The Middle East and North Africa’s annual on-chain crypto transaction volume increased from approximately $100 billion in 2022 to an estimated $350 billion during 2025–2026, according to a Bitcoin Policy Institute report published on Sept. 4.

The Bitcoin Policy Institute’s report argues that MENA has become one of the fastest-growing digital asset regions. It attributes that expansion to inflation, currency depreciation, government-backed technology programs and greater institutional participation.

However, the $350 billion figure is an institute estimate covering the 2025–2026 period rather than a confirmed total for one completed calendar year. The report does not provide a single underlying dataset or detailed methodology showing how it calculated the regional increase from $100 billion.

The findings describe two distinct adoption patterns. Residents in economies affected by inflation, capital restrictions, sanctions or conflict have used Bitcoin and dollar-backed stablecoins to preserve value or transfer funds. Gulf countries, meanwhile, have attracted exchanges, institutional trading companies and tokenization platforms through regulated financial centers.

The distinction matters because transaction volume does not measure investment gains, unique users or money entering the region. On-chain estimates can include transfers between exchange-controlled wallets and repeated movements of the same assets.

Turkey remains the largest market by transaction value

Turkey received nearly $200 billion in annual crypto transaction volume, according to the institute. That makes it the largest market in the wider MENA region by the report’s measure.

Demand in Turkey has developed alongside prolonged inflation and weakness in the Turkish lira. Stablecoins can give residents digital exposure to the U.S. dollar, although they introduce issuer, platform and regulatory risks absent from physical currency.

Egypt, Lebanon and Iran show a similar but more constrained adoption pattern, according to the report. It says peer-to-peer Bitcoin trading in Egypt increased by more than 300% following successive devaluations of the Egyptian pound. The paper does not identify the complete dataset or measured period behind that percentage, so the figure should be treated as its estimate.

Conflict has also produced mixed market behavior. Bitcoin initially fell with other risk assets after the Israel–Iran confrontation escalated in June 2025. The institute said the total crypto market lost about 3.7%, while Bitcoin declined around 2.3% and Ether fell 7.5%.

Investors later shifted some capital from smaller tokens into Bitcoin, pushing Bitcoin’s market dominance to 64.8%, according to the paper. This pattern supports the claim that traders used Bitcoin defensively relative to altcoins, but it does not establish that Bitcoin consistently behaved like a traditional safe-haven asset. Crypto.news previously reported that renewed U.S.–Iran tensions pushed Bitcoin lower during a later episode, showing that geopolitical stress can still produce broad risk reduction.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar lead reported growth rates

Saudi Arabia recorded the region’s fastest growth at 154% year over year, followed by Qatar at 120%, the institute said. Those percentages originate from a Chainalysis regional study published in September 2024 rather than newly measured 2026 growth.

The dates are important. The percentages describe an earlier measurement period and should not be presented as current 2026 growth rates without newer comparable data. The Bitcoin Policy Institute reused them to explain the Gulf’s longer-term momentum.

Chainalysis connected Saudi Arabia’s growth with interest in blockchain systems, financial technology, gaming and central bank digital currency research. The country’s young population and high smartphone use also provide a large potential market for digital financial products.

Saudi Arabia has increasingly focused on blockchain applications beyond cryptocurrency trading. In related coverage, the kingdom began developing tokenization projects for energy and real estate as part of its Vision 2030 diversification program.

Qatar’s measured growth followed the introduction of a digital asset framework through the Qatar Financial Centre. The framework established rules for tokenized assets and related infrastructure. It did not legalize every form of cryptocurrency activity across the country.

The UAE builds a regulated institutional market

The Bitcoin Policy Institute estimates that the UAE processed approximately $150 billion in crypto transactions during 2025. It describes the market as institutionally oriented, with Bitcoin accounting for 38% of activity, Ether representing 22% and dollar-backed stablecoins making up 30%.

These percentages are report estimates rather than official transaction figures from a UAE regulator. Public blockchain data can identify asset movements but cannot always determine whether a user, company or controlling entity is located in the UAE.

The UAE has nevertheless established several formal regulatory routes. Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority oversees eligible crypto activities outside the Dubai International Financial Centre. Abu Dhabi Global Market operates a separate financial-services framework, while the Central Bank of the UAE regulates payment-token services.

