Attackers exploited a third-party vendor compromise to inject malicious code into Polymarket’s frontend, triggering a phishing flow that ultimately drained funds from at least 11 user wallets, according to blockchain analyst Specter. Specter estimated the stolen amount at $2.94 million, citing activity linked to the compromised user interface.

Polymarket said it has contained the incident, removed the affected dependency, and will fully refund affected users. The case adds to a broader security trend flagged by DefiLlama, which reports that the quarter is now the most-hacked on record by incident count.

Key takeaways

• Specter attributed the Polymarket incident to a third-party vendor compromise that allowed malicious script injection into the platform’s frontend.
• The phishing mechanism reportedly led to an estimated $2.94 million drained from at least 11 Polymarket user wallets.
• Polymarket says containment is complete, the compromised dependency has been removed, and users will be fully refunded.
• DefiLlama data shows crypto security breaches in the second quarter hit a record pace, while June totals climbed to $74.9 million across 29 reported incidents.
• Across the last 30 days, DefiLlama reports private key compromises as the largest share of losses (43%), with “fake proof” exploits (10%) and reverse MEV honeypots (8%) following.

How the Polymarket frontend compromise unfolded

According to Specter, the attackers leveraged a third-party vendor breach to slip malicious scripting into Polymarket’s website experience. Specter said the injected code appeared designed to support a phishing attack—meaning users could be induced to sign or approve actions that transferred funds instead of completing the intended transaction.

Specter’s analysis estimated the theft at roughly $2.94 million, impacting at least 11 Polymarket user wallets. The figure is based on observed drain activity associated with the phishing pattern described by Specter.

Polymarket responded publicly on X, stating that it identified and contained the compromise, removed the affected dependency, and confirmed that affected users would be fully refunded. Cointelegraph sought further comment from Polymarket but did not receive a response before publication.

June exploit losses climb—still below April’s peak

While the Polymarket case is a notable incident, it sits within a wider wave of exploit activity. DefiLlama data cited in the report shows crypto exploit losses in June reached $74.9 million across 29 reported incidents, a rise from May’s $60.5 million total.

Even with the month-over-month increase, June’s total remained far below April’s $644 million figure, underscoring how uneven the exploit landscape has been across the year. The same DefiLlama dataset also marks the second quarter as the most-hacked period on record by incident count, extending the high frequency of breaches reported so far.

Largest June incidents highlight recurring bridge and exploit risk

DefiLlama’s breakdown points to several major June events that drove losses higher. The largest reported incident in June was a $36 million Humanity Protocol exploit. Other large items included a $4.7 million Secret Network bridge exploit and two separate Aztec exploits valued at $2.1 million each.

The list also includes a $1.7 million bridge exploit on Taiko. Together, these events reinforce a familiar theme in crypto security reporting: cross-chain bridge systems and complex protocol integrations continue to concentrate losses when vulnerabilities are discovered or supply-chain components are compromised.

Attack vectors shift: private key compromises lead, phishing cases remain a concern

DefiLlama’s methodology breaks down the last 30 days of reported exploit losses by technique. Private key compromises accounted for 43% of losses, making them the most common category in the period. “Fake proof” exploits represented 10%, while reverse MEV honeypots made up 8% by the same breakdown.

The Polymarket incident is described differently from those categories in the underlying reporting: Specter framed it as a frontend injection leading to phishing, which in practice can overlap with user-level security failures rather than only on-chain vulnerabilities. Regardless of the taxonomy, the operational takeaway is similar—attackers increasingly combine supply-chain weaknesses with user-targeted deception to move funds.

The threat also has a local history on Polymarket. About a month earlier, the prediction market disclosed a separate $600,000 exploit tied to a six-year-old private key used for internal top-up operations. Josh Stevens, Polymarket’s vice president of engineering, said then that contracts and user funds were safe and that permissions tied to the key had been revoked, reflecting a response approach aimed at limiting exposure after discovery.

What to watch next for Polymarket users

With Polymarket stating it has removed the compromised dependency and will refund impacted users, the next signals to monitor are whether any residual scams continue via cached pages, third-party scripts, or follow-on attempts against user approvals. More broadly, investors and users should track whether the second-quarter record pace continues and whether DefiLlama’s technique breakdown shows phishing-style incidents rising alongside private key compromises.

