hodler

9 Feb 2026, 19:15

Rosen Law Firm is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of investors in Balancer (BAL)

The Rosen Law Firm, a US-based securities class action firm, has initiated an investigation into potential securities claims linked to the major exploit that rocked Balancer on November 3, 2925. Rosen has alleged that Balancer may have issued materially misleading business information to the public and its investors prior to the incident. Rosen encourages Balancer investors to reach out The law firm claims in a recent announcemen t that it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of investors and has urged those who purchased Balancer cryptocurrency to reach out, as they may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. This is in preparation for the class action Rosen is seeking to launch in hopes of recovering investor losses. Those who wish to join the prospective class action have been urged to reach out via its official channels for information on the class action. Rosen is confident in its ability to pursue justice and has clients throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. The Law Firm claims it was ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for the number of securities class action settlements in 2017 and has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. What happened with the Balancer exploit? The Balancer exploit occurred on November 3, 2025, and according to Cryptopolitan reporting at the time, Balancer, a decentralized finance protocol, was hit in a major attack where the attackers made away with more than $100 million in digital assets, according to blockchain security firms. Security researchers at PeckShield and Cyvers also flagged the incident, warning that funds linked to the attacker’s wallet were still being siphoned. The attack was sophisticated and targeted a vulnerability in Balancer’s V2 smart contracts, specifically the arithmetic precision/running errors in pool invariant calculations, plus access control issues in the vault system. The protocol responded to the attack by pausing operations as parts of the exploit involved cross-chain elements. The breach allowed the attackers unauthorized manipulation of balances and drainage across chains in a short time. Some funds were reportedly recovered by whitehat actors, and Balancer outlined reimbursement plans for affected liquidity providers. That outline was made in late November, and the team pledged to distribute $8 million from the recovered assets to those affected. The plan would involve non-socialized distribution, meaning the funds go only to LPs in the specifically affected pools rather than broadly across the protocol. It also emphasized pro-rata based on Balance Pool Token holdings at pre-exploit snapshot blocks and in-kind reimbursement with whitehats who were entitled to 10% bounties for their help. While the proposal moved through community review and governance discussion stages, there has been no widespread confirmation of full payouts or distributions as of February 2026. If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter .

9 Feb 2026, 19:00

Banks, crypto firms meet again at the White House on Tuesday

The White House is set to hold a closed-door summit between top banking and crypto executives on February 10 focused on stablecoin policy. The goal of this meeting is to find common ground between the two parties over issues that have stalled progress with the CLARITY Act. Tension has been running high in Washington as traditional finance and crypto industry leaders struggle to reach a deal to pass the CLARITY Act. Incremental internal meetings are now being held by the White House to resolve differences between the two parties. Tuesday’s meeting will be the second of this nature, after little progress was made during the first on February 2. The main point of contention between banking and crypto firms is whether stablecoin issuers should be allowed to pay interest to holders. This issue has been one of the biggest disputes preventing progress with the CLARITY Act. Present at this meeting will be top executives from major banks like JPMorgan, who see yield-bearing stablecoins as an existential threat to their industry. Their main concern is that these assets will create a form of unregulated parallel banking, leading to capital flight from traditional banks. They argue that this will cause great damage to the overall U.S. economy. On the other side of this argument are crypto firms, who believe that eliminating stablecoin interest payments will stifle innovation as global competition over decentralized finance is accelerating. Tuesday’s meeting will allow both camps to further present their arguments, as pressure mounts from the White House for a deal to be reached before the end of the month. The CLARITY Act and tension between industries The CLARITY Act (H.R. 3633) is a proposed bill by the U.S. Congress aimed at establishing a clear and comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets while still allowing for innovation. It was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in July of 2025, but has since hit multiple roadblocks in being passed by the Senate. While there is a large bipartisan appetite for clear digital asset regulation amongst Senate lawmakers, progress with the bill has hit gridlock over one key issue: the legal treatment of interest-bearing stablecoins. Yield-bearing stablecoins are a type of digital asset typically pegged 1:1 to the U.S. dollar. Unlike traditional stablecoins, these digital assets generate passive income through interest payments to holders. Traditional financial institutions view these interest-bearing stablecoins as a risk to their balance sheets, as they offer much greater yield than traditional bank deposit rates. Crypto industry leaders argue that prohibiting stablecoin interest payments stifles innovation and severely limits consumer choice. They view the current position of traditional finance on this issue as a way for the banks to maintain their control over the U.S. financial system. The White House steps in to mediate the tension This issue over stablecoin policy has intensified competition between the two industries of banking and cryptocurrency, evolving into a battle over the future structure of the U.S. financial system. As both sides stand firm on their positions, the White House has emerged as the mediator through a series of closed-door meetings between industry leaders and the White House Cryptocurrency Committee. The first meeting was held last week, consisting of a mix of industry and trade group representatives, where they attempted to outline a compromise that could unfreeze the CLARITY Act. This meeting was more exploratory and laid the groundwork for Tuesday’s discussion. Unlike the first, high-level banking executives and crypto industry leaders are expected to be present for this next round of negotiations. The White House has put pressure on both sides of this issue to reach a conclusion by the end of the month to prevent the CLARITY Act from losing traction in the Senate. This raises the stakes for some form of provisional agreement to be reached by both parties at Tuesday’s meeting, although the outcome is uncertain. Progress will likely take shape if an outline is created in favor of both parties, showing how yield-bearing stablecoins can be regulated without destabilizing the banking system. Join a premium crypto trading community free for 30 days - normally $100/mo.

9 Feb 2026, 18:59

US SEC Allegedly Investigating Binance Over October 10 Liquidation Event

Rumors of a possible US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into Binance have resurfaced long‑running questions about the October 10, 2025 liquidation event , the largest market wipeout in crypto history. October 10 Crash Back In Focus For context, during the October 10 event, roughly $19 billion in leveraged positions were liquidated, with $3.21 billion erased in a single minute. Around 1.6 million traders were forced out of their positions as Bitcoin plunged from about $122,000 to $104,000. Speculation around Binance’s role in the crash has intensified following a post on X (previously Twitter) by market expert Hugo Crypto. In his message, he cautioned that he could not independently confirm reports of an SEC probe into Binance, stressing that the claim remains a rumor. However, he argued that the broader story surrounding the October 10 collapse warrants serious attention regardless of whether a formal investigation is underway. Since the crash, a series of developments has kept Binance under scrutiny. Shortly after the event in October 2025, the exchange attributed the turmoil to a broader macroeconomic shock and denied responsibility, later paying about $283 million in compensation. In January 2026, Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood stated during an appearance on Fox Business that a “Binance software glitch” was responsible for triggering the crash. Later that month, OKX CEO Star Xu publicly accused Binance of engaging in “irresponsible marketing campaigns,” further escalating tensions between major exchanges. In early February, Binance reportedly sent cease‑and‑desist letters to X users who were speculating about the exchange’s solvency. Now, fresh rumors suggesting potential SEC involvement have added a new layer of uncertainty, even though no official confirmation has been made. Binance Denies Responsibility Regardless of whether the SEC is actively investigating, some former regulators argue that the October 10 crash itself demands a thorough review. Salman Banaei, a former official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), has compared the incident to the 2010 Flash Crash in traditional markets, saying it merits a similarly rigorous investigation. The exchange’s leadership, however, continues to reject claims that the exchange caused the market collapse. At the end of January, former CEO Changpeng Zhao publicly dismissed accusations that Binance was responsible for the October 2025 crash. Zhao addressed claims that technical issues and pricing discrepancies on Binance triggered the record‑breaking liquidations. He emphasized that, following the crash, the platform offered approximately $600 million in compensation to affected users and businesses. Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

