The attacker tied to the breach of Blockstream's Liquid Network is demanding a payout equal to 10% of the 600 BTC that remains outstanding, according to reports. The hacker is said to have framed the return of the coins as contingent on receiving the bounty. Liquid Network is a Bitcoin sidechain developed by Blockstream, used by exchanges, institutions, and traders to settle transactions faster and with greater privacy than on Bitcoin's main chain. Because the network holds pooled reserves for multiple participants, a security incident can affect parties beyond a single firm. In reported communications, the attacker used aggressive language toward Blockstream, calling the company "delusional, greedy, and arrogant." The remarks suggest negotiations have become confrontational, with the two sides split on what constitutes an acceptable settlement. Bounty-style negotiations after crypto thefts are common. Projects sometimes offer a portion of stolen assets as a "whitehat" reward rather than treating the payment as a ransom, arguing it can be faster and less costly than extended litigation or relying on law enforcement recovery. The approach can also create incentives for future attackers by normalizing negotiation as an exit path. The fact that 600 BTC is still unresolved indicates some of the stolen funds may have already been recovered, frozen, or otherwise accounted for. Current reports did not specify the original amount stolen or the timeline of any partial recoveries. There has been no report of Blockstream publicly accepting the 10% demand. The attacker's tone points to dissatisfaction with counteroffers or the pace of talks. Such disputes can persist for months as both sides weigh reputational and legal risks, along with the difficulty of tracing or freezing bitcoin once it moves across wallets or through mixers. For Blockstream, the episode carries added significance given its position in Bitcoin infrastructure and security tooling. Institutional users rely on Liquid Network's reputation for secure settlement, and a prolonged unresolved incident can raise questions about custody controls and incident response. Market impact: A public standoff typically increases scrutiny of a platform's security practices and may affect institutional confidence in sidechain settlement products. Liquid Network's role in supporting exchange and OTC desk activity means extended uncertainty could lead some participants to reassess counterparty and custody risk. The broader bitcoin market is unlikely to see a direct price impact from a dispute of this size, but the episode adds to industry debate over how infrastructure providers should handle hacker negotiations when demands become public. FAQs - What is Liquid Network? A Bitcoin sidechain built by Blockstream that enables faster, more private settlement for exchanges and institutional traders. - What is the hacker demanding? A bounty worth 10% of the remaining 600 BTC in exchange for returning the funds. - Has Blockstream agreed? There is no report that Blockstream has publicly agreed to the 10% figure. - Why do companies pay bounties? They can provide a quicker, cheaper recovery path than legal action, though they may also encourage future attacks. Originally reported by AltcoinGordon; written by Ethan Mercer; republished with permission.

Senate Republicans have released a revised draft of the Clarity Act, a sweeping crypto market-structure proposal, just days before the chamber is scheduled to vote on the measure on September 15. Decrypt, The Block and Coindoo reported the updated text on September 10. The legislation aims to set federal rules for how digital assets are regulated, addressing long-running industry complaints that the U.S. framework remains too vague. At the center of the debate is how tokens should be classified and which regulator is in charge. For years, companies have struggled to determine whether particular crypto assets fall under securities law or commodities law. That uncertainty has fueled friction between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, both of which have asserted jurisdiction over parts of the market. In the absence of a clear statutory boundary, enforcement actions have often filled the gap left by rulemaking. A market-structure bill such as the Clarity Act is intended to put those lines into law. It would likely spell out token classification standards, clarify oversight of exchanges, and set expectations around custody of digital assets. The revised draft indicates Republicans are still fine-tuning core provisions as the vote nears. Updating a bill shortly before a floor vote is common and can reflect negotiations with lawmakers and industry stakeholders. It can also signal that key issues remain unresolved and require last-minute compromise. None of the reports specified what changed in the new version, but the timing underscores that the proposal remains a priority for Senate Republicans this month. The September 15 vote will serve as an early test of whether the Senate can move comprehensive crypto legislation forward. Previous market-structure efforts have stalled in Congress, making any momentum closely watched by the industry. Market impact If enacted, a market-structure law could give crypto firms clearer rules for operating in the U.S. and reduce reliance on enforcement-driven policy. Exchanges, custodians and token issuers have sought this clarity for years. Markets typically react less to the release of draft text than to final passage. Investors and companies are more likely to adjust once the Senate votes and the bill's specific provisions are widely understood. For now, the revised Clarity Act is best seen as a procedural step rather than a settled outcome. The days ahead will indicate whether the updated draft can attract enough support heading into the September 15 vote, a milestone the crypto industry has been anticipating. Frequently Asked Questions What is the Clarity Act? The Clarity Act is proposed legislation designed to establish federal market-structure rules for digital assets, including token classification and which agency regulates what. Why was the bill revised before the vote? Lawmakers often update bill text close to a scheduled vote to incorporate negotiations and address concerns raised by colleagues or stakeholders. The initial reports did not detail the specific changes. When is the Senate expected to vote? Reports say the vote is scheduled for September 15. Why does market-structure legislation matter for crypto companies? Clear standards for token classification and regulatory oversight could reduce uncertainty for U.S.-based exchanges, issuers and custodians. Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Liam Carter. Republished with permission. View the original on AltcoinGordon →

