BTC $81,458.28 +0.07%
ETH $2,394.85 -1.12%
BNB $717.37 -0.25%
XRP $1.28 -1.25%
SOL $102.86 -1.02%
TRX $0.3322 -1.35%
DOGE $0.0782 -1.75%
ADA $0.2175 -1.32%
BCH $272.27 -0.14%
LINK $11.87 -1.32%
HYPE $78.11 -0.62%
AAVE $151.85 -1.35%
SUI $0.9684 -2.29%
XLM $0.1759 -0.86%
ZEC $1,115.66 -4.20%
AAPL $343.38 -0.02%
AMZN $249.37 -0.10%
GOOGL $338.95 -0.32%
MSFT $527.01 -0.33%
META $705.78 -0.41%
NVDA $212.74 -0.87%
TSLA $350.27 -0.70%
SNDK $1,259.82 -3.06%
INTC $87.92 -1.74%
SPCX $143.75 -1.37%
MU $861.16 -2.01%
AMD $522.82 -1.50%
BTC $81,458.28 +0.07%
ETH $2,394.85 -1.12%
BNB $717.37 -0.25%
XRP $1.28 -1.25%
SOL $102.86 -1.02%
TRX $0.3322 -1.35%
DOGE $0.0782 -1.75%
ADA $0.2175 -1.32%
BCH $272.27 -0.14%
LINK $11.87 -1.32%
HYPE $78.11 -0.62%
AAVE $151.85 -1.35%
SUI $0.9684 -2.29%
XLM $0.1759 -0.86%
ZEC $1,115.66 -4.20%
AAPL $343.38 -0.02%
AMZN $249.37 -0.10%
GOOGL $338.95 -0.32%
MSFT $527.01 -0.33%
META $705.78 -0.41%
NVDA $212.74 -0.87%
TSLA $350.27 -0.70%
SNDK $1,259.82 -3.06%
INTC $87.92 -1.74%
SPCX $143.75 -1.37%
MU $861.16 -2.01%
AMD $522.82 -1.50%

near

NEAR Protocol is a blockchain-based decentralized application platform designed to provide high performance and scalability. It employs a sharding technology called "Nightshade" to enhance the network's throughput and efficiency through dynamic sharding. NEAR's consensus mechanism is based on Proof of Stake (PoS) and supports developer-friendly tools and smart contracts. Its ecosystem is positioned to support the development and deployment of decentralized finance (DeFi), NFTs, and other Web3 applications. The NEAR token (NEAR) is used for paying transaction fees, staking, and participating in governance.
All
Article
Flash

Vitalik compared the mining costs of BTC and the inference costs of AI: the former has electricity costs accounting for nearly half, while the latter relies more on capital expenditures for computing power

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin shared that the cost of Bitcoin mining is roughly half derived from capital expenditures on computing power equipment and the other half from electricity consumption; in contrast, the cost of AI inference is almost entirely dominated by capital expenditures on computing power. This difference reflects the distinct cost structures of the two computing businesses. Bitcoin miners need to continuously pay for electricity and determine their profit margins based on mining machine efficiency, coin prices, and network difficulty changes; AI inference, on the other hand, relies more on investments in expensive hardware like GPUs, as well as equipment utilization and computing efficiency.The industrial boundaries of both are also changing. As the demand for AI computing power grows, some Bitcoin mining companies are beginning to shift their existing electricity resources and data center facilities towards AI and high-performance computing businesses, hoping to transition from pure mining to computing infrastructure services. Some mining companies are leveraging previously allocated electricity capacity for mining to enter the AI data center market. However, transformation does not mean that cost pressures disappear: mining operations are more directly exposed to fluctuations in electricity prices and Bitcoin prices, while AI computing businesses must bear risks related to GPU procurement, depreciation, and underutilization. Both types of businesses compete for electricity and computing resources, but ultimately, profitability depends on how these resources are converted into revenue.

first_img NEAR Intents released a post-mortem report, revealing that the $3.8 million vulnerability originated from a deposit notification flaw

The cross-chain exchange protocol NEAR Intents released a post-mortem report attributing a $3.8 million vulnerability to a flaw in the deposit notification feature. The protocol deploys a public settlement contract on NEAR that maintains an internal ledger of deposited tokens, while withdrawals transfer tokens out via a cross-chain bridge. The report was published by NEAR Intents General Manager Alex Shevchenko on October 16, stating that the attacker withdrew $3.8 million before the protocol was shut down on October 1 and returned all funds within 36 hours of detection, with all affected users fully compensated.The report indicates that the feature notifies third-party contracts when tokens are deposited. The attacker created a contract that intentionally caused the notification to fail, allowing the token contract to refund the deposit while NEAR Intents retained the corresponding ledger credit. Through 23 failed deposit transactions, the attacker accumulated $3.8 million in unsupported balance, referred to in the report as ghost funds, and subsequently withdrew real tokens based on this and transferred them to other chains via the Omni infrastructure. Shevchenko stated that this was a vulnerability in the NEAR Intents contract, not in the Omni infrastructure.Withdrawals occurred between September 29 and October 1. The settlement contract was paused and reopened on October 1, with affected routes gradually restored, and contract-side deposits resumed on October 2. The report noted that the vulnerability went undetected because monitoring only compared the original chain assets with the total balance of NEAR side tokens, without comparing the total internal user balances with the actual tokens held by the contract; the team has since added this check and will automatically pause the contract when there is a balance inconsistency. The fix for the October vulnerability was deployed on October 2, but another serious vulnerability report regarding the same feature prompted its complete removal on October 7, with the relevant researcher receiving a $300,000 reward.

