“It doesn’t have to be done as a rulemaking,” said SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, who has led much of the agency’s crypto work since the start of last year. In response to a question from CoinDesk, she said the SEC has exemptive authority that it routinely uses. “We can do it as a rule, but we don’t have to do it as a rule.”

In March, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins described the incoming policy as “an innovation exemption to facilitate limited trading of certain tokenized securities with an eye toward developing a long-term regulatory framework.” He said it would be “limited in time and scope, but long enough so that we can craft more durable rules that harness the full potential of these new technologies.”

More recently in May, he added: “I also think we should consider what a future-proofed framework may look like, which would take the form of notice-and-comment rulemaking and would address the ‘exchange’ definition as applied to onchain trading systems.”

CoinDesk canvassed the views of several lawyers who are former officials at the SEC, asking questions about the choice to put off formal rulemaking, and whether the interim work on this will hold up. Most agreed that the approach may not carry the highest force of SEC authority, but it’d still be difficult to put the toothpaste back into the tube if the next administration sees things differently.

Ethereum researchers are exploring a way to harden user accounts against future quantum-computing threats without waiting for a disruptive network upgrade. According to Ethereum Foundation project lead Nicolas Consigny, the “SPHINCS-” proposal could start delivering post-quantum protections for as little as $0.07 in on-chain verification costs, avoiding the need for a hard fork.

Consigny shared the idea in a Saturday post on X, linking to a technical paper hosted on Ethresear.ch. The work adapts SPHINCS+, a post-quantum signature scheme standardized by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to run more efficiently on Ethereum’s execution environment.

Key takeaways

• Ethereum could add early post-quantum account protections using Consigny’s “SPHINCS-” approach without requiring a hard fork.
• The proposal targets lower on-chain signature verification costs by adapting SPHINCS+ to the EVM more efficiently.
• “SPHINCS-” is positioned as a transitional step toward a future, even more cost-efficient system called “leanSPHINCS.”
• The broader objective is to reduce long-term risk to Ethereum’s current Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) once quantum capabilities advance.

A bridge to post-quantum signatures on the EVM

In the X thread, Consigny points to a paper proposing “SPHINCS-,” a variant designed to make SPHINCS+ signatures cheaper to verify on Ethereum. Unlike some migration plans that require protocol changes, the proposal is intended to reduce on-chain verification costs without mandating a protocol update or a dedicated precompile.

That distinction matters for Ethereum users and developers because it aims to make post-quantum readiness possible on a shorter timeline. Hard forks are expensive in governance and coordination, and they introduce additional operational complexity for wallets, contracts, and infrastructure. A solution that can be introduced with fewer low-level changes lowers the practical barrier to moving away from purely ECDSA-based assumptions over time.

The paper’s core framing is that “SPHINCS-” can function as a bridge—a starting point that brings account protections closer to post-quantum security while the ecosystem works toward a longer-term, more optimized signature scheme.

Why Ethereum is looking beyond ECDSA

The quantum concern is straightforward: if sufficiently capable quantum computers become available, the cryptography underpinning today’s elliptic curve signatures becomes vulnerable. The article attributes the motivation directly to the long-term threat posed to Ethereum’s use of the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA).

Consigny’s approach is built around the idea that post-quantum signatures should be available before the ecosystem reaches a point where a dedicated hard fork or a full replacement becomes unavoidable. In other words, the proposal is less about “solving quantum tomorrow” and more about narrowing the window of unpreparedness.

For investors and operators, this shifts the discussion from purely theoretical security to migration readiness. Even if timelines for large-scale quantum attacks remain uncertain, the key economic question becomes how quickly the network can reduce reliance on vulnerable primitives.

“leanSPHINCS” and the direction of travel

In describing SPHINCS-, Consigny also highlights a further goal: eventual migration to “leanSPHINCS.” The paper characterizes leanSPHINCS as a future system intended to cut verification costs even more, with the help of signature aggregation.

This matters because signature verification costs are not just a technical detail—they affect how feasible post-quantum security is for everyday transactions. If aggregation reduces the amount of computation or on-chain work required per authorization, it can help move post-quantum schemes from “prototype-ready” to “economically practical.”

At the same time, the bridge approach implies trade-offs: SPHINCS- is designed to improve efficiency now, but it is still framed as an interim step rather than the final end state.

Quantum risk conversations spread across Bitcoin and Ethereum

The Ethereum proposal lands in a broader wave of crypto security discussions about how quantum advancements could impact blockchain cryptography.

