Solana Beach priceSOLANA

Layer 1 and Layer 2 tokens sank in 2025 as users and capital rotated to Bitcoin, Ethereum, BNB Chain and revenue-generating protocols despite strong developer activity. Summary Layer1 tokens saw steep price and user losses in 2025, while Bitcoin held relative strength and BNB Chain nearly tripled users as others bled activity.​ Overleveraged tokenomics, weak value capture, and institutional preference for BTC and ETH drove sustained sell pressure on alternative L1 and L2 tokens.​ Stablecoin issuers and derivatives platforms dominated revenue, while generic infrastructure tokens faced consolidation risk and a trend toward irrelevance.​ Layer 1 blockchain tokens experienced significant depreciation in 2025, with major assets losing substantial value despite sustained developer activity, according to an end-of-year report from OAK Research released this week. Altcoins head into new year with hope While Bitcoin maintained relative strength throughout the year, alternative Layer 1 tokens experienced sell-offs that exposed structural weaknesses in tokenomics and market positioning, the report stated. The findings reveal a shift from speculation to fundamental value creation, with the market responding negatively to protocols unable to demonstrate economic activity. Total Monthly Active Users declined 25.15% across major chains, according to the report’s blockchain metrics analysis. Solana recorded the steepest decline, losing nearly 94 million users, representing a drop of more than 60%, while BNB Chain nearly tripled its user base by capturing participants from other platforms. Layer 2 networks experienced similar divergence. Base demonstrated the strongest growth in Total Value Locked (TVL), solidifying its position through Coinbase’s distribution advantage, according to the report. Optimism saw TVL contract significantly as capital rotated toward competitors. The majority of major Layer 1 tokens finished the year with losses, while some newer entrants saw extreme declines, the report stated. Layer 2 tokens experienced similar performance despite technical progress. Optimism and zkSync Era posted severe declines, while Polygon and Arbitrum also fell substantially. Only Mantle (MNT) managed a modest gain, attributed to concentrated supply control rather than fundamental strength, according to the analysis. The report identified three primary forces behind the decline: overleveraged tokenomics with continuous unlock schedules; lack of credible value-capture mechanisms linking network usage to token demand; and institutional preference for Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum over smaller-cap alternatives. Despite price declines, developer activity remained robust across select ecosystems, according to data from Electric Capital cited in the report. The EVM stack maintained the largest developer base, with thousands of contributors including many full-time developers. Bitcoin posted the strongest two-year growth in full-time developers among major ecosystems. Solana and the broader SVM stack also grew substantially over two years, demonstrating sustained technical development despite token performance. The disconnect between developer activity and token prices revealed market maturation, the report stated. Teams continued building through down cycles, but speculative capital no longer rewarded infrastructure without clear paths to revenue generation. Stablecoin issuers dominated revenue generation, accounting for the vast majority of income among top protocols, according to the report. Tether and Circle combined generated significant annual revenue, while derivatives platforms added meaningful fee-based income through sustainable models. Generic Layer 1s and Layer 2s lacking differentiation could not compete, the report stated, noting that networks required improvements in speed, cost, or security to justify independent existence. Infrastructure tokens face continued headwinds despite regulatory clarity in key markets, according to the report’s outlook for 2026. The combination of high inflation schedules, insufficient demand for governance rights, and concentration of value capture in base layers suggests further consolidation ahead. Protocols that generate meaningful revenue may stabilize, but remain subject to broader market volatility and persistent unlock pressure from early investors, the report concluded. The analysis stated that survival for existing Layer 1 tokens depends on leadership from major platforms and renewed institutional adoption, warning that generic infrastructure tokens will continue to trend toward irrelevance as capital concentrates in protocols demonstrating economic value rather than technological novelty alone.

