Crypto World

What is a consortium stablecoin? Open USD model

Published

1 month ago

2 July 2026

Hong Kong reveals when its first regulated stablecoins could launch

Tether and Circle built their businesses by keeping the interest on the dollars behind their coins. A new kind of stablecoin, run and owned by a group instead of a single company, shares that money instead. Here is how the consortium model works and why it is spreading.

Summary

A consortium stablecoin is a fiat-backed token issued and governed by a group of companies instead of a single issuer, with two defining features: shared governance and shared reserve income.
It contrasts with single-issuer stablecoins such as Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC, where one company controls the network and keeps the interest earned on reserves.
The model is spreading because stablecoin regulation has clarified, the market has grown past $300 billion, and partners increasingly want a share of the reserve income that has made incumbents enormously profitable.
Leading examples include Open USD, backed by more than 140 companies, the Paxos-led Global Dollar Network, and Europe’s bank-led Qivalis, while the earlier Centre Consortium behind USDC shows the model can also fracture.
The consortium approach aligns incentives and challenges incumbent economics, but it faces real risks around coordination, governance, and the difficulty of shipping a product agreed on by many stakeholders.

A consortium stablecoin is a digital dollar, or other fiat-pegged token, that is issued and governed collectively by a group of companies rather than controlled by one. The defining idea is shared ownership of both the decisions and the economics: a board drawn from the partner companies sets the rules, and the income earned on the reserves backing the coin is distributed among those partners instead of kept by a single issuer. That structure is a deliberate break from the model that built the stablecoin giants, and it has become one of the most important trends in digital money.

This explainer covers what makes a stablecoin a consortium stablecoin, why the model is emerging now, the leading examples, and the risks that come with running a coin by committee.

Consortium versus single-issuer stablecoins

To understand the consortium model, start with the model it is reacting against. Most of today’s major stablecoins are single-issuer coins. One company creates the token, holds the dollar reserves that back it, collects the interest those reserves earn, and keeps the profit. Tether, which issues USDT, and Circle, which issues USDC, are the dominant examples, and together they control roughly 80 percent of a stablecoin market worth more than $300 billion. Their businesses are simple and enormously profitable: take in dollars, park them in safe assets like Treasury bills, and keep the yield while the token circulates freely.

That reserve income is the heart of the matter. When interest rates are meaningful, the interest on billions of dollars of reserves adds up to billions in revenue. The single issuer keeps that money, which is what makes issuing a large stablecoin one of the best businesses in finance. A partial exception is USDC, where Circle shares a large portion of the economics with Coinbase in exchange for distribution, a hint of the shared-economics idea taken further by the consortium model.

A consortium stablecoin rearranges this in two ways. First, no single company controls the network; a group governs it collectively through a shared board. Second, the reserve income is not kept by one issuer but distributed among the participating companies, usually after a management fee that funds operations. The coin still works the same way for a user, redeemable one-for-one for a dollar held in reserve, but the ownership of the decisions and the money behind it is spread across many hands instead of being concentrated in one. That is the essential difference.

The two defining features: shared governance and shared economics

Every consortium stablecoin rests on the same two pillars, and it is worth being precise about each. The first is shared, neutral governance. Instead of one company setting the token’s rules, its reserve policy, its supported chains, and its product roadmap, a board made up of the partner companies makes those decisions collectively. The stated aim is neutrality: no single participant can steer the coin to serve its own interests at the expense of the others, which is meant to make the token trustworthy as shared infrastructure rather than one firm’s product. For businesses wary of building on a competitor’s rails, that neutrality is a selling point.

The second pillar is shared economics. In a consortium model, the interest earned on the reserves is returned to the partners who adopt and distribute the coin, minus a management fee for operating costs. This directly inverts the incumbent arrangement where the issuer keeps the yield. The logic is incentive alignment: if a payment company, bank, or platform earns a share of the reserve income by supporting the coin, it has a direct financial reason to promote adoption. The coin’s growth becomes a shared commercial project instead of one issuer’s private revenue stream.

Together, these two features aim to solve problems the consortium model’s backers say businesses face with existing stablecoins. Companies often pay fees to mint or redeem at scale, do not share in the reserve revenue their volume helps generate, and have little influence over an issuer’s roadmap. A neutral, revenue-sharing, collectively governed coin is pitched as the answer to all three. Whether it delivers depends on execution, but the structure is a coherent response to the incumbents’ weaknesses.

Why consortium stablecoins are emerging now

The consortium model is not new in concept, but it has gained momentum for specific reasons in the mid-2020s. The first is regulation. In the United States, the GENIUS Act, signed into law in 2025, created a federal framework for dollar-backed stablecoins, setting standards for reserves and licensing. That clarity lowered the legal uncertainty that had kept large, regulated institutions on the sidelines, and it drew banks, payment networks, and major enterprises into a market they had previously watched from a distance. A consortium of household-name financial firms is far more plausible once the rules of the road are defined.

The second reason is the sheer size and trajectory of the market. The stablecoin sector has grown past $300 billion, and some projections see it reaching into the trillions by the end of the decade as tokens move from crypto trading into cross-border payments, merchant settlement, and corporate treasury operations. A market that large attracts competitors who want a share, and it makes the reserve income at stake enormous.

When the prize is that big, the incentive to build an alternative to the incumbents grows accordingly.

The third reason is the economics itself. As the interest income earned by single issuers has become widely understood, partners have increasingly asked why they should drive adoption of a coin whose reserve revenue flows entirely to one company. The competitive frontier has shifted from simply issuing a token to controlling the underlying network and sharing its economics. Consortium stablecoins are the natural expression of that shift, giving a broad group of participants both a say in the network and a cut of the money it generates. The result has been a wave of consortium and shared-revenue projects entering the market.

