L73

Game over ?

🚩 $1 TRILLION wiped out from stocks, metals and crypto in 4 hours. Crazy 🙃

🔔Shido Network: When a Community Becomes a Project’s Strength Some communities are measured by their follower counts. Others reveal their strength the day you publish an article about their project. With #ShidoNetwork, my experience falls into the second category. Every time I publish something about Shido, the contrast on my account is striking: more likes than all my other posts combined, along with retweets from many different community members. This personal account does not claim to measure the entire community. It describes something more tangible: the ability to rally together, raise awareness, and support a project its members believe in. ✅ A Community That Does More Than Watch Publishing an article means starting a conversation without knowing who will pay attention. When readers respond and choose to share it with their own audiences, they extend its reach. That is exactly what I see with Shido. The support does not come solely from an official account or a single person sharing the content. It comes from many different members. Each contributes in their own way, helping the content circulate and broadening the conversation around the project. The word that best describes this experience is mobilization. A visible collective effort that turns individual interest into shared support. ✅ Behind the Numbers Are People Who Help Spread the Word A follower count alone does not tell the story of a community. My experience with Shido is about something else: people who notice a post, give it their attention, and decide to pass it on. A like signals interest. A retweet goes a step further: it gives the content a place on someone’s own timeline and introduces it to other readers. When these actions come from multiple members, they take on a collective dimension. The article no longer relies solely on its author’s audience. It reaches a community that helps distribute it. That is the involvement that stands out to me: the members I see interacting do not simply follow Shido. They help others discover it. Among those showing their support, Bjorn adds a particularly meaningful dimension to my experience. Seeing one of Shido’s creators like my articles shows that the attention paid to content does not come only from the community. It also comes from someone directly involved in building the project. For a content creator, that gesture matters. The published work is noticed, then supported through a share or a like. In my case, it creates a connection between the person writing, the members responding, and one of the network’s creators. This does not mean every post receives the same response. But this experience deserves to be shared for what it is: a concrete example of connection and support. ✅ Believing in the Project and Showing It Belief can remain silent. It can also translate into simple actions: reading, responding, sharing, and helping an article reach more people. It is this second form of support that I encounter around Shido Network. These interactions are neither a guarantee of success nor a technical assessment of the network. They reveal something else: members willing to devote their attention and some of their own visibility to a project they want to see move forward. That is where the community strength I have witnessed lies. Not in an abstract promise, but in a series of actions that make support tangible. ✅ Strength You Can See in the Interactions I am not speaking on behalf of every Shido member. I am speaking as an author who publishes content about the project and notices a clear difference in how those articles are received. That difference has faces, accounts, and shares behind it. It comes from many members, as well as Bjorn himself. Through this experience, Shido Network reveals a community that does not leave its support at the level of good intentions. It makes that support visible, post after post. That is what makes me believe Shido can succeed. A project can be ambitious and high-quality, but product quality alone is no longer enough to make it a success. Many other projects have similar strengths. ➡️ That is where the community makes all the difference!