Earlier this year, a post-quantum research effort by Project Eleven awarded a prize to Giancarlo Lelli for work involving a quantum computer capable of cracking a 15-bit elliptic-curve key. As the article notes, Bitcoin keys are 256 bits, far larger than the example that was factored. Still, the demonstration used a variant of Shor’s algorithm—a method that is widely discussed in relation to how quantum computers could theoretically threaten certain public-key cryptosystems.

Separate from the experimental headline, blockchain analytics has also tried to quantify exposure. The article cites Glassnode’s estimates that about 1.92 million BTC (nearly 10% of supply) are considered “structurally unsafe” in a future quantum attack scenario, while another 4.12 million BTC (about 20.6%) are classified as “operationally unsafe” due to key or address management practices.

Glassnode also estimated that the remaining 69.8% (or 13.99 million BTC) appears unexposed, broadly aligning with an earlier Ark Invest estimate that 65% of Bitcoin supply was safe. While these classifications don’t eliminate uncertainty around quantum timelines, they show that market participants are treating quantum risk as something that can be managed—at least partially—through operational practices.

For Ethereum, the SPHINCS- proposal can be viewed through the same lens: rather than waiting for an emergency upgrade, developers are exploring mechanisms to reduce long-term cryptographic fragility in advance.

What to watch next is whether Ethereum implementers can validate the proposal’s practical on-chain performance in real execution conditions—particularly whether the claimed low verification cost remains consistent as systems scale—and how the community plans the longer transition toward leanSPHINCS and any eventual broader post-quantum signature rollout.

Ethereum Foundation privacy project Kohaku lead Nico said Ethereum accounts can start preparing for post-quantum risks without waiting for a hard fork. 

In a June 2026 post on X, Nico wrote, “Ethereum can already start preparing accounts for a post quantum world, without waiting for a hard fork.”

The researcher said the current cost would be about $0.07 per account. The claim points to account-level protection, not a full chain upgrade. That means users or wallet teams could add protection through smart contract logic while Ethereum developers keep working on longer-term protocol changes.

SPHINCS- targets low-cost EVM verification

The technical post on Ethereum Research describes SPHINCS-, an EVM-optimized family of stateless post-quantum signatures. The design comes from SPHINCS+ and newer work on compact hash-based signatures. Its goal is to cut on-chain verification cost without using a precompile or changing Ethereum rules.

Nico’s post says a Solidity verifier can already check a post-quantum-style signature on Ethereum at practical cost. One optimized variant, called C13, verifies at about 127,000 gas and uses a 3,704-byte signature. The research also includes a Lean 4 formal proof through Verity.

The problem it tries to solve is simple. Today, Ethereum and Bitcoin accounts rely on ECDSA signatures. Researchers warn that strong future quantum computers could break that type of cryptography. SPHINCS- uses hash-based signatures, which aim to resist those attacks.

Privacy and security remain priorities

Recent crypto.news coverage shows the proposal fits a broader Ethereum roadmap. Vitalik Buterin has discussed account abstraction, which lets wallets define how transactions are approved and paid. Moreover, account abstraction forms part of Ethereum’s short-term privacy plan with FOCIL and keyed nonces.

As previously reported, Buterin said the Ethereum Foundation would focus more tightly on long-term survival, security, privacy, openness, and censorship resistance. That same coverage said Ethereum roadmap work includes post-quantum security and formal verification as future goals.

Moreover, externally owned account signatures using ECDSA are one area exposed to future quantum attacks. For wallets, the report said native account abstraction could let accounts adopt post-quantum signature schemes once efficient options exist.

Audits and limits still matter

Nico said the design has gone through an initial review with Fable, with more audits planned. That review does not make the system final. The Ethereum Research post notes limits, including non-standard settings, bounded signature counts, and a difference between Keccak-based designs and NIST-aligned versions.

For users, the key point is that Ethereum may not need to wait for a full protocol change before wallets begin testing quantum-resistant account protection. For developers, the next steps include more review, safer wallet flows, clearer cost models, and better hardware support.

The account path matters because many funds sit in old-style addresses. A wallet-based route could let high-value accounts test protection before Ethereum adopts broader changes through later technical upgrades, proposal rounds, and wider public review.

The proposal does not mean Ethereum faces an immediate quantum attack. It also does not replace future network-level work. It does show that account-level defenses can move from research into testing today, at a cost that Nico says is low enough for wide trials.

