Jake Claver, CEO of Digital Ascension Group, has resurfaced a long-running question in the XRP community: how much XRP do holders really need to own? Specifically, he has laid out a simple financial scenario centered on holding 20,000 XRP.
A long-inactive Ethereum whale has resurfaced after nearly a decade, moving a substantial amount of ETH. The renewed activity, uncovered through blockchain tracking, comes as cryptocurrency prices decline and liquidations accelerate.
Leading Cardano-based DeFi ecosystem, FluidTokens, has confirmed that the first-ever BTC-ADA bridge is launching soon. According to the announcement, the bridge has entered its final development phase.
Blockchain investigator ZachXBT has alleged that the person responsible for a multimillion-dollar theft of cryptocurrency from US government-controlled wallets is the son of the chief executive of a firm contracted to safeguard seized digital assets.
Key Takeaways:
In a series of posts detailing his findings, ZachXBT claimed that an individual known online as “Lick,” whose real name he identified as John Daghita, siphoned tens of millions of dollars in crypto from wallets linked to the US government.
He further alleged that Daghita is the son of Dean Daghita, president and chief executive of Command Services & Support (CMDSS), a company contracted by the US Marshals Service to handle certain seized cryptocurrencies.
Public records show that CMDSS, based in Haymarket, Virginia, was awarded a contract in October 2024 to assist the Marshals Service with the custody and disposal of so-called “Class 2–4” digital assets.
These include tokens that are not supported by major centralized exchanges and often require bespoke handling.
The allegations have not been tested in court, and no criminal charges have been announced. CMDSS did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication.
ZachXBT’s claims expand on an investigation he published on Jan. 23, which linked the same online persona to more than $90 million in suspected illicit crypto activity.
That probe traced funds back to a U.S. government wallet associated with assets seized from the 2016 Bitfinex hack.
The investigation gained traction after a recorded dispute in a Telegram group chat between “Lick” and another individual.
Update: The CMDSS company X account, website, & LinkedIn were all just deactivated pic.twitter.com/nvN6u5XMPq
— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) January 25, 2026
The exchange, described as a “band-for-band” argument, involved both parties attempting to demonstrate control over large crypto balances.
During the exchange, “Lick” screen-shared an Exodus wallet displaying a Tron address holding roughly $2.3 million, followed by a live transfer of about $6.7 million in ether.
By the end of the session, approximately $23 million had been consolidated into a single wallet.
By tracing transactions backward, ZachXBT linked that wallet to an address that received $24.9 million from a US government-controlled wallet in March 2024.
The government address was tied to funds seized in the Bitfinex case. ZachXBT had previously flagged unusual activity in October 2024, when around $20 million was drained from similar government wallets.
Most of those funds were returned within 24 hours, though roughly $700,000 routed through instant exchanges was not recovered.
CMDSS’s role as a government contractor has drawn scrutiny before.
After losing the Marshals Service contract, Wave Digital Assets filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, arguing that CMDSS lacked proper regulatory registrations and raising concerns over potential conflicts of interest involving a former Marshals Service official.
The GAO ultimately denied the protest.
Questions around crypto custody have also been raised more broadly. A February 2025 CoinDesk report said the Marshals Service struggled to account for its digital asset holdings, citing weak inventory controls and an inability to estimate its bitcoin reserves.
As reported, illicit cryptocurrency addresses received a record $154 billion in 2025, a sharp increase from the year before.
The post ZachXBT Alleges Son of US Government Crypto Custodian CEO Behind Wallet Theft appeared first on Cryptonews.
How to hack Bitcoin? How does the blockchain calculate time? How does mining difficulty change? What happens if two miners mine a block simultaneously? Where are transactions stored before confirmation, how are fees calculated, and is it possible to send a transaction with zero fee? What types of nodes exist in the blockchain, and how do they differ? When can you use mining rewards?
Here I provide deeper answers to these questions because popular materials about Bitcoin either don’t explain these things at all or do so very superficially. To understand this article, you need a minimal understanding of how blockchain works, which you can get here: https://vas3k.com/blog/blockchain/
Bitcoin is an alternative financial system that does not require user trust. When using traditional banks, we must trust them not to steal or lose our money, and if that happens, we must trust the state to be able to return it. We also have to hope that money won’t be blocked at the whim of authorities or bank employees.
