Connect with us

Crypto World

NEAR token jumps 17% after ‘Confidential Intents’ launch, outpaces privacy tokens sector

Published

on

NEAR token jumps 17% after ‘Confidential Intents’ launch, outpaces privacy tokens sector

NEAR token climbed as much as 17% after launching “Confidential Intents,” a new private execution layer designed to shield trades from public view, extending a 40% weekly rally and outperforming both the CoinDesk 20 Index and the broader privacy token sector.

The feature was first unveiled last week at NEARCON in San Francisco, as previously reported by CoinDesk, and officially went live today.

It routes transactions through a private shard linked to NEAR’s mainnet, according to technical documentation on NEAR’s blog, allowing users to toggle into confidential accounts to avoid front-running and sandwich attacks.

Unlike privacy coins such as Monero or Zcash, which are designed to hide transaction details by default, NEAR’s system offers optional confidentiality focused on trade execution, keeping only specific transfers and positions out of public view while preserving auditability for law enforcement.

Advertisement

NEAR wrote that the product is aimed squarely at institutions wary of broadcasting trading strategies on transparent ledgers.

Onchain transactions are visible before they settle, exposing order size, timing, and direction to bots that can trade against users.

That dynamic has long enabled so-called maximal extractable value, or MEV, strategies that act as a hidden tax on traders. By shifting execution of trades into a less visable environment, Confidential Intents is designed to keep transfers and cross-chain position management out of the public mempool

Unlike fully opaque privacy chains, NEAR’s system offers selective disclosure within a compliance-aware framework, positioning the product as a bridge between traditional finance expectations and onchain settlement.

Advertisement

Still, onchain data curated by DeFiLlama shows NEAR’s base-layer fees remain limited relative to its roughly $1.8 billion market capitalization.

That suggests investors are betting the confidential execution layer could draw institutional-sized flow onto the network, rather than responding to a sharp increase in current revenue.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

Judge Hands Win to Uniswap in Class Action Over Scams

Published

on

Judge Hands Win to Uniswap in Class Action Over Scams

Uniswap Labs and founder Hayden Adams have won a class action lawsuit that sought to hold them liable for scam cryptocurrencies traded on its platform, ending a four-year legal saga.

Manhattan federal judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed a suit against Uniswap on Monday with prejudice, saying the class group can’t hold Uniswap liable for the misconduct of unknown third-party token issuers.

It was the class group’s second attempt to sue Uniswap, which amended their complaint in May to focus on claims of state-level consumer protection violations, arguing that Uniswap allowed “rug pulls and pump and dump schemes,” according to Judge Polk Failla’s order.

The group, led by Nessa Risley, first sued Uniswap, Adams and venture firms Paradigm, Andreessen Horowitz and Union Square Ventures in April 2022. Their lawsuit was dismissed in August 2023, a decision that was later upheld on appeal.

Advertisement

Uniswap’s Adams posted on X that the ruling was a “good, sensible outcome” that sets a new legal precedent.

Source: Hayden Adams

“If you write open source smart contract code, and the code is used by scammers, the scammers are liable, not the open source devs,” he added.

Class group failed to claim that Uniswap helped with fraud

In her latest opinion, Judge Polk Failla said the class group had failed to adequately allege that Uniswap “had knowledge of the fraud and substantially assisted in its commission.”

She added that “merely creating an environment where fraud could exist is not the same as affirmatively assisting in its perpetration.”

Related: New York judge blocks Binance bid to force US crypto claims into arbitration

Advertisement

“No matter how they try to dress up their allegations, Plaintiffs are basically alleging that Defendants substantially assisted fraud by providing ordinary services that anyone could use for lawful purposes, but that some used for unlawful purposes,” the judge wrote.

“Such an argument fails for the same reasons why a bank does not substantially assist a money launderer who washes his cash through the bank’s accounts, and why WhatsApp does not substantially assist a drug dealer who coordinates a sale on its messaging service: Simply providing the platform on which a fraud takes place is not the same as substantially assisting that fraud,” she added.

Big questions: Should you sell your Bitcoin for nickels for a 43% profit?