A coalition of crypto companies and industry groups has asked frontier artificial intelligence (AI) labs to provide Bitcoin developers and other open-source “defenders” early access to their most capable models. The request comes in a letter published Monday by the Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI), arguing that current access arrangements can leave critical infrastructure teams operating behind the pace of rapidly advancing AI-assisted cyber capabilities.

In the letter, signatories say many defenders—including Bitcoin Core developers—can be limited by the absence of dedicated “trusted-access programs” and by guardrails applied to publicly available frontier systems. As a result, they contend that qualified teams may be forced to rely on less capable open-weight models, even as attackers may use more powerful AI tooling to probe for weaknesses.

Key takeaways

• The Bitcoin Policy Institute letter calls for “standing trusted-access programs” so open-source financial infrastructure defenders can use top-tier frontier AI before widespread public release.
• Signatories argue that guardrails and limited access to advanced models can hinder security research and response for Bitcoin and broader crypto systems.
• The letter links the push to the rising scale of AI-enabled vulnerability discovery and threats, citing multiple reports from open-source maintainers.
• Industry data referenced in the letter points to a sharp jump in monthly crypto hacks, with April 2026 losses exceeding $634 million.
• The coalition includes major ecosystem participants such as Anchorage Digital, BitGo, Bitwise, Blockstream, Kraken, Ledger, and Trezor, among others.

Why the letter centers on “trusted access”

The BPI says the economics of security research and cyber operations are shifting as frontier AI models become more capable. According to the letter, advanced systems can search large codebases, surface potential weaknesses, and compress timelines for complex technical work—benefits that apply not only to attackers, but also to defenders responsible for maintaining open-source financial infrastructure.

Without early, dedicated access programs, the letter warns that defenders may struggle to keep pace with evolving threats. It also argues that cyber incidents exploiting open-source vulnerabilities can translate directly into real-world harm, including the risk of losing “life savings,” given how widely open-source software underpins digital finance.

To address this asymmetry, the letter asks frontier AI labs to “establish or expand standing trusted-access programs” for qualified open-source defenders. The focus is less on broad public access and more on structured access channels for teams charged with safeguarding infrastructure.

What data and security commentary are used to support the case

The letter points to recent increases in hack activity across the sector. It cites DefiLlama data showing that total monthly crypto hacks surged in April 2026, with malicious actors stealing more than $634 million from cryptocurrency platforms—described as the highest monthly total since the Bybit hack. That earlier incident, the letter notes, contributed to losses of roughly $1.4 billion in February 2025, again according to DefiLlama.

In addition to incident volume, the letter frames AI as a force multiplier for vulnerability discovery. It references concerns raised across the crypto security industry as newer AI systems make it easier to automate parts of the probing and exploit development cycle.

Earlier coverage cited within the letter highlights comments from Mitchell Amador, CEO of bug bounty platform Immunefi, who characterized the moment as a “vulnerability apocalypse” in relation to developments in AI-assisted research. The letter also mentions the emergence of newer frontier models—described in the article as Claude Opus 4.8 and ChatGPT 5.5—as part of the broader shift raising security stakes.

Who signed the request

The open letter is co-signed by a broad cross-section of the crypto industry, signaling that the concern is not confined to one segment of infrastructure. Alongside the Bitcoin Policy Institute, the signatories include organizations such as the African Bitcoin Institute, Anchorage Digital, BitGo, Bitwise, Blockstream, Bull Bitcoin, MARA, Kraken, Ledger, and Trezor, among others.

By bringing together companies spanning custody, exchanges, analytics, wallet infrastructure, and Bitcoin-focused organizations, the letter underscores the “system-wide” nature of the risk it describes: open-source code and shared software dependencies can affect multiple products, operators, and user bases at once.

Implications for Bitcoin developers and the broader security community

If frontier AI labs establish or expand trusted-access programs as requested, the most immediate practical impact would be on the speed and effectiveness of defensive work around open-source financial infrastructure. In the letter’s framing, having early access to capable models could improve how maintainers audit code, identify potential weaknesses, and respond to new exploit techniques.

The request also highlights a tension that many in security research recognize: attackers may benefit from advanced tools faster than defenders can. By arguing that public guardrails and limited availability of powerful models can block legitimate defense work, the letter effectively calls for a policy-like solution—one that treats certain defenders as authorized users of frontier capabilities.

