significant upside to the current share price.

Furthermore, the Combination provides SEGRO shareholders with participation in a global platform with a track record of outperformance across key metrics and the successful integration of major corporate transactions with the delivery of synergies. Prologis believes these factors will provide SEGRO shareholders with accelerated growth compared to the growth available to them in a standalone SEGRO.

Prologis believes that its global platform, balance sheet strength and diversified capital base can unlock the significant embedded value of SEGRO's development and data center pipeline.

Prologis also believes the Combination would deliver significant benefits to its customers, employees and Prologis shareholders.

Clear Strategic Rationale and Value Creation

Prologis believes that the Combination has clear strategic rationale and provides SEGRO shareholders with a compelling value proposition:

Opportunity to Join Forces with the Global Leader in Logistics Real Estate  Combination with Prologis will provide SEGRO shareholders with diversification into global growth markets SEGRO and Prologis' European portfolios are highly complementary with an expected clear line of sight to scale benefits Resolves Structural Constraints Limiting SEGRO's Growth Potential SEGRO has traded at a persistent discount to its EPRA NTA per share with an average discount to EPRA NTA* of 19 per cent and 17 per cent over the last two years and three years, respectively Prologis has superior balance sheet strength with Net Debt / Enterprise Value of 22 per cent versus 37 per cent for SEGRO and Net Debt / Adjusted EBITDA of 4.8x versus 8.4x for SEGRO Prologis' access to public equity, debt and private capital will enable Prologis to unlock embedded opportunities for investment for which Prologis believes SEGRO is unable to unlock standalone due to structural constraints, including its balance sheet capacity and trading discount Accelerates Monetisation of SEGRO's Development, Power and Data Center Opportunities Prologis anticipates that its platform, balance sheet strength and significant access to capital can unlock the significant embedded value of SEGRO's development and data center pipeline in a way that SEGRO will not be able to do on a standalone basis Prologis has the scale, capital, and execution capabilities to fund and deliver SEGRO's pipeline Value Realisation at a Premium and Enhanced Growth for SEGRO Shareholders Significant share price premium while retaining an interest in a stronger combined entity Prologis has outperformed SEGRO on total shareholder return over both 3 and 5 years (37 per cent and 39 per cent, respectively) leading its peer group average and significantly exceeding SEGRO's total shareholder return (3 year: 19 per cent; 5 years: negative 20 per cent.) Prologis' Proven Stewardship of Shareholder Capital and Strong M&A Integration Track Record Prologis' history of achieving cost and revenue synergies underscores the strength of the platform and successful integration Consistent with this track record, shareholders of the enlarged group can anticipate significant synergies from the Combination Prologis urges SEGRO shareholders to encourage the SEGRO Board to engage with Prologis to allow a binding offer to be put to SEGRO shareholders for their consideration.

There can be no certainty that an offer for SEGRO will be made. A further announcement will be made as appropriate.

Important Code Notes

In accordance with Rule 2.6(a) of the Code, Prologis is required, by not later than 5:00 pm (London time) on 22 July 2026, to either announce a firm intention to make an offer for SEGRO in accordance with Rule 2.7 of the Code or announce that it does not intend to make an offer for SEGRO, in which case the announcement will be treated as a statement to which Rule 2.8 of the Code applies. This deadline may only be extended with the consent of the Takeover Panel in accordance with Rule 2.6(c) of the Code.

In accordance with Rule 2.5(a) of the Code, Prologis reserves the right to vary the form and/or mix of consideration as set out in this announcement and/or introduce other forms of consideration. Prologis reserves the right to make an offer for SEGRO at a lower value and/or on less favourable terms than those described in this announcement: (a) with the agreement or recommendation of the Board of SEGRO; (b) if a third party announces a possible or a firm intention to make an offer for SEGRO which, at that date, is of a value less than the value implied by the Combination; or (c) following the announcement by SEGRO of a Rule 9 waiver transaction pursuant to Appendix 1 of the Code or a reverse takeover (as defined in the Code). If after the date of this announcement SEGRO declares, makes or pays any dividend or distribution or other return of capital to its shareholders, Prologis reserves the right to make an equivalent reduction to terms of the Combination or an equalisation dividend to a common date.

*EPRA NTA is not calculated from a valuation of SEGRO's assets under Rule 29 of the Takeover Code. It is sourced from SEGRO's 31 December 2025 audited financial statements. At the relevant point, a valuation of SEGRO's assets will be published by SEGRO in accordance with Rule 29 of the Takeover Code.

Linklaters LLP is retained as legal adviser to Prologis.

Further information

N.M. Rothschild & Sons Limited ("Rothschild & Co"), which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (the "FCA") in the United Kingdom and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, together with its affiliate J.P. Morgan Securities plc (which conducts its UK investment banking business as J.P. Morgan Cazenove and which is authorised in the United Kingdom by the Prudential Regulation Authority ("PRA") and regulated in the United Kingdom by the PRA and the FCA) (together "J.P. Morgan"), and Eastdil Secured International Limited ("Eastdil Secured" or "ESI") which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (the "FCA") in the United Kingdom are acting exclusively for Prologis and for no one else in connection with the subject matter of this announcement and will not be responsible to anyone other than Prologis for providing the protections afforded to their clients or for providing advice in connection with the subject matter of this announcement. This announcement is not intended to and does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to subscribe for or buy or an invitation to purchase or subscribe for any securities or the solicitation of any vote in any jurisdiction.

The release, publication or distribution of this announcement in jurisdictions outside the United Kingdom may be restricted by law and therefore persons into whose possession this announcement comes should inform themselves about, and observe such restrictions. Any failure to comply with such restrictions may constitute a violation of the securities law of any such jurisdiction.

Disclosure requirements of the Code

Under Rule 8.3(a) of the Code, any person who is interested in 1% or more of any class of relevant securities of an offeree company or of any securities exchange offeror (being any offeror other than an offeror in respect of which it has been announced that its offer is, or is likely to be, solely in cash) must make an Opening Position Disclosure following the commencement of the offer period and, if later, following the announcement in which any securities exchange offeror is first identified. An Opening Position Disclosure must contain details of the person's interests and short positions in, and rights to subscribe for, any relevant securities of each of (i) the offeree company and (ii) any securities exchange offeror(s). An Opening Position Disclosure by a person to whom Rule 8.3(a) applies must be made by no later than 3.30 pm (London time) on the 10th business day following the commencement of the offer period and, if appropriate, by no later than 3.30 pm (London time) on the 10th business day following the announcement in which any securities exchange offeror is first identified. Relevant persons who deal in the relevant securities of the offeree company or of a securities exchange offeror prior to the deadline for making an Opening Position Disclosure must instead make a Dealing Disclosure.

Under Rule 8.3(b) of the Code, any person who is, or becomes, interested in 1% or more of any class of relevant securities of the offeree company or of any securities exchange offeror must make a Dealing Disclosure if the person deals in any relevant securities of the offeree company or of any securities exchange offeror. A Dealing Disclosure must contain details of the dealing concerned and of the person's interests and short positions in, and rights to subscribe for, any relevant securities of each of (i) the offeree company and (ii) any securities exchange offeror(s), save to the extent that these details have previously been disclosed under Rule 8. A Dealing Disclosure by a person to whom Rule 8.3(b) applies must be made by no later than 3.30 pm (London time) on the business day following the date of the relevant dealing.

