© Federal News Network
Aurum PropTech is buying Housing.com in a $47.5 million all-stock deal, but the harder test will be integrating its platforms and customer data securely.
The post Aurum PropTech to Buy Housing.com From REA Group for $47.5M appeared first on TechRepublic.
Aurum PropTech is buying Housing.com in a $47.5 million all-stock deal, but the harder test will be integrating its platforms and customer data securely.
The post Aurum PropTech to Buy Housing.com From REA Group for $47.5M appeared first on TechRepublic.
Trump administration AI testing chief Chris Fall resigned after just 90 days, leaving CAISI under interim leadership during a critical period for AI safety standards.
The post Trump’s AI Safety Chief Is Out — After Just 90 Days on the Job appeared first on TechRepublic.
Trump administration AI testing chief Chris Fall resigned after just 90 days, leaving CAISI under interim leadership during a critical period for AI safety standards.
The post Trump’s AI Safety Chief Is Out — After Just 90 Days on the Job appeared first on TechRepublic.
© Federal News Network
BonkDAO’s treasury has reportedly been drained of approximately $20 million after a malicious governance vote passed through Realms, creating one of the clearest recent examples of DAO governance risk on Solana.
The exploit did not involve a failure of the Solana blockchain itself. Instead, the validated materials point to a governance attack that used voter weight mechanics to pass a proposal and move treasury assets.
That distinction matters.
Smart contract exploits often get the attention, but governance attacks can be just as damaging. If an attacker can manipulate voting power, proposal rules, or treasury permissions, the outcome can look perfectly valid on-chain while still being malicious in substance.
For Solana DAOs, the incident is a warning that governance design needs the same level of scrutiny as code security.
DAOs often focus on decentralization, participation, and community control.
Those values matter, but governance systems can also become attack surfaces. A treasury controlled by token voting or delegated voting is only as safe as the rules governing proposals, quorum, voter weight, timelocks, and execution permissions.
If those rules are weak, attackers may not need to hack the contract directly.
They can use the governance process itself.
That appears to be the concern in the BonkDAO incident. A malicious proposal passed through governance mechanics and resulted in treasury funds being moved. From a technical point of view, the action may have followed the system’s rules. From a governance point of view, it was destructive.
That is what makes DAO attacks difficult.
They blur the line between exploit and illegitimate governance action.
Realms is widely used in the Solana ecosystem for DAO governance.
It gives projects tools to manage proposals, voting, treasuries, and community decision-making. That makes it important infrastructure, but also means incidents involving Realms-based DAOs get wide attention.
The BonkDAO drain does not mean Realms itself failed as a platform. The validated materials point to voter weight and proposal mechanics inside the DAO setup. But the incident will likely push other Solana DAOs to review their configurations.
That review should include quorum thresholds, voting periods, treasury execution limits, emergency pause powers, and how voting weight is calculated.
The lesson is simple: governance defaults are not enough.
A DAO with a valuable treasury needs defensive design. It needs enough decentralization to be legitimate, but enough safeguards to prevent hostile capture.
BONK has become one of Solana’s most recognizable meme assets, and BonkDAO has played an important role in its ecosystem identity.
A major treasury drain therefore creates a trust problem.
Community members will want to know how the vote passed, whether funds can be recovered, whether any accounts or delegates were compromised, and what reforms will prevent a repeat. Traders will focus on whether the incident affects liquidity, incentives, and confidence around the wider BONK ecosystem.
The response matters as much as the exploit.
If the team and community provide clear transaction details, governance analysis, and a credible recovery or reform plan, confidence may recover. If the response is vague or slow, the damage can spread beyond the treasury loss.
Meme ecosystems depend heavily on community trust. A governance exploit cuts directly into that trust.
The incident should not be framed as a Solana blockchain failure.
Solana processed the transactions. The problem was governance design and treasury control inside a DAO. That distinction is important because base-layer performance is different from application-level or governance-level risk.
Every major ecosystem faces this issue.
Ethereum DAOs can suffer governance attacks. BNB Chain projects can mismanage treasury permissions. Arbitrum and Optimism protocols can pass flawed proposals. Solana is not unique in that sense.
What matters is whether ecosystem projects learn quickly.
The BonkDAO incident could push more Solana DAOs to strengthen safeguards, add timelocks, review voter-weight rules, improve proposal review, and create emergency procedures.
