Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Uniswap [UNI] has overtaken Circle [CRCL] to become the second-highest fee-generating crypto protocol. The timing couldn’t have been more peculiar though, with Circle pushing into payments through its Tazapay buy.

Here’s the rundown!

Uniswap overtakes Circle! Uniswap generated about $66.8 million in protocol fees over the past week. That development pushed the platform ahead of Circle.

It is now also the second-highest fee-generating crypto protocol after Tether [USDT].

A contributor to this growth might just be Robinhood’s new Ethereum L2. More users and transactions on the network have increased demand for on-chain trading, something that has worked in Uniswap’s favour.

Circle bets bigger on USDC Payments with Tazapay acquisition While Uniswap has been gaining ground, Circle may just be playing a different game though.

The stablecoin behemoth will soon buy Singapore-based payments platform Tazapay. The deal is reportedly worth about $400 million, all-stock. The transaction is expected to close in 2027, pending regulatory approvals.

Irfan Ganchi, Senior Vice President of Payments at Circle, said,

Combined with Circle’s existing network, Tazapay extends our coverage to move money anywhere stablecoin payments are being adopted globally.

Tazapay already handles more than $25 billion in annualised payment volume. They also work with over 60 banking and fintech partners. Its local payout network reaches more than 100 markets. This suggested that Circle would get a much wider base for moving USDC across borders.

Accordig to Co-Founder and CEO Jeremy Allaire,

We are excited to bring the team in-house and work together towards accelerating Circle’s mission.

Notably, stablecoins already make up around 60% of Tazapay’s transaction volume.

AMBCrypto previously reported that Circle’s USYC was also in a close race with BlackRock’s BUIDL in the tokenized Treasury market. The gap between the two was small, so money inflow or outflow can quickly change their positions.

Circle has been connected to the company for some time. It previously invested in Tazapay through Circle Ventures, and Tazapay has also been a design partner for Circle Payments Network since 2025.

Final Summary Uniswap generated about $66.8M in weekly protocol fees, overtaking Circle. The latter is expanding USDC payments with its $400M Tazapay acquisition.

In July, Brazil’s Securities and Exchange Commission, the CVM, created a dedicated Tokenization Working Group to study the registration, custody, trading, and settlement of securities using distributed ledger technology.

The group has also been tasked with proposing an experimental regulatory regime for tokenized securities, placing tokenization directly within the regulator’s agenda for the modernization of Brazil’s capital markets.

Meanwhile, Brazilian tokenization platform Liqi Digital Assets and XDC Network have renewed their partnership for another two years and raised the total targeted issuance from $500 million to $2 billion through 2028.

The new agreement consists of the original $500 million, which the companies say has already been completed, alongside a further $1.5 billion in planned issuance.

Liqi Reached Its Original $500 Million Target Nine Months Early The expansion follows faster-than-expected issuance under the companies’ first agreement.

Liqi and XDC initially signed their partnership in April 2025, setting a target of up to $500 million in real-world assets over 24 months. According to the companies, that target was reached in roughly 15 months, nine months ahead of schedule.

This makes Liqi the largest issuer of yield-bearing assets on XDC, according to the company. The company says approximately $835 million has now been tokenized across 386 series and 60 asset pools, supported by 378 smart contracts deployed on XDC mainnet.

Daniel Coquieri, CEO and co-founder of Liqi Digital Assets, said the original target was set at a time when institutional demand was harder to gauge.

“We signed the first agreement with a target that looked aggressive: half a billion dollars in two years. We delivered in fifteen months, because Brazil’s structured credit market was already there – what was missing was the infrastructure. We tripled the commitment because demand tripled. What we are building is not a blockchain pilot: it is the rail that regulated banks and originators run credit through, with auditable collateral and on-chain settlement.”

Under the renewed agreement, XDC will remain Liqi’s exclusive blockchain for RWA issuance. The companies intend to expand into additional forms of structured credit, trade finance and receivables generated by larger originators.

Tokenized Credit Is a Growing Part of the RWA Market The credit focus is key because the RWA market is expanding beyond the tokenized US Treasury products that drove much of its earlier institutional growth.

RWA.xyz currently tracks $7.82 billion of distributed tokenized credit and another $37.73 billion of represented credit assets across more than 2,500 assets. The category includes corporate credit, structured credit, specialty finance and other forms of non-sovereign debt.

Tokenized Credit Market Snapshot as of September 9, 2026. Source: RWA.XYZ Liqi’s activity sits within this part of the market. According to the company, assets already issued on XDC include trade receivables, payroll-deductible loans, debentures, corporate credit and Brazilian receivables certificates. Issuances have involved institutions including Itaú BBA, Banco BV, Banco ABC Brasil and Creditas.

Diego Consimo, Head of LATAM at XDC Network, said:

“These are structured credit operations, originated within the regulated financial market, that now use blockchain as an effective part of their infrastructure.”

For XDC, securing additional issuance also strengthens its exposure to the RWA sector at a time when competition between blockchains for tokenized assets is growing.

Ethereum currently leads distributed RWA value with around $17.6 billion, followed by BNB Chain, Solana and Stellar, according to RWA.xyz.

Brazil Brings Tokenization Into Capital Markets Brazilian regulators are also increasing their focus on how tokenized assets should operate within the existing financial system.

The CVM’s new working group includes representatives from 14 areas of the regulator and has already begun discussions with organizations including ANBIMA, ABCripto, ABToken and other capital-market participants. Its mandate includes examining custody, registration, trading and settlement using DLT systems.

Brazil’s Central Bank has separately explored tokenized finance through Drex, a DLT-based environment designed for regulated financial intermediaries and programmable financial services.

Commercial issuance and regulatory development are therefore beginning to come together. Credit instruments can already be created and settled through blockchain systems, while regulators are working through how those systems should interact with established securities-market rules.

The Liqi-XDC agreement offers an indication of the volumes that could follow if institutional adoption continues. However, the $2 billion commitment remains a forward target rather than completed issuance, with $1.5 billion still scheduled to be brought on-chain during the next two years.

For Brazil’s tokenization market, reaching that target would show that tokenized credit can progress from comparatively small deployments into repeat issuance involving regulated banks, originators and established financial instruments.

The amount of Shiba Inu's available supply has substantially decreased by multiple tens of millions of tokens after the network concluded a massive burn event on the last day.

Amid the consistently growing Shiba Inu network activity, the leading meme token has recorded a massive four-figure surge in its daily burn rate, according to data from Shibburn.

46.25 million SHIB faces permanent exitAlthough momentum surrounding the Shiba Inu price movement is beginning to slow as the price stalls slightly above the $0.0000052 mark, the latest on-chain data shows that the Shiba Inu supply is getting tighter.

HOT Stories

As of Tuesday, September 8, the data shows that a total of 46.25 million SHIB has been sent to dead or irretrievable wallets over the last 24 hours, driving a substantial 1,307% surge in its burn rate during the period.

You Might Also Like

This massive burn activity has driven the SHIB weekly burn volume to surpass 126 million SHIB, worth about $678 at SHIB's current trading price.

Shiba Inu price slowsAlthough substantial increases in the Shiba Inu burn metric could provide a bullish signal for the asset, as they often indicate strong network growth, they do not directly influence its price movement.

It is important to note that large burn activities tend to reduce the amount of supply available for sale, boosting demand for the asset while improving its scarcity.

With the asset currently trading in the red, the divergence between its price movement and such a large burn activity is not extremely significant to market analysts, as the metric cannot solely drive a price increase for SHIB.

Tue 08 Sep 2026 ▪ 13 min read ▪ by Ering N.

Summarize this article with:

Under the “AI crypto” label, search engines lump together networks that do not do the same job. Some sell an intelligence market, others graphics rendering, software agents, or model training.

A dated reference point to measure the gap: on July 29, 2026, Qubic put its outsourced computing offer into production on its mainnet, according to the recap the project published on August 6, 2026; that same week, the Render network completed 98.4% of its token migration to Solana. Two announcements, two distinct businesses. This article compares five networks by function, with stated criteria, rather than by market performance.

There is no single category of “AI crypto.” Qubic uses mining for model training, Bittensor runs a decentralized intelligence market, Fetch.ai develops autonomous agents, Render supplies GPU resources, and NEAR wants to become a transaction infrastructure for AI agents. Comparing them therefore depends first on the intended use, rather than on their market capitalization.

Key Points Five “AI crypto” networks compared by function, not by price: Qubic (training via mining), Bittensor (intelligence market), Fetch.ai (agents), Render (rendering and GPU compute), NEAR (L1 for agents). Qubic (QUBIC) put its outsourced computing into production on mainnet on July 29, 2026; uPoW consensus, 676 Computors (451 quorum), 15.52M TPS certified by CertiK (April 2025, test peak). Bittensor (TAO): market cap ~$3.43B (April 2026), 128 subnets capped. Fetch.ai (FET): ~$549M (April 2026), ASI rebrand still pending. Render (RENDER): ~$718.7M (August 2026), 98.4% migration to Solana. NEAR: ~$2.5B (mid-2026), “AI agents” pivot. Price and market-cap figures are dated, given as orders of magnitude, not a buy recommendation. The five criteria in this comparison None of these projects is presented here as “best.” Each is described according to five objective criteria, the same for all: the building block it occupies in the AI stack (compute, training, inference, rendering, agents), the technical mechanism that produces it, verifiable traction on a given date, dependence on another ecosystem, and known limitations.

Data self-reported by a project is flagged as such; validations from named third parties (auditors, journals, fund managers) are flagged as well. Market-cap and price figures move from one day to the next: they are dated, and serve to indicate an order of magnitude, not to recommend a purchase.

How does Qubic use mining to train AI? Building block Qubic holds a position the other four do not claim in the same way: training neural networks directly through mining work. Its consensus, Useful Proof of Work (uPoW), a variant of proof of work in which miners’ computation serves a useful task instead of solving puzzles with no other purpose, directs that power toward model training, the Aigarth project.

Mechanism The network is validated by 676 Computors, a set of nodes recomposed at each epoch based on mining performance; 451 of them must agree to validate. Qubic does not store transaction history but a balance ledger (Spectrum), in a so-called tick-based model with no virtual machine. Outsourced computing has been in production on mainnet since July 29, 2026, according to the Qubic recap of August 6, 2026 (data self-reported by the project).

Traction Qubic highlights a throughput of 15.52 million transactions per second certified by auditor CertiK. That figure dates from April 2025 and corresponds to a test peak, never to sustained daily throughput: it should be cited with that caveat. On the research side, the project claims a score of 0.28 on the ARC-AGI-3 reasoning test, up from 0.18% in July 2026; these scores are self-reported and should be checked against the official leaderboard. The related work (Multi-Neuraxon) was published in the proceedings of the AGI-26 conference by Springer and awarded at IEEE AMLDS 2026 in Osaka, two named third-party endorsements. A second halving occurred at epoch 227, on August 19, 2026, raising the token burn rate from 55% to 77.5% of the weekly emission.

