Amidst the Volatility in the Crypto Market, Who is Buying Against the Trend?

marsbitОпубликовано 2026-04-26Обновлено 2026-04-26

Введение

"In a volatile crypto market downturn of Q1 2026, institutional players demonstrated divergent strategies. While Bitcoin fell over 25% and Ethereum dropped 35%, key institutions accumulated: corporate treasuries like Strategy (MicroStrategy) added over $10 billion in BTC, sovereign wealth funds like Mubadala increased IBIT holdings by 46%, and major banks launched crypto services and ETFs. Notably, 26 new crypto ETFs were filed or launched under streamlined SEC rules, including bank-led products from Morgan Stanley and BlackRock’s staking ETH ETF. VC funding saw concentration: total investment reached ~$5 billion, but deal count plummeted 49%. Three mega-deals—BVNK ($1.8B), Kalshi ($1B), and Polymarket ($600M)—accounted for half the quarter’s funding. Investment shifted from DeFi/NFTs to payments, prediction markets, and regulated CeFi infrastructure. Selling pressure came from hedge funds (e.g., Brevan Howard cut IBIT by 85%) and Bitcoin miners liquidating holdings. The U.S. strategic Bitcoin reserve saw zero additions, highlighting that real buying came from corporations and sovereign funds, not governments. The institutional crypto landscape is bifurcating: long-term holders accumulate while short-term traders exit, signaling a foundation for the next cycle."

Author|jk, Odaily Planet Daily

Introduction: Who is Laying the Groundwork for the Next Bull Market?

The crypto bull market of 2024-2025 was, in essence, a story of institutionalization. The force that drove Bitcoin above $100,000 was not散户的 FOMO sentiment, but the net inflows following the launch of BlackRock's IBIT ETF and the continuous bond financing for coin purchases by Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy). The underlying logic of that bull market was inseparable from the accumulation quietly completed by institutions during the 2022-2023 bear market.

History seems to be repeating itself now, but the details being截然不同. In Q1 2026, Bitcoin retreated over 25% from its highs, Ethereum fell even deeper, and market sentiment turned cold again. Yet, against this backdrop, a group of institutions are moving in the opposite direction to the price trend: corporate treasuries are adding positions, sovereign wealth funds are buying, bank-affiliated ETFs are being listed, and traditional European financial institutions are entering the stablecoin space. All this points to the same question: If the next major rally is still to be driven by institutional capital, then who exactly is buying during this bear market accumulation phase?

Odaily reporters conducted an in-depth investigation into the capital inflows in the crypto market in Q1.

Conclusion first: Despite a brutal market correction in Q1, institutional capital continued to flow into the crypto market. While Bitcoin fell over 25% from around $88,000 to the mid-$60,000s, and Ethereum plunged as much as 35%, Strategy still added over $10 billion worth of Bitcoin against the trend. Sovereign wealth funds like Mubadala also took advantage of the dip to buy. Meanwhile, approximately 26 single-asset crypto ETFs were issued or applied for under the new SEC universal listing rule framework.

The buying in Q1 2026 showed a clear divergence: Some hedge funds significantly reduced holdings (Brevan Howard cut IBIT holdings by 85%), while corporate treasuries, university endowments, ETF issuers, and the Abu Dhabi sovereign fund seized the opportunity to buy the dip. In venture capital, while the number of deals plummeted by 49%, the quarterly financing total remained around $5-6.8 billion, with three deals (BVNK, Kalshi, Polymarket) accounting for nearly half of that amount. Externally, the SEC's new rules in September 2025 compressed the ETF approval cycle from 240 days to 75 days; on March 17, 2026, a joint SEC-CFTC statement classified staking rewards as non-securities, triggering a wave of staking-type ETF issuances.

