Several years into our friendship, I found her essay “Revaluing Economics” in Moving Beyond Words. Published in 1994—years before the National Domestic Workers Alliance was even the germ of an idea—she wrote about care as an essential resource that our economic model has never adequately valued, in no small part because of its association with women.  She argued that if we are to not only survive but thrive in the future, we must fundamentally protect and revalue care.  The last 15 years of my work have been deeply shaped by these ideas. 

More recently, I spent much of my time with Gloria through an intergenerational, multi-racial circle of women who affectionately call ourselves the “G Squad”—composed of a writer, two artists, a pro-democracy organizer, me, and Gloria. We gathered over the years to celebrate Gloria’s birthday, to strategize big moments in the women’s movement, or vet a new love interest in the mix. We learned about Gloria’s life and adventures from one another, and we learned about other women through Gloria. 

Solana raised its maximum transaction size from 1,232 bytes to 4,096 bytes to allow developers to fit more complex operations into a single transaction, including zero-knowledge proofs and new onchain signature schemes.

The upgrade was activated on mainnet on Tuesday at the start of epoch 1,035 around 1:00 am UTC, according to blockchain data shared by the Solana Foundation.

The upgrade also introduced the v1 transaction format, which maintains full backward compatibility with legacy transactions. Existing transaction formats continue working for applications and wallet providers, but protocols that want to benefit from the size increase need to update to v1 transactions.

A spokesperson for the Solana Foundation told Cointelegraph that the upgrade mainly aims to help developers “do more” with applications such as zero-knowledge proofs, transactions requiring multiple signatures and new onchain signature schemes, by unlocking workloads that previously couldn’t fit inside a single transaction.

In August, Solana reduced its slot time from 400 milliseconds to 350ms. In June, the Solana Foundation shared plans to reduce slot times from 400ms to 200ms, arguing that it would improve latency and accelerate confirmations on the blockchain network.

Solana validators approved on Aug. 28 a proposal to double the network’s annual disinflation rate, reducing future issuance of Solana (SOL), the network’s native token.

Related: Solana sees record 263K tokens issued in a single day

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.

Revolut has notified 680 customers after cybercriminals used a legitimate government email account to obtain sensitive identity, banking and Bitcoin-related records.

The Financial Times reported that the fintech contacted 680 people identified during its initial investigation, while Revolut itself has publicly described the affected group only as a “very limited” number of customers. The company has not released an official numerical count.

Revolut confirmed that an unauthorized third party submitted fraudulent information requests from an email account using a legitimate government agency domain. The company treated the requests as genuine before discovering the impersonation scheme.

Revolut data breach came through a legitimate government domain

Unlike an intrusion into Revolut’s own network, the incident involved information being released after deceptive requests reached the company through an apparently authentic government channel. Revolut described the episode as a “sophisticated external impersonation scam.”

A customer notice reviewed by TechCrunch said the communication carried valid domain-authentication credentials, which led Revolut to believe it had received a genuine government request. The company has not named the agency involved or explained publicly how the third party gained control of the government email account.

Revolut said it blocked the address once the fraud was detected and contacted the government agency concerned, law enforcement, data-protection authorities and financial regulators. A spokesperson maintained that “Revolut systems and customer funds are unaffected.”

Advertisement

The company’s public page for official information requests directs competent authorities and legal representatives to a dedicated court-orders address. It asks authorities to submit one email for each case, although Revolut has not publicly described which verification steps were applied to the fraudulent requests involved in the breach.

As crypto.news reported when the incident first emerged, on-chain investigator ZachXBT circulated a copy of a customer notification and said the incident appeared limited in size and potentially focused on high-net-worth users. Revolut has not confirmed that assessment.

Exposed data included identity files and Bitcoin activity

Customer notices reviewed by multiple outlets listed a large range of personal information that may have been disclosed. The records included full names, dates of birth, occupations, home addresses, email addresses and telephone numbers.

Copies of passports or driver’s licenses and the selfies submitted during identity verification were among the listed records. Revolut’s notice distinguished those verification images from biometric facial telemetry, which it said was not part of the information involved.

Advertisement

Financial information went beyond basic account details. Customer statements could contain IBANs, account-opening dates, account status, withdrawal records and complete transaction histories. For crypto customers, the material included Bitcoin transactions and wallet reference numbers shown in account records.

