Crypto World
ETA CEO Eyes New Partnerships as Bitcoin Startups Expand
The Electronic Transactions Association (ETA) is signaling that Bitcoin may become a more visible part of mainstream payments conversations—at least within the group’s broader push to engage with emerging transaction technologies. ETA CEO Jason Oxman told CoinDesk that the organization is not lobbying for or against Bitcoin, but he suggested that ETA members are beginning to recognize its potential disruption in the payments stack.
The message comes as the ETA expands its membership base to include BitPay. On August 6, the trade group announced that BitPay—the Bitcoin payments provider—had become the first virtual currency company to join the ETA, framing the move as part of the industry’s ongoing innovation agenda.
Key takeaways
- The ETA’s Jason Oxman said the group does not take an official pro- or anti-Bitcoin stance and supports electronic transactions broadly, including non-Bitcoin technologies.
- BitPay’s entry as the ETA’s first virtual currency member is being presented by Oxman as evidence the trade group “won’t turn a blind eye to innovation.”
- Oxman pointed to education efforts around Bitcoin—specifically referencing the role of the Bitcoin Foundation—in shaping ETA members’ attitudes.
- On New York’s BitLicense proposal, Oxman argued regulators should avoid applying “reflexive” rules to new technology and instead conduct a deeper technical review of how Bitcoin systems and consumer protections work.
- New York’s financial regulator extended the public comment period for the BitLicense proposal by 45 days, pushing the deadline to October 21.
Why BitPay’s ETA membership matters
ETA represents major players in electronic payments, including companies such as Visa, MasterCard, Amazon, and PayPal. When Oxman discussed the ETA’s posture toward Bitcoin, he did not describe the trade group as endorsing a single technology. Instead, he framed the ETA’s mission around enabling electronic transactions in whatever form merchants and customers choose.
In that context, Oxman cited the ETA’s partnership with Atlanta-based Bitcoin payment solutions provider BitPay as a practical sign of openness. He suggested the organization is trying to position itself as a partner for emerging technology startups, with engagement driven largely by whether market participants show demand for those tools.
Oxman’s core argument was that transaction rails evolve according to user and merchant preferences. As he put it in his remarks, electronic transactions will take “whatever the customer or merchant of choice agrees is going to be the form of their electronic transaction.”
From education to partnerships
Oxman also linked the ETA’s shifting view to earlier learning efforts about Bitcoin. He said the Bitcoin Foundation played a significant role in educating ETA members about Bitcoin’s benefits and emphasized the value of business-oriented introductions between Bitcoin startups and established payment companies.
Specifically, Oxman referenced an ETA event in 2013 where Bitcoin Foundation general counsel Patrick Murck spoke. In Oxman’s recollection, Murck helped frame Bitcoin in business terms, after which Oxman said at least one ETA member decided to pursue a deal with a Bitcoin processor.
This detail matters because it suggests the ETA’s openness is not only policy-driven, but also influenced by how Bitcoin is presented—less as a speculative innovation and more as a payments system that can be integrated into existing commercial workflows.
What Oxman says about BitLicense and consumer protection
The ETA CEO’s comments also touched New York’s BitLicense framework, which has been at the center of ongoing debate about how cryptocurrency businesses should be regulated. Oxman said the ETA’s historical experience with regulatory change has involved adjusting to new payment options such as PayPal, noting that it previously spent significant effort encouraging regulators not to constrict innovation.
However, he acknowledged why regulators may be cautious with new payment technologies. His reasoning was that regulators tend to focus on consumer protection. According to Oxman, the less established the alternative system is—meaning the fewer protections are clearly available—the more regulators feel compelled to intervene.
Still, Oxman said the NY Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) should do more than react quickly to novelty. He argued regulators should not rely on “reflexive rules” simply because a technology is new, and instead conduct a real in-depth look at Bitcoin’s underlying systems.
In his view, the key is understanding how Bitcoin’s system operates, including how the blockchain works, and how Bitcoin providers—such as payment processors—can implement additional safeguards for consumers and merchants. The implication is that compliance standards should reflect the actual operating model and control points of Bitcoin-related businesses, rather than generic assumptions that could overreach.
Regulatory timeline shifts in New York
While ETA’s stance is aimed at engagement rather than advocacy, New York’s regulatory process is still unfolding. Earlier this week, NYDFS superintendent Benjamin Lawsky extended the public comment period on the BitLicense proposal by 45 days, pushing the deadline to October 21. This extension followed a joint letter addressed to Lawsky from BTC China, Huobi, and OkCoin, where the “Big three” exchanges outlined concerns about the proposal.
