Connect with us

Crypto World

TeraWulf Stock Jumps on $19B Anthropic AI Lease and JV Sale

Published

on

Crypto Breaking News

Bitcoin miner TeraWulf is moving further into the artificial intelligence infrastructure race, signing a long-term data center deal with AI firm Anthropic and restructuring its ownership in a separate AI campus venture. The company said it expects the agreement to generate about $19 billion in contract revenue over 20 years.

In a separate transaction, TeraWulf also announced plans to sell its majority stake in an AI data center joint venture in Texas, with proceeds intended for reinvestment into wholly owned AI infrastructure projects. Following the announcements, TeraWulf shares rose by roughly 12% in Monday morning trading, extending a year-to-date gain of about 107%, according to Yahoo Finance data at the time of writing.

Key takeaways

  • TeraWulf signed a 20-year data center lease with Anthropic, expected to bring roughly $19 billion in contract revenue.
  • The Anthropic campus will be built at TeraWulf’s Justified Data site in Hawesville, Kentucky, with initial operations targeted for the second half of 2027 and full buildout in early 2028.
  • TeraWulf plans to monetize its 50.1% stake in the Abernathy AI data center joint venture in Texas and reinvest the returned capital into wholly owned projects.
  • The broader shift reflects how AI demand for power, cooling, and high-performance compute is creating new opportunities—and new capital requirements—for Bitcoin miners.

Anthropic deal ties up TeraWulf’s Kentucky capacity

Under the new agreement, Anthropic will lease a purpose-built AI data center campus at TeraWulf’s Justified Data facility in Hawesville, Kentucky. The site, which TeraWulf acquired in February, is designed to support 401 MW of critical IT capacity.

TeraWulf’s announcement outlines a phased ramp-up: initial operations are expected in the second half of 2027, with the full buildout targeted for early 2028. For investors, the timeline matters as it defines when revenue streams associated with the expansion can begin translating into cash flow, rather than relying solely on the pace of construction progress.

While AI data centers rely on different hardware from crypto mining, the underlying infrastructure requirements overlap in important ways—especially around power access and the ability to operate energy-hungry computing at scale.

Advertisement

Reinvesting by selling the Abernathy stake

Alongside the Anthropic lease, TeraWulf disclosed it has agreed to sell its 50.1% stake in the Abernathy joint venture. The Abernathy project is positioned as an AI data center development in Texas.

The buyer is an investor group led by Fluidstack, acting through the joint venture arrangement. TeraWulf said it expects the sale to return roughly $450 million of its investment, which the company plans to reinvest into AI infrastructure projects it owns outright.

From a strategy perspective, this move suggests TeraWulf is attempting to balance partnerships with majority control: monetizing some exposure through the sale, while channeling capital toward projects where it can hold full ownership and capture a larger share of long-term economics. Still, readers may want to track how management defines “wholly owned projects,” including their construction stages and financing assumptions, because capital structure and timing can materially affect risk.

Why AI is reshaping Bitcoin mining’s infrastructure playbook

TeraWulf’s shift arrives at a moment when demand for AI infrastructure is outpacing available computing capacity. Training and running large AI models require data centers equipped with high-performance chips, advanced cooling systems, and reliable electricity—conditions that can make power-rich locations increasingly valuable.

Advertisement

Bitcoin miners have an advantage in that they often already operate or control grid-connected sites, power arrangements, and related infrastructure built for energy-intensive workloads. That has encouraged a wave of diversification into AI and high-performance computing (HPC), even though the end-use hardware differs from typical crypto mining setups.

But the pivot to AI is not frictionless. Blocksbridge Consulting, in a June estimate cited by the article, suggested public Bitcoin miners pursuing AI infrastructure may require roughly $50 billion in near-term capital. The implication is straightforward: AI buildouts can demand materially higher spending than traditional mining facilities, increasing the importance of securing long-term contracts, managing construction schedules, and maintaining access to financing.

Industry momentum and the funding gap narrative

The broader pattern shows up in other miner-adjacent deals. Earlier coverage noted that HIVE Digital signed a three-year, $220 million agreement to supply GPU cloud infrastructure for Cohere through Bell Canada’s AI Fabric. In another example of miners tying up new power for AI-era workloads, IREN acquired Spanish data center developer Nostrum Group, a move that added about 490 MW of secured, grid-connected power as it pushed into the European AI market.

Taken together, these moves underline the tension in the sector: the same power and data center capabilities that make miners attractive for AI also make them targets for substantial reinvestment. With AI infrastructure costs high and timelines long, contract-backed revenue—such as TeraWulf’s Anthropic lease—can become a key differentiator in proving that miners can scale beyond speculation and into durable customer demand.

Advertisement

For now, the most important things to watch are execution milestones—especially whether the Kentucky campus stays on track for initial operations in the second half of 2027—and how TeraWulf deploys the capital returned from selling the Abernathy stake into new, wholly owned projects. The market will likely focus on whether miners can close the funding gap highlighted by analysts while converting AI infrastructure plans into steady, contracted cash flows.

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

WTI Analysis: Attempted Uptrend Breakout Without Momentum Confirmation

Published

on

WTI Analysis: Attempted Uptrend Breakout Without Momentum Confirmation

WTI crude fell more than 2% on Monday, 24 August, as market participants took profits amid expectations that the US could announce a new round of sanctions against Iran. Additional pressure came from a warning by the Iranian authority responsible for the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, which said vessels violating transit rules could face fines or detention.