The notice did not state that private keys, account passwords or full payment-card credentials were supplied to the unauthorized requester. It listed categories of records that may have been disclosed, meaning the available evidence does not establish that every affected person had every listed category exposed.

The Financial Times later reported that former Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpelès was among the affected customers. Karpelès said Revolut emailed him at 5:25 a.m. on Sept. 12 warning that his information may have been compromised.

Karpelès questioned why the fintech released the records even though the request came from a verified government address. His criticism represents his assessment of Revolut’s handling of the request and not a regulatory finding against the company.

Advertisement

Crypto.news has detailed Karpelès’ history as the former operator of Mt. Gox, the Bitcoin exchange that collapsed in 2014 following the loss of customer cryptocurrency.

Extortion claims emerge as customer files surface

People claiming responsibility for the incident have threatened to release customer information unless Revolut pays an extortion demand, according to the Financial Times and Recorded Future News. Revolut declined to comment to Recorded Future News on whether it had received or was responding to an extortion demand.

Recorded Future News reported that material circulated through a Telegram account claiming involvement in the incident. One customer whose information appeared in the material did not dispute its authenticity, while cryptocurrency entrepreneur Marc Zeller separately said information belonging to him had been exposed.

Parts of the attackers’ story remain unverified. The Telegram account suggested that the government email came from an Italian domain, but Recorded Future News said it could not confirm all details in the account’s posts. Italian authorities contacted by the publication had not responded, and the Telegram account was later suspended.

Advertisement

Revolut has not publicly identified the government agency whose email system was used. No official statement located as of Sept. 15 establishes how the account was compromised, whether credentials were stolen, or whether the same government email access was used against other financial institutions.

The FBI has previously warned companies about criminals obtaining access to law-enforcement and government email accounts and using them to submit fraudulent emergency data requests. Recorded Future News noted that similar tactics were used against technology companies during earlier attacks involving compromised law-enforcement accounts.

UK privacy regulator is investigating the disclosure

Britain’s Information Commissioner’s Office has opened an investigation after Revolut reported the incident, the Financial Times reported Monday. An investigation does not by itself establish that Revolut breached UK data-protection law.

Under ICO guidance, organizations generally must notify the regulator within 72 hours of becoming aware of a reportable personal-data breach. Where an incident creates a high risk to individuals’ rights and freedoms, affected people must be informed without undue delay.

Advertisement

Revolut said it directly contacted the customers it believed were affected. Its public statement says it notified the relevant government agency, enforcement bodies, data-protection authorities and financial regulators after identifying the fraudulent requests.

The case arrives months after Revolut received approval to operate a full UK bank. As crypto.news reported in March, Prudential Regulation Authority approval allowed Revolut Bank UK to begin operating with banking status and deposit protection for eligible customer deposits. Crypto trading remains outside that deposit-protection structure.

Revolut serves more than 80 million customers worldwide, according to the company figure cited by TechCrunch and Recorded Future News. The 680 people identified by the Financial Times represent the current reported count from the investigation and should not be treated as a final figure unless Revolut or regulators publish an updated total.

The ICO’s published guidance says investigators may examine the type of data exposed, the number of people involved, potential harm and the technical or organizational safeguards used before deciding whether regulatory action is warranted.

Advertisement

What’s different about today’s AI?

Momentum for the CLARITY Act in the US Senate has cooled sharply after a brief optimism spike on Polymarket. Odds that the bill would become law this year climbed the day before, then fell again on Monday as Democrats raised concerns that the latest Republican proposal still does not satisfy their conditions—particularly around ethics enforcement.

Republicans have reportedly offered revised language that expands ethics provisions, and Polymarket had earlier reflected that shift with odds rising to around 35%. By Monday, however, traders saw the prospects weaken, with the odds dropping as low as 16%. The outcome matters not just for legislative timing: the CLARITY Act would influence how the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) divide oversight responsibilities across the crypto market.

Key takeaways

• Polymarket odds for the CLARITY Act passing this year fell sharply again on Monday, after having spiked earlier.
• Democrats involved in negotiations reportedly said the revised Republican ethics language is still insufficient.
• Republicans need 60 votes to advance the bill; a failed vote could delay legislation that affects SEC–CFTC jurisdiction.
• Separate opposition is coming from tribal gaming interests and multiple banking trade groups, citing both prediction-market concerns and stablecoin loopholes.

