PAYSON, UT / ACCESS Newswire / April 24, 2026 / WorkMax, Foundation Software’s construction mobile time tracking app, was recently featured in Voyage Utah, a prominent regional publication that showcases innovative businesses and the people behind them.
Foundation CEO Mike Ode was joined by Regional Sales Manager Eric Vittardi and Customer Strategy Specialist Ron Craft, to reflect on WorkMax’s growth.
Starting as a small startup app in the early 2000s, WorkMax has grown to be a full construction workforce management solution. And it’s this evolution that ultimately sparked Foundation’s decision to add WorkMax to its suite of construction-specific solutions.
“Bringing [WorkMax] into Foundation’s suite just made sense – it lets customers see labor costs in real-time and keep projects on track,” Ode said. “It also integrates with some of our existing products, so everything works together.”
After joining Foundation’s portfolio, the company invested in WorkMax’s continued development so it could deliver even greater value in the field.
“The platform has evolved tremendously – expanding its features, refining its capabilities and becoming a trusted solution for contractors across the country,” Craft said.
The conversation also covered some of the common industry challenges WorkMax specifically eliminates, including the disconnect between the field and the office.
“Most of the tools just didn’t fit the way contractors actually work,” Vittardi said. “Seeing the gap firsthand made it clear why WorkMax was needed – it’s designed around real-world construction workflows.”
Ode expanded on that theme, speaking more broadly about WorkMax’s emergence as a go-to construction software solution.
“What I’m most proud of brand-wise is the trust and credibility WorkMax has earned in the construction industry,” Ode said. “That focus on solving practical problems, rather than just selling software, is why WorkMax is the standard in the industry.”
For contractors, that translates into greater confidence in their labor costs and project data from the field to the office.
To read the full interview, visit Voyage Utah.
About WorkMax
WorkMax, a Foundation Software company, is a leading provider of construction mobile time tracking apps and other workforce management solutions. Contractors capitalize on WorkMax’s modern technology to connect their field and office with modules like TIME, ASSETS, FORMS and Insight. For more information, visit http://www.workmax.com.
Foundation Software, LLC
Foundation Software has been the leading provider of construction software and services since 1985, delivering products that cover a project’s entire lifecycle, including job cost accounting, expense & pay management, takeoff & estimating, project management, safety management, HR management, mobile field apps and payroll services. For information, call (800) 246-0800, visit http://www.foundationsoft.com or email [email protected].
Media Contacts
Tracie Kuczkowski | VP of Marketing[email protected](800) 246-0800 x 7933
Samantha Ann Illius | Marketing Relations Coordinator and Influence Specialist[email protected](800) 811 5926 x 4823
SOURCE: WorkMax
About Web3Wire Web3Wire – Information, news, press releases, events and research articles about Web3, Metaverse, Blockchain, Artificial Intelligence, Cryptocurrencies, Decentralized Finance, NFTs and Gaming. Visit Web3Wire for Web3 News and Events, Block3Wire for the latest Blockchain news and Meta3Wire to stay updated with Metaverse News.
MAGA Coin (TRUMP)—a prominent political meme coin during the 2024 U.S. presidential election—once skyrocketed to a peak of $17.82 in early June 2024, as Donald Trump’s campaign reached its height. Currently, the token is trading around $0.04, representing a decline of nearly 99% from its all-time high.
MAGA is a typical example of the “PolitiFi” token category, where speculative capital often clusters around political narratives and quickly exits once public interest wanes.
What Is MAGA (TRUMP)?
MAGA coin, often traded under the ticker TRUMP, is an ERC-20 meme token built around the image and slogan “Make America Great Again,” primarily traded on decentralized platforms. However, the project has no official affiliation with any of President Trump’s campaigns or political organizations.
Unlike crypto projects with clear products or ecosystems, MAGA provides no specific utility. The token’s value is derived mainly from the virality of the narrative—the story of the U.S. presidential election and the expectation of a Donald Trump victory.
Before this narrative gained traction, the token traded at very low levels, below $0.01, with limited liquidity and little attention. This laid the groundwork for a highly speculative growth cycle once capital began to flow in.
Election Momentum Drove a Parabolic Surge
At the time, MAGA’s upward momentum almost exactly coincided with the developments of the U.S. presidential campaign. In early 2024, as media coverage of the “Make America Great Again” slogan intensified, it contributed to the surge in attention for related assets like MAGA.
At its peak, the price rose from under $0.15 to a high of $17.82 in early June 2024—a more than 100-fold increase in just a few months, pushing the token’s market capitalization to over $800 million.
MAGA coin price chart (ALL). Source: TradingView
This peak occurred almost simultaneously with the climax of the campaign, when rallies, debates, and Trump-related news reached high density. This political narrative not only captured media attention but also attracted speculative capital into the crypto market.
Whale Concentration and Thin Liquidity Shaped the Cycle
On-chain data reveals a high level of concentration: the top 10 wallets hold approximately 73.9% of the total supply, while large wallets account for about 65.6%. Only a very small number of holders control the majority of tokens, with a Gini coefficient of approximately 0.97—reflecting an extremely skewed distribution.
During the price surge phase, this structure helped push prices up faster because the actual circulating supply on the market was low. Conversely, the risk of a reversal was also high, as large holders had the potential to significantly impact liquidity and price.
