hodler

10 Jun 2026, 03:18

Privacy coins gain 4.5% in a day, but the sector’s monthly losses signal deeper market unease

On Monday (June 8), privacy coins rose by 4.5%, where Monero increased by 7.6% and Zcash saw an increase of about 7%. However, the sector still trades at over 12% below its price from the beginning of the month amid concerns of a recent hack of the Zcash network. Despite one day of gains, there still seems to be some doubt about the market. Privacy coins serve as an indication of market sentiment regarding risk-on and risk-off sentiments since privacy coins always come under the scanner of regulators in the crypto community. But the price movement differential with respect to positioning highlights the fact that the crypto market is not sure of its current position. Zcash Orchard vulnerability triggers market selloff despite successful patch The monthly loss was a result of a vulnerability discovered on May 29 in the shielded pool of the Orchard protocol used by Zcash. A bug was detected in the zero-knowledge proof circuit that might allow malicious actors to perform invalid state transitions and create counterfeit tokens, as indicated by a notice on the Zcash Community Forum . The Zcash Open Development Lab initiated several steps to address the issue, including a soft fork on June 1 in order to temporarily disable Orchard transactions; and a hard fork on June 3 to fix the circuit and restore full functionality. There was no evidence of any exploitation taking place at the time. Zcash’s turnstile algorithm, which was designed to detect any illegal transactions of values between shielded and transparent pools, had not detected any violations. As a result, there had been no interruption in trading ZEC coins by exchanges. Nevertheless, the consequences were primarily psychological. Zcash’s sentiment rating dropped from 163.9 on June 5 to virtually zero within several days, according to Santiment . Likewise, Monero’s sentiment dropped dramatically from 35 to 1.72 after XMR was reported to be queued for audits along with ZEC. According to ForkLog , ZEC plummeted by almost 50%, hitting a low of about $300, but eventually bounced back to around $470 as the software patch took effect. Privacy coin network activity remains resilient despite price weakness These bearish figures don’t tell the whole story, however. Network activity across the major privacy coins held up considerably better than token prices during the selloff. Firstly, Monero’s daily transactions rose from 23,867 on June 7, to 28,558 on June 8, and 29,623 on June 9, while the mining hash rate was stable at 5.9 GH/s after a slight decline, according to BitInfoCharts statistics . Meanwhile, Decred provided an even greater discrepancy. Its token value dropped 54% within 90 days, but the transaction number decreased only by 12%. Dash, however, showed a different network activity. While the number of active addresses declined from nearly 66,000 late May down to roughly 34,000 now, exchange activity was growing and the volume of transactions within the last 30 days was about $2.96 billion, including one day of $210 million. So, for those who view privacy coins as indicators of the altcoin sector in general, the network stats provide a complicated picture. Usage is holding; conviction among miners and transacting users has not broken. Whales and smart money remain net short on Zcash and Monero The positions held by whales and the institutions indicate that the rebound might be facing obstacles. The “smart money” group (whales with the best track record historically) has positions short by approximately $9.6 million and $1 million in Zcash and Monero, respectively. Positions taken by whales for ZEC were below $410, and they currently show a return of 15-37% with total unrealized gains amounting to $8.5 million. For Monero, all the major whale positions are underwater with an entry range between $337-$407, though none have closed. However, there is one special case here, which involves an increase in Zcash exchange inflows. In the past seven days, inflows reached $42.5 million – three and a half times higher than average levels. Exchange inflow spikes often precede selling waves, and this signal seems to contradict the positive network activity metrics. Ironwood upgrade seeks to verify Zcash supply and rebuild investor confidence The Zcash ecosystem is preparing to implement the Ironwood upgrade in July 2026. The upgrade was designed to create the next shielded pool with the use of the Orchard circuit patch, backed by formal verification and independent audits. Under Ironwood’s rules, new outputs in the old Orchard pool would be rejected after activation. Funds could exit only through Zcash’s turnstile, which enforces that no more ZEC leaves a pool than legitimately entered it. The result: users running a node would be able to independently verify that the total circulating supply is correct, without trusting anyone’s assessment of whether the bug was exploited. Zcash developer Sean Bowe revealed to Forklog that the ecosystem has reached consensus on the upgrade’s design. Wallets supporting Orchard will migrate funds to the new pool, a process that will require a single action from users. The unresolved issue is whether Ironwood will manage to restore sentiment fast enough for the Monday rally to last. The next challenge faced by the privacy coin niche will be how global markets perceive the short covering and exchange flow signals in the days to come. Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free .

