Crypto Firms Ask AI Companies for Early Access to Bitcoin Devs

A coalition of crypto firms and industry groups has urged frontier artificial intelligence labs to grant Bitcoin developers and other open-source defenders early, trusted access to their most capable models. The call comes in a letter published Monday by the Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI), arguing that public access and “guardrails” on top-tier systems can leave key maintainers reliant on less capable alternatives.

In the letter, BPI and the signatories say many people responsible for maintaining critical digital infrastructure—including Bitcoin Core developers—may not have the ability to run high-end AI tools against complex codebases. That, they argue, can slow security research and reduce defenders’ ability to respond as threats evolve.

Key takeaways

• BPI says open-source financial infrastructure defenders often lack early access to frontier AI tools needed to keep pace with escalating cyber threats.
• The letter argues that guardrails on public frontier models can block qualified researchers from conducting effective security work.
• Signatories call for “standing trusted-access programs” for qualified maintainers of open-source financial infrastructure.
• BPI cites recent increases in crypto hacking activity and warns that AI-enabled attack techniques can increase risk for users.

Why the letter focuses on “trusted access”

The BPI letter frames frontier AI as a shift in how security research is performed. According to the letter, advanced models can scan large codebases more efficiently, flag potential weaknesses, and compress timelines for complex technical analysis—capabilities that can benefit both defenders and adversaries.

The core recommendation is practical: frontier AI labs should establish or expand “standing trusted-access programs” that allow qualified open-source financial infrastructure defenders to use high-performing models. Without such programs, the letter warns that defenders “may lack the tools needed to keep pace with evolving threats to the infrastructure they maintain.”

BPI also says it has received multiple independent reports from open-source maintainers describing sophisticated actors using advanced AI capabilities to support attacks. The implication is that defenders may be forced to work from a disadvantage if they cannot access the same level of AI capability under safe, controlled conditions.

Open-source infrastructure risk and why Bitcoin is central

The letter argues that open-source software underpins key parts of digital and financial systems. It singles out Bitcoin, stating that it alone secures more than $1 trillion in value. While the letter does not detail the measurement method, it uses that figure to emphasize the real-world stakes of maintaining and securing open-source infrastructure.

BPI further states that vulnerabilities in open-source infrastructure can endanger users’ life savings. That argument links the access request to a broader security policy question: how to balance model safety and guardrails with the need for qualified maintainers to conduct effective defense research.

Just as importantly, the letter suggests a mismatch between “publicly available” AI systems and the reality of defending production-grade infrastructure. If frontier tools are constrained such that certain security workflows are blocked, then—even for well-intentioned developers—defense capacity may not scale at the pace of attacker capabilities.

Crypto hacking surge underscores the pressure on defenders

The letter’s security pitch arrives alongside signs of mounting pressure across the broader crypto ecosystem. It points to DefiLlama data indicating that hacking activity across the industry surged in April 2026, when malicious actors reportedly stole more than $634 million from cryptocurrency platforms—described in the letter as the highest monthly total since the Bybit hack.

DefiLlama’s dashboard is cited in the letter for those figures, and it also notes that the Bybit incident contributed to total losses of roughly $1.4 billion in February 2025. While the letter does not attribute the April 2026 thefts to AI-enabled techniques, the juxtaposition is clear: as cyber incidents increase, defenders need better tooling and faster ways to assess and mitigate vulnerabilities.

For market participants who rely on infrastructure maintainers—exchanges, custody providers, wallet vendors, and protocol teams—the practical effect of slower vulnerability discovery can be significant. The difference between months and weeks can determine how quickly patches roll out, how quickly monitoring improves, and how much exposure a system carries before fixes reach production.

AI-enabled vulnerability discovery and the “vulnerability apocalypse” concern

The letter ties its access request to a broader trend in crypto security: AI-assisted vulnerability discovery is raising concerns across the industry. It references commentary from Mitchell Amador, CEO of bug bounty platform Immunefi, who described the current environment as a “vulnerability apocalypse,” in earlier coverage by Cointelegraph.

That earlier reporting cited the growing role of frontier models such as Claude Opus 4.8 and ChatGPT 5.5 in accelerating vulnerability research. The BPI letter uses that context to argue that advanced AI is increasingly part of the threat landscape—meaning defenders also need effective, timely access to advanced tools to conduct their own research and response.

Crucially, this is not framed as unrestricted model use. Instead, it centers on the idea that defenders should be able to work with frontier systems through trusted programs, designed to allow security research while reducing the risks associated with misuse.

Who signed the open letter

The open letter was co-signed by multiple crypto companies and organizations, including the African Bitcoin Institute, Anchorage Digital, BitGo, Bitwise, Blockstream, Bull Bitcoin, MARA, Kraken, Ledger, and Trezor, among others.

With this mix of infrastructure providers, custodians, security-oriented stakeholders, and Bitcoin-focused organizations, the letter reflects a common concern across the sector: that the security advantage could tilt toward attackers if AI capability is easier for adversaries to access than for open-source maintainers.

Going forward, the key question for readers is whether major AI labs respond by creating or expanding trusted-access programs that can be used by qualified open-source financial infrastructure defenders—and, if so, what eligibility and guardrail structures will look like in practice. The next signals to watch are concrete policy changes from frontier labs and measurable shifts in how quickly critical vulnerabilities are identified and patched as hacking activity remains elevated.