Daily News 19

Category: Coins

Digital assets, cryptocurrencies, blockchain, and currency news.

  • Singapore Jails Six Over S$4.9M Crypto Poker Heist

    Singapore Jails Six Over S$4.9M Crypto Poker Heist

    Six Malaysian men have been sentenced to prison for an armed robbery targeting a high-stakes poker game in Singapore, where the group stole approximately S$4.9 million in cryptocurrency, cash, and luxury goods. According to Singapore Law Watch, summarizing High Court proceedings, all six pleaded guilty on September 14 to armed gang robbery and money-laundering charges related to moving stolen property from Singapore into Malaysia. Wong Chi San, 35, and Goh Boon Tong, 30, received the longest terms at 12 years and 11 months each.

    Singapore crypto heist leaves S$3.21 million unrecovered

    The final loss figure presented in court exceeded the amount initially disclosed by authorities. The Singapore Police Force’s original May 2024 statement estimated the robbers took S$4.34 million in cash, cryptocurrency, and luxury watches from 11 victims at a King Albert Park residence. Later court evidence placed the stolen property at around S$4.9 million.

    Lead prosecutor Dillon Kok told the court that police had recovered approximately S$1.69 million, leaving close to S$3.21 million missing. Prosecutors said cryptocurrency accounted for most of the property taken during the April 18, 2024 robbery.

    Court reporting put the cryptocurrency stolen from the hostess at approximately S$3.6 million. The robbers also took S$210,000 in Singapore currency, roughly US$40,000 in cash, S$55,500 worth of Emirati dirham, and a Patek Philippe watch valued above S$500,000 from her. Other victims lost Rolex watches, cash, a Richard Mille watch, and smaller personal items.

    Goh’s lawyer told the court that he helped authorities recover around 800,000 USDT from approximately 1.1 million USDT transferred to him after the robbery. She described the recovery as substantial during mitigation arguments. CNA’s court report identified the USDT transactions but did not publish the wallet addresses involved, preventing the reported transfers from being independently matched to specific public blockchain addresses from the materials released.

    Robbers targeted poker games settled with cryptocurrency

    Court documents said Wong and Goh learned in November 2023 that high-stakes poker games were being hosted at the King Albert Park property. Stakes could reach several hundred thousand dollars, while players sometimes settled payments using cryptocurrency.

    After visiting the property, the pair observed that its gate and wooden door could be left unlocked while games were underway. Wong later proposed robbing the house and, with Goh, recruited Mohd Hamidon Ahmed to obtain additional men for the operation, prosecutors said. Hamidon was promised RM1.5 million, then worth roughly S$467,000, to be divided among his group.

    On the night of April 17, Wong and Goh confirmed that a poker game was taking place. After 2 a.m. on April 18, seven masked men entered the property. Three carried machetes and two had baseball bats, according to the court account.

    The group restrained the 11 people inside, taped their mouths, and searched their phones for cryptocurrency applications. Prosecutors said Wong and Goh found substantial digital-asset balances on the hostess’ phone and directed transfers to a wallet they controlled. The robbers emptied cash from a safe and searched bedrooms for more property.

    Once the robbery was complete, Wong and Goh crossed into Malaysia through Tuas Checkpoint at approximately 2:15 a.m. The remaining members traveled through Woodlands Checkpoint around 25 minutes later. Weapons and clothing used during the crime were discarded during the escape.

    Six prison terms ranged from seven years to nearly 13

    Justice Aidan Xu described the robbery as “audacious and well-planned” and said it had “disrupted the peace and security.” The judge said deterrence and punishment were required because the crime targeted people inside a private home.

    Wong and Goh each received 12 years and 11 months in prison, 24 strokes of the cane, and a S$4,000 fine. Prosecutors treated the pair as carrying the highest culpability because they planned the operation and arranged the target, recruitment, and division of proceeds.

    Hamidon, 49, received 10 years and six months in prison and 24 strokes. Kartik Palaniappan, 34, and Muhammad Tauffiq Ahmad Fauzi, 34, were each sentenced to seven years and eight months and 24 strokes. Mohd Hashim Ismail, 51, received eight years and eight months in prison but could not be caned because of his age.

    Defense lawyers argued that some of the recruited men received much smaller shares of the proceeds. Lawyers for Kartik and Hashim said each received RM100,000, while Tauffiq’s counsel said he had limited knowledge of the detailed plan. Hamidon’s lawyer told the court that his client supplied duct tape and cable ties but refused to provide weapons.

    Following the robbery, Wong transferred roughly 1.1 million USDT to Goh in Kuala Lumpur, the court heard. The pair later found buyers for part of the cryptocurrency and received RM1.49 million in cash for an unspecified quantity of USDT.

    Hamidon eventually kept RM445,000, while Kartik, Hashim, and Tauffiq each received RM100,000. Muhammad Yusuf Kassim kept RM645,000, although court evidence said only RM245,000 was intended as his personal share, with the remainder supposedly held for the group.

    Physical crypto robberies draw more scrutiny in 2026

    The Singapore case involved physical coercion to force cryptocurrency transfers, a crime type blockchain investigators frequently refer to as a wrench attack.

