Crypto World
No Email, No Account, No KYC: How GhostSwap Swaps 1,600+ Coins in One Step
The traditional crypto exchange experience is anything but simple. You need to create an account, then verify your email, and submit identity documents. Then wait for approval and set up two-factor authentication. Deposit funds. Withdraw to your wallet. The process can take days and goes on and on before you actually own the asset you wanted.
For many users, this process can be completely unnecessary. Not everyone wants to trade on margin or place limit orders. Some just want to swap one cryptocurrency for another; quickly, privately, and without the overhead of creating yet another online account.
GhostSwap offers exactly that. It’s a non-custodial “instant swap” platform that lets users exchange cryptos without creating an account or providing personal information.
The process actually can’t be more simple: choose a pair, enter a destination address, send the source coin to a one-time deposit address, and receive the new coin, typically within minutes. No email, and no KYC. Just a swap.
What Is GhostSwap?
GhostSwap is a non-custodial swap aggregator that connects user transactions across multiple liquidity sources to find the best available rate. GhostSwap never takes long-term control of user assets, unlike centralized exchanges. Funds move directly from the user’s wallet through the swap process and land in the destination wallet.
GhostSwap supports over 1,600 tokens across major blockchains, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, and (maybe most importantly) privacy-focused assets like Monero (XMR) and Zcash (ZEC). This deep support for privacy coins sets GhostSwap apart from many competitors that have delisted these assets due to regulatory pressure.
Key features, or let’s say, unique selling points, include:
- No signup, no email, no KYC for standard swaps
- 1,600+ supported assets across multiple chains
- Telegram bot for swaps without leaving the messaging app
- Public API for developers and business integrations
- Flat 2% fee quoted upfront, included in the exchange rate
GhostSwap has processed over $750 million in swaps for around 1.5 million users. The company is registered as a Delaware LLC and operates as an anonymous crypto exchange that prioritizes user privacy and simplicity.
How GhostSwap Works
The user experience is intentionally minimal. Here’s what actually happens during a swap:
Step 1: Choose the Coins You Want to Swap
Users begin by selecting a coin to send and a coin to receive from drop-down menus. The interface supports cross-chain swaps, for example, Bitcoin to Solana or Ethereum to Monero. The source and destination assets can be on completely different blockchains; GhostSwap handles the bridge behind the scenes.

Step 2: Enter a Destination Wallet Address
The only information GhostSwap requires is a receiving wallet address for the output coin. There’s no account creation, no email verification, and no identity documents. Just paste the address where you want your funds to land.
Step 3: Send Your Crypto
Once the user confirms the swap details, GhostSwap generates a unique one-time deposit address. The user sends their source coin to this address directly from their own wallet. The address is temporary and tied exclusively to that specific transaction.
Step 4: Receive the New Asset
After the blockchain confirms the deposit, GhostSwap’s backend automatically executes the swap across its liquidity sources and sends the output coin to the user’s provided destination address. The entire process is on-chain and non-custodial.
Step 5: Verify the Transaction
Users can track their swap’s progress through GhostSwap’s status page or, if using the Telegram bot, through real-time updates in the chat. Once the transaction is complete, the funds are in the user’s wallet; no further action required.
Typical completion times range from a couple of minutes for fast chains like Solana or Polygon to about 30 minutes for slower chains like Bitcoin, depending on network congestion. GhostSwap warns users to have a bit of the chain’s native gas token (e.g., ETH) in their sending wallet to cover network fees.
The User Experience: What Makes GhostSwap Different?
Compare the GhostSwap workflow to a traditional exchange:
Traditional Exchange:
- Create account
- Verify email
- Complete KYC (submit ID, wait for approval)
- Set up 2FA
- Navigate to trading pair
- Place order
- Wait for execution
- Withdraw to wallet
GhostSwap:
- Select pair
- Enter destination address
- Send funds
- Receive coins
That’s it. Four steps instead of eight or more. No password management, no identity verification, no account recovery processes to remember. Fewer steps between intent and execution means less friction and a faster experience.
Supported Coins, Networks, and Privacy Assets
GhostSwap supports over 1,600 coins and tokens across numerous blockchains. The platform’s official documentation promotes cross-chain swaps, for example, Bitcoin to Solana or Ethereum to Polkadot, and specifically lists privacy coins like Monero (XMR) and Zcash (ZEC) among supported assets.
Monero (XMR) support: GhostSwap includes XMR as both a send and receive option. Pairs like BTC to XMR and ETH to XMR are listed among the platform’s top offerings. For users who value financial privacy, this is a pretty big advantage; Monero is the leading privacy coin, and its availability on GhostSwap means users can move in and out of it without creating a paper trail on a centralized exchange.

Zcash (ZEC) support: Similarly, Zcash appears in GhostSwap’s supported pairs list (BTC to ZEC, ETH to ZEC, USDT to ZEC, etc.) on the platform’s “All pairs” page. Zcash offers shielded transactions that hide sender, receiver, and amount; another option for privacy-conscious users.
The platform aggregates liquidity from multiple providers, so depth varies by coin. No official liquidity numbers are published, but GhostSwap claims to find “the best rates across multiple liquidity providers.” For smaller swap sizes (e.g., under several BTC worth), adequate liquidity should be available.
Privacy coins may be more thinly traded on global markets than majors like BTC or ETH, but GhostSwap’s aggregator model helps source liquidity where it exists.
GhostSwap’s Fee Structure
GhostSwap charges a flat 2.0% baseline fee (spread) on every swap, built directly into the quoted rate. Users see this fee upfront as part of the exchange rate and the final receive amount. For example, on a $10,000 swap, the implied cost is roughly $200, plus normal on-chain gas fees.
How the Fee Is Quoted Upfront
When a user selects a pair and enters an amount, the interface immediately shows the estimated output amount and the total fee. GhostSwap explicitly highlights that all fees are “included directly in the exchange rate displayed” before confirmation; no hidden charges appear at checkout.
Are There Additional Costs?
Standard blockchain network fees (miner/gas fees) are extra and come from the user’s wallet. These are not GhostSwap fees but rather costs inherent to sending any on-chain transaction. Additionally, if the market moves dramatically before the deposit confirms, extreme cases of slippage could occur; though GhostSwap does re-quote if confirmations take a long time.
Comparing Fixed-Fee Simplicity to Exchange Pricing
GhostSwap’s 2% fee is higher than some competitors. Changelly advertises fees around 0.25%, Godex charges approximately 0.5%, and FixedFloat offers 1% for fixed-rate and 0.5% for floating-rate swaps.
However, these platforms may not support the same range of privacy coins, may require accounts for certain features, or may have less transparent fee structures. GhostSwap’s simplicity (one flat rate, no tiers, no surprise charges) is good for users who want to know exactly what they’re paying before they commit.
Is GhostSwap Legit?
This is arguably the most important question for any user considering a new crypto platform.
What “Legit” Means in Crypto Swapping
In the context of instant swaps, legitimacy doesn’t mean guaranteed safety or regulatory approval. It means the platform delivers what it promises (fast, private, on-chain swaps) without scamming users or failing to execute transactions.
Signs That Users Commonly Look For
GhostSwap provides a public website and extensive documentation, a transparent swap process, a published API, a functional Telegram bot, and user-facing support channels. The platform has been operational for years and has processed over $750 million in swaps for approximately 1.5 million users.
Independent reviews and user reports generally confirm that swaps execute as advertised.
The Non-Custodial Element
GhostSwap is strictly non-custodial. It never takes long-term custody of user funds. Instead, each swap goes through a temporary deposit address: the user’s coins are sent from their wallet to this address, and immediately upon confirmation, GhostSwap releases the new coins from an upstream liquidity source into the user’s receiving wallet.
No pooled account is ever held on GhostSwap. This avoids many hacking risks associated with centralized exchanges, where large pools of customer funds become attractive targets.
What GhostSwap Does and Doesn’t Promise
GhostSwap delivers fast, anonymous crypto swaps with minimal friction. It does not promise to be the cheapest option, to provide advanced trading features, or to offer regulatory protection in every jurisdiction. Users should treat it as an advanced tool (ideal for moving privacy coins or cross-chain trades) and use small test amounts until comfortable.
Privacy and KYC: How Does GhostSwap Handle Identity Verification?
A core GhostSwap promise is no KYC. The site and terms repeatedly state that users need provide only a destination address; no name, ID, email, or phone. GhostSwap is an anonymous crypto exchange in the sense that it doesn’t collect identity-linked data from users. As one Binance.com guide puts it, GhostSwap has “zero registration, no identity documents.”
However, “no KYC” does not mean no compliance. GhostSwap is a Delaware-registered LLC and explicitly works with licensed crypto processing partners to handle AML/sanctions screening. In practice, each transaction is shared with these partners for automated checks. If a swap is flagged (e.g., for high value or hitting a blacklist), GhostSwap reserves the right to block, reject, or refund it.
