X KOL 监控

Grok ImagineDéborah: Grok Imagine UPDATE: Once your animation is complete, you can extend it using any frame you like. This is really useful. Another great feature is that the music continues when the animation is extended.In the example below, I was able to extend the animation to 30 seconds

TrueDavid Sacks: True. And guess where those Biden AI staffers went to work as soon as the admin was over? Anthropic.

If ethnicity exists at all, which it obviously does, then English is an ethnicity. This is a simple statement of fact. It is possible to be culturally English or French or Japanese, etc, but ethnically be different. The first is “software”, the other is “hardware”.This should not be license to be cruel or unfair to people of a different ethnicity. I believe we should be fair to all ethnicities, but not pretend that one or another does not exist.Rupert Lowe MP: If I moved to Japan, and lived in Japan for decades, speaking the language, integrating into society, contributing to the economy. Would I be ethnically Japanese? No. No I would not. I would never pretend to be. Nor would that apply to India, Thailand, Mexico, Denmark or anywhere

Now, execution layer changes. I've already talked about account abstraction, multidimensional gas, BALs, and ZK-EVMs.I've also talked here about a short-term EVM upgrade that I think will be super-valuable: a vectorized math precompile (basically, do 32-bit or potentially 64-bit operations on lists of numbers at the same time; in principle this could accelerate many hashes, STARK validation, FHE, lattice-based quantum-resistane signatures, and more by 8-64x); think "the GPU for the EVM". https://firefly.social/post/x/2027405623189803453Today I'll focus on two big things: state tree changes, and VM changes. State tree changes are in this roadmap. VM changes (ie. EVM -> RISC-V or something better) are longer-term and are still more non-consensus, but I have high conviction that it will become "the obvious thing to do" once state tree changes and the long-term state roadmap (see https://ethresear.ch/t/hyper-scaling-state-by-creating-new-forms-of-state/24052 ) are finished, so I'll make my case for it here.What these two have in common is:* They are the big bottlenecks that we have to address if we want efficient proving (tree + VM are like >80%)* They're basically mandatory for various client-side proving use cases* They are "deep" changes that many shrink away from, thinking that it is more "pragmatic" to be incrementalistI'll make the case for both.# Binary treesThe state tree change (worked on by @gballet and many others) is https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7864, switching from the current hexary keccak MPT to a binary tree based on a more efficient hash function.This has the following benefits:* 4x shorter Merkle branches (because binary is 32*log(n) and hexary is 512*log(n)/4), which makes client-side branch verification more viable. This makes Helios, PIR and more 4x cheaper by data bandwidth* Proving efficiency. 3-4x comes from shorter Merkle branches. On top of that, the hash function change: either blake3 [perhaps 3x vs keccak] or a Poseidon variant [100x, but more security work to be done]* Client-side proving: if you want ZK applications that compose with the ethereum state, instead of making their own tree like today, then the ethereum state tree needs to be prover-friendly.* Cheaper access for adjacent slots: the binary tree design groups together storage slots into "pages" (eg. 64-256 slots, so 2-8 kB). This allows storage to get the same efficiency benefits as code in terms of loading and editing lots of it at a time, both in raw execution and in the prover. The block header and the first ~1-4 kB of code and storage live in the same page. Many dapps today already load a lot of data from the first few storage slots, so this could save them >10k gas per tx* Reduced variance in access depth (loads from big contracts vs small contracts)* Binary trees are simpler* Opportunity to add any metadata bits we end up needing for state expiryZooming out a bit, binary trees are an "omnibus" that allows us to take all of our learnings from the past ten years about what makes a good state tree, and actually apply them.# VM changesSee also: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/long-term-l1-execution-layer-proposal-replace-the-evm-with-risc-v/23617One reason why the protocol gets uglier over time with more special cases is that people have a certain latent fear of "using the EVM". If a wallet feature, privacy protocol, or whatever else can be done without introducing this "big scary EVM thing", there's a noticeable sigh of relief. To me, this is very sad. Ethereum's whole point is its generality, and if the EVM is not good enough to actually meet the needs of that generality, then we should tackle the problem head-on, and make a better VM. This means:* More efficient than EVM in raw execution, to the point where most precompiles become unnecessary* More prover-efficient than EVM (today, provers are written in RISC-V, hence my proposal to just make the new VM be RISC-V)* Client-side-prover friendly. You should be able to, client-side, make ZK-proofs about eg. what happens if your account gets called with a certain piece of data* Maximum simplicity. A RISC-V interpreter is only a couple hundred lines of code, it's what a blockchain VM "should feel like"This is still more speculative and non-consensus. Ethereum would certainly be *fine* if all we do is EVM + GPU. But a better VM can make Ethereum beautiful and great.A possible deployment roadmap is:1. NewVM (eg. RISC-V) only for precompiles: 80% of today's precompiles, plus many new ones, become blobs of NewVM code2. Users get the ability to deploy NewVM contracts3. EVM is retired and turns into a smart contract written in NewVMEVM users experience full backwards compatibility except gas cost changes (which will be overshadowed by the next few years of scaling work). And we get a much more prover-efficient, simpler and cleaner protocol.https://firefly.social/post/farcaster/0x1daa0658c0d0f935cb99a2c31e32f345c6c49d4a

The Turn of the Century.

Yes, and destroying democracyAmerica: They are subverting the will of their own voters.

😑Remarks: JUST IN: Elon Musk says "people can pretend or dress up all they want…""But they can't force their mental illness to be my new reality."

Grok Imagine

The names of those who block the Save Act will go down in infamyRothmus 🏴:

Electricity output is the single best proxy for industrial capacityWorld of Statistics: 🇨🇳 China now generates 40% more electricity than the US and EU combined.

Grok Imagine upgraded againtetsuo: xAI just added "extend from frame" to Grok Imagine. You can now extend any animation by up to 10 seconds.

And it’s accelerating rapidlyJesse Peltan: I just want to highlight that while fuel use is down in China due to rapid EV adoption, coal generation is *also DOWN.**That’s* how much solar they’re building.(everybody should do this)

China is moving rapidly to a solar/electric future with very little need for oil or gasWorld of Statistics: 🇨🇳 Official data reports that 12% of China's vehicles are now EVs, with fuel sales plunging 5.7% in 2025

And two days from now on FB 😂Rishikesh Taksale: For people on Instagram the war will start tomorrow

For nowElon Musk: Highest usage of 𝕏 ever

🤨Nathan Lands: This got memory holed so fast

Stretch Dividend Rate increased by 25 bps to 11.50% for March 2026. $STRC

http://x.com/i/article/2027720707099267078

BREAKING: @tethergold volume on Solana soars to a new 7D ATH of $78 million @orogoldapp volume up 85% in the last 24 hours

Lots of people reached out. All good, and very calm here actually, considering the circumstance. 🙏 UAE citizens and tourists have a lot of confidence in the country's leadership, and defense system. Seen a few smoke in the sky and heard a few booms.This 👇 seems to be the most severe damage in Dubai/UAE. Probably debris from an intercepted missile. Landed luckily in the what looks like the courtyard of the popular Fairmont hotel, not the building itself. Hope no one got hurt.Crazy world! Hope everyone stays SAFU!ElonTrades: Fairmont Dubai in front of my Airbnb.High pitched sounds followed by an explosion that shook our building.Direct impact from everything I’ve gathered talking to people around me.I hope this was an accident.Absolutely insane.