That would be a constructive outcome from a painful event.
For now, the takeaway is clear: DAO governance is not just politics. It is security infrastructure. If treasury rules can be exploited, community assets are at risk even when the underlying blockchain works exactly as designed.
This article is based on BONK’s public statement, Solscan, and Realms proposal data.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
This report is based on information released in official primary source disclosures at primary source documentation.
© Federal News Network
© Amelia Brust/Federal News Network
© Getty Images/iStockphoto/designer491
Reference: GitHub
Cardano has activated the Van Rossem hard fork on mainnet, moving the network to Protocol Version 11 and marking another step in its push toward fully on-chain governance.
The upgrade went live at Epoch 644 on July 18, according to the validated release details. It requires node operators to run Cardano Node v11.0.1 or later and represents one of the most important governance milestones in Cardano’s recent history.
The key point is not just that Cardano upgraded. Networks upgrade all the time. What makes Van Rossem notable is that it was enacted through Cardano’s on-chain governance framework, rather than being handled purely through a traditional core-development process.
That makes the hard fork a test of Cardano’s Voltaire-era promise: can a major blockchain coordinate technical upgrades through formal decentralized governance without losing stability?
Cardano has always taken a slower, more formal approach than many rival layer-1 networks.
That has earned it both supporters and critics. Supporters argue that Cardano’s research-heavy process makes the network more resilient. Critics argue that it slows execution and leaves the ecosystem behind faster-moving competitors.
The Van Rossem hard fork sits right inside that debate.
A mainnet protocol upgrade is not just a technical release. It requires exchanges, stake pool operators, infrastructure providers, wallets, developers, and users to align around the new version. If coordination breaks down, the network can suffer from delays, compatibility problems, or fragmentation.
Cardano’s claim is that its governance system can manage this kind of process more transparently and more formally.
By moving to Protocol Version 11 through on-chain governance, Cardano is trying to show that decision-making can be decentralized without becoming chaotic. That is the real test.
Crypto governance often sounds abstract until it touches the protocol itself.
Token votes, committees, proposals, and community discussions are one thing. A hard fork is another. When governance leads to a network-level upgrade, the stakes become real.
That is why this milestone matters for ADA holders and Cardano builders.
If governance works, it can give the ecosystem a clearer route for upgrades and long-term coordination. If governance becomes slow, political, or difficult to execute, critics will argue that the process is adding friction.
Cardano’s model depends on proving that formal governance can support technical progress.
Van Rossem is therefore not just about today’s code. It is about whether future upgrades can move through the system with enough legitimacy and speed.
The hard fork moves Cardano to Protocol Version 11, but traders should be careful not to treat it as an instant performance catalyst.
The validated materials point to Van Rossem as laying groundwork for later upgrades, including work connected to Ouroboros Leios and the Dijkstra era. That means the upgrade is more structural than immediately user-facing.
It should not be described as a sudden speed boost or a complete scaling transformation.
For users, the near-term impact may be subtle. For developers and infrastructure operators, the upgrade is more important because it updates the base layer that future improvements will depend on.
That is often how serious blockchain upgrades work. The market wants obvious before-and-after changes, but protocol development usually happens in layers.
Van Rossem is one of those layers.
For ADA, the hard fork gives the market a concrete governance milestone, but price impact will depend on what follows.
Cardano needs developer activity, DeFi growth, liquidity, user adoption, and stronger application demand to turn governance progress into market momentum. A hard fork can help the long-term story, but it does not solve every adoption question on its own.
Still, it gives Cardano supporters something specific to point to.
The network has now moved a major upgrade through its governance process. If future upgrades build on that successfully, Cardano’s decentralization-first identity becomes more credible.
The risk is that the market sees the event as procedural rather than catalytic. That is fair. Protocol upgrades only matter to traders when they translate into clearer growth, better performance, or stronger ecosystem activity.
For now, Van Rossem is best understood as a governance and infrastructure milestone.
It shows Cardano continuing to build its future around formal decentralized decision-making. The next step is proving that this model can also deliver faster, more visible ecosystem progress.
This article is based on Intersect Cardano Node release materials.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
This report is based on information released by GitHub. at GitHub
© The Associated Press
San Francisco gave Apple and Google 28 days to address 13 alleged AI nudify apps, raising questions about app-store controls and AI governance.
