Security

Opera launches security tools to protect users against malicious Web3 actors

The browser also features the ability to enable HTTPS everywhere, bringing an extra layer of protection and making sure the websites people visit use proper encryption protocols.

Web3 browser Opera has announced a new set of security tools intended to help its users mitigate common risks associated with malicious actors in the Web3 ecosystem.

The new set of security tools called Web3 Guard is a suite of browser security features that promises to protect users against malicious decentralized applications (DApps), seed phrase phishing attacks and malicious actors.

The security tool scans for known security risks associated with DApps, such as suspicious code, security vulnerability and audit history. This helps users to get a better insight into the DApp they are planning to browse and alerts them in case any of the mentioned vulnerabilities are found.

The built-in security tools would also check for any seed phrase phishing attacks by scanning web pages for telltale signs of exploit, such as common phishing keywords and properties, without compromising users’ privacy or personal data. Danny Yao, senior product manager of crypto at Opera told Cointelegraph:

“Currently, Web3 Guard provides warnings and information to users so that they are not only aware of the potential risks in the moment, but also gradually become more familiar with the types of dangers specific to Web3. “

The crypto browser’s new security tools also introduce a malicious address checker that screens recipient addresses against a list of known malicious agents and warns users if suspicious activity is detected. Additionally, the browser has the option to enable HTTPS everywhere, adding an extra layer of security and guaranteeing that the websites users visit employ reliable encryption techniques.

Related: Opera browser integrates Elrond blockchain services to bolster Web3 adoption

In the first week of December, the browser introduced a new nonfungible token (NFT) feature on the platform allowing users to explore the vast NFT ecosystem through their browser.

The popular crypto browser that gained popularity for offering its native token to users for exploring the web through its platform has become a key point of Web3 interaction. The browser has an integrated wallet and support for many cryptos and Web3 ecosystems

Gensler’s approach toward crypto appears skewed as criticisms mount

While the SEC chairman has promised to make crypto safer for everyone, the recent slew of company collapses seems to suggest otherwise.

Since taking over at the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), chairman Gary Gensler has repeatedly been referred to as the “bad cop” of the digital asset industry. To this point, over the past 18 months, Gensler has taken an extremely hard-nosed approach toward the crypto market, handing out numerous fines and enforcing stringent policies to make industry players comply with regulations.

However, despite his aggressive crypto regulatory stance, Gensler, for the most part, has remained mum about several key issues that digital asset proponents have been talking about for a long time. For example, the SEC has still failed to clarify which cryptocurrencies can be considered securities, stating time and again that most cryptocurrencies in the market today could be classified as such.

Gensler has also noted previously that there already exists a plethora of laws offering enough clarity in regard to the regulation of the crypto market. In a recent interview with Bloomberg, said that for crypto investors to get the protections they deserve, intermediaries such as crypto trading and lending platforms need to align with the compliance requirement set forth by the SEC:

“Nothing about the crypto markets is incompatible with the securities laws. Investors have benefitted from nearly 90 years of well-crafted protections that provide investors the disclosure they need and that guard against misconduct like misappropriation of customer assets, fraud, manipulation, front-running, wash sales, and other conflicts of interest that harm investors and market integrity.”

Since April 2021, Gensler has fined a series of crypto companies and promoters for securities violations, with companies like BlockFi having to cough up as much as $100 million in penalties for registration failures.

Similarly, in July, the SEC filed an insider-trading lawsuit against a former Coinbase employee, claiming that a total of seven crypto assets being offered by the trading platform were unregistered securities. Not only that, as per public filings, the agency is reportedly scrutinizing the various processes employed by Coinbase in terms of choosing which cryptocurrencies to offer its clients.

Critics continue to take aim at Gensler 

Since becoming the head of the SEC, criticisms surrounding Gensler’s seemingly aggressive approach toward crypto regulation have ramped up quite a lot. For example, late last year, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong revealed that the SEC had prevented his firm from releasing a new feature, barring users from earning interest on their crypto assets. 

In this regard, the SEC issued a “Wells notice” against Coinbase, which in its most basic sense is a document informing the recipient that the agency is planning to bring enforcement actions against them.

To get a better overview of the situation, Cointelegraph reached out to Slava Demchuk, CEO of a United Kingdom-based Anti-Money Laundering (AML) service AMLBot and crypto wallet AMLSafe. In his view, Gensler and the SEC haven’t provided clear guidance for crypto companies on things like registration and compliance and have been unable to make crypto compliance attractive and accessible to market participants. He added:

“It looks like the SEC is focused on all the wrong things, and as a result, the crypto industry is suffering from cases like FTX. And while it is easy to find a balance between regulation and innovation, I concede that it is important to introduce regulations asap; otherwise, investors and users will lose trust in the industry.”

