Kirk Dameron retweeted
The Chekhov’s Fork point is real and under-appreciated. Once a coordinated rollback mechanism exists and is used, the political and commercial pressure to expand its use is permanent. And what most people miss is that the halt mechanism itself becomes an attack surface.
But the premise that institutional adoption or real utility for tokenized assets requires base-layer reversibility is wrong.
Fedwire (and other RTGS systems) already demonstrates the alternative where final, irrevocable interbank settlement combined with legal mechanisms that can require restitution between other parties after the fact. The settlement entry is not rewritten and recovery is a separate claim enforced against identifiable parties.
That is the more useful design for tokenized assets that need to be portable and put to work. Protocol finality can remain strict. Recovery, compliance, and loss allocation can live at the asset, issuer, custodian, or legal layer exactly as they do for payments today. Most serious institutional tokenization is already structured this way.
A chain that never reverses can still support recoverable assets. It just forces the recovery logic to be explicit and scoped rather than a general-purpose emergency button on the base ledger. In a period of rising operational and geopolitical risk, that separation is a feature, not a bug.
I couldn’t disagree more. The second a blockchain compromises on neutrality it becomes a database with a button and the world will conspire to have it pushed. This is the principle of Chekhov’s Fork.
What happens when the chain halting mechanism is the thing that gets hacked? Will we halt the halt?
I also think that in a time of increasing chaos and uncertainty, a platform that always does exactly what it is supposed to (for better or worse) will standout as an anchor of stability, accelerating adoption.
Kirk Dameron retweeted
Over the past 5 years the Lucy spacecraft flew by 3 asteroids. Over the next 7 years it will visit 8 more, exploring the mysterious Trojan asteroids that share an orbit with Jupiter.
Lucy will set a record for most objects visited by one spacecraft.
swri.org/newsroom/press-rele…
What a tweet
Leftist mainstream media outlets piled on this week to express outrage at my observation, during a speech in Grand Rapids for Mike Rogers, about the troubling dearth of scientific output from the world’s 22 Arab nations over the past five decades. These reporters — @fatimathefatima @AP, @Kanishka183 @Reuters, @rachel_roubein @washingtonpost, @baylisswagner @nytimes, @stevebenen @MSNOWNews — omitted critical context, presumably to bestow plausibility on their accusations that my statements were racist and Islamophobic.
However, my speech was not a critique of Arabs or Islam, but of Islamism (also known as “Islamofascism” or “Political Islam”), a toxic ideology conceived and promoted by the terrorist group, the Muslim Brotherhood. Let’s see which reporters take the time to read this post and then correct their stories.
Criticizing Islamism is neither Islamophobic nor racist. Islamism is a violent corruption of mainstream Islam that summons adherents back to the seventh-century ideal of bloody jihad, the homicidal and suicidal religious zealotry that propelled a motley cadre of desert nomads to conquer half the world. Sheikh Ahmed El-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar — the Muslim equivalent of the Vatican and the highest authority in Sunni Islamic thought — has rejected Islamism as “false Islam” and a “perversion of the Islamic religion” and accused it of “barbaric crimes.”
Islamism is intensely anti-American, anti-Western, and hostile to modernity. It is explicitly contemptuous of democracy, constitutional government, capitalism, minority rights, gay rights, women’s rights, free speech, and virtually all personal freedoms. Its central aspiration is for a global caliphate ruled by a single theocratic despot with absolute power to impose sharia law that dictates every aspect of human conduct. The Muslim Brotherhood’s founder, Hassan al-Banna, taught that the highest aspiration for a Muslim was martyrdom in the achievement of that goal; the purpose of every Islamic nation is to “perfect the industry of death” until world domination is accomplished.
I pointed out in my speech that the Muslim Brotherhood’s antipathy for modernity is a dramatic departure from Islam’s historical affinity for science and learning. During the Muslim Golden Age, spanning the eighth through the fifteenth centuries, Muslim leaders dignified Islam’s wealth and power by promoting a brilliant flowering of innovation and scholarship in science, mathematics, philosophy, art, literature, astronomy, pharmacology, psychology, engineering, architecture, medicine, and navigation that continues to enrich the world today. Arab leaders fostered an intellectual ferment unmatched by any other in human history. A long line of enlightened caliphs assembled—and abundantly rewarded—an unparalleled galaxy of jurists, scientists, physicians, philosophers, musicians, artists, poets, and wits. Muslim rulers elevated the role of reason and tolerance, cultivating a milieu of religious and intellectual freedom—where Jews and Christians also flourished—and encouraged sages of various faiths and ethnicities to collaborate and freely exchange ideas.
For five centuries, Arabic was the world’s most learned and literary tongue and the lingua franca of science and scholarship. Most mosques had libraries (Córdoba hosted 600!). Muslim princes in the tenth century often had more books in their personal collections than existed in all of Europe. Baghdad had 100 bookstores in AD 891. England would have to wait another 420 years until 1309 to see paper for the first time.
Islam’s second Golden Age during the Ottoman Empire (1299–1922) birthed a cosmopolitan and pluralistic civilization centered in Constantinople that yielded additional bonanzas in poetry, music, art, and a tsunami of scientific innovation from coffee to water pumps, steam engines, gears, surgical scalpels and clamps, the first smallpox vaccine, and the cannons that allowed the Ottomans to dominate Europe to the gates of Vienna.
In 1928, six years after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the Muslim Brotherhood began to spread its dark strain of violent fundamentalism from Egypt to Palestine and across the Muslim world. Islamism’s contagious proliferation ended the dialogue between Islam and the intellectual classes and demoted the role of reason in Islamic life. The Muslim Brotherhood’s principal philosopher, Sayyid Qutb, was contemptuous toward public education in science, math, and philosophy, believing that the only source of truth is the Koran. For Qutb, the purpose of education was not to celebrate life, or to nourish the intellect, but to indoctrinate children in the art of war, the glorification of death, and a blind obedience to an autocratic caliph.
Qutb railed against reason, which he considered the seed of apostasy. He sought to silence the humanities and viewed science as a sinister displacement of religion. He derided pluralism, rationalism, innovation, and tolerance. In doing so, he deprived Islam of its modern potential and its own greatest inheritance: the confidence to learn from the world, preserve its wisdom, and surpass it.
In his obituary for Muslim culture, The Closing of the Muslim Mind (2010), Robert R. Reilly recognizes that Qutb’s outlook dooms his followers to inertia. A religion that values obedience over initiative, that seeks to obviate independent reason, is a religion of violence. Where there is no framework for rational mediation, all disputes must be settled by force.
