hodler

2 Jun 2026, 03:20

Blockworks Steps Down as Arbitrum DAO Delegate, Citing Business Priorities

BitcoinWorld Blockworks Steps Down as Arbitrum DAO Delegate, Citing Business Priorities Blockworks, a media and events company focused on digital assets, has announced it is phasing out its role as a delegate within the Arbitrum DAO. The decision, shared via the company’s official X account, was framed as a strategic move aligned with its evolving business objectives. Strategic Shift, Not a Vote of No Confidence In its announcement, Blockworks emphasized that the move does not reflect a negative outlook on the future of the Arbitrum DAO or its governance model. The company stated it remains committed to collaborating with key ecosystem players, including the Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain Labs, the development firm behind the Arbitrum network. This departure comes several months after Blockworks revealed it was shutting down its news division late last year, a restructuring that redirected the company’s focus toward events, research, and other commercial offerings. The decision to exit the delegate role appears to be a continuation of that broader operational realignment. Context and Implications for DAO Governance Blockworks had been an active delegate in the Arbitrum DAO, participating in governance votes and helping shape proposals for the Layer 2 scaling network. Delegates in DAOs play a critical role in ensuring decentralized decision-making, often representing the interests of token holders who may not have the time or expertise to vote on every proposal. The departure of a well-known media entity like Blockworks raises questions about the sustainability of delegate participation from organizations outside the core development ecosystem. However, Blockworks’ assurance of continued collaboration suggests the relationship is shifting rather than ending. What This Means for the Arbitrum Ecosystem Arbitrum remains one of the largest and most active Layer 2 networks by total value locked and daily transactions. The DAO oversees a substantial treasury and coordinates protocol upgrades, grant programs, and community initiatives. While any delegate exit can temporarily reduce governance bandwidth, the Arbitrum DAO has a diverse set of delegates, including foundations, investment firms, and community members, which may absorb the change without major disruption. For Blockworks, stepping away from delegate duties allows the company to concentrate resources on its core revenue-generating activities. The company’s ongoing ties with the Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain Labs indicate that the decision is operational rather than ideological. Conclusion Blockworks’ exit as an Arbitrum DAO delegate marks a notable but not unexpected development, given its recent pivot away from news publishing. The move underscores the evolving relationship between media entities and the DAOs they cover, as companies increasingly weigh governance participation against business priorities. The Arbitrum DAO continues to operate with a broad delegate base, and Blockworks’ decision appears unlikely to materially affect governance outcomes. FAQs Q1: Why did Blockworks leave the Arbitrum DAO delegate role? A1: Blockworks stated the decision aligns with its current business objectives. It was not a reflection of any negative view on the Arbitrum DAO’s future. Q2: Will Blockworks still work with Arbitrum-related projects? A2: Yes. Blockworks confirmed it will continue collaborating with the Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain Labs. Q3: Does this affect the Arbitrum DAO’s governance? A3: The Arbitrum DAO has a diverse set of delegates, so the departure of one delegate is unlikely to have a significant impact on governance operations. This post Blockworks Steps Down as Arbitrum DAO Delegate, Citing Business Priorities first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