A somewhat similar opinion is shared by Przemysław Kral, CEO of cryptocurrency exchange Zonda Global, who believes that Gensler’s approach to crypto regulation certainly raises many questions, particularly in light of the recent market turmoil. He told Cointelegraph that because Gensler’s actions had already been challenged in the months following up to the FTX collapse, the ongoing criticism against him is being further validated.

Recent: NFTs could help solve diamond certification fraud

“As a key individual responsible for protecting U.S customers against securities fraud, there’s little doubt that his approach has failed to some degree. Any regulatory framework that fails to protect customers in the first instance should be considered antithetical to promoting growth within an industry,” Kral noted.

Lawmakers aren’t pleased either

With a slew of collapses — FTX, Celsius, Vauld, Voyager and Terra — within the last six-odd months, the overall effectiveness of crypto regulations in the United States has been called into question by a number of prominent lawmakers, including U.S. Representative Tom Emmer, who recently expressed his concern regarding Gensler’s crypto oversight strategy.

Since the turn of the year, Emmer has been quite vocal about the SEC’s “indiscriminate and inconsistent approach” toward the digital asset sector, with the Congressman noting that earlier in March, he had been approached by representatives of various crypto and blockchain firms who told him that Gensler’s elaborate reporting requests were not only extremely burdensome and unnecessary but are also having a direct effect on the innovation emanating from this rapidly evolving sector.

It is also worth noting that Emmer recently asked the SEC to comply with the standards established in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, a legislation meant to reduce the total amount of paperwork burden imposed by the federal government on private businesses and citizens. “Congress shouldn’t have to learn the details about the SEC’s oversight agenda through planted stories in progressive publications,” he said.

Lastly, earlier in September, Gensler introduced a new rule requiring all crypto intermediaries — including exchanges, broker-dealers, clearing agents, and custodians — to be registered with the SEC. This decision was met with much backlash, including that from prominent Republican party senator Pat Toomey.

In his view, the SEC has failed to provide any sort of regulatory clarity for the crypto industry while also accusing the regulatory agency of “being asleep at the wheel,” especially as prominent projects like Celsius Network and Voyager Digital have continued to collapse like dominos all through the summer, leaving hundreds of thousands of clients without access to their hard-earned money.

Is the chairman’s future in jeopardy?

Approximately eight months ago in March, ex-FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried was joined by Gary Gensler on a video call regarding the now-defunct exchange being given the regulatory green light in the United States without facing the threat of any fines (primarily for violating securities rules.)

And while the deal did not come to fruition, FTX’s fall from grace has called into question Gensler’s future as the SEC’s head and his general effectiveness, especially since Bankman-Fried was able to gain access to the elites of Washington while running an off-shore firm promoting risky trading schemes and dipping into its customers’ accounts to fund other investments.

In fact, Emmer claims that Gensler might have been in cahoots with Bankman-Fried and the rest of his team, tweeting on Nov 11:

In essence, FTX’s collapse has set in motion a completely new level of inquiry into Gensler’s crypto outlook. To this point, details of Gensler’s public meeting schedule containing multiple sessions with Bankman-Fried recently made their way online — some dating to October, just a month before FTXs downfall — resulting in many crypto enthusiasts claiming that Gensler might have been cozying up to a potential criminal responsible for defrauding investors of billions of dollars.

In fact, some people argue that if the SEC had struck a deal with FTX, it would have provided the latter with a regulatory monopoly over the digital asset market and given Bankman-Fried the power to dominate the crypto exchange landscape.

What’s next for the SEC and crypto?

With Gensler pursuing a highly regulated approach toward the crypto market, it appears that the coming few months could be extremely rough for the industry. For starters, the two-year-long battle between SEC and Ripple seems to finally be coming to a conclusion, with a judgment expected to come soon.

Recent: How do crypto hardware wallet firms make money?

The case could have major ramifications for the market at large since Ripple’s native crypto offering, XRP (XRP), is currently in the top 10 digital assets by total capitalization. The dispute between the SEC and Ripple started back in December 2020, when the regulator alleged in court that Ripple’s executive brass had raised a whopping $1.3 billion by offering XRP as unregistered securities.

Therefore, as we head into a future driven by decentralized tech, it will be interesting to see how Gensler and the SEC continue to navigate this fast-evolving space, especially given the fact that the number of people investing in cryptocurrencies has been growing at a rapid rate over the last couple of years.