TLDR:

• The SEC approved NYSE Arca’s rule change on June 12 to list the T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF
• The fund holds 5 to 15 digital assets including BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, SHIB, DOGE, and SUI.
• Unlike spot ETFs, the fund actively targets outperformance of the FTSE Crypto US Listed Index.
• Spot XRP ETFs have already attracted $1.44 billion in inflows following their market debut.

The T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF has received SEC approval to list on NYSE Arca. The decision, issued on June 12, marks a new chapter in multi-asset crypto investment products.

The fund will hold between 5 and 15 digital assets, targeting long-term capital growth. It is benchmarked against the FTSE Crypto US Listed Index and aims to outperform it through active management.

SEC Clears Multi-Asset Fund With Broad Crypto Exposure

The T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF is structured under NYSE Arca’s Commodity Based Trust Shares framework. The SEC approved the exchange’s rule change proposal, allowing the fund to be listed and traded publicly. This approval follows a broader trend of regulators clearing diverse crypto investment vehicles.

The fund’s eligible assets span across the largest digital asset classes. These include Bitcoin, Ether, Solana, XRP, and Cardano.

Additional holdings may include Avalanche, Litecoin, Polkadot, Dogecoin, and Chainlink. Stellar, Hedera, Bitcoin Cash, Shiba Inu, and Sui are also on the eligible assets list.

Unlike single-asset spot ETFs, this product offers diversified exposure across multiple digital assets. Portfolio managers will actively rebalance holdings to pursue returns above the benchmark index. The fund uses delayed disclosures as part of its active management strategy.

The SEC noted that the proposal aligns with the Securities Exchange Act. Additional safeguards against market manipulation have been built into the structure.

The exchange will also implement enhanced firewall protections and trading halt features specific to actively managed products.

Active Management Sets It Apart From Spot ETF Products

The T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF differs from conventional spot ETFs in a fundamental way. Spot ETFs track a single asset passively, while this fund actively manages a basket of assets. The goal is to outperform its index, not simply mirror it.

Multi-asset products reduce concentration risk compared to single-token ETFs. Spreading exposure across 5 to 15 assets provides a buffer against sharp moves in any one coin. This structure appeals to investors seeking measured crypto exposure within a regulated wrapper.

The approval arrives as other asset managers accelerate their own crypto ETF filings. BlackRock recently submitted a Form 8-A for its Bitcoin Premium Income ETF. Analysts widely interpret that filing as a signal of an imminent launch within days.

XRP holders responded positively to news of the token’s inclusion in the fund. Spot XRP ETFs have already drawn $1.44 billion in inflows since their launch. Ripple’s CEO has separately projected the company could reach $1 billion in annual revenue before year-end.

Robert Kiyosaki has again urged followers to move away from cash and into hard assets. 

In a June 13 post on X, the Rich Dad Poor Dad author asked how much a trillion dollars is, then used the answer to attack dollar savings.

Kiyosaki wrote that “cash is trash” and said savers of dollars lose purchasing power. He told followers to consider gold, silver, Bitcoin, and Ethereum. His post framed the U.S. dollar as vulnerable because, in his view, the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury can create money quickly.

His trillion-dollar example also served as a simple visual for readers. By comparing one dollar per minute with the creation of new money, Kiyosaki tried to make a large number feel personal. The post did not include a detailed investment plan. It focused on the idea that cash loses value when supply expands. That framing matches his usual criticism of fiat money. It also fits his asset-focused brand publicly online.

Bitcoin and Ethereum remain under pressure

The warning arrived during a weak period for crypto markets. Bitcoin traded near $64,569 on June 14, while Ethereum traded near $1,674, according to market data. Both assets remained far below their 2025 cycle highs after a sharp June selloff.

As previously reported by crypto.news, the June crypto crash came from several pressures at once. The report cited a hawkish Federal Reserve, U.S.-Iran tensions, ETF outflows, and a leverage unwind. Bitcoin fell from above $80,000 to below $62,000 during that period, while Ethereum moved toward $1,500.

Gold and Bitcoin split safe-haven debate

Kiyosaki has often grouped gold, silver, and Bitcoin as alternatives to fiat money. His latest post also added Ethereum to that list. The argument fits his long-running view that inflation and monetary expansion reduce the value of cash savings over time.

Crypto.news has also tracked the changing relationship between Bitcoin and gold. In May, crypto.news reported that Bitcoin had outperformed gold by roughly 35% to 36% on a relative basis since the start of the 2026 Iran conflict. That report said Bitcoin acted more like a risk-sensitive alternative store of value than a classic crisis hedge.

