Circle Internet (CRCL) CEO Jeremy Allaire offered his clearest public response yet to growing criticism over how the stablecoin issuer handles illicit funds, saying it does not freeze wallets unless there is a formal legal basis to do so.

Speaking on stage at a press conference in Seoul, Allaire positioned USDC, the second-largest dollar-pegged stablecoin, as a regulated financial product rather than a tool for real-time intervention.

“Circle has a very, very clear performance obligation under the law,” Allaire said. “Circle follows the rule of law, and we are able to undertake actions such as freezing a wallet at the direction of law enforcement or the courts.”

Allaire framed USDC as part of the traditional financial system, subject to legal process and oversight. Decisions to blacklist or freeze funds, he suggested, should not be made at the discretion of the company in the heat of an exploit, but instead follow requests from law enforcement or court orders. The approach reflects Circle’s broader strategy to align closely with regulators and institutions.

Rival Tether, the issuer of the world’s largest stablecoin, USDT, has a more proactive approach. The company has repeatedly frozen funds linked to hack and illicit activity within hours. In several cases cited by blockchain sleuth ZachXBT, including exploits affecting Ledger and Remitano, Tether blacklisted stolen funds while equivalent USDC remained untouched.

Allaire’s remarks come at a time of mounting scrutiny. Earlier this month, Drift Protocol suffered a suspected North Korea-linked exploit that resulted in losses of up to $280 million. Roughly $230 million in USDC was moved across chains over several hours. The incident has become a focal point for critics who argue that Circle is failing to act despite having the technical ability to do so.

Intervention carries risks, too

ZachXBT is among the most vocal. In a widely circulated thread on X, he said Circle’s inaction across more than a dozen cases since 2022 has contributed to over $420 million in illicit funds escaping. He pointed to multiple incidents where stolen USDC remained in identifiable wallets for hours or even days without being frozen, including exploits affecting Cetus, SwapNet, and Nomad.

Critics say the pattern highlights a deeper issue. USDC is centrally issued and contains controls that allow Circle to block addresses. Yet those powers are rarely used in real time. By deferring to legal processes that move far more slowly than blockchain transactions, they argue, Circle creates a gap that attackers can exploit.

Others in the industry argue that faster intervention carries its own risks. Omid Malekan, an adjunct professor at Columbia Business School, responded to calls for discretionary freezes by warning that allowing issuers to act beyond legal requirements would undermine the foundations of decentralized finance (DeFi).

Such powers could erode trust in DeFi systems by introducing centralized points of control, Malekan said.

“If Circle and other stablecoin issuers implement arbitrary freeze or seize functions beyond what the law requires, then not only is code not law, but also law is not law,” he wrote on X. “Instead what a single executive inside a single corporation decides is law.”

Foundry’s U.S.‑based, compliance‑first Zcash pool has already grown to roughly one‑third of network hashrate, giving institutional miners a regulated way into privacy coins while stoking fresh centralisation fears.

Foundry Digital, operator of the Foundry USA Bitcoin mining pool, has officially launched an institutional‑grade Zcash (ZEC) mining pool that has quickly grown to around 30% of the network’s hashrate, consolidating a significant share of new ZEC issuance under a single U.S.‑regulated operator. The Rochester, New York‑based firm, which Fortune notes already commands about 31% of global Bitcoin production, is positioning its new pool as the default home for institutional miners seeking exposure to privacy‑focused assets without abandoning compliance.finance.

In a Business Wire release, Foundry said the Zcash pool has seen “rapid and sustained hashrate growth reaching ~30% of the current Zcash network hashrate” since it was first announced on March 11, with “multiple institutional mining customers already onboarded and contributing hashrate.” The company stressed that the pool is “designed for professional mining organizations and public companies that require a U.S.-based, compliance-ready partner, including KYC verification in line with Foundry’s institutional standards,” mirroring the governance of its Bitcoin operation.

Foundry CEO Mike Colyer framed the move as both a bet on Zcash and a response to unmet institutional demand. “Zcash has matured into an institutional‑grade asset, but the mining infrastructure supporting it hasn’t kept pace,” he said, adding that the new pool is “purpose‑built for the operational and compliance requirements of institutional and public miners.”

A CoinMarketCap summary of the launch notes that the pool will offer know‑your‑customer and anti‑money‑laundering checks, transparent payout calculations, reporting tools and 24/7 technical support, with no minimum hashrate required to join.

Zcash, launched in 2016, relies on zero‑knowledge proofs (zk‑SNARKs) to enable shielded transactions that hide sender, receiver and amount while still allowing selective disclosure to auditors or regulators. Foundry and several commentators have argued that this “privacy with a view key” model is more compatible with institutional compliance than fully opaque systems like Monero, which lack native mechanisms for selective transparency.

