Cryptocurrency | Blockchain | AI | Learning and tweeting something every day
Joined November 2021
- Tweets7.5K
- Following649
- Followers1.2K
- Likes172K
Summarised analysis from @Grok.
“This is a calculated strategic repositioning toward distribution and the RWA + agentic finance narrative rather than a clear short-term win. It strengthens the long-term business case if TVL grows, fees scale, and buybacks materialize meaningfully. For holders, the dilution means execution must deliver substantially more value than the supply expansion costs—otherwise it is net negative. Watch vault fee revenue, actual buy pressure, partner/agent adoption, and post-migration liquidity/price action over the next quarters. This is not financial advice; crypto (especially small-cap RWA tokens) carries high risk of loss.”
$IXS NFA.
We're moving to Robinhood Chain.
To enable the next phase of IXS.
For two years we've weighed where IXS should live to best suit future plans. This year, together with our partners, we chose Robinhood Chain: the chain Robinhood built for tokenized assets.
Many of our biggest plans are with partners building on Robinhood Chain too and this move aligns IXS with them.
Why Robinhood Chain?
Robinhood has named tokenized stocks, pre IPO assets and institutional yield products as the defining opportunity in RWA
And it is directing capital, infrastructure and users to that thesis on its chain. We are moving to where that is happening.
It is where Robinhood is putting stocks onchain, and where it is giving its 28 million customers AI agents that trade and manage money.
More than 150,000 customers had opened agentic accounts by late September, and agents were using Robinhood’s tools about 30 million times a day.
Every agent needs somewhere to hold idle balances and earn on them. That is what IXS vaults are built for.
Where this goes: a regulated onchain market for real world assets.
Funds, credit and tokenized stocks in one place, where you can hold them, earn on them, and borrow & lend against them.
That is what we are building towards with our partners on Robinhood Chain, and it needs one IXS in one place.
Today it doesn't. IXS is split across Ethereum, Base and Polygon, three separate markets.
The migration brings it into one native token on Robinhood Chain. Setting up the token for what's coming.
Live today:
> A $10M Pre-IPO vault for institutional investors. $10M in added TVL on day one.
> 25% of vault fees now buy and burn IXS, up from 20%.
What comes next:
> AI-agent vaults on Robinhood Chain
> New RWA vaults, built with partners on the chain
> Partner launches, announced as each one goes live
The token:
1 IXS on Ethereum = 10 IXS on Robinhood Chain. The symbol stays IXS. Holders get 72% of a fixed 2.5B supply.
The rest is a recapitalisation for deeper liquidity and ecosystem growth, needed for what's planned: to attract TVL and investors and give token holders a better venue to trade.
Migration runs 27 Oct 12:00 UTC to 21 Dec 23:59 UTC. After that, IXS on Ethereum, Base and Polygon is retired.
New IXS contract:
0xDcD7FaCE6A1d0bDD0665Ea1B0842fc9CE797862b
Migrate here, and only here: robinhood.ixs.finance
IXS is not affiliated with Robinhood. Our Pre-IPO vault is open to eligible institutional investors only.
The case has shifted from “early loss-to-token farm with potential transfer upside” to “distinctive high-leverage venue with an ongoing but illiquid rakeback/ownership claim”.
$PAPER remains as non-transferable at this point, as opposed to never transferable.
Interesting developments. Worth a “wait-and-see”.
A note on transferability.
Papertrade is a complicated primitive, and managing it from a risk standpoint is a complicated problem. The PAPER token is far more integrated into the economics of the primitive than most tokens are in their respective protocols today, and, broadly, was designed to act as a counter insolvency incentive coupled with a rebate mechanism to losing traders. Market makers and exchanges are by far the two most profitable businesses in crypto, and our goal was to try and externalise as much of their margins back to users as possible. We are now just over a week into the life of papertrade and we are becoming increasingly confident that this is both possible, but also a likely outcome as agentic led software becomes the norm.
As it stands, the paper token traded as a perp becomes a leveraged bet on bankroll solvency - and being able to short bankroll solvency materially changes the payoff curve of a manipulation attack. The target number goes from the bankroll, to the bankroll + short side exposure on paper. We can, and do limit bankroll size specifically to control this payoff curve and ensure it never becomes existentially problematic, but external perp markets are not something we would have any control over if left to float of their own accord. For example, if our bankroll is $10m, an attack costing $15m manipulating the price of bitcoin or ether is not viable. You simply lose money. If however you were also able to put on $10m of PAPER short side exposure, suddenly an attack costing $15m is very viable indeed.
If we were to make the token transferable at this point, we are confident we would quickly enter a state too dangerous to allow any material exposure to be taken on papertrade, an end result that benefits no party beyond the wolves who have done the math on the short and are waiting in the wings with sharpened knives.