    Chainalysis reported in August that more than $30 million had been successfully stolen through violent crypto attacks worldwide during the first half of 2026. Its dataset recorded 46 known incidents through late June, with home invasions accounting for 37% of cases. The firm cautioned that publicly documented incidents likely understate the actual total.

    As crypto.news reported in its coverage of the Chainalysis data, such attacks include home invasions, kidnappings, and hostage situations in which victims are forced to transfer digital assets. Chainalysis found that public blockchain records can still leave investigative trails after assets are transferred under coercion.

    CertiK counted 52 verified wrench attacks during the first six months of 2026 and placed recorded financial exposure at $124.1 million. Its definition includes stolen assets, ransom demands, frozen funds, and other amounts connected to documented incidents, meaning the figure does not represent confirmed criminal proceeds alone.

    crypto.news reported that CertiK recorded 20 crypto-related home invasions in H1 2026, up from one during the same period of 2025. CertiK said public reporting and law-enforcement records formed part of its verification process.

    Singapore has dealt with separate cryptocurrency theft cases during 2026. As Singapore court sentenced a man to two years in prison in March for involvement in a cryptocurrency theft involving more than $6.9 million in digital assets.

    One suspect remains at large after six arrests

    Singapore police initially arrested two Malaysian suspects in late April 2024 after investigators identified members of the group and obtained arrest warrants. The Royal Malaysia Police arrested the pair on April 27 and April 28 before transferring them to Singapore on April 30, according to the official Singapore Police Force account.

    The six men ultimately prosecuted in Singapore were arrested in Malaysia between April and November 2024. Tauffiq was detained before boarding a flight to Kota Kinabalu, while Goh was arrested at an airport before a planned flight to Japan.

    A seventh suspect, 33-year-old Muhammad Yusuf Kassim, had not been arrested when the sentences were imposed. Court documents cited by CNA and Singapore Law Watch said Yusuf was believed to have left Malaysia for Thailand and remained at large.

  • Terra Classic Recalculated: Measuring the Real Supply Impact of LUNC Burns

    Terra Classic Recalculated: Measuring the Real Supply Impact of LUNC Burns

    Terra Classic LUNC Burn Analysis: Supply Reduction Rate and Halving Timeline

    The short answer: LUNC burns are reducing Terra Classic’s supply measurably, but slowly. Over the twelve months to September 15, 2026, roughly 39.78 billion LUNC were destroyed. Against the chain’s reported total supply of 6.449 trillion tokens on that day, that represents a 0.62% annual reduction. If this pace continues, the supply would need approximately 112 years to halve. This article walks through the calculation step by step with verifiable figures.

    Recent Trigger: Burn Tax Tripled in August 2026

    On August 2, 2026, the Terra Classic community tripled its burn tax from 0.5% to 1.5% via governance proposal 12223, the most significant change to token economics in over a year. Six weeks later, we can assess what that tripling actually delivered. The result is more sober than the announcement suggested.

    How Much LUNC Is Really in Circulation Today

    Before discussing burns, you need the correct denominator. Terra Classic has two supply figures that are frequently confused:

    • Total supply: All existing tokens. The chain publishes this directly via its public access node: 6,449,044,459,046 LUNC (retrieved September 15, 2026).
    • Circulating supply (float): The smaller figure after deducting permanently locked tokens. CoinGecko reports 5,518,614,884,728 LUNC (5.519 trillion) for the same day.

    The gap between them is 930.43 billion LUNC (14.43% of total supply). The largest portion sits in staking: 906.57 billion LUNC are bonded to validators (14.06% of all tokens). The community pool holds a modest 8.97 billion LUNC.

    Staking means tokens are deposited with a validator, secure the chain, and cannot be traded for a 21-day unbonding period. Bonded does not mean destroyed; this supply can return at any time, making the float the more honest denominator for market impact. If you want to trade LUNC, the venue decides first: which exchanges list the pair, their fees, and regulation in Germany is covered in the comparison of the best crypto exchanges.

    One critical value: the mint module’s inflation rate sits at exactly zero. Terra Classic no longer creates new LUNC. That is the precondition for burns to have any effect; on a chain issuing new tokens simultaneously, every burn calculation would be moot.

    What the 1.5% Burn Tax Actually Removes On-Chain

    The burn tax is a levy charged on every LUNC transfer on the chain; the burned share disappears irreversibly. The rate is a protocol parameter readable directly from the node: 0.015 (1.5%) (retrieved September 15, 2026).

    The difference between collected and burned matters. Of the 1.5%, 1.2 percentage points are actually destroyed under the current resolution; the remainder flows into other chain pools. In practice: sending LUNC worth €1,000 incurs a €15 levy, of which €12 is permanently removed from supply.

    What the tax does not capture matters just as much. It applies only to on-chain movements. Trading inside a centralized exchange runs on internal books and never touches the chain. This is the construction’s weak point: the largest part of LUNC volume happens on trading venues, and that volume pays no burn tax.

    The stock fills a hall, the furnace is the size of a door: that ratio decides every burn calculation.

