Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Trader Says Explosive Move Around the Corner for DeFi Altcoin, Updates Outlook on XRP and Ethereum

Convex Finance (CVX) has seen a continuous downtrend since the crash at the end of July, with its price steadily declining each day. This prolonged drawdown has resulted in CVX reaching a new all-time low. 

The persistent losses have left investors wary, leading to further pessimism about the token’s recovery prospects.

Convex Finance Investors Give UpInvestor sentiment around CVX has been overwhelmingly negative in recent months. As losses continued to mount over the last two months, confidence among holders began to erode. Many investors who initially believed in the token’s potential recovery are now skeptical about its ability to bounce back, especially in light of the consistent price declines.

This growing pessimism has worsened as CVX fails to establish a stable support level. The lack of bullish momentum and the token’s inability to reverse its downtrend has compounded concerns, leaving many holders uncertain about the future of their investments.

Read More: What Is Convex Finance (CVX)?

CVX Realized Losses. Source: SantimentCVX’s overall macro momentum is also troubling. Historically, Convex Finance has maintained a correlation with Bitcoin, a trend that typically benefits altcoins. However, this correlation has proven to be a bearish signal for CVX.

Whenever the correlation between CVX and Bitcoin improves, the altcoin has experienced further price drops. The current situation is no different, with the increased correlation contributing to CVX’s decline to a new all-time low.

This bearish macro environment, coupled with the strong correlation to Bitcoin’s price movements, has placed additional downward pressure on CVX. As the cryptocurrency struggles to recover, it remains vulnerable to further losses unless significant bullish sentiment returns to the market.

CVX Correlation to Bitcoin. Source: TradingViewCVX Price Prediction: What After a New LowOver the last four days, CVX has experienced a 16% drop, creating intense bearish pressure. This resulted in the token hitting a new all-time low, with an intra-day decline of 6%, bringing CVX down to $1.72. At the time of writing, CVX is trading slightly higher at $1.86, just above the critical support level of $1.81.

CVX would need to reclaim the local support level of $1.97 to regain momentum. However, given the current bearish sentiment and ongoing selling pressure, this may prove not easy in the near term. Without a significant change in the market conditions, CVX could struggle to break above key resistance levels and face consolidation above $1.81.

Read More: What are Crypto Airdrops?

CVX Price Analysis. Source: TradingViewOn a more optimistic note, if CVX manages to bounce off the $1.97 level, it could push back above $2.00. A successful breach of $2.12 would invalidate the bearish-neutral outlook and potentially trigger a recovery, although this remains a challenging scenario given the token’s recent performance.

Curve Finance Reportedly Hacked, Users Urged to Avoid the Website

3 Altcoins Showing Accumulation Sign This Week

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

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

16 minutes ago

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

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

16 minutes ago

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

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

16 minutes ago

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

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

16 minutes ago

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

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

16 minutes ago

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

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

16 minutes ago

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

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

16 minutes ago

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

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

16 minutes ago

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

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

16 minutes ago

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

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

16 minutes ago

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

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

16 minutes ago

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

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

16 minutes ago

How Convex Finance is still serving top farming opportunities four years after its peak.

Listen

0

0:00 0:00

Subscribe to Bankless or sign in

Convex was once DeFi’s ultimate power broker.

At its peak in early 2022, this DeFi protocol controlled more than $20B in user deposits and used its immense governance control over the adjacent Curve ecosystem to mold crypto’s liquidity landscape.

While Convex remains firmly embedded in the onchain economy – still fulfilling its role as a battle-tested bastion for yield and ranking among the largest protocols in its category – this former giant stands diminished, with total value locked down 97% after having failed to reclaim its DeFi dominance in recent years.

Today, we’re exploring how Convex is continuing to produce leading crypto market yield for DeFi's capital allocators despite its more modest scale in 2026.

Citizen-only content

Upgrade to continue reading Support the Bankless Movement Premium Feed: Ad Free & Bonus Content Daily Market Analysis & Research Airdrop Hunter: Guided, Vetted Projects Claimables: Find & Claim Airdrops + more Private Discord w/ David & Ryan Explore all the benefits Become a Citizen

0

Written by Jack Inabinet

932 Articles • View all      

Jack Inabinet is a Senior Analyst with a passion for exploring the bleeding edge of crypto and finance. Prior to joining Bankless, Jack worked as an analyst at HAL Real Estate where he conducted market research and financial analysis for commercial real estate development and acquisition activities in the Seattle region. He graduated from the University of Washington’s Michael G. Foster School of Business.

No Responses

Get the Full
Bankless Experience

Get exclusive access to this content, token insights, and airdrop insider access!

Support Crypto-Native Media!

100+ Airdrop Hunter Guides

Exclusive Newsletter Analysis

Daily Token Hub Ratings

Private Discord w/ Bankless team

Exclusive Alpha

Bonus Citizen-Only Episodes

Support Crypto-Native Media!

PLUS $1,347+ of value in Premium Deals! Premium awaits!

Upgrade to Premium

Already premium? Sign In

Search Bankless

PANews reported on April 25th that Bitcoin developer Paul Sztorc announced on April 24th plans to implement a hard fork of the Bitcoin network in August, launching a new chain, eCash. This fork will use a replica of the BTC Core client and the SHA-256 algorithm, reducing initial mining difficulty. Bitcoin holders can exchange their Bitcoin for eCash at a 1:1 ratio. It will also add seven Layer 2 scaling networks, known as "drivechains," to increase transaction throughput and support optional on-chain privacy features.

Sztorc emphasized that eCash differs from Bitcoin Cash (BCH) in 2017 by "manually" redistributing approximately 1.1 million BTC from Satoshi Nakamoto to early investors, calling it a "permanent solution to the Bitcoin problem." This proposal sparked strong opposition from the community, with Bitcoin advocates criticizing it as "stealing Satoshi's tokens" and questioning the limited existing applications of eCash, predicting the project's complete failure within two to three years. Currently, the Bitcoin community is engaged in heated discussions surrounding protocol upgrades, privacy protection, and post-quantum resistance.

