Chilean crypto exchange Orionx began permanently closing its operations on Sept. 3 after a forensic audit identified a custody shortfall exceeding $7 million.

The company suspended customer withdrawals and said it could not guarantee that every client would recover 100% of their assets.

The exchange said the audit found transactions that moved assets under its custody to wallets it did not control. Orionx has filed a criminal complaint with Chilean prosecutors and launched a restitution process intended to return as much as possible to customers.

The allegations have not been proven in court. The two former executives named in the complaint have denied wrongdoing and said the cause of the shortfall remains unresolved.

Orionx audit found four affected crypto assets

Orionx announced the closure through its website and official account. It described the decision as definitive and warned customers about potential impersonation attempts during the closure.

The exchange said it would never request private keys, two-factor authentication codes or transfers by telephone, WhatsApp, email or social media. The warning is relevant because customers waiting to recover funds can become targets for phishing and fraudulent recovery services.

According to information Orionx provided to clients, the shortfall affects Bitcoin, Ether, XRP and Polygon balances. These assets appeared as available in Orionx’s internal records but could not be fully verified at addresses controlled by the company.

A comparison of company records and blockchain data found that the recorded customer balances exceeded the assets held in Orionx’s custody wallets. The audit therefore identified a balance-sheet and custody mismatch rather than a reported compromise of the four blockchain networks.

However, Orionx has not published the affected wallet addresses, complete transaction hashes or a breakdown of the shortfall by asset. Independent blockchain researchers consequently cannot yet verify the company’s full calculation.

The exchange also has not provided an exact number of affected customers. Its disclosure does not establish how much of the $7 million may be recovered from external wallets, exchanges or individuals named in the legal proceedings.

Criminal complaint names two Orionx cofounders

Orionx submitted a criminal complaint on Sept. 2 against former general manager Roberto Zibert and former technology manager Joaquín Díaz. Both helped establish the exchange and allegedly had privileged access to its cryptocurrency custody systems.

The complaint accuses them of alleged unfair administration and asks prosecutors to investigate any other offenses supported by the evidence. Local business newspaper Diario Financiero reported that a forensic examination linked the custody mismatch to wallets outside Orionx’s control.

Details reported by La Tercera place the questioned transactions between 2018 and 2021. Other local reporting says the largest group of transfers may have occurred during 2021 and 2022. That timing remains an allegation drawn from the complaint, not a judicial finding.

The filing reportedly claims that an account associated with Díaz received more than $1.5 million through 14 transfers. It also identifies another wallet that allegedly received 187 ETH, more than 4.1 million USDT and 200,000 USDC from Orionx-related addresses.

Those figures require examination by prosecutors and the court. A transfer into an address does not, by itself, establish who controlled the wallet at the time or whether a crime occurred.

Zibert and Díaz have “categorically rejected” the accusations. In a joint response reported by Chilevisión, they said they never acted against customer interests.

Their statement added that the cause of the custody deficit had not been established. Neither former executive has been convicted, and the complaint begins an investigative process rather than proving Orionx’s claims.

Chilean regulator cannot order customer repayments

Chile’s Financial Market Commission clarified on Sept. 4 that Orionx was neither registered nor authorized under the country’s Fintech Law. The regulator said it did not supervise Orionx’s activities and does not control its closure.

The official statement also disclosed that the commission rejected Orionx’s registration and authorization application on June 19. Until that rejection, the exchange had operated under a transitional arrangement available to companies awaiting licensing decisions.

After the application was rejected, Orionx could only conclude existing operations. It could not enter into new regulated transactions under the transitional regime and had to explain the wind-down process to customers.

The commission also said Orionx had not demonstrated that it held the guarantees required from authorized financial service providers. This does not prove the alleged custody misconduct, but it affects the legal protections available during the closure.

Although Orionx told customers that it had notified the relevant authority about its closure plan, the commission stressed that it neither approved nor supervises that plan. It also lacks authority to direct Orionx to return customer assets.

The regulator advised customers to contact the company directly and preserve account statements, transaction records and communications. Customers can pursue claims through Chilean courts or provide evidence to prosecutors if they believe a crime occurred.

Tether invested in Orionx 15 months before closure

Tether led Orionx’s Series A financing in June 2025 as part of a strategy to expand stablecoin infrastructure across Latin America. Neither company publicly disclosed the investment’s value or Tether’s ownership percentage.

At the time, the companies said the financing would support remittances, payment collection and corporate treasury services in Chile, Peru, Mexico and Colombia. The investment was presented as a way to expand digital financial access across the region.

Crypto.news reported that the deal gave Tether exposure to a Chilean exchange offering services across four Latin American markets. The announcement described how the funding would support Orionx’s regional payments and stablecoin expansion.

Tether’s original announcement is no longer available at its former website address, although an archived copy remains accessible. Its removal does not establish when or why Tether took the page offline.

Tether has not publicly said whether it retained its investment when Orionx announced the closure. It has also not disclosed whether it held board rights, received financial reports or participated in custody oversight.

The stablecoin issuer continued investing in regulated and licensed companies elsewhere. Its later Latin American expansion included a minority investment in Bit2Me, part of a broader pattern of Tether-backed regional financial infrastructure deals.

