A French family was tied up for hours by attackers after their crypto. Police have not said how the attackers chose the house, and that gap is where the industry’s data problem lives.

At around 4 a.m. on September 20, four hooded men forced their way into a family home in northern France. They bound the parents and two children with black tape and forced the father to hand over his access codes and move 40,000 euros. 

The father is a salaried IT worker in the crypto industry. Prosecutors have not said yet how the attackers identified him.

A separate incident in the same month showed how easily that kind of information gets out. On August 13, hardware wallet maker Trezor told 13,689 customers that a breach at one of its shipping providers had exposed sensitive order data. The number grew to over 80,000.

Nothing links the two cases, and nothing needs to. Together, they describe the same exposure from both ends: a database that pairs a home address with proof of crypto ownership, and what happens when someone acts on that pairing.

BeInCrypto spoke with experts from Hacken and Zama to uncover what a provider owes its customers when a supplier leaks their identity, which data the industry should stop keeping, and how a client could tell that a custodian will fail them under coercion.

What “No Keys Compromised” Leaves Out

When Trezor announced the breach in August, it made a point of what had not happened. Its own systems were not compromised, it said, and its devices were secure. 

Those assurances addressed the risk that hardware wallets exist to prevent: theft of funds.

However, Hacken’s Head of GRC and Security Operations, Dmytro Yasmanovych, explained that the absence of a stolen private key does not mean customers are out of danger. 

“Someone who knows your name, home address, and that you own a hardware wallet has information they can use to target you. You can replace a compromised key in minutes. You cannot do the same with your home address.”

He argues that this is why the information held by delivery companies and other suppliers deserves as much attention as the wallet itself. If a database links a crypto holder to their home, the consequences can reach their family, too, Yasmanovych added.

“So a provider can prevent anyone from accessing your funds and still leave you exposed in a much more personal way. The question is whether its security measures protect the customer, not just the wallet.”

The French Numbers Behind the Warning

France shows what that looks like. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said in late June that authorities had recorded more than 70 crypto-related violent incidents since January. 

Chainalysis, which counted publicly reported cases, logged 30 in France through mid-2026, compared with 19 for the whole of 2025. 

The firm calls a data breach the likeliest cause. It points to a 2024 case in which a French tax official allegedly stole dossiers on high-net-worth crypto holders, including addresses and phone numbers, and sold them to criminal intermediaries. 

The family exposure Yasmanovych describes is visible in the same data. In France, more than 40% of incidents targeted a relative rather than the holder. Overall, home invasions made up 37% of documented attacks by mid-2026, up from 26% in 2023.

Chainalysis estimated that violent attacks on holders worldwide took more than $30 million in the first half of the year. This counts only attacks where the holder gave up funds.

The report puts total exposure at $107 million, including ransom demands, blocked transfers, and recovered funds, while noting that even that figure covers only reported cases.

The Data Behind the Target

Those attacks need a target, and the target may come from a record somebody kept. That makes data retention another security issue for the crypto industry. 

Companies may need customer information for a specific transaction or service. However, keeping it indefinitely can create a separate risk if that information is later exposed. So which piece of customer information should the industry stop collecting, or delete sooner than it does?

Yasmanovych names the phone number. He explained that a company might need one to arrange a delivery, but that does not explain why it should remain in a customer database for years.

Thus, if the database is breached, the number can become useful for phishing, voice scams, or SIM-swap attempts.

“I would remove the link between an order and a physical delivery address once the delivery is complete and there is no longer a business reason to keep it. The company can retain what it needs for tax and warranty purposes without keeping a complete record of where every order was delivered.”

He outlined another problem: deleting data often relies on someone saying it has been done.

“In one case, a company had a ninety-day retention rule and written confirmation from its fulfilment partner that older records had been removed. Years of data was still sitting in their systems. That is why I would want evidence of deletion, not just a retention policy. If nobody checks whether the rule was followed, the rule offers little protection.”

The same responsibility extends to what happens after customer information is exposed. According to Yasmanovych, in addition to a warning email, the provider needs to explain exactly what information was exposed. 

