JPMorgan strategists say stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets are becoming increasingly intertwined with traditional finance, according to a Bloomberg report. JPMorgan Flags Stablecoin Growth, Warns Against Overhype A growing convergence between digital assets and traditional finance is underway, JPMorgan strategists noted this week, highlighting two major developments: the integration of stablecoins into mainstream financial systems
BitcoinWorld Crypto Banking: Alarming Halt to Gemini Onboarding Sparks JPMorgan Controversy The cryptocurrency world is abuzz with a significant development highlighting the ongoing tension between traditional finance and digital assets. Tyler Winklevoss, Gemini’s co-founder, recently claimed JPMorgan abruptly halted Gemini’s crypto banking onboarding. This alleged move, he suggested, was a direct consequence of his public criticism of JPMorgan’s new policy to charge fintech companies for customer bank account data access, a decision reported by Bloomberg. The Unfolding Drama in Crypto Banking : What Exactly Happened Between JPMorgan and Gemini? In a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter), Tyler Winklevoss detailed the alleged sequence of events. He asserted that JPMorgan, a titan in the traditional banking world, had paused Gemini’s onboarding. The timing, he suggested, was not coincidental, coming shortly after he voiced strong opposition to JPMorgan’s decision to levy fees on fintech firms for accessing customer bank account information. Winklevoss characterized this move as anti-competitive, arguing that it aims to stifle innovation and weaken the burgeoning fintech and crypto sectors. This isn’t the first time Gemini has reportedly faced banking hurdles. Winklevoss also claimed that his firm had previously been “off-boarded” during what he termed “Operation ChokePoint 2.0.” This phrase, widely used within the crypto community, refers to an alleged coordinated effort by a previous U.S. administration to limit banking access for businesses deemed “high-risk,” a category that often included crypto companies. Such actions, if true, highlight a persistent challenge for legitimate digital asset businesses seeking stable and reliable financial services. The implications of such a halt are significant. For a crypto exchange like Gemini, access to robust banking services is fundamental for operations, including facilitating fiat deposits and withdrawals for users, managing treasury, and conducting essential business transactions. When a major financial institution allegedly withdraws or pauses such services, it can create operational bottlenecks and raise concerns about the stability and accessibility of the crypto ecosystem. Is This ‘Operation ChokePoint 2.0’ in Action? Understanding the Allegations Against Crypto Banking The term “Operation ChokePoint 2.0” resonates deeply within the crypto industry, evoking memories of a period where many crypto businesses struggled to secure or maintain banking relationships. While the original “Operation Choke Point” was a U.S. Department of Justice initiative targeting fraudulent businesses, the crypto community adapted the term to describe an alleged informal campaign by regulators and banks to de-bank crypto firms. This often meant banks, under perceived pressure, would suddenly close accounts or refuse services to crypto-related entities, citing vague “risk management” concerns. Why do traditional banks often appear hesitant or even hostile towards the crypto sector? Several factors contribute to this cautious approach: Regulatory Uncertainty: The lack of clear, comprehensive regulations for cryptocurrencies and digital assets makes banks wary of potential legal and compliance risks. They fear being penalized for facilitating illicit activities if proper frameworks are not in place. Anti-Money Laundering (AML) & Know Your Customer (KYC) Concerns: Despite robust AML/KYC procedures by crypto exchanges, the decentralized nature of some cryptocurrencies and past illicit use cases lead banks to perceive the sector as inherently high-risk for money laundering and terrorist financing. Reputational Risk: Banks are often concerned about negative public perception or association with a sector still grappling with scams, hacks, and volatility. Technological Gap: Integrating traditional banking systems with new blockchain technologies can be complex and costly, requiring significant investment in infrastructure and expertise. The alleged actions by JPMorgan, as described by Winklevoss, suggest that these underlying tensions persist, creating a challenging environment for legitimate crypto banking operations. If true, it paints a picture where established financial giants might leverage their