Crypto-friendly trading platform Robinhood (HOOD) is now registered to offer cryptocurrency services in the U.K.

Robinhood’s U.K. arm was added to the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) list of registered cryptoasset companies as of July 31.

The company’s existing FCA registration means it meets the regulator’s requirements where it comes to anti-money laundering (AML). A regime for crypto firms has been in effect since 2020 and now numbers over 50 approved companies, including Ripple, Kraken and traditional finance (TradFi) giants like BlackRock and BNY.

Winning the regulator’s permission to offer crypto services has added significance ahead of the inception of the more comprehensive framework for crypto regulation in the U.K. The authorization process opens at the end of September and closes at the end of February next year, ahead of the full regime coming into force in October.

The relatively brief window for companies to register and obtain full regulatory approval means those firms already registered under the FCA’s existing regime may have done a lot of the heavy lifting in advance.

ZeroStack’s plan to fund operations through 0G token reward sales is in jeopardy after a sharp drop in the token’s value. The downturn has also cast doubt on the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

ZeroStack ended June with a $61.3 million first-half loss, negative working capital, and $2.6 million in cash.

ZeroStack’s Form 10-Q Disclosure

According to its Form 10-Q disclosure for the quarter ending June 30, ZeroStack held $2.6 million in cash, negative working capital of $600,000, an accumulated deficit of $339.1 million, and a $61.3 million net loss. The company also reported an accounting loss of $82.5 million after re-measuring its assets at fair value.

ZeroStack held 75.1 million 0G tokens with a fair value of $15.17 million and a recorded cost of $163.33 million. It also held a small Bitcoin (BTC) position, taking the total fair value of ZeroStack’s holdings to $15.21 million and the total recorded value to $163.43 million.

The downturn in the value of ZeroStack’s 0G tokens represents a 90% decline and has cast serious doubts on the company’s financial stability and its ability to continue operations without securing additional funding.

Staking Reward Sales To Fund Operations

ZeroStack received 6.62 million 0G tokens through staking rewards in the first half of 2026, earning $3.78 million in revenue. The company sold 4.94 million 0G tokens for $2.4 million and used $2.47 million in cash for other operational activities. The company plans to monetize staking rewards and fund operations.

It may also sell some of its underlying holdings. ZeroStack stated in its disclosure that the staked tokens are held in company wallets and can be withdrawn when needed. The company also noted that staking rewards could decline or disappear entirely, and that any sale depended on prevailing market conditions and token value.

However, ZeroStack’s strategy could be at risk due to the significant decline in the 0G token’s value. The token is currently trading at $0.14, declining nearly 5% in the past 24 hours.

Investor Confidence Shaken

ZeroStack’s 0G bet and the subsequent decline in the token’s value significantly impact its investors. The downturn could result in further write-downs, affecting stock price and investor confidence.

Investors will closely monitor ZeroStack’s next steps. The company can raise funds through asset sales, a capital raise, or restructuring efforts. However, its current model could fail if the 0G token’s value continues declining.

ZeroStack’s July 20 acquisition of Texas Blocker increased its 0G token holding to 223.77 million, amplifying its exposure to the token’s downturn.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

The flaw allowing the exploit traces to a March 2021 firmware build that routed seed generation to a predictable software randomizer instead of the chip’s hardware one, leaving the resulting keys reproducible offline by anyone who works out the range. Coldcard manufacturer Coinkite released emergency firmware for every affected model and told users who had generated a seed on the flawed software to move funds to a wallet address made with a fresh one.

Thorn said he had no direct victim report and published his findings on pattern matching alone, choosing speed over confirmation to warn people while the transactions were still unconfirmed.

If it holds, however, the running total across four waves had reached about 1,816 bitcoin, near $114 million, from more than 5,200 addresses since July 30.

Thorn advised users to check funds, move anything off an affected device and bid the fee up.

The pattern covered blocks 960,778 to 960,792, with 218 transactions hitting 462 victim addresses at a rate of about 14 sweeps per block against 0.3 in a pre-incident control window, roughly 45 times normal.

