# Сопутствующие статьи по теме DeFi

Новостной центр HTX предлагает последние статьи и углубленный анализ по "DeFi", охватывающие рыночные тренды, новости проектов, развитие технологий и политику регулирования в криптоиндустрии.

What The SEC’s Latest Crypto Self-Custody Update Means For DeFi, Wallets, And Bitcoin

The US SEC's Division of Trading and Markets has issued new guidance clarifying that certain trading interfaces—including DeFi front-ends, wallets, and mobile apps—may avoid broker-dealer registration if they meet strict conditions. Key requirements include user control of private keys, purely facilitative functions without discretionary routing or investment advice, and transparent, fixed fees. The guidance applies only to "crypto asset securities," excluding Bitcoin, which the SEC considers a commodity. This marks a tonal shift from the Gensler era, emphasizing that self-custodial, non-intermediated activity lies outside broker-dealer regulation. SEC Chair Paul Atkins has hinted at a potential "innovation exemption" for decentralized trading infrastructures.

bitcoinist04/14 08:22

What The SEC’s Latest Crypto Self-Custody Update Means For DeFi, Wallets, And Bitcoin

bitcoinist04/14 08:22

Five-Year Exemption Window: SEC Officially Eases Restrictions on Crypto Asset Securities Trading Interfaces

The U.S. SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets has issued a staff statement providing a five-year exemption from broker-dealer registration for certain crypto asset securities trading interfaces, effective until April 13, 2031. The guidance clarifies that front-end interfaces—such as DeFi platforms, browser extensions, and self-custody wallet integrations—are not considered brokers if they solely act as neutral tools that translate user trading parameters into executable on-chain instructions and provide market data (e.g., gas fees, execution routes), without engaging in order execution, custody, or transaction facilitation. To qualify, these “Covered user interfaces” must adhere to 12 strict conditions centered on neutrality, transparency, and user control. Key requirements include: - Strict neutrality: no promotion of specific securities or execution paths; only objective, verifiable data display. - No payment for order flow or third-party compensation; only fixed, uniform fees permitted. - Full disclosure of conflicts, operational policies, and clear statements that the interface is not SEC-registered. The statement explicitly prohibits interfaces from negotiating terms, offering investment advice, handling user assets, or routing orders. This move aims to separate technical front-ends from financial intermediation, pushing the industry toward compliant, non-custodial, and transparent operations while addressing risks like MEV through enhanced user awareness.

marsbit04/14 07:25

Five-Year Exemption Window: SEC Officially Eases Restrictions on Crypto Asset Securities Trading Interfaces

marsbit04/14 07:25

A Brief History of Web3 Airdrops: A Review of Twelve Iconic 'Rug Pull' Projects

**Summary: A History of Web3 Airdrop "Rug Pulls" – 12 Iconic Cases** The era of Web3 airdrops has shifted from a golden age of mutual benefit between early users and projects to a landscape dominated by systematic exploitation. This article reviews 12 infamous "anti-airdrop" projects that eroded user trust: 1. **Hop Protocol (HOP):** Pioneered a "community witch-hunt" model, encouraging users to report Sybil addresses to claim their rewards, fostering a toxic environment of mutual harm. 2. **Blast:** Introduced the exploitative "points system," locking user funds for meager returns that often underperformed risk-free yields, turning airdrop hunting into a rigged casino. 3. **LayerZero (ZRO):** After 18 months of user-funded gas fees, it implemented a harsh "guilty until proven innocent" Sybil filter, forcing users to "self-confess" or face zero rewards, destroying multi-chain interaction narratives. 4. **zkSync (ZK):** Prioritized "funds held at a specific time" over long-term activity, betraying early contributors who spent significant gas and rewarding insiders, crushing L2 airdrop expectations. 5. **Infinex:** Lured users with NFT and point systems, only to announce a high FDV, a mandatory 1-year lockup, and chaotic rules at its public sale, betraying its community. 6. **Linea:** Perfected user exploitation with endless, grueling Galxe Odyssey tasks and KYC requirements, reducing airdrop hunting to a low-wage, full-time job. 7. **Grass:** Exploited users' physical resources (bandwidth/IP) for DePIN data, rewarding them with tokens worth less than the electricity and proxy costs incurred. 8. **Monad:** Allocated a mere ~3.3% of its airdrop to the community after extensive testnet participation, favoring KOLs and insiders and dampening enthusiasm for new L1s. 9. **Babylon:** Forced Ethereum-style staking onto Bitcoin, causing users massive losses from failed transactions due to high fees and network congestion, damaging trust in L2s. 10. **Backpack:** Encouraged massive trading volume for points, then applied strict KYC and Sybil rules last minute, resulting in massive losses for users and cementing a negative stereotype for projects with Chinese founders. 11. **EdgeX:** Perpetual DEX users lost significant fees for minimal rewards, while "insider" addresses received enormous allocations, exposing blatant corruption and killing the Perp DEX airdrop narrative. 12. **Genius:** The final straw: users were forced to choose between immediately claiming only 30% of their airdrop, locking tokens for a year for 100%, or a 100% burn for a gas fee refund, shattering trust in "elite-backed" narratives. **Conclusion** marks the painful end of the airdrop era. This collective "rug pull" was a co-created disaster of speculation and greed. The collapse, while brutal, forces a return to fundamentals: sustainable products with real product-market fit are paramount. This is not just the end of airdrops but a potential rebirth for Web3, weeding out exploitative projects and rewarding those that build genuine community value.