The point of Bitcoin is the opposite: everything is tied to strict mathematics that removes the probability of all these potential problems (or drastically reduces), provided you store Bitcoin in a personal non-custodial wallet.
Non-custodial wallet: A wallet controlled only by whoever has the private key; essentially just a small file/program that stores keys and signs transactions.
Custodial wallet: An account on an exchange that controls your assets and stores your funds in its own non-custodial wallets. This allows the exchange to block or seize your funds if you violate its rules or national laws, though the exchange offers more convenient and expanded functionality in return.
Interesting fact: A Bitcoin wallet is not an object inside the blockchain, but a program that stores keys and signs transactions.
The blockchain stores UTXOs (Unspent Transaction Outputs). Each UTXO is “locked” by a condition (program), usually tied to an address (practically, a hash of a public key).
To spend a UTXO, the wallet creates a transaction referencing that UTXO as an input and adds a signature. Network nodes verify the signature and the script’s execution. As a result, the old UTXO becomes spent, and the transaction creates new outputs — new UTXOs for the recipients.
A private key is a number. A public key can be calculated if you have the private key, but the reverse is practically impossible (how that’s attacked is discussed later in the “attacks” section). Using a private key, you can sign data, but this signature cannot be forged with a public key. Meanwhile, the public key can verify that the signature was produced by the corresponding private key.
In early versions, the wallet address was the public key. But later, addresses derived as a hash/encoding of the key or script began to be used. This is a crucial point for the section on quantum computer attacks.
Once a transaction is signed, it must be embedded in a block. First, it goes into a general pool of unconfirmed transactions (mempool), where any miner can take it to create a block.
But a transaction can exist only once in the blockchain, so the network can’t allow every miner to create their own block with the same set of transactions and have them all accepted.
Each block has a header containing version data, the previous block’s hash, the merkle root (hash of all transactions in the current block), time, bits (mining difficulty), and a nonce.
Here’s an example (block 900K)
• version: 0x20aba000
• previous block hash: 0000000000000000000196400396be46d0816dc462df4c3450972f589f4d7d24
• merkle root: 0cfb54e522b07bd1a381adc774ec1851590ef4c3add83958135106534569f970
• time (unix): 1749188499 _(2025–06–06 06:41:39 UTC)_
• bits (nBits): 0x17023774
• nonce: 0x925fd07a
All of these fields are combined and then hashed via SHA-256.
SHA-256 is a hashing technology: take some data and turn it into a different set of numbers that you can’t convert back into the original data if you only know the hash. But you _can_ verify it, because for a fixed input X the result is always the same output Y. So knowing X gives you Y; knowing Y does not practically give you X back — even with a quantum computer.
You can try hashing any data here.
SHA-256 is also one of the core tools in the HTTPS connections we use every day, and it plays a key role in hundreds of internet protocols.
The nonce is needed to find out whose block to record. Miners change the nonce so the header’s hash is less than the target. In our example, the hash has 19 zeros.
Finding such a hash is hard. It takes roughly ~10 minutes of the entire Bitcoin network’s mining power. Blocks should appear roughly every 10 minutes — that’s how Satoshi Nakamoto designed it.
It’s not actually about the zeros, but about the **target**. The target determines mining difficulty: the smaller the target, the higher the difficulty. A valid block header hash must be ≤ the target. Because small target numbers in hexadecimal start with zeros, hashes often appear with many leading zeros (e.g., ~19 or more). The smaller the target, the rarer it is for a random hash to land below it, so mining becomes harder.
Difficulty Calculation Hack: If the difficulty increases by 16 times, the required threshold becomes 16 times lower— often resulting in one additional leading hex-zero.
Difficulty adjustments (retarget) occur every 2016 blocks (roughly 2 weeks, 1 block ~10 minutes). The blockchain uses a simple formula:
Target_new= target_old*T_act/T_exp, 4Texp
Target_new = new target (new difficulty)
Target_old = old target
T_act = actual time it took to mine the last 2016 blocks
T_exp = expected time for 2016 blocks: 2016*600 seconds (10 min = 600 sec)
4T_exp= The change is limited: difficulty can’t shift more than 4× either way.
If, since the last difficulty retarget, the network’s total hash rate (the combined power of all miners) has increased over the past 2,016 blocks, then with near-certainty the average time to mine a block will decrease. That means the actual time to produce those 2,016 blocks T_act will be less than the expected time T_exp, so T_act/T_exp < 1. As a result, the new target Target_new will go down: and the lower the target, the higher the difficulty and the harder it is to mine.