Eight-year-old Ether (ETH) wallets have started moving coins for the first time since 2017, adding fresh supply to the market as Ether trades just above $1,500. Onchain data shows 37,806 ETH from long-dormant addresses became active, while separate whale transactions point to continued accumulation by other large investors. 

The mixed positioning comes as total long-term ETH whale profitability has fallen below zero for the first time since 2019, leaving every major whale cohort sitting on unrealized losses. 

ETH whale traders are split between accumulation and distribution

According to Lookonchain, four Ethereum wallets that received 37,602 ETH nearly eight years ago at an average price of around $830 became active after years of dormancy. The wallets held through the 2021 and 2025 bull markets, when their unrealized gains exceeded $150 million, sold 33,623 ETH for about $52.5 million at around $1,560 on Thursday. The realized profit now stands near $27.4 million.

OG ETH wallets holding period. Source: Lookonchain/X

Fresh ETH selling has appeared alongside continued buying from other large holders. Blockchain tracker Lookonchain reported that one whale swapped 464 BTC worth $27.6 million for 17,750 ETH, signaling capital rotation into Ether. 

Meanwhile, investor Chun Wang also acquired another 9,937 ETH and 147 wrapped Bitcoin. Over the past month, Wang has withdrawn almost 87,000 ETH from Binance at an average purchase price of $1,749.

Institutional ETH trading also remained active. BlackRock transferred 41,996 ETH and 4,577 BTC to Coinbase Prime, a move commonly associated with custody or operational management rather than a confirmed market sale.

Crypto analyst Darkfost noted that Ether whales holding between 1,000 ETH and more than 100,000 ETH are all sitting on negative unrealized profit ratios. This marks the first time since 2019 that every major whale cohort has been underwater. 

ETH whales’ unrealized profit ratio. Source: X

The analyst said that periods when whale conviction was tested by ETH prices, it often aligned with long-term bottom zones. The current scenario indicates that large holders are facing greater overall pressure in 2026, even as selective ETH accumulation persists.

Related: Tether stablecoin flips Ether by market cap as ETH routs to $1.5K

$1,500 level for ETH draws trader focus

Ether dropped to $1,510 during Thursday’s sell-off, though it avoided setting a new yearly low even as Bitcoin fell to fresh 2026 lows. 

Crypto trader Ardi described $1,500 as Ether’s key long-term support, arguing that daily closes below that level challenge the bullish assumptions built up since the 2022 bear market. 

Ether/USD, one-week chart. Source: Ardi/X

Crypto investor Jelle shared a similar view, saying a sustained break would send Ether back into a trading range last seen in early 2023. Weekly price action shows ETH has defended the $1,500 region during several major corrections since mid-2022, making it one of the altcoin’s longest-standing support zones. 

However, not all market participants expect a near-term recovery. Popular trader Cyclops identified the $1,070–$1,370 range as a potential accumulation zone, citing it as a key demand area established in early 2023. A move into that range would also see ETH break below its multi-year ascending trendline, a technical development that could further delay a sustained recovery and reinforce the broader bearish market structure. 

ETH/USD, one-week chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

Related: XRP risks drop below $1, but onchain data highlights silver lining

A group of 17 Democratic US senators has asked the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government to stop the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from using federal funds to pursue litigation against state authorities over prediction markets. The push targets CFTC Chair Michael Selig’s defense of the agency’s view that it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over such platforms.

In a Wednesday letter to the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator Jeff Merkley, and 15 other Democrats urged Congress to block funding that would support Selig’s legal campaign. The senators argue that the CFTC’s courtroom strategy could enable online prediction markets to sidestep state consumer protections, creating what they describe as a “race-to-the-bottom in gambling.”

Key takeaways

• 17 Democratic senators want appropriators to prevent the CFTC from using federal funds for Chair Michael Selig’s lawsuits against state-level prediction market enforcement.
• The letter criticizes the CFTC’s argument of “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets and the agency’s position that event contracts qualify as “swaps.”
• The CFTC is already involved in prediction market litigation across multiple states, while some affected companies have sued state regulators in support of the CFTC’s theory.
• Potential Supreme Court review could hinge on how the Court applies federal authority and state power, building on its 2018 sports betting decision in Murphy v. NCAA.