The post San Francisco Orders Apple And Google Remove 13 AI Nudify Apps appeared first on TechRepublic.
San Francisco gave Apple and Google 28 days to address 13 alleged AI nudify apps, raising questions about app-store controls and AI governance.
The post San Francisco Orders Apple And Google Remove 13 AI Nudify Apps appeared first on TechRepublic.
© Al Drago/The New York Times via AP
Reference: Aave Governance
Aave governance has moved to make Chainlink CCIP the default standard for cross-chain sGHO transfers, reinforcing the role of security-focused infrastructure in DeFi’s next phase.
The Aave governance proposal focuses on launching sGHO cross-chain and using Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol as the default option. The wider Delivery Infrastructure, known as a.DI, still uses a multi-bridge architecture for redundancy, but CCIP is positioned as the standard route for this specific cross-chain flow.
That distinction matters.
DeFi has spent years learning that bridges are one of the most sensitive parts of the stack. Cross-chain systems can unlock liquidity and improve user experience, but they also introduce risk. Aave’s decision shows that major protocols are increasingly treating cross-chain communication as a security decision, not just a convenience feature.
Aave is one of DeFi’s most important lending protocols.
As DeFi spreads across multiple networks, Aave needs infrastructure that can move information and value safely between chains. That is especially important for GHO and sGHO, where liquidity, accounting, governance, and risk controls have to remain consistent across environments.
Cross-chain expansion is useful, but it is also dangerous if handled poorly.
Many of crypto’s largest exploits have involved bridges or cross-chain infrastructure. The reason is simple: bridges often sit between different consensus systems, custody models, liquidity pools, and message-passing mechanisms. If something goes wrong, the losses can be large and fast.
For a protocol like Aave, the bridge standard is therefore not a minor technical choice.
It affects user trust, governance execution, stablecoin liquidity, and the way the protocol expands beyond one network.
Chainlink has positioned CCIP as a security-first cross-chain messaging and transfer standard.
The pitch is that major protocols need more than a basic bridge. They need risk controls, decentralized oracle infrastructure, and a model that can support large-scale cross-chain communication without relying on a single fragile route.
Aave’s proposal reflects that direction.
Using CCIP as the default route for sGHO suggests Aave wants a standard that can support cross-chain expansion while reducing operational risk. At the same time, the validation materials make clear that the broader a.DI system remains multi-bridge. That means CCIP is not the only infrastructure in the architecture, and alternative bridges are not simply being switched off.
That is the right nuance.
In complex DeFi systems, redundancy matters. A default route can provide consistency, while a multi-bridge design can help avoid dependence on one provider.
The GHO stablecoin has always needed distribution to grow.
A stablecoin’s success depends on more than minting. It needs liquidity, integrations, cross-chain availability, lending demand, and confidence in how it is managed. Making sGHO easier to move across networks can help expand its utility.
That is where CCIP can matter.
If users and protocols can move sGHO more safely between chains, Aave can support broader GHO adoption without forcing activity to remain concentrated in one environment. That can improve liquidity and make GHO more useful across DeFi.
But the stablecoin market is competitive.
USDC, USDT, DAI, and newer stablecoin models already dominate much of the liquidity conversation. GHO needs clear advantages to gain share. Cross-chain accessibility is one part of that, but not the whole story.
Aave still has to build demand for GHO itself.
The proposal also shows where DeFi is heading.
Early DeFi growth was often about yield, liquidity mining, and fast deployments. The next phase is more infrastructure-heavy. Protocols need safer cross-chain communication, more formal risk controls, better governance execution, and deeper integrations between networks.
That is a more mature market.
It may not produce the same kind of retail excitement as meme-token speculation, but it is the work required for DeFi to support larger amounts of capital.
Aave choosing CCIP as the default standard for sGHO is part of that shift. It shows that leading protocols are thinking carefully about how to expand without repeating the bridge failures of earlier cycles.
For Chainlink, the decision strengthens CCIP’s role as a core infrastructure product. For Aave, it gives sGHO a clearer cross-chain path. For DeFi users, it may eventually mean a smoother experience moving between networks.
The important point is not that every bridge problem is now solved. It is that major protocols are becoming more selective about the infrastructure they trust.
