hodler

15 Apr 2026, 05:30

What Presidio Bitcoin Found About Quantum Computing: Threat Timeline And Next Steps

Non-profit group Presidio Bitcoin has released a technical report examining the growing quantum computing risk to the Bitcoin network. The document looks at where quantum capabilities stand today, how much of BTC’s value could be exposed, what mitigations are already feasible, and how the wider ecosystem might coordinate a software update and migration. Why Upgrades Are Harder In A Decentralized System Presidio Bitcoin begins from a simple point: Bitcoin is software, and that is both its power and its weakness. Because it is built as a system of code, Bitcoin is relatively easy to move, verify, and hold. At the same time, it inherits digital risks that come with relying on cryptography. One of the most important of those risks has been discussed since Bitcoin’s early days—cryptographically relevant quantum computers, often shortened to CRQCs. Related Reading: XRP Could Face Big Moves Based On CLARITY Act Outcomes – 3 Key Price Scenarios In theory, a CRQC could break the elliptic curve cryptography that underpins Bitcoin by enabling the derivation of private keys from public keys. The report emphasizes that this would primarily enable quantum-enabled theft of coins tied to exposed public keys. The report argues that Bitcoin’s mitigation toolkit is broad and technically achievable today, but the path is less straightforward than it is for more centralized systems. In centralized environments, coordination can be directed more easily. With Bitcoin, coordinating upgrades across developers, users, wallets, custodians, and infrastructure is inherently more complex. There is also the risk of making changes too early, too quickly, or in a way that creates new vulnerabilities. Presidio also notes that post-quantum schemes come with meaningful trade-offs, not just technical but practical ones for the ecosystem. 6.5 Million Bitcoin Could Be At Risk At the center of the vulnerability is Shor’s algorithm. Presidio explains that if a sufficiently powerful quantum computer exists, it could execute Shor’s algorithm to derive private keys from exposed public keys. The report provides a stark quantitative estimate of what that could mean. If a cryptographically relevant quantum computer existed today, approximately 6.5 million BTC— one-third of the total supply—would be immediately vulnerable to theft. More than two-thirds of that exposure—about 4.5 million Bitcoin—comes from address reuse. Much of the reuse, the report says, is concentrated among a small group of large custodians that use the practice for simplicity. While that concentration increases the risk profile, Presidio also points out that this portion is reducible without any protocol change. The mitigation is straightforward in concept: rotate to fresh addresses. The remaining structural exposure is different in nature. Presidio estimates 1.72 million BTC sits in legacy pay-to-pubkey (P2PK) outputs, and the report notes that most of those are presumed lost. It also distinguishes another category: addresses that have never been spent and where only a hash of the public key is visible on-chain are not vulnerable at rest under current understanding. The Uncertain Clock For CRQCs A major part of the report is the uncertainty around timing. Presidio stresses that the timeline for CRQCs remains uncertain, with expert surveys placing the probability of cryptographically relevant machines emerging between 2030 and 2035 at about 50%. Even so, Presidio outlines a concrete strategy for Bitcoin network’s path forward. It involves deploying post-quantum signature schemes via a soft fork, rather than a disruptive hard change. Related Reading: Three-Way Bitcoin Outlook Tied To US–Iran War—Which Case Is Most Realistic? Activation is where timing matters most. Presidio says the Bitcoin ecosystem will likely complete the post-quantum signature activation well before a CRQC threat materializes. However, Chaincode’s playbook—referenced in the report—places activation around month 6–7 if it does not happen earlier. After activation, migration would follow. Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

15 Apr 2026, 05:20

Bitcoin Security Crisis: Urgent Debate Over Freezing $74 Billion in BTC Threatened by Quantum Attacks

