hodler

9 Jun 2026, 16:05

Blockstream CEO Adam Back Warns BIP-110 Has Technical Flaws, Risks Contentious Bitcoin Fork

BitcoinWorld Blockstream CEO Adam Back Warns BIP-110 Has Technical Flaws, Risks Contentious Bitcoin Fork Blockstream CEO Adam Back publicly rejected Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110 on June 8, citing fundamental technical flaws and warning that forced activation could split the Bitcoin network into competing minority chains. The proposal, which aims to limit non-financial data in Bitcoin transactions, has ignited a fierce debate within the developer and mining communities. What is BIP-110 and Why Is It Controversial? BIP-110 seeks to restrict the amount of non-financial data—often called ‘spam’ or ‘OP_RETURN’ data—that can be embedded in Bitcoin transactions. Proponents argue this would reduce blockchain bloat and improve efficiency. However, the method of implementation has become the primary point of contention. Backers of the proposal are pushing for a User Activated Soft Fork (UASF), which would activate the change without requiring explicit miner consensus. This approach is seen as a direct challenge to the traditional governance model of Bitcoin, where miners typically have a significant say in protocol upgrades. Adam Back’s Technical Objections Back, a prominent cryptographer and early Bitcoin contributor, argued that BIP-110 is fundamentally different from the Segregated Witness (SegWit) upgrade, which also faced a contentious debate but eventually gained broad support. He stated that the technical design of BIP-110 is flawed and that its purported spam-reduction benefits would not be effective in practice. By rejecting the proposal, Back aligns with a growing number of developers who view BIP-110 as a risky and poorly designed intervention. Risk of a Contentious Fork Back’s most pointed warning was about the potential for a contentious fork. If BIP-110 is activated via UASF without broad ecosystem consensus—including miners, exchanges, and node operators—the network could split into two incompatible chains. This would create confusion, dilute network effects, and potentially harm Bitcoin’s value and security. The warning echoes concerns raised by other industry figures, including MicroStrategy executive chairman Michael Saylor, who described BIP-110 as a ‘self-inflicted harm’ and a significant threat to the protocol. Why This Matters to Bitcoin Users and Investors The debate over BIP-110 is not a niche technical squabble; it touches on the fundamental governance of Bitcoin. A contentious fork would force exchanges, wallet providers, and users to choose which chain to support, creating operational complexity and potential financial losses. Moreover, the outcome of this debate could set a precedent for how future protocol changes are implemented—whether through broad consensus or unilateral action by a subset of developers. For anyone holding or using Bitcoin, the resolution of this conflict will have direct implications for network stability and trust. Conclusion The rejection of BIP-110 by Adam Back, combined with warnings from other industry leaders, suggests the proposal faces significant headwinds. While the debate is ongoing, the risk of a contentious fork remains a central concern. The Bitcoin community now faces a critical decision: either find a path to broad consensus or risk a network split that could undermine the very principles of decentralization and trust that underpin the cryptocurrency. FAQs Q1: What is a User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)? A UASF is a method of implementing a protocol change where users (node operators) signal their acceptance of the upgrade, rather than requiring approval from miners. It is considered a more aggressive governance tool because it can activate changes even against miner opposition. Q2: What is a contentious fork? A contentious fork occurs when a proposed protocol change does not have widespread agreement among network participants. This can lead to the blockchain splitting into two separate chains, each following different rules. This creates two competing cryptocurrencies and can cause confusion and value loss. Q3: How does BIP-110 differ from SegWit? SegWit (Segregated Witness) was a soft fork that gained broad support from miners, developers, and users after a long period of debate. BIP-110, according to critics like Adam Back, lacks that broad consensus and has technical flaws that SegWit did not. Additionally, BIP-110’s proponents are pushing for a UASF, which SegWit ultimately did not use for activation. This post Blockstream CEO Adam Back Warns BIP-110 Has Technical Flaws, Risks Contentious Bitcoin Fork first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