At the same time, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), in its 11 August forecast, expects the average Brent price to remain around $85 per barrel in the third quarter. Persistently low commercial crude inventories in the US could also help limit the downside and prevent a deeper decline.

Technical Analysis of WTI

On the four-hour XTI/USD chart, prices had been moving within a short-term uptrend since the beginning of August. The trendline repeatedly acted as support during previous pullbacks, but the price is now attempting to break below it while also moving beneath the lower boundary of the current market profile at $86.05.

If the downside move gains traction, the next potential support area is around $84.40.

A false breakout followed by a renewed advance would bring several technical levels into focus. The first is the Point of Control (POC) at $87.20, followed by the upper profile boundary at $87.95. The overall depth of the market profile is also worth monitoring: the narrower the profile, the less buying pressure may be required to overcome it.

Advertisement

Above the main concentration of trading activity lies the red resistance zone at $91.30.

The RSI + MAs indicator currently shows readings of 48, 57 and 57. RSI has returned to the neutral area following the pullback, but notably remained below the overbought zone throughout virtually the entire uptrend. At the same time, both moving averages remain positive and are holding above the neutral threshold.

Key Takeaways

The break below the ascending trendline has yet to receive confirmation from the momentum indicators. The moving averages remaining above the neutral zone cast some doubt on the sustainability of the current decline.

The next move could depend heavily on the scale and severity of any new US sanctions against Iran. A stronger-than-expected sanctions package could increase pressure on oil prices, while more limited measures may allow the market to refocus on tight US inventories and provide support for WTI.

Advertisement

Start trading commodity CFDs with tight spreads (additional fees may apply). Open your trading account now or learn more about trading commodity CFDs 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.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

CLARITY Act 60-Vote Hurdle Puts Crypto Rules in Focus Days After White House Meeting

Published

on

The CLARITY Act faces a 60-vote Senate hurdle as Trump presses lawmakers, with the outcome shaping crypto regulation and token markets.

The CLARITY Act cleared a Senate Banking Committee vote and now sits on the chamber’s legislative calendar after a cloture motion was filed on August 8, according to congressional records. That procedural motion is the next real test as the bill needs 60 votes just to proceed to floor debate, a bar it has not yet cleared.

The bill, formally H.R. 3633 or the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, passed the House 294-134 in July 2025 with meaningful Democratic support. It would split oversight of digital assets between the SEC and CFTC, a jurisdictional question that has shaped enforcement uncertainty across the industry for years.

The CLARITY Act faces a 60-vote Senate hurdle as Trump presses lawmakers, with the outcome shaping crypto regulation and token markets.

President Donald Trump hosted crypto executives at the White House on August 19, calling on Congress to pass what he termed a “fair version” of the CLARITY Act. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev, and Kraken co-CEO Arjun Sethi were among the attendees, alongside CFTC Chair Michael Selig and SEC Chair Paul Atkins.

That optics push doesn’t change the math on the Senate floor. Democrats and some Republicans have withheld support over conflict-of-interest language tied to Trump’s own crypto holdings. Reuters reported he has earned more than $1.4 billion from family crypto ventures since taking office. Not just that, a Reuters/Ipsos poll this week found a majority of Americans believe those holdings have inappropriately shaped policy.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

Advertisement

Why Should We Care

CLARITY’s core function is resolving the securities-versus-commodity question that has driven years of SEC enforcement actions and left token issuers guessing at their own legal status.

CFTC Chairman Selig has signaled the agency could use existing statutory authority to build out a market-structure regime even without new legislation. SEC itself has separately proposed rules exempting certain token offerings from securities treatment.

That matters for positioning: a stalled bill pushes the regulatory center of gravity toward agency rulemaking rather than statute, which is inherently more reversible with the next administration or the next commissioner. Market structure clarity via legislation is durable; clarity via agency discretion is not.

Trade Crypto Before The Clarity ACT on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop

What Happens Next for The CLARITY Act?

Reporting has pointed to mid-September, with September 15 discussed as a tentative target for the cloture vote. Though that date is not confirmed in the congressional record and should be treated as a planning window rather than a lock.

Advertisement

If cloture fails, the bill’s path forward within the current Congress narrows sharply, given a limited legislative calendar and competing priorities.

If it clears 60 votes, the substitute text reported out of Senate Banking in June, a roughly 600-page revision merging Banking and Agriculture committee work, would move to floor debate. Either outcome resolves a multi-year overhang on token classification, which is why the vote count.

Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio

Advertisement

The post CLARITY Act 60-Vote Hurdle Puts Crypto Rules in Focus Days After White House Meeting appeared first on Cryptonews.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Franklin Templeton and Hashkey roll out U.S. tokenized money fund in Asia

Published

on

Franklin Templeton and Hashkey roll out U.S. tokenized money fund in Asia


Tokenized U.S. treasury and money market funds are one of the fastest-growing segments in the digital asset markets, growing fifteenfold in two years.

