Crypto World

Ripple almost shut down: XRP giveaway plan explained

Published

3 weeks ago

13 July 2026

Ripple architect says XRPL can go underground if states attack

Speaking at the University of Kansas School of Business this week, Ripple chief executive Brad Garlinghouse told a story the company kept to itself for more than five years.

Summary

Ripple seriously considered shutting down after the SEC lawsuit and distributing its XRP holdings to shareholders.
The abandoned plan clarifies the separation between Ripple the company and XRP the token.
Ripple’s decision to fight cost roughly 150 million dollars in legal fees but produced a precedent the broader industry now uses.
The counterfactual giveaway would have removed Ripple’s XRP overhang but also stripped the token of Ripple’s institutional growth story.
The confession reframes XRP’s current thesis as an entanglement between company success, token supply, legal precedent, and ledger adoption.

In December 2020, days after the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Ripple and named Garlinghouse and co-founder Chris Larsen personally, the two men seriously weighed a plan to end the fight before it began: wind the company down, distribute Ripple’s enormous XRP holdings to shareholders on a pro rata basis, and inform the regulator that the entity it was suing no longer existed and no longer held the asset in question. In Garlinghouse’s words, the government had infinite power and resources, and shutting down was the easier path. What tipped the decision the other way was not confidence in winning. It was that dissolution would have put hundreds of employees out of work.

The disclosure landed with corroboration and a correction. David Schwartz, Ripple’s longtime chief technology officer, said outside lawyers advised leadership in that period that the company was done, unsavable, and that the executives should cut a deal to save themselves, and he argued the SEC named Garlinghouse and Larsen personally as a calculated pressure tactic, since suing two men concentrates the incentive to fold in a way that suing a corporation does not. When outlets amplified the story into capitulation headlines, Schwartz pushed back, saying his earlier comments were being stretched and that he never claimed the shutdown was on the verge of happening. Garlinghouse, for his part, attached a number to the road actually taken: roughly 150 million dollars in legal fees over four years, disclosed publicly for the first time.

A confession this old is not news about the past. It is a lens on the present, because the plan Ripple shelved in December 2020 is a nearly perfect thought experiment about what XRP is. Every question that hangs over the token in 2026, whether it is a claim on Ripple’s success, what the company’s supply overhang means, and why the price ignores the company’s triumphs, gets sharper when run through the world where the giveaway happened. This feature takes the confession seriously as history, then uses it as the analytical instrument it accidentally is.

December 2020: the decision as it actually looked

The context deserves reconstruction, because hindsight has sanded off how bleak it was. Three days before Christmas 2020, the SEC filed suit alleging Ripple had conducted a seven-year unregistered securities offering by selling XRP, raising more than 1.3 billion dollars, and it charged Garlinghouse and Larsen individually for their own sales. The complaint did not merely threaten a fine. It asserted that the company’s core asset, held by the billions on its balance sheet, was itself the violation. Exchanges reacted immediately: major US venues delisted or suspended XRP within weeks, liquidity fled, and the token, then comfortably in the market’s top five, lost most of its value while the rest of crypto rallied into the 2021 bull market.

Garlinghouse also supplied a detail that explains the depth of the grievance. He met SEC officials four times between 2017 and 2019, without a lawyer, and was never told the agency might treat XRP as a security. Whatever one makes of the legal merits, the company’s leadership experienced the suit as a rule invented retroactively, which shaped its willingness to litigate a case its own counsel called unwinnable.

Against that backdrop, the dissolution plan was not madness. It was the advice. Distribute the XRP, dissolve the entity, moot the case. The government cannot enjoin a company that does not exist, and the personal claims against two wealthy defendants would have become vastly easier to settle without an operating business generating fresh alleged violations every quarter. The plan failed the only test the founders applied to it, the employees, and Ripple chose instead to spend 150 million dollars proving the agency wrong.

The outcome vindicated the choice, though less cleanly than the folklore suggests. In July 2023, Judge Analisa Torres ruled that XRP is not in itself a security and that Ripple’s programmatic sales on public exchanges were not securities transactions, the industry’s most important judicial win of the enforcement era. But she also found that direct institutional sales violated securities law, and the final judgment carried a 125 million dollar civil penalty plus a permanent injunction against repeating unregistered institutional sales. A 2025 attempt by both sides to soften the outcome, cutting the penalty to 50 million and dissolving the injunction, was rejected by Torres because final judgment had already been entered, and the appeals were dropped, with the Second Circuit closing the case on August 22, 2025. Ripple won the war and still pays the reparations, a nuance the company’s celebratory framing tends to omit, as crypto.news noted in its review of how the case actually ended.

The alternate history: what the giveaway world would have looked like

Now run the counterfactual, because it is unusually clean. Suppose the founders had taken the lawyers’ advice in December 2020.

XRP does not die in that world. The XRP Ledger was already decentralized in the sense that mattered operationally: independent validators, open-source software, no ability for Ripple to halt or reverse it. The token would have kept trading, and the SEC’s case would have collapsed into personal claims against two defendants with every incentive to settle quickly. Ironically, the giveaway might have produced the regulatory clarity holders craved years earlier, because a token with no sponsoring company selling it is a far weaker securities case, the exact logic that later animated the Torres distinction between institutional sales and blind exchange transactions.

What XRP loses in that world is everything the 2026 bull case is made of. No Ripple means no On-Demand Liquidity corridors, no RLUSD stablecoin, no 1.25 billion dollar Hidden Road acquisition placing Ripple Prime inside the DTCC ecosystem, no 75-license regulatory portfolio, no MiCA authorization opening 30 European countries, a build-out crypto.news chronicled as it completed this month. It also means no concentrated lobbying force: Ripple’s 25 million dollar contribution to the industry’s political machine helped produce the legislative environment the CLARITY Act now moves through. The token would have become something like a payments-flavored Litecoin, a functioning ledger with a distributed supply, a passionate community, and no institutional narrative whatsoever.