    Why Tripling the Burn Tax Did Not Triple the Burn

    Anyone who triples the tax rate expects roughly three times as much supply burned. That expectation has been testable since early August. Monthly figures come from the supply history that netsupply.org keeps for Terra Classic (retrieved September 15, 2026).

    • July 2026 (last full month at 0.5%): 1.62 billion LUNC burned.
    • August 2026 (first full month at 1.5%): 2.62 billion LUNC burned.

    That is a 62% increase, not 200%. Arithmetically, the tripled rate should have produced around 4.86 billion; it reached 54% of that.

    The comparison becomes more sobering when using the pre-increase average. Across the eleven months from September 2025 to July 2026, the average stood at 3.28 billion LUNC per month. August 2026 comes in 20% below that average despite the tripled tax rate.

    September provides perspective. By the 15th, 1.94 billion LUNC had been burned. Extrapolated to a full month, that gives around 3.88 billion — 18% above the eleven-month average. This projection is explicitly from half a month, not a final monthly result.

    Both readings lead to the same corridor: whether using August or the September projection, the annual rate stays between 0.49% and 0.72% of total supply. The obvious explanation: a higher levy per transfer makes moving tokens more expensive, so expensive moves happen less often. The tax base shrinks while the rate rises.

    The Binance Burn: 334.87 Million LUNC and Its Impact on Circulation

    Alongside the burn tax, a second, more visible source exists: since late 2022, Binance has burned trading fees accruing in LUNC spot and margin trading monthly. On September 1, 2026, the exchange reported its 48th monthly burn of 334.87 million LUNC (calculated from August fees). Cumulatively, the exchange stands at more than 87.76 billion LUNC; individual trackers arrive at up to 89.5 billion depending on which addresses they count.

    334.87 million sounds substantial. In proportion, it shrinks: against the float of 5.519 trillion LUNC, it amounts to 0.00607% per month. Extrapolated to a year, the Binance burn alone accounts for 0.073% of the float.

    The dollar value clarifies further. At a LUNC price of $0.0000493 on September 15, 2026, one million LUNC costs about $49. The entire monthly burn from the world’s largest crypto exchange therefore carries a value of roughly $16,500 — the amount destroyed by an event reported worldwide every month.

    Binance accounts for around 10% of the total burn over the past twelve months. The remaining 90% comes from the chain’s burn tax and voluntary burns by projects and holders. Anyone mistaking the attention paid to the monthly Binance report for its effect is looking at the smaller lever.

    Run the Numbers: Halving the Circulating Supply at Today’s Pace

    Given 39.78 billion LUNC burned in twelve months and a total supply of 6.449 trillion, the annual rate is 0.617%.

    At a constant rate, supply shrinks exponentially because every burn acts on a smaller remainder. The resulting halving period is around 112 years. Using the weaker August figure extends that to 142 years; using the September projection shortens it to 96. The corridor sits at roughly a century.

    For context: for the float to fall to one trillion LUNC (which would bring the frequently quoted one-cent-per-token mark within arithmetic reach), more than 1,100 years would pass at the Binance pace alone. Across all burn sources combined, the order of magnitude stays in the hundreds of years.

    These figures are no price forecast and say nothing about where price is heading, because that depends on demand, not supply alone. They show the order of magnitude of the supply effect — the only question that can be calculated. Whatever price expectations analysts derive from it is their assessment, not a property of the burn mechanism.

    What Has Actually Been Burned Since May 2022

    The overall balance since the May 2022 collapse varies by source: 452 to 457.5 billion LUNC, depending on which addresses are counted as burn addresses. The difference of ~5 billion tokens looks large but changes nothing in the final result.

    The cross-check works: adding the burned 452–457.5 billion back onto today’s total supply of 6.449 trillion gives an original supply of 6.901–6.907 trillion LUNC. The post-hyperinflation supply lay in exactly that order of magnitude. The two independently collected figures confirm each other.

    That implies a share of 6.55–6.62% of the original supply destroyed in four years and four months. On average, that’s ~104 billion LUNC per year — far more than the 39.78 billion of the past twelve months. The pace has slowed to roughly a third rather than picking up. The reason is plain: the big burns fell in the years with high trading volume and high attention.

    The result of this calculation is a span of time in the end, not a quantity.

    Why Deflationary and Scarce Are Two Different Things

    Deflationary for a token simply means supply falls over time. Terra Classic meets that condition demonstrably: the chain creates nothing new, and burning continues. For the twelve months to mid-September 2026, supply history shows a decline of 0.6% in total supply and 0.2% in the float.

    Scarce is something else. Scarcity arises when available supply is small relative to buyer demand. With 5.5 trillion tokens in circulation and a market cap around $272 million, Terra Classic is the opposite of scarce, even after another decade of burning.

    Both hold simultaneously: supply is falling, but on a scale that does not move the price. Anyone holding LUNC or looking to buy should avoid pinning the decision on the burn mechanism. The mechanism works as described; it merely operates on a timescale that matches no investment horizon.

    How to Check the Burn Figures Yourself in Five Minutes

    Every figure in this article is openly available; you need no account. That is the real advantage of a public chain over corporate accounts.