Customers face an uncertain restitution process

Orionx said its first closure phase is underway, but it has not published a repayment calendar. Withdrawals remain suspended to prevent some customers from recovering assets ahead of others while account balances are reviewed.

The exchange said its priority is to return “the greatest possible amount” of customer assets. That wording confirms that full repayment is uncertain. It should not be interpreted as a commitment to make every customer whole.

The next verifiable developments will come from Orionx’s customer notices, Chilean prosecutorial actions and any court decisions affecting the disputed wallets. Publication of transaction hashes would also allow independent researchers to evaluate the alleged asset movements.

Customers will need individual balance confirmations before Orionx can determine their share of available assets. Recovery could also depend on whether prosecutors locate funds at other exchanges or obtain orders freezing wallets linked to the disputed transfers.

Orionx, a Chilean cryptocurrency exchange backed by Tether, is shutting down after discovering a custodial shortfall that Orionx says is tied to assets leaving wallets the exchange did not manage. The company said it has started a permanent closure process and is temporarily suspending withdrawals while it works to return funds to clients.

In a statement posted on X, Orionx said a forensic audit found that more than $7 million in custodial assets recorded in the exchange’s systems had moved to wallets not controlled by Orionx. “Our sole priority now is to return as much of our clients’ assets as possible,” the exchange said.

Key takeaways

• Orionx began permanent closure after a forensic review identified a custody mismatch involving over $7 million.
• Withdrawals are temporarily suspended as the exchange moves to return client assets.
• The company did not disclose when the transfers occurred, but a criminal complaint referenced activity between 2018 and 2021.
• Orionx accused former co-founders of alleged access to custody systems and denied wrongdoing by the accused parties.
• Tether led Orionx’s Series A in June 2025, underscoring how quickly the fallout can arrive even after major investment.

A custody mismatch triggers a shutdown

Orionx’s announcement did not provide specifics on the timing of the discrepancy or how the issue was first uncovered. However, the exchange said it initiated a permanent closure process following forensic findings that compared Orionx’s internal records with onchain data linked to its custody addresses.

The external audit, according to reporting cited in a criminal complaint, concluded that balances maintained in Orionx’s systems exceeded the assets actually held at the custody addresses for several cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), XRP, and Polygon (POL). Orionx said these funds had been moved to wallets it did not manage.

For customers, the practical impact is immediate: withdrawals are currently paused while Orionx attempts to reconcile records and return what it can. The lack of disclosed timing in the company’s public post also leaves outside observers with an incomplete picture of when customers may have been most exposed to the custody gap.

What Orionx says it found, and what remains unclear

According to Orionx and related reporting, the exchange’s review started in the context of compliance efforts tied to Chile’s Fintech Law. Orionx reportedly carried out an internal operational review in 2025 and brought in financial professionals, as described by La Tercera, citing the company’s criminal complaint.

La Tercera reported that on Aug. 27 Orionx’s chief operating officer, Thomas Mac Millan, identified what the complaint describes as a “significant mismatch” between what Orionx’s systems recorded and what was actually held in custody. After that internal review, Orionx commissioned a forensic audit that compared operational records against data verifiable onchain.

The criminal complaint, as reported, alleges that assets were transferred out of Orionx’s custody between 2018 and 2021, including to accounts on other crypto platforms. Despite that window being referenced in the complaint, Orionx’s public closure announcement did not confirm when the discrepancy occurred or whether all of the alleged transfers align with the full value of the shortfall ultimately identified.

Criminal complaint against former co-founders

Orionx said it filed a criminal complaint on Wednesday against former executives Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz, both described as co-founders who allegedly had access to the custody systems. The company’s allegations center on transfers tied to wallets not controlled by Orionx.

La Tercera reported that the complaint alleges an account associated with Díaz received more than $1.5 million across 14 transfers. It also reported that another wallet allegedly received 187 Ether, more than 4.1 million USDt (USDT), and 200,000 USDC from Orionx.

Zibert and Díaz denied the accusations. According to La Cuarta, they said they never acted against customers’ interests and argued that the cause of the asset shortfall remains unclear. The denial adds a key uncertainty for clients and observers: even if custody mismatches are documented, disputes over responsibility and intent can complicate timelines for recovery and any eventual legal resolution.

Tether’s 2025 backing and the speed of disruption

Orionx was founded in Chile in 2017 and expanded from a retail crypto exchange into a broader platform offering crypto payment and financial services across Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico.

In June 2025, Tether led Orionx’s Series A funding round, described in a Tether announcement that is now available only via an archived link. The exchange’s Series A was positioned by Tether as part of an effort to expand digital-asset adoption in Latin America.

As of publication, Cointelegraph reported that it contacted both Tether and Orionx for comment but had not received a response.

The episode highlights a broader reality for investors and users: even where a major stablecoin issuer participates in funding, due diligence on operational custody processes must remain a continuous effort rather than a one-time milestone. Orionx’s shutdown, coming only about a year after the Series A, also raises questions about how custody controls evolve after an investment round and what auditing mechanisms—internal or external—are in place during periods of growth.

For clients, the next steps will likely hinge on how Orionx conducts reconciliations and whether it can identify recoverable assets tied to custody mismatches. Readers should watch for updates on the scope of the recovered funds, the timing of the alleged transfers, and how the criminal case progresses—especially given the accused parties’ claim that the root cause of the shortfall is not established.