9 Jun 2026, 15:45

Ripple Joins BlackRock and JPMorgan in DTCC’s July 2026 Tokenization Rollout

Ripple Lands a Major Role in DTCC’s 2026 Tokenization Push With BlackRock and JPMorgan Ripple has secured a role in one of the most closely watched institutional blockchain initiatives to date. Through Ripple Prime, the company has been included among more than 50 major financial institutions and technology providers participating in the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) tokenization program , which is expected to move into live production in July 2026. The initiative brings together leading global players in finance, including BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Circle, and Ondo Finance. Its core objective is to modernize capital markets by shifting traditional financial instruments onto tokenized infrastructure, improving settlement efficiency, data transparency, and interoperability across systems. The rollout timeline reflects the scale of the project. DTCC is set to transition into live production in July 2026, where tokenized assets will begin operating under real market conditions, using actual capital flows and institutional workflows. A broader expansion is expected by October 2026, extending tokenized record-keeping and settlement capabilities across a wider participant base. Ripple Takes a Seat at the Table as DTCC Advances Tokenized Finance Ripple Prime’s involvement goes beyond participation alone. The company is contributing to the testing and refinement of operational standards and infrastructure designed to support institutional-grade tokenized finance. Working alongside global banks, asset managers, and infrastructure providers, Ripple is helping shape how large-scale tokenization could function in practice. There has also been some confusion around Ripple’s role compared to Stellar within the broader DTCC strategy. While both are associated with elements of the initiative, their functions differ. Ripple Prime is focused on institutional infrastructure, helping define frameworks, workflows, and requirements for regulated financial environments. Stellar is positioned as a public blockchain network that may be integrated into a multi-chain approach, potentially supporting issuance, transfer, and settlement of tokenized assets on-chain. The distinction highlights different layers of the system being built: Ripple is contributing to institutional architecture and standards, while Stellar represents one of the public ledger environments that could support asset movement. For Ripple, the development marks a continued shift deeper into traditional financial infrastructure, placing the company alongside some of the most established players in global markets at a time when tokenization is moving from concept to production. At the same time, Ripple’s broader ecosystem continues to evolve, with developments around RLUSD and cross-chain integrations such as Wormhole expanding potential liquidity pathways between institutional systems and decentralized finance networks.

9 Jun 2026, 15:39

Crypto Lending Protocol Morpho Raises $175 Million to Aid Wall Street’s DeFi Push

Decentralized lending platform Morpho has secured $175 million in its latest funding round, highlighting the rise of curated lending vaults.