Currently, MAGA’s liquidity is relatively limited, with total liquidity at approximately $697,000 and the majority of trading occurring on DEX pools. The 24-hour trading volume is around $198,000—much lower than during its peak period, according to data from CoinMarketCap.
The combination of thin liquidity and concentrated distribution makes this token a market easily influenced by the behavior of a small group of holders, especially as speculative capital weakens.
After the Peak: A 99% Reset
After reaching its peak in June 2024, MAGA entered a period of sharp correction. As nomination results became clearer and the market was no longer surprised by political developments, the narrative that once fueled the token began to fade.
MAGA coin price chart (1D). Source: TradingView
In that context, the price quickly dropped from above $17 to below $1 within a few months, before continuing its slide throughout 2025. By the beginning of this year, the token traded around $0.03–$0.05, down more than 99% from its peak.
Trading volume over 24 hours is approximately $198,000, while liquidity remains low, indicating that the market has shrunk significantly compared to its peak phase.
At this stage, MAGA no longer operates as a “hot” narrative-driven asset; instead, MAGA primarily trades within a narrow range—a familiar pattern for many meme coins after losing their primary momentum.
Beyond MAGA: The PolitiFi Pattern
MAGA is an example of a broader trend in the “PolitiFi” crypto market—where tokens are tied to political figures or events.
During 2024, many politically themed tokens emerged, such as TRUMP or BIDEN-themed coins, recording sharp gains due to social media buzz, but most of the momentum came from narratives rather than utility or product ecosystems.
For MAGA, current data shows a price decline of over 99%, low liquidity, and trading mostly moving sideways after the narrative cooled down.
This does not mean PolitiFi is disappearing, but it shows that this group of tokens depends heavily on the level of interest in political developments. Without a new catalyst or a community strong enough to sustain capital flow, tokens like MAGA (TRUMP) easily fall into a state of thin liquidity after their boom period.
This article contains heavy spoilers for “For All Mankind” Season 5, Episode 5, “Svoboda.”
It finally happened. After “For All Mankind” teased an anime-like storyline for Season 5, the show’s latest episode, “Svoboda,” finally starts the Martian revolution. The Apple TV sci-fi series, which takes place in an alternate reality where the space race never ended and humanity reached the stars and colonized Mars in the 2000s, has been teasing some big fight for independence on Mars since Season 4. It all began with blue collar workers on the red planet rioting to demand better working conditions and rights.
Mars has already changed everything for the sci-fi epic that is “For All Mankind.” At the start of Season 5, there’s a thriving settler community on the planet, with entire families who consider themselves Martian. This is now part of their identity, and they take it seriously, enough so that they’re willing to fight for it. There are citizens meeting to promote independentist ideas and even a local tech mogul has plans for a self-sustaining Martian city that can function as a permanent and fully independent settlement. Still, this has mostly been talk … until now.
Everything changed when Season 5, Episode 4, “Open Source,” revealed that tech giants Helios and Kuragin have been striking clandestine deals to make the entire Martian operation fully automated. Recognizing that this means every worker and settler on the red planet would eventually get kicked out, the people of the Martian colony known as Happy Valley rebelled.
Though there was already a revolt in Season 4, this one is different, as “Svoboda” ends with rebels about to take the governor of Happy Valley hostage. It’s an exciting development that means “For All Mankind” is also getting to a classic trope of Mars-set stories: Martian revolutions.
For All Mankind wouldn’t be a proper Mars story without a revolution
Apple TV
Again, as exciting as “For All Mankind” Season 5’s revolution storyline is, it’s far from surprising. Quite the opposite, ardent sci-fi fans know you can’t tell a proper Mars story without a revolution.
Whether it’s books like “Red Rising” and Kim Stanley Robinson’s “Mars” trilogy, acclaimed TV shows like “The Expanse” (itself based on a novel series) and “Babylon 5,” movies like “Total Recall” and “Mars Express,” or even video games like “Red Faction,” revolution is inherent to the red planet. Small groups fighting corruption. Blue collar workers rising up against the big corporations that rule Mars. Colonists fighting to gain independence.
There’s a good reason for this. The sheer amount of work required to colonize Mars makes it easier to think of the red planet as an industrial place first, a second home, well, second. That, in turn, makes the planet ripe for stories about fighting oppression and class warfare. Then there’s the fact that the vast distance between Earth and Mars would make it easy for Earth to hold Martian supplies hostage, leading to conflict.
That’s exactly what “For All Mankind” showrunner Ben Nedivi and his team looked at when developing Season 5. As he told Space.com, the time needed to ship things from England to its American colonies parallels the journey of going from Earth to Mars in the TV show. “That gap and the control Earth still wants to have over Mars forms a lot of tension that you feel this season,” he explained.
Space colonies are ripe for stories about revolution and independence, a way to echo our own history in a new setting. “For All Mankind” is now part of that great tradition.
Anime is home to a wide swath of legendary weapons, many of them now immortalized as iconic elements of some of the best stories told in animation. From the razor-sharp Nichirin swords of Demon Slayer to the body-exploding Dominator laser pistols of Psycho-Pass, we’ve seen tradition and horror blended into some of the most unforgettable designs in the medium.
