Zcash founder Zooko Wilcox has explained how the network’s July 28 Ironwood hard fork will address uncertainty around a critical flaw in the Orchard shielded pool.

The upgrade will not identify or freeze individual counterfeit coins. Instead, it will seal the old pool and limit how much ZEC can leave.

In a July 19 post on X, Wilcox explained how the planned upgrade would deal with any hidden excess supply if the flaw was exploited before developers patched it. Because Orchard hides transaction details, the network cannot prove that counterfeit ZEC was never created.

Ironwood will seal the vulnerable Orchard pool

Ironwood, also known as NU6.3, is scheduled to activate at block 3,428,143 on July 28. The upgrade will retire the current Orchard pool and introduce a new shielded pool based on the corrected circuit.

According to Zcash’s official Ironwood user update, users will no longer be able to send or receive ZEC inside the old Orchard pool after activation. Funds can leave only through the turnstile, which prevents more ZEC from exiting than legitimately entered.

The Zcash team said it believes the flaw was “unlikely to have been exploited,” but users cannot independently prove no counterfeit ZEC was created. Ironwood aims to trap any excess value inside the old pool rather than allow it to enter wider circulation.

Orchard bug left a supply question Zcash could not prove away

Security researcher Taylor Hornby discovered the Orchard flaw on May 29 while auditing the shielded system. The bug could have allowed an attacker to create counterfeit ZEC inside Orchard without leaving an obvious public record.

As reported by crypto.news, developers first disabled Orchard activity and then restored it through the NU6.2 hard fork with corrected cryptography. No evidence of unauthorized value creation was found, but Orchard’s privacy means past exploitation cannot be ruled out with complete certainty.

Crypto.news later reported that Ironwood would create a fresh shielded pool and use the turnstile to control value leaving the old one. Node operators can then verify that circulating ZEC does not exceed the amount permitted by the network’s monetary rules.

Wallets and exchanges may temporarily pause services

Zcash users do not need to take immediate action before the hard fork. However, wallets, exchanges and other providers may temporarily suspend deposits, withdrawals or related services while completing software upgrades.

The official network guidance says Orchard users will eventually need wallet support to move funds into the new pool. Funds may remain temporarily unavailable in wallets that have not added the required migration tools.

The July 28 activation also follows Zcash’s move away from the legacy zcashd client. Providers still completing that migration may need more time before fully supporting Ironwood.

Zcash adds more security checks after the flaw

The Orchard incident led to wider security work across the Zcash ecosystem. As reported by crypto.news, an AI-assisted review using Anthropic’s Mythos system found no additional serious vulnerabilities after the original flaw was disclosed.

Developers are also pursuing independent audits and formal verification for the updated cryptographic system. The work aims to reduce the risk of another hidden counterfeiting flaw and give users stronger ways to verify Zcash’s supply rules.

Ironwood addresses the unresolved supply question rather than the already-fixed bug itself. By sealing Orchard and controlling withdrawals through the turnstile, the hard fork aims to prevent any hypothetical counterfeit ZEC from entering circulation.

Circle President Heath Tarbert has defended the company’s long-term strategy after Circle shares fell sharply from their post-IPO peak.

Speaking in a July 14 interview with FOX Business, Tarbert said management remains focused on building financial infrastructure rather than reacting to short-term moves in the stock.

The interview came as Circle faced growing investor concern over competition in the stablecoin market. CRCL had traded near $260 after its public debut before falling toward the low $60 range. Tarbert said Circle is “playing the long game” and argued that successful execution would eventually support shareholder value.

Tarbert points to USDC network effects

Tarbert said Circle’s main focus remains building a full-stack internet financial platform around USDC and related infrastructure. He argued that the company’s position cannot be measured only through daily stock movements and said the stock should “take care of itself” if Circle delivers on its wider mission.

He also defended USDC against new competitors. Tarbert pointed to roughly $73 billion in circulation and native support across 34 blockchains, saying those network effects would be “incredibly hard to replicate.” Circle describes USDC as a regulated digital dollar used across trading, payments and settlement.

Open USD adds new pressure to Circle

The comments came after Open Standard launched Open USD, a planned stablecoin backed by more than 140 participating businesses. The group includes Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, BlackRock, BNY and Coinbase. Open Standard says partners can mint and redeem Open USD without fees and receive reserve earnings after a management charge.

As reported by crypto.news, Circle shares fell 17.5% to $62.63 after Open USD entered the market and CRCL left several Russell Growth indexes. The decline added to concerns about whether new stablecoin models could pressure Circle’s economics.

