Giannis Andreou

Bithumb, one of South Korea’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, ran a regular promotional campaign in early February 2026. However, it turned into a major regulatory concern. What started as a simple internal data-entry mistake briefly displayed hundreds of thousands of “ghost Bitcoin” on user dashboards. Some account holders actually traded those balances, prompting regulators to examine the inner mechanisms of centralized crypto platforms more closely.
This article explores how the ghost Bitcoin incident became a key example of vulnerabilities in exchange accounting. It also discusses the reasons behind South Korea’s accelerated move toward more rigorous, bank-like supervision of virtual asset services.
From a modest promotion to a serious error
Bithumb intended to offer a small reward program, crediting users with a modest amount of Korean won, typically 2,000 won ($1.37) per person. Reward programs are a standard tactic to boost user activity.
Instead, an input mistake caused the system to credit Bitcoin rather than fiat. For about 20 minutes, the exchange’s internal ledger reflected roughly 620,000 BTC across hundreds of accounts. The value of the ghost BTC was in billions of dollars, vastly exceeding the exchange’s own holdings and total customer reserves.
Staff quickly detected the problem, froze the affected accounts and reversed the credits. But during that brief period, some users sold the ghost Bitcoin in their accounts, executing trades worth around 1,788 BTC before a full lockdown.
Although payouts were processed, it appears that no tokens actually left the exchange. Later, the platform successfully recovered 93% of the lost value in a mix of Korean won and other cryptocurrencies.

How “ghost Bitcoin” can exist
Centralized exchanges operate differently from decentralized ones. They do not settle every trade onchain in real time. Instead, they update user balances on an internal ledger, a private database, allowing fast execution. Onchain movements are batched and processed later, often during deposits or withdrawals.
This architecture facilitates quick trading, high liquidity and competitive fees, but it relies entirely on the accuracy of the exchange’s internal records. Users essentially trust that these records match real asset holdings.
In this case, the ledger temporarily showed unbacked Bitcoin balances. According to a regulatory filing, Bithumb’s own Bitcoin reserves were surprisingly lean in Q3 2025, holding only 175 BTC compared to the 42,619 BTC it manages for its customers.

Why regulators viewed it as a systematic failure
South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) acted promptly, concluding that the problem was not merely a typing error but that trades proceeded based on faulty internal data.
This raised core questions: How can an exchange enable trading of assets it does not hold? What safeguards could prevent erroneous balances from becoming tradable? And who is accountable when users benefit from such mistakes?
The FSS conducted on-site inspections at Bithumb and indicated that a formal probe could be launched to examine whether any laws were breached. They cited the event as evidence that existing crypto rules may not sufficiently address internal system oversight.

Ripple effects of the Bitcoin promotion error in the industry
The incident’s impact extended well beyond Bithumb, triggering a wave of industry-wide scrutiny. Digital Asset eXchange Alliance, South Korea’s major crypto alliance, responded by launching a thorough audit of internal controls across all member platforms.
Meanwhile, legislators pointed to the event as evidence of systemic vulnerabilities in centralized exchanges. They noted that operational security had failed to keep pace with the market’s rapid growth.
Ultimately, the crisis highlighted a harsh reality: A single exchange’s failure could threaten the stability of the entire ecosystem.
Liability and consumer protection concerns
A key debate arose over the liability of trades executed on erroneous credits. Some users sold BTC quickly before account freezes took effect. Bithumb reported recovering most of the value and absorbing shortfalls with its own funds. Regulators noted that, under applicable laws, users who profited from erroneous credits could potentially be subject to clawback or restitution claims.
This incident exposed ambiguities in centralized crypto platforms. Displayed balances appear definitive to users, yet they remain reversible if systems make an error. The case compelled regulators to address how protections apply when technical failures produce real financial outcomes.
Advancing to “Phase Two” regulation
Regulators stated that the incident exposed regulatory blind spots in earlier digital asset laws. As they pointed out, regulations emphasized custody, Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and the prevention of manipulation but largely overlooked internal ledger management.
The event is now driving discussions regarding enhanced oversight of the crypto ecosystem, including:
Required multi-level approvals for promotions and creditsStricter, more frequent checks between ledgers and actual reservesDefined procedures for erroneous trades and reversalsAudit and disclosure standards comparable to traditional finance.
This shift moves beyond token listings or promotions to scrutinize the underlying operational infrastructure.
A test of trust in centralized exchanges
Although Bithumb took steps quickly to limit the damage, the impact on its reputation is likely to linger. The incident taught users that a balance displayed on a centralized exchange indicates a claim on the platform’s internal systems. It does not indicate direct ownership of onchain assets.
For regulators, the Bitcoin promotion error pointed to a broader concern. As digital asset markets expand, public trust rests on internal mechanisms that function entirely behind closed doors. Should these protocols falter even briefly, the impact could be severe. South Korea’s response has made it evident that regulators now view ledger integrity in crypto exchanges as a systemic risk rather than just an operational detail.
The “ghost Bitcoin” episode will remain in public memory not primarily for its magnitude but for the critical vulnerability it exposed. In crypto transactions, the invisible accounting systems working behind the scenes are as important as the blockchains that underpin them.