For industry participants, the practical takeaway is that the BitLicense debate remains active and that the regulatory outcome may depend on the arguments that emerge during the revised comment window. For Bitcoin-focused payments firms, that matters directly: the availability of licensing pathways and the scope of compliance requirements can influence whether and how businesses expand within New York.
As the ETA continues to bring Bitcoin payments into its orbit through members like BitPay and as New York works through its BitLicense process, readers should watch two things: whether regulators adopt a more technical, systems-level approach to consumer safeguards, and whether established payments networks deepen partnerships with Bitcoin-related processors as demand from merchants and customers becomes more visible.
MicroStrategy CEO Phong Le says Wall Street’s largest banks are locked in a tight race for second place on the company’s Bitcoin Banking Adoption Index.
Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, and Citi each score within three points of one another. Fidelity, however, still holds a commanding lead.
Fidelity’s Lead Sets the Bitcoin Banking Adoption Index Bar
The Bitcoin Banking Adoption Index grades 25 major banks on Bitcoin (BTC) trading, custody, and product depth.
Strategy, formerly known as MicroStrategy, published the initial 32% score, drawing on public data through July 10.
Fidelity topped the list at 71%, built on Fidelity Digital Assets, the custody arm it launched back in 2018.
BNY follows at 46%, while Goldman Sachs Group Inc. trails narrowly at 45%. Historically, few banks matched Fidelity’s early crypto custody bet.
Bitcoin traded near $64,539 on Sunday, up about 1% over 24 hours. The index, therefore, measures structural adoption rather than short-term price swings.
Goldman, JPMorgan, and Citi Battle for Second
JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup each land at 43%, separated from Goldman by just two points. Record bank earnings this quarter show JPMorgan and Goldman trading desks already profiting from crypto-adjacent activity.
Several rivals are also chasing tokenization efforts underway across the sector, where more than 15 banks now compete to move assets on-chain.
That shift, in contrast, sidesteps Bitcoin entirely and could reshape future index gains.
Vanguard illustrates the gap further. The asset manager only recently began planning its own crypto strategy, years after Fidelity built out its custody business. Meanwhile, smaller regional lenders have barely started.
Major-bank Bitcoin adoption is accelerating, but still early: 32% overall as measured by the index.
Michael Saylor, MircroStrategy’s executive chairman, posted that assessment on X alongside the index’s July 13 debut.
New Launches Could Reshuffle the Bitcoin Banking Adoption Index
Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, and Citi are each developing several crypto initiatives slated for release within the current year. That could include new exchange-traded products, custody expansions, or tokenization tools already in development.
Le expects these launches to bring significantly more clarity to the sector by year-end.
MicroStrategy, holder of the largest corporate Bitcoin treasury, has a stake in that outcome. Saylor’s own case for corporate Bitcoin adoption echoes the same expectation of accelerating bank participation.
Whether Goldman or JPMorgan ultimately claims outright second place may depend on which products actually ship before December arrives.
The post MicroStrategy CEO: Wall Street’s Biggest Banks are Locked in a Tight Bitcoin Race appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Khing Oei, a former Goldman Sachs credit investor, says the market has Strategy’s STRC preferred stock priced wrong. His math says it is worth about $96. It trades near $85.
Oei spent 25 years valuing risky debt at Goldman Sachs and hedge funds. He shared his STRC model in a recent lengthy discussion.
Why the 14% Yield on MicroStrategy’s STRC Misleads
STRC pays a 12% dividend. Divide that by today’s discounted price and you get a yield above 14%. That number is everywhere. Oei says it is wrong.
Here is the problem. That math assumes STRC pays out forever, no matter what. STRC promises no such thing. It never matures and never has to repay its $100 face value, known as par. It pays only while MicroStrategy can afford it.
The shares crashed 25% below par during June’s Bitcoin selloff. That is what made the yield look so juicy.
“That experience leaves you with a simple instinct: never value a stream by dividing this year’s coupon by today’s price,” Oei wrote in his analysis.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
So he values STRC like a bond. Count the cash it will actually pay out, and nothing more. Strategy’s dashboard showed 843,775 Bitcoin (BTC) worth $54 billion, plus $3 billion in cash. Debt and senior preferred shares claim $8 billion of that first. STRC’s $10.5 billion comes next.
29 Years of Dividends Even if Bitcoin Never Rises
Strip out the senior claims and $50.2 billion backs the preferred shares. The dividend bill runs $1.73 billion a year.
That produces two striking numbers. Bitcoin only needs to grow 3.4% a year and the dividends never stop. If Bitcoin stays flat forever, the money still lasts 29 years.
Value those 29 years of payments at a 12% discount rate and STRC is worth $96.30. BeInCrypto checked the math. It holds.