We would also like to thank the various perps teams who have reached out about pre-market listings for their understanding and patience regarding this issue, and especially to the paragon team who, despite jumping the gun on us, have behaved with the utmost integrity and transparency once a dialogue was opened.
Perps on PAPER will always act as a self-limiting exposure ceiling for a token with this type of utility, and we think it would be a shame to limit the growth of papertrade to the extent that allowing perps would necessitate. As such, at this juncture we do not have plans to allow off-contract token transferability.
Structurally, papertrade is limited by the quality of the data it receives from hyperliquid, but we strongly believe that hyperliquid has a very large part to play in the future of global exchanges, and expect their books to continue to thicken and strengthen over time.
A note on fees.
Papertrade launched with a deadband fee from entry of 0.2bps. This means you don't earn anything until the price has moved by 0.002% in your favour. Over the months before launch, we played around with many different curves and fee structures affecting exclusively positions closed very close to entry price in order to try and devise a structure that removed the edge against the bankroll low time frame scalp bots have, whilst also minimally impacting the traders around which and for whom the product was devised. We were never able to find anything we were absolutely happy with and so decided to stay with the 0.2bp deadband fee through launch. This has however meant we have had to be very restrictive when it came to certain parameters, such as OI caps.
Now, however, we have enough live data to fully understand exactly which strategies work, and to make the necessary changes to stop them. The changes we are making will have an on hours and off hours fee mode to account for the relative differences in liquidity the hyperliquid books see between these two time periods, and the ease with which low time frame moves are signalled. The changes we are making will only affect positions closed within 6bps of entry (0.06%) in on hours, and 10bps (0.1%) in off hours. Any trades closed above these threshold price shifts will see no change to their fees at all. On a look back to launch basis, these changes affect the profitability of bot strategies roughly 15x more than they do normal traders, for whom a very small proportion of overall winnings come from within this band.
These changes should serve to flatten much of the edge our microfee structure necessarily creates on low time frames, and will help with long term exchange sustainability. This should hopefully allow us to open up parameters such as OI caps a little more so those of you who wish to can put on the size you want to, when you want to.
It is possible these changes are still too lax, and that further revisions to this structure may be necessary going forwards. If so, we will notify users ahead of time.
A note on paper tokenomics.
In conjunction with the fee changes, we will also be implementing a change to the token issuance curve.
Going forward, every $1 lost mints a fixed share of PAPER's supply at that moment, roughly 0.1% of supply per $1M lost (the exact number depends on the mint rate at the time the contracts are upgraded). PAPER minting in and near insolvency will also change, switching from a flat 100 per $1 of loss, to a time weighted multiplier on the curve growing over time, effectively acting as the house running a discounted auction on its own future cash flows. This change also removes the risk of the paper-mint-straddle-attack, temporarily pushing the protocol insolvent by closing only the winning side of a large straddle position and then attempting to mint as much paper as possible.
In the immediate term these changes will only have a very subtle effect on PAPER minting, but in the long run will structurally change the outlook of the system beyond the first few weeks, serving to slowly dilute out older holders and leaving more recent users with an advantage. Reconstituting the PAPER system into something much closer to the exchange rakeback it was intended to be.
We have been very reticent to touch this particular aspect of the system for obvious reasons, but ultimately we believe that these changes provide all users with the optionality to take a smaller piece of a potentially much larger pie than the current dynamic might necessarily allow.
Other, miscellaneous notes.
These contract upgrades will include a few other contract changes, including the addition of builder codes so that builders can utilise papertrade in whatever capacity they choose to. This will be a whitelist only to begin with and we will have more for you later in the week on where/how this will be rolled out. A small change to contract permissions on the reward distributor and a change on how below bust closes are processed by the exchange are also included, largely to block gas griefing attacks.
These changes will be pushed to docs in full over the coming day, and we will further announce once the changes are queued into the timelock pending final security passes, scheduled to go live 24 hours after that point.
Final note.
We'd like to thank everyone that has tried out papertrade over the last 10 days. It has been a labour of love building this product and both of us have been taken aback at all of the positive feedback we have received. We'd also like to thank all those of you who have spent considerable time musing on the system we have built, and much of your advice has been taken onboard and will likely affect the colour of what papertrade becomes going forward. We know some of these changes will be unpopular with some, but we would not be making them if we did not feel them to be absolutely necessary.
- blurr, jez
Andrew B. | A Cryptonaut retweeted
Update from Ledger Donjon on the CryptoBilis investigation 🔽
@DonjonLedger is investigating Ledger signers sold by CryptoBilis, a reseller in Southeast Asia, that contained an unauthorized hardware implant. Ledger confirmed this on October 10th for one affected user's signer. All confirmed fund losses tied to the incident disclosed on October 9th involve signers sold through CryptoBilis. We have not verified a drain linked to a signer bought elsewhere. CryptoBilis has confirmed it stopped selling Ledger signers while the investigation continues.