Part One: Active Institutional Buyers and Capital Deployment

New Crypto ETF Launches (Jan~Apr 2026)

New crypto ETF products launched densely this quarter. Bitwise launched the Chainlink ETF (CLNK) on NYSE Arca on Jan 14 with $2.5 million in seed capital. Canary Capital launched two products on the same day, Jan 13: a Litecoin spot ETF (LTCC, cumulative AUM ~$9.7 million, the first US spot LTC product) and an HBAR ETF (the first US spot Hedera product); the company subsequently launched a staking SUI ETF with staking rewards in February. Grayscale also launched a SUI staking ETF in February. 21Shares launched the SUI ETF (TSUI, AUM ~$12.5 million) on Nasdaq on Feb 24, and the Polkadot ETF (TDOT, fee 0.30%, the first US spot DOT product, AUM ~$11 million in the first week) on Mar 6.

Old money also released some ETFs. BlackRock launched the iShares Ethereum Staking Trust (ETHB) on Mar 12, becoming the first major institutional ETH staking ETF, with ~82% of staking rewards distributed directly to holders. Morgan Stanley launched the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust (MSBT) on Apr 8, the first US bank-affiliated spot BTC ETF, with a fee of 0.14%, attracting $34 million on the first day and reaching a cumulative size of $133 million 8 days after launch. Additionally, ProShares launched the CoinDesk 20 Crypto Index ETF (KRYP) on NYSE Arca between Jan and Feb; NEOS launched the Enhanced Bitcoin High Income ETF (XBCI) around Jan 29; Bitwise launched the Proficio Currency Depreciation ETF (BPRO, a BTC and precious metals组合); Nomura/Laser Digital launched the Bitcoin Diversified Yield Fund (BDYF, a tokenized yield product) on Jan 22; 21Shares launched the Strategy Yield ETP (STRC, with BTC as the underlying asset) in Zurich on Feb 25; Hashdex expanded NCIQ in Q1 to cover BTC, ETH, XRP, SOL, and XLM.

In summary, New Money, meaning ETFs for smaller market cap coins, are being launched, but the ETFs from more established Old Money are still concentrated in high-market cap, established coins.

Notable ETF Applications (Pending approval as of Apr 23)

Morgan Stanley submitted S-1 applications for spot BTC (MSBT, already listed in Apr), Solana, and ETH trusts in early Jan. Goldman Sachs applied for a Bitcoin Premium Income/Options Strategy ETF on Apr 14. Hyperliquid (HYPE) attracted competing applications from four institutions: Grayscale (GHYP, Mar 20), Bitwise (BHYP, Apr 10), 21Shares (THYP, Apr 14), and VanEck (VHYP), none are currently approved for listing. Grayscale, VanEck, 21Shares, Bitwise, and Canary all submitted applications for ADA spot ETFs; CME's ADA futures contract also launched on Feb 9. Truth Social (Yorkville) submitted applications for a BTC+ETH combo ETF and a Cronos Yield Enhanced ETF on Feb 13. Bitwise submitted 11 crypto strategy ETFs (covering AAVE, UNI, ZEC, TAO, etc.). REX-Osprey/Defiance submitted applications for 27 crypto ETFs, including staking-type products and 3x leveraged products.

For now, the Hyperliquid ETF remains the most anticipated.

ETF Fund Flows (Q1 2026)

Spot BTC ETF flows were volatile: Net outflows of ~$1.6 billion in Jan (crypto.com data showed the third consecutive month of net outflows), but as buying returned in Mar-Apr, the quarter ultimately narrowed to a net positive value. BlackRock's IBIT remained the flagship product, with net inflows of ~$8.4 billion in Q1, but AUM shrank from ~$78 billion to ~$54 billion due to price decline. Ethereum ETFs set a record of 19 consecutive days of positive inflows in early Jan. XRP ETFs saw net inflows of $1.07 billion for the quarter, with 43 consecutive days of positive inflows, significantly outperforming BTC products during the same period. Solana ETFs (BSOL, FSOL) combined AUM surpassed $1 billion in Apr; Goldman Sachs disclosed holding a $108 million SOL ETF position.

Net inflows positive for the full quarter

Public Company Bitcoin Treasury Purchases

Strategy (MSTR) continued high-intensity accumulation this quarter. As of Apr 20, 2026, Strategy累计 held 815,061 BTC, with an average price of $75,527 and a cost basis of ~$61.6 billion. Japanese listed company Metaplanet (3350.T) disclosed on Jan 1, 2026, purchasing 4,279 BTC at an average price of $104,638, totaling over $380 million; it added a total of 5,075 BTC in Q1, disclosing on Apr 2 that it累计 held 40,177 BTC, with Q1 purchase costs around $400 million.

