Circle has reported 30% growth in USDC assets under custody on Kraken since their September 2025 partnership, alongside nearly 1 billion EURC traded on the exchange since listing. Circle, in an Oct. 28 post presenting its Kraken case study, said…
South Korea has begun considering a new education tax on cryptocurrency exchanges that could leave major operators such as Upbit and Bithumb paying billions of won annually if they are reclassified as financial businesses under the proposed Digital Asset Basic…
The NBA has named Kalshi and Polymarket its two preferred prediction-market exchanges, giving both platforms access to official league data and U.S. marketing rights as Kalshi faces a Utah lawsuit seeking up to $61.2 million in allegedly unlawful fees. The…
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has advanced a voluntary federal registration pathway for crypto exchanges, Chairman Mike Selig has said, as Congress has yet to enact a crypto market-structure law. In an Oct. 26 X post, Mike Selig said…
The wallets were supposed to belong to CoinDCX’s past. After a July 2025 security breach, the Indian exchange had replaced the compromised infrastructure and told customers to use new deposit addresses. Some customers kept sending money to the old ones,…
CoinDCX confirms a 15.99 million USDT loss tied to compromised legacy wallets after initially denying another hack, while saying customer balances remain safe.
Exchange Tokens Are Being Redesigned Around One Question: How Do You Stop People Leaving?
The airdrop cycle of 2024 and 2025 produced a repeatable pattern, and everyone in the market can recite it. A protocol announces a points programme. Volume climbs. Wallets multiply. The token generates, the airdrop lands, and within weeks a large share of the supply has been sold and a large share of the activity has moved to whichever protocol announced points next.
The mechanism worked exactly as designed. It bought attention and volume for a period, at a price paid in supply. What it did not buy was anything that stayed after the payment stopped.
Perp DEXs have been the most aggressive users of this playbook, and they now have the most reason to move past it. The sector is no longer small enough for growth-at-any-cost to be the only objective: on-chain perpetual volume has climbed from roughly 2% of the total perpetuals market in January 2024 to over 10% by early 2026, with monthly volumes crossing a trillion dollars, and the centralised share of open interest falling from 96.4% at the start of 2025 to 86.5% by April 2026 according to CoinGecko’s research. A sector at that scale is competing for retention, not for first attention.
The token designs now being published reflect that. Three shifts are worth tracking.
Shift one: governance weight you can’t buy
The first design change is separating the tradeable asset from the governance asset.
In the standard model, one token does both jobs: it trades on the open market and it votes. The consequence is that voting power is purchasable at any moment, including immediately before a contentious vote, and including by someone with no interest in the protocol beyond the outcome of that vote. Governance attacks of this shape have been executed repeatedly.
The alternative is a non-transferable staking derivative. Stake the liquid token, receive a governance token that cannot be sold, lent or borrowed. Voting weight then has to be accumulated by locking, which means it can only be held by parties who have accepted the opportunity cost of holding.
EVEDEX’s published design for $EVE follows this shape. Staked EVE converts one-to-one into stEVE, which is non-transferable and carries the voting rights in the EVEDEX DAO. It is a straightforward mechanism, and its main effect is to make governance capture expensive in time rather than merely expensive in capital.
Shift two: exit costs that decay rather than cliff
The second change is in how unstaking works, and it is more consequential than it sounds.
Lockups have traditionally been binary. Funds are locked for a term, then they are not. This produces the unlock-cliff dynamic familiar from every vesting chart: nothing happens for months, then a large tranche becomes liquid on a known date, and the market prices it in advance.
The newer approach makes exit continuously available but progressively priced. Under the $EVE design, unstaking runs linearly across a year, updating continuously, and holders can withdraw the unlocked portion at any point. Exiting early carries a penalty of up to 50%, declining linearly to zero as the period completes.
Shift three: rewards indexed to revenue, not to emissions
The third shift is the most important and the least visible in marketing material.