A British investor has recovered 61 bitcoin worth approximately £3.3 million, or about $4.5 million, more than 12 years after losing access to the cryptocurrency.

The investor originally spent around £1,500, then worth about $2,000, through the early U.K. exchange Britcoin in December 2011.

The investor, identified only as “Chris,” purchased bitcoin when it traded below $4, according to the law firm that handled the recovery. Britcoin later became Intersango, which stopped providing trading services before disappearing from the internet.

Chris said his holdings were worth about £4,000 when he lost access. He had a young family and a new home at the time, making the apparent loss particularly difficult.

“The worst thing was seeing Bitcoin grow and knowing what I could have done with the money,” Chris said in an account of the recovery.

Bitcoin ownership was proved with old banking records

CEL Solicitors said it recovered the assets after combining cryptocurrency tracing technology with documents showing that Chris had purchased the bitcoin. The firm publicly announced that the case was completed in about four months without law-enforcement intervention.

Ryan Sweetnam, director of financial litigation at CEL, said the evidence included banking documents dating back almost 15 years. Other useful records can include exchange emails, account-registration messages, deposit confirmations and customer-support correspondence.

Blockchain records can identify transactions between cryptocurrency addresses, but they do not contain customers’ legal names. A transaction showing bitcoin entering an exchange wallet does not by itself establish which customer owned the corresponding account balance.

Investigators therefore need to connect on-chain transfers with off-chain evidence. Bank statements may show payments to an exchange, while emails can establish the account holder’s identity and transaction history.

CEL has not disclosed all the documents used in Chris’s case. It also has not published a court judgment, settlement agreement or detailed tracing report. The result should therefore be presented as a recovery reported by the law firm rather than one independently confirmed through public court records.

The recovered amount was 61 BTC, according to the firm and subsequent reports. Its dollar value depends on bitcoin’s price. At $76,500 per coin, the holding would be worth approximately $4.67 million, while a slightly lower reference price produces the reported $4.5 million valuation.

Intersango shut down during Bitcoin’s early years

Britcoin was among the earliest platforms allowing customers to trade bitcoin against the British pound. It was later renamed Intersango and expanded its services while the cryptocurrency market remained small and lightly regulated.

Intersango announced that it would stop U.S. dollar trading in October 2012, according to a contemporary report. Its wider services later stopped, and the platform’s website was offline by early 2014.

The exchange operated before present-day cryptocurrency custody standards became common. Customers frequently left assets in exchange-controlled wallets without the detailed statements, segregated custody arrangements or recovery procedures expected from regulated financial firms.

This meant users depended on the exchange to maintain wallet access and accurate internal account records. When an early platform disappeared, customers could retain evidence that they had deposited money without possessing the private keys controlling the resulting bitcoin.

Chris’s case concerns custodial access rather than a forgotten personal seed phrase. He reportedly bought the bitcoin through an exchange and later lost access when the platform closed. The lawyers therefore had to establish an ownership claim instead of reconstructing a lost private key.

That distinction matters. No tracing company can derive a private key from a public Bitcoin address or reverse a properly confirmed transaction. Legal recovery generally requires access to a custodian, exchange account, identifiable counterparty or person controlling the relevant assets.

The case shares some features with other failed-exchange recoveries. Former Mt. Gox customers also had to prove account balances before receiving distributions. However, Mt. Gox repayments proceeded through a formal rehabilitation process involving a court-appointed trustee.

CEL has not identified an equivalent public insolvency process behind the Intersango recovery. The firm said it reclaimed the assets without law-enforcement involvement, but it has not disclosed who transferred the bitcoin or the legal mechanism used.

Another 5,500 BTC may be connected to Intersango

CEL Solicitors said its sister company, The Crypto Tracing Experts, identified a wallet containing more than 5,500 BTC that it believes is linked to former Intersango users.

At $76,500 per bitcoin, 5,500 BTC would be worth approximately $420.75 million. At higher market prices, the valuation could exceed $430 million.

That figure does not mean CEL has recovered a $421 million pool for distribution. It represents the balance of a wallet the firm says may contain bitcoin connected to former users.

The firm has not published the wallet address. Independent analysts therefore cannot confirm its current balance, examine its complete transaction history or verify the alleged connection to Intersango.

It is also unclear who controls the wallet’s private keys. Identifying an address through blockchain analysis does not provide the ability to transfer its funds.

CEL has not disclosed how many former Intersango users may hold valid claims. The total could also include assets belonging to exchange operators, customers who later withdrew their funds or parties unrelated to the platform’s unresolved balances.

Any former user seeking recovery would need to demonstrate individual ownership. Evidence that someone once opened an Intersango account would not be enough. The claimant would also need to show deposits, purchases and a balance that remained on the platform when access ended.

The age of the records could present the largest obstacle. Banks, email providers and customers may no longer retain documents from 2011 or 2012. Account holders may also have changed names, addresses or financial institutions.

The firm’s claim that other customers could recover funds remains untested publicly. The next reliable evidence would be another completed recovery, disclosure of the wallet address or publication of court documents supporting ownership and control.

