Demand for US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) picked up over the past week, according to Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas, with multiple products posting inflows on every trading day since the Coldcard wallet exploit. The timing has sparked fresh discussion about whether some investors are reassessing the risks of self-custody.

Balchunas said that BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), Fidelity’s Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC), Bitwise’s Bitcoin ETF (BITB), ARK 21Shares’ Bitcoin ETF (ARKB), and Defiance Daily Target 2X Long MSTR ETF (MSBT) all recorded inflows every day since the weekend breach. The combined total was roughly $620 million, aligning with Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting on an ETF inflow streak.

Key takeaways

• Bloomberg’s Eric Balchunas attributes the latest run of daily inflows (about $620 million) to several major spot Bitcoin ETFs starting after the Coldcard exploit.
• TRM Labs estimates the Coldcard attack drained more than $116 million in Bitcoin from over 5,200 wallet addresses.
• Balchunas cautioned that a direct connection between the hack and ETF buying is unproven, but acknowledged some investors may be shifting toward regulated custody.
• Industry figures including Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao argued that, based on available data, exchange custody may be “statistically safer” than self-custody—though underreporting remains a concern.
• Broader security debates are intensifying as AI-assisted exploits accelerate the pace at which vulnerabilities are identified and attacked.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs see daily inflow streak after Coldcard exploit

In his update shared on X, Balchunas highlighted a multi-day pattern of inflows across several leading spot Bitcoin ETFs. The list included large, established issuers (including BlackRock and Fidelity) as well as other active fund providers. Per Balchunas, inflows have continued every trading day since the weekend of the Coldcard exploit, with the group’s cumulative figure landing at roughly $620 million.

Cointelegraph previously reported on the continuation of a Bitcoin ETF inflow streak, noting that the latest totals were consistent with that trend. Together, the data suggest that recent capital flows have been persistent rather than limited to a single “reaction” day after the incident.

Still, Balchunas explicitly framed the connection as speculative. “I’m not saying it’s connected, we just don’t know,” he wrote, while adding that over the long term he can’t imagine there aren’t investors who choose to migrate away from self-custody after incidents like this.

Coldcard hack highlights exposure even for hardware wallet users

The renewed self-custody debate traces back to the Coldcard wallet exploit. Cointelegraph reported that the incident involved an attack against the Coldcard ecosystem, draining more than $116 million worth of Bitcoin from over 5,200 wallet addresses, according to blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs.

For many participants in the market, hardware wallets are viewed as a last line of defense—designed to keep private keys offline and reduce the risk of direct theft through compromised online environments. However, the Coldcard incident underscored that end-to-end security still depends on firmware integrity and operational handling, and that even users of advanced self-custody tools may be vulnerable if software components are compromised.

Self-custody vs regulated custody: CZ’s “statistically safer” argument

The Coldcard hack fed into a longer-running argument about the relative risks of self-custody and centralized exchange (CEX) custody. Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao weighed in, suggesting that storing crypto on centralized exchanges could now be “statistically safer” than self-custody.

Zhao pointed to analysis by Willy Woo, claiming that cumulative Bitcoin losses from self-custody incidents have surpassed losses from exchange hacks. In his X post, Zhao also argued that differences in reporting make direct comparisons difficult: “Hack data is easier to collect on the CEX side, usually major news. It is harder on the self-custody side, where hacks, lost coins, etc are often not reported.”

That framing matters for investors because it shifts the conversation from a purely technical question (“Which custody model is more secure?”) to an evidentiary one (“Which system’s failures are more visible and therefore easier to measure?”). Until self-custody incidents are tracked with the same completeness as major exchange events, any conclusion about relative safety remains inherently asymmetric.

Security pressure is mounting as AI-assisted attacks evolve

Beyond the Coldcard case, the broader cyber threat landscape is intensifying. Cointelegraph earlier reported that on Monday, Bitcoin swap service Boltz suspended its non-custodial bridge after citing a steady rise in AI-assisted exploits. The service said attackers were using artificial intelligence to identify and exploit vulnerabilities faster than its team could patch them.