marsbit04/14 03:14

A Brief History of Web3 Airdrops: A Review of Twelve Iconic 'Rug Pull' Projects

marsbit04/14 03:14

Brother Sun "Rights Protection" Stands Up Against the Trump Family, WLFI Is the Real Scythe in the Crypto Circle

The article details the controversy surrounding World Liberty Financial (WLFI), a cryptocurrency project linked to the Trump family. It reports that WLFI allegedly used the DeFi lending protocol Dolomite, whose co-founder is also a WLFI advisor, as a disguised channel to sell tokens by collateralizing around 5 billion WLFI tokens to borrow approximately $75 million in stablecoins. Despite WLFI's claims that the loans were for ecosystem development and posed no liquidation risk, critics argue it was a way for insiders to cash out, shifting risk to retail investors. The piece highlights WLFI's significant price decline—over 66% since its September 2025 launch—and suggests the Trump family and insiders are the main source of selling pressure, as they control nearly 74% of the token supply. It also revisits WLFI’s prior move to blacklist 272 addresses, including those of investor Justin Sun, under the pretext of preventing large-scale sell-offs, which now appears to be an effort to reduce competition for their own sales. Sun publicly accused WLFI of exploiting users, freezing assets, and treating the crypto community as a "personal ATM." WLFI countered by threatening legal action. The author notes that while Sun’s criticism may gain sympathy, a legal battle in the U.S. against the well-connected Trump family would be risky for him. Finally, the article concludes that WLFI exemplifies how powerful elites can exploit crypto’s regulatory gray areas for profit, and urges the community to reject such projects driven more by political privilege than genuine decentralized finance ideals.

Odaily星球日报04/13 12:17

Brother Sun "Rights Protection" Stands Up Against the Trump Family, WLFI Is the Real Scythe in the Crypto Circle

Odaily星球日报04/13 12:17

In-Depth Reconstruction of the $285 Million Drift Hack: How Should DeFi Governance Move Beyond "Amateur Hour"?

On April 1, 2026, Drift Protocol, the largest perpetual futures DEX on Solana, suffered a catastrophic hack resulting in a loss of $285 million. The attack, attributed to a sophisticated social engineering campaign rather than a technical exploit, unfolded over several months. Hackers first infiltrated Drift’s internal circles by posing as a legitimate market maker, building trust over time. They then exploited Solana’s "Durable Nonce" feature to trick core team members into blindly signing transactions that granted administrative control. A critical vulnerability was introduced when Drift migrated to a 2/5 multisig structure without a timelock, allowing instant execution of privileged transactions with just two signatures. The attackers finally triggered the attack by adding a fake token (CVT) to the whitelist, manipulating its oracle price, and using it as collateral to drain the protocol’s treasury. The incident highlights fundamental flaws in DeFi governance, including overreliance on multisig mechanisms that lack intent verification and are vulnerable to social engineering. It underscores the misalignment between retail-grade security tools and institutional-scale treasury management. The hack signals the need for a security paradigm shift in DeFi, including adoption of Hardware Security Modules (HSMs) for key management, intent-based policy engines for transaction validation, and professional third-party custody solutions to ensure institutional-grade safety.

marsbit04/13 12:00

In-Depth Reconstruction of the $285 Million Drift Hack: How Should DeFi Governance Move Beyond "Amateur Hour"?

marsbit04/13 12:00

GenZVerse Unveils a Utility-First Web3 Platform That Prioritises Real Impact Over Speculation

GenZVerse introduces a utility-first Web3 platform built on Polygon’s Layer 2 blockchain, designed to prioritize tangible value over speculation. The platform integrates its native token into four core utility domains: governance voting, access to services, community rewards, and staking incentives—each tied to verifiable user actions rather than market speculation. It features fully open-source code, auditable smart contracts, and a transparent DAO structure to ensure accountability. The five-year roadmap focuses on phased development toward full decentralization by 2029, aiming to support millions of users with sustainable, community-driven growth.