This is quite an impressive experiment. Vibe-coding the entire 2030 roadmap within weeks.Obviously such a thing built in two weeks without even having the EIPs has massive caveats: almost certainly lots of critical bugs, and probably in some cases "stub" versions of a thing where the AI did not even try making the full version. But six months ago, even this was far outside the realm of possibility, and what matters is where the trend is going.AI is massively accelerating coding (yesterday, I tried agentic-coding an equivalent of my blog software, and finished within an hour, and that was using gpt-oss:20b running on my laptop (!!!!), kimi-2.5 would have probably just one-shotted it).But probably, the right way to use it, is to take half the gains from AI in speed, and half the gains in security: generate more test-cases, formally verify everything, make more multi-implementations of things.A collaborator of the @leanethereum effort managed to AI-code a machine-verifiable proof of one of the most complex theorems that STARKs rely on for security.A core tenet of @leanethereum is to formally verify everything, and AI is greatly accelerating our ability to do that. Aside from formal verification, simply being able to generate a much larger body of test cases is also important.Do not assume that you'll be able to put in a single prompt and get a highly-secure version out anytime soon; there WILL be lots of wrestling with bugs and inconsistencies between implementations. But even that wrestling can happen 5x faster and 10x more thoroughly.People should be open to the possibility (not certainty! possibility) that the Ethereum roadmap will finish much faster than people expect, at a much higher standard of security than people expect.On the security side, I personally am excited about the possibility that bug-free code, long considered an idealistic delusion, will finally become first possible and then a basic expectation. If we care about trustlessness, this is a necessary piece of the puzzle. Total security is impossible because ultimately total security means exact correspondence between lines of code and contents of your mind, which is many terabytes (see https://firefly.social/post/x/2025653045414273438 ). But there are many specific cases, where specific security claims can be made and verified, that cut out >99% of the negative consequences that might come from the code being broken.YQ: Two weeks ago I made a bet with @VitalikButerin that one person could agentic-code an @ethereum client targeting 2030+ roadmap. So I built ETH2030 (http://eth2030.com | http://github.com/jiayaoqijia/eth2030).702K lines of Go. 65 roadmap items. Syncs with mainnet. Here's what I found.

Now, account abstraction.We have been talking about account abstraction ever since early 2016, see the original EIP-86: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/86Now, we finally have EIP-8141 ( https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-8141 ), an omnibus that wraps up and solves every remaining problem that AA was intended to address (plus more). Let's talk again about what it does.The concept, "Frame Transactions", is about as simple as you can get while still being highly general purpose. A transaction is N calls, which can read each other's calldata, and which have the ability to authorize a sender and authorize a gas payer. At the protocol layer, *that's it*. Now, let's see how to use it.First, a "normal transaction from a normal account" (eg. a multisig, or an account with changeable keys, or with a quantum-resistant signature scheme). This would have two frames:* Validation (check the signature, and return using the ACCEPT opcode with flags set to signal approval of sender and of gas payment)* ExecutionYou could have multiple execution frames, atomic operations (eg. approve then spend) become trivial now.If the account does not exist yet, then you prepend another frame, "Deployment", which calls a proxy to create the contract (EIP-7997 https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-7997-deterministic-factory-predeploy/24998 is good for this, as it would also let the contract address reliably be consistent across chains).Now, suppose you want to pay gas in RAI. You use a paymaster contract, which is a special-purpose onchain DEX that provides the ETH in real time. The tx frames are:* Deployment [if needed]* Validation (ACCEPT approves sender only, not gas payment)* Paymaster validation (paymaster checks that the immediate next op sends enough RAI to the paymaster and that the final op exists)* Send RAI to the paymaster* Execution [can be multiple]* Paymaster refunds unused RAI, and converts to ETHBasically the same thing that is done in existing sponsored transactions mechanisms, but with no intermediaries required (!!!!). Intermediary minimization is a core principle of non-ugly cypherpunk ethereum: maximize what you can do even if all the world's infrastructure except the ethereum chain itself goes down.Now, privacy protocols. Two strategies here. First, we can have a paymaster contract, which checks for a valid ZK-SNARK and pays for gas if it sees one. Second, we could add 2D nonces (see https://docs.erc4337.io/core-standards/rip-7712.html ), which allow an individual account to function as a privacy protocol, and receive txs in parallel from many users.Basically, the mechanism is extremely flexible, and solves for all the use cases. But is it safe? At the onchain level, yes, obviously so: a tx is only valid to include if it contains a validation frame that returns ACCEPT with the flag to pay gas. The more challenging question is at the mempool level.If a tx contains a first frame which calls into 10000 accounts and rejects if any of them have different values, this cannot be broadcasted safely. But all of the examples above can. There is a similar notion here to "standard transactions" in bitcoin, where the chain itself only enforces a very limited set of rules, but there are more rules at the mempool layer.There are specific rulesets (eg. "validation frame must come before execution frames, and cannot call out to outside contracts") that are known to be safe, but are limited. For paymasters, there has been deep thought about a staking mechanism to limit DoS attacks in a very general-purpose way. Realistically, when 8141 is rolled out, the mempool rules will be very conservative, and there will be a second optional more aggressive mempool. The former will expand over time.For privacy protocol users, this means that we can completely remove "public broadcasters" that are the source of massive UX pain in railgun/PP/TC, and replace them with a general-purpose public mempool.For quantum-resistant signatures, we also have to solve one more problem: efficiency. Here's are posts about the ideas we have for that: https://firefly.social/post/lens/1gfeyxjzsajqk845t3h https://firefly.social/post/x/2027405623189803453AA is also highly complementary with FOCIL: FOCIL ensures rapid inclusion guarantees for transactions, and AA ensures that all of the more complex operations people want to make actually can be made directly as first-class transactions.Another interesting topic is EOA compatibility in 8141. This is being discussed, in principle it is possible, so all accounts incl existing ones can be put into the same framework and gain the ability to do batch operations, transaction sponsorship, etc, all as first-class transactions that fully benefit from FOCIL.Finally, after over a decade of research and refinement of these techniques, this all looks possible to make happen within a year (Hegota fork). https://firefly.social/post/bsky/qmajrxvehl6ss6w2h4uuv5bg_3mftz4rccp22b

I bought so many AI subscriptions already, but can't seem to get them to do any useful work. Looking at X, it feels like it's just me? 😂

我与@simonsquibb的完整采访已上线！非常感谢这次对话，欢迎点击观看。Simon Squibb: Just interviewed billionaire @justinsuntron and wow some crazy AI x Blockchain x Crypto learnings!👇🏻https://youtu.be/-LPo9pJZoIA

$STRC closed at par — $100.00.

