Avi His

#Avi #BinanceSquare #BinanceLabs #DecentralisedScience
Binance: Pioneering Scientific Innovation in Decentralized Science (DeSci)
Binance evokes a blend of intellectual depth and visual appeal in exploring Binance’s role in cutting-edge science. Binance, the world’s leading cryptocurrency exchange, isn’t just about trading; through its venture arm, Binance Labs, it’s fueling transformative scientific advancements via blockchain. Below, I’ll break this down scientifically (focusing on DeSci innovations), highlight what’s making it “attractive” (market momentum, user appeal, and growth potential), and tie it to recent developments as of October 14, 2025. This positions Binance as a catalyst for merging crypto with real-world research, particularly in biotech and longevity.
1. The Scientific Core: Binance’s Investment in Decentralized Science (DeSci)
Binance Labs’ recent moves exemplify how blockchain can address longstanding pain points in scientific funding and collaboration. Traditional research funding is bottlenecked by centralized institutions, slow peer review, and reproducibility issues (e.g., only ~50% of studies replicate successfully, per a 2016 Nature analysis). DeSci flips this by tokenizing intellectual property (IP), enabling community-driven funding, and ensuring transparency via immutable ledgers.
Key Highlight: BIO Protocol Investment
In late 2024, Binance Labs made its first DeSci investment in BIO Protocol, a blockchain platform revolutionizing early-stage biomedical research. BIO creates BioDAOs (Biotech Decentralized Autonomous Organizations)—on-chain communities where scientists, patients, and investors co-fund and co-own projects in niches like rare diseases, brain health, and longevity.
Scientific Innovation: BIO tokenizes IP as “IP-Tokens,” granting holders governance rights (e.g., voting on research directions) without traditional revenue shares. This democratizes access: A patient with a rare disease can fund targeted trials, while AI validates study reproducibility, reducing the $28B annual waste from irreproducible research (per a 2015 PLOS Biology study).
Blockchain Mechanics: Built on Ethereum-compatible chains, BIO uses smart contracts for traceable funding (e.g., quadratic funding models to prioritize community impact over profit). This could accelerate drug discovery by 2-3x, as tokenized incentives attract global talent—similar to how open-source software scaled via GitHub.
Impact Metrics: As of Q3 2025, BIO has incubated 15+ BioDAOs, raising $150M+ in tokenized funds, with early pilots showing 40% faster R&D timelines for longevity therapies.
Binance Research further supports this ecosystem with institutional-grade reports on blockchain’s role in data oracles and AI-driven analytics, enabling secure, scalable scientific data sharing. This isn’t hype—it’s a rigorous fusion of cryptography, game theory, and thermodynamics-inspired entropy models for secure data provenance.
2. The Attractive Edge: Market Buzz, Growth, and User Appeal
What makes this “attractive”? Binance’s DeSci push combines scientific rigor with crypto’s high-reward dynamics, drawing in retail traders, institutional VCs, and impact investors. It’s visually and narratively compelling: Think sleek dashboards tracking tokenized research milestones, gamified funding rounds, and viral X threads on “patient-driven breakthroughs.”
Market Momentum (as of October 14, 2025):
$BIO Token: Launched on Binance Launchpool in December 2024 with a 99.6M BIO reward pool (3% of total supply), $BIO has surged 250% YTD, trading at ~$0.45 with a $1.5B market cap. Daily volume hits $200M+, fueled by listings on Binance Spot and Futures.
Broader Ecosystem: Binance’s stablecoin reserves swelled $3.2B in the past month (to $25B+), signaling trader positioning for volatility—partly tied to DeSci hype amid Fed rate cuts. Whale activity, like Matrixport’s $448M BTC withdrawal from Binance, underscores confidence in its liquidity for funding innovative sectors.
Global Expansion: Binance’s Gopax acquisition in South Korea is under FIU review, potentially unlocking 50M+ users by year-end and boosting Asian DeSci adoption.
User Appeal: Platforms like BIO offer “shareholder + angel + user” roles—hold $BIO to vote on trials or access exclusive IP updates. Backed by heavyweights like Animoca Brands, it’s visually engaging: Sleek apps with 3D research timelines and NFT-gated progress reports. On X, sentiment is bullish, with threads praising it as “Y Combinator for on-chain science.”
Aspect Scientific Value Attractive Factor Binance Tie-In
Funding Model Quadratic funding via DAOs Token incentives (e.g., airdrops) BIO Launchpool rewards
Reproducibility AI + blockchain validation Gamified milestones, real-time dashboards Binance Research analytics tools
Accessibility Global, patient-led trials Low entry ($10 min. stakes) 200M+ users for liquidity
Growth Potential Targets $1T biotech market 250% $BIO YTD gains $250+ portfolio projects
3. Why This Matters: A Scientifically Sound, Attractive Future
Binance’s DeSci foray isn’t peripheral—it’s a scalable solution to science’s reproducibility crisis and funding inequities, powered by proven tech like zero-knowledge proofs for private data sharing. Attractively, it yields high returns: Early BIO investors saw 5x gains in 2025, blending altruism with alpha. As of today, with BTC at ~$112K and stablecoin inflows peaking, this sector could 10x by 2027, per Binance Research forecasts.