This article is based on the Aave governance forum and Chainlink CCIP materials.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
This report is based on information released by Aave Governance. at Aave Governance
Michael Saylor has come out against Bitcoin’s BIP-110 proposal, warning that the planned soft fork could introduce censorship risks into the network.
The debate centres on whether Bitcoin should restrict certain forms of non-monetary data storage, including activity linked to Ordinals and similar uses. Supporters of tighter limits argue that Bitcoin block space should remain focused on monetary transactions. Critics argue that protocol-level restrictions could set a dangerous precedent by deciding which types of data are acceptable.
Saylor’s intervention matters because he is one of the most visible corporate Bitcoin advocates in the world. When the MicroStrategy chairman weighs into a technical governance debate, the discussion moves beyond developer circles and reaches a wider market audience.
This is not just about one proposal. It is about what Bitcoin should be allowed to carry, who gets to decide, and whether efforts to reduce spam could accidentally weaken Bitcoin’s neutrality.
BIP-110, also known as the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, is aimed at limiting non-monetary data stored on Bitcoin.
The proposal is connected to a long-running argument inside the Bitcoin community. Some users believe block space should be preserved primarily for financial transactions. Others believe Bitcoin’s rules should remain neutral, even when certain uses are unpopular or expensive.
Ordinals pushed that debate into the open. By using Bitcoin block space for inscriptions and other data-heavy activity, Ordinals created new demand for block space but also frustrated users who saw higher fees and congestion.
BIP-110 is one proposed response.
The proposal attempts to restrict arbitrary data while using miner signaling as the activation route. One of the most controversial details is the proposed 55% activation threshold, which is far lower than the traditional 95% supermajority standard often associated with major Bitcoin soft fork activation.
That lower threshold is part of why critics are uneasy.
If Bitcoin’s rules can be changed with a relatively narrow majority of miner signaling, opponents worry that the network could become more vulnerable to political, commercial, or social pressure over time.
Saylor’s position is important because he has built his public reputation around Bitcoin as neutral, durable monetary infrastructure.
His criticism is not only about Ordinals. It is about whether Bitcoin should start filtering certain kinds of transactions at the protocol level. Once that door opens, the next debate becomes harder: who decides what counts as spam, abuse, or unacceptable data?
That is where censorship concerns enter the picture.
Bitcoin’s value proposition depends heavily on predictability and neutrality. Users may disagree about how the network should be used, but the protocol itself is supposed to enforce rules without caring who is transacting or why.
A rule designed to reduce unwanted data may seem harmless to some users. But to others, it creates a slippery slope. If one category of data can be restricted because enough people dislike it, future changes could target other categories.
That is why the debate has become sharper than a normal technical disagreement.
The Ordinals debate has always been bigger than JPEGs, inscriptions, or meme activity.
It asks whether Bitcoin is only money, or whether the protocol should remain open to any valid transaction that follows consensus rules. Purists argue that arbitrary data dilutes Bitcoin’s mission and makes monetary use more expensive. Neutrality advocates argue that filtering use cases damages Bitcoin’s permissionless design.
Both sides have a point.
High fees can hurt ordinary users. Spam can make the network harder to use. But protocol-level filtering is not a small fix. It changes the balance between open validation and social preference.
Bitcoin has survived partly because rule changes are difficult. That slowness frustrates people, but it also protects the network from fast-moving political or commercial pressure.
BIP-110 now sits inside that tension.
It is important not to overstate where this stands.
BIP-110 is not guaranteed to activate. Community support remains divided, and miner signaling would still have to reach the required threshold. Bitcoin’s governance process is deliberately difficult, and controversial proposals often fail to gain enough momentum.
That is part of the point.
For many Bitcoin supporters, the resistance to quick protocol changes is a feature, not a flaw. It means proposals must survive public scrutiny, technical review, and broad social consensus before becoming part of the network’s rules.
Saylor’s opposition adds weight to the anti-BIP-110 side of the debate, but it does not settle the issue. Developers, miners, node operators, businesses, and users will all continue to shape the outcome.
For now, the story is less about immediate activation and more about Bitcoin’s governance culture.
The network is again being forced to decide how it balances efficiency, neutrality, block space demand, and resistance to censorship. That is a hard debate, but it is also the kind of debate Bitcoin was designed to survive.