The terms of use warn users that transactions may be subject to AML/KYC compliance “by licensed third parties.”
Information Users Are Not Required to Provide
Information needed to trade on GhostSwap is really simple; no email, no name, no address, no ID documents, no phone number. Users can even access GhostSwap via Tor or VPN without issue, which further enhances privacy.
Situations Where Compliance Obligations Could Arise
If a transaction is flagged by automated systems (often due to large size, unusual patterns, or connections to known suspicious addresses) GhostSwap may delay, block, or refund the swap. In some cases, third-party compliance partners may request additional information. This is relatively rare for standard swaps but is explicitly covered in GhostSwap’s terms.
Security Considerations Before Using Any Instant Swap Service
Even though GhostSwap’s non-custodial design eliminates many hacking risks, users should be aware of the risks that remain:
Verify Wallet Addresses Carefully
Once a transaction is sent to a blockchain address, it cannot be reversed. Mistyping a destination address or selecting the wrong network can result in permanent loss of funds. Always double-check addresses before confirming a transaction.
Double-Check Network Compatibility
Sending a coin to an address on the wrong network (e.g., sending BSC tokens to an Ethereum address) can result in loss. GhostSwap provides warnings, but the final responsibility lies with the user.
Start With a Small Test Transaction
Before swapping a large amount, send a small test transaction to verify that the address is correct, the network is compatible, and the swap executes as expected. This is standard practice in crypto and costs little in fees.
Understand Blockchain Confirmation Delays
Swap completion times depend on network confirmations. Bitcoin transactions can take 10–30 minutes; faster chains like Solana complete in seconds. If a transaction is delayed, it’s usually due to network congestion rather than a platform issue.
Keep Control of Your Private Keys
GhostSwap never asks for private keys. If any platform requests your private keys, it’s a scam. GhostSwap’s non-custodial design means the user remains in control of their funds throughout the process.
Beyond the Website: Telegram Bot and Public API
Using GhostSwap Through Telegram
Launched in 2025, the @GhostSwapBot on Telegram allows swaps without a browser. The bot mirrors the web UI: users start a chat, select coins, enter an amount, paste a destination address, and get a deposit address from the bot.
Real-time updates are shown as the swap proceeds. This integration allows users to swap without even leaving Telegram; a standout feature few swap platforms offer.
The Public API
GhostSwap exposes a server-to-server API for business integrations (wallets, apps). GhostSwap’s API is authenticated by bearer tokens. Key endpoints include:
- /v1/quotes (get price quote)
- /v1/addresses/validate (validate a payout address)
- /v1/swaps (create a swap)
The docs stress idempotency (retry safety) and real-time status polling. Rate limits are generous: up to 120 requests per second per IP and 30 requests per second per API key. Partners can quickly integrate swaps into apps with high throughput.
Why These Tools Matter
The Telegram bot and API expand GhostSwap beyond a standard web interface. Users can swap from anywhere – even from a messaging app – and developers can integrate GhostSwap’s swap functionality into their own applications, wallets, and services.
Who Is GhostSwap Best Suited For?
GhostSwap serves several distinct user profiles:
Privacy-Conscious Users
People who value financial privacy and don’t want their transactions linked to their identity. GhostSwap’s no-KYC model and support for privacy coins like Monero and Zcash make it an attractive option.
Users Making Occasional Swaps
For users who swap crypto infrequently – perhaps a few times a year – creating accounts on multiple exchanges is overkill. GhostSwap’s pay-as-you-go model is ideal for occasional needs.
People Who Want to Avoid Exchange Onboarding
Account creation, email verification, KYC, and 2FA setup can take days. GhostSwap eliminates all of this.
Developers and Service Operators Using the API
Businesses and developers integrating crypto swaps into their applications can use GhostSwap’s API to add swap functionality without building their own liquidity infrastructure.
Users Swapping Into or Out of XMR and ZEC
GhostSwap maintains support for privacy coins that many exchanges have delisted. For users who need to move into or out of Monero or Zcash, GhostSwap provides a reliable option.
Potential Drawbacks and Limitations
GhostSwap is not for everyone. Several limitations are worth noting:
- No advanced trading features: GhostSwap is designed for simple swaps, not trading. There are no order books, charting tools, limit orders, or margin trading.
- Not a full exchange account: Users cannot hold balances on GhostSwap or repeatedly trade without paying the 2% fee each time. It’s a swap service, not an exchange account.
- No order books: Prices are set by GhostSwap’s aggregator engine, not by user orders. Users cannot set their own prices or wait for specific market conditions.
- Dependence on blockchain conditions: Swap speed depends entirely on the underlying blockchain. Users cannot accelerate their swap beyond the chain’s confirmation requirements.
- Fees may not always be cheapest compared to active trading platforms: The 2% flat fee is higher than what a user might pay on an exchange with lower trading fees. For very large or frequent swaps, an exchange account might be more cost-effective.
- Regulatory ambiguity: GhostSwap operates in a regulatory gray zone. No formal licenses or public audits are mentioned. Users in jurisdictions with strict crypto laws should consider the legal implications of using an anonymous crypto exchange.
- Potential for flagged transactions: While GhostSwap itself doesn’t require KYC, its compliance partners may flag and block certain transactions, especially large ones.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I Need an Account to Use GhostSwap?
No. GhostSwap requires no account, no email, and no password. Users simply select a pair, enter a destination address, and send funds.
Does GhostSwap Require KYC?
No. GhostSwap does not require identity documents, name, address, or phone number for standard swaps. Compliance checks are handled behind the scenes by partners and may occasionally flag transactions.
How Long Do Swaps Take on GhostSwap?
Typical completion times range from a couple of minutes for fast chains (Solana, Polygon) to approximately 30 minutes for slower chains (Bitcoin). Most swaps complete within 5–30 minutes.
Which Coins Are Supported on GhostSwap?
GhostSwap supports over 1,600 coins and tokens across major blockchains, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, Monero, Zcash, and stablecoins like USDT and USDC.
Does GhostSwap Support Monero?
Yes. Monero (XMR) is fully supported as both a send and receive option. Pairs like BTC to XMR and ETH to XMR are available.
What Is the GhostSwap Fee?
GhostSwap charges a flat 2% fee built into the quoted exchange rate. This is the total service fee; users also pay standard blockchain network fees (gas).
Can I Use GhostSwap Through Telegram?
Yes. The @GhostSwapBot on Telegram allows users to perform swaps directly within the messaging app. The bot mirrors the web interface and provides real-time updates.
Does GhostSwap Offer an API?
Yes. GhostSwap has a Partners API for business integrations with endpoints for quotes, address validation, and swap creation. Rate limits are generous (120 requests/sec per IP, 30 requests/sec per API key).
Is GhostSwap Custodial or Non-Custodial?
Non-custodial. GhostSwap never takes long-term custody of user funds. Each swap uses a temporary deposit address, and funds are routed directly to the user’s destination wallet.
What Happens if I Send the Wrong Asset?
Sending the wrong asset to a deposit address can result in permanent loss. GhostSwap’s terms explicitly state that users are responsible for sending the correct coin to the correct address. Always double-check before confirming a transaction.
Wrapping Up
All in all, GhostSwap delivers on its core promise: fast, private, non-custodial crypto swaps without the overhead of traditional exchange onboarding. It’s not the cheapest option, and it doesn’t offer advanced trading features, but for users who value simplicity and privacy, it’s a compelling choice.
The platform’s support for Monero and Zcash, along with its Telegram bot and public API, make it a versatile tool for both individual users and developers.
The post No Email, No Account, No KYC: How GhostSwap Swaps 1,600+ Coins in One Step appeared first on Cryptonews.
Crypto World
As AI Platforms Move Away From Unlimited, Sogni AI Launches a $20 Fair-Use Unlimited Plan on Community GPUs
[PRESS RELEASE – Singapore, Singapore, July 14th, 2026]
New plans cover image, video, music, language models and agent workflows while allocating 51% of net subscription revenue to participating GPU operators.
Sogni AI today announced Sogni Unlimited, a fair-use subscription providing credit-free generation across the open-source and open-weight image, video, music and language models hosted on its creative AI platform. The plan costs $20 per month or $199 per year and runs on the Sogni Supernet, a decentralized network of independently operated GPUs. It is available today on the web and in Sogni’s Mac, iOS and Android applications.
The launch comes one year after the Supernet’s public mainnet debut. The network has powered more than 158 million creations since its 2024 testnet launch, with rendering performed by participating operators on consumer-grade GPUs.
Several centralized AI platforms have reduced, capped or discontinued unlimited-generation offerings since late 2024. Sogni designed its network around a different cost structure: participating GPU operators accrue 51% of net subscription revenue — calculated after payment fees, taxes and refunds — in proportion to the rendering work they complete each month. Compute expense therefore scales with subscription revenue rather than with a fixed cloud bill, and the revenue share is intended to attract additional operators as demand grows.
