Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.

Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

The XRP Ledger now handles close to 3 million transactions per day and holds about 8.2 million accounts. It is also being used more for stablecoins, trading and tokenized assets.

The mix of activity is changing. The network processed 222.4 million transactions in Q2 2026, its second-highest quarter on record. Yet daily active accounts fell.

At the same time, order-book trading rose 79% year over year in Q2. The average value of tokenized assets on the network reached about $3.72 billion, and adding RLUSD lifted that to about $4.26 billion.

This article reviews the main XRP Ledger statistics for 2026 using data from Blockworks, Evernorth, DefiLlama, Bitquery and others. Providers measure activity in different ways, so we explain how each figure is counted.

XRP Ledger Statistics at a Glance Table of Contents

The table below collects the main figures for 2026. The source is listed for each one.

Metric Figure Source Total accounts About 8.2 million XRPL analytics New accounts, first half of 2026 About 490,000 XRPL analytics Q1 2026 transactions About 238 million (record) Blockworks Q2 2026 transactions 222.4 million Evernorth Current daily transactions About 2.9 million DefiLlama Payment share of Q1 transactions 51.3% Blockworks Q2 DEX volume per day 4.42 million XRP Evernorth Order-book volume growth, Q2 +79% year over year Evernorth Stablecoin market cap Above $1.1 billion DefiLlama Average RLUSD balance, Q2 $539 million Evernorth Average tokenized assets, Q2 $3.72 billion Evernorth Transactions since launch About 5.06 billion Bitquery XRP burned through fees About 14.4 million XRPL Dashboard There is no single accepted definition of an active account, a DEX trade or a tokenized asset. That is why figures from different providers can look far apart.

How Many XRP Ledger Accounts Are There? Current XRPL analytics put the number of accounts at about 8.2 million. At the end of Q3 2025, the total was about 6.9 million. The count grew 6.1% in that quarter alone.

Growth continued in 2026. About 490,000 new addresses were added in the first half of the year. XRP Ledger Dashboard recently recorded more than 22,000 account creations over a seven-day period.

Figure 1: XRPL accounts rose from about 6.9 million at the end of Q3 2025 to about 8.2 million. Account counts are not user counts. One person can control several addresses.

The reverse also happens. A single exchange address can serve thousands or millions of customers. XRPL supports destination tags, which let custodians identify each customer deposit without creating a new address for every user.

Account creation requires XRP An XRPL account must hold a base reserve before it is fully active. The reserve fell from 10 XRP to 1 XRP in December 2024.

Because each account needs some XRP, creating huge numbers of accounts carries a cost. That makes raw account creation harder to spam than on networks where addresses are free. The lower reserve did make accounts cheaper to create than in past years.

How Many People Use the XRP Ledger Each Day? This is harder to answer than it looks. DefiLlama reports about 39,000 active XRPL addresses in 24 hours, along with about 2,800 new addresses. A late-September snapshot showed more than 45,000 active addresses and 3,129 new ones in a single day.

Evernorth’s Q2 analysis found a lower average of 16,587 daily transacting accounts. Blockworks reported a similar figure of about 16,800.

Figure 2: Daily active account counts range from about 16,600 to 45,000 depending on the provider. Why the gap? Providers define activity differently. Evernorth’s measure focuses on addresses that start transactions, while broader datasets can include other kinds of ledger activity.

Provider Measure Figure DefiLlama Active addresses, 24 hours About 39,000 DefiLlama Active addresses, late-September snapshot More than 45,000 Evernorth Daily transacting accounts, Q2 average 16,587 Blockworks Daily active addresses, Q2 average About 16,800 The safe takeaway is not that XRPL has exactly 16,000 or 40,000 daily users. Address-based statistics do not translate directly into unique people.

Active accounts fell in Q2 2026 Even with strong transaction counts, daily participation weakened in Q2. Evernorth’s 16,587 transacting accounts per day was down about 24% to 25% from a year earlier. New accounts averaged 2,783 per day, also down about 25%.

Blockworks’ broader data showed a similar picture. Daily active addresses of about 16,800 were down 10.7% from Q1 and 24.5% year over year.

This sets up one of the main trends of 2026. Transaction counts and asset values stayed high while active-address measures fell.

XRP Ledger Transaction Statistics XRPL processed about 222.4 million transactions in Q2 2026. That was its second-highest quarterly total on record. Q1 2026 set the record at about 238 million, so Q2 fell about 6.5% from the prior quarter.

Q2 averaged about 2.44 million transactions per day. DefiLlama recently recorded around 2.9 million in a 24-hour period.

Figure 3: Average daily transactions rose from 1.83 million in Q4 2025 to about 2.9 million in the latest 24-hour reading. Q1 transactions jumped 35% The rise began earlier in the year. Blockworks reported that average daily transactions grew from 1.83 million in Q4 2025 to 2.48 million in Q1 2026. That is growth of 35.3% quarter over quarter.

Activity eased a little in Q2, but throughput stayed well above many earlier periods.

Period Measure Figure Q4 2025 Average per day 1.83 million Q1 2026 Total About 238 million Q1 2026 Average per day 2.48 million Q2 2026 Total 222.4 million Q2 2026 Average per day About 2.44 million Latest 24 hours Total About 2.9 million More than 5 billion transactions since launch Bitquery analyzed the full ledger through September 2026 and counted about 5.06 billion transactions. Few public blockchains have handled that volume over so long a period.

The same research carries a warning. In August 2026, just 793 accounts generated about 93% of transaction traffic.

That points to automated services, market-making bots and other machine activity. A high transaction count does not mean millions of people use XRPL by hand each day.

Payments and Fees on the XRP Ledger XRP was built mainly for moving value, and payments remain the largest transaction type. In Q1 2026, payments made up 51.3% of all transactions.

OfferCreate transactions place orders on the built-in decentralized exchange. They made up another 33.7%. Together the two types were about 85% of network activity.

Figure 4: Payments and OfferCreate orders made up about 85% of XRPL transactions in Q1 2026. Payments had passed OfferCreate for eight straight quarters by Q1. Before 2024, OfferCreate was often the largest category.

What counts as an XRPL payment? A Payment transaction does more than send XRP. It can move XRP, RLUSD, other stablecoins, issued currencies and tokenized assets.

XRPL also supports payment paths that can swap one asset for another along the way. A sender can hold one currency while the recipient receives another. This has been part of the ledger’s focus on payments and foreign-exchange settlement.

Transaction fees are very low The base transaction fee is 10 drops. One XRP contains one million drops, so the fee is a tiny fraction of an XRP. Network dashboards still show the 10-drop base fee.

Fees are not paid to validators. The XRP used for fees is permanently destroyed, and about 14.4 million XRP has been burned since the ledger began.

Against a maximum supply of 100 billion XRP, that burn is small. Its main job is to discourage spam, not to shrink supply quickly.

XRPL Decentralized Exchange Statistics Unlike many blockchains, XRPL does not need a separate smart contract app to run an exchange. A central-limit order-book DEX is built into the protocol. Users can offer to trade XRP for tokens, tokens for XRP or one token for another.

XRPL later added automated market makers, or AMMs, through XLS-30. Order books and liquidity pools now work side by side.

DEX volume averaged 4.42 million XRP per day Total DEX trading in Q2 2026 averaged about 4.42 million XRP per day. That is about 20% higher than Q2 2025 and about 16% below Q1 2026.

In dollar terms, Blockworks-based data put Q2 DEX volume at about $482.9 million. DefiLlama shows about $3.7 million over 24 hours and about $36 million over seven days. Daily volume moves with XRP prices and market conditions.

Order-book volume rose 79% Order-book trading averaged 3.57 million XRP per day in Q2, up from about 1.99 million a year earlier. That is growth of about 79%.

Order books made up 81% of XRPL DEX trading in Q2, compared with 54% a year before. AMMs therefore held a smaller share of volume, though they remain an important part of the network.

Figure 5: Order-book volume rose from 1.99 million to 3.57 million XRP per day year over year. Fewer traders are moving more XRP Trading became more concentrated. The number of accounts placing order-book trades each day fell from 1,864 to about 1,111, a drop of around 40%.

Average activity per account rose from about 1,072 XRP to 3,217 XRP per day. The typical active account moved roughly three times as much XRP.

Figure 6: Daily order-book accounts fell while average XRP traded per account nearly tripled. Order-book measure Q2 2025 Q2 2026 Volume per day 1.99 million XRP 3.57 million XRP Share of DEX volume 54% 81% Accounts trading per day 1,864 1,111 XRP traded per account per day 1,072 3,217 This fits with more activity from professional traders, market makers or institutions. But addresses do not reveal their owners, so the data alone cannot show that institutions replaced retail traders.

AMM pools and token listings XRPL.to indexes more than 30,000 AMM pools. It shows about 25 million XRP of liquidity in the pools covered by its trading statistics.

Many pools hold little liquidity or trade rarely, and a small pool is easy to create. The pool count should not be read as 30,000 real markets.

The same site lists about 20,000 tokens. Its tracked token market has recently shown 4 to 5 million XRP in daily volume, more than 120,000 daily trades and more than 7,000 unique daily traders, depending on the period measured.

As on other blockchains, many tokens have little liquidity. The number of listed tokens is not the number of projects with real economic use.

Stablecoin and RLUSD Statistics on XRPL Stablecoins may be the most important new form of activity on the ledger. DefiLlama estimates XRPL’s stablecoin market cap at about $1.11 billion. RLUSD makes up about 92% of that total.

Other stablecoins on XRPL include USDC, EURCV, USDB, BBRL, EUROP and AUDD. The network was designed to let issued currencies move alongside XRP, which suits stablecoins.

RLUSD balances rose more than 600% Ripple’s dollar-backed RLUSD is now the main stablecoin on the ledger. In Q2 2026, average RLUSD balances on XRPL reached about $539 million. A year earlier they were about $73 million, a rise of roughly 642%.

