The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has filed a lawsuit seeking to hold Cash FX Group and three individuals accountable for a large-scale foreign-exchange investment scheme that the regulator says involved cryptocurrency.

According to the CFTC, the case centers on allegations that the defendants raised more than $950 million from participants by promoting a purported “commodity pool” meant to trade retail foreign currency contracts, while misrepresenting how investor money was managed and the returns investors were promised.

Key takeaways

• The CFTC says it filed its complaint Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
• Regulators allege a multilevel marketing Ponzi scheme built around forex trading claims, including promised returns “up to 15% weekly.”
• The complaint alleges most participant funds were misappropriated rather than used for legitimate trading.
• The CFTC claims participants suffered losses of at least $406 million, alongside alleged false accounting statements.

A $950 million forex pool scheme, tied to crypto investors

In its press release, the CFTC states that the lawsuit targets Cash FX Group and three individuals: Huascar Jose Lopez Castillo of Brazil, The Conversion Pros and its CEO Ronald Pope of Oregon, and Justin Halladay of Florida. The regulator’s complaint, it says, was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The agency’s core allegation is that the defendants operated a multilevel marketing Ponzi scheme. The CFTC claims the group solicited and accepted more than $950 million from participants based on the pitch that the funds would be used to trade retail foreign currency contracts through a commodity pool.

While the complaint is framed around forex investment activity in a commodity pool structure, the CFTC also characterizes the scheme as involving cryptocurrency. That matters for investors because it underscores the regulator’s position that crypto-adjacent marketing and fundraising can fall under commodities enforcement when it’s tied to fraud and manipulation, even if the underlying product is presented as traditional finance trading.

Alleged return promises and claims about “expert trading” technology

The CFTC alleges that the defendants made a series of claims designed to build trust and justify the pooling of funds. Among the allegations: the defendants falsely stated that investor money would be handled by expert traders, “proprietary algorithms,” and artificial intelligence.

The regulator also says participants were promised returns as high as 15% weekly. If the allegations are proven, that kind of high-frequency, fixed-feel return promise is often a central feature of fraud cases—particularly when the promised performance is inconsistent with transparent trading records and instead relies on marketing narratives.

According to the CFTC, despite the messaging around sophisticated trading, forex trading was minimal. The complaint further alleges that the defendants misappropriated most of the participant funds, using new contributions from investors to support fictitious profits.

How the CFTC says investor money was handled

In laying out its allegations, the CFTC contends that most of the participant funds were diverted away from meaningful trading activity. The complaint describes a pattern where “new contributions from participants” were used to pay alleged trading profits that the CFTC characterizes as fictitious.

The agency also claims the defendants directed millions of dollars to each defendant. This allocation detail is important for readers because, in many Ponzi-style cases, the flow of funds to operators and related parties is used to support the fraud narrative—showing that investor money can be repackaged as returns while principal is drained.

Separately, the CFTC alleges that the defendants provided false accounting statements to participants. The CFTC says those investors lost at least $406 million. Taken together, the return claims, alleged minimal trading, alleged diversion of funds, and alleged false accounting statements form a consistent enforcement theory: investors were sold a trading outcome while money was primarily used to sustain the scheme and enrich the defendants.

“The Division of Enforcement has continued to refocus on its core mission of protecting the public from fraud and manipulation,” said Director of Enforcement David I. Miller. “This critical action, and the massive fraud it targets, reflects our steadfast commitment to addressing fraud wherever we find it.”

Broader enforcement and regulation: crypto oversight in focus

This lawsuit lands as the CFTC continues pushing its regulatory approach to digital asset markets. Cointelegraph previously reported that the CFTC submitted a new regulatory action covering crypto asset transactions and markets for White House review, following the agency’s effort to advance how it oversees parts of the digital asset sector.

That submission, Cointelegraph noted earlier, came days after the U.S. Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act—legislation intended to establish a federal framework for crypto markets. While the CLARITY Act’s status remains uncertain, the CFTC’s enforcement posture appears clear: regulators are willing to pursue cases where the conduct involves fraud or manipulation, including where cryptocurrency-related fundraising or representations are part of the scheme.