Updated Apr 27, 2026, 7:06 a.m. Published Apr 27, 2026, 6:45 a.m.

4 min read

Long-time Bitcoin developer proposes a Bitcoin hard fork. (geraldfriedrich2/Pixabay)Summary

Paul Sztorc proposes a 2026 hard fork of Bitcoin called eCash, giving BTC holders equivalent tokens and adding Drivechains. A hard fork splits a blockchain into a new network with shared history but different rules, like Bitcoin Cash in 2017. The plan is controversial for reallocating coins tied to Satoshi Nakamoto, which critics call unethical and risky.Long-time Bitcoin developer Paul Sztorc has been trying to overhaul Bitcoin's architecture since 2015, but the broader community hasn’t budged.

So now he has proposed a dramatic step, called eCash hardfork, that involves copying Bitcoin's code to launch a separate version in August, while giving existing bitcoin holders equivalent tokens in the new network for free.

The community, however, is criticizing the funding part, which involves reassigning coins linked to Bitcoin’s missing founder, Satoshi Nakamoto.

Think of a hard fork like a railway line splitting into two. Trains start from the same station, but at some point the line splits, helping trains reach completely different destinations.

When a group of developers cannot reach consensus on a proposed change to Bitcoin’s code, they copy the existing blockchain and launch it as a separate chain, which shares Bitcoin’s entire history up to the point of the split, but diverges after the split, moving forward with its own rules, features, token and direction.

That's precisely what happened in 2017 when the debate over Bitcoin's block size reached a tipping point, culminating in a chain split and the creation of the Bitcoin Cash blockchain with its native token, BCH.

The technical dispute centered on Bitcoin's 1MB block size limit, which caps the number of transactions that can be processed every 10 minutes when new blocks are added to the blockchain. Hence, some favoured increasing the block size, but the community remained divided, eventually leading to a chain split.

Sztorc's eCash hard forkThe proposed hard fork will create a new chain called eCash with native eCash tokens. “Hold 4.19 BTC at the time of the fork, get 4.19 eCash. You can sell it, keep it, or ignore it entirely,” he said on X.

The fork is scheduled for Bitcoin block height 964,000 in August 2026. A coin-splitter tool will be released to help holders cleanly separate their BTC from their new eCash.

The new chain will be a near-copy of Bitcoin's existing blockchain, with one critical addition called Drivechains, a scaling architecture Sztorc first proposed in 2015 and formally submitted to Bitcoin developers as BIP300 and BIP301 in 2017 and 2019, respectively.

Drivechains are sidechains tethered to the Bitcoin blockchain, allowing seamless movement of BTC between the main chain and sidechains without changing Bitcoin's base layer. Each sidechain can operate under its own rules and features, essentially allowing developers to build new capabilities on top of Bitcoin without requiring the entire network to adopt those changes.

Think of Drivechains as service roads attached to the main highway. When the highway is congested, drivers can exit the highway and travel on the service road at different speed limits, then re-enter the highway when it's clear. This way, the highway never changes, yet more traffic is handled more efficiently, and the journey becomes more flexible for everyone.

Seven Drivechains are already in development, Sztorc said on X, including a privacy chain modelled on Zcash, a prediction market called Truthcoin, a decentralised exchange called CoinShift, and a quantum-resistant chain called Photon.

The controversial part linked to Satoshi coinsSztorc wants to use coins that would have gone to Satoshi Nakamoto's equivalent addresses on the new eCash chain to bring investors on board before the fork goes live, a decision he calls necessary but which has riled the community, with some calling it outright theft.

A potential hard fork would bring Bitcoin’s entire transaction history to the new chain. So every bitcoin balance, including Satoshi’s 1.1 million bitcoin, sitting untouched in wallets that have noved moved these coins, would show up as an equivalent eCash balance on the new chain.

As per the plan, fewer than half of the Satoshi-equivalent eCash coins will be assigned to investors today. The precise mechanism of how it's being done remains unclear. But since eCash doesn't yet exist, the pre-hard fork assign seems to be a promised credit following a successful hard fork.

The plan, he argues, will ensure collaborators have a tangible incentive to get involved early, building momentum and completing work ahead of launch. Without this mechanism, the project can turn into a "zombie project" that ships unfinished. Worse, it could become a centralized project, where a small group of developers gains outsized control over the chain's direction.

The industry response, however, has been negative.

“Taking Satoshi coins is theft and disrespectful, and eCash is already used for Lightning payments with Cashu and Fedi. Those are poor choices,” Bitcoin advocate Peter McCormack said.

Josh Ellithorpe, chief technology officer at Pixelated Ink, expressed concerns about the precedent it sets and how it could eventually be a risk to everyone’s BTC holdings.

“eCash, setting the precedent that they can and will steal coins. Now it's Satoshi, but it could be anyone later. Also misrepresenting the BCH fork, stealing another project's name, and not having replay protection,” Ellithorpe said.

AI Disclaimer: Parts of this article were generated with the assistance from AI tools and reviewed by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and adherence to our standards. For more information, see CoinDesk's full AI Policy.

12345678910

A proposed Bitcoin fork called “eCash” would redistribute Satoshi Nakamoto’s dormant ~1.1 million BTC. The market for Bitcoin staying above $68,000 by April 26 sits at 99.9% YES.

The fork, scheduled for August 2026, includes a 1:1 airdrop of eCash tokens to BTC holders and would reassign Satoshi’s unspent BTC to early investors. The Bitcoin dip to $60,000 in April 2026 market is priced at 99.9% YES, unchanged from 24 hours ago. The proposal raises questions about supply expansion and breaks from Bitcoin Core’s consensus model.

Advertisement

The 99.9% YES pricing reflects deep skepticism about the fork’s near-term effect on Bitcoin’s price. A 15% expected move suggests traders are pricing in potential volatility if the proposal gains traction, but the April 26 market itself hasn’t budged.