XRPL’s share of total RLUSD circulation grew from 20% to 34%. The value moved using RLUSD rose about 925% year over year.

Figure 7: Average RLUSD balances on XRPL rose from $73 million to $539 million in a year. RLUSD measure Q2 2025 Q2 2026 Average balance on XRPL $73 million $539 million Share of total RLUSD circulation 20% 34% Value transferred Baseline Up about 925% Stablecoin supply kept growing after Q2. That is why XRPL’s total stablecoin market cap now sits above $1 billion.

The other growth area is real-world asset tokenization. XRPL lets issuers put financial assets directly on the ledger without conventional smart contracts. The ledger supports fungible tokens, multi-purpose tokens, stablecoins, tokenized funds, bonds, Treasury products and other real-world assets.

Issued assets can also trade through the native DEX and AMM.

Tokenized assets averaged $3.72 billion in Q2 Evernorth calculated that tokenized assets on XRPL averaged about $3.72 billion in Q2 2026. That was more than double the Q1 level and more than 30 times the level a year earlier.

Adding average RLUSD balances of about $539 million brings the average network value to $4.26 billion. Six quarters earlier, the same measure was only $99 million.

Figure 8: Tokenization totals range from $21 million to $4.26 billion depending on the definition. Why tokenization numbers differ Tokenization figures change a lot with the method. One tracker reported about $4.10 billion of real-world assets on XRPL at the end of September 2026, but only about $499 million was classed as distributed. DefiLlama uses a narrower active RWA AUM definition and reports about $21 million.

These figures do not necessarily conflict. One may count the total value of tokenized products, while another counts only assets actively issued, distributed or used in DeFi. It is worth checking what any AUM figure measures.

Measure Source Value Average tokenized assets, Q2 2026 Evernorth $3.72 billion Average network value with RLUSD, Q2 2026 Evernorth $4.26 billion Real-world assets represented, end of September Tracker data $4.10 billion Real-world assets classed as distributed Tracker data $499 million DeFi TVL DefiLlama About $40 million Active RWA AUM DefiLlama About $21 million Tokenized Treasuries and institutional controls In Q2 2026, part of a tokenized U.S. Treasury fund was redeemed with the asset leg settling on XRPL in under five seconds. XRPL’s tokenization documentation names Ondo Finance, Société Générale, Ripple and Vert among firms using or building asset infrastructure on the network.

Compliance is a barrier for institutions, since a regulated firm cannot trade with any anonymous wallet. XRPL development has focused on credentials, permissioned domains, permissioned markets, multi-purpose tokens and issuer controls.

These tools let institutions limit access to approved participants while still settling on a blockchain. That is a different target market from fully permissionless DeFi.

Low DeFi TVL does not tell the whole story DefiLlama reports about $40 million in DeFi TVL on XRPL. That is small next to Ethereum or Solana, and it looks at odds with billions in tokenized assets.

The gap is one of definition. A tokenized Treasury issued or settled on XRPL does not necessarily sit inside a lending protocol or liquidity pool. TVL captures only one slice of the network’s economic activity.

More Value, Fewer Participants The clearest theme in the 2026 data is a split between participation and economic activity. In Q2, daily transacting accounts fell about 24% year over year. New accounts fell about 25% and daily order-book traders fell about 40%.

Over the same period, order-book volume rose 79% and total DEX volume rose about 20%. Tokenized asset value rose more than 30 times, RLUSD balances rose more than 600% and RLUSD transfer value rose more than 900%.

Figure 9: In Q2 2026, participation measures fell while stablecoin and trading value measures rose. This does not prove institutional adoption. It does show that the value tied to the active parts of the network is growing much faster than the number of accounts using them.

The Bottom Line The XRP Ledger handles more activity than its small DeFi footprint suggests. It has about 8.2 million accounts and processes roughly 2 to 3 million transactions per day. Q1 2026 set a record at about 238 million, and Q2 followed with 222.4 million.

Payments remain central at 51.3% of Q1 transactions, with DEX orders adding 33.7%. DEX volume is growing even though fewer accounts trade. Q2 volume averaged 4.42 million XRP per day, with order-book trading up 79% and daily order-book traders down about 40%.

The larger change is in stablecoins and tokenization. Average RLUSD balances reached $539 million in Q2, more than six times a year earlier, while tokenized assets averaged about $3.72 billion. Together that put average value on the network near $4.26 billion.

The 2026 story is less about account growth and more about what moves across those accounts. Whether institutional and tokenization use can lead to broader user growth is a key measure to watch.

Sources Blockworks Research: State of XRP Q1 2026. Network transaction totals, transaction-type mix, payments and active accounts. Blockworks Intel: XRP Ledger Analytics. Current transaction, account, stablecoin and DEX analytics. CoinDesk: XRP Ledger Has Fewer Active Accounts but Bigger Trades and More Value. Evernorth Q2 2026 data on order-book activity, accounts, tokenization and RLUSD. DefiLlama: XRP Ledger. Current transactions, active addresses, stablecoin supply, RWA AUM, DeFi TVL and DEX activity. XRPL.org: Decentralized Exchange. Official documentation on the native order-book DEX. XRPL.org: Automated Market Makers. Official documentation on XLS-30 AMMs, liquidity pools and LP tokens. XRPL.org: Real-World Asset Tokenization. Official documentation on tokenized financial assets and institutional use cases. XRPL.org: Stablecoin Issuer. Official information on issuing and trading stablecoins on XRPL. XRPL.to: Token Market Analytics. Live data on token trading, AMMs, traders and liquidity. XRPL.to: On-Chain Analytics. Token counts, AMM pools, trading activity and ledger analytics. Bitquery: XRP Ledger Adoption Audit. Full-ledger study of more than 5 billion transactions and traffic concentration. XRPL Dashboard: Live Ledger Statistics. Account creation, XRP burn, escrow and ledger statistics.

Important Ripple News and XRP Price Update: October 22

XRP holders are facing a surge of targeted scams that have already resulted in multi-million XRP losses across the community, according to analyst Zach Rector. Reflecting growing concern within the ecosystem, Rector has publicly called for heightened vigilance from both new and seasoned XRP investors.

Scam operations targeting XRP users are now running on two fronts. On one side, cybercriminals are creating new social media accounts that closely resemble verified gold badge profiles, posing as Xaman, Ripple, and high-profile community members. These impersonations often seek to gain trust by presenting a familiar identity before directing users to malicious links or fraudulent schemes.

In parallel, scammers have managed to compromise genuine gold badge accounts. These verified accounts, after being obtained through illicit means, are resold on underground markets for prices ranging from $1,200 to $2,000. They are subsequently used to share phishing links designed to deceive followers and drain their cryptocurrency holdings.

Xaman Wallet founder Wietse Wind explained that more than 20 fake X accounts and 10 fraudulent websites impersonate Xaman each day, promoting a false desktop app and a non-existent XRP airdrop. Wind emphasized that no “Xaman” token exists and none will be created, following the promotion of a fake “XMN” token by a compromised verified account.

These methods have greatly amplified the threat landscape for XRP holders, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish genuine updates from fraudulent communications.

Mini dictionary: Xaman, a widely used XRP wallet platform, allows users to safely store and manage their XRP and other tokens on the XRP Ledger. Xaman is known for its commitment to security and user privacy, but it does not have any official desktop app or token.

Scam TypeMethodImpersonated EntityFake accountsNew profile creationXaman, Ripple, community leadersCompromised verified accountsHacked, resold, used for scamsGold badge holdersFake Ripple posts, cloned sites, and influencer impersonationsA fraudulent Ripple profile recently promoted an “XRP Holder Tiers” campaign, luring users to a counterfeit website with promises of exclusive XRP badges. BankXRP, a popular news aggregator in the XRP space, stated that Ripple has never issued such an announcement. The platform reiterated that neither Ripple nor the XRP Ledger ask holders to register for badges or special benefits.

Additionally, websites visually mimicking xaman.app have emerged. These sites both replicate Xaman’s branding and feature counterfeit governance vote badges and wallet connection options, which are designed to empty connected wallets. Impersonators have also targeted Ripple CTO David Schwartz and CEO Brad Garlinghouse, with fake accounts proliferating on platforms such as Instagram and Telegram.

Zach Rector warned that no legitimate party will ever contact XRP holders on social media, email, or other channels offering unsolicited help or requesting sensitive information.

As part of an effort to curb damages and protect users, Rector has launched a free “Crypto Basics” course. The initial lesson covers best practices for securing digital assets and is freely available through a Patreon membership. Rector expressed disappointment over the scale of the attacks, indicating that losses already amount to millions of XRP within the community.

He highlighted the evolving nature of scam tactics, stressing the importance of ongoing education for both newcomers and veteran XRP holders. According to Rector, any unsolicited contact regarding XRP should be regarded as a likely scam attempt and treated with caution.

Digital asset price forecasts often divide the crypto community into two camps: those who view cryptocurrencies largely as speculative vehicles and those who believe a structural transformation is on the horizon. Online commentator and crypto enthusiast Mino aligns himself with the latter, setting ambitious long-term price targets for several leading tokens that far exceed current market levels.

The reasoning behind the targetsMino has clarified that his projections should not be seen as short-term predictions. He attributes his outlook to a key belief: the market is still valuing digital assets through a speculative lens, which keeps prices tethered far below their potential if a financial infrastructure shift occurs. “These prices look impossible because crypto is still being priced like speculation,” Mino stated. “If digital assets become financial infrastructure, today’s impossible prices will not look impossible forever.”

According to his analysis, a turning point would come if digital assets are repriced as vital components of global financial infrastructures. In such a scenario, Mino argues, valuations could dramatically increase as their use cases and perceived importance expand well beyond investment speculation.