It didn’t worry Qutb that discouraging education in physics, mathematics, medicine, or engineering would atrophy intellectual and economic development in the Muslim world. Qutb explained that Muslim countries were so far behind the West in the sciences and technology that there was no hope to catch up. Muslims, he preached, should do what they do best—study the Koran and embrace martyrdom as the path for achieving global dominion: “The Muslim community today is neither capable of nor required to present before mankind great genius in material inventions, which would make the world bow its head before its supremacy.”
Qutb’s diatribe against Muslims competing in science and technology was nothing less than civilizational malpractice—especially given that he wrote it in 1964. Had Japan, Singapore, or South Korea accepted Qutb’s logic in 1964, they would have opted out of modernity. Instead, they chose to accept the challenge of competition. Their decision to engage has yielded stunning achievements that transformed their nations into economic and technological superpowers and enriched all of humanity.
The anti-intellectualism of Islamism—the rejection of evidence and the scientific method, the hostility toward objectivity, the suppression of contrary information, the deification of dogma, the embrace of pseudoscience, the contempt for reason as the path for discerning objective truth, and Islamism’s association of science with immorality—has helped close off the Islamic mind. The staggering metrics of intellectual and scholastic enfeeblement in Muslim nations attest to Islamism’s systematic squandering of human capital including the creative potential among the world’s two billion Muslims.
Korea issued 260,000 patents in 2024, while nine Arab countries, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, issued fewer than 10,000 in total, with 8,000 of these coming from a single nation—Saudi Arabia—which has made herculean efforts in recent years to de-Islamize its society. Japan, which represents about 1.5% of the world’s population and is practically devoid of natural resources, granted 306,855 patents in 2024 alone. There are 127 million Japanese, compared to 500 million Arabs.
According to Hillel Ofek’s 2011 analysis, there were a mere nine scientists, engineers, and technicians per thousand citizens in Islamic nations. The global average was forty-one. Among the 1,800 universities in Muslim nations, only 312 housed scholars who had published articles in journals.
Muslims represent 26% of the world’s population, and Muslim countries control half the world’s crude oil resources and 40% of natural gas resources. And yet the 53 Muslim countries combined publish only 5% of the world’s scientific literature. Hillel Ofek points to a 1989 study showing that in a single year, the United States published 10,481 frequently cited scientific papers, but during that same year, Arab countries published just four. A 2002 analysis of Arab science in Nature magazine identified only three scientific areas of excellence from Islamic countries: desalination, falconry, and camel reproduction. According to Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg in 2011, “for forty years I have not seen a single paper by a physicist or astronomer working in a Muslim country that was worth reading.”
Contrast the Arabs’ dismal record of intellectual achievement in modern times with that of their closest cousins, the Jews, nearly all of whom live in democratic societies with laws that separate religion and politics.
Keep in mind that Jews, who number 15.8 million worldwide, represent a mere 0.2% of the world population. As of 2025, no Muslim has ever received the Nobel Prize in medicine or economics, and only four Muslim scientists—all living in Western democracies—have received the Nobel Prize in chemistry or physics. In contrast, some 200 Jews have received Nobel Prizes in science. About 26% of Nobel Prizes in math and science, 28% in medicine, 40% in economics, and 39% in chemistry have gone to Jews. Since 1901, some 22% of Nobel Prizes in all categories have gone to Jews.
Genocidal hatred against ALL Jews and Christians and other minorities is foundational to Islamism. Only in the West does Jew hatred pretend to require the alibi of Palestine or hide behind anti-Zionism. Muslim Brotherhood cosmology describes the universe as a cosmic, existential war between Islam and Jews that began with Muhammad and which only one side can survive. “Since Islam subdued them [in Medina],” Qutb warned, “they are unforgiving and fight furiously through conspiracies, intrigues, and also through proxies [the United States] who act in the darkness against all what Islam incorporates.” Islamist utopia will only emerge when every Jew is exterminated. Jews in Qutb’s theology are not just political adversaries, but perpetual and metaphysical evil. “The Jews,” he said, “are behind materialism, animal sexuality, the destruction of family, and the desolation of society.”
And Jewish genocide, for Islamism, is more than a theoretical aspiration. In 1948, the world’s 22 Arab nations were host to 750,000 Jews living in communities that predated Muhammad by 1,000 years. Today, there are virtually no Jews in those nations: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Yemen, Mauritania, Somalia, Sudan, Jordan, Gaza, or the PA-governed areas of the West Bank; in Nazi terminology, they are Judenrein: Jew-free. There are fewer than 1,000 Jews in Tunisia, down from 105,000. In 1948, Christian populations represented 20% of those nations; today they represent 4%. These are the real ongoing genocides of the Mideast.
Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime bonded with early Islamists over their shared Jew hatred. The Nazis became the principal funder of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1930s, and the Muslim Brotherhood operated propaganda, espionage, and sabotage operations for the Nazis during World War II. Joseph Goebbels and an army of Nazi and ex-Nazi propagandists built the Muslim Brotherhood’s powerful propaganda machine in the 1930s, ’40s, and ’50s. The massive influx of money from Iran and the Gulf States starting in the 1990s turned this operation into an amplifier of unmatched power that makes Goebbels look like a piker. A global propaganda barrage by this outfit has distracted Hamas’s Western dupes from Islamism’s authentic genocides by persuading them that Israel committed a genocide in Gaza, even though, according to the CIA Factbook, Gaza’s population has actually increased since October 7, 2023.
Islamism is genocidal against Christians and Jews, but among its most pitiful victims are the Arab societies that suffer the misfortune of living under its rule. Despite all their petroleum wealth, Muslim countries have slipped behind Asia and Latin America in virtually every metric of political freedom, technological progress, and social well-being. Islamism’s merger of politics and religion has robbed Islam of its intellectual vigor and doomed most Muslim populations to living in stifling tyrannies with little freedom to elucidate their thoughts and speech or fulfill their creative potential. Those countries are predictably stagnant, unable to evolve in the modern world. The dark shadow of fundamentalism over scholarship and progress has proven toxic to the Muslims’ transition to modernity. The very civilization that practiced tolerance and celebrated pluralism and dialogue, filled a thousand libraries with its books, gave the world observatories and universities, and stunning innovations in science, has become closed, aggrieved, and violent, and averse to reason, curiosity, freedom of inquiry, and scholarship.
