Today's Cryptocurrency Prices by Market Caps
The global cryptocurrency market cap today i $2.31T
Market Cap
$2.31T
24h Trading Volume
$70.34B
BTC Dominance
56.22%
|
#
|
Name
|
Price
|
1h %
|
24h %
|
7d %
|
Market Cap
|
Volume (24h)
|
Chart (7d) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
—
|
|||||||
|
No cryptocurrencies found Try adjusting your search query |
||||||||
Latest Crypto News
View All News
Saylor Warns Bitcoin's Biggest Threat Is Internal Rule Changes — "Corruption From Within
Michael Saylor says Bitcoin’s biggest danger isn’t a rival coin or a hostile regulator — it’s internal rule changes. In a string of posts on X, MicroStrategy’s executive chairman called Bitcoin’s consensus rules “its constitution,” the set of protocols that define ownership, preserve scarcity, settle transactions, and limit what network participants can change. “Bitcoin has won. Now it must survive victory,” he warned. Its “gravest threat is not an enemy at the gates, but corruption from within,” Saylor wrote, arguing that factions could invent pretexts to rewrite rules and seize economic rights until “freedom becomes permission and law becomes loot.” Why he’s alarmed Saylor’s concern centers on any consensus change that benefits one group at the expense of miners, developers, investors, custodians, companies and other users. He says once one faction proves it can alter the rules, competing groups will try the same — potentially turning one-off disputes into permanent, bitter governance fights. The consequences, he says, would include capital flight, slower development, weaker security and a Bitcoin that never reaches its potential. Big-picture stakes Saylor expects Bitcoin could grow 100x and become infrastructure for global capital markets. From that vantage, a single poorly designed rule adopted today could choke off future financial products, technologies and economic activity that haven’t yet been imagined. Specific proposals under fire Saylor has renewed criticism of BIP-110, a proposed temporary soft fork aimed at limiting “arbitrary” data stored on-chain. Proponents say such limits would reduce storage and verification burdens for node operators and keep Bitcoin focused on monetary transfers rather than inscriptions, tokens or file storage. Saylor accepts that some on-chain data may be low-value or linked to abuse, but he argues Bitcoin cannot reliably infer the purpose behind transaction data. He warns consensus rules shouldn’t be used to sort which valid, fee-paying transactions get block space: “Bitcoin does not need guardians of purity. It needs guardians of neutrality.” He extends that neutrality argument to other living debates: covenant functionality (scripts that constrain how outputs can be spent) and proposals to raise block capacity. In his view: - Restricting valid transactions could reduce competition for block space and weaken the fee market. - Bigger blocks would dilute scarcity of block space and increase the bandwidth and hardware costs of running a node. - Covenants would add complexity to consensus rules and open new attack surfaces. Fees, miners and long-term incentives Saylor emphasizes that as the block subsidy halves roughly every 210,000 blocks, transaction fees will become increasingly important to miner revenue. Suppressing fee demand, he says, risks reducing miners’ income and undermining the financial incentives that secure the network. Preferred roadmap His prescription: keep Bitcoin’s base layer simple, neutral, scarce and secure. Let developers and entrepreneurs build new functionality on second-layer networks and applications, where adoption is voluntary and failures have limited systemic impact. Corporate strategy and security Saylor’s stance is consistent with MicroStrategy’s corporate model — large BTC holdings and advocacy for enterprise adoption — and his argument that companies will be central to Bitcoin becoming a global monetary network. He also helped organize the Bitcoin Security Consortium with Anchorage Digital, ARK Invest, BlackRock, Block, Blockstream, Coinbase, Fidelity Digital Assets and Galaxy. The nine firms pledged $15 million over three years to fund Bitcoin security researchers and developers, including preparations for quantum-computing threats. The consortium says members will direct funding independently and that it will not control Bitcoin development or take positions on specific protocol changes. Bottom line Saylor calls for upgrades that are rare, conservative and strictly necessary. For him, protocol restraint — paired with corporate adoption and targeted security funding — is the core of a long-term strategy to protect Bitcoin as it scales from a successful experiment to global financial infrastructure. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
Big Banks Build Shared Tokenized-Deposit Network to Rival Stablecoins with 24/7 On-Chain Payments
