Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Circle unfreezes one wallet after controversial USDC freeze

Published

on

Circle paid $461 million in distribution costs from $733 million reserve income in Q4

Circle has reversed part of its recent USDC enforcement action after one of the 16 frozen wallets regained access to funds. 

Summary

  • Circle restored access to one frozen wallet, easing pressure after criticism over its broader freeze.
  • ZachXBT said the unfrozen address linked to Goated.com held about 130,966 USDC after restoration.
  • The partial reversal kept attention on Circle’s process as transparency concerns around the case persisted.

The move has shifted attention from the initial freeze to Circle’s review process, as public questions continue over how the company handled the case.

On-chain investigator ZachXBT said Circle unfroze the wallet address “0x61f…e543,” which he linked to Goated.com. Data cited in current reporting showed the wallet held about 130,966 USDC after access was restored.

Advertisement

ZachXBT also said other affected wallets could be restored soon. That update followed Circle’s earlier action against 16 wallets tied to separate business operations, including exchanges, casinos, and foreign exchange platforms.

Earlier reports said the freeze was linked to a sealed US civil case. At the same time, public reporting said the targeted wallets appeared to belong to unrelated businesses, with no clear public explanation for why all 16 were included in one action.

ZachXBT criticized the decision in strong terms. He wrote,

Advertisement

“In my 5-plus years of investigations, it could potentially be the single most incompetent freeze I have seen.” 

He also said Circle had “zero basis” to freeze the funds tied to the case.

In addition, the partial unfreeze has kept the wider debate alive around how centralized stablecoin issuers handle enforcement. Market observers said restoring one wallet does not fully answer the questions raised by the earlier blacklisting.

MetaMask security researcher Taylor Monahan also called for stronger investigative standards and accountability when issuers freeze user funds. Current reporting said she pointed to the need for clearer review procedures when court-backed actions affect active business wallets.

The case has renewed attention on the powers built into centralized stablecoins such as USDC. Public reporting noted that Circle can block addresses, a feature supporters link to compliance needs and critics link to control over user funds.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

Charles Hoskinson: Bitcoin Quantum Upgrade Cannot Save Coins

Published

on

Brian Armstrong's Bold Prediction: AI Agents Will Soon Dominate Global Financial

TLDR

  • Charles Hoskinson said Bitcoin’s quantum proposal would require a hard fork instead of a soft fork.
  • He argued that the plan would invalidate existing signature schemes used by current Bitcoin users.
  • Hoskinson stated that the proposal cannot recover about 1.7 million early mined bitcoin.
  • He said roughly 1.1 million of those coins belong to Satoshi Nakamoto.
  • The proposal suggests users could reclaim frozen funds through zero-knowledge proofs tied to BIP-39 seed phrases.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson challenged a new Bitcoin proposal that targets quantum threats. He said the plan would require a hard fork rather than a soft fork. He also argued that the change cannot recover early coins linked to Satoshi Nakamoto.

Bitcoin’s Quantum Proposal Faces Hard Fork Dispute

Bitcoin developers proposed BIP-361 to freeze addresses vulnerable to future quantum computers. They said the change would phase out old signature schemes and protect dormant funds. However, Hoskinson rejected the claim that the plan qualifies as a soft fork.

He stated, “To actually do this, you need a hard fork,” in a YouTube video. He argued that the proposal invalidates signature rules that users still rely on. Therefore, he said old software would stop working unless every participant upgrades.

Developers described BIP-361 as a rule tightening that older nodes could accept. In contrast, Hoskinson said the measure changes core validation standards. He added that Bitcoin culture has long opposed hard forks because they alter network history.

Advertisement

BIP-361 co-author Jameson Lopp addressed the debate on X this week. He wrote that he does not like the proposal and hopes adoption never becomes necessary. He called it “a rough idea for a contingency plan” rather than a final plan.

Satoshi-era Holdings Remain Beyond Recovery

Hoskinson said the plan cannot protect about 1.7 million early bitcoin. He stated that around 1.1 million of those coins belong to Satoshi Nakamoto. He argued that those holdings predate modern wallet standards.

BIP-361 suggests that users could reclaim frozen funds through zero-knowledge proofs. The proof would tie ownership to a BIP-39 seed phrase used in newer wallets. However, Hoskinson said early wallets did not use seed phrases.

He explained that the original Bitcoin software relied on a local key pool. That system generated private keys without a deterministic seed phrase. Therefore, he said no proof based on BIP-39 can verify those older coins.

Advertisement

He said, “1.7 million coins can’t do that. It’s not possible.” He added that migration would require cryptographic proof that early holders cannot produce. As a result, those coins would remain frozen under the proposal.

Lopp estimated that 5.6 million bitcoin sit dormant across the network. He argued that freezing them would prove safer than letting quantum attackers unlock them. He presented the freeze as a protective option rather than a finalized policy.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

After Kalshi Appeal, Prediction Markets Fight Could Head to Supreme Court

Published

on

Law, CFTC, Court, Kalshi, Prediction Markets

An appellate court is expected to reach a decision after hearing arguments from Kalshi and lawyers representing the state of Nevada.

Some legal experts speculated that the state vs. federal jurisdiction battle over regulating prediction markets companies could soon be headed to the United States Supreme Court.

On Thursday, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments from lawyers representing prediction markets platform Kalshi and Nevada authorities over the state’s ban on the prediction markets’ event contracts. The appeal was over a lower court decision preventing Kalshi from offering certain event-based contracts in Nevada, based on claims that the company needed a gaming license.

Advertisement
Law, CFTC, Court, Kalshi, Prediction Markets
Thursday oral arguments by Kalshi and the State of Nevada. Source: US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

The appellate judge overseeing Thursday’s oral arguments and the lawyer for Kalshi acknowledged that there had been several state-level enforcement actions against the company and other prediction market platforms, including criminal charges filed in Arizona. However, last week a federal court blocked Arizona authorities from enforcing the state’s gambling laws on Kalshi’s event contracts.

“I think the body of case law does demonstrate that what we really need to avoid here is having a state and a federal court considering exactly the same issue at exactly the same time and potentially reaching different outcomes,” said Colleen Sinzdak, representing Kalshi.

Related: CFTC probes oil futures trades tied to Trump’s moves in Iran: Report

Central to Kalshi’s argument was that the platform’s event contracts were “swaps” falling under the purview of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) rather than state gaming authorities. CFTC Chair Michael Selig has backed this position in the case of Crypto.com’s prediction markets against Nevada authorities.

The appellate court did not immediately announce a decision following oral arguments. Any ruling could affect how state courts treat prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket as policymakers come to terms with the growing market, expected to reach $1 trillion by 2030.

Advertisement

Coinbase’s top lawyer weighs in on prediction market arguments

Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal, whose company was not a party to the Kalshi proceedings but has a stake in the prediction markets fight, speculated that the case could go the US Supreme Court.

“The questions at oral argument are an unreliable signal in predicting the leanings of a court,” said Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal in a Thursday X post following the oral arguments. “Either way, I stand by my longstanding prediction— the Supreme Court will resolve whether sports [contracts] on [Designated Contract Markets] are swaps subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC.”

The US Supreme Court gave states the authority to regulate sports gambling in its 2018 decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Advertisement

Magazine: Should users be allowed to bet on war and death in prediction markets?