But which among them is truly the most iconic? It’s not simply a matter of raw power or visual flair. The weapons that leave an unforgettable mark on us tend to carry deep narrative weight, often blurring the line between tool and symbol. Below is a selection of standout armaments from some of the best anime, each one an example of something horrifyingly destructive that conceals profound thematic meaning.
5
Sakabato (Ruroni Kenshin)
Image: Viz Media/Aniplex
There’s something about a weapon that can’t be used as it was intended that makes that weapon uniquely compelling. The reverse-blade katana Sakabato, owned by the master swordsman of the Hiten Mitsurugi-ryū style, Ruroni Kenshin, is an unforgettable example: a sword designed to preserve life instead of taking it.
Sakabato isn’t your typical weapon. It’s a moral conundrum and a reflection of Kenshin’s vow to never kill again, creating this interesting tension whenever the swordsman gets into a fight that we rarely get to see in anime. The fun thing about Sakaboto is that it turns the protagonist’s primary tool into a reflection of his own identity.
4
DC Mini (Paprika)
Image: Sony Pictures Entertainment
While they may not have been designed as weapons, the dream-diving DC Mini headpieces from Paprika still give me nightmares. Satoshi Kon’s 2006 film is a trip into worlds unknown, unlocking some special part of the imagination that’s impossible to explain in words.
At the center of it all is the psychiatric device known as the DC Mini, a kind of futuristic crown that allows therapists to enter and record the dreams of their patients. Used nefariously, as seen in Paprika, it can lead to the collapse of the boundaries between the waking world and unconscious thought.
The DC Mini is an ironic twist on a device meant for aid. It might not be a weapon by design, but it’s still capable of turning our own imagination against us, which sounds far more frightening than anything else on this list.
3
The Inverted Spear of Heaven (Jujutsu Kaisen)
Image: Crunchyroll/Mappa
If it cuts through Satoru Gojo, it’s iconic. First appearing in the flashback episodes of Jujutsu Kaisen’s Hidden Inventory and Premature Death, the Inverted Spear of Heaven has shown it can be a formidable tool for killing in the hands of Toji Zenin, particularly when it comes to curse users.
For the characters of Jujutsu Kaisen, the weapon is already well-known as an extraordinarily rare and feared cursed tool. This status is born from the fact that it breaks the established rules of combat by completely nullifying cursed techniques, making it arguably the most dangerous weapon in the series.
The Inverted Spear of Heaven isn’t notable for its weight or power, though. It’s iconic for the fact that it exists as a narrative disruptor, a tool capable of overriding the very system it exists in, which explains why it has such minimal screen time.
2
Eva Units (Neon Genesis Evangelion)
The mecha genre is itself iconic in anime with titles like Gundam, Macross, Mazinger Z, and Patlabor some of its most notable examples. While each of these shows may serve as its own interesting spin on the genre, few hit that psychological framing quite like the masterpiece that is Neon Genesis Evangelion.
Whether you’re watching the original 1995 run or the 2007 Rebuild, the Eva units of Evangelion are some of the most terrifying weapons put to animation. It’s not the destructive biomechanical humanoid mechs capable of decimating cities that make the Eva units so horrifying. It’s the underage pilots that are being put through some of the most grueling psychological pressure of their lives, often all for nothing.
1
Dragon Slayer (Berserk)
Image: Dark Horse Comics/Hakusensha
Less a weapon and more a massive slab of steel, Guts’ Dragon Slayer of Berserk fame is arguably the most iconic weapon of them all. One swing by Guts, and it tears through foes with a grotesque elegance only the late Kentaro Miura can dream up.
Unlike traditional katanas or broadswords seen in other anime, the Dragon Slayer of Berserk is this unnecessarily massive blade that defies the refinement of its predecessors, opting instead to put on full display its immense lethality. Yet hiding beneath its absurd scale and brutal savagery is the physical manifestation of strife itself: heavy, exhausting, relentless. It puts on full display the very mentality of its owner, whose relentlessness continues to keep him going despite losing everything.
If its sheer size in Berserk wasn’t enough, the Dragon Slayer’s influence extends into various other media, from the Greatsword of Dark Souls to Cloud’s Buster Sword in Final Fantasy VII.
I’m A Celebrity South Africa 2026 delivered one of its most chaotic moments ever at tonight’s live final, as a fiery row between Jimmy Bullard, David Haye and Adam Thomas erupted on air.
The explosive clash unfolded live from London, leaving hosts Ant and Dec struggling to regain control as tensions spiralled.
At one point, Sinitta and Gemma Collins even walked off set as the argument escalated.
Adam was later crowned the winner of the series, but the tense atmosphere meant the moment felt far from celebratory.
Jimmy Bullard sparked chaos after kicking off at tonight’s I’m A Celebrity live final (Credit: ITV)
I’m A Celebrity live final: Jimmy, Adam and David on-air row
The dramatic scenes began when Ant and Dec invited Jimmy to address his earlier fallout with Adam in camp.
Viewers had seen the pair clash earlier in the week when Jimmy quit a trial without attempting it, initially sending them both home.
Although Adam was later allowed to remain, Jimmy did not speak publicly at the time. That changed during the 10pm live show.
“Let me run you through what happened,” he said. “When we went down for the trial it was originally for stars so I chose Adam.”
