X’s Grok chatbot declined to select a winner for a $1,000 Ethereum giveaway organized by crypto influencer Crypto Rover, citing prior allegations of pump-and-dump activity detailed by on-chain investigator ZachXBT.

In replies to users participating in the weekend contest, Grok stated it was abstaining from choosing a winner due to “substantiated reports” implicating Rover in schemes that could compromise community safety.

The messages are now unavailable but circulated in screenshots showing Grok referencing ZachXBT’s findings and calling for caution. The interaction stemmed from a routine promotional giveaway in which Rover, who posts under @rovercrc and has over 1 million followers, invited users to like, repost, and follow his account for a chance to win the prize.

As ZachXBT reported, the allegations center on a project Rover was contracted to promote in May 2023. The deal included a $10,000 payment, a percentage of the project’s token supply.

According to the investigation, Rover made no promotional posts as agreed and later claimed he would delay content until “better market conditions,” while threatening legal action against the project’s team for attempting to call him out.

ZachXBT linked Rover’s wallet activity to subsequent token sales, generating roughly 40 ETH in profits. The funds were routed to a known Bybit deposit address previously associated with Rover.

The probe also identified 10 fresh wallets tied to the same promotional period that accumulated 9 percent of the token’s supply shortly before Rover posted about the asset. The project team behind the meme coin ceased communications shortly after, with no further updates beyond May 2023. In previous posts, Rover reportedly stated he could “pump projects from half a million to ten million easy,” a remark ZachXBT highlighted as part of a broader pattern of manipulative behavior.

Rover did not publicly address Grok’s specific decision and has continued to tag Grok for his next giveaway.

Not all of Grok’s responses refused to engage with Crypto Rover. Many replies to Crypto Rover and his followers affirmed that the bot would select a winner for the giveaway. However, per the latest posts, none was chosen by the bot.

Grok, developed by xAI, has previously drawn scrutiny for its erratic output, including unverified claims and inflammatory responses, though its creators position it as a “maximally truth-seeking” assistant.

ZachXBT’s forensic investigations have become a fixture in crypto accountability circles, with previous work cited in law enforcement actions and asset recoveries totaling over US $210 million, per a 2024 Wired profile.

Mentioned in this article

Anchorage Digital, a crypto custodian and federally chartered bank, said it will start phasing out and direct institutional clients to convert USDC

and other stablecoins into rival token Global Dollar (USDG) in a sweeping move that drew criticism from industry players.

The firm released a “Stablecoin Safety Matrix” that ranks stablecoins based on regulatory oversight and reserve asset management on Tuesday.

Circle-issued USDC, which is the second-largest stablecoin with a $61 billion supply and is popular among institutions, was deemed no longer suitable under Anchorage’s security framework. Two other, smaller tokens, Agora USD (AUSD) and Usual USD (USD0), were also slated for removal. Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies with their prices tied to an external asset, predominantly to the U.S. dollar.

“Following our Stablecoin Safety Matrix, USDC, AUSD, and USD0 no longer satisfy Anchorage Digital’s internal criteria for long-term resilience,” Rachel Anderika, head of global operations at Anchorage, said in a statement justifying the decision. “Specifically, we identified elevated concentration risks associated with their issuer structures — something we believe institutions should carefully evaluate.”

“Anchorage Digital is focused on supporting stablecoins that demonstrate strong transparency, independence, security, and alignment with future regulatory expectations,” she added.

Stablecoin race heats up

The move came at a time when competition in the stablecoin market is heating up with global banks, payments firms and crypto companies jockeying for position in the rapidly-growing sector.

The U.S. Senate recently passed the GENIUS Act that aims to enact clear rules for the asset class and issuers, which could open the gates for broader adoption. On Friday, White House crypto czar David Sacks suggested that the bill may become law as soon as next month, pending passage in the House of Representatives.

Reports by Citi and Standard Chartered reports projected the asset class to grow from the current $250 billion to trillions through the next few years. Circle (CRCL), the company behind the USDC token, recently went public and skyrocketed in valuation.

Anchorage gave USDC a score of 2 out of 5 for regulatory oversight and reserve management. The report said there was “no substantive prudential oversight” and that Circle had a large — about 15% — amount of its reserves held in cash at banks. Notably, USDC depegged temporarily in March 2023 when partner bank Silicon Valley Bank went under. Tether’s USDT, the world’s largest stablecoin, had a higher rating with Anchorage pointing to it being regulated in El Salvador.

S&P Ratings rated USDC “strong,” its second-best rating in its stablecoin stability assessment. Bluechip, a crypto-native stablecoin rating firm, gave USDC a B+ rating in its economic safety rating.

Industry leaders push back

Anchorage’s decision met with fierce pushback.

Nick Van Eck, whose firm Agora issues AUSD, accused Anchorage of misrepresenting facts about his stablecoin and failing to disclose its commercial interest in Global Dollar. USDG is issued by Paxos and is backed by a consortium of firms that share the income from the reserve assets backing the token. Anchorage is a founding partner in that consortium.

