Crypto Talkies December 26th 2025

Ethereum’s to-do list for 2026 just got very real. Core developers have mapped out two big upgrades, Glamsterdam in mid‑2026 and Heze‑Bogota in late‑2026, aimed squarely at Ethereum’s long-standing pain points: speed, cost, and censorship resistance. The plan is to introduce more parallel processing so the network can handle more activity at once, raise gas limits up to 200 million, and optimize how fees are handled. On top of that, Ethereum will move to ePBS, a design that separates proposers and builders to make the network more resistant to censorship and MEV abuse. Just as important: these changes will roll out on a predictable twice‑yearly schedule, which is a relief for builders who are tired of guessing when the next big upgrade might hit. For anyone holding or building around Ethereum (ETH), 2026 is shaping up to be a year of scale, speed, and a cleaner user experience. While Ethereum is looking ahead, Uniswap is busy rewriting its present. The UNIfication proposal just passed with near-unanimous backing from the community, and it’s a big one. The change redirects a slice of trading fees that used to go entirely to liquidity providers and instead sends some of that value toward burning UNI (UNI). Over time, the protocol is expected to burn around 100 million UNI, making the token explicitly deflationary. In simple terms: fewer tokens, potentially more value per token, assuming demand holds or grows. It’s also a philosophical shift. Uniswap is leaning into UNI as a value-accrual asset tied directly to protocol usage rather than just a governance badge. Liquidity providers will see a slightly smaller slice of the pie, but the hope is that a stronger token and clearer tokenomics bring in more users, traders, and long-term holders, growing the whole ecosystem. Not all protocol news today was celebratory. Trust Wallet users got a harsh reminder of crypto’s security risks when a post‑Christmas exploit hit version 2.68 of the app and drained roughly $7 million from user wallets. The attack was unusually fast and precise, sparking immediate speculation that an insider might have been involved or that the attacker had deep knowledge of the system. Binance founder CZ stepped in on social media to calm nerves, saying funds are “SAFU” and that affected users will be reimbursed. That pledge helps, but it doesn’t erase the bigger questions: how did this happen, why so quickly, and why so quietly? For everyday users, the lesson is familiar but worth repeating—update carefully, spread risk across wallets, and assume even “trusted” tools can fail. Regulators, meanwhile, are tightening the screws in Europe. Lithuania, which has spent the past few years as one of the EU’s more welcoming hubs for crypto businesses, is about to get much stricter. By December 31, 2025, any crypto service provider operating from or into Lithuania will need a MiCA license. After that deadline, unlicensed firms will effectively be treated as illegal: they can face fines, website blocks, banking hurdles, and even potential criminal liability. For companies, this means a two-year window to either level up into fully regulated status or pack up and leave. For users, it means more transparency and (in theory) better protection, but possibly fewer options as smaller, lightly capitalized players bow out. MiCA is gradually turning from an abstract EU framework into a very real gatekeeper. On the geopolitical front, one of the more surprising headlines came from Russian media, which claim that Vladimir Putin has discussed a potential US–Russia deal over Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. The twist: using the plant’s power for Bitcoin mining. Under the reported idea, the US and Russia would jointly manage the Russian-controlled facility and direct part of its immense energy output toward BTC mining, with Ukraine notably cut out of the arrangement. The plant’s governance is already a tense topic in ongoing peace talks, and adding Bitcoin mining into the mix only raises more questions. Who would benefit from the mined BTC? How would this fit with sanctions regimes? And what would it mean for the narrative that Bitcoin (and its energy use) is politically neutral? For now, it’s largely rumor and positioning, but it shows just how far crypto has moved into the realm of realpolitik. DeFi governance also brought some drama, with Aave’s community working through a very public power struggle. On paper, Aave has had a banner year, with around $140 million in revenue flowing through the protocol. But under the surface, tensions are flaring between Aave Labs, the core team, and the broader DAO. Recent proposals to shift brand and intellectual property rights into full DAO control failed, even as voter turnout hit record highs. Major stakeholders are openly questioning whether incentives between Aave Labs and token holders are properly aligned. Adding fuel to the fire, founder Stani Kulechov’s reported $10–15 million purchase of AAVE (AAVE) has drawn scrutiny, with some seeing it as a strong show of confidence, and others wondering about timing and influence. The result is a protocol that’s financially strong but politically fragile—proof that “number go up” doesn’t automatically mean governance is healthy. Over in Solana land, stablecoin anxiety made another appearance. USX (USX), a Solana-based stablecoin from Solstice Finance, briefly crashed to around $0.10 on secondary markets, a violent move for an asset meant to hold close to $1. The culprit wasn’t a collapse in collateral, which reportedly remained intact, but a severe liquidity crunch. Thin order books and market fear fed into each other, letting a wave of sells smash the price in the short term. The team rushed in with liquidity injections and the peg quickly recovered toward $1, but the damage to confidence is harder to repair. For traders and DeFi users on Solana, it’s a reminder that “backed” doesn’t always mean “liquid,” and that stablecoin risk isn’t just about what sits in the vault—it’s also about how easily large holders can get in and out without blowing up the market. Taken together, today’s news paints a familiar but important picture: the crypto world is maturing and getting more regulated, but it’s also becoming more political, more financially engineered, and still very much vulnerable to old-fashioned human failure. Ethereum is planning for scale, Uniswap is tightening its tokenomics, and Lithuania is drawing hard lines. At the same time, wallets are getting hacked, nuclear plants are being floated as Bitcoin mines, DAOs are wrestling with power, and stablecoins are still finding their footing. As the sun sets on the day, the space feels less like a wild frontier and more like a messy, evolving economy—one that still rewards paying attention.

/>