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

BlackRock Adds Over 60% of Bitcoin's $338 Million ETF Inflow While ETH Also Jumps

Published

on

BlackRock Adds Over 60% of Bitcoin's $338 Million ETF Inflow While ETH Also Jumps

BlackRock led net inflows across both Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on Aug. 24, with a $209 million Bitcoin ETF inflow from its iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) and $90.92 million from its Ethereum fund, ETHA.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $337.60 million in total net inflows for the day, per CoinGlass data. Spot Ethereum ETFs added $116 million, marking a sixth straight day of gains.

BlackRock Leads Bitcoin ETF Inflows

IBIT’s $209 million accounted for roughly 62% of the day’s total Bitcoin ETF inflow, CoinGlass data shows. The fund extended a stretch of strong demand that included a $606 million Bitcoin inflow just days earlier.

Total net assets across spot Bitcoin ETFs stood at $79.16 billion as of the latest update. BTC traded over $80,000 at the time of writing.

Bitcoin is holding above $80,000/ Image Source: BeInCrypto

Ether ETFs Post Sixth Straight Day of Gains

BlackRock’s ETHA supplied $90.92 million of the day’s $116 million Ethereum ETF haul, about 78% of the total, per SoSoValue. Grayscale’s Ethereum Mini Trust added $12.50 million, the second-largest contribution.

The result builds on the biggest Ether ETF inflow in 10 months, recorded earlier in August. Ether changed hands near $2,486, up 2.4% over 24 hours.

BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager, with $15.3 trillion in assets under management as of June 30, 2026. It led inflows across both crypto ETF categories on Aug. 24.

That dual dominance suggests BlackRock remains the primary entry point for institutional crypto exposure. The pattern held through most of August.

Advertisement

The post BlackRock Adds Over 60% of Bitcoin's $338 Million ETF Inflow While ETH Also Jumps appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Las Vegas businessman faces 280 years over $24 million crypto Ponzi scheme

Published

on

Las Vegas businessman faces 280 years over $24 million crypto Ponzi scheme

A federal jury has convicted Las Vegas businessman Brent Kovar of fraud and money laundering after prosecutors said his Profit Connect operation collected $24 million from at least 400 investors through false claims about cryptocurrency mining, investment returns and company reserves.

Summary

  • Brent Kovar was convicted of fraud and money laundering over a $24 million crypto Ponzi scheme.
  • Profit Connect collected funds from at least 400 investors with promises of 15% to 30% annual returns.
  • Prosecutors said investor money funded the business, personal purchases and repayments to earlier investors.
  • Kovar faces a statutory maximum of 280 years in prison and is scheduled for sentencing on Nov. 30.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada said on Aug. 24 that Kovar was found guilty after a nine-day trial on 11 counts of wire fraud, two counts of mail fraud and two counts of money laundering. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 30 and faces a statutory maximum penalty of 280 years in prison.

Kovar owned Profit Connect from late 2017 through July 2021, presenting the Las Vegas company as a profitable operation that used artificial intelligence software running on a supercomputer to mine cryptocurrency and verify crypto transactions, according to prosecutors.

Advertisement

Investors were promised fixed annual returns of between 15% and 30%, along with a 100% money-back guarantee. Prosecutors said Kovar also claimed Profit Connect was supported by hundreds of millions of dollars in cryptocurrency reserves, despite knowing the company had no such reserves and could not generate the returns being offered.

Brent Kovar used new investor funds for repayments

Federal prosecutors said Profit Connect was not profitable and had no legitimate source of income capable of supporting its promised returns or guarantee.

Instead, Kovar used money received from investors to keep the business operating, purchase gifts for employees and buy a house for himself, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said. Part of the money was also sent back to existing investors while being presented as proceeds generated through cryptocurrency mining and transaction verification.

The structure allowed Profit Connect to continue making payments despite lacking the investment activity and reserves Kovar had described to customers, according to prosecutors. By the time the operation ended, authorities said at least 400 people had invested a combined $24 million.

Advertisement

During the earlier criminal case, federal prosecutors said Kovar used a website, YouTube video and PowerPoint presentation to market Profit Connect and persuade customers to invest. The business also leased space for a sales office and a warehouse that was presented as a data center. Investments were sold through an entity called Profit Connect Wealth Services.

The original February 2025 indictment charged Kovar with 12 wire fraud counts, three mail fraud counts and three money laundering counts and carried a maximum statutory exposure of 330 years if he were convicted on every charge. Following the trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts on 15 counts, leaving him with a maximum statutory exposure of 280 years.

Prosecutors say Profit Connect sold false guarantees

Investigators focused on several claims used to market the business, including Profit Connect’s stated investment returns and the assertion that investors could recover all of their money.

Advertisement

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of Inspector General Special Agent in Charge Ryan Korner said Kovar also lured victims with false claims that the investment was insured by the FDIC.

“Mr. Kovar defrauded investors to enrich himself,” Korner said, adding that investigators would continue working with other agencies to pursue financial fraud cases.

David Lowe, acting special agent in charge of IRS Criminal Investigation’s San Francisco Field Office, said the operation relied on “false guarantees, fabricated profits and nonexistent reserves,” which left investors facing financial losses.

FBI Las Vegas Special Agent in Charge Christopher S. Delzotto said victims believed they were investing in new technology, while prosecutors determined that the investment operation had been built on false representations.

Advertisement

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Sigal Chattah said the verdict demonstrated prosecutors’ commitment to pursuing financial fraud involving manipulated records and millions of dollars in investor funds.