“If Anchorage had just delisted USDC and AUSD to prioritize the stablecoins that they have an economic interest in, I would understand it as a business decision,” he said in an X post. “But attempting to delegitimize AUSD and USDC for ‘security concerns,’ while knowingly publishing false information, is unserious and bizarre.”

“Never seen such an obvious hit piece be so poorly executed,” said Viktor Bunin, protocol specialist at digital asset exchange Coinbase. Coinbase jointly launched USDC with Circle in 2018, and shared revenue from the reserve assets backing the token.

Jan Van Eck, father of Nick Van Eck and CEO of asset manager Van Eck, which manages AUSD’s backing assets, also questioned the risk assessment.

“If you need a laugh, check out this ‘safety’ matrix before Anchorage pulls it down. According to the matrix, Circle’s USDC (world’s second largest stablecoin) and AUSD (backed 100% by treasuries) have reserve issues,” he posted on X. “Oh, and by the way, AUSD’s reserve manager is regulated by umpteen different regulators.”

Circle, in a statement sent to CoinDesk, defended the firm’s “long-standing compliance record” and “strong reputation as an industry leader.”

“We comply with the prevailing U.S. regulatory standards that apply to leading fintech and payments firms, and we were the first stablecoin issuer to achieve full compliance with the European Union’s landmark crypto law,” a Circle spokesperson said. “USDC is 100% backed by fiat-denominated reserves and has robust primary liquidity through a well-developed network of banks, representing what we view as the highest levels of transparency, safety, and operational resiliency in our industry.”

Support came for Circle and Agora outside of the two stablecoins’ camp.

“For the record, BitGo is not dropping USDC support,” said Chen Fang, chief revenue officer at crypto custodian BitGo.

“Agora and Circle are long-standing partners of ours, and our customers count on safe, transparent rails for USD settlement,” said Joshua Lim, co-head of markets at crypto prime broker FalconX, adding that his company “is ready to support clients using AUSD and USDC.”

One of the biggest financial institutions based in the United Kingdom (UK) is blocking all crypto transactions on its bank cards.

In a new post, UK banking titan Barclays says it is barring all digital asset-related transactions on its proprietary payment cards starting on June 27th due to the volatile price of cryptocurrencies and because they are uninsured assets.

“It’s not possible to make cryptocurrency transactions using a Barclaycard. From 27 June 2025, we’ll block crypto transactions made with a Barclaycard because we recognize there are certain risks with purchasing cryptocurrencies.

We’re doing this because a fall in the price of crypto assets could lead to customers finding themselves in debt they can’t afford to repay. There’s also no protection for crypto assets if something goes wrong with a purchase, as they’re not covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service and Financial Services Compensation Scheme.”

However, despite the recent ban on crypto assets, previous reports indicate that Barclays has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into IBIT, BlackRock’s Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded fund (ETF), which launched in January 2024 and is currently the largest BTC-based ETF by trading volume.

In February, the bank disclosed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it holds 2,473,064 shares of IBIT, worth nearly $137 million at the time.

IBIT is trading at 60.98 at time of writing, representing a 1.5% increase over the last 24 hours.

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

&nbsp

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.

Featured Image: Shutterstock/vvaldmann/Natalia Siiatovskaia

The European Union’s insurance authority has proposed a blanket rule that would mandate insurance firms to maintain capital equal to the value of their crypto holdings as part of a measure to mitigate risks for policyholders.

The new proposal — made by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority in a Technical Advice report to the European Commission on March 27 — would set a far stricter standard than other asset classes, such as stocks and real estate, which don’t even need to be half-backed.

“EIOPA considers a 100% haircut in the standard formula prudent and appropriate for these assets in view of their inherent risks and high volatility,” it said in a separate statement.

Such a measure would fill a regulatory gap between the Capital Requirements Regulation and Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), EIOPA said, noting that the European Union’s regulatory framework for insurers currently lacks specific provisions on crypto assets.

EIOPA outlined four options for the European Commission to consider — one: make no changes; two: mandate an 80% “stress level” to crypto assets; and three: mandate a 100% stress level to crypto asset.

The stress level percentages determine how much capital firms need to hold to stay solvent.

The fourth option called on the European Commission to consider the risks of tokenized assets more broadly.

EIOPA said option three would be the most appropriate option.

“An 80% stress to the value of crypto-asset exposures does not appear sufficiently prudent,” whereas “a 100% stress is more appropriate and aligns with one of the approaches to the transitional treatment of crypto-assets under CRR,” EIOPA said.

The 100% stress refers to the assumption that the crypto asset prices could fall by 100% and that diversification — spreading the risk across different assets — wouldn’t not reduce this stress. EIOPA pointed out that Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) have fallen 82% and 91%, respectively, in the past.

