Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Did the WBTC DAO approve Justin Sun’s HTX as a merchant?

Published

on

Did the WBTC DAO approve Justin Sun's HTX as a merchant?

Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC) spent years marketing itself as being governed by decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) that would have oversight over many parts of the product, including “the addition and removal of merchants and custodians.”

Its whitepaper claimed that “signatures are required from DAO members in order to add/remove members.”

Even as recently as a few months ago, WBTC has continued to emphasize that it “operates through a DAO.”

However, this supposed role of the WBTC DAO hasn’t always been respected.

HTX, formerly Huobi, was added as a merchant, the product’s term for an entity who can initiate mints and burns of WBTC, however, it was not approved by the DAO members listed on the Github, but a different set of signers from a different multisignature wallet.

A review of the smart contract reveals that 0xbE6d2444a717767544a8b0Ba77833AA6519D81cD is one of the merchants returned by the “getMerchants” function.

Advertisement

Read more: Is HTX redeeming 80% of TrueUSD?

This address was listed as HTX on the WBTC dashboard in late 2024 when Protos reported on it being used to redeem approximately half a billion dollars worth of WBTC.

However, this address isn’t listed as one of the merchants on the WBTC DAO GitHub page.

HTX is listed as one of the merchants on the WBTC website.

Advertisement

The entities that are still listed on GitHub include defunct and fraudulent entities such as Alameda Research and Three Arrows Capital, both of which are also still listed on the smart contract.

By further reviewing blockchain transactions on Ethereum, we can identify that this address was added as a merchant in November 2024, approximately two months after BiT Global and Justin Sun got involved in WBTC.

Read more: WBTC relaunches on TRON, but abandoned version is bigger

At the time, this transaction came from 0x4dbbbFb0e68bE9D8F5a377A4654604a62E851e80.

Advertisement

Strangely, this address isn’t listed as one of the multisignature wallets for WBTC on GitHub.

The listed multisignature wallet doesn’t include any transactions for the day when HTX was added as a merchant.

The inclusion of HTX as a merchant becomes increasingly important in light of some of the problematic behaviors that the exchange is engaged in.

Read more: Justin Sun defends HTX while it lends 92% of its USDT on Aave

Advertisement

It appears the publicly disclosed multisignature wallet, 0xB33f8879d4608711cEBb623F293F8Da13B8A37c5, appears to have been quietly replaced with a brand new multisignature wallet.

The wallet that was used lists several owners, many of whom differ from the WBTC DAO Github:

  • 0xFDF28Bf25779ED4cA74e958d54653260af604C20 — Listed as Kyber on the Merchants list on the GitHub, isn’t listed as a DAO member.
  • 0xb0F42D187145911C2aD1755831aDeD125619bd27 — Listed as BitGo on the custodian part of the GitHub, isn’t listed as a DAO member on the current GitHub commit, is listed as a small DAO member on a pull request.
  • 0xd5d4aB76e8F22a0FdCeF8F483cC794a74A1a928e — Not listed on the current GitHub commit, is mentioned in a pull request as Maker.
  • 0xB9062896ec3A615a4e4444DF183F0531a77218AE — Listed as Aave on the Merchants list on the GitHub, is not listed as a DAO member on the current commit, and is mentioned as a small DAO member on a pull request.
  • 0xddD5105b94A647eEa6776B5A63e37D81eAE3566F — Not listed on the current GitHub commit, is listed on a pull request as Tom Bean and is listed as a small DAO member there, multisignature wallet that includes:
    • 0x97788A242B6A9B1C4Cb103e8947df03801829BE4 — Not listed on the GitHub at all.
    • 0x59150a3d034B435327C1A95A116C80F3bE2e4B5E — Not listed on the GitHub at all.
  • 0x926314B7c2d36871eaf60Afa3D7E8ffc0f4F9A80 — Not listed on the current GitHub commit, appears to be a multisignature wallet created using BitGo’s technology, and is listed as BitGo 2 on a pull request describing it as a member of the small DAO.
  • 0x51c44979eA04256f678552BE65FAf67f808b3EC0 — Not listed on the current GitHub commit, appears to be another multisignature wallet created using BitGo’s technology, is listed as BitGo 3 on a pull request describing it as a member of the small DAO.
  • 0x0940c5bcAAe6e9Fbd22e869c2a3cD7A21604ED8D — Not listed on the GitHub at all.
  • 0x5DCb2Cc68F4b975E1E2b77E723126a9f560F08E8 — Not listed on the GitHub at all.

It is not clear why these changes aren’t reflected on the current version of the GitHub repository. Protos reached out to WBTC for some clarification, but it didn’t respond before publication.