Strive (ASST) purchased 123 BTC on Jan 13 at an average price of $91,561, totaling $11.3 million;随后 completed an all-stock merger with Semler Scientific, post-merger the two companies held 12,798 BTC, ranking 11th among corporate treasuries; the merger was completed on Jan 16. By mid-Mar, Strive held ~13,628 BTC累计 through PIPE and the Semler merger. DDC Enterprise (NYSEAM) added ~600 BTC in Jan alone, holding累计 2,383 BTC worth $182 million by Mar 19.

BSTR Holdings (led by Adam Back, operated by Cantor SPAC) announced it would proceed with a listing backed by 30,021 BTC (worth $2.14 billion). Twenty One Capital (XXI) held 43,514 BTC (worth over $3.1 billion) as of Apr 2, making it the second-largest Bitcoin holder among public companies. Hyperscale Data (GPUS) held 663 BTC as of Apr 21, entering with $50.3 million, targeting a treasury size of $100 million.

Ethereum & Staking-Related Corporate Treasuries

BitMine Immersion (BMNR) is currently the largest Ethereum corporate treasury, staking 74,880 ETH (~$219 million) via the MAVAN platform in Q1; it purchased 101,627 ETH (over $230 million) in the week of Apr 20, 2026, its largest weekly purchase in 2026 so far. As of Apr 20, the company累计 held ~5 million ETH, with ~3.33 million already staked, AUM ~$12.9 billion. SharpLink Gaming (SBET) is the second-largest Ethereum treasury, holding ~867k ETH (worth $1.7 - $2.3 billion), nearly 100% staked, disclosed on Mar 10.

Major Sellers

Bitcoin miners were net sellers overall in Q1. MARA Holdings sold 15,133 BTC for $1.1 billion between Mar 4-25 to repurchase convertible notes; Riot Platforms sold 3,778 BTC for $290 million; Nakamoto Holdings sold 284 BTC; Genius Group liquidated its entire 84 BTC holdings on Apr 1. The Kingdom of Bhutan (Druk Holdings) transferred ~$42 million worth of BTC in small amounts throughout the year. Strategy alone accounted for 94% of the net Bitcoin purchases by all public companies in March.

Bank & Asset Management Institution Moves

Morgan Stanley not only filed ETF applications; the bank applied to the OCC for a National Trust Bank Charter for Digital Trust in Feb 2026 and announced the opening of BTC/ETH/SOL trading to retail clients via E*Trade/Zerohash.

UBS announced on Jan 23 the provision of BTC/ETH trading services for Swiss private bank clients, covering its $7 trillion wealth management business.

Citigroup announced the launch of institutional-grade BTC custody infrastructure at the Strategy World conference on Feb 26. Standard Chartered launched institutional BTC/ETH custody services in Hong Kong in Jan and is reportedly in talks to acquire full ownership of its Zodia Custody unit (Apr 8).

BBVA (Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria) recommended high-net-worth clients allocate 3-7% to crypto assets.

12 European banks (BBVA, BNP Paribas, ING, UniCredit, KBC, Danske Bank, Handelsbanken, CaixaBank, DZ Bank, DekaBank, Landesbank Rheinland-Pfalz, Banca Sella) formed the Qivalis Euro stablecoin consortium based on the Fireblocks platform, compliant with the MiCA regulatory framework (Apr 21).

Vanguard Group opened third-party crypto ETFs to its 50 million brokerage clients on its $11 trillion platform. Fidelity offers a 1% BTC allocation option in its 401(k) pension plans, reportedly attracting about $800 million.

Nomura Securities, Daiwa Securities, and SMBC Nikko Securities all announced plans to launch cryptocurrency exchanges in Japan by the end of 2026.

13F Disclosures (Q4 2025 Holdings, disclosed Feb 2026)

Goldman Sachs' crypto ETF holdings totaled ~$2.36 billion, covering BTC ($1.06 billion), ETH ($1 billion), XRP ($152 million), SOL ($109 million), but BTC and ETH positions were cut by 39% and 27% quarter-on-quarter respectively.