The leading examples

The clearest way to understand the model is through the projects putting it into practice. The most prominent is Open USD, or OUSD, announced in 2026 by an independent company called Open Standard and backed by a consortium of more than 140 businesses spanning payments, banking, technology, and crypto, including Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, BlackRock, BNY, Coinbase, and Google. Open USD lets businesses mint and redeem the token with no fees and no volume limits, and it shares the reserve income with participating partners after a management fee, governed by a board drawn from those partners. It is positioned as a direct challenge to Tether and Circle, and its announcement sent Circle’s stock down sharply as the market priced in the competitive threat.

Open USD is not the first of its kind. The Global Dollar Network, built around the USDG token and led by the regulated issuer Paxos, uses a similar shared-revenue structure, distributing reserve income to partners such as Robinhood, Kraken, and Galaxy Digital to encourage broad adoption. In Europe, a group of major banks including BNP Paribas, ING, UniCredit, and SEB formed a venture called Qivalis to launch a euro-pegged stablecoin, initially focused on crypto trading before expanding, as financial institutions seek shared digital-payment infrastructure they collectively control. These projects differ in detail, but they share the consortium DNA of collective governance and shared economics.

What unites the examples is a strategic bet: that the future of stablecoins is a fight over infrastructure and network control rather than individual tokens, and that a broad, aligned coalition can win it against entrenched single issuers. The breadth of the coalitions, spanning card networks, banks, technology platforms, and crypto firms, is meant to translate into real-world acceptance that a lone issuer would struggle to build. Whether that bet pays off is the open question, and history offers a cautionary example.

A cautionary precedent: the Centre Consortium

The consortium model has been tried before at the heart of the industry, and the result is instructive. When USDC launched in 2018, it was governed not by Circle alone but by the Centre Consortium, a governance body co-founded by Circle and Coinbase to oversee the coin as a neutral standard. In its early years, USDC was the shared project of two of crypto’s most important companies, with governance and economics split between them, a genuine consortium arrangement at the center of the stablecoin market.

That arrangement did not last. By 2023, Circle and Coinbase dissolved the Centre Consortium, with Circle taking full control of USDC’s issuance and governance and buying out Coinbase’s stake, replacing the shared structure with a revenue-sharing commercial agreement instead. The neutral, jointly governed body gave way to a single issuer with a distribution partner. The episode showed that a consortium can fracture, that aligning even two large partners over the long term is hard, and that the pull toward single-issuer control is strong once a coin becomes valuable.

The lesson for today’s consortium stablecoins is sobering but not disqualifying. Coordinating two founding partners proved difficult; coordinating 140 is a far larger challenge. At the same time, the Centre experience taught the industry a great deal about how to structure governance and economics, and the newer projects are designed with that history in mind. The precedent is a warning about durability, not a verdict that the model cannot work. It simply means the hardest part of a consortium stablecoin may not be launching it, but keeping the coalition together as the stakes rise.

Why the model matters

Consortium stablecoins matter because they attack the core economics of the incumbents and could reshape how digital dollars are built. By sharing reserve income, they threaten the single-issuer business model that has made Tether and Circle so profitable, and they put pressure on every issuer to justify keeping the float that stablecoins quietly earn. If businesses can earn a share of that income by supporting a shared coin, the competitive logic of the whole sector shifts, and that pressure is real regardless of which specific consortium succeeds.

The model also changes the incentives around adoption. A single issuer has to persuade partners to distribute its coin; a consortium gives those partners a financial stake in the coin’s success, turning distribution into a shared interest. Combined with neutral governance, this can make a consortium coin more attractive to businesses that do not want to depend on, or enrich, a single competitor. The breadth of backers in projects like Open USD is meant to convert that aligned interest into faster real-world acceptance across payments, banking, and commerce.

For the broader market, the rise of consortium stablecoins is part of a larger story in which crypto is replaying the history of banking, where whoever holds the deposit, or the digital dollar, ends up with more durable economics than whoever merely moves the transaction. The consortium model is an attempt to distribute that durable position across a coalition instead of concentrating it in one firm. That makes it a structurally significant development, not just another product launch, even though its ultimate success is far from guaranteed.

The risks of the consortium model

For all its appeal, the consortium model carries distinct risks that anyone evaluating it should weigh. The most fundamental is coordination. Aligning the interests of a large group of companies, each with its own priorities and competitors within the same coalition, is genuinely hard, and decision-making by committee can be slow and prone to deadlock. The Centre Consortium fractured with only two partners; a coalition of many faces a much steeper coordination challenge, and governance disputes could stall the roadmap or splinter the group.

A second risk is that consortiums have historically struggled to ship and sustain products. A launch-day roster of famous names is not the same as a working, widely adopted coin, and many industry consortiums across finance and technology have announced ambitious shared ventures that underdelivered. At announcement, a new consortium stablecoin typically has unproven contracts, reserves, and real-world usage, so the gap between a strong partner list and durable adoption is wide. The coin still has to win against the deep liquidity and entrenched network effects of incumbents like USDT and USDC, which will not stand still.

There are subtler concerns too. Concentrating governance among a group of large, powerful incumbents raises its own questions about who really controls the network and whose interests it ultimately serves. Regulatory clarity that favors well-capitalized entrants can entrench the biggest players instead of broadening competition. And a win for the consortium as a business does not automatically translate into benefits for the users, chains, or tokens associated with it. The consortium model is a serious and well-reasoned challenge to the single-issuer status quo, but it is an experiment whose durability will be settled by execution and by whether coalitions can hold together once the money at stake grows large.

Where consortium stablecoins fit among stablecoin types

To place the consortium model correctly, it helps to see the wider map of stablecoin designs, because the consortium approach is a variation on one branch of that map instead of a wholly separate species. The most common type is the fiat-backed stablecoin, where each token is backed by reserves of cash and safe assets like Treasury bills held by an issuer. Within that category sit the familiar single-issuer coins such as Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC, where one company holds the reserves and keeps the income. A consortium stablecoin is still a fiat-backed stablecoin; what changes is who governs it and who receives the reserve income, not what backs it.

