2025年11月18日，瑞士金融市场监管局监管的AMINA银行香港子公司获得香港证监会Type 1牌照升级，成为首家在香港提供全面加密货币现货交易和托管服务的国际银行集团。该平台支持包括比特币和以太坊在内的13种加密货币，为专业投资者提供24/7交易、SOC 2认证托管和机构级执行服务。 这一里程碑事件标志着香港数字资产监管框架的快速演进，2025年香港数字资产市场实现了233%的同比增长，机构对安全合规托管基础设施的需求持续攀升。

AMINA（香港）有限公司获香港证监会Type 1牌照，成为首家向专业投资者提供加密现货交易与资产保管的国际银行集团。服务覆盖多种加密资产，并计划扩展至私募基金管理和衍生品等领域。

Linea 作为以太坊第二层网路，由 ConsenSys 创立，采用 Type 2 zkEVM 技术。本文深入解析其技术、生态系统发展、独特的代币经济学和未来路线图。本文源自金色财经所着文章，由 PANews 整理、编译及撰稿。 （前情提要：Linea 空投倒数计时：当 L2 开始反哺以太坊 ） （背景补充：Linea 即将 TGE，Etherex 能否打响 Linea 发币前的第一枪？ ） Linea 将自己定位为「为增强以太坊而生的以太坊第二层网路 (L2)」。使命看似简单，却充满力量。随着以太坊在过去两个月内价格大幅回升，并接近新的高点，Linea 已迅速成为加密领域最受期待的专案之一，

CoinVoice 最新获悉，Batoshi Foundation（beraBTC 发行与运营方）宣布联合 Matrixport 旗下托管品牌 Cactus Custody，为其链上 BTC 国库与 beraBTC 体系提供多签 + 冷热分离 + HSM 等机构级安全托管。服务通过德勤审计 SOC 1 Type 1 / SOC 2 Type 2 认证，合规透明，机构可信、用户安心。 用户用于在 Berachain 上铸造 beraBTC 的 BTC 将通过与 Cactus Custody 的托管协作进行安全保管，确保资金可核验、可追溯、可赎回。 Batoshi Foundation 基于

香港最大持牌虚拟资产交易所 HashKey Exchange今日宣布，HashKey Custody Services Limited\\（以下简称为“HashKey Exchange”）成功通过SOC 1 Type 2与SOC 2 Type 2双重认证，成为业内少数同时获得这两项国际权威认证的企业之一。这标志着HashKey Exchange在合规和安全方面的持续进展，为个人和机构投资者提供更值得信赖的企业级数字资产服务。 HashKey Exchange 此次同时获得两项认证，彰显了其在数字资产服务领域的专业实力和合规优势。其中，SOC 1 Type 2认证重点验证了HashKey Ex

原文标题：《Type III Stablecoins》 原文作者：STANFORD BLOCKCHAIN CLUB 编译｜Odaily星球日报 Ethan（@ethanzhang\_web3）  稳定币作为加密货币领域的关键组成部分，流动性资产总市值已突破 2000 亿美元，稳居当今加密市场的核心地位。有人认为，稳定币规模已与波动剧烈的加密市场脱钩——尽管 2025 年加密市场出现回调，

数字资产交易平台OSL宣布成功完成连续第二年的SOC 2 Type 2报告，证明其托管、自动交易服务和软件即服务等业务领域均拥有高标准的安全性、可用性和保密性。该报告发布周期已改为每年一次，以更全面评估数据安全管理控制和有效性，突显该公司对透明度、合规性和数据安全保护的承诺。

