Crypto World
South Korea Tests Tokenized Deposits for Government Spending
South Korea’s Ministry of Economy and Finance (MOEF) is advancing a blockchain-based payments experiment for government operating expenses within a regulatory sandbox focused on distributed ledger technology (DLT). In a Thursday announcement, the MOEF said it had selected a pilot that will use tokenized deposits to execute government spending, with a full rollout planned for the fourth quarter of 2026. The program will begin in Sejong City and will test predefined spending conditions, including limits on timing and usage categories.
Tokenized deposits are digital representations of traditional bank deposits that sit on blockchain or other DLT infrastructure. They are designed to function as bank liabilities within the existing financial system, rather than as independent stablecoins or new money. By moving government payments onto a tokenized layer, Seoul aims to investigate whether programmable, bank-backed money can improve traceability, reduce misuse, and streamline public-finance processes while staying anchored to the conventional banking system.
The MOEF’s pilot signals a shift from subsidy-focused experiments toward day-to-day public spending. If successful, the tokenized-deposit framework could become a tested backbone for more transparent and auditable government payments, potentially expanding to broader fiscal operations beyond the initial operational expenses.
Key takeaways
- The Ministry of Economy and Finance has chosen a pilot to test tokenized deposits for government operational spending, with a staged rollout targeting Q4 2026 in Sejong City.
- Tokenized deposits represent bank liabilities issued on blockchain technology, offering a way to digitize government spending while remaining within the conventional financial system.
- The sandbox will define spending scope through predefined time windows and permitted categories, aiming to improve oversight and curb fund misuse.
- South Korea has previously explored tokenized deposits for other public-finance use cases, and the MOEF has signaled broader ambitions to digitalize treasury fund execution in the coming years.
- If the program proves viable, authorities will consider regulatory and legal changes to accommodate larger-scale, programmable government payments.
From subsidies to daily government spending: what changes with tokenized payments
The MOEF described the pilot as a move beyond subsidies toward implementing tokenized deposits in routine public-finance operations. The trial will involve collaboration with participating institutions to delineate the project’s scope, including how spending windows and category permissions are defined. The controlled environment is meant to test both the practicalities of tokenized settlement and the governance mechanisms required to monitor and audit such transactions.
Under the framework, government operational expenses—currently processed through government-issued cards and subsequent reporting—will be reimagined within a tokenized-deposit rails environment. The test is designed to demonstrate whether programmable, bank-backed digital money can enhance oversight and reduce the risk of misuse, all while preserving compatibility with the existing financial ecosystem.
Crucially, the ministry underscored that the tokenized deposits used in this pilot are still bank liabilities. The objective is not to replace conventional payment rails but to explore whether an additional, auditable channel can improve efficiency and transparency in public spending without disrupting traditional financial relationships.
Broader policy arc: past milestones and future implications
South Korea’s approach to tokenized deposits isn’t new. The MOEF has referenced earlier efforts to pilot tokenized deposits for policy objectives, including a March initiative with the Environment Ministry and the Bank of Korea to fund electric-vehicle charging infrastructure subsidies. Those programs reflect a broader ambition to integrate tokenized payment rails into public finance, with the MOEF signaling a goal of converting a significant portion of treasury fund execution to digital instruments by 2030. The current Sejong pilot appears to be a natural extension of that strategy, moving from subsidy-specific pilots toward more routine public-spending workflows.
The evolution of these pilots sits within a wider regulatory and financial landscape in which central banks, ministries, and financial institutions are testing how tokenized, bank-backed money could coexist with traditional currency and payments. If the Sejong test succeeds, it could provide a concrete blueprint for how government agencies implement programmable money in a controlled, auditable manner before expanding to other departments or broader categories of spending.
Implications for investors, builders, and public governance
For the crypto and fintech communities, the MOEF’s sandbox demonstrates a growing appetite for studying how tokenized financial instruments can operate within a regulated government-finance context. Success would offer several potential benefits: enhanced visibility into government disbursements, tighter controls over spending categories and timing, and the opportunity to build interoperable rails that connect banks, public agencies, and private-sector contractors in a traceable, programmable framework.
From an investment and development perspective, the project highlights a potential market for public-sector digital-finance tooling that blends conventional liability structures with modern distributed-ledger infrastructure. Companies and platforms that can demonstrate robust security, compliance with existing financial regulations, and interoperability with public procurement and accounting systems could see demand grow as governments pursue similar pilots domestically and abroad.
However, the path forward is contingent on regulatory clarity and the outcomes of the Sejong trial. Key questions include how the government will govern access to tokenized deposits, how to ensure robust auditability and privacy, and how to manage potential cyber risks inherent in new digital-money rails. Observers will also watch how the experience translates into policy decisions—whether to scale the program, adjust spending rules, or adopt new legal frameworks that explicitly accommodate tokenized, programmable government payments.
In the near term, the MOEF’s announcement underscores a measured, evidence-driven approach to digital finance in the public sector. The focus on predefined parameters—timing, categories, and oversight mechanisms—reflects a cautious but purposeful experiment aimed at extracting concrete lessons before expanding beyond Sejong and beyond operational expenses.
Readers should monitor how the sandbox defines success metrics, how the pilot interfaces with banks and public agencies, and what regulatory changes ministries may pursue as a result. The coming months will reveal whether tokenized deposits can practically streamline public spending while maintaining the governance standards required for public funds.
As South Korea charts this course, the broader question for the market is whether this model can scale, what institutional partners will be involved, and how quickly such technology can translate into tangible improvements in transparency, efficiency, and accountability in government payments.
Ultimately, the Sejong pilot marks a notable milestone in the ongoing exploration of programmable public money—an initiative that could reshape how governments transact, how contractors get paid, and how citizens experience the accountability of public finance.
In today’s newsletter, Marcin Kazmierczak from Redstone takes us through the evolution of tokenization as it moves from “concept to allocation.”
Then, in “Ask an Expert,” Kieran Mitha answers investor questions about tokenized investments.
Where Tokenized Assets Are Today
Tokenization is moving from concept to allocation. What matters now is how these assets fit into portfolios and what they actually enable.
Your clients are already hearing and asking about tokenized assets, and that trend will only accelerate.
