Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

On October 8, 2026, the on-chain aggregator and launchpad Peach added native USDC bridging for the Arc blockchain directly inside its interface. Users can now pull USDC over from external chains such as Ethereum and start trading on Arc without opening another app.

What Peach actually shipped
The new feature lives at peach.ag/arc/bridge. It lets users move USDC from outside chains into the Arc ecosystem while staying on the Peach platform the whole time.

Once the funds arrive, users can immediately launch, discover, or trade assets on Arc.

The integration is powered by the Arc App Kit. Under the hood, the bridging relies on Circle’s Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol, better known as CCTP, to move canonical, native USDC.

CCTP moves the real thing rather than issuing a wrapped substitute, so the USDC that lands on Arc is the issuer-backed version rather than a copy.

There is a practical twist on Arc specifically. USDC serves as the gas token on the network, meaning it is what users spend to pay for transactions. So bridged USDC does double duty: it is both the capital users want to trade with and the fuel they need to do anything at all.

Peach’s role on Arc so far
Peach has been live on Arc since the mainnet launch on September 16, 2026, operating from day one as both an aggregator and a launchpad. The bridging update arrived a little over three weeks after mainnet.

The platform operates as a free and permissionless market layer on Arc, aggregating across decentralized exchanges and routing liquidity from AMM pools, institutional quotes, and assets coming out of its own launchpad.

The update also fits a broader push within the Arc ecosystem. Projects across the network have been leaning on Circle’s infrastructure to make cross-chain liquidity flows simpler, and Peach’s integration slots into that pattern.

What this could mean for Arc and its users
Early community reaction has treated the feature as a meaningful quality-of-life improvement. Initial reports did not include detailed expert analysis or quantify any market impact.

The USDC-as-gas design means bridged funds are immediately usable for fees, removing the need to acquire a separate token before a user can act.

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

Zcash (ZEC) experienced a sharp 8.5% decline during a volatile Monday trading session, compounding losses that have left the privacy-focused cryptocurrency trading approximately 26% below its September high. After closing at $1,653.12 on September 26, ZEC slipped to around $1,167 on Monday and partially recovered to $1,215 by October 13, yet remains far from recent peak levels.

Leveraged liquidations deepen Zcash lossesThe latest downturn came amid widespread weakness in digital assets, triggered by Bitcoin‘s drop toward $81,000 and cautious positioning by traders ahead of new U.S. inflation data. Leveraged investors, particularly those using derivatives, were forced to close out positions as price drops accelerated liquidations totaling $19.9 million in a short period.

Zcash has seen substantial speculative activity, with derivatives trading volume topping $5.46 billion in just 24 hours. While such high volumes can amplify volatility, traders relying on borrowed funds are often vulnerable to steep reversals during sharp sell-offs.

Zcash derivatives trading surged to $5.46 billion in a single day, intensifying volatility as margin calls triggered rapid liquidations and drove price declines.

As traders reassess market risk, attention has shifted to key technical support zones. Binance’s historical pricing data shows ZEC temporarily traded near $1,124 on October 13, putting the $1,100-$1,125 range in focus for potential stabilization. A decisive move below this region would expose the critical $1,000 level, while a rebound toward $1,300 could signal a return to the early October trading range.

DateZEC PriceSupport/Resistance ZoneSeptember 26$1,653.12PeakOctober 13$1,124-$1,215SupportOctober (Early)$1,300Possible ResistanceCurrent$1,167Potential SupportDespite the latest correction, Zcash continues to trade well above levels seen at the start of 2026. However, the recent speed of its decline highlights the risks of speculative momentum in volatile cryptocurrency markets.

NU7 upgrade and future outlookThe current pullback serves as a backdrop to Zcash’s upcoming NU7 upgrade, a significant development for the network. The Zcash Foundation, an organization guiding the evolution of the Zcash protocol, has begun testnet preparations for NU7. This upgrade proposes reducing average block spacing from 75 seconds to 25 seconds, a move intended to improve transaction throughput.

Alongside block interval changes, NU7 would introduce new fee structures and mechanisms aimed at increasing network sustainability. A mainnet activation decision is expected by October 20, with plans for a November 5 deployment if approved.

Mini dictionary: Zcash Foundation, a nonprofit organization, supports the development and maintenance of the Zcash network and its privacy technologies. Zcash employs zero-knowledge proofs known as zk-SNARKs, offering users the option of shielded or transparent transactions.

Market participants are closely monitoring these technical changes, viewing them as potential catalysts that could influence Zcash’s price direction in the coming weeks.

Cover image via depositphotos.com Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.

NEAR just set a new record in the futures market. Open interest in NEAR contracts hit $1.92 billion on October 12, according to Coinglass data. That is the highest level ever for the token. At that moment, NEAR was trading at $5.88.

The size of this jump is hard to miss. In July and August, open interest sat between $300 million and $450 million. It started to climb in mid-September and passed $1 billion within days. In approximately two months, traders have put roughly four times more money into NEAR futures.

Near's explosive rallyPrice followed the same path. NEAR rose from around $1.60 in August to nearly $6.00. The daily chart shows the coin trading far above its moving averages. The black line, which tracks the long-term trend, is near $2.55, and the price is about double that.

HOT Stories

NEAR/USDT Chart by TradingViewBut the record came with a warning. NEAR touched $6.00 and then fell hard. The current daily candle is red, with the price now near $5.07. Open interest also dropped from its peak and now sits closer to $1.5 billion. That means many traders closed positions or were forced out during the drop.

This is the danger of high open interest. When many traders use borrowed money, a sharp move in either direction can trigger a chain of forced selling. The fall from $5.88 to $5.07 looks like that kind of flush.

Mixed signalsThe RSI was above 75 in late September, which confirmed the rally was overheated. It has cooled to approximately 55, so the market is no longer stretched. Trading volume has also decreased in October, which suggests less excitement than during the September breakout.

You Might Also Like

The key levels are clear. On the downside, the green moving average near $4.60 is the first support, and the low from last week near $4.30 is the next one. A break below those would open a path toward $3.90. On the upside, buyers need to push back above $5.50 to try another run at $6.00.

For now, NEAR has strong momentum and record interest from traders. But a record in open interest does not guarantee more gains. It shows that many people are betting on the coin, and that could push the price either way.

10h05 ▪
4
min read ▪ by
Fenelon L.

Summarize this article with:

The founder of Avalanche believes that the crypto industry is too focused on a potential break of cryptography. According to him, artificial intelligence could first exploit the vulnerabilities already present in software and wallets.

In Brief

Emin Gün Sirer considers the debate on AI and crypto security largely exaggerated and points first to software bugs.
He believes that the code of Ripple and other networks might hide vulnerabilities that AI will detect more easily than humans.
No specific vulnerability has been reported in this debate, launched on October 7 by researcher Justin Drake.

The AI Threat Revives the Debate on Ethereum Security
The debate gained momentum on October 7, when Justin Drake, a researcher at the Ethereum Foundation, called on the industry to prepare a “bunker mode”. He specifically recommends transferring funds to never-before-used addresses, to keep public keys hidden behind a hash function.

His concern involves ECDSA, the signature mechanism used by many wallets. According to his scenario, the accelerated mathematical progress driven by AI could weaken this system within a few months, rather than over several years.

This hypothesis has sparked mixed reactions. Yehuda Lindell of Coinbase sharply criticized this perspective, while the technical director of Ledger highlighted the risks linked to a hasty migration. Vitalik Buterin acknowledged the existence of a serious risk without calling for urgent action.

Emin Gün Sirer Focuses First on Software Vulnerabilities
On October 9, the founder of Avalanche took a stand on X. “The debate on the threat AI poses to crypto is largely just talk,” he writes. In his view, AI will find flaws in existing systems long before breaking ECDSA. These vulnerabilities could allow attackers to steal billions of dollars from software libraries and wallets.

Sirer notably cites Ripple and other networks that hold significant value without undergoing thorough code review. According to him, believing that no flaw hard to detect by humans escapes developers is an illusion. AI could precisely facilitate discovering these vulnerabilities, sometimes unknown to publishers and exploited before their fixes.

Nevertheless, Sirer does not completely dismiss the cryptographic risk. He considers it appropriate to prepare backup solutions and indicates that Avalanche is exploring alternatives based on hashing. However, he believes securing existing code should come first.

Recent incidents reinforce his argument. The crypto sector lost 766 million dollars in September. Moreover, a security team demonstrated this summer that AI could detect 85 critical vulnerabilities.

Cryptography or Bugs: Two Risks to Anticipate
These two threats remain distinct. A break of ECDSA would potentially compromise the security of many cryptographic keys. In contrast, software vulnerabilities already expose users to attacks, without waiting for a mathematical breakthrough.

The issue also concerns Bitcoin: over six million bitcoins would rely on already visible public keys, representing more than 31% of the circulating supply. The migration recommended by Drake aims to reduce this exposure but does not resolve software vulnerabilities.

The debate therefore remains open. While awaiting potential breakthroughs capable of weakening cryptographic signatures, developers must also strengthen the systems that protect funds. To delve into these issues, find Cointribune articles dedicated to artificial intelligence.

Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Fenelon L.

Passionné par le Bitcoin, j'aime explorer les méandres de la blockchain et des cryptos et je partage mes découvertes avec la communauté. Mon rêve est de vivre dans un monde où la vie privée et la liberté financière sont garanties pour tous, et je crois fermement que Bitcoin est l'outil qui peut rendre cela possible.

DISCLAIMER

The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.

Grayscale is experiencing robust inflows to its Solana ETF, GSOL, as investor demand continues to grow. Newly released data from Arkham Intelligence reveals that Grayscale acquired $20.2 million in Solana over the past 20 days, highlighting consistent daily buying activity.

Strong inflow momentum for Grayscale’s GSOLGSOL has recorded steady inflows throughout the last month, with only one day of outflows during this period. Most sessions demonstrated new capital entering the fund, reinforcing Grayscale’s appeal among investors seeking exposure to Solana through exchange-traded products.

Institutional players have shown particular interest in the product, with market analysts noting that Grayscale’s ETF, despite launching only recently, has quickly established itself as a key vehicle for Solana investment.

The data shows that the Grayscale Solana ETF saw consistent demand from investors as it recorded a steady influx of fresh capital on most daily trading sessions over the last month.

When compared to competing Solana exchange-traded funds, GSOL’s inflow record stands out. Even during short-lived market volatility, only minimal withdrawals were recorded, suggesting ongoing confidence among existing investors.

VanEck’s VSOL faces outflows amid volatilityIn contrast, VanEck’s VSOL ETF has reported investor withdrawals as participants reacted to recent fluctuations in the digital asset market. The latest available trading session saw VanEck selling approximately $700,000 worth of SOL, signaling a cooldown in investor appetite for this particular Solana product.

Market observers have noted that, during the same period, Grayscale did not report any sales—reflecting a notable divergence in fund flows between the two ETF providers. This difference has further elevated Grayscale’s position in the evolving Solana ETF landscape, supporting the impression that GSOL is attracting a greater share of institutional and retail attention.

Investor behavior and meme token activityThe current environment emphasizes the importance of tracking inflows, outflows, and investor behavior when analyzing ETF performance and broader market sentiment. In the highly volatile meme token market, sharp capital movements are common. An online trend can drive millions of dollars of activity within days. For example, Fomo App data highlighted a trade that turned a $99 investment in “Niu Lai” into roughly $370,000, illustrating the pace and intensity of shifts in this sector.

Monitoring the timing and token selection by market participants is becoming increasingly vital. Fomo App offers a platform that combines token discovery, real-time trading, and investor ranking features. By providing social feeds and trade notifications, Fomo App enables users to monitor meme token trends alongside overall investor activity.

With GSOL continuing to attract steady inflows and VanEck facing outflows, Grayscale is steadily strengthening its presence in the Solana exchange-traded fund market. The divergence in fund flows between competitors underlines the shifting preferences of institutional and retail participants in crypto investment products.

Universal has announced the expansion of its dollar-backed USDU stablecoin to Solana, extending its UAE-regulated issuance framework and 1:1 reserve backing to another blockchain for institutional settlement.

