This week, the crypto industry at GMT+8 welcomed several key events in technology, funding, and security: LayerZero launched a brand-new L1 architecture Zero, with net inflows of tens of millions of dollars recorded for American spot Ethereum and multi-chain ETFs, Circle issued $1 billion USDC all at once on Solana, and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority is close to issuing its first batch of licenses. Meanwhile, Bithumb triggered a $4 billion Bitcoin erroneous transfer due to human error, and Mandiant disclosed that North Korean hackers used seven families of malware and layered AI deepfakes to lock down the crypto industry. While scaling and compliance superficially promote "maturation,” they also invisibly amplify system complexity and attack surfaces. The question of whether this seemingly more robust cycle is truly solidifying the future financial computing infrastructure or planting the seeds for the next "vulnerability resonance" has become a core issue that must be addressed.
Zero Debuts: A Technical Gamble for a Hundredfold Expansion
● New L1 Vision: LayerZero has launched Zero, aiming to decouple execution and verification using zero-knowledge proofs on top of existing cross-chain messaging layers, thereby constructing a heterogeneous multi-core "world computer." In simple terms, applications can run in parallel in different execution environments, ultimately confirmed by a unified proof layer, which hopes to transform the bottleneck of traditional single-chain "serial processing" into a parallel architecture akin to a multi-core CPU.
● 100-Fold Expansion and Cross-Chain Imagination: According to the official narrative, Zero's goal is to achieve roughly 100 times scalability while maintaining decentralization, meaning significant enhancements to throughput and confirmation efficiency without sacrificing the number of validators or security thresholds. For cross-chain applications, if states across different chains can be rapidly verified through a unified proof layer, the latency and cost of cross-chain interactions will theoretically drop significantly, providing a performance experience closer to Web2 for high-frequency DeFi, gaming, and on-chain exchanges.
● High-Performance L1's Role in This Round: As the Ethereum rollup route becomes increasingly clear, narratives like Zero's high-performance L1 not only serve as an aggressive complement to Ethereum's scaling route but also inevitably present competition. On one end is "Ethereum as the settlement layer + Rollup outsourcing execution," and on the other, "new L1 builds its own high-performance execution and validation stack." Both compete for the "main board" position of future global value and computational settlement, making it difficult for funding and developer attention to cover all routes.
● Complexity and Hidden Assumptions: Zero's technical gamble also hides systemic risks: the circuit design, proof generation costs, and verification complexity introduced by zero-knowledge proofs mean that the security assumptions of the entire protocol far exceed those of traditional simple chains. With each additional layer of abstraction, more potential implementation vulnerabilities and economic game spaces emerge; any deviation in the proof system, client implementation, or economic incentives could lead to consequences far beyond a single-chain failure, potentially resulting in a chain reaction of multi-core and multi-chain synchronization failures.
ETF's Slow Entry: Testing Positions for Ethereum and Multi-Chain Assets
● ETH Funding Signals: According to Farside Investors, the American spot Ethereum ETF recorded a $13.8 million net inflow in one day, a trivial amount compared to traditional asset management scales, yet continuing a trajectory of "moderate positive inflows" since its launch within the crypto product line. This sustained rather than explosive influx rhythm reflects institutional patience in positioning Ethereum as a settlement layer and “Web3 infrastructure stock,” rather than a short-term sentiment trade.
● Comparing SOL and XRP: Data from SoSoValue shows that American SOL spot ETF had a net inflow of $8.4305 million, while XRP spot ETF net inflow was $3.2624 million, both significantly smaller in volume compared to ETH, yet enough to outline the tiered popularity of multi-chain assets in traditional markets: high-performance public chain representative SOL gets a more proactive attempt, while XRP, burdened by regulatory history, sees institutions more cautiously increasing their stakes despite having supporters.
● Marginal Impact of Tentative Positions: Viewed from the perspective of traditional financial management scales, a net inflow of tens of millions of dollars still constitutes a "research-type position" — sufficient for investment research teams to track continuously and influence secondary liquidity but far from altering the industry weight. However, in the relatively shallow liquidity pool of crypto, incremental funds entering through ETFs as a "transparent compliance channel" will quietly elevate price centers, compress volatility space, and anchor new market expectations for the "institutional floor price."