    • Total supply: Query Terra Classic’s public access node for the denomination uluna. The answer arrives in micro-LUNC; divide by one million for whole tokens.
    • Tax rate: The same node returns the burn tax parameter (currently 0.015).
    • Monthly figures: The supply history at netsupply.org sets burns per month against supply change.
    • Circulating supply: Comes from market data providers like CoinGecko — the only quantity here resting on a methodological decision instead of a chain value.

    Three common mistakes:

    1. Confusing total supply with circulating supply, distorting burn share by ~14%.
    2. Equating levy collected with amount burned, though only 1.2 of 1.5 percentage points are destroyed.
    3. Extrapolating a single strong month across a year, producing the tenfold figures circulating in forecast pieces.

    What a LUNC Holding Means for Your Taxes in Germany

    For the tax office, a burn is initially a non-event. Your tokens stay in your wallet; nothing is sold or allocated. A process reducing other holders’ supply triggers no taxable event for you.

    German tax law becomes relevant only on a sale or swap. Under the tax authorities’ view, crypto assets count as other economic goods; gains fall under private disposal transactions per Section 23 of the Income Tax Act. Holding longer than a year means no income tax on the gain. Within the one-year period, a gain stays untaxed only if the sum of all private disposal transactions that year stays below the €1,000 exemption threshold. Exemption threshold means: one euro above it, and the entire amount is taxable.

    The tricky part with Terra Classic is allocation. Anyone who bought in tranches over years must evidence the sequence per wallet; the tax administration accepts the FIFO method (tokens bought first count as sold first). The 1.5% burn tax on a transfer is a transaction cost, not a separately claimable loss. Which tools keep this history cleanly and produce a report a tax adviser will accept is covered in the comparison of crypto tax tools and portfolio trackers. That replaces no tax advice but saves manual reconstruction.

    Key Takeaways: LUNC Burns in Perspective

    • Always measure the burn against supply, never in absolute numbers. 334.87 million LUNC/month is 0.006% of the float and ~$16,500 in value. Check the denominator first on every burn report. Which venue lists which pair at which fees often decides your costs more than any burn: comparison of the best crypto exchanges.
    • Keep your purchase history for as long as you hold LUNC. The one-year period and the €1,000 exemption threshold decide your tax burden; both require complete acquisition data. A tax tool with a portfolio tracker handles FIFO allocation.
    • Separate custody from the trading decision. Anyone holding tokens over years to reach the holding period should avoid leaving them on an exchange permanently. Which wallet supports Cosmos-based chains like Terra Classic is shown by the comparison of software wallets.

    As of September 15, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.

  • Bitcoin Holds $75,900 as Market Cap Falls 4.70%, Charts Split

    Bitcoin Holds $75,900 as Market Cap Falls 4.70%, Charts Split

    Bitcoin Price Analysis: $75,926 Caught Between Daily Uptrend and Hourly Bearish Structure

    As of September 16, 2026, Bitcoin trades at $75,926.01, trapped in a technical standoff. The daily chart maintains a constructive long-term structure, while the hourly timeframe has already flipped bearish. The broader cryptocurrency market is under pressure, with total market capitalization declining 4.70% over the past 24 hours.

    Key Market Snapshot

    • Bitcoin Price: $75,926.01 (September 16, 2026)
    • 24-Hour Market Cap Change: -4.70%
    • BTC Dominance: 58.49%
    • Fear & Greed Index: 51 (Neutral)
    • Daily ATR14: $2,163.62 (elevated volatility)

    Daily Timeframe: Uptrend Intact but Momentum Fading

    Bitcoin’s daily trend remains structurally sound. Price sits above the EMA50 ($73,581.64) and EMA200 ($72,042.87), confirming the medium- and long-term uptrend persists. However, price has slipped below the EMA20 ($76,891.81), signaling cracked short-term momentum despite the bigger trend holding.

    Momentum Indicators Show Deceleration, Not Reversal

    • Daily RSI14: 49.26 — dead center, no conviction either way
    • MACD Line: 1,003.27 (above prior positive territory)
    • MACD Signal: 1,800.67 (line crossed below signal)
    • MACD Histogram: -797.41 (negative, momentum decelerating)

    The MACD configuration depicts a market losing steam rather than collapsing — momentum decelerating inside an uptrend, not reversing outright.

    Bollinger Bands and Key Pivot Levels

    Level Price
    Bollinger Upper Band $80,893.42
    Bollinger Mid-Band $78,088.60
    Daily Pivot $75,831.51
    Current Price $75,926.01
    Support S1 $75,552.02
    Bollinger Lower Band $75,283.78
    Resistance R1 $76,205.50

    Price has drifted into the lower third of the daily Bollinger Band range without breaching it. The daily ATR14 of $2,163.62 confirms elevated volatility — swings of this magnitude are the norm, not noise. Bitcoin is holding just above the daily pivot with resistance at R1 and support at S1, creating a tight, undecided zone.

