Effective Date: July 29th, 2026
Last Updated: July 29th, 2026

Bacoor Dapps (“Bacoor,” “we,” “us,” or “our”) operates KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK, including its website, interfaces, smart contracts, blockchain-based functions, non-fungible tokens, and related services collectively referred to as the “Service.”

This Privacy Policy explains how we collect, use, disclose, store, and protect information in connection with the Service.

By accessing or using the Service, you acknowledge the practices described in this Privacy Policy.

1. Scope of This Privacy Policy

This Privacy Policy applies to information processed by Bacoor through:

• The KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK website;
• Interfaces operated by Bacoor;
• Address book registration functions;
• NFT minting and management functions;
• Wallet connection functions;
• Contact forms and support communications;
• Analytics, security, and fraud-prevention systems; and
• Other services that refer to this Privacy Policy.

This Privacy Policy does not govern independent blockchain networks, wallet providers, NFT marketplaces, decentralized applications, or other third-party services.

2. Information We Collect

The information we collect depends on how you interact with the Service.

2.1 Wallet and Blockchain Information

When you connect a wallet or use blockchain-based functions, we may process:

• Public wallet addresses;
• Blockchain network information;
• Transaction hashes;
• Token or NFT identifiers;
• Smart contract interactions;
• Transaction status;
• Blockchain timestamps;
• Publicly available transaction history; and
• Other information recorded on or derived from a public blockchain.

Wallet addresses and blockchain activity may constitute personal information where they can be connected to an identifiable individual.

2.2 Address Book Information

When you create or manage an address book entry, we may process:

• Nicknames;
• Display names;
• Contact labels;
• Email addresses;
• Public wallet addresses;
• Profile images or avatars;
• Verification status;
• NFT metadata;
• Information included in an address book record; and
• Other information you choose to submit.

You must not submit another person’s personal information unless you have the necessary authority, consent, or other lawful basis to do so.

2.3 Verification Information

Where the Service provides a verification function, we may collect information necessary to verify control of a wallet address or the accuracy of a contact entry, including:

• Wallet signatures;
• Verification requests and responses;
• Email verification records;
• Verification timestamps;
• Verification status;
• Records showing control of a wallet address; and
• Related communications.

A wallet signature used for verification does not normally disclose your private key.

2.4 Technical and Usage Information

When you access the Service, we or our service providers may automatically collect:

• Internet Protocol address;
• Browser type and version;
• Device type;
• Operating system;
• Language settings;
• Approximate location derived from an IP address;
• Referral pages;
• Pages and functions accessed;
• Access dates and times;
• Session identifiers;
• Error reports;
• Performance information;
• Security logs; and
• Other technical information about your interaction with the Service.

2.5 Cookies and Similar Technologies

We may use cookies, local storage, pixels, software development kits, and similar technologies to:

• Operate the Service;
• Maintain sessions;
• Remember settings;
• Measure website performance;
• Understand how the Service is used;
• Detect fraudulent or malicious activity; and
• Improve functionality.

Where required, we will obtain consent before using non-essential cookies.

You may control cookies through your browser settings. Disabling certain cookies may prevent some Service functions from working correctly.

2.6 Communications and Support Information

When you contact Bacoor, we may collect:

• Your name;
• Email address;
• Wallet address;
• Company or organization;
• The contents of your inquiry;
• Screenshots or files you submit;
• Support history; and
• Other information you voluntarily provide.

You should not send your private key, seed phrase, recovery phrase, or wallet password to Bacoor.

2.7 Information from Third Parties

We may receive information from:

• Public blockchain networks;
• Wallet connection providers;
• RPC providers;
• Block explorers;
• Verification providers;
• Analytics providers;
• Security providers;
• Infrastructure providers; and
• Other services you choose to connect to KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK.

Information received from third parties is handled in accordance with this Privacy Policy and any restrictions imposed by the relevant third party.

3. Information We Do Not Intentionally Collect

KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK is intended to operate with self-custodial wallets.

Bacoor does not require you to provide and does not intentionally collect or store:

• Private keys;
• Seed phrases;
• Recovery phrases;
• Wallet passwords; or
• Information that would independently allow Bacoor to control your wallet.

You must never send this information to Bacoor.

If such information is accidentally submitted to us, you should immediately move your digital assets to a new secure wallet. We may delete the submitted information where reasonably possible, but we cannot guarantee that credentials already exposed remain secure.

4. Purposes of Use

We process information for the following purposes:

4.1 Providing the Service

To:

• Connect supported wallets;
• Create and display address book entries;
• Associate contact information with wallet addresses;
• Mint or display NFTs;
• Process verification requests;
• Display transaction status;
• Provide search and contact-selection functions;
• Maintain user preferences; and
• Provide other requested functions.

4.2 Operating and Improving the Service

To:

• Monitor performance;
• Diagnose technical problems;
• Develop new functions;
• Improve usability;
• Conduct internal analysis;
• Test updates;
• Maintain compatibility with supported networks and wallets; and
• Understand how users interact with the Service.

4.3 Security and Misuse Prevention

To:

• Protect users and the Service;
• Detect phishing, fraud, impersonation, and malicious activity;
• Prevent unauthorized access;
• Investigate suspicious activity;
• Enforce our Terms of Service;
• Protect Bacoor’s rights and systems; and
• Respond to security incidents.

4.4 Communications and Support

To:

• Respond to inquiries;
• Provide technical support;
• Send service-related notices;
• Inform users about important changes;
• Handle complaints;
• Provide security alerts; and
• Maintain records of communications.

4.5 Legal and Regulatory Compliance

To:

• Comply with applicable laws, regulations, court orders, and governmental requests;
• Establish, exercise, or defend legal claims;
• Maintain required records;
• Respond to lawful requests from authorities; and
• Protect the rights, property, and safety of users, Bacoor, and third parties.

4.6 Additional Purposes

Where we intend to use personal information for a purpose not reasonably related to the purposes described above, we will notify you and obtain consent where required by applicable law.

5. Public Blockchain Information

KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK uses public blockchain technology.

You should understand that information submitted to a blockchain may be:

• Publicly visible;
• Permanently recorded;
• Accessible worldwide;
• Copied or indexed by third parties;
• Combined with other publicly available information;
• Associated with your wallet activity; and
• Difficult or impossible to change or delete.

Blockchain networks are generally operated by independent participants rather than Bacoor. Bacoor does not control how public blockchain records are stored, copied, validated, or displayed.

Removing an address book entry from an interface operated by Bacoor does not necessarily remove:

• The underlying blockchain transaction;
• NFT ownership records;
• Smart contract records;
• Transaction hashes;
• Information copied by block explorers;
• Information stored by decentralized storage systems; or
• Information retained by third parties.

Before placing a nickname, name, email address, or other personal information on a blockchain, carefully consider whether you are comfortable making it public and potentially permanent.

6. Legal Handling of Personal Information

Bacoor processes personal information in accordance with the Act on the Protection of Personal Information of Japan and other applicable laws.

We will not handle personal information beyond the scope necessary to achieve the disclosed purposes of use without obtaining consent or another lawful basis, except where permitted or required by law.

We will not obtain personal information through deception or other improper means.

7. Sharing and Disclosure of Information

We may disclose information in the circumstances described below.

7.1 Service Providers

We may entrust information to service providers that assist us with:

• Website hosting;
• Cloud infrastructure;
• Database management;
• Analytics;
• Error monitoring;
• Customer support;
• Email delivery;
• Cybersecurity;
• Wallet connectivity;
• Blockchain data access; and
• Other operational services.

Service providers may process information only as necessary to provide services to Bacoor and must handle it in accordance with applicable contractual and legal requirements.

7.2 Public Blockchain Networks

When you submit a blockchain transaction, information included in that transaction is transmitted to the relevant blockchain network and may become publicly available.

This disclosure is necessary to perform the blockchain action you request.

7.3 At Your Direction

We may disclose information when:

• You instruct us to do so;
• You connect a third-party service;
• You make information publicly available through the Service; or
• Disclosure is necessary to complete a transaction or function you request.

7.4 Legal Requirements and Protection

We may disclose information where reasonably necessary to:

• Comply with applicable law;
• Respond to a court order, subpoena, warrant, or governmental request;
• Investigate fraud or unlawful activity;
• Enforce our Terms of Service;
• Protect the security of the Service;
• Protect the rights or safety of Bacoor, users, or third parties; or
• Establish, exercise, or defend legal claims.

7.5 Business Transfers

Information may be disclosed or transferred in connection with:

• A merger;
• Acquisition;
• Corporate reorganization;
• Financing;
• Sale of assets;
• Transfer of the Service; or
• Insolvency or similar proceeding.

Where required by law, we will provide appropriate notice concerning such a transfer.

7.6 Third-Party Provision

Except as described in this Privacy Policy or otherwise permitted by law, Bacoor will not provide personal data to an independent third party without obtaining the individual’s prior consent.

Service providers processing information on Bacoor’s behalf are not treated as independent third-party recipients to the extent provided under applicable law.

8. International Processing and Transfers

The Service may use blockchain networks, infrastructure providers, cloud-service providers, analytics providers, and other service providers located outside Japan.

As a result, information may be processed or stored in countries or regions that have privacy and data-protection systems different from those of Japan.

Where required by applicable law, Bacoor will:

• Provide information concerning the foreign recipient or relevant privacy system;
• Obtain consent for an overseas transfer;
• Confirm that the recipient maintains an appropriate system for protecting personal information; or
• Implement another legally permitted transfer mechanism.

Public blockchain information may be distributed among nodes located in many countries. Because Bacoor does not control the location or operation of independent blockchain nodes, we may be unable to identify every country in which a public blockchain record is stored or processed.

9. Data Retention

We retain personal information only for as long as reasonably necessary for:

• The purposes described in this Privacy Policy;
• Providing the Service;
• Maintaining security;
• Resolving disputes;
• Enforcing agreements;
• Satisfying accounting or audit requirements; and
• Complying with legal obligations.

Retention periods may vary depending on the type of information and the reason it was collected.

We may retain:

• Support records for a reasonable period after an inquiry is resolved;
• Security logs for as long as necessary to investigate and prevent misuse;
• Transaction-related records as required for operational, accounting, or legal purposes; and
• Records necessary to demonstrate compliance with legal obligations.

Information permanently stored on a public blockchain may remain available indefinitely and may not be deletable by Bacoor.

We may anonymize or aggregate information so that it can no longer reasonably identify an individual. Anonymized or aggregated information may be retained for analysis, security, and service-improvement purposes.

10. Security Measures

Bacoor implements reasonable and appropriate safeguards for personal information, taking into account the nature of the information, the risks involved, and applicable legal requirements.

These safeguards may include:

• Internal policies concerning personal information;
• Access controls;
• Authentication measures;
• Encryption in transit and, where appropriate, at rest;
• Logging and monitoring;
• Restrictions on employee and contractor access;
• Security training;
• Vendor-management procedures;
• Vulnerability management;
• Incident-response procedures;
• Backup and recovery measures; and
• Physical and organizational safeguards.

No method of internet transmission or electronic storage is completely secure. Bacoor cannot guarantee absolute security.

You are responsible for protecting your wallet, devices, passwords, authentication methods, and account credentials.

11. Personal Data Incidents

If Bacoor becomes aware of a loss, destruction, alteration, unauthorized disclosure, or other security incident involving personal data, we will investigate and take reasonable corrective measures.

Where required by applicable law, Bacoor will report the incident to the Personal Information Protection Commission of Japan and notify affected individuals.

Notifications may include:

• The nature of the incident;
• The categories of information affected;
• The likely cause;
• Potential consequences;
• Measures taken by Bacoor; and
• Steps individuals may take to protect themselves.

Public blockchain transactions resulting from a compromised private key may be irreversible and may not be recoverable by Bacoor.

12. Your Rights

Subject to the requirements and exceptions under applicable law, you may request:

• Notification of the purposes of use;
• Disclosure of retained personal data;
• Disclosure of records concerning third-party provision;
• Correction of inaccurate information;
• Addition of incomplete information;
• Deletion of information;
• Suspension or cessation of use;
• Erasure of retained personal data; or
• Suspension of provision to third parties.

To submit a request, contact us using the information in Section 19.

We may ask you to provide information reasonably necessary to:

• Confirm your identity;
• Confirm that you control the relevant wallet address;
• Identify the information concerned; and
• Prevent unauthorized or fraudulent requests.

We will respond within a reasonable period in accordance with applicable law.

A request may be refused or limited where permitted by law, including where disclosure would:

• Harm the rights or interests of another person;
• Materially interfere with Bacoor’s operations;
• Violate another law;
• Compromise security; or
• Require alteration of information that Bacoor does not control.

Bacoor may be unable to delete or modify information permanently recorded on a public blockchain. Where appropriate, we may instead remove or restrict information displayed through interfaces controlled by Bacoor.

13. Information About Other People

The Service may allow you to associate another person’s nickname, name, email address, or other information with a wallet address.

Before submitting information about another person, you are responsible for:

• Informing that person as appropriate;
• Obtaining any necessary consent;
• Confirming that the information is accurate;
• Ensuring that you have the right to submit it;
• Avoiding unnecessary or sensitive information; and
• Understanding whether the information will be publicly recorded.

You must not use KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK to publish another person’s personal information without authorization.

Bacoor may remove or restrict information from its interfaces where we reasonably believe it violates privacy rights, applicable law, or our Terms of Service. Such action may not remove information already recorded on a blockchain.

14. Children

The Service is intended for individuals who are at least 18 years old.

Bacoor does not knowingly collect personal information from children through the Service.

If you believe that a child has provided personal information to us, contact us. We will review the matter and take appropriate action where reasonably possible.

Information recorded on a public blockchain may not be removable by Bacoor.

15. Third-Party Wallets and Services

The Service may link to or interact with:

• Wallet applications;
• Wallet connection protocols;
• Blockchain networks;
• RPC providers;
• Block explorers;
• NFT marketplaces;
• Decentralized storage networks;
• Analytics services; and
• Other third-party websites or applications.

These services operate independently and may collect information under their own privacy policies.

Bacoor is not responsible for the privacy, security, or data-handling practices of independent third parties. You should review the applicable privacy policies before using those services.

16. Analytics and Aggregated Information

We may analyze technical and usage information to understand:

• Service traffic;
• Feature usage;
• Device and browser compatibility;
• Errors and performance;
• Security risks; and
• General usage trends.