2 Jun 2026, 03:00

Sui Reveals What Caused Three Mainnet Halts After Major Network Upgrade

Sui’s mainnet suffered three separate outages across May 28 and May 29 after the network’s 1.72 release exposed edge cases in gas charging and validator restart logic, according to a postmortem from the Sui Foundation. The foundation said the issues have since been resolved, network activity has resumed, and “no user funds were at risk.” The incidents began on Thursday, May 28, when Sui’s mainnet halted at around 7 a.m. PT and remained down until roughly 1:30 p.m. PT. A second outage followed on Friday morning, starting at about 5 a.m. PT and ending around 8:30 a.m. PT. The third halt began Friday afternoon at approximately 1:30 p.m. PT and was resolved around 7:20 p.m. PT. According to the foundation, the first two outages stemmed from crash bugs involving the interaction between gas charging logic and Sui’s 1.72 upgrade, which introduced address balances. The third outage was separate, triggered during a scheduled epoch change after validator restarts exposed a latent bug in how randomness state was preserved. “During the outages, no user funds were at risk, and the network did not revert any committed transactions when it resumed,” the Sui Foundation said. “As of now, validators have fully addressed the known issues caused by both the original gas-charging bug and the randomness-state bug, and network activity has resumed.” Sui Gas Charging Bug Triggered Initial Halts The first problem centered on Sui’s new address balance feature, which allows users to store funds and pay for gas without relying solely on coin objects. Transactions on Sui can pay gas through address balances, coin objects, or a hybrid structure combining both. The edge case emerged in that hybrid gas path. When a transaction attempted to spend from an address balance that could not cover competing transactions, the scheduler correctly cancelled it with an InsufficientFundsForWithdraw error. But later, during gas smashing — the process of combining input coins into a single gas-paying coin — the same reservation could still attempt to debit funds again. In the foundation’s explanation, the crash did not occur directly during gas smashing but during settlement, when balance deltas were reconciled by a system transaction. A negative delta applied to a zero balance caused an underflow. The immediate fix was conceptually straightforward: avoid gas smashing when a transaction is cancelled with InsufficientFundsForWithdraw. Validators adopted that fix on Thursday, bringing the network back online. But the foundation acknowledged that the patch was an interim measure, chosen to restore the network while engineers developed a more complete solution. “Changing gas logic is a delicate operation,” the foundation wrote. “As explained above, there are complicated interactions between address balances and coins. Other than fixing bugs, gas logic changes must preserve all previous behavior or use appropriate version gating.” That interim patch contained a known weakness. If a transaction had multiple cancellation reasons, another error could mask the InsufficientFundsForWithdraw condition. When that happened Friday morning, the original underflow path could still be reached, causing a second halt. Epoch Change Exposed Randomness-State Bug The third outage came after the network had resumed normal operation Friday morning. At the next scheduled epoch change, validators failed to complete the transition because of a bug tied to Sui’s distributed key generation protocol, or DKG, which bootstraps randomness for transactions that depend on on-chain randomness. During the earlier restart cycle, participation was not high enough for the next epoch’s DKG process, so randomness was disabled as designed. The problem was that the failure verdict was not written to disk. As validators restarted again, they came back up without remembering that DKG had failed. “With validators no longer remembering DKG had failed, neither could happen, the paused queue grew, and end-of-epoch logic — which must drain that queue before closing — was left waiting on DKG that would never come,” the foundation said. The fix had two parts: persisting DKG status across restarts and adding a mechanism that allowed validators to close the stuck epoch at a coordinated point. That mechanism was used once to close the affected epoch, after which the network moved into the next epoch and randomness was restored. The postmortem framed the outages as a broader engineering lesson for Sui. The foundation said end-of-epoch resilience needs further investment, particularly around graceful degradation and operational force-close mechanisms. It also said gas charging deserves the same level of rigor as the Move VM or Mysticeti consensus, given its interaction with settlement, conservation checks, and scheduling. At press time, SUI traded at $0.8798.

2 Jun 2026, 02:20

ZetaChain pivots to AI interoperability infrastructure, expands ZETA token utility with Anuma