The $6.3 Billion Hack That Could Redefine Binance: Can the Exchange Turn a Catastrophe into Proof of Resilience? #Binance has just suffered the largest cryptocurrency theft ever recorded, with an estimated $6.3 billion affected. Yet the exchange says customer funds remain covered and has announced that it has set aside more than $6.34 billion to address the fallout. Behind that pledge lies a decisive test: can Binance demonstrate its financial strength after being hacked? On October 29, Binance confirmed a major security incident. Unauthorized withdrawals reportedly allowed attackers to drain approximately $6.3 billion in assets. According to Reuters, this would make it the largest cryptocurrency theft ever recorded. The figure alone is enough to send shockwaves through the industry. But it is not, by itself, enough to assess an exchange’s financial strength. The real question is different: can a company absorb a loss of this magnitude, protect its customers, and restore confidence? That is precisely the test Binance now faces. ✅ An Attack on Withdrawal Systems, Not Necessarily on Private Keys According to Binance’s initial disclosures, the attack may have begun with the compromise of a DevOps engineer’s laptop. The attacker then reportedly accessed a service container and submitted unauthorized withdrawals. This distinction is crucial because it changes how the incident should be understood. A hack does not automatically mean an attacker has obtained the private keys to every wallet. An attacker can instead compromise the system that authorizes or executes withdrawals. That is what Binance’s preliminary findings suggest: the exchange says it has found no evidence that private keys were leaked. Richard Teng nevertheless emphasized that the attack involved a complex process, rather than the simple misuse of a single engineer’s permissions. These findings remain preliminary, and the technical report promised by the exchange will be critical. ✅ An Emergency Response and a Race Against Time Binance suspended withdrawals, revoked the relevant address permissions, and began reviewing its withdrawal security systems. It is also cooperating with authorities and blockchain analytics firms. Coordination with stablecoin issuers has been one of the most important aspects of the response. #Circle, #Tether, and #Ripple announced measures to immobilize assets linked to the attack. #Binance estimates that approximately $3 billion in funds has been frozen. This effort could reduce the ultimate losses. It also demonstrates an ability to act quickly alongside major partners across the ecosystem. But one shortcut must be avoided: frozen funds are not the same as recovered funds. The frozen amount cannot simply be added to the resources set aside to conclude that the entire loss has already been neutralized. ✅ The Figure That Changes the Picture On October 30, #Reuters reported that #Binance had set aside more than $6.34 billion in company funds to cover the consequences of the attack, including $5 billion already held in the affected token assets. This is the strongest argument in favor of the exchange’s resilience. Faced with an estimated $6.3 billion loss, Binance is not claiming to rely solely on its SAFU emergency fund or on recovering the stolen assets. It says it will cover the losses using its own resources. That announcement still needs verification. A public statement is not, in itself, proof of solvency. The updated proof of reserves promised after remediation will be among the most closely watched disclosures. ✅ Why SAFU Does Not Explain Everything #SAFU, or the Secure Asset Fund for Users, is the emergency fund Binance established in 2018 to protect users in the event of attacks or other emergencies. Previously available public information described a fund generally maintained at around $1 billion. Against an incident estimated at $6.3 billion, it would therefore be misleading to suggest that SAFU automatically covers everything. Binance’s pledge rests on a combination of SAFU and company funds. It is that combination not the emergency fund alone that supports its commitment to cover all losses. SAFU should not be confused with government-backed deposit insurance either. It is a Binance-specific mechanism. ✅ The Most Sensitive Issue: The Stolen Assets Backed Customer Balances A #CoinDesk analysis found that "Binance 14", the wallet at the center of the attack, appeared in Binance’s October 1 proof of reserves. The stolen assets were therefore part of the reserves presented as backing customer balances. This is what makes the incident more complicated than a straightforward theft of corporate funds. Two things can be true at the same time: - Assets used to back customer balances were stolen. - Binance can preserve customers’ claims by replacing those assets with its own resources. Saying that "customer funds are safe" therefore does not mean the hack affected only assets unrelated to customer deposits. Under Binance’s stated response, it means the company intends to fill the gap using its own resources. Customers’ actual protection will depend on that commitment being fulfilled. ✅ Proof of Reserves, but Not a Comprehensive Guarantee Binance already operates a proof-of-reserves system using technologies including Merkle trees and zk-SNARK proofs. It allows users to verify that their balances are included in the customer liabilities calculation presented by the exchange. That is a useful tool. But it does not answer every question. Proof of reserves can help demonstrate that available assets cover customer balances at a particular point in time. It does not replace a comprehensive financial audit of the group or a full technical explanation of the vulnerability that was exploited. After an incident of this magnitude, the snapshot that matters is not the one from October 1. It is the one published after remediation. Binance itself has announced that an updated report will follow. ✅ What Binance Must Prove Resilience is not measured solely by a company’s ability to announce that it will cover losses. It is measured by its ability to deliver on that promise without disrupting its operations. Four developments will be decisive: 1 - A post-incident proof of reserves showing that customer balances remain covered. 2 - The sustained restoration of withdrawals. 3 - A convincing technical report explaining how the attack happened and how it was contained. 4 - The actual return or recovery of some of the frozen funds. Until these developments are confirmed, Binance’s financial strength remains a credible proposition, but not a demonstrated conclusion. ✅ The Paradox That Could Define What Comes Next Binance now faces an unusual paradox. A $6.3 billion hack would, in theory, be expected to devastate confidence in an exchange. Yet the way Binance absorbs the shock could become its strongest demonstration of financial strength. If it fully covers the losses, restores services, and publishes verifiable evidence, the incident could reinforce its image as an exchange capable of surviving an extreme crisis. If the pledge takes too long to materialize, withdrawals remain suspended, or the published reserves fail to convince, the hack could instead mark a lasting turning point in how its risks are perceived. The battle is therefore not only taking place on-chain. It is also a battle for trust. Binance has promised to cover every loss. It has announced the resources required. What remains to be seen is whether it can turn that announcement into proof. This article does not constitute financial advice. Cryptoassets and centralized exchanges carry significant risks. Do your own research and consult a qualified professional before making financial decisions.