Wall Street has also raised questions about that competition. Crypto.news reported that Mizuho cut its Circle price target to $50, arguing that Open USD’s revenue-sharing structure could pressure margins and raise distribution costs.

Circle faces pressure over USDC economics

Circle’s challenge extends beyond new stablecoin issuers.JPMorgan lowered earnings forecasts for Circle and Coinbase after a new revenue-sharing agreement tied to USDC balances on Hyperliquid. The bank said stronger adoption could come with lower reserve income retained by the companies.

Tarbert pushed back on the idea that competitors can quickly reproduce USDC’s reach. He also described USDC as the largest regulated stablecoin and said it leads in actual transaction volume, presenting scale and existing distribution as key parts of Circle’s competitive position.

Circle keeps expanding regulated infrastructure

Circle has continued adding regulated infrastructure despite the stock decline. On July 10, the company received final OCC approval to establish Circle National Trust. The trust bank will initially provide digital asset custody, with USDC reserve management planned as a possible future service.

As reported by crypto.news, the approval places the new entity under direct federal supervision. Circle says the structure could support wider institutional use of its digital asset infrastructure.

Tarbert’s comments frame the stock decline against a wider contest for stablecoin distribution and reserve income. Open USD brings a large group of payment and financial companies into the market, while Circle continues betting that USDC’s existing network and regulated infrastructure will support its long-term position.

The Electronic Transactions Association (ETA) is signaling that Bitcoin may become a more visible part of mainstream payments conversations—at least within the group’s broader push to engage with emerging transaction technologies. ETA CEO Jason Oxman told CoinDesk that the organization is not lobbying for or against Bitcoin, but he suggested that ETA members are beginning to recognize its potential disruption in the payments stack.

The message comes as the ETA expands its membership base to include BitPay. On August 6, the trade group announced that BitPay—the Bitcoin payments provider—had become the first virtual currency company to join the ETA, framing the move as part of the industry’s ongoing innovation agenda.

Key takeaways

• The ETA’s Jason Oxman said the group does not take an official pro- or anti-Bitcoin stance and supports electronic transactions broadly, including non-Bitcoin technologies.
• BitPay’s entry as the ETA’s first virtual currency member is being presented by Oxman as evidence the trade group “won’t turn a blind eye to innovation.”
• Oxman pointed to education efforts around Bitcoin—specifically referencing the role of the Bitcoin Foundation—in shaping ETA members’ attitudes.
• On New York’s BitLicense proposal, Oxman argued regulators should avoid applying “reflexive” rules to new technology and instead conduct a deeper technical review of how Bitcoin systems and consumer protections work.
• New York’s financial regulator extended the public comment period for the BitLicense proposal by 45 days, pushing the deadline to October 21.

Why BitPay’s ETA membership matters

ETA represents major players in electronic payments, including companies such as Visa, MasterCard, Amazon, and PayPal. When Oxman discussed the ETA’s posture toward Bitcoin, he did not describe the trade group as endorsing a single technology. Instead, he framed the ETA’s mission around enabling electronic transactions in whatever form merchants and customers choose.

In that context, Oxman cited the ETA’s partnership with Atlanta-based Bitcoin payment solutions provider BitPay as a practical sign of openness. He suggested the organization is trying to position itself as a partner for emerging technology startups, with engagement driven largely by whether market participants show demand for those tools.

Oxman’s core argument was that transaction rails evolve according to user and merchant preferences. As he put it in his remarks, electronic transactions will take “whatever the customer or merchant of choice agrees is going to be the form of their electronic transaction.”

From education to partnerships

Oxman also linked the ETA’s shifting view to earlier learning efforts about Bitcoin. He said the Bitcoin Foundation played a significant role in educating ETA members about Bitcoin’s benefits and emphasized the value of business-oriented introductions between Bitcoin startups and established payment companies.

Specifically, Oxman referenced an ETA event in 2013 where Bitcoin Foundation general counsel Patrick Murck spoke. In Oxman’s recollection, Murck helped frame Bitcoin in business terms, after which Oxman said at least one ETA member decided to pursue a deal with a Bitcoin processor.

This detail matters because it suggests the ETA’s openness is not only policy-driven, but also influenced by how Bitcoin is presented—less as a speculative innovation and more as a payments system that can be integrated into existing commercial workflows.