Dependency Own chain (Layer 1). The bridge to Ethereum (QBridge, via Vottun) is in production; the bridge to Solana (Avicenne) has been paused since July 2026 and should not be presented as imminent.

Limitations The main documented objection concerns decentralization. Several analyses note that a fixed set of 676 Computors with a high quorum makes coordination easier but opens a risk of capture, all the more so as the project remains led by its founder and as a governance component, the Arbitrator, controls critical levers (the Computors list, network parameters). Qubic responds that the Computors are selected on merit and recomposed at each epoch, and that the Arbitrator caps at 225 the number of identities a single entity may hold. Liquidity is a second limitation: QUBIC trades mostly on mid-tier platforms, with no top-tier listing to date.

How does Bittensor and its intelligence market work? Building block Bittensor is a market: it pays out in TAO for the production of “machine intelligence,” spread across specialized subnets, each in a distinct AI task (language-model pretraining, confidential inference, data, oracles).

Mechanism Since the overhaul known as Dynamic TAO, each subnet has its own token, called Alpha, and its own liquidity pool; it is the market, not the validators, that decides through these tokens which subnets receive the most daily TAO emissions. The network caps the number of active subnets, set at 128 in early 2026, with an extension planned toward 256.

Traction As of March 25, 2026, the combined market cap of subnet tokens reached about $1.12 billion, close to 27% of TAO’s. The number of active subnets, around 32 in early 2025, quadrupled in a year. An April 2026 guide put TAO at around $317 for an indicative market cap of about $3.43 billion. Grayscale filed a Bittensor trust application, and spot TAO ETFs have been filed, with a decision expected by observers by the end of 2026.

Dependency Own chain. Bittensor is not built on another L1.

Limitations Real usefulness remains uneven from one subnet to another: several analyses note that long-term value will depend on subnets’ ability to generate sustained revenue, not just a narrative. The first emission reduction (halving) of December 2025 brought TAO’s schedule closer to Bitcoin’s, without guaranteeing demand.

What is Fetch.ai for in the AI-agent economy? Building block Fetch.ai provides autonomous economic agents, software endowed with a cryptographic identity that negotiate and transact on a user’s behalf. The project is today one of the pillars of the Artificial Superintelligence Alliance (ASI), formed in 2024 from the merger of the Fetch.ai, SingularityNET and Ocean Protocol tokens, with CUDOS as compute partner.

Mechanism The whole is anchored by the FET token. A point readers often get wrong: the ticker change from FET to ASI was proposed on a one-to-one basis, but it has not happened; as of September 3, 2026, the asset still trades under the FET ticker on major platforms. Ocean Protocol withdrew from the alliance in October 2025, leaving Fetch.ai, SingularityNET and CUDOS.

Traction As of April 1, 2026, FET was worth about $0.24 for an indicative market cap of about $549 million, down roughly 92.7% from its all-time high. Circulating supply, as of mid-2026, was about 2.26 billion tokens out of a maximum of about 2.72 billion, close to 83%. The alliance touts a product catalog (the ASI:One agentic platform, ASI-1 models, ASI:Cloud compute, the ASI:Chain chain targeted for late 2026 or early 2027).

Dependency Alliance ecosystem: the token consolidates four original communities, which is both its argument (a full stack, from model to chain) and its fragility.

Limitations The FET-to-ASI rebrand has been “pending” for more than a year, and Ocean’s departure is a reminder that “one alliance, one token” remains an unresolved coordination problem. The metrics to watch are the number of active agents deployed and the volume of paid inference, not the narrative.

Is Render a GPU rendering network or a true AI crypto? Building block Render connects creators who need graphics compute power with node operators who rent out their idle GPUs. It is, originally, a 3D rendering and visual-effects network that is extending its offer toward compute and inference for AI.

Mechanism The RENDER token pays for rendering jobs and rewards GPU providers, under a so-called Burn-and-Mint Equilibrium model: tokens are burned as jobs are executed, which ties token supply to the network’s real activity.

Traction As of August 1, 2026, RENDER was worth about $1.39 for a market cap of about $718.7 million (rank 102), down roughly 89% from its March 2024 high. The network announced in July 2026 that it had migrated 98.4% of its tokens to Solana, following a community vote initiated back in 2023. At the Breakpoint 2025 conference it presented an AI compute subnet called Dispersed, marking its extension beyond rendering.

Dependency Solana, now the token’s main chain after the migration from Ethereum (via Polygon for part of the historical path).

Limitations Graphics rendering and large-model training are not the same business: Render’s extension into AI compute is real but recent, and several analyses note that value capture by the token remains uncertain against centralized cloud providers.

Why is NEAR repositioning toward AI agents? Building block NEAR is a general-purpose Layer 1 blockchain, launched around scalability through sharding (Nightshade), that is repositioning itself as an execution layer for the “agent economy”: it wants to become the default rail for AI agents transacting across chains.

Mechanism Two building blocks carry this shift: NEAR Intents, goal-driven transactions executed across chains, and chain abstraction, which lets users manage assets on several networks without handling bridges. A “fee switch” activated in 2026 directs part of the revenue from these executions toward NEAR buybacks.

Traction As of mid-2026, NEAR showed a market cap of about $2.5 billion. The token had risen about 115% over the 90 days before the end of May 2026, driven by this AI narrative. A sign of the network’s standing in the sector: in its second-quarter 2026 rebalancing, Grayscale’s Decentralized AI fund trimmed its position but kept NEAR as its top holding, at about 31.35%, ahead of Bittensor and Render.

Dependency Own chain, with an explicitly multi-chain thesis (chain abstraction assumes routing activity from other networks).

Limitations The AI pivot is recent. A July 2026 analysis noted an average throughput of 7,000 to 12,000 transactions per day across the ecosystem’s applications: the open question is whether the “agent rail” thesis translates into measurable adoption, or remains a narrative valuation.

So which AI crypto does what in 2026? Qubic stands out for model training via mining.

Bittensor runs a decentralized market for intelligence services.

Fetch.ai develops infrastructure meant for autonomous agents.

Render mainly supplies GPU resources from its historical rendering business.

NEAR aims to provide the blockchain infrastructure that lets agents transact.

Functional summary table NetworkPositioningAI building blockMechanismChainDated tractionMain limitationQubicTrainingNeural networksuPoWL1Compute live 07/29/26Decentralization of the 676 Computors and the Arbitrator’s roleBittensorAI marketSubnetsDynamic TAOL1128 subnetsUneven real usefulness across subnetsRenderGPURendering/computeBurn-and-MintSolana98.4% migrationExtension into AI compute still recentFetch.aiAgentsAutonomous agentsFET/ASIASI$549M AprilASI Alliance coordination and ASI rebrand still pendingNEARInfrastructureAgentsIntentsL1~$2.5BReal adoption of the AI-agent positioning still to be proven The next test for these five networks will therefore not be their valuation alone. It will be about measuring how much compute, how many agents, inferences or AI services their architectures actually produce. For Qubic, one of the next verifiable points will notably be the comparison of its self-reported ARC-AGI-3 score against the benchmark’s official leaderboard.

FAQ What is Qubic's Useful Proof of Work (uPoW)? It is a consensus derived from proof of work in which miners’ computation trains neural networks (the Aigarth project), instead of solving puzzles with no purpose.

What is Aigarth? Qubic’s AI research initiative, powered by mining; it claims an ARC-AGI-3 score of 0.25% (self-reported, in strict offline mode).

Which AI crypto shows the highest throughput? Qubic highlights 15.52M TPS certified by CertiK (April 2025), but this is a test peak, not sustained daily throughput.

Bittensor or Qubic: what is the functional difference? Bittensor is an intelligence market in subnets that rewards AI production; Qubic embeds model training in the act of mining itself.

Has the FET-to-ASI token rebrand happened? No. As of September 3, 2026, the asset still trades under the FET ticker on major platforms.

Qubic or Bittensor: which AI crypto actually trains models? Qubic trains models directly in its mining: its Useful Proof of Work (uPoW) consensus directs miners’ power toward training neural networks, the Aigarth project. Bittensor, for its part, is a market that pays out in TAO for subnets producing AI work, without tying training to consensus.

What is the difference between Render and Qubic for AI compute? Render rents out idle GPU power, originally for graphics rendering, with a recent extension toward compute and AI inference. Qubic is not a rental market: its uPoW consensus embeds model training (Aigarth) in the very act of mining. Two distinct approaches to compute.

Which AI crypto specializes in autonomous agents? Fetch.ai (FET) is the project most directly specialized in autonomous agents: software with a cryptographic identity that negotiate and transact on a user’s behalf, within the Artificial Superintelligence Alliance (ASI). NEAR positions itself instead as an execution layer for these agents rather than as an agent provider.

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

Ering N.

Independent author, specialized in decentralized artificial intelligence and crypto ecosystems. I analyze projects by what they actually do, not by the noise around them.

Osmosis, the prominent decentralized exchange in the Cosmos ecosystem, suspended key operations for its synthetic Bitcoin asset on September 9 after an exploit on the Nomic blockchain allowed an attacker to double-spend nBTC. The exchange froze minting, redemption, deposits, and withdrawals for alloyed BTC (allBTC) while moving to contain the damage.

An emergency upgrade managed to lock 22.65 BTC in the attacker’s address before the funds could be moved. Approximately 39.84 nBTC were compromised in the incident, meaning more than a third of the asset backing that allBTC holders were counting on was suddenly in question.

What happened and how much is at stake The exploit targeted a flaw in a custom forwarding mechanism on the Nomic chain, a Cosmos-based blockchain designed to bring Bitcoin into the broader interchain ecosystem. That flaw allowed false vouchers to be created through a double-spend of nBTC, which is essentially a wrapped representation of Bitcoin living on Nomic.

Those fraudulent vouchers then made their way to Osmosis via the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol. The IBC protocol itself wasn’t compromised, and Osmosis’s own systems weren’t breached directly. The vulnerability lived upstream, on Nomic’s side.

The 39.84 nBTC affected represents roughly 36% of alloyed BTC’s total backing on Osmosis. That figure accounts for approximately 30% of the total BTC exposure across the entire exchange.

Osmosis moved quickly after detecting the issue. The team paused all inflows and outflows related to allBTC and pushed through an emergency chain upgrade. That upgrade successfully froze 22.65 BTC sitting in an address linked to the attacker, preventing further extraction of the stolen funds.

Trading of BTC in existing liquidity pools has continued despite the freeze. But the suspension of minting and redemptions effectively means no one can create new allBTC or cash out existing holdings until the situation is resolved.

The recovery plan Osmosis has outlined a two-pronged approach to making affected users whole. First, the team plans to propose a governance vote to seize the 22.65 BTC currently frozen in the attacker’s address. In the Cosmos ecosystem, governance proposals can authorize on-chain actions if enough token holders vote in favor, giving the community direct say over how stolen funds are handled.