At the same time, it remains unclear what “standing trusted-access programs” would look like in practice, including how labs would vet applicants, what models would be shared, and how output would be handled. The letter is a policy request rather than a technical specification, so builders and investors should watch for follow-up actions that clarify implementation details.

For now, the key signal is the coalition’s insistence that time-to-defense matters as AI capabilities scale—especially as hack activity remains elevated and AI-assisted vulnerability discovery accelerates. The next phase will likely involve whether frontier AI labs respond, and whether any program structures emerge that could help Bitcoin and other open-source maintainers close the gap between defensive capacity and adversarial capability.

London, United Kigdom, August 12th, 2026, Chainwire

HCB Advisory has published a new analysis examining the role of market sentiment in financial markets and how changes in investor behaviour, demand, and expectations can influence short- and medium-term asset price movements.

Financial markets are shaped not only by economic indicators and fundamental developments, but also by the behaviour and expectations of market participants. Changes in investor confidence, risk appetite, demand for particular assets, and reactions to new information can contribute to significant changes in market dynamics.

According to HCB Advisory, analysing market sentiment can provide an additional perspective when assessing financial markets. By observing how participants respond to economic developments, corporate news, monetary policy decisions, and changes in broader market conditions, analysts can gain a better understanding of the factors influencing price movements.

“Market sentiment can provide important context when analysing short- and medium-term changes in asset prices,” Blake Rees said a representative of HCB Advisory. “Investor behaviour, changes in demand, and reactions to new information can all contribute to market dynamics. Understanding these factors allows analysts to evaluate price movements from a broader perspective.”

Understanding Market Sentiment

Market sentiment describes the general attitude and expectations of participants toward a particular asset, market, or the broader financial environment.

Sentiment can change as investors respond to new information, economic data, company announcements, central bank decisions, geopolitical developments, or changes in financial conditions.

Periods of positive sentiment may be associated with increased risk appetite and stronger demand for certain assets. Conversely, declining confidence can lead investors to become more cautious and reduce exposure to assets perceived as carrying greater uncertainty.

HCB Advisory notes that sentiment is not necessarily uniform across all market participants. Different investors can interpret the same information differently, creating a range of expectations and contributing to changes in market activity.

Investor Behaviour and Market Dynamics

Investor behaviour represents an important component of sentiment analysis.

Market participants continuously evaluate available information and make decisions based on their expectations about future conditions. These decisions can affect buying and selling activity and, consequently, the balance between supply and demand.

According to HCB Advisory, observing changes in investor behaviour can help analysts understand why an asset may experience increased activity even when there has been no major change in its underlying fundamentals.

Behaviour can also change rapidly when new information enters the market. Unexpected economic data, policy announcements, or significant corporate developments can alter expectations within a short period of time.

For this reason, monitoring behavioural changes can complement traditional market analysis.

Changes in Demand

Demand is another important indicator when assessing market sentiment.

An increase in demand can indicate growing interest in a particular asset or market segment, while declining demand may reflect a reduction in investor interest or a shift toward alternative opportunities.

HCB Advisory considers changes in demand alongside other market indicators rather than treating them as an independent signal.

Trading volumes, price movements, liquidity, and broader market conditions can provide additional context when evaluating whether changes in demand represent a temporary development or part of a broader shift in sentiment.

Understanding these relationships can help analysts develop a more complete view of market behaviour.

Identifying Potential Trading Signals

Changes in sentiment and investor behaviour can also be incorporated into the process of identifying potential trading signals.

A trading signal does not necessarily represent a prediction of future market performance. Instead, it can serve as an indicator that a particular market condition or change in participant behaviour may require additional analysis.

For example, a significant increase in trading activity accompanied by a change in investor sentiment may indicate that market participants are responding to new information.

Similarly, a sharp change in demand may prompt analysts to investigate the factors behind the movement and determine whether it is connected to broader market developments.

According to HCB Advisory, such signals should be evaluated together with other analytical factors rather than used in isolation.

Combining Sentiment With Market Analysis

Market sentiment is only one component of a broader analytical framework.

Traditional market analysis can include economic indicators, interest rates, inflation, corporate developments, valuation measures, liquidity conditions, and other factors relevant to a particular asset.