“Unlimited creative AI has been difficult to sustain because generation costs rise directly with usage,” said Mauvis Ledford, CEO and co-founder of Sogni AI. “Sogni was designed the other way around: independent operators provide the infrastructure and are paid the majority of net subscription revenue for the work completed on the network. Fair-use unlimited is not a promotion — it is what this architecture was built to do.”
Sogni Unlimited covers more than 100 open-source and open-weight models hosted on the network, including Krea 2 Turbo, Z-Image Turbo, Chroma, Qwen Image Edit 2511, LTX-2.3 video, WAN 2.2 animation and ACE-Step 1.5 music generation, together with LLM chat, the Sogni Creative Agent, and SDK and API access across all Sogni applications. Newly released open-weight models are added as they become available on the network. Subscriptions are paid by card, and no wallet or crypto knowledge is required.
“Open models are improving quickly and run well on consumer hardware,” said Mark Ledford, CTO and co-founder of Sogni AI. “The network is built to bring them to creators quickly after release and to pay operators a fixed share of the revenue for that work.”
Covered renders spend no credits. Fair-use scheduling may queue exceptionally heavy sustained workloads during periods of peak demand, under published per-tier concurrency rules: up to four concurrent image jobs and one video job on Unlimited, and up to 16 image jobs and four video jobs on Unlimited Pro ($50 per month or $498 per year), which also carries larger queues and higher priority. Three frontier partner models with per-render licensing costs — GPT Image 2, Seedance 2.0 and HappyHorse 1.1 — remain pay-as-you-go, with a 5% discount for Unlimited subscribers and 10% for Unlimited Pro.
Eligible new subscribers receive a three-day trial at https://www.sogni.ai/unlimited. Subscription benefits apply across Sogni applications and through the Sogni SDK and API. App Store and Google Play pricing may differ from web pricing due to platform fees.
About Sogni AI
Sogni AI is a Singapore-based creative AI platform and decentralized inference network founded by former CoinMarketCap executives. Its applications provide image, video, music and language workflows through community-operated GPU infrastructure. More information is available at https://www.sogni.ai/ and https://docs.sogni.ai/.
Media contact: Mauvis Ledford, CEO, Sogni AI — press@sogni.ai
Press and brand kit: https://www.sogni.ai/brand
The post As AI Platforms Move Away From Unlimited, Sogni AI Launches a $20 Fair-Use Unlimited Plan on Community GPUs appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Crypto World
Ripple, Coinbase, Circle Join Linux x402 Foundation to Help Shape AI Payments
Ripple, alongside a range of other cryptocurrency-oriented firms, has joined the newly operational x402 Foundation as a premier member.
Hosted by the Linux Foundation, the organization is designed to oversee x402 – an open protocol contributed by Coinbase that embeds payments directly into standard web interactions.
The main purpose of the technology is to let AI-based agents, applications, and APIs send and receive money as easily as they exchange data.
Ripple is proud to join the x402 Foundation as a Premier Member.
As AI agents begin to take on more of the transaction lifecycle, they’ll need a way to pay that’s as fast and reliable as the way they already exchange data. We’ve been helping build that future on the XRP Ledger… https://t.co/eSzTyXBQFm
— Ripple (@Ripple) July 14, 2026
The protocol could become increasingly important as AI agents move from making recommendations to actually purchasing services, accessing paid APIs, and completing transactions entirely on their own. Through open, vendor-neutral governance, the foundation aims to ensure that this emerging payment infrastructure supports various networks and payment methods without being controlled by a single company.
Speaking on the matter was Markus Infranger, senior vice president of RippleX, who said:
“Open standards like x402 help lay the foundation for trusted, interoperable machine-to-machine payments.”
He also added that Ripple has already developed XRP Ledger infrastructure, which supports x402. This should enable AI agents to transact using XRP and the company’s RLUSD stablecoin.
The post Ripple, Coinbase, Circle Join Linux x402 Foundation to Help Shape AI Payments appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Crypto World
Solana Community Lead Tacks UK By-Election With On-Chain Transparency Pitch
Stephen “Cap” Newnham, a prominent figure in the Solana community through the UK-based group Superteam UK, says he will run as an independent candidate in the Aug. 13 parliamentary by-election in Clacton. The move puts a blockchain-leaning platform into a race already defined by controversy surrounding Reform UK leader Nigel Farage’s finances and parliamentary disclosures.
Newnham announced on July 9 that he would stand independently and later laid out five campaign pledges. They include support for local entrepreneurs, education focused on digital and artificial intelligence skills, financial literacy initiatives, and—most notably—an onchain-style transparency agenda alongside a promise that pension holders should be able to choose where their retirement funds are held.
Key takeaways
- Solana community leader Stephen “Cap” Newnham will contest the Aug. 13 Clacton by-election as an independent, following his July 9 announcement.
- His platform includes “onchain political transparency” and publishing donations and meetings “in plain English and onchain,” though it does not outline pension-law changes.
- Newnham’s pension pledge focuses on existing options—such as SIPPs and small self-administered schemes—rather than proposing blockchain management of pension assets.
- The by-election is closely watched due to scrutiny of Farage’s decision to trigger a new vote after parliamentary standards concerns about alleged undeclared crypto-linked gifts.
- A national Ipsos poll showed 33% prefer satirical candidate Count Binface over 21% for Farage, but it did not measure views among Clacton residents specifically.
Newnham’s pledges: transparency and pension self-direction
In posts shared to X on Tuesday, Newnham described five campaign pledges for the Clacton contest. According to the same series of announcements, the independent candidate also said his campaign would publish donations and meetings in “plain English” and onchain.
One pledge—“You should own your pension”—argues that savers should have control over where retirement assets are held. The campaign’s framing points to existing UK pension structures, including self-invested personal pensions (SIPPs) and small self-administered schemes, which allow individuals to direct investments rather than leaving asset allocation entirely to a provider.
However, the campaign materials provided so far do not specify a role for blockchain technology in the day-to-day management of pension assets, nor do they propose any legislative changes to pension rules. A blockchain-based record system could potentially make published information harder to tamper with after the fact, but it would not automatically guarantee that every political donation or meeting has been fully disclosed in the first place.
Cointelegraph said it reached out to Newnham for additional detail on the proposals but had not received a response by publication.
From Solana ecosystem to UK election stage
Newnham’s candidacy is rooted in the Solana ecosystem through his work with Superteam UK. The linked Superteam UK description says the group was established to help retain technical talent in Britain by supporting founders and developers building on Solana, arguing that some entrepreneurs leave the country for better funding and startup opportunities abroad.
His LinkedIn profile, referenced in the article, states that he studied economics at the University of Edinburgh before joining the Solana ecosystem. It also notes that he leads Superteam UK and co-authored a report on blockchain and the future of work with Coinbase’s “Stand With Crypto” campaign and the DLT Science Foundation.
While the election entry brings crypto-adjacent themes into mainstream politics, the platform as described emphasizes public-facing transparency and financial education more than direct technical policy claims. Investors and users who follow blockchain projects may still view the pledges as an attempt to translate crypto concepts—particularly auditability and record-keeping—into political disclosure norms.
Farage’s scrutiny remains the race’s central storyline
Newnham’s candidacy lands in a by-election triggered after Farage resigned from Parliament on Wednesday and chose to contest the Clacton seat again. The renewed race is tied to a parliamentary standards investigation into whether Farage should have declared a £5 million personal gift, reported to have been made by crypto investor Christopher Harborne.
Farage has said he was not required to declare the gift because it was received before he entered Parliament. Still, the broader narrative includes additional allegations and scrutiny—according to earlier coverage referenced by Cointelegraph—over reported financial support from crypto entrepreneur George Cottrell and claims that financial relationships overlapped with Farage’s digital asset advocacy. Farage has denied wrongdoing and said he complied with parliamentary rules.
This matters beyond politics: when disclosures involving crypto-connected figures become part of public accountability debates, it can shape how regulators, lawmakers, and donors view compliance expectations around digital assets. For the crypto sector, the practical question is whether disclosure norms will be tightened, clarified, or interpreted differently in response to ongoing challenges to transparency.
Poll signals unusual voter attention, but local preferences remain unknown
The contest has attracted an eclectic mix. At the time of writing, Democracy Club lists 11 prospective candidates for the Clacton by-election, including Newnham, Farage, and the satirical candidate Count Binface. The council is not expected to confirm the official field until July 17.
A Friday Ipsos survey of 1,000 British adults found that 33% would prefer Count Binface to win, compared with 21% for Farage. The same survey also suggests that the by-election’s attention extends beyond typical party competition. But the poll did not measure voting intentions specifically among Clacton residents.