Second, Osmosis intends to tap the community pool to cover the gap between the frozen BTC and the total amount compromised. The goal is to restore the 1:1 backing of alloyed BTC, ensuring that every synthetic Bitcoin token on the platform is fully collateralized again.

A full incident report and detailed recovery plan are expected in the coming days. The timeline for restoring normal operations, including minting and redemptions, hasn’t been specified yet.

Why cross-chain bridges keep breaking The exploit targeted Nomic’s custom forwarding mechanism, exactly the type of bespoke infrastructure that tends to harbor undiscovered vulnerabilities. The IBC protocol itself can be battle-tested over time, but the custom pieces bolted onto it often haven’t faced the same scrutiny.

Alloyed BTC on Osmosis is designed to function as a unified Bitcoin asset that aggregates multiple bridged versions of BTC into a single tradeable token. But that design also means a vulnerability in any single backing asset, like nBTC from Nomic, can compromise the integrity of the whole product. In this case, nBTC represented a large enough share of allBTC’s backing that a single exploit threatened more than a third of the asset’s collateral.

What to watch from here The immediate question is whether the governance proposal to seize the frozen BTC will pass and how quickly the community pool can cover the remaining shortfall. For Osmosis users holding allBTC, minting and redemption remain frozen, and full restoration depends on governance action and community pool funding. Trading that continues in liquidity pools provides some liquidity outlet, but it is not the same as being able to freely redeem the underlying asset.

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

Chime Financial just decided to stop renting and buy the house. The publicly traded neobank announced on September 8 that it will acquire Stride Bank, N.A. for $590 million in cash, with plans to rebrand the institution as Chime Bank, N.A. once the deal closes.

The move transforms Chime from a fintech that relies on partner banks to process its transactions into something closer to a full-fledged bank, at least structurally. Stride has been Chime’s banking partner for over seven years, so this is less of a blind date and more of a long-overdue marriage.

The math behind the deal The $590 million price tag works out to roughly 1.5 times Stride’s tangible book value. Chime expects the acquisition to generate more than $100 million in net synergies. The savings come from two main sources: eliminating the sponsor bank fees Chime currently pays, and expanding its lending product suite with direct control over a bank charter.

The deal is structured as an all-cash transaction and is expected to be immediately accretive to earnings per share.

Chime also bumped its financial outlook alongside the announcement. Full-year 2026 revenue guidance now sits at $2.76 to $2.77 billion, representing 26% to 27% year-over-year growth. Adjusted EBITDA guidance climbed to between $481 million and $489 million. Investors noticed: Chime’s stock (NASDAQ: CHYM) rose approximately 6% in after-hours trading following the news.

Why Stride, and why now Stride Bank, founded in 1913 and headquartered in Enid, Oklahoma, is the kind of institution that most consumers have never heard of but millions have unknowingly used. As Chime’s banking partner, Stride has been the entity that technically holds customer deposits and issues Chime-branded debit cards.

One strategic detail stands out. Chime plans to keep Chime Bank’s assets below $10 billion. That threshold matters because of the Durbin Amendment, a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that caps debit card interchange fees for banks with more than $10 billion in assets. Banks below that line collect higher fees per swipe.

Chime will also continue its relationship with The Bancorp Bank, N.A. for the time being, suggesting the transition to full in-house banking will be gradual rather than an overnight switch.

The regulatory path to closing this deal runs through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve. Chime expects approvals to land in the first half of 2027.

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

BitMart appointed Alvarez & Marsal as its financial adviser on Sept. 9 as the crypto exchange reviews its financial position, withdrawal restrictions and possible paths following the suspension of trading.

Summary

BitMart appointed A&M to assess finances, stakeholder claims and withdrawal arrangements with its legal advisers. Five business days is BitMart’s deadline to publish a dedicated user feedback portal online publicly. BitMart expects to announce its action plan and consultation details within three weeks of Wednesday. BitMart halted trading on August 26 after announcing an orderly platform wind-down in July 2026. No audited asset balance, creditor recovery rate or withdrawal timetable accompanied the advisory appointment announcement. The exchange said A&M would work alongside its legal advisers to assess its finances, stakeholder matters and arrangements for an “orderly withdrawal” process. BitMart also said it would examine a potential phased business restart and proposals from unidentified third parties.

The appointment does not reverse BitMart’s trading halt or provide users with a confirmed repayment schedule. The exchange has not published independently verified asset and liability figures, customer shortfall estimates or expected recovery rates.

BitMart gives itself three weeks to produce an action plan BitMart said it would progressively announce its proposed action plan, user consultation process and feedback mechanisms during the next three weeks. That timetable points to further information by approximately the end of September, although the company did not provide a specific date.

Update on the Appointment of Alvarez & Marsal as Financial Adviser and Near-Term Action Plan

Dear BitMart Users,

Following careful consideration, BitMart has appointed Alvarez & Marsal ("A&M") as its external financial adviser. A&M will assist BitMart and its legal advisers in…

— BitMart (@BitMartExchange) September 9, 2026 The exchange plans to establish a dedicated website through which users can submit opinions about withdrawals and BitMart’s future direction. It promised to publish the link within five business days of the Sept. 9 announcement.

A&M will review BitMart’s current operations and asset position before the exchange releases related financial information. BitMart said independent review was needed to ensure that future disclosures were accurate.

However, the announcement did not specify what records A&M would examine, whether its findings would be published in full or whether users would receive an independently audited balance sheet. A search of A&M’s public website did not identify a separate statement confirming the engagement at the time of reporting.

Withdrawal arrangements remain unresolved BitMart acknowledged that users had faced withdrawal restrictions and resulting uncertainty. It said withdrawal arrangements, asset status and future procedures were among the matters now being reviewed.

The exchange did not say how many users remain unable to withdraw, which assets are affected or how much customer property is awaiting release. It also did not provide a date for clearing pending withdrawal requests.

BitMart said it would appoint another independent third party to oversee operations and asset custody during the review. The company did not identify that party or explain its authority over wallets, private keys and transaction approvals.

This leaves several central questions unanswered. Users still lack verified figures showing BitMart’s available assets against customer liabilities. No court-supervised restructuring, bankruptcy petition or regulator-led creditor process has been announced publicly.

Claims on social media that assets are missing or that every withdrawal has failed remain unverified. BitMart’s own acknowledgement of withdrawal restrictions confirms an operational problem, but it does not establish the size or cause of any potential shortfall.

BitMart had already halted trading during its wind-down BitMart announced an orderly wind-down on July 26, citing its operating conditions, market environment and future strategy. The original notice scheduled the end of spot, futures and other trading services for Aug. 26.

The exchange initially planned to complete the wider platform closure by Jan. 31, 2027. It encouraged users to close positions, complete identity checks and submit withdrawals as early as possible.

BitMart later began considering a restructuring that could combine creditor distributions with a phased restart. It appointed White & Case as restructuring counsel and promised an update by Sept. 9.

As crypto.news previously reported, the exchange was evaluating creditor distributions and a phased operational restart without disclosing reserve figures, creditor eligibility rules or payout percentages. The A&M appointment satisfies the promised update but does not answer those financial questions.

The company’s support pages and main website remain online. Some promotional product pages also remain visible, but their presence does not establish that centralized trading services have resumed.

A business restart remains only one possible outcome BitMart said it would explore “various feasible follow-up actions.” Those options include a possible orderly restart and third-party proposals, but the exchange did not identify potential investors, buyers or financing providers.

The company also did not commit to reopening. Any restart would depend on the financial review, available assets, legal advice and negotiations with affected stakeholders.

User feedback may influence the assessment, according to BitMart. However, the feedback portal is a consultation channel rather than a formal creditor vote or legally binding claims process.

The next confirmed deadline is the publication of that portal within five business days. Users should then expect additional action-plan details within three weeks. The most consequential disclosures will be independently verified asset and liability figures, the status of pending withdrawals and the identity of the proposed custody supervisor.

Until those disclosures appear, BitMart’s financial condition and users’ expected recoveries remain unknown.

Engineering Talent Moves In-House@Sei_Labs has acquired @bilinearlabs, bringing the firm's Rust-based engineering talent and data analytics capabilities directly into the $SEI ecosystem. The Bilinear team is transitioning into core development roles focused on Sei Network and the upcoming Sei Giga scaling initiative, deepening the in-house technical bench at a critical moment for the protocol.

The move follows Bilinear's track record of delivering real-time financial insights and on-chain intelligence for high-velocity decentralized markets, a profile that fits squarely with Sei's performance-first positioning in DeFi infrastructure.

What Is Sei Giga and Why Does It Matter?Sei Giga is @Sei_Labs' most ambitious technical undertaking to date. The initiative targets over 50x throughput, 70x faster block production, and 40x execution efficiency, with the broader goal of making Sei the first multi-proposer EVM Layer 1. It leverages parallel block proposals to solve bottlenecks, scaling the EVM with innovations across data availability, consensus, execution, and storage.

Key targets include 5 gigagas of throughput at roughly 200,000 transactions per second, alongside sub-400ms finality for low-latency, high-speed applications. Achieving that throughput would deliver execution speeds 50 times faster than any other mainnet chain, comparable to Web2-level transaction performance.

Advanced features including Autobahn consensus, a multi-proposer architecture, and the 5 gigagas throughput target are currently in development. Sei Labs has already achieved 5 gigagas of throughput in an internal devnet using Autobahn, a new consensus protocol designed for high throughput and low latency in globally distributed validator networks.

Bringing Bilinear's engineering resources in-house signals that Sei Labs is consolidating specialist talent rather than relying on external contributors as Giga moves closer to production. For the $SEI ecosystem, the acquisition adds depth on the data and systems side at a point when the protocol's technical roadmap is at its most complex.

Sources
Sei Labs publishes Sei Giga whitepaper, Sei Blog
Sei Labs releases Giga roadmap, Business Wire

Franklin Templeton digital asset veteran takes helm at StablecoinXLatest NewsPublishedSep 8, 2026

Former Franklin Templeton digital asset executive Christopher Jensen will lead StablecoinX, the largest corporate holder of Ethena’s ENA token.

StablecoinX appointed former Franklin Templeton digital asset executive Christopher Jensen as CEO, putting him in charge of the largest corporate holder of Ethena’s ENA token.

Jensen succeeds Ted Chen, who led StablecoinX through its public listing in June and will remain chairman of the company’s board.

StablecoinX, which trades on Nasdaq under the ticker USDE, is a publicly listed company focused on the Ethena ecosystem. Ethena issues USDe, a synthetic dollar that ranks as the fifth-largest stablecoin with nearly $4.4 billion in circulation, according to DefiLlama data. ENA, Ethena’s governance token, gives holders voting rights over changes to the protocol.