Mubadala (Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund) increased its IBIT holdings by 46% to 12.7 million shares (~$631 million), adding the equivalent of ~2,300 BTC against the market downturn.

Al Warda Investments (under Abu Dhabi Investment Authority) increased IBIT holdings to 8.2 million shares (~$437 million), pushing Abu Dhabi sovereign capital's total crypto exposure above $1 billion.

Millennium increased IBIT holdings by ~67% (added ~equivalent 8,100 BTC, becoming the largest holder overall).

Jane Street increased IBIT holdings by over 50% to 20 million shares.

Harvard University reduced IBIT holdings by 21.5% but established its first ETH position (3.87 million shares of ETHA, worth $86.8 million). Dartmouth College became the fourth Ivy League school to enter.

On the selling side: Brevan Howard slashed IBIT holdings by 85% (from 37.5 million shares to 5.5 million shares, equivalent to selling ~17,700 BTC); Farallon cut by 70% (~2,800 BTC equivalent sold); Tudor reduced by ~1,300 BTC equivalent; D.E. Shaw hedge fund halved IBIT; Sculptor nearly liquidated FBTC (cut ~90%).

Sovereign Wealth Funds & Governments

Besides Mubadala and Al Warda, the Luxembourg sovereign wealth fund FSIL maintained a 1% Bitcoin allocation (~€8.5 million), becoming the first Eurozone sovereign wealth fund to hold BTC. El Salvador continued its "buy 1 BTC daily" strategy (now holds 7,547 BTC, total ~$635 million) and added $50 million in gold reserves on Jan 29. The Czech National Bank (purchased Nov 2025, continuing into 2026) remains the only central bank in the world holding Bitcoin.

Zero additions to the US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve to date. CoinDesk confirmed on Mar 6 that the Trump executive order was "progressing slowly"; the reserve still only holds ~328,372 seized BTC. White House Digital Asset Committee member Patrick Witt reiterated the commitment, but actual purchase actions have not occurred yet. Among US states, only Texas injected $5 million into IBIT in Nov 2025 (another $5 million remains unused). New Hampshire and Arizona have relevant legislation but have not deployed funds. Reports about CalPERS planning to allocate 1% (~$500 million) to BTC continue to circulate, but CalPERS has not officially confirmed it.

Family Offices

Two surveys revealed截然相反的态势: The J.P. Morgan Private Bank 2026 Family Office Report showed that among 333 surveyed institutions (average net worth $1.6 billion), 89% stated they had no Bitcoin allocation whatsoever, with AI investment being the top focus. The BNY Mellon Wealth/NOIA survey showed that 74% of ultra-high-net-worth family offices are investing in or exploring crypto assets (significantly up from 53% the previous year), with typical allocation ratios of 2-5%, ~5% for Asian institutions, and ~2-4% for US and European institutions.

Part Two: Q1 2026 Crypto Venture Capital Financing Summary

Crypto VC financing in Q1 2026 presented a paradox: the total capital amount was relatively robust (down 8-16% year-on-year), but the number of deals plummeted by 49%. The most comprehensive statistics come from Crypto-Fundraising.info (Apr 1), recording 222 deals including M&A, with a total financing amount of $6.81 billion; excluding M&A, pure VC investment was 183 deals, totaling $4.77 billion. DefiLlama/DL News (Apr 4, VC only) tracked 53 deals over $10 million, totaling ~$5 billion. J.P. Morgan estimated total digital asset inflows of ~$11 billion in Q1, about one-third of the Q1 2025 level. Galaxy Research's quarterly crypto VC report, regularly released, had not been published as of Apr 23, but its Q4 2025 benchmark data ($8.5 billion/425 deals) is available for sequential comparison.