The market pays $85.29. That price only buys 17 years of dividends. Oei thinks that is too gloomy, since STRF, the safer Strategy share above STRC, yields just 10.4%.
That gap between $85 and $96 is the 13% mispricing. It carries a sharp implication. If Oei is right, buyers collect the 14% yield while the price climbs toward fair value. If the market is right, the discount is a warning that the dividend may one day stop.
Some buyers seem to agree with Oei. A BitcoinTreasuries survey found over half of holders bought the dip below par.
The Road Back to $100
Bitcoin’s price does most of the work. Oei’s table puts STRC back at $100 if Bitcoin reaches $80,000. At $40,000, it drops to $58.
MicroStrategy holds levers too. STRC listed in July 2025 at $90 with a 9% dividend. The board has raised the rate again and again, now 12%, to pull the price toward par.
Cash helps as well. Each $1 billion raised and held in reserve adds about four points, Oei estimates. A buyback adds five, since Strategy would pay $85 for something he values at $96.
The mispricing itself becomes the company’s cheapest tool. The growing cash pile fits what one research desk called a Bitcoin winter pivot.
One caveat applies. Oei runs Treasury, a European Bitcoin treasury firm, so he benefits when these shares are taken seriously. Skeptics also remain. Economist Peter Schiff just predicted a crash toward $20,000, and others ask who ultimately pays if Strategy’s $64 billion bet unwinds.
The question is now a simple one. Does a company with $57 billion in assets deserve this much doubt over a $1.73 billion dividend bill? Bitcoin’s next move will go a long way toward answering it.
The post Ex-Goldman Credit Veteran Says Markets May Be Mispricing MicroStrategy’s STRC by 13% appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong says Bitcoin did not live up to Satoshi Nakamoto’s vision of everyday digital money. It became digital gold instead. Stablecoins took over the payments job, he argues.
Bitcoin (BTC) sits near $64,523, down about 45% from its October 2025 peak of $126,080. Stablecoins are moving the other way, with supply near record highs.
Armstrong Rethinks Bitcoin’s Original Role
Armstrong made the call in an interview with Zerodha co-founder Nikhil Kamath on the People by WTF podcast. Kamath is a self-declared crypto skeptic. He asked the Coinbase boss a simple question. Does Bitcoin still do what it was built for?
“You’re right, I think it’s fair to say at this point that Bitcoin has succeeded as a store of value, and I don’t think it has become a medium of exchange,” Armstrong responded.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Why Bitcoin Drifted From Satoshi’s Vision
Nakamoto’s 2008 whitepaper promised cash that moves online without banks. Bitcoin’s first block even carried a 2009 headline about UK bank bailouts. That was the mission.
Seventeen years on, Armstrong says the payments dream never landed. Fixes came and went.
“There’s people who have tried to make that happen with the Lightning Network, was an optimisation layer on top of Bitcoin, but it never really took off.”
The bigger problem sits in Bitcoin’s own design. Supply is capped, so holders hoard it like gold.
Armstrong said “people think it’s going to be worth more in the future, so they don’t really want to spend it right now.” Volatility makes it worse, he added.
Stablecoins Take Over the Payments Role
Stablecoins filled the gap. These dollar-backed tokens now do the boring job of money, even as banks defend their old rails.
“So we’ve actually seen massive growth of stablecoins running on blockchains. Fiat-backed stablecoins as the medium of exchange and Bitcoin has remained the store value as digital gold.”
The numbers agree. DefiLlama data shows stablecoin supply near $310 billion. Tether’s USDT holds $184 billion, and Circle’s USDC adds $73 billion.
Armstrong also credits the GENIUS Act, signed in July 2025, for making the tokens legal and trusted in the US. Much of that activity now runs on Base and Solana.
Still, Armstrong sees no failure here. In his view, Bitcoin simply found a different job.
“I think the Bitcoin chain is okay with that. They’re not intending it to be used for high volume payments. They’re digital gold.”
The post Brian Armstrong Admits Bitcoin Didn’t Deliver Satoshi’s Vision, Something Else Did appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Quantum hackers could one day crack old Bitcoin (BTC) wallets and forge their signatures. A new proof from quantum security startup Project Eleven gives real owners a way to take their coins back, using nothing but a seed phrase.
Not everyone can use it, though. Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) said in June the community could freeze Satoshi Nakamoto’s coins after a quantum breakthrough. Critics called it confiscation.
Why a Bitcoin Quantum Freeze Just Got Less Scary
The freeze idea is already on paper. BIP-361, a proposal co-authored by Casa co-founder Jameson Lopp, would switch off Bitcoin’s old signature system over several years. Coins that never move would freeze forever.