And here is the uncomfortable part of the exercise: it is not obvious the price would be lower. The giveaway would have distributed roughly half the total supply, the escrowed billions, to shareholders in a single event, ugly in the short run but terminal for the overhang that has shadowed the market ever since. No monthly escrow releases. No company treasury whose sales the market prices in perpetually. No ambiguity about whether buying the token is buying exposure to the company. The 2026 market puts XRP near 1.09 dollars while Ripple has its most productive year in history, and the leading explanation for that disconnect is precisely that the token is not a claim on the company that owns it. The counterfactual world would have made that separation formal in 2020 and repriced it once, instead of rediscovering it every cycle.

The pressure mechanics: why naming two men nearly worked

Schwartz’s claim about the SEC’s strategy deserves unpacking, because it explains why the shutdown option got as far as a serious boardroom conversation.

Enforcement actions against corporations are wars of attrition that companies can rationally fight; legal fees are an operating expense, and the entity’s decision-makers are spending shareholder money on shareholder problems. Naming executives personally changes the arithmetic entirely. Garlinghouse and Larsen faced individual claims over their own XRP sales, meaning their personal fortunes, their futures in regulated finance, and their exposure to individual judgments were on the table alongside the company’s. The standard playbook response, the one the lawyers recommended, is for the individuals to settle personally and let the company negotiate from weakness. Schwartz’s reading is that the agency structured the complaint to trigger exactly that sequence: pressure the men, collapse the defense, collect the precedent.

The dissolution plan was, in a strange way, the most aggressive possible counter to that playbook. Rather than settling to protect themselves, the founders considered removing the corporate target entirely while keeping their personal defenses intact, a move that would have converted the SEC’s leverage into a stranded lawsuit against two individuals over a token no company sponsored. That they got as far as pricing the option before rejecting it on employment grounds says something rarely visible from outside: the decision to fight was not a legal calculation, and it was made against legal advice. Companies write press releases about conviction. The confession describes something closer to a coin flip weighted by payroll, which is both less heroic and considerably more believable.

The four-year fight that followed set the template the rest of the industry ran. Coinbase’s litigation posture against the same agency, down to the discovery offensives and the public refusal to settle, was Ripple’s playbook executed with a bigger balance sheet, and the enforcement retreat of 2025 that freed both companies traces directly to the precedent risk Ripple’s partial win created. The 150 million dollars bought more than one company’s survival. It bought the industry’s proof of concept that the agency could lose.

The Japan control group: the one place the counterfactual ran forward

There is a live experiment that approximates the world where XRP thrives on utility with minimal dependence on American legal outcomes, and it has been running for years in Japan.

Through the SBI partnership, Japan built what no other market has: production remittance corridors settling in XRP, bank-facing infrastructure, retail brokerage distribution, and now the first trust-type yen stablecoin alongside a formal RLUSD launch, an integration deep enough that crypto.news called Japan the only country actually using XRP. Japanese demand persisted through the SEC years precisely because it never depended on the SEC; the token’s status there was settled by local regulation long before Torres ruled. Korea shows a paler version of the same pattern, with XRP consistently ranking as the second most traded asset on Upbit.

The Japan case matters to the counterfactual because it shows what the giveaway world’s ceiling might have looked like: a token that works, in specific corridors, where local institutions committed, with a price driven by usage and regional retail rather than by a global institutional narrative. That ceiling is real and unimpressive relative to the 2026 thesis. XRP’s claim on a repricing runs through ETFs, CFTC classification, DTCC-adjacent infrastructure, and European licensing, all of which required a living, litigating, license-collecting Ripple. The confession, in other words, describes the fork between a token that would have merely survived and a token that might matter. The market’s frustration is that five years after the fork, the price cannot yet tell the difference.

What the confession explains about the token today

Read as an analytical instrument, the shelved plan clarifies four things that XRP holders argue about constantly.

First, it is the cleanest statement ever made of the company-token separation. The founders’ plan treated Ripple’s XRP as a distributable asset, like cash on a balance sheet, not as equity in the enterprise. That is the correct frame, and it cuts both ways. Holders do not own Ripple’s payments revenue, its licenses, or its prime brokerage; they own units of the asset Ripple also happens to hold in size. Every cycle, the market relearns this by watching company milestones fail to move the price. The confession shows the founders understood the separation so completely that they were prepared to monetize it as an exit.

Second, it reframes the supply overhang as a choice that keeps being made. Ripple could have distributed its holdings in 2020. It can, in principle, distribute or burn them today. Instead it maintains the escrow system, releasing up to a billion tokens monthly and relocking most, preserving the treasury as the company’s war chest. The comparison to Strategy’s Bitcoin position, which Garlinghouse himself invited when he attacked Michael Saylor’s model, runs deeper than either CEO admits, a parallel crypto.news explored: both firms sit atop token treasuries whose value depends on markets they simultaneously supply. The difference is that Ripple’s treasury predates its products, which means the company’s incentives and its holders’ interests align only where ledger usage is concerned, and the confession is a reminder that leadership has always known where the exit is.

Third, it explains the community’s political intensity. The XRP holder base is famous for treating regulatory fights as existential, and the confession validates the instinct: the fight was existential, the company nearly chose not to have it, and the entire institutional arc since, the ETFs with their 1.49 billion dollars in inflows, the bank pilots, the ledger’s climb toward institutional credit through the lending amendment now gathering validator support that crypto.news is tracking, exists because two founders decided a payroll mattered more than legal advice. Communities remember near-death experiences. This one now has the CEO’s own account of how near it was.

