hodler

10 Feb 2026, 21:07

John Karony from the SafeMoon debacle has finally been sentenced to 100 months in federal prison

Braden John Karony, famously known in crypto circles as John Karony, the former CEO of SafeMoon, has just been sentenced to 100 months behind bars. That amounts to about 8 years and 4 months in a federal prison, a major legal conclusion for one of the key figures linked to the SafeMoon incident. Closer to theft than fraud Karony was convicted of his crimes in May 2025 following a jury trial that took place in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The court found him guilty on three counts, including conspiracy to commit securities fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. According to court proceedings from today, February 10, 2026, Karony’s total offense level was 37, and he was put in criminal history category 1 with a guideline of 210 to 262 months. The proceedings today involved victims sharing their experiences with SafeMoon and specifically Karony, whom several of them claimed had been the one to convince them the project was trustworthy and would not rugpull. “We believed in Mr. Karony, what he said – it gave us a sense of false security. Our investment changed the trajectory of our life. We have not been able to buy a house. To this day, we have not been able,” one victim claimed. Karony’s defense defended his position by claiming that it all went down when Karony was just 25, and his brain was just developing. His defense tried to attract sympathy by diving into his family history, but that did little to help. He had already been convicted. After the court went on recess and resumed session, the Judge in charge, United States District Judge Eric R. Komitee of the Eastern District of New York, called what happened with SafeMoon a “massive fraud.” “I’d describe it this way: the defendant and co-conspirators went to great pains to earn the trust of people who bought it, assuring there would not be a rug-pull. That happened,” Komittee said. The judge also pointed out that the incident was more similar to “theft than fraud,” especially since it was not a small loss per person, as is the case in many securities frauds. “I sentence you to 100 months in the custody of the AG. On count 1, 60; count 2, 100 concurrently,” Komittee concluded . The hearing for the third count of money laundering will reportedly take place on April 23 at 10 in the morning. What happened to the SafeMoon project? According to SEC documents , Karony and his co-conspirators misrepresented various material aspects of the SafeMoon offering to investors. They lied that SafeMoon relied on “locked” liquidity pools that would automatically increase in size due to a 10% tax imposed on every SafeMoon transaction; that the “locked” SafeMoon liquidity pool meant the defendants and other insiders at SafeMoon would not be able to “rug pull” SafeMoon investors by removing liquidity from the SafeMoon liquidity pool. They also claimed that tokens in the liquidity pool would only be used for limited pre-defined business purposes, not personal enrichment; that the defendants would manually add token pairs to the SafeMoon liquidity pool when transactions of SafeMoon occurred on specific centralized exchanges; and that the developers were not and had not been holding and trading SafeMoon for their benefit. In truth, Karony and his co-conspirators had access to the SafeMoon liquidity pools, which they used to intentionally divert and misappropriate millions of dollars’ worth of tokens for their personal benefit. Also, although they publicly denied that they personally held or traded SafeMoon, they repeatedly bought and sold SafeMoon, sometimes at the height of SafeMoon’s market price, earning themselves millions of dollars in profits. They masked their movement of the fraudulent proceeds via numerous private un-hosted crypto wallet addresses, complex transaction routing, and pseudonymous centralized exchange accounts. Other company executives are in trouble too Karony reportedly walked away from the scheme with over $9 million in crypto assets, some of which he used to purchase luxury vehicles and real estate, including a $2.2 million home in Utah, additional homes in Utah and Kansas, a $277,000 Audi R8 sports car, another Audi R8, a Tesla, and custom Ford F-550 and Jeep Gladiator pickup trucks. His co-conspirator, Thomas Smith, previously pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing, while his other co-conspirator, Kyle Nagy, remains at large. “As proven at trial, the SafeMoon digital asset was anything but safe and turned out to be pie in the sky for investors who were deliberately misled by Karony, a man who sought to get rich quick by stealing and diverting millions of dollars,” stated United States Attorney Nocella. The maximum possible sentence for his crimes could have been up to 45 years. Prosecutors had reportedly recommended 12, while the defense pushed for about a year. The decision to settle on the 100-month term has taken into account federal sentencing guidelines, forfeiture orders, and some other factors like restitution considerations. Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free .