While that suspension does not confirm a direct link to the Coldcard incident, it reinforces a common theme across current security discussions: defenders face a faster and more adaptive attack cycle. For ordinary users, this can translate into a growing sense that the gap between “known risks” and “unknown vulnerabilities” is narrowing.

For ETF investors, the implication is more indirect but still important. Regulated investment products typically centralize custody with institutional providers and established operational controls, meaning some risks are moved away from individual users and into broader compliance and security frameworks. Whether that results in higher safety in practice is difficult to quantify, but the market’s recent capital flows suggest that at least some investors are paying close attention to custody trade-offs after high-profile self-custody failures.

Going forward, readers should watch whether the daily inflow pattern persists beyond the immediate post-incident window, and whether additional analysis clarifies how (or if) the Coldcard exploit influenced investor behavior. The key open question is whether the ETF buying reflects a short-term narrative shift or a longer-term reallocation toward regulated custody.

Demand for US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) has accelerated over the past week, with a string of daily inflows coinciding with the Coldcard wallet hack — timing that has prompted speculation about whether some investors are reconsidering self-custody.

According to Bloomberg senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas, BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC), Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (BITB), ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF (ARKB) as well as Defiance Daily Target 2X Long MSTR ETF (MSBT) have recorded inflows every trading day since the weekend exploit, totaling roughly $620 million. The cumulative figure is consistent with Cointelegraph’s recent reporting on the ETF inflow streak.

The Coldcard exploit drained more than $116 million worth of Bitcoin from over 5,200 wallet addresses, according to blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs.

“I’m not saying it’s connected, we just don’t know,” Balchunas said in a post on X. “[Although]  long-term I can’t imagine there aren’t some who migrate over.”

Source: Eric Balchunas

Related: Bitcoin Red Team reports 5K findings in sweeping security audit

Coldcard exploit renews debate over self-custody risks

The Coldcard hack renewed concerns that even hardware wallet users can be exposed to firmware flaws and software vulnerabilities, highlighting the operational risks that come with self-custody.

The incident also reignited debate over the trade-offs between holding Bitcoin directly and gaining exposure through regulated investment products such as spot Bitcoin ETFs, where asset custody and security are handled by institutional providers.

Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao also weighed in on the debate, arguing that storing crypto on centralized exchanges may now be “statistically safer” than self-custody, citing data from analyst Willy Woo that cumulative Bitcoin losses from self-custody incidents have surpassed those from exchange hacks.

Source: Changpeng Zhao

“Hack data is easier to collect on the CEX side, usually major news. It is harder on the self-custody side, where hacks, lost coins, etc are often not reported,” CZ said.

The debate comes as AI-assisted cyberattacks are becoming increasingly sophisticated. On Monday, Bitcoin swap service Boltz suspended its non-custodial bridge, citing a steady rise in AI-assisted exploits that were allowing attackers to identify and exploit vulnerabilities faster than its team could patch them.

Magazine: Do the Coldcard attacks mean all hardware wallets are now insecure?

This morning, Jefferies slashed its price target on SanDisk stock 42% from $3,000 to $1,750. ZeroHedge laughed out loud at the drastic action.

Just six weeks ago, on June 26, analysts at the investment bank had set their $3,000 price target. Nonetheless, SanDisk stock price is down, even after the AI chipmaker reported the best quarterly earnings in its history yesterday.

Its most recent quarterly revenue was a 372% year-over-year gain to $8.97 billion, far surpassing its own guidance range of $7.75-8.25 billion. 

Non-GAAP gross margin landed at 84.6%, dwarfing the prior year’s 26.4% and beating its guidance range of 79-81%. Non-GAAP earnings of $39.25 per share beat a FactSet consensus of analysts’ estimates by more than 12%.

Numbers from the blockbuster quarter were invariably positive. Data center revenue, the business SanDisk spent a year building, grew 103% in a single quarter to $2.98 billion.

Chairman and CEO David Goeckeler told analysts the company “delivered record revenue, gross margin, and earnings per share, each above the high end of our guidance, and repurchased $4.5 billion of company stock.”

Then, the board authorized another $14 billion of share buybacks.

SanDisk has lost a quarter of its value in a month

Despite these celebratory figures, SanDisk’s stock has crashed by 25% over the past month.

