Crypto World
U.S. democrats urge crackdown on potential insider trading in prediction markets
More than 40 Democratic lawmakers have pressed U.S. regulators to step in as concerns mount over potential misuse of sensitive government information in prediction markets. In a letter sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Office of Government…
Google Quantum AI researchers have published a study suggesting that the cryptography safeguarding Bitcoin and Ethereum could be cracked with far fewer quantum hardware resources than previously believed. The work, released this week, estimates that a practical quantum computer might break the 256-bit elliptic curve cryptography (ECDLP-256) used by major blockchains with under 500,000 physical qubits, given current hardware assumptions.
In tests conducted on superconducting-qubit cryptographically relevant quantum computers, the researchers demonstrated a 20-fold reduction in the number of qubits needed to derive the private key from a public key, a step that underpins the security of most cryptocurrency accounts. The paper highlights a scenario in which a quantum attacker could recover a Bitcoin private key in about nine minutes, potentially enabling an “on-spend” attack within Bitcoin’s typical 10-minute block interval.
“We should estimate the time required to launch an on-spend attack starting from this primed state at the moment the public key is learned to be roughly either 9 minutes or 12 minutes.”
One of the authors, Ethereum researcher Justin Drake, publicly acknowledged growing confidence in a quantum-day timeline. In a social post, he suggested there’s a meaningful chance that by 2032 a quantum computer could recover a private key from an exposed public key, noting specifically that this is not merely a theoretical concern but a material possibility on the horizon.
Ethereum’s “at-rest” risk compounds the challenge
The Google study also casts light on what it calls an “at-rest” vulnerability in Ethereum’s account model. Unlike the Bitcoin scenario, where an attacker would need to time their attack to a specific moment, an at-rest attack relies on a public key that has already been revealed when an account first transacts. Once that public key becomes visible on the blockchain, a quantum adversary could take their time to derive the corresponding private key, potentially compromising the account at any future point.
The researchers warn that this is a systemic exposure that cannot be mitigated merely by user behavior. It argues for a protocol-wide shift to post-quantum cryptography (PQC) to harden security before credible threats can materialize.
Google estimated that the top 1,000 Ethereum accounts, collectively holding around 20.5 million ETH, could be cracked in fewer than nine days under certain quantum scenarios. The finding underscores a key distinction: Bitcoin’s risk window is time-bound, while Ethereum’s exposure could be persistent once a public key has left the user’s control.
The paper ties these technical insights to a broader warning for the crypto community: the clock toward quantum threats is moving faster than many had anticipated, and transitional security measures are urgently needed.
Google’s research is part of a broader push to raise awareness about quantum risk in crypto and to offer concrete recommendations for security upgrades. The team argues that the community should accelerate the adoption of PQC and begin transitioning systems now, rather than wait for a real quantum attack to materialize.
What changes are on the horizon for post-quantum security?
The research arrives amid a wave of activity around post-quantum cryptography and blockchain security. In parallel with the study’s release, Google signaled a firm deadline for its own post-quantum cryptography migration: 2029. While this timeline is specific to Google’s internal deployment, it has intensified industry discussions about how quickly protocols, wallets, and consensus layers across major networks must evolve.
Industry voices have varied in their assessment of the urgency. Nic Carter, a crypto researcher and commentator, summarized the tension in a recent thread, noting that elliptic-curve cryptography could be “on the brink of obsolescence.” He argued that Ethereum developers have already started exploring post-quantum approaches, while Bitcoin communities have been slower to adopt such changes. Carter’s assessment reflects a broader concern that, even if the risk is not imminent for all networks, the potential for accelerated disruption is real and requires proactive planning.
On the development front, Ethereum’s community has been alert to quantum risk for some time. The Ethereum Foundation released a post-quantum security roadmap earlier this year, outlining the kinds of changes needed to signatures, data storage, account structures, and cryptographic proofs to withstand quantum-era threats. Vitalik Buterin himself has highlighted the need for substantial updates across validator signatures, storage formats, accounts, and proofs to build resilience against future quantum capabilities.
Google’s paper and the ensuing discussion have heightened attention on how networks can migrate toward quantum-resistant schemes. The recommendations call for a coordinated transition that minimizes user disruption while upgrading core cryptography, a complex engineering challenge that spans client implementations, node operators, and ecosystem tooling.
Why this matters for investors, users, and builders
The potential for quantum-assisted breaches touches several layers of the crypto stack. For investors, it introduces a strategic risk horizon that could compress security timelines and affect long-hold strategies for large holdings, especially if the most valuable accounts rely on exposed public keys. For users, the findings emphasize the importance of wallet and key-management practices that minimize exposure of public keys and support seamless upgrades to quantum-resilient schemes. For builders and developers, the message is clear: security audits, protocol upgrades, and cross-ecosystem interoperability will need to accelerate in tandem with cryptographic research.
The divergence in risk models between Bitcoin and Ethereum also highlights how different design choices influence vulnerability. Bitcoin’s on-spend risk translates into a window of opportunity for attackers, whereas Ethereum’s account model could face a broader, systemic threat if and when quantum-ready cryptography is not universally deployed. The study’s authors stress that this is not a distant concern but a practical risk requiring immediate attention from protocol designers, wallet providers, and exchanges alike.
