The hardware wallet market has seen a quiet revolution over the past few years. Even though traditional USB-style devices like Ledger and Trezor still dominate the conversation, a new category of card-shaped cold wallets has emerged. These devices look like credit cards, fit in your wallet, and use NFC to sign transactions. No cables, no batteries, no Bluetooth pairing. Just tap and go.

Two names stand out here; DCENT S and Tangem. Both use EAL6+ certified secure elements, and both promise to make self-custody easier than ever. But they take fundamentally different approaches to one critical area – backup and recovery. This single difference shapes everything else about how these wallets work and who they are for.

DCENT S launched in July 2026 as the latest offering from IOTRUST, a South Korean company with years of hardware wallet engineering experience. Tangem has been around longer and comes from Switzerland, with a strong focus on simplicity and beginner accessibility. Both have loyal followings, but they serve slightly different users.

This comparison breaks down every important aspect of these two wallets so you can decide which one fits your needs. We will look at design, security, backup systems, supported assets, daily usability, mobile apps, and overall value.

DCENT S vs Tangem: Quick Comparison

Design & Build Quality

Both wallets use a credit-card-sized form factor. The DCENT S measures 85.6 by 54 millimeters and comes in at just 0.9 millimeters thick. That is thinner than most standard payment cards. Tangem is similarly sized and feels just as slim and lightweight. Both devices fit easily into any wallet slot alongside your other cards.

Tangem offers an additional form factor that D’CENT does not; a wearable ring. If you prefer something even more convenient than a card, the Tangem ring lets you carry your wallet on your finger. It is a nice option for people who do not want to carry another card or who simply like the novelty of a crypto ring.

The build quality on both is excellent. DCENT S carries an IP69 dust and water resistance rating, while Tangem goes slightly higher with IP69K. In practical terms, both can survive being dropped in water, exposed to dust, and subjected to everyday wear and tear. Tangem also advertises resistance to X-rays, electrostatic discharge, and electromagnetic pulses, which adds another layer of durability for people who travel frequently or work in environments where such exposure is possible.

Temperature tolerances are similar. DCENT S operates from minus 30 to plus 50 degrees Celsius, while Tangem works from roughly minus 25 to plus 50 degrees Celsius. Either wallet will function in hot cars, freezing winters, or tropical climates.

The one difference that stands out is that Tangem offers a 25-year warranty on their hardware, while DCENT S provides a limited lifetime warranty. Both are generous, and neither company expects you to replace your wallet anytime soon.

Security & Private Key Protection

This is where both wallets are remarkably similar – and that is a good thing. Both use EAL6+ certified secure elements. This is the same level of security certification used for government IDs, passports, and EMV payment cards. It protects against both invasive physical attacks and non-invasive side-channel attacks.

The private key generation process is identical in concept. When you set up either wallet, the secure element generates your private key on-device. The key never leaves the chip under any circumstances. It never touches your smartphone, never goes to the cloud, and never gets stored on company servers.

Both wallets are battery-free and get powered entirely by your phone’s NFC field during signing sessions. This means there is no always-on power source that could be exploited. The card is inert until you tap it against your phone, which significantly reduces the attack surface compared to Bluetooth-enabled wallets that remain discoverable.

Tangem adds anti-counterfeit verification through their app, which lets you confirm that your card is genuine before you use it. DCENT S does not emphasize this feature in their marketing, though the secure element itself provides strong protection against cloning attempts.

Firmware security is another point where Tangem has an edge in transparency. They have had their firmware independently audited by Kudelski Security in 2018 and Riscure in 2023. DCENT S is newer to the market, and while their secure element is certified, they have not published equivalent third-party audit results at this stage.

Both wallets lock themselves automatically after repeated incorrect PIN entries, and both include tamper protection that locks the card if someone attempts to physically extract the chip.

Backup & Recovery

This is where the two wallets diverge completely, and it is the single most important difference between them.

DCENT S uses what they call the R3covery Card. Every box contains two cards – the main DCENT S for everyday transactions and a dedicated recovery card. The recovery card cannot sign transactions. Its only purpose is to restore your wallet if you lose your primary card. The backup is stored inside another EAL6+ secure chip, so your recovery data is never displayed as words, never written on paper, and never typed anywhere.

If you lose your DCENT S, you tap the R3covery Card against your phone, restore the wallet, and then move everything to a new DCENT S card. The recovery card itself remains a high-value target because whoever holds it can restore your wallet. The company recommends storing the two cards in different physical locations.

Tangem takes a different approach. Instead of a dedicated recovery card, they sell wallet sets that include two or three identical cards (or combinations of cards and a ring). During setup, the private key is securely copied to all devices in the set. Any of these duplicate cards can function as the primary wallet. If you lose one card, you simply use another from your set.

The Tangem approach means you do not need to order a replacement card just to restore access. You already have a backup ready to go. The downside is that every card in your set can sign transactions. If someone gets hold of one of your backup cards and knows your PIN, they have full access to your funds. With DCENT S, the recovery card cannot sign anything, so even if stolen, it is useless without the main card and PIN.

There is a trade-off here. Tangem offers immediate redundancy – you have multiple working cards from day one. DCENT S offers a recovery-only backup that cannot be misused for transactions but requires you to obtain a new primary card after loss.

Supported Coins & Networks

DCENT S supports over 100 blockchain networks and more than 4,900 tokens. Tangem supports more than 90 blockchain networks and over 14,000 tokens.

In practice, both wallets cover all the major assets you are likely to hold. Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Solana, Stellar, Polygon, and BNB Chain are supported on both. New chains are added through app updates on both platforms, so you do not need to update the physical card firmware.

Where DCENT S distinguishes itself is in XRP support. The company has been working with the XRP Ledger since 2018, and they make a point of emphasizing full XRPL functionality. Trust Lines, decentralized applications, swaps, sending, receiving, and holding XRP are all fully supported. If you are active on the XRP Ledger, DCENT S feels like it was built specifically for you.

Tangem supports XRP as well, but they do not make it a central part of their marketing. For most users, both wallets cover everything they need. The difference in token count is more about counting methodology than actual compatibility.

Ease of Setup & Daily Use

Both wallets are exceptionally easy to set up. Tangem claims a two-minute setup time, while DCENT S estimates three minutes. In reality, both are fast enough that the difference is negligible. You download the app, tap the card, create a PIN, and you are ready to send and receive crypto.

Daily use is where the similarity continues. Both wallets require an NFC-enabled Android or iPhone. You open the app, create a transaction, tap the card against your phone, wait about one second for the signing to complete, and the transaction is broadcast. No cables, no pairing, no charging.

Neither wallet has a display, which means you cannot verify transaction details directly on the device. You rely on the app to show you the transaction details before you sign. This is a trade-off for the card form factor – traditional hardware wallets with screens offer an extra layer of verification that these card wallets cannot provide.

For people who frequently use their crypto on mobile devices, both wallets feel natural. The tap-to-sign workflow is almost identical to using a contactless payment card. It takes the friction out of self-custody and makes it feel like a normal part of your daily routine.

Mobile App Experience

The DCENT app and Tangem app both serve as the primary interface for managing your assets. They let you send and receive crypto, view your portfolio, and track transaction history. Both apps are available for Android and iOS.

Tangem’s app has been around longer and benefits from more mature feature development. It offers built-in swapping through integrated providers, staking support for certain assets, and the ability to connect to decentralized applications. The portfolio tracking and market price features are polished and regularly updated.

DCENT’s app is part of a broader ecosystem that includes their other hardware wallet products. It is clean, functional, and gets the job done. The app supports swapping, portfolio tracking, and all the basic functions you need. It may not have quite as many built-in services as Tangem, but it covers the essentials well.

