Storm Warfareの‌価格JAN

The U.S. Department of Justice is disbanding the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Unit, citing its ‘reckless strategy’ in prosecuting crypto firms in the previous administration. According to a recent report by Fortune, a four-page memo issued by U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche revealed the decision to disband the crypto-related investigation unit “effective immediately.” The decision is part of the Trump administration’s efforts to loosen oversight on the crypto industry. ““The Department of Justice is not a digital assets regulator. However, the prior Administration used the Justice Department to pursue a reckless strategy of regulation by prosecution,” stated Blanche in the memo. Following the announcement, Blanche also urged DOJ staff members to spend less time pursuing cases against crypto exchanges, mixers and “offline wallets.” Instead, they are directed to focus on prosecuting “individuals who victimize digital asset investors.” The National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Unit was established under Joe Biden’s presidency as a joint task force that consisted of prosecutors from the Justice Department’s money laundering , cybercrime units, as well as other district offices. The The National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Unit task force oversaw some of the largest crypto cases in the country. One in particular was the case against cryptocurrency mixing service Tornado Cash , which was prosecuted for money-laundering charges. Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm stated on Jan. 26 that he faces up to 45 years of imprisonment for operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business, conspiracy to commit money laundering and sanction evasion. Many crypto industry figures stood in support of Tornado Cash, viewing it as a case that criminalized software developers. Most recently on March 21, the U.S. Treasury lifted sanctions against Tornado Cash, allowing Americans to access it once more. The NCET also prosecuted Avraham Eisenberg, a hacker who exploited a crypto trading protocol Mango Markets for more than $114 million. Last January, the platform officially announced it was completely shutting down operations, giving users a deadline to close positions before they can no longer access the site. In addition, the joint investigation unit had also led investigations that scrutinized North Korean actors who helped launder funds stolen from crypto hacks.

Ethereum’s ( ETH) performance since the start of 2025 has been lackluster compared to bitcoin ( BTC) and the broader cryptocurrency market. After beginning the year trading above $3,300, ETH declined, reaching a low of $1,805.40 as of April 4, 2025. In contrast, bitcoin ( BTC), which rallied from under $69,000 on Nov. 5, 2024, to peak at just over $109,000 on Jan. 20, 2025, was down by approximately 10%, compared to ETH’s 45%. This divergence in performance has led to frustration among ETH holders and fans, who expected the cryptocurrency to outshine or at least match BTC’s growth. However, some experts remain bullish on ETH’s long-term prospects. They predict ETH potentially reaching $5,000 by the end of 2025, and some even see it surpassing $10,000 in the near future. The experts point to ongoing ecosystem upgrades, including the upcoming Pectra upgrade, as factors likely to kickstart a rebound that could see ETH eventually matching BTC’s strong performance. Still, some ETH holders and supporters continue to vent about the ETH price decline, which they attribute to both a lack of progress and the Ethereum team’s perceived failure to stem the regression. However, Ethereum proponents push back against this narrative, arguing that it ignores the real work being done to improve the protocol. Alex Loktev, CRO at P2P.org, acknowledges the frustration surrounding ethereum’s recent price performance, but attributes it to the network’s focus on foundational development rather than hype-driven narratives. He argues that Ethereum’s shift to Proof-of-Stake (PoS), the implementation of EIP-1559, and the build-out of its Layer-2 ecosystem, while not immediately impacting price, are crucial for long-term stability and scalability. Loktev notes that other crypto or related assets such as bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETF), artificial intelligence (AI) tokens, and memecoins have captured market attention. This has left Ethereum to work on its infrastructure. However, he remains cautiously optimistic for 2025, anticipating positive impacts from the Pectra upgrade, potential ETH ETFs with staking, and a maturing Layer-2 ecosystem. He believes ETH could surpass previous highs with favorable market conditions. With respect to the Pectra upgrade, Loktev said this change promises to reshape the landscape of staking and potentially inject renewed vigor into the Ethereum ecosystem. In fact, Loktev sees the Pectra upgrade as a crucial step in strengthening Ethereum’s economic foundation. The upgrade, he argues, makes staking significantly safer. “Look at the numbers – slashing penalties dropping by up to 128x makes staking dramatically safer. For institutional money that’s been sitting on the sidelines, worried about tail risk, this removes a major barrier. Combined with auto-compounding, we’ve got a seriously improved staking proposition,” Loktev stated. Furthermore, the Pectra upgrade, slated for April 30, is said to introduce auto-compounding, enhancing the overall staking proposition. Loktev anticipates the staking ratio, currently around 31%, to climb towards 40-45% within the next year or two from the upgrade. Although the upgrade alone may not immediately “pump” ETH’s price, Loktev believes it will strengthen Ethereum’s economic fundamentals by locking up more supply and creating increased yield opportunities within the decentralized finance (DeFi) sector. By addressing concerns surrounding staking risks and enhancing yield opportunities, the upgrade could pave the way for increased institutional adoption and a more robust Ethereum ecosystem. Meanwhile, Loktev claims the upgrade, which increases validators with Maximum Effective Balances (MEB) from 32 to up to 2048 ETH, is poised to bring significant operational efficiencies and risk reductions to the network. While some might question the impact on decentralization, Loktev argues that this move addresses crucial practicalities for validator operators. He highlights the operational burden of running numerous smaller validators. He said: “Running 64 validators instead of one means 64 times the infrastructure complexity, 64 times the monitoring overhead, and 64 times the potential points of failure.” Beyond operational benefits, Loktev points to the significant advantages for everyday stakers. The introduction of auto-compounding allows consensus layer rewards, which constitute about 75% of total staking returns, to automatically grow validator balances, effectively providing compound interest without manual intervention. Furthermore, Pectra upgrade dramatically improves the risk profile for validators. Loktev notes that under the current system, a “simple technical hiccup” can result in a 3.28% loss of stake. Post-Pectra, this risk is reduced to a mere 0.19%, representing a 17x reduction in risk exposure. Looking ahead to 2030, Loktev predicts significant potential for Ethereum, provided the network successfully executes its roadmap and PoS remains effective. He emphasizes that Ethereum’s growing role as essential infrastructure for the digital economy is the key trend to watch, rather than short-term price fluctuations. Loktev concludes that Ethereum’s future success hinges on its ability to scale through Layer-2 solutions and maintain its position as a leading platform for decentralized applications. 免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。