Major US banks are building a shared tokenized-deposit network that could bring 24/7 blockchain payments into the regulated US banking system — and take on crypto-native stablecoins in the process. What’s happening - JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo are spearheading a project run by The Clearing House (the bank-owned payments firm) to let participating banks clear and settle tokenized deposits around the clock, while linking blockchain activity to existing payment rails. - The network is aimed first at multinational corporations and is pitched for programmable treasury functions, real-time liquidity management, automated payouts and cross-border transfers. - More than a dozen other institutions have signed on, including BNY, HSBC, PNC, Santander, TD Bank, Truist and U.S. Bank. A blockchain technology provider has not yet been selected. What a “tokenized deposit” is — and how it differs from a stablecoin - Tokenized deposits are digital claims on money held at a commercial bank. The funds remain on the bank’s balance sheet and receive conventional deposit legal protections. - Stablecoins, in contrast, are crypto-native tokens that generally sit outside the regulated banking system. Both offer programmable settlement and 24/7 transfers, but deposit tokens keep customer funds inside regulated banks. Why banks want this - Several banks already run proprietary on-chain payment services (JPMorgan’s Kinexys averages more than $7 billion in daily volume and has processed over $40 trillion since launch; Citi Token Services moves billions across the US, UK, Singapore and Hong Kong). But those systems are largely closed networks. - A shared Clearing House infrastructure would let tokenized money move between banks and scale institutional on-chain payments, addressing limits of siloed platforms. JPMorgan Payments co-head Max Neukirchen said a regulated market infrastructure is needed to scale tokenized-deposit clearing and settlement. Competitive backdrop: stablecoins and regulation - Stablecoins already dominate the crypto payments landscape: roughly $263 billion are in circulation, giving crypto-native payment providers a large head start. - The banking initiative comes as industry lobbying and legislation over stablecoins heat up. Banking groups — including the American Bankers Association, Independent Community Bankers of America and 76 state banking associations — want the Senate to tighten stablecoin rules in the CLARITY Act to stop crypto platforms from offering incentives that act like interest on deposits. - Current bill language would bar interest-like returns on passively held stablecoins but allow rewards linked to payments and qualifying activity; banking groups warn such incentives could siphon deposits from banks, reducing lending capacity. - Goldman Sachs has broken from some peers by supporting movement of the CLARITY Act despite concerns, arguing a federal market structure would give clarity for digital-asset development. Other bank CEOs, including JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon, have said the reward provisions could put regulated banks at a competitive disadvantage. Practical hurdles and timeline - For the Clearing House network to launch, participants must select the underlying blockchain technology, agree on technical and operational standards, and integrate the system with existing bank infrastructure — a challenging coordination task given the banks’ overlapping corporate client bases. - The Clearing House says it plans to expand access beyond the initial participants, potentially enabling smaller US banks to plug into shared blockchain payment infrastructure. - The project is targeting the first half of 2027 for initial rollout, though no formal launch date has been set. Multinational corporations will be the initial test cases to see whether regulated deposit tokens can match the speed and programmability of stablecoins without moving funds outside the banking sector. Why it matters If successful, the Clearing House initiative could give regulated banks a scalable, on-chain payments alternative that preserves deposit protections and keeps liquidity inside the banking system — directly challenging stablecoins’ current role in 24/7 programmable payments. But the outcome will depend on technical choices, interbank cooperation and how regulators define what’s allowed for stablecoins and tokenized deposits. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
Flare v1.3 Lets XRP Holders Earn Yield Without EVM Wallets — Mint FXRP with One Signature
Disclosure: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Content provided by a third party — do your own research before taking any action. Flare has simplified DeFi access for XRP holders with the launch of Flare Smart Accounts (FSA) v1.3, letting users mint FXRP and deposit it into yield-generating vaults with a single XRPL wallet signature. Why this matters Until now, XRP holders who wanted DeFi exposure often had to create new wallets, bridge assets to EVM chains, and manage gas tokens — a multi-step process that discouraged many users. FSA v1.3 compresses those steps into one: choose a vault, sign once from your existing XRPL wallet, and Flare handles minting FXRP and depositing into the selected yield strategy automatically. No separate EVM wallet, gas tokens, or manual bridging required. How it works - The update reduces what previously needed two XRPL signatures to a single transaction. - Users’ XRP stays secured on the XRPL under FXRP’s 1:1 collateral model while Flare mints FXRP and places it into yield strategies. - The Flare Data Connector (FDC) verifies the XRPL transaction on Flare, enabling a smart contract tied to the user’s XRPL address to execute the requested actions automatically and non-custodially. Growth metrics and traction - FXRP deployed in DeFi has risen almost 75% since February 2026, from 82 million to 144 million FXRP. - Over 40 million XRP is currently earning yield via Flare Smart Accounts. - Nearly 24,000 Smart Accounts have been created to date. “Millions of XRP holders have wanted access to DeFi, but the experience has been too complex,” said Filip Koprivec, CPO at Flare. “With Smart Accounts v1.3, users can go from XRP to yield with a single signature while remaining fully non-custodial.” Expanded yield options FSA v1.3 also adds a new vault option, bringing more strategies to FXRP holders: - Monarq XRP Yield Vault (operated by Monarq, majority-owned by FalconX): A hybrid, actively managed strategy mixing options, basis trading, funding-rate