Mino projects XRP at $1,000–$10,000, QNT at $50,000, XLM at $1,000, XDC at $10,000, IOTA at $50–$100, ALGO at $10–$20, ONDO at $100, and HBAR at $10, emphasizing that these prices only seem implausible under the current speculative mindset.

Mini dictionary: Mino is a crypto commentator active on X (formerly Twitter), known for sharing analysis and long-term price projections on leading digital assets.

XRP’s $1,000 price target gains tractionWhile some view four-figure XRP price targets as unrealistic, other industry figures have echoed similar sentiments. Dom Kwok, co-founder of blockchain education app EasyA, has repeatedly mentioned the possibility of XRP reaching $1,000. In a recent tweet, he asserted that “$1,000 is more likely than ever.” Although Kwok did not specify XRP in that particular post, his previous statements have centered on the token.

Kwok has further illustrated his position by calculating potential returns: with $1,000 currently purchasing around 735 XRP, a $1,000 per XRP valuation would see that investment swell to $735,000. He described this scenario as “life-changing money,” highlighting both the magnitude of his conviction and the level of attention drawn from the broader community.

TokenCurrent price* (approx.)Mino’s long-term targetXRP$0.70$1,000–$10,000QNT$85$50,000XLM$0.10$1,000XDC$0.04$10,000IOTA$0.20$50–$100ALGO$0.14$10–$20ONDO$1.10$100HBAR$0.09$10*Current prices as of June 2024; actual prices may vary.

Additionally, Kwok’s promotion of a $1,000 XRP giveaway sparked significant engagement within the XRP community, further illustrating the appeal and debate surrounding such bold predictions.

Rethinking crypto’s role: Speculation or infrastructure?At the core of Mino’s outlook is the belief that digital assets like XRP will eventually move beyond their speculative image. If these tokens become foundational to payment systems and global finance, he argues, their value could reflect that utility. Ripple’s ongoing efforts to position XRP as a cross-border payments tool, along with clearer regulatory stances in the US, continue to shape expectations for the token’s future.

The debate between speculation and utility remains at the heart of digital asset valuations, and whether these ambitious targets become reality depends on the trajectory of mainstream adoption.

For now, both supporters and skeptics await more signs that the market is prepared to reprice digital assets as integral pieces of tomorrow’s financial infrastructure.

Crypto token of a Layer-3 settlement network for AI agents commerce, backed by Ripple executive chairman Chris Larsen, has surged nearly 200% in the last 24 hours. This comes as the project highlighted XRP-linked settlement infrastructure for AI agents.

Ripple’s Chris Larsen-Backed Yellow Network in the Buzz
Yellow Network is in the buzz after it highlighted a fee-free AI-to-AI settlement approach that combines its off-chain channels with XRP settlement on the XRP Ledger. The project’s zero-gas execution handles high-frequency trades, with final settlement occurring on-chain using XRP.

The project came into the spotlight again during the recent launch of XRP official X account and website. It posted that pairing Yellow’s zero-gas execution with XRP settlement creates the ultimate high-speed stack.

Burak Cem, head of growth at Yellow, also posted a hint at further collaboration with XRP. The crypto community speculated about fee-free AI-to-AI settlements using XRP. It aims to bridge the settlement and trust gap during agentic payments between two AI agents.

Something is brewing behind the scenes.
XRP 🤝Yellow

Stay on the @Yellow brick road! ⌛️

— Burak Cem (@0xburakcem) October 21, 2026

Notably, Yellow Network received $10 million from Ripple co-founder and executive chairman Chris Larsen in 2024. Other investors include Consensys and GSR, which is also an investor in XRP treasury Evernorth Holdings.

Chris Larsen has publicly endorsed the project, including its earlier integration with the XRP Ledger (XRPL) EVM sidechain. Yellow Network describes itself as a trust and settlement layer for AI agent commerce and a decentralized clearing network.

It uses the Nitrolite protocol to support real-time, non-custodial transaction processing off-chain. It supports settlement across multiple networks including Base, Arbitrum, and Polygon.

Also Visit: Best AI Agentic Crypto Wallets in 2026

Crypto Token Spikes with Massive Trading Volume
Chris Larsen-backed Yellow Network’s ERC-20 token YELLOW jumped nearly 200% in the past 24 hours, reaching an all-time high of $0.146. The price is currently trading near $0.114 amid profit booking by some traders.

YELLOW token has a maximum supply of 10 billion and a circulating supply of nearly 320 million. The recent price climb from the low $0.03 to an all-time high around $0.146 today led to a massive rise in circulating supply.

With a 310% increase in trading volume over the past 24 hours, market cap has reached almost $40 million. Meanwhile, XRP trades 2% down at $1.33 amid broader crypto market selloffs.

Also Read: Robinhood Secures Dubai’s DFSA Approval to Launch Crypto, Stocks, ETFs in Middle East

MAGMA Surges 70%: Two Wallets Profit $340K on 1.5M Token 2x Longs

MAGMA has surged over 70% today! 2 wallets opened 2x longs on 1.5M $MAGMA ($775K) on @Aster_DEX and are now sitting on $340K in unrealized profit, with returns as high as 105.84%.

3 hours ago

$MAGMA Surges 70%, 2 Wallets Up $340K on @Aster_DEX with 2x Longs

MAGMA has surged over 70% today! 2 wallets opened 2x longs on 1.5M $MAGMA ($775K) on @Aster_DEX and are now sitting on $340K in unrealized profit, with returns as high as 105.84%.

3 hours ago

Mysterious whale swaps $159M in $BTC for $155M in $ETH over 11 days

This mysterious whale sold another 246.25 $BTC ($20.64M) and then bought 8,286 $ETH ($20.64M) today. Over the past 11 days, the whale has sold a total of 1,917.7 $BTC ($159M) and bought 64,545 $ETH ($155M).

3 hours ago

Short-term Bitcoin holders’ unrealized profit stands at 9.5%, with new capital gradually flowing back, its proportion climbing to 11.2%.

Crypto analyst Axel Adler Jr. noted in a post that as of October 21, the share of funds from new investors in the Bitcoin network has climbed from the year-to-date low of 6.6% on July 5 to 11.2%, a sign that new capital is gradually flowing back, though the inflow remains below the levels that topped 20% in 2024 and 2025. Currently, Bitcoin is trading at roughly $82,300, with short-term holders’ average cost basis at $75,100, translating to an overall unrealized profit of around 9.5%. This cohort has been in profit for 63 straight days since August 20, with the unrealized profit ratio hitting a peak of 16% on October 5. Should the new investor fund share break above 11.5%, it would signal further strengthening of buyer demand; a drop back below 10%, meanwhile, would point to a possible stall in new capital inflows. If Bitcoin falls below $75,100, short-term holders as a whole will flip to losses, and the associated selling pressure may rise accordingly.

3 hours ago

Samsung Electro-Mechanics has secured a combined investment of 3.7 trillion won from Tesla and NVIDIA, and will expand its AI chip substrate production line.

According to South Korean media reports, Tesla and NVIDIA will invest 1.1 trillion won and 2.6 trillion won respectively, totaling around 3.7 trillion won (approximately $2.5 billion), to support Samsung Electro-Mechanics’ expansion of next-generation FC-BGA (Flip Chip Ball Grid Array) substrate production facilities. Samsung Electro-Mechanics will set up a dedicated production line at its Sejong plant for Tesla; the substrates manufactured will be used in AI chips for Tesla’s autonomous vehicles and its Optimus humanoid robot. The relevant long-term supply agreement spans five years, from 2029 to 2033. NVIDIA, meanwhile, plans to invest in the expansion of Samsung Electro-Mechanics’ Sejong and Busan plants to produce AI computing chips and data center network substrates. Samsung Electro-Mechanics targets completing factory construction by the end of 2027, launching mass production in the second half of 2028, and commencing supply to Tesla in 2029. FC-BGA is a critical packaging substrate for high-performance chips including AI accelerators, GPUs, and CPUs. As AI chip computing power rises, the supply of such substrates has emerged as a key bottleneck in the industry chain. The partnership is expected to help Samsung Electro-Mechanics scale its high-end substrate production capacity and secure long-term customer demand.

3 hours ago

Aerodrome and Velodrome have merged into Aero, a spot exchange launching on seven networks including Ethereum, Base and Arbitrum. Here is what changes for AERO and VELO holders.

Aerodrome and Velodrome (@VelodromeFi) have merged their operations under Aero (@aeroxyz), a spot exchange launching across seven blockchain networks. The combined platform aims to extend the model that made both decentralised exchanges (DEXs) leaders on their home networks.

Seven networks, one exchangeAero covers Ethereum (@ethereum) $ETH, Base (@base), Robinhood Chain (@RobinhoodCrypto), Ink (@inkonchain), OP Mainnet (@Optimism) $OP, Arc (@arc) and Arbitrum (@arbitrum) $ARB.
The networks collectively process approximately $120 billion in monthly DEX trading volume, according to the project. That figure reflects activity across those networks, not volume handled by Aero itself.

The two exchanges bring established market positions.
Aerodrome accounted for 58% of DEX trading volume on Base during the third quarter, while Velodrome captured 60% on OP Mainnet, according to the statement.

New features and token migrationAero will introduce predictive liquidity allocation, cross-chain Metaswaps and dynamic trading fees through Slipstream V3.
Predictive Allocation lets participants stake AERO and direct liquidity reward budgets to markets expected to generate returns.

The new token contract is base:0x940181a94a35a4569e4529a3cdfb74e38fd98631.

Holders should confirm the rates through official Aero channels before migrating.

Sources

The Block: Aerodrome and Velodrome merge to launch Aero across seven blockchain networksCryptowisser: Aerodrome and Velodrome merge into Aero, launch on 7 chainsGN Crypto: Aerodrome, Velodrome merger to create Aero on Oct. 21

Starknet’s community has voted to support research into becoming an independent, post-quantum layer-1 blockchain.

