Bitcoin Magazine

Senator Lummis Puts Congress On The Clock, Vows May Push To Rescue Stalled Clarity Act

Speaking at The Bitcoin Conference U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis opened her keynote by recalling her first encounter with Bitcoin, describing it as an unfamiliar concept of owning an asset that exists on a blockchain, before purchasing three tokens at roughly $300 each.

Lummis told the audience that Bitcoin first struck her as “free money” because it removes the need to trust a third party to hold or move value. 

She linked that realization back to her early purchases of three bitcoin at about $300 each, when the idea of owning an asset that lives on a blockchain still felt strange.

Lummis referenced periods of war, noting that bitcoin often serves as a refuge from poor monetary policy and disrupted financial systems. 

Lummis said there are women who have been able to leave dysfunctional marriages and walk away with Bitcoin as an asset that is uniquely theirs, underscoring the role of self-custodied money in personal freedom.

“Bitcoin comes with a culture that could’ve written the U.S. Declaration of Independence that we celebrate today. This is freedom money. That all people are created equal, and that this asset guarantees it,” Lummis said. 

Lummis closed by promising imminent action in Washington, saying the Senate “will mark up the Clarity Act in May” and that lawmakers are going to pass digital asset legislation.

Lummis has been very vocal about the struggles around passing crypto legislation popularly known as the Clarity Act. 

What’s happening with the Clarity Act? 

The Clarity Act has inched forward but remains stuck in Washington’s procedural grind, with its fate tied to a narrow legislative window in 2026.

The bill, a comprehensive market structure framework for digital assets, cleared the House more than eight months ago and has waited in the Senate Banking Committee as senators haggle over issues such as stablecoin yields and agency jurisdiction. 

A January markup was pulled at the last minute, signaling early resistance and forcing drafters to rework language before bringing it back. Since then, industry groups have pressed Senate leaders to move, warning that each delay adds regulatory uncertainty and pushes activity offshore.

In April, committee dynamics shifted again when Senator Thom Tillis urged Chair Tim Scott to delay a markup into May to allow more time to sell the compromise to traditional banking stakeholders. 

Reporting from policy shops and crypto lobbyists now points to the second week of May as the first realistic slot for a Banking Committee vote, following the current Senate recess. 

If the markup slips past mid‑May, the odds of enactment this year drop sharply because floor time tightens ahead of summer recess and the 2026 midterm cycle.

If the bill does advance, the path would likely run through a committee markup in early or mid‑May, a full Senate vote in May or June, and potential reconciliation before a signing window that market observers place around June. 

Supporters frame the Clarity Act as the companion to the GENIUS Act, handing the CFTC primary jurisdiction over most non‑stablecoin digital assets while narrowing the SEC’s reach to tokenized securities.

This post Senator Lummis Puts Congress On The Clock, Vows May Push To Rescue Stalled Clarity Act first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

VanEck Flags Dual Bullish Signals for Bitcoin as Funding Turns Negative, Hash Rate Slips

Bitcoin’s latest onchain and derivatives data point to a constructive setup, with VanEck highlighting negative funding rates and a clustered hash rate drawdown alongside softer volatility and cautious positioning. 

The firm notes in their latest report that realized volatility fell from about 56% to 41% as US‑Iran tensions eased, while the 7‑day average funding rate dropped to roughly -1.8%, its lowest level since 2023 and in the 10th percentile of readings since late 2020.

Since 2020, bitcoin’s average 30‑day return during periods of negative funding has been 11.5%, compared with 4.5% across all periods, with a 77% hit rate for positive performance. When annualized funding sank below -5%, subsequent 30‑day returns averaged 19.4%, and 180‑day returns reached 70%, making negative funding a recurrent contrarian buy signal. VanEck also reports that 19 of the top 50 180‑day return windows since 2020 began on days with negative funding, despite such periods representing only about 13.6% of the sample.

The Bitcoin hash rate is falling

On the mining side, the 30‑day moving average hash rate has fallen to the 16th percentile over 30 days and 9th percentile over 90 days, while difficulty has slid to the 5th and 6th percentiles on those horizons. 

Three sustained hash rate decline episodes have appeared since December 2025, the densest cluster since China’s 2021 mining ban, with the latest drawdown of about 6.7% ending on April 15, 2026. Across seven completed historical drawdowns, bitcoin was higher 90 days later in six cases, with a median gain of 37.7% and a 63.1% median gain over 180 days.

Derivatives and onchain activity reflect guarded sentiment rather than capitulation. Put premiums relative to spot volume are more than six times their April 2024 level, while active supply over the last 180 days slipped to 28.4%, signaling greater holder dormancy. 

Long‑tenured cohorts, particularly 7‑10 year and 10+ year holders, increased spent volume to the 85th and 90th percentiles of the past four years, but VanEck stresses that such movements do not always represent outright selling. 

Taken together, the firm concludes that negative funding and hash rate stress form a reinforced bullish backdrop for bitcoin.

“Both mining rate drawdowns and negative funding rates have been associated with strong forward BTC returns. As such, we have become increasingly bullish on bitcoin,” the analysts wrote. 

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly license material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

This post VanEck Flags Dual Bullish Signals for Bitcoin as Funding Turns Negative, Hash Rate Slips first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

7 Reasons JPX Should Reconsider Its Proposed Digital Asset Exclusion From TOPIX

A closer look at why the consultation’s proposed deferral sits awkwardly inside a rules-based benchmark and what a better path forward might look like.

JPX Market Innovation & Research (JPXI) is considering a new rule that would defer companies whose principal asset is cryptoassets from new inclusion in TOPIX and other periodically reviewed indices. The proposal is measured in tone, and the underlying concern, how to treat a newly emerging category of issuer, is a reasonable one for any index provider to think about.

But the specific rule under consultation raises real questions. It would affect companies like Metaplanet, Remixpoint, and ANAP Holdings, along with a growing set of Japanese issuers whose business models are fully legitimate, fully regulated, and fully aligned with long-standing corporate treasury practices.

Here are seven reasons JPXI should reconsider the proposal before February 2026.

1. The Rule Doesn’t Measure What TOPIX Normally Measures

TOPIX is designed to function as a broad, neutral, investable benchmark of the Japanese equity market. Its methodology already contains objective tools for that purpose: liquidity screens, free-float-adjusted market capitalization criteria, continuation buffers, and established treatment for delistings and other listing-quality events.

A crypto-asset screen is a different kind of test. It doesn’t measure liquidity, free float, turnover cost, market capitalization, or listing quality. It looks instead at the composition of a company’s balance sheet.

That’s a meaningful departure from how TOPIX eligibility has historically worked, and it deserves a clearer justification than the consultation currently provides. If a company satisfies TOPIX’s ordinary eligibility requirements, deferring it because of one category of asset introduces a new kind of judgment into a methodology that has been valued precisely for its objectivity.

2. “Principal Asset Is Cryptoassets” Needs a Clearer Definition

The consultation refers to companies whose “principal asset is cryptoassets,” but leaves several administrative questions open:

• Is the test based on parent-only holdings or consolidated holdings?
• Would exposure through wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliated companies, or strategic equity stakes be captured?
• Would indirect exposure through securities, derivatives, or economically similar instruments count?
• Is the inquiry formal (direct legal title) or substantive (economic exposure)?

These aren’t edge cases. They determine which companies the rule actually applies to. Index methodology gains its credibility from rules that are objective, measurable, and consistently administrable, and a clearer definition would help everyone: issuers, investors, and JPXI itself.

3. The Rule May Be Easier to Work Around Than to Apply

A practical concern follows from the definitional question. If direct Bitcoin holdings by the parent company are disfavored, but equivalent exposure through other structures is not, the rule becomes sensitive to legal form rather than economic substance.

Consider the asymmetry:

• A direct Bitcoin position would trigger the rule
• A position in the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) likely would not
• A position in a listed Bitcoin miner likely would not
• A stake in a crypto-linked subsidiary likely would not

The economic exposure in these cases can be very similar. The index treatment would be quite different. That creates an incentive for issuers to restructure toward less transparent forms of exposure rather than disclose direct holdings on the balance sheet. A benchmark rule generally works better when it encourages clear disclosure rather than the opposite.

4. The Carve-Out for Existing Constituents Creates an Internal Tension

The consultation contemplates deferring new inclusion while not applying the rule to existing constituents. This is understandable from a stability standpoint, no one wants unnecessary index churn.

But it also creates an internal tension in the rule’s logic. If Bitcoin treasury exposure were genuinely incompatible with TOPIX, it would be difficult to justify exempting current members. And if it isn’t incompatible, it’s worth asking why new entrants meeting the same investability criteria should be treated differently.

Reconciling that asymmetry would strengthen the proposal considerably.

5. “For the Time Being” Leaves the Timeline Open-Ended

The consultation says the deferral would apply “for the time being,” without specifying a review period, exit standard, or sunset mechanism. In practice, that leaves the timeline open-ended.

The timing matters here. October 2026 will be the first periodic review under the next-generation TOPIX framework in which Standard and Growth market companies can become eligible through the new process. A deferral that coincides with that review, without a defined path back to eligibility, could function as a longer-term exclusion even if it isn’t framed that way.

A clearer review cadence, or an explicit sunset, would make the proposal easier to evaluate on its merits.

6. Global Peers Have Taken More Time on the Same Question

JPXI is not the only index provider thinking about this. MSCI recently considered a threshold-based approach to digital-asset treasury companies and ultimately did not adopt a blanket exclusion, acknowledging the need for further work to distinguish operating companies from non-operating or investment-like entities. FTSE Russell has not announced a comparable rule.

The common thread is that the classification question is genuinely unsettled. Operating companies that hold Bitcoin alongside other business lines: media, energy, retail, mining, infrastructure, don’t fit neatly into existing categories, and the global index community is still working out how to think about them.

Given that, there’s a reasonable case for JPXI to engage further with issuers and market participants before codifying a rule, rather than moving ahead of where the broader conversation has landed.

7. An Asset-Neutral Framework Would Be More Durable

If the underlying concern is that some listed companies have become more concentrated or investment-like, that concern is worth addressing, but it isn’t unique to cryptoassets. Concentrated holdings can take many forms: listed equities, private-company stakes, fund interests, real estate, or other non-operating assets.

A framework that applies consistently across these categories would likely be more durable than a single-asset rule. It would also sidestep the definitional and arbitrage concerns above, since the test would focus on the economic characteristic JPXI actually cares about rather than on one particular asset class.

Several paths could accomplish this:

• Enhanced disclosure standards for concentrated treasury positions of any kind, giving investors clarity without changing index composition
• An asset-neutral concentration framework that applies the same test to any non-operating asset held above a defined threshold
• An optional index variant for investors who want exposure to the Japanese market with cryptoasset-heavy companies excluded, offered alongside, not in place of, the flagship benchmark

Where This Leaves the Proposal

None of this is to say JPXI’s instinct to think carefully about a new category of issuer is wrong. It isn’t. Bitcoin treasury companies are relatively new, and their prominence in Japan has grown quickly enough that questions about how to treat them are worth taking seriously.

But the specific rule on consultation is narrower, vaguer, and more open-ended than the questions it’s trying to answer. A clearer definition, a defined review period, and an asset-neutral framing would go a long way toward addressing the underlying concerns while preserving what has made TOPIX a trusted benchmark: objective, rules-based eligibility that reflects the Japanese equity market as it is.

That combination, substance over form, clarity over ambiguity, neutrality across asset classes, seems like the stronger path forward.

Add Your Signature

Bitcoin For Corporations has organized a coalition letter urging JPXI to withdraw the proposed exclusion and preserve TOPIX as a neutral, rules-based benchmark. The public comment period closes May 7, 2026 and every signature strengthens the case that this issue matters to issuers, investors, and market participants worldwide.

If the arguments above resonate, add your name. Individuals and organizations from any jurisdiction can sign.

→ Sign the coalition letter at topix.bitcoinforcorporations.com

You can also review the full position letter, see who has already signed, and share the campaign with your network from the same page. The deadline is firm, and the window to shape JPXI’s final decision is short.

---

Disclaimer: This content was prepared on behalf of Bitcoin For Corporations for informational purposes only. It reflects the author’s own analysis and opinion and should not be relied upon as investment advice. Nothing in this article constitutes an offer, invitation, or solicitation to purchase, sell, or subscribe for any security or financial product.

This post 7 Reasons JPX Should Reconsider Its Proposed Digital Asset Exclusion From TOPIX first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Nick Ward.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Fold (FLD) Launches Bitcoin Bonus Program for Employers Through Fold Business Platform

Fold Holdings has launched a new Bitcoin Bonus Program that lets employers offer recurring bitcoin-denominated bonuses without changing payroll systems, positioning it as the first product under its new Fold Business platform.

Employers set bonus amounts in dollars on their normal payroll schedule, while Fold handles conversion to bitcoin, custody, vesting and delivery through the Fold app.

Fold describes the Bitcoin Bonus Program as an employer-grade bonus vehicle that can function both as a benefit and as a retention tool. 

The company says employees can track and hold their bitcoin over time, turning what is often a spent-on-arrival cash bonus into a longer-term asset. Vesting schedules are built into the program, which allows companies to tie bonus access to tenure or performance.

Under the model, companies designate a recurring USD bonus or allocation in line with existing payroll cycles, and Fold executes real-time conversion to bitcoin at distribution. Fold also provides custody and administers vesting, so employers avoid direct exposure to digital-asset handling or additional compliance workflows. 

Early Fold adopters and target segments

Steak ’n Shake is the flagship partner and is offering the Bitcoin Bonus Program to thousands of hourly workers across its more than 10,000-person U.S. workforce. Simple Mining, a bitcoin mining hosting company in Iowa, is directing 1 percent of employee pay into bitcoin through the program, redeemable at year-end, to align staff with the asset they support for clients. 

The Bitcoin Bonus Program is the first step in a broader B2B strategy for Fold Business, which aims to add payroll, corporate bitcoin treasury services, corporate cards and other enterprise tools built on bitcoin rails. 

Last September, Fold announced a partnership with Stripe and Visa to launch a Bitcoin-only credit card designed to simplify Bitcoin rewards for everyday spending. The card offers up to 3.5% back in Bitcoin, combining instant rewards with additional earnings for users who pay through a Fold Checking Account. It also included up to 10% Bitcoin back at selected major retailers and aims to remove the complexity of traditional crypto reward systems. 

Fold, listed on Nasdaq under the ticker FLD, already offers a consumer app, debit card, credit card and bitcoin gift card products, and views workplace bitcoin benefits as a next growth channel. 

As of early Thursday trading, FLD shares changed hands near the mid‑$1 range with a market capitalization of about $73 million.

This post Fold (FLD) Launches Bitcoin Bonus Program for Employers Through Fold Business Platform first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

100+ Crypto Firms Urge Senate to Advance Clarity Act, Warn of Innovation Moving Offshore

More than 100 crypto firms and industry groups are pressing the U.S. Senate to advance long-awaited market structure legislation, warning that continued inaction risks pushing innovation and capital outside the country.

In a joint letter sent April 23, the Crypto Council for Innovation and the Blockchain Association urged the Senate Banking Committee to move forward with a markup of the “Clarity Act,” a bill designed to establish a comprehensive federal framework for digital assets.