Other branches of the map work differently. Crypto-collateralized stablecoins, such as those built on decentralized protocols, are backed not by dollars in a bank but by other cryptocurrencies locked in smart contracts, usually over-collateralized to absorb volatility. Algorithmic stablecoins attempt to hold their peg through supply-adjusting mechanisms instead of full reserves, a design that has repeatedly proven fragile and, in notable cases, collapsed. Yield-bearing stablecoins add a return for the holder on top of the peg, sharing reserve income or on-chain yield directly with users. These are distinct mechanisms for achieving or funding a stable value.

Seen against that backdrop, the consortium model is best understood as a governance-and-economics innovation layered onto the fiat-backed design. It does not change the fundamental promise, one token redeemable for one dollar held in reserve, and it does not introduce a new stability mechanism. What it changes is the ownership of the network: collective governance instead of a single controller, and shared reserve income instead of a single beneficiary. In that sense it sits alongside, not opposite, the single-issuer fiat-backed coins, offering the same product with a different distribution of power and profit.

This placement matters for how users should evaluate a consortium stablecoin. Because the backing is the same fiat-reserve model, the safety questions are the same ones that apply to any fiat-backed coin: what exactly is in the reserves, who holds and audits them, and what regulatory framework governs them. The consortium structure adds considerations about coordination and governance, but it does not remove the need to scrutinize reserves and compliance. A consortium coin is not safer or riskier by virtue of its governance alone; it is a fiat-backed stablecoin whose distinctive feature is shared control, and it should be judged on the fundamentals every stablecoin shares.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a consortium stablecoin?

A consortium stablecoin is a fiat-backed token issued and governed by a group of companies instead of a single issuer. Its two defining features are shared governance, where a board drawn from the partners makes decisions collectively, and shared economics, where the interest earned on reserves is distributed among partners after a management fee, instead of kept by one company.

How is it different from USDT or USDC?

USDT and USDC are single-issuer stablecoins: one company, Tether or Circle, controls the network, holds the reserves, and keeps the interest those reserves earn. A consortium stablecoin spreads both control and reserve income across many partner companies. USDC is a partial hybrid, since Circle shares a large share of the economics with Coinbase, but Circle still controls issuance and governance.

What is an example of a consortium stablecoin?

The most prominent example is Open USD, backed by more than 140 companies including Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, BlackRock, and Coinbase, and governed by an independent body called Open Standard. Others include the Paxos-led Global Dollar Network, which shares reserve income with partners like Robinhood and Kraken, and Qivalis, a euro stablecoin venture formed by major European banks.

Why are consortium stablecoins becoming popular?

Three forces are driving them: clearer regulation, such as the 2025 GENIUS Act, which brought large regulated institutions into the market; the growth of the stablecoin sector past $300 billion, which raised the stakes; and a growing desire among partners to share in the reserve income that single issuers have kept. Competition has shifted from issuing tokens to controlling and sharing the underlying network.

How do consortium stablecoins make money for partners?

They share the interest earned on the reserves. A stablecoin holds dollars in safe assets like Treasury bills that earn interest, and in the consortium model that income is distributed among the participating companies after a management fee covers operating costs. This gives each partner a direct financial incentive to promote adoption, unlike single-issuer coins where the issuer keeps the reserve income.

What happened to the Centre Consortium?

The Centre Consortium was a governance body co-founded by Circle and Coinbase in 2018 to oversee USDC as a neutral standard. It was dissolved in 2023, when Circle took full control of USDC’s issuance and governance and bought out Coinbase’s stake, replacing the shared structure with a revenue-sharing agreement. It is a cautionary example that even a two-partner consortium can fracture over time.

Are consortium stablecoins safer than single-issuer ones?

Not inherently. Safety depends on the quality of the reserves, the regulatory framework, and the operator, not on whether governance is shared. A consortium can add neutrality and distributed control, but it also adds coordination risk and, at launch, unproven contracts and reserves. Users should evaluate any stablecoin on its reserve backing, regulatory standing, and transparency instead of assuming a governance model makes it safer.

What are the main risks of the consortium model?

The biggest risk is coordination: aligning many companies, some of them competitors, is hard, and committee governance can be slow or prone to disputes. Consortiums have also historically struggled to ship and sustain products, so a strong partner list may not translate into adoption. New consortium coins must also overcome the deep liquidity and network effects of entrenched incumbents like USDT and USDC.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. The stablecoin sector is evolving rapidly, and the status of specific projects can change. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or use any asset or product. Always do your own research and consult a qualified professional before making financial decisions. Information is accurate as of July 2, 2026, and may change.

Source link

Crypto World

Ethereum Price Analysis: ETH’s Double Rejection at $2K Spells More Trouble Ahead

Published

17 minutes ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

After several failed attempts to extend its recovery, Ethereum is beginning to show signs of exhaustion beneath the major100-day MA. The latest rejection from this zone has weakened short-term momentum and increases the probability of a broader pullback if key support levels fail to hold.

Ethereum Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

On the daily timeframe, ETH’s outlook is gradually shifting toward a bearish bias after multiple failed attempts to reclaim the 100-day moving average. The repeated rejection from this dynamic resistance around $1.95K, combined with the emergence of bearish daily candles, suggests buyers are losing momentum.

Meanwhile, Ethereum continues to struggle with the descending channel, with the upper boundary represented by the white trendline serving as the most critical support.

If sellers manage to push the price back inside this channel, it would confirm a bearish continuation and likely trigger a deeper decline toward the $1.56K to $1.64K demand zone. On the upside, bulls must first reclaim the $1.88K to $1.91K resistance area before attempting another move toward the 100-day MA near $1.95K.

ETH/USDT 4-Hour Chart

The 4-hour chart has turned more bearish after Ethereum broke below its ascending trendline, signaling that buyers have lost short-term control. This breakdown shifts the focus toward lower support levels unless bulls can quickly reclaim the broken structure.

The first support now lies within the $1.85K to $1.87K demand zone, where price is currently attempting to stabilize. Losing this area would likely accelerate the decline toward the next major demand zone between $1.75K and $1.79K.