HCB Advisory believes that combining these areas of analysis with information about investor behaviour can provide a broader perspective on market conditions.

For example, a change in asset prices may be driven by fundamental developments, changing expectations, or a combination of both. Understanding the role of sentiment can help analysts examine the behavioural component of the movement.

This approach is particularly relevant when evaluating short- and medium-term market changes, where investor expectations can influence price dynamics over relatively short periods.

Technology and Sentiment Analysis

Modern financial technologies are creating new opportunities for analysing market sentiment.

Analytical platforms can process large volumes of information from financial markets, news sources, economic publications, and other data channels. Advanced data-processing systems can help identify changes in activity and highlight developments that may require further investigation.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies can also assist with processing large datasets and identifying patterns in market behaviour.

According to HCB Advisory, these tools can support analysts by improving the speed at which information is collected and organized.

However, technological systems still require interpretation. Changes in sentiment can have different meanings depending on the broader market environment, making professional analysis an important part of the process.

Short-Term and Medium-Term Market Movements

Sentiment analysis can be particularly relevant when examining short- and medium-term price dynamics.

In the short term, markets can respond quickly to changes in expectations, news events, and investor positioning. Over longer periods, sentiment can interact with economic and fundamental developments to influence broader market trends.

HCB Advisory emphasizes that distinguishing between temporary changes in sentiment and more persistent shifts is an important part of the analytical process.

A short-lived increase in demand may have a different significance from a sustained change in investor behaviour that continues across multiple trading sessions or market cycles.

Avoiding a Single-Indicator Approach

HCB Advisory stresses that no single sentiment indicator can provide a complete explanation of market behaviour.

Investor sentiment can change quickly, and indicators based on historical or current activity may not fully reflect future developments.

For this reason, the company advocates combining sentiment analysis with broader market research.

Analysts can consider price dynamics, trading activity, economic conditions, liquidity, fundamental developments, and other relevant information alongside changes in investor behaviour.

This multi-factor approach can provide greater context when evaluating potential market scenarios.

Looking Ahead

Financial markets are becoming increasingly data-driven, while investors have access to information from a growing number of sources.

As information becomes more readily available, understanding how market participants respond to that information may become increasingly relevant to financial analysis.

According to HCB Advisory, the combination of traditional market research, behavioural analysis, and modern data-processing technologies can provide additional insight into changing market conditions.

The company concludes that understanding investor behaviour and changes in market sentiment can help analysts evaluate the reasons behind short- and medium-term price movements more comprehensively.

About HCB Advisory

HCB Advisory is a financial research and advisory company focused on financial markets, investment analysis, market intelligence, and modern financial technologies. The company publishes research and industry insights covering global economic developments, market trends, investor behaviour, investment processes, and the evolution of financial decision-making.

Website: https://hcbadvisory.com/

Disclaimer

This press release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Market sentiment and behavioural indicators cannot guarantee future price movements or investment outcomes. The information presented is for general informational purposes and should not be interpreted as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any financial instrument, security, digital asset, or investment product.

Contact

Caleb Grant
marketing@hcbadvisory.com

Key takeaways

• Harmony’s ONE token plunged roughly 40% following an apparent exploit that created about 4 billion tokens.
• The unauthorized issuance was equivalent to approximately 26% of ONE’s existing supply.
• Harmony released an emergency software update to prevent further minting and urged network operators to install it immediately.

Harmony’s ONE token fell approximately 40% on Wednesday after an apparent exploit reportedly created around 4 billion new tokens.

Harmony confirmed the attack and instructed the network operators responsible for maintaining the blockchain to install an emergency software update. The project said the patch would prevent the attacker from minting additional ONE tokens.

However, the update does not resolve the status of tokens that were already created. Harmony is still evaluating how to isolate or remove those assets from circulation.

The scale of the incident triggered intense selling pressure as traders assessed the risks of token dilution, exchange deposits, and a potential reversal of blockchain transactions.

Unauthorized issuance equals 26% of ONE supply

Approximately 15 billion ONE tokens existed before the exploit. The creation of another 4 billion represents a sudden supply increase of roughly 26%.