If two or more persons act together pursuant to an agreement or understanding, whether formal or informal, to acquire or control an interest in relevant securities of an offeree company or a securities exchange offeror, they will be deemed to be a single person for the purpose of Rule 8.3.

Opening Position Disclosures must also be made by the offeree company and by any offeror and Dealing Disclosures must also be made by the offeree company, by any offeror and by any persons acting in concert with any of them (see Rules 8.1, 8.2 and 8.4).

Details of the offeree and offeror companies in respect of whose relevant securities Opening Position Disclosures and Dealing Disclosures must be made can be found in the Disclosure Table on the Panel's website at www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk, including details of the number of relevant securities in issue, when the offer period commenced and when any offeror was first identified. You should contact the Panel's Market Surveillance Unit on +44 (0)20 7638 0129 if you are in any doubt as to whether you are required to make an Opening Position Disclosure or a Dealing Disclosure.

Rule 2.4 information

In accordance with Rule 2.4(c)(iii) of the Code, Prologis confirms that it is not aware of any dealings in SEGRO shares that would require it to offer a minimum level, or a particular form, of consideration under Rule 6 or Rule 11 of the Code. However, it has not been practicable for Prologis to make enquiries of all persons acting in concert with it prior to the date of this announcement in order to confirm whether any details are required to be disclosed under Rule 2.4(c)(iii) of the Code. To the extent that any such details are identified following such enquiries, Prologis will make an announcement disclosing such details as soon as practicable, and in any event by no later than the time it is required to make its Opening Position Disclosure under Rule 8.1 of the Code.

Rule 2.9 information

In accordance with Rule 2.9 of the Code, Prologis confirms that, as of the date of this announcement, it has issued and outstanding 932,983,938 shares of common stock at par value of $0.01 per share. Prologis does not hold any of its common stock in treasury. The International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) of the shares of common stock is US74340W1036. The Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) for Prologis is 529900DFH19P073LZ636.

Publication on Website

In accordance with Rule 26.1 of the Code, a copy of this announcement will be available subject to certain restrictions relating to persons resident in restricted jurisdictions on Prologis' website at https://ir.prologis.com/ promptly and in any event by no later than 12 noon (London time) on 25 June 2026. The content of this website is not incorporated into and does not form part of this announcement.

Forward-Looking Statements

The statements in this announcement that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about the industry and markets in which Prologis and SEGRO operate as well as management's beliefs and assumptions. Such statements involve uncertainties that could significantly impact Prologis' or SEGRO's financial results. Words such as "expects," "anticipates," "intends," "believes," "would", "could", "should" and "estimates," including variations of such words and similar expressions, are intended to identify such forward-looking statements, which generally are not historical in nature. All statements that address operating performance, events or developments that Prologis expects or anticipates will occur in the future – including statements relating to any possible transaction between Prologis and SEGRO , rent and occupancy growth, acquisition and development activity, including data center developments and power procurement related thereto, contribution and disposition activity, general conditions in the geographic areas where Prologis and SEGRO operate, expectations regarding new lines of business, Prologis' and SEGRO's debt, capital structure and financial position, Prologis' ability to earn revenues from co-investment ventures or form new co-investment ventures and the availability of capital in existing or new co-investment ventures – are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Although Prologis believes the expectations reflected in any forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, Prologis can give no assurance that its expectations will be attained, and therefore actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecasted in such forward-looking statements. Some of the factors that may affect outcomes and results include, but are not limited to: (i) the ultimate outcome of any possible transaction between Prologis and SEGRO, including the possibility that SEGRO will reject any proposed transaction with Prologis; (ii) uncertainties as to whether SEGRO will cooperate with Prologis regarding any proposed transaction; (iii) the effect of the announcement of any proposed transaction on the ability of Prologis and SEGRO to operate their respective businesses and retain and hire key personnel and to maintain favourable business relationships; (iv) the timing of any proposed transaction; (v) the ability to satisfy closing conditions to the completion of any proposed transaction (including shareholder approvals); (vi) other risks related to the completion of any proposed transaction and actions related thereto; (vii) international, national, regional and local economic and political climates and conditions; (viii) changes in global financial markets, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates; (ix) increased or unanticipated competition for Prologis' or SEGRO's properties; (x) risks associated with acquisitions, dispositions and development of properties, including the integration of the operations of significant real estate portfolios; (xi) maintenance of Real Estate Investment Trust ("REIT") status, tax structuring and changes in income tax laws and rates; (xii) availability of financing and capital, the levels of debt that Prologis and SEGRO maintain and their credit ratings; (xiii) risks related to Prologis' investments in and management of its co-investment ventures, including ability to establish new co-investment ventures; (xiv) risks of doing business internationally, including currency risks; (xv) environmental uncertainties, including risks of natural disasters; (xvi) risks related to global pandemics; and (xvii) those additional factors discussed under Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors in Prologis' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025. Prologis undertakes no duty to update any forward-looking statements appearing in this announcement except as may be required by law.

Non-GAAP Measures

This announcement includes certain terms and non-GAAP financial measures that are not specifically defined herein. These terms and financial measures for Prologis are defined and, in the case of the non-GAAP financial measures, reconciled to the most directly comparable GAAP measures, in Prologis' quarterly Earnings Release and Supplemental Information that is available on Prologis' investor relations website at www.ir.prologis.com and on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov.

Sources of information and bases of calculation

Share price and volume weighted average share price data is derived from FactSet GBP:USD exchange rate of 1.3196 is derived from Chatham Financial as of 23 June 2026 The value attributed to SEGRO's issued share capital (and therefore the value of the Combination) is based upon fully diluted share capital of 1,361,127,593 SEGRO ordinary shares of 10 pence each, comprising: 1,353,927,858 ordinary shares in issue as of 29 May 2026 as announced by SEGRO pursuant to the FCA's Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules (with no shares held in treasury); and 7,199,735 shares relating to SEGRO's share schemes, derived from SEGRO's public filings. This figure is net of shares held by the SEGRO Employee Benefit Trust Prologis' issued share capital is based upon fully diluted share capital of 970,140,938 shares at par value of $0.01 per share, comprising: 932,983,938 shares of common stock at par value of $0.01 per share; and 37,157,000 shares relating to Prologis' share schemes, derived from Prologis' public filings. Discount to EPRA NTA is calculated as the see-through value of the offer at the Exchange Ratio divided by the SEGRO last reported EPRA NTA at 31 December 2025 of 925 pence per share Prologis' market capitalisation is calculated based on the share price at market close on 23 June 2026 of $145.3 multiplied by Prologis' fully diluted share count of 970,140,938 shares SEGRO's shareholding in the enlarged group is calculated as (i) newly issued Prologis shares of 114,334,718 (calculated as 1,361,127,593 SEGRO shares multiplied by the Exchange Ratio); divided by (ii) the enlarged group issued share capital of 1,084,475,656 (equal to the existing Prologis fully diluted issued share capital of 970,140,938 plus the newly issued shares of 114,334,718) Enterprise value used for Net Debt / Enterprise Value sourced from FactSet at market close on 23 June 2026 Total shareholder return equals the change in share price plus dividends received over the relevant time period. This data is as of 23 June 2026. Information sourced from FactSet SEGRO EPRA NTA sourced from SEGRO's 2025 Annual Report and Accounts, with prior years' EPRA NTA sourced from its 2024 and 2023 Annual Report and Accounts and its 2024 and 2023 interim results SEGRO Net Debt and Net Debt / Adjusted EBITDA sourced from 2025 annual results announcement released on 20 February 2026 Prologis financial information extracted from Prologis' 2026 Q1 Earnings Release published on 16 April 2026 Prologis Net Debt and Net Debt / Adjusted EBITDA sourced from Prologis' 2026 Q1 Earnings Release published on 16 April 2026 SOURCE Prologis, Inc.