In the last 18 months, companies like BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, and Fidelity Investments have launched real products on the blockchain, including Treasury funds and private credit strategies. Investors are taking notice. The numbers are rising, the news is easy to track, and the basic idea is simple: bonds, private credit, and money market funds are now available on-chain, without traditional intermediaries, and settlement becomes orders of magnitude faster.
That summary is mostly accurate, but it does not tell the whole story.
The technology to create tokens has never been the main challenge. The real test comes later, with decisions on compliance, identity, transfer rules, sanctions, and lifecycle management. These are the areas where most projects slow down, and where the market is evolving now.
Last month, RedStone’s research team released the Tokenization & RWA Standards Report 2026, which examines how these systems are actually being built.
The compliance question is an architecture question
For issuers, the most important choice is not which blockchain to use, but where to place the compliance rules.
Compliance can be built right into the token and enforced by smart contracts with every transfer. It can also be managed outside the token using tools such as whitelisting. Another option is to enforce compliance at the network level, where the blockchain itself decides which transactions are allowed.
Each method fixes one issue but creates another.
Identity verification structures for tokenized assets, source: Tokenization Standards Report
Putting compliance rules inside the token gives you exact control, but it makes the system less flexible. For example, updating a sanctions list or rule might require upgrading the contract, turning a simple policy change into a technical task. Managing compliance outside the token makes things more flexible, but it means relying on middlemen and can expose assets if they leave their original environment. Enforcing rules at the network level makes token design easier, but it limits how easily the asset can move to other chains and systems.
For advisors, this is not an abstract design choice. It directly affects how an asset behaves. It determines whether it can move across chains, integrate with blue-chip decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols, like Morpho or Aave, and serve as collateral in a lending strategy. Two tokenized funds with identical underlying assets can behave very differently depending on this single architectural decision.
Institutional capital is already moving on-chain
The transition from theory to practice is most evident in how tokenized assets are used in lending markets.
Deposits of tokenized real-world assets in DeFi lending protocols have surpassed $840 million. A large share of this activity follows a familiar structure: an investor posts a tokenized asset as collateral, borrows against it, and redeploys the borrowed capital, often back into the same asset. The mechanics are new, but the logic is not. It is a programmatic version of the same capital efficiency strategies long used in traditional finance, now executed without a prime broker — faster, cheaper, and with less friction.
How investors allocate these assets is increasingly reflecting broader market trends.
On one major protocol, tokenized Treasury exposure declined sharply, while tokenized gold allocations expanded severalfold over the same period, tracking changes in rate expectations with notable precision. It is the best showcase of how professional capital responds to macro signals through on-chain infrastructure.
For advisors, this reframes the role of tokenized assets. They are not simply wrappers around existing products. In the right structure, they become productive collateral, capable of generating additional yield and participating in broader strategies while remaining in the portfolio.
Credit risk is becoming explicit
As these assets move into lending and structured strategies, credit risk is evolving alongside specific DeFi strategies, such as looping. Emerging DeFi risk ratings frameworks like Credora introduce continuous, on-chain risk assessment, bringing a level of transparency that traditional markets rarely offer.
For advisors, that shifts the question from what the asset represents to how it behaves under stress, and what risks it entails. Simple-to-understand ratings on a familiar A+ to D scale facilitate the creation of a risk-adjusted portfolio, attracting more and more interested parties.
What remains unresolved
Some structural gaps remain. Corporate actions still rely heavily on off-chain processes, and illiquid assets such as private credit and real estate are not yet fully compatible with DeFi standards.
Until those pieces are solved, tokenization will continue to scale unevenly, with the most complex assets lagging behind the simplest ones. The bright side? Creators of tokenization frameworks are well aware of that limitation, and soon enough, we should see solutions addressing that gap.
Sanctions screening approaches in tokenized assets, source: Tokenization Standards Report
– Marcin Kazmierczak, co-founder, Redstone
Ask an Expert
Q:As tokenization moves from pilot programs into live financial infrastructure, what needs to happen for it to become a standard layer in global capital markets?
Tokenization becomes standard when it integrates into existing financial systems rather than competing with them. The priority is interoperability between blockchains, custodians, and traditional market infrastructure so assets can move seamlessly across platforms.
Regulatory clarity is equally critical. Institutions need confidence in ownership rights, settlement finality, and compliance frameworks before allocating significant capital. We are already seeing early traction, but scale will come when tokenized assets match or exceed the efficiency, liquidity, and reliability of traditional securities. At that point, tokenization will not be viewed as innovation. It will simply be the infrastructure underpinning modern markets.
Q:What are the most overlooked risks or misconceptions surrounding tokenized assets today?
One of the biggest misconceptions is that tokenization automatically creates liquidity. It does not. It simply makes assets easier to access. Take real estate as an example. You can tokenize a property and divide it into thousands of shares, but if there are no active buyers and sellers, those shares will still be difficult to trade.
Another challenge is how early the market still is. Different platforms are building their own ecosystems, which can lead to fragmented liquidity rather than one unified market.
The technology is moving quickly, but infrastructure, regulation, and investor participation are still catching up. That gap between what is possible and what is practical is where most of the risk exists today.
Q: For retail investors, does tokenization open the door to new types of investments, and could that be a catalyst for bringing younger generations into the market?
Tokenization is emerging as younger generations move into higher earning careers and take a more active role in managing their wealth. Having grown up through rapid technological change myself, this group naturally expects financial systems to evolve in the same way as everything else in their lives.
That mindset is driving a greater willingness to explore asset classes beyond traditional stocks and bonds. Tokenization can open access to areas like private markets and real estate, while offering a more digital and flexible investment experience.
It is not just about new opportunities, it is about alignment. As the financial industry modernizes, it begins to reflect the speed, transparency, and accessibility younger investors are used to. That shift is likely to play a meaningful role in attracting a new generation into investing.
– Kieran Mitha, marketing coordinator
Keep Reading
- Chiliz price rose more than 13% to above $0.0433.
- Korea’s Naver Pay has onboarded nearly 1 million users to the Chiliz Chain.
- Top European teams with fan tokens have advanced in the UEFA Champions League.
