The SEC’s so-called "protection" of retail investors has done more harm than good, forcing speculation rather than allowing utility tokens to function as intended. But with the SEC’s tactics now under scrutiny and long-awaited regulatory clarity emerging, the game is changing.

That’s why I just made a video diving deep into the great-grandfather of all utility tokens: the VERI Token—and speculating the hell out of it. Let’s run some numbers.

Market Cap Comparisons: Where Could VERI Go?

If we apply the market caps of major cryptos to VERI’s ultra-low 2.16 million token supply, we get some jaw-dropping figures:

• XRP Market Cap / VERI Supply
  $150,685,407,710 ÷ 2,160,000 = $55,695.40 per VERI
• ETH Market Cap / VERI Supply
  $265,678,224,163 ÷ 2,160,000 = $104,732.50 per VERI
• BTC Market Cap / VERI Supply
  $1,764,865,971,748 ÷ 2,160,000 = $752,952.91 per VERI

What Could Send VERI Parabolic?

If the SEC case is vacated, VERI—backed by 2.16 million tokens and Veritaseum’s patents—could become a prepaid fee token for:

✅ VeADIR (Decentralized AI-driven investment research)
✅ VeRent (Tokenized asset rental and lending)
✅ VeTokenization (Asset tokenization across multiple sectors)
✅ VeResearch (On-chain research monetization)

But it gets better.

The PTAB’s rejection of Coinbase’s IPR, combined with ETH/SOL infringement claims and the PPE White Paper, could force BTC, ETH, XRP, and ADA into licensing agreements—potentially pushing VERI into the $6,000–$150,000 range.

And if VeriDAO’s massive $1.6 quadrillion asset tokenization vision takes off? We could be looking at $740,000–$740 million per VERI.

Now, these are just speculative price points, but the numbers highlight one thing: VERI’s upside potential is insane if adoption and legal clarity align.

If the SEC case is vacated, VERI—tied to 2.16 million tokens and Veritaseum’s patents—could soar as a prepaid fee token for VeADIR, VeRent, VeTokenization, and VeResearch.

The Bottom Line

The setup is primed. Success hinges on three key factors:

1️⃣ Legal victories over regulatory hurdles
2️⃣ Adoption of Veritaseum’s technology and patents
3️⃣ Traction of the prepaid fee model in the tokenization space

If these pieces fall into place, VERI could be one of the biggest sleepers in the crypto market.

Are you watching this play unfold? 🚀

Success hinges on legal victories, adoption, and the prepaid model’s traction, but the setup is primed for a breakout.

Original Post by @SovereignRiz

In the ever-evolving world of cryptocurrency, regulations are constantly playing catch-up to innovation. A significant development is brewing in the United States that could reshape the landscape of stablecoins regulation, particularly concerning those operating outside U.S. borders. Senator Bill Hagerty’s revised Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS Act) proposal is making waves with its broadened scope, now casting a wider regulatory net over offshore stablecoins. Let’s dive into what this means for the crypto world and what changes are on the horizon.

What’s New in the Revised GENIUS Act and Why Should You Care About Stablecoins Regulation?

According to Fox Business reporter Eleanor Terrett, the updated GENIUS Act isn’t just tweaking the edges; it’s significantly expanding its reach. Originally focused on domestic stablecoin issuers, the revised proposal now extends its gaze to offshore stablecoins. But why is this important, and why now?

Stablecoins, cryptocurrencies designed to maintain a stable value (often pegged to the US dollar), have become a cornerstone of the crypto market. They facilitate trading, provide a safe haven from volatile crypto assets, and are increasingly used in cross-border transactions. However, their rapid growth and potential for systemic risk have caught the attention of regulators worldwide. The U.S., a major player in global finance, is keen to establish a robust framework for crypto regulation, and stablecoins are a key piece of this puzzle.

The revised GENIUS Act is a direct response to these concerns, aiming to bring clarity and control to the often murky waters of offshore stablecoins. Here’s a breakdown of the key updates:

• Enhanced Reserve Requirements: The bill mandates detailed requirements for the reserves backing offshore stablecoins. This is crucial to ensure that these digital currencies are truly stable and can withstand market shocks. Think of it like ensuring a bank has enough cash on hand to cover withdrawals – it’s about maintaining trust and preventing collapses.
• Robust Regulatory Oversight: Expect stricter oversight mechanisms. The act aims to define which regulatory bodies will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance for offshore stablecoins interacting with the U.S. financial system. This could mean increased scrutiny and potential licensing requirements for offshore entities.
• Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorism Financing (CTF) Measures: In today’s global landscape, preventing illicit financial activities is paramount. The revised act incorporates stronger AML and CTF measures to ensure offshore stablecoins aren’t used for illegal purposes. This aligns with global efforts to combat financial crime in the digital age.
• Sanctions Compliance: The bill emphasizes adherence to U.S. sanctions. Offshore stablecoins operating in or with the U.S. will need to demonstrate strict compliance with sanctions regimes, preventing their use in bypassing international law.
• Liquidity and Risk Management: Beyond reserves, the act delves into broader liquidity and risk management frameworks. This suggests a holistic approach to ensuring the financial soundness of offshore stablecoins, looking at their operational resilience and ability to manage various market risks.