IRS Criminal Investigation, the FBI and the FDIC OIG investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joshua Brister and James Gaeta are prosecuting it, according to the Nevada U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Crypto Ponzi prosecutions have produced mixed outcomes

Kovar’s conviction follows several other U.S. criminal cases involving investment businesses that prosecutors said used cryptocurrency claims to attract investors while directing incoming money toward earlier customers or personal expenses.

A July crypto.news report on the BitClub Network case detailed the Justice Department’s reported move to dismiss charges against founder Matthew Goettsche despite allegations that the crypto mining operation defrauded investors of $722 million. The reported decision would end the prosecution with prejudice if approved by the court.

Advertisement

BitClub had been accused of selling shares in cryptocurrency mining pools while overstating mining returns and using investor money to pay existing participants. The reported move to dismiss the case followed a 2025 Justice Department policy directing prosecutors not to use criminal enforcement as a substitute for digital-asset regulation.

Federal authorities have continued filing fraud cases where prosecutors allege conventional financial crimes involving digital assets.

In February, a report on the Goliath Ventures case covered the arrest of founder and CEO Christopher Alexander Delgado over an alleged $328 million Ponzi scheme. Prosecutors accused Delgado of promoting cryptocurrency liquidity pools that promised consistent monthly returns while directing investor funds toward earlier investors and personal spending.

The Justice Department alleged that Goliath Ventures collected more than $300 million even though only about $1 million was placed into legitimate cryptocurrency assets. Prosecutors said other funds were spent on expenses that included luxury travel, corporate events and multimillion-dollar homes.

Advertisement

Other cases have centered on promised crypto returns

Federal prosecutors brought another case in June against Tennessee resident Misam Abidi over an alleged $1.9 million scheme operated through Star Credit Holdings.

Court documents cited in coverage of the Star Credit Holdings case accused Abidi of making false statements about investment returns, company reserves and assets under management between 2020 and 2024. The charges included wire fraud, money laundering, operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business and filing false tax returns.

Separate federal actions have also moved from prosecution toward victim recovery. In April, the Justice Department opened a compensation process backed by more than $40 million in forfeited assets for people who lost money in OneCoin, according to coverage of the OneCoin victim fund.

Federal prosecutors have estimated that OneCoin took more than $4 billion from roughly 3.5 million people between 2014 and 2019. Co-founder Karl Sebastian Greenwood received a 20-year federal prison sentence in 2023, while fellow founder Ruja Ignatova remains a fugitive and is listed among the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted.

Advertisement

Kovar’s sentence will be determined by a federal district court judge after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors, with the sentencing hearing currently set for Nov. 30, 2026.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

how Term Labs got governance hijacked

Published

on

Gnosis Pay exploit tied to Zodiac delay module as users exit

An attacker bought a controlling stake in a DAO governance token for less than $1,000, passed malicious proposals, and drained $8.5 million from strategy vaults. The exploit exposes a vulnerability that most DeFi protocols have not patched.

Summary

  • An attacker spent approximately $951 to acquire a controlling share of Term Labs’ governance tokens, then passed proposals that drained roughly $8.5 million from the protocol’s strategy vaults on August 23, 2026.
  • The stolen assets included 2,843 ETH (approximately $6.87 million) and 1.68 million USDC, later swapped for roughly 1.6 million DAI, with the attacker’s initial funding traced to just 2 ETH sourced through Tornado Cash.
  • The exploit did not involve a smart contract bug or a coding flaw. Every transaction was a permitted governance action executed by the address the protocol recognized as its legitimate governor.
  • Term Labs permanently shut down all Meta Vault deposits and revoked DAO governance roles in response, while keeping withdrawals open for existing depositors.
  • The attack is the fifth governance exploit of 2026 according to DefiLlama, bringing the combined total for the year to $25.1 million, led by a $20 million BonkDAO treasury drain in July.

The math is the story. An attacker spent $951 on governance tokens for a protocol that held $12.45 million in depositor funds. That $951 bought enough voting power to control four USDC strategy vaults and approximately 91% of the Ethereum Meta Vault. The attacker submitted proposals to move the funds, voted on those proposals with the tokens just purchased, and watched the vaults transfer $8.5 million to a wallet seeded with 2 ETH from Tornado Cash.

Every step was legal from the protocol’s perspective. The governance contracts worked exactly as designed. The proposals were submitted correctly, the votes were counted accurately, and the vault transfers executed precisely as the governance system instructed. The problem was not that the code broke. The problem was that the code did what it was told by someone who spent less than $1,000 to become its highest authority.

Advertisement

Term Labs confirmed the exploit on X on August 23, 2026. Security firms PeckShield and CertiK independently verified the incident and traced the stolen funds to attacker address 0xD5183d8BfC65a50863C62aF2538198A8288FFc13. The protocol’s on chain monitoring bot, Decurity’s Defimon, flagged the unusual transactions first.

This was not a novel attack. It was the fifth governance exploit of 2026 and the second in seven weeks. The pattern is repeating because the vulnerability is structural, and most DeFi protocols have not addressed it.

How the attack worked, step by step

Term Finance operates fixed rate lending through on chain auctions. The core lending infrastructure, where borrowers and lenders are matched through sealed bid auctions, was not affected by the exploit. The attack targeted a separate layer: the Meta Vaults and strategy vaults that Term Labs built on top of Yearn V3 infrastructure to automate yield strategies for depositors.