Fourth, it quietly indicts the enforcement-first era better than any lobbying campaign. A regulator’s lawsuit, built on a theory a judge later rejected at its core, came within one boardroom conversation of dissolving an American company, erasing hundreds of jobs, and, by the mechanics described above, possibly leaving the token itself legally cleaner than litigation ever made it. Whatever the CLARITY Act’s fate in the coming three weeks, Garlinghouse’s story is the case study its advocates will cite for a decade: rules invented by enforcement nearly produced an outcome no rule intended.

Why tell the story now: the timing of a five-year-old secret

Executives do not disclose near-death experiences by accident, and the timing of this one rewards a cynical read alongside the charitable one.

The charitable read is simple: the war is over, the appeals closed in August 2025, and a business school audience is exactly where a founder processes the hardest decision of his career into a leadership lesson. Nothing about the venue or the content suggests coordination, and the Schwartz back-and-forth, with the former CTO correcting the most breathless headlines within a day, has the messy texture of an unplanned story escaping its container.

The cynical read notices what the story does for Ripple’s current agenda. The company is spending this exact month arguing, through its lobbying network and the broader industry coalition, that the CLARITY Act must pass before the August recess because enforcement-era ambiguity nearly destroyed legitimate American companies. A first-person account from a sitting CEO, with a dollar figure attached, of how close ambiguity came to dissolving a firm the courts later largely vindicated is the single most persuasive artifact that argument could ask for, and it surfaced three weeks before the decisive Senate window. Whether or not the timing was designed, the story will be used, and Garlinghouse, among the most message-disciplined executives in crypto, understands precisely what he put into circulation and when.

The 150 million dollar figure itself does double duty. As a grievance, it quantifies the cost of regulation by lawsuit. As a signal, it prices the moat: that is what it cost to buy the Torres precedent, the four-year head start on institutional relationships, and the standing to pursue a bank charter while competitors were still negotiating consent orders. Ripple can afford to publicize the number because the number is, in the company’s framing, an investment that paid. The firms that settled early saved the fees and inherited none of the case law. Litigation as capital expenditure is a strange category, and Ripple’s disclosure this week is the closest thing to an audited return the industry has seen.

There is also an audience inside the company’s own cap table. Ripple has intermittently explored a public listing, and a founder narrating the darkest moment as a story of conviction, payroll loyalty, and vindication is writing the first chapter of an eventual prospectus narrative, one where the 2.3 billion dollar question of what the company is worth gets answered by public markets that will, inevitably, price the XRP treasury and the operating business as separable things. The confession pre-frames that separation on management’s terms: the treasury as an asset the founders could have distributed and chose to steward instead. Whenever the listing conversation becomes real, this week’s story is the one bankers will quote.

The symbolism budget: from near-dissolution to a Jayhawks jersey

The venue of the confession supplied its own punchline. Days before Garlinghouse spoke at Kansas, his alma mater’s athletic program unveiled a five-year sponsorship making XRP the first cryptocurrency ever stitched onto the jerseys of a major college team. The company that considered making its token an orphan in 2020 now pays to embroider it on the Jayhawks.

The jersey is trivial; the trajectory is not. Ripple in 2026 is chasing a national bank charter and direct access to Federal Reserve payment rails, running regulated payments across Europe, and operating inside the clearing infrastructure of American equities. It is, deliberately and expensively, becoming part of the financial system that tried to end it. That is the strategic meaning of the 150 million dollar figure Garlinghouse disclosed: the fee was not just for survival, it purchased the standing to build all of this under a favorable precedent. Companies that settle do not get to write the case law their industry relies on. Torres’ programmatic-sales ruling is cited in every token classification argument in America, and it exists because Ripple paid to litigate a question everyone else settled around.

How the market metabolized the confession

The price action around the disclosure was its own small case study in what moves this token and what does not.

XRP traded near 1.09 dollars through the news cycle, down about 1.4 percent on the day, statistically indistinguishable from the broader tape. A story that would have cratered the market in 2021, the CEO admitting the company nearly dissolved, produced no measurable panic, and the pockets of social media alarm that did flare were extinguished within hours by Schwartz’s clarification. On-chain, the week showed the opposite of fear: Binance spot flows on July 7 ran 64.9 million XRP in against 49.2 million out, a net buying imbalance of roughly 15.7 million tokens, and a bullish divergence formed above the 1 dollar level even as the headlines circulated. The holder base heard the founders once considered abandoning the token, and bought.

Two explanations fit, and both are probably operating. The first is maturity: after a settled lawsuit, launched ETFs, and a completed appeals process, the 2020 decision is archaeology, priced at zero because it resolved years ago. The second is more interesting and connects to everything above: the market may have understood, faster than commentators did, that the confession was bullish framing. A treasury the founders considered distributing and instead spent five years and 150 million dollars defending is a treasury management believes in. The asset the company almost orphaned is the asset it now stitches onto jerseys, builds credit markets around, and carries toward a bank charter. Revealed preference, over five years and against legal advice, is a stronger signal than any roadmap, and revealed preference is exactly what the story documents.

The remaining question is the one the counterfactual sharpens rather than answers: having kept the treasury, the company, and the token bound together, Ripple owns the burden of making the binding pay. Ledger usage, RLUSD settlement flows, corridor volume, and the classification the CLARITY Act would confer are the mechanisms that would finally route company success into token demand. The confession proves nothing about whether they will. It does settle the older argument about intent. The founders looked at a world where XRP floated free of Ripple, priced it against a payroll, and chose the harder, entangled path. Five years and 150 million dollars later, the entanglement is the investment thesis, the escrow is the overhang, the precedent is the moat, and the token that was almost given away trades at a dollar while the company that almost gave it away has never been stronger. Alternate histories do not pay dividends, but this one earns its keep: it is the rare counterfactual that explains the actual world better than the actual world explains itself.

Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.

Source link

Crypto World

CLARITY Act delay could trigger another crypto sell-off: Bernstein

Published

6 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Polymarket chart showing CLARITY Act passage odds falling to 28% by August, with $3.77 million in trading volume.

The CLARITY Act’s narrowing path through the U.S. Senate could trigger another crypto sell-off before the market recovers later this year, according to Bernstein analysts.

Summary

CLARITY Act passage odds have fallen to 28% as the Senate’s summer recess approaches.
Bernstein expects a failed vote or delay to produce an immediate negative crypto market reaction.
The bill remains absent from the Senate’s Aug. 3 schedule, leaving lawmakers only days to act.
An Aug. 5 cloture filing could allow an initial procedural vote on Aug. 7.

CLARITY Act misses the Aug. 3 Senate schedule

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, or CLARITY Act, was not included in the U.S. Senate’s published schedule for Monday, Aug. 3, reducing the time available for lawmakers to begin floor proceedings before the summer break.

The official Senate schedule lists a 5:30 p.m. cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 6500, a legislative vehicle for a continuing resolution. It does not include scheduled action on H.R. 3633, the CLARITY Act.

The Senate’s cloture ledger also records the July 30 filing for H.R. 6500 but no corresponding petition for the crypto market-structure bill.

Source link

Crypto World

Bithumb Announces 2028 IPO Timeline After Internal Controls Overhaul

Published

13 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

South Korean crypto exchange Bithumb says it is moving toward a public listing, with plans to apply for a preliminary listing review in 2027 and complete an initial public offering (IPO) in 2028. The timetable is described as flexible and could shift based on market conditions and the scheduling of relevant regulators.

In a statement released Monday, Bithumb linked its IPO roadmap to internal restructuring efforts designed to clarify responsibilities across business units and reduce potential conflicts of interest. The exchange also outlined operational changes it says are part of its preparation for the scrutiny that comes with becoming a listed company.

Key takeaways

Bithumb plans to pursue a preliminary listing review in 2027 and target an IPO for 2028, subject to regulatory and market timing.
The exchange says it reorganized its structure, including spinning off Bithumb Asset, to better separate responsibilities and limit conflicts of interest.
Bithumb is preparing to strengthen internal controls and transition from domestic accounting standards to K-IFRS.
The company’s listing push follows a separate incident in February involving an over-crediting error tied to a promotional reward mechanism.

Restructuring and accounting changes ahead of an IPO

Bithumb’s IPO plan is anchored in a set of organizational and compliance steps. According to the exchange, it has reorganized its business structure, including spinning off Bithumb Asset, with the stated goal of clarifying what each unit is responsible for. Bithumb said this approach is intended to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest before it enters the listing review process.

Beyond governance and structure, the exchange also said its preparations include upgrading internal controls. It further stated that it plans to move away from domestic accounting standards and adopt K-IFRS, the international accounting framework used by listed companies in South Korea.

While the company set out a broad timeline—application for preliminary review in 2027 and an IPO in 2028—Bithumb emphasized that the schedule is not guaranteed. It said changes could be required depending on market conditions and how quickly authorities complete their review processes.

A crypto market shifting toward traditional finance ties

Bithumb’s move toward going public is unfolding as several South Korean crypto exchanges tighten their relationships with traditional finance and technology groups. The exchange is among five South Korean platforms that offer fiat currency trading via real-name bank accounts, and it operates that service through a partnership with KB Kookmin Bank.

In the broader sector, the competitive landscape has increasingly reflected corporate and financial integration. Rival exchange Korbit saw a major change when Mirae Asset Consulting took control on July 23, while Upbit operator Dunamu is pursuing a share-swap arrangement that would make it a wholly owned subsidiary of Naver Financial, though the transaction is described as subject to regulatory and shareholder approvals.

For investors and market participants, these developments matter because they suggest that the “crypto exchange” category in South Korea is increasingly being treated like a mainstream financial business—one that attracts scrutiny around corporate governance, accounting practices, and the boundaries between crypto operations and affiliated entities.

The February “620,000 BTC” promotional error and governance implications

Bithumb’s listing ambitions arrive after a notable operational failure earlier this year. In a February promotional mistake, the exchange mistakenly credited customer accounts with balances totaling 620,000 Bitcoin instead of distributing 620,000 Korean won in cash rewards, according to earlier coverage. Bithumb later recovered 99.7% of the erroneous credits, but some customers sold about 1,788 BTC before account freezes were applied.

At a February 11 National Assembly parliamentary hearing, Bithumb CEO Lee Jae-won said the exchange’s process for checking the planned distribution against actual holdings had failed. He also stated that the promotional amount had not been set aside in a separate account, a factor that complicated the detection and containment of the error.

While the episode appears to have been addressed through clawback of the majority of the mistaken credits, it is the kind of incident that regulators and auditors often consider when assessing internal controls—precisely the area Bithumb says it is upgrading as part of its IPO preparations.

Listing cleanup for Bithumb-linked public firms continues

Bithumb’s timetable for an IPO also intersects with governance and listing challenges involving entities connected to the exchange. Two Bithumb-linked listed companies have faced ongoing audit and listing issues, with their shares trading suspended since March 2023.