$BTC $ETH $BNB

The creator economy in crypto has long struggled with one core problem: how to fairly reward people who produce real value, not just clicks.
Traditional platforms rely almost entirely on advertising. Views matter more than insight. Engagement often outweighs education. And creators are typically paid based on reach, not impact.
That model does not translate well into Web3.
Recently, Changpeng Zhao shared that Binance Square is already moving toward creator monetization. Rather than positioning Square as a sudden “Web3 YouTube,” he described its evolution as incremental, product-led, and guided by community feedback.
From my perspective as an educator and content creator, this approach makes a lot of sense.
Instead of launching a fully formed monetization system overnight, Binance Square is rolling out practical mechanisms that reward creators based on actual outcomes.
How Binance Square Monetizes Creator Activity Today
Right now, Binance Square already supports two primary monetization paths.
The first is trading-based rewards. Eligible creators can earn a share of trading commissions generated by users who engage with markets after interacting with their content. In simple terms, if your analysis or educational posts help someone make a trading decision, you can participate directly in the value created.
The second path is project-backed creator rewards. In this model, creators collaborate with blockchain projects and receive token rewards based on the quality and performance of their content. Instead of relying on ads, creators are compensated directly by teams looking to educate users about their products.
These models represent a meaningful shift away from traditional creator monetization.
Rather than paying creators for impressions alone, Binance Square ties rewards to engagement, education, and measurable activity.
Creators are incentivized to produce useful content. Users benefit from higher-quality information. And projects gain exposure through creators who are already embedded in the ecosystem.
It creates alignment across all sides.
Why This Matters for Crypto Education
Crypto is still an emerging industry. For many people, their first exposure to blockchain, trading, or digital assets comes through content creators.
That makes education one of the most important layers of the ecosystem.
Yet most platforms today reward sensational headlines more than thoughtful explanations. Algorithms often prioritize emotion over clarity. This makes it harder for serious educators to compete with hype-driven content.
Binance Square takes a different approach.
By connecting creator rewards to real outcomes, the platform encourages deeper analysis, practical guidance, and long-term thinking. It shifts the incentive structure away from clickbait and toward value creation.

As someone who spends most of my time breaking down complex topics for everyday users, I see this as a step in the right direction.
Education in crypto should not be treated as entertainment. It should be treated as infrastructure.
A Product-Led Evolution, Not a Marketing Launch
One of the most interesting aspects of CZ’s comments is how he framed Square’s development.
Rather than presenting it as a fully realized competitor to platforms like YouTube, he emphasized that Binance Square is evolving gradually. Features are introduced. Feedback is collected. Improvements are made. The product grows organically based on how creators and users actually behave.
That mindset matters.
The strongest platforms are not built through big announcements. They are built through iteration.
Binance Square appears to be following that path. Monetization tools are being layered in step by step. Creator incentives are being tested and refined. And the community is being encouraged to actively shape the platform’s direction.
This is exactly how Web3 products should develop.
A More Sustainable Creator Economy
What Binance Square is building points toward a broader shift in how digital content can be monetized.
Instead of relying solely on advertising, creators can participate directly in the economic activity they help generate. Instead of chasing viral reach, they can focus on delivering meaningful insight. Instead of competing for attention, they can collaborate with projects in transparent ways.
For creators, this opens up new possibilities.
For users, it raises the quality bar.
And for the ecosystem as a whole, it creates a healthier feedback loop between education, engagement, and value creation.
The crypto creator economy is still early. Most platforms are still experimenting. But Binance Square is already laying practical foundations.
Not through flashy promises, but through real product features.
And that is how lasting ecosystems are built.