By further reviewing the smart contract at 0x4dbbbFb0e68bE9D8F5a377A4654604a62E851e80, we can identify the five addresses that approved the listing of HTX:

  • 0xFDF28Bf25779ED4cA74e958d54653260af604C20 — Kyber
  • 0xb0F42D187145911C2aD1755831aDeD125619bd27 — BitGo
  • 0xddD5105b94A647eEa6776B5A63e37D81eAE3566F — Tom Bean
  • 0x926314B7c2d36871eaf60Afa3D7E8ffc0f4F9A80 — BitGo
  • 0x51c44979eA04256f678552BE65FAf67f808b3EC0 — BitGo

This means that although this multisignature wallet requires five signatures, three of them came from the same entity.

Only two non-custodian entities approved the addition of HTX as a merchant and those aren’t currently listed as DAO members on GitHub.

Advertisement

Adding to the intrigue, Tom Bean’s project, bZx, was built on Kyber.

It’s also worth highlighting the fact that this multisignature wallet requires five signatures, BitGo controls three, and there are two addresses that aren’t listed at all on GitHub.

If those are controlled by BitGo or BiT Global, then it would be possible for the custodians to make changes without approval from a single additional WBTC DAO member.

Protos reached out to WBTC to determine the identity of those two addresses, but again, didn’t get a response before publication.

Advertisement

BiT Global was added without WBTC DAO approval

This isn’t the first time that WBTC has appeared to ignore the advertised role of its DAO.

The whitepaper for WBTC claimed that “addition/removal of custodians” would be controlled by this DAO.

This used to be echoed on the website, which claimed, “The addition and removal of merchants and custodians will be an open process controlled by a multi-signature contract.”

Read more: Coinbase to delist WBTC months after Justin Sun controversy

Advertisement

Mike Belshe, the chief executive of BitGo, also claimed when BiT Global was being installed that there was a large DAO that “owns the smart contract” and “picks, you know, how we do custody of this thing.”

Strangely, despite that claim, the WBTC DAO didn’t seem to be consulted on the addition of Sun-affiliated BiT Global as a custodian for WBTC.

The Github for the WBTC DAO still doesn’t list BiT Global as a custodian.

The website for WBTC does list BiT Global as one of the custodians, alongside BitGo and BitGo Singapore.

Advertisement

The “members” smart contract still only lists a single custodian, 0xb0F42D187145911C2aD1755831aDeD125619bd27, a BitGo address.

This address is a multi-signature, so it’s possible that BiT Global was added as a signer to this wallet, meaning that the smart contract did not need to be updated with a new custodian address.

Broadly, despite the fact that WBTC manages over $8 billion in value, it seems to have neglected and ignored the DAO that has frequently been an important part of its marketing.

It’s replaced the multisignature wallet that governs it, without updates, with members whose identity we do not know.

Advertisement

This replacement made it possible, or convenient, for HTX to be added as a merchant, but other problems have been ignored, such as the fact that both Alameda Research and Three Arrows Capital are included as merchants.

The large DAO was apparently bypassed regarding the addition of BiT Global.

However it is that WBTC operates, it’s not principally through its DAO.

Its claims of transparency and decentralization have been dashed against the difficulty of coordinating a variety of actors around the world.

Advertisement

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on XBluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

Are stablecoins the infrastructure reshaping global finance?

Published

on

Are stablecoins the infrastructure reshaping global finance?

In today’s newsletter, Claudia Marcela Hernández analyzes how stablecoins have evolved past volatility-fixers to become the foundational settlement asset for global tokenized markets and cross-border payments, following the clarity provided by the GENIUS Act.

Then, in Ask an Expert, Morva Rohani breaks down how stablecoin regulation serves as a foundation for tokenized capital markets, why some jurisdictions see U.S. stablecoin policy as a risk, and the key factors advisors must use to assess a stablecoin’s credibility.

Learn about the latest advancements in the Clarity Act in Keep Reading.

Happy Reading.

Advertisement

Sarah Morton


Are stablecoins the infrastructure reshaping global finance?

Stablecoins were originally designed to solve one of crypto’s earliest problems: volatility. By pegging their value to fiat currencies such as the U.S. dollar, stablecoins gave traders a reliable unit of account that could move across blockchains without the price swings associated with assets like bitcoin. For years, they functioned primarily as liquidity tools inside crypto markets. But that role is rapidly changing.

Stablecoins are evolving from niche trading instruments into a foundational layer of global financial infrastructure. They now serve as settlement assets in decentralized finance (DeFi), payment rails for cross-border transfers and the preferred settlement currency for tokenized financial markets.