TheNewsCrypto04/13 11:22

GenZVerse Unveils a Utility-First Web3 Platform That Prioritises Real Impact Over Speculation

TheNewsCrypto04/13 11:22

Trump’s Crypto Venture Secretly Built A Way To Freeze Your Funds, Investor Claims

A major investor in World Liberty Financial (WLFI), a crypto project connected to Donald Trump, has accused it of secretly building a mechanism to freeze user funds. Tron founder Justin Sun, who invested over $100 million, claims the project has a backdoor in its smart contracts that allows the team to freeze, restrict, or block access to funds without warning. Sun revealed his own wallet was blacklisted in 2025. The allegations coincide with a separate controversy where WLFI used its own tokens as collateral to borrow millions. Blockchain analytics show WLFI deposited nearly 2 billion of its tokens into the Dolomite lending protocol to borrow over $31 million in stablecoins, accounting for 55% of Dolomite's liquidity. The project has reportedly used 5 billion self-issued tokens to obtain around $75 million in outside liquidity, a practice critics compare to circular financing. Amid the accusations, WLFI's token price has fallen more than 20% in a month, dropping below $0.08. A key lending pool is at 93% capacity, making withdrawals difficult. Sun has publicly demanded the project unlock all tokens and operate transparently. WLFI has not yet issued a formal response.

bitcoinist04/13 11:02

Trump’s Crypto Venture Secretly Built A Way To Freeze Your Funds, Investor Claims

bitcoinist04/13 11:02

1 Billion DOT Minted Out of Thin Air, Yet Hacker Only Made $230,000

On April 13, a security breach occurred involving the Polkadot bridge on the Ethereum network, where an attacker exploited a replay vulnerability in the MMR proof mechanism of Hyperbridge’s ISMP protocol. By reusing a historically valid proof and pairing it with a malicious request, the attacker bypassed verification and gained admin and minting rights over the wrapped DOT contract on Ethereum. They then minted 1 billion wrapped DOT tokens—2,805 times the existing supply—and attempted to liquidate them. However, due to extremely low liquidity in the wrapped DOT market, the massive sell-off crashed the token’s price by 99.98%, from $1.22 to approximately $0.000128. The attacker ultimately exchanged the tokens for only about 108.2 ETH (worth roughly $237,000), with gas costs as low as $0.74. The same exploit had been used previously in attacks on MANTA and CERE tokens, resulting in a total loss of around $242,000. Polkadot confirmed that the incident only affected DOT bridged via Hyperbridge to Ethereum and did not impact the native Polkadot network or DOT on other bridges. Exchanges including Upbit and Bithumb temporarily suspended DOT deposits and withdrawals as a precaution. The event highlights ongoing vulnerabilities in cross-chain infrastructure and the critical role of liquidity in limiting actual damages during large-scale exploits. It also reflects a broader trend of increasing DeFi security incidents in early 2026.

marsbit04/13 10:10

1 Billion DOT Minted Out of Thin Air, Yet Hacker Only Made $230,000

marsbit04/13 10:10

How Should Crypto VCs Survive? When Top Projects No Longer Need Institutional Funding

Cryptocurrency venture capital is at a watershed moment. Token exits, once the primary driver of outsized returns, are undergoing a major reset. The definition of token value is being rewritten in real-time, yet no standard valuation framework has emerged. Key market shifts include the rise of tokens with real, on-chain revenue (like HYPE), which exposed the weakness of governance tokens with no fundamentals; a supply shock from meme coins (e.g., PUMP) fragmenting liquidity; and competition from prediction markets, stock perps, and leveraged ETFs diverting retail speculative capital. This has compressed token lifecycles and cratered holding periods. VCs now face critical questions: Are they underwriting equity, tokens, or a hybrid? What is the best practice for on-chain value accrual beyond potentially toxic buybacks? Will the "crypto premium" vanish entirely, forcing valuations to align with public equities and crashing many Layer 1 tokens? The result is a divergence: early-stage investors are becoming more price-sensitive on token projects, while appetite for equity deals is growing. Later-stage crypto VCs are increasingly competing with traditional funds in "Web2.5" deals. To survive, crypto VCs must find their product-market fit with founders. Capital alone is no longer sufficient. Winning the best deals—from projects that may not even need institutional funding—requires providing unmatched brand value and non-capital advantages.

marsbit04/13 04:08

How Should Crypto VCs Survive? When Top Projects No Longer Need Institutional Funding

marsbit04/13 04:08

Reflections and Confusions of a Crypto VC

An encrypted VC's reflection on the current crypto investment landscape, which is undergoing a significant reset. Token exits, once the primary driver of outsized returns, are being redefined in real-time, with no established valuation framework yet emerging. Key market shifts include: the rise of tokens like HYPE, which demonstrated that token prices can be backed by real, on-chain revenue, forcing a reassessment of governance tokens with weak fundamentals; a massive supply shock from meme coins (e.g., PUMP) fragmenting liquidity; and the diversion of retail speculative capital into prediction markets, stock perps, and leveraged ETFs. Major questions VCs are now grappling with: whether they are underwriting equity, tokens, or a hybrid; what constitutes best practices for on-chain value accrual beyond potentially toxic token buybacks; and whether the "crypto premium" will vanish entirely, compressing token valuations to traditional equity multiples and potentially crashing Layer 1 valuations by over 95%. The author argues the pendulum has swung too far towards quantitative DeFi metrics and that qualitative factors like culture, innovation, and security remain crucial for non-DeFi projects. The conclusion is that token return expectations have compressed significantly, pushing later-stage investors towards "Web2.5" companies with tangible revenue. Crypto VCs must now prove their value beyond capital by offering strong branding and value-add to founders to survive.

marsbit04/13 01:33

Reflections and Confusions of a Crypto VC