Based on the Donjon's analysis of the attack, the implant sits inside the enclosure and reads the data shown on the screen. During setup, the signer displays the 24-word recovery phrase. When the implant detects these screens, its microcontroller decodes the words and transmits them over LTE using a provisioned eSIM. The implant is a separate component. It does not modify the Secure Element or the Ledger operating system, and it does not alter transactions or signatures.
The Donjon will analyze the signers it receives and will share more as the investigation continues.
We have not confirmed the total number of affected users or the total value lost. Figures circulating online come from third parties and Ledger has not fully verified them. If your funds were drained and you have not contacted us, please do so through Ledger Support so we can include your case. We are also reviewing reports of implants in other signers and locations. We will continue to share information as the investigation progresses. Rest assured the Ledger team is going above and beyond to leave no stone unturned to investigate this situation to the strongest possible outcome.
If you bought a Ledger signer from CryptoBilis and have not set it up, do not set it up and contact Ledger Support. If you have set it up, transfer your assets promptly to a new signer with a new recovery phrase. Do not enter or restore any recovery phrase on a signer bought from CryptoBilis. Never enter your recovery phrase into a website, app or form.
If you lost funds or hold a tampered signer, contact Ledger Support at support.ledger.com and file a report with local law enforcement. Do not send the signer to anyone before speaking with Ledger Support or local law enforcement. If you lost funds, coordinate with law enforcement before opening the signer. Researchers and others with relevant information can write to [email protected].
If you did not buy from CryptoBilis and want to inspect the inside of your signer, the guide is at support.ledger.com/article/4…. Use caution and make sure your recovery phrase is backed up first, because opening a signer can damage it.
Ledger will never call you, message you directly, or ask for your 24-word recovery phrase. We will update this post when we verify new information.
While the story continues to unfold, with a discovery of similarly compromised devices from a reseller in Europe, there are a few questions / comments / pointers in my mind:
1. Are Ledger devices purchased directly from @Ledger considered safe enough not to consider opening the device to check?
I am assuming the (downstream) delivery chain is not another weak link?
Also, Ledger devices purchased directly from @Ledger will be shipped from @Ledger, and not shipped from a reseller? Is there a possibility that it could be the latter?
2. Are the Ledger devices still useable when reassembled after opening?
3. Is there a possibility of a software update to the device to detect compromises to the hardware, without the need to open the device to check?
4. Changes to the design of the Ledger device(s) such that it is either transparent or open-able for inspection by its owner?
5. Immediate pause of the reseller channels until a full audit / assurance inspection has been performed? Follow the Third Party Risk Management framework adopted by banks. This will add confidence to the brand.
6. Maybe the entire concept of cold / hardware wallet will need to be revisited. It is no longer assumed to be more superior to a hot wallet. There are posts out there recommending the re-purpose of older iPhones.
7. Perhaps, cold / hardware wallets of the future will be like @IKEA and that means delivered in parts packed in a box, and to be assembled by the owner.
8. Stay safe. Do not assume that cold / hardware wallet will be 100% safe. It is merely a device that stores #crypto and the key will still be our own practice and vigilance that matters.
#ledger #wallet
72 hour update on reseller CryptoBilis incident 🔽
As the investigation continues, we are working with relevant authorities. The volume of impacted devices is limited. We know this is concerning, especially for those directly affected, and we are reaching out to impacted users.
To date, all confirmed cases related to the disclosed draining incident of Oct 9th, 2026, involve devices sold through the Southeast Asia reseller CryptoBilis. Our systems and direct sales channels remain unaffected.
We take the CryptoBilis situation seriously and are actively investigating.
We encourage impacted users to reach out to Ledger Support through official channels and file complaints with their local law enforcement authorities. As a reminder, CryptoBilis has confirmed having ceased all sales of hardware wallets.
We are reminding our authorized resellers and distributors to source products only through authorized channels and never to restock returned products.
Also, we strongly advise users not to purchase from unauthorized resellers, where the risk of buying suspicious, counterfeit or modified devices is important as nothing operates under ledger security guidelines.
Security isn’t static and this incident underscores why we continuously review and strengthen our distribution and anti-tamper processes.
We are continuously improving that work now and events like this strengthen our resolution: reviewing authorized reseller controls, advancing hardware protections, and cooperating with authorities. Thanks to @SEAL_911 for their collaborative support and all their efforts.
This is an ongoing threat that doesn’t just impact Ledger, but the whole ecosystem, and we are calling others in the space to work with us on making improvements for users.