“A leaked city is one thing. A name, home address, and proof of crypto ownership create a different level of risk…Someone whose address was leaked may need help arranging future deliveries without sharing it again… There should be a direct person or team to contact when the situation requires more than a standard FAQ.”

He mentioned that the provider also needs to address what allowed the exposure to happen. If the supplier keeps data beyond the agreed retention period, customers should be told how that will be prevented and how deletion will be checked in the future.

“A warning email is the starting point. People need to know what happened, what they can do now, and whether the company has actually fixed the process that failed.”

Trezor’s response to its own breach can be measured against that list. It emailed affected customers individually, specifying whether their exposure was full or partial, and warned about phishing and, in September, physical security risks. 

It also promised an Anonymous Delivery option using locker pickup, unbranded packaging, and automatic deletion of shipping identifiers.

Can Privacy Technology Close the Gap?

The problem is not limited to the data companies store off-chain. As more financial activity moves onto public blockchains, the transactions themselves can create another layer of exposure.

Zama CEO and Co-Founder Dr. Rand Hindi said the Trezor incident highlights an off-chain data retention problem. 

He argued that as institutional capital moves onchain at scale, onchain confidentiality stops being a feature and becomes the condition for participation. Hindi cited a BCG estimate that digital real-world assets could reach roughly 16% of global investable assets by 2035.

He said regulated institutions cannot operate on a public ledger where every position and counterparty relationship is visible. The executive pointed to fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) as one way to address this without sacrificing compliance. 

“FHE allows computation directly on encrypted data – a transfer executes, an AML threshold is checked, eligibility is verified, all on ciphertext – with no validator or block explorer ever seeing a balance or other sensitive data. When a regulator requires access, a permissioned threshold of key holders (compliance team) authorises decryption enforced at the protocol layer, not through a policy.”

Privacy technology can also limit how much information companies must disclose without making verification impossible.

Yasmanovych said zero-knowledge proofs can allow an exchange to demonstrate that it holds enough assets to cover customer balances without publishing every customer’s balance.

The exchange can therefore share evidence of its overall position without putting individual account information on display. The expert added that this does not mean the information becomes inaccessible. 

Depending on how the system is designed, an authorised investigator may still be able to examine the evidence and underlying records through an appropriate audit or legal process.

He added that selective disclosure works on a similar principle when sharing identity information. A service might need to confirm that someone meets a particular requirement without receiving their entire identity document or customer profile.

“Neither approach solves the problem of personal data held outside the blockchain. Transaction amounts, timing, and wallet connections may remain visible, while identity documents and home addresses continue to sit in exchange, delivery, and payment databases.”

Yasmanovych mentioned that the gap is fairly straightforward. A company can improve privacy around the transaction itself while leaving the information needed to deliver and support that transaction exposed elsewhere.

When the Credentials Are Real, and the Customer Is Not Free

The distinction between transaction privacy and personal safety becomes even more important when a customer is forced to authorise a transfer. A custody provider may have secure infrastructure and strong access controls. 

But those safeguards face a different test when a customer is coerced into handing over their assets. 

Yasmanovych said a technical audit can show that the system works as designed. It is less useful for understanding what happens when someone is forced to hand over their assets.

“I would test the withdrawal process under that kind of pressure. For example, a customer with valid credentials requests a large transfer while someone is coercing them. Can the provider recognise the situation, pause the withdrawal, or bring in someone else before the money leaves?”

His required controls are a second authorised person and a mandatory delay on large transfers, neither of which the customer can remove during the same session. Yasmanovych highlighted that the point is to give the provider a chance to intervene when a valid login does not necessarily mean the customer is acting freely.

“I would also ask to see the process in action. A policy can require a second approval, but that does not tell you whether the approval is genuinely independent or whether staff can bypass it. A live test would expose those weaknesses much faster than another clean technical audit.”

A custody system can work exactly as designed and still fail the person using it. The last step always runs through a human being, and a human being can be threatened.

