Source link

As stablecoins move closer and closer to mainstream financial infrastructure, the regulatory debate around them is seemingly becoming less about crypto in isolation and more about the future outlook of the global payments system.

Just recently, for instance, Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey warned that global regulators may be heading for a “wrestle” with the US over stablecoin rules. Essentially, this underscored a growing divide between European, American, and other regional approaches.

But for some, this disagreement reflects a deeper question.

CryptoPotato talked to Jody Mettler, Chief Operating Officer of BitGo and President of BitGo Trust. According to her, the question is whether digital money develops into a single interoperable global system or into parallel networks shaped by regional priorities centered around monetary sovereignty, reserve standards, custody, settlement finality, consumer protection, and more.

In the following interview, Mettler discusses how MiCA is shaping Europe’s digital asset infrastructure, why institutions are demanding banking-grade certainty (rather than abstract “crypto rules”), and how stablecoins can force banks, issuers, custodians, and payment providers to rethink the architecture of cross-border finance.

Governor Andrew Bailey warned that global regulators may be heading for a “wrestle” with the U.S. over stablecoin rules. From your vantage point, what is the real disagreement underneath that fight: consumer protection, financial stability, dollar dominance, or control over payment rails? 

The conversation has moved well beyond crypto regulation in isolation. What’s really being debated underneath the “wrestle” Andrew Bailey refers to is how modern payment and settlement infrastructure gets designed, and which standards end up defining it globally.

At BitGo, what we see in practice is that institutions are not asking for “crypto rules” so much as they are asking for banking-grade certainty around custody, settlement finality, and redemption mechanics. That is where the regulatory divergence starts to matter. The U.S. is generally leaning toward a more market-led framework that encourages innovation and participation, while Europe is building a more prescriptive system through MiCA that prioritizes systemic stability, reserve quality, and controlled market entry.

In Europe specifically, there is also a more explicit policy objective around financial autonomy. That shows up in the focus on ensuring euro-denominated digital money and regulated stablecoin frameworks can develop alongside, rather than be fully dependent on, dollar liquidity and U.S. dominated payment rails. But that ambition only really works if the underlying infrastructure exists to support it. That means deep liquidity, regulated custody, banking connectivity, and trusted settlement layers that institutions can actually plug into at scale.

So underneath the policy language, the real tension is less about any single rule and more about whether global digital money evolves into a single interoperable system or a set of parallel, regionally anchored financial networks.

When people talk about the U.S. and Europe “diverging” on stablecoins, what does that actually mean in practice for issuers, custodians, banks, and payment companies?

It means the market is starting to split less around “crypto vs traditional finance” and more around how each region chooses to define and control the plumbing of digital money.

Europe has moved earlier with MiCA, which is not just about licensing crypto firms, but about standardising how custody, issuance, trading, and transfer of digital assets work across the entire EU under one supervisory perimeter. That creates a more predictable environment for institutions, because they can build against a single framework rather than 27 different interpretations. The U.S., meanwhile, is still in the process of defining its market structure through legislation like the Clarity Act, so the roles of different participants in the stack are still being actively negotiated.

From BitGo’s perspective in Europe, that difference shows up in very practical ways. Institutions are not asking abstract questions about regulation, they are asking how assets are actually held in bankruptcy remote structures, how settlement finality is achieved across venues, and how they can move liquidity between regulated counterparties without changing their risk assumptions every time they cross a jurisdictional boundary. That is where MiCA starts to matter operationally, because it turns policy into something closer to a defined rulebook for custody and market access.

The tension, then, is that global institutions still want a single operating model for digital assets, but the infrastructure they are plugging into is becoming regionally defined. Over time, that raises a real question about whether liquidity, custody standards, and settlement systems converge globally or whether they develop into parallel but interoperable regional stacks.

If stablecoins become a major part of cross-border payments, what happens when the rules for reserves, redemption, custody, and supervision differ from one jurisdiction to another?

