But the Democratic-led states strongly refute this reasoning, insisting in the lawsuit that “the Administration cannot use forced labor as a pretext to continue its illegal tariff scheme. The tariffs the USTR imposed are so broad that they defy the USTR’s own stated aims and make a mockery of the statute used to justify them.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who co-led the coalition, claimed Trump is “so intent on raising the cost of living for Americans that he is willing to break law after law after law to do so.”

“Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the President’s failed and illegal economic policy—no matter how much the President wants them to,” he added, in a statement announcing he is suing the Trump Administration over its tariffs for a third time.

Joining California in the lawsuit are Arizona, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey,  North Carolina, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia Washington, and Wisconsin.

Galaxy Digital’s research chief says new victim reports tied to the Coldcard vulnerability have enabled the identification of additional attackers—highlighting that the incident may be broader than earlier estimates suggested.

According to Galaxy Research, the total losses tied to the Coldcard exploit have increased to about $100 million across three confirmed “attack waves,” with a possible fourth wave that could push the figure closer to $130 million in Bitcoin.

Key takeaways

• Galaxy Digital (Alex Thorn) says at least 15 attackers exploited the Coldcard vulnerability, based on newly received victim reports.
• Estimated losses have risen to roughly $100 million across three confirmed waves, with a suspected fourth wave that could increase totals to about $130 million.
• Dragonfly’s Haseeb Qureshi argues that “$2 of AI hardening” might have prevented the exploit, sparking a debate over AI’s role in vulnerability discovery.
• Tokenomist’s Tatsapat Saerejittima cautions that social media claims about rapid AI discovery were not based on a documented blind test.
• Castle Labs co-founder Francesco points to a potential link between the wallet’s private key setup and the vulnerability’s exploitability.

Victim reports reshape the attacker picture

In a Tuesday X post, Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Digital, said Galaxy had received additional victim reports since the incident—reports that helped the firm label attacker activity that might otherwise have gone unnoticed.

Thorn’s comments emphasize that this was not a typical centralized-exchange-style compromise. Instead, the exploit mechanism differed in a way that made new patterns detectable once victims began reporting details.

He also cited an example: “Due to one single victim’s report of less than 1 BTC stolen, we identified a new attack with 12 BTC siphoned from 126 addresses,” Thorn wrote.

Loss estimates climb as confirmed waves expand

The broader impact is reflected in Galaxy Research’s figures. Loss estimates connected to the Coldcard exploit have grown to about $100 million across three confirmed attack waves.

Galaxy Research has also flagged a suspected fourth wave. If that additional wave is confirmed, the total losses could reach approximately $130 million in Bitcoin.

The incident has reopened ongoing security questions for cold storage users: while “offline” storage is generally considered safer than hot, connected systems, the Coldcard incident underscores that vulnerabilities in wallet firmware or key-generation logic can still be exploited—even when the device is designed to minimize exposure to networks.

AI hardening debate: speed claims vs. testability

As the incident spread, discussion intensified around whether advances in AI could accelerate vulnerability discovery and whether defensive “hardening” could have stopped the exploit. Dragonfly managing partner Haseeb Qureshi argued that roughly “$2 of AI hardening” could have prevented the Coldcard attack.

Qureshi referenced social media reports suggesting that some AI models were able to rediscover the underlying vulnerability quickly—one claim centered on Claude regenerating the issue in eight minutes. Qureshi added that the results may have been influenced by web search.

He also pointed to an example involving the open-source AI model GLM 5.2, stating that it was able to rediscover the attack in 20 minutes with web access turned off.

However, the narrative around rapid AI discovery met pushback from analysts who stress methodological rigor. Tokenomist’s data lead, Tatsapat Saerejittima, told Cointelegraph that it is unlikely AI models would have independently found the vulnerability before it was public.

“The claim that AI found it in 2 mins came from a pseudonymous Reddit user who scanned the code after the vulnerability had already become public. There was no blind test, no documented methodology, and no assessment of the model’s false-positive rate.”

Where private key setup may have mattered

Another technical thread concerns how Coldcard structured private key entropy. Crypto research company Castle Labs’ co-founder, Francesco, told Cointelegraph that while AI can reduce the time and cost of discovering cryptocurrency vulnerabilities, the wallet’s private key may have contributed to the exploitability.

