Mint Quick Edit: Time to rescue crypto from policy limbo
The money was lost from an account the company was using to manage liquidity on a partner platform and CoinDCX has said that the breach does not affect customer assets.
Also read: Crypto is booming again. Trump's return explains both the rise and the risk
While the investments of investors have been declared safe by the company, the incident spotlights the need for tighter systems-security.
Last year, WazirX, another crypto exchange, had lost $234 million in a cyber heist.
Such news can shake investor confidence, especially since the legal status of cryptocurrency in India remains in a regulatory grey zone.
Also read: Mint Primer | Future of cyber warfare: AI's dual role in attacking and defending India Inc
While the government's approach has been to tax crypto gains, it has neither explicitly banned such digital assets, nor offered a framework to regulate their trading and use.
This vacuum should not persist for long. India's crypto policy needs clarity. If digital tokens used as a currency must only be issued by the central bank, then the Centre must say so.
Also read: Google flags over 500 million scam messages monthly as cybercrime soars in India
If private tokens are fine if backed by proper reserves, like stablecoins, then this should be specified. The current state of affairs means high uncertainty.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
29 minutes ago
- Mint
NASA Says Thousands of Employees Set to Resign from Space Agency
(Bloomberg) -- NASA will lose roughly 3,870 employees through a voluntary resignation program, part of a broad push from President Donald Trump's administration to reduce the federal workforce. The numbers are subject to change as NASA reviews applications, including if an employee withdraws from the program or a resignation isn't approved, the US space agency said in a statement on Friday. 'Safety remains a top priority for our agency as we balance the need to become a more streamlined and more efficient organization and work to ensure we remain fully capable of pursuing a Golden Era of exploration and innovation, including to the Moon and Mars,' NASA said. NASA has offered employees two separate opportunities in 2025 to leave through the government's Deferred Resignation Program. The agency said its expected remaining civil servant workforce would be about 14,000 people, following both resignation programs, as well as normal attrition of about 500 people over the same time period. The first round came during the start of the Trump administration when federal workers received emails offering them the opportunity to take a buyout, an effort spearheaded by the Elon Musk-helmed Department of Government Efficiency. About 870 people, or 4.8% of the NASA workforce, took the offer then. NASA initiated its own second round of deferred resignation beginning in early June, with a deadline to opt in by July 25. About 3,000 personnel, or 16.4% of the workforce, took it up, the agency said Friday. Executives at the space agency, who have been working to reduce headcount to comply with the Trump administration's goal of shrinking the federal workforce, have spearheaded deferred resignation as a way to avoid layoffs. 'The reason we are doing this is to minimize any involuntary workforce reductions in the future,' NASA's former acting administrator Janet Petro said during an agency town hall on June 25, according to an audio recording obtained by Bloomberg. 'That is our whole goal, minimizing that.' NASA had sought a 'blanket waiver' in February to save all of the agency's probationary employees from layoffs. The prospect of a mass exodus of employees from NASA has raised alarm bells within the industry and at the agency, with some experts arguing that the the cuts will cause NASA to lose some of its best talent. In a letter to newly appointed NASA interim administrator Sean Duffy titled 'The Voyager Declaration,' hundreds of former and current employees warned Duffy, who is also the head of the Transportation Department, that workforce reductions could jeopardize the safety and efficiency of operations. 'Thousands of NASA civil servant employees have already been terminated, resigned or retired early, taking with them highly specialized, irreplaceable knowledge crucial to carrying out NASA's mission,' they wrote in the letter to Duffy. More stories like this are available on
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump administration expected to say greenhouse gases aren't harmful
President Trump's administration is poised to reverse the EPA's Endangerment Finding, a critical scientific basis for US climate regulations. This move, part of Project 2025, argues that the economic costs of climate regulation are too high and downplays the impact of US vehicle emissions. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What is the Endangerment Finding? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What is the Trump administration doing? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Could they succeed? President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to upend a foundational scientific determination about the harms of greenhouse gases that underpins the US government's ability to curb climate change.A proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change the so-called " Endangerment Finding " was sent to the White House on June 30, a spokesperson told announcement is expected imminently. Here's what to know -- and what's at stake if the finding is Clean Air Act of 1970 empowered the EPA to regulate "air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."For decades, the law applied to pollutants like lead, ozone and as climate science around the dangers of heat-trapping greenhouse gases advanced in the 2000s, a coalition of states and nonprofit groups petitioned the EPA to include them under the law, focusing on motor issue reached the Supreme Court, which in 2007 ruled that greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants and directed the EPA to revisit its led to the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare , based on overwhelming scientific consensus and peer-reviewed research."That 2009 finding