A quiet revolution is taking place in how people choose where to gamble online. The old model — pick a brand you recognize, sign up, stay indefinitely — is being replaced by something more deliberate. Players now compare, research, and evaluate before committing, and they switch when something better comes along. FanDuel has been one of the primary beneficiaries of the old model for years. Its brand awareness is enormous, its product is well established, and its market position in the United States is deeply entrenched. But the search data paints a picture of an audience that is looking beyond the familiar. Queries for FanDuel alternatives have been rising consistently, and one name keeps appearing in the results with increasing frequency — ZunaBet. Launched in 2026 as a crypto-native casino and sportsbook, it has quickly become the platform that players land on when they go searching for something that feels built for the present rather than inherited from the past.

FanDuel: Where the Industry Has Been

FanDuel’s story is well documented. It began in daily fantasy sports, cultivated a massive user base, and expanded into sports betting and online casino gaming as American regulation created the opportunity. The execution was sharp at every stage. Today FanDuel holds active licenses across numerous US states, enjoys partnerships with major professional leagues and sports media networks, and runs an advertising operation large enough to make its brand virtually inescapable for anyone with even a passing interest in sports.

The sportsbook covers what you would expect from a platform of its stature. NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and college athletics receive comprehensive treatment alongside international markets in football, tennis, golf, motorsports, and other global sports. The casino section offers a curated library of slots, table games, and live dealer rooms from providers with strong reputations. The mobile experience is polished and performs consistently well. FanDuel is a product that works and has worked for a long time.

Financial transactions follow the traditional template. Deposits and withdrawals move through bank accounts, debit and credit cards, PayPal, Venmo, and other mainstream payment services. These methods provide broad accessibility, which has been central to FanDuel’s ability to onboard a wide demographic without creating friction at the point of entry.

What FanDuel faces now is not a product problem but a relevance challenge. The platform was optimized for a market defined by traditional finance, moderate game catalogs, and loyalty programs that all follow the same playbook. That market still exists, but it is no longer the only market that matters. A new generation of players has arrived with different tools, different habits, and different expectations. They hold cryptocurrency. They have experienced game libraries that number in the tens of thousands. They have seen what gamified loyalty looks like in other digital contexts and they wonder why their casino still hands them a generic points balance. FanDuel was not built for these players. It was built for the players who came before them.

ZunaBet: Where the Industry Is Going

ZunaBet was built with full awareness of who the next generation of online gamblers is and what they expect. The platform launched in 2026 under the ownership of Strathvale Group Ltd, guided by a management team with over 20 years of combined experience in the gambling sector. It operates under an Anjouan gaming license with corporate registration in Belize. The crypto-first label that ZunaBet carries is not marketing language. It is an accurate description of how every system within the platform was designed and built.

The game library establishes the platform’s intentions immediately. ZunaBet hosts 11,294 games from 63 providers. That volume exceeds what most established operators have accumulated over many years of operation. The provider list reads like a directory of the industry’s best — Pragmatic Play, Evolution, Hacksaw Gaming, Yggdrasil, and BGaming anchor the roster, with dozens of additional studios ensuring that no category or style goes underrepresented. Slots form the largest share of the catalog as they do everywhere, but ZunaBet’s depth in RNG table games covering blackjack, roulette, baccarat, and multiple poker formats is substantial. The live dealer section draws on premium studios for high-definition real-time streaming that brings the energy of a physical casino into the digital space.

What a library of 11,000-plus games creates is a platform where content exhaustion is not a realistic concern. Players who spend months exploring the catalog will still find providers they have not tried and games they have not played. That perpetual sense of discovery keeps the platform feeling alive and rewarding in a way that smaller libraries structurally cannot sustain. It transforms the relationship between player and platform from something transactional into something exploratory.

The sportsbook is built with the same commitment to completeness. Football, basketball, tennis, NHL, combat sports, and virtual sports receive thorough coverage. Esports is elevated to a primary category with dedicated betting markets on CS2, Dota 2, League of Legends, and Valorant. This is not a gesture toward an emerging trend. It is a strategic investment in an audience that is already massive and still growing rapidly. The competitive gaming viewer base numbers in the hundreds of millions globally, and the overlap between that audience and the crypto-native demographic is substantial. ZunaBet built its esports product for that intersection, and the result is a betting experience that traditional operators have not come close to matching.

Cryptocurrency underpins the entire payment system. More than 20 coins and tokens are accepted — Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDT across multiple blockchain networks, Solana, Dogecoin, Cardano, XRP, and additional options. Platform processing fees do not exist. Withdrawals settle on blockchain networks that run without pause, returning funds to player wallets in minutes regardless of when the request is made. Because ZunaBet was designed around crypto from inception, there is no secondary fiat system creating inconsistencies beneath the surface. The payment experience is unified, fast, and free from start to finish.

New players can access a welcome package worth up to $5,000 plus 75 free spins distributed across three deposits. The first deposit receives a 100% match up to $2,000 plus 25 free spins. The second qualifies for a 50% match up to $1,500 plus 25 spins. The third completes the offer with a 100% match up to $1,500 plus 25 final spins. Structuring the bonus across multiple deposits rewards continued engagement rather than incentivizing a single large deposit followed by departure.

The technical execution is modern throughout. HTML5 powers a dark-themed responsive interface with fast load times across all devices. Native apps are available for iOS, Android, Windows, and MacOS. Live chat support operates 24 hours a day without interruption.

Why Crypto Payments Have Become a Deciding Factor

The choice between crypto and traditional payments is no longer a preference. For a growing number of players, it is a dealbreaker. The practical differences between the two systems affect the gambling experience at its most fundamental level — how money moves in and how money moves out.