How do crypto hardware wallet firms make money?

All the companies that are involved in producing hardware crypto wallets have multiple revenue streams, either directly or indirectly.

The hardware wallet industry has emerged as one of the most resilient sectors to the ongoing cryptocurrency winter, with issues like the FTX crash bringing in even more cold wallet sales.

The bear market of 2022 has once again reminded crypto investors of the importance of self-custody and independence from centralized exchanges (CEX).

As a result, some major CEXs like Binance has increased their investment exposure to hard wallet firms, while CEO Changpeng Zhao even suggested that CEXs may no longer be necessary in the future. Should it be the case, the crypto industry of the future will be quite unlike the existing one because the business model of hardware wallets is very different from that of CEXs.

One massive difference is how hardware wallets make money because — unlike CEXs — cold wallets don’t charge any fees for most transactions by design. But selling devices cannot be the sole revenue stream for cold wallet manufacturers due to a number of reasons, including that hardware wallets are durable devices that don’t often need upgrades.

So, how do hardware wallet manufacturers actually make money? Cointelegraph reached out to several cold wallet providers to discuss the issue to better understand their business model.

How long does a hardware wallet last?

There is no clear answer on how long a hardware cryptocurrency wallet is able to last, partly because the world’s first-ever cold wallets are still working properly.

Czech Republic-based hardware wallet firm Trezor was the first company in the world to officially release a cold wallet back in 2014. After eight years, the Trezor One model is still one of the most popular hard wallet devices, with many customers still using their first generation of Trezor devices, Trezor brand ambassador Josef Tetek told Cointelegraph.

“Trezor devices come with a two-year warranty. However, that doesn’t mean the devices break down after two years,” Tetek said, adding:

“At conferences we regularly meet users who still use the first edition from 2013. In general Trezor devices are very durable and the fault rate is minimal.”

The exec emphasized that users can break, lose or damage their devices, but they will keep their Bitcoin (BTC) if they keep their recovery seed backup intact.

According to Ledger, another major cold wallet provider, the lifespan of a cold wallet is “really long,” but is not something that the firm can estimate. “Devices are designed to last. Sometimes issues come up as with every product, but people should be able to bury them,” a spokesperson for the firm told Cointelegraph.

According to some hardware wallet providers, card-based cold wallets can last for dozens of years or never expire at all.

Recent: Into the storm: The murky world of cryptocurrency mixers

Andrey Kurennykh, CEO at the SBI-backed cold wallet firm Tangem, suggested that their card-like hardware wallet has the same lifespan as the underlying Samsung S3D350A secure element. “Samsung claims that they have a lifespan of more than 25 years. Since there are no other hardware components in Tangem wallets, we consider this to be the lifespan of the whole device,” Kurennykh said in an interview with Cointelegraph.

Adam Lowe, creator of another cold wallet company Arculus, also told Cointelegraph that the company’s card-like cold storage device “never expires.”

As hardware wallets might never require a user to upgrade the device, how do cold wallet firms keep running operations, given that such companies have to spend significant resources to provide long-time support for their customers?

Increasing demand for hardware wallets

Many hardware wallet providers have been forced to expand their support staff in order to meet increasing demand for cold wallet devices.

“We have significantly scaled up our support team, which has been important to us considering recent events in the crypto industry and the increase in people moving to self-custody,” the Ledger spokesperson said.

“We’re seeing a large influx of people new to crypto from different channels and geographies, and we’re strengthening support proportionally,” Tangem’s Kurennykh noted.

A number of wallets have also introduced new support solutions including self-help tools and chat bots, allowing them to more easily handle frequently recurring requests like implementing an e-commerce API. “This helps to handle unexpected surges in inquiries such as that experienced in the recent FTX collapse,” Trezor’s Tetek said, adding that the firm has also been actively adding videos on solving the most common issues and difficulties.

Cold wallets’ multiple revenue streams

All the companies that are involved in manufacturing hardware crypto wallets have multiple revenue streams, either directly or indirectly, according to comments from industry executives.

“Ledger isn’t just a hardware company, we’re a software company as well with Ledger Live,” a representative said, adding that its revenue comes from not only selling Ledger devices but also through services on Ledger Live.

The firm also offers its own nonfungible token platform known as Ledger Market, business-to-business (B2B) products tool called Ledger Enterprise and others, the spokesperson noted.

Ledger has also been actively expanding its devices, launching a total of seven different cold wallets since 2014. Ledger’s latest wallet, developed in collaboration with iPod Classic creator Tony Fadell, is priced at $279, which is $200 higher than the cost of the previous Ledger wallet.