Senators challenge CFTC funding amid prediction market lawsuits

The senators’ letter focuses on whether appropriations should underwrite the CFTC’s legal fights against state gaming regulators. Blumenthal and Merkley led the effort, warning that using federal resources for Selig’s litigation could shift outcomes in ways the senators view as harmful to consumer safeguards.

They specifically framed the lawsuits as part of a broader “campaign of litigation and intimidation,” contending that it risks positioning the CFTC as an “instrument and enabler” for prediction markets aiming to bypass state oversight. The concern, as laid out in the letter, is that states’ regulatory and consumer-protection frameworks could be weakened if companies conclude they can trigger federal enforcement that overrides state rules.

According to the letter, the senators are asking subcommittee leadership to block the CFTC from drawing on federal funding for these cases.

Source: Senator Richard Blumenthal letter to Senate Appropriations Subcommittee

Selig’s “exclusive jurisdiction” stance and the “swap” theory

At the center of the senators’ complaint is the CFTC’s legal position. Selig has argued that prediction-market event contracts on certain platforms fall within the CFTC’s mandate because they function as “swaps,” giving the agency what it describes as “exclusive jurisdiction” over the market.

That approach has been controversial because it directly collides with how state regulators view gambling and consumer protection. Several platforms and companies have responded by contesting state actions, and at least some of them have supported the CFTC’s framing by pursuing their own legal challenges.

Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the CFTC has engaged in legal fights tied to prediction markets involving regulators in Connecticut, Illinois, Arizona, Kentucky, Wisconsin, New York, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and New Mexico as of June. Companies mentioned in the reporting include Kalshi and Polymarket, both of which have filed lawsuits against state authorities.

Cointelegraph: CFTC litigation involving multiple state regulators

Cointelegraph: Kalshi lawsuit supporting the CFTC’s position

What could happen in the courts: from state authority to possible Supreme Court review

The senators’ intervention comes as the prediction market enforcement battle continues at the state and federal levels. The stakes are heightened by commentary from legal analysts that one of the disputes involving the CFTC and state gaming regulators could eventually reach the US Supreme Court.

A key benchmark is the Court’s 2018 decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, in which the justices held that states have authority to regulate sports betting. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case from the current wave of prediction-market litigation, it could revisit the boundaries of state regulatory power in situations involving federal agencies and market structure questions.

Still, readers should note what remains uncertain: Supreme Court review is not guaranteed, and the eventual scope of any high-court ruling would depend on how the legal issues are framed in the case that reaches the docket.

Congress is debating broader regulatory lines as CLARITY advances

The letter also lands in the middle of an active policy debate over how digital assets should be regulated. The senators’ concerns about the CFTC’s role in prediction markets intersect with the Senate’s anticipated vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a bill that would establish separate regulatory responsibilities for the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission over digital assets.

Cointelegraph previously reported that gaming organizations petitioned the Senate to include language barring sports event contracts in the CLARITY Act, arguing the CFTC was not created to regulate such wagers. That political push underscores a core tension: whether certain categories of event-based contracts should be treated as commodities and swaps under CFTC authority, or instead handled through state gaming rules.

Cointelegraph: Gaming organizations petition Congress on CLARITY language

Meanwhile, Selig leads the CFTC as its sole commissioner and chair, directing the agency’s policy agenda. While the CFTC is expected to ultimately include a bipartisan group of five commissioners, Trump had not announced any plan to fill vacancies as of Friday, according to the reporting referenced in the source.

That governance context matters because it affects how quickly any policy disagreements might be reconciled at the agency level. For market participants, it also means that enforcement posture can be closely tied to the leadership structure at the time of litigation.

For now, the most immediate watch item is whether the appropriations subcommittee actually blocks federal funding tied to Selig’s legal campaign, and how courts respond in the active state cases. Separately, the progress of the CLARITY Act—and how lawmakers choose to define the boundary between CFTC jurisdiction and state authority—could determine whether these disputes are narrowed by statute or continue to play out room by room in court.

OpenAI has introduced GPT-5.6 models named Sol, Terra, and Luna, prompting comparisons with some of the crypto industry’s best-known blockchain projects.

