hodler

24 Mar 2026, 10:59

Mochi Finance founder Azeem Ahmed sells 550,000 CVX from $54M rug pull proceeds as fraud allegations span four DeFi projects

Azeem Ahmed, the founder of Mochi Finance and its USDM stablecoin, and a figure linked to fraud allegations across at least four decentralized finance projects since 2020, sold approximately 550,285 CVX tokens on March 19, 2026 through a wallet that blockchain analysts have publicly associated with the Mochi protocol since the November 2021 Curve Finance pool drain that triggered one of only a handful of emergency DAO interventions in Curve’s history. The sale, executed at an average price of $1.72 per token, netted approximately $946,000 and caused the CVX price to drop more than 10%, from $1.88 to $1.68, according to on-chain data reviewed by Crypto Daily. The proceeds were routed to a multisig wallet associated with the Mochi protocol, which held approximately $864,858 in total assets as of the evening of March 19, according to portfolio tracker DeBank. An additional 500,000 CVX remain in a locked position on Convex Finance. A hardcoded oracle, 10 billion worthless tokens, and a $46 million Curve pool drain The CVX tokens at the center of the dispute trace back to November 11, 2021. According to blockchain records and certified crypto trace reports prepared by forensics firm IFW Global, a wallet associated with Mochi Finance swapped 10 billion MOCHI tokens, the protocol’s governance token, which had been assigned a hardcoded price in the protocol’s oracle system regardless of its near-zero market value, for approximately 46 million USDM, the Mochi stablecoin. The USDM was immediately swapped for 46,004,689.94 DAI through the Curve USDM/3CRV pool, effectively draining it of real stablecoin liquidity. Liquidity providers who had deposited DAI, USDC, and USDT found their holdings replaced with USDM that subsequently lost its peg. The DAI was then converted through ZeroEx and SushiSwap into approximately 9,876 ETH and used to purchase 1,050,285 CVX tokens, which were locked on Convex Finance. The Curve Finance Emergency DAO responded by killing the USDM rewards gauge. CoinDesk covered the incident under the headline “Curve Wars Heat Up: Emergency DAO Invoked After ‘Clear Governance Attack.’” Yearn Finance founder Andre Cronje stated publicly that Mochi had become 65% undercollateralized. When Crypto Briefing asked Ahmed for comment at the time, he described his actions as a “bold approach to gaining voting power in the DAO” and characterized himself as “a small player on the outskirts” whom the “DeFi Cartel” felt threatened by. IFW Global’s certified reports document individual investor losses of $4.87 million and $3.35 million respectively. Both investors filed sworn affidavits. Aggregate losses across all affected liquidity providers are estimated at over $54 million. Dedaub audit flagged the exact vulnerability five months before the exploit Before Mochi Finance launched, Ahmed commissioned a smart contract audit from Dedaub, a blockchain security firm. The June 2021 report identified two critical and five high-severity vulnerabilities in the protocol’s code. One of the high-severity findings, labeled H5, flagged that sensitive functions in the OracleRouter.sol contract lacked access controls. The finding was marked “Open,” meaning it had not been resolved at the time the report was issued. The OracleRouter is the component responsible for determining what tokens can serve as collateral and at what price, the same mechanism that investors allege was exploited five months later to assign an artificial value to the MOCHI token and mint $46 million in unbacked stablecoins. Four years of extraction: escalating fees, diverted rewards, and drained liquidity pools Following the Curve pool drain, Ahmed did not disappear. He rebranded through a new entity called GaiaDAO and introduced the “Peg Rebalancing Module” (PBM), which was marketed as a mechanism to distribute CVX staking rewards to USDM holders and gradually restore the stablecoin’s peg. The PBM carried a 2% management fee and a 20% performance fee, both payable to Ahmed. According to a Curve governance forum thread titled “How to Help USDM — Mochi ‘Slow Rug’ Victims,” Ahmed subsequently raised the performance fee to 50% without prior notice, reverting to 20% only after community objections. The thread documented the frustrations of users who found themselves paying the person who had drained them for the privilege of partial restitution. By November 2025, even that arrangement ended. On-chain records show that all staking reward distributions from the 1,050,285 vlCVX position ceased entirely. Transaction data indicates the rewards were instead routed to a wallet that also serves as a signer on the multisig holding the CVX — a wallet multiple blockchain analysts identify as Ahmed’s personal address. The