hodler

20 Jan 2026, 22:00

Trump Tariff Threat Leaves Bitcoin Out in the Cold

Emily Nicolle questions whether a Bitcoin rebound might be on the cards under renewed pressure from Donald Trump’s tariff threats.

20 Jan 2026, 22:00

Oasis Network [ROSE] climbs 105% – Are traders rotating toward privacy AI?

As ROSE rallied 105%, traders watched whether infrastructure demand could sustain momentum.

20 Jan 2026, 21:55

Bitcoin’s Decentralization: A Looming Liability in the Quantum Computing Era, Analyst Warns

BitcoinWorld Bitcoin’s Decentralization: A Looming Liability in the Quantum Computing Era, Analyst Warns NEW YORK, April 2025 – A prominent crypto market analyst has issued a stark warning, shifting the conversation around one of Bitcoin’s core strengths into a potential future weakness. Jamie Coutts of Real Vision now argues that Bitcoin’s celebrated decentralization could become its greatest liability in the face of advancing quantum computing technology, a threat he once dismissed as distant science fiction. This perspective challenges a common narrative in the crypto community and highlights a fundamental asymmetry in how different financial systems are preparing for a technological paradigm shift. Bitcoin Quantum Computing Threat: A Shift in Perspective For years, the discussion around quantum computing and cryptocurrency has often been met with skepticism. Many proponents argued that the threat was overblown or that solutions would emerge in time. However, Jamie Coutts’s recent public reassessment on social media platform X signals a growing urgency. He notes a critical divergence in preparedness. While large, centralized financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and major central banks are investing billions in quantum research and quantum-resistant cryptography, Bitcoin’s upgrade path is inherently more complex. Consequently, this creates a potential vulnerability gap. Traditional finance, with its centralized governance, can theoretically mandate and deploy new security protocols more swiftly. In contrast, Bitcoin requires broad consensus across a global, decentralized network of miners, nodes, and developers. This process, while robust against censorship and single points of failure, is not designed for rapid, emergency response. The Decentralization Dilemma and Upgrade Mechanics Bitcoin’s lack of a central authority is its foundational innovation. There is no CEO, no risk committee, and no board of directors to approve changes. Upgrades occur through a community-driven process involving Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs), which require widespread adoption to activate. Historic upgrades like SegWit or the Taproot activation took years of debate and technical development. Consensus-Driven Changes: Any quantum-resistant algorithm would need near-universal agreement from a diverse set of stakeholders. Implementation Timeline: Even after consensus, rolling out a fundamental cryptographic change across the entire network is a massive logistical undertaking. Coordination Challenge: Unlike a bank, there is no single entity to coordinate a global security patch. Therefore, the primary risk Coutts identifies is not that quantum computing will instantly break Bitcoin’s cryptography tomorrow, but that the decentralized system may struggle to organize an adequate response during the early, uncertain stages of the threat’s materialization. Expert Analysis and the Broader Financial Landscape Coutts’s analysis gains context when examining parallel developments. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has been running a multi-year process to standardize post-quantum cryptography (PQC). Major tech firms and governments are actively testing these new algorithms. A 2024 report from the World Economic Forum highlighted quantum computing as a top-five global risk to financial stability. Institutional investors are taking note. BlackRock and Fidelity, both major spot Bitcoin ETF issuers, include technological obsolescence, including quantum advances, as a standard risk factor in their filings. This institutional scrutiny underscores that the quantum question is moving from theoretical forums to practical risk management desks. Timeline Uncertainty and Proactive Research The core uncertainty lies in the timeline. Experts are divided on when a cryptographically-relevant quantum computer (CRQC)—one powerful enough to break Bitcoin’s Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)—might exist. Estimates range from a decade to several decades. However, the “harvest now, decrypt later” threat is real. Adversaries could be collecting encrypted data today to decrypt it later once quantum computers are available. Simultaneously, research into quantum-resistant blockchains and Layer-2 solutions is active. Projects like the Quantum Resistant Ledger (QRL) have launched, and Ethereum researchers are exploring integration of PQC. The table below summarizes the contrasting postures: System Governance Model Quantum Preparedness Posture Key Challenge Traditional Finance (Banks) Centralized, Hierarchical Active R&D, Top-Down Mandates Possible Legacy System Integration, Cost Bitcoin Network Decentralized, Consensus-Based Community-Led Research, Slow Upgrade Path Achieving Timely, Universal Consensus Newer Cryptocurrencies Varies (Often Foundation-Led) Can Design with PQC from Inception Network Effects, Adoption Ultimately, the debate is less about *if* Bitcoin can adapt—most experts believe it can—and more about *how quickly and smoothly* it can adapt compared to centralized rivals under a sudden technological shock. Conclusion Jamie Coutts’s revised warning on the Bitcoin quantum computing threat reframes a core tenet of the digital asset. Decentralization, the very feature that provides resilience against political and institutional interference, may introduce friction when confronting an existential technological threat. The coming years will test the Bitcoin community’s ability to conduct proactive, coordinated research and prepare for a soft-fork upgrade of unprecedented importance. The race is not just against quantum computing’s development timeline, but also against the agile response capabilities of the traditional financial system it aims to disrupt. The outcome will hinge on the network’s capacity for foresight and collective action long before a crisis arrives. FAQs Q1: What exactly would a quantum computer break in Bitcoin? A1: A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could break the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) used to create Bitcoin addresses and sign transactions. This could allow someone to derive private keys from public keys, potentially stealing funds from exposed addresses. Q2: Is this threat unique to Bitcoin? A2: No, quantum computing threatens all current public-key cryptography, which secures most of the internet and modern finance. However, the argument is that centralized entities like banks may be able to upgrade their systems faster than a decentralized network like Bitcoin. Q3: Are there any solutions being worked on? A3: Yes. Cryptographers globally are developing post-quantum cryptography (PQC) algorithms. NIST is standardizing them, and blockchain developers are researching how to integrate these into existing networks like Bitcoin through future upgrades. Q4: Should Bitcoin investors be worried right now? A4: Most experts agree the threat is not imminent, likely a decade or more away. The concern is about long-term preparedness. The current risk is considered low, but it is a recognized topic in long-term risk assessments. Q5: Can Bitcoin be forked to become quantum-resistant? A5: Technically, yes. The Bitcoin protocol can be updated via a soft fork to implement quantum-resistant signatures. The significant challenge is achieving the necessary consensus among users, miners, and businesses to smoothly execute such a fundamental change across the entire ecosystem. This post Bitcoin’s Decentralization: A Looming Liability in the Quantum Computing Era, Analyst Warns first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