AI Agents can use Trust Wallet directly now. Try your openclaw with it. More to come...Trust Wallet: Trust Wallet 🤝 AI→ MCP server for instant access to TW docs → Open-source Claude Code skills marketplace → AI skills baked into our librariesBuilt for devs now. Users next 👀More here: https://developer.trustwallet.com/

BREAKING: US chartered bank @SoFi enables Solana network deposits for its 13.7 million customers, directly from their banking appSoFi: SoFi 🤝Solana. Simple.SoFi now supports @Solana network deposits! As the first national chartered bank where individuals can buy, sell and hold crypto, we’re helping you manage your SOL right in the SoFi app. Start now! http://sofi.com/crypto

All roads lead to SolanaJack: Update on @MagicEden and @DiceyHQ: It is clear we're entering a new era where finance and entertainment merge. We are now 2 months into @DiceyHQ’s closed beta and are incredibly bullish on how things have developed (~200 users, >$15M wagered). To give Dicey the focus it

Probably Nothing. $STRC

Now, scaling.There are two buckets here: short-term and long-term.Short term scaling I've written about elsewhere. Basically:* Block level access lists (coming in Glamsterdam) allow blocks to be verified in parallel.* ePBS (coming in Glamsterdam) has many features, of which one is that it becomes safe to use a large fraction of each slot (instead of just a few hundred milliseconds) to verify a block* Gas repricings ensure that gas costs of operations are aligned with the actual time it takes to execute them (plus other costs they impose). We're also taking early forays into multidimensional gas, which ensures that different resources are capped differently. Both allow us to take larger fractions of a slot to verify blocks, without fear of exceptional cases.There is a multi-stage roadmap for multidimensional gas.First, in Glamsterdam, we separate out "state creation" costs from "execution and calldata" costs. Today, an SSTORE that changes a slot from nonzero -> nonzero costs 5000 gas, an SSTORE that changes zero -> nonzero costs 20000. One of the Glamsterdam repricings greatly increases that extra amount (eg. to 60000); our goal doing this + gas limit increases is to scale execution capacity much more than we scale state size capacity, for reasons I've written before ( https://ethresear.ch/t/hyper-scaling-state-by-creating-new-forms-of-state/24052 ). So in Glamsterdam, that SSTORE will charge 5000 "regular" gas and (eg.) 55000 "state creation gas".State creation gas will NOT count toward the ~16 million tx gas cap, so creating large contracts (larger than today) will be possible.One challenge is: how does this work in the EVM? The EVM opcodes (GAS, CALL...) all assume one dimension. Here is our approach. We maintain two invariants:* If you make a call with X gas, that call will have X gas that's usable for "regular" OR "state creation" OR other future dimensions* If you call the GAS opcode, it tells you you have Y gas, then you make a call with X gas, you still have at least Y-X gas, usable for any function, _after_ the call to do any post-operationsWhat we do is, we create N+1 "dimensions" of gas, where by default N=1 (state creation), and the extra dimension we call "reservoir". EVM execution by default consumes the "specialized" dimensions if it can, and otherwise it consumes from reservoir. So eg. if you have (100000 state creation gas, 100000 reservoir), then if you use SSTORE to create new state three times, your remaining gas goes (100000, 100000) -> (45000, 95000) -> (0, 80000) -> (0, 20000). GAS returns reservoir. CALL passes along the specified gas amount from the reservoir, plus _all_ non-reservoir gas.Later, we switch to multi-dimensional *pricing*, where different dimensions can have different floating gas prices. This gives us long-term economic sustainability and optimality (see https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2024/05/09/multidim.html ). The reservoir mechanism solves the sub-call problem at the end of that article.Now, for long-term scaling, there are two parts: ZK-EVM, and blobs.For blobs, the plan is to continue to iterate on PeerDAS, and get it to an eventual end-state where it can ideally handle ~8 MB/sec of data. Enough for Ethereum's needs, not attempting to be some kind of global data layer. Today, blobs are for L2s. In the future, the plan is for Ethereum block data to directly go into blobs. This is necessary to enable someone to validate a hyperscaled Ethereum chain without personally downloading and re-executing it: ZK-SNARKs remove the need to re-execute, and PeerDAS on blobs lets you verify availability without personally downloading.For ZK-EVM, the goal is to step up our "comfort" relying on it in stages:* Clients that let you participate as an attester with ZK-EVMs will exist in 2026. They will not be safe enough to allow the network to run on them, but eg. 5% of the network relying on them will be ok. (If the ZK-EVM breaks, you *will not* be slashed, you'll just have a risk of building on an invalid block and losing revenue)* In 2027, we'll start recommending for a larger minority of the network to run on ZK-EVMs, and at the same time full focus will be on formally verifying, maximizing their security, etc. Even 20% of the network running ZK-EVMs will let us greatly increase the gaslimit, because it allows gas limits to greatly increase while having a cheap path for solo stakers, who are under 20% anyway.* When ready, we move to 3-of-5 mandatory proving. For a block to be valid, it would need to contain 3 of 5 types of proofs from different proof systems. By this point, we would expect that all nodes (except nodes that need to do indexing) will rely on ZK-EVM proofs.* Keep improving the ZK-EVM, and make it as robust, formally verified, etc as possible. This will also start to involve any VM change efforts (eg. RISC-V) https://firefly.social/post/lens/10403441973837545809595338716622525043489585081375086655812971804118320053624

感谢 @Houlgrave 带来的深度对话。稳定币正在成为全球支付的核心基础设施——更快、更低成本、更普惠。很高兴分享我对未来趋势的看法，以及 @WalletConnect + @trondaoCN 组合将释放的巨大潜力。完整对话见下方👇TRON DAO中文: 🎙️孙哥@justinsuntron对话@WalletConnect首席执行官@Houlgrave：稳定币将成为全球默认的结算标准。🤔对话中，孙哥还对波场 #TRON 与WalletConnect的集成、AI的发展等进行了分享。时间戳：0:59 - 何时进入加密行业1:33 - 波场TRON与WalletConnect集成3:08 - 波场网络在稳定币支付方面的优势7:52

The Intern is just being the Intern. But AI is definitely coming for jobs faster than ever.Binance is actively exploring talent across the board.If you want to work with some of the smartest people in the space, apply here.https://www.binance.com/en/careersBinance: This account has been upgraded to Bot v4.9.All tweets going forward will be generated by an AI.

圣保罗见🇧🇷期待和大家分享波场TRON的建设进展。MERGE Madrid & São Paulo: 🚨 New voices of MERGE São Paulo 2026We are excited to introduce the newest additions to our speaker lineup: voices representing the entire crypto ecosystem. And when we say everything, we mean everything: regulators, central banks, exchanges, major media outlets, and much

Reality: Learn to use AI to the max, or be laid off.jack: we're making @blocks smaller today. here's my note to the company.####today we're making one of the hardest decisions in the history of our company: we're reducing our organization by nearly half, from over 10,000 people to just under 6,000. that means over 4,000 of you are

很高兴看到TRX在Gemini上线交易！在我们持续打造最强大的AI智能体支付和全球数字结算基础设施的过程中，扩大触达至关重要。Gemini: TRX by @trondaoNow trading on Gemini 🎉Deposits and withdrawals enabled ✅Buy, sell, and store today: http://exchange.gemini.com/buy/TRX

👏Eleanor Terrett: 🚨JUST IN: @RepFitzgerald (R-WI), @RepBenCline (R-VA) and @RepZoeLofgren (D-CA) have just introduced the bipartisan Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act of 2026, aimed at protecting software developers from being prosecuted under criminal code Section 1960.The

You need an AI to keep up with AI.claw: what can I do you for today?me: install every other bot, test it and keep me up-to-date on all new AI release going forward. Oh, and go wild respond to all my emails however you like.