capture, and on-chain DeFi positions that dynamically reallocates by market conditions. - Clearstar Flare XRP Yield Vault (new): A fully on-chain strategy that deploys FXRP across lending and liquidity protocols on Flare — including Avant and Euler — with all positions publicly verifiable on-chain. Clearstar’s strategy has previously managed more than 33 million FXRP in deposits. Wider wallet support and in-wallet integration Flare is broadening access by adding support for Ledger, Xaman, Joey Wallet, and WalletConnect (including Bifrost), joining existing D’CENT integration. Notably, Joey Wallet — a self-custodial XRPL wallet with sub-3-second onboarding and social login via Web3Auth — now embeds Flare Smart Accounts directly as an in-wallet dApp, enabling users to mint FXRP and deposit into vaults without leaving the wallet. “There’s a lot of overlap between the XRPL and Flare communities, so integrating Flare Smart Accounts just made sense,” said Christopher Troia, co-founder of Joey Wallet. “It brings a breath of fresh air for XRP holders, letting them start putting their XRP to work in a seamless way.” Get started Users can access Flare Smart Accounts at fsa.flare.network/vaults or through supported wallets including Joey Wallet, Xaman, and D’CENT. Disclosure: This content is provided by a third party. Neither crypto.news nor the author endorses any product mentioned here. Conduct your own research before acting. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
ZK‑PoSP: Aims to Make BTC, ETH, SOL Wallets Quantum‑Safe Without Moving Funds
AmericanFortress has published a technical proposal aimed at shielding existing Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana wallet addresses from future quantum threats — without forcing users to move funds or rotate keys. The company posted its Zero-Knowledge Proof of Seed Provenance (ZK‑PoSP) paper to the IACR ePrint archive. ZK‑PoSP lets a wallet prove it knows the seed that derived an on‑chain address without revealing the seed itself. The scheme is intended to sit alongside today’s signature systems and, if quantum attacks on elliptic‑curve cryptography become practical, replace the classical signing step with a post‑quantum alternative. Key technical points - ZK‑PoSP covers the major curves used in crypto today — secp256k1 (Bitcoin, Ethereum) and Ed25519 (Solana) — and supports hierarchical deterministic wallet standards such as BIP32 and SLIP‑10. - The construction relies on hash functions and the soundness of its zero‑knowledge proof system; AmericanFortress describes its post‑quantum guarantees as “conjectured,” because the assumptions have not yet been tested against a cryptographically relevant quantum computer. - Proofs run inside RISC Zero (no trusted setup), and the company plans to license an SDK to blockchains and wallet vendors for integration. Performance and implementation trade-offs AmericanFortress published benchmarking numbers from its implementation (not from a live chain). According to the firm: - A one‑time proof to secure an address costs roughly $0.002 on a 16‑core server. - Each transaction proof costs about $0.00125. - Signing currently takes ~12 seconds; verification takes 9–10 milliseconds. The company says today’s performance is “already practical for institutional settlement” and expects signing times to fall with hardware acceleration and proving‑system improvements. However, a real network rollout could add storage, bandwidth and coordination costs beyond these tests. Deployment path and limitations Blockchains would need a node‑level software upgrade to verify ZK‑PoSP proofs, and wallet providers would have to generate the proofs. Until a network adopts and enforces verification, any addresses whose public keys are already exposed on‑chain would remain vulnerable to a future quantum attack. AmericanFortress stresses that no cryptographically capable quantum computer exists today. But the risk is theoretical: a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could run Shor’s algorithm to derive private keys from public keys. Google Quantum AI recently estimated that breaking 256‑bit elliptic‑curve cryptography might require fewer than 1,500 logical qubits and tens of millions of quantum gates — a scale far beyond today’s noisy physical qubits but a reminder that this threat isn’t purely academic. Market context and industry response The proposal arrives amid rising institutional focus on post‑quantum readiness. The Bitcoin Security Consortium — backed by Strategy, BlackRock, Coinbase and others — pledged $15 million over three years with post‑quantum cryptography as its first research priority. For US Bitcoin ETFs, custodians and corporate treasuries, a method that preserves existing addresses could avoid large, risky wallet migrations and the operational and legal complications that come with them. Ethereum is taking a different route: the Ethereum Foundation has set up a post‑quantum team testing hash‑based signatures, a minimal zero‑knowledge VM, and migration tools as part of its quantum‑security roadmap. What comes next ZK‑PoSP’s practical value will depend on independent cryptographic review, implementation audits, and broad network agreement. Adoption also hinges on commercial terms for AmericanFortress’s SDK as well as technical scrutiny from the community. Until those steps are taken, ZK‑PoSP remains an intriguing, potentially pragmatic approach to post‑quantum wallet protection — but one that still requires both validation and coordination to move from paper to production. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
1inch Opens Aqua on 13 Chains — Non‑Custodial, Risk‑Controlled DeFi Liquidity Layer