Summary

Binance is seeing fresh turnover in its compliance ranks as key financial‑crime and sanctions staff depart. Chief Compliance Officer Noah Perlman is in talks over a possible exit, raising questions about Binance’s post‑settlement clean‑up. The moves follow Binance’s $4.3b US plea deal and ongoing scrutiny of the exchange’s anti‑money laundering controls. Binance’s effort to rebuild its compliance operation after a $4.3 billion US guilty plea is under renewed pressure as several staff overseeing financial‑crime monitoring and sanctions checks leave and Chief Compliance Officer Noah Perlman weighs his own departure, according to Bloomberg. Bloomberg reported that personnel changes have hit units responsible for financial‑crime surveillance and sanctions compliance, while Perlman is discussing “future departure matters” with management and may leave as soon as this year or next.

Perlman, who joined Binance as global chief compliance officer in January 2023, was hired to overhaul sanctions enforcement and anti‑money‑laundering (AML) systems after the exchange admitted to US law‑enforcement failures and agreed to one of the largest corporate penalties in US history. As part of that plea deal, Binance and founder Changpeng Zhao acknowledged violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and sanctions rules, with US Attorney General Merrick Garland stressing that the $4.3 billion package, including $2.5 billion in forfeiture and a $1.8 billion criminal fine, “sends an unmistakable message” to the crypto industry. In a previous crypto.news story, US regulators were shown to have collected over $32 billion from crypto companies, with Binance’s $4.3 billion settlement one of the largest single components. In that story, regulators highlighted that Binance’s case stemmed from rule‑breaking on AML and sanctions obligations rather than traditional fraud.

Binance insists Perlman remains in role In response to Bloomberg’s report, Binance said it “currently has no departure timeline and has not determined a successor,” adding that Perlman “remains focused on his current work” overseeing the group’s global compliance program. The company has repeatedly pointed to growing headcount and investment in compliance since 2023, saying it expanded compliance‑related staff by more than 30% and cut its direct exposure to illicit activity by 96% between January 2023 and June 2025. “A 96% reduction in illicit exposure is a testament to our infrastructure and the 1,500+ professionals working behind the scenes to protect our 300M users,” Perlman said in March, arguing Binance has built a system that “doesn’t just react to threats, it anticipates them.”

Those claims have been challenged by a recent Financial Times investigation, which found that Binance continued to allow suspicious accounts tied to terror financing and other red flags to operate even after the 2023 plea agreement. The FT reported that hundreds of millions of dollars in suspect flows moved through the platform despite the promised monitoring upgrades, raising fresh questions over whether Binance’s revamped compliance apparatus is working as advertised.

Post‑plea pressure on Binance’s compliance model The latest turnover comes as Binance seeks to ease US oversight of its internal controls. The Wall Street Journal has reported that executives have lobbied Washington officials to remove an independent US monitor installed to oversee the exchange’s AML compliance following the plea deal. At the same time, crypto.news has documented how Binance’s global market share and governance have been reshaped by regulatory pressure, from Zhao’s resignation and guilty plea to ongoing scrutiny of its US affiliate’s asset‑custody practices. In one crypto.news story on Zhao’s plea, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen accused the exchange of allowing funds to flow to terrorists and cybercriminals while it “turned a blind eye” to basic AML obligations.

Binance’s internal metrics tell a more upbeat story. Company communications and recent media interviews have highlighted that sanctions‑related exposure fell from 0.284% in January 2024 to just 0.009% in July 2025, a 96.8% decline, alongside the processing of over 71,000 law‑enforcement requests and the facilitation of about $131 million in confiscations linked to illicit activity. Whether those improvements can be maintained amid continued staff churn — and the potential exit of the executive hired to lead the clean‑up — will determine how regulators and markets price Binance’s compliance risk going forward.

Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire ruled out issuing a Korean won stablecoin for now, but called a privately led KRW token “essential” and said Circle will expand in South Korea once clear rules are in place.

Summary

Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire says the firm has “no plans” to issue a Korean won stablecoin. Allaire still calls a won‑pegged stablecoin “essential” and wants to support local issuers with Circle’s tech stack. Circle could apply for a license and set up a Korean unit if lawmakers finalize a stablecoin framework that admits foreign players. Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire has ruled out issuing a Korean won‑pegged stablecoin for now, even as he pushes to deepen Circle’s presence in South Korea and backs the idea of a locally led KRW token as “essential” for the country’s competitiveness. Speaking at a press conference in Seoul and in comments reported by DL News and local outlets, Allaire said he does not “believe Circle would issue a Korean won stablecoin,” but stressed that the company is closely watching pending legislation and is ready to expand “within the local compliance framework” if the rules open the door to global firms.

Allaire’s stance reflects a strategic split between issuance and infrastructure. He has argued that a won‑denominated stablecoin is needed and should be linked with Circle’s dollar‑backed USDC, but insists that the actual KRW token will likely come from a consortium of Korean banks, fintechs and digital‑asset companies rather than Circle itself. “We may find ways to partner with Korean won issuers, and to be supportive of these emerging consortiums as they look to build Korean digital currencies,” he said, positioning Circle as a technology provider rather than a direct competitor to domestic issuers.

Circle bets on USDC and infrastructure in Seoul Circle is already the issuer of USDC, one of the world’s largest dollar stablecoins, and has been stepping up its Korean outreach as the country finalizes a stablecoin framework under the broader Digital Asset Basic Act. As reported by KuCoin, both Circle and Tether have expanded local operations ahead of rules that could require overseas issuers of won‑pegged stablecoins to establish a local branch and maintain 100% reserve backing, with larger issuers designated as “significant digital payment tokens.”

Instead of a KRW coin, Allaire is offering Circle’s infrastructure as the backbone for future Korean stablecoins. He has highlighted the firm’s Arc blockchain, a network “specifically designed for stablecoin transactions,” and the Circle Payments Network, which he says can connect traditional rails to on‑chain payments and support local institutions that choose to issue their own tokens. During his Seoul visit, Allaire also signed new USDC distribution partnerships with Korean firms and told local media that “currencies without a stablecoin will be left behind in future competition,” underscoring why he sees a privately led won stablecoin as inevitable even if Circle is not the one minting it.

For Circle, the bet is that USDC and its underlying technology can become the default settlement layer linking any future KRW stablecoin to global liquidity, much as dollar tokens already serve as the main bridge for South Korean exchanges and remittance platforms. In previous crypto.news coverage of stablecoin regulation and Asia’s digital money race, that kind of infrastructure‑first strategy has been framed as a way for global issuers to stay relevant in tightly regulated markets without clashing head‑on with local monetary politics, a balance Circle is now trying to strike in Seoul in this story, this story and this story.