For analysts and campaign teams, that distinction is crucial. National sentiment can be influenced by awareness, media coverage, and novelty—especially in a contest where satire and controversy coexist—without necessarily predicting turnout or preferences in the constituency itself.
Democracy Club’s candidate listing is available here: https://candidates.democracyclub.org.uk/elections/parl.clacton.by.2026-08-13/. Ipsos’ findings were reported here: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/british-public-more-likely-prefer-count-binface-wins-clacton-election-nigel-farage.
With the candidate list still pending confirmation and scrutiny around Farage’s disclosures continuing to frame the narrative, the next key developments to watch are whether Newnham provides further specifics on how his onchain transparency pledge would work in practice, and how voters in Clacton respond once the official field is finalized and local campaigning intensifies.
Crypto World
Benchmark nearly doubles Hut 8 price target to $165 on Beacon Point AI data center deal
Companies including Hut 8, Core Scientific (CORZ), Hive Digital (HIVE) and Bit Digital (BTBT) have repositioned portions of their power and infrastructure assets to serve AI workloads, betting that long-term contracts with hyperscale customers will generate steadier, higher-margin revenue than cryptocurrency mining alone.
Hut 8 has signed two 15-year, triple-net, take-or-pay leases covering 597 megawatts of IT capacity at its River Bend, Louisiana, and Beacon Point, Texas, campuses. According to Palmer, the agreements represent $16.8 billion in contracted base-term lease value and could rise to $42.8 billion if tenants exercise renewal options.
Palmer said the Beacon Point agreement was the primary driver behind the higher valuation. The broker estimated that the project’s first phase alone carries $9.8 billion in base-term contract value and about $655 million in average annual net operating income.
He also pointed to Hut 8’s financing strategy, noting the company recently completed $4.25 billion of investment-grade project financing for Beacon Point after raising $3.25 billion for River Bend. The deals validate management’s strategy of lowering its cost of capital by converting development assets into long-term contracted cash flows.
Beyond its existing projects, the report highlighted Hut 8’s development pipeline, which totals more than 9 gigawatts across projects under exclusivity, development, construction and management, providing what it called a long runway for future growth.
Crypto World
KuCoin unveils Celestia Stage as Tomorrowland Belgium 2026 partnership expands
- KuCoin launches Celestia Stage at Tomorrowland Belgium 2026.
- Partnership blends crypto, music and immersive storytelling experiences.
- More artists and community activations will be announced soon.
Cryptocurrency exchange KuCoin has unveiled the Celestia Stage at Tomorrowland Belgium 2026, marking a new phase in its multi-year strategic partnership with the global electronic music festival.
The announcement reinforces KuCoin’s role as Tomorrowland’s Official Exclusive Crypto Exchange and Crypto Payments Partner.
According to the company, the collaboration extends beyond traditional sponsorship and aims to create an immersive experience centered on trust, innovation, and community.
The Celestia Stage is designed to reflect the shared vision of both organizations, bringing together music, technology and storytelling while highlighting themes of transformation, curiosity and human connection.
Celestia Stage draws inspiration from Tomorrowland’s mythology
According to KuCoin, the new stage is inspired by the legend of Celestia in the Tomorrowland universe and takes the form of a celestial butterfly, symbolizing transformation, growth and new beginnings.
The stage combines organic landscapes, crystalline structures and digital design elements to create an environment where nature and technology coexist.
Throughout the festival, KuCoin Guardians will also appear across the venue as part of an interactive storytelling experience intended to extend the Celestia theme beyond the stage itself.
KuCoin said the project reflects its broader ambition of positioning itself as a trusted guide in digital finance, making innovation more accessible to users while emphasizing trust as a core principle.
Commenting on the partnership, BC Wong, CEO of KuCoin, said:
“Tomorrowland has always inspired people to discover something beyond themselves through music, creativity and imagination. That philosophy closely reflects our own vision. At KuCoin, we believe trust is what empowers people to embrace the future with confidence. Celestia is much more than a stage. It is a shared symbol of transformation, curiosity and connection. Together with Tomorrowland, we hope to create an experience where innovation feels approachable, communities feel connected, and every visitor is inspired to explore what comes next.”
Partnership brings together music and digital finance
Tomorrowland has built a global audience over nearly two decades through electronic music and large-scale live experiences.
KuCoin said it shares a similar community-focused approach, noting that its platform now serves more than 40 million users across over 200 countries and regions.
The exchange said the partnership aims to demonstrate how culture, technology and digital finance can come together through shared experiences rather than conventional brand sponsorship.
KuCoin added that it sees trust as the foundation for wider participation in the digital economy and believes the Celestia Stage reflects that vision by combining entertainment with interactive engagement.
More festival details to be announced
Throughout Tomorrowland Belgium 2026, the Celestia Stage will host an electronic music program alongside immersive artistic installations and storytelling experiences based on the Celestia narrative.
Festival attendees will also encounter KuCoin Guardians across the festival grounds as part of the activation.
KuCoin said additional details, including the full artist lineup, immersive stage experiences and community activations, will be announced in the coming weeks as the partnership continues to develop throughout the festival.
Crypto World
Can DeFi Power the Next Generation of Internet Commerce?
The internet transformed how people communicate, shop, and build businesses. Yet despite decades of innovation, online commerce still depends heavily on centralized intermediaries—from payment processors and banks to marketplaces and advertising platforms. These entities provide convenience, but they also introduce higher fees, slower settlements, geographical restrictions, and single points of failure.
Decentralized Finance (DeFi) offers a compelling alternative. Built on blockchain technology and powered by smart contracts, DeFi has evolved far beyond lending and yield farming. Today, it is laying the foundation for a more open, programmable, and borderless commercial ecosystem. As Web3 infrastructure matures, an important question emerges:
Can DeFi become the financial engine behind the next generation of internet commerce?
The answer is increasingly pointing toward yes.
Commerce Without Traditional Financial Gatekeepers
Every online purchase today relies on multiple intermediaries. Banks authorize payments, card networks process transactions, payment gateways collect fees, and merchants often wait days for funds to settle.
DeFi changes this model.
Instead of relying on trusted intermediaries, transactions are executed through smart contracts that automatically enforce payment conditions. Buyers and sellers interact directly while blockchain networks provide transparent settlement.
The benefits include:
- Near-instant settlement
- Lower transaction costs
- Borderless payments
- 24/7 financial infrastructure
- Reduced counterparty risk
For businesses operating globally, removing friction from payments can dramatically improve efficiency.
Stablecoins Are Becoming the Internet’s Native Currency
One of DeFi’s biggest enablers is the explosive growth of stablecoins.
Unlike volatile cryptocurrencies, stablecoins maintain relatively stable values while offering the speed and accessibility of blockchain transactions.
This makes them ideal for:
- Cross-border e-commerce
- Freelance payments
- Digital subscriptions
- Creator monetization
- International marketplaces
Rather than waiting several business days for international bank transfers, merchants can receive payment within minutes.
For consumers, sending money globally becomes as simple as sending an email.
Smart Contracts Enable Automated Commerce
Traditional online transactions require multiple manual processes:
- Payment verification
- Escrow services
- Refund handling
- Revenue sharing
- Affiliate payouts
Smart contracts automate these functions.
Imagine purchasing digital artwork.
Instead of trusting a marketplace, a smart contract could:
- Hold payment securely
- Verify delivery
- Automatically release funds
- Distribute royalties to creators
- Record permanent ownership
Everything happens transparently without requiring centralized oversight.
This level of automation reduces costs while increasing trust.
Programmable Payments Unlock New Business Models
DeFi allows money itself to become programmable.
Businesses can create payment systems that automatically respond to predefined conditions.
Examples include:
- Streaming payments billed by the second
- Subscription services that charge only while content is consumed
- Automated revenue sharing among contributors
- Dynamic pricing based on demand
- Pay-per-use APIs
- Tokenized loyalty rewards
These models are difficult—or expensive—to implement using traditional financial infrastructure.
With DeFi, they become native capabilities.
Decentralized Marketplaces Could Challenge Platform Monopolies
Today’s largest online marketplaces often charge significant commissions while controlling listings, visibility, and payment systems.
Decentralized marketplaces offer a different approach.
Instead of platform operators controlling every transaction, blockchain protocols facilitate peer-to-peer commerce.
Benefits include:
- Lower platform fees
- Transparent marketplace rules
- User ownership of reputation
- Portable digital identities
- Permissionless participation
- Reduced censorship risk
Creators, freelancers, and small businesses could retain more revenue while maintaining greater control over their customer relationships.
Tokenized Assets Expand What Can Be Bought and Sold
DeFi enables virtually any asset to become digitally represented on-chain.
Examples include:
- Real estate fractions
- Intellectual property
- Event tickets
- Carbon credits
- Music royalties
- Digital collectibles
- Tokenized securities
This dramatically increases liquidity while opening global markets to assets that were previously difficult to trade.