10 Feb 2026, 18:45

Trump’s Critical Warning: Second Carrier Deployment Looms as Iran Talks Face Collapse

BitcoinWorld Trump’s Critical Warning: Second Carrier Deployment Looms as Iran Talks Face Collapse WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a move escalating global tensions, President Donald Trump has signaled a potential decisive military escalation , suggesting he might order a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf if critical negotiations with Iran fail. This statement, first reported by Axios, arrives at a pivotal moment for Middle Eastern stability and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. Consequently, analysts worldwide are scrutinizing the strategic calculus behind such a formidable naval deployment. Trump’s Iran Carrier Threat: A Strategic Analysis President Trump’s remarks underscore a persistent pressure campaign against Tehran. Historically, the United States has maintained a significant naval presence in the region. However, deploying a second carrier strike group represents a substantial intensification. Each Nimitz-class carrier typically serves as the centerpiece of a battle group comprising guided-missile cruisers, destroyers, and attack submarines. Therefore, a dual-carrier presence projects overwhelming force, capable of enforcing a no-fly zone, conducting sustained air operations, and providing layered missile defense. This potential deployment follows a pattern of heightened activity. For instance, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group transited the Strait of Hormuz in 2019 amid similar tensions. Military experts note that dual-carrier operations are rare and reserved for demonstrating unmatched capability or preparing for high-intensity conflict. The table below outlines the core components of a standard U.S. carrier strike group. Component Typical Number Primary Role Aircraft Carrier 1 Flight operations & command Guided-Missile Cruisers 1-2 Air defense & strike Guided-Missile Destroyers 2-3 Multi-role escort Attack Submarine 1 Anti-submarine & stealth strike Supply Ship 1 Logistics & replenishment Context of Faltering Nuclear Diplomacy The diplomatic backdrop is the fraying Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. The U.S. withdrew from the agreement in 2018, reinstating severe economic sanctions. Since then, Iran has incrementally breached the deal’s limits on uranium enrichment. Recent negotiations in Vienna, aimed at reviving the pact, have repeatedly stalled. Key sticking points include the scope of sanctions relief and verification measures for Iran’s nuclear activities. Trump’s carrier statement functions as a stark warning. It explicitly links diplomatic outcomes to military posture. This coercive diplomacy aims to leverage maximum pressure. European allies, while concerned about Iran’s nuclear advances, often express apprehension about such overt military threats. They argue it could harden Tehran’s position and reduce negotiating flexibility. Meanwhile, regional partners like Israel and Saudi Arabia have historically supported a firm stance against Iran. Expert Perspectives on Escalation Risks Security analysts provide critical context on the risks. “A second carrier is not a routine patrol,” notes Dr. Elena Rodriguez, a senior fellow at the Center for Naval Analyses. “It’s a potent signal of readiness for major combat operations. The Iranian military would likely interpret it as preparation for a first strike, potentially triggering pre-emptive maneuvers.” Furthermore, the congested waters of the Persian Gulf increase the risk of miscalculation. Incidents like the seizure of tankers or confrontations with fast-attack craft could spiral rapidly. Historical precedent offers cautionary tales. The 1988 “Operation Praying Mantis” saw the U.S. Navy engage Iranian forces after a mine damaged a warship. Today’s environment is even more complex due to Iran’s advanced drone and missile capabilities. These systems, some sourced from Russia, pose a significant asymmetric threat to even the most powerful naval formations. Consequently, any deployment would necessitate robust defensive planning. Economic and Global Security Impacts The potential for disruption extends far beyond the military sphere. The Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint guarded by Iran, facilitates about 20% of the world’s oil trade. A major confrontation could sever this vital artery, triggering a global energy crisis. Oil prices would likely spike, impacting economies still recovering from recent instability. Insurance premiums for shipping lanes would soar immediately. Global markets remain highly sensitive to Middle Eastern volatility. Key impacts would include: Energy Security: Spiking crude oil and natural gas prices worldwide. Supply Chains: Disruption to maritime logistics and increased transport costs. Defense Posture: Allied nations reassessing their own naval deployments in the Indian Ocean and Red Sea. Non-Proliferation: Potential collapse of the nuclear treaty framework, incentivizing regional arms races. Moreover, such a crisis would divert immense U.S. diplomatic and military resources. It could impact strategic priorities in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Adversaries might seek to exploit the distraction, testing American resolve in other theaters. Therefore, the decision carries weight for global power dynamics beyond the immediate region. Conclusion President Trump’s suggestion of a second carrier deployment to Iran represents a critical juncture in U.S. foreign policy. It highlights the direct linkage between stalled nuclear diplomacy and credible military threat. While intended to pressure Tehran, this move carries profound risks of miscalculation and regional escalation. The coming weeks will test the resilience of diplomatic channels and the strategic patience of all involved parties. Ultimately, the world watches to see if this powerful naval demonstration will force a breakthrough or deepen a dangerous standoff. FAQs Q1: How many aircraft carriers does the U.S. typically have near Iran? The U.S. often maintains one carrier strike group in the Middle East region as part of its Fifth Fleet. Deploying a second one simultaneously is a notable escalation used for major exercises or high-threat scenarios. Q2: What is the status of the Iran nuclear deal talks? As of this reporting, indirect negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, mediated by European powers, are stalled. Disagreements persist over the sequence of sanctions relief and guarantees on future compliance. Q3: What military capability does a second carrier add? It doubles available aircraft for strikes, surveillance, and air defense. It also complicates an adversary’s targeting, provides redundancy, and allows for sustained, round-the-clock operations, which is a key marker of intent for a major campaign. Q4: How has Iran responded to previous U.S. carrier deployments? Iran has typically condemned them as provocative, sometimes responding with its own military exercises, missile tests, or harassment of commercial shipping. It often leverages proxy forces in the region to signal its reach. Q5: Could this lead to a full-scale war? While neither side appears to seek a total war, the concentration of forces increases the risk of an accidental clash escalating. History shows that conflicts often start from unintended incidents during periods of high military alert. This post Trump’s Critical Warning: Second Carrier Deployment Looms as Iran Talks Face Collapse first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