The letter, seen by Bitcoin Magazine, was addressed to Committee Chairman Tim Scott, Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren, Subcommittee Chair Cynthia Lummis, and Ranking Member Ruben Gallego, reflecting growing industry coordination around a single legislative priority: regulatory clarity.

Signatories include major crypto companies such as Coinbase, Ripple, Kraken, and Circle, along with venture firms and developer organizations. Collectively, the coalition represents a broad cross-section of the digital asset ecosystem, from infrastructure providers to academic groups.

At the center of the push is the need to clearly define jurisdiction between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The absence of statutory guidance has led to what the industry describes as “regulation by enforcement,” referencing a wave of lawsuits and actions brought by both agencies in recent years.

While regulators have attempted to assert oversight through litigation, the coalition argues that agency action alone cannot provide the durable, predictable framework required for long-term investment. Instead, it calls for Congress to codify clear rules governing digital asset classification, trading, and disclosure requirements.

Crypto innovation will leave the United States 

The letter outlines several additional priorities. These include protections for developers building non-custodial technologies, preservation of consumer rewards tied to payment stablecoins, and streamlined disclosure regimes tailored to blockchain-based assets. It also emphasizes the importance of avoiding a fragmented system of state-by-state regulation, advocating for a unified federal standard.

Industry leaders warn that the U.S. is falling behind other jurisdictions that have already implemented comprehensive crypto frameworks. 

The European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation, for example, has provided legal certainty across member states, positioning the bloc as a competitive hub for digital asset innovation.

Ji Hun Kim, chief executive of the Crypto Council for Innovation, said in a statement that the U.S. faces a “critical moment” in shaping the future of financial technology. He argued that bipartisan groundwork already laid in Congress, alongside efforts such as the GENIUS Act on stablecoins, provides a foundation for broader legislation.

“The United States cannot risk a return to the previous era of regulation by enforcement,” the letter states. “Market structure legislation would prevent that uncertainty by establishing clear jurisdictional boundaries, disclosure regimes, and fit-for-purpose rules.”

Despite the urgency conveyed by the coalition, the Senate Banking Committee has yet to schedule a markup of the Clarity Act. The delay leaves the industry in a holding pattern as lawmakers continue to negotiate the contours of federal crypto oversight.

Yesterday, U.S Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the Senate to pass the legislation during a hearing on Donald Trump’s FY2027 budget, arguing it is critical to maintaining U.S. financial leadership and the dollar’s reserve status. 

He framed digital assets as both an economic and national security priority, emphasizing the need for regulatory clarity and stronger oversight frameworks like AML and KYC. Lawmakers remain divided, with competing bills such as the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act and the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act still needing reconciliation before advancing. Bessent also warned that unclear U.S. rules have pushed crypto innovation abroad, while expressing confidence that bipartisan agreement is still achievable.

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly license material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

This post 100+ Crypto Firms Urge Senate to Advance Clarity Act, Warn of Innovation Moving Offshore first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Russia’s Sberbank Ready to Enter Crypto Trading as Russia Moves Toward Regulation

Sberbank will provide access to crypto trading once regulation and organized exchange trading begin, Senior Vice President and Head of Wealth Management Ruslan Vesterovsky said at the Moscow Exchange forum, according to Russia’s TASS.

The Bank of Russia maintains a view of cryptocurrencies as a high-risk instrument under its policy framework.

In December 2025, the Bank of Russia published a concept for domestic cryptocurrency regulation that allows qualified and non-qualified investors to buy crypto assets. The concept defines digital currencies and stablecoins as currency assets permitted for sale and purchase, while domestic payments with them remain prohibited.

Under the proposal, non-qualified investors may access the most liquid cryptocurrencies after passing a test and within an annual limit of 300,000 rubles through a single intermediary.

Sberbank stated it will be prepared to provide clients access once regulation is enacted and exchange trading starts, in coordination with other market participants and regulators.

In 2025, Sberbank expanded digital financial asset issuance to 408 billion rubles, a level that exceeds 2024 output by a wide margin and reflects strong growth from 2023.

The bank issued a pilot crypto-backed loan to Intelion Data in December 2025, secured by mined bitcoin, and used a proprietary custody system for collateral storage. 

Authorities expect completion of legislation governing digital assets by July 1, 2026.

Russia’s crypto legislation bill

Earlier today, Russia’s State Duma advanced a sweeping crypto regulation bill in its first reading, with 327 of 340 deputies voting in favor. The proposed law, introduced by the government of Russia, establishes a comprehensive framework for issuing, trading, and storing digital currencies under licensed intermediaries supervised by the Bank of Russia.

It classifies cryptocurrency as property—allowing its use in legal disputes—while maintaining a ban on domestic payments but permitting cross-border transactions. 

The bill also introduces investor tiers, stricter controls on peer-to-peer activity, and a regulated custody system, alongside requirements for mining operations to use domestic infrastructure. 

Lawmakers still need to pass two additional readings, with some officials calling for revisions over concerns about market restrictions and asset protections.

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly license material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

This post Russia’s Sberbank Ready to Enter Crypto Trading as Russia Moves Toward Regulation first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

New York Sues Coinbase and Gemini Over Alleged Illegal Prediction Market Gambling Operations

New York Attorney General Letitia James has filed lawsuits against Coinbase Financial Markets and Gemini Titan, alleging that both companies operate illegal gambling platforms through prediction markets available in New York.

The lawsuits claim that Coinbase and Gemini allow users to place bets on outcomes of events including sports games, entertainment awards, and elections. According to the complaint, these markets function as gambling under New York law because users risk money on uncertain outcomes outside their control.

Attorney General James stated that the platforms operate without licenses from the New York State Gaming Commission. The state requires licensing for gambling operations, including mobile sports betting. The lawsuits assert that Coinbase and Gemini have not obtained such approval while offering their products to users in New York.

The filings state that users aged 18 to 20 can access the platforms. New York law sets 21 as the minimum age for mobile sports betting. The Attorney General’s office argues that this access exposes younger users to financial risk and potential harm.

The complaints seek court orders requiring the companies to forfeit profits earned from the prediction markets. The state also seeks civil fines equal to three times those profits and restitution for affected users. The filings request restrictions on participation by users under 21 and limits on marketing practices that reach college campuses.

New York Attorney General: Prediction markets are gambling 

The lawsuits describe prediction markets as systems where users trade contracts tied to event outcomes. The Attorney General’s office argues that these contracts meet the legal definition of gambling because outcomes depend on chance or external events rather than user control.

The filings reference research from the National Institutes of Health that links early exposure to gambling with increased risk of anxiety, depression, and financial strain. The lawsuits also cite research from the American Psychological Association stating that a significant share of individuals with gambling disorders report suicidal ideation.

The complaints include allegations that the platforms allow betting on events involving New York college teams, which state law restricts.

Coinbase and Gemini launched prediction markets in mid-December and operate in all 50 states, according to court documents referenced in the filings. The Attorney General’s office states that the platforms present themselves as financial products while functioning as gambling systems.

The legal action forms part of a broader enforcement effort by New York authorities targeting online gambling and crypto-related platforms. The Attorney General’s office has previously taken action against video game companies and sweepstakes casino operators for alleged violations of state gambling laws.

The lawsuits also highlight ongoing regulatory disputes between state and federal authorities over prediction markets. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has asserted federal jurisdiction over certain event-based contracts. Federal court cases have addressed whether state regulators can restrict such markets under gambling laws.

This post New York Sues Coinbase and Gemini Over Alleged Illegal Prediction Market Gambling Operations first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Top U.S. Pacific Commander Calls Bitcoin a “Valuable Computer Science Tool” for National Power And Security

Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that Bitcoin represents a “valuable computer science tool as power projection,” offering a rare and notable endorsement of the cryptocurrency from one of the nation’s most senior military officers.

The comments came during a FY2027 defense authorization hearing on April 21, 2026, when Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) pressed Admiral Paparo on whether Bitcoin leadership gives the United States an edge against China in the Indo-Pacific theater.

“Bitcoin is a reality,” Paparo told the committee. “It’s a peer-to-peer, zero-trust transfer of value. Anything that supports all instruments of national power for the United States of America is to the good.” 

He added that INDOPACOM’s research into Bitcoin centers on its underlying computer science architecture — the fusion of cryptography, blockchain, and proof-of-work protocols — and that those protocols “impose more cost than just securing networks,” extending to offensive and defensive cyber operations.

“Bitcoin shows incredible potential as a computer science tool,” Paparo said. “It’s a valuable computer science tool as a power projection,” he later said. 

JUST IN: United States Indo-Pacific Commander, Admiral Samuel Paparo, advises the Senate that “Bitcoin shows incredible potential as a computer science tool.”

“Bitcoin is a reality, it is a valuable computer science tool as a power projection.” pic.twitter.com/SyW9W0uXkg

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) April 21, 2026

Bitcoin is not speculative 

The testimony is notable for its framing. Paparo did not describe BTC as a speculative asset or financial instrument. He described it as a computer science system with direct cybersecurity applications — an argument with precedent in defense circles. 

Space Force Major Jason Lowery, a national defense fellow at MIT, has spent years arguing that Bitcoin’s proof-of-work mechanism can deter cyberattacks by imposing physical, energy-based costs on adversaries, analogous to how conventional military assets deter physical aggression.

Tuberville’s line of questioning drew a direct line between BTC strategy and great-power competition. The Alabama senator noted that the Chinese Communist Party’s main monetary think tank published research last year examining BTC as a strategic asset. 

China’s International Monetary Institute circulated a report titled “The Case for Bitcoin as a Reserve Asset,” with commentary noting that BTC is shifting from a speculative instrument to a strategic reserve consideration — a signal that Beijing is watching U.S. moves.

President Trump signed an executive order establishing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve on March 6, 2025, seeding it with BTC seized through criminal and civil asset forfeiture. The White House has directed that government BTC holdings not be sold, treating them as long-term reserve assets — what crypto policy advisor David Sacks called “a digital Fort Knox”. 

Tuberville co-sponsored the BITCOIN Act alongside Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) in March 2025, which would go further by directing the Treasury to acquire one million BTC over time, mirroring the scale of U.S. gold reserves.

Paparo did not offer specific legislative recommendations during the open session, saying he preferred to go on record in writing and dive deeper in a classified setting.

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly license material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

This post Top U.S. Pacific Commander Calls Bitcoin a “Valuable Computer Science Tool” for National Power And Security first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Capital B Buys 12 Bitcoin, Expands Treasury to 2,937 BTC

Capital B, the listed arm of The Blockchain Group, confirmed the acquisition of 12 bitcoin as it continues to build out its treasury strategy centered on the digital asset.

The company said it spent €0.8 million on the purchase, bringing total holdings to 2,937 BTC. The group’s aggregate acquisition cost stands at €270.1 million, with an average purchase price of €91,975 per bitcoin, according to a note shared with Bitcoin Magazine. 

The latest buy follows a series of transactions since early 2026, with the company reporting a year-to-date BTC yield of 1.57%. It also posted a BTC gain of 44.4 BTC and a BTC-denominated gain of €2.9 million over the same period. Quarterly figures show a 0.85% yield and a gain of 24.4 BTC.

Last week, the company confirmed the purchase of 37 BTC for €2.3 million, at a reference price of €60,892 per coin, as part of its ongoing Bitcoin Treasury strategy.

Alongside the purchase, Capital B completed several financing actions tied to its treasury strategy.

The firm confirmed the full exercise of 16.6 million BSA 2025-01 warrants, which converted into 2.36 million ordinary shares. The transaction raised about €1.29 million. The company noted that the warrants expired on April 10, 2026, and any unexercised rights are now void.

Capital B also carried out a capital increase under its at-the-market agreement with TOBAM. The issuance of 370,701 new shares at an average price of €0.60 generated €0.22 million. The price reflects a discount to the recent market close, based on the agreement’s pricing mechanism tied to trading volumes and prior-day benchmarks.

The proceeds from these operations supported the latest bitcoin acquisition.

Bitcoin as a reserve asset for Capital B

The company positions itself as a Bitcoin Treasury Company, with a stated objective of increasing the amount of bitcoin held per fully diluted share over time. Its model mirrors a growing trend among public firms that allocate capital to bitcoin as a reserve asset.

Custody and execution for the latest purchase were handled by Swissquote Bank Europe SA, with assets secured through infrastructure provided by Taurus.

Capital B operates subsidiaries focused on data intelligence, artificial intelligence, and decentralized technology consulting. Its shares trade on Euronext Growth Paris.

The company’s capital structure reflects a mix of institutional and public investors, including Blockstream Capital Partners, TOBAM funds, and other shareholders. Following the latest transactions, total shares outstanding stand at about 274.9 million on an ordinary basis and 394.8 million on a fully diluted basis.

Earlier today, Strategy (MSTR) added 34,164 BTC for $2.54B, its third-largest purchase, bringing total holdings to 815,061 BTC acquired at an average cost of about $75,527 per coin. The move pushed the company ahead of BlackRock in total Bitcoin holdings, with its position now roughly near break-even as BTC trades around $75,000.

Disclaimer: Bitcoin Magazine is owned by Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA). Nakamoto Inc. also owns UTXO Management. UTXO Management invests in Capital B.

This post Capital B Buys 12 Bitcoin, Expands Treasury to 2,937 BTC first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

When Quantum Computers Come for Your Bitcoin: What Classical Property Law Says Happens Next

Bitcoin’s quantum debate keeps slipping sideways because people keep arguing about two different things at once.

One question is technical: if quantum computing gets good enough to break Bitcoin’s signature scheme, the protocol can respond. New address types, migration rules, soft forks, deprecations, key rotation. That is a real engineering problem, but it is still an engineering problem.

The other question is legal: suppose someone uses a quantum computer to derive the private key for an old wallet and sweep the coins. What, exactly, just happened? Did he recover abandoned property, or did he steal someone else’s bitcoin?

In April 2026, BIP-361 proposed freezing more than 6.5 million BTC sitting in quantum-vulnerable UTXOs, including an estimated million-plus coins associated with Satoshi. No longer just an abstract discussion, it’s now a live fight over ownership, confiscation, and the meaning of property inside a system that ultimately recognizes only control.

I am not taking a position here on when a quantum computer capable of attacking Bitcoin will arrive. The narrower question is the one that matters first: if it does arrive, and someone starts moving long-dormant coins with quantum-derived keys, does the law treat that as legitimate recovery or theft?

Classical property law gives a fairly blunt answer. It is theft.

That answer will frustrate some Bitcoiners, because Bitcoin itself does not enforce title in the way courts do. It enforces control. If you can produce the valid spend, the network accepts the spend. But that only sharpens the point. The harder the network leans on control, the more important it becomes to state clearly what the law would say about the underlying act.

And on that front, the law is not especially mysterious.

Old coins are not ownerless just because they are old.

The actual quantum risk

It helps to begin with the narrower, more realistic version of the threat. Not all bitcoin is equally exposed. In the ordinary case, an address does not reveal the public key until the owner spends. That matters because a quantum attacker cannot simply look at any untouched address on the chain and pluck out the private key.

The real risk sits in a more limited category of outputs. Early pay-to-public-key outputs reveal the full public key on-chain. Some older script constructions do the same. Taproot outputs do as well: a P2TR output commits directly to a 32-byte output key, not a hash of one. Address reuse can also expose the public key once a user spends and leaves funds behind under the same key material. Those are the coins people really mean when they talk about exposed bitcoin.