These vaults incorporated a custom governance layer developed by Term Labs. Governance token holders could submit and vote on proposals that directed how vault funds were deployed. The governance mechanism was designed to give the community control over strategy allocation, a feature that many DeFi protocols include as a decentralization measure.

Advertisement

The attacker exploited the thin liquidity of the governance token. With total market capitalization low and trading volume minimal, acquiring a majority stake required only a modest capital outlay. The $951 figure, identified by on chain analysts, represents the total cost of purchasing enough tokens to control the vote.

Once the tokens were acquired, the attacker submitted proposals to the four USDC strategy vaults and the Ethereum Meta Vault. The proposals directed the vaults to transfer their holdings to the attacker’s wallet. Because the attacker held a majority of governance tokens, the proposals passed without opposition. The vault contracts, functioning as designed, executed the transfers.

The entire sequence, from token purchase to fund extraction, required no technical exploit in the traditional sense. There was no reentrancy attack, no oracle manipulation, no flash loan. The governance system simply processed valid instructions from its recognized authority. The attacker became that authority for $951.

The BonkDAO precedent

Seven weeks before the Term Labs exploit, BonkDAO suffered a similar attack on a larger scale. On July 6, 2026, an attacker purchased roughly $4 million worth of BONK tokens on exchanges over several days, accumulated a dominant share of voting power, and submitted a proposal to the Solana based DAO’s treasury.

Advertisement

The proposal transferred 4.43 trillion BONK tokens, the bulk of the treasury, to a wallet the attacker controlled. When the vote closed, addresses linked to the attacker accounted for 99.878% of the votes cast. Only seven addresses participated in the vote. The proposal passed, and approximately $20 million in BONK drained from the treasury.

The BonkDAO attack was more expensive to execute ($4 million vs. $951 for Term Labs) because BONK tokens had higher liquidity and a larger market capitalization. But the mechanics were identical: acquire voting power, submit a malicious proposal, and let the governance system do the rest. Exchanges Upbit and Kraken paused BONK deposits and withdrawals after the incident, and BonkDAO coordinated with the Solana Foundation and law enforcement, though recovery prospects were described as limited.

The two attacks share a structural vulnerability that neither protocol had mitigated: the absence of safeguards between a governance vote passing and the resulting transaction executing. In both cases, there was no time lock, no multi signature requirement, and no secondary review mechanism that could have paused the execution long enough for the community to notice and respond.

Yearn V3 and the infrastructure distinction

Yearn Finance moved quickly to clarify its role after the Term Labs exploit. The affected products were Term’s Meta Vaults and strategy vaults, which operated on Yearn V3 infrastructure but incorporated a custom governance wrapper developed by Term Labs. Yearn stated that the vulnerability stemmed from Term’s additional governance layer not from any problem with standard Yearn vault designs.

Advertisement

This distinction matters for the broader DeFi ecosystem. Yearn V3 vaults are used by dozens of protocols for yield automation. If the vulnerability had been in Yearn’s core code, the implications would have extended far beyond Term Labs. The fact that it was isolated to Term’s custom governance layer limits the blast radius but does not diminish the lesson.

The lesson is that composability cuts both ways. DeFi’s modularity allows developers to build custom layers on top of established infrastructure, combining Yearn’s vault mechanics with Term’s lending auctions and a governance system that gives token holders control. Each layer works correctly in isolation. The vulnerability emerges at the intersection, in the governance wrapper that connects depositor funds to a vote that can be won for $951.

Advertisement

Yearn’s standard vault designs include protective measures that Term’s governance layer bypassed. Standard Yearn vaults use strategist multisigs and guardian addresses that can emergency revoke strategies. Term’s custom layer replaced these protections with token weighted governance, trading security for decentralization in a context where the decentralization was illusory because the governance token had no meaningful distribution.

Why thin governance is DeFi’s unpatched vulnerability

The term “governance attack” has entered the DeFi lexicon primarily in 2026. DefiLlama has classified five incidents as governance attacks this year, totaling $25.1 million in losses. The category barely existed before 2025 because governance tokens were either too expensive to accumulate (making attacks unprofitable) or too centralized (with founding teams retaining enough tokens to block malicious proposals).

The current wave of attacks exploits a specific market condition: protocols whose governance tokens have lost most of their value while the protocols themselves still hold significant depositor funds. Term Labs’ governance token was thinly traded with minimal market capitalization, but its vaults held $12.45 million. BonkDAO’s governance was conducted through a token that had fallen significantly from its peak, but the treasury still held $20 million in assets.

The ratio between governance token market capitalization and protocol controlled funds is the key metric. When the cost of acquiring 51% of governance tokens is less than the value of the assets those tokens control, the protocol is mathematically vulnerable to a governance attack. This is not a bug. It is an emergent property of token weighted voting in markets where token prices fluctuate independently of protocol usage.

Advertisement

Most DeFi protocols do not monitor this ratio. Governance structures are typically designed during the launch phase when token prices are high and the ratio favors security. As token prices decline through market cycles, the ratio inverts, and protocols that were economically secure at launch become vulnerable without any code change or governance update.