On the other hand, the $1.88K to $1.91K supply zone has become the primary threshold for buyers. A successful reclaim of this region would invalidate the immediate bearish scenario and could allow Ethereum to challenge the descending resistance and the 100-day moving average once again.

Sentiment Analysis

The Coinbase Premium Index remains in negative territory, indicating that Ethereum continues to trade at a discount on Coinbase relative to other major exchanges. This persistent negative premium suggests buying pressure from U.S.-based institutional participants remains relatively weak despite the recent recovery.

Historically, sustained positive readings have accompanied stronger bullish phases, whereas prolonged negative values often reflect cautious institutional sentiment. Until the premium returns to positive territory and remains there consistently, the current rebound may struggle to develop into a sustained uptrend, leaving Ethereum vulnerable to additional downside pressure if technical support levels begin to fail.

The post Ethereum Price Analysis: ETH’s Double Rejection at $2K Spells More Trouble Ahead appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Crypto World

XRP Price Analysis: Is a Drop Below $1 Inevitable as Sellers Stay in Control?

Published

29 minutes ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Ripple’s XRP remains under steady selling pressure as the latest rebound attempts continue to lose momentum. The recent price action suggests sellers are maintaining control, while buyers are once again being forced to defend a critical support area.

Ripple Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

The daily chart shows little improvement compared to the previous analysis. The asset continues to trade beneath the descending resistance trendline while remaining well below the major moving averages, preserving the broader bearish market structure.

The latest candles indicate that sellers remain in control after another failed recovery attempt, pushing the price back toward the key demand zone around $1.01 to $1.04. This support has repeatedly prevented a deeper decline over the past several weeks, making it the most important level to monitor.

As long as XRP remains below the descending trendline and the main resistance between $1.24 and $1.29, the broader outlook favors continued weakness. A decisive breakdown below the $1.01 to $1.04 support zone would likely accelerate the decline toward the next major support around $0.89.

XRP/USDT 4-Hour Chart

On the 4-hour timeframe, rather than recovering from support, XRP has continued to print lower highs and lower lows while remaining capped by the descending resistance trendline.

The recent rejection near $1.09 was followed by another decline toward the $1.01 to $1.04 demand zone, showing that buyers have yet to regain control. This area remains the last significant short-term defense for the bulls.

If this support fails, the bearish momentum is likely to intensify and extend the decline toward lower levels. Conversely, buyers would first need to reclaim the descending trendline before any meaningful recovery toward the $1.24 to $1.29 resistance zone could be considered. Until then, rallies are likely to face selling pressure and remain corrective in nature.

The post XRP Price Analysis: Is a Drop Below $1 Inevitable as Sellers Stay in Control? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Crypto World

Bitcoin Price Analysis: Will the Next Liquidity Sweep Push BTC Below $60K?

Published

38 minutes ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Bitcoin continues to trade without a decisive directional bias as both buyers and sellers defend key technical levels. Until one side forces a confirmed breakout, the current environment is likely to remain dominated by range-bound price action and short-term liquidity grabs.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

The daily chart suggests Bitcoin is still locked in a prolonged consolidation phase between the major support around $57.8K to $60.2K and the primary resistance at $66.2K to $66.8K. Despite several attempts by both buyers and sellers, neither side has managed to establish a sustained trend beyond these boundaries.

This type of market structure typically favors liquidity sweeps and stop hunts around local highs and lows before a genuine directional move develops. As long as the asset remains trapped between these two zones, traders should expect continued choppy price action rather than a sustained trend.

A confirmed breakout above the $66.2K to $66.8K resistance could trigger another leg toward the higher resistance around $72K to $74K. Conversely, losing the $57.8K to $60.2K demand zone would invalidate the current consolidation and expose Bitcoin to a deeper correction.

BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart

On the 4-hour timeframe, Bitcoin is trading inside an even tighter range within the broader daily consolidation. Buyers continue defending the support region at $61.8K to $62.2K, while sellers repeatedly cap rallies below the resistance around $64.9K to $65.6K.

Holding above the buyers’ defense could allow another recovery attempt toward the upper boundary of this range. However, the recent sequence of lower highs indicates that sellers still hold a slight advantage, making a breakdown below the $61.8K to $62.2K support zone the more likely scenario if buying momentum continues to weaken. Such a move could accelerate selling pressure toward the lower boundary of the broader daily range.

Sentiment Analysis

The two-week liquidation heatmap shows a notable concentration of liquidity just beneath Bitcoin’s recent lows. This suggests futures market participants have been actively defending that area, with buyers stepping in to absorb selling pressure whenever the price approaches the lower liquidity cluster.

At the same time, a substantial pool of liquidity remains above the market around the $66K to $67K region, indicating that both sides still have attractive liquidation targets. As long as Bitcoin remains inside its broader consolidation, the price is likely to continue oscillating between these liquidity zones before a decisive breakout determines the next major trend.

The post Bitcoin Price Analysis: Will the Next Liquidity Sweep Push BTC Below $60K? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Crypto World

$1.6 Million Drained in a Blink: User Recounts His Dramatic Coldcard Wallet Hack

Published

1 hour ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

$1.6 Million Drained in a Blink: User Recounts His Dramatic Coldcard Wallet Hack

A Canadian entrepreneur lost more than $1.6 million in Bitcoin (BTC) from a Coldcard hardware wallet in under seven minutes, part of a wave that may total 1,367.05 BTC.

The case exposes an uncomfortable truth about self-custody: doing everything right may not be enough.

How One Holder Lost 18 BTC in Seven Minutes

Cold storage means keeping private keys on a device that never touches the internet. Jonathan Goodman followed that principle carefully, storing his Coldcard in a safety deposit box.

His 18.25 BTC sat in wallets secured across multiple safes. He never shared his seed phrase and kept every device isolated from online exposure.

None of it mattered on July 29, 2026. Between 9:36 and 9:43 that evening, every wallet he controlled was emptied.