Where possible, we may use aggregated or anonymized information that does not directly identify an individual.

We may use such information to operate, secure, improve, and develop the Service.

17. Do Not Track and Browser Controls

Some browsers provide “Do Not Track” or similar privacy signals.

Because there is not always a uniform technical standard for responding to these signals, the Service may not respond to every signal.

You may control certain tracking technologies through:

• Browser cookie settings;
• Device privacy settings;
• Consent tools displayed by the Service; and
• Settings provided by relevant third-party services.

18. Changes to This Privacy Policy

Bacoor may revise this Privacy Policy to reflect:

• Changes to the Service;
• New technologies;
• Changes in our information-handling practices;
• Security requirements;
• Legal or regulatory developments; or
• Changes to service providers.

The revised Privacy Policy will state its updated effective date.

Where changes are material, we will provide reasonable notice through the Service, the website, or another appropriate method.

Where consent is required for a new use or disclosure of personal information, we will obtain consent before carrying out that activity.

19. Governing Language

This Privacy Policy may be translated into multiple languages.

If any translated version conflicts with the English version, the English version will control, except where applicable law requires otherwise.

Effective Date: July 29th, 2026
Last Updated: July 29th, 2026

These Terms of Service (“Terms”) govern your access to and use of KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK, including its website, interfaces, smart contracts, blockchain-based functions, non-fungible tokens, and related services (collectively, the “Service”).

The Service is operated by Bacoor Dapps (“Bacoor,” “we,” “us,” or “our”).

By accessing, connecting a wallet to, or using the Service, you agree to these Terms. If you do not agree to these Terms, you must not use the Service.

1. About KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK

KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK is a blockchain-based address book service that allows users to associate wallet addresses with recognizable contact information, such as nicknames, names, labels, or email addresses.

Depending on the functions available at the time, the Service may allow users to:

• Create or register address book entries;
• Associate a blockchain address with a nickname, label, name, or email address;
• Mint, hold, transfer, or manage an NFT representing an address book entry;
• Search for or select registered contacts when preparing blockchain transactions;
• Connect supported self-custodial wallets;
• View information recorded through supported blockchain networks; and
• Use other related functions made available by Bacoor.

The Service is intended to make blockchain addresses easier to recognize. It does not eliminate the need to verify wallet addresses before submitting a transaction.

2. Eligibility

You may use the Service only if:

1. You are at least 18 years old;
2. You have the legal capacity to enter into a binding agreement;
3. Your use of the Service is permitted under the laws applicable to you;
4. You are not prohibited from using the Service under applicable sanctions, trade restrictions, or other laws; and
5. You use the Service for lawful purposes.

If you use the Service on behalf of a company or other organization, you represent that you have authority to bind that organization to these Terms. In that case, “you” includes both you and the organization.

3. Wallet Connection and Self-Custody

The Service may require you to connect a compatible blockchain wallet.

Bacoor does not take custody of your wallet, private keys, seed phrases, recovery phrases, passwords, or digital assets. You remain solely responsible for:

• Protecting your wallet credentials;
• Maintaining the security of your device;
• Backing up your wallet;
• Confirming that you are using the correct network;
• Reviewing transaction details before signing;
• Verifying recipient addresses;
• Maintaining sufficient native tokens to pay network fees; and
• All activities performed through your wallet.

Bacoor cannot access, recover, reset, replace, or restore your private key or recovery phrase.

You must never provide your private key, seed phrase, recovery phrase, or wallet password to Bacoor or to any person claiming to represent Bacoor.

If you believe your wallet has been compromised, you should immediately stop using that wallet and transfer your assets to a secure wallet where appropriate.

4. Address Book Entries

You may be able to create an address book entry that associates a wallet address with information such as a nickname, name, label, or email address.

You are responsible for ensuring that all information you submit is accurate, lawful, and not misleading.

You must not create an entry that:

• Falsely represents that you control a wallet address;
• Impersonates another person, company, project, or organization;
• Uses another person’s name, email address, or personal information without authorization;
• Infringes intellectual property, privacy, publicity, or other rights;
• Contains fraudulent, deceptive, defamatory, threatening, or unlawful content;
• Promotes illegal activity;
• Contains malicious links, code, or instructions;
• Attempts to misdirect users to an unauthorized wallet address; or
• Is otherwise inappropriate for the Service.

Bacoor may restrict, hide, label, suspend, or remove an entry from interfaces controlled by Bacoor if we reasonably believe it violates these Terms or creates a security, legal, or user-protection risk.

However, information already recorded on a public blockchain may remain visible on that blockchain even if it is removed from Bacoor’s interfaces.

5. Personal Information and Public Blockchain Records

Blockchain transactions and blockchain-stored information may be public, permanent, and accessible worldwide.

Before submitting information to the blockchain, you must understand that:

• The information may be visible to anyone;
• It may be copied, indexed, analyzed, or republished by third parties;
• It may become associated with your wallet activity;
• It may be difficult or impossible to modify or delete;
• Bacoor may not control the blockchain network on which it is recorded; and
• Removing information from the KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK interface may not remove it from the blockchain.

You must not place another person’s personal information on a blockchain unless you have a lawful basis and all necessary authorization to do so.

You should avoid publishing sensitive personal information through the Service.

Bacoor’s handling of personal information outside the blockchain is governed by the KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK Privacy Policy.

6. Verification and Contact Accuracy

Certain entries may display a verification status, badge, label, or other indicator.

Unless expressly stated otherwise, a verification indicator only means that the entry has completed the verification process described by Bacoor at that time. It does not constitute a guarantee that:

• The person or organization will continue to control the wallet address;
• The wallet address is safe;
• A transaction to the address will achieve your intended result;
• The person or organization is trustworthy;
• The information will remain current; or
• The address has not been compromised.

Wallet ownership and contact information can change. Before sending digital assets, you must independently confirm the recipient, wallet address, blockchain network, asset, and transaction amount.

KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK is an identification and convenience tool. It is not a substitute for transaction review or independent verification.

7. NFTs and Digital Records

The Service may allow you to mint or receive an NFT associated with an address book entry.

Unless expressly stated otherwise, ownership of a KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK NFT does not give you:

• Ownership of Bacoor or any Bacoor product;
• Shares, equity, voting rights, dividends, or profit rights;
• Ownership of the KEYRING name, trademarks, software, interface, or brand;
• Intellectual property rights in content owned by Bacoor or third parties;
• A right to receive financial returns;
• A guarantee of continued utility, market value, liquidity, or transferability; or
• A guarantee that third-party platforms will display or support the NFT.

The NFT is intended to function as part of the Service. It must not be marketed or represented as an investment product, security, deposit, or guaranteed store of value.

The appearance, metadata, network support, transferability, or functionality of an NFT may depend on blockchain networks, smart contracts, wallet software, token standards, metadata storage, and third-party services outside Bacoor’s control.

8. Blockchain Transactions

Blockchain transactions are normally irreversible after confirmation.

You are responsible for reviewing all transaction information before signing or submitting a transaction, including:

• The wallet address;
• The recipient;
• The selected blockchain network;
• The token or NFT;
• The transaction amount;
• Smart contract permissions;
• Network fees;
• Service fees; and
• Any warnings displayed by your wallet or the Service.

Bacoor is not responsible for transactions sent to an incorrect address or network, transactions signed by mistake, lost wallet credentials, unauthorized wallet access, or transactions that cannot be reversed.

Bacoor cannot cancel, reverse, or modify a confirmed blockchain transaction.

9. Fees, Gas Fees, and Taxes

Some functions may require payment of:

• Blockchain network fees, commonly known as gas fees;
• Minting fees;
• Service fees;
• Wallet-provider fees;
• Third-party service fees; or
• Other charges disclosed before confirmation.

Network fees are determined by the applicable blockchain network and may change without notice. Bacoor does not control network congestion or the amount of gas fees charged by a blockchain network.

Before confirming a paid transaction, you will be given an opportunity to review the transaction details made available through the Service or your connected wallet.

Except where required by applicable law or expressly stated otherwise, fees for completed blockchain transactions are non-refundable because such transactions may be irreversible and network resources may already have been used.

You are responsible for determining and paying any taxes, duties, levies, or reporting obligations arising from your use of the Service or ownership, minting, receipt, or transfer of an NFT.

10. No Custody, Exchange, or Financial Advice

Bacoor does not provide custodial wallet services through KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK.

Unless separately stated and legally authorized, KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK does not provide:

• Crypto-asset exchange services;
• Brokerage services;
• Investment management;
• Banking services;
• Deposit services;
• Tax advice;
• Legal advice;
• Investment recommendations; or
• Financial advice.

Information displayed through the Service is provided for general informational and operational purposes.

You are responsible for evaluating the legal, financial, technical, and tax consequences of any transaction.

11. Prohibited Conduct

You must not:

1. Use the Service for fraud, theft, money laundering, terrorist financing, sanctions evasion, phishing, scams, or other illegal activity;
2. Impersonate another person or misrepresent control of a wallet address;
3. Create deceptive entries intended to redirect or steal digital assets;
4. Submit information that violates another person’s privacy or rights;
5. Interfere with or disrupt the Service;
6. Introduce malware, malicious code, automated attacks, or harmful content;
7. Attempt to gain unauthorized access to the Service or another user’s wallet;
8. Circumvent security measures or usage restrictions;
9. Use automated systems to overload, scrape, or abuse the Service without authorization;
10. Reverse engineer the Service except where expressly permitted by applicable law or an applicable open-source license;
11. Misrepresent an association with Bacoor;
12. Use Bacoor’s trademarks or branding without permission;
13. Exploit bugs or vulnerabilities for personal benefit or to harm others; or
14. Encourage or assist another person in doing any of the above.

Bacoor may cooperate with law enforcement authorities and regulators where required by applicable law.

12. Third-Party Services

The Service may interact with or depend on third-party services, including:

• Blockchain networks;
• Wallet applications;
• WalletConnect or similar connection protocols;
• RPC providers;
• Block explorers;
• NFT marketplaces;
• Metadata storage providers;
• Domain name services;
• Cloud infrastructure; and
• Other decentralized applications or protocols.

Third-party services are not controlled by Bacoor and may have their own terms, privacy policies, fees, risks, and availability.

Bacoor does not guarantee the security, accuracy, availability, compatibility, or performance of any third-party service.

Your use of a third-party service is governed by your agreement with that third party.

13. Intellectual Property

The Service, including its design, interface, text, graphics, logos, trademarks, documentation, databases, and software, is owned by Bacoor or its licensors, except for components made available under applicable open-source licenses.

Subject to these Terms, Bacoor grants you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable right to access and use the Service for its intended purpose.

This permission does not allow you to:

• Copy or commercially exploit the Service;
• Use Bacoor’s branding without authorization;
• Create a misleading or unauthorized version of the Service;
• Suggest that Bacoor endorses your product or service; or
• Remove copyright, trademark, or ownership notices.

Open-source components remain governed by their applicable open-source licenses.

14. User-Submitted Content

You retain any rights you legally hold in nicknames, labels, descriptions, or other content you submit through the Service.

You grant Bacoor a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to host, store, reproduce, process, display, and transmit that content only as reasonably necessary to:

• Operate the Service;
• Display address book entries;
• Provide search and contact-selection functions;
• Maintain security;
• Comply with legal obligations; and
• Improve or support the Service.

You represent that you have all necessary rights and permissions to submit the content.

This license does not enable Bacoor to remove information already recorded independently on a public blockchain.

15. Service Availability and Changes

Bacoor may update, modify, add, suspend, restrict, or discontinue all or part of the Service.

We may take such action to:

• Improve functionality;
• Address security risks;
• Fix errors;
• Comply with legal or regulatory obligations;
• Respond to changes in blockchain networks or third-party services;
• Prevent misuse; or
• Discontinue an unsupported feature.

We will attempt to provide reasonable notice of material changes where practicable. However, emergency maintenance, security incidents, blockchain failures, or legal requirements may require immediate action.

We do not guarantee that the Service will always be available, uninterrupted, secure, or error-free.

Discontinuing Bacoor’s interface does not necessarily discontinue or remove an independently operating smart contract or public blockchain record.

16. Suspension and Termination

Bacoor may suspend or restrict your access to interfaces controlled by Bacoor if we reasonably believe that:

• You violated these Terms;
• Your activity creates a security risk;
• Your activity may harm another user;
• Your activity is fraudulent or unlawful;
• Suspension is required by law, a court, or a regulatory authority; or
• Suspension is necessary to protect the Service.

You may stop using the Service at any time.

Stopping use of the Service does not reverse blockchain transactions or remove information that has already been recorded on a public blockchain.

Sections that by their nature should survive termination will continue to apply, including provisions concerning blockchain records, intellectual property, disclaimers, liability, disputes, and governing law.

17. Disclaimer of Warranties

The Service is provided on an “as is” and “as available” basis to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.

Bacoor does not guarantee that:

• Every address book entry is accurate or current;
• Every wallet address belongs to the person identified;
• The Service will prevent incorrect transfers;
• A verified entry is free from compromise or fraud;
• The Service will always be available;
• Smart contracts or blockchain networks will operate without error;
• Third-party services will remain available;
• An NFT will retain value or functionality; or
• The Service will meet every user’s requirements.

You use blockchain technology and the Service at your own discretion and risk.

Nothing in these Terms excludes warranties, rights, or remedies that cannot legally be excluded under applicable consumer protection law.

18. Limitation of Liability

To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, Bacoor will not be liable for indirect, incidental, special, consequential, or punitive damages, including loss of profits, business, data, goodwill, opportunities, digital assets, or anticipated savings.

Bacoor will not be responsible for loss resulting from:

• Incorrect wallet addresses;
• Incorrect blockchain networks;
• User-submitted information;
• Unauthorized access to your wallet;
• Loss of private keys or recovery phrases;
• Malware, phishing, or social engineering;
• Blockchain congestion, forks, reorganizations, or failures;
• Smart contract or protocol failures outside Bacoor’s reasonable control;
• Wallet-provider or RPC-provider failures;
• Third-party applications or services;
• Changes in laws or regulations;
• Tax obligations;
• Events beyond Bacoor’s reasonable control; or
• Your failure to verify a transaction before signing.