All 22 Arab nations in the Mideast and North Africa are autocratic dictatorships. Almost all are apartheid states that legally restrict the rights of minorities. Gays in many of the nations are put to death. Under sharia law, women have little more rights than cattle. They live stunted lives behind veiled faces, enduring systematic servitude, legalized domestic violence, child marriage, chattel slavery, and public stoning for adultery, which is legal for their husbands. In September 2021, the Taliban made it illegal for girls to attend school after age 12. The Taliban’s Vice and Virtue law forbids women from speaking aloud in public.
If you want to understand the Muslim Brotherhood’s vision for society, look no further than Gaza. Hamas, which rules Gaza, is the Palestine branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Palestinians have received over 4X per capita in international aid than Europeans received under the Marshall Plan. (See Clawson 2002.) Europe used its money to rebuild 17 nations. Palestinians couldn’t build themselves even one. Under Hamas’s iron fist, Gaza squandered its share on bombs, weapons, extravagant salaries for its billionaire kingpins, and a billion-dollar bunker and tunnel system built for its warriors—but off-limits to its citizens. Gaza remains a stunted and stagnant, impoverished society under tyrannical oppression, with no free speech or other basic freedoms. Hamas governs through force, including brutal crackdowns on discourse, public executions of dissenters and collaborators, tight controls on humanitarian aid distribution, and onerous taxes on almost every activity. No elections have occurred since Hamas took over in 2007. Instead of building a nation, Hamas has transformed Gaza into a death cult wallowing in victimhood, nursing aggrievements, addicted to violence, resentments, and yearning for a seventh-century miasma. Hamas nurses Palestinian infants from birth on genocidal hatred of ALL Jews—not just Zionists—and indoctrinates children in the savagery and unspeakable barbarism that the world witnessed on October 7. Hamas shows its contempt for the Palestinian people by deploying them as child soldiers and civilian shields, and placing rocket launchers and ammo dumps in schools and hospitals. Hamas’s greatest strengths are its propaganda operation and its willingness to impose unlimited pain on its own population to achieve its ideological goals.
Islamist governments like Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah distract their populations from their misery by blaming the myriad social ills and the predictable government failures on scapegoats: Jews, Zionists, and America. They’ll have us believe that all their derelictions are the result of the evil Zionists, the “Little Satan” Israel, and the “Great Satan,” the U.S. And just as victimhood is paralyzing to personal growth, it deprives Islamist nations of national success by robbing its practitioners of agency. Islamism’s cult of victimhood and its coterminous abolition of self-criticism have stagnated global Islam and locked it in hatred, violence, brooding resentment, and isolationism. Referring to the Arab world, Fouad Ajami described this as “a political tradition of belligerent self-pity.”
Contrast Gaza’s failures with the successes of its closest neighbor, Israel, a tiny sliver of swamp and desert 1/600th the size of its Arab neighbors, that blossomed into an agricultural juggernaut and a global economic and technological superpower. Jews took one of the few places in the Mideast with no oil, gas, or other resources, and despite being surrounded by enemies, they nevertheless turned the barren landscape into a vibrant, pluralistic democracy where Jews and Arabs vote as they please; worship according to their convictions; serve beside each other in the judiciary, the army, and political leadership; and enjoy equal rights. Women and gays in Israel have all the rights of men, and Israel’s biggest annual celebration is the Pride parade in Tel Aviv. As the only democracy in the Mideast, Israel is a robust and heroic outpost for freedom and Western values.
And Israel is merely a nugget among the bounties bestowed by Jews on Western civilization. There is no ethnic or religious group that has contributed more than Jews to the welfare of humanity or to the advancement of liberal democracy. Jewish traditions of ethics and thinking have shaped Western civilization and global progress through foundational moral concepts, including our monotheistic Christian belief system with its roots in Judaism, milestone scientific breakthroughs, medical innovation, and innumerable cultural achievements in art, literature, education, health, and entertainment. Relative to their proportion of the population, the astonishing contributions by Jews have been breathtaking. An abbreviated list would include medical advances like the polio vaccine (Jonas Salk, Albert Sabin), chemotherapy and immunology (Paul Ehrlich), streptomycin and the age of antibiotics (Selman Waksman), penicillin (Ernest Chain), pacemakers (Paul Zoll), and blood typing (Karl Landsteiner).
In sciences, a short list of Jewish luminaries would include Albert Einstein (theory of relativity), Niels Bohr (quantum mechanics), and Paul Berg (first recombinant DNA molecule).
Jewish contributions to business and technology include Google (Sergey Brin), Meta (Mark Zuckerberg), Oracle (Larry Ellison), Salesforce (Marc Benioff), Intel (Andrew Grove), and Dell Technologies (Michael Dell).
Jews virtually created the American entertainment industry, including founding six of the eight major Hollywood studios responsible for 75% of the classic Golden Age movies. They also revolutionized laughter. A 1978 TIME magazine survey found that 80% of professional comedians were Jewish.
The major figures of twentieth-century Western thought—Jesus Christ, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, and Karl Marx—were all Jewish. Twenty percent of philanthropic giving in the United States comes from Jews. Jews compose twenty-five percent of America’s most generous givers. They are overrepresented on lists of secular organizations that benefit human rights, social security, higher education, personal freedom, and constitutional rights. They represent 14% of doctors and 29% of psychiatrists. Their contributions to America’s global economic leadership include Salomon Brothers, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Blackstone, Wells Fargo, and Vanguard. In a rational universe, wouldn’t non-Jews be expected to celebrate these contributions with gratitude?
Now, here are some things that Jews don’t do: suicide bombings, rape gangs, beheading people, killing gay people, aspiring to kill all non-Muslims, forcing young girls to wed older men, lynching women for wearing makeup or showing hair, female mutilation, religious dictatorship, Christian genocide, polygamy, rioting and burning down cities, applying the death penalty for leaving Islam, cooking babies in ovens, hijacking airliners (and driving them into buildings), bombing buses and crowded restaurants, disfiguring girls with acid for failing to wear the hijab, operating modern slave markets where hereditary Black slaves are bought and sold by Arabs, advocating global jihad, and committing 90% of the terrorist acts globally.
These are the gifts that Islamism has bestowed on the world, along with closed minds, poverty, starvation, ignorance, oppression, and violence. This comparison begs the question, “Why does the world hate Jews and embrace Islamists?
The answer, of course, is a sophisticated mass propaganda campaign that ignores evidence and inverts reality to make Israel a global villain.
Looking at Islamism’s track record, seven nations with substantial Muslim populations—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, Syria, and Russia—have outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, branding it as a terrorist organization. Kenya and Argentina have also banned the Brotherhood for fear of its impacts on their societies. The Brotherhood today sees its best opportunities for expansion as Western nations that are unequipped to deal with its tactics.