Why Polymarket’s odds reversed

Polymarket traders initially responded positively to a newly revised Republican proposal, viewing added ethics provisions as a step toward agreement. The event page tied to the claim that the act would be signed into law in 2026 showed odds reaching about 35% following the disclosure of the updated text, as covered earlier by Cointelegraph in reporting on “US Republicans send final CLARITY Act offer to Democrats” (https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-republicans-send-final-clarity-act-offer-to-democrats).

But as reservations about that revised language surfaced among Democrats, confidence cooled. The Polymarket odds slid again during Monday trading, indicating that market participants began pricing in a lower probability that the bill could clear the procedural hurdle required to move toward a floor vote.

Senator Mark Warner—who is described in negotiations coverage as being involved in the talks—reportedly indicated that the revised ethics provision did not go far enough. Separately, reporting referenced in the original coverage points to Democrats preparing a counterproposal on Monday, suggesting that talks had not yet reached the kind of consensus needed to lock down support.

Ethics provisions remain the sticking point

Much of Monday’s shift appears tied to how Democrats interpret the revised ethics terms. Punchbowl News’ Brendan Pedersen reported that Senator Raphael Warnock said Democrats should not advance legislation that fails to address corruption risks happening “in real time,” a formulation that underscores a broad enforcement concern rather than a narrow drafting dispute.

Pedersen also reported remarks from Senator Ruben Gallego that the latest ethics offer left “much to be desired,” and that he intended to work on a counterproposal. In addition, the reporting cited that staff for Senator Elizabeth Warren circulated talking points arguing that the proposed state attorney general enforcement mechanism could be overridden by a determination from White House ethics officials.

According to Politico’s Jasper Goodman, Democrats sent their counterproposal to Republican negotiators, citing three people with knowledge of the matter. At the same time, the negotiations do not have unanimous Democratic buy-in: Politico reported that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand privately urged colleagues to support the procedural motion, implying that while opposition is growing, there may still be enough support among certain members to prevent the measure from collapsing outright—unless the wider math fails.

On the other side, Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis said President Donald Trump had accepted two significant ethics provisions and claimed there was “nothing left to give.” This sets up a familiar tension in legislative bargaining: Democrats may view the remaining gaps as core to enforcement credibility, while Republicans may view further changes as unnecessary or politically costly.

Opposition broadens beyond party lines

The uncertainty around procedural success is compounded by objections from groups outside Congress. The original coverage highlighted opposition from a coalition of 18 state attorneys general, adding another layer of political risk around the bill’s ethics and enforcement framework.

Tribal gaming interests are also weighing in. The Indian Gaming Association urged member tribes to press senators to vote against the bill, arguing that its proposed decentralized finance changes do not address Indian Country’s concerns regarding prediction markets. The association’s key request was explicit language clarifying that federal commodities law does not preempt tribal or state gaming laws, including protections under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The call was issued through an alert urging senators to vote “no” on the CLARITY Act (https://indiangaming.org/urgent-tribal-action-alert-call-your-senators-today-vote-no-on-the-clarity-act/).

Banking trade groups also criticized the revised text. Eight banking groups said the latest version did not close what they described as loopholes enabling stablecoin rewards that function like deposit interest. They further argued that the proposed regulatory “circuit breaker” would activate only after substantial deposit flight from community banks had already occurred—an objection that frames the mechanism as too slow to prevent harm rather than too strict to be workable.

Meanwhile, crypto industry advocacy groups pressed senators to move the bill forward. In a statement released Monday, Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger argued that the industry had made significant concessions to build bipartisan support and urged a yes vote. Her reasoning, as reflected in the source coverage, emphasized clearer rules, consumer protections, and deterrence of illicit activity, along with concerns that uncertainty could push jobs and innovation abroad.

What happens next for Senate voting

The next test is whether Republicans can secure the 60 votes needed to advance the bill. If that support falls short on Tuesday, the legislation could stall, extending the timeline for any SEC–CFTC jurisdiction framework that the CLARITY Act would establish. That makes Monday’s negotiations signals particularly important: when Democrats describe the ethics package as still inadequate, it can rapidly undermine the coalition needed to reach the procedural threshold.

For now, readers should watch two developments closely: whether Democrats’ counterproposal gains traction with Republicans, and whether external opposition—from state attorney general groups, tribal organizations, and banking trade groups—translates into additional voting pressure. If the ethics dispute continues to widen rather than narrow, Polymarket’s swing suggests traders will likely keep treating passage as less likely, even if supporters argue that a final push is still possible.