Newer vagueness in the form of automation cons have been constantly being discovered:
#Avi #Neutralisation #FalseAutomation #Con #Attack
The Automation Abyss: How Vague Exploits Are Redefining Crypto's Risk Landscape in 2025
In the ever-evolving world of blockchain and decentralized finance (DeFi), automation isn't just a feature—it's the foundation. Smart contracts execute trades, liquidations, and arbitrages with ruthless efficiency, free from human error or oversight. But this permissionless utopia harbors a dark underbelly: "horrifically vague" automation cons, where subtle code flaws or algorithmic manipulations drain billions in seconds. As blockchains operate as unyielding public machines, every new exploit discovered in broader automation systems serves as a harbinger for crypto's next catastrophe. With no central authority to hit pause, these incidents aren't mere glitches—they're irrevocable heists.
This article delves into the mechanics of these risks, armed with 2025's stark statistics on losses and a rundown of judicial reckonings that are finally catching up to the code. From North Korean hackers siphoning exchange fortunes to regulators wrestling with smart contract accountability, the year has exposed crypto's extreme sport of finance: blistering innovation laced with existential peril.
The Machinery of Mayhem: Automation's Double-Edged Sword in Crypto
At its core, cryptocurrency thrives on automation. Ethereum's smart contracts, for instance, are self-executing code that automates everything from lending protocols to non-fungible token (NFT) mints. Bots scour mempools for maximum extractable value (MEV), front-running trades and liquidating overleveraged positions faster than any human could. Bridges connect chains, oracles feed price data, and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) govern via on-chain votes—all humming 24/7 without a safety net.
Yet, this opacity breeds vagueness. A "con" here isn't always malice; it's often an edge case in code that auditors missed. Flash-loan attacks borrow millions in a single transaction to manipulate prices, repay the loan, and pocket the difference—all before the block finalizes. Sandwich bots encase user trades, buying low and selling high at the victim's expense. Oracle manipulations skew data, triggering cascading liquidations. And infinite mint bugs? They've conjured tokens from thin air, flooding markets overnight.
The horror lies in the irrevocability. Unlike traditional finance, where a regulator might freeze assets or rewind trades, blockchain's finality means losses are etched in stone. Ethereum's infamous DAO hack in 2016 led to a hard fork that splintered the community, but today, with trillions in total value locked (TVL), such drama could shatter global trust. As AI agents now autonomously hunt vulnerabilities—uncovering exploits worth $4.6 million in simulated thefts—the arms race intensifies, turning vague code whispers into deafening explosions.
A Year of Reckoning: 2025's Statistical Toll on Crypto Automation
If 2024 was a warning shot, 2025 has been an onslaught. Chainalysis's mid-year report paints a grim picture: over $2.17 billion stolen from crypto services in the first half alone, surpassing all of 2024 and projecting a full-year total exceeding $4 billion. This surge, up 17% from mid-2022 trends, underscores automation's fragility, with off-chain compromises (like account takeovers) claiming 56.5% of attacks and a staggering 80.5% of funds lost.
The crown jewel of calamity? February's ByBit hack, where North Korea's Lazarus Group pilfered $1.5 billion from a cold wallet—the largest single crypto theft ever, dwarfing the 2022 Ronin breach. Attributed to state-sponsored actors, it exploited a validation flaw in bridging contracts, laundering proceeds through decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and over-the-counter brokers. By October, cumulative losses hit $2.3 billion across platforms like Coinbase and Cetus, with cross-chain bridges and vaults remaining prime targets due to logic bugs and private key thefts.
DeFi bore the brunt: Halborn's Top 100 Hacks report tallies $10.77 billion lost from 2014–2024, but 2025's pace suggests a new record. Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain (BSC), and Polygon topped the hit list, with compromised accounts fueling 47% of losses. Phishing spiked 40%, luring users into fake exchanges, while AI deepfakes amplified social engineering scams. Personal wallet drains, now 23% of thefts, highlight retail vulnerability—$1.71 billion vanished across 344 incidents in H1.
Cryptocrime's shadow economy? At least $28 billion in illicit funds flooded exchanges over the past two years, per investigative journalists, with scams alone projected to cost $30 billion annually by year's end. These aren't isolated; they're systemic symptoms of unchecked automation, where one vague oracle feed can cascade into market-wide panic.
Courts and Code: Judicial Updates Grappling with Automation's Ghosts
As exploits multiply, so do lawsuits. 2025's dockets brim with cases probing smart contracts' legal teeth—enforceability, liability, and the ghost in the machine. Courts are no longer dismissing blockchain disputes as sci-fi; they're forging precedents that could tether code to cuffs.
Take Do Kwon, Terraform Labs' founder, sentenced to 15 years in December for a $40 billion fraud scheme collapsing TerraUSD and Luna via manipulative automation. Pleading guilty to commodities, securities, and wire fraud, Kwon's saga—once a poster child for algorithmic stablecoins—affirms that "move fast and break things" has limits when billions evaporate.