Turning to the hosts, Jimmy added: “Then you sprung a lightbulb moment on me that the bottom two got to go home. I didn’t choose Adam because of this.”
Adam insisted he has repeatedly apologised to Jimmy (Credit: ITV)
Jimmy went on to claim he had spoken to a producer named Olly and referenced discussions around his contract.
“I spoke to Olly, talked through contract and said I’m going to have to pull the plug,” he said.
He continued with a detailed explanation about pay arrangements, saying: “If I go home and call Adam back, I get full pay.
“If I go home, stay in and go back, I get a small per centre of that. It’s a job. I have to go home for person reasons. That’s why I took Adam.”
However, the situation quickly escalated.
David Haye wades in and Sinitta walks off
“You can all be upset with me. I threw him under the bus,” Jimmy said, before raising his voice and alleging that key moments had been edited out.
He claimed Adam had been “abusive, aggressive and intimidating”, prompting David Haye to step in and accuse Adam of “playing the victim”.
David isn’t the biggest fan of Adam, after they also clashed in South Africa.
“I don’t stand on someone being abusive, aggressive and intimidating!” Jimmy shouted. “You showed none of the C bombs.”
Ant pushed back, saying he did not view Adam’s behaviour as intimidating and reminding Jimmy: “I was there.”
Adam responded by insisting he had apologised several times, saying: “I’ve apologised to Jimmy on many occasions. That’s how I’ve ever shown myself off. I apologise and I am sorry.”
Sinitta stormed off, followed by Gemma Collins (Credit: ITV)
David continued, claiming the edit had not reflected everything that happened, while Jimmy called for unseen footage to be shown.
As tensions peaked, Sinitta stood up and walked off, with Gemma Collins following shortly after.
Once calm was restored, Ant and Dec revealed Adam as the winner. Despite the victory, he appeared eager for the night to end.
Viewers reacted in disbelief, with many describing the live final as chaotic viewing.
One wrote on X: “Absolute Car Crash TV this.” Another added: “Ahahaha proper car crash I love it!”
And a third wrote: “Best and worst 30 mins of British tv this year so far.”
Read more: I’m A Celebrity fans slam ITV over major Celebrity Cyclone blunder
What do you think of this story? Leave us a comment on our Facebook page
Although Final Fantasy XIV’s time on the PlayStation 4 might soon be coming to an end, the critically acclaimed MMO RPG will soon show up on a new console: the Nintendo Switch 2. But while the prospect of grinding through raids and dungeons from the comfort of your own bed is certainly enticing, it turns out that this port comes with a strange caveat.
Shortly after Square Enix CEO Takashi Kiryu announced Final Fantasy XIV would be coming to Switch 2 during the game’s North American Fan Festival, Kiryu launched into an explanation of how subscriptions will work on the console. Whereas PC, Xbox, and PlayStation will all work with a standard Final Fantasy XIV subscription, the Nintendo Switch 2 requires players have a distinct subscription for just that console. Thankfully, players will not need a Switch Online subscription to play–though Kiryu did add that Final Fantasy XIV subscribers can get one for 50% less. Additionally, those with an active PC, Xbox, and PlayStation subscription will get 50% off a Switch 2 subscription.
“After discussions with Nintendo, it was decided that the Switch 2 version of Final Fantasy XIV would require a separate subscription,” Final Fantasy XIV director Naoki Yoshida added. “This was decided after many months of discussions with Nintendo and we understand this is different to how we’ve done things before.”
Brazil blocked access to prediction market platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket, citing investor protection concerns.
Finance Minister Dario Durigan said the platforms violated betting regulations approved by Congress and lacked proper regulatory oversight.
The central bank prohibited derivatives contracts based on sports, gaming, political events, and other non-economic benchmarks.
Brazil’s Finance Ministry blocked access to prediction market platforms Thursday, targeting major platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi that traders use to bet on outcomes.
Finance Minister Dario Durigan said the platforms violated betting regulations approved by the Brazilian Congress, and that prediction markets weren’t legal or regulated in the country. He added that blocking them would protect citizens’ savings amid government efforts to reduce debt levels.
“We have advocated for stricter enforcement and very rigorous regulation, which will continue to advance, so that we can curb the negative externalities and social harm that unregulated gambling causes to the Brazilian population,” Durigan said.
Reuters reported that both Polymarket and Kalshi were inaccessible in the country as of Friday afternoon.
Banco Central do Brasil issued a resolution prohibiting derivatives contracts based on sports events, virtual gaming, political outcomes, and other non-economic benchmarks. The central bank cited risks to investor protections and market integrity.
Chief of Staff Miriam Belchior said the measure aims to “protect income, prevent financial losses, and reduce families’ exposure to unsafe practices.”
The Brazilian crackdown reflects mounting global pressure on prediction markets. Portugal restricted Polymarket access in January, while multiple U.S. states have taken action. Most recently, Wisconsin filed lawsuits against Kalshi, Robinhood, Coinbase, Polymarket, and Crypto.com on Friday, alleging their sports event contracts violate the state’s commercial gambling ban.
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
When Michael first hit Rotten Tomatoes with a brutal 27 percent critics score, it looked like another high profile biopic was about to crash under the weight of expectations. Then audiences showed up. And everything changed.