Why Focus on Offshore Stablecoins? Understanding the US Stablecoin Policy Shift

The expansion of the GENIUS Act to include offshore stablecoins reflects a growing recognition that the crypto market is inherently global. Simply regulating domestic issuers isn’t enough when digital currencies can easily cross borders. This shift in US stablecoin policy is driven by several factors:

• Global Interconnectedness: The crypto market is not confined by geographical boundaries. Offshore stablecoins can and do interact with the U.S. financial system, necessitating a broader regulatory approach.
• Level Playing Field: By extending regulations to offshore stablecoins, the U.S. aims to create a more level playing field for domestic and international players. This can prevent regulatory arbitrage, where entities might seek to operate outside stricter jurisdictions to avoid compliance.
• Protecting the US Dollar: Many stablecoins are pegged to the U.S. dollar. Ensuring the stability and integrity of these dollar-linked digital assets, regardless of their issuer’s location, is crucial for maintaining confidence in the U.S. dollar’s role in the digital economy.
• Supporting Cross-Border Transactions: While tightening regulation, the GENIUS Act also aims to support legitimate cross-border transactions. The goal isn’t to stifle innovation but to create a framework that fosters safe and compliant international use of stablecoins.

What are the Potential Benefits and Challenges of Expanded Crypto Regulation?

The revised GENIUS Act, with its focus on offshore stablecoins and broader crypto regulation, presents both potential benefits and challenges:

Actionable Insights: What to Watch For Next in Stablecoins Regulation

For those in the crypto space, staying informed about these regulatory developments is crucial. Here’s what to keep an eye on:

• Senate Banking Committee Markup (March 13): As Terrett reported, the Senate Banking Committee is expected to conduct a markup of the bill on March 13. This will be a key event to watch for further details and potential amendments to the GENIUS Act.
• Industry Reactions: Monitor how crypto industry players, both domestic and offshore stablecoin issuers, react to the revised proposal. Their feedback and lobbying efforts could influence the final shape of the legislation.
• Global Regulatory Trends: The U.S. isn’t alone in grappling with crypto regulation. Pay attention to how other major jurisdictions are approaching stablecoins. International alignment or divergence in regulations will significantly impact the global crypto landscape.
• Technological Adaptations: As regulations evolve, expect to see technological innovations aimed at facilitating compliance and navigating the new regulatory landscape. This could include advancements in AML/CTF technologies and transparency tools for stablecoin reserves.

Conclusion: A Significant Step Towards Robust Crypto Regulation

Senator Hagerty’s revised GENIUS Act represents a crucial and expanded step towards establishing a comprehensive framework for stablecoins regulation in the U.S., particularly concerning offshore stablecoins. By addressing key areas like reserves, oversight, AML/CTF, and sanctions compliance, the bill aims to create a safer and more stable environment for digital currencies while supporting cross-border innovation. While challenges remain in implementation and global coordination, this legislative push signals a clear direction: crypto regulation is maturing, and stablecoins are at the forefront of this evolution. Keeping a close watch on its progress is essential for anyone involved or interested in the future of digital finance.

Source

It has been two weeks since Bybit was hacked to the tune of $1.4 billion by North Korea’s TraderTraitor. Five days later, it was confirmed that the hackers compromised a SAFE Wallet developer, allowing them to alter the wallet’s user interface source code. Now SAFE has released its own preliminary investigation, reconfirming that the wallet smart contract was never compromised, but the user interface was.

SAFE hired Mandiant, the security firm acquired three years ago by Google Cloud for $5.4 billion. The wallet organization also outlined a number of steps it’s taking to shore up security, with Mandiant’s help.

As previously noted, the hackers injected code into the user interface, which only impacted Bybit. While other users would have accessed their wallets with the same compromised code, it did not target them.

SAFE reiterated the need for people with the authority to sign transactions to fully understand what they sign, as highlighted by custody tech firm GK8 in a recent webinar. In the transaction at the root of the hack, one obscure parameter was switched from zero to one, with dire consequences.

Step 1: Hack the developer’s machine

The report is slightly vague about the initial hack of the developer’s machine, partly because the malware was removed. However, Mandiant believes it involved a specific docker project (an executable software container) related to stocks that the developer may have downloaded as a result of social engineering. (Couldn’t the developer confirm this?)

Mandiant cites another recent hack by the same group where they lured a developer into providing technical assistance. To do so, they shared a docker container which was downloaded by the engineer, with the software enabling the hacker to have ongoing access to the workstation.

Step 2: Access the AWS code repository

The hacker compromised the hacker’s machine on Feb 4 and first accessed the Amazon Web Services (AWS) code repository on Feb 5. However, they wanted to have sufficient access to the repository to be able to manipulate it without being noticed. AWS generally advocates multiple authentication methods, so the hackers attempted to add their own Multi-factor authentication (MFA) device, but failed.

They spent the next 12 days monitoring the AWS environment and planning next steps. For accessing a web server including committing code to a repository, AWS provides temporary session tokens which expire after 12 hours by default. The hackers hijacked these tokens in order to insert their own code. They used a virtual private network to do so.

Step 3: Inject the malicious code

The malicious code was injected into the AWS repository for the user interface on February 17. So people were using the hacked code for four days. However, the code was only targeted at Bybit’s wallet address, so it would not have impacted anyone else.

Step 4: Wait to hack. Remove the malware post hack

We already published an article about the specific transaction that was hacked on February 21, which was not part of yesterday’s SAFE report. The hacked code switched a parameter called “Operation” from zero to one, allowing the hackers to do as they wished with the funds.

According to Mandiant, shortly after the hack, the hacker removed the malware. Unix machines keep a log of every command performed, which would have helped to monitor the hacker’s activities, but that log was also wiped clean. Hence, we’re guessing Mandiant mainly used network logs and AWS activity logs. By covering its tracks, the hackers likely hope to re-use some of the same methodology in future breaches.

Source