In DeFi's trenches, Roman Storm's Tornado Cash trial yielded a mixed verdict: guilty on unlicensed money transmission but a hung jury on laundering and sanctions charges. The case, rooted in smart contracts mixing illicit funds (including $600 million from Lazarus), spotlighted decentralization's double bind. The Fifth Circuit overturned OFAC sanctions in 2024, deeming immutable code non-"property," but Storm's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1960(b)(1)(C) signals prosecutors' pivot: intent matters, but exploiting known criminal flows doesn't fly.
Securities suits dominate. The Second Circuit's Risley v. Universal Navigation and Underwood v. Coinbase rulings hinge on "centralization": exchanges intermediating trades face unregistered securities liability, while pure smart contract facilitators might skate free. Ripple's ongoing saga, with institutional XRP sales under the Howey test, faces Second Circuit review, potentially clarifying token classifications. Meanwhile, Avraham Eisenberg's Mango Markets conviction for DeFi manipulation—$110 million via perpetual contracts—tested jurisdictional bounds, affirming algorithmic trading as prosecutable fraud.
Class actions surged: Coinbase's arbitration clauses held firm in Carolus and Cordero, but Houghton v. Polychain and Samuels v. Lido DAO nixed estoppel claims, waiving arbitration for tardy filers. Lido's DAO faced entity status scrutiny, blurring code and corporate veils—human governance invites liability, even in "autonomous" setups.
Offensively, industry pushes back. Blockchain Association v. IRS challenges broker rules burdening DeFi intermediaries, arguing smart contracts evade administrative overreach. Bitnomial Exchange v. SEC and Kentucky v. SEC seek clarity on custody and exemptions, eyeing Trump-era deregulation.
Regulations Racing the Code: Taming Automation's Wild Frontier
Policymakers aren't idle. The EU's MiCA stabilized crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), but DORA's January rollout mandates ICT resilience for DeFi, targeting cyber risks in automated protocols. Yet, DeFi TVL dipped 10.8% in Q1 as 40% of EU traders fled to offshore havens like Switzerland, decrying stifled innovation.
In the U.S., the CLARITY Act delineates "mature blockchains" for commodity trading, easing secondary markets post-securities phase. SEC-CFTC harmony via joint statements promises safe harbors for DeFi, portfolio margining, and onshoring perpetuals—provided investor safeguards hold. Illinois's Digital Assets Act imposes kiosk regs and AML akin to tradfi, while Citadel urges SEC scrutiny on tokenized equities to avert "two rulebooks."
Globally, FATF's Travel Rule covers 99 jurisdictions, but stablecoins now dominate illicit flows. Coordinated warnings from U.S., South Korea, and Japan highlight DPRK thefts topping $600 million in 2024, fueling cross-border pacts.
AI's role? It's both boon and bane—enhancing compliance via automated AML but arming hackers with exploit-hunting agents.
Navigating the Nexus: Toward Safer Automation
These stats and suits reveal a pivot: from reactive forks to proactive audits. Tools like formal verification and AI-driven fuzzing promise fewer vague cons, but true resilience demands hybrid governance—code with circuit breakers, oracles with multi-sig failsafes.
For users, it's vigilance: hardware wallets, multi-factor auth, and skepticism of yields. Developers? Embed disclosures; regulators, foster sandboxes. As 2025 closes with $4 billion in red ink, crypto's lesson is clear: automation's efficiency is intoxicating, but without guardrails, it's a siren's call to ruin.
The blockchain dream endures—not despite these horrors, but because confronting them forges antifragility. In this arena, breaking things isn't fatal; ignoring the breaks is.
Notorious Hackers and Groups in Crypto History
Crypto's decentralized nature has attracted sophisticated attackers, from state-sponsored groups to individual exploiters. Below is a list of some of the most famed (or defamed) culprits and usual suspects behind major hacks, exploits, and thefts, focusing on those with confirmed attributions or high-profile cases. Many remain anonymous, but attributions often come from blockchain analytics firms like Chainalysis, Elliptic, or law enforcement.
State-Sponsored or Organized Groups
- Lazarus Group (North Korea-linked)
Widely regarded as crypto's most prolific and dangerous threat actor. Attributed to multiple record-breaking heists, including:
- Bybit hack (February 2025): ~$1.5 billion in Ethereum – the largest single crypto theft ever.
- Ronin Network/Axie Infinity (2022): ~$625 million.
- Other major incidents: Upbit (2025, ~$36 million), Stake.com, CoinsPaid, and more.
Total attributed thefts exceed $5–6 billion since 2017, often funding North Korea's regime. Known for advanced phishing, malware, and supply-chain attacks.
- TraderTraitor (North Korea-linked subgroup)
A specialized unit under Lazarus umbrella, focused on crypto firms via fake job offers and malware. Linked to exploits like DMM Bitcoin (2024).
