Crypto World
Ethereum And Solana Lead H1 2026 Crypto Hack Losses
Crypto losses topped $1 billion in the first half of 2026 as the industry recorded its highest number of hacks in a six-month period, according to onchain security platform Blockaid.
Ethereum and Solana recorded the largest losses from incidents affecting their networks, with roughly $332 million and $326 million in stolen funds, respectively, Blockaid said in its H1 2026 security report published Tuesday.
Blockaid tracked 212 security incidents during the period, with the largest single exploit coming from KelpDAO at $292 million, while the platform verified 3.4 times as many high-threshold exploits in H1 2026 as across all of 2025.
Code exploits drove Ethereum incidents, while breaches of keys and signing infrastructure accounted for most Solana losses, according to the report.
Ethereum losses reflected the risks of high-value protocols
Ethereum incurred the highest losses from incidents in H1 2026, with attackers primarily targeting vulnerabilities in applications built on the network.
Blockaid said code exploits dominated Ethereum incidents by count, with major losses also linked to key compromises involving Humanity Protocol and StablR. CoWSwap, an Ethereum-based decentralized exchange, was the only major Ethereum incident in the report classified as a user mistake.
Blockchain losses by network in the first half of 2026. Source: Blockaid.
Blockaid identified several common attack methods targeting Ethereum, including bugs in bridges and smart contracts, unauthorized access to privileged accounts and market manipulation techniques.
The report said Ethereum remains a major target because it hosts many of the crypto industry’s most valuable applications, including restaking platforms, stablecoins and decentralized exchanges.
Solana losses surged as attackers shifted focus
Solana incurred nearly as much in losses as Ethereum during the first half of 2026, a sharp increase from the roughly $127 million in stolen funds the network recorded during 2025.
“2025 had $2.58 billion lost across 63 incidents, concentrated in Q1 by Bybit’s $1.5 billion, with Ethereum and Arbitrum the top chains by stolen-fund flow,” Blockaid CEO Ido Ben-Natan told Cointelegraph.
Blockchain losses by network in 2025. Source: Blockaid.
The change did not stem from a rise in smart contract exploits. Instead, compromised keys accounted for more than 98% of Solana’s losses, driven largely by incidents involving Drift Protocol and Step Finance, which Blockaid linked to North Korea-linked cyber groups.
Unlike Ethereum, where attackers primarily exploited vulnerabilities in protocol code, Solana incidents targeted signer infrastructure and organizational security, while a handful of code exploits involving Raydium and Volo accounted for the remaining losses.
Magazine: A quantum roadmap would push Bitcoin much higher: Charles Edwards
Russia’s central bank has proposed detailed rules for cryptocurrency exchanges, digital asset depositories and market registration ahead of the country’s regulated crypto market launch in September.
Summary
- Russia’s central bank has proposed operating rules for cryptocurrency exchanges, depositories and digital currency accounts ahead of the Sept. 1 rollout.
- The draft regulations set capital requirements for digital depositories and give exchanges flexibility to establish their own trading procedures.
- The Bank of Russia will maintain official registers for licensed crypto market participants under the new legal framework.
- Retail investors will continue to face limits on cryptocurrency purchases while approved digital assets can be used for certain cross border transactions.
- The proposals have been released for public review before the regulations are finalized.
According to the Bank of Russia, the draft regulations establish the operating framework for cryptocurrency exchanges, digital depositories and digital currency account providers that will function under the country’s new digital currency law, which is scheduled to take effect on Sept. 1.
The proposals, published for regulatory impact assessment, complement the recently adopted federal law “On Digital Currency and Digital Rights,” which passed the State Duma earlier this month and is awaiting approval from the Federation Council before being signed into law by President Vladimir Putin.
The legislation forms the legal foundation for Russia’s regulated cryptocurrency market and places the central bank at the center of oversight.
Bank of Russia sets operating standards for crypto platforms
In a statement announcing the draft regulations, the Bank of Russia said it has created the conditions for organized trading in digital currencies and digital rights. The package includes rules covering cryptocurrency exchanges, digital asset issuers, digital depositories and digital currency accounts.
Under the proposed framework, cryptocurrency exchanges will be allowed to establish their own trading procedures while independently calculating market prices and weighted average values for the digital assets listed on their platforms.
A separate instruction introduces requirements for digital depositories, a newly defined category of institutions responsible for maintaining records of cryptocurrency holdings and transactions.
According to the central bank, digital depositories will need minimum equity ranging from 50 million to 250 million rubles, or about $600,000 to $3 million, depending on the services they provide. Institutions working with open distributed ledger systems or offering post-trade settlement services will face different capital requirements.
The regulator also said the capital backing those businesses must remain liquid and consist of financial assets with high credit quality.
Alongside exchange and custody rules, the proposals establish procedures for opening and maintaining digital currency accounts that licensed market participants will use once the new regulatory framework becomes operational.
Crypto registration powers move to the central bank
One of the draft regulations formally authorizes the Bank of Russia to establish and maintain official registers for cryptocurrency market participants.
According to the regulator, the registration system will cover operators of platforms used to issue, store, and trade cryptocurrencies, as well as digital currency exchange organizations and digital depositories operating under the requirements of the federal law.
Russia’s lower house of parliament approved the digital currency legislation in its second and third readings on July 21 after lawmakers revised several provisions during the legislative process. Earlier committee revisions removed a proposal that would have required cryptocurrency holders to disclose wallet addresses. Instead, users will report balances and transaction volumes, while certain large transfers abroad or to third parties may still face delays of up to 48 hours under the new framework.
The legislation also classifies cryptocurrencies as property for legal purposes while continuing to prohibit their use for domestic payments, leaving the ruble as Russia’s official payment instrument inside the country.
Transition period extends into 2027
Although the main legal framework is expected to begin taking effect on Sept. 1, some technical provisions contained in the central bank’s regulations will only become effective during the second half of 2027.
The law also provides a transition period allowing exchanges, brokers, management companies, clearing organizations and other financial institutions to complete registration, secure approvals and bring their internal systems into compliance before full implementation.
Several Russian financial institutions have already started preparing products for the regulated market. Earlier this month, Sberbank said it plans to launch cryptocurrency wallet and custody services after the framework becomes effective. VTB, T-Bank and Alfa-Bank have also announced work on digital asset custody infrastructure, while Moscow Exchange has expressed interest in launching regulated cryptocurrency services.