market dominance to control access and competition, rather than fostering a level playing field for innovation. Why Does This Incident Matter for the Future of Fintech and Crypto Banking ? This alleged halt goes beyond a single business dispute; it touches upon fundamental questions about competition, innovation, and the future of finance. Here’s why it’s a critical development: 1. Potential for Anti-Competitive Practices: If a major bank like JPMorgan can use its market power to restrict access for fintech and crypto firms, it raises serious concerns about anti-competitive behavior. Charging for data access or halting services could be seen as a way to protect existing revenue streams and stifle disruptors. 2. Impact on Innovation: Fintech and crypto companies thrive on innovation, often by offering more efficient, cheaper, or more accessible financial services. If they are denied essential banking infrastructure, their ability to innovate and scale is severely hampered, ultimately limiting consumer choice and progress. 3. The Battle for Data Control: The dispute over charging for customer bank account data highlights a broader struggle for control over financial data. Fintechs argue for open access to facilitate services like budgeting apps or personalized financial advice, while banks seek to monetize or control this data. This incident underscores the high stakes in this data battle. 4. User Experience and Market Access: Ultimately, these disputes affect everyday users. If crypto exchanges face banking difficulties, it can lead to slower transactions, higher fees, or even limited access to services for individuals and businesses engaging with digital assets. A healthy crypto banking ecosystem benefits everyone. The incident serves as a stark reminder that despite growing institutional interest in crypto, the underlying infrastructure and relationships with traditional finance remain fragile and subject to significant friction. Navigating the Regulatory Maze: Actionable Insights for Securing Your Crypto Banking Future For crypto businesses navigating this complex landscape, securing stable banking relationships is paramount. While challenges persist, there are strategies to mitigate risks and build resilience: Diversify Banking Relationships: Relying on a single banking partner can be risky. Explore relationships with multiple banks, including smaller, more crypto-friendly institutions or specialized digital asset banks that understand the unique needs of the industry. Prioritize Regulatory Compliance: Proactively invest in robust AML, KYC, and sanctions compliance programs. Demonstrate a commitment to meeting or exceeding regulatory expectations. This builds trust with financial institutions and regulators. Build Strong Legal and Compliance Teams: Having in-house experts who understand both financial regulations and blockchain technology is crucial. They can help navigate complex legal landscapes and ensure operational integrity. Advocate for Clearer Regulations: Engage with policymakers and industry associations to advocate for clear, comprehensive, and sensible regulations for digital assets. A well-defined regulatory framework benefits both crypto businesses and traditional financial institutions by reducing uncertainty. Explore Hybrid Models: Consider models that blend traditional banking services with decentralized finance (DeFi) solutions for certain operations, where appropriate and compliant. This can offer alternative pathways for liquidity and financial services. The key is to demonstrate transparency, adhere to best practices, and actively work towards bridging the gap between the nascent crypto industry and the established financial system to ensure a robust crypto banking future. What’s Next for Crypto Banking : Collaboration or Continued Conflict? The alleged halt by JPMorgan on Gemini’s onboarding process is a vivid illustration of the ongoing power struggle between old and new finance. While some traditional financial institutions are cautiously embracing blockchain technology and digital assets, others appear to maintain a protective stance, potentially viewing crypto and fintech as threats rather than opportunities for collaboration. The future of crypto banking hinges on several factors: regulatory clarity, technological integration, and the willingness of both sides to find common ground. Will traditional banks eventually fully integrate crypto services, or will the industry see the rise of entirely new, crypto-native financial institutions that bypass traditional gatekeepers? The answer will likely involve a mix of both, driven by market demand and regulatory evolution. One thing is clear: Tyler Winklevoss’s vocal stand against JPMorgan highlights a critical need