Home Blog Page 26

ZachXBT Links Chinese Actors to $387M Bitget Hack Laundering as NEAR Intent Prevented $50M in Flows

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

The $387.5 million Bitget exploit has quickly become more than another crypto exchange hack. It is now a case study in how stolen digital assets move through a fragmented, cross-chain financial system—and how blockchain investigators and decentralized infrastructure providers are attempting to disrupt that process in real time.

Bitget confirmed that approximately $387.5 million in assets were transferred to attacker-controlled addresses during the September 24 breach, revising its original estimate of $351.6 million after identifying additional losses involving Zcash and TRON.

The exchange said the incident was contained and that its User Protection Fund would cover affected users. The laundering trail has since attracted the attention of blockchain investigator ZachXBT.

He alleged that Chinese illicit actors are helping launder funds connected to the suspected North Korean attackers, with some of the alleged intermediaries openly seeking transaction assistance through Discord servers and Telegram channels associated with services they were using.

ZachXBT also linked one alleged operator to an earlier $292 million Kelp DAO exploit.  The attribution remains an allegation rather than a final judicial determination. Bitget has publicly pointed toward a North Korean connection, while investigations continue.

The important issue for the crypto industry, however, is the laundering infrastructure exposed by the investigation. According to reporting on ZachXBT’s findings, the stolen assets were moved between blockchains using bridges before being routed toward privacy-oriented services.

This strategy illustrates the fundamental challenge facing investigators: blockchain transactions are transparent, but liquidity is increasingly distributed across networks, bridges, decentralized exchanges, solvers and privacy tools.

That is where NEAR Intents enters the story. NEAR Intents said its SHIELD risk-intelligence system detected more than $50 million in attempted Bitget-linked flows. Most of those transactions were rejected before execution.

Approximately $503,000 was frozen during execution, while around $166,000 passed through the infrastructure, according to NEAR’s reported figures. The distinction matters. NEAR Intents did not seize $50 million.

Rather, its system prevented more than $50 million in attempted flows from being processed, while separately freezing funds that had already entered the execution process. The rejected transactions could then be redirected toward other venues.

NEAR’s response also highlights an emerging model for decentralized finance: permissionless networks do not necessarily require every application, liquidity provider or solver to process every transaction.

SHIELD can use intelligence from transaction-monitoring providers, researchers, exchanges and other industry participants to identify suspicious activity and refuse certain requests.

Perhaps more significant was NEAR Intents’ decision to waive its potential bounty share. Bitget had established a recovery program, but NEAR said it would not claim a reward for the intervention, allowing more potential recovery value to remain with the exchange and its users. Bitget CEO Gracy Chen publicly acknowledged the contribution.

The episode therefore exposes two sides of crypto’s architecture. The same interoperability that allows legitimate users to move capital rapidly across networks can also provide attackers with multiple routes for dispersing stolen assets.

Yet that infrastructure can simultaneously become a surveillance and intervention layer when transaction intelligence is embedded directly into execution systems.

For the industry, the Bitget incident demonstrates that recovering stolen cryptocurrency is no longer solely a matter of tracing wallets after the fact. It increasingly depends on whether bridges, solvers, exchanges and decentralized protocols can recognize illicit flows quickly enough to prevent them from becoming irreversible.

Bitcoin ETFs Extend Inflow Streak to 8 Days as $31.1 Million Enters Spot Funds

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Bitcoin’s spot exchange-traded funds are continuing to attract capital, with the latest $31.1 million in net inflows extending their positive streak to eight consecutive trading days.

While the daily figure is modest compared with some of the much larger flows seen during periods of aggressive institutional accumulation, the persistence of buying offers an important signal about investor positioning in the digital-asset market.

The eight-day streak matters because ETF flows provide a relatively direct window into institutional and traditional-market demand for Bitcoin. Rather than relying solely on exchange activity or derivatives positioning, investors can use spot Bitcoin ETFs to gain exposure through familiar regulated investment products.