The film has now surged to a staggering 96 percent audience score, instantly flipping the narrative and putting Michael in rare territory as one of the highest rated musical biopics ever from a fan perspective.
So what happened?
Critics vs Audience A Familiar Divide
Early critic reactions focused on pacing, tone, and the film’s approach to controversial moments in Michael Jackson’s life. Some reviews called it uneven, others said it played things too safe. But audiences saw something completely different.
Fans praised the performance, the music, and most importantly, the emotional connection. Social reactions have been flooded with comments about how the film captures the energy, pressure, and genius of Jackson in a way that feels authentic and powerful. For many viewers, it is not about perfection. It is about feeling. And Michael delivers that in a big way.
The Power of Music and Nostalgia
Musical biopics live and die by one thing more than anything else. Connection.
From the moment the first iconic track hits, audiences are pulled into a shared experience. With a catalog as legendary as Michael Jackson’s, Michael had a built in advantage that critics may have underestimated.
The film leans heavily into that legacy. The performances, choreography, and stage recreations are being called some of the best ever put on screen in this genre. That alone is driving repeat viewings and word of mouth momentum.
Jafaar Jackson, Michael [credit: Lionsgate]
Audience Scores Are Becoming the Real Indicator
We have seen this trend before. Critics analyze. Audiences react.
And in the era of social media and instant feedback, audience scores are increasingly shaping a film’s reputation in real time. A 96 percent score is not just good. It signals strong emotional resonance and mass appeal.
That kind of response can extend box office legs, boost streaming performance, and even reshape award season conversations.
One of the Biggest Turnarounds in Recent Memory
Going from 27 percent to 96 percent is not just a rebound. It is a complete narrative reversal.
For Michael, it means the film is no longer defined by its early reviews. It is being defined by the people actually watching it. And right now, they love it.
The Bottom Line
Michael may not be a critic darling, but it is becoming a fan phenomenon.
And in today’s landscape, that might matter more than ever.
Bold and the Beautiful has a stack of plots that is irritating viewers right now. And I tend to agree with most of the fan opinion on this. From RJ Forrester‘s (Brayan Nicoletti) abrasive attitude to Taylor Hayes (Rebecca Budig) happily never after just evaporating and a few other things on B&B that are just not proper. Not proper at all. And we’re going to discuss five of the worst plots on the CBS soap right now.
So, I see a lot of fans ranting on soap social media every day about the nonsense that we’re seeing on Bold. Some viewers are extremely ticked off. So, we’re going to talk about RJ, Electra, Taylor, Steffy, Hope, and some others.
Electra And Will’s Letter Situation on Bold and the Beautiful
So, the first thing we’re going to talk about is this whole thing with Electra Forrester (Laneya Grace) and Will Spencer (Crew Morrow) and the whole letter situation. And honestly, the whole scope of this storyline. We’ve seen how pouty that Electra has been. How she has no problem with somebody that she says is her friend living on the street eating out of dumpsters. And also, we’ve just seen her and Will and others that just won’t communicate clearly. And of course, we got RJ’s holier than thou bullcrap.
This could have all been cleared up if Electra had just asked Will why he ignored her letter or sent an email or a text or just had a conversation face to face or if Electra had actually listened when Will tried to explain that Ivy was lying about him. But Electra gave him no oxygen to even hear him. None of the people speak plainly and none of them listen. And on top of that, it feels like, and this is not just for this storyline, but across the board, almost every episode repeats the same exact conversation we heard the last time those people were on screen.
If they’re on Monday, and then we see them Monday, we see them Wednesday, same conversation again. And the main criticism I see about Bold is storylines don’t move forward. It’s repeat, repeat, repeat. And then every three episodes or maybe once a week, something moves forward a little.
We’ve been on the same calendar day on Bold for a week of episodes. If you look at the outfits that Electra and Daphne and others are wearing, it is literally not moving forward. I see this same criticism on most plots on B&B. Repeat conversations day after day and then you pile in unneeded flashbacks to make it even more stagnant.
Ivy’s “Not Proper” Thing on B&B
Another thing really bugging fans for a while now has been Ivy and her whole “It’s just not proper” thing. Brad Bell has done some bizarre rewrite on her. This is nothing like Ivy ever was before on Bold and the Beautiful. I don’t ever recall her even using the word proper before all the years she was on.
Ashleigh Brewer’s character has been twisted around to make her an uptight helicopter aunt manipulating Electra. And frankly, it’s not a well-written storyline. If you have to have a character acting totally out of character to make it work, that’s not good writing.
The whole storyline was not only dragged out, but after all this time, it’s frustrating to get a character that people actually used to like, Ivy, back on the scene, only to have her behave like an uptight, controlling weirdo. They brought her back, but made Ivy entirely unlikable. We were supposed to be getting her back to, you know, do something with Liam, maybe even with Thomas because they’re not related, something interesting.
Instead, she’s stalking Will and Dylan when she was supposed to be sick while Electra was out of town. And even now, Ivy remains unapologetic. She’s still rambling, hoping Electra doesn’t go back to Will. That’s on Friday’s episode after Ivy’s basically agreed it’s time for her to leave Forrester.