Both apps are beginner-friendly and do not assume prior experience with cryptocurrency. If you can use a basic banking app, you can use either of these.

Price & Value

Pricing for both wallets depends on the configuration you choose. Tangem offers two-card and three-card sets, with higher prices for larger sets. The ring version is also priced higher than the card version. DCENT S comes as a single primary card plus the R3covery Card in every box.

DCENT S launched with free U.S. shipping, delivered duty paid, a 30-day money-back guarantee, and a limited lifetime warranty. Tangem typically offers similar shipping options and warranty coverage, though their standard warranty is 25 years rather than lifetime.

When comparing value, the backup method matters. With Tangem, you are paying for multiple working cards upfront. With DCENT S, you get one working card and one recovery-only card. If you lose your primary DCENT S, you need to buy a replacement. If you lose a Tangem card, you already have another one in your set.

Tangem and DCENT S take different approaches to backup. Tangem focuses on immediate multi-card redundancy, while DCENT S separates daily use from recovery by pairing the main card with a dedicated R3covery card.

DCENT S vs Tangem: Pros & Cons

DCENT S Pros:

• Dedicated recovery card that cannot sign transactions
• Seedless setup available
• Full XRPL support with Trust Lines, dApps, and swaps
• Thinner card design at 0.76mm
• Limited lifetime warranty
• Korean hardware engineering with design and assembly in South Korea

DCENT S Cons:

• Fewer built-in app features compared to Tangem
• No third-party security audit published yet

Tangem Pros:

• Multiple identical cards included, immediate backup ready
• 25-year warranty
• Wider token support (14,000+)
• More mature app with built-in staking, swapping, and dApp connectivity
• Available in ring form factor
• Independent firmware audits by Kudelski and Riscure

Tangem Cons:

• Every backup card can sign transactions (higher risk if stolen)
• No dedicated recovery-only card option
• Slightly thicker than DCENT S
• Less emphasis on XRP-specific features

Which Wallet Should You Choose?

After spending time with both wallets and looking closely at what each one offers, I lean toward the DCENT S for most users. The deciding factor is the backup system.

Tangem gives you multiple identical cards that all work as primary wallets. This is convenient, no question about it. If you lose one card, you grab another from your set and keep going. But here is the catch – every single one of those cards can sign transactions. If someone steals one of your backup cards and figures out your PIN, they have full access to your funds. The redundancy is nice, but the security model is less segmented.

DCENT S takes a different approach that I find more thoughtful. The R3covery Card cannot sign transactions. Its only purpose is to restore your wallet. This means even if someone gets hold of your backup card, they cannot move a single coin without also having your primary card and PIN. That separation between daily use and emergency recovery is a smarter security design. You store the two cards in different places, and you have built-in protection against a single point of failure.

The XRP support on DCENT S is another strong reason to choose it. Full XRPL functionality with Trust Lines, decentralized applications, and swaps makes it the obvious choice if you hold XRP or interact with the XRP Ledger. Tangem also supports XRP, but DCENT S places more emphasis on XRP-oriented workflows and recovery-focused positioning.

There is also something to be said for a company that has been building hardware wallets since 2017 and serves users across 220 countries. IOTRUST has engineering experience that predates many of their competitors. The DCENT S is designed and assembled in South Korea, which speaks to the quality control and manufacturing standards you get with the product.

At the end of the day, both wallets represent a major step forward in making self-custody accessible. But the DCENT S offers a more secure backup architecture, better XRP support, and the peace of mind that comes from knowing your recovery card cannot be used against you. That is why I would choose it over Tangem.

The post DCENT S Wallet vs Tangem: Full Comparison of Design, Security, Supported Coins, and Mobile App appeared first on Cryptonews.

In Ethereum news today, spot ETFs recorded $105M in net inflows during the week of July 13–17, 2026, the strongest weekly figure since April and a measurable acceleration from the prior week’s $84M.

The two consecutive positive weeks end an eight-week outflow streak, raising the direct question of whether this is a durable institutional re-engagement or a short-term technical bounce that will stall at the first sign of ETH price weakness.

Flow-tracking platforms CoinGlass and Farside Investors both confirm the reversal, with data showing renewed net creations across the Ethereum ETF complex after two months of persistent redemptions.

The prior week’s $84M was itself notable as the streak-breaker; the follow-through to $105M adds weight to the argument that the reversal has legs rather than being a single-week anomaly.

Ethereum News: BlackRock’s ETHA Is Carrying the Category

BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust, trading under the ticker ETHA, has consistently accounted for the majority of daily net positive flows across the entire Ethereum ETF landscape. On July 15 alone, in a single session during the reported week, ETHA captured a substantial share of the day’s $53.83M in complex-wide inflows, according to data from BingX.

The concentration dynamic cuts both ways. ETHA’s brand, distribution reach, and institutional trust give it a structural pull that smaller issuers cannot easily replicate, which explains why BlackRock’s ETF inflows have driven ETH price action more than any other single product in the category.

But it also means the health of the entire spot ETF complex is effectively contingent on one fund; if ETHA flows stall or reverse, the broader category tips back into net outflow territory almost immediately.

As of mid-July, cumulative complex-wide net inflows across nine issuers since the category launched in July 2024 totaled approximately $11.07Bn, with total net asset value near $10.4Bn, per BingX data. ETHA’s own cumulative net inflow reached $11.28Bn.

ETH Price at $1,845: The $1,800 Level Is the Key Variable

ETH price traded at approximately $1,845 during the inflow week, with the $1,800–$1,900 range serving as a critical demand zone. Buyers have consistently stepped in near the lower end of that band, and the structural logic is straightforward.

Sustained spot ETF inflows create a mechanical bid, because each new creation requires the fund to purchase actual ETH to back its shares. At $80–105M in weekly inflows, this represents consistent buy pressure absent during the eight-week redemption period.

The $1,800 level is therefore not just a technical support reading; it is partially a function of ETF flow dynamics. A breakdown below that zone would likely signal either a sharp deceleration in institutional demand or net outflow resumption, both of which would remove the mechanical bid that has been supporting prices.

The inverse is also true: sustained weekly inflows in the $80–105M range provide a floor that did not exist during the prior two-month drawdown.

Institutional Crypto Momentum and What the Data Confirms and What It Doesn’t

In other Ethereum news, the $105M weekly figure is the best since April, but it remains modest compared with the peaks the category reached during more euphoric periods in 2024 and early 2025. Calling this an institutional comeback is accurate as a directional statement; framing it as a full-scale rotation back into institutional crypto ETF allocation requires more evidence. Two consecutive positive weeks after a prolonged outflow streak is a reversal, not yet a trend.

What the data does confirm is that institutional interest in Ethereum as a strategic portfolio asset has not evaporated, despite two months of redemptions suggesting otherwise. The speed of the reversal, from outflow-heavy weeks to back-to-back inflow weeks accelerating from $84M to $105M, indicates that allocators were watching specific price and macro conditions before re-engaging, rather than abandoning the category entirely.

For context on how Ethereum’s ETF recovery compares to the broader spot ETF landscape, XRP ETF flows have shown a different pattern, which underlines that the current Ethereum inflow momentum is asset-specific rather than a broad crypto ETF tide lifting all products.

The forward scenario is binary and relatively clean. If ETHA sustains its pace of flow through late July and ETH holds the $1,800 support zone, the two-week reversal will validate the start of a genuine institutional re-accumulation phase.

If flows decelerate sharply or ETHA specifically turns negative, the outflow streak resumes and the $1,800 floor loses its structural underpinning. The next two weeks of weekly flow data from CoinGlass and Farside Investors will settle that question more definitively than any price chart reading alone.

Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio

The post Ethereum News: BlackRock’s ETHA Drives ETH ETF Reversal With Back-to-Back Inflow Weeks appeared first on Cryptonews.

In Bitcoin news today, Michael Saylor, co-founder of Strategy and the largest publicly listed corporate BTC holder, has gone on record opposing BIP-110, the proposed one-year soft fork that would restrict non-financial data storage on the Bitcoin blockchain, arguing that the proposed cure carries more systemic risk than the condition it targets.

His critique, posted to X and covered by the Bitcoin Foundation on July 11, frames the entire debate not as a spam-management question but as a Bitcoin governance question: who decides what constitutes a valid transaction, and what happens once that line is drawn within the protocol.

That framing cuts directly to the precedent problem. As Saylor stated in his X post, “He wrote: “BIP 110 turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions.

That precedent is the danger.” The concern is not specifically about Ordinals or blockchain spam today; it is about what the protocol becomes the moment it starts filtering transactions by perceived intent rather than fee payment and cryptographic validity.

Bitcoin News: The Miner Threshold is the Flashpoint

BIP-110’s activation mechanics have drawn as much fire as its content. The proposal would lock in if miners signal support in at least 55% of blocks during a 2,016-block period – well below the 95% threshold that has historically governed permanent consensus changes in Bitcoin.

Saylor has flagged this reduction as a structural risk, warning it could produce a network split and sustained market uncertainty at a moment when no such disruption is justified by the underlying threat.

The current miner signaling picture gives that warning context: as of July 13, support stood at approximately 1.3%, per the public BIP-110 signaling monitor at bip110.org. The voluntary signaling deadline falls around block 961,542 in August.

A 55% threshold is aggressive by any historical standard in Bitcoin governance; at 1.3% support, it is also currently unreachable, but the threshold itself remains a live governance concern regardless of the present signal count.

The technical scope of the proposal is sweeping for a supposedly temporary measure. BIP-110 would restore a tighter limit on OP_RETURN outputs, restrict larger data uploads, and reject blocks containing transactions that are valid under Bitcoin’s current rules.

Nodes adopting BIP-110 would, in effect, enforce a narrower definition of which transactions are acceptable than non-adopting nodes, a split scenario Saylor is flagging.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

Bitcoin Neutrality vs. Protocol Gatekeeping

Saylor’s deeper argument is that Bitcoin neutrality is not a soft preference; it is a structural property the network cannot afford to compromise.

With this Bitcoin news drop, the proposal reframes the change to consensus rules to fight spam as a decision about which valid, fee-paying transactions the network should accept, raising concerns about embedding judgment in the protocol.

The chilling-effect logic follows directly. If consensus rules can be modified to exclude data storage when a segment of the community labels it as spam, the same mechanism is available for other categories that would raise similar concerns.

The institutional investors who have followed Strategy’s lead and the broader wave of corporate treasury adoption across the Bitcoin corporate treasury space are implicitly betting on protocol stability. A governance mechanism that can exclude valid use cases introduces a risk category unrelated to price or macro.

There is also a direct fee-revenue argument. Suppressing on-chain use cases, whatever their aesthetic merit, can affect the demand for transaction fees.

Saylor’s position is that market-based fees and individual relay policies are the correct instruments for managing unwanted data traffic, because they operate without altering consensus and can be reversed or adjusted without a network-wide coordination event.

Broader Opposition and What Comes Next

In other Bitcoin news, Saylor is not the only prominent voice pushing back. Other long-standing Bitcoin contributors have also publicly opposed BIP-110. The debate has surfaced a wider tension in Bitcoin governance over who holds effective veto power: miners, developers, node operators, or major holders, and whether a 55% miner threshold is a legitimate activation path for changes of this scope.

With miner support effectively at zero six weeks before the August deadline and no clear institutional momentum building behind the proposal, BIP-110 may be difficult to push through under the required 55% signaling threshold. But the governance argument Saylor is making does not expire with this particular proposal.

The question of whether Bitcoin’s consensus layer should ever be used to discriminate between transaction types, and who gets to make that call, is now squarely on the table. Institutional players have a direct stake in how that question gets answered.

Strategy holds approximately 843,775 BTC. His argument is not philosophical posturing. It is a position from the largest corporate Bitcoin balance sheet in existence, and it lands squarely on the side of preserving the protocol’s neutrality.

Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio

The post Bitcoin News: Saylor Warns BIP-110 Trades Bitcoin Neutrality for a Dangerous Precedent appeared first on Cryptonews.

Zcash’s Orchard implementation has increased interest in how users move between different privacy-focused assets, including swaps between Zcash and Monero. For those not familiar with Orchard, this is Zcash’s third-generation shielded pool, which is built to replace older privacy systems with stronger efficiency and more modern cryptography.

It uses the Halo 2 proving system, Pallas-based keys, and unified addresses. All of these make private transactions and address handling simpler and more flexible than Sapling.

Orchard is created to hide sender, recipient, and amount for shielded ZEC transfers while keeping the protocol auditable at the network level.

Privacy coins are facing increased regulatory scrutiny and exchange delistings, so many crypto traders are rotating between assets like BTC to XMR, ETH to XMR, ZEC to XMR, or XMR to ZEC depending on exchange listings, wallet support, regulatory developments, privacy preferences, and ecosystem changes.

The ZEC to XMR pair is at the intersection of two very different privacy philosophies. And it can be done in just one step using GhostSwap.

Zcash vs. Monero: What’s the Difference?

Both Zcash and Monero are privacy-focused cryptos, yet they use fundamentally different approaches to protecting user privacy.

Zcash: Optional Privacy

Zcash offers privacy through zk-SNARKs, shielded addresses, and zero-knowledge proofs. The key characteristic is that privacy is optional; Zcash supports both transparent transactions and shielded transactions, and users choose which they use.

This flexibility has trade-offs. Researchers have repeatedly noted that anonymity depends partly on adoption of shielded transactions. Users can accidentally transact transparently, and privacy depends on usage patterns. Historical research has found shielded adoption lower than ideal for maximum anonymity.

However, Zcash also offers advantages: very advanced cryptography, relatively small transaction sizes, selective disclosure capabilities, and regulatory flexibility due to the transparent option.

Monero: Privacy by Default

Monero takes the opposite strategy. Privacy is not optional. Every transaction uses ring signatures, stealth addresses, and RingCT by default. There’s no “transparent mode”; every transaction is private automatically.

This mandatory privacy provides benefits: strong fungibility, no need to think about address types, shielding funds, or privacy settings. Monero supporters often argue that every XMR is effectively identical, whereas coins on transparent chains may carry transaction history.

However, Monero’s mandatory privacy comes with trade-offs: larger transaction sizes, more limited exchange support, and more regulatory scrutiny globally.

How to Swap ZEC to XMR Using GhostSwap

GhostSwap makes sure you can swap Zcash to Monero extremely easily. The platform supports both Zcash (ZEC) and Monero (XMR) as primary assets, and the ZEC to XMR page follows the same workflow as GhostSwap’s other pair pages.

Core user flow:

• Select ZEC as the asset being sent
• Select XMR as the asset being received
• Enter a Monero wallet address (the destination for your XMR)
• Optionally enter a refund address (recommended)
• Send ZEC to a temporary deposit address
• Receive XMR after confirmations

The platform markets this as:

• No account creation
• No email
• No KYC for standard swaps
• Non-custodial swap process
• Cross-chain conversion
• Typically completed in minutes depending on network conditions

The swap requires only an XMR destination address and a recommended refund address. No name, email, phone number, or identity documents are requested during the normal flow.