Russia’s Finance Ministry has previously estimated that domestic cryptocurrency trading reaches roughly 50 billion rubles, or about $640 million, each day, with much of the activity occurring outside regulated financial channels. The new framework is intended to bring trading, custody and related services under licensed supervision.
Investor access remains limited under the new framework
Retail participation will continue to face restrictions under the digital currency law.
Non-qualified investors will only be permitted to purchase the most liquid and highly capitalized cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Ethereum and Tether’s USDT, through regulated intermediaries.
Earlier versions of the legislation set an annual purchase limit of 300,000 rubles for non-qualified investors, while the latest regulatory framework limits annual purchases to about $4,000 for eligible retail participants.
Qualified investors will be permitted to access a wider range of products under separate rules.
While cryptocurrencies remain prohibited for ordinary domestic payments, the legislation allows approved digital assets to be used in certain cross-border transactions.
Russian authorities have already tested cryptocurrency settlements for international trade under an experimental legal regime, and lawmakers previously said the regulated framework is designed to give companies conducting foreign business a legal route to use digital assets within approved conditions.
The Bank of Russia said all draft regulations have been published for public review as part of the regulatory impact assessment process before they are finalized.
The Senate shelved crypto’s market-structure bill for Russia sanctions and a nominations package. September lands weeks from a midterm election.
Summary
- The Senate set the CLARITY Act aside this week to process a nominations package and a Russia sanctions bill, with Majority Leader John Thune declining to schedule floor action before the recess that begins August 8.
- Prediction markets repriced immediately, with passage odds falling to roughly 34%, down from above 80% in February, and Galaxy’s head of research describing the calendar as no longer an obstacle but the enemy.
- September offers about three weeks of floor time before members leave to campaign, and any Senate-passed version must return to a House that has been running on Republican infighting.
- That leaves one surviving 2026 route: attaching the bill to must-pass year-end legislation, a possibility trade press reports lobbyists have floated and no senator has confirmed on the record.
- The mechanics of that route are specific and largely unexamined: which vehicles exist, what riding one does to a text still missing a bipartisan ethics deal, and why the strategy has a mixed record for contested financial legislation.
That leaves one path nobody has examined: attaching CLARITY to must-pass legislation in December. Here is what that route actually requires, what it would cost the text, and why lobbyists float it while no senator will confirm it.
Bills do not usually die. They get postponed until postponement becomes death, and the distinction is only visible afterward. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act reached that ambiguous condition this week. The Senate did not vote it down, did not file cloture, and did not schedule floor time. It processed a package of federal nominations, turned to a Russia sanctions bill dedicated to a recently deceased senator, and left crypto’s central policy effort sitting on the Legislative Calendar where it has sat since June. The chamber’s procedures generally permit one contested bill at a time, and the queue will not clear before members leave on August 8. Prediction markets did the arithmetic within hours, marking passage down to roughly a third. What remains is a September window of about three weeks, wedged against a midterm campaign, followed by the only route anyone has left to suggest: bolt the bill onto something Congress cannot afford to fail. That route gets mentioned constantly in trade press and examined almost nowhere. This piece examines it.
What just happened, precisely
The sequence matters because it explains the nature of the delay, and the nature of the delay determines whether the year-end route is realistic or a face-saving story.
The Senate returned from its July 4 recess with roughly three usable weeks. The Majority Leader initiated cloture proceedings on a bundle of federal nominations, then moved toward a Russia sanctions package imposing measures on Russian officials and tariffs on trading partners. Memorial services for a senator who died this month occupied floor time across two days. Against that, the market-structure bill required two full cloture sequences under Senate Rule XXII, each capable of consuming most of a legislative week. That is the procedure that ran out of time.
Thune’s own framing has been consistent and unencouraging. Days before the shelving he told reporters he did not expect the bill to reach a floor vote before recess, adding that he would like to at least get it started and see where the votes are. The White House crypto adviser pushed back publicly, arguing the first week of August remains open and that he was perplexed by the leader’s pessimism, which is the sort of exchange that happens when an administration and a chamber disagree about whether a thing is dead.
Underneath the scheduling sits the substantive problem that scheduling was masking. Senate Republicans released updated text on July 22 containing the ethics provision negotiated with the White House, and Democrats rejected it within hours. Seven Democrats who had been negotiating issued a joint statement calling the text insufficient. One of the only two Democrats who voted the bill out of committee called the current version not a serious effort. Without roughly seven Democratic votes, cloture fails, and the bill was never ready for the floor time it did not get.
So the delay is procedural in form and substantive in cause, which is the worst combination for the year-end theory, because a vehicle solves a calendar problem and not a votes problem.
What the year-end route actually means
The strategy is old, unglamorous, and reasonably well understood by anyone who has watched Congress handle contested financial legislation.
Every December, Congress faces legislation it cannot allow to fail: appropriations to keep the government funded, the annual defense authorization, and periodically a debt-limit measure or a tax extenders package. Those bills attract riders, because a provision that cannot pass on its own merits can sometimes pass as a passenger on something that must move. The mechanism is a straightforward exploitation of leverage: opposing the rider means opposing the vehicle, and opposing the vehicle carries costs most members will not pay.
The crypto industry’s version would attach the market-structure framework, or some negotiated subset of it, to whatever December vehicle is moving. Trade press has reported lobbyists floating exactly this, and the reporting is consistent on one point: no senator has confirmed it. That absence is itself information. Riders of this size are typically pre-negotiated between leadership offices well in advance, and a strategy that lives entirely in lobbyist conversations is a hope, not a plan.
Two features of the approach deserve emphasis because they cut in opposite directions. It genuinely does solve the floor-time problem, which is the constraint that killed the summer window; a rider consumes no separate cloture sequence. And it does nothing whatsoever about the votes problem, because members who object to the ethics provision object to it inside a vehicle just as they do outside one, and objections inside a must-pass bill become leverage instead of obstacles. A senator willing to let market-structure legislation die is a senator willing to demand its removal as the price of a defense authorization.
What riding a vehicle would cost the text
Legislation that travels as a rider arrives smaller and stranger than legislation that passes on its own, and the specific costs here are predictable.