We believe in jointly working with researchers, other vendors and partners on improving industry chain-of-custody practices and anti-tamper techniques. Raising the bar on physical supply-chain integrity benefits the entire ecosystem. If you have relevant information, contact [email protected].
For CryptoBilis buyers: do not initialize unused devices. If already set up, move to a new seed on a device from Ledger. If you have concerns that your device was impacted by the CryptoBilis incident, please contact Ledger Support through the official site: support.Ledger.com.
Ledger Support is available 24/7 to answer your questions and concerns.
Scammers often try to take advantage of incidents like this. Rely only on official Ledger channels. Ledger will never call you, DM you, or ask for your 24-word recovery phrase.
Great thoughts / ideas there. 👇
I've been using Ledger devices for many years, and the recent discoveries of hardware implants haven't changed my trust in them.
If anything, they've reinforced something I strongly believe in: you should be able to inspect the hardware you entrust with your Bitcoin.
Bitcoin was built around a simple principle: don't trust, verify.
That principle shouldn't stop at software or cryptography. It should extend to the physical devices holding our keys.
Sealed or tamper-evident designs are perfectly fine, as long as they're transparent and don't prevent independent inspection.
Ledger devices are relatively easy to open and examine. That's one of the reasons these malicious implants could be discovered and investigated.
No hardware wallet is immune to supply-chain attacks. But security shouldn't depend entirely on trusting the manufacturer or distributor.
Physical inspection isn't a guarantee of security, but it's an essential part of being able to verify what you're actually using.
Trust comes from the ability to verify, not from being told something is secure.
Reported weight of hardware wallets.
See post below.👇
🚨 If you don’t want to open up your Ledger just yet, here’s a list of hardware wallets and their weights:
⚖️ Hardware Wallet Weights
Ledger
• Nano X – 34 g
• Nano S Plus – 21 g
• Flex – 58 g
• Stax – 44 g
• Nano Gen5 – 46 g
Trezor
• Safe 7 – 45 g
• Safe 5 – 23 g
• Safe 3 – 14 g
BitBox
• BitBox02 – 12 g
• BitBox02 Nova – 13 g
OneKey
• Classic 1S – 20.5 g
• Pro – 65 g
• Pro 2 – 53 g
Blockstream
• Jade Core – 20 g
• Jade Plus – 30 g
Keystone
• 3 Pro – 103 g
SafePal
• S1 Pro – 126 g
Coldcard
• Q – 175 g
NGRAVE
• ZERO – 180 g
ELLIPAL
• Titan 2.0 – 158 g
Andrew B. | A Cryptonaut retweeted
how to not get your crypto hacked.
bookmark this forever:
1. hardware
- buy direct from the company or an authorized retailer. never random resellers
- seed card already filled in when you received = scam. throw it
- ship it to a pickup point, not your home
- update firmware only through the official app
2. seed
- metal over paper. never a photo, cloud or notes app
- never enter your seed into a website or software wallet. restore only through your hardware wallet's official recovery
- don't split your seed manually. no redundancy and it leaks information. use shamir or multisig instead
- test your backup before funding: built-in check or wipe and restore. untested backup = no backup
- two copies, two locations. fire is a hacker too if seed burns
3. setup
- vault: a hardware wallet that never touches dapps
- hot wallet for daily use. burner for anything new
- bigger bags: passphrase on top. small decoy bag on the seed, real bag behind the passphrase
- back up the passphrase too, stored apart from the seed. lose it and nothing recovers your coins
- multisig when the amount justifies it. no single point of failure
4. signing (where most people get drained)
- verify on the device, never trust the website alone. bybit lost $1.5B to a compromised UI
- can't read it? don't sign it
- "free" signatures can drain you with zero gas (permits)
- one malicious eip-7702 authorization can delegate control of your entire account
- on solana, one bad tx can reassign your token accounts. simulate before you sign
- review approvals monthly. revoke what you don't need
5. sending
- never copy addresses from tx history. scammers plant lookalikes
- check the full address on the device, not just the first and last 4
- small test tx before every big one
6. machine
- a laptop that only touches crypto. clean browser, no random extensions
- download wallets only from the official site. app stores and search results are full of fakes
- never run "meeting apps", game builds or files strangers send
- never share your screen or install remote access. "support" asking for anydesk = scam
- bookmark every site. never click search ads
- surprise airdrops and NFTs = trap
7. exchanges
- unique password everywhere. 1password or bitwarden
- 2FA with an authenticator app or passkey. never SMS
- 2FA backup codes offline. not in email, not in cloud
- lock your SIM with a carrier PIN. sim swaps still work
- separate email only for crypto. nobody knows it
- turn on withdrawal whitelists
- not your keys, not your coins. move out what you're not trading
8. opsec
- don't flex your bags or your setup. wrench attacks are rising
- support never DMs first.