Continued inflows therefore suggest that a portion of capital allocated through these vehicles remains committed to Bitcoin despite fluctuations in price and broader uncertainty across financial markets.

The $31.1 million inflow also arrives during a period in which Bitcoin’s market narrative is increasingly connected to macroeconomic conditions. Interest rates, Treasury yields, inflation expectations and liquidity remain important variables for risk assets, including cryptocurrencies.

When investors anticipate easier financial conditions, demand for assets with higher volatility can strengthen. Conversely, elevated yields and tighter liquidity can encourage investors to reduce exposure to speculative markets.

Against that backdrop, the ETF streak becomes more significant than the size of any single day’s inflow. Eight consecutive sessions of net buying indicate that demand has remained positive rather than being driven by one isolated institutional transaction.

However, the figure should not be interpreted as evidence that all investors are becoming more bullish. ETF flows represent aggregate net activity and can conceal substantial differences among individual funds, investors and trading strategies.

Bitcoin’s broader market structure also remains important. Institutional flows can influence available liquidity because spot ETFs generally require underlying Bitcoin exposure to support their products.

Sustained demand can therefore contribute to buying pressure in the spot market, particularly when new allocations are large relative to available liquidity. At the same time, ETF inflows do not guarantee a sustained price increase.

Investors can enter and exit positions for different reasons, and Bitcoin remains sensitive to leverage, derivatives positioning, macroeconomic news and changes in risk appetite.

For traders, the current streak may reinforce the importance of watching ETF flows alongside price action rather than treating either metric independently. If Bitcoin rises while ETF inflows accelerate, the combination could indicate stronger demand behind the move.

If prices weaken despite continued inflows, it could suggest that selling pressure elsewhere in the market remains substantial. Likewise, a sudden reversal from inflows to outflows could become an important indicator of changing institutional positioning.

The eight-day run therefore represents a small but notable piece of the larger Bitcoin investment story. The $31.1 million figure is not extraordinary by itself, but consistency can sometimes matter more than magnitude.

After years of debate over whether institutional investors would maintain meaningful exposure to Bitcoin, the continued use of regulated ETF products provides an increasingly important channel between traditional finance and the cryptocurrency market.

As Bitcoin navigates changing liquidity conditions, monetary policy expectations and volatile investor sentiment, the next several trading sessions will show whether the current ETF inflow streak can continue.

For now, eight consecutive days of net inflows indicate that demand through the spot ETF market remains positive, even as investors continue to weigh Bitcoin against the broader risks and opportunities across global financial markets.

UEFA Super Cup Final Win By Paris Saint Germain Settles Victory Odds

By
TI Partners
-
0

In the 2025 UEFA Super Cup, Paris Saint-Germain completed a dramatic comeback against Tottenham in Udine. The 2-2 draw sent the UEFA Super Cup final into penalties. Paris then won 4-3 to secure its first Super Cup trophy. The result also settled pre-match victory markets around the European showpiece.

Paris Saint-Germain Turns Two-Goal Deficit Into Victory

Paris Saint-Germain entered the final after winning its first Champions League crown. Tottenham arrived after claiming the Europa League trophy. The matchup also provided several betting reference points for users visiting cambodia.1xbet.com/en/mobile while following the wider European football schedule. Both clubs therefore carried strong European form into the contest.

The match quickly developed into an important result for sports betting markets. Tottenham controlled the score after goals from Micky van de Ven and Cristian Romero. Van de Ven scored during the 39th minute from close range.

Romero then doubled Tottenham’s advantage shortly after halftime. His header arrived during the 48th minute of play. Paris faced a two-goal deficit with the match approaching its final stages.

The comeback began during the 85th minute through Kang-in Lee. His long-range strike gave Paris fresh momentum. Fourteen minutes later, Gonçalo Ramos completed the remarkable recovery.

Ramos headed home during the fourth minute of added time. Ousmane Dembélé created the chance with an excellent cross. UEFA later named Dembélé the Player of the Match. The final whistle arrived with both teams level at 2-2. Neither side could claim victory during regular playing time. The outcome therefore moved into a penalty shootout.