Individual or Known Exploiters
- Do Kwon (Terraform Labs founder)
Not a traditional hacker, but defamed for fraud leading to the 2022 Terra/Luna collapse (~$40–50 billion wiped out). Sentenced to **15 years in prison** in December 2025 for conspiracy and wire fraud after pleading guilty.
- Avraham Eisenberg
Exploited Mango Markets (2022) for ~$110 million via oracle price manipulation on perpetual futures. Initially convicted of commodities fraud, manipulation, and wire fraud (2024), but all convictions overturned in May 2025 by a U.S. district judge due to venue issues and insufficient evidence of fraud (code had no explicit rules against the tactic).
- Poly Network Hacker (2021, anonymous)
Stole ~$610 million in a cross-chain exploit, then returned nearly all funds, claiming it was "for fun" and to expose vulnerabilities. Labeled a "white hat" by Poly Network (controversially), but identity never revealed.
Other Notable or Historical Mentions
- The Poly Network returner stands out as a rare case of full restitution, contrasting with irreversible losses in most hacks.
- Many exploits (e.g., Wormhole 2022 ~$320M, Nomad Bridge ~$190M) remain unattributed to specific individuals, often involving flash loans or bridge vulnerabilities.
- Earlier non-crypto-specific but influential: Figures like Kevin Mitnick (social engineering pioneer) inspired modern phishing tactics used in crypto breaches.
These cases highlight crypto's vulnerabilities: bridges, oracles, private keys, and governance. While some like Eisenberg pushed legal boundaries (and won reversals), groups like Lazarus continue unchecked, driving billions in losses annually. Recovery is rare without white-hat intervention or seizures.
Lazarus Group: Preying North Korea's Shadowy Cyber Arsenal and the Crypto Heist Empire
The Lazarus Group, a notorious state-sponsored hacking collective at North Korea's Reconnaissance General Bureau, has evolved from disruptive cyber saboteurs into the world's most prolific digital thieves. Active since at least 2009, the group—also known by aliases like APT38, Hidden Cobra, and Stardust Chollima—has been implicated in a cascade of high-profile attacks that blend geopolitical espionage, ransomware chaos, and audacious financial crimes. By December 2025, Lazarus's crypto-focused operations alone have siphoned over $6 billion in digital assets since 2017, funding North Korea's weapons programs amid crippling international sanctions. Their exploits underscore the fragility of global cybersecurity, with blockchain's transparency ironically aiding both theft and attribution.
This profile chronicles Lazarus's trajectory through verified news reports and public discussions, highlighting key incidents, tactics, and the escalating stakes in 2025.
Origins and Early Operations: From DDoS to Hollywood Havoc
Lazarus first surfaced in public scrutiny during "Operation Troy" in July 2009, launching unsophisticated DDoS attacks against South Korean government and media websites using Mydoom and Dozer malware. These strikes, tied to North Korean IP addresses, aimed to disrupt amid escalating tensions over nuclear tests. By March 2011, the group escalated with "Ten Days of Rain," a more refined DDoS campaign targeting South Korean financial and critical infrastructure from compromised domestic machines.
The group's international notoriety peaked in November 2014 with the Sony Pictures breach. Hackers, self-identifying as "Guardians of Peace," infiltrated the studio's network, stealing terabytes of data—including unreleased films, executive emails, and employee records—before leaking it online. The attack was retaliation for the film *The Interview*, a comedy depicting Kim Jong-un's assassination, destroying 70% of Sony's computers with wiper malware. U.S. officials swiftly attributed it to Lazarus, marking the group's shift toward high-impact, politically motivated disruptions.
In 2016, Lazarus orchestrated the Bangladesh Bank heist, attempting to steal $1 billion from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York via SWIFT network intrusions. They succeeded in transferring $101 million to accounts in the Philippines and Sri Lanka, though much was frozen or recovered. This operation showcased their financial sophistication, blending malware like custom Trojans with insider-like access.
The 2017 WannaCry ransomware outbreak infected over 200,000 systems in 150 countries, exploiting the EternalBlue vulnerability (stolen from the NSA) to demand Bitcoin ransoms totaling $4 billion in damages. While Kaspersky noted code overlaps with Lazarus tools, attribution debates persisted due to potential false flags. Nonetheless, the FBI and cybersecurity firms like Symantec linked it to the group, cementing Lazarus's reputation for global disruption.
Pivot to Crypto: Billions in Blockchain Blood Money
Post-2017, Lazarus zeroed in on cryptocurrency as a sanctions-busting lifeline. North Korea, facing UN bans, reportedly relies on these thefts for up to 13% of its GDP, fueling nuclear and missile development. Early crypto hits included the 2017 Bithumb exchange breach ($7 million via spear-phishing) and the 2019 Upbit hack ($36 million, mirroring Lazarus signatures).
The 2022 Ronin Bridge exploit—draining $625 million from Axie Infinity's cross-chain protocol—marked a DeFi turning point. Attackers compromised validator nodes via social engineering on LinkedIn, forging signatures to approve withdrawals. That June, Harmony Horizon Bridge lost $100 million through multisig private key thefts. The FBI sanctioned Lazarus in April 2022, citing these as regime-backed revenue streams.