GhostSwap states most privacy-coin swaps finish within roughly 5–30 minutes overall as this depends on source-chain confirmations and congestion.

The user sends funds from their wallet, funds go to a temporary swap address, conversion occurs, and the output asset is sent to the user’s destination wallet.

GhostSwap’s Fees, Timing, and What to Expect

GhostSwap charges a flat 2% fee built into the quoted exchange rate. Users see this fee upfront as part of the exchange rate and the final receive amount. Standard blockchain network fees (Zcash and Monero transaction fees) are extra and come from the user’s wallet.

It’s important to understand that a ZEC to XMR swap is not instant. Completion depends on:

• Zcash confirmations (network conditions)
• Swap processing by GhostSwap’s engine
• Monero confirmations (the XMR network)

Once the Zcash network confirms the deposit, GhostSwap’s backend automatically executes the swap across its liquidity sources and sends the Monero directly to the provided destination address.

Is GhostSwap Legit

GhostSwap is a non-custodial swap platform that has processed over $750 million in swaps for approximately 1.5 million users. The company is registered as a Delaware LLC and operates as an anonymous crypto exchange prioritizing user privacy and simplicity.

Signs of legitimacy:

• Public website and extensive documentation
• Transparent swap process with upfront fees
• Published API with clear documentation
• Functional Telegram bot
• Operational history spanning years
• User-facing support channels

GhostSwap never takes long-term custody of user funds. Each swap uses a temporary deposit address, and funds are routed directly to the user’s destination wallet. No pooled account is ever held on GhostSwap, avoiding many hacking risks associated with centralized exchanges.

Even though GhostSwap advertises no account and no KYC for standard swaps, users should still read the terms because compliance screening may occur through underlying partners. The platform explicitly works with licensed crypto processing partners to handle AML/sanctions screening. If a swap is flagged (e.g., for high value or hitting a blacklist), GhostSwap reserves the right to block, reject, or refund it.

Important points:

• No-KYC ≠ No Compliance: GhostSwap advertises no account and no KYC for standard swaps. However, users should still read the terms because compliance screening may occur through underlying partners.
• Monero Doesn’t Erase History: A common misconception: swapping ZEC into XMR does not magically erase the history of the ZEC transaction. The ZEC side still exists on the Zcash blockchain. The Monero side simply enters a different privacy model after conversion.
• Network Confirmation Times Matter: A ZEC to XMR swap is not instant. Completion depends on Zcash confirmations, swap processing, and Monero confirmations.

The final conclusion

Swapping Zcash to Monero has become pretty relevant as the privacy-coin landscape evolves. Whether you prefer Zcash’s optional privacy model with its advanced cryptography and regulatory flexibility, or Monero’s mandatory privacy with strong fungibility and simplicity, GhostSwap provides a non-custodial, no-KYC bridge between the two ecosystems.

The platform’s support for both ZEC and XMR, combined with its public API, Telegram bot, and transparent 2% fee structure, makes it a practical option for users looking to rotate between privacy assets without creating exchange accounts or submitting to KYC processes.

Frequently Asked Question

Does GhostSwap require KYC to swap ZEC to XMR?

No. GhostSwap does not require identity documents, name, address, or phone number for standard swaps. Compliance checks are handled behind the scenes by partners and may occasionally flag transactions.

How long does a ZEC to XMR swap take on GhostSwap?

Most privacy-coin swaps complete within 5–30 minutes, depending on Zcash confirmation times, network congestion, and Monero confirmations.

What is the fee for swapping ZEC to XMR?

GhostSwap charges a flat 2% fee built into the quoted exchange rate. Users also pay standard blockchain network fees (Zcash and Monero transaction fees).

Is GhostSwap custodial or non-custodial?

Non-custodial. GhostSwap never takes long-term custody of user funds. Each swap uses a temporary deposit address, and funds are routed directly to the user’s destination wallet.

Does GhostSwap support Zcash and Monero?

Yes. GhostSwap supports both Zcash (ZEC) and Monero (XMR) as primary assets, with pairs like ZEC to XMR and XMR to ZEC available.

The post How to Swap Zcash to Monero With No KYC, in One Step appeared first on Cryptonews.

Bitcoin price is trading at $62,900, as we debate whether this pause is simply a reset or something more serious, with bearish prediction. Strategy’s latest move, selling $213 million worth of BTC, caught plenty off guard. A company known for buying rarely grabs headlines for selling, so the market naturally paid attention.

The sale arrived as macro risks piled up. US-Iran tensions escalated after Washington tightened restrictions around the Strait of Hormuz, sending oil prices higher and pressuring global risk assets. Chip stocks stumbled, while Bitcoin briefly slipped before finding buyers again.

Strategy’s updated approach also changes how investors view its role in the Bitcoin market. Instead of treating BTC as an asset that should never be sold, the company is taking a more flexible stance. Management can now sell Bitcoin to strengthen its balance sheet, support capital raises, or improve shareholder returns. That marks a noticeable shift from its long-standing accumulation strategy.

For Bitcoin, the impact is more about sentiment than immediate selling pressure. Strategy remains one of the largest corporate Bitcoin holders, so its long-term commitment has not disappeared. However, traders may no longer assume the company will buy every dip. That could weaken confidence during volatile sessions, especially when macro uncertainty is already keeping buyers cautious.

Meanwhile, leveraged traders took another hit as liquidations cleared out overheated positions and pushed futures funding closer to neutral. That reset eased excessive speculation, although it did not spark a convincing rebound. The market looks calmer, but traders are still keeping one eye on the headlines.

Spot Bitcoin ETF demand continues to provide support underneath the market, helping absorb selling pressure during periods of volatility. Even so, buyers have yet to regain full control. As long as geopolitical tensions remain elevated and Strategy’s new capital strategy remains in focus, Bitcoin could struggle to build enough momentum for a sustained move higher.

Don’t Miss Out on Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop on ByBit

Bitcoin Price Prediction: Reclaim $65,000 or Is a Deeper Correction Due?

Bitcoin is trading around $62,500 price level, with a 24-hour volume close to $30 billion, in a bearish prediction situation. Market activity remains steady, but it still lacks the urgency that usually marks a convincing reversal. Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s market cap sits near $1.24 trillion, while dominance holds around 56%, showing it still leads the crypto market despite recent weakness.

The technical picture remains uncomfortable. TradingView analysis still points to a confirmed bearish break from a multi-month symmetrical triangle. As usual, that former support has turned into resistance. The key zone sits between $63,000 and $65,000. A decisive move back above that range would improve the short-term outlook. Until then, sellers still have the upper hand.

Bitcoin (BTC)

24h7d30d1yAll time

Three scenarios remain on the table. In the bullish case, stronger spot ETF inflows and easing macro tensions could help Bitcoin reclaim $63,500, opening the door for another test of the $65,000 resistance area. It is not a guarantee, but that is where momentum would finally start looking interesting again.

The base case still favors consolidation between $60,000 and $62,500 as traders reset leveraged positions. It is the kind of market that slowly drains everyone’s patience instead of their wallets. On the other hand, a daily close below $60,000 could expose the $58,000 to $59,000 support zone, where buyers may finally step back in.

Meanwhile, Strategy’s latest Bitcoin approach continues to hang over sentiment. Whether investors see it as caution or simply another funding strategy, the headlines are impossible to ignore. Michael Saylor’s company reshaped how institutions approach Bitcoin accumulation. Because of that, any perceived shift in its playbook naturally grabs attention instead of fading into background noise.

Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio

Bitcoin Hyper Targets Early Mover Upside as Bitcoin Tests Key Levels

When Bitcoin consolidates near $60,000, and macro uncertainty is compressing near-term upside, the calculus for late-cycle BTC entries gets harder to justify. Asymmetric exposure requires looking elsewhere in the stack, specifically, infrastructure plays built on top of Bitcoin that carry their own growth narrative independent of BTC’s short-term price action.

Bitcoin Hyper ($HYPER) is positioning itself as the first Bitcoin Layer 2 with Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) integration. It’s technically, if executed, would bring sub-second finality and low-cost smart contract execution to the Bitcoin ecosystem without sacrificing BTC’s underlying security.

The presale has raised close to $33 million at a current price of $0.0136831, with staking live for early participants. The combination of a canonical bridge for native BTC transfers and SVM compatibility is the headline differentiator; it targets the programmability gap that has kept institutional developers building on Ethereum and Solana rather than Bitcoin.

The Bitcoin Hyper presale is worth reviewing for traders actively looking for pre-launch Bitcoin ecosystem exposure while BTC itself consolidates. DYOR before committing capital.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

The post Bitcoin Price Prediction: Strategy Has a New BTC Approach appeared first on Cryptonews.

The traditional crypto exchange experience is anything but simple. You need to create an account, then verify your email, and submit identity documents. Then wait for approval and set up two-factor authentication. Deposit funds. Withdraw to your wallet. The process can take days and goes on and on before you actually own the asset you wanted.

For many users, this process can be completely unnecessary. Not everyone wants to trade on margin or place limit orders. Some just want to swap one cryptocurrency for another; quickly, privately, and without the overhead of creating yet another online account.

GhostSwap offers exactly that. It’s a non-custodial “instant swap” platform that lets users exchange cryptos without creating an account or providing personal information.

The process actually can’t be more simple: choose a pair, enter a destination address, send the source coin to a one-time deposit address, and receive the new coin, typically within minutes. No email, and no KYC. Just a swap.

What Is GhostSwap?

GhostSwap is a non-custodial swap aggregator that connects user transactions across multiple liquidity sources to find the best available rate. GhostSwap never takes long-term control of user assets, unlike centralized exchanges. Funds move directly from the user’s wallet through the swap process and land in the destination wallet.

GhostSwap supports over 1,600 tokens across major blockchains, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, and (maybe most importantly) privacy-focused assets like Monero (XMR) and Zcash (ZEC). This deep support for privacy coins sets GhostSwap apart from many competitors that have delisted these assets due to regulatory pressure.

Key features, or let’s say, unique selling points, include:

• No signup, no email, no KYC for standard swaps
• 1,600+ supported assets across multiple chains
• Telegram bot for swaps without leaving the messaging app
• Public API for developers and business integrations
• Flat 2% fee quoted upfront, included in the exchange rate

GhostSwap has processed over $750 million in swaps for around 1.5 million users. The company is registered as a Delaware LLC and operates as an anonymous crypto exchange that prioritizes user privacy and simplicity.

How GhostSwap Works

The user experience is intentionally minimal. Here’s what actually happens during a swap:

Step 1: Choose the Coins You Want to Swap

Users begin by selecting a coin to send and a coin to receive from drop-down menus. The interface supports cross-chain swaps, for example, Bitcoin to Solana or Ethereum to Monero. The source and destination assets can be on completely different blockchains; GhostSwap handles the bridge behind the scenes.

Step 2: Enter a Destination Wallet Address

The only information GhostSwap requires is a receiving wallet address for the output coin. There’s no account creation, no email verification, and no identity documents. Just paste the address where you want your funds to land.

Step 3: Send Your Crypto

Once the user confirms the swap details, GhostSwap generates a unique one-time deposit address. The user sends their source coin to this address directly from their own wallet. The address is temporary and tied exclusively to that specific transaction.

Step 4: Receive the New Asset

After the blockchain confirms the deposit, GhostSwap’s backend automatically executes the swap across its liquidity sources and sends the output coin to the user’s provided destination address. The entire process is on-chain and non-custodial.

Step 5: Verify the Transaction

Users can track their swap’s progress through GhostSwap’s status page or, if using the Telegram bot, through real-time updates in the chat. Once the transaction is complete, the funds are in the user’s wallet; no further action required.

Typical completion times range from a couple of minutes for fast chains like Solana or Polygon to about 30 minutes for slower chains like Bitcoin, depending on network congestion. GhostSwap warns users to have a bit of the chain’s native gas token (e.g., ETH) in their sending wallet to cover network fees.

The User Experience: What Makes GhostSwap Different?

Compare the GhostSwap workflow to a traditional exchange:

Traditional Exchange:

• Create account
• Verify email
• Complete KYC (submit ID, wait for approval)
• Set up 2FA
• Navigate to trading pair
• Place order
• Wait for execution
• Withdraw to wallet

GhostSwap:

• Select pair
• Enter destination address
• Send funds
• Receive coins

That’s it. Four steps instead of eight or more. No password management, no identity verification, no account recovery processes to remember. Fewer steps between intent and execution means less friction and a faster experience.

Supported Coins, Networks, and Privacy Assets

GhostSwap supports over 1,600 coins and tokens across numerous blockchains. The platform’s official documentation promotes cross-chain swaps, for example, Bitcoin to Solana or Ethereum to Polkadot, and specifically lists privacy coins like Monero (XMR) and Zcash (ZEC) among supported assets.

Monero (XMR) support: GhostSwap includes XMR as both a send and receive option. Pairs like BTC to XMR and ETH to XMR are listed among the platform’s top offerings. For users who value financial privacy, this is a pretty big advantage; Monero is the leading privacy coin, and its availability on GhostSwap means users can move in and out of it without creating a paper trail on a centralized exchange.

Zcash (ZEC) support: Similarly, Zcash appears in GhostSwap’s supported pairs list (BTC to ZEC, ETH to ZEC, USDT to ZEC, etc.) on the platform’s “All pairs” page. Zcash offers shielded transactions that hide sender, receiver, and amount; another option for privacy-conscious users.

The platform aggregates liquidity from multiple providers, so depth varies by coin. No official liquidity numbers are published, but GhostSwap claims to find “the best rates across multiple liquidity providers.” For smaller swap sizes (e.g., under several BTC worth), adequate liquidity should be available.

Privacy coins may be more thinly traded on global markets than majors like BTC or ETH, but GhostSwap’s aggregator model helps source liquidity where it exists.

GhostSwap’s Fee Structure

GhostSwap charges a flat 2.0% baseline fee (spread) on every swap, built directly into the quoted rate. Users see this fee upfront as part of the exchange rate and the final receive amount. For example, on a $10,000 swap, the implied cost is roughly $200, plus normal on-chain gas fees.

How the Fee Is Quoted Upfront

When a user selects a pair and enters an amount, the interface immediately shows the estimated output amount and the total fee. GhostSwap explicitly highlights that all fees are “included directly in the exchange rate displayed” before confirmation; no hidden charges appear at checkout.

Are There Additional Costs?

Standard blockchain network fees (miner/gas fees) are extra and come from the user’s wallet. These are not GhostSwap fees but rather costs inherent to sending any on-chain transaction. Additionally, if the market moves dramatically before the deposit confirms, extreme cases of slippage could occur; though GhostSwap does re-quote if confirmations take a long time.

Comparing Fixed-Fee Simplicity to Exchange Pricing

GhostSwap’s 2% fee is higher than some competitors. Changelly advertises fees around 0.25%, Godex charges approximately 0.5%, and FixedFloat offers 1% for fixed-rate and 0.5% for floating-rate swaps.

However, these platforms may not support the same range of privacy coins, may require accounts for certain features, or may have less transparent fee structures. GhostSwap’s simplicity (one flat rate, no tiers, no surprise charges) is good for users who want to know exactly what they’re paying before they commit.

