27 May 2025, 06:44

BNB consolidates around $670 as Maxwell Hardfork goes live on testnet

BNB remains within a weekly range of $641 to $689, showing signs of consolidation as the BNB Chain continues to push forward with network upgrades. Binance Coin ( BNB ) is trading at $671 at press time, down 0.1% in the past 24 hours but up 11% over the past 30 days. The trading volume over the past 24 hours sits at $603 million, a 17.6% decline from the day before, suggesting a cooldown in market activity following weeks of steady gains. BNB derivatives saw a 24-hour volume decrease of 7.97% and a slight open interest increase of 0.45% to $806.89 million, as per Coinglass data . This indicates a slight increase in traders’ outstanding contracts and a decrease in speculative trading activity. The sideways price action coincides with the launch of the Maxwell Hardfork on BNB Chain’s testnet. This upgrade , which went live on May 26, represents a major step forward for the network. By reducing block production time from 1.5 seconds to just 0.75 seconds, the hard fork lowers transaction latency and enables faster finality, with an average of 1.875 seconds. https://twitter.com/bnbchain/status/1927027761706574306?s=46&t=nznXkss3debX8JIhNzHmzw You might also like: BNB Chain innovation AI Hack 2025 to be held offline for the first time at IIT Delhi This could improve the user experience for decentralized finance protocols, games, and other dApps by making transactions feel near-instant. It also prepares the network to handle more traffic without raising fees, which still average around $0.04. With mainnet deployment expected by June 30, the upgrade gives traders and developers a reason to pay close attention to BNB’s medium-term potential. On the technical front, indicators are leaning cautiously bullish. At 61, the relative strength index indicates that the asset is neither overbought nor oversold. The moving average convergence divergence has turned positive and momentum is increasing, suggesting that BNB may be in for another rally. BNB price analysis. Credit: crypto.news All moving averages, ranging from the 10-day to the 200-day, are displaying buy signals. Most oscillators, including the Stochastic RSI, remain in neutral territory, showing no clear signs of either exhaustion or breakout energy. In short, although BNB is gaining momentum, it might need a catalyst such as positive testnet feedback or the strength of the larger cryptocurrency market, to break clear of the $690 resistance level. If that level is breached, BNB could push toward $700 and beyond. On the downside, support is likely around $650, where buying interest has recently stepped in. Read more: BNB price eyes $400 retest before push toward $800 channel high

27 May 2025, 06:37

BNB Chain’s Maxwell Upgrade: Enhancing Speed and Stability with Reduced Block Times and Advanced Validator Coordination

BNB Chain’s recent Maxwell Hard Fork successfully reduces block time to 0.75 seconds, significantly enhancing speed without compromising network integrity. This upgrade introduces longer epoch lengths and optimized gas limits,