Rival firm Trezor doesn’t offer any financial services and doesn’t levy any fees on using its Trezor Suite app, Tetek said. At the same time, its sister firm, Invity, enables Trezor users to buy and sell Bitcoin (BTC) and other crypto currencies directly from the Trezor Suite, he said, stressing that the firm is a separate business from Trezor.

According to Tangem’s Kurennykh, the firm has several revenue streams, with as much as 70% of the company’s revenue coming from hardware wallet sales. About 20% of revenues come from third-party services fees like on-ramp and off-ramp exchanges, while 10% is generated through white-label wallet sales, Kurennykh said. The company is also working on its own non-custodial payment solution, which is expected to make another additional revenue stream.

Ruben Merre, co-founder and CEO at Binance-backed crypto wallet Ngrave, also told Cointelegraph that the firm’s revenue is mostly generated from product sales. However, there are areas for additional revenue streams, including a transaction fee for a fiat-crypto onramp. “The user can then buy crypto directly from the hardware wallet app […] The hardware wallet manufacturer may charge a transaction fee for this process,” Merre said.

Additionally, a number of cold wallets also participate in affiliate or promotion programs in cooperation with crypto services and exchanges.

There’s no public hard wallet company yet

As none of the existing hardware wallet companies are public, there is no readily available data on the revenues coming from their business. All the hardware wallet firms interviewed by Cointelegraph declined to provide any figures related to their financial information, citing their status as a private company.

At the same time, the executives reiterated that the collapse of the FTX exchange in November has driven massive sales and traffic to hardware wallet platforms.

Related: ​​Was the fall of FTX really crypto’s ‘Lehman moment?’

In November, Ledger doubled its transaction revenue through Ledger Live month-over-month, also recording an all-time-high in number of trades through Ledger Live, the spokesperson said. “We had our best sales month ever in November, with our two best sales days ever on Nov. 13 and Nov. 14, following FTX,” the representative added.

“We can say that we have sold over 1 million devices, and we are experiencing record sales after the recent FTX collapse,” Trezor’s Tetek also noted.

As previously reported by Cointelegraph, the hardware wallet industry had been estimated to grow at a faster pace than exchanges, even before the FTX crash. But despite self-custody being one of the genuine purposes of crypto, investors should still be aware of the risks associated with storing coins by themselves.

‘Father of the iPod’ helps Ledger create new cold crypto wallet

Tony Fadell, the man behind the iPod, iPhone and Nest Thermostat, collaborates with major crypto wallet firm Ledger to build a new cold wallet.

Hardware wallet provider Ledger, known for its cold-storage devices, announced its seventh crypto wallet in collaboration with the creator of the original iPod.

Tony Fadell, the inventor of the iconic iPod Classic model, has partnered with Ledger to help the company design its latest wallet device known as Ledger Stax. The company broke the news on Dec. 6 at Ledger’s bi-annual Web3 developer event, Ledger Op3n, in Paris.

Ledger’s upcoming new hardware wallet is a credit card-size device that features a large E Ink display, capacitive touch, Bluetooth support, wireless charging and more.

For the first time in Ledger’s product line, Stax contains a curved E Ink display which can be used to show the holder’s name or other wallet information, just like a book spine. The device is also equipped with magnets, allowing users to organize the storage of multiple similar devices and “stack” them in order, and that is why Ledger Stax was called so.

When designing the device, Fadell thought about what the modern stack of cash would look like. “He thought about it in two ways — the spine of the device is like the band around the stack of cash which shows you what’s inside, and you can stack them together using the magnets,” a Ledger spokesperson said in a statement to Cointelegraph.

Ledger Stax hardware wallet. Source: Ledger

Fadell, who also worked on the first three generations of the iPhone, designed Ledger Stax in cooperation with the industrial design firm Layer. “We need to be user-friendly… no! A ‘user-delightful’ tool, to bring digital asset security to the rest of us, not just the geeks,” the ‘Father of the iPod’ said.

According to the announcement, Ledger Stax will be available in Q1 2023, and customers can now pre-order the wallet on Ledger’s official website. In the future, it will be available from select retailers such as BestBuy in the United States.

The Ledger Stax wallet is priced at $279, a spokesperson for Ledger told Cointelegraph. The device is significantly more expensive than Ledger’s previous wallet, the Ledger Nano S Plus. Officially released in April 2022, Nano S Plus costs $79 at the time of writing. The previous iteration, Nano X, is priced at $149.