Summary

USDU’s Solana integration will support transfers, digital asset settlement, and institutional treasury management.
Universal says dollar reserves back USDU 1:1, with independent attestations published each month.
Aquanow will provide distribution and institutional access across supported markets.
USDU’s UAE registration permits digital asset payments but excludes general mainland domestic payments.

Universal said in its announcement that eligible participants will be able to hold and transfer USDU on Solana, using the network for dollar-denominated transactions around the clock. The issuer identified digital asset settlement and treasury management among the intended uses, alongside other on-chain financial activities.

Under the terms described by Universal, access remains focused on professional and institutional participants in the UAE and permitted international markets. The company said Aquanow, its global distributor, will connect eligible participants with the stablecoin through its institutional distribution infrastructure.

USDU’s Solana expansion targets institutional settlement
Through the integration, Universal said USDU will become available across additional wallets, platforms and financial applications that support Solana. The company described the network’s transaction speed, low costs, and continuous operation as reasons for extending the stablecoin to the blockchain.

Juha Viitala, Universal’s senior executive officer, tied the expansion to institutional access to digital dollars.

“Expanding USDU to Solana brings the reach of regulated, USD-denominated liquidity to one of the most active environments for on-chain payments and financial applications.”

In the same statement, Viitala said the combination of USDU’s UAE regulatory framework and Solana’s infrastructure would give eligible institutions flexibility in how they “access, move and deploy digital dollars on-chain.”

For distribution, Universal said Aquanow will handle connections with institutions and professional participants across supported markets. Aquanow describes its customers and partners as banks, neobanks, brokerages and payment companies, with regional teams operating across North America, the Middle East, Europe and Asia.

According to the announcement, Aquanow’s UAE business operates through Aquanow ME FZE, which is regulated by Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority. Its licensed activities include broker-dealer services, lending and borrowing, and management and investment services.

UAE authorization limits USDU to specified payment uses
Universal said USDU is the first dollar-backed stablecoin registered with the Central Bank of the UAE as a Foreign Payment Token. The company identifies that registration as the basis for its permitted use in digital asset-related payments within the country.

For UAE transactions, Universal’s disclosures state that USDU may be used to purchase digital assets and digital asset derivatives. The issuer expressly excludes general payment purposes in mainland UAE, including domestic payments.

Within Abu Dhabi Global Market, Universal Digital Intl Limited is separately regulated by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority to issue a Fiat-Referenced Token to Professional Clients only, according to the company’s regulatory disclosures.

On reserve backing, Universal said it holds one dollar in reserves for each USDU token. The issuer also said independent attestations are published monthly, allowing participants to review reports covering the reserves.

USDU already has a connection to dirham-denominated settlement. In a May 7 report, crypto.news covered a regulated stablecoin conversion framework linking USDU with the dirham-backed AE Coin, supported by Al Maryah Community Bank. The companies described the arrangement as infrastructure for institutional settlement, liquidity management, treasury operations, and cross-border transactions.

For that conversion service, the companies identified Aquanow and Changer.ae as the initial access providers. They also said future integrations could support trade finance and multi-currency settlement, presenting those services as potential extensions rather than completed launches.

Bitcoin.com previously added an Ethereum access route
Before the Solana announcement, Bitcoin.com outlined plans to add USDU wallet support on Aug. 19. The agreement covered its web and mobile self-custodial wallet, with USDU supported as an ERC-20 token on Ethereum.

According to Bitcoin.com, users would be able to hold, send, and receive the token while retaining control of their private keys. The company said availability would depend on local rules, with additional services relying on integrations from outside providers.

Beyond storage and transfers, Bitcoin.com said it planned to accept USDU for designated services and work toward payments between users and merchants across its products. Swaps and fiat purchase and sale functions were expected to follow when third-party providers supported the stablecoin.

The wallet announcement also included educational material explaining fiat-backed stablecoins, reserve attestations and regulated issuance. Bitcoin.com said users would receive that information through its Learn-to-Earn content and a dedicated stablecoin education series.

Solana payment products already serve business and remittance users
For U.S. business payments, Ramp described a separate Solana-based service in July that lets companies fund overseas stablecoin transfers from dollar bank accounts. Its Solana-powered stablecoin accounts, reported on July 22, support USDC and USDT rather than USDU.

Through Ramp Bill Pay, the company said customers could fund payments from a U.S. dollar bank account or Ramp Checking, with the money converted into USDC or USDT before delivery to a recipient’s wallet. Stablecoin balances sit alongside cash accounts and use existing approval policies and accounting integrations, according to Ramp.

The company said its service supported vendor payments in more than 140 countries and fiat payouts in over 40 local currencies. Ramp also reported that more than 1,000 businesses used stablecoins for vendor payments, with over 70% of their payment volume occurring outside traditional banking hours.

In consumer remittances, Western Union and Rain launched the Stablecard wallet on Aug. 4 across 37 markets, according to an Aug. 5 report. The product uses Western Union’s USDPT stablecoin, issued on Solana by Anchorage Digital Bank and redeemable 1:1 for U.S. dollars.

According to Western Union, customers can receive eligible remittances into Stablecard, transfer USDPT from compatible wallets or exchanges, and spend through Visa merchants or withdraw through ATMs. Rain built the application, embedded wallet, and card infrastructure, while the product’s disclosures state that ATM charges, foreign exchange costs, and other fees may apply.

The late September surge for Quant [QNT] has been followed by an ongoing battle between decreasing purchasing power and aggressive seller activity.

The price rose from under $100, reaching a high of $373.66 before it was sharply rejected due to traders locking in profits.

After reaching $325, buyers were unable to recover their peak high, creating a new low high. This simply indicated diminishing demand. Since the 2nd of October, selling activity has slowly forced the price down into the $215-$220 area of support.

As of writing, the token had declined by 6% in the last 24 hours, trading at $219.34. This was an over 72% decline from the September high.

QNT’s current downward trend is becoming increasingly concerning. Each time the market rebounds, volume appears to decrease. Hence, if the price repeatedly touches its support areas, it will exhaust all potential buy order levels.

Source: TradingView
A four-hour close below $215 could trigger stop-loss selling toward $160–$180, threatening to erase much of the breakout’s remaining gains. However, a strong recovery above $225 after briefly dipping below support would suggest buyers are absorbing supply.

That could open a relief rally toward $250–$255. Until then, QNT remains vulnerable to a deeper correction.

QNT Open Interest falls as leverage unwinds
QNT’s rally was fueled by a surge in derivatives exposure. However, falling Open Interest (OI) now signals an ongoing market reset. From July through September 23, open interest remained near $11–$15 million as the price traded around the $60–$70 zone.

Source: CoinGlass
However, after the price broke out of this range and rose towards $373.66, the OI also moved up to $190 million.

Despite the downward trend, price and derivatives exposure remained high near $180-$190 million through mid-October, causing liquidation risk due to the trader’s position size.

Since the 2nd of October, OI has declined toward $120 million as QNT fell toward $225.81. This indicates that there are no massive additions to OI but rather liquidation of existing long positions.

Furthermore, the Funding Rates have shown a trend of repeated dips below zero and even reached a record low of -0.27% on the 4th of October prior to returning to neutral.

Source: CoinGlass
This combination suggests traders are closing positions rather than adding fresh exposure, weakening the case for an immediate recovery.

These movements indicate increased aggressive short selling activity within the futures contracts. However, funding  rates cannot be used independently to determine market direction.

Looking forward, should QNT fail to hold above $215, additional closes may drive prices down to $196 or lower.

Conversely, rising prices alongside expanding open interest would provide stronger evidence of renewed conviction and a potential recovery.

Final Summary

Quant [QNT] faces further downside if selling pressure breaks $215 support.

QNT open interest drops from $190 million to $120 million as leverage unwinds.

An audit can reduce risk, but it can never guarantee that a DeFi protocol is safe. 1inch spoke to Vik from BailSec about what smart contract audits actually tell us, the risks that exist beyond the code and what stood out when BailSec audited 1inch Aqua.

Smart contract audits have become a standard part of DeFi security. But hacks still happen to audited protocols. And increasingly, the weak point may not be the smart contract at all.

So what does an audit really prove? And how should you assess the security of a new architecture such as 1inch Aqua?

1inch spoke to Vik from BailSec, one of the security firms that audited Aqua, about the limits of audits and the security implications of Aqua’s approach to liquidity.

When you assess the security of a DeFi protocol today, what are the biggest risks you look for beyond obvious smart contract bugs?Many risks come from beyond the code. We look at the ecosystem itself, composability, design patterns, economic attacks and governance.

Ecosystem-level risks involve things like flash loans, liquidity manipulation, unusual token variations and potential breaks caused by future EVM hard forks.

Composability is a core value proposition of DeFi. But it also means a system may be used in ways its authors did not intend when they wrote it. Assessing that risk requires long experience with protocol security and a broad understanding of how people actually use smart contracts.

Design patterns matter as well. Established standards such as ERCs and well-understood techniques can lead to more robust interactions. A well-designed protocol uses established patterns to solve standard problems so developers can focus on the parts that are genuinely new.

Then there are economic attacks. These include second-order vulnerabilities that go beyond smart contract security and require familiarity with how DeFi products actually get used.

Finally, there is governance risk. The question is: what happens if a trusted part of the system is not so trusted? A well-designed system takes a defense-in-depth approach and limits even privileged roles to the minimum permissions they need.

How should teams think about the limits of an audit? What can a strong audit establish and what can it never guarantee?Auditors are skilled experts, but they are limited by the scope of the engagement. We are limited both by time and by which portions of the system are under review.

An audit is also time-bound. If the client introduces additional complexity in the middle of the engagement, it may no longer be possible to achieve the coverage that the original time estimate was intended to provide.

And auditors can make mistakes. At BailSec, we rigorously test the auditors we work with and hire some of the best auditors in the space to dramatically reduce the risk that an auditing team misses a substantial bug. But that risk is never zero.

If an audit report contains many medium- and high-severity findings, that density can suggest there may be more bugs remaining after the review. In that case, we recommend engaging another audit team for a second round.

The development team might also change the code after the audit. We cannot ensure that those changes do not introduce new bugs or violate invariants that were verified during our audit.

Even without any of those issues, an audit can never guarantee that a codebase is bug-free or cannot be hacked. It provides a high degree of assurance that the system behaves as designed. It is not proof.

Even formal verification cannot ensure that a codebase is entirely free of unexpected behavior. Formal verification establishes that reviewed code matches a formal specification, but the specification itself may be incomplete. It could miss an attack vector. And the code eventually deployed may not be the code that was reviewed.

Smart contract audits used to be mostly about the contracts themselves. How much does security now depend on protecting the whole stack?Infrastructure and key compromise have become a major root cause of losses across the ecosystem by dollar value.

Unless otherwise specified, a smart contract audit typically does not include those components. Some may also contain intellectual property or trade secrets that a project does not want to disclose to a third-party smart contract auditing firm.

That makes it difficult for us to ensure that the combination of APIs, the frontend, infrastructure and other off-chain components maintains the invariants intended by the team.

Good smart contract design can go a long way toward mitigating these risks. Where possible, logic can be moved from off-chain components on-chain, while the mutability of on-chain components can be minimized.

Immutability is a desirable quality in a robustly designed smart contract system because it reduces exceptions and assumptions and can provide a higher degree of assurance.

What do SOC 2 and ISO 27001 cover that a smart contract audit cannot?These security controls and certifications help cover a missing component: the combination of smart contracts, off-chain components and the larger organization operating them.

The frameworks address the organization that builds and operates the system, including access controls, key management, change management, vendor risk and incident response.

Supply-chain attacks have also become a greater risk in recent years. These standards provide evidence that an organization has taken steps to reduce that risk. Controls over endpoints and personnel can also help reduce the risk of insider attacks.

There is an important distinction within SOC 2 between a Type I attestation, which looks at controls at a point in time, and Type II, which covers how controls operate over a period of time.

But SOC 2 and ISO 27001 are not magic bullets. Just as a smart contract audit cannot completely prevent a hack, these frameworks cannot eliminate risk. They reduce the risk caused by weaknesses in other components of the system.

BailSec audited 1inch Aqua earlier this year. What was unusual or particularly interesting about Aqua from a security perspective?First of all, Aqua was something very fresh and new to the DeFi world, which was refreshing for us to review. It was not another fork of something else.

