- Qubic claims Monero hashrate majority sparks debate; targets Dogecoin next.
- Kraken halts Monero deposits; causes market anxiety.
- Dogecoin identified as Qubic’s next focus; no impact yet.
The Qubic community, claiming a majority of Monero’s hashrate, has sparked controversy as they plan to target Dogecoin next, triggering industry scrutiny and reactions from exchanges.
The incident impacts market stability, with Monero prices dropping and Kraken pausing deposits, raising concerns about security and hashpower centralization across affected protocols.
Qubic has claimed control over Monero’s hashrate, sparking claims of a 51% attack, while planning to target Dogecoin next.
These developments have raised security concerns and market reactions, including Kraken suspending Monero deposits.
Qubic Claims Lead to Monero Hashrate Control Allegations
The Qubic protocol claims it gained a majority control of Monero’s hashrate, which implies potential risks. The community’s vote to target Dogecoin next has garnered attention for its strategic implications.
Sergey Ivancheglo, the leader of Qubic, stated, “We recovered, ultimately controlling majority hashrate on Monero.” The claim of control caused uncertainty despite counterclaims of inaccuracy by independent researchers.
Kraken Suspends Monero Deposits Amidst Security Concerns
The incident led to Kraken suspending Monero deposits to protect network integrity. Monero experienced a 6.65% price drop, indicative of the market’s volatile response.
Qubic’s token dynamics see increased activity due to re-investment strategies following the incident. The plan to target Dogecoin next continues to draw attention, yet lacks immediate technical implications.
Historic 51% Attack Cases Provide Insightful Lessons
Past examples, such as Ethereum Classic’s 51% attacks , illustrate the consequences of similar events, including network destabilization and theft. Qubic’s claims have been met with skepticism.
According to experts, sustainable majority control of Monero by Qubic is questioned, highlighting potential outcomes while comparing historical trends of mining centralization effects.