* * * * * If the SEC were a sports team measured by its “win” rate, it would be a runaway champ. But that win-loss record suffered a mild hit — and its first ever loss in an “ICO” case — one that refers to the controversial method of crowd fundraising and that borrows from the public company “IPO” or initial public offering. A federal judge denied the SEC a preliminary injunction against Blockvest after he granted a temporary restraining order on the same issue. We chat with Amit Singh, attorney and shareholder in Stradling’s corporate and securities practice group about the SEC’s fresh loss. His take? They’ll be out for blood, next. **For those not in the know, share the legal background leading up to this case.** In October of this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Blockvest LLC and its founder, Reginald Buddy Ringgold III. According to the complaint, Blockvest falsely claimed its planned December initial coin offering was “registered” and “approved” by the SEC and created a fake regulatory agency, the Blockchain Exchange Commission, which included a phony logo that was nearly identical to that of the SEC. The SEC also alleged Blockvest conducted pre-sales of its digital token, BLV, ahead of the ICO and raised more than $2.5 million. The SEC’s complaint alleged violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange and the Securities Act and violations of the Securities Act’s prohibitions against the offer and sale of unregistered securities in the absence of an exemption from the registration requirements. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel issued a temporary restraining order “freezing assets, prohibiting the destruction of documents, granting expedited discovery, requiring accounting and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted” on October 5, 2018. On Tuesday, November 27, in the SEC’s first loss in stopping an ICO, judge Gonzalo Curiel stated that the SEC had not shown at this stage of the case that the BLV tokens were securities under the Howey Test, a decades-old test established by the U.S. Supreme Court for determining whether certain transactions are investment contracts and thus securities. If the tokens weren’t securities, all the SEC’s other allegations automatically fail Under the Howey Test, a transaction is an investment contract (or security) if: – It is an investment of money; – There is an expectation of profits from the investment; – The investment of money is in a common enterprise; and – Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party Later cases have expanded the term “money” in the Howey Test to include investment assets other than money. The judge said that the SEC failed to show investors had an expectation of profits. “While defendants claim that they had an expectation in Blockvest’s future business, no evidence is provided to support the test investors’ expectation of profits,” the judge wrote. Blockvest argued that the pre-ICO money came from 32 “test investors” and said the BLV tokens were only designed for testing its platform. It presented statements from several investors who said they either did not buy BLV tokens or rely on any representations that the SEC has alleged are false. The SEC responded by noting that various individuals wrote “Blockvest” or “coins” on their checks and were provided with a Blockvest ICO white paper describing the project and the terms of the ICO. Judge Curiel said that evidence, by itself, wasn’t enough: “Merely writing ‘Blockvest or coins’ on their checks is not sufficient to demonstrate what promotional materials or economic inducements these purchasers were presented with prior to their investments. Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated that ‘securities’ were sold to [these] individuals.” **Won’t the case proceed? Why is the denial of an injunction important here?** This does not mean that the SEC cannot pursue an action against the defendants Rather it just means that the SEC didn’t meet the high burden required to receive a preliminary injunction of proving “(1) a prima facie case of previous violations of federal securities laws, and (2) a reasonable likelihood that the wrong will be repeated.” The court determined that, at this stage, without full discovery and disputed issues of material facts, the Court could not decide whether the BLV token were securities. Since the SEC didn’t meet its burden of proving the tokens were securities in the first place, it couldn’t have shown that there was a previous violation of the federal securities laws So, the first prong was not met Further, the defendants agreed to stop the ICO and provide 30 days’ prior notice to the SEC if they intend to move forward with the ICO So, the court determined that there was not a reasonable likelihood that the wrong will be repeated As a result, the SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied. Nonetheless, this is an important case as it is the first time the SEC went after an ICO issuer and the issuer pushed back and won (if only temporarily) It reminds us that, though most people think of the SEC as judge and jury in securities actions, that isn’t the case Ultimately, an issuer that pushes back may have a chance if it has the wherewithal to fight and if it has good arguments However, this does not mean that the SEC is done with them and we may very well see this case continue. **Won’t media coverage of this case ultimately impair Blockvest’s ability to raise funds — its ultimate goal?