Invest ideasNews
19 Jan 2026, 07:56
Backers Seek Refunds as Trove Abandons Hyperliquid Integration for Solana
Trove Markets is facing mounting criticism after announcing a sudden pivot to Solana, weeks after raising more than $11.5 million tied to a token sale marketed around an integration with Hyperliquid. Key Takeaways: Trove’s sudden pivot to Solana after an $11.5M raise has triggered backlash and refund demands. The team says a withdrawn HYPE liquidity commitment forced the move away from Hyperliquid. Flagged token transfers have intensified scrutiny around the project’s handling of funds. The move has triggered calls for refunds from backers who say the project’s roadmap has materially changed. Trove Says Liquidity Partner Withdrawal Forced Solana Pivot Trove revealed the shift in a post on X on Friday , describing the decision as a response to changes in its operating constraints. One of the project’s builders, known as “Unwise,” later said the pivot was prompted by a liquidity partner withdrawing 500,000 Hyperliquid (HYPE) tokens that were required to support the planned integration. “This changes our constraints: we’re no longer building on Hyperliquid rails, so we’re rebuilding the perp DEX on Solana from the ground up,” Unwise wrote. The TROVE token sale ran from Jan. 8 to Jan. 11, with the token generation event now scheduled for Monday at 4:00 pm UTC. Trove said the Solana transition, combined with refund requests, has delayed its timeline. “Due to the move to Solana and the refund processing, we need more time to execute this correctly,” the team said. The controversy is amplified by earlier funding decisions. In November, Trove raised a separate $20 million to acquire 500,000 HYPE tokens required for Hyperliquid’s mandatory HIP-3 stake, a slashable bond designed to secure new perpetual markets. Critics argue that abandoning Hyperliquid after making that commitment undermines trust with early supporters. Several users on X have demanded immediate refunds, arguing that contributors backed a Hyperliquid-based product, not a Solana-native one. “People did not invest in your ICO for you to launch on Solana,” one user wrote, while others urged Trove to return funds and relaunch under revised terms. refund the people now!!! you raised to money to build on hyperliquid! Give back the money and raise on solana if you think that's what your community really wants — HYPEconomist (@HYPEconomist) January 18, 2026 Trove plans to build a perpetual trading platform focused on collectibles such as Pokémon cards and Counter-Strike 2 skins, a niche Bitwise estimated in September could grow into a $21.4 billion market. The team says Solana’s infrastructure is better suited to that vision. Meanwhile, blockchain investigator ZachXBT has flagged several Trove-linked transfers into casino deposit addresses involving HYPE tokens. Want to explain to the community why your team bridged $45K from the Trove Angel Round raise on Jan 11 and deposited it directly into a casino deposit address? Source address 7nRNzRX2WQ3WxV3eV6gDeJeWTApqefuXNXQRZ1xEh1eh Destination address… pic.twitter.com/6sdjiLo8GW — ZachXBT (@zachxbt) January 17, 2026 Trove Token Sale Turmoil Sparks Governance Questions As reported, the public token sale for Trove Markets descended into controversy after late-stage changes and mixed messages disrupted what had initially been a smooth fundraising process. Conflicting announcements around whether the ICO would be extended created confusion among participants and raised concerns about decision-making and transparency. Trove first said the sale had surpassed $11.5 million and would include pro-rata refunds ahead of the token generation event, before announcing an extension to improve distribution. Hours later, the team reversed course, calling the extension a mistake and confirming the original end date, acknowledging that feedback from early supporters and large allocators had influenced the brief change. The post Backers Seek Refunds as Trove Abandons Hyperliquid Integration for Solana appeared first on Cryptonews .
