Цена USDC

$GRVT LIBRA-linked wallets tied to Kelsier Ventures have fallen from nearly $300 million in tracked holdings in February 2025 to about $2 million, according to blockchain analytics firm Arkham. Arkham said on Oct. 5 that it had identified more than 1,000 addresses belonging to Kelsier Ventures and Hayden Davis when it first published the wallet cluster in February 2025. At the time, the addresses held close to $300 million, with most of the value coming from LIBRA tokens. Arkham now puts the remaining value across the tracked cluster at approximately $2 million. applied to two addresses while investors pursued claims against Kelsier and related defendants. The New York federal court later lifted its asset restraints in 2025. The Sept. 29, 2026 dismissal subsequently closed the underlying U.S. class action. The current $2 million Arkham figure should not be read as a direct comparison with only the assets once frozen by the court. Arkham’s entity cluster covers a much larger set of addresses identified as connected to Kelsier Ventures and LIBRA. Its February 2025 estimate included LIBRA tokens, stablecoins, $SOL and other assets spread across more than 1,000 addresses. Arkham’s Oct. 5 post does not say that $298 million was transferred out of the wallets in cash terms, nor does it identify the balance change as realized profit, investor recovery or seized funds. Argentina’s LIBRA investigation remains separate The end of the U.S. civil lawsuit has not closed the separate criminal investigation in Argentina. Argentina’s federal prosecutor’s office said in March that federal prosecutor Eduardo Taiano remained in charge of the investigation and was continuing work on evidence connected to LIBRA. Prosecutors have been examining the circumstances surrounding the token’s creation and launch, including possible fraud, influence trafficking, bribery and abuse of authority. Digital assets have already been frozen as part of that inquiry. In August 2025, prosecutors announced that an Argentine federal judge ordered the freezing of 323,275 USDT held across two addresses identified during the investigation. Prosecutors said those addresses had received funds from a multisignature wallet examined in the case. Investigators linked activity in that wallet to the period between December 2024 and February 2025. A separate prosecution request had sought to freeze nearly 44.6 million $USDC connected to the inquiry before the U.S. court froze related stablecoin addresses in May 2025. The Argentine prosecutor’s office said its technical investigation included analysis of electronic devices seized during the case. A final forensic report was delivered to prosecutors in January 2026 and added to the judicial case-management system in February. The Sept. 29 U.S. ruling does not resolve those Argentine proceedings. Arkham continues tracking the remaining Kelsier wallets Arkham’s public entity page continues to group wallets it attributes to Kelsier Ventures, allowing changes in token holdings and transfers to be monitored on-chain. The analytics company has not said in its latest update that the approximately $2 million still visible represents all assets controlled by Davis or Kelsier Ventures outside the addresses it has identified. Its February 2025 research was similarly limited to wallets Arkham had attributed to the entity. Earlier reporting around LIBRA showed why attribution can change as investigators connect additional addresses. Blockchain researchers including Arkham, Nansen and other analytics firms spent months tracing wallets tied to the launch, liquidity pools and subsequent token movements. Nansen tracked large profits and losses among LIBRA traders after the token’s rapid collapse, while separate investigations focused on early wallets and liquidity providers. Arkham’s latest update leaves the identified Kelsier cluster at roughly $2 million compared with nearly $300 million when the firm first disclosed the addresses in February 2025.