What Oxman says about BitLicense and consumer protection

The ETA CEO’s comments also touched New York’s BitLicense framework, which has been at the center of ongoing debate about how cryptocurrency businesses should be regulated. Oxman said the ETA’s historical experience with regulatory change has involved adjusting to new payment options such as PayPal, noting that it previously spent significant effort encouraging regulators not to constrict innovation.

However, he acknowledged why regulators may be cautious with new payment technologies. His reasoning was that regulators tend to focus on consumer protection. According to Oxman, the less established the alternative system is—meaning the fewer protections are clearly available—the more regulators feel compelled to intervene.

Still, Oxman said the NY Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) should do more than react quickly to novelty. He argued regulators should not rely on “reflexive rules” simply because a technology is new, and instead conduct a real in-depth look at Bitcoin’s underlying systems.

In his view, the key is understanding how Bitcoin’s system operates, including how the blockchain works, and how Bitcoin providers—such as payment processors—can implement additional safeguards for consumers and merchants. The implication is that compliance standards should reflect the actual operating model and control points of Bitcoin-related businesses, rather than generic assumptions that could overreach.

Regulatory timeline shifts in New York

While ETA’s stance is aimed at engagement rather than advocacy, New York’s regulatory process is still unfolding. Earlier this week, NYDFS superintendent Benjamin Lawsky extended the public comment period on the BitLicense proposal by 45 days, pushing the deadline to October 21. This extension followed a joint letter addressed to Lawsky from BTC China, Huobi, and OkCoin, where the “Big three” exchanges outlined concerns about the proposal.

For industry participants, the practical takeaway is that the BitLicense debate remains active and that the regulatory outcome may depend on the arguments that emerge during the revised comment window. For Bitcoin-focused payments firms, that matters directly: the availability of licensing pathways and the scope of compliance requirements can influence whether and how businesses expand within New York.

As the ETA continues to bring Bitcoin payments into its orbit through members like BitPay and as New York works through its BitLicense process, readers should watch two things: whether regulators adopt a more technical, systems-level approach to consumer safeguards, and whether established payments networks deepen partnerships with Bitcoin-related processors as demand from merchants and customers becomes more visible.

South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service has begun a formal sanctions process against Dunamu, the operator of crypto exchange Upbit, over the major wallet breach reported in November 2025.  

The action follows a months-long inspection into whether the exchange met its duties under the country’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act.

According to an SBS report citing financial authorities, the FSS recently sent Dunamu an inspection opinion letter. The document gives the company a chance to respond before regulators decide what penalties, if any, should follow. The process then moves through several formal regulatory review stages.

FSS reviews Upbit’s response to the 2025 breach

The November 27 attack affected Solana-based assets held by Upbit. Early estimates varied, with crypto.news reporting losses of about $36 million based on figures available at the time. South Korean reports now place the affected amount at 44.5 billion won, worth about $32 million at current exchange rates.

Upbit said it moved assets to cold wallets, halted deposits and withdrawals, and began tracing the stolen funds after detecting abnormal transfers. In its official customer notice, the exchange said customer losses would be covered with company funds. Authorities later examined both the security failure and the timing of Upbit’s public disclosure.

Legal gap makes the possible sanctions unclear

The current Virtual Asset User Protection Act gives regulators powers over custody, unfair trading and customer protection, but it does not set direct penalties specifically for hacking or computer system failures. That leaves uncertainty around how far the FSS can go in this case.

The regulator will consider Dunamu’s response before issuing advance notice of any proposed action. Final measures would require further review by the sanctions review committee, the Securities and Futures Commission and the Financial Services Commission. South Korean authorities are also considering stronger rules for hacking and technology failures in the next phase of digital asset legislation.

Upbit has faced wider regulatory pressure

The hack arrived during a period of close regulatory attention on Dunamu. As reported by crypto.news, South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit previously imposed a 35.2 billion won fine on the company over anti-money laundering and customer verification failures.

That earlier enforcement action later faced court scrutiny. Crypto.news reported that a court canceled a three-month partial suspension against Dunamu after finding gaps in the legal basis used for the sanction. The latest hacking case could create another test of how existing laws apply to crypto exchange operations.

Dunamu’s Naver deal remains under review

The sanctions process also comes while Dunamu works through a planned share swap with Naver Financial. the companies recently delayed completion of the transaction to December 31 because several regulatory approvals remain outstanding.

The current inspection does not automatically block that deal. However, Dunamu remains under several layers of regulatory review while South Korea prepares broader digital asset rules. The FSS has not yet announced a proposed sanction level in the hacking case, and Dunamu still has an opportunity to challenge the inspection findings before any final decision.