17 Jan 2026, 11:59
Elon Musk backed $10B for-profit OpenAI ICO in early 2018, internal notes reveal
OpenAI’s recently surfaced internal call notes reveal Elon Musk’s previous backing for a $10 billion for-profit arm ICO in early 2018 to fund the nonprofit’s projects. Musk’s decision to abandon the ICO and later exit from the AI startup set the company on its current path, combining a controlling nonprofit with a public benefit corporation (PBC). OpenAI’s President, Greg Brockman, said he and Musk agreed back in 2017 that a for-profit structure would be the AI startup’s next phase. However, negotiations hit a snag when the AI startup blatantly refused to give Musk full control of the for-profit arm. The ChatGPT maker also rejected Musk’s proposal to merge the AI startup with his Tesla, opting for alternative means to jointly achieve the objective. In response, Musk stormed out of the AI startup and gave the company a 0% chance of success if it failed to raise billions of dollars. Today, the company’s structure includes a controlling nonprofit that owns equity in the PBC, currently valued at over $130 billion. Musk sues OpenAI for breach of charitable trust In his latest court filing, Musk is suing the AI firm for breach of charitable trust and constructive fraud. However, the AI company seeks to deny Musk any remedy for the alleged misconduct on technical grounds. It asserts that the Tesla boss lacks standing to sue because he made most of his contributions indirectly through personal donor-advised funds (DAFs). The AI company also pointed out that Musk made additional donations through the fiscal sponsor YC.org, which it had designated to receive contributions on its behalf. Meanwhile, Musk calls OpenAI’s arguments “meritless,” emphasizing that the court had already ruled he has standing to sue as a “settlor” of a trust. He added that he is the settlor of his contributions to the ChatGPT maker, whether directly or indirectly. Musk contributed about $38 million to the AI startup’s initial funding, which accounted for roughly 60% of the total funding. He also claimed he made countless non-monetary contributions, such as recruiting top talent, including the AI firm’s chief scientist, Ilya Sutskever. OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, also acknowledged in his deposition that Musk’s initial contributions to the AI startup were crucial. He does not think the AI company would exist without Musk. Brockman says Musk is just harassing the AI startup According to Brockman, Musk’s latest lawsuit is his fourth attempt to make these claims, and part of his broader strategy to delay the ChatGPT maker’s progress through harassment. He believes Musk is using underhanded tactics to gain an advantage for his xAI firm. Brockman also claimed that Musk is grossly misrepresenting facts on record to further his harassment. He noted that Musk had deliberately cherry-picked and shared snippets from written records to tell a different story. “Elon did not think that OpenAI needed to remain solely a non-profit. As the context shows, he agreed that OpenAI needed both a non-profit and a for-profit entity—the exact structure OpenAI has today, and that Elon is now suing OpenAI over.” – Greg Brockman , President of OpenAI Brockman also clarified that it was Ilya, not Musk, who suggested that the nonprofit should continue to exist in some form and remain connected to the AI firm’s mission. Musk actually created an OpenAI PBC (B-Corp) shortly after these discussions. Brockman further noted that Musk’s court filings glossed over the details of these negotiations, and they were intense and deeply personal. Brockman also pointed out that one of the people who had worked closely with Musk described him as someone who tends to vilify people who quit his companies. The former Musk colleague also noted Musk’s Mars ambition, which started as a philanthropic project and grew into a commercial business. Meanwhile, Brockman believes that Musk never truly treated OpenAI as an independent nonprofit. He explained that Musk seemed intent on starting a competitor, which is why ChatGPT maker had secretly considered removing him from its board. Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free .
17 Jan 2026, 08:00
South Korea Advances Tokenized Securities Framework Amid Crypto Regulation Push
As South Korea intensifies its push for crypto regulation, lawmakers have advanced a bill to establish a legal framework for issuing and trading security token offerings (STOs) using distributed ledger technology (DLT). Lawmakers Amend Framework For Tokenized Securities On Thursday, South Korea’s National Assembly passed key amendments to the Capital Markets Act and the Electronic Securities Act, creating a legal framework for the issuance and distribution of tokenized securities. According to an official government release , the revised rules define tokenized securities as a broad category that extends to both debt and equity products, and recognize them as legitimate financial instruments. The amendments to the Electronic Securities Act will allow qualified issuers to launch tokenized securities using distributed ledger technology. Meanwhile, the Capital Markets Act changes will enable the products to be traded as investment contract securities on brokerages and