As tokenization grows, internet commerce may include entirely new categories of programmable assets.
Embedded Finance Becomes Invisible
One of the most exciting trends is embedded DeFi.
Users increasingly don’t need to understand blockchain technology.
They simply experience:
- Faster checkout
- Lower fees
- Instant settlement
- Better rewards
- Global accessibility
Wallet abstraction, account abstraction, and improved user interfaces are making blockchain infrastructure nearly invisible.
Just as most people don’t understand TCP/IP while browsing the web, future users may interact with DeFi without realizing it.
Challenges Still Remain
Despite enormous progress, DeFi is not yet ready to replace traditional commerce entirely.
Several obstacles remain:
User Experience
Wallet management, gas fees, and private keys still create friction for mainstream users.
Regulatory Uncertainty
Governments worldwide continue developing frameworks for digital assets, stablecoins, and decentralized financial services.
Scalability
Although Layer-2 networks have dramatically reduced costs, some blockchains still face congestion during periods of high demand.
Security
Smart contract vulnerabilities, phishing attacks, and protocol exploits remain ongoing risks.
Improved auditing, insurance, and user education will be essential for broader adoption.
The Convergence of AI, DeFi, and Commerce
Artificial intelligence is also accelerating DeFi’s commercial potential.
AI agents may soon:
- Negotiate prices autonomously
- Execute payments through smart contracts
- Manage subscriptions
- Optimize inventory
- Rebalance business treasuries
- Perform cross-chain transactions
Machine-to-machine commerce could become a major economic driver, with DeFi serving as the settlement layer for autonomous digital economies.
Looking Ahead
The future of internet commerce may not belong solely to centralized platforms or decentralized protocols—but to a hybrid model that combines the best of both.
Consumers will expect:
- Instant global payments
- Ownership of digital identities
- Transparent transactions
- Lower fees
- Greater financial inclusion
Businesses will demand:
- Programmable financial infrastructure
- Borderless customer reach
- Automated operations
- Real-time settlement
- Interoperable payment systems
DeFi is uniquely positioned to provide these capabilities.
Final Thoughts
The next generation of internet commerce won’t simply digitize existing financial systems—it will redefine how value moves across the web. DeFi introduces a programmable financial layer in which payments, lending, escrow, rewards, and ownership operate seamlessly without relying on traditional intermediaries. While challenges around regulation, security, and user experience remain, the momentum behind decentralized infrastructure continues to grow.
As stablecoins gain mainstream adoption, tokenization expands, and smart wallets become easier to use, DeFi is poised to become an invisible yet powerful engine powering online marketplaces, creator economies, AI-driven transactions, and global digital businesses. The future of commerce may not just happen on the internet—it may be secured, settled, and powered by decentralized finance.
REQUEST AN ARTICLE
Crypto World
Mark Yusko Says Dogecoin and SpaceX Valuations Are ‘Silly’
Morgan Creek Capital CIO, Mark Yusko, in a recent interview with Cointelegraph, compared SpaceX’s $2 trillion valuation with Dogecoin, calling both “silly.” His comparison reaches beyond a simple headline, touching on how markets assign value when conviction begins to outpace evidence.
Yusko’s argument rests on concentration. “If Elon sold one DOGE, DOGE would go to zero,” he said, pointing to the influence of high-profile holders such as Elon Musk and Mark Cuban. In his view, Dogecoin lacks the cash flows, ownership claims, or underlying assets that traditionally support long-term valuations.
He sees the same pattern in SpaceX. Yusko argued that a $2 trillion valuation assumes years of exceptional growth, leaving little room for disappointment. To him, those expectations stretch beyond what the numbers can reasonably support, making today’s valuation difficult to defend.
His remarks arrive as investors continue reassessing speculative assets. Valuations built largely on optimism often thrive when confidence is abundant, but they also face the toughest questions when sentiment cools. Whether markets agree with Yusko or not, his comments highlight the delicate balance between belief and measurable value.
Don’t Miss Out on Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop on ByBit
Can Dogecoin Hold Any Meaningful Support Without a Fundamental Floor?
DOGE recently traded around $0.072, extending a period of sideways movement after a steady decline. Price has struggled to attract sustained buying, suggesting momentum remains cautious. Even the 200-day moving average offers little beyond a historical reference, reflecting where speculation has traded rather than where intrinsic value may exist.
The bullish case remains straightforward. Another public endorsement from Elon Musk could quickly lift social activity and bring momentum traders back into the market. History shows sentiment can push Dogecoin sharply higher, although those rallies have often faded once the excitement cooled.
The base case is less dramatic. DOGE could continue drifting within its recent range as retail participation softens and Bitcoin maintains market leadership. On the downside, any credible sign of large holder distribution could accelerate selling pressure. Yusko’s “go to zero” remark may be an extreme scenario, but sharp drawdowns are hardly unfamiliar territory for an asset driven by sentiment.
Yusko is putting his capital where his thesis is. He said he has been buying Bitcoin every week since February, citing Tim Peterson’s Metcalfe’s Law model, which estimates fair value around $105,000 to $108,000. His message is simple: capital may eventually favor assets with measurable network value over narratives that depend almost entirely on confidence.
Discover: The Best Token Presales
Maxi Doge Eyes Early-Stage Upside While DOGE Trades on Borrowed Confidence
If Yusko’s critique lands that DOGE’s value is entirely dependent on one man’s inaction, then the rotation question becomes where speculative appetite goes next. Large-cap meme coins with concentrated supply risk look increasingly fragile.
Early-stage projects with defined community mechanics and a fixed presale entry point are drawing attention for precisely this reason. The irony of a meme coin being the “fundamentals” trade is not lost on anyone who’s been in this market long enough.
Maxi Doge ($MAXI) is an ERC-20 meme token built around a trading-community culture, think gym-bro energy applied to leverage trading, with holder-only competitions, leaderboard rewards, and a Maxi Fund treasury allocated to liquidity and partnerships.
The presale has raised $4.98 million at a current price of $0.0002829, with dynamic staking APY available to participants. Standout mechanics include 1000x leverage, culture branding, and meme-first marketing designed to drive viral distribution rather than rely on a single influential whale. It has a structural difference from the DOGE model Yusko is dissecting.
Research Maxi Doge before allocating.
Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio
The post Mark Yusko Says Dogecoin and SpaceX Valuations Are ‘Silly’ appeared first on Cryptonews.
Crypto World
ABA and state banking groups oppose CLARITY Act stablecoin yield rules
Major US banking trade groups are asking Senate leaders to tighten the stablecoin yield provisions in the proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY), arguing that the current draft is too unclear and could allow certain stablecoin arrangements to operate like deposit-like products.
In a joint letter, the American Bankers Association (ABA), the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), and 76 state banking associations said the bill’s language on “interest, yield and rewards” should be clarified to ensure payment stablecoins remain focused on transaction use rather than functioning as substitutes for deposits. The lawmakers’ comments arrive amid heightened scrutiny of CLARITY and shortly before a House of Representatives hearing scheduled for July 17.
Key takeaways
- The ABA/ICBA-led letter argues that CLARITY’s stablecoin yield language is ambiguous enough to permit incentives that resemble deposit substitutes.
- Banking groups are urging lawmakers to revise section 404 to clarify the prohibition on interest and yield and prevent workarounds via alternative incentive structures.
- The push adds to broader industry and political debate after the bill cleared the Senate Banking Committee in May but faced continued resistance from Democrats and traditional banking.
- Galaxy Digital previously flagged a shrinking legislative window in the Senate before recess, and timing remains a key risk for passage.
Banking industry warns stablecoin yields could mimic deposits
According to an ABA press release from Monday, the ABA and ICBA—along with 76 state banking associations—backed the overall goal of CLARITY while specifically contesting the stablecoin interest and reward provisions. The groups said the bill’s current wording could “encourage stablecoin arrangements” to effectively replace deposits, despite what they describe as Congress’s longstanding intent to treat payment stablecoins as transaction tools rather than store-of-value products.
Their core concern is that even if the bill attempts to restrict interest-bearing behavior, unclear drafting could leave room for structured incentives that achieve similar economic outcomes. That distinction matters for regulators and legislators because deposit-like products typically fall under a different set of safeguards, oversight expectations, and consumer-protection frameworks than transaction-only payment instruments.
The banking groups warned that the ambiguity could trigger a “deposit flight,” a phrase used to describe the risk that deposits could move away from banks if stablecoin offerings appear economically comparable to bank accounts.
Proposed fix targets section 404’s “interest and yield” boundary
Beyond describing the risk, the letter lays out what the banking industry wants changed. The groups urged lawmakers to amend section 404 to “clarify the prohibition on interest and yield” and ensure the restriction “cannot be circumvented through alternative incentive structures.”