Trading volume on the April 26 market is $13,175 in daily USDC, and it takes $67,380 to shift prices by 5 percentage points. That depth means any meaningful repricing would require a major catalyst. At 99.9¢, a YES share pays $1 if Bitcoin stays above $68,000 by April 26.

The proposal matters because it directly challenges Bitcoin’s established ownership norms. Redistributing coins attributed to Satoshi introduces a concrete governance dispute: whether any fork can legitimately reassign coins that have never moved. The real question is whether the fork attracts enough mining and node support to be taken seriously. Watch for updates from Paul Sztorc and public positions from major Bitcoin holders. Shifts in Federal Reserve monetary policy could also affect broader price action around the fork timeline.

Get prediction market intelligence as a structured API feed. Early access waitlist.

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

In brief LayerTwo Labs CEO Paul Sztorc has proposed a Bitcoin hard fork called eCash. The fork would clone and "reassign" coins linked to Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto and give them to eCash investors. Previous Bitcoin and Ethereum hard forks have been far less successful than the originals long-term. Bitcoin developer Paul Sztorc has proposed a hard fork that would reassign some of the earliest coins on the original crypto network—widely believed to belong to pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto—to investors in a new project.

The co-founder and CEO of LayerTwo Labs, Sztorc announced the project, called eCash, on Friday. The plan would “manually reassign” about 500,000 of the roughly 1.1 million Bitcoin associated with the so-called “Patoshi pattern,” a mining pattern some researchers believe is linked to Nakamoto.

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

Sztorc would not (and could not) move the Satoshi-linked coins on Bitcoin itself. Instead, eCash would create a separate blockchain that copies Bitcoin’s history and changes the ledger to assign all but 600K of those coins to new owners. Current on-chain Bitcoin (BTC) holders would also receive coins on the eCash network equivalent to their holdings at the time of the fork.

Important: I've also devised a way that some can *invest* in this hardfork, now, before the fork-date, in August:

- Satoshi has 1.1M coins in the so called "patoshi" pattern.
- We will be manually reassigning some of these coins (fewer than half) to investors today.

This will…

— Paul Sztorc (@Truthcoin) April 24, 2026

“Your coins will split. For example, if you have 4.19 BTC, then you will get 4.19 eCash,” he wrote on X. “You may sell your eCash—or keep it. Or ignore it!”

Named after the original eCash, cryptographer David Chaum’s early digital money project, the new fork is a callback to one of crypto’s earliest ideas. The original eCash used cryptographic “blind signatures” to let people make private electronic payments, but DigiCash, Chaum’s company developing the project, filed for bankruptcy in 1998 after the project failed to gain widespread adoption.

“It’s not Satoshi’s Bitcoin, it’s just [unspent transaction outputs] that are presumed to belong to Satoshi that are being cloned and modified onto a completely different network,” Bitcoin developer and Casa Chief Security Officer Jameson Lopp told Decrypt.

Lopp dismissed the move as a publicity stunt, calling it “clever outrage marketing.”

According to Loop, such a reassignment could only happen on Bitcoin itself if the broader network of developers agreed to adopt the fork.

“If the entire Bitcoin ecosystem decided to migrate to a hard fork that reassigned Satoshi’s coins to keys that other people controlled, then sure, it’s theoretically possible,” Lopp said.

Sztorc has said the reassignment would allow early supporters to invest in the project before its planned August launch. He has argued the move is needed to keep the chain from becoming a “zombie” project without enough capital or contributors.

Bitcoin has split before. Bitcoin Cash launched in 2017 after a dispute over scaling, splitting off and creating a new network. Ethereum split in 2016 after the DAO hack, with most network backers choosing to reverse the transactions with stolen funds while Ethereum Classic kept the original chain. Both Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Ethereum Classic (ETC) have been far less valuable and popular than their respective original coins and networks.

The eCash website says the chain is expected to launch in about 119 days and will include “Drivechain” scaling network support, with seven sidechains in development.

“The upside is enormous: global scalability, privacy, competition, rapid improvement, and adoption,” Sztorc wrote on the eCash website. “In fact, it may be a matter of life or death for Bitcoin. The downside is small: some drama, plus every Bitcoiner gets some free money.”

Sztorc did not immediately respond to a request for comment by Decrypt.

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

Critics Push Back Against Developer’s Plan to Reassign Satoshi’s Coins in eCash Fork

A longstanding debate in the Bitcoin community has resurfaced, centering on the ownership of early-era coins and their uncertain future. Paul Sztorc, co-founder and CEO of LayerTwo Labs, has proposed a dramatic new hard fork aimed at reallocating nearly 500,000 BTC linked to the controversial “Patoshi” pattern in Bitcoin’s blockchain history. These coins, widely believed to be controlled by Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto, but with no definitive proof to date, would be reassigned under the plan.

The new chain: eCash projectAccording to Sztorc’s proposal, the existing Bitcoin network would remain entirely intact, while a completely separate blockchain named “eCash” would be launched. This new chain would copy Bitcoin’s full transaction history but change the ownership of coins from certain early blocks, specifically redirecting the roughly half a million BTC associated with the Patoshi pattern to a new set of investors. While most analysts believe the Patoshi mining pattern points to Satoshi Nakamoto, no conclusive evidence confirms this theory.

Under the plan, anyone holding BTC at the time of the fork would receive an equivalent amount of eCash coins. Importantly, the distribution and ownership structure of coins on the main Bitcoin chain would remain untouched.

Paul Sztorc explained that the goal of this redistribution is to support early investors in the eCash project and drive early momentum for the chain. He emphasized, “This is simply a copy of Bitcoin, and a totally new chain. Existing Bitcoin balances will be mirrored exactly at the moment of the eCash fork.”

Jameson Lopp, a prominent Bitcoin expert, disagreed with characterizing the fork as a direct Bitcoin transfer, considering the eCash chain a separate blockchain event altogether. Pointing to similar precedents, he noted that previous forks—such as Bitcoin Cash in 2017 and the Ethereum–DAO split in 2016—introduced new assets without altering the main chain.