9 Feb 2026, 18:45

BYD sues the U.S. government to recover tariffs paid since April

BYD has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, going after billions in tariff refunds and directly challenging Donald Trump’s decision to use emergency powers to slap new taxes on imports. The case, filed January 26 at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, argues that Trump had no legal ground to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify these border taxes. This is the first time a Chinese automaker has sued the U.S. over tariffs . Four BYD subsidiaries in the U.S. say the IEEPA doesn’t actually allow for tariffs at all. Their legal filing says, “the text of IEEPA does not employ the word ‘tariff’ or any term of equivalent meaning.” The company says it had to file the suit to make sure it can recover the money it already paid. It wants all of it back. No rounding, no compromise. BYD challenges legality of tariffs in court The case is happening while the U.S. Supreme Court is also reviewing whether Trump’s tariff program is even legal. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said last week the court is moving slowly because the case could change everything. “The stakes are enormous,” he said. And yeah, BYD is watching that closely. But they’re not waiting. They’ve filed separately to make sure they don’t miss out on any refund opportunities if the Supreme Court rules against Trump. Even though BYD doesn’t sell passenger cars in the U.S., it’s got plenty of business in the country. Its U.S. operations include commercial trucks, buses, solar panels, batteries, and energy storage tech. BYD North America runs a plant in Lancaster, California, where about 750 people work. Trump, now the 47th president of the United States after winning the 2024 election, has said Chinese cars are a “threat” to the future of the U.S. auto industry. But he’s also said that if a Chinese company wants to build in the U.S., he’d be fine with that. Well, BYD is doing exactly that, and still got hit with tariffs. The court case is listed as No. 26-00847, and it’s becoming a major piece of the wider tariff backlash coming from global companies. Thousands of firms operating in the U.S. have already filed similar challenges. BYD expands solid-state battery tech as Tesla stumbles in Europe While the lawsuit grabs headlines, BYD isn’t slowing down on the tech side either. It’s made real progress on sulfide-based solid-state batteries. The company says it’s improved fast-charging and battery life, with limited production expected to start in 2027. Its investor relations team said that sulfide electrolytes are a big focus, and they’re testing different approaches. At the 2025 Solid-State Battery Forum in China, BYD’s lithium battery CTO said these new batteries might eventually cost the same as regular ones. That would be huge. The plan is to start using solid-state batteries in test vehicles by 2027 and go big after 2030. That’s not all. BYD is also building a third-gen sodium-ion battery platform. Reports say it can handle up to 10,000 charge cycles. Commercial rollout will depend on demand and how customers want to use it. The company is clearly trying to cover all angles, working on both lithium and sodium battery tech at the same time. Meanwhile, BYD keeps gaining ground on Tesla in Europe. Sales data from ACEA, the European car industry group, show BYD tripled its new car registrations in December to 27,678. For the whole year, it hit 187,657. Tesla dropped 20% in December and fell 27% for the year to 238,656 units. So while Tesla still sold more, the gap is closing fast. BYD’s rise in Europe is no accident. Its lineup of cheap electric and hybrid vehicles has started eating into the market share of brands like Volkswagen and Tesla. No one’s safe. Join a premium crypto trading community free for 30 days - normally $100/mo.

9 Feb 2026, 18:30

Bitmine’s Ethereum Treasury Swells to 4.3M ETH—Unrealized Losses Mount

Bitmine disclosed Monday that it now holds more than 4.3 million ether, a massive position that places the digital asset treasury firm roughly $480 million underwater as ETH trades below its average purchase price. Bitmine Doubles Down on Ethereum While Paper Loss Nears Half a Billion Bitmine Immersion Technologies said it holds 4,325,738 ETH, acquired

9 Feb 2026, 17:21

Bitcoin Juggernaut Strategy Purchased $90 Million Worth Of BTC Last Week As Total Holdings Remain Underwater

Software firm turned Bitcoin treasury company Strategy added another tranche of BTC last week, expanding its holdings.