In other words, the argument is not simply that stablecoin issuers should be barred from paying traditional interest. It is that any regime allowing “rewards” or “yield” could be reinterpreted or engineered in ways that replicate deposit economics—potentially undermining the bill’s intended separation between payment stablecoins and interest-bearing store-of-value products.
This request is significant because section 404 sits at the center of the policy fight: it is where lawmakers attempt to draw a bright line between permissible transaction activity and prohibited deposit-like behavior.
Debate continues after Senate Banking Committee approval
CLARITY cleared the Senate Banking Committee in May, but it has not ended political and industry disagreement—especially around whether crypto firms could offer stablecoin yields without facing requirements comparable to traditional banks.
Democratic lawmakers and the banking industry have both criticized the measure for that perceived mismatch. The bill’s supporters argue that clarity would bring accountability and a workable framework for digital assets, but critics contend the draft could permit yield features that functionally compete with bank products.
This tension has also been reflected in public statements from major banking leaders. In a May interview highlighted in Cointelegraph coverage, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said the banking industry would continue to “fight” the current version of CLARITY and argued that crypto firms that want to provide yield on stablecoins should seek banking charters. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that position in the context of the banking sector’s continuing pushback against the legislation’s approach to yield.
Legislative odds and the countdown before potential recess
While different parts of the ecosystem have weighed in on CLARITY, timing may be just as consequential as drafting details. The banking letter arrives “just days ahead” of the bill’s scheduled House hearing on July 17, with the broader effort aiming to create the first comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets in the US.
At the same time, market participants have been assessing whether Congress can actually move the bill through both chambers. Galaxy Digital previously reduced its odds for CLARITY to become law in 2026, cutting its estimate to 50% on June 26, according to Cointelegraph coverage of Galaxy’s view. Galaxy cited the absence of a unified Senate Banking-Agriculture text, the lack of a firm floor schedule, and a narrowing legislative window as lawmakers approach the period when they leave Washington.
The latest banking push strengthens the view that key issues—particularly stablecoin yield restrictions—could still face negotiation. Even if the bill advances, changes requested by bank trade groups could reshape how the stablecoin interest/reward line is interpreted and enforced.
What to watch next
With a House hearing coming up and continued cross-industry pressure on how section 404 should be interpreted, investors and builders should watch whether Senate leaders narrow the stablecoin yield rules in response to banking concerns—and whether lawmakers can maintain momentum on a full-bill path before legislative time runs out.
Crypto World
How a DAO lost $20 million in one proposal
Nobody hacked anything. No smart contract failed, no private key leaked, no phishing link fired. On July 6, the treasury of BonkDAO, the community organization behind one of Solana’s flagship memecoins, transferred roughly $20 million worth of BONK to a wallet controlled by an attacker, and every step of the transfer was a valid transaction executed exactly as the DAO’s own rules prescribed.
Summary
- An attacker spent about $4.4 million to gain enough BONK voting power and passed a proposal that transferred nearly $20 million from the BonkDAO treasury.
- The incident exposed how low voter participation, no timelock, and automatic proposal execution left the DAO vulnerable to governance capture.
- The treasury drain has renewed calls for stronger DAO safeguards as exchanges, investigators, and the broader crypto industry assess the aftermath.
The attacker did not break the governance system. They bought it, for about $4.4 million, at an implied return of nearly five to one, in a vote where seven wallets participated and more than 18,000 members did not. The episode is the cleanest proof to date of an uncomfortable truth the industry has spent years politely ignoring: a treasury governed by token-weighted voting is worth exactly the cost of assembling a temporary majority, and for most DAOs, that cost is a fraction of the prize.
The mechanics deserve a careful walkthrough because the details are what turn a crime story into a design lesson. And the aftermath, exchanges freezing deposits, law enforcement notified, a philosophical fight over whether this was theft at all, will shape how every treasury-holding DAO on every chain rewrites its rules over the next year.
Six days in the open
The attack was not fast, and it was not hidden. On June 30, an anonymous wallet submitted a proposal to BonkDAO’s governance system, which runs on Realms, Solana’s standard DAO tooling. The proposal carried the title BIP #76, styled itself as a governance renewal plan, and dressed the theft in the language of turnaround management: install new leadership, restructure the council, monetize treasury holdings, stop the bleeding. It even included a line noting that yes-voters would be eligible to receive tokens, a detail that reads in hindsight like a dark joke about incentive design. Beneath the rhetoric sat the only clause that mattered: an instruction to transfer 4.43 trillion BONK, the bulk of the treasury, to a wallet the proposer controlled.
The proposal stayed live for six days. During that window, the attacker methodically accumulated voting power, spending approximately $4.4 million buying BONK through exchange wallets, an amount equal to just over 1% of total supply but decisive against the DAO’s quorum arithmetic. On-chain researchers, including Yu Xian of security firm SlowMist and the analyst Yu Jin, later reconstructed the accumulation pattern: purchases sized to clear the quorum threshold with minimal excess, executed while the proposal sat in plain sight and no meaningful opposition organized. On July 6, the attacker cast the assembled stake. The final tally showed 882.38 billion BONK in favor against a quorum threshold of 879.95 billion, a margin so narrow it amounts to the attacker buying the exact number of votes required and almost nothing more.
Turnout was 2.9%. The yes share was 99.9%, which is what unanimity looks like when a single voter agrees with itself.
Then the system worked as designed, which is the entire problem. Realms-based governance executes passed proposals automatically. No human signed off, no council reviewed the transfer, no delay separated approval from execution. The treasury moved to an address ending in JHvQ, which investigators traced to funding from a Bybit account, and portions began flowing toward exchanges within hours.
The anatomy of the failure
Three missing safeguards converted a bad proposal into an executed one, and each is a standard control the DAO simply did not have. The first is a timelock: a mandatory delay between a proposal passing and its instructions executing. Even a 48-hour window would have given the community, or the core team, time to see a treasury-draining transfer queued and organize a response. The second is a multisig or council veto: an emergency brake allowing designated signers to freeze anomalous executions. The third is quorum and participation design: a system where 1% of supply can constitute a passing majority against 2.9% turnout has set its security budget equal to the apathy of its members.
The deeper failure sits above all three: the treasury’s size bore no relationship to the cost of controlling it. BonkDAO held roughly 15% of all circulating BONK, a war chest accumulated through the token’s boom years, governed by a mechanism whose capture cost floated with the token’s price and its holders’ attention. The attacker’s arithmetic was public information. Anyone could compute that quorum, multiplied by market price, cost about $4 million to satisfy, against a treasury worth five times that. The only surprising thing about the attack is that it took until 2026.
The pattern has a canonical ancestor. In 2022, an attacker used a flash loan to seize voting control of Beanstalk, a DeFi protocol, and drained about $180 million in the same block. The industry’s response then was to treat flash-loan governance as the flaw: protocols added voting delays that made borrowed tokens useless for instant capture. BonkDAO’s attacker needed no flash loan. They used patient capital, real purchases held across days, which defeats the flash-loan defenses entirely and shows that the vulnerability was never the loan. It was the market for votes itself.
The market for votes was always there
The uncomfortable context is that vote buying in DAO governance is not a fringe exploit; it is an industry with infrastructure. Bribe markets, where protocols openly pay token holders to vote for emissions and incentives, have operated for years around the largest DeFi governance systems and are treated as legitimate yield. Vote-lending and delegation markets let holders rent their governance power without selling their tokens. The line between that accepted economy and what happened to BonkDAO is intent, not mechanism: the machinery for converting money into votes was built, normalized, and liquid long before someone aimed it at a treasury instead of an emissions gauge.
That normalization is why the security framing has to be economic instead of technical. Auditors evaluate smart contracts against code exploits and can certify a system bug-free while it remains trivially capturable, because capture is not a bug. The relevant metric, which security researchers have urged for years under the name cost of corruption, compares the expense of acquiring decisive voting power against the value extractable by wielding it. For a healthy system, the first number exceeds the second with a wide margin. BonkDAO’s ratio, roughly $4.4 million against $20 million, was not marginal. It was an arbitrage with a six-day settlement period, advertised on a public governance forum. Any DAO that has never computed its own ratio should assume an attacker has.
The turnout side of the ratio deserves equal weight, because the attacker’s capital did not defeat 18,000 members; it defeated their absence. Governance participation across the industry has decayed for years, from the double-digit turnout of early experiments to the low single digits typical today, as token holders rationally conclude that reading proposals is unpaid labor with diluted influence. Every percentage point of apathy directly lowers the capture price. In that sense, the $4.4 million was not the cost of beating BonkDAO’s community. It was the market-clearing price of its indifference, and comparable prices are computable for hundreds of treasuries right now.