The recovery shows why custody records matter

Bitcoin’s blockchain preserves transaction records indefinitely. Investigators can still examine transfers made more than a decade ago, even after the company operating the original exchange has disappeared.

However, blockchain transparency solves only part of the problem. A claimant still needs traditional documents connecting their identity to the relevant transactions and exchange account.

The case illustrates the difference between tracing and recovery. Tracing identifies where cryptocurrency moved. Recovery requires technical access, voluntary cooperation, a legal settlement, an insolvency distribution or an enforceable court order.

Investors should remain cautious when dealing with services promising to retrieve lost cryptocurrency. A legitimate investigator cannot guarantee the recovery of assets held in a wallet whose owner is unidentified or uncooperative.

Recovery firms also do not need a customer’s seed phrase to analyze public blockchain transactions. Requests for private keys or recovery phrases can expose users to further losses.

For current holdings, self-custody removes dependence on an exchange but makes the owner responsible for protecting the keys. Multisignature arrangements can reduce reliance on one credential by requiring several approvals, as explained in crypto.news’ guide to securing cryptocurrency with multisignature wallets.

Chris said he plans to use part of the recovered value to help his family, including buying a larger home and helping his son repay housing debt. He also intends to retain some bitcoin.

“I want to keep some Bitcoin to see if the value rises again,” he said. He added that price declines and theft remain concerns. Any future increase in value remains uncertain.

No formal deadline has been announced for former Intersango users to submit records. There is also no published distribution timetable for the 5,500 BTC that CEL says it traced.

For now, the completed 61 BTC recovery stands as evidence that some old custodial claims can be resolved when transaction data and ownership records survive. It does not establish that all former Intersango customers will recover their holdings.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin outlined a longer-term transaction model on Sept. 6 that could allow the network to process some validation work in parallel.

His proposal separates the effects produced by transactions from the conditions that must be satisfied before those effects can occur.

Buterin described the two components as “actions” and “dependencies” in a detailed post. Actions change Ethereum’s state, such as transferring ETH or calling a contract. Dependencies cover the information required to establish that a transaction is valid.

A digital signature is one example of a dependency. Other examples include Merkle proofs showing that an unspent output exists, zero-knowledge proofs and state conditions that must remain true when a transaction enters a block.

Buterin argued that making this distinction explicit could help Ethereum scale without abandoning its flexible execution environment. However, the proposal remains part of continuing protocol research. Ethereum developers have not approved the full design for deployment.

Ethereum could process transaction dependencies in parallel

Ethereum transactions currently combine authorization, fee payment and execution within a common processing flow. Nodes check whether a transaction is properly signed, whether the sender can pay for it and whether its instructions execute successfully.

Some of these checks do not depend on the transaction’s final state changes. Buterin said such dependencies could be processed separately and, in many cases, simultaneously.

For example, a validator may need to confirm a signature before accepting a transaction. That verification does not necessarily need to wait for unrelated signatures attached to other transactions. If multiple independent checks are known in advance, clients can distribute the work across available processing resources.

State-dependent checks require greater care. A condition tied to an account balance or storage slot may become invalid if an earlier transaction changes the same state. Buterin said mempools could reason about these conditions more effectively when transactions declare which parts of the state they access.

The approach would reward predictable transactions. Operations that specify their dependencies clearly could receive lower gas costs because clients could verify them more efficiently. Transactions requiring dynamic calls and unpredictable state access would remain possible but could cost more.

Buterin estimated that more than 90% of Ethereum activity by volume does not require the network’s full level of dynamic flexibility. That figure is his assessment rather than a published network measurement within the post. The broader argument is that common transfers and routine contract interactions could use more restrictive formats without limiting specialized applications.

The proposed model would preserve Ethereum’s flexible account system for transactions that need it. More predictable activity could use statically analyzable structures resembling parts of Bitcoin’s transaction model.

Bitcoin uses an unspent transaction output model in which a transaction identifies the outputs it intends to spend. Ethereum normally uses accounts with balances, nonces and programmable contract storage. Buterin is not proposing that Ethereum replace its account model with Bitcoin’s architecture. He described a spectrum combining ideas from both systems.

EIP-8141 provides a general transaction framework

EIP-8141 is a draft Ethereum Improvement Proposal for a new transaction type known as a Frame Transaction. It divides a transaction into contract-call frames that can validate authority, approve gas payment and perform user operations.

The official proposal says transaction validity and fee payment would no longer depend solely on a standard signature attached to the outer transaction. Account code could instead define the necessary authorization and payment rules.

Frame Transactions could support sponsored fees, payments in tokens other than ETH, key rotation and transaction batching. They could also allow externally owned accounts to receive account-abstraction features without relying on the same contract deployment across every compatible network.

Under the proposed structure, verification frames would determine whether the sender authorized the transaction. Separate frames could establish who pays the fees and then execute the requested operations.

This structure aligns with Buterin’s division between dependencies and actions. Verification frames handle conditions that must be satisfied. Sender frames handle the operations that alter state.

The format could also improve interoperability between Ethereum Virtual Machine networks. Different chains could support the same minimal transaction structure while applying their own verification tools, precompiles or account features.

Buterin described the potential format as a basic list of calls with flags identifying their function. A call could be marked as a pure dependency, a state-dependent verification or an action. The transaction would also contain standard information such as its origin and nonce.