StablecoinX holds about 3.03 billion ENA tokens, roughly 20% of the token’s total supply, which the company says makes it ENA’s largest corporate holder.

Before joining StablecoinX, Jensen was a portfolio manager and director of digital asset research at Franklin Templeton, where he helped build the firm’s digital asset group after its launch in 2018. The asset manager’s blockchain venture fund participated in Ethena’s seed round, giving Jensen exposure to the protocol from its early stages.

The appointment comes about a week after Ethena launched Ethena Pay, a self-custodial app that lets users spend, save and transfer its USDe synthetic dollar.

The ENA token remains down about 20% year to date but has rebounded sharply in recent weeks, gaining more than 80% over the past month to trade around $0.16, according to CoinGecko.

ENA token price over the past month. Source: CoinGecko

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

Abraxas Capital has bought another 13,000 ETH worth $32.39 million in the spot market to hedge part of a 141,180 ETH short position on Hyperliquid valued at $353.27 million.

Summary

Abraxas Capital bought another 13,000 ETH worth $32.39 million in the spot market, according to Lookonchain. The purchase was made to hedge a 141,180 ETH short position on Hyperliquid valued at $353.27 million. The latest spot purchase covers just over 9% of the short when measured by the number of ETH. Abraxas previously accumulated more than 211,000 ETH worth over $477 million during a six day buying run in May 2025. Lookonchain said on Sept. 8 that Abraxas Capital purchased the additional Ether while keeping its much larger short position open on the decentralized derivatives platform. The blockchain analytics account described the transaction as another spot purchase made specifically to hedge the short.

At the values provided by Lookonchain, the latest purchase was made at an implied price of roughly $2,491 per ETH. The 13,000 ETH position equals just over 9% of the firm’s 141,180 ETH short when measured by the number of tokens.

Abraxas therefore remains heavily net short based solely on the positions disclosed by Lookonchain. Subtracting the latest 13,000 ETH spot hedge from the 141,180 ETH short leaves 128,180 ETH of net short exposure before considering any other holdings or positions controlled by the firm.

Abraxas Capital keeps $353 million ETH short open Lookonchain valued the Hyperliquid short at approximately $353.27 million at the time of its post, compared with $32.39 million for the latest spot purchase.

The hedge gives Abraxas exposure to ETH in opposite directions. The short position benefits from a decline in Ether’s price, while the spot ETH gains value when the token rises. Lookonchain specifically characterized the latest purchase as a hedge, rather than a closure or reduction of the underlying short position.

Large leveraged positions have become common on Hyperliquid, where whale accounts have carried several billion dollars in combined positions this year.

In May, crypto.news previously reported that Hyperliquid whale positions had reached $4.039 billion. Long exposure stood at $1.981 billion, while shorts accounted for $2.058 billion, producing a long-to-short ratio of 0.96.

Both sides of the whale book were underwater at the time. Long positions carried roughly $30.8 million in aggregate unrealized losses, compared with approximately $14.6 million in losses on short positions.

One of the largest individual trades in the May snapshot involved an ETH whale using 15x leverage. The account held roughly $87 million in Ether exposure from an entry near $2,265 and was sitting on more than $3.6 million in unrealized losses.

A separate reading five days earlier placed Hyperliquid whale exposure at $4.236 billion. Long positions totaled $2.099 billion, or 49.55% of the total, against $2.137 billion in shorts.

The split produced a long-to-short ratio of 0.98, leaving large traders almost evenly positioned between bullish and bearish bets.

Abraxas has made large Ethereum purchases before The latest transaction is not Abraxas Capital’s first large on-chain move involving Ether.

In May 2025, the investment manager withdrew 138,511 ETH valued at roughly $297 million from centralized exchanges over two days, according to Lookonchain. The transfers occurred during a sharp ETH rally that pushed the token above $2,300.

Abraxas then increased its holdings with another 33,482 ETH purchase worth $84.7 million.

Lookonchain data cited at the time showed that the firm had accumulated 211,030 ETH over six days, worth more than $477 million. The purchases followed the earlier withdrawal of approximately $297 million in ETH from exchanges.

The 2025 accumulation occurred under different market conditions and does not establish the purpose of the firm’s current positions. Lookonchain has specifically described the Sept. 8 spot transaction as a hedge against the Hyperliquid short.

Hyperliquid whale positioning has changed considerably at different points this year. In April, large trader positions totaled $3.4 billion, consisting of $1.737 billion in longs and $1.663 billion in shorts.

Long positions were carrying approximately $153 million in aggregate unrealized losses at the time, while shorts were sitting on roughly $161 million in unrealized profits.

An ETH whale tracked in the same dataset held a 15x leveraged long from around $2,148.70 and was down approximately $8.6 million.

Ethereum trades close to $2,500 Abraxas made its latest hedge while Ether remained close to the $2,500 level following a recovery from early September lows.

On Sept. 7, Ethereum traded near $2,493 after moving between approximately $2,475 and $2,537 during the session.

ETH had repeatedly failed to hold above $2,500, while its daily relative strength index had eased to 63.62 after the August rally.

Liquidation data cited in the report showed notable leveraged positions clustered around $2,430 below the market and between $2,540 and $2,600 above it. The nearest support zone was concentrated between roughly $2,423 and $2,475.

Ether had been trading considerably lower less than a week earlier. On Sept. 2, the token fell to an intraday low of $2,356 after failing to clear resistance close to $2,550.

Approximately $94.2 million in ETH futures positions were liquidated over 24 hours during the decline, while Ethereum fell below $2,400.

ETH remained above several medium-term moving averages at the time, including its 20-day simple moving average near $2,299 and its 50-day, 100-day and 200-day averages near $2,054, $1,903 and $2,030, respectively.

The token later recovered toward the $2,500 area, putting Abraxas’ latest 13,000 ETH spot purchase close to the same price zone.

Institutional demand for spot Ether has remained active during the recovery. U.S. spot Ethereum exchange-traded funds recorded $225.8 million in net inflows on Aug. 28, extending a nine-session buying streak to $1.42 billion.

BlackRock’s ETHA accounted for $1.02 billion, or roughly 72%, of the nine-day ETF inflows. Fidelity’s FETH recorded $56.2 million on Aug. 28, while BlackRock’s staked ETHB product added $20.7 million.

Lookonchain’s Sept. 8 figures put Abraxas Capital’s latest spot hedge at 13,000 ETH worth $32.39 million, while the firm’s Hyperliquid short remained at 141,180 ETH with a notional value of $353.27 million.

19h00 ▪ 4 min read ▪ by Fenelon L.

Summarize this article with:

Hunter Biden, son of former American president Joe Biden, is set to launch a memecoin called LAPTOP on Base this Wednesday, featuring an airdrop especially aimed at investors who lost money on Donald Trump’s TRUMP memecoin. But even before its first trade, the project is already facing strong criticism. Several figures mentioned around the launch have distanced themselves.

In brief The token is scheduled to launch on Base on September 9, with 30% of the supply reserved for founders and 20% allocated to airdrops. Kraken deleted a promotional post while Coinbase denies any partnership. Andrew Callaghan, also mentioned in the project, says he has no connection to the memecoin. An airdrop aimed at TRUMP losers Hunter Biden confirmed the launch on X on September 7 with a particularly brief message: ” $LAPTOP, September 9 “. The project is to be deployed on Base, Coinbase’s network, with a total supply of one billion tokens, according to information published by the Wall Street Journal.

The founders, including Hunter Biden, will keep 30% of the tokens. These tokens will be locked for six months before being gradually unlocked over more than two years. The 20% reserved for airdrops will be distributed in two waves.

The first will target traders who lost money with the TRUMP memecoin. The second concerns Biden’s Substack subscribers as well as individuals on journalist Andrew Callaghan’s list, reports CoinDesk.

The choice of this target is far from accidental. TRUMP was worth about $2.25 on September 8, nearly 97% below its record high reached in January 2025. Its market capitalization briefly approached $15 billion at that time.

The LAPTOP project also plans to burn up to 30% of the supply under certain circumstances, notably in the event of a Democratic victory in 2028, a new all-time high for Bitcoin, or a valuation exceeding that of TRUMP. If these conditions are not met, the concerned tokens would be redistributed to charitable organizations.

Kraken, Base, and Channel 5 distance themselves Reputation fled before the product. Kraken removed a post presenting the project after a wave of negative reactions. Some users notably criticized the platform for promoting a new political memecoin.

However, this does not mean Kraken has ruled out a possible listing. Jordan Fish, known under the pseudonym Cobie and responsible for the Base app, reminded that a project can launch a token on the network without Coinbase’s approval. No partnership with LAPTOP exists, he specified.

Jesse Pollak, founder of Base, also stated that the memecoin team had contacted the network before its launch. However, Base chose not to participate in either its design or its promotion.

Andrew Callaghan also denied any link with LAPTOP to the Wall Street Journal. Channel 5, the media outlet he runs, is not involved in the project and does not consider cryptocurrencies as a legitimate investment.

The political memecoin market changes tone The contrast with the launch of TRUMP in January 2025 is striking. Back then, there were many criticisms, but they did not prevent investors from flocking in. Nearly two years later, platforms seem much more cautious about associating their image with this type of project.

The reaction on X alone will not determine LAPTOP’s success. The token still faces the real test: its market debut.

Copies already bearing the name LAPTOP are circulating on several networks, including one present on Base since June. Without an official contract address, any LAPTOP token traded before the announced launch on September 9 should therefore be treated with utmost caution.

Initial volumes, the distribution of airdrops, and the attitude of platforms will help measure the real reception of the project. One thing is already clear: two years after the euphoria around political memecoins, the environment is much less favorable.

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

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Fenelon L.

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

DISCLAIMER

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

CoinCorner has launched a Bitcoin custody service for UK customers that charges a 1.5% annual fee and uses keys held separately by CoinCorner and AnchorWatch.

Summary

CoinCorner and AnchorWatch each control a key, preventing either company from moving customers’ Bitcoin alone. Lloyd’s of London underwriters cover key loss and unauthorized access involving Bitcoin held in Vault. Customers can add or remove funds without a long-term commitment and set custom identity checks. CoinCorner’s crypto services remain outside FCA regulation and are not protected by the UK’s FSCS. CoinCorner said its new Vault uses multi-signature technology to divide control of customers’ Bitcoin between two companies operating in different jurisdictions. CoinCorner holds one key, while insurance and custody provider AnchorWatch holds the other.

Neither company can independently approve a transfer from the Vault, according to CoinCorner’s support documents. Requiring multiple keys removes the single point of control found in a conventional custodial wallet, where one company can authorize transactions on its own.

Bitcoin held through the service is insured under a policy underwritten through the Lloyd’s of London market. CoinCorner said the cover applies to losses caused by lost keys and unauthorized access, although specific policy conditions and exclusions have not been published on the product page.