Where the Responsibility Now Sits

The attacks in France show how the risks around crypto extend past a compromised wallet or a stolen private key. A customer’s name, address, phone number, and proof of ownership become valuable once they sit in the same database. 

Privacy technology can limit what is exposed on-chain, but it does nothing to address information that companies and their suppliers keep elsewhere.

That widens what a provider is responsible for. It covers how assets are stored and moved, which customer data is collected, how long it stays accessible, and what happens when someone is forced to use their own credentials. Keys are part of that chain that the industry already knows how to protect.

The post Crypto Security Now Extends Past the Wallet to the Customer's Address appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

In Cardano news today, the delegated representatives voted down a request to withdraw 12.29 million ADA from the community treasury to fund Input Output’s Pogun Bitcoin DeFi product. The final Koios summary recording 35.67% of DRep voting power in favor, against 64.33% opposed.

The ADA stays in the treasury, but Cardano also forfeits the revenue-sharing terms Input Output had attached to the deal, and Charles Hoskinson has since said IOG will no longer default to launching future products on Cardano.

Pogun is Input Output’s pitch for bringing Bitcoin into decentralized finance through a credit market, a yield product, and a BitVM-powered trust-minimized bridge. The rejected on-chain proposal asked for 12.29 million ADA and tied repayment to quarterly earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, with the calculation anchored to $2.95 million in EBITDA.

Cardano (ADA)

24h7d30d1yAll time

Input Output’s April 2026 overview had promised 20% of Pogun earnings back to the treasury until the initial funding was repaid, followed by a perpetual 5% return on Cardano-related products. The on-chain proposal that DReps actually voted on carried no explicit exclusivity covenant.

Cardano governance requires sign-off from both the Constitutional Committee and DReps for a treasury action to pass. The committee cleared Pogun unanimously; the body elected directly by ADA holders did not, which is what makes the split notable.

The practical result? Cardano keeps its ADA but gives up the revenue share it was offered, a difference that matters more for Cardano’s treasury sustainability.

Earn $50 and Enter $300K Prize Draw on EdgeX

Why This Counts As An ADA Governance Check?

Input Output helped build Cardano and remains a major commercial contributor, which is exactly why the vote matters. Pogun’s own framing argued Cardano was the right execution environment for Bitcoin DeFi on technical grounds, not by default. ADA holders weren’t required to accept that argument on the terms presented, and enough of them didn’t.

Hoskinson used a Sept. 18, 2026, broadcast to respond directly. He said Input Output would now choose whichever network best serves each product instead of applying automatic Cardano priority. He also added that traffic from an unfunded product could route elsewhere and that another ecosystem could receive exclusivity in exchange for support.

He still described Cardano as the strongest technical fit for Bitcoin DeFi connecting systems built on Bitcoin-like transaction outputs, a nuance that separates this from a simple exit. It reads more like a policy change forced by a governance body that IOG itself helped design, a tension also visible in how IOG has positioned Midnight-linked development outside strict Cardano exclusivity.

Trade Cardano on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop

What’s Next For Cardano After This News?

Hoskinson said Pogun would still arrive within 90 days of the broadcast, or roughly by mid-December 2026, regardless of the vote’s outcome. Input Output has not disclosed which chain will host it, and the ecosystem that ends up with Pogun could capture the revenue share Cardano just walked away from.

Hoskinson also said RealFi, a separate Input Output initiative, is set to launch on Cardano in October 2026, giving Cardano holders a near-term test beyond the news.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

The post Cardano News: DReps’ Pogun Vote Opens a New Chapter for ADA appeared first on Cryptonews.

Source link

XRP climbed toward $1.50 on September 21, recovering sharply from lows near $1.27 earlier this month. That price strength arrived alongside a striking spike in exchange activity.

Average daily XRP inflows into Binance reached 21.7 million tokens, 663% above the quarterly baseline, according to on-chain data.

What Triggered This Sudden Spike in Exchange Flows

An exchange inflow refers to tokens moving from private wallets into a trading platform, typically signaling either preparation to sell or repositioning for trading purposes. The distinction matters for interpreting XRP’s current setup.

