Fractal's first halving burned a total of 4,275,161 FB.

Approximately 2.196 million FB came from remaining early Index Mining rewards, 579,000 FB from public test rewards, and 1.5 million FB from the second-year ecosystem treasury—all records are verifiable on-chain.

Seeing the burn, retail investors may assume the price should rise. Yet FB is currently around $0.31, down about 9% in 24 hours, 15.5% over the past seven days, and 22.4% over the past 30 days. Meanwhile, BTC is still rebounding, indicating weak buying pressure for FB.

This burn did not involve repurchasing on the secondary market; it primarily addressed unissued allocations. It reduces future supply but does not bring in new buying capital.

The burned amount accounts for roughly 2% of the maximum supply. After halving, 25 FB are still generated every 30 seconds, approximately 72,000 per day and 26.28 million annually—about six times the amount burned.

Official data shows that approximately 109.6 million FB are currently in circulation, with 45.7% still unissued. Index Mining has staked about 12.6 million FB, locking up part of the circulating supply, and staking rewards also generate new selling pressure.

The direction of this burn is correct—the supply pressure has indeed decreased somewhat. But for the price to recover, Fractal must attract more users, trading volume, and capital to absorb the daily newly minted FB.

#FractalBitcoin #FB #Bitcoin $FB

UniSat spent 200,000 U to buy 541,944 FB tokens, at an average price of 0.369 U.

It's good to see buying pressure, accounting for about 0.49% of the circulating supply, and the repurchased tokens were not burned but instead used for staking and Index Mining.

I think FB can be played with a small position, but it's not yet time to go heavy.

Over the remaining four months, if Fractal's user base, trading volume, and fees keep growing, then this coin will have real substance. A single 200,000 U buyback won't sustain it for long.

#fractalbitcoin #FB #Bitcoin $FB

There’s been a lot of discussion around wallet security lately, and I actually think UniSat taking the time to explain mnemonic security in detail was necessary.

A lot of people instinctively ask the same question:

Are 12 words no longer safe? Should everyone just switch to 24 words?

But that’s not really the core issue.

Under BIP-39, a 12-word mnemonic is generated from 128 bits of entropy, while a 24-word mnemonic uses 256 bits. There’s also checksum data included, but that doesn’t add extra randomness.

What matters isn’t just the number of words.

It’s whether the entropy was generated securely, whether the wallet implementation is sound, and whether the mnemonic itself has ever been exposed.

The same goes for a BIP-39 passphrase.

It doesn’t magically turn a 12-word mnemonic into a “higher-entropy mnemonic.” It works as an additional input when deriving the seed. Used properly, it adds another layer of protection. Used carelessly, it becomes another critical secret you can’t afford to lose.

That’s why I don’t see UniSat’s update as just another wallet version update.

Whenever the industry gets hit by security incidents, the conversation eventually comes back to the boring fundamentals: randomness, private keys, mnemonics, and implementation quality.

Nobody talks much about them during the hype.

Until something bre