主网 · 6637

Arthur Hayes Reminder: FLOP has not been released yet, and there are no presales or meme coins

BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes wrote a reminder that Flop Labs has not yet issued FLOP tokens, and there are no pre-sales or meme coins. Hayes stated that FLOP is not officially launched yet, and reminded the community not to mistake related tokens appearing on the market for official assets. He said Flop Labs is expected to launch an airdrop in the next few months and plans to launch the mainnet next year. According to previous public information, the project had previously planned a large-scale airdrop in the fourth quarter of 2026, and the target time for the main network Genesis block is the first quarter of 2027. Hayes previously announced that he will be leading Flop Labs, a project aimed at building economic infrastructure for AI agents, and FLOP will be designed as a native asset for AI agents to pay for resources such as computing power and storage.

9h ago

Arthur Hayes clarifies Flop Labs hasn't issued any tokens

BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes wrote an article clarifying that Flop Labs has not issued any tokens, no pre-sales, and no memecoins. There are currently no $FLOP tokens. Hayes said he will personally announce the airdrop in a few months when it starts, and will separately notify relevant developments when the main network goes live next year.

9h ago

BounceBit Chain updates vulnerability attack progress: will permanently shut down the chain and migrate to BNB Chain

Comparatively, cross-chain revenue protocol BanceBit issued a security incident announcement stating that its blockchain network was attacked by a protocol-level vulnerability attack between 8:02 UTC on August 19 and 01:54 UTC on August 20. The attackers used authorization flaws in the Evmos underlying architecture to transfer BB tokens from 9 main network accounts without the authorization of the account owners. According to the announcement, the attackers transferred a total of approximately 286.5 million BBs through 14 transactions. The impact of the incident was limited to BanceBit Chain itself, and did not involve private key leaks, signature forgery, wallet, hardware devices, or exchange account security issues. BanceBit CeDeFi Strategy, Promo Vaults, Prime, and RWA products were not affected. BounceBit stated that the vulnerability stemmed from a protocol native module authorization verification flaw in the Evmos architecture. When calling the relevant module through a smart contract, the attackers bypass security checks that should verify the authorization relationship of the fund source account, making it possible to specify any account as the source of funds. After the incident, BounceBit Chain stopped generating blocks at block height 20,702,857, then the team decided not to upgrade the chain, but to permanently shut down Bouncbit Chain and re-issue BB as an BEP-20 token based on BNB Chain. BounceBit stated that the new BB token supply will be based on an on-chain snapshot before the first abnormal transfer (block height 20,697,260), and the 286,543,148 BBs transferred by the attackers will not be included in the new token balance. Users do not need to submit an application or migrate their wallets, and the official plan is to automatically distribute the new BB to the corresponding BNB Chain addresses. Regarding the BB in the pledge, BounceBit said it will be restored as soon as the snapshot is in time, and there is no need for coin holders to perform unbundling or redemption operations. Currently, BounceBit has submitted requests for suspension and assistance to relevant exchanges, and reminds users to be wary of scams and not to click on any BB migration or receipt links that have not been officially confirmed. The team said that the new BEP-20 BB contract address and reissue progress will be announced later. This article is sponsored by GENG, Build Your Fortune on GENG (https://geng.one)

1d agoburnking

HertzFlow's $4.44 million USD1Genesis Vault has been filled, and the mainnet will open for trading on August 24

In comparison, HertzFlow announced that its $4.44 million USD1 Genesis Reserve Vault has been fully booked. HertzFlow officially stated that this is an important milestone before the launch of the main network of the project, and final preparations are currently being made for the official opening of the main network for trading on August 24. According to reports, HertzFlow aims to create a leveraged trading market with assets supported by oracles without permission, further activate BNB Chain's on-chain liquidity through composable DeFi strategies, and transform more on-chain capital into liquid assets that generate sustainable returns.