Now, the quantum resistance roadmap.Today, four things in Ethereum are quantum-vulnerable:* consensus-layer BLS signatures* data availability (KZG commitments+proofs)* EOA signatures (ECDSA)* Application-layer ZK proofs (KZG or groth16)We can tackle these step by step:## Consensus-layer signaturesLean consensus includes fully replacing BLS signatures with hash-based signatures (some variant of Winternitz), and using STARKs to do aggregation.Before lean finality, we stand a good chance of getting the Lean available chain. This also involves hash-based signatures, but there are much fewer signatures (eg. 256-1024 per slot), so we do not need STARKs for aggregation.One important thing upstream of this is choosing the hash function. This may be "Ethereum's last hash function", so it's important to choose wisely. Conventional hashes are too slow, and the most aggressive forms of Poseidon have taken hits on their security analysis recently. Likely options are:* Poseidon2 plus extra rounds, potentially non-arithmetic layers (eg. Monolith) mixed in* Poseidon1 (the older version of Poseidon, not vulnerable to any of the recent attacks on Poseidon2, but 2x slower)* BLAKE3 or similar (take the most efficient conventional hash we know)## Data availabilityToday, we rely pretty heavily on KZG for erasure coding. We could move to STARKs, but this has two problems:1. If we want to do 2D DAS, then our current setup for this relies on the "linearity" property of KZG commitments; with STARKs we don't have that. However, our current thinking is that it should be sufficient given our scale targets to just max out 1D DAS (ie. PeerDAS). Ethereum is taking a more conservative posture, it's not trying to be a high-scale data layer for the world.2. We need proofs that erasure coded blobs are correctly constructed. KZG does this "for free". STARKs can substitute, but a STARK is ... bigger than a blob. So you need recursive starks (though there's also alternative techniques, that have their own tradeoffs). This is okay, but the logistics of this get harder if you want to support distributed blob selection.Summary: it's manageable, but there's a lot of engineering work to do.## EOA signaturesHere, the answer is clear: we add native AA (see https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-8141 ), so that we get first-class accounts that can use any signature algorithm.However, to make this work, we also need quantum-resistant signature algorithms to actually be viable. ECDSA signature verification costs 3000 gas. Quantum-resistant signatures are ... much much larger and heavier to verify.We know of quantum-resistant hash-based signatures that are in the ~200k gas range to verify.We also know of lattice-based quantum-resistant signatures. Today, these are extremely inefficient to verify. However, there is work on vectorized math precompiles, that let you perform operations (+, *, %, dot product, also NTT / butterfly permutations) that are at the core of lattice math, and also STARKs. This could greatly reduce the gas cost of lattice-based signatures to a similar range, and potentially go even lower.The long-term fix is protocol-layer recursive signature and proof aggregation, which could reduce these gas overheads to near-zero.## ProofsToday, a ZK-SNARK costs ~300-500k gas. A quantum-resistant STARK is more like 10m gas. The latter is unacceptable for privacy protocols, L2s, and other users of proofs.The solution again is protocol-layer recursive signature and proof aggregation. So let's talk about what this is.In EIP-8141, transactions have the ability to include a "validation frame", during which signature verifications and similar operations are supposed to happen. Validation frames cannot access the outside world, they can only look at their calldata and return a value, and nothing else can look at their calldata. This is designed so that it's possible to replace any validation frame (and its calldata) with a STARK that verifies it (potentially a single STARK for all the validation frames in a block).This way, a block could "contain" a thousand validation frames, each of which contains either a 3 kB signature or even a 256 kB proof, but that 3-256 MB (and the computation needed to verify it) would never come onchain. Instead, it would all get replaced by a proof verifying that the computation is correct.Potentially, this proving does not even need to be done by the block builder. Instead, I envision that it happens at mempool layer: every 500ms, each node could pass along the new valid transactions that it has seen, along with a proof verifying that they are all valid (including having validation frames that match their stated effects). The overhead is static: only one proof per 500ms. Here's a post where I talk about this:https://ethresear.ch/t/recursive-stark-based-bandwidth-efficient-mempool/23838 https://firefly.social/post/farcaster/0x19ddcf7f74b335ab5adcdec43c071d1161ab247e

Need a bigger orange bag.

Recruitment Rumor Debunker: Let's finish his, then yours, then yours—and I know, and you're next.Richard Teng: Trust is earned through relentless action. I sat down with our CCO @NoahBPerlman to set the facts straight: hundreds of millions invested, 1,500+ experts working 24/7 to fight illicit activity. Compliance isn’t just a policy at Binance. It’s our unbreakable promise to users

如果你在中国曾经身份证遗失过，可能不小心因此背上负债，也可能因此成为“被执行人”，如果你是一个女性，还可能因此被造黄谣，哪怕你在很多年以前已经在法院赢了官司。建议所有曾经丢过身份证的朋友都去对应的系统检索一下自己的信息。感谢友商中文水军在2020年帮我查到这个问题，后来经过漫长的诉讼解决了我自己不知道的历史风险。对于一直努力“建设BNBchain MEME”的玩家，花那么多钱养水军，雇佣供应商，不如直接用户发福利。