estimated value of diverted staking rewards exceeds $1.6 million. Separately, approximately 2,198 ETH, worth roughly $6.67 million at the time, and $471,429 in USDC were allegedly taken from Mochi/ETH liquidity pools and never returned to depositors. Airdrop allocations from protocols including Prisma, CNC, VELO, LFT, and YB were also reportedly never distributed to token holders. GaiaDAO’s reward claim functions have been non-functional since December 2023. A pattern of ventures: $SAFE, Armor.fi, Mochi, and GaiaDAO Public records and statements from former associates indicate the Mochi incident is not the first time Ahmed has faced allegations of fund misappropriation in the decentralized finance sector. The pattern spans at least four projects since 2020. Ahmed’s earliest documented involvement was with Yieldfarming.insure ($SAFE). A 2020 Decrypt article profiled Ahmed as a DeFi investor who advised being “greedy in private.” Former participants have alleged he leveraged insider access to front-run staking rewards and extract value from Balancer pools. Ahmed subsequently co-founded Armor.fi, a DeFi insurance protocol built on Nexus Mutual cover contracts, with Robert Forster and Corey Jackson. In November 2021, Forster took to X (formerly Twitter) and publicly accused Ahmed of stealing “millions in LP tokens” from the project and seizing control of its social channels. “I was mass mass liquidated and he got control of the socials and channels,” Forster wrote in a thread that detailed what he described as a pattern of deception and fund misappropriation. GaiaDAO, the entity Ahmed created ostensibly to compensate USDM holders through the PBM, has itself become a vehicle for further alleged extraction, as detailed above. Prior litigation: Chen v. Ahmed and the forced settlement Ahmed’s involvement in prior legal proceedings provides additional context. In February 2021, an Armor.fi protocol user named David Chen filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court (Case No. CGC-21-589609) alleging Ahmed attempted to misappropriate $1.6 million related to a Nexus Mutual insurance payout of 1,000 ETH. Court records show Chen’s attorney, Ryan Abbott of Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan LLP, moved rapidly: demand letter on February 7, complaint filed on February 12, and an application for a temporary restraining order on February 17. The TRO sought to freeze 1,000 ETH and prevent Ahmed from transferring, exchanging, or reducing the accessibility of the tokens. After losing at a preliminary hearing, Ahmed’s side was forced into an out-of-court settlement. Terms were not disclosed. Within months, Ahmed launched Mochi Finance. The March 19 sell-off and wallet forensics The CVX sell-off on March 19 was first flagged by blockchain watchers monitoring the Mochi-linked wallets. Ahmed’s primary signer wallet (0xf6c40c4391d6570032d2eb7a9cd9935898c430cf) executed a series of transactions liquidating approximately 550,285 CVX tokens. The proceeds, denominated in DAI, were transferred to the Mochi protocol multisig (0x597f540bb63381ffa267027d2d479984825057a8). The remaining 500,000 CVX tokens are in a locked position on Convex Finance. Community members tracking the wallets have expressed concern that Ahmed may attempt to sell the locked tokens through intermediary wallets upon unlock — selling first, buying back through fresh wallets, and re-locking to break the chain of on-chain evidence. The sell-off represents the most overt action Ahmed has taken since the original November 2021 drain. For years, the debate in the DeFi community was whether Mochi constituted a governance attack gone wrong or a deliberate theft. The decision to sell the tokens, rather than return them, redistribute them, or burn them, is being interpreted by affected investors as the definitive answer to that question. Ahmed’s current status and silence Court filings describe Ahmed as a UK citizen. His social media accounts have been inactive for months. The Mochi Finance and GaiaDAO websites remain online but have not been updated. The project’s Discord is largely abandoned. He has not publicly responded to Robert Forster’s accusations, the IFW Global investigation findings, the Curve governance forum discussions about his conduct. What the on-chain record documents is a developer who has been involved in at least four DeFi projects — $SAFE, Armor.fi, Mochi Finance, and GaiaDAO — each of which ended with allegations of fund misappropriation. In one case, he was sued and forced into a settlement. In another, his own co-founder accused him of theft on social media. In the largest, $46 million was drained from a Curve pool and the proceeds are now, four and a half years later, being sold. As of publication, 500,000 CVX tokens remain in the wallet Ahmed controls. Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