Chiliz (CHZ) rose more than 13% as investor momentum strengthened.
The token’s price moved higher following a new milestone in Asia’s crypto adoption, while renewed excitement around European football also supported gains, pushing CHZ to its highest level this month.
Chiliz Chain gets Korean boost
Chiliz is looking to gain traction in South Korea following a new integration with Naver Pay, the country’s dominant payment gateway.
On Thursday, Chiliz announced that Naver is bringing its 33 million daily active users on-chain via Chiliz Chain, a move aimed at supercharging growth in the SportFi ecosystem.
As part of the integration, Chiliz said its infrastructure layer—focused on fan engagement and tokenized sports experiences—has added nearly one million new participants in South Korea.
More than 900,000 Naver Pay Wallets have already been created on the Chiliz Chain, enabling users to access fan tokens, digital collectibles, and blockchain-based sports rewards.
The partnership represents a significant step in linking traditional fintech platforms with Web3 infrastructure, particularly in South Korea, a market known for its high cryptocurrency trading activity.
CHZ Token gains as Europe’s football giants advance in UCL
CHZ’s price action intensified amid UCL semifinal drama.
The token surged by more than 13% intraday, peaking above $0.0433 and emerging as one of the top performers on the day. Gains aligned with a spike in trading volume, which had exploded 262% to over $175 million, as of writing, to signal robust investor enthusiasm.
This rally coincides with Chiliz’s announcement on X that a Fan Token-backed team is assured a UCL final spot.
Notably, Arsenal, Atletico Madrid, and Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) have all advanced to the semifinals, amplifying hype for their Chiliz-powered Fan Tokens.
𝟏𝟎𝟎% 𝐋𝐎𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐍. 🔒
A Fan Token team is guaranteed a spot in the final.$AFC $ATM $PSG ⚡️ $CHZ pic.twitter.com/58DbhdHXzH
— Chiliz – The Sports Blockchain (@Chiliz) April 15, 2026
Fan Tokens, which let supporters vote on club decisions and earn rewards, saw heightened trading as fans rallied behind their teams.
Chiliz price outlook
Analysts remain bullish on CHZ ahead of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, projecting a potential rally as the showpiece event draws closer.
In the short-term, CHZ could climb to $0.06 if Korean onboarding sustains and UCL finals deliver fan token spikes.
However, primary resistance sits at $0.045 and $0.05. On the downside, immediate support is likely at $0.038.
Macro and geopolitical factors could catalyze broader market corrections, which means Chiliz’s price may swing alongside top coins.
In the United States, victims of the $4 billion crypto Ponzi scam OneCoin are finally receiving compensation.
On April 13, the US Department of Justice said that $40 million in assets are available to anyone who purchased OneCoin between 2014 and 2019 and experienced a net loss.
This program marks a milestone for OneCoin victims, most of whom had no recourse to get back what they lost, until now. Victims in the UK attempted a class action suit in 2024, but it fell apart when litigation funding was terminated.
Few crypto schemes were as prominent as OneCoin, in terms of scale and the international intrigue that followed. Founders and associates have been imprisoned or killed, while the ringleader is still on the lam.
The Wild West of early crypto was often defined by schemes and eccentric characters, the effects of which, in the case of OneCoin, are still felt today.
OneCoin’s founding and legal troubles
In 2014, cryptocurrency was still a niche internet phenomenon. The Bitcoin white paper was only six years old, and general knowledge of cryptocurrencies and blockchain tech was limited. Still, interest in the new asset class was rising among retail investors.
From August to December 2014, Ruja Ignatova and Karl Sebastian Greenwood founded OneCoin. Initial promotions began in Europe, and soon entities popped up in Bulgaria, Dubai and Belize.
OneCoin’s structure was convoluted. Investors needed to buy packages of tokens that would allow them to “mine” OneCoin. There were several different price entry points for packages, with almost no upper limit. The most expensive, according to CoinMarketCap, was 225,000 euros.
Promoters, meanwhile, could earn commissions by bringing new investors into the program. This allowed the project to expand rapidly.
While marketed as a cryptocurrency, it was not decentralized. The coin itself was hosted on the centralized servers of OneCoin Ltd. The coins were not available for public trading and owners could only trade nominal amounts in a closed system.
The project seemed fairly suspect from the outset, but fear of missing out, as well as the massive audiences drawn by Ignatova at seemingly above-board conferences, were enough to convince many.
Throughout 2015, the project grew across the globe in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Repeating the familiar MLM playbook, promoters emphasized urgency, and the immediacy of an impending explosion in value and crypto adoption.
Regulators began to catch on by late 2015. Bulgaria’s Financial Supervision Commission issued a warning about OneCoin, after which the company ceased all operations in the country.
By 2016, several other national financial regulators also had OneCoin on their lists. By year’s end, Norway, Bulgaria, Finland, Sweden and Latvia were all investigating the project. The Hungarian central bank called it a pyramid scheme.
In December, Italian authorities defined OneCoin as an illegal pyramid scheme and demanded it cease activities in the country. China began investigating the project and even arrested some investors.
Regulation efforts ramped up again in 2017. Germany, Thailand, Belize and Vietnam all issued cease-and-desist orders or declared OneCoin illegal. In India, undercover police arrested 18 organizers of a OneCoin event that attempted to bring in new investors. Indian authorities went so far as to charge Ignatova herself in July.
By the year’s end, things had reached a breaking point. Investors were concerned about delays in a supposed exchange that would allow them to cash out their coins. This was supposedly going to be addressed at an October meeting of OneCoin organizers in Lisbon, Portugal.
But Ignatova didn’t show. According to a BBC investigation, she boarded a Ryanair flight from Sofia to Athens, Greece on Oct. 25, 2017. No one has seen her since.
Arrests, murders and Crypto Queen on the run
In early 2018, investigators moved in on the project. At the request of prosecutors in Germany, Bulgarian police raided the OneCoin offices in Sofia. The raid, which according to the Sofia Globe also included German police and Europol, seized servers and material evidence.
In July, co-founder Greenwood was arrested on charges of money laundering and fraud in Thailand, where he would await extradition back to the United States.