Market stress keeps investors cautious

Recent fund flows still show caution. As previously reported, U.S.-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded 13 straight trading days of net outflows from May 15 through June 3. About $4.37 billion left the products during that streak.

Ethereum also faced pressure from weak demand. As crypto.news reported on June 12, spot Ethereum ETFs lost $15.89 million on June 11, extending outflows for three sessions. ETH traded near $1,652 at that time as geopolitical risk and weak technical structure kept buyers cautious.

Kiyosaki’s post adds a familiar voice to the wider debate over cash, inflation, and scarce assets. It does not change the short-term market setup. Bitcoin and Ethereum still need stronger demand, calmer macro conditions, and better fund flows to confirm a steadier recovery.

Strategy CEO Phong Le said the company’s 32 BTC sale was a test of its process and not a sign that the firm needed cash for dividends. 

In a June 13 interview, Le said the sale helped “inoculate the market” and gave Strategy a way to check how an internal Bitcoin sale would work.

The company sold 32 Bitcoin between May 26 and May 31 for about $2.5 million, according to its SEC filing. The average sale price was $77,135 per BTC. The filing said proceeds were expected to fund preferred stock distributions, which led some investors to question whether Strategy might need to sell more Bitcoin later.

Strategy says sale not tied to dividend pressure

Le pushed back on that reading. He said Strategy did not sell Bitcoin because it needed to meet cash dividend obligations. He said the company still has other funding channels, including equity and preferred stock tools, to support its capital structure.

He also said the sale created tax losses that may offset related taxes in future periods. The point, according to Le, was to test the process, reduce market shock around the idea of selling, and keep the company ready if a small sale later benefits common shareholders.

The CEO said Strategy would use math over ideology when choosing between selling Bitcoin and issuing stock. If a Bitcoin sale improves Bitcoin per share for common holders, the company may choose that path. If share issuance works better, it can use that route instead.

Forced selling remains an edge case

Le also addressed the chance of a forced Bitcoin sale. He said the most realistic case would involve about $3.5 billion of preferred obligations due in 2028. If Bitcoin fell sharply and Strategy’s share price stayed weak, the company could sell Bitcoin to meet those obligations.

Le described that outcome as an “edge case.” He said Strategy could also refinance or convert those obligations into equity. That means a Bitcoin sale is not the only available path if market conditions worsen.

As previously reported by crypto.news, Strategy bought 1,550 BTC for about $101.3 million between June 1 and June 7 after the 32 BTC sale. The purchase lifted its total holdings to 845,256 BTC. Strategy also raised its U.S. dollar reserve to $1 billion.

Saylor metric puts risk in focus

The debate comes as Michael Saylor has tried to clarify how investors should measure Strategy’s Bitcoin exposure. Earlier today, crypto.news reported that Saylor said Bitcoin Per Share tracks common equity growth, while Common Equity Bitcoin Exposure BPS, or CEBE BPS, tracks Bitcoin exposure after debt and preferred stock claims.

Saylor said CEBE BPS is the conservative risk metric. That matters because Strategy’s Bitcoin model now includes debt, preferred stock and dividend costs. The gap between Bitcoin per share and CEBE BPS can widen when senior claims grow.

TLDR:

• CoinFund’s Brukhman says Anthropic’s export control compliance confirmed AI models are the biggest target for government control.
• Distributed GPU compute already exists to train frontier AI models, but new algorithms are needed to make decentralized use viable.
• Teams like Gensyn, Prime Intellect, and Pluralis are proving that distributed AI training is feasible and cost-competitive.
• Pluralis proposes tokenizing AI model weights among participants to create a sustainable business model for decentralized AI.

Decentralized AI could serve as a critical counterweight to growing government control over artificial intelligence models.

CoinFund founder Jake Brukhman made this argument following Anthropic’s compliance with U.S. AI export controls. He warned that centralized AI development poses increasing risks of unilateral censorship.

Brukhman pointed to distributed GPU networks and open decentralized systems as viable alternatives. His comments have reignited debate about the future governance of frontier AI models.

Brukhman Links Anthropic’s Export Control Move to Centralization Risk

Jake Brukhman has been tracking the intersection of AI and decentralized networks since 2020. He argues that AI models are, by nature, a centralizing force in the technology landscape. Anthropic’s compliance with U.S. export controls, he says, confirmed what many in the space already suspected.

In a post on X, Brukhman wrote that the development became “market fact” overnight. He framed it as a turning point for how the industry should think about AI governance. His concern centers on the risk that AI could fall under unilateral state control.