Emissions-funded staking rewards are circular. The protocol pays stakers in newly issued tokens, the yield looks attractive, more tokens are staked, and the source of the yield is dilution of the same holders receiving it. The advertised APY is a number the protocol chooses, not a number it earns.
Revenue-indexed rewards work differently. The $EVE design explicitly does not express staking rewards as a fixed annual rate; returns are tied to protocol fee generation and to each staker’s share of total staked supply. That produces a lower and more variable headline number, which is commercially unhelpful and analytically honest. It also means the token’s return profile is a function of whether the exchange actually does business — which, for a venue reporting more than 74,000 registered traders and monthly volume above $15B, is at least a testable proposition.
What these designs still don’t solve
None of this addresses the central asymmetry, which is allocation.
$EVE has a fixed supply of 100 million, with 31% to treasury and DAO, 18% to the core team, 15% to partnerships, 12% to liquidity provision and vaults, 10% to seed and private rounds, 8% to network incentives and 6% distributed retroactively to early users based on accumulated points and badges. That 6% figure is roughly in line with what comparable programmes have distributed, and it is worth stating plainly: retroactive community allocations in this sector are small relative to insider allocations, and elegant staking mechanics do not change that arithmetic.
The other unresolved question is timing. The $EVE token generation event is scheduled for a window of approximately six to eighteen months after mainnet launch — a range wide enough that the market conditions at TGE are unknowable, and unlock schedules for team and investor tranches are the detail that will determine how the design performs in practice.
The direction of travel is real, though. Exchange tokens are being built to reward staying rather than to reward arriving. Whether the mechanisms hold when the first serious drawdown tests them is the part nobody can model in advance.
The Revolut outage a few hours ago disrupted crypto services, card payments and bank transfers after a Google Cloud incident affected its London infrastructure. The British fintech said customers’ money and data remained safe, but the disruption raised questions about the reliability of a centralized platform experience.
The incident began at 06:08 UTC, when Google’s London-based europe-west2 region encountered technical problems. Revolut subsequently marked 27 services as partially unavailable or affected, including crypto access. The disruption also reached other financial institutions and public services that depended on the same cloud infrastructure.
Due to a recent Google Cloud outage, customers may have experienced temporary service disruption on the Revolut app today.
The issue has now been fixed, and services are now restored.
All our customers’ money and data is safe, and has remained safe throughout this incident. We…
Revolut said it was working to restore services as the incident unfolded. By 17:00 UTC, some functions had returned, although Reuters reported that most services on Revolut’s UK status page still showed problems. The company later said its disrupted services had been restored.
Revolut Outage Exposes a Weak Link for Crypto
The Revolut outage highlights something that crypto users sometimes overlook: owning an asset and being able to access it are two different things.
Revolut offers crypto trading through its centralized platform, so customers depend on the company’s systems to view balances and place orders. When those systems become unavailable, users can temporarily lose access to the tools needed to manage their holdings.
That does not mean the crypto itself has disappeared. Revolut explicitly stated that customers’ money and data remained safe during the disruption. There is also no verified evidence that the outage resulted in stolen cryptocurrency or lost customer balances.
Still, temporary access problems can matter during volatile market conditions. A customer who cannot open a trading interface may miss an opportunity to sell, buy, or adjust a position. Whether that happened to Revolut’s crypto customers during this incident has not been independently established.
The disruption also illustrates the infrastructure risk behind centralized financial applications. Google Cloud’s London region experienced a problem that affected multiple organizations, demonstrating how services operated by separate companies can share common technical dependencies.
Google Cloud said its engineering team was investigating the incident and would publish a detailed analysis after completing its investigation. The company’s provides a primary source for infrastructure updates.
The Revolut outage offers a timely reminder that crypto accessibility depends on more than blockchain availability. A blockchain can continue processing transactions while a centralized exchange or financial app experiences downtime. Users trading through an intermediary may still be unable to access its interface, even when the underlying network remains operational.