10 Jun 2026, 02:30

BlackRock Warns Bitcoin And Ethereum Investors About Quantum Computing

BlackRock has entered the quantum-computing debate with a new report warning that future breakthroughs could eventually threaten the cryptography securing Bitcoin, Ethereum and much of the broader digital-asset market. The firm’s central message is not that blockchains face an immediate crisis, but that the industry needs to begin post-quantum migration before “Q-Day” becomes a live security event. The report , titled “Quantum Computing and Blockchains,” was authored by Will Su, Head of Digital Assets Research at BlackRock, Inish Crisson, Senior Software Engineer at Aladdin Digital Assets Lab, and Robert Mitchnick, BlackRock’s Head of Digital Assets. It frames quantum computing as both a cybersecurity risk and a potential test of blockchain governance, particularly for networks that rely on elliptic curve cryptography for transaction signatures. “Quantum computing has been the subject of growing attention in recent years, particularly due to its implications for blockchains and many other elements of modern cyber infrastructure,” the authors wrote. “In our view, quantum computing is likely to be a manageable risk for blockchains, subject to the industry’s ability to upgrade swiftly and proactively to post-quantum cryptography in the coming years.” Bitcoin And Ethereum’s Core Risk BlackRock stresses that no functional Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computer, or CRQC, exists today. But it says timelines have shifted. The report notes that Google has moved its post-quantum migration deadline to 2029, while IBM is targeting large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computing between 2029 and 2033. The main issue is not Bitcoin’s proof-of-work engine. BlackRock says Bitcoin’s SHA-256 hash function is “largely considered quantum-resistant,” with Grover’s algorithm offering only a quadratic speedup that could be absorbed by Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment. The more relevant attack surface is ownership: the digital signatures that prove control over coins. Bitcoin and Ethereum currently rely on elliptic curve cryptography for key ownership and transaction authorization. Classical computers would need millions to billions of years to break 256-bit ECC, according to the report. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer using Shor’s Algorithm could change that equation by turning private-key recovery into a more tractable mathematical problem. “The foundations of modern-day cryptography become challenged in the quantum world,” BlackRock wrote. “This is not because quantum computers run faster. Rather, QCs are particularly efficient at teasing out hidden patterns in large datasets by leveraging unique properties of quantum physics and employing quantum algorithms to solve classically infeasible problems like ECDLPs in as little as days to minutes.” Bitcoin’s Migration Is Simpler, But Coordination Is Hard For Bitcoin, BlackRock argues that the technical scope of a post-quantum upgrade is narrower than for many other systems because the core task is replacing a digital-signature algorithm. The harder problem is social coordination across a decentralized network that deliberately avoids rapid or centralized change. The report says nearly 7 million BTC, or roughly 35% of circulating supply, may be vulnerable to long-range quantum attacks because public keys have already been exposed. That figure includes 1.9 million BTC in address types that expose unhashed public keys and another 5 million BTC in reused addresses that have revealed public keys in previous transactions while still holding UTXOs. BlackRock also highlights the unresolved debate around inactive or lost coins. It cites Chainalysis estimates that 2.3 million to 3.7 million BTC, or 11% to 19% of circulating supply, may be permanently lost. That includes roughly 1.1 million BTC in P2PK addresses widely believed to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto . “In our view, PQ migration for cryptocurrencies is eminently addressable from a technical standpoint, and the key challenge is one of timely coordination and implementation,” the report said. “The end-to-end process to build consensus around PQC protocols and timing, implement upgrades on the blockchain, and perform orderly migrations across the ecosystem will likely be a multi-year endeavor.” Ethereum Has A Roadmap, But More Moving Parts Ethereum’s situation is different. BlackRock says the network has a more clearly defined migration path , guided by the Ethereum Foundation, but faces greater technical complexity due to its proof-of-stake architecture, smart-contract environment, data layer and application-layer zero-knowledge systems. The report cites four Ethereum vulnerability areas identified by Vitalik Buterin in early 2026: BLS signatures in the consensus layer, KZG proofs in the data layer, externally owned account signatures, and zero-knowledge proofs in the application layer. In simpler terms, validator voting, data verification, user transactions and app-level proofs all touch quantum-vulnerable cryptographic assumptions. BlackRock points to Ethereum’s “L1 Strawmap,” a draft sequence of seven network updates and hard forks between 2026 and 2029, five of which directly address quantum vulnerabilities. These include native account abstraction, post-quantum signature precompiles, post-quantum validator keys, hash-based consensus signatures and a longer-term shift from KZG commitments toward STARK-based verification. A Wall Of Worry For Crypto BlackRock’s conclusion is measured. The report does not present quantum computing as an imminent existential threat to Bitcoin or Ethereum. It argues instead that quantum risk is one of the few remaining “walls of worry” for digital assets, and that successful post-quantum migrations could strengthen the sector over time. “Global cybersecurity infrastructure stands at an important inflection point as quantum computing advances,” the authors wrote. “Digital assets including Bitcoin and Ethereum are technically positioned for migration; a harder problem is coordinating timelines and rolling out upgrades across decentralized networks in an orderly manner. That said, it is a much less daunting task to upgrade current cryptographic systems, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and others, to a quantum-secure standard than it is to build a CRQC from where quantum computing progress stands today.” At press time, BTC traded at $62,629.