Yonhap reported that Bucket Studio, which indirectly controls Vidente (a major Bithumb shareholder), appointed a former police official as its standing auditor in June. Separately, Vidente has said it plans to appoint a former National Tax Service official to the same auditor role. According to Yonhap, South Korea’s Government Public Service Ethics Committee cleared both hires after concluding there was no close relationship between the officials’ previous duties and their new positions.

These developments are relevant to Bithumb’s listing ambitions because they show how tightly regulated the ecosystem can be in South Korea, not only at the exchange level but also across corporate relationships and audit oversight.

For readers tracking Bithumb’s path to the public markets, the next key indicators will be whether the exchange’s stated internal control upgrades and K-IFRS transition proceed on schedule, and how regulators respond to both the IPO review process and lingering questions raised by prior compliance and governance issues. The 2027/2028 targets are not fixed—so market conditions and authority review timing will likely determine what actually happens next.

Source link

Crypto World

Coldcard Hit By Suspected Fourth Attack Wave As Losses Mount

Published

20 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Galaxy Research head Alex Thorn has hinted that Coldcard was hit by a fourth wave of attacks on August 3, estimating that the attackers moved 448.7 BTC from 709 wallets belonging to victims.

Thorn based his findings on blockchain analysis rather than device records, describing the addresses as “likely Coldcard victims.”

A Fourth Wave?

Thorn described the addresses hit by the suspected attack as “likely Coldcard victims,” adding that the unspent outputs and transactions matched the vulnerable wallet pattern. Galaxy’s initial snapshot covered blocks 960,778 through 960,792, identifying 218 transactions involving 388.9 BTC and 462 potential victim addresses. The updated estimate expanded the figures to hundreds of transactions involving 448.7 BTC and 709 potential victim addresses.

Thorn posted the findings on X:

🚨 LIKELY 4TH ORGANIZED WAVE COLDCARD ATTACK OCCURRING RIGHT NOW
THERE ARE STILL SIMILAR TXS IN THE MEMPOOL WAITING TO BE CONFIRMED AND THE PREVIOUSLY-CONFIRMED TXS SIGNAL RBF OPT-IN, CHECK YOUR FUNDS AND YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RBF YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS
pattern identified:
blocks…
— Alex Thorn (@intangiblecoins) August 3, 2026

“LIKELY 4TH ORGANIZED WAVE COLDCARD ATTACK OCCURING RIGHT NOW THERE ARE STILL SIMILAR TXS IN THE MEMPOOL WAITING TO BE CONFIRMED AND THE PREVIOUSLY-CONFIRMED TXS SIGNAL RBF OPT-IN, CHECK YOUR FUNDS, AND YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RBF YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS.”

According to Thorn, Galaxy measured 13.8 sweeps per block, a 45x increase compared to 0.3 sweeps per block measured during a pre-incident control period. The siphoned funds were sent to a new address instead of a shared wallet. Some of the stolen funds were subsequently moved to new addresses, making them difficult to track.

Previous Waves

Galaxy has already mapped three prior waves that siphoned 1,367.05 BTC from 4,585 addresses, with the first wave targeting 1,082.05 BTC across 1,196 addresses. The latest wave brings the total figures to 1,815.75 BTC across 5,294 addresses. However, the figures are yet to be confirmed by authorities, Coinkite, or the wallet owners. Additionally, it isn’t clear whether one entity was responsible for all four waves.

Thorn also added that there were transactions awaiting approval in Bitcoin’s mempool, giving holders an escape route. According to Thorn, Bitcoin Core documentation states that unconfirmed opt-in Replace-by-fee transactions can be replaced. This means a user still in control of an affected key could broadcast a conflicting transaction with a higher fee and send the funds to a secure wallet. However, it cannot be replaced once it enters the block, and a replacement is not guaranteed to succeed.

Coldcard Users Must Generate New Seeds

The ongoing issue arises from an RNG integration error that occurred during a March 2021 firmware change. Coinkite estimates that the affected Mk2 and Mk3 seeds have around 40 bits of effective entropy, while seeds generated on affected Mk4, Mk5, and Q releases have 72 bits instead of 128.

Additionally, an engineering team from Block discovered that the firmware called a deterministic MicroPython fallback instead of the hardware random-number generator. However, the Block team clarified they could not confirm exploitability without full empirical testing.

Meanwhile, Coinkite has released version 4.2.0 for Mk2 and Mk3, 5.6.0 for Mk4 and Mk5, 1.5.0Q for Q, and 6.6.0X or 6.6.0QX for Edge releases. However, simply updating the existing firmware does not fully address the vulnerability. Once updated, users must generate a new seed and verify the receiving address. Once verified, they must send a test transaction before migrating the complete balance.

Coinkite also clarified that seeds created using a minimum of 50 fair, private dice rolls are not considered at risk, and that a unique BIP-39 passphrase could serve as a second line of defense. However, it recommended that users complete the migration. The advisory does not cover TAPSIGNER, OPENDIME, and SATSCARD because they use separate codebases.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Source link

Crypto World

Greece Battles Raging Wildfires After Collision Between Firefighting Helicopters Kills Two

Published

27 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Greece Battles Raging Wildfires After Collision Between Firefighting Helicopters Kills Two

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, also remembered the contributions of the fallen.

“It takes a special courage to fly towards the flames so that others can be safe. As we continue to battle these fires side by side, Europe grieves with Greece and Denmark,” she said.

Widespread wildfires devastate Europe

Wildfires have swept across regions in France, with President Emmanuel Macron describing the situation as “the toughest since the Second World War.”

Elsewhere in western Europe, an emergency incident was declared in Suffolk, England, last week as firefighters tackled a blaze the size of at least 210 soccer pitches.

Much of Europe is in the midst of yet another heat wave, further compounding the issue and raising concerns that even contained fires may gather pace once more.