MiCA helps because it creates a single rulebook across Europe, which gives institutions a much clearer operating environment. That’s important because it reduces a lot of the fragmentation we used to see inside the EU. But once you move outside Europe, you’re still dealing with different approaches in different markets.

And that’s where it gets operational. Cross-border payments depend on trust that assets behave in a predictable way as they move through different systems. If that starts to differ too much, you get friction in liquidity and settlement even if the markets are linked.

What BitGo is focused on in Europe is helping institutions operate within MiCA, but still stay connected to global liquidity. So regulated custody, segregated client assets, and infrastructure that makes it possible to move and settle assets without having to rebuild everything market by market.

Are we heading toward a single global stablecoin market, or toward competing blocs: dollar stablecoins under U.S. rules, euro stablecoins under EU rules, and sterling- or other local models elsewhere?

In the near term, we’re more likely to see regional frameworks emerge first. The dollar will probably continue to dominate because it already sits at the center of global liquidity and trade, but Europe is clearly trying to ensure it has its own regulated digital financial infrastructure as well. The bigger question is whether these systems remain interoperable over time or whether we start seeing more fragmented pools of liquidity tied to different jurisdictions.

How should policymakers think about the line between stablecoins as crypto products and stablecoins as payment or banking infrastructure? At what point do they stop being an asset class and start becoming part of the monetary system?

That shift might happen once stablecoins start being used at institutional scale for settlement, treasury operations, and cross border movement of funds. At that point, they stop behaving like purely speculative assets and start interacting much more directly with payment systems and financial infrastructure. That’s why custody, segregation of assets, settlement finality, and regulatory oversight become so important. Institutions need these systems to operate with the same confidence and safeguards they expect from traditional financial infrastructure.

Europe has been more explicit about protecting monetary sovereignty in its digital-assets framework. Is the stablecoin debate really also a debate about whether Europe can build payment infrastructure that is not dependent on U.S. dollar rails?

That’s definitely part of the underlying discussion. Europe is thinking carefully about how to maintain influence over its own financial infrastructure as digital money and stablecoin adoption continue to scale globally. Right now, most liquidity and activity still sits around dollar-backed stablecoins, so there’s a broader question around whether Europe can develop euro-denominated digital assets and payment rails that are competitive, liquid, and usable at institutional scale.

The challenge is that creating a successful euro stablecoin ecosystem requires more than regulation alone. It needs deep liquidity, trusted custody providers, settlement infrastructure, banking connectivity, and institutional participation across the region. That’s part of why MiCA matters. It gives firms a clearer framework to start building those networks and infrastructure layers within Europe rather than relying entirely on external rails over time.

Looking five years ahead, do you think stablecoins will be absorbed into the existing financial system, or will they force banks and payment networks to fundamentally change how they operate?

It’ll probably be a combination of both. Traditional financial institutions are already integrating parts of digital asset infrastructure into existing systems, especially around custody, settlement, and payments. But stablecoins also introduce expectations around real-time settlement, 24/7 movement of value, and programmable infrastructure that traditional systems weren’t originally designed for. Over time, parts of the banking and payments ecosystem will need to evolve to meet those expectations.

The post Stablecoins Are Becoming a Fight Over the Future of Digital Money: Interview With BitGo COO Jody Mettler appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Crypto markets are in shambles again, with bitcoin dipping to $61,000 earlier this morning for the first time in four months. Although some alts managed to withstand the calamity at first, they have joined the ride with even more profound losses.

Ripple’s XRP is no exception. The asset stood above $1.55 just a few weeks ago, but the subsequent rejection drove it south hard. It plunged to just under $1.10 today, which marked its lowest price position since before the US presidential elections in late 2024.

Despite the short-term pain, popular analyst EGRAG CRYPTO outlined a more macro perspective, suggesting that the real story may just be beginning.

What’s Next for XRP?

