TL;DR: Archax has adopted Chainlink Data Streams to supply pricing information for GOVY, its tokenised US Treasury product, as it develops collateral use cases.

Putting Treasury bills on a blockchain is only the beginning. If an institution wants to borrow against them or use them as margin in an automated market, the software also needs reliable, timely information about their value.

That is the gap Archax is addressing with Chainlink. The regulated digital asset platform said it has adopted Chainlink Data Streams for GOVY, its continuously rolling tokenised US Treasury product. The aim is to supply pricing data to support lending, treasury management and other on-chain collateral applications.

GOVY is designed to provide exposure to short-dated US government bills, with the underlying securities held in regulated custody. Archax describes features including transfers between approved wallets and subscriptions or redemptions using supported stablecoins.

Those details matter because a tokenised security still needs rules around custody, eligibility and price discovery. A faster oracle feed cannot remove credit, liquidity or operational risk, and a proposed DeFi integration still has to be approved by individual markets. What it can do is make the underlying asset’s price usable by programmable financial systems. That is a practical step towards institutions treating tokenised Treasuries as working collateral, not simply a digital certificate.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: In a newly published explanation of its European consultation response, the Cardano Foundation argues for regulating activities and intermediaries rather than creating blanket rules for decentralised technology.

The Cardano Foundation has spelled out why it believes Europe’s next round of crypto policymaking should avoid treating every blockchain interaction as a regulated financial service. In an October 21 article, its legal team explained the positions it submitted to the European Commission’s MiCA review.

The response itself was filed on September 30, an important date distinction. The Foundation is not announcing that new laws were passed this week. It is describing the changes it wants policymakers to make as they assess decentralised finance, staking, lending, stablecoins and the practical limits of the existing regulation.

Its argument rests on function and control. An intermediary taking custody or exercising discretion over customer assets is doing something different from a person delegating ADA stake without surrendering custody, or software that simply provides access to a public network.

The Foundation also wants clearer treatment of hybrid tokens, overlaps with other European financial rules and cross-border legal issues. These are lobbying positions, not binding exemptions. The significance for Cardano is that staking and permissionless infrastructure sit near the centre of the EU debate over who, precisely, should face financial-services obligations.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Fhenix says CoFHE is available on Ethereum and Arbitrum mainnets, giving approved applications a way to perform computations involving encrypted data.

A major weakness of public blockchain applications is that transparency is often the default, even where participants would prefer to keep commercial details private. Fhenix is trying to address that with CoFHE, its fully homomorphic encryption-powered computation system.

The company’s public developer information now describes CoFHE as live on Ethereum and Arbitrum mainnet. Applications can use its coprocessor to work with encrypted inputs instead of revealing every sensitive value to the wider network. That is relevant to private trading, financial positions and other cases where full public disclosure can be a drawback.

The important limitation is access. Fhenix says its early mainnet deployment uses an allowlist for contracts submitting CoFHE workloads, while open testnets remain available for experimentation. Its technical materials also distinguish research throughput measurements from results achieved in live production.

The development doesn’t magically make all Ethereum transactions private. It provides an additional tool to developers prepared to adopt encrypted computation and work within the initial deployment restrictions. If it proves practical under real workloads, confidential finance could move closer to established smart contract ecosystems rather than demanding a wholly separate chain.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: PancakeSwap’s ‘The Flip’ vote would boost liquidity providers‘ share of certain trading fees to 88% while cutting daily CAKE emissions to 7,000.

PancakeSwap holders are being asked to decide how much value should go to liquidity providers and how much new CAKE the protocol should continue issuing. Voting has opened on ‘The Flip’, a proposal first outlined to the community earlier in October.

Under the plan, liquidity providers on v3 and Infinity pools would keep 88% of swap fees, up from roughly two-thirds on many pools. The protocol’s remaining 12% fee share would go to its treasury. V2’s existing fee setup would not be changed by this part of the proposal.