Ignatova’s own lawyer, Mark S. Scott, was convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to commit bank fraud due to his connections and activities at OneCoin. He would be disbarred a few years later.
OneCoin stayed in the headlines for the next couple of years as developments continued to unfold. In July 2020, two project promoters, Oscar Brito Ibarra and Ignacio Ibarra, were kidnapped and murdered in Mexico. Local media reported that local cartels, which were increasingly becoming interested in cryptocurrencies, could have been involved.
In 2020, entertainment media in Hollywood reported that Kate Winslet would star in a movie about OneCoin. To date, it hasn’t started production.
While Greenwood’s case proceeded in the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation put Ignatova on its Ten Most Wanted fugitives list in June 2023.
In September, Greenwood was sentenced to 20 years in prison and ordered to pay $300 million in damages. He pleaded guilty to charges of fraud and money laundering. His sentence was a marked reduction from the initial 60 years sought by the prosecution.
In 2024, the DoJ arrested and charged William Morro for bank fraud in connection with OneCoin. Morro moved some $35 million in OneCoin funds between banks in China and Hong Kong, and $6 million between Hong Kong and the US. Morro surrendered himself to authorities and pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
In the latest news, the DoJ announced on Monday that $40 million in assets are available to compensate investors who bought OneCoin between 2014 and 2019 and recorded a net loss.
By the time everything was said and done, some 3.5 million people had lost money to the crypto scheme. Authorities estimate that organizers ultimately made away with $4 billion in user funds.
Ignatova remains at large and on the Ten Most Wanted list. The FBI is offering a $5 million reward for info leading to her arrest and/or conviction.
Magazine: Bitcoin will not hit $1M by 2030, says veteran trader Peter Brandt
United Arab Emirates investors are leaning into the artificial intelligence sell-off rather than running from it, despite the regional conflict testing the Gulf’s ambitions to become a global hub for AI and digital assets.
New eToro data shared with Cointelegraph on Wednesday show users in the UAE boosted holdings of software and AI infrastructure names whose share prices fell sharply in the first quarter, suggesting they used the downturn to “buy the dip” rather than broadly de-risk.
The pattern suggests UAE investors are staying exposed to long-term AI and digital-infrastructure themes even as the conflict raises fresh risks for data centers, logistics and cross-border technology build-outs in the Gulf. An April 13 report from Deutsche Bank said the shock is more likely to sharpen rather than derail demand for AI, cybersecurity and sovereign digital infrastructure in the region.
Related: Bitcoin falls to lower support as analysts say markets are ignoring key Iran issue
Josh Gilbert, market analyst at eToro, told Cointelegraph that UAE investors became more selective over where they took risk in Q1, and investor behavior was driven by long-term themes rather than a risk-off mindset.
He said the clearest signal was across AI infrastructure and software names, pointing to ServiceNow (+125%), Super Micro Computer (+65%), Adobe (+54%) and Oracle (+38%), which all saw significant increases despite market pressure.
On the crypto side, he said that Strategy Inc. remained the eighth-most-held stock, indicating continued exposure to crypto-linked equities.
War puts Gulf AI ambitions under pressure
The resilience comes as the US-Israeli conflict with Iran has exposed new risks for Gulf tech infrastructure. Deutsche Bank cited reported strikes on Amazon Web Services data centers in the UAE and Bahrain and threats against the planned 1GW Stargate campus in Abu Dhabi.
Gilbert said the conflict was driving volatility, with sharp oil price swings that can ultimately affect tech valuations. Maintaining core exposure to diversified mega-cap tech while rotating within the sector suggests a more nuanced, risk-aware approach, he said.
Deutsche also highlighted that the Gulf, and the UAE in particular, is unlikely to abandon the AI race. The region benefits from cheap energy, an unusually dense pipeline of data center projects, and sovereign wealth funds that control about $5 trillion worldwide in 2025, with Abu Dhabi vehicles among the most aggressive backers of global AI deals, the report said.
Crypto companies stay open as conflict remains
On the ground in Dubai, crypto players say the conflict has slowed but not derailed the city’s hub ambitions. HashKey MENA’s managing director, Ben El-Baz, told Cointelegraph that operations remained “broadly functional,” helped by cloud-based trading and custody systems less dependent on a physical location, even though remote work and travel disruptions were unavoidable.
Related: BTC recovery fragile, Iran war fallout to ‘dominate’ markets in 2026: Analyst
Other companies, including Binance, also continued normal operations, despite reports to the contrary. A Binance spokesperson told Cointelegraph employees were given the option of temporary relocation as a precautionary measure, but the “vast majority” chose to remain, while major conferences such as Token2049 were postponed.
Dubai-based investment firm, Ento Capital, says the conflict is “refining” rather than derailing the GCC story. Senior executive officer Hayssam El Masri told Cointelegraph that investors have shifted from “confidence-driven to risk aware,” but are generally not exiting the region. War-tested resilience and ongoing investment in AI, cloud and crypto infrastructure may ultimately strengthen the GCC’s long-term positioning, he said.
Regulators bet clear rules will anchor capital
Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) has continued to roll out its activity-based framework throughout the turmoil, including detailed guidance on token issuance and formal rules for crypto derivatives.
Sean McHugh, VARA’s head of market assurance, told Cointelegraph that in periods of stress, serious market participants do not seek “the lightest-touch jurisdiction, they look for the clearest one,” adding that Dubai’s combination of transparent licensing, visible supervision and active enforcement is meant to persuade institutions to treat the emirate as a strategic base rather than an opportunistic punt.
Magazine: Bitcoin will not hit $1M by 2030, says veteran trader Peter Brandt
Crypto World
Wolfe Research Highlights Meta (META), Uber (UBER), DoorDash (DASH), and Shopify (SHOP) as Prime Internet Stock Opportunities
Key Highlights
- Wolfe Research identifies Meta, Uber, DoorDash, and Shopify as premier large-cap internet investment opportunities
- Internet mega-cap equities currently trade significantly beneath their three-year median valuation levels
- TD Cowen maintains Buy recommendation on Meta with $820 target, highlighting AI-powered advertising expansion
- Uber initiated autonomous robotaxi services in Dubai and announced Blacklane acquisition plans
- DoorDash faces revised price targets following driver fuel subsidy introduction, though Buy ratings persist
Wolfe Research has spotlighted Meta, Uber, DoorDash, and Shopify as premier large-cap internet investment selections. According to the firm, compelling valuations have emerged following a widespread sector correction.