JUST IN: Binance says it will cover all losses following the suspected hack.

10 biggest crypto hacks in history: - Binance: $5.8B (2026) - LuBian: $3.5B (2020) - Bybit: $1.46B (2025) - Ronin Network: $625M (2022) - Poly Network: $611M (2021) - BNB Bridge: $570M (2022) - Coincheck: $534M (2018) - FTX: $477M (2022) - Mt. Gox: $470M (2014) - Bitget: $387M (2026)

🔔#Crypto Wants to Take Over Wall Street with the #NYSE Owner’s Blessing. Tech Giants Are Slamming the Door in Its Face ! The owner of the New York Stock Exchange is opening the door to tokenized stocks. But Microsoft, Alphabet, and other major companies are refusing to let their shares through. Behind this standoff lies a fundamental question: who gets to decide how their stocks can be traded ? Crypto thought it had found a powerful ally to help it enter Wall Street : Intercontinental Exchange, or #ICE, the group that owns the New York Stock Exchange. Alongside crypto exchange #OKX, it backs OKXICE, a proposed platform designed to trade stocks as tokens on a blockchain. On paper, the partnership looks spectacular: a crypto company teaming up with a pillar of traditional finance to transform stock trading. But several of the companies involved do not want to come aboard. Microsoft, Alphabet Google’s parent company, Goldman Sachs, McDonald’s, and others have objected to tokenized versions of their shares being traded on the platform. The number of opposing companies reached 22 in an October 23 document reported on by #Reuters. ✅ A Growing Backlash And the list appears to be getting longer. According to journalist Eleanor Terrett, cited by several outlets on October 27, #IBM, #Oracle, #Intel, and #IonQ have also filed objections. Those additional refusals would bring the total to 26 companies. That updated count comes from her reporting, separate from the document previously covered by Reuters. The paradox is striking: some companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange are rejecting a project backed by the group that owns that very exchange. Other opponents, including #Microsoft and #Alphabet, are listed on Nasdaq. The exchange’s owner can open the door. That does not mean companies will agree to walk through it. ✅ Turning Stocks into Tokens: What Is the Point ? Stock tokenization involves representing a share as a digital token that can be traded on a blockchain. Supporters promise benefits such as round-the-clock trading and faster transaction settlement. The #OKXICE project initially planned to offer tokenized versions of 63 stocks. For everyday investors, the pitch is straightforward: buy or sell exposure to a company with availability closer to that of crypto markets, rather than relying solely on traditional stock exchange hours. But a technological promise is not enough to secure the approval of the companies whose shares are involved. And that is precisely where the project is running into resistance. ✅ Why Are They Saying No ? That is the central question and one where it is important not to invent an answer. The document listing the first 22 objections does not explain the companies’ motivations, according to Reuters’ reporting as covered by Quartz. There is therefore no basis for claiming that Microsoft is “afraid of blockchain” or that Goldman Sachs wants to "block crypto". The established fact is more specific: these companies oppose tokenized versions of their shares being traded through this particular project. That does not demonstrate a rejection of all tokenization or every use of blockchain. The objections restrict which stocks this platform can offer under the relevant framework; they do not, by themselves, prohibit the entire tokenized stock market. The distinction matters. Rejecting a particular model, intermediary, or framework does not mean rejecting a technology forever. ✅The Real Power Struggle : Control This dispute highlights a tension: modernizing how a stock is traded depends on more than the ability to create a token. It also requires a framework and participants willing to take part. In this case, companies have an opportunity to object under the arrangement being used by the project, and several are choosing to exercise it. The issue then becomes one of control: who can offer a digital version of a security, under what conditions, and with what say for the company concerned ? That is an interpretation of the conflict, not a motivation officially stated by every opponent. But it explains why this story goes beyond a simple clash between financial incumbents and newcomers. On one side, the owner of a major stock exchange is backing tokenization. On the other, some of the world’s best-known technology companies oppose having their shares included in this project. The dividing lines are less obvious than the slogan "crypto versus Wall Street" suggests. ✅ An Open Door Does Not Mean a Market Has Been Won These refusals do not prove that stock tokenization is doomed. They do show, however, that a major partner and blockchain infrastructure are not enough to win everyone over. For OKXICE, the challenge is no longer just offering a new way to trade stocks. It is also persuading companies to let their shares become part of it. Crypto has found an ally at the top of Wall Street. It is now discovering that the owner of the building does not get the final say on everything traded inside. 👉 This article does not constitute financial advice. Cryptoassets and tokenized products carry risks: do your own research and consult a qualified professional before making investment decisions.