The other major adjustment is on the emissions side: effective daily CAKE issuance would fall from 22,500 to 7,000, a reduction of approximately 69%. The remaining issuance is intended for PancakeSwap’s ecosystem growth fund, known as the Pantry.

Supporters will argue that paying liquidity more generously can improve trading depth and that cutting new token issuance may reduce dilution. The trade-off is how the treasury finances development and incentives over time. Nothing is final until the vote passes and code changes are rolled out. The proposed implementation would take place in phases from November, rather than changing every supported chain overnight.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Zcash’s NU7 upgrade is targeted for early November, promising 25-second blocks, while final activation parameters still require implementation work.

Zcash developers are moving closer to a substantial change in the network’s basic rhythm. The NU7 schedule points to November 5 for mainnet activation, with the upgrade designed to shorten target block spacing from 75 seconds to 25 seconds.

That change could make multiple confirmations arrive much sooner than under the existing parameters. NU7 also includes the Network Sustainability Mechanism and changes affecting older transaction formats, including the retirement of legacy Sprout-related functionality.

But a date on a community roadmap is not the same thing as a completed activation. The development teams still have to lock down the mainnet height in software, finish releases and ensure the network’s operators are ready. The Zcash Foundation’s latest engineering notes describe syncing fixes and work on the Zebra node release needed for NU7.

For users, the visible effect should be quicker block confirmations once the change is actually live. For node operators and infrastructure providers, the near-term task is upgrading carefully enough to remain on the correct chain. Zcash’s privacy architecture is not being replaced wholesale; this is an engineering upgrade with real compatibility consequences.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: NGRAVE says attackers hijacked a notification provider used by LIQUID, directing users to a fake recovery-page and stealing at least $2.56 million.

A convincing security notification became the entry point for a costly crypto phishing campaign. Hardware wallet maker NGRAVE says a third-party provider used to send LIQUID app alerts was compromised, allowing attackers to push a fake warning to customers on October 17.

The notification directed recipients to a website resembling NGRAVE’s own pages. People who entered their recovery phrase or Perfect Key handed the attacker the information needed to take their funds. In its October 19 incident report, NGRAVE said it had traced approximately $2.56 million taken from about 70 wallet addresses across four networks.

The company broke that total down into roughly $1.77 million in Bitcoin, $454,000 in XRP, $316,000 in Ethereum assets and $18,000 in Stellar. NGRAVE described the figure as a minimum while it continues examining affected accounts.

Crucially, this was not evidence that the ZERO hardware device’s cryptography had been cracked. The attacker exploited trust in an apparently legitimate software alert and then persuaded victims to reveal secrets. NGRAVE says it disabled the notification channel and replaced keys. The immediate advice for wallet holders is unchanged: a legitimate security alert should never require typing a recovery phrase into a website.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Technical documentation for the proposed LendingProtocolV1_1 amendment describes closed-ended vaults with defined subscription and redemption dates on the XRP Ledger.

XRP Ledger developers have outlined a more structured approach to lending vaults, adding a design that would let some pools run for a fixed period rather than remain permanently open to deposits and withdrawals.

The LendingProtocolV1_1 documentation introduces a VaultKind setting in the VaultCreate transaction. An open-ended vault remains the default, while a second value would identify a closed-ended vault with additional dates controlling when new subscriptions close and when redemption can begin.

Those fields matter for products that need a predictable investment period. Institutional-style lending arrangements often have subscription windows, capital lockups and maturity schedules that are harder to represent using a continuously open pool.

The proposal describes the mechanics of creating such a vault, not the launch of a live lending product. It also does not erase the credit and liquidity risks associated with on-chain lending. A technical standard can define how a position behaves, but it cannot guarantee that a borrower will repay or that a market will remain liquid.

XRPL’s broader lending discussions have attracted attention because they point to potential financial products built directly around ledger-level features rather than solely through external applications.

For now, the important question is whether validators and developers are satisfied with the amendment’s implementation and how any final version would interact with the rest of the network.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Zakura has proposed assigning a separate viewing key to each Zcash swap made through NEAR Intents, reducing how much transaction history a future attacker might be able to link.