Each of the spent coins that arrived after the Coldcard firmware boundary, and the destinations were fresh addresses with no prior history, one per victim rather than the shared collectors that made the first two waves easy to map.

Learn how to choose the best crypto payment gateway for businesses by comparing settlement, compliance, integrations, automation, and fees in 2026.

Companies serving international customers, digital-first audiences, or markets with limited card and bank transfer coverage may use crypto payments to fill the gap. A crypto payment gateway allows a business to accept crypto payments without building blockchain infrastructure internally. The provider can generate addresses, monitor confirmations, convert assets, screen transactions, and route settlements. The key question in 2026 is which provider can support the required assets, jurisdictions, settlement model, compliance process, and volume.

What defines the best crypto payment gateway for businesses?

The best crypto payment gateway for businesses depends on how the payment flow is expected to work.

Supported cryptocurrencies determine which assets customers can use, while blockchain coverage determines the available networks. The same stablecoin may operate on several blockchains with different fees and confirmation times.

The next question is what happens after payment. Some businesses retain crypto, while others convert it into stablecoins or fiat. Settlement options and automatic conversion should therefore be reviewed together. Auto-conversion can reduce volatility exposure and manual exchange work, while fiat settlement can simplify accounting and treasury management. However, availability may depend on the provider, jurisdiction, banking partners, and compliance checks.

Businesses must also decide how the gateway will connect with existing systems through an API, hosted checkout, or payment links. An API provides greater control over checkout logic and transaction handling, while hosted checkout reduces development work. Payment links support invoices and direct sales that do not require a conventional online store. Webhooks complement these methods by sending updates when a transaction is confirmed, underpaid, expired, or refunded.

Security and compliance determine whether the gateway fits internal policies. Relevant controls include KYB onboarding, AML screening, access permissions, withdrawal allowlists, transaction monitoring, and audit records. Transaction histories, exports, and reconciliation reports also reduce manual interpretation of blockchain records.

Finally, businesses need to assess reliability and total cost. Uptime and support affect payment continuity, while a headline fee may exclude blockchain charges, conversion fees, payouts, or fiat withdrawals. Providers should therefore be compared across the complete payment and settlement flow.

Comparison of leading crypto payment gateways

The table reflects publicly available product information. Exact availability can vary by jurisdiction, asset, network, account type, and onboarding outcome.

PassimPay overview

PassimPay combines payment acceptance, fund management, conversion, and payout tools in one crypto payment solution. The platform supports more than 74 cryptocurrencies across over 18 blockchains and is available in 122 countries.

Businesses can integrate through a Payment API or use Hosted Checkout when a ready-made interface is more suitable. Payment Links support remote billing, while Static Deposit Wallets provide reusable addresses for account-based deposits. Webhooks connect transaction events with merchant systems.

Beyond incoming payments, Mass Payouts and Batch Transactions support transfers to multiple recipients. Auto Conversion can move received assets into another supported currency, while Fiat Settlement provides an off-ramp for companies that do not want to retain all revenue in crypto. The Merchant Portal includes Transaction History and Reports for tracking and reconciliation.

PassimPay also provides AML Screening, checkout customization, and payment monitoring. It has more than 530 merchants, over 750,000 monthly transactions, more than $4 billion processed, and 99.99% uptime. Fees start at 0.5%, although the final cost depends on the services and transaction flow used.

This feature set suits SaaS, gaming, AI, hosting, e-commerce, and other digital services that need multi-market payments, user deposits, automated updates, conversion, or recurring payouts.

When different providers may fit different business needs

CoinGate may fit companies that value an established merchant ecosystem, e-commerce integrations, core cryptocurrency support, and settlement in major fiat currencies. Its standard plan lists a 1% processing fee and weekly automatic settlement.

