AstroStake

Independently operated, community-aligned validator built with enterprise-grade reliability.

[AstroStake @AstroStake]

We’ve evolved — from validators to builders.

Today, we’re introducing our new AstroStake logo, a symbol of growth, connection, and the networks we believe in.

Read the story behind our new visual identity ↓
https://t.co/2OxbpRxw6Z

[smolting (@wassie) @inversebrah]

smolchaining

for dose who come after

[Quit @0xQuit]

ok safe to say binance is pwned

The biggest assets were approximately:

• 1.615B USDT
• 62.6M RLUSD
• 29,934 wBETH
• 11,372 XAUt
• 6.19M UNI
• 198.4M ENA
• 7.175T PEPE
• 27.8M USD1
• 2.26M LINK
• 127,853 AAVE

about $2.5B at the explorer’s prices.

1. The attacker deployed a delegate contract, 0x63e842b0...73e9c6fAe, from the relayer at 15:59 UTC.

2. About four hours later, the relayer submitted an EIP-7702 authorization transaction

That installed the malicious 7702 delegate code on Binance 14.

3. The relayer then made a call to Binance 14, executing the delegate code, and transferring Binance 14’s ETH and token balances.

4. The calldata is labeled sweep(address, address[]). The second argument is a list of recognizable token-contract addresses plus the zero-address (eth).

5. The same relayer later used the same delegate to move 780M USDC from Binance Hot Wallet 34 into the same pool

• The relayer 0x7C... was funded by three Tornado Cash 0.1 ETH withdrawals over the prior two days.
• The same pool also received 28,005.6 ETH from Binance 16 24 seconds after the main sweep.
• The pool then forwarded 195,460 ETH to a fresh, unlabeled EOA
• That EOA has only one transaction and currently holds the 195,460 ETH.

What's a bit unclear is why the relayer was needed in the first place. If they had the private keys to the Binance wallets, they could have just sent the assets out in an atomic bundle without needing a relayer at all.

So it seems likely that they didn't have the private keys and instead just had the 7702 auth signatures, which must have been phished somehow.

I think we can go ahead and assume DPRK.

[AstroStake @AstroStake]

@IBSvalidator Thank you! It means a lot coming from a fellow Cosmos validator and IBC expert.
Looking forward to connecting more. 🚀

[AstroStake @AstroStake]

We’ve evolved — from validators to builders.

Today, we’re introducing our new AstroStake logo, a symbol of growth, connection, and the networks we believe in.

Read the story behind our new visual identity ↓
https://t.co/2OxbpRxw6Z

[Justin Drake @drakefjustin]

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.

[vitalik.eth @VitalikButerin]

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"
https://t.co/oVjwZog2lL

[Osmosis 🧪 @osmosis]

https://t.co/Vd8QnpnetS

[AstroStake @AstroStake]

@0IQintern 🚀

[Michael Heinrich (Ø,G) @michaelh_0g]

Wanted to explain a bit more about compute finance. For years, staking has worked the same way: you lock a token and get paid in more of that token.

Compute Finance changes the payout. Ascend is the staking layer, and Infinite AI (iAI), a compute-focused digital asset on 0G, is the compute claim: stake it, and instead of more tokens it is designed to receive AI compute every day.

Why a claim? Most AI compute today is bought as prepaid credits and subscriptions. A credit gets used up, and then it is gone. iAI actually produces the credit: you hold it, it draws a fresh allowance every day while staked, and you can pass it on. If AI is going to be a public good, people should be able to hold their access to it.

How it works:
1. Stake 0G on https://t.co/YJzjPOpPPF to get a0G (Ascend's liquid staking token)
2. Lock the a0G as collateral to mint iAI
3. Stake the iAI. The first credits arrive at the next 00:00 UTC, and a fresh allowance lands each day after

Under initial parameters, each staked iAI is designed to receive 1.271 compute credits a day (yes the number is nerdy), a stated usage value of more than $1 per day, subject to applicable product terms. Credits work across 100+ models on 0G Private Computer, the 0G App and other supported apps. Unused credit does not roll over.

Then there is private AI. On 0G Private Computer, the Private Inference tier runs the model inside a sealed TEE enclave: your prompt goes in encrypted, neither 0G nor the provider can read it, and each response comes back with an attestation you can check. Most AI today asks you to trust a company with your data. Here you can trust by verifying what ran.