That happens,and there’s a safety mechanism for it.
In theory, they can make practically identical blocks if the same transactions in the same order fall into each block. But blocks still won’t be identical because the first transaction in every block is the coinbase (the miner reward), and it pays to the miner’s address — so two miners can’t have the exact same block because their addresses differ.
But it is possible that two miners almost simultaneously mine different blocks. If the delay between the creation of a block and its distribution among nodes is 2 seconds, then this means that after the creation of the first block, there is a two-second gap in which a second block can be created. The longer this time, the higher the probability, but with each year this time is reduced. The probability of creating three blocks is almost negligible, but the protection system is the same.
If two blocks are created, they are saved in nodes, and these two chains are passed further. Miners then choose which block to build on — usually the one they saw first. And when they find the next block for one of the chains, it is distributed further and the nodes agree with it, and the shorter version is forgotten. This is the rule of the longer chain. Even if 2, 3, or more blocks in a row are formed in two chains, sooner or later one branch outpaces the other.
Transactions have 3 probable paths:
1. Fall into the chain that wins, then they remain in the blockchain.
2. Fall into both chains, then only the version in the winning chain remains relevant.
3. Fall into the chain that loses, then they go again into the pools of unconfirmed transactions (more on this below).
A few numbers:
That’s why exchanges don’t credit your deposit after 1 confirmation. Typically they wait for 6 confirmations — ~1 hour on average (6 blocks × 10 minutes).
There is no limit to the length of the second/third chain because they disappear quickly. Not counting these two cases:
And there is also the possibility of an attack through a second chain, but about this at the very end.
From this follows the next question:
Simple: a miner can spend the reward only after 100 blocks.
If you are a miner and mined block № 1000, you will be able to use the reward for this block only starting from block №1100. This looks like a time-lock transaction, but technically it is not one. I will write about the time-lock technology next time, this is already turning into too much text.
Miners add transactions to the blockchain, receiving a fee for this. And from this follow a few more questions:
The fee in Bitcoin depends not on the number of tokens sent in the transaction, but on the size of the transaction and the occupancy of the network at the given moment. After sending your transaction from a non-custodial wallet, it goes to the nearest node(s), these nodes decide based on several characteristics whether to accept your transaction or not:
1. Does it comply with the rules and did you not assign yourself non-existent tokens or something else?
2. Is the specified transaction fee sufficient?
If the answer to one of these questions is no, the node will not take the transaction and it will not fall into the blockchain, and your balance will not change. It turns out that a zero fee, in most cases, will not pass into the blockchain, although theoretically a miner can include such a transaction in a block, it is extremely unlikely.
How does a node assign a fee?
The node has a certain amount of memory where it stores such unconfirmed transactions after receiving them, but until the moment they are recorded in the blockchain.
By default, it is limited to 300 MiB of RAM memory and 336 hours of storage. However, if the blocksonly setting is enabled in Bitcoin-Core 25.0, the RAM memory will be reduced to 5 MiB; this is often done for validating the blockchain.
All these data can be changed when setting up the node, but this is often not done, as for most it would be a simple waste of extra resources.
And what will happen if you send a transaction with the minimum allowable fee?
If the node does not throw it out after adoption due to overflow, and if miners will not take this transaction due of small fee, it will be deleted after 336 hours = 2 weeks.
After the transaction is accepted, nodes distribute it to other nodes, and miners insert transactions with the highest fees into the block.
Considering the limits on transaction size of 400,000 weight units ≈ 100KB (but it could be more with SegWit, but those are already too small details). A maximum of 10 such large transactions can fit into 1 block, and ≈ 10,000 of the smallest. But on average it comes out to 2500 transactions per 1 block.
The fee itself is calculated by the formula: fee (sat) = vsize (vB) * feerate (sat/vB)
Your wallet can find out the minimum feerate from the nodes, but this is the lower boundary of whether the transaction will be distributed, not a guarantee of its confirmation. To estimate how much you need to pay now, wallets use mempool statistics and confirmation history.
An average transaction weighs 150vB; if at the given moment the average sat/vB = 2, then the transaction will cost 300 sat. And it will cost $0.27.
The highest sat/vB was in April 2024 during the halving and was from 1795 to 2751 sat/vB (source). On that day, an average transaction would have already cost from $160 to $245, depending on how quickly it needed to be processed.