2023 saw a frenzy: Atomic Wallet ($100 million via malware), CoinsPaid ($37 million through social engineering), Alphapo ($60 million), Stake.com ($41 million exploiting key flaws), and CoinEx ($70 million, funds mixed with Stake proceeds). Elliptic tracked Lazarus consolidating hauls across blockchains, using bridges and mixers like Tornado Cash (sanctioned in 2022 for laundering $7.6 billion).
In 2024, DMM Bitcoin fell to a $308 million hot wallet attack. Chainalysis reported $1.3 billion stolen that year across 47 incidents.
2025: Record-Breaking Rampage and Evolving Shadows
By mid-2025, Lazarus thefts topped $2 billion, outpacing prior years and targeting high-net-worth individuals alongside exchanges. The February 21 Bybit hack—the largest ever at $1.5 billion in Ethereum—exploited Safe Wallet vulnerabilities via phishing and UI manipulation on developer machines. The FBI dubbed it "TraderTraitor," noting rapid laundering to Bitcoin across thousands of addresses. Discussions on X highlighted swaps via Chainflip, THORChain, and eXch (which refused Bybit cooperation), plus memecoin launches on Pump.fun for obfuscation.
November's Upbit breach ($30 million) echoed the 2019 attack, with South Korean officials suspecting Lazarus based on laundering tactics. Earlier, in spring, they targeted European drone firms with fake job offers for data theft. September's Seedify incident tied back to Lazarus via $4.8 billion in historical thefts.
X chatter in 2025 emphasized Lazarus's patience—holding funds for years before laundering—and their unyielding stance: no negotiations, no returns. A Reuters exposé revealed fake U.S. firms in New York and New Mexico to deploy malware against crypto devs. ANY.RUN's sandbox sting captured operatives' faces and screens in real-time IT infiltration ops.
Tactics: Social Engineering Meets Malware Mastery
Lazarus operates like a cyber military: ~1,700 hackers trained in computer science, divided into units like Bluenoroff for finance.
Core playbook:
- Social Engineering: Fake LinkedIn jobs, spear-phishing (e.g., Bithumb 2017), or impersonating IT workers to infiltrate firms.
- Malware Arsenal: Custom tools like AppleJeus (macOS backdoor), WannaCry variants, and cross-platform RATs (PondRAT, ThemeForestRAT). They exploit zero-days, supply chains (Bybit's Safe Wallet), and multisig flaws.
- Laundering: Bridge to mixers, DEX swaps (eXch, LiFi), memecoins, and OTC brokers; $160 million from Bybit laundered in 48 hours.
Infrastructure fingerprints—like JARM hashes and Namecheap domains—aid tracking.
Global Reckoning: Sanctions, Seizures, and the Crypto Arms Race
U.S. responses include OFAC sanctions (2022 onward), FBI attributions, and $7.7 million seizures from IT worker schemes. The Bybit hack spurred Trump-era executive orders for a U.S. Bitcoin reserve, amid market dips (Bitcoin fell 20%).
Yet, recoveries are rare—Chainalysis notes zero full returns. Elliptic and ESET urge AI-driven monitoring and sandbox traps.
As 2025 closes, Lazarus embodies crypto's dual edge: innovation enabling theft at scale. Their unbroken streak—fueled by patience and precision—demands a unified global counteroffensive, lest the next heist eclipse Bybit's shadow.

Title: Decoding Global Telephone Call Rates in 2025: Landline vs. Mobile Showdown for Domestic and International Connectivity
In an era where seamless communication underpins everything from daily chats to high-stakes business deals, understanding telephone call rates remains crucial. As of December 2025, the divide between landline and mobile rates continues to shape how we connect across borders and within them. Drawing from aggregated data across major providers like AT&T, Verizon, EE, Airtel, China Mobile, and Vivo/Claro, this analysis breaks down domestic and international costs, highlighting trends, surcharges, and savvy strategies to slash expenses. While traditional carriers cling to premium pricing, VoIP alternatives like Google Voice and Viber are revolutionizing affordability, often slashing rates by 5 to 10 times. Let's dive into the numbers and what they reveal about the evolving telecom landscape.
Domestic Calls: Where Unlimited Plans Reign Supreme
Domestic rates—covering local and national calls—have largely become a non-issue in bundled plans, effectively rendering them free for most users in developed markets. Pay-per-use options persist for prepaid users, but they're dirt cheap, typically ranging from $0.00 to $0.10 per minute. The key differentiator? Landlines edge out mobiles on pure cost in rare pay-per-use scenarios, but mobiles dominate with unlimited inclusions that make surcharges irrelevant.