What The Result Meant For Sports Betting Markets

Sports betting markets separate match results from specific settlement conditions. Market settlement can differ by bet type, a distinction that also matters to bettors who have completed account registration before following major football fixtures. The final score settled the regular-time result at 2-2. The trophy winner then became Paris after the penalty shootout.

That distinction matters when reviewing different pre-match betting markets. A match-result market can use regular time as its settlement point. A tournament-winner market follows the team lifting the trophy.

The Super Cup final provided a clear example of this difference. Paris failed to lead after 90 minutes of football. However, the club still became the official competition winner.

Key figures from the final included:

  • Paris Saint-Germain scored two goals after halftime.
  • Tottenham scored both goals before the 50-minute mark.
  • Paris recorded 12 total attempts during the match.
  • Tottenham produced 13 total attempts across the contest.
  • Paris placed three attempts on target.
  • Tottenham placed five attempts on target.
  • The penalty shootout finished 4-3 for Paris.
  • Attendance at Stadio Friuli reached 21,025 spectators.

Late Goals Changed The Shape Of Victory Markets

The timing of Paris’s goals created the most dramatic part of the final. Lee scored with only five minutes remaining. Ramos then equalised during stoppage time. Those moments dramatically changed the match state within nine minutes. Markets connected with live match conditions therefore faced rapid changes.

Sports betting markets often react immediately to goals and major events. A two-goal lead creates a very different price than a level score. Paris moved from chasing the match toward forcing penalties.

The final penalty sequence added another layer to the result. Vitinha missed Paris’s opening penalty during the shootout. Tottenham then gained an opportunity to take control. Van de Ven failed to convert his attempt for Tottenham. Mathys Tel also missed during the decisive sequence. Those misses opened the door for Paris to complete its comeback.

That achievement added another significant data point for sports betting coverage. European competition results often influence future market expectations. Recent trophy success can become part of statistical team analysis.

Player Performances Added Important Betting Data

Individual performances also supplied useful information for sports betting analysis. Dembélé played a major role during Paris’s late recovery. His cross created Ramos’s equalising header during stoppage time. He then converted Paris’s third penalty during the shootout. UEFA’s technical observers subsequently selected him as Player of the Match.

Lee also became central to the comeback after entering the contest. His 85th-minute strike reduced the deficit to one goal. Ramos completed the scoring sequence with his late header. Lucas Chevalier also played an important role for Paris. The goalkeeper saved Van de Ven’s penalty during the shootout. That save directly affected the final trophy outcome.

Why 131% Coverage Matters for Bitget’s Proof-of-Reserves Test, as Quant Powers Bank Tokenization Network

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Crypto exchanges have spent years confronting one of the industry’s most difficult questions: can users trust that the assets displayed on their accounts are actually backed by assets held by the platform?

Bitget’s latest Proof of Reserves update puts that question back at the center of the conversation, offering another monthly snapshot of its reserves and the mechanisms users can use to verify them.

The exchange has now released its 47th Proof of Reserves report, continuing a reporting practice that began in December 2022. The latest snapshot, recorded at 17:00 UTC+8 on September 29, 2026, shows a total reserve ratio of 131% across 19 covered assets.

The headline figure is significant because a 100% reserve ratio represents basic one-to-one coverage: an exchange holds an equivalent amount of assets to match customer liabilities covered by the assessment.

A ratio of 131% indicates that, according to Bitget’s reported snapshot, reserves exceed the corresponding customer assets by 31%. Bitget says its reserve ratio has remained above 120% on average.

That additional buffer is important in an industry where liquidity, counterparty exposure and sudden withdrawals can rapidly test an exchange’s financial structure. A Proof of Reserves report should not be interpreted as a complete financial audit.

It provides evidence about assets and liabilities within the scope and methodology of the particular assessment, while other risks may remain outside that framework. One of the more important elements of Bitget’s system is Merkle Tree verification.