The busier the network, the higher sat/vB. If you want your transaction to get confirmed faster, you set sat/vB above the current average.
Nodes define the fee as: fee = sum(inputs) — sum(outputs), then they look at the transaction size to check if it fits their internal policies.
Don’t forget about UTXO: if over time you received 10 separate incoming transactions, and now you want to send the entire balance in one transaction, the blockchain sees that as 10 inputs — meaning the transaction is larger and therefore more expensive.
To save on fees in the future, it is useful to sometimes do “consolidation” — sending yourself all small remnants in one transaction when the network is calm and sat/vB is minimal.
Returning to the first topic and the block header, the following question may arise:
The blockchain receives information about the time from miners and nodes (nodes that store information but do not mine) in UTC format.
Miners write the time in the block header. Nodes have their own clocks and verify the median time received from other nodes.
Bitcoin is a closed system, so the blockchain cannot connect to ntp.org to check if the miners are writing the truth in the block header and the nodes or not.
How can the blockchain check if the nodes and especially the miners aren’t lying?
For this, there is MTP — Median Time Past.
Not the average, but precisely the median.
It is calculated from the last 11 blocks arranged in order. For example:
18, 2, 12000 (liar), 14, 6, 20, 10, 4, 16, 12, 8
If we take the average value, then we need to sum all these numbers and divide by 11, we get 1100. Because of the liar who put 12000, everything has changed a lot.
But if we take the median, then first we arrange them in order:
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 12000 (liar)
And we take the value from the middle, that is, 12. This is how MTP is calculated.
The time of a new block is always greater than the MTP; otherwise, the block will not be accepted by other miners/nodes and will not be inserted into the blockchain.
But if someone wants to go to the future, at what time gap should blocks be rejected?
In the past Bitcoin used NAT — Network Adjusted Time (time adjusted by the network), which compared median time from peers. Later NAT was removed as a consensus component.
Now nodes use their own system UTC time to check how far “into the future” a new block is. If a block’s timestamp is more than 2 hours ahead of a node’s local time, that node rejects it.
If some node’s time differs significantly from other nodes, then NAT warns about it — that’s basically the only remaining use.
Miners and other nodes, how do they differ and why are they needed?
There are 3 main types of nodes in Bitcoin: a full node with two variations (archival and pruned), a light node, and a miner.
The other nodes are superstructures on top of these three pillars of the blockchain.
If you need a non-custodial wallet on a PC, then perhaps a full pruned node for this would be the best option. You can choose the one you need here: bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet?step=1
There are many possible attack vectors. If I described all of them, the article would be longer than it already is. But someday I will write. For now, let’s briefly look at two hack variants that are often talked about.
A quantum computer could derive a private key from a public key — but there’s already partial protection. If you’ve never spent from your address, your wallet is protected because outsiders see only the hash of your public key, not the public key itself.
Even with a quantum computer, it is practically impossible to brute-force the hash of a public key. But after the first outgoing transaction, the public key becomes visible to everyone. Therefore, to protect against quantum attacks, you should use addresses once.
However, there’s still a possible “interception” scenario: if a quantum computer could, after you broadcast a transaction but before it’s confirmed, derive your private key from your revealed public key — it would have very little time, but that’s the idea.
But there are wallets (outputs) of old formats, where the public key is visible immediately, and such wallets can be hacked even if there was not a single transaction from them.
And there are also many “lost” wallets; transactions were made from some, but that was many years ago. And with the help of quantum computers, coins from these wallets will probably fall back into circulation and possibly crash the Bitcoin price. But let’s leave these speculations to analysts who were perfectly described by one satirical channel:
”Last week’s target for Bitcoin at 34 thousand dollars has been revised and now stands at 240 thousand.”
So, a quantum computer will not destroy Bitcoin in this way.
But they are already thinking about creating a reusable quantum-protected wallet. This will require a soft-fork (change of rules), which has been done more than once.
A couple of texts on this topic: BIP 0347 and BIP 360.
If 1 person has more than 51% of the mining power, it will be easy for him to create a second chain of blocks as he wants. In this case, he will be able to cancel transactions and rewrite the history of his spending.
But even in this case, he will not be able in any way to steal someone else’s coins that were never on his wallet. The older the transactions that need to be rewritten, the longer and harder it will be, and there is no 100% guarantee that it will work and he will be able to make his chain longer and faster than the other 49%.