For market participants, the practical takeaway is that “what’s being traded” doesn’t always determine regulatory interest. The CFTC’s complaint, as described in its release, focuses on the structure of solicitation, promised returns, control of funds, and the veracity of trading and accounting representations—elements that can apply regardless of whether the marketing campaign uses crypto terminology.

As the litigation proceeds, investors and users should watch for how the case develops in court—particularly any evidence related to (1) the extent of actual trading activity, (2) the handling and tracing of participant funds, and (3) the accounting records provided to participants. The CFTC’s allegations, if substantiated, would reinforce the message that high-return promises and opaque trading claims—especially those supported by false technology narratives—remain prime targets for enforcement.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission said it is suing Cash FX Group and three individuals in a $950 million foreign-exchange investment case involving cryptocurrency.

The defendants are Cash FX and its CEO Huascar Jose Lopez Castillo of Brazil, The Conversion Pros and its CEO Ronald Pope of Oregon, and Justin Halladay of Florida.

The CFTC said its complaint was filed Friday in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida. It alleges the defendants operated a multilevel marketing Ponzi scheme, soliciting and accepting over $950 million for the purported purpose of trading retail foreign currency contracts in a commodity pool. 

The agency alleged the defendants falsely claimed pool funds were handled by expert traders, proprietary algorithms and artificial intelligence, and promised up to 15% weekly returns.

The CFTC alleged that Cash FX engaged in minimal forex trading and misappropriated most of the participant funds, using new contributions from participants to pay fictitious trading profits while directing millions of dollars to each defendant.

Related: Bernstein expects ‘aggressive’ rulemaking from SEC, CFTC, following CLARITY Act failure

Cash FX also provided false accounting statements to participants, who lost at least $406 million, the CFTC alleged. 

“The Division of Enforcement has continued to refocus on its core mission of protecting the public from fraud and manipulation,” said Director of Enforcement David I. Miller. “This critical action, and the massive fraud it targets, reflects our steadfast commitment to addressing fraud wherever we find it.”

Cointelegraph reported Sept. 18 that the CFTC had submitted a new regulatory action covering crypto asset transactions and markets for White House review, as the agency moves forward with its approach to overseeing the digital asset sector.

While details of the planned regulations were not disclosed, the submission came days after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act, legislation aimed at establishing a federal regulatory framework for crypto markets.

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Bitget has revised the scale of its security breach after initially reporting a smaller figure for the amount of crypto impacted. In an updated incident report, the exchange said roughly $388 million in assets were affected—higher than Thursday’s estimate of $352 million.

In a follow-up update on Friday, Bitget also confirmed it would continue pausing withdrawals while it investigates, and it introduced a bounty program designed to encourage the freezing or recovery of stolen funds. The exchange attributed the upward revision to a more complete accounting of transfers during the incident, including assets on networks not captured in the first report.

Key takeaways

• Bitget revised the breach impact to about $388 million, up from the previously reported $352 million.
• About $387.5 million was traced to attacker-controlled addresses, based on onchain monitoring—around $35 million more than previously disclosed.
• Withdrawals remain paused, while the exchange says the incident is contained and no further unauthorized transfers are possible.
• Bitget says the change reflects fuller accounting, including additional affected assets on Zcash and TRON that were missing from the initial estimate.
• The breach involved multiple networks, including EVM chains, the XRP Ledger, Zcash, and TRON, with multiple asset types listed.

Recalculated losses: what changed in Bitget’s numbers

Bitget’s revised incident report clarifies that the affected amount was understated in the first estimate. According to the exchange, its revised figures reflect a more complete accounting of transfers that occurred during the breach—specifically by adding affected assets on Zcash and TRON that were not included in the initial calculation.

Bitget emphasized that the update does not indicate additional theft beyond what was already captured during the incident window. The company stated that the incident remains contained and that no further unauthorized transfers are possible.

In practical terms for users and market participants, the revision matters because it changes how investors assess the severity of the event and the scope of remediation Bitget must carry out—particularly for assets moved to addresses controlled by the attackers.

Where the funds went: tracing to attacker-controlled addresses

Alongside the updated total, Bitget reported that $387.5 million were transferred to attacker-controlled addresses according to onchain tracing. That figure is about $35 million higher than what was reported on Thursday.