    Hourly Chart: Confirmed Bearish Structure

    The hourly timeframe has flipped decisively bearish. Price trades below all three key exponential moving averages, stacked in textbook downtrend formation:

    • H1 EMA20: $76,162.11
    • H1 EMA50: $76,748.53
    • H1 EMA200: $77,750.43

    Hourly RSI14 at 42.46 leans bearish without reaching oversold territory, leaving room for further downside before any stretched-condition bounce becomes likely.

    Hourly MACD Shows Faint Bullish Divergence Attempt

    • MACD Line: -362.40
    • MACD Signal: -436.20
    • MACD Histogram: +73.80 (positive tick)

    The histogram has ticked positive — a small bullish crossover attempt unfolding inside an otherwise bearish setup. This signal typically appears when short-term buyers attempt to stall a decline rather than reverse it. The hourly pivot sits at $75,947.85 with resistance at R1 ($76,075.70) and support at S1 ($75,798.16), a narrow band effectively boxing price in.

    15-Minute Chart: Execution Context Only

    The 15-minute timeframe offers execution context rather than directional bias. It remains neutral and compressed, more useful for timing entries than reading the broader trend.

    • 15m RSI14: 51.43 (mildly constructive)
    • 15m MACD Histogram: +6.58 (hinting at short-lived intraday bounce)
    • EMA20: $75,900.04 | EMA50: $75,978.42 | EMA200: $76,765.24
    • 15m Pivot: $75,910 | R1: $75,944.01 | S1: $75,892

    The extremely tight range reflects the broader stalemate rather than resolving it.

    What Would Flip the Bias

    Bullish Reclamation Scenario

    Reclaiming the daily EMA20 ($76,891.81) would flip the bias back to bullish. Buyers must first push through daily R1 ($76,205.50) to open a path toward the Bollinger mid-band at $78,088.60. For this to begin, the hourly chart must invalidate its bearish regime — a close back above the H1 EMA20 ($76,162.11) and H1 EMA50 ($76,748.53) would be the first real sign the pullback is over.

    Bearish Extension Scenario

    A daily close below S1 ($75,552.02) and through the lower Bollinger Band ($75,283.78) would confirm the pullback is turning structural. Next reference points: daily EMA50 at $73,581.64 and EMA200 at $72,042.87. The hourly regime already supports this scenario with price stacked below all three EMAs. Losing the 15-minute pivot support at $75,892 with volume would confirm intraday buyers have abandoned the zone.

    Positioning and Risk Assessment

    Bitcoin currently reflects a market that has not made up its mind. The daily trend structure holds, but momentum indicators and the entire hourly timeframe lean against the bulls. Layer on a broader market that shed 4.70% of total capitalization in a single day, plus political catalysts — the Clarity Act and midterm outcome risk flagged by CNBC — and this is not a one-directional environment.

    With daily ATR above $2,100, volatility is real. A Neutral Fear & Greed reading of 51 suggests no crowd extreme to fade in either direction yet. The sensible approach: let pivot levels and EMA reclaim or loss points dictate bias rather than assuming either scenario is the default outcome.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is the Bitcoin price today?

    As of September 16, 2026, Bitcoin is trading at $75,926.01. The total crypto market capitalization is down 4.70% over the past 24 hours, with BTC dominance at 58.49%.

    Is Bitcoin in an uptrend or a downtrend right now?

    It depends on the timeframe. The daily chart shows an intact uptrend with price above the EMA50 and EMA200, while the hourly chart has already turned bearish with price below all three key EMAs. This divergence is the central tension in the market right now.

    What are the key levels to watch?

    On the upside, reclaiming the daily EMA20 at $76,891.81 and the daily R1 at $76,205.50 would be a bullish signal. On the downside, a close below S1 at $75,552.02 and the lower Bollinger Band at $75,283.78 would suggest a deeper correction toward the EMA50 at $73,581.64.

    What does the Fear & Greed Index say about current sentiment?

    The index reads 51, squarely in Neutral territory. This indicates the market has not capitulated despite the 24-hour drawdown, and there is no extreme sentiment to fade in either direction.

    Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument or cryptocurrency. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in crypto assets and financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.

    Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

  • Zcash holders overwhelmingly back faster transactions and bitcoin-style halvings

    Zcash holders overwhelmingly back faster transactions and bitcoin-style halvings

    Zcash Ironwood Upgrade Introduces Private On-Chain Governance with Shielded Voting

    Only $ZEC held in Ironwood—Zcash’s newest private transaction pool—was eligible to participate in the latest governance vote. The mechanism leverages the network’s shielded architecture to verify that coins exist and are spent correctly without publicly revealing wallet balances or transaction details.

    “Shielded” simply means the blockchain can verify that the coins exist and are being spent correctly without publicly showing the wallet balance or the details of the transaction.

    That privacy extends directly into the voting process. In a typical token-weighted vote, a wallet casting 500,000 votes effectively announces to the world that it controls 500,000 tokens and which side it supported. Zcash’s system allows that economic weight to count without publishing the holder’s balance or identity alongside their choice.

    How Shielded Voting Works

    Ballots were encrypted and split into 16 separate pieces before being counted. Validators could aggregate the final result without being able to reconstruct which holder cast which vote or how much $ZEC that person controlled. In practical terms, holders could use their actual economic stake to vote on Zcash’s monetary policy and technical roadmap while keeping the size of that stake hidden.

