A Bitcoin forum post published on Sept. 7, 2010, has resurfaced 16 years later after an early miner described a projected $5.68 electricity bill for mining a 50 BTC block as “a net loser.”

The calculation was genuine, but it did not mean that spending $5.68 guaranteed the miner a block. The figure represented an expected electricity cost based on the miner’s computing power, Bitcoin’s difficulty and the average time needed to find a valid block.

The forum participant, using the name TTBit, measured a computer consuming 140 watts while producing about 2,200 kilohashes per second. A mining calculator estimated an average wait of 338.05 hours, or roughly 14 days and two hours.

Running a 140-watt machine for that period would consume approximately 47.33 kilowatt-hours. At $0.12 per kilowatt-hour, the electricity bill would be $5.68. The arithmetic in the original post is therefore consistent.

“It would cost me 47.327 Kwh to produce a block,” TTBit wrote, before calling the projected expense “a net loser.”

That conclusion reflected Bitcoin’s limited market and liquidity in 2010. It should not be read as evidence that the miner rejected a guaranteed 50 BTC payment.

Bitcoin mining was already a probability contest

Bitcoin mining has never promised a block after a fixed number of hours. Miners repeatedly hash block headers, searching for a result below the network’s target. Every attempt has a probability of success.

The 338-hour figure was an average derived from TTBit’s 2.2-megahash-per-second rate and the difficulty at that time. The miner could have found a block immediately, waited much longer than 14 days or never found one before difficulty changed.

This distinction matters because some retellings describe $5.68 as the fixed production cost of 50 BTC. It was instead the electricity cost associated with an estimated solo-mining interval. Hardware costs, cooling, internet service and equipment failure were not included.

Miners now commonly join pools, which combine computing power and divide income according to contributed work. Pooling does not change the expected economic return before fees, but it reduces the extreme variation faced by a solo miner.

A modern example shows that the lottery-like element remains. In July 2026, a small Bitaxe miner found block 957,382 and collected 3.1382 BTC, including fees, as crypto.news reported. Such outcomes are possible, but they do not establish normal profitability for small machines.

Bitcoin’s 50 BTC subsidy had little dollar value

The Bitcoin protocol initially awarded 50 BTC for each valid block. Its rules reduce that subsidy by half every 210,000 blocks, or about once every four years, according to the developer documentation.

Bitcoin had no deep or standardized market in September 2010. Historical price records vary because trading took place across small exchanges and informal transactions. Available records indicate that Bitcoin remained below $1 throughout 2010, with estimates commonly placing late-2010 prices between $0.10 and $0.30.

The precise market price on the forum post’s date is difficult to establish. That makes the user’s “net loser” description a personal assessment rather than a universally verifiable profit calculation. Selling 50 BTC could also involve limited liquidity and counterparty risk.

At Bitcoin’s current price of approximately $78,810 on Sept. 8, 2026, 50 BTC would be worth about $3.94 million. That comparison uses today’s market price and does not represent value that a miner could reliably obtain in 2010.

The network no longer issues 50 BTC per block. The April 2024 halving reduced the subsidy from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC. Transaction fees are added to that subsidy, so the total block reward varies.

For a broader explanation of the issuance schedule, related coverage of Bitcoin’s halving explains how each reduction places fresh pressure on miners whose costs do not fall at the same rate.

GPU mining was beginning to replace home CPUs

TTBit’s post captured a technical transition already underway. The miner compared the computer’s 2,200 kilohashes per second with reports of graphics cards producing approximately 25,000 kilohashes per second.

Another participant reported around 33,000 kilohashes per second from an Nvidia GTX 260 while drawing approximately 200 watts. On those reported figures, the graphics card produced about 10 times more hashing work per watt than TTBit’s CPU-based setup.

The discussion also included a post attributed to Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto, who estimated that a 24-core AMD system could reach approximately 66,000 kilohashes per second. These figures were informal reports from forum participants rather than standardized hardware benchmarks.

Still, they documented the competitive force shaping Bitcoin mining. Once one group gained access to more efficient hardware, other miners needed to upgrade or accept a smaller probability of finding blocks.