27 May 2025, 06:10

BNB Chain’s Breakthrough Maxwell Hard Fork Hits Testnet

BitcoinWorld BNB Chain’s Breakthrough Maxwell Hard Fork Hits Testnet Exciting developments are unfolding in the blockchain world! The BNB Chain , a prominent player in the decentralized ecosystem, has taken a significant step forward with the activation of its latest upgrade, the Maxwell hard fork, on its testnet environment. This move is crucial for the network’s evolution and signals upcoming enhancements that could redefine user and developer experiences on the platform. What is the Maxwell Hard Fork for BNB Chain? Before diving into the specifics of the Maxwell upgrade, let’s quickly touch upon what a hard fork entails in the context of a blockchain. A hard fork is essentially a radical change to the protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid, or vice versa. It requires all users and nodes to upgrade to the latest version of the protocol software. If a hard fork is not adopted by all participants, it can lead to a split in the blockchain, creating two separate chains. The Maxwell hard fork represents a planned and coordinated upgrade for the BNB Chain. Its primary goal is to introduce several technical improvements aimed at optimizing network performance and preparing it for future growth and increased adoption. Unlike contentious hard forks, this type of upgrade is designed to improve the existing chain collaboratively. Why is Testnet Activation a Crucial Step? The activation of the Maxwell hard fork didn’t happen directly on the main BNB Chain that millions of users interact with daily. Instead, it was first deployed on the network’s testnet. The Testnet activation phase is an absolutely critical step in the blockchain development lifecycle for several vital reasons: Risk Mitigation: Testnets are isolated environments that mimic the main network but use valueless tokens. This allows developers to deploy and test significant protocol changes like a hard fork without risking real user funds or disrupting live applications. Bug Identification: Complex software upgrades almost always have unforeseen issues. The testnet provides a safe space to identify and fix bugs, vulnerabilities, or performance bottlenecks before they can impact the main network. Community Readiness: Testnet deployment gives node operators, validators, developers building on the chain, and other ecosystem participants time to prepare for the mainnet upgrade. They can test their software, infrastructure, and applications against the new protocol rules. Performance Validation: It allows the core development team and the community to validate whether the intended improvements, such as reduced block times or enhanced scalability, actually work as expected under realistic simulated load conditions. Successfully deploying and running the Maxwell hard fork on the testnet is a strong indicator that the upgrade is stable and ready for the next phase – a potential mainnet deployment. Unpacking the Key Improvements of Maxwell According to reports, the Maxwell hard fork brings several significant technical enhancements to the BNB Chain. These improvements are designed to make the network faster, more efficient, and better equipped to handle a higher volume of transactions and decentralized applications (dApps). Let’s break down the key upgrades: Faster Block Time: Targeting 0.75 Seconds One of the most impactful changes introduced by Maxwell is the reduction in Block time . Block time refers to the average time it takes for the network to generate a new block of validated transactions and add it to the blockchain. A shorter block time generally means faster transaction confirmation times. The stated goal of reducing the block time to 0.75 seconds is a significant step. For context, the current average block time on BNB Smart Chain (BSC), a key part of the BNB Chain ecosystem, is typically around 3 seconds. Reducing this to 0.75 seconds would represent a roughly 75% decrease in the time it takes to produce a new block. This has direct implications for the speed at which transactions are processed and confirmed on the network, leading to a more responsive user experience for dApps, DeFi protocols, and everyday transfers. Support for Producing 16 Consecutive Blocks Another notable improvement is the enhanced capability for validators to produce up to 16 consecutive blocks. In many blockchain protocols, validators (or miners) take turns proposing and validating blocks. Limiting the number of consecutive blocks a single validator can produce is often a measure to promote decentralization and prevent potential malicious behavior. Allowing validators on the BNB Chain to produce more consecutive blocks, specifically up to 16, can contribute to increased transaction throughput and potentially smoother block production, especially during periods of high network activity. This change, combined with the reduced block time, aims to optimize the flow of transactions through the network. Enhanced Network Scalability Ultimately, the combination of faster block times and the ability to produce more consecutive blocks points towards the overarching goal of enhanced Scalability . Scalability is a critical challenge for many blockchain networks, referring to their ability to handle a growing number of transactions and users without sacrificing performance or increasing fees prohibitively. By making the block production process faster and more efficient, the Maxwell hard fork aims to increase the overall transaction processing capacity of the BNB Chain. This is essential for supporting the increasing demand from existing dApps, attracting new projects, and accommodating a larger user base. Improved scalability means the network can potentially handle more transactions per second, reduce congestion, and keep transaction costs (gas fees) relatively low, even as network usage grows. Here’s a quick summary of the key improvements: Reduced Block Time: From ~3 seconds to target 0.75 seconds. Consecutive Blocks: Support for up to 16 consecutive blocks per validator. Overall Goal: Enhanced network scalability and throughput. What Do These Changes Mean for BNB Chain Users and Developers? While these improvements sound technical, they translate into tangible benefits for those interacting with the BNB Chain: Faster Transactions: Users will likely experience quicker confirmation times for transfers, swaps on decentralized exchanges (DEXs), and interactions with dApps. Improved dApp Performance: Applications built on BNB Chain, especially those requiring frequent interactions, should feel more responsive. Lower Potential Congestion: Increased scalability helps the network better handle traffic spikes, potentially reducing instances of high fees or delayed transactions during peak times. More Headroom for Growth: The enhanced capacity makes the BNB Chain a more attractive platform for developers looking to build high-throughput applications, fostering ecosystem growth. For developers, the improved infrastructure means a more robust and efficient environment to deploy and scale their applications. This can lead to better user experiences within their dApps and potentially lower operational costs related to network interactions. The Road Ahead: From Testnet to Mainnet The successful Testnet activation of the Maxwell hard fork is a major milestone, but it’s not the final step. The next phase involves rigorous testing and monitoring on the testnet to ensure stability and identify any remaining issues. The BNB Chain core development team will gather feedback and data from the testnet environment. If the testnet phase proves successful and the upgrade is deemed stable and safe, the community will likely prepare for a mainnet hard fork activation. This process involves coordinating all network participants – including validators, exchanges, wallets, and dApp providers – to upgrade their software simultaneously by a specific block height. The transition from testnet to mainnet is a significant undertaking that requires careful planning and execution. However, the successful testnet deployment indicates strong progress towards bringing these valuable improvements to the live BNB Chain network. Conclusion: A Leap Forward for BNB Chain Scalability The activation of the Maxwell hard fork on the BNB Chain testnet marks a crucial step in the network’s continuous evolution. By focusing on reducing Block time to an ambitious 0.75 seconds and enhancing the validator’s ability to produce consecutive blocks, the upgrade directly addresses the vital need for increased Scalability in the blockchain space. This successful Testnet activation phase is essential for proving the stability and effectiveness of these changes before they are potentially rolled out to the main network. The Maxwell hard fork holds the promise of delivering a faster, more efficient, and more robust platform for users and developers alike, positioning BNB Chain for continued growth and adoption in the competitive decentralized landscape. To learn more about the latest crypto market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping blockchain network scalability and institutional adoption. This post BNB Chain’s Breakthrough Maxwell Hard Fork Hits Testnet first appeared on BitcoinWorld and is written by Editorial Team