@CZ @Binance Square Official $BNB

What the Department of Justice Has Confirmed
The U.S. Department of Justice recently confirmed the public release of nearly 3.5 million pages of documents connected to investigations involving Jeffrey Epstein, alongside more than 2,000 videos and approximately 180,000 images. This disclosure was carried out under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, legislation signed in November 2025 requiring federal agencies to publish Epstein-related materials, subject to legal redactions.
On paper, this appears to be one of the largest document releases tied to a criminal investigation in modern U.S. history.
In reality, it has raised more questions than answers.
I have followed the Epstein case closely for years. What we are seeing now is not simply a document dump. It is a complex intersection of justice, politics, survivor protection, and institutional accountability.
The size of the release is not the real story.
The process is.
What DOJ Has Officially Released
According to the Department of Justice, the January publication added over three million pages to previous disclosures, bringing the cumulative total close to 3.5 million pages. The archive also includes thousands of videos and hundreds of thousands of images gathered during federal investigations involving Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
The Department stated that the release was intended to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and emphasized that extensive redactions were applied to protect victims and sensitive personal information.
However, DOJ also acknowledged that more than six million pages were internally identified as potentially responsive to the law. That means roughly half of the material reviewed has not been released publicly.
Shortly after publication, DOJ removed thousands of files from public access after acknowledging that some documents required additional redaction to prevent survivor identification.
A Timeline of the Epstein Case
Jeffrey Epstein was first charged in 2006 in Florida for sex crimes involving minors. In 2008, he entered a controversial plea deal that allowed him to avoid federal prosecution and serve just over a year in jail with work release.
In July 2019, Epstein was arrested again on federal sex trafficking charges in New York. He died in custody in August 2019.
Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in 2020, convicted in 2021, and later sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Following Epstein’s death, civil lawsuits and investigative reporting intensified pressure on the government to release records tied to his crimes and associates.
In November 2025, Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The first major batch of files was released in January 2026.
This was not a single disclosure event. It became an ongoing and contested process.
Congressional Oversight and Survivor Concerns

Lawmakers from both parties challenged the scope and execution of the release.
Members of Congress formally requested access to unredacted files, arguing that public trust requires independent verification of DOJ’s redaction decisions.
At the same time, Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee accused DOJ of failing to adequately protect survivors after identifying information appeared in some published materials.
Survivor advocacy groups echoed those concerns, stating that victims were retraumatized by the release.Another controversy followed reports that DOJ systems tracked how lawmakers searched the files during controlled reviews. House leadership criticized this practice, saying it undermined transparency.
What the Transparency Act Does and Does Not Require
The Epstein Files Transparency Act mandates publication of Epstein-related investigative materials, but it explicitly allows redactions to protect victims, privacy, national security, and ongoing legal matters.
It does not require full unredacted disclosure.
It also does not require every internally reviewed document to be published.
Legal compliance does not equal total transparency.
What Is Proven and What Is Not
These facts are confirmed:
1. Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in 2008 and arrested again in 2019 on federal trafficking charges.
2. Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted and sentenced to 20 years.
3. Nearly 3.5 million pages have been released.
4. More than six million pages were reviewed internally.
5. Congress continues to pursue further access.
6. Survivor advocacy groups have raised serious redaction concerns.
These points are not proven:
1. There is no verified master list proving criminal participation by every named individual.
2. Being mentioned in files does not equal guilt.
3. Federal prosecutors have stated they lacked sufficient evidence to charge additional high-profile figures.
4. There is no confirmed evidence linking Epstein to the creation of Bitcoin or control of Satoshi wallets.
Large investigative archives always contain administrative records, duplicates, and unsubstantiated references that require careful legal interpretation.
Why Document Volume Does Not Equal Transparency
Massive releases often give the impression that everything is finally exposed.
That is rarely true.
Raw investigative archives include interviews, procedural records, emails, financial logs, and internal correspondence. Without structured indexing or independent audits, they are difficult to interpret and easy to misrepresent.
Transparency without context can overwhelm rather than inform.
That is why the real debate now centers on process.
What was released.
What was withheld.
How redactions were applied.
Who controls access.
And whether survivors were properly protected.
Where Things Stand Now
The Epstein files release has not closed this chapter.
Lawmakers continue to seek unredacted access.
Survivor groups are pressing for stronger safeguards.
Journalists are still reviewing materials.
Further congressional action remains possible.
The Department of Justice technically complied with the Transparency Act.
But compliance is not the same as accountability.
Publishing millions of pages answered one question.
It opened many more.