As a result, BTC ownership on the primary chain wouldn’t change. Instead, at the forking snapshot, Bitcoin holders would receive identical amounts of the new eCash coin. The eventual market value of the new asset would depend entirely on uptake and trading volume.

Long-dormant coins and quantum computing risksSztorc’s proposal enters the debate amid ongoing concern over nearly 5.6 million BTC that have remained untouched in wallets for over a decade. Developers and market analysts are discussing whether these coins should be frozen to shield the ecosystem from potential “quantum computing threats,” with some warning that advances could someday crack old wallets’ cryptographic secrets and enable unauthorized access.

Opponents counter that Bitcoin’s founding principle is the inviolability of coin ownership: assets should never be altered due to centralized or collective decisions. They warn that revising ownership structures—even on a separate fork—could undermine user trust and erode the institutional credibility that Bitcoin has built.

Thus, while altering ownership on an entirely different chain like eCash may not impact the main Bitcoin network directly, experts caution it could further inflame debates over the value and legitimacy of dormant coins and forked networks attributed to Satoshi.

On the technical side, it is only possible to change the Bitcoin main chain through broad ecosystem backing and full community consensus. With forks like eCash, value depends entirely on whether investors, exchanges, and miners are willing to support the new asset, which is never guaranteed.

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

The Bitcoin community is facing heated debate following the announcement of a new fork called eCash, which is set to launch in August at block height 964,000. With this fork, the entire Bitcoin blockchain will be duplicated, meaning existing BTC holders will receive the equivalent amount in eCash. As seen in previous forks, users will automatically get new coins on the new chain in proportion to their BTC holdings.

Satoshi’s unspent coins raise concernsWhat makes the eCash fork different from earlier splits is the fate of around 1.1 million BTC long believed to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto. These untouched holdings, resting since 2009, have become symbols of fairness and transparency within the Bitcoin community. Under normal circumstances, the same amount would be credited as eCash on the new chain. However, LayerTwo Labs CEO Paul Sztorc has proposed crediting only 600,000 eCash to addresses associated with Satoshi, distributing the remaining 500,000 eCash to early project backers instead.

This proposal has ignited intense ethical debate regarding property rights. On X, Sztorc rejected accusations of “theft,” emphasizing that, from a technical standpoint, no theft is actually occurring.

Sztorc argued that Satoshi’s untouched coins serve as crucial guarantees at the core of Bitcoin, suggesting that even the creator’s decision not to move these coins proves equal application of rules. While reallocating these coins to fund a new project is not technically exploitative, he acknowledged it remains ethically controversial.

Concerns over property rights and fairnessAbundant Mines CEO Beau Turner told CoinDesk that Bitcoin’s foundation lies in the principle of universal property rights, and any intrusion on Satoshi’s coins would represent a significant ethical misstep.

Turner explained: “Bitcoin was created to protect the inalienable property rights of everyone globally. Any suggestion to seize the founder’s coins is such a grave error that it’s hard to understand how an idea like this even comes up.”

As the potential fork draws closer, discussion has also arisen about whether to freeze or restrict older and less secure addresses, particularly those associated with Satoshi. These subjects are highly sensitive, as they drive core debates on Bitcoin’s immutability and the community’s social contract.

Cross-platform ethics go under the microscopeThe inviolability of Satoshi’s coins occupies a central position in Bitcoin’s ethos. Vijay Selvam, author of “Principles of Bitcoin,” contends that any attempt to freeze these coins would inflict irreparable harm on Bitcoin’s monetary fundamentals.

Selvam said that freezing Satoshi’s coins would deeply undermine Bitcoin’s monetary properties, cautioning that, if such a precedent were set, users could never be certain their holdings would remain secure, leading to constant anxiety about future rights violations.

Selvam further emphasized that Bitcoin is expected to serve as a reliable, time-resistant store of value for future generations, like digital gold, and that manipulative practices arising from forks like eCash jeopardize this narrative.

Paul Sztorc’s earlier proposals to implement sidechains in Bitcoin, known as BIP300 and BIP301, received little support from the broader community. Now, the eCash fork is being positioned as both a contingency and a tactic to generate community pressure should these proposals continue to face rejection.

Sztorc has stated he may withdraw the eCash plan if his proposed sidechain upgrades are adopted, but so far, there has been no indication of developer consensus in that direction.

While it remains uncertain whether this fork will achieve lasting economic significance, the social and ethical debate it has sparked is already the main story. Most earlier forks failed to retain substantial value in the long run; eCash, however, puts Bitcoin’s ethical legacy under renewed scrutiny through its handling of Satoshi’s coins.

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

Updated Jun 9, 2026, 11:46 a.m. Published May 2, 2026, 4:00 p.m.

3 min read

(CoinDesk)Summary

Critics say eCash is less a Bitcoin fork and more a complex airdrop that could expose users to security risks.Concerns focus on replay protection, custody complications and the redistribution of Satoshi-linked coins.Support exists but is limited, largely framing eCash as an optional experiment tied to long-standing scaling proposals.Paul Sztorc’s proposed eCash fork has been framed as a battle over Bitcoin’s principles. But among developers and infrastructure builders, a different interpretation is taking hold.

This isn’t really a Bitcoin fork, they argue. It’s an airdrop — and a potentially hazardous one.

“I’m firmly against Paul’s fork, but not because it represents a ‘hostile Bitcoin hard fork,’ as some claim,” said Sergio Lerner, co-founder of Rootstock Labs, told CoinDesk in an email. “eCash is a new blockchain…It is not directly taking anything away from bitcoin holders.”

That distinction cuts through much of the early backlash. Unlike past splits that attempted to carry the Bitcoin name or compete for hashpower, eCash is structurally closer to a new token being airdropped to existing bitcoin holders.

But for Lerner and others, that framing shifts the concern rather than resolves it.

Airdrops are common across crypto. In Bitcoin, they are rare — and often messy.

Lerner argues that distributing eCash based on Bitcoin’s UTXO set — the collection of “unspent transaction outputs,” essentially the chunks of bitcoin that make up user balances — exposes users to avoidable operational risk, particularly if they try to claim the tokens.