26 May 2025, 21:50

Sui Foundation’s Critical Challenge: Frozen Assets from Cetus Hack

BitcoinWorld Sui Foundation’s Critical Challenge: Frozen Assets from Cetus Hack The world of decentralized finance (DeFi) is no stranger to hacks and exploits. However, the recent incident involving the SUI-based decentralized exchange (DEX) Cetus has thrust the Sui Foundation into a complex and highly scrutinized situation. Following the hack, Cetus and the Sui Foundation took swift action, managing to freeze a significant portion of the stolen funds. This immediate response, while aimed at protecting users and preventing the movement of illicit gains, has sparked intense debate and highlighted a critical dilemma facing the foundation: how to handle these frozen crypto assets while upholding the core principles of decentralization that blockchain technology is built upon. What Happened with the Cetus Hack and the Freezing of Assets? Details surrounding the exact nature of the Cetus hack are still being fully investigated, but the outcome was clear: a substantial amount of value was illicitly siphoned from the protocol. In a move aimed at mitigating the damage and preventing the hacker from cashing out, Cetus and the Sui Foundation collaborated. According to a report from Wu Blockchain, this coordinated effort resulted in the successful freezing of approximately $160 million worth of assets linked to the hack. This was reportedly achieved by leveraging the influence of major validators on the Sui blockchain , who collectively agreed to reject transactions originating from or involving the identified hacker’s addresses. While the immediate freezing of funds might seem like a necessary step to protect the ecosystem and potential victims, it immediately raised questions about the level of centralized control within the Sui network. The ability of a foundation, even in collaboration with validators, to unilaterally prevent transactions, even those deemed malicious, touches upon the fundamental tension between security measures and the ideal of a truly decentralized system where no single entity holds such power over user funds. Why Did Freezing Assets Spark Decentralization Concerns? The very essence of blockchain and decentralized finance is to remove intermediaries and central points of control. Users are meant to have sovereign control over their assets, and transactions are processed based on cryptographic rules and network consensus, not the discretion of an authority. The action taken to freeze the frozen crypto assets, while arguably for a noble cause, demonstrated that a central entity (the Sui Foundation) and a coordinated group (major validators) could effectively censor transactions and control access to funds on the Sui blockchain . This capability, regardless of the justification in this specific instance, directly contradicts the narrative of decentralization and has led to significant decentralization concerns among community members and observers. Critics argue that if the foundation can freeze funds today to stop a hacker, what prevents a future scenario where they might freeze funds for other reasons, perhaps under pressure from regulators or for reasons less universally accepted by the community? This precedent is what fuels the debate and highlights the delicate balance that blockchain projects must maintain between necessary security measures and the foundational principles they espouse. Exploring the Sui Foundation’s Options for the Frozen Assets With the $160 million in assets currently frozen, the Sui Foundation is faced with a difficult decision. The future of these funds, and how the situation is resolved, will set a significant precedent for the Sui blockchain and its governance model. Wu Blockchain’s analysis outlined several potential scenarios the foundation might consider. These options vary widely in their technical complexity, their impact on decentralization concerns, and the potential outcomes for the ecosystem and the victims of the Cetus hack. Here are some of the potential paths forward, along with brief considerations: Whitelist-Based Transaction Bypass: This involves creating a specific exception mechanism, likely controlled by the foundation or a designated group, that allows certain transactions involving the frozen assets to proceed, perhaps to return them to victims or move them to a secure recovery address. Protocol Modification Through Hard Fork: A more drastic technical measure. This would involve a non-backward-compatible upgrade to the Sui protocol that explicitly changes the state of the frozen addresses, perhaps transferring the funds to a community-controlled wallet or nullifying them. This requires significant validator consensus and is a complex process. Maintain a Permanent Freeze: The simplest option in terms of immediate action, but one that leaves a large sum of assets in limbo indefinitely. This prevents the hacker from accessing the funds but doesn’t resolve the situation for potential victims and leaves the funds unusable within the ecosystem. Whitelist Plus Community Voting: Combining the whitelist mechanism with a decentralized governance vote. The community could vote on proposals for how the frozen crypto assets should be handled, adding a layer of democratic input, though implementation can be complex and subject to