Aqua has a special design in two respects. It allows a high degree of customizability and flexibility in the strategies through which market makers deploy their capital. And it increases capital efficiency by allowing makers to deploy the same capital into multiple strategies.

That customizability puts more responsibility on the software components used to design strategies. They need to follow robust compositional rules and avoid invalid strategy configurations that could result in a loss of funds.

Deploying the same capital across multiple strategies also means that, while capital efficiency increases, the exposure of a maker’s capital to an economic vulnerability in a strategy can increase as well.

Another unusual feature is the requirement for takers to explicitly specify the maker strategies they interact with. That is an inversion of the typical AMM design, where multiple makers put capital into a single pool and interaction with it does not depend on the number of underlying makers.

Aqua lets liquidity remain in the maker’s wallet until a taker fills a position. Does that create additional risks?Aqua’s design eliminates certain classes of attacks that can drain capital held in liquidity pools. Eliminating that line of attack improves the security posture of the design.

It also gives makers an effective mechanism for cutting off their exposure to undesirable strategies by docking or revoking allowances.

Some risk is not fully eliminated but instead moves from balances held in pools to ERC-20 allowances. Still, the overall posture is an improvement.

What about double-spending? If the same balance backs multiple strategies, can the same liquidity be used twice?The smart contracts themselves ensure that liquidity cannot be used twice.

But shared capital does mean that one strategy may run out of available liquidity because a neighboring strategy has consumed it.

It is also important to keep this shared-capital model in mind when calculating aggregate market depth, TVL or available liquidity. Otherwise, off-chain components that do not understand how the system works could count the same liquidity twice.

So the liquidity cannot be spent twice by the smart contracts, but it can potentially be counted twice by off-chain systems.

Aqua gives takers more flexibility. Can that flexibility also increase risk?Yes. The order in which liquidity is consumed by the taker can affect the price at which future swaps take place.

Off-chain components that assess liquidity therefore need enough domain knowledge to sequence interactions appropriately.

For makers, a single economically risky strategy could potentially produce losses affecting the capital deployed across strategies. For takers, the main risk is that a particular maker may run out of capital during a swap because of collateral sharing. Systems deciding how to use the available liquidity need to account for that.

All swaps should also be protected by appropriate slippage limits to reduce exposure to risks such as MEV and front-running.

Aqua has been audited. Does that mean it is safe?An audit cannot ensure total safety. The fact that Aqua has undergone multiple audits is a strong indication that its authors take security seriously. It also provides evidence that the security of the system has been improved from its initial implementation.

But protocol security is a continuum. It is not a single state. Completing audits with multiple expert teams moves a protocol further along that continuum, but issues can still slip through an auditor’s review. That is why it is important to engage multiple teams and put as many expert eyes as possible on the contracts.

Users should also consider the risks of interacting with DeFi products and avoid exposing themselves to losses they cannot tolerate.

For sufficiently technical users and partners, the published audit reports themselves provide details about the potential pitfalls of the system and exactly what the auditing teams considered as part of their reviews.

At BailSec, we always recommend reading the reports. For non-technical users, AI tools can now also make it much easier to summarize audit findings and understand what a report actually says about a protocol’s security.

Security is never a finished job. Audits, careful protocol design and ongoing review can reduce risk, but none can turn DeFi into a risk-free environment.

For more on blockchain security, subscribe to our newsletter

Mysten Labs says Sui has processed its first native quantum-safe transaction on its development network. The milestone arrived with devnet-v1.82.0, which shipped as protocol version 139 on October 12, 2026. That release adds ML-DSA-65 as a native account signature type. Mainnet support is targeted for Q1 2027, but only if audits and testnet feedback cooperate.

What actually changed on devnet Sui’s codebase now includes a new entry, SignatureScheme::MLDSA65 = 7, which registers the post-quantum scheme alongside the network’s existing signature options.

ML-DSA-65 is standardized by NIST under FIPS 204 and rated at Level 3 security. Sui intends it for everyday native accounts, the ordinary wallets people use to send tokens and interact with apps.

For high-value Move smart contract vaults, Sui is reaching for a different tool: SLH-DSA-SHA2-128s. Both schemes are NIST-approved and come from distinct mathematical families, meaning a weakness discovered in one family would not automatically compromise the other.

The user experience pitch Adoption of post-quantum accounts is opt-in. Users can keep their existing 32-byte seeds and recovery phrases rather than starting from scratch.

Addresses don’t need to change either. The upgrade relies on Sui’s existing address aliases and lets users rotate keys from their recovery phrases.

Gas costs are also unchanged. Quantum-safe signatures carry no extra fees.

The effort is being led by Kostas Chalkias, Mysten’s co-founder and chief cryptographer, and Adeniyi Abiodun, co-founder and chief product officer.

How this fits Sui’s broader roadmap The devnet transaction is one step in a plan Sui laid out in its August 2026 quantum readiness strategy. Quantum-safe vaults built on SLH-DSA-SHA2-128s are aimed at mainnet in 2026, ahead of the account-level upgrade. Native ML-DSA-65 account support follows, with a Q1 2027 target contingent on audit results and testnet feedback.

What this means for Sui and its users For everyday SUI holders, nothing changes today. The feature lives on devnet, it is opt-in, and mainnet account support is still more than a year out under the current target.

For developers and institutions, the more immediate item is the vault upgrade. Teams managing large Move smart contract treasuries will want to watch whether SLH-DSA-SHA2-128s vaults actually hit mainnet on the 2026 schedule, and how audits treat the implementation.

Adoption is the other open question. An opt-in security feature only protects the people who opt in. The key metrics to watch are testnet feedback, audit outcomes, and whether the vault and account upgrades land on their stated schedules.

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

XRP is trading around $1.40, as the cryptocurrency attempts to recover from its recent lows, but bears continue to dominate the 4-hour chart. 

The next two weeks could be critical for XRP’s price direction, as the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decision and Ripple’s biggest-ever Swell conference are both scheduled for the final week of October.

With these events still 15 days away, bearish traders may try to push XRP lower before either event gives investors a reason to change their outlook.

XRP Structure Gives Bears an Advantage
XRP remains below two key moving averages, with the 21-period exponential moving average (EMA21) at $1.4153 and the 55-period exponential moving average (EMA55) at $1.4508. 

The bearish Break of Structure (BoS), which occurred last week at $1.4458, confirmed a change in market structure in favor of bears. The $1.4458 level now acts as resistance, while the EMA55 solidifies the barrier around $1.44-$1.45, giving bears an actual price zone to defend.

The $1.531 swing high also remains untouched, meaning XRP has yet to challenge the previous high that bulls would need to overcome to confirm the case for a recovery. 

Although the price has rebounded from a swing low of $1.3189 recorded last week, the move has not changed the broader trend. Instead, the recovery could amount to a retest of resistance before another decline if buyers fail to push the price higher.

XRP’s performance in 2026 adds to the concerns. The cryptocurrency has fallen 17.6% since the beginning of the year, while Bitcoin has declined 3.5% and Ethereum has lost 9.5%. 

XRP’s market cap currently stands at around $88.4 billion, representing around 3.1% of the entire cryptocurrency market. Its greater losses compared with these two major assets suggest that XRP continues to face significant selling pressure.

Why XRP’s Next Move Around $1.45 Matters
The current indicators suggest that XRP is trading within a narrow range, with the Average True Range (ATR) at 0.0227 and volatility compressed around the 1.5-times ATR band. 

The upper volatility band sits near $1.4493, almost matching the bearish BoS level at $1.4458. This makes the $1.4450-$1.4510 range particularly important because several technical indicators confirm resistance within the same area.

If XRP climbs into this range but fails to break above it, a rejection wick could confirm that sellers still control the market and increase the likelihood of another decline. Such a move would support the bearish setup and reopen the path toward the lower volatility band. 

XRP bears take over as price records bearish BoS
However, a clean four-hour candle close above $1.4510 would invalidate this immediate bearish outlook by pushing XRP above the EMA55 and showing that buyers have gained ground. Until then, sellers may continue to look for opportunities to open or add to short positions whenever the price approaches resistance.

Fed Decision and Ripple Swell Could Change XRP’s Outlook
Macroeconomic conditions could make a recovery more difficult. The Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate to a range of 3.75% to 4% on Sept. 16, and investors are now watching for another increase at the Oct. 27-28 Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. 

Ripple’s Swell 2026 conference could provide a positive catalyst when it takes place from Oct. 27 to 29 at Hudson Yards in New York City. For the first time, Ripple will combine its institutional-focused Swell conference with XRPL Apex, which focuses on developers. 

The agenda includes XRP ETFs, tokenization, institutional settlement, and the next phase of the XRP Ledger. U.S. spot XRP ETFs have already recorded net daily inflows, pointing to continued institutional demand for XRP-linked investment products. 

XRP Price Targets as Oct 27 Approaches
If XRP fails to break through the $1.4450-$1.4510 resistance zone, the first downside target is $1.3812, the lower edge of the current volatility band. 

A break below that level would bring the $1.3189 structural swing low into focus, while continued selling could push XRP toward $1.2468, the window low that marks the most extended downside target in the current analysis.

For now, the bearish technical structure, the resistance around $1.45, and uncertainty over interest rates give sellers reasons to maintain pressure on XRP. 

The next few trading sessions will show whether bears can force another decline before the Federal Reserve meeting on Oct. 27-28 and Ripple Swell from Oct. 27 to 29. Both events could change investor expectations, but until then, XRP’s ability to overcome the resistance above its current price remains central to its short-term outlook.

A Bitcoin whale has transferred 4,582 BTC worth approximately $377.6 million to five addresses after holding the coins for more than six years, as Bitcoin faces renewed selling pressure near $83,000.

Summary

A Bitcoin whale transferred 4,582 BTC worth approximately $377.6 million across five separate receiving addresses. Four receiving addresses obtained 1,000 BTC each, while the fifth received approximately 582 BTC separately. The original wallet received its Bitcoin in March 2020, when holdings were worth $40.8 million. Another dormant Bitcoin wallet transferred 4,500 BTC worth $375.7 million after four years of inactivity. CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost reported negative Coinbase premiums, suggesting relatively stronger selling pressure among U.S. participants. Blockchain analytics platform Lookonchain reported the transfer on October 12, identifying the sender as wallet 18VmXvkF4cgLi35RtMiHHDpvMjUCyVpQ9x. The coins were divided among five receiving addresses, with four obtaining 1,000 BTC each and the fifth receiving approximately 582 BTC. The recipient wallets had not moved their funds at the time of the initial analysis.

Bitcoin whale moves $378 million after years of holding According to Arkham’s blockchain records, the sending wallet originally received 4,582 BTC on March 3, 2020. The holdings were valued at approximately $40.8 million at the time, when Bitcoin was trading near $8,900. At the valuation reported for Monday’s transfer, the same balance was worth roughly 9.3 times its original value.

The funds originally came from Bitcoin address 17VX1BEjYVyBMi2vw6nXDrpwMvCSweHZot. Blockchain records indicate that the wallet retained nearly its entire balance through the market crash of March 2020, when Bitcoin briefly dropped below $4,000 following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although the wallet is being described as dormant for six years, its transaction history shows a small outgoing payment in August 2024. The transfer involved 0.009 BTC, with the remaining funds returned to the same wallet. Monday’s movement was therefore its first major transfer since receiving the coins in March 2020, not its first outgoing transaction of any size.

At the time of reporting, the five recipient addresses had not been identified as exchange deposit wallets. Lookonchain did not establish whether the addresses belonged to different owners or were controlled by the original holder. No confirmed sale accompanied the transfer, leaving its purpose unknown.

The movement adds to a series of large transfers from dormant Bitcoin wallets recorded during 2026. In July, another wallet that had remained inactive for more than eight years transferred 5,908 BTC worth approximately $383 million. Onchain records in that case did not establish that the coins had been sold.

Another dormant Bitcoin whale transfers 4,500 BTC The latest transaction follows another large Bitcoin transfer involving a long-inactive wallet. Last week, address bc1q4hm96naa2ydcqlxpwlvljvrnt5svm8ejcqnhj0 moved approximately 4,500 BTC worth $375.7 million after more than four years of inactivity.