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

$1.6 million dollars in Bitcoin was drained from my account on July 29th in the Cold Card wallet hack.
My Bitcoin was in cold storage. My keys were on a ColdCard device kept in a safety deposit box that had never been connected to the internet.
This part’s nerdy, but here’s… pic.twitter.com/Lf9kJv9Jo4
— Jonathan Goodman 🇨🇦 (@itscoachgoodman) August 1, 2026

Goodman first heard about a broader problem while at his cottage.

Assuming it would not affect him, he checked the balances in the Wasabi wallet software and found a series of red withdrawal transactions.

The vulnerability traces back to 2021. A flaw in the code that generates seed phrases left certain devices exposed, and attackers allegedly used artificial intelligence to brute-force the affected seed phrases.

He is filing reports with the police and the Ontario Securities Commission. Recovery hopes remain slim, though he wrote that the hardest part was having done everything right.

The scale extends far beyond one victim. Galaxy Research identified three suspected attack waves targeting addresses generated by Coldcard devices.

Those waves involved 4,585 source addresses and drained 1,367.05 BTC, worth roughly $88.6 million at the time of reporting.

Galaxy Research estimated the observed size of the Coldcard hack is now 1,367.05 BTC across 4,585 addresses. Source: X/@glxyresearch

What Galaxy Research Found in the Attack Data

Galaxy Research head Alex Thorn indicates that the attacks appear to be ongoing. He urged users who have not moved funds from potentially vulnerable setups to act immediately.

The first two waves showed similar transaction patterns and may share a common operator, though that remains unconfirmed. The third differed significantly, suggesting either updated tools or a separate actor exploiting the same key space.

The stolen Bitcoin remains in attacker-controlled addresses, with no further movement. Drained holdings had sat dormant for an average of 3.18 years, suggesting most victims were long-term holders rather than institutions.

Galaxy stressed an important caveat. Its findings rely solely on on-chain data and have not definitively confirmed insufficient randomness in the generation of the affected addresses.

“…this is a blow to bitcoin self-custody and we need to do better as a community: with security, with education, and with being realistic about complexity, expectations, and recommendations we make to friends, family, and the public…,” Alex Thorn said.

Analyst Shanaka Anslem Perera highlighted a deeper irony in Coldcard’s own documentation. The manual describes its default seed-generation method as the one it trusts most, while labeling it as low risk to users.

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

Coldcard’s own manual describes the default way of making a seed as the method that “involves the most trust.” It also calls that method “low risk to users.” The company’s tagline is “Don’t Trust, Verify”. Galaxy Research has now linked 1,367 bitcoin taken from 4,585 source… pic.twitter.com/ejV66wYb9S
— Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) August 2, 2026

Alternatives exist within the same device. Users can combine hardware output with dice rolls, or rely on dice alone, which the manual says removes all trust in the hardware. Most users likely followed the default path. That is precisely the method Galaxy Research now links to the losses.

The conceptual tension runs deeper. Reproducibility, prized for verifying firmware, becomes a liability in secret generation, since both weak and strong seeds produce valid 24-word phrases that appear identical.

Please treat this as urgent. Follow the advisory for your model, upgrade your device, generate a new seed, and carefully move your funds.
Help spread the word, especially to people who are less online and may not see this update. https://t.co/aC2zdazILQ
— COLDCARD (@COLDCARDwallet) August 1, 2026

Devices marketed under a “Don’t Trust, Verify” ethos can still harbor entropy flaws, leaving no visible trace. Affected users should assess their setups and migrate funds where necessary.

The post $1.6 Million Drained in a Blink: User Recounts His Dramatic Coldcard Wallet Hack appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Crypto World

Iran Denies Trump’s Hormuz Deal, Oil Jumps but Bitcoin Watches

Published

2 hours ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

WTI Crude Oil and Bitcoin Price Performance. Source: TradingView

Iran has denied President Donald Trump’s claim that a deal exists to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s busiest oil route. Oil jumped on the denial.

Bitcoin (BTC) barely moved. That gap says a lot about what crypto traders now choose to ignore.

Trump Says a Hormuz Deal Exists. Iran Says It Does Not

Trump posted on Truth Social early Sunday. He said he had canceled a planned strike on Iran.

He wrote that Iran and its neighbors asked him to hold off. The reason, he said, was that “the perimeters of a deal has been agreed to.”

“The U.S.A. is locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran, at levels of Military Terror, Strength, and Power not seen since World War II. Despite this, we have just been asked by Iran, and other Middle Eastern Countries, to hold off any attack in that… pic.twitter.com/Ylmlm06j3E
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 2, 2026
Advertisement

That deal would open the Strait of Hormuz right away. It would also end Iran’s nuclear threat.

Iran answered within hours. Fars News Agency quoted a source close to the nuclear talks.

“There is no agreement regarding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and the news published about it is false,” Fars News Agency, via CGTN.

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

Iran’s acting defense minister, Seyyed Majid Ibn Al-Reza, called Trump’s words psychological warfare. Fars International called Trump’s terms a wish list.

🔴 Iran’s acting Defense Minister, Brigadier General Seyyed Majid Ibn Al-Reza:
🔺 Although the enemy’s recent statements are part of a psychological and cognitive warfare campaign, we consider every threat to be real and take it seriously. pic.twitter.com/15hRMHE9Mw
— Press TV 🔻 (@PressTV) August 2, 2026

None of this is new. An earlier pause in strikes in late July also went nowhere.

Talks did happen, though. Qatari mediators met Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, and US envoy Steve Witkoff on Saturday. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman urged Trump to cool things down.

Why Oil Jumped and Bitcoin Did Not

Start with the map. The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow sea lane between Iran and Oman.

About 20 million barrels of oil passed through it every day in 2024, EIA data shows. That is roughly a fifth of the oil the world uses.

Oil Traffic In the Strait of Hormuz. Source: EIA

Here is the problem. Only about 2.6 million barrels a day can go around it, through pipelines in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The rest has nowhere else to go. That is why one denial can move a market this big.

WTI crude, the US benchmark, closed at $84.67 on Friday. It then rose about 2.4% to trade near $86.79.