The network’s potential departure from Ethereum gained overwhelming support. The governance vote that ran for seven days closed on Thursday. The poll drew about 3,200 votes, with 93.52% of voting power in favor of the transition.

The non-binding poll recorded the highest participation in Starknet’s governance history, according to StarkWare, which said it abstained from voting to leave the decision to the community.

The outcome allows StarkWare and the Starknet Foundation to proceed with research into an independent L1. The actual shift itself would require a separate, binding governance vote. For now, Starknet will continue operating as an Ethereum layer-2 network. 

“We’re beginning work on a whitepaper even before we start the weekend, and hope to release a draft for public scrutiny in November,” StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson told Cointelegraph. 

Starknet outlines next steps for post-quantum L1 researchStarkWare and the Starknet Foundation have established a working group to examine the proposed transition and develop more detailed technical proposals.

The governance proposal states that STRK will remain the network’s native token, with no new token planned, while existing bridges between Starknet and Ethereum will remain open.

StarkWare first raised the potential transition on Oct. 8, citing concerns about the network’s dependence on Ethereum for security. Although Starknet uses hash-based STARK proofs and supports programmable accounts capable of adopting post-quantum signatures, its bridge and data availability infrastructure remain dependent on Ethereum’s upgrade timeline.

In June, StarkWare unveiled a three-phase quantum-resistance roadmap covering cryptographic upgrades, smart-contract migration and Ethereum-dependent infrastructure. 

StarkWare’s Quantum Hub says it has already tested technology designed to withstand future quantum attacks, successfully processing a transaction on Starknet’s live network. However, the technology remains experimental and has not yet undergone a security audit.

Ben-Sasson has set a 2027 target for making Starknet quantum-resistant, ahead of Ethereum’s projected timeline.

“Ethereum’s target of 2029 to become quantum-safe is too late, and deadlines slip,” he said. 

Magazine: 5 alternatives to Ledger to store your Bitcoin

Transactions and user-paid fees also rose as the Ethereum Layer 2 recorded 629,142 active addresses on Oct. 21.

Transactions and user-paid fees also rose as the Ethereum Layer 2 recorded 629,142 active addresses on Oct. 21.

Loading this article…

Starknet’s community has given strong backing to the idea of transforming the network into an independent, post-quantum layer-1 blockchain. In a recent governance vote that lasted seven days and concluded Thursday, around 3,200 members participated, with 93.52% of the voting power supporting the proposal to move away from Ethereum.

According to StarkWare, this non-binding poll resulted in the highest participation ever recorded for Starknet governance. The company emphasized that it did not cast a vote, stating that the decision was left fully to the community.

The approved proposal enables both StarkWare and the Starknet Foundation to begin formal research into becoming an independent L1 network. However, any actual transition would first require a separate binding governance vote. Until then, Starknet will continue to operate as an Ethereum layer-2 solution.

StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson commented, “We’re beginning work on a whitepaper even before we start the weekend, and hope to release a draft for public scrutiny in November.”

The governance proposal also notes that STRK will stay as the native token, and there are no current plans to introduce another token. Existing bridges connecting Starknet with Ethereum are set to remain active during this process.

Roadmap for post-quantum transitionStarkWare and the Starknet Foundation have set up a working group to explore the technical and security challenges of moving to a post-quantum L1 structure. This group is tasked with developing more comprehensive technical proposals for the network’s evolution.

StarkWare initially introduced the concept of transitioning to an L1 on October 8, expressing concerns over Starknet’s reliance on Ethereum for security functions. Despite utilizing STARK proofs and supporting accounts that could adopt post-quantum cryptographic signatures, the current system’s bridge and data infrastructure still depend on Ethereum’s upgrade cycle.

In June, the company presented a three-phase roadmap aimed at quantum resistance. This plan covers cryptographic system updates, migration for smart contracts, and adjustments to Ethereum-linked network infrastructure.

StarkWare’s Quantum Hub reported testing new technologies designed to resist future quantum computing threats, including the processing of live transactions on Starknet’s mainnet. However, the team noted that the technology remains in an experimental stage and has yet to undergo official security audits.

Ben-Sasson has identified 2027 as the target year for making Starknet quantum-resistant. He highlighted that this is earlier than Ethereum’s expected quantum-safe upgrade, which is scheduled for 2029.

According to Ben-Sasson, “Ethereum’s target of 2029 to become quantum-safe is too late, and deadlines slip.”

Tools for tracking rapid blockchain developmentsAs the digital asset landscape moves quickly—where a Federal Reserve decision or an altcoin listing can spark immediate change—investors face increasing costs by juggling multiple apps for news, charting, and portfolio tracking. Many traders have adopted privacy-first tools like CryptoAppsy to consolidate their monitoring. These platforms allow users to access real-time charts, custom price alerts, coin-specific news, and macroeconomic data on one unified screen—without requiring account creation.

Table of contents

Starknet token holders have handed the network’s builders a deliberately narrow mandate. A seven-day governance vote closed on October 22 with 93.52% of voting power in favor of researching whether Starknet should become an independent, quantum-resistant layer-1 blockchain instead of remaining a layer 2 settled on Ethereum. Roughly 3,200 votes were cast in the non-binding poll, which StarkWare said drew the highest participation in the network’s governance history. The result, recorded in a proposal on the Starknet community forum, authorizes study — not departure: Starknet keeps operating as an Ethereum layer 2, STRK remains its token, and the bridges between the two chains stay open.

A Research Mandate, Not a Migration Authorization
The ballot was written to constrain what a “yes” means. Voters could support further research, oppose it, or remain neutral pending more information. StarkWare, which first floated the idea on October 8, abstained from voting, leaving the decision to STRK holders and their delegates. StarkWare and the Starknet Foundation will now examine an independent, quantum-resistant network design before any second governance decision is put to a vote.

That sequencing matters, because the Snapshot ballot is explicitly non-binding. The forum post states that the poll “seeks to gauge STRK holders’ interest in exploring that direction further,” and maps out the branches: a “yes” starts a research effort leading to more detailed proposals; a “no” keeps post-quantum work on the layer-2 path; a “neutral” leaves the thread open. Nothing in the result moves a single asset or changes a validator’s duties today.

The Security Logic: What Starknet Controls and What It Does Not
The case for independence is a timeline problem, not an identity one. Starknet already runs on hash-based STARK proofs and native account abstraction, so the components under Starknet’s own control can be made quantum-resistant on Starknet’s schedule. The components that depend on Ethereum cannot.

As the proposal’s author framed it in the forum: “The parts of Starknet under Starknet’s control can be quantum-resistant soon. The parts that depend on Ethereum, such as the bridge and data availability, are tied to Ethereum’s timeline. An independent L1 removes that dependency.”

StarkWare’s quantum-readiness roadmap names two remaining dependencies: Ethereum’s bridge-messaging infrastructure and its blob-based data availability, which relies on KZG commitments and elliptic-curve cryptography. StarkWare considers both vulnerable to a sufficiently powerful future quantum computer. Ethereum’s own deposit contract is already the subject of a post-quantum rewrite discussion, but that process advances on Ethereum’s timeline, not Starknet’s.

The asymmetry behind all of this is cryptographic. STARK proofs are built on hash functions rather than the discrete-logarithm and elliptic-curve assumptions that underpin most blockchain signatures and commitments. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could break the latter; it cannot brute-force a well-chosen hash. That is why Starknet’s core can claim quantum safety today, while Ethereum’s KZG commitments — a form of elliptic-curve pairing cryptography used to verify blob data — and its bridge signatures cannot. For a holder or an issuer watching the roadmap, the distinction between “already quantum-safe” and “waiting on Ethereum” is the entire argument for a standalone chain.

Validators Push Back: A Transfer of Dependency, Not a Gain in Decentralization
Not everyone in the community reads the move as progress. One validator, posting as ceri1, argued that becoming a layer 1 would not make Starknet more decentralized — only more responsible for its own security.

“Becoming an L1 does not decentralize Starknet. It drops Ethereum’s security budget and asks the current STRK set to replace it,” they wrote, noting that staking is still in phase 2 of 4, that validators stake 20,000 STRK and attest with a full node, and that reorg and censorship resistance still come from Ethereum. “Until those answers are public, this is a transfer of dependency, not a gain in decentralization.”

The critique names the real risk in any layer-1 migration: the validator set that today relies on Ethereum for finality would, after a migration, have to carry block production, finality, and data availability on its own. At current prices, the 20,000 STRK minimum stake is worth about $1,120 (20,000 × $0.056 per CoinMarketCap) — a modest bond against a materially larger security load. Starknet’s roughly 7.2 billion circulating STRK implies a market capitalization near $400 million, a fraction of the security budget Ethereum currently extends to it.

No New Token, and the Bridges Stay Open
Whatever the eventual architecture, the vote fixes the questions holders tend to ask first. The proposal is explicit: “Whatever the path, STRK is the token, with no new token. Bridges from Ethereum to Starknet will stay open.”

For operators, that stability is the reason to pursue the research now. Mon, from the Cumulo validator team, which runs a Starknet validator on mainnet and Sepolia and voted yes, wrote: “We think this is the right moment to explore this path. Starknet starts with a clear advantage thanks to STARK proofs and native account abstraction, and understanding what it would mean to reduce its dependency on Ethereum is a conversation worth having carefully and with real data.”

The post-quantum framing also shaped the outcome. As one community member put it: “If we have a competitive advantage in this area, I believe we have a responsibility to explore it, especially given the quantum threat facing the broader blockchain ecosystem.”

November Whitepaper and the Next Governance Gate
The next concrete deliverable is a draft whitepaper, which StarkWare has said it plans to publish in November. That document will set out the technical questions a migration would have to answer — consensus design, data availability, bridge and liquidity risk during any transition — and there is no binding timetable or instruction for users to move assets. A final decision to operate as a standalone network would require another governance vote.

