Aurora Intents has processed more than $19 million across 1,718 swaps for the zkSNARKS auction, accounting for over half of the assets converted and deposited into the ZEC-denominated sale.

Aurora Intents handled half of the auction volume

Aurora Labs CEO Declan Hannon told crypto.news that Aurora Intents processed just over $19 million of the $36.94 million deposited for the zkSNARKS auction, with the conversions completed through 1,718 swaps.

“It’s the value, the dollar value of assets converted into ZEC. Aurora Intents processed over 50% of the total volume swapped and deposited for the auction. Just over $19M out of $36.94M moved through us across 1718 swaps,” Hannon said.

The figure measures the value routed through Aurora’s cross-chain infrastructure, rather than the number of bids or completed NFT purchases. Some of the assets were attached to unsuccessful bids and later became eligible for refunds under the auction rules.

Auction results showed that participants submitted 16,971 bids for 8,000 available zkSNARKS assets. Total submitted volume reached 25,305 ZEC, worth approximately $36.94 million at the time, while the sale cleared at 1.5 ZEC per asset.

Under the sealed, uniform-price format, bidders placed offers without seeing the full order book. The 8,000 successful bidders paid the same clearing price, regardless of the maximum amount entered in their original bids.

Multiplying the clearing price by the 8,000 allocations gives 12,000 ZEC in completed sales. Approximately 13,309 ZEC, valued at about $19.43 million at the auction’s reported exchange rate, was allocated for refunds to unsuccessful bidders or for amounts submitted above the final price.

Stablecoins led cross-chain ZEC conversions

Stablecoins supplied much of the value that Aurora Intents converted into ZEC, according to Hannon. USDC alone accounted for 27% of the funds routed through the system and arrived from four networks, with Solana contributing the largest portion.

Native ETH ranked as the next-largest individual source asset, representing 21% of Aurora’s auction volume. Participants could also enter with BTC, SOL, BNB, and other supported assets rather than acquiring ZEC through a separate exchange transaction.

“Most people bidding on a ZEC-denominated auction don’t already hold ZEC and did not want to go buy some just to bid. Aurora Intents powered the cross-chain swaps,” Hannon said.

The source-asset mix placed stablecoins at the center of the conversion flow while also showing demand from users holding assets on other networks. Instead of bridging an asset manually, finding a ZEC market and making another transfer, each bidder could request a specified ZEC output through one transaction instruction.

Cross-chain access has also become part of NFT marketplace competition. In September, OpenSea added Solana NFTs to its OS2 platform, allowing users to trade supported collections within a marketplace that already covers more than 25 networks.

Stablecoin issuers have taken a similar multichain route. In June, Ripple expanded RLUSD access to more than 40 networks through Wormhole, including Base, Optimism, Ink, Unichain and the XRP Ledger EVM sidechain.

NEAR Intents solvers locked the quoted ZEC output

For the zkSNARKS auction, a bidder signed an intent stating how much ZEC the transaction should produce and the maximum source-asset amount the bidder was willing to spend. NEAR Intents solvers then competed to fill the request at the quoted rate, Hannon said.

“The user signs one intent—bid this much in ZEC up to the amount specified. Now the solver network, NEAR Intents, comes into play. Solvers compete to fill it at that quoted rate.”

According to Hannon, the rate was fixed before the user signed the transaction, while the quote included a minimum ZEC output. A market move beyond the approved range caused the transaction to fail instead of filling at a worse price.

“If the market moves past it, the trade simply doesn’t execute. If anything fails, funds return automatically to a refund address supplied up front,” he added.

Although the setup removed post-signature slippage, it did not remove every dependency from the transaction path. Hannon said users relied on the NEAR Intents settlement contract, market makers issuing quotes and bridges holding the underlying source assets.

Settlement took place through the NEAR Intents 1Click Swap API, which Hannon said has processed more than $30 billion. He added that 1Click did not take custody of user funds during the process, while Aurora neither acted as a counterparty nor handled the assets directly.

Non-custodial execution does not eliminate smart-contract, bridge, or liquidity-provider exposure. In Hannon’s description, each component still performed a specific role before the converted ZEC reached the auction.