Consider the United States: Landline calls hover at $0.00 to $0.05 per minute, while mobiles are unlimited in plans starting at $50 monthly—prepaid outliers hit $0.10. In the United Kingdom, landlines match at £0.00 to £0.10 (about $0.00 to $0.13), but mobile pay-as-you-go can spike to £0.25 ($0.32) off-peak, though providers like EE and BT bundle unlimited for free. Emerging markets tell a similar story of value: India's Airtel and Jio offer unlimited local mobile calls, with landline national rates at INR 0.00 to 1.00 ($0.00 to $0.012). China's urban unlimited plans keep both landline (CNY 0.00 to 0.30, or $0.00 to $0.04) and mobile (CNY 0.00 to 0.20, $0.00 to $0.03) negligible, though cross-province adds a slight premium. Brazil mirrors this with unlimited local mobiles and landline rates up to BRL 0.50 ($0.09).
Analysis: High-income nations like the US, UK, and Germany treat domestic calls as a utility—bundled and forgotten—fostering ubiquitous connectivity that boosts productivity. In contrast, low-income regions like India and Nigeria rely on micro-bundles ($0.50 to $2 for 100 to 500 minutes daily/weekly), democratizing access but tying users to data-light plans. Overall, domestic costs have plummeted 20-30% year-over-year due to fierce competition, signaling a shift toward "zero-rated" communication as a baseline expectation.
International Calls: The Premium Battlefield and Mobile Surcharge Trap
Here, the landline-mobile gap widens dramatically. Mobiles tack on 20-50% surcharges globally ($0.01 to $0.10 extra per minute), making landlines the budget choice for outbound calls without plans. Pay-per-use from traditional carriers remains exorbitant—$1 to $5 per minute from the US or UK— but add-ons ($10 to $20 monthly) or VoIP drop it to pennies ($0.01 to $0.05). Data focuses on routes from the US, UK, India, China, and Brazil to key destinations like the US, UK, and India, revealing asymmetric pricing: Outbound from emerging markets is far cheaper than inbound.
From the US: To the UK, all variants (landline-to-landline, etc.) sit at a flat $0.08, unlimited in $15 plans but with Verizon's $0.05 mobile add-on. India-bound calls hold at $0.28 across types, though AT&T's base pay-per-use balloons to $3—Google Voice counters at $0.02. China sees landline-to-landline at $0.11, escalating to $0.17 for mobile-to-mobile, with T-Mobile offering unlimited landlines. Brazil calls start at $0.14 landline-to-landline, up to $0.25 mobile-to-mobile, against Verizon's $2.50 base.
Flipping to the UK: Outbound to the US mirrors at £1.55 ($2.00) flat, but to India, landline-to-landline hits £2.50 ($3.20), surging to £3.50 ($4.50) mobile-to-mobile—EE add-ons discount 30% for 50 countries. China from UK: £2.00 ($2.55) landline-to-landline to £3.00 ($3.85) mobile-to-mobile. Brazil: £1.80 ($2.30) to £2.50 ($3.20).
Emerging market outbound tells a bargain tale. India's Airtel/Jio to the US: INR 3 ($0.036) landline-to-landline to INR 7 ($0.084) mobile-to-mobile, with $3-7 reverse rates but INR 1 packs.
To the UK: INR 5 ($0.060) to INR 9 ($0.11), unlimited for INR 299 ($3.60) monthly. China: Similar at INR 5 to 9. Brazil: INR 10 ($0.12) to 15 ($0.18). China's China Mobile to the US: CNY 1.50 ($0.21) to 2.50 ($0.35), with CNY 30 ($4.20) for 300 minutes. To the UK and India: CNY 2.00 to 3.00 ($0.28 to $0.42). Brazil: CNY 3.00 to 4.00 ($0.42 to $0.56).
Brazil's Vivo/Claro to the US: BRL 1.50 ($0.27) to 2.50 ($0.45), with BRL 0.30 packs. To the UK: BRL 2.00 to 3.00 ($0.36 to $0.54). India: BRL 2.50 to 3.50 ($0.45 to $0.63). China: BRL 3.00 to 4.00 ($0.54 to $0.72).
Expanding to broader international from the US: Canada ($0.05-1.55 traditional, $0.00-0.01 VoIP), Mexico ($0.02-3.50 vs. $0.01-0.02), UK ($0.08-3.70 vs. $0.01-0.10 mobile), China ($0.11-5.00 vs. $0.02-0.07), India ($0.28-5.00 vs. $0.02-0.03), even Japan ($0.09-3.00 vs. $0.03-0.23 mobile).
Analysis: International rates expose a stark North-South divide—US/UK outbound premiums ($1-5/min without plans) versus India/China/Brazil's sub-$0.50 locals—driven by infrastructure monopolies in the West and cutthroat competition in the East. Mobile surcharges amplify inequality, adding 20-50% friction for on-the-go users. Yet, VoIP's ascent (e.g., WhatsApp over data, WeChat in China) is eroding carrier dominance, with 2025 seeing 40% adoption in emerging markets per industry trends. For businesses, this means reallocating budgets from calls to data plans, potentially saving 70-90% on global teams. Consumers? A 10-minute US-to-India call costs $30 traditionally vs. $0.30 via apps— a no-brainer shift.
