BTC $63,975.57 +1.76%
ETH $1,843.54 +0.93%
BNB $567.24 +0.12%
XRP $1.09 +0.59%
SOL $74.95 +0.42%
TRX $0.3220 -0.08%
DOGE $0.0722 +0.88%
ADA $0.1664 +4.83%
BCH $218.67 -1.61%
LINK $8.25 +0.88%
HYPE $59.23 +0.87%
AAVE $88.07 -2.57%
SUI $0.7360 +0.44%
XLM $0.1848 +1.04%
ZEC $539.79 +1.45%
BTC $63,975.57 +1.76%
ETH $1,843.54 +0.93%
BNB $567.24 +0.12%
XRP $1.09 +0.59%
SOL $74.95 +0.42%
TRX $0.3220 -0.08%
DOGE $0.0722 +0.88%
ADA $0.1664 +4.83%
BCH $218.67 -1.61%
LINK $8.25 +0.88%
HYPE $59.23 +0.87%
AAVE $88.07 -2.57%
SUI $0.7360 +0.44%
XLM $0.1848 +1.04%
ZEC $539.79 +1.45%

pond

All
Article
Flash

Rune: Base has lost community trust, and Cobie responded by stating that he will push Coinbase to be closer to on-chain users

In response to the recent community controversy surrounding Base, crypto KOL Rune questioned on the X platform, stating that Cobie's goal in taking over the Base App is to promote on-chain transactions, but the current management of Base is continuously undermining user trust, leading users to believe that "trusting anything related to Base for more than 24 hours is a mistake." Under this culture, it is difficult to attract new users.In response, Cobie stated that he took over the Base App and related Coinbase trading products a few days ago, but he is not responsible for the Base chain. He acknowledged that Coinbase has long had a distance from users, especially native crypto users, and that Base and Coinbase have overdrawn a lot of user trust due to some avoidable mistakes. He hopes to listen more to the voices of on-chain users in the future and create products that users truly want to use.Subsequently, Rune responded again, stating that Coinbase's biggest problem is not just the alienation from users, but the long-term neglect and even harm to its own users. He indicated that currently over 10,000 Base users have suffered about 99% asset loss due to trusting the Base/Coinbase management, and the management's attitude towards related events has further exacerbated community dissatisfaction.Rune believes that Base has the infrastructure to become the best Layer2 in the crypto industry, but what is truly lacking is a leadership willing to take responsibility for users. He expressed hope that Cobie could change this situation, but emphasized that the current issues with Base are not just about damaged trust, but that community trust has almost completely eroded.
3 hours ago

The South Korean Financial Commission responds to the controversy over single-stock leveraged ETFs: there is indeed an effect in preventing capital outflow, but it is not the main cause of stock market volatility

The Financial Services Commission of South Korea responded positively to the recent controversies surrounding single-stock leveraged exchange-traded funds (ETFs) when it released supplementary regulatory measures. Byeon Je-ho, the Director of the Capital Markets Bureau of the Financial Services Commission, clearly stated that launching leveraged ETF products targeting single stocks such as Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix in the domestic market has indeed had a significant effect in locking in domestic investment demand and preventing capital outflow to overseas leveraged markets like Hong Kong or the United States.In response to external accusations that single-stock leveraged ETFs are the "main culprit" behind the recent increase in volatility in the South Korean stock market, the Financial Services Commission refuted this claim. Byeon Je-ho pointed out that the recent dramatic market fluctuations cannot be solely explained by leveraged ETFs, with the core reason being the alternating expectations of the global semiconductor industry cycle. Data shows that from May 26 to July 10, the annualized daily return volatility of U.S. SanDisk (131%), Micron (123%), and Japan's Kioxia (118%) was higher than that of South Korea's SK Hynix (113%) and Samsung Electronics (96%). Additionally, some investors' contrarian operations have played a role in stabilizing stock prices to some extent.Regarding the demands from some politicians and market participants to "forcefully delist single-stock leveraged ETFs," the Financial Services Commission clearly rejected this request. The official explanation stated that delisting must meet statutory termination criteria such as a sharp decline in market value or a lack of liquidity providers (LPs), and currently, the market is showing signs of heating up due to excessive demand, which does not meet the delisting conditions. The Financial Services Commission indicated that such calls should be understood as the market's urgent expectation for strengthened compliance and robust regulatory measures.

first_img Cap team responds to Stabledrop controversy, admits early commitment errors and clarifies insider rumors

In response to the recent market controversy regarding the reduction of Stabledrop shares, Cap founder Benjamin issued a statement of apology and provided a detailed response. He stated that the team prematurely committed to an airdrop scale of 11 million before the funding was fully secured, but subsequent changes in the market environment led to a fundraising amount that fell short of expectations, resulting in the actual airdrop pool shrinking to 4.2 million.To avoid substantial principal losses for early YT (Yield Token) holders, the team temporarily adjusted the originally planned linear distribution scheme to a "capital protection but no profit" restructuring model, ensuring that no one incurs losses. This rule applies equally to all wallets. Meanwhile, in response to community concerns about a related whale address allegedly engaging in "internal score manipulation," Benjamin clarified that the wallet belongs to a former colleague and is not operated by the team, and that project treasury funds have not been utilized. Additionally, he emphasized that the Cap protocol is still operating healthily, and the decline in TVL that occurred over the weekend was mainly due to the surge in USDM lending rates on Aave for MegaETH, causing arbitrageurs to exit, which is unrelated to this airdrop incident. All redemptions have been processed smoothly.