for open dialogue and fair competition. As the digital economy continues to expand, ensuring equitable access to essential financial services for innovative companies will be crucial for fostering growth and ensuring that the benefits of technological progress are widely shared. In conclusion, the alleged halting of Gemini’s onboarding by JPMorgan, as reported by Tyler Winklevoss, serves as a powerful reminder of the deep-seated challenges and tensions that persist in the realm of crypto banking . It underscores the critical need for regulatory clarity, fair competition, and a willingness from both traditional finance and the crypto sector to forge pathways for mutual growth. This incident is not merely a dispute between two entities; it’s a symptom of the broader struggle to integrate a disruptive technology into a long-established financial system. The path forward will undoubtedly be complex, but the resilience and advocacy of figures like Winklevoss signal a continued fight for a more open and equitable financial future. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Q1: What is “Operation ChokePoint 2.0” as it relates to crypto banking? A1: “Operation ChokePoint 2.0” is a term used by the crypto community to describe an alleged informal campaign by U.S. regulators and banks to limit banking access for crypto companies, often by closing accounts or refusing services due to perceived high risk, similar to the original “Operation Choke Point” which targeted fraudulent businesses. Q2: Why are traditional banks often hesitant to work with crypto companies for crypto banking services? A2: Traditional banks are hesitant due to several factors, including regulatory uncertainty surrounding cryptocurrencies, concerns about Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) compliance, perceived reputational risks associated with the volatile crypto market, and the technical complexities of integrating new blockchain technologies with existing banking infrastructure. Q3: What specifically did Tyler Winklevoss criticize JPMorgan for? A3: Tyler Winklevoss criticized JPMorgan for its reported decision to begin charging fintech companies for access to customer bank account data. He described this action as anti-competitive and aimed at weakening the fintech and crypto sectors. Q4: How does JPMorgan’s alleged halt affect Gemini users? A4: While not immediately catastrophic, a halt in onboarding by a major bank could potentially impact Gemini’s operational efficiency, including the speed of fiat deposits and withdrawals, and could raise concerns about the long-term stability of its banking relationships, though Gemini would likely have alternative arrangements. Q5: What are the broader implications of this incident for the fintech industry? A5: The incident highlights ongoing challenges for fintechs regarding fair access to traditional banking infrastructure and data. It raises concerns about anti-competitive practices by established financial institutions and their potential to stifle innovation and growth in the broader fintech and digital asset sectors. Q6: Is this type of banking difficulty common in the crypto industry? A6: Yes, difficulties in securing and maintaining banking relationships have been a persistent challenge for many crypto companies globally, particularly in jurisdictions with evolving or unclear regulatory frameworks. This incident is a prominent example of a broader industry issue. If you found this article insightful, consider sharing it with your network! Your support helps us continue to provide critical insights into the evolving world of cryptocurrency and finance. Share on social media and join the conversation! To learn more about the latest crypto market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping Bitcoin institutional adoption. This post Crypto Banking: Alarming Halt to Gemini Onboarding Sparks JPMorgan Controversy first appeared on BitcoinWorld and is written by Editorial Team
🚀 Are You Chasing New Coins? Catch the newest crypto opportunities. Be the first to buy, be the first to win! Click here to discover new altcoins! XRP has reached