The Extension v2.68 breach led to $7M in losses across BTC, Solana, and EVM due to seed theft. Researchers flagged 4482.js code and a suspicious domain, raising supply-chain concerns. Trust Wallet pushed a v2.69 fix, urged users to disable the extension, and pledged compensation. Trust Wallet confirmed a security breach tied to its browser extension, leading to widespread unauthorized crypto outflows. The incident affected users who installed version 2.68 shortly before Christmas, according to Trust Wallet statements on X. Hackers exploited the update, extracted seed phrases, and drained around $7 million across Bitcoin, Solana, and EVM networks. We’ve identified a security incident affecting Trust Wallet Browser Extension version 2.68 only. Users with Browser Extension 2.68 should disable and upgrade to 2.69.Please refer to the official Chrome Webstore link here: https://t.co/V3vMq31TKbPlease note: Mobile-only users…— Trust Wallet (@TrustWallet) December 25, 2025 Notably, the breach did not affect mobile-only users or other extension versions, the company said. However, the timing, scale, and speed of losses intensified concern across the self-custody community. Extension Update Linked to Fast Wallet Drains Trust Wallet released a browser extension update on December 24 through standard browser distribution channels. Soon after, users reported missing funds, with transactions occurring within minutes of wallet access. Several victims stated drains followed immediately after importing seed phrases into the extension. Notably, on-chain investigator ZachXBT issued an alert after receiving multiple independent user reports. He later stated that hundreds of wallets were affected, with initial losses exceeding $6 million. Subsequent tracking showed funds moving through multiple receiving addresses, according to Arkham data. Meanwhile, affected blockchains included Bitcoin, Solana, and several EVM-compatible networks. This multi-chain impact suggested a wallet-level compromise rather than a single protocol exploit. As reports spread on X and Telegram, scrutiny quickly shifted toward the extension update itself. Code Analysis Raises Supply-Chain Concerns Following the alerts, independent researchers examined the extension’s updated codebase. According to shared analyses, a JavaScript file, identified as 4482.js, contained newly added logic. Researchers alleged the code was activated during seed phrase imports. Notably, the code appeared to transmit data to a domain labeled metrics-trustwallet[.]com. Community researchers observed that the domain was registered only days earlier, then went offline. However, these findings came from third-party analysis, not an official audit. Meanwhile, Trust Wallet acknowledged a “security incident” affecting browser extension version 2.68 only. The company advised users to disable the extension immediately and upgrade to version 2.69. Trust Wallet stated that the update fixed the issue and urged users to download only from official stores. Related: Hyperliquid Says Former Employee Was Behind HYPE Shorting User Impact, Response, and Ongoing Investigation Several users publicly detailed losses during the Christmas holiday. One user reported losing over $300,000 within a four-minute window after returning from Christmas. Others claimed losses ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Trust Wallet stated its support team contacted affected users regarding the next steps. Additionally, Binance founder Changpeng Zhao confirmed Trust Wallet would cover verified losses. “So far, $7m affected by this hack,” Zhao wrote, adding that user funds remain SAFU. Notably, Zhao owns Trust Wallet, which Binance acquired in 2018. The company did not name the attacker and said the incident was caused by an issue involving a third party. Investigations are still ongoing as researchers track the remaining funds and impacted wallets. The incident happened during a wider increase in crypto thefts throughout 2025. According to Chainalysis estimates, crypto theft exceeded $3.41 billion year-to-date. The Trust Wallet breach added to growing concerns around browser-based wallet security. Trust Wallet reiterated that mobile users remained unaffected throughout the incident. The company continued posting updates as investigations progressed. Meanwhile, users were urged to avoid importing seed phrases into browser extensions. The Trust Wallet browser extension breach happened after a December 24 update, which led to wallets being drained quickly. Investigators tied losses of around $7 million to version 2.68, impacting users on Bitcoin, Solana, and EVM networks. Trust Wallet released fixes, confirmed plans to compensate affected users, and is still working with those impacted. Disclaimer: The information provided by CryptoTale is for educational and informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always conduct your own research and consult with a professional before making any investment decisions. CryptoTale is not liable for any financial losses resulting from the use of the content. Tags Crypto Hack News Trust Wallet