10 Feb 2026, 17:30

Shiba Inu Price Prediction: SHIB Could Drop to $0.0000055 as Bearish Pattern Holds

Shiba Inu remains under pressure amid renewed selling in the broader crypto market. Analysts highlight the token’s vulnerability, noting that sellers control short-term price movements. Technical charts indicate SHIB continues to trade within a bearish structure, reinforcing downside risks. Shiba Inu Bearish Structure Persists Analyst HolderStat examined the 30-minute SHIB/USDT chart, noting that Shiba Inu remains within a descending trendline structure. The pattern, marked by lower highs and lower lows, confirms ongoing selling pressure. SHIB recently fell to approximately $0.0000055 before bouncing from the local low. However, the rebound lost momentum, failing to break above the descending resistance near $0.0000065. HolderStat observed that price consolidation continues below the main descending trendline, while a weak rising support line forms beneath the price. This creates a tightening compression zone, reflecting weakening bullish strength. The analyst stated that the sloping trendline remains dynamic resistance, reinforced by multiple prior rejection points. “If this level holds, SHIB is likely to resume its downward move,” HolderStat said, adding that the price could revisit the $0.0000055 area. Immediate Levels and Market Context HolderStat’s report comes amid a broader market pullback, with SHIB losing momentum after trading near $0.0000062. The token slipped to around $0.0000060, reinforcing a short-term bearish trend. At the time of writing, SHIB is trading at $0.000006016, down 1.59% over 24 hours and has declined 12% over the past week. Over the past month, the token fell 30.24%, bringing year-to-date losses to 13.2%. The analyst identified immediate resistance at $0.0000065, with higher barriers at $0.00000705 and $0.00000847. Nearest support lies at $0.00000562, forming a critical zone for potential stabilization. HolderStat emphasized that a decisive breakout and close above resistance would invalidate the bearish bias, signaling a possible short-term trend shift. Until then, sellers maintain structural control, keeping downside pressure favored.

10 Feb 2026, 16:26

Phantom Chat Feature Targeted in Fresh Bitcoin Phishing Wave: $BMIC Offers Security