Customers can also set their own identity checks, which must be completed before a transaction can proceed. The available controls allow account holders to add verification steps that match their security needs, with CoinCorner’s support team handling the setup.

CoinCorner Vault charges a 1.5% annual fee Vault costs 1.5% per year, with CoinCorner calculating and billing the fee monthly. The company charges customers on the first day of each month based on the amount of Bitcoin recorded in their Vault at that time.

No long-term commitment is required, and users can move Bitcoin into or out of the product. Withdrawals return funds to a customer’s standard CoinCorner Bitcoin balance, which the company describes as an instant process.

Deposits follow a different monthly schedule. According to CoinCorner’s Vault guidance, Bitcoin added after the first day of a calendar month does not enter the recorded Vault balance until the following month. The company says any Bitcoin remaining within Vault after a withdrawal continues to be insured.

CoinCorner also says it does not lend out or otherwise use Bitcoin placed in the service. The product therefore differs from interest-bearing crypto accounts, where a platform may deploy customer assets through loans or other transactions in return for yield.

Vault does not advertise a return on deposited Bitcoin. Customers instead pay for the custody structure, transaction controls, and insurance attached to assets held within the product.

Multi-signature custody splits control between two firms Multi-signature wallets require more than one private key to approve a Bitcoin transaction. Under CoinCorner’s setup, the relevant keys are held by independent entities rather than stored by a single platform.

AnchorWatch provides the second part of that arrangement through Trident, its Bitcoin custody infrastructure. The AnchorWatch platform uses Bitcoin scripts and time locks to apply security, recovery, and governance rules at the protocol level.

Time locks can make an alternative method of moving funds available after a specified period when a key is lost or a participant becomes unavailable. AnchorWatch says the design allows recovery conditions to be built into a vault without giving one party immediate control over the Bitcoin.

The US company is also a Lloyd’s coverholder, which allows it to arrange policies backed by underwriting capacity in the Lloyd’s market. AnchorWatch says its other custody products can obtain as much as $100 million of cover per vault, while institutional customers may seek limits of up to $500 million. CoinCorner has not disclosed the limit attached to its UK Vault product, so figures advertised for AnchorWatch’s other services should not be treated as the coverage available to every CoinCorner customer.

AnchorWatch separately offers a three-institution custody configuration involving AnchorWatch, BitGo, and CoinCorner. Its website describes that product as a two-of-three wallet, meaning two institutions must sign a transaction. CoinCorner’s UK-facing documents describe Vault as a two-entity service in which CoinCorner holds one key and AnchorWatch holds the other.

Insurance does not provide FSCS protection The private insurance attached to Vault is separate from the protection provided through the UK’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

CoinCorner states in its legal notice that investments in cryptoassets through its platform are not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Customers also cannot take complaints about the crypto service to the Financial Ombudsman Service, while their Bitcoin is not eligible for FSCS protection.

The distinction matters because private policies cover named events under agreed terms and exclusions. CoinCorner identifies lost keys and unauthorized access as covered events, but its public Vault material does not say that the policy protects customers from a fall in Bitcoin’s price, insolvency, or every possible operational loss.

CoinCorner Ltd is based in the Isle of Man and is registered with the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority under the Designated Business Act 2015. The company is also registered with the Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading as a moneylender.

Its electronic money and payment services have a separate structure. CoinCorner acts as a distributor for Mercury Foreign Exchange Limited, an FCA-authorized electronic money company, but the authorization attached to those payment services does not extend FCA protection to CoinCorner’s cryptoasset products.

Founded in 2014, CoinCorner says it serves more than 350,000 users across 15 markets. The company previously entered the UAE market through a 2022 partnership with Dubai-based Seed Group covering Bitcoin trading, storage and payment services.

UK crypto custody faces new FCA rules in 2027 CoinCorner has introduced Vault as the UK prepares to place crypto custody under a full authorization system.

As crypto.news reported in June, the FCA’s new cryptoasset regime is scheduled to take effect on Oct. 25, 2027. The rules will cover custodians, trading platforms, stablecoin issuers, staking providers and other intermediaries.

Firms seeking to conduct regulated crypto activities will have an application window running from Sept. 30, 2026, through Feb. 28, 2027. Existing registrations under the UK’s anti-money laundering rules will not automatically become authorizations under the new Financial Services and Markets Act framework.

The regulator plans to apply requirements covering custody, capital, operational resilience, disclosures, market conduct and consumer protection. Companies may also need to show that they can withstand market stress and maintain financial resources against risks carried on their balance sheets.

In August, US trading platform Robinhood secured FCA registration under the existing anti-money laundering system before the new framework takes effect. More than 50 companies were listed on the FCA’s cryptoasset register at the time, including Kraken, Ripple, BlackRock and BNY.

For American customers, AnchorWatch advertises a separate multi-institution service using a two-of-three arrangement with CoinCorner and US custodian BitGo. Its website says insurance for that configuration is optional for US users, with indicative pricing beginning at $4,000 for every $1 million of coverage and final premiums subject to underwriting review.

CryptoBriefing

Flare Networks has introduced a new utility for XRP by enabling it to earn yield through vaults, converting it into FXRP. This development allows XRP holders to deploy their assets for earning, expanding its use beyond simple transfer and exchange activity. The introduction of this feature is consistent with an increase in XRP’s utility, potentially influencing its market dynamics positively. As of early September 2026, XRP maintains a price around $1.35 and continues to hold a significant presence in the cryptocurrency market.

Advertisement

Key Takeaways Flare Networks’ initiative suggests a new utility for XRP, potentially influencing market dynamics positively. The capability to earn yield on XRP through FXRP is consistent with expanding its use in decentralized finance. Market pricing suggests this development could impact XRP’s likelihood of reaching an all-time high by 2026. What to Watch The introduction of FXRP by Flare Networks may influence market sentiment regarding XRP’s price trajectory. Key developments to monitor include any statements from Ripple’s CEO Brad Garlinghouse, or regulatory shifts involving the U.S. SEC. Additionally, indicators such as ETF approvals or significant inflows and outflows in XRP-related markets could play a critical role in shaping XRP’s future price potential. Market participants will likely be attentive to any major announcements from influential financial institutions that could impact XRP’s adoption and usage.

Get live prediction-market analysis, powered by Vera. Sign up for Vera.

Term Structure

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h September 30, 2026 0.9% — — View market → December 31, 2026 5.1% — — View market →

The plan would snapshot ONE at the final block and redirect emissions to an AI video business, but Harmony urged users to exit smart contracts before Sept. 10 because onchain apps and liquidity pools will not migrate.

Harmony has proposed fully sunsetting its blockchain after seven years and migrating its native ONE token to Ethereum, with holders receiving new ONE through a final-block snapshot and airdrop. Token emissions would be redirected to a new business the team calls the “Remix Economy for AI Video.”

Under the proposal, the snapshot would cover ONE held in user wallets, staking delegations, validator rewards, smart contracts and centralized exchanges. New tokens would be airdropped to the same wallet addresses on Ethereum without a separate claim process, while delegated stakes and unclaimed rewards would go to individual governor vaults.

The transition creates a Sept. 10 deadline — Thursday — for users with ONE deployed onchain. Harmony said multisig safes, liquidity pools and apps cannot be migrated, and urged users to exit all smart contracts before that date. Validators may begin shutting down nodes on Sept. 10.

Harmony attributed the proposal to security risks, saying “the threats posed by state actors and AI agents are too great.” The notice describes the proposal as non-binding and says all plans are subject to change.

What Harmony Is Pivoting ToHarmony said newly issued tokens would fund a video platform in which creators publish open prompts and assets that others can fork, with AI agents generating additional clips from each remix. “Tokens issued through emissions will now be allocated to our new mission,” the team said, adding that it would take “governor feedback.”

The team said it would “bootstrap this economy with creators and operators who make AI videos,” and that “advertising could generate tens of millions of dollars from a million users.” Harmony did not publish user numbers or a launch date for the platform.

Harmony said ONE’s total supply and emission rate would remain unchanged after the move. The project also said it would publish the ERC-20 contract, governor-vault contract, snapshot calculations and airdrop scripts for public audit.

Exchange Gap Narrowed to 6.58B ONEThe proposal lands while Harmony is still reconciling the August incident that prompted it. In a separate update, Harmony said the exchange-related ONE gap tied to the Aug. 11 incident had been adjusted to 6.581 billion from about 10.234 billion.

Harmony said the revision followed reconciliation with Binance, Binance.US, Gate, KuCoin, MEXC and OKX, and came from matching 295 cross-exchange transfers totaling roughly 3.493 billion ONE and accounting for circular transfers. The team said the reduction “does not equate to newly recovered funds,” and that Binance data remained provisional while some Gate and OKX figures awaited verification.

Harmony said exchanges had frozen ONE balances and proceeds linked to the attacker, and that “the current priority is to coordinate the resumption of ONE deposits, withdrawals, and trading as soon as possible.” Each exchange would announce its own timing.

The incident prompted Harmony to patch two verification paths after reports of unauthorized ONE issuance. As The Defiant reported, Harmony asked exchanges to block four wallets, paused its bridge and evaluated rollback options. Harmony did not confirm onchain account Juiceberg’s claim that four billion unauthorized ONE had been created.

Current Network FootprintHarmony’s staking dashboard showed about 3.04 billion ONE staked across the network, with an effective median stake of 6.83 million ONE. The chain had $146,337 in decentralized finance total value locked and $4,611 in 24-hour DEX volume, according to DefiLlama, which lists the chain as deprecated. Chain fees over the same period were $2.35.

ONE traded at about $0.00071, down 1.3% over 24 hours and 2.3% over the week, for a market capitalization near $10.6 million, according to CoinGecko. The token reached $0.379 in October 2021.

Validator TermsFor validators, Harmony set aside a $1.372 million transition pool, which it said equals the network-wide rewards issued during the year before the Aug. 11 incident. Harmony said validators who shut down on time, sign an agreement, retain their stakes and serve as governors in its new initiative would receive compensation in four quarterly installments.

Tether, the issuer of the world’s largest stablecoin, has spent $600 million buying majority control of a South American farming conglomerate, adding land to a reserve strategy that already includes billions in gold and Bitcoin (BTC).

The move follows a clean audit from KPMG, one of the Big Four accounting firms. However, Tether’s own reserve buffer has since fallen 40%, raising questions about its scarce-asset hedges.

Farmland Joins Gold and Bitcoin in the Reserve MixTether acquired roughly 70% of Adecoagro, a Nasdaq-listed agribusiness farming more than 200,000 hectares across Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. The deal grew to about $600 million in September 2025, and followed an initial $100 million stake bought in 2024.

Analysts have described the acquisitions as diversification, following the same logic behind Tether’s gold and Bitcoin holdings. Tether itself has called those assets a hedge against dollar debasement and inflation. It also plans to use the farmland’s renewable energy to power Bitcoin mining.