    Significant Increase Over Previous Governance Participation

    This represents a major jump from Zcash’s earlier coinholder polling. February’s NU7 sentiment poll drew participation equal to just 7.25% of circulating $ZEC and exposed sharp disagreements between coinholders and Zcash’s Community Advisory Panel, known as ZCAP.

    Read More: Zcash seals $1.7 billion shielded pool as Ironwood upgrade activates

  • Kamino appoints Michael Weisz CEO as RWA strategy pivots to credit

    Kamino appoints Michael Weisz CEO as RWA strategy pivots to credit

    On Tuesday, Kamino appointed Michael Weisz as chief executive and announced the formation of an institutional team in New York City. The move signals a strategic shift toward unlocking lending demand for the approximately $4 billion in real‑world assets (RWAs) now residing on Solana, rather than simply tokenizing them.

    Solana’s RWA Milestone and Kamino’s Next Step

    Solana has already proven that RWAs can be tokenized at scale. In August, the total value of RWAs on the network surpassed $4 billion across more than 350,000 wallets. As the largest borrowing protocol on Solana, Kamino views the next phase as converting that tokenized value into continuous, productive credit demand.

    Why a Yieldstreet Veteran Is Leading a Solana Protocol

    Weisz co‑founded Yieldstreet (operating as Willow Wealth), where he helped expand distribution for private‑market investments. Announcing his move on LinkedIn, he stressed that tokenization is only the starting point — functioning markets also require liquidity, credit, distribution, and infrastructure. Kamino echoed the appointment on its X account:

    We are thrilled to announce Michael Weisz (@WeiszM) as the new CEO of Kamino After more than a two decades in fintech & private markets, Michael joins Kamino to lead us into our next chapter of institutional growth, and expand Kamino to the US market A letter from Michael below https://t.co/FjxtkN1dvn
    — Kamino (@kamino) September 15, 2026

    Kamino’s institutional framework rests on four pillars: distribution, legal and compliance, asset‑manager operations, and credit and liquidity. The new Manhattan‑based team will recruit professionals from finance, law, product, compliance, and business development to sit closer to the asset managers, financial platforms, and capital providers Kamino aims to serve.

    Market Size Does Not Equal Market Utility

    Despite Solana’s impressive RWA headcount, trading activity and credit availability remain limited. For the one‑year period ending August 18, Solana accounted for 32% of on‑chain RWA spot trading and 47% of all RWA transactions, yet held only 12% of total RWA market capitalization. In dollar terms, Solana processed $14.7 billion of the $46 billion total volume. The median RWA trade on Solana was $29 versus $70 on other chains, and BlackRock’s $741 million BUIDL fund executed zero trades on the network.

    A July FinTech journal study on Ethereum‑based RWAs reached a similar conclusion: tokenization alone does not create liquidity, and higher asset values do not guarantee greater trading activity. Because that research focused on Ethereum, the comparison with Solana is directional rather than direct.

    Galaxy Research framed the disconnect succinctly:

    “Capability now runs ahead of adoption, and H2 2026 will test whether that gap closes.” — Galaxy Research

    According to Galaxy, much of Solana’s tokenized value remains idle, and lending markets have yet to transform the growing asset pool into sustainable loan demand.

    The Figure Test Case and Kamino’s Own Data

    The clearest early example is PRIME, a liquid‑staking product linked to an on‑chain lending framework used by Figure. In December 2025, Figure launched an RWA consortium on Solana with Kamino as its exclusive on‑chain credit and lending partner. Figure claims to have issued over $19 billion in on‑chain loans and to control 70% of the RWA private‑credit market. PRIME generates yield from pools that include Figure’s home‑equity loans, tying returns directly to real borrower cash flows.

    Yet Kamino’s August figures reveal how far credit utilization has to go. RWAs made up 17.2% ($426.1 million) of Kamino Lend supply, while total RWA and liquid‑staking‑token debt stayed below $3 million. PRIME also recorded $13.6 million in net outflows, and ONyc surpassed it as the top RWA asset by supplied value.

    Chart: Solana RWA Activity vs Credit Use – Kamino Supply, Debt and PRIME Outflows

    A Capacity Upgrade Underneath the Pitch

    Solana’s infrastructure is evolving to support more complex institutional workflows. On Tuesday, the network activated Transaction V1 on mainnet, increasing the maximum transaction size from 1,232 to 4,096 bytes — roughly 3.3 times more capacity, according to Cryptopolitan. This extra room allows complex instructions, larger multisig operations, and proof‑heavy workloads to fit into a single atomic transaction instead of being split across multiple transactions.

    Greater capacity alone does not guarantee adoption. Kamino’s real test is whether asset managers, lenders, and borrowers begin routing meaningful credit through Solana. Closing that gap is precisely the challenge Michael Weisz has been brought in to solve.

