oAdam

For blockchain projects in China, which business activities are off-limits? The Cyberspace Administration of China has now set out the rules very clearly.

On November 9, the Cyberspace Administration of China officially launched the Internet New Technologies and Applications Information Service Filing System and published a roundup of frequently asked questions about blockchain information service filings.

The document clearly states one requirement for applications: the name of a blockchain information service must not include terms such as “virtual currency,” “exchange,” or “ICO.”

In addition, five types of circumstances may affect a filing application:

1. The business involves the issuance or trading of virtual currencies, or ICOs.
2. The servers are located outside China.
3. The required ICP filing has not been completed.
4. The submitted materials are unclear, or the information is inconsistent across different materials.
5. The actual business falls outside the scope of blockchain information services subject to filing.

One easily overlooked detail: operating entities that provide external BaaS services such as blockchain infrastructure, nodes, or data notarization must also complete the filing process.

The system upgrade also brings another change: filings related to generative AI, algorithms, deep synthesis, and blockchain can now all be handled through the same platform.

For blockchain startup teams in China, filing is about more than just filling out a form. The project’s name, where its servers are deployed, and the services it actually provides can all affect the application outcome.

In particular, teams providing node services, on-chain data notarization, and BaaS infrastructure must not overlook their filing obligations simply because their business does not involve issuing or trading tokens.

ETH’s value may not be measured solely by gas revenue and staking yield.

At Devcon 8 in Mumbai, Vitalik put it very directly: “ETH is a store of value. ETH is money.”

BitMine Chairman Thomas Lee later called the statement a “seismic shift.”

His reasoning is that ETH shouldn’t be understood simply as a cash-flow-focused token like HYPE or LIT. It is more like a pristine, trusted form of collateral.

Why does this positioning matter?

More and more financial institutions want to bring traditional financial assets onto the blockchain, and Ethereum remains one of the main Layer 1 networks they choose.

As assets such as stocks, bonds, and funds are gradually tokenized, on-chain finance needs more than infrastructure for executing transactions. It also needs an underlying asset that is widely accepted and can be used for collateral and settlement.

Thomas Lee believes that ETH’s positioning as a store of value aligns precisely with this trajectory.

This also changes how the market evaluates ETH.

Focusing only on network fees, inflation rates, and staking yield can easily lead people to overlook the potential demand for ETH as an on-chain collateral asset.

Especially as tokenized finance and the AI economy expand in tandem, the larger the pool of assets in the Ethereum ecosystem, the more important the role of its underlying collateral becomes.

Of course, institutional confidence in ETH’s positioning doesn’t mean that all this demand has already materialized. Ultimately, it will depend on the scale of tokenized assets, on-chain collateral demand, and whether ETH can truly capture value from the growth of its ecosystem.

A U.S.-listed company is preparing to become the U.S. version of Metaplanet, a Bitcoin treasury platform.

Nasdaq-listed Super League Enterprise (SLE) disclosed that it bought 16 BTC between November 4 and 9 at an average price of approximately $76,892.32 per coin.

This transaction is more than an ordinary asset allocation.

SLE has begun exploring adding Bitcoin to its corporate treasury alongside cash and cash equivalents. Meanwhile, shareholders have approved a transaction with Japanese Bitcoin treasury company Metaplanet.

Once the transaction is completed, SLE will be renamed Superplanet and transform into Metaplanet’s U.S.-listed Bitcoin treasury platform.

This strategy is intriguing: Metaplanet has already established itself as a Bitcoin treasury company in Japan and is now preparing to expand its business through a U.S.-listed platform.

The 16 BTC position is still relatively small, but it signals that SLE is building up its assets in preparation for the transformation.

The next things to watch are whether the transaction can be completed smoothly and whether Superplanet can truly replicate Metaplanet’s treasury model. A name change is only the beginning; ongoing fundraising, BTC purchases, and increasing the amount of Bitcoin held per share are the real tests for companies like this.

Solana is preparing to phase out durable Nonces, with all transactions relying on recent block hashes going forward.

The Solana community has proposed a protocol change: remove the durable Nonce mechanism and use Recent Blockhashes to protect transactions against replay attacks.

The accompanying changes also include disabling a set of system program instructions related to initializing, advancing, and upgrading Nonce accounts.

Why change this mechanism?

Nonces were originally introduced to address transaction expiration: regular Solana transactions rely on recent block hashes and can no longer be submitted once they fall outside the validity window. Durable Nonces, by contrast, allow transactions to remain valid for longer while preventing them from being executed more than once.