The tooling default problem
A quieter thread of the postmortem concerns Realms, the standard governance stack on Solana, and by extension the defaults every DAO platform ships. Nothing in the incident involved a flaw in the tooling: Realms executed a validly passed proposal, which is its job. But defaults are policy, and the configuration this DAO ran, automatic execution, no timelock, a static quorum set long ago, is the path of least resistance the tooling made easy. The same critique applies across ecosystems, where governance frameworks expose timelocks and councils as optional modules that busy launch teams skip. The predictable industry response is already forming: platforms moving protective defaults from opt-in to opt-out, warning surfaces that flag treasury-moving instructions in plain language, and simulation tools that show voters exactly what a proposal executes before they approve it. None of that required new research. It required a $20 million proof that someone would actually pull the trigger.
Theft, or the rules working
The philosophical fight broke out immediately and is more consequential than it sounds. One camp, including a notable contingent of on-chain observers, argues that nothing was stolen: the attacker followed every rule, won a vote the rules recognized, and executed a transfer the rules authorized. Code was law, the law was bad, and the losses are tuition. The proposal was public for six days; 18,000 members who could not be bothered to vote against their own treasury made a governance decision by omission. On this reading, the term “attack” launders negligence into victimhood, and law enforcement involvement sets a precedent that undermines the entire premise of on-chain governance: if valid votes can be criminal, then governance outcomes are subject to off-chain veto, and the system’s guarantees mean nothing.
The opposing camp, which includes BonkDAO itself, the analytics firms tracking the funds, and figures like Ripple’s chief technology officer emeritus David Schwartz, who compared the maneuver to corporate fraud, argues that legality is not defined by protocol validity. A proposal that misrepresents its purpose, transfers assets to its author, and relies on engineered low turnout is fraud in any legal system humans have built, regardless of how faithfully the machinery executed it. Corporate law developed exactly these doctrines for exactly these reasons: shareholder votes procured through deception are voidable, and control acquired to loot a treasury is a breach the courts unwind. The wrapper being a DAO does not repeal centuries of fiduciary reasoning.
The debate matters practically because it decides where defense happens. If this is theft, then exchanges freezing funds, as Upbit did when it suspended BONK deposits and withdrawals, and law enforcement tracing the Bybit-funded wallet are the immune system working. If this is the rules working, then every defense must live on-chain, in timelocks and vetoes and quorum design, and off-chain recovery is itself the attack on the system. The industry visibly believes both things at once, which is why the response has been both a law enforcement referral and a wave of emergency governance reviews at other DAOs.
What BONK was, and what the treasury was for
The scale of the loss only registers against what the DAO had built. BONK launched in December 2022 as Solana’s answer to its darkest hour, airdropping half its supply to the ecosystem’s users, developers, and artists in the weeks after the FTX collapse had cratered confidence in the chain. The distribution strategy worked beyond any reasonable expectation: the token became the community flag of Solana’s recovery, integrated across hundreds of applications, listed on every major venue, and eventually the anchor of an ecosystem spanning launchpads, exchanges, and grant programs. The treasury at the center of this month’s attack was the accumulated war chest of that run, holding roughly 15% of supply and funding the buybacks, integrations, and community programs that separated BONK from the thousands of memecoins that mint, spike, and vanish.
That history is why the governance failure stings beyond the dollar figure. The DAO structure was not decoration; it was the mechanism by which a token with no product and no cash flows coordinated thousands of contributors for three years. The treasury was the proof that memecoin communities could accumulate and steward real resources. Its draining through a seven-wallet vote is therefore an attack on the category’s best argument for itself, and every project that pitched community treasuries as the moat now answers for the moat’s price tag.
The damage, priced
The market’s verdict was swift but contained. BONK fell between 8 and 10% on the disclosure, trading around levels that left its market capitalization near $400 million, and stabilized within days. Several factors capped the damage. The stolen tokens, more than 4.4 trillion BONK, represent supply that was already outside the market in a treasury, so the theft’s mechanical effect is a transfer of overhang rather than new emission, though overhang in hostile hands is worth less than overhang in friendly ones. Exchange coordination raised the realistic prospect of partial recovery or at least slowed liquidation. And the token’s price had already absorbed a brutal year alongside the whole memecoin complex, whose aggregate value sits more than 50% below its level of twelve months ago even after a July bounce, leaving less speculative premium to destroy.
No user wallets were touched, and the BONK token contract itself was never at issue, distinctions that matter for the asset’s survival. The loss is concentrated in the commons: the treasury that funded ecosystem grants, marketing, and the buyback programs that gave the DAO its purpose. For a memecoin, whose entire value proposition is community coordination, draining the coordination budget through the coordination mechanism is a uniquely poetic wound, as crypto.news noted in its report on the treasury raid. The token survives; the question is whether the institution does.
The recovery race
Recovery, if it happens, will happen at the choke points, and the first week showed both their power and their limits. Stolen tokens moving toward centralized exchanges triggered the standard playbook: BonkDAO identified the exchange wallets used to accumulate BONK before the vote, notified law enforcement, and coordinated with exchanges, bridges, and the Solana Foundation. Upbit’s suspension of BONK deposits and withdrawals closed one of the deepest liquidity venues to the attacker, and the wallet trail through a Bybit-funded account gives investigators a potential identity thread, since major exchanges hold verified customer records behind funded accounts.
The limits are equally real. On-chain funds that stay on-chain remain beyond freezing, and an attacker with $20 million of patience can wait out attention, launder through decentralized venues, or drip supply into liquidity over months. Security analysts examining the movement patterns flagged infrastructure choices that complicate tracing, and the history of comparable incidents suggests recoveries are partial when they happen at all, often arriving through negotiated returns, the white-hat conversion, where an attacker keeps a bounty-sized fraction, more often than through seizure. The realistic best case is not restoration but attrition: enough friction at every exit that liquidation becomes slow, discounted, and legally dangerous, which changes the attacker’s arithmetic retroactively and, more importantly, changes it prospectively for the next one running the same computation against another treasury.
The regulatory shadow
The episode also lands in the middle of a live legislative fight, and lawmakers hostile to DeFi could not have commissioned a better exhibit. The CLARITY Act’s most contested sections concern exactly this territory: what obligations attach to decentralized systems, who bears responsibility when autonomous code moves other people’s money, and whether governance token holders or developers stand behind the structures they launch. A $20 million treasury vanishing through a valid vote, followed by an appeal to the very law enforcement the system was designed to route around, hands skeptics their argument in a single anecdote: the industry wants code to be law until code loses, at which point it wants law to be law. Advocates will answer that the failure was one badly configured DAO, not the model, and that the response, exchanges, analytics firms, and police cooperating within hours, shows the accountability layer functioning. Both arguments will be quoted in committee, and the regulation debate will price the incident long after the market has forgotten it.
There is a subtler legal exposure inside the DAO structure itself. If courts or regulators conclude that governance token voting constitutes control, then large holders who do vote may carry duties toward the treasury they direct, an outcome that would make participation more dangerous than apathy and invert the incentive problem the industry is trying to fix. The unresolved status of DAO legal personhood, patched in a few jurisdictions through wrapper statutes and ignored in most, means every treasury of size is now a test case waiting for its plaintiff.
What every other DAO does now
The practical legacy of BIP #76 is a checklist already circulating through governance forums across Solana and every other ecosystem. Timelocks on treasury-affecting proposals move from best practice to table stakes, with delays scaled to transfer size. Emergency veto councils, unfashionable for years because they reintroduce trusted parties into trustless systems, return to favor with sunset clauses and narrow mandates as the compromise. Quorum design gets rethought around adversarial math: thresholds set as a function of treasury value and float cost, not as static%ages chosen at launch when nobody imagined the treasury would be worth stealing. Proposal screening adds friction, deposit requirements, and mandatory review windows for any instruction that moves funds. And delegation programs attempt to fix the underlying disease, the 2.9% turnout, by concentrating voting power in accountable delegates who show up.
Each fix carries its own cost, and the honest version of the checklist admits it. Timelocks slow legitimate operations and give markets time to front-run treasury actions. Vetoes recreate the trusted committee that DAOs were invented to remove, and committees can be captured too, or become liability magnets under exactly the legal theories the theft camp invoked. High quorums can freeze governance entirely in low-attention projects, converting treasuries into unspendable monuments. The design space has no free choices, only tradeoffs between capture resistance and operational capacity, and every DAO is now pricing those tradeoffs under deadline.
The DeFi sector’s broader security picture sharpens the urgency. The same week brought a $9 million oracle exploit on a Hedera lending protocol and an active drain at a yield platform flagged mid-attack by security monitors, part of a first half that set records for incident count. Governance capture now joins oracle manipulation and bridge compromise on the standing threat list, with one distinction that makes it worse: it scales with legitimacy. The more valuable and decentralized a DAO becomes, the more its governance token trades freely, and the more liquid the market for its own capture.