This article is based on Michael Saylor’s public statement and the BIP-110 GitHub repository.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
This report is based on publicly available market and on-chain data. at X
Cardano is preparing to hand over core infrastructure responsibilities to independent ecosystem teams, marking a significant step in the network’s long-running shift toward decentralized governance.
The transition is expected to begin in August, with responsibilities moving away from Input Output Global and toward independent teams under Intersect oversight. According to the available project materials, the affected components include the Haskell node, Plutus smart contract platform, Daedalus wallet, and Hydra scaling tools.
That is not a small operational change.
Cardano has always placed governance and decentralization near the centre of its identity. The Voltaire era is meant to push that further by giving the community and ecosystem institutions more responsibility over the network’s future. But decentralization is not just a slogan. It has to work in practice.
This handover will test whether Cardano can distribute critical development responsibilities without losing coordination, quality, or momentum.
Reference: Intersect MBO
Many crypto projects describe themselves as decentralized, but core development often remains concentrated.
That is not always a bad thing in the early stages. Networks need direction, funding, engineering discipline, and accountability. But over time, a project that wants to be genuinely decentralized has to reduce dependence on a single founding company or core team.
Cardano has been moving toward that model for years.
The planned infrastructure handover matters because it shifts decentralization from governance theory into operational reality. It is one thing for token holders to vote or for a community to debate proposals. It is another thing to manage the core codebase, wallet infrastructure, smart contract tooling, and scaling components that developers and users rely on.
That is where the real test begins.
If independent teams can maintain and improve the infrastructure effectively, Cardano’s decentralization claims become stronger. If the process becomes fragmented or slow, critics will argue that the network is sacrificing execution speed for governance ideals.
Intersect is expected to sit at the centre of the coordination process.
That matters because decentralized development still needs structure. Someone has to coordinate teams, manage priorities, communicate with the community, and help ensure that critical work does not fall through the cracks.
The goal is not to replace one central operator with another. The goal is to create a more accountable ecosystem structure where responsibilities are distributed but still coordinated.
That is difficult.
Open-source ecosystems can be powerful, but they can also become messy. Different teams may disagree on priorities. Funding decisions can become political. Technical standards need consistency. Security reviews and release processes need discipline.
For Cardano, the handover is therefore not only about who controls the code. It is about whether the ecosystem can mature into a structure that is decentralized without becoming disorganized.
That balance is hard, but it is exactly what Voltaire is supposed to prove.
For ADA traders, governance milestones can be difficult to price.
A successful handover could strengthen the long-term Cardano narrative. It would show that the network is becoming less dependent on IOG and more capable of sustaining itself through distributed teams and community institutions.
But the market may wait for evidence.
Traders usually want to see whether governance changes lead to more development activity, better tooling, stronger DeFi growth, more builders, or clearer ecosystem momentum. A handover by itself may be positive, but the market will judge what happens next.
That is especially true in a competitive layer-1 environment.
Ethereum, Solana, and other networks are constantly fighting for developers, liquidity, users, and institutional attention. Cardano’s governance-first approach gives it a distinct identity, but it must still produce visible progress.
The August transition could become an important step in that direction if it makes development more resilient and community-led.
The risk is that responsibilities become spread across too many groups without enough speed or accountability. That would reinforce the criticism that Cardano is thoughtful but slow.
Cardano’s long-term supporters will see this handover as part of the network growing up.
That reading is fair. A blockchain that wants to last for decades cannot depend forever on one founding development company. It needs institutions, processes, and independent teams that can keep the network moving.
But the next phase has to prove itself.
Users need reliable infrastructure. Developers need tools that improve. The market needs evidence that governance does not slow delivery. Intersect and the independent teams will now have to show that decentralization can be practical, not just philosophical.
That is the significance of the handover.
It is not a short-term hype event. It is a structural milestone for how Cardano wants to be run. If it works, the network’s governance model becomes more credible. If it struggles, the market will question whether decentralization has made execution harder.
For now, Cardano is entering an important test of its own design.
This article is based on Intersect and Input Output Global materials.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
This report is based on information released by Intersect MBO. at Intersect MBO
Uniswap founder Hayden Adams has proposed expanding protocol fees across Uniswap v4 and several network deployments, putting one of DeFi’s longest-running governance debates back at the centre of the market.