But this also means the protocol has to maintain an additional set of account states and instruction logic over the long term.

This proposal opts to remove the mechanism entirely, bringing all transactions back to the Recent Blockhash model.

The proposal plans to activate on mainnet no earlier than May 5, 2027, giving wallets, exchanges, and other applications that rely on Nonces time to migrate.

It is worth noting that durable Nonces are not simply an obsolete feature. Some offline signing, delayed submission, and specialized transaction workflows may depend on them. The real challenge is not just changing the protocol, but ensuring that all related infrastructure across the ecosystem completes the migration.

If the proposal is ultimately adopted, Solana will eliminate a transaction mechanism that has required long-term maintenance, but applications that rely on durable Nonces will also have to redesign their transaction workflows.

Jensen Huang abruptly canceled his public appearances in New York this Wednesday.

ElevenLabs confirmed on Monday that the Nvidia CEO would be absent from the ElevenLabs Summit. Other scheduled appearances, including the Anthropic CEO Forum, were also canceled.

His absence came quite suddenly. Nvidia is itself an investor in ElevenLabs, and Huang was originally one of the summit’s featured guests.

The trigger was a series of personal and security controversies that came to light last weekend.

In a memo to all employees, Huang admitted to being unfaithful to his wife and apologized to her, his children, and his employees. He wrote that his actions had hurt his family and that there was no excuse for them.

Meanwhile, Nvidia’s board of directors has reportedly launched an investigation into his relationship with a suspected Chinese intelligence operative.

TechCrunch broadened the controversy to two larger questions: whether Huang can continue leading Nvidia, and whether the matter will affect Nvidia’s plans in the Chinese market.

For a company that ranks among the world’s top firms in both market value and industrial influence, a CEO’s personal controversy is difficult to treat as merely personal news once it involves a board investigation and geopolitics.

There is not yet enough public information to determine the outcome of the investigation. But Huang’s successive cancellations of public appearances have already brought the controversy beyond the personal sphere and into the realm of Nvidia’s corporate governance.

The most dangerous crypto asset thefts may not happen on-chain at all.

Crypto investor Evan Luthra has spoken publicly for the first time about the violent robbery he experienced in Oxford, UK.

In November 2025, the car he was riding in suddenly turned onto a secluded road. Five masked men rushed into the car, beat him, and forced him to unlock his phone using Face ID.

Over the next 30 minutes, the attackers took direct control of his trading accounts:

Binance account: More than $1.5 million in crypto assets was transferred out.
Gate account: Around $600,000 in ETH was transferred out.
They also stole a Richard Mille watch worth around £450,000.

This was not a hack in the traditional sense. The attackers didn’t need to crack his private keys or breach an exchange’s systems. They only had to control the account holder himself to bypass safeguards many people assume are secure enough.

After the incident, exchanges including Binance and MEXC helped freeze and recover funds. Binance returned around $370,000, and the total amount recovered to date is close to $1 million.

Several suspects have been arrested, but the trial has been postponed until November 2027.

There’s been plenty of discussion about the risks of self-custody for crypto assets, but it’s easy to overlook another risk: when the asset owner is under someone else’s control, their phone, Face ID, and exchange accounts can all become points of attack. Personal safety is just as much a part of asset security as on-chain security.

The London gold market may be undergoing a change that goes deeper than faster trading: ownership of gold is beginning to move from bank ledgers onto the blockchain.

Under the traditional unallocated gold model, customers often hold a claim on a bank for gold, rather than owning a specific quantity of physical gold. Trading is convenient, but the asset still depends on the creditworthiness of the bank.

Gold tokenization aims to change this relationship: tokens can circulate as quickly as unallocated gold while being backed by specific physical gold, making holders’ rights to the asset clearer and reducing reliance on the creditworthiness of settlement banks.

This also explains why the UK FCA has focused its regulatory scrutiny on three questions:

What rights does the token represent?
Who holds the physical gold in custody?
Can the token be used as collateral?

The answers determine whether an on-chain token represents a genuine interest in an asset or is simply a different kind of trading instrument.

But the real test lies ahead: will gold tokens issued by different banks be able to circulate freely across institutions?

If not, each bank will remain a closed system of its own, and gold will simply have a new digital wrapper. Only if tokens can circulate across institutions does tokenization have a chance to truly transform the infrastructure of the London gold market.

Made money from crypto assets and left it in an overseas account—does that mean you can ignore the tax implications?