Circle: Revenue in the first half of the year was 1.4 billion USD, with nearly 60% used for partner and transaction costs

On October 16, Circle announced that in the first half of 2026, the on-chain settlement amount of USDC exceeded $36 trillion, and Circle minted and redeemed over $315 billion of USDC during the same period, averaging about $1.7 billion per day. The company stated that as of June, USDC accounted for approximately 77% of the global stablecoin trading volume, an increase from 60% a year ago.More attention from the market is focused on the income distribution of USDC. Circle disclosed that the company generated approximately $1.4 billion in revenue in the first half of the year, of which about $819 million was allocated to USDC distribution partners and transaction costs, accounting for about 59% of the revenue; another approximately $473 million was invested in licensing, banking partnerships, settlement liquidity, compliance systems, product development, and multi-chain deployment, accounting for about 34%. According to the announcement, for every $1 of revenue Circle earns, it ultimately retains only about 7 cents in net profit.This announcement may be in response to market concerns regarding "the monopolization of reserve income by stablecoin issuers." Circle stated that partners can share corresponding reserve income by holding and expanding their USDC balances on their platforms; currently, more than 150 trading platforms, wallets, banks, fintech companies, payment platforms, and enterprises have formed economic interests tied to the growth of USDC. Circle also mentioned that Binance signed a five-year commercial agreement with it in September and invested $100 million in Circle.On the product side, Circle announced the expansion of its free redemption mechanism: all Circle customers can still redeem USDC for free through traditional banking channels, with the funds typically arriving within two business days; customers who make payments through the Circle Payments Network or use eligible products such as Arc, Circle Mint, and Circle Wallets will be able to enjoy free, near-real-time redemption capabilities.

Data: The United States XRP and ZEC spot ETF had a total net outflow of 14.8678 million USD in a single day, while NEAR had a net inflow of 1.126 million USD

According to SoSoValue data, the total net outflow for the U.S. XRP and ZEC spot ETFs was $104,500 and $14,763,300 respectively, with a total net outflow of $14,867,800; the NEAR spot ETF had a total net inflow of $1,126,000 for the day.For XRP, the Franklin XRP ETF (XRPZ) had a net inflow of $3,644,800 for the day, with a historical cumulative net inflow of $513 million; the Bitwise XRP ETF (XRP) had a net outflow of $3,749,400 for the day, with a historical cumulative net inflow of $685 million. As of the time of writing, the total net asset value of the XRP spot ETF was $1.528 billion, with a net asset ratio of 1.81%, and a historical cumulative net inflow of $1.803 billion.For ZEC, only the Zcash ETF (ZCSH) recorded a net outflow for the day, amounting to $14,763,300, with a historical cumulative net inflow of $164 million. As of the time of writing, the total net asset value of the ZEC spot ETF was $674 million, with a net asset ratio of 3.21%, and a historical cumulative net inflow of $164 million.For NEAR, only the Bitwise NEAR ETF (NRR) recorded a net inflow for the day, amounting to $1,126,000, with a historical cumulative net inflow of $80,440,700. As of the time of writing, the total net asset value of the NEAR spot ETF was $8,612,500, with a net asset ratio of 1.24%, and a historical cumulative net inflow of $80,440,700.

Analyst Murphy: The swing chips are gradually being cleared, Bitcoin has retraced three times near $81,000

Analyst Murphy posted on platform X, stating that as of October 15, 2026, Bitcoin has fallen to around $81,000 on October 9, 12, and 15, repeatedly testing the same support area. The latest round of declines, combined with U.S. inflation exceeding expectations, rising market concerns about the Federal Reserve tightening monetary policy further, and weakening U.S. stocks, has put overall pressure on risk assets.Murphy noted that from the on-chain adjusted realized loss data, the scale of losses corresponding to the three dips shows a decreasing trend: the loss on October 12 was less than that on October 9, and while the loss on October 15 was larger than on October 12, it was still lower than on October 9. October 9 appears to be a peak where short-term price-sensitive chips concentrated their exit; during the second dip, market sentiment was more cautious, and the willingness to sell was not strong; the third decline, under macroeconomic negative influences, again forced some swing chips to stop-loss and exit. Therefore, the current market is closer to a gradual clearing of swing chips rather than a full-blown panic sell-off. If the proportion of short-term holders' losses remains around 31%, below the historical cumulative average of 42.7%, it indicates that the clearing of chips may not be sufficient, and further volatility and selling pressure may still occur. Next, it should be observed whether the scale of realized losses continues to converge: if the price maintains near the current support area and the release of losses gradually weakens, it indicates that passive selling is decreasing, and a phase adjustment may be nearing its end; if the scale of losses expands significantly again, it indicates that the market still needs to undergo a more thorough turnover of chips.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.