Francesco said Coldcard used a level of private key entropy of 40 bits—lower than what other wallets typically adopt. He compared this to a standard approach where a 12-word seed corresponds to 128 bits of entropy. He attributed the difference to a firmware bug, suggesting the conditions for exploitation may have been more favorable than they would be under typical key-entropy assumptions.

Francesco also indicated that, as AI models become more capable and more integrated into both cybersecurity and offensive tooling, the broader cost of bug discovery is likely to keep dropping.

What investors and users should watch next

With Galaxy Research pointing to a possible fourth attack wave and analysts debating how quickly vulnerabilities can be rediscovered and mitigated, attention should shift toward whether additional victims corroborate the suspected wave and how cold-wallet vendors respond—particularly around firmware-level assumptions in key generation and any hardening measures that could reduce the chance of repeat exploitation.

Bitcoin has traded between $60,000 and $67,000 for several weeks, making $63,000 one of the most heavily supplied price areas. The only larger concentration sits between $78,000 and $82,000, where bitcoin topped out in May.

Glassnode’s Entity-Adjusted UTXO Realized Price Distribution (URPD) shows how much bitcoin supply last moved within each price band, with each entity’s balance assigned to its average acquisition price. More than 3% of the supply, approximately 515,000 BTC, is concentrated around $63,000, while more than 2%, or roughly 362,000 BTC, sits around $61,000.

Bitcoin is also trading almost exactly in line with its 200-week moving average, which tracks the asset’s average weekly price over the past 200 weeks. The indicator currently stands at $63,657, compared with bitcoin’s price of $63,822, highlighting significant accumulation in this range.

Glassnode’s 30-day Accumulation Trend Score, broken down by wallet-size cohort, shows that retail investors are currently the most aggressive buyers at these prices. Every other cohort is also accumulating, including whales holding at least 1,000 BTC, which are showing similarly strong accumulation.

Bitcoin has already slid dramatically from its 2025 peak, but investor Michael Terpin says the market still hasn’t reached a true “bottom” that typically follows capitulation. Speaking to Cointelegraph on its Trade Secrets show, Terpin argued that BTC could fall much further before stabilization—potentially aligning with a decline of around 66% from its October 2025 all-time high.

Terpin pointed to an expected drop to the low-to-mid $40,000s, framing the move as part of a continuing market cycle rather than an abrupt end to volatility. He also cautioned investors against assuming that institutional participation and spot exchange-traded funds automatically eliminate the traditional boom-and-bust rhythm.

Key takeaways

• Michael Terpin expects Bitcoin could still decline about 66% from its October 2025 all-time high, implying prices around $43,500.
• He said one hallmark of a real market bottom is that prices do not “pop back” quickly after the low.
• Terpin argued greed and mis-timing have historically derailed traders, referencing prior cycle behavior around the 2021 peak.
• He maintained that Bitcoin’s four-year cycle is not finished, despite debate that ETFs and institutions have changed the pattern.
• Terpin warned investors to understand the risks of buying corporate vehicles exposed to Bitcoin—such as Strategy—rather than holding BTC directly.

Terpin’s “rock bottom” framework for Bitcoin

In his conversation with Cointelegraph, Terpin emphasized that markets often end only after a specific kind of capitulation—one that doesn’t quickly reverse. “One of the defining hallmarks of the bottom is that it doesn’t pop back,” Terpin said.

That idea is central to why he believes BTC’s current drawdown is not enough to confirm a floor. Rather than treating volatility as proof of a finished cycle, Terpin suggested the market needs to pass through a deeper phase of selling pressure before recovery becomes durable.

Cointelegraph previously published Terpin’s remarks via a Trade Secrets segment on X.

Why Terpin thinks pain isn’t over

Terpin’s forecast is built around the magnitude of the remaining decline from Bitcoin’s October 2025 all-time high of $126,100. He told Cointelegraph he expects Bitcoin to fall roughly “66%,” which would put the asset in the $40,000 range—he said “down into the 40s,” and characterized that as “about where we’re gonna go.”