The analyst noted that the cross-border token has approached a pivotal moment that could define its next major cycle move. By drawing parallels to early 2017, EGRAG highlighted a historical pattern where XRP briefly slumped below key structural support, which they referred to as the “Bifrost Bridge,” before it initiated a powerful expansion move.

That bull phase began with a sharp downside wick, designed to flush out weak hands and reset market positioning, EGRAG added.

“The big question: Will we get another massive liquidity wick… or will price build a solid brick structure above support?” – The analyst asked now.

They predicted that another deep wick could “shake out weak hands, create maximum fear, sweep liquidity fast, and form the final macro reset.” This would be the so-called “wick” scenario, in which a sudden yet aggressive move lower challenges the broader market’s positioning.

The Brick Structure

The alternative in EGRAG’s analysis is the “brick” structure, where Ripple’s native token consolidates above key support levels such as $1.00 and $1.10 and gradually builds a reliable base. This scenario would signal stronger accumulation and market confidence, potentially allowing for an earlier upside continuation without the need for the aforementioned dramatic flush.

Despite the uncertainty, the analyst leans toward the first outcome:

“Personally…I still think the market wants one final emotional move before the real expansion,” they concluded.

The post XRP at a Crossroads: ‘Wick or Brick’ Could Decide the Next Macro Move appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Key takeaways

• ZEC is down 45% and is now trading around $309 per coin.
• The vulnerability was fixed within days, and findings suggest that actual exploitation of the bug is unlikely.

Zcash Zcash fell sharply on Friday after researchers disclosed a critical vulnerability in its Orchard shielded transaction pool that could have theoretically enabled the creation of unlimited counterfeit tokens.

The price dropped about 45% to $309 with most of the decline occurring shortly after the security disclosure was made public.

Critical flaw found in Zcash Orchard shielded pool

The vulnerability was identified by security researcher Taylor Hornby during an audit commissioned by Shielded Labs, an independent support organization for the Zcash ecosystem.

According to the report, the issue was located in the Orchard circuit, the zero-knowledge proof system that secures private transactions within Zcash’s shielded pool.

Advertisement

The flaw allowed under-constrained inputs in elliptic curve computations, making it possible to pass invalid values as valid proofs

In a test environment, researchers were able to generate an undetectable counterfeit ZEC. The bug has existed since Orchard’s activation in May 2022. The vulnerability was patched on June 1, shortly after discovery.

Despite the severity of the issue, Shielded Labs said there is no clear evidence that the vulnerability was exploited in the wild.

Reasons cited include: The complexity of Orchard’s privacy system obscures transaction tracing, the bug remained undetected for years despite cryptographic scrutiny, and no confirmed anomalies in supply have been identified

Advertisement

However, the organization acknowledged that absolute certainty is impossible due to the privacy-preserving nature of shielded transactions.

ZEC dips by 45%. Will it recover soon?

The ZEC/USD 4-hour chart is bearish and efficient as Zcash has lost 45% of its value in the last 24 hours.

The momentum indicators have flipped bearish, with the RSI of 33 indicating an oversold condition. The MACD lines are also within the negative territory, adding further confluence to the bearish bias.

sell

If the selloff continues, ZEC could drop below the Friday low of $245 and retest the $200 pychological level.

Advertisement

However, the bounce back above $300 indicates that the selloff could end soon. If the bulls regain control, ZEC could surge towards the first major resistance level at $413, with further hurdles around the $527 zone.

---

Share this article

---

Categories

---

Tags

Source link

Key takeaways

• Hoskinson clarifies social media break as ADA remains under intense selling pressure 
• ADA is down 30% this week and could extend its selloff in the near term. 

Cardano fell another 13% on Friday, bringing its weekly losses to more than 30% as investors reacted to comments from founder Charles Hoskinson and broader market weakness.

The decline marks ADA’s fifth consecutive day of losses, despite a notable increase in network activity and community engagement.