It may be time to rethink that assumption.

Recently, some Hong Kong account holders received tax self-review notices, reigniting discussion about reporting overseas income from crypto assets.

First, here’s an easy point to get wrong: CRS does not report your cryptocurrency transactions one by one. It mainly exchanges information on financial account balances, interest, and, in some cases, the gross proceeds from investment redemptions. This information is not the same as a record of every transaction, nor does it represent your final taxable profit.

But that doesn’t mean moving funds overseas makes tax issues disappear.

How trading gains, exchange referral commissions, and project advertising income are treated still depends on factors such as your tax residency, the source of the income, the cost basis of the assets, and where the relevant services were actually performed.

Settling in USDT or keeping money in an overseas account does not, by itself, determine whether income needs to be reported.

If your historical funds are subject to review, what you really need to prepare is a consistent, verifiable chain of records showing:

where the funds came from, which exchanges and on-chain addresses they passed through, where they ultimately went, and the corresponding reporting records.

Crypto asset transaction paths can be complex, but tax reviews ultimately come down to the nature and source of the income and the supporting evidence.

Don’t mistake CRS for transaction-by-transaction monitoring, and don’t assume an overseas account is a tax shield. Your specific obligations still depend on the tax laws of the relevant jurisdiction and your personal circumstances.

$5.6 million in assets urgently moved! Web3Auth is racing attackers to rescue funds from a batch of Keplr wallets.

The incident stemmed from a vulnerability in the Web3Auth service, which exposed the private keys of some Keplr wallets created by signing in with Google or Apple.

Web3Auth subsequently announced 12 recovery addresses. On-chain data shows that these addresses currently hold about $5.6 million in crypto assets, including approximately 2.49 million ATOM worth around $3.3 million.

But this rescue does not mean all the funds were saved.

In its announcement, Web3Auth referred to the “original attacker,” suggesting that some wallets had already been compromised before their funds were transferred to secure addresses. The amount stolen has not yet been disclosed.

Keplr co-founder Josh Lee estimates that around 20% of accounts using Google and Apple sign-in were affected, but only a small portion of them were actually exploited by attackers.

The most alarming aspect of this incident is that users may never have handled a recovery phrase or deliberately exposed their private keys, yet still lost control of their wallets because of a vulnerability in third-party sign-in infrastructure.

The security of Web3 wallets depends not only on on-chain protocols and users’ own actions. The key management services behind them can also become the weakest link in the entire system.

Expectations of a December Fed rate hike have surged, with prediction markets putting the probability at 77%.

The latest data shows:

25-basis-point rate hike in December: 77%

Rates unchanged: 23%

Cumulative trading volume in related prediction markets has reached $16.7 million.

This means the market currently leans strongly toward the possibility that the Fed’s next move may not be a rate cut, but a return to monetary tightening.

However, 77% is the probability priced in by prediction markets, not a policy signal already issued by the Fed. Inflation and employment data, as well as officials’ remarks, could still change market expectations.

MEXC users transferring funds to OKX may first face frozen funds and scrutiny.

OKX founder and CEO Star Xu directly warned users: if you’re transferring money from MEXC to OKX, pause for a moment.

He said that in response to the special measures taken by the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) against MEXC, OKX will handle related funds using cautious standards similar to those applied to financial sanctions.

This means that incoming funds from the platform in question may be frozen for review, and some accounts may face further investigation.

The issue arose after FinCEN designated MEXC a “primary money laundering concern” financial institution on November 6.

FinCEN alleges that MEXC facilitated approximately $16.7 billion in suspicious transactions between May 2021 and May 2026, and set a 30-day transition period. The ban on transferring the relevant funds will take effect 30 days after the measure is published in the Federal Register.

But OKX clearly isn’t planning to wait until the deadline and has already tightened its risk controls.

The most immediate impact on users is that transfers between exchanges may also trigger additional scrutiny because of regulatory risks associated with the platform where the funds originated. Being able to withdraw assets normally doesn’t mean they’ll necessarily be usable as usual after being transferred to another exchange.

Huang Licheng’s ETH long position has been liquidated again, and this time his Hyperliquid account was wiped out.

At 05:51 on November 9, during a sharp drop in Ethereum’s price, Huang Licheng’s entire ETH long position on Hyperliquid was liquidated.

About 540 ETH were liquidated in total. At an average liquidation price of $2,192, the position was worth approximately $1.18 million, with a loss of about $60,000 on the single position closure.