For U.S. users, cross-chain execution does not settle whether an NFT sale or marketplace activity falls under federal securities rules. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission closed its OpenSea investigation in February 2025 without filing charges, but the decision did not create a blanket exemption for NFT issuers or trading platforms. The legal treatment of an asset can still depend on its sale terms, promised benefits, and promotion.

Zcash privacy started after source-chain activity

While the auction used Zcash for private settlement, Hannon drew a line between the shielded ZEC transaction and the activity that occurred before assets reached the network.

“Zcash’s shielded pool does what it says on the destination side; the bid itself isn’t visible,” Hannon said.

“What I won’t do is tell you the whole path is invisible, because the leg before it lands on a public chain, same as it would if you sent that asset anywhere else.”

A user entering with ETH, SOL, BNB, or a stablecoin first initiated a transaction on the asset’s source network. Public blockchains record wallet addresses, transferred amounts, and transaction times, leaving the initial leg visible even when the resulting ZEC bid enters a shielded pool.

On the Zcash side, shielded transfers use zero-knowledge proofs to verify that a transaction is valid without publishing the sender, recipient or transferred amount. The protection applies to the shielded ZEC transaction, not automatically to every preceding action on another blockchain.

The auction offered 8,000 assets from a 10,000-item zkSNARKS collection. Project information assigned another 1,000 assets to early Snarklist participants and reserved 1,000 for grants, contributors, artists, and the team.

Following the sale, on-chain investigator ZachXBT alleged that the project lacked practical utility and compared its structure with previous NFT “money grabs,” according to ChainCatcher. The report said he questioned the roughly $17 million retained after refunds, as well as the collection’s team allocation and royalty structure.

0G has launched its Ascend liquid staking product and introduced a five-step system that will let eligible users convert staked 0G tokens into credits for AI computing services.

In a Sep. 21 press release shared with crypto.news, 0G said that Ascend will serve as the first access point for Compute Finance, or ComFi, a system designed to link digital assets with usable AI computing resources.

The product gives users a0G when they stake the network’s native 0G token. Holders can keep using a0G across compatible decentralized finance applications while the underlying 0G remains staked, according to the announcement.

A second product, Infinite AI, is scheduled to launch on Sep. 29. Its iAI asset will connect the liquid staking position to compute credits accepted by selected services in the 0G ecosystem.

How 0G’s Compute Finance system works

Under the initial structure, a user stakes 0G through Ascend and receives a0G. The user can then deposit a0G to mint iAI before staking eligible iAI to earn compute credits.

The full process consists of five steps: stake 0G, receive a0G, mint iAI, stake iAI, and collect compute credits. Users can spend the credits on supported AI products rather than receive them as cash or a standard token reward.

At launch, a0G will be the only asset accepted for minting iAI, making Ascend the required starting point for the system. Minting iAI locks the underlying collateral, while burning the asset provides a route for unlocking it, subject to the final product terms.

0G described ComFi as a financial layer for AI compute, which is already produced, rented, and priced across global markets. The proposed system treats access to computing resources as the output generated by a digital asset position.

Instead of earning only staking tokens or interest, eligible users receive credits tied to services that require computing power. Their use will remain limited to approved products within the 0G ecosystem.

Michael Heinrich, co-founder and CEO of 0G, compared the model with earlier systems that gave asset holders or network participants a new form of value.

“Equity introduced dividends, proof of work introduced new ways to reward participation, and DeFi expanded what people could do with digital assets,” Heinrich said.

“Compute Finance explores a different model by connecting digital assets with access to AI compute.”

He added that Ascend and Infinite AI are the company’s first implementations of the concept.

iAI credits will have restricted uses

Under the initial parameters disclosed by 0G, eligible staked iAI is designed to generate compute credits carrying a stated usage value of more than $1 per day.

Actual credit amounts, eligibility rules, availability and permitted uses will depend on the terms and policies applied to the products. The company said the terms may change and plans to publish further details covering minting requirements and staking eligibility.