Traditional payment infrastructure processes transactions through layered networks of financial institutions. Each layer introduces potential delays and costs. Deposits may arrive relatively quickly through certain methods, but withdrawals almost universally involve waiting periods. Platform review times, banking processing schedules, weekend and holiday pauses, and method-specific timelines combine to create withdrawal experiences that can stretch across multiple business days. Fees surface at various points throughout the chain, charged by platforms, banks, processors, or some combination of all three.

Crypto payments eliminate the majority of that complexity. A blockchain transaction does not route through banks. It does not wait for business hours. It does not incur fees from intermediary institutions. When a player deposits cryptocurrency on ZunaBet, the blockchain confirms the transaction and the funds become available within minutes. Withdrawals follow the identical path in reverse with the same speed. ZunaBet charges nothing for any of it.

Over time the difference compounds. A player making regular deposits and withdrawals throughout a year saves substantial time and money on a crypto-native platform compared to a traditional one. Those savings are not promotional. They are structural, meaning they apply to every transaction automatically because the infrastructure itself is more efficient.

ZunaBet benefits from having built this infrastructure from scratch rather than retrofitting it onto existing fiat systems. There are no compatibility layers or hybrid payment paths. Every transaction follows the same clean, fast, fee-free route because the platform was never built to accommodate anything else. As crypto adoption spreads globally, this native efficiency becomes an increasingly significant competitive advantage.

How ZunaBet Transformed Loyalty From an Afterthought Into an Experience

Loyalty programs across the gambling industry share a common problem — nobody cares about them. Not because rewards are unwelcome, but because the process of earning them is so bland and uniform that it generates no emotional response whatsoever. Players wager. Points appear. A threshold is eventually crossed. A bonus is claimed. Nothing about the journey between those steps is memorable or motivating.

ZunaBet identified that emptiness as an opportunity and built a loyalty system that fills it completely. The dragon evolution program structures progression across six distinct tiers. Squire provides 1% rakeback. Warden increases to 2%. Champion moves to 4%. Divine delivers 5%. Knight jumps to 10%. Ultimate reaches 20% rakeback at the top of the system. Each tier adds layers of additional rewards — free spins that escalate to 1,000 at the highest level, membership in a VIP club, and double wheel spins. A dragon character named Zuno accompanies the player through the entire journey, evolving visually at each tier to create a personal sense of narrative and achievement.

The psychology behind the system comes directly from video game design. Clearly defined levels. Escalating rewards that make each new tier feel like a genuine step up. Visual progression that makes advancement tangible. Goals that feel earned through engagement rather than simply purchased through volume. These are the mechanics that have driven player retention across the gaming industry for decades, and they translate powerfully into the gambling context because they address exactly what traditional loyalty programs lack — a reason to care.

Players on ZunaBet talk about their loyalty tier. They plan around reaching the next level. They feel genuine satisfaction when they advance. That active engagement with the loyalty system creates a retention dynamic that passive points accumulation cannot replicate. It makes the loyalty program a feature that players value in its own right rather than a background process they barely notice.

What the Search Numbers Are Really Saying

Record search volume for FanDuel alternatives communicates something larger than discontent with a single brand. It communicates that the player base has matured to the point where it demands more than any single traditional platform currently offers. FanDuel will remain a powerful presence in its core markets. Its brand equity, regulatory licenses, and financial resources ensure ongoing relevance for the audience it was built to serve.

But the audience that is growing fastest wants a different kind of platform. It wants payments that move at blockchain speed without costing anything. It wants a game library so expansive that running out of new experiences is not a possibility. It wants esports treated with the same respect as traditional sports. It wants a loyalty program that makes progression feel rewarding and personal. It wants a platform that was conceived for the world as it exists today rather than the world as it existed a decade ago.

ZunaBet was engineered from the ground up to be that platform. Every major decision — the crypto-native payment architecture, the 11,000-plus game library, the comprehensive esports sportsbook, the dragon evolution loyalty system — was made with a clear understanding of what the next generation of players values most. That clarity of purpose is why ZunaBet keeps rising to the top of alternative searches. Players are not just looking for something different. They are looking for something better. And the platform they keep finding when they look is ZunaBet.

Paul Atkins was sworn in as chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on April 21, 2025, marking a notable shift in the agency’s posture toward digital assets. After years in which enforcement actions and civil suits defined the crypto regulation playbook, observers note a move toward policy-driven governance and greater regulatory clarity under Atkins’ leadership.

Political momentum surrounding crypto regulation shaped the landscape in the lead-up to and during Atkins’ tenure. During his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump pledged to replace SEC leadership, pursue a national Bitcoin stockpile, and oppose a U.S. central bank digital currency. Following Trump’s November 2024 victory, Gary Gensler resigned in January 2025, and Commissioner Mark Uyeda served as acting chair until the Senate confirmed Atkins. The transition coincided with a competency shift within the agency as it prepared to implement a new regulatory approach to digital assets. According to Cointelegraph, the appointment and subsequent actions signaled a broader reorientation of the SEC’s crypto policy framework.

Ahead of confirmation, the commission had already begun reorienting its stance. Uyeda had overseen the creation of an SEC crypto task force led by Commissioner Hester Peirce, while the agency started to wind down several civil enforcement actions and investigations into crypto companies, beginning with Coinbase in February. In the first year of Atkins’ chairmanship, the SEC’s approach to crypto—enforcement, policy, and regulatory coordination—has been widely interpreted as more industry-friendly, or at least more predictable, than the prior era.