The transaction was separately identified through blockchain monitoring, with the funds transferred to another Bitcoin address. Available records did not establish whether the owner intended to sell, move assets into custody or reorganize holdings across wallets.

Combined, the two reported movements involved approximately 9,082 BTC valued at $753.3 million using their respective transaction-time prices. The transfers occurred on different dates and came from separate wallets, with no established connection between their owners.

Similar activity has been recorded throughout the year. In July, Arkham identified a wallet that transferred 2,931 BTC worth approximately $188 million after seven years without major activity. The holder had acquired the coins when Bitcoin traded near $6,500, leaving the wallet with substantial unrealized gains before the transfer.

Onchain monitoring firms track long-held coins through measures including Coin Days Destroyed and Spent Output Age Bands. CryptoQuant uses such indicators to examine when older Bitcoin holdings become active. Movements involving long-held coins can accompany selling activity, although wallet transfers alone do not establish whether the owner has liquidated any assets.

CryptoQuant warns of stronger Bitcoin selling pressure in U.S. Meanwhile, CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost has reported growing selling pressure among U.S. market participants during October. His assessment focuses on the Coinbase Premium Index, which compares Bitcoin prices on Coinbase with those on Binance.

Bitcoin Coinbase premium index, source: CryptoQuant According to the analyst, the volume-weighted version of the indicator has remained deeply negative for several days, suggesting weaker demand or stronger selling activity on Coinbase. The methodology gives more weight to larger transactions, reducing the influence of smaller trades on the reported price difference.

Darkfost interpreted the negative readings as evidence that institutional and professional market participants using Coinbase were selling more aggressively than traders on Binance. The comparison does not directly identify individual sellers, and a negative premium cannot independently establish the volume of institutional Bitcoin sales.

His assessment follows a period of weaker U.S. demand. On October 12, CoinGlass data showed the Coinbase Bitcoin Premium Index had remained negative for 19 consecutive days, reaching approximately -0.12%. The measure compares Bitcoin’s trading price on Coinbase with prices elsewhere in the market.

CryptoQuant has previously examined institutional demand through the Coinbase Premium Index, using the indicator to track relative buying pressure from U.S.-based market participants. Persistent negative readings indicate a price discount on Coinbase, although the indicator covers activity from different categories of investors.

Darkfost attributed the latest weakness partly to macroeconomic conditions, including rising government bond yields, persistent inflation concerns and a stronger U.S. dollar. He pointed to the Dollar Index climbing above 102, its highest level since April 2025, as financial markets responded to geopolitical and economic uncertainty.

The analyst argued that higher borrowing costs and reduced liquidity were discouraging professional investors from taking additional exposure to Bitcoin. His interpretation remains a market assessment and does not establish a direct connection between the Coinbase premium and the 4,582 BTC whale transfer.

Bitcoin price struggles as large wallet movements continue Bitcoin traded near $83,500 at press time, down approximately 1% over 24 hours, after falling to around $81,220 earlier in the session. The movement followed several days of price weakness as traders monitored exchange activity, macroeconomic developments and large onchain transfers.

During the same period, QCP Capital maintained a fourth-quarter base-case trading range of $80,000 to $90,000 for Bitcoin. The firm’s assessment identified $80,000 as an important support area and suggested that a sustained move above $87,000 could bring $94,000 into focus. The levels represent QCP’s market outlook, not confirmed future prices.

U.S. government-linked Bitcoin transfers have attracted attention during the recent market decline. Between October 7 and 8, government-associated wallets moved approximately 9,261 BTC worth $770 million to Coinbase Prime. The transactions involved several groups of seized assets, including Bitcoin linked to the Bitfinex hack.

Blockchain records documenting the U.S. government’s $770 million Bitcoin transfers did not confirm that the coins had  been sold. Coinbase Prime provides both custody and trading services, meaning a transfer to the platform cannot independently establish liquidation.

Separately, publicly listed Bitcoin mining company MARA Holdings transferred approximately 996.105 BTC worth $81.13 million to Galaxy Digital and another associated address on October 9. Lookonchain identified the transactions, although the available blockchain records did not establish that MARA had completed a sale.

The MARA Holdings Bitcoin transfers occurred as Bitcoin traded near $82,300, with market data showing continued weakness in short-term technical indicators. The mining company’s reported transactions did not include a publicly confirmed sale price or completed disposal agreement.

Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.

Top Ethereum (ETH) bull and co-founder of Fundstrat Tom Lee has issued a very unusual bearish alert for the second-largest crypto. 

According to his latest post on X, Lee sounded an alarm about the potential negative impact of the dramatic stock market drop in South Korea on the crypto market, which may trigger more ETH sell-offs. 

"This major decline in Korean equities is likely spilling over into crypto," Lee wrote. Lee expressed serious concern about South Korean brokerages' margin liquidations. He also mentioned the fact that South Korean investors hold a large share of crypto, and the crypto asset market is vulnerable to financial contagion. "Short-term pain," he continued, and highlighted ETH. 

HOT Stories

You Might Also Like

Lee issued the bearish alert at a time when South Korea's benchmark KOSPI dropped over 6% on Tuesday, Oct. 13 due to the massive sell-off in technology and semiconductor stocks. The stock market crash was so severe that the Korea Exchange had to take emergency market stabilization measures.

What's happening in South Korea?The South Korean stock market has been under pressure due to growing concerns about the artificial intelligence boom and the competitiveness of major South Korean semiconductor companies. 

The massive stock market sell-off has mainly affected two of the most influential Korean stock market companies: Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix. 

It was reported that Chinese memory chip maker ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT) made considerable progress in terms of semiconductor technology. That is why there are concerns about growing competition from China that could negatively impact memory chip prices and profit margins. 

Notably, U.S. semiconductor stocks also plunged. The last session saw a significant drop of 2.67% for the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index. 

Korea Exchange triggered the so-called sell-side sidecar at approximately 9:48 a.m. local time due to a drop of over 5% in KOSPI 200 futures. However, the intervention could not prevent a wider sell-off.

On Unchained, Alex Shevchenko said the rest of the stolen funds had been traded into XMR, which NEAR Intents is now working to convert after refilling its contracts from its own funds.

NEAR Intents says part of the $3.8 million exploit came back in Monero

Posted October 12, 2026 at 10:16 pm ET.

The attacker who drained about $3.8 million from NEAR Intents returned only part of it in Bitcoin, the protocol’s general manager said on Unchained. The rest came back in Monero (XMR), and the team is still working out how to convert it.

Alex Shevchenko, GM of NEAR Intents, walked through the return in an episode recorded Oct. 8. After the Oct. 1 exploit, his team tracked the stolen assets and believed the non-Bitcoin portion was still sitting on Ethereum, BNB Chain and Solana. It was not. “So everything was correctly identified on the Bitcoin blockchain,” Shevchenko said on the show, but the other assets had moved through hard-to-trace channels, and “in fact they have been traded into XMR.”

That changed what the attacker needed from NEAR Intents. One reason the attacker made contact, Shevchenko said, was to learn “what is the Monero address to return the funds.”

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

Funds Back, Conversion Pending
On Oct. 2, Shevchenko posted that the funds “were sent back in full” and that the team was ending its investigation, as Unchained later reported. That day, independent onchain analyst Kuncoro checked the published return addresses and found the Bitcoin one received 34.59 BTC, about 78% of the total, concluding the rest “came back through a different” route; Shevchenko replied, “You are right. It did indeed.” Asked whether NEAR Intents still held the XMR, he said “this part is in process.”

The team has already replenished its smart contracts from its own funds, Shevchenko said, so the remaining step is to “return money back to the pockets.” That means converting the XMR into USDT, and he said companies have raised questions. “They’re asking for the source of funds, and what are we gonna say the source of funds?” he said on the show. Shevchenko did not say how much of the return arrived in XMR. He added that his first time handling the coin “was exactly during the hack.”

An Invite Only the Attacker Could Open
Shevchenko also explained how the two sides got a private line. After the attacker sent an onchain message offering to cooperate and asking for a Signal contact, Shevchenko posted an encrypted message holding a Signal group invite. Only the attacker could read it, because “this encrypted message was encrypted with the public key of the attacker,” he said on the show, which left the attacker as “the only person who is able to decrypt it.”

He also repeated his call for hackers to use bug bounties instead. Since the exploit, NEAR Intents has received several submissions, and one of them was valid and will be paid, Shevchenko said.

Related Listen: How NEAR Intents Identified a Suspect and Got Its Stolen Funds Back

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

Internet Computer [ICP] has emerged among today’s market top gainers by recording a significant 14% daily surge, leading to the current trading price of $3.46.

The bullish move came as buyers extended a recovery that began after the token broke above a descending triangle pattern that had contained its price for weeks.

For many investors, the breakout has shifted attention toward higher resistance levels at around $4.097. It is already evident in the current big players’ behavior. Whales are bagging more orders across Spot and Futures markets, while buyers dominate ICP’s derivatives positioning.

With the token trading above its key exponential moving averages (EMAs), can buyers sustain the rally and push ICP toward $4.097?

Source: TradingView Whale activity strengthens the recovery as buyers dominates Large orders are increasing across both Spot and Futures markets according to the recent Average Order Size data, suggesting that larger traders are becoming more active as ICP advances.

The network’s increasing Spot market buying could provide the missing direct demand for the token’s anticipated rally back to the $4.097 resistance zone.

Source: CryptoQuant That’s not all; the reported dominance of buyers in ICP’s Futures market adds to the positive short-term picture, although leveraged positioning can reverse quickly if momentum fades.

According to the recent Long/Short Ratio data, long positions accounted for 65% of the total open market exposure at the time of writing. This highlights the current market bias and brings the chances for a continuation rally close to certainty.

Source: Coinalyze ICP burn rate points to increased demand On the 10th of October, between 12:30 and 14:00 UTC, the network cycle-burn rate on the dashboard stepped from approximately 48 B cycles/s to about 20 B/s and has since maintained there.

At the same time, the transaction rate across the network stood at 5199 transactions per second at press time, while the Finalization Rate stood at 152 blocks per second.

Source: internetcomputers.org Is $4.097 the next resistance for ICP? The fact that ICP’s price action is still trading above its key EMAs on the daily chart gives buyers a more constructive technical setup. The next level for the network bulls to watch is the $4.097 resistance level, which could become the next major test if buyers maintain control.

A sustained move toward this resistance would keep the momentum going, while a rejection or loss of EMA support could expose ICP to renewed consolidation.

All in all, the combination of a descending triangle breakout, rising whale activity, increasing burn rate, and buyer-dominated Futures positioning favors the bulls.

Final Summary ICP surges by 14% in the last 24 hours after breaking above a descending triangle pattern that had constrained its price for weeks. The network’s rising whale activity across Spot and Futures markets points to a potential continuation rally to the $4.097 resistance.

Table of contents

Uniswap’s Layer 2 network Unichain is moving to Optimism’s OP Enterprise stack, handing production operations to Optimism while leaving the chain’s user-facing state intact. The testnet migrates on October 13 and the mainnet follows on October 29, according to the Uniswap announcement.

For anyone using the network, the switch is designed to be invisible. Unichain’s chain ID, deployed contracts, balances, and applications all stay the same, and the Uniswap v2, v3, and v4 deployments continue to run without interruption. The migration adds to a busy stretch of Uniswap protocol work, which recently included a StablePair hook for stablecoin pairs.

Why Unichain Is Moving to OP Enterprise
The upgrade prepares Unichain for native interoperability across the OP Stack, the modular framework developed by Optimism. Once interoperability is live, assets can move between Unichain and other OP Stack chains without a bridge, starting with ETH. Moving onto OP Enterprise also gives Unichain first access to native interoperability and OP Stack releases as Optimism ships them.

On the operations side, Optimism will run the production stack: sequencers on mainnet and testnet, RPC access, monitoring, and incident response. Unichain remains a Stage 1 rollup with permissionless fault proofs, and contract upgrades stay under Optimism Governance and the Security Council, as they do today.

What Stays the Same for Users
Uniswap is explicit that “for Unichain users, nothing changes.” Wallets keep addressing the same chain ID, so no reconfiguration is needed, and existing balances, contracts, and applications remain in place.

