South Korea’s Financial Services Commission said it is considering a market-making system for digital assets, after a stablecoin linked to the value of the Japanese yen traded for as much as four times its peg on a major South Korean crypto exchange earlier this month. 

Crypto exchange Upbit opened trading of JPYC, a yen-backed stablecoin, on Sept. 17, with the market opening at 12 Korean won per JPYC before reaching a high of 37.6 Korean won just an hour later, more than four times its market value. The spike was attributed to limited liquidity on Upbit. 

“We will also review the need to introduce systems such as market-making activities to increase the efficiency and stability of the digital asset landscape,” Yoo Young-joon, director of digital finance policy at the FSC, said at a conference in Seoul on Monday, Digital Asset reported. “There were also criticisms that user losses occurred from the price surge after the JPYC listing, so demands for discipline in this area are expanding.”

South Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act currently does not contain an exemption for market-making from its market manipulation provisions, preventing market makers from providing liquidity in crypto markets. The latest comments from Yoo suggest the FSC could be reconsidering this decision. 

South Korean academics have debated the market-maker carve-out before. In a 2024 peer-reviewed paper from Seoul Law Review, KB Securities researcher Lee Min Jung said regulators at the time did not allow crypto market making as it could amount to market manipulation. While Lee argued that introducing market makers would be premature due to manipulation concerns, she said regulators could consider a carve-out once the market becomes more stable. 

Researchers had called for a formal market-making framework long before the recent JPYC episode. A paper by Yoonyoung Choi from the Korbit Research Center argued that the domestic crypto market has been experiencing “serious liquidity problems” due to the absence of a formal market maker system, leading to price discrepancies and high volatility. The paper cited the Kimchi premium as an example of inefficiency in South Korea’s crypto market.

Related: South Korea drops Travel Rule threshold for crypto transfers

The potential introduction of a market-making system comes as South Korea works to establish a broader regulatory framework for its crypto industry. 

The FSC said in July that it planned to introduce a consolidated Digital Asset Basic Act covering stablecoins and the broader crypto market, including rules for digital asset businesses, exchanges, disclosures and internal controls.

However, lawmakers have yet to settle several key aspects of the legislation, including rules governing won-denominated stablecoin issuers.

Magazine: THORChain under fire over Bitget, ETH evolves beyond blockchain: Hodler’s Digest

Binance Wallet has added USDT gas-fee payments on four blockchain networks as of Sept. 25, allowing users to transact without first holding each chain’s native gas token.

According to Binance’s updated support documentation Binance Wallet gas-fee guide, the option currently works on BNB Smart Chain, Ethereum, Solana and TRON. Users with USDT in Binance Wallet can select the stablecoin to cover the network fee when completing supported transactions.

Previously, users generally needed BNB for transactions on BNB Smart Chain, ETH on Ethereum, SOL on Solana and TRX on TRON. A wallet without the required native token could leave the user unable to complete an on-chain transaction even when it held the asset being transferred.

Binance said its wallet calculates the network fee based on current blockchain conditions. The company said more networks will gain support later, though it has not provided a rollout timetable.

Binance Wallet uses USDT for gas on four networks

The USDT option changes how Binance Wallet users can fund transaction costs, but it does not remove the underlying blockchain fee. Validators or other network participants still receive the network charge required to process the transaction.

Binance states in its support guide that “none of the network fee goes to Binance.” The company distinguishes blockchain gas from service fees that Binance Wallet may charge for certain products, including swaps.

Network charges remain dynamic. Binance says congestion can push fees higher on Ethereum Virtual Machine networks and Solana as users compete for transaction processing. Lower activity can reduce the amount required.

TRON operates differently through its resource model, which uses bandwidth and energy. Users can obtain resources through mechanisms such as staking TRX or renting energy. When available resources cannot cover a transaction, TRX may be burned to pay the remaining cost, according to Binance’s explanation.

For Binance Wallet users, USDT now serves as another payment method for those costs on supported chains. Binance has not said the networks themselves have changed their native fee mechanisms.

Exchange balances provide another way to cover gas

Users without enough USDT in Binance Wallet can use supported balances held in their Binance Exchange accounts on the same four networks.

The official Binance support page lists BNB, USDT, USDC, ETH and SOL among assets that can be used through eligible Spot, Funding or Earn balances. Users select the Exchange Account option when choosing how the network fee will be paid.

Binance lists several other routes when neither wallet USDT nor an eligible exchange balance is available. Users can transfer the required gas token from Binance Exchange, receive it from another wallet or buy supported assets using a bank card.

A separate option lets eligible users draw BNB from their Spot or Funding Account for gas on BNB Smart Chain, Ethereum and opBNB. Binance says users need more than 0.01 BNB in the relevant account before selecting that payment method.

The company continues to warn users to select the correct blockchain when moving assets between Binance and another wallet. Its withdrawal guide says choosing an incompatible network can result in assets becoming unrecoverable.

TRON users get a separate zero-gas offer

The rollout follows a separate Binance Wallet promotion for transfers on TRON.

Starting Sept. 23, eligible users can receive zero gas fees when sending USDT and other TRC-20 tokens through Binance Wallet. The campaign runs through Dec. 22, 2026, according to a Binance Wallet announcement.

Binance said the offer is supported by TRON DAO and remains subject to available campaign spots. After the promotional period, the company said qualifying transfers will receive a discounted fee of 1 USDT per transaction.

To use the promotion, users start a transfer through Binance Wallet, select the token and destination, then choose the network-fee payer when signing the transaction. USDT can be selected as the payment method before confirmation.

The TRON promotion and the four-network USDT feature cover related transaction costs under different terms. The support documentation presents USDT as a payment option for gas on BNB Smart Chain, Ethereum, Solana and TRON, while the TRON campaign temporarily reduces eligible TRC-20 transfer charges to zero.

Binance Wallet has been reducing transaction friction

Binance has made several changes to its self-custody wallet since renaming Binance Web3 Wallet in December 2024.

As crypto.news previously reported, the rebranded Binance Wallet introduced a unified wallet interface and changes to asset management and its airdrop section. Binance said at the time that upgrades would arrive in several stages.

Network fees remained separate from trading fees in later wallet promotions. In February 2025, Binance waived trading charges on eligible wallet swaps, while users still had to pay blockchain gas fees, as crypto.news reported.

Binance Wallet has since expanded the number of services available through the self-custody product. In April 2026, the wallet introduced perpetual futures trading through its app and web interface, with an Alpha Points campaign tied to trading volume, according to related crypto.news coverage.

By May, Binance Wallet had integrated Event Rush on BNB Chain, where verified users could trade tokens linked to event outcomes using USDT. The service operates through a third-party decentralized application and is restricted in some regions, as crypto.news reported.

Binance’s current documentation identifies Binance Wallet as a self-custody product provided by Binance Barbados Limited. The company states that the wallet services are not supervised by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority or another regulatory authority.

Zano’s core team has restarted the Zano blockchain to undo roughly a month of activity after it identified a vulnerability tied to “Gateway Addresses” that allowed unauthorized ZANO and Freedom Dollar (fUSD) tokens to enter circulation. The restart reverts the chain to block 3,833,000—immediately before Hard Fork 6 introduced the affected feature.

According to the project’s leadership, the recovery will only take full effect once participating nodes, miners, stakers, exchanges, and other services adopt the updated software. The team says transactions and token activity that occurred during the compromised period will no longer appear on the recovered chain. However, it also warns that the rollback cannot reverse payments that were already settled on other blockchains.

Key takeaways

• Zano restarted the chain at block 3,833,000, rolling back about a month of history linked to an exploit affecting Gateway Addresses.
• The reset targets activity after the Hard Fork 6 feature deployment, meaning compromised transactions won’t show on the restored chain.
• Participating nodes, miners, stakers, exchanges, and other infrastructure providers must upgrade to complete the recovery.
• Zano says it will publish a reimbursement and claims process to address losses, though cross-chain settlements cannot be undone.

Rollback mechanics: what changed and what can’t be reversed

The project says the vulnerability’s impact is limited to the period after Hard Fork 6, when Gateway Addresses were introduced. By restarting the network from block 3,833,000, Zano invalidates both legitimate transactions included after that block and any unauthorized ZANO and fUSD that the exploit minted or introduced.

That matters for users and service operators because it effectively resets the on-chain record for that interval. Anyone who relied on transactions during the rolled-back window—whether for balances, accounting, or automated workflows—will need to reprocess those events against the restored chain state.

At the same time, the team draws a clear boundary around what is feasible. While the rollback can change what is recognized on Zano itself, it cannot undo transactions already finalized elsewhere. For users who moved value through cross-chain transfers or other external systems, the project’s update implies that losses tied to already-settled external payments may not be recoverable via the chain restart alone.

What are “Gateway Addresses,” and why they became a target

Zano says it has not published a full post-mortem yet, but it confirmed the exploit originated with Gateway Addresses. The feature was created to make integrations easier for bridges, exchanges, and payment services by allowing them to manage funds through a single account-style balance model.

Before Gateway Addresses, Zano wallets tracked funds as separate transaction outputs (UTXOs), rather than as one consolidated account balance. That difference influences how exchanges and payment processors work: services had to scan the blockchain to identify incoming payments, track which outputs corresponded to customer deposits, and select appropriate outputs when users requested withdrawals.

By contrast, an account-style abstraction can streamline integration logic—especially for services that want a unified view of balances. The Zano team’s decision to revert the network “immediately before Hard Fork 6,” however, suggests the abstraction layer introduced new attack surface that was not sufficiently contained.

Zano’s public explorer shows the rollback taking place on Sunday, reflecting the chain reset and the shift back to the pre–Hard Fork 6 state. The project did not provide additional technical details in the excerpted information, but the explicit identification of Gateway Addresses helps narrow the likely root cause to the feature rather than to core transaction privacy itself.

Token supply, trust, and the case for restarting

The Zano leadership framed the restart as a tradeoff between immediate disruption and long-term credibility. Quinten van Welzen, head of marketing and growth, argued that “doing nothing” would have meant unauthorized ZANO and fUSD remaining in circulation indefinitely—diluting holders and undermining the idea of a fixed supply.

Van Welzen also suggested that allowing the compromised supply to stand would signal to future attackers that they could retain value after an exploit. In that view, the most damaging outcome would not just be the technical breach, but the precedent it sets for adversaries.

Restarting from an earlier block, he said, comes with real costs: it eliminates about a month of blockchain history and requires the community to rebuild trust. Still, the team’s position is that restoring the intended supply and restarting from a clean state offers a path back that justifies the disruption.

Why exchanges and validators are central to the fix

Zano’s recovery depends on adoption. The team said participating nodes, miners, stakers, exchanges, and other services must adopt the update so the network stabilizes on the recovered chain state. This requirement is especially important for institutional and high-throughput operators, where delayed upgrades can lead to inconsistent balances, duplicate processing, or mismatched transaction histories.

For traders and users, the implication is straightforward: infrastructure readiness will determine how quickly services converge on the restored ledger. For exchanges in particular, the rollback also affects deposit and withdrawal accounting—so operators may need to re-sync transaction histories and ensure customer records match the post-recovery state.

In parallel, Zano says it is working to account for losses. The team indicated that it will publish a reimbursement and claims process, which should become a key reference for affected parties once the details are released. Until then, the only fully reliable takeaway for users is that transactions from the compromised period are expected to disappear from the restored chain, while any already-settled activity outside Zano may not be reversible through the rollback.

Going forward, readers should watch for the promised reimbursement/claims instructions and any technical follow-up that clarifies exactly how Gateway Addresses were exploited, because those details will likely determine how integrators adjust their systems and how quickly confidence can be rebuilt after the Hard Fork 6 rollback.

Zano has rolled back roughly a month of blockchain history after it identified a vulnerability tied to “Gateway Addresses” that, according to the project’s core team, enabled unauthorized ZANO and Freedom Dollar (fUSD) to enter circulation.

In an update shared Sunday, Zano said the network was restarted at block 3,833,000—immediately before Hard Fork 6, which introduced the affected functionality. The recovery now depends on ecosystem participants, including nodes, miners, stakers, exchanges, and other services, upgrading to the revised software.

Key takeaways

• Zano restarted the chain at block 3,833,000, rolling back about a month of activity tied to an exploit linked to Gateway Addresses.
• The rollback removes both legitimate transactions from that window and the unauthorized ZANO and fUSD that entered circulation.
• Payments already completed on other blockchains cannot be undone, limiting how far the recovery can reverse real-world settlement.
• Zano says it will handle remediation for affected parties through a reimbursement and claims process, though details have not yet been published.
• The fix requires coordinated adoption by infrastructure operators and service providers, including exchanges and other third parties that integrate with Zano.

Hard Fork 6 and the Gateway Address vulnerability

Zano has not published a full post-mortem as of publication, but it has confirmed that the problem originated with Gateway Addresses—a feature designed to simplify how external platforms such as bridges, exchanges, and payment services integrate with the Zano network.

According to the project’s explanation, Gateway Addresses enable these services to manage funds using a single “account-style” balance rather than handling payments as scattered transaction outputs.

Before Gateway Addresses existed, Zano wallets operated using separate transaction outputs (UTXOs). For exchanges and similar services, that meant incoming funds required blockchain scanning to identify which outputs belonged to a platform, followed by selecting specific outputs for withdrawals.

The introduced feature changed that workflow by offering a different way to account for funds—one that, in Zano’s view, became the pathway for the vulnerability that allowed unauthorized tokens to be minted or otherwise introduced into circulation.

What the rollback does—and what it cannot fix

Zano’s rollback invalidates the on-chain record of the affected period. The project states that transactions processed during that time will no longer appear on the restored chain. It also says the unauthorized ZANO and fUSD created or introduced through the exploit will be removed from the recovered ledger.

However, Zano cautioned that the rollback cannot reverse payments already settled on other blockchains. That distinction matters for users and service operators: if cross-chain transfers or off-chain settlements were completed before the restart, those transfers may not be recoverable even if the originating chain history is rewritten.

Zano also indicated that it is working to account for losses and will publish a reimbursement and claims process. The project did not provide the mechanics of how losses will be calculated or what documentation will be required within the material available at the time of writing.

Why Zano chose to restart the network

Zano’s head of marketing and growth, Quinten van Welzen, framed the decision as a trade-off between restoring the integrity of the currency supply and accepting a painful loss of history.

In statements shared alongside the rollback announcement, van Welzen argued that “doing nothing” would have allowed unauthorized ZANO and fUSD to remain in circulation without limits—effectively diluting holders and breaking what he described as the basic promise a currency makes: a fixed supply. He also suggested that allowing the attacker to retain value would set a dangerous precedent.

He acknowledged that restarting the chain from before Hard Fork 6 carries costs, including the disappearance of about a month of transaction history. At the same time, van Welzen said the rollback restores the supply that users expected and leaves a path for rebuilding trust.

Gateway Addresses and the risks of integration features

Zano’s broader context helps explain why the exploit mattered. The project launched in May 2019 as a layer-1 blockchain focused on private payments. Standard private transactions are designed to conceal senders, receivers, transferred amounts, and asset types.

Beyond its native token (ZANO), Zano allows users to deploy and mint custom digital assets. Freedom Dollar (fUSD) is one such token operating on the Zano blockchain. The vulnerability therefore wasn’t confined to a single token: unauthorized issuance affected both ZANO and an issued asset tied to the same underlying system.

Gateway Addresses were created to make integrations easier—especially for services that need to handle deposits and withdrawals without scanning UTXOs manually. But Zano’s response underscores a central theme in blockchain security: features that simplify custody and balances for third parties can also concentrate risk if they introduce new assumptions or pathways an attacker can abuse.

In that light, the coordination requirements for the restart carry practical weight. Zano said the recovery requires participating nodes, miners, stakers, exchanges, and other services to adopt the update. Without broad adoption, the network could split between versions, complicating settlement and increasing operational risk for trading venues and custodial providers.

For users, the rollback also highlights a limitation that extends beyond Zano itself: even if the originating chain is corrected, downstream effects—especially those involving cross-chain transfers or already-completed settlement—may remain permanent.

Looking ahead, attention should focus on the reimbursement and claims process Zano said it will publish, as well as how quickly exchanges and infrastructure operators finalize adoption of the restart. The project’s next security communications—whether it eventually releases a deeper technical post-mortem—will also be important for assessing whether Gateway Addresses will be reworked to prevent similar failures.