BitcoinWorld Crypto Fear & Greed Index: Decoding the Market’s ‘Greed’ Zone at 72 Are you tracking the pulse of the cryptocurrency market? The latest update from the software development platform Alternative reveals a significant shift: the Crypto Fear & Greed Index has climbed to a notable 72 as of July 26th. This places the market firmly in the ‘Greed’ zone, a two-point increase from the previous day, signaling a prevailing positive sentiment despite underlying market dynamics. But what does this really mean for you, the investor, and the broader crypto landscape? Understanding the Crypto Fear & Greed Index: What Does 72 Signify? In the often-turbulent world of cryptocurrencies, emotions can run high, significantly influencing market movements. The Crypto Fear & Greed Index serves as a vital barometer, designed to measure these very emotions. Ranging from 0 to 100, it provides a snapshot of the prevailing sentiment among crypto investors. A score of 0 indicates ‘Extreme Fear,’ suggesting that investors are overly worried, potentially leading to panic selling. Conversely, a score of 100 signifies ‘Extreme Greed,’ indicating that the market is overbought and perhaps due for a correction, driven by irrational exuberance. The recent rise to 72, firmly within the ‘Greed’ zone, suggests a widespread optimism. This isn’t just a fleeting feeling; it points to strong buying pressure, increased market activity, and a general belief among participants that prices will continue to rise. Historically, periods of extreme greed have often preceded market pullbacks, as irrational exuberance can lead to unsustainable price bubbles. However, it can also reflect genuine bullish momentum driven by positive developments and increasing adoption. Understanding this dynamic is crucial for making informed decisions, rather than being swept away by the prevailing sentiment. Decoding the Market’s Mood: The Six Pillars of the Crypto Fear & Greed Index The power of the Crypto Fear & Greed Index lies in its multi-faceted approach. It doesn’t rely on a single metric but aggregates data from six key factors, each weighted differently, to paint a comprehensive picture of market sentiment. This holistic view helps to provide a more accurate reflection than any single indicator could offer. Let’s break down these pillars: Volatility (25%): This component measures the current volatility and maximum drawdowns of Bitcoin compared to its average values over the last 30 and 90 days. High volatility often signals fear, as investors become nervous about sharp price swings. Market Momentum/Volume (25%): This factor analyzes the current volume and market momentum, comparing it with average values. High buying volumes and strong positive momentum often indicate a greedy market, as more money flows in. Social Media (15%): The index scans various social media platforms, particularly Twitter, for specific crypto-related hashtags. A rapid increase in post volume and positive sentiment often points towards growing excitement and potential greed. Surveys (15%): While currently paused, this component traditionally gathered investor sentiment through weekly polls. These surveys directly gauged whether investors felt the market was bullish or bearish, providing a direct insight into their psychological state. Bitcoin Dominance (10%): This metric assesses Bitcoin’s share of the total cryptocurrency market capitalization. An increasing Bitcoin dominance can sometimes indicate fear, as investors might be shifting away from altcoins into the perceived safety of Bitcoin. Conversely, a decreasing dominance can suggest growing confidence in altcoins, potentially indicating greed. Google Trends (10%): By analyzing Google search queries related to cryptocurrencies, this factor gauges public interest. A surge in search terms like ‘Bitcoin price manipulation’ or ‘crypto crash’ might signal fear, while searches for ‘buy Bitcoin’ or ‘best altcoins to buy’ could indicate greed. The temporary pausing of the surveys component means the index is currently relying on the other five factors, which still provide a robust assessment of the market’s emotional state. Navigating the ‘Greed’ Zone: Opportunities and Risks for Investors When the Crypto Fear & Greed Index sits comfortably in the ‘Greed’ zone, it presents a double-edged sword for investors. On one hand, it signals strong market confidence and potentially continued upward price momentum. This can be an exciting time for those holding assets, as their portfolios may see significant gains. The prevailing optimism can attract new capital, further fueling rallies. However, the ‘Greed’ zone also carries inherent risks. History has shown that periods of extreme greed can lead to irrational behavior, such as: FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out): Investors might rush into assets without proper research, driven by the fear of missing out on quick profits. This often leads to buying at local tops. Overvaluation: Assets may become significantly overvalued, detached from their fundamental utility or development progress. Increased Volatility: While momentum is high, a market driven by greed can be prone to sharper corrections as early investors take profits, or as minor negative news triggers a cascade of selling. Ignoring Red Flags: The pervasive optimism can cause investors to overlook cautionary