BitcoinWorld ZetaChain pivots to AI interoperability infrastructure, expands ZETA token utility with Anuma ZetaChain (ZETA), a layer-1 blockchain project, has announced a strategic pivot to become an AI interoperability infrastructure, gradually phasing out its original cross-chain interoperability features. The transition, shared via the project’s official X account, includes a plan to support users in smoothly withdrawing their funds as the network shifts focus. From cross-chain to AI-first: ZetaChain’s strategic shift ZetaChain’s move marks a notable departure from its initial value proposition as a cross-chain interoperability layer. The project is now positioning itself at the intersection of blockchain and artificial intelligence, targeting a growing demand for decentralized AI services. The decision comes as many blockchain projects explore AI-related use cases, but ZetaChain’s full pivot represents a more fundamental restructuring. The project highlighted Anuma, its AI-dedicated private memory layer built on ZetaChain 2.0, as a key driver of this transition. According to the announcement, Anuma has attracted over 60,000 users in its first month. Through Anuma, users can access major AI models including ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, and Kimi without revealing personal information beyond their wallet address, addressing privacy concerns in AI interactions. Expanded ZETA token utility and Anuma integration Alongside the infrastructure pivot, ZetaChain has expanded the utility of its native ZETA token. Users can now lock ZETA tokens to earn Anuma tokens, which are exchangeable for AI credits. These credits enable private, decentralized use of the AI models mentioned above. Additionally, users who lock 80,000 ZETA tokens automatically receive access to Anuma Pro, a premium tier offering enhanced AI capabilities. This tokenomics adjustment aligns with a broader industry trend where blockchain projects tie token utility directly to service access and staking rewards, creating a closed-loop ecosystem between infrastructure and user incentives. What this means for users and the broader market For existing ZetaChain users who relied on its cross-chain features, the transition requires attention. The project has committed to facilitating smooth fund withdrawals, but users should review official channels for specific timelines and procedures. For new users, the AI interoperability focus presents an alternative to centralized AI platforms, offering privacy-preserving access to multiple large language models through a blockchain-based layer. The pivot also signals a competitive shift in the blockchain-AI space. While several projects offer decentralized AI inference or data storage, ZetaChain’s approach combines a dedicated privacy layer (Anuma) with token-based access to major AI models. The 60,000-user adoption figure for Anuma in its first month suggests early traction, though long-term sustainability will depend on continued development and user retention. Conclusion ZetaChain’s pivot to AI interoperability infrastructure represents a significant strategic realignment, moving away from cross-chain functionality toward a privacy-focused AI access layer. The expansion of ZETA token utility through Anuma token staking and AI credit exchange creates a new economic model within the ecosystem. Users should monitor official announcements for transition details, while the broader blockchain industry watches how this AI-first approach performs against established decentralized AI projects. FAQs Q1: What is happening to ZetaChain’s cross-chain features? ZetaChain is gradually phasing out its cross-chain interoperability features as part of its pivot to AI interoperability infrastructure. The project has stated it will support users in smoothly withdrawing their funds during this transition. Q2: How can I use the ZETA token for AI services? Users can lock ZETA tokens to earn Anuma tokens, which can be exchanged for AI credits. These credits provide private access to AI models like ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, and Kimi. Locking 80,000 ZETA tokens grants automatic access to Anuma Pro. Q3: What is Anuma and how many users does it have? Anuma is ZetaChain’s AI-dedicated private memory layer built on ZetaChain 2.0. It allows users to access major AI models without revealing personal information beyond their wallet address. According to the project, Anuma attracted over 60,000 users in its first month. This post ZetaChain pivots to AI interoperability infrastructure, expands ZETA token utility with Anuma first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

2 Jun 2026, 01:20

Two Fresh Wallets Move $72 Million in Bitcoin From BitGo

BitcoinWorld Two Fresh Wallets Move $72 Million in Bitcoin From BitGo Two newly created cryptocurrency wallets have withdrawn a combined 984 Bitcoin (BTC), valued at approximately $72 million, from the digital asset custodian BitGo, according to blockchain tracking firm Lookonchain. The transaction, which occurred roughly an hour before the report, has drawn attention from market analysts due to the size of the transfer and the fresh nature of the receiving wallets. Transaction Details and On-Chain Analysis Blockchain data indicates that the 984 BTC was split between two addresses that had no prior transaction history. The sudden creation of these wallets and the immediate large-scale withdrawal from a major custodian like BitGo often signals a change in strategy by a significant holder, potentially an institutional investor or a large-scale individual accumulator. Such movements can precede over-the-counter (OTC) trades, transfers to cold storage for long-term holding, or preparation for listing on another exchange. BitGo is one of the most trusted custodians in the digital asset space, known for its multi-signature security and insurance coverage. Large withdrawals from such platforms are not necessarily bearish; they can indicate that the owner is taking direct control of their private keys, a practice often referred to as ‘self-custody.’ This trend has gained momentum following several high-profile exchange failures. Market Implications and Historical Context While a single $72 million transfer is unlikely to move the overall Bitcoin market, which trades billions of dollars daily, it contributes to the broader on-chain narrative. Historically, large movements from custodial services to fresh wallets have sometimes preceded periods of price consolidation or accumulation. However, without further information on the identity or intent of the wallet owner, definitive conclusions remain speculative. The event also underscores the growing transparency of the Bitcoin blockchain, where significant capital flows are visible to the public in real-time. This transparency is a double-edged sword: it provides valuable data for analysts but can also expose the strategies of large holders. What This Means for Bitcoin Custody Trends The move aligns with a broader industry shift towards self-custody. Following the collapses of FTX and other centralized platforms, many investors, particularly institutional ones, have been reassessing their custodial arrangements. Moving assets from a custodian like BitGo to a private wallet is a strong signal of a preference for direct ownership, even if it means foregoing the insurance and convenience offered by a third party. Conclusion The withdrawal of 984 BTC from BitGo to two new wallets is a notable on-chain event that highlights the ongoing evolution of Bitcoin custody. While the immediate market impact appears minimal, the transaction adds to the growing body of evidence that large holders are increasingly prioritizing security and self-sovereignty over convenience. The coming days may provide more context if the funds move again or if the wallet owner’s identity becomes known through subsequent transactions. FAQs Q1: Is this $72 million Bitcoin withdrawal a sign of a market sell-off? A1: Not necessarily. While large transfers to exchanges can precede selling, moving funds to a fresh, private wallet is more commonly associated with long-term holding or self-custody, which is often a bullish or neutral signal. Q2: Who owns the two new wallets that received the Bitcoin? A2: The identities of the wallet owners are unknown. Blockchain addresses are pseudonymous, and unless the owner publicly claims the address or links it to a known entity, the owner remains anonymous. Q3: What is BitGo, and why does this withdrawal matter? A3: BitGo is a major regulated digital asset custodian. Large withdrawals from such a platform are noteworthy because they represent a shift in how significant amounts of Bitcoin are being secured, often reflecting broader market sentiment about trust in third-party custodians. This post Two Fresh Wallets Move $72 Million in Bitcoin From BitGo first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