Graphics processors later gave way to field-programmable gate arrays and then application-specific integrated circuits, or ASICs. Modern Bitcoin ASICs are built specifically to calculate SHA-256 hashes and operate at terahashes or petahashes per second rather than kilohashes.

TTBit’s machine produced 2.2 million hashes per second. Live analytics on Sept. 8 placed the entire Bitcoin network near 966 exahashes per second, although hashrate is inferred from difficulty and recent block production rather than measured directly. That network estimate is about 439 trillion times the speed of the computer described in the post.

Bitcoin mining costs remain decisive in 2026

The scale has changed, but the question raised in 2010 remains central: does the expected Bitcoin revenue exceed the cost of electricity and equipment?

Bitcoin’s difficulty adjusts every 2,016 blocks to keep average block production close to ten minutes. When more computing power joins, the protocol generally raises difficulty. When miners disconnect and blocks slow, it lowers difficulty.

Live estimates placed difficulty near 127.45 trillion on Sept. 8. That figure can change at each adjustment, while shorter hashrate readings can fluctuate because block arrivals are random.

Mining conditions weakened during parts of 2026. Bitcoin’s difficulty fell 19.9% from its November 2025 peak to about 126.23 trillion by late July, as previously reported. Estimated hashrate also retreated from levels above one zettahash per second.

Those movements provided some relief to miners that remained online, but they did not make CPU mining competitive again. Industrial operators typically negotiate electricity contracts, deploy thousands of ASICs and manage cooling, maintenance and financing costs.

The 2010 discussion also anticipated one feature of that competition. TTBit wrote that it could become “quite difficult to generate coins” if the trend continued. That was a forecast, not a certainty at the time, but the direction proved correct as specialized machines displaced general-purpose computers.

What happens next for Bitcoin miners

Bitcoin’s next scheduled halving is expected around 2028, depending on the pace at which blocks are produced. It will reduce the block subsidy from 3.125 BTC to 1.5625 BTC.

The date cannot be known exactly in advance because individual block times vary. The protocol triggers the reduction at a block height, not on a fixed calendar day.

Until then, miners will continue responding to Bitcoin’s price, transaction fees, difficulty, energy prices and hardware efficiency. Operators with high power costs or older machines may disconnect when expected revenue falls below operating expenses.

Some large mining companies have also directed power capacity toward artificial intelligence and high-performance computing. In related mining coverage, several operators generated growing revenue from data-center agreements while mining margins remained compressed.

The resurfaced post does not show that Bitcoin was objectively worthless or that its later appreciation was foreseeable. It documents a rational calculation made under the prices, hardware and information available in September 2010.

Sixteen years later, the numbers have changed radically. The decision facing miners has not: uncertain block revenue must still cover a very real electricity bill.

FAQs

“White-hat” actors have returned 3,400 Bitcoin—worth roughly $270 million—to the Liquid Federation wallet after an earlier attack that pulled funds from the Bitcoin side of Liquid’s reserves. The repayment followed a claim from bridge operator Blockstream that the impacted federation bridge nodes had been patched.

According to JAN3 CEO and former Blockstream executive Samson Mow, about 598 BTC remains outstanding. He added that Blockstream is still engaging with the actors while Liquid prepares to resume operations.

Key takeaways

• 3,400 BTC has been transferred back on-chain to the Liquid Federation wallet address, restoring much of the backing after the earlier withdrawal.
• Blockstream says updated software was deployed and federation members are preparing a coordinated restart after patching affected bridge nodes.
• On-chain transfers confirm the return amount, while 598 BTC remains unaccounted for.
• Liquid was paused after the incident, and users were advised not to send Bitcoin to Liquid peg-in addresses until restart confirmation.
• The incident appears tied to a bug in Elements, though SideSwap and Liquid say the specific authorization key was not compromised.

Return of most withdrawn Bitcoin after Liquid patching

The sequence began with a Sunday security incident in which hackers withdrew about 4,000 BTC from the Liquid Federation wallet’s Bitcoin-side reserves. The wallet reportedly held around 4,200 BTC before the withdrawal, leaving the system with a reduced buffer for issuing or supporting Liquid’s pegged asset, L-BTC.