Hoskinson clarifies that he is not leaving Cardano

Market anxiety intensified after Charles Hoskinson posted a brief message on social media stating, “I’m taking a break, TTYL,” which some investors interpreted as a potential departure from Cardano and its development ecosystem.

Following the backlash, Hoskinson returned with a live broadcast to clarify that he is stepping back only from public-facing activities and social media engagement, not from his involvement in Cardano or blockchain research.

Advertisement

He emphasized that his focus remains on addressing complex industry challenges such as the blockchain trilemma, while distancing himself from expectations surrounding ADA’s market performance.

“I am not passionate about making the price of ADA go up,” Hoskinson stated during the discussion.

While the market reacted negatively, on-chain and social metrics suggest the Cardano community remains highly engaged.

According to Santiment data, Social dominance climbed to approximately 0.52%, the highest level recorded this year.

Advertisement

Furthermore, daily active addresses surged to 28,459, the strongest reading in roughly four months.

The spike indicates that discussions and network participation accelerated as investors responded to speculation surrounding Hoskinson’s comments.

However, increased activity has so far failed to offset persistent selling pressure.

Cardano price forecast: Technical outlook remains bearish

From a technical perspective, Cardano remains in a firmly bearish trend. ADA continues to trade well below its key long-term moving averages (50-week EMA: $0.4139, 100-week EMA: $0.4967, and 200-week EMA: $0.5095)

Advertisement

Momentum indicators also remain weak. The RSI has fallen to 22, entering oversold territory, while the MACD remains slightly positive but is nearing a bearish crossover.

These signals suggest downside momentum remains dominant despite emerging oversold conditions.

If the bearish trend persists, the next major support level sits near the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement at $0.1274, calculated from Cardano’s 2020–2021 bull market advance.

However, the $0.1500 psychological support could serve as a short-term demand level in the near term. 

Advertisement

If the bullish trend resumes, immediate resistance would be seen at $0.2345 (50% Fibonacci retracement) and $0.4139 (50-week EMA).

A sustained break below $0.1500 would increase the risk of a deeper correction toward the $0.1274 area, while any recovery attempt would first need to overcome resistance near $0.2345 before challenging longer-term trend barriers.

---

Share this article

---

Categories

---

Tags

Advertisement

Source link

Source link

Arthur Cofield, a 34-year-old Atlanta man already serving time for prior convictions, stole $11 million from a Charles Schwab brokerage account using a contraband cellphone, then escaped from a Georgia federal prison on May 26.

The case drew a wry response from David Schwartz, former Chief Technology Officer at Ripple, who wrote on X that he could not determine whether to be more shocked or impressed.

A Contraband Phone, a Stolen Identity, and 6,000 Gold Coins

Cofield was already incarcerated when federal prosecutors filed new charges against him in December 2020. He was serving time for armed robbery in Butts County, Georgia, and faced an attempted murder charge in Fulton County.

Cofield used a smuggled phone to steal the identity of a Schwab client, identified in court documents only as “S.K.” A co-conspirator supplied S.K.’s driver’s license and a utility bill. Cofield used those documents to impersonate the victim and open a checking account in their name.

Charles Schwab then wired $11 million from the victim’s account to an Idaho precious metals dealer. The funds purchased 6,106 American Gold Eagle coins. A private security firm transported the coins from Idaho to Atlanta, where they were converted into a $4 million mansion near West Paces Ferry.

He was sentenced in 2024 to more than 11 years for identity theft and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud. The court ordered him to pay restitution to the victim.

FBI Issues $10,000 Reward as Manhunt Continues

On the afternoon of May 26, authorities at the Federal Correctional Institution in Jesup found Cofield missing from the minimum-security camp. The FBI has since announced a reward of up to $10,000 for information leading to his capture. He is classified as armed and dangerous.