● Hierarchical Understanding of Asset Genealogy: Grayscale Research considers Bitcoin in the short term as "more similar to high-growth tech stocks," closely resembling NASDAQ component stocks in price behavior and risk exposure, while long-term it still positions as "digital gold." This hierarchical framework is being replicated across the entire asset genealogy — BTC is seen as a long-term reserve asset, ETH is closer to high-growth infrastructure stocks, while SOL, XRP, and others are viewed as higher-risk satellite positions. The distribution of ETF funds, in turn, reinforces this institutional cognitive structure.
USDC Floods Into Solana: Centralization and Bias of On-Chain Dollars
● The Magnitude of $1 Billion Minting: Circle issued $1 billion USDC all at once on the Solana network, a significant figure under current market conditions. Compared to the average daily trading volume of DeFi and mainstream public chain TVL, this “new on-chain dollar” is substantial enough to reshape the depth of certain protocols and their market-making capabilities, clearly signaling Circle's confidence in Solana as a primary battlefield for high-frequency payments and transactions.
● Liquidity Demand Driven by High-Frequency Scenarios: The Solana ecosystem is renowned for its high performance, and its on-chain high-frequency trading, order-book DEX, derivative protocols, and payment applications have inherent demand for stable and low-friction dollar liquidity. The concentration of USDC in this network serves both to fulfill the margin requirements of market makers and arbitrageurs, and to provide a settlement medium that offers an "experience close to card organizations" for on-chain payments and in-game settlements, making Solana resemble a real-time settlement track addressed to the dollar-denominated economy.
● On-Chain Concentration of Dollar Credit: The increase of USDC issuance also accelerates the concentration of on-chain dollar credit among a few issuers. Regardless of the chain deployed, it fundamentally relies on Circle's asset reserves and compliance operations. If a particular public chain has an excessively high exposure ratio to a single issuer, once that issuer faces issues in regulation, reserves, or operations, on-chain applications and users will passively bear the systemic impact of "the protocol itself is fine, but the valuation unit has malfunctioned."
● Prototype of a Double-Layer Fund Cycle: On one side, American spot ETH, SOL, XRP ETFs are introducing off-market institutional funds into a compliant asset basket at a tens of millions of dollars pace, while on the other, Circle is heavily minting USDC on Solana, facilitating fast flows of on-chain dollars in DeFi and payments. The former functions as the "official entrance," while the latter acts as a "free circulation layer," together constituting an unstable double-layer fund cycle system: ETFs anchor medium and long-term holdings, while USDC supports short-term leverage and trading activity.
Hong Kong Licensing Imminent: A City-Level Bet on Compliance Stablecoins
● Thresholds of the Licensed Era: The Hong Kong Monetary Authority is nearing the issuance of its first batch of stablecoin issuer licenses, which not only means that a single project is authorized to operate compliantly but also marks a watershed moment in local regulation moving from “observation and sandbox” to “license normalization management.” Once the first licenses are issued, the standard framework surrounding audit disclosures, reserve asset composition, redemption mechanisms, and risk isolation will become the basic rules that later entrants must adhere to.
● City Strategy Rather Than Isolated Initiatives: The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR, John Lee, has openly stated, “Hong Kong aims to become a global center for digital asset innovation,” directly embedding stablecoin regulation into this city-level strategic narrative, rather than treating it as a marginal supplement to traditional payment tools. This top-level attitude means that local banks, brokers, and trading platforms will be more inclined to evaluate investments from the perspective of “infrastructure opportunities” rather than “compliance burdens” when facing stablecoin business.
● Significance of Licenses for Cross-Border and Institutional Matters: Compliant stablecoin licenses are expected to establish a new intermediary layer “subject to audits and accountability” for cross-border capital flows, exchange settlements, and institutional entry. For cross-border businesses, licensed issuers can interconnect with banks and payment institutions within the legal framework, addressing the slow and costly nature of traditional cross-border remittances; for exchanges, licensed stablecoins will become “high-quality products” for facilitating trades and margin management, allowing institutional investors to include such assets on their balance sheets within clearly defined compliance boundaries.
● Diverging Paths of American ETFs and Hong Kong Licenses: The U.S. incorporates BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, etc., into the capital market product system via spot ETFs, emphasizing "packing volatile assets into familiar fund wrappers"; Hong Kong, on the other hand, starts with stablecoins to build regulatory barriers for “on-chain dollars” and local payment scenarios. One prioritizes resolving investment channels, while the other focuses on pricing and settlement mediums, with different jurisdictions offering their respective priorities regarding "how to fit crypto into regulatory boxes," also indicating potential future games around cross-border business and market shares.