The defenses that exist but were not used

Several well known mechanisms could have prevented or mitigated the Term Labs exploit. Time locks, which impose a delay between a governance vote passing and the resulting transaction executing, are the most basic. A 24 or 48 hour time lock would have given the community and the Term Labs team time to notice the malicious proposal, mobilize opposition votes, or invoke emergency shutdown procedures.

Multi signature requirements for high value transactions provide a second layer of defense. Under this model, governance proposals that move funds above a certain threshold require approval from multiple independent signers in addition to the token vote. The BonkDAO attack and the Term Labs exploit both involved proposals that moved the majority of treasury funds in a single transaction, an action that a multi signature check would flag.

Quorum requirements are a third option. Both attacks succeeded with extremely low voter participation. The BonkDAO vote involved seven addresses. If the governance system required a minimum percentage of total token supply to participate before a vote could be considered valid, acquiring a controlling share would become proportionally more expensive.

Advertisement

Conviction voting, a model used by protocols like Gardens and 1Hive, replaces discrete voting periods with continuous signal aggregation. Under conviction voting, tokens must be staked for a sustained period before their voting weight reaches full strength. An attacker who purchases tokens and immediately votes would have negligible influence. This model directly addresses the purchase and vote pattern that both the Term Labs and BonkDAO exploits relied on.

The fact that these mechanisms are well documented, widely discussed, and available as open source implementations makes their absence from the exploited protocols harder to excuse. Term Labs chose to implement a custom governance layer without including any of them. The result was a system that trusted governance token holders unconditionally while making it trivially cheap to become one.

The response and what comes next

Term Labs responded to the exploit by permanently shutting down all Meta Vault deposits and revoking DAO governance roles. Withdrawals remained open for existing depositors, allowing them to retrieve whatever funds the attacker did not take. As of August 24, no recovery proposal, reimbursement commitment, or deadline for a postmortem had been announced.

The protocol’s core lending infrastructure, the fixed rate auction system, was not affected. Borrowers and lenders using Term’s auction markets continued to operate normally. The exploit was contained to the vault layer, which functioned as a separate product built on top of the core lending protocol.

Advertisement

For the broader DeFi ecosystem, the Term Labs exploit adds urgency to a conversation that the BonkDAO attack started but did not resolve. Governance attacks are not random. They target a specific structural weakness, thin governance token liquidity relative to protocol controlled assets, that is present in hundreds of DeFi protocols. The $25.1 million in governance attack losses in 2026 represents only the incidents that have already occurred. The number of protocols that are currently vulnerable to the same attack vector is almost certainly larger.

The August 2026 exploit wave extends beyond governance attacks. Total DeFi losses for the month surpassed $27 million, including the Sandbox bridge vulnerability and the BounceBit authorization exploit that led to a full chain shutdown. Each incident involved a different attack surface, but they share a common theme: the gap between the value secured by DeFi infrastructure and the security measures protecting it continues to widen.

What to watch

  • Term Labs postmortem publication: the technical details of how the governance takeover was executed and what safeguards the team plans to implement for future products.
  • Governance ratio monitoring tools: whether analytics platforms begin tracking the ratio between governance token market cap and protocol controlled assets as a vulnerability metric.
  • Time lock adoption across DeFi: whether the Term Labs and BonkDAO exploits accelerate the implementation of mandatory time locks for governance proposals that move funds.
  • Insurance protocol payouts: whether DeFi insurance products (Nexus Mutual, InsurAce) cover governance exploits or classify them as design failures outside their coverage scope.
  • Regulatory response: whether the SEC or CFTC cite governance attacks in their arguments for DeFi regulation, particularly in the context of the Regulation Crypto Assets comment period.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or security advice. DeFi protocols carry significant risk, including smart contract vulnerabilities and governance exploits. Readers should conduct their own research before depositing funds. Published August 25, 2026.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Bitcoin ETFs add $338M as six-day inflow streak hits $2.26B

Published

on

Bitcoin ETFs add $338M as six-day inflow streak hits $2.26B

Bitcoin ETFs add $338M as six-day inflow streak hits $2.26B

Bitcoin ETFs have drawn $2.26 billion over six trading days, while year-to-date net outflows have narrowed to about $2.57 billion.

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Major Pi Network Change Is Now Live: Here’s What Pioneers Need to Know

Published

on

The Core Team behind the popular yet controversial project has officially implemented a major change to the pricing structure of its AI-powered App Studio, as they announced last week.

Starting from August 24, the project will no longer heavily subsidize app creation and editing costs for all developers. Here’s what and how changed.

What’s New in the Studio

CryptoPotato reported last week the major changes coming to the App Studio for the pricing model. Until now, Pi Network charged creators just 0.25 PI to generate an application and another 0.25 PI to edit it. However, the team said these prices did not reflect the actual costs involved.

They explained that AI-powered app creation is significantly more expensive, with the network covering the difference during App Studio’s introductory period. Having gathered more data about how Pioneers use the platform, the team has now decided to redirect those subsidies toward apps showing actual signs of utility.

Advertisement

Consequently, the standard price for creating and editing apps will now more closely reflect the underlying costs of the AI services required for each operation. That means that the new model will not necessarily charge a fixed fee, as the amount can vary depending on the resources consumed

The team emphasized that it will not add a markup on top of the underlying AI costs. However, they added that there’s an important exception.

The Exception

Not all creators will be charged equally. Those whose applications attract sufficient numbers of real and distinct users can continue paying the old subsidized rates. The team will use existing App Studio data to determine the initial group that qualified, but eligibility isn’t permanent.