Internet mega-cap companies currently trade approximately three turns beneath their three-year historical median valuations. Large-cap counterparts similarly demonstrate significant discounts relative to historical benchmarks.
Despite this valuation compression, Wolfe Research emphasizes that underlying business fundamentals continue to show strength. The firm’s strategy centers on identifying companies positioned for positive earnings revisions, margin enhancement, and durability against macroeconomic headwinds.
Meta Platforms
Wolfe Research maintains an Outperform rating on Meta with an $800 price objective. The stock has lagged the S&P 500 by 12 percentage points following its January quarterly results.
The research firm anticipates first-quarter revenue will surpass analyst projections by a low-single-digit percentage. Looking ahead to Q2, Wolfe projects management will provide revenue guidance of $61 billion, exceeding the Street’s $60 billion estimate.
Artificial intelligence enhancements through platforms including Lattice, GEM, and Andromeda are anticipated to fuel this expansion. The rollout of the Muse Spark large language model represents a significant growth catalyst.
TD Cowen similarly maintains a Buy stance with an $820 target price. The firm’s first-quarter projections for revenue and operating income stand 1% and 6% above consensus figures, respectively.
Meta’s revenue increased 22% year-over-year to $201 billion, accompanied by an 82% gross profit margin. The company is slated to report earnings on April 29.
Regarding regulatory developments, the European Commission is preparing to mandate that Meta reverse its policy limiting competing AI chatbots on WhatsApp.
Uber Technologies
Wolfe Research assigns Uber an Outperform rating with a $90 price target. The stock has trailed the S&P 500 by two percentage points since reporting February earnings.
First-quarter bookings are projected to exceed estimates by a low-single-digit margin. Second-quarter guidance is anticipated to align with or surpass consensus expectations.
Uber recently announced plans to acquire Blacklane, a premium global chauffeur service. Additionally, the company is evaluating a potential controlling interest in Kakao Mobility.
The ride-hailing leader has introduced fully autonomous robotaxi services in Dubai, accessible through its application. Analysts also identify more substantial share repurchase programs as a potential value driver in the latter half of 2026.
DoorDash
Wolfe Research rates DoorDash Outperform with a $195 price objective. Shares have underperformed the S&P 500 by 12 percentage points since February.
The firm projects first-quarter gross order value and EBITDA will exceed analyst estimates. Proprietary survey research indicates DoorDash is capturing additional market share within grocery delivery services.
Multiple analysts, including the team at BTIG, have adjusted price targets downward due to expenses associated with a recently implemented driver fuel subsidy initiative. However, all firms preserved Buy or Outperform recommendations.
Shopify
Wolfe Research previously downgraded Shopify when shares traded near $165. The firm now considers the current $112 price level an attractive entry point.
First-quarter metrics including gross merchandise volume, revenue, and operating income are all projected to surpass Street expectations. Newly launched products such as Shop Campaigns, Audience, and Sidekick, combined with an expanding Google partnership, are identified as primary growth engines.
Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank have reduced their price targets while maintaining constructive ratings. Piper Sandler reaffirmed an Overweight rating, emphasizing a robust revenue growth trajectory.
BitMEX Research has proposed a ‘quantum canary fund’ mechanism for Bitcoin that would trigger a coin freeze only if a quantum computing threat is demonstrably real, positioning the idea as a direct counter to BIP-361’s preemptive forced-migration approach.
The proposal lands in the middle of an active governance fight over how Bitcoin should respond to quantum risk, and whether protocol-level coercion is ever justified to protect user funds.
The question isn’t whether quantum computers will eventually threaten ECDSA signatures. It’s who gets to decide when that threat is actionable, and what the protocol is allowed to do about it.
- Proposal: BitMEX Research has put forward a quantum canary fund as an alternative mechanism for protecting Bitcoin against quantum computing threats.
- Trigger condition: The canary fund activates a coin freeze only if a verified quantum threat materializes – not preemptively, unlike BIP-361’s phased approach.
- Canary mechanics: A designated address uses a Nothing-Up-My-Sleeve Number (NUMS) system to generate a provably unknown private key, monitored on-chain via soft fork for signs of quantum exploitation.
- Safety window: A 50,000-block delay – roughly 345 days – follows any canary trigger before a full freeze activates, giving legitimate holders time to migrate.
- What it responds to: BIP-361, merged into the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal repository on April 15, 2026, proposes banning sends to quantum-vulnerable addresses within three years and freezing legacy coin spends within five years of activation.
- Trade-off acknowledged: BitMEX concedes the canary mechanism adds complexity and introduces its own risks, but argues it is preferable to BIP-361’s disruption of Bitcoin’s immutability guarantees.
- Community fault line: Jameson Lopp’s BIP-361 drew sharp criticism for preemptively restricting legitimate funds; Adam Back has advocated optional upgrades over mandatory freezes.
- Watch: Whether BitMEX formalizes the canary fund as a counter-BIP and whether it draws engagement on the Bitcoin developer mailing list – that activity will signal whether this proposal moves from concept to contention.
Discover: The best pre-launch token sales
How the Canary Fund Mechanism Actually Works – and What It Doesn’t Protect
The canary fund concept centers on a specially constructed Bitcoin address whose private key is provably unknown to anyone.
Using a Nothing-Up-My-Sleeve Number (NUMS) system, the address is generated on the elliptic curve in a way that no party, including its creators, can control.
A soft fork marks this address for on-chain monitoring, turning it into a live tripwire: if funds ever move from it, that movement proves a quantum computer has cracked ECDSA in practice, not just in theory.
That is not the same as quantum-proofing Bitcoin. The canary fund does not upgrade any existing wallet, does not migrate any exposed public keys, and does not protect coins that were already at risk the moment their public keys appeared on-chain.
What it does is delay the most disruptive protocol intervention, a coin freeze – until there is verifiable on-chain evidence that the threat is real and active.