Source link

Crypto World

Here’s Why Crypto Traders Need to Watch the Fed’s H.4.1 Report This Week

Published

34 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Crypto investor Arthur Hayes warned on August 3 that markets should watch this week’s Federal Reserve H.4.1 release for signs that Japan used US Treasury holdings as collateral to obtain dollars during recent yen intervention efforts.

The move has raised questions about how central banks may manage currency pressure without disrupting bond markets, with potential effects on global liquidity and risk assets like Bitcoin (BTC).

Watching the Fed’s Balance Sheet

The H.4.1 report publishes weekly details on the Fed’s balance sheet, including any repo activity with foreign central banks, which is why Hayes pointed traders there for confirmation.

His post followed last Friday’s coordinated currency action, which Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said had been taken to counter “disorderly yen movements,” and that his department is still in close contact with the BOJ and Japan’s Ministry of Finance and “will not hesitate to participate in further joint intervention.” He also called for the FIMA repo facility, which lets foreign central banks borrow against Treasury holdings, to be expanded in the coming months.

“If Bessent can get the counterparty limit increased then the Fed can create money using MOF TSY as collateral,” Hayes wrote in response.

The H.4.1 publication adds to a list of macro events already on the radar of traders, including Friday’s Nonfarm Payrolls report and this week’s ISM Manufacturing PMI.

Bitcoin advocate Adam Livingston called the US-Japan action “one of the funniest pieces of elite macroeconomic theater,” pointing out how the Asian economic giant had spent years pinning rates low, monetizing debt, and turning its fiat currency into a funding source for global carry trades. Now it has weakened, with Washington describing it as “substantially undervalued.”

The crypto author noted that Japan needs dollars to defend the yen, and it holds a large stock of US Treasuries, which, if sold, could push American yields higher and raise US financing costs as well as tighten liquidity. However, a bigger FIMA facility allows Japan to borrow dollars against those Treasuries instead of dumping them onto the market.

The crypto community has been watching the yen issue because Japan’s low-rate environment supported the yen carry trade for years. Investors borrowed the currency cheaply and placed money into higher-yielding assets, like stocks and cryptocurrencies. Last week, analyst EGRAG CRYPTO warned that a fast unwind of such carry trade-funded positions could force selling across risk assets, including BTC, if the yen strengthens too quickly.

Where Crypto Stands This Week

At the time of writing, the global cryptocurrency market cap was holding near $2.2 trillion after a slight 0.8% dip in 24 hours. BTC was trading closer to $63,000 than $62,000, down about 1% on the day and over 4% across one week. Meanwhile, Ethereum (ETH) sat near $1,800, about 6% from where it was a week ago.

Analyst Daan Crypto Trades observed that Bitcoin and the broader crypto market have underperformed the recent bounce in tech stocks. He attributed the pattern to a liquidity rotation where speculation returns more readily to equities once they recover, leaving crypto lagging unless stocks move sideways for a stretch.

The post Here’s Why Crypto Traders Need to Watch the Fed’s H.4.1 Report This Week appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Crypto World

Cardano (ADA) Could Explode to Almost $3 if History Repeats: Analyst

Published

46 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Cardano’s native token is among the best-performing cryptocurrencies (from the top 10 club) over the past week.

Its renewed momentum has naturally drawn more attention, with some market observers now projecting further gains.

The Rally Goes on?

ADA experienced a sudden and rather unexpected revival this weekend, rising to a monthly peak of around $0.19. As of this writing, it trades just south of that mark, representing a 13% increase on a seven-day scale.

The most probable catalyst for the upswing seems to be the accumulation from whales, with Ali Martinez revealing that these big investors have purchased more than 240 million tokens in just five days.

Meanwhile, X user JAVON MARKS believes that ADA’s recent performance resembles that of 2020-2021, which was followed by a massive bull run towards an ATH. That said, the analyst set a target of $2.90, which is currently 1,300% away.

Leon Voss Official also chipped in, claiming that ADA has broken above a long-term descending trendline that had acted as persistent resistance.

“Daily candle comes on stronger side and now obvious touch the support for further confirmation to hold above $0.17. That’s connected to Cardano TVL surge by some +9% over the past week, reclaiming a level of nearly $68 million,” the X user added.

For their part, Crypto Tony said they will look for a short position upon a potential rejection of the recent rally or go long if the price flips the $0.22 zone.

Entering a Dangerous Territory

ADA’s pump is more than evident, yet one should keep in mind the unfavorable condition of the broader crypto market, meaning the bears can regain control at any time and quickly erase the gains.

The Relative Strength Index (RSI) should serve as another warning. Its ratio briefly spiked above 80, easing back to 65, which still keeps it hovering near overbought territory and signals a potential short-term correction.

The post Cardano (ADA) Could Explode to Almost $3 if History Repeats: Analyst appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Crypto World

Kalshi traders think July jobs will come in cooler than estimates

Published

53 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Kalshi traders think July jobs will come in cooler than estimates

A Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC) now hiring flyer is displayed for job opportunities as an event security guard at an Inspire Together job and resource fair in Los Angeles, California on July 29, 2026.

Patrick T. Fallon | Afp | Getty Images

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is set to release the employment picture for July on Friday, and economists are expecting a gain of 85,000 jobs in the month, according to Dow Jones consensus estimates.

However, traders on prediction market platform Kalshi think those figures may come in lower.

Speculators place just a 47% chance that employers added more than 80,000 jobs in July, but they also give a 60% chance that they added more than 70,000 jobs in the month.

