U.S., U.K. Issue Joint Sanctions of ‘Hamas-Aligned’ Gaza Now

CoinDeskPolicyPubblicato 2024-03-26Pubblicato ultima volta 2024-03-27

Introduzione

Blockchain analytics firm Elliptic found that the online organization raised a mere $21,000 in crypto for Hamas since the October 7th attacks.

  • Gaza Now and its founder have been sanctioned for facilitating financial donations for Hamas in the wake of the October 7 attack in Israel
  • Elliptic found that Gaza Now received $21,000 in crypto-denominated donations in the weeks after the attack
  • Crypto donations continue to be a small slice of the overall terrorist financing landscape, with most donations are under $500 according to a new report from TRM Labs

Gaza Now, a pro-Hamas online media channel, has been jointly sanctioned by the U.S. and the United Kingdom for facilitating public fundraising for Hamas in the wake of the October 7 attack in Israel.

The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) and the U.K.’s Office of Foreign Sanctions Implementation also issued sanctions against Gaza Now’s founder, Mustafa Ayash, as well as another person and two other entities they claim were working with Gaza Now on multiple fundraising efforts, listing several cryptocurrency addresses Ayash and Gaza Now used to raise funds.

The sanctions against Gaza Now and its founder are the latest in a string of similar sanctions against other ‘financial facilitators’ it has said are supporting Hamas – including Buy Cash, a Gaza-based crypto exchange and its owner in October 2023.

Advertisement
Advertisement

“Treasury remains committed to degrading Hamas’ ability to finance its terrorist activities, including through online fundraising campaigns that seek to funnel money directly to the group,” said Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Brian E. Nelson in a Wednesday press statement. “The United States, in close coordination with our British partners, will continue to leverage our tools to disrupt Hamas’ ability to facilitate further attacks.”

As part of its fundraising attempts, Gaza Now accepted crypto donations. But crypto made up only a small slice of its overall efforts: according to blockchain research firm Elliptic, the group only received $21,000 in crypto in the weeks after October 7.

The figure tracks with new research from another blockchain research firm, TRM Labs, which found that crypto-denominated fundraising for Hamas and other terrorist organizations, including ISIS, tends to be small in scale.

According to TRM’s 2023 Illicit Crypto Economy Report, three-quarters of terrorism-linked donations last year were under $500 – and 40% were under $100. Only 3% of crypto donations were over $5,000.

Of the terrorist financing entities using crypto, however, Tether (USDT) on the TRON blockchain was the most popular choice in 2023, with a 125% increase in TRON addresses linked to terrorist financing last year, according to the TRM report.

Advertisement
Advertisement

According to the report, terrorist financing entities could be drawn to TRON for its relatively low gas fees, minimal price fluctuations and “a residual – but outdated – perception that it is more difficult to trace.”

Nikhilesh De edited this story.

Letture associate

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit31 min fa

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit31 min fa

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

For years, the semiconductor equipment industry followed an unwritten "iron rule": suppliers offered steep discounts for new tool introductions (Design-in) and faced consistent price pressure during repeat orders, especially during market downturns. This long-standing buyer's market dynamic is now being upended. Recently, SK Hynix's primary equipment suppliers have reportedly requested a 3-4% price *increase*, a nearly unprecedented move. This shift is driven by a severe supply-demand imbalance fueled by the AI compute boom. Securing equipment has become an urgent arms race as chipmakers' expansion speed dictates their ability to fulfill massive AI chip orders. Key areas feeling the strain include: **TCB (Thermal Compression Bonding) Equipment:** Demand is exploding, driven by the simultaneous needs of HBM4 memory stacking, AI chip Chip-on-Substrate (C2S), and logic Chiplet Chip-on-Wafer (C2W) packaging. Players like Hanmi Semiconductor, Hanwha Semitech, and ASMPT are receiving major orders. While hybrid bonding is seen as the future, TCB remains the pragmatic choice for HBM4 mass production, with its lifecycle extended by relaxed specifications and ongoing technological upgrades. **Test Equipment Bottlenecks:** Ironically, AI-driven shortages are now crippling test equipment manufacturing. Critical components like FPGAs, Driver ICs, and CPUs face severe shortages and extended lead times (up to 52 weeks for FPGAs), as AI data center and server vendors prioritize supply. This creates a paradoxical cycle: AI chip shortages drive fab expansion, which requires more test equipment, whose production is delayed because its key parts are diverted to make AI chips. The industry is entering a broad, AI-powered upcycle. SEMI forecasts global semiconductor equipment sales to hit a record $156 billion by 2027, fueled by investment in advanced logic/foundry, HBM-driven DRAM, and advanced packaging (like CoWoS). Major players like TSMC, SK Hynix, and Micron are aggressively ramping capital expenditure. In conclusion, leading equipment vendors are no longer just selling tools; they are selling the critical capability to deliver AI-era capacity. Pricing power is shifting decisively to those with indispensable technology in key process nodes like advanced logic, HBM, and advanced packaging, rewriting the industry's traditional power structure.

marsbit44 min fa

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

marsbit44 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片