Zcash’s privacy model is built around shielding transaction details, but cross-chain swaps introduce awkward points where information can become public. A new proposal from Zcash software developer Zakura focuses on one of those points: the refund addresses involved when shielded ZEC moves through NEAR Intents.

A publicly visible address can be linked to a wallet’s viewing-key structure. If future cryptographic advances allowed an attacker to recover or exploit that relationship, exposing one address could reveal more of a user’s transaction history than intended.

Zakura’s proposed answer is to give each swap its own viewing key while leaving spending authority under the user’s control. A compromised viewing key would then reveal information related to one swap, rather than opening a window onto an entire wallet’s past.

The design also contemplates private information retrieval, allowing software to locate relevant refunds without broadcasting which addresses a user is checking.

This isn’t a response to a demonstrated quantum attack against Zcash. It is preventative engineering based on a possible future risk. The proposal remains under review, and supporters have not yet delivered a widely deployed solution.

That distinction matters. Good privacy work often means fixing linkability problems before they become exploitable, but protection must still be implemented, audited and adopted by wallets before it benefits ordinary users.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Attackers are exploiting a chain of Plex Media Server vulnerabilities to install unauthorised cryptocurrency miners and a Linux proxy backdoor on vulnerable systems.

The latest cryptojacking warning comes from an unexpected direction: home and business media servers. Security researchers have observed attackers chaining multiple weaknesses in Plex Media Server to run software on machines they do not own.

The technique, dubbed Plex2Shell, involves four vulnerabilities that can be combined to reach remote code execution under certain conditions. The attacks described this week installed an XMRig cryptocurrency miner alongside software functioning as a reverse proxy or backdoor.

XMRig is a legitimate open-source mining tool when used with permission, but on a compromised server it can quietly consume processing power and electricity for the benefit of an attacker. That makes cryptojacking a practical security problem well beyond exchanges and cryptocurrency wallets.

The vulnerabilities were reported earlier in the year and addressed in Plex Media Server version 1.43.3.10861, according to the security reporting. Exploitation attempts appeared after public proof-of-concept material circulated in October.

Not every server running Plex is necessarily vulnerable, and details of attackers’ success rates remain unclear. The key risk is to instances running affected, unpatched software.

For operators, the sensible response is to check the installed version, apply the vendor’s updates and review systems for unexpected processes or network connections. Cryptocurrency mining malware rarely announces itself; an unusually busy server may be the first obvious clue.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Sophon has warned users to withdraw remaining assets by November 25 ahead of the planned shutdown of its standalone chain at the end of the month.

The end of a blockchain isn’t always announced with a hack or a dramatic market collapse. Sometimes it arrives as a deadline: move your tokens, claim your rewards and make sure nothing important is still sitting on infrastructure that is about to disappear.

Sophon has set November 25 as the withdrawal deadline for assets on its network, ahead of a planned permanent mainnet shutdown on November 30. The notice covers remaining balances and rewards that users may need to claim before related services go offline.

The project previously signalled a broader change in direction, away from maintaining its own chain and toward building consumer applications on Base. The final withdrawal timetable makes that strategic decision an immediate operational issue for holders.

Anyone with funds still on Sophon needs to verify the latest official instructions and the status of individual bridges and applications rather than assuming everything will migrate automatically. Shutdown announcements can attract phishing attempts, so links circulating in unsolicited messages deserve particular caution.

Sophon is one example of a wider reality for blockchain projects: operating a network has ongoing technical and economic costs. The fact that a chain can be launched does not guarantee it will remain worthwhile to support indefinitely.

For affected users, however, the lesson is more immediate. Deadlines matter, and withdrawing assets safely is more important than debating the project’s next chapter.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: On-chain trading records indicate that a large Hyperliquid trader rebuilt an Ethereum short worth roughly $16 million after suffering around $469,000 in losses.

Losing nearly half a million dollars on a leveraged Ethereum trade would be enough to make most investors reassess their position. One account tracked on Hyperliquid appears to have done the opposite.