The timeline for this scenario has compressed. On March 31, 2026, Google Quantum AI published research showing Bitcoin’s secp256k1 curve could be broken with fewer than 500,000 physical qubits, a twenty-fold reduction from prior estimates of roughly nine million. The same paper models the mempool attack vector directly: during a transaction, the public key is exposed for approximately ten minutes before block confirmation, giving a quantum adversary a window to derive the key before the spend confirms.

Current hardware remains far from these thresholds: Google’s Willow chip sits at 105 qubits and IBM’s Nighthawk at 120. But algorithmic optimization is outrunning hardware scaling. NIST’s own post-quantum migration roadmap calls for quantum-vulnerable algorithms to be deprecated across federal systems by 2030 and disallowed entirely by 2035. That federal timeline does not bind Bitcoin, but it supplies the benchmark against which institutional holders and regulators will measure Bitcoin’s preparedness.

A great many of those coins are old. Some are certainly lost. Some belong to dead owners. Some are tied up in paper wallets, forgotten backups, ancient storage habits, or estates that no one has sorted out. Some probably belong to people who are very much alive and simply have no interest in touching them.

That last point matters more than the “lost coin” crowd usually admits. From the outside, dormancy tells you very little. A wallet can sit untouched for twelve years because the owner is dead, because the owner lost the keys, because the owner is disciplined, because the owner is paranoid, because the coins are locked in a multi-party setup, or because the owner is Satoshi and would rather remain a rumor than a litigant. The blockchain does not tell you which explanation is true.

That uncertainty is precisely why property law has never treated silence as a magic solvent for ownership.

Dormancy is not abandonment

The casual “finders keepers” intuition that floats around these discussions has almost nothing to do with how property law actually works.

Ownership does not evaporate because property sits unused. Title continues until it is transferred, relinquished, extinguished by law, or displaced by some doctrine that actually applies. Time alone does not do that work. Inaction alone does not do that work. Value certainly does not do that work.

So if someone wants to argue that dormant bitcoin is fair game, the path usually runs through abandonment. The claim is simple enough: these coins have been sitting there forever, nobody has touched them, they are probably lost, therefore they must be abandoned.

The law is much stricter than that. Abandonment generally requires both intent to relinquish ownership and some act manifesting that intent. The owner must, in substance, mean to give it up and do something that shows he meant to give it up. Simply failing to move an asset for a long period is not enough, particularly where the asset is obviously valuable.

That is not some fussy technicality… it’s one of the core tenets of property law. If nonuse alone were enough to destroy title, the law would become a standing invitation to loot anything whose owner had been quiet for too long. That is not our rule for land, for houses, for stock certificates, for buried cash, or for heirlooms. It is not the rule for bitcoin either.

Take the easy edge case. If someone deliberately sends coins to a burn address with no usable private key, that begins to look like abandonment because there is both a clear act and a clear signal. But that example proves the opposite of what quantum raiders want it to prove. It shows what relinquishment looks like when a person actually intends it. Most dormant wallets do not look anything like that.

The better reading is the ordinary one: old coins are old coins. Some are lost. Some are inaccessible. Some are forgotten. Some are sleeping. None of that converts them into ownerless property.

And recent legislation has begun to formalize the same instinct. The UK’s Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on December 2, 2025, creates a third category of personal property explicitly covering crypto-tokens. In the United States, UCC Article 12 has now been adopted by more than thirty states and the District of Columbia, recognizing “controllable electronic records” as a distinct legal category. Neither regime treats dormancy as relinquishment. By formally classifying digital assets as property, both raise the bar for anyone arguing that old coins are ownerless by default.

Death does not erase ownership

The next move is usually to shift from abandonment to mortality. Fine, perhaps the coins were not abandoned, but surely many of these early holders are dead. Doesn’t that change the analysis? 

Not in the way the raider would like.

Some early wallets invite a kind of Schrödinger’s-heir problem: the owner is confidently declared dead when the raider wants ownerless property, then treated as notionally available whenever the burdens of succession come into view. Property law does not indulge the superposition.

When a person dies, title does not disappear. It passes. Property goes to heirs, devisees, or, in the absence of both, to the state through escheat. The law does not shrug and announce an open season. It preserves continuity of ownership even when possession becomes messy, inconvenient, or impossible to exercise.

The analogy to physical property is almost insultingly straightforward. If a man dies owning a ranch, the first trespasser who cuts the lock does not become the new owner by initiative and optimism. The estate handles succession. If there are no heirs, the sovereign has a claim. Valuable property does not become unowned merely because the original owner is gone.

Bitcoin is no different on that point. Lost keys do not transfer title. Inaccessibility is not a conveyance. A stranger who derives the private key later with better tooling has not uncovered ownerless treasure. He has acquired the practical ability to move property that still belongs to someone else, or to someone else’s estate.

That conclusion matters most for the largest block of old, vulnerable coins: Satoshi’s. Whether Satoshi is alive, dead, or permanently off-grid does not change the legal classification. Those coins belong either to Satoshi or to Satoshi’s estate. They do not become a bounty for the first actor who arrives with a quantum crowbar.

Unclaimed property law does not rescue the theory

Some people assume dormant bitcoin can be swept up under unclaimed property law. That confusion is understandable, but it misses how those statutes actually operate.

Unclaimed property law generally runs through a holder. A bank, broker, exchange, or other custodian owes property to the owner. If the owner disappears long enough, the state steps in and requires the holder to report and remit the asset, subject to the owner’s right to reclaim it later. The doctrine is built around intermediaries.

That framework works well enough for exchange balances. It works for custodial wallets. It works for assets sitting with a business that can be ordered to turn them over.

It does not work the same way for self-custodied bitcoin. A self-custodied UTXO has no bank in the middle, no exchange holding the bag, and no transfer agent waiting for instructions. There is no custodian for the state to command. There is only the network, the key, and the person who can or cannot produce the valid spend.

That means governments can often reach custodial crypto, but self-custodied bitcoin presents a harder limit. The law can say who owns it. The law can sometimes say who should surrender it. What it cannot do is conjure the private key.

The same problem defeats a more dressed-up version of the argument under UCC Article 12. A quantum attacker who derives the private key may gain “control” of the asset in a practical sense. But control is not title. It never has been. A burglar who finds your safe combination gains control too. He still stole what was inside.

Adverse possession does not fit, and salvage is worse

Two analogies get dragged out whenever someone wants to dignify quantum theft with a veneer of doctrine: adverse possession and salvage.

Neither one survives contact with the facts.

Adverse possession developed for land, and it carries conditions that make sense in land disputes. Possession must be open and notorious enough to give the true owner a fair chance to notice the adverse claim and contest it. A quantum attacker who sweeps coins into a fresh address does nothing of the sort. Yes, the movement is visible on-chain. No, that is not meaningful notice in the legal sense. A pseudonymous transfer on a public ledger does not tell the owner who is asserting title, on what basis, or in what forum the claim can be challenged.

The policy rationale also collapses. Adverse possession helps resolve stale land disputes, quiet title, and reward visible use of neglected real property. Bitcoin has none of those structural problems. The blockchain already records the chain of possession. 

Salvage is worse. Salvage rewards a party who rescues property from peril. The quantum raider does not rescue property from peril. He exploits the peril. In many cases, he is the reason the peril matters at all. Calling that “salvage” is like calling a pirate a lifeguard because he arrived with a boat: a euphemism masquerading as a legal theory.

What BIP-361 is really fighting about

This is why BIP-361 matters. It is the first serious proposal to force the issue at the consensus layer rather than wait for courts and commentators to argue over the wreckage afterward.

In broad strokes, the proposal would roll out in phases. First, users would be barred from sending new bitcoin into quantum-vulnerable address types, while still being allowed to move existing funds out to safer destinations. Later, legacy signatures in vulnerable UTXOs would stop being valid for purposes of spending those coins. In practical terms, any remaining unmigrated funds would freeze. A further recovery mechanism has been proposed using zero-knowledge proofs tied to BIP-39 seed possession, though that portion remains aspirational and incomplete.

Critically, the recovery path works only for wallets generated from BIP-39 mnemonics. Earlier wallet formats, including the pay-to-public-key outputs associated with Satoshi, have no realistic route back under the current proposal. That limitation is not incidental. It means Phase C, as currently designed, would preserve the property rights of more recent adopters while permanently extinguishing those of the earliest ones. That is a de facto statute of limitations imposed not by a legislature but by a protocol change.

The attraction of the proposal is obvious. If the network knows a category of coins is likely to become loot for whoever reaches them first, it can refuse to bless the looting. That is, in substance, a defense of ownership against a purely technological shortcut. It treats the quantum actor as a thief and denies him the prize.

But that is only half the story. The other half does not vanish merely because protocol designers would rather not observe it.

The proposal also creates a second legal problem, and it is harder to wave away. Phase B does not only stop thieves. It also disables actual owners who fail, or are unable, to migrate in time. That matters because property law does not ask only whether a rule has a good motive. It also asks what the rule does to the owner.

Calling that “theft” is too imprecise. BIP-361 does not reassign the coins to developers, miners, or some new claimant. It does not enrich the freezer in the ordinary way a thief enriches himself. But “not theft” does not end the inquiry. The closer analogy is conversion, or at least something uncomfortably adjacent to it. If the rule is that an owner had a valid spend yesterday and will have none tomorrow, not because he transferred title, not because he abandoned the coins, and not because a court extinguished his claim, but because the network decided those coins were too dangerous to remain spendable, the network has done something more than merely “protect property rights.” It has intentionally disabled the practical exercise of some of those rights.

That is what makes the freeze legally awkward. Freeze supporters can defend it as the lesser evil, and they may be right. But lesser evil is not the same thing as legal cleanliness. A rule that permanently prevents an owner from accessing his own coins begins to look less like ordinary theft and more like forced dispossession by consensus.

The strongest objections appear in the hardest cases. Timelocked UTXOs are the cleanest example. If a user deliberately created a timelock that matures after the freeze date, that owner did not neglect the coins. He did not abandon them. He affirmatively structured them to be unspendable until a future date. Yet the protocol could still freeze them permanently before that date ever arrives. Other older wallet constructions create a similar problem. If the eventual recovery path depends on BIP-39 seed possession, some earlier wallet formats may have no realistic route back at all. Estates create the same tension in another form. The owner may be dead, but title has not vanished. It passed somewhere. Freezing the coins does not eliminate the underlying property claim. It only eliminates the network’s willingness to honor it.

That is why the better description of Phase B is not “anti-theft rule” in the abstract. It is a confiscatory defense mechanism. Maybe a justified one. Maybe even a necessary one. But still confiscatory in effect for at least some owners. The proposal does not just choose owner over thief. In some cases it chooses one class of owners over another, then treats the losses of the disfavored class as the price of securing the system.

That does not make BIP-361 unlawful in any straightforward, courtroom-ready sense. Bitcoin consensus changes are not state action, so the takings analogy is imperfect unless government enters the picture directly. But as a matter of private-law reasoning, the conversion analogy lands harder. Title may remain rhetorically intact while practical control is intentionally destroyed.

That is the real symmetry at the center of the quantum debate. Letting a quantum attacker sweep dormant coins looks like theft. Freezing vulnerable coins by soft fork may be the lesser evil, but it is not costless, either materially or morally. For some owners, it begins to look a great deal like confiscation.

The legal answer is clear, even if Bitcoin’s is not

Classical property law is not going to bless quantum key derivation as some clever form of lawful recovery.

Dormancy is not abandonment. Death transfers title; it does not dissolve it. Unclaimed property law reaches custodians, not self-custody itself. Adverse possession does not map onto pseudonymous UTXOs. Salvage is a bad joke.

So if someone uses a quantum computer to derive the private key for a dormant wallet and move the coins, the legal system will almost certainly call that theft.

But BIP-361 shows that Bitcoin may not face a choice between theft and pristine protection of ownership. It may face a choice between theft by attacker and dispossession by protocol. Freezing vulnerable coins may be a defensible response to an extraordinary threat. It may even be the only response the network finds tolerable. Still, it should be described honestly. For some owners, especially those with timelocked outputs, old wallet formats, or no realistic migration path, the freeze begins to look less like protection than confiscation.

That is what makes the issue more than a simple morality play. Bitcoin collapses the distinction property law usually relies on between title and possession. Courts can say a quantum raider stole the coins. Courts can say a protocol-level freeze substantially interfered with an owner’s rights. But the chain will still recognize only the rules its economic majority adopts.

So the fight is not simply over whether Bitcoin should defend property rights during the quantum transition. The fight is over which property rights Bitcoin is willing to impair in order to defend the rest.

Welcome to classical politics.

This is a guest post by Colin Crossman. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

This post When Quantum Computers Come for Your Bitcoin: What Classical Property Law Says Happens Next first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Colin Crossman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Congresswoman Sheri Biggs Discloses Up to $250,000 BTC Investment via iShares Bitcoin ETF

Representative Sheri Biggs of South Carolina has disclosed a purchase of up to $250,000 in Bitcoin exposure via the iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), marking one of the largest single Bitcoin-related buys by a sitting member of Congress. 

The Periodic Transaction Report filed with the House shows a transaction in the $100,001–$250,000 range executed on March 4, 2026 and reported in mid‑April, in line with disclosure deadlines under the STOCK Act.

The trade places Biggs among Congress’s most aggressive adopters of Bitcoin investment products, a cohort that already includes Senator David McCormick and Representative Brandon Gill, who have collectively reported hundreds of thousands of dollars in Bitcoin ETF purchases over the past year. 

Biggs has previously been identified by crypto advocacy groups as strongly supportive of digital assets, and her latest filing underscores how lawmakers are increasingly gaining direct financial exposure to the sector they help regulate.

The move comes as BTC trades below recent highs but remains a central focus of Washington’s ongoing debate over digital asset regulation and potential federal Bitcoin reserve policy. 

Bitcoin price action 

Bitcoin price rose sharply above $77,000 today after Iran announced the Strait of Hormuz had been fully reopened under a ceasefire framework, easing fears of a potential supply shock and triggering a broad risk-on move across global markets.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the key shipping route is open to all commercial vessels for the duration of a 10-day truce tied to de-escalation efforts involving Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The announcement signaled a temporary stabilization in a region that had been on edge for weeks over escalating tensions and threats to energy flows through one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints.

President Donald Trump amplified the development on social media, declaring that the “Strait of IRAN is fully open and ready for full passage,” reinforcing expectations that diplomatic momentum could continue. The White House has suggested that broader talks with Tehran remain possible within days, with additional regional meetings under discussion.

Markets reacted quickly. Oil prices fell as the geopolitical risk premium unwound, and equities and crypto moved higher in tandem. BTC pushed back into the $76,000–$78,000 range, a zone that has repeatedly acted as resistance since February’s pullback from earlier highs.

With liquidity thin and positioning crowded, BTC now sits at a key inflection point where continued geopolitical de-escalation could fuel a breakout above resistance, while renewed tensions risk sending price back toward the low-$70,000 range.

This post Congresswoman Sheri Biggs Discloses Up to $250,000 BTC Investment via iShares Bitcoin ETF first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Kraken Owner Payward to Acquire Bitnomial for $550M, Securing Full CFTC-Licensed U.S. Crypto Derivatives Stack

Kraken-owner Payward has agreed to acquire Bitnomial in a deal valued at up to $550 million in cash and stock, giving the firm control of a fully licensed U.S. crypto derivatives stack as it expands deeper into regulated markets.