“Airdropping to UTXO owners does not help bitcoiners and instead exposes them to significant risk,” he said, pointing to the need for users to move funds out of cold storage and interact with unfamiliar software.

That risk is compounded by the lack of full replay protection between the two chains. Without a clean separation, transactions intended for Bitcoin could inadvertently affect funds on the eCash network, or vice versa.

Dan Held, a Bitcoin entrepreneur, framed it more bluntly: “Reallocating Satoshi’s coins is shock value marketing, and the no-replay protection makes it quite hazardous to redeem.”

No-replay protection could allow a valid, signed transaction from the hard fork to be maliciously broadcast and accepted on another chain. This causes identical, unwanted transactions on both networks, leading to accidental loss of funds. It occurs when two chains share the same transaction format.

Distribution questionsBeyond security concerns, the distribution itself is being questioned.

Because Bitcoin ownership is often intermediated by exchanges, custodians and institutional platforms, the entity controlling private keys is not always the economic owner of the coins.

“The custodians controlling UTXO keys are often not the rightful economic owners,” Lerner said. “This places users who hold bitcoin through custodians at a disadvantage.”

In practice, that means some users may never receive eCash at all, while others may take on new risks to access it. For systems built on top of Bitcoin — including sidechains, like Rootstock, and federated custody networks — the situation becomes even more complex, potentially requiring coordination or upgrades to safely split coins across chains.

Lerner also criticized the project’s funding model, which allocates a portion of Satoshi-linked coins on the new chain to early investors, calling it “morally objectionable and unnecessary.”

Philosophical fault lineFor others, the objection goes beyond mechanics.

Jay Pollak, head of strategy at Bitcoin sidechain VerifiedX, sees the proposal as part of a broader category of attempts to reinterpret Bitcoin’s core properties through derivative systems.

“It’s mind boggling to think that anybody would think that’s a really good idea,” Pollak said, referring to the combination of forking and reassigning dormant coins.

Pollak argues that even indirect changes to how Bitcoin ownership is represented risk undermining the system’s core guarantee.

“You can’t break the native ownership of Bitcoin. It’s totally contradictory to what Bitcoin is,” he said.

In that framing, eCash is less about whether Bitcoin itself changes — it doesn’t — and more about whether the ecosystem should tolerate structures that reinterpret its ledger.

Most Bitcoin forks fail to gain meaningful traction. eCash may follow the same path.

But the reaction to it is already clarifying something else: Bitcoin’s resistance to change is not just about code or consensus rules. It extends to how users are expected to behave, how risk is introduced, and what kinds of experiments are considered acceptable at the edges.

Framed as an airdrop, eCash looks less like a challenge to Bitcoin — and more like a test of how far its social boundaries actually reach.

AI Disclaimer: Parts of this article were generated with the assistance from AI tools and reviewed by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and adherence to our standards. For more information, see CoinDesk's full AI Policy.

Related Assets

12345678910

Wed 06 May 2026 ▪ 6 min read ▪ by Ghiles A.

Summarize this article with:

A new Bitcoin fork project reignites tensions within the ecosystem. Led by developer Paul Sztorc. The initiative named “eCash” does not just propose a basic parallel chain: it introduces technical and economic choices that directly affect fundamental principles of the network, notably the management of UTXOs and the controversial use of Satoshi Nakamoto’s historical holdings. Between promises of innovation and fears of misuse, the debate intensifies around the project.

In brief Paul Sztorc’s eCash project plans a Bitcoin hard fork with token distribution equivalent to BTC holders. Drivechains integration aims to extend uses (DeFi, privacy, prediction markets) but raises technical debates. Potential use of funds linked to Satoshi Nakamoto to finance the project crystallizes criticism. Several experts warn about major risks, including violations of property rights, dangerous precedents, and increased user exposure. Bitcoin faces a new parallel chain project The project announced by Paul Sztorc, founder and CEO of LayerTwo Labs, plans a hard fork at block height 964,000. This step should create a new chain called eCash, with its own native tokens. Holders would thus receive an equivalent balance on this separate network.

To limit confusion, a coin separation tool should accompany the launch. It would help users distinguish their BTC from the new eCash asset. Primarily, this measure aims to reduce errors during fund transfers.

The future chain would adopt almost the entire existing Bitcoin structure. However, it would integrate a major evolution: drivechains. Sztorc proposed this extension architecture in 2015 and then presented it to developers via BIP300 and BIP301.

According to him, eCash would not follow BCH’s logic in 2017. The project does not just seek to increase block size. It wants to offer a more sustainable solution without using the Bitcoin name in its branding. Moreover, a four-month notice should give the community time to prepare.

eCash fork: Drivechains at the center of the debate The fork would also carry several technical projects already in development. Sztorc cited seven Drivechains, including a privacy chain inspired by Zcash. He also mentioned Truthcoin, CoinShift, and Photon.

These extensions would cover varied uses. Truthcoin would target prediction markets. CoinShift would operate as a decentralized exchange. Photon, on the other hand, would seek quantum computer resistance.

However, the most discussed point concerns launch funding. Sztorc wishes to use coins sent to equivalent Satoshi Nakamoto addresses on eCash. He believes this mechanism can attract investors before the fork.

The developer defends this approach with an operational argument. According to him, it would provide contributors a concrete incentive to act early. Without that, the project could become a “zombie project” delivered incomplete. It could also become more centralized, with excessive influence from a small circle of developers.

This proposal remains very sensitive as it touches on historical balances. By adopting the complete Bitcoin history, eCash would display the 1.1 million coins of Satoshi as an equivalent balance on the new chain.

A community divided over ownership and risks The eCash hard fork project quickly triggered a wave of reactions within the Bitcoin ecosystem, revealing deep fault lines between supporters of experimentation and defenders of a strict interpretation of protocol rules.