20 Jan 2026, 21:54

BlackRock, JPMorgan Among 35 Firms Building on Ethereum

In recent months, 35 of the world’s leading financial and technology firms, including BlackRock, JPMorgan, and Fidelity, have launched new products and services built directly on the Ethereum blockchain. These moves, detailed in a social media thread from the official Ethereum account, signal a rapid acceleration in the tokenization of real-world assets (RWAs) by mainstream institutions. The trend also highlights Ethereum’s emerging role as a foundational settlement layer for global finance, moving beyond speculative crypto trading into equities, bonds, and institutional payments. Institutions Push Tokenization and Settlement on Public Rails The Ethereum X account said on January 19 that adoption by financial institutions had accelerated , pointing to launches spanning tokenized stocks, money market funds, stablecoins, and bank deposits. For example, Kraken rolled out xStocks on the network, allowing eligible clients to move fully collateralized U.S. equities on-chain, while Ondo Finance launched a platform with more than 100 tokenized U.S. stocks and ETFs backed by real securities. Large asset managers have also taken similar steps, with Fidelity introducing its tokenized money market fund, FDIT, on Ethereum, and China Asset Management’s Hong Kong arm launching a tokenized USD money market fund, one of the first from a major Chinese asset manager. In Europe, Amundi introduced a tokenized share class of its euro money market fund on the Ethereum mainnet. Banks, too, have expanded their footprint. JPMorgan moved its JPM Coin deposit token from an internal blockchain to Base, an Ethereum Layer 2, and later launched its first tokenized money market fund on Ethereum, seeded with $100 million of its own capital. Furthermore, Societe Generale FORGE deployed euro- and dollar-denominated lending and trading products on Ethereum-based DeFi protocols. Payment firms and fintechs joined in, spearheaded by Stripe’s expansion of stablecoin subscriptions using USDC on Ethereum, while SoFi issued SoFiUSD, becoming the first U.S. national retail bank to launch a stablecoin on a public blockchain. Additionally, Google announced an agent payments protocol using stablecoins on Ethereum, built with partners including the Ethereum Foundation and Coinbase. Network Growth Meets Questions About Scale and Simplicity The institutional push has come alongside rising on-chain activity, illustrated by Ethereum staking surpassing 30% of supply this month, with about 36.2 million ETH locked, according to Ultrasound Money. Wallet creation also hit a record earlier in the month, with nearly 394,000 new addresses created in a single day on January 11. At the same time, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin warned on January 18 that growing protocol complexity could weaken security and self-sovereignty over the long term, urging developers to prioritize simplicity. His comments highlighted a tension between expanding institutional use cases and keeping the base protocol understandable and resilient. The breadth of recent announcements shows how Ethereum and its Layer 2 networks are being used as testing grounds for regulated tokenized finance, from funds and equities to payments and settlement, while debates about governance and design continue in parallel. The post BlackRock, JPMorgan Among 35 Firms Building on Ethereum appeared first on CryptoPotato .