On a purely arithmetic basis, a 66% drop from $126,100 corresponds to a price near $43,500. Terpin noted this level is not far from where Bitcoin last traded in a similar range—around early February 2024—according to the price levels referenced in his remarks.

While Terpin’s outlook is bearish, the bigger message is about timing and confirmation. He argued that traders frequently confuse sharp declines or short-lived bottoms with the end of a cycle. To him, the bottom only counts when it behaves like one—meaning it doesn’t instantly bounce as if the selling phase never happened.

Lessons from prior cycles: the greed trap and macro pressure

Terpin linked his bottom framework to recurring trader behavior. He said greed repeatedly causes people to misjudge cycles—an issue he illustrated by pointing back to Bitcoin’s 2021 cycle top. After BTC reached around $69,000 in November 2021, Terpin said the market transitioned into a prolonged consolidation period, and many traders delayed exit decisions by betting on higher prices.

He recalled the late-2021 optimism that Bitcoin would reach $100,000—along with the “laser eyes” meme that circulated during the rally. Terpin argued that traders had time to reduce risk when Bitcoin was still trading above $60,000, but that expectations and momentum incentives led many to hold too long.

Terpin also highlighted a macro backdrop that he believes hurt successive cycles. He said there have been “two cycles in a row now with bad macro,” arguing that investors expected improvements that did not materialize. He referenced the assumption that political developments would be supportive but said that tariffs and other factors contributed to ongoing conditions that facilitated manipulation.

In the same discussion, Terpin noted that Bitcoin ultimately reached $100,000 in December 2024, shortly after Donald Trump won the US presidential election—an example he used to show how macro and policy narratives can still intersect with market performance, even if the broader cycle outcome is not what traders expect.

The four-year cycle debate and the role of institutions

Terpin described himself as a believer in Bitcoin’s traditional four-year cycle and pushed back against the 2025 argument that institutional adoption and spot ETF launches have permanently altered Bitcoin’s typical “boom-and-bust” pattern. In his view, the presence of institutions does not remove the incentives for selling.

“I think we’re still following the halvings,” Terpin said. He added that the idea that markets only go up from here because “institutions don’t sell” is “garbage,” emphasizing: “Institutions absolutely sell.”

For investors, that stance matters because it frames ETF/institutional adoption as potentially changing liquidity channels rather than eliminating cycle dynamics. If Terpin is right, the key risk for late-cycle buyers is assuming that institutional flows will permanently suppress downside—when, in his interpretation, sell-side pressure remains a feature of the cycle.

Bitcoin versus Bitcoin exposure stocks, including Strategy

Terpin’s caution extended beyond timing to vehicle selection. He said investors should recognize the structural differences between owning Bitcoin directly and buying companies that hold or profit from Bitcoin exposure. He specifically addressed Strategy and the accumulation strategy associated with its executive chairman Michael Saylor.

Terpin acknowledged Strategy’s track record but urged investors not to treat corporate share performance as a clean substitute for holding BTC. “Historically, you’ve done better if you buy Strategy at the bottom and then sell it at the top than if you buy the Bitcoin,” he told Cointelegraph.

However, he stressed that the outcome depends on continued execution—one reason he said he would personally “rather bet on Bitcoin than a single company.” He pointed to 2022 as an example of how Bitcoin-linked corporate strategies can still experience severe drawdowns when Bitcoin itself moves against them, noting that Saylor avoided being “wrecked” then even while being underwater with his Bitcoin holdings.

Terpin also contrasted portfolio management needs between Bitcoin and altcoins. He suggested that investors looking for a less hands-on approach should prefer BTC over altcoins because altcoins require more active attention through the cycle. He framed the “cycle strategy” as something investors can revisit only a few times over the four-year period: assess when the market is nearing a bottom and when it is getting close to a top, while spending the remainder of the time away from constant trading.

For readers, the next watch items are straightforward but demanding: whether Bitcoin shows the kind of bottom behavior Terpin describes—particularly a lack of immediate “pop back”—and how sell-side dynamics respond as the market tests lower levels. Terpin’s argument is less about predicting an exact number and more about demanding confirmation that the cycle’s pain has genuinely run its course.

A wallet holding about $36 million worth of BTC stolen from Coldcard devices has taken in 23 deposits since the theft while becoming a collection box for an assortment of heartfelt and bizarre notes.