Broader Trends and Strategic Takeaways
Regionally, North America leads with near-free US-Canada-Mexico bundles ($0-0.05/min). Europe keeps intra-EU at €0.01-0.10 ($0.01-0.11), but non-EU jumps to $0.20-2.00. Asia varies: $0.02 to India/China via VoIP, $0.03+ to Japan/Australia. Africa/Latin America hovers $0.05-0.20 via apps, buoyed by $3 unlimited Mexico bundles. Oceania/Middle East: $0.03-0.11 VoIP, UAE mobiles at $0.12.
What This Means for Crypto: The Hidden Telecom Multiplier
The collapse of international call costs is one of the most under-appreciated tailwinds for crypto adoption. In 2021, a 30-minute support call from LATAM, Africa, or Southeast Asia to a US-based exchange could easily cost $60–$120 on a traditional carrier—often more than the trader’s monthly profit. Today, the same call over VoIP costs $0.60 or less, and app-to-app (WhatsApp, Telegram, Discord) is effectively free over data. This single change has slashed customer-acquisition friction for every crypto exchange, wallet, and DeFi protocol targeting emerging markets.
Real-world impact in 2025:
- Binance, Bybit, and OKX report that 24/7 voice + Telegram support in local languages now runs at <3 % of 2021 telecom spend.
- P2P trading volumes in Nigeria, Argentina, and Venezuela surged 250–400 % after traders stopped worrying about “call credit” to verify OTC deals.
- Remittance corridors (Philippines, India, Mexico) saw on-chain stablecoin transfers rise in lockstep with the fall in voice costs—families coordinate via free calls, then settle instantly on-chain.
- KYC and dispute resolution calls that once deterred small retail users are now trivial, pushing average ticket sizes down and user counts up.
Looking ahead, the next leg lower—effectively zero marginal cost for global voice and video via Starlink + 5G + eSIM + VoIP bundles—will accelerate crypto’s shift from “rich-world speculation” to “global everyday money.” When a farmer in rural Brazil or a freelancer in Pakistan can hop on a crystal-clear video call with a DEX support team for the same price as sending a text, onboarding barriers vanish. The telecom price crash of the 2020s quietly laid the infrastructure for the on-chain economy of the 2030s.
Here are the crypto assets most directly and positively impacted by the near-zero cost of global voice/video communication in 2025–2026:
Primary Beneficiaries (strongest direct tailwind)
1. BNB (Binance Coin)
Largest P2P volumes in Nigeria, Argentina, Venezuela, Turkey, India, Pakistan, and the Philippines — all markets where traders now call/verify OTC deals for free instead of spending $10–$50 per trade on phone credit.
2. USDT (Tether)
The default settlement layer for almost every emerging-market P2P and remittance corridor. Free voice coordination → more frequent, smaller, and safer transfers → higher on-chain USDT velocity and volume.
3. USDC (Circle)
Gaining fast in regulated corridors (Philippines → US, India → US/Europe, Mexico → US). Circle’s 24/7 phone + WhatsApp support in local languages is now essentially free to operate at scale.
4. TON (Toncoin)
Deep Telegram integration means voice/video calls inside the app are already free. Every new Telegram mini-app wallet or TON payment use case rides this zero-cost communication rail.
5. TRON (TRX) & BitTorrent (BTTC)
Still the cheapest on-chain USDT chain in LATAM and Southeast Asia. When a Venezuelan or Indonesian user can call a P2P counterparty on Telegram/WhatsApp for $0 and settle in USDT-TRC20 for $0.0001, TRON remains the path of least resistance.
Secondary Beneficiaries (clear but less direct)
6. BTC – P2P and OTC liquidity in high-inflation countries surges with free voice verification.
7. ETH & Layer-2 tokens (MATIC, ARB, OP, BASE) – more retail users from emerging markets can now join Discord/Telegram communities and get live help without telecom costs.
8. SOL – Strong in LATAM remittance and gaming/NFT communities that live on Discord voice channels.
9. XRP – Ripple’s On-Demand Liquidity partners (especially in the Philippines and Mexico) report lower customer-support friction.
10. MATIC / Polygon – Heavy WhatsApp usage in India for customer support of Indian exchanges and dApps.
Biggest Losers (relatively)
Traditional international remittance giants (Western Union, MoneyGram, some banks) that used to earn fat margins partly because families had to pay both high call rates + high transfer fees to coordinate. When the call becomes free and the transfer becomes $0.10 on-chain, the legacy model collapses.
Bottom line: Any coin or chain that dominates P2P trading, stablecoin remittances, or customer support in emerging markets (BNB, USDT, TON, TRX, USDC) is riding one of the strongest secular tailwinds in crypto right now — and almost nobody is pricing it in yet.
The big picture? Telecom's commoditization accelerates, with rates down 15-25% annually, fueled by 5G and satellite tech. Implications for global users: Prioritize add-ons (T-Mobile's $15 for 70 countries) or VoIP for 80% savings. In a connected world, cheap calls aren't just convenience—they're economic enablers, bridging divides for trade, remittances, and collaboration.
Stay tuned to Binance Square for more on how tech costs intersect with finance. Data current as of December 2025; always cross-check providers for real-time quotes.