Oil Price Performance. Source: TradingView

The denial also puts an official forecast in doubt. On July 7, the EIA cut its Brent crude forecast for this quarter by $27 a barrel, to $74. It cited the June US-Iran deal and busier traffic through the strait.

That June deal has since fallen apart. Analysts tracking Hormuz reopening timelines now expect the route to stay restricted into 2027.

Bitcoin did almost nothing. It added 0.08% in 24 hours and sat near $63,063.

Bitcoin Price Performance. Source: BeInCrypto

It also trades about 50% below its record of $126,080, set on October 6, 2025. The muted Bitcoin price reaction suggests traders now ignore headlines that change nothing on the water.

What Happens Next

Oil matters to crypto for one reason. It feeds inflation.

June proved the link. US energy prices fell 5.7% that month, the steepest drop since April 2020.

The BLS said energy did most of the work. Headline prices fell 0.4% over the month. Annual inflation cooled to 3.5% from 4.2%.

Energy is still expensive over a full year, however. Gasoline is up 26.7%.

So a lasting jump in oil would undo that progress. That makes Federal Reserve rate cuts harder to justify. Rate cuts are what assets like Bitcoin want.

The next check comes August 12, when the BLS publishes July inflation.

Until ships can sail through Hormuz freely, oil keeps its war premium. Bitcoin keeps waiting.

The post Iran Denies Trump’s Hormuz Deal, Oil Jumps but Bitcoin Watches appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Crypto World

South Koreans are Sending Stablecoins to Foreign Exchanges at Record Rate

Published

2 hours ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Panic Hits Japan and South Korea Markets: Can Crypto Become the Big Winner?

South Koreans sent $367 million more in stablecoins out of the country than they brought back in June. It was the 18th month in a row that money left.

The Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) handed those numbers to lawmaker Lee Jong-wook. The streak started in January 2025. Traders are chasing something they cannot get at home.

Why South Korea’s Stablecoin Outflows Keep Widening

Five exchanges handle almost all local crypto trading. They are Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax.

In June, they sent roughly $1.8 billion in stablecoins to foreign platforms. About $1.44 billion came back. The gap was $367 million.

Local media reported that across the whole second quarter, close to $1.1 billion left.

South Korean Stablecoins Post 18 Straight Months of Net Outflows to Overseas Exchanges
According to Yonhap News Agency, South Korea’s five major won-based crypto exchanges sent 2.7625 trillion won in stablecoins to overseas platforms in June 2026, while receiving 2.2022 trillion… pic.twitter.com/sDFsaBmDKN
— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) August 2, 2026

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

The size is what caught the attention of lawmakers. Koreans bought about $470 million of foreign shares in June, according to the Korea Securities Depository. The stablecoin outflow matched 77.6% of that figure.

A year earlier, the ratio sat near 20%. Crypto money now leaves the country almost as fast as stock money.

The trend held even as the local market shrank. Seoul confirmed a 22% crypto tax for 2027, and domestic trading volume fell nearly 55% in the first half.

One caveat belongs here. The FSS counts only the five licensed exchanges, so coins sent to private wallets first never show up.

What Foreign Exchanges Offer That Seoul Cannot

Korean platforms mostly offer plain spot trading. That is the whole problem.

Foreign venues offer far more.

Crypto derivatives with heavy leverage
Dollar-based real world assets (RWAs)
Decentralized Finance (DeFi) protocols
Staking rewards

Some also list Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Hyundai Motor as tradable contracts. Leverage on those can run into the tens of times. A stablecoin transfer is the cheapest way in.

The same hunger shows up in regulated markets. Koreans put a net $1.28 billion into foreign leveraged exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in June. That was more than triple the May total.

Seoul did try to compete. Korea listed its first single-stock leverage ETFs on May 27. Less than a month later, FSS Governor Lee Chan-jin publicly criticized them.

A bigger fix is on the way. Four agencies published a plan on July 19 to legalize won-backed stablecoins. A separate bill would treat crypto as national wealth.

The Leverage Unwind Sitting Behind the Numbers

The regulator’s worry proved well founded. Fourteen leveraged ETFs track Samsung and SK Hynix. Their assets shrank from about $10.7 billion at the end of June to $6.3 billion by July 13.

Margin loans fell too. Korean brokerages held roughly $21.8 billion on July 30, down about $4.4 billion since June 24.

The Kobeissi Letter says $67 billion has drained from margin accounts across Korea, China, and Taiwan. BeInCrypto could not confirm that total.

Asia’s leverage boom is rapidly reversing:
Margin debt in South Korea has declined -$4 billion from its June peak, to $22 billion, the lowest since mid-April.
At the same time, stock margin loans in China have dropped -$59 billion, to $385 billion, the lowest since the 2nd week… pic.twitter.com/iSrnHsJzsU
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) August 1, 2026
Advertisement

The KOSPI lost 22.19% in July, its worst month since 1997. Then it jumped 17.91% on July 31, a record single day.

Economist Steve Hanke blames global fatigue with AI hype. That rebound, led by a 29.95% gain in SK Hynix, cuts against the idea. Asia’s unwinding AI trade has swung just as hard in Tokyo.

South Korea’s benchmark stock index has become the world’s most volatile.
The AI protagonist in South Korea have clearly flown TOO CLOSE TO THE SUN and had their feathers singed.
IT’S CLEAR THAT INVESTORS AROUND THE WORLD ARE GROWING WEARY OF THE OBVIOUS AI HYPE AND NONSENSE. pic.twitter.com/2uU5KdfGqt
— Steve Hanke (@steve_hanke) August 2, 2026

The stablecoin figures tell a steadier story. Korean money is not hiding. It is relocating, much as it did when Korean investors cashed out late last year.

Lee sits on the National Assembly’s finance committee for the People Power Party. He wants the government to act.

“As the ‘coin move’ from domestic to overseas spreads, funds are flowing abroad, and investors are being defenseless against high-risk derivatives on foreign exchanges,” local media reported, citing Lee.

Seoul can close the exits or widen the menu at home. That choice decides what month 19 looks like.