Is GhostSwap Legit?

This is arguably the most important question for any user considering a new crypto platform.

What “Legit” Means in Crypto Swapping

In the context of instant swaps, legitimacy doesn’t mean guaranteed safety or regulatory approval. It means the platform delivers what it promises (fast, private, on-chain swaps) without scamming users or failing to execute transactions.

Signs That Users Commonly Look For

GhostSwap provides a public website and extensive documentation, a transparent swap process, a published API, a functional Telegram bot, and user-facing support channels. The platform has been operational for years and has processed over $750 million in swaps for approximately 1.5 million users.

Independent reviews and user reports generally confirm that swaps execute as advertised.

The Non-Custodial Element

GhostSwap is strictly non-custodial. It never takes long-term custody of user funds. Instead, each swap goes through a temporary deposit address: the user’s coins are sent from their wallet to this address, and immediately upon confirmation, GhostSwap releases the new coins from an upstream liquidity source into the user’s receiving wallet.

No pooled account is ever held on GhostSwap. This avoids many hacking risks associated with centralized exchanges, where large pools of customer funds become attractive targets.

What GhostSwap Does and Doesn’t Promise

GhostSwap delivers fast, anonymous crypto swaps with minimal friction. It does not promise to be the cheapest option, to provide advanced trading features, or to offer regulatory protection in every jurisdiction. Users should treat it as an advanced tool (ideal for moving privacy coins or cross-chain trades) and use small test amounts until comfortable.

Privacy and KYC: How Does GhostSwap Handle Identity Verification?

A core GhostSwap promise is no KYC. The site and terms repeatedly state that users need provide only a destination address; no name, ID, email, or phone. GhostSwap is an anonymous crypto exchange in the sense that it doesn’t collect identity-linked data from users. As one Binance.com guide puts it, GhostSwap has “zero registration, no identity documents.”

However, “no KYC” does not mean no compliance. GhostSwap is a Delaware-registered LLC and explicitly works with licensed crypto processing partners to handle AML/sanctions screening. In practice, each transaction is shared with these partners for automated checks. If a swap is flagged (e.g., for high value or hitting a blacklist), GhostSwap reserves the right to block, reject, or refund it.

The terms of use warn users that transactions may be subject to AML/KYC compliance “by licensed third parties.”

Information Users Are Not Required to Provide

Information needed to trade on GhostSwap is really simple; no email, no name, no address, no ID documents, no phone number. Users can even access GhostSwap via Tor or VPN without issue, which further enhances privacy.

Situations Where Compliance Obligations Could Arise

If a transaction is flagged by automated systems (often due to large size, unusual patterns, or connections to known suspicious addresses) GhostSwap may delay, block, or refund the swap. In some cases, third-party compliance partners may request additional information. This is relatively rare for standard swaps but is explicitly covered in GhostSwap’s terms.

Security Considerations Before Using Any Instant Swap Service

Even though GhostSwap’s non-custodial design eliminates many hacking risks, users should be aware of the risks that remain:

Verify Wallet Addresses Carefully

Once a transaction is sent to a blockchain address, it cannot be reversed. Mistyping a destination address or selecting the wrong network can result in permanent loss of funds. Always double-check addresses before confirming a transaction.

Double-Check Network Compatibility

Sending a coin to an address on the wrong network (e.g., sending BSC tokens to an Ethereum address) can result in loss. GhostSwap provides warnings, but the final responsibility lies with the user.

Start With a Small Test Transaction

Before swapping a large amount, send a small test transaction to verify that the address is correct, the network is compatible, and the swap executes as expected. This is standard practice in crypto and costs little in fees.

Understand Blockchain Confirmation Delays

Swap completion times depend on network confirmations. Bitcoin transactions can take 10–30 minutes; faster chains like Solana complete in seconds. If a transaction is delayed, it’s usually due to network congestion rather than a platform issue.

Keep Control of Your Private Keys

GhostSwap never asks for private keys. If any platform requests your private keys, it’s a scam. GhostSwap’s non-custodial design means the user remains in control of their funds throughout the process.

Beyond the Website: Telegram Bot and Public API

Using GhostSwap Through Telegram

Launched in 2025, the @GhostSwapBot on Telegram allows swaps without a browser. The bot mirrors the web UI: users start a chat, select coins, enter an amount, paste a destination address, and get a deposit address from the bot.

Real-time updates are shown as the swap proceeds. This integration allows users to swap without even leaving Telegram; a standout feature few swap platforms offer.

The Public API

GhostSwap exposes a server-to-server API for business integrations (wallets, apps). GhostSwap’s API is authenticated by bearer tokens. Key endpoints include:

• /v1/quotes (get price quote)
• /v1/addresses/validate (validate a payout address)
• /v1/swaps (create a swap)

The docs stress idempotency (retry safety) and real-time status polling. Rate limits are generous: up to 120 requests per second per IP and 30 requests per second per API key. Partners can quickly integrate swaps into apps with high throughput.

Why These Tools Matter

The Telegram bot and API expand GhostSwap beyond a standard web interface. Users can swap from anywhere – even from a messaging app – and developers can integrate GhostSwap’s swap functionality into their own applications, wallets, and services.

Who Is GhostSwap Best Suited For?

GhostSwap serves several distinct user profiles:

Privacy-Conscious Users

People who value financial privacy and don’t want their transactions linked to their identity. GhostSwap’s no-KYC model and support for privacy coins like Monero and Zcash make it an attractive option.

Users Making Occasional Swaps

For users who swap crypto infrequently – perhaps a few times a year – creating accounts on multiple exchanges is overkill. GhostSwap’s pay-as-you-go model is ideal for occasional needs.

People Who Want to Avoid Exchange Onboarding

Account creation, email verification, KYC, and 2FA setup can take days. GhostSwap eliminates all of this.

Developers and Service Operators Using the API

Businesses and developers integrating crypto swaps into their applications can use GhostSwap’s API to add swap functionality without building their own liquidity infrastructure.

Users Swapping Into or Out of XMR and ZEC

GhostSwap maintains support for privacy coins that many exchanges have delisted. For users who need to move into or out of Monero or Zcash, GhostSwap provides a reliable option.

Potential Drawbacks and Limitations

GhostSwap is not for everyone. Several limitations are worth noting:

• No advanced trading features: GhostSwap is designed for simple swaps, not trading. There are no order books, charting tools, limit orders, or margin trading.
• Not a full exchange account: Users cannot hold balances on GhostSwap or repeatedly trade without paying the 2% fee each time. It’s a swap service, not an exchange account.
• No order books: Prices are set by GhostSwap’s aggregator engine, not by user orders. Users cannot set their own prices or wait for specific market conditions.
• Dependence on blockchain conditions: Swap speed depends entirely on the underlying blockchain. Users cannot accelerate their swap beyond the chain’s confirmation requirements.
• Fees may not always be cheapest compared to active trading platforms: The 2% flat fee is higher than what a user might pay on an exchange with lower trading fees. For very large or frequent swaps, an exchange account might be more cost-effective.
• Regulatory ambiguity: GhostSwap operates in a regulatory gray zone. No formal licenses or public audits are mentioned. Users in jurisdictions with strict crypto laws should consider the legal implications of using an anonymous crypto exchange.
• Potential for flagged transactions: While GhostSwap itself doesn’t require KYC, its compliance partners may flag and block certain transactions, especially large ones.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I Need an Account to Use GhostSwap?

No. GhostSwap requires no account, no email, and no password. Users simply select a pair, enter a destination address, and send funds.

Does GhostSwap Require KYC?

