Source publication: November 6, 2026, at 08:29:48 (UTC+8). This article summarizes infrastructure-related items in that dated report; proposal status and scheduled events reflect its publication window.
A block record, a frozen balance and a custodial wallet account describe different parts of blockchain infrastructure. Odaily’s November 6 roundup covered changes across all three, including Base’s block-production upgrade, Solana validator requirements and proposals to recover assets affected by the reported Binance hack.
Base: 200-millisecond blocks with separate records
According to Base, its Denim upgrade was live on mainnet, introducing native 200-millisecond block production, equivalent to five complete blocks per second.
The important distinction for data readers is that native blocks replace the earlier Flashblocks preconfirmations. Each block has its own:
- Block number;
- Hash;
- State root;
- Receipts.
The upgrade also introduces BaseTime, which supports millisecond-level time precision for contracts. However, block.timestamp remains denominated in seconds. Those two time representations should not be treated as interchangeable.
Base also reported changes to the B20 token standard. Issuers can require each transfer to receive approval from a designated party, such as a transfer agent, and can use the same address list as either an allowlist or a blocklist. These are issuer-configurable transfer controls, rather than evidence that every token uses them.
Solana: a version requirement tied to epoch 1079
Anza urged Solana mainnet validators to upgrade to Agave 4.4.1, warning that unpatched nodes would be forked off the network at epoch 1079. The source gave an estimated time of November 6 at 21:30 Beijing time.
The stated technical change applies a minimum loaded-data-size limit to loader-v3 ProgramData accounts. The report described an upgrade requirement and an expected activation point; it did not establish the eventual number of validators that upgraded or were excluded.
Asset recovery: frozen balances are not returned funds
Two recovery proposals illustrate why an address balance alone does not establish whether assets have been restored to a platform.
Arbitrum: Binance sought return through governance
Binance submitted a draft constitutional improvement proposal seeking the return of 8,425.997 ETH and 74.56 million ARB frozen following its hot-wallet attack. At the time of the report, the assets remained in an intermediary frozen address on Arbitrum One and had not been returned.
Using November 5 CoinGecko prices, the source valued the ETH at approximately $19.6 million and the ARB at approximately $11.7 million.
The process required forum discussion, a Snapshot temperature check and a binding on-chain vote. Binance estimated that it would take approximately seven weeks or longer.
Binance said its SAFU fund and corporate treasury would cover affected users’ losses. Recovered assets could offset incident-related losses and costs, including replenishing compensation reserves; the proposal did not request a new DAO treasury grant. Legal proceedings preventing transfers would pause submission of the on-chain proposal and asset delivery. The process also required prior indemnification agreements with the Arbitrum Foundation, Offchain Labs and Security Council members.
Polygon: proposed transfers required a hard fork
According to Cointelegraph, as cited by Odaily, Binance and Polymarket proposed a Polygon hard fork to recover approximately 70.49 million POL, valued at about $6.8 million.
The proposal concerned 23.86 million POL associated with Polymarket addresses and 46.63 million POL associated with Binance addresses. It would move tokens from five attacker-controlled addresses to verified recovery wallets designated by the platforms, without changing POL’s total supply.
Block producers had temporarily blocked transactions from the affected addresses, but that restriction did not return the funds. Governance approval and testing on Polygon Amoy were still required. The report referenced an expected November 5 discussion; no mainnet hard-fork date had been set.
Samsung Wallet: Solana USDC through a custody arrangement
Samsung Wallet introduced a USDC account for eligible U.S. Galaxy users, supporting purchases, holding, sending and receiving on Solana across approximately 82 million compatible devices. New York residents were excluded.
The service was built by Bastion in partnership with Coinbase, with Coinbase Prime Vault providing USDC subcustody for Bastion. Users did not need a separate crypto app or to manage private keys. Samsung specified that the account was a crypto wallet, not a bank account—a distinction that matters when interpreting what the interface represents and who manages custody.