The 50,000-block safety window built into the proposal (approximately 345 days) is deliberately structured as an incentive, not just a grace period.
BitMEX’s reasoning: if a quantum-capable actor can crack the canary address, competitors with similar capabilities would face the same temptation across thousands of exposed addresses.
The race-to-claim dynamic theoretically surfaces the threat before it propagates silently. The complexity cost is real – the canary system requires soft fork coordination, on-chain monitoring infrastructure, and a community-wide consensus on what constitutes a valid trigger. BitMEX acknowledges this openly.
Discover: The best crypto to diversify your portfolio with
The Governance Debate the Canary Fund Sits Inside
BIP-361, authored by Jameson Lopp and merged into the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal repository on April 15, 2026, represents the most structured protocol-level response to quantum risk currently in circulation.
Its Phase A bans new sends to quantum-vulnerable addresses three years after activation. Phase B, two years later, invalidates all legacy signatures, freezing any unmigrated coins outright.
A speculative Phase C proposes zero-knowledge proofs linked to seed phrases for limited recovery, though feasibility remains unresolved.
The backlash was immediate and predictable. Critics argued BIP-361 violates Bitcoin’s core property-rights guarantees by preemptively restricting funds that have not been compromised.
Adam Back’s position, that Bitcoin must prepare for quantum risk through optional upgrades rather than coercive protocol changes, reflects the dominant skeptic view. The quantum security debate has been intensifying alongside broader market attention to Bitcoin’s long-term cryptographic assumptions.
BitMEX’s canary fund attempts a third path: evidence-based intervention rather than precautionary freezing.
It preserves the status quo until the threat becomes empirically demonstrable, which satisfies the ‘your keys, your coins’ objection, until the canary trips, nothing changes.
The trade-off is that it provides no protection during the window between when a quantum adversary first achieves cryptographic capability and when they choose to trigger the canary.
That gap could be exploited silently. The question isn’t whether the canary fund is philosophically cleaner than BIP-361. It’s whether ‘wait for proof’ is an acceptable risk posture given that Google and Caltech research suggests quantum breakthroughs may arrive ahead of prior estimates. Other major blockchains, including Tron, are already building out quantum roadmaps without waiting for on-chain confirmation of a threat.
The post BitMEX Proposes ‘Canary Fund’ Alternative in Bitcoin Quantum-Security Debate appeared first on Cryptonews.
The U.S. Department of Justice unveiled a concrete restitution track for victims of the OneCoin scheme, revealing roughly $40 million in assets that may be available to investors who purchased OneCoin between 2014 and 2019 and suffered net losses. The development represents a rare, tangible path to recovery for millions of individuals from a case that has hovered between notoriety and conviction for years. By contrast, earlier global efforts, including a 2024 UK class action, faltered when funding for litigation was terminated, underscoring the uneven landscape of redress in cross-border crypto fraud cases.
OneCoin’s rise and fall remains a archetype of the era’s crypto Wild West: ambitious promises, a centralized “coin” that lacked a true decentralized backbone, and an expansive network built on multi-level marketing tactics. Regulators worldwide began circling the project as concerns about its structure and viability intensified from 2015 onward. The case later spiraled into a long-running criminal saga, with arrests, prosecutions, and a global pursuit of the ringleaders that continues to shape how authorities approach similar schemes today.
Key takeaways
- The DoJ says about $40 million in OneCoin-related assets are available to compensate eligible victims who bought OneCoin between 2014 and 2019 with net losses.
- Estimates put the total amount of money lost to OneCoin at roughly $4 billion across the 3.5 million people affected, based on prosecutors’ assessments.
- OneCoin operated as a centralized program rather than a true cryptocurrency, with coins hosted on OneCoin Ltd. servers and trade limited to a closed system rather than public markets.
- Promoters earned commissions for recruiting other investors, a hallmark of the MLM-style expansion that aided the scheme’s rapid global reach.
- Key prosecutions and indictments over the years include the sentencing of co-founder Karl Sebastian Greenwood, the ongoing status of founder Ruja Ignatova on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list, and recent charges against William Morro in 2024.
A restitution path emerges after a long regulatory chase
According to the Department of Justice, specific assets are now earmarked to compensate victims who bought OneCoin during the defined window and who sustained net losses. The DoJ’s announcement in mid-April signposts a procedural checkpoint in a case that has stretched over nearly a decade, with investigators detailing a schema that drew in millions of dollars and investors across multiple continents.
What makes this development notable is the volume of potential relief relative to the scale of loss. While $40 million will not restore all victims’ losses, it offers a recognized mechanism for recovery within a case where most individuals had little or no recourse for restitution in the past. The DoJ statement aligns with broader enforcement aims: to recover assets from criminal activity and distribute them to those who were harmed, even when the perpetrators have fled or faced lengthy sentences.
OneCoin’s architecture and the regulatory crackdown that followed
To understand why restitution remains such a pressing issue, it helps to revisit OneCoin’s mechanics. Launched in 2014 by Ruja Ignatova and Karl Sebastian Greenwood, the project promoted a “cryptocurrency” that relied on centralized servers and a tiered packaging system. Investors purchased tokenized “packages” that purportedly allowed them to mine OneCoin, with a spectrum of entry points, including some of substantial price. However, unlike genuine cryptocurrencies, OneCoin was not truly decentralized and did not offer public trading on an open exchange. Ownership and transfers occurred within a closed ecosystem controlled by OneCoin Ltd., leaving little chance for real market liquidity or independent verification of value.
The regulatory response was swift and global. By late 2015, Bulgaria’s Financial Supervision Commission issued a warning, and operations in the country ceased. Across Europe and beyond, regulators in countries including Norway, Finland, Sweden, Latvia, and Hungary weighed in with cautions and actions that labeled OneCoin a potential pyramid scheme. Italy formally categorized OneCoin as illegal and halted promotional activities, while China initiated investigations and detained some investors. In 2017, Germany, Thailand, Belize, and Vietnam issued cease-and-desist orders or declared OneCoin unlawful. In India, undercover police arrested organizers of an OneCoin event; Ignatova herself faced charges in connection with the scheme.