The exchange framed the difference as an accounting refinement rather than an expansion of the breach’s duration or a new wave of withdrawals being stolen. Bitget said the updated estimate includes additional transfers involving assets on Zcash and TRON, helping align its reported figures with a more comprehensive view of movement across affected chains.

For traders and users, the most important operational takeaway is that Bitget’s control measures continue—withdrawals are still paused—while the company focuses on identifying and potentially freezing or recovering funds connected to the hack.

Networks and assets named in the incident update

Bitget said the incident involved addresses spanning multiple ecosystems, including Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) networks, the XRP Ledger, Zcash, and TRON. The exchange listed a range of assets that were stolen, including:

The follow-up report, however, did not directly address comments made by Bitget CEO Gracy Chen on Thursday. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted her speculation that a North Korean hacking group may have been behind the attack, citing what she described as IP-related clues.

With the company now focusing on the revised scope of funds moved and its response plan, the attribution question remains separate from the immediate need to secure withdrawals and work through the largest cross-chain theft figure Bitget says it identified.

What the bounty program signals for recovery efforts

Bitget’s Friday update included a decision to keep withdrawals paused and to launch a bounty program. While the details of how participants can qualify are not included in the article text provided, the stated purpose is clear: to encourage freezing or recovery of stolen assets.

In previous breach cases across crypto exchanges and custodial services, incentives aimed at accelerating fund discovery and coordination have become a common response pattern—particularly when assets are already moved across multiple networks. By tying the recovery push to a bounty, Bitget appears to be attempting to widen the net beyond internal controls and forensic analysis.

At the same time, the exchange’s insistence that “no further unauthorized transfers are possible” suggests it believes attackers’ ability to continue moving funds has been interrupted—though users will ultimately want confirmation as withdrawals resume and balances are reconciled.

A major industry incident, compared with other recent hacks

Even with the updated accounting, Bitget’s breach remains among the largest security incidents to hit the crypto industry. The incident is now described as causing about $388 million in affected assets, placing it in the same category of major exchange events that have shaken user confidence and forced rapid operational changes.

The article also notes a recent benchmark from earlier in the industry cycle: hackers stole about $1.5 billion worth of Ether from Bybit in February 2025. That comparison underscores how, despite improvements in security practices over time, large-scale thefts can still occur—and that recovery efforts often extend beyond the initial incident window.

For Bitget customers, the next phase will likely center on how quickly the platform can finalize asset reconciliation, whether withdrawal pauses can be lifted in stages, and how the bounty program contributes to recovering—or at least mitigating—the portion of funds that ended up in attacker-controlled addresses.

As Bitget continues its review, investors and users should watch for updates on withdrawal timelines and any additional operational details around the bounty program’s implementation, alongside evidence that the exchange’s claims of containment hold up as funds are fully traced and accounted for.

In this week’s edition of the weekly recap, Bitcoin reached an eight-month high above $87,000 before pulling back, the Federal Reserve proposed rules for U.S. stablecoin issuers, and Bitget suspended withdrawals after a $351.6 million wallet breach. The developments led to a week that also brought a major USDC agreement, new uses for bank-issued stablecoins, and a New York lawsuit against Polymarket.

Bitcoin reaches $87,000 as ETF buying returns

• Bitcoin climbed past $87,000 after clearing resistance near $82,000. HashKey Group researcher Tim Sun linked the move to easing oil and Treasury yields, short covering, and stronger U.S. spot ETF demand. He said the ETF inflows followed the initial breakout rather than starting it.
• U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs then took in about $999 million on Sep. 21 and $714.7 million on Sep. 22. Bitcoin later retreated toward $84,000 despite continued inflows. According to crypto.news market coverage, futures traders added more than $2 billion in positions during the advance, raising the amount of leverage behind the rally.

Fed proposes stablecoin reserve and bank approval rules

• The Federal Reserve released two proposed GENIUS Act rules on Sep. 24. One would require payment stablecoins issued by firms under its supervision to be fully backed by permitted assets, including short-term U.S. Treasury bills and other highly liquid holdings. It would also set capital and risk-control requirements.
• The second proposal sets out how an insured state member bank would seek Fed approval for a stablecoin-issuing subsidiary. Both drafts remain open to change. A 60-day public comment period will begin after their publication in the Federal Register.