Such an attack is possible even with 30% and 40%, but the probability is much lower.
How much money will be needed for such an attack?
If we attack from scratch, then we essentially have to have a power 0.5% more than the entire power of Bitcoin miners. The hashrate today is approximately 1 ZH/s = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 SHA-256 hash findings per second.
Modern ASICs (mining devices) have a power of approximately 200 TH/s, meaning 5,000,000 of them will be needed. Their efficiency is ≈ 17–20 J/TH. Multiply by 10⁹ and you get 17–20 GW. A bit less than the power of the largest hydroelectric dam in the world.
To this, we add the prices for the ASICs themselves, which comes out to ≈ $7.5 billion. Not counting extra infrastructure which will also be very expensive.
Even all these costs will lead at most to double spending of own coins in the blockchain and censorship of transactions. And even then, it will be visible to everyone and the price will probably crash and the game will not be worth the candle.
If you are interested in diving deeper into WEB 3.0 technologies, subscribe to my X (x.com/Paolo3Web) where there will be more content, far from always so long, but no less interesting.
Deep Dive into Bitcoin: Answers to the Questions You Rarely Ask was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Japan’s financial regulator is weighing rule changes that could allow crypto assets to qualify for ETFs, signaling a possible shift in retail access.
Ethereum extended its pullback as sellers held control, with key support and resistance zones in focus. Notably, Ethereum (ETH) has traded lower over the past 24 hours, falling about 2.9% to roughly $2,858.
XRP is approaching a decisive technical point, and analysts say it is now at a level that could define its next major move. This comes as XRP trades at $1.87, up 0.4% on the day, as it attempts to recover after dipping to $1.89 yesterday.
The XRP open interest (OI) has now collapsed to a 14-month low, hitting levels XRP last witnessed when it traded below $1. This comes as the XRP price continues to slide to new lows, having recently collapsed to a new yearly floor of $1.8 amid a broader market collapse that has seen Bitcoin (BTC) drop to $86,000.
The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has moved into the final stage of consultations on a sweeping set of proposed crypto regulations, as it advances the government’s broader plan to bring digital assets firmly within the country’s regulatory perimeter.
Key Takeaways:
In a recent statement, the FCA said it is seeking feedback on 10 proposed rules, describing the move as the “final step” in its consultation process.
The proposals are designed to shape how crypto firms operate in the UK, while aligning the sector more closely with standards applied across traditional financial markets.
“These proposals continue our progress towards an open, sustainable and competitive crypto market that people can trust,” the regulator said.
At the same time, the FCA stressed that crypto investing will always carry risk, and regulation is intended to improve transparency and consumer understanding rather than eliminate volatility altogether.
The consultation package spans a wide range of market activity.
It includes proposed rules on business conduct standards, restrictions on using credit to purchase crypto, regulatory reporting requirements, asset safeguarding, and how retail collateral is treated when borrowing digital assets.
Stakeholders have until March 12 to submit feedback.
— Ryan (King) Solomon (@IOV_OWL) January 23, 2026
BREAKING: The UK Just Moved to Fully Integrate Crypto Firms Into the FCA Rulebook pic.twitter.com/mGBJ61hLLB
The proposals were first outlined in December, when the FCA signaled its intention to regulate crypto in a manner broadly consistent with conventional financial services.
Since then, the regulator says it has made “significant progress” in refining the framework as part of the government’s crypto roadmap.
Earlier this month, the FCA also published an indicative timeline for a new licensing regime covering crypto asset service providers.
Under the current plan, the application window for firms seeking authorization is expected to open in September 2026, though the regulator noted that details will be confirmed at a later date.
Once in force, the licensing regime would impose tighter oversight on crypto businesses operating in the UK, requiring FCA approval and ongoing compliance with regulatory standards.
As reported, the UK government is considering a ban on cryptocurrency donations to political parties, a move that could directly affect Reform UK, which recently became the first party in the country to accept digital assets.
The proposal is under review as part of the upcoming Elections Bill, according to people familiar with internal discussions, though officials have yet to formally confirm the plan.
The debate follows Reform UK’s push to present itself as Britain’s most crypto-friendly party under the leadership of Nigel Farage.
Furthermore, the UK government has moved a step closer to overhauling how decentralized finance activity is taxed, backing a new framework that would spare users from triggering capital gains each time they deposit tokens into lending protocols or liquidity pools.