Key regulatory moves during the initial year have included the approval of multiple exchange-traded funds (ETFs) tied to crypto assets, a memorandum of understanding with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to coordinate digital asset regulation, and an interpretative notice indicating that most cryptocurrencies would not be treated as securities under federal law. These actions collectively suggest a shift from a purely enforcement-driven posture toward a framework that emphasizes regulatory clarity, inter-agency coordination, and a measured approach to asset classification. In a CNBC interview conducted in April 2026, Atkins said the agency has delivered “a new day” at the SEC, asserting that the move away from “regulation through enforcement” and opacity marks a lasting change in crypto policy. The interview underscored a broader objective of aligning the SEC’s stance with evolving market structures and stakeholder expectations.

Key takeaways

• The SEC under Chair Atkins has signaled a regulatory shift toward policy clarity and inter-agency coordination, diverging from the prior enforcement-heavy posture.
• Actions include crypto-asset ETF approvals, a bilateral MoU with the CFTC, and an interpretive notice that most cryptocurrencies are not securities under federal law.
• Efforts were preceded by a restructuring of enforcement posture, including the winding down of certain investigations and civil actions, beginning with Coinbase early in the Atkins era.
• Political and regulatory scrutiny remains high in Congress, with Democrats raising questions about potential conflicts of interest and enforcement data, even as the industry broadly notes a more predictable regulatory environment.

Regulatory shift at the SEC under Paul Atkins

The core pivot of Atkins’ leadership centers on reframing how the SEC regulates digital assets. Where the Gensler era emphasized a broad, securities-focused regime with robust enforcement actions, Atkins has steered attention toward policy development, clarity around asset classification, and formal coordination with other agencies. The signing of a memorandum of understanding with the CFTC underlines a recognition that digital assets operate in a cross-cutting regulatory space that benefits from joint oversight and shared principles. Moreover, the issuance of an interpretive notice clarifying that the majority of cryptocurrencies are not securities signals a move toward less uncertain asset categorization, potentially reducing the scope of blanket regulatory actions against blockchain projects and token issuers.

Industry observers have noted that the combination of ETF approvals and clarified regulatory standards can improve market access for institutional participants, including banks and asset managers seeking regulated exposure to crypto markets. By stitching together policy guidance with observable regulatory milestones, the SEC’s trajectory under Atkins appears to prioritize stability and compliance pathways for market participants, while maintaining guardrails against investor fraud and market manipulation. According to Cointelegraph, these shifts have been read as a deliberate attempt to balance innovation with investor protection in a rapidly evolving market structure.

Policy moves, enforcement posture, and inter-agency coordination

Beyond the publicized policy changes, the SEC’s coordination with other regulators has gained particular attention. The CFTC-MoU underscores a shared interest in aligning digital asset oversight, risk monitoring, and supervisory expectations across a spectrum of market participants—from crypto exchanges to conventional financial institutions exploring tokenized products. In parallel, the interpretive notice regarding securities classification aims to provide clearer boundaries for issuers and investors, potentially reducing inadvertent non-compliance while ensuring ongoing protection against fraud and manipulation.

Enforcement, historically a defining feature of the agency’s crypto approach, has shown signs of a recalibrated tempo. The early months of Atkins’ tenure saw the pace of high-profile actions slow, with regulators signaling a transition toward strategic enforcement that targets egregious activities and preserves avenues for compliant innovation. The trend has been a point of debate in Congress. Democratic lawmakers, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, have criticized the SEC for potential conflicts of interest after enforcement actions against entities tied to the Trump orbit were dropped or deprioritized, arguing that data from the 2025 fiscal year indicated a decline in enforcement actions relative to recent years. While industry participants may view the shift as positive for project development and fundraising, policymakers caution that ongoing oversight is essential to prevent regulatory capture and to maintain investor trust.

The regulatory pivot and its implications for market participants extend beyond the United States. As policymakers weigh cross-border coordination, the SEC’s approach interacts with evolving frameworks in other jurisdictions, such as the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). For banks and financial institutions, the development matters insofar as it clarifies where crypto activities can be conducted within a compliant framework and how licensing, supervision, and reporting obligations may evolve. The broader policy context—balancing innovation with investor protection and financial stability—remains a live, dynamic area of regulatory reform that institutionsmust monitor closely.

Regulatory implications for industry and policy context

The changes in U.S. regulation come at a time when market participants increasingly seek predictable, rules-based governance for digital assets. The combination of ETF authorizations, inter-agency coordination, and asset-class interpretive guidance could influence how exchanges structure products, how custodians manage risk, and how banks engage with crypto clients. From a compliance standpoint, firms will need to align with formal interpretations of asset classification, adopt robust KYC/AML frameworks, and monitor cross-border regulatory differences as firms scale their operations to serve global markets. The evolving U.S. framework will interact with global policy developments, potentially affecting the pace and nature of crypto market access for institutional investors seeking regulated exposures.

As regulatory attention continues to evolve, observers will watch for further clarity on classification standards, licensing regimes, and the treatment of new asset types such as tokenized securities and decentralized finance products. The SEC’s ongoing collaboration with the CFTC could shape a more unified U.S. stance, reducing fragmentation across jurisdictions and helping to define a framework that supports compliant innovation while safeguarding market integrity.

Overall, the Atkins era appears to be defined by a transition from a posture of enforcement-led output to a governance and safety-first approach, with a focus on clear standards, inter-agency coordination, and measured market access. The practical effect for market participants is a potential reduction in regulatory uncertainty and a clearer path to compliant product development—though questions about enforcement dynamics, data transparency, and ongoing congressional oversight remain central to the policy conversation.

What to watch next includes the continued evolution of the SEC-CFTC framework, any updates to interpretive guidance on asset classification, further ETF approvals or denials, and ongoing congressional inquiries into enforcement data and possible conflicts of interest. These developments will shape not only the regulatory risk landscape for crypto firms and banks but also the broader policy debate about how best to align innovation with investor protection in a rapidly maturing market.