The surge concentrated in just three sessions. Binance recorded 91.2 million tokens on September 11, 44.5 million on September 16, and 41.7 million on September 17, days that overlapped with the failed CLARITY Act vote and the Federal Reserve’s first rate hike since 2023.

Despite those large deposits, Binance’s XRP reserves rose just 0.22% to roughly 2.63 billion tokens. Daily outflows averaged 11.6 million tokens over the same period. That pattern points toward elevated two-way turnover rather than sustained one-sided selling pressure.

Whale wallets added further context. Last week, large holders increased their combined XRP holdings by approximately 1.54 billion tokens, worth $2.2 billion, within 96 hours, according to Santiment-linked data shared by analyst Ali Martinez, reinforcing the accumulation narrative surrounding the token.

Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens.

Could This Rally Reverse in the Coming Sessions?

Technical indicators point to specific levels worth watching closely. XRP recently formed a rare bullish setup, only the fourth time in its trading history that price rebounded this sharply from a key long-term support band, with the 50-week moving average near $1.51 standing out as the primary target.

Clearing that level convincingly could open a path toward the $1.80 pocket. A key volume-based support zone sits near $1.38, an area where heavy prior trading activity has repeatedly reinforced price stability.

Network metrics remain mixed, though. The network value to transactions ratio fell 32.1% and transaction counts declined, even as open interest climbed to $477 million with liquidations occurring on both sides. Rising leverage suggests potential for expanded volatility rather than a confirmed directional trend.

A rejection at the 50-week moving average could trigger a pullback toward that $1.38 support zone. Losing that level might expose the $1.29 to $1.30 region next, where a shorter-term moving average and recent accumulation activity converge.

Stable exchange reserves and continued whale accumulation offer some cushion against extreme downside scenarios. Still, elevated leverage means sharp moves remain possible in either direction.

Market participants continue monitoring volume, funding rates, and net exchange flows closely as the current $1.40 to $1.55 range plays out this week.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights.

The post XRP Holders Rushed 663% More Tokens Onto Binance. Almost None of It Got Sold appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Source link

NEAR has been in a massive uptrend lately, gaining an additional 25% over the past 24 hours to briefly surpass $4.40. As of this writing, it trades at roughly $4.30 (per CoinGecko), up about 120% on a monthly basis.

Most analysts think the asset is ready to pump even more in the short term, with some anticipating a jump to a new all-time high. On the other hand, two important factors suggest a pullback may also be approaching.

How Much More?

The cryptocurrency market saw another sharp uptick today (September 21), with Bitcoin (BTC) climbing to nearly $2,500 and Ethereum (ETH) clearing $2,700. The green wave is perhaps the main catalyst for NEAR’s price ascent, but not the only one.

Recently, American President Donald Trump vowed to create a so-called “AI Force” and appoint an AI czar. Although details are still unclear, the announcement has boosted cryptocurrencies tied to Artificial Intelligence, with NEAR no exception. Prior to that, NEAR Protocol revealed on X that users trade perpetual futures by default, a feature provided by Hyperliquid.

X user Lucky said that NEAR holders deserve the latest pump since they have been waiting for such green days for a long time. For his part, Michael van de Poppe described the asset’s rise as “fantastic” and stated that he will be “very pleased” if it breaks through here.

“In the short term, I doubt it. I think that liquidity will flow towards other narratives that are going to follow NEAR in its footsteps,” he added.

The analyst expects the price to consolidate at current levels and even head south to $3 if BTC corrects. After that, though, he anticipates a fresh rally in Q4. In a previous post, van de Poppe described the digital asset “as one of the easiest ones to hold in this bull market,” saying he has been “happily accumulating” at $1.20-$1.50.

CryptoBullet was much more bullish, arguing that NEAR’s macro structure resembles “a giant double bottom.” The X user set $8 and $20 as the next targets, claiming the token could even skyrocket to a new historic peak of as high as $40.