other licensed intermediaries. Notably, the existing Capital Markets Act prohibited the distribution through securities firms, deeming investment contract securities “unsuitable for distribution due to their non-standard characteristics.” The changes are “expected to enhance accessibility to investments and improve the provision of investment information for these securities,” the official government release stated. After legislative approval, the bill will be submitted to the State Council, followed by official presidential promulgation. Therefore, the legislation is expected to be enacted one year after being signed into law, tentatively in January 2027. Moreover, the Financial Services Commission (FSC) is set to lead the implementation, forming a joint “Token Securities Council” with relevant agencies to ensure seamless preparatory work, including the development of supporting infrastructure and enhanced safeguards. The consultation body will comprise the FSC, the Financial Supervisory Service, the Korea Securities Depository, the Financial Investment Association, industry participants, and experts. South Korea’s Crypto Regulatory Push Continues This major step follows South Korea’s efforts to develop and establish clear, comprehensive rules to regulate the local crypto industry. Last week, the government shared its 2026 Economic Growth Strategy, which included a plan to open its market to Bitcoin (BTC) Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) this year. Crypto-based ETFs have been banned in South Korea since 2017. In 2024, the country’s regulator reaffirmed its stance after the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved the investment products. However, it has now cited the success of the US and Hong Kong’s crypto funds as a key factor for their shift. The FSC will also accelerate the next phase of its digital asset legislation this quarter to establish a clear regulatory framework for stablecoins. As reported by Bitcoinist, South Korea’s Second Phase of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act was delayed until the start of 2026 due to an ongoing disagreement between the FSC and the Bank of Korea (BOK). The financial authorities have been clashing for months over rules related to the issuance and distribution of stablecoins, disagreeing on the extent of banks’ role in the issuance of won-pegged tokens. Nonetheless, the main policies of the crypto framework have been decided, set to include investor protection measures, such as no-fault liability for crypto asset operators and isolation of bankruptcy risks for stablecoin issuers. Moreover, the country is lifting its long-standing ban on institutional crypto trading, which is anticipated to begin later this year. According to local reports, the FSC is considering a rule to limit corporate cryptocurrency investments at 5% of a company’s equity capital. Under the latest proposal, eligible firms would be able to allocate up to 5% of equity capital per year to digital assets, limited to the top 20 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization. The final draft version could be released as early as January or February.
17 Jan 2026, 07:10
Elon Musk OpenAI ICO: The Stunning $10 Billion Crypto Proposal That Almost Was
BitcoinWorld Elon Musk OpenAI ICO: The Stunning $10 Billion Crypto Proposal That Almost Was In a stunning revelation from early 2018, documents show Elon Musk briefly championed a revolutionary $10 billion OpenAI ICO before his dramatic departure from the company. This pivotal moment, reported by CoinDesk in January 2025, illuminates a crucial crossroads where artificial intelligence development nearly intersected with blockchain fundraising at an unprecedented scale. The proposal emerged during cryptocurrency’s peak frenzy, offering a fascinating glimpse into alternative funding paths for transformative technologies. The Elon Musk OpenAI ICO Proposal Details Internal documents from January 2018 reveal specific parameters for the proposed OpenAI initial coin offering. Elon Musk and OpenAI founders discussed creating a token that would grant holders access to future AI services or computing resources. The $10 billion target would have dwarfed most traditional venture capital rounds, potentially distributing tokens to thousands of global investors. This approach mirrored contemporary blockchain projects that promised utility rather than equity. Historical context clarifies why this method gained consideration. The 2017-2018 period witnessed extraordinary ICO activity, with projects like Filecoin raising $257 million and Telegram securing $1.7 billion through private token sales. Regulatory frameworks remained ambiguous globally, creating a window for innovative fundraising. Meanwhile, OpenAI faced substantial computational costs for training advanced models, estimated at millions monthly for cloud infrastructure. 