24 Mar 2026, 10:31

Apex Group Launches Tokenized Bitcoin Mining Product on Base Network

Apex Group launches a tokenized Bitcoin mining product on Coinbase-backed Base network. The OMN note allows qualified investors to benefit from newly mined Bitcoin revenues. Continue Reading: Apex Group Launches Tokenized Bitcoin Mining Product on Base Network The post Apex Group Launches Tokenized Bitcoin Mining Product on Base Network appeared first on COINTURK NEWS .

24 Mar 2026, 09:57

Fund services giant Apex to tokenize Bitcoin mining note on Coinbase’s Base platform

Apex will tokenize the Omnes Mining Note “OMN,” an institutional-grade structured note backed by Bitcoin hashrate.

24 Mar 2026, 05:30

Bitcoin Block Reorganization Exposes Alarming Mining Centralization Trend

BitcoinWorld Bitcoin Block Reorganization Exposes Alarming Mining Centralization Trend A significant Bitcoin block reorganization event has exposed growing concerns about mining centralization within the world’s largest cryptocurrency network. According to CoinDesk reports from March 2025, major mining pool Foundry USA mined seven consecutive blocks, discarding two valid blocks previously discovered by competing pools AntPool and viaBTC. While the Bitcoin protocol resolved this reorganization as designed without transaction loss, the incident highlights increasing hashrate concentration among a few dominant players amid challenging industry profitability conditions. Understanding the Bitcoin Block Reorganization Event The recent Bitcoin block reorganization represents a notable occurrence in blockchain operations. Essentially, a reorganization happens when miners discover competing blocks simultaneously, creating temporary chain splits. The network then converges on the longest valid chain, discarding shorter branches. In this specific case, Foundry USA’s computational power enabled the pool to mine seven consecutive blocks, overriding previous blocks from other mining operations. Block reorganizations are inherent to Bitcoin’s design, serving as a mechanism for resolving natural chain conflicts. However, the scale and participants involved in this event raise important questions. When major pools control sufficient hashrate to consistently produce multiple blocks in sequence, they gain temporary advantage in chain selection. This situation creates potential vulnerabilities despite Bitcoin’s robust security model. The Growing Concentration of Mining Power Mining centralization has emerged as a persistent concern within cryptocurrency communities. Currently, a handful of mining pools control substantial portions of Bitcoin’s total hashrate. This concentration creates several potential issues for network security and decentralization principles. Hashrate Distribution Analysis Recent data reveals concerning trends in mining pool distribution. The top three mining pools frequently command over 50% of network hashrate collectively. This concentration increases during periods of reduced profitability when smaller miners exit the network. The resulting power consolidation among major players creates systemic risks that contradict Bitcoin’s original decentralized vision. Several factors contribute to this centralization trend. First, economies of scale provide larger operations with significant advantages in equipment procurement and energy negotiations. Second, geographic concentration in regions with favorable regulations and energy costs creates natural clustering. Third, the increasing difficulty of Bitcoin mining creates barriers for smaller participants. Recent Mining Pool Hashrate Distribution (Approximate) Mining Pool Hashrate Share Recent Block Production Foundry USA 25-30% High consecutive blocks AntPool 20-25% Consistent daily blocks ViaBTC 10-15% Regular participation Other Pools 30-45% Distributed production Impact on Bitcoin Network Security Mining centralization directly affects Bitcoin’s security assumptions. The network’s security model relies on distributed consensus among independent miners. When hashrate concentrates among few entities, several security considerations emerge. First, the potential for coordinated action increases with centralization. While individual pools typically operate independently, concentrated power creates theoretical vulnerability points. Second, geographic concentration exposes the network to regional regulatory risks. Third, economic pressures might incentivize coordinated behavior during market stress. Despite these concerns, Bitcoin’s protocol includes several protective mechanisms. The network’s difficulty adjustment maintains security regardless of hashrate distribution. Additionally, miners have economic incentives to maintain network integrity. However, the recent block reorganization demonstrates how