Where Bacoor is legally liable, Bacoor’s total liability arising from the Service will not exceed the greater of:

1. The total service fees paid directly to Bacoor by you in connection with the event giving rise to the claim during the six months preceding that event; or
2. JPY 10,000.

This limitation does not apply where liability cannot be limited under applicable law, including liability resulting from Bacoor’s intentional misconduct or gross negligence.

Where the Consumer Contract Act of Japan or another mandatory consumer protection law applies, these Terms will not exclude or limit liability to the extent such exclusion or limitation would be void under that law.

19. Responsibility for Breach

You are responsible for reasonably foreseeable losses caused by your unlawful use of the Service or material breach of these Terms.

If you use the Service on behalf of a business, that business will indemnify Bacoor and its officers, employees, and contractors against third-party claims arising from:

• The business’s unlawful use of the Service;
• Content submitted by the business;
• Infringement of third-party rights; or
• A material breach of these Terms.

This section does not apply to individual consumers to the extent prohibited by applicable law.

20. Privacy

Bacoor processes personal information in accordance with the KEYRING ADDRESS BOOK Privacy Policy and applicable data protection laws.

The Privacy Policy should be read together with these Terms.

Because blockchain records may be public and outside Bacoor’s control, requests to correct, restrict, or delete personal information may not affect information already permanently recorded on a blockchain.

Bacoor may nevertheless take reasonable measures regarding data stored in systems or interfaces controlled by Bacoor.

21. Changes to These Terms

Bacoor may revise these Terms when necessary to reflect:

• Changes to the Service;
• New features;
• Security requirements;
• Legal or regulatory developments; or
• Changes to our business operations.

When changes are material, we will provide reasonable notice through the Service, website, or another appropriate method.

The updated Terms will become effective on the date stated in the updated version.

If you continue using the Service after the revised Terms become effective, you will be deemed to have accepted them to the extent permitted by applicable law.

If you do not agree to the revised Terms, you must stop using the Service.

22. Governing Law and Jurisdiction

These Terms are governed by the laws of Japan, without regard to conflict-of-law principles.

Any dispute arising out of or relating to these Terms or the Service will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tokyo District Court or Tokyo Summary Court as the court of first instance, unless mandatory applicable law provides otherwise.

Before commencing formal proceedings, you and Bacoor should attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute through direct communication.

23. General Provisions

Entire Agreement

These Terms, together with the Privacy Policy and any additional terms presented for a specific function, constitute the entire agreement between you and Bacoor regarding the Service.

Severability

If any provision of these Terms is found invalid or unenforceable, that provision will be interpreted or limited to the minimum extent necessary, and the remaining provisions will remain effective.

No Waiver

Bacoor’s failure to enforce a provision of these Terms does not waive its right to enforce that provision later.

Assignment

You may not assign your rights or obligations under these Terms without Bacoor’s prior written consent.

Bacoor may assign these Terms as part of a merger, reorganization, asset transfer, or transfer of the Service, subject to applicable law.

Headings

Section headings are provided for convenience and do not affect the interpretation of these Terms.

Language

These Terms may be translated into other languages. If different language versions conflict, the English version will control, except where applicable law requires otherwise.

For years, developers have mostly relied on well-known standards like ERC-20, ERC-721, and ERC-1155. These standards are still important, but as DeFi becomes more advanced, some protocols need a lighter and more efficient way to manage many token balances inside one system.

That is where ERC-6909 comes in.

ERC-6909 is a minimal multi-token standard that allows one smart contract to manage many different token balances by ID. Its goal is simple: reduce complexity, reduce unnecessary gas costs, and make internal token accounting more efficient for advanced on-chain applications.

What Is ERC-6909?

ERC-6909 is a minimal multi-token standard for Ethereum.

It allows one smart contract to manage many different token balances, with each token type separated by an ID.

For example, inside one ERC-6909 contract:

Instead of deploying many different ERC-20 contracts, or using a heavier multi-token standard like ERC-1155, a protocol can manage many internal balances inside one lightweight contract.

In simple words:

ERC-6909 lets one contract track many token-like balances in a cheaper and simpler way.

It is mainly useful for DeFi protocols, especially when they need to track things like user claims, rewards, internal balances, liquidity shares, redeemable assets, and protocol credits.

A good real example is Uniswap v4. It uses this type of internal accounting so users can hold claim balances instead of forcing the protocol to move real tokens every time. This can reduce unnecessary transfers and save gas.

The easiest comparison:

• ERC-20 = one contract, one token
• ERC-1155 = one contract, many tokens, feature-rich
• ERC-6909 = one contract, many tokens, lightweight and efficient

So ERC-6909 is not trying to replace ERC-20 or ERC-1155 for everything. It is more like a specialized tool for advanced DeFi systems that need efficient internal accounting.

Why Was ERC-6909 Created?

ERC-6909 was created because existing multi-token standards can be too heavy for some use cases.

The best comparison is ERC-1155.

ERC-1155 is powerful. It can manage many token types in one contract, and it is commonly used for games, NFTs, and multi-item systems. However, it also includes features such as batch operations and transfer callbacks.

Those features are useful in some situations, but they also make the standard more complex.

ERC-6909 takes a different approach. It removes some of the extra features and keeps only the essential functions needed to manage multiple token balances.

In simple terms:

ERC-1155 is a feature-rich multi-token standard. ERC-6909 is a lighter multi-token standard focused on efficiency.

This does not mean the newer standard is better for everything. It means it is better for systems that do not need the full weight of ERC-1155.

ERC-6909 vs ERC-1155

ERC-6909 and ERC-1155 are similar because both can manage multiple token types in one contract. The difference is in their design goal.

A simple example:

• If a project is building a game with swords, shields, skins, tickets, and collectible items, ERC-1155 may be the better choice.
• If a DeFi protocol only needs to record who owns how much of a claim, reward, or internal balance, ERC-6909 may be more suitable.

The key point is this:

ERC-6909 does not exist because ERC-1155 is bad. It exists because ERC-1155 can be too heavy for some DeFi use cases.

Good developers do not always choose the most powerful tool. They choose the tool that fits the job.

How ERC-6909 Works

ERC-6909 uses a token ID system.

Instead of checking only how many tokens a wallet owns, the contract checks which wallet owns which token ID, and how much of that token ID it owns.

Some of the core functions include:

One useful part of ERC-6909 is its approval system.

Users can approve a spender for a specific token ID and amount, or they can approve an operator across all token IDs. This gives developers more flexibility when building advanced DeFi systems.

Why Uniswap v4 Uses ERC-6909

One of the biggest reasons ERC-6909 is getting attention is Uniswap v4. Uniswap v4 uses ERC-6909 to make internal token accounting more efficient.

In many DeFi systems, tokens need to move in and out of contracts many times. Each real token transfer requires an external smart contract call. That can increase gas costs, especially when users, bots, or liquidity managers interact with the protocol frequently.

ERC-6909 helps reduce this problem.

Instead of always moving the actual token every time, a protocol can keep assets inside the system and issue claim tokens that represent the user’s right to those assets. Later, when the user wants to redeem the assets, the claim token can be burned.

In simple terms:

Uniswap v4 uses ERC-6909 to reduce unnecessary token transfers and make internal accounting cheaper. This is important because Uniswap is one of the biggest DeFi protocols in crypto. When a major protocol uses a standard, other developers pay attention.

Why Developers Are Paying Attention

Developers are interested in ERC-6909 because it solves a real technical problem.

Modern DeFi protocols often need to track user balances, claimable rewards, liquidity positions, internal credits, protocol shares, redeemable assets, and temporary accounting balances.

Doing all of this with repeated external token transfers can be expensive and inefficient.

ERC-6909 gives developers a lighter way to represent these balances inside one contract.

This is especially useful for high-volume systems, where even small gas savings can matter over many transactions.

Main Use Cases for ERC-6909

DeFi Internal Accounting

This is currently the strongest use case.

A DeFi protocol can use ERC-6909 to represent user claims or balances without constantly moving the underlying tokens.

For example, a user may deposit assets into a protocol and receive a claim balance. When they want to redeem, the claim balance can be burned.

This can reduce unnecessary external transfers and make the system more efficient.

Liquidity Management

Liquidity managers often open, close, adjust, and rebalance positions.

If every action requires several external token transfers, gas costs can increase quickly.

ERC-6909 can help protocols track balances internally, which may make repeated liquidity actions more efficient.

This is one reason why its connection to Uniswap v4 is important.

High-Frequency DeFi Users and Bots

Some users and bots interact with DeFi protocols many times in a short period.

For these users, small gas savings can become meaningful at scale.

ERC-6909 can be useful when users stay inside the same protocol and perform repeated actions without needing to move tokens externally every time.

Reward and Points Systems

Projects can use ERC-6909 to manage different types of points, credits, rewards, or claimable balances.

For example:

• Token ID 1 = loyalty points
• Token ID 2 = staking reward claim
• Token ID 3 = event credit
• Token ID 4 = in-app currency

All of these can be tracked inside one contract.

Benefits of ERC-6909

Lower Gas Costs

ERC-6909 is designed to reduce unnecessary overhead.

By removing required callbacks and batch operations from the core standard, it can make certain operations cheaper and simpler.

This is especially useful for DeFi protocols where many actions happen repeatedly.

Simpler Contract Design

ERC-6909 focuses on the minimum interface needed to manage multiple token IDs.

This can make contracts easier to understand, easier to audit, and easier to optimize.

A smaller standard can also reduce the chance of unnecessary complexity.

Flexible Approval Control

ERC-6909 supports both specific approvals and operator permissions.

A user can approve a spender for a certain amount of one token ID, or approve an operator for all token IDs.

This gives protocols more flexibility when designing permission systems.

Good Fit for Advanced DeFi

ERC-6909 is especially useful for protocols that manage internal balances, claim tokens, rewards, or repeated user interactions.

It is not designed to be flashy. It is designed to make infrastructure more efficient.

Limitations of ERC-6909

ERC-6909 is promising, but it is not perfect.

• First, it is still newer than ERC-20, ERC-721, and ERC-1155. That means wallet support, marketplace support, developer tooling, and user-facing interfaces may be less mature.
• Second, it removes batching from the core standard. This keeps the design minimal, but some applications may still need custom batch logic.
• Third, it is minimal by design. Developers may need to add extensions for features like metadata, token URI, contract URI, or total supply tracking.

This is why the standard is not always the best choice for every project.

Is ERC-6909 Replacing ERC-20 or ERC-1155?

No, not directly.

This standard is not a replacement for every token standard.

• ERC-20 is still the main standard for normal fungible tokens.
• ERC-721 is still the main standard for unique NFTs.
• ERC-1155 is still useful for games, NFT items, and multi-asset systems.

This approach is more specialized for efficient multi-token accounting.

For simple token launches, this standard may not be necessary. For normal NFT collections, it may also not be the best option. But for advanced DeFi systems, internal accounting, liquidity management, rewards, and claim-based balances, this standard can be very useful.

Is ERC-6909 Popular Right Now?

This standard is not yet mainstream among normal users. Most people are still more familiar with ERC-20, ERC-721, and ERC-1155. However, it is becoming more interesting among developers, especially because Uniswap v4 uses it.

That gives the standard real credibility. It is not popular because of hype. It is gaining attention because it solves a practical problem for DeFi infrastructure.

A good way to describe its current status is: The standard is still early, but it is becoming one of the most important new token standards to watch in DeFi.

Why ERC-6909 Could Become More Important

This standard could gain more adoption for three main reasons.

• First, gas efficiency is still a major concern in DeFi. Any standard that can reduce unnecessary external calls may attract developer interest.
• Second, Uniswap v4 gives this standard real-world visibility. When a major DeFi protocol uses a standard, other builders are more likely to study it.
• Third, it fits the direction DeFi is moving toward: more advanced protocols, more internal accounting, more automation, and more efficient liquidity systems.

This does not mean the standard will become the next ERC-20 overnight.

But it does mean it is worth watching.

Final Thoughts

This is a lightweight multi-token standard designed for efficiency. It allows one smart contract to manage many token balances by ID, while avoiding some of the extra complexity found in older multi-token standards.

Its biggest value is not for normal token launches or simple NFT collections. Its biggest value is for DeFi protocols and advanced on-chain systems that need efficient internal accounting. Uniswap v4’s use of ERC-6909 is the strongest reason developers are paying attention.

For users, this standard may not be something they interact with directly every day. But it shows where DeFi infrastructure is heading: toward lighter, cheaper, and more specialized token systems.

The standard is still early, but it is one of the most interesting token standards to watch in the current DeFi development trend.

Managing the Future of DeFi with KEYRING PRO Wallet

ERC-6909 shows how DeFi infrastructure is becoming lighter, faster, and more specialized.

For most users, token standards like ERC-6909 may not be something they interact with directly every day. However, these standards can still shape how future DeFi protocols manage balances, rewards, liquidity positions, and claimable assets behind the scenes.

As DeFi becomes more advanced, secure asset management becomes even more important.

That is where KEYRING PRO Wallet comes in.

KEYRING PRO Wallet is designed to help users manage crypto assets securely while interacting with the growing Web3 ecosystem. Whether users are holding tokens, exploring DeFi applications, or managing assets across different protocols, having a secure and reliable wallet is an important part of the experience.

ERC-6909 may help protocols become more efficient, but users still need a safe way to access and control their assets.

With KEYRING PRO Wallet, users can stay prepared for the next generation of DeFi while keeping security at the center of their crypto journey.

At first, that may sound bearish.

Some people may think a smaller Foundation means Ethereum is losing support. Others may see the phrase “sell less ETH” and immediately connect it to years of community frustration around Ethereum Foundation treasury sales.

But this change may actually be one of the healthier directions for Ethereum’s long-term future.

To understand why, we need to look at three things: what the Ethereum Foundation actually does, why it sells ETH, and why those sales have created such a strong emotional reaction among ETH holders.

What Is the Ethereum Foundation?

The Ethereum Foundation is a non-profit organization that supports the development and long-term growth of Ethereum.

It is not the owner of Ethereum. It does not control the network. It does not run Ethereum like a company runs a product.

Instead, the Foundation acts more like a steward. Its role is to support important work across the ecosystem, including research, developer funding, grants, public goods, protocol coordination, education, and long-term security.

