Bitget to upgrade BGB on Morph blockchain as native gas and governance token

A decentralized finance (DeFi) trader lost $27 million in crypto after falling victim to a phishing scam, according to blockchain security firm PeckShield.

PeckShield reported on Tuesday that a user of the DeFi lending platform Venus Protocol saw crypto assets worth $27 million disappear in a phishing attack.

A phishing attack is a type of scam where attackers trick victims into granting malicious permissions or revealing sensitive information by pretending to be a legitimate source. In this incident, the user approved a malicious transaction, allowing the attacker to drain stablecoins and wrapped assets from its balance.

Onchain data suggests that the compromised wallet held about $19.8 million in Venus USDT (vUSDT) and $7.15 million in Venus USDC (vUSDC), which were siphoned after the user signed the malicious approval.

Amplify Investments has filed with the U.S. SEC to launch the first-ever XRP Spot Income ETF. If it gets approved, this fund could let regular investors earn money from XRP without ever buying the coin directly.

So what is it, how does it work, and is it safe? Let’s break it down.

What Exactly Is This ETF?

Think of it as a shortcut. Instead of buying XRP yourself, this fund would track XRP’s price and also pay you income on top. According to the filing, 80% of the fund will be tied to XRP’s value. But here’s the twist: it won’t hold the coin directly. Instead, it will use products linked to XRP, like exchange-traded products and options.

Where the “Income” Comes In

The secret sauce is a covered call strategy. In simple terms, the fund bets on XRP’s movements and earns premiums by selling options. Those premiums are then passed on to investors as income.

So instead of just riding XRP’s roller coaster, holders of the ETF could receive a steady stream of returns, even if the token’s price is choppy. The trade-off is that upside potential gets capped if XRP surges, but the income cushion helps soften the blows during quieter periods.

When Could It Launch?

Amplify wants to list the ETF on the Cboe BZX Exchange, possibly as early as November 2025. But nothing is certain until the SEC signs off. The SEC’s full review process can last up to 240 days to make a final decision on cryptocurrency ETF applications, starting from the initial filing date. 

Right now, the Commission is also reviewing applications for Solana, Dogecoin, XRP, and others from big names like Grayscale, 21Shares, and CoinShares.

FAQs

It’s a fund that would let investors gain exposure to XRP’s price and earn income through a covered call strategy, all without directly owning the token.

The fund uses a covered call strategy, selling options on products linked to XRP. It then passes the premiums earned from these sales to investors as income.

If approved by the SEC, it could list on Cboe BZX by November 2025. The SEC’s review process may take up to 240 days from filing.

It focuses on income generation via options, not just price tracking. It also avoids direct crypto custody, using derivatives for regulatory simplicity.

Delysium (AGI) will soon show its new community governance plan. When a crypto project gives more power and voice to holders, it can create strong trust and attention. Good governance usually attracts long-term buyers and can help price grow. But if the plan is not clear or lacks good ideas, prices may drop. Investors will watch the details closely, looking for positive changes or special rewards for those who help the community. This event is important, but price impact depends on how strong and clear the new plan is. source

When Kraken lists a new token like Quack AI (Q), many traders get interested. Kraken is a big, trusted crypto exchange, so a new listing often makes price move up. It can bring more users and money to Quack AI. With more buyers able to trade Q easily, there might be strong demand, especially if Quack AI is popular or new. But price moves depend on market feeling and general crypto trends. Not all new listings lead to lasting gains, so traders should be careful and watch the launch closely. source

Quack AI (Q) will also be listed on Gate.io, a top trading platform. Listings on major exchanges often bring more attention and new traders. This can help make trading Q easier and sometimes moves the price up strongly, thanks to extra liquidity and buy interest. Since this Gate.io listing happens the same day as the Kraken launch, price swings could be even bigger. But if too many people try to sell at once, gains may not last. As always, price depends on market excitement and long-term faith in Quack AI. source

One of the biggest mysteries in finance is not just who Satoshi Nakamoto is—it’s why the anonymous creator of Bitcoin, who sits on one of the largest personal fortunes in history, doesn’t appear on any billionaire rankings.

Forbes, the publication that made “The World’s Billionaires” list a cultural touchstone, has quietly drawn a line in the sand—and it may say more about them than it does about Satoshi Nakamoto.