EIP-8141 remains classified as a draft Core proposal. Its current specification includes detailed rules for mempool admission, frame execution, receipts, signatures, gas accounting and transaction propagation. Those details can change during review.

Ethereum developers have also debated technical concerns. These include denial-of-service risks, transaction replacement rules, tooling changes, pending-transaction limits and restrictions placed on verification frames.

One discussion noted that the proposed public mempool would normally keep only one pending Frame Transaction for each sender. Developers have questioned how that rule would affect accounts that regularly submit several transactions within one block.

Other participants have examined whether the format introduces additional complexity for wallets, block builders and Ethereum’s remote procedure call interfaces. These questions must be resolved before client teams can implement a stable specification.

Recursive STARKs could remove repeated verification

Buterin’s longer-term model goes beyond EIP-8141. He suggested that dependencies requiring no state access could be checked once at the mempool layer instead of being repeated by every validator.

A pure dependency might include a cryptographic signature or proof whose validity does not change with Ethereum’s state. After checking it, the network could replace multiple pieces of verification work with a recursive STARK confirming that all checks were completed correctly.

A STARK is a cryptographic proof that allows one party to demonstrate that a computation was performed correctly. Recursive proofs can verify other proofs, making it possible to combine many checks into a smaller verification task.

The proposed mempool could aggregate transaction signatures, validity proofs and other dependencies before block execution. Validators would then verify the aggregated proof instead of independently repeating each original computation.

Buterin suggested that this approach might also reduce the amount of verification data placed on-chain. If the recursive proof establishes that all dependencies were valid, some of the original data could potentially be omitted.

That outcome is not part of the current EIP-8141 specification. It would require additional research covering proof generation, mempool coordination, data availability and protections against invalid aggregation.

The design also relates to Ethereum’s preparation for post-quantum cryptography. Quantum-resistant signatures are generally larger and more expensive to verify than the ECDSA signatures used by ordinary Ethereum accounts.

EIP-8141 could allow accounts to define new authorization schemes without waiting for Ethereum to replace a single fixed signature standard. Recursive proof aggregation could then reduce the cost of verifying large post-quantum signatures.

EIP-8141 could help Ethereum accounts adopt post-quantum authorization if practical signature systems become available. That remains a longer-term security path rather than an immediate response to an active quantum threat.

Keyed nonces could remove transaction bottlenecks

Ethereum accounts use sequential nonces to prevent transaction replay. If an account submits transactions numbered 10, 11 and 12, the network normally processes them in that order.

The sequence can create a bottleneck. If transaction 10 becomes stuck or invalid, later transactions from the same account may also wait, even when their operations are unrelated.

Keyed nonces would give an account several independent nonce sequences. Transactions assigned to different keys could proceed without waiting for another sequence to advance.

This could help smart accounts, privacy systems and applications that submit several independent operations simultaneously. Each workflow could receive its own nonce domain while retaining replay protection.

Crypto.news previously reported that keyed nonces could prevent independent private transactions from blocking each other. The feature is part of a broader effort to improve privacy transactions, flexible accounts and censorship resistance.

Buterin also connected the transaction work with alternative state models, including native UTXO designs and proof-based state structures. These projects explore whether some assets or operations can use predictable state rules while complex contracts retain Ethereum’s existing flexibility.

The approach could create several processing levels. Simple, declared operations would be easier to analyze and could receive lower fees. Dynamic contract calls would continue to work but would consume more resources because clients cannot prepare their execution in the same way.

Such differentiated pricing would attempt to align fees with the actual scaling constraints created by each transaction. It would not guarantee lower fees for every user or application.

EIP-8141 still requires developer approval and testing

EIP-8141 must pass several stages before it can affect Ethereum users. Core developers first need to agree that Frame Transactions offer a better path than competing account-abstraction designs.

The proposal would then require client implementations, development networks, interoperability testing, wallet support and security review. Developers would also need to test how Frame Transactions interact with block builders, mempools, fee markets and existing smart contracts.

Earlier developer discussions considered EIP-8141 for Ethereum’s future Hegotá upgrade. However, crypto.news reported that Frame Transactions remained under consideration rather than formally scheduled.

FOCIL, a separate proposal intended to improve censorship resistance through transaction inclusion lists, has also been discussed alongside EIP-8141. The two proposals address different problems. Frame Transactions concern authorization and execution structure, while FOCIL concerns the inclusion of eligible transactions in blocks.

Developers have argued that using them together could provide native account abstraction with stronger censorship resistance. That combination is still a proposed package, not an approved Ethereum roadmap commitment.

Buterin’s Sept. 6 comments therefore describe a possible direction for Ethereum transaction design. They do not announce a completed upgrade, activation date or confirmed change to mainnet gas fees.

The next verifiable milestones would be formal developer support, inclusion in an upgrade scope and working implementations on development networks. Until then, EIP-8141 and recursive STARK mempools remain active research and engineering proposals.

FAQs

Orionx, a Chile-based cryptocurrency exchange backed by Tether, is shutting down after a forensic review flagged a multimillion-dollar custody discrepancy, according to statements shared by the company on X. The exchange said it is moving into a permanent closure process and has temporarily suspended withdrawals as it works to return client funds.

