Autor Cointelegraph By Ezra Reguerra

Blockchain gaming platform The Sandbox has pledged to repay eligible SAND holders 1:1 after an Aug. 21 bridge exploit drained 14.744 SAND, worth about $700,000, from an Ethereum vault. On Thursday, the company published a post-mortem, saying users who legitimately held bridged SAND on Base or BNB Smart Chain before the attack will receive an equal amount of Ethereum-based SAND. Compensation will come from The Sandbox treasury, with no new tokens minted. The claims process is expected to open within two weeks and remain open for another two weeks. Two centralized exchanges hold more than 72% of eligible balances and will distribute compensation directly to their affected customers, according to The Sandbox. The project said the attacker exploited a configuration flaw in SAND’s Base and BNB Chain contracts, allowing them to become the sole verifier of incoming bridge messages and mint unbacked tokens. The Sandbox confirmed that about 14.7 million SAND tokens were drained, equivalent to about 0.5% of the token’s 3 billion maximum supply. Although more than 339 trillion unbacked SAND was minted on the two networks, those tokens have been isolated and cannot be bridged or redeemed. SAND on Ethereum and Polygon was unaffected. The compromised bridge contracts will be permanently retired. The Sandbox said any future Base or BNB Chain bridges would use newly deployed contracts. SAND traded at about $0.04 at the time of publication, down 10.4% over the previous seven days, according to CoinGecko. Related: Hugging Face hack exposes the open-weight AI cybersecurity paradoxCointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.

Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.

Tokenized deposits could make bank funding less stable and raise credit costs for US households and businesses, according to an analysis by two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Economists Rosie Levy and Srini Ramaswamy said instant settlement could allow depositors seeking higher yields to switch banks more quickly. They said programmable deposit tokens and agentic artificial intelligence could automate the transfers, shortening the time deposits remain at individual banks and making them more sensitive to interest rates.The economists estimated that if deposits became 10% more sensitive to interest rates, banks’ capacity to hold long-term loans and other assets could fall by about $700 billion. In a separate scenario, deposits remaining at banks for 10% less time could reduce that capacity by about $580 billion. Both figures are expressed in 10-year equivalents and do not represent direct reductions in lending. The calculations are scenarios rather than forecasts and do not represent dollar-for-dollar reductions in bank lending. They come as US banks build shared blockchain networks designed to move tokenized deposits around the clock while keeping customer funds within the regulated banking system.Banks develop networks for tokenized depositsOn Tuesday, thirty-nine US state banking associations formed the BankChain Alliance to develop a nationwide network supporting tokenized deposits, stablecoins and automated settlement. The Clearing House is developing a separate network backed by JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, BNY and Wells Fargo. Banks have also begun connecting tokenized-deposit systems across institutions. On Aug. 20, Standard Chartered and HSBC completed a live cross-border transaction through Swift’s blockchain ledger, which linked the banks’ separate systems and recorded their resulting obligations before settlement through existing payment infrastructure.Related: US regulator mulls guidance for tokenized deposit insurance, stablecoinsLevy and Ramaswamy said banks could respond to more volatile deposits by holding larger portfolios of highly liquid assets, including reserves and US Treasurys. They said banks could also rely more heavily on term debt to maintain their lending portfolios, although funding loans through wholesale debt would likely increase credit costs for consumers and businesses. The authors cited Brazil’s Pix instant-payment system as a potential comparison, while noting that it is not identical to tokenized deposits. A 2025 study found that heavier Pix use increased banks’ holdings of liquid assets and reduced credit intermediation.Magazine: SEC’s proposed crypto rules probably won’t spark new ICO boomCointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

StarkWare researcher Avihu Levy has tested an experimental quantum-resistant transaction on the Bitcoin mainnet, in what the company described as the first transaction of its kind. According to StarkWare, the transaction was confirmed Wednesday in Bitcoin block 964,199. Onchain data shows that it spent a 10,000-satoshi output protected by Levy’s Quantum Safe Bitcoin (QSB) scheme, with MARA Pool mining the block after receiving the transaction through its Slipstream service. Levy’s paper and code repository said QSB combines hash-based one-time signatures with computational searches that bind an authorization to a specific transaction. The construction is intended to prevent forgery even if a quantum computer breaks the elliptic-curve cryptography Bitcoin uses.The test moves Levy’s April proposal from theory to an onchain demonstration, showing that Bitcoin’s existing consensus rules can accommodate one form of quantum-resistant spending without a protocol change.Quantum-resistant Bitcoin method remains costlyIn March, Google researchers estimated that a sufficiently capable quantum computer could theoretically derive a Bitcoin private key nine to 12 minutes after its public key becomes visible. Google said that could allow an attacker to replace a pending transaction during Bitcoin’s confirmation window. Levy then introduced QSB in April, estimating at the time that generating a transaction would require between $75 and $150 in GPU computation. He described it as a last-resort measure rather than a replacement for protocol-level protections.StarkWare spokesperson Nathan Jeffay told Cointelegraph that the completed transaction cost “low hundreds of dollars,” estimating the expense at around $150 to $200. StarkWare’s release said the process took hours of computation.Related: Banks, regulators join quantum-resistant crypto transfer pilotLevy’s repository also classifies QSB transactions as nonstandard under Bitcoin Core’s default relay policies. StarkWare said ordinary nodes therefore would not propagate the transaction before confirmation, requiring it to be submitted directly through MARA’s Slipstream service.QSB applies to individual Bitcoin transactions rather than upgrading cryptography across the network. “A soft fork should happen, and I believe it will,” StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson said, adding that QSB provides a safety net while protocol-level protections are developed. Bitcoin developers are separately considering proposals including BIP-360, a proposed soft fork that would introduce a Pay-to-Merkle-Root output type while removing Taproot’s quantum-vulnerable key-path spend.Magazine: Supply absorption ‘key question’ as Bitcoin fails to reclaim $80K: Analysis