On Monday, Mow reported that the return of 3,400 BTC came after Blockstream confirmed bridge nodes had been patched. He also said Liquid remained paused during additional fixes and security improvements, including work to resolve a chain split and prepare for a safe restart.

Blockchain explorer records cited in the article show that the federation wallet received exactly 3,400 BTC back via a transfer to the federation’s wallet address. With the return of roughly 85% of the withdrawn amount, the incident’s immediate impact on the system’s backing was largely reduced, at least temporarily, as the network prepares to restart.

Why users were told to wait on peg-ins

Liquid operates by issuing L-BTC against Bitcoin held by the federation. When the federation’s reserves on the Bitcoin side are disrupted, the corresponding backing for issued L-BTC can be impaired—one reason the network was paused and why the community received operational instructions.

Mow said users should avoid sending Bitcoin to Liquid peg-in addresses until a restart is confirmed. He emphasized that no user action was otherwise required, framing the pause as a protective step while the federation coordinates the patched state of the network.

For market participants and users who rely on Liquid for faster settlement or routing, this kind of instruction matters operationally: sending BTC to a paused peg-in path can create delays or confusion if balances are not processed until the network is fully back online.

SideSwap, Elements, and the authorization key that was not “compromised”

Details around how the incident was carried out point to the mechanics of Liquid’s peg-out process. The withdrawal was processed through SideSwap’s Peg-out Authorization Key, though Liquid and SideSwap stated that the key itself was not compromised.

Instead, SideSwap attributed the L-BTC involved to a bug in Elements, the open-source software underlying Liquid. That distinction—between a compromised key versus a flaw in the software logic that enabled the malicious outcome—has implications for remediation.

If the authorization infrastructure remained intact but a bug allowed the system to produce unintended results, then the focus for recovery becomes twofold: deploying patched software across all relevant nodes and ensuring any chain state issues are corrected through a coordinated restart.

On-chain negotiations—and lingering questions over the “white-hat” label

Blockstream said it contacted the actors using signed messages embedded in Bitcoin transactions. The actors described themselves as white hats and said they would return most funds once the vulnerability was fixed and every node installed the patch.

However, the partial nature of the return has also raised skepticism from industry observers. Ledger chief technology officer Charles Guillemet questioned the “white-hat” characterization after the transfer of 3,400 BTC. He argued that if the remaining roughly 600 BTC represented a negotiated reward communicated via encrypted on-chain communications, the arrangement could resemble extortion rather than benign security research.

Neither Blockstream nor Liquid publicly described the outstanding Bitcoin as a bounty, nor did they disclose any repayment terms. The article also notes that Cointelegraph sought comment from both organizations but did not receive a response before publication.

This uncertainty is likely to remain a key point for readers watching the situation. Even if a vulnerability was identified and patched, the open question is what—if anything—motivated the withheld balance and whether the return was strictly conditional on remediation or involved separate demands. Without official terms, participants must rely on what is visible on-chain and what the organizations involved choose to clarify later.

What to monitor as Liquid prepares its restart

With Liquid paused, the most immediate thing to watch is whether Blockstream and federation members execute a coordinated restart cleanly after patching and resolving the chain split referenced by Mow. Just as importantly, attention should stay on whether the remaining ~598 BTC is returned and what—if any—additional guidance is issued to users regarding peg-in and peg-out operations.

Cardano released node version 11.1.1 ahead of its next major network era, completing the first of four planned node milestones supporting the Dijkstra hard fork.

Intersect’s container registry shows that version 11.1.1 was published during the weekend ending Sept. 6. The release removes Cardano’s legacy tracing system and addresses known Genesis-related issues. It also responds to increased memory use identified during testing of node 11.1.0.

The maintenance release arrived as Intersect published a more detailed Dijkstra schedule. Node versions 11.2 and 11.3, followed by the final protocol version 12 release, will progressively introduce the code required for testing and mainnet activation.

Intersect currently places a possible Dijkstra enactment between Dec. 5, 2026, and Jan. 4, 2027, under its “moderate confidence” timeline. A later “high confidence” window runs from Feb. 24 to March 26, 2027.