Bitget suspends withdrawals after $351.6 million breach

• Bitget reported unauthorized wallet transfers on Sep. 24 affecting an estimated $351.6 million in assets. The exchange suspended withdrawals while allowing deposits and trading to continue during its investigation and system repairs.
• Bitget said its preliminary findings pointed to a breach of backend systems rather than a private-key leak. Blockchain tracker Lookonchain estimated that 102.93 million XRP, worth about $157.48 million, made up the largest portion of the stolen assets. The exchange had not confirmed who carried out the attack.

Binance buys $100 million Circle stake in USDC deal

• Binance purchased about $100 million in Circle shares through a private placement completed on Sep. 17 and reported this week. The purchase covered approximately 1.24 million shares.
• Under a new five-year agreement, Binance will promote USDC across its platform, while Circle will pay monthly incentives tied to qualifying USDC balances. The agreement replaces earlier arrangements between the companies. Binance is restricted from selling, transferring, or hedging the shares for up to two years, though it retains voting rights.

SoFi puts SoFiUSD into Mastercard card settlement

• SoFi and Mastercard said on Sep. 22 that transactions in SoFi Bank’s $25 billion card program are now settling using SoFiUSD. The bank-issued stablecoin operates within Mastercard’s payment network, while merchants can receive funds without holding the token themselves.
• The companies are also examining SoFiUSD for merchant settlement, cross-border payments, and remittances. The announcement marks a live use of a U.S. bank-issued stablecoin in card infrastructure, rather than a proposed payment trial.

New York sues Polymarket over alleged illegal gambling

• New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Polymarket on Sep. 24, alleging that it offered event contracts to state residents without a gambling license and allowed people under 21 to use the platform. The state is seeking an end to the alleged unlicensed activity, restitution, fines, and forfeiture of gains it says were earned illegally.
• The case adds to New York’s actions involving Kalshi, Coinbase Financial Markets, and Gemini Titan. It came a day after all 11 Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee called for a public hearing on prediction markets.

Strategy resumes Bitcoin purchases with 950 BTC

• Strategy bought 950 BTC for $75.7 million between Sep. 14 and Sep. 20, ending a two-week pause. Its Sep. 21 SEC filing put its total holdings at 846,000 BTC, purchased for about $63.8 billion.
• During the same period, the company spent about $174 million repurchasing STRC preferred shares. It reported no sales under its at-the-market share programs for the week, while its deployable U.S. dollar cash balance fell to about $1.05 billion.

ARK Invest tokenizes venture fund interests

• ARK Invest and Securitize announced tokenized interests in the ARK Venture Fund, beginning on Ethereum. Eligible investors can hold a blockchain-based interest in the fund, whose portfolio includes OpenAI, Anthropic, Stripe, and Databricks.
• The tokens represent fund interests rather than direct ownership of those portfolio companies. A Sep. 21 SEC order permits ARK to offer the tokenized share class under specified conditions, making the regulatory terms part of the U.S. rollout.

Canada’s six largest banks test tokenized deposits

• Canada’s Big Six banks formed a joint project to explore transfers of tokenized Canadian-dollar deposits. Bank of Montreal, CIBC, National Bank of Canada, RBC, Scotiabank, and TD are participating.
• The first phase will focus on transfers between regulated institutions. The proposed tokens would remain liabilities of the issuing banks, which distinguishes them from separately issued stablecoins backed by reserve assets. The banks have described wider payment uses as a later possibility rather than a live service.

ECB asks EU to change MiCA stablecoin reserve floors

• The European Central Bank and the EU’s national central banks asked for changes to MiCA’s stablecoin reserve rules. Current rules require issuers to keep at least 30% of reserves in commercial bank deposits, rising to 60% for stablecoins classed as significant.
• The central banks proposed liquidity requirements based on asset maturity instead. They warned that heavy redemptions from a large stablecoin could put pressure on banks holding its deposits. Their request is a recommendation; it has not changed MiCA’s existing requirements.