Pressure grew after Washington’s quantum push put the threat on the map. Still, one objection kept coming back. A freeze takes coins away with no path back.
Project Eleven’s recent announcement attacks that weak spot. Its proof works like a receipt. It shows you own the master key behind an address without ever revealing it.
Here is the trick. A quantum computer may crack the private key of an exposed address. However, it cannot climb up to the master key, because the math there only runs one way.
Only the true owner holds that master key. So only the true owner can produce the proof, even after signatures break.
Speed makes it practical. Academics Or Sattath and Shai Wyborski floated the concept in 2023, calling it signature lifting. Lightning Labs CTO Olaoluwa Osuntokun built the first prototype. The new version runs 16 times faster, at 243 milliseconds on a laptop.
“Quantum computers can extract a private key from a public key. They cannot reverse the hashing that produced it. A wallet’s own key derivation may still provide a final, post-quantum proof of ownership,” Project Eleven stated.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Why the Tool Cannot Save Satoshi’s Coins
The catch sits in the calendar. The proof needs BIP-32, the seed phrase system modern wallets adopted from 2012. Older wallets created every key on its own, with no master key at all.
Satoshi mined in 2009 and 2010 and left before seed phrases existed. Researcher Sergio Demian Lerner’s 2013 analysis ties roughly 1.1 million BTC to Satoshi across some 22,000 addresses.
Worse, those coins expose their public keys on-chain. That makes them the easiest quantum targets and the hardest coins to rescue.
Therefore, CZ’s idea of freezing Satoshi’s coins would still lock them away for good. BIP-361 would do the same by design.
The tool has limits too. It is unaudited, covers three older address types, and no blockchain accepts it yet.
Meanwhile, the clock ticks. Google’s quantum research cut the hardware needed for such attacks by 20 times this year. US agencies also face post-quantum cryptography deadlines by 2031.
One question now hangs over Bitcoin governance. If a freeze ever comes, the fight will not be over whether coins get frozen. It will be over which coins ever come back.
The post Bitcoin Has a New Defense Against Quantum Hackers, But It Can’t Save Everyone appeared first on BeInCrypto.
After a violent eight-week streak with nothing but substantial withdrawals, the spot Bitcoin ETFs changed their course in the middle of July and now extended their recovery period with another green performance.
However, the funds tracking the largest altcoin managed to beat the market leader in terms of weekly net inflows.
BTC ETF Green Wave Endures
Perhaps due to the rising tension in the Middle East over the previous weekend, Monday began with a massive $424.66 million net outflow from the spot BTC ETFs. This was the single-largest withdrawal since June 26. Thus, the good news from the previous week started to look like a fluke that cannot be repeated.
However, investors’ behavior changed in the following four days, and fresh capital started to flow in. Data from SoSoValue shows that $181 million entered the funds on Tuesday, another $107.8 million on Wednesday, $79.15 million on Thursday, and $132.30 million on Friday. As such, the weekend ended in the green, with net inflows of $75.67 million.
Nevertheless, these numbers are nowhere near the mass exodus experienced from the middle of May and the beginning of July. In five out of these eight weeks, investors pulled out $1 billion or more, with the week that ended on June 26 registering the second-highest net outflows of $1.79 billion. Overall, the funds lost more than $8 billion in approximately two months.
The cumulative total net inflows dumped from $59.34 billion to $51.08 billion before they recovered some ground to $51.35 billion as of July 17.
ETH Funds Do Even Better
While the financial vehicles tracking BTC attracted just over $75 million last week, those following the largest altcoin did even better. The spot Ethereum ETFs gained $105.44 million, building on the previous week’s $84.42 million.
Monday was also in the red, but in a more modest manner. Investors took out $15.41 million. Thursday saw $28.04 million in net outflows, but the $58.34 million on Tuesday, $53.83 million on Wednesday, and $36.73 million on Friday offset all the losses.
Similar to the BTC ETFs, the Ethereum counterparts were on an eight-week red streak, in which they lost well over $1.1 billion in cumulative total net inflows, going from $12.09 billion to $10.89 billion. However, the figure has risen to $11.08 billion after the two consecutive weeks in the green in mid-July.
The post 2 in a Row: Bitcoin ETFs Mark Another Green Week, but Ethereum Wins appeared first on CryptoPotato.
A year on, the rules aren’t quite ready for implementation, but we have a much clearer idea as to how the regulators are thinking about stablecoins and where they’re likely to land on those rules.
In an emailed statement, Crypto Council for Innovation CEO Ji Hun Kim called the passage of the bill “a landmark moment.”
“A year in, agencies, institutions, and innovators are building on a clearer foundation, and stablecoins are moving rapidly toward mainstream adoption,” he said.