concentrated power can temporarily influence chain selection. Economic Factors Driving Centralization Profitability challenges significantly contribute to mining centralization trends. Several economic factors create advantages for larger operations while pressuring smaller miners. Equipment Costs: Advanced ASIC miners require substantial capital investment Energy Efficiency: Larger operations negotiate better electricity rates Operational Scale: Fixed costs distribute more efficiently across larger facilities Market Cycles: Smaller miners struggle during bear markets and difficulty spikes These economic realities create natural consolidation pressures within the mining industry. As profitability decreases, smaller operations frequently exit the network, transferring their hashrate to larger pools through mining contracts. This cycle reinforces centralization trends during challenging market conditions. Historical Context and Protocol Responses Bitcoin has experienced similar centralization concerns throughout its history. The network’s development includes several responses to these challenges. Initially, CPU mining allowed widespread participation. However, GPU mining introduced early centralization. Later, ASIC development created professional mining operations. Each technological shift prompted discussions about decentralization preservation. The Bitcoin protocol includes several features addressing these concerns. The difficulty adjustment mechanism maintains consistent block times regardless of hashrate concentration. Additionally, the network’s permissionless nature allows new participants to join freely. However, economic realities often limit practical participation despite theoretical openness. Future Implications for Bitcoin Decentralization The recent block reorganization event highlights ongoing tensions within Bitcoin’s ecosystem. Several developments might influence future decentralization trends. First, technological innovations could reduce mining centralization. More efficient small-scale mining equipment might enable broader participation. Second, regulatory developments might affect geographic concentration patterns. Third, market dynamics could shift profitability calculations for different scale operations. Community discussions continue regarding potential protocol modifications. Some proposals suggest adjusting reward structures to favor smaller miners. Others focus on improving mining pool transparency and decentralization. However, any changes require careful consideration of unintended consequences. Conclusion The Bitcoin block reorganization involving Foundry USA, AntPool, and ViaBTC serves as a significant indicator of mining centralization trends. While the event resolved without transaction loss per protocol design, it highlights growing hashrate concentration among major mining pools. This development raises important questions about Bitcoin’s long-term decentralization and security assumptions. As the network evolves, balancing economic realities with decentralization principles remains crucial for maintaining Bitcoin’s foundational values. The cryptocurrency community must monitor these trends carefully while developing solutions that preserve network integrity against centralization pressures. FAQs Q1: What exactly is a Bitcoin block reorganization? A Bitcoin block reorganization occurs when the network temporarily splits into competing chains, then converges on the longest valid chain, discarding shorter branches. This natural process resolves when miners discover blocks simultaneously. Q2: Why does mining centralization matter for Bitcoin? Mining centralization matters because Bitcoin’s security model assumes distributed consensus. Concentrated hashrate creates potential vulnerability points and contradicts the network’s decentralized principles. Q3: Did the recent reorganization cause any Bitcoin losses? No, the reorganization caused no Bitcoin losses. The protocol resolved the chain split as designed, preserving all valid transactions while discarding only orphaned blocks. Q4: How does mining profitability affect centralization? Reduced profitability pressures smaller miners to exit the network, transferring hashrate to larger operations. This economic reality naturally encourages consolidation during challenging market conditions. Q5: Can Bitcoin’s protocol address mining centralization? Bitcoin’s protocol includes mechanisms like difficulty adjustment that maintain security regardless of hashrate distribution. However, economic factors often outweigh technical solutions, requiring community discussion about potential adjustments. This post Bitcoin Block Reorganization Exposes Alarming Mining Centralization Trend first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