NOWPayments may suit projects that prioritize asset breadth. It supports more than 350 cryptocurrencies, API-based payments, subscriptions, payment buttons, custody options, mass payouts, and auto-conversion. Its published service fee is 0.5% for single-currency payments and 1% when conversion is required.

CryptoProcessing by CoinsPaid may fit enterprise-oriented operations that need permanent deposit addresses, payment links, internal exchanges, mass payouts, e-commerce plugins, and crypto-to-fiat withdrawal. Its documentation lists support for more than 20 cryptocurrencies.

PassimPay may fit companies that need multi-chain coverage together with hosted payments, static wallets, automated conversion, fiat settlement, reporting, and payout functions. The final decision depends on the assets, networks, countries, controls, and settlement routes required by the business model.

Conclusion

Selecting the best crypto payment gateway for businesses requires more than comparing supported coins. Companies need to assess integration depth, blockchain coverage, settlement currencies, compliance controls, reporting, uptime, support, and total processing costs.

CoinGate, NOWPayments, CryptoProcessing by CoinsPaid, and PassimPay address different operational priorities. PassimPay stands among the more functionally complete options in this group for international digital businesses requiring multi-chain acceptance, automated fund management, and both collection and payout tools. Still, the appropriate provider is the one that matches the company’s payment flow, risk policy, technical resources, and settlement requirements.

The Coldcard exploit is not a hack in the way most people understand the word. Nobody broke into anything. Nobody phished anyone. Nobody stole a seed phrase from a sticky note. The devices generated weak private keys for five years, and an attacker figured out how to guess them.

That distinction matters because it strikes at the foundation of the self-custody argument. The pitch for hardware wallets has always been simple: your keys, your coins, no counterparty risk. Coldcard was the gold standard of that philosophy. Air-gapped, open-source, bitcoin-only, endorsed by security researchers and institutional custodians as the most trusted device in the ecosystem.

If the most trusted hardware wallet can ship a five-year entropy bug without detection, the question is no longer whether Coldcard failed. The question is whether any hardware wallet can be trusted as the sole custodial layer for significant bitcoin holdings. And the market is answering that question with its feet.

The exploit in four waves

The first wave hit at 2:14 a.m. UTC on July 30. A single entity swept 594 BTC from approximately 500 wallets in 25 minutes. The second wave followed on August 1, draining 284.4 BTC from 2,889 addresses. The third wave hit later that day with 207.73 BTC across a separate address cluster. The fourth wave arrived on August 3, with Galaxy Research’s Alex Thorn identifying 448.7 BTC moving from 709 suspected victim addresses.

The combined estimate stands at approximately 1,816 BTC across 5,294 addresses. Galaxy measures 13.8 sweeps per block during active waves, roughly 45 times the baseline rate. Thorn described the pattern as “LIKELY Coldcard victims” based on unspent output characteristics and transaction behavior. The wording is precise because the attribution comes from blockchain analysis, not device records or law enforcement confirmation.

Coinkite, the Toronto-based manufacturer, traced the problem to a March 2021 firmware change. A preprocessor guard was supposed to select the hardware random-number generator during seed creation. The guard checked whether a configuration setting was defined, not whether its value was correct. The build system selected a deterministic MicroPython fallback instead. The firmware compiled without warnings. Seeds appeared normal. Addresses accepted deposits. Nothing indicated the entropy was catastrophically weak.

On Mk3 devices, the effective search space dropped to approximately 40 bits. A 128-bit seed has more possible combinations than atoms in the observable universe. A 40-bit seed has roughly one trillion combinations. That is within reach of commodity hardware. The Mk4, Mk5, and Q models include additional secure elements that mix their own entropy, producing seeds with approximately 72 bits. Better than 40, but still far below the 128-bit target.

The critical detail: updating the firmware does not repair an existing seed. Every Coldcard owner who generated a seed on affected firmware must create a new seed on patched hardware and migrate their funds. The key itself must be replaced.

