区块链 · 37327

Sun Yuchen Says Lawsuit Against WLFI Is About Blockchain Ownership Principles

Comparing news, Bochang founder Sun Yuchen wrote that his lawsuit against World Liberty Financial (@worldlibertyfi) was ostensibly a commercial dispute involving 45 million US dollars and 4 billion tokens, but it was essentially about blockchain's founding principles. He pointed out that the industry is built on “your keys, your coins,” meaning that everyone can actually own their own assets without permission. Sun Yuchen said that the case revealed that the other party secretly embedded the power to freeze users' assets in the contract. There was no disclosure, no governance, no procedure, and that their tokens were unlocked for use within a few days. He believes that this is contrary to the name of “freedom”. If the issuer were to seize holders' assets at any time, blockchain would be no different from the old world. He will carry out the lawsuit to the end, not only to recover assets, but also to establish a precedent in court that “your assets must really belong to you”. This article is sponsored by GENG, Build Your Fortune on GENG (https://geng.one)

1m agoburnking

South Korea plans to launch a new securities market in mid-November, and the STO market is at a critical turning point

Comparatively, the Korea Exchange (KRX) plans to launch a new securities market on November 16. At that time, assets such as art, real estate, and music copyright will be traded like stocks through securities accounts. According to reports, the Korea Exchange is currently advancing the construction of relevant trading systems and preparations for market participants, and will conduct simulated trading for 6 weeks from October 6 to November 13. The official opening time may be adjusted according to the financial supervisory authority's approval process for listed products. After the market opens, investors can trade through securities company accounts, and the trading time is consistent with the stock market. Analysts believe that the securities token issuance (STO) industry in the Korean market is already at an important turning point. Although new securities listed and traded in November will be temporarily issued and registered using traditional electronic securities methods, subsequent tokenized securities based on blockchain distributed ledger issuance and management will gradually be implemented after the relevant laws are officially implemented in February 2027. (TheDailyEconomy)

1m ago

Korea Financial Supervisory Service Launches Real-Time AI Platform: Detecting Cryptocurrency Price Manipulation

Comparing news, according to N reports, Korea's Financial Supervisory Service has launched a real-time artificial intelligence platform to detect cryptocurrency price manipulation. One of the core functions of the system is the ability to identify short-term price manipulation by referring to a historical database of known market abuse strategies. The Korea Financial Supervisory Service will next expand the system to track cross-exchange capital flows and on-chain blockchain activity.

5h ago

Base App is suspected to have taken down Base Co-Creation Jesse

Comparative news. According to market news, Base App's official tweet is suspected to have taken advantage of Jesse, a number of cryptographic users posted screenshots of the robot and sparked discussion. This happened after Jesse's strategy changed in mid-July. At the time, Jesse publicly acknowledged that Base had failed to bet on on-chain social networking and creators' tokens, and handed over the leadership of the Base App to Coinbase, which was taken over by Cobie (Jordan Fish), and focused on building the Base Chain himself to promote it as a global financial blockchain. Since then, Base App has further moved towards a transaction-first, multi-chain direction.

5h ago

Opinion: Changing key provisions of the Clarity Act would cause legislation to fail and should be passed as soon as possible

Comparing news, Summer Mersinger, CEO of the US Blockchain Association (Blockchain Association), wrote that there are less than four weeks left until the US Senate votes to advance the “Clarity Act” debate on September 15. Reopening the provisions that have been under negotiation for several months at this time will not improve the bill; on the contrary, it will restart the unfinished negotiation process, which may eventually lead to the failure of the legislation. Mersinger said that the two proposed revisions proposed by the American Bankers Association (ABA) — replacing the existing standard with substantially similar interest and removing the word “simply” were not simple text adjustments, but major policy changes. She pointed out that similar interest is essentially a flexible legal standard, which may allow regulators to expand the scope of interpretation; and removing Solely will change the scope of application of stablecoin income restrictions in the GENIUS Act and affect the policy boundaries previously set by Congress. Mersinger stated that ABA's concerns that stablecoins may cause bank deposits to be lost have no real basis. The data shows that since the GENIUS Act was passed, bank of America deposits have grown for three consecutive quarters, with a cumulative increase of more than 800 billion US dollars. She stressed that what is really needed to protect consumers is to establish a digital asset regulatory framework. The Clarity Act will clarify the regulatory boundaries between the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), require registration of platforms serving US users, and implement customer asset isolation, information disclosure, and conflict of interest management rules. Mersinger finally called on the US Senate not to restart negotiations. The bill has been completed, the relevant work has been completed, and the Senate has an opportunity to push it forward on September 15, and it should be passed directly.

8h ago

Crypto industry association sues Illinois to challenge 0.2% digital asset tax

According to CoinDesk, the Crypto Innovation Commission (CCI) and Blockchain Association (Blockchain Association) recently filed a civil lawsuit in Sangam County, Illinois, to officially join the legal challenge to the state's digital asset tax policy. The move comes on the heels of a lawsuit initiated by the Digital Chamber of Commerce (Digital Chamber) last month, and marks a further escalation of the industry alliance's rivalry. The plaintiff alleges that the state's new tax law violates the US Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, and the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The source of the dispute is that the tax law requires entities that conduct business or provide services to residents in the state to pay a 0.2% digital asset transaction or storage tax if their annual income exceeds $100,000. Although lawmakers expect the measure to raise $60 million in the state budget each year, the plaintiffs said the move constituted a 'unique punitive treatment' for digital assets due to the lack of corresponding taxes on traditional assets, suspected of unjust allocation of resources through tax codes.