Ardoino describes Tether as “probably the largest owner, land owner in South America,” noting the agribusiness runs hundreds of thousands of sheep and cattle and produces milk and rice. He framed the holding as part of the same logic driving Tether’s gold and Bitcoin positions — a hedge against systemic instability rather than a conventional investment.

“This is when we think about the stability of the world that has to come through real tangible assets,” he said, adding that Tether has to remain “a company that survived to the worst case scenario.”

Tether’s Business Also Include US Treasuries.Meanwhile, Tether remains one of the world’s largest holders of US Treasuries. Its exposure last stood at roughly $141 billion, disclosed in its first-quarter 2026 attestation. That leaves the company betting on scarce, hard assets. Yet it still anchors most of its balance sheet to the very currency it hedges against.

KPMG’s first full audit confirmed reserves exceeded liabilities by $6.8 billion at the end of 2025. Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino called the result a clean audit, the strongest opinion an auditor can issue. However, Tether has not published the underlying audited statements.

Wen Tether audit? nOw.

Today Tether announces its first full financial audit for Tether International, conducted by KPMG U.S. which resulted in an unqualified clean opinion, marking the highest result possible.
An unqualified opinion is the best possible audit opinion an… pic.twitter.com/quav6uUIhy

— Paolo Ardoino 🤖 (@paoloardoino) August 13, 2026
Tether’s own June attestation, a quarterly reserve snapshot reviewed by BDO, put that same buffer at just $4.1 billion. That is a drop of roughly 40% in six months, driven largely by unrealized losses on gold and bitcoin.

Those are the very assets meant to protect Tether’s balance sheet. Farmland adds a further complication, since land cannot be sold quickly if Tether ever needs cash fast.

Whether Tether’s scarce-asset strategy ultimately strengthens its position or adds new risk remains unclear. KPMG’s full report, still unpublished, could settle that question once it reaches the public.

Monad’s API Hub hosts 66 active services from independent providers, all accessible through pay-per-request micropayments. Prices range from $0.01 to $7.50 per endpoint call, with analytics heavyweight Nansen contributing 83 different endpoints alone.

At the core of the system sits the x402 v2 protocol, an open standard for internet-native payments that turns every API call into a tiny financial transaction. When a developer or an autonomous AI agent makes a request, the x402 facilitator on Monad handles verification and on-chain settlement automatically. The protocol operates on Monad’s mainnet (chain ID eip155:143) and its testnet.

Advertisement

Payments settle exclusively in USDC, Circle’s dollar-pegged stablecoin. Monad’s mainnet launched on November 24, 2025, with native USDC support and developer tools from Circle baked in from day one. The blockchain targets sub-second finality and up to 10,000 transactions per second.

Autonomous AI agents need programmatic access to information but traditional API marketplaces require account creation, email verification, credit card entry, and key management. Pay-per-request with USDC strips all of that friction away. At $0.01 per call on the low end, an agent could make 100 requests for a dollar, pulling on-chain analytics from Nansen or other providers without any pre-existing relationship.

The Monad Foundation joined the x402 Foundation on June 29, 2026, placing it alongside Coinbase, Circle, and Cloudflare as contributors to the open payment standard. The x402 Foundation’s goal is standardization: if multiple blockchains and service providers adopt the same protocol for pay-per-request transactions, developers write integration code once and it works everywhere.

The competitive landscape for blockchain data APIs includes established players like Dune Analytics, The Graph, and various RPC providers, most of which still rely on traditional subscription models. Sixty-six services is a decent starting catalog, and Nansen’s 83 endpoints provide genuine analytical depth. The pricing transparency, with costs visible per endpoint rather than buried in enterprise tier structures, is a distinguishing feature for developers managing usage costs.

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

Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange by trading volume, has announced a scheduled delisting of three low-activity spot trading pairs: OPEN/FDUSD, SAGA/FDUSD, and VELODROME/USDC. The removal will take effect on September 11, 2026, at 03:00 UTC, as part of Binance’s ongoing efforts to refine its spot market offerings and optimize liquidity across the platform.

Routine trading pair removalThe exchange periodically reviews the trading activity and liquidity of all available pairs to ensure a high-quality trading environment. Binance stated that pairs attracting minimal trader interest are removed to prevent order book congestion and to direct more liquidity toward active markets.

Such assessments are part of Binance’s standard market hygiene, aiming to ensure that resources are focused on pairs that consistently demonstrate demand and depth. The trend of regularly retiring underperforming trading pairs has become customary for the platform.

Despite the removal of these specific pairs, Binance clarified that the underlying coins—Open Platform (OPEN), Saga (SAGA), and Velodrome Finance (VELODROME)—will remain tradable in other pairs on the exchange.

Binance emphasized that the delisting affects only select trading pairs and that users can continue to access these digital assets through alternative pairs such as USDT or BTC.

Impact on traders and liquidityTraders are not expected to experience disruptions in owning or moving their assets, as the action does not represent a full project delisting. Alternative trading pairs will continue to allow buying and selling of these coins, with more active pairs typically offering tighter spreads and greater liquidity.

Binance recommended that users monitor their automated trading tools, especially Spot Trading Bots and Grid Trading Bots, as active bots linked to these pairs will automatically be terminated once trading ceases. Traders using grid bots should check open orders before the deadline to avoid unexpected executions or potential slippage.

“There is no need to panic or start selling. This concerns only the removal of specific pairs with the FDUSD and USDC stablecoins, not the complete delisting of the projects themselves. The coins will remain available on the platform.”

Market data reveals limited activityRecent trading data highlights why these pairs were selected for delisting. Trading volumes for FDUSD pairs with mid-cap altcoins such as OPEN, SAGA, and VELODROME now account for just 0.06% to 0.14% of FDUSD’s overall volume. Daily turnover for these pairs rarely exceeds $100,000 to $300,000, as reported by CoinMarketCap, indicating minimal user activity.

PairDaily Volume% of FDUSD VolumeOPEN/FDUSD$100,000–$300,0000.06%–0.14%SAGA/FDUSD$100,000–$300,0000.06%–0.14%VELODROME/USDC$100,000–$300,0000.06%–0.14%The declining liquidity in these spot markets has led Binance to streamline its offerings and focus the platform’s resources on markets that maintain active trader participation and stronger order books.

In addition, Binance began directing liquidity towards the United Stables (U) ecosystem. This move aims to further consolidate trading activity and allow more efficient price discovery on the BNB Chain.

Mini dictionary: United Stables (U) ecosystem, a stablecoin-focused platform operating on the BNB Chain that groups multiple stablecoin pairs for improved liquidity and unified trading infrastructure.

USDC markets backed by WBTC and cbBTC are live, while roughly $5 billion held in Morpho Vaults remains unable to enter Midnight pending DAO action.

Morpho launched its Midnight fixed-term, fixed-rate lending protocol on Ethereum on Sept. 8, expanding the product beyond Base and giving Ethereum users access to USDC loans backed by WBTC or cbBTC.

The deployment adds predictable borrowing terms for Ethereum users, but its largest potential source of capital remains blocked. Morpho Vaults, which hold about $5 billion in deposits, can still allocate only to Morpho Blue markets until the DAO enables Midnight allocations.

Morpho’s Ethereum-filtered Markets page displayed $7.41 million in total deposits and $2.63 million in outstanding loans around publication. The retained page output did not expose the individual market rows, so those displayed totals could not be broken down between the WBTC and cbBTC markets.

The practical difference from Morpho Blue is rate certainty. Blue uses open-ended loans whose rates change according to a formula, while Midnight trades credit units at market-set prices for fixed maturities. A borrower can therefore establish the financing cost in advance, and a lender can lock a return rather than remain exposed to a rate that changes every block.

Midnight lenders buy credit units below their one-to-one redemption value at maturity. Morpho’s documentation says two lenders in the same market can receive different rates because each rate is determined by the price at which the lender trades.

Morpho co-founder Merlin Egalite said the Ethereum rollout would begin with “USDC | cbBTC and USDC | WBTC markets” and expand progressively. Both collateral types are tokenized representations of bitcoin on Ethereum.

Vault Capital Remains BlockedThe launch does not yet open Midnight to Morpho Vaults, the protocol’s curated deposit products. Morpho co-founder and CEO Paul Frambot said enabling vault allocations would take one DAO transaction, but would also open the newer protocol to significant capital.

Frambot said Morpho wants curators and users to become familiar with Midnight and give the ecosystem time to develop supporting tools before enabling that route. Morpho expects vault activation in the fourth quarter.

Until the DAO acts, Midnight’s Ethereum markets must attract capital through direct offers rather than Morpho’s existing vault deposit base.

Table of contents

LlamaRisk proposed reserve-cap and interest-rate changes for Aave V3 on Sept. 7, responding to utilization, liquidity and borrower data across six deployments. Its Risk Stewards update recommends raising USDC, GHO, wstETH and USD₮0 limits while reducing underused syrupUSDC, USDe and syrupUSDT supply caps.

The plan also lifts the USDe base variable borrow rate by one percentage point on Aave V3 Core, Plasma, Monad, Mantle and Avalanche. LlamaRisk said it intends to implement the package through the Risk Steward process. That language makes this a dated risk-parameter action plan, not evidence that every proposed value was already active when the post appeared.

USDC and GHO caps would expand where demand is high On Aave V3 Core, the recommended USDC supply cap rises from 2.5 billion to 3 billion, while the borrow cap moves from 2.25 billion to 2.7 billion. LlamaRisk reported supply-cap utilization of 92.4% and borrow-cap utilization of 95.7% before the change, with debt growing faster than supply over the seven days through Sept. 7.

For Monad, the proposal increases GHO’s supply cap from 40 million to 60 million and its borrow cap from 36 million to 54 million. It also raises Prime’s wstETH supply cap from 62,000 to 80,000. On X Layer, where the report said USD₮0’s borrow cap was fully used, the recommended limit rises from 48 million to 90 million. BlockchainReporter previously covered Aave’s launch on X Layer, the deployment affected by that proposed expansion.

Three supply caps would shrink after balances fell The same review cuts limits where deposited balances have moved away from earlier capacity. Monad’s syrupUSDC supply cap would fall from 240 million to 150 million, and its USDe cap from 220 million to 150 million. Plasma’s syrupUSDT supply cap would be halved from 300 million to 150 million.

LlamaRisk said these reductions still leave headroom above current supply. It estimated post-change utilization at 67.8% for syrupUSDC, 60.6% for USDe and 75.2% for syrupUSDT. The distinction matters because a lower cap limits future deposits; it does not imply that existing positions are being removed.

USDe borrowing moves toward a higher base rate Across the five USDe markets, the recommended base variable rate rises from 4% to 5%, while Slope1 falls by one percentage point. Because the optimal-utilization settings remain unchanged, LlamaRisk said the liquidity share available at those thresholds would not change. Estimated borrow-rate increases at then-current utilization ranged from 17 basis points on Avalanche to 83 basis points on Mantle.