$4 Billion Outrageous Transfer: Human Single Point of Failure in Exchanges
● Scale and Shock of the Incident: The news that the South Korean exchange Bithumb caused an erroneous transfer of approximately $4 billion in Bitcoin due to human error rapidly drew the industry's attention following on-chain observations and media disclosures. This amount is significant, equating to a considerable proportion of the annual fiscal budget of several medium-sized countries; even if ultimately resolved through internal adjustments or rollback paths, the impact on user trust and regulatory patience has already been challenging to mitigate.
● Errors Occur Beyond the Chain: This incident did not stem from security flaws in the underlying chain protocol but from typical failures in centralized platform internal processes and permission management. Any deviation in the design or execution of transfer approval, address whitelisting, hot-cold wallet separation, or multi-signature mechanisms could allow "one operator, one string of addresses" misentry to evolve into a systemic risk event, exposing that certain platforms still operate under governance standards of "internet companies" rather than "systemically significant financial infrastructures."
● Real Risks of Centralized Custody: For ordinary users, such operational mishaps have a more psychologically impactful effect than hacker attacks — assets have not been stolen by external intrusions but may become temporarily or even permanently lost due to internal mistakes. While centralized custody brings convenience and compliant interfaces, it also creates a very high “human single point of failure”: the internal controls and risk management system of the custodian essentially constitute another “private key” of user assets. Once they fail, the consequences are no less than having a private key stolen.
● Compliance Beyond Licenses: Regulatory trends are pressuring exchanges to move away from the crude phase of "expansion upon receiving a license" to long-term scrutiny of operational capabilities. The Bithumb incident serves as a reminder to the market that KYC, anti-money laundering reporting, and capital requirement thresholds are just the starting points of compliance; the more difficult question is whether the operational framework includes risk control processes, disaster recovery plans, and technical audit mechanisms comparable to traditional financial infrastructures. Otherwise, even numerous licenses will not withstand the collapse of confidence resulting from a single high-cost operational mistake.
North Korean Hackers Target Crypto: The Dark Costs of New Infrastructures
● Upgrading Attack Methods: A report from cybersecurity company Mandiant indicates that North Korean threat actors have long targeted the crypto industry as a significant attack target, using seven families of malware and leveraging AI-generated deepfake content to construct more deceptive social engineering and infiltration paths. Attacks have evolved from traditional phishing emails to meticulously disguised recruitment dialogues, false identity consultants, and video conferences, significantly raising the security frontier to every terminal and account of industry practitioners.
● Normalizing Low-Intensity Cyber Warfare: These targets include not only exchanges and large projects but also wallet development teams, research institutions, and individual practitioners' accounts, placing the entire industry chain in a prolonged state of “low-intensity cyber warfare.” Attackers can subtly profit through means such as stealing private keys, tampering with contract deployments, and manipulating operational backends, while victims often do not realize issues until hours or even longer after abnormal fund outflows.
● The More Critical the Infrastructure, the More Dangerous: By positioning Zero scaling, ETF funds, USDC minting, and Hong Kong licensing on the same timeline, a clear trend emerges: crypto is evolving from a speculative market to a global financial and computational infrastructure. Precisely because of this, these systems become increasingly attractive to advanced attackers — the complex proof stacks of new L1s, the custody links of ETF assets, and massive USDC issuances intertwined with compliance stablecoin settling networks, wherever one is breached, it could generate chain reactions globally.
● The Dark Costs of Security and Governance: The crypto industry is attempting to build a global value and computational infrastructure, weaving scaling, ETFs, on-chain dollars, and licensing systems into a narrative curve of "maturation." However, what truly determines the quality of the next cycle is not the steepness of TVL or market capitalization but whether the industry is willing to preemptively invest in security and governance — reserving adequate budgets for the dark costs associated with complex architectures, centralized custody, and geopolitical hacker activities, beyond just speed and innovation. If these costs continue to be underestimated, what is called a "new cycle" could merely replay the previous cycle's collapse pattern at a higher baseline.
Join our community to discuss and empower each other!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