In 2004, the FBI discovered the U.S. Brotherhood’s archives in a Virginia basement, including a 1991 “Explanatory Memorandum” characterizing the Brotherhood’s work in America as “a kind of gradual Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” Muslim Brotherhood documents describe this process of gradual infiltration as “gradualism,” “entryism,” or “Da’awa.”
In a 1995 speech in Toledo, Ohio, the Brotherhood’s leading cleric, Yusuf al-Waradawi, told his audience: “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’awa.” As a board member and outreach chair of a Muslim Brotherhood front group, Abdul El-Sayed ran a high-school recruitment program entitled “How to do effective Da’awa.”
The Muslim Brotherhood’s explicit written strategy for taking over Western nations is to broaden its appeal through a “red–green alliance” by adopting Leftist rhetoric and allying itself with liberals, socialists, and communists. This was the strategy first initiated by Yasser Arafat in the 1960s and then implemented by Muslim Brotherhood acolyte Ayatollah Khomeini during his 1979 Iranian Revolution, and later by Muslim Brother Mohammed Morsi during his 2011 color revolution in Egypt. After they gained power, the Leftists, in each case, learned that they were not actually Islamism’s partners, but only its useful idiots. Khomeini hunted down, jailed, and murdered his former Leftist and communist allies. Morsi sidelined his. A 2012 Arabic-language statement bearing Abdul Al-Sayed’s name backed Morsi’s presidency and urged him to “purge” the media and police.
Anyone wondering what America’s future looks like if the Muslim Brotherhood gets its way has only to look at France, where Islamist mobs of the red–green alliance, following the Muslim Brotherhood playbook, chant communist phrases, wave Palestinian flags, and vent their destructive hostility toward the West by destroying the iconic monuments of our shared civilizations.
Abdul El-Sayed mocks his critics as Islamophobic or anti-Arab racists when they inquire about his continued loyalties to the Muslim Brotherhood. But El-Sayed and his family have long and deep entanglements with the terrorist organization. A 20,000-word investigation by The Project for the Investigation of Terrorism documents El-Sayed's two decades of intensive affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood, and nearly every one of its legacy front groups that the Brotherhood set up in the U.S. to Islamify and destroy our democracy. That same organization recorded dozens of instances in recent years where Abdul El-Sayed has either directly lied about his relationship or refused to disavow the Muslim Brotherhood.
On Oct. 1, an Ohio voter became the latest to ask Al-Sayed to disavow the Brotherhood. Under persistent badgering before national news cameras, Al-Sayed finally caved: “Sure. Yeah, absolutely!” he said unconvincingly. He then spent five minutes attacking the man’s motives.
El-Sayed said nothing about the Brotherhood itself, its ideology, or the Muslim Brotherhood front organizations he works with. A disavowal that names nothing and condemns nothing is a disavowal in name only.
Why can’t El-Sayed give us a full-throated and detailed condemnation of this terror group, and disavow also its poisonous ideology without ambiguity? Why can’t he acknowledge that the Muslim Brotherhood is a despicable terror organization, and that Islamism and sharia law are anathema to American values? Americans shouldn’t have to worry whether a U.S. Senate candidate has loyalty to an ideology that openly hates our country and has vowed to destroy it.
Kirk Dameron retweeted
Starlink, Starshield, GPS, and the Claims About “Hacking”: A Technical Explanation
A post accusing Ukraine of “hacking” #Starlink is spreading rapidly on this platform.
The technical claims in that post are incorrect. They seem based on a collection of rumors circulating on Telegram, including information from Russian channels.
Unfortunately, this post and others like it are receiving an enormous number of likes and reposts.
That's why I believe it's important to address these claims with clear technical explanations rather than allow misleading information to spread unchecked.
This is a fairly detailed post, but I think the distinction matters.
Some of the technical information below comes from my own research and detailed analysis of Starlink terminal firmware, particularly its GPS, PNT, and velocity-processing systems.
#⃣ 1. What are Starlink and Starshield?
People still frequently confuse the two.
Starlink is SpaceX's commercial satellite internet service, designed for consumers, businesses, and other commercial users.
Starlink supports operation in motion, but the permitted speed depends on the service plan, equipment, and geographic region.
Under commonly available commercial plans, the maximum authorized operating speed is 160 km/h (100 mph).
In Ukraine, Starlink terminals are subject to a specific speed restriction: they cannot operate at speeds above approximately 75–80 km/h.
This Ukraine-specific restriction was introduced less than a year ago, in coordination with Ukrainian authorities, to prevent Starlink terminals from being used on drones.
Starshield is SpaceX's government-focused product and service family, based on Starlink technology and developed for national security applications.
It includes secure communications, Earth observation, and hosted payload capabilities.
Some Starshield systems involve dedicated government spacecraft and infrastructure. However, Starshield communications services can also use the underlying Starlink satellite network.
This distinction is important: Starshield does not necessarily mean a completely separate physical satellite constellation or entirely different user terminal hardware.
SpaceX develops and operates the underlying Starlink infrastructure. The U.S. government procures Starshield capabilities through contracts, with ownership and operational control depending on the particular system and arrangement.
The division of authority between SpaceX and the U.S. government has become especially relevant following the October 2026 incident.
Unlike ordinary commercial Starlink service, Starshield configurations used for military operations in Ukraine have supported substantially higher operating speeds.
#⃣ 2. Is Starshield available in Ukraine?
Yes. Starshield is operational in Ukraine and is extensively used by the Ukrainian military.
Starshield service has been used in Ukraine since approximately mid-2023. Subsequent U.S. government contracts and public reporting also confirm its availability.
The United States has procured Starshield services specifically to support Ukrainian military operations.
An October 2026 U.S. Senate letter explicitly confirms that Ukraine receives Starshield services procured by the U.S. government.
Therefore, the idea that Ukraine is somehow obtaining Starshield capabilities by secretly modifying commercial terminals fundamentally misunderstands how these services are provided.
How does the Ukrainian military use these services?
The Ukrainian military uses both commercial Starlink and Starshield.
Commercial Starlink is widely used because of its availability, relatively low cost, and excellent performance. For stationary installations and many other applications, commercial service is entirely sufficient.
Starshield is used for specialized military applications, including drones and other platforms requiring reliable connectivity at higher operating speeds.
These are capabilities provided through the Starshield service itself, not necessarily through unauthorized modifications to commercial Starlink hardware.
Using Starshield for its intended and authorized military applications is not inherently a violation of its service terms.
#⃣ 3. Regarding the October 2026 incident
Beginning on October 13–14, Ukrainian military units encountered unexpected speed restrictions affecting Starshield connectivity.