It also helps protect Ethereum’s core values, such as decentralization, censorship resistance, openness, privacy, and security.

This distinction matters.

Ethereum is not supposed to depend on one organization. If the entire ecosystem relies too heavily on the Ethereum Foundation, then Ethereum becomes socially centralized, even if the technology itself remains decentralized.

That is why Vitalik’s latest message matters. A smaller Foundation does not automatically mean a weaker Ethereum. It may mean Ethereum is becoming more mature.

Why Does the Ethereum Foundation Sell ETH?

One of the biggest criticisms against the Ethereum Foundation is that it sells ETH.

Many holders believe these sales create pressure on the market. Some even argue that ETH cannot perform strongly because the Foundation keeps selling.

But the reality is more complicated.

The Ethereum Foundation sells ETH mainly because it needs money to operate. Like any non-profit organization, it has expenses. These include grants, salaries, research funding, developer support, events, infrastructure, legal work, and other ecosystem-related costs.

Aya Miyaguchi previously explained that the Foundation has an annual budget of around $100 million, largely made up of grants and salaries, and that some recipients can only accept fiat currency. This means the organization sometimes needs to convert ETH into fiat to pay for real-world expenses.

So yes, selling ETH to pay salaries is partly true. But it is not only about salaries.

A more accurate explanation is that the Foundation sells ETH as part of treasury management to fund operations, grants, ecosystem development, and staff compensation.

Ethereum Foundation Selling Is Not the Main Reason ETH Struggles

From a direct market impact perspective, Ethereum Foundation sales are usually not large enough to fully explain ETH’s price performance.

Vitalik said the Foundation currently holds around 0.16% of all ETH, which is much smaller than the treasury holdings of many other blockchain foundations.

That means the Foundation is not sitting on a massive share of the ETH supply compared with the entire market.

Even when it sells ETH, the direct supply pressure is usually small relative to ETH’s total liquidity, market cap, and daily trading volume.

But crypto markets are not driven only by numbers.

They are also driven by confidence, emotion, and narrative.

That is where the real problem begins.

Bitcoin Crashed After a $1.3B IBIT Sell Order — Was It the Cause or Just a Coincidence? – KEYRING PRO

Why Ethereum Foundation Sales Create So Much Negative Sentiment

Even if Foundation selling does not directly crash the ETH price, it still creates a bad feeling among holders.

For many investors, the Ethereum Foundation represents the heart of the Ethereum ecosystem. So when it sells ETH, people do not see it as a normal treasury operation. They see it emotionally.

The reaction is simple:

“If the Ethereum Foundation is selling ETH, why should we hold?”

This may not always be logical, but it is powerful.

In traditional finance, treasury sales may be seen as normal business operations. In crypto, foundation token sales often feel personal. Holders may view them as a signal of weak conviction, even when the money is being used for development, grants, research, or salaries.

This becomes even more sensitive when ETH is already underperforming.

If ETH price is weak and the Foundation sells more tokens, the community becomes frustrated. People start connecting every sale with ETH’s poor price action, even when the real causes may also include macro conditions, weaker demand, competition from other chains, Layer 2 value capture debates, ETF flows, and overall market sentiment.

So the issue is not only selling pressure.

The bigger issue is trust.

Repeated ETH sales can make holders feel that Ethereum’s core organization is not aligned with them. That perception can damage morale, even if the actual market impact is limited.

Vitalik’s Message: Smaller, More Focused, and Selling Less ETH

Vitalik Buterin has now responded to these concerns with a clearer direction.

According to reports, he said the Ethereum Foundation should become a “smaller ship,” sell less ETH, and focus more narrowly on long-term survival instead of trying to do everything. He also described the Foundation’s focus through the idea of CROPS: censorship resistance, capture resistance, openness, privacy, and security.

The core idea is simple:

The Ethereum Foundation should choose longevity over size.

Instead of becoming a large organization that tries to manage every part of Ethereum, it should focus only on areas where it can provide unique value. These include Ethereum’s long-term resilience, security, privacy, openness, and resistance to capture or censorship.

This is an important shift.

A smaller Foundation means fewer expenses. Fewer expenses mean less need to sell ETH. Less selling means less negative sentiment from holders.

More importantly, it reduces the risk that Ethereum becomes too dependent on one central organization.

The Ethereum Foundation Should Be One Node, Not the Center of Ethereum

One of the strongest points from Vitalik’s message is that the Ethereum Foundation should not be seen as the center of Ethereum.

Ethereum is supposed to be an open ecosystem made of many independent contributors: client teams, researchers, Layer 2 teams, wallet developers, app builders, DeFi protocols, infrastructure providers, educators, investors, and users.

If the Foundation becomes too big, the community may start expecting it to solve everything. That creates dependency. It also creates political pressure, because every decision it makes becomes too important.

Vitalik’s direction is the opposite.

The Ethereum Foundation should be one important node in Ethereum’s wider network, but not the boss of Ethereum.

This matches the idea that Ethereum’s strength should come from its ecosystem, not from one organization. The Foundation can support important work, but it should not become the permanent center of power.

SEC Crypto Enforcement News: How the SEC’s New Approach Connects With the CLARITY Act – KEYRING PRO

A Smaller Ethereum Foundation Could Make Ethereum Stronger

Some people may look at a smaller Foundation and think it means Ethereum is losing support.

But that is not necessarily true.

A smaller structure could make Ethereum stronger in several ways.

• First, it can reduce unnecessary ETH selling. If the Foundation spends less, it needs to sell less. This can weaken one of the most negative narratives around ETH.
• Second, it can force the broader ecosystem to take more responsibility. Ethereum is already much bigger than one foundation. Layer 2 networks, app developers, infrastructure companies, and research groups should not wait for one organization to lead every direction.
• Third, it can make the Foundation more focused. A smaller organization can concentrate on the most important long-term problems instead of spreading itself too thin across too many areas.
• Fourth, it supports Ethereum’s decentralization philosophy. If Ethereum is truly decentralized, its future should not depend too heavily on the Foundation, or even on Vitalik himself.

There Are Still Risks

Of course, this change is not automatically perfect.

If the Foundation becomes smaller too quickly, some important work may lose support. Research could slow down. Coordination may become harder. The community may feel uncertain, especially when senior contributors leave or when internal direction changes.

So the key question is not only whether the Ethereum Foundation becomes smaller.

The real question is whether the rest of the Ethereum ecosystem is ready to take more responsibility.

If independent teams, Layer 2s, researchers, developers, and community groups step up, then this could become a major positive turning point.

But if everyone still expects one central organization to lead while that organization is shrinking, the transition could create confusion.

Conclusion

Vitalik’s idea of making the Ethereum Foundation smaller should not be viewed only as bad news.

It may actually be a necessary step for Ethereum’s maturity.

The Foundation has played an important role in funding research, supporting developers, and protecting Ethereum’s core values. But Ethereum cannot depend forever on one central organization.

Its ETH sales may not be the main reason ETH price struggles, but they have clearly created negative sentiment among holders. Every sale becomes a symbol. It makes some investors feel that the Foundation is not fully aligned with the market, even when the money is used for grants, salaries, and ecosystem operations.

By becoming smaller, spending less, and selling less ETH, the Foundation can reduce this negative narrative.

More importantly, it can push Ethereum closer to what it is supposed to be: a decentralized ecosystem supported by many independent builders, not one foundation.

In the long run, a smaller Ethereum Foundation may not mean a weaker Ethereum.

It may mean a healthier Ethereum.

The timing was hard to ignore. Shortly after the trade, Bitcoin dropped from the $78,000 area to below $77,000, before extending its decline toward the $75,000–$76,000 range.

But the big question is: was this Bitcoin Crash caused by the huge IBIT sell order, or was it only a coincidence?

A Huge IBIT Sell Order Hit the Market

On May 26, 2026, a large block trade involving BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF, known as IBIT, was reported through dark pool trading.

Source: https://x.com/intangiblecoins/status/2059332729418727665?s=20 

The trade involved around 29.2 million IBIT shares at approximately $43.16 per share, bringing the total value close to $1.3B.

Dark pools are private trading venues where large investors can buy or sell big positions without showing the full order directly on public exchanges. Institutions often use them to reduce market impact when handling large trades.

Still, the size of this order was unusual. For many traders, a sale this large in the biggest spot Bitcoin ETF immediately raised concerns about institutional demand and short-term market pressure.

Bitcoin Crash Happened Minutes Later

Soon after the IBIT trade, Bitcoin moved sharply lower.

BTC dropped from around $77,875 to about $76,720 in roughly 10 minutes, losing around 1.5%. The decline later continued toward the $75,000–$76,000 area, bringing the daily loss close to 3%.

This created a strong market narrative:

A $1.3B IBIT sell order appeared, then Bitcoin Crash followed almost immediately.

For short-term traders, timing like this matters. Even if the ETF trade did not directly dump Bitcoin on-chain, a massive IBIT sale can still affect sentiment, liquidity, and market positioning.

ETF Outflows Were Already Pressuring Bitcoin

The IBIT trade did not happen in a strong market environment. Spot Bitcoin ETFs were already seeing weakness.

On the same day, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded about $333.6M in net outflows. IBIT alone saw around $192.4M in net outflows, marking another negative day for the fund.

This matters because spot Bitcoin ETFs have become one of the most important sources of institutional demand for BTC.

When ETF inflows are strong, the market often sees it as a bullish signal. When outflows continue, traders may start to worry that institutional demand is slowing down.

So this Bitcoin Crash did not happen in isolation. The market was already under pressure, and the huge IBIT sell order appeared at a very sensitive time.

KelpDAO Exploit Explained: When DeFi Complexity Turns Into Systemic Risk – KEYRING PRO

Did the IBIT Sell Order Directly Cause the Bitcoin Crash?

The honest answer is: we cannot confirm that with certainty.

The timing strongly suggests that the IBIT trade may have added pressure to the market. A $1.3B sale in a major Bitcoin ETF can make traders nervous, especially if they believe large investors are reducing exposure.

However, there are a few important points to consider.

• First, a dark pool trade does not always mean fresh selling pressure hit the open market immediately. It may have been a negotiated block trade between large institutions, a portfolio rebalance, or a transfer of exposure.
• Second, the trade involved IBIT shares, not necessarily Bitcoin being sold directly on crypto exchanges at that exact moment.
• Third, Bitcoin was already weakening because ETF flows were negative. The IBIT trade may have accelerated the move, but it may not have been the only reason behind the decline.

Why the Market Reacted So Strongly

The market reaction was understandable.

IBIT is the largest and most watched spot Bitcoin ETF. When a very large trade appears in IBIT, traders often treat it as a signal of institutional activity.

If the market believes a large holder is exiting, even partially, it can quickly trigger fear. This can lead to more selling, futures liquidations, and defensive positioning from traders.

In other words, the psychological impact may have been just as important as the actual trade itself.

A headline like “$1.3B IBIT sell order” sounds serious. Even before the full details are clear, traders may react first and ask questions later.

Cause or Coincidence?

The most balanced answer is:

The $1.3B IBIT dark pool sale was probably not the only cause of the Bitcoin Crash, but it likely added pressure at a weak moment for the market.

Bitcoin was already facing ETF outflows and weaker short-term sentiment. The massive IBIT trade then appeared almost at the same time as a fast price drop.

So it may be too strong to say:

“Bitcoin crashed only because of the IBIT sale.”

A more accurate explanation would be:

“Bitcoin dropped sharply after a massive $1.3B IBIT trade, and the timing suggests the sale may have amplified market pressure, but it has not been proven as the only cause.”

The Ultimate List of Trending Projects with Massive Airdrop Potential in 2026 – KEYRING PRO

Final Thoughts

This event shows how important spot Bitcoin ETFs have become to the crypto market.

In the past, traders mostly watched exchange order books, whale wallets, and futures liquidations. Today, ETF flows and large ETF block trades can also influence short-term market sentiment.

The $1.3B IBIT sale may have been only one trade, but its size, timing, and connection to BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF made it impossible for the market to ignore.

For now, the safest conclusion is simple:

This Bitcoin Crash was likely influenced by the massive IBIT sell order, but it was probably not caused by that single factor alone.

That approach is now changing.

Recent SEC crypto enforcement news shows a major shift in 2025 and 2026. The SEC brought fewer crypto-related cases, dismissed or closed several high-profile matters, and began moving toward clearer guidance on how securities laws apply to digital assets. At the same time, Congress has been advancing the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, commonly known as the CLARITY Act, which aims to create a clearer legal framework for crypto markets.

Together, these two developments point in the same direction: the U.S. is moving away from “regulation by enforcement” and toward a more structured system of crypto regulation. However, this does not mean crypto enforcement is disappearing. Instead, enforcement appears to be becoming more targeted, especially toward fraud, misleading statements, market manipulation, misuse of investor funds, and clear investor harm.

SEC Crypto Enforcement Dropped Sharply in 2025

The clearest sign of change is the sharp decline in crypto-related enforcement actions.

According to Cornerstone Research, the SEC brought only 13 crypto-related enforcement actions in calendar year 2025, compared with 33 actions in 2024. That represents a decline of roughly 60%. Monetary penalties against digital asset market participants also fell sharply, totaling $142 million, less than 3% of the penalties imposed in 2024. Cornerstone also reported that five of the 13 actions were brought before Gary Gensler’s departure, while the eight actions brought under Chair Paul Atkins all included fraud allegations.

This is important because it shows that the SEC is not simply ignoring crypto. Instead, the agency appears to be narrowing its enforcement focus. Broad lawsuits against major crypto platforms are receiving less emphasis, while cases involving alleged fraud remain a clear priority.

Overall SEC Enforcement Also Declined

The broader SEC enforcement picture shows a similar trend.

For fiscal year 2025, the SEC reported 456 total enforcement actions, including 303 standalone actions. The agency also reported $17.9 billion in total monetary relief, but that headline number should be read carefully because it was heavily influenced by large legacy matters rather than only new enforcement activity from the year.

In the same enforcement results, the SEC described a “necessary course correction” in its approach to applying federal securities laws to crypto assets. The agency said it remains committed to pursuing people and companies that use new technologies to take advantage of investors, but the language marked a clear departure from the previous enforcement-heavy posture.

A careful way to describe this change is: the SEC is not saying every past crypto case was wrong. Rather, it is signaling that its crypto enforcement priorities have changed.