Compute credits will not represent cash, cash equivalents, or guaranteed financial returns. Users will only be able to apply them to eligible AI services, separating their stated usage value from a redeemable monetary payment.

0G identified Private Computer as one supported service. The platform is designed to provide private and verifiable AI access and is expected to offer more than 130 models at launch.

The credits will also be usable within the 0G App, a development platform where users can interact with AI models and build or launch applications. The company did not disclose how many credits each task will require or whether prices will vary between models and services.

Infinite AI is also expected to become available through Comfy.fun, 0G’s launchpad for agents and tokens. Access will depend on the terms applied when the product goes live.

The structure combines several functions normally offered separately: liquid staking through a0G, collateral-backed minting through iAI, and service access through compute credits. Each stage depends on the previous one, while the underlying collateral remains subject to the minting and burning process described by 0G.

Ascend keeps staked 0G available for DeFi

Ascend provides the liquidity component of the system by issuing a0G against deposited 0G. Liquid staking tokens generally let holders use a representation of their staked assets in DeFi instead of waiting for the original tokens to become available.

For Ascend users, a0G can remain active in compatible DeFi applications and also serve as the input for minting iAI. The same position can therefore support network staking and entry into the compute-credit system, according to the company’s design.

Use across DeFi can introduce risks that differ from standard native staking, depending on the protocols, smart contracts, and liquidity pools selected by a holder. 0G’s announcement focused on the product flow and did not state which external DeFi platforms will initially support a0G.

The company also framed ComFi as an open category for AI projects rather than a term reserved for 0G products. Its full thesis will describe a market in which participants can own claims on compute and earn, spend or trade access to computing resources.

Related work linking blockchain infrastructure with AI has included systems for recording machine decisions and permissions. In September, crypto.news covered blockchain verification for AI-driven financial tools, where RoboTech Frontier Hub founder Denis Saklakov said blockchains can record system states, decision conditions, and execution histories without running the AI itself onchain.

0G’s model uses blockchain infrastructure for a different task: connecting staking positions to access rights for AI products. The company operates an AI-focused EVM-compatible layer-1 network alongside encrypted storage, private computing tools and model-verification systems.

US access will depend on final product terms

For users in the United States, access to Ascend, iAI and related staking functions will depend on the eligibility rules released with the final documentation. The announcement states that credit availability, supported uses, and minting conditions will be governed by applicable terms and policies.

0G has not assigned the compute credits a cash value that users can redeem, and it describes them as units intended only for eligible AI services. The company also states that the credits do not provide guaranteed financial returns.

The treatment of a0G and iAI for US regulatory or tax purposes will depend on their final functions, distribution terms, and availability. The announcement does not name a US regulator, exemption or registration connected with either product.

Infinite AI remains scheduled for Sep. 29, when 0G plans to release the iAI asset and activate the next part of the staking-to-compute process. Additional documentation is expected to specify minting requirements, eligible iAI positions, supported services, and the rules for burning iAI to release locked collateral.

Immunefi CEO Mitchell Amador has said the Liquid Network attackers lost any claim to white-hat status by retaining 598.5 BTC after returning 3,400 BTC from the roughly 4,000 BTC exploit.

Immunefi founder and CEO Mitchell Amador told crypto.news that moving user assets without permission cannot be treated as a rescue when the researcher later keeps part of the funds or sets payment terms.

“Coordinated disclosure ends the moment you set the terms yourself,” Amador said. “The money was never yours to save, so moving it is not a rescue.”

His comments address the dispute left by the Liquid Network incident, in which unidentified actors withdrew roughly 4,000 BTC, valued at about $320 million at the time, before describing themselves as whitehats. They returned 3,400 BTC after Blockstream patched the affected bridge nodes but retained 598.5 BTC.

Blockstream has rejected the group’s demand for a 10% bounty and has said it will not pay for the return of the remaining Bitcoin. The company also rejected the attackers’ claim that the operation amounted to responsible disclosure.

Liquid Network attackers could not set their own terms

Amador said a security researcher must use private disclosure channels, preferably through a defined bug bounty program, instead of taking assets and negotiating a reward afterward.