- avoid phishing emails, only trust official sources
- have an inheritance plan. dead keys are lost coins
9. quantum (check my other quantum tweet for detailed advice)
- not a threat today and anyone selling quantum panic is selling something
- btc: never reuse addresses. sending from one exposes its public key forever
- btc: park long-term coins in addresses that have never sent a tx. taproot (bc1p) and old p2pk show the key from day one
- btc: bip-360 proposes a step toward quantum-resistant addresses. not live. proposals also exist to freeze unmigrated coins
- eth + erc20: sending a tx exposes your public key. signing messages can expose it too so keep major bag on clean wallet
- sol: your address is your public key. exposed from day one. experimental winternitz vaults exist, not standard wallet protection
hardware rarely gets hacked. people do.
See post below for what happened. 👇
Question - When buying from @Ledger, is the device shipped directly? Or via a reseller?
oh my god this is worse than we thought
here's @Ledger $86M exploits explained
> cryptobilis was a reputable and authorized Ledger/Trezor/OneKey dealer for over 4 years
> they decided to sell the company to a Chinese guy (most likely patsy for DPRK) from northern China in MARCH 2026
> the "Chinese guy" modded the devices within the supply chain itself (physical), namely Nano X devices, to contain an implant module
> ledger validity/genuineness check CANNOT detect this because hw wasn't actually tampered with, just spied on
> quoting @MagicalTux:
" implant just monitors what's shown on the screen, will take note of the seed as it's shown to you, then transmits it to 3rd party"
> former owner chimes in on X (pic below) to say that "they were under a NDA" to not mention anything to anyone for 6 months
> they obviously didn't alert any of their partners that they were authorized to sell devices of... because NDA, duh!! its in the name!
> conveniently, funds start getting siphoned a few weeks before this magical NDA due date, and being laundered across all blockchains
Andrew B. | A Cryptonaut retweeted
Alexandr Wang 在谈到“如何拉开与 99% 人的差距”时，给出了极其朴素甚至残酷的答案：
顶层竞争根本不拼智商，拼的是极端执行力的非对称倾斜。
他的三条核心准则：
1. 绝对聚焦，压榨认知带宽： 绝大多数人的忙碌只是“低密度伪勤奋”。真正的专注是把全部精力砸在唯一的核心支点上，拒绝任何无关干扰。
2. 把“过度交付”做成护城河： 行业标准要求走 1 英里，你就走完 10 英里。当所有人都按合同完成 100% 时，常态化交付 200% 的人会直接卷走全部声誉与溢价。
3. 带靶向的超额输出，拒绝无目的内耗： 努力不是盲目自我感动，而是针对具体目标的持续过载测试。把每一次交付都当成生死决战来打。
商业世界最公平的一点在于：
聪明人到处都是，但能忍受极度枯燥并长期超额交付的人凤毛麟角。
执行力溢出，就是最暴力的护城河。
Andrew B. | A Cryptonaut retweeted
Today I call upon the blockchain industry to calmly begin planning for "bunker mode". My personal recommendation is to set in motion a controlled mass migration of assets to fresh addresses, i.e. addresses whose pubkeys remain hidden behind a hash.
Holders, starting with large and sophisticated ones, should consider moving the bulk of their funds to addresses that have never signed a transaction. And when they do sign one, they should also move remaining funds to a new address (possibly generated from the same seed phrase).
Don't rush. While I believe there is cause for action a rushed migration would do more harm than good. Don't panic either. Moving assets to protected addresses is a simple, preventative step which does not require new cryptography or new wallets.
IMO it is now reasonable to brace for the possibility that ECDSA breaks before qday, in the worst case in months not years. By "break" I mean fast private key recovery (e.g. in one week) on available hardware (e.g. a large GPU cluster).
Recent days have been humbling for human mathematical intuition. Long-held, unquestioned hypotheses have fallen. This includes the n log(n) bound for integer multiplication and the 3SUM conjecture. In hindsight, May's unexpected disproof of the Erdős unit distance conjecture was our warning shot.
Yesterday's OpenAI drop made it clear that mathematical superintelligence is upon us. They say there are weeks where decades happen. We are about to live through weeks where centuries of mathematical progress happen. Could our magic 64-byte ECDSA signatures be too good to be true? Was it just security through obscurity all this time?
Elliptic curves feel especially vulnerable to superintelligence. Curves carry rich structure, with room for fancy tricks like Schoof, Frobenius, pairings. (By contrast, hashes are designed to minimise algebraic structure.)
Separately, as Ewin Tang can attest, an efficient quantum algorithm sometimes foreshadows an efficient classical one. We should be open to the possibility of a classical counterpart to Shor that breaks elliptic curves and RSA at once.