Stockcoin.ai has raised a seed round led by Amber Group to build an AI-native trading OS that pipes on-chain signals into stock and crypto futures flows while adding Hong Kong IPO and US pre‑IPO access from a single interface.

Summary

AI-native trading platform Stockcoin.ai has closed a seed round led by Amber Group, with backing from angel investors across crypto and traditional finance. The startup plans to bridge on-chain data with global stock and crypto futures markets, and will add Hong Kong IPO subscription and US pre-IPO access. The raise underscores Amber Group’s continued push into AI-driven trading tools, following similar bets on platforms like OlaXBT. Stockcoin.ai, an AI-driven platform for stock and cryptocurrency futures trading, has completed its seed financing round led by digital asset heavyweight Amber Group, the company announced on X. According to the disclosure, a group of unnamed angel investors from both the crypto and traditional finance sectors also joined the round, though terms and valuation were not made public.

Positioning itself as an “AI native” trading operating system, Stockcoin.ai says it focuses on fusing on-chain signals with listed equity and futures markets, giving traders a single interface to deploy algorithmic strategies across crypto and stocks. Amber Group, which offers trading, market‑making, lending, and asset management for institutional and retail clients, framed the investment as part of its broader push into data‑driven trading infrastructure.

In its announcement, Stockcoin.ai added that it will “subsequently launch Hong Kong IPO subscription and US Pre‑IPO features,” opening the door for users to access primary and late‑stage equity deals through the same platform. That would mirror how brokers such as Interactive Brokers and other Hong Kong platforms let clients subscribe to IPOs directly from trading accounts, but with AI tools layered on top to screen deals and size orders.

Amber Group has been active in backing AI‑driven trading startups, having previously led a $3.38 million seed round for AI crypto trading venue OlaXBT, which also emphasized algorithmic execution and data‑driven strategies. According to Amber Group, the firm manages more than $5 billion in client assets and has raised hundreds of millions in venture funding to expand its product suite.

If Stockcoin.ai follows through on its Hong Kong IPO and US pre‑IPO roadmap, it will be entering an increasingly competitive segment where exchanges and brokers are racing to list private and pre‑IPO assets for a broader retail audience. A recent Yahoo Finance report noted that major crypto venues have begun listing pre‑IPO instruments, bringing exposure to tens of millions of users.

For readers tracking related capital‑markets infrastructure, crypto.news has previously covered how tokenized Treasury products and AI‑driven quant platforms are blurring the line between TradFi and on‑chain markets in stories such as this analysis, a feature, and a recent report.

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP is investigating potential claims against Accenture (“Accenture” or the “Company”) (NYSE:ACN). The investigation concerns whether the Company and/or members of its senior management may have violated federal securities laws or engaged in other unlawful business practices.

[LEARN MORE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION]

What Happened?

On June 16, 2026, Morgan Stanley downgraded Accenture to Hold and cut its price target from $240 to $177, citing concerns that anticipated AI spending rationalization had “not played out.” Two days later, the Company’s own guidance revision confirmed that the growth trajectory management had projected just three months earlier was no longer achievable.

On June 18, 2026, Accenture reported third quarter 2026 earnings and cut its fiscal year 2026 revenue growth forecast to 3-4%, down from the 3-5% range it had previously provided. Accenture’s prior guidance, issued during its fiscal Q2 earnings report on March 19, 2026, projected 3-5% revenue growth for full-year fiscal 2026, uplifted from Q1’s previous 2-5% target. Also, third quarter revenue of $18.7 billion came in below analyst expectations of $18.78 billion. On this news, the price of Accenture shares declined by $28.03 per share, or approximately 18%, from $156.01 per share on June 17, 2026 to close at $127.98 on June 18, 2026.

What Should I Do?

At this stage, no lawsuit has been filed. The investigation is ongoing to determine whether claims may be brought under federal securities laws.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Accenture securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at [email protected], or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost.

[LEARN MORE ABOUT SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS]

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs’ law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm’s efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP’s website.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Sequans dumps $BTC reserve, pivots back to IoT chips after debt cleared

In brief Anthropic admitted its invisible LLM-development safeguards were "the wrong tradeoff" and will replace them with visible fallbacks to Claude Opus 4.8, starting this week. Flagged requests on the API will now return a reason for their refusal, rather than silently delivering a degraded answer. Making the safeguards visible means they'll be easier to work around. Anthropic spent about 48 hours as the AI industry's villain of the week before blinking.

The company launched Claude Fable 5 this week to immediate backlash over a safeguard buried in its 319-page system card: The model, the first of the company’s new Mythos class, would secretly degrade its own responses for users it suspected were building competing AI models—no warning, no fallback message, just quietly worse output. By Thursday, Anthropic was apologizing.

We’re rolling out changes to make Fable 5’s safeguards for frontier LLM development visible.

Starting this week, flagged requests will visibly fall back to Opus 4.8—the same as our safeguards for cyber and bio. You will see this every time it happens. On the API, any flagged…

— ClaudeDevs (@ClaudeDevs) June 11, 2026

"Invisible safeguards can be targeted more narrowly, allowing us to ship quickly with very few false positives. We went with invisible safeguards for this reason—and that was the wrong tradeoff," the company posted on X. "You should have visibility into the safeguards we have in place, and why.”

“We're sorry for not getting the balance right."

Starting this week, flagged requests will visibly route to Claude Opus 4.8, a less capable model, instead of silently delivering degraded Fable output. API users will receive a stated reason when a request gets refused. Anthropic says server-side fallback notifications will roll out in the next few days.

What was actually happeningFor non-technical readers, here's what the controversy was actually about. Claude Fable 5 already had visible safeguards for cybersecurity and biology research—if you asked something that tripped those filters, you'd get a notification that your request was being rerouted to the older Opus 4.8 model. You knew something had changed. You could adjust your prompt or use a different tool.

However, these safeguards were too extreme, some bio researchers noted.

The LLM-development safeguard, however, worked differently. If Fable 5 detected you were working on things like pretraining AI systems, building distributed training infrastructure, or designing machine learning chips, the model would silently alter its own behavior—through prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter tweaks—to give you a worse answer without telling you. You'd get a response. It just wouldn't be from the Fable 5 you paid for.

Fable 5 is billed as the public face of Anthropic's most capable Mythos-class model, and researchers using it for legitimate machine learning work had no way to know their results were contaminated. A failed experiment looks the same whether your hypothesis is wrong or the model was quietly told to underperform. That's the reproducibility problem that sent the AI research community into full meltdown mode.

The problem was the classifier wasn't that precise. AI research firm SemiAnalysis was among the first to publicly call them out after seeing their GPU inference research get flagged.

BREAKING NEWS: Anthropic's latest model will NOT help you if it thinks your ML research/ML engineering is interesting, and/or will secretly degrade its IQ so that the average engineer won't notice. We are already seeing Anthropic's latest model's moderation filters our GPU… pic.twitter.com/9sa95cCSvS

— SemiAnalysis (@SemiAnalysis_) June 9, 2026

The catch in the fixAnthropic's reversal comes with a direct admission of the tradeoff it's accepting. Making safeguards visible makes them easier to bypass, which means the classifier has to cast a wider net to remain effective.