Devs who initially do not qualify to receive the old pricing model can become eligible later if their applications start gaining actual usage. However, the team admitted that the actual qualification criteria could also evolve over time.

Advertisement

The announcement explained that the change should prevent network resources from being spent on experiments, tests, or spam applications while providing an incentive for developers to build products that people actually use and care for.

These changes come at a rather interesting moment for the entire crypto market as well as Pi Network’s native token. In fact, while BTC and most alts have surged by double digits in the past week, PI has failed to fully take advantage of the rally, currently fighting for the $0.09 level.

The post Major Pi Network Change Is Now Live: Here’s What Pioneers Need to Know appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Franklin Templeton brings tokenized US government fund to HashKey

Published

on

Franklin Templeton brings tokenized US government fund to HashKey

Franklin Templeton has expanded access to its tokenized U.S. government money market fund in Asia through a new distribution partnership with Hong Kong-licensed HashKey Exchange.

Summary

  • Franklin Templeton has partnered with HashKey Exchange to distribute its tokenized U.S. government liquidity fund.
  • The fund is available through HashKey Exchange’s Earn channel to professional investors in Hong Kong.
  • The product mainly invests in U.S. government money market instruments and U.S. dollar cash assets.
  • Franklin Templeton and HashKey plan to explore additional tokenized products across multiple markets.

HashKey Holdings said on Aug. 24 that its licensed trading platform has added the Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Liquidity Fund, known as grBENJI, to the HashKey Exchange Earn channel, giving eligible digital asset investors access to the product through blockchain-based infrastructure.

The fund invests mainly in U.S. government money market instruments and U.S. dollar cash assets. Access in Hong Kong is restricted to professional investors, and the product cannot be offered to the general public, according to HashKey.

Advertisement

The arrangement gives Franklin Templeton another distribution channel for its tokenized investment products in Asia while adding an established asset manager’s money market product to HashKey’s regulated investment platform.

Chetan Karkhanis, Franklin Templeton’s senior vice president of digital assets client engagement, said the listing gives the firm access to HashKey’s digital banking, wealth management and institutional client base.

“We are excited to launch our tokenized money market fund on the HashKey Exchange platform,” Karkhanis said, adding that blockchain technology provides investors with “enhanced transparency, security, accessibility, speed, and cost efficiency.”

Franklin Templeton plans more tokenized products with HashKey

Following the grBENJI rollout, Franklin Templeton and HashKey plan to explore additional tokenized investment products and asset classes across several markets.

Advertisement

Karkhanis said the companies expect to expand their relationship past money market funds, using HashKey’s operations in Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Dubai and Bermuda as potential distribution points.

“We look forward to deepening this partnership by expanding beyond tokenized money market funds into other tokenized products over time,” he said.

HashKey Exchange BG CEO Haiyang Ru said the addition of grBENJI responds to institutional demand for compliant yield products backed by real-world assets. He described the partnership as a way to combine traditional investment products with regulated digital asset infrastructure.

HashKey Exchange operates under Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission with Type 1 and Type 7 licenses under the Securities and Futures Ordinance, along with a license under the Anti-Money Laundering Ordinance, according to the company. HashKey said it does not provide services to users in mainland China, the United States and certain other jurisdictions.

The exchange has previously worked on regulated tokenized securities in Hong Kong. In June 2025, HashKey Chain and GF Securities Hong Kong launched GF Token, a security issued, recorded and managed on-chain, with HashKey Exchange serving as one of its distribution channels for qualified investors.

Advertisement

Franklin Templeton has expanded its Asia tokenization business

The HashKey deal follows Franklin Templeton’s earlier introduction of a tokenized money market product in Hong Kong.

In November 2025, crypto.news reported the Hong Kong launch of the Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund, which gave institutional and accredited investors access to short-term U.S. government debt.

The fund had been registered in Luxembourg and was launched in Hong Kong with support from HSBC and digital asset platform OSL. At the time, Franklin Templeton’s APAC head Tariq Ahmad said the asset manager also planned to pursue a version that could eventually be offered to retail investors, subject to approval from the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission.

Franklin Templeton has continued adding distribution and trading routes for its tokenized products during 2026.

Advertisement

In June, the asset manager added BENJI to MoonPay, allowing institutional users to swap stablecoins including USDC and USDT for the tokenized money market product through MoonPay Trade’s on-chain system.

Days later, Franklin Templeton completed its acquisition of 250 Digital, creating a new Franklin Crypto division that combined the acquired firm’s investment team and strategies with Franklin Templeton’s existing digital asset operations.

The June report put Franklin Templeton’s assets under management at $1.78 trillion and said RWA.xyz data showed the firm’s tokenized assets had increased from about $768 million in June 2025 to more than $2.5 billion within a year.

HashKey’s latest announcement put Franklin Templeton’s total assets under management at $1.80 trillion as of July 31, with operations spanning more than 35 countries.

Advertisement

Tokenized funds are moving into more distribution channels

Franklin Templeton has also used partnerships with blockchain and financial technology companies to place traditional investment products inside crypto-native systems.

Through a partnership with Ondo Finance, the asset manager introduced tokenized ETFs designed to trade around the clock through crypto wallets. The product lineup covered U.S. equities, fixed income and gold for eligible non-U.S. investors across Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East and Latin America.