A few design choices worth understanding before you mint:
- The a0G you lock stays yours. It sits in a contract as collateral, half of the staking rewards on it keep accruing to you and the other half goes to the issuer. Burning the iAI you minted releases it.

- Compute and collateral are separate rights. The credits follow the staker, whether the token was minted or bought. Only the wallet that minted it can get the collateral back, so if you mint and sell, you have to buy an iAI back and burn it to unlock yours.

- The mint rate climbs as supply grows and comes back down when iAI is burned. The contract caps supply at 9,270, though in practice the curve does most of the gatekeeping.

- The pre-mint followed the same rules. Earlier today the issuer minted the opening 2,000 iAI at curve rates and locked 0G against them like any other mint. They go into the first iAI pool on https://t.co/bwQI3vcPhs, where trading is expected to open alongside the public mint.

Each credit spent on 0G products ties the claim back to real usage.

What I like most about this design: compute stops being a monthly bill and becomes something you hold and use.

Public minting is scheduled to open tomorrow, Sept 29 at 09:00 UTC, on https://t.co/YJzjPOpPPF.

iAI and its credits are not available in all jurisdictions and are subject to eligibility and product terms. Credits are only for supported 0G AI services, not redeemable for cash, and not interest or a guaranteed return. Digital assets involve significant risk. Not financial advice.

[Lumera Protocol @lumera]

Your next collaborator could be across the dinner table.

Meet the Lumera team and Seoul's Web3 community for an evening of ideas, food & new connections.

Lumera Seoul Builder Night
29 Sep · 18:30 KST · GroundB

Request an invite: https://t.co/gsJxPsJCqu

[Lumera Protocol @lumera]

FalconX has joined Lumera as a validator on Lumera.

One of the largest institutional crypto prime brokers is now helping secure the chain that anchors identity, memory, and trust for the agent economy.

Welcome to Lumera, @FalconXGlobal.

https://t.co/MLadaBvd9Y

[AstroStake @AstroStake]

@DumpDetected nice recap

[Tony Severino, CMT @TonySeverinoCMT]

Russell 2000 made a new ATH, so this MUST mean that it is time for altcoin season, right?

The Correlation Coefficient doesn't just show how strong or weak a positive or negative correlation is, it shows the direction of the relationship

At the moment, the correlation between these two assets is negative for the first time since July 2016 and the negative correlation is beginning to strengthen

The indicator can curl back up from here, but at the moment it is pointed sharply down

Past correlations mean nothing in a new environment. Simply comparing past breakouts won't work, when the previously positive correlation has become negative

[Lumera Protocol @lumera]

We are partnering with @MidnightNtwrk to bring decentralized storage to the Midnight ecosystem.

Privacy-first applications need more than private execution. They need storage that lasts.

Here is why this partnership matters 👇

https://t.co/dfmD8VnIXj

[AstroStake @AstroStake]

It has been a while since our last blog.

While things looked quiet on the surface, we've been spending much of this year building behind the scenes.

This time, we're looking back at Safrochain's first month after Mainnet from the perspective of a validator that's been there since Testnet.

https://t.co/UtpSg7wb21

[AstroStake @AstroStake]

@safrochain Gm☕

[Safrochain @safrochain]

The response from our community speaks for itself !

Thank you to everyone who participated and believed in the vision.

This milestone marks the beginning of what we're building together.

[AstroStake @AstroStake]

As a Safrochain validator, excited for mainnet tomorrow! 🚀

[Safrochain @safrochain]

Who can guess how many days are left to mainnet ?

[0G Labs @0G_labs]

Claude Fable 5 drops out of Claude subscription limits on July 7.

From July 8, Anthropic's most capable model is pay-per-token.

It is already live on 0G, at a limited-time launch price 10% below the official rate.

[Lumera Protocol @lumera]

Q2 set the stage — EVM live, staking up 3x, Cascade in production with Injective.

Q3 brings EVM mainnet, Sense and Inference activation, and CEX listings.

Read the full update: https://t.co/DA2dEPQGG8

[Lumera Protocol @lumera]

Lumera EVM is live on Testnet. 🦊⚡

MetaMask. Solidity. Ethers.js. Hardhat. Foundry.

All of it — running natively on Lumera. Same chain. Same security. Same supernodes.
Blog: https://t.co/HgAn93leG3

Thread 🧵 👇