The various regulators have proposed rules out for comment on the different aspects of stablecoin governance and regulation, including a proposal that would require stablecoin issuers to conduct similar know-your-customer checks to more traditional financial firms. The FDIC published 144 questions a few months ago about how it would oversee stablecoin issuers, looking at concerns like custody, capital and liquidity standards. The OCC, for its part, put out its own proposal in February laying out how it was interpreting the law.
There’s still a few months left before these rules start being finalized. And in the meantime, the industry is still working on getting the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act passed.
The text of the combined Clarity Act drafts is not yet public, at least as of Friday night. While industry sources expected the bill to be released last week, the timeline has constantly evolved. On Thursday, Senators Cynthia Lummis and Bernie Moreno were supposed to brief Trump on the bill. There was no public readout of that meeting available after, but both lawmakers tweeted about Trump’s remarks on the election later Thursday.
Bitcoin’s internal debate over network “spam” and the place of Ordinals has flared again, with MicroStrategy executive chairman Michael Saylor publicly arguing against a proposed protocol change known as BIP-110. In a long post on X published Sunday, Saylor laid out a broad case against activating the temporary fork, warning that the remedy could undermine the principles he associates with Bitcoin’s neutrality and permissionless innovation.
The proposal, first introduced in December 2025, aims to reduce non-monetary transaction behavior—particularly data associated with Ordinals inscriptions—by changing how certain data is handled by validating nodes. While proponents frame it as protection for Bitcoin’s function as peer-to-peer cash, Saylor said he shares those objectives but disagrees with the approach.
Key takeaways
- Michael Saylor opposes BIP-110 despite acknowledging concerns about Ordinals-style network bloat.
- BIP-110 would require broad node support to activate, with the last measured cycle showing only around 1% of blocks signaling approval.
- Ordinals activity has fallen sharply from its 2023 peak, with recent daily inscriptions reported as under 10,000.
- The dispute echoes earlier Bitcoin governance clashes, including the Blocksize Wars era.
- Major figures remain split: supporters argue it avoids long-term disruption, while critics call it social enforcement rather than neutral protocol design.
Saylor’s critique of BIP-110’s “temporary fork”
Saylor described BIP-110 as a bad idea in an extended post on X, presenting a framework centered on “neutral rules, hard consensus, open markets, and permissionless innovation.” He also emphasized that his critique is directed at the proposal itself, not the people who support it.
According to Saylor, some Bitcoiners he respects back BIP-110 to keep validation affordable for node operators, maintain access to the validation process, preserve low-cost payments, and prevent Bitcoin from drifting into a general-purpose data storage system. He said those are serious concerns—but that the planned remedy is not the right one.
“This article critiques the proposal, not the people behind it. I assume good faith. Bitcoin is strongest when we can disagree vigorously without mistaking allies for enemies.”
As of 12 p.m. ET Sunday, the post had reportedly generated 879,000 views on X, along with 692 replies and 852 retweets.
Why activation is uncertain: node signaling remains low
Even if BIP-110 has passionate supporters, activation would not be automatic. The proposal is designed to proceed only if 55% of Bitcoin nodes validating blocks signal support across a Bitcoin “period.”
In the most recently referenced period, period number 475 (covering blocks 955,584 through 957,599), only about 1% of blocks were reportedly in support. That suggests the proposal currently lacks the consensus threshold needed to move forward.
For investors and traders following protocol governance, the key question is not whether arguments for and against BIP-110 are strong, but whether enough of the ecosystem will converge on a shared view quickly enough to clear the activation hurdle. Low signaling so far implies BIP-110 remains in a “discussion” phase rather than a near-term change likely to land.
Ordinals activity has cooled—so what’s the urgency now?
The conflict over Ordinals and other inscription-style behavior is unfolding at a time when on-chain activity appears to have materially cooled. The reporting cited that in the last month there have been fewer than 10,000 Ordinals inscribed per day, according to Dune Analytics.
That figure stands in stark contrast to the period of peak activity in August 2023, when the same metric reportedly exceeded 400,000 daily inscriptions. The current backdrop complicates the “immediate fix” argument advanced by BIP-110 supporters, because network pressure may not be at the same level as during the earlier surge.
Still, supporters contend that the trend could return—or that even without today’s worst-case bloat, maintaining Bitcoin’s long-term usability requires setting clearer boundaries now. Critics, meanwhile, argue that protocol-level “policing” risks turning Bitcoin’s decentralized norms into a contest of preferences.
The personalities and the governance parallels
BIP-110 is notable not only for its technical objectives, but also for the lineup behind it. The proposal was introduced by pseudonymous Bitcoin developer “Dathon Ohm” and reportedly has support from Ocean protocol founder Luke Dashjr. Opponents include Blockstream CEO Adam Back.
