OneFinity priceONE

Lawmakers in the US states of Minnesota and Alabama have introduced companion bills to existing bills that, if enacted, would allow every state to buy Bitcoin. The Minnesota Bitcoin Act, or HF 2946, was introduced in the state House by Republican Representative Bernie Perryman on April 1, followed by an identical bill introduced by GOP state Senator Jeremy Miller on March 17. Meanwhile, on the same day in Alabama, Republican state Senator Will Barfoot introduced Senate Bill 283, while a bipartisan group of representatives led by Republican Mike Shaw proposed the same House Bill 482, which would allow the state to invest in crypto but essentially limit it to Bitcoin. Alabama bills don’t explicitly mention Bitcoin Minnesota’s Bitcoin Act would allow the state’s investment board to invest state assets in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and allow state employees to add crypto to their retirement accounts. It would also exempt crypto earnings from state income taxes and give residents the option to pay state taxes and fees with Bitcoin. The twin Alabama bills do not explicitly mention Bitcoin, but would limit the state’s crypto investment to assets with a minimum market value of $750 billion, a criterion currently met only by Bitcoin. 26 Bitcoin reserve bills filed in the US It is not uncommon for identical bills to be filed in the US, and are usually done to speed up the bicameral legislative process so that legislation can be passed more quickly. According to data from the Bitcoin Laws bill-tracking website, Bitcoin reserve bills have been filed in 26 US states, with Arizona currently the closest to passing a law to create one. Pennsylvania was one of the first US states to introduce a Bitcoin reserve bill in November 2024. However, the initiative was reportedly ultimately rejected, with similar bills also being rejected in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. According to a March 3 report by Barron’s, “red states” like Montana have faced setbacks to their Bitcoin reserve initiatives due to political clashes between the Democratic and Republican parties.

Circle, the USDC stablecoin issuer, filed for an initial public offering Aave Integrated Chainlink’s Smart Value Recapture mechanism, which is expected to increase Aave’s revenue by 8 figures Sonic Labs introduced SonicCS 2.0, a new consensus protocol that will make the network 2x faster Beraborrow, one of the largest dApps on Berachain, launched its token POLLEN Pendle has been deployed on Berachain mETH Protocol launched S3 of its Methamorphosis Airdrop Program Kaito introduced the Rewards Station - a platform where you can see the projects that are rewarding users for their X activity Hyperlane introduced its token HYPER and announced its airdrop Kamino introduced Kamino Meta-Swap, an aggregator that delivers the best price execution for any token swaps on Solana Frax Finance expanded its stablecoin frxUSD to Solana Ethereum’s privacy pools have officially launched Superseed, a blockchain that enables self-repaying loans, went live Initia, a network for omnichain rollups, announced its airdrop Mass enabled trading 40+ tokenized stocks and ETFs on Base L2 Everclear launched a CLEAR Buyback Program. 75% of the protocol revenue will be allocated to buybacks That's all for today.

The Potential Risks of a Long Vesting Period for $PUMP Tokens Vesting periods play a crucial role in tokenomics, ensuring that investors, team members, and early supporters remain committed to a project over time. However, while vesting schedules help prevent immediate sell-offs and enhance long-term stability, prolonged vesting periods can introduce several risks. This article explores the potential downsides of a long vesting period for $PUMP tokens. 1. Liquidity Constraints for Holders One of the primary risks of an extended vesting period is the lack of liquidity for token holders. Investors and team members who receive $PUMP tokens as part of a vesting schedule may find themselves unable to access their assets when needed. This limitation can be particularly problematic in cases of financial emergencies or shifting investment priorities. 2. Market Volatility Exposure The crypto market is highly volatile, and holding tokens for an extended period exposes investors to unpredictable price swings. A long vesting schedule means that holders might be unable to capitalize on favorable market conditions or protect themselves from downward trends, leading to potential financial losses. 3. Decreased Incentive for Early Contributors A lengthy vesting period may reduce motivation among early contributors, including developers, advisors, and team members. If they perceive the vesting schedule as too restrictive, they might lose interest or leave the project before fully receiving their allocations, resulting in a loss of talent and expertise crucial for the project's success. 4. Token Utility and Adoption Challenges If a significant portion of $PUMP tokens remains locked for an extended period, this could impact token utility and adoption. A low circulating supply may lead to decreased liquidity and trading activity, making it harder for new investors or partners to engage with the ecosystem effectively. 5. Risk of Changing Regulations Cryptocurrency regulations are constantly evolving, and a long vesting period increases the likelihood that regulatory changes may negatively affect token holders. Restrictions on token distributions, changes in tax policies, or new compliance requirements could arise, adding uncertainty and potential legal risks for both the project and its stakeholders. 6. Delayed ROI for Investors Investors typically expect a return on their investment within a reasonable timeframe. A prolonged vesting period could deter potential investors who prefer more flexible investment opportunities, thereby limiting fundraising efforts and overall project growth. Balancing Vesting Periods for Optimal Growth While vesting schedules are essential to preventing immediate sell pressure and fostering long-term commitment, projects must strike a balance. Implementing a reasonable vesting period with periodic unlocks, milestone-based releases, or partial liquidity options can help mitigate the risks associated with prolonged token lock-ups. In conclusion, while long vesting periods offer stability and prevent early dumping, they also introduce risks that could hinder liquidity, adoption, and stakeholder incentives. Projects like $PUMP should carefully structure their vesting schedules to ensure sustainability while keeping investors and contributors engaged in the long run.

📊 🚀 $10,000 in SOL$SOL vs. SUI$SUI 💡🔮 📅 As of April 3,2025,current prices: 🔥 Solana (SOL): $113.04 💸 🔥 Sui ($SUI ): $2.24 🪙 📌 Investment Breakdown: 💰 1. Investing $10,000 in Solana (SOL): ✅ SOL Acquired: ~88.47 $SOL 🎯 💰 2. Investing $10,000 in Sui (SUI): ✅ SUI Acquired: ~4,464.29 SUI 🎯 📈 Future Value Projections (2030) 🏆📊 🔷 Solana ($SOL ) Potential Prices: 💎 $300 per SOL: 🟰 $26,541 🤑 💎 $500 per SOL: 🟰 $44,235 🚀 💎 $1,000 per SOL: 🟰 $88,470 💰💰 🔶 Sui ($SUI ) Potential Prices: 💠 $5 per SUI: 🟰 $22,321 💵 💠 $10 per SUI: 🟰 $44,643 🚀 💠 $20 per SUI: 🟰 $89,286 💎💸 📢 Key Takeaways: 🔹 Both investments have high potential,but SUI's lower price means a higher risk-reward ratio 🎢⚡. 🔹 $SOL has a stronger ecosystem & adoption, making it a safer long-term bet 🏆🔗. 🔹 Crypto is volatile,always DYOR & invest wisely 📊🤔. 💬 Which one would you choose? Let us know in the comments! 🗣️🔥 #Crypto #Solana #$SOL 🚀📈

$ACH AI is reshaping the world—but one frontier remains: seamless payments. What if AI could not just assist, but act, transact, and power the #cryptopayment effortlessly? A groundbreaking leap in AI payments is brewing at #AlchemyPay this year. The future won't wait! $ACH