What to Know: Phantom’s in-app Chats expand social attack surface; scammers exploit hype and speed to route users into phishing links and fake prompts. Bitcoin and Ethereum remain choppy, with mixed spot ETF flow signals, conditions that tend to increase user error and rushed approvals. Strong wallet hygiene still matters most: never share seed phrases, avoid chat links, and isolate funds using separate accounts or hardware wallets. BMIC leans into a post-quantum + AI security narrative, aiming to reduce key-exposure risk as social-engineering attacks evolve. Crypto’s biggest losses rarely start with a ‘hack.’ They start with a message. Phantom’s in-app Chats, designed to let traders talk directly from token, perps, and prediction market pages, have expanded the wallet’s social surface area at exactly the moment phishing crews are getting more clinical. Phantom itself warns that Chats are not a support channel and users should be cautious with links, scams, and ‘financial advice from strangers.’ That caution is well-placed: social engineering thrives wherever speed, hype, and clickable URLs overlap. And yes, attackers read the same docs users do, then exploit the gray areas. Recent scam reporting around the Phantom ecosystem has highlighted how lookalike popups and phishing pages attempt to trick users into entering seed phrases, sometimes by closely copying Phantom’s interface. Even without a single wallet exploit, an in-chat link can move a user from ‘conversation’ to ‘compromise’ in seconds. That’s fast. What most coverage misses is why chat-based delivery converts: it adds social proof. A link posted in a fast-moving token chat can feel like part of the product experience (almost like a built-in feature), lowering the friction that normally protects users from random DMs. Familiarity lowers guardrails. Volatile price action, crowded trade chats, and familiarity create perfect phishing conditions. The second-order effect is ugly, once a seed phrase is exposed or a malicious transaction is signed, losses settle faster than any customer support ticket. No pause button. This is where security narratives start to outperform meme narratives. And it’s also the bridge into BMIC ($BMIC): a presale-stage project pitching an AI-assisted, post-quantum security stack for wallets, staking, and payments, built for the uncomfortable reality that today’s attacks are human-first, and tomorrow’s risks may be cryptographic. BMIC Pitches Post-Quantum Wallet Security with AI Threat Detection BMIC (ERC-20 on Ethereum) is positioning itself as a ‘Quantum-Secure Wallet’ project with a full-stack approach: wallet + staking + payments, protected by post-quantum cryptography and paired with AI-enhanced threat detection. The narrative target is specific and timely: ‘harvest now, decrypt later.’ That’s the idea that adversaries can capture encrypted data today and crack it later when cryptographic capabilities improve. BMIC also claims Zero Public-Key Exposure and a ‘Quantum Meta-Cloud,’ while leaning on ERC-4337 smart accounts, an architectural choice that can support more programmable security policies than legacy EOAs. Ambitious? Yes. Reckless? Not if executed with audits and clear threat models. Why does this matter in the context of Phantom-style phishing? Because phishing scales on two levers: 1) Getting users to reveal secrets 2) Getting users to sign the wrong thing BMIC’s pitch is that modern wallet security has to assume both levers are being pulled constantly, and respond with layered defenses, cryptographic hardening, plus automated threat detection that can flag abnormal behavior patterns. CHECK OUT THE BMIC SECURITY STACK BMIC Presale Raising for Future Security $BMIC has raised over $445K, and tokens are currently priced at $0.049474. That’s a low entry price for something aimed at securing the future. It’s clear investors are looking for a high return by getting in early. The $BMIC token acts as the primary utility currency for the BMIC ecosystem, used to pay for quantum-resistant security services and access decentralized computing power through a ‘Burn-to-Compute’ mechanism. It further incentivizes the network by allowing holders to stake tokens for rewards while participating in governance decisions regarding the protocol’s development. The risk, of course, is execution. Post-quantum cryptography and AI security are powerful words, but buyers should watch for tangible deliverables: audited components, real user-facing threat telemetry, and clear explanations of how ‘zero public-key exposure’ is implemented in practice. Can it actually deliver? Still, the setup is intuitive: as wallets add social surfaces like chat, attackers get more entry points. Projects built around reducing key exposure and automating threat detection have a clean reason to exist. buy your $BMIC on the official presale page This article is not financial advice; crypto is volatile, presales are high-risk, and security claims should be independently verified.

9 Feb 2026, 22:36

How 2 Wallet Errors and Phishing Attacks Cost Crypto Users $62M

In January, a crypto user lost $12.25 million by copying the wrong wallet address. In December as well, another one ended up losing $50 million in a similar way. Together, the two incidents cost $62 million, according to the popular Web3 security solution, Scam Sniffer. Crypto Blunders Signature phishing attacks also surged in January. In fact, Scam Sniffer found that $6.27 million was stolen from 4,741 victims, which is a 207% increase from December. The largest cases involved $3.02 million from SLVon and XAUt via permit/increaseAllowance, and $1.08 million from aEthLBTC via permit. Two wallets alone accounted for 65% of all phishing losses. Address poisoning is a scam where attackers send small transactions from wallet addresses that closely resemble real ones, hoping users copy the wrong address from their transaction history. This can lead to funds being sent directly to scammers by mistake. Signature phishing further increases the risk by tricking users into signing malicious approvals that give attackers permission to move funds later. As such, these tactics rely on social engineering and human error, and may make even experienced users vulnerable. In November last year, a crypto holder lost over $3 million worth of PYTH tokens after mistakenly sending funds to a scammer’s wallet. The error occurred when the victim copied a fake deposit address from their transaction history. Blockchain analysts at Lookonchain said the attacker created a lookalike address matching the first four characters of the real wallet and sent a tiny SOL transaction to appear legitimate. The victim later transferred 7 million PYTH tokens without fully verifying the address and fell victim to an address poisoning attack. The transferred stash was worth about $3.08 million at that time. Coordinated Multisig Scam Attempt Amidst the growing frequency of such attacks, the non-custodial wallet, Safe, formerly known as Gnosis Safe, also issued a warning for its users about a large-scale address poisoning and social engineering campaign targeting multisig wallets. According to the platform, attackers created thousands of lookalike Safe addresses to trick users into sending funds to the wrong destination. It disclosed that the incident was not a protocol exploit, infrastructure breach, or smart contract vulnerability. Safe identified around 5,000 malicious addresses, which have now been flagged and removed from the Safe Wallet interface to reduce the risk of accidental fund transfers. The post How 2 Wallet Errors and Phishing Attacks Cost Crypto Users $62M appeared first on CryptoPotato .

9 Feb 2026, 19:24

Infini Exploit Wallet Reawakens to Scoop $13 Million in Ethereum

A blockchain wallet connected to Infini’s $50 million breach has begun moving funds again after almost a year of silence.