According to Cointelegraph, the current regulatory trajectory is being assessed for its implications on enforcement posture, market access, and international policy alignment, making the next 12–24 months pivotal for institutions navigating the U.S. crypto regime.

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This analysis draws on reported developments and regulatory filings to provide a forward-looking perspective for analysts, compliance teams, and institutional readers. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently and monitor official SEC statements and inter-agency guidance for updates.

Paul Atkins assumed the chairmanship of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2025, and a year into his tenure the agency appears to have shifted its stance on digital assets. After a presidency that promised robust crypto enforcement, the new leadership has signaled a more targeted, regulation-centered approach that many in the market view as providing clearer guardrails for issuers, exchanges and investors alike.

Trump’s 2024 campaign had positioned the SEC as a principal obstacle to crypto policy, vowing to replace Gary Gensler and to pursue a more crypto-friendly agenda. Gensler stepped down in January 2025, with Commissioner Mark Uyeda serving as acting chair until Atkins’ confirmation. Since then, observers have tracked a notable pivot: enforcement actions have receded in volume, while constructive moves—ranging from product approvals to cooperative regulatory frameworks—have taken center stage. According to Cointelegraph, Atkins and his team have laid out a compliance-forward playbook that many market participants hoped to see from the agency after years of high-profile cases against crypto firms.

In interviews and public remarks, Atkins has framed the change as a deliberate departure from “regulation through enforcement” toward clearer guidance and cooperative oversight. In a CNBC appearance, he summarized the shift by saying, “A new day at the SEC is here. We’ve pivoted from the old practice of regulation through enforcement and the opaqueness of the agency, as, for example, with crypto.”

The first year of Atkins’ tenure thus stands in contrast to the prior era, when the SEC accused several crypto projects and platforms of securities law violations, sometimes triggering high-profile lawsuits. Beyond enforcement posture, the agency’s activities in regulatory policy have touched multiple levers of market structure and investor protection. The changes come as the crypto market, regulators and lawmakers recalibrate expectations for what constitutes a compliant crypto business in the United States.

Key takeaways

• The SEC under Paul Atkins has signaled a shift toward regulation-focused guidance and coordination, reducing reliance on enforcement as the primary tool for crypto supervision.
• Early-year actions included approval of crypto-asset exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and a memorandum of understanding with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to coordinate digital asset regulation.
• The agency issued an interpretive note clarifying that most cryptocurrencies are not securities under federal law, aiming to reduce ambiguity for issuers and investors alike.
• Enforcement activity has not disappeared, but actions and investigations toward certain crypto firms were paused or scaled back as part of the broader regulatory approach, with the Coinbase matter cited as an early example in 2025–2026 coverage.
• Democratic lawmakers, led by figures such as Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, have criticized the SEC for potential conflicts of interest and for data that they say shows fewer enforcement actions than in the recent past.

From Gensler to Atkins: a calibrated shift in crypto supervision

Under Gensler’s tenure, the SEC pursued numerous enforcement actions against crypto projects and exchanges, often arguing that many tokens were securities and that firms failed to register adequately. The transition to Atkins, who won Senate confirmation after several months of acting leadership by Uyeda, brought a recalibrated tone. In Atkins’ view, the agency’s mission remains investor protection, but the path to that protection is evolving—from a heavy-handed enforcement posture to a more precise, rules-based framework that provides greater clarity for market participants.

Industry watchers say the change matters because regulatory clarity reduces the risk premia that often accompany crypto funding rounds, token launches and exchange listings. When issuers, investors and developers can point to clearer rules, capital formation tends to become more efficient, and platforms can invest in robust compliance programs rather than navigating ambiguous enforcement expectations. Atkins has repeatedly framed the shift as a meaningful step toward a more transparent federal framework for digital assets, while maintaining vigilance against fraud and unregistered activities.

According to Cointelegraph, Atkins’ remarks in early 2026 highlighted a broader reframing of the agency’s approach to crypto—from a period of opacity to a more collaborative posture with market participants and other regulators. The administration’s emphasis on practical guidance has implications for how startups structure token sales, how exchanges design listings, and how investors assess risk in a fast-evolving sector.

Regulatory moves shaping the market’s risk and opportunity landscape

One of the most visible signals of the new era has been policy signaling rather than courtroom drama. The SEC’s authorization of multiple crypto-related ETFs, for instance, provides a credentialed on-ramp for institutional and retail investors seeking regulated exposure to digital assets. These products typically rely on futures-based or custody-ready underpinnings that are designed to align with traditional financial markets, potentially reducing some of the operational risk that has historically accompanied crypto investments.

Another notable development is the memorandum of understanding signed with the CFTC to coordinate on digital asset regulation. The collaboration aims to reduce regulatory fragmentation and improve cross-agency clarity for market participants who must navigate both the securities and commodities dimensions of digital assets. While the exact contours of future rules remain a work in progress, the MoU signals a shared recognition that seamless, consistent oversight is essential to mainstream adoption.

In a related move, the SEC issued an interpretive notice clarifying that not all digital assets should be treated as securities under federal law. This guidance, though narrow in scope, helps distinguish between the kinds of tokens that may be governed primarily by securities laws and those that may fall under other regulatory regimes. For projects and platforms, the note offers a reference point for structuring token economics, disclosures and governance mechanisms in ways that align with current regulatory expectations.

Perhaps most consequential for market dynamics was the SEC’s shift away from broad enforcement sweeps to a more selective posture. Beginning in February—early in Atkins’ term—the agency pursued a strategy of winding down or pausing certain civil actions and investigations into crypto companies, with Coinbase cited as a prominent example in early coverage. The move has been interpreted by some as an effort to reset the regulatory climate and invite ongoing dialogue with the industry about permissible practices, audits, and disclosures.