signals or fundamental weaknesses in projects. For savvy investors, a high ‘Greed’ score isn’t necessarily a signal to sell everything, but rather a prompt for heightened caution and strategic planning. It’s a time to review your portfolio, consider taking some profits, and avoid making impulsive decisions based purely on emotion. Beyond the Numbers: Limitations and Nuances of the Crypto Fear & Greed Index While the Crypto Fear & Greed Index is an invaluable tool, it’s essential to understand its limitations. No single indicator can perfectly predict market movements, and this index is no exception. Here are some nuances to consider: Not a Sole Indicator: The index should be used as one piece of a larger analytical puzzle. It complements, rather than replaces, fundamental analysis, technical analysis, and macroeconomic considerations. Bitcoin-Centric: While it measures overall crypto sentiment, its components are heavily influenced by Bitcoin’s performance and dominance. Altcoin-specific sentiment might vary. Lagging or Leading?: Sometimes the index can be seen as a lagging indicator, reflecting sentiment that has already built up. At other times, a rapid shift in the index can precede significant market moves. Dynamic Market: The crypto market evolves rapidly. What constitutes ‘fear’ or ‘greed’ can shift over time as market participants mature and new trends emerge. Impact of Paused Surveys: The temporary absence of survey data means one direct measure of investor psychology is missing, potentially affecting the holistic nature of the index. Responsible investing always involves a diversified approach to information gathering. The index offers a fantastic psychological overlay to your existing market analysis. Strategic Approaches in a ‘Greedy’ Market: Leveraging the Crypto Fear & Greed Index So, how can you effectively leverage the Crypto Fear & Greed Index when it’s in the ‘Greed’ zone? It’s about using it as a guide for emotional discipline, rather than a definitive buy or sell signal. Here are some actionable insights: Re-evaluate Risk Exposure: When greed is high, consider reducing your exposure to highly speculative assets or taking some profits off the table, especially from assets that have seen parabolic rises. Dollar-Cost Averaging (DCA): Continue with a consistent DCA strategy, but perhaps be more selective about new entries. A ‘greedy’ market might not be the best time for large lump-sum investments. Set Profit Targets and Stop-Losses: Define clear entry and exit strategies. High greed often leads to overextension, making it crucial to protect your gains with pre-determined profit targets and stop-losses. Focus on Fundamentals: In a market driven by emotion, revert to the fundamentals. Investigate projects with strong technology, clear use cases, active development, and robust communities, rather than chasing hype. Patience and Discipline: The index serves as a reminder to be patient and disciplined. Don’t let FOMO dictate your actions. Wait for better entry points or consolidate gains. By combining the insights from the index with sound investment principles, you can navigate the emotional swings of the crypto market more effectively and protect your capital. Conclusion: The ascent of the Crypto Fear & Greed Index to 72, signaling a strong ‘Greed’ sentiment, is a significant development for the cryptocurrency market. It reflects a period of heightened optimism and strong buying interest, driven by various factors from market momentum to social media buzz. While this environment can be exhilarating and offer potential for gains, it also calls for a disciplined approach to investing. Understanding the components of the index and acknowledging its nuances are crucial for making informed decisions. By using the index as a psychological compass rather than a definitive roadmap, investors can better navigate the market’s emotional tides, identify potential risks, and capitalize on opportunities while safeguarding their investments. Stay informed, stay strategic, and always prioritize your own research in this dynamic financial landscape. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 1. What is the Crypto Fear & Greed Index? The Crypto Fear & Greed Index is a tool developed by Alternative.me that measures the prevailing emotional state of the cryptocurrency market. It aggregates data from various sources to provide a score between 0 (Extreme Fear) and 100 (Extreme Greed), indicating whether investors are feeling fearful or overly optimistic. 2. How is the Crypto Fear & Greed Index calculated? The index is calculated using six weighted factors: volatility (25%), market momentum/volume (25%), social media sentiment (15%), surveys (15%, currently paused), Bitcoin dominance (10%), and Google Trends data (10%). Each factor contributes to the overall score, providing a comprehensive view of market sentiment. 