Terminals that had previously operated at substantially higher speeds began losing connectivity at approximately 160 km/h, with some reports describing interruptions at even lower speeds.
These restrictions disrupted military operations, particularly those involving high-speed unmanned systems.
The consequences were serious. Ukrainian officials reported that the restrictions interfered with drone operations, including efforts to intercept russian attack drones.
The decision-making process remains disputed. Neither SpaceX nor the U.S. government initially accepted responsibility for imposing the restrictions. Subsequent reporting and statements from U.S. lawmakers raised questions about who authorized the changes and which organization had the ability to implement them.
As of October 24, Ukraine's Ministry of Defense has officially reported that Starlink/Starshield connectivity is once again stable at speeds exceeding 400 km/h.
#⃣ 4. Does Starshield require separate hardware?
Not necessarily.
This is one of the most important points in the entire discussion.
Starshield is a government-focused service and technology family. In the case of satellite communications provided to Ukraine, existing Starlink terminal hardware can be provisioned to use Starshield service.
In December 2024, Bloomberg reported that a Pentagon contract would provide Starshield access to an additional 2,500 Starlink terminals already deployed in Ukraine, on top of 500 terminals previously covered.
The contracts therefore provided service for a total of 3,000 terminals.
In practice, compatible commercial Starlink hardware can be reassigned to Starshield service through the appropriate authorization and provisioning process.
This requires approval. It is not something that a customer can simply enable through the ordinary Starlink application.
Are there specialized Starshield terminals?
Yes.
For example, there is a specialized variant of the Starlink Mini known internally as `mini1_rugged`.
Based on my hardware research, this model uses an improved GNSS receiver, the Teseo V, instead of the receiver found in the regular Mini.
However, despite having repaired and examined numerous terminals and maintaining contact with people working with this equipment, I have not encountered evidence of this specific variant being supplied to Ukraine.
The Starshield terminals I have encountered or received information about in Ukraine are based on regular Starlink hardware.
Some terminals arrive already configured for Starshield service. Others can be provisioned for it through the appropriate channels.
The key point is simple:
A regular Starlink terminal operating under an authorized Starshield service configuration is still a Starshield terminal from the service perspective. It does not need to be physically modified or “hacked” to obtain that service.
#⃣ 5. Why does a Starlink/Starshield terminal require GPS?
Three years ago, I published an article explaining why GPS is important for Starlink terminals and how to improve GPS reception on the hardware available at that time: olegkutkov.me/2023/11/07/con…
Some of the technical details in that article are now outdated, but the fundamental principles remain relevant.
A Starlink terminal requires sufficiently accurate position and timing information for network synchronization, beamforming, and other aspects of normal operation.
Location information can also be used for geographic service authorization.
Invalid or spoofed GPS data may interfere with these processes. Depending on the magnitude of the error and the firmware's ability to detect it, the terminal may lose connectivity or become unable to operate normally.
Modern firmware also includes mechanisms to detect suspicious or inconsistent GPS information.
When GPS data is considered unreliable, the terminal may attempt to use an alternative source of positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) information derived from Starlink's own satellite constellation.
However, this fallback mechanism is not guaranteed to work reliably under every operating condition.
This distinction helps explain why some hardware modifications focus on improving GPS reception or supplying more reliable positioning data, rather than bypassing Starlink's network authorization mechanisms.
#⃣ 6. What is Starlink PNT?
Starlink PNT is a positioning, navigation, and timing capability that derives information from signals transmitted by Starlink satellites.
By combining satellite measurements with known orbital information, a terminal can estimate its position and movement independently of a conventional GPS receiver.
Starlink firmware contains the necessary functionality to process these measurements and use them as an alternative positioning source.
Initially, this functionality was more of an experimental feature. It was interesting from an engineering perspective, but its accuracy and reliability were limited.
Over time, it has improved significantly.
Modern implementations can provide useful positioning information, including when a terminal is moving.
There are still measurement errors, uncertainties, and limitations, but Starlink-derived PNT can serve as an alternative when GPS is unavailable or unreliable.
Nevertheless, conventional GNSS remains an important and generally preferred source of positioning and timing information in current terminal designs. For now.
Can the terminal operate without GPS?
Under certain conditions, yes.
Starlink firmware provides a gRPC request called `dish_inhibit_gps`, which controls whether GPS is used as a position source.
When GPS use is inhibited, the firmware can attempt to rely on alternative positioning information.
A similar situation occurs when GPS data becomes unavailable because of hardware or communication problems.
However, disabling GPS does not guarantee that the alternative positioning solution will be sufficiently accurate or available.
It also does not automatically change the terminal's service permissions.
#⃣ 7. How does a Starlink terminal determine its moving speed?
The GPS receiver is a primary source of position and velocity information.
Proprietary NMEA messages, including `TMPV`, carry information the terminal's motion-processing logic uses.
The firmware does not necessarily trust these measurements without additional validation.
The firmware can filter GPS-derived velocity and compare it with information from other available sources, including Starlink-derived positioning.
The terminal also contains an inertial measurement unit (IMU), whose acceleration measurements can help evaluate movement and detect inconsistencies.
The firmware applies thresholds and consistency checks to these measurements.
These mechanisms run internally and aren't exposed as user-configurable settings.
If GPS measurements differ significantly from the expected values or fail validation, the firmware can reject them.
However, GPS validation and service-speed enforcement are two different things.
Rejecting GPS data does not automatically mean that the terminal has exceeded the permitted operating speed.
The terminal's service configuration determines whether operation at a particular speed is authorized.
When the relevant speed policy is violated, the terminal may report a condition such as: `MOVING_TOO_FAST_FOR_POLICY`
This distinction is essential when evaluating claims about GPS modification.
Simply changing GPS-reported velocity does not automatically change the terminal's authorized operating speed or eliminate the firmware's internal validation mechanisms.
As explained earlier, appropriately provisioned Starshield service supports high-speed operation without the same restrictions imposed on ordinary commercial configurations.
Therefore, no additional “hacking” is required to obtain high-speed capability when that capability is already authorized as part of the service.
Reliable GNSS reception remains desirable, however.
This is one reason specialized terminal designs may incorporate improved receivers, such as the Teseo V used in the `mini1_rugged` variant.
It also explains the existence of solutions intended to improve GPS reception or provide a more reliable PNT input.
**Improving positioning reliability is not the same thing as bypassing service authorization.**
#⃣ 8. How does Starlink geofencing work?
There are two important factors: geographic service authorization and physical RF coverage.