The watchlist for holders and builders
For anyone holding BONK or tokens governed by similar structures, the incident reduces to observable signals. On the recovery track: movement from the JHvQ-linked wallets, exchange announcements about frozen or returned funds, and any communication suggesting a negotiated settlement, each of which reprices both the treasury and the overhang. On the reform track: the text of the DAO’s emergency proposals, whether they include timelocks and a veto council, and crucially the turnout they attract, since a reform vote that passes with the same 2.9% participation has fixed the paperwork and not the disease. On the contagion track: whether other large-treasury DAOs disclose their own capture math and patch it publicly, or wait for their own BIP #76.
Builders face a starker version of the same list. Compute the cost of corruption for your own system today: quorum threshold times token price against extractable treasury value, adjusted for realistic turnout. If the ratio is unfavorable, every day it stays public is a day the trade is live for someone else. The defenses are neither novel nor expensive, which is exactly why their absence will stop being forgivable. Before July 6, an unprotected treasury was a theoretical risk that governance forums debated in the abstract. After it, the exploit is documented, the playbook is public, the return profile is proven, and the next attacker does not need to innovate. They need to search.
There is also a quieter question for the Solana ecosystem specifically, which had, by most measures, its strongest institutional month on record even as the attack unfolded: whether the maturity narrative absorbs the incident or gets dented by it. The honest answer is that the two stories are about different layers. The chain performed flawlessly throughout; the failure lived entirely in one organization’s configuration of one governance application. Institutions doing diligence understand that distinction. Retail sentiment, which still drives the memecoin complex that BONK anchors, often does not, and the gap between those two readings will be visible in the relative performance of governance-token projects for quarters.
The bill for cheap governance comes due
For BONK itself, the path from here runs through three questions. Whether exchange and law enforcement coordination claws back a meaningful share of the 4.4 trillion tokens, where each recovered tranche is both treasury restoration and supply certainty. Whether the DAO can pass its own emergency reforms through the very mechanism that just failed, a live experiment in whether a captured system can vote itself better armor. And whether the community that made BONK one of the defining tokens of the meme coin era treats the episode as a death knell or a founding trauma; communities have rallied around less. The token has survived worse markets than this news.
For everyone else, the lesson costs nothing and is therefore priceless. Every DAO treasury on every chain now has a public quote for what its governance is worth: the market price of its quorum. If that number is smaller than the treasury, the treasury is not owned, it is rented, and the rent is whatever an attacker pays for the votes.
BonkDAO’s members learned the rent on a Monday in July. The rest of the industry gets to learn it from the outside, which is the only cheap way the lesson is ever taught.
Disclaimer: This article is information, not investment advice. Figures, on-chain attributions, and recovery prospects reflect reporting available as of July 14, 2026, and can change as investigations proceed. Characterizations of the incident as theft or as valid governance are contested. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell BONK or any other asset. Verify current developments from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.
Crypto World
XRP Price Prediction: Key Metrics Point to a Crash
XRP prediction chatter is heating up even as the price slips, which is usually when markets like to play tricks. XRP trades at around $1.07, with 0.5% daily red candle and nearly 7% this week. Meanwhile, Santiment’s social sentiment ratio climbed to 3.02 bullish comments for every bearish one, its highest reading in five weeks.
That kind of optimism, while price trends lower, is rarely the dream setup for bulls, but markets have a habit of humbling the loudest crowd. When everyone rushes to the same side of the boat, it does not take much to make it wobble.

Meanwhile, the crypto market found a little breathing room. Total market value rose to roughly $2.13 trillion, while Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, and Dogecoin posted modest daily gains. More than $160 million in leveraged positions were liquidated, with shorts accounting for about $108 million, showing traders are still willing to swing for the fences.
Ethereum stole the spotlight after reclaiming $1,800, helped by a sharp jump in trading volume. XRP joined the recovery but failed to match Ethereum’s momentum. That gap suggests buyers remain selective instead of piling into every major token.
At the same time, centralized exchange spot trading volumes climbed 15.3% to $1.11 trillion in June, ending a five-month slide. That points to improving market participation. Even so, XRP still needs stronger buying pressure to turn improving sentiment into a sustained price recovery.
Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio
XRP Price Prediction: Reclaim $1.35, or Is a Breakdown to $0.90s the More Likely Path?
XRP has repeatedly rejected resistance, with each failure followed by thinner liquidity on the pullback. Its market cap sits around $66 billion, while the price has settled in the $1.05 to $1.10 range after losing more than 7% over the past week. Meanwhile, social sentiment peaked as the price weakened, a classic contrarian signal that has often appeared before local tops.
Technically, the structure remains fragile. Analyst commentary points to persistent seller pressure near resistance despite improving interest in crypto investment products. Each failed attempt at $1.35 has attracted fewer buyers, making the level look more like a ceiling than a launchpad.
The bullish case needs Bitcoin to stay firm and risk appetite to improve. If that happens, XRP could finally clear $1.35 with strong volume, opening the door toward $1.50. Without convincing buying, however, any rally may end up being another quick sprint that forgets the finish line.
The most likely outcome keeps XRP trading between $1.00 and $1.20 while sentiment gradually cools. That would allow speculative positioning to reset instead of overheating. Sideways markets rarely win popularity contests, but they often build stronger foundations than dramatic spikes.
The bearish scenario comes into play if support just above $1.00 fails during a wider market selloff. In that case, XRP could revisit the high $0.90s, an area several analysts consider the next meaningful support. That is not the expected path, yet elevated optimism means traders should not dismiss it.
For the trend to shift convincingly, XRP must reclaim the $1.30 to $1.35 zone with expanding trading volume. A bounce driven only by Bitcoin would be encouraging, but it would not settle the argument. XRP still needs to prove it can stand on its own feet.
Don’t Miss Out on Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop on ByBit
LiquidChain Targets Early-Mover Positioning as XRP Tests Key Levels
XRP’s fragile setup illustrates a broader problem for mid-to-large-cap alts right now: downside risk is asymmetric, upside is capped by resistance, and the crowd is already long. Rotation into earlier-stage infrastructure plays has picked up in this environment, specifically into projects where price discovery hasn’t happened yet.
LiquidChain is a Layer 3 infrastructure project positioning itself as a cross-chain liquidity layer that fuses Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana liquidity into a single execution environment. The architecture centers on a Unified Liquidity Layer with single-step execution and deploy-once architecture, meaning developers build once and access all three ecosystems.
The presale is currently priced at $0.01479, with $900K raised to date. That’s still early-stage price discovery by any measure. The project has continued raising through recent macro headwinds, including geopolitical friction that rattled broader crypto markets.
Research LiquidChain before the next pricing stage.
Discover: The Best Token Presales
The post XRP Price Prediction: Key Metrics Point to a Crash appeared first on Cryptonews.
-
Fashion5 days agoLoro Piana Fall 2026 Enters Houston’s Art Scene
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Nutriplenish Leave-In Conditioner
-
Sports5 days ago2026 Genesis Scottish Open Thursday TV coverage: Round 1
-
Sports7 days agoJoshua Pacio ‘more complete’ ahead of ONE rematch vs Malachiev
-
Tech6 days agoAnthropic brings Claude Cowork to mobile and web as usage data shows most users aren’t coding
-
Sports4 days agoSuper Eagles star Moses Simon opens up on Liverpool transfer regret
-
Sports7 days ago
We have punished the disrespect
-
Tech5 days agoCharacter.AI enters the microdrama arena with its own productions, but there’s a twist
-
Crypto World7 days agoNasdaq arthritis company holding Moshe Hogeg crypto hits all-time low
-
Tech9 hours agoGet Your ESP32 Sunny Side Up With This Solar Dev Board
-
News Videos6 days agoCrypto Just Entered Its Most Important 6-Month Candle (Could Decide Everything!)
-
Tech7 days agoKeychron is stepping outside keyboards with a $349 Thunderbolt 5 dock aimed at power users
-
Business6 days agoASX 200 Slides Over 0.6% as Rare Earths and Lithium Stocks Tumble Amid Global Semiconductor Sell-Off Today
-
NewsBeat5 days agoMajor update after Huntingdon train attack as man enters plea
-
Business6 days agoWill Trent shares rebound after Q1 update triggers 13% crash? Here’s what technical charts indicate
-
Tech7 days ago
OpenAI teams with Work Louder to launch Codex-native keyboard, weeks after CEO of Apps told staff ‘not to be distracted by side quests’
-
Business6 days agoSpaceX Shares Slide Nearly 6% Amid Post-IPO Volatility and Starship Test Focus
-
Sports6 days ago39-year-old Djokovic wins five-hour thriller to enter Wimbledon semis | Other Sports News
-
Crypto World7 days agoTeraWulf’s $19B Anthropic Lease Turns Bitcoin Miner Into AI Landlord
-
News Videos23 hours agohow to make coin bank box with cardboard #scienceproject #money #diy #shorts

You must be logged in to post a comment Login