The flow reversal: from exchanges to self-custody and back

After FTX collapsed in November 2022, the bitcoin community experienced its most dramatic shift in custodial philosophy. The phrase “not your keys, not your coins” became operational advice rather than a slogan. On-chain data showed a sustained, multi-month transfer of bitcoin from exchange addresses to self-custody wallets. The trend persisted for nearly two years.

The Coldcard exploit has reversed that flow. Net transfers from self-custody wallets to exchange addresses have been positive every day since July 31. The magnitude is not comparable to the post-FTX exodus, which involved hundreds of thousands of BTC over months. The current flow is smaller and more concentrated among users who specifically held Coldcard devices. But the direction of the flow is what matters for the narrative.

The users moving bitcoin to exchanges are not panicking retail investors. Many are technically sophisticated holders who chose Coldcard specifically because it was the most security-conscious option. They are making a rational calculation: the counterparty risk of an exchange is now quantifiable and insured, while the self-custody risk of a hardware wallet with a five-year entropy bug is neither.

That calculation is the narrative shift. Self-custody was supposed to eliminate counterparty risk entirely. The Coldcard exploit demonstrates that self-custody introduces its own category of risk: supply-chain risk, firmware risk, entropy risk, and the risk that the device you trust with your private keys is not doing what its manufacturer claims.

Who benefits: the treasury company model

The companies that hold bitcoin through institutional custody benefit directly from the narrative shift. Strategy, the largest corporate holder with over 550,000 BTC as of its latest disclosure, uses institutional custodians including Coinbase Custody and Fidelity Digital Assets. These custodians use multi-signature arrangements, hardware security modules, and geographic distribution that do not depend on any single device’s entropy quality.

The treasury company thesis is built on the argument that holding bitcoin through a publicly traded company is safer than holding it yourself, more liquid than holding it in a hardware wallet, and more capital-efficient because the company can borrow against its holdings. The Coldcard exploit strengthens the first claim in a way that no marketing campaign could.

Evernorth, the XRP treasury company preparing to list, faces a similar dynamic. Prospective investors who might have preferred self-custody of XRP now have a concrete example of what can go wrong with hardware wallet security. The listing calculus shifts when self-custody carries visible, quantifiable risk.

The broader pattern extends to every institutional custody provider. Coinbase Custody, BitGo, Fireblocks, and Anchorage reported inquiries surging after the first Coldcard wave. The product these companies sell is the elimination of exactly the risk that Coldcard exposed: the risk that a hardware implementation error, invisible for years, can make your private keys guessable.

The insurance gap and what it reveals

The Coldcard exploit has exposed an insurance gap that the industry has not addressed. Regulated exchanges and custodians carry insurance against theft, operational failure, and in some cases, hot-wallet compromise. The coverage limits vary, but the principle is established: if an exchange loses your bitcoin through its own failure, there is a claims process.

Self-custody has no equivalent. If a hardware wallet generates a weak key and an attacker drains the funds, the user has no insurance claim. Coinkite is a private company in Toronto. No product liability framework for hardware wallet entropy failures exists. The affected users can sue, but collecting meaningful damages from a hardware startup is a different proposition from filing a claim against an insured custodian.

The insurance gap is not a new observation, but the Coldcard exploit makes it concrete. A user who lost 10 BTC from a Coldcard has no recovery mechanism. A user who lost 10 BTC from Coinbase Custody would have a claim against the custodian’s insurance. The risk-adjusted comparison now favors institutional custody for any holding above the threshold where insurance matters.

The AI dimension and what it means for future exploits

Coinkite said the attacker used AI to discover the firmware flaw, and that Coinkite’s own AI audit of the same code weeks earlier found nothing. If that assessment is correct, it introduces a new variable into the self-custody risk model.

Hardware wallet security has historically rested on the assumption that open-source code is safer because more eyes can review it. The Coldcard firmware was public for five years. Thousands of developers could have inspected it. Nobody found the entropy bug. An AI model did.