Such a large unauthorized issuance can severely dilute existing holders. If the attacker successfully transfers the newly created tokens to exchanges and sells them, the additional circulating supply could place further downward pressure on ONE’s price.

Harmony has not officially confirmed the total number of tokens minted or explained how the reported 4 billion figure was calculated.

The network was once among the cryptocurrency industry’s largest projects, reaching a market capitalization of approximately $4 billion in January 2022.

Harmony temporarily paused its token bridge to prevent potentially compromised assets from moving between networks.

The project also asked centralized exchanges to block and freeze funds traced to four wallet addresses associated with the incident. By flagging those addresses, Harmony hopes trading platforms can prevent the attacker from converting or withdrawing the newly minted tokens.

Cooperation from exchanges may limit the damage if the assets remain identifiable. However, recovery becomes more difficult if the tokens are swapped through decentralized exchanges, transferred to other networks or divided among additional wallets.

Blockchain transaction monitoring may still allow investigators to trace some movements, but it cannot guarantee that all unauthorized assets will be recovered.

Harmony’s software update is intended to close the vulnerability and stop any additional ONE from being created.

Network operators must adopt the new software for the patch to become effective across the blockchain. A coordinated upgrade is therefore essential to ensure that validators and other infrastructure providers follow the corrected network rules.

Harmony has not publicly identified the vulnerability, disclosed how the attacker gained minting authority or confirmed whether any additional parts of the protocol remain at risk.

Until the project releases a complete technical explanation, uncertainty may continue to weigh on ONE and applications operating on the network.

“We are working on a patch and rollback options,” Harmony said, promising further updates as its investigation progresses.

A rollback would return the blockchain to a state recorded before the exploit. The network would then resume from that point, removing subsequent transactions from its accepted history.

This approach could erase the creation of unauthorized tokens still on Harmony. However, it could also reverse legitimate transactions completed after the selected rollback point.

Will ONE recover following the massive dip?

The ONE/USD 4-hour chart is extremely bearish and efficient, as ONE has lost 40% of its value in the last 24 hours.

The coin briefly dropped to the $0.000605 level before bouncing back to now trade above $0.00074.

The technical indicators suggest that the bears are currently in control. The RSI of 12 means that ONE is currently in an oversold territory. The MACD lines also support the bearish narrative.

If the bearish trend persists, ONE could retest the daily low of $0.000605 before heading towards the $0.00050 psychological level.

However, if the bulls regain control, they would likely seek efficiency on the 4-hour chart at the $0.00112 level in the near term.

Binance and stablecoin payments card issuer RedotPay are trading competing narratives over whether a Singapore legal case tied to their wider dispute is set to end after a hearing on Aug. 7. RedotPay says it expects Binance to discontinue the proceedings, while Binance insists it is not withdrawing its claims.

The disagreement is the latest turn in a broader legal battle involving Binance-affiliated entities and RedotPay, which also includes a separate Hong Kong lawsuit seeking close to $473 million in damages.

Key takeaways

• RedotPay expects Binance to discontinue a Singapore case after an Aug. 7 hearing and plans to pursue legal costs.
• Binance says reports about it withdrawing Singapore claims are false and that it is continuing to press its case.
• The Singapore dispute sits within a larger conflict that includes a Hong Kong lawsuit alleging diversion of Binance Card users.
• The cases hinge on the terms of the Binance Pay–RedotPay relationship and whether card funding was used outside agreement scope.

Dispute over whether Singapore proceedings will be dropped

In comments to Cointelegraph on Tuesday, a spokesperson for RedotPay said the company expects Binance to discontinue the Singapore proceedings following the Aug. 7 hearing. RedotPay added that it would “be seeking legal costs arising from the discontinuance of the matter from the claimant,” while the parties would attempt to agree on costs.

Binance, however, rejected that characterization. A Binance spokesperson told Cointelegraph: “Reports that Binance will be withdrawing its Singapore claims are false.” The spokesperson added that Binance has not abandoned its claims and said it has informed both the court and RedotPay accordingly.

For market participants tracking crypto-related litigation, the immediate practical implication is uncertainty over process and timelines. Even if a party seeks to end one track of litigation, the question of who bears legal costs—and whether claims persist in the background—can affect strategy and leverage in the parallel Hong Kong matter.