Core Data

Compared to Q1 2025 (VC financing $5.37 billion, 358 deals) and Q4 2025 ($8.5 billion, 425 deals), Q1 2026 VC financing was ~$4.77 billion, down 11% year-on-year and down 44% sequentially; the number of deals was 183, down 49% year-on-year and 57% sequentially. Notably, the average VC deal size increased significantly by 76% year-on-year to $35.9 million (median $8 million), reflecting significant polarization: Seed stage was the most active by number of deals (37 deals, $252 million total), while the average size of four Series C rounds was as high as $108.8 million. The Pre-Seed stage average was only $1.75 million, and the mid-market几乎萎缩.

Three Deals Gobbled Up Half the Quarter

Financing this quarter was extremely concentrated and severely back-loaded. March alone generated $4.43 billion in financing (65% of the quarter), while February ended bleakly at $686 million.

Just the following three deals合计 reached $3.4 billion, accounting for nearly half of the total disclosed financing for the quarter: payment sector M&A target BVNK ($1.8 billion, Mar 17), prediction market platform Kalshi (growth round led by Coatue, valuation $22 billion, $1 billion, Mar 19), and Intercontinental Exchange's strategic investment in Polymarket ($600 million, Mar 27).

The battle for prediction market leadership has intensified in the financing arena.

Other notable large financings include: Rain ($250 million Series C, stablecoin payments, led by Iconiq/Dragonfly/Galaxy, valuation ~$1.95 billion, Jan 9); BitGo completed an IPO on the NYSE, raising $213 million (Jan 22); XBTO strategic financing $217 million (Mar 25); Flying Tulip token issuance $206 million (FDV $1 billion); Whop received a $200 million investment from Tether (Feb 25); BlackOpal LatAm RWA financing $200 million (Jan 8); Kraken/Payward completed a $200 million secondary market transaction led by Deutsche Börse, valuation $13.3 billion; LMAX Group received a $150 million investment from Ripple (Jan 15); Alpaca completed a $150 million Series D; Bluesky received a $100 million Series B led by Bain Capital Crypto (Mar 19); Anchorage Digital received a $100 million investment from Tether, valuation over $4 billion (Feb).

Sector Distribution: Payments & Prediction Markets Outpace DeFi

The star sectors of the 2021 bull cycle—chain gaming, NFT, L1 infrastructure—have almost disappeared from the top of the financing rankings.

  • Payments/Stablecoin sector led with $2.39 billion (35% share, 17 deals);
  • Prediction Markets followed with $1.72 billion (25.2%, 11 deals);
  • Finance/CeFi ranked third with $835 million (12.2%, 25 deals).
  • RWA (Real World Assets) financing $284 million (4.2%, 7 deals)
  • Trading Markets/Platforms $255 million (3.7%, 2 deals)
  • Infrastructure/L1-L2 financing $184 million (2.7%, 12 deals)
  • DeFi only $89 million (1.3%, 5 deals)
  • NFT/Chain Gaming/Metaverse was almost negligible.

The top three sectors combined absorbed 72% of the quarter's disclosed capital.

Active Investment Institutions

Coinbase Ventures ranked first among institutional investors by number of participations with 12 deals, more than double the second place. Followed by: Tether (8 deals), Animoca Brands (7 deals), CMT Digital (6 deals), and a16z crypto, Castle Island, Big Brain, Galaxy Digital (5 deals each) tied.

Most active funds in March

Traditional financial institutions entered the infrastructure sector with罕见力度: Franklin Templeton participated in 4 deals, Intercontinental Exchange invested in Polymarket, Deutsche Börse took a stake in Kraken, Citadel Securities, Bain Capital, Sequoia Capital, and Alibaba also participated in financing rounds in Q1. Geographically, the three largest financings (BVNK, Kalshi, Polymarket) and the BitGo IPO were all from the US, indicating that the US capital share in crypto VC continued the ~55% level from Q4 2025.

Conclusion: Institutional Capital Shows a Barbell Structure

In early 2026, the institutional crypto investment landscape is undergoing a two-way分化.

On the buyer side, institutions with long-term conviction, such as Strategy, BitMine, Metaplanet, Mubadala, and the BlackRock ETF ecosystem, took advantage of the market decline to increase their bets, while tactical hedge funds (Brevan Howard, Tudor, Farallon) and most Bitcoin miners turned into net sellers. Strategy alone bought almost more Bitcoin in Q1 than all other public companies combined, and its weekly purchase volume on Apr 13-19 set the third-largest record in history.