These policy shifts have been framed in public remarks and interviews as progress toward a more constructive regulatory regime. Atkins has repeatedly underscored the need for clarity and predictable rules that enable innovation while preserving investor protections. The practical impact for market participants is increased certainty around what kinds of products can be developed and marketed in the United States, and how to structure compliance programs to meet federal expectations.

Political scrutiny and what it means for the market’s faith in regulation

Not all observers have welcomed the pivot uncritically. Democratic lawmakers have expressed concern that the SEC’s softened posture could conflict with long-standing mandates to police market integrity and protect investors. In particular, Senator Elizabeth Warren raised questions about potential conflicts of interest and data gaps after the regulator’s testimony to a House committee. In a formal letter dated April 15, Warren asserted that the SEC’s own fiscal-year 2025 data showed fewer enforcement actions than at any point in the prior decade—a measure she argued could indicate a decline in complaints and oversight rather than a robust enforcement regime.

Supporters of Atkins’ approach argue that the data point is better understood as a transitional phase—an opportunity to recalibrate processes, improve internal transparency and decouple enforcement from partisan or political dynamics. The tension between risk-based regulation and political optics is likely to shape congressional oversight for the next cycle, as lawmakers weigh how to balance investor protection with the imperative to foster American innovation in a highly competitive global landscape.

In the near term, market participants will be watching whether the SEC’s new posture translates into clearer, binding rules on topics such as token classification, exchanges’ custody standards, registration expectations for crypto platforms, and the scope of investor disclosures. The CFTC-MoU and the interpretive note are early signals, but the long arc will hinge on more formal rulemaking and targeted guidance that can withstand legal scrutiny and changing political winds.

Closing perspective: what to watch next

The crypto industry has welcomed the signs of regulatory clarity and constructive cooperation, but important uncertainties remain. The Senate’s stance on Atkins’ confirmation, the pace of additional rulemaking, and the precise criteria used to distinguish securities from non-securities tokens will all influence how the market prices risk in the coming quarters. For investors and builders, the next milestones to watch include detailed guidance on token sale disclosures, exchange listing standards, and the sequencing of any comprehensive crypto asset framework. While the path forward may still include regulatory frictions, the current trajectory suggests a longer horizon of clarity and predictable oversight, rather than episodic enforcement actions that can surprise market participants without warning.

The Kelp DAO and LayerZero bridge exploit that occurred over the weekend has left lending protocol Aave facing potential losses of up to $230 million, depending on how the situation is resolved.

The incident, according to a report from Aave Labs and service provider LlamaRisk published on the Aave governance forum, centers on rsETH, a liquid restaking token issued by KelpDAO. To move rsETH between blockchains, the protocol relies on a bridge mechanism that locks tokens on one chain while issuing corresponding copies on another.

An attacker exploited that setup by forging a transfer message that appeared valid. The system approved the transfer even though the tokens were never taken out of the sending chain, meaning new tokens were effectively created without backing, releasing 116,500 rsETH from the Ethereum-side bridge.

Rather than selling the assets on the open market, the attacker deposited 89,567 rsETH into Aave as collateral and borrowed roughly $190 million in ETH and related assets across Ethereum and Arbitrum, according to the report. This left Aave exposed to collateral whose backing may be significantly impaired.

Aave Labs said it moved quickly to contain the risk. Within hours, the protocol froze rsETH markets across its deployments, set loan-to-value ratios to zero, and halted new borrowing against the asset.

The outcome now depends largely on how Kelp handles the shortfall. If losses are spread across all rsETH holders, the token would face an estimated 15% depegging (meaning the value of the staked tokens would not match the value of actual ETH), resulting in about $124 million in bad debt for Aave. If losses are instead isolated to Layer 2 networks, the impact would be far more severe, with bad debt rising to roughly $230 million and concentrated on networks such as Arbitrum and Mantle.

The exploit stemmed from weaknesses in how Kelp verified cross-chain messages using LayerZero. By manipulating this process, the attacker was able to make certain assets appear fully backed when they were not, allowing them to extract value from the system. LayerZero itself was not directly hacked, but its messaging layer exposed flawed assumptions in how Kelp validated cross-chain data.

The incident raised concerns that some positions on Aave were backed by collateral that was mispriced or no longer fully backed, increasing the risk of undercollateralized loans.

In response, users moved to reduce exposure. Around $6 billion in total value locked was withdrawn from Aave following the incident, reflecting a broad pullback as participants reacted to the uncertainty.

The episode highlighted its indirect exposure to external systems. The impact was felt through increased collateral risk, pressure on lending positions, and a sharp decline in deposits as users reassessed the safety of interconnected DeFi infrastructure.

The report said its DAO treasury holds approximately $181 million in assets and that discussions are underway with ecosystem participants to address potential losses. Kelp has not yet outlined how it plans to allocate losses, leaving Aave’s ultimate exposure uncertain as the situation continues to evolve.

Read more: Kelp DAO claims LayerZero’s ‘default’ settings are what actually caused the massive $290 million disaster

Less than three weeks after North Korea-linked hackers used social engineering to hit crypto trading firm Drift, hackers tied to the nation appear to have pulled off another major exploit with Kelp.

The attack on Kelp, a restaking protocol tied into LayerZero’s cross-chain infrastructure, suggests an evolution in how North Korea-linked hackers operate, not just looking for bugs or stolen credentials, but exploiting the basic assumptions built into decentralized systems.

Taken together, the two incidents point to something more organized than a string of one-off hacks, as North Korea continues to escalate its efforts to hijack funds from the crypto sector.

“This is not a series of incidents; it is a cadence,” said Alexander Urbelis, chief information security officer and general counsel at ENS Labs. “You cannot patch your way out of a procurement schedule.”