According to OpenAI, the company has begun a limited preview of three GPT-5.6 models called Sol, Terra, and Luna.

The announcement quickly drew attention across crypto-focused social media because the names closely resemble Solana’s SOL token and the Terra ecosystem, whose LUNA token became synonymous with one of the industry’s largest collapses in 2022.

The model names have revived memories of major crypto projects

In its blog post, OpenAI described Sol as its flagship GPT-5.6 model, while Terra is designed as a balanced option for everyday tasks. Luna, according to the company, serves as the fast, lower-cost entry point within the new lineup.

OpenAI said the three models are positioned between its high-end GPT-5.5 offering and more affordable options. Sol also introduces new “max” and “ultra” modes for advanced reasoning and agent-based workflows. The company added that the GPT-5.6 family delivers stronger coding, scientific research, and cybersecurity capabilities than earlier models.

Although the names immediately caught the attention of crypto users, OpenAI did not associate them with digital assets. Instead, the company said the names represent different capability levels within the GPT-5.6 series.

Even so, the similarities proved difficult for crypto traders to ignore. Sol shares its name with the ticker used by Solana’s native token, while Terra and Luna revive the branding of the Terra blockchain ecosystem, which collapsed in 2022 after the failure of its algorithmic stablecoin erased tens of billions of dollars in market value.

The release comes only days after OpenAI introduced Jalapeño, its first custom-built artificial intelligence chip developed with Broadcom. According to OpenAI, the processor was built in nine months and is designed for inference workloads powering products such as ChatGPT, Codex, and future AI agents.

The company said developing its own hardware will give it more flexibility as demand for AI computing continues to increase.

Rollout remains limited while safety testing continues

Rather than making GPT-5.6 immediately available to everyone, OpenAI said the launch is a limited preview as additional safety testing continues before a broader public release. The company also noted that Sol’s new reasoning modes are intended for more complex tasks that require extended processing.

The preview follows reports that the White House had asked OpenAI to limit the initial rollout of GPT-5.6. While the company acknowledged the limited release, it did not link that decision to any government request in its announcement.

Separately, Amazon withdrew from distributing Artificial, a film centered on OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman that also features Elon Musk, while continuing discussions with the filmmakers about finding another distributor. The decision came as Amazon expanded its commercial relationship with OpenAI through a multi-billion-dollar investment commitment tied to future milestones.

For crypto markets, however, it was the naming of Sol, Terra, and Luna that generated the strongest reaction online, reviving discussion around two of the industry’s most recognizable blockchain brands despite OpenAI stating that the names were selected solely to distinguish the capabilities of its latest AI models.

TLDR:

• Chainlink’s Build program supported over 80 projects, distributing roughly $20M in project tokens to LINK stakers.
• New commercial agreements will require fees in LINK or liquid assets, which are then converted directly into LINK.
• Proceeds from new Build agreements will be programmatically converted to LINK and directed to the Chainlink Reserve.
• The final Chainlink Rewards season closes claims on July 7, 2026, marking the end of Build-related token rewards.

Chainlink is restructuring its Build program by moving away from early and mid-stage project token rewards toward commercial agreements paid in LINK.

The transition marks a strategic pivot aimed at supporting sustainable network economics. Proceeds from new agreements will be programmatically converted to LINK and directed to programs like the Chainlink Reserve. Claims for the most recent Rewards season end on July 7, 2026.

Build Program Concludes Token-Based Reward Structure

The Chainlink Build program has supported over 80 projects since its launch. Teams received technical support, strategic guidance, ecosystem connections, and market visibility through the program.

Approximately $20 million worth of Build project tokens were made available to eligible LINK stakers through Chainlink Rewards.

Broader market conditions and shifting project funding models prompted this structural change. Chainlink Labs periodically reviews its programs to ensure resources drive the greatest long-term network growth. The token-based reward model no longer aligned with those goals under current market conditions.

Chainlink Labs confirmed the pivot in an official statement, noting that the ecosystem is “continually evolving how it supports the growth of early and mid-stage projects.”

The organization acknowledged that as market conditions shifted, the Build program’s structure had to adapt accordingly. Existing arrangements under the program are now being concluded.

