August 11, 2025: the pool linked to Qubic has surpassed the essential threshold in some operational home windows on Monero, reaching 63 blocks out of 122 and inflicting a reorganization (reorg) of as much as 6 blocks.
Following the occasion, some exchanges – together with Kraken – have prudently suspended deposits in XMR, whereas the neighborhood has accelerated the migration in the direction of P2Pool.
For particulars of the occasion within the media and for the technical context, see additionally the journalistic reconstruction and the literature on the phenomenon of egocentric mining: the educational reference examine on the topic Eyal & Sirer (2014).
In line with the information collected by our on‑chain displays and public dashboards (for instance xmrchain and MoneroBlocks), in essential home windows the pool reached a hashrate share in line with 51.6% calculated over the 122 block window.
Now we have verified dozens of orphan blocks and a number of reorgs as much as 6 blocks; the identical indicators present that the strain on hashpower allocation was concentrated in discontinuous intervals fairly than steady. Knowledge up to date as of August 27, 2025.
What occurred, briefly
- 51% threshold exceeded: in sure operational home windows, the Qubic pool concentrated the vast majority of the hashrate and printed a non-public chain to the detriment of the primary community.
- Deep reorganizations: as much as 6 blocks changed, with dozens of blocks left orphaned (stale).
- Rapid impression: deposits in XMR suspended or slowed down on numerous exchanges and improve in affirmation necessities.
- Financial dynamics: exterior incentives by way of buyback & burn of QUBIC have channeled a big share of hashpower to Monero.
- Spillover danger: the Qubic neighborhood has already indicated the intention to focus, in a subsequent section, on Dogecoin – a PoW community with, in line with up to date market information, a market capitalization of about 35 billion {dollars} as of August 27, 2025.
Who’s Qubic and why its incentive shifted the hashrate
Qubic is a Layer‑1 chain based by Sergey Ivancheglo, identified for his function within the IOTA ecosystem. The venture adopts a Proof of Helpful Work that, along with conventional PoW, directs computing energy in the direction of “helpful” duties – for instance, processing synthetic intelligence algorithms.
The main focus is the financial mannequin: with the buyback & burn mechanism, Qubic incentivizes mining on third-party networks. In observe:
- The miners extract XMR on Monero and obtain the standard rewards.
- The rewards in XMR are transformed into USDT available on the market.
- With these funds, tokens QUBIC are bought, that are partly burned and partly redistributed as a bonus.
The result’s twofold: on one hand, it creates deflationary strain on the QUBIC token; on the opposite, it affords an anticipated return for pool individuals probably larger than that obtainable with direct mining on Monero.
Not surprisingly, many CPU‑miners have lately centered their hashrate exactly on the Qubic pool. It have to be stated that the community’s response has moved in parallel.
Chronology of the escalation
Important Timeline
- Could 2023: the contribution of the Qubic pool to Monero mining was marginal, beneath 2%.
- Finish of July 2025: the pool’s share exceeds 25%, with peaks among the many essential gamers within the pool panorama.
- August 11, 2025: Qubic claims operational home windows with over 51% of the hashrate, making use of egocentric mining practices; in a window of 122 blocks, the pool produces 63.
Key Numbers
- 63/122 blocks produced in a essential window (roughly 51.6%).
- Reorganization of as much as 6 blocks into particular person occasions, ensuing within the formation of orphan blocks.
- Excessive focus of hashrate on a single pool in particular time home windows.
How a 51% assault works
Egocentric mining, in easy phrases
With management over greater than 51% of the hashrate, an actor can withhold newly discovered blocks by constructing a personal chain. When it’s advantageous, the personal chain is printed and seems to be longer than the general public one, triggering the reordering of the most recent confirmations.
On this method, some transactions might be excluded (censorship) or makes an attempt at double spending might be made. On this context, the timing and technique of publication make the distinction.
Censorship and centralization: the dangers
- Selective censorship: some funds or transactions could be intentionally omitted.
- Slower confirmations: in response to the assault, the trade have elevated the variety of confirmations required to course of transactions.