voter participation issues. Return of the Foundation’s Exclusive Whitelist: Essentially continuing with the current method of control, where the foundation or a similar centralized body retains the power to permit or deny transactions involving the addresses. This would likely exacerbate decentralization concerns. Negotiation with Hackers: A controversial approach involving attempting to negotiate with the party responsible for the Cetus hack, potentially offering a bounty for the return of funds. This sets a risky precedent and success is not guaranteed. Whitelist Plus 3rd Party Regulatory Agency Consignment: Involving external legal or regulatory bodies to manage the frozen funds. This could provide a legal framework but introduces external centralized control and potential jurisdictional complexities. Whitelist Plus DeFi Reward Fund Creation: Using the recovered or unfrozen assets to create a fund that benefits the Sui DeFi ecosystem, perhaps through grants, liquidity provision, or rewards. This could turn a negative event into a positive for the community but requires careful planning and execution. Maintain Status Quo: Similar to a permanent freeze, but perhaps implying a lack of a definitive long-term plan, leaving the assets frozen due to indecision or ongoing evaluation. Time-Staggered Strategy, Announcing Rewards After Low-Price Acquisition: This option, as described, is somewhat ambiguous regarding the frozen assets themselves. It might relate to a strategy for recovering other lost funds or using recovered funds to incentivize positive behavior, perhaps involving market dynamics. Its direct application to the $160M frozen sum is unclear without further detail. Each of these options presents its own set of benefits and challenges. Some prioritize speed and control (like a foundation-controlled whitelist), while others lean towards community input and decentralized governance (like community voting or a hard fork). The chosen path will inevitably impact user trust, validator relationships, and the overall perception of the Sui blockchain ‘s commitment to its stated principles. What are the Broader Implications for the Sui Blockchain? The way the Sui Foundation handles these frozen crypto assets extends far beyond just this single incident. It is a test case for Sui’s governance model and its ability to navigate crises while staying true to its vision. The decision will: Impact Investor and User Confidence: How the situation is resolved will signal to the market whether Sui can handle significant challenges transparently and fairly. Set a Governance Precedent: The method used to manage the frozen funds will establish how similar situations might be handled in the future, particularly concerning centralized intervention versus decentralized processes. Affect Validator Dynamics: The role major validators played in the freezing highlights their power. Future decisions will require careful consideration of validator consensus and potential concentrations of power. Influence the Decentralization Narrative: The foundation must demonstrate a credible path towards increased decentralization, or risk being permanently viewed as a network with significant central control. The Cetus hack and the subsequent freezing of funds have inadvertently created a moment of reckoning for the Sui ecosystem, forcing a public examination of its operational decentralization versus its architectural design. Lessons Learned from the Cetus Hack and Sui Foundation’s Response? This incident provides valuable insights for both the Sui ecosystem and the broader DeFi space: Incident Response is Crucial: Swift action, like freezing assets, can prevent further loss, but it must be balanced with long-term strategy. Security is Paramount: The hack itself underscores the need for continuous security audits and vigilance in DeFi protocols. Governance Mechanisms Need Stress Testing: How does a decentralized system handle emergencies requiring quick, decisive action? This event highlights the need for predefined or adaptable governance frameworks for crisis management. Transparency Builds Trust: Open communication from the Sui Foundation about the process, the options being considered, and the rationale behind the final decision will be key to maintaining community trust amidst decentralization concerns. The path forward for the $160 million in frozen crypto assets is not straightforward. Each potential solution carries weight and implications for the future of the Sui blockchain . The Sui Foundation is under pressure to make a decision that not only addresses the immediate issue of the hacked funds but also reinforces, or at least clarifies, its commitment to decentralization and builds confidence within its community and the wider crypto world. The coming weeks and months will be critical as the foundation navigates this complex situation. The eyes of the industry will be watching to see how Sui balances the need for security and recovery with the fundamental ethos of decentralization that powered its rise. To learn more about the latest Sui blockchain trends, explore our article on key developments shaping Sui blockchain governance and ecosystem growth. This post Sui Foundation’s Critical Challenge: Frozen Assets from Cetus Hack first appeared on BitcoinWorld and is written by Editorial Team