A security issue in the Trust Wallet browser extension has led to the loss of nearly $6 million in crypto, raising serious concerns among users during the Christmas period. Advertisement --> The problem affects Trust Wallet Browser Extension version 2.68 only, according to an official statement from Trust Wallet. Mobile app users and people using other extension versions are not affected. What Happened? On December 24, a flaw was discovered in version 2.68 of the Trust Wallet browser extension. By December 25, on-chain data showed that funds were being drained from multiple wallets across Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana networks. Yes $6M+ stolen at minimum from hundreds of Trust Wallet users.Hopefully they will offer compensation to everyone if it’s determined they’re at fault for the incident.It’s difficult to map out since there’s many theft addresses.Here’s my list so far below: EVM…— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) December 25, 2025 Blockchain investigator ZachXBT reported receiving messages from hundreds of users who said their wallet balances suddenly dropped. Community researchers later found suspicious code in the extension that appeared to send wallet data to a fake website, allowing attackers to access funds. Trust Wallet Confirms the Issue Trust Wallet confirmed the security incident and said the issue is limited to version 2.68 of the browser extension. The company asked users to stop using that version immediately and upgrade to version 2.69, which it says is safe. Trust Wallet also said its support team is already contacting affected users and investigating what happened. So far, there has been no official confirmation about compensation, though impacted users are being guided through next steps. What To Do If You Are Affected If you use the Trust Wallet browser extension, here’s what you should do right away: 1. Do not open the Trust Wallet extension on your desktop.This helps prevent further risk. 2. Disable the extension immediately.Go to your Chrome extensions page and switch Trust Wallet off. 3. Update to version 2.69 only from the official Chrome Web Store.After updating, check the version number to confirm it shows 2.69. 4. Contact Trust Wallet support.If your funds are missing, reach out to Trust Wallet’s official support page and report the issue. Why This Matters This incident shows the risks of browser-based crypto wallets, especially when malicious code slips into updates. Even trusted tools can become targets, and small delays in updating can lead to big losses. Trust Wallet says it will share more updates as they become available. Tags Crypto news

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has shared his thoughts on how Ethereum and Solana may perform as the crypto market moves toward 2026. His comments show the different strengths and challenges facing both blockchains. Advertisement --> Hoskinson said that Solana has better growth potential in the short term. He explained that Solana can move faster when it comes to adopting new technology and making upgrades. This is partly because its leadership structure allows quicker decision-making. Solana has focused heavily on speed and scalability, which has helped it handle a large number of transactions. Today, it leads many blockchains in daily transaction volume, showing strong network activity and user demand. Where Solana Still Lags Behind Ethereum Despite its speed, Solana still trails Ethereum in important areas. Hoskinson pointed out that Solana’s total value locked (TVL) and stablecoin usage are far smaller than Ethereum’s. In fact, Solana is estimated to have only about one-tenth of Ethereum’s size in these categories. This means that while Solana is growing quickly, it still has significant ground to cover before it can match Ethereum’s broader financial ecosystem. Ethereum’s Long-Term Vision and Research Focus Hoskinson described Ethereum as a platform that has become a victim of its own success. Because it supports a massive ecosystem, making changes takes more time. However, Ethereum continues to invest heavily in research, especially in areas like zero-knowledge proofs and advanced scaling solutions. He said Ethereum is working toward a future where blockchains rely more on cryptographic proofs instead of simple transaction checks. This would allow Ethereum to act as a global verification layer for many networks, including Layer 2 solutions. A Slower Path, But a Stronger Long-Term Direction While Ethereum may need to adjust its strategy again, Hoskinson believes its overall direction is correct. He compared this to past upgrades that took longer than expected but eventually strengthened the network. In the long run, he sees Ethereum’s proof-based model as a better solution for building systems that can scale to internet-level demand. Final Take: Speed vs Strategy Hoskinson summed it up by saying Solana may have the advantage in the short term due to speed and flexibility. Ethereum, on the other hand, could win over the long term because of its research-driven approach and long-range vision. Both networks remain major players, each taking a different path as the blockchain industry continues to grow. Tags Bitcoin Crypto news Ethereum

Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial. For most of the last decade, crypto’s regulatory environment developed around one central question: what will the rules be? That question has now been answered. From Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation in Europe to stablecoin frameworks evolving across the U.S. and Asia, the industry finally has transparent rules written into law. Summary Regulatory clarity is here, but execution is the real test: By 2026, crypto firms will be judged not on rule interpretation but on their ability to run compliant, uninterrupted infrastructure across custody, payments, and reporting. Compliance gaps now directly hit cash flows: Delays from licensing, the Travel Rule, and uneven supervision turn regulatory uncertainty into liquidity constraints, settlement failures, and balance-sheet