The Crypto Fear and Greed Index has dropped to 5, placing market sentiment firmly in the category of Extreme Fear.
The index, published daily by Alternative.me, ranges from 0 to 100 and is designed to reflect emotional conditions in the crypto market. Readings below 25 are classified as Extreme Fear, while values above 75 indicate Extreme Greed.
A score of 5 represents one of the lowest sentiment readings recorded by the index.
While price volatility in crypto markets is common, sentiment reaching this level typically reflects widespread uncertainty, reduced risk appetite, and heightened caution among participants.
What Is the Crypto Fear and Greed Index
The Crypto Fear and Greed Index aggregates multiple data points into a single score intended to capture prevailing market psychology. According to Alternative.me, the index currently incorporates:
Volatility – measured relative to recent averagesMarket momentum and volume – comparing current trading activity to historical normsSocial media activity – tracking engagement and interaction ratesBitcoin dominance – reflecting shifts between Bitcoin and altcoinsGoogle Trends data – measuring retail interest in crypto-related search terms
Each component is weighted and combined to generate the daily score.
The methodology does not attempt to predict price direction. Instead, it offers a snapshot of collective sentiment based on observable market behavior.
Extreme Fear typically signals that investors are highly risk-averse, while Extreme Greed suggests speculative excess.
Why Sentiment Matters in Crypto Markets
Crypto markets are particularly sensitive to sentiment due to their global accessibility, 24/7 trading, and large retail participation.
Periods of Extreme Fear often coincide with:
Increased selling pressureReduced liquidityLower trading volumesCapital rotating into perceived safer assets
Historically, deep fear readings have appeared during major market drawdowns, regulatory uncertainty, and high-profile industry failures. However, the index itself does not assign causes. It simply reflects how participants are behaving in aggregate.
Importantly, sentiment indicators like this one do not establish market bottoms or tops on their own. Extreme Fear can persist for extended periods, especially during prolonged downturns.
How Professional Investors Interpret Extreme Fear
Institutional and long-term investors often treat sentiment indicators as contextual tools rather than trading signals.
Extreme Fear readings are generally interpreted as evidence of:
Capitulation among weaker handsReduced speculative activityHeightened emotional decision-making
Some investors view these environments as potential accumulation zones, while others wait for confirmation through price stabilization, volume recovery, or macroeconomic clarity.
There is no universal strategy tied to the index. It is commonly used alongside technical analysis, on-chain metrics, and broader financial indicators.
Fear Does Not Equal Fundamentals
A key limitation of sentiment indices is that they measure emotion, not fundamentals.
The Fear and Greed Index does not evaluate:
Network activityDevelopment progressInstitutional adoptionRegulatory developmentsCompany balance sheets
As a result, a reading of 5 does not inherently mean assets are undervalued or overvalued. It only indicates that market participants are expressing extreme caution through their actions.
For this reason, experienced investors typically avoid making decisions based on sentiment alone.
Risk Management During Periods of Extreme Fear
Periods of elevated fear often bring increased volatility and unpredictable price movements. Standard risk management practices become especially important, including:
Avoiding overleveraged positionsMaintaining appropriate position sizingUsing clear entry and exit criteriaHolding sufficient liquidityDiversifying exposure
For participants who choose to remain active during these environments, discipline tends to matter more than conviction.
What Comes Next
The Crypto Fear and Greed Index will continue to update daily, reflecting changes in volatility, volume, and investor behavior.
Whether sentiment improves or deteriorates further will depend on broader market conditions, macroeconomic developments, and crypto-specific catalysts.
What is clear is that a reading of 5 signals a market operating under extreme stress.
For investors, builders, and observers alike, this moment serves as a reminder that crypto markets remain highly emotional — and that sentiment, while informative, is only one piece of a much larger puzzle.

