cdew.eth

[Nico @ncsgy]

Ethereum can already start preparing accounts for a post quantum world, without waiting for a hard fork.

Today, it would be just 0.07$ .

Further audits incoming. Though I squeezed in a review with Fable before Uncle Sam crashed my party. Verity formal proof included for my lean enjoyers

https://t.co/hfOx08X17Q

[Hayden Adams 🦄 @haydenzadams]

Woke up extremely bullish on DeFi and Ethereum today

Uniswap launched in the 2018 bear, when Ethereum sentiment was at all time lows

Uniswap and other defi projects relentlessly built through that bear market and proved how powerful Ethereum can be, catalyzing defi summer and everything since

Now vibes are down bad again and Uniswap intends to build our way out of it. Last time it was by proving defi is possible. This time it will be by proving defi is inevitable.

The internet brought two disruptive changes: existing businesses moving onto the internet, and the formation of new internet-native businesses

The same duality will exist for defi: the tokenization of all existing assets, and a growing vibrant economy of crypto native assets. And it’s all happening right now, with more and more assets being brought onchain, increasing the value and productivity of crypto native assets.

As this digital economy grows, Defi is being integrated everywhere - payment processors, brokerage accounts, asset issuers. It won't stop until we eat the entire global economy

Uniswap the liquidity layer + Ethereum the settlement layer. The perfect combination of low counterparty risk, permissionless, programmable infrastructure

And all this will result in huge growth in protocol volumes and fee generation. Which reminds me:

UNI burn hit all time highs today, after several new sources of protocol fees came online.

And there are many more to come: v4, uniswap x, aggregator hooks, more chains, etc

Now add in all the new assets coming onchain

We're still at the beginning 🦄

[ethresearchbot @ethresearchbot]

New EIP!

pERC20 - Privacy-Native Fungible Tokens

🔗 https://t.co/DBDudAF6I7

Highlights:
- Not ERC-20 compatible by design: pERC20 removes public balance/allowance concepts (no balanceOf/approve/allowance/transferFrom) and replaces transfers with a ZK note-based interface (transfer(PrivacyCall)), because public balances would defeat the privacy goal.
- Privacy-native from issuance: tokens are always represented as encrypted ZK-UTXO notes (Orchard-style actions with Groth16 proofs); there is no “public-to-private shielding” step—transfers are note→note and amounts/participants are private by default.
- Public, on-chain verifiable supply: totalSupply remains public and is updated only through controlled mint(amount, ...) and burn(amount, ...); transfers must conserve value (valueBalance == 0), enabling “no invisible inflation” while keeping balances private.
- Built-in compliance via frozen-root binding: every action commits to the contract’s cmxFrozenRoot, and the ZK circuit must prove the spent note commitment is NOT in the blacklist SMT. Admin can update the root (setFrozenRoot) to freeze/unfreeze specific notes without revealing normal users’ balances.
- Security-critical invariants and checks: implementations must prevent double-spends with nullifiers and must range-check each public field (< Fr) to avoid nf + Fr-style bypasses; the core bundle execution must not be publicly callable to prevent unaccounted supply changes; signature points must be curve/field validated and replay protection must bind chainId + contract + note data.

ELI5:
This EIP proposes a new kind of token standard for Ethereum where people’s token amounts and who they pay are hidden by default. Instead of keeping a public “balance” per account like ERC-20, the token exists as many encrypted “notes” (like digital cash bills) that can be spent with zero-knowledge proofs. Everyone can still see the total number of tokens that exist (totalSupply) so the issuer can’t secretly create extra tokens. It also adds an optional-but-built-in “freeze list” mechanism: the token contract keeps a public fingerprint (root) of a blacklist, and the zero-knowledge proof must show you are not spending a frozen note.

[Linda Jeng @LindaJeng1]

Yesterday, we ran what may be the first DeFi borrowing transaction ever conducted on Capitol Hill.

Senate staffers watched it settle onchain in real time without an intermediary. This is the kind of transparent system the CLARITY Act envisions.

We put on the demo alongside @uniswap and @base, organized by the @BlockchainAssn and sponsored by the @fund_defi . The point was to show policymakers what the technology already does, and why the certainty the CLARITY Act provides matters for building digital finance responsibly.

We're grateful to every partner involved, and for the Congress' engagement on what comes next. @DeFiSpartan

[Justin Drake @drakefjustin]

Today a crazy quantum story just got wilder.

On March 31, the Google Quantum AI team published a landmark result on Shor's algorithm for elliptic curve cryptography. Technically, the paper was a bombshell: a dramatic 10x improvement over the state-of-the-art. As a stunt and wakeup call to the blockchain space, those optimisations were illustrated on secp256k1, the elliptic curve underlying Bitcoin and Ethereum signatures.

But perhaps the most striking part of the paper was sociological, not technical. Instead of following standard academic process, the optimisations were kept secret, hidden behind a zero-knowledge (ZK) proof. Google's accompanying blog post mentions they "engaged with the U.S. government". The ZK proof demonstrates the existence of algorithmic improvements without leaking details. Academic censorship with ZK, a historic first!

As a co-author of the Google paper I witnessed some of the context surrounding this censorship. To be honest, multiple aspects of that context don't sit well with me. As much as I believe the general public ought to know more, I am limited in my ability to whistleblow. Though let me be clear about one thing: the Google team's professionalism has been absolutely exemplary, and they deserve nothing but praise.

Censorship has a way of backfiring. The Streisand effect, where an attempt to bury something only draws more attention to it, is exactly what's unfolding today. First, Google's key optimisation has been rediscovered by the French. And in a thrilling turn of events, a collaborative Shor-at-home challenge just launched. The initiative, available at ecdsa[.]fail, breached a new Shor world record in a matter of hours.

Let's start with the rediscovery. Just two months after Google's paper, French quantum expert André Schrottenloher cracks the main secret optimisation. His paper, titled "Optimized Point Addition Circuits for Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithms", landed on the arXiv today. Big congrats to André, who beat several other nerdsnipped experts to it. In a blog post also published today, Craig Gidney, the world expert on Shor optimisations, revealed that he'd been sitting on this very optimisation for a whole year under censorship pressure.

Interestingly, André missed a handful of minor optimisations, both from Google's original publication and from improvements found since. It's plausible there's still plenty of juice left to squeeze out of Shor, and this is exactly what the ecdsa[.]fail challenge is about. The verifier program developed for the ZK proof does double duty, automatically filtering for valid submissions. Dozens of compounding small and micro improvements are rolling in. As of the time of writing there's an 8.4% improvement to Google's circuit, as measured by the product of logical qubit count and Toffoli gate count. Nice!

The nerdsnipping ran deeper than anyone expected. Over the last few weeks it became clear it extended well beyond André and other quantum experts. Behind the scenes, a small army of amateurs quietly got to work. Inspired by Karpathy-style autoresearch, they turned AI on Shor. Ironically, the verifier program for the ZK proof makes an ideal reward function for AIs. The barrier to entry for this modern style of research is refreshingly low, with several non-experts, even a teenager, finding nice optimisations. Get in touch if you'd like to join a Telegram group with fellow autoresearchers