$GRVT $GRVT Aave’s Ethereum Core market lists a 4.5% borrowing rate for $GHO, aligning the stablecoin’s borrowing cost with the savings rate TokenLogic reported on Oct. 2. The next test is whether the change brings $USDC or $USDT into the reserves available to savers who choose to convert withdrawn $GHO into $USDC or $USDT. Aave describes its savings token (sGHO) as redeemable instantly into $GHO, so a holder who wants $USDC needs a separate conversion. A higher borrowing rate can change the incentive to repay, but the route used to acquire that repayment $GHO determines whether stablecoins enter the reserves. The DAO service provider reported a depleted $USDC $GHO Stability Module (GSM) on Oct. 2, and said the rate increase should help replenish reserves if borrowers obtain repayment $GHO through the modules. The effect on reserves depends on borrowers bringing stablecoins into those modules, and the new rate alone does not demonstrate improved $USDC conversion liquidity. Aavescan’s Core $GHO data dated Oct. 5 displays a 4.5% borrow $APR. Its daily snapshots show 4.25% at midnight UTC on Oct. 3 and 4.5% at midnight on Oct. 4 and Oct. 5, locating the change between daily readings. TokenLogic’s Oct. 2 notice proposed moving Core from 4.25% to 4.5%. It said borrowers could previously pay 4.25% to acquire $GHO on Core and earn 4.5% in sGHO, leaving the DAO to fund the 25-basis-point difference. At an unchanged savings rate, the new Core rate eliminates that stated gap. That alignment is specific to Core and the 4.5% savings rate reported on Oct. 2. TokenLogic proposed a 3% base rate, up from 2.75%, and a 4.25% $APR at optimal utilization, up from 4%. Aavescan’s Prime page displayed 4.17% on Oct. 5 at 86.35% utilization, versus 4.22% in its midnight snapshot. Repayment replenishes reserves only through the right route TokenLogic describes two ways a borrower needing $GHO can acquire it: buy on the secondary market, or exchange $USDC or $USDT through a GSM. Buying $GHO can support its market price, while bringing stablecoins into a GSM adds the inventory that another $GHO holder can later redeem against. That makes a fall in outstanding debt an incomplete measure of conversion liquidity, since repayment can occur without $USDC reaching a module. Improved conversion liquidity requires stablecoins entering the reserve, beyond any change in $GHO debt. Core’s midnight snapshots recorded 116 million $GHO borrowed on Oct. 2 and 115.8 million on Oct. 5. Aave’s native sGHO documentation says users deposit $GHO, receive vault shares, and redeem those shares for $GHO without a cooldown. It also says deposited funds are not rehypothecated. Aave also documents a pause state and user-specific withdrawal limits. Those conditions affect live vault availability, separately from the inventory and liquidity needed to exchange the resulting $GHO. $GHO exits require market conversion, while repayment routes depend on reserve inventory and pool liquidity. The RemoteGSM architecture, described by TokenLogic in March, makes the inventory distinction explicit. Governance-approved facilitators supply preminted $GHO to a GhoReserve, and GSMs draw and restore it under assigned limits. Room to distribute $GHO is separate from the stablecoin inventory available for redemption. A higher limit can permit incoming swaps, but users still have to deliver the $USDC or $USDT. Aave Labs’ institutional proposal reported 19.2 million $USDT on Ethereum and 40.7 million on Plasma as of Sept. 24, totaling 59.9 million $USDT. It excluded $USDC instances because their redeemable balances were negligible. TokenLogic’s Oct. 2 update reported approximately 22.5 million $USDT in a $USDT GSM without labeling the network scope. Comparing that figure with the earlier Ethereum-plus-Plasma total would not establish an aggregate decline. Neither statement supplies matched Oct. 5 balances. Plasma provides a potential route to $USDT inventory beyond Ethereum through Chainlink CCIP. Its usefulness depends on the time needed to bridge $GHO and turn the module’s assets into usable stablecoins. Kairos Research’s September analysis, using Sept. 8 readings, reported 40.6 million in nominal Plasma GSM redemption inventory against 38.6 million in underlying lending-pool cash. Kairos also estimated at least 9.7 hours of rate-limit time to move 40 million $GHO to Plasma under the bridge settings it measured. That assumed a full initial bucket and no competing traffic, and excluded message delivery and subsequent conversion steps. Fees require the same care. TokenLogic’s September parameter notice proposed 15-basis-point $USDC redemption fees on Ethereum, Monad and Arbitrum, a 10-basis-point Ethereum $USDT fee and zero mint fees. Its implementation language does not establish current executed fees. A usable exit depends on the current quote, inventory, and underlying liquidity together.