1d ago

Ripple lays out the RLUSD lending ecosystem to support institutional credit funds to provide loans to fintech companies

In comparison, Ripple is supporting a new institutional credit fund that will partner with lending platform Clearpool and credit management agency Cicada Partners to provide working capital loans to fintech and payment companies using RLUSD, a stablecoin issued by Ripple on XRP Ledger. According to the disclosure, the fund will issue loans in RLUSD. Cicada Partners will be responsible for finding borrowers, formulating loan terms, and managing credit risk; Clearpool will be responsible for building the infrastructure to create and manage loan pools; and Ripple will provide financial support as one of the investors, but the exact size of the investment has not been disclosed. Currently, this product is not available on the XRP Ledger mainnet. Ripple will participate as a limited partner, enjoy the same terms as other investors, and will not be liable for loan losses. Borrowers will receive RLUSD and use RLUSD to repay loans, which will drive demand for this stablecoin while introducing borrowing activity to XRP Ledger.

1d ago

Researchers Disclose Solana PoH Clock Attack Vulnerability: Transition Risk Unresolved Before Alpenglow Upgrades

Comparatively, according to CryptoSlate, researchers from USENIX Security publicly disclosed a clock attack vulnerability targeting Solana's Proof of History (PoH) mechanism, which was privately reported to the Solana development team as early as December 2025. Research shows that malicious scheduling leaders can manipulate the PoH logical clock by “re-anchoring” to slow down logical time progress, thereby obtaining a longer transaction selection window in physical time, and using the TowerBFT fork selection mechanism to isolate blocks of honest leaders, attackers require less than 33% of the staking ratio. Anza's 50,000 SOL Alpenglow security competition ended on August 19, but since the contest rules excluded “behavior that can only be triggered when Alpenglow is not activated,” the bug was not included in the review. The Solana development team said they are aware of the relevant behavior, believe the most severe scenarios are less likely to occur under current conditions, and they expect the Alpenglow upgrade to fundamentally eliminate the preconditions for attacks. Currently, the Alpenglow code is included in the Agave 4.2 client, but it has not been activated on the main network. It is expected to be officially launched with Agave 4.3. Until then, the vulnerability's transition risks have yet to be publicly analyzed and responded to at the implementation level.

1d ago

Arbitrum promotes ZK settlement, and L1 withdrawals are expected to be shortened from days to hours

Comparing news, the Arbitrum development team said that zero-knowledge (ZK) proofs are being introduced into the Arbitrum platform to achieve a multi-proof settlement model. Through ZK certification, the settlement time for the Arbitrum block to Ethereum L1 is expected to be shortened from a few days to a few hours. While improving the capital efficiency of users, cross-chain bridges, and protocols, security is maintained through multiple proof mechanisms. The relevant capabilities target Arbitrum One and dedicated chains based on the Arbitrum platform, and Offchain will submit an upgrade proposal to the DAO in the future. Current developments include: it is possible to run the same state transition function as optimistically in SP1 zKVM to generate ZK proofs for real mainnet blocks; Stylus' WASM contract can be proven along with Solidity contracts; the team launched an independent Rust validator to make ZK certification a first-class model in parallel with standard verification; the BoLD settlement protocol already supports acceptance of ZK proofs and endorsements by the Quick Confirmation Committee. The original controversial game is still a fallback path, forming ZK proofs, proof committees and fraud Multi-proof architecture to prove collaboration. The team says it's continuing pressure drop to prove the cost and gradually incorporate the relevant code into Nitro's main production path. The next focus includes further optimizing certification and moving to Ret-based execution, completing L1 message inbox attestation, and connecting ZK settlement capabilities to node configurations so that each chain can be enabled as needed.

1d ago

Millions of dollars are rushing into the market, but some are in a hurry to exit: Pharos's high-interest treasury causes a “view of time” collision