9 Jun 2026, 15:18

Best Cross-Chain Bridges to Watch in 2026

Cross-chain bridges have been a lucrative target in crypto. In April 2026, Kelp DAO’s LayerZero-powered bridge was hacked for $292 million in rsETH. This begs the question of what the right bridge really entails. This guide breaks down the cross-chain options worth using in 2026, what each actually does under the hood, and how to choose without becoming the next headline. Quick Glance Summary Table Bridge Type Best for Audit/security model Native or wrapped output ChangeNOW Instant-swap aggregator Fast retail swaps, no custody risk Partner integrations, no bridge TVL Native (direct swaps) Across Liquidity bridge Low-fee transfers, audited reliability Audited by OpenZeppelin, solver model Native assets Stargate Liquidity bridge (LayerZero) Wide chain coverage, composable DeFi LayerZero audits, security council Native assets Squid Cross-chain swap composer Complex swap routing, 100+ chains Axelar audits, backed by Polychain Native assets Wormhole Lock-and-mint/message passing Broad chain connectivity, developer use Multiple audits, exploit history Wrapped tokens deBridge Liquidity bridge (0-TVL model) Secure transfers 26 audits, solver-based architecture Native assets What Does “Cross-Chain” Actually Mean? Cross-chain is the ability to move assets across different blockchains. It is the act of moving value across two incompatible networks. Picture moving money between banks that don’t share systems. A cross-chain-enabled platform or exchange allows users to swap one cryptocurrency for another across different blockchains. E.g, swapping ETH on Arbitrum for USDT on Binance Smart Chain (BSC). Cross-chain is different from multi-chain. Multi-chain means an application is deployed across multiple blockchains, with no token movement; in cross-chain, assets/messages are actually moving. The Three Types of Cross-Chain Solutions Lock-and-mint / message-passing bridges Lock-and-mint bridges use a contract that locks tokens on Chain A and mints a wrapped version of the token on Chain B. Wrapped tokens can be redeemed on the source chain and retain a 1:1 ratio. Examples of lock-and-mint bridges are Wormhole, LayerZero, and Axelar. A good swap example is WETH, a wrapped ERC-20 version of ETH. Liquidity-network bridges Liquidity pools hold assets on both networks. You deposit on Chain A and are instantly paid out on Chain B, at a fee. No wrapped tokens. Liquidity network bridges are Across, Stargate, Hop, Synapse, and deBridge Instant-swap alternatives No bridging—your swap is routed across chains using aggregators, like trading ETH on one chain for USDC on another. Examples of these aggregators are ChangeNOW and Rango. You send assets in chain A, you get native assets on chain B, no wrapping. What to Look For in a Cross-Chain Bridge in 2026 Trust model and attack surface The three cross-chain mechanisms have different risk types. A lock-and-mint bridge is prone to smart contract exploits. If the contract holding tokens in chain A is hacked, locked funds can be drained, and the wrapped version cannot be redeemed. An instant swap without a bridge contract has the smallest contract risk surface. Liuidity networks require sufficient funds in both chains to honor user swaps. Payouts fail or are delayed if pools lack sufficient funds. Instant‑Swap Routers can have Slippage or routing errors. This happens when swaps across chains misprice or fail if liquidity is thin or paths break. Cross-chain platforms run independent audits, spread liquidity, or use routing layers to mitigate these risks. Wrapped tokens issued? Wrapped tokens introduce an IOU contract risk. This occurs when the issuer is unable to meet redemptions on the source chain. There is also an asset impairment risk if the bridge dies or ceases to function. Non-EVM chain coverage Most bridges are Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)- heavy. Bitcoin, Solana, Ripple, Tron, and Near are where the coverage gaps appear. Instant-swap aggregators routinely cover 100+ chains across both EVM and non-EVM ecosystems. Account model and friction Most cross-chain bridges use wallet connect, not email or Google sign-up. Connect your Web3 wallet, sign transactions. ChangeNOW, for instance, is an account feww for swaps with an optional email sign-up for more management options. Platforms that require document upload to move value are a friction red flag. Audit history and incident record Bridges account for over $2 billion in losses in the crypto space. Check that the platform contracts are audited. In the case of an incident record, its resolution state is crucial. A clean incident record at the platform level is a substantive positive, not a marketing claim. Fee transparency Some instant swaps will bake all transaction fees into the final quote. Others, due to contract complexity, may split the fees, which may vary based on network congestion. Pricing