Forbes’ Billionaire Rankings Cling to Old Rules of Identity and Paperwork

As of this writing, Bitcoin is trading for $110,302. Therefore, Satoshi Nakamoto’s dormant stash of 1.1 million BTC is worth more than $121 billion, almost enough to rival the fortunes of Elon Musk and Bernard Arnault.

Yet, Satoshi’s name is absent from Forbes’ billionaire rankings. The reason?

That explanation reveals the central flaw in how wealth is measured today. In an age where assets can be provably tracked on-chain, Forbes clings to a framework rooted in identity, legal structures, and corporate filings.

Satoshi is not excluded because the wealth isn’t real. Rather, because the wealth does not fit the story Forbes is used to telling.

Satoshi’s Ghost Fortune Exposes the Cracks Amid the Identity Trap

Forbes is not anti-crypto. Its rankings regularly include exchange founders such as Changpeng Zhao (CZ), token billionaires like Justin Sun, and institutional players.

However, Forbes’ methodology is still tethered to a 20th-century assumption, where wealth must be tied to a face and a filing cabinet.

Offshore trusts, shell companies, and anonymous corporate structures do not prevent billionaires from being ranked because there is ultimately a legal entity to which they are tied.

With Satoshi, there is no name, passport, or paper trail; only a set of keys on a blockchain. The assets are more transparent than most fortunes in the Forbes list, yet somehow, they are treated as less legitimate.

Previous attempts to reveal the identity of the pseudonymous Bitcoin creator have flopped. This includes theories from an HBO documentary, which proved very controversial. Individuals like Nick Szabo, Peter Todd, and Craig Wright also presented as likely candidates.

Justified or Outdated? Experts Debate Forbes’ Stance

Not everyone believes Forbes is wrong. Bryan Trepanier, Founder & President of On-Demand Trading, argues that exclusion is simply common sense.

According to Trepanier, a better approach would be for Forbes to create a list of the largest wallets and their holdings. He says this would give recognition without misrepresenting ownership.

For Trepanier, the fact that Satoshi’s wallets have been frozen in time for more than a decade undermines the claim that this is usable wealth.

That argument resonates with those who see billionaire rankings as more about economic power than raw account balances.

Yet others see Forbes’ position as increasingly untenable. Mete Al, Co-founder of ICB Labs, says the refusal to acknowledge Satoshi reflects a blind spot.

Mete Al points out the irony that many billionaires hide wealth behind opaque legal structures and offshore accounts, yet still make the Forbes list.

By contrast, Satoshi’s coins are visible to anyone with a blockchain explorer.

Elsewhere, Ray Youssef, CEO of NoOnes, says that Forbes’ methodology goes beyond missing the point.

According to Youssef, Forbes’ approach risks irrelevance because wealth today is no longer just tied to traditionally recognized assets

Youssef warns that by refusing to adapt, legacy outlets risk ceding credibility to Web3-native media that already track digital wealth with nuance.

Measuring Power in the Digital Era

Satoshi’s absence also conceals just how much influence pseudonymous wealth already exerts. A single transaction from Nakamoto’s wallets would dominate headlines and rattle markets in a way few corporate announcements could.

According to Mete Al, ignoring them doesn’t make their influence disappear. Rather, it blinds mainstream audiences to how much power crypto represents today.

Web3 expert and BestChange ambassador Nikita Zuborev echoed the sentiment in a statement to BeInCrypto.

So what comes next? Even skeptics like Trepanier suggest Forbes could publish supplemental lists of the largest wallets and balances.

Some propose sidestepping the identity issue while acknowledging the scale of digital wealth.

Beyond satisfying crypto’s demands for recognition, that hybrid approach would bring transparency to a growing asset class and help the mainstream understand just how much value circulates outside traditional systems.

Why It Matters

At first glance, Satoshi’s exclusion seems like a quirk of methodology. However, looking closer, it becomes a symbol of the battle between two definitions of wealth.

Forbes’ rankings are built on identity, documentation, and legacy finance. Bitcoin and Satoshi’s ghost fortune are built on math, transparency, and the absence of identity.

By leaving Nakamoto off the list, Forbes goes beyond making a technical call, signaling that the rules of the old world still define the billionaire class.

Whether that stance holds is an open question as crypto reshapes financial reality.

Nevertheless, ignoring Satoshi does not make them disappear. Rather, it only highlights the limits of billionaire rankings in an age when one of the richest entities alive may remain forever nameless.