Dubai expanded its institutional market during 2026. Crypto.news reported that Flowdesk secured a full broker-dealer license for services aimed at qualified and institutional investors.

Kraken also received preliminary approval covering broker-dealer and investment activities. Its proposed offering includes UAE dirham funding and institutional services, although the exchange had not announced a final launch date when its Dubai approval was disclosed.

Stablecoin infrastructure is developing alongside exchange licensing. A regulated conversion framework launched between dirham-backed AE Coin and dollar-backed USDU, creating an institutional settlement route that connects UAE dirham and dollar stablecoins.

Bahrain adds rules for regulated stablecoin issuers

Bahrain has taken a separate regulatory path. The Central Bank of Bahrain introduced its Stablecoin Issuance and Offering Module in July 2025, according to an official statement.

The module applies to regulated stablecoin offering services conducted in or from Bahrain. It sets requirements covering reserves, redemption, governance, disclosures and supervision.

Bahrain has also supported regulated digital asset infrastructure through licensed financial institutions. Singapore Gulf Bank, backed by Bahrain’s sovereign wealth fund and Whampoa Group, partnered with Fireblocks to expand crypto custody and stablecoin services.

The Bitcoin Policy Institute expects regulated Gulf markets and adoption in economically constrained countries to continue developing along separate tracks. That is a forecast, not a confirmed outcome. Future growth will depend on regulation, banking access, market conditions and whether institutions move pilot projects into commercial use.

Ethereum-compatible layer-1 network Harmony proposed sunsetting its blockchain and migrating its native ONE token to Ethereum, seven years after launching its mainnet. 

On Sunday, Harmony proposed taking a final network snapshot, issuing ERC-20 ONE tokens on Ethereum and migrating exchange listings. Validators would be offered options to stop their nodes, continue as governors, or join its new AI-video initiative. 

Harmony described the proposal as non-binding and did not specify when the final block would be produced or whether the shutdown would be submitted to the network’s validator-led governance process. 

Under Harmony’s published governance rules, elected validators can create proposals, while unelected validators may vote, with voting power based on total stake. Passage requires 51% of total stake weight to participate and 66.7% support after a seven-day introduction and 14-day vote.

Related: Galaxy puts Coldcard hack losses at 1,789 BTC, with 87% unmoved

Under the proposal, all ONE balances would be recorded at the network’s final block and new ERC-20 tokens airdropped to the same addresses on Ethereum. The snapshot would cover wallets, staking delegations, validator rewards, smart contracts and centralized exchanges, with no claims required.

However, Harmony said multisig safes, liquidity pools and onchain applications cannot be migrated, urging users to exit all smart contracts before Sept. 10. Validators may begin shutting down that day, with a $1.372 million pool set aside to compensate those that stop on time, retain their stakes and agree to serve as governors.

Harmony proposal comes weeks after an exploit

The proposal comes less than four weeks after an exploit created forged ONE tokens and led Harmony to plan a rollback that would wipe more than 109,000 transactions, marking a potential shift from repairing the network to ending it as an independent blockchain.

On Aug. 12, Harmony said it was considering a rollback after reports that an attacker had minted nearly 4 billion unauthorized ONE, equivalent to about 26% of the supply. An outside account claimed about 2.8 billion tokens reached exchanges, but Harmony had not confirmed the figures at the time. 

On Aug. 17, Harmony said it planned to revert the blockchain to an Aug. 11 checkpoint, discarding 109,126 regular transactions and 315 staking transactions. It said investigators had traced nearly all the forged tokens to wallets or service boundaries and were working with exchanges, bridges and law enforcement.

Magazine: Hugging Face hack exposes the open-weight AI cybersecurity paradox

A large Chainlink holder transferred another 620,420 LINK to Coinbase on Sept. 7, extending a series of deposits to the U.S. exchange over the past three weeks. 

The latest transfer was worth approximately $7.6 million when blockchain analytics account Onchain Lens reported the movement.

The same address has now sent 2.41 million LINK, valued at about $26.04 million, to Coinbase during the period, according to the analyst’s post. Onchain Lens identified the originating wallet as 0xF5B007a6341AcC8CfEC581d8A1c5560bC19d9650.