BitcoinWorld Bitcoin Security Crisis: Urgent Debate Over Freezing $74 Billion in BTC Threatened by Quantum Attacks The Bitcoin community faces a critical security dilemma as developers debate freezing approximately 1.7 million BTC vulnerable to quantum computing attacks, including coins potentially belonging to Satoshi Nakamoto valued at $74 billion. This unprecedented proposal represents one of the most significant security challenges in Bitcoin’s 16-year history, forcing the network to confront fundamental questions about autonomy versus protection. The discussion emerged publicly in March 2025 following increased awareness of quantum computing advancements and their potential to break traditional cryptographic security. Bitcoin Quantum Attack Vulnerability Explained Quantum computers threaten Bitcoin’s security through their ability to solve mathematical problems that protect traditional digital signatures. Specifically, these advanced machines could potentially break the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) that secures Bitcoin transactions. The vulnerability primarily affects early Pay-to-Public-Key (P2PK) addresses created before 2010, which publicly expose the public key in their transaction history. Once quantum computers achieve sufficient power, they could theoretically reverse-engineer the private key from the public key, allowing unauthorized access to funds. Approximately 1.7 million BTC remain in these vulnerable addresses today. This represents about 8% of Bitcoin’s total circulating supply. The most notable vulnerable holdings include: Early miner rewards from Bitcoin’s first two years of operation Satoshi Nakamoto’s suspected holdings estimated at 1.1 million BTC Other pioneer addresses from Bitcoin’s earliest adopters Security researchers estimate that quantum computers capable of breaking ECDSA could emerge within the next decade. Consequently, the Bitcoin community must address this vulnerability before it becomes an immediate threat. The proposed solution involves implementing a network-level freeze on these vulnerable UTXOs, preventing their movement until owners upgrade to quantum-resistant addresses. Technical Implementation and Network Impact The proposed freeze mechanism would operate at the consensus layer, requiring a soft fork or hard fork implementation. Developers suggest creating a new transaction validation rule that identifies and restricts vulnerable UTXO spending. This approach would maintain blockchain continuity while protecting at-risk funds. However, implementation presents significant technical challenges, including accurate identification of all vulnerable addresses and ensuring backward compatibility. Jameson Lopp, Bitcoin Core developer and Casa co-founder, emphasized the stakes in recent technical discussions. “If quantum attackers compromise these funds, the resulting market panic could devastate Bitcoin’s value proposition,” Lopp stated. “We must balance security with Bitcoin’s foundational principles.” His comments reflect the technical community’s divided perspectives on appropriate responses. Vulnerable Bitcoin Holdings by Address Type Address Type Approximate BTC Value (USD) Primary Risk Factor Early P2PK Addresses 1,700,000 $74 billion Public key exposure Satoshi Suspected Holdings 1,100,000 $48 billion Historical vulnerability Other Pioneer Addresses 600,000 $26 billion Legacy security models Expert Perspectives on Network Security Cryptography experts note that quantum resistance represents the next major evolution in blockchain security. Dr. Michele Mosca, co-founder of the Institute for Quantum Computing at the University of Waterloo, previously warned that there’s “a one in seven chance that fundamental public-key cryptography will be broken by quantum computers by 2026.” While timelines remain debated, the cryptographic community generally agrees that preparation must begin years before quantum supremacy arrives. Bitcoin developers have explored quantum-resistant alternatives for several years. Potential solutions include: Post-quantum cryptography algorithms like lattice-based or hash-based signatures Multi-signature schemes with quantum-resistant components Time-lock mechanisms requiring extended confirmation periods Hybrid approaches combining traditional and quantum-resistant cryptography Each solution presents trade-offs between security, transaction size, and verification speed. The current debate centers on whether to implement protective measures proactively or reactively. Proponents argue that early action prevents catastrophic loss, while opponents contend that mandatory changes violate Bitcoin’s permissionless nature. Philosophical Conflict and Community Division The freeze proposal has ignited intense philosophical debate within Bitcoin circles. Critics argue that network-level intervention contradicts Bitcoin’s core principles of individual sovereignty and censorship resistance. They maintain that users should bear responsibility for securing their own funds and upgrading their security practices. Furthermore, opponents question whether developers should make decisions affecting assets they don’t control, particularly Satoshi Nakamoto’s presumed holdings. Supporters counter that systemic risks require systemic solutions. They compare the quantum threat to discovered vulnerabilities in other technologies that required coordinated patching. “Just as internet protocols evolved to address security flaws, Bitcoin must adapt to existential threats,” argued a developer in recent mailing list discussions. This perspective emphasizes Bitcoin’s survival as paramount, even if requiring temporary deviations from ideological purity. The debate reflects broader tensions between Bitcoin’s original vision and practical realities of maintaining a $1.3 trillion ecosystem. Similar philosophical conflicts emerged during previous technical debates, including