Those windows remain estimates. Cardano must complete development, public testing, ecosystem preparation and on-chain governance before the hard fork can activate.

Cardano node 11.1.1 begins the release sequence

Node 11.1.1 is available through Intersect’s official GitHub container registry. Intersect had previously targeted the week beginning Sept. 7, meaning the package appeared slightly ahead of that stated window.

The release does not activate the Dijkstra era or introduce the full set of planned ledger features. It is a maintenance and preparation update intended for current mainnet use.

Version 11.1.1 removes the older tracing infrastructure used to monitor node operations. Cardano’s development reporting also said it would address higher resident memory use observed in node 11.1.0 benchmarks.

The release registry includes standard, AMD64 and ARM64 versions. Availability across different processor architectures is relevant for stake pool operators and developers running Cardano infrastructure on varied hardware.

Node 11.2 is the next planned milestone. Intersect expects it within about one month of its Sept. 5 update. The version will contain most of the Dijkstra feature set for testing, but it will not be the final hard-fork candidate.

Leios components will be absent from node 11.2 because they primarily concern consensus and block production. Developers should still be able to test the remaining Dijkstra ledger and transaction features.

DijkstraNet will test Cardano’s new transaction features

Intersect plans to launch a public network called DijkstraNet after node 11.2 becomes available. The testnet will let developers, stake pool operators and tooling providers test the broader protocol version 12 feature set.

DijkstraNet is expected to include Plutus V4, Nested Transactions and CIP-50 parameters. Other ledger changes tracked in Cardano’s public development repository include new script types, address changes, block-body serialization revisions and changes to reward withdrawals.

Nested Transactions would allow one Cardano transaction to contain other transactions while preserving separate validation conditions. This structure could support more complex applications, coordinated actions and multi-party workflows without requiring every step to operate as an unrelated transaction.

Plutus V4 represents the next version of Cardano’s smart-contract language and execution environment. Testing will be needed to confirm that wallets, decentralized applications, indexers and developer tools correctly interpret the new ledger rules.

CIP-50 concerns pledge leverage and staking rewards. Its inclusion means stake pool operators will need to examine how new parameters could affect incentives and pool economics before mainnet activation.

The official Dijkstra readiness tracker remains open and marked as work in progress. It will close only after developers prepare a node capable of completing the hard fork into a functional Dijkstra era.

DijkstraNet will operate alongside MusashiNet rather than replacing it. MusashiNet is already live and concentrates on Leios, consensus and block-production testing.

This separation allows ledger features and the new consensus architecture to progress in parallel. Results must eventually converge in the node version selected as the hard-fork candidate.

Node 11.3 will combine Dijkstra with Linear Leios

Cardano node 11.3 is expected within one to two months, according to Intersect’s Sept. 5 update. It is intended to become the Dijkstra hard-fork release candidate.

Unlike node 11.2, version 11.3 is expected to contain the full Dijkstra feature set, including Linear Leios. It should also be capable of crossing from the current Conway ledger era into Dijkstra during test-network rehearsals.

Linear Leios is Cardano’s planned first-stage implementation of Ouroboros Leios. It adds parallel transaction-processing structures around the existing Praos consensus design. The goal is to increase throughput without replacing the security assumptions of Cardano’s base chain.

Testing must examine more than raw transaction capacity. Developers need to evaluate block propagation, network bandwidth, resource use, synchronization, recovery behavior and performance under adverse conditions.

Cardano node 12.0 will become the definitive protocol version 12 release under the project’s naming convention. Intersect has not assigned a publication date.

Intersect described the December-to-January period as a “moderate confidence” window, not a guaranteed activation date.

The organization’s later window, running from Feb. 24 to March 26, allows more time for testing and governance if the earlier schedule cannot be met. Neither window is a fixed hard-fork date.

As previously reported when Cardano published its phased Dijkstra roadmap, the year-end target originally referred partly to code completion. Mainnet activation remains conditional on technical readiness and community approval.