The review also tracked the effects of earlier USDe rate increases. It said Core borrowers reduced USDe debt by 38.8 million after the base reached 4%, with 7.7 million replaced by USDC or USDT borrowing from the same accounts. Plasma borrowers reduced USDe debt by 24.7 million, while only 0.4 million was re-borrowed in other stablecoins. Those observations explain the pricing change, but they remain a point-in-time assessment rather than a forecast of future borrower behavior.

AUTHOR

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

Avalanche Deployment Gains TractionAave's V4 deployment on Avalanche ($AVAX) has reached $20 million in deposits, according to Token Terminal, roughly doubling in size over the past month. The platform currently carries about $5 million in active loans, a sign that borrowing activity is beginning to build alongside the deposit growth.

The Avalanche deployment went live on July 15, 2026, marking the first time Aave had deployed its newest protocol version outside Ethereum, where earlier versions built most of its liquidity. Avalanche was chosen as the first expansion beyond Ethereum in part because of an established track record and a fast-growing ecosystem for tokenized real-world assets such as Treasuries and corporate bonds. The rollout was also backed by ecosystem incentives: Avalanche committed up to $15 million tied to key performance indicators including total value locked, borrowing activity, and protocol revenue growth.

A Broader V4 Expansion StoryThe Avalanche figures are one piece of a wider growth picture for Aave V4. Across all chains, V4 deposits surpassed $600 million in late August 2026, setting a new all-time high, according to data reported by ChainCatcher. That figure covers aggregate deposits across Ethereum's mainnet and several Layer 2 networks.

The V4 architecture underpinning these deployments differs meaningfully from its predecessor. Aave V4 replaces V3's market-per-pool structure with a hub-and-spoke design that consolidates liquidity while allowing individual markets to maintain separate borrowing rules and risk parameters. Despite the strong growth in V4, the newer version remains a fraction of its predecessor's scale, and Aave's decision to run V3 and V4 in parallel lets users migrate at their own pace rather than under deadline pressure.

Sources:
CoinPaprika: Aave Brings V4 to Avalanche in Bet on Tokenized-Asset Lending
Crypto Briefing: Aave V4 Deposits on Ethereum and Avalanche Reach $300M
ChainCatcher: Aave V4 Deposits Exceed $600 Million

TLDR Solana recorded $348 million in net RWA inflows over the past 30 days. Solana’s total tokenized RWA value reached $720 million. The data comes from RWA.xyz, tracking tokenized Treasuries, credit, and other real-world assets. RWA inflows are separate from memecoin trading and speculative volume. The growth suggests Solana’s low fees and speed may be drawing more than retail traders. Solana has recorded $348 million in net real-world asset inflows over the past 30 days. The data comes from RWA.xyz, a platform that tracks tokenized asset activity across blockchains.

The inflows pushed Solana’s total tokenized RWA value to $720 million. This includes products like tokenized Treasuries and credit pools.

Solana is usually known for memecoins, fast trading, and consumer apps. This new data shows a different side of the network’s activity.

What The RWA Inflows Show RWA inflows are not the same as memecoin trading volume. They reflect capital moving into tokenized products tied to real-world assets, not short-term speculation.

These products can include U.S. Treasury instruments, private credit, tokenized funds, and other assets linked to traditional finance. The activity connects blockchain settlement with existing financial markets.

A $720 million RWA total gives Solana a real presence in the tokenization space. It does not place the network at the top of every list, but the pace of recent inflows stands out on its own.

Momentum matters here because institutional-style capital tends to move with more caution than retail trading. Growth in this area can signal rising confidence from issuers and allocators.

Why Speed And Cost Matter Lower transaction fees can make it easier to move tokens, transfer collateral, and settle trades. Fast confirmation times also help when tokenized assets are used inside DeFi platforms.

This gives Solana a practical pitch to RWA issuers. The network can offer liquidity, an active user base, and lower costs than some alternatives.

These features do not guarantee adoption, but they lower the barrier for teams building tokenized products. Issuers weighing where to launch often look at cost and speed as starting points.

The current inflow data does not confirm widespread institutional adoption of Solana. It shows capital movement and rising totals, not confirmation that major institutions have shifted operations to the network.

Solana Price on CoinGecko It also does not guarantee this capital stays in place. If yields, incentives, or market conditions change, some of these inflows could reverse.

The numbers reflect inflows and total value locked at this point in time. They are a snapshot, not a long-term commitment from any single institution or issuer.

Solana’s RWA growth adds a second track to its ecosystem. Retail trading and memecoin activity remain part of the network, alongside this newer tokenized asset activity.

This article draws on RWA.xyz Solana network data and public DeFiLlama Solana metrics.

Table of contents

Xverse launched Bitcoin staking through sBTC on Stacks on Sept. 7, making the feature available in version 2.9 of its self-custodial wallet. In its official launch announcement, Xverse said users can put existing bitcoin to work and receive additional bitcoin through the fee-efficient sBTC representation on Stacks.

The product does not lock native BTC directly on the Bitcoin base layer. Xverse’s technical overview says participants use sBTC, which is backed one-for-one by bitcoin held through the Stacks signer system, and pair it with STX. That structure introduces different risks from simply holding BTC in a wallet.

Staking pairs sBTC with a smaller STX position A position combines sBTC with STX worth roughly 5% of the deposited sBTC, according to Xverse. The STX is neither a fee nor collateral; it establishes eligibility and links the position to a Stacks identity. The bitcoin-denominated rewards accrue to the sBTC side rather than the STX balance.

Xverse said users can obtain an STX shortfall inside the staking flow. Each participant receives one position per bond and may add sBTC or STX before the bond begins. Once it is active, the position remains fixed unless the user withdraws the sBTC or waits for maturity.

Rewards target about 3% but can vary The protocol targets an annual percentage yield of roughly 3%, with distributions arriving in sBTC about once every two weeks. The realized return depends on the bitcoin committed by Stacks miners and the amount deposited alongside it, so the target is not a guaranteed rate.

Each bond runs for six months. Before registration, users can withdraw both assets. After a bond starts, sBTC can be removed early, but the paired STX remains locked until maturity. Xverse also warns that the staking contracts are new and that sBTC depends on its signer set and continued peg to bitcoin.

The launch opens retail access to the Genesis Bond Xverse’s rollout gives wallet users pooled access to the Stacks Genesis Bond without meeting a large standalone minimum. BlockchainReporter previously reported that 21Shares joined the same Bitcoin staking program as an institutional participant. The two developments involve different access channels: 21Shares supplied capital to the bond, while Xverse now offers a wallet interface for individual positions.

The Genesis Bond is scheduled to begin near Bitcoin block 966,350, which Xverse estimated around Sept. 10 in Stacks reward cycle 143. The precise timing remains block-dependent. Later bonds are expected to open roughly monthly, but available capacity and deposit windows may close before a scheduled start.

AUTHOR

Jide Idowu is a skilled freelance writer with expertise in blockchain technology, cryptocurrency, and digital finance. Known for his ability to break down complex topics into clear, engaging content, Jide crafts articles, blog posts, and analyses that resonate with both beginners and seasoned professionals. His work spans a wide range of subjects, from emerging crypto trends to in-depth explorations of blockchain innovations. With a keen eye for detail and a passion for educating readers, Jide is a reliable voice in the rapidly evolving world of digital assets.

Cronos has confirmed that $9.19 million remains unrecovered after an attacker borrowed $120.4 million from Tectonic, while a validator-backed rollback reversed roughly $111.2 million in affected value.

Summary

Cronos says $9.19 million remains unrecovered after an attacker borrowed $120.4 million from Tectonic using manipulated TONIC collateral. Validators rolled back 10,961 blocks covering nearly two hours of transactions, restoring roughly $111.2 million in affected value. The attacker moved 7.6% of the affected funds off Cronos before the network was halted, putting them beyond the rollback. Cronos resumed block production around 11 hours after the attack and continues reconciliation work with exchanges, bridges and other platforms. According to a post-mortem published by Cronos on Monday, the attacker manipulated the price of TONIC, the governance token of lending protocol Tectonic, and used the inflated asset as collateral to borrow funds across nine markets on Aug. 30.

The attack led Cronos validators to halt the Layer 1 blockchain at block 90,907,150 before agreeing to restore the network to block 90,896,188, the final block produced before the exploit began.

The rollback returned affected balances to their pre-attack state and reversed approximately $111.2 million of the $120.4 million involved in the incident. However, funds that had already moved away from Cronos were outside the reach of the restoration.

“The $9.19 million that left Cronos before the halt has not been recovered and is beyond the restoration’s reach,” the team said.

Cronos rollback restored $111.2 million after Tectonic exploit The rollback discarded 10,961 blocks, representing 1 hour and 54 minutes of Cronos transaction history, according to the post-mortem. Transactions completed during that window were reversed regardless of whether they had any connection to the Tectonic attack.

Cronos said validators had to weigh transaction finality against the amount of money still exposed when deciding how to restart the network.

“It was a hard decision, taken together with the validators, weighing the finality users expect from a chain against the funds at risk,” Cronos said. “The alternative, restarting without restoring state, would have left the borrowed assets in the attacker’s control.”

The final accounting substantially raises the value involved compared with early estimates published immediately after the incident. On Aug. 31, crypto.news reported the Cronos halt after onchain researcher Weilin Li initially estimated that approximately $75 million had been affected.

Li’s early analysis found that most of the identified funds remained on Cronos when validators stopped block production, while roughly $6 million was believed to have reached Ethereum. At the time, neither Tectonic nor Cronos had released a final accounting of the assets involved.

Blockchain data provider Bitquery subsequently calculated that $120.4 million had been removed from Tectonic’s lending markets, a figure that is consistent with the amount detailed in Cronos’ post-mortem.

TONIC price manipulation allowed $120.4 million in borrowing Cronos said the attack began after contracts were deployed to manipulate the market price of TONIC, a thinly traded token that Tectonic accepted as collateral.

Once the token’s price had been driven higher, the attacker supplied the inflated collateral to the lending protocol. Roughly 10 minutes later, $120.4 million had been borrowed across nine Tectonic markets.

Early onchain analysis had found that TONIC’s reported price increased approximately 100-fold within around 20 minutes. The token carried a 20% collateral factor on Tectonic, allowing borrowers to take loans against part of the value assigned to their deposited TONIC.

RedStone co-founder Marcin Kazmierczak later told crypto.news that the incident was not an oracle failure. He said the oracle accurately reported the TONIC price in the market it monitored, while Tectonic accepted that price without adequately accounting for whether enough liquidity existed to sell the collateral at the reported valuation.