points include: gas-on-source, gas-on-destination, bridge fee, and slippage. Security model and audits The security audits. This includes history and who made the audits. Security details also include reviewing hack incidents and verifying whether victims were fully reimbursed. It is important that the validator set that confirms transactions is decentralized. Features of decentralized systems include diversity, security through distribution, fair governance, and resilience. TVL and battle-test history Arguably, a bridge with a high total value locked (TVL) is a big target for hackers; however, it is also a show of might – more skin-in-the-game testing. The 6 Best Cross-Chain Bridges in 2026 Entry 1: ChangeNOW Name: ChangeNOW Landing: https://changenow.io/ Category: Instant-swap aggregator ChangeNOW is a privacy-focused crypto management platform that has been around since 2017. For cross-chainswaps, ChangeNOW routes user funds through aggregated CEX and DEX liquidity pools to deliver the native asset on the destination chain. For end users looking for cross-chain functionality, ChangeNOW is a top choice since it has no bridge contract surface to hack, no wrapped-IOU contracts to monitor, no gas on multiple chains to manage. Key features: Non-custodial: ChangeNOW never holds users’ assets; it only facilitates transactions when granted permission. Fixed-rate and floating-rate swap options Limit order functionality Private transfers for confidential on-chain transactions Supported chains count: 110+ supported blockchain networks, with 1,500+ supported assets and 2.25M swap pairs. Custody/trust model: Non-custodial routing. Funds pass through aggregated liquidity venues. Audit history: ChangeNOW has no bridge contracts to audit Notable hacks/incidents: No hack history Fee structure: Spread baked into the quoted rate. Fixed-rate quotes carry a small premium for the rate lock. No setup or signup fees. Pros: Trades complete with a 98% better-than-estimated rate or 9 years in operation without a single security breach, a show of resilience and reliability. 4.5 Trustpilot rating across 13,000+ reviews 2.25M trading pairs, extensive by any standards. Cons: No wrapped token functionality Fixed-rate swaps lock the rate but carry a premium and a shorter validity window. Floating-rate quotes can slip between estimate and execution. Best for: Retail swaps, no wrapped tokens. Entry 2: Across Protocol Name: Across Protocol Landing: https://across.to/ Category: Liquidity-network bridge Across is a cross-chain interoperability protocol that delivers sub-2-second finality through a competitive relayer network. The protocol’s security model combines ZK proofs, security deposits that can be slashed for untrustworthiness, optimistic verification, and a system that only requires one honest actor to dispute and reject a transaction. The protocol supports token bridges and swaps across networks, leveraging an intent-based design for fast transactions. Key features Batch transactions to amortize fees among users- results in lower costs. Native asset output- no wrapped tokens On-chain transactions with no multisigs and no custody risk. Supported chains count: 23+ mainnet chains and 8 testnet chains, including first-mover support for Solana, MegaETH, Plasma, Monad, and hyperliquid. Custody/trust model: Trust the optimistic oracle, the relayer set, and the underlying UMA contracts. Not a validator-set bridge. Audit history: Audits conducted by OpenZeppelin Security on Across V2, V3, the token and token distributor, and on UMA contracts. Auditors include OpenZeppelin, Notable hacks/incidents: No security breach to date. Fee structure: Across keeps fees low by batching all fills into a single settlement, so you’re not paying per transfer—you’re sharing one settlement cost with everyone else. Pros: Native asset on destination, so no wrapped-token exposure. Adited contracts by OpenZepellin security. 5 million users and partnerships with Coinbase, Metamask, Uniswap, and PancakeSwap, a real-world security signal. 1.2s average transaction time Cons: Slippage, pool exhaustion, and rebalancing delays Optimistic-oracle dispute window means worst-case finality is hours, not seconds. Rarely triggers in practice, but it’s the design. Best for: Ultra-low fees, solver model, native outputs. Entry 3: Stargate V2 (LayerZero) Name: Stargate Finance (built on LayerZero) Landing: https://stargate.finance/ Category: Liquidity-network bridge (built on a message-passing layer) Stargate V2 is a non-custodial cross-chain bridge that lets you swap from one token to another on the same chain or across 15+ supported chains, with near instant speeds and low fees. Stargate pairs native liquidity pools on every supported chain with LayerZero’s verified cross‑chain messaging. The Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) standard on LayerZero allows fungible tokens to be transferred across