Indeed, 14 of these deposits carried written messages, including one that asked the thief for five BTC to spend on cocaine and prostitutes.

Coinkite, the Toronto company behind Coldcard, disclosed a catastrophic bug in its hardware wallets last week. For over five years, its firmware had been generating seed phrases with roughly 40 bits of entropy instead of its intended 128.

Hackers subsequently set about using computational brute-force to crack customers’ private keys and sweep their BTC.

On-chain thefts now top $100 million, via 1,596 BTC stolen from ~7300 addresses, according to Galaxy Research, graffiti has moved in to communicate with the anonymous adversary.

Meanwhile, 23 depositors have delivered 81,527 satoshis worth about $52 after mining fees, to the hacker. Their senders paid another 9,706 satoshis, roughly $6, in fees.

In April, the MLS serving greater Chicagoland worked with the nation’s largest brokerage to expand its private listing network while restricting public visibility of many home listings. A federal court recently issued a temporary restraining order to ensure the Chicago MLS continues to provide fair access. 

Chicago should be a warning sign to the rest of the country. If this model spreads, public access to home listings could become a fallback rather than the default. We risk breeding the kind of widespread inequity that harkens back to redlining.

Redlining denied generations of Black families’ equal access to mortgages, investment, and the opportunity to build wealth. During the 1930s, federal programs used maps to gauge and rate neighborhoods for lending risk. Minority neighborhoods were often unjustly marked in red ink as “hazardous,” denying them mortgages and investments. Although outlawed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, its legacy remains visible today in racial wealth gaps, segregation, and unequal opportunity. Now, a modern form of digital redlining threatens to emerge. This is more than an industry dispute. This is a civil rights issue.

Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) are the invisible engines powering today’s digital world. From payment processing and weather forecasts to AI models and blockchain data, APIs allow applications to communicate and exchange information seamlessly. Traditionally, however, API services have been controlled by centralized providers, creating concerns around pricing, censorship, availability, and vendor lock-in.

Decentralized API marketplaces are emerging as a blockchain-powered alternative, allowing developers and businesses to publish, discover, monetize, and consume APIs without relying on a single intermediary. By leveraging smart contracts, decentralized identity, and token-based incentives, these marketplaces aim to create a more open, resilient, and transparent internet economy.

What Is a Decentralized API Marketplace?

A decentralized API marketplace is a blockchain-based platform where developers can offer APIs directly to consumers while maintaining ownership of their services.

Instead of a centralized company managing infrastructure, payments, and access control, smart contracts automate:

• API registration
• Usage tracking
• Payments
• Revenue distribution
• Reputation systems
• Access permissions

The marketplace becomes an open ecosystem where anyone can participate without requiring approval from a central authority.

How It Works

The workflow is surprisingly straightforward.

1. API Providers Publish Services

Developers upload API metadata, pricing models, documentation, and endpoint information.

Examples include:

• AI inference APIs
• Blockchain node access
• Weather data
• Financial market feeds
• Identity verification
• Machine learning services
• Gaming APIs

2. Consumers Discover APIs

Businesses and developers browse available APIs through decentralized registries.

Smart filters can rank APIs by:

• Performance
• Cost
• Reliability
• Community ratings
• Geographic availability
• Response time

3. Smart Contract Payments

Instead of traditional monthly subscriptions, users pay automatically based on actual usage.

Possible payment models include:

• Pay per request
• Pay per second
• Monthly staking
• Subscription NFTs
• Token streaming
• Micropayments

Payments settle directly between users and providers.

4. API Access

Once payment conditions are met, access credentials or decentralized authentication methods grant API usage.

Everything happens without manual approval.

Why Traditional API Platforms Have Limitations

Centralized API providers face several challenges.

Single Points of Failure

If the platform experiences downtime, thousands of applications may stop functioning.

Vendor Lock-In

Developers often become dependent on one provider’s pricing, policies, and infrastructure.

Migrating can become costly.

Limited Monetization

Smaller developers struggle to reach customers because centralized platforms favor established providers.

Geographic Restrictions

Certain services may not be available in every region due to regulations or business decisions.