Earlier coverage cited that Dashjr and other supporters view Ordinals-driven bloat as a serious threat and argue BIP-110 would not trigger the chain split many fear. They also point to the fork’s design as temporary—described as a one-year limit—claiming it would not invalidate fee-paying transactions over the long term.
Critics reject those characterizations. Back has previously described BIP-110 as a “quest to police other people,” arguing that Bitcoin’s decentralization should prevent one group from imposing its preferences on others. In his framing, the proposal conflicts with what he portrays as Bitcoin’s cypherpunk ethos of permissionless, censorship-resistant money.
Observers have also drawn historical parallels to the Blocksize Wars of 2015–2017, when Bitcoin’s community debated whether raising the block size limit would be worth the risk of a chain split. Like that earlier period, the BIP-110 conflict is fundamentally about governance: who gets to decide what the network should optimize for, and through what mechanism.
What to watch next
The next decisive signal will be whether BIP-110’s support rises meaningfully toward the 55% threshold across future block periods. With Ordinals activity currently reported as far below earlier peaks, the debate may shift from “stop a present-day emergency” to “define Bitcoin’s long-term scope”—and readers should watch for how node signaling changes alongside that evolving narrative.
Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey publicly backed venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya’s call to fully embrace open source artificial intelligence (AI).
Dorsey replied “yes” to Palihapitiya’s post warning that US restrictions on open models would be economically ruinous.
Palihapitiya argued that closing off open source AI would force American firms to pay $26 to $56 per million tokens for intelligence that rivals abroad can buy for $0.50 to $1. He called that gap unsustainable.
The AI Pricing Gap Behind the Debate
Palihapitiya’s argument rests on a widening split between cost and capability. Open weight models have closed much of the performance gap with proprietary systems, yet the price difference remains enormous.
Chinese labs have driven that shift. Beijing-based Moonshot AI’s new model Kimi K3 topped coding benchmarks this month, rattling US chip stocks.
Other releases point to a broader narrowing capability gap between Chinese and American systems.
Palihapitiya frames this as untenable if AI truly underpins future economic activity, since American businesses would face a structural cost disadvantage against global competitors.
He posed the dilemma bluntly, saying intelligence cannot be the engine of the economy and a premium import at the same time.
A Military Argument, Not Just an Economic One
Palihapitiya extended his case to national defense. Paying dozens of dollars per million tokens to defend US systems, while adversaries attack for far less, carries the same imbalance, he said.
David Sacks echoed that view. He agreed with researcher Sebastian Mallaby that dangerous capability will soon spread freely regardless of policy.
Mallaby pointed to the same Mythos-level cyber capability concerns already flagged around Anthropic’s Claude Mythos model, arguing the world moves quickly from almost nobody holding that power to nearly everyone holding it.
Sacks had predicted Chinese models would reach advanced cyber capability within months. He noted that Washington itself staggered its GPT-5.6 release over similar security worries, yet gatekeeping still failed to slow foreign progress. His answer is AI-powered cyberdefense rather than restriction.
Washington’s AI Gatekeeping Dilemma
The exchange lands as US policymakers debate how tightly to control advanced models. Officials have floated plans to vet AI models before release, hoping to manage security risk without ceding ground to China.
Sacks argues that approach cannot work once comparable capability is downloadable worldwide.
Palihapitiya’s framing pushes the same conclusion from an economic angle. Both men land on restriction, not openness, as the greater risk to US competitiveness.
Dorsey’s one-word endorsement carries weight given Block’s own open source AI agent, Goose, which he has championed publicly for years.
Whether Washington heeds the warning, or keeps restricting access, will shape how American firms compete on cost this year.
Palihapitiya’s post had drawn hundreds of thousands of views within hours, a sign the debate resonates well beyond Silicon Valley.
The post Twitter Co-Founder Backs Open Source AI Warning: What’s at Stake? appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Daddy Tate (DADDY), the Solana meme coin built on Andrew Tate’s brand, fell 24% on Sunday. The trigger was the arrest of Andrew and Tristan Tate in Miami, where US Marshals detained them on a UK extradition request.
UK prosecutors also added 38 new charges against the brothers. That lifts their combined total to 59. Once again, the token moved in lockstep with its namesake’s legal troubles.
Tate Brothers Face 59 UK Charges After Miami Arrest
Bedfordshire Police, the UK force leading the case, said in a statement that officers detained the brothers on Saturday. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) approved the new counts after reviewing fresh evidence. The number of alleged victims rose from three to seven.