block size increases and Taproot adoption. However, the quantum threat presents unique challenges due to its potential for irreversible fund loss rather than mere network inefficiency. Historical Context and Precedent Bitcoin has faced security challenges before, but never of this magnitude. In 2010, developers discovered and fixed an inflation bug that could have created unlimited Bitcoin. In 2013, a critical vulnerability required emergency patching to prevent blockchain splits. These incidents established precedents for developer intervention during existential threats. However, previous fixes addressed protocol flaws rather than restricting user funds. The closest historical parallel involves the 2017 Bitcoin fork that created Bitcoin Cash. That event demonstrated how philosophical differences could split the network. The quantum debate risks similar division, potentially creating separate chains with different security approaches. Already, community forums show deepening polarization between maximalist and pragmatic factions. Market Implications and Investor Concerns The quantum vulnerability discussion has prompted serious consideration among institutional investors and regulatory bodies. Major cryptocurrency custodians have begun evaluating their exposure to vulnerable addresses and developing migration strategies. Several exchanges have announced plans to proactively move funds from legacy addresses to quantum-resistant formats, though this requires private key access that may not exist for dormant holdings. Market analysts note several potential outcomes: Short-term volatility as uncertainty affects investor confidence Increased due diligence on Bitcoin holdings’ security characteristics Regulatory scrutiny of cryptocurrency security standards Insurance market development for quantum-related risks Valuation divergence between quantum-resistant and vulnerable Bitcoin The $74 billion at stake represents significant market concentration risk. If compromised, these funds could flood the market, dramatically affecting Bitcoin’s price and liquidity. Even the perception of vulnerability might influence trading behavior, creating self-fulfilling market dynamics. Consequently, the debate extends beyond technical circles to encompass broader economic considerations. Timeline and Implementation Challenges Quantum computing development follows an uncertain trajectory. Current estimates suggest breaking 256-bit ECDSA would require quantum computers with millions of qubits and exceptional error correction. Present technology remains orders of magnitude below this threshold. However, cryptographic experts recommend beginning migration years before capability arrives, as address upgrades require coordinated effort across the ecosystem. Implementation challenges include: Identifying all vulnerable addresses across Bitcoin’s entire history Creating upgrade paths for users with lost keys or inactive addresses Maintaining network consensus during transition periods Educating users about necessary security upgrades Coordinating with exchanges, custodians, and wallet providers The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) process typically requires extensive testing and community review. Previous major upgrades like SegWit and Taproot took years from proposal to activation. Quantum resistance measures would likely follow similar timelines, emphasizing the need for early action despite uncertain threat horizons. Conclusion The Bitcoin quantum attack vulnerability debate represents a pivotal moment for cryptocurrency security and philosophy. The proposed freeze of 1.7 million BTC addresses fundamental questions about protocol evolution, user responsibility, and systemic risk management. As quantum computing advances, the Bitcoin community must balance its foundational principles with practical security requirements. The outcome will shape not only Bitcoin’s resilience but also establish precedents for how decentralized networks address existential technological threats. Regardless of the specific solution adopted, the discussion highlights cryptocurrency’s ongoing evolution from ideological experiment to institutional-grade financial infrastructure requiring robust security frameworks. FAQs Q1: What makes early Bitcoin addresses vulnerable to quantum attacks? Early Pay-to-Public-Key (P2PK) addresses expose public keys in their transaction history. Quantum computers could potentially reverse-engineer private keys from these public keys using Shor’s algorithm, allowing unauthorized access to funds. Q2: How soon could quantum computers break Bitcoin’s cryptography? Estimates vary widely among experts. Most researchers believe practical quantum attacks remain 5-15 years away, but preparation must begin years in advance due to the complexity of upgrading a decentralized network. Q3: Does the freeze proposal affect all Bitcoin holders? No. The proposal specifically targets approximately 1.7 million BTC in early P2PK addresses, representing about 8% of circulating supply. Modern address types like P2PKH and P2WPKH don’t share the same vulnerability. Q4: What happens to frozen Bitcoin if the proposal passes? Frozen UTXOs would remain on the blockchain but couldn’t be spent until moved to quantum-resistant addresses through an approved upgrade process. The funds wouldn’t be destroyed or confiscated, merely restricted from movement. Q5: Are other cryptocurrencies vulnerable to quantum attacks? Yes. Most cryptocurrencies using ECDSA or similar cryptography face quantum threats. However, some newer projects incorporate quantum-resistant algorithms from inception. The Bitcoin debate may influence security approaches across the entire cryptocurrency sector. This post Bitcoin Security Crisis: Urgent Debate Over Freezing $74 Billion in BTC Threatened by Quantum Attacks first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