Everything With RJ Forrester
So, the next hot mess plot to talk about is everything with RJ Forrester since the recast with Brayan Nicoletti. It’s nothing to do with the actor. He’s fine. Handsome young guy. It is how Brad Bell is writing RJ. He used to be a much more likable young man. And he’s been a jerk from about five minutes after he walked through the door.
He was nice to Will for like a second and said, “Let’s not act like our dads Bill and Ridge. Let’s put that animosity behind us.” Will agreed. And then what does RJ do? He actually immediately started acting like his dad, Ridge Forrester (Thorsten Kaye).
Because RJ latched on to the idea of being with Electra. And that was back when she and Will were doing great. They were totally happy. And Brooke Logan (Katherine Kelly Lang) even told him, “Don’t go there. She’s with Will.” But RJ did.
And then he is just doubled down and tripled down. He’s 100% unlikable. He has not been a big hit with the fans. I think he’s the worst nepo baby that Bold and the Beautiful has ever had. And honestly, I think the writers need to completely rehab RJ if they ever want fans to like him.
Bold and the Beautiful: RJ Forrester – Taylor Hayes
Bold and the Beautiful Fans in an Outrage
Some recent comments on soap social media about him. This one I like. Can they please ship RJ overseas and bring back Thomas? Another said, RJ and Ivy are total garbage. And another said, RJ’s such a weirdo. Other comments flat-out call him a dumbass. Somebody else posted a long line of laughing face emoji’s over RJ saying his life hasn’t been as easy as Dylan thinks. RJ actually told that to a young woman who lived in her car and ate from a dumpster. What? Did he not get the jacket he wanted from Neiman Marcus? Come on.
Where are Deacon & Taylor on Bold?
Another thing bugging fans is the lack of follow-through, next steps, or any kind of closure on Deacon Sharpe (Sean Kanan) and Taylor. Everybody’s asking, “Where’s Deacon and Taylor? What happened?” Last we saw, they’re at Deacon’s place. They’re kissing. Sheila Carter (Kimberlin Brown) is stalking and smirking, saying she’ll be back.
You know, we had Deacon and Taylor finally get together, but they still didn’t actually get together. They didn’t make love. You know, they were interrupted before when Sheila came in with the knife. And then we had that, you know, them kissing on the sofa and then the Sheila cliffhanger. Will she kill them or won’t she? And then all of them disappeared.
So, are we going to circle back around to Taylor and Deacon? Has Taylor moved into Deacon’s little apartment? Did they get a house? You know, they didn’t even get a big pinnacle moment. Like, here we are. We can be together. He picks up Taylor in his arms, carries her to the bedroom, nothing. We got a very lackluster climax and then no climax. And they’re just on the back burner. Fans aren’t loving that.
Steffy And Hope Are MIA on B&B
The last thing to talk about is the fact that Steffy Forrester (Jacqueline MacInnes Wood) and Hope Logan (Annika Noelle) are pretty much MIA these days. Bold fans are ticked about this, too. After Hope reconciled with Liam Spencer (Scott Clifton), we never see them. Basically, they show up to make commentary on other storylines, like talking about Taylor and Deacon or the Logan Fashion House. I was hoping to see Hope and Liam expanding their family, getting a place of their own. They don’t even show them in the cabin anymore. It’s Brooke’s living room.
Then, we got Steffy and Finn Finnegan (Tanner Novlan). We see them every once in a while, usually for sofa sex, and that’s it. They also were mostly side items in the Taylor, Deacon and Sheila drama and then they evaporated. I saw a comment on social media where a fan asked if anybody remembers Steffy and Hope. One fan asked, “Where is Steffy? She needs to kick her loser brother RJ’s ass.” That made me laugh.
So, I understand that Bold wants younger folks center stage trying to bring in a younger demo, but they also don’t need to neglect their other fans and their other characters. You know, Hope and Steffy and that generation should be center stage, not the barely out of their teens crew.
In the span of just 18 days in April 2026, decentralized finance (DeFi) lost more than $606 million to hacks and exploits across at least a dozen incidents. Two attacks alone—the $285 million breach of Solana-based perpetuals DEX Drift Protocol on April 1 and the $292–293 million drain of Kelp DAO’s rsETH on April 18–19—accounted for roughly 95% of the month’s total losses.
What started as a targeted social-engineering operation snowballed into a systemic contagion: unbacked liquid restaking tokens (LRTs) flooded lending markets, triggered 100% utilization spikes and bad debt estimated between $124 million and $230 million, forced massive withdrawals exceeding $6–13 billion in DeFi TVL, and prompted emergency freezes across protocols. By April 23, even the world’s largest stablecoin wasn’t spared—Tether froze $344 million in USDT on Tron at the request of U.S. law enforcement.
April 2026 has already surpassed any prior month for DeFi losses since February 2025’s Bybit breach, with total 2026 year-to-date hacks now approaching $772 million. This wasn’t a random streak of misfortune. It was a textbook cascade exposing the interconnected risks of cross-chain bridges, LRT composability, human-operated governance, and the uncomfortable reality that “decentralized” systems often fall back on centralized emergency powers when the stakes are existential.