More than $500 million was siphoned across the Drift and Kelp exploits in just over two weeks.

How Kelp was breached

At its core, the Kelp exploit did not involve breaking encryption or cracking keys. The system actually worked the way it was designed to. Rather, attackers manipulated the data feeding into the system and forced it to rely on those compromised inputs, causing it to approve transactions that never actually occurred.

“The security failure is simple: a signed lie is still a lie,” Urbelis said. “Signatures guarantee authorship; they do not guarantee truth.”

In simpler terms, the system checked who sent the message, not whether the message itself was correct. For security experts, that makes this less about a clever new hack and more about exploiting how the system was set up.

“This attack wasn’t about breaking cryptography,” said David Schwed, COO of blockchain security firm SVRN. “It was about exploiting how the system was set up.”

One key issue was a configuration choice. Kelp relied on a single verifier, essentially one checker, to approve cross-chain messages. That is because it’s faster and simpler to set up, but it removes a critical safety layer.

LayerZero has since recommended using multiple independent verifiers to approve transactions in the fallout, similar to requiring multiple signatures on a bank transfer. Some in the ecosystem have pushed back on that framing, saying that LayerZero’s default setup was to have a single verifier.

“If you’ve identified a configuration as unsafe, don’t ship it as an option,” Schwed said. “Security that depends on everyone reading the docs and getting it right is not realistic.”

The fallout has not stayed limited to Kelp. Like many DeFi systems, its assets are used across multiple platforms, meaning problems can spread.

“These assets are a chain of IOUs,” Schwed said. “And the chain is only as strong as the controls on each link.”

When one link breaks, others are affected. In this case, lending platforms like Aave that accepted the impacted assets as collateral are now dealing with losses, turning a single exploit into a wider stress event.

Decentralization marketing

The attack also exposes a gap between how decentralization is marketed and how it actually works.

“A single verifier is not decentralized,” Schwed said. “It’s a centralized decentralized verifier.”

Urbelis puts it more broadly.

“Decentralization is not a property a system has. It is a series of choices,” he said. “And the stack is only as strong as its most centralized layer.”

In practice, that means even systems that appear decentralized can have weak points, especially in the less visible layers like data providers or infrastructure. Those are increasingly where attackers are focusing.

That shift may explain Lazarus’ recent targeting.

The group has begun zeroing in on cross-chain and restaking infrastructure, Urbelis said, the parts of crypto that move assets between systems or allow them to be reused.

These layers are critical but complex, often sitting underneath more visible applications. They also tend to hold large amounts of value, making them attractive targets.

If earlier waves of crypto hacks focused on exchanges or obvious code flaws, recent activity suggests a move toward what could be called the industry’s plumbing, the systems that connect everything together, but are harder to monitor and easier to misconfigure.

As Lazarus continues to adapt, the biggest risk may not be unknown vulnerabilities, but known ones that are not fully addressed.

The Kelp exploit did not introduce a new kind of weakness. It showed how exposed the ecosystem remains to familiar ones, especially when security is treated as a recommendation rather than a requirement.

And as attackers move faster, that gap is becoming both easier to exploit and far more expensive to ignore.

Read more: North Korean hackers are running massive state-sponsored heists to run its economy and nuclear program

Aave service providers on Monday published an incident report quantifying the protocol’s exposure to the April 18 Kelp DAO rsETH bridge exploit, outlining two bad-debt scenarios ranging from $123.7 million to $230.1 million, and recommending an immediate pause of the protocol’s Umbrella safety module.

According to the report, posted to the Aave governance forum, 89,567 of the 116,500 rsETH stolen from Kelp’s LayerZero bridge were deposited across seven attacker-controlled wallets on Aave. Those positions borrowed 82,650 WETH ($190.86 million) and 821 wstETH ($2.33 million).

The single largest position, on Aave’s Ethereum Core market, supplied 53,000 rsETH and borrowed 52,460 WETH, or $121 million, from one wallet. The remaining positions were distributed across Aave’s Arbitrum deployment. All attacker positions currently sit at health factors between 1.01 and 1.03.

Kelp subsequently recovered 40,373 rsETH by freezing a second attempted drain. That balance is the only confirmed backing for 152,577 rsETH of claims across every L2, a pro-rata backing ratio of 26.46%. Ethereum mainnet rsETH is backed separately by Kelp’s underlying ETH staking deposits.

Two bad debt scenarios

The report declined to commit to a single bad-debt figure, stating that the outcome depends on decisions outside Aave’s control — primarily how Kelp accounts for the loss and whether it updates its LRTOracle exchange rate.

Under Scenario 1, a uniform socialization across all rsETH holders on all chains, each token takes a 15.12% haircut. Total bad debt reaches $123.7 million, with the Ethereum Core WETH reserve absorbing $91.8 million, or a 1.54% shortfall. Mantle absorbs $10.4 million, or 9.54% of its WETH reserve, the most proportionally acute.

Under Scenario 2, losses are isolated to rsETH on L2s. Remote-chain rsETH is repriced to its 26.46% backing ratio, or a 73.54% haircut, while Ethereum mainnet rsETH is unaffected. Total bad debt rises to $230.1 million, all concentrated on L2s.

In this scenario, Mantle faces a 71.45% shortfall ($77.7 million), Arbitrum 26.67% ($88.4 million), Base 23.28% ($47.5 million), and Ink 18% ($13.9 million). Ethereum Core is untouched.

Umbrella covers only Ethereum Core reserves. Under Scenario 2, it would not activate.