The contracts on the platform ask traders what the jobs number will be for July, asking if the official figure will be above a series of numbers. Contracts are resolved using the official data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A beat compared with consensus estimates isn’t out of the question, even if not likely: traders place a 41% chance employers added 90,000 jobs in July, and just over a one-in-three chance that the number will come in at six figures.

However, traders also think there’s a one-in-three chance the number will come in below 60,000.

Last month, Kalshi traders placed a 63% chance that employers added more than 125,000 jobs in June, above consensus estimates for 115,000. However, the official figure came in much lower, at just 57,000 jobs added.

Disclosure: CNBC and Kalshi have a commercial relationship that includes customer acquisition and a minority investment.

Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

Source link

Crypto World

Fake ‘World Assets’ and Onchain Gacha Drive New Crypto Trend

Published

59 minutes ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Fake World Assets (FWAs) have reignited attention on Ethereum’s onchain “gacha” niche—an NFT-based system where users pay to spin for randomly selected collectibles. In just days after launch, the protocol reportedly became a top Ethereum gas consumer by fees, underscoring how quickly gamified mechanics can draw speculative participation.

According to DeFiLlama, FWAs briefly ranked as Ethereum’s largest gas consumer over a 24-hour window in late July, with peak daily fees of about $1.53 million on July 25. The project’s token incentive program and the broader appeal of lottery-like gameplay helped drive rapid traction, though skepticism from some market participants suggests much of the current demand may be incentive-driven.

Key takeaways

Ethereum activity spiked fast: DeFiLlama data shows FWAs briefly became one of Ethereum’s biggest fee consumers by blockspace usage within days of launch.
Strong early liquidity metrics: Total value locked (TVL) reportedly climbed above $6.15 million by July 31, indicating more than a purely ephemeral burst of interest.
Fees have normalized after the initial frenzy: Fee revenue eased to roughly $350,000 per day by the latest figures cited in the reporting.
Demand may be tied to incentives: Investor Simon Dedic argues current participation could be largely fueled by token rewards rather than sustained end-user desire.
The core bet is on retention: The “real test” for onchain gacha, as framed by critics, will come once incentives fade and novelty wears off.

FWAs surge: from launch to Ethereum gas leader

FWAs are built around an onchain lottery mechanic that trades random NFT outcomes for player participation. Within four days of launch, the protocol reportedly consumed enough Ethereum gas to briefly top the chain’s gas usage rankings by fees over a 24-hour period, according to DeFiLlama.

At the height of the early activity—July 25—FWAs generated about $1.53 million in daily fees, briefly overtaking major stablecoin issuers’ associated onchain activity in the same fee-consumption comparisons. The project’s creators, TokenWorks, publicly celebrated the protocol’s rapid arrival, posting that it had reached a major milestone just days after launch.

While growth appears to have slowed from the peak, the scale remains notable. TVL reportedly rose to more than $6.15 million by July 31. Fee revenue was cited as easing to around $350,000 per day, which implies an annualized run rate of roughly $268 million based on the figures referenced.

How the onchain gacha works

At its core, Fake World Assets uses NFTs as the prize pool. Users pay to interact with an onchain “gacha” machine that selects a randomly chosen NFT backed by Ether. Instead of purchasing a specific NFT directly, participants buy the right to spin and potentially receive one of many collectibles.

TokenWorks has positioned FWAs as part of the broader onchain gacha evolution. The system is described as “latest” within Ethereum-based protocol experiments that apply randomness and game-like purchasing behavior to tokenized collectibles. The prize catalog, as reported, draws from multiple recognizable collections, including CryptoPunks, Azuki, Lil Pudgys, and Art Blocks.

Those who hold NFTs can also participate in the protocol differently: NFT holders are described as liquidity providers who deposit collectibles alongside ETH and receive a share of protocol fees while their NFT remains in the pool. Players, meanwhile, purchase spins for the chance to receive a random NFT and then decide whether to keep the prize or redeem most of its attached ETH value.

Blockworks Research is referenced in the source reporting for an additional detail: around 70% of purchasers allegedly choose to convert their winnings to FWA rather than keeping the received asset, suggesting the system is currently functioning as much like an ETH-linked bet as it is a pure collectible acquisition.

Supporters see gamified commerce; critics worry about incentives

Not everyone is convinced that FWAs represent durable demand. Simon Dedic, founder of Moonrock Capital and an early backer of onchain collectible platforms, expressed enthusiasm for gamified commerce while singling out specific concerns about FWA’s current appeal.

Dedic’s skepticism centers on whether participation reflects genuine consumer interest or is mainly driven by token incentives. In the remarks cited, he characterized the activity as targeted at “crypto degens” seeking to gamble and speculate—an important distinction because incentive-led engagement can diminish quickly once rewards decline.

Other participants and commentators in the reporting highlight the novelty of the combined roles inside the mechanism. The protocol blends player behavior (seeking a favorable random outcome) with “house” behavior (earning fees as an NFT liquidity provider), which some see as a more engaging primitive than simple onchain lotteries or typical NFT marketplaces.

Still, the source framing makes clear that the sustainability question is unresolved. Dedic argues that the industry may be moving toward more gamified shopping behavior as Gen Z’s purchasing power grows, but he also notes a preference for selling assets people actually want—such as widely demanded collectibles—rather than forcing interest through rewards for assets that have little independent pull.

The retention test: novelty vs. real utility

Even if FWAs can keep drawing transaction volume, the long-term question is whether the protocol can continue without strong incentive support. The early numbers—high peak fees, rising TVL, and significant early volume and purchase counts mentioned in the source—suggest there is real attention and a willingness to pay for the mechanic.

However, “hype” can be measured in weeks, not months. If users continue spinning even after incentives taper off, that would indicate the system has found something closer to a retail use case. If activity drops sharply once token rewards lessen, FWAs may follow the pattern of other short-lived crypto experiments that attract bursts of attention but fail to convert them into durable user demand.