The Opening Salvo: Drift Protocol and Lazarus Group’s Long Game (April 1)
The month opened with what many initially dismissed as an April Fools’ prank. On April 1, Drift Protocol—a leading Solana perpetual futures exchange—lost approximately $285 million in roughly 12 minutes. Attackers drained multiple vaults holding USDC, WETH, JLP tokens, and other assets through compromised administrative privileges and pre-signed durable nonce transactions. No core smart contract bug was exploited; instead, the breach stemmed from a six-month social-engineering campaign traced to North Korea’s Lazarus Group (also known as UNC4736 or TraderTraitor).
Lazarus operatives reportedly infiltrated Drift’s contributors via fake identities, conference meetups, and malware targeting cloud infrastructure and personal devices. Once inside, they leveraged multisig governance weaknesses to execute the drainage. Drift immediately paused deposits and withdrawals, and on-chain analysts like PeckShield and Elliptic quickly flagged the North Korean connection—patterns consistent with prior state-sponsored operations, including the use of Tornado Cash for laundering.
The hack set a grim tone, but few anticipated the domino effect it foreshadowed. It highlighted a persistent DeFi vulnerability: even audited protocols with strong on-chain security remain exposed to off-chain human and operational risks.
Just twelve days after the Drift incident, another bridge vulnerability surfaced that, while smaller in realized losses, sent shockwaves through the interoperability space and foreshadowed the larger rsETH disaster to come. On April 13 at approximately 03:55 UTC, an attacker exploited a vulnerability in Hyperbridge’s Token Gateway contract on Ethereum—the interoperability layer connecting Polkadot to EVM chains. The root cause was a missing bounds check in the Merkle Mountain Range (MMR) proof verification logic within the two-year-old HandlerV1 contract. This flaw allowed the attacker to forge a cross-chain message that bypassed state-proof validation.
The forged message granted the attacker administrative control over the bridged DOT (ERC-6160) token contract. In a single atomic transaction, they minted 1 billion bridged DOT tokens—vastly exceeding the legitimate circulating supply of roughly 356,000 at the time. The attacker then routed the tokens through Odos Router and Uniswap V4 pools, extracting approximately 108.2 ETH (initially valued at ~$237,000–$272,000).
Hyperbridge initially reported ~$237,000 in losses but later revised the figure upward to approximately $2.5 million, accounting for additional drains from incentive pools across Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain, and Arbitrum, plus a separate ~245 ETH siphoned directly from the Token Gateway. Operations were paused immediately, and the incident remained isolated to bridged representations—native DOT on Polkadot was unaffected.
The exploit carried ironic weight: just two weeks earlier on April 1, Hyperbridge had posted (and later deleted) an April Fools’ joke claiming it was “unhackable” and even teasing a fake Lazarus attack. The real incident highlighted how even “trust-minimized” bridges relying on state proofs and message verification can fail catastrophically when verification logic has subtle implementation gaps.
This mid-month event served as a clear warning about bridge fragility. It demonstrated that forged cross-chain messages could lead to unlimited minting of bridged assets, a pattern that would repeat on a much larger scale just five days later with rsETH.
The Contagion Trigger: Kelp DAO’s rsETH Bridge Exploit (April 18–19)
Seventeen days later, the crisis escalated dramatically. On April 18 at approximately 17:35 UTC, attackers exploited Kelp DAO’s LayerZero V2-powered cross-chain bridge for rsETH (Kelp’s liquid restaking token). Using a combination of RPC node compromise, DDoS distraction, and a forged cross-chain message on a poorly configured 1-of-1 decentralized verifier network (DVN), the attacker tricked the bridge into releasing 116,500 rsETH—roughly 18% of total supply—without any corresponding burn on the source chain. The stolen tokens were worth approximately $292–293 million at the time.
LayerZero later attributed the attack to a highly sophisticated state actor—again pointing to Lazarus Group subunits. The attacker wasted no time: the freshly minted unbacked rsETH was deposited as collateral primarily on Aave V3 (and to a lesser extent Compound and Euler), allowing the borrowing of roughly $236 million in wETH and other assets.
Kelp DAO’s emergency multisig paused rsETH contracts 46 minutes later, but the damage was done. Multiple protocols—including Aave, SparkLend, Fluid, and others—rushed to freeze rsETH markets. Ethena, Curve, ether.fi, and even Tron DAO preemptively halted LayerZero OFT bridges as a precaution.
Aave’s Liquidity Crunch and the $13 Billion TVL Exodus
The rsETH collateral abuse turned a bridge exploit into a full-blown lending crisis. Aave, DeFi’s largest lending platform with over $20–26 billion in TVL pre-incident, faced massive bad debt estimates ranging from $124 million to $230 million depending on loss socialization. Utilization rates in core markets (USDT, USDC, WETH) spiked toward 100%, creating withdrawal bottlenecks. Over $6 billion fled Aave alone in the following days, with broader DeFi TVL dropping $7–13 billion in 24–48 hours across top chains. AAVE token price plunged more than 18%.
Aave TVL Exodus | Source: DefiLlama
Aave’s governance and risk teams acted decisively: the Protocol Guardian froze all rsETH and wrsETH reserves across V3 and V4 deployments on Ethereum and multiple L2s, setting loan-to-value (LTV) to zero. This contained the immediate bleed but left suppliers temporarily locked and reignited debates about collateral risk models in an era of composable LRTs.