  • Solana V1 Upgrade Expands Transaction Size 3.3x: What It Means for SOL

    Solana V1 Upgrade Expands Transaction Size 3.3x: What It Means for SOL

    Solana V1 Upgrade Expands Transaction Capacity 3.3x, Fueling Record On-Chain Activity

    High transaction throughput remains a leading indicator of blockchain network strength, and Solana is demonstrating significant momentum following its V1 upgrade. The protocol enhancement increases maximum transaction size from 1,232 bytes to 4,096 bytes — a 3.3x expansion that effectively gives each transaction substantially more data capacity.

    Transaction Volume Reaches Historic Levels

    To visualize the change, consider a transaction as a data container with limited space. The previous 1,232-byte limit constrained complex operations, while the new 4,096-byte ceiling accommodates significantly larger payloads. This upgrade arrives as Solana enters the final quarter with exceptional on-chain activity, positioning 2026 for potential record-breaking performance.

    According to data from Blockworks, non-vote transactions surpassed 10 billion in Q1, reaching an all-time high before settling near 9.7 billion in Q2. This translates to an average of nearly 10 billion quarterly transactions excluding governance votes — a baseline that the V1 upgrade now amplifies by enabling each transaction to carry 3.3x more data.

    Technical Implications for Complex Applications

    The Solana Foundation highlights that this expanded capacity is particularly critical for zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) verification, large multisignature transactions, and other compute-intensive operations. Previously, these activities required splitting logic across multiple transactions; they can now execute atomically within a single transaction. This reduction in complexity lowers barriers for developers and could onboard a new wave of users and applications.

    Financial Metrics Show Accelerating Growth

    Solana’s economic diversification across memecoins, decentralized exchanges (DEXs), and derivatives platforms provides a broad revenue base. The V1 upgrade arrives as on-chain economy revenue across these segments reached $327 million in Q3, up from $265 million in Q2 — a 23.4% quarter-over-quarter increase, per DeFiLlama data.

    While the upgrade doesn’t guarantee higher revenue automatically, the additional transaction capacity creates headroom for sustained growth across DeFi, stablecoins, DEXs, and derivatives. If current activity trends continue, increased fee generation could strengthen network revenue and, by extension, the $SOL token’s fundamental valuation.

    Key Takeaways

    • 3.3x transaction data increase: V1 upgrade raises max transaction size from 1,232 to 4,096 bytes.
    • Record transaction volume: ~10 billion non-vote transactions per quarter (Q1: 10B+, Q2: 9.7B).
    • Revenue accelerating: Q3 on-chain economy revenue hit $327M, up 23.4% from Q2’s $265M.
    • New application scope: Atomic execution for ZKPs, large multisigs, and complex DeFi logic.
    • Economic catalyst: Expanded capacity supports fee growth across diversified crypto verticals.

    The true test ahead is whether this technical capacity translates into sustained economic value capture for the Solana ecosystem and its native token.

  • Bitcoin ETFs Record $450M Outflow, Biggest Since June

    Bitcoin ETFs Record $450M Outflow, Biggest Since June

    Spot Bitcoin ETFs See Largest Outflows Since June as Senate Crypto Bill Stalls

    U.S.-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded their most significant day of net outflows since late June on Tuesday, reversing the previous day’s inflows after a major cryptocurrency legislative effort stalled in the Senate.

    Net Outflows Top $450 Million

    The 13 U.S.-listed funds saw a net $450.4 million outflow on Tuesday, according to data from Farside Investors. This follows a $159.9 million net inflow on Monday. The single-day withdrawal marks the largest since June 24, when the funds lost $469 million amid a broader technology stock sell-off that pressured risk assets.

    Fund-by-Fund Breakdown

    Fidelity’s FBTC led the outflows, shedding $214.8 million. The BlackRock iShares Bitcoin Trust followed with $161.7 million in withdrawals. Other notable outflows included:

    • Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF (GBTC): $44.1 million
    • ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF (ARKB): $17.4 million
    • Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (BITB): $12.4 million

    Bitcoin Price Reacts

    At the time of writing, Bitcoin is trading at $75,700, representing a 2.5% decline over the last 24 hours, according to CoinMarketCap data. The price movement coincides with the ETF flow reversal and the legislative setback in Washington.

    Legislative Context

    The sharp reversal in fund flows comes as a major crypto market structure bill stalled in the U.S. Senate, removing a near-term catalyst that had supported positive sentiment around regulated crypto investment products.

  • Crypto Longs Worth $570 Million Wiped Out as Clarity Act Fails

    Crypto Longs Worth $570 Million Wiped Out as Clarity Act Fails

    Crypto traders holding long, or bullish, futures positions suffered significant losses over the past 24 hours following the failure of the Clarity Act in a Senate procedural vote.

    Liquidation Data Reveals Heavy Long-Side Damage

    Exchanges liquidated approximately $571 million in long positions during this period, marking the highest total since August 22, according to data from CoinGlass. In contrast, short, or bearish, positions accounted for only about $100 million of the total wipeout.

    Bitcoin and Ether Lead Liquidation Tally

    Bitcoin and ether longs absorbed the heaviest damage, with roughly $190 million liquidated in each asset. XRP longs lost about $30 million, while Solana longs saw approximately $22 million in liquidations.

