Gold Price Prediction 2026-2030: Crypto + Gold Investment Outlook

The post Solana and Base Network Clash Over New Bridge appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko struck at the core of Coinbase’s Base expansion strategy this weekend, dismissing the Ethereum layer-2 network’s new bridge as an “alignment bullshit.” In a sharp rebuke of Base lead Jesse Pollak, Yakovenko argued that cross-chain bridges are rarely neutral infrastructure. He said they act as vectors for value capture, deciding where fees settle and which ecosystem benefits. Sponsored Solana Rejects Base’s ‘Alignment’ Message Yakovenko contended that Base applications must migrate their computation to Solana so that transaction fees and economic activity accrue to Solana validators. “Migrate base apps to Solana so they execute on Solana, and the transactions are linearized by Solana staked block producers. That would be good for Solana developers. Otherwise, it’s alignment bullshit,” he said. The dispute ignited after Pollak announced the integration last week, framing it as a “bidirectional” tool to unlock shared liquidity. “We built this as a two-way bridge. The whole point is to unlock movement both ways because we are hearing from Solana teams that they want access to Base, and from Base teams that they want access to Solana. We want to make that possible,” Pollak stressed. However, Yakovenko rejected this premise, warning that “alignment” is a marketing term often used to obscure capital flight. Sponsored Considering this, he demanded that Base market the bridge honestly as a competitive tactic rather than a cooperative venture. “Ethereum L2s have to do the bs alignment dance because any activity on the L2 takes away from the ethereum L1 but you can’t be honest about it. So it reeks of bullshit,” Yakovenko said. Solana Foundation executives Vibhu Norby and Akshay BD had previously criticized the bridge, saying Base bypassed Solana’s technical and marketing teams entirely. They also alleged that the exchange-backed network launched the product without a single Solana launch partner.…

The post CZ Advises: Bitcoin Private Keys Should Never Leave Hardware Wallets for Security appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Changpeng Zhao, founder of Binance, states that the non-negotiable principle for hardware wallet security is ensuring the private key never leaves the device. This isolation protects users from hacks by keeping keys offline and tamper-proof, making it essential for self-custody in cryptocurrency storage. Hardware wallets store private keys offline, reducing exposure to online threats like phishing and malware. Changpeng Zhao emphasizes absolute key isolation as the decisive criterion for secure wallets. Industry data shows over 80% of crypto losses stem from private key compromises, highlighting the need for robust hardware solutions. Discover CZ’s essential hardware wallet security tips for 2025. Learn why private key isolation is crucial for protecting your crypto assets amid rising adoption. Safeguard your investments today with proven strategies. What is the non-negotiable security principle for hardware wallets according to Changpeng Zhao? Hardware wallet private key isolation is the core principle Changpeng Zhao, known as CZ and founder of Binance, deems non-negotiable for securing cryptocurrency assets. He insists that the private key must never leave the device under any circumstances, ensuring it remains offline and protected from external threats. This approach positions hardware wallets as the frontline defense in an era of increasing cyber risks. How does private key isolation enhance cryptocurrency security? Private key isolation in hardware wallets prevents exposure to internet-connected vulnerabilities, such as hacking attempts or malware infections that plague online storage methods. By confining the key within a tamper-resistant chip, these devices eliminate the risk of unauthorized access during transactions or data transfers. According to security experts at leading blockchain firms, this method has proven effective in safeguarding billions in assets, with incident reports from the past year showing hardware wallets involved in less than 5% of major breaches compared to hot wallets. The process works by generating and storing the private key…

The post Is an ETF Safer than an Exchange for Bitcoin? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. A fierce debate is unfolding at the heart of Bitcoin’s intellectual core as industry veterans clash over the future of custody, sovereignty, and the role of ETFs in driving mainstream adoption. The latest spark came from investor Fred Krueger, who endorsed Nick Szabo’s call for a dual strategy. Sponsored ETFs Enter the Crossfire in Bitcoin’s Growing Self-Custody Debate Krueger urges followers to adopt institutional rails, such as banks and ETFs, while fiercely protecting the right to self-custody. “Szabo is right,” Krueger wrote. “The answer is BOTH: welcome adoption by Banks, ETFs, and the greater establishment. And at the same time, encourage and practice self-custody. And defend the right to self-custody.” His stance aims to bridge the widening divide between Bitcoin purists, who prize personal sovereignty, and ETF defenders, who argue that scale requires traditional infrastructure. The discussion dates back to November 30, after Bram Kanstein argued that gold is so effective at serving as money that it has been replaced by paper notes created from nothing. Szabo responded with a historical explanation: gold’s centralization in vaults and its poor resistance to theft made trust-based alternatives more practical for merchants and banks. That centralization eventually led to gold being partially replaced by bills of exchange and telegraphic wire transfers. Sponsored Szabo stressed that Bitcoin solves key weaknesses around speed and verification, but still lags in one critical dimension: theft resistance. “Bitcoin is, without further work and as most commonly used, still below the best trust-based methods in its theft resistance,” wrote Szabo. This contributes to Wall Street’s preference for third-party custody. ETFs vs. Self-Custody: A Philosophical Standoff That context fueled a wider ideological rift. Bloomberg’s Eric Balchunas questioned why “snobby OGs” accept exchanges holding Bitcoin but oppose ETFs. Balchunas argues that both rely on outsourced custody and that ETFs are “waaay…