Tim Draper responds to rumors of on-chain transfers: denies transferring Bitcoin, target price remains at $250,000

According to Cointelegraph, early Bitcoin investor and billionaire Tim Draper denied recent rumors about transferring a large amount of Bitcoin and stated that he "has not used any BTC assets."Previously, the blockchain analysis platform Lookonchain cited Arkham data indicating that a "wallet possibly related to Draper" transferred about 1,000 BTC, worth approximately $62 million, to Coinbase Prime, attracting market attention.The Arkham platform had labeled the related address as "Tim Draper" and noted that the wallet has a long interaction history with Coinbase Prime, but this label is based on AI inference, with limited confidence, and the true ownership cannot be confirmed.Tim Draper stated that the related claims are untrue and reiterated his long-term view: Bitcoin will reach a target price of $250,000 within a year. Records show that Draper purchased nearly 30,000 BTC for about $18.7 million in 2014, with an average price of about $632, which is currently worth about $1.9 billion, making him one of the earliest well-known institutional investors in Bitcoin.Meanwhile, Draper's $250,000 target price has been reiterated multiple times since 2018, but the timeline has continued to be pushed back, while Bitcoin's recent peak was about $126,080 (October 2025). The market still shows significant divergence regarding future trends.

Aave founder responds to rumors of Payward acquisition, will not sell AAVE at a 70% discount

Aave founder Stani Kulechov responded to reports regarding Kraken's parent company Payward's intention to acquire a 15% stake in the Aave protocol, stating that AAVE "cannot be sold at a 70% discount." Previously, CoinDesk reported that Payward was negotiating to acquire a 15% stake in Aave at a valuation of $385 million. Based on this valuation, it would only correspond to about 30% of the fully diluted valuation of AAVE tokens, which is significantly lower than the market valuation.Kulechov stated on X that the reports were not accurate. He did not completely deny that Aave Labs might sell some of its held AAVE tokens, but he mentioned that Aave Labs does indeed hold a certain amount of AAVE and that several market participants have discussed purchasing through direct or indirect means or engaging in deeper cooperation around long-term partnerships. Aave is the largest decentralized lending protocol in the Ethereum ecosystem. Kulechov stated that Aave currently has an annual revenue of approximately $134 million, with the related revenue flowing to Aave DAO. He had previously proposed a governance plan to redirect Aave Labs, protocol, and product revenues to Aave DAO and token holders.At the time of this rumor, Aave was experiencing some pressure. After the Kelp DAO incident in April, Aave's TVL significantly declined. Although Aave itself was not directly attacked, the KelpDAO cross-chain bridge attackers had used Aave to convert the stolen rsETH into other assets.

CoinUp responds to recent market rumors: Zhu Pan is not the operator of the platform, and the volatility of CPX mainly comes from concentrated selling pressure in the market

According to official news from CoinUp, regarding recent market discussions about CoinUp and CPX, CoinUp stated that Zhu Pan is not the operator of the CoinUp platform and does not participate in the core operations of the platform; his role is solely as a project party for a project launched on the CoinUp platform.CoinUp also expressed gratitude to users, the community, and the media for their attention and supervision of CPX. In response to the recent significant short-term price fluctuations of the CPX/USDT trading pair, the platform previously announced that this fluctuation was mainly due to concentrated selling pressure from the market, and the specific reasons are currently under further investigation and verification, with updates to be provided in a timely manner based on the progress of the investigation.CoinUp emphasized that after a comprehensive security check of the platform, it has not suffered from hacker attacks, data breaches, or system vulnerabilities; the wallet system, account system, and asset custody are all in a secure and controllable state. The platform's recharge, withdrawal, and trading functions are operating normally, user assets are secure, and account data is complete, with no reported losses of user assets.CoinUp stated that it will continue to improve its risk control monitoring mechanisms, maintain market trading order, and advise users to rely on official channel information, view market fluctuations rationally, and pay attention to controlling trading risks.

Axelar responds to security incident: Axelar and IBC are unaffected, the vulnerability originates from a third-party token contract's "infinite minting" issue

The cross-chain protocol Axelar Network released a statement regarding the recent security incident related to Secret Network, stating that there is a misunderstanding within the community about the event. Both Axelar and the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC) were not attacked or compromised. The affected token smart contracts were neither developed, deployed, nor maintained by Axelar, and Axelar's firewall mechanism also prevented the impact from spreading to other chains.It is reported that the exploited contract is a forked version based on CW20-ICS20, but the developers removed two core security checks, resulting in an "infinite minting" vulnerability. By deleting the verification mechanisms originally used to prevent such issues, this fork altered the original trust model of the contract and did not undergo a new security audit.Axelar Network explained that anyone can deploy contracts for cross-chain asset wrapping through IBC, and similar contracts have also been used to wrap tokens from other chains into Secret Network. However, the Secret side fork version in this incident has vulnerabilities due to the removal of key security checks. This incident is not a unique logical flaw, nor is it an issue with the IBC protocol itself, but rather a security risk introduced by modifications to third-party contracts.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.