Andrew Tate, 39, now faces 42 charges. The new ones include seven rape counts, three trafficking counts, three assault counts, and 19 charges tied to indecent images of a child and extreme pornography. Tristan Tate, 38, faces 17 charges after six new counts, including two of rape.
The alleged offenses date from July 2010 to August 2017. Prosecutors want the brothers extradited on all 59 counts. Both deny every allegation.
They already face a separate trafficking trial in Romania dating back to a 2023 indictment. Markets have seen this movie before, as celebrity meme coins tend to swing hard on courtroom news.
DADDY Token Slides Toward Its February Low
BeInCrypto data shows DADDY near $0.0112, down 24% in a day and 22% on the week. Its market value slipped to about $6.7 million, according to DADDY price data.
The market is also thin. Only about $429,000 traded over the day, so even modest selling moves the price fast. DADDY now sits 96% below its June 2024 peak of $0.2886, and not far above its record low of $0.0045 set on February 6.
The pain started earlier this month. Andrew Tate sold his TATE airdrop for about $23,000 despite a public pledge to hold. Meanwhile, analysts have long warned about the risks of celebrity tokens, which run on hype alone.
The next move now hangs on the extradition hearings. For DADDY holders, the chart matters less than the courtroom.
The post DADDY Token Falls 24% On Tate Brothers’ Arrest and New UK Charges appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Bitcoin’s internal debate over how to curb network spam and non-monetary data has intensified after Michael Saylor published a detailed critique of Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110). In a long post on X.com dated Sunday, Saylor argued that a proposed temporary fork to restrict certain types of data on the Bitcoin network is the wrong solution—despite acknowledging that the underlying concerns raised by supporters are legitimate.
Introduced in December 2025, BIP-110 has become one of the more prominent protocol-level disputes in the Bitcoin development community since the Blocksize Wars of 2015–2017, when scalability questions sparked intense disagreement over whether changes should risk a chain split. Saylor’s intervention comes as Ordinals activity has cooled from its 2023 peak, raising questions about how urgent such a protocol change really is.
Key takeaways
- Saylor supports the goals behind BIP-110—such as protecting validation and affordable payments—but rejects the proposal’s mechanism as a remedy.
- BIP-110 would only move forward if 55% of validating nodes signal support during a Bitcoin “block period,” and recent support levels have been low.
- Ordinals inscriptions have fallen sharply from their August 2023 highs, potentially reducing the immediate pressure driving urgency for protocol-level fixes.
- The debate mirrors past governance tensions, including the Blocksize Wars, where disagreements over enforcement and network rules frequently threatened to split the ecosystem.
Saylor’s critique: shared goals, different fix
According to Saylor’s post on X.com, his argument is aimed at the proposal itself rather than people who support it. He said many Bitcoiners he respects back BIP-110 for reasons including keeping validation accessible, shielding node operators from unwanted costs, preserving low-cost payments, and preventing Bitcoin from drifting into general-purpose data storage.
Saylor emphasized that he agrees with those objectives but disagrees with the proposed remedy. In the same post, he framed his stance as a call to preserve “neutral rules, hard consensus, open markets, and permissionless innovation,” while stressing that vigorous disagreement should not turn into personal factionalism.
As of Sunday at 12 p.m. ET, Saylor’s post had accumulated 879,000 views, along with 692 replies and 852 retweets, highlighting how quickly the discussion has spread beyond core developer circles.
What BIP-110 would change—and why approval is difficult
Protocol changes like BIP-110 are not automatically activated; they depend on broad agreement among validators. BIP-110 cannot be enacted unless 55% of Bitcoin nodes validating blocks signal support for the proposal during a Bitcoin block “period.”
Based on the latest period referenced in reporting, period number 475—covering blocks 955,584 to 957,599—showed only about 1% of blocks in support. That figure suggests that, even if the proposal is technically live for discussion, it currently lacks the signaling momentum required for activation.
This approval threshold matters for investors and operators because it determines whether the change is likely to take effect in practice versus remaining a contested idea within the dev community. A proposal that fails to reach the required support level may still influence future policy debates, but it is less likely to produce immediate network-level consequences.
The spam-bloat dispute meets a cooling Ordinals market
The BIP-110 controversy is tied to concerns about “non-monetary transactions” and data patterns that proponents describe as spamming. BIP-110 was introduced to limit Ordinals-style inscriptions and other arbitrary data that supporters argue can overload the network and distract from Bitcoin’s primary function as peer-to-peer cash.
However, the political and technical urgency of such proposals is harder to gauge when on-chain activity is shifting. The dispute comes while Ordinals activity is reported to be near all-time lows. According to Dune Analytics data cited in the source material, fewer than 10,000 Ordinals are inscribed into the Bitcoin blockchain daily over the last month—down from more than 400,000 per day during its peak in August 2023.