26 May 2025, 21:40

Sui Network Faces Tough Dilemma and Backlash Over Frozen Crypto Assets

BitcoinWorld Sui Network Faces Tough Dilemma and Backlash Over Frozen Crypto Assets The world of decentralized finance (DeFi) is often lauded for its permissionless nature and resistance to censorship. However, recent events surrounding the Sui network have ignited a heated debate about the true extent of decentralization when faced with a crisis. Following a significant crypto hack on a prominent Sui-based decentralized exchange (DEX), Cetus, the response from the Sui Foundation has led to a complex situation involving a large sum of frozen crypto assets and accusations of blockchain centralization . The $160M Crypto Hack on Cetus: What Happened? In what became a major incident for the Sui network ecosystem, the Cetus DEX suffered a substantial exploit. While the exact details of the vulnerability are still under scrutiny, the result was a staggering loss estimated at around $160 million in various digital assets. This kind of event sends shockwaves through the DeFi community, highlighting the ever-present risks associated with smart contracts and platform security. Hacks are, unfortunately, a part of the nascent crypto landscape, but the response from the affected network often defines the narrative that follows. In this case, the Sui Foundation took swift action, which, while potentially aimed at protecting users and recovering funds, has sparked significant controversy. Freezing Frozen Crypto Assets : A Controversial Move? The immediate and most impactful action taken by the Sui Foundation was to implement a ‘deny list’ mechanism to freeze the stolen assets. This effectively renders the $160 million in hacked funds immobile on the Sui network , preventing the hacker from moving or liquidating them. While this might seem like a logical step to contain the damage and potentially recover funds, it has drawn considerable criticism. Critics argue that the ability for a central entity, like the Sui Foundation, to unilaterally freeze assets on the network is a clear indication of blockchain centralization . The core ethos of many blockchain networks is immutability and censorship resistance – the idea that once a transaction is on the ledger, it cannot be undone or blocked by any single party. The freezing action, while perhaps well-intentioned, directly challenges this principle, leading to a backlash from parts of the community who see it as a betrayal of decentralized ideals. This move raises fundamental questions: Who has the authority to freeze assets on a supposedly decentralized network? Under what circumstances should such power be exercised? Does this set a precedent that could be abused in the future? The debate pits the pragmatic desire to mitigate the damage from a crypto hack against the ideological commitment to decentralization. The Sui Network ‘s Dilemma: Navigating Recovery Options With the assets now frozen, the Sui Foundation faces a complex dilemma. Simply keeping the funds frozen indefinitely isn’t a sustainable or desirable outcome. It leaves a large sum of value in limbo and doesn’t directly compensate the victims of the crypto hack . As outlined by Wu Blockchain and discussed within the community, several potential recovery and resolution options are being considered, each with its own set of challenges and implications for DeFi security and the network’s perceived decentralization. Here are some of the discussed scenarios: Using a Whitelist Mechanism: Instead of a deny list, a whitelist could be created, allowing only approved addresses (e.g., original victims or a recovery fund) to access the frozen funds. This requires careful verification and distribution. Initiating a Hard Fork: A more drastic technical measure would involve a hard fork of the Sui network to effectively reverse the hack transactions or reassign the frozen assets. This is complex, requires broad consensus, and carries risks. Negotiating with the Hacker: Attempting to negotiate with the perpetrator for the return of funds, perhaps in exchange for a reduced amount or no legal pursuit. This is often unreliable and controversial. Keeping Funds Permanently Frozen: The least desirable option, leaving the funds inaccessible to anyone. This doesn’t benefit victims or the network. Regulatory Custody: Placing the funds under the custody of a regulatory body, which could facilitate investigation and potential distribution, but further involves external centralized entities. DeFi Compensation Fund: Establishing a fund, potentially from network resources or community contributions, to compensate victims directly, separate from the frozen funds. Long-Term Delay Tactics: Essentially postponing a decision, hoping for a new development or a change in circumstances, but prolonging uncertainty. Each of these options presents its own set of challenges, from technical feasibility and community consensus to legal implications and the impact on the Sui network ‘s reputation regarding blockchain centralization . What Does This Mean for DeFi Security and the Future? The Sui incident serves as a critical case study for DeFi security and the ongoing tension between security measures and decentralization principles. While freezing assets might be seen as a necessary evil in a crisis to protect users from the immediate fallout of a crypto hack , the method employed on the Sui network has undeniably fueled the debate around blockchain centralization . Challenges Highlighted: The difficulty in responding effectively to large-scale hacks in a truly decentralized manner. The potential for centralized control points to emerge even in networks designed to be decentralized. The impact of such actions on investor confidence and the network’s credibility. The lack of clear, pre-defined protocols for handling major security incidents in many DeFi ecosystems. This situation underscores the need for robust DeFi security audits, proactive risk management, and transparent governance frameworks that outline how crises, including hacks, will be handled. The community’s reaction suggests a strong preference for solutions that align with decentralized principles, even if they are more complex or time-consuming to implement. Looking Ahead: The Decision and Its Impact As the community awaits an official decision from the Sui Foundation regarding the fate of the frozen crypto assets , the outcome will likely have significant implications for the Sui network ‘s future trajectory and its standing within the broader DeFi space. How the foundation navigates this dilemma will be closely watched by users, developers, and investors alike. A decision that is perceived as transparent, fair, and mindful of decentralized principles could help restore confidence, while a move seen as heavy-handed or overly centralized could further damage the network’s reputation. The incident is a stark reminder that while DeFi offers exciting opportunities, it also comes with unique risks and challenges that require careful consideration and community collaboration to address effectively. The path forward for the Sui network will set a precedent for how similar situations might be handled in other emerging blockchain ecosystems. To learn more about the latest crypto market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping DeFi security and institutional adoption. This post Sui Network Faces Tough Dilemma and Backlash Over Frozen Crypto Assets first appeared on BitcoinWorld and is written by Editorial Team

