7*24

Hot topic

Market

Activities

On April 13, Genius, a Perp DEX trading terminal supported by YZiLabs, announced the addition of a "refund" feature to its airdrop program in response to widespread community concerns regarding token distribution. According to the official announcement, users can choose to burn their entire GENIUS airdrop allocation within 48 hours after the Token Generation Event (TGE) in exchange for a refund of the net fees charged by the platform. Genius emphasized that the refund is based on net fees rather than total fees—the platform has already returned over $7 million to the trading community and paid out over $1.3 million in referral rewards, both of which have been deducted from the refundable amount. Furthermore, the refund only covers the fees collected by Genius itself; fees charged by third-party protocols (such as PancakeSwap) are not eligible for a refund. The official statement noted that the decision to hold GENIUS or apply for a refund is entirely up to the users, and it warned that any misinformation regarding "partial refunds" will be addressed immediately.

[Genius Responds to Airdrop Controversy, Introduces Refund Option Within 48 Hours Post-TGE]On April 13, Genius, a Perp DEX trading terminal supported by YZiLabs, announced the addition of a "refund" feature to its airdrop program in response to widespread community concerns regarding token distribution. According to the official announcement, users can choose to burn their entire GENIUS airdrop allocation within 48 hours after the Token Generation Event (TGE) in exchange for a refund of the net fees charged by the platform. Genius emphasized that the refund is based on net fees rather than total fees—the platform has already returned over $7 million to the trading community and paid out over $1.3 million in referral rewards, both of which have been deducted from the refundable amount. Furthermore, the refund only covers the fees collected by Genius itself; fees charged by third-party protocols (such as PancakeSwap) are not eligible for a refund. The official statement noted that the decision to hold GENIUS or apply for a refund is entirely up to the users, and it warned that any misinformation regarding "partial refunds" will be addressed immediately.

Genius Responds to Airdrop Controversy, Introduces Refund Option Within 48 Hours Post-TGE

On April 13, the Hong Kong police's 'Cyber Defender' platform revealed that a case of online romance fraud occurred in the past week, resulting in a single loss exceeding HKD 2 million. It is reported that the scammer proactively followed a 50-year-old female victim on Instagram and initiated a conversation through comments, quickly establishing a romantic relationship. The scammer then claimed to be a 'cryptocurrency investment expert' and lured the victim with promises of guaranteed profits. The scammer first requested the victim to transfer HKD 40,000 as an 'account opening fee,' and then coaxed her into making seven cash trips to a physical exchange store to convert to USDT, which was subsequently transferred to the scammer's account via an electronic wallet. Once the funds were received, the scammer immediately 'disappeared' and became unreachable. The police remind citizens to be vigilant when forming online relationships, and if someone claims to be an investment expert and requests a transfer for any reason, they should stop and think calmly.

[Woman in Hong Kong Loses Over HKD 2 Million to Cryptocurrency Investment Scam via Online Romance]On April 13, the Hong Kong police's 'Cyber Defender' platform revealed that a case of online romance fraud occurred in the past week, resulting in a single loss exceeding HKD 2 million. It is reported that the scammer proactively followed a 50-year-old female victim on Instagram and initiated a conversation through comments, quickly establishing a romantic relationship. The scammer then claimed to be a 'cryptocurrency investment expert' and lured the victim with promises of guaranteed profits. The scammer first requested the victim to transfer HKD 40,000 as an 'account opening fee,' and then coaxed her into making seven cash trips to a physical exchange store to convert to USDT, which was subsequently transferred to the scammer's account via an electronic wallet. Once the funds were received, the scammer immediately 'disappeared' and became unreachable. The police remind citizens to be vigilant when forming online relationships, and if someone claims to be an investment expert and requests a transfer for any reason, they should stop and think calmly.

Woman in Hong Kong Loses Over HKD 2 Million to Cryptocurrency Investment Scam via Online Romance

On April 13, U.S. President Trump stated on his personal social media platform that the United States will implement a blockade on ships entering and leaving Iranian ports at 10 AM Eastern Time. Following unsuccessful negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, President Trump expressed on April 12 that he does not care whether Iran returns to the negotiating table, declaring that the blockade will take effect at 10 AM Eastern Time on April 13. He also expressed disappointment over NATO's lack of support for the U.S. in the conflict with Iran.

[Trump Announces Port Blockade on Iran Ships Starting April 13]On April 13, U.S. President Trump stated on his personal social media platform that the United States will implement a blockade on ships entering and leaving Iranian ports at 10 AM Eastern Time. Following unsuccessful negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, President Trump expressed on April 12 that he does not care whether Iran returns to the negotiating table, declaring that the blockade will take effect at 10 AM Eastern Time on April 13. He also expressed disappointment over NATO's lack of support for the U.S. in the conflict with Iran.