2 Jun 2026, 01:00

Crypto Hackers Stole $68 Million In May — But The Attacks Getting No Headlines Are Far More Terrifying

Blockchain security firm CertiK recorded $68.3 million in total crypto losses across May 2026 — making it the third month of the year to fall below the $100 million threshold — but the headline number obscures a darker and more personal dimension to the sector’s security crisis, as physical attacks on crypto holders simultaneously reached a pace that no firewall can stop. In a post on X, CertiK noted that May’s losses represented a dramatic contraction from April’s $650 million — a month dominated by two catastrophic North Korea-linked exploits. The $68.3 million figure includes approximately $2.6 million lost to phishing attacks, while roughly $9.4 million was recovered or returned to affected treasuries, per CertiK’s data. The month’s largest single exploit was the $11.5 million Verus-Ethereum Bridge attack on May 18, followed by $10.1 million stolen from THORChain through a vault mechanism exploit. Cross-chain bridges accounted for nearly 42% of total May losses — approximately $28.6 million — while code vulnerabilities drove roughly $45 million, or about 66% of the total, per CertiK. The On-Chain Losses Are Only Part Of The Picture The more unsettling dimension of May’s security environment sits entirely off-chain. A report published May 21 by Insurance Journal, written by Suvashree Ghosh and Isabelle Lee and drawing directly on CertiK data, documents a year of kidnappings, assaults, and armed home invasions targeting cryptocurrency holders that has fundamentally reshaped how the industry approaches personal security. Physical attacks on cryptocurrency holders rose 75% in 2025, reaching 72 confirmed incidents and $41 million in known losses, according to CertiK data cited in the Insurance Journal report. The firm’s separate Skynet intelligence report recorded 34 verified physical attacks — known in security circles as “wrench attacks,” where victims are coerced into surrendering private keys or wallet access through force or intimidation — within just the first four months of 2026 alone, with estimated losses already surpassing $100 million globally, per MEXC’s reporting of the CertiK findings. Jameson Lopp, co-founder of Bitcoin custody firm Casa, maintains a public database of such incidents that has tracked a roughly threefold increase in known wrench attacks between 2023 and 2025, per the Insurance Journal report. The figure is widely considered understated — kidnappings and ransom demands are frequently resolved privately and never publicly disclosed. The Threat Environment Is Evolving The industry’s defensive response reflects the scale of the shift. According to Insurance Journal’s reporting, the Bitcoin 2026 conference in Las Vegas saw the highest-profile speakers move through the venue with personal bodyguards. A standing-room-only workshop taught attendees how to protect their holdings during a home invasion. At Paris Blockchain Week, guests were escorted by police motorcade to a VIP dinner and organizers doubled security around the two-day event. CertiK senior blockchain investigator Natalie Newson warned that AI is accelerating the threat environment — not only through AI-assisted social engineering campaigns already documented in April’s North Korea-linked attacks, but through the broader weaponization of generative tools against crypto developers and infrastructure providers. Her immediate guidance to users: verify every URL and smart contract before interacting, and move idle assets entirely off exchanges into cold storage. Year-to-date through May, the nascent sector has recorded $1.1 billion in total losses across 185 tracked incidents, with North Korea-linked actors responsible for approximately $620.9 million — or 55% of all stolen value despite carrying out only 12% of incidents, per CertiK’s mid-month Skynet report. The on-chain losses are significant. The physical ones are harder to quantify and harder still to defend against — and the gap between the two threat vectors is narrowing faster than most of the industry has acknowledged. Cover image from Grok, BTCUSD chart from Tradingview