Related: Binance makes moves in hardware wallet industry with new investment

According to Ledger, the latest wallet product is designed to make interacting and signing transactions easier with a touch screen and a larger display. “​​Ledger Stax adds to our lineup, rather than replacing anything, allowing customers to choose the kind of experience they want,” the firm’s representative said.

Digital identity platform integrates with zkSync for on-chain KYC

RNS.ID’s on-chain KYC solution is designed on a “privacy engine” to encrypt users’ data.

RNS.id, a digital Web3 identity platform developed to support the application and issuance of sovereignty-backed IDs, announced on Nov. 30 that it is integrating with zkSync for on-chain KYC. RNS.ID indicated in a release shared with Cointelegraph that its on-chain KYC solution is designed on a “privacy engine” to encrypt users’ identity attributes or properties into different “hashed slices” with multiple signature verifications.

RNS.ID aggregates users’ fragmented identity properties data and uses ZK-proofs to generate encrypted proofs from metadata. Additionally, the company stated that RNS.ID enables users to create their own “minimal disclosure identifying information system” for constrained usages, thereby preventing a breach of personal data and reducing the chances of identity theft. 

zkEVM’s integration with RNS.id aspires to enable self-sovereignty-based solutions in the realm of digital identity, an emerging space in the digital world. The integration also seeks to leverage blockchain technology to allow identity verification without revealing users’ sensitive data to allow users to maintain privacy, while they interact with the Web3 ecosystem. 

At present, the company said its RNS.ID is supported by over 80% of crypto exchanges in the world, such as Binance, Coinbase, Bitmart, Kucoin, Gate.io, Bybit, and Huobi, among many others.

RNS.ID also partnered with the Republic of Palau, to make it the first sovereign nation in the world to issue digital residency IDs to global citizens. It is said to be the first national identification card issued on the blockchain as “soulbound ID NFTs”. 

Related: How Web3 resolves fundamental problems in Web2

It appears countries around the world are slowly beginning to take interest in Web 3 by incorporating blockchain technology into their structures. On Nov 29, Cointelegraph reported that Dominica had launched a digital identity program and national token in partnership with Huobi. 

Dominica’s government has agreed to a partnership with Huobi to issue Dominica Coin (DMC) and digital identity documents (DID) with DMC holders set to be granted digital citizenship in the country. DMC and DID will be issued on Huobi Prime and will serve as credentials for a future Dominica-based metaverse platform.

Belgium says BTC, ETH and other decentralized coins are not securities

Belgium’s take on what conditions must be met in order for a crypto asset to be classed as a security are in contrast to the views of U.S. Securities Exchange Commission Chairman Gary Gensler.

Belgium’s financial regulatory body has confirmed its position that Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH) and other cryptocurrencies that are issued solely by computer code do not constitute securities.

The explanation came from Belgium’s Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) in a Nov. 22 report, a draft of which was opened for comment in July 2022.

The clarification comes following an increase in demands for answers as to how Belgium’s existing financial laws and regulations apply to digital assets, according to the FSMA.

While not legally binding under Belgium or European Union law, the FSMA stated that under its “stepwise plan,” cryptocurrencies would be classed as a security if it was issued by an individual or entity:”

“If there is no issuer, as in cases where instruments are created by a computer code and this is not done in execution of an agreement between issuer and investor (for example, Bitcoin or Ether), then in principle the Prospectus Regulation, the Prospectus Law and the MiFID rules of conduct do not apply.”

The Belgian regulatory body noted that cryptocurrencies which are not categorized as securities may still be subject to other regulations if a company uses the digital asset as a medium of exchange:

“Nevertheless, if the instruments have a payment or exchange function, other regulations may apply to the instruments or the persons who provide certain services relating to those instruments.”

FSMA also noted that its stepwise plan is neutral to the technology — suggesting that it’s irrelevant whether digital assets exist and are facilitated on a blockchain or through other traditional means.

The FSMA first drafted the report in July 2022 as a means to address frequently asked questions by Belgian-based issuers, offerers and service providers of digital assets.

FSMA stated that the stepwise plan would serve as a guideline until the European Parliament’s Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCA) is adopted, which is expected to take effect at the start of 2024.

Related: Not taking the time to learn about BTC is ‘Europe’s biggest risk,’ says Belgian MP

Belgium’s clear guidelines are in contrast to the “regulation by enforcement” approach taken by the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), which is currently vying for digital asset regulatory control with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

While SEC chairman Gary Gensler has long considered BTC to be a commodity, he’s recently argued that post-Merge Ether (ETH) and other staked coins may constitute a security under the Howey test.