This is notably the case regarding distributions based on UTXOs, which some consider risky for users. Sergio Lerner, co-founder of Rootstock Labs, adopts a particularly critical stance on this point. In a statement attributed to CoinDesk, he emphasizes:

I am firmly opposed to Paul’s fork, but not because it represents a ‘hostile Bitcoin fork’… eCash is a new blockchain… It does not directly take anything from Bitcoin holders. Distributing airdrops to UTXO owners does not help Bitcoiners and instead exposes them to significant risks.

Sergio Lerner, co-founder of Rootstock Labs. Source: CoinDesk According to him, these mechanisms force holders to adopt potentially dangerous behaviors, such as moving funds from cold storage or interacting with unfamiliar software. An approach that, far from strengthening security or usefulness for Bitcoin users, instead rekindles tensions around fork models and management of historical assets.

At the same time, Jay Pollak, Head of Strategy at Sidechain Bitcoin VerifiedX, voices a more fundamental critique of attempts to reinterpret Bitcoin’s network properties.

It’s stunning to think someone could truly believe this is an excellent idea; you cannot break Bitcoin’s native ownership—that is completely contrary to what Bitcoin is.

Jay Pollak, Head of Strategy at Sidechain Bitcoin VerifiedX. Source: Coindesk However, he warns that even indirect changes, notably via forks or derived mechanisms, could compromise the system’s essential guarantee.

Furthermore, other ecosystem players have adopted a harsher line of criticism, even raising accusations of theft. Bitcoin lawyer Peter McCormack denounced the project logic by stating, “Taking Satoshi’s coins is theft and disrespect, and eCash is already used for Lightning payments with Cashu and Fedi. These are bad choices.”

Josh Ellithorpe, CTO at Pixelated Ink, warns of the precedent such actions could create. In a post on X, he states, “eCash created a dangerous precedent, proving they can steal cryptocurrencies, and they will. Today it’s Satoshi’s, but it could be anyone’s. They also distorted reality regarding the BCH fork, hijacked another project’s name, and implemented no replay protection,” he warns, highlighting potential risks for all BTC holders.

Beyond technical considerations, the eCash project highlights a deeper rift within the Bitcoin community: how far can one innovate without betraying the network’s founding principles? This potential BTC fork exposes the ongoing tensions between experimentation and conservatism within the ecosystem, highlighting the conflict between ambitions for expansion through drivechains and concerns about ownership, security, and legal precedents.

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

Ghiles A.

Journaliste et rédacteur web passionné par l’univers des cryptomonnaies et des technologies Web3. J’y traite les dernières tendances et actualités afin de proposer un contenu de haute qualité à un large public du secteur.

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.

PANews reported on May 11th that, according to SoSoValue data, the cryptocurrency market is generally trending upward, with the PayFi sector performing particularly well, rising 3.26% in the last 24 hours. Specifically, XRP rose 3.29%, Trust Wallet (TWT) rose 6.55%, and eCash (XEC) rose 12.85%. Meanwhile, Bitcoin (BTC) rose 1.17%, returning above $81,000; Ethereum (ETH) rose 1.75%, approaching $2,400.

In other sectors, Layer 2 rose 2.76% in the last 24 hours, with Mantle (MNT) up 4.12%; DeFi rose 2.56%, with Uniswap (UNI) up 7.72%; Meme rose 2.25%, with TROLL (TROLL) surging 50.14%; Layer 1 rose 2.08%, with Sui (SUI) up 24.00%; AI rose 1.85%, with Unibase (UB) up 13.24%; and CeFi rose 1.57%, with Cronos (CRO) up 6.53%.

Binance will remove 23 low-liquidity spot trading pairs on Jan. 9, 2026, deactivating bots while keeping the underlying tokens tradable via other pairs.

Summary

Binance will delist 23 spot trading pairs on Jan. 9, 2026, after a periodic market quality review.​ The exchange cites low liquidity and trading volume but keeps the underlying tokens tradable via other pairs.​ Automated spot trading bots on affected pairs will be shut down, and users are urged to adjust settings. Binance, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, announced plans to remove 23 spot trading pairs from its platform, effective January 9, 2026, at 06:00 UTC.

Binance to delist pairs The exchange stated in an official announcement that all spot trading pairs undergo regular reviews to protect users and maintain trading quality standards. The delisting decision resulted from factors including low liquidity, insufficient trading volume, and other elements affecting market efficiency, according to the company.

The removal of the trading pairs does not eliminate access to the underlying crypto assets on the platform, Binance stated. Users will retain the ability to trade the affected assets through alternative trading pairs that remain supported on the exchange.

Binance also announced that automated spot trading bots configured for the affected currency pairs will be deactivated at the specified date and time. The exchange advised users to update or deactivate their bot settings before the deadline to prevent potential losses.

The company conducts periodic reviews of its trading pairs as part of its platform maintenance procedures, according to the statement.

Based on our most recent reviews, Binance will remove and cease trading on the following spot trading pairs:

At 2026-01-09 03:00 (UTC): 1000SATS/FDUSD, 2Z/BNB, AEVO/BTC, BARD/FDUSD, BIO/BNB, DOLO/FDUSD, EDEN/BNB, EDEN/FDUSD, EGLD/BNB, ETHFI/FDUSD, GLMR/BTC, HOT/ETH, HUMA/FDUSD, IOTA/ETH, KAITO/BTC, MIRA/FDUSD, MORPHO/BNB, MORPHO/FDUSD, NEIRO/FDUSD, RONIN/FDUSD, SOMI/BNB, SSV/ETH and TURTLE/BNB

Here Are the Top Yield Farming Projects by Development Activity

Table of contents

Introduction Imagine using the internet at home and the connection being shared by four users. So far so good. But if the fifth user joins the network, you might feel that your browsing has turned sluggish. The larger the number of users on a network, the slower it will get. You can block a few users from the controlling interface, but this is not possible when we think of the internet on larger scales. Since blockchain networks also operate on the internet, they also face the scalability problem. With the evolution in blockchain technology, a resounding discussion about scalability issues, sidechains, and payment channels has been taking place on the platform where users exist.