Kazmierczak identified borrow caps tied to executable liquidity as one safeguard that could have restricted the amount available to borrow even if TONIC’s reported market price increased sharply. Dynamic collateral factors, minimum market-depth requirements and price-impact limits could have provided other controls, he said.

Tectonic had roughly $121.7 million in total value locked and approximately $82.7 million in active loans before the exploit, according to figures cited during the initial investigation.

Validators halted Cronos within an hour of the attack The post-mortem provided a more detailed timeline of the network’s response.

After the attacker began manipulating TONIC and borrowing against the inflated collateral, Cronos identified the malicious activity roughly 36 minutes later. Validators subsequently halted the blockchain, preventing further transactions while the incident was investigated.

The network was eventually restored to its pre-exploit state before block production resumed around 11 hours after the attack began.

When Cronos restarted block production on Aug. 30, the chain resumed from block 90,896,189 after validators coordinated the emergency restoration. Node operators were instructed to restart using Cronos v1.7.8 and updated mainnet snapshots.

Crypto.com CEO Kris Marszalek said during the incident that the company’s centralized app and exchange continued operating and were not compromised. Crypto.com and Cronos are closely associated, while Tectonic operates as a decentralized lending protocol on the blockchain.

The rollback meant infrastructure providers connected to Cronos had to reconcile their systems with the restored chain state. RPC providers, explorers, indexers, subgraphs and bridges needed to synchronize with the version of the blockchain that replaced the discarded blocks.

A subsequent crypto.news analysis examined how validators rolled back the chain and erased more than 10,000 blocks to restore its state. The action removed transactions belonging to regular users during the same period alongside those connected to the attacker.

$9.19 million remains outside Cronos restoration Cronos’ post-mortem now puts the amount that escaped the restoration at approximately $9.19 million, equal to 7.6% of the $120.4 million affected.

Funds that remained within the network could effectively be returned to their earlier state through the rollback. Assets already transferred away from Cronos could not be reversed through changes to the chain’s own transaction history.

The Tectonic incident accounted for more than half of the estimated cryptocurrency losses recorded during August. Blockchain security firm PeckShield counted 50 major crypto hacks during August, with estimated losses totaling $136.3 million. Its earlier calculation placed the Tectonic incident at approximately $74 million because the final accounting had not yet been released.

Cronos said reconciliation work with exchanges, bridges and other affected platforms remains underway following the restoration. Users do not need to take any action at this stage, while the block explorer, public RPC endpoints, indexers and subgraphs have returned to operation.

The post-mortem did not identify the attacker or detail how the network and Tectonic plan to address the $9.19 million that remains unrecovered.

CRO, the native token of the Cronos ecosystem, was trading around $0.058, up 0.62% over the past 24 hours.

Spain’s largest cryptocurrency exchange Bit2Me has launched a separate company to help courts, police and financial institutions trace, seize, store and liquidate cryptocurrency linked to investigations.

Summary

Bit2Me has launched Bit2Shield to help courts, police and financial institutions trace, seize, store and sell cryptocurrency. Bit2Me processed €1.5 million in seized crypto for Interpol, Europol and Spanish police during 2025. Seized assets will be held in multisignature cold wallets, with sales arranged when ordered by the relevant authorities. Crypto to euro conversions will be handled by Bitcoinforme, Bit2Me’s entity authorized under MiCA in Spain. According to a statement from Bit2Me, the new unit, Bit2Shield, has been legally registered as CryptoShield S.L. and will provide forensic and operational services covering digital assets from the point they are identified during an investigation through their eventual sale when ordered by authorities.

The company will assist investigators during searches and seizures by extracting information from wallets, locating cryptocurrency and preparing digitally signed forensic reports that can be submitted in court. Its work will extend to fraud investigations, source-of-funds certification and training for police officers, judges and financial institutions.

Bit2Shield formalizes services that Bit2Me had already been providing to government agencies. During 2025, the exchange processed €1.5 million ($1.74 million) in seized cryptocurrency for authorities including Interpol, Europol and Spanish police, according to the company.

Blockchain analytics provider Chainalysis was used to trace the assets before Bit2Me converted the cryptocurrency into euros for the state.

Bit2Shield will manage crypto from seizure to sale Once digital assets have been located and seized, Bit2Shield will arrange their storage in cold wallets protected by a multi-signature setup, Bit2Me said. The assets can remain under custody until authorities issue instructions for their disposal.

When a court or another competent authority orders a sale, Bit2Shield will coordinate the process, while the actual crypto-to-euro conversion will be carried out through Bitcoinforme S.L., Bit2Me’s entity authorized by Spain’s securities regulator under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework.

Proceeds from the sale will then be transferred in euros to government bank accounts.

Bit2Me said Bit2Shield itself is not a crypto-asset service provider under MiCA because its activities center on investigations, digital forensics and training. Services that fall under the regulated conversion of cryptocurrency into fiat will remain with Bitcoinforme.

The distinction comes after the EU completed the final stage of its MiCA transition period on July 1. As crypto.news previously reported, only 281 of 1,343 crypto service providers operating across the European Economic Area had secured MiCA authorization by the deadline, leaving 1,062 without approval.

An Aug. 5 review of ESMA authorization data found that the regulator’s interim register is updated weekly and covers regulated activities including custody, crypto-to-fiat exchange, trading platforms, transfers, order execution and portfolio management. The data has since been made available through a searchable MiCA tracker for firms and compliance teams.

Bit2Me has expanded its work with banks The new forensic unit follows Bit2Me’s expansion into infrastructure used by traditional financial institutions, alongside its retail cryptocurrency exchange business.

In June, Spanish banking group Cecabank launched a regulated crypto platform for financial institutions after securing authorization for crypto custody, transfers and the reception and transmission of orders.

Bit2Me handles trade execution, liquidity, market access and the exchange layer under that arrangement, while Cecabank provides institutional custody and banking infrastructure. Renta 4 Banco became one of the first financial institutions to use the platform as it developed crypto trading services for clients.

The project grew out of a partnership established in May 2024. The two companies initially announced the MiCA-ready infrastructure in May 2025 while they were waiting for regulatory approval, with Bit2Me assigned responsibility for trading and market access.

Cecabank later began the European passporting process to extend its authorized crypto services into Ireland, Portugal and Luxembourg.

Bit2Me’s shareholders and financial backers include companies from both banking and crypto. Tether acquired a minority interest in the Spanish exchange in 2025 and led a €30 million funding round intended to support its expansion in Europe and Latin America. The Tether investment followed Bit2Me’s receipt of authorization under MiCA, allowing it to operate across EU member states.

Bankinter, Unicaja, Cecabank and Telefónica are among the other companies that have backed Bit2Me.

Crypto seizures require specialized custody Bit2Shield is entering a field where police agencies have increasingly turned to specialized crypto companies to manage digital assets after seizure.

South Korea’s National Police Agency, for example, awarded Upbit operator Dunamu a one-year contract in August to custody seized cryptocurrency after a public tender. Under that arrangement, confiscated assets are stored through Upbit Custody using offline cold wallets, with separate wallets for different types of assets and security based on multi-party computation, distributed key generation and multi-signature technology.

Spanish authorities have faced the same operational issue when cryptocurrency is recovered during criminal investigations. In April, National Police officers seized approximately €400,000 in crypto held in two cold wallets during an investigation into a manga piracy operation in Almería. The cold wallets were concealed inside a wall-mounted thermometer, according to police.

The case involved a Spanish-language manga piracy platform that authorities said had operated for roughly a decade and generated more than €4 million in advertising revenue since 2014. Three people were arrested during the operation.

Blockchain tracing can remain useful after investigators identify or recover digital assets because transactions leave records that can be followed across public networks. Chainalysis said in August that investigators can trace funds even in cases involving physical cryptocurrency theft, while its research documented more than $30 million stolen through successful kidnappings, home invasions and other violent attacks during the first half of 2026.

In a separate investigation disclosed in August, Chainalysis traced 29,120 cryptocurrency addresses and digital identifiers connected to more than 100 child sexual abuse material platforms, forums and distribution networks. The work generated 14,300 investigative leads and identified more than 7,700 suspect accounts across cryptocurrency exchanges and payment platforms.

Bit2Shield’s investigations will be led by Adrián Maroño, a former member of the Spanish Civil Guard’s Central Operational Unit, known as UCO. His responsibilities will cover the forensic and investigative work carried out by the new company for courts, law enforcement agencies and financial institutions.

When the CEO of a Bitcoin treasury company finally speaks up about governance concerns, you’d expect the stock to stabilize. Metaplanet’s shares had a different idea, falling roughly 7.5% to close at 271 yen on September 7, the trading session after CEO Simon Gerovich posted his response to shareholder criticism.

The Tokyo-listed firm, which adopted a Bitcoin-centric treasury strategy in 2024, is facing pointed questions about an executive stock option pool that ballooned nearly sevenfold. Gerovich’s attempt to reassure investors appears to have had the opposite effect.

The option pool problem At the center of the controversy is Metaplanet’s Series 10 executive option pool. Originally sized at approximately 46 million shares, the pool swelled to 319.46 million shares thanks to a floating allocation formula tied to the company’s fully diluted share count.

On August 18, the company moved to cap the pool at 319.46 million shares, freezing it at its already-expanded size. A five-year lock-up was also instituted, meaning those options can’t be touched until August 17, 2031.

Advertisement

Just ten days after the cap was announced, Gerovich exercised 92,000 units on August 28, converting them into 64,032,000 common shares. That brought his total holdings to 79,587,500 shares.

Gerovich’s response and the MMXX question On September 6, Gerovich took to X to address the growing chorus of shareholder discontent. He acknowledged that the company needed to communicate more effectively on governance matters and outlined plans for future remuneration policy transparency.

He also clarified his relationship with MMXX Ventures Limited, a firm established in 2022 that holds approximately 42,474,750 shares of Metaplanet, representing about 3.26% of the company. Gerovich stated that while he has an association with MMXX Ventures, he does not hold any operational role there.

The broader Bitcoin treasury dilemma Metaplanet’s governance turbulence isn’t happening in a vacuum. The company is one of several publicly traded firms that have tied their corporate identity to Bitcoin holdings, following the playbook popularized by MicroStrategy’s Michael Saylor. The basic pitch: hold Bitcoin on the balance sheet, use equity markets to fund purchases, and let the company’s stock serve as a leveraged proxy for Bitcoin exposure.

Repeated equity issuances to fund Bitcoin purchases dilute existing shareholders. Executive option pools that expand automatically with each issuance compound that dilution.

The floating mechanism that allowed the Series 10 pool to expand from 46 million to 319.46 million shares was embedded in the option structure since 2023. That it was only capped in August 2026, after it had already grown nearly seven times over, raises fair questions about whether the board’s oversight kept pace with the strategy’s execution.

Capping the pool and imposing a five-year lock-up are concrete steps. But they also crystallize a new reality: 319.46 million shares are now earmarked for executive compensation, locked until 2031.

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