Orionx said the audit identified more than $7 million in assets recorded in its custodial records that had been transferred to wallets it does not manage. The announcement arrives against a broader backdrop of increased scrutiny around custody controls and regulatory compliance for crypto firms operating in Latin America.

Key takeaways

• Orionx is initiating a permanent shutdown after a forensic audit found a custody mismatch involving more than $7 million.
• The exchange says withdrawals are temporarily suspended while it prioritizes returning client assets.
• Orionx has not disclosed when the transfers occurred, but a criminal complaint alleges outflows from custody between 2018 and 2021.
• Former co-founders Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz deny allegations tied to unauthorized access to custody systems.
• Tether led Orionx’s Series A in 2025 as part of an expansion push, with the funding announcement later removed from Tether’s website.

A forensic finding triggers a withdrawal pause

Orionx announced that it began the process of permanently closing the platform after uncovering what it described as evidence of a custody-related issue. In its X post, the exchange said withdrawals have been paused in the interim while it attempts to return as much as possible to clients.

At the center of Orionx’s case is the discrepancy identified between the balances shown in its systems and the assets it holds at its custody addresses. Orionx attributed the issue to more than $7 million in custodial assets having moved to wallets the exchange does not manage, according to the company announcement.

While Orionx said it commissioned a forensic audit that compared internal records with verifiable on-chain data, the exchange did not specify in its post when the transfers took place or how the mismatch was first detected. That timing detail is important for investors and users trying to understand exposure windows, but the available reporting points to a longer period of alleged activity.

Timeline and alleged custody gaps cited in a Chilean complaint

According to reporting by Chilean newspaper La Tercera, Orionx undertook internal efforts to comply with Chile’s Fintech Law, conducting a review of its operations in 2025 and bringing in financial professionals. The publication tied Orionx’s actions to a criminal complaint involving former executives.

Reportedly, on Aug. 27, Orionx’s chief operating officer Thomas Mac Millan noticed a “significant mismatch” between the balances recorded in Orionx’s systems and what was actually held in custody, as described in the complaint. Orionx then ran an internal review and later commissioned an external forensic audit that matched its records with data that can be checked on-chain.

The forensic audit findings, as described through the complaint and reported by La Tercera, indicate that balances tracked within Orionx’s systems were higher than the assets held at its custody addresses for Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), XRP, and Polygon (POL). That kind of gap can be especially consequential for users because it suggests the platform’s accounting and custody reality did not align across multiple major assets.

La Tercera further reports that the complaint alleges assets were transferred out of Orionx’s custody between 2018 and 2021, including to accounts hosted on other crypto platforms. Although the exchange’s public announcement did not spell out the period, the complaint points to a multi-year span, which could influence how authorities and affected customers evaluate responsibility and timing.

Criminal complaint targets former co-founders; denials follow

Orionx said it filed a criminal complaint on Wednesday against former executives Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz—both co-founders—whom it alleges had access to the company’s crypto custody systems. In the complaint as reported by La Tercera, an account associated with Díaz allegedly received more than $1.5 million across 14 transfers. The report also cites allegations that another wallet received 187 Ether, more than 4.1 million USDt (USDT), and 200,000 USDC from Orionx.

Zibert and Díaz denied wrongdoing, according to La Cuarta. They said they never acted against customers’ interests and argued that the cause of Orionx’s asset shortfall remains unclear.

For Orionx customers, the competing narratives—Orionx’s custody-mismatch claims versus the co-founders’ denials—are likely to shape what happens next. But the practical impact is immediate: Orionx is prioritizing asset recovery efforts while keeping withdrawals suspended, meaning users cannot rely on normal exchange liquidity during the shutdown process.

Tether’s 2025 backing and the question of what changed

Orionx was founded in Chile in 2017 and expanded from a retail crypto exchange into a broader platform that offered crypto payment and financial services across Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico.

In June 2025, Tether invested in Orionx, exclusively leading Orionx’s Series A round, according to an archived version of Tether’s announcement. That announcement is no longer available on Tether’s website, but the archived copy attributes the investment to Tether’s stated aim of expanding digital-asset adoption across Latin America.

Cointelegraph reported that it contacted Tether and Orionx for comment but had not received a response by publication. The episode raises an investor question that often comes up in crypto custody failures: even when an exchange secures prominent strategic backing, custody controls and operational integrity still require continuous verification, particularly as regulatory expectations rise.

What remains uncertain is how the alleged custody shortfall ties to Orionx’s later operations and compliance efforts. The complaint reporting points to transfers between 2018 and 2021, while Orionx’s public review and forensic steps occurred later. Until more details emerge from the criminal process and the ongoing closure and restitution efforts, the exact mechanics of the gap—along with the responsibility chain—may remain disputed.

Over the coming weeks, clients and observers will likely watch for updates on whether Orionx can identify and recover missing assets from the wallets it says it does not control, as well as what authorities uncover regarding access, internal controls, and the alleged timeline of transfers.

Demand for dollar-backed stablecoins can place downward pressure on national currencies when investors receive direct access through fiat trading pairs, according to research published by the Bank of Korea on Sept. 3. The effect appeared after Binance introduced trading between selected local currencies and stablecoins such as USDT and USDC.