What makes the outcome particularly relevant for the broader market is that onchain gacha is part of a wider trend: tokenized versions of familiar collectibles and randomized purchase mechanics. If FWAs demonstrate sustained retention, they could strengthen the case that gamified retail primitives can coexist with token liquidity models. If they fail, it may reinforce the view that the current wave is mostly speculation riding on incentives.

For now, readers should watch how fee generation and participation evolve as token incentives change, and whether a majority of users keep engaging for the collectible mechanic itself rather than primarily for conversion to incentive-linked rewards.

Source link

Crypto World

Circle’s 1,000-patent deal alarms crypto startups

Published

1 hour ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Circle has acquired nearly 1,000 blockchain patents from IBM, giving the USDC issuer what it describes as the largest blockchain patent portfolio in the United States.

Summary

Circle acquired nearly 1,000 issued patents spanning more than 680 patent families.
The portfolio covers blockchain, banking, insurance, cloud security, and enterprise infrastructure.
Circle has not disclosed the purchase price or explained whether it could enforce the patents against competitors.
CRCL initially gained about 2%, but later fell after Morgan Stanley cut its target to $38.

Circle takes control of IBM’s blockchain portfolio

Circle announced the acquisition on July 27, saying it had purchased core assets from IBM’s blockchain patent portfolio. The transaction covers more than 680 patent families and nearly 1,000 issued patents worldwide.

The intellectual property spans blockchain systems, financial services, banking, insurance, supply-chain verification, enterprise infrastructure, and secure cloud operations. Circle did not disclose the financial terms.

Circle said the portfolio would support USDC, the Circle Payments Network, its Arc blockchain, and tools designed for artificial intelligence agents. The two companies also plan to consider further commercial agreements.

“Intellectual property is critical to advancing our mission and expanding adoption of onchain infrastructure,” Circle General Counsel Sarah Wilson said.

Wilson added that the acquisition would expand Circle’s ability to develop infrastructure for internet-based finance.

Patent deal raises concerns over possible enforcement

Circle’s announcement did not state whether the company intends to license the patents, use them defensively, or enforce them against other blockchain businesses.

That lack of detail has prompted questions about how Circle could use its newly acquired intellectual property. In an Aug. 3 commentary, Fortune’s Jeff John Roberts warned that the patents could become legal leverage against competitors or startups.

Roberts argued that Circle could theoretically seek licensing payments, bring infringement cases, or transfer patents to separate entities that pursue enforcement. However, Circle has not announced plans to take any of those actions.

The concerns also stem from IBM’s mixed record in commercial blockchain development. IBM previously backed several enterprise blockchain projects, including supply-chain and trade-finance platforms, but many failed to achieve broad adoption.

A large patent portfolio does not necessarily indicate that the underlying products reached commercial success. Still, issued US patents can give their owner the right to restrict others from using covered inventions, subject to their validity and scope.

Circle has also not announced a public defensive patent pledge comparable to commitments used by some other digital-asset companies. Such pledges generally promise that patents will not be used offensively against developers acting in good faith.

US blockchain firms face new intellectual property risk

Circle’s position as the largest US holder of blockchain-related patents could affect companies building stablecoin, payments, interoperability, and enterprise ledger products.

The practical impact will depend on the language of individual patent claims and whether Circle chooses to enforce them. Any infringement dispute would also face review in US courts, where defendants can challenge whether a patent is valid or applies to their technology.

For Circle, the acquisition may provide protection as it expands beyond reserve income from USDC. Arc, Circle Payments Network, cross-chain services, and agent-based payment tools could expose the company to a broader set of technology competitors.

It may also strengthen Circle’s bargaining position in licensing or partnership negotiations. Still, without an enforcement policy, developers and competitors have limited visibility into whether the portfolio will function mainly as a defensive shield or a commercial asset.

CRCL falls despite initial reaction to IBM deal

Fortune reported that Circle shares rose about 2% following news of the acquisition. That gain did not hold as separate concerns about the company’s USDC business weighed on CRCL on Aug. 3.

Circle shares fell nearly 5% to around $59 after Morgan Stanley downgraded the stock to underweight and cut its price target from $106 to $38. The bank cited weaker USDC supply forecasts, pressure on reserve income, and a potential shift toward lower-margin transaction revenue.

Morgan Stanley reduced its USDC supply estimates by 33% for 2027 and 44% for 2028. The downgrade was separate from the IBM patent acquisition, although both developments reflect Circle’s attempt to establish revenue sources beyond interest earned on USDC reserves.

Investors will now watch for details on how Circle intends to integrate, license, or enforce the patents. Until the company provides those details, claims that it will use the portfolio against competitors remain speculative.

Source link

Crypto World

Blanche Wins GOP Backing After Rescinding ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’

Published

1 hour ago

3 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Blanche Wins GOP Backing After Rescinding ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’

Blanche also clarified that the written order did not imply that the fund had ever been operational.

“No Members were appointed; no funds were transferred; no process for receiving claims was established; no claims were paid,” the retraction order said. “This Order establishes, beyond any doubt, that there is no Fund.”

In a joint statement Monday, Cornyn and Tillis said they were “pleased” by Blanche’s decision and “look forward to voting to advance his nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee soon.”

The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on whether Blanche should replace Pam Bondi as Attorney General on Tuesday. With Tillis and Cornyn back in his corner, Blanche is expected to move forward without further Republican opposition.

Could Trump revive the fund?

The “anti-weaponization fund” stemmed from the Justice Department’s settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. It was formally established May 18.

Source link