Trump Announces Port Blockade on Iran Ships Starting April 13

On April 13, PeckShield reported that 1 billion DOT tokens were anomalously minted and sold on the Ethereum chain. On-chain data shows that about an hour ago, attackers manipulated administrator permissions to transfer control of the contract to a malicious address, subsequently minting 1 billion DOT and immediately selling them off, causing the token price to plummet from $1.22 to nearly zero. The situation is still developing, and Polkadot officials have yet to respond. The target of this attack was bridging assets on Ethereum, not the native Polkadot chain.

[Polkadot Cross-Chain Bridge Attacked, 1 Billion DOT Maliciously Minted and Sold Off]On April 13, PeckShield reported that 1 billion DOT tokens were anomalously minted and sold on the Ethereum chain. On-chain data shows that about an hour ago, attackers manipulated administrator permissions to transfer control of the contract to a malicious address, subsequently minting 1 billion DOT and immediately selling them off, causing the token price to plummet from $1.22 to nearly zero. The situation is still developing, and Polkadot officials have yet to respond. The target of this attack was bridging assets on Ethereum, not the native Polkadot chain.

Polkadot Cross-Chain Bridge Attacked, 1 Billion DOT Maliciously Minted and Sold Off

According to monitoring by 1M AI News, MiniMax recently uploaded the weights of its 229 billion parameter model M2.7 to Hugging Face, claiming it to be 'open source.' However, the license explicitly states that all commercial use is prohibited without written authorization from MiniMax. The definition of 'commercial use' is broad, encompassing paid services, commercial APIs, and any commercial purpose for fine-tuned versions, which prevents third-party platforms like OpenRouter from deploying M2.7 for external inference services. The license is marked as 'Modified-MIT,' but the true MIT license imposes no restrictions on usage. Previously, M2 and M2.5 were under standard MIT licenses, making M2.7 the first instance of MiniMax tightening its terms. The open source community has expressed strong dissatisfaction with this move. A popular post in the Hugging Face discussion forum states that M2.7 is 'proprietary code with viewable weights, not open source,' while a related Reddit thread titled 'MiniMax M2.7 is NOT open source - DOA License' echoes this sentiment. Developer JoeSmith245 compared the license terms to the now-discredited advertising clause in the BSD 3-clause license, pointing out its incompatibility with the GPL and labeling it as 'a junk release,' leading him to halt downloads in favor of Qwen 3.5. Submission records from Hugging Face also indicate that approximately six hours before the weights went live, a version of the license allowing commercial use briefly existed in the repository before being replaced with the current non-commercial version. The AI industry has long conflated the concepts of 'public weights' and 'open source,' but there is a fundamental difference: public weights merely allow visibility of model parameters, while open source means freedom to use and commercialize. MiniMax went public in January this year on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, with an IPO valuation of approximately $6.5 billion, and its current market capitalization is around $38 billion. The open source strategies of M2 and M2.5 helped it establish a reputation in the developer community, while the tightening of licenses for M2.7 is a common path for publicly traded companies to convert developer traffic into API revenue. Zhizhu AI's GLM-5 Turbo has also gone closed source, with leading Chinese AI companies collectively shifting from open to closed models. However, the cost of restrictive licenses is evident: Google's Gemma 3 has seen adoption rates far below its performance level, forcing Gemma 4 to revert to the Apache license.

[MiniMax M2.7 Claims to be Open Source but Prohibits Commercial Use, Sparking Strong Discontent in the Open Source Community]According to monitoring by 1M AI News, MiniMax recently uploaded the weights of its 229 billion parameter model M2.7 to Hugging Face, claiming it to be 'open source.' However, the license explicitly states that all commercial use is prohibited without written authorization from MiniMax. The definition of 'commercial use' is broad, encompassing paid services, commercial APIs, and any commercial purpose for fine-tuned versions, which prevents third-party platforms like OpenRouter from deploying M2.7 for external inference services. The license is marked as 'Modified-MIT,' but the true MIT license imposes no restrictions on usage. Previously, M2 and M2.5 were under standard MIT licenses, making M2.7 the first instance of MiniMax tightening its terms. The open source community has expressed strong dissatisfaction with this move. A popular post in the Hugging Face discussion forum states that M2.7 is 'proprietary code with viewable weights, not open source,' while a related Reddit thread titled 'MiniMax M2.7 is NOT open source - DOA License' echoes this sentiment. Developer JoeSmith245 compared the license terms to the now-discredited advertising clause in the BSD 3-clause license, pointing out its incompatibility with the GPL and labeling it as 'a junk release,' leading him to halt downloads in favor of Qwen 3.5. Submission records from Hugging Face also indicate that approximately six hours before the weights went live, a version of the license allowing commercial use briefly existed in the repository before being replaced with the current non-commercial version. The AI industry has long conflated the concepts of 'public weights' and 'open source,' but there is a fundamental difference: public weights merely allow visibility of model parameters, while open source means freedom to use and commercialize. MiniMax went public in January this year on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, with an IPO valuation of approximately $6.5 billion, and its current market capitalization is around $38 billion. The open source strategies of M2 and M2.5 helped it establish a reputation in the developer community, while the tightening of licenses for M2.7 is a common path for publicly traded companies to convert developer traffic into API revenue. Zhizhu AI's GLM-5 Turbo has also gone closed source, with leading Chinese AI companies collectively shifting from open to closed models. However, the cost of restrictive licenses is evident: Google's Gemma 3 has seen adoption rates far below its performance level, forcing Gemma 4 to revert to the Apache license.