The implication is that the advantage in firmware analysis has shifted from defenders to attackers. If AI can find subtle build-system errors that human reviewers miss, then every open-source hardware wallet is potentially vulnerable to the same methodology. The attacker does not need to find a new type of bug. They need to find a new instance of the same type of bug in a different codebase.

Block, Trezor, and Ledger have confirmed their products are unaffected by the specific Coldcard vulnerability. But “unaffected by this specific bug” is not the same as “provably secure against AI-assisted firmware analysis.” The assurance gap is structural, and the Coldcard exploit is the first public demonstration of it.

The self-custody argument is not dead, but it is wounded

The self-custody philosophy will survive the Coldcard exploit. Multi-signature arrangements that do not depend on any single device, hardware wallets from manufacturers with different codebases, and cold storage practices that incorporate dice rolls for entropy remain valid approaches. Coinkite itself noted that seeds created with at least 50 fair dice rolls are not considered exposed by this RNG issue.

What the exploit has damaged is the simplest version of the self-custody argument: buy a hardware wallet, generate a seed, store it safely, and never worry about counterparty risk again. That version assumed the hardware wallet worked as advertised. For five years, Coldcard did not.

The result is a more nuanced custody landscape. Self-custody for small amounts remains practical. Self-custody for significant holdings now requires either multi-signature setups, multiple hardware vendors, external entropy sources, or regular security audits that most individual holders cannot perform. For holders who cannot or will not take those steps, institutional custody has become the lower-risk option. And that is exactly the argument the treasury companies have been making all along.

What to watch

• Exchange inflow data. If the net transfer from self-custody to exchanges continues beyond the initial Coldcard panic, it signals a durable shift in custody preferences rather than a temporary reaction.

• Coinkite’s liability exposure. Any class-action filing against Coinkite will establish precedent for hardware wallet manufacturer liability. Watch for suits in US and Canadian courts.

• Institutional custodian onboarding numbers. Coinbase Custody, BitGo, and Fireblocks quarterly reports will show whether the Coldcard exploit translated into sustained new business.

• Strategy and Evernorth share price behavior. If treasury company stocks outperform bitcoin in August, the market is pricing the custody-narrative shift into equities.

• New firmware audit disclosures. If other hardware wallet manufacturers commission independent AI-assisted audits and publish results, it signals the industry is taking the supply-chain risk seriously.

Frequently asked questions

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Loss estimates are based on third-party blockchain analysis and have not been confirmed by the manufacturer or law enforcement. Published August 3, 2026.

Bitcoin slipped below $63,000 on Monday, Aug. 3, even as falling oil prices and stronger U.S. stock futures created a more favorable backdrop for risk assets.

BTC traded near $62,556, down 1.38% over 24 hours and 4.35% over seven days. It had reached a Sunday high near $63,650 before sellers regained control. Ether fell about 1.8% to $1,841, while XRP and Solana also declined.

The weakness came as investors assessed renewed U.S. talks with Iran, another suspected Coldcard attack wave, fresh spot Bitcoin ETF outflows and the absence of the CLARITY Act from Monday’s Senate schedule.

Bitcoin price fails to follow the broader relief trade

President Donald Trump canceled a planned military strike on Iran and said negotiations would seek to address Iran’s nuclear program and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Brent crude fell to about $83.28 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate dropped to $79.47.

Nasdaq futures rose about 0.8%, while S&P 500 futures gained 0.6%. Treasury prices also strengthened as lower oil reduced some of the inflation concerns created by disrupted energy supplies.

Bitcoin did not follow that move. The divergence does not prove that one crypto event caused the decline. However, it shows that lower oil and stronger equity futures were not enough to overcome the pressures already affecting digital assets.

The relative weakness is consistent with a possible rotation of speculative capital toward technology stocks. Price action alone cannot confirm that movement, but renewed activity in equities can reduce demand for crypto when traders have several competing sources of volatility.

Coldcard losses keep security fears in focus

Galaxy Research head Alex Thorn identified what he described as a “LIKELY” fourth organized wave affecting Coldcard generated addresses. His updated estimate covered 709 potential victim addresses and 448.7 BTC. Activity reached 13.8 sweeps per Bitcoin block, about 45 times the rate measured during an earlier control period.