Governance must approve Cardano’s Dijkstra hard fork

Cardano cannot activate Dijkstra solely through a software release. The network’s on-chain governance system must approve the constitutional and hard-fork actions required for protocol version 12.

Some new Dijkstra parameters need to be incorporated into the Cardano Constitution’s guardrails before governance can modify them. Intersect has asked participants to monitor its Constitutional Amendment Portal for related proposals.

A constitutional change requires approval under Cardano’s governance rules. A separate hard-fork initiation action must then obtain the required support from delegated representatives, stake pool operators and the Constitutional Committee.

This process was tested during the van Rossem hard fork. As crypto.news reported following its July activation, van Rossem moved Cardano to protocol version 11 after completing the network’s full on-chain approval process.

Van Rossem remained within the Conway era but added Plutus changes and prepared technical foundations for Dijkstra. It was Cardano’s first mainnet hard fork enacted entirely through the current governance framework.

The Dijkstra transition will be broader because it changes the ledger era and introduces more extensive consensus, transaction and smart-contract capabilities. Exchanges, wallets, explorers and decentralized applications must be ready before activation.

Intersect is encouraging stake pool operators and developers to join MusashiNet and DijkstraNet testing. It has also scheduled node-diversity workshops in Singapore on Oct. 6 and London on Nov. 13 and 14.

Amaru, an alternative Cardano node written in Rust, forms another part of that preparation. It can already validate and synchronize with the chain tip, while mainnet block production remains targeted for November 2026.

Node diversity could reduce the network’s reliance on a single Haskell implementation. It also creates another testing requirement because alternative clients must interpret the protocol rules consistently.

Peras remains a separate 2027 upgrade

Cardano’s Dijkstra plan has two phases. Phase 1 covers the era transition, Nested Transactions and Linear Leios. Developers are targeting mainnet readiness around the end of 2026, subject to testing and governance.

Phase 2 will activate Ouroboros Peras through a separate intra-era hard fork. Intersect currently targets the second quarter of 2027.

Peras adds stake-based voting on recent chain tips to accelerate settlement. The design aims to provide stronger confirmation sooner than relying only on the normal chain-depth rules of Ouroboros Praos.

Phase 1 will install some of the codecs and protocol parameters needed for Peras. It will not activate the finality mechanism itself. Peras will require its own testnet deployments, readiness checks and governance action.

No verified ADA price movement could be attributed solely to the node release or Intersect’s revised windows. The roadmap provides measurable technical milestones, but the final activation date remains dependent on development and governance.

The next checkpoints are the adoption of node 11.1.1, release of node 11.2, public opening of DijkstraNet and publication of the required constitutional amendments. Node 11.3 will then determine whether Cardano is technically ready to rehearse the full era transition.

FAQs

Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.

All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.

Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich acknowledged on Sept. 6 that the company had not adequately explained its Series 10 executive option plan or the structure connecting him to major shareholder MMXX Ventures.

Gerovich said he is a “significant but non-majority shareholder” in MMXX’s parent company. He denied involvement in MMXX’s investment or trading decisions and said Metaplanet would provide clearer explanations of its corporate structure.

The statement followed renewed criticism of a compensation program that grew as Metaplanet issued shares to finance its Bitcoin treasury strategy. Metaplanet capped the plan at 319,464,000 potential shares on Aug. 18, but shareholders argue that the amendment stopped future expansion without addressing growth that had already occurred.

Gerovich exercised 92,000 Series 10 stock acquisition rights on Aug. 28. The exercise created 64,032,000 shares and increased his direct ownership to 79,587,500 shares, according to Metaplanet’s Aug. 31 disclosure.

The filing confirmed the exercise and resulting ownership. Separate claims about Gerovich’s total economic exposure through MMXX, however, remain shareholder calculations rather than figures confirmed by Metaplanet.

Metaplanet’s option pool expanded with its share count

Metaplanet established the Series 10 Stock Acquisition Rights program before adopting its Bitcoin treasury strategy. Its board approved the issuance terms on Dec. 28, 2022, and shareholders approved them at an extraordinary meeting on Feb. 7, 2023.

The company issued 460,000 rights to seven officers and employees. Each right initially represented 100 shares, subject to adjustments. Recipients paid ¥18 per right, while the exercise price was ¥10 per share.