What shifts is the infrastructure behind the chain. The sequencer, which orders transactions into blocks, is the most consequential operational lever on a Layer 2, and it now sits with Optimism alongside RPC and incident response. The main user-facing benefit, bridge-free asset movement, arrives only after interoperability ships and applies to ETH first.

What Happens Next
The October 13 testnet migration gives developers roughly two weeks to validate tooling and contracts before the mainnet moves on October 29. Unichain users should expect no downtime or required action, and the first visible change will come later as native interoperability begins to roll out. For developers, the testnet window is the moment to confirm that wallets, indexers, and tooling resolve correctly against the new foundation before real value moves across it.

AUTHOR

Entrepreneur and freelance writer based in Nakuru, Kenya. I cover cryptocurrency, the Blockchain technology, and financial topics. It’s my joy to transform the simplest phrases in a way they reach a reader’s heart to help them discover how crypto is disrupting the world as we have known it. I believe in transforming the world, one word at a time.

At 19:59 UTC on October 12, 2026, Blur said it will deprecate the Blur frontend on November 12, 2026. The marketplace protocol will remain operational onchain, and $BLUR holders will retain control of its fee switch.

The same deadline applies to Blend’s loan-matching service. Blur said Blend will stop matching new loans on November 12. Borrowers have until then to repay their loans or allow them to default. After the cutoff, Blur plans to provide a frontend tool that helps users withdraw assets from Blend.

The announcement separates the interfaces from the contracts. Blur is retiring the website used to reach its marketplace, while the marketplace protocol itself stays live. Blend’s change is narrower in wording but more direct for borrowers: new loan matching stops, existing borrowers face a repay-or-default decision, and asset withdrawal moves to a tool that Blur has not yet released.

What the Blend cutoff changes
Blend was designed as a peer-to-peer perpetual lending protocol for arbitrary collateral, including NFTs. Its published design has no oracle dependency and no fixed expiry. A borrowing position can remain open until liquidation, while lenders set loan terms through market offers rather than a protocol price feed.

The lack of an oracle changes where risk decisions sit. Blend does not ask a shared price feed to decide when an NFT position should be liquidated or what rate a borrower should pay. Each lender chooses the interest rate and loan-to-value ratio it will accept. The protocol then tests whether another lender will refinance the debt when the current lender wants to leave.

The design also avoids scheduled maturity dates. Blend says a position rolls automatically for as long as some lender remains willing to finance the amount against the collateral. Users need an onchain transaction when a rate changes or when either side exits. This cuts routine rollover transactions, but continued financing still depends on lender availability.

In the normal flow, a lender signs an offchain offer specifying the principal, interest rate and collateral collection. A borrower accepts a compatible offer onchain, places the NFT in a vault with a lien, and receives the principal. Blend matches each loan individually instead of pooling lenders’ funds.

The perpetual structure does not guarantee that a borrower can keep a position forever. Loans continue only while a lender is willing to finance the debt against the collateral. Interest accrues continuously, and the contract calculates repayment when an interaction requires it. Borrowers can repay at any time. They can also replace a loan atomically by taking a new loan against the same collateral and using the new principal to close the old debt.

Lenders have two exit paths in the design. A lender can submit a compatible offer from another lender and transfer the position without an auction. Otherwise, the lender can trigger a refinancing auction in which the offered interest rate rises until a new lender accepts. The replacement lender pays the old lender the full repayment amount and takes over the loan at the auction’s rate.

If no lender accepts before the auction reaches its defined maximum rate, the protocol treats the position as non-viable and liquidates the borrower. The existing lender can then claim the collateral. Blend therefore uses the availability of refinancing, rather than an oracle’s estimate of the NFT’s value, to determine whether debt can continue.

Stopping new matching removes the path Blur currently provides for originating loans after November 12. The announcement does not explain whether any refinancing functionality will remain available through other interfaces or direct contract calls. It tells current borrowers to repay or allow default before the deadline, which makes the status of each open loan the immediate operational question for users.

What remains onchain
Blur said the marketplace protocol will continue running after the frontend disappears. Traders or developers may still be able to interact with those contracts through other software, but Blur did not name a replacement marketplace interface in the announcement. The team also said $BLUR will continue to control the protocol’s fee switch.

That governance role is consistent with the original Blend design. The paper says Blur’s implementation gives $BLUR governance control over selected protocol parameters after a 180-day waiting period. Those parameters include borrower and lender fees, the maximum interest rate reached before liquidation, and the formula used to raise the offered rate during a refinancing auction. The protocol does not ask governance to value collateral or set loan-to-value ratios.

The announced withdrawal tool is different from keeping the full Blend loan interface open. Blur described it only as a way to help users withdraw assets after the deadline. No separate release date accompanied that promise. It did not provide the tool’s URL, contract scope, release time or instructions for borrowers whose loans enter refinancing near the cutoff.

For marketplace users, the key distinction is that contract availability does not preserve Blur’s own web access. For Blend users, the practical deadline concerns debt rather than the token fee switch. Borrowers need to review open positions before November 12 and choose between repayment and the default path described by Blur. Lenders need to account for the end of new matching through the official interface and for the absence of published details about post-cutoff refinancing.

The next dated milestone is November 12, 2026. Blur still needs to specify when its withdrawal tool will appear and whether users will have any supported route for refinancing or managing active Blend loans after matching stops.

Sui's native stablecoin $USDsui has passed $80M in supply just months after its March 2026 launch, according to CryptoNews. Here is what is behind the growth.

@SuiNetwork's native stablecoin, $USDsui, has reached a record supply of more than $80 million, only months after its launch in March 2026. According to CryptoNews, the asset's supply has grown 20.5% over the last three months. Credit goes to the @Mysten_Labs team, which develops the Sui protocol.

How $USDsui got hereThe Sui Foundation announced the $USDsui mainnet launch on March 4.

The stablecoin was first unveiled in November 2025. At the time, That design differs from stablecoins where the issuer keeps the reserve income. CoinGecko's Sui page also lists a news item on the Sui Foundation repurchasing SUI tokens using USDsui yield.

Zero-fee transfers may also help adoption.

Context: a smaller slice of Sui's stablecoin marketThe $80 million milestone is a record for $USDsui itself, but it is still small against Sui's wider stablecoin market.

Supply figures also vary by source and date. while Readers should check live data before relying on any single number.

Overall, the growth shows early traction for a stablecoin that Sui controls, rather than relying only on third-party issuers. Whether $USDsui can keep expanding will depend on how much of Sui's stablecoin activity moves to it from existing assets.

SourcesSui Blog: Sui Unveils USDsui, a Native Stablecoin
Bridge: Sui Dollar (USDsui) reserve and supply data
DefiLlama: Sui stablecoin market cap and supply

Summary: Activate optimistic governance for ZIPs by deploying the council, veto, and supermajority contracts created by Scopelift, and set parameters outlined in the Specification section.

Field
Details

Title
Activate Optimistic Governance for ZIPs

Proposal Type
ZIP

One Sentence Summary
This ZIP activates Optimistic Governance for ZIPs which allows Security Council members to propose protocol upgrades and for the Token Assembly to veto any ZIP prior to execution.

Proposal Author
ZKsync Association

Proposal Sponsor
[TBC]

Date Submitted
[TBC]

Version
1

Summary of Action
Activate optimistic governance for ZIPs by deploying the council, veto, and supermajority contracts created by Scopelift, and set parameters outlined in the Specification section.

Abstract
This proposal activates Optimistic Governance for ZIPs. Security Council members will propose protocol upgrades and the Token Assembly will have the opportunity to veto any ZIP before it can proceed to execution. This removes the requirement for the Token Assembly to affirmatively approve every ZIP and focus voting on Token Program Proposals and Governance Advisory Proposals, while preserving its ability to veto a proposal.

Motivation
ZIPs are technical proposals that can upgrade the ZKsync protocol, its core contracts, and the governance system. The Security Council currently has responsibility for reviewing and approving protocol upgrades before they are executed. Allowing Security Council members to propose ZIPs places responsibility for driving upgrades with the governance body best positioned to assess them.

Under the current process, every ZIP must receive at least 630 million ZK in affirmative votes and a simple majority of votes cast. This means a proposal can fail because it does not reach quorum, even where there is no material opposition. It also requires the Token Assembly to approve technical changes before the Security Council completes its review.

Optimistic Governance shifts the Token Assembly’s role from approving every ZIP to having the ability to veto any ZIP, as well as increasing their focus on token programs, mechanics, and governance advisory. Once adopted, optimistic governace means protocol upgrade proposals can proceed without an affirmative Token Assembly vote, but 630 million ZK can stop it. A veto can only be overridden if at least 1.26 billion ZK votes For and there are more For votes than Against votes. This allows technical experts to drive protocol upgrades while keeping the Token Assembly as a check on whether they proceed.

This ZIP only changes the Protocol Upgrade path. The Token Governor (TPPs) and GovOps Governor (GAPs) are unchanged.

Specification
This proposal deploys a council token, a Council Governor, a Veto Governor, a Supermajority Governor, and a dedicated supermajority timelock on ZKsync Era. It reuses the existing Protocol Timelock so that successful proposals continue to reach the existing ProtocolUpgradeHandler on Ethereum.

Changes Proposed
1. Security Council proposal process
Each of the eight Security Council member entities will receive one non-transferable and non-delegable seat through CouncilERC20. Each seat will be held by that member entity’s SAFE multisig on ZKsync Era.

A seated member of the Security Council may submit a proposal through BasicCouncilGovernor. Any Security Council member entity can submit a protocol upgrade onchain. This submission equates to that entity sponsoring the ZIP. It is expected that the sponsor of the ZIP then casts a vote ‘FOR’ the proposal. One Security Council member entity voting FOR is sufficient to forward the proposal to the Token Assembly veto stage. The Security Council voting delay will be one day, enabling proposals to be cancelled and resubmitted if there is an error in the initial submission. The council voting period will be a maximum of three days. A one-seat super-quorum allows a proposal to advance as soon as the first valid FOR vote is cast.

The ZKsync deployment will use council vote-counting logic under which a valid FOR vote from one seat satisfies sponsorship regardless of Against votes. This preserves the intended one-member sponsorship model and prevents the council stage from becoming a separate majority-approval gate.

A successful council proposal is forwarded to the Veto Governor. It cannot be queued directly for execution through the Council Governor.

Council Members:

Matter Labs: 0xe38dc029623f0af56BdC46E5318610E257d6b760
Nethermind: 0x870Ec9631E28ee6C8b304e238E9b6890a99ab8aA
Open Zeppelin: 0x305798C076B64Be35Aa6367C6632b79e29D0113A
Spearbit: 0x356cF4Ac9fA86F0a9dDdc62e48082FE5Cd14bE7b
Chainlight: 0x3043bF9c9A512d20Dda2c2b2C3D69AF6f7Fcd5B1
Cyfrin: 0x9BC8d216d63b38c390e465D664FEb63B67659c13
Dedaub: 0xdbc2E250cBA867D6619Bed342Ca3Eca7b71e8b82
Peckshield: 0x46fc9a8A72456c84F42c5c9e5df46984c0078B15

2. Token Assembly veto process
Every proposal forwarded by the Council Governor will enter a Token Assembly veto process through BasicCouncilVetoGovernor. Delegated ZK voting power may cast veto votes during the configured veto period.

A proposal succeeds by default unless veto votes reach 630 million ZK. If the threshold is reached, the proposal is defeated unless the Token Assembly subsequently approves an override through the process described below.

The veto threshold will be set at a fixed threshold of 630 million ZK.

The veto vote will remain open for seven days. Once the veto votes reach 315 million ZK—50% of the veto threshold—the voting period will be extended by two days.

3. Token Assembly Supermajority Vote
A veto may be overridden by a Token Assembly supermajority:

at least 1.26 billion ZK voting For, equal to twice the 630 million ZK veto threshold; and
more For votes than Against votes.

The Supermajority Governor [ZKsync Supermajority Governor] will use the existing ZK token and the same fractional-counting model as the current Protocol Governor. It will have a proposal threshold of 21 million ZK, a one-day voting delay, a seven-day voting period, and a three-day late-quorum extension.