9 Jun 2026, 16:05

Blockstream CEO Adam Back Warns BIP-110 Has Technical Flaws, Risks Contentious Bitcoin Fork

BitcoinWorld Blockstream CEO Adam Back Warns BIP-110 Has Technical Flaws, Risks Contentious Bitcoin Fork Blockstream CEO Adam Back publicly rejected Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110 on June 8, citing fundamental technical flaws and warning that forced activation could split the Bitcoin network into competing minority chains. The proposal, which aims to limit non-financial data in Bitcoin transactions, has ignited a fierce debate within the developer and mining communities. What is BIP-110 and Why Is It Controversial? BIP-110 seeks to restrict the amount of non-financial data—often called ‘spam’ or ‘OP_RETURN’ data—that can be embedded in Bitcoin transactions. Proponents argue this would reduce blockchain bloat and improve efficiency. However, the method of implementation has become the primary point of contention. Backers of the proposal are pushing for a User Activated Soft Fork (UASF), which would activate the change without requiring explicit miner consensus. This approach is seen as a direct challenge to the traditional governance model of Bitcoin, where miners typically have a significant say in protocol upgrades. Adam Back’s Technical Objections Back, a prominent cryptographer and early Bitcoin contributor, argued that BIP-110 is fundamentally different from the Segregated Witness (SegWit) upgrade, which also faced a contentious debate but eventually gained broad support. He stated that the technical design of BIP-110 is flawed and that its purported spam-reduction benefits would not be effective in practice. By rejecting the proposal, Back aligns with a growing number of developers who view BIP-110 as a risky and poorly designed intervention. Risk of a Contentious Fork Back’s most pointed warning was about the potential for a contentious fork. If BIP-110 is activated via UASF without broad ecosystem consensus—including miners, exchanges, and node operators—the network could split into two incompatible chains. This would create confusion, dilute network effects, and potentially harm Bitcoin’s value and security. The warning echoes concerns raised by other industry figures, including MicroStrategy executive chairman Michael Saylor, who described BIP-110 as a ‘self-inflicted harm’ and a significant threat to the protocol. Why This Matters to Bitcoin Users and Investors The debate over BIP-110 is not a niche technical squabble; it touches on the fundamental governance of Bitcoin. A contentious fork would force exchanges, wallet providers, and users to choose which chain to support, creating operational complexity and potential financial losses. Moreover, the outcome of this debate could set a precedent for how future protocol changes are implemented—whether through broad consensus or unilateral action by a subset of developers. For anyone holding or using Bitcoin, the resolution of this conflict will have direct implications for network stability and trust. Conclusion The rejection of BIP-110 by Adam Back, combined with warnings from other industry leaders, suggests the proposal faces significant headwinds. While the debate is ongoing, the risk of a contentious fork remains a central concern. The Bitcoin community now faces a critical decision: either find a path to broad consensus or risk a network split that could undermine the very principles of decentralization and trust that underpin the cryptocurrency. FAQs Q1: What is a User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)? A UASF is a method of implementing a protocol change where users (node operators) signal their acceptance of the upgrade, rather than requiring approval from miners. It is considered a more aggressive governance tool because it can activate changes even against miner opposition. Q2: What is a contentious fork? A contentious fork occurs when a proposed protocol change does not have widespread agreement among network participants. This can lead to the blockchain splitting into two separate chains, each following different rules. This creates two competing cryptocurrencies and can cause confusion and value loss. Q3: How does BIP-110 differ from SegWit? SegWit (Segregated Witness) was a soft fork that gained broad support from miners, developers, and users after a long period of debate. BIP-110, according to critics like Adam Back, lacks that broad consensus and has technical flaws that SegWit did not. Additionally, BIP-110’s proponents are pushing for a UASF, which SegWit ultimately did not use for activation. This post Blockstream CEO Adam Back Warns BIP-110 Has Technical Flaws, Risks Contentious Bitcoin Fork first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