The outcome also lands amid a broader industry move toward post-quantum standards, including a nine-firm Quantum Alliance formed to set shared post-quantum baselines. Starknet’s vote does not commit it to that path; it commits it to producing a design its community can judge.

What the Vote Changes — and What It Does Not
In the near term, Starknet remains what it is today: an Ethereum layer 2 using STARK proofs, with STRK as its token and its bridges to Ethereum open. The vote converts a proposal into a research question with a defined next step. The limitation is equally clear: a research mandate is not evidence that the STRK validator set can yet carry the full security load of a standalone chain, and the November document will test exactly that.

STRK traded near $0.056 on October 22, roughly 98% below its February 2024 peak, according to CoinMarketCap. The token has labored under a steady widening of its circulating supply since its 2024 airdrop, as monthly unlocks push the float toward a 10 billion total, and that supply overhang has weighed on price as much as any sentiment shift. The vote’s “no new token” pledge is therefore not a footnote — it removes the one outcome that could have diluted existing holders a second time.

For holders, validators, and the institutions watching, the next observable signal is not a launch but a whitepaper, and the next decision point after that is another vote. Starknet has chosen to study the exit before taking it — a procedural sequence that, in a sector prone to rushed migrations, is itself the headline.

Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.

Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.

Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Dogecoin Labs Wants DOGE to Be More Than a Meme Coin: Here’s How

According to Coindesk, China, known for its bans on Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, is targeting the confiscation of 61,896 Bitcoins worth billions of dollars, linked to a fundraising scam that cost investors approximately 20 billion yuan.

A court in Tianjin has granted a request to seize Bitcoin and other assets linked to Qian Zhimin.

Six-Month Application Process in China! The Tianjin Court announced that it has accepted the prosecutor’s confiscation request, and the confiscation order covers Bitcoins as well as other cryptocurrencies, cash, jewelry, and financial assets.

The court has opened a six-month application period for victims and other interested parties to join the case. Victims who do not participate in the process also have the option of claiming compensation from the recovered assets.

As you may recall, the UK High Court recently ruled that claims involving more than 61,000 Bitcoins should be evaluated according to Chinese law.

XRP, Dogecoin, and Other Assets Also Subject to Confiscation! The confiscation request includes more than just Bitcoin. Other assets listed by the court reportedly include XRP.

“Approximately 72,745 Bitcoin Cash
Approximately 72,745 Bitcoin Gold
Approximately 72,745 Bitcoin SV
More than 3.6 million XRP
More than 70 million Dogecoin”

The file reportedly includes cash in various currencies, jewelry, bank accounts, and various financial investments. British authorities have seized assets linked to the investigation, and it is reported that some crypto assets have been converted into other forms of assets. Chinese prosecutors are also seeking the recovery of these assets and, where appropriate, the return of money owed to victims.

*This is not investment advice.

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

Dogecoin Labs has gathered MyDoge, DogeOS and Such App under one company. Each product is at a different stage. The question is whether wallet reach, a testnet and a merchant beta can become measurable DOGE transactions outside trading.

Summary

Dogecoin Labs brought MyDoge, DogeOS and Such App under one company on October 21, giving its wallet, app platform and payment tools a shared team. MyDoge says more than 500,000 people have used its wallet, but the company has not disclosed how many are active or spend DOGE. DogeOS opened a public testnet on September 30, where developers can try applications before the platform reaches a production launch. Such App says its beta lets merchants create DOGE invoices and accept QR payments in person, but it has not disclosed completed payment totals. DogeOS announced $6.9 million in funding in May 2025; that figure shows capital raised, while usage of its applications remains to be measured. Dogecoin Labs has brought three DOGE products under one organization, joining a consumer wallet, an application platform and merchant payment tools.

The October 21 announcement identifies MyDoge, DogeOS and Such App as the products now operated together. The foundation remains an ecosystem steward, according to the release, while the new company runs the commercial products. MyDoge already has users, DogeOS has a public testnet and Such has a merchant beta. None of those facts alone measures how often a customer actually pays a merchant in DOGE.

The launch therefore supplies a concrete question for a coin often described through its social following. If the three services now form one distribution path, each leg has to work: a holder must reach an app, a business must accept a payment, and the transaction must be recorded in a way that is useful to both sides. Announced reach should be separated from completed commerce.

One company now runs three different products Dogecoin Labs is led by Jordan Jefferson and was established in partnership with the Dogecoin Foundation. The company says it brings together MyDoge, DogeOS, Such App and teams developing other consumer and developer services. The foundation says it will continue open development and community stewardship. This is an organizational consolidation, not a modification to Dogecoin’s base-layer consensus rules.

JUST IN: MyDoge, DogeOS and Such App consolidate to form Dogecoin Labs

In partnership with the Dogecoin Foundation, the new initiative aims to expand $DOGE utility by building a broader ecosystem for payments and applications. pic.twitter.com/NRwzLlYVQo

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 21, 2026 In the initial company coverage, the three products were described as pieces of a prospective payments and applications stack. MyDoge is the wallet that can bring a holder to the service. DogeOS offers developers an environment for apps. Such supplies invoicing and point-of-sale style tools for sellers. The announcement does not give monthly active users across the combined products, total DOGE processed by merchants, a full mainnet date or a merchant count.

The omission does not establish failure; it defines what can presently be verified. The company’s claim that MyDoge is trusted by more than 500,000 users is a cumulative reach statement. It cannot be converted into 500,000 people using Such, 500,000 DogeOS application accounts or 500,000 monthly DOGE spenders. Each subsequent step has its own adoption rate, and none has been disclosed in comparable units.

Dogecoin already has a transferable asset and a long trading history. Its new product company does not need to invent a coin to give users something to spend. It does have to persuade people who acquired DOGE for other reasons to use it in applications or commerce, while giving merchants a reason to accept and process it. A wallet install provides a potential point of contact, but the spending decision belongs to the user.

The wallet claim is a starting population, not transaction demand MyDoge describes itself as a self-custodial wallet for sending, receiving, storing and tipping Dogecoin. A self-custodial product means customers control their own wallet credentials, subject to the application’s actual design. It does not mean the company can identify every holder’s off-platform exchange purchases or that it has access to all DOGE balances on the network.

The public figure of more than 500,000 users comes from the Dogecoin Labs release. It is not accompanied by a period, a definition of active use or a breakdown between holding, transfers, tips and merchant spending. Treating that figure as a weekly spending metric would give the announcement more evidence than it supplies. The strongest version of the bull case is that an existing wallet audience lowers the effort needed to distribute new services. The strongest limitation is that wallet possession and payment behavior are different.

Suppose, purely as an illustration, 10% of 500,000 wallet users made one merchant purchase a month. That would be 50,000 monthly buyers before accounting for repeat purchases, payment size or the seller’s conversion into fiat. At 1%, it would be 5,000. Neither rate is a reported result. The arithmetic shows how widely actual payment activity can vary while the headline wallet count stays unchanged. A credible adoption report would publish the measured conversion, not invite an analyst to assume it.

Payment activity can be observed through several measures, none interchangeable: active wallets, number of payments, DOGE value paid, merchant count and the share of transactions that represent real purchases. Onchain transfers alone may contain exchange withdrawals, self-transfers and trading settlement. A user count from an app store can include people who installed a wallet years ago and did not return. The products would need usage disclosures with clear definitions to support a claim about everyday adoption.

DogeOS is live for testing, but its apps are not the base chain DogeOS opened a public testnet in September, offering developers an EVM-compatible environment with DOGE used for transaction fees. A testnet allows deployment, feedback and debugging; test transactions do not prove that equivalent products are working on a production network or producing meaningful DOGE fees.

The distinction matters because Dogecoin’s base chain was not built as an EVM smart-contract platform. DogeOS adds an application layer where developers can use familiar tools to build trading, payment, gaming or other services. The chain and its app layer can have different operational assumptions, security arrangements and customer experiences. A claim that a Dogecoin application is running on a public testnet should not be paraphrased as DOGE mainnet commerce until the relevant network and deployment are identified.

Developers can build without forcing customers to understand every part of the architecture. Yet the route from a wallet balance to an application involves a transaction, a network or integration, and potentially a bridge or conversion. Fees paid in DOGE establish one form of token use when the product reaches production. The fee generated by each application, and any sustained demand it produces for the underlying asset, cannot be inferred from the number of demos on a testnet.

DogeOS announced a $6.9 million financing in May 2025, according to its project materials. Funding gives a team resources to build and promote an ecosystem. It is not a revenue figure, a measure of user retention or evidence that Dogecoin holders have begun using applications. The September public testnet is the more relevant product milestone; the next useful disclosure would show deployed production apps, their active users and actual fee-paying transactions.

Such brings a seller into the picture Such App has a beta supporting DOGE invoices and in-person QR payments, according to the October company release. These are concrete seller tools: an invoice can specify a payment request, and a QR code can help a buyer send funds at a physical point of sale. House of Doge’s January plan for Such had described a first-half 2026 launch. The current announcement calls the merchant product a beta and describes integration with DogeOS as planned.

The precise status is material. A beta can show that individual sellers can try an interface; it does not establish broad merchant distribution or full integration with the application platform. An earlier target date does not turn a current beta into a completed commercial launch. Anyone assessing progress should compare the promised functions, the functions available to sellers now and the still-planned connections among services.

Merchant acceptance also has a second half that promotional statements often leave out. A seller needs to price goods, handle refunds, reconcile payments, account for taxes and decide whether to hold DOGE or convert proceeds. Price volatility can make an invoice amount stale unless a quote and settlement procedure are defined. The company has not supplied a public total of completed invoices, settled DOGE sales or repeat merchants in its October release.

The seller’s problem is different from a holder’s desire for additional uses. Merchants usually evaluate costs and reliability against card payments or local bank transfers. Dogecoin’s transfer capability can make acceptance technically possible, but repeat commercial use depends on whether the tool handles the ordinary work of a sale. It is possible to launch a wallet, a merchant beta and a testnet while most DOGE demand still comes from trading. Current disclosure does not tell us where the balance lies.