The same两极格局 is playing out in venture capital: super-large financings in payments and prediction markets continue to expand, while small and medium-sized projects普遍 face a financing drought. The shift in sector leadership—from DeFi/NFT/chain gaming to stablecoins, prediction markets, and compliant CeFi infrastructure—means the industry's growth engine is gradually shifting from speculative crypto-native narratives to trading models closer to regulated fintech.

The biggest uncertainty currently comes from the US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve: despite high-profile announcements at the executive level for over a year, actual capital deployment remains zero to date. If the National Defense Authorization Act in the second half of 2026 opens a funding path, it will fundamentally reshape the demand structure. Until then, it is corporate treasuries and sovereign wealth funds who are真正 buying, not Washington.

Связанные с этим вопросы

QDespite the market downturn in Q1 2026, which types of institutions were net buyers of cryptocurrencies?

ACorporate treasuries (like Strategy/MicroStrategy and Metaplanet), sovereign wealth funds (such as Mubadala), ETF issuers, and some university endowments were net buyers, accumulating Bitcoin and other assets during the price decline.

QWhat was the most significant trend in cryptocurrency ETF launches during Q1 2026?

AA wave of new staking-enabled ETFs was launched, following a joint SEC-CFTC statement in March that classified staking rewards as non-securities. This included products for assets like Ethereum (e.g., BlackRock's iShares Ethereum Staking Trust) and SUI.

QWhich three venture capital deals accounted for nearly half of the total funding in the crypto sector in Q1 2026?

AThe three largest deals were: BVNK (a payments fintech, $1.8B), Kalshi (a prediction market platform, $1B), and a strategic investment in Polymarket by Intercontinental Exchange ($600M). Together, they totaled approximately $3.4 billion.

QHow did the investment focus of venture capital in crypto shift in Q1 2026 compared to previous cycles?

AVC funding shifted dramatically away from the previous cycle's darlings like DeFi, NFTs, and gaming. The top sectors were Payments/Stablecoins ($2.39B), Prediction Markets ($1.72B), and Financial/CeFi services ($835M), which together absorbed 72% of the quarter's disclosed funding.

QWhat contrasting actions did different types of funds take regarding their Bitcoin ETF holdings, as revealed in 13F filings?

ALong-term holders like sovereign wealth fund Mubadala increased its IBIT (iShares Bitcoin Trust) holdings by 46%, while several major hedge funds, including Brevan Howard, drastically reduced their exposure, cutting their IBIT holdings by 85%.

Похожее

U.S. Government Bans Foreign Nationals from Using Fable 5, Anthropic Issues Rebuttal

U.S. Government Bans Foreign Access to Fable 5, Anthropic Issues Rebuttal On June 12th, the U.S. government ordered AI company Anthropic to immediately suspend all foreign access—including foreign nationals within the U.S. and Anthropic's own foreign employees—to its newly released Fable 5 and Mythos 5 AI models, citing national security concerns. This forced Anthropic to temporarily disable access to both models for all users globally, as it cannot technically differentiate user nationality at scale. The models, released just three days prior, represent Anthropic's highest public capability tier. Fable 5 is the first publicly available model from the advanced "Mythos" family, while Mythos 5 is a less-restricted version for approved cybersecurity and critical infrastructure partners. The government's directive was reportedly triggered by claims from another company that it could "jailbreak" Mythos 5, raising alarm within the Trump administration. Anthropic, in a detailed public statement, strongly challenged this rationale. The company argues the demonstrated "jailbreak" is a narrow, non-generalized technique that merely involves identifying minor, known software vulnerabilities—a capability common to other publicly available models like OpenAI's GPT-5.5 and routinely used by cybersecurity defenders. Anthropic stated it has complied with the order but disagrees with the government's standard, warning that applying it industry-wide would halt all new frontier model deployments. The company criticized the lack of a transparent, fact-based legal process and expressed confidence the situation stems from a misunderstanding. It is working to restore access and will release more technical details within 24 hours. Other Anthropic models remain unaffected.