A very important document. Let's walk through this one "goal" at a time. We'll start with fast slots and fast finality.I expect that we'll reduce slot time in an incremental fashion, eg. I like the "sqrt(2) at a time" formula (12 -> 8 -> 6 -> 4 -> 3 -> 2, though the last two steps are more speculative and depend on heavy research). It is possible to go faster or slower here; but the high level is that we'll view the slot time as a parameter that we adjust down when we're confident it's safe to, similar to the blob target.Fast slots are off in their own lane at the top of the roadmap, and do not really seem to connect to anything. This is because the rest of the roadmap is pretty independent of the slot time: we would need to do roughly the same things whether the slot time is 2 seconds or 32 secondsThere are a few intersection areas though. One is p2p improvements. @raulvk has recently been working on an optimized p2p layer for Ethereum, which uses erasure coding to greatly improve on the bandwidth/latency tradeoff frontier. Roughly speaking: in today's design, each node receives a full block body from several peers, and is able to accept and rebroadcast it as soon as it receives the first one. If the "width" (number of peers sending you the block) is low, then one bad peer can greatly delay when you receive the block. If width is high, there is a lot of unneeded data overhead. With erasure coding, you can choose a k-of-n setup, eg: split each block into 8 pieces so that with any 4 of them you can reconstruct the full block. This gives you much of the redundancy benefits of high width, without the overhead.We have stats that show that this architecture can greatly reduce 95th percentile block propagation time, making shorter slots viable with no security tradeoffs (except increased protocol complexity, though here the performance-gain-to-lines-of-code ratio is quite favorable)Another intersection area is the more complex slot structure that comes with ePBS, FOCIL, and the fast confirmation rule. These have important benefits, but they decrease the safe latency maximum from slot/3 to slot/5. There's ongoing research to try to pipeline things better to minimize losses (also note: the slot time is lower-bounded not just by slot latency, but also by the fixed-cost part of ZK prover latency), but there are some tradeoffs here.One way we are exploring to compensate for this is to change to an architecture where only ~256-1024 randomly selected attesters sign on each slot. For a fork choice (non-finalizing) function, this is totally sufficient. The smaller number of signatures lets us remove the aggregation phase, shortening the slots.Fast finality is more complex (the ultimate protocol is IMO simpler than status quo Gasper, but the change path is complex). Today, finality takes 16 minutes (12s slots * 32 slot epochs * 2.5 epochs) on average. The goal is to decouple slots and finality, so allow us to reason about both separately, and we are aiming to use a one-round-finality BFT algorithm (a Minimmit variant) to finalize. So endgame finality time might be eg. 6-16 sec.Because this is a very invasive set of changes, the plan is to bundle the largest step in each change with a switch of the cryptography, notably to post-quantum hash-based signatures, and to a maximally STARK-friendly hash (there are three possible responses to the recent Poseidon2 attacks: (i) increase round count or introduce other countermeasures such as a Monolith layer, (ii) go back to Poseidon1, which is even more lindy than Poseidon2 and has not seen flaws, (iii) use BLAKE3 or other maximally-cheap "conventional" hash. All are being researched).Additionally, there is a plan to introduce many of these changes piece-by-piece, eg. "1-epoch finality" means we adjust the current consensus to change from FFG-style finalization to Minimmit-style finalization.One possible finality time trajectory is: 16 min (today) -> 10m40s (8s slots) -> 6m24s (one-epoch finality) -> 1m12s (8-slot epochs, 6s slots) -> 48s (4s slots) -> 16s (minimmit) -> 8s (minimmit with more aggressive parameters)One interesting consequence of the incremental approach is that there is a pathway to making the slots quantum-resistant much sooner than making the finality quantum-resistant, so we may well quite quickly get to a regime where, if quantum computers suddenly appear, we lose the finality guarantee, but the chain keeps chugging along.Summary: expect to see progressive decreases of both slot time and finality time, and expect to see these changes to be intertwined with a "ship of Theseus" style component-by-component replacement of Ethereum's slot structure and consensus with a cleaner, simpler, quantum-resistant, prover-friendly, end-to-end formally-verified alternative.Justin Drake: Introducing strawmap, a strawman roadmap by EF Protocol.Believe in something. Believe in an Ethereum strawmap.Who is this for?The document, available at strawmap[.]org, is intended for advanced readers. It is a dense and technical resource primarily for researchers,

未来和风暴一起来了。风浪越大，鱼越贵？Huan: 🇺🇸 摩根大通首席执行官杰米·戴蒙在全国电视台上表示： “加密货币比现有的金融体系更好！” “实验”阶段已经结束。 虽短期回调趋势向好，加油👏

波场TRON，为AI智能体打造的支付底层。

这就是穿越周期、持续建设的结果。先修路，再通车。#TRONLookonchain: Tron processed 994M transactions in Q4 2025, up 16.5% QoQ.Daily transactions peaked at over 12.6M on October 28.https://tronscan.org/#/data/charts/txn/daily-txn

💛💙

It will significantly increase my opinion of @Anthropic if they do not back down, and honorably eat the consequences.(For those who are not aware, so far they have been maintaining the two red lines of "no fully autonomous weapons" and "no mass surveillance of Americans". Actually a very conservative and limited posture, it's not even anti-military.IMO fully autonomous weapons and mass privacy violation are two things we all want less of, so in my ideal world anyone working on those things gets access to the same open-weights LLMs as everyone else, and exactly nothing on top of that. Of course we won't get anywhere close to that world, but if we get even 10% closer to that world that's good, and if we get 10% further that's bad)CC @DarioAmodei https://firefly.social/post/bsky/pv7fudnt4dspurzdnyq73pfe_3mfmta2tzha2z

I agree with this.Though with the proviso that because Ethereum is permissionless, various centralized and closed things will inevitably exist on top of it. Our job should be to make the open-source, permissionless, trustless, secure censorship resistant ecosystem strong, so that it can hold its own and ultimately prove itself superior to both anything closed / permissioned / trusted-party-backdoored on Ethereum, and to such things outside Ethereum in the traditional world.Mars Trade: @VitalikButerin The irony is that crypto's own ecosystem is full of walled gardens : closed L2s, VC-gated launches, CEX liquidity monopolies. if ethereum is the rebel layer, it needs to solve enclosure internally before it can credibly export the model

I actually like private property more than I did a few years ago.One variable that changed for me is "stable era mindset vs chaotic era mindset". When you're in a "stable era", you see how private property is suboptimal, how economics can easily churn out 10+ categories of situations where it's obvious that certain taxes, incentives to make things available at better prices, etc can produce first-order gains with only second-order deadweight losses (which means that at low levels, the gains greatly exceed the losses). "Pure" private property is only "optimal" under spherical-cow economic assumptions like perfect competition.But in a "chaotic era", private property is more about schelling points - it's about creating a bulwark that's easy for people to understand and rally around defending, that says "your attempt to intervene in my life from the outside ends here". In the chaotic era, infringements on personal space are less likely to be well-meaning bureaucrats who overreach because they have not read enough Hayek, and more likely to be coming from a place of outright indifference or even hostility to your well-being. And looking at modern politics, yeah, there's a lot of that now.Since a lot of "Vitalik hates private property" sentiment comes from me liking Harberger taxes, I'll address that topic directly.My biggest update since the original 2016-19 era ideas was that, when designing details of Harberger taxes, the best motivating example to organize thought around is not "your house", rather it's "corporate intellectual property and walled gardens". If we think about the underlying complaints that people have about powerful corporations, the walled gardens and various ways in which centralized power accumulates on itself is top 5 on the list. What would it look like to build a "Harberger tax" that would tax eg. social platforms, Apple, etc more if they acted as walled gardens, and less if they enabled interoperability (and zero if they were fully open-source and interoperable and forkable)?There is a lot of energy right now around wanting to tax very wealthy individuals and corporations more, and I wonder: what if the best way to do that is not to tax *wealth* or *unrealized gains* (which has large downsides), but instead to tax *enclosure*? This way you raise revenue in a way that actually *increases* efficiency (any losses from people working less hard are more-than-compensated by gains from people shifting their work into formats where it's easier for people to build on top of each other and markets becoming more competitive).Any tax is an infringement on private property. But if you think about "tax on social platform that's proportional to some metric of how walled-garden-y they are", in an intuitive human sense, it really doesn't feel like "bureaucrats intervening in my life". It feels like "keeping concentrations of power from getting too out of hand". So I am in favor of doing things like that, and much less than before in favor of anything that forces people (incl entrepreneurs) to outright sell their assets, as eg. "Harberger tax on everything" does. A world where startup entrepreneurs are forced to constantly sell shares, realistically to the same few large VCs, in order to pay unrealized-gains or wealth tax bills strikes me as a world that's likely to be more soulless and homogeneous than today. But a world where the top 50% of large companies ranked by walled-garden-ness are taxed more (and the bottom 25% by that metric taxed less, perhaps some even zero), is a world that feels more dynamic and open and free.But even the above is somewhat of a "stable era" perspective, because it tries to make a more-perfect solution from the perspective of the political layer being friendly. We live in a chaotic era, and the point of crypto should be to solve important problems from the bottom up (whether "individualistic bottom up", enabling people to resist and escape various shackles, or "collective bottom up", communities organizing around shifting entire equilibria to their benefit)This ties into what I mean by wanting Ethereum to protect financial self-sovereignty. I do not think that Ethereum has much to offer to the trillion-dollar companies whose goal it is to offer products and services in a way that maximizes walled gardens and enclosure - in fact, much the opposite, censorship resistance can serve as the baseline for rebel communities that play the adversarial game of routing around those walled gardens. I do think Ethereum offers stronger security to people who want to maintain security of (including ability to use) their own financial resources, including surviving through great economic and political turmoil, for their personal or economic needs. And Ethereum offers a base layer for communities to organize large sudden collective shifts away from harmful equilibria into better ones; DAOs should try to solve that problem more.Andrew Steinwold: The guy who has my net worth in his hands doesn't like:- AI- Capitalism- Private property Am I cooked?