Scope shrinks. Vehicles carry passengers, not cargo. A three-hundred-page market-structure framework with new registration regimes, a certification process, jurisdictional allocation, and a developer shield is not a rider; it is a second bill. What rides is a subset, and the subset is chosen by whoever controls the vehicle. The likeliest survivors are the provisions with the least opposition, which in this case means the classification and grandfather language, and the likeliest casualties are the contested ones, which means the ethics provision the entire summer was spent negotiating.
Leverage inverts. In a standalone bill, the industry needs Democrats to reach sixty. In a must-pass vehicle, opponents need only threaten the vehicle to extract removal, and leadership generally protects the vehicle. That is why controversial riders more often die at the last moment than pass quietly.
Scrutiny falls, and so does durability. Provisions enacted as riders receive less committee attention, less floor debate, and less of the legislative record that courts and agencies later use to interpret them. For a statute whose entire purpose is supplying definitions that agencies will spend years operationalizing, a thin record is a real defect rather than a procedural footnote. Our guide to what passage would and would not change covers how much of this bill’s effect depends on rulemaking, and rulemakings built on ambiguous statutory language take longer and litigate worse.
And the House problem persists regardless. Anything the Senate passes, in any form, must clear a House that passed the original 294 to 134 but has since been consumed by internal Republican conflict. A rider negotiated in the Senate returns to that chamber as part of a package, which helps, but the package still has to move.
The precedents, honestly read
The strategy has a record, and it is genuinely mixed and not uniformly discouraging.
Financial legislation has ridden year-end vehicles successfully before, particularly where the provisions were technical, broadly supported, and pre-cleared by both parties’ leadership. Provisions on securities technicalities, tax treatment, and regulatory adjustments have moved this way for decades precisely because nobody wanted a floor fight over them.
The failures share a profile too, and it is closer to this bill’s. Contested provisions with organized opposition, high public salience, and a partisan valence tend to get stripped in conference or dropped when the vehicle’s managers decide the fight is not worth the delay. Market-structure legislation currently has all three: an ethics dispute that reaches the president’s family business, a New York attorney general publicly arguing it would gut state authority to prosecute crypto fraud, and a bill whose passage odds trade publicly on prediction markets.
The honest read is that CLARITY’s least contested pieces could plausibly ride, and the piece the whole negotiation has been about probably could not. Which raises the question the industry has not answered publicly: whether a classification framework without the ethics provision is worth passing, given that the ethics provision exists to buy the Democratic votes that a standalone bill needs. As a rider, those votes matter less, which is the strategy’s real attraction and the reason its critics will name it plainly.
What happens if nothing moves
Set the vehicle aside and the base case deserves its own accounting, because it is not the status quo.
The industry’s American legal position would rest, into 2027, on the joint SEC-CFTC interpretive release naming sixteen digital assets and placing staking, mining, and airdrops outside securities law. That document is agency policy. A future commission can withdraw it by vote, commissioners serve at presidential pleasure under current removal jurisprudence, and the entire arrangement was constructed by two chairmen whose alignment no statute requires. That is the framework in the meantime.
Beneath it sits the stablecoin statute, which is real law and is not market structure, and whose own implementing agencies missed their one-year rulemaking deadline this month. That is the fallback: one enacted statute covering one product category, plus an interpretive document covering everything else, plus agency initiatives that a change of administration could unwind. It is also the fallback regime, examined.
Meanwhile the comparison the industry has made all year becomes testable. Europe’s MiCA regime reached full enforcement across all twenty-seven member states on July 1, with hundreds of authorized service providers operating under a single framework. The competitiveness argument was always that the United States would cede ground by failing to legislate. In 2026 it did not legislate.
The industry’s own position
One party to this has been unusually quiet about the year-end route, and its silence is worth reading.
The crypto sector spent this cycle building the most expensive political operation of any industry in America, a subject this publication examined in detail: a super PAC network entering the midterms with roughly $193 million, contributions from the largest firms measured in tens of millions each, and a share of total corporate election spending exceeding a third. That machine was built to produce exactly this legislation. It has not produced it. That is the money behind the push.
The strategic problem the year-end route creates for that operation is specific. A rider passes without a public roll call attributable to individual senators, which is precisely what makes it attractive procedurally and precisely what makes it useless as leverage. An industry whose theory of influence rests on the threat of a funded primary challenge needs recorded votes to run against. A provision that appears in a conference report has no votes attached to it.
That tension explains something otherwise puzzling about the current moment: the industry’s public posture remains focused on a standalone Senate vote even as the calendar closes, and its lobbyists reportedly float the vehicle route in private. Both behaviours are rational. The public campaign preserves accountability and therefore leverage into November. The private conversation preserves an outcome if the campaign fails.
Watch which one dominates after the recess. If the sector’s public messaging shifts toward year-end attachment, it will have concluded that passage matters more than accountability, and the November spending will be aimed at 2027 rather than at this bill. If it holds the line on a standalone vote, the calculation is the reverse, and the industry will have decided that a bill passed invisibly is worth less than a fight that identifies its opponents.
What to watch
Whether preliminary action happens in the first week of August. Thune left the door open to getting the bill started, and the White House adviser is pressing for it. Beginning the floor process before recess would carry procedural progress into September rather than restarting from nothing.
Any senator confirming the year-end strategy. The single most informative development available. Lobbyist chatter is not a plan; a leadership office confirming a vehicle is. Watch appropriations and defense authorization negotiations for the first crypto-adjacent language.
Whether the ethics provision moves. Every route, standalone or rider, runs through the same dispute over whether the Justice Department should be the sole enforcer. A hybrid enforcement mechanism remains the visible landing zone, and its appearance would signal the negotiation is alive.
The September calendar. About three weeks of floor time against appropriations deadlines and campaign travel. If market-structure legislation does not get scheduled in that window, the year-end vehicle stops being one option and becomes the only one.
The opponents got louder
One development in the past week has been read as noise and is closer to a structural problem for every route described above.
New York’s attorney general came out publicly against the bill, arguing it would undermine the capacity of state and municipal authorities to prosecute cryptocurrency fraud. That intervention is different in kind from the ethics dispute. The ethics fight is about the president and is therefore partisan, which means it can be settled by a negotiated provision. A state law enforcement objection about preemption of fraud authority is institutional, it travels across party lines, and it aligns with a broader concern several Democratic senators have already raised in demanding that state prosecutors be able to enforce the ethics provision instead of leaving enforcement solely with the Justice Department.