11h 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)

22h agoburnking

Central Cyber Security and Information Technology Commission: Accelerating legislation in emerging fields such as artificial intelligence, anti-cyber violence, digital economy, online platforms, and blockchain

Comparing news, the Central Cyber Security and Information Technology Commission issued the “Action Plan to Promote the High-Quality Development of Internet Communications Enterprises (2026-2030)”. Among them, it is mentioned to strengthen the establishment of the rule of law on the Internet. Actively carry out forward-looking research on legislation in the field of Internet communications. Accelerate legislation in emerging fields such as artificial intelligence, anti-cyber violence, digital economy, online platforms, and blockchain. Promote the revision of the “Administrative Measures on Internet Information Services” and improve legal systems such as Internet information service management, “self-media” management, and algorithm governance. Promote the enactment of the Telecommunication Law, the Cybercrime Prevention and Control Law, and cybersecurity level protection regulations, and improve the supporting provisions of the “Regulations on the Protection of Minors on the Internet” and “Regulations on the Administration of Network Data Security”. Standardize administrative inspections involving Internet communication enterprises to minimize interference with the normal production and operation activities of Internet communication enterprises. Improve supervision, management and enforcement measures adapted to the new characteristics of Internet development and governance, and strictly crack down on internet violations and regulations. This article is sponsored by GENG, Build Your Fortune on GENG (https://geng.one)

23h agoburnking
They all say stablecoins are suitable for cross-border payments; is it really faster and cheaper than Wise?

They all say stablecoins are suitable for cross-border payments; is it really faster and cheaper than Wise?

Author: Jonah Compiled by: Saoirse, Foresight News Original title: Do cross-border payments really need stablecoins? Everyone says stablecoins are better suited for cross-border payments. Is that really true? If the recipient of your transfer wants stablecoins themselves, then stablecoins are indeed an excellent cross-border solution. You can transfer money around the clock at almost zero cost and instant settlement. But the more difficult question, which is also the focus of this article, is the cross-currency scenario: what happens when one end inputs US dollars and the other end exports foreign currency (such as Mexican pesos). Most crypto industry opinion leaders will claim that stablecoins can fundamentally reduce the speed and cost of transfers in this scenario. However, people who are optimistic about stablecoins deliberately avoid the fact that fintech companies have already achieved low-cost, high-efficiency businesses of the same kind, and there is no need for stablecoins at all. So what problem do stablecoins solve? This article will sort out how the traditional agency banking system works, and also analyze the innovations made by modern fintech companies such as Wise to clarify the actual value of stablecoins. The proxy banking business assumes Alice, who is in the US, wants to send a peso to her friend Bob in Mexico. Both banks do not have branches in each other's countries, so payments cannot be completed directly. The two banks need to use a larger bank, or correspondent bank, to establish a connection. Alice's depositary bank holds funds in US dollars at this correspondent bank called GlobalBank; GlobalBank also holds pesos at BancomX Bank in Mexico. After Alice initiated the transfer, her bank withheld the funds in her account and issued instructions to GlobalBank. GlobalBank transfers $100 from the dollars stored by Alice Bank, completes the exchange according to its own exchange rate, earns the exchange rate spread, then tells BancomX to credit Bob's account and deduct its own processing fee. The entire process relies on the SWIFT system to coordinate information, and SWIFT itself also charges for messages. This underlying transfer mechanism is expensive and slow. The root cause is that all layers of intermediaries are profiting from it. In an ordinary consumer remittance scenario, the comprehensive cost of the agent banking system is about 15%, including transaction fees and foreign exchange spreads embedded in the exchange rate. In addition to this, a transfer usually takes 1 to 5 business days to complete, and each intermediary takes time to complete its own operation process. Modern fintech solutions In 2011, two friends in London had complementary financial needs: one person earned in euros but needed pounds to live in the local area; the other received a salary in pounds and had to repay a mortgage in euros to Estonia. As a result, they bypassed banks and paid each other locally: the British pound was deposited into the London account, the euro was deposited into the Estonian account, and the two funds did not flow across the border. This system later evolved into Wise. The two founders believe that this model of hedging and offsetting capital flows can be implemented on a large scale, and this model has indeed worked. Many other fintech companies have taken the same approach. Let's take another example of Alice sending money to Bob, this time using a service similar to Wise. Alice transferred dollars to the fintech company's US account; the company used its own peso funds stored in Mexico to complete the payment directly to Bob. The funds did not cross the border from beginning to end. Alice's perception of a cross-border transfer is essentially a financial institution that receives and withdraws money at the same time. Because of this, the user experience was almost instantaneous, and the fintech company needed to bear the asset liability risks associated with holding large amounts of foreign currency. In order not to touch the traditional banking system as much as possible, fintech companies will distort transactions. For example, if other users remit pesos overseas in reverse, fintech companies can internally hedge off the two capital flows. Once a currency's capital pool is seriously unbalanced, it is only necessary to seek help from the traditional banking system. At the bottom, fintech companies cobble together partner banks and various license resources, and local partners handle regions that cannot be covered by their own business. Under the premise of normal operation, this model is far superior to the traditional system. Wise only charges a small, publicly disclosed processing fee, using the actual mid-market exchange rate, no hidden exchange rate spread, and the comprehensive rate is only 0.52% (this value is mixed with some transfers in the same currency, and the foreign exchange rate is not disclosed separately). According to World Bank data, the average ratio of digital remittance services...

23h agoForesight News#agent #AI #Claude #GPT #wallets