The post UK Financial Watchdog Enters Final Consultation Phase on Crypto Regulations appeared first on Cryptonews.
Japan’s Financial Services Agency is considering adding cryptocurrencies to the list of assets eligible for spot exchange-traded fund (ETF) products. Nikkei reported Monday that Japan would likely approve its first set of spot crypto ETFs as early as 2028. If approved, this would end the agency’s ban on spot crypto ETFs.
This further extends the expected timeframe for a potential crypto ETF launch in Japan. A KPMG Japan executive claimed in August 2025 that a Bitcoin ETF launch would likely be delayed until 2027.
Besides, Hajime Ikeda, the Executive Officer of Nomura Holdings, pointed to a survey at the time, noting that over 60% of Japanese investors express a desire to invest in cryptoassets “in some form or other.”
That said, the recent move by the Japanese regulator to launch spot crypto ETFs would address growing investor demand for access to crypto.
Per the Nikkei report, Japan’s largest asset manager Nomura Holdings and financial services giant SBI Holdings have been developing related ETF products that await approval for listing on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.
If approved, the crypto ETFs would allow investors to trade digital assets similar to stocks or gold ETFs.
Last year, SBI Holdings confirmed plans to launch its XRP ETFs upon regulatory greenlight. In a presentation published in August, SBI revealed plans to launch two ETFs. The first product is a Gold and Crypto Assets ETF that will invest 49% of its assets in Bitcoin (BTC), while the second will be a Bitcoin and XRP ETF that will offer exposure to these two tokens.
The U.S. and Hong Kong already approved their first spot crypto ETFs in 2024.
Japan’s Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama recently touted that 2026 would be the “digital year,” expressing support to crypto trading at stock exchanges.
Per Japanese crypto news site Coinpost, Katayama pointed to how crypto investment products have gained traction in the West.
“In the U.S., through ETF structures, they have spread as a means of hedging against inflation, and similar efforts are expected in Japan,” she said.
The post Japan Plans to List First Set of Spot Crypto ETFs as Early as 2028 – Nikkei appeared first on Cryptonews.
Ethereum is more likely to revisit the $2,000 level than stage a decisive move back above $4,000, according to Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Commodity Strategist Mike McGlone.
Key Takeaways:
In a recent post on X, McGlone pointed to persistent range-bound trading and rising macro risks weighing on the asset.
He said Ether has remained trapped in a $2,000–$4,000 range since 2023, but momentum appears to be shifting toward the lower end.
McGlone argued that the risks of Ethereum staying below $2,000 are greater than the chances of a sustained breakout above $4,000, especially if volatility in global equity markets rebounds.
His accompanying chart highlights repeated failures near the upper boundary of the range, alongside multiple tests of support closer to $2,000.
McGlone’s view contrasts with a more optimistic narrative circulating among crypto-focused analysts.
BullifyX, a widely followed market commentator, recently compared Ethereum’s long-term price structure to that of gold.
According to BullifyX, Ethereum is undergoing an extended accumulation phase characterized by gradual higher lows and compressed price action, a pattern that historically preceded strong rallies in traditional safe-haven assets.
Every time I look at the #Ethereum chart, it mirrors #GOLD a little too perfectly.
— BullifyX (@Bullify_X) January 25, 2026
Long accumulation. Relentless structure. Explosive moves after patience is rewarded.
That’s not weakness that’s strength building quietly.
Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.$ETH isn’t… pic.twitter.com/G9ndiXsQVO
The analyst described Ethereum’s current behavior as a period of quiet positioning rather than fading demand, suggesting that prolonged consolidation could ultimately lay the groundwork for a sharp upside move once conditions shift.
Meanwhile, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has framed 2026 as more than a technical milestone.
In a recent post, he said the community is entering a phase focused on restoring personal autonomy and improving user experience, arguing that earlier compromises made in pursuit of adoption no longer need to define the network’s future.
“2026 is the year that we take back lost ground in terms of self-sovereignty and trustlessness,” Buterin said in an X post.
Together, record activity, falling fees, and rising participation suggest Ethereum is entering a new phase, one where scale no longer comes at the expense of accessibility.
As reported, the Ethereum Foundation has elevated post-quantum security to a core strategic focus, forming a dedicated Post Quantum team and committing $2 million to the effort.