Platform Fees

Central marketplaces frequently charge significant commissions that reduce developer earnings.

Benefits of Decentralized API Marketplaces

Permissionless Publishing

Anyone can publish an API without seeking approval.

Innovation becomes accessible to independent developers worldwide.

Global Payments

Blockchain enables instant international payments without relying on traditional banking systems.

Developers can monetize services regardless of their location.

Transparent Pricing

Pricing is visible on-chain, reducing hidden fees and unexpected billing changes.

Automated Revenue Distribution

Smart contracts instantly split revenue among contributors, infrastructure providers, and partners.

Better Incentives

Token rewards encourage:

• Reliable uptime
• High-quality documentation
• Fast response times
• Community support
• Honest reviews

Increased Competition

Users gain access to multiple providers offering similar services, encouraging innovation while helping keep costs competitive.

Use Cases

Artificial Intelligence

Developers can publish AI models as APIs and earn revenue for every inference request.

Instead of relying on one AI provider, applications can choose from numerous decentralized options.

Blockchain Infrastructure

Developers often need:

• RPC endpoints
• Node services
• Indexing APIs
• Wallet integrations

Decentralized marketplaces allow infrastructure providers to compete on quality and pricing.

Financial Data

Real-time:

• Stock prices
• Crypto prices
• Commodity feeds
• Forex markets

can all be monetized through decentralized APIs.

IoT Networks

Connected devices can purchase data from other sensors automatically.

Examples include:

• Traffic information
• Environmental monitoring
• Energy grids
• Smart cities

Gaming

Games may purchase:

• Leaderboards
• NFT metadata
• Matchmaking services
• Player statistics

through decentralized APIs.

The Role of Tokens

Many decentralized marketplaces introduce utility tokens that support ecosystem participation.

Tokens may be used for:

• Service payments
• Staking
• Governance
• Reputation systems
• Incentive programs
• Security deposits
• Premium API access

Rather than serving purely speculative purposes, tokens can align incentives between providers and consumers while supporting the long-term sustainability of the marketplace.

Challenges Ahead

Although promising, decentralized API marketplaces still face obstacles.

Scalability

High API volumes require infrastructure capable of handling millions of requests efficiently.

Security

APIs must be protected against:

• Abuse
• Spam
• DDoS attacks
• Fraudulent usage

Service Quality

Maintaining reliable uptime remains critical.

Reputation systems and decentralized monitoring help identify trustworthy providers.

Developer Experience

Traditional API platforms offer mature documentation and tooling.

Decentralized platforms must deliver similarly seamless experiences to encourage adoption.

Regulation

Data privacy, intellectual property, and compliance requirements vary across jurisdictions, requiring thoughtful implementation.

How AI and Blockchain Strengthen the Ecosystem

Artificial intelligence can complement decentralized API marketplaces by:

• Monitoring performance
• Detecting anomalies
• Optimizing routing
• Predicting demand
• Recommending the best providers
• Automating pricing strategies

Combined with blockchain’s transparency and programmable payments, AI can help marketplaces become more efficient, resilient, and user-friendly.

The Road Ahead

As Web3 infrastructure matures, decentralized API marketplaces could become foundational building blocks of the digital economy. Instead of relying on a handful of centralized providers, developers may gain access to a global network of services that compete on quality, reliability, and value.

For startups, this lowers barriers to monetization. For enterprises, it provides greater flexibility and resilience. For independent developers, it opens opportunities to earn directly from their innovations without depending on centralized gatekeepers.

The future of APIs may not belong to a few dominant platforms, but to open marketplaces where services, data, and intelligence flow freely across decentralized networks.

In Summary

Decentralized API marketplaces represent more than a new way to distribute software—they embody a shift toward a more open and collaborative internet. By combining blockchain technology, smart contracts, and token-based incentives, these platforms enable developers to publish services, receive transparent compensation, and reach a global audience without unnecessary intermediaries.

As adoption grows and infrastructure improves, decentralized API marketplaces have the potential to power the next generation of AI, Web3 applications, decentralized finance, gaming, and enterprise software. In a world where digital services increasingly drive economic activity, open API ecosystems could become one of the defining pillars of the decentralized internet.

REQUEST AN ARTICLE