More false positives—legitimate machine-learning work that gets caught and rerouted—are coming while the company tunes its systems. Anthropic said it's working to reduce false positives "as fast as possible" but offered no timeline.

The company is also applying the same cleanup to its biology and cybersecurity classifiers, which had drawn their own complaints about flagging harmless research prompts.

That said, the remaining concern is that Anthropic isn't dropping this category of restrictions—it's only making them visible. For those who believe the restrictions themselves are wrong, Thursday's apology is a partial fix. Fable 5 remains free on Pro, Max, Team, and Enterprise plans until June 22, after which it shifts to API usage credits only

Daily Debrief NewsletterStart every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.

A US federal judge has dismissed xAI’s trade secret lawsuit against OpenAI, handling SpaceX trillionaire Elon Musk his second loss to OpenAI. Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, which merged into SpaceX, failed to show that the ChatGPT maker improperly obtained trade secrets related to its Grok chatbot.

Elon Musk Loses xAI Trade Secret Lawsuit Against OpenAI U.S. District Judge Rita Lin dismissed Elon Musk’s xAI trade secret lawsuit against OpenAI with prejudice, Reuters reported on June 16. She said xAI failed to show that OpenAI induced former xAI ​senior engineer Xuechen Li to disclose confidential information related to its Grok chatbot.

Lin said it would be “futile” to continue claiming that asking job candidates to discuss their prior ​work is routine in the hiring process. “To hold otherwise would potentially expose employers to liability any time they inquire about a candidate’s past work,” Judge Rita Lin wrote.

“xAI insufficiently pled inducement in the prior complaint because it offered no nonconclusory allegations allowing a reasonable inference that OpenAI told or encouraged xAI’s former employees to exfiltrate its confidential information,” the order said.

She dismissed an earlier filing by Elon Musk’s xAI in February. The lawsuit originally filed in September ​after many xAI employees left for jobs at ​OpenAI.

The decision marked the second defeat Elon Musk, who co-founded OpenAI before departing in 2018, faced in his ongoing conflict with OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman.

Last month, a federal jury rejected Elon Musk’s $150 billion lawsuit against OpenAI, Sam Altman, and co-founder Greg Brockman. The lawsuit alleged the organization abandoned its nonprofit mission and shifted to a commercial structure while deepening its relationship with Microsoft.

Musk Faces New Case Amid SpaceX’s Spectacular IPO The lawsuit decision against xAI comes as Elon Musk became the world’s first trillionaire following SpaceX’s record-breaking IPO. The company has become the 6th-largest as its market cap reached $2.519 trillion, according to CompaniesMarketCap data.

Moreover, Elon Musk’s net worth rose by $165 billion today, more than Bill Gates’ entire net worth. Elon is now worth $1.3 trillion.

SpaceX hit $3 trillion market cap today.

This means Elon Musk made more money in the last 24 hours than Warren Buffett made in his entire lifetime.

Insane.

— Anthony Pompliano 🌪 (@APompliano) June 16, 2026

As CoinGape reported earlier, Elon Musk, xAI and SpaceX were sued by a former engineer Devin Kim. The whistleblower claimed he was fired for raising safety concerns about the company’s flagship chatbot, Grok.

SpaceX (SPCX) stock closed 19.60% higher at $192.50 on Monday amid a broader market surge as Trump signed the US-Iran peace deal. The stock further climbed 11.57% to $214.86 in overnight trading.

However, Elon Musk-linked Dogecoin (DOGE) slumped more than 2% to $0.0875 as xAI trade secret lawsuit was dismissed. The intraday low and high were $0.08677 and $0.0907, respectively.

Kepler Cheuvreux raises ASML’s European share price target from €1,460 to €1,830.

Kepler Cheuvreux has raised the target price for ASML’s European shares from €1,460 to €1,830.

15 minutes ago

Stifel: U.S. economy in "overheated expansion" as AI investment cycle outweighs consumer pressure

U.S. large diversified financial services holding company Stifel has raised its year-end S&P 500 target and rolled out a stock allocation framework for a "high-growth, high-inflation" environment. The firm lifted its year-end S&P 500 target to 7,800 points, noting the U.S. economy is entering a "running hot" state—where economic growth is strengthening alongside mounting inflationary pressure. Stifel’s models show U.S. growth momentum is picking up while inflation momentum is clearly overheating, a trend that will reshape the market’s leading sector structure in the second half of the year. Instead of traditional consumer sectors, Stifel’s top picks are investment-led cyclical industries, including banks, transportation, materials, energy, semiconductors, software and equipment. The firm adds that fixed-asset investment in AI remains on the rise: large tech firms including Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and Google are projected to combine for roughly $725 billion in total capital expenditures in 2026, some $100 billion higher than prior estimates. This means the AI investment chain is likely to continue outperforming the consumption chain squeezed by inflation. Stifel advises investors to reduce exposure to discretionary consumer, consumer staples, communication services and some financial services sectors, as these areas see weaker earnings revisions. Conversely, the firm favors cyclical value stocks and hedges with defensive value sectors such as insurance, autos, energy and banks.

15 minutes ago

Analyst: Micron's earnings boost overall market sentiment for the tech sector

Chris Strazzeri, Financial Trading Manager of Moomoo’s Australia and New Zealand branch, stated: “The targeted sell-off indicates that following a sustained, strong rally in AI-related and speculative growth stocks, investors are enforcing strict valuation discipline. This serves as a warning to the market that actual earnings levels must now rise to support the currently overvalued price-to-earnings ratio. Micron Technology’s post-market earnings results largely confirm this, and its robust performance has lifted overall market sentiment in the tech sector.”

15 minutes ago

2x Leveraged Long DRAM ETF (RAM) Records $383 Million in Trading Volume on Its First Day of Listing

According to Bitget market data, the Roundhill T-REX 2X Long DRAM Daily Target ETF (Nasdaq ticker: RAM) officially launched trading yesterday. On its first trading day, the fund recorded a total turnover of $383 million, and rose 29.47% in after-hours U.S. stock trading to hit $30.8. Note: RAM’s underlying exposure covers companies engaged in memory-related technologies, including DRAM, NAND and storage solutions, targeting active traders seeking leveraged exposure to the memory chip theme and artificial intelligence infrastructure development.

15 minutes ago

BCA Research raises its S&P 500 target to 8,100 points, with AI remaining a core variable.

BCA Research has become the latest strategy firm to raise its US stock market target, reflecting Wall Street’s growing optimism about earnings support for US equities in the second half of the year. The institution lifted its year-end S&P 500 target from 7,700 points to 8,100 points. BCA’s core view is that first-quarter corporate earnings exceeded expectations in both strength and breadth, and the US economy has re-entered an expansion phase. Similar to JPMorgan Chase, BCA believes this stock rally is not only driven by valuation expansion—earnings themselves are delivering the index’s gains. AI remains the core variable in this assessment. Large tech firms including Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta and Oracle continue to increase capital spending on data centers and AI infrastructure, driving growth in orders for chips, servers, construction, power and related industrial chains. This provides a clearer fundamental basis for upward revisions to 2026 and 2027 earnings. The institution points out that risks exist: the earnings expansion brought by AI investments has already been quickly priced into the market. If subsequent returns on capital spending are questioned, or interest rates remain elevated, further upside for the index will require more earnings confirmation rather than relying solely on investor risk appetite.