The program did not grant a fixed number of shares. Its adjustment mechanism maintained the reward pool at roughly 20% of Metaplanet’s fully diluted share count. That structure allowed the number of potential reward shares to grow when the company issued additional equity.

Metaplanet began its Bitcoin treasury strategy in April 2024. It subsequently relied on shares, warrants and other financing instruments to fund purchases. New issuance diluted existing investors while also expanding the number of shares linked to the Series 10 rights.

In its Aug. 18 filing, Metaplanet acknowledged that the original adjustment mechanism had produced an unintended outcome.

The company said the mechanism “amplifies the dilution borne by existing shareholders.”

The board removed the floating adjustment and fixed the remaining potential issuance at 319,464,000 shares. The amendment prevents future capital raises from automatically enlarging the pool.

However, the board did not restore the pool to its size when Metaplanet adopted the Bitcoin strategy. Critics say that decision preserved hundreds of millions of potential shares accumulated through the adjustment mechanism.

A shareholder using the name Bitcoin Pharaoh calculated that 273 million of the potential shares resulted from adjustments after the treasury pivot. That figure has circulated broadly, but Metaplanet has not adopted it as an official company calculation.

Gerovich’s 64 million-share exercise raised scrutiny

Metaplanet’s Aug. 31 disclosure said Gerovich exercised 92,000 Series 10 rights effective Aug. 28. The rights converted into 64,032,000 common shares.

The exercise increased his direct holdings from 15,555,500 shares to 79,587,500 shares. Metaplanet placed the newly acquired shares under the five-year lock-up introduced through the Aug. 18 amendment.

That restriction generally prevents the sale or transfer of the shares until Aug. 17, 2031. Metaplanet said the lock-up was intended to align option holders with the company’s long-term performance.

The restriction reduces the prospect of an immediate sale, but it does not cancel the shares or reverse dilution. The 64,032,000 shares became part of the company’s issued equity when Gerovich exercised the rights.

Metaplanet’s Aug. 18 filing showed that Gerovich held 276,000 of the 459,000 unexercised Series 10 rights outstanding as of June 30. Two executive officers held 141,000 rights collectively, while two employees held another 42,000.

One-third of the rights vested on Feb. 8, 2026. The remaining tranches are scheduled to vest on Feb. 8, 2027, and Feb. 8, 2028. The exercise therefore represented only part of Gerovich’s disclosed Series 10 position.

Shareholders have asked why the company froze the enlarged pool instead of recalculating it from April 2024. Some have also requested a replacement incentive plan based on per-share performance, Bitcoin yield or other measurable targets.

Shareholder Ragnar argued that Metaplanet should “cancel the additional 273 million shares,” but the company has not accepted that calculation or proposal.

No filing reviewed for this story indicates that Metaplanet has decided to cancel the remaining rights. The company instead said existing holders intended to transfer part of their rights to a new long-term incentive vehicle involving officers and employees.

The amount, timing and ownership structure of that vehicle have not yet been fully disclosed.

Gerovich denies directing MMXX Ventures trades

MMXX Ventures is a disclosed Metaplanet shareholder. Gerovich said in his Sept. 6 statement that he owns a non-majority stake in its parent company.

He said he does not manage MMXX, make its investment decisions or direct its trading. He also described MMXX as separate from Metaplanet.

Gerovich said: “I have no involvement in its investment or trading decisions.”

That is an attributed denial. Public filings confirm connections between Gerovich and MMXX, but they do not provide a complete breakdown of every beneficial owner or show how proceeds from historical share sales were distributed among the parent company’s investors.

Metaplanet has previously disclosed Gerovich’s voting control in relation to MMXX. However, voting authority, legal ownership and economic benefit are separate questions. A person can influence voting without holding a majority economic interest, while a non-majority owner can still receive part of an entity’s profits.

Shareholder Bitcoin Pharaoh alleged that MMXX sold about 50 million Metaplanet shares during the company’s 2024 rally. The analysis was based on public ownership disclosures, according to its author.