9 Jun 2026, 04:00

Zcash Crashed 50% On A Four-Year-Old Secret — The Recovery Has Quietly Begun

Zcash has completed a two-phase emergency network upgrade to fix a critical vulnerability in its Orchard shielded pool — a flaw that sat undetected for four years, could theoretically have allowed unlimited undetectable counterfeit ZEC creation, and triggered a 50% price collapse before the network’s swift response began restoring confidence and driving a recovery in ZEC’s price. Related Reading: Analyst Charts Ethereum Long-Term Roadmap To $16,000 – There’s No Need To Panic Josh Swihart, CEO of Electric Coin Company — the primary developer of Zcash — posted on X on June 7 confirming the fix was complete and the network secure, as ZEC began its recovery from the lows reached after the vulnerability’s disclosure. The post arrived at a critical moment for the asset: ZEC had crashed approximately 50% from a June 4 peak of $624 to $309 on June 5, wiping more than $3 billion from its market capitalization, per the BitMEX Blog’s documented timeline of the incident. ZEC's price trends to the upside over the past 48 hours, as seen on the daily chart. Source: ZECUSD on Tradingview How The Zcash Bug Was Found — And What It Was The vulnerability was discovered on May 29, 2026 by security researcher Taylor Hornby during a protocol audit commissioned by Shielded Labs. Hornby identified a “soundness” flaw in Zcash’s Orchard zero-knowledge proof circuit — specifically an under-constrained element in the Orchard Action circuit that could allow invalid state transitions, creating a theoretical double-spending risk within the shielded pool. The discovery was made using Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.8 AI model alongside a custom analysis suite, per Shielded Labs’ official disclosure. Hornby and the AI developed a working proof-of-concept that successfully generated unlimited, completely undetectable counterfeit ZEC in a local test environment — described by one independent analyst as “about the worst kind of bug a cryptocurrency can have,” per Yahoo Finance’s reporting of the disclosure. Critically, the flaw did not permit inflation of the total ZEC supply on the live network. Zcash’s internal turnstile accounting mechanism — which tracks the total value moving into and out of the shielded pool — confirmed no unauthorized value creation occurred while the flaw was active, per Shielded Labs’ official statement. However, the organization acknowledged directly that due to the privacy properties of Orchard and the nature of the bug, there is no definitive cryptographic way to determine whether exploitation occurred — a limitation inherent to the shielded pool’s design that became its own source of market concern. The vulnerability had been present since Orchard’s activation in May 2022 — four years — without detection. The Emergency Response Zcash’s development ecosystem responded with unusual speed. The first phase was an emergency soft fork deployed through Zebra 4.5.3, activated at block 3,363,426 on June 2, which temporarily disabled all Orchard transactions to remove the attack path while developers prepared the permanent fix. Transparent and Sapling transactions continued operating normally throughout, per the Zcash Foundation’s official announcement on X. The second phase arrived on June 3 through the NU6.2 hard fork — activated at block 3,364,600 via Zebra 5.0.0 — which introduced a corrected circuit and a new verifying key, patching the flaw and re-enabling Orchard transactions, per the Foundation. The market’s initial reaction to the hard fork was positive. ZEC rose from $544 on June 2 to $603 on June 3, continuing to $624 on June 4 — its highest level since the rally began. Then Arthur Hayes publicly disclosed he had exited his entire ZEC position intraday on June 4 — the same day as the peak — citing five macro factors including higher energy prices and upcoming AI IPOs, per his X post covered in prior reporting. The combination of Hayes’ exit and lingering uncertainty about whether exploitation had occurred before the patch sent ZEC to $309 on June 5. The Recovery And What It Means Swihart’s June 7 X post — reassuring the community that total ZEC supply remained intact throughout and that the network had passed through the emergency without confirmed exploitation — appears to have been the catalyst for the recovery now underway. The swift two-phase response, combined with the Foundation’s transparent disclosure and Swihart’s direct communication, provided the confidence signal the market needed. This development marks a pivotal and genuinely uncomfortable moment for Zcash’s long-term positioning in the nascent sector. A four-year-old vulnerability in the Orchard pool — the very component that defines ZEC’s core privacy value proposition — has been fixed cleanly and without confirmed exploitation. Related Reading: Has The Bitcoin Price Crash Ended Or Is This Just The Beginning? Analyst Answers But the structural irony that the privacy properties that make Zcash valuable also make it impossible to confirm the vulnerability was never used will remain a question mark the community will need to address as the recovery continues. As of this writing, ZEC trades at around $430, recovering from its June 5 lows as confidence in the network’s security response gradually rebuilds. Cover image from Grok, ZECUSD Chart from Tradingview