Balance sheet disclosure

The report disclosed the Aave DAO’s financial position. As of April 20, the treasury holds $181 million — $62 million in Ethereum-correlated holdings, $54 million in AAVE tokens, and $52 million in stablecoins. The DAO generated $145 million in revenue in 2025 and $38 million year-to-date in 2026, with operating cash flow of $149 million in 2025 and $40 million year-to-date.

Aave DAO service providers are “leading an effort with ecosystem participants to address a potential bad-debt scenario,” the report said, and the effort has received “indicative commitments from various parties.” It did not identify the parties or quantify the commitments.

The report also recommended the DAO immediately pause the WETH Umbrella module. As of writing, 18,922 of the 23,507 aWETH staked in Umbrella — approximately 80% — have already entered the 20-day unstaking cooldown. A pause would block further deposits, withdrawals, transfers, and slashing. Coverage under a paused module would need to be handled manually through governance rather than automatically.

A second-order liquidation risk

The report also quantified the risk of further bad debt if ETH falls in price while Aave’s WETH reserves remain at 100% utilization. Because idle WETH balances are below $20 on every affected chain, liquidators cannot receive WETH as underlying and instead receive aWETH receipts, which keeps their capital inside the reserve and slows liquidation throughput.

At a 50% ETH price drop, Aave modeled $100.8 million of residual bad debt on Ethereum alone, with smaller amounts on Arbitrum, Base, Linea, and Mantle. Arbitrum and Base were flagged as particularly vulnerable because wstETH looping positions on those chains run at health factors around 1.03 — meaning first liquidations would trigger at ETH price drops of just 0.77% and 1.77%, respectively.

LayerZero and Kelp continue to trade blame

The Aave report did not assign blame for the underlying bridge exploit. LayerZero and Kelp DAO have continued to publicly attribute the incident to each other.

In a Sunday post-mortem, LayerZero Labs attributed the attack to the DPRK-linked Lazarus Group. The company said attackers compromised two downstream Remote Procedure Call (RPC) nodes used by its LayerZero-operated Decentralized Verifier Network (DVN), and introduced malicious software that returned forged data only to the DVN, then launched a DDoS attack to force failover to the poisoned RPC nodes.

LayerZero said the protocol itself was not exploited and attributed the attack’s success to Kelp’s use of a 1-of-1 DVN configuration.

In a rebuttal reported by CoinDesk on Monday, a source familiar with Kelp’s position said a communications channel between the two teams had been open since July 2024 and that LayerZero had not issued a specific recommendation to change the rsETH DVN configuration. The source said the compromised DVN was LayerZero’s own infrastructure and that Kelp’s core restaking contracts were not affected.

Yearn Finance core developer known on X as @banteg, published a technical review showing LayerZero’s public V2 OApp Quickstart uses a 1-of-1 DVN setup in its reference configuration across Ethereum, BSC, Polygon, Arbitrum, and Optimism. CoinDesk reported approximately 40% of applications on LayerZero currently run 1-of-1 configurations.

LayerZero has said it will no longer sign messages for any application using a 1-of-1 DVN configuration.

“DeFi has spent years auditing smart contracts. Kelp is the moment the industry realises the threat doesn’t end at the code. Most protocols are completely exposed at the infrastructure layer,” said Yair Cleper, Co-Founder and CEO of MagmaDevs and contributor to Lava Network, a decentralized marketplace for blockchain data providers.

Bitcoin (BTC) begins the last full week of April juggling fresh US-Iran war fears as resistance hurdles line up.

Key points:

• Bitcoin stays green on weekly time frames with multiple nearby price levels in focus.

• Elliott Wave analysis concludes that $81,000 is Bitcoin bulls’ next “final boss.”

• A resurgent US-Iran war threatens to unravel last week’s crypto and risk-asset gains.

• Bitcoin ETFs see major inflows, but investors’ cost basis is still above $80,000.

• Bitcoin’s true market mean metric reveals that the current bear market remains “mild.”

BTC price can still make “new highs” this week

Bitcoin still managed a “green” weekly candle despite last-minute sellers driving price below $74,000.

Data from TradingView shows a modest recovery ensuing as the new week begins — despite the lingering threat of geopolitical escalation between the US, Israel and Iran.

Price now has multiple resistance levels overhead, with the nearest being its 21-week exponential moving average (EMA) at $78,400.

Over the weekend, trader and analyst Rekt Capital stressed the influence of that trend line.

“Bitcoin is rejecting from the 21-week EMA (green),” he noted in an X post alongside a print of the weekly chart. 

“It is this rejection that could force a post-breakout retest of the top of the Double Bottom (~$73k) next week, provided Bitcoin Weekly Closes just like this.”

In a subsequent post, Rekt Capital said that a successful retest of the $73,000 area would “confirm the breakout” for the bulls.

#BTC

A Weekly Close just like this could confirm the 21-week EMA (green) as resistance to set up for a post-breakout retest of the Double Bottom formation top (blue ~$73k)

A successful retest of the Double Bottom formation would confirm the breakout$BTC #Crypto #Bitcoin https://t.co/7eZiVYZFeQ pic.twitter.com/cWxH3lMNpb

Advertisement

— Rekt Capital (@rektcapital) April 19, 2026

Continuing, trader CrypNuevo forecast that BTC/USD would continue to trade in a range with an $80,000 ceiling “for the next month.” They acknowledged that it was “unknown” how high the pair could go should the US-Iran war definitively end.

Crypto trader Michaël van de Poppe, meanwhile, remained upbeat, seeing a push beyond last week’s local highs next. He noted that there was a new “gap” open above price in CME Group’s Bitcoin futures market.

“Relatively strong bounce upwards on $BTC on Monday, as markets tend to go risk-off prior to the open. Gold has gone down, so no attached risk,” he told X followers on Monday. 