A review of public trading activity reported on October 19 describes a series of forced closures after an overnight ETH rebound. The trader reportedly realised approximately $469,000 in losses before fees, with close to $19.8 million in short exposure closed across multiple fills.

Later that day, the account began rebuilding its bearish position. By an afternoon snapshot, the trader was short roughly 6,789 ETH, worth about $16.2 million at prevailing prices, with leverage set at 25 times.

Those are observations about a particular account’s recorded trading, not proof of who controls it or why the person behind it returned to the market. A large short position can reflect outright speculation, but it can also serve as a hedge against exposure held elsewhere.

The episode illustrates how unforgiving highly leveraged perpetual futures can be. Market moves that look ordinary to spot holders can trigger forced liquidations when collateral buffers are thin.

For traders watching the wallet, the important numbers are less about the drama of a fresh bet and more about liquidation exposure, funding costs and whether the account can withstand another move against it.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: DefiLlama’s chain-revenue figures put Tron at roughly $23.4 million over 30 days, ahead of Ethereum and Solana combined on that specific measure.

A look at blockchain fee revenue offers a different picture of the market from token prices and headline transaction counts. In DefiLlama’s latest 30-day chain figures, Tron recorded approximately $23.4 million, compared with around $6.3 million for Ethereum and $3.4 million for Solana in the same category.

That is a substantial gap, but the category needs explaining. The dashboard’s figures reflect its defined chain-revenue methodology, including TRX fees burned on Tron. They are not a comprehensive comparison of every dollar earned by applications, validators or infrastructure providers across the three ecosystems.

Tron’s position is closely tied to stablecoin usage, particularly USDT. The network has become an important route for moving dollar-denominated tokens, especially in markets where transfer costs and familiarity matter more than the latest DeFi application.

Revenue can tell us something about how much economic activity a network captures, though it does not measure decentralisation, developer adoption or the long-term value of a token. Fee policy also differs considerably between chains.

That’s why the comparison is worth watching rather than turning into a sweeping conclusion about which blockchain has won. A network can generate more revenue in one category while its rivals lead on liquidity, application activity or other measures.

As with all live dashboards, the figures will continue moving after publication.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson says he is personally developing a programming language that combines transaction intents, proof-carrying data and Groth16 proofs.

Charles Hoskinson is returning to the keyboard. The Cardano founder says he is working directly on a new programming language with Input Output Global engineer Lucas Rosa, aimed at making complex blockchain actions easier to express and verify.

His description brings together three ideas. Transaction intents describe what a user wants to achieve without forcing them to specify every execution step. Proof-carrying data attaches evidence that a computation or action meets certain rules. Groth16 proofs are compact cryptographic proofs that can be checked efficiently.

In principle, those pieces could give Cardano developers another way to build applications that coordinate actions and verify results without putting every underlying calculation on-chain.

There is a major caveat: Hoskinson has not publicly released a finished specification, a name for the language or a timetable for general developer access. A social-media announcement about work in progress is not a new production programming environment.

Cardano already supports tools such as Plutus and Aiken, while the separate Midnight privacy network uses its own developer tooling. A new language would have to demonstrate practical advantages, workable security and a developer experience good enough to encourage adoption.

The idea is ambitious. The unanswered question is how it moves from Hoskinson’s description to publicly reviewable code that builders can actually use.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Cardano is highlighting a 12-team Catalyst pilot in which much of the grant funding depends on real adoption rather than merely launching a project.

Crypto grant programmes have a familiar problem: it’s easier to count funded ideas than products anyone actually uses. Cardano’s Project Catalyst has been trying a different approach with its 2026 pilot cohort, which is now being highlighted again by the ecosystem.

The original selection announcement came on September 24. Twelve teams were chosen from 117 applications, covering areas including stablecoin payments, lending, programmable tokens, identity and supply-chain applications. The pool was designed around roughly two million ADA in grant funding.