Article: Sanqing, Foresight NewsSharos Network joined forces with Vault infrastructure agreement R25 and credit asset management agency Axil to launch Axil Prime Credit Vault (APC), an institutional consumer credit RWA wealth management product issued by Pharos on July 15. The products were launched simultaneously with Binance Wallet, TopNod, OKX Wallet, Bitget Wallet, and KuCoin Wallet, with a total fundraising limit of 100 million USDC, with a target annualization of about 14.3%. As of the closing of the deposit window, a total of $45.39 million had been deposited. This year, there have been frequent security explosions in Web3 on-chain strategies. User funds are looking for new stable income sources, and project parties are also there. Binance Wallet is now offering an additional $300,000 PROS as an incentive to explore RWA Vault's market space, causing the Vault to generate a lot of discussion in the market. The launch time coincided with the redemption period of the Pharos TGE pre-deposit campaign. The previous treasury required the submission of a redemption application about half a month before the end of the lockdown period, stop accruing interest on July 20, and complete the redemption within 7 days. Users accustomed to DeFi T+0 looked back and found that they couldn't help but missed the redemption period and began to question the redemption time and asset safety. R25 and Axil then held an AMA at Binance Square. Well-known KOLs such as Haotian and Tianqing participated in discussions, detailing the differences between RWA assets and DeFi Vault, the role of fund managers (Curators), why consumer credit is worth allocating, and risk management methods from pre-investment to post-investment. In complex asset logic and mixed social media discussions, some users put in one million funds on the last day, while others sought early redemptions from the project party. On July 23, Pharos issued an announcement: Users who submitted applications on time in the previous issue have received all principal and interest, breaking the “financial security” concerns; funds that missed the window will automatically be carried forward to the next three-month cycle according to the treasury's preset rules, and interest will continue to be accrued at 14% USDC per annum. The controversy revealed more important issues than the redemption itself. Although the RWA TVL has exceeded $38 billion, non-institutional chain users are clearly dissatisfied when investing in RWA products. Institution-driven, stable, and high interest rates, but often require longer lockdown periods and complex understanding costs. From DeFi to RWA, is the market really ready? High yield, low threshold, and high liquidity. BlackRock's “impossible triangle” of RWA's BUIDL threshold is $5 million. It is only open to qualified buyers, yet it can be redeemed almost instantly through the stablecoin channel; the APC threshold is so low that ordinary users can buy it at will; instead, it must be locked for three months. Liquidity has never been determined by how high or low the threshold is, but rather how quickly the underlying assets can be realized. The bottom layer of BUIDL is US treasury bonds, and the world's deepest secondary market can take over at any time; the bottom layer of APC is hundreds of thousands of emerging market consumer loans, and few people are ready to buy large amounts of capital at any time. This has formed a triangle that RWA cannot bypass at this stage: high yield, low threshold, and high liquidity; the three can only take two. For example, Franklin Templeton's BENJI starts at $20 (low threshold) and supports daily redemption (high liquidity), and the annualization is only 3% to 5%; if you want double-digit returns, you have to accept non-standard assets and a lock-up period. This is the liquidity premium. A significant portion of the excess income is the consideration for abandoning liquidity. APC, on the other hand, is a combination of high returns and a low threshold, and the cost is liquidity. There is nothing wrong with this trade-off itself; it also explains the full source of this controversy. Retail investors have obtained assets that were originally only open to institutions, and they have also taken over the agency's time rules that focus on long-term matching. The period of use of institutional funds is scheduled before investment, and the lockdown period is a predictable cost; private equity credit and closed-end funds already have redemption restrictions. However, most ordinary users on the chain are not the same; most of the latter's first appeal is to go in and out. So the current “retail” RWA is mostly just distribution-side retailing, to be precise. Web3 wallets and low initial investment amounts have contributed to a low threshold, but the liquidity structure is still designed according to institutional logic. Having understood this triangle, the remaining questions became specific: why must the liquidity side be sacrificed, a high income of 14.3%...

2d agoForesight News#WEB3

Gnosis Chain received approval from GnosisDAO to transform into an EEZ Rollup, which will be the first production-level instance

Comparatively, GnosisDAO approved the transformation of the blockchain network Gnosis Chain from an independent Layer 1 network to an Ethereum Economic Zone (EEZ) Rollup with zero knowledge certification. The network will eliminate the set of independent validators and let Ethereum validators complete transaction settlement instead. The proposal received 123,158 GNOs in favor, 115 against, and 151 abstentions. The vote involved 54 participants, and the total number of participants reached 123,425 GNOs, which is above the quorum threshold of 75,000 GNOs. The upgrade is initially scheduled to begin in late 2026 or early 2027, depending on EEZ technical preparations. After the upgrade, Gnosis Chain's native smart contract can call Ethereum and use return results in the same transaction, while also connecting to Ethereum mainnet assets and liquidity. Gnosis Chain will be the first EEZ instance to be deployed and will preserve existing apps, balances, and xDAI fuel tokens.