For years, US Federal Reserve interest rate cuts have been a key macro signal for Bitcoin traders. Lower rates typically meant cheaper borrowing, boosted risk appetite and sparked rallies in crypto. However, that classic link between Fed rate cuts and Bitcoin trading has weakened in recent months. Bitcoin now responds more to actual liquidity levels in the financial system than to expectations or incremental changes in borrowing costs.
This article clarifies why anticipated rate cuts have not pushed up Bitcoin recently. It explains why episodes of liquidity constraint have triggered synchronized sell-offs across crypto, stocks and even precious metals.
Rates vs. liquidity: The key difference
Interest rates represent the cost of money, while liquidity reflects the quantity and flow of money available in the system. Markets sometimes confuse the two, but they can diverge sharply.
The Fed might lower rates, yet liquidity could still contract if reserves are drained elsewhere. For instance, liquidity can tighten through quantitative tightening or the US Department of the Treasury’s actions. Liquidity can also rise without rate cuts through other inflows or policy shifts.
Bitcoin’s price action increasingly tracks this liquidity pulse more closely than incremental rate adjustments.
Why rate cuts no longer drive Bitcoin as strongly
Several factors have diminished the impact of rate cuts:
Heavy pre-pricing: Markets and futures often anticipate cuts well in advance, pricing them in long before they happen. By the time a cut occurs, asset prices may already reflect it.Context matters: Cuts driven by economic stress or financial instability can coincide with de-risking. In such environments, investors tend to reduce exposure to volatile assets even if rates are falling.Cuts do not guarantee liquidity: Ongoing balance sheet runoff, large Treasury issuance or reserve drains can keep the system constrained. Bitcoin, as a volatile asset, tends to react quickly to these pressures.
Bitcoin as a liquidity-sensitive, high-beta asset
Bitcoin’s buyers rely on leverage, available risk capital and overall market conditions. Liquidity influences these factors:
In environments with abundant liquidity, leverage flows freely, volatility is more tolerated, and capital shifts toward riskier assets.When liquidity is constrained, leverage unwinds, liquidations cascade, and risk appetite vanishes across markets.
This dynamic suggests Bitcoin behaves less like a policy rate trade and more like a real-time gauge of liquidity conditions. When cash becomes scarce, Bitcoin tends to fall in tandem with equities and commodities, regardless of the Fed funds rate.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
What lies behind liquidity
To understand how Bitcoin reacts in various situations, it helps to look beyond rate decisions and into the financial plumbing:
Fed balance sheet: Quantitative tightening (QT) shrinks the Fed’s holdings and pulls reserves from banks. While markets can handle early QT, it eventually constrains risk-taking. Signals about potential balance sheet expansion can at times influence markets more than small changes in policy rates.Treasury cash management: The US Treasury’s cash balance acts as a liquidity valve. When the Treasury rebuilds its cash balance, money moves out of the banking system. When it draws the balance down, liquidity is released.Money market tools: Facilities like the overnight reverse repo (ON RRP) absorb or release cash. Shrinking buffers make markets more reactive to small liquidity shifts, and Bitcoin registers those changes rapidly.
Why recent sell-offs felt macro, not crypto-specific
Lately, Bitcoin drawdowns have aligned with declines in equities and metals, pointing to broad liquidity stress rather than isolated crypto issues. This cross-asset synchronization underscores Bitcoin’s integration into the global liquidity framework.
Fed leadership and policy nuances: Shifts in expected Fed leadership, particularly views on balance sheet policy, add complexity. Skepticism toward aggressive expansion signals tighter liquidity ahead, which affects Bitcoin prices more intensely than small rate tweaks.Liquidity surprises pack a bigger punch: Liquidity shifts are less predictable and transparent, and markets are not as adept at anticipating them. They quickly affect leverage and positioning. Rate changes, however, are widely debated and modeled. Unexpected liquidity drains can catch traders off guard, with Bitcoin’s volatility magnifying the effect.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
How to think about Bitcoin’s macro sensitivity
Over long periods, interest rates shape valuations, discount rates and opportunity costs. In the current regime, however, liquidity sets the near-term boundaries for risk appetite. Bitcoin’s reaction becomes more volatile when liquidity shifts.
Key things to monitor include:
Central bank balance sheet signalsTreasury cash flows and Treasury General Account (TGA) levelsStress or easing signals in money markets.
Rate cut narratives can shape sentiment, but sustained buying depends on whether liquidity supports risk-taking.
The broader shift
Bitcoin was long seen as a hedge against currency debasement. Today, it is increasingly viewed as a real-time indicator of financial conditions. When liquidity expands, Bitcoin benefits; when liquidity tightens, Bitcoin tends to feel the pain early.
In recent periods, Bitcoin has responded more to liquidity conditions than to rate cut headlines. In the current phase of the Bitcoin cycle, many analysts are focusing less on rate direction and more on whether system liquidity is sufficient to support risk-taking.

$BTC