The transaction values Payward at $20 billion and is expected to close in the first half of 2026, subject to customary conditions and regulatory filings with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Bitnomial stands out as the first crypto-native platform in the U.S. to secure all three licenses required to operate a full-stack derivatives business: a designated contract market, a derivatives clearing organization, and a futures commission merchant. Those approvals allow it to run an exchange, clear trades, and offer brokerage services within a single regulated framework.

By acquiring Bitnomial, Payward gains infrastructure that would take years to build. The exchange spent more than a decade developing a system designed for digital assets, including crypto settlement, crypto collateral, and continuous trading. The deal brings that foundation under Payward’s ecosystem, which includes Kraken and its recently acquired futures platform NinjaTrader.

Payward Co-CEO Arjun Sethi said clearing infrastructure shapes how markets function, pointing to settlement systems and margin models as the core of derivatives innovation. He said the U.S. lacks clearing infrastructure built for digital assets, which made Bitnomial’s platform a strategic target.

Bitnomial founder Luke Hoersten said the company built its exchange and clearinghouse from the ground up for crypto markets. He pointed to features such as perpetual futures, crypto-settled products, and a unified trading book across spot, futures, and options as capabilities that legacy systems cannot support without redesign.

Kraken’s busy week

The acquisition expands Payward’s push into derivatives, a segment that has become central to crypto trading volumes. While Kraken remains a major exchange, it trails some global competitors in spot trading and has focused on building out derivatives and multi-asset capabilities through acquisitions.

The company’s largest move came in 2025 with its $1.5 billion purchase of NinjaTrader, which gave it a foothold in U.S. futures markets and access to a large base of retail traders. The Bitnomial deal builds on that strategy by adding a fully regulated derivatives infrastructure layer.

The deal also strengthens Payward Services, the company’s business-to-business infrastructure arm. Through a single API integration, banks, fintech firms, and brokerages will be able to offer regulated U.S. derivatives alongside services such as crypto trading, staking, and tokenized equities.

Payward framed the transaction as an infrastructure play rather than a traditional acquisition, positioning Bitnomial’s regulatory stack as the foundation for building the next phase of U.S. crypto derivatives markets.

Earlier this week, Deutsche Börse acquired a $200 million stake in Kraken to expand institutional crypto services, even as the exchange disclosed limited insider-related security incidents affecting a small number of accounts. Also this week, Kraken confirmed a confidential IPO filing as its valuation dropped to $13.3 billion. 

This post Kraken Owner Payward to Acquire Bitnomial for $550M, Securing Full CFTC-Licensed U.S. Crypto Derivatives Stack first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Steak ’n Shake Teases “Bitcoin Milkshake” for Bitcoin Conference 2026 

Steak ‘n Shake plans to open Bitcoin Conference 2026 with a themed “Bitcoin Milkshake,” deepening a broader pivot that now spans payments, treasury strategy, and employee compensation in Bitcoin. The limited-time drink presumably will debut on April 27, across participating locations as the chain positions itself as the fast-food brand most aligned with Bitcoin culture.

The company teased the “Bitcoin Milkshake” on X and “new plans”, calling the milkshake the best way to start Bitcoin Conference 2026 and featuring branding tailored to conference attendees and Bitcoin fans. The rollout targets visitors heading to the annual gathering and regular customers who already pay with Bitcoin at the chain’s restaurants. 

Steak ‘n Shake expects the product to serve as a marketing hook for its broader Bitcoin strategy, which has moved from payments to balance sheet exposure and worker incentives.

Steak ‘n Shake customers can now pay for burgers and milkshakes, including the new Bitcoin Milkshake, using Bitcoin over the Lightning Network via the Speed wallet. 

The chain began accepting Bitcoin payments across 393 U.S. locations in May 2025 and reports lower processing costs and higher sales since the launch. Speed’s integration gives the company real-time visibility into Lightning transactions and has cut payment processing fees by about 50 percent versus card networks, according to Speed.

Steak n’ Shake’s Strategic Bitcoin Reserve

Alongside the product launch, Steak ‘n Shake has added another $10 million in Bitcoin to its Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, expanding a treasury program that directs all customer-paid Bitcoin into its balance sheet.  The company began formal treasury accumulation with an initial $10 million purchase in January, followed by additional notional exposure and reserve growth tied to same-store sales. 

Management describes the model as self-sustaining: Bitcoin payments grow sales, which in turn expand the reserve earmarked for store upgrades, menu improvements, and remodeling.

Bitcoin bonus for workers

In March, Steak ‘n Shake introduced a new benefit that pays hourly employees a Bitcoin bonus equal to 21 cents per hour, funded from its Bitcoin-focused reserve. The chain links this incentive to its “Bitcoin-to-burger” initiative, in which Bitcoin revenues help finance both the treasury and worker rewards. 

Executives say the program aims to attract employees who follow Bitcoin and to align staff directly with the company’s digital asset strategy.

This post Steak ’n Shake Teases “Bitcoin Milkshake” for Bitcoin Conference 2026  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Developers Propose Bitcoin Quantum Migration Plan That Would Freeze Legacy Coins

A new proposal circulating among Bitcoin developers is forcing the network to confront a long-standing theoretical risk: the impact of quantum computing on its cryptographic foundations.

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 361 (BIP-361), introduced by a group of researchers including Jameson Lopp, outlines a structured plan to migrate the network away from legacy signature schemes and toward quantum-resistant alternatives. If adopted, the proposal would impose a phased deadline that could ultimately render unmigrated coins permanently unspendable.

The proposal aims to reduce Bitcoin’s exposure to a future scenario in which sufficiently advanced quantum computers can break the elliptic curve cryptography that underpins its current system.

“Even if Bitcoin is not a primary initial target of a cryptographically relevant quantum computer, widespread knowledge that such a computer exists and is capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography will damage faith in the network,” the BIP authors wrote.

Today, Bitcoin relies on ECDSA and Schnorr signatures to secure transactions. Both remain robust against classical computing but are theoretically vulnerable to Shor’s algorithm, which could allow an attacker to derive private keys from exposed public keys. This risk is not evenly distributed across the network. Older address types, particularly pay-to-public-key outputs and reused addresses, reveal public keys onchain and are considered the most vulnerable.

Estimates cited by the proposal suggest that more than one-third of all bitcoin in circulation falls into this category, including early holdings attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto. In a quantum attack scenario, those funds could be compromised, potentially destabilizing the network and redistributing wealth to technologically advanced actors.

The proposal’s transition phases

BIP-361 introduces a three-phase transition designed to preempt that outcome. Phase A, expected roughly three years after activation, would prohibit new transactions from sending funds to legacy address types. While users could still move funds out of vulnerable addresses, the restriction would push wallets and services toward adopting quantum-resistant formats.

Phase B, beginning about two years later, would escalate the transition by invalidating all legacy signatures at the consensus level. At that point, any bitcoin that has not been migrated would become effectively frozen, unable to be spent under network rules.

A proposed Phase C, still under research, would offer a limited recovery mechanism. This would rely on zero-knowledge proofs tied to seed phrases, allowing users to demonstrate ownership of frozen funds without exposing private keys. The feasibility and timeline of this phase remain uncertain.

The proposal frames the forced migration as a defensive measure rather than a punitive one. By freezing coins that fail to upgrade, the authors argue the network can eliminate a major attack surface before quantum capabilities emerge. 

They also note that permanently inaccessible coins would reduce effective supply, a dynamic long discussed within Bitcoin’s economic model.

No activation timeline has been set, and BIP-361 remains in draft form.

This post Bitcoin Developers Propose Bitcoin Quantum Migration Plan That Would Freeze Legacy Coins first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Pakistan Ends Bitcoin and Crypto Banking Ban, Opens Financial System to Licensed Firms

Pakistan’s central bank has formally reversed its long-standing ban on banking services for cryptocurrency firms, allowing regulated banks to open accounts for licensed virtual asset service providers (VASPs) under a new legal framework.

The decision, announced in a circular by the State Bank of Pakistan and reported by Reuters, follows the enactment of the Virtual Assets Act 2026 and marks the country’s first structured move to integrate digital asset businesses into its formal financial system.

“This is a foundational step in bringing virtual assets into the formal financial system of Pakistan,” said Bilal bin Saqib, chairman of the Pakistan Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority, in an official statement.

Under the new rules, banks can provide basic financial services to crypto firms, but must first verify that the entities are licensed by PVARA. Strict safeguards have been put in place to mitigate financial risks and ensure compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing standards.

JUST IN: Pakistan’s central bank overturns ban and allows banks to open accounts for licensed Bitcoin & crypto service providers, Reuters reports pic.twitter.com/nQ3jV9lQgr

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) April 15, 2026

Banks are required to conduct full due diligence, maintain updated risk profiles for VASP clients, and report suspicious transactions to regulators.

They must also ensure that client funds are held in segregated, non-interest-bearing accounts denominated in Pakistani rupees. The commingling of customer and company funds is strictly prohibited.

Pakistani banks still can’t invest in bitcoin or crypto

However, the central bank has drawn a firm line on direct exposure to digital assets. Banks are explicitly barred from investing in, trading, or holding cryptocurrencies using either their own capital or customer deposits. Their role is limited to facilitating payment rails and custody of fiat funds tied to licensed crypto activity.

The move represents a sharp reversal from Pakistan’s 2018 policy, which effectively cut off crypto firms from the banking system and stifled industry growth. With the new framework in place, authorities are now positioning the country as a regulated hub for digital asset innovation.

Pakistan has already taken steps to attract global crypto players. Officials signed a memorandum of understanding with Binance in December to explore tokenization initiatives potentially involving up to $2 billion in assets, and have granted initial regulatory clearances to both Binance and HTX.

In parallel, the country has explored blockchain-based financial infrastructure through discussions with an affiliate of World Liberty Financial, including the potential use of stablecoins for cross-border payments.

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly licensed material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

This post Pakistan Ends Bitcoin and Crypto Banking Ban, Opens Financial System to Licensed Firms first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Trump Fed Pick Kevin Warsh Reveals Stake in Bitcoin Lightning Startup Flashnet

Trump’s nominee for Federal Reserve chair, Kevin Warsh, has disclosed an equity stake in Bitcoin payments start-up Flashnet. The holding appeared in financial disclosure forms filed ahead of Warsh’s Senate confirmation hearing, which could begin as soon as this week but will most likely start next week.

Flashnet positions itself as a lightning-style Bitcoin payment system for merchants and fintech platforms, part of a broader push to speed up and cheapen transactions on the Bitcoin network. Warsh’s stake links the incoming Fed chief directly to a company whose fortunes depend on Bitcoin adoption and transaction volume, at a time when he has publicly framed Bitcoin as “an important asset” and “a very good policeman for policy.” 

During past comments, he has argued that Bitcoin’s price can signal when the Fed is behind the curve on inflation or financial conditions.

The Fed chair oversees interest-rate policy and the regulatory environment that shapes liquidity conditions for all risk assets, including cryptocurrencies. Warsh has been cast in some corners of the industry as the first overtly pro‑Bitcoin Fed chair, with supporters arguing that his familiarity with the asset class will help with institutional normalization rather than bias. 

$100 million in filings for Warsh

Warsh disclosed other assets likely exceeding $100 million in the required ethics filings. His report lists massive investments, including stakes over $50 million in Juggernaut Fund LP and multimillion-dollar consulting income from Stanley Druckenmiller’s firm, alongside numerous holdings in AI and other crypto ventures. 

Warsh pledged to divest several opaque or potentially conflicting assets, a step ethics officials said would bring him into compliance. The filing advances his nomination to replace Jerome Powell, with a Senate confirmation hearing expected as early as next week.

The disclosure also included assets held by Warsh’s spouse, Jane Lauder, whose family is tied to the Estée Lauder Companies. Forbes estimates her net worth at about $1.9 billion. Several of her municipal bond holdings were reported broadly, with some listed simply as “over $1 million.”

Warsh reported relatively modest liabilities. These include a 2015 mortgage of up to $5 million from JPMorgan Chase at a 2.75% rate, a revolving line of credit of up to $5 million from PNC Bank at roughly 6%, and capital commitments totaling $1.95 million to THSDFS LLC, one of the holdings he has pledged to divest.

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly licensed material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

This post Trump Fed Pick Kevin Warsh Reveals Stake in Bitcoin Lightning Startup Flashnet first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Crypto Exchange Kraken Faces Extortion Attempt After Insider Access Incidents Involving Support Staff

Crypto exchange Kraken disclosed two insider-related security incidents involving support staff access to limited client data, followed by an extortion attempt by a criminal group, according to a company statement and comments from its chief security officer.

The firm said no systems were breached and no client funds were placed at risk in either case. Both incidents involved inappropriate access to internal support tools rather than core trading infrastructure, and access was revoked once identified.

Kraken’s Chief Security Officer Nick Percoco said the company is facing demands from attackers who claim to possess videos showing internal systems with client data. The group threatened to release the material unless Kraken complies.

“Our systems were never breached; funds were never at risk; we will not pay these criminals,” Percoco said in a public statement, adding that the company will not negotiate with the actors involved.

Kraken said about 2,000 client accounts were potentially viewed across both incidents, representing roughly 0.02% of its global user base. Affected users were notified, and the company said the exposed information was limited to support data rather than sensitive financial controls.

Multiple security breaches at Kraken 

The first incident dates to February 2025, when the company received a tip about a video circulating on a criminal forum. An internal investigation identified a member of the support team as the source of the access. Kraken said it revoked permissions, conducted a review, and implemented additional safeguards.

A second incident emerged later after another tip referenced similar material tied to a different individual. Kraken said it again identified the source, terminated access, and notified impacted users while tightening internal controls.

The situation escalated after the latest access was shut down, when the group behind the videos issued extortion demands. Kraken said the attackers threatened to distribute content to media outlets and social platforms.

The exchange said it is working with law enforcement across multiple jurisdictions and believes there is enough evidence to identify and pursue those responsible. The company also pointed to broader insider recruitment efforts targeting firms across crypto, gaming, and telecommunications.

Security experts have warned that insider threats remain a persistent risk in digital asset markets, where support roles often require visibility into user accounts for troubleshooting. While such access is restricted, it can become a target for coercion or exploitation.

Kraken said it continues to review internal processes, strengthen monitoring systems, and limit access privileges to reduce exposure. The firm emphasized that its core infrastructure remained secure throughout both incidents.

The case comes as the industry faces ongoing security challenges tied to both external attacks and internal vulnerabilities. The combination of high-value assets and global access has made crypto platforms a frequent target for coordinated campaigns.

In a separate disclosure, Galaxy Digital reported a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to an isolated development environment. The firm, founded by Mike Novogratz, said no client data or funds were affected.

Kraken said it will continue cooperating with investigators and industry partners as the case develops. The company framed the incidents as contained events while warning of a wider pattern of insider-focused threats facing technology firms.

This post Crypto Exchange Kraken Faces Extortion Attempt After Insider Access Incidents Involving Support Staff first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Bank Lobby Fires Back at White House, Saying Stablecoin Study Ignores Community Bank Threat

The American Bankers Association is warning that the White House’s latest stablecoin study is asking the wrong question and underestimating the threat to community banks.