14 Apr 2026, 13:45

Neo Restructuring: Da Hongfei’s Critical Proposal to Resolve Foundation Deadlock

BitcoinWorld Neo Restructuring: Da Hongfei’s Critical Proposal to Resolve Foundation Deadlock In a significant development for one of blockchain’s pioneering platforms, Neo co-founder Da Hongfei has publicly acknowledged deep internal conflicts and proposed a comprehensive restructuring plan for the Neo Foundation. This announcement, made from Shanghai on March 15, 2025, reveals a fundamental disagreement between the platform’s two founding architects that has paralyzed governance decisions. Consequently, the proposal aims to transform the foundation’s structure into a management system capable of independent decision-making, completely free from founder influence. Neo Restructuring Proposal Addresses Governance Crisis Da Hongfei’s restructuring announcement marks a pivotal moment for the Neo blockchain ecosystem. The proposal directly addresses what he describes as a “deadlock” in foundation governance stemming from conflicting visions with co-founder Erik Zhang. Specifically, this deadlock has reportedly hindered strategic decisions for several months. The Neo Foundation, established in 2014, has governed the development of what was originally called Antshares, China’s first public blockchain. Furthermore, the restructuring plan seeks to establish a professional management team with autonomous decision-making authority. This team would operate independently from both founders’ direct oversight. The proposed model resembles corporate governance structures seen in mature technology organizations. For instance, it would implement clear reporting lines, defined roles, and transparent decision-making processes. Blockchain governance experts note that such conflicts are not uncommon in decentralized projects. However, public acknowledgment by a founder represents a significant transparency step. “Many blockchain foundations face similar growing pains,” explains Dr. Lena Chen, a blockchain governance researcher at Stanford University. “The transition from founder-led to professionally-managed governance is a critical maturation phase for any decentralized ecosystem.” Historical Context of the Neo Foundation Conflict The disagreement between Da Hongfei and Erik Zhang reportedly centers on Neo’s strategic direction. Da has traditionally emphasized ecosystem expansion and enterprise adoption. Conversely, Zhang has focused on technical innovation and protocol development. This divergence has created what insiders describe as “competing priorities” within foundation leadership. Neo’s journey began in 2014 when Da Hongfei and Erik Zhang co-founded Antshares. The project rebranded to Neo in 2017, positioning itself as a “smart economy” platform. The foundation has since overseen multiple protocol upgrades, including Neo N3 in 2021. This latest version introduced improved governance mechanisms, ironically highlighting current structural challenges. A timeline of key events illustrates the foundation’s evolution: Date Event Significance 2014 Antshares founded China’s first public blockchain 2017 Rebranded to Neo “Smart economy” vision launched 2021 Neo N3 launched Major protocol upgrade with new governance 2024 Governance deadlock emerges Internal conflicts delay decisions March 2025 Restructuring proposed Da Hongfei announces overhaul plan Moreover, the foundation has managed a substantial ecosystem fund. This fund supports hundreds of projects across DeFi, NFTs, and infrastructure. Governance paralysis potentially affects funding decisions and strategic partnerships. Therefore, the restructuring proposal carries significant implications for the entire Neo ecosystem. Expert Analysis of Blockchain Governance Models Blockchain governance experts identify several common models that foundations typically adopt. The proposed Neo restructuring appears to move from a bicameral founder model to a professional executive model . This transition involves establishing several key components: Independent Board: A governing body with diverse expertise Professional Management: Hired executives with clear mandates Transparent Processes: Documented decision-making frameworks Community Input: Structured mechanisms for ecosystem feedback Performance Metrics: Clear goals and accountability measures Comparatively, other blockchain foundations have undergone similar transitions. The Ethereum Foundation gradually decentralized its decision-making processes. Similarly, the Cardano ecosystem operates through multiple independent entities. These precedents provide valuable lessons for Neo’s restructuring efforts. Additionally, the proposal must address several critical questions. How will the new structure maintain the founders’ original vision? What mechanisms will ensure management accountability? How will the transition affect current development roadmaps? These questions require careful consideration during implementation. Potential Impacts on the Neo Ecosystem The proposed restructuring carries significant implications for Neo’s ecosystem participants. Developers, validators, and token holders all have vested interests