Oak Security’s Jan Philipp Fritsche says Web3 needs to stop ignoring basic OPSEC hygiene, especially as state-sponsored threats rise. As North Korea’s “ClickFake” campaign draws renewed attention to cyberattacks on crypto firms, security experts say Web3’s biggest vulnerability isn’t smart contracts — it’s people. Jan Philipp Fritsche, Managing Director at Oak Security, argued in a note to crypto.news that most blockchain projects lack even the most basic operational security standards . Fritsche, a former European Central Bank analyst who now advises and audits protocols says the real risk lies in how teams manage devices, permissions, and production access. “The ClickFake campaign shows just how easily teams can be compromised,” Fritsche said in a note. “Web3 projects have to assume that most of your employees are exposed to cyber threats outside their work environment.” For background, North Korea’s Lazarus Group is using a cyber campaign called “ClickFake Interview” targeting cryptocurrency professionals. The group posed as recruiters on LinkedIn and X, luring victims into fake interviews to distribute malware. The malware, named “ClickFix,” gave attackers remote access to steal sensitive data like crypto wallet credentials. Researchers said Lazarus used realistic documents and full interview conversations to enhance credibility. Most DAOs and early-stage teams still rely on personal devices — often used for both development and Discord chatting — which leaves them exposed to nation-state level attackers. Unlike traditional enterprises, many DAOs have no way to enforce security standards. “There’s no way to enforce security hygiene,” Fritsche said. “Too many teams, especially smaller ones, ignore this and hope for the best.” Fritsche says even the assumption that a device is clean may be flawed. For high-value projects, that means developers should never have the ability to push changes to production unilaterally. “Company-issued devices with limited privileges are a good start,” Fritsche said. “But you also need fail-safes—no single user should have that kind of control.” The lesson from traditional finance? Every risk is assumed to be real until proven otherwise. “In TradFi, you need a keycard just to check your inbox,” Fritsche said. “That standard exists for a reason. Web3 needs to catch up.”

An expert from Oak Security has explained what went wrong with the JELLY token exploit, which cost the Hyperliquid exchange $10.63 million. Reactions are still mounting from an exploit that cost Hyperliquid (HYPE) exchange’s users $10.63 million in losses. The reactions seem to have one thing in common, which is calling out Hyperliquid for its practices. Dr. Jan Philipp Fritsche, managing director at Oak Security, shared his analysis with crypto.news. According to Fritsche, the exploit wasn’t caused by a bug, but rather was a predictable failure, one that could pose a risk to other DeFi protocols as well. The JELLY exploit appears to be the result of a coordinated market manipulation by several users. Specifically, one trader opened a $5 million short position on JELLY, only to remove their margin. Hyperliquid was left holding the position, after which other traders coordinated a short squeeze. “The attacker opened massive opposing positions in JELLY, knowing that one side would collapse and the other would cash out. Because payouts weren’t capped and risk wasn’t isolated, the protocol ate the loss—and the attacker walked away with millions,“ Dr. Jan Philipp Fritsche, Oak Security Fritsche described the exploit as a “textbook example of unpriced vega risk”, a concept from traditional finance that refers to the implied volatility of an asset. He emphasized that many DeFi protocols still fail to account for this crucial risk metric. This isn’t the first time industry figures have criticized Hyperliquid over the Jelly incident. Following the exploit, Bitget CEO Gracy Chen called the exchange’s practices “immature, unethical, and unprofessional,” warning that it could become FTX 2.0 . Although Hyperliquid has pledged to compensate users affected by the exploit, the damage to its reputation may already be done. More importantly, the exploit has drawn attention to broader vulnerabilities in the decentralized finance sector. In 2024, DeFi exploits cost users $308.7 million in losses. That was more than rug pulls, which accounted for $192.9 million . Just days after the Jelly exploit, a DeFi protocol SIR.trading fell victim to another exploit, losing all of its total value locked of $355,000 .

value low holding for now at least, if equities can't break us down today what can? i mean realistically there is very little chance ES breaches much lower than 5k (no jinx ples) it seems to me that the relationship between stocks and crypto is sort of inverse dec/jan, where