The wallet had previously accumulated the tokens through withdrawals from Binance. Its later movement toward Coinbase represents a change from accumulation to exchange deposits, although the transfers do not confirm completed sales.

Chainlink whale moved 2.41 million LINK in three weeks

The latest 620,420 LINK deposit represented approximately 25.7% of the address’s total three-week transfers. The preceding deposits amounted to roughly 1.79 million LINK based on the cumulative figure supplied by Onchain Lens.

At the reported valuations, the newest transfer valued each LINK at about $12.25. The complete three-week figure valued the transferred tokens at an average of approximately $10.80 each. These values reflect prices around the time of each movement rather than a confirmed execution price.

Advertisement

The address’s earlier Binance withdrawals suggest that the wallet accumulated LINK before sending part or all of those holdings to Coinbase. However, blockchain records alone cannot identify the beneficial owner or explain the reason for each movement.

The address may belong to an individual, institution, trading firm or custody arrangement. Describing it as a whale refers to the size of the holdings and transfers, not a verified identity.

The wallet’s transaction history can be reviewed through the Ethereum block explorer Etherscan. Exchange destination labels also depend on address attribution and can change when analytics providers obtain new information.

Coinbase deposits raise selling risk but prove no sale

Transfers to centralized exchanges often receive attention because customers commonly deposit tokens before selling, converting or using them as collateral. A large deposit can therefore increase the amount of immediately tradable supply on an exchange.

Advertisement

Yet a Coinbase transfer does not establish that the holder sold the tokens. The wallet owner could move LINK for custody, collateral, internal account management, over-the-counter settlement or a future trade that has not occurred.

Confirmation of selling would require additional evidence. This could include movements from Coinbase hot wallets, order-book activity, changes in exchange balances or a statement from the wallet owner. None of those details accompanied the Onchain Lens report.

The transaction also should not be treated as a transfer by Chainlink itself. The address has not been identified as belonging to Chainlink Labs, the Chainlink Foundation or a known project treasury.

Large exchange transfers can still affect trader expectations before any tokens are sold. Market participants may reduce exposure when they interpret a deposit as potential supply. That reaction can create volatility even when the wallet’s actual purpose remains unknown.

Advertisement

Crypto.news previously documented the reverse pattern, with large holders withdrawing hundreds of millions of dollars in LINK while exchange balances declined. The latest Coinbase deposits show that individual whale behavior can differ from the broader holder trend.

LINK price retains bullish momentum near $13

LINK traded near $13.07 on Sept. 7, up approximately 7.1% during the latest session. Its intraday range extended from about $12.12 to $13.32.

The gain means the token was trading above the approximate valuation applied to the whale’s latest transfer. Its market price had also recovered strongly from the June and July lows near $7 to $8.

On the daily chart supplied with the market data, LINK’s moving average convergence divergence remained positive. The MACD line stood near 0.7841, above the signal line at approximately 0.7069, while the histogram remained positive at about 0.0771.

Advertisement

Those readings indicate that upward momentum remained present. The latest red candle and narrowing distance between momentum readings, however, suggest that the rally could be entering a slower phase.

The relative strength index was approximately 72.47, above its moving average near 67.71. An RSI reading above 70 is commonly treated as overbought, although it does not independently establish that a decline will follow.

LINK would need to maintain the $12 to $13 region to preserve its recent short-term recovery structure. A sustained move below that area would weaken the rebound, while a break above recent highs would extend it.

No evidence establishes that the whale deposit caused a specific LINK price movement. The token traded within a broader crypto market and reacted to several factors beyond a single wallet transfer.

Chainlink adoption provides a separate demand narrative

The whale movement occurred as Chainlink continued expanding its oracle and cross-chain infrastructure. These developments provide a fundamental backdrop but do not determine what the unidentified holder plans to do.

Advertisement

Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol connects applications and assets across multiple blockchain networks. The system processed $4.9 billion in volume during the second quarter, up 353% from the corresponding period one year earlier, according to figures cited by Standard Chartered.

The bank also estimated that Chainlink secured more than $110 billion in value across oracle feeds and cross-chain services. Its long-term LINK forecasts remain estimates rather than confirmed future prices.