Announced by Ethereum researcher Justin Drake, the initiative will be led by Thomas Coratger alongside Emile, a contributor to leanVM.
Drake said the foundation has been working on quantum-resilience research quietly for years, dating back to early discussions in 2019, before formally making it a top-level priority.
The foundation’s plan spans research, development, and ecosystem coordination.
This includes new developer calls focused on user-facing security, two $1 million cryptography prize programs, active multi-client post-quantum testing networks, and a series of global workshops aimed at accelerating collaboration and readiness across the Ethereum ecosystem.
The post ETH More Likely to Hit $2,000 Than Reclaim $4,000: Analyst appeared first on Cryptonews.
On-chain investigator ZachXBT says a $40 million-plus theft from US government crypto seizure wallets may trace back to John Daghita, an alleged threat actor who goes by “Lick,” and a contractor relationship tied to Daghita’s family.
In a Jan. 25 post, ZachXBT pointed to Command Services & Support (CMDSS), describing it as a firm with “an active IT government contract in Virginia,” and alleging it was “awarded a contract to assist the USMS in managing/disposing of seized/forfeited crypto assets.” ZachXBT added: “It still remains unclear at this point how John obtained access from his dad.”
In case you are curious how John Daghita (Lick) was able to steal $40M+ from US government seizure addresses.
John’s dad owns CMDSS, which currently has an active IT government contract in Virginia.
CMMDS was awarded a contract to assist the USMS in managing/disposing of… https://t.co/lzR2a1aidA pic.twitter.com/PV0IkSuhVy
— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) January 25, 2026
The allegation lands against a backdrop of earlier tracing work published Jan. 23, where ZachXBT linked wallet activity and recorded chats to the same persona. “Meet the threat actor John (Lick), who was caught flexing $23M in a wallet address directly tied to $90M+ in suspected thefts from the US Government in 2024 and multiple other unidentified victims from Nov 2025 to Dec 2025,” ZachXBT wrote.
ZachXBT’s thread centers on a dispute in a Telegram group chat between “John” and another threat actor, Dritan Kapplani Jr., in what the community calls “band for band (b4b)”, an on-the-spot contest to prove who controls more funds. ZachXBT said the interaction was “fully recorded,” and claims the footage includes screen-shared wallet balances and contemporaneous transfers that help establish control.
According to the thread, the recording shows John screen-sharing an Exodus wallet displaying a Tron address holding $2.3 million. In a second segment, ZachXBT said “another $6.7M worth of ETH” moved into an Ethereum address while the argument continued.
3/ In part 1 of the recording Dritan mocks John however John screenshares Exodus Wallet which shows the Tron address below with $2.3M: TMrWCLMS3ibDbKLcnNYhLggohRuLUSoHJg pic.twitter.com/jvcjIVEpaE
— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) January 23, 2026
ZachXBT framed the key evidentiary point as ownership continuity across addresses: “The recording captures that John clearly controls both addresses. Additional addresses can likely be found in the recordings. I then began tracing backwards to verify the source of funds.”
That tracing, ZachXBT said, connects the cluster to a March 2024 transfer of $24.9 million from a US government address tied to the Bitfinex crypto hack seizure. He also claimed $18.5 million “currently sits” at a cited address.
Beyond that 2024 linkage, ZachXBT asserted the primary address he tracked was tied to “$63M+ inflows from suspected victims and government seizure addresses in Q4 2025,” listing multiple transactions and chains, and separately flagged an additional 4.17K ETH ($12.4 million) flow from MEXC into the same cluster.
The Jan. 25 post attempts to explain a potential access path: if CMDSS was involved in US Marshals Service crypto asset management, the question becomes whether contractor-side systems, credentials, or processes provided an opening, intentionally or otherwise. ZachXBT stressed that the exact mechanism remains unknown.
Shortly after the post, ZachXBT said CMDSS’s X account, website, and LinkedIn “were all just deactivated,” and claimed Daghita “began trolling again on Telegram.”
On X, the claims drew sharp reactions from prominent Bitcoin commentators. Nakamoto Inc. CEO David Bailey wrote: “The son of the CEO of the company hired by the US Marshalls to safeguard the nation’s Bitcoin, stole $40m from it and now appears to be running. Treasury must secure the private keys from the Justice Department ASAP before more is stolen.”
Prominent Bitcoin advocate and co-founder of the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute Pierre Rochard framed the situation in national-security terms, posting, “This is a national security crisis,” and urging Congress to pass the BITCOIN Act.