8 Jun 2026, 11:19

Ripple CTO Says Zcash Holders Are Safe, But the Bug That Could Have Created Fake ZEC for 4 Years Cannot Be Disproven

Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz stepped into the Zcash crisis on June 7, offering a measured reassurance to ZEC holders rattled by the disclosure of a critical zero-knowledge proof vulnerability in the Orchard shielded pool. His position: passive holders who never move their coins will not lose their funds, provided the bug was never actually exploited. That condition is doing enormous structural work in a sentence that sounds like comfort. The core paradox is this. The Orchard vulnerability, patched via an emergency NU6.2 hard fork on June 2, theoretically allowed undetected counterfeit ZEC generation for nearly four years. Zcash’s own developers cannot prove the exploit was never triggered, because the privacy architecture that makes ZEC valuable also makes supply auditing cryptographically impossible. Schwartz’s reassurance is accurate on its own terms. It cannot be a guarantee. This one paragraph has massive implications for Zcash. Hardly surprising the price has plummeted. "The vulnerability could have been exploited to undetectably create an unlimited amount of counterfeit zcash:native within Orchard. Because of the privacy properties of Orchard,… https://t.co/72v9Zafneu — Gareth Jenkinson (@gazza_jenks) June 5, 2026 ZEC fell more than 30% in a single session following the May 29 disclosure, briefly touching its lowest level in over a month. The market was not pricing confirmed exploitation; it was pricing unverifiable risk, which is a different and arguably harder problem to resolve. What Schwartz’s statement actually means for holders, and whether it changes anything structurally, is what the rest of this article addresses. Source: Tradingview Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio The Orchard Pool Bug: What the Vulnerability Actually Means for ZEC Zcash’s Orchard pool was introduced with Network Upgrade 5 (NU5) in May 2022, the network’s most advanced privacy layer, built on Halo 2-based zk-SNARKs designed to eliminate the trusted setup requirement of earlier Sapling circuits. The vulnerability resided in an under-constrained element within the elliptic-curve multiplication gadget inside the halo2_gadgets crate. In plain terms, crafted inputs could bypass validity checks and produce counterfeit ZEC that still passed verification. Zcash engineer Taylor Hornby discovered the flaw on May 29, 2026, reportedly with the assistance of AI-assisted formal methods. He confirmed a fully working exploit in a local regtest environment, and that running the same exploit on mainnet would have generated unlimited, undetectable real ZEC. The exposure window ran from Orchard’s mainnet activation in May 2022 through June 1, 2026, for approximately 4 years. Affected software included all halo2_gadgets versions before v0.5.0, orchard before v0.14.0, and zcashd versions v5.0.0 through v6.12.3. Straight from Zooko "We want to emphasize that we believe prior exploitation of the Orchard vulnerability is unlikely. But users should not have to trust our assessment, or anyone else’s, when it comes to the integrity of the Zcash supply." MUCH MUCH LOWER https://t.co/tlTRSWY1cH — Roger (@degendeez) June 6, 2026 Shielded Labs and developers responded rapidly, pushing Zebra 4.5.3 as an emergency soft fork to temporarily disable Orchard transactions, then activating the NU6.2 hard fork via Zebra 5.0 at block 3,364,600 on June 2 at 12:05 PM UTC+8. The circuit is now corrected. Here is the part that matters for holders: the patch closes the vulnerability going forward, but cannot retroactively prove supply integrity was maintained during those four years. That window is permanently opaque. Ripple Schwartz’s Reassurance: What It Means and What It Cannot Prove The discussion surfaced after crypto commentator Nate, known on X as @satorinakamoto, challenged whether Zcash could prove the vulnerability had never been triggered, given the network’s opacity. Schwartz, co-creator of the XRP Ledger and one of the more technically credible voices in the industry, responded directly: ‘They’ll eventually be a bit lonely in the deprecated pool, but they’ll still be safe and accessible.’ His broader point: consensus rules protect every ZEC owner, and protocol designers can define backward compatibility so passive holders retain valid, spendable coins even as the Orchard pool becomes a legacy layer. If there was no exploit, everyone is safe whether they move their coins or not. They'll eventually be a bit lonely in the deprecated pool, but they'll still be safe and accessible. — David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) June 7, 2026 The stated reassurance is that holders will not forfeit assets. That is true conditionally; if no exploit occurred, unmoved funds in older pools remain intact. The condition itself, however, is the entire problem. Shielded Labs stated explicitly in its disclosure: ‘There is no definitive way to determine, using only cryptography, whether such exploitation occurred.’ Schwartz’s credentials lend his statement genuine weight. What they cannot lend it is certainty about a four-year window inside a privacy coin’s most opaque layer. This is not a dismissal of Schwartz’s view. His framing, that passive holders are safe absent confirmed exploitation, is technically coherent. The actual framing is that ‘absent confirmed exploitation’ is not a condition anyone can verify, including Zcash’s own developers. Both statements can be simultaneously true. The market is pricing the gap between them. Discover: The Best Token Presales The post Ripple CTO Says Zcash Holders Are Safe, But the Bug That Could Have Created Fake ZEC for 4 Years Cannot Be Disproven appeared first on Cryptonews .