No. GhostSwap does not require identity documents, name, address, or phone number for standard swaps. Compliance checks are handled behind the scenes by partners and may occasionally flag transactions.

How Long Do Swaps Take on GhostSwap?

Typical completion times range from a couple of minutes for fast chains (Solana, Polygon) to approximately 30 minutes for slower chains (Bitcoin). Most swaps complete within 5–30 minutes.

Which Coins Are Supported on GhostSwap?

GhostSwap supports over 1,600 coins and tokens across major blockchains, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, Monero, Zcash, and stablecoins like USDT and USDC.

Does GhostSwap Support Monero?

Yes. Monero (XMR) is fully supported as both a send and receive option. Pairs like BTC to XMR and ETH to XMR are available.

What Is the GhostSwap Fee?

GhostSwap charges a flat 2% fee built into the quoted exchange rate. This is the total service fee; users also pay standard blockchain network fees (gas).

Can I Use GhostSwap Through Telegram?

Yes. The @GhostSwapBot on Telegram allows users to perform swaps directly within the messaging app. The bot mirrors the web interface and provides real-time updates.

Does GhostSwap Offer an API?

Yes. GhostSwap has a Partners API for business integrations with endpoints for quotes, address validation, and swap creation. Rate limits are generous (120 requests/sec per IP, 30 requests/sec per API key).

Is GhostSwap Custodial or Non-Custodial?

Non-custodial. GhostSwap never takes long-term custody of user funds. Each swap uses a temporary deposit address, and funds are routed directly to the user’s destination wallet.

What Happens if I Send the Wrong Asset?

Sending the wrong asset to a deposit address can result in permanent loss. GhostSwap’s terms explicitly state that users are responsible for sending the correct coin to the correct address. Always double-check before confirming a transaction.

Wrapping Up

All in all, GhostSwap delivers on its core promise: fast, private, non-custodial crypto swaps without the overhead of traditional exchange onboarding. It’s not the cheapest option, and it doesn’t offer advanced trading features, but for users who value simplicity and privacy, it’s a compelling choice.

The platform’s support for Monero and Zcash, along with its Telegram bot and public API, make it a versatile tool for both individual users and developers.

The post No Email, No Account, No KYC: How GhostSwap Swaps 1,600+ Coins in One Step appeared first on Cryptonews.

Ripple just pulled off one of crypto’s more surprising mainstream moves. XRP price action has stayed calm, but prediction models now face a fresh wildcard. Meanwhile, XRP trades near $1.09 after slipping from this week’s highs. Traders have seen enough victory laps before the race even starts.

Kansas Athletics signed a multi-year partnership with Ripple, placing its branding across football, basketball, baseball, volleyball, softball, rowing, and other programs. That gives Ripple regular exposure during Big 12 broadcasts and social media highlights. It is a branding push aimed at credibility, not a sprint for new users.

For XRP holders, the interesting part starts after the applause fades. Brand awareness is nice, but markets usually demand proof before handing out rewards. A logo on a jersey will not magically unlock buy orders, even if the mascot suddenly becomes crypto curious.

That leaves XRP trading in familiar territory around the $1.00 to $1.20 range. A sustained move higher will likely need stronger adoption or fresh institutional demand. Until then, this partnership is a welcome headline, but price charts still refuse to clap on cue.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

XRP Price Prediction: Break $1.20 on Mainstream Momentum?

XRP is still stuck in consolidation, and price prediction has become more about patience than excitement. The token trades near $1.09 after a modest weekly gain. Recent swings look more like traders arguing over lunch than picking a clear direction.

Technically, the chart still favors a wait-and-see approach. Support sits around $1.00 to $1.05, while resistance remains near $1.15 to $1.20. XRP is parked between those levels, leaving neither bulls nor bears with much to celebrate. Market capitalization stands near $68 billion, with roughly 62.5 billion XRP in circulation.

Xrp (XRP)

24h7d30d1yAll time

A bullish breakout would likely require more than fresh headlines. Ripple’s Kansas Athletics partnership could improve brand recognition, but traders usually want stronger catalysts before chasing higher prices. A decisive move above $1.20, backed by solid volume, could shift momentum toward the $1.40 area.

The base case still points to sideways trading between $1.05 and $1.15. Meanwhile, macro events, regulatory developments, or fresh institutional demand could eventually tip the balance. Until then, XRP looks content to keep chart watchers glued to the same candles.

On the downside, losing the $1.05 support would put the $1.00 level under pressure. A clean break below that mark would weaken the current setup and raise the risk of a deeper pullback. Strong fundamentals help, but even good stories eventually need buyers to reach for their wallets.

Don’t Miss Out on Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop on ByBit

LiquidChain Targets Early Mover Upside as XRP Tests Key Levels

XRP at $1.09 with a $68 billion market cap is a legitimate position, but the upside math is what it is. Doubling from here means a $136 billion market cap, which requires a macro bull run and sustained institutional inflows.

Traders hunting asymmetric returns on the current cycle are rotating earlier in the stack. That’s the structural case for looking at infrastructure plays while large-caps consolidate.

LiquidChain ($LIQUID) is a Layer 3 infrastructure project built around a single thesis: fragmented liquidity across Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana is the persistent bottleneck for serious cross-chain execution.

Its Unified Liquidity Layer fuses BTC, ETH, and SOL ecosystems into one execution environment, so developers deploy once and access all three networks, with verifiable settlement and sub-second finality baked into the architecture. The presale has raised $890K at a current price of $0.01478 per $LIQUID.

Research LiquidChain’s presale details here.

Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio

The post XRP Price Prediction: Going Mainstream as Kansas Athletics Announces Strategic Jersey Patch appeared first on Cryptonews.

Hacks have always been part of crypto, but in 2026, it does look like we are noticing more and more of them, especially on custodial platforms. This year alone there has been hundreds of millions of dollars drained from exchanges, bridges, and protocols that hold user funds in centralized wallets.

As crypto news “scream” about the latest hacks, a quieter, more resilient model continues to operate without making the news: non-custodial swaps.

GhostSwap is a non-custodial crypto exchange where funds are never in a shared pool waiting to be drained. Instead, assets route directly from the user’s wallet to the destination address, which drastically reduces the attack surface compared to traditional custodial platforms.

Curious to understand what this actually means? Bear with us, please.

The 2026 Custodial Hack Wave

The numbers regarding crypto hacks this year are worrying, to say the least. In the first four months of 2026 alone, custodial platforms lost over $670 million to hacks and exploits. Here are some of the most biggest incidents:

KelpDAO suffered a $292 million loss on April 18, 2026, through an infrastructure attack via the LayerZero bridge. The custodial bridge/L2 platform proved vulnerable to a single point of failure in its cross-chain infrastructure.

Drift Protocol (which is basically a custodial perpetuals exchange on Solana) lost $285 million on April 1, 2026, through a combination of smart contract vulnerability and compromised admin keys. The attack exposed the risks of relying on centralized administrative controls.

Grinex, a custodial CEX operating in Kyrgyzstan with Russian links, had $13.7 million in USDT drained from 54 wallets on April 15, 2026. The attack showed that even smaller exchanges with less visibility are prime targets.

Step Finance lost $28.9 million between January and February 2026 through compromised executive email accounts and private keys. That breach is particularly interesting since it shows how even human factors (such as email access, or credential management) remain critical vulnerabilities.

Truebit Protocol suffered a $26.4 million exploit on January 9, 2026, through “zombie code” in its smart contracts; a reminder that legacy code can become a ticking time bomb.

ResolvLabs, a custodial stablecoin issuer, lost $25 million in March 2026 through an AWS KMS key management vulnerability. Even infrastructure giants like Amazon aren’t immune to configuration errors.