Successful supermajority proposals will execute through a dedicated self-administered TimelockController with a one-day minimum delay. That timelock will hold the Veto Governor’s vetoOverrideRole. No externally owned account, Security Council Safe, Foundation Safe, or general governance administrator will hold the supermajority role.

The supermajority vote must execute within 14 days after the veto deadline. This window accommodates the override vote, possible late-quorum extension, and supermajority-timelock delay.

Under the proposed implementation, the supermajority may apply to any proposal in the Defeated state, including a proposal stopped through the Foundation’s safety veto. This prevents the Foundation from becoming a unilateral denial-of-service point, but means its veto acts as a delay rather than an absolute stop when at least 1.26 billion ZK supports a proposal proceeding.

Following a successful supermajority vote, anyone may queue the proposal on the Veto Governor and, after the applicable timelock conditions are satisfied, execute it through the Council Governor. The existing L1 approval process still applies.

4. Foundation safety veto
The ZKsync Foundation will retain veto power in the Veto Governor’s vetoGuardian role via its L2 multisig, 0xF197677d63BF6E2841F5108b8dFd2FD6eCEff74B.

The Foundation may stop a proposal while it is Pending or Active by calling vetoByGuardian() on ZKsync Era. The Foundation cannot use this role to originate, affirmatively approve, queue, or execute a proposal.

A Foundation-vetoed proposal may be restored through the 1.26 billion ZK Token Assembly override described above.

5. Standard ZIP process
The standard process will be:

One Security Council member submits a ZIP through the Council Governor.
The proposing Security Council member, or any other council member, casts one FOR vote to advance the proposal to the Token Assembly veto stage.
The proposal enters the Token Assembly veto process.
The Foundation may exercise its safety veto while the proposal is Pending or Active.
If no veto occurs, the proposal succeeds at the end of the veto period.
If a veto occurs, the proposal proceeds only if the Token Assembly approves an override with at least 1.26 billion ZK voting For and more For votes than Against votes.
The Veto Governor queues and executes the proposal through the existing Protocol Timelock.
The Protocol Timelock sends the L2-to-L1 message to the ProtocolUpgradeHandler.
The upgrade proceeds through the existing L1 approval, delay, and execution stages.

Every standard ZIP is subject to the Token Assembly veto process. Only a higher-threshold Token Assembly vote may reverse a veto on L2.

6. Council Governor parameters

Parameter
Initial Value

Name
ZKsync Protocol Upgrade Council

Council Veto Governor
Deployed Veto Governor

Governor admin
0xf41eca3047b37dc7d88849de4a4dc07937ad6bc4

Voting delay
86,400 seconds (1 day)

Voting period
259,200 seconds (3 days)

Proposal threshold
1e18 (one seat)

Quorum fraction
12% (one of eight seats)

Super-quorum fraction
12% (one of eight seats)

Vote-success rule
One FOR vote is enough

7. Veto Governor parameters

Parameter
Initial Value

Name
ZKsync Protocol Upgrade Veto Governor

Token
ZK at 0x5A7d6b2F92C77FAD6CCaBd7EE0624E64907Eaf3E

Voting delay
86,400 seconds (1 day)

Voting period
604,800 seconds (7 days)

Proposal threshold
0 (propose() is restricted to the Council Governor)

Veto Guardian
0xF197677d63BF6E2841F5108b8dFd2FD6eCEff74B

Veto override duration
1,209,600 seconds (14 days)

Voting-period extension
172,800 seconds (2 days)

Extension threshold
50% of veto threshold (315 million ZK)

Veto threshold
630 million ZK

Protocol Timelock
0x085b8B6407f150D62adB1EF926F7f304600ec714

Governor admin
0xf41eca3047b37dc7d88849de4a4dc07937ad6bc4

Council
Deployed Council Governor

Veto override role
Deployed Override timelock

8. Council token parameters

Parameter
Initial Value

Name
ZKsync Protocol Upgrade Council Seat

Symbol
ZKPUC

Admin
0xf41eca3047b37dc7d88849de4a4dc07937ad6bc4

Maximum tokens per member
1e18

Initial members
Matter Labs: 0xe38dc029623f0af56BdC46E5318610E257d6b760; Nethermind: 0x870Ec9631E28ee6C8b304e238E9b6890a99ab8aA; Open Zeppelin: 0x305798C076B64Be35Aa6367C6632b79e29D0113A; Spearbit: 0x356cF4Ac9fA86F0a9dDdc62e48082FE5Cd14bE7b; Chainlight: 0x3043bF9c9A512d20Dda2c2b2C3D69AF6f7Fcd5B1; Cyfrin: 0x9BC8d216d63b38c390e465D664FEb63B67659c13; Dedaub: 0xdbc2E250cBA867D6619Bed342Ca3Eca7b71e8b82; Peckshield: 0x46fc9a8A72456c84F42c5c9e5df46984c0078B15

Tokens per initial member
1e18

Transferability
Non-transferable and non-delegable

9. Supermajority Governor parameters

Parameter
Initial Value

Name
ZKsync Supermajority Governor

Token
ZK at 0x5A7d6b2F92C77FAD6CCaBd7EE0624E64907Eaf3E

Proposal threshold
21 million ZK

Fixed For-vote quorum
1.26 billion ZK

Success condition
At least 1.26 billion ZK FOR and more FOR than AGAINST

Voting delay
86,400 seconds (1 day)

Voting period
604,800 seconds (7 days)

Late-quorum extension
259,200 seconds (3 days)

Override timelock minimum delay
86,400 seconds (1 day)

Override timelock proposer and canceller
Veto Override Governor

Override timelock executor
Open (address(0))

Override timelock administration
Self-administered

10. Existing Protocol Timelock migration
This design requires no changes to the existing ProtocolUpgradeHandler and continues to use the existing Protocol Timelock at 0x085b8B6407f150D62adB1EF926F7f304600ec714.

The migration will:

grant PROPOSER_ROLE, EXECUTOR_ROLE, and CANCELLER_ROLE on the Protocol Timelock to the new Veto Governor; and
revoke those roles from the current ZkProtocolGovernor at 0x76705327e682f2d96943280d99464ab61219e34f.

The Veto Governor requires EXECUTOR_ROLE because it calls executeBatch() itself. The Protocol Timelock is self-administered and currently has a minimum delay of zero. This ZIP does not change that delay.

11. Administration and council membership
The governorAdmin roles for the Council Governor and Veto Governor, as well as the CouncilERC20 admin role, will be assigned to the L2 alias of the ProtocolUpgradeHandler, 0xf41eca3047b37dc7d88849de4a4dc07937ad6bc4.

As a result, parameter changes and council seat changes must pass through the full ZIP process, including the L1 approval and delay stages, before the ProtocolUpgradeHandler sends the corresponding L1-to-L2 call.

The L1 Security Council membership and the L2 council-seat list are separate. A change to one does not automatically update the other. Any membership change must update both systems where applicable.

12. Prerequisite Guardian-dissolution ZIP
This proposal assumes that a separate ZIP has already:

assigned the ZKsync Foundation Safe to the ProtocolUpgradeHandler Guardian role;
deployed and activated an Emergency Upgrade Board that is composed of the Security Council plus Foundation, requiring both bodies; and
retired the prior three-body Emergency Upgrade Board.

That prerequisite ZIP must execute before this optimistic-governance migration. Any corresponding changes to Guardian roles in the Token Governor and GovOps Governor must be handled separately through the applicable TPP and GAP processes.

13. Scope
This proposal applies only to the Protocol Upgrade Governor and its timelock. It does not change:

the Token Governor or the affirmative Token Assembly vote required for TPPs;
the GovOps Governor or the affirmative Token Assembly vote required for GAPs;
the L1 ProtocolUpgradeHandler approval thresholds established by the prerequisite ZIP;
the Security Council’s existing freeze powers; or
the Emergency Upgrade Board established by the prerequisite ZIP.

Execution Impact
Security Council
Each Security Council member entity will receive one seat held through its Safe on ZKsync Era. Any one member may sponsor a proposal and forward it to the Token Assembly veto stage. The Security Council will continue to act collectively during the L1 approval stage.

L2 seat custody is operationally separate from the existing L1 Security Council membership. The signer sets and membership records must be kept aligned.

Token Assembly
The Token Assembly will no longer need to reach affirmative quorum for every ZIP. Instead, every standard ZIP will enter a public veto period.

Delegates may stop a proposal with 630 million ZK in veto votes. A disputed veto may be reversed only through a separate Token Assembly vote with at least 1.26 billion ZK voting For and more For votes than Against votes.

This proposal does not change Token Assembly approval rights for TPPs or GAPs.

ZKsync Foundation
The Foundation may veto Pending or Active proposals through an L1-to-L2 transaction. Under the proposed implementation, the Token Assembly may reverse that veto through the same 1.26 billion ZK override process.

The Foundation retains the L1 fallback approval and legal-veto-extension functions established by the prerequisite Guardian-dissolution ZIP.

Governance interfaces and monitoring
The governance interface must support council proposal, council sponsorship, Token Assembly veto, veto extension, override proposal, override execution, Protocol Timelock, and L1 approval states.

All council proposals and vetoes should trigger public notifications to delegates, Security Council members, the Foundation, and the wider community. Interfaces should display the 630 million ZK veto threshold, the 315 million ZK extension threshold, the 1.26 billion ZK override requirement, and the applicable deadlines.

Governance Procedures
The ZKsync Governance Procedures must be amended to reflect Security Council proposal rights, the Token Assembly veto and override processes, the Foundation safety veto, and the revised role of the current Protocol Timelock and Protocol Governor.

Backwards Compatibility
This proposal changes the governance process for future ZIPs and is therefore not procedurally backwards compatible with the current affirmative-vote model.

After activation:

ZIPs must be originated through the Council Governor;
delegated ZK voting power will ordinarily be used to veto rather than affirmatively approve ZIPs;
a separate higher-threshold Token Assembly process will govern veto overrides;
the new Veto Governor will replace the current Protocol Governor as proposer, executor, and canceller on the existing Protocol Timelock; and
governance interfaces and indexing services must support the council-to-veto and override lifecycles.

The proposal does not change application-facing transaction formats, smart contract interfaces, or validity rules for ordinary ZKsync transactions. The Token Governor and GovOps Governor proposal processes remain unchanged.

Any ZIP pending in the current Protocol Governor at the activation boundary must be handled under a published transition plan. No proposal should remain dependent on roles that are revoked during migration.

Security Considerations
The optimistic model allows a proposal to advance without affirmative Token Assembly participation. This improves liveness but makes public notice, monitoring, accessible technical materials, and a meaningful veto period essential. The seven-day veto period, late-veto extension, Foundation veto, Token Assembly override process, collective Security Council L1 approval, and existing L1 delays provide defense in depth.

The 1.26 billion ZK override protects against veto griefing and a unilateral Foundation denial of service, but it also means that a veto is not absolute. The override remains a Token Assembly decision: neither the Security Council, the Foundation, nor the administrator can invoke it without the required token vote. The feasibility of reaching 1.26 billion ZK in For votes should be assessed against historical participation before deployment.

As proposed, the override can reverse both a token-holder veto and a Foundation safety veto because both place the proposal in the Defeated state. Restricting the override to token-holder vetoes would require additional state tracking and a further modification to the audited code. The final implementation and documentation must make the selected behavior explicit.

If the Security Council cannot satisfy the L1 approval threshold, the Foundation may use the fallback approval path established by the prerequisite ZIP. If both bodies refuse or are unavailable, the upgrade will not execute. This is the intended two-body blocking property of the design.

The governorAdmin and council-token admin may change parameters and membership. Assigning these roles to the aliased ProtocolUpgradeHandler subjects their use to the full ZIP and L1 approval path, but also makes correct L1-to-L2 aliasing and cross-domain execution critical. All aliases and administrative calls must be tested on a fork.

The existing Protocol Timelock is retained because the ProtocolUpgradeHandler accepts messages only from that address. Incorrectly revoking the current governor’s roles before the Veto Governor is fully configured could make protocol governance inoperable. The role migration must be atomic where possible and verified against the final execution manifest.

The generic council-governance contracts were reviewed by Certora in December 2025 at commit 6680eb4, according to the supporting technical materials. The ZKsync-specific council counting, fixed veto-supply base, deployment parameters, override-governor integration, L1-to-L2 administration, and complete role migration require their own review before submission.