On April 8, the Council of Economic Advisers released a 21‑page paper modeling what happens if payment stablecoin issuers are barred from paying yield. The analysis, tied to the 2025 GENIUS Act’s prohibition on interest for payment stablecoins, finds that banning yield would raise bank lending by only about 2.1 billion dollars, or roughly 0.02% of a 12 trillion dollar loan book. 

The report also estimates that consumers would forgo around 800 million dollars in returns, producing a cost‑benefit ratio of 6.6 in which lost yield outweighs gains from slightly lower borrowing costs. 

In short, White House economists concluded that stablecoin yield, under current conditions, is unlikely to trigger the sweeping deposit flight some academic studies had projected.

ABA: the real risk is yield‑paying coins at scale

The American Bankers Association fired back today, arguing the CEA framed “the wrong question” by focusing on the effect of a prohibition rather than the impact of allowing yield as the market grows. 

ABA chief economist Sayee Srinivasan and banking research VP Yikai Wang warned that yield‑paying payment stablecoins could accelerate deposit migration out of insured accounts, especially at community banks. 

Their analysis points to a future market of 1 to 2 trillion dollars in payment stablecoins, where competitive yields on tokens backed by Treasuries and other safe assets become a direct rival to local deposits. In that scenario, they say, even single states could see multi‑billion‑dollar contractions in bank lending as cheap funding drains away.

Deposit stablecoin reshuffling vs. community bank pressure

The White House paper stresses that when consumers move cash into stablecoins, issuers reinvest reserves into Treasury bills, repos, and money‑market funds, sending most of the money back into the banking system. 

That “reshuffling” means aggregate deposits stay largely flat, and, with banks currently holding over 1.1 trillion dollars in excess liquidity, the model finds little system‑wide constraint on lending. 

The ABA response counters that this misses what happens at individual institutions when deposits walk out the door, forcing community banks to replace funding with higher‑cost wholesale borrowing or by raising deposit rates. 

Those higher funding costs, they argue, translate into less local credit and higher loan rates for households, farmers, and small businesses that rely on relationship lenders.

The debate lands on top of the GENIUS Act, the 2025 law that created the first federal regime for payment stablecoins and hard‑coded a ban on issuers paying yield to holders. 

That ban does not extend to third‑party platforms, leaving room for arrangements such as Coinbase’s USDC rewards, which share reserve income with users at rates similar to high‑yield savings accounts. 

Some versions of the proposed CLARITY Act would close this channel by barring intermediaries from passing yield through, a move the CEA notes but does not fully evaluate. ABA’s authors say policymakers should treat a prohibition on yield as a “prudent safeguard” that keeps stablecoins in a payments role instead of letting them evolve into a high‑yield substitute for insured deposits.

Both sides touch on a deeper question: whether yield‑bearing stablecoins effectively create a form of narrow banking that siphons funds out of traditional credit intermediation. The CEA frames narrow‑bank‑like structures as potentially safer for payments, assuming reserves stay in Treasuries and other ultra‑safe assets, while downplaying near‑term lending losses. 

The ABA warns that pushing activity into such models without a plan to preserve community‑bank lending ignores Congress’s reluctance to endorse central bank digital currencies for similar reasons. 

With more than 80% of stablecoin activity already offshore and issuers holding Treasury portfolios larger than some sovereigns, the White House also flags global demand and U.S. borrowing costs as an underexplored part of the yield debate.

This post Bank Lobby Fires Back at White House, Saying Stablecoin Study Ignores Community Bank Threat first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

The Core Issue: The Role and History of Bitcoin Core Maintainers

Don’t miss your chance to own The Core Issue — featuring articles written by many Core Developers explaining the projects they work on themselves!

In the beginning there was only Satoshi Nakamoto and a powerful idea. Nakamoto started working on Bitcoin as far back as 2007^[1], and as far as we know worked on it entirely himself, until a few weeks after his release of the Bitcoin white paper on October 31st 2008^[2], when Nakamoto took on the first Contributor to the project, Hal Finney^[3].

Running bitcoin

— halfin (@halfin) January 11, 2009

Finney, it turns out, was critical to Bitcoin’s early success. According to recently surfaced emails^[4] Nakamoto’s node was unable to receive “incoming connections” for a couple of days after the minting of the genesis block, resulting in Finney being the only node other users could connect to. Nakamoto told Finney in a private email “Your node receiving incoming connections was the main thing keeping the network going the first day or two.”

Finney was also one of the first known reviewers and contributors to Bitcoin, Nakamoto shared the software with him and a few other cypherpunk legends before it was shown to the world. Finney even contributed code to the project before its first release, as revealed by Ray Dillinger who Nakamoto also shared pre-released versions of the code with.

In an interview conducted by Nathaniel Popper published on Dillinger’s blog, he said^[5]; “It was when we started talking about floating-point types in accounting code that I learned Finney was involved in the effort. Finney was reviewing the transaction scripting language, and both the code he had, and the code I had, interacted with the accounting code.”

The timeline roughly matches the activity page of the oldest Sourceforge web archive we have of the Bitcoin project page, where Nakamoto added Finney to the project on December 18, 2008. This decision by Nakamoto marks the first instance of Maintainer level permissions possibly being held by anyone other than Nakamoto. It is possible and likely that Finney gained developer status within the Sourceforge Bitcoin project, allowing him to download, modify and upload versions to Bitcoin to the site.

So, besides being a Contributor, reviewer, and a node runner, was Hal Finney also a Bitcoin Maintainer?

The strictest definition of a Maintainer is someone who has ‘commit access’ or write access to the primary development branch of a software project. Contributors to a project like Bitcoin may ‘commit’ code to development branches of the project, and submit ‘pull requests’ to have the code integrated to the master branch, but those updates can only be ‘merged’ into the master branch by its Maintainers^[6] through “commit access”..

By that definition, Finney may very well count as the first Maintainer after Nakamoto, but being a Bitcoin core Maintainer is arguably a lot more than just having commit access. Maintainers must also have a good reputation among the developer community and be frequent, producing Contributors.

Bitcoin Maintainers have in some cases been active developers of the project, who were well known enough by other Maintainers and seemed to be a good fit for the role. In other cases, they have been active reviewers and auditors of the code, merging code contributions that appear to have consensus, and refusing to merge code that does not.

The Maintainer role in turn carries a high status within the Bitcoin industry, and it is vulnerable to reputation ending mistakes. In some cases, famous Maintainers have had their access revoked, when considered by other Maintainers to be compromised, as seen in the case of Gavin Andresen^[7] when he endorsed scam artist Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto. In other cases, Maintainers have quit the role, in response to targeted harassment as seen with Gregory Maxwell^[8].

Generally, the Maintainer role in Bitcoin is expected by Contributors to be an engineering role and not a political one. Discussions on Github pull requests for example are expected to be about the technical and implementation details of a particular commit, rather than the person making the commit, their particular politics, allegiances. Discussions that touch consensus and are controversial or hotly debated are generally relegated to the Bitcoin mailing list and other forums, as do topics of a political nature.

It is important to note that whatever power there is embedded in the Maintainer role has arguably diminished over Bitcoin’s history, as the project has grown from the early days of Nakamoto. There are even examples of code getting merged to the master branch, only to be removed again^[9] after further review, making decisions by Maintainers far from final.

Maintainers throughout Bitcoin’s history have at times been accused of being gate keepers, refusing to merge updates to Bitcoin that factions of the community support, often in part because other factions of the community oppose them. In this sense, the Maintainer role does carry a certain kind of ‘taste making’ power, the permission to discern whether a commit has consensus or not, something not easy to quantify.  

This exclusive permission to merge or not to merge may be an unavoidable necessity of open source development, as no project would be considered safe or stable if anyone could merge any code into it at any time. In an adversarial environment, a meritocracy that filters code suggestions based only on the content of the ideas and their merit is arguably the best model we can strive for, anything else is a centralizing political system.

As such, the Maintainer role has persisted across Bitcoin development history, often held by multiple people, expanding and contracting in responsibilities. The role often draws the attention and curiosity of the broader Bitcoin community, as Maintainers as well as Contributors earn, enjoy and suffer the burdens of an emergent kind of leadership, especially in technical matters.

Unfortunately, data about the very early stage of Bitcoin development is scarce, leaving us only with glimpses into what role Finney played before the Genesis block. Maintainer permission history is actually quite opaque across open source development. Hubs like Sourceforge and Github fail to expose commit access history or detailed membership permissions to the public. Records like Nakamoto adding Finney to Sourceforge are actually a rare sight in Bitcoin Maintainer history.

Nevertheless, version control systems like SVN and Git which were implemented weeks after the first release of Bitcoin, do track commits across time and branches for the public to review, giving us public insights into what has happened. As a result, our knowledge of Bitcoin Maintainer history tends to come from first and last commits made to the master repo, announcements on Bitcointalk, or other forums, and confirmation of access revocation by active Maintainers at the time —in rare cases. A significant portion of the research on this article comes from Bitcoin Core Maintainer Ava Chow’s documentation of the relevant history^[10].

The tracking of commit access or Maintainers was improved in 2014 with the addition of the trusted-keys system,^[11] which adds a white list of PGP public keys into the master branch of Bitcoin Core. Keys can only enter and exit the list via commits merged by active Maintainers, and all commits to the master branch should be signed, by the corresponding private keys, a process that anyone in the public can verify and audit, comparing the software signature to the corresponding PGP keys.

The trusted-keys system was added as a security safeguard by Matt Corallo^[12], who told Bitcoin Magazine the feature was the result of a general process of improvements and optimizations, and not a response to any particular catalyst or event.

A Brief History of Bitcoin Core Maintainers: The Satoshi Nakamoto Era

On January 3rd 2009, Nakamoto minted the genesis block^[13], effectively launching the digital currency into public beta. He added a message to the block that anchored and time stamped Bitcoin’s launch to the physical world with a headline from the British daily national newspaper, “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”. The headline is forever embedded in Bitcoin’s blockchain, a subtle yet immutable reminder of Bitcoin’s purpose and birthright.

On the night of January 8th 2009^[14] version 0.1.0 of Bitcoin was released to the public, announced on various forums including the cypherpunk mailing list, on it Nakamoto wrote; “Announcing the first release of Bitcoin, a new electronic cash system that uses a peer-to-peer network to prevent double-spending. It’s completely decentralized with no server or central authority.”

The installable windows version of Bitcoin in this first release had been compiled by Nakamoto and the source code made available as part of a .rar file published on SourceForge.net. This act made Nakamoto the founder and Lead Maintainer of Bitcoin by default, a role built into the very nature of open source development. Nakamoto would take code commits from other developers during his time building Bitcoin, download them to his local machine, review and merge the code bases, and produce new version releases, a key task and work flow that differentiates Maintainers for Contributors throughout Bitcoin history. This process would continue until Nakamoto’s departure in December of 2010 and would impact versions 0.1.0 to 0.3.19 of Bitcoin.  

Multiple updates followed the first release of Bitcoin and by the end of January 2009, a third developer had officially become a Contributor to the project. Martti Malmi going by the username of “sirius-m” made the “First commit”^[15] to Sourceforge, bringing online the SVN source version control system — a kind of git, popular at the time. Malmi committed to the ‘Trunk’ comparable to a master branch on Github, making Malmi the second official Maintainer in Bitcoin’s open source development history. Malmi would make a variety of contributions throughout 2009 including the first Linux version of Bitcoin, with the 0.2.0 release^[16].

It wasn’t until the August of 2010 that Lazloh Hanyecz — famous for having paid 10,000 bitcoins for a pizza in 2010^[17] — would join as Maintainer^[18], a month after contributing the first iOS version of Bitcoin to the 0.3.0 release.

Part of Nakamoto’s role as Lead Maintainer of Bitcoin was the stewardship of the network. Nakamoto went as far as to personally ask Lazloh — who was one of the first to mine bitcoin with GPUs —  to slow down his production for the sake of the network. “The longer we can delay the GPU arms race, the more mature the OpenCL libraries get, and the more people will have OpenCL compatible video cards,” Nakamoto said to Lazloh in 2009^[19], looking to prolong the CPU mining era of Bitcoin, which was a major incentive to run Bitcoin nodes at a time when the future price of the coins was entirely uncertain.

On July 17th 2010 on version 0.3.2^[20][21] Nakamoto added the check pointing system, a security safeguard that hard coded a certain block height as valid and its corresponding winning hash. Its purpose was to protect the chain from miner attacks that could theoretically reorganize the chain well beyond what the “widely accepted block chain” was, Nakamoto said on the announcement, adding that “there’s no point in leaving open the unwanted non-zero possibility of revision months later.”

The checkpointing system would result in a new responsibility for future bitcoin Maintainers, who would have to hard code a new block height and its corresponding hash on future releases, well into Gavin Andresen’s era of Bitcoin development^[22]. The checkpointing system was eventually phased out, as the proof of work made deep reorgs unfeasible.

The height of Nakamoto’s power as Lead Maintainer and project founder would be demonstrated during the value overflow bug event of October 2010^[23], where three transactions created 184 billion bitcoin that did not and should not exist. The number of coins the transaction attempted to move was so large that the transaction validation code at the time “overflowed when summed”, breaking consensus.  

This is historically Bitcoin’s most famous bug, sometimes called the ‘inflation bug’ and was likely the most dangerous to the project’s survival. Various community members started noticing the transactions hours after they were mined into the network, springing Nakamoto into action, who, with the help of a few Contributors^[24] including Andresen^[25], created a patched version of Bitcoin^[26] changing the relevant validation code.

Nakamoto asked miners to move to the patched version and resync the chain^[27], resulting in a roll back of the network to a state before the invalid transactions were confirmed. This was a hard fork that rolled back 19 hours of Bitcoin blocks, and probably represents the peak of Bitcoin’s centralization under Nakamoto’s leadership, as well as the peak of power that has ever been concentrated in the Lead Maintainer role.

Following the events of the Value Overflow Bug, Nakamoto implemented the Alert System on version 0.3.11^[28]. The feature — which was somewhat controversial — would make nodes at risk of a critical bug, show a warning and would disable essential features. This Alert System used messages that would have to be signed by a key only held by Nakamoto. He justified the feature saying that “getting surprised by some temporary down time when your node would otherwise be at risk is better than getting surprised by a thief draining all your inventory.” Months later Nakamoto disabled the Alert System in his final version release.

Per the SVN records, only Nakamoto ever merged the code of other Contributors and pushed new official release versions of the Bitcoin, at least until Gavin Andresen became Lead Maintainer in December 19th 2010^[29]. Andresen had been contributing code to Nakamoto directly as early as February^[30] that year, as seen in the release of 0.3.1, and would make his first commit to the SVN Trunk on October 11th^[31], a couple of months before Satoshi Nakamoto published his final version on Bitcoin, 0.3.19^[32], disappearing into history.

At the time of writing, over 1200 individual people have contributed code to the Bitcoin Core project.