KelpDAO and LayerZero dispute responsibility for $292 million exploit

• KelpDAO sued LayerZero and co-founder Bryan Pellegrino in British Columbia over an April attack that drained approximately 116,500 rsETH, valued at $292 million. KelpDAO alleges that LayerZero failed to disclose risks and secure infrastructure used in the transfer.
• LayerZero disputes the claim. It says KelpDAO’s verifier setup created the single point of failure that allowed forged cross-chain messages. Pellegrino called the lawsuit meritless and said he would defend the case.

Cosmos Hub secures 1.23 million ATOM after Neutron attack

• Cosmos Hub validators moved 1,227,121 ATOM linked to a Neutron governance attack into a recovery wallet after halting the network for about 24.5 hours. Roughly 1.73 million stolen ATOM had reached Cosmos Hub from Neutron.
• The recovery wallet requires four of six signers to approve a transfer. A Cosmos Hub governance vote is required before the secured tokens can be returned. Another 168,990.9 ATOM reached the attacker after the restart and was moved to Osmosis and sold.

Alpenglow changes how validators, the computers that check transactions, agree on the network’s records. They will exchange votes directly instead of recording those votes as transactions inside blocks, the batches of transactions added to the blockchain. Agreement can then take one or two voting rounds.

Removing those votes will also make some Solana activity charts fall. Transaction totals that include validator votes will shrink even if users make just as many payments and trades. The Foundation has told data providers to adjust their comparisons.

Services that build transaction histories also need to keep competing candidate blocks separate until the network selects one. Mixing their contents could produce an incorrect record.

Applications that simply send transactions and read account balances require no migration, according to the Foundation’s guide.

The speed figure remains a target derived from simulations, rather than a demonstrated result under live-market conditions. Wallet processing and exchanges’ own deposit checks can add further waiting time.

No firm launch date has been announced for the live network. Anza’s software schedule tentatively allows feature activations to resume Sept. 28, but does not identify that date as Alpenglow’s launch.

A new bottom line?

Summer Mersinger, a former U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) commissioner, is stepping down as CEO of the Blockchain Association and will leave the advocacy group at the end of the year. The change comes after one of the organization’s top legislative priorities stalled in Congress, underscoring how quickly momentum in Washington can shift for crypto policy groups.

On Friday, the Blockchain Association said Mersinger will step down on Oct. 16, when Kristin Smith—who previously led the organization—returns as interim CEO. Mersinger joined the Blockchain Association in June 2025 after departing the CFTC three years ahead of the scheduled end of her second term as a commissioner.

Key takeaways

• The Blockchain Association announced a leadership transition: Summer Mersinger will exit as CEO on Oct. 16, with Kristin Smith returning as interim CEO.
• Mersinger’s tenure emphasized stablecoin-focused policy efforts, including the GENIUS Act, and efforts to improve regulatory clarity across the SEC and CFTC.
• One major legislative priority—tied to a Senate “clarity” effort for digital assets—failed to advance on a cloture motion, raising the likelihood of delay into later Congresses.
• The association did not publicly address what the leadership change could mean for its remaining 2027 policy strategy.

Leadership transition at the Blockchain Association

The Blockchain Association’s announcement sets a clear timeline for the organization’s top leadership. Mersinger will step down as CEO on Oct. 16, aligning with Kristin Smith’s return as interim CEO. The group also indicated that Mersinger will leave the organization by year’s end.

According to Mersinger, her move to the association was driven by a desire for clearer regulatory “rules of the road” and a unified policy voice in Washington. She joined the advocacy group after leaving the CFTC earlier than the completion of her second term, which many observers interpreted as a shift from regulator to policy advocate.

Stablecoins and regulatory clarity remain the headline of her tenure

In explaining Mersinger’s impact, the Blockchain Association pointed to her work advancing the “Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins” framework—commonly referred to as the GENIUS Act. The organization also credited her with efforts aimed at improving regulatory clarity with both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the CFTC.

The emphasis on stablecoin legislation is notable because stablecoin policy has been a recurring flashpoint for U.S. crypto regulation. For advocacy groups, stablecoins are often treated as a practical focal point: they are already widely used for payments, trading, and settlement, while lawmakers continue to debate how existing securities and commodities regimes should apply.