$GRVT Compound’s $COMP holders are voting on Proposal 612, which would extend treasury withdrawal delays from two days to ten and give the protocol’s Governor Timelock power to cancel treasury transactions before they execute. The voting opened on Sunday and will close on Wednesday (October 7), according to the proposal page. Though the changes may seem technical in nature, the major concern is actually who would take charge of Compound’s treasury. The voting also leads to a much bigger question in DeFi: How much control can be added to a protocol before the better protection begins to indicate centralization? What Proposal 612 changes Proposal 612, submitted by delegate Ugur Mersin on October 2, increases the Treasury Escrow withdrawal cooldown and the minimum delay of the Treasury Timelock from 2 to 10 days. Furthermore, it establishes the period for Escrow expiration at 17 days, which means that there is a 7-day withdrawal period after the cooldown. The proposal says that two of the five actions will assign EXECUTOR_ROLE and CANCELLER_ROLE to the Governor Timelock in relation to the Treasury Timelock. This means that governance can prevent the treasury from performing any operations rather than just reacting after the fact. According to the latest vote count, there are 1.75 million votes in favor of the proposal, compared to 921,000 votes against it, far beyond the quorum of 400,000. The reserve movements that prompted the vote The proposal refers to actions by Compound’s treasury on September 29. The Treasury Management Committee transferred around $3 million in stablecoins to a separate Safe, which then used $2 million in USDC in a single-sided Uniswap V3 $COMP position. Advocates of Proposal 612 claim that the incident demonstrates the need for an enforceable pause in governance, not just a voluntary request. The conflict existed before the action was taken. Cryptopolitan reported that a delegate has made allegations against the Compound Foundation of converting the amount of 8.42 million DAI stored in the DAO reserves into 344,780 $COMP. The delegate also claimed that the resulting voting power was used to influence treasury control and a $52 million V4 program. It is stated that the $COMP was subsequently sent back to its Safe 58 minutes prior to the closing of votes for Proposals 580 and 582. Compound Proposal 612 vote highlights treasury controls and DeFi governance risks

$GRVT Circle is urging the European Union to open its Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) to foreign-regulated stablecoins and loosen reserve rules that constrain global issuers. The $USDC issuer proposed a recognition regime that could let qualifying overseas stablecoin companies distribute tokens in Europe without becoming fully authorized EU issuers, as part of a broader push to bring more of the global market inside the bloc’s regulatory perimeter. Circle said only three of the world’s 25 largest stablecoins by market value, $USDC, USDG and EURC, are currently regulated under MiCA, despite roughly 30 e-money tokens securing authorization since the framework took effect. Under its proposal, the European Commission would first determine whether a foreign jurisdiction’s regulatory regime is equivalent to EU standards. The European Banking Authority (EBA) would then recognize individual issuers, which would remain primarily supervised in their home countries while distributing tokens through locally licensed institutions. That would create an alternative to current MiCA rules, which generally require e-money token issuers seeking public distribution or trading in the bloc to obtain EU authorization. Circle also wants regulators to preserve multi-issuance, where a MiCA-authorized European entity co-issues a globally circulating stablecoin with a foreign-regulated counterpart. The company said restricting that structure risks pushing European users toward offshore platforms and tokens outside MiCA’s protections MiCA stablecoin bank reserve rule draws wider opposition Circle is also challenging a requirement that e-money token issuers keep at least 30% of reserves in commercial-bank deposits, rising to 60% for tokens classified as significant. It wants the requirement replaced with a broader liquidity standard, arguing mandatory deposits increase issuers’ exposure to bank credit and counterparty risk. That argument echoes criticism previously made by Tether Chief Executive Officer Paolo Ardoino, who warned that forcing large stablecoin issuers to place substantial reserves in banks could create systemic vulnerabilities if those institutions failed or could not meet large withdrawals. Ardoino said last month that Tether declined to seek an EU license because of the same requirement. The overlap is notable because Circle chose to comply with MiCA while Tether kept USDT outside the framework. Both now argue that requiring stablecoin issuers to concentrate liquidity in commercial banks can introduce risks regulators are seeking to contain. Circle also wants the EU to remove a 35% cap on exposure to a single sovereign and a rule limiting deposits with an individual bank to 1.5% of that lender’s total assets. It said the restrictions can prevent dollar stablecoins from relying heavily on high-quality sovereign securities and force large issuers to spread reserves across dozens of banks. Yet regulators are considering tighter controls elsewhere. The EBA last month urged the Commission to strengthen MiCA against risks arising from third-country multi-issuer stablecoin structures, warning that reserves, redemptions and other critical functions can sit beyond effective EU supervision. The Commission’s MiCA review consultation closed Sept. 30, and its findings could lead to legislative amendments. Circle’s recognition proposal therefore offers no immediate route into Europe: foreign issuers remain subject to the existing framework while Brussels decides whether opening MiCA to more global liquidity is worth loosening some of the barriers that kept it out.