Institutions that once approached crypto cautiously are beginning to acknowledge the technology’s potential. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has noted that stablecoins could improve the efficiency of cross-border payments by reducing the number of intermediaries involved in global transactions. Meanwhile, policymakers in the United States are moving to integrate stablecoins into the regulated financial system.

Advertisement

Because most of these tokens are pegged to the U.S. dollar, they may also be doing something far more consequential: quietly extending the reach of the dollar across the blockchain-based global economy.

How a Stablecoin Is Issued and why they matter?

A user provides fiat currency, typically U.S. dollars, to a licensed issuer. In return, the issuer mints an equivalent amount of stablecoins on a blockchain, maintaining a 1:1 peg. The fiat received is placed into reserve accounts, usually held in cash or short-term U.S. Treasuries, which back the value of the tokens in circulation.

When a user wants to exit, the process works in reverse: the stablecoins are redeemed, and the user receives fiat from the reserves. This issuance-redemption mechanism is what anchors the stablecoin’s price to its reference asset.

Advertisement

Stablecoins enable near-instant, 24/7 settlement, independent of banking hours. They allow for programmable transactions, where payments can be automated and embedded into digital systems. And they provide access to dollar-denominated value, often without requiring a traditional bank account.

The World Economic Forum established that stablecoins transaction volumes have reached tens of trillions of dollars annually, underscoring their growing role as a core component of digital financial activity.

For policymakers, this presents both an opportunity and a challenge. The U.S. Treasury has noted that digital payment innovations, including stablecoins, can enhance efficiency, reduce costs and promote financial inclusion, provided that appropriate safeguards are in place.

Use cases and applications

Advertisement

· Cross-border payments: Stablecoins enable near-instant international transfers at a fraction of the cost of traditional correspondent banking systems.

· Remittances: In many emerging markets, stablecoins offer faster and cheaper alternatives to traditional remittance providers, which often charge significant fees.

· Decentralized finance (DeFi): Stablecoins serve as collateral, liquidity pools and settlement assets across lending protocols, decentralized exchanges and derivatives markets.

· Tokenized real-world assets: As tokenization expands to include bonds, real estate and commodities, stablecoins increasingly function as the settlement currency for digital financial markets.

Advertisement

· Corporate treasury and global settlement: Fintech companies and multinational firms are experimenting with stablecoins to facilitate cross-border treasury operations and instant settlement of international transactions.

In short, stablecoins are gradually becoming the base layer of digital financial activity.

The Regulatory Turning Point: The GENIUS Act

The transition of stablecoins from niche crypto instruments to recognized financial infrastructure accelerated significantly in 2025 with the passage of the GENIUS Act (the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act in the United States).

Advertisement

The legislation created the first comprehensive federal framework governing the issuance of payment stablecoins. Under the law, regulated entities, including banks and approved non-bank financial institutions, are allowed to issue stablecoins backed by high-quality liquid assets and subject to strict requirements including reserve transparency, regular audits, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) under the Bank Secrecy Act.

One of the most important aspects of the GENIUS Act was regulatory clarity. For years, uncertainty around whether stablecoins should be treated as securities, commodities or banking products created hesitation among institutional players. The law addressed this ambiguity by establishing stablecoins as a distinct category of digital payment instruments.

Stablecoins and monetary power

Dollar-denominated stablecoins dominate the market by a wide margin compared with those linked to other currencies. That dominance has an important implication because stablecoins may extend the reach of the U.S. dollar beyond the traditional banking system.

Advertisement

Other jurisdictions are responding with their own regulatory strategies. For example, the European Union, through its Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, has introduced strict requirements for stablecoin issuers operating within the EU, including reserve requirements and limits designed to protect monetary sovereignty — but is also exploring the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)

In Asia, financial hubs such as Hong Kong and Singapore are developing licensing regimes aimed at supervising stablecoin issuance and integrating the technology into regulated financial markets. China, meanwhile, has taken a different path by prioritizing the development of a central bank digital currency and exploring digital yuan settlement systems that could expand its monetary influence internationally.

The future of stablecoins will depend on trust in their reserves, in their governance and in the systems that oversee them. And ultimately, their long-term value will not be defined by how fast they scale, but by how safely and sustainably they become part of the global financial system.

Claudia Marcela Hernández, digital assets specialist

Advertisement

Ask an Expert

Q. How important is stablecoin regulation to tokenized capital markets?

Stablecoin regulation is important because tokenized capital markets need a credible on-chain settlement asset. But regulation alone is not enough. For stablecoins to support institutional tokenized markets, there must also be legal certainty around settlement finality, redemption at par, issuer credit risk and how stablecoin-based settlement fits within payment system and securities laws.

In that sense, stablecoin regulation is a necessary foundation for tokenized capital markets, but not the whole framework. What institutions ultimately need is confidence that the settlement asset is reliable, that obligations are legally discharged when transactions settle on-chain and that the broader market structure can operate with clear, coordinated oversight.