24 Mar 2026, 04:33

Bitcoin's mining concentration just showed up in a rare 2-block reorg

A 2-block reorg at height 941,881 saw Foundry's chain overwrite blocks from AntPool and ViaBTC, coming days after mining difficulty dropped nearly 8%.

24 Mar 2026, 01:10

Polymarket Unveils Game-Changing Referral Program and Dynamic Fee Structure for 2025

BitcoinWorld Polymarket Unveils Game-Changing Referral Program and Dynamic Fee Structure for 2025 In a significant move for the decentralized prediction market sector, Polymarket has announced a dual-pronged strategy to enhance user engagement and platform economics. The platform, operating globally, revealed these updates on March 25, 2025, through a post by Senior Intern Mustafa on the social media platform X. The changes include a lucrative new referral initiative and a fundamental overhaul of its fee model, set to take effect on March 30, 2025. These developments mark a pivotal moment for one of the leading platforms in the speculative information markets space, potentially influencing user growth and trading behavior across the industry. Polymarket Referral Program: A Tiered Incentive Structure Polymarket’s newly launched referral program introduces a multi-level marketing-style reward system designed to incentivize user acquisition. According to the official announcement, users can now earn a substantial 30% of the platform’s revenue generated by their direct referrals. Furthermore, the program extends rewards to indirect referrals, offering a 10% revenue share. This structure creates a powerful network effect, encouraging existing users to actively promote the platform. Mustafa’s statement also hinted at additional “future rewards” for participants, suggesting the program may evolve or include bonus airdrops, though specific details remain undisclosed. This initiative directly targets organic growth in a competitive landscape where user liquidity is paramount. The introduction of this program follows a broader trend in Web3 and decentralized finance (DeFi) where referral and affiliate systems have proven effective for scaling platforms. However, Polymarket’s model is notable for its revenue-sharing focus rather than a flat bonus. This approach aligns a referrer’s incentives with the platform’s long-term health, as their earnings are tied to the trading activity and success of their referrals. Industry analysts often view such programs as a maturity signal, indicating a shift from pure user acquisition to sustainable, community-driven growth. Analyzing the Economic Impact of Referral Rewards The economic mechanics of the referral program warrant close examination. By sharing 30% of direct referral revenue, Polymarket is allocating a significant portion of its income to marketing. This decision likely stems from an analysis showing that the lifetime value of an acquired user outweighs the upfront referral cost. The 10% tier for indirect referrals further deepens the network, potentially creating self-sustaining growth loops. For context, similar programs in traditional fintech and crypto exchanges have dramatically accelerated user bases. The promise of “future rewards” could involve platform tokens, exclusive access, or tiered benefits, a common strategy to maintain long-term engagement beyond initial cash incentives. Polymarket’s Dynamic Fee Structure Overhaul Concurrently, Polymarket plans to implement a sweeping change to its fee structure for all bets placed starting March 30, 2025. The platform will move away from a flat fee rate to a dynamic model where fees vary by market. Crucially, fees will increase as the probability of a specific outcome approaches 50%. This probabilistic fee model represents a sophisticated shift in prediction market economics. Essentially, markets with highly uncertain outcomes—where the implied probability is near even—will carry higher trading costs. Conversely, markets with lopsided probabilities will have lower fees. This new structure can be illustrated with a simple comparison: Old Model (Pre-March 30): Flat fee applied to all trades, regardless of market or probability. New Model (Post-March 30): High-Probability Market (e.g., 90% Yes / 10% No): Lower fee. Balanced Market (e.g., 51% Yes / 49% No): Higher fee. Fee scales dynamically based on the real-time probability of the outcome being traded. The rationale behind this model is deeply rooted in market microstructure theory. Markets with probabilities near 50% are typically more liquid and attract