Belgium hasn’t been a huge adopter of digital assets to date, with a recent study from blockchain data platform Chainalysis ranking Belgium 94th in its Global Crypto Adoption Index.

Residents in the European country have access to 10 crypto exchanges, according to data from crypto data resource Bitrawr.

Bahamas supreme court approves ‘provisional liquidators’ for FTX

The Securities Commission of the Bahamas said it had to act “given the magnitude, urgency, and international implications of the unfolding events with regard to FTX.”

The Supreme Court of the Bahamas — where FTX Digital Marketsis headquartered — has approved two provisional liquidators to oversee the crypto exchange’s assets.

According to a Nov. 14 announcement from the Bahamas’ Securities Commission, the country’s supreme court approved the appointments of PricewaterhouseCoopers advisory partner Kevin Cambridge and partner Peter Greaves to act as “joint provisional liquidators” for FTX. The securities regulator also applied to have Brian Simms, a senior partner of Bahamas-based commercial law firm Lennox Patton, as a provision liquidator on Nov. 10.

“Given the magnitude, urgency, and international implications of the unfolding events with regard to FTX, the Commission recognized that it had to, and moved swiftly to use its regulatory powers […] to further protect the interests of clients, creditors, and other stakeholders globally of FTX Digital Markets Ltd,” said the Securities Commission.

The regulator added:

“Over the coming days and weeks, the Commission expects to engage with other supervisory authorities on a regulator-to-regulator basis as this event is multijurisdictional in nature.”

FTX announced on Nov. 11 that the company would be filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in the United States’ District of Delaware. The proceedings included more than 130 firms in FTX Group, including FTX Trading, FTX US, under West Realm Shires Services, Alameda Research, and its Bahamas-based subsidiary FTX Digital Markets. Sam Bankman-Fried also resigned his position amid the firm’s liquidity crisis and bankruptcy.

Related: FTX’s ongoing saga: Everything that’s happened until now

The appointment of a provisional liquidator followed the Bahamas securities regulator suspending FTX’s registration status and freezing its local subsidiary’s assets on Nov. 10. The Royal Bahamas Police Force was also reportedly looking into FTX as part of an investigation of possible criminal misconduct.

Bahamas’ supreme court approves ‘provisional liquidators’ for FTX

The Securities Commission of the Bahamas said it had to act “given the magnitude, urgency, and international implications of the unfolding events with regard to FTX.”

The Supreme Court of the Bahamas has approved two provisional liquidators to oversee the assets of crypto exchange FTX Digital Markets, which is headquartered in the country.

According to a Nov. 14 announcement from the Bahamas’ Securities Commission, the country’s supreme court approved the appointments of PricewaterhouseCoopers advisory partner Kevin Cambridge and partner Peter Greaves to act as “joint provisional liquidators” for FTX. The securities regulator also applied to have Brian Simms, a senior partner of Bahamas-based commercial law firm Lennox Patton, as a provisional liquidator on Nov. 10.

“Given the magnitude, urgency, and international implications of the unfolding events with regard to FTX, the Commission recognized that it had to, and moved swiftly to use its regulatory powers […] to further protect the interests of clients, creditors, and other stakeholders globally of FTX Digital Markets Ltd,” said the Securities Commission.

The regulator added:

“Over the coming days and weeks, the Commission expects to engage with other supervisory authorities on a regulator-to-regulator basis as this event is multijurisdictional in nature.”

FTX announced on Nov. 11 that the company would be filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in the United States District of Delaware. The proceedings included more than 130 firms in FTX Group, including FTX Trading, FTX US — under West Realm Shires Services — Alameda Research and its Bahamas-based subsidiary FTX Digital Markets. Sam Bankman-Fried also resigned from his position amid the firm’s liquidity crisis and bankruptcy.

Related: FTX’s ongoing saga: Everything that’s happened until now

The appointment of a provisional liquidator followed the Bahamian securities regulator suspending FTX’s registration status and freezing its local subsidiary’s assets on Nov. 10. The Royal Bahamas Police Force was also reportedly looking into FTX as part of an investigation of possible criminal misconduct.

SEC wins LBRY case, but the victory may have little impact in the greater cryptoverse

Although it was quickly overshadowed by more dramatic events, the LBRY case is a rare instance of a crypto-related unregistered securities complaint going to court.

The United States Security Commission (SEC) won its case against blockchain-based file-sharing and payment network LBRY in district court in New Hampshire on Nov. 7 when that court decided to grant an SEC request for summary judgment filed in May. The case garnered lots of commentaries on its own and also in relation to the ongoing Ripple case.

