Trezor, one of the leading providers of crypto hardware wallets, has announced the launch of two new products: the Trezor Model T2 and the Trezor Backup Card. These products aim to offer enhanced security, usability and convenience for crypto users.
The Trezor Model T2 is the successor of the popular Trezor Model T, which was released in 2018. The new device features a larger touchscreen, a faster processor, a USB-C port and a redesigned interface. The Trezor Model T2 supports over 1,600 cryptocurrencies and tokens, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Cardano, Binance Coin and more. It also allows users to access decentralized applications (DApps) and decentralized exchanges (DEXs) directly from the device.
The Trezor Backup Card is a novel solution for storing the recovery seed of the hardware wallet. The recovery seed is a set of 12 or 24 words that can be used to restore the wallet in case of loss, theft or damage. The Trezor Backup Card is a credit card-sized device that uses QR codes to store the recovery seed in an encrypted and tamper-proof way.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 14 (June 3 – Sept 2, 2024) begins registrations; get massive discounts with early registration here.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
Users can scan the QR codes with the Trezor app or any compatible QR code scanner to access their recovery seed. The Trezor Backup Card is water-resistant, fire-resistant and shock-resistant, making it a durable and convenient alternative to paper or metal backups.
The Trezor Model T2 and the Trezor Backup Card are expected to be available for pre-order in November 2023, with shipping starting in December 2023. The price of the Trezor Model T2 is $199, while the price of the Trezor Backup Card is $49. Users who purchase both products together will receive a 10% discount.
Trezor claims that these new products will offer users a higher level of security and convenience for managing their crypto assets. According to the company’s website, “Trezor is more than just a hardware wallet. It is your gateway to the decentralized web.”
Elliptic finds apparent Russian connection in laundering of FTX stolen funds.
Elliptic, a blockchain analytics firm, has published a report that claims to have traced some of the funds stolen from the FTX crypto exchange in November 2022 to a Russian entity. The report says that about $10 million worth of Bitcoin and Ethereum were transferred from the hacker’s wallet to a service that offers anonymous transactions and swaps between different cryptocurrencies.
The service, which Elliptic did not name, is allegedly operated by a Russian individual or group, based on the analysis of the domain registration and web hosting information. Elliptic says that this service may have been used to launder the stolen funds and obscure their origin.
FTX, one of the largest crypto exchanges in the world, suffered a security breach on November 15, 2022, that resulted in the loss of about $150 million worth of various cryptocurrencies. The exchange said that it was able to recover most of the funds within hours, thanks to its internal security measures and the cooperation of other exchanges and blockchain platforms. However, some of the funds remained unaccounted for and were presumably in the hands of the hacker or hackers.
Elliptic’s report sheds some light on the possible destination of some of the missing funds, but it also raises more questions about the identity and motive of the attacker. The report suggests that the hacker may have been targeting FTX specifically, rather than randomly exploiting a vulnerability.
The report also notes that the hacker did not attempt to sell or cash out the stolen funds immediately, but rather waited for several weeks before moving them to the anonymous service. This could indicate that the hacker was either confident that they could evade detection or that they had a specific plan for using or disposing of the funds.
Elliptic says that it will continue to monitor the movement of the stolen funds and share its findings with law enforcement and FTX. The firm also urges crypto users and exchanges to be vigilant and report any suspicious transactions or activities to prevent further losses or damage.
Gauntlet to Deprecate Mai on Aave as Stablecoin Depegs
Gauntlet, a platform for risk management and governance of decentralized protocols, has proposed to deprecate Mai (formerly Matic) as a stablecoin on Aave, one of the leading lending platforms in DeFi. The reason for this proposal is that Mai has lost its peg to the US dollar and is currently trading at around $0.72, according to CoinGecko.
Mai is a synthetic stablecoin that is collateralized by Polygon’s native token, MATIC. It was launched in May 2021 by QiDao, a protocol that allows users to borrow stablecoins against their crypto assets without selling them. Mai was initially pegged to the US dollar at a 1:1 ratio, but due to various factors, such as market volatility, liquidity issues, and governance disputes, it has deviated significantly from its target price.
Gauntlet argues that this deviation poses a risk to the Aave protocol and its users, as it affects the health factor of the borrowers and the liquidation incentives of the lenders. The health factor is a metric that measures the solvency of a borrower based on their collateral value and debt value. If the health factor falls below a certain threshold, the borrower can be liquidated by the lenders, who can claim a portion of their collateral at a discount.
According to Gauntlet, the current situation of Mai creates a negative feedback loop that exacerbates its depegging. As Mai’s price drops, the borrowers’ health factor decreases, making them more vulnerable to liquidation. This in turn creates more selling pressure on Mai, as borrowers try to repay their debt or reduce their exposure. Moreover, the lenders have less incentive to liquidate the borrowers, as they would receive Mai tokens that are worth less than their face value. This reduces the demand for Mai and lowers its price further.
To address this issue, Gauntlet proposes to deprecate Mai on Aave, meaning that it would no longer be available as a borrowing or lending asset. This would effectively freeze the existing positions of Mai on Aave and prevent new ones from being created. Gauntlet claims that this would protect the Aave protocol from potential losses and reduce the systemic risk in DeFi.
Gauntlet’s proposal is currently under discussion on Aave’s governance forum and has received mixed reactions from the community. Some users support the proposal and agree that Mai is too risky to be supported on Aave. Others oppose the proposal and argue that it would harm the existing Mai users and damage the reputation of Aave as an open and inclusive platform. Some users also suggest alternative solutions, such as adjusting the risk parameters of Mai, creating a migration path for Mai users, or introducing a new synthetic stablecoin that is more robust and reliable.
The final decision on whether to deprecate Mai on Aave will depend on the outcome of the governance vote, which is expected to take place in the near future. The vote will require a quorum of at least 10% of the total AAVE tokens staked in the protocol and a majority of at least 50% of the votes cast. The vote will also be subject to a time lock of 48 hours before it can be executed.
Mai’s depegging is not an isolated incident in DeFi, as several other stablecoins have faced similar challenges in maintaining their pegs in recent months. These include Iron Finance’s IRON and TITAN tokens, which suffered a massive collapse in June 2021; Terra’s UST token, which experienced high volatility and slippage in September 2021; and OlympusDAO’s OHM token, which has been fluctuating around its target price of $1 since its launch in March 2021.
These events highlight the trade-offs and risks involved in creating and using synthetic stablecoins in DeFi. While synthetic stablecoins offer some advantages over fiat-backed or crypto-backed stablecoins, such as lower fees, higher capital efficiency, and greater composability, they also rely on complex mechanisms and assumptions that may not hold up in all market conditions. Therefore, users should exercise caution and due diligence when interacting with these assets and be prepared for potential losses or disruptions.