The Bearish Factors

Earlier today, NEAR’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) spiked above 91, reaching a record high. Such levels signal that the asset has reached extreme overbought territory and could be gearing up for a move south. Later on, the RSI retraced to the current 74, which is still in the bearish zone.

The token’s recent exchange netflow also suggests that a correction could be on the way. Over the past several days, inflows have surpassed inflows, hinting that some investors have shifted from self-custody to centralized platforms, thereby increasing immediate selling pressure.

The post Near Protocol (NEAR) Soars 25% Daily: Is That the Easiest Crypto to Hold? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Source link

Source link

Source link

Robinhood crypto chain had attracted $146 million in tradeable tokenized stocks, just weeks before the free-gas promotion that helped support early activity was set to expire on Sept. 29. The key question is how activity changes once wallet users begin paying transaction fees that Robinhood had covered following the chain’s July 1 launch.

An activity that appears strong while transactions are free may weaken when users must bear network costs directly. Robinhood Chain has not yet faced that test without the subsidy.

Our analyst says some network activity will likely evaporate when the free ride ends. It also identifies recovery within a few months as a bullish sign for retention rather than an effect of the subsidy alone.

Discover: The Best Crypto Presales This September

The Tokenized Crypto Stock Surge Is Real on Robinhood, but Not Yet Proven Durable

Robinhood Chain’s early figures have moved quickly against established networks. Robinhood and BNB Chain together handled about 88.2% of tokenized-stock trading on decentralized exchanges in early September, up from 2.3% in June. The shift occurred within a single quarter.

BNB Chain still holds a much larger absolute balance in tokenized stocks, at about $1 billion compared with Robinhood’s $146 million. Over the 30 days ending Sept. 18, BNB Chain experienced $181 million in tokenized-asset outflows, including assets other than stocks, while Robinhood saw $156 million in inflows.

However, if recent flows continue, Robinhood could pass BNB Chain in tokenized equities within a couple of quarters. The same report noted that Base, Coinbase’s layer 2 network, held $7.5 million in tokenized stocks.

Robinhood reported 28.4 million funded customers in the second quarter of 2026, providing a large existing customer base for new products. But a large customer base and sustained on-chain usage are different measures, and the end of the gas subsidy will offer a clearer indication of whether early activity persists.

Trade Crypto on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop

A Strategic Bet, Not Yet a Major Revenue Engine

Robinhood’s cryptocurrency revenue declined 38% year over year to $100 million in the second quarter of 2026, while total net revenue was $1.31 billion, according to the company’s second-quarter results. Crypto, therefore, represented about 7.6% of quarterly revenue.

Event-contract revenue was $156 million during the same quarter. Robinhood Chain launched after the quarter ended, so its activity was not reflected in those quarterly results.

The chain is an Ethereum layer 2 network built with Arbitrum technology, and its transactions settle on Ethereum. Fees are paid in Ethereum’s coin. Robinhood’s stock is a way for investors to gain exposure to the network’s activity because the company can collect revenue from that activity. That potential, however, is not yet a reported revenue line.

The bullish case rests on Robinhood turning its customer base and early tokenized-asset growth into durable on-chain fee revenue. That remains an assessment rather than a reported result. What is established is that crypto revenue declined year over year in the second quarter while tokenized-stock balances on Robinhood Chain grew after its launch.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

What to Watch from Robinhood After Sept. 29?

The period immediately after the subsidy expires should provide an important signal. A sharp decline in wallet activity would be consistent with activity that was primarily supported by free transactions rather than continuing demand for tokenized assets.

Stabilization or recovery within a few months is the bullish outcome. Asset balances alone may not answer the retention question: a $146 million balance on the chain does not show whether users continue trading after they begin paying their own fees. Continued inflows and transaction activity after the subsidy ends would provide a more useful measure of whether early growth can persist.

Earn $50 and Enter $300K Prize Draw on EdgeX

The post Robinhood Crypto Chain’s $146M Tokenized-Stock Bet Faces Its First Fee Test appeared first on Cryptonews.

Source link

Source link