Galaxy had previously mapped three suspected waves involving 1,367.05 BTC across 4,585 addresses. Adding the latest estimate produces a possible total of 1,815.75 BTC across 5,294 addresses, assuming the groups contain no overlap.

That total remains an onchain estimate. Coinkite, law enforcement agencies and individual wallet owners have not independently confirmed every address as a victim. Galaxy has also not established whether one attacker controlled all four waves.

The incident concerns seed generation in affected Coldcard firmware rather than a failure in Bitcoin’s network or transaction cryptography. Coinkite said some devices created seeds with less randomness than intended, allowing attackers to search a smaller range of possible keys.

Coinkite has released corrected firmware for each affected model. However, installing an update does not repair an existing vulnerable seed. Users must generate a new seed with corrected firmware and transfer their funds. The company said its investigation remains ongoing.

As crypto.news previously reported, Thorn also identified similar transactions waiting in the mempool. Some users may be able to replace an unconfirmed attacker transaction with a higher fee transfer, although success is “not guaranteed.”

ETF outflows and the CLARITY delay add pressure

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded about $61.5 million in net outflows from July 27 through July 31, based on SoSoValue data. The result ended three consecutive weeks of net inflows.

The final session caused most of the weekly reversal. Funds lost a combined $265.4 million on July 31. BlackRock’s IBIT recorded $122.7 million in withdrawals, while Fidelity’s FBTC lost $54.8 million and Grayscale’s GBTC posted $52.6 million in outflows.

The flows do not show whether investors expect further price declines. They do show that regulated fund demand weakened as Bitcoin moved closer to long term support.

Political uncertainty added another concern. Monday’s official Senate schedule included a vote on a spending measure but no action on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. The chamber’s published cloture records also showed no petition for the legislation.

As crypto.news reported, leaders would ordinarily need to file cloture by Wednesday, Aug. 5, to hold a possible Friday vote on proceeding to the bill. Such a vote would not constitute final passage.

The absence of scheduled action cannot be identified as the direct cause of Bitcoin’s decline. Still, it removes a possible near term policy catalyst while traders await a clearer Senate timetable.

Bitcoin price now faces a $60,000 support test

The supplied daily chart shows Bitcoin struggling below the $63,000 to $65,000 range. Momentum has weakened, with the relative strength index at 42.65 and below its moving average of 50.40.

The MACD histogram has also turned negative. A sustained move below $60,000 would weaken the current structure, while a recovery above $65,000 to $66,000 would provide stronger evidence that buyers have regained control.

Strategy founder Michael Saylor said the company had begun tracking Bitcoin’s 200 week moving average and its premium to that level. He said Bitcoin had remained above the average 92% of the time since the indicator became available. The percentage reflects Strategy’s calculation rather than an independent market study.

Nasdaq-listed crypto treasury company ZeroStack has raised serious questions about its financial runway, warning in a recent SEC filing that “substantial doubt” exists about whether it can keep operating for the next year. The assessment marks a sharp reversal from its view just a quarter earlier, highlighting how dependent the company’s plan is on staking income and the liquidity of its Zero Gravity (0G) token.

In a Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, ZeroStack reported $2.6 million in cash and negative working capital of $600,000 as of June 30, along with an accumulated deficit of $339.1 million. The filing also detailed a major unrealized drag from its token treasury: an $82.5 million fair value loss on digital assets and a net loss of $61.3 million for the first half of 2026.

Key takeaways

• ZeroStack now says there is substantial doubt it can continue operating over the next year, reversing its earlier “sufficient” outlook in a prior filing.
• As of June 30, the company held 75.1 million 0G tokens, valued at $15.2 million versus an aggregate cost of $163.3 million (about 91% below recorded cost).
• The company relies on staking rewards and sales of 0G tokens to fund operations, making its cash position sensitive to token price and trading liquidity.
• ZeroStack reported $3.8 million in staking revenue in the first half of 2026, but it also recorded significant losses and could not conclude that its planned funding steps fully remove going-concern risk.