Importantly, the association’s statement did not limit itself to stablecoins alone; it suggested a broader goal of clarifying enforcement and compliance expectations across agencies. That matters to market participants because regulatory uncertainty can translate into higher compliance costs, delayed product launches, and shifting legal risk assessments—especially for firms operating at the boundary between securities-like activity and commodities-like activity.

The setback in Congress changes the political clock

While the Blockchain Association highlighted GENIUS Act progress, it did not mention another Senate effort that had been repeatedly urged by the organization: the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which had been under consideration in the Senate.

Previously, the Blockchain Association pushed lawmakers to support the measure, sharing calls for action through its social media channels. However, coverage noted that the bill failed to gain enough votes during a cloture motion earlier this month, according to the original reporting cited by Cointelegraph.

Experts expect that outcome to leave the legislation in limbo until 2027—an extended delay that can be consequential for an advocacy group’s strategy. Legislative priorities that do not clear procedural hurdles often lose momentum as attention moves to other issues or as new political dynamics take over. For stakeholders watching U.S. crypto regulation, it also suggests that near-term certainty may remain difficult to achieve even when industry support for a framework is visible.

The timing is especially relevant for leadership decisions. The association’s communications did not explicitly tie Mersinger’s departure to any single vote outcome, but the context is difficult to ignore: a major policy push appears to have stalled right as she is exiting.

What comes next for the group—and what to watch

The Blockchain Association did not immediately respond to questions about what Mersinger’s plans are beyond her departure, including any strategy for 2027. That leaves open a key question for members and observers: whether the organization will adjust its legislative priorities or shift its messaging focus as the political calendar extends.

With Kristin Smith stepping in as interim CEO, attention will likely turn to how the group reallocates its efforts—particularly whether it keeps pursuing the Senate clarity push or doubles down on alternative paths, such as agency-level rulemaking or narrower frameworks like stablecoins. For crypto industry participants, the leadership handoff may signal continuity in advocacy priorities, but the legislative calendar suggests that tangible progress may still depend on votes and procedural outcomes that can take months to overcome.

Readers should watch for any new statements from the association on its legislative roadmap after the cloture failure, along with signals from congressional leadership on whether any crypto-related bills can move without being trapped in extended procedural delays.

An XRP Ledger upgrade expected to activate Sept. 29 has been pushed back by at least 10 days after validator support briefly fell below the level required to turn it on.

The feature, called Batch, would let users submit up to eight transactions together. Its all-or-nothing option could let a buyer pay for a tokenized asset and receive it in one operation, preventing either side of the trade from completing alone.

RippleX’s head of engineering, Ayo Akinyele, previously told CoinDesk that projects were being built around Batch and that Ripple would share more about work with asset managers once the feature went live.

“Some projects are already being built with Batch in mind, so activation would allow that work to move closer to production,” he said. He did not name the partners or give launch dates.

The corrected upgrade, formally named BatchV1_1, regained support from 30 of 35 trusted validators on Sept. 25, according to the XRPL amendment dashboard. That started a fresh two-week countdown, putting its earliest activation at Oct. 9 around 14:46 UTC if support holds.

Privacy has become a practical concern in recent months as developers try to make cryptocurrencies useful for payroll, business payments and everyday spending. Ordinary bitcoin transactions permanently expose amounts and addresses, but once an address is linked to a company or person, other payments associated with it become easier to follow.

Ethereum is also reviewing a proposal for a shared private pool that would let people transfer ether and other tokens without publicly revealing payment details. Its authors cite payroll, treasury management and donations among the uses poorly served by fully public transactions.

How Zcash works

Zcash lets users choose between transparent payments, whose addresses and amounts are public, and shielded payments that encrypt those details. Its shielded pools held about 4.9 million ZEC on Friday, up 14% from July 30, according to CoinDesk calculations using ZecStats data. That represents roughly 29% of issued coins, worth about $7.8 billion following the rally.

Zcash recorded roughly 63,000 shielded transactions last week, its busiest week for private transfers since 2022 and fourth-highest on record. Across the network, reported transfer volume exceeded $23 billion, the largest weekly total since 2021 and second-highest in its history.

Zcash has attracted both investor money and attention amid those metrics. By early September, ZEC had gained more than 2,300% over the preceding year and crossed $1,000. It extended the rally above $1,600 on Wednesday.