LBRY operates a digital content network. The Odysee video-sharing website is its best-known app. The network uses LBRY Credit (LBC) to reward users for performing tasks, referring new users, contributing to projects and publishing content, according to the LBRY website. LBC can also be mined or purchased.

The case against LBRY

The SEC filed a complaint against LBRY in March 2021, claiming that LBRY was selling an unregistered security. The SEC sought a permanent injunction against the sale of the tokens, disgorgement of all funds received with interest and civil penalties. It did not allege fraud or charge any individuals in the case, however.

LBRY argued that LBC was not intended for investment purposes but had a use on the LBRY blockchain from the moment of its launch. Something with a function is a commodity, not a security. LBRY further argued that it was not given fair notice that its assets were subject to securities laws.

The court’s dismissal of the fair notice claim was simple and direct:

“The SEC has based its claim on a straightforward application of a venerable Supreme Court precedent that has been applied by hundreds of federal courts across the country over more than 70 years.”

In other words, LBRY should have been familiar with the Howey test, which is the standard for defining a security. Regarding LBRY’s claim about the token’s investment uses, the court found:

“The SEC identifies multiple statements by LBRY that it claims led potential investors to reasonably expect that LBC would grow in value as the company continued to oversee the development of the LBRY Network. LBRY minimizes the significance of these statements, and points to its many disclaimers that it did not intend for LBC to be purchased as an investment, but the SEC is correct.”

That is to say that LBC does not pass the Howey test. And again, a disclaimer has been shown to be inadequate protection. The court takes the principle further, however, noting, “Nothing in the case law suggests that a token with both consumptive and speculative uses cannot be sold as an investment contract.” Not only that, but:

“Even if it [LBRY] had never explicitly broadcast its views on the subject, any reasonable investor who was familiar with the company’s business model would have understood the connection.”

What the SEC accomplished

The case has been closely watched, as any case touching on the eternally problematic question of which cryptocurrencies are securities is significant, particularly when it comes to trial.

“The SEC vs LBRY case establishes a precedent that threatens the entire U.S. cryptocurrency industry,” LBRY CEO Jeremy Kauffman told Cointelegraph in a written statement. “Under the SEC vs LBRY standard, almost every cryptocurrency, including Ether and Dogecoin, are securities.”

Aaron Kaplan, co-CEO of the Prometheum exchange, had a similar view. “The judge in this case explains that the economic realities surrounding LBC clearly made it a security,” he told Cointelegraph. “If one extrapolates the economic realities argument, the natural conclusion is that almost every token out there, besides Bitcoin, comports to the same economic realities and are therefore also securities.”

Related: Judge rules LBRY video platform’s token is a security in case brought by the US SEC

The case did not shed any light on SEC policy otherwise. While the SEC emphasizes “facts and circumstances” in its discovery, the industry is keen to identify triggering factors. Most cryptocurrencies have both investment and use cases, but the LBRY case did not provide any clarity on mixed uses because it looked only at the initial uses of the token.

“Many of us were looking to that case for some guidance on how a court would handle […] a mixed-use case,” Philip Moustakis, a former SEC counsel and a current counsel at Seward & Kissel, told Cointelegraph. “Maybe the court would have arrived at a different conclusion if the investment case were not so clear, or if there were better facts supporting the token’s utility and use cases,” he said.

LBRY and Ripple

“This isn’t a test case” for mixed-use tokens, Davis Polk partner Zachary Zweihorn told Cointelegraph. “I think XRP is a closer call and a better test case.”

Zweihorn saw LBRY as easy pickings. “I think if the case was too hard, basically, they [the SEC] might not bring it. […] They bring cases like this when they have good facts. The SEC gets to do a lot of investigation in advance,” he said.

Lawyer John Deaton, who frequently comments on the Ripple case, said on his CryptoLawTV broadcast on Twitter:

“They go to New Hampshire and pick a company that raised a couple hundred thousand dollars. Why? Because they had a favorable judge and they wanted a favorable ruling.”

The LBRY case resembled Ripple’s, Deaton pointed out, in that in both cases, the founders raised funds from angel investors and they had no initial coin offerings. Their Howey test arguments differ, however.

The LBRY case was heard in the U.S. First District, which means the LBRY decision does not have a direct impact on the SEC v. Ripple case now taking place in the Second District. Deaton had no doubt the SEC would refer to the LBRY decision in its Ripple arguments though. The decision is subject to appeal.