“Bitcoin bouncing upwards, and given that there’s still a gap to $77.3K, I would assume we’re going to see new highs this week.”

$81,000 emerges as Bitcoin’s “final boss”

In its latest BTC price analysis, crypto market intelligence platform Decode placed specific emphasis on $81,000 as the resistance level to beat.

As part of Elliott Wave analysis, Decode showed BTC/USD trading between the 200-week and 21-week EMAs.

“Bitcoin still pinned below the 21 week ema, but looking pretty good overall, and with the final boss at 81k,” it commented.

This “final boss,” Decode explained in subsequent debate on X, “narrows the options from an Elliott Wave perspective, removing short term bearish counts.”

$81,000 also represents the average entry price for institutional buyers of the US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs). 

Nearby, the cost basis for Bitcoin’s short-term holders (STHs) — entities hodling for up to six months without selling — is now at $83,500, per data from onchain analytics platform CryptoQuant.

CryptoQuant notes that the STH spent output profit ratio (SOPR) metric — the ratio of STH coins moving onchain in profit or loss — is circling breakeven.

“If SOPR manages to sustainably move back above 1, it would indicate that STHs are once again realizing profits, which is generally positive for the market as long as values do not become excessive,” contributor Darkfost wrote in a QuickTake blog post last week.

Iran war comeback risks risk-asset “unwind”

The US will release little by way of macroeconomic data in the coming week, but markets have bigger concerns.

With the sudden comeback of the US-Iran war, traders are suddenly revisiting the prospect of higher oil prices and a longer-term knock-in effect on inflation. 

“The sudden change in events has characterized the Middle East conflict since it started at the end of February,” trading resource Mosaic Asset Company commented in the latest edition of its regular newsletter, The Market Mosaic. 

“And it appears that intensifying hostilities could unwind the bullish action over the past few weeks.”

WTI crude oil fell to its lowest levels since early March last week as markets increasingly bet on the ceasefire and agreements between the US and Iran holding. The fresh breakdown in diplomacy sparked a rebound toward $90 per barrel.

BREAKING: US oil prices surge +7%, rising above $89/barrel, as markets react to Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz and denying reports of a second round of talks with the US. pic.twitter.com/Tmtt8idhsr

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) April 19, 2026

S&P 500 futures avoided a major correction at the weekly open, trading down around 0.6% on Monday.

Continuing, however, Mosaic warned that the writing was already on the wall for the equities rally after the S&P hit fresh all-time highs.

“Simply following breadth, sentiment, and positioning by institutional investors helped flag the recent rally. At the same time, warning signs were already emerging as the S&P 500 broke out to record highs,” it wrote. 

“The number of stocks breaking out to new highs is failing [to] confirm the move in the indexes, while buying pressure from a key group of institutional investors has largely run its course.”

As Cointelegraph reported, oil prices in particular are under the microscope as a US inflation catalyst. The next print of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which will reflect the ongoing impact of the war during April, is due for release on May 12.

Risk-on institutions wake up to Bitcoin

The upshot in risk appetite amid Iran relief had a near-instant impact on Bitcoin institutional investment vehicles.

In particular, the US spot ETFs saw considerable capital inflows through Friday, with more than 25,000 BTC entering over five days.

“The latest accumulations by spot ETF firms are significant, as the last time they posted a figure this close was in April 2025, when they added 23,900 units,” CryptoQuant noted in a QuickTake blog post on the topic.

Data from UK-based investment company Farside Investors confirms that on Friday alone, the net inflows to the ETFs were more than $660 million — the largest single-day total since January.

“Aside from the current milestone, BTC spot ETFs are recovering,” CryptoQuant continued. 

“The balance held by the firm offering them has been declining since October, but has risen since the February dip.”

In BTC terms, the ETFs’ total holdings are now at their highest since November 2025.

GM ☕️

Last week we have seen –

Advertisement

– One of the highest inflows into #bitcoin ETPs.
– Record bitcoin purchases by $MSTR.

Yet, $BTC has failed to reclaim the ETF cost basis (~$81k).

Let’s watch… pic.twitter.com/qVD76JobLY

— André Dragosch, PhD⚡ (@Andre_Dragosch) April 20, 2026

Advertisement

Commenting on X, Andre Dragosch, European head of research at crypto asset manager Bitwise, acknowledged that ETF investors’ cost basis is still above spot price at $81,000, increasing the psychological significance of that level as a resistance hurdle.

Bitcoin price downside still on “milder path”

The average Bitcoin hodler remains underwater despite the recent trip to 10-week highs for BTC/USD.

Related: Bitcoin can grow ‘probably a lot bigger’ than $30T+ gold market — Analysis

New research from onchain analytics platform Glassnode also warns that in terms of history, Bitcoin’s current bear-market drawdown remains “mild.”

In an X article published on Thursday, lead analyst CryptoVizArt used the true market mean (TMM) metric to assess hodler profitability. TMM filters out long-dormant or lost coins to provide a more accurate picture of cost basis for the active BTC supply.

“When BTC trades below TMM, the average active holder is underwater. Since 2016, this has happened ten times with meaningful negative outcomes — episodes lasting from 2 days to over 11 months, with max drawdowns ranging from -0.1%  to -57%,” they summarized.

Bitcoin is now over 75 days into its latest sub-TMM phase, with TMM itself at $78,200.

A chart plotting 2026 against Bitcoin’s historical average dips below TMM shows price forging a “milder path” than before.

“That said, 75 days is still early. The 2018 and 2022 episodes didn’t bottom until months 5-9,” CryptoVizArt warned. 

“The signal isn’t ‘all clear’ — it’s ‘watch closely.’ Reclaiming the TMM and stabilizing there would mark active investors returning to profit, historically a strong reset point for momentum.”