Defi is a central part of the value that Ethereum provides. Financial empowerment is a central part of what it means to have agency and freedom in our current world. Finance is far from the only thing that Ethereum is good for, but it is an important thing. This post discusses how the Ethereum Foundation is approaching defi.Defi today makes the world's best savings, risk management and wealth-building opportunities permissionlessly available worldwide. We need to build on that.Ethereum's early defi era was great because it dared to dream and innovate and come up with totally new paradigms (eg. AMMs). Defi tomorrow will bring back that spirit. Don't just "make a better stablecoin", dig a layer deeper, and think about the underlying problem (risk management, hedging one's future expenses), and come up with an even better solution.But also, as the EF, we are not interested in supporting "onchain finance" or even "defi" indiscriminately. We have a specific vision of what we want to see out of defi: permissionless, open-source, private, security-first global finance that maximizes people's control over their own assets, minimizes centralized chokepoints and trusted third parties, and democratizes risk management and wealth building (the two key goals of finance according to modern portfolio theory) as well as payments. We want protocols that pass the walkaway test: that keep working even if the original team suddenly disappears without warning (or even: becomes hostile / compromised without warning).Bringing this vision to reality will inevitably take a lot of work. Defi is a complex toolchain, including various onchain components, user-side offchain components (ie. wallet, local agent...), other offchain components, etc.The things that we care about include areas like:* Improving security of defi through "traditional" means, eg. audits, standards, wallet-side safeguards* Improving security of defi through "new" means, eg. AI-assisted formal verification, user-side agents as safeguards* Oracle security and decentralization (there's A LOT of skeletons in the closet here, we as an ecosystem really need to point a big eye of sauron at it for a while)* Privacy. Both privacy-preserving payments, and privacy of more complex use cases (eg. what does it mean to have a maximally privacy-preserving CDP? there are clearly benefits in reducing liquidation-sniping risk, but it requires hard tech to get there)* Open source, and improving the licensing / forkability situation in defiEthereum is a permissionless protocol, and nothing stops people from deploying insecure protocols, protocols that enshrine ultimately unneeded centralized trust in the name of convenience, or dopamine-maximizing gambleslop. However, we *are* interested in working with anyone aligned to make permissionless, open-source, intermediary-minimizing and security and user-agency-maximizing defi ecosystem as strong as possible, so that it can be not just individuals and institutions' first choice in Ethereum, but also a globally compelling way to manage funds for anyone who needs its properties.charles (csl) ᛋ: 1/ Today the EF is sharing a bit more about how it's approaching DeFi going forward:

I'm actually pretty open-minded about the anti-data-center populism.From everything I've seen from people working on this, reducing industrial-scale hardware availability seems to be both the most practical, and most non-dystopian / non-invasive way to lengthen AGI timelines.So if the movement that makes that happen starts out with anti-data-center populism, that seems fine?Of course you have to do things other than going after data centers located in populated areas to really make a dent on AGI timelines (my intuition is that 10-100x compute reduction is feasible in a "static" model of the world, and 100-10000x if you compare to a counterfactual that includes future chip design progress; those numbers *would* make a dent), but there is a first step for everything.

Interesting to scroll through the comments of this. At least on the socials, there is pretty much zero public support for(i) corporate intellectual property [especially in this case, given how basically all the models were trained](ii) the vision of "let's protect against Authoritarian Bad Guys by making sure that the self-appointed Good Guys are the only ones with the best toys"https://x.com/AnthropicAI/status/2025997928242811253

USDG 处于主流监管体系之下，储备结构清晰，安全性本身不是焦点。陈剑Jason: 一到熊市就是稳定币的多事之秋，之前是OKX一直在平台补贴汇率推广USDG，但刚才看到公告说明天开始闪兑将不再支持USDG和USDC的1:1兑换，而是走市场价格，吓我一激灵，看了一下现在兑USDC还是1:1，但是兑USDT居然有溢价能多卖出去点，所以目前来看好像问题不大？毕竟一直走市场汇率的USDT都还能有溢价。

👏Richard Teng: When crypto goes mainstream, you won't even know you're using it.I sat down with @jessicasmw to share my 2026 outlook, stablecoins, tokenization, AI agents, and what true mass adoption really looks like.Watch here 👇 https://youtu.be/wJ_FRFcS68k

豆包就是普通人一生中能接触的认知最高的人了孙宇晨（去过太空版）🧑‍🚀: 2016年我提出90后不买房不买车不结婚，把所有时间用于自我提升与科技创新，2026年我提出，能和AI聊天就不要和人类聊天，删除所有90后之前出生人的联系方式，千万不要沾染任何老登气息，时间宝贵！全力拥抱未来！