2d ago

Will compliant ICOs be revived? New SEC regulations open up a financing channel for the cryptocurrency industry

Source: ChainCatcher Author: 0xFACAI Original title: The biggest benefit for the coin industry, is compliant token financing coming back? Public coin sales and financing have once again gained a legal path in the US. On August 18, the US Securities and Exchange Commission released a draft “Regulation Crypto Assets”. According to this draft, startups can raise $5 million in up to four years, and larger projects can raise $20 million or $75 million in 12 months. Without completing a complete set of securities registration, the project can also sell tokens to investors to raise money for network development. The biggest benefit for the coin industry, is compliant token financing coming back? Sounds like ICOs are back. But the SEC gave far more than three funding lines. It wants to establish a set of rules for tokens from birth to “graduation”: projects can be sold to finance first, but it is necessary to clearly explain what to do with this money; if the key work promised by the team is not completed, the token continues to carry the regulatory responsibility for investment terms; only after fulfilling the promise, the token has a chance to exit this level of relationship. “Promises” are the core of the entire draft, and devs must “work” until the token “graduates” before they can “sell”. The draft rules gave the project parties two options. The first type is suitable for startup teams. Assuming a project required $3 million to develop, common choices in the past were to seek venture capital, limit buyers and issue coins outside of the US, or incur the high cost of registering securities. The new draft allows it to use the “startup exemption,” raise no more than $5 million over a maximum period of four years, and file with the SEC when the funding starts and ends. The second type is suitable for projects with greater funding requirements. The first tier raised up to $20 million every 12 months, and the second tier raised up to $75 million. Compared to the $5 million startup exemption, this path can be used over and over again, but the rules are more stringent. Projects can't just hand in a white paper and start selling coins. Both exemptions require the team to disclose how the network is being managed, how the product is being prepared and developed, what security risks the code has, what the company's financial situation is, and who is managing the project. The two larger funding levels also require financial statements to be provided and continuously updated, and the $75 million tranche requires an audit. The SEC didn't remove the original fence either. Issuers and insiders with a record of serious violations cannot use these exemptions, and anti-fraud and anti-manipulation responsibilities remain in effect. If the project uses other securities exemptions at the same time, it must also comply with existing consolidated financial calculation rules. The most important aspect of how to define “graduation” in the entire draft is to treat tokens separately from the investment relationships formed around tokens. A project sells coins to raise money to build a network. Buyers often buy more than just a digital asset that can already be used. They are also expecting the team to create products, attract users, increase token demand, and profit from these efforts. This relationship, which depends on the team's future work, is what the SEC calls an “investment clause.” The token itself can be just a digital asset, but how the project sells it and what it promises to the buyer makes it covered by a layer of investment terms. What the SEC really regulates is this level of relationship between issuers and buyers. The draft designs an exit path for the token. The token can only enter a “safe harbor” after the issuer has completed or permanently ceased all key management tasks of its promises, no new related commitments, and then submitted public certification and analytical instructions to the SEC. As a result, tokens have the concept of “graduation.” When the project is sold and financed, construction is promised to the market. After the project is completed and key tasks are completed, the buyer can no longer rely on the team to fulfill the old promises before the token can “graduate” and the project party can withdraw. The new regulations don't focus on whether tokens are considered securities. In the past, the market judged when a token was no longer subject to securities laws, and often questioned whether the network was “decentralized enough.” As long as the foundation, development company, or founding team continues to work, many people will understand this as the token still relies on a central entity. The SEC draft changed the question: what promises did the project rely on to sell the tokens, and are those promises fulfilled now? Take an example. When Project A sells coins, it tells investors that the team will develop the main network, launch transfer and pledge functions, and then leave the network to a decentralized validator to operate. The main network was later launched, and the features were also available, but the validators were still controlled by the team. Since “decentralizing the network” was also a promise at the time of financing, the token is still unable to “graduate” at this point. When Project B sells coins, it only promises to create a network that can function properly, without “the team must disappear” or “the network...

2d ago22#ICO #SEC