What to watch next
As the crypto industry digests Google’s findings, the next several quarters will likely feature intensified focus on post-quantum readiness. Key areas to watch include: the pace of PQC standardization and adoption across major platforms, the ability of wallet providers to roll out user-friendly upgrades, and how layer-2 ecosystems and centralized services handle migration without disrupting service. The Ethereum Foundation’s roadmap and ongoing development work on quantum-resistant signatures and proofs will be critical to gauge whether practical, broad-based adoption can start within a few years. Meanwhile, Bitcoin developers face the challenge of aligning security upgrades with long-standing principles of decentralization and backward compatibility.
Experts caution that even with a clear migration path, incentives and coordination across a diverse set of actors will determine how quickly the ecosystem can transition. The study’s authors emphasize a proactive stance: by beginning the transition now, networks can reduce the risk of a sudden, disruptive quantum-enabled event in the future.
In sum, the Google study reframes the quantum threat as both more tangible and more nuanced than earlier forecasts suggested. It underscores the urgency of moving toward post-quantum cryptography while acknowledging the complexity of achieving a seamless, ecosystem-wide upgrade. For market participants, the message is practical: begin planning today, monitor progress on standards, and be prepared for the first wave of PQC-enabled solutions to arrive sooner than expected.
Readers should keep an eye on updates from major blockchain projects, standard-setting bodies, and security researchers as the push toward quantum resilience accelerates. The question is not merely whether quantum computers will crack current cryptography, but how quickly the industry can adapt to ensure the security of stored value and the integrity of decentralized networks in a quantum-enabled era.
Warren Buffett speaking with Becky Quick on CNBC’s Squawk Box from Omaha, NE on March 31st, 2026.
Gerard Miller | CNBC
Warren Buffett is bringing back his famed charity lunch — this time with a high-profile twist.
The 95-year-old Berkshire Hathaway chairman will be joined by Stephen Curry, a four-time NBA champion and two-time MVP, along with author and lifestyle entrepreneur Ayesha Curry, for a new fundraising auction that pairs investing icon with celebrity appeal.
“Over the years, I’ve seen how the business community and innovative nonprofits can work together to create real change, and I’ve always believed in supporting organizations that are making a meaningful difference,” Buffett said in a statement. “This event is about coming together again — in a new way — with people I admire, to support work that truly matters. Partnering with Stephen and Ayesha to help launch something new in support of these communities is something I’m very happy to be part of.”
Online bidding for the lunch will open May 7 at 7:30 p.m. PDT on eBay and run through May 14 at 7:30 p.m. PDT, with proceeds benefiting the Glide Foundation and the Eat. Learn. Play. Foundation, a charitable group founded by the Curry family focused on childhood literacy, nutrition and active lifestyles. San Francisco-based Glide provides services for vulnerable populations, including meals, shelter, health-care testing and job training.
The winning bidder — along with up to seven guests — will join Buffett and the Currys for an exclusive lunch in Omaha, Nebraska, on June 24. Proceeds from the auction will be split evenly between the two charities.
Buffett last hosted the lunch in 2022, capping a two-decade run that raised millions of dollars for charity. The auction reached an all-time high winning bid of $19 million in 2022 and has generated more than $50 million in total.
Previous winners have included prominent money managers such as David Einhorn, while Ted Weschler — now an investment manager at Berkshire — was among those who famously paid millions for the opportunity.
Buffett stepped down as Berkshire’s CEO at the beginning of 2026 after six decades running the conglomerate. He remains chairman of the firm.
Read more from CNBC’s interview with Warren Buffett
Tether Holdings SA released two senior precious metals traders it recruited from HSBC Holdings Plc just months ago.
The departures mark a sudden reversal for the stablecoin issuer, which had framed the hires as central to its ambitions in the global bullion market.
Why the Hires Mattered
Vincent Domien, HSBC’s former global head of metals trading and a board member of the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), joined Tether in late 2025.
Mathew O’Neill, who oversaw precious metals origination across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa at the bank, followed him.
Both were recruited as part of CEO Paolo Ardoino’s plan to compete directly with banks like JPMorgan and HSBC in bullion trading.
Ardoino had previously told Bloomberg the company needed to build the best gold trading floor in the world.
Tether has accumulated roughly 140 tons of physical gold, stored in a former Cold War nuclear bunker in Switzerland.
That hoard is valued at approximately $24 billion, making the firm one of the largest known holders of bullion outside central banks, exchange-traded funds and commercial banks.
A Crypto Firm in a Commodities World
The rapid turnaround raises questions about how smoothly a crypto-native company can integrate traditional commodities talent.
Tether bought over 70 tons of gold last year, outpacing nearly every central bank except Poland. The company had also signaled it would actively trade its reserves to capture arbitrage between futures and physical prices.
However, the physical gold market operates on long-standing relationships between banks, refiners, miners and dealers.
Bridging the gap between crypto treasury management and institutional bullion trading has proven difficult.
Tether has not publicly explained the reason for the departures. Neither Domien nor O’Neill has commented.
The company continues to hold substantial gold reserves and issues Tether Gold (XAUT), which accounts for roughly 60% of the gold-backed stablecoin market.
Whether Tether replaces the traders or restructures its gold desk entirely may signal how committed the firm remains to Ardoino’s vision of rivaling sovereign-scale gold holders.
The post Tether Fires HSBC Gold Traders Months After Hiring Them appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) introduced the Mined in America Act on March 30, creating a federal certification program for domestic Bitcoin mining operations and codifying President Trump’s Strategic Bitcoin Reserve executive order into law.
The bill targets a structural vulnerability that the industry can no longer ignore: the U.S. controls 38% of global Bitcoin hash rate but sources 97% of its mining hardware from China.
