🇮🇩 What if Indonesia charged ships in the Strait of Malacca?
The Strait is just 2.8 kilometers wide at its narrowest point, and nearly 25% of global trade passes through it, including around 16 million barrels of oil every day.
China moves about 60% of its oil through this route. Japan and South Korea rely on it for over 80%.
And yet, unlike the Suez Canal, which generates about $10 billion a year in transit fees, Malacca is essentially open.
Indonesia could be collecting $10-20 billion annually just by charging ships to pass.
But the global community won't allow that to happen, because once the precedent is set that countries can charge for passing through Straits near them, it would be catastrophic for global trade.
That's why they're so against Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz.
Source: geomapstories
We’re aware of an issue affecting @hyperbridge's Ethereum gateway contract.
The exploit only affects DOT on Ethereum that is bridged through Hyperbridge and does not affect DOT in the Polkadot ecosystem, or DOT bridged through other bridges.
Polkadot, its parachains, and native DOT remain secure and unaffected.
Hyperbridge has been paused while the issue is investigated.
On-chain evidence is very clear: special category only for Justin, instant blacklist from 1 EOA, while other investors are tied to vesting. If WLFI is truly "financial freedom", reveal the name of who holds the key. No more shadow governance.
I am calling on World Liberty Financial @worldlibertyfi to publicly disclose who controls the single guardian EOA and the 3/5 multisig that govern the WLFI smart contract.
Every investor has the right to know who holds the power to freeze their assets.
Here is what on-chain records show: A single guardian EOA — which also sits on the multisig — blacklisted my wallet. That same address is the sole owner of a second guardian Safe with a threshold of 1.
This means one person — one single individual — has the unilateral power to freeze any token holder's assets. Seizing those assets requires a 3-of-5 multisig vote, but freezing requires only one signature.
Who is that person? The community deserves an answer.
Let me be clear about what this structure means: community governance and voting are meaningless. Every proposal, every vote, every claim of decentralized decision-making is theater. Real power — the power to freeze, to move funds, to control the protocol — sits with one anonymous EOA and a 3-of-5 multisig that answers to no one. The entire governance framework has been hollowed out from the inside.
A project that claims to stand for decentralization and financial freedom cannot concentrate this level of power in a single anonymous address. If the WLFI team has nothing to hide, they should have no difficulty identifying who controls these keys.
I typically ignore all these false claims attacks. But...
You can apologize now. I am officially divorced.
I won't post any legal docs online, as I respect privacy of my ex-wife, and I appreciate the time we spent together.
I am happy to bet $1 billion USD (or any number you choose) that: I am officially divorced (way before today).
If you agree to take the bet, we can get lawyers to validate my divorce agreement, which should be dead simple.
This bet offer is valid permanently, whenever you feel ready. But if you don't take it within 24hrs, it clearly shows who has been mis-representing to the public.
Moving on to better things to do.