Protocol fees are a sensitive topic for Uniswap because the exchange is one of DeFi’s most important pieces of infrastructure. It processes huge volumes, sits across multiple chains, and remains a core liquidity venue for tokens. But for years, the question has been whether that usage should translate into direct economic value for the protocol and UNI governance.
The new proposal, published through Uniswap governance, targets protocol-level fee activation across multiple deployments, including v4 pools and the newly launched Robinhood Chain.
For UNI holders and DeFi users, this is not just a technical governance item. It goes to the heart of how DeFi protocols should capture value.
Reference: Uniswap Governance Forum
Uniswap is widely used, but usage and token value have not always moved together.
That has been one of the biggest debates around UNI. The protocol is critical to DeFi, but the token has often struggled with the question of direct value capture. Governance rights matter, but investors also want to know whether protocol activity can translate into a stronger economic model.
Protocol fees are one possible answer.
If activated, a portion of trading fees can be routed to protocol-controlled mechanisms rather than flowing only to liquidity providers. That can create a clearer link between exchange activity and the protocol’s treasury, buyback/burn mechanics, or other governance-directed uses.
The details matter. Fee rates, affected pools, chain selection, and how collections are handled can all change how traders, liquidity providers, and token holders respond.
For Uniswap, the challenge is balancing value capture with liquidity competitiveness. If fees are too aggressive, liquidity may migrate. If fees are too light, token holders may see little impact.
Uniswap is no longer just an Ethereum mainnet protocol.
It exists across multiple networks, and v4 is designed to make liquidity architecture more flexible. That multi-chain footprint creates opportunity, but it also makes governance more complicated.
Different chains have different users, fee environments, liquidity profiles, and competitive pressures. A fee model that works on Ethereum may not work the same way on Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, BNB Chain, Robinhood Chain, or Polygon.
That is why this proposal matters. It is not only about turning on a switch. It is about deciding how Uniswap should operate as a cross-chain liquidity protocol.
The governance materials note that fee collections would be routed into TokenJars and claimed for burning through UNI bridging to mainnet. That kind of structure shows how much DeFi governance has evolved. Fee activation now involves not just a governance vote, but cross-chain accounting, collection mechanisms, and execution details.
The more networks Uniswap supports, the more important those mechanics become.
UNI holders will likely focus on whether the proposal creates a clearer path for token value.
That does not mean the market will instantly reprice UNI. Governance proposals can take time, and implementation matters more than the headline. But the direction is important. If Uniswap can show a credible method for turning protocol volume into economic value, the token’s investment case becomes easier to explain.
Liquidity providers will be watching from another angle.
They want to know whether protocol fees reduce their share of trading economics and whether any fee changes make certain pools less attractive. DeFi liquidity is mobile. If LPs believe another venue offers better returns, they can move.
Users care about execution quality. If fee activation damages liquidity or worsens pricing, traders may notice. If the change is small enough to preserve competitiveness, users may barely feel it.
That is the balance Uniswap governance has to strike.
The proposal also says something bigger about DeFi’s maturity.
Early DeFi was mostly about growth: liquidity, volume, users, integrations, and TVL. Mature protocols eventually face a different question: how does that activity support long-term economics?
Uniswap is one of the clearest examples because it is both widely used and heavily scrutinised. If a protocol of its size cannot find a sustainable value-capture model, investors will keep asking difficult questions about governance tokens across the sector.
That is why this debate reaches beyond Uniswap.
Other DeFi protocols are watching the same issue. They need to reward users, keep liquidity, satisfy governance, and avoid creating regulatory problems. Protocol fees sit right at the intersection of those pressures.
For now, the proposal gives the market a fresh reason to pay attention to UNI governance. It may not settle the value-capture debate immediately, but it moves the discussion into a more concrete phase.
If approved and implemented cleanly, it could become one of the more important DeFi governance developments of the year.
This article is based on the Uniswap governance forum.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
This report is based on information released by Uniswap Governance Forum. at Uniswap Governance Forum
23andMe will pay $18 million to settle claims from 43 states over its 2023 data breach, which exposed genetic information tied to nearly 7 million people.
The post 23andMe Agrees to $18M Settlement With 43 States Over 2023 Data Breach appeared first on TechRepublic.
Login