The saga continued into the 2018–2020 period with high-profile law-enforcement actions: Bulgarian and German authorities raided OneCoin offices; Greenwood was arrested in Thailand in 2018 to face charges; Ignatova’s legal and public profile grew as investigations advanced. A US case culminated in 2023 with Greenwood receiving a 20-year prison sentence and an order to pay about $300 million in damages for fraud and money laundering. The FBI designated Ignatova as one of its Ten Most Wanted Fugitives in 2023, underscoring the unresolved status of the founder’s whereabouts. Meanwhile, public focus on the scheme persisted as DoJ actions broadened to address money flows and related offenses.
Prosecutions, fugitives, and the ongoing enforcement narrative
Greenwood’s 2023 sentencing highlighted the scale of the fraud and the legal consequences for organizers. The court’s decision to impose a 20-year term reflected the gravity of charges including money laundering and fraud, though it was notably shorter than the initial 60-year sentence sought by prosecutors. A parallel line of enforcement continued into 2024, with DoJ actions against William Morro, who moved substantial OneCoin funds across banking corridors in Asia and the United States and subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Morro’s case illustrated how prosecutors pursued cross-border financial movements linked to OneCoin’s operations.
Ignatova remains at large, with the FBI offering a substantial reward—up to $5 million—for information leading to her arrest or conviction. The ongoing status of Ignatova hangs over the broader OneCoin narrative and serves as a reminder of the difficulties regulators face when high-profile operators evade capture across multiple jurisdictions.
What the restitution development means for the market and stakeholders
For victims and their advocates, the new asset pool offers a semblance of closure after years of uncertainty. It also signals a continued appetite among U.S. authorities to pursue asset recovery in cases involving cross-border crypto-adjacent fraud, even when the underlying assets were never truly decentralized currencies. For investors and builders in the broader crypto space, the OneCoin case underscores several enduring risk factors: the appeal of high-yield promises paired with opaque compliance profiles, the reliance on recruitment-driven growth, and the dangers of conflating MLM incentives with genuine asset innovation.
On the regulatory front, OneCoin’s arc contributes to a growing sense that authorities will pursue both criminal prosecutions and civil forfeiture where possible, particularly in schemes that blend traditional fraud with crypto elements. The UK’s failed 2024 class action also illustrates the complexities of cross-border litigation funding and the practical limits of collective redress in transnational crypto cases. As restitution progresses, readers should watch how the DoJ formulates distribution criteria, how many victims ultimately receive payments, and whether more assets are identified for recovery in related proceedings.
For traders and developers, the OneCoin saga offers a cautionary reminder: the crypto market thrives on credible, transparent structures and verifiable liquidity. Where those features are absent, enforcement and restitution can lag, but they remain on the radar of prosecutors and regulators with a growing toolkit for recovering proceeds and protecting the public.
Looking ahead, readers should monitor updates from the Department of Justice regarding the distribution process for the $40 million pool, any additional forfeiture actions tied to OneCoin, and continuing efforts to locate Ruja Ignatova. As the investigative and judicial processes unfold, the case will continue to shape how authorities approach similar schemes and how victims seek redress in a landscape where borders and technologies intersect.
Tether is leading a $150M recovery initiative for Drift Protocol; the plan will also shift the perp DEX’s primary settlement asset to USDT on Solana.
Tether announced a strategic collaboration with Drift Protocol on Thursday, April 16, to support user recovery and facilitate the platform’s relaunch following the exploit earlier this month.
The recovery plan is backed by up to $150 million in combined support, including up to $127.5 million from Tether, according to the announcement from the firm. The structure links funding to trading activity on Drift’s platform, enabling user balance restoration as the exchange resumes operations and generates revenue.
As the Defiant reported previously, the perpetual futures DEX was hacked for over $270 million in crypto on April 1. An April 5 postmortem from Drift revealed that the attack was the result of a complex social engineering and corporate infiltration scheme that began at least six months before the exploit occurred. Per Drift’s report, independent, nonprofit on-chain security group SEAL 911 found that the exploit was likely carried out by a North Korean state-affiliated group.
USDT Settlement
As part of the relaunch, Drift will transition its settlement asset from USDC to USDT, bringing its over 128,000 users and 35 ecosystem teams, including Gauntlet, Neutral, and M1, onto USDT-based trading on Solana, per the announcement. The move positions USDT as a primary settlement asset on what was Solana’s largest perp DEX.
The bulk of USDT’s over $185.4 billion circulating supply is currently on Ethereum and TRON, with both chains holding about 45% of the stablecoin’s market cap. About $3 billion in USDT is currently on Solana, making it the fourth-largest chain by USDT market cap, following BNB Smart Chain (BSC).
Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino said in today’s announcement that the investment and collaboration reflect confidence in Drift’s role in DeFi, and emphasized aligning recovery with real activity and long-term growth.
The DRIFT token rallied over 14% today on the news to ab0out $0.05, after falling sharply after the exploit. The token remains down 98% from its all-time high of $2.60 set in November 2024, per CoinGecko data.
Earlier this week, Tether launched its own wallet app, a multichain, self-custodial wallet that supports USDT, USAT, XAUT, and Bitcoin.
This article was written with the assistance of AI workflows. All our stories are curated, edited and fact-checked by a human.
BitMEX, one of the safest crypto exchanges, announced today the launch of the TradFi Trade and Earn Campaign for users who trade its TradFi derivatives contracts, available for trading 24/7. The campaign allows traders to win their share of a 50,000 USDT prize pool by completing a series of trading missions.
BitMEX currently offers a range of TradFi products, including perpetual swaps on global stocks, indices, commodities, and forex. Unlike other platforms, its TradFi derivatives are available 24/7, allowing users to access markets outside of traditional hours. The campaign will run from 16 April 2026 at 12:00 PM (UTC) to 16 May 2026 at 11:59 PM (UTC). Users can participate at any time during the campaign period.
Rewards will be distributed across 3 categories:
- The Beginner’s Boost: New traders can claim $5 in trading credits by trading TradFi Perps on BitMEX.
- Get Paid to Trade: By achieving trading volume tiers, all participants can claim up to $500 in trading credits.
- Get Paid to Post: Any participant that trades TradFi Perps over the weekend and shares proof of their trades to their X accounts can claim $5 in trading credits.