in governance outcomes. A successful transition could enhance decision-making efficiency and strategic clarity. Conversely, a poorly executed restructuring might create uncertainty and slow ecosystem growth. Market data shows Neo’s NEO token experiencing increased volatility following the announcement. Trading volume spiked 150% in the 24 hours after Da Hongfei’s statement. This reaction reflects market sensitivity to governance developments in blockchain projects. Historical patterns suggest that transparent resolution of internal conflicts often strengthens long-term investor confidence. Ecosystem projects express cautious optimism about the proposed changes. “Professional governance could accelerate partnership decisions,” notes Michael Tan, founder of a Neo-based DeFi protocol. “However, the transition period requires careful management to maintain development momentum.” This sentiment echoes across the Neo developer community. Furthermore, the restructuring proposal arrives during a critical phase of blockchain adoption. Enterprise blockchain solutions are gaining traction across Asia. Neo’s positioning as a regulatory-friendly platform has attracted institutional interest. Therefore, stable governance becomes increasingly important for large-scale adoption. Implementation Challenges and Considerations The restructuring proposal faces several implementation challenges. First, establishing clear transition timelines prevents operational disruptions. Second, defining the founders’ future roles requires careful negotiation. Third, maintaining community trust during structural changes demands transparent communication. Legal considerations also play a crucial role. The Neo Foundation operates across multiple jurisdictions. Consequently, the new structure must comply with various regulatory frameworks. This complexity necessitates thorough legal review before implementation. Technical governance mechanisms within the Neo protocol may require adjustments. The Neo N3 system includes on-chain governance features for token holders. These mechanisms must align with the new foundation structure. Such alignment ensures cohesive decision-making across both organizational and protocol layers. Finally, the human element remains paramount. Foundation employees and ecosystem contributors need reassurance during transitions. Clear communication about job security and role definitions maintains organizational stability. Successful restructuring balances structural changes with people considerations. Conclusion Da Hongfei’s Neo restructuring proposal represents a critical juncture for the blockchain platform. The acknowledgment of internal conflict demonstrates organizational maturity. Moreover, the proposed shift to professional management addresses fundamental governance challenges. This transition mirrors evolution patterns in other successful blockchain ecosystems. Ultimately, the restructuring’s success will depend on careful implementation and continued ecosystem engagement. The blockchain community watches closely as Neo navigates this governance transformation, potentially setting precedents for other foundational structures in the decentralized technology space. FAQs Q1: What specifically caused the conflict between Neo’s co-founders? The conflict stems from differing strategic visions. Da Hongfei emphasizes ecosystem expansion and enterprise adoption, while Erik Zhang prioritizes technical innovation and protocol development. This divergence created decision-making deadlocks within foundation governance. Q2: How will the restructuring affect Neo token holders? Token holders should experience more transparent and efficient governance decisions. The new structure aims to prevent decision paralysis that could affect ecosystem development. However, the transition period might introduce temporary uncertainty until the new system demonstrates effectiveness. Q3: What happens to Da Hongfei and Erik Zhang after restructuring? The proposal suggests removing both founders from direct decision-making roles. They would transition to advisory positions or potentially board roles without executive authority. This separation allows professional management to operate independently while benefiting from founder insights. Q4: How long will the Neo restructuring process take? Comprehensive governance restructuring typically requires 6-12 months for planning and implementation. The timeline includes legal reviews, structure design, hiring processes, and transition phases. The foundation will likely provide detailed implementation schedules in coming weeks. Q5: Have other blockchain foundations undergone similar restructuring? Yes, several major blockchain ecosystems have transitioned from founder-led to professionally-managed governance. The Ethereum Foundation gradually decentralized its operations. Similarly, Cardano’s ecosystem operates through multiple independent entities. These precedents provide valuable implementation models for Neo’s restructuring efforts. This post Neo Restructuring: Da Hongfei’s Critical Proposal to Resolve Foundation Deadlock first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