Analysts cut estimates. Susquehanna reduced 6%; Evercore trimmed to $2,800 from $3,100; Citi dropped from $2,500 to $2,100; Jefferies cut 42%, the deepest of them all.

A federal appeals court has issued its mandate affirming Sam Bankman-Fried’s fraud conviction, 25-year prison sentence and $11 billion forfeiture order.

Second Circuit closes Bankman-Fried appeal

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit filed its mandate on Aug. 4, putting its June 12 judgment into effect and returning jurisdiction over the case to the lower court.

The mandate formally affirmed the judgment issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A jury convicted Bankman-Fried in November 2023 on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy tied to the collapse of FTX and its affiliated trading firm, Alameda Research.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan sentenced him to 25 years in federal prison in March 2024. Kaplan also imposed a forfeiture order of approximately $11 billion.

The three-judge appellate panel unanimously rejected Bankman-Fried’s effort to overturn both his conviction and sentence. Judges Barrington Parker, Eunice Lee and Maria Araújo Kahn found no reversible error in the trial court’s evidentiary decisions or jury instructions.

“For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court,” the panel said in its June opinion.

The mandate adds no new legal reasoning. It makes the earlier appellate ruling official and closes the regular proceeding before the three-judge panel.

FTX repayments did not erase the fraud

Bankman-Fried argued that the trial court unfairly restricted evidence suggesting FTX held assets that could eventually make customers whole. His defense maintained that the exchange had sufficient value and that creditors’ losses were not necessarily permanent.

The Second Circuit rejected that argument. It ruled that wire fraud occurred when customer funds were transferred to Alameda without authorization, regardless of whether Bankman-Fried believed the money could later be repaid.

“As the district court made clear, FTX customers were defrauded as soon as Bankman-Fried transferred their money to Alameda regardless of how strongly he believed he might later return the money,” Parker wrote.

The court also found that evidence about the subsequent value of FTX-linked investments was not relevant to whether the initial transfers constituted fraud. Prosecutors presented evidence that customer assets funded investments, political donations and real estate purchases while Bankman-Fried publicly claimed the deposits were safe.

The decision separates Bankman-Fried’s criminal liability from the recovery creditors may receive through FTX’s bankruptcy proceedings.

FTX creditor payments continue separately

As crypto.news reported, FTX scheduled its fifth creditor distribution for July 31, with nearly $900 million expected to reach claimants holding approved Convenience and Non-Convenience Class claims.

Eligible creditors had to complete the exchange’s pre-distribution requirements by the June 16 record date. Kraken, Payoneer and BitGo were among the approved providers handling payments.

The distributions arise from FTX’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan and do not reverse the criminal findings against Bankman-Fried. The appeals court said later repayment or asset appreciation could not excuse the original misuse of customer funds.

The distinction is relevant to U.S. creditors, some of whom may recover approved bankruptcy claims while Bankman-Fried continues serving his federal sentence.

Supreme Court or clemency remain possible

Bankman-Fried can still ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court accepts only a small share of petitions, and filing one would not automatically suspend his sentence or overturn the appellate mandate.

Presidential clemency provides another route outside the courts. Bankman-Fried has publicly said he wants a pardon, but President Donald Trump said in January that he was not considering one.

Political resistance has also grown. In July, the U.S. Senate passed a nonbinding resolution by unanimous consent opposing a pardon, commutation or other form of federal clemency for the former FTX executive.

The resolution does not limit the president’s constitutional pardon power. However, it signals bipartisan opposition to reducing Bankman-Fried’s punishment as FTX continues returning recovered assets to creditors.

Bitcoin miners are increasingly positioning themselves as AI and high-performance computing (HPC) infrastructure providers, reshaping revenue models around hosting demand rather than solely on mining economics. But a new industry analysis suggests that the market’s excitement for fresh AI-capacity announcements has cooled—meaning new deals may be generating less immediate upside for stocks than they did in earlier waves of adoption.