🔔Stablecoins : The Battle for Digital Dollars Is Also Happening Behind the Scenes A new digital dollar does not become useful simply because it exists. People and businesses still need ways to buy it, transfer it, and integrate it into services they already use. That is the significance of the announcement made on October 27: zerohash, a financial infrastructure provider, says it is making the Open USD stablecoin, or #OUSD, available to its partners. Behind this technical announcement lies a simple question: to bring cryptocurrencies into everyday life, do we need to create a new app or integrate them into the tools people already use ? ✅ A Digital Dollar and a Gateway to Distribution A stablecoin is a token designed to maintain a stable value relative to a reference asset, usually a currency such as the US dollar. But creating such a token is not enough to turn it into a widely used payment method. It also needs connections to businesses, platforms, and financial networks. #Zerohash operates in this less visible part of the ecosystem. Its infrastructure allows partners to integrate digital asset services without having to build everything themselves. With this announcement, OUSD becomes another option available through that infrastructure. Imagine a company that wants to offer digital dollar transfers to its customers. Rather than building every technical connection from scratch, it can rely on a provider that handles some of the complexity. That is the role zerohash aims to play with OUSD. ✅ What the Announcement Actually Changes According to zerohash, its partners can now integrate OUSD into services such as account funding, payment collection, payouts, and treasury management. The stablecoin is supported on #Base, #Ethereum, #Solana, and #Tempo. The company also says partners can enable this functionality through their existing integrations. In other words, businesses already using its tools do not need to rebuild their entire technical infrastructure to add OUSD. That is what makes the announcement interesting: this is not simply about putting another token on the market. It is about making it easier for businesses to access that token and potentially put it to work. ✅ Why the Visa and Marqeta Names Attract Attention #Zerohash names Visa Direct and Marqeta among the partners it supports. Those names offer a sense of the types of businesses its infrastructure can connect with. However, an important distinction must be made: this announcement does not mean #Visa or #Marqeta have already rolled out OUSD to their customers. It establishes that OUSD is available within zerohash’s infrastructure not that every partner has adopted it. The difference matters. A product being available in a catalogue does not mean every customer has chosen it. ✅ The Bigger Question: Making the Technology Invisible Perhaps the most interesting angle is this: stablecoin adoption could grow without users needing to understand the blockchains those tokens run on. In that scenario, a business would choose a service for collecting or sending funds. Its provider would handle the technical connections in the background. The user would mainly experience a financial service, without necessarily seeing the crypto infrastructure underneath. Zerohash’s announcement illustrates that possible direction: making a digital dollar accessible through infrastructure businesses already use, rather than asking each company to build its own system. This remains a strategic interpretation of the announcement, not proof of mass adoption. ✅ Available Does Not Mean Adopted The press release does not provide figures showing how many partners have actually enabled OUSD, how many customers use it, or what payment volumes it processes. Real-world usage will therefore matter more than availability alone when assessing its success. Another important point: technical integration does not answer every question about a stablecoin. The release reviewed does not provide enough detail about OUSD’s reserves, redemption terms, or protections for holders to fully assess its risks.globenewswire Zerohash also notes that certain offerings depend on jurisdiction and regulatory approvals. Its accounts do not benefit from US FDIC or SIPC protections. A service involving digital assets should therefore not be confused with an insured bank deposit. This story deserves more than a headline announcing "another stablecoin". It points to a quieter competition: the race among companies seeking to become the intermediaries between digital dollars and their future users. For OUSD, the technical gateway has opened. The next question is who will walk through it. 👉 This article does not constitute financial advice. Cryptoassets carry significant risks: do your own research and consult a qualified professional before making financial decisions.

Good work 😎

😎🙏

Step by Step 😎

One of the best propfirm. Without evaluation Crazy 😎