To participate in the TradFi Trade and Earn campaign, traders must be fully verified on BitMEX. Competition details and registration can be found here. For more details on BitMEX TradFi Perps, visit this page.
About BitMEX
BitMEX is the OG crypto derivatives exchange, providing professional crypto traders with a platform that caters to their needs through low latency, deep crypto native liquidity and unmatched reliability.
Since its founding, no cryptocurrency has been lost through intrusion or hacking, allowing BitMEX users to trade safely in the knowledge that their funds are secure. So too that they have access to the products and tools they require to be profitable.
BitMEX was also one of the first exchanges to publish their on-chain Proof of Reserves and Proof of Liabilities data. The exchange continues to publish this data twice a week – proving assurance that they safely store and segregate the funds they are entrusted with.
For more information on BitMEX, please visit the BitMEX Blog or www.bitmex.com, and follow Telegram, Twitter, Discord, and its online communities. For further inquiries, please contact press@bitmex.com.
The post BitMEX Launches the 24/7 TradFi Campaign Featuring a 50,000 USDT Prize Pool appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Bitcoin’s (BTC) price trajectory has largely been positive since the US-Iran war, though it has also been volatile. On April 14, BTC briefly climbed above $76,000, its highest price level since early February.
Realized profits hit $1.14 billion during the spike, one of the year’s largest single-day readings. However, the gains failed to hold.
Similarly, BTC’s surge over $75,000 yesterday was met with resistance again. The price adjusted to $74,656 as of press time.
But what is hindering Bitcoin’s rally? According to on-chain signals, it’s short-term holders.
Why Short-Term Holders Are Capping Bitcoin’s Rally
Analyst Darkfost noted that Short-Term Holders (STHs) significantly ramped up exchange flows as BTC tested $75,000 on April 15. Within 24 hours, more than 65,000 BTC moved to exchanges, with 61,000 BTC sent in profit.
“For now, any price increase is being treated as an opportunity to exit the market, whether in profit or at a loss.Yesterday, profits dominated, with 61,000 BTC sent to exchanges in profit. At this stage, STHs remain highly reactive to price movements,” the analyst wrote.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
On-chain analytics firm CryptoQuant identified the Traders’ On-Chain Realized Price at $76,800 as a key resistance level. This metric reflects the average cost basis of short-term traders and has historically capped relief rallies, including the January 2026 bounce.
As BTC tested $76,000 earlier this week, hourly exchange inflows rose to approximately 11,000 BTC. This marked the highest reading since late December 2025. According to CryptoQuant, this is,
“A historically reliable warning signal of near-term selling pressure, as holders move coins to exchanges in preparation for potential distribution at key resistance zones.”
The average exchange deposit jumped to 2.25 BTC, the highest daily reading since July 2024. Large individual transfers exceeding 1,000 BTC to Binance drove the increase.
Moreover, the share of large deposits as a percentage of total exchange inflows surged from below 10% to above 40% within days around the $76,000 level.
“Daily realized profits remain at approximately $500 million—below the $1 billion threshold that historically marks a significant profit realization spike in bear markets—suggesting that profit-taking has not yet peaked. If Bitcoin sustains near $76K or rallies further toward the $76.8K Traders’ Realized Price, realized profits could accelerate sharply, adding further near-term selling pressure,” the analysis added.
Glassnode’s weekly report reinforced this view. The 30-day EMA of the Realized Profit/Loss Ratio is 1.16, indicating that investors are broadly selling into strength.
The firm identified the True Market Mean at $78,100 as the critical level for any sustained recovery. A move above that threshold would require the market to absorb the current wave of profit-taking on a sustained basis, something that would demand a significant catalyst, according to the report.
With short-term holders treating every rally as an exit opportunity and institutional participation still rebuilding, Bitcoin faces a clear supply overhang that must be absorbed before any structural trend change can develop.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
The post Bitcoin’s Biggest Problem Right Now Isn’t the Market, It’s Its Own Holders appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Frank Lampard responds to rumours he wants Chelsea forward at Coventry | Football
Where Tokenized Assets Are Today
Support for Reform slashed following Farage’s crypto controversy
-
Politics6 days agoUS brings back mandatory military draft registration
-
Sports6 days agoMan United discover Nico Schlotterbeck transfer fee as defender reaches Dortmund agreement
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Veronica Beard
-
Politics6 days agoMalcolm In The Middle OG Turned Down ‘Buckets Of Money’ To Appear In Reboot
-
Politics4 days agoWorld Cup exit makes Italy enter crisis mode
-
Business6 days agoTesla Model Y Tops China Auto Sales in March 2026 With 39,827 Registrations, Beating Cheaper EVs and Gas Cars
-
Crypto World3 days agoThe SEC Conditionalises DeFi Platforms to Be Avoided for Broker Registration
-
Crypto World3 days agoSEC Signals Exemption for Crypto Interfaces From Broker Registration
-
News Videos1 day agoSecure crypto trading starts with an FIU-registered
-
NewsBeat4 days agoPep Guardiola and Gary Neville agree over Arsenal title problem that benefits Man City
-
Business5 days agoIreland Fuel Protests Enter Day 5 as Blockades Spark Shortages and Government Prepares Support Package
-
Business6 days agoOpenAI Halts Stargate UK Data Centre Project Over Energy Costs and Copyright Row
-
Politics6 days agoLBC Presenter Mocks Trump Over Iran War Failures
-
Crypto World6 days agoFederal judge blocks Arizona from bringing criminal charges against Kalshi
-
NewsBeat2 days agoTrump and Pope Leo: Behind their disagreement over Iran war
-
Crypto World2 days agoSEC Proposes Certain Crypto Interfaces Don’t Need to Register as Brokers
-
NewsBeat4 days agoJD Vance announces ‘no agreement’ with Iran over nuclear weapons fear
-
Tech7 days agoA version of Windows 10 released a decade ago is now eligible for additional security patches
-
Business6 days agoIMF retains floor for precautionary balances at SDR 20 billion
-
Business6 days agoFormer Liverpool CEO eviscerates FIFA for World Cup ticket pricing
You must be logged in to post a comment Login