After the liquidation, his Hyperliquid account balance was reduced to zero.

A million-dollar position ultimately couldn’t withstand this latest downturn.

That’s the cruelest part of leveraged trading: even a brief mistake in calling the direction can turn price volatility into the end of the game.

Giving AI more information may make it even worse at making money.

A Stanford experiment tested 10 frontier large language models across trading, bargaining, and bilateral auctions. The researchers changed just one condition: how much the models knew about their opponents’ true valuations.

The results were quite counterintuitive: with more complete information, some models were actually more likely to lose out on gains.

In the auction experiment, when both buyers and sellers knew each other’s exact valuations, Claude Opus 5.5’s share of potential gains fell from 94% to 64%.

In the trading experiment, different models even showed opposite trends:

GPT-6 Sol’s gains fell from 98% of the maximum to 91%, while Claude Sonnet 5’s rose from 72% to 86%.

In auction scenarios, more information also led models to ask for higher prices. Grok 4.7’s share of gains fell from 97% to 62%.

The same information produced completely different results across models.

This study offers an important reminder for real-world AI agent applications: it’s not enough to test a model’s trading ability alone. You also need to test how it makes decisions under different information conditions.

Especially when you’re asking AI to negotiate, make offers, or manage money on your behalf, more information doesn’t necessarily mean better decisions. Some models may become more aggressive when given more information, ultimately hurting their own returns.

$320 billion of the altcoin rally has evaporated! Nearly $200 billion is gone, wiping out almost two-thirds of the gains.

From mid-August to the end of September, the total altcoin market cap grew by about $320 billion at one point. Now, only about $120 billion of those gains remain.

Another set of figures from Binance paints an even clearer picture:

In mid-August, as many as 82% of altcoins were trading below their 200-day moving average. At the market’s strongest point in early October, that figure briefly fell to 10%. It has now climbed back to around 70%.

The trend structure the market had just repaired is deteriorating rapidly, and conditions are already approaching where they were before the rally began in August.

Analyst Darkfost attributes this downturn to macroeconomic policy, geopolitical tensions, uncertainty surrounding the U.S. midterm elections, and declines in U.S. stocks—particularly technology shares.

However, historically, when indicators like this have reached extreme levels, they have also coincided with shifts in market trends.

The clearest signal right now is that the foundation for a broad altcoin rally is crumbling. To confirm a reversal, it’s not enough to look at a handful of coins bouncing back; it’s also important to see how many tokens climb back above their 200-day moving averages.

AAVE has become a systemic risk node in DeFi that cannot be ignored.

In “Systemic Risk in DeFi,” AAVE Labs disclosed that AAVE has a TVL of approximately $34 billion, accounting for roughly one-quarter to one-third of total DeFi TVL.

For comparison, total deposits across all DeFi protocols are approximately $160 billion, with AAVE alone accounting for 21.25%. That means more than $1 of every $5 deposited in DeFi is on AAVE.

Now let’s look at the asset breakdown:

In terms of protocol revenue, ETH and stablecoins contribute a combined 82%, SOL accounts for 6%, and BTC for 5%. Revenue is heavily concentrated in ETH and stablecoins.

Of all deposits across DeFi, stablecoins account for approximately $57 billion, or 35%; ETH for approximately $50 billion, or 31%; and BTC for approximately $29 billion, or 18%. Together, these three asset classes make up 84%.

This means AAVE’s risks are not limited to the protocol itself—they are also closely tied to DeFi’s core assets and liquidity as a whole.

DeFi protocols have seen no shortage of security incidents over the years. Problems at a small protocol may have only a localized impact. But AAVE holds tens of billions of dollars in assets, so a major vulnerability, liquidation malfunction, or liquidity crisis could send shockwaves through the broader market.

For those holding AAVE for the long term, it’s not enough to look only at revenue and market share. Its $34 billion scale is both a competitive advantage and a risk exposure: the larger it grows, the greater the potential cost of a security failure.

2021 may have been the hardest crypto bull run to replicate.

Back then, AI hadn’t yet captured everyone’s attention, and the whole industry believed blockchain could change the world.

NFTs, DeFi, GameFi, DAOs—every new concept got people excited. We weren’t just buying tokens; it felt more like we were taking part in an impending financial revolution.

Looking back now, the most precious thing about 2021 may not have been the gains, but the collective feeling of believing in the future.

Then AI emerged, capital shifted direction, and the market found a new narrative.