Self-custody can reduce dependence on a single company’s account systems, although it introduces different risks. Users must protect their private keys, verify transactions carefully, and understand network fees. Moving assets also does not eliminate every infrastructure dependency.
For Revolut customers, the immediate issue was service availability rather than any confirmed loss of funds. The company said customer money and data remained safe, and subsequent reporting indicated that affected services were restored.
The incident also arrives as financial regulators scrutinize the technology providers supporting banking services. Reuters reported that UK authorities had designated Google Cloud EMEA Limited as a critical third-party supplier to the financial sector in July 2026. EU regulators have also identified major technology providers as critical infrastructure dependencies.
This makes the Revolut outage relevant beyond one app. As banking, payments and cryptocurrency services increasingly share cloud infrastructure, a technical failure at one provider can disrupt several financial products simultaneously.
For crypto users, the practical takeaway is straightforward: check platform status updates during outages, avoid assuming that inaccessible balances have been lost, and understand how custody arrangements affect access to assets.
The Revolut outage did not establish that customer funds were stolen or that the underlying blockchain networks failed. It demonstrated something more specific: access to digital assets can depend on centralized infrastructure that customers do not control.
The Moscow Exchange plans to let clients trade cryptocurrencies starting in December and has begun testing operations with professional market participants, a senior executive said last week.
“We are actively testing. We started a week ago,” Boris Blokhin, the exchange’s senior managing director for sales and business development, told journalists on the sidelines of the Sber Investments forum, according to a Thursday Interfax report.
The exchange — the biggest in Russia — will work with a partner settlement digital depository, where market participants will open accounts. It won’t need any additional permits or licenses to launch trading, Blokhin added.
JUST IN: Russia's Moscow Stock Exchange will allow its 40.1 million clients to invest in Bitcoin and crypto assets pic.twitter.com/ZJOxEPWNNv
The plan follows Russia’s law on digital currencies and digital rights, which took effect in September and sets comprehensive rules for crypto in the country.
Trades can run through existing infrastructure such as exchanges, brokers and trust managers. New players will also join, including crypto exchangers, where assets are bought and sold, and digital depositories, which record ownership.
Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank, announced last month it was the first in the country to have been approved to custody bitcoin. The Bank of Russia gave it the green light for “digital currency record-keeping” and to facilitate the transfer of such assets, covering bitcoin and other, smaller cryptocurrencies.
Russia’s relationship with Bitcoin is complicated. President Vladimir Putin in 2024 seemed to praise the original cryptocurrency back in 2024. “For example, Bitcoin, who can ban it? Nobody,” he said at a forum at the time.
But the Kremlin keeps a tight grip on what citizens can do with it. Using crypto as a form of payment has been illegal in Russia since 2022; unqualified investors can buy bitcoin and stablecoins capped at 300,000 rubles ($3,556) a year through a single intermediary.
Qualified investors can buy any cryptocurrency traded on exchange and over-the-counter markets, with no limit.
President Putin in October signed a law to set in stone the regulation of digital currencies and digital rights in the country.
Agencies and critical infrastructure organizations must be prepared to defend against adversaries using legitimate network tools, SentinelOne CISO points out.
Federal CISOs are learning to navigate AI's promise and peril. Even so Revolutional's cyber leader warns against buying tools that overpromise and underdeliver.
AI is boosting productivity, but agencies are discovering new governance, resilience and infrastructure challenges along the way, the Fortinet Federal CTO says.
SolarWinds’ Brian Chamberlain says DoD needs visibility across IT, OT, apps and databases to respond to threats and gain a cohesive picture in real time.
Staff Sgt. Zackery Coder checks computer data during Red Flag-Alaska 14-2, June 19, 2014, on Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Coder ensured the F-16 Fighting Falcon was ready for the next sortie. He is a crew chief with the 36th Aircraft Maintenance Unit, Osan Air Base, South Korea. (U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Peter Reft)
Login
Bitcoinist
All News – Federal News Network