Also noteworthy is the striking under-representation of cryptographic breakthroughs among the 722 mathematical results OpenAI published. I've witnessed first-hand the US government censoring academic quantum cryptanalysis results. Backroom interventionism is my base case.
I urge large, sophisticated actors to lead by example. Project11's "risq list" (bitcoin-risq-list.projecteleven[.]com) is a great tracker of exposed BTC pubkeys. Binance, Bitbank, Robinhood, Bitfinex, and Tether have an opportunity to harden their cold storage. Next month I'll address institutions in London in a live Q&A (forum.ethereuminstitutional[.]org/london-2026).
Again, please do not rush. Wallets holding under 50 BTC enjoy partial cover from "Satoshi's shield", i.e. his 20K exposed addresses that hold 50 BTC each. Load-bearing signers like oracles and L2 security councils should consider rotating ECDSA pubkeys with every signed message and/or multi-signing with a hash-based schemes like SPHINCS.
Exiting bunker mode safely will require post-AI cryptography. My inclination is to go all-in on hash-based cryptography and avoid structured mathematical assumptions entirely, whether from curves, lattices, or isogenies. A single battle-tested hash (e.g. from the SHA or BLAKE families) yields plausible post-AI security.
The Ethereum roadmap on strawmap[.]org fully embraces hash-based cryptography with end-to-end formal verification as a response to the quantum threat. Those timelines must now be revisited and accelerated in light of mathematical superintelligence. I'll be pushing for maximum defensive acceleration.
Andrew B. | A Cryptonaut retweeted
I don't recommend anyone scramble to move their funds to new wallets today. But we should take the risks to cryptography from AI-accelerated math seriously, and minimize our exposure to not just quantum-vulnerable cryptography, but also potentially AI-vulnerable cryptography.
The core new area of risk from this viewpoint is, unfortunately, ML-DSA / FHE / lattices.
(and it's also another reason, along with quantum, why ECDSA might fall even faster than expected, hence the "fresh address" recommendation)
So far most people have been in the mode of thinking "elliptic curves broken, hashes safe, lattices safe". But there is a good chance that the concrete security of lattices will take serious hits from the next two years of AI math.
The basic threat model is: factoring is something that naively takes 2^(n/2) time, but over decades smart people have found and optimized number field sieves, and degraded that to 2^O(n^(1/3)), which is why RSA keys and signatures need to be ~400 bytes (and not 64 bytes). What if there are skeletons in the closet like that, both for elliptic curves and lattices, that we are simply not smart enough to discover - but bots soon will be?
This is a major part of the reason why for the past year ethereum's lean roadmap has been going in the "hash-only" direction: no lattices, no ML-DSA, no Falcon, no lattice-based commitments inside ZK proofs, etc. Signatures in lean ethereum are all hash-based, either WOTS or SPHINCS-.
For signatures and proofs, we already know how to go hash-only. The bigger challenge is for *public-key encryption* - and this goes far beyond blockchains. Secure communication, anonymizing protocols, lots of things need public-key encryption.
And unfortunately there are long-standing mathematical theorems showing why public-key encryption cannot be done with hashes alone. You have to have some kind of trapdoor object that has at least one form of usable "structure" - either group theory (incl. isogenies) or lattices or code-based or potentially in the future even more newfangled and spooky things (local mixing?). But for anything that has structure, you should assume that AI will make at least some progress in breaking that structure. Here, one reasonable inference is that if you want to make something plausibly long-term secure, multiply the key sizes by 10.
To me that's a very plausible world and something not at all extreme to predict. If AI will bring us 50 years of math in 2 years, then that 50 years of math may very plausibly include a "naive factoring -> GNFS" level of improvement to our ability to break lattices. In that world, lattices will still exist, but they will have to be significantly bigger to guarantee the same level of safety.
And at those new larger sizes, hash-based constructions will beat lattice-based constructions on concrete efficiency in every use case where hash-based constructions are possible at all.
Theoretically, of course it's possible that hashes are broken too (eg. P = NP would imply that). But I think P = NP is very unlikely. And intuitively, it's much more likely that a mathematical object has exactly no exploitable structure (like hashes are intended to), than that a mathematical object has exactly ~3 forms of exploitable structure (for elliptic curves: associativity, Schoof, pairings) and not some secret fourth form of structure we have not yet discovered that greatly degrades its security (for elliptic curves, ECDLP and pairing security). Similar for LWE, SVP, RLWE and the zoo of lattice problems.
For this reason, we do not yet see any reason to worry and start padding the byte size of hashes (if we start to worry more, we would pad the round count first before doing anything to the byte size).
Concrete TLDR, my own personal views:
* Hash-based > lattice-based, in those situations where hash-based is possible at all
* For anything lattice-based, be much more paranoid on param sizes. Remember that blockchains are only a small portion of the cryptography story; this point goes far beyond blockchains and applies to eg. access to websites, secure messaging, Tor / VPNs ...