Understanding the difference is essential.
Geographic service authorization
Starlink uses geographic information to determine where service is available and whether a particular terminal is authorized to operate.
The system uses logical geographic regions rather than relying exclusively on the physical boundaries of satellite beams.
H3 is one geographic indexing system relevant to this discussion. It divides the Earth's surface into hierarchical hexagonal cells that represent geographic locations and regions.
Geographic indexing provides a convenient way to manage coverage and service policies, but an H3 cell should not be confused with a physical satellite beam.
Network authorization can depend on several factors, including geographic location, service configuration, terminal identity, and applicable restrictions.
A terminal may be physically capable of receiving a satellite signal while still being denied access to the service.
This is an important distinction when discussing restricted territories, including russia.
Receiving a Starlink signal does not necessarily mean the terminal is authorized to connect to the network.
Physical RF coverage
Satellite beams cannot perfectly follow national borders or the boundaries of geographic indexing cells.
An RF beam has a physical footprint determined by the satellite antenna, beam steering, operating conditions, and geometry.
Its boundaries are not perfectly sharp.
Consequently, a beam may illuminate areas on both sides of a national border even though the service is authorized on only one side.
This is a normal characteristic of satellite communications, not evidence that geographic service restrictions have been disabled.
The role of GPS in geofencing
The terminal's reported location provides another source of information for determining whether it is operating in an authorized region.
The network can use terminal positioning information, together with its own authorization rules, to determine whether service should be permitted.
When operation is prohibited, the terminal may receive an appropriate disablement code from the network.
These mechanisms should be understood as parts of a broader service authorization system, rather than as a single GPS check controlling everything.
Can geofencing be bypassed by supplying modified GPS coordinates?
This question requires some nuance.
Changing the location reported by a GPS receiver may influence positioning-dependent decisions, but it does not automatically override network authorization.
Starlink also has other information available to evaluate terminal operation, and its firmware includes mechanisms for detecting inconsistent positioning data.
Large discrepancies can disrupt normal positioning and beamforming calculations, trigger validation failures, or cause the terminal to lose connectivity.
Most importantly, changing GPS coordinates does not by itself grant a terminal permission to use a service or geographic region for which it is not authorized.
#⃣ 9. So what exactly is being called a “Starlink hack”?
This is where much of the confusion comes from.
The modifications being discussed online are primarily related to improving GPS reception or providing the terminal with reliable positioning and timing information.
These are technical solutions intended to improve connectivity and stability, particularly when the terminal is moving or operating in an environment with GPS interference.
They do not automatically bypass Starlink's speed restrictions, geographic limitations, or network authorization mechanisms.
As explained earlier, regular Starlink hardware can also operate under an officially authorized Starshield service configuration, which supports high-speed military applications.
Neither improving GPS reliability nor using an authorized Starshield service constitutes hacking Starlink.
It's important to understand these differences before making accusations based on photographs, rumors, or incomplete technical information.
#⃣ Conclusion
Starlink and Starshield use closely related technologies, but they are different services with different capabilities and restrictions.
Regular Starlink hardware can operate under an officially authorized Starshield service configuration. No special hardware modifications are required.
Improving GPS reception or providing reliable positioning data does not mean bypassing Starlink's network restrictions.
Using Starshield for authorized military operations is not hacking. Neither is improving a terminal's GPS reliability.
My goal is simply to explain how these systems work and clear up the confusion surrounding them.
Technical accusations should be based on evidence, not rumors.
#starlink #starshield #gps
Kirk Dameron retweeted
In France, they riot and loot "for Palestine." In the Middle East, they kill "for Palestine." The Islamic regime in Iran attacks Jews, Christians, and Muslims "for Palestine." Hamas committed the October 7 genocide in Israel "for Palestine." At some point, perhaps we should stop asking where the problem is and start noticing the rather obvious pattern.
The clue has been repeated four times.
Kirk Dameron retweeted
站在今天看,俄罗斯这波操作,属于手握着一把天胡的牌打得稀烂。
如果不出兵乌克兰,今天全球AI的牌桌上,除了中美,大概率真得坐着一个俄罗斯。
搞AI、跑大模型,底层逻辑就是“吃电、散热、堆机器”。这两年全世界的数据中心老板都在为电费和机房降温发愁。俄罗斯属于老天爷喂到饭:西伯利亚开窗就是纯天然顶级空调;境内水电、核电、天然气很便宜,当年挖矿的都选西伯利亚。
另外俄罗斯人的数学和算法也强,各大国际编程竞赛,Kaggle机器学习竞赛常被俄国人屠榜。全世界除了中美,俄罗斯也搞出了自己完整的互联网生态:搜东西有Yandex,社交有VK,还有Telegram。现在在美股被炒上天的算力黑马Nebius,核心班底就是原先Yandex那帮俄罗斯人。
如果疫情后俄罗斯出地皮、出冷气、出便宜电,再拉着中国这种基建狂魔帮忙拉高压电网、建厂房、铺光纤,欧美资本开服务器工厂。俄国人完全可以成为欧亚大陆最大的“超级算力工厂”,中美神仙打架,它在中间两头收过路费。
结果呢?普京一拍大腿:不行,我得去抢那几块地。
普京的脑子,彻底停留在了19世纪沙皇俄国那种“开疆拓土”的旧梦里。什么有没有出海口啊,有没有所谓的军事缓冲带啊,就算抢方法也多的是,这可这是21世纪啊!现在的世界霸权争夺,抢的是半导体供应链,抢的是先进算法,抢的是高精尖人才。你去顿巴斯抢了几片烂泥地、几座废弃钢铁厂,代价却是把整个国家的未来都押了上去。
枪声一响,一切全崩了。稍微有点本事的程序员、算法工程师,连夜跑路。Yandex核心技术团队,宁可巨亏,惨烈的断尾求生、割裂母国,也要跑到欧洲重组成Nebius。普京把最懂未来的人,全逼成了难民和海外创业者。
在人工智能技术爆发的黎明前夜,全世界都在疯狂狂飙算力、抢占新工业革命的门票;而俄罗斯的老大,却带着几十万人,在泥潭里打着一百年前的一战式堑壕战。
再说一遍,普京不行,国内崇拜普京的那帮人也不行
Kirk Dameron retweeted
Another thing to understand about Zucman: engaging him is like trying to kick a football through a constantly-moving goalpost that also arbitrarily changes its height and width mid-kick.
He and his team at UC-Berkeley churn out a stream of working papers on inequality measurement that bake dozens of dubious assumptions into their data files, all of which "coincidentally" reinforce the headline figures that align with their political narrative. But finding and weeding out those assumptions is an extremely tedious and time-consuming task.