The post South Koreans are Sending Stablecoins to Foreign Exchanges at Record Rate appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Crypto World

Crypto meets Wall Street using perps

Published

2 hours ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Everything under one login

Round-the-clock trading is one part of the plans exchanges have for traditional assets. Coinbase and Binance want customers to trade crypto, stocks and other products through one account, a model both have described as an “everything exchange” or financial super app.

Coinbase is preparing to offer U.K. customers equities and derivatives alongside crypto after securing investment-services authorization from the Financial Conduct Authority under rules based on the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, or MiFID.

The authorization allows Coinbase to offer traditional shares to retail customers and crypto, equity and commodity perps to eligible institutional and advanced traders, the company said.

“Perpetual futures are a core focus of what Coinbase is trying to bring to market,” said Keith Grose, U.K. CEO at Coinbase, in an interview with CoinDesk. “We’re really focused on being the ‘everything exchange.’”

Grose said the longer-term plan is to bring spot crypto, perpetual futures, traditional equities, and eventually tokenized versions of other assets into one place. That could allow customers to use positions across different markets as collateral or borrow against their equities.

Using stocks as collateral

Binance is testing another part of the model by allowing some high-net-worth clients to use tokenized stock positions as collateral for other trades.

“We recognize you could have Nvidia or SpaceX stock, a tokenized version,” Jan said. “You could actually have a tokenized stock put on our exchange, and we’ll use that as collateral for you to trade something else. It could be a crypto derivative.”

Source link

Crypto World

Trump Media transfers 2,628 BTC as holdings shrink

Published

2 hours ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Trump Media transfers 2,628 BTC as holdings shrink - 2

Trump Media-linked wallets transferred 2,628 Bitcoin, valued at about $165 million, to Crypto.com on Aug. 2, according to on-chain analysts Lookonchain.

Summary

2,628 BTC moved to Crypto.com, but no company filing has confirmed an outright sale yet.
Trump Media reported 9,542.16 BTC in March, including 4,260.73 BTC pledged as secured convertible-note collateral.
Lookonchain estimates realized and unrealized Bitcoin losses at $555 million after seven months of transfers.

The movement reportedly reduced the wallets’ remaining balance to about 4,261 BTC.Lookonchain described the movement as another sale and estimated that Trump Media had disposed of 7,281 BTC over seven months. However, neither Trump Media nor an SEC filing had confirmed the latest coins were sold as of Aug. 2. An exchange deposit can precede a sale, custody change, collateral arrangement or another internal transaction.

Source link

Crypto World

Michael Saylor says BIP-110 lacks miner consensus

Published

2 hours ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 can no longer reach its 55% voluntary miner threshold during the current difficulty period, according to blockchain signaling data and an Aug. 1 analysis from Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor.

Summary

28 signaling blocks appeared among 1,108, leaving BIP-110 at 2.53% support as of Aug. 2.
Saylor said all 24 initial signals came from DATUM miners sharing rewards through OCEAN’s system.
Mandatory signaling starts at block 961,632, when enforcing nodes reject every non-signaling block as invalid.

Strategy’s official website identifies Saylor as the company’s executive chairman. At block 960,561, Saylor counted 24 signaling blocks among 946, equal to 2.54%. He said every signal came from miners using DATUM while sharing rewards through OCEAN, with none identified outside that system. By 11:13 UTC on Aug. 2, the public BIP-110 monitor had advanced to block 960,723 and counted 28 signals among 1,108 blocks, or 2.53%. Only 908 blocks remained.

At block 960,561, BIP-110 has 24 signals in 946 blocks (2.54%). Every signal came from a DATUM miner sharing rewards through OCEAN. Signals outside OCEAN: 0. The 55% voluntary threshold is now mathematically unreachable this period. This is not miner consensus.
— Michael Saylor (@saylor) August 1, 2026
Advertisement

BIP-110 cannot reach voluntary lock-in

The proposal needs 1,109 signaling blocks within one 2,016-block difficulty period to lock in voluntarily. Even if every remaining block in the current period signals, the total could reach only 936. Saylor therefore said the threshold was “mathematically unreachable” and argued that the observed count was “not miner consensus.”

The latest monitor supports that arithmetic. However, it does not independently establish Saylor’s attribution of every signaling miner. His pool claim applied to the 24 blocks examined at block 960,561. The monitor confirms that the overall rate remained almost unchanged after four additional signals appeared.

BIP-110 would restrict Bitcoin transaction data

BIP-110, formally called the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, proposes seven temporary consensus restrictions. These include limiting most new output scripts to 34 bytes, capping OP_RETURN outputs at 83 bytes, restricting certain data pushes to 256 bytes and temporarily limiting several Taproot features. Outputs created before activation would remain exempt.

Supporters say the one-year rules would reduce arbitrary data storage and keep Bitcoin focused on monetary activity. Critics, including Saylor and Blockstream co-founder Adam Back, argue that consensus rules should not determine which currently valid transaction structures deserve block space. As previously reported, Saylor said fee markets and individual node policies offer a safer response to disputed data use.

Saylor questions OCEAN and DATUM’s role

Saylor also alleged that OCEAN made BIP-110 signaling the default on an existing endpoint. He called the initiative a “vertically integrated marketing campaign for Knots and OCEAN/DATUM.” That description represents his interpretation rather than a finding by an independent technical body.

The official BIP-110 installation guide directs users toward Bitcoin Knots and includes instructions for pointing rented hashpower at a DATUM node. OCEAN’s DATUM documentation says miners create block templates through their local nodes, while the pool coordinates reward splits instead of constructing mining work. Those documents confirm the technical relationship, but they do not independently establish Saylor’s claim about promotional intent.

Mandatory signaling becomes the next test

The current voluntary period ends at block 961,631. From block 961,632 through 963,647, software enforcing BIP-110 is designed to reject every block that does not signal bit 4. The proposal would then lock in at block 963,648 and activate at block 965,664, when its transaction restrictions would begin for 52,416 blocks.