SEC filing flags going-concern risk

ZeroStack’s latest filing is notable not just for its headline loss figures, but for the governance and risk signal it sends to investors. Management stated that it could not conclude its plans would be enough to eliminate doubts about whether the company can continue as a going concern over the next year.

The company’s balance sheet underscores the pressure behind that conclusion. With $2.6 million in cash and negative working capital of $600,000 at June 30, ZeroStack’s near-term flexibility appears limited. It also reported an accumulated deficit of $339.1 million, reflecting losses that have compounded over time.

Beyond liquidity, the filing shows the company is carrying a large unrealized impairment in its digital asset treasury. ZeroStack disclosed an $82.5 million fair value loss on digital assets during the period, alongside a net loss of $61.3 million for the first half of 2026.

A treasury strategy tied to 0G’s market

ZeroStack’s operating model depends heavily on 0G token performance and the token’s market depth. The company reported that it holds 75.1 million 0G tokens with an aggregate cost of $163.3 million and a fair value of $15.2 million as of June 30. Put differently, the holdings were valued about 91% below their recorded costs.

That gap matters for both accounting and funding. If the company intends to finance operations through token sales—especially during periods of weak liquidity—its ability to raise cash could be constrained even if balances appear large on paper. The company explicitly linked its funding capacity to both the 0G price and trading liquidity, according to the filing.

ZeroStack’s management also described reliance on staking rewards and token sales. In practice, staking income can provide periodic cash flow, but it may not be sufficient in periods when token markets are illiquid or when valuations fall further.

Staking revenue helps—yet the runway question remains

During the first half of 2026, ZeroStack reported $3.8 million in staking revenue. After validator commissions, the company said it earned about 6.6 million 0G tokens from staking activity.

To support expenses, ZeroStack sold nearly 4.9 million 0G tokens for $2.4 million over the same period. The filing indicates that these cash inflows—staking-related and sale-related—are central to its ability to pay forecast operating costs.

ZeroStack also said that, if needed, it could sell some of its treasury holdings. However, management’s conclusion did not fully reassure the markets: it said it could not determine that those actions would be enough to address going-concern doubts.

The tension here is straightforward. When a company’s main treasury assets have experienced steep valuation declines, the theoretical ability to raise cash by selling holdings can become less effective in the real world—particularly if market pricing and liquidity do not support the volume and proceeds management may be counting on.

Backtracking from earlier filings

Perhaps the most consequential element of the news is the reversal in ZeroStack’s assessment. In its first-quarter Form 10-Q filing, the company stated that its cash and staking rewards would be sufficient to meet its working capital requirements and obligations for at least another year.

In the most recent filing, it no longer reaches that conclusion and instead flags substantial doubt about continued operations over the next year. The shift suggests that circumstances changed—or that management’s confidence in the sustainability of its funding plan weakened as results and valuations evolved.

ZeroStack’s corporate background also provides context for how the company arrived at this point. The filing notes that the company was previously Flora Growth, a cannabis and CBD products firm. On Sept. 19, Flora announced $401 million in funding for a 0G treasury strategy, including $35 million in cash and equivalent commitments and more than $366 million in in-kind digital assets. The company later rebranded as ZeroStack and retained its Nasdaq listing.

Those details underline why investors are likely to focus on token treasury outcomes: the strategy is fundamentally designed to monetize staking and manage liquidity through sales. When 0G’s fair value diverges sharply from recorded cost, the difference can translate into both accounting losses and real constraints on financing flexibility.

What readers should watch next is whether ZeroStack provides further clarity on how it plans to balance staking, token sales, and liquidity needs—particularly given its much narrower margin for error after the “substantial doubt” disclosure. Investors will also likely track changes in 0G trading conditions, since the company’s own filings tie its funding outlook directly to token price and market liquidity.