** That may very well be the case. Unfortunately, unsophisticated investors could ultimately merely remember the Blockvest name and decide that it must be a good investment since they’ve heard of it (ala PT Barnum – “I don’t care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right.”). But I may be too cynical (hopefully I am). In any case, I would be surprised if Blockvest attempts to pursue an ICO without either registering the tokens or utilizing an exemption from the registration requirements. They clearly have a target on their back, so the SEC would love another crack at them I’m sure. Plus, even though a preliminary injunction was denied here, the SEC still got what it wanted as Blockvest agreed not to pursue the ICO without giving the SEC 30 days’ prior notice of its intent to do so. So, the investing public was ultimately protected. **What is the SEC’s current stance on what constitutes a security based on this case?** The SEC will still point to the Howey Test Further, as stated in recent speeches by Hinman and others, the SEC seems to be focused not only on the utility of any tokens (i.e., they can be used on the platform for which they were created), but also on decentralization (that the efforts of the promoters are no longer required to maintain the value/utility of the tokens/platform). However, the court in this case looked at the investment of money prong differently than has historically been the case Normally, the investment of money prong is assumed with little analysis as any consideration is considered “money” for purposes of the test But this case looked at the investment not from the purchaser’s subjective intent when committing funds, but instead based the analysis on what was offered to prospective purchasers and what information they relied on So, issuers are well advised to be very careful in how they advertise an offering. Further, the expectation of profits prong wasn’t met because, according to Blockvest, these were just test investors So, it wasn’t clear these folks invested for a profit The tokens were never even used or sold outside the platform. **Where does the Ninth Circuit sit in regards to what is a security?** The Ninth Circuit follows the Howey Test. However, the common enterprise element has received extensive and varied analysis in the federal circuit courts For example, while all circuits accept “horizontal” commonality as satisfying the common enterprise prong of the Howey Test, a minority of circuits (including the ninth) also accept “vertical” commonality in this analysis. Horizontal commonality involves the pooling of assets, profits and risks in a unitary enterprise, while vertical commonality requires that profits of investors be “interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts and success of those seeking the investment or of third parties” (narrow verticality), or “that the well-being of all investors be dependent upon the promoter’s expertise” (broad commonality). SEC v. SG Ltd., 265 F.3d 42, 49 (1st Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit is the only one to accept the narrow vertical approach (though it also accepts horizontal commonality), which finds a common enterprise if there is a correlation between the fortunes of an investor and a promoter.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Eurobond Exchange, Ltd., 13 F.3d 1334, 1339 (9th Cir., 1994). Under this approach a common enterprise is a venture “in which the ‘fortunes of the investor are interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts and success of those seeking the investment….'” Investors’ funds need not be pooled; rather the fortunes of the investors must be linked with those of the promoters, which suffices to establish vertical commonality. So, a common enterprise exists if a direct correlation has been established between success or failure of the promoter’s efforts and success or failure of the investment. **Which Federal Circuits might offer an equal or even bigger split with the SEC?** I wouldn’t really say that any courts split with the SEC as the SEC’s decisions take precedent over any decisions of those courts. However, there is a split among the circuits as described above with respect to what type of commonality is sufficient to find a common enterprise. **What impact could the outcome of this case have on ICOs at large?** This case may embolden companies who have already conducted ICOs to push back on any SEC actions that they might not otherwise fight as it shows that the SEC will always have to meet the burden of proving all factors of the Howey Test are met before the SEC has jurisdiction over the offering in the first place. **Has the Supreme Court addressed anything crypto, crypto related, or analogous?** The only case I know of where the Supreme court has addressed crypto currencies is Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States. That was a case about whether stock counts as “money remuneration” The dissent in that case talked about how our concept of money has changed over time and said that perhaps “one day employees will be paid in bitcoin or some other type of cryptocurrency.” This goes against the IRS’s position that cryptocurrencies are property and should be taxed as such But, it was just a passing comment in the dissent. So, it has no precedential value. But, it may embolden someone to fight the IRS’s position.