- Structural fragility: a excessive focus of hashpower in a number of swimming pools reduces the general resilience of the community.
Sensible impression on customers, retailers, and exchanges
- Double spending: transactions already confirmed might be “rewritten” following the reorg.
- Stale blocks: the rise in orphan blocks results in an accumulation of pending transactions within the mempool.
- Suspended or delayed deposits: in response to the assault, some platforms – as confirmed by Kraken – have quickly suspended deposits in XMR.
The Qubic workforce admitted to utilizing egocentric mining strategies and operational home windows during which their pool held over 51% of the hashrate. The episode prompted operators and infrastructures to tighten danger insurance policies. An fascinating facet is the pace with which such measures have been adopted.
Why the buyback & burn made the distinction
- Worth and narrative: the acquisition and burning operations of the tokens create a story of shortage, able to influencing the market worth of the token.
- Anticipated return: between bonus and potential appreciation of the QUBIC, the return for pool individuals can exceed that of native mining.
- Community impact: the entry of extra miners will increase the chance of manufacturing blocks throughout the pool, fueling the cycle of incentives.
In essence, a well-structured exterior financial incentive can impression the safety of a third-party PoW community, opening home windows of vulnerability with out the attacker having to put money into {hardware} devoted to that particular community. It ought to be famous that not all networks react in the identical method.
Neighborhood reactions and regulatory debate
The Monero neighborhood has moved on a number of fronts. On one hand, there was a rise in migration in the direction of decentralized mining options like P2Pool to strengthen the distribution of the hashrate; then again, “contextual” measures have been adopted akin to elevating the variety of confirmations required by exchanges and initiating discussions on potential consensus mitigations. Some builders have reiterated {that a} deep reorg doesn’t show a everlasting management of the hashrate, however fairly a interval of predominance.
There are additionally unverified estimates suggesting that sustaining whole and extended management would require investments on the order of tens of thousands and thousands of {dollars} per day, a degree mentioned on the danger evaluation degree.
The financial sustainability of a steady assault thus stays a topic of debate and strongly relies on market dynamics, the liquidity of exchanges, and the conversion prices of the incentivizing token.
In parallel, the episode reignites the regulatory debate on privateness coin and the rising focus of swimming pools, fueling calls for for better operational transparency and, in some circles, for reforms aimed toward selling a wider distribution of hashrate.
Dogecoin within the highlight: danger of inter-chain contagion
The Qubic neighborhood has expressed the intention to direct its efforts in the direction of Dogecoin, a PoW community whose capitalization, in line with the information reported by CoinMarketCap, at present exceeds 35 billion {dollars} as of August 27, 2025.
If the “buyback & burn” strategy and the focus of hashrate have been replicated, even networks with merge-mining or consolidated pool constructions may face related pressures. The message to the market is evident: token-incentives can develop into financial instruments able to influencing total blockchain.
Reasonable countermeasures for PoW networks
- Decentralized swimming pools: encourage and undertake options like P2Pool to cut back the danger of a single level of focus.
- Consensus parameters: consider non permanent changes of the consensus parameters to disincentivize opportunistic hashrate coming from exterior sources.
- Danger coverage: improve confirmations for notably delicate transactions and promote coordination between exchanges, swimming pools, and builders.
- On-chain monitoring: implement alert methods to watch the distribution of hashrate, any reorgs, and irregular charges of stale blocks; public dashboards like xmrchain help collaborative monitoring.
Why this story issues
The Qubic–Monero case reveals how the safety of a PoW blockchain doesn’t rely solely on {hardware}, but additionally on financial incentives and pool governance.
It’s a change of perspective the place “off-chain” remuneration fashions can, in sure home windows, enable operational management over third-party networks. That stated, the response functionality of the neighborhood stays a decisive issue.
Editorial be aware: for some technical particulars – akin to particular reorg logs and full official statements from the Qubic workforce – additional major references are wanted. Now we have linked dashboards and public sources; further updates might be built-in as quickly as they’re accessible. Knowledge up to date as of August 27, 2025.
ogecoin
I’m