What are Scalability, Sidechains, and Payment Channels? Any crypto student is supposed to be familiar with the three times that every influencer uses every now and then on social media. The first of them, scalability refers to the ability of a blockchain network to handle an increasing number of transactions without getting slow. A sidechain is a scalability solution of a blockchain in the form of an independent blockchain that provides to-and-fro movement of assets to ease the load from the main blockchain.

As an off-chain scalability solution, a payment channel uses a smart contract to enable users to transact without publishing their transactions to the blockchain. It does so by using a software-enforced agreement between two participants. These scalability solutions aim to prevent congestion on the network and improve speed.

Early blockchains suffered from extremely sluggish speed and serious congestion, and this was not an attractive situation for the new users. Sidechains emerged to work just like an extra lane on a very busy expressway. They diverted substantial transactions and made the system smoother. Payment channels can be equated with options for the investor to settle the buying and selling, even repeated rounds of them, aside and bring the final result to the chain, making the ledger less crowded.

Why Blockchain Scalability Became a Major Challenge Pioneer blockchains like Bitcoin appeared with intentionally limited designs. Whenever a new transaction is proposed, the consensus rules require that as many nodes verify as possible. Although there is no hard and fast limit on the minimum number of nodes, data shows that when a transaction is followed by six others on top of it, it is considered valid. This widespread consensus mechanism needs a wide network of users to connect to one another, making the system crowded very soon and very often. Although originally intended for security and stability, the design started creating hurdles when adoption grew.

The need for scalability is direly felt when we consider that every full node should maintain an up-to-date copy of the blockchain, which is a daunting task. This storage and synchronization problem obstructs the growth of the network. The decentralization itself may struggle if blocks get too large, as the new, smaller nodes find it difficult to store and synchronize.

Sidechains and Their Working As hinted earlier, sidechains are independent blockchains with their own security rules and consensus mechanisms. The sole purpose of their existence is to make things easier on the main blockchains they are pegged to. The peg is always bidirectional to enable movement of the assets to and from the sidechain. This scalability solution lets developers build faster, more efficient, and specialized systems without changing the original blockchain.

The working of the sidechains is quite straightforward. You need to lock your coins on the main chain and get new coins issued on the sidechain worth the same value. When you use the coins on the sidechain and finish your activity there, you either burn those coins or lock them on the sidechain to unlock our assets on the main chain. Burning or unlocking depends on the nature of the smart contract on the sidechain.

Of course, the biggest benefit of developing a sidechain is that its transactions do not take any space on the main system. Consequently, the main chain does not get busy, and fees do not rise. Secondly, a glitch, bug, hacking attack, etc., on the main blockchain does not affect the working of the sidechain.

How Payment Channels Work in Practice In addition to sidechains, users can also use payment channels as a scalability solution. This solution involves getting off the chain and settling the transactions by using a smart contract and a multi-signature (multisig) wallet. Funds from such wallets cannot be moved until all the participants concerned sign the move. For example, user A and B decide to transfer 200 $ETH to a multisig wallet. They can own the funds in equal amounts or as they decide mutually. If they want to change the rules of ownership by reallocating the amount of $ETH, multisig wallets enable them to do so via cryptographic rules and specially designed scripts.

In networks such as the Lightning Network, payment routing allows users to transact with people they are not directly connected to by passing funds through intermediaries. These channel networks form complex webs that support rapid global payments.

Advantages of Payment Channels for Everyday Transactions Payment channels dramatically increase transaction speed by processing payments off-chain. Studies show that channel-based systems can achieve almost instant settlement and extremely low fees compared to traditional blockchain transactions. This makes microtransactions and frequent transfers economically viable.

Another advantage is privacy. Since only the opening and closing balances appear on the blockchain, individual transactions remain confidential between participants. Payment channels also reduce network congestion, allowing the main blockchain to focus on final settlement rather than handling every small transaction.

Limitations and Risks of Sidechains and Payment Channels Despite their advantages, sidechains may involve tradeoffs between scalability and decentralization. Some sidechains rely on smaller validator groups or different security models, which can introduce risks if not properly managed. Users must trust the mechanisms that move assets between chains.

Payment channels also face challenges such as liquidity limits and channel management complexity. Funds must remain locked within channels during use, and participants must monitor activity to prevent dishonest behavior. Researchers continue to explore improvements that balance security with usability in off-chain networks.

Conclusion As blockchain adoption continues to grow, scalability remains one of the most critical challenges for long-term success. Sidechains and payment channels offer practical solutions by reducing congestion, lowering fees, and improving transaction speed without compromising the core security of main networks. While each approach has its own limitations, their combined use plays a vital role in making blockchain systems more efficient and user-friendly. Ultimately, these technologies bring decentralized networks closer to real-world usability by supporting faster, cheaper, and more scalable digital transactions.

Frequently Asked Questions What are sidechains in blockchain? Sidechains are independent blockchains connected to a main network that help reduce congestion by processing transactions separately while allowing assets to move between chains.

How do payment channels improve blockchain scalability? Payment channels enable users to conduct multiple transactions off-chain and record only the final result on the blockchain, making transactions faster and cheaper.

Are sidechains and payment channels secure? Yes, they are generally secure, but their safety depends on proper design, trusted validators, and smart contract reliability. Users should understand the risks before using them.

AUTHOR

Umair Younas is a cryptocurrency-related content writer linked with this work since 2019. Here, at Blockchainreporter, he serves as a news and article writer. He is a crypto, blockchain, NFTs, DeFi, and FinTech enthusiast. He has strong command over writing authentic reviews about brokers and exchanges and he has collaborated with our education team to write educational content as well. He has a dream to raise awareness among people about digital currencies. His works are well-researched and brimmed with information hence they provide fresh insights. Stay tuned to his posts if you want to stay up-to-date with the crypto-verse.

Bitcoin’s on‑chain data is flashing a strange mix of softer retail‑style activity and still‑robust throughput, fees and capital flows that look more like consolidation than exhaustion.