Major Crypto Cases Were Dismissed or Closed

Another major development in recent SEC crypto enforcement news was the dismissal or closure of several high-profile crypto matters.

Some cases were dismissed in court, while other investigations were closed without enforcement action. This distinction is important. A dismissed lawsuit and a closed investigation are not exactly the same thing, but together they show a broader policy reset.

Legal summaries have pointed to dismissed crypto-related enforcement actions involving major names such as Coinbase, Kraken, Binance, Consensys, and others. The SEC itself described this change as part of its “necessary course correction.”

The practical takeaway is that the SEC appears less interested in using large lawsuits to define the legal status of the entire crypto industry. Instead, the agency seems more focused on developing clearer guidance while reserving enforcement for cases involving stronger evidence of misconduct.

This does not mean crypto companies are now safe from enforcement. It means the SEC’s enforcement strategy appears to be moving away from broad industry-wide crackdowns and toward more targeted cases.

KelpDAO Exploit Explained: When DeFi Complexity Turns Into Systemic Risk – KEYRING PRO

Enforcement Continues Against Fraud and Investor Harm

Even with fewer crypto cases overall, SEC enforcement has not disappeared.

The current direction suggests that the agency will continue to pursue cases involving fraudulent token offerings, Ponzi-like schemes, false or misleading statements, market manipulation, misuse of investor funds, hidden risks, deceptive marketing, and schemes that use crypto, blockchain, or AI to harm investors.

In other words, the message is not “crypto is free from enforcement.” The message is closer to: enforcement is becoming more focused on clear misconduct and concrete investor harm.

For crypto companies, this is an important distinction. A project may face less risk simply for operating in an uncertain regulatory area, but it can still face serious consequences if it misleads users, hides material risks, manipulates markets, or mishandles customer assets.

New SEC Guidance Brings More Clarity to Crypto

One of the biggest policy shifts came in 2026, when the SEC began moving toward clearer guidance on how federal securities laws apply to crypto assets.

The SEC’s new direction attempts to draw clearer lines between different types of digital assets and activities. This matters because one of the crypto industry’s biggest complaints has always been regulatory uncertainty. Under the previous enforcement-first approach, many companies argued that they had to guess whether a token, product, or activity would later be treated as a securities violation.

That makes this one of the most important developments in recent SEC crypto enforcement news. It suggests the agency is moving toward a more structured framework for digital assets, rather than relying mainly on lawsuits to explain its position.

Guidance for Crypto User Interfaces and DeFi Front Ends

The SEC has also moved toward more practical guidance for crypto front ends and wallet-style interfaces.

This is especially important for DeFi projects. A non-custodial interface that only helps users interact with smart contracts may be treated differently from a platform that controls funds, recommends investments, promises profits, or manages user assets.

This distinction could become very important under future U.S. crypto rules. If a project is truly non-custodial, transparent, and limited to providing software access, it may have a stronger regulatory position. But if a platform controls user funds, makes investment recommendations, operates with privileged control, or markets returns aggressively, it may still face SEC, CFTC, or other regulatory scrutiny.

What Is the CLARITY Act?

The CLARITY Act, formally known as the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, is a proposed U.S. crypto market structure law. Its main goal is to create clearer rules for digital assets and reduce the long-running confusion over whether a crypto asset should be regulated as a security by the SEC or as a commodity by the CFTC.

The House passed the CLARITY Act in July 2025, but as of May 2026, it has not fully become law because the Senate is still reviewing and negotiating its version.

At a high level, the CLARITY Act would create a more defined framework for crypto exchanges, brokers, dealers, token issuers, DeFi platforms, stablecoins, and tokenized securities. The CFTC would receive broader authority over spot markets for digital asset commodities, while the SEC would continue to oversee digital assets that qualify as securities.

The Senate version also includes important provisions on stablecoin rewards, anti-money-laundering rules, DeFi, tokenization, and fundraising exemptions for certain crypto projects. Reuters reported that the bill would treat crypto exchanges, brokers, and dealers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, while also creating an SEC fundraising exemption for some crypto firms.

The Ultimate List of Trending Projects with Massive Airdrop Potential in 2026 – KEYRING PRO

How the CLARITY Act Could Affect SEC Crypto Enforcement

If the CLARITY Act becomes law, it could significantly affect future SEC crypto enforcement.

First, it would reduce some of the legal uncertainty that has driven many disputes between the SEC and the crypto industry. If the law clearly defines which assets are securities, which assets are commodities, and which regulator has authority, the SEC may have less room to bring broad cases based on uncertain interpretations.

Second, the SEC’s role may become more focused. Instead of trying to oversee large parts of the crypto market through enforcement actions, the SEC would likely focus more on digital asset securities, tokenized securities, disclosure violations, fraud, misleading statements, and investor protection.

Third, the CFTC may become more important in crypto market oversight. If the CLARITY Act gives the CFTC stronger authority over digital asset commodities and spot markets, then many crypto trading activities that previously sat in a gray area may move more clearly under CFTC supervision.

Fourth, crypto companies may get a clearer compliance path. Exchanges, brokers, dealers, and token issuers would still face regulation, but they may have a better understanding of how to register, disclose risks, and structure their activities legally.

In simple terms, the CLARITY Act could make enforcement more predictable. The SEC would still have power, but it would be operating inside a clearer legal framework.

How SEC Enforcement Trends Could Affect the CLARITY Act

The relationship also works in the other direction. The SEC’s changing enforcement strategy may affect how lawmakers approach the CLARITY Act.

Because the SEC has already reduced broad crypto enforcement and moved toward clearer guidance, lawmakers may see stronger support for a market structure bill. The shift helps show that U.S. crypto policy is moving away from case-by-case punishment and toward rulemaking.

At the same time, critics may argue that reduced enforcement makes legislation more urgent. If the SEC brings fewer broad crypto cases, Congress may need to pass clearer laws to prevent regulatory gaps, especially around exchanges, DeFi platforms, stablecoins, tokenized securities, and anti-money-laundering controls.

This creates a balancing act. Crypto supporters may view the CLARITY Act as a way to protect innovation and end regulation by enforcement. Crypto skeptics may view the same bill as necessary to prevent weak oversight if the SEC becomes less aggressive.

So the SEC’s enforcement shift may actually increase pressure on Congress to pass the CLARITY Act or a similar market structure bill.

The CLARITY Act and DeFi

DeFi is one of the most important areas affected by both SEC enforcement and the CLARITY Act.

The Senate version of the bill reportedly tries to define when a DeFi platform is truly decentralized. Platforms with centralized controls, special permissions, or privileged operators may still be regulated like financial institutions.

This is important because many DeFi projects claim to be decentralized, but regulators may look at the actual control structure. If a team can control user funds, change contract rules, approve operators, or direct transactions, regulators may be less likely to treat the platform as neutral software.

For DeFi builders, the key question will not simply be “Are we using smart contracts?” The better question will be: “Who has control, who can move funds, who makes decisions, and what promises are being made to users?”

The CLARITY Act and Stablecoins

Stablecoins are another major issue.

The Senate version of the CLARITY Act includes restrictions on interest-like rewards for idle stablecoin balances, while allowing some transaction-based rewards. The goal is to prevent stablecoins from functioning too much like bank deposits while still allowing payment-related incentives.

This could affect exchanges, wallet providers, stablecoin issuers, and DeFi platforms that offer yield-like rewards. If the bill becomes law, companies may need to be much more careful about how they describe and structure stablecoin rewards.

For users, this could mean fewer “passive yield” promotions around stablecoins, but potentially more clearly regulated payment and transaction-based products.

What This Means for Crypto Companies

For crypto companies, the shift is significant.

During the previous enforcement-heavy period, many crypto firms feared that the SEC could bring enforcement actions even when the rules were unclear. Under the newer approach, the risk has not disappeared, but it may become more predictable.

Projects that operate transparently, avoid custody of customer assets, provide clear disclosures, and do not market tokens as guaranteed investment opportunities may have a stronger argument under the new framework.

However, companies should not treat this as permission to ignore compliance. The SEC can still act aggressively when a project makes misleading claims, hides risks, misuses funds, manipulates markets, or causes investor harm.

If the CLARITY Act becomes law, crypto companies may also face clearer registration, disclosure, AML, and operational requirements. In other words, legal clarity may reduce uncertainty, but it may also increase formal compliance obligations.

What This Means for Investors

For investors, the shift brings both benefits and risks.

The benefit is clearer guidance. If the SEC continues to explain how securities laws apply to digital assets, and if Congress passes a market structure law like the CLARITY Act, investors may better understand which products are regulated, which regulator oversees them, and what protections apply.

The risk is that fewer broad enforcement actions may place more responsibility on users to evaluate projects carefully. Fraud cases will still be pursued, but the SEC may be less aggressive in challenging every questionable crypto business model before harm occurs.

Investors should still be careful with projects that promise guaranteed returns, hide their team, rely heavily on referral rewards, pressure users to act quickly, or fail to clearly explain how funds are used. A clearer regulatory framework does not make every crypto product safe.

Bottom Line: SEC Crypto Enforcement and the CLARITY Act Are Part of the Same Shift

Recent SEC crypto enforcement news shows that the agency has entered a new phase.

The SEC brought far fewer crypto-related enforcement actions in 2025, dismissed or closed several major matters, and began moving toward clearer guidance on how securities laws apply to digital assets. This suggests a move away from the previous “regulation by enforcement” model and toward a more guidance-based approach.

The CLARITY Act could take that shift even further by creating a clearer legal structure for the crypto market. If passed, it could define the roles of the SEC and CFTC more clearly, give crypto companies a more predictable compliance path, and reduce the need for broad enforcement actions to settle basic legal questions.

However, this is not the end of crypto enforcement. The SEC is still expected to pursue cases involving fraud, misleading statements, market manipulation, misuse of investor funds, Ponzi-like schemes, and concrete investor harm.

The most accurate summary is this:

The SEC is shifting from broad crypto crackdowns toward clearer rules and more focused enforcement, while the CLARITY Act could turn that shift into a formal legal framework for the entire U.S. crypto market.

This was not a typical smart contract exploit. The incident did not simply come from a bug inside KelpDAO’s staking contracts or from a direct failure in a lending protocol. Instead, it exposed a deeper weakness in the infrastructure layer that connects bridges, cross-chain messaging systems, collateral markets, and DeFi lending platforms.

What made the exploit especially important was not only the size of the loss, but also how quickly the impact spread beyond KelpDAO itself.

Modern DeFi is no longer made up of isolated protocols. Assets move across chains, get wrapped into new tokens, become collateral in lending markets, and are used inside liquidity pools and automated strategies. This composability is one of DeFi’s greatest strengths, but it also means that a weakness in one part of the system can create pressure across many others.

The KelpDAO exploit became a clear example of this problem. A failure in cross-chain verification affected rsETH. That damaged the trust assumptions behind the asset. Once rsETH was used as collateral in lending markets, the problem quickly expanded into a broader systemic risk event.

In simple terms, the incident showed how one failure could move through several layers of DeFi:

• A cross-chain message was wrongly accepted.
• rsETH was released in a way that should not have happened.
• The compromised rsETH was used as collateral.
• Lending markets became exposed to bad debt risk.
• Emergency actions were needed to contain the damage.

How the KelpDAO Exploit Happened

The exploit was connected to KelpDAO’s rsETH cross-chain setup using LayerZero infrastructure.

KelpDAO’s rsETH bridge/OFT configuration used a 1-of-1 DVN setup. In simple terms, this meant that only one verifier network was required to confirm whether a cross-chain message was valid.

For high-value cross-chain assets, this kind of setup can be dangerous. If there is only one verifier, there is no independent second party to reject a false or manipulated message. This creates a single point of failure in the verification layer.

The main weakness was not simply “a bridge existed.” The problem was how the bridge message was verified.

The key risk factors were:

• Single-verifier dependency: only one DVN was required to approve the message.
• No redundancy: there was no second independent verifier to reject a forged message.
• Off-chain infrastructure exposure: the attack targeted the verification process around the bridge.
• High-value collateral impact: once rsETH was released, it could be used across DeFi.

According to public post-incident analysis, the attacker did not exploit a normal smart contract bug in KelpDAO’s core staking contracts or in LayerZero’s core protocol contracts. Instead, the attack targeted the off-chain verification process.

The reported method involved RPC poisoning and DDoS-style manipulation against infrastructure used by the verifier. This caused a forged cross-chain message to be accepted as valid.

As a result, the bridge released approximately 116,500 rsETH on Ethereum even though the underlying cross-chain message should not have been accepted.

This represented roughly 18% of rsETH supply according to several incident analyses.

At this point, the problem was already severe. But the real escalation came next.

From Bridge Exploit to Lending Market Risk

After obtaining the rsETH, the attacker did not simply sell everything immediately on the open market. Instead, they used the stolen or improperly released rsETH as collateral in lending markets.

Aave was the most important venue affected, but public reports also mentioned exposure through other lending protocols such as Compound and Euler.

This step was critical.

By depositing rsETH as collateral, the attacker was able to borrow liquid ETH-denominated assets. In effect, they turned a damaged and questionable asset into highly liquid value.

The lending protocols were not necessarily hacked directly. They were functioning according to their own rules. rsETH was listed as acceptable collateral, so the system allowed borrowing against it.

The issue was that the trust assumption behind rsETH had already been broken.

This is what made the situation so dangerous. A lending protocol can be technically correct, follow its own internal logic, and still become exposed to serious losses if the collateral it accepts is compromised somewhere else.

In this case, rsETH was no longer just a KelpDAO asset. It had become part of a wider DeFi credit system.

The escalation can be understood like this:

• The attacker obtained compromised rsETH.
• The rsETH was still recognized by lending markets as valid collateral.
• The attacker deposited rsETH into lending protocols.
• The attacker borrowed liquid ETH-denominated assets.
• The lending markets were left exposed to collateral whose integrity had been damaged.

This is why the exploit quickly moved from a bridge problem into a lending-market problem.

The Ultimate List of Trending Projects with Massive Airdrop Potential in 2026 – KEYRING PRO

Why This Became a Systemic Risk Event

The KelpDAO exploit became a systemic risk event because rsETH was integrated across multiple parts of DeFi.

It was not sitting inside one isolated protocol. It was used as a liquid restaking token, accepted in lending markets, included in liquidity strategies, and connected to broader yield opportunities.