multiple blockchains without asset wrapping or middlechains. Key features Built on the LayerZero cross-chain protocol, utilizing ultra-light nodes. Instant guaranteed finality on supported routes Transaction batching to reduce associated messaging costs Supported chains count: 80+ blockchains, including leading Layer 1s and Layer 2s such as Ethereum, Solana, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Avalanche, and Hyperliquid. Custody/trust model: Trust the LayerZero DVN (Decentralized Verifier Network) set chosen by Stargate, plus the Stargate contracts themselves. Audit history: V2 audit by OtterSec and Zellic Notable hacks/incidents: No direct smart contract exploits or contract breaches. Snapshot Governance Phishing Scam (December 2023), Fee structure: 6 bps on V1, Dynamic fees on V2 (layer zero execution fee + DVN fee, LayerZero endpoint verification) Pros: Uses LayerZero V2 to achieve cost reduction and expandability across more chains. Wide chain coverage via LayerZero, including some non-EVM destinations. Smart-contract composable — bridge calls can be wrapped inside other transactions. Stargate Bus for batch transactions for lower fees Cons: The trust model relies on LayerZero’s DVN configuration; this has been an active point of community debate. Multiple routes are missing on the listed assets, particularly on smaller TVL chains. Pool depth can bottleneck large transfers on niche routes (transfers may revert with “insufficient liquidity”). Best for: Strong DeFi composability, broad chain coverage. Entry 4: Squid Name: Squid Router Landing: https://www.squidrouter.com/ Category: Lock-and-mint + on-chain swap composer Squid is a cross-chain swap router established in 2022 and has grown to connect 100+ chains and 20,000+ tokens. Squid was incubated in the Axelar ecosystem but has since grown into an independent cross-chain infrastructure with its own protocol and stack. Squid aggregates liquidity from 130+ DEXs and off-chain sources to route virtually any token pair. Key features: Squid Intents that run a real-time auction in which solvers (market makers) compete to fill it at the best price when you initiate a swap Full-stack platform, Squid owns everything from protocol-level infrastructure through the routing engine to consumer products. Squid MCP server that lets you execute cross-chain swaps directly from an AI assistant like Claude. Supported chains count: 100+ chains and 20,000+ tokens Audit history: 6 audits by Ackee Blockchain, 1 by Consensys Diligence, 1 by 0xKaden, and another by n-Var. Notable hacks/incidents: No major Squid-specific hacks to date. Fee structure: Fees vary by route and asset type, and Squid charges zero fees for stablecoin swaps. Pros: 99.9% uptime claim Backed by big industry investors like Ripple, Polychain, NomadCapital, Fabric, Borderless, and Maelstrom. Active integrations with major wallet front-ends. Squid Connect lets chains and token issuers plug into Squid’s network. Squid’s routing engine uses messaging protocols (including Axelar, CCTP, IBC, Chainflip, and LayerZero) rather than competing with any single one to find the best path. Cons: Slippage on long swap chains can stack. Validator-set trust model: stronger than a multisig, weaker than a fully on-chain rollup proof. Less battle-tested at extreme TVL than Wormhole or Stargate. Best for: Flexible swap routing, 100+ chains. Entry 5: Wormhole Name: Wormhole Landing: https://wormhole.com/ Category: Lock-and-mint / message-passing bridge (Guardian network) Built for scale, Wormhole enables multichain asset movement across 45+ blockchains and integrations across financial markets. Wormhole’s Native Token Transfers (NTT) infrastructure avoids pooled liquidity mechanisms to minimize fees, slippage, and MEV attacks. The Wormhole governance recently passed a proposal for a $250K grants program. Key features: 45+ chains supported, including Solana, Sui, Aptos, Near, Algorand, Cosmos hubs Open source infrastructure Native Token Transfers (NTT) is an open framework for creating, transferring, and customizing tokens seamlessly across any chain. Supported chains count: 45+ supported chains Custody/trust model: Wormhole ‘Guardian infrastructure’ and Global Accountant enable multichain token balance integrity checks, giving access to a global and synchronized token state. Audit history: Wormhole has been audited by 29 third-party auditors, including Trail of Bits, Neodyme, Kudelski, OtterSec, Certik, Hacken, aZullic, Halborn, among others. Notable hacks/incidents: In February 2022, Wormhole was hacked for 120,000 wETH valued at approximately $323M at the time. Jump Crypto (Wormhole’s parent organization) stepped in and replenished the entire $323 million out of pocket. In February 2023, the hacker sent the funds to Oasis to exchange for other crypto. Oasis, in compliance with a high court order, deployed a counter-exploit, recovering over $400M. The hacker