Summary

Active Bitcoin addresses have dropped to roughly 660,000 on a seven‑day basis, a 12‑month low that coincides with more batching, consolidation and custodial use. The network still processes around 400,000–450,000 transactions per day, with average fees in a $2.50–$4.00 band that signals steady economic activity rather than a ghost chain. Research on Ordinals finds inscriptions contributed about 22% of fees between 2023 and early 2024, with each 1‑point blockspace share increase driving roughly 3.2% higher regular‑tx fees. Bitcoin’s (BTC) on‑chain data is flashing a strange combination: softer retail‑style activity, but still‑elevated throughput, fees and capital flows that look more like consolidation than exhaustion.

Activity and addresses: weak surface, noisy signal Metrics that usually stand in for “user activity” have rolled over. By December 2025, the seven‑day average number of active Bitcoin addresses had fallen to roughly 660,000, a one‑year low and well below the levels seen during the Ordinals craze at the end of 2024. On‑chain analysts at BecauseBitcoin and MEXC note that this drop coincides with more wallet batching, UTXO consolidation and the growth of custodial solutions, all of which can depress address counts without necessarily reflecting a collapse in real economic usage.

Transactions, volume and fees: consolidation, not coma Under the hood, the network is still busy. A February 2026 review of on‑chain data finds Bitcoin processing around 400,000–450,000 transactions per day, with relatively stable throughput even as prices chop. That same analysis highlights “robust institutional‑scale flows” visible in large transactions and cluster behaviour, describing current traffic as “genuine economic activity rather than speculative trading alone.”

Fees are sitting in an awkward middle zone that suits miners better than traders. Average transaction costs have hovered in roughly the $2.50–$4.00 range in early 2026 – far above the sub‑$1 lull of mid‑2025 but well below the $50‑plus spikes logged during prior bouts of memecoin and inscription congestion. A separate snapshot from early March puts 24‑hour BTC trading volume near $73 billion, roughly 5% of market cap, a ratio that MEXC flags as historically preceding “significant directional moves” as positioning builds.

Ordinals, inscriptions and blockspace demand Part of the fee story is structural. Academic and industry research on Ordinals and inscriptions estimates that between mid‑2022 and early 2024, inscription transactions accounted for about 22% of total Bitcoin fees and that a 1‑percentage‑point rise in their share of blockspace corresponded to roughly a 3.2% increase in fees paid by ordinary transactions. Galaxy Research and other desks have documented multiple periods where inscriptions generated more than 20% of daily fee revenue, effectively subsidizing miners while competing with payments and exchange transfers for blockspace.

Mixed but constructive into 2026 Taken together, the picture into 2026 is mixed but not obviously bearish. A composite view of “crypto on‑chain signals” described by Blockchain.News shows fundamental activity measures softening even as realized profit/loss and capital‑flow indicators stabilize, consistent with a market that is digesting past gains rather than falling apart. With Bitcoin trading in the low‑$70,000s and on‑chain volumes still punchy, the network looks less like a ghost chain and more like a maturing settlement layer where speculative froth has drained faster than institutional usage.

Robert Kiyosaki says an imminent “biggest financial bubble in history” will end in a crash that sends Bitcoin to $750k and Ethereum to $95k within a year, even as critics doubt his methods.

Summary

Kiyosaki argues a financial bubble inflated since 2008 will soon burst and forecasts Bitcoin at $750,000 and Ethereum at $95,000 within one year of that crash, alongside gold at $35,000 and silver at $200. He frames BTC, ETH, gold, and silver as scarce “escape hatches” from fiat, noting he recently bought another 1 BTC around $67,000 and claims he would still buy more even if price fell to $6,000. Critics highlight his decade-long record of missed crash calls and say his numbers lack rigorous modeling, but his alarm now lands amid tighter Fed policy and rising geopolitical risk. Robert Kiyosaki, the author of Rich Dad Poor Dad and one of the crypto space’s most vocal mainstream advocates, has issued his most dramatic price predictions yet — forecasting Bitcoin (BTC) at $750,000 and Ethereum at $95,000 within one year of what he describes as an imminent and catastrophic global financial crash.​

Speaking on X, Kiyosaki framed his outlook around the thesis that the world is approaching the “biggest financial bubble in history” — one he argues has been inflating since the root causes of the 2008 financial crisis were papered over with stimulus and monetary expansion rather than resolved structurally. His message was unambiguous: the question is no longer whether a crash will happen, but when.

The post-crash price targets Kiyosaki outlined are striking in their scale. For Bitcoin, he projects a rise to $750,000 per coin within a year of the collapse — a roughly 10x move from current levels near $69,900. For Ethereum, his target of $95,000 implies an approximately 45x gain from where ETH trades today at around $2,130. He also projected gold reaching $35,000 per ounce and silver hitting $200 in the same post-crash window — suggesting a broad revaluation of scarce, non-sovereign assets as confidence in fiat currencies erodes.​

The underlying logic Kiyosaki applies is consistent with his long-held worldview: when the traditional financial system fractures, assets with capped supply or physical scarcity — Bitcoin, gold, silver — will be the primary beneficiaries of the capital flight that follows. He has continued to put his money where his mouth is, most recently disclosing the purchase of an additional 1 BTC at approximately $67,000, and stating he would consider buying more if prices fell to $6,000.​

Critics, however, are quick to note the limitations of Kiyosaki’s track record. His crash predictions span more than a decade, with calls for collapses in 2016 and 2020 that did not materialize as forecast. One response to his latest post on X summarized the skeptical view plainly: his forecasts are “big numbers to grab attention,” lacking the methodological grounding of rigorous financial analysis. Others pointed out that major crashes rarely stem from a single trigger, but rather from compounding pressures — tighter monetary policy, credit contraction, and forced asset repricing — a dynamic already partly visible in current market conditions.​

That said, Kiyosaki’s warnings land at a moment when macro conditions are unusually fraught. The Federal Reserve held rates steady this week while signaling fewer cuts ahead. Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East are escalating. Bitcoin’s 30-day correlation with equities is at its highest of 2026. Whatever one thinks of his methodology, the macro backdrop he has been warning about for years looks more plausible today than at any point in recent memory.

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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