Developers could have prevented crypto’s 2022 hacks if they took basic security measures

Crypto doesn’t need reversible transactions. It needs real-time threat monitoring and more audits.

Users losing funds due to malicious activity is hardly unknown on Ethereum. In fact, it is the very reason researchers recently developed a proposal to introduce a type of token that is reversible in the event of a hack or other unsavory behaviors. 

Specifically, the suggestion would see the creation of an ERC-20R and ERC-721R, which would be modified versions of the standards that govern both regular Ethereum tokens and nonfungible tokens (NFTs).

The premise goes like this: this new standard would allow users to make a “freeze request” on recent transactions that would lock those funds until a “decentralized judiciary system” determined the validity of the transaction. Both parties would be allowed to present their evidence, and the judges would be chosen at random from a decentralized pool to minimize collusion.

At the end of the process, a verdict would be reached and either the funds would be returned or they would stay where they are. This decision would then be final and subject to no further contention. This would open up a practical avenue for victims of hacks and other malicious activity to get their assets back in a direct and community-driven manner.

Unfortunately, this may well be an unnecessary and ultimately harmful proposition. One of the cornerstones of the decentralized philosophy is that transactions only go in one direction. They can’t be undone under virtually any circumstances. This new protocol change would undermine that fundamental precept and in order to fix what isn’t broken.

There’s also the fact that even implementing such tokens would be a logistical nightmare. Unless every single platform shifted over to the new standard, then there would be huge gaps in the system, meaning that thieves could simply quickly swap their reversible assets for non-reversible ones and avoid the repercussions entirely. This would render the entire asset completely pointless, and more than likely users would simply not engage with it.

Furthermore, the whole idea of a judicial review implies centralization. Isn’t independence from a third party the exact thing cryptocurrency was created for? The existing proposal isn’t clear on how these judges are chosen, other than it will be “random.” Without the system being very carefully balanced, it’s hard to say that collusion or manipulation is impossible.

A better proposal

Ultimately, the notion of a reversible crypto asset may be well-intentioned but is also entirely unnecessary. The premise introduces many new complexities in terms of its actual integration into existing systems, and that is even assuming platforms want to utilize it. However, there are other ways to achieve security in the decentralized ecosystem that don’t undermine what makes cryptocurrency so powerful to begin with.

For one, auditing of all smart contract codes on an ongoing basis. Many problems in decentralized finance (DeFi) arise from exploits present in the underlying smart contracts. Comprehensive and independent security audits can help to find where potential problems exist before these protocols are released. Furthermore, it’s important to try to understand how multiple contracts will interact together when they go live, as some issues only arise when they are used in the wild.

Any deployed contract will have risk factors that should be monitored and defended against. However, many development teams do not have a robust security monitoring solution in place. Often, the first sign that something problematic is happening comes from an on-chain diagnosis. Massive or unusual transactions and other uncommon transaction patterns can point to an attack that is happening in real-time. Being able to spot and understand these signals is key to staying on top of them.

Related: Biden‘s anemic crypto framework offered nothing new

Of course, there also needs to be a system in place for documenting and recording events and communicating the most important information to the correct entities. Some alerts can be sent to the developer team and others can be made available to the community. With a community thus informed, better security can come in a manner that aligns with the decentralized ethos rather than it being relegated to a function of a judicial review.

Let’s look back at the Ronin hack as an example. It took a full six days for the team behind the project to realize an attack had occurred, only becoming aware when a user complained that they were unable to withdraw funds. If real-time monitoring of the network had been in place, a response could have happened almost instantly when the first large, suspicious transaction occurred. Instead, nobody noticed for almost a week, giving the attacker ample time to continue to move funds and obscure their history.

It seems fairly obvious that reversible tokens wouldn’t have helped this situation much, but monitoring could have. By the time it was noticed, many of the stolen coins had been transferred repeatedly across wallets and exchanges. Could all of these transactions just be reversed? The complexities introduced, as well as the possible new risks created, mean that this endeavor simply isn’t worth the effort. Especially when you consider that powerful mechanisms already exist that can offer a similar level of security and accountability.

Instead of messing with the formula that makes crypto so powerful, it would make much more sense to implement comprehensive and continuous security processes across Web3 so that decentralized assets remain immutable but not unprotected.

Stephen Lloyd Webber is a software engineer and author with diverse experience in simplifying complex situations. He is fascinated by open source, decentralization and anything on the Ethereum blockchain. Stephen is currently working in product marketing at Open Zeppelin, a premier crypto cybersecurity technology and services company, and has an MFA in English writing from New Mexico State University.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.