8 Jun 2026, 09:45

ZEC jumps after Orchard fix, but is the worst really over now?

ZEC, the native coin of the Zcash ecosystem, is the best performer among the top 20 cryptocurrencies by market cap. The coin has bounced back by over 40% since dropping below $250 on Friday, following the Orchard bug report. The momentum indicators suggest that the bearish trend is fading, with the bulls now targeting the $500 psychological level. ZODL details a two-step emergency response to the Zero-Knowledge bug ZEC is outperforming the broader cryptocurrency market after adding 9% to its value in the last 24 hours. The rally comes after Josh Swihart, founder of Zcash Open Development Lab (ZODL), revealed new details on how the Zcash development team responded to a critical vulnerability in its Orchard shielded pool. In a post on X, Swihart said ZODL executed a coordinated two-stage emergency upgrade to contain the issue and prevent potential exploitation. https://twitter.com/jswihart/status/2063763238928671118 The first step involved a soft fork that temporarily disabled Orchard transactions, aiming to reduce the risk of exploitation while limiting public disclosure of the full vulnerability details. Swihart said this approach was designed to balance network security with responsible disclosure, ensuring the issue could be contained without exposing sensitive technical weaknesses. Orchard is Zcash’s primary shielded transaction pool, enabling fully private transfers using zero-knowledge proofs that conceal transaction details while still validating their legitimacy. A second upgrade, referred to as NU6.2, was activated on June 3 to address the root cause of the vulnerability and restore Orchard functionality. The update re-enabled shielded transactions after the underlying issue was resolved, according to Swihart. He also noted that mining pools and infrastructure operators, including ViaBTC and Foundry, played a key role in coordinating the emergency response and reviewing the updated code. This latest development comes after a disclosure from independent support group Shielded Labs, which reported a severe flaw in the Orchard pool that could have allowed unlimited minting of counterfeit Zcash tokens. The report resulted in ZEC losing nearly 60% of its value, dropping from $644 on Wednesday to $248 by Friday. Although the vulnerability was fixed before any confirmed exploitation, the revelation triggered significant concern across the crypto community about the protocol’s security guarantees. ZEC eyes the $500 psychological level The ZEC/USD 4-hour remains bearish despite the recent recovery. At press time, ZEC is trading above $420, up by roughly 9% in the last 24-hours. ZEC is now trading above its 200-day EMA at $364, while hovering around its 100-day Exponential Moving Average (EMA) at $428. If the bullish recovery continues and ZEC closes above the $428 level, it could extend its recovery towards the 50-day EMA at $485, followed by the $500 psychological threshold. The Relative Strength Index (RSI) near 50 on the 4-hour chart indicates a declining bearish momentum, while the negative Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) falls below its zero line as the bearish profile expands. However, if the bearish trend resumes, the sellers would encounter immediate support around the $364 region. The post ZEC jumps after Orchard fix, but is the worst really over now? appeared first on Invezz