The Gavin Andresen Era

With Nakamoto no longer contributing to the project, Gavin Andresen was left as one of the only active contributors to the project with commit access. Malmi had slowed down contribution as Andresen’s accelerated, so when Nakamoto left, Andresen was left as the default Lead Maintainer. While Nakamoto never made a public statement, granting the role to Andresen, he did send an email to Mike Hearn — a frequent Contributor at the time — famously saying “I’ve moved on to other things.  It’s in good hands with Gavin and everyone.”^[33]

“With Nakamoto’s Blessing”^[34] Andresen would take the mantle of Lead Maintainer of Bitcoin and would go on to expand the Maintainer team while also initiate the official migration from Sourceforge to Github^[35], a process which would take some time. It wasn’t until July 14th of 2011 that we would see the first commit merged to Bitcoin from a branch on Andresen’s official github account^[36].

Unlike the Nakamoto era of development, this merge was done by the Github platform, putting some trust on Github.com to not do something shady with the code, a process previously done by Nakamoto manually and on his local machine. It’s important to note that the differences between versions of the code are auditable anyway, Github merge or not, since the project is open source. Code merges in this era could and should have been reviewed by developers on both sides of the process, before Github merge and after, though an abundance of caution eventually led to the creation of the trusted-keys system. Nevertheless, this began a new trend in how code was merged into Bitcoin that would last for at least three years.

On September 13th, 2011, the Sourceforge Bitcoin project was officially shut down, favoring Github as the new collaboration platform, leaving the old Bitcoin page there as an archive. Since both Malmi and Lazloh were Contributors on Sourceforge primarily without Github accounts at the time, their commit access effectively ended with the official migration, as well as their slow down in contributions around Nakamoto’s departure.

On April 27 of 2011, version 0.3.21 was released, the first under Andresen’s leadership. It was also the first to include a Readme file a PGP signed^[37] message that detailed the update, contained hashes for the released installables and gave shout outs to Contributors. Among the 16 Contributors named are well known bitcoin core developers like Luke Dashjr, Matt Corallo, Pieter Wuille and Jeff Garzik.

The next couple of years saw a flurry of new Maintainers, perhaps in an attempt to decentralize what ever perceived power and responsibility Gavin held via the Maintainer role, and to fill in the gaps left by Nakamoto, Malmi and Lazloh. Chris Moore^[38] with the username “dooglas” gained commit access for a couple of months from January 21st^[39] until March 31st 2011^[40] and still contributes to the project from time to time^[41].

A few months later on the first of June of 2011, Pieter Wuille gained commit access^[42]. Wuille discovered Bitcoin in November of 2010 and soon started contributing to the project. After gaining commit access, Wuille would become a renowned Bitcoin core developer, generally credited with many small performance optimizations that sum up over time to large improvements in user experience among many other contributions^[43]. Today Wuille holds the third most commits to Bitcoin core, under the “sipa” username according to Github.  

Jeff Garzik would join as Maintainer a few days later on June 6th, 2011^[44]. Garzik started contributing to Bitcoin as early as version 0.3.21 that year and would also become renowned Bitcoin developer, bringing his extensive experience from the Linux open source ecosystem^[45] to the Bitcoin project. Garzik is generally credited with helping improve the stability of the Bitcoin client.

Years later in the summer of 2016 Garzik had his commit access revoked after “several months of inactivity” according to Chow. During these years the Bitcoin block size war had begun to heat up and Garzik was on the side of the big blocks update^[46], leading to lots of debate, and friction with some factions of the Bitcoin community, a likely cause of his drop in development activity. Garzik would go on to lead one of the failed forks of that war a year later, version Segwit2x.

A month later on July 5th of 2011, Mara van der Laan (who identified as Wladamir at the time) was granted commit access, becoming the eighth official Maintainer of Bitcoin Core. Van der Laan started engaging in the Bitcointalk forum as early as November 2010 and started contributing to Bitcoin by May 2011^[47] initially focusing on the GUI of the Bitcoin QT client and bringing deep academic experience in computer graphics^[48].

On September 19, 2011 Nils Schneider going by the username “tcatm” gained commit access after frequent contributions focused on optimising the Bitcoin client for working in the background. During his time as a Maintainer, he made big contributions helping to internationalize the client, adding multiple language related updates^[49], and oversaw the removal of the Crypto++ library, protecting the client from unnecessary dependencies^[50]. Nils worked as a Maintainer for almost a year with his last commit made in May 31st, 2012^[51].

In February 11 of 2012^[52] Gregory Maxwell with the username “gmaxwell” merged his first commit to Bitcoin after various code contributions and a full year of active technical commentary on the Bitcointalk forum^[53], starting off a three year career as a Bitcoin Maintainer. During this time, Maxwell focused largely on the P2P networking layer of the client as well as consensus and validation related work. To date he is held in very high regard by many in the broad Bitcoin community and occasionally contributes to technical discussions and debates. Maxwell gave up commit access in December of 2015^[54] as the Bitcoin block size war was heating up, due to internet harassment and other related concerns, as he took the small block position. 

After a year or so of expanding the Bitcoin core Maintainer team, on September 27th, 2012 Gavin announced the next step in his vision for Bitcoin’s future, the Bitcoin Foundation^[55]. Made in the image of the Linux foundation, which Gavin saw as a great example of a successful large open source project, the foundation attracted a great deal of attention and support as well as criticism. In his announcement post Gavin said; “I want the Bitcoin Foundation to be an open, member-driven organization, and hope that you or your organization will not only become a member but will help the Foundation accomplish its mission”. Over the next few years, the foundation would help pay the salaries of a variety of Bitcoin core Contributors and Maintainers.

The Mara van der Laan Era

In April 2014, Mara van der Laan was chosen by Gavin Andresen as his successor to the Lead Maintainer role, as Andresen had decided to move towards a more academic role he labeled “Chief Scientist”. In a blog post, published by Andresen on the Bitcoin Foundation website^[56] he wrote; “Wladimir van der Laan has been paid to work on Bitcoin Core full-time for several months now – again, thanks to all of you Foundation members for stepping up and helping to fund core development – and has been doing a fantastic job. He has agreed to take over for me as the ‘Bitcoin Core Maintainer.’”

Under the usernames “Laanwj” and “wumpus”, Ven der Laan would oversee 9 years of Bitcoin Core developments, today holding the crown as having made the most commits to the Bitcoin repo^[57] according to Github graphs, with 7,419 commits — most of them merges — to date. Van der Laan gave up the role in February 2023 for “personal reasons” according to Chow.

One of the first and most notable changes to the Maintainer role under Van der Laan was the implementation of the trusted-keys system, which was committed by Matt Corallo^[58] on December 20th of 2014. The system helped solve the opaque nature of the Maintainer role, by adding a file with PGP public key fingerprints to the master bitcoin repository, as well as a series of related tools^[59]. One of the tools makes sure that Maintainer commits are correctly PGP signed, another script can be used to verify commit signatures against the trusted-keys list of PGP keys.

By having these keys inside the master repo, only Maintainers are able to add and remove keys to the list with valid signatures, leaving a record on Git’s version control system, while giving us pull requests for the addition and removal of Maintainers, which Contributors and commit members can comment on.  

According to Corallo, the main role of the trusted-keys system was “to avoid trusting Github” to merge developer code, a practice normalized during Andresen’s era of development. Instead, Maintainers merge the code locally and update the repository.

On November 13, 2015, Jonas Schnelli was granted commit access, with the username “jonasschnelli”. He was granted the role of GUI Maintainer by Van der Laan, who announced it in the bitcoin mailing list^[60]. Schnelli who started contributing in 2013 to Bitcoin would go on to reach the top 10 of Bitcoin Contributors by commits on github, many also likely being merges during his role as Maintainer, which lasted 6 years. Schnelli gave up commit access in October 21st, 2021 for personal reasons, writing a thread on Twitter reflecting on his experience and expressing strong confidence in the bitcoin developer community that proceeded him^[61].

On April 13, 2016, Marco Falke was given commit access under the username “maflcko” ^[62]. Van der Laan announced the decision on the Bitcoin mailing list^[63], saying “Hereby I’m announcing Marco Falke as the new Testing & QA Maintainer for Bitcoin Core.” Falke contributed to core all the way until 2023, when he decided to give up commit access and the Maintainer role, for personal reasons^[64].

Less than a month later, on May 6th 2016, Gavin Andresen had his commit access removed. The decision made by Van der Laan came after Andresen endorsed now known Satoshi Nakamoto impersonator Craig Wright^[65]. Many in the Bitcoin community were already skeptical of Wright’s claims and Andresen’s position at the time was quickly revealed to be based on deception by Wright. Months earlier, Mike Hearn, a Bitcoin Contributor who was seen as close to Andresen, advocated on a podcast that Andresen should revoke commit access from all Maintainers and become a “Benevolent Dictator” of Bitcoin^[66], as is done in many other open source projects. Andresen did not follow Hearn’s advice, but the event demonstrated the levels of tension the Bitcoin community was under, as the block size war raged on, which Wright was also a part of.  

Years later Andresen would express his regrets about the events saying “I now know it was a mistake to trust Craig Wright as much as I did. I regret getting sucked into the “who is (or isn’t) Nakamoto” game, and I refuse to play that game any more.”

It would be a couple of years until the next Bitcoin Contributor would gain commit access. On December 4th of 2018, Samuel Dobson known by the username “MeshCollider” was made wallet Maintainer by Van der Laan^[67]. Dobson had been making contributions to Bitcoin since at least the summer of 2017^[68] and would go on to make over 300 commits throughout his Bitcoin developer career, focusing on the wallet side of the Bitcoin code base. Dobson gave up commit access and the Maintainer role in February of 2023 to focus on his PHD^[69].

A year later on June 7th 2019, Michael Ford would gain commit access, the first in the latest generation Maintainers who works on the role to date. Wielding the username “Fanquake”, Ford might have been the first Contributor to gain commit access by Contributor consensus, having been nominated during a core developer meetup in Amsterdam^[70] [71]. Nomination by Contributor consensus would become a trend after this period, demonstrating Bitcoin development’s trend towards decentralization, with meetings taking place in various locations and environments, and even via IRC.

Ford started contributing to Bitcoin in February of 2012^[72] and would thereafter become one of the most prolific Maintainers in Bitcoin history, locking in second place for the most commits according to Github with 4920 to date, many of them merges and maintenance related updates to the work of other Contributors.

The Contributor Consensus Era

On January 21st, 2021 Van der Laan published a blog^[73] that would break with the tradition started by Nakamoto and Andresen, of having a Lead Maintainer for Bitcoin core development. In it, Van der Laan explained that she would start delegating many of her roles as Lead Maintainer, that Bitcoin was too large of a project now to use the model setup by Nakamoto and Andresen, and effectively that it was time to decentralize Bitcoin core development.

Van der Laan made explicit a series of duties that needed to be done by others and laid a road map for making the software release process of Bitcoin more censorship resistant, such as moving the Bitcoincore.org website to the ownership of an organization rather than be under her control, while encouraging mirrors. The setup of release distribution via torrents and possibly IPFS, skepticism towards Github.com and a call out to start looking for alternative code contribution platforms, and a threshold signing scheme for Maintainers to be able to sign releases via some kind of cryptographic consensus, rather than having one person be the final PGP signer of a release, among other ideas.

The blog post effectively marked the end of Van der Laan’s role as Lead Maintainer, and symbolized a maturation milestone in Bitcoin, which came months after the release of version 0.20.0 and only days after the version 0.21.0 release^[74].

Hannadii Stepanov known by the username “hebasto” gained commit access in March 19th 2021 to be GUI Maintainer^[75] for the Bitcoin client. Stepanov began contributing code to Bitcoin core in August 2018^[76], with over a thousand code contributions before becoming a Maintainer, placing him at 5th place in Github’s commits ranking for the project with 2070 locked in to date. Stepanov remains a Bitcoin Maintainer as of the time of writing.

Ava Chow gained commit access in December 12, 2020^[77] as the wallet Maintainer, after contributing since January 2016^[78]. Wielding the username “achow101” Chow is a well known Contributor whose efforts in the Bitcoin development community go beyond github contributions, including a significant portion of the historical research in this history of core Maintainers. Chow is also know to do Bitcoin core review livestreams on Twitch^[79] which gathers an active audience, helping further technical Bitcoin education. Chow ranks on Github as number 4 with most commits at 2198, and still has commit access as of the time of writing.

Gloria Zhao gained commit access in August 7th 2022 after being nominated by Contributor consensus^[80], for the role of mempool and policy Maintainer^[81]. Zhao started contributing in March of 2020^[82] and had at least 200 commits in Bitcoin core before gaining commit access. Today she ranks at number 9 according to Github with 777 commits in the repo. Zhao is a Maintainer to this day.

Russ Yanofsky gained commit access in June 10th of 2023^[83] after being nominated by Contributor consensus^[84], to the role of interface Maintainer. Russ specializes in modularization and multiprocess work which earned him the role, after contributing to the project since October 2016^[85], with 970 commits for 7th place in Github ranking. Yanofsky is known by the username “ryanofsky” and remains a Maintainer to this day.

Don’t miss your chance to own The Core Issue — featuring articles written by many Core Developers explaining the projects they work on themselves!

This piece is the Letter from the Editor featured in the latest Print edition of Bitcoin Magazine, The Core Issue. We’re sharing it here as an early look at the ideas explored throughout the full issue.

---

[1] https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014863.html 

[2] https://Nakamoto.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/1/ 

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20090106201347/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/ 

[4] https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/11/26/previously-unpublished-emails-of-Nakamoto-nakamoto-present-a-new-puzzle 

[5] https://www.ofnumbers.com/2018/10/01/interview-with-ray-dillinger/ 

[6] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/99674/how-do-devs-decide-who-should-have-commit-access-what-is-the-process/99676#comment112930_99676

[7] https://web.archive.org/web/20230406134017/http://gavinandresen.ninja/Nakamoto 

[8] https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3x7mrr/comment/cy29vkx/ 

[9] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31908 

[10] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1774750.0 

[11] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/contrib/verify-commits/README.md 

[12] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master/contrib/verify-commits/trusted-keys 

[13] https://mempool.space/block/0 

[14] https://Nakamoto.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/16/ 

[15] https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/1/tree/ 

[16] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=16.msg73#msg73 

[17] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Laszlo_Hanyecz 

[18] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238.msg2004#msg2004 

[19] https://www.bitcoin.com/Nakamoto-archive/emails/laszlo-hanec/1/ 

[20] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=437.msg3807#msg3807 

[21] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/4110f33cded01bde5f01a6312248fa6fdd14cc76#diff-118fcbaaba162ba17933c7893247df3aR1344 

[22] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/bd7d9140f915d68e0abfdcd7ebdbb681c87d18c7 

[23] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident 

[24] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0 

[25] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9524#msg9524 

[26] https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/139/log/ 

[27] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9531#msg9531 

[28] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=898.0 

[29] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2367.0;all 

[30] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=383.msg3198#msg3198 

[31] https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/165 

[32] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2228.msg29565#msg29565 

[33] https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/emails/mike-hearn/16/ 

[34] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits?before=a4e96cae7d3db3f7bfffd14a7fb6754ffbbc084e+46430 

[35] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2367.msg31651#msg31651 

[36] https://web.archive.org/web/20101218045728/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/develop/ 

[37] https://web.archive.org/web/20110708091605/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.21/ 

[38] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/86c0af514b59971f7a5c3876898165667cbbeb6b 

[39] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/86c0af514b59971f7a5c3876898165667cbbeb6b 

[40] https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hvevo/comment/d2t16mh/ 

[41] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits?author=dooglus 

[42] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/fbfbf94deb4224ce65bdbbc9151ddd44a4128753 