3. What does a ‘Greed’ score (like 72) mean for investors? A ‘Greed’ score indicates that investors are generally optimistic and eager to buy, often leading to increased market momentum and potential price rallies. However, it also suggests that the market might be becoming overbought, increasing the risk of a correction or a period of consolidation as irrational exuberance takes hold. It’s a signal for caution and strategic re-evaluation. 4. Should I base my entire investment strategy on the Crypto Fear & Greed Index? No, the Crypto Fear & Greed Index should not be the sole basis for your investment strategy. It is a valuable psychological indicator that complements fundamental and technical analysis. Always combine its insights with thorough research into specific assets, market trends, and your own financial goals and risk tolerance. 5. Why are surveys currently paused in the index calculation? The provided information states that surveys are currently paused. While the exact reason isn’t detailed, it could be due to various factors such as data collection challenges, a re-evaluation of survey methodology, or a temporary suspension for maintenance. The index continues to operate effectively using its other five robust components. 6. How often is the Crypto Fear & Greed Index updated? The Crypto Fear & Greed Index is typically updated daily, providing a fresh snapshot of market sentiment. This regular update allows investors to stay informed about shifts in the collective mood of the cryptocurrency market. If you found this article insightful, please consider sharing it with your network! Your support helps us continue to provide valuable market analysis and insights. To learn more about the latest crypto market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping Bitcoin price action . This post Crypto Fear & Greed Index: Decoding the Market’s ‘Greed’ Zone at 72 first appeared on BitcoinWorld and is written by Editorial Team
🚀 Are You Chasing New Coins? Catch the newest crypto opportunities. Be the first to buy, be the first to win! Click here to discover new altcoins! Tether has minted
On Friday, Intel shares tumbled 8.5% as remarks from CEO Lip‑Bu Tan prompted concerns that he’s emphasizing expense reductions at the expense of the company’s technical supremacy. In the Q2 earnings call, Tan said he’s pausing some factory projects and being more cautious with spending. He criticized the investments made under former CEO Pat Gelsinger as “excessive and unwise,” adding on a conference call, “I do not subscribe to the belief that if you build it, they will come.” Under Gelsinger’s leadership, Intel had pursued a transformation into a prominent foundry for third‑party clients, particularly emphasizingthe development of the advanced 14A node. However, during Thursday’s conference, Tan signaled that Intel’s deployment of that process will proceed in a limited, step‑by‑step fashion. He said they won’t start full-scale 14A production until enough customers are on board. According to Bloomberg that announcement triggered asell‑off, driving the stock to $20.70 in New York, its largest single‑session decline in more than a quarter‑year. Investors worry that putting off new manufacturingsteps means Intel is giving up its long‑held lead in chipmaking. Intel’s plans stir acquisition talk Intel’s recent challenges have fueled speculation about potential divestitures or acquisitions, yet no definitive suitor has surfaced. Interested parties for its fabrication facilities, such as TSMC, have reportedly withdrawn their interest. Tan reiterated his intention to maintain an integrated manufacturing and design organization, while divesting smaller subdivisions. This week, Intel announced plans to carve out its networking group as an independent entity. The company added that it is courting strategic backers, without disclosing identities, a move initially revealed by CRN. In the filing, Intel projected Q3 revenue between $12.6 billion and $13.6 billion, yet fell short of profit targets. It warned of narrower margins leading to a forecasted breakeven quarter, below the 4‑cent per share gain analysts anticipated. In Q2, Intel reported revenue of $12.9 billion, virtually unchanged year‑over‑year and surpassing the $11.9 billion consensus. The quarter’s results included a 10 cent per share loss versus the 1 cent profit Wall Street analysts had anticipated. Intel lags behind rivals despite 13% stock gain By Thursday’s market close, Intel’s share performance had risen 13% year‑to‑date, in line with the broader chip manufacturing sector. But Nvidia and AMD have done even better, thanks