That objection is also the hardest to satisfy inside a year-end vehicle. Ethics language can be renegotiated in a conference room. Federal preemption of state enforcement authority is a structural feature of the bill’s design, running through the jurisdictional allocation that the whole framework rests on, and it cannot be trimmed without unpicking the thing the industry wants most.
The bill’s sponsors have been countering with a different frame, pitching CLARITY as a national security instrument. The lead sponsor has argued it would close financial loopholes exploited by North Korea’s Lazarus Group, citing Treasury estimates of at least $3.4 billion stolen since 2007, and pointing to new sanctions authority and a safe harbour permitting exchanges to freeze suspicious assets. That repositioning is worth noting on its own: a bill sold for two years on regulatory certainty and American competitiveness is now being sold on sanctions enforcement, and that shift generally happens when the original argument has stopped moving votes.
Frequently asked questions
What happened to the CLARITY Act this week?
The Senate set it aside. Majority Leader Thune moved a package of federal nominations and then a Russia sanctions bill, and declined to schedule floor action on the market-structure bill before the recess beginning August 8. No cloture motion was filed and no vote occurred. Prediction market odds for 2026 passage fell to roughly 34%.
Why could the Senate not do both?
Procedure. The chamber generally handles one contested bill at a time, and Senate Rule XXII requires two full cloture sequences to advance legislation past a filibuster, each capable of consuming most of a legislative week. With nominations and sanctions ahead of it in the queue, and memorial services occupying two days, the calendar did not contain another contested bill.
What is the year-end vehicle strategy?
Attaching the legislation, or part of it, to a bill Congress cannot allow to fail, such as appropriations or the annual defense authorization. The mechanism uses leverage: opposing the rider means opposing the vehicle. Trade press reports that lobbyists have floated this route, and no senator has confirmed it on the record.
Would that actually work?
It solves the floor-time problem and not the votes problem. A rider needs no separate cloture sequence, which is what killed the summer window. But members objecting to the ethics provision can demand its removal as the price of supporting the vehicle, and leadership generally protects vehicles. Contested, high-salience provisions have a poor record of surviving as riders.
What would the bill lose as a rider?
Scope, most likely. A full market-structure framework is too large to ride, so a subset would travel, chosen by whoever manages the vehicle. The least contested provisions, principally classification and the grandfather clause, are the likeliest survivors; the ethics provision that consumed the entire negotiation is the likeliest casualty. Riders also generate a thinner legislative record, which matters for a statute agencies must interpret.
What is the fallback if nothing passes in 2026?
The joint SEC-CFTC interpretive release classifying sixteen digital assets, plus the stablecoin statute, plus agency initiatives. The interpretive document is agency policy that a future commission can withdraw by vote, with commissioners serving at presidential pleasure, which is precisely the impermanence the legislation was meant to fix.
Does September offer a real chance?
A narrow one. Congress returns for roughly three weeks before members leave to campaign for November midterms, competing with appropriations deadlines, and legislators historically avoid complex financial votes close to elections. Any Senate passage would also need House concurrence from a chamber consumed by internal Republican conflict.
What should market participants take from this?
That the timeline moved, not that the framework changed. Nothing about the current operating environment shifted this week; the agency framework governing classification and enforcement is the same one that governed it last month. What changed is the probability that the arrangement becomes permanent law in 2026, and that probability now trades near a third. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. It describes pending legislation and legislative strategy whose outcomes are unknown and subject to change at any time. Nothing here predicts any legislative result. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 29, 2026.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Crypto investors are rethinking cold storage as they weigh stronger asset security against earning potential, liquidity, and portfolio flexibility.
Summary
- Cold storage protects crypto assets but may limit flexibility and potential earnings, highlighting the trade-offs of passive holding.
- Investors weighing cold wallets against crypto yield options must balance security, liquidity, and potential returns.
- Crypto cold storage offers strong protection, but inactive assets may miss opportunities for growth through earning strategies.
Cold storage is regarded as the safest place for digital assets because private keys remain isolated from online threats. That protection matters, but safety is only one element of portfolio management. When assets remain inactive for long periods, investors who want to earn interest on crypto may sacrifice returns, liquidity, and flexibility without recognising the trade-off. The costly mistake is not owning a hardware wallet or securing long-term reserves. It is treating complete isolation as the best answer for every asset, regardless of market conditions, investment goals, or cash needs.
The financial cost of leaving digital assets offline
A cold wallet protects ownership, but it does not increase the number of coins held. If the market price rises, the investor benefits from appreciation, while the balance stays unchanged. During flat or positive markets, this distinction can become important. One holder may keep ten units untouched, while another places a limited share into an interest-bearing account and gradually expands the position.
The impact becomes more visible across months. Regular rewards and compounding may produce a difference, particularly when the assets were intended to remain in the portfolio. Coindepo offers interest accounts for cryptocurrencies and stablecoins with several earning periods, allowing users to compare pure storage with a yield-focused approach. Returns involve risk, yet ignoring available income is still an active financial decision.
Why cold storage can reduce portfolio flexibility
Offline protection adds practical steps. The owner must find the device, verify that wallet software and firmware are authentic, connect in a secure environment, and approve each transfer. These precautions are reasonable, but they may slow portfolio adjustments. A sudden market movement, rebalancing opportunity, or unexpected liquidity need can reveal the disadvantage of keeping every asset difficult to access.
Human error creates another layer of exposure. Recovery phrases may be misplaced, damaged, photographed insecurely, copied incorrectly, or discovered by someone who understands their value. Devices can malfunction, and family members may not know how to recover the holdings. Cold storage lowers online risks, but it places responsibility almost entirely on the owner. Without verified backups and inheritance instructions, self-custody can exchange platform risk for operational failure.
The real mistake is often poor asset allocation
The discussion should not be framed as a choice between a cold wallet and an online service. A better approach is to assign each holding a clear role:
- long-term reserves for secure offline storage;
- liquid assets for rebalancing and planned expenses;
- a limited allocation for carefully selected earning strategies.
This division prevents one custody method from controlling the entire portfolio and keeps security, access, and productivity properly aligned overall.
Coindepo may fit into this balanced structure without receiving every holding. Users can examine supported assets, account terms, withdrawal conditions, and estimated returns before committing a limited amount. This makes exposure easier to measure. Investors should also assess custody arrangements, fees, legal restrictions, transparency, and whether market stress or counterparty problems could delay access to funds.
How to avoid a costly cold storage strategy
A practical review starts with understanding why each asset is held. Coins reserved for a multi-year horizon should not be managed like stablecoins intended for shorter-term liquidity. Investors can divide holdings into security, access, and income categories. This exercise shows whether cold storage serves a defined purpose or continues because it once appeared to be a safe option.
Before choosing Coindepo or another interest platform, users should learn how rewards are calculated, whether rates are variable, and how early withdrawals affect accrued income. Chasing the largest advertised percentage without evaluating price volatility and provider risk can create losses that outweigh rewards. Strong passwords, multifactor authentication, withdrawal confirmation, and protected email access remain essential whenever part of the portfolio is managed online.
Conclusion
Cold storage remains effective for safeguarding long-term digital wealth, especially when backups are tested and recovery procedures are documented. However, keeping an entire portfolio offline may create missed income, delayed access, recovery challenges, and years without compounding. The expensive mistake this year may therefore be an inflexible allocation policy rather than the hardware wallet itself.
A stronger structure can preserve a secure reserve while allowing a measured portion of assets to remain liquid or productive. Coindepo offers one way to assess that possibility through interest accounts, but every allocation should match individual objectives, liquidity requirements, and risk tolerance. Digital asset protection works best when security, accessibility, and earning potential are managed together instead of treated as competing priorities.
Disclosure: This content is provided by a third party. Neither crypto.news nor the author of this article endorses any product mentioned on this page. Users should conduct their own research before taking any action related to the company.
Bitcoin whipsawed around the $64,000 level on Wednesday as multiple risk factors collided—weakness in Asian equities, fresh tensions around the US-Iran situation, and an approaching Federal Reserve decision that traders see as a near-term volatility trigger.
According to TradingView, BTC/USD struggled to extend a local rebound after the Wall Street open and was still wrestling with downside pressure following a move to 11-day lows near $62,700 the prior day. The broader selloff atmosphere was reinforced by additional stress in risk assets, including equity weakness tied to the semiconductor and AI complex.
Key takeaways
- BTC paused near $64,000 after dropping to roughly $62,700 on the prior session, suggesting demand has not fully returned.
- Equity weakness linked to Asian chip stocks appears to be spilling into US trading, pressuring crypto alongside traditional markets.
- Oil jumped after renewed US-Iran tensions, raising the risk that inflation expectations could move and complicate rate outlooks.
- Markets are split on the Fed’s next move: CME’s FedWatch Tool showed a majority probability for no change at current target levels.
- Bitcoin’s recent trading behavior looks range-bound between key moving averages, with potential liquidation clusters forming on both sides.
Risk assets stumble ahead of the Fed
Wednesday’s drawdown pressure extended beyond crypto. Trading activity reflected a broader risk-off posture that began with a selloff in Asian chip stocks, then carried into US markets. Cointelegraph previously reported that the cost to insure AI debt had reached new highs amid an Asian semiconductor pullback, framing the backdrop for heightened credit and equity sensitivity in the region.
Alongside the equity-driven drag, geopolitical nerves resurfaced. US President Donald Trump said the US would “be hitting them hard,” referring to tit-for-tat strikes linked to the US-Iran conflict, in an interview with Fox News. The immediate market implication was a rise in energy prices: WTI crude was up 7.6% and Brent crude was up 5.4%, according to the figures cited in the original reporting.
Oil price jumps can matter for crypto indirectly. They often feed into expectations for future inflation, and inflation expectations feed into interest-rate expectations. With the Federal Reserve preparing to deliver its next interest-rate decision, traders are likely to treat energy moves as one more input to a complex rate-volatility equation.
What the Fed decision could mean for BTC
Markets are waiting for the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) outcome, which will include a statement and a press conference by Fed Chair Kevin Warsh, according to the details described in the source. The reporting noted Warsh has provided less forward guidance than his predecessor, which increases the importance of any cues about the future path of policy.
According to CME Group’s FedWatch Tool data referenced in the original piece, there was a 66.3% probability that current target levels of 3.5%-3.75% would remain unchanged. A 0.25% hike was priced with 33.7% odds.
The Kobeissi Letter also highlighted that opinions were divided on what the Fed would do. In the same vein, the source described the pricing environment as unusually split, implying that BTC could see sharper-than-usual moves if the outcome or language deviates from what traders expect.
Bitcoin’s range trade: moving averages and liquidation zones
Before the next macro catalyst, BTC price action appeared technically constrained. As described in the original reporting, Bitcoin traded broadly within a range bounded by the 50-day simple moving average (SMA) and the 50-day exponential moving average (EMA). This kind of “between-the-guides” behavior often happens when market participants remain cautious—waiting for confirmation from macro data while liquidity thins.
The source added that the range structure began in mid-July, with breakouts failing as price encountered liquidity zones on both sides. That context helps explain why the market has not decisively moved away from the $63,500 to $64,900 corridor.
CoinGlass data cited in the original article pointed to potential liquidation buildup on both ends of the current range, with notable clusters around $63,500 and $64,900. In practice, these zones can act like magnets during volatile sessions: if price pushes into one side, leveraged positions are forced out, which can accelerate the move and widen the range temporarily.
Liquidity and positioning: why the move may start slowly
Even as liquidation risk builds, the source emphasized that trading activity remained subdued. Trading volumes were described as “conspicuously low,” with spot-market volume at its weakest level since July 2023.
K33 Research, in a bulletin referenced by the original report, attributed this to muted derivatives positioning and softer participation. The piece stated that CME open interest was near multi-year lows, perpetual futures open interest had stalled around 300,000 BTC, and average daily spot volume had fallen to about $2.2 billion for the month.
There’s also a behavioral angle to the current setup. The source noted that retail interest in both Bitcoin and the broader crypto market has been declining since the market’s October 2025 all-time highs, and that investors have increasingly directed attention toward AI stocks. When that rotational behavior persists, crypto can struggle to attract incremental spot demand—making BTC more sensitive to macro shocks and harder to sustain higher breakouts.
With the FOMC decision and press conference approaching, traders should watch whether the Fed’s communication shifts expectations for the rate path—especially given the inflation-sensitive impulse from oil—and whether BTC can hold its range boundaries or instead tests the liquidation clusters around $63,500 and $64,900. Until liquidity and participation improve, the next decisive move may arrive suddenly rather than gradually.
Uniswap price rebounded 8% from its July 29 intraday low as Hayden Adams addressed concerns over v4 protocol fees, helping UNI reclaim the $4 psychological level.
Summary
- UNI recovered from $3.74 to $4.06, producing an intraday rebound of more than 8%.
- Daily RSI reached 66.83, showing strong momentum without entering overbought territory.
- The 4-hour chart places immediate resistance between $4.10 and $4.30.
- A rising wedge and weak 19.77 ADX leave UNI exposed to a short-term pullback.
Uniswap price returns above $4
According to data from crypto.news, Uniswap (UNI) price traded at $4.02 at the time of writing after briefly reaching $4.06, according to the Binance daily chart. The intraday rebound from $3.74 amounted to about 8.5%, while the token was up roughly 3% from its daily opening price.
UNI has now recovered more than 70% from its June low near $2.35. The rally has formed a sequence of higher highs and higher lows, allowing the token to return to a price area last tested in May.
Momentum remains favorable on the daily timeframe. UNI is trading above its Supertrend support at $3.23, while the relative strength index has risen to 66.83. The RSI remains below the standard overbought threshold of 70, although the reading shows that buying conditions are becoming stretched.
The daily candle also approached the May swing high near $4.15. A close above that level would strengthen the case that UNI has moved beyond a temporary relief rally and entered a broader recovery phase.
Hayden Adams addresses Uniswap v4 fee concerns
The immediate move followed comments from Uniswap founder Hayden Adams about the protocol’s v4 fee structure.
Adams said the protocol fee would be added to the liquidity provider fee instead of being deducted from it. Under his example, traders using a pool with a 30-basis-point liquidity provider fee would pay 35 basis points in total. Liquidity providers would continue receiving 30 basis points, while five basis points would go to the protocol.
The clarification addressed concerns that activating protocol fees would lower returns for liquidity providers and potentially push capital toward competing decentralized exchanges.
Uniswap has also submitted governance proposals covering protocol fees from v4 pools and deployments on Robinhood Chain. The proposals would send new protocol revenue into the existing UNI burn mechanism, creating a clearer connection between exchange activity and the token’s circulating supply.
That connection has gained attention since Robinhood Chain launched on July 1. Uniswap generated about $5.16 million in fees during one 24-hour period earlier this month, according to DefiLlama data cited by crypto.news. Roughly $4.38 million came from Robinhood Chain.
Uniswap volume on the network crossed $1 billion within nine days of launch. However, future UNI burns will still depend on governance approval, fee collection and sustained trading activity.
UNI faces resistance between $4.10 and $4.30
The 4-hour chart shows that UNI has moved above the $4.00 top of its recent trading range. The next technical level sits at $4.10, identified by the Murrey Math indicator as a strong reversal pivot.
A sustained close above $4.10 could open the path toward $4.20 and $4.30. The latter represents the indicator’s ultimate resistance level. Beyond that, the chart places extended targets at $4.40, $4.49 and $4.59.
However, the average directional index stands at 19.77. An ADX reading below 20 suggests that the current trend has not yet developed strong directional conviction, despite the price breakout.
The one-week CoinGlass liquidation heatmap also shows a dense concentration of leveraged positions around $3.98 to $4.03. UNI’s move through this area likely forced some short sellers to close their positions, adding buy pressure to the rebound.
Additional liquidity is visible near $4.07 to $4.10, making that zone a possible short-term price target. On the downside, the main liquidity clusters sit near $3.90, $3.72 and $3.60.
If UNI loses $4.00, the 4-hour chart identifies $3.91 as the first support. Lower levels appear at $3.81 and $3.71. The bullish structure would weaken more clearly below the $3.52 support zone.
Analysts see breakout and pullback scenarios
Analyst Gopal identified a rising wedge on the UNI chart, noting that the token continues to form higher highs and higher lows inside a narrowing structure.
According to the analyst, repeated tests of wedge support suggest that bullish momentum may be losing strength. A confirmed break below the lower trendline could cause a deeper correction, while a breakout above the upper boundary would invalidate the bearish setup.
Nebraska Gooner also described UNI as being at resistance. The analyst said reclaiming the red resistance area on his chart could create a moving-average squeeze and lead to a stronger rally. His setup points toward the $5 region if UNI establishes support above the current barrier.
The two views make the $4.10–$4.30 range central to UNI’s next move. A confirmed breakout would reduce the risk posed by the rising wedge, while rejection could send the token back toward $3.80 or the ascending support line.
US macro conditions remain a risk for UNI
Uniswap’s growth on Robinhood Chain gives the rally a direct US market connection. The network has brought decentralized trading infrastructure closer to Robinhood’s user base, while Uniswap’s Permissioned Pools could support tokenized funds and equities subject to investor eligibility rules.
Uniswap Labs launched Permissioned Pools with Securitize, Superstate and Dowgo as early participants. The v4-based framework allows issuers to control which wallets can trade or provide liquidity, making it more suitable for regulated assets.
Still, UNI’s breakout comes ahead of a Federal Reserve rate decision that could drive volatility across US stocks and crypto. A hawkish policy signal could reduce demand for risk assets, and pressure leveraged UNI positions.
UNI must therefore hold above $4.00 and clear $4.10 to confirm the breakout. Failure to do so would leave the rising-wedge warning active, with $3.81 and $3.71 serving as the next levels to watch.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
The American Arbitration Association (AAA), one of the world’s best-known providers of private dispute resolution, has launched a dedicated panel aimed at blockchain and digital-asset disputes. The move is designed to connect companies with arbitrators who can handle both the legal and technical complexities that increasingly arise in crypto-related commercial relationships.
Announcing the initiative on Wednesday, the AAA said its new Web3 Panel brings together specialists with experience spanning law, technology, academia, litigation, and digital-asset businesses. The panel focuses on disagreements tied to decentralized and highly automated systems as they become more common in day-to-day commerce.
Key takeaways
- AAA’s Web3 Panel is intended to provide arbitrators with blockchain and digital-asset expertise for complex, technical disputes.
- The scope includes contract interpretation, governance questions, asset control, cybersecurity issues, and disputes over transaction records.
- The panel also targets emerging “agentic commerce” cases, where software or AI systems may execute agreements with limited human involvement.
- Arbitration still depends on both parties agreeing to submit a dispute to private arbitration—AAA does not regulate the crypto industry.
Why AAA is building a specialized Web3 arbitration panel
As blockchain networks move from experimental use to more structured commercial workflows, disputes are evolving alongside the technology. According to the AAA, its Web3 Panel is meant to address conflicts arising from “increasingly automated and decentralized commercial systems,” where business arrangements can be influenced by code, on-chain records, and distributed governance mechanisms.
That shift matters because many of the practical friction points in crypto are not purely legal. They can involve how smart contracts behave, what data is recorded on-chain, and how to interpret technical evidence in a dispute. The AAA’s framing suggests that mainstream dispute resolution institutions see demand for arbitrators who can communicate across legal reasoning and technical realities—without treating those domains as separate problems.
The AAA also highlighted the kinds of issues parties may bring to arbitration. The panel is designed to cover disagreements related to:
- Contract interpretation in technical environments, including how automated terms operate in practice.
- Governance questions in systems where decision-making may be decentralized or code-driven.
- Asset control disputes, where access permissions and operational control can be complex.
- Cybersecurity incidents and related responsibility questions.
- Transaction records and disputes over what those records show in evidentiary terms.
- Cross-border enforcement considerations tied to international counterparties.
Who is behind the panel
The AAA said the Web3 Panel assembles arbitrators with experience across multiple disciplines, reflecting the breadth of questions that can appear in crypto cases. It cited initial members including lawyers who specialize in digital-asset and technology disputes, along with University of Pennsylvania law professor David Hoffman and Rich Widmann, identified as Google Cloud’s global head of Web3 strategy.
Beyond specific names, the AAA’s description points to a deliberate blend of perspectives. The institution emphasized experience not only in legal practice and litigation, but also in the technology and academic environments that often influence how smart contracts and blockchain governance are understood.
Eric Dill, the AAA’s senior vice president and head of panel relations, said: “Web3 disputes involve familiar commercial questions in a highly technical environment.” The quote underscores what the AAA appears to be trying to solve: keeping familiar business law issues from getting derailed by gaps in technical comprehension, especially where automated systems produce records and outcomes that become central to the case.
Agentic commerce and disputes involving autonomous transactions
One of the panel’s notable elements is its coverage of disputes involving agentic commerce and autonomous transactions. The AAA describes this as scenarios where software—or artificial intelligence systems—may initiate or carry out agreements with limited human involvement.
This is a meaningful extension of traditional arbitration needs. In conventional contracting, human decision-making and signatures tend to play a direct role in how obligations are formed. In agentic systems, however, the “decision maker” may be code executing according to rules, and the party seeking enforcement may argue the system acted within its programmed authority. Disagreements can quickly become both legal and technical: what the system was designed to do, what it actually did, and who bears responsibility when outcomes are unexpected.
While the AAA did not lay out specific example scenarios, its inclusion of agentic commerce signals that dispute resolution frameworks may have to adapt not only to blockchain-based evidence, but also to the contractual questions raised by automation and AI-driven execution.
What the launch does—and doesn’t—change
The AAA’s Web3 Panel is structured as an arbitration resource, not a regulatory body. The institution said it does not give AAA regulatory authority over the crypto industry. Arbitration typically requires that the parties involved agree to submit their dispute to a private arbitrator, meaning companies must usually opt in through contract terms or other mutual arrangements.
For investors, operators, and companies building onchain or integrating digital assets into commercial workflows, the practical implication is that dispute resolution options are becoming more specialized. A dedicated panel may make it easier to find arbitrators who can evaluate technical claims—such as how a smart contract performed, how governance processes operated, or how transaction evidence should be interpreted—without forcing parties to educate arbitrators from scratch.
At the same time, the existence of a panel doesn’t automatically solve bigger questions about standards for responsibility, liability, and evidence in decentralized systems. Those issues still depend heavily on each case’s facts and the agreement between the parties, including whether arbitration is explicitly chosen.
Related coverage from Cointelegraph noted how AI is being layered into legal workflows as agentic commerce accelerates. The AAA’s panel launch appears aligned with that trend: as autonomous systems become more common, the legal ecosystem—including dispute resolution—may increasingly need subject-matter expertise that spans both code and contract law.
Next steps for companies considering arbitration clauses
Companies using blockchain-based contracting, governance, or automated transaction workflows should watch how arbitrators on the AAA’s Web3 Panel approach technical evidence and cross-border enforcement questions—especially as agentic commerce becomes more mainstream. The immediate uncertainty is less about whether such panels will exist, and more about how parties will incorporate arbitration provisions into agreements and how quickly specialized expertise translates into more predictable outcomes.
In July 2025, a judge sentenced criminology graduate student Bryan Kohberger to life in prison after he pleaded guilty to stabbing four college students to death on Nov. 13, 2022, at a house near the University of Idaho’s Moscow, Id., campus. The students were Ethan Chapin, 20, Kaylee Goncalves, 21, Xana Kernodle, 20, and Madison Mogen, 21.
A year later, Kohberger told the New York Times in a phone call from prison that he’s filed a petition challenging his conviction, arguing that he is innocent and did not mean to confess to the killings. “A lot went wrong in those plea discussions,” he told the Times from a maximum security prison south of Boise. “I really do want that to be heard.”
Filippi explains that the storms created by the pyrocumulonimbus, which loom over the fire, create gusts of wind, which in turn lead the water vapor further into the clouds.
“Then the fire is raging more and propagating at [a] higher speed with more energy, so it injects even more water vapor. The cloud is getting bigger, and then it is sucking air [in a stronger way]. Then you have this feedback loop, making an acceleration,” Filippi says.
Those conditions make fires more difficult to contain because the feedback loop continually strengthens both the fire and the cloud above it.
Additionally, studies have found wildfire smoke can make some clouds denser, making it harder for them to drop rain that could help dampen the fires.
Even when water droplets do fall, if the rain is falling into hot air, “it’s gonna evaporate before it reaches the ground,” Filippi says.
Instead, “you’re gonna have a big downdraft. You’re gonna have thunder. Then you can have some other effects, like lifting ashes up into the stratosphere,” he notes, adding that the ash could later fall onto neighboring areas, raising the need for precautionary evacuation measures.
Trade.xyz, an operator of onchain perpetual markets on Hyperliquid, said it will cover eligible liquidation losses after a price anomaly hit its contract tracking SK Hynix, a South Korean chipmaker and producer of high-bandwidth memory for artificial intelligence.
Trade.xyz said the SKHYNIX contract’s mark price fell to $917.25 from $1,127.90 at 23:01 UTC on Monday after an executed trade was relayed by multiple independent data providers. Eligibility requirements will be announced soon, with distributions expected in the coming days.
The SK Hynix contract ranks among Hyperliquid’s most active markets. On Wednesday, Hyperliquid data showed the contract had generated over $1.5 billion in 24-hour volume and held nearly $600 million in open interest at the time of writing.
Trade.xyz said its oracle was tracking the external venue used as the primary South Korean pre-market and had “worked as intended according to its specification.” It acknowledged traders’ frustration and described the reimbursement as a “one-time discretionary decision,” adding that it would review how prices are formed during extreme market events.
The platform did not disclose how many traders would qualify for reimbursement or the total amount it expects to distribute.
SK Hynix trading chart. Source: Hyperliquid
How the anomaly reached the perpetual market
Trade.xyz said the sharp move originated from an executed transaction on an external market rather than its own order book. Its SK Hynix oracle tracks the US dollar value of one SKHX common share by converting the underlying Korean won price using the prevailing exchange rate, according to its documentation.
The external print fed into the oracle and contributed to the contract’s mark-price move. Hyperliquid uses the mark price to value positions for margin purposes and determine when leveraged positions should be liquidated.
The platform said it is considering giving more weight to prices formed on its own order books, which it said now provide meaningful liquidity and market signals.
Related: Onchain commodity trading is here to stay, but liquidity remains an issue
Trade.xyz operates under Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 framework, which allows builders to launch perpetual contracts tied to assets with external price feeds.
The platform accounted for more than $22 billion of HIP-3’s first $25 billion in cumulative volume and later launched an officially licensed S&P 500 perpetual using S&P Dow Jones Indices data.
Magazine: How Hong Kong is turning tokenized bonds into real market infrastructure
Bitcoin dipped below $63,000 yesterday ahead of the FOMC meeting today but has recovered well over a grand since then.
Prominent analyst Joao Wedson identified on-chain data that suggests BTC is nearing a historically significant accumulation zone.
Long-Term Holders Take Control
In his latest tweet, Wedson explained that he divided the Long-Term Holder Realized Cap by the Short-Term Holder Realized Cap to track where the market’s realized capital is concentrated. According to the Alphractal founder, Bitcoin formed major price bottoms on two previous occasions when this ratio moved above 4. The metric currently stands at 3.9, which means the market is approaching that historically important threshold.
The reading indicates that a much larger share of realized capital is now held by Long-Term Holders than by Short-Term Holders, which demonstrates a shift toward investors with stronger conviction while short-term speculative participation remains relatively limited.
Wedson added that this type of market structure has previously emerged during “advanced” accumulation phases, when weaker hands exit, and ownership moves to long-term investors. Alphractal stated,
“It does not confirm that the exact bottom is already in. However, it shows that Bitcoin is approaching a zone that previously appeared during major cycle-bottom formations.”
A similar view was echoed by Santiment, which found that wallets holding between 10 and 10,000 BTC increased their stash by 19,696 during the eight-day period it tracked. Meanwhile, wallets with less than 0.01 BTC displayed weaker dip-buying activity. On the institutional front, Bitcoin ETFs recorded around $172 million in inflows in July. These factors, combined, make the overall setup “constructive” as supply continued shifting toward stronger hands, Santiment noted.
MVRV Differs From Past Cycles
All eyes are on Bitcoin’s current position in the market cycle. Trader Ardi said the asset’s MVRV ratio currently stands at 1.21, well above the levels seen at previous bear market lows of 0.69 in 2018 and 0.75 in 2022. The metric compares BTC’s market value with its realized value to show how far the price trades above or below the network’s aggregate cost basis.
Based on those historical levels, Ardi said that it has not reached the same degree of capitulation seen in the last two cycles. However, he added that volatility is compressing and cycle extremes are becoming less severe. Because of that, he believes MVRV could form a higher low during this cycle.
The post What Does Bitcoin’s 3.9 Holder Ratio Tell Us About the Market Right Now? appeared first on CryptoPotato.
MLB roundup: Orioles rally to defeat Tigers in extras
Irish co-founded crop science start-up Wild Bio acquires F1 Seed
HAZLO AHORA! Mi PLAN Para Operar BITCOIN Antes Del FOMC
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
-
Sports3 days agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Tech3 days agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Business7 hours agoWhy Trees Belong on the Risk Register
-
Politics3 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Crypto World4 days agoRipple bought a bank in pieces. The $4 billion audit
-
Entertainment6 days agoA New Post-Apocalyptic Gundam Anime Series Blasts Into SDCC
-
News Videos3 days agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Politics2 days agoThe Part of the Electric Transition Nobody Wants to Discuss
-
Fashion6 days ago16 Dresses for the High Summer Event
-
Sports6 days ago2026 3M Open leaderboard: Scottie Scheffler finds putter in Round 1, sits three back
-
News Videos6 days agoThe Peugeot Family: How 200 Years of an “Old Money” Dynasty Died in A Boardroom
-
Business22 hours agoMajor shareholder moves on Canyon
-
Crypto World4 days agoXRP Ledger adds $2.6B as RWA inflows rank second
-
Politics4 days agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
Crypto World7 days agoUniswap (UNI) pushes deeper into tokenized RWAs with permissioned trading pools
-
Entertainment1 day ago‘Stargate’ Creator’s New Sci-Fi Series Returns for Season 3 Tomorrow
-
Crypto World7 days ago
SEC Agrees to Overhaul Recordkeeping After Settling Coinbase Lawsuit Over Gensler’s Lost Texts
-
Tech5 days agoAnthropic launches Claude Opus 5, a cheaper AI model for coding, agents and enterprise workflows
-
Entertainment4 days agoSara Gilson Killed By Husband After Viral “Pedophile” TikTok Video
You must be logged in to post a comment Login