more speculative trading volume. They also represent the point of maximum informational uncertainty. By imposing higher fees on these trades, Polymarket may aim to capture more value from its most active and liquid markets while potentially encouraging more trading in niche or long-tail markets through lower fees. This aligns the platform’s revenue more closely with the risk and activity profile of each market. Expert Perspective on Dynamic Fee Models Dynamic fee structures are not novel in traditional finance but are a progressive feature for prediction markets. Experts in market design often argue that such models can improve overall market health. Higher fees on 50/50 markets might slightly reduce excessive, noise-driven speculation on toss-up events. Meanwhile, lower fees on high-conviction trades could incentivize users to act on strong informational advantages. The change also reflects Polymarket’s growing data sophistication; the platform can now algorithmically adjust fees in real-time based on market conditions. This level of granularity is a hallmark of mature financial platforms and suggests Polymarket is optimizing for long-term sustainability over simple volume metrics. The Broader Context of Prediction Market Evolution These updates from Polymarket arrive during a period of intense evolution for blockchain-based prediction markets. The sector has expanded beyond niche crypto topics to encompass global politics, climate events, and entertainment. As these markets gain mainstream attention, platform mechanics like fees and user incentives become critical competitive differentiators. Polymarket’s dual announcement addresses both growth (via referrals) and platform economics (via dynamic fees). Other platforms like PredictIt, Augur, and Manifold Markets employ different fee and incentive models, making Polymarket’s move a direct competitive play. Furthermore, regulatory scrutiny around prediction markets remains a persistent backdrop. By implementing a more nuanced, financially sophisticated fee structure, Polymarket may also be positioning itself as a serious trading venue rather than a simple betting platform. This distinction is crucial for its regulatory and public perception. The referral program, while a common growth tool, must also be managed to avoid being classified as a pyramid scheme, a concern for any multi-level reward system. The company’s emphasis on revenue-sharing tied to actual platform use is a prudent design choice in this regard. Conclusion Polymarket’s launch of a tiered referral program and its shift to a dynamic, probability-based fee structure represent a calculated evolution of its business model. Set to take effect on March 30, 2025, these changes target both user network growth and sophisticated revenue optimization. The referral program leverages community-driven marketing, while the new fee structure aligns costs with market uncertainty and liquidity. Together, they signal Polymarket’s maturation within the prediction market landscape, focusing on sustainable economics and strategic user acquisition. As the platform implements these changes, the market’s response will offer valuable insights into the future mechanics of decentralized information markets. FAQs Q1: When does Polymarket’s new fee structure start? The new dynamic fee structure takes effect for all bets placed on or after March 30, 2025. Q2: How much can I earn from the Polymarket referral program? You can earn 30% of the platform revenue generated by users you refer directly and 10% from the revenue generated by their referrals (indirect referrals). Q3: What are “future rewards” mentioned in the referral program? The announcement did not specify details but indicated that active participants in the referral program may be eligible for additional, unspecified rewards from Polymarket at a later date. Q4: Why would fees be higher when a market is at 50% probability? Markets with probabilities near 50% are often the most liquid and actively traded, representing peak uncertainty. The dynamic fee model charges more for trading in these high-activity, high-uncertainty conditions. Q5: Does the referral program work for existing users? Yes, the announcement implies the referral program is available to existing Polymarket users, allowing them to generate a share of revenue from new users they bring to the platform. This post Polymarket Unveils Game-Changing Referral Program and Dynamic Fee Structure for 2025 first appeared on BitcoinWorld .