15 minutes ago

Tom Lee: Markets have nearly priced in two interest rate hikes from the Federal Reserve this year, and the rise in US Treasury yields is weighing on market sentiment.

Tom Lee said the market is still digesting Kevin Warsh’s remarks from his first press conference last week and repricing the macro environment. Over the past week, oil prices have pulled back, with war premiums contracting. Current oil prices are not far from the roughly $65 level seen before the conflict, indicating the market views related war risks as declining. On the other hand, 10-year U.S. Treasury yields continue to rise, now around 4.5%, higher than the pre-conflict level of roughly 4.2%. The main headwind the market has faced recently has shifted from oil prices to yields. Tom Lee noted that the market is not only focused on 10-year U.S. Treasury yields but also starting to price in potential additional interest rate hikes from the Federal Reserve. According to federal funds futures, the market is currently pricing in nearly two rate hikes this year. Bank of America further projected today that the Fed will raise rates three times this year, in September, October, and December respectively. Jeffrey Gundlach often emphasizes the importance of monitoring 2-year U.S. Treasury yields, as they typically lead the Fed and signal the central bank’s policy direction. Between 2023 and 2025, the relationship between 2-year U.S. Treasury yields and the federal funds rate indicated that the Fed’s policy was overly tight, requiring interest rate cuts. However, this relationship has recently reversed, meaning the Fed would need two rate hikes to catch up with 2-year U.S. Treasury yields. He believes that, at least for now, yields have become a headwind for the market.

15 minutes ago

An attacker has used an “infinite mint” bug in a vulnerable smart contract on the Secret Network to create unbacked, wrapped versions of Axelar-wrapped assets, resulting in a $4.67 million exploit. 

The exploit happened on June 10 but was discovered a week later on Wednesday, after a failed cross-chain transaction caused by an “insufficient funds” error in the drained account was detected, blockchain research firm Common Prefix reported on Friday.

The attacker redeemed the Axelar-wrapped assets (saTokens) back over legitimate channels to drain the real Axelar-wrapped assets held in escrow because the smart contract did not verify the source of the inbound transfer before minting, so “deposits forged over an attacker-controlled channel minted genuine saTokens with no assets backing them,” Common Prefix said.

It is the latest in a series of crypto protocol hacks and exploits this month, which now number at least 22, according to DeFiLlama. The Secret Network was one of the largest, behind the Humanity Protocol and Syscoin Bridge, which lost $32 million and $8 million, respectively, earlier this month.

The Secret Network is a privacy-focused, layer-1 blockchain built on the Cosmos ecosystem, and Axelar is a decentralized interoperability network that connects different blockchain ecosystems.

The Axelar-wrapped assets minted without backing in the exploit included saUSDT, saUSDC, saDAI, saWETH, saWBTC, saWBNB and sawstETH.

The attacker moved the exploited assets to the Ethereum blockchain and converted them to Ether (ETH). They then split the haul between around 30 wallets, eventually depositing the funds into exchanges including KuCoin, ChangeNow, and HitBTC, according to Common Prefix.

“If you hold Axelar-bridged saXXX tokens on Secret, please be aware their backing was affected, and your funds may be lost,” the Secret Network said on Saturday. 

Stolen funds split into multiple wallets for obfuscation. Source: Common Prefix

The Secret Network’s token, Secret (SCRT), was not impacted by the incident, but it remains down 99% from its 2021 all-time high, currently trading at $0.058. Axelar’s native token, Axelar (AXL), is in a similar state, trading at $0.045, down 98% from its 2024 peak. 

Axelar posted a confirmation on Saturday following “some confusion” around the incident.

“Neither Axelar nor IBC [Inter-Blockchain Communication] was compromised. The exploited token smart contract was not developed, deployed, or maintained by Axelar. Axelar’s firewalling prevented the impact from spreading to other chains,” it said. 

Magazine: Bitcoin decouples from tech stocks, Ether eyes ‘selling wave’: Market Moves

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has announced a unique experiment that is supposed to test the limits of artificial intelligence and privacy. 

Buterin has dared the internet to unmask an anonymous document he authored with the help of any AI tool at their disposal. 

Buterin's secret document Buterin aims to test the recent claims that AI-driven writing-style analysis could make online anonymity pretty much impossible, which has become the most recent scare linked to the newfangled technology. 

HOT Stories

Buterin revealed that he authored an anonymous document related to Ethereum that was published sometime between 2020 and 2026.

You Might Also Like

The text is of "moderate importance." He has estimated that it ranks among 200 to 2,000 Ethereum-related publications of similar or greater importance. 

Buterin stated he was willing to "cannibalize" a piece of his own anonymity to pull off the rather ambitious experiment. 

At press time, no one has publicly confirmed a successful identification of the document.

Could AI end anonymity? Stylometry, the statistical analysis of a person's linguistic style, has been used for decades for resolving authorship disputes or other purposes. It would typically require very vigorous manual analysis, which was extremely labor-intensive. 

However, with the advent of highly advanced generative AI, stylometry has become way more efficient. These models are capable of deciphering an author's unique writing style in mere seconds.

Buterin, a prolific writer, has an extensive corpus of publicly available writing (blog posts, Ethereum Improvement Proposals, research papers, forum comments, social media posts, and so on). 

If AI does manage to successfully identify Buterin's anonymous work, it could raise massive alarms regarding privacy. Conversely, if AI fails to find the document, it will show that pseudonymous contributions may still be secure despite the massive progress of AI. 

In 2026, cross-chain bridges remain vulnerable. Learn why they are still one of crypto’s most dangerous weak points and why 1inch’s bridgeless cross-chain swaps are more secure.

Moving assets across chains should feel simple. You send tokens from one network and receive them on another.

But behind that simple flow sits a complex system of messages, proofs, validators, contracts and liquidity pools. If one link breaks, funds can disappear fast.

The latest reminder came from Verus Protocol’s Ethereum bridge, which was reportedly exploited for about $11.6 mln after a fake cross-chain transfer message tricked the bridge into sending funds from its reserves to an attacker-controlled wallet.

The case is still developing. But it fits a familiar pattern: bridges are not just moving tokens. They are asking one blockchain to trust information from another. That is where things get risky.

Verus: a fake message, real lossesAccording to the Cointelegraph report, security firms Blockaid and PeckShield flagged the Verus-Ethereum bridge exploit on May 18. The attacker reportedly drained assets including ETH, USDC and tBTC, then converted the funds into roughly 5,402 ETH.

Blockaid said the issue was not an ECDSA bypass, not a notary key compromise and not a parser bug. Instead, it pointed to missing source-amount validation in the bridge’s Solidity logic.

That detail matters. The attack was not only about stealing keys. It was about making the bridge believe that a cross-chain instruction was valid.

For DeFi, that is the scary part. A bridge can have real liquidity, real users and real contracts - but still fail if the message-to-execution logic is not strict enough.

Kelp: the biggest bridge-related hit so farThe largest bridge-related exploit reported so far in 2026 was the Kelp DAO attack. TechRadar reported that hackers allegedly stole about $290 mln after exploiting Kelp's LayerZero setup. Some security researchers have linked the attack to Lazarus Group.

LayerZero reportedly said the issue was tied to Kelp’s configuration, including its use of a single DVN. Kelp disputed that explanation. But the lesson is clear: cross-chain security is not only about the messaging protocol. It is also about how each project configures and operates it.

In the wake of the attack, 1inch participated alongside other protocols in efforts to assist with the recovery of assets affected by the incident on Aave.

Hyperbridge: small loss, big warningHyperbridge suffered a smaller exploit in April, but the mechanics were alarming. The attacker reportedly used a forged cross-chain message to gain control of a bridged DOT token contract, mint 1 bln bridged DOT tokens and sell them into available liquidity. Initial losses were reported at about $237,000, while a later assessment put realized losses closer to $2.5 mln.

The dollar figure was modest only because liquidity was limited.

That is an important distinction. Sometimes the exploit size does not show the real severity of the bug. A flaw that drains $2.5 mln today could drain far more tomorrow if the pool grows.

Why bridges keep breakingBridge hacks are rarely identical. Some involve stolen keys. Some involve fake messages. Some involve flawed validation. Some involve bad governance or operational controls.

But the core problem is usually the same.

A bridge has to answer one dangerous question:

Did something really happen on another chain?

If the answer is wrong, money can move when it should not.

That is why bridges are such attractive targets. They often hold large reserves. They connect multiple ecosystems. And they turn verification mistakes into direct withdrawals.

The old bridge problem is not solvedThis is not new. The Verus Cointelegraph report compared the incident to the 2022 Nomad and Wormhole exploits, two of the most infamous bridge failures in crypto history.

What is new is that DeFi is now more interconnected. More chains. More wrappers. More message layers. More abstracted UX.

That makes the user experience better. But it also increases the number of places where a small validation gap can become a major loss.

The bigger lesson for DeFiThe recent bridge hacks show that cross-chain bridge infrastructure is still one of DeFi’s hardest problems.

The industry is moving toward a multi-chain future. That future needs safer cross-chain operations, better validation, stronger monitoring and cleaner failure modes.

One solution is already available: 1inch cross-chain swaps. Instead of bridging and swapping assets manually, you define the tokens and chains you want to move between, and the protocol executes your instructions according to your specified parameters - without taking custody of your assets at any point. Learn more about 1inch cross-chain swaps here.

Swap tokens across chains on 1inch now.

In April, the average RWA swap size on 1inch rose by roughly 91%, pointing to larger on-chain capital allocation.

RWA trading is entering a more serious phase. March brought a spike in activity. But April showed something that's just as important: larger trades.

According to recent 1inch data, average trade size almost doubled - from about $2,000 in March to around $3,800 in April. 

What does that mean? It seems that users aren’t just testing tokenized real-world assets, but putting more capital behind them.  

Let's understand the market with a deeper dive into the data.

RWA trading activity becomes more selective Q1 2026 was off to a strong start, with RWA tokens generating around $1.15 bln in total volume across roughly 578k transactions, in March alone. Data from April shows activity normalising, with approximately $575 mln in volume and around 152k transactions recorded during the month. However, the average trade size increased sharply, from around $2.0k in March to approximately $3.8k in April. This means that while there were fewer trades, those trades became significantly larger.

Source: 1inch Dune dashboard

RWA trading became less crowded, but the users who remained active traded in larger sizes. The number of active tokens stayed nearly unchanged, showing that the slowdown was not driven by a collapse in asset coverage or user interest across the category.

Leading RWA assets show strong equity and ETF demandOver the last 30 days, the largest RWA tokens by volume included CRCLon, NVDAon, QQQon, SNDKon and MUon. These assets show that user interest remains concentrated around tokenized exposure to major public-market themes, including large-cap equities, ETFs and semiconductor-linked assets.

Source: 1inch Dune dashboard

CRCLon remained the largest asset by volume, while NVDAon and QQQon continued to show strong demand. At the same time, SNDKon and MUon entered the top group, pointing to growing activity around semiconductor-related exposure.

Trading activity rotates into broader market themesOne of the healthier signs is the decline in top-token concentration. In the previous 30 days, the top five RWA tokens accounted for around 62% of total volume. In the last 30 days, that share fell to approximately 50%.

This suggests that RWA trading became less dependent on a small number of dominant assets. Activity started spreading across a wider basket of tokenized instruments, which is a positive signal for market depth and category expansion.

Source: 1inch Dune dashboard

The growth of SNDKon, AMDon, MRVLon, SPYon and INTCon points to a broader shift in user behavior. RWA trading is no longer only about a few headline assets. It is beginning to look more like on-chain access to traditional market sectors, including semiconductors, broad-market ETFs and large-cap equity exposure.

Q1 2026 was the burst phase, Q2 2026 is about the post-hype phaseWhile the first quarter of 2026 was marked by several intense bursts of RWA trading activity, with the strongest daily spike coming on March 10, when RWA volume reached roughly $128M and transactions climbed to around 200k. QQQon was the main driver of that day, contributing approximately $95M in volume.

Other major spikes occurred on March 25, March 11 and March 9, confirming that March activity was highly concentrated in several intense trading sessions.

Source: 1inch Dune dashboard

From April onwards, the pattern changed. The market looked calmer and more selective. There were fewer sharp transaction spikes, lower total volume and fewer trades overall. But average trade size rose, concentration fell and activity remained spread across almost the same number of assets.

The story is clear: early 2026 was the discovery phase. April onwards looks like the consolidation phase.

That suggests RWA trading is becoming more mature. March was about spikes, testing and high transaction counts. April was about larger tickets, wider distribution and more selective activity.

For the RWA narrative, that matters. The category appears to be moving beyond short-term trading bursts and toward more structured on-chain exposure to traditional financial assets.

Disclaimer: Data pulled on May 13, 2026. This content is for general information purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice and is not a recommendation to buy or sell any particular digital asset or to employ any specific investment strategy.

Trade on 1inch now!

Get started with self-custody in minutes. Learn how to create a wallet, manage assets and interact with DeFi - all in one place.

You’ve heard about DeFi, and it sounds great - more control, more independence, more visibility into what actually happens with your funds. But how do you get started easily and stay safe at the same time? That’s where 1inch Wallet comes in. 

What is 1inch Wallet?1inch Wallet is a self-custodial, multi-chain mobile crypto wallet enabling you to:

store digital assetsswap tokenstrack the performance of your portfoliointeract with dAppsbuying and selling crypto with fiatThis guide walks you through how to set it up and use it effectively.

Step 1: Create or import your walletGetting started takes just a few minutes.

How to create a wallet:Download the 1inch Wallet appIf you already have a crypto wallet, you can import it by entering your seed phrase.If you don’t yet have a crypto wallet, tap “Create New Wallet”Set a wallet nameCreate a passcode and enable biometricsBack up your wallet using one of 3 available options - you don’t have to manually write the seed phrase down.The wallet is created instantly and is multi-chain by default, supporting multiple networks, such as Ethereum, Solana and BNB Chain and multiple other chains.

Important:

Your recovery phrase is the only way to restore access. Never store it online or share it with anyone. We recommend keeping it on paper (or better, stamp/engrave it onto metal) and store it somewhere secure. Make more than one copy and store them in separate physical locations (e.g., home safe + trusted second site), so a single accident or theft doesn't wipe out your only copy. 