[43] https://businessabc.net/wiki/pieter-wuille 

[44] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/62b427ec5532065744f9836e6a7b1676428c3434 

[45] https://bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/jeff-garzik 

[46] https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.qgx99rxpr 

[47] https://github.com/laanwj?tab=overview&from=2011-05-01&to=2011-12-31 

[48] https://dl.acm.org/profile/81474651580 

[49] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/560078a7685b33bdc8d1a94631633cb2af841976 

[50] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/6ccff2cbdebca38e4913b679784a4865edfbb12a 

[51] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/50fac686541686191647ddabd87d6dae75c24c52 

[52] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9f3de58d83f54536076be44fe945f56670ef9b60 

[53] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11425;sa=showPosts;start=6000 

[54] https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3x7mrr/gmaxwell_unullc_no_longer_a_bitcoin_committer_on/cy29vkx/ 

[55] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.0

[56] https://web.archive.org/web/20140915022516/https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/04/bitcoin-core-Maintainer-wladimir-van-der-laan/ 

[57] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/Contributors 

[58] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master/contrib/verify-commits/trusted-keys 

[59] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/contrib/verify-commits/README.md 

[60] https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/[email protected]/ 

[61] https://x.com/_jonasschnelli_/status/1451268520159875080 

[62] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7921 

[63] https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-core-dev%40lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg00003.html 

[64] https://x.com/MarcoFalke/status/1627987123788824576 

[65] https://laanwj.github.io/2016/05/06/hostility-scams-and-moving-forward.html 

[66] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w&t=2878s 

[67] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/1ca050254145ebbbbf5910bfee2e82a45e465ca1 

[68] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/41f3e84aaca82540582fd5a93fd632e752c3e6bf 

[69] https://x.com/MarcoFalke/status/1627987123788824576 

[70] https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2019-06-06-Maintainers/ 

[71] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16162 

[72] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/27adfb2e0c1caeef3970605f519edf9058f119ef 

[73] https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html 

[74] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases?page=3 

[75] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21615 

[76] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/11b9dbb439a15ed275cba673fdc743c612ea374f 

[77] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23798 

[78] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/5ed2f16480142f0887cc1a6257ff53e2abc3e5b6 

[79] https://www.twitch.tv/achow101/ 

[80] https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-06-30.log 

[81] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524 

[82] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/2455aa5d7f54befeade05795ed8f5dd89d01042a 

[83] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27604 

[84] https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2023-05-04.log 

[85] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/18dacf9bd25154e184b097ee4e8f786d9be25637 

This post The Core Issue: The Role and History of Bitcoin Core Maintainers first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

BlackRock Posts Massive Bitcoin ETF Inflows as Morgan Stanley Debuts MSBT With Strong Early Demand

Inflows into U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs surged Thursday, led by BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust, which pulled in $269.3 million, its strongest single-day performance in five weeks. The move followed a period of volatility tied to geopolitical tensions and reversed two straight days of net outflows across the sector.

In total, the 12 U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $358.1 million in net inflows, signaling renewed investor demand as bitcoin trades below its recent highs, thanks to Farside data. 

Fidelity Investments’ FBTC posted the second-largest inflow at $53.3 million. Morgan Stanley’s newly launched Bitcoin Trust (MSBT) brought in $14.9 million on its second day of trading, marking what the bank described as its strongest ETF debut. The firm’s digital asset leadership indicated the product represents an early step in a broader pipeline of offerings.

Other issuers also participated in the rebound. Bitwise Asset Management and ARK Invest’s 21Shares fund added $11.7 million and $4.8 million, while Franklin Templeton and VanEck each saw about $2 million in inflows.

Year to date, BlackRock’s IBIT has attracted $1.5 billion in net inflows, even as bitcoin has declined from a 2026 peak near $97,000 to around $72,100. Company executives have said the fund’s investor base skews toward long-term holders.

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs ended 2025 with $56.59 billion in cumulative net inflows and now stand at $56.51 billion, leaving the category about $80 million below breakeven for 2026.

Morgan Stanley launches a bitcoin ETF

Earlier this week, Morgan Stanley entered the spot bitcoin ETF market with the launch of its Bitcoin Trust (MSBT), posting strong early demand and intensifying competition across the sector.

The fund recorded about $34 million in first-day trading volume and $30.6 million in net inflows, which Morgan Stanley’s Amy Oldenburg said marked the “best first day of trading for any of our ETFs.” MSBT carries a 14 basis point fee, undercutting several rival products and adding pressure to an already competitive fee environment.

JUST IN: Morgan Stanley’s Amy Oldenburg announces their spot Bitcoin ETF launch had their “best first day of trading for any of our ETFs” pic.twitter.com/cqpmJYpKKk

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) April 9, 2026

Despite the debut, U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs saw $94 million in net outflows. Fidelity’s FBTC and Ark & 21Shares’ ARKB led redemptions, while Grayscale’s GBTC also posted losses. BlackRock’s IBIT bucked the trend with $40.4 million in inflows.

The flows highlight ongoing rotation among institutional investors amid bitcoin price volatility, with traders taking profits after the asset climbed back above $70,000.

Morgan Stanley’s entry is seen as a structural shift, leveraging its $6 trillion wealth management network and thousands of financial advisors to distribute crypto exposure more broadly. Analysts say fee compression and distribution advantages will likely shape the next phase of competition.

Inflows into MSBT will be watched to see if traditional banks can challenge ETF leaders.

This post BlackRock Posts Massive Bitcoin ETF Inflows as Morgan Stanley Debuts MSBT With Strong Early Demand first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Could Be Quantum-Safe Without Protocol Changes, New Proposal Claims

A new research proposal claims it can make Bitcoin transactions resistant to quantum attacks without changing the network’s core rules, a goal that has drawn attention as concerns grow over future cryptographic risks.

In a paper published on April 9, Avihu Levy of StarkWare outlined “Quantum-Safe Bitcoin Transactions Without Softforks,” introducing a scheme called Quantum Safe Bitcoin, or QSB. The design aims to protect transactions from threats posed by quantum computers while remaining compatible with the existing Bitcoin protocol.

The proposal targets a known vulnerability in Bitcoin’s current design. Standard transactions rely on ECDSA signatures over the secp256k1 curve. In theory, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could potentially break this system by solving discrete logarithms, which would allow attackers to forge signatures and spend funds.

QSB replaces reliance on elliptic curve security with hash-based assumptions. Instead of trusting ECDSA, the scheme uses it as a verification mechanism while shifting security to hash pre-image resistance. This approach draws from earlier work known as Binohash, which embeds one-time signature schemes into Bitcoin Script.

JUST IN: Bitcoin developer Avihu Levy introduces “Quantum-Safe Bitcoin Transactions Without Softforks” pic.twitter.com/enghEoOq10

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) April 9, 2026

At the core of QSB is a “hash-to-signature” puzzle. The system hashes a transaction-derived public key using RIPEMD-160 and treats the output as a candidate ECDSA signature. Only a small fraction of random hashes meet the strict formatting rules required for valid signatures, creating a proof-of-work condition. The paper estimates the probability of success at about one in ~70.4 trillion attempts.

Bitcoin resistant to quantum attacks

Because the puzzle depends on hash properties rather than elliptic curve hardness, it remains resistant to Shor’s algorithm. A quantum attacker would gain only a quadratic speedup from Grover’s algorithm, leaving meaningful security margins. The paper estimates about 118-bit second pre-image resistance under a Shor threat model.

The construction works within Bitcoin’s existing scripting limits, including a cap of 201 opcodes and a maximum script size of 10,000 bytes. It uses legacy script structures and avoids any need for consensus changes or soft forks, a feature that may appeal to developers wary of protocol fragmentation.

The transaction process unfolds in three stages, the proposal claims. First, a “pinning” phase searches for transaction parameters that produce a valid hash-to-signature output, binding the transaction to a fixed structure. Next, two digest rounds select subsets of embedded signatures to generate additional proofs tied to the transaction hash. Finally, the transaction is assembled with all required preimages and verification data.

The design introduces tradeoffs. QSB transactions exceed standard relay policy limits, which means they would not propagate across the network under default settings. Instead, they would require direct submission to miners through services such as Slipstream. The scripts also consume significant space and computational resources.

Despite these constraints, the cost of generating a valid transaction appears within reach. The paper estimates total compute expenses between $75 and $150 using cloud GPUs, with the workload scaling across parallel hardware. Early testing reports successful puzzle solutions after several hours using multiple GPUs.

The project remains incomplete. While the paper and script generation tools are finished, parts of the pipeline, including full transaction assembly and broadcast, have not been demonstrated on-chain.

Still, the proposal adds to a growing body of research exploring how Bitcoin could adapt to a future with quantum computing. By avoiding protocol changes, QSB presents one path that relies on existing rules rather than consensus upgrades, a direction that may shape further debate on long-term network security.

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly license material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

This post Bitcoin Could Be Quantum-Safe Without Protocol Changes, New Proposal Claims first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

SEC Chair Paul Atkins, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, David Sacks Push Congress to Pass Crypto Market Structure Bill ‘Now’

Three prominent voices in finance, crypto, and policy urged Congress this week to move quickly on the Clarity Act, a long-awaited bill to define how cryptocurrencies and blockchain-based financial products operate under U.S. law.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called for the Senate Banking Committee to advance the legislation to President Trump’s desk, saying that Congress has spent years debating a framework to “onshore the future of finance.”

“Senate time is precious, and now is the time to act,” Bessent said on social media, echoing points from his Wall Street Journal op-ed that argued U.S. leadership in global finance depends on clear, durable digital-asset rules.

The Clarity Act, seen as a companion to the Genius Act signed by President Trump last year, seeks to establish regulatory boundaries between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 

The bill defines when a token qualifies as a security, sets operating pathways for trading platforms, and introduces new anti-fraud and anti-money-laundering measures.

David Sacks, who championed last year’s Genius Act on stablecoins and is the White House’s former Crypto Czar, endorsed Bessent’s call. He said the Clarity Act would provide “rules of the road” for all other digital assets. “Secretary Bessent is right — the time to act is now. Senate Banking, and then the full Senate, should pass market structure,” Sacks wrote. He added that he expects Congress to deliver the bill for President Trump’s signature.

SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins also joined the push. “The project is designed so once Congress acts, the SEC and CFTC are ready,” Atkins said on X. “It’s time for Congress to future-proof against rogue regulators and advance comprehensive market structure legislation.”

Bessent: Crypto innovation is going to other countries

In his op-ed, Bessent warned that the absence of clear crypto regulation has driven innovation overseas to jurisdictions like Abu Dhabi and Singapore. Without consistent U.S. rules, he wrote, developers and investors face uncertainty about registration, compliance, and enforcement.

“Nations that provide clarity attract innovation,” Bessent wrote. “The Clarity Act would restore confidence that digital-asset businesses can build and grow in the United States.”

The Genius Act last year established a framework for dollar-backed stablecoins, aligning blockchain-based payments with the U.S. dollar’s global role. The Clarity Act would extend that foundation to the broader digital-asset ecosystem, including tokenized securities, decentralized exchanges, and blockchain-based settlement systems. 

Supporters argue the crypto bill would enhance financial oversight while keeping blockchain innovation — and its associated jobs and tax revenue — within U.S. borders.

By codifying legal parameters, they say, the legislation would protect investors, reduce regulatory uncertainty, and keep the U.S. at the forefront of financial technology rather than ceding ground to foreign markets.

“The United States became the world’s financial center by leading during moments of technological change,” Bessent wrote. “Passing this legislation ensures that the next generation of finance is built on American rails, backed by American institutions, and denominated in American dollars.”

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly license material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

This post SEC Chair Paul Atkins, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, David Sacks Push Congress to Pass Crypto Market Structure Bill ‘Now’ first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Morgan Stanley’s Bitcoin ETF Debuts With $34 Million in Volume

Morgan Stanley has entered the spot bitcoin ETF market with the launch of its Bitcoin Trust (MSBT), adding a major new issuer to an increasingly competitive field defined by fee pressure, shifting flows, and institutional positioning.

The fund debuted with roughly $30.6 million in net inflows and about $34 million in trading volume, offering an early signal of demand from the bank’s vast wealth management network. MSBT carries a 14 basis point fee, undercutting many existing products and reinforcing a broader trend toward lower costs across the sector.

Despite the launch, U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs recorded about $94 million in net outflows on Wednesday. Large redemptions from Fidelity’s FBTC and Ark & 21Shares’ ARKB led the decline, while Grayscale’s GBTC also posted losses. BlackRock’s IBIT stood out with $40.4 million in inflows, extending its position as the dominant liquidity hub among spot bitcoin ETFs.

Market participants point to profit-taking as a key driver of the outflows. After bitcoin rebounded from near $67,800 to above $70,000 amid news of a temporary ceasefire tied to U.S. and Iran tensions, some institutional investors appear to have reduced exposure rather than add to positions. 

Over the last couple of days, bitcoin price has extended its upward momentum climbing from the high $66,000 range into the low $70,000s. The asset briefly consolidated before pushing higher on positive news out of the Middle East, reaching approximately $71,900 in recent trading. 

Bitcoin ETF competition

The arrival of MSBT adds another layer to the competitive landscape. Fee compression has emerged as a central theme since the first spot bitcoin ETFs launched, with issuers cutting costs to attract assets and defend market share. 

Lower fees tend to favor investors, though they pressure issuer margins and raise the stakes for scale and distribution.

Even with rising competition, IBIT retains a strong position due to deep liquidity and consistent inflows. Market structure suggests that leading funds with scale may maintain pricing power, especially if they continue to dominate flows. A meaningful shift would likely require sustained outflows from incumbents or the entrance of a large new competitor with aggressive pricing and distribution reach.

Looking ahead, the trajectory of ETF flows will depend on both macro conditions and bitcoin price action. Continued volatility tied to geopolitical risk, inflation expectations, and monetary policy could shape near-term demand. 

At the same time, the expansion of low-cost products such as MSBT signals that the fee war in spot bitcoin ETFs is far from over.

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly license material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

This post Morgan Stanley’s Bitcoin ETF Debuts With $34 Million in Volume first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

NYT Names Adam Back as Bitcoin’s Creator, but Back Says No

The New York Times published an investigation Tuesday arguing that Adam Back, a British cryptographer and longtime figure in the Bitcoin community, is the most credible candidate yet for Satoshi Nakamoto — the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin. 

Back denied the claim before the story ran, denied it inside the story, and denied it again in a public post on X after publication.

“I’m not satoshi, but I was early in laser focus on the positive societal implications of cryptography, online privacy and electronic cash, hence my ~1992 onwards active interest in applied research on ecash, privacy tech on cypherpunks list which led to hashcash and other ideas,” Back wrote on X.

The Times investigation leans on textual analysis of old emails and forum posts. The methodology focuses on writing patterns, including the use of double hyphens and British spelling conventions. The Times noted that early researchers had explored concepts such as peer-to-peer systems, proof-of-work, and routing models that looked like prototypes for Bitcoin, and that Back’s archived writing contained a high density of those overlaps.

Back, who developed Hashcash in 1997 — a proof-of-work system later incorporated into Bitcoin’s design — acknowledged the surface-level similarities but offered a structural counter. 