had earlier ignored a $10M bounty. Fee structure: Variable. Token bridge transfers pay destination-chain gas + a small relayer tip. Pros: Native USDC support via Circle CCTP on supported routes. Support wrapped and native token transfers Strong post-hack security investment (Jump-funded, multiple audits). Cons: $323M exploit history Missing cross-chain routes for some tokens Best for: Wide connectivity but scarred by past exploit. Entry 6: deBridge Name: deBridge (DLN — deBridge Liquidity Network) Landing: https://debridge.finance/ Category: Intent-based / order-flow bridge with optional message-passing deBridge is a non-custodial execution layer for cross-chain and same-chain actions. The platform uses a 0-TVL architecture in which solvers compete to provide the best liquidity. All fees are refunded if a transaction fails or is canceled. Key features: deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) infrastructure facilitates cross-chain and same-chain swaps at a guaranteed rate with no slippage. 0-TVL architecture, solvers provide liquidity at competitive rates No wrapped tokens, receive native chain tokens $200K bug bounty program Supported chains: 25+ blockchains, including EVM chains and Solana. Audit history: 26 audits by Halborn, Zokyo, Ackee blockchain, and Neodyme Notable hacks/incidents: In August 2022, deBridge was targeted by a Lazarus Group phishing campaign; the attempt failed despite compromising one employee’s machine. Fee structure: DLN fees include a flat fee in native gas token (0.001 ETH, 0.015 SOL on Solana), a variable protocol fee of 4 bps (0.04%) of the input amount, a taker margin of 4 bps (0.04%) on solver profit, and other gas costs. All are refunded if a transaction fails. Pros: Zero security incidents since launch 100% uptime since launch claim with a 1.96s median settlement time On-chain analytics easily accessible from the homepage Unfulfilled orders can always be canceled — users are never locked out of their funds Explicit minimum-receive amounts mean the user knows the worst case before signing. Cons: Does not support wrapped token swaps Solver-based liquidity means quotes can vary widely by route and time of day. Validator trust model still applies — not a fully trustless bridge. Best for: Security-first, solver-based, explicit guarantees. Detailed Comparison Table Bridge Type Chains supported Custody/trust model Audit firms Notable incidents Avg fee Avg time Wrapped tokens issued? Non-EVM support ChangeNOW Instant-swap aggregator 110+ No custody, direct swaps Partner integrations None reported ~0.5–1% spread Seconds–minutes No Yes (wide) Across Liquidity bridge 15+ Solver-based liquidity pools OpenZeppelin None major ~0.05–0.1% Seconds–minutes No Limited Stargate Liquidity bridge (LayerZero) 30+ LayerZero relayer trust LayerZero audits Minor relayer issues ~0.1–0.2% Seconds–minutes No Yes Squid Cross-chain swap composer 100+ Axelar validator set Axelar audits None major ~0.2–0.3% Seconds–minutes No Yes Wormhole Lock-and-mint/message passing 45+ Custodial vaults + guardians Trail of Bits, Certora $323M exploit (2022), reimbursed ~0.1–0.2% Minutes–hours Yes Yes deBridge Liquidity bridge (0-TVL model) 12+ Solver-based, 0-TVL design 26 audits (multiple) None major ~0.05–0.1% Seconds–minutes No Limited How to Choose a Bridge by Use Case Moving stablecoins between L2s (Ethereum ↔ Arbitrum ↔ Base ↔ Optimism) Across or Stargate. Native USDC, fast settlement, and no wrapped IOU. Moving between EVM and a non-EVM chain (e.g., Ethereum → Solana) Wormhole, Squid, or ChangeNOW. Swapping between unrelated assets across unrelated chains (e.g., SOL → ETH on Arbitrum) Instant-swap aggregators (ChangeNOW, Rango) often beat a Bridge plus DEX hop in terms of user interface. However, there is a slippage trade off igf liuidity is thin. Bridging Bitcoin Native Bitcoin bridging is technically hard. Options include: tBTC, centralised wrapped variants (WBTC issued by BitGo), or an instant-swap aggregator if the user just wants the BTC value on another chain rather than a smart-contract-callable wrapped BTC. Cross-Chain Bridge Risks (and Why They Keep Getting Hacked) Smart‑contract risk: Bridges rely on complex contracts to lock and mint assets. Bugs or vulnerabilities can let attackers drain vaults. Validator / Oracle capture: Bridges rely on complex contracts to lock and mint assets. Bugs or vulnerabilities can let attackers drain vaults. Signature Replay Attacks: Poorly designed signing schemes can allow attackers to reuse valid signatures across different contexts, tricking the bridge into releasing funds multiple times. Governance Attacks: Bridges with token‑based governance can be hijacked if attackers accumulate voting power or exploit governance logic. Frontend / DNS Hijacks: Even if contracts are secure, attackers can compromise the bridge’s website or DNS records, tricking users into sending funds to malicious addresses.