Spot Chainlink ETFs recorded their first day of activity in more than a week after eight straight sessions with no net inflows or outflows between August 26 and September 8, a lull that had raised concerns institutional demand for $LINK was fading. On September 9, the funds added $1.1 million in net inflows, bringing their combined holdings to 2.06% of the current $LINK supply.

According to CoinMarketCap, Ripple Chief Technology Officer David Schwartz said in a Twitter Spaces session this week that if XRP were ever to surpass Bitcoin in market capitalization, it would more likely come from XRP's own adoption and network growth rather than a sharp drop in Bitcoin's price. The remarks have rekindled debate over XRP's long-term valuation potential. A report citing calculations by crypto analyst Zach Rector estimates that if XRP's market cap rose to about $1.5 trillion—roughly in line with Bitcoin's current market value—and its circulating supply remained near 62 billion tokens, XRP would trade around $23.91 per token. If XRP matched Bitcoin's historical peak market cap of roughly $2.5 trillion, the implied price would be close to $40. Rector also presented a more conservative view using fully diluted valuation, based on XRP's total supply of 100 billion. Under that framework, a $1.5 trillion market cap implies an XRP price near $15, while $2.5 trillion implies about $25. He described the $15–$25 range as a conservative base case aligned with Schwartz's adoption-led growth logic, rather than an aggressive target. The report adds that Rector used Anthropic's Claude model to cross-check the scenario. The model suggested that if XRP were to genuinely overtake Bitcoin by market cap, the overall crypto market would likely be larger by then, potentially lifting Bitcoin's benchmark valuation as well. In that context, $15–$25 could represent a conservative lower bound rather than a ceiling. In a more optimistic scenario, Rector argues that if Bitcoin's market cap climbs to $3 trillion–$5 trillion and XRP expands alongside it, XRP could exceed $50 on a fully diluted basis. At the time of publication, XRP was trading around $1.30, below its cycle high of $3.66. Schwartz did not offer a timeline, and the discussion remains hypothetical. The article notes that Ripple's leadership has increasingly framed "market-cap outperformance through organic growth" as a plausible long-term outcome.

Liquid Network has restarted block generation after a four-day technical suspension triggered by a security incident estimated at $320 million. In a status update posted Sept. 10, 2026 (10:00 UTC), the federation said the sidechain has moved into a controlled resumption phase. Block production resumed at 12:26 UTC once federated nodes completed upgrades, with validators currently signing empty blocks as stability is monitored. Deposits, withdrawals and conversion features remain disabled, and end-user commercial activity has not yet been reopened. The breach was detected on Sept. 6, 2026 at block 4,050,336. A vulnerability in the open-source Elements codebase allowed an attacker to mint nearly 4,000 Liquid Bitcoin (LBTC) without collateral and execute a withdrawal of 3,996 BTC. The synthetic LBTC was routed via the SideSwap exchange service using a pegout authorization key (PAK). Federation nodes approved the transaction because the defect sat at the pre-transaction validation layer. During the exploit, operating reserves held in the federated multisig wallet fell from 4,205 BTC to 197 BTC within minutes. Technical reports said none of the private keys of the 15 federation members were compromised. Other issued assets on Liquid, including Tether (USDT) and various real-world asset (RWA) tokens, were not affected during the halt. SideSwap published a postmortem on Sept. 9, 2026, citing operational lapses. The platform said it kept the PAK key internet-connected and lacked automated velocity controls or per-wallet volume limits. The attacker returned 3,400 BTC to the multisig address on Sept. 7, 2026, describing themselves as a security researcher through on-chain messages. As of now, 598.5 BTC valued at about $47 million remains unrecovered. The attacker has requested a 10% bounty payment to return the remaining funds; Blockstream has not characterized the request as part of an authorized bug bounty program. The federation deployed an emergency patch, Elements v23.3.4, on Sept. 9, 2026. The fix addressed cache key management within range proofs following joint audits with security specialists including Bitcoin Red Team and Alpen Labs. Blockstream CEO Adam Back said the LBTC-to-BTC 1:1 peg will be fully covered, a commitment analysts say could help limit panic selling across OTC desks. According to the federation's recovery plan, reopening will proceed in three phases: controlled block production first, then re-execution of verified legitimate transactions, followed by re-enabling pegs once reserves are fully secured. The next step is expected to include a comprehensive technical audit and the completion of stress testing before liquidity bridges are fully reopened.