According to an analysis by Blocksbridge Consulting, published in TheEnergyMag’s Miner Weekly, the impact of AI infrastructure deal news has weakened over the past two years. The report examined 25 AI and HPC infrastructure deals announced between June 2024 and August 2026, finding a clear decline in how much investors moved the day a deal was announced.

Key takeaways

• Blocksbridge Consulting reports the average announcement-day stock move for AI and HPC infrastructure deals fell from about 24% in the earliest cohort to roughly 10% in the most recent cohort.
• Median gains from these announcements dropped by about half over the same period, even as deal sizes and contract values increased.
• Revenue per contracted megawatt has edged higher over time, indicating AI hosting is becoming more lucrative, but the market is less impressed by headline contract totals.
• Examples of early CoreWeave-related deals triggered large one-day stock surges, while later “mega-deals” produced smaller or short-lived price reactions.
• TheEnergyMag’s TEM AI Infrastructure Growth Index is down about 28.5% from its June peak, aligning with a broader pullback in AI infrastructure-linked equities.

AI hosting deals are bigger, but the stock reaction is smaller

Blocksbridge Consulting’s review points to a market that is still allocating capital to AI infrastructure—but in a more selective way. While the report shows that revenue annualized per contracted megawatt has generally improved as time has passed, the way investors respond to deal announcements has changed.

The most striking trend is how much less “market-moving” announcements have become. Blocksbridge’s dataset shows the average announcement-day move falling steadily from around a mid-20% figure for earlier deals to near 10% for the latest. Median gains roughly halved as well, suggesting the market’s expectations have matured: investors may be focusing less on the fact that a deal exists and more on whether a company can reliably execute and monetize it.

The report also frames this as a shift away from reacting primarily to contract headlines toward questions like financing structure, execution capability, and long-term profitability—factors that can determine whether AI hosting becomes durable earnings rather than a one-off boost.

From blockbuster reactions to muted follow-through

Deal-by-deal reactions illustrate the pattern. In earlier examples, markets appeared to reward companies far more aggressively for landing AI hosting arrangements. Core Scientific’s initial hosting agreement with CoreWeave reportedly sent its shares up more than 40%. Applied Digital’s first CoreWeave lease gained nearly 49%, while TeraWulf’s first Fluidstack deal surged almost 60%.

More recent announcements, by contrast, have tended to generate smaller immediate moves—sometimes followed by fading gains. TeraWulf’s 401-megawatt lease with Anthropic lifted its shares by about 5%. CleanSpark’s $6.6 billion AI hosting agreement gained nearly 9%. Bitdeer’s new Tydal contract reportedly pushed its stock up roughly 12% at one point, but those gains disappeared by the close.

For investors, this difference matters because it can signal a reduced probability that “new capacity” news automatically translates into near-term outperformance. If the market expects more deals to follow—and has already priced in a portion of AI hosting growth—then additional announcements may only narrow the gap between winners and laggards rather than create fresh upside broadly.

Bitcoin miners’ AI pivot meets a more cautious equity market

The muted deal reaction trend also shows up in broader performance among AI-leaning miners and infrastructure operators. TheEnergyMag’s TEM AI Infrastructure Growth Index, which tracks publicly traded companies building AI data center and digital infrastructure businesses, is down roughly 28.5% from its June peak. That decline suggests investor caution has risen even while underlying demand for AI infrastructure has remained strong.

Notably, TheEnergyMag’s index is still higher over the past year, but its momentum appears to have slowed in recent months. This is consistent with the idea that the market may be rebalancing: investors may believe in the long-term direction of AI infrastructure, yet be less willing to pay large premiums for announcements until execution risk, customer retention, and the path to sustained margins become clearer.

The report’s slowdown narrative aligns with a wider pullback in related equities. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index reportedly fell nearly 17% from its July peak, reinforcing the sense that risk appetite across technology-linked sectors has cooled rather than AI demand disappearing overnight.

What investors should watch next

As AI hosting arrangements become more commonplace, the key question is likely to shift from “who lands the next contract?” to “who converts contracted megawatts into dependable, financed, and profitable operations.” Readers should watch for evidence that revenue per contracted megawatt keeps rising, while companies demonstrate execution—especially in financing structures and long-term profitability—so markets have less reason to fade gains after major announcements.