9 Jun 2026, 15:15

Sui-Based AI Trading Platform WaterX Goes Live With Loss Compensation for Beta Users

BitcoinWorld Sui-Based AI Trading Platform WaterX Goes Live With Loss Compensation for Beta Users WaterX, an artificial intelligence-driven trading platform built on the Sui blockchain, officially launched its mainnet on June 9, marking a significant step for the ecosystem. Alongside the launch, the platform introduced a full compensation plan for users who participated in its beta testing phase, aiming to build trust and attract early adopters. Loss Compensation and Migration Details WaterX has committed to reimbursing beta test users who incurred a net loss during the testing period. To qualify, users must complete an asset transfer to a new account by June 22 and execute their first trade on that account. This move is designed to encourage a smooth transition from beta to the live mainnet environment while providing a safety net for early participants. The compensation plan covers the full amount of net losses, a rare offer in the often volatile world of crypto trading platforms. Platform Features and Sui Foundation Support The WaterX platform integrates several advanced financial instruments, including perpetual contracts, prediction markets, and a Real-World Asset (RWA) tokenization engine. This combination positions it as a multifaceted tool for traders interested in both digital and tokenized traditional assets. The platform was selected for the Sui Foundation’s Moonshot Program, an initiative that provides funding, technical support, and ecosystem integration for promising projects. This backing lends credibility to WaterX and highlights its alignment with Sui’s broader development goals. Upcoming World Cup Prediction Market Looking ahead, WaterX announced plans to launch a prediction market covering all matches of the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The platform will also host a ‘2026 World Cup Mystery Box’ event, though specific details on the mechanics and prizes remain forthcoming. This move taps into the growing intersection of sports fandom and decentralized finance, potentially attracting a wider audience beyond traditional crypto traders. Why This Matters The launch of WaterX represents a concrete application of AI in the decentralized finance space, moving beyond theoretical use cases. The loss compensation offer is a notable customer acquisition strategy that could set a precedent for how new platforms handle user risk. For the Sui ecosystem, WaterX adds a significant DeFi component, potentially increasing on-chain activity and user engagement. The World Cup prediction market also signals a push toward real-world event derivatives, a sector that continues to grow in popularity. Conclusion WaterX’s mainnet launch, coupled with its beta compensation plan and upcoming sports prediction market, marks a notable development in the Sui blockchain’s DeFi landscape. The platform’s inclusion in the Sui Foundation’s Moonshot Program provides a strong foundation for its growth. As the June 22 deadline for compensation approaches, the platform’s ability to attract and retain users will be a key metric to watch. FAQs Q1: Who is eligible for the loss compensation from WaterX? Users who participated in the beta testing phase and incurred a net loss are eligible. They must transfer their assets to a new account by June 22 and complete their first trade on that account to receive full reimbursement. Q2: What types of trading does WaterX support? WaterX offers perpetual contracts, prediction markets, and a Real-World Asset (RWA) tokenization engine, providing a range of trading options for digital and tokenized assets. Q3: What is the Sui Foundation’s Moonshot Program? The Moonshot Program is a Sui Foundation initiative that supports promising projects with funding, technical resources, and ecosystem integration. WaterX was selected for this program, indicating its potential and alignment with Sui’s development strategy. This post Sui-Based AI Trading Platform WaterX Goes Live With Loss Compensation for Beta Users first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

9 Jun 2026, 15:08

How Stablecoins Are Unlocking Brazil’s Exclusive Carry Trade

The lucrative Brazilian real carry trade has previously been open to only institutional investors. Stablecoin and blockchain entrepreneurs are looking to change that