Franklin Templeton has separately worked with Binance on an institutional collateral structure that lets clients use tokenized money market fund shares as collateral for crypto trading while keeping the underlying assets with regulated custodians.

Demand for tokenized government debt has increased alongside that institutional activity. RWA.xyz data cited in the supplied report showed the total value of tokenized real-world assets at $38.2 billion as of Aug. 23, compared with $20.6 billion one year earlier.

Advertisement

Tokenized U.S. Treasury debt accounted for about $15.6 billion of that total, making government securities one of the largest categories within the on-chain RWA market.

For HashKey, grBENJI adds another yield-bearing product to its Earn channel while extending an existing focus on tokenized financial instruments. Franklin Templeton said the two companies will continue assessing additional tokenized products following the Aug. 24 launch.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Binance launches 5 stock perpetuals with 20x leverage

Published

on

Binance outflows triple as ETH withdrawals hit 3-year high

Binance Futures launched five USDT-margined TradFi perpetual contracts on Aug. 25, giving eligible traders leveraged exposure to Trump Media, Moderna and three semiconductor-focused exchange-traded funds.

Summary

  • Binance launched five USDT margined perpetual contracts tied to U.S. stocks and leveraged exchange-traded funds.
  • Contracts offer up to 20x leverage, round-the-clock trading and eight-hour funding settlements through Binance Futures.
  • SKUU and SKDD track daily moves in SK Hynix, while RAM references leveraged DRAM exposure.
  • DJT and MRNA perpetuals reference Trump Media and Moderna shares without granting stock ownership rights.
  • Each contract uses USDT for settlement and requires a minimum notional trade worth five dollars.

The contracts began trading at five-minute intervals between 09:00 and 09:20 UTC. Binance listed SKUUUSDT, SKDDUSDT, RAMUSDT, DJTUSDT and MRNAUSDT with maximum leverage of 20x.

Binance adds five U.S. market-linked contracts

SKUUUSDT tracks the GraniteShares 2x Long SK Hynix Daily ETF, while SKDDUSDT references the issuer’s 2x Short SK Hynix Daily ETF. Both underlying funds trade on Nasdaq.

Advertisement

The long fund seeks twice the daily percentage change in SK Hynix’s U.S.-listed depositary receipt. The short fund seeks twice the inverse daily return, according to GraniteShares’ product details.

RAMUSDT references the Roundhill T-REX 2X Long DRAM Daily Target ETF, which trades on Cboe BZX. RAM targets twice the daily performance of the Roundhill Memory ETF rather than directly holding or tracking a single semiconductor company.

DJTUSDT follows Trump Media & Technology Group shares, while MRNAUSDT references Moderna. Both companies trade on Nasdaq under DJT and MRNA.

Advertisement

The contracts provide derivatives, not stock ownership

The five Binance products are perpetual derivatives priced and settled in USDT. Traders do not receive shares, voting rights, dividends or ownership interests in the referenced companies or ETFs.

Perpetual contracts do not have expiry dates. Binance uses funding payments between long and short traders to help keep contract prices aligned with their reference markets.

Each contract has a minimum trade size of 0.01 units and a minimum notional value of 5 USDT. Funding fees settle every eight hours, while the initial funding-rate cap is set at +2% and the floor at -2%.

The exchange said the normal rule allowing funding intervals to change from eight hours to one hour when rates reach their limits will not apply automatically. The exchange will issue a separate announcement if it changes that schedule.

Advertisement

Layered leverage increases trading risk

SKUU, SKDD and RAM are already leveraged ETFs designed around daily investment objectives. Applying up to 20x leverage through a perpetual contract creates an additional layer of exposure.

Daily leveraged funds can produce returns that differ greatly from a simple multiple of the underlying asset over longer periods. Compounding, volatility and daily resets can reduce returns even when the referenced asset moves in the expected direction.

Binance’s leverage can further accelerate profits and losses. A relatively small adverse price movement may trigger liquidation if a trader lacks enough margin to maintain the position.

These risks remain present outside U.S. stock-market hours. Binance offers the contracts continuously, while the referenced shares and ETFs trade during scheduled exchange sessions. Prices can therefore diverge when Nasdaq and Cboe BZX are closed.

Advertisement

The rollout follows a wider exchange push into 24/7 synthetic exposure to traditional assets. Bybit said its own TradFi perpetual range recently passed 200 products, including equities, ETFs, commodities and private companies.

Binance’s ADGM entities operate the products

The contracts were admitted to trading on the exchange RIE and to clearing and settlement through Binance RCH, according to the exchange’s notice.

The company RIE is operated by Nest Exchange Limited, which the Abu Dhabi Global Market’s Financial Services Regulatory Authority recognizes as an investment exchange for derivatives. Nest Clearing and Custody Limited operates Binance RCH as a recognized clearing house.

The regulatory structure does not make the products available everywhere. Binance cautioned that access depends on the user’s location and applicable restrictions. The contracts reference U.S.-listed securities, but they are not direct Nasdaq or Cboe trades.

Binance may change leverage, margin, funding and other trading parameters under its exchange and clearing rules. No separate deadline or additional launch phase was announced.

Advertisement

There was no verified market movement in DJT, Moderna or the three ETFs that could be attributed specifically to the Binance listings.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025