Brukhman noted that commodity GPU compute already exists in sufficient quantity to support frontier model training.

The barrier, he argues, is not availability of hardware but rather the algorithms needed to use it efficiently. Several research teams are now addressing that exact problem.

He cited Gensyn, Prime Intellect, Bagel, Pluralis, Nous Research, Macrocosmos, and Covenant AI as teams working on distributed training.

Their research, he said, was once widely dismissed as impossible. Today, it shows that distributed training is not only feasible but can be cost-competitive with centralized approaches.

Tokenized AI Models Emerge as a Potential Business Model

Open source AI models have gained wide adoption, yet they face a persistent challenge around economic sustainability.

Without a viable business model, open models struggle to attract long-term investment and development resources. Brukhman acknowledged this gap directly in his commentary.

Among the teams he cited, only Pluralis has proposed a concrete solution to this problem. The approach involves splitting model weights among network participants through a tokenized structure. This creates a financial incentive for contributors while maintaining decentralized control of the model.

The tokenized model structure means no single entity holds full control over the AI system. Participants share ownership of the weights, making unilateral censorship or control significantly harder to execute. Brukhman sees this as a foundational step toward economically sustainable decentralized AI.

Brukhman closed his argument with a direct question to the broader industry. He asked whether AI would become fully centralized under government oversight or whether public, open networks would prevail.

The answer, he suggested, depends on whether the industry acts on the momentum now building in decentralized AI research.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has approved NYSE Arca’s proposal to list and trade shares of the T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF. 

The order, dated June 12, covers the fund under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E for commodity-based trust shares.

The product gives investors a single listed vehicle for several crypto assets. It is not limited to Bitcoin or Ethereum. The filing says the fund seeks long-term capital growth by investing in a basket of eligible crypto assets selected by the sponsor. The approval clears the exchange listing rule, but trading details still depend on the issuer’s launch process.

How the active fund works

The T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF will use the FTSE Crypto US Listed Index as a benchmark. However, the fund will not simply copy that index. The SEC order says the sponsor intends to use an active strategy and aims to “outperform the Index.”

Under normal market conditions, the ETF is expected to hold between five and fifteen eligible assets. The filing also says the fund may hold fewer than five or more than fifteen assets at certain times. That gives the sponsor room to change exposure as market conditions shift.

Because the ETF is actively managed, NYSE Arca added extra requirements. The order refers to firewall rules for sponsor staff and related broker-dealer affiliates. It also says trading can halt if portfolio holdings are not shared with all market participants at the same time.

Eligible assets include BTC, XRP and SHIB

The eligible asset list includes Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, XRP, Cardano, Avalanche, Litecoin, Polkadot, Dogecoin, Chainlink, Stellar, Hedera, Bitcoin Cash, Shiba Inu and Sui. The fund may also hold cash, cash equivalents and some stablecoins for operational use.

A significant transformation is currently underway across the established cryptocurrency market. The top crypto exchanges are morphing into multi-asset financial platforms, breaking down the traditional barriers that once kept crypto and Wall Street completely apart.

Crypto exchange OKX rolled out 13 new “X-Perp” markets for European traders on Tuesday, giving retail users direct access to “Magnificent 7” tech stock futures, alongside major commodity indices like gold, silver, and crude oil. The platform also added perpetual markets for major index funds like the SPY and QQQ, enabling users to trade exposure to the largest U.S. equities outside standard market hours.

Exchanges like OKX are deliberately expanding their services to stop cash from leaving their platforms, while catering to everyday traders who now want to bet on more than just crypto.

Kraken, for example, rolled out 24-hour perpetual futures for synthetic U.S. stock tokens, offering non-U.S. retail traders up to 20x leverage on equities outside standard Wall Street operating hours. Onchain perpetual platform Hyperliquid also moved aggressively into TradFi, putting Wall Street on alert.

Retaining trader fees

Centralized exchange trading volumes recently dropped more than 11% to $4.61 trillion, hitting their lowest performance level since late 2024, according to CoinDesk Data’s April 2026 market reviews. “Retail participation across crypto has moderated, but the demand for trading has not disappeared,” said Behrin Naidoo, founder of Neutral DeFi Protocol. Naidoo, an alumnus of London Business School who previously managed global market strategies and fintech investments at J.P. Morgan, PwC, and RMH, told CoinDesk that the problem isn’t a lack of interest, but rather an infrastructure gap.