The story spread quickly in crypto circles. Charles Schwab is competing for crypto market share against digital-native brokers, and a fraud of this scale at the firm draws attention from the industry. The firm’s crypto custody expansion plans through 2027 have raised its profile further.

Whether Cofield is recaptured in the coming days, the scheme raises a persistent question for federal authorities. A cellphone and a stolen identity, it turns out, can go a long way.

The post Man Who Stole $11M From Charles Schwab Just Escaped Prison, Ripple Ex-CTO Reacts appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Source link

Source link

Zcash’s native cryptocurrency, ZEC, crashed by roughly 45% today, as the market reacted to a notable disclosure from the protocol’s founder, Zooko Wilcox, and other key ecosystem figures.

The post explained that researchers had recently found and patched a critical vulnerability associated with Zcash’s Orchard shielded pool – one that could have allowed an attacker to create unlimited counterfeit ZEC without being detected.

This brought to light one of the most serious kinds of bugs a cryptocurrency could face: one that threatens the integrity of the coin’s supply.

It’s worth noting that the authors said they believe previous exploitation was unlikely; however, they also acknowledged that because of the protocol’s privacy features, there is no cryptographic way to prove today whether or not the bug itself was exploited before it was patched.

What Happened to ZEC on June 5th, 2026?

As seen in the chart below, ZEC experienced a massive crash on June 5th, 2026, losing more than 45% of its value and plummeting from above $600 to around $300 in a matter of hours. The sudden move followed a disclosure from the protocol’s founder, bringing to light a massive vulnerability that may have allowed attackers to mint counterfeit tokens.

Let’s dive a bit deeper.

According to Zooko’s post on Twitter, security researcher Taylor Hornby discovered the vulnerability on May 29th, 2026, while reviewing the protocol’s Orchard circuit. To those unaware, Orchard is one of Zcash’s shielded pools – the part of the protocol that makes private transactions possible.

Hornby had been hired by Shielded Labs back in April 2026 to conduct ongoing security research on the protocol. His job was to look for hidden flaws before malicious hackers could find it.

The discovery came relatively short after Antrophic released its Opus 4.8 AI model on May 28th. In fact, Hornby used this same model as part of a targeted audit of the Orchard circuit. He combined AI-assisted review with traditional security research, and one day later he found the bug and disclosed it to the Zcash Open Development Lab, or ZODL for short.

ZODL then coordinated an emergency response throughout the entire Zcash ecosystem, completing the fix by June 2nd, and thereby closing the window of risk. But that’s not the end of the story, because the bug could have caused damage before it was fixed. Allow me to explain.

Why This Bug Was So Serious

Put in simple terms, the vulnerability could have allowed for someone to create fake ZEC inside Orchard.

Cryptocurrencies usually rely on very strict rules to prevent counterfeiting. A blockchain must absolutely know, at all times, that coins being spent really exist and that no one is secretly creating more than allowed. Zcash has a maximum supply of 21 million ZEC, similar to Bitcoin’s fixed-supply model. If someone is able to create unlimited fake ZEC, that would undermine one of the most basic and fundamental promises of the system itself.

https://t.co/v7BiOdzU9E

— zooko ⓩ (@zooko) June 4, 2026

The vulnerability was caused by what the authors described as an “under-constrained” element in the Orchard circuit. Now, a circuit is a mathematical system used to verify that a private Zcash transaction follows the rules without revealing sensitive details. These are the details about the sender, the receiver, and the amount.

“Under-constrained” here means that the circuit did not fully check something it was supposed to be checking. In this case, the flaw enabled the insertion of false inputs into a core cryptographic operation, elliptic curve multiplication, while still making the proof appear valid.

The researcher reportedly built a complete exploit and tested it in a local environment. During that test, the exploit generated virtually unlimited undetectable counterfeit ZEC. The authors admitted that if the same tool had been used on mainnet before the fix, it would have generated counterfeit ZEC directly in the real Zcash wallet.