When confidence in rsETH was damaged, the effect spread quickly.

Users began reassessing their exposure. Lending markets had to evaluate bad debt risk. Liquidity became more fragile. Related markets were frozen or restricted. Protocols connected to rsETH had to react under pressure.

This is the core problem of systemic risk.

In traditional finance, systemic risk means that the failure of one institution or asset can create stress across the wider financial system. In DeFi, the same thing can happen through smart contracts, bridges, collateral listings, token wrappers, or cross-chain messaging systems.

The chain reaction looked like this:

• A compromised bridge asset became questionable collateral.
• Questionable collateral created potential bad debt.
• Potential bad debt pressured lending markets.
• Market freezes reduced liquidity.
• Lower liquidity increased user fear and withdrawal pressure.
• Confidence across related DeFi markets weakened.

That is why the KelpDAO exploit was more than a bridge incident. It showed how one failure in cross-chain infrastructure can spread through the financial logic of DeFi.

Aave’s Exposure and the Collateral Problem

Aave became one of the most closely watched protocols after the exploit because the attacker used rsETH as collateral to borrow large amounts of liquid ETH-denominated assets.

This does not mean Aave itself was directly hacked.

The issue was more subtle. Aave accepted rsETH as collateral based on the assumption that rsETH represented valid underlying value. Once the bridge exploit damaged that assumption, the lending market inherited the risk.

This is one of the most important lessons from the incident.

Collateral risk is not only about price volatility. It is also about asset integrity.

A token may have a market price, liquidity, and oracle support, but if the asset itself becomes unbacked or compromised, lending markets can face serious losses.

Different post-incident scenarios estimated Aave’s potential exposure in the nine-figure range, depending on how rsETH losses would be resolved and whether losses would be socialized across holders or concentrated in specific markets.

For lending protocols, this incident showed that collateral evaluation needs to include more than price data.

Important collateral risk factors include:

• Bridge risk: whether the asset depends on a cross-chain bridge.
• Issuer risk: whether the asset depends on a specific protocol or operator.
• Oracle risk: whether price feeds can respond quickly during a crisis.
• Liquidity risk: whether the asset can be sold or liquidated without heavy slippage.
• Governance risk: whether emergency action is possible and who controls it.
• Backing risk: whether the asset still represents the value it claims to represent.

The broader point is clear: lending protocols need to evaluate more than just market price when accepting collateral.

The Role of LayerZero

The incident was directly connected to KelpDAO’s use of LayerZero infrastructure, but it is important to describe that connection accurately.

This was not simply a case where “LayerZero was hacked.”

Public statements and post-incident analysis described the issue as isolated to KelpDAO’s rsETH configuration. The key weakness was the use of a single-DVN setup, with only one verifier required to approve the cross-chain message.

In a stronger multi-DVN setup, a forged message would need to pass independent checks from multiple verifier networks. If one verifier was compromised, manipulated, or misled, another verifier could reject the message.

In a 1-of-1 setup, that redundancy did not exist.

A clearer way to describe the LayerZero connection is:

• The exploit involved a LayerZero-based rsETH bridge/OFT configuration.
• The weakness came from KelpDAO’s single-DVN setup.
• The issue was connected to off-chain verification infrastructure.
• LayerZero’s core smart contracts were not broadly exploited.
• The incident was not the same as saying “all LayerZero applications were hacked.”

This distinction matters.

If the issue had been a universal LayerZero protocol bug, many other applications could have been at risk. But the available analysis points to a more specific problem: KelpDAO’s LayerZero-based bridge configuration relied on a single verifier, and the off-chain verification infrastructure was manipulated in a way that allowed a forged message to succeed.

At the same time, the incident still raises serious questions for all cross-chain systems.

If a protocol relies on external verifiers, RPC infrastructure, or off-chain message validation, then its security depends on more than smart contract code. It also depends on the reliability, redundancy, and monitoring of the surrounding infrastructure.

Emergency Response and Asset Freezes

After the exploit, several emergency actions were taken to contain the damage.

Markets involving rsETH and related assets were frozen or restricted to prevent further exploitation and reduce additional risk. These actions gave protocols and governance participants time to assess the situation and limit further losses.

One of the most important interventions came from the Arbitrum Security Council, which froze approximately 30,766 ETH linked to the attacker on Arbitrum.

This helped contain a significant portion of the stolen value, but it also raised difficult questions about decentralization.

On one hand, emergency intervention can protect users and reduce damage during extreme situations.

On the other hand, the ability to freeze assets shows that many DeFi systems still depend on human-controlled emergency mechanisms such as governance bodies, multisigs, security councils, or admin powers.

Emergency controls can be useful because they may:

• Slow down further losses.
• Prevent the attacker from moving funds.
• Give protocols time to assess exposure.
• Protect lending markets from additional damage.
• Support recovery or negotiation efforts.

But they also create difficult questions:

• Who has the authority to freeze assets?
• Under what conditions should emergency powers be used?
• Can users still call the system fully decentralized?
• How transparent are these emergency mechanisms?
• What happens if such powers are misused?

This creates a tension that DeFi has not fully resolved.

Security and decentralization do not always move in the same direction. Emergency controls can make systems safer during a crisis, but they also challenge the idea that DeFi is fully trustless and beyond centralized intervention.

What This Reveals About Cross-Chain Design

The KelpDAO exploit highlights one of the biggest challenges in DeFi today: cross-chain systems are powerful, but they introduce additional trust assumptions.

A bridge does not simply move assets from one chain to another.

It must verify that something happened on one chain and then trigger a corresponding action on another chain. That process often depends on validators, relayers, DVNs, multisigs, light clients, RPC providers, or other verification systems.

Each of these components can become a point of failure.

In KelpDAO’s case, the 1-of-1 DVN setup meant there was no independent second verifier to challenge the forged message. Once the attacker was able to manipulate the verification path, the bridge accepted a message that should not have been accepted.

This shows why cross-chain design is one of the hardest areas in DeFi security.

Cross-chain systems need to answer several difficult questions:

• Who verifies the message?
• How many independent verifiers are required?
• What happens if one verifier is manipulated?
• Can a forged message be detected before funds are released?
• How quickly can a protocol pause or isolate affected routes?
• Are users aware of the trust assumptions behind the bridge?

A protocol may have strong smart contracts, but if its bridge assumptions are weak, the whole system can still fail.

Market Reaction and Loss of Confidence

The market reaction was immediate.

Users began reassessing their exposure to rsETH and related DeFi positions. Liquidity conditions became more fragile. Affected markets were paused or restricted. Lending protocols had to evaluate bad debt scenarios.

For regular users, the incident was a reminder that yield-bearing and restaking assets carry risks beyond normal token price movement.

These assets may depend on many layers at once:

• Staking infrastructure
• Restaking systems
• Bridge infrastructure
• Cross-chain messaging
• Oracle pricing
• Liquidity depth
• Governance decisions
• Lending-market integrations

For institutional participants, the exploit reinforced a difficult truth: DeFi has become sophisticated enough to create real financial infrastructure, but that sophistication also creates hidden layers of dependency.

Risk is no longer limited to whether one smart contract is safe.

Risk also depends on how many other systems a protocol relies on and how quickly failure can spread between them.

Even when part of the stolen value is frozen or recovered, confidence takes time to rebuild. Users may become more cautious about cross-chain assets, liquid restaking tokens, and complex collateral markets.

Key Lessons from the KelpDAO Exploit

The KelpDAO exploit offers several important lessons for DeFi protocols, investors, and users.

1. Bridge security is core protocol security

If an asset depends on a bridge, then the bridge is not a secondary feature. It is part of the asset’s foundation.

A token can have strong on-chain contracts, but if its bridge can be manipulated, the entire asset can become unsafe.

2. Redundancy matters

A single-verifier design may be simpler and cheaper, but it can create a dangerous single point of failure.

For high-value assets, protocols should consider:

• Multi-verifier systems
• Independent validation
• Stronger monitoring
• Better fail-safe mechanisms
• Clear emergency response procedures

3. Lending protocols must evaluate collateral beyond price

Collateral risk is not only about whether the asset has a market price.

It also includes:

• Whether the asset is properly backed
• Whether the asset depends on a bridge
• Whether liquidity is deep enough for liquidation
• Whether the oracle can react to stress
• Whether governance can respond quickly
• Whether the asset can become compromised outside the lending protocol

4. Emergency controls are useful but controversial

Freezing assets or pausing markets can reduce damage during a crisis.

However, these powers also challenge decentralization. Protocols need to be transparent about what emergency powers exist, who controls them, and when they can be used.

5. DeFi complexity can become a risk by itself

The more systems depend on each other, the harder it becomes to understand where risk truly comes from.

A user may think they are only holding one asset, but that asset may depend on bridges, validators, oracles, liquidity pools, lending markets, and governance processes.

That hidden dependency is one of the biggest risks in modern DeFi.

Top 4 Robotic Projects to Keep an Eye on- Protential Airdrops Alert! – KEYRING PRO

Conclusion

The KelpDAO exploit was more than a large hack.

It was a warning about the direction DeFi is taking.

As protocols become more composable, cross-chain, and capital-efficient, the system also becomes more interdependent. A weakness in one part of the stack can quickly affect many others.

In this case, a cross-chain verification failure affected rsETH. That created stress in lending markets, raised bad debt concerns, triggered emergency responses, and forced the ecosystem to confront the risks of complex DeFi infrastructure.

The incident shows that DeFi risk is no longer only about smart contract bugs.

It is also about assumptions:

• Assumptions about bridges
• Assumptions about verifiers
• Assumptions about collateral quality
• Assumptions about liquidity
• Assumptions about governance
• Assumptions about infrastructure resilience

If DeFi is to mature into a more reliable financial system, protocols must focus not only on innovation and yield, but also on containment, redundancy, and systemic resilience.

The KelpDAO exploit is a reminder that in an interconnected financial network, complexity itself can become a risk.

KEYRING PRO Wallet- Keep Your Assets Safe

In a DeFi world where one weakness can spread across bridges, lending markets, and collateral systems, users need more than access to opportunities. They also need a wallet that helps them stay in control of their assets.

KEYRING PRO Wallet is a non-custodial, multi-chain wallet launched in 2021. It supports Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and EVM-compatible networks, allowing users to manage assets across chains from one place. It is built for secure Web3 interaction, with WalletConnect support, cross-chain features, NFT management, and KEYRING Exchange for swapping and bridging assets.

Recent updates have also focused on improving security and usability, including stronger private key protection architecture, spending-cap editing, better exchange controls, Gas Refuel, and improved cross-chain execution through integrations such as deBridge and Relay.

The lesson is simple: DeFi can offer powerful financial tools, but users must always understand the risks behind every asset, bridge, protocol, and approval. With KEYRING PRO Wallet, you can manage your Web3 journey with a secure, non-custodial wallet while keeping control of your own assets.

Stay informed. Check approvals carefully. Use trusted tools.

KEYRING PRO Wallet — keep your assets safe.

A Deep Dive into Where Real On-Chain Value Will Be Created

The Shift: From Airdrop Farming to On-Chain Reputation

The airdrop meta in 2026 is no longer about speed—it is about credibility.

In previous cycles, users could generate hundreds of wallets, perform repetitive actions, and still qualify for rewards. That model has largely collapsed. Today, protocols track behavioral patterns, filter out low-quality activity, and increasingly rely on long-term engagement signals.

This evolution reflects a broader transformation in crypto. Protocols are no longer just launching tokens—they are building economies. And in these economies, value is allocated to users who contribute meaningfully over time.

Airdrops, therefore, have become a proxy for something deeper: Your on-chain identity.

The Landscape: Where Airdrop Value Concentrates

Airdrop opportunities in 2026 cluster into three dominant layers:

• Infrastructure (L1/L2): where ecosystems are formed
• DeFi & Trading: where capital and activity are measured
• Emerging Narratives (AI, SocialFi): where asymmetry lives

Understanding how these layers interact is the key to positioning effectively.

Airdrop Potential Projects in 2026

This is the definitive, no-fluff playbook for serious airdrop hunters in 2026. I’ve cross-verified every project against official docs, on-chain data, funding announcements, and live points systems as of March 2026. No hype, no speculation without evidence—just clear mechanics, real farming strategies, and updated status on tokens/airdrops where applicable.

Infrastructure projects remain the highest-EV category historically (think early Arbitrum, Optimism, or zkSync). DeFi and prediction markets follow with volume-based rewards. Consumer-facing plays (neobanks, AI tools) reward consistent real usage over spam.

Focus on quality over quantity: long-term activity, genuine volume, and ecosystem contribution beat bot farming. Gas fees and opportunity cost matter—prioritize high-conviction plays with live points or clear token incentives.

Infrastructure (L1s, L2s & Core Protocols)

These are the foundational layers. Early, sustained interaction here has produced some of crypto’s biggest retro airdrops.

Tempo

Tempo is a payments-first Layer 1 incubated by Stripe and Paradigm. It raised $500M at a $5B valuation in late 2025 and went live in early 2026. Core innovation: pay gas fees directly in USDC/USDT (no native token needed). Ultra-low fees (~0.1¢ per tx) and ~0.6s finality make it ideal for real-world stablecoin flows and AI-agent micropayments.

• Farming approach (high conviction):
  • Bridge assets early, execute real payment flows (not just testnet spam), and use any ecosystem campaigns.
  • Real usage > volume chasing.
  • Token unconfirmed but testnet/mainnet activity is the classic retro signal.

Abstract

Abstract is an Ethereum L2 built by the Pudgy Penguins team (Igloo Inc.) for consumer apps. Mainnet launched January 2025 with a native Badge + XP system explicitly tied to future token allocation. Positions itself as the “Web2-like” chain—low friction onboarding for non-crypto users.

• Farming approach:
  • Complete daily/weekly quests
  • Collect badges/XP across dApps
  • Hold $PENGU where possible, and engage with ecosystem apps (gaming, social, livestreams).

XP directly scales with future allocation. Strong track record from the Pudgy team.

Base

Base is a Coinbase’s dominant Ethereum L2. No official token yet, but speculation remains extremely high given Coinbase’s scale and user base.

• Farming approach:
  • Bridge assets regularly
  • Maintain consistent activity across DeFi, NFTs, and social apps.
  • Long-term organic usage (not one-off bridges) is key.