Q. Are some jurisdictions starting to see U.S. stablecoin policy as a risk?

Advertisement

Yes, there is growing recognition that stablecoins carry geopolitical and monetary implications. Because the vast majority of fiat-backed stablecoins are denominated in U.S. dollars, their adoption could extend the reach of the dollar into blockchain-based financial systems. As U.S. policy frameworks formalize regulated dollar-backed stablecoins, this dynamic becomes more entrenched, positioning the U.S. to shape both the currency and standards of digital financial infrastructure.

In Canada, for example, proximity to the U.S., deep financial integration and broader geopolitical uncertainty have sharpened this focus. The concern is less about direct competition and more about dependency. Without a domestic framework, Canadian users and institutions could default to foreign-issued, USD-based stablecoins.

Canada’s approach has been to create a framework that enables innovation and competition while ensuring safety, consumer protection, and interoperability with global regimes. The objective is to allow both domestic and foreign stablecoins to operate under Canadian oversight, while preserving monetary relevance and ensuring Canadians have trusted, regulated options in a digital financial system.

Q. How can advisors assess whether a stablecoin is credible?

Advertisement

As stablecoins integrate into regulated systems, credibility comes down to a few core factors. First, reserve quality and transparency: assets should be fully backed by high-quality liquid instruments with regular disclosure or audits. Second, redemption: holders must have a clear, enforceable right to redeem at par. Third, regulatory oversight: credible issuers operate within defined legal and compliance frameworks. Governance also matters, including issuer structure, jurisdiction and custody of reserves. Ultimately, the key question is not just whether a stablecoin trades at $1, but whether its structure ensures it can consistently meet redemptions and retain user confidence during periods of stress.

Morva Rohani, executive director, Canadian Web3 Council


Keep Reading

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Bitcoin Shows No ‘Outright Stress’ at $70,000, Analysis Says

Published

on

Bitcoin Shows No 'Outright Stress' at $70,000, Analysis Says

Bitcoin lost its grip on $70,000 amid inflation and recession talk as analysis suggested that BTC price action lacked “outright stress.”

Bitcoin (BTC) daily losses approached 3% at Thursday’s Wall Street open as markets stayed on edge over fresh Iran tensions.

Key points:

Advertisement
  • Bitcoin slips from $70,000 as markets continue to observe Iran developments.

  • Inflation and recession worries grow louder with no clear end to the conflict in sight.

  • Bitcoin analysis avoids an outright bearish appraisal of BTC price action.

Bitcoin wobbles as US inflation fears increase

Data from TradingView showed BTC/USD nearing $69,000 for the first time since Monday.

BTC/USD one-day chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

Volatility picked up as the US session began, with traders reacting to the latest developments in the US-Iran war. 

A reported lack of mutual understanding over a peace proposal followed pressure from US President Donald Trump.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump called Iranian negotiators “very different and ‘strange.’”

“They better get serious soon, before it is too late, because once that happens, there is NO TURNING BACK, and it won’t be pretty!” he wrote.

Advertisement
Source: Truth Social

US stocks turned red at the open, while attention also focused on the longer-term impact of the conflict on inflation.

As reported by trading resource The Kobeissi Letter and others, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) put US inflation at 4.2% in 2026 — the highest among G7 countries.

“Potential rate HIKES in the US and EU are now back on the table,” it responded on X, referring to central banks raising interest rates — a key headwind for crypto.

Federal Reserve target rate probabilities (screenshot). Source: CME Group FedWatch Tool

Earlier, Cointelegraph reported on increasing expectations that the US would enter a recession within the next 12 months.

Analysis: BTC price action “not obviously bearish”

With Bitcoin still wedged in a narrow range, trading company QCP Capital stressed its “resilience” within the overall macro landscape.

Related: Bitcoin ‘compression’ outcome may send BTC to $80K: Analyst

Advertisement

“BTC is hovering around $70k, and the price action still feels more like quiet consolidation than outright stress,” it summarized in its latest “Market Color” analysis on the day. 

“The broader macro backdrop remains fragile, with risk sentiment weighed by renewed Middle East headlines and oil still carrying a meaningful geopolitical premium, even after pulling back from the week’s highs.” 

BTC/USD one-day chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

QCP described Bitcoin’s price activity as “not obviously bearish.”

“For now, BTC is trading like an asset being accumulated on dips but not yet chased. The range is holding, the surface is defensive but orderly, and macro remains firmly in the driver’s seat,” it added.

As Cointelegraph continues to report, many traders remain highly risk-averse to BTC, expecting new macro lows to result from an eventual range breakdown.