The Bank of Korea study, written by Jihyun Kim and Sangheum Cho, examined 12 currencies with enough local and global exchange data. Pair introductions covered the period from 2019 through 2025.

The researchers found that direct fiat-stablecoin markets strengthened the connection between crypto demand and foreign exchange markets. Stablecoin premiums became smaller, but demand shocks also gained a route into conventional currency trading.

The findings do not establish that stablecoin demand always causes currency depreciation. The measured relationship depended on market structure, access to global intermediaries and the availability of direct trading pairs.

Binance pairs connected stablecoin demand with FX markets

Dollar stablecoins trade globally, but investors in many countries cannot always purchase them directly with local currency on a large international exchange. They may instead buy stablecoins through domestic platforms, peer-to-peer markets or intermediaries.

That separation can create a local premium. The price of USDT or USDC on a domestic exchange may rise above the conventional dollar exchange rate when demand exceeds the available supply. Capital controls, transfer costs and restrictions on international exchanges can prevent arbitrageurs from closing the difference immediately.

Binance’s introduction of direct fiat-stablecoin pairs changed this structure for the currencies examined. Global market makers could sell stablecoins directly to investors paying with local currency. Those firms could then manage the resulting fiat exposure through conventional FX markets.

For example, a market maker selling USDT for Brazilian reais receives reais while giving up a dollar-linked asset. To rebalance, it can sell the reais and buy dollars in the FX market. Stablecoin buying demand can therefore generate an accompanying sale of the local currency.

The researchers described this as a shock-transmission channel. Before direct pairing, buying pressure mainly affected the domestic stablecoin premium. After pairing, some of the pressure passed into the exchange rate.

Net buyer-initiated stablecoin order flow was associated with depreciation among paired currencies. The result indicates that the direction of trading activity mattered, not only the difference between local and global stablecoin prices.

The findings support concerns that digital dollar demand may affect national currencies through new channels. An International Monetary Fund official similarly warned that local tokens could ease conversion into dollar stablecoins, particularly when on-chain markets allow users to move between currencies without conventional banking routes.

Stablecoin premiums fell after direct trading opened

The study also found stronger price integration between global and domestic stablecoin markets. Local premiums declined by approximately 0.33 to 0.38 percentage points following the introduction of Binance fiat pairs.

This decline means the local stablecoin price moved closer to the corresponding spot exchange rate. Global liquidity providers could respond when domestic demand pushed stablecoins above prices available elsewhere.

On-chain and exchange flows provided further support for this result. Stablecoins tended to move from Binance into local exchanges when domestic premiums exceeded prices on Binance. Traders could purchase the tokens in the lower-priced market, transfer them and sell where the premium was higher.

The process improves price consistency across venues, but it also links markets that were previously more separated. A demand shock that once remained within a domestic crypto exchange can prompt global market makers to trade the underlying national currency.

The paper’s result is therefore not simply that exchange listings reduced trading costs. Greater integration came with stronger transmission between digital-asset demand and foreign exchange prices.

In a separate weekly test, the researchers used Google searches for Bitcoin as a proxy for crypto investment interest. A one-standard-deviation increase in search activity was associated with a 0.118% depreciation of the Brazilian real and a 0.109-percentage-point increase in Brazil’s stablecoin premium.

These figures describe statistical relationships within the study’s sample. They do not mean every increase in Bitcoin searches will produce an equivalent currency move. Search activity may also capture broader risk sentiment, political developments or financial stress.

Korea’s unpaired market absorbed demand through premiums

South Korea provided a useful comparison because Binance did not offer a direct won-stablecoin pair during the period examined. Korean investors mainly accessed stablecoins through domestic exchanges or other indirect channels.

The researchers found no statistically measurable relationship between stablecoin buying pressure and the won’s exchange rate. Instead, stronger demand mainly raised the price premium for stablecoins inside the Korean market.

This contrast supports the study’s market-structure argument. Where global intermediaries could not directly accept won in exchange for stablecoins, they had no equivalent position to unwind through the conventional FX market.

The result does not show that Korean stablecoin activity has no connection with the won. It shows that the specific exchange-rate transmission identified among Binance-paired currencies was not measurable in Korea under the market structure studied.

Korean demand is already large. Won-denominated purchases of stablecoins reached about $64 billion during the 12 months through June 2025, according to Chainalysis data. The firm described South Korea as Asia-Pacific’s largest local-currency stablecoin market during that period.

The Bank of Korea said the relationship could change if the country expands access for corporations and foreign investors. That view remains forward-looking because Korea has not yet developed the same direct trading structure used in the study’s paired markets.

South Korea is also considering wider digital-asset rules. Lawmakers have been working on legislation covering stablecoin issuers, reserve standards and supervision. The central bank has supported a model in which banks lead won-backed issuance during the market’s early stages, citing monetary and financial stability concerns.

That position was reinforced when the Bank of Korea supported bank-led stablecoin consortiums while discussions over the Digital Asset Basic Act remained unresolved.

Dollar stablecoins create a new capital-flow channel

Traditional capital flows move through banks, securities markets and regulated foreign exchange dealers. Stablecoins add another route because investors can acquire dollar-linked assets through cryptocurrency exchanges and transfer them across borders.