Because he wrote at length on the cypherpunks mailing list about electronic cash and privacy from around 1992 onward, he argued, his old writing is simply easier to match against Satoshi’s than the writing of contributors who posted far less. 

“The rest is a combination of coincidence and similar phrases from people with similar experience and interests,” Back wrote on X.

He also addressed a specific passage in the Times story that treated one of his remarks in a reporter interview as a possible slip. Back said the comment was about confirmation bias in the research process, not an accidental self-disclosure.

Adam Back, Satoshi identity claim faces skepticism

The report did not produce documentary proof — no private key demonstration, no verified direct communication from Satoshi’s wallet address, and no corroborating witness on the record. The case rests on stylometric analysis and pattern matching, tools that carry real analytical weight but have not, in prior Satoshi investigations, produced conclusions that the broader Bitcoin community has accepted.

Several credible voices expressed skepticism. Joe Weisenthal, a Bloomberg columnist and co-host of the Odd Lots podcast, said he was “not 100% convinced by the evidence or the conclusion.” He noted that shared political views on privacy and internet architecture were common across the cypherpunk cohort and do not single out any one person. He also pointed out that hyphenation habits vary and are a fragile basis for attribution.

Nicholas Gregory, an early Bitcoin participant in the U.K., said he did not believe Back was Satoshi based on personal interactions, according to CoinDesk reporting. He also raised a practical concern: public identification of the person behind the pseudonym, whoever that is, could put that individual and their family in physical danger. According to crypto exchange Arkham, Satoshi’s Bitcoin holdings are worth roughly $73 billion.

This is not the first time a major outlet has believed it solved the mystery. A 2024 documentary pointed to developer Peter Todd, who also denied the claim and whose case ultimately failed to persuade. 

This post NYT Names Adam Back as Bitcoin’s Creator, but Back Says No first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Even a 1% Bitcoin Allocation Can Drastically Reshape Portfolio Risk, Schwab Finds

A new research note from Charles Schwab is challenging a simple question many investors still ask: how much cryptocurrency is “right” for a portfolio. The answer, the firm argues, is less about prediction and more about psychology—specifically, how much volatility an investor can realistically live with.

The report focuses on exposure to Bitcoin and Ethereum, two of the most widely held digital assets. While they often enter portfolios as small “satellite” positions, Schwab finds they can behave like much larger holdings once risk is taken into account.

Even allocations as low as 1% to 3% can meaningfully reshape portfolio behavior, the analysis shows. That shift is not just about returns. It is about how a portfolio feels during stress. In sharp market declines, crypto does not sit quietly in the background. It moves first, and often further than traditional assets.

“Any allocation to cryptocurrency is likely to increase a portfolio’s volatility,” the report notes, pointing to historical drawdowns that have exceeded 70% for both Bitcoin and Ethereum in past cycles.

Schwab: Steady allocations vs. risk budget

The core message is not a warning to avoid crypto, but a reminder that its role changes depending on how it is used. Schwab outlines two frameworks investors tend to rely on. The first is familiar: build allocations using expected returns, volatility, and correlations with stocks and bonds. In practice, this method breaks down quickly because assumptions about future crypto returns vary widely.

A second approach shifts the focus. Instead of forecasting returns, investors set a “risk budget,” deciding how much total volatility they are willing to let crypto contribute. Under this lens, portfolio construction becomes less about conviction in price targets and more about tolerance for loss.

The firm stresses that there is no single correct allocation. That uncertainty, it argues, is part of the asset class itself. Crypto behaves differently across cycles, and those differences can be uncomfortable when markets turn.

In more conservative portfolios, even a small Bitcoin position can account for a disproportionate share of total risk. That dynamic forces a tradeoff: modest allocations may limit upside, but larger ones can overwhelm the stability of the broader portfolio.

Schwab also emphasized in the report that digital assets remain speculative. They are not backed by central banks, and they lack many of the protections found in traditional securities. Liquidity, custody, and fraud risks remain part of the equation.

The report did not dismiss the asset class. Instead, it places the decision back with the investor. The question is not whether crypto belongs in a portfolio in theory, but what level of uncertainty an investor is willing to accept in practice—and how much of that uncertainty they are willing to see reflected in every market swing.

Last week, Charles Schwab announced plans for a new “Schwab Crypto” account that would let clients buy and sell bitcoin directly through its platform, marking a deeper push into spot crypto trading. 

The offering, developed under Charles Schwab Premier Bank and currently on a waitlist pending regulatory approval, would put the firm in closer competition with platforms like Coinbase, Robinhood, and Webull. 

This post Even a 1% Bitcoin Allocation Can Drastically Reshape Portfolio Risk, Schwab Finds first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Slides Below $68,000 as Trump, Iran Tensions Rattle Markets 

Bitcoin price fell on Tuesday, retreating below the $68,000 level as global markets turned risk-averse ahead of escalating geopolitical tensions tied to a deadline set by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Iran. The move erased gains from the previous session, when the asset briefly pushed above $70,000 for the first time since March.

The bitcoin price dropped as much as 2.2% intraday and was last trading around $68,000, with broader digital asset markets also under pressure. 

The selloff comes as global markets react to rising uncertainty over the Middle East, where political and military tensions have intensified following Trump’s warning that Iran could face “severe consequences” if it does not comply with U.S. demands related to strategic maritime access through the Strait of Hormuz. The rhetoric has added fresh volatility across commodities, equities, and digital assets.

Traditional risk markets also weakened, with technology-heavy indices under pressure as investors reassessed exposure to growth and high-beta sectors. The bitcoin price has increasingly behaved like a macro-sensitive asset, trading in closer alignment with broader liquidity and risk sentiment rather than purely crypto-specific catalysts.

Bitcoin price is losing strength

The market is stuck in a tight range because demand is weak and fewer buyers are stepping in. This shows falling confidence, with rallies struggling to push through major resistance levels around $74,000–$75,000.

At the same time, options trading is making the market more unstable, with volatility and dealer hedging amplifying price swings instead of smoothing them out.

If Bitcoin price drops below about $68,000, it could trigger automated selling from dealers, which may speed up any downside move through a feedback loop.

“For dealers who have sold this downside protection, this range represents a net short gamma position. Consequently, any price depreciation below $68,000 is mechanically set to trigger programmatic spot selling by these dealers as they manage their delta exposure, thereby instigating a potent, self-reinforcing feedback loop,” Bitfinex analysts shared with Bitcoin Magazine. 

According to market data, Bitcoin price’s intraday decline extends a volatile stretch in which the asset has oscillated between renewed institutional demand and macro-driven selloffs. 

ETF flows into Bitcoin products have remained active in recent sessions, but price action has been dominated by short-term geopolitical developments rather than fund inflows.

Despite the pullback, Bitcoin price remains well above its early-year levels and continues to trade near historically elevated ranges, supported by institutional participation and continued inflows into U.S.-listed spot ETFs.

Iran de-escalation attempts

Tensions involving Iran have escalated sharply over the last two days as the United States warns of severe consequences if a deal is not reached to de-escalate the ongoing conflict. U.S. 

President Trump issued a stark warning, saying a “whole civilization will die tonight” unless Iran agrees to U.S. demands tied to the reopening of key energy routes. Reports indicate U.S. forces have carried out strikes on Iranian infrastructure, including targets near Kharg Island, which is critical to the country’s oil exports. 

The crisis is also centered on the Strait of Hormuz, where disruptions to shipping have intensified global energy market fears and raised concerns about wider regional escalation.

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly license material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

This post Bitcoin Price Slides Below $68,000 as Trump, Iran Tensions Rattle Markets  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Briefly Tops $70,000 as Donald Trump’s Iran Signals Rattle Markets

Bitcoin price pushed back toward the top of its recent range after a burst of geopolitical headlines tied to Donald Trump and tensions around the Strait of Hormuz.

The Bitcoin price touched $70,271 before easing to about $69,300, extending a move that triggered large liquidations across derivatives markets. Data from Bitcoin Magazine Pro and CoinGlass shows about $255 million in positions were wiped out over a 24-hour period, with short sellers accounting for the bulk of losses.

The move followed a series of conflicting statements from Trump, who threatened strikes on Iranian infrastructure while also signaling that negotiations could produce a deal within a day. In a post on Truth Social, Trump warned that Iran would face severe consequences if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, naming power plants and bridges as potential targets.

Hours later, Trump told Fox News that Iran is engaged in talks and suggested a resolution may be close. A report from Axios added that US and Iranian officials, along with regional intermediaries, are discussing terms for a 45-day ceasefire that could end the conflict.

The mixed messaging has kept markets on edge. Oil prices climbed to about $112 per barrel as traders priced in the risk of supply disruption tied to the closure of one of the world’s most important shipping routes. Higher energy costs have raised concern about inflation, with analysts warning US consumer prices could rise toward 3.7% if oil holds near current levels for several weeks.

JUST IN: Bitcoin rises above $69,000 pic.twitter.com/L1aruxkyAX

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) April 5, 2026

Bitcoin price’s tight range

Bitcoin price’s reaction points to its evolving role during periods of geopolitical stress. The asset has traded in a wide band between $65,000 and $75,000 in recent weeks, holding that range despite sharp swings across commodities and equities. 

While the bitcoin price remains below its prior peak above $126,000, its price action has shown signs of stability relative to earlier cycles.

Market structure also reflects a shift away from leverage-driven rallies. According to analysts, the latest move has been supported by steady spot demand rather than speculative positioning. Liquidations have cleared out bearish bets, with about $195 million in short positions closed during the recent move higher.

Institutional flows have provided another layer of support. US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded $22.3 million in net inflows last week, signaling continued interest from asset managers despite macro uncertainty. That demand has helped anchor prices near the upper end of the current range.

Downside risks remain tied to both macro developments and technical levels. Bitcoin Magazine analysts point to the $65,000 to $66,000 zone as a key support range. A break below that level could weaken demand and shift sentiment.

At the time of writing, the bitcoin price is $69,454.01.

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly license material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

This post Bitcoin Price Briefly Tops $70,000 as Donald Trump’s Iran Signals Rattle Markets first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Charles Schwab Teases Direct Bitcoin Trading With New ‘Schwab Crypto’ Account

Financial services giant Charles Schwab is preparing to expand deeper into digital assets, announcing plans for a forthcoming product that will allow clients to buy and sell cryptocurrencies directly through its platform.

The firm revealed that “Schwab Crypto” is in development and will be offered through Charles Schwab Premier Bank, positioning the product as a gateway for retail investors seeking direct exposure to leading cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. The company has opened a waitlist for clients interested in early access, though availability will be subject to regulatory approval and eligibility requirements.

The move marks a notable shift for Schwab, which until now has limited crypto exposure to indirect investment vehicles. Currently, clients can access digital asset markets through exchange-traded products (ETPs), crypto-related equities, and thematic funds. Examples include publicly traded firms like Coinbase, MicroStrategy, and Riot Platforms, as well as funds tied to blockchain and crypto industry performance.

All aboard the Charles Schwab Bitcoin train

Schwab’s entry into spot trading places it in more direct competition with established crypto platforms such as Coinbase, Robinhood, and Webull. 

CEO Rick Wurster first signaled the firm’s intent to enter spot crypto markets in late 2024, citing expectations for a shifting regulatory environment under the administration of Donald Trump. The company has since positioned itself to move once conditions allowed for broader participation by traditional financial institutions.

Schwab is also preparing additional crypto-related products, including a potential stablecoin offering following the passage of the GENIUS stablecoin bill.

A recent report from Charles Schwab found that Bitcoin volatility has declined significantly, with historical volatility falling to 42% in 2025 — about half its 2021 level — making it comparable to or lower than major tech stocks like Tesla and Nvidia. 

Despite fewer extreme swings, bitcoin still experiences sharp drawdowns, including a 32% drop in 2025 and a 50% peak-to-trough decline over three years. 

Long term, volatility remains elevated versus traditional assets. The report suggests bitcoin is maturing as it integrates into mainstream finance, with growing institutional adoption and ETF developments signaling increased acceptance.

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly license material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

This post Charles Schwab Teases Direct Bitcoin Trading With New ‘Schwab Crypto’ Account first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More

Bitcoin Magazine

Cathie Wood Calls Bitcoin’s 50% Crash a “Victory” as Market Tests New Floor

Nearly six months after the Oct. 10 flash crypto crash erased millions of dollars in a single day, Bitcoin remains under pressure, trading well below its recent peak. The asset reached an all-time high of $126,080 on Oct. 6, but has since fallen about 47% to roughly $67,000.

Despite the drawdown, Cathie Wood, a long-time BTC advocate and chief executive of ARK Investment Management, is urging investors to maintain a long-term perspective.

Wood, whose firm was among the first publicly listed asset managers to gain exposure to Bitcoin in 2015, has maintained an active presence in crypto-related equities. ARK Invest continues to trade shares of companies tied to the digital asset sector, including Coinbase, Robinhood Markets, Block, Circle Internet Group, Bitmine Immersion Technologies, and Bullish, adjusting positions in response to market conditions.

In an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box, Wood addressed the current downturn, framing the magnitude of BTC’s decline as a sign of maturation rather than weakness. 

She argued that a roughly 50% drop from peak levels represents a shift from the extreme volatility seen in earlier cycles, when Bitcoin routinely experienced drawdowns of 85% to 95%.

NEW: Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood says on CNBC that Bitcoin’s usual -85% collapses are “DONE”

“This is a prove technology, it’s a proven monetary system, and it’s a new asset class.” pic.twitter.com/j0OU62hWmj

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) April 3, 2026

According to Wood, such severe collapses are unlikely to recur. She described Bitcoin as a “proven technology” and a “new asset class,” suggesting that its market behavior has evolved alongside broader adoption and institutional participation. 

In her view, the current correction would be considered a “real victory” within the Bitcoin community if losses remain limited to around half of its peak value.

Bitcoin’s vicious cycles

Historical data supports the comparison to prior cycles, though the current downturn has yet to match earlier bear markets in severity. During the 2021–2022 cycle, Bitcoin fell nearly 80% from its then-record high of about $69,000, eventually bottoming near $15,600. 

Onchain data from Glassnode indicates that the present decline, measured against the October 2025 high, has reached roughly 52% at its lowest point.

All this is happening as bitcoin’s price decline forces a growing number of public companies and sovereign entities to unwind their BTC treasuries, marking a sharp reversal from the accumulation trend of the past two years. Firms that once championed long-term holding are now selling to manage liquidity, repay debt, and fund strategic pivots.

Companies like Riot Platforms, Genius Group, Empery Digital, Nakamoto Holdings, and Marathon Digital have all reduced holdings, in some cases significantly. Marathon alone sold over 15,000 BTC for $1.1 billion to cut debt, while Genius Group fully exited its position. Riot has also been offloading bitcoin as it shifts focus toward AI and high-performance computing infrastructure.

Even firms still committed to bitcoin are trimming reserves. Empery Digital sold part of its holdings to repay loans, while Nakamoto Holdings liquidated a smaller portion to support operations. Meanwhile, Bhutan has been reducing its state-backed bitcoin reserves after previously accumulating through mining.

Despite the sell-off, public companies still collectively hold about 1.16 million BTC, over 5% of the total supply. 

This post Cathie Wood Calls Bitcoin’s 50% Crash a “Victory” as Market Tests New Floor first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Source: Bitcoin Magazine – Read More