Also Read: A $292 Million Wake-Up Call: Inside KelpDAO Hack That Exposed DeFi’s Fragility
The Centralization Reckoning: Arbitrum’s Security Council Steps In
As funds flowed across chains, Arbitrum’s Security Council— an elected body with emergency powers—intervened on April 21. Using an atomic upgrade to the inbox contract, they froze 30,766 ETH (approximately $71 million) tied to the exploitor on Arbitrum One and moved it to a governance-controlled wallet (0x…0DA0) pending further DAO approval.
The move was praised by some as responsible stewardship that prevented further laundering, especially against a suspected Lazarus actor. Others decried it as proof that even mature L2s like Arbitrum remain multisig-governed at heart. Justin Sun and others contrasted the swift L2 council action with Tron’s L1 “decentralization,” fueling a broader philosophical debate: when does emergency intervention cross into centralized control?
The Stablecoin Hammer Drops: $344 Million USDT Frozen on Tron (April 23)
The month’s chaos peaked on April 23 when Tether, in coordination with U.S. law enforcement and OFAC, blacklisted and froze $344 million USDT across two Tron wallets—one holding ~$213 million and the other ~$131 million. The addresses were linked to illicit activity and sanctions evasion. It was one of Tether’s largest single enforcement actions and underscored how regulatory pressure intensifies during periods of heightened exploit activity.
A Parallel Warning: The eth.limo DNS Hijack ( April 18)
While the DeFi ecosystem reeled from the rsETH exploit on April 18, another incident underscored the fragility of Web3’s off-chain infrastructure. The popular ENS gateway eth.limo—a free, open-source service that translates Ethereum Name Service (ENS) domains into accessible HTTPS URLs via IPFS and other decentralized storage—suffered a domain hijack.
Attackers used social engineering to impersonate an eth.limo team member and trick the domain registrar EasyDNS into initiating an account recovery process. They gained temporary control, altered nameservers (switching them to Cloudflare and later Namecheap), and could have redirected traffic from wildcard *.eth.limo domains—including high-profile sites like vitalik.eth.limo—to phishing pages or malware.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin issued an urgent public warning, advising users to avoid all eth.limo URLs and providing direct IPFS links as safe alternatives. DNSSEC protections ultimately limited the damage by rejecting unsigned malicious responses, and the domain was recovered within hours. No major fund losses were reported, but the incident exposed how centralized DNS dependencies and social-engineering vectors can threaten user access to decentralized websites.
The eth.limo breach, occurring on the same day as the rsETH exploit, served as a stark reminder that DeFi’s front-end and infrastructure layers remain soft targets. It echoed similar past incidents (such as domain hijacks affecting other protocols) and amplified the month’s overarching theme: even non-smart-contract components of the ecosystem are vulnerable to human and operational failures.
Why This Month Was Different: Systemic Lessons from the Cascade
April 2026’s perfect storm revealed three structural weaknesses that no amount of isolated audits can fully mitigate:
Bridge Fragility and Single Points of Failure: From Hyperbridge’s MMR proof bypass and unlimited minting to LayerZero’s configuration (single DVN verifier) exploit highlights the weak link in crypto security. Cross-chain messaging remains a high-value target, especially for LRTs that promise seamless liquidity.
Composability Risks with LRTs: Liquid restaking tokens like rsETH were designed for yield maximization, but when unbacked supply floods lending markets, the dominoes fall fast. Aave’s experience shows how quickly “over-collateralized” positions can turn toxic.
State-Sponsored Professionalization: Lazarus Group’s involvement in both mega-hacks—months of preparation for Drift, sophisticated infrastructure compromise for rsETH—demonstrates how nation-state actors are scaling their operations. Estimates suggest the group has stolen $6–7 billion historically, with April adding hundreds of millions more to North Korea’s coffers.
Protocols That Hit Pause and the Road to Recovery
Beyond the majors, several protocols paused or froze operations: Kelp DAO across chains, SparkLend, Fluid, Upshift, and smaller players caught in the rsETH contagion wave. Aave’s “Umbrella” module and governance proposals for bad-debt handling are now under urgent discussion. Kelp DAO faces pressure to socialize losses or backstop rsETH holders.
Recovery remains uncertain. Funds laundered through mixers or bridges may prove difficult to claw back, especially from Lazarus-linked wallets. Insurance protocols and on-chain coverage may see renewed demand.
Also Read: DeFi United: How Crypto Projects Came Together to Plug a $292M Hole
Forward Outlook: Maturity or Mass Exodus?
Black April forces a reckoning. DeFi builders must prioritize MPC wallets, improved verifier diversity, ZK-based bridging, reduced over-composability, and clearer loss-socialization rules. Regulators will likely point to these events as justification for tighter oversight on bridges and stablecoins.
Yet the bull case persists: crises accelerate maturation. Protocols that survive and transparently recover will rebuild trust. Capital may shift toward more conservative tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), but the core innovation of permissionless finance endures.
For users and protocols alike, the message is clear: assume composability risk, verify governance assumptions, and never underestimate state-level adversaries. April 2026 wasn’t the end of DeFi—it was the loudest warning yet that security, decentralization, and usability must evolve together.
Also Read: Crypto’s $606M April Nightmare: 12 Hacks, 18 Days, Worst Month Since Bybit Heist