MiniMax M2.7 Claims to be Open Source but Prohibits Commercial Use, Sparking Strong Discontent in the Open Source Community

On April 13, U.S. President Trump proposed a maritime blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to compel Iran to make concessions in negotiations. The U.S. Central Command stated that the blockade would target vessels entering and exiting Iranian ports, with a set start date. Several security and military experts pointed out that a maritime blockade is essentially an act of war, requiring substantial naval forces for long-term maintenance and lacking a clear exit strategy, making execution difficult and its sustainability questionable. Dana Stroul noted that this operation would be hard to accomplish alone and may be difficult to sustain in the medium to long term. Analysts believe this move could provoke reciprocal retaliation from Iran. Former U.S. Navy Chief of Operations Gary Roughead warned that Iran might attack Gulf shipping or U.S. military infrastructure in the Middle East, increasing the risk of further escalation in regional conflict. Additionally, the blockade faces complex real-world issues during execution, including whether to intercept or even sink third-country oil tankers and how to handle energy transportation involving U.S. allies. Mark Warner also questioned the practical effectiveness of this strategy, pointing out that Iran could still counter with mines or asymmetric means. The Strait of Hormuz accounts for about 20% of global oil transport, and geopolitical risks have already driven oil prices significantly higher. The market generally believes that if tensions continue, it will further exacerbate inflationary pressures and disrupt global energy and financial markets.

[Trump Proposes Maritime Blockade of Strait of Hormuz to Pressure Iran, Experts Warn of Execution Challenges and Potential Retaliation Escalation]On April 13, U.S. President Trump proposed a maritime blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to compel Iran to make concessions in negotiations. The U.S. Central Command stated that the blockade would target vessels entering and exiting Iranian ports, with a set start date. Several security and military experts pointed out that a maritime blockade is essentially an act of war, requiring substantial naval forces for long-term maintenance and lacking a clear exit strategy, making execution difficult and its sustainability questionable. Dana Stroul noted that this operation would be hard to accomplish alone and may be difficult to sustain in the medium to long term. Analysts believe this move could provoke reciprocal retaliation from Iran. Former U.S. Navy Chief of Operations Gary Roughead warned that Iran might attack Gulf shipping or U.S. military infrastructure in the Middle East, increasing the risk of further escalation in regional conflict. Additionally, the blockade faces complex real-world issues during execution, including whether to intercept or even sink third-country oil tankers and how to handle energy transportation involving U.S. allies. Mark Warner also questioned the practical effectiveness of this strategy, pointing out that Iran could still counter with mines or asymmetric means. The Strait of Hormuz accounts for about 20% of global oil transport, and geopolitical risks have already driven oil prices significantly higher. The market generally believes that if tensions continue, it will further exacerbate inflationary pressures and disrupt global energy and financial markets.

Trump Proposes Maritime Blockade of Strait of Hormuz to Pressure Iran, Experts Warn of Execution Challenges and Potential Retaliation Escalation

On April 13, two supertankers laden with Iranian crude oil, which are under sanctions, anchored at a port in India. This may mark the first shipment of Iranian oil to India in nearly seven years, coinciding with increased U.S. efforts to curb Tehran's exports. Since 2019, India has not received Iranian crude due to U.S. sanctions. However, a waiver last month allowed the purchase of crude oil already in transit, aimed at mitigating the impact of the Middle East conflict on global supplies. As the world's third-largest crude oil importer, India subsequently announced plans to purchase oil from Iran and other countries to address the energy crisis. Vessel tracking data shows that the Felicity tanker anchored near Sikka in western India late Sunday. According to the Equasis database, this very large crude carrier belongs to the National Iranian Tanker Company and is loaded with 2 million barrels of Iranian oil, which was shipped from the oil export hub of Khark Island in mid-March. The Jaya tanker began signaling on Sunday, indicating it was anchored near Paradip on India's east coast. Before the U.S. and Israel began attacks on Iran, this vessel loaded 2 million barrels of crude oil from Khark Island in late February.