The three-product funnel can be measured without guessing The company’s product arrangement suggests a sequence: MyDoge users reach an app, DogeOS developers supply services, and Such merchants receive payments. To test whether it works, each transition needs its own numerator and denominator. A wallet’s total registered users can be the first denominator, but it cannot serve as the numerator for payments without transaction records.

An example of useful disclosure would count monthly active MyDoge users, the share who connected to a DogeOS app, the share who made a DOGE payment through Such and the share of merchants who received a second payment in a later month. The rate from one step to the next would reveal where people leave. Publishing only the largest initial number would conceal that information. A third-party researcher could inspect public onchain flows, but without labeled merchant addresses or app identifiers, it cannot reliably label every transfer as a retail purchase.

The same distinction applies to value. A single large business transfer might exceed thousands of small consumer payments in DOGE value, while telling a different story about daily use. An aggregate volume figure would need a time period, transaction counts and a definition of the included payment types. More app transaction fees could indicate developer or user activity; it would not automatically establish that sellers are accepting DOGE for goods.

Dogecoin’s appeal to a large community is the company’s stated reason for uniting these services. The measure that would change the story is retention in a product someone has a reason to revisit, not a one-day launch spike. If the firm begins publishing monthly comparable usage data and the payment component grows alongside wallet and app activity, the claim of a usable commerce path would have observable backing.

JUST IN: DogeOS launches public testnet for its Dogecoin ZK rollup

The network brings EVM smart contracts to Dogecoin, with $DOGE used for gas fees as the project aims to expand utility across the ecosystem. pic.twitter.com/KYM3RHLgP6

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 1, 2026 DOGE circulation and merchant demand are different numbers Dogecoin’s mining documentation specifies a reward of 10,000 DOGE for each newly found block, plus the transaction fees in that block. Its explanation of mining describes a target of roughly one block a minute. At that target rate, the arithmetic is 10,000 multiplied by 60 and then by 24, or approximately 14.4 million newly mined DOGE a day. Across 365 days, the implied issuance is approximately 5.256 billion DOGE. Actual daily production can vary with the timing of blocks. This calculation describes protocol issuance, not a forecast of market selling.

Commercial payments work on another clock. A DOGE coin can be spent, received, converted, held and spent again; gross payment value over a period can exceed new issuance without requiring newly created tokens for every purchase. Conversely, new issuance can continue while merchant payments remain small. An article that tries to infer how much Such App must be selling from Dogecoin’s mining reward would be joining two measures that do not establish one another.

The direction of demand from a payment can be complicated. A customer might already hold DOGE, buy it immediately before paying, or sell another asset to obtain it. A merchant might keep the received DOGE, pay a supplier with it or exchange it for local currency almost at once. The first case may create a temporary purchase; the last can put an equivalent amount back on the market. Without data on how participants obtain and use their DOGE, the number of payments does not yield a reliable estimate of net buying pressure.

Fees have to be counted separately from principal. A 100 DOGE purchase would transfer the 100 DOGE to the seller while a transaction fee compensates miners according to network rules. If an app layer charges an additional DOGE fee, its revenue mechanism needs its own description. Reporting the full 100 DOGE sale as network fee income would overstate the economic return to infrastructure by orders of magnitude. A credible product report would distinguish gross merchandise value, seller receipts, transaction fees and any platform charges.

The Dogecoin Foundation’s merchant guide already describes ways businesses can accept DOGE through wallets and payment providers. Such therefore enters an existing market for DOGE acceptance rather than creating the first technical possibility to spend it. A new product’s contribution could lie in easier invoicing, better seller tools, lower operational costs or distribution through MyDoge. Each proposition can be observed, but the company has not released a side-by-side measure of merchant retention or completed purchases that would establish an advantage over other routes.

The size of the user base is relevant to distribution, not a mathematical cure for product adoption. Even if all 500,000 claimed MyDoge users held DOGE, a merchant still needs customers in the right country, with the right product and the willingness to spend at that seller. Geographic overlap, purchase frequency and average order size would make the wallet figure useful to a merchant. Until those measurements exist, the number remains a claim about wallet reach.

A public launch would create several separate records Dogecoin’s base chain can record DOGE transfers, but a merchant may use a payment processor and an app can operate through a different layer. A researcher who sees more DOGE movements cannot simply label them Such payments. The company could publish merchant addresses or independently attested aggregates, subject to customers’ privacy, while an app-layer explorer could publish transaction and fee totals. Comparing these records would help prevent double-counting one purchase as a wallet transfer, a payment and a separate application action.

The first measurable stage is onboarding: how many sellers signed up, how many finished configuration, and how many received a first paid invoice. A second stage is repeat use, which asks whether those sellers received another payment the next month. Even if initial signups were large, a decline between the first and second stages could tell a more useful story about the product. Launch announcements tend to supply the first figure because it is available immediately; a business case depends on the second.

Customer-facing performance can be measured without a price forecast. An invoice should show the amount requested, the exchange rate if goods are priced in dollars, the period for which that quote is valid, a confirmation state and a clear refund route. If a buyer underpays because DOGE moved while the screen was open, the merchant needs a rule for handling the remainder. The October statement does not give those operating terms, so a long read cannot claim they are absent from the beta; it can identify them as documents and demonstrations needed before broader merchant use can be assessed.

Developer activity has a similar hierarchy. A public testnet can attract experiments and give teams a place to identify bugs. Mainnet deployment establishes that an application is accessible where real assets move. Repeated paying use shows whether people want it after trying it once. Counting GitHub projects, test transactions and production fee payments together would make the line from software progress to consumer demand look much smoother than the evidence warrants.

The newly combined company may be able to disclose the transition from one stage to another because it controls the wallet, app-layer relationship and merchant interface. It can define an active wallet, a production app action and a settled merchant payment consistently. Independent users and businesses can then check whether the tools solve a problem worth returning to. Until those statistics exist, the strongest documented claim is that the components have been assembled and are being developed at different stages.

A real product stack does not guarantee a coin-price effect The strongest case for Dogecoin Labs is operational, not speculative. A wallet with a claimed half-million-plus users, a public testnet and an invoicing beta are three actual assets a team can improve. Dogecoin has not needed a new token sale to finance every application idea. Shared ownership may let the products coordinate design, support and distribution more easily than separate teams could.

The opposing evidence is the present lack of production metrics across the stack. The October DOGE price analysis noted the DogeOS testnet as one potential catalyst, but trading interest and application demand measure different behavior. An investor may buy DOGE because of broad market sentiment or meme-coin speculation even if the number of merchants is unchanged. A working payments product can grow in usage without creating enough incremental demand to move a liquid coin’s price.

The meme-coin sector comparison placed Dogecoin among long-established tokens, but size and community are not substitutes for product activity. Dogecoin’s issuance and exchange liquidity are separate from whether a particular app handles invoices successfully. The company has not presented a model linking new payments to net DOGE buying or to durable onchain fee revenue. Such a model would require observed spending, merchant conversion and retention figures.

Criticism should be as precise as optimism. The absence of disclosed Such volume does not mean its beta processed zero payments. A public testnet does not imply a mainnet is impossible. Yet neither beta access nor a funding round licenses claims about mass adoption. Evidence for the product thesis is still being gathered in the products themselves.

The announcement has limits that a usage report could resolve A merchant report needs to distinguish authorization from final settlement. Showing a QR code is an instruction to pay; an invoice being generated is not an invoice paid. A useful series would publish invoices created, payments received and the median time to final confirmation, then account for refunds or mistakes. Those figures can differ materially during a beta. Counting issued invoices as sales would overstate demand before any DOGE changes hands.

Customer support is another measurable part of the service. A shopper can send funds to the wrong address, pay the wrong amount or request a refund after an item is returned. A self-custodial wallet cannot reverse a blockchain transaction in the same way a card network can reverse a disputed charge. A merchant tool can still provide a record, support refund instructions and reconcile orders, but the company has not published completion or dispute statistics for Such. Actual use will test those operations more thoroughly than a demonstration at launch.

The relationship between app activity and Dogecoin settlement needs similar precision. If an EVM-compatible DogeOS application charges DOGE for fees, the underlying DOGE may move through a technical integration that is separate from a consumer’s base-chain transfer. A dashboard that combines testnet actions, app fees and real merchant payments into one transaction total would mix incompatible measures. Independent analysts would need to know which network produced each count and whether the transfer represented a test, an application action, a payment or movement between wallets owned by the same party.

One way to make comparisons useful is to publish the same definitions monthly, including a small number of metrics that can be independently checked. A merchant count should describe businesses that actually received at least one settled payment in the period. A repeat-user count should identify customers with activity in more than one period without counting a user’s multiple addresses as separate people. Company statements can provide these definitions without exposing individual purchases. Until the group supplies them, a wallet install figure and a beta announcement remain different kinds of evidence.

As of October 22, the three services have different deployment states and different available measures. MyDoge’s cumulative user figure is company supplied; DogeOS’s public testnet is verifiable as a development environment; Such’s invoicing and QR features are described as beta. A combined monthly active customer count, verified merchant inventory, payment value and production application fees have not been established by the announcement.

Dogecoin Labs could publish those figures with consistent definitions, or independent data could become available as integrations mature. Until then, the honest answer to the headline is narrower than either the promotional or dismissive version: there is a known wallet audience and working development and beta tools, but the number of people moving from one to the next has not been disclosed.

Dogecoin Labs says its planned Such integration will connect merchants to DogeOS applications. Its October 21 announcement gives no date for that integration or for a mainnet launch of the wider app layer.