Humanity Protocol’s latest security incident appears to be tied to North Korea-linked cyber activity, according to an investigation by Quantstamp. The blockchain security firm says a phishing email carrying a malicious attachment compromised an employee device and enabled the theft of $36 million worth of Humanity (H) tokens.

The attack chain, as described by Quantstamp, started with a message that masqueraded as a “token lockup schedule” update reportedly from South Korean exchange Bithumb. Once delivered, the malware granted full remote access to the compromised laptop and ultimately facilitated access to sensitive cryptocurrency wallet materials tied to a project executive.

Key takeaways

• Quantstamp attributes the Humanity Protocol compromise to a phishing attachment that installed remote-access malware on a staff member’s laptop.
• The incident led to theft of $36 million in Humanity (H) tokens, tied to unauthorized access of MetaMask credentials and private keys.
• Quantstamp says the malware was signed with a South Korean Hancom digital certificate, a pattern it associates with DPRK intrusion activity.
• Recent reporting and research link North Korea-linked threat actors to a large share of crypto theft losses and incidents, emphasizing “precision and scale.”
• The broader pattern reinforces that operational security—especially around email and endpoints—remains a primary weak point even for decentralized projects.

Phishing to wallet theft: how the compromise worked

Quantstamp reported that a compromised employee’s laptop was the entry point for the attackers. In its incident response, the firm said the phishing email delivered a malicious attachment that was disguised as a token-related schedule update.

Crucially, the malware did more than trigger basic compromise indicators. Quantstamp said it gave the attackers full remote access to the laptop and enabled them to copy Humanity Protocol director Chong Yee Wai’s MetaMask wallet credentials and private keys. That access, according to the firm’s account of events, was leveraged to steal $36 million in Humanity (H) tokens on Monday.

From an investor and user standpoint, the incident highlights a persistent reality in crypto security: even when projects operate on decentralized infrastructure, centralized operational practices—like handling attachments and securing staff devices—can still determine whether funds remain protected.

Why Quantstamp points to DPRK-linked activity

Quantstamp did not rely solely on the phishing technique itself. The firm also analyzed the malware’s signing and behavior, stating that the malicious software was signed with a South Korean Hancom digital certificate.

Quantstamp characterized this detail as “characteristic of DPRK intrusions,” suggesting the attackers used tooling and operational steps commonly observed in past North Korea-linked campaigns. The combination of targeted social engineering (fake Bithumb-related content), endpoint takeover (remote access), and credential harvesting (MetaMask credentials and private keys) forms a cohesive attack narrative consistent with the firm’s attribution.

For readers tracking attribution in cyber incidents, the key takeaway is that this is not a generic accusation: Quantstamp’s conclusion is based on specific technical artifacts found during its incident response.

North Korea-linked theft: large numbers across recent years

The alleged DPRK connection to Humanity Protocol comes amid a broader set of statistics from blockchain security research. In a May report, CertiK linked the same category of actors to about $2 billion of the $3.4 billion lost to crypto exploits in 2025, and said they accounted for 12% of total incidents. CertiK described these losses as reflecting a focus on “precision and scale.”

Looking further back, the report cited an estimate that North Korea-linked actors stole about $6.75 billion in cryptocurrency across 263 documented incidents over the past decade. While such totals naturally depend on methodology and classification criteria, the report’s underlying message is consistent: DPRK-associated operations have repeatedly translated cyber capabilities into high-value thefts.

CertiK further argued that North Korea has “industrialized” crypto theft into a core state revenue mechanism, framing these activities as a meaningful share of the regime’s external income. That characterization matters because it suggests sustained institutional investment rather than isolated criminal hacking.

Denials and the persistence of cyber allegations

North Korea typically does not respond in a sustained way to cybercrime allegations. However, the reporting also referenced a denial carried by Korean Central News Agency coverage on May 3, in which a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesperson rejected claims about crypto hacks.

In that statement, the spokesperson accused the United States of circulating “incorrect” narratives about a “non-existent ‘cyber threat’” from North Korea. The denial underscores a recurring tension in attribution: while investigators and researchers present technical evidence and pattern-based assessments, state actors continue to reject the framing publicly.

For users and teams building in crypto, the practical implication is to treat attributions as indicators of threat models rather than as proof of political intent. Regardless of who denies what, the operational lesson remains the same—phishing and endpoint compromise can rapidly convert into on-chain losses when wallet access is taken.

Next, readers should watch for updates from Humanity Protocol and Quantstamp on remediation steps and security controls—particularly any changes to how wallets are secured, how staff devices are hardened against social engineering, and what indicators will be shared publicly to prevent similar follow-on attacks.