文章讨论了两种加密资产：L1代币和「Type 2」代币（dapp/L2/股权代币）。L1代币具有主权稀缺资产属性，代表了对应区块链经济的实际劳动/GDP，具有非常重要、根本的属性。而「Type 2」代币则通常与「股权」进行比较，并通过市盈率DCF模型进行估值。最后，文章预计在未来许多「Type 2」代币会使用类型1代币作为转变成主权资产的指南。

L1代币具有重要的L1溢价属性，是主权稀缺资产和链经济体中最具流动性的资产；而L2代币则通常属于“Type 2”、归入市盈率DCF估值模型，属于非主权稀缺资产，其代表的是数字经济中的实际劳动/GDP。Gas和质押带来的安全性是一种技术信号，是基于主权稀缺资产建立的社会协议，但本身并不是一个重要的价值捕获功能。FraxFinance将发布2030年愿景路线图，重点是如何将L2/治理/PE代币转变为主权资产。

TL;DR ●OP Succinct 提供的主要功能是将 ZKP 融入 OP Stack 的模块化架构中以完成将 OP Stack Rollup 转换为完全验证的 ZK Rollup； ●如果以太坊未来扩展的终局是将每个 Rollup 都转化为 ZK Rollup，OP Succinct 的目的是结合 Rust 和 SP1 实现 OP Stack 的 Type-1 zkEVM（完全以太坊等效）的部署； ●OP Succinct Proposer 主要完成了并行生成证明和证明聚合与验证； ●OP Stack 现有系统依赖于 "7 天防欺诈窗口"，如产生争议会延期一周的交易验证，OP

TL;DR ● OP Succinct 提供的主要功能是将 ZKP 融入 OP Stack 的模块化架构中以完成将 OP Stack Rollup 转换为完全验证的 ZK Rollup； ● 如果以太坊未来扩展的终局是将每个 Rollup 都转化为 ZK Rollup，OP Succinct 的目的是结合 Rust 和 SP1 实现 OP Stack 的 Type-1 zkEVM（完全以太坊等效）的部署； ● OP Succinct Proposer 主要完成了并行生成证明和证明聚合与验证； ● OP Stack 现有系统依赖于 "7

作者：YBB Capital 研究员 Ac-Core TLDR OP Succinct 的主要功能是将 ZKP 集成到 OP Stack 的模块化架构中，将 OP Stack Rollups 转换为经过完全验证的 ZK Rollups。 如果以太坊未来的扩展解决方案是将所有 Rollups 转换为 ZK Rollups，那么 OP Succinct 旨在利用 Rust 和 SP1 在 OP Stack 中部署 Type-1 zkEVM（完全与以太坊等效）。 OP Succinct Proposer 并行实现证明生成，以及证明聚合和验证。 现有的 OP Stack 系统依赖于“7

原文作者： Ryan Kim, Edward Tan, Dan Park 原文编译：深潮 TechFlow  想象一下，在这个世界里，以太坊的可扩展性是无止境的，交易速度快如闪电，用户隐私是神圣不可侵犯的。这不是一个遥远的梦想，而是一个迅速接近的现实，这一切都归功于 Taiko。 作为主要投资者，我们很高兴支持 Taiko 在以太坊生态系统中进行革命性创新的旅程，他们的Type-1

来源：IFLR 编译：比推BitpushNews Yanan 来自Kim & Chang律师事务所的Seung Jae Yoo，Gye-Jeong Kim及Sung Yun Kang三位律师梳理了不断演变的韩国加密资产监管体系。 2022年5月3日，韩国政府发布公告，计划依据《金融投资服务与资本市场法》对“证券型代币（security-type tokens）”进行监管。同时，韩国政府还将颁布《数字资产框架法》，以全面监管与虚拟/数字资产相关的所有事务，包括非证券型代币。 作为该计划的一部分，韩国金融委员会发布了针对特定证券型代币发行和分配的《代币证券指南》（the Token Se...

作者：umede.eth；编译：Odaily 星球日报 jk 编者按：据 Odaily 星球日报， 6 月 8 日基于 zkRollup 的以太坊二层网络 Taiko 完成共计 2200 万美元的两轮种子轮融资。第一轮融资 1000 万美元，红杉中国领投，于 2022 年第三季度结束。最近的第二轮融资 1200 万美元，Generative Ventures 领投。 如果你稍微关注零知识证明以太坊领域的动态，你可能听说过 Polygon、Starkware、Scroll 和 zkSync 这些名字。 事实上，你可能不仅听说过它们，还在 Twitter 上看到它们为各种问题争论不休：zkE...

作者：s，风投分析师；翻译：金色财经xiaozou Kakarot zkEVM是什么？为什么它能得到V神和StarkWare的支持？Kakarot把EVM带到Starknet之上，促进了EVM dApp的扩展。让我们深入了解一下吧！ 我们已经启动并进入了超级赛亚人模式。Kakarot Labs已经正式成立并完成了与顶级投资者的pre-seed早期融资。 让我们来展望发展愿景、明确当前地位、期待美好的未来吧。 本文将主要介绍以下内容：1、什么是CairoVM？2、什么是Cairo？3、EVM架构；4、Kakarot架构；5、zkEVM的Type分型；6、Kakarot路线图；7、...

Type!t是全球首款Web3输入法，基于加密技术和去中心化存储等功能来保护用户的使用数据和其他隐私信息，同时还具备Type To Earn、Gamefi、加密聊天、AI词库等Web3功能。