The more interesting detail is how teams get paid. Catalyst says 40% of an approved grant is released after onboarding, while the rest is linked to adoption targets and continued use. That asks recipients to demonstrate something after deployment, rather than treating a completed build as the final measure of success.

The programme also involved 52 active community curators, with specialist reviewers examining the business and technical case for applications.

None of that proves that the selected projects will succeed. There is a difference between promising measurable use and demonstrating it on-chain, and the pilot will ultimately be judged on the latter.

Still, the funding model gives Cardano a concrete experiment to watch: can distributing ADA on the basis of usage deliver better outcomes than the traditional grant cycle?

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Technical documentation for the proposed LendingProtocolV1_1 amendment describes closed-ended vaults with defined subscription and redemption dates on the XRP Ledger.

XRP Ledger developers have outlined a more structured approach to lending vaults, adding a design that would let some pools run for a fixed period rather than remain permanently open to deposits and withdrawals.

The LendingProtocolV1_1 documentation introduces a VaultKind setting in the VaultCreate transaction. An open-ended vault remains the default, while a second value would identify a closed-ended vault with additional dates controlling when new subscriptions close and when redemption can begin.

Those fields matter for products that need a predictable investment period. Institutional-style lending arrangements often have subscription windows, capital lockups and maturity schedules that are harder to represent using a continuously open pool.

The proposal describes the mechanics of creating such a vault, not the launch of a live lending product. It also does not erase the credit and liquidity risks associated with on-chain lending. A technical standard can define how a position behaves, but it cannot guarantee that a borrower will repay or that a market will remain liquid.

XRPL’s broader lending discussions have attracted attention because they point to potential financial products built directly around ledger-level features rather than solely through external applications.

For now, the important question is whether validators and developers are satisfied with the amendment’s implementation and how any final version would interact with the rest of the network.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Zakura has proposed assigning a separate viewing key to each Zcash swap made through NEAR Intents, reducing how much transaction history a future attacker might be able to link.

Zcash’s privacy model is built around shielding transaction details, but cross-chain swaps introduce awkward points where information can become public. A new proposal from Zcash software developer Zakura focuses on one of those points: the refund addresses involved when shielded ZEC moves through NEAR Intents.

A publicly visible address can be linked to a wallet’s viewing-key structure. If future cryptographic advances allowed an attacker to recover or exploit that relationship, exposing one address could reveal more of a user’s transaction history than intended.

Zakura’s proposed answer is to give each swap its own viewing key while leaving spending authority under the user’s control. A compromised viewing key would then reveal information related to one swap, rather than opening a window onto an entire wallet’s past.

The design also contemplates private information retrieval, allowing software to locate relevant refunds without broadcasting which addresses a user is checking.

This isn’t a response to a demonstrated quantum attack against Zcash. It is preventative engineering based on a possible future risk. The proposal remains under review, and supporters have not yet delivered a widely deployed solution.

That distinction matters. Good privacy work often means fixing linkability problems before they become exploitable, but protection must still be implemented, audited and adopted by wallets before it benefits ordinary users.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Attackers are exploiting a chain of Plex Media Server vulnerabilities to install unauthorised cryptocurrency miners and a Linux proxy backdoor on vulnerable systems.

The latest cryptojacking warning comes from an unexpected direction: home and business media servers. Security researchers have observed attackers chaining multiple weaknesses in Plex Media Server to run software on machines they do not own.

The technique, dubbed Plex2Shell, involves four vulnerabilities that can be combined to reach remote code execution under certain conditions. The attacks described this week installed an XMRig cryptocurrency miner alongside software functioning as a reverse proxy or backdoor.

XMRig is a legitimate open-source mining tool when used with permission, but on a compromised server it can quietly consume processing power and electricity for the benefit of an attacker. That makes cryptojacking a practical security problem well beyond exchanges and cryptocurrency wallets.

The vulnerabilities were reported earlier in the year and addressed in Plex Media Server version 1.43.3.10861, according to the security reporting. Exploitation attempts appeared after public proof-of-concept material circulated in October.