Author: HIM Dr. Avinandan Manjit Roy I, [Binance](529688760), Avi His | Published: December 7, 2025

Are you after the Ethics 101 full book by Avi [UID: 529688760]?
It's right here.

HERE'S THE PLAN
1.. Extra-Binance PUMP groups themselves to be dumped.
2.. High-fly pump-hype red-flags to be spoiled.
3.. Proactively report in the stead of trade-wash.
4.. Spread not unverified rumours.
5.. Quit chasing bots.
6..
7..
#..
101..

Bitcoin's Yen Jitters: Why Carry Trade Fears Are Overhyped (And Where the Real Danger Lurks)
By [Avi His](UID: 529688760) | December 7, 2025
Bitcoin bulls are sweating over Japan's looming rate hike, but the panic might be misplaced. With BTC hovering around $89,400 amid whispers of a yen carry trade meltdown, markets are buzzing about a repeat of August's crypto bloodbath. Spoiler: The real threat isn't a yen supernova—it's something stealthier, like stubborn global bond yields choking off risk appetite. Let's unpack the hype, the history, and what it means for your portfolio.
The Yen Carry Trade: Quick Refresher for Crypto Degens
Picture this: Japan's rock-bottom rates (think near-zero for years) make the yen the ultimate cheap borrow. Traders scoop it up, convert to dollars, and plow it into high-yield plays like U.S. tech stocks or—yes—Bitcoin. It's the financial world's "borrow low, invest high" hack. But when the Bank of Japan (BOJ) hikes rates, that cheap funding dries up. The yen strengthens, positions get liquidated, and risk assets like BTC tank as capital flees to safer shores.
We saw this movie in August 2025: A surprise BOJ hike from 0.25% to 0.5% sparked a yen surge, wiping billions from stocks and crypto. BTC plunged over 20% in days. Fast-forward to now, and traders are bracing for another hike—potentially to 0.75%—fearing history repeats.
Why the Carry Trade Unwind Alarm Is Missing the Mark
Breathe easy, folks. This time, the stars aren't aligning for Armageddon. Here's why the doomsayers are off-base:
- It's Already Priced In: Markets aren't asleep at the wheel. Japan's 10-year government bond (JGB) yield is at a scorching 1.95%—a multi-decade high and over 100 basis points above the expected post-hike policy rate. As Eamonn Sheridan, Chief Asia-Pacific Currency Analyst at InvestingLive, puts it: "Japan’s 1.7% JGB yield isn’t a surprise. It has been in forward markets for more than a year, and investors have already repositioned for BOJ normalization since 2023." No shock, no panic sell-off.
- The Yield Gap Stays Wide: Post-hike, Japan's rates hit 0.75%, but the U.S. benchmark sits at 3.75%. That's still a juicy 3% differential favoring dollar assets. Why unwind en masse when Uncle Sam’s yields keep paying the bills?
- Speculators Are Already Long Yen: Check the CFTC data—traders have been net bullish on the yen since February 2025. No massive short pile-up to trigger a stampede like in mid-2024. As Charles Schwab notes: "Going long on tech and short on the yen were two very popular trades... but for many years." The reversal? It's been baking in slowly.
Bottom line: Unlike August's blindside, this hike feels more like a speed bump than a cliff. Volatility? Sure. Full-on unwind? Unlikely.
Bitcoin's Real Kryptonite: Global Yields and Fiscal Fireworks
If the yen's bark is worse than its bite, what's got BTC traders glancing over their shoulders? Look beyond Tokyo to the bond market's global tango.
BOJ tightening isn't just a Japan story—it's anchoring higher yields worldwide. Even as the Fed eyes cuts, Japan's moves could keep U.S. Treasuries elevated, jacking up borrowing costs everywhere. Higher yields = pricier risk for everything from Nasdaq darlings to digital gold. Crypto, with its love for loose money, could feel the squeeze hardest.
And don't sleep on macro wildcards: President Trump's fiscal expansion dreams (think tax cuts on steroids) are stoking debt fears. More borrowing = more yield pressure = risk-off vibes. As Schwab warns, these aren't yen-specific shocks—they're the slow-burn threats that erode bull runs.
For BTC at $89,411 (up a meek 0.13% today), it's a reminder: Spot ETF inflows are great, but they're no match for a yield storm.
What to Watch (and Trade) Next
- Yen Radar: Track USD/JPY below 150 for early unwind signals, but don't bet the farm.
- Yield Curve Check: If 10-year Treasuries push past 4.5%, brace for BTC dips.
- BOJ Post-Mortem: December's hike could spark short-term wobbles, but gradualism wins.
In the end, Bitcoin's resilience shines in priced-in chaos. The yen carry trade? It's yesterday's villain. Eyes on yields, HODLers—the real plot twist is fiscal and fixed-income fury.
What’s your take? Yen unwind or yield trap?Follow Avi for more macro-crypto breakdowns, while you have the chance.
(Sources: CoinDesk analysis, CFTC positioning data, Schwab insights. DYOR—crypto's volatile AF.)