* For privacy protocols, strongly favor NOT putting encrypted notes onchain. Instead, send them offchain through some third-party mechanism.
* If it's not difficult for you, keeping your funds in addresses which have not yet been used to make a transaction is a good idea. If it's easy for you, do it. **But be careful about migrations; I personally have lost more money in botched migrations than I have lost in all hacks combined**.
* For multisig wallets, doing confirmations offchain is better than onchain, because this way the signatures of signer wallets do not get exposed to the public, so if ECDSA falls to AI much faster than expected, at least the multisig "gracefully degrades" to a 1-of-1 where the 1 is whoever was gathering the signatures - a much better place to be than "anyone can take the money"
firefly.social/post/x/210783…
Andrew B. | A Cryptonaut retweeted
The biggest AI winner is not $NVDA.
Since AI took off, a few stocks have actually beaten Nvidia.
Here are 10 AI stocks ranked by $100 returns.
Save this AI trade list🔖
Base builders shipped hard in September.
Base builders ship hard
Here's 25 things the Base ecosystem launched and announced in September
1) @aave listed Coinbase Tokenized Stocks. Holders can deposit stocks on Base as collateral and borrow USDC against them on Aave V4
2) @modveon launched Sivar. Now Salvadorans can send money between the US and El Salvador at low cost, with instant transfers that settle in seconds on Base
3) @Cloudflare opened a closed beta of its Monetization Gateway. APIs on Cloudflare can charge agents per request, settled in USDC on Base
4) Coinbase partnered with @Citi to bring stablecoin acceptance to Base, letting institutions take stablecoin payments on regulated rails with automatic fiat settlement
5) 10 teams were selected for Base Batches 004 out of 750+ applicants: @bitrepo_xyz, @contavcbr, @flovia402, @greekdotfi, @get_grow_app, @mercatus_ai, @rennfinance, @saturdaybank, @tribeca_xyz, and @ledig_tech
6) @catalystmkts_ launched markets on Base for whether an event happens, starting with social interactions and expanding to listings, launches, news, and onchain events
7) @verantaxyz launched 39 new assets on Veranta and Base. Traders can trade them with up to 25x leverage, including 26 assets that were not tradable onchain
8) @2factorfinance launched its public beta on Base. Long-term holders can hold moderate leverage indefinitely, first on Bitcoin and then on Coinbase Tokenized Stocks, at a fraction of what a leveraged ETF costs to carry
9) @avantprotocol launched Avant on Base, onchain infrastructure for productive capital. It starts by bringing that capital into @morpho lending markets
10) @alchemixfi launched Alchemix V3 on Base. Users can now deposit once and earn with no lock-up, borrow against that money with no interest while it keeps earning, or lock in a fixed return
11) @upshift_fi is live on Base with @clearstarlabs. Curators, fintechs, and asset managers can launch vaults, and depositors keep their own funds. The first vault lets XRP holders earn on cbXRP in @morpho lending markets
12) @revertfinance launched Revert Rewards on Base. Liquidity providers can open a position in the tokenized stock pools on @aeroxyz, set a price range, and track the fees hour by hour
13) @clearstarlabs added cbZEC and cbHYPE to its cbAssets Vault on Base. Both markets are live in its largest vault on @morpho
14) @o1_exchange launched tax tokens on its launchpad on Base. Creators can set a buy and sell tax from 1% to 10% and route it to themselves, to holders as dividends paid in the paired asset, or to burns
15) @zothdotio expanded zPayments on Base, a stablecoin settlement platform for businesses. Businesses can pay out in local currency across 171 countries, at one stated rate, with instant settlement
16) @munifyai is now on Base. People can receive, hold, spend, and move dollars in one account with USDC on Base
17) @rifthq released an onchain API, letting users send money to a deposit address while it runs the swap, bridge, or deposit, including routes to Base
18) @morpho introduced P2P Orders for Midnight on Base, letting you set your own terms from the fixed-rate app
19) @numoforex launched a Naira Perp market on Base. Traders can now trade USDC-cNGN-PERP directly on Base
20) @fluidkey turned on auto-earn on Base. USDC you receive starts earning when it lands, through a vault curated by @kpk_io on @morpho
21) @predofficial opened NBA preseason markets on Base, letting users back their takes on a game with no fees for the whole season
22) @longshotxyz added soccer markets on Base, featuring leagues from Spain, England, and USA
23) @flapdotsh is now on Base. Tokens launched on Flap can trade against tokenized stocks, so an onchain token can be paired with a real-world asset
24) @norafinancexyz launched $BRS on Base, the Brazilian real onchain, adding more distribution and more ways to plug it into other apps
25) @roqqupay introduced the Roqqu Go Card, a multi-currency card for spending crypto like cash, running USDC on Base
Andrew B. | A Cryptonaut retweeted
J777Crypto's 3 Tips for Trading the Current Market
J7 is a high-volume trader and narrative-driven individual, best known for spotting plays while they're still quiet what some might call "front-running" the narrative. His favorite quote is:
'In before the crowd not when it's crowded'
He's also known for having a strong eye for small-cap projects with massive potential and upside. When he believes in something, he'll stay committed until the thesis plays out. If the thesis becomes invalidated, however, he has no problem cutting the trade and moving on.