Several large projects expanded their use of Chainlink during 2026. Aave adopted CCIP as the default infrastructure for cross-chain deposits, withdrawals, governance and GHO transfers, extending Chainlink’s role across the Aave ecosystem.

BitGo selected CCIP as the exclusive cross-chain provider for Wrapped Bitcoin. The decision moved its $7.3 billion WBTC ecosystem away from LayerZero and brought publicly announced CCIP migrations to roughly $14.6 billion.

Advertisement

Chainlink has also worked with traditional financial institutions. More than 50 banks joined a stablecoin foreign-exchange settlement test designed to combine blockchain settlement with existing Swift and ISO 20022 messaging systems. The project seeks to support atomic payment-versus-payment transactions, as detailed in Chainlink’s institutional settlement trial.

Bottomline Technologies recently partnered with Chainlink to connect blockchain-based payment tools with infrastructure serving hundreds of financial institutions. The agreement expanded Chainlink access across 600 banks.

These integrations can support demand for Chainlink services, but their effect on LINK varies by product design, fee structure and token usage. They do not remove the short-term supply risk associated with large exchange deposits.

Further wallet activity will clarify the holder’s strategy

The next transactions from the whale address will help determine whether the Coinbase deposits are continuing. Additional transfers would raise the cumulative amount available within the exchange’s custody environment.

Advertisement

Withdrawals back to a private address would point in the opposite direction. They could indicate that the holder retained the tokens or completed an internal transfer rather than selling them.

Changes in Coinbase’s LINK balances and transaction clusters may provide further context. Even then, analysts would need to separate this wallet’s activity from unrelated customer deposits and exchange operations.

For now, the blockchain confirms that 620,420 LINK moved from the identified address toward Coinbase. The conclusion that the whale sold $7.6 million of LINK would go beyond the available evidence.

Advertisement

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin rejected a Sept. 7 prediction that artificial intelligence could undermine confidence in Bitcoin’s security and cause its price to fall by more than 50% within two years.

Investor and AI-risk commentator Liron Shapira assigned a “50% confidence” level to his prediction that Bitcoin would suffer such a decline because AI could weaken what users consider the network’s security or robustness, according to his original post.

Buterin said he took “the opposite side” of that forecast. His response focused on Bitcoin’s technical adaptability rather than its market price, arguing that most AI-related threats could be addressed without changing the network’s core social agreement.

Buterin sees transition risk rather than cryptographic collapse

Buterin said he remains optimistic about cybersecurity over the long term. In his view, the main risk lies in managing the transition to a world where attackers and defenders both use increasingly capable AI systems.

He separated operational attacks from failures of Bitcoin’s underlying cryptography. Network-layer exploits, client vulnerabilities and attacks against mining infrastructure could require software updates, but they would not necessarily invalidate Bitcoin’s proof-of-work design.

Bitcoin’s network consists of several layers. Full-node software verifies transactions and blocks. Mining pools coordinate hash power, while miners provide the computing equipment that performs proof-of-work calculations. Internet infrastructure connects those participants.

AI could help attackers identify flaws in node software, wallet code, mining-pool systems or communications infrastructure. Defenders can also use AI to review code, test updates and detect suspicious behavior.

Buterin argued that client developers and mining pools could respond to those attacks through ordinary upgrades. Such changes would be less difficult than an emergency alteration of Bitcoin’s monetary rules or transaction history.

He described the probability of “actual breaks on hashes or PoW” as “tiny.” The statement is an assessment rather than a measurable guarantee, and it does not cover every cybersecurity risk affecting Bitcoin users.

Bitcoin’s proof of work is not the likeliest AI target

Bitcoin mining depends on SHA-256, the hash function used to process block headers and prove that miners performed computational work. A direct cryptographic break would require an attacker to find a practical weakness that sharply reduces the work needed to produce valid hashes.

However, Current generative AI systems have not demonstrated that capability. AI can improve software analysis and automate attack discovery, but it does not automatically defeat established cryptographic functions. An attacker also could not take control of Bitcoin simply by producing persuasive text, malicious code suggestions or automated social engineering. Compromising wallets, exchanges or individual developers would create losses, but it would not necessarily compromise Bitcoin’s consensus rules.