Zucman and coauthors Piketty and Saez do most of their work in Excel, and it's seldom ever straightforward. Instead you'll find some extremely questionable and undisclosed multiplier that's just guesstimated out of thin air...but it's buried 10 layers deep in a formula from a convoluted Excel spreadsheet, which changes the an input for another Excel spreadsheet that's used to create a ratio, which in turn goes into a formula on another Excel spreadsheet that's used to estimate a decade of missing data, which in turn alters the trend of their entire series. @VincentGeloso and I know this well because we've been scrutinizing their work for over a decade and have found dozens of examples of this sort of stuff.
But there's another twist to the PSZ universe: once you've done the work and found a problem in their data files that alters their main results in significant ways, they've already moved on to a "new" approach that conveniently hard-bakes all the faulty assumptions of the old approach into its source data while refusing to revisit them, and then layers them over with new paint, consisting of even more of the same style of Excel spreadsheet labyrinths that you now have to navigate to even figure out what they are doing. And what they do in their data files often diverges in substantial ways from how they describe it in their papers and descriptive appendixes.
While you're toiling away to figure out what they did in their last peer reviewed paper, they call up a friendly reporter at the NY Times and get him to publish a new non-peer reviewed statistical claim that grabs headlines and aligns with whatever wealth tax initiative they happen to be activisting for at the moment.
By the end, the goalpost has hopped around the field, changed its size and height multiple times, and been replaced by a new goalpost on the other end of the field that announces itself not through the referees of the field but via some sportscaster up in the broadcast booth who also happens to be openly cheering for their team.
Here's the best way to understand what Gabriel Zucman is up to on the California billionaire tax, and why it's a problem:
Suppose you were tasked with assembling a complex historical time series of an important economic indicator, but also suppose the data needed to build it is of widely varying quality. There are gaps in some years when components you need simply weren't measured. In other years the stats you do have are not as reliable. Or maybe the source changed the way it recorded things, or changed the underlying definition. And on top of all that, your indicator contains components that are simply hard to measure with any precision.
So what do you do? You'll inevitably have to make some discretionary calls on how to handle the challenges you encounter.
Zucman's inequality stats all face this problem. They draw on data that are often incomplete, and go back almost a century in some cases. Reliability varies, as do underlying sampling techniques that generated them. There are also gaps from things that aren't easily measured where you have to make a defensible judgement call on how to handle it. And each and every one of those calls affects your end results.
A rigorous researcher's judgement calls would follow certain defensible principles or rules that were clearly articulated and replicable. The effects of those calls would also distribute in different directions. Some would increase the final output number, others would decrease it.
In Zucman's work, we typically find the opposite. He makes judgement calls out of necessity, but they almost always go in the same direction, which is to show (a) rising inequality and (b) declining tax burdens on the rich. They always skew in a nonrandom direction, and that direction conveniently aligns with the political story he's telling about inequality and wealth taxes.
Or think of it this way: if you're assembling a century-long measure of income concentration it's quite plausible you may have to make 50 different judgement calls on how to handle gaps and uncertainties in the source data. If 30 of those cause your results to show higher inequality in cumulative, but 20 of those reduce inequality in cumulative, that suggests a fairly even distribution is at play. In Zucman's work (as well as his coauthors Piketty and Saez) though, you'll find situations where 50 out of 50 discretionary calls all happen to cause the headline measure of inequality to increase.
That's not random - it means that whenever they must make a choice on how to handle data uncertainty, they choose the path that confirms the political story they wish to tell. And this is why the various Piketty-Saez-Zucman measures of inequality are *always* on the high side compared to alternative measures of the same thing.
Overlay that with the fact that all three of them are partisan political activists who advocate for wealth taxes, and you see the problem. Their empirical academic work ends up skewing in favor of their political objective, even though it's masquerading as a data-driven exercise.
And that's why their empirical claims should be checked against other sources and heavily discounted when they do not align - which is frequently the case.
Kirk Dameron retweeted
Churchill could have shortened WW2 by years if he had just “done a deal” with Hitler. George Washington could have done a deal to end the American Revolution. Zelenskyy is in good company.
Kirk Dameron retweeted
This argument is getting old.
I’ve participated in it far more than I ever thought I would, but here we go again because I’m increasingly convinced that many of the people arguing that LLMs are conscious, or even open to the possibility, just don’t understand how LLMs actually work, so here is context.
This is not a debate about understanding what consciousness is or comparing observations to human experience. It’s about understanding the capabilities and mechanics of the LLM, nothing further.
First off, how LLMs work is understood. There isn’t magic happening inside the model. The calculations an LLM performs are known mathematical operations. Matrix multiplication, attention, normalization, nonlinear functions, probability calculations, etc.
Every operation is defined, implemented, and understood. In theory, you could work through an inference by hand if you were sufficiently masochistic. :-)
But what makes it difficult isn’t some unknown computation happening inside the model. It’s the absolutely enormous scale of computations operating across billions of learned parameters.
But scale does not magically transform computer software into a self-aware consciousness, but it does get more convincing at emulating it.
LLMs learn what they know during a training process. After training their “brain” is effectively locked. During normal inference (using the AI), the model does not continue learning, grow, or modify its weights based on its experiences or conversations.
When you start a new interaction with a model, the model itself has no inherent knowledge of your previous conversations with it. None. It doesn’t remember talking to you yesterday because that conversation wasn’t learned into its weights. The model itself is static.
The apparent continuity was engineered in the surrounding system. This includes previous conversations, stored memories, accessed summaries, preferences, tool results, and other information can be assembled into context and supplied to the model along with your current input.
In other words, the model isn’t remembering the previous conversation. The system is telling the model about the previous conversation again, every time, like it’s the first time.
That’s what might sorta resemble short-term memory. The continuity exists in the context supplied during inference, not as new knowledge learned by the model. Long-term memory is also emulated via tool calls and vector databases outside of the model, and then injected into the context.
It has to be done this way because the model (its “brain”) is completely static, it can’t change.
And there’s a limit. When there’s too much information, some of that context has to be discarded, summarized, compressed, or selectively retrieved to fit within the available context window.
Note: A later version of the model can be trained or fine-tuned using data that includes previous interactions, but that’s a separate training process that produces a new version of the model’s weights. The deployed model did not learn that interaction during inference.
And between inference calls, the model stops computing entirely. There is no thinking, no ongoing inference, contemplation, consideration, or processing of the passage of time. Its weights simply sit there unchanged until the model is invoked again.