    Market Positioning Reflected Legislative Optimism

    The liquidation data indicates markets were positioned for continued upside, largely driven by hopes that the Clarity Act would advance. Analysts had previously flagged ether and DeFi tokens as the assets most likely to outperform bitcoin if the Senate voted in favor of the legislation.

    Trump Concession Reports Fueled Recent Rally

    Optimism strengthened earlier this week after reports that President Donald Trump was willing to make concessions on the bill’s ethics provisions. The market responded positively: bitcoin, the largest cryptocurrency by market value, rose to nearly $80,000 from about $77,000 on Monday.

  • Crypto Sector Surges 213% Since Bitcoin’s 2025 Peak as One Coin Leads the Rally

    Crypto Sector Surges 213% Since Bitcoin’s 2025 Peak as One Coin Leads the Rally

    Privacy Coins Surge 213% Since Bitcoin’s October 2025 Peak, Led by Zcash Rally

    Privacy-focused cryptocurrencies have climbed 213% since Bitcoin’s October 2025 high, even as BTC remains significantly below that level, according to a market breakdown published today by analyst Wise Crypto. The sector’s combined market capitalization has grown from $7.1 billion a year ago to $33.6 billion currently, though the gains are heavily concentrated in a single asset.

    Zcash Dominates Privacy Sector Growth

    Zcash (ZEC) accounts for roughly 62% of the privacy category’s total market cap on its own, rising 25x over the past year. Its market-cap ranking surged from #82 to as high as #7 at one point, though CoinGecko data currently places it at #9. Glassnode data published last week corroborated the trend, finding that privacy was the only crypto sector trading above its October peak, with every other category still down by double digits.

    Grayscale’s Zcash ETF, trading under the ticker ZCSH, crossed $500 million in assets within two weeks of launch. Monero (XMR), the second-largest privacy asset, has approximately doubled over the same period despite facing delistings from several exchanges. Among the 25 largest crypto assets, Wise Crypto noted that only four — ZEC, HYPE, XMR, and WBT — are still trading above their October levels.

    Investors Highlight Diversification Beyond Major Chains

    Investor Dan Tapiero told The Wolf of All Streets on September 11 that the moves in ZEC and HYPE this cycle demonstrate crypto is no longer just a Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana story. “Zcash has been an enormous winner this year,” he said, pointing to broader activity building outside the three largest chains.

    A day later, Egor Sidelska of Infinex argued that privacy is one of the only parts of crypto that hasn’t already been built out and cloned across other chains, calling ZEC “the last 100x in crypto that isn’t a random meme coin.”

    Valuation Debate Continues Amid Rapid Appreciation

    Not all analysts are convinced the rally is fully justified. Analyst filbfilb recently pushed back on how far the Zcash advance can be trusted, sharing valuation models that compared ZEC’s transaction activity against Bitcoin’s at a similar stage of issuance. Those models implied a price around $944 — below current levels — though convergence scenarios place fair value much higher if Zcash continues closing the gap.

    At the time of writing, ZEC was changing hands at approximately $1,140, flat on the day but up 32% over the last two weeks and more than 2,100% over the past year. The token remains well off its 2016 all-time high near $3,190. Meanwhile, Bitcoin traded near $77,000, down just over 1% in 24 hours and about 34% over one year, leaving it roughly 39% below its own October 2025 all-time high.

  • Cardano Joins Mastercard Crypto Program: Can ADA Drive Mainstream Adoption?

    Cardano Joins Mastercard Crypto Program: Can ADA Drive Mainstream Adoption?

    Mastercard’s engagement with Cardano signals potential collaboration rather than direct integration of the blockchain into the payments giant’s core platform. The development opens avenues for future use cases, though it stops short of an established institutional relationship. Should discussions progress into live payment applications, Cardano would gain a notable level of institutional recognition.

    Cardano’s Stablecoin Liquidity Faces Critical Test

    A primary hurdle for Cardano’s payment ambitions is stablecoin liquidity. The network’s stablecoin market currently holds approximately $60 million, but data from Cardanoscan.io shows that USDCx accounts for over 70% of that total, representing roughly $43 million in dollar-denominated assets.

    Most current activity stems from decentralized finance (DeFi) applications rather than real-world payments. This distinction matters because Mastercard’s program targets cross-border transfers, B2B payments, and settlement. Despite Cardano’s low fees, the limited liquidity constrains the network’s ability to process significant payment volumes. Growth in USDCx circulation, active user wallets, and overall transfer volumes would signal stronger payment demand and help convert theoretical potential into practical utility.

    Can Cardano Scale for Global Payments?

    The viability of Cardano as a payment rail will be tested through user adoption. According to Token Terminal data, daily active users hover near 10,000, while monthly active accounts reached 323,600. This suggests a large base of users retains access and interacts with the network intermittently.

    Cardano’s average transaction fee of $0.06 supports small, high-volume cross-border transfers. However, the central question remains whether users are actively employing stablecoins for payments. If daily activity stays low, payment capacity remains largely theoretical. Rising stablecoin transfer counts, payment-focused wallets, and transaction frequency would demonstrate growing demand and give the Mastercard partnership tangible significance.