risk. Compliance-by-design will determine winners: Firms that embed auditability, monitoring, and control into core systems unlock institutional access and capital; those treating compliance as an add-on face friction, consolidation, or exit. Yet clarity doesn’t equal readiness. Rules can be put into practice, but that doesn’t automatically mean the industry is mature enough to function fully within them. So, as 2026 gets closer, the pressure shifts from interpretation to execution. Crypto companies will have to prove they can comply with these rules every day across custody, payments, liquidity access, and reporting, while still scaling products and meeting client needs. In this sense, 2026 is set to be a make-or-break year for compliance. Let’s take a closer look. When implementation turns into friction When regulation moves into live implementation and starts to affect daily operations, crypto companies are no longer assessed by intentions or roadmaps. Instead, the focus switches to something far less forgiving: whether they can actually run a compliant infrastructure without interruptions. That’s where implementation starts to bite. Licensing regimes like MiCA can’t simply be switched on overnight. Transitional periods differ across jurisdictions, supervisory capacity is highly uneven, and approval processes can stretch for months. Even firms that are actively working toward compliance often find themselves caught in prolonged grey zones. In that environment, uncertainty is operational. Banks, payment providers, and other counterparties rarely wait for formal clarity. They reassess exposure, delay integrations, or tighten conditions while authorizations are still unclear. As a result, what begins as a temporary regulatory gap turns into real friction through slower settlement and constrained liquidity. Exactly the same logic now applies to transaction flows. The Travel Rule, once discussed as a distant initiative, now sits directly inside payment pipelines. Missing data fields, incompatible messaging formats, or inconsistent counterparty identifiers no longer trigger follow-up emails. They trigger delayed transfers or even outright rejections. That difference is tangible. At first glance, the impact is subtle, yet it’s powerful. Compliance gaps that once looked like legal risks now start showing up as PL and balance-sheet risks. Naturally, growth slows, even for firms that are technically allowed to work. Once compliance begins to have a direct impact on cash flows, treating it as an external function stops working. Infrastructure either absorbs regulatory requirements or becomes a bottleneck. That’s where RegTech and compliance-by-design architecture become part of core systems. Compliance-by-design as the only scalable architecture Compliance-by-design means building crypto infrastructure so that regulatory requirements are met by default. That way, compliance is embedded directly into systems, workflows, and transaction logic, so operating within regulatory boundaries becomes the product’s normal state. This approach changes the unit economics of crypto businesses. When auditability, asset segregation, transaction monitoring, and incident response are inside the core architecture, firms spend less time putting out fires and more time scaling. More importantly, they become legible to banks, payment providers, and institutional partners. That legibility is what unlocks access. The shift is already delivering visible results. On December 11, 2025, J.P. Morgan arranged a $50 million U.S. commercial paper issuance by Galaxy Digital, executed on Solana, with Coinbase and Franklin Templeton among the buyers, and USDC used for issuance and redemption. That wasn’t “blockchain for the sake of blockchain.” Rather, it was a familiar money-market instrument moved on-chain in a way that made it legible to regulated participants. This means tokenization scales only through verified counterparties, controlled settlement logic, and auditable flows embedded from day one. Still, even if the win is real, it isn’t free. There are also second-order effects that I have to recognize. Fragmented rulebooks across regions raise fixed costs and reward larger platforms, pushing smaller firms toward consolidation or exit. In turn, cybersecurity and operational resilience become binding constraints, as one serious incident can trigger rapid de-risking by banks and payment partners. The point is that compliance-by-design doesn’t remove risk. Yet it changes where risk sits and how it’s priced. In 2026, capital will flow toward infrastructure that is auditable, resilient, and predictable under supervision. What 2026 will reward From where I stand, the industry is entering a phase where compliance isn’t something you “handle” anymore. It’s something you build. The firms that treat it as architecture will keep access to banking, payments, liquidity, and institutional counterparties, even as standards tighten. The ones that treat it as an external layer will keep paying for it through friction that shows up in the worst places: settlement delays, constrained liquidity, and partners that quietly step back. Yes, compliance-by-design comes with limitations. The alternative is worse. In 2026, companies will feel that difference. So choose which operating model you want to defend. Carlos Martins Carlos Martins, Head of Compliance at Currency.com, with over 30 years of experience and senior roles at Credit Suisse (Gibraltar) Limited and SG Hambros Bank. Carlos is a GFSC-licensed EIF Director and chairperson of the Gibraltar Association of Compliance Officers.