Yet somehow, some people decided this is analogous to human consciousness and self-awareness?
Maybe their own weights are frozen and they ran out of context window! ;-)
And if you think anything I’ve said here is technically incorrect, go research it yourself. The tooling necessary to build the model architecture, train it, and run inference is all available as open source on GitHub.
If you want to debate anything I said, go review the source code and point me to the lines where you think the consciousness is.
Kirk Dameron retweeted
This post by @iamtomnash reminded me of a refreshing conversation I had yesterday with a 28-year-old supermarket employee who’s always stood out for the opposite reason most staff do: exceptional service.
He was so different from the indifferent that I asked what was going on. Turns out he’s working two jobs and saving every penny he can.
Why? He proudly showed me photos of the shop he’s opening elsewhere, now in the finishing stages. His own store, fully paid for from his savings. He discussed it as an investment, and asking him about the products and expected market felt like asking Forest Gump's Bubba what he knows about fish.
And of course... his friends buy nice cars, he drives a beater.
With that attitude, work ethic, and approach to business and service, his future looks brighter than theirs.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Kirk Dameron retweeted
Today marks three years since the terrorist organisation Hamas carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Second World War.
It was an act whose cruelty and inhumanity place Hamas beyond the pale. An act that can never be justified or defended.
Yet today, that atrocity is being justified and defended in many places. Even here in Europe, where the Holocaust took place. The old hatred of Jews, which many had hoped had been extinguished, has flared up again.
Whereas in the years leading up to the Second World War this hatred came primarily from the right, today it is being driven by so-called “Islamo-leftism”. That is, the peculiar fusion of Islamism and left-wing ideology first given a name in France, but now found throughout the West.
Today, therefore, should be a day of reflection. Western societies are in crisis. And that crisis comes from two directions.
On one side, there is a right wing that sides with Russia and continually seeks to advance Russian interests.
This may seem utterly incomprehensible. Russia, together with the Third Reich, helped start the Second World War by invading Poland. The country has by no means abandoned its propensity to attack Europe and seek dominance. The fondness for Russia particularly evident on the German right is therefore utterly incomprehensible.
On the other side, there is a left wing that, in my view, is even more dangerous than the pro-Russian right.
It would be wrong to say that Islamo-leftism has triumphed in the West. But it has an exceptionally strong presence in many university circles throughout this part of the world. Its ideas have infected political life well into the centre in countries such as Spain and Ireland. And it is capable of destabilising a major country such as France.
The advance of Islamo-leftism is visible on the streets everywhere. Wherever young people - Westerners and immigrants alike - rally under the Palestinian flag.
The Islamo-leftist struggle may seem absurd, with its impossible fusion of wokeness, old-fashioned left-wing themes and Islamism. And the Islamists will, of course, eliminate their left-wing allies the moment they no longer need them. Just as they did in Iran after the revolution of 1979.
But the struggle for Palestine has become the counterpart of the struggle against the Vietnam War in the 1960s. A prism, in other words, through which younger people on the left, in particular, can view the world.
Today, it is easier to see the absurdity of the youth revolt of the 1960s than it was at the time.
Why on earth were middle-class young people walking around in T-shirts emblazoned with Che Guevara or Mao Zedong? Two cynical murderers who would have begun by killing the very men and women wearing those shirts.
Yet the youth revolt transformed the societies of its time from top to bottom. I now believe it was that revolt that set in motion the Western self-hatred - and, with it, the decline of the West - that we see today.
The mistake in the 1960s and 1970s - in Europe, at least - was that the defenders of the existing social order surrendered without a fight. We must not repeat that mistake.
The sad truth is that, three years after the massacre of 7 October 2023, the Islamo-leftists have won the battle for the minds and souls of the West.
That is a victory we must not accept. We must therefore remember that this is only the first round.
And prepare to fight the second round for the West’s true values: the Enlightenment. Democracy. Pluralism.
Kirk Dameron retweeted
On Effective Altruism
adamthierer.substack.com/p/o…
Kirk Dameron retweeted
How are exchanges tokenizing stocks?
- Coinbase: on Base, an ETH L2
- Robinhood: on Robinhood Chain, an ETH L2
- Kraken: on Ink, an ETH L2
And today:
- OKX + ICE, on X Layer, an ETH L2
With L2s, exchanges own the rails and connect to the largest public blockchain:
Ethereum.
NYSE parent @ICE_Markets and @okx's 50/50 joint venture, OKXICE, has notified the SEC of plans to launch a tokenized securities venue under the agency's temporary Innovation Exemption.
The proposed venue would offer retail and institutional investors 24/7 secondary trading in tokenized US NMS stocks through @Uniswap v4 liquidity pools on @XLayerOfficial, an @ethereum L2.
Access is permissioned through KYC/KYB, sanctions screening, whitelisting and wallet-bound credentials, while the underlying chain remains public and permissionless.
The tokens are intended to represent one-for-one security entitlements to underlying shares held through a broker-dealer. The notice lists 64 proposed stocks, including NVIDIA, Tesla and Apple, paired with USDC, USDG or USDT.
Ethereum is the home of onchain finance.
Kirk Dameron retweeted
This interview with one of the FlyDubai passengers might renew your faith in humanity! He talks about how this group of strangers sprung into action, assigned people to guard each of the crew members when it wasn’t clear who was a threat, how his psychiatrist wife calmed down passengers, and then when they landed in Saudi Arabia he managed to get online and buy everyone SIM cards to call their families. Ordinary strangers. (Below)
Kirk Dameron retweeted
“Why anyone would expect better decisions to be made by third parties who pay no price for being wrong is one of the mysteries of our time.”
— Thomas Sowell
Sowell’s point is that incentives matter. People tend to be more careful and make better decisions when they have to bear the consequences, as a wrong move can cost them dearly.
Third parties face much weaker incentives because they make decisions for others while bearing little, if any, cost when those decisions go wrong. The further decision-makers are removed from the consequences of their choices, the less incentive they have to weigh costs and trade-offs carefully.
Kirk Dameron retweeted
The cryptographic world computer:
vitalik.eth.limo/general/202…
My attempt to express in somewhat concise terms the true meaning of basically everything planned to happen to Ethereum starting from the fork after Hegota. It's really not just a blockchain anymore. It's a hybrid architecture that combines together blockchains and modern cryptography, to enable much more powerful properties.
FOCIL, EIP-8288, Lean consensus, state management, formal verification, advanced mempool improvements (including privacy), and the longer-term specter of obfuscation all mentioned.
