The more realistic near-term risks involve surrounding infrastructure. AI agents may improve phishing, credential theft, malware development and vulnerability discovery. Mining pools, exchanges, wallet providers and node operators could face more automated attacks.

A July security incident showed the distinction. Bitcoin Optech reported that a weakness in some COLDCARD-generated wallets produced insufficient entropy and exposed affected funds to theft. The problem involved wallet key generation rather than Bitcoin’s hash function or proof-of-work mechanism.

The technical report estimated losses exceeding 1,000 BTC at the time. Users of affected devices were advised to move funds to wallets created with secure external entropy.

Such incidents can damage confidence and cause major losses while leaving Bitcoin’s underlying ledger operational. They support Buterin’s argument that ecosystem software and custody remain more immediate attack surfaces than SHA-256.

AI could accelerate both attacks and defensive reviews

Shapira’s forecast appears to rest on an imbalance between attackers and defenders. Advanced AI could discover vulnerabilities faster than open-source developers can examine, patch and distribute software.

Bitcoin’s public codebase gives researchers broad access, but it also allows attackers to inspect the same software. A sufficiently capable automated system could review large repositories, identify unusual interactions and test attack paths continuously.

The Bitcoin Policy Institute and more than 40 digital-asset organizations raised that concern in August. They asked leading AI laboratories to provide vetted open-source security teams with controlled access to advanced models.

The coalition argued that defenders need early access to the same tools that sophisticated attackers may use. Its proposed program included computing resources, secure testing environments and direct communication with AI laboratory security teams.

Block, Coinbase, Strategy, MARA, Galaxy, BitGo, Brink, Trezor and several Bitcoin development groups supported the appeal. Crypto.news reported that the coalition sought frontier AI access for Bitcoin security researchers before more capable models became widely available.

A separate assessment from Bitcoin Policy Institute researcher Zack Shapiro and security specialist Efrat Fenigson’s coverage warned that the next several years could present a difficult transition. The concern was not that AI would directly solve Bitcoin’s proof of work, but that attackers could gain access to capable security tools before defenders.

As crypto.news previously reported, researchers warned that Bitcoin developers could fall behind AI-assisted attackers without comparable models, funding and computing access.

Social consensus would matter after a deeper failure

Buterin distinguished upgradeable operational problems from attacks that require social consensus. Bitcoin nodes and mining pools can adopt patched software when developers identify a conventional vulnerability.

A deeper cryptographic failure would be more difficult. If an attacker could forge digital signatures or bypass proof-of-work requirements, developers might need to introduce new cryptographic standards and coordinate a broad network migration.

Node operators, miners, exchanges, custodians and users would then need to agree on which software and transaction history to recognize. Disagreement could split the network or delay protective action.

Quantum computing is frequently discussed in this context because a sufficiently capable machine could threaten the elliptic-curve signatures protecting some Bitcoin holdings. That issue differs from Shapira’s AI claim because quantum computers use different computing methods rather than machine-learning techniques.

Crypto.news has reported that developers are exploring quantum-resistant infrastructure and migration tools before practical attacks emerge. Estimates about when such systems could threaten Bitcoin remain uncertain.

Buterin did not claim Bitcoin could respond easily to every cryptographic break. His argument was that those fundamental failures have a very low probability, while more plausible network attacks can be addressed through coordinated software changes.

Bitcoin showed no reaction tied directly to the debate

Bitcoin traded near $79,590 on Sept. 7, down approximately 0.5% during the latest session. Its intraday range was roughly $79,460 to $80,494.

There was no evidence connecting that movement to the exchange between Shapira and Buterin. Bitcoin’s price responds to liquidity, derivatives positioning, exchange-traded fund flows, macroeconomic data and broader risk sentiment.

Shapira’s prediction also does not specify a technical attack, affected software component or sequence connecting AI adoption to a 50% market decline. It is a probabilistic forecast and cannot be treated as a verified security assessment.

Buterin similarly offered no formal risk model supporting his confidence. His response provides a technical counterargument: Bitcoin can patch many operational vulnerabilities, while a direct break of its hash function or proof-of-work mechanism remains unlikely.

The dispute therefore concerns the speed and difficulty of Bitcoin’s security transition rather than evidence that AI has already compromised the network.