formed the basis for all of EPA's subsequent regulations," Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney on climate and energy for the activist Natural Resources Defense Council, told AFP."They've issued greenhouse gas standards for tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles, smokestack emissions from power plants -- all of these individual rulemakings trace themselves back to the 2009 Endangerment Finding."The Endangerment Finding has withstood multiple legal challenges, and although Trump's first administration considered reversing it, they ultimately held the finding is now a direct target of Project 2025 , a far-right governance blueprint closely followed by the March, the EPA under Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a formal reconsideration of the finding."The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas," he government is expected to undo the earlier finding that greenhouse gases endanger public will argue that the economic costs of regulation have been undervalued -- and downplay the role of US motor vehicle emissions in climate fact, transportation is the largest source of US greenhouse gas emissions."If vehicle emissions don't pass muster as a contribution to climate change, it's hard to imagine what would," Dena Adler of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University told AFP."It's fatalistic to avoid taking the many actions that could cumulatively fix climate change, because none of them can individually solve the entire problem."Since 1970, the United States has emitted more vehicle-based greenhouse gases than the next nine countries combined, according to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Integrity that will soon be published in March, the EPA said it would lean on recent court rulings, including a landmark 2024 decision that narrowed federal regulatory legal experts say the administration faces an uphill battle."It will take a few years for the rule to be finalized and wind its way up to the Supreme Court for review," said Adler."If EPA loses before the Supreme Court, it gets sent back, and EPA then gets it back to the drawing board" -- by which time Trump's term may be nearing its succeed, the high court may need to overturn its own 2007 decision that led to the Endangerment of the justices who wrote the majority opinion remain on the bench, while three dissenters -- John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito -- still serve, and could spearhead a drive to upend the original then, market forces may blunt the impact of any rollback."Utilities making long-term investments and companies purchasing capital goods expected to be used for decades won't base those decisions on short-term policy changes," said John Tobin-de la Puente, a professor at Cornell University's business especially true when those swings run counter to business trends and could be undone by a future administration, he added.
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Pakistan says it's close to US trade deal, Washington gives no timeline
Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said on Friday the United States and Pakistan were 'very close' to a trade deal that could come within days, but comments from the US after Dar met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio mentioned no timeline. 'I think we are very close to finalizing a deal with US Our teams have been here in Washington, discussing, having virtual meetings and a committee has been tasked by the prime minister to fine-tune now,' Dar said in a discussion at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington. 'It's not going to be months, not even weeks, I would say (just) days,' he said. Under US President Donald Trump, Washington has attempted to renegotiate trade agreements with many countries that he threatened with tariffs over what he calls unfair trade relations. Many economists dispute Trump's characterization. The Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Minister, Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar @MIshaqDar50, met with the U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio @SecRubio, today in Washington D.C. The two sides acknowledged the positive trajectory of the Pak-U.S. bilateral relations. They discussed and… — Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Pakistan (@ForeignOfficePk) July 25, 2025 The US State Department and Pakistan's foreign ministry, in separate statements after Rubio's meeting with Dar, said the two stressed in their discussion the importance of expanding trade and ties in critical minerals and mining. A post by Rubio on X after the meeting and the State Department's statement mentioned no timeline for finalizing a trade deal. Met with Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister @MIshaqDar50 today to discuss expanding bilateral trade and enhancing collaboration in the critical minerals sector. I also thanked him for Pakistan's partnership in countering terrorism and preserving regional… — Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) July 25, 2025 The Pakistan foreign ministry also said Dar 'appreciated the pivotal role' by Trump and Rubio 'in de-escalating tensions between Pakistan and India by facilitating a ceasefire.' The State Department statement did not mention India. Trump has repeatedly taken credit for the India-Pakistan ceasefire he announced on social media on May 10 after Washington held talks with both sides. India disputes Trump's claims that the ceasefire resulted from his intervention and trade threats. India's position is that New Delhi and Islamabad must resolve problems directly with no outside involvement. The April 22 terrorist attack in Kashmir's Pahalgam claimed the lives of 26 civilians, sparling heavy cross-border fighting between the nuclear-armed neighbors in the latest escalation of a decades-old rivalry. India struck Pakistan on May 7 under 'Operation Sindoor' and the two nations exchanged hostilities, killing dozens across three days. The ceasefire was declared on May 10. New Delhi blamed the April attack on Pakistan, which denied responsibility and called for a neutral investigation. Washington condemned the attack but did not blame Islamabad.