All in Web 4.0

How I think about "security":The goal is to minimize the divergence between the user's intent, and the actual behavior of the system."User experience" can also be defined in this way. Thus, "user experience" and "security" are thus not separate fields. However, "security" focuses on tail risk situations (where downside of divergence is large), and specifically tail risk situations that come about as a result of adversarial behavior.One thing that becomes immediately obvious from the above definition, is that "perfect security" is impossible. Not because machines are "flawed", or even because humans designing the machines are "flawed", but because "the user's intent" is fundamentally an extremely complex object that the user themselves does not have easy access to.Suppose the user's intent is "I want to send 1 ETH to Bob". But "Bob" is itself a complicated meatspace entity that cannot be easily mathematically defined. You could "represent" Bob with some public key or hash, but then the possibility that the public key or hash is not actually Bob becomes part of the threat model. The possibility that there is a contentious hard fork, and so the question of which chain represents "ETH" is subjective. In reality, the user has a well-formed picture about these topics, which gets summarized by the umbrella term "common sense", but these things are not easily mathematically defined.Once you get into more complicated user goals - take, for example, the goal of "preserving the user's privacy" - it becomes even more complicated. Many people intuitively think that encrypting messages is enough, but the reality is that the metadata pattern of who talks to whom, and the timing pattern between messages, etc, can leak a huge amount of information. What is a "trivial" privacy loss, versus a "catastrophic" loss?If you're familiar with early Yudkowskian thinking about AI safety, and how simply specifying goals robustly is one of the hardest parts of the problem, you will recognize that this is the same problem.Now, what do "good security solutions" look like?This applies for:* Ethereum wallets* Operating systems* Formal verification of smart contracts or clients or any computer programs* Hardware* ...The fundamental constraint is: anything that the user can input into the system is fundamentally far too low-complexity to fully encode their intent. I would argue that the common trait of a good solution is: the user is specifying their intention in multiple, overlapping ways, and the system only acts when these specifications are aligned with each other.Examples:* Type systems in programming: the programmer first specifies *what the program does* (the code itself), but then also specifies *what "shape" each data structure has at every step of the computation*. If the two diverge, the program fails to compile.* Formal verification: the programmer specifies what the program does (the code itself), and then also specifies mathematical properties that the program satisfies* Transaction simulations: the user specifies first what action they want to take, and then clicks "OK" or "Cancel" after seeing a simulation of the onchain consequences of that action* Post-assertions in transactions: the transaction specifies both the action and its expected effects, and both have to match for the transaction to take effect* Multisig / social recovery: the user specifies multiple keys that represent their authority* Spending limits, new-address confirmations, etc: the user specifies first what action they want to take, and then, if that action is "unusual" or "high-risk" in some sense, the user has to re-specify "yes, I know I am doing something unusual / high-risk"In all cases, the pattern is the same: there is no perfection, there is only risk reduction through redundancy. And you want the different redundant specifications to "approach the user's intent" from different "angles": eg. action, and expected consequences, expected level of significance, economic bound on downside, etcThis way of thinking also hints at the right way to use LLMs. LLMs done right are themselves a simulation of intent. A generic LLM is (among other things) like a "shadow" of the concept of human common sense. A user-fine-tuned LLM is like a "shadow" of that user themselves, and can identify in a more fine-grained way what is normal vs unusual.LLMs should under no circumstances be relied on as a sole determiner of intent. But they are one "angle" from which a user's intent can be approximated. It's an angle very different from traditional, explicit, ways of encoding intent, and that difference itself maximizes the likelihood that the redundancy will prove useful.One other corollary is that "security" does NOT mean "make the user do more clicks for everything". Rather, security should mean: it should be easy (if not automated) to do low-risk things, and hard to do dangerous things. Getting this balance right is the challenge.

转给OKX团队学习了，感谢指导🙏Punk（2898 🙌💎）: http://x.com/i/article/2025361473799864320

风控就是为了屏蔽如下这类案例🤣但确实存在一定的误杀率，我们团队会加倍努力！web3猴子🕊️💢（蓝v互关）: 都说OKX这次给的红包金额很少我觉得给的挺多的每一个号都给了682颗沙漠呢#OKX #空投

The product team told me that you can claim the red envelope by entering the code in the search bar on the homepage. Finally, I’ll send one to test it out. Thank you for your continued support. Wishing you smooth sailing and all the best in everything. red packet code：how many years will Binance celebrate in 2025? (One digit)The first letter of JustThe first letter of TokenThe first letter of PumpThe first letter of MEMEThe first letter of ETHhow many years will Binance celebrate in 2026? (One digit)The first letter of We.PS：Video showing how to use the product我在抱怨不知道怎么领红包，产品告诉我，首页搜索栏输入红包口令就可以领取红包，最后发一个红包给大家测试一下。感谢大家的一路陪伴，祝您顺风顺水顺心顺意！红包口令：币安2025庆祝几周年（一个数字）Just的第一个字母大写Token的第一个字母大写Pump的第一个字母大写MEME的第一个字母大写ETH的第一个字母大写币安2026是几周年（一个数字）We的第一个字母大写ps：视频来自产品团队的示范，我的个人红包已经发到系统限额，大家可以尝试平台红包和福袋哦❤️

刚问了一下负责的团队，大部分用户都在n U以上。命中风控规则的用户会出现0.00x U的情况，比如设备、IP聚集等。风控规则可能会有少量的误杀率，扫大家兴了，非常抱歉，我们以后加倍努力！MOON丨BGB100+: 答应我，金额大点儿，红包少点儿，哪怕抢不到都行，能不能不要抢一场才0.005u，这不是纯浪费时间吗？抢一轮保底给个1u吧，不然钱撒了，反而收获一片骂声 ，谁爱抢谁抢，我是不去了@star_okx

"AI becomes the government" is dystopian: it leads to slop when AI is weak, and is doom-maximizing once AI becomes strong. But AI used well can be empowering, and push the frontier of democratic / decentralized modes of governance.The core problem with democratic / decentralized modes of governance (including DAOs on ethereum) is limits to human attention: there are many thousands of decisions to make, involving many domains of expertise, and most people don't have the time or skill to be experts in even one, let alone all of them. The usual solution, delegation, is disempowering: it leads to a small group of delegates controlling decision-making while their supporters, after they hit the "delegate" button, have no influence at all. So what can we do? We use personal LLMs to solve the attention problem! Here are a few ideas:## Personal governance agentsIf a governance mechanism depends on you to make a large number of decisions, a personal agent can perform all the necessary votes for you, based on preferences that it infers from your personal writing, conversation history, direct statements, etc.If the agent is (i) unsure how you would vote on an issue, and (ii) convinced the issue is important, then it should ask you directly, and give you all relevant context.## Public conversation agentsMaking good decisions often cannot come from a linear process of taking people's views that are based only on their own information, and averaging them (even quadratically). There is a need for processes that aggregate many people's information, and then give each person (or their LLM) a chance to respond *based on that*.This includes:* Inferring and summarizing your own views and converting them into a format that can be shared publicly (and does not expose your private info)* Summarizing commonalities between people's inputs (expressed as words), similar to the various LLM+http://pol.is ideas## Suggestion marketsIf a governance mechanism values "high-quality inputs" of any type (this could be proposals, or it could even be arguments), then you can have a prediction market, where anyone can submit an input, AIs can bet on a token representing that input, and if the mechanism "accepts" the input (either accepting the proposal, or accepting it as a "unit" of conversation that it then passes along to its participant), it pays out $X to the holders of the token.Note that this is basically the same as https://firefly.social/post/x/2017956762347835488## Decentralized governance with private informationOne of the biggest weaknesses of highly decentralized / democratic governance is that it does not work well when important decisions need to be made with secret information.Common situations:(i) the org engaging in adversarial conflicts or negotiations(ii) internal dispute resolution(iii) compensation / funding decisions.Typically, orgs solve this by appointing individuals who have great power to take on those tasks.But with multi-party computation (currently I've seen this done with TEEs; I would love to see at least the two-party case solved with garbled circuits https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2020/03/21/garbled.html so we can get pure-cryptographic security guarantees for it), we could actually take many people's inputs into account to deal with these situations, without compromising privacy. Basically: you submit your personal LLM into a black box, the LLM sees private info, it makes a judgement based on that, and it outputs only that judgement. You don't see the private info, and no one else sees the contents of your personal LLM.## The importance of privacyAll of these approaches involve each participant making use of much more information about themselves, and potentially submitting much larger-sized inputs. Hence, it becomes all the more important to protect privacy. There are two kinds of privacy that matter:* Anonymity of the participant: this can be accomplished with ZK. In general, I think all governance tools should come with ZK built in* Privacy of the contents: this has two parts. First, the personal LLM should do what it can to avoid divulging private info about you that it does not need to divulge. Second, when you have computation that combines multiple LLMs or multiple people's info, you need multi-party techniques to compute it privately. Both are important.