The Tradeoff for Privacy

The crucial part of this disclosure is not only that the bug existed, but that Zcash’s privacy design makes it impossible to prove whether it was ever exploited before the fix. And it has been here for a while. To be precise – since Orchard was activated in May 2022. So that’s over 4 full years it could have been exploited.

Zcash’s protocol is designed so that shielded transactions do not reveal public details about who sent the funds, who received them, or how much was transferred. That privacy is the whole point of the system. At the same time, though, it makes forensic analysis that much harder.

On a traditional public and transparent blockchain, investigators are able to trace abnormal coin creation or suspicious transaction patterns. In Orchard, the relevant information, which could essentially point to any potential damages, is hidden by design. As a result, the authors concluded that there is no definitive cryptographic way of determining whether counterfeited coins were created before the vulnerability was patched.

It’s important to note that this doesn’t mean that counterfeiting happened – it just means there’s no way to prove it doesn’t.

Authors Think Exploitation Was Unlikely: Here’s Why

Despite the serious nature of the vulnerability, the authors argue that prior exploitation was probably unlikely.

The first reason they outline is that the vulnerability had gone unnoticed for years, despite Zcash’s protocol being reviewed by experienced security engineers and cryptographers. Orchard was activated back in May 2022, as we mentioned above, which means that the bug was there for four years without it being discoverd (or at least not that we know of such discovery).

The second reason is that Hornby was onboarded to specifically search for deep protocol vulnerabilities, and this discovery was not accidental. It was the result of focused security effort using advanced tools and expert judgment.

They also argued that the vulnerability was patched within just a few days after discovery. That said, the authors were very careful in asking the users not to simply trust their judgment, proposing a more formal way of restoring trust.

What’s Next?

First things first, Shielded Labs is working with other Zcash devs on a possible network upgrade that would allow users to reliably verify the integrity of the ZEC supply.

This idea involves creating a new shielded pool and using “turnstile accounting” for coins leaving Orchard. Put simply, this would create a migration path that’s more controlled. Coins could move from the old pool to the new one under rules that are designed to make sure that more ZEC cannot come out than it legitimately went in.

Naturally, this kind of network upgrade wouldn’t take place automatically – it would need community support through the normal government process.

In regards to ZEC’s price action, which is probably one of the things that many users are mostly concerned with, CryptoPotato reached out to leading analytics firm Nansen for an opinion. Commenting on the matter was Nicolai Sondergaard, Research Analyst, who said:

“What markets are reacting to is the part that cannot be fully resolved by the patch. Due to the privacy design of Orchard, there is no cryptographic way to audit whether someone exploited this before the fix. The Zcash team has said exploitation is unlikely, for reasonable reasons, but they have been explicit that they cannot prove it. That is a genuine supply integrity problem. A network upgrade is being proposed that would migrate coins to a new shielded pool with turnstile accounting, allowing independent verification. Until that is live and audited, the honest answer is that current ZEC supply cannot be certified clean.

The price reaction reflects that uncertainty more than the bug itself. A patched vulnerability in a minor privacy coin would ordinarily be a footnote. The -30% move is the market assigning non-trivial probability to the scenario where some counterfeiting did occur and is permanently undetectable without the proposed upgrade.”

Opus 4.8 and Its Role in Discovering this Zcash Vulnerability

One of the most impressive parts of this story is the role of AI-assisted security research.

Taylor Hornby used Anthropic’s Opus 4.8 model as part of the review that led to the discovery.

This doesn’t mean that AI “found the bug on its own.” The disclosure makes it clear that the process involved a very experienced professional, a targeted review, custom tooling, and expert analysis. However, it also shows that AI systems may increasingly become part of high-stakes security work, especially in complex cryptographic systems, where even the smallest mistakes can have disproportionately large consequences.

Shielded Labs said it’s now accelerating this kind of proactive research.

The post Critical Zcash Vulnerability Revealed by Founder: Key Details and ZEC Outlook (Expert Take) appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link