At 12:02 UTC on October 12, 2026, INFINIT introduced its managed trading-vault framework, with APEX Multi-Strategy as the first named vault. The framework restricts vaults to eligible Hyperliquid markets with at least $100 million in open interest.

Depositors enter with $USDC during a defined window and receive a receipt token representing their share. A strategy manager trades for a fixed term. At the end, holders can redeem the receipt token for their share of the vault’s $USDC value after fees. Each manager sets the fees, lock period, deposit window, risk limits and strategy before deposits open.

This structure gives the manager trading authority without giving it withdrawal access. INFINIT says deposits sit behind a 3-of-4 multisig, with keys divided between INFINIT and the operating team. Trading credentials can open and close positions but cannot withdraw depositor funds. The company also publishes a shared trading wallet and provides weekly performance reports to depositors.

How the controls work
INFINIT calls the common infrastructure INFINIT OS. It covers strategy research and testing, vault setup, accounting for depositor shares, controlled execution, risk monitoring and investor reporting. The company says it also supports legal structuring, regulated fund licensing and fund administration for strategy managers.

Managers must pass what INFINIT calls the INFINIT Standard before they can take deposits. The manager and its beneficial owners must complete identity checks and screening. The manager must contribute first-loss capital alongside depositors and show a live trading record rather than relying only on a backtest. It must also declare market, leverage, exposure and drawdown limits.

The trade gateway enforces those restrictions at order entry. It blocks orders outside the approved market list and any order that violates the vault’s declared restrictions. Monitoring agents separately compare trading activity with the manager’s published mandate and risk limits. INFINIT’s risk team reviews suspected breaches. The manager must correct a confirmed breach, while an unresolved breach causes INFINIT to pause trading access.

The custody design separates several powers, but depositors still depend on INFINIT’s controls and the operating team’s key arrangement. A strategy can produce trading losses within its permitted mandate. Receipt-token redemption also occurs at the end of a fixed term, rather than as an on-demand withdrawal described in the announcement. Fees differ by manager and must be read in the terms for the specific vault.

The manager-screening process adds another layer before a vault can collect deposits. INFINIT requires identity checks for the manager and its beneficial owners. It also requires a live trading record and first-loss capital from the manager. That capital puts manager funds in the same strategy, but the announcement does not state the amount or the loss-allocation sequence. Those details belong in the vault terms that prospective depositors receive before a window opens.

Declared risk limits cover markets, leverage, exposure and drawdown. They are separate from the manager’s investment thesis. A permitted losing position can comply with all four limits. Conversely, an order can fit the thesis and still be rejected if it falls outside an approved market or another declared restriction. Depositors need both parts of the disclosure to understand what the manager intends to trade and what the gateway will allow.

The $100 million open-interest threshold narrows the Hyperliquid market set available to each vault. INFINIT says the gateway automatically blocks orders outside that eligible list. The announcement does not say how often open interest is measured or what happens when an already-open market falls below the threshold. That is a practical rule to check in each vault’s disclosed risk controls.

INFINIT says receipt tokens represent depositor shares and that integrations with other DeFi protocols are planned. That makes the current receipt an accounting and redemption claim under the vault terms. The announcement does not identify a live lending, collateral or secondary-market integration for it.

The first vault trades a neutral book
APEX Multi-Strategy is the first vault under the framework. Apex Quantitative Capital operates it. INFINIT says the team’s members have close to 50 years of combined experience across banks, buy-side institutions, crypto trading firms and exchanges.

The strategy is a systematic CTA momentum model. Its AI-led engine ranks markets by relative strength, goes long the strongest and shorts the weakest across stocks, commodities and crypto. INFINIT says the book stays dollar-neutral so returns come from market selection. Equity and commodity exposure comes through perpetual contracts on Hyperliquid, and all APEX returns come from trading profit and loss.

For depositors, the distinction between transparent positions and enforceable limits matters. The shared wallet lets them inspect activity, while weekly reports cover performance, exposure and trading. Neither replaces the disclosed mandate. The gateway determines which orders are allowed, and INFINIT’s monitoring process determines how a suspected breach is escalated.

The open question is how consistently those controls will constrain a live manager during fast markets. INFINIT’s announcement describes automatic order blocking, agent monitoring and a human risk review, but it does not publish latency, intervention thresholds or a completed audit in the announcement. Prospective depositors will need the vault-specific risk controls, audit details, fees and lock-up period that managers must disclose before accepting funds.

The next deposit window
INFINIT says onchain lending-vault deposits grew from $1.5 billion in September 2024 to $10 billion in September 2026. It presents trading vaults as a separate extension of managed onchain products. The comparison is context supplied by INFINIT, not a measure of deposits already committed to its trading vaults.

The next operational dates concern APEX. Vault 1 becomes redeemable on October 28, 2026. INFINIT says Vault 2 is separate, so existing holders must redeem from Vault 1 before depositing into Vault 2. The next APEX Multi-Strategy deposit window is planned for October 28 through November 11, 2026, with participation details still to be announced.

The U.K. High Court has ruled in a multi-billion-dollar Bitcoin clawback legal battle regarding the 61,000 BTC seized during one of the largest crypto money laundering cases in history. 

The recent October 12 ruling could prove to have massive financial ramifications for around 16,000 Chinese fraud victims looking to claw back their money. 

Instead of being able to recoup some of Bitcoin's mind-blowing price gains, investors may only be able to collect their initial investment plus interest.

HOT Stories

As per the official ruling, Mr. Justice Turner ruled that the law in China must be applied to decide whether the investors have the right to ownership of the seized cryptocurrency. Importantly, though, the court still has not ruled on whether they actually have these rights or not. Hence, the fate of this Bitcoin fortune is still up in the air.

Bitcoin scam breakdownThe saga begins back in 2014, when Chinese citizen Qian Zhimin (aka Yadi Zhang) formed Tianjin Lantian Gerui Electronic Technology. It was through this entity that Qian would create a web of fraudulent investment schemes.

Between 2014 and 2017, the firm lured in investors with promises of profitable returns on investments in the digital currencies space, senior care services, and more.

You Might Also Like

Per court filings, they managed to get investors to sign up to 128,409 investment agreements that brought in a total of around 40.23 billion yuan ($5.9 billion, per current approx. exchange rates). Of that total, some investors received payouts of 34.1 billion yuan as per the structure of a Ponzi scheme. 

Qian then took some of the money and used it to buy Bitcoin. It was determined that from June 2014 to June 2017, over 100,000 BTC was purchased using an account on the crypto exchange Huobi.

Fast forward to October–November 2018, when British police raided properties connected to Qian and her co-conspirator Jian Wen. They seized electronic devices and private keys related to the crypto. This investigation led to the seizure of over 61,000 BTC.

The significance of the new rulingThe new ruling comes as British prosecutors and Chinese investors spar over who is entitled to claim ownership of the massive stash of Bitcoin.

The Chinese investors were hoping to use English property law to their advantage. This would give them the right to follow the trail of their money through to the new Bitcoin purchased by Qian.

This would potentially enable the victims to assert their rights over the crypto itself, beyond just trying to get their initial investment money back.

However, Turner sided with the prosecutors, arguing that the vast majority of the fraudulent statements, investment agreements, payments, and initial Bitcoin purchases had a Chinese connection.

Share

Bitcoin

13 October 2026 | 00:14 An 8%-12% annual target in Bitcoin can sound like a return earned by holding BTC. The Liberty Bitcoin Accumulation Fund pursues it through active trading strategies run by external managers.

The product in one view

Target

8%-12% a year in BTC terms

Return source

Quantitative trading strategies

Investor receives

An economic interest in a fund

Important limit

No secondary market is expected

How Liberty seeks a Bitcoin-denominated return Bitfinex Securities has opened tokenized capital raises for two CMCC Global products: the dollar-denominated Crest Fund and the Bitcoin-denominated Liberty Bitcoin Accumulation Fund, or LBAF. Its listing information describes LBAF as a Cayman Islands segregated-portfolio fund of hedge funds, with tokens representing economic ownership under the relevant fund documents.

Liberty targets a net annualised return of 8%-12% in Bitcoin terms. The figure is an investment objective. Its materials describe the investment as speculative, warn that principal can be lost and state that the fund may fail to meet its objectives.

To pursue that target, the fund allocates across 10-20 quantitative, market-neutral managers and trading pods. Its stated methods include market making, funding-rate and basis arbitrage, volatility strategies and cross-venue trading.

How the strategy is meant to work

1. Find a market difference
A manager may identify a gap between spot and futures prices, funding rates, volatility levels or trading venues. 2. Build and manage a hedge
The trade is designed to limit exposure to Bitcoin’s direction while seeking to capture that pricing or financing difference. 3. Measure the result in Bitcoin
The investor’s target is expressed in BTC, even though performance may be affected by trading costs, losses and fund expenses. These strategies seek to make the return less dependent on Bitcoin rising or falling. Their outcome still depends on manager skill, reliable execution, liquid markets and counterparties that can meet their obligations during periods of stress.

A poor hedge, a venue outage, a counterparty failure or a pricing gap that closes early can produce losses. Market-neutral trading reduces directional exposure; it does not remove the operational and trading risks involved in pursuing the target.

What sits behind the token balance An LBAF holder does not direct the fund’s basis trades, market-making books or volatility positions. CMCC Global and the underlying managers make allocation and trading decisions, while the token represents the investor’s economic interest in the structure.

That relationship shapes the practical rights attached to the investment. Fees, performance calculations, reporting and redemption procedures come from the offering memorandum and subscription documents, which remain more important than the fact that the interest is recorded through digital-asset infrastructure.

Read the legal claim, not only the token label

The token gives an investor a digital record of an interest in the fund. The fund documents define the economic rights attached to that interest, including how capital is valued and returned.

The same issue appears whenever an onchain instrument represents a conventional financial product. A tokenized stock can provide a legal entitlement instead of direct shareholder registration. A tokenized fund interest also needs to be read alongside the legal claim it represents.

Liquidity has three separate layers Liberty’s website says no secondary market for interests in the fund exists or is expected to develop. That disclosure limits what “tokenized” means for an investor seeking a quick exit: the technology can record a fund interest, while the fund’s liquidity terms still control access to capital.

Layer Question for the investor Fund redemption When can capital be requested, and which notice periods, gates or withdrawal limits apply? Secondary transfer Is there an eligible buyer able and permitted to receive the interest? Strategy liquidity Can underlying managers close positions and return capital when the fund needs to meet redemptions? Investor classification, KYC and anti-money-laundering requirements can narrow the potential pool of buyers. Meanwhile, a fund’s ability to meet a redemption request can depend on the liquidity of its strategies, exchanges and counterparties.

Crest and Liberty use different measuring sticks Crest and Liberty use a similar fund-of-funds approach, though they frame success in different currencies. Crest is dollar-denominated and seeks to outperform a multiple of U.S. Treasury bills. Liberty measures its objective in Bitcoin.

Liberty could generate a positive return in BTC while the dollar value of the investment falls during a steep Bitcoin decline. Crest could achieve its dollar objective during a period in which Bitcoin rises far more quickly. The more relevant benchmark depends on whether an investor is managing dollar spending, a BTC treasury or a broader portfolio.

Tokenization changes administration, not the investment itself Tokenization can provide a digital framework for issuance, investor records, eligibility checks and administration. Those features may help issuers and eligible investors manage a private-market fund interest through regulated digital-asset infrastructure.

The investment case still depends on the managers, their strategies and the terms governing capital. Before treating “Bitcoin yield” as a simple product category, investors need to understand how the target is pursued, where losses can emerge and how they can exit the fund.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, legal or tax advice. Fund targets are not guaranteed returns. Investors should read the relevant offering memorandum, subscription documents and risk disclosures before investing.

