The announcements are live, starting with our HSC Conference Ho Chi Minh, August 15
The 1st panel of the day:
Who Gets the Next Billion: Infrastructure, AI, and RWA in the Race for Smart Capital
▫️Dominic Cox (@DominicGCox), Head of PR at @1inch
▫️Kate Wang, Manager at @OnigiriVC
▫️Ph.D. Tony Tran, Head of Policy Vietnam at @TOTM_Labs
▫️Alice Truong, VP & Head of Digital Assets APAC at @Nuvei
Infrastructure wars. AI-driven capital allocation. RWA going institutional. Four voices, one question: where does the next billion actually land?
Register: https://t.co/oAyTGM0owL
Stay tuned, more updates to come!
How do you distribute an RWA product and stay compliant?
Jun 23 | 11 AM ET — live with @ondofinance. We'll cover the state of the RWA market, how 1inch Business connects issuers, distributors and liquidity, how compliance holds up at scale, and a live demo of it running end to end.
Register: https://t.co/ISukOtboQc
Read between the chains 📖⛓️
DeFi history is no longer just on-chain. @1inch has put it into a book. So even my parents can now understand it.
Sign up to find out how to get your copy - https://t.co/IGWaNoN6n2
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it - George Santayana
Hopefully this will be a moment for change and spur a move away from centralised bridges
#PeckShieldAlert As of mid-May 2026, the crypto space has witnessed 8 major #bridge-related exploits, with hackers exfiltrating a cumulative $328.6M from cross-chain protocols.
The table below outlines the details of these incidents:
Fragmentation is unlikely to decrease anytime soon. The crypto industry is facing a tidal wave of new chains, pools, and liquidity sources.
That is why the aggregation layer is becoming increasingly important as the industry looks to simplify growing complexity and improve execution.
My interview with @broadchain_info on DeFi, execution quality, intent-based trading, and where the industry is heading.
Read it here: https://t.co/wht9BY7aXA
🚨 UPDATE: BNY Mellon, Citi, DBS, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan, Société Générale, and UBS are among the banks with the broadest crypto exposure across trading, payments, ETFs, and tokenization, according to Bitwise.
The news surrounding the TrustedVolumes exploit is misleading.
So, let me also clarify: neither 1inch nor any of its protocols have been exploited, compromised or affected in any way. There is no risk to our systems, infrastructure or user funds.
TrustedVolumes is a liquidity provider used by 1inch, as well as by many others from across the industry. They do not exclusively serve 1inch and provide the same service to multiple protocols.
The way this has been reported by many 'sources' on Twitter, as well as by some media outlets, I can only assume is designed to generate clicks and engagement. While it is true that 1inch uses TrustedVolumes as a resolver, we are one of many. The framing of this story is ultimately confusing and harmful.
The reputational damage from this is now difficult to reverse, as it is always harder to correct a false narrative than it is to create one. However, we remain one of the most highly audited protocols and we continue to hold ourselves to the highest standards of security. Whilst it is sad that one misleading mention potentially impacts this, we know in the longer-term, the truth and efforts made by our team will prevail.
We continue to monitor the situation closely along with our security partners, will assist where appropriate and we will look to correct all those who make unfactual statements on the matter.
We are aware of misleading reports relating to an exploit involving TrustedVolumes. We can confirm that neither 1inch nor any of the 1inch protocols are involved.
There is no impact on 1inch systems, infrastructure or user funds.
TrustedVolumes operate independently as a liquidity provider, used by multiple protocols across the industry, and are not exclusive to 1inch.
We continue to monitor the situation and are actively assisting where appropriate alongside relevant security parties.
The framing of this story is misleading. Seems a simple case of attaching a bigger brand (1inch) to a smaller story to farm clicks
Some with understanding will see through that, but sadly many won't
This article also raises the tough fact that crisis comms in DeFi is a different beast due to transparency. The old tactics don’t work and control is difficult.
Yet there are many DeFi companies out there with zero crisis management plan. Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.
Quite the week for @1inch
We passed $800B in volume, crossed $4B in total RWA volume, worked with @0xfluid on a route to free over $100M in trapped Aave WETH, co-hosted a NYC brunch with @Ledger for student blockchain club presidents, and signed US policy letters from @BlockchainAssn and @fund_defi.
From late night shipping to the next billion routed - DeFi does not sleep.
Hong Kong Web3 Festival is in the bag.
Across the week I sat on four panels with everyone from an AI Professors to the Co-founder of @AssetoFinance and even the Group President of @animocabrands.
While each focused on different topics with different views, here is what I learned:
- AI Agents are the main trend - discussed on every panel 😅
- RWA becoming core DeFi collateral, not just narrative
- Crypto is becoming backend financial plumbing for global commerce
- Institutional flows > retail this cycle
- Thumbs up is the photo pose of choice in HK
Next stop for @1inch is Miami 🤟🏻
Seeing the 0x team pushing more simulated data on the feed. Without context, of course.
Firstly, let’s be clear about over-quote: 1inch uses a bunch of different swap execution models, so direct 1:1 comparisons can be misleading.
With our intent-based model, which more and more agents are accessing, users define their desired outcome. They don't just take a fixed point-in-time quote.
And simulated data ≠ actual execution:
It depends on assumptions (routing, timing)It ignores protections and execution dynamics
We’ve looked into some of the simulated data floating around before, when they were talking about revert rates. The figure for actual transactions was 3.8% - much, much lower than simulation. Happy to share methodology.
I guess we will again have to get our analytics team going on reviewing this dataset.
We are not perfect, but presenting simulations without context and leaving out certain data points (don't worry we will share soon) feels more combative than constructive.
Happy to compare properly, like-for-like.