2 Jun 2026, 00:23

TON price soars 13% as Telegram revives original Gram token brand

The price of Toncoin surged more than 13% within 24 hours after Telegram announced a major branding shift that brings back the token’s original name, “Gram.” After long shelving its crypto network plans amid regulatory scrutiny, Telegram has taken control of The Open Network. The rebranding news sent the token to a high of $2.26 before settling around $2.09. The rally extends an already strong monthly performance, with TON now up roughly 58% over the past 30 days. Telegram revives Gram name as TON transition begins across wallets and exchanges The latest price movement followed an announcement from Telegram CEO Pavel Durov on Monday. According to the executive, The Open Network’s native cryptocurrency, TON, will be renamed Gram, reverting to the original name proposed in the project’s first white paper as part of his ongoing “ Make TON Great Again (MTONGA)” initiative. “Gram was the original name of TON’s currency in the first white paper,” he wrote. “We’re returning to our roots—and starting a new chapter. This rebranding will pave the way for what comes next.” Although the token will use the Gram name, Telegram added that the underlying blockchain network The Open Network, will continue to be named TON. The transition will take around three weeks, and we expect that to happen in a phased manner, across wallets, exchanges, and ecosystem apps, Durov said. He said that was the next step on what he called “MTONGA.” The announcement comes at the same time as Telegram is expanding its involvement in the TON ecosystem. In May, Durov announced Telegram had become the largest validator on the network and that the TON Foundation is no longer the main driver of Telegram itself. And it has made other technical changes to improve network performance, including lower transaction fees and faster block times to achieve higher throughput. Gram comeback accelerates as Telegram reduces fees and assumes a larger role Six years ago, in May 2020, the SEC forced Telegram to return $1.22 billion to Gram token investors and pay $18.5 million in penalties, killing the original Telegram Open Network. The 2026 takeover brings Telegram back into the same blockchain ecosystem through the front door, this time under a more favorable regulatory climate and with nearly 950 million users forming a built-in distribution network. The rebrand is the fourth of seven steps planned for Durov’s MTONGA campaign, but the remaining three steps have not yet been publicly disclosed. Durov first detailed the transition in April, when he celebrated a network upgrade that made TON “ten times faster” and introduced sub-second transaction settling. The other two steps that were revealed were reducing transaction fees by roughly sixfold and announcing plans for Telegram to replace the TON Foundation as the ecosystem’s primary steward and largest validator. The Gram rebranding restores the name originally conceived by Telegram’s blockchain project, which stood for TON, an acronym of Telegram Open Network at the time, and its native Gram cryptocurrency. Telegram launched its TON project in 2018 but abandoned it in 2020 after a heated legal battle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forced Telegram to cease the sale of Gram tokens, which it said violated securities laws. This triggered a slew of lawsuits from investors seeking refunds for their token purchases. Later, independent developers took over the project and continued to use the TON name as The Open Network, and the blockchain has now been integrated into Telegram’s ecosystem of apps, mostly for payments and digital asset trading. The renewed branding push raises questions about how exchanges, developers, and wallet providers will have to adapt to the shift from TON-branded tokens to Gram. While the underlying network remains unchanged, rebranding efforts in crypto ecosystems often involve coordination challenges across platforms, user interfaces, and smart contract references. Still, the market momentum suggests traders are getting more concerned with narrative strength than technical friction. Telegram’s growing validator role, the improving network performance, and a return to the original Gram identity have provided a strong short-term bullish catalyst. If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter .