BlockBeats reported that on April 19, Morpho said it has temporarily paused the OFT cross-chain bridge for the MORPHO token on Arbitrum as a precaution, following recent incidents involving KelpDAO and LayerZero. Morpho added that cross-chain functionality on Arbitrum will remain suspended until the root cause of the rsETH incident is identified.

Solana recorded its first $1.1 trillion quarter in Q1 2026, according to Artemis, up about 29% from $850B in Q4 2025 and nearly double Q3 2025's $600B. The network processed 25.3 billion transactions during the quarter, the highest among major blockchains. User activity also climbed. Daily active addresses reached 3.78 million, a 72% jump from the 2.2 million average in Q1 2025. Unique token holders set a new high at 167 million in April. Despite the stronger on-chain metrics, $SOL is trading around $88, down more than 30% year to date and about 65% below its 52-week high of $247 in September 2025. The widening gap between network fundamentals and token performance has become a central theme in crypto markets. Institutional demand is still building. Spot $SOL ETFs now hold more than $1B in AUM, and prospective Fed Chair Kevin Warsh was recently disclosed as a $SOL holder, a stake that would require divestiture.

Aave has seen more than $5.4 billion in ETH leave the protocol as concerns mount over fallout from an rsETH-related exploit. Lookonchain said the Kelp DAO incident left Aave exposed to bad debt after an attacker deposited rsETH and used it to drain ETH. The report has fueled a wave of large-holder withdrawals. Justin Sun reportedly pulled 65,584 ETH, worth about $154 million, from the platform. Amid the rush for exits, Aave's ETH utilization rate has climbed to 100%.

By Zen, PANews South Korea's stablecoin market is approaching a key inflection point. Over the past two weeks, increasingly explicit signals from central bank officials, tangible movement in the legislative process, and a fresh round of high-level engagements by Circle and Tether have pushed the conversation beyond broad principles. The debate is now moving into the harder work of institutional design and interest alignment. For global issuers, South Korea is shifting from a market to watch to a market to position for early—a contest over who gets a seat in the next-generation digital financial architecture. From restriction to regulation: framework design enters a decisive stage Policy direction is becoming more legible. On April 14, Shin Hyunsoong, nominee for Governor of the Bank of Korea, said won-denominated stablecoins could play a role in the monetary ecosystem and may be both complementary and competitive with a central bank digital currency and deposit tokens. Markets read the remarks as a notable softening in tone. Earlier guidance from senior Bank of Korea officials had pointed to a gradual rollout: issuance of KRW stablecoins would begin with tightly supervised commercial banks, then potentially broaden to non-bank institutions once operational experience accumulates. The message is not full liberalization, but sequencing—bringing banks into the system first, expanding later. In parallel, the Bank of Korea is running a deposit-token pilot known as "Project Han River." The program has entered its second phase, expanding participation to nine banks, with plans to extend deposit-token use into more real-world payment settings. Public-sector testing is also underway for subsidies and government spending, signaling that Korea is exploring how to institutionalize bank-issued digital money. The discussion in Seoul has accordingly shifted from "should stablecoins be allowed" to "how should the stack be structured." Policymakers are weighing the hierarchy and interaction among won-backed stablecoins, bank deposit tokens, and dollar-backed stablecoins, alongside questions of who can issue, how foreign players can enter, and what role local financial groups should play. Rather than converging on a single track, a three-part framework is taking shape: bank-led deposit tokens as the core, regulated KRW stablecoins as a supplement, and conditionally accessible foreign-currency stablecoins—primarily USD-denominated—at the perimeter. Circle vs. Tether: two paths into Korea Circle's positioning is the most explicit and broadly aligns with Korea's emerging regulatory preference for domestic issuance. On April 13 in Seoul, Circle co-founder and CEO Jeremy Allaire said the company does not plan to issue its own Korean won stablecoin. He suggested a more likely model in which a consortium of Korean banks, fintech firms, and digital-asset companies issues a won stablecoin, while Circle supplies operational technology, platform capabilities, and cross-chain infrastructure. Allaire also said that if Korea's forthcoming Digital Assets Basic Act creates a compliance pathway for overseas stablecoin issuers, Circle would be willing to apply for a license and establish a local legal entity. The message: Circle is seeking entry as a regulated technology and platform provider, not simply as a token issuer. Circle's Korea playbook has been described as multi-pronged: sustained regulator engagement, bank partnership talks, exploration of an exchange footprint, and pilots tied to payments. Public information indicates Circle has discussed cross-border remittances, settlement, and RWA technology support with institutions including KB, Shinhan, and Hana, while advancing conversations with platforms such as Dunamu and Bithumb. A central focus is how the Digital Assets Basic Act could define access conditions for overseas issuers—a long-horizon strategy built around licensing, local incorporation, and infrastructure partnerships. Tether has been quieter publicly in Korea, but active behind the scenes. In early April, Tether representatives visited South Korea and met with groups including KB Financial Group and Coinone to discuss potential cooperation. Disclosures suggest the trip continued outreach that began last year, with an emphasis on expanding circulation and trading of its stablecoin. Tether's Korea narrative leans toward demand and use cases. In late March, Tether representatives appeared on an AMCHAM Korea stablecoin panel, addressing global adoption, market expansion, and cross-border liquidity. Korean media later cited comments arguing that Korea trails in global payment infrastructure and that stablecoins could improve cross-border e-commerce, tourism spending, and international settlement efficiency. The contrast is increasingly clear. Circle is trying to embed itself inside the rulebook: accepting that KRW stablecoins are likely to be issued primarily by domestic institutions and pitching its stack—payments rails, compliance interfaces, and infrastructure. Tether appears focused on expanding USDT's transactional footprint through trading, circulation, and payment demand, seeking to cement dollar-stablecoin utility first. What comes next: a slow, layered opening South Korea's stablecoin market is likely to evolve along a path of localization, stratification, and gradualism, with broad liberalization still distant. The Democratic Party has urged that the relevant bill advance in a National Assembly committee by the end of this month, but procedural steps, local elections, and other legislative priorities could slow consensus-building. Key disputes remain unresolved: whether bank-centered issuance should be the default for won-backed stablecoins; whether non-banks and fintechs can participate; how to structure restrictions on major shareholders of virtual-asset exchanges; and whether overseas issuers must establish local entities and meet additional reserve or foreign-exchange compliance requirements. Over the short to medium term, policymakers are more likely to prioritize domestic KRW stablecoins and bank deposit tokens before finalizing access rules for foreign stablecoins. For Circle and Tether, the near-term prize is not just market share, but who secures the earliest foothold at the interface layer of Korea's future digital-currency system.

BlockBeats reported on April 19 that April is shaping up as one of the cryptocurrency industry's worst months for hacking losses. At least 13 protocols and platforms have been attacked in incidents of varying size, with total losses now exceeding $600 million. Two of the largest cases involved Drift and KelpDAO, each suffering losses above $280 million. Investigators have linked several major attacks to North Korea-connected hacking groups. Key incidents include: - April 1: Drift Protocol, Solana's largest decentralized perpetuals trading platform, was hacked for about $285 million. On-chain preparation began March 11 after the attacker withdrew 10 ETH from Tornado Cash and unfolded over nearly three weeks. The exploit itself took 12 minutes, and most funds were bridged to Ethereum within hours via Circle's CCTP. The breach ranks as Solana's second-largest security incident, behind the 2022 Wormhole cross-chain bridge exploit that lost $326 million. - April 13: Cross-chain interoperability protocol Hyperbridge was exploited through a flaw in cross-chain proof verification, with losses of roughly $2.5 million. - April 16: NEAR-ecosystem lending protocol Rhea Finance was attacked, with total losses of $18.4 million. The same day, Russia-related trading platform Grinex was also compromised, losing about $15 million. - April 18: Ethereum liquid staking protocol Kelp DAO was breached, leading to the theft of about 116,500 rsETH valued near $292 million, around 18% of rsETH's circulating supply. The attacker allegedly forged cross-chain messages to deceive the lzReceive function in LayerZero's EndpointV2 contract into releasing bridge reserves. The incident has now eclipsed Drift as the largest DeFi hack of 2026 so far.

ME News said April 19 (UTC+8) that Lookonchain data shows AAVE fell more than 18% on the day after a KelpDAO vulnerability resulted in bad debt on Aave, prompting heavy selling by multiple whales. Wallet smaugvision sold 20,015 AAVE at an average of $103, receiving 2.06 million USDC. Whale 0xFC56 sold 20,000 AAVE at an average of $103, receiving 2.05 million USDC. Whale 0xA2E4 sold 19,666 AAVE at an average of $99, receiving 505.65 ETH (worth $1.18 million) and 10.11 WBTC (worth $765,000). (Source: PANews)

Huoxing Finance reported that on April 19, KelpDAO's rsETH was attacked through the LayerZero OFT cross-chain bridge, with losses estimated at about 116,500 rsETH—roughly $292 million. In response, a number of protocols moved to reduce potential spillover risk by suspending related functions or markets. Ethena, Lombard, Euler Labs, TRON DAO, ApeCoin/ApeChain, ether.fi, mETH Protocol, Solv Protocol, MOCA Foundation and River said they have paused their LayerZero OFT cross-chain bridges. The teams stated they have no direct exposure to rsETH and that user funds remain safe, describing the pause as a precaution and expecting services to resume soon. Separately, Aave V3/V4, SparkLend, Lido and Fluid have frozen rsETH-related markets or treasury activity while keeping bridge operations running.

BlockBeats reported on April 19 that KelpDAO's rsETH was exploited via the LayerZero OFT cross-chain bridge, with an estimated 116,500 rsETH lost, worth about $292 million. In response, a number of protocols have paused LayerZero OFT bridging to reduce potential risk. Ethena, Lombard, Euler Labs, TRON DAO, ApeCoin/ApeChain, ether.fi, mETH Protocol, Solv Protocol, MOCA Foundation and River said they have no direct exposure to rsETH and that user funds remain safe. They described the pause as precautionary and said services are expected to resume soon. Separately, Aave V3/V4, SparkLend, Lido and Fluid have frozen rsETH-related markets or treasury activity, while keeping bridging functions unchanged.

A major exploit hit the crypto market Saturday night, with an unknown attacker breaching KelpDAO and draining nearly $300 million worth of its liquid staking token, rsETH. Security firm Cyvers said the attacker compromised KelpDAO's bridge contract, then moved quickly to place the stolen rsETH across multiple lending protocols including Aave V3, Compound V3 and Euler. The funds were used as collateral to borrow large amounts of WETH, leaving more than $236 million in outstanding debt. Several protocols, including Aave and SparkLend, responded by freezing certain affected markets. Even so, selling pressure intensified in AAVE, led by large holders. Lookonchain reported multiple whale sales as AAVE began sliding. One wallet labeled "smaugvision" sold $2.06 million worth of AAVE for USDC. Another whale sold $2.05 million, while a third swapped $1.95 million in AAVE for $1.18 million in ETH plus 10.11 WBTC. The token topped out near $120 on Saturday, fell to about $103 as the first wave of selling hit, then dropped to $92, marking a roughly 22% peak-to-trough decline. CoinGecko data show AAVE's market cap has fallen to just over $1.4 billion, pushing it out of the top 50 altcoins by market value.