Instead of requiring users to simply accept an exchange’s published numbers, the cryptographic structure allows individual customers to check whether their assets were included in the reported snapshot.

The process is designed to provide verification without revealing another user’s balances, addressing the fundamental privacy problem that comes with publicly proving exchange liabilities. That distinction matters.

Transparency in crypto is increasingly moving from corporate assurances toward verifiable data. The underlying idea is straightforward: users should have mechanisms that allow them to independently examine claims rather than relying entirely on statements from centralized institutions.

Bitget is also presenting transparency as something broader than reserve reporting. Through its Bitget Alliance Program, the exchange says 30% of eligible platform transaction-fee revenue is allocated to a dedicated prize pool.

Updates to the pool are published daily at 16:00 UTC+8, allowing participants to monitor how rewards accumulate during the program, subject to its terms and conditions.

This approach reflects a wider evolution in crypto exchange competition. Security and liquidity remain fundamental, but users increasingly want visibility into how platforms operate, distribute incentives and manage customer-facing programs.

The 131% reserve figure therefore represents more than another monthly number. It contributes to an ongoing industry effort to make centralized crypto platforms more transparent and independently verifiable.

Yet the most important lesson is that transparency works best when users can verify rather than merely believe. Proof of Reserves, Merkle Tree systems and regularly published updates can strengthen that process.

While users still need to understand the methodology, asset coverage and limitations behind every report. The September snapshot extends a reporting record that now spans 47 updates.

For the broader crypto market, it highlights a continuing shift toward measurable proof as exchanges compete for trust in an industry where credibility can be as valuable as liquidity.

Quant Powers Bank Tokenization Network as QNT Surges 158.3%, While Blockchain.com Targets $500M US IPO

The institutionalization of blockchain infrastructure is entering a new phase, with two developments highlighting how the industry is moving beyond speculative digital assets and toward regulated financial markets.

A clearing house’s decision to tap Quant to power a bank tokenization network, alongside Blockchain.com’s reported plan to raise as much as $500 million through a US initial public offering, signals growing confidence in blockchain as financial infrastructure rather than merely a vehicle for cryptocurrency trading.

Quant’s role in bank tokenization is particularly significant because tokenized deposits and bank-issued digital assets require infrastructure capable of connecting existing financial institutions with blockchain-based settlement systems.

Unlike public cryptocurrencies, bank tokenization is focused on bringing traditional forms of money and financial instruments onto distributed networks while preserving regulatory controls, institutional standards and interoperability.

The market reaction was immediate. Quant’s QNT token reportedly rallied 158.3%, reflecting how quickly investors can reprice blockchain infrastructure projects when they become connected to large-scale institutional adoption.

The surge also illustrates a broader trend in digital-asset markets: investors are increasingly paying attention to the infrastructure layer that could underpin tokenized securities, payments, deposits and other financial products.

Yet price movements should not be confused with guaranteed adoption. A tokenization network still has to demonstrate that banks will use it at meaningful scale, that interoperability works across institutions and blockchains, and that the resulting system can satisfy regulatory and operational requirements.

The potential market is substantial, but implementation remains the critical test. At the same time, Blockchain.com appears to be positioning itself for an important transition from private crypto company to publicly traded financial-technology business.

The company is reportedly targeting a US IPO that could raise approximately $500 million at a valuation between $4 billion and $6 billion. If completed, such a listing would provide public-market investors with another way to gain exposure to the expanding cryptocurrency economy.

Blockchain.com has operated across several areas of the digital-asset ecosystem, including wallets, trading and institutional services. A successful IPO would therefore offer a market-based assessment of how investors value a company whose business is closely tied to crypto adoption while operating within an increasingly regulated financial environment.

The timing is also notable. The crypto industry has spent years moving from retail speculation toward institutional participation. Spot exchange-traded funds, tokenized assets, regulated derivatives and stablecoin infrastructure have all helped bring digital assets closer to conventional finance.