Historically, Coinbase ecosystems reward depth over breadth.

Katana

Katana is a DeFi-native L2 incubated by Polygon Labs + GSR. Launched mainnet in mid-2025 with aggressive incentives: ~1B KAT tokens earmarked for ecosystem rewards + 15% airdrop to POL stakers. Uses Polygon CDK + AggLayer for deep liquidity and real yield.

• Farming approach:
  • Provide liquidity
  • Participate in DeFi protocols on-chain, and engage early campaigns.

POL stakers already received portions—active users on Katana itself are positioned for ongoing rewards.

Fairblock

Fairblock is a privacy protocol using Conditional Encryption (distinct from ZK or FHE). Enables sealed-bid auctions, private voting, confidential AI workflows, and encrypted stablecoins without leaking intent pre-execution. Raised $2.5M; live testnet with community programs.

• Farming approach:
  • Join Discord, participate in testnet tasks, contribute feedback, and stay active in discussions.

Early contributors and ecosystem builders are prioritized in similar privacy plays.

DeFi (Trading, Lending & Yield)

Volume + capital efficiency still rule. Points systems here are the most transparent signals.

TradeGenius (Genius Terminal)

TradeGenius (Genius Terminal) is a Multi-chain trading terminal with “Ghost Orders” (MPC-powered private large trades across ephemeral wallets). Live points system (Genius Points) directly tied to trading volume, referrals, and badges. Raised $6M.

• Farming approach:

Trade consistently across supported chains, increase volume gradually, complete tasks, and refer users. Points are weekly and retroactive—focus on real strategies, not wash trading.

• • Join the Genius airdrop here: Genius Pro – Advanced On-Chain Trading Terminal | Cross-Chain DEX
  • Connect your wallet, link your email, and create a username.
  • Complete the tasks in the Airdrop section.
  • Deposit assets to activate features such as Spot trading and Bridge.
  • Reach Level 2 to unlock the Spin feature.

Backpack

Backpack is an All-in-one Solana wallet + exchange + NFT platform. Launched BP token in March 2026 with 25% supply airdropped to points holders and Mad Lads NFT users. Rewards trading, lending, and ecosystem use.

• Farming approach:

Trade on the exchange, explore wallet features, and engage with NFTs. The points program will continue after TGE, providing ongoing incentives.

• • Prepare some capital to generate trading volume
  • Register an account here: Home – Backpack: Crypto Exchange & Wallet | Solana, Ethereum & BTC
  • Deposit funds into your account to start trading and generate volume. Rankings will depend on the number of traders and your trading volume. Points are distributed weekly.

You can deposit a variety of assets such as SOL, USDT, ETH, etc. Supported networks include Solana, Ethereum, Tron, and more.

Perena

Perena is a Solana-based stablecoin infrastructure led by ex-Solana Foundation talent. Mint yield-bearing stablecoins and provide liquidity with built-in incentives. Seasonal points programs active.

• Farming approach:

Mint stablecoins, provide liquidity, and maintain consistent activity across seasons. Yield + points compound well.

• • Step 1: Prepare around $503 in stablecoins (USDT, USDC, etc.) on the Solana network. You can use wallets like Phantom or Backpack.
  • Step 2: Go to Perena, connect your wallet, then swap, check in daily, and provide liquidity:
    https://perena.org/numeraire/swap

Note: You need to reach 700 points to unlock the pool or use a referral code. (I haven’t reached 700 points yet, so no code—check the comments for updates.)

Petal (points) mechanism:

• • Earn 0.1 point per $1 traded. Maximum 10 swaps per day and up to 50 points daily (you can just swap $500 once per day to reach the max).
  • Claim daily points: 100 points for every $100 provided as liquidity.
  • Referral rewards: Get 100 points per successful invite + 5% of their points.

Consider participating based on your own position. If you have a large amount of stablecoins, you can allocate a small portion to support the project in its early stage.

Top 4 Robotic Projects to Keep an Eye on- Protential Airdrops Alert! – KEYRING PRO

Euphoria

Euphoria is a Gamified perpetuals DEX emphasizing social trading and fun UX. Currently in waitlist/testnet phase.

• Farming approach:

Join waitlist immediately, participate in testnet when open, and engage with social/gamification features. Early access is the edge.

You can now join the Euphoria waitlist for a chance to get early access to the app in the future.

• • Register here: https://euphoria.finance
  • Just enter your email and leave it there. These days, many projects run private testnets, and everything requires coding.

Note: You can invite friends to increase your ranking. The invite code may change multiple times, but it won’t affect anything.i

Loopscale

Loopscale is a Solana lending protocol with fixed-term, fixed-rate orderbooks supporting both crypto and RWAs. Live points system with multipliers for lending, borrowing, and yield loops.

• Farming approach:
  • Deposit/borrow, provide market depth, and refer users.
  • Points are transparent and activity-based—perfect for structured farming.
  • The project is currently running a Points System. Although a token launch hasn’t been officially confirmed, accumulating points is often a precursor to a future airdrop.
  • You can connect your Solana wallet to receive 5,000 Points (after completing social tasks), then proceed to supply/borrow assets to earn more points.

For more details, you can check the official X (Twitter) channel of Loopscale.

Multipli.fi

Multipli.fi is a yield optimizer using delta-neutral arbitrage across stables, RWAs, and native tokens. Multi-chain with ORB points campaign.

• Farming approach:
  • Deposit capital into strategies (e.g., USDC/USDT vaults) and let automation work.
  • Track ORB accumulation—high APY + points make this capital-efficient.

Phoenix

Solana CLOB (central limit order book) DEX built for professional traders—on-chain execution with CEX-like speed and instant settlement.

• Farming approach:

Trade actively on perps/spot and provide liquidity where possible. Consistent pro-level usage is rewarded in orderbook DEXes.

• • Prepare some USDC and SOL in your wallet — around $200–$300 is a good start. Your capital depends on how much volume you want to generate.
  • Go to Phoenix.
  • Connect your Solana wallet and start trading. It’s recommended to prioritize limit orders.

Targets: Aim for 1–10 million in trading volume and trade across at least 5–10 different pairs.

BULK

BULK is an ultra-low latency perpetuals DEX on Solana (matching in ~20ms via validator-embedded engine). Testnet/mainnet phases with points via BulkSOL staking and Discord roles.

• Farming approach:
  • Stake for BulkSOL, engage in testnet, and build Discord reputation.
  • Speed-focused design targets high-volume traders.

Prediction Markets

Post-2024 election boom continues. Real-world event betting is one of the strongest narratives.

Polymarket

Polymarket is considered the undisputed leader in decentralized prediction markets. Proven accuracy on major events; strong community expectation for a token.

• Farming approach:
  • Trade actively on high-volume markets and provide liquidity.
  • Consistent participation is the proven path.

Kalshi

Kalshi is the CFTC-regulated U.S. prediction market bridging TradFi and crypto (supports BTC deposits). Weekly incentives and expansion signals.

• Farming approach:
  • Participate in accessible markets and monitor regulatory growth.
  • Early regulated plays often reward compliance-focused users.

Opinion Labs (Opinion / OPN)

“Opinion economy” prediction market with dual points/PTS system (volume + conviction). Token launched with 23.5% airdrop allocation; ongoing leaderboards.

• Farming approach:
  • Trade with minimum weekly volume, provide liquidity, and hold positions for points.
  • Leaderboards update weekly—quality bets matter.

Predict.fun

Predict.fun is a BNB Chain-native, accessible prediction market with weekly points and liquidity incentives.

• Farming approach:
  • Join weekly rounds, provide liquidity, and accumulate Predict Points.
  • Frequent, low-friction engagement wins here.

Quantum Computers Threaten Blockchain Security: How Is Ethereum Preparing to Respond? – KEYRING PRO

Neobanks (Crypto × TradFi)

Everyday spending and simplification are the new onboarding rails.

KAST

KAST is a Stablecoin-powered crypto debit card usable anywhere Visa is accepted. Live points program (1 point ≈ future token) + cashback (e.g., 4% in $MOVE).

• Farming approach:

Spend regularly via card, stake for multipliers, and refer. Real-world usage is the core mechanic.

Farm the Kast airdrop by downloading the Kast Finance app and completing tasks to earn points

• • Step 1: Visit Kast Finance and download the mobile app. If you can’t log in, try using a VPN.
  • Step 2: Register an account using your phone number and enter the OTP.
  • Step 3: Tap Add Card and complete KYC.
  • Step 4: After successful KYC, create a free Virtual Card.

After completing these steps, you will receive 500 Points.

Additionally, you can earn more points by trading and staking on the Solana Card (see details in the Rewards section).

If you plan to purchase a Solana Card, you can use the code WUQ1DIBW to get a 20% discount.

The project has confirmed that Points will be converted into tokens at TGE in Q4 2025.

Note: This opportunity essentially involves exchanging personal information for 500 points, so consider carefully before մասնակց.

Tria

Self-custodial neobank with gasless cross-chain execution, Visa card, and yields. TRIA token airdrop distributed in early 2026; points system continues.

• Farming approach:
  • Use wallet/card across chains, earn yields, and maintain activity. Post-TGE utility still drives ongoing rewards.
  • Join the Tria airdrop here: Tria Wallet: Trade, Earn Yield and Spend Crypto in the real world
  • You can take advantage of this by doing two things at once — farming Boost on SNAP Cookie while also activating XPs Points on Tria.

Note: This is a trade-to-airdrop opportunity, so make sure to consider the risks before participating.

RWA & Financial Protocols

Bridging real-world yields to on-chain.

Ostium Labs

RWA perpetuals platform—trade commodities, forex, indices, and stocks via perps (no tokenization needed). Live points for trading and liquidity.

• Farming approach:

Trade RWA derivatives and provide liquidity early. Synthetic exposure with on-chain efficiency.

The Ostium Points campaign is currently ongoing.

• • You can earn points by trading perpetuals (perps) across various assets, including crypto, stocks, commodities, and more.
  • Join Ostium here

Note: This is a trade-to-airdrop opportunity, so make sure to carefully consider the risks before participating.

OnRe

OnRe is an on-chain reinsurance protocol connecting crypto liquidity to global insurance markets. Yield from real-world premiums + points system.

• Farming approach:
  • Participate in vaults, provide collateral, and monitor early access. Institutional-grade yields with DeFi composability.
  • Users can deposit stablecoins to receive ONyc, a yield-bearing token that generates real returns from premium fees, independent of crypto market volatility.
  • You can also provide ONyc to liquidity pools on Orca or Kamino to earn OnRe Points.

Like many other projects, these points may serve as a key criterion for future airdrop eligibility.

AI / Tools / Learn-to-Earn

Experimental but explosive narrative for 2026.

Glider

Glider is an AI-powered DeFi automation platform. Build and deploy no-code strategies that auto-rebalance, bridge, and optimize yields across chains. Points for deposits and activity.

• Farming approach:

Season 1 officially ended on January 8. The project is now running Season 2.

• • Airdrop mechanism: It’s quite simple — you just need to use the platform, deposit funds, and let the system automatically allocate and invest for you. This is especially suitable if you’re holding a single token — just deposit into Glider and you’re set. The project supports Base, Plume, Solana, and more.
  • Points system: Points will be converted into airdrop allocation at TGE. You earn 1 point per day for every $1 deposited on Glider.
  • Join Glider here: https://glider.fi
  • Join the Glider Discord: https://discord.gg/GF3yfwrezb

Deposit capital into strategies and let automation run. Passive points accrual with real utility.

PrismaX

PrismaX is a DePIN + robotics project. Users remotely control robots to generate real-world visual data for AI training while earning Prisma Points.

• Farming approach:

Complete tele-op tasks, daily check-ins, quizzes, and missions. Data contribution = points. Early in the robotics narrative.

PiP World

PiP World is a Learn-to-Earn AI trading simulator. Deploy AI agents in “Market Mavericks” sandbox to test strategies on real market data and earn XP/badges.

• Farming approach:

Activate virtual capital, run AI agent simulations, complete learning tasks, and engage with the swarm. Education + simulation = rewards.

Final Tips for 2026 Success

• Track points dashboards religiously—most projects publish weekly updates.
• Use multiple wallets only if allowed (avoid sybil flags).
• Combine plays (e.g., Base + Abstract, Solana ecosystem) for efficiency.
• Real usage always beats farming. The biggest airdrops go to users who actually drive value.

This map is current as of March 2026. Stay active, stay early, and let the points compound. The next wave of money in crypto flows to those who build real habits on these rails.

KEYRING PRO Wallet – Your Web3 Companion

Markets slow down, but real users don’t.

As crypto evolves, airdrops are no longer about how fast you move—but how well you position yourself across ecosystems. Consistency, real activity, and cross-chain presence now define who gets rewarded.

That’s where KEYRING PRO Wallet becomes a true advantage.

Built as a powerful multichain wallet, KEYRING PRO allows you to seamlessly manage assets, interact with dApps, and track your activity across multiple networks—all in one place. No fragmentation, no switching between wallets, no missed opportunities.

Everything is designed for efficiency:

• Easy asset management across chains
• Smooth dApp interaction for any airdrop campaign
• Secure, user-controlled environment
• Unified experience that keeps your on-chain journey consistent

Whether you’re farming points, exploring new protocols, or building long-term on-chain reputation, KEYRING PRO gives you the tools to do it smarter and faster.

Because in 2026, it’s not just about being early—
it’s about being everywhere that matters.

KEYRING PRO Wallet – One wallet. Every opportunity.

]]> 90347 https://keyring.app/keyring-pro-wallet-5-5-0-update/ Thu, 19 Mar 2026 08:18:25 +0000 https://keyring.app/?p=90345 KEYRING PRO Wallet 5.5.0 Update is here with a several new fucntions that you don’t want to miss. Let’s dive in this blog and see the details

New Feature in KEYRING PRO Wallet 5.5.0 Update

Unichain & Layer Zero

In the KEYRING PRO Wallet 5.5.0 update, Unichain has been added as a default network. So what exactly is Unichain, and why does it matter?

What is Unichain?

Unichain is a Layer 2 blockchain developed by Uniswap Labs, built on Ethereum using Optimistic Rollup technology (via the OP Stack).

Its core purpose is to make transactions faster and more cost-efficient while maintaining Ethereum’s security.