Saylor warned that any 100% signaling reading during the mandatory window would reflect the software rule rather than a fresh vote of support. Foundry USA Pool has separately asked its mining customers to vote on whether the pool should signal, with its voting window scheduled to close near block 961,632. No verified result was publicly available by Aug. 2.

The next decisive evidence will come from major mining pools, exchanges, wallets and node operators before the mandatory period starts. Low voluntary signaling does not automatically cancel BIP-110 because its deployment includes mandatory signaling. However, enforcing nodes could follow a minority chain if most hashpower continues mining non-signaling blocks. Saylor and Back warned that enforcing the proposal without broad agreement could divide the network.

Source link

Crypto World

Coldcard Hack Fallout Widens as Bitcoin Losses Hit $88.6M

Published

2 hours ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Bitcoin has seen a spike in very small transfers—moves of less than 1 BTC—that match the intensity last observed around the collapse of FTX. The renewed activity comes as researchers continue to track a suspected Coldcard wallet-related hack, underscoring how quickly users are reacting when self-custody tools appear compromised.

According to CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno, Friday recorded the highest daily level of sub-1 BTC transfers since November 2022, with 39,600 BTC moved. The total was just 300 BTC below 39,900 BTC transferred on Nov. 16, 2022, shortly after FTX filed for bankruptcy. Moreno framed the comparison as a sign of urgency and said users appear to be “taking action.”

Key takeaways

Daily Bitcoin transfers below 1 BTC hit their highest level since November 2022, totaling 39,600 BTC, per CryptoQuant’s Julio Moreno.
Galaxy Research says the suspected Coldcard incident caused estimated losses of 1,367 BTC across 4,585 addresses, after identifying a further 207.7 BTC taken in an additional wave.
Galaxy’s Alex Thorn warned that the attack was still ongoing and urged affected users to move funds immediately from Coldcard-generated addresses.
The incident is reigniting debate over whether self-custody is safer than relying on third-party platforms, with executives arguing the impact differs across user approaches.

Small-transfer surge echoes the post-FTX era

While large market moves often capture headlines, the current data point focuses on behavior at the granularity of everyday wallet operations: sub-1 BTC transfers. Moreno’s analysis suggests the market is seeing a level of small withdrawals not observed since the period following FTX’s bankruptcy filing.

The comparison matters because it points to reflexive user behavior—moving funds in smaller increments—rather than a single, coordinated “whale” action. In the wake of FTX, exchange-related uncertainty drove users toward faster, more defensive moves. Here, the catalyst is different: ongoing concerns tied to Coldcard-generated addresses.

Moreno’s observation that these transfers had not occurred at similar daily intensity since the FTX collapse suggests that the Coldcard incident may be triggering a comparable sense of immediate risk. That doesn’t prove equivalence in scale or cause, but it does show that user reaction can look similar even when the underlying event is distinct.

Galaxy Research details additional theft wave

Galaxy Research, part of Galaxy Digital, reported Saturday that it had identified another attack wave tied to the suspected Coldcard hack. In that wave, an additional 207.7 BTC was drained—valued at roughly $13.2 million at the time Galaxy cited.

Including the newly identified activity, Galaxy estimated total losses of 1,367 BTC, affecting 4,585 addresses. Galaxy’s reporting suggests the incident is not a single moment of exploitation, but an ongoing process where both victims and attacker infrastructure continue to emerge as investigators refine their tracking.

Galaxy also points readers to a Coldcard-focused tracking resource, “Coldcard Watch,” as part of the broader transparency around wallet activity connected to the suspected incident.

“Still ongoing” warnings push users toward immediate withdrawal

Alex Thorn, Galaxy Digital’s head of firmwide research, said in an X post on Sunday that the attack remained active. Thorn urged users to move funds from Coldcard-generated addresses immediately if they had not already done so.

Thorn added that his team continues to identify both new victim addresses and attacker addresses. He also noted that reports from users have helped investigators and authorities track stolen funds, reinforcing a practical implication for readers: in incidents where on-chain patterns are evolving, user-provided information can accelerate investigative work.

The warning is also a reminder that self-custody isn’t only about holding assets—it’s about operational readiness. When wallet-generated addresses are implicated, the “time to react” becomes part of the security model, whether users follow best practices or not.

Self-custody debate returns as commentators argue “failure” vs “risk control”

The suspected Coldcard hack has again pulled the conversation toward the long-running fault line in crypto security: self-custody versus third-party custody. Self-custody is a foundational principle in Bitcoin, emphasizing user control without dependence on intermediaries. Yet security incidents involving consumer-grade tools can complicate the narrative and raise fresh questions about usability and safety.

Nick Neuman, CEO of Bitcoin security company Casa, pushed back against claims that “self-custody is over.” He argued that because self-custody is distributed, users have time to respond as threats are identified. Neuman also estimated that potentially 10 times more Bitcoin was protected through self-custody than was stolen and identified so far in the attack.

That position reframes the debate from whether an incident can occur at all to how the system responds once the risk becomes visible. In Neuman’s view, the existence of ongoing victims does not negate the defensive advantage that self-custody can provide—especially when users monitor, verify, and act on warnings.

Others took the issue in a different direction. Eric Balchunas, a senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg, argued via X that Bitcoin exchange-traded funds may offer a safer and more convenient alternative for many users, pointing to the longer operating history of ETFs.

In contrast, critics of that argument say the Coldcard episode reflects a failure of a specific wallet provider or implementation rather than a fundamental breakdown of self-custody itself. The tension here is important for readers to recognize: “self-custody” is not a single technology—it’s a set of practices and tools—so incidents can be interpreted as either systemic or localized depending on what readers believe broke down.

What to watch next

With Galaxy saying the attack is still unfolding and continuing to identify new victim and attacker addresses, the next key signal will be whether transfer patterns and wallet-specific indicators stabilize as users move funds. For investors and builders, the bigger question is how quickly the broader community can validate affected addresses and coordinate response—because in cases like this, speed is part of the security outcome.

Source link