Lower inscription volumes can change the risk calculus for both sides of the debate. Supporters of protocol limits may argue that even reduced activity can still set harmful precedents for how data is used on-chain. Opponents may counter that if demand and congestion pressure have already eased, a fork—especially one that introduces restrictions—becomes harder to justify without more consensus.
Backers, critics, and echoes of earlier Bitcoin governance fights
BIP-110 was introduced by pseudonymous developer “Dathon Ohm,” with backing that includes Ocean protocol founder Luke Dashjr, according to the source. On the opposition side, Blockstream CEO Adam Back is cited as a vocal critic of BIP-110.
Back has previously described the proposal as an attempt to police other people, arguing that Bitcoin’s decentralization should prevent any faction from imposing its preferred rules on the broader community. The objection is framed not only as technical but ideological—rooted in the cypherpunk principle of permissionless, censorship-resistant money.
Meanwhile, supporters of BIP-110 argue that Ordinals-driven bloat represents a serious threat that demands action. They also maintain that BIP-110 would not cause a chain split, a concern raised by those wary of temporary restrictions. Supporters further argue the fork is intended to be limited—described as a one-year constraint—so that it would not invalidate fee-paying transactions over the long run.
These arguments have led to parallels with the Blocksize Wars between 2015 and 2017, when disagreements over how to scale Bitcoin and whether to risk contentious changes sharpened into a broader debate about enforcement and legitimacy. In both cases, the underlying question is the same: how should the network evolve under pressure while preserving decentralized governance?
In this current cycle, the data points being used by each side are not symmetrical. Saylor is not denying that bloat concerns exist; he is questioning whether the governance approach—introducing temporary restrictions through a fork-like mechanism—is compatible with Bitcoin’s broader commitment to neutrality and hard consensus. At the same time, low recent Ordinals activity weakens one common justification for immediate intervention: that the network is actively under severe strain from inscriptions.
As the debate continues, readers should watch two things closely: whether BIP-110’s support signals rise toward the 55% activation threshold in subsequent block periods, and whether Ordinals activity meaningfully returns or stays subdued. Those developments will likely determine whether the proposal remains a theoretical flashpoint—or becomes a real test of how Bitcoin manages conflict over data usage and network rules.
Orioles complete sweep of Astros for 7th straight win
California’s ‘Truth in Recycling’ Law Blocked by Judge
Wayne Rooney savages ‘c***’ World Cup final halftime show and says ‘the best part was when it ended’
-
NewsBeat3 days agoLondon Mayor Sadiq Khan handed a peerage by Keir Starmer alongside 15 other Labour figures… just days before the PM leaves No10
-
Fashion2 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Politics1 day agoThe House | The City of London can help the new chancellor deliver growth in every postcode
-
Politics4 days agoYoung campaigners urge incoming PM to act on outdoor junk food ads
-
Crypto World4 days agoCFTC blocks Kalshi from unwinding Michigan trades after court order
-
Business4 days agoNvidia Stock Slips After Big Tuesday Rally as Huang Confirms Vera Rubin Chip Is Now in Production Today
-
Crypto World2 days agoTwo July Windows Left: The CLARITY Act’s Senate Fight and What Failure Means
-
Crypto World1 day agoRipple Payments Joins MiCA With 14 Firms, Does It Mean Anything For XRP?
-
Politics8 hours agoDemocrats look to World Cup watch parties to register thousands of voters
-
Entertainment4 days agoDisney’s Most Ambitious Failed Star Wars Attraction Is Coming to SDCC
-
Crypto World2 days agoRipple wins EU-wide access as ESMA adds it to MiCA register
-
Business4 days agoPalantir Shares Rise After Expanded Nvidia Partnership and Fresh Analyst Upgrades Ahead of Earnings Day
-
Crypto World3 days agoInjective Submits SEC Transfer-Agent Registration to Onchain Ownership Records
-
Tech6 days agoGet Your ESP32 Sunny Side Up With This Solar Dev Board
-
News Videos5 days agoXRP BOMBSHELL… XRP OMBOARDED FOR TRANSACTIONS!!!
-
NewsBeat2 days agoRegistration is now open for March for Men with Kev 2026
-
Tech5 days agoDark Secrets Emerge When Jailbreaking LLMs
-
Sports4 days agoNew Cornerback Enters Vikings Trade Rumor Mill
-
News Videos3 days agoMoney | Class 12 Economics | CBSE Board Exam 2026-27
-
Business3 days agoBanco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) Discusses Global Macro Environment and Economic Outlook for Core Markets Transcript
You must be logged in to post a comment Login