[Two Tankers Carrying Iranian Oil Anchor Near India]On April 13, two supertankers laden with Iranian crude oil, which are under sanctions, anchored at a port in India. This may mark the first shipment of Iranian oil to India in nearly seven years, coinciding with increased U.S. efforts to curb Tehran's exports. Since 2019, India has not received Iranian crude due to U.S. sanctions. However, a waiver last month allowed the purchase of crude oil already in transit, aimed at mitigating the impact of the Middle East conflict on global supplies. As the world's third-largest crude oil importer, India subsequently announced plans to purchase oil from Iran and other countries to address the energy crisis. Vessel tracking data shows that the Felicity tanker anchored near Sikka in western India late Sunday. According to the Equasis database, this very large crude carrier belongs to the National Iranian Tanker Company and is loaded with 2 million barrels of Iranian oil, which was shipped from the oil export hub of Khark Island in mid-March. The Jaya tanker began signaling on Sunday, indicating it was anchored near Paradip on India's east coast. Before the U.S. and Israel began attacks on Iran, this vessel loaded 2 million barrels of crude oil from Khark Island in late February.

Two Tankers Carrying Iranian Oil Anchor Near India

On April 13, the collapse of negotiations between the United States and Iran, combined with potential blockade risks in the Strait of Hormuz, sparked market concerns over rising energy prices and a rebound in inflation, further weakening expectations for a rate cut by the Federal Reserve this year. Traders have now pushed back the timing of the next rate cut to mid-2027. Recent data shows that the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose by 0.9% in March, the largest increase since 2022, pushing the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries above 4.3%, and further up to around 4.35% in the latest trading session. Meanwhile, the yield on Japanese 10-year government bonds has reached a new high since 1997, with yields on Australian and New Zealand government bonds also rising, putting overall pressure on the global bond market. Analysts generally believe that rising energy prices are creating a 'supply-side inflation shock,' and given the resilience in the labor market, there is a lack of urgency for the Federal Reserve to cut rates in the short term. Institutions such as PIMCO, Brandywine Global, and Natixis tend to maintain a wait-and-see approach, awaiting a clearer inflation trajectory. The market narrative has shifted from recession concerns to inflation dominance; if oil prices remain high, it may further extend the high-interest-rate environment and suppress the overall performance of financial assets.

[US-Iran Negotiations Collapse Raises Inflation Expectations: Rate Cut Bets Delayed, Global Bond Market Under Pressure]On April 13, the collapse of negotiations between the United States and Iran, combined with potential blockade risks in the Strait of Hormuz, sparked market concerns over rising energy prices and a rebound in inflation, further weakening expectations for a rate cut by the Federal Reserve this year. Traders have now pushed back the timing of the next rate cut to mid-2027. Recent data shows that the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose by 0.9% in March, the largest increase since 2022, pushing the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries above 4.3%, and further up to around 4.35% in the latest trading session. Meanwhile, the yield on Japanese 10-year government bonds has reached a new high since 1997, with yields on Australian and New Zealand government bonds also rising, putting overall pressure on the global bond market. Analysts generally believe that rising energy prices are creating a 'supply-side inflation shock,' and given the resilience in the labor market, there is a lack of urgency for the Federal Reserve to cut rates in the short term. Institutions such as PIMCO, Brandywine Global, and Natixis tend to maintain a wait-and-see approach, awaiting a clearer inflation trajectory. The market narrative has shifted from recession concerns to inflation dominance; if oil prices remain high, it may further extend the high-interest-rate environment and suppress the overall performance of financial assets.