Some of his most notable early calls this season include:
AI: $3M → $380M
DELTA: $50K → $50M
Hoodrat: $100K → $20M
Stonkex: $100K → $30M
Stonk: $3M → $330M
PARE: $500K → $30M
He's currently ranked #2 on the PumpFun app for 1-month PnL.
Here are his three tips for navigating the current market:
1. Get in before the crowd, not when it gets crowded
Always look for what could become the next big thing something people are likely to adopt or pay attention to, and position yourself before the crowd arrives.
Once a narrative is already widely known and everyone is talking about it, much of the easy upside may already be gone.
When you have something good on your hands, make sure you follow your trade plan and take profits according to that plan. Don't become overly bullish on everything simply because a trade is working. Stay objective, manage your risk, and make sure the thesis still makes sense.
2. Trust your own thesis and never borrow conviction
There's a clear difference between identifying something promising and believing in your thesis versus becoming delusional and refusing to accept when you're wrong.
Being early can be incredibly rewarding, but it can also expose you to significant volatility and multiple drawdowns before the market recognizes what you see. As the saying goes, "It pays to be early at times."
The key is knowing the difference between being early and being wrong.
Identify the right opportunities, trust your own research and instincts, and most importantly, stick to your trade plan and conviction, while remaining willing to change your mind when the facts change.
3. Never be afraid to take the loss and move on, leave the casino with your chips
How many times have we been so convicted in a trade that we become delusional, even when everything is going against us and the volume simply isn't there?
Don't force a trade just because you were initially convinced it would work.
Always be willing to take the L and follow the setup you started with. I know it can be painful to cut a position only to watch it giga-send afterward, but you have to remember that there are only so many chips you bring into the casino.
The goal is to leave the casino with your chips.
"Nothing is profit until it's realized."
You will never catch every mooner, and that's okay. We're all human, and nobody gets every trade right.
Manage your risk, protect your capital, trust your process, and keep moving.
"Good luck out there, gamers."
- @J777Crypto
Take note. 🗒️
⚠️ALERT: An app called FomoPeek has been caught stealing private keys and seed phrases from iPhones.
SlowMist says versions 1.1 to 1.2 contain malicious code that exploits iOS vulnerabilities to gain the highest level of device access.
Once the exploit succeeds, wallet data, login credentials, chat history and files from ALL apps on the device can be accessed.
Binance is urging anyone who installed FomoPeek to delete it immediately, create a new wallet on a clean device and transfer all assets.
A great video on Zcash. 👇
$ZEC
很多人把 Zcash 稱為“比特幣的隱私版”，但這句話到底對不對？
這期影片從比特幣賬本太透明的問題講起，解釋 Zcash、ZEC、ECC 和 Zcash Foundation 分別是什麼，再用簡單的例子說明零知識證明、透明交易、屏蔽交易和選擇性披露。
影片也會談到 Zcash 的發展歷史、2100萬枚供應上限、早期創始人獎勵、使用門檻、可信設置、監管壓力，以及 2026 年隱私系統漏洞和 IRONWOOD 更新。
最後，我們會一起看 Zcash 為什麼重新受到關注：Grayscale Zcash ETF、上市公司持幣、礦業和市場情緒分別扮演了什麼角色？ETF 上市又是否代表美國政府認可了 Zcash 的隱私功能？
Zcash 不是突然出現的熱門幣，也不是已經完成的完美答案。它真正想解決的問題是：
數字貨幣的賬本可以公開，但我們的財務生活是否也必須公開？
本影片是個人學習與理解分享，不構成任何投資建議。加密貨幣具有高風險，請自行研究並謹慎決策。
時間戳
00:00 Zcash是什麼？為什麼重新進入市場視野
01:18 比特幣的賬本為什麼太透明
02:08 從ZeroCoin到Zcash：項目如何誕生
03:25 零知識證明到底是怎麼回事
04:22 透明交易和屏蔽交易的區別
05:34 隱私池比例與ZEC供應上限
08:36 為什麼Zcash一直沒有快速普及
11:27 2026年漏洞與IRONWOOD新系統
13:16 Zcash為什麼在2026年重新受到關注
18:11 Zcash是不是“比特幣的隱私版”