客服小何送上迎财神的收尾口令红包，祝大家开启新的一家顺顺利利、平平安安、开开心心，迎春纳福。大家最喜欢发的早安简写（两个大写字母）数字11的罗马数字（两个大写字母）美味的前两个字母（两个大写字母）未来的英文单词第一个字母（一个大写字母）价值发英文单词第一个字母（一个大写字母）Red Packet Code的：The most popular morning abbreviation everyone loves to send (two capital letters)The Roman numeral for the number 11 (two capital letters)The first two letters of "yummy"(two capital letters)The first letter of the English word for "future"(one capital letters)The first letter of the English word for "value"(one capital letters)

Wishing everyone fun, hopes, and no staying up late 😊Red packet code：The first two letters of FOMO (2 letters, uppercase)What day in February is Valentine's Day? (2 digits)The first two letters of Key (2 letters, uppercase)The first two letters of Omnipotent (2 letters, uppercase) 客服小何祝大家有趣有盼不熬夜。口令红包：FOMO的前两个字母（2个字母大写）情人节是2月的哪天？（2个数字）Key的前两个字母（2个字母大写）Omnipotent的前两个字母（2个字母大写）

新的一年，祝大家有钱有闲没烦恼。币安广场被我突袭了，待会儿再来这里发迎财神红包。❤️

Building on-chain finance at scale requires licenses, infrastructure, and accountability. Europe is a key chapter.CoinDesk: Today: @okx secures Payments Institution license in Malta, clearing the way for stablecoin payments and its crypto card expansion across the EU under MiCA rules.

抽不到不是问题，放弃才是。DeFi狙击手 | Bird🕊️: 这个稀有福我终于出来了，先合成一套再说，@star_okx徐总你这个稀有福概率是不是很小？说正事，兄弟们来OKX集五福，合成财神福，即可在大年初五参与瓜分最高28BTC奖池最终还将诞生哈希锦鲤，凭财神福编号与比特币哈希值匹配，获得1BTC大奖! 邀请好友，赚不停

集五福升级版，这次直接发 BTC。手速和运气都要在线吗? 🧧🚀Mercy: 平时最爱看两样：美女和赛车😍穿着 OKX 周边、手里还拿着迈凯伦的美女，那就直接封神了 🖤但这次有个更狠的——OKX迎财神活动狂撒1000万U！！首发玩法就是「集五福」，熟悉的配方，只是这次我们直接发BTC～⏰ 即日起到2月21日中午12点做任务拿福卡，集齐5种合成「财神福」拿到财神福能干嘛？

一条链接，讲清楚一个 OKX 宇宙。Yuki: 欢迎来到 Yuki 直播间！一二三上链接，直接上干货 ❗️ #OKX星球今晚一口气带你过一遍：✅ DeFi✅ 策略交易 / 智能跟单✅ OKX Pay（USDG 10% 年化补贴）✅ OKX Wallet✅ OKX Boost / 闪赚 / 自动赚币✅ 期权交易✅ OKX XCLUB 最喜欢哪个？评论区打：1 OKX Pay / 2 策略 / 3 USDG / 4 闪赚😬

From the track to your shelf. Speed comes in all sizes.Ryan Ever: Just found the elusive @okx X @McLarenF1 Hot Wheels car 🔥

X Layer assets are now live on MetaMask.X Layer: Your X Layer assets are now supported on @MetaMask 🦊View, manage, and interact with your assets directly.

Crypto has gone through the Bitcoin stage (2008–2015), followed by the smart contract and dApp stage (2016–2024). The experimental phase is over. We are now entering the on-chain finance era (2025– ).In the next decade, a significant portion of the global economy will move on-chain. Financial services for the internet generation should be 24/7, low-cost, and instant—like sending an email.Bitcoin PulseX: 🇺🇸 JPMORGAN CEO JAMIE DIMON JUST SHOCKED NATIONAL TV:“CRYPTO IS SUPERIOR TO THE CURRENT FINANCIAL SYSTEM.”HE SAYS THE EXPERIMENT IS DONE — THIS IS NOW REAL.IS THIS THE BIGGEST SHIFT YET? 🔥

Combining secure hardware with deep on-chain liquidity is how self-custody should work. Great collaboration with Ledger.Ledger: Access thousands of tokens across EVM chains with optimal on-chain pricing.@OKX DEX is now live in the Ledger Wallet app, aggregating multi-chain liquidity for smarter, faster swaps. Execute seamlessly with your Ledger signer + Ledger Wallet and stay free from compromise 🔐

At first glance, this may sound reasonable—but it is actually a false equivalence.DEXs and CEXs serve fundamentally different roles.Open, permissionless access belongs to DEXs; responsibility, standards, and accountability belong to CEXs.A DEX is a pure self-custody tool. The service provider is not an intermediary and does not control users’ funds. Users who interact with DEXs understand—or should understand—that they are using a tool and assuming full responsibility for their actions. As SEC Chair Paul Atkins has stated:“The right to have self-custody of one’s private property is a foundational American value that should not disappear when one logs onto the internet.”By contrast, CEXs custody users’ funds, much like banks. As a result, they carry clear obligations around AML, sanctions compliance, fraud prevention, and consumer protection. CEXs are not neutral pipes. They intermediate trust, hold operational responsibility, and therefore have a duty to protect users, not simply list everything that exists.Conflating DEXs and CEXs is not openness.It is an attempt to avoid responsibility.This fundamental distinction reflects a long-standing difference in values between OKX and Binance.

Secure, self-custodial trading should be the default. This is a meaningful step in that direction. Ledger has taken an important step forward.DEGEN NEWS: NEW: LEDGER BRINGS OKX DEX INTO ITS WALLET IN PUSH TOWARD SECURE, SELF-CUSTODIAL TRADING - THEBLOCKSOURCE: https://www.theblock.co/post/389059/ledger-brings-okx-dex-into-its-wallet-in-push-toward-secure-self-custodial-trading?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

When people can pay, travel, and spend with confidence, crypto becomes familiar—and Brazil is proving that.OKX SG: Why is Brazil becoming one of crypto's hottest markets?🇧🇷From the Frontlines - S1 Ep1 is LIVE 🎙️Our SG COO, Osh sat down with OKX Brazil CEO, Gui Sacamone to unpack:- Building trust from Day 1- OKX Pay going mainstream- How travel spend unlocks demandNew episodes drop

Crypto works best when it’s simple enough for a coffee—and powerful enough for everyday life, with cashback, airdrops, and many more rewards along the way.OKX: Show us the receipt. Win €5,000 🇪🇺Simply:• Use your OKX Card for a real-world purchase• Post it with #PaidWithCrypto* EEA users only. Ends 2/28. T&Cs apply.

Stay close with the community!PPP的梦想是买一辆二手车: 突然发现一个问题，老徐@star_okx 最近开始频繁关注推特币圈KOL了。感觉像是为了一些事提前做准备。大的要来了？你觉得老徐这么做目的是什么？