Author

Kosta has reported on cryptocurrency markets and blockchain infrastructure since 2020, bringing over six years of hands-on experience in the crypto industry built through daily tracking of markets, trends, and emerging blockchain developments. Specializing in Bitcoin on-chain analysis, institutional ETF flows, and digital asset price action, his work at Coindoo has been cited by other news agencies and consistently covers market developments with a focus on data-driven reporting across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP. Over the years, Kosta has contributed to multiple crypto media outlets in different regions, authoring over 6,000 articles across the sector. His reporting spans cryptocurrency markets and the broader fintech industry, tracking not only price action but also the technological and regulatory forces shaping the ecosystem. To support his analysis, Kosta actively leverages on-chain data and metrics from leading platforms such as Santiment, Glassnode, and CryptoQuant, enabling deeper, evidence-based market insights. He believes in the power of transparency and the data that underpins the blockchain ecosystem. His academic background in Marketing Management from Denmark further complements his analytical approach, adding a strong understanding of communication strategy and content positioning to his work.

Bitcoin slipped below $82,000, and leveraged bulls paid for it almost immediately. Roughly $120 million in long positions across crypto were liquidated in the span of 15 minutes.

What happened in those 15 minutes
The drop pushed Bitcoin under the $82,000 mark during intraday trading on October 12. As the price fell, exchanges began forcibly closing leveraged long positions, which are bets that the price would keep rising.

That forced selling is called a liquidation. It also tends to feed on itself, because every automatic sell order adds more downward pressure on the price.

Data from platforms including CoinGlass and Hyperliquid pointed to heavy long exposure among traders heading into the move.

CoinGlass reported that long positions made up the bulk of the liquidations in recent events. Shorts, the traders betting on declines, had a considerably better afternoon.

By the latest readings, Bitcoin was changing hands in the low $82,000 range. Traders were watching a support zone between $81,300 and $82,000, a band where buyers have previously stepped in.

Not the first wobble this month
On October 8, Bitcoin dropped below $81,000, touching intraday lows of approximately $80,400 to $80,500. That earlier slide triggered over $1 billion in liquidations within 24 hours, mostly on the long side. A further $696 million in related liquidations came alongside it.

Compared with that, Sunday’s $120 million flush looks almost restrained. The speed, though, is the notable part: the October 8 figure accumulated over a full day, while the latest one landed in a quarter of an hour.

Both declines followed a run that took Bitcoin to highs in the $85,000 to $87,000 range earlier in October. Profit-taking near the $87,000 peak helped kick off the retreat.

US spot Bitcoin ETFs reportedly saw outflows of $487 million in a single day, which removes a meaningful source of steady buying.

No significant regulatory actions or protocol changes were reported around this stretch of price action. The swings appear tied more to traders unwinding leverage than to any single fundamental headline.

The bounce pattern
After earlier sharp drops, Bitcoin has rebounded fast, at one point climbing back above $83,000.

What this means for traders and investors
The $81,300 to $82,000 support band is the near-term level to watch. A clean break below it could trigger another round of forced selling if traders remain heavily leveraged.

A single $487 million outflow day doesn’t define a trend, but continued redemptions would mean less institutional demand absorbing the selling when leveraged traders get flushed.

The October 8 low near $80,400 also serves as a reference point. Revisiting that level would put the market back where the $1 billion-plus liquidation day bottomed out.

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

Ahmed Barakat

Author

Ahmed Barakat

Part of the Team Since

Mar 2024

About Author

Ahmed Barakat is a journalist and copywriter based in Georgia with a growing focus on blockchain technology, DeFi, AI, privacy, digital assets, and fintech innovation.

Has Also Written

Fact Checked by

CryptoNews Editorial Team

Author

CryptoNews Editorial Team

Part of the Team Since

Sep 2018

About Author

The CryptoNews editorial team is composed of seasoned writers specializing in cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Their expertise ensures comprehensive, accurate, and insightful content for...

Has Also Written

Last updated: 

U.S. spot XRP ETFs drew $11.31 million in net inflows between October 5 and October 9, even as XRP fell from about $1.52 to $1.40 and briefly touched a $1.32 price low. The gap keeps the key question in focus: can concentrated fund demand defend the $1.32-$1.38 support zone, or must XRP reclaim $1.50-$1.56 before its short-term trend improves?

Bitwise supplied $10.55 million of the weekly total, nearly carrying the market-wide result by itself. Franklin Templeton’s XRPZ added $4.10 million, while Canary Capital’s XRPC recorded a $3.34 million outflow; three of the five sessions had no net flow.

Excluding Bitwise, the other funds combined added only about $760,000 net. That is the material qualification to the 12-week streak: inflows have persisted, but last week’s figures do not show evenly distributed demand across issuers. Upcoming weekly totals will test whether buying broadens or the streak remains dependent on one large fund.

ETF net assets are at about $1.57 billion, against roughly $1.8 billion in cumulative inflows since launch. The resulting gap of around $230 million is a rough mark-to-market indicator.

The contrast with other crypto funds is notable. U.S. bitcoin funds shed $681 million over the same week, while XRP was the only one of the cited bitcoin, ether, solana, and XRP fund groups to finish with net inflows. That relative resilience is real, but the single-week comparison does not establish that ETF demand can absorb continued selling in the spot market.

Earn $50 and Enter $300K Prize Draw on EdgeX

Can Buyers Defend XRP $1.32-$1.38 Price Support Zone?XRP opened the week near $1.52, ended Friday around $1.40, and touched $1.32 on October 8. The close-to-close decline is at 7.3%, as the price action erased a meaningful part of the preceding level.

The $1.32-$1.38 area is the immediate support test. Holding it while ETF flows stay positive would be consistent with dip buying, but one bounce would not confirm a durable floor; a break below the zone would show that inflows have not prevented further technical deterioration.

On the upside, the primary-source levels place resistance at $1.50-$1.56. A sustained reclaim of that band, rather than a brief intraday move into it, would provide stronger evidence that the short-term trend is improving. Until then, ETF inflows are a supportive flow signal, not confirmation of a price reversal.

A separate XRP support-level assessment also examines downside scenarios around the current price area.

Trade XRP on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop

Evernorth Adds Another XRP VehicleEvernorth’s XRPN began trading on Nasdaq on Monday, October 12, adding another listed route to XRP exposure. The primary report says the vehicle holds about 473 million XRP, but its immediate effect on spot demand or price is not established.

The Nasdaq building in New York City. – Photo: John A. Montgomery / CC BY-SA 2.0That distinction matters for the XRP price outlook. If the token holds support and ETF flows remain positive across more issuers, the case for accumulation on weakness strengthens; if support fails or flows narrow further, the 12-week streak will offer little proof of a reliable floor.

A sustained move back through $1.50-$1.56 remains the clearest stated threshold for short-term trend improvement, while Evernorth’s XRP exposure is a potential demand factor whose market impact still needs to be demonstrated.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

Ethereum‘s liquidity on Binance has deteriorated significantly, with its Liquidity Shock Z-Score falling to -1.00, the lowest point recorded in nearly seven months.

Multi-month volatility leads to sharp dropCryptoQuant data shows that the Z-Score, which reflects liquidity conditions for Ethereum on Binance, has experienced several months of fluctuation throughout 2026. The indicator posted high positive readings early in the year before tumbling sharply in February and remaining unstable over the subsequent months.

After a partial recovery and increased readings over the summer, the Z-Score experienced a sudden reversal in October. This has now resulted in liquidity levels significantly below the historical average for Ethereum on Binance.

Market analysts emphasized that a sharp decline in liquidity does not necessarily signal traders closing their positions or a wave of selling by Ethereum investors. Instead, the indicator generally highlights changing liquidity conditions and does not point to a specific future price direction.

Rather than reflecting mass selling, the current low Z-Score indicates altered liquidity dynamics on Binance, with no clear implication for the immediate direction of Ethereum’s price.

Analysts further pointed out that unusual liquidity conditions often warrant close monitoring for rapid changes, especially given Ethereum’s historical volatility.

Investors transfer ETH to private walletsThe sudden drop in the Z-Score follows observations that Ethereum’s supply on centralized exchanges has shrunk notably. This pattern suggests holders are moving tokens away from trading platforms and into personal wallets, a trend that may foster stronger upward price momentum if coins become less readily available for trading.

Ethereum’s movement from exchanges to private wallets could indicate growing confidence among long-term holders, reducing immediate sell pressure and possibly setting the stage for renewed demand.

In a market where a single Fed decision or a sudden altcoin listing can change everything in seconds, investors have increasingly turned to unified platforms for more efficient market monitoring. Smart traders are utilizing privacy-first tools like CryptoAppsy to consolidate real-time charts, coin-specific news, portfolio tracking, and macroeconomic data in one interface—all without the need for an account. This approach aims to minimize missed opportunities caused by switching between multiple applications.

Tether froze $10 million in USDT following reports of a large theft affecting Ledger hardware wallets distributed by CryptoBilis, a third-party vendor active in Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Investigators have traced the total assets stolen to as much as $93 million, mainly targeting TRON and USDT holdings, as officials work to track the movement of the stolen cryptocurrencies.

Ledger links incident to third-party resellerLedger, a leading French cryptocurrency hardware wallet manufacturer, stated that the affected wallets originated from devices sold by CryptoBilis. According to the company, there is no indication that its internal systems, services, or direct sales channels have been compromised.

A further investigation revealed a physical compromise on some devices. On October 10, Ledger identified an unauthorized hardware implant inside at least one compromised wallet, marking the first known evidence of a physical attack in this incident.

Ledger urged customers who purchased a CryptoBilis-supplied wallet in the past 90 days and have not yet configured it to leave the device unused. Existing users were advised to transfer assets to a new device and create a new recovery phrase.

Different estimates for funds stolenIndependent on-chain analysts have attempted to quantify the full extent of the losses. Bitquery, a blockchain analytics firm, attributed the attack to a theft of $93.2 million across 315 wallets spread over six blockchains. Another platform, YFarmX, placed the figure higher, estimating $94.5 million lost from 521 wallets on seven chains. Both relied on data from public blockchains.

SourceTotal StolenNumber of WalletsNumber of BlockchainsBitquery$93.2 million3156YFarmX$94.5 million5217Bitquery reported that approximately $70.5 million in TRON, $16.8 million in Bitcoin, and $3.7 million in Ethereum were stolen. Smaller amounts disappeared from BNB Chain, Polygon, and Solana. The addresses linked to the scheme were created on September 25, and numerous test transactions were observed before the main attack in early October.

On October 9, the attackers reportedly modified permissions for 30 TRON wallets ahead of transferring 203.8 BTC from 111 Bitcoin wallets in a single block. Such transfers require the private keys, suggesting an advanced operation involving premeditated access.

The ability to freeze assets makes stablecoin issuers like Tether central to investigations in such cases. Bitquery verified that about $81 million in traceable assets remained on-chain as of October 11, though some funds attempted to evade tracking via crypto mixing tools like Tornado Cash and Zcash.

Mini dictionary: Tornado Cash is a privacy protocol on Ethereum that enables users to obfuscate the source and destination of funds by mixing transactions, complicating efforts to trace cryptocurrencies involved in illicit activity.

Community response and ownership questionsThe classification of the incident as a CryptoBilis-specific case prompted criticism from the crypto community. CryptoBilis had been authorized as an official Ledger reseller, which led some users to call for greater accountability from Ledger. Some critics insisted that the incident should be recognized as a broader Ledger issue due to the vendor’s official reseller status.

Arravind Prabu, a co-founder of CryptoBilis, said the company was acquired in March 2026, and all access credentials were transferred at that time. Only one new investor was registered in China, and no evidence has surfaced connecting the ownership transition with the thefts. Investigators have not found tampering linked to the new investors.

In response to the ongoing investigation, CryptoBilis suspended all hardware wallet sales and closed its retail locations across Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines.

Ledger continues to coordinate with affected users and relevant authorities during the investigation.

Hardware implant discoveredA significant discovery concerning the nature of the compromised devices came from Mark Karpelès, founder of Mt. Gox. After dismantling a Ledger Nano X device purchased in Malaysia, Karpelès identified covert hardware components: a cellular modem, an eSIM, and a small chip capable of intercepting what the screen displayed.

During device setup, recovery phrases appear on the wallet’s display. A component intercepting this data could transmit the recovery words over a mobile network, enabling remote wallet recreation and subsequent theft. It remains unclear whether all compromised devices contained such a module.

This case is unrelated to another theft from March, where phishing using the Ledger Live app on Apple’s App Store led to additional losses estimated at a minimum of $9.5 million.