Step 2: Understand the interfaceWhen you open the wallet, you land on the main screen, which includes sections: Total balance, Assets, DeFi and Activity.

In Total balance, you can see the total value of your assets in USD or another currency (you can select it in Settings).

The Assets section displays all assets you have in your wallet and their total value in crypto and in fiat.

In the DeFi Positions section, you can track your lending, LP, staking, restaking yield and prediction-market positions across protocols and chains.

In the Activity section, you can see your transaction history.

Step 3: Fund your walletBefore using DeFi, you need to fund your wallet. 

In 1inch Wallet, you can:

Buy crypto for fiat - click on Buy in the Actions section, and you’ll be taken to a crypto on-ramp providerReceive tokens via your wallet address or QR codeStep 4: Send tokensWhen you have crypto in your 1inch Wallet, you can send it to another wallet. 

Confirm the transaction.Enter the receiver’s address Select the token, amount and network Click on the Send icon in the Actions sectionStep 5: Swap tokensSwapping is one of the core features of 1inch Wallet.

How to swap:

Tap the Swap icon in the Actions sectionSelect tokensEnter the amountReview the quote Confirm the transactionIn 1inch Wallet, you enjoy fast, MEV-protected swaps across multiple chains at the most competitive rates.

Step 6: Explore Web3 1inch Wallet also enables you to discover the hottest tokens across markets, track their live prices and market data, browse various dApps and check the latest crypto news. To interact with dApps, use the built-in Web3 browser.

Step 7: Stay secureSecurity is not optional in DeFi.

1inch Wallet includes built-in protections:

Clear signing and transaction results simulationScam warnings for tokens, addresses and transactionsBiometric authenticationBest practices to stay secure:

Never share your recovery phrase and keep it offline in a secure locationAlways double-check transaction detailsAvoid unknown or suspicious dApps*

1inch Wallet is designed to simplify DeFi without compromising control. Store assets securely. Swap tokens efficiently. Access dApps directly.

Download 1inch Wallet and start exploring DeFi!

Slippage can change how much crypto you receive from a swap. Learn why it happens, how it affects your trade and how to reduce the risk before confirming a transaction.

If you’ve ever confirmed a token swap and received a slightly different amount than the quote, you’ve seen slippage in action. It is the difference between the price you see when placing a swap and the price at which the transaction is completed on-chain.

That difference matters. Slippage can reduce your final output, cause a transaction to fail or make a trade feel worse than expected. The good news: you can manage it by understanding what causes slippage, how it differs from price impact and when to adjust your settings instead of forcing a swap through.

Slippage in crypto is the difference between the output you expected when you submitted a trade and the output you actually received when it executed.

That difference can go in either direction:

Negative slippage means you received a worse result than expected.Positive slippage means the market moved in your favor, and you received a better result than expected.Slippage is not a hidden fee or a network commission. It is simply a market effect that happens when prices move, liquidity is thin, or your trade takes time to finalize on the blockchain.

Why your swap output changesThere are four common reasons your swap output changes between the initial quote and final execution.

1. The market moved before confirmation

Crypto prices can change in seconds. If the broader market moves between the moment you sign the transaction and the moment it confirms, the final amount can change too. This is one of the most common causes of slippage in fast-moving, highly volatile markets.

2. Liquidity was too thin

If there is not enough liquidity near your quoted price in a specific pool, your trade may have to fill across worse levels to complete. That is why slippage is usually more noticeable on smaller, newer, or highly volatile tokens.

3. Your trade size moved the market

Large swaps can affect the price while they execute. In DeFi, the sheer size of your own order can worsen the rate you receive if the market is shallow. 

4. Network delay gave the price more time to move

On-chain execution is not instant. If the network is heavily congested or your transaction waits longer than expected in the mempool, the market has more time to shift before your swap officially completes.

Slippage vs. price impactThese are related concepts, but they are not the same thing. Understanding the difference is critical for protecting your funds.

Price impact is the direct effect of your own trade's size on the market price of the pair.Slippage is the difference between the quoted result and the final executed result caused by external market movement and time delay.That distinction matters because a user can experience meaningful price impact from a large order, slippage from market movement during execution, or both at the exact same time. For a deeper technical breakdown of how to navigate this, read the official Help Center guide on price impact vs. price slippage.

What is slippage tolerance?Slippage tolerance is the maximum price deviation you are willing to accept before a swap fails, preventing it from completing at a worse result.

On 1inch, slippage tolerance is set as a percentage of the total swap value. If the returned token amount falls outside that allowed range between submission and confirmation, the smart contract safely reverts the transaction. Because market conditions constantly change, there is no single perfect setting for every swap.

What happens if your slippage tolerance is too high or too low?If your slippage tolerance is too high, the trade may still complete during sharp price movement, but you leave more room for a poor fill. Setting tolerance too high may increase exposure to MEV-related risks such as front-running and sandwich attacks, particularly in highly liquid markets.

If your slippage tolerance is too low, the transaction may fail if the price moves even slightly beyond your limit. While this protects you from a worse fill, you will still lose the network gas fee on the failed transaction. Failed swaps often display errors such as “Min return not reached” or “Exchange Rates Expired.”

How to reduce slippage on a crypto swapYou usually cannot remove slippage completely in live markets, but you can actively reduce your exposure to it.

Trade more liquid pairs: Deeper liquidity usually means less price movement during execution.Avoid sharp volatility when possible: If a token is moving aggressively, the gap between quote and execution is more likely to widen.Reduce order size if needed: A smaller trade is less likely to worsen its own execution. You can manually reduce price impact by reducing the amount swapped.Check whether the issue is slippage or price impact: If the “receive” amount looks too far from the market rate, stop and reassess instead of just raising your slippage tolerance. Always verify that the amount in the receive section matches the current market rate.Practical takeawayIf your swap output changes, it does not automatically mean something is broken. Most of the time, the market moved, liquidity was limited, your trade size affected the route, or your slippage settings did not match the current market conditions.

The practical habit is simple: check the expected receive amount, compare your slippage with the expected price impact, avoid forcing illiquid trades through, and use stricter settings only when the market conditions support them.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)What is slippage in crypto?

Slippage is the difference between the quoted trade result and the final executed result. It can be positive or negative depending on how the price moves before execution on the blockchain.

Is slippage always bad?

No. Negative slippage means a worse result than expected, while positive slippage means a better one.

What is slippage tolerance?

Slippage tolerance is the maximum price movement you are willing to accept before a swap fails, preventing the transaction from executing at a worse result.

Why did my swap fail?

A common reason is that the market moved beyond your slippage tolerance before the transaction was confirmed. Low liquidity, high volatility, internal-commission tokens, and expired rates can also contribute to failed transactions. For step-by-step troubleshooting, consult the 1inch Help Center.

Is slippage the same as a network fee?

No. Network fees (gas) are paid to the network validators to process the transaction on-chain. Slippage refers exclusively to the difference between the quoted result and the final executed result of the tokens being swapped.

Can I avoid slippage completely?

Not usually. In live, decentralized markets, some price movement risk remains. You can reduce exposure by using more liquid pairs, keeping tolerance disciplined, and exploring intent-based execution methods like 1inch intent-based swaps, which are designed to reduce mempool exposure. As with all on-chain activity, results may vary depending on market conditions.

For more insights from 1inch subscribe to our newsletter