The Bank of Korea researchers described these movements as a form of non-traditional capital flow. The asset remains a blockchain token, but the market maker’s decision to hedge its exposure can produce a conventional dollar purchase and local-currency sale.

This mechanism may be especially relevant in countries where households use stablecoins to preserve purchasing power. Demand often rises during inflation, currency depreciation or limited access to conventional dollar accounts.

Tether has pointed to Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia and Turkey as markets where USDT adoption has grown amid currency instability and restricted dollar access. Those are company claims rather than independent measurements, but they align with the broader pattern examined in crypto.news coverage of stablecoin use during local currency stress.

The mechanism can work in both directions. Existing currency weakness may encourage investors to buy stablecoins, while the transactions used to fulfil that demand may add selling pressure to the local currency. Separating those effects is difficult because demand for digital dollars often increases when confidence in domestic money is already declining.

The study used the timing of Binance pair introductions to identify changes in market structure. This approach helped the researchers compare conditions before and after global intermediaries gained direct access. It does not remove every outside factor affecting exchange rates.

The researchers argued that deeper FX liquidity could improve a market’s ability to absorb stablecoin-related flows. Wider international use of the won could also create more counterparties and reduce the effect of individual demand shocks.

Korea’s stablecoin rules may shape future FX exposure

The findings arrive while South Korea is developing a broader regulatory framework for stablecoins, tokenized securities and digital-asset markets. Changes allowing greater corporate or foreign participation could increase liquidity, but they could also strengthen the link between crypto demand and the won.

Authorities are considering how won-backed stablecoins should be issued and supervised. The Bank of Korea prefers bank-led issuance, while some lawmakers and technology companies have supported broader access for licensed non-bank firms.

The government has also outlined plans to expand offshore won settlement and modernize foreign exchange rules. Those measures could make the currency more accessible internationally, potentially increasing the market’s capacity to absorb cross-border flows.

South Korea’s roadmap combines won stablecoins with foreign exchange reforms, reflecting the same policy connection identified in the Bank of Korea paper. Stablecoin regulation cannot be separated entirely from currency-market structure when tokens trade directly against national money.

No new rule or trading pair was announced alongside the study. The paper is research rather than a regulatory order. Its main contribution is evidence that exchange design determines whether stablecoin demand remains a crypto-market premium or enters the conventional FX market.

For Korean policymakers, the central question is not only whether local investors will use stablecoins. It is whether future market access will give global intermediaries a direct route to hedge won positions through foreign exchange markets.

FAQs

Orionx, a Chilean crypto exchange backed by USDt stablecoin issuer Tether, is shutting down after uncovering a multimillion-dollar issue linked to asset custody.

The exchange said it began a permanent closure process after a forensic audit found more than $7 million in custodial assets had moved to wallets it did not manage, according to a company announcement shared on X on Thursday.

“Our sole priority now is to return as much of our clients’ assets as possible,” Orionx said, adding that withdrawals are temporarily suspended.

The closure comes just 15 months after Tether led Orionx’s Series A as part of its push to expand digital asset adoption in Latin America.

Orionx leaves timing of $7 million transfers unclear

Orionx’s post did not specify when the more than $7 million in transfers occurred or how the discrepancy was initially uncovered.

As part of its efforts to comply with Chile’s Fintech Law, Orionx conducted a review of its operations in 2025 and brought in financial professionals, according to the major Chilean newspaper La Tercera, citing the company’s criminal complaint.

On Aug. 27, chief operating officer Thomas Mac Millan detected a “significant mismatch” between balances recorded in Orionx’s systems and assets actually held in custody, according to the complaint.

Related: BitMEX co-founder contributed 75% of Reform UK’s donations in Q2 2026

An internal review followed, and Orionx later commissioned an external forensic audit that compared its records with data verifiable onchain. The audit found that balances recorded in Orionx’s systems exceeded the assets held at its custody addresses for Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), XRP and Polygon (POL).

The criminal complaint reportedly alleges that assets were transferred out of Orionx’s custody between 2018 and 2021, including to accounts on other crypto platforms.

Orionx accuses co-founders, who deny wrongdoing

Orionx said it filed a criminal complaint on Wednesday against former executives Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz, both co-founders who allegedly had access to the company’s crypto custody systems.

The complaint alleges that an account associated with Díaz received more than $1.5 million across 14 transfers, while another wallet allegedly received 187 Ether, more than 4.1 million USDt (USDT) and 200,000 USDC from Orionx, La Tercera reported.

Former executive and Orionx co-founder Roberto Zibert. Source: LinkedIn

Zibert and Díaz denied the allegations, saying they never acted against customers’ interests and that the cause of Orionx’s asset shortfall remains unclear.

Tether backed Orionx in 2025

Founded in Chile in 2017, Orionx grew from a retail crypto exchange into a platform offering crypto payment and financial services in Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico.

Tether invested in Orionx in June 2025, exclusively leading the exchange’s Series A funding round, according to an archived version of Tether’s announcement. The announcement is no longer available on Tether’s website.

Cointelegraph contacted Tether and Orionx for comment but had not received a response by publication.

Magazine: Tether sued over $42M in frozen coins, 6,600 students get crypto loans: Asia Express