链捕手14 мин. назад

U.S. Government Bans Foreign Nationals from Using Fable 5, Anthropic Issues Rebuttal

链捕手14 мин. назад

The Revelation from the Raydium Theft Incident: New DeFi Vulnerabilities Lurking in Forgotten Old Contracts

**Raydium Exploit Reveals DeFi's Hidden Risk: Forgotten "Zombie" Contracts** A recent attack on Raydium's deprecated V3 AMM pools resulted in a loss of approximately $1.34 million. The hacker exploited pools that were no longer supported by Raydium's current UI or SDK but remained fully functional and accessible on-chain. This incident highlights a critical, often overlooked category of risk in DeFi: inactive or legacy smart contracts that projects fail to properly decommission. Since March 2025, there have been at least 8 publicly reported attacks targeting such abandoned contracts, with total losses around $10.8 million. Including older pools and deprecated features, the count rises to 10 incidents with roughly $22.5 million in losses. These "zombie contracts" represent a lifecycle management failure rather than a code vulnerability, yet they are typically misclassified under general "code bug" categories in security reports, masking the true scale of the problem. The root cause is that projects often merely document a contract as "deprecated" without taking essential technical steps to secure it: withdrawing remaining assets, disabling external call functions, and implementing ongoing monitoring. These forgotten, under-monitored components become prime targets for attackers. To address this, the industry needs to recognize "zombie contracts" as a distinct risk category and establish standardized decommissioning protocols. Essential steps should include: 1) a formal retirement announcement, 2) removal of all front-end integrations, 3) withdrawal of locked assets, 4) disabling key contract functions, 5) ongoing security monitoring, 6) clear user communication, and 7) a post-mortem analysis. The value of a DeFi project lies not only in its current TVL but also in the security of its historical codebase, which has now become a new attack surface.

Foresight News2 ч. назад

The Revelation from the Raydium Theft Incident: New DeFi Vulnerabilities Lurking in Forgotten Old Contracts

Foresight News2 ч. назад

Robots Begin to 'Consume Data': The Hidden Production Chain from Indian Data Factories to Billion-Dollar Humanoid Robots

Robots have started to 'consume data,' driving the formation of a new industrial supply chain focused on producing training data for embodied AI. Unlike large language models, which are trained on vast internet text corpora, embodied AI models face a 'data desert' in the physical world. This has created a massive demand for first-person perspective video data (Ego Data), captured by workers wearing cameras in places like Indian garment factories. Companies like Neocambrian AI are establishing 'data factories' where workers perform standardized tasks (e.g., sorting clothes, kitchen organization) to generate thousands of hours of video. Research, such as NVIDIA's EgoScale, demonstrates that scaling this human demonstration data predictably improves robot performance, particularly for dexterous manipulation. This has validated a training path combining large-scale human data for pre-training with smaller amounts of robot-specific data for fine-tuning. The value of different data types varies significantly, forming a 'data pyramid.' The base consists of low-cost, large-scale internet and Ego Data. Higher layers include more expensive motion-capture data (e.g., from data gloves), simulation/synthetic data, and the most costly and scarce layer: real robot teleoperation data. This demand has spawned a layered ecosystem of data suppliers: low-cost data factories, motion capture and alignment specialists, robot-native teleoperation service providers, simulation data companies, and platforms aiming for data standardization. Robot companies themselves are adopting a 'layered procurement' strategy: outsourcing generic Ego Data while building in-house capabilities for robot-specific adaptation data and the critical deployment/failure data generated in real-world applications. The industry is shifting focus from hardware and basic mobility to the data pipelines required for general-purpose capability. While parallels exist to data labeling companies like Scale AI in the LLM boom, the physical complexity of robot data—involving action success ambiguity and sim-to-real gaps—requires more integrated solutions for data collection, annotation, and a continuous feedback loop. The race is on to build the data engines that will teach robots to operate reliably in the unstructured real world.

marsbit4 ч. назад

Robots Begin to 'Consume Data': The Hidden Production Chain from Indian Data Factories to Billion-Dollar Humanoid Robots

marsbit4 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片