14 Apr 2026, 04:00

Circle Arc Token: Strategic Move as CEO Jeremy Allaire Explores Native Governance for Stablecoin Chain

BitcoinWorld Circle Arc Token: Strategic Move as CEO Jeremy Allaire Explores Native Governance for Stablecoin Chain In a significant development for the institutional cryptocurrency sector, Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire announced the company is actively exploring the issuance of a native token for its Arc layer-1 blockchain. This strategic move, revealed in a recent statement, aims to decentralize governance and create incentive structures for the stablecoin-optimized network. Consequently, this plan could reshape how major financial entities interact with blockchain technology by 2025. Circle Arc Token: A New Governance Frontier Jeremy Allaire confirmed the exploration of a native digital asset for the Arc chain. This blockchain is specifically engineered for high-efficiency stablecoin transactions. The proposed token would serve dual core purposes: network governance and participant incentives . Allaire emphasized that further technical and economic details will follow. This announcement arrives as regulatory clarity for digital assets increases globally. Furthermore, the exploration signals a maturation of Circle’s strategy. Initially, the company focused solely on issuing the USDC stablecoin. Now, it seeks to build the underlying economic layer for its ecosystem. Industry analysts view this as a competitive response to other layer-1 networks like Ethereum and Solana. These platforms already host vibrant decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystems built around their native tokens. The Arc Layer-1 Chain: Built for Stablecoin Scale Arc represents Circle’s vision for a dedicated financial blockchain. The chain prioritizes security, finality speed, and compliance integration. It is designed to handle the immense transaction volume demanded by global stablecoin use. Key technical differentiators likely include: High Throughput: Optimized for thousands of transactions per second. Regulatory Compliance: Built-in tools for identity verification and transaction monitoring. Institutional Security: Enterprise-grade consensus mechanisms and validator requirements. Low Cost: Predictable, minimal fees for stablecoin transfers and smart contracts. Introducing a native token adds a new dimension to this infrastructure. It transitions Arc from a proprietary system to a potentially community-governed protocol. This shift aligns with broader Web3 principles of decentralization and user ownership. Expert Analysis: The Strategic Rationale Market observers point to several compelling reasons for this exploration. First, a governance token can decentralize critical protocol upgrades and parameter decisions. This process reduces single-point control and enhances network resilience. Second, a token enables staking mechanisms for network security. Validators and delegators can earn rewards for participating in consensus. Third, it creates a aligned economic community. Developers, users, and partners can all hold a stake in the network’s success. Finally, it provides a capital formation tool. The token could fund ecosystem grants, liquidity pools, and further development. However, experts caution that the design of the tokenomics will be paramount. Poorly structured incentives can lead to centralization or speculative volatility. Impact on the 2025 Stablecoin Landscape The potential Arc token arrives during a period of intense competition. Major jurisdictions are finalizing stablecoin legislation. Meanwhile, traditional finance giants are launching their own digital currency projects. A well-governed, high-performance chain could become the preferred settlement layer for these assets. The table below outlines the potential competitive positioning: Blockchain Primary Focus Governance Model Stablecoin Presence Ethereum General Smart Contracts ETH Holders Dominant (USDC, USDT, DAI) Solana High-Speed Transactions SOL Holders Growing (USDC) Arc (Proposed) Stablecoins & Compliance Native Token (TBA) Native (USDC-centric) Moreover, the move may accelerate the institutional adoption of decentralized governance models. Financial institutions often hesitate to build on networks with unclear or overly speculative governance. A professionally designed token from a regulated entity like Circle could bridge this trust gap. It provides a template for compliant, value-aligned crypto-economics. Conclusion Circle’s exploration of a native Circle Arc token marks a pivotal evolution from a stablecoin issuer to a full-stack blockchain provider. This strategy aims to embed governance and incentives directly into the Arc layer-1 chain’s architecture. The success of this initiative will depend on detailed tokenomics, regulatory engagement, and community adoption. Ultimately, it represents a significant step toward building more open, efficient, and user-governed financial infrastructure for the digital age. FAQs Q1: What is the Arc layer-1 chain? Arc is a blockchain developed by Circle, optimized specifically for the high-speed, secure, and compliant transfer of stablecoins like USDC. Q2: What would the native Arc token be used for? According to CEO Jeremy Allaire, the token would primarily facilitate network governance (voting on upgrades) and distribute incentives (rewards for validators and participants). Q3: How does this affect current USDC holders? This exploration does not directly change the USDC stablecoin. USDC remains a fully reserved digital dollar. The Arc token would be a separate asset governing the blockchain network itself. Q4: When will more details about the token be released? Circle has stated that more information regarding the token’s design, distribution, and timeline will be revealed in the future, following further development and regulatory consideration. Q5: Why is Circle considering this move now? The move aligns with the maturation of the crypto market, increased institutional demand for clear governance, and the strategic need to build a robust ecosystem around its core stablecoin technology. This post Circle Arc Token: Strategic Move as CEO Jeremy Allaire Explores Native Governance for Stablecoin Chain first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

