DeFi lending infrastructure has suffered another high-value breach on Flow EVM, with Blockaid reporting that the protocol More Markets lost roughly $9.3 million in assets from a lending reserve. The incident, described in a Monday post by Blockaid on X, centers on an overborrow strategy using a liquid staking token.

Blockaid said the attacker drained about 15.5 million Wrapped Flow (WFLOW) tokens—valued at approximately $9.3 million—from the mFlowWFLOW lending reserve. The exploit reportedly involved Ankr Staked FLOW (ankrFLOW), together with Aave V3’s “efficiency mode” (E-mode), to expand borrowing capacity beyond what the reserve should allow.

Key takeaways

• Blockaid attributes the More Markets Flow EVM reserve drain to an overborrowing approach using Ankr Staked FLOW (ankrFLOW) and Aave V3 E-mode.
• About 15.5 million Wrapped Flow (WFLOW), worth around $9.3 million, were taken from the mFlowWFLOW lending reserve.
• The month-to-date total losses from crypto hacks reached $139.7 million in August, placing the month as the third-largest by stolen value so far in 2026.
• The August figure is sharply lower than July’s $254 million in stolen funds, suggesting either fewer major breaches or reduced impact from exploits.
• Cronos paused its network on Sunday following a separate reported $75 million exploit tied to the Tectonic DeFi lending protocol.

How the More Markets reserve was drained

According to Blockaid’s account of the event, the attacker targeted More Markets’ lending reserve that holds mFlowWFLOW. Blockaid said the stolen amount consisted of 15.5 million Wrapped Flow (WFLOW) tokens, which it valued at approximately $9.3 million based on blockchain data it shared publicly.

Blockaid further claimed that the exploit depended on two linked mechanisms: the use of Ankr Staked FLOW (ankrFLOW) and Aave V3’s E-mode. E-mode is designed to increase borrowing power for specific asset groups when their values are expected to move together—commonly a liquid staking token and its corresponding underlying token.

In practical terms, this means that when the protocol’s configuration treats certain pairs as sufficiently correlated, the borrowing limits can become more permissive. Blockaid’s report indicates the attacker leveraged that increased borrowing power to overextend against the reserve, resulting in the loss of WFLOW tokens from mFlowWFLOW.

E-mode designed for correlation—what this incident suggests

E-mode in Aave V3 is intended to make capital more efficient by rewarding users when asset prices track each other closely. Blockaid’s description of this exploit highlights a recurring risk in DeFi: when an attacker can obtain collateral exposure through a token wrapper or staking derivative, the assumed relationship between the assets may be insufficiently protective during the exploit window.

Blockaid specifically tied the strategy to Ankr Staked FLOW (ankrFLOW) in combination with E-mode for correlated assets. While E-mode is not inherently wrong—its goal is to reflect genuine market linkage—incidents like this underscore that protocols still need robust defenses around liquidation mechanics, borrowing limits, and whether the collateral’s behavior under stress matches the assumptions baked into risk parameters.

For investors and users, the takeaway is not that E-mode should be avoided, but that reliance on correlated asset groups can raise the stakes for monitoring. Protocol teams typically need to ensure that their accounting, oracle choices, and validation logic remain resilient when liquidity conditions change quickly.

Broader hack landscape: August losses mount

Blockaid’s reported loss adds to a fast-moving set of crypto-security events. DefiLlama’s data on hacks shows that total cryptocurrency losses from hacks reached $139.7 million in August, making it the third-largest month by value stolen so far in 2026.

The same DefiLlama dataset cited in the reporting indicates a meaningful change from earlier in the year: July saw approximately $254 million stolen. While August has a lower total than July, the ongoing frequency of incidents—spanning multiple ecosystems and chains—suggests that attackers remain active and that DeFi lending remains a frequent target.

Another DeFi lending event: Cronos halts after Tectonic exploit

Alongside the More Markets issue, the market also digested another major DeFi lending-related disruption. On Sunday, Cronos halted its blockchain network following a reported $75 million exploit targeting the DeFi lending protocol Tectonic.

That earlier incident, reported by Cointelegraph, involved a sizable compromise that prompted an emergency network pause by Cronos. Together, the two stories emphasize how quickly lending platforms can become central points of failure—especially when borrowing configurations intersect with token derivatives and liquidity-linked assumptions.

At the time of publication, More Markets had not publicly confirmed the incident or disclosed whether users suffered losses. Cointelegraph said it contacted Blockaid for more details but did not receive a response by publication, and it was unable to reach More Markets for comment.

Readers should watch for follow-up disclosures from More Markets regarding the affected reserve, whether funds were fully recovered, and any post-incident changes to collateral or E-mode configuration. For the wider DeFi community, the key uncertainty is how closely future risk models will account for real-world token behavior during fast-moving market or liquidity conditions.

Zakura released an open-source cryptography toolkit on Aug. 29 that it says can reduce the time required to construct some private Zcash transactions from more than three seconds to below 200 milliseconds.

The toolkit, called Zakura Common, replaces several cryptographic components used by wallets and full nodes. The developers said the changes improve proof generation, transaction verification, wallet scanning and hashing without altering Zcash’s consensus rules.

Zakura released the software under dual MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses. Wallet and node developers can therefore integrate the libraries without waiting for a hard fork or synchronized network upgrade.

Zcash wallets generate privacy proofs faster

Zcash shielded transactions conceal the sender, recipient and transferred amount. A wallet must create a zero-knowledge proof showing that the hidden transaction follows the network’s rules before broadcasting it.

That computation happens on the user’s device. Slow proof generation can therefore delay a payment before validators or nodes begin processing it.

Zakura’s benchmarks showed mobile proof generation running more than 14 times faster under the new stack. Desktop performance improved by more than five times.

The developers said those gains could bring transaction construction below 200 milliseconds “in many cases.” The figure is a benchmark result rather than a guaranteed time for every device, wallet or transaction.

Hardware, operating systems, transaction complexity and wallet implementations may produce different results.

Zakura Common improves more than proof generation

The toolkit also made Sinsemilla hashing more than 21 times faster, according to Zakura. Zcash uses Sinsemilla within its Orchard shielded protocol for cryptographic commitments and related operations.

Trial decryption improved by more than 1.5 times. Wallets use that process while scanning blockchain data to identify shielded transactions belonging to their users.

Zakura also reported fourfold to eightfold gains in zk-SNARK verification. Faster verification could help full nodes validate transactions sooner and reduce the risk of block-processing delays.

“Shielded wallets that use Zakura Common, and full nodes like Zakura itself, all benefit,” Zcash co-founder Sean Bowe said.

The release does not shorten Zcash block production or settlement on its own. It primarily targets the cryptographic work performed before broadcasting and while checking transactions.

Wallet developers can adopt the toolkit immediately

Zakura version 1.3.0 has moved to the new cryptography stack. Vizor Wallet is among the first wallet projects adopting the libraries, according to the development team.

Other wallets must integrate and test Zakura Common before their users receive the same performance gains. Adoption will therefore depend on individual development schedules rather than a single network activation date.

The update arrives as Zcash wallet development becomes more distributed. In January, former Electric Coin Company developers formed CashZ to continue work based on the Zashi wallet code.

Wallet integrations have also expanded access to shielded transfers. A previous ShapeShift wallet integration added Zcash privacy support across its non-custodial platform.

ZEC briefly rose before the broader pullback

ZEC initially rose about 5% following the Zakura Common announcement and traded near $839. The timing indicates a market reaction but does not prove the software release caused the entire move.

CoinGecko subsequently placed ZEC near $829 on Aug. 31, down about 0.8% over 24 hours. The token traded between approximately $808 and $888 during that period.

The next evidence will come from real wallet deployments. Developers will need to confirm whether the benchmark gains persist across consumer devices, larger shielded transactions and different operating environments.

Zakura is also preparing for the proposed NU7 upgrade, which could reduce Zcash block times to about 25 seconds. The team says its current software can already operate under that target, although NU7 requires a separate network governance and activation process.

Decentralized finance (DeFi) vault infrastructure protocol More Markets had a lending reserve drained of about $9.3 million in digital assets on Flow EVM, according to Web3 security platform Blockaid.

The attacker drained about 15.5 million Wrapped Flow (WFLOW) tokens, valued by Blockaid at approximately $9.3 million, from the mFlowWFLOW lending reserve, according to blockchain data shared by Blockaid in a Monday X post.

Blockaid said the attacker used Ankr Staked FLOW (ankrFLOW), a liquid staking token, alongside E-mode to overborrow from the reserve.

E-mode, short for efficiency mode, is an Aave V3 feature that increases borrowing power for assets whose prices are expected to move together, such as a liquid staking token and its underlying asset.

The exploit pushed total losses from cryptocurrency hacks to $139.7 million for August, making it the third-largest month by value stolen so far in 2026. However, it marks a significant decrease from $254 million stolen during July, according to DefiLlama data.

On Sunday, Cronos halted its blockchain network after a reported $75 million exploit targeting DeFi lending protocol Tectonic.

More Markets had not publicly confirmed the incident or disclosed whether users suffered losses at the time of publication. Cointelegraph contacted Blockaid for more details but did not receive a response by publication and was unable to reach More Markets for comment.

Related: Humanity Protocol to prioritize operational security following $36M hack

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Ripple recorded another round of RLUSD treasury activity on Aug. 31, including an 11 million-token mint and a separate 11 million-token burn.

The transactions were reported by the Ripple Stablecoin Tracker. They followed several large operations on the XRP Ledger and Ethereum during the final days of August.

CoinGecko placed RLUSD’s circulating supply and market capitalization at approximately $2.37 billion on Aug. 31. The stablecoin continued trading close to its intended $1 peg, meaning supply growth rather than price appreciation drove the higher valuation.

Advertisement

RLUSD minting does not necessarily show net demand

A stablecoin mint creates tokens at an issuer-controlled address. Those tokens may remain in treasury, move to an institutional customer or support transfers between networks.

A mint therefore does not prove that an equivalent amount entered public circulation. Likewise, a burn removes tokens from supply and can accompany customer redemptions, treasury management or network rebalancing.

The matching 11 million-token mint and burn on Aug. 31 illustrate that distinction. Viewed separately, the mint suggests expansion. Considered together, the two transactions produced no net increase from those specific operations.

Advertisement

Ripple did not identify the customer, purpose or economic relationship behind either transaction. The ledger records establish that the transactions occurred, but they do not establish new institutional demand.

As crypto.news previously reported, Ripple minted another 10 million RLUSD on XRPL on Aug. 17. Ripple also did not disclose the receiving customer or intended use of that issuance.

RLUSD supply moved above $2 billion in August

RLUSD crossed $2 billion in market capitalization during August, less than two years after its December 2024 launch. Ripple confirmed the milestone on Aug. 25 and said close to $1 billion had been issued on the XRP Ledger.

In related coverage, RLUSD approached an even split between XRPL and Ethereum when it crossed the threshold. Ethereum held a modestly larger amount at that time.

Advertisement

Available data now show continued supply expansion. CoinGecko reported approximately 2.37 billion circulating tokens on Aug. 31. XRP Ledger trackers placed the network’s portion above 1 billion tokens after several late-August mints.

Ethereum remains another major venue for RLUSD. Ripple has also extended the stablecoin to Base, Ink, Optimism, Unichain and the XRPL EVM sidechain. Public dashboards do not always provide synchronized supply totals for every network, which can produce differences between data providers.

Ripple’s reserve report trails the latest mints

Ripple’s transparency page reported $1.866 billion in circulating RLUSD and $1.981 billion in reserve funds as of Aug. 20. That official snapshot predates the latest issuance and the $2 billion milestone.

Standard Custody & Trust Company, a Ripple subsidiary supervised by the New York State Department of Financial Services, issues RLUSD. Ripple says reserves consist of cash and permitted cash equivalents held in segregated accounts.

Advertisement

Deloitte prepares monthly attestations covering the reported circulation and reserve balances. However, those reports are retrospective. They do not provide real-time confirmation of reserve changes after every mint or burn.

The next attestation should offer a clearer view of whether reserve assets increased alongside the late-August supply expansion.

What happens next for RLUSD

Further treasury transactions will show whether the latest mints move into circulation or are offset by additional burns. Transfers from treasury accounts to exchanges, custodians or institutional counterparties could provide more context, although wallet movements alone may not reveal their purpose.

The next reserve report will be the more important disclosure. It should show whether Ripple maintained reserve assets above circulating liabilities as RLUSD moved beyond $2 billion.

Advertisement

No verified XRP price movement could be directly attributed to the RLUSD transactions. RLUSD growth may add dollar liquidity to the XRP Ledger, but it does not automatically create equivalent demand for XRP.

Alphabet just had a genuinely turbulent month, and the whiplash tells its own story. Despite beating earnings expectations with profits of $9.11 per share, roughly triple what analysts had forecast, the stock actually sold off in the days following the report, weighed down by mounting concerns over AI spending. That mood shifted decisively on Monday, when shares jumped over 5% after Morgan Stanley reassured investors, highlighting Alphabet’s still-robust $53.3 billion in free cash flow over the past twelve months, even as cloud capital expenditure could exceed $1.2 trillion in 2027.

The underlying business remains genuinely strong: Google Cloud revenue surged 82% year-over-year to $24.8 billion in Q2, and the company has been actively defending its position, launching more budget-friendly AI pricing to compete directly with rivals. That said, not everything has gone smoothly. Alphabet agreed to pay £260 million to settle a UK class-action lawsuit this week, and a leadership shakeup within its AI division, including the departure of key figures, has added a layer of organizational uncertainty investors are still digesting.

The result: a company delivering genuinely impressive growth, but one whose massive AI bet keeps testing investors’ patience with every headline.

Technical Analysis of Alphabet (GOOGL)

As the GOOGL chart shows, the stock has been compressing into a symmetrical triangle since April, with a descending trendline from the 400 highs converging with an ascending trendline off the 269 low, both meeting right at the current price near 340–346, exactly where the 0.5 Fibonacci retracement and the 200-period EMA also sit.

Bullish Scenario

Should buyers defend this trendline-EMA confluence and break decisively above the descending trendline, the path would open toward the 0.382 retracement near 356.79, with a stronger move potentially targeting the 0 level at 382.88, the origin of the entire pullback.

Bearish Scenario

Conversely, a break below the ascending trendline and the 0.618 retracement near 340.66 would expose the 0.786 level near 329.19, with a deeper slide risking a retest of the 314.57 low that anchored this five-month structure.

With price coiled right at the apex of this triangle, sitting exactly on the 200-period EMA, Alphabet’s next move looks set to be decisive. Will the AI spending story finally translate into a genuine breakout, or does the stock settle back into its earlier range?

Buy and sell stocks of the world’s biggest publicly-listed companies with CFDs on FXOpen’s trading platform. Open your FXOpen account now or learn more about trading share CFDs with FXOpen.

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.