An IPO from a major crypto-native company would extend that process into public equity markets. Together, the Quant and Blockchain.com developments point toward a financial system in which blockchain companies increasingly compete for institutional credibility.

One story is about the infrastructure required to tokenize traditional banking assets; the other is about a crypto-native company seeking validation from public investors.

The next stage of the industry may therefore be less about whether blockchain can disrupt finance and more about which companies can build the infrastructure, regulatory relationships and economic models capable of supporting finance at institutional scale.

Why Do Women Need a Different Approach to Addiction Treatment?

By
TI Partners
-
0

For decades, addiction research and treatment were built mostly around men. We now know that women often develop substance use disorders differently, face different obstacles to getting help, and respond best to care that takes those differences seriously. If you’re a woman weighing treatment, or you’re worried about someone you love, understanding those differences can help you find care that fits.

How Addiction Develops Differently in Women

Faster Progression

Researchers have documented a pattern called “telescoping,” where women tend to move from first use to dependence more quickly than men. The National Institute on Drug Abuse notes that women may also experience health consequences like liver, heart, and brain damage after using smaller amounts for shorter periods of time.

Stronger Links to Mental Health and Trauma

Women with substance use disorders are more likely than men to also live with anxiety, depression, or PTSD. Many have histories of trauma, and substances often start as a way to quiet the symptoms that trauma leaves behind. Treating the addiction without addressing those underlying conditions rarely holds.

Different Reasons for Using

Women more often report using substances to cope with stress, emotional pain, or relationship problems. Some start or continue using because a partner uses. These patterns shape what recovery needs to look like, from therapy goals to relapse prevention plans.

The Barriers That Keep Women From Getting Help

Even when a woman knows she needs treatment, the logistics can feel impossible. Common obstacles include:

  • Childcare and caregiving responsibilities for kids or aging parents
  • Demanding careers that don’t leave room for time away
  • Stigma, which often hits mothers especially hard
  • Partners who discourage treatment or are using themselves
  • Shame about letting the problem go on as long as it has

None of these are small concerns. A good program acknowledges them openly and helps solve them rather than treating them as excuses.

What Effective Treatment for Women Includes

Trauma-Informed Care

Trauma-informed programs recognize how past experiences affect present behavior. Clinicians focus on safety, trust, and choice, and they avoid approaches that feel confrontational or shaming.

Integrated Mental Health Care

Because anxiety, depression, and PTSD so often travel with addiction, women benefit from programs that include psychiatry and evidence-based therapies like dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) as part of the same treatment plan.

Flexible Levels of Care

Not every woman can step away from work or family for a month. Intensive outpatient and outpatient programs let women receive structured treatment several days a week while keeping their jobs and staying present at home. For many, that flexibility is what makes treatment possible at all.

Family Involvement

Recovery is stronger when the people closest to a woman understand addiction and know how to support her. Family programming also helps repair relationships strained by substance use.

For women exploring women’s addiction treatment in New York, it’s worth asking each program how it handles trauma, co-occurring conditions, and scheduling. New York Center for Living offers outpatient and intensive outpatient addiction treatment with psychiatry, individual therapy, and family programming, which can make it easier to fit care around work and home.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is women-only treatment better than a coed program?

It depends on the person. Many women open up more easily in women-only groups, especially when trauma is involved, but others do well in mixed settings. What matters most is that the program addresses women’s specific needs.

Can I get treatment without leaving my job?

Often, yes. Intensive outpatient programs typically meet a few hours at a time, several days a week, and many offer schedules built around work.

How can I bring this up with a loved one?

Choose a calm moment, speak from concern rather than blame, and focus on specific behaviors you’ve noticed. Offering to help research programs together can make the next step feel less overwhelming.

Put Your Own Recovery on the Calendar

Women spend a lot of time taking care of everyone else. Getting help for substance use is a way of taking care of yourself, and it’s one of the best things you can do for the people who depend on you. Make one call this week, ask your questions, and schedule an assessment. You don’t have to have it all figured out to start.

1...252627...9,438Page 26 of 9,438