South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) has reportedly sent an inspection opinion letter to Dunamu, the operator of crypto exchange Upbit, regarding the $36 million hack from November 2025.

Local news outlet Yonhap News reported Sunday that the FSS had recently sent Dunamu an inspection opinion letter.

The letter marks the formal start of a sanctions procedure by the financial authorities. It provides Dunamu with an opportunity to respond to the inspection’s findings before the regulator notifies the company of its proposed sanctions.

Cointelegraph has approached Dunamu for comment on the matter.

Related: Kaspersky identifies malware framework targeting crypto investors

Upbit faced criticism for delaying its announcement of the $36 million exploit, according to Yonhap. 

The breach lasted about 54 minutes, starting at 4:42 a.m. KST on November 27, but Upbit only announced the hack at the end of the day, after a merger-related event involving internet giant Naver Financial concluded.

The financial regulator said it is reviewing whether the exchange violated the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, which provides no direct sanctions provisions related to cyberattacks or computer hacks.

The report said South Korean authorities plan to address the regulatory gap by adding sanctions and compensation provisions for hacking and computer system failures to the second phase of the Digital Asset Basic Act.

Upbit reimburses users, launches onchain tracing system for fund recovery

In a statement following the November exploit, Upbit said it froze approximately 2.3 billion won ($1.5 million) worth of funds. The exchange said it would fully reimburse affected customers using its own balance sheet assets.

Upbit said it initiated an overhaul of its crypto wallet architecture to address potential vulnerabilities after the exploit and migrated all assets from affected wallets.

In December 2025, Upbit said it developed an automatic onchain tracking service, Onchain AI Tracer System, to track the path of the stolen funds and aid potential recovery efforts.

Upbit ranks third in CoinMarketCap’s crypto spot exchange rankings, based on scores that include traffic, liquidity and trading volumes.

Magazine: Does Botanix’s failure prove Bitcoiners don’t care about DeFi? 

A prediction made more than a decade ago about closer ties between Bitcoin startups and traditional payment companies increasingly resembles the payments market of 2026.

Former Electronic Transactions Association CEO Jason Oxman discussed that possibility in an August 2014 interview with CoinDesk. His comments followed BitPay becoming the first digital currency company to join the payments trade group. Oxman said the association would remain open to new payment technologies without formally backing Bitcoin over other systems.

Early Bitcoin partnerships pointed to a wider shift

Oxman argued that payment companies ultimately respond to how consumers and merchants choose to transact. He said the industry was “in the business of facilitating electronic transactions,” regardless of which technology carried those payments.

The comments came during an early period for commercial Bitcoin adoption, when regulators were still debating New York’s BitLicense proposal. Oxman also warned regulators against applying rules simply because a technology was new, while accepting that consumer protection remained a valid concern.

The leadership of ETA has since changed. Jodie Kelley became the organization’s CEO in 2019, and ETA now operates a dedicated Digital Assets committee alongside its other payments industry groups.

Visa and Mastercard build direct crypto partnerships

The type of partnership Oxman discussed is now common across the payments industry. Visa and Stripe-owned Bridge announced plans in March to expand stablecoin-linked Visa cards to more than 100 countries by the end of 2026. As reported by crypto.news, the cards allow users to spend stablecoin balances across Visa’s merchant network.

Visa has also expanded its stablecoin settlement pilot to nine blockchains. The company said in April that the program had reached a $7 billion annualized settlement rate. Visa said the expansion gives payment partners more choice when selecting blockchain networks.

Mastercard has followed a similar path. Its Crypto Partner Program brings together more than 100 crypto companies, financial institutions and payment providers. As reported by crypto.news, Alchemy Pay joined the initiative in May to explore closer links between fiat payments and onchain commerce.

Stablecoins now lead much of the payments expansion

The industry’s focus has also shifted from Bitcoin alone toward stablecoins. Visa, Mastercard and Coinbase recently joined more than 140 companies backing Open Standard, a group developing the Open USD stablecoin.

As reported by crypto.news, the project plans to create payment infrastructure for businesses using a dollar-linked digital asset. The move puts major card networks directly alongside crypto-native companies in developing blockchain payment systems.

BitPay has also continued expanding. Crypto.news recently reported that the payment company secured MiCA authorization in the Netherlands, allowing it to provide regulated crypto and stablecoin services across eligible European Union markets.

More than a decade after Oxman predicted growing cooperation, partnerships between traditional payment networks and crypto companies have moved from isolated experiments into cards, settlement systems, stablecoins and cross-border payments.