Crypto is still evolving, and the technology hasn’t stopped advancing. But that feeling from back then—that everyone thought they were witnessing history—seems truly hard to recapture.

Bull markets can come around again, but the spirit of that era may not.

Crypto may not be as exciting as it once was, but that doesn’t mean it’s losing its value.

Stablecoins, perpetual contracts, and asset tokenization are changing the way the financial system works at its most fundamental level.

24/7 trading, free transfers, composable assets, near-zero fees, and instant settlement. These capabilities aren’t just patches for the old financial system—they offer the chance to redesign financial infrastructure from the ground up.

Once a better system emerges, it’s only a matter of time before the old one is replaced.

Then there’s the wealth effect. In past cycles, some people accumulated assets through compounding gains from one round of trading after another, while others simply held BTC for the long term. In the end, both were rewarded handsomely. You don’t have to rely on speculation, insider information, or compromising your principles to make money in this market.

Of course, 99.9% of tokens ultimately failed.

But a project’s failure doesn’t mean the technology has no value. The internet boom of the early 2000s was much the same: countless companies collapsed, yet the internet transformed the world completely.

Don’t dismiss the technological progress of the entire industry just because most tokens went to zero.

Bubbles will fade, but the infrastructure that truly solves problems will remain.

On-chain trading is starting to affect stock prices on the NYSE.

Jesse Pollak of Base revealed an unusual phenomenon in some small-cap stocks: on certain trading days, trading volume for these stocks on Base has exceeded that on traditional trading venues, and on-chain buying has begun to push their NYSE prices higher.

He stressed that the tokenized stocks launched on Base are not derivatives, but securities fully backed by real shares.

Holders have voting and dividend rights. These stocks do not rely on debt structures, nor is there a company centrally holding a large block of voting rights on behalf of all users. What you buy is a stock—not a contract that tracks its price.

The change this brings is about more than just adding another trading channel.

Traditional stock markets are constrained by geography, account requirements, and trading hours. On-chain markets could give more international investors the opportunity to participate directly, broadening the shareholder base of listed companies.

For now, this phenomenon is mainly appearing in some long-tail, small-cap assets and remains an early signal.

But if on-chain liquidity can truly influence pricing in traditional markets, the boundaries of the stock market may be shifting: traditionally, exchanges determined prices; in the future, on-chain demand could also become a force in price formation.

AI companies are still chasing trillion-dollar valuations, but capital markets are starting to cool the frenzy.

The Financial Times, citing investors, reported that Anthropic is planning to launch an IPO before Thanksgiving, targeting a valuation of $1.25 trillion to $1.75 trillion and expecting to raise $80 billion to $100 billion.

That valuation is already higher than the company’s current $965 billion, but still falls short of the $2 trillion some investors had previously hoped for.

The business is certainly growing fast. Anthropic has reported annualized revenue of about $81 billion, up from about $65 billion at the end of July this year.

But the timing of a public listing is far from easy.

Rising borrowing costs and massive investment in AI data centers have sparked a sell-off in tech stocks. Expectations for data center construction policies following Democratic victories in the US midterm elections have added to market pressure. The Nasdaq 100 fell 6.4% on Thursday before recovering somewhat on Friday.

OpenAI’s fundraising has sent a similar signal: its fundraising target was cut from $1.4 trillion to $1.25 trillion, and the most recent round raised about a third of the $30 billion originally planned.

AI companies’ revenues are still growing rapidly, but capital markets have begun to reassess construction costs, fundraising capacity, and future returns.

A trillion-dollar valuation is no longer simply a reward for technological prowess; it must also stand up to scrutiny from capital markets.

The stolen Binance funds are still being swapped, with the hacker converting XRP into BTC.

The previous night, about 44 million XRP worth approximately $51 million was transferred out of addresses linked to the incident, most of it exchanged for Bitcoin through THORChain.

As of 16:00 on November 7, about 2,300 BTC worth $175 million had entered new Bitcoin addresses, mainly from exchanges involving other stolen assets. The addresses still hold about 148 million XRP worth approximately $173 million.

Another flow of funds went through mixers. During the same period, about 53 BTC worth $4 million entered CoinJoin mixing transactions on platforms such as Wasabi, bringing the total mixed to about 88 BTC, or $6.7 million.

The hacker's main BTC and ETH holdings have not yet been moved.

The funds have been steadily converted from XRP to BTC, but on-chain transfers do not mean the funds have been cashed out. The next challenge is tracking these cross-chain funds and determining whether they can be intercepted during mixing and subsequent transfers.