New commercial agreements are being established on a case-by-case basis for historically participating projects. The transition away from project tokens reflects a more liquid and conversion-ready payment approach. The most recent Rewards season marks the final distribution of Build-related token rewards.

LINK Conversion Model to Power Chainlink Reserve and Ecosystem Growth

Eligible participants must complete their claims before July 7, 2026, when the claims window closes permanently. Product and engineering resources previously supporting Rewards will shift to higher-priority economic initiatives. Those resources will instead benefit the broader Chainlink community going forward.

New commercial agreements will require fees paid in LINK or other liquid assets that can be readily converted. Chainlink stated that proceeds from these agreements are expected to be “programmatically converted to LINK” and used to support network growth. The Chainlink Reserve is among the programs set to benefit from this funding flow.

This model creates a more direct economic feedback loop between ecosystem activity and LINK utility. Rather than holding early-stage tokens of uncertain liquidity, the network gains direct LINK exposure. That shift strengthens the long-term sustainability of Chainlink’s economic structure.

Future ecosystem growth programs will focus on engaging with strategically aligned projects rather than broad early-stage support.

Chainlink Labs stated it will continue “working with projects in refining how growth programs support early-stage builders.” The Build program’s evolution reflects the broader maturation of Chainlink’s network economics.

Bitcoin (BTC) struggled to reclaim $60,000 on Friday amid continued global market volatility.

Key points:

• Bitcoin closes below $60,000 on daily time frames for the first time since September 2024.
• Asian stock markets see another day of major losses on tech-stock concerns.
• BTC price analysis hopes for a reclaim of the 200-week trend line as the bull case.

Bitcoin risks $60,000 resistance flip as tech selling persists

Data from TradingView showed that prior support was increasingly becoming the bulls’ new hurdle after Bitcoin’s first sub-$60,000 daily close since September 2024.

BTC/USD one-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

Asia stock markets saw more downside on the day, with South Korean circuit-breakers kicking in on a new 8% crash.

Like on Tuesday, US stocks managed to avoid contagion, with the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones in the green at the time of writing.

S&P 500 one-day chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

Surrounding the weakness, tech-stock performance remained a popular talking point. Earlier, Micron Technologies boosted the mood with stronger-than-expected earnings data.

Trading resource The Kobeissi Letter suggested that a broader bullish turnaround could already be due.

“Most people do not realize how many tech giants are already deep bear market territory,” it wrote in a post on X.

Kobeissi noted that many major tech companies were already down more than 50% versus their all-time highs, with crypto exchange Coinbase leading at -69%.

“The S&P 500 won’t tell you this,” it added.

Coinbase stock one-week chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

In its latest analysis, trading company QCP Capital stressed the influence of US inflation trends on risk assets going forward. 

As Cointelegraph reported, the May print of the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index, known as the Federal Reserve’s “preferred” inflation gauge, recorded its highest year-on-year increase since mid-2023. 

“Core PCE is nowcast at 3.30%, while headline PCE is nowcast at 3.82%, both still above target,” QCP wrote. 

“The Fed’s 2026 inflation forecast has also moved up to 3.6%, from 2.7%, reinforcing the view that inflation, rather than growth, remains the binding constraint.”

US PCE Index one-month % change (screenshot). Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

BTC price 200-week trend line reclaim in focus

Looking at the short term, crypto trader and analyst Michaël Van de Poppe asked whether BTC price action would continue its downward trend.

Related: BTC price four-year trend calls for $76K as analysis says Bitcoin ‘not broken’

“It’s an interesting day for Bitcoin,” he told X followers, noting the upcoming quarterly options expiry event.

Van de Poppe drew attention to the performance of Strategy, the company with the world’s largest Bitcoin treasury, and its Bitcoin funding vehicle, Stretch (STRC).

“In all honesty, the fact that STRC has seen a relatively big drop yesterday and Bitcoin essentially stalled at $60,000 is not a weak signal. Other than that, there’s a bullish divergence on the daily timeframe, which is still far from confirmed,” he continued.

“It can signal that we’re bouncing back upwards, and, yes, the markets need to bounce back upwards in order to close above the 200-Week MA.”

BTC/USD one-day chart with 200-week SMA. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

The trend line in question, the 200-week simple moving average (SMA), stood at $62,243 at the time of writing.