Spreadefi faces scrutiny as users assess trust, transparency, and DeFi platform credibility.

As the decentralized finance (DeFi) space has evolved, users have gotten a lot more careful about which platforms they trust with their digital assets. After a long line of fraudulent projects, one question comes up naturally: can Spreadefi be trusted, or is it just another scam?

Let’s take a closer look at the project, check the available information, and see whether there’s any real reason to call it unreliable.

What is Spreadefi?

Spreadefi is a DeFi platform that lets users earn income by staking in liquidity pools. Crypto assets are placed into a pool, and from there, they’re used to provide liquidity on decentralized exchanges. In return, participants earn rewards generated from fees and other protocol mechanisms.

The platform puts the emphasis on automated operations, cross-chain infrastructure, and risk management, aiming to make DeFi more accessible to both experienced users and newcomers alike.

Why do questions about a scam come up at all?

These days, just about any new crypto project faces questions like this. The market has lived through a string of high-profile frauds in recent years, and investors have grown far more cautious as a result.

Search queries like “Spreadefi scam” or “Is Spreadefi legit?” are completely normal. People want to be sure a project is actually building something, and wasn’t created just to pull in funds.

What was verified

In looking at the project, the focus is on the criteria that typically help separate a real company from a questionable crypto operation.

The company is officially registered

One of the first positives was the project’s legal transparency. Spreadefi operates through an officially registered company in the United States, information you can verify through public registries. Being able to confirm a legal entity is a strong sign of openness, especially in the crypto space.

Registration alone doesn’t guarantee success, of course. But fraudulent schemes almost never make that kind of information public.

Another important factor is that Spreadefi is building an ecosystem rather than relying on a single service.

Alongside its liquidity pool infrastructure, the platform has developed its own crypto swap service, allowing users to exchange supported digital assets directly within the ecosystem. This helps create additional utility for the platform while supporting internal liquidity.

The company is also developing API solutions for developers and business partners. These APIs are designed to allow third-party platforms, applications, and digital asset services to integrate Spreadefi’s infrastructure into their own products, expanding the ecosystem beyond the platform itself.

In addition to its staking and liquidity services, Spreadefi continues to invest in its technology stack, user interface, security systems, and infrastructure tools. Recent updates have included improvements to liquidity allocation algorithms, mobile experience, platform performance, and internal security architecture.

Projects that consistently expand their product offering and continue investing in infrastructure typically demonstrate a longer-term development strategy rather than focusing solely on attracting deposits.

Active project development

During the analysis, the team’s public activity was also taken note of.

Spreadefi regularly publishes content on its official blog, sharing updates on product development, new features, and technical upgrades. On top of that, project representatives take part in industry events and conferences, which suggests long-term development plans rather than a short-lived platform.

That kind of public visibility is rare for fraudulent projects. After launch, they usually cut off nearly all interaction with their audience.  

Are there any negative reviews?

A deliberate effort was made to dig up confirmed negative material about Spreadefi.

After going through publications, reviews, and discussions across open sources, no convincing evidence was found that the project is engaged in fraud. There are the usual user questions, discussions of DeFi risks, and skeptical comments, all of which are completely natural for any crypto project.

What wasn’t found, however, were mass complaints, confirmed accusations of fraud, or signs of a classic rug pull.

It’s important to understand that the absence of that kind of material doesn’t mean there’s zero risk. Any DeFi protocol comes with market and technical risks. That said, the information landscape around Spreadefi looks significantly calmer than what you see with a lot of young crypto projects.

What risks remain?

Even if a project is legitimate, working with DeFi always carries certain risks:

• market volatility
• smart contract risk
• blockchain infrastructure vulnerabilities
• shifts in liquidity
• changes in crypto regulation

These factors apply to the entire decentralized finance industry, and they don’t point to any specific platform being fraudulent by nature.

Conclusion

Based on the information available right now, there are no objective grounds to call Spreadefi a scam.

Several things speak in the project’s favor:

• official company registration
• an actively expanding ecosystem including liquidity pools, a native swap service, and developer APIs
• regular product updates and infrastructure improvements
• regular posts on the official blog
• project representatives participating in conferences and industry events
• no confirmed accusations of fraud or widespread reports of misconduct

As with any crypto project, investors should study the documentation themselves, weigh the risks, and only make decisions after doing their own research. But as of today, Spreadefi gives the impression of a project that’s developing out in the open, with transparency, and with its sights set on being around for the long haul.