“Keep a dollar of user funds, and it is theft, whatever the intent was at the outset. The path for a researcher is private disclosure, ideally within a well-defined program.”

The distinction rests on authorization rather than the researcher’s stated motive. Under Amador’s view, finding a real vulnerability does not give someone the right to move user assets, hold them as collateral, or decide what compensation is owed.

Blockstream took a similar position in its Sept. 11 response. As previously reported by crypto.news, the company said taking assets without permission and refusing to return them constituted theft rather than whitehat work.

The company said its earlier discussions with the actors were intended to recover user funds and protect the Bitcoin community. According to Blockstream, engaging in those talks did not mean it had accepted either the withdrawal or the later bounty demand.

A technical review of the exploit found that a cache-key collision in the confidential transaction verification logic allowed the actors to create unbacked L-BTC. They then used SideSwap’s peg-out service to obtain real Bitcoin from the federation reserve.

Federation keys were not compromised, according to Blockstream. The incident instead involved verification logic in the Elements codebase, while the federation nodes were running a release that did not contain the relevant fix.

Rescue terms should exist before an exploit

Rather than negotiating under pressure after funds have moved, Amador said serious protocols should decide their rescue conditions before an emergency occurs.

“Yes, rescue terms must exist ahead of an exploit,” he said. “All serious protocols should set these in advance.”

Predetermined rules can define which systems researchers may test, how they must disclose a vulnerability, and what actions they can take during an active incident. They can also state the maximum bounty, payment conditions, and legal protections available to researchers who remain within the approved scope.

Immunefi developed the Whitehat Safe Harbor framework to establish such conditions before a protocol faces an attack. Amador, who helped shape the framework and has participated in live exploit response teams, compared emergency action with saving a house from a fire: the need for help does not authorize every possible rescue method.

Advance agreements also give protocol teams a basis for distinguishing approved intervention from coercion. Without prior terms, an actor who controls user funds can demand payment while the project faces losses, service disruptions, and pressure from token holders.

Liquid’s actors initially communicated through messages placed in Bitcoin transactions and told Blockstream to patch the flaw before they returned the funds. After Blockstream confirmed that affected bridge nodes had been patched, the group sent 3,400 BTC back to the federation wallet.

No publicly disclosed agreement had allowed the group to retain the remaining 598.5 BTC. The amount also exceeds 10% of the approximately 4,000 BTC involved, although the reported demand centered on a 10% reward.

The 10% crypto bounty convention still has a role

While rejecting the Liquid actors’ attempt to impose their own terms, Amador defended the crypto industry’s informal practice of offering up to 10% of funds at risk as a whitehat bounty.

Without a common reference point, he said, each settlement would need to be negotiated from the beginning, giving an attacker more leverage during an active incident. A defined percentage gives researchers a legal payment route while allowing a protocol to recover most of the exposed assets.

“Ten percent of a $100M exploit is $10M earned legally, with nobody hunting you afterwards,” Amador said. “The alternative for them is moving nine figures onchain while every forensics firm watches.”

The 10% figure has appeared in several recovery offers, but projects usually state the terms themselves. In August, BTCPay Server supporters backed a reward equal to 10% of recovered funds after attackers obtained LND admin macaroon credentials. The proposed payout was capped at 3 BTC if all stolen assets were returned.

Cetus Protocol followed a different formula after its May 2025 exploit. A flaw in its automated market maker logic caused losses of more than $223 million, while the Sui Foundation coordinated with validators to freeze about $163 million. Cetus later announced a $5 million reward for information leading to the identification of the attacker, according to its post-exploit review.

Amador said the reward should generally reach up to 10% of funds at risk while remaining subject to a cap the protocol can afford. Setting the amount too low could make theft more attractive than disclosure, he said, while an excessive payout could leave the rescued project unable to continue operating.

“Price it too high, and paying out can kill the protocol you just saved, which helps nobody,” he said.

Projects may still pay above their stated cap when a report warrants a larger reward, Amador added. Under his proposed model, the protocol retains control over that decision instead of allowing a researcher to establish the fee after taking custody of user assets.