2018 Major ICO Comparisons Project Amount Raised Date Primary Focus Telegram $1.7B Feb-Mar 2018 Encrypted Messaging EOS $4.1B Jun 2018 Blockchain Platform Filecoin $257M Aug 2017 Decentralized Storage Proposed OpenAI ICO $10B (Target) Jan 2018 Artificial Intelligence Musk’s Rapid Reversal and Departure Elon Musk withdrew his support within weeks of the initial proposal. Multiple factors likely influenced this reversal. First, regulatory scrutiny intensified dramatically in early 2018 as the SEC began classifying certain tokens as securities. Second, Tesla’s own challenges demanded increased attention, particularly regarding Model 3 production and Autopilot development. Third, Musk expressed growing concerns about AI safety and commercialization timelines. His subsequent resignation from the OpenAI board in February 2018 created significant organizational shifts. Musk cited potential future conflicts with Tesla’s AI work as the primary reason. This departure occurred just as OpenAI transitioned from a non-profit to a “capped-profit” structure, a move that would eventually enable Microsoft’s $1 billion investment in 2019. The abandoned ICO proposal represents a road not taken in the organization’s funding evolution. Expert Analysis: The ICO Landscape in 2018 Blockchain analysts note the proposal’s timing coincided with peak ICO enthusiasm but increasing regulatory pressure. “The first quarter of 2018 saw both record fundraising and mounting SEC warnings,” explains Dr. Sarah Chen, cryptocurrency historian at Stanford University. “Projects began facing legal challenges for unregistered securities offerings, creating substantial risk for high-profile initiatives.” Several key developments shaped this period: Regulatory Shifts: The SEC’s DAO Report in July 2017 established that some tokens qualified as securities, followed by multiple enforcement actions in early 2018. Market Correction: Cryptocurrency valuations declined approximately 80% from January to December 2018, reducing investor appetite. Technical Limitations: Blockchain scalability issues became apparent, with networks struggling under transaction loads. Scam Proliferation: Numerous fraudulent ICOs damaged the mechanism’s reputation among serious investors. Alternative Funding Paths for AI Development The abandoned OpenAI ICO proposal highlights fundamental questions about financing transformative technologies. Traditional venture capital, while substantial, often imposes different constraints and expectations than token-based fundraising. ICOs theoretically enable broader participation and align incentives through utility tokens rather than equity. However, they also introduce regulatory complexity and market volatility. OpenAI ultimately pursued hybrid funding approaches. The organization secured: $1 billion from Microsoft in 2019 Additional funding through strategic partnerships Revenue from API access to models like GPT-3 Investment from venture firms like Khosla Ventures This diversified strategy contrasts sharply with the single massive ICO initially contemplated. Each approach carries distinct advantages regarding control, regulatory exposure, and community building. The ICO model might have created a decentralized ecosystem of developers and users invested in the platform’s success through token ownership. The Tesla AI Priority Shift Elon Musk’s redirected focus toward Tesla’s artificial intelligence initiatives proved prescient. Tesla began developing custom AI chips in 2018, leading to the Full Self-Driving computer’s 2019 deployment. The company’s Dojo supercomputer project, announced in 2021, represents another massive AI infrastructure investment. These parallel developments suggest Musk channeled his AI ambitions toward vertically integrated applications rather than general research platforms. Financial analysts note Tesla’s market capitalization grew from approximately $60 billion in early 2018 to over $800 billion by 2025. This valuation increase provided resources far exceeding the proposed ICO’s $10 billion target. However, the funding mechanisms differ fundamentally—public market equity versus token sales—with implications for investor rights, liquidity, and regulatory oversight. Historical Significance and Modern Parallels The revealed OpenAI ICO discussions gain new relevance amid 2025’s AI and blockchain convergence. Modern decentralized AI projects like Bittensor and SingularityNET employ token-based models for coordinating distributed computation. These initiatives face similar questions about governance, incentive alignment, and regulatory compliance that the 2018 proposal encountered. Several key differences distinguish current approaches: Enhanced Regulation: Clearer frameworks exist for security versus utility token classification Technical Maturity: Layer-2 solutions and specialized blockchains improve scalability Market Sophistication: Investors better understand token economics and risks AI Progress: Proven commercial applications increase token utility potential The proposal’s $10 billion scale remains extraordinary by contemporary standards. For comparison, the largest cryptocurrency venture rounds in 2024 reached approximately $500 million. This magnitude reflects both the period’s exuberance and AI infrastructure’s substantial capital requirements. Training advanced models like GPT-4 reportedly cost over $100 million, with future generations requiring exponentially more resources. Conclusion The Elon Musk OpenAI ICO proposal represents a fascinating historical footnote with enduring implications. This $10 billion fundraising plan, briefly supported then abandoned, highlights critical moments in both artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency evolution. The decision to pursue traditional investment instead shaped OpenAI’s development path and governance structure significantly. Meanwhile, Musk’s redirected focus toward Tesla’s AI ambitions produced substantial autonomous driving advancements. As AI and blockchain technologies continue converging, this revealed proposal offers valuable perspective on funding mechanisms for transformative technologies. The Elon Musk OpenAI ICO consideration ultimately demonstrates how financing choices can redirect technological trajectories in profound ways. FAQs Q1: What was the proposed purpose of the OpenAI ICO tokens? The documents suggest tokens would provide access to future AI services or computing resources, creating a utility-based ecosystem rather than equity ownership. Q2: Why did Elon Musk withdraw support for the ICO? Multiple factors likely contributed, including increasing regulatory scrutiny of token sales, Tesla’s growing AI priorities, and concerns about AI safety and commercialization timelines. Q3: How does this proposal compare to modern AI crypto projects? Current decentralized AI initiatives employ more sophisticated token economics and operate under clearer regulatory frameworks, but share similar goals of democratizing access and aligning incentives. Q4: What fundraising path did OpenAI ultimately pursue? The organization secured traditional venture funding, including Microsoft’s $1 billion investment, alongside revenue from API access and strategic partnerships. Q5: How might AI development differ if the ICO had proceeded? A token-based model might have created more decentralized governance and broader community participation, potentially accelerating certain applications while introducing different regulatory challenges. This post Elon Musk OpenAI ICO: The Stunning $10 Billion Crypto Proposal That Almost Was first appeared on BitcoinWorld .
16 Jan 2026, 16:50
XRP vs. Status Quo: Ripple Demands a New “Lifespan” Rulebook from the SEC
Ripple Pushes SEC for “Lifespan” Rule to Define XRP’s Status Ripple has urged the U.S. SEC to adopt a groundbreaking ‘lifespan’ rule for digital assets. Market analyst Diana explains that this framework would treat cryptocurrencies like XRP differently at each stage, offering stricter oversight during fundraising and lighter regulation as they mature, potentially redefining crypto regulation. Under this proposal, a token’s classification wouldn’t remain fixed forever. Instead, its regulatory treatment would evolve depending on its lifecycle stage: Early-stage/fundraising phase – heightened scrutiny, reflecting risks associated with initial coin offerings and investor protection. Mature trading phase – treated more like a commodity, reflecting its established market presence and widespread adoption. XRP has already won a major legal battle, with courts largely treating it as not a security on exchanges. Ripple’s goal now is bigger to establish an official, repeatable, and predictable framework, ensuring XRP isn’t seen as “special” just because of a single ruling. Building on this momentum, Ripple has partnered with LMAX Group to accelerate institutional stablecoin adoption and enable seamless cross-asset trading and margin efficiency through RLUSD. Diana notes that Ripple aims for clarity and consistency, seeking a framework that treats all tokens fairly over time, minimizing ambiguity and future enforcement risk. Meanwhile, Ripple is accelerating its European growth, securing preliminary EMI approval in Luxembourg to expand its cross-border payments network. If the SEC adopts a lifespan-based framework, it could transform crypto regulation. XRP would gain long-term clarity, giving investors and institutions confidence in its classification. Retroactive enforcement would be harder, as tokens follow defined stages with specific rules. Beyond XRP, this approach could set a U.S. precedent, shaping the regulatory treatment of other cryptocurrencies. Ripple’s push for a “lifespan” rule is a strategic move. As the crypto market matures, regulators and companies are seeking frameworks that balance innovation with investor protection. By advocating for rules that adapt to a token’s stage, rather than treating it the same forever, Ripple isn’t just defending XRP; it’s championing a clearer, more flexible regulatory system. With decentralization deemed too vague, Ripple’s proposal could provide rights-based, stage-specific guidelines that benefit the entire digital asset ecosystem. In short, this could be a turning point for crypto regulation with a framework that evolves with tokens, offering consistency, clarity, and adaptability, exactly what the market has long needed. Conclusion If adopted, Ripple’s lifespan proposal could redefine crypto regulation, bringing clarity to an often murky market. By recognizing that tokens evolve over time, the SEC would not only cement XRP’s status but also create a predictable framework for the broader crypto ecosystem. This approach could reduce regulatory uncertainty, attract institutional investors, and signal that the U.S. is embracing a forward-looking, nuanced stance on digital assets. For Ripple, XRP, and the industry at large, the lifespan rule is more than a legal strategy, it’s a step toward long-term legitimacy and market stability.