Fed funds futures are now pricing in a 69.7% probability that the Federal Reserve will raise rates by 25 basis points at its September meeting.

Tensions between Blockstream and a group claiming to be white-hat hackers have intensified, according to a new update from Samson Mow. The group alleges "serious security failures" at Blockstream and claims the company set aside only $1.5 million—or possibly nothing—to safeguard roughly $5 billion in assets. In a message aimed at Blockstream, the hackers described the situation as "flagrant neglect of security" and demanded a 10% bug bounty paid from Blockstream's own funds. They warned that nonpayment could translate into losses of up to 15% for Liquid users. The note also labeled Blockstream "delusional, greedy, and arrogant" in its approach to security, and said the group intends to publish the private key required to decrypt its conversations after the fact. Liquid remains paused while Blockstream and federation members work through additional security remediation, address a chain split, and plan a coordinated restart. Users have been instructed not to send Bitcoin to Liquid pegin addresses until the network resumes operations. The latest salvo follows the September 6 incident in which about 4,000 BTC—valued near $320 million at the time—was moved out of Liquid's federation wallet. The entity behind the withdrawal initially framed the action as a white-hat intervention, saying the funds would be returned after Blockstream fixed the security issue and patched affected nodes. After Blockstream said the bridge nodes had been patched, 3,400 BTC was returned to the federation wallet, while roughly 598 BTC remained in the hackers' possession. In a separate post, Mow warned the group it may be underestimating the consequences. He said Blockstream's choice to communicate via PGP was a "courtesy" and questioned the wisdom of publicly acknowledging the BTC removal while demanding a bounty. The former Blockstream chief strategy officer added that the group may have left more identifying traces than it realizes, and cautioned that returning funds would not necessarily allow those involved to simply move on. "As a white hat, the road only widens; as a black hat, you're forever on edge. Dreaming of walking away with assets unscathed is nothing but delusion. Some doors, once opened, can never be closed again."

Diesel futures rallied to a new all-time high, marking the highest price on record.

Rootstock cofounder and chief scientist Sergio Lerner is urging Bitcoin cross-chain bridges to make "delayed withdrawals" a required safeguard, arguing that bridges should not release funds immediately after software checks. Speaking to crypto.news after an unauthorized withdrawal incident involving the Liquid Network, Lerner said that without a time lock, a single verification flaw can translate into an instant, near-total loss, leaving bridge operators little time to react. A built-in delay, he said, could create a monitoring and intervention window of several hours to spot anomalies and stop withdrawals before real BTC moves. The remarks follow an unusual outflow from the Liquid Federation wallet. Reports say an attacker minted LBTC without sufficient collateral and then used SideSwap's pegout service to initiate a withdrawal, resulting in a transfer of nearly 4,000 BTC from the federation wallet. Liquid has described the parties involved as so-called "whitehat hackers." SideSwap said it processed the request through normal procedures because the LBTC appeared indistinguishable from properly collateralized tokens. About 23 minutes after the request, the federation wallet sent 3,996 BTC to the designated Bitcoin address. Roughly 3,400 BTC have been returned to date. Blockstream said affected bridge nodes have been patched, but about 598 BTC remains unrecovered. As of Sept. 10, Liquid has resumed block production, though transaction recovery and peg operations have not restarted. Lerner said the incident underscores the dangers of immediate release and argued that a mandatory waiting period between the creation of uncollateralized LBTC and the release of underlying BTC could have materially reduced losses. Under such a design, withdrawals would pass software verification but enter a waiting phase, during which automated monitoring can confirm pegout requests match the BTC reserves backing LBTC. If token supply and collateral diverge, operators could pause withdrawals before hardware signatures are applied, preventing rapid BTC outflows from the federation wallet. Rootstock already uses a delay: a 36-hour waiting period. Lerner said Rootstock's two-way peg relies on dedicated hardware security modules called PowHSMs, which independently verify that 4,000 Rootstock blocks—about 36 hours of cumulative proof-of-work—have elapsed before signing BTC withdrawals. He added that the private key never leaves the device, and function nodes cannot compel the hardware to bypass the waiting period. Even if most signature participants colluded, they could at most delay withdrawals, not force an early transfer of the underlying BTC. Lerner also pointed to longer-term protocol-level approaches. BIP443 remains in draft form, and Rootstock's current protections still depend on HSMs and a federated model rather than Bitcoin mainnet consensus. He said a future native Bitcoin vault solution could encode similar controls directly at the protocol layer. BIP443 proposes an opcode, OP_CCV, that would allow Bitcoin outputs to carry constraints limiting how funds can be moved later, with envisioned use cases including sidechains, stateful outputs, and revocable two-step withdrawal structures.