If a series of news about hundreds of millions in losses doesn’t make you think twice about keeping your assets on a custodial exchange, then honestly, what will?

This is where GhostSwap comes into play.

Why the Attack Surface Is Smaller with GhostSwap

GhostSwap’s non-custodial model doesn’t claim to be unhackable. To be completely honest, no system is in crypto. However, it drastically reduces the attack surface by eliminating several high-value targets that attackers typically go after.

In a custodial exchange, users deposit assets into exchange-controlled wallets. This creates large, tempting pools of customer funds. GhostSwap operates differently: funds move through the swap process and are delivered directly to the destination wallet rather than being stored as long-term customer balances.

No Accounts Means No Account Database to Breach

There’s no honey pot waiting to be drained.

Traditional exchanges maintain extensive databases of user accounts, login credentials, and often identity records. This creates multiple attack vectors: credential stuffing, password theft, and account takeovers.

GhostSwap’s no-account approach removes entire categories of risk. There is no user database to breach, no login system to compromise, and no credentials to steal.

Minimal Personal Data Reduces Exposure

Because GhostSwap doesn’t require routine account creation or standard KYC processes for most swaps, there is far less sensitive user information available to steal. The platform follows a data-minimization strategy, which collects only what’s necessary to complete a swap.

This means even if an attacker were to breach GhostSwap’s systems, there would be little valuable personal data to exfiltrate.

No Large Customer-Fund Pool to Drain

Perhaps the biggest and most significant difference is the absence of a centralized pool of customer assets. GhostSwap’s wallet-to-wallet swap model avoids maintaining a shared pool that could be drained in a single compromise.

When you compare this to custodial platforms, it’s pretty clear even to a newbie that a single successful attack can empty millions from a single wallet. GhostSwap’s model distributes risk across individual transactions, and eliminates the giant target.

The Refund-Address Safety Mechanism

A key operational safeguard in GhostSwap’s model is the refund address. During a swap, users provide both:

• A destination address where they want to receive the output asset
• A refund address where the original funds can be returned if the swap cannot be completed

This dual-address system provides a critical safety net. If a transaction encounters a problem (such as a routing issue, liquidity problem, or another failure condition) the refund address gives GhostSwap a predefined destination for returning funds when possible. This reduces the risk of assets becoming stranded during an incomplete swap and provides a clear recovery path.

It’s a simple but very effective mechanism. Rather than user funds remaining in limbo while support teams investigate, the refund address enables automated recovery. The asset has a defined path home.

GhostSwap Offers High-Standard Security

So, let’s conclude with this – Imagine waking up to check your portfolio, only to discover that the exchange where you kept your funds has been drained overnight. This happened to thousands of traders in 2026, so it’s not hypothetical.

When Drift Protocol lost $285 million on April 1, traders who had funds on the platform couldn’t access their assets for days. When KelpDAO lost $293 million just weeks later, many users watched their holdings vanish with no clear path to recovery.

Traders who use GhostSwap avoid this entire category of risk. Your funds move directly from your wallet to the swap route and land in your destination wallet; never held in a GhostSwap-controlled pool where they could be swept away in a single attack.

When you hear about the next custodial breach, and there will be a next one, you won’t have to panic about whether your funds were caught in the crossfire.

This peace of mind isn’t just theoretical anymore. In a year where over $670 million has been stolen from custodial platforms in the first four months alone, GhostSwap’s non-custodial model has proven its value by simply not appearing in the hack news.

Traders who value their assets and their sleep are increasingly turning to non-custodial swaps, not just for privacy, but for the security of knowing their funds are never held by the platform they’re trading on.

GhostSwap’s non-custodial model doesn’t eliminate all risk, but it does reduce the chance for the hack to happen. When there’s no honey pot, there’s less honey to steal.

The post Funds Never Held: GhostSwap’s Non-Custodial Model vs the 2026 Hack Wave appeared first on Cryptonews.

The White House invited law enforcement groups opposing the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act to a Monday meeting to resolve objections to Section 604, the provision drawn from the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) that shields software developers from money-transmitter classification.

Patrick Witt, the White House’s lead crypto adviser, is driving the engagement, but the bill still requires 60 Senate votes to pass, and roughly four weeks of floor time remain before the August recess.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune is reportedly prepared to bring the CLARITY Act to the floor in the coming weeks, regardless of whether Democrats are ready, according to Punchbowl News.

Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott posted on X Monday that the Senate “should vote on crypto market structure legislation in July.” The urgency is real. The political math is harder.

The bill passed the House 294–134 on July 17, 2025, and cleared the Senate Banking Committee 15–9 on May 14, 2026. Those are comfortable margins in their respective chambers. The Senate floor is a different problem entirely.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

Section 604: The Provision That Stopped the Clock

Section 604 of the CLARITY Act, the BRCA provision, is where the legislative fight is concentrated. It would prevent software developers who do not exercise ultimate control over their tools from being classified as money transmitters under Bank Secrecy Act rules, a protection the crypto industry treats as foundational for continued DeFi development in the United States.

The National Sheriffs Association sent a May letter to Senate Banking Committee leaders stating: “No good reason supports giving mixers, tumblers, and DeFi a blanket exemption.

While some software developers are not engaged in money transmitting or other activity that should subject them to BSA regulation, plenty of others are.” The group was invited to a prior two-day White House session in June, but did not attend, which is why Monday’s targeted meeting exists.

The law enforcement argument is not that the BRCA protection is wrong in principle; it is that the current language is too broad. Investigators working on sanctions evasion and mixer-facilitated crime say the exemption, as written, blurs the enforcement boundary around developers whose tools are functionally indistinguishable from financial intermediaries.

That is not a fringe position; it is shared across multiple law enforcement organizations that attended the June White House sessions.

Patrick Witt’s counter-argument is that the bill adds new prosecutorial tools and that the current regulatory vacuum is itself the enforcement problem. “We’re putting real regulatory constraints on businesses and actors that currently live in a state of uncertainty,” Witt said at an industry event earlier this month.

To skeptical law enforcement officials, he argued they “should be the biggest cheerleaders for this bill, because this is really what is missing.” Whether that framing moves the National Sheriffs Association off its stated position is what Monday’s meeting is designed to test.

Three More Problems Beyond Section 604

The BRCA dispute is the most visible obstacle, but three additional issues remain unresolved. First, regarding the Commodity Futures Trading Commission staffing question, the bill’s provisions expand the CFTC’s jurisdiction over crypto market structure, and bringing the agency to full operational strength remains part of active negotiations.

Second, an ethics provision that would bar senior government officials, including the president, from holding personal crypto interests. Multiple lawmakers have stated explicitly that they will not vote for the bill without it, including the only Democrats who voted for the bill during the Senate Banking Committee markup.

That second point is the structural bind. The Democrats, whose votes the White House needs, are conditioning their support on a provision the White House may resist. Senators Catherine Cortez Masto and Mark Warner have both signaled that the ethics provision is a threshold requirement, not a negotiating chip. That is not resolved; it is deferred.

Third, Trump’s broader legislative posture adds a layer of uncertainty. His refusal to sign a major housing affordability bill, demanding a voter-identification bill first, has already disrupted one congressional timeline.

TD Cowen policy analyst Jaret Seiberg said Monday he expects the housing bill to become law through the constitutional ten-day automatic-passage window, projecting a Friday, July 10, effective date. Whether Trump applies the same resistance to the CLARITY Act is not yet clear, but the precedent is live.

Don’t Miss Out on Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop on ByBit

The post CLARITY Act Faces Senate Clock as Law Enforcement Pushes Back on DeFi Exemption appeared first on Cryptonews.