US-Iran Negotiations Collapse Raises Inflation Expectations: Rate Cut Bets Delayed, Global Bond Market Under Pressure

On April 13, Colossus reported that Hyperliquid founder Jeffrey Yan received a funding proposal based on an estimated valuation of around $1 billion, amounting to approximately $100 million, less than a year after the project's launch. However, after careful consideration, he ultimately chose to reject the investment terms. The report indicates that prior to and during the funding discussions, the team had been continuously self-funding operations, with the founder using personal funds each month to cover project costs. During the investor engagement period, Jeff communicated with several entrepreneurs and VCs about the nature and significance of fundraising but was never convinced that 'external capital could enhance its intrinsic value.' Ultimately, he informed the team on Monday that he would decline the funding proposal. Insiders described that team members managing funds were shocked by this decision, as several preparations had already been made around the financing. Jeff's core reasoning was that Hyperliquid is not a traditional company but rather an on-chain protocol that needs to maintain neutrality. He believed that introducing external equity capital could undermine the protocol's 'permissionless, neutral' positioning, conflicting with its long-term design goals. He previously stated that if Bitcoin had accepted VC funding in its early days, its 'narrative of neutrality' might have been weakened. Following this logic, he chose to maintain Hyperliquid's investor-free structure and continue supporting some operational expenses with personal funds. On January 28, 2024, he summarized the project's principles on social media: · No investors · No paid market makers · No fees charged to the development team (or the development team does not take fees) · No insiders (or privileged internal participants). This statement is also seen as a core note of Hyperliquid's 'extreme decentralization/decapitalization' approach.

[Hyperliquid Founder Rejected $1 Billion Valuation Funding Proposal, Sticking to 'No External Investment' Approach]On April 13, Colossus reported that Hyperliquid founder Jeffrey Yan received a funding proposal based on an estimated valuation of around $1 billion, amounting to approximately $100 million, less than a year after the project's launch. However, after careful consideration, he ultimately chose to reject the investment terms. The report indicates that prior to and during the funding discussions, the team had been continuously self-funding operations, with the founder using personal funds each month to cover project costs. During the investor engagement period, Jeff communicated with several entrepreneurs and VCs about the nature and significance of fundraising but was never convinced that 'external capital could enhance its intrinsic value.' Ultimately, he informed the team on Monday that he would decline the funding proposal. Insiders described that team members managing funds were shocked by this decision, as several preparations had already been made around the financing. Jeff's core reasoning was that Hyperliquid is not a traditional company but rather an on-chain protocol that needs to maintain neutrality. He believed that introducing external equity capital could undermine the protocol's 'permissionless, neutral' positioning, conflicting with its long-term design goals. He previously stated that if Bitcoin had accepted VC funding in its early days, its 'narrative of neutrality' might have been weakened. Following this logic, he chose to maintain Hyperliquid's investor-free structure and continue supporting some operational expenses with personal funds. On January 28, 2024, he summarized the project's principles on social media: · No investors · No paid market makers · No fees charged to the development team (or the development team does not take fees) · No insiders (or privileged internal participants). This statement is also seen as a core note of Hyperliquid's 'extreme decentralization/decapitalization' approach.

Hyperliquid Founder Rejected $1 Billion Valuation Funding Proposal, Sticking to 'No External Investment' Approach

According to CoinDesk, the U.K. will need to introduce new laws or amend existing finance and data rules to accommodate a digital pound, two lawyers told CoinDesk. The Bank of England and the U.K. Treasury are seeking public feedback on their plans for the design of a digital pound – something officials say is likely to be needed in the future. Although the government is unlikely to make a decision on issuing one for at least the next couple of years, should the country decide to have a central bank digital currency (CBDC), new legislation will be needed to lay out the characteristics of a digital pound and current data, privacy and anti-money laundering rules should be amended to accommodate such a currency, two lawyers told CoinDesk.

Detail

【UK will need new laws to accommodate future digital pound, lawyers say】According to CoinDesk, the U.K. will need to introduce new laws or amend existing finance and data rules to accommodate a digital pound, two lawyers told CoinDesk. The Bank of England and the U.K. Treasury are seeking public feedback on their plans for the design of a digital pound – something officials say is likely to be needed in the future. Although the government is unlikely to make a decision on issuing one for at least the next couple of years, should the country decide to have a central bank digital currency (CBDC), new legislation will be needed to lay out the characteristics of a digital pound and current data, privacy and anti-money laundering rules should be amended to accommodate such a currency, two lawyers told CoinDesk.

UK will need new laws to accommodate future digital pound, lawyers say

Article

X Product Head: Aggregator Revenue Share Reduced to 60% to Combat Clickbait and Content Theft

Analysis: Trump Needs to Withdraw to Address Midterm Elections, Possible Agreement on Core Demands Between US and Iran

ETH fell below 2200  USDT

ETH broke through 2200  USDT

JPMorgan to Expand JPM Coin to Canton Network via Kinexys by 2026

UK will need new laws to accommodate future digital pound, lawyers say

Clause de non-responsabilité：Le contenu ci-dessus ne représente pas les positions de HTX.，HTX ne fournit pas de recommandations de trading.。

Articles connexes

Tous les commentaires0RécentPopulaire

Sujets d'actualité

Articles connexes