Not every server running Plex is necessarily vulnerable, and details of attackers’ success rates remain unclear. The key risk is to instances running affected, unpatched software.

For operators, the sensible response is to check the installed version, apply the vendor’s updates and review systems for unexpected processes or network connections. Cryptocurrency mining malware rarely announces itself; an unusually busy server may be the first obvious clue.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Sophon has warned users to withdraw remaining assets by November 25 ahead of the planned shutdown of its standalone chain at the end of the month.

The end of a blockchain isn’t always announced with a hack or a dramatic market collapse. Sometimes it arrives as a deadline: move your tokens, claim your rewards and make sure nothing important is still sitting on infrastructure that is about to disappear.

Sophon has set November 25 as the withdrawal deadline for assets on its network, ahead of a planned permanent mainnet shutdown on November 30. The notice covers remaining balances and rewards that users may need to claim before related services go offline.

The project previously signalled a broader change in direction, away from maintaining its own chain and toward building consumer applications on Base. The final withdrawal timetable makes that strategic decision an immediate operational issue for holders.

Anyone with funds still on Sophon needs to verify the latest official instructions and the status of individual bridges and applications rather than assuming everything will migrate automatically. Shutdown announcements can attract phishing attempts, so links circulating in unsolicited messages deserve particular caution.

Sophon is one example of a wider reality for blockchain projects: operating a network has ongoing technical and economic costs. The fact that a chain can be launched does not guarantee it will remain worthwhile to support indefinitely.

For affected users, however, the lesson is more immediate. Deadlines matter, and withdrawing assets safely is more important than debating the project’s next chapter.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: On-chain trading records indicate that a large Hyperliquid trader rebuilt an Ethereum short worth roughly $16 million after suffering around $469,000 in losses.

Losing nearly half a million dollars on a leveraged Ethereum trade would be enough to make most investors reassess their position. One account tracked on Hyperliquid appears to have done the opposite.

A review of public trading activity reported on October 19 describes a series of forced closures after an overnight ETH rebound. The trader reportedly realised approximately $469,000 in losses before fees, with close to $19.8 million in short exposure closed across multiple fills.

Later that day, the account began rebuilding its bearish position. By an afternoon snapshot, the trader was short roughly 6,789 ETH, worth about $16.2 million at prevailing prices, with leverage set at 25 times.

Those are observations about a particular account’s recorded trading, not proof of who controls it or why the person behind it returned to the market. A large short position can reflect outright speculation, but it can also serve as a hedge against exposure held elsewhere.

The episode illustrates how unforgiving highly leveraged perpetual futures can be. Market moves that look ordinary to spot holders can trigger forced liquidations when collateral buffers are thin.

For traders watching the wallet, the important numbers are less about the drama of a fresh bet and more about liquidation exposure, funding costs and whether the account can withstand another move against it.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: DefiLlama’s chain-revenue figures put Tron at roughly $23.4 million over 30 days, ahead of Ethereum and Solana combined on that specific measure.

A look at blockchain fee revenue offers a different picture of the market from token prices and headline transaction counts. In DefiLlama’s latest 30-day chain figures, Tron recorded approximately $23.4 million, compared with around $6.3 million for Ethereum and $3.4 million for Solana in the same category.

That is a substantial gap, but the category needs explaining. The dashboard’s figures reflect its defined chain-revenue methodology, including TRX fees burned on Tron. They are not a comprehensive comparison of every dollar earned by applications, validators or infrastructure providers across the three ecosystems.

Tron’s position is closely tied to stablecoin usage, particularly USDT. The network has become an important route for moving dollar-denominated tokens, especially in markets where transfer costs and familiarity matter more than the latest DeFi application.

Revenue can tell us something about how much economic activity a network captures, though it does not measure decentralisation, developer adoption or the long-term value of a token. Fee policy also differs considerably between chains.

That’s why the comparison is worth watching rather than turning into a sweeping conclusion about which blockchain has won. A network can generate more revenue in one category while its rivals lead on liquidity, application activity or other measures.

As with all live dashboards, the figures will continue moving after publication.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.