Metaplanet has not publicly confirmed that total in a dedicated response to the current dispute. It also has not published a transaction-by-transaction account showing what portion of any MMXX sale proceeds may have benefited Gerovich.

For that reason, claims about Gerovich’s personal proceeds cannot be presented as established facts. His statement addressed decision-making authority but did not quantify his economic interest or identify the other owners of MMXX’s parent.

Gerovich acknowledged that the company’s previous communication was insufficient.

“We have not done a good enough job of explaining this clearly,” he said.

He promised more communication about the company’s decisions and long-term alignment. The post did not commit Metaplanet to publishing MMXX’s full ownership, cancelling rights or resetting the option pool.

Share-price decline increases pressure for fuller answers

Metaplanet shares traded near ¥255 on Sept. 8, down almost 6% during the Tokyo session, according to Google. The decline followed continued public discussion of the option structure and MMXX relationship.

The stock remains far below its June 2025 peak. Its decline has occurred even as Metaplanet expanded its Bitcoin holdings to 43,000 BTC.

As crypto.news reported when the shares approached a 52-week low, investors were already weighing dilution, Bitcoin valuation losses and the company’s ability to raise capital without weakening per-share value.

Metaplanet’s treasury strategy depends heavily on access to equity markets. Issuing stock can add corporate Bitcoin while reducing each existing shareholder’s percentage ownership. The result for shareholders depends on the issue price, the company’s valuation and how much Bitcoin or other value it creates per diluted share.

The governance dispute adds another concern because the Series 10 plan rewards insiders through the same expanding equity base used to fund Bitcoin purchases. Removing the automatic adjustment prevents that relationship from continuing, but the remaining pool can still produce further dilution as rights vest and are exercised.

The company has also committed 2,100 BTC and $2.5 million to a proposed U.S. Bitcoin treasury platform involving Nasdaq-listed Super League. As previously reported, those coins are expected to remain within Metaplanet’s consolidated group if the transaction closes.

That expansion gives the company a supported U.S. business angle, but it also makes clear governance and capital allocation more important. Shareholders must assess both Metaplanet’s Bitcoin exposure and the securities used to finance its wider strategy.

What happens next

Metaplanet has not announced a special review, independent investigation or vote concerning the Series 10 plan. No verified court or regulatory proceeding tied to the current criticism was found.

The next scheduled vesting date is Feb. 8, 2027. Additional Series 10 rights could become exercisable at that point unless Metaplanet amends, transfers or cancels them beforehand.

Investors are likely to watch for a filing explaining how many rights will move to the proposed employee incentive vehicle. They may also seek the vehicle’s ownership, governance rules, performance conditions and treatment under the five-year lock-up.

The larger unanswered questions concern MMXX. Gerovich has described his ownership and denied directing trades, but Metaplanet has not released a complete beneficial-ownership table for MMXX’s parent or a detailed account of Gerovich’s economic participation in its transactions.

Until the company supplies those details, shareholder estimates should remain clearly labelled as outside analysis. The official record currently confirms the option terms, the 319,464,000-share cap, the lock-up and Gerovich’s 64,032,000-share exercise. It does not settle every question raised about ownership and past economic benefits.

FAQs

Blockstream-backed Liquid has moved closer to resuming normal operations after a partial repayment tied to a Sunday security incident involving the network’s Bitcoin reserves. According to on-chain activity and statements from industry figures, purported “white-hat” actors returned 3,400 BTC—worth about $270 million—to the Liquid Federation wallet after withdrawing roughly $320 million from the Bitcoin sidechain’s reserve.

The return follows Monday comments from JAN3 CEO and former Blockstream executive Samson Mow, who said Blockstream confirmed that the affected bridge nodes had been patched. Mow added that approximately 598 BTC remains outstanding, while Blockstream continues direct engagement with the parties involved.

Key takeaways

• On-chain records indicate exactly 3,400 BTC was transferred back to the Liquid Federation wallet address after a prior withdrawal of about 4,000 BTC.
• Liquid remains paused as bridge-node fixes roll out, with federation members preparing for a coordinated restart.
• Blockstream says updated software has been deployed and that further issues—such as a chain split—must be fully resolved before resuming.
• Liquid’s backing depends on L-BTC issued against Bitcoin held by the federation; returning ~85% of withdrawn BTC restores much of the removed collateral.
• Mow advised users not to send Bitcoin to Liquid peg-in addresses until the restart is confirmed; there is no indication that user actions are otherwise required beyond that guidance.