What to watch MyDoge active users: A dated monthly count would put the more than 500,000 cumulative claim in context. DogeOS production launch: Mainnet availability and published app activity would separate real use from testnet traffic. Such merchant metrics: Completed invoices, repeat sellers and settled DOGE payments would show commercial takeup. Wallet-to-payment conversion: Shared reporting could show how many wallet users actually use the merchant tools. Fee generation: Production DOGE fees could measure paid application activity once deployment is live. FAQ What is Dogecoin Labs? It is a company announced October 21, 2026, in partnership with the Dogecoin Foundation. It operates the MyDoge, DogeOS and Such App product teams.

How many MyDoge users are there? The company says the wallet is trusted by more than 500,000 users. It did not provide a corresponding monthly active-user figure in the announcement.

Is DogeOS live on mainnet? The project opened a public testnet on September 30, 2026. The October announcement does not establish a full mainnet launch date.

Can merchants use Such App today? The company says its beta supports DOGE invoices and in-person QR payments. It has not disclosed a verified count of active merchants or completed payments.

Does DogeOS create a new Dogecoin coin? The product is described as an application layer using DOGE for fees. The October announcement does not describe a new replacement coin for base-layer Dogecoin.

Do 500,000 wallet users mean 500,000 paying customers? No. A cumulative wallet audience does not specify how many users make purchases, connect to apps or remain active in a given month.

Will payments automatically raise the DOGE price? No direct price effect can be calculated without measured spending, net buying and liquidity data. Trading demand and merchant payment use are distinct measures.

What would demonstrate lasting DOGE utility? Comparable reports on active users, production apps, merchant payments and repeat use would allow the claim to be checked over time. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of October 22, 2026.

8h05 ▪ 4 min read ▪ by Ariela R.

Summarize this article with:

The Cardano Foundation published on October 21, 2026 its response to the European consultation on the revision of the MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) crypto law. Filed on September 30, this 19-page text opposes specific rules for DeFi and crypto staking.

In brief The Cardano Foundation opposes new MiCA-specific rules for DeFi and staking. It submitted its 19-page response to the European Commission on September 30 and then presented it on October 21. It wants to distinguish between ADA delegation without loss of custody and staking services offered by intermediaries. ESMA, for its part, proposes a regulated service for access to DeFi and targeted obligations for crypto staking. Nothing has been decided: the Commission’s consultation contains no legislative proposal. What the Cardano Foundation asks of the European Commission The Foundation believes that existing financial law should apply according to the functions performed and risks created, not according to the technology used. It therefore rejects standalone frameworks for decentralized finance (DeFi) and staking, a mechanism by which token holders help secure a proof-of-stake crypto network.

In its document, the Cardano Foundation specifically requests distinguishing two situations:

on one side, direct participation in a decentralized crypto network; on the other, financial services provided by intermediaries (especially when they hold or control users’ digital assets). On Cardano, ADA holders can delegate their tokens without giving up custody or locking them. The Foundation therefore believes this delegation should not be treated as a crypto staking service operated by an intermediary.

In force since July 1, 2026, the MiCA crypto standard excludes from its scope services provided entirely in a decentralized way without intermediaries (consideration 22). According to ESMA, the lack of a precise definition fuels divergent interpretations. The European Securities and Markets Authority also fears a “decentralization washing”: crypto actors presenting themselves as decentralized when an identifiable operator exists.

In its response dated September 30, ESMA proposes to include a definition of DeFi in the regulation and strictly limit this exemption. It also suggests a regulated service for crypto-asset service providers (CASP) acting as gateways to DeFi protocols.

Are Cardano and ESMA really opposed on crypto staking? Not entirely, according to publicly available information. ESMA indeed considers crypto staking inherent to proof-of-stake networks. It thus refuses to automatically equate it with lending or portfolio management. It also distinguishes staking carried out directly by the holder from technical, pooled, custodial services or liquid staking.

For crypto providers, it proposes graduated obligations:

information on rewards; lock-up periods; risk of “slashing” (penalty on a faulty validator); fees; disposition of crypto assets in case of insolvency. Their extent would depend on the degree of intermediation and the control exercised over digital assets.

Thus, the two crypto actors seem to agree on one point: a holder who delegates his tokens himself is not a service provider. The disagreement is actually on intermediated services. The ESMA wants targeted requirements and a dedicated service for access to DeFi. For its part, the Cardano Foundation rejects new autonomous crypto regimes.

In any case, nothing is decided at present. Opened on May 20 and extended until September 30, the Commission’s consultation contains no legislative proposal. The Commission must analyze the responses before any crypto initiative. The sources consulted also do not indicate a precise timetable for the next steps. File to be continued…

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

Ariela R.

My name is Ariela, and I am 31 years old. I have been working in the field of web writing for 7 years now. I only discovered trading and cryptocurrency a few years ago, but it is a universe that greatly interests me. The topics covered on the platform allow me to learn more. A singer in my spare time, I also cultivate a great passion for music and reading (and animals!)

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.

The Cardano Foundation has urged the European Commission not to expand MiCA to cover decentralized finance (DeFi), staking, or direct protocol participation.

The Foundation filed its formal consultation response on September 30, 2026, and published the full 19-page document on October 21. Its core message is clear: more regulation does not automatically mean better regulation.

Cardano Argues Staking Should Stay Outside MiCA’s Reach At the heart of the Foundation’s argument is Cardano’s unique staking model. ADA holders can delegate their stake to support network consensus without transferring custody or locking their tokens.

This, the Foundation argues, is fundamentally different from intermediary-run staking services where a provider takes custody of client assets.

Treating both the same way under expanded MiCA rules would be disproportionate.

The Foundation’s Senior Legal Counsel, Benjamin Buergi, submitted the response to the European Commission, warning that creating separate regulatory regimes for decentralized technology would impose unnecessary burdens without addressing real risks.

It would harm the security, resilience, and decentralization of proof-of-stake networks, without any corresponding benefit to investors or the financial system.

The Foundation also warned against over-classifying NFTs, hybrid tokens, and prediction markets under the existing framework.

It called on regulators to “follow the substance of an activity, the functions performed, and the risks created”, not the technology involved.

That view aligns with concerns Circle raised in its own call to adjust MiCA rules, where the stablecoin issuer noted that only 3 of the top 30 stablecoins complied with the current framework.

This intervention arrives at a critical moment. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has floated additional safeguards around staking, lending, and access to DeFi protocols.

The Foundation’s filing directly counters that push. European Commission adviser Peter Kerstens had earlier outlined what comes next after MiCA, signaling that a second phase of the rulebook remains likely as markets evolve.

What This Means for ADA Investors and EU Crypto Policy For ADA investors, the Cardano Foundation’s position carries real practical weight. A favorable outcome, keeping non-custodial delegation outside expanded MiCA rules, would preserve broad retail and institutional participation in network security.

It would also reduce regulatory overhead that could otherwise slow institutional onboarding.

Germany’s DZ Bank recently secured MiCAR approval to offer institutional Bitcoin and Cardano trading, a sign that institutional appetite for ADA exposure under clear regulatory frameworks is already building.

The Foundation has also been working to deepen Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem. That effort gained momentum earlier this year when the Foundation pledged eight-figure ADA liquidity for stablecoin projects, a move designed to close the gap with Ethereum and Solana.

Lighter-touch MiCA rules on protocol participation would directly support that strategy, making it easier for users who retain control of their assets to participate in the ecosystem without regulatory friction.

Markets have not reacted sharply to the filing, which is typical for policy consultation responses. However, the Commission’s eventual conclusions on the MiCA review, expected in the coming months, will shape the EU’s crypto landscape for years.

Investors should monitor follow-up signals from ESMA alongside Cardano-specific catalysts such as the Leios mainnet release.

Sneha Agrawal

With over four years of experience in covering and tracking the financial markets, Sneha Agrawal is a dedicated Crypto Journalist and Editor with passion for researching and writing the crypto pieces. She is currently leading the Block of Fame, here at CoinGape. She likes to keep track of political, legal and financial happenings all around the world - without which she deems her day incomplete. Apart from her Journalistic endeavours, she is a solo traveler, museum goer, and a keen reader of books.

Another BNB Chain token has learned that clever tokenomics can turn into an attacker’s playbook. On October 22, 2026, CertiK Alert flagged an exploit targeting the $NEM token, with losses estimated at approximately $820,000.

The attack hit the USDT/NEM liquidity pool on PancakeSwap. The culprit was not a stolen key or a rogue insider, but a logic flaw baked into the token’s own smart contract.

Security firm SlowMist corroborated the findings and put the damage at about $821,920.

How the NEM exploit worked
The vulnerable code sits in a contract called NemTokenV2. At its center is a mechanism named ‘pendingLpSellRecycle’, which was designed to track and process sells flowing into the liquidity pool.

Per the findings, the contract made a basic accounting mistake. It treated any transfer of tokens into the liquidity pair as sell volume, without checking whether a real sale had actually taken place.

The attacker repeatedly sent NEM tokens into the PancakeSwap pool, then skimmed the excess funds back out.

Liquidity pools on PancakeSwap keep an internal record of their reserves. When the actual token balance sitting in the pool drifts above that recorded figure, the surplus can be pulled out. The NEM contract’s faulty sell tracking gave the attacker a way to keep manufacturing that surplus on demand.

According to SlowMist, the attacker ran this loop 42 times. Each round chipped away at the pool and distorted its reserves, and the operation also artificially pushed up the token’s price along the way.

Once enough value had been pulled from the pool, the attacker extracted it and bridged the stolen funds over to Ethereum.

A pattern on BNB Chain in 2026
The NEM incident does not stand alone. The research findings describe a recurring trend in 2026 in which BNB Chain tokens with complex tokenomics have proved vulnerable to reserve manipulation.

Earlier in 2026, projects with similar mechanics, including Movie Token, ATM, and LULA, suffered comparable attacks. The shared thread is tokens that bolt custom logic onto their interactions with PancakeSwap pools.

Standard decentralized exchange pools are fairly predictable on their own. Problems tend to show up when a token contract reaches into those pools and tries to keep its own parallel set of books.