13 Apr 2026, 13:18

3 overbought cryptocurrencies to avoid trading this week

With the cryptocurrency market showing modest rebounds over the past week, several assets have entered overbought territory. This state is typically reached when the relative strength index ( RSI ) rises above the crucial 70 mark. Such conditions often point to potential exhaustion, signaling possible price stalling or a correction. In this context, Finbold has identified three assets currently trading in overbought territory, highlighting the need for caution in the short term. Enjin Coin (ENJ) Enjin Coin ( ENJ ) was trading at $0.040 as of press time, with a modest 1.61% increase over the past 24 hours, yet its 24-hour RSI stands at 84.16. ENJ price and RSI reading. Source: Coinglass The exhaustion follows a sharp rally in early April, with single-day gains reaching 61% and some sessions recording intraday surges of up to 91%. The move was propelled by spot trading volume surging to $216.97 million, the highest level since April 2025. This derivatives-fueled activity, including a short squeeze, drove ENJ through multiple resistance levels and short-term moving averages, pushing daily RSI readings as high as 85 to 90 and leaving the asset significantly stretched on momentum indicators. Dusk (DUSK) Meanwhile, Dusk (DUSK) has seen increased investor interest, mainly tied to network upgrades. As of press time, DUSK was trading at $0.16 after a 4.85% gain in the last day, accompanied by a 24-hour RSI of 77.6. DUSK price and RSI reading. Source: Coinglass The token has shown short-term momentum following the activation of its major Aegis protocol upgrade on March 3, 2026. This mandatory network update, described as the most significant to date, strengthened security and infrastructure while laying the groundwork for expanded compliance features. This technical milestone contributed to sustained buying pressure that lifted the price through key trendlines. However, the resulting high RSI across shorter timeframes now signals potential buyer fatigue after the accelerated climb. Zcash (ZEC) Lastly, privacy-focused Zcash ( ZEC ) has been among the standout assets in the market despite the broader sector correction led by Bitcoin. At the time of reporting, ZEC was trading at $364, down 1.02% over the past 24 hours, while its 24-hour RSI stood at 73.21. ZEC price and RSI reading. Source: Coinglass The privacy coin posted explosive weekly gains of over 40%, driven by record inflows into shielded transaction pools, now holding more than $5.18 billion and representing over 31% of the circulating supply. This was accompanied by rising futures open interest and institutional developments such as the launch of an institutional-grade mining pool by Foundry Digital. These factors tightened available liquid supply and triggered a breakout from longer-term consolidation patterns, with daily momentum indicators climbing into the 78–88 range before the minor pullback. With these assets already in overbought territory, monitoring for RSI cooling and stabilization near key support levels could provide clearer entry opportunities once momentum normalizes. The post 3 overbought cryptocurrencies to avoid trading this week appeared first on Finbold .

12 Apr 2026, 15:07

BNB Chain Flags Critical Update Ahead of April 28 Hard Fork

BNB Chain has alerted node operators of a mandatory update ahead of the Osaka/Mendel hard fork.