U.S. prosecutions show the risk of unauthorized exploits

For U.S.-based researchers, returning funds or offering to negotiate does not necessarily prevent criminal charges when the original access was unauthorized.

In December 2023, former security engineer Shakeeb Ahmed pleaded guilty to computer fraud after exploiting two decentralized exchanges and obtaining more than $12 million. According to the U.S. Justice Department, Ahmed negotiated with one platform and proposed returning the stolen funds except for $1.5 million if the exchange agreed not to contact law enforcement.

Federal prosecutors said Ahmed later agreed to forfeit more than $12.3 million, including about $5.6 million in fraudulently obtained cryptocurrency. In April 2024, a federal judge sentenced him to three years in prison and ordered the forfeiture of the stolen assets.

Stablecoin issuer Circle has introduced a Bitcoin-backed borrowing service aimed at institutional users, enabling eligible Circle Mint customers to pledge BTC collateral to borrow USDC via onchain lending markets. The feature is designed to keep borrowers within existing Circle custody relationships while still tapping decentralized liquidity.

Dubbed Digital Asset-Backed Borrowing, the service allows customers to deposit Bitcoin, mint Circle’s wrapped Bitcoin token cirBTC, and then supply that wrapped asset as collateral on supported lending protocols on Arc or Ethereum. Circle says Morpho is the first supported lending venue, with plans to add Aave and other protocols later.

Key takeaways

• Circle Mint users can use Bitcoin as collateral to borrow USDC on supported DeFi lending markets.
• The new workflow converts deposited BTC into cirBTC, which is then posted to lending protocols (starting with Morpho).
• Borrowing terms such as rates, collateral requirements, and liquidation thresholds are set by the third-party lending market, not by Circle.
• Circle says borrowed USDC is credited directly to the customer’s Circle Mint balance.
• New York clients are excluded, and collateral is supplied from a customer-controlled wallet to third-party protocols rather than being lent directly by Circle.

How Circle’s Bitcoin-to-USDC borrowing works

Circle’s announcement frames the product around a practical institutional requirement: getting onchain borrowing exposure without breaking custody workflows. Under Digital Asset-Backed Borrowing, eligible Circle Mint customers begin by depositing Bitcoin. Circle then mints cirBTC—a wrapped Bitcoin token—so it can be used as collateral in DeFi lending.

Customers supply the resulting collateral to third-party lending markets. Circle emphasizes that collateral is provided through a customer-controlled wallet to DeFi protocols, rather than being lent directly by Circle itself. In turn, the lending protocol determines the key parameters that govern the position.

According to Circle, the borrowed USDC is deposited into the customer’s Circle Mint balance. That separation matters for institutional users who may want clearer accounting and settlement paths—particularly where the collateral remains tied to custody processes they already understand.

The rollout is also closely tied to Circle’s wrapped Bitcoin infrastructure. Circle previously launched cirBTC on Ethereum in June, and the token is backed 1:1 by Bitcoin held in custody by Circle National Trust. With this service, that existing wrapped-BTC bridge to lending markets is being converted into an institutional borrowing feature.

Morpho first, with more lending protocols planned

Circle’s borrowing service is not limited to a single DeFi venue. The company says Morpho is the first supported lending protocol for customers using cirBTC collateral. Circle also plans to expand to Aave and additional protocols as the service develops.

Circle also specified that borrowed positions are overcollateralized. Liquidation thresholds and collateral requirements are set by the third-party lending market, reflecting the fact that risk management comes from the protocol where the collateral is deployed.

Operationally, the service supports routes on both Arc and Ethereum, depending on the supported deployment of each lending market. Circle’s approach positions the product to work across its broader stablecoin and onchain payments ecosystem rather than limiting functionality to Ethereum alone.

Arc mainnet timing: cirBTC goes live on Arc

The launch of Bitcoin-backed borrowing comes alongside an important infrastructure milestone for Circle’s wrapped BTC token. Circle says cirBTC is scheduled to be live on Arc on Monday, referencing a separate announcement that the token is now available on the Arc network via Arc’s blog.

This sequencing appears intentional. Circle has been building Arc as a layer-1 blockchain intended for stablecoin payments and financial market use cases. Earlier coverage noted that Circle rolled out Arc mainnet this week, and that the network uses USDC as its native gas token. The same coverage also pointed to Arc’s support for tokenized assets including BlackRock’s BUIDL and Circle’s USYC.

For investors and builders, the practical question is whether new collateral and borrowing routes can gain traction fast enough to matter. By aligning cirBTC availability with lending product rollout, Circle is effectively reducing the friction between “having collateral” and “using that collateral to access liquidity.”

Institutional custody-first borrowing is becoming a market pattern

Circle’s product fits a broader shift in crypto finance: institutions want yield and liquidity options, but they increasingly prefer models that avoid constant collateral movement or custody changes.

Earlier in the year, similar thinking appeared in other offerings. In February, for example, Anchorage Digital partnered with Kamino to enable institutions to borrow against staked Solana (SOL) held at Anchorage. The emphasis there, like Circle’s now, was on accessing onchain liquidity without taking collateral out of qualified custody.

Bitcoin-backed lending followed a comparable theme in March. Lombard partnered with Bitwise to support borrowing against BTC held in custody, with Morpho providing lending infrastructure. The key difference Circle’s rollout highlights is that Lombard’s design aimed to keep underlying Bitcoin in custody without wrapping or bridging it—whereas Circle’s model explicitly relies on converting deposited BTC into cirBTC for collateral use.

Other custody-friendly lending expansions also emerged. In March, BitGo expanded its institutional lending offering with a portfolio-based approach that allows multiple assets to serve as collateral. Circle’s framework is different, but it reinforces the same larger trend: institutional-friendly crypto lending increasingly comes packaged with structured custody and clearer operational boundaries.

Circle’s decision to exclude New York clients underscores that regulatory and eligibility constraints continue to shape which institutional users can access these products.

What to watch next

Circle’s next steps—especially the planned addition of Aave and other lending protocols—will determine how broadly institutions can deploy cirBTC collateral and how competitive borrowing conditions become across venues. For now, the key signal is whether the Arc+cirBTC integration and the Morpho-first rollout can translate into meaningful adoption among eligible Circle Mint customers.

The SEC framework allows trading through automated market makers, or AMMs, rather than a traditional order book. An AMM holds pools of assets and uses preset rules to price trades. That could allow stock tokens to trade around the clock as long as a pool has enough assets.

But round-the-clock trading does not necessarily mean better trading, according to Noch, as thin liquidity can produce poor prices.

The SEC has also placed tight limits on its experiment. Tokens must represent NMS stocks and preserve the economic interest, dividends, voting rights and liquidation rights attached to the underlying shares. Third-party tokenizers must notify a company before trading its stock, giving the issuer 30 days to object. Trading volume is capped.

Those requirements could make the U.S. model harder to adopt than tokenized stock products already offered overseas.

Issuer interest is another question.

“Our conversations with dozens of issuers, including several highly retail-facing, have revealed minimal interest in tokenizing their stocks outside crypto-adjacent companies such as Figure,” Noch wrote.

Figure offers a glimpse at the size of that hurdle. Its Nasdaq-listed FIGR shares trade alongside blockchain-native FGRS shares that carry the same economic exposure and voting rights. Yet 99.9% of Figure’s notional trading took place through its traditional listed shares during the 24-hour period examined by TD.

We need a plot twist in climate storytelling, moving beyond the threat and into the thrilling adventure of solving it. Tales of the messy decades in which billions of people change how they power homes, grow food, travel, build cities, and protect one another from a climate that has already changed

Culture makers are beginning to catch on. I’ve been invited by television and film writers, social-media creators, and brands to help climate solutions appear in comedy, drama, adventure, and everyday life. Ever more box-office hits, like The Wild Robot, Avatar, and the upcoming Digger, reflect our fight against climate and nature crises. Sesame Street is helping kids cope with extreme weather. New climate fiction novels weave answers into stirring worldbuilding. These all work because they are compelling and moving stories above all, not climate science lectures dressed in a thin veil of narrative. Many other scriptwriters, novelists, social media creators, musicians and artists must add to this list.