At the same time, the arrival of a U.S. pool with roughly one‑third of Zcash’s hashrate raises familiar centralisation questions. Unfolded and other mining trackers have previously highlighted that Foundry USA already coordinates about 30% of Bitcoin’s global hashrate, and Mempool.space data shows the pool averaging more than 340 exahashes per second on Bitcoin alone. Adding a Zcash operation that quickly captures around one‑third of ZEC issuance further concentrates influence over block production in a single corporate group, albeit one that stresses its role in “contribut[ing] to the decentralization of Bitcoin’s hashrate” by anchoring North American capacity.

For Zcash, the trade‑off is stark: institutional capital and hashpower are flowing in through a U.S.‑regulated gateway that validates the project’s positioning as a compliant privacy coin, but at the cost of a more concentrated mining landscape. As regulators in the U.S., EU and Hong Kong tighten their grip on stablecoins, exchanges and tokenized assets — a trend explored in recent crypto.news coverage of HKDAP’s launch, MiCA implementation and the CLARITY Act — Zcash’s bet is that privacy with selective disclosure, plus a mining pool built for auditors rather than cypherpunks, is a price worth paying for long‑term relevance.

Bernstein said Monday that Bitcoin’s selloff has already priced in much of the market’s fear around quantum computing, arguing that the threat is real but still manageable rather than an immediate existential risk.

Bitcoin’s (BTC) near 50% drawdown from its $126,198 all-time high in October 2025 is proof that the market has “priced in” several risks tied to a quantum breakthrough, partly thanks to technological progress on zero-knowledge privacy and quantum-proof cryptography that “counterbalance” the AI and quantum acceleration, Bernstein said in a Monday note shared with Cointelegraph.

The note lands two weeks after Google researchers said future quantum computers could break the elliptic-curve cryptography used across many blockchains with fewer than 500,000 physical qubits in some architectures, reviving debate over how quickly Bitcoin needs a post-quantum upgrade path. This research suggested a quantum computer could crack a Bitcoin private key in nine minutes, in a theoretical scenario, which is less than Bitcoin’s 10-minute block production time.

However, Bernstein said Bitcoin core developers have “adequate time” to determine a post-quantum path. Last week, Bernstein predicted that Bitcoin has about three to five years to prepare for a post-quantum security upgrade, Cointelegraph reported on Wednesday.

Institutions will play constructive role in quantum-proofing Bitcoin

Bernstein said large institutional holders, including exchange-traded fund (ETF) issuers and corporate treasury buyers such as Strategy, are likely to play a constructive role in any eventual consensus on a post-quantum upgrade.

“We expect institutional partners with now billions at stake to play a constructive role in building consensus on the post-quantum path.”

The note also highlighted the recently introduced BIP-360 proposal and added that slower consensus from Bitcoin developers is seen as responsible behavior when it comes to a $1.5 trillion asset.

BIP-360 is a draft Bitcoin Improvement Proposal that proposes a Pay-to-Merkle-Root output type designed to reduce long-exposure quantum risk by removing Taproot’s key-path vulnerability, though it does not itself add post-quantum digital signatures.

Bernstein said BIP-360 could be implemented as a soft fork for exposed Bitcoin addresses, but added that this would still leave around 8% of the BTC supply in inactive addresses vulnerable to future quantum breakthroughs.

Related: Bitcoiners push for quantum-resistant BIP-360 upgrade as debate heats up

Quantum-proofing Bitcoin is a social issue, not technical

The real challenge of quantum-proofing Bitcoin lies in the societal adoption element of the new standards, not the technical development, according to Arthur Breitman, co-founder of Tezos blockchain.

“The coding work could be done this afternoon,” but Bitcoin holders would still need to migrate to this new standard, Breitman told Cointelegraph during an interview at EthCC 2026.

“If Bitcoin needed to migrate in the next month, they could do it from a technical perspective […] but they can’t get everyone to migrate their key in a month, Breitman said. “It’s going to take years for people to properly migrate their keys,” he added.

Asset manager Grayscale’s head of research, Zach Pandl, shared a similar view in a research report last Monday. He said Bitcoin’s quantum-proofing challenges are “more social than technical,” provided that its UTXO model does not have native smart contracts and that some address types are not quantum vulnerable.

However, he warned that the community needs to find consensus on how to quantum-proof wallets where the private key has been lost or is otherwise inaccessible.

Magazine: AI has dramatically accelerated the quantum threat to Bitcoin: AI Eye