3,400 BTC returned after bridge-node patch confirmation

In the hours after Sunday’s incident, the immediate focus turned to whether the withdrawn Bitcoin would be recovered. On-chain data shared via transaction records shows 3,400 BTC moved back to the federation’s wallet address, aligning with the portion of funds referenced by Mow and others. The earlier withdrawal had reduced the roughly 4,200 BTC reserve before the network was paused.

Mow said the return came after Blockstream provided confirmation that patch work on the affected bridge nodes was complete. He also stated that about 598 BTC is still not in the federation’s control. Meanwhile, he indicated Blockstream is continuing to work with the actors behind the initial withdrawal.

Liquid’s operational pause matters for more than just technical housekeeping. Liquid issues L-BTC against Bitcoin held by its federation; when reserves are reduced, the system’s ability to maintain full backing for issued tokens becomes strained. Restoring 3,400 BTC—about 85% of what was withdrawn—therefore meaningfully improves the collateral picture as the network prepares to restart.

Withdrawal originated from a SideSwap peg-out process linked to Elements

While the Sunday withdrawal proceeded through SideSwap’s Peg-out Authorization Key mechanism, both Liquid and SideSwap reportedly said the peg-out key itself was not compromised. Instead, SideSwap attributed the L-BTC involved in the incident to a bug in Elements, the open-source software that underpins Liquid.

Blockstream said it communicated with the actors using signed messages embedded in Bitcoin transactions. The actors claimed to be acting as “white hats” and indicated they would return most of the funds once vulnerabilities were fixed and all nodes installed the patch.

The recovery sequence also highlights how Liquid bridges operational decisions to Bitcoin-side verification. Even when a breach is connected to the Elements codebase, the real-time governance of funds still runs through federation wallet movements and chain-level confirmation—meaning the system’s restart readiness depends on both software deployment and the integrity of bridge operations across federation members.

Liquid remains paused; users told to avoid peg-ins

Liquid has not yet returned to full service. Mow stated that the network stayed paused while additional fixes and security improvements were completed. He also referenced resolution of a chain split and preparations for a “safe restart” coordinated across federation participants.

Crucially for day-to-day users, Mow advised against sending Bitcoin to Liquid peg-in addresses until Blockstream confirms the restart. He framed this as the primary action users should take—or rather, avoid—during the pause, adding that no other user step was otherwise required.

This kind of instruction is significant because peg-in workflows depend on the bridge operating correctly and on the federation continuing to manage the custody and issuance relationship between Bitcoin reserves and L-BTC. Until a confirmed restart, directing funds to peg-in addresses carries the risk of stuck or delayed handling, even if no further compromise occurs.

Dispute over “white-hat” framing after partial return

The partial repayment has not fully ended debate about intent and legitimacy. Ledger chief technology officer Charles Guillemet questioned the “white-hat” label, arguing that if the remaining ~600 BTC represented a reward negotiated via encrypted on-chain communications, the arrangement could resemble extortion rather than conventional vulnerability disclosure.

At the same time, neither Blockstream nor Liquid publicly characterized the outstanding Bitcoin as a bounty, nor were any repayment terms disclosed. Cointelegraph reported outreach to both companies for comments but said it did not receive a response before publication.

That lack of transparency creates uncertainty for observers trying to interpret the actors’ motivations. Even when funds are returned, the unresolved portion can shape how the industry weighs the incident—whether it is treated as an expedited remediation coordinated through responsible disclosure norms, or as leverage applied through disruption.

Readers will likely look for confirmation from Blockstream on the remaining issues holding Liquid in a paused state—especially after software deployment and the claimed resolution of a chain split. The next checkpoints are straightforward: a confirmed restart, continued monitoring of federation reserve movements, and clarity on whether the outstanding ~598 BTC is fully recovered.