What this means for DeFi users and token builders
For anyone holding NEM or providing liquidity to the USDT/NEM pair, the damage is direct. Liquidity providers in a drained pool absorb the losses, and the artificial price movement during the attack adds another layer of disruption for traders who happened to be active at the time.

For developers, the lesson is fairly specific. Any contract that infers user intent from where tokens land, rather than verifying what actually happened in a trade, is making a bet that nobody will game the inference. The NEM attacker won that bet 42 times in a row.

The findings argue that investors may start demanding more transparency from token teams about how their liquidity pool mechanics work. Rigorous audits that specifically test how custom token logic interacts with exchange pools, rather than reviewing the token contract in isolation, would address the exact gap exploited here.

Security firms like CertiK and SlowMist play a growing role in this landscape, often publishing breakdowns within hours of an incident. Their quick alerts help other projects check whether they share the same weakness, though by the time an alert goes out, the funds in question have typically already moved.

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

CoinDCX co-founder Sumit Gupta initially denied a fresh breach at the Indian crypto exchange. A security researcher had flagged about $15.99 million in Tether (USDT) moving out of wallets tagged to the platform.

Gupta said the addresses belonged to CoinDCX before its July 2025 hack and were compromised in that attack. However, on-chain investigator ZachXBT later said one of those deposit addresses was still sweeping user funds to CoinDCX’s current hot wallet as recently as May 2026. Gupta acknowledged the point and said no user funds would be lost.

A $15.8 Million Transfer Sets Off the AlarmDarcy, chief marketing officer at security firm Salus, raised the alert on X on October 22.

According to the post, CoinDCX’s reported hot wallet and several deposit addresses sent funds to a single TRON address late on October 21 (UTC+8). The outflow totaled roughly 15.99 million USDT and 5,783.81 TRON (TRX).

The largest single transfer moved about 15.82 million USDT. The receiving address then split the money across multiple wallets.

After several rounds of splitting, the funds reached deposit addresses on Binance, OKX, Gate, and other exchanges, Darcy said.

However, CoinDCX’s leadership disputed that any of those wallets still belonged to the exchange.

Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens

CoinDCX Traces the Flagged Wallets to Last Year’s BreachGupta replied to Darcy’s post less than three hours after it went live. 

“Thanks for highlighting but this is incorrect and CoinDCX wallets are not breached. Pls don’t spread rumours,” he said.

He explained that Arkham had tagged the addresses to CoinDCX. However, the exchange generated them in January 2025, and they were compromised during the July 2025 attack.

In Gupta’s view, the hackers appear to be reusing those old addresses. He added that the team checked every current central and user address on the exchange.

None of them had sent funds to the flagged addresses, he said. Gupta also noted that all CoinDCX addresses are public on its proof-of-reserves (PoR) page.

The earlier breach cost CoinDCX about $44.2 million in July 2025. At the time, Gupta said attackers hit an internal wallet used for liquidity on a partner exchange, and customer funds stayed safe.

ZachXBT Challenges the ‘Old Wallet’ ExplanationOn-chain investigator ZachXBT disputed Gupta’s account in a post on X.

He said a CoinDCX deposit address beginning with “TQKJQ” was used by a liquidity provider (LP) for 10 months after the July 2025 incident. According to ZachXBT, the address swept user deposits to CoinDCX’s current public hot wallet and received gas fees as recently as April and May 2026.

“Meaning $15.8M in user deposits was unaccounted for by your team,” he wrote.

ZachXBT also questioned the track record of Indian exchanges, naming WazirX and BitBNS alongside CoinDCX. WazirX lost over $230 million in a July 2024 hack.

Gupta replied directly to the post.

“Yes, aware of that. we’re investigating it further, and will share an update soon. We assure that no user funds will be at loss,” he said.

Earlier, Gupta had said the flagged addresses no longer belonged to CoinDCX. This reply marks a shift from that position.

Darcy Points to Wallets on CoinDCX’s Own Reserve ListDarcy then raised the stakes.

“If @CoinDCX was not hacked, then it appears to have stolen its users’ assets itself,” the Salus CMO wrote.

According to Darcy, two addresses listed in CoinDCX’s latest PoR report sent funds to the address identified as the hacker’s (TAg6SZ1HhgVVjUaKY1paQoFBUS2JFrg5bT). The two addresses are:

TFLxNHunhEizmeEdiMyA3r2XGLSKaEznGd TM5r1bNJ2TjZwfS757tPPtr84MwtEjL9qN Darcy added that the hot wallet, TFLxN…, kept distributing 15 TRX for gas both before and after what CoinDCX describes as the hack.

“Are you suggesting that the hackers were handling gas funding distribution for you?” Darcy asked.

Darcy’s tracking shows these amounts reaching exchanges:

OKX: about 5.47 million USDT, plus a separate 50,000 USDT Binance: about 2.02 million USDT Gate: about 1.39 million USDT Some funds also went to addresses linked to Huione and Xinbi. Blockchain analytics firm Elliptic has tied these Telegram-based marketplaces to large-scale money laundering.

CoinDCX had not publicly addressed Darcy’s latest claims at the time of writing. Gupta said the exchange’s official accounts will share more details soon.

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

Disclaimer

BeInCrypto is committed to unbiased, transparent reporting. This news article aims to provide accurate, timely information. However, readers are advised to verify facts independently and consult with a professional before making any decisions based on this content. Please note that our Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimers have been updated.

PancakeSwap and BNB Chain both say PHP is nowhere in their tech stacks, and CZ wants other projects to post the same kind of confirmation.

Changpeng Zhao (CZ) is telling internet users to be extra careful on any website for the next few days, after two PHP vulnerabilities were patched on October 21 when their details leaked early.

Because attackers need no login to exploit them, a site someone simply visits could become a route to stolen credentials or a compromised device, CZ warned.

Exploitation Confirmed in the Wild In an October 21 post on X referring to vulnerabilities CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619, Zhao wrote:

“Call me paranoid, but be extra careful visiting ANY web site in the next few days, as some web admins are not always up-to-date with security patches.”

NSA Cyber advised organizations running PHP to prepare for an update and to take the affected system offline if patching could not happen immediately. The FBI’s cyber division repeated the offline option and asked operators to watch for PHP processes that unexpectedly launch command shells. Cloudflare stated that it had switched on default firewall protections before the flaws became public.

According to a PHP Foundation blog post, the two CVE numbers began circulating online on October 20 with a wrong release time and a severity score of 10.0 instead of the real 9.2, though no technical details were out.

Calif, one of the firms that reported the bugs, then mistakenly published a proof-of-concept video, and Chainguard released patch images more than six hours ahead of the agreed time. Curiously, the foundation noted that no functional exploits had been found when the release went out, while CZ’s post describes attacks confirmed afterward.

“Exploitation was confirmed in the wild soon after disclosure, prompting quick WAF protections and patching by IT teams, as unauthenticated attacks could turn visited sites into vectors for credential theft or device exploits,” stated the Binance founder.

BNB Chain and PancakeSwap Say Their Systems Are Unaffected The warning does not mean every cryptocurrency platform is vulnerable. BNB Chain executive Nina Rong confirmed that the network does not use PHP in its technology stack, while decentralized exchange PancakeSwap posted that it does not use PHP anywhere in its infrastructure and that user funds were safe.

You may also like: Sam Altman’s World Targets Deepfake Fraud With New Banking Tools Charles Hoskinson Disputes Vitalik Buterin’s Warning Against Lattice Cryptography Vitalik Buterin: AI Risk Doesn’t Justify Rushed Wallet Moves Zhao subsequently reposted PancakeSwap’s statement, commenting that “Most projects should at least post a confirmation like this.”

Meanwhile, OpenAI stated that its models helped researchers find the bugs through its Patch the Planet initiative and called the bug “one of the most impactful vulnerabilities in recent memory.” To its knowledge, the company added, frontier AI got to the problem ahead of attackers.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has pushed the idea that AI hacking makes cybersecurity hopeless, reasoning that AI able to provide hard math theorems could also prove a program secure.

Tags:

CZ Reacts to Anthropic’s New Claude Duet AI Agent: ‘Now, It Controls Us’

Every week, new builders join BNB Chain - spanning DeFi, AI, RWAs, infra and more.

Scroll through the latest projects below. If something grabs your attention, give them a follow. We’ll keep updating this list as the ecosystem grows.

The momentum’s real. Let’s keep pushing Web3 forward.

Project name

Category

Description

Atlas

Infrastructure

Supplies price feeds that power lending, trading and other DeFi applications on BNB Chain. 

Turboflow

DeFi 

Offers BNB Chain users access to leveraged perpetual trading and prediction markets through one platform. 

Metric

DeFi 

Lets users trade tokenized stocks and other assets, provide liquidity and create pools on BNB Chain using oracle-based pricing. 

Phantom

Wallet

Enables users to hold, send, receive, buy and swap BNB Chain tokens within its multichain wallet. 

Keeper

Wallet

A self-custodial multichain wallet for managing BNB Chain assets, swapping across networks and connecting to dApps. 

HashLiquid

Payment

A P2P marketplace where BNB Chain users can buy and sell stablecoins with local currencies across connected wallets and exchanges. 

City Protocol

DeFi

Powers curated investment vaults and token portfolios, including baskets users can buy in a single transaction on BNB Chain. 

OpenStocks

RWA

Enables BNB Chain users to trade fractional tokenized exposure to private companies such as Anthropic, Anduril, Neuralink and Figure AI. 

Openstock

RWA

Offers eligible BNB Chain users access to pre-IPO allocations through onchain vaults, starting with Hong Kong listings. 

IMPORTANT: Please note that all the information in the table above is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Please DYOR.

Follow us to stay updated on everything BNB ChainWebsite | X | Telegram | Facebook | dApp Store | YouTube | Discord | LinkedIn | Build N' Build Forum