20 Jan 2026, 21:45

Bitcoin enters Delaware Life’s retirement annuity portfolio

The product gives retirement investors indirect Bitcoin exposure through a BlackRock index built on the company's spot Bitcoin ETF.

20 Jan 2026, 21:35

Justice Department flags election-related contacts by DOGE staff

The Justice Department told a federal court on Tuesday that Elon Musk’s DOGE team, working inside the Social Security Administration, stored sensitive Social Security data on servers that were never approved by the agency. The filing also said two members of the team secretly communicated with an outside advocacy group tied to efforts to overturn election results in certain states. The DOJ said the issue surfaced while correcting sworn testimony given last year by senior SSA officials during lawsuits over DOGE access to federal data. Those corrections said team members shared information through third-party systems and may have reached private records that a judge had already blocked them from seeing. The court papers said the conduct raised serious questions about how the DOGE project actually operated inside SSA. Justice Department flags election-related contacts by DOGE staff Elizabeth Shapiro, a senior DOJ official, said SSA referred both DOGE employees for possible Hatch Act violations. The law bars federal workers from using their jobs for political purposes. Elizabeth wrote that the two employees were in contact with an advocacy group pushing to overturn election results in specific states. The filing said one of the two signed a Voter Data Agreement that may have involved using Social Security data to compare federal records with state voter rolls. Elizabeth said the agreement and the outside communications were not known to SSA leadership at the time earlier court statements were made. She wrote that SSA believed its prior claims about DOGE, focusing on fraud detection and technology upgrades, were accurate when stated. Elizabeth also said there is no evidence that SSA staff outside the involved DOGE members knew about the advocacy group or the voter-related agreement. She added that the two employees and the advocacy group were not named in the filing. Emails reviewed by the DOJ suggest DOGE staff could have been asked to help the group by accessing SSA data to match against voter lists, but it remains unclear if any data was actually shared. Unapproved servers expose how DOGE handled restricted SSA data Elizabeth also disclosed that Steve Davis, a senior adviser to Musk tied to the DOGE project, was copied on a March 3, 2025, email that included a password-protected file. The file contained private information on about 1,000 people pulled from Social Security systems. Elizabeth said it is unknown whether Steve accessed the file. She also said the current SSA staff cannot open the file to confirm exactly what it contains. SSA continues to say DOGE never had access to official systems of record. Elizabeth wrote that it remains possible that restricted data derived from SSA systems was sent to Steve. That detail was included as part of the DOJ’s corrections to earlier court testimony. The filing also said a DOGE team member briefly received access to private Social Security profiles even after a court order blocked that access. Elizabeth said the access was never used. In a separate case, another DOGE member had access for two months to a call center profile containing private information, and Elizabeth wrote that it is still unknown whether any private data was accessed during that period. According to her, DOGE staff also shared data links using Cloudflare, a third-party service not approved for SSA data storage, meaning it falls outside any security rules. The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them .