A 100% capital charge for crypto assets would reflect a far stricter approach compared to stocks, which range between 39% and 49%, and real estate, which incurs a 25% capital charge, according to solvency capital requirements laid out in the Commission Delegated Regulation 2015/35.

EIOPA said a 100% capital charge for crypto asset-related (re)insurance undertakings shouldn’t be “overly burdensome” and that there would be no material costs for policyholders.

“The capital requirements would fully capture the risk of crypto-asset with a positive impact on policyholder protection in case there are material exposures in the future.”

Related: Tabit offers USD insurance policies backed by Bitcoin regulatory capital

EIOPA acknowledged that the share of crypto-asset (re)insurance undertakings accounts for just 655 million euros or 0.0068% of all undertakings in Europe — even referring to it as “immaterial.”

“At the same time crypto assets are high risk investments which may result in total loss of value,” EIOPA said, explaining why it recommends option three.

Luxembourg and Sweden could be hit hardest by the proposed rule

Insurers in Luxembourg and Sweden are likely to be the most affected, according to a Q4 2023 report cited by EIOPA, which found that these two countries accounted for 69% and 21% of all crypto asset-related exposures among (re)insurance undertakings.

Ireland, Denmark and Liechtenstein also accounted for 3.4%, 1.4% and 1.2% of the undertakings. 

Most of these undertakings are structured within funds, such as exchange-traded funds, and held on behalf of unit-linked policyholders, EIOPA noted.

EIOPA, however, acknowledged that a broader adoption of crypto assets in the future may require a more “differentiated approach.”

Magazine: Crypto fans are obsessed with longevity and biohacking: Here’s why

The head of the Central Bank of Switzerland is reportedly skeptical about holding Bitcoin (BTC) as a reserve asset.

According to a new report from SwissInfo, Swiss National Bank (SNB) President Martin Schlegel is against using BTC as a reserve asset, namely because of volatility, liquidity and security.

Schlegel says that digital assets don’t meet the requirements that solid currencies should have. He believes that crypto assets are too volatile to be favorable for long-term investments and too illiquid to be in the bank’s reserves.

He also questions the security of the blockchains underpinning crypto assets, saying that they could run into bugs or have “weak points.”

The proposal for Switzerland to hold Bitcoin as a reserve asset was first introduced last December. The initiative, titled “For a financially strong, sovereign and responsible Switzerland (Bitcoin Initiative)” called for the SNB to build currency reserves from its earnings with BTC and gold.

Schlegel goes on to say that the SNB believes the digital asset industry is still an under-the-radar phenomenon in the grand scheme of things, pointing toward its relatively small $3.08 trillion market cap.

The executive goes on to note that the Swiss franc – which the SNB is tasked with protecting – is doing well relative to other currencies and thus, the bank is “not afraid of competition from cryptocurrencies.”

Don’t Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inbox

Check Price Action

Follow us on X, Facebook and Telegram

Surf The Daily Hodl Mix

&nbsp

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

What just happened? Intel announced a significant revision to the construction timeline of its Ohio One semiconductor manufacturing site in New Albany. The setback is the third substantial delay from the facility’s original 2025 completion target. Intel emphasizes its commitment to the project and its ability to accelerate construction if market demand warrants.

The first phase of the facility, known as Mod 1, should be finished in 2030, with chip production beginning between 2030 and 2031. The company’s revised timeline also affects the project’s second phase, Mod 2, pushing it back to a 2031 completion date, with operations beginning in 2032.

The Ohio One campus, once dubbed the “Silicon Heartland,” is an ambitious undertaking. It will span approximately 1,000 acres and include up to eight semiconductor fabrication plants. The site will also accommodate support operations and industry partners. Initial investment estimates were around $20 billion, with potential for up to $100 billion in total development costs.

Despite the frequent delays, the site has made significant construction progress since work began in 2022. Key milestones include completion of the underground foundation, commencement of above-ground construction, installation of air separation units and underground piping, pouring over 200,000 cubic yards of concrete, and more than 6.4 million hours of invested labor.

The revised timeline reveals that the Ohio facilities will utilize process technologies developed after Intel’s 14A and 14A-E nodes, currently scheduled for introduction in 2026-2027. These advanced manufacturing processes will likely rely on ASML’s cutting-edge High-NA EUV lithography tools, costing around $350 million each.

Intel has already begun hiring and training employees for the Ohio facility. Workers are receiving training at existing Intel sites in Arizona, New Mexico, and Oregon, preparing them for the eventual opening of the local facility.

Intel’s decision to delay the Ohio plant opening comes amid a challenging period for the company and the semiconductor industry. The past year has seen Intel grappling with financial losses, layoffs, and leadership changes. The company has also made strategic decisions to simplify its product roadmap, including canceling an AI chip project.

While the delay may raise concerns about Intel’s outlook on future demand, it also allows the company to manage its capital expenditures more effectively during market uncertainty. By postponing significant investments in production equipment, Intel can focus on returning to profitability while maintaining the flexibility to ramp up operations when market conditions improve.