At press time, Bitcoin traded at $87,847.
Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao says Binance doesn’t need a “backseat driver,” even though he says his pardon from Donald Trump could allow him to.
The XRP Ledger now hosts over $150 million worth of tokenized U.S. Treasury Debt amid a rapid increase in RWA value over the past year.
Coinbase is weighing a potential equity investment in South Korea’s Coinone, as the country’s third-largest crypto exchange explores options that include selling part of its controlling shareholder’s stake, according to local media and industry sources.
A local outlet reported Sunday that Coinone has put itself on the market and is discussing scenarios tied to Chairman Cha Myung-hoon’s holdings, which total 53.44% through his personal stake and his holding company, The One Group.
Speculation around a sale picked up after Cha returned to frontline management just four months after stepping down as chief executive, a move that some observers read as preparation for a stake transaction.
Coinone, meanwhile, said Cha stepped back in to sharpen its technological edge as it nears a double-digit market share, building out areas such as artificial intelligence.
Attention has also turned to Com2uS, the gaming group that accumulated a 38.42% stake in Coinone between 2021 and 2022.
Seoul Economic Daily reports that South Korea's third-largest crypto exchange Coinone is up for sale. Major shareholder and chairman Cha Myung-hoon is considering selling part of his stake and exploring other options. Coinbase will visit Korea this week to discuss equity…
— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) January 26, 2026
Coinone’s continued losses have weighed on its book value, which Seoul Economic Daily put at 75.2B won, or about $52M, at the end of the third quarter, below Com2uS’s reported acquisition cost.
Against that backdrop, industry sources say Coinbase plans to visit South Korea this week and meet major local players, including Coinone, as it looks for partners to build products that fit Korean rules.
The talks come as dealmaking accelerates across South Korea’s crypto exchange sector, with traditional finance and big tech circling licensed platforms and won trading rails.
Regulators recently cleared Binance’s long-running effort to take over GOPAX, and the market has since seen a rush of takeover interest.
Naver Financial agreed to acquire Dunamu, the operator of market leader Upbit, in an all-stock deal, while local media have also reported Mirae Asset Securities is pursuing Korbit.
Coinone has tried to differentiate on product as well as ownership, launching what it called the country’s first flexible Bitcoin staking service in Aug. 2025, letting users earn rewards without locking up their holdings.
Coinone says discussions remain open-ended, and it has not settled on a structure, a timeline or a buyer. Still, the prospect of a Coinbase tie-up lands at a moment when Korea’s exchange map is already shifting, and when global players are watching for a way in.
The post Coinbase Weighs Investment In South Korean Exchange Coinone: Report appeared first on Cryptonews.
Solana failed to settle above $132 and extended losses. SOL price is now consolidating losses below $130 and might struggle to start a recovery wave.
Solana price failed to remain stable above $132 and started a fresh decline, like Bitcoin and Ethereum. SOL declined below the $130 and $126 support levels.
The price gained bearish momentum below $122. A low was formed at $117, and the price is now consolidating losses. The price recovered a few points and climbed above the 23.6% Fib retracement level of the downward move from the $132 swing high to the $117 low.
Solana is now trading below $130 and the 100-hourly simple moving average. On the upside, immediate resistance is near the $125 level or the 50% Fib retracement level of the downward move from the $132 swing high to the $117 low.
The next major resistance is near the $126 level. There is also a key bearish trend line forming with resistance at $126 on the hourly chart of the SOL/USD pair. The main resistance could be $132. A successful close above the $132 resistance zone could set the pace for another steady increase. The next key resistance is $140. Any more gains might send the price toward the $144 level.
If SOL fails to rise above the $126 resistance, it could continue to move down. Initial support on the downside is near the $119 zone. The first major support is near the $117 level.
A break below the $117 level might send the price toward the $115 support zone. If there is a close below the $115 support, the price could decline toward the $102 support in the near term.
Technical Indicators
Hourly MACD – The MACD for SOL/USD is losing pace in the bearish zone.
Hourly Hours RSI (Relative Strength Index) – The RSI for SOL/USD is below the 50 level.
Major Support Levels – $117 and $115.
Major Resistance Levels – $126 and $132.
The Financial Conduct Authority has begun seeking final feedback on a set of proposals aiming to apply traditional finance standards to the UK crypto sector.
Login