to their lead in AI chip design. Tan’s immediate focus remains on stabilizing Intel’s balance sheet. To date, he has enacted widespread layoffs and reduced capital expenditure plans. The firm announced it would suspend its planned facilities in Germany and Poland and decelerate development at the Ohio site. Management confirmed approximately $18 billion of capital investment for new fabrication sites and machinery in 2025, with less spending next year. Since his March appointment, Tan conceded that Intel must rebuild its competitiveness in PC and server CPU markets. He is likewise formulating a strategy to enter the AI accelerator arena, currently led by Nvidia. Intel said PC demand got a boost because manufacturers stocked up in advance of possible tariffs, but it still lost market share in both its PC chip business and its outside foundry operations. CFO Dave Zinsner added that the expected economic slowdown never arrived, helping lift orders, and noted some customers pulled orders forward to avoid those tariffs. Intel’s PC division delivered $7.9 billion in sales, exceeding the $7.3 billion consensus figure. Data‑center revenue came in at $3.9 billion versus $3.7 billion anticipated, and the foundry segment recorded $4.4 billion, in line with estimates. Previously, Intel established goals to reduce operating expenses to roughly $17 billion in 2025 and $16 billion in 2026, targets it still expects to meet. During Gelsinger’s tenure, Intel invested tens of billions in new fabs to attract external clientele and reclaim its process leadership. In an internal memo sent Thursday, Tan criticized that strategy as overly aggressive, noting that rapid outlays lacked sufficient demand and left production capacities underused. Cryptopolitan Academy: Want to grow your money in 2025? Learn how to do it with DeFi in our upcoming webclass. Save Your Spot
🚀 Are You Chasing New Coins? Catch the newest crypto opportunities. Be the first to buy, be the first to win! Click here to discover new altcoins! El Salvador is
A US bank has agreed to pay up to $10,000 to customers affected by an alleged data breach that exposed personally identifying information. According to a settlement administrator’s portal, The Bank of Canton will pay $300,000 to settle a lawsuit accusing the Canton, Massachusetts-based lender of negligent data security practices. Class members in the lawsuit, defined as the existing, former and prospective clients of The Bank of Canton in the US impacted by the cybersecurity incident, will receive up to $2,500 for ordinary losses and up to $10,000 for extraordinary losses. Claimants must provide documentation to prove the losses they suffered as a result of the data breach. Class members who choose not to file documentary evidence can opt for an alternative cash payment of $100. Claims must be submitted by October 9th, with a final approval hearing for the settlement scheduled to be held in a Massachusetts court on October 21st. Payments will be made once the settlement is approved by a judge. The Bank of Canton is settling the lawsuit a little over a year after the incident occurred. On or around May 27th of 2023, cybercriminals allegedly gained access to MOVEit Transfer, a file transfer software system used by a third-party service provider of the bank. The lawsuit alleged the incident led to the sensitive data of the Bank of Canton’s customers, potentially including, account name, account number(s), and Social Security numbers being exposed. The lawsuit was subsequently filed in November of 2023. Despite agreeing to settle, The Bank of Canton denies the allegations made in the lawsuit. Follow us on X , Facebook and Telegram Don't Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inbox Check Price Action Surf The Daily Hodl Mix Disclaimer: Opinions expressed at The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making any high-risk investments in Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or digital assets. Please be advised that your transfers and trades are at your own risk, and any losses you may incur are your responsibility. The Daily Hodl does not recommend the buying or selling of any cryptocurrencies or digital assets, nor is The Daily Hodl an investment advisor. Please note that The Daily Hodl participates in affiliate marketing. Generated Image: Midjourney The post $10,000 To Be Handed To US Bank’s Customers After ‘Extraordinary Losses’ Allegedly Triggered by Data Breach appeared first on The Daily Hodl .
🚀 Are You Chasing New Coins? Catch the newest crypto opportunities. Be the first to buy, be the first to win! Click here to discover new altcoins! Asphere, a division
XRP rapidly losing traction on market, but at the same time on-chain dynamics stay positive