26 May 2025, 20:50

New Details Emerge from Developers of Altcoin Affected by Hack Worth Over $200 Million

Sui made new statements regarding the security vulnerability that occurred in the decentralized exchange Cetus recently. Sui developers said the incident was caused by a bug in Cetus’ own math library, not a vulnerability in the Sui network or the Move programming language. However, the team said the losses experienced by users were significant and announced that they were taking new measures to increase the security of the ecosystem. The development team announced that they will share details of their current security measures this week and will allocate an additional $10 million to further strengthen security. This budget will be used for security audits, bug bounty programs, formal verification methods, and similar security initiatives. It was stated that the plans will be shaped together with the developer community. Related News: New Development Regarding Ripple's Alleged Historic Acquisition Deal: Company Issues Statement “We designed Sui to enable more secure smart contract development. This is the first major security incident for a dApp, which is heartbreaking. However, this is a maturation moment that every major blockchain faces at some point. We must learn from this incident, strengthen critical codes, and build a more robust ecosystem together,” the Sui team said in a statement. On the other hand, the Sui Foundation is discussing different scenarios with the ecosystem on how to evaluate the $160 million in stolen funds that were frozen after the incident. Options on the table include returning the funds via a whitelist (with or without a management vote), performing a hard fork on the network, transferring assets to a regulatory custodian, or permanently freezing the funds and reducing the supply. *This is not investment advice. Continue Reading: New Details Emerge from Developers of Altcoin Affected by Hack Worth Over $200 Million