That asymmetry is the entire legislative thesis. Hash rate geography and hardware dependency are two different things – and right now, they’re pointed in opposite directions.
Key Takeaways:
- Legislative Scope: The Mined in America Act creates a voluntary Commerce Department certification for mining facilities that commit to phasing out hardware from foreign adversaries, with full transition required by end of decade.
- Federal Access: Certified miners unlock existing DOE and USDA programs for grid stabilization, renewable absorption, and methane capture – no new federal spending required.
- Reserve Pipeline: The bill codifies Trump’s Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and creates a mechanism for certified U.S. miners to sell newly mined BTC directly to the reserve in exchange for capital gains tax exemptions.
- Hardware Vulnerability: Late 2024 customs inspections found firmware vulnerabilities in Chinese mining rigs enabling potential remote access – the security case underpinning the bill’s hardware phase-out mandate.
- What to Watch: Committee assignment to Senate Commerce or Energy and Natural Resources – that referral determines hearing timeline and amendment exposure for the incentive structure.
What the Mined in America Act Actually Does – and Why the Certification Structure Matters
The bill’s core mechanism is a voluntary certification program administered by the Commerce Department. Mining entities that opt in commit to a phased elimination of hardware manufactured by companies tied to foreign adversaries – China and Russia named explicitly – with full phase-out required by the end of the decade.
That distinction matters operationally. Voluntary means no penalty for non-participants, but the incentive architecture is designed to make certification economically attractive. Certified facilities gain access to existing Department of Energy and USDA rural financing programs – covering grid-stabilizing load, excess renewable absorption, and methane capture from landfills and oil fields.
No new appropriations required, which is the bill’s primary political insulation against deficit hawks.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership would be directed to support U.S. firms developing domestic ASIC miners, with domestic assembly mandates attached.
NIST’s role here is notable – it signals the bill frames hardware security as a standards problem, not just a trade policy problem.
The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve codification adds a direct supply-chain-to-reserve pipeline. Certified miners can sell newly mined BTC to the reserve in exchange for capital gains tax exemptions – a budget-neutral expansion mechanism that doesn’t require Treasury to go to market.
Dennis Porter, CEO and co-founder of the Satoshi Action Fund, which co-crafted the legislation, put it plainly: “America controls 38 percent of the world’s Bitcoin hash rate, but 97 percent of the hardware powering it comes from China. That is not leadership, that is a liability.”
Discover: How MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin strategy could shift under new US mining policy
What to Watch
The bill’s immediate gating variable is committee referral – Senate leadership will assign it to either the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee or the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, likely within weeks.
The Commerce referral is the faster path; Energy and Natural Resources has a heavier docket and more competing priorities in Q2 2026.
Watch for a companion House bill within 60 days – Lummis has coordinated House counterparts on prior crypto legislation and the political incentive to move in parallel is strong ahead of midterm positioning.
NIST’s initial ASIC development guidelines are also a near-term signal – if those drop within 90 days of potential passage, it indicates the executive branch is moving implementation infrastructure ahead of floor votes, which is typically a signal of White House prioritization.
For mining stocks, the first-mover indicator is DOE program eligibility guidance – if Commerce and DOE issue joint certification criteria quickly, expect MARA, RIOT, and CLSK to move on the news before any operational benefit materializes.
The bill is on the calendar. Whether the incentive structure survives committee markup intact – particularly the capital gains exemption for reserve sales – is the variable traders need to track.
Discover: The best Bitcoin investment strategies for the current macro environment
The post Senators Introduce ‘Mined in America’ Bill to Boost US Bitcoin Mining appeared first on Cryptonews.
A bipartisan push in Congress is pressing federal regulators to curb insider trading risks tied to prediction markets. In a letter addressed to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chair Mike Selig and the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), at least 42 Democratic lawmakers urged executive-branch guidance that would require federal employees to refrain from using nonpublic information to trade on prediction-market contracts. The move comes amid heightened scrutiny of platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket, which have faced questions about how their markets could be leveraged for insider information.
The letter, prompted by “multiple incidents” that have sparked speculation about possible insider trading by federal employees in prediction markets, asks the CFTC and OGE to circulate guidance that applies across the entire federal workforce. The request, highlighted in a press release from Senator Elizabeth Warren’s office, emphasizes the need for clear rules to prevent government workers from exploiting inside information in these markets. Warren’s release notes the concern that such activity could undermine public trust and risk regulatory violations.
Among the incidents cited by the lawmakers are reported trades connected to geopolitical events and political developments, including bets on the capture of Nicolás Maduro and wagers tied to the length of a White House press briefing. The letter also references later reports of suspicious trades related to the invasion of Iran and the death of Ayatollah Khamenei, drawing national-security implications into the debate over how prediction markets operate within federal oversight. The lawmakers describe these events as signaling the need for stronger guardrails and enforcement mechanisms. Related coverage provides context on the broader growth and scrutiny of prediction-market activity.
In their request, the lawmakers ask for a briefing and written responses by April 13, including whether the CFTC has investigated or received reports of federal employees engaging in insider trading on prediction markets and what steps the agency is taking to detect and deter such activity. The push explicitly seeks to understand how regulators plan to monitor and enforce the line between legal participation in markets and improper use of inside information.
Key takeaways
- Executive guidance urged to curb insider trading by federal workers: A broad call for a formal, government-wide warning against using confidential information to trade in prediction markets.
- Incidents cited as catalysts for renewed oversight: Examples range from bets on Maduro’s capture to the length of a White House briefing, with later reports alleging suspicious trades tied to geopolitical events and public personnel decisions.
- Legal framework invoked: STOCK Act and derivatives status: The lawmakers argue the STOCK Act applies to prediction-market activity, given the CFTC’s view that event contracts are derivatives with potential financial consequences.
- Clear deadline and asks for transparency: The group seeks a briefing and written answers by April 13, including any investigations or measures underway to prevent insider trading by federal employees.
Regulatory framework and the broader implications
The lawmakers’ letter leans on the idea that prediction markets, which trade contracts based on future events, sit at the intersection of financial markets and public governance. They point to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) framework and the CFTC’s characterization of event contracts as derivatives—an interpretation that would bring such activity under the STOCK Act’s prohibitions on insider trading by government officials. The STOCK Act, originally signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2012, was designed to clarify that government officials cannot use material, nonpublic information for personal gain. The letter argues that the CFTC’s position effectively extends insider-trading prohibitions to prediction-market activity, in line with the spirit of the STOCK Act.
“Thus, the CEA’s prohibition on government officials engaging in insider trading also applies to such activity in prediction markets.”
This framing matters because it ties the governance of prediction markets to a long-standing public-integrity regime. If regulators and lawmakers treat event contracts as derivatives under the STOCK Act, federal employees would be barred from participating in these markets when they possess material nonpublic information—regardless of the market’s private platform semantics. That reinterpretation could tighten compliance obligations for agencies that use or monitor prediction-market data, while also shaping how future reforms are drafted.
Platform responses and what to watch next
Industry players have responded to rising scrutiny with efforts to reinforce guardrails. Kalshi and Polymarket, two of the largest prediction-market platforms, have announced steps to curb potential insider-trading exploits by tightening participant restrictions and introducing new safeguards. These moves come amid broader industry discussions about how to separate legitimate trading activity from signals that could reveal sensitive information or enable manipulation. For context, prior reporting has highlighted ongoing debates about insider-trading allegations and the regulatory pathway for prediction markets, including proposals for tighter controls and user bans. Platform guardrails reflect a pragmatic early response to a problem regulators say warrants formal clarification.
The letter’s examples underscore why such guardrails are not merely theoretical: incidents involving geopolitical bets, public-safety events, and personnel decisions highlight how quickly prediction markets can become channels for signaling or leakage of sensitive information. Regulators face the challenge of balancing the innovative potential of prediction markets—what they can reveal about collective expectations and risk—with the need to prevent improper disclosures and manipulation. The April 13 deadline for regulator responses will help determine whether more formal guidance, rulemaking, or legislative proposals follow, potentially shaping how these markets operate inside federal ecosystems and beyond.
What this means for investors, users, and builders
For market participants, there is an evolving risk calculus around prediction-market participation, particularly for individuals connected to or employed by the government. If regulators codify stricter guidance or broaden the STOCK Act’s application to prediction markets, investors and traders might see tighter eligibility criteria, more stringent compliance checks, and clearer disclosure expectations. For builders and platform operators, the development signals a growing imperative to implement robust user-verification processes, enhanced surveillance for unusual trading patterns, and transparent communications about governance and risk controls. The growing regulatory clarity could also help align prediction-market ecosystems with traditional derivatives markets, potentially unlocking broader institutional participation while reducing the risk of misuse.
In the near term, market watchers should monitor how the CFTC, the OGE, and lawmakers articulate expectations for insider-trading prevention. The April 13 briefing deadline will likely set the tone for whether regulatory momentum translates into concrete guidance, targeted rulemaking, or even new legislative proposals that further define the boundaries of prediction-market activity for federal actors and private participants alike.
As prediction markets continue to grow in adoption and scale, the tension between rapid experimentation and robust governance remains a defining theme. The coming weeks will reveal whether regulators favor a cautious, clearly defined framework or a more expansive approach that aggressively constrains insider-information dynamics in these markets.
Readers should watch for formal regulator communications and any legislative initiatives that spell out the exact scope of protections for nonpublic information, as well as how platforms implement the guardrails described by lawmakers. The alignment (or misalignment) between enforcement expectations and market incentives will shape how investment and participation in prediction markets evolve in 2026 and beyond.
This article was originally published as Dems press CFTC, ethics board on prediction-market insider trades on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) published Version 2.1 of its Exchange Services Rulebook on March 31, setting formal rules for crypto exchange-traded derivatives (ETDs) for the first time.
The updated framework applies to all licensed Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) offering exchange services in the emirate. It covers client suitability, leverage controls, asset segregation, and disclosure standards.
What Dubai’s New Derivatives Framework Requires
VARA now allows both institutional and retail participation in crypto derivatives. However, retail access comes with strict guardrails.
Retail leverage is limited to a maximum of 5:1, requiring a minimum 20% initial margin. That figure sits well below offshore platforms, where exchanges have previously offered leverage of up to 100x on certain contracts.
Before onboarding any retail client, VASPs must conduct suitability assessments covering financial position, trading experience, and risk tolerance.
Firms must restrict access where products fall outside a client’s risk profile.
Margin accounts must be segregated from standard trading accounts. VASPs cannot use one client’s funds to finance margin positions for another client, even with consent.
Monthly written statements are also required.
VARA Retains Emergency Powers
The regulator granted itself broad authority to step in during periods of market stress. Available measures include suspending specific products, requiring position liquidations, and increasing margin requirements.
In urgent scenarios, VARA can act without prior notice to contain market disruption.
VASPs must also maintain an insurance fund for ETD services, with minimum balances set by the regulator. The fund may hold virtual assets, fiat currency, or approved stablecoins.
The framework builds on Version 2.0, released in May 2025, which first codified margin trading rules and tighter compliance obligations for Dubai-based VASPs.
The post VARA’s New Playbook for Crypto Derivatives: What Dubai’s Crypto Firms Must Now Follow appeared first on BeInCrypto.
European currencies continue to weaken against the US dollar amid rising geopolitical tensions and increased demand for safe-haven and liquid assets. Market participants are reducing exposure to riskier instruments, putting pressure on both the euro and the pound. Additional support for the dollar comes from expectations surrounding upcoming US macroeconomic data, which may confirm economic resilience and reinforce the Federal Reserve’s hawkish stance.
Escalating tensions in the Middle East remain a key driver for the FX market. Intensifying conflict, risks of disruptions to energy supplies, and rising oil prices are fuelling inflation expectations and boosting demand for the dollar. In such conditions, European currencies remain under pressure as investors favour safer assets over risk-sensitive ones.
EUR/USD
EUR/USD continues to decline and is approaching its yearly lows, remaining under pressure following the recent bearish impulse. The failure of buyers to secure a foothold above 1.1640 last week allowed sellers to regain control and push the pair towards the recent low near 1.1440. Yearly lows are now within close reach, and weaker eurozone data or stronger US figures could intensify the downside, potentially leading to a break below 1.1400.
At the same time, if 1.1440 holds as support, a corrective rebound towards 1.1520–1.1540 may unfold.
Key events for EUR/USD:
- today at 09:00 (GMT+2): German retail sales
- today at 10:55 (GMT+2): change in German unemployment
- today at 17:00 (GMT+2): US CB consumer confidence index
GBP/USD
GBP/USD is showing more pronounced weakness, having already refreshed its yearly lows amid impulsive selling pressure. The pound is weighed down by a combination of external factors, including US dollar strength, and domestic uncertainty related to the outlook for Bank of England monetary policy.
Technical analysis suggests the possibility of a corrective move higher towards 1.3250–1.3280; however, under current conditions such a recovery is likely to be limited ahead of a potential resumption of the downward move.
Key events for GBP/USD:
- today at 09:00 (GMT+2): UK GDP
- today at 09:00 (GMT+2): UK current account balance
- today at 14:30 (GMT+2): US JOLTS job openings
Trade over 50 forex markets 24 hours a day with FXOpen. Take advantage of low commissions, deep liquidity, and spreads from 0.0 pips (additional fees may apply). Open your FXOpen account now or learn more about trading forex with FXOpen.
This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.
Archblock, TrustToken, and TrueCoin, the firms originally behind stablecoin TrueUSD, have declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, citing Techteryx’s failure to pay invoices and Archblock being defrauded by “a sophisticated criminal enterprise working out of Eastern Europe.”
This comes after Archblock and its sister firms became embroiled in a series of calamities and legal disputes and sold several key parts of its business.
Techteryx and Justin Sun
The affidavit of Michael Blank, the current general counsel for Archblock, claims that in 2020, Archblock committed to “a significant downsizing, materially reducing its burn rate and extending its operational runway.”
In order to achieve this, it made the choice to sell TrueUSD.
Specifically, it chose to sell it to Justin Sun-connected Techteryx.
Read more: The legal battles of Justin Sun
This sale, according to the affidavit, was completed in December 2020.
However, despite the sale, Archblock was going to help Techteryx operate the stablecoin. The two firms entered into “an ongoing services agreement with revenue-sharing components,” which Archblock believed would “provide a stable and predictable revenue stream.”
This revenue stream would eventually become something that Archblock was “almost entirely reliant on.”
This sale was for “approximately $28 million.”
However, according to the affidavit, in 2024, Techteryx “ceased paying several million dollars in outstanding invoices.”
First Digital Trust/Legacy Trust/Aria Commodity Finance Fund
Techteryx ceased paying after a series of extended legal disputes involving Legacy Trust, First Digital Trust, the Aria Commodity Finance Fund, and the Archblock firms.
The firms had originally contracted with Legacy Trust to provide escrow services, which were later transferred to First Digital Trust. Eventually, First Digital Trust negotiated for the right to manage some of the funds and placed them in the Aria Commodity Finance Fund.
This was marketed as a supposedly low-risk fund.
Read more: TUSD up to 99.7% backed by speculative assets despite SEC settlement
It wasn’t.
Instead, the firm invested the funds in much more speculative activities and eventually stopped responding to redemption requests.
This led, in part, to a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit against the firm, which was settled.
Despite that settlement, TrueUSD is still substantially reserved by these assets and by the creditworthiness of Sun, who’s reportedly provided a $500 million line of credit to the beleaguered stablecoin.
There are still ongoing disputes in several jurisdictions related to these agreements.
Prime Trust and Crypto Banking disappeared
In addition, the Archblock firms were pushed closer to bankruptcy with the downfall of various cryptocurrency banking partners and payment processors.
The affidavit claims that in 2023, “several critical banking and trust company partners collapsed or were shut down, including Silvergate Bank, Signature Bank, and, most significantly, Prime Trust.”
These failures, specifically Prime Trust’s insolvency, “created potential liabilities to end users of the TrueCurrency stablecoin products.”
$1.3 million in IRS Taxes
Besides these difficulties, a failure to adequately manage tax liabilities has also contributed to the Archblock firms’ bankruptcy.
According to the affidavit, there was a problem with Archblock’s fiscal year 2021 tax payment.
Specifically, the affidavit claims that “in February 2025 the IRS began making inquiries as to an apparent processing error at the IRS where a FY 2021 tax payment made by Archblock was incorrectly processed and mistakenly issued back to Archblock as a refund.”
This has resulted in an estimated total liability of $1.3 million.
Eastern European “sophisticated criminal enterprise”
Placing the straw on this camel’s back was Archblock’s most recent failed fundraising.
After Prime Trust’s failure and Techteryx’s so-called “nonpayment” as well as TrustToken and TrueCoin’s 2024 settlement with the SEC, Archblock committed to a new direction for the firm: “the development of a new stablecoin platform and the resolution of ongoing legal disputes.”
In order to support this new direction, Archblock sought out additional fundraising.
Read more: What’s up with TrueUSD and the rest of TrustToken’s stablecoins?
As part of this process, “one promising primary funding lead emerged.”
Unfortunately, “this investment lead turned out to be a sophisticated criminal enterprise working out of Eastern Europe.”
This sophisticated criminal enterprise “ultimately defrauded Archblock of approximately $3 million.”
This resulted in changes to “Archblock’s financial position that could not be remedied through further cost reductions or asset sales.”
As such, “throughout 2025, Archblock focused on ceasing remaining activities, resolving obligations where possible, and selling any non-liquid assets.”
Ongoing disputes
There are a substantial number of ongoing legal disputes that involve the Archblock firms.
These include its claims against the Prime Trust estate and Prime Trust’s claims against Archblock.
Archblock is seeking approximately $9 million it had deposited with Prime Trust at the time of bankruptcy, and the Prime Trust estate has claimed that Archblock benefited from preferential and fraudulent transfers.
It also includes the lawsuits it has engaged in against First Digital Trust, Techteryx, Aria Commodity Finance Fund, and other related entities.
These suits center around the permissions that the Archblock firms gave to the Trust firms, what representations were made by the Trust firm and the Aria Commodity Finance Fund, and at what time individuals became aware of problems.
They also include Celsius’ and FTX’s claims against Archblock.
Celsius alleges that Archblock “promised customers that their deposits would be held securely and risk-free by ‘fiduciary partners’ in cash or cash-equivalent” but actually “gambled their customers’ deposits on risky offshore investments with partners who disclaimed any fiduciary duties.”
Allegations from Celsius are based on the funds that were invested in the Aria Commodity Finance Fund and its apparent failure.
Additionally, “The FTX Recovery Trust alleges that Archblock LLC owed the Trust $8,512,910.”
Briefly, it’s important to remember that Archblock had a relationship with Alameda Research, a lead investor in TrustToken and the TRU token.
Additionally, Alameda was a user of the TrueFi platform and defaulted on approximately $7.3 million in loans it obtained through this platform and is mentioned as a creditor in other documents filed in this bankruptcy.
Alameda is also listed as a possible creditor on the Creditor Mailing Matrix.
Additionally, the schedules of assets and liabilities of Archblock (Cayman) lists an “Alameda Loan Receivable” with a “total face amount” of $7,508,173.15.
This same document notes that Archblock claims to have held digital assets on FTX, and it’s requested $530,472.07.
Furthermore, the former Chief Executive, Daniel Jaiyong An, has been engaged in a years-long legal dispute with these firms.
Who’s on the Archblock bankruptcy creditor list?
Besides Alameda Research, there are a few other interesting names on the creditor matrix.
One of these is Finder Wallet, a brief-lived Australian firm that offered yield on the TrueAUD (TAUD) stablecoin.
This firm was led by Australia’s so-called “crypto king” Fred Schebesta, who notably sold his over-the-counter trading firm, HiveEx, to Alameda Research.
Read more: Finder Wallet sued by Australian regulators for unlicensed Earn product
Several firms related to Crypto.com also show up in the creditor matrix.
The SEC is also still listed on this creditor matrix, raising interesting questions about whether or not Archblock had paid the amount specified in its settlement with the regulator.
Protos reached out to Archblock with questions related to this ongoing bankruptcy, but it didn’t provide comment before publication.
Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.
The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield dropped nine basis points to 4.35% Monday after Fed Chair Jerome Powell told a Harvard University audience that inflation expectations remain “well anchored” – enough to pull rate-hike odds from 25% to 5% in a single session.
What it wasn’t enough to do was stop WTI crude from closing at $104.80, its first settle above $100 since 2022, dragging the Nasdaq down 0.75% and Bitcoin back to $66,500 after briefly threatening a breakout.
The market is being pulled in two directions simultaneously. Powell is telling it rates are fine. Oil is telling it inflation isn’t over. One of those signals will break first, and which one it is determines the next directional leg for crypto.
- Fed Signal: Powell’s Harvard comments sent CME FedWatch rate-hike odds tumbling from 25% to 5% for 2026, with the 2-year yield sliding eight basis points to 3.83%.
- Oil Level: WTI crude rose 5.3% Monday to close near $105 per barrel – the first close above $100 since 2022, sustained by the ongoing US-Iran conflict.
- Crypto Impact: Bitcoin shed early gains and settled around $66,500, roughly flat on the 24-hour, as risk appetite compressed across equities and digital assets.
- Rate Path: The March 18 FOMC held the federal funds rate at 3.5%–3.75% for a second consecutive meeting, with the SEP projecting one quarter-point cut in 2026.
Powell Buys the Bond Market Time – But the Oil Clock Is Still Running
Powell’s Harvard remarks landed precisely where the bond market needed them. The Fed, he said, is looking past near-term oil shocks and anchoring policy to inflation expectations rather than headline energy prints – which is exactly what traders positioning for imminent rate hikes did not want to hear.
The 10-year yield’s nine-basis-point decline and the 2-year’s eight-basis-point drop confirm the message sent clearly.
The mechanism is straightforward: lower rate-hike odds reduce the opportunity cost of holding zero-yielding risk assets, which is structurally supportive for Bitcoin.
When CME FedWatch reprices from 25% to 5% hike probability, that is a material shift in the discount rate applied to speculative assets. Under normal conditions, that move alone would have sent BTC meaningfully higher.
But rising U.S. real yields on 10-year TIPS remain an active headwind. Even with nominal yields falling Monday, the structural argument that Powell is merely deferring a harder decision – not resolving it – kept institutional desks cautious.
As Powell himself acknowledged at Harvard, “We will eventually maybe face the question of what to do here. We’re not really facing it yet because we don’t know what the economic effects will be.” That framing is honest. It is also, in trader terms, a conditional green light with an expiration date attached.
Lon Erickson of Thornburg Investment Management noted the Fed “appears comfortable with current economic conditions, higher oil prices, and geopolitical concerns notwithstanding” – a comfort level that looks reasonable until energy markets force a reassessment.
Discover: The best pre-launch token sales
Oil at $105 Is Hitting Crypto Through Three Compounding Channels
The oil pressure is not a single variable – it operates through three simultaneous transmission channels, and that is what makes the current setup more dangerous than the headline WTI print suggests.
First, inflation re-acceleration. WTI above $100, sustained by the US-Iran conflict blocking normal Middle East supply flows, directly pressures headline CPI.
The Fed’s stated comfort with “anchored expectations” depends on those expectations not moving – and energy at these levels historically tests that anchor. Powell has already acknowledged inflation has lingered above 2% for five years post-pandemic without fully stabilizing. A persistent $100-plus oil regime challenges the assumption that the current rate hold is sufficient.
Second, delayed rate cuts. The FOMC’s March SEP projected one quarter-point cut in 2026. When oil is running a macro shock through the system, that single projected cut starts to look optimistic. Every week WTI holds above $100 extends the timeline for easing, which extends the drag on leveraged long positioning in crypto.
Third, geopolitical risk premium. The Iran conflict is not a clean supply shock with a visible resolution timeline. It is an open-ended variable that keeps institutional desks in defensive positioning. Bitcoin ETF outflows have already signaled that capital is rotating defensively – and sustained geopolitical uncertainty gives institutions no reason to reverse that posture.
That combination – inflation re-acceleration risk, delayed easing, and persistent geopolitical drag – is the one traders are underweighting when they read Powell’s Harvard comments as categorically bullish.
Bull and Bear: What Bitcoin Needs to Resolve This Setup
Right now the whole market is stuck in a tug of war between Powell and oil, and Bitcoin is just reacting to whoever wins that fight.
If Powell leans soft at the late April FOMC meeting and oil cools off, especially if it drops back under $95, that takes pressure off inflation and gives Bitcoin room to breathe, which is where a move back toward $70K starts to make sense, especially if ETF flows pick up again.
But that is not the reality yet. What we have instead is mixed signals everywhere, oil holding elevated levels, the Fed staying vague, and Bitcoin chopping in a wide range between roughly $63K and $68.5K with no real direction.
That $63K level is the one that matters. As long as it holds, this is just consolidation. If it breaks, things can slide fast.
The real trigger now is inflation data and oil. If rising oil starts feeding into inflation again, the Fed gets pushed back into a tighter stance, and that is where risk assets struggle. If oil cools and inflation stays under control, the pressure eases, and Bitcoin gets its shot higher.
So it all comes down to one thing, oil versus the Fed, and until that tension breaks, everything else is just noise.
Explore: Best crypto assets to diversify your portfolio
The post Fed’s Powell Soothes Bonds but Rising Oil Pressures Crypto and Stocks appeared first on Cryptonews.
Decentralized Finance (DeFi) has built its reputation on one core promise: trustless security powered by cryptography. From smart contracts to cross-chain bridges, the entire ecosystem assumes that today’s encryption standards are unbreakable.
That assumption may not age well.
A silent disruption is approaching—not from regulators, not from hackers, but from quantum computing. And if DeFi doesn’t evolve fast enough, the very foundations of its security model could crack.
The Quantum Threat to DeFi
At the heart of DeFi lies public-key cryptography—specifically systems like the Elliptic Curve Cryptography used in wallets and transactions. Today, it’s virtually impossible for classical computers to reverse-engineer private keys from public ones.
Quantum computers change that equation.
Algorithms like Shor’s Algorithm could theoretically break ECC and RSA encryption in a fraction of the time. This means:
- Wallet private keys could be derived from public addresses
- Signed transactions could be forged
- Entire blockchain histories could be manipulated
Suddenly, “not your keys, not your coins” becomes “your keys aren’t safe anymore.”
The Timeline Problem: It’s Not If, It’s When
Here’s where things get tricky: quantum computers capable of breaking modern cryptography aren’t fully here yet—but progress is accelerating.
Organizations like IBM Quantum and Google Quantum AI are pushing the boundaries every year. While estimates vary, many experts believe that cryptographically relevant quantum computers could emerge within the next decade or two.
And here’s the real danger:
Attackers don’t need to break DeFi today—they can harvest data now and decrypt it later.
This is known as the “harvest now, decrypt later” strategy.
Why DeFi Is Uniquely Vulnerable
Unlike traditional finance, DeFi operates in a fully transparent environment:
- Public wallet addresses
- Open transaction histories
- Immutable smart contracts
Once quantum decryption becomes viable, all previously exposed public keys become attack vectors.
Even worse, many DeFi protocols are not easily upgradeable. If a smart contract wasn’t designed with post-quantum migration in mind, it may be permanently vulnerable.
The Shift Toward Post-Quantum Cryptography
The solution isn’t to panic—it’s to prepare.
Enter Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC): a new generation of cryptographic algorithms designed to withstand quantum attacks.
These include:
- Lattice-based cryptography
- Hash-based signatures
- Multivariate polynomial schemes
Governments and institutions (like the National Institute of Standards and Technology) are already working to standardize these approaches.
But integrating PQC into DeFi isn’t plug-and-play—it requires deep protocol redesigns, wallet upgrades, and coordinated ecosystem migration.
Validator Networks + Checkpointing: A Practical Defense Layer
While full quantum resistance is still evolving, hybrid solutions are emerging—and this is where things get interesting.
Concepts like validator networks combined with checkpointing mechanisms offer a bridge between current security and future resilience.
Here’s the idea:
- Independent validator networks continuously monitor blockchain states
- They embed post-quantum hashes as checkpoints
- In case of a quantum-induced attack (e.g., chain reorg), the network can revert to a verified state
This is similar to emerging designs like the QUIP concept, where:
- Multi-party computation ensures distributed validation
- Post-quantum signatures secure state checkpoints
- Recovery mechanisms allow restoration after malicious interference
Think of it as a time-anchored safety net for DeFi systems.
The Migration Challenge
Upgrading DeFi to a post-quantum world isn’t just technical—it’s social and economic.
Key challenges include:
- User migration: Convincing users to move funds to quantum-safe wallets
- Protocol upgrades: Redeploying or migrating liquidity across new contracts
- Backward compatibility: Ensuring legacy systems don’t become instant liabilities
- Coordination: Aligning thousands of decentralized teams and communities
In a space that struggles to agree on governance proposals, this is no small feat.
So… Are We Ready?
Short answer: Not yet.
Long answer: We still have time—but not as much as we think.
DeFi today is like a fortress built with the strongest locks of its era. But quantum computing isn’t a better lockpick—it’s a completely different game.
The projects that start preparing now—by experimenting with post-quantum cryptography, hybrid security models, and checkpointing systems—will define the next era of decentralized finance.
Final Thought
DeFi solved trust by removing intermediaries.
Now it faces a deeper challenge: removing assumptions about the future of computation itself.
Because in a post-quantum world, security won’t be about what worked yesterday—it’ll be about who prepared for tomorrow first.
REQUEST AN ARTICLE
Oakcastle MP300 review: the super-cheap MP3 player that can
Disco balls and rent cap promises as the Green Party launches its election campaign
US petrol price tops $4 for first time since 2022
-
NewsBeat6 days agoManchester United reach agreement with Casemiro over contract clause amid transfer speculation
-
News Videos6 days agoParliament publishes latest register of MPs’ financial interests
-
NewsBeat4 days agoThe Story hosts event on Durham’s historic registers
-
Tech5 days agoIntercom’s new post-trained Fin Apex 1.0 beats GPT-5.4 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 at customer service resolutions
-
Business5 days agoInstagram, YouTube Found Responsible for Teen’s Mental Health Struggle in Historic Ruling
-
NewsBeat6 days agoTesco is selling new Cadbury Dairy Milk bar and people can’t wait to try it
-
Sports4 days agoSweet Sixteen Game Thread: Tide vs Michigan
-
NewsBeat7 days agoEntrepreneurs Forum survey reveals optimism in North East
-
Fashion7 days agoDoes It Matter What You Wear When You’re Laid Off and Looking?
-
Entertainment3 days agoLana Del Rey Celebrates Her Husband’s 51st Birthday In New Post
-
Entertainment24 hours ago
Fans slam 'heartbreaking' Barbie Dream Fest convention debacle with 'cardboard cutout' experience
-
Sports6 days agoFantasy Baseball Week 1 Preview: Top sleeper hitters for both five- and 12-day period led by Munetaka Murakami
-
Tech6 days agoUS FCC Prohibits Approval Of New Foreign-Made Consumer Routers
-
Tech7 days agoEmbedding compliance in AI adoption
-
Fashion7 days agoCoffee Break: Korean Skincare Set
-
Sports6 days ago
One Team in Particular Is Monitoring Kirk Cousins
-
Fashion7 days agoAlthea Mink: Patrice Taylor’s Atlanta Couture Brand Built on Legacy, Resilience, and Architectural Glamour
-
Fashion6 days agoHow to Style Spring Like WeWoreWhat: Easy Outfit Ideas for 2026
-
NewsBeat7 days agoDWP to close two benefits for all new and existing claimants before April
-
Sports7 days agoBhubaneswar gets 2028 World Indoor Athletics Championships hosting rights | Other Sports News
You must be logged in to post a comment Login