• Speed: Designed for high throughput, with fast block times and near-instant transaction confirmations through advanced batching mechanisms.
• Lower costs: Transactions are processed off-chain and then settled on Ethereum, significantly reducing gas fees.
• EVM compatibility: Fully compatible with Ethereum, allowing existing dApps to run seamlessly without modification.

In short, Unichain enhances the performance of the Uniswap ecosystem and DeFi applications by offering a faster, cheaper, and more scalable environment.

What is Layer Zero?

Layer Zero refers to the underlying infrastructure that enables different blockchains to connect and communicate with each other.

• Purpose: Enables interoperability, allowing assets and data to move across chains.
• Reality check: It’s not a single standardized “layer,” but a concept often associated with cross-chain infrastructure and frameworks.
• Examples: Technologies like Cosmos and Polkadot provide interoperability at the base layer, while the OP Stack enables interconnected Layer 2 ecosystems.

Without this kind of infrastructure, blockchains would operate in isolation. With it, they become part of a unified, multi-chain ecosystem.

How They Fit Together

• Layer 1 (Ethereum): The secure settlement layer.
• Layer 2 (Unichain): Handles fast and low-cost transactions.
• Interoperability infrastructure (e.g., OP Stack ecosystem): Enables communication between chains.

Why We Added Unichain

Unichain combines the scalability of Layer 2 with strong compatibility and growing interoperability within the Ethereum ecosystem.

By integrating Unichain, KEYRING PRO Wallet allows users to:

• Access faster and cheaper transactions
• Interact seamlessly with Ethereum-based dApps
• Benefit from an increasingly connected multi-chain ecosystem

With its performance advantages and alignment with interoperable infrastructure, Unichain helps users fully leverage the strengths of both scalability and cross-chain connectivity.

Gas Refuel

Gas Refuel is one of the most important features in this update, as it fundamentally changes how users interact with their wallets.

Built on LayerZero, Gas Refuel simplifies cross-chain transactions by removing the need to manually acquire native tokens for gas fees before interacting on a new chain.

In simple terms, it allows users to convert a native token from one EVM chains to another chain’s native token within the same account—quickly, cheaply, and seamlessly.

This addresses a long-standing issue in blockchain UX: users must hold the correct native token (like ETH, BNB, or MATIC) to pay gas fees on each chain. For beginners, this can be confusing, and even experienced users may run into friction when they don’t have enough gas and need to bridge funds.

How is this different from bridging?

Gas Refuel is significantly cheaper, faster, and more convenient.

Traditional bridging often involves higher fees and requires users to know exactly which token to bridge. In many cases, users end up transferring more funds than needed just to cover gas.

Gas Refuel solves this by:

• Converting native tokens directly between chains
• Minimizing fees and transfer amounts
• Automatically delivering the correct native token for gas on the destination chain

Key benefits

• Much lower cost compared to traditional bridges
• No need to identify or manually acquire the destination chain’s native token
• Ideal for quickly getting a small amount of gas on a new chain

In short, Gas Refuel removes one of the most common pain points in multi-chain usage, making on-chain interactions smoother and more accessible.

How to use Gas Refuel in the KEYRING PRO Wallet App?

To use Gas Refuel in the KEYRING PRO Wallet app, follow these simple steps:

1. Select the native token of the chain you want to convert from
2. Tap on “Gas Refuel” in the action menu
3. Enter the amount you want to convert
4. Choose the destination chains (can select multible chains)
5. Confirm the transaction

The system will automatically calculate and convert your tokens into the correct native token for the selected chain, with very low fees.

Edit Spending Cap

Next is the Edit Spending Cap feature.

When you connect your wallet to a dApp, you’re asked to sign a transaction. Later, when performing actions like swaps or staking, the dApp typically requests permission to spend your tokens—often as an unlimited approval.

For trusted and well-established projects, granting unlimited approval is common and generally considered safe. However, not all dApps are reliable. If you accidentally approve unlimited token access to a malicious or unverified dApp, it could potentially drain all approved assets from your wallet. This is a common and serious security risk in the crypto space.

To address this, the KEYRING PRO Wallet introduces Edit Spending Cap in version 5.5.0.

How it works:

• When a dApp requests unlimited token approval, you now have the option to set a custom spending limit instead of simply Approve or Decline

• You can define the maximum amount of tokens the dApp is allowed to use

By setting a spending cap, you stay in control of your assets. Even if you interact with a risky dApp, potential losses are limited to the approved amount—acting as a safety net you hope to never need, but will be glad to have.

Better Exchange UI

Based on valuable feedback from our users, we noticed that the Exchange tool in the KEYRING PRO Wallet previously only supported a quick “Max” option when selecting token amounts.

To improve the user experience, we’ve added new quick-select options: 25%, 50%, and 75%.

Along with the existing 100% (Max) option, users now have four flexible choices when using the KEYRING Exchange—making token management faster and more convenient.

Add Relay

Previously, the KEYRING Exchange relied solely on deBridge as its third-party provider, which has been performing reliably.

However, we recognize that depending on a single provider creates potential risks if any issues arise.

To address this, we are adding Relay as an additional exchange service provider.

With both deBridge and Relay operating in parallel, we can ensure greater reliability, better performance, and consistently competitive fees for our users.

Summarize

The KEYRING PRO Wallet 5.5.0 update delivers meaningful improvements across performance, usability, and security. With the integration of Unichain, users benefit from faster and more cost-efficient transactions within the Ethereum ecosystem, while LayerZero-powered Gas Refuel removes one of the biggest barriers in multi-chain usage by simplifying gas management across networks.

At the same time, features like Edit Spending Cap enhance asset security by giving users greater control over token approvals, and UI improvements in the Exchange tool make everyday interactions more flexible and intuitive. The addition of Relay alongside deBridge also strengthens reliability and ensures better execution for cross-chain swaps.

Overall, this update makes KEYRING PRO Wallet more powerful, user-friendly, and ready for a seamless multi-chain future.

Market Overview

The cryptocurrency market experienced another volatile yet active week between March 9 and March 15, as macroeconomic uncertainty, institutional activity, and technological developments continued to shape industry momentum.

During the week, Bitcoin traded roughly between $67,000 and $73,000, briefly surpassing the $73K mark before consolidating near the $70K level. Price movements were influenced by broader macroeconomic factors including geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and fluctuations in global energy markets, both of which affected investor sentiment across traditional and digital asset markets.

Despite short-term volatility, institutional demand for digital assets remained strong. U.S. spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded hundreds of millions of dollars in weekly inflows, signaling continued interest from traditional finance participants.

Beyond price movements, the week also saw a series of important developments across the broader crypto ecosystem, including corporate restructuring among Web3 startups, increased regulatory scrutiny of major exchanges, technical incidents within decentralized finance protocols, and new blockchain standards aimed at supporting artificial intelligence.

Below is a detailed breakdown of the most notable developments across the crypto industry over the past week.

Story Protocol Developer PIP Labs Restructures Workforce

PIP Labs, the company developing Story Protocol, reportedly reduced roughly 10% of its workforce as part of a strategic restructuring aimed at focusing resources on core infrastructure development.

Story Protocol is building a blockchain network designed to manage intellectual property rights on-chain, enabling creators, developers, and businesses to register digital content and define programmable licensing rules using smart contracts. The project has gained attention as the rapid growth of artificial intelligence raises new questions about ownership and attribution of digital content.

The company has previously attracted significant venture capital funding. In 2024, PIP Labs raised $80 million in a Series B funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz’s crypto division, bringing the project’s total funding to approximately $140 million and pushing its valuation above $2 billion.

Industry observers note that the restructuring reflects a broader trend across the Web3 startup ecosystem, where companies are increasingly prioritizing sustainable infrastructure development and long-term product strategy rather than aggressive expansion.

TRUMP Memecoin Team Plans Exclusive Event at Mar-a-Lago

The team behind the TRUMP memecoin is reportedly preparing another exclusive gathering for token holders at Mar-a-Lago, the private resort associated with former U.S. President Donald Trump.

According to announcements circulating within the community, the upcoming event will expand beyond a simple dinner into a hybrid gathering combining elements of a conference, networking event, and luxury luncheon. The event is expected to bring together token holders, influencers, and members of the broader crypto community.

Memecoin projects have increasingly experimented with offline events, celebrity branding, and exclusive community perks as a strategy to maintain engagement and media attention in a highly competitive and speculative segment of the crypto market.

While many memecoins lack fundamental utility, their success often depends heavily on community momentum, narrative strength, and viral marketing strategies.

Top 4 Robotic Projects to Keep an Eye on- Protential Airdrops Alert! – KEYRING PRO

Crypto Whale Loses Nearly $50 Million in High-Slippage Swap

One of the most widely discussed incidents in the crypto community this week involved a large investor — commonly referred to as a crypto whale — who reportedly lost nearly $50 million during a token swap.

The trader attempted to exchange Tether for the DeFi governance token AAVE through an interface connected to the Aave ecosystem.

However, the transaction executed under extreme slippage conditions, dramatically impacting the final price of the swap. Because decentralized exchanges rely on liquidity pools rather than centralized order books, very large trades can significantly shift market prices when liquidity is insufficient.

Importantly, the loss was not caused by hacking or a smart contract exploit. Instead, it resulted from the mechanical dynamics of decentralized trading markets.

The incident highlights one of the structural risks within decentralized finance: while DeFi offers permissionless trading and automation, large transactions can trigger severe price impact if liquidity depth is limited.

Wells Fargo Trademark Filing Sparks Stablecoin Speculation

Major U.S. banking institution Wells Fargo recently filed a trademark application for WFUSD, prompting speculation that the bank may be exploring a stablecoin or blockchain-based payment solution.

The filing was submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office on March 9.

If the project ultimately moves forward, Wells Fargo would join a growing number of financial institutions experimenting with tokenized deposits and blockchain-based payment infrastructure.

Large banks have increasingly explored stablecoins as a way to improve cross-border payments, settlement speed, and liquidity management, areas where blockchain technology can offer significant efficiency advantages compared with traditional banking systems.

OP Labs Announces Workforce Reduction

OP Labs, the development team behind the Optimism ecosystem, announced layoffs affecting roughly 20 employees.

The move is part of an internal restructuring effort aimed at improving efficiency and streamlining operations.

Competition among Ethereum Layer-2 scaling solutions has intensified significantly over the past year. Networks such as Arbitrum, Optimism, and other rollup-based platforms are competing aggressively to attract developers, liquidity, and user activity.

As a result, infrastructure teams across the Layer-2 ecosystem have increasingly focused on improving developer tooling, interoperability, and ecosystem incentives.

Ripple Launches $750 Million Share Buyback

Blockchain payments company Ripple has reportedly launched a $750 million share buyback program, valuing the company at approximately $50 billion.

Share buybacks are commonly used by private companies to provide liquidity for early investors and employees while reinforcing investor confidence in the company’s long-term prospects.

Ripple continues to position itself as a leading provider of blockchain-based cross-border payment infrastructure, working with financial institutions to improve international settlement efficiency using digital assets.

Quantum Computers Threaten Blockchain Security: How Is Ethereum Preparing to Respond? – KEYRING PRO

U.S. DOJ Investigates Possible Iran Sanctions Evasion Through Binance

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, the United States Department of Justice is investigating whether the cryptocurrency exchange Binance may have been used to facilitate financial transactions linked to Iran.

Authorities are reportedly examining whether funds passing through the exchange ultimately reached networks connected to Iran-backed militant groups, including the Houthi movement.

The investigation highlights the ongoing regulatory scrutiny facing global cryptocurrency exchanges as governments attempt to ensure compliance with international sanctions regimes and anti-money-laundering regulations.

Aave Oracle Malfunction Triggers $26 Million in Liquidations

The decentralized lending protocol Aave experienced a temporary oracle malfunction on the Ethereum network on March 10.

The pricing issue reportedly caused approximately $26 million worth of wstETH-backed positions to be incorrectly liquidated.

Oracle networks are a critical component of decentralized finance systems because they provide real-time price feeds used to determine collateral ratios and liquidation thresholds.

Even short disruptions in oracle data can trigger cascading liquidations across lending platforms, highlighting the importance of redundancy and robust risk management mechanisms within DeFi infrastructure.

Binance Founder CZ’s Wealth Surges

According to estimates from Forbes, the net worth of Changpeng Zhao has surged to approximately $110 billion, reflecting the recovery of the cryptocurrency market and the continued dominance of Binance within the global trading ecosystem.

The increase reportedly represents a gain of roughly $47 billion over the past year, placing CZ among the wealthiest individuals in the world.

The growth in his net worth highlights the enormous economic impact that the crypto industry has generated over the past decade.

Ethereum Foundation Proposes ERC-8183 for AI Agents

The Ethereum Foundation has introduced a new token standard proposal known as ERC-8183, developed in collaboration with Virtuals Protocol.

The proposal aims to enable secure economic coordination between autonomous AI agents operating on blockchain networks.

As artificial intelligence systems increasingly operate independently and interact with digital services, blockchain infrastructure may provide essential mechanisms for identity verification, payments, and programmable economic agreements between AI entities.

This development highlights the growing convergence between AI technology and decentralized blockchain infrastructure.

Strategy Expands Bitcoin Treasury With $1.28 Billion Purchase

Business intelligence firm Strategy, widely known as the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, announced that it had purchased approximately $1.28 billion worth of Bitcoin.

The acquisition added 17,994 BTC to the company’s treasury, bringing its total holdings to more than 738,000 BTC.

Strategy’s aggressive Bitcoin accumulation strategy has been championed by executive chairman Michael Saylor, who has repeatedly argued that Bitcoin represents a superior long-term store of value compared with traditional fiat reserves.

Is Ethereum a Good Investment in 2026? What Happened After The Merge – KEYRING PRO

Conclusion

The past week once again demonstrated how the cryptocurrency industry continues to evolve at the intersection of financial markets, emerging technologies, and regulatory oversight.

While institutional adoption continues to expand and blockchain innovation accelerates, the ecosystem still faces challenges related to market volatility, infrastructure reliability, and regulatory compliance.

At the same time, developments such as AI-focused blockchain standards and intellectual property infrastructure suggest that the next phase of crypto innovation may extend far beyond digital currency — potentially reshaping how digital ownership, automation, and economic coordination function in the global digital economy.