How the legal fight expanded to multiple jurisdictions

According to earlier reporting by Bloomberg on Aug. 5, Binance-affiliated plaintiffs brought proceedings connected to the RedotPay business in Hong Kong. Bloomberg reported that Nest Trading, DistributedTechnologies and Chaintecs Consulting Singapore filed a petition in Hong Kong involving RedotPay co-founders.

Cointelegraph previously detailed the core allegations as well: the Hong Kong plaintiffs claim RedotPay diverted more than 470,000 Binance Card users by allowing Binance Pay funds to be used for stablecoin card top-ups outside the terms of a commercial agreement. They put their estimated damages at $472.8 million, based on a claimed lifetime customer value of $925 per user.

In parallel, Chaintecs brought related proceedings against RedotPay affiliates in Singapore, where a hearing was scheduled for Aug. 7. The existence of a Singapore hearing indicates the dispute has been actively litigated rather than merely threatened, which makes the latest exchange between the parties—over discontinuance versus continuation—material for observers.

What RedotPay says it was doing—and what Binance says it violates

RedotPay has denied what it described as “unfounded allegations” made against the company and its co-founders. In its communications to Cointelegraph, the company said it would defend the claims through the legal process.

The commercial relationship at the center of the litigation began in December 2023, when RedotPay announced its Binance Pay partnership. Under that arrangement, Binance Pay users could make direct deposits to RedotPay cards.

Binance later ended support for the integration as of April 3, 2026, citing a review of merchant partners. That withdrawal occurred months before the legal fight became widely public, suggesting the dispute has continued to develop independently of whether the integration was still active.

Crucially, the competing positions are not simply about whether RedotPay could provide card top-ups, but whether the use of Binance Pay funds fell within (or outside) what the parties agreed. The way courts interpret “terms of a commercial agreement” is often determinative in crypto platform and fintech disputes, particularly where multiple payment rails, intermediaries, or tokenized balances are involved.

What to watch after the Aug. 7 hearing

While RedotPay says it expects Binance to discontinue the Singapore proceedings, Binance’s spokesperson says the company is not abandoning its claims. The discrepancy means the next filings and court actions will matter more than either side’s statements in the short term.

If the Singapore case is indeed discontinued, RedotPay’s intention to pursue legal costs could become a focal point—especially if Binance contests costs or argues that discontinuance does not reflect wrongdoing. If Binance instead continues to litigate, it could signal that the company intends to maintain pressure on RedotPay in multiple venues simultaneously.

Either way, readers should pay close attention to how the Singapore track evolves alongside the Hong Kong case seeking nearly $473 million. With both proceedings tied to alleged user diversion connected to the Binance Pay–RedotPay setup, developments in one jurisdiction can influence negotiation posture in the other, even if legal standards and procedures differ.

For now, the main unknown is whether Binance’s position will translate into continued court steps in Singapore or whether RedotPay’s expected discontinuance plays out in formal filings—an outcome that will also shape the parties’ leverage and cost exposure across the wider $473 million dispute.

The Federal Reserve payment system is a walled garden, and rightly so; there are serious risks to opening access to unregulated or underregulated entities. But the walls should be drawn around prudent regulation, not arbitrary criteria. Fed membership should automatically mean access to Fed payment rails. Otherwise, if you build the walls in the wrong place, innovation will go offshore into foreign jurisdictions, beyond the reach of any U.S. regulator.

FDIC insurance is one of those arbitrary lines. Some point to its absence as a reason to hesitate, but that confuses two different risks. FDIC insurance protects against the risk created when a bank lends out client deposits, a risk inapplicable to a fully reserved custodial bank like Anchorage Digital Bank. Even stablecoin issuance, which more national trust banks are doing, is effectively full-reserve banking. Every stablecoin is always backed 100% by reserves, there is no fractional reserve banking being done, no asset-liability mismatch, and the risk to capital is fundamentally different. Federal Reserve Payment rail access should reflect actual risk, not assumptions carried over from a different banking model. Those differences should be reflected in how payment access is evaluated.

What is missing is not more studies to summarize longstanding banking law, but a published, uniform standard, applied the same way across the Federal Reserve’s system, so that similarly regulated banks get full access to Federal Reserve master accounts. Without them, institutions that took the harder path of federal oversight may still find themselves locked out of the very system they were regulated to join.