1inch has opened Aqua — its shared DeFi liquidity layer — to all users, eight months after an early developer release. The protocol went live Tuesday across 13 EVM chains, including Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, BNB Chain and Robinhood Chain, and is being pitched as “the foundation for scalable, capital-efficient DeFi.” What Aqua actually is - Aqua is a registry-style liquidity layer, not a traditional pooled AMM. Liquidity providers (LPs) approve token balances and create positions that can be drawn on when a swap matches the position’s terms. Crucially, tokens remain in the provider’s wallet until a swap executes; they are not deposited into a contract. - When a match occurs the protocol atomically pulls the approved tokens, settles the swap, and returns proceeds and fees. Approvals are set per token and per chain and can be revoked by the provider. Risk-controlled execution, verified counterparties - Every Aqua swap is executed only by a “verified counterparty” — defined by 1inch as a market maker or arbitrage bot that has been on‑chain verified. That verification is enforced at swap time. - 1inch markets Aqua as the first “risk‑controlled” liquidity venue and frames it as part of a broader move toward regulated, risk-aware DeFi. How capital and exposure are controlled - Because Aqua doesn’t move funds into a pooled contract, exposure is limited by the actual tokens in the provider’s wallet rather than by the nominal size of their positions. 1inch gives an example: a $100,000 balance could support three positions that together quote $300,000, but swaps can only execute against tokens actually held. - The registry model also aims to blunt just‑in‑time fee‑skimming attacks: with single‑owner positions, the cost of such attacks can be as high as 44% of provider fee income, making them uneconomical, 1inch says. Incentives, audits and caveats - To kickstart liquidity, the 1inch Foundation has committed 10 million 1INCH in provider rewards, and the 1inch DAO is contributing 500,000 USDC to be distributed via Merkl. - Aqua has undergone eight independent audits from firms including OpenZeppelin, Nethermind, Hexens and Bailsec. - 1inch warns Aqua is aimed at experienced users: fees are not guaranteed, prices can move against positions, and providers still bear market and smart‑contract risk. Why it matters - 1inch claims Aqua can deepen liquidity across chains and reduce fragmentation by letting LPs offer capital across many markets without surrendering custody. If it scales as intended, Aqua could change how capital and yield strategies operate in DeFi — but the product’s complexity and remaining risks mean it’s likely to appeal first to sophisticated LPs and market makers. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
Fortitude Fires Up 12 MW Nebraska Zcash Mine, Cuts Cost Per Coin to ~$40 Ahead of Listing
Fortitude Powers Up 12 MW Nebraska Mine as It Prepares for Public Listing Fortitude, the Zcash-focused mining arm spun out of Digital Currency Group, has brought a 12-megawatt greenfield facility online in Grand Island, Nebraska — its first purpose-built data center and a step that raises its owned power footprint to more than 60 MW across seven sites. The company said construction and electrical testing are complete and the site is ready for commercial operations. The move comes as Fortitude prepares to list publicly through a previously announced business combination with HeartSciences (Nasdaq: HSCS). CEO Andrea Childs said the company’s “owned-and-operated” power strategy underpins a vertically integrated approach to Zcash mining and a broader venture-mining platform. “Owning the asset rather than leasing capacity from someone whose incentives run opposite to ours is intended to give us a degree of flexibility that we believe few operators have,” she told Decrypt. Cost and technical details - Fortitude expects the Grand Island site to cut its direct cash cost to mine a Zcash coin from roughly $70 to about $40, assuming successful deployment of next-generation mining hardware and stable power, network and market conditions. By comparison, the article notes Zcash trading near $489 per coin with an $8 billion market cap. - The site will buy electricity at about $0.045 per kilowatt-hour. Its location — between two solar generation facilities and adjacent to a substation with excess capacity — allows the operation to run as an interruptible load, scaling back consumption during peak demand to support grid stability. - The company attributes projected savings to lower-cost owned power and more efficient mining equipment. Strategy and market context Launched in January 2025 out of DCG’s Foundry mining division, Fortitude pursues what it calls a venture-mining model: reinvesting mining profits into new rigs and site acquisitions to rapidly expand infrastructure. Childs argued Zcash presents different, earlier-stage mining economics than Bitcoin — which she described as mature and crowded — and said Fortitude’s vertical structure and long-term conviction position it to benefit from Zcash’s growth. The project arrives amid intensifying competition for low-cost power, as both crypto miners and new AI data centers chase suitable sites and cheap electricity. With data centers under greater scrutiny for electricity and water use, Grand Island officials said the Fortitude facility was designed to function as a flexible grid resource while minimizing community impact. “Competition for power has intensified, but in our view, it hasn't slowed us down,” Childs said. “By developing and owning our own sites, we seek to control our power costs directly rather than relying on third-party vendors to set them for us.” Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news