According to Coinglass data, Binance saw a net inflow of USDT of 36.3802 million in the past hour.

According to Huoxun Finance, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy warned that Russia is about to launch a large-scale attack on Ukraine.

According to Huoxun Finance, in the past 24 hours, a total of $178 million in positions were liquidated across the entire internet, including $57.3395 million in long positions and $121 million in short positions. Specifically, $10.8736 million in Bitcoin long positions and $40.657 million in short positions were liquidated; $12.1028 million in Ethereum long positions and $37.2136 million in short positions were liquidated. During the same period, a total of 69,433 people worldwide were liquidated. The largest single liquidation occurred on Binance's BTCUSDT trading pair, worth $3.435 million.

MyToken data monitoring shows that on 【June 21st, 24:20】 (Beijing Time), an address starting with 【0xee95】 transferred 【55391873863.09 BabyDoge】 to an address starting with 【0xac57】, with a total value of approximately 【87.52 million】. Real time monitoring of large transfers：https://www.mytokencap.com/large-transfers/

Huoxun Finance reports that Axelar Network, a cross-chain protocol, issued a statement regarding the recent security incident involving Secret Network. The statement clarified that there was a misunderstanding in the community; neither Axelar nor the IBC protocol was attacked or compromised. The affected token smart contract was not developed, deployed, or maintained by Axelar, and its firewall mechanism prevented the risk from spreading to other chains. It is understood that the exploited contract was a fork based on CW20-ICS20, in which the developers removed two core security checks, leading to an "infinite minting" vulnerability. This fork altered the original trust model of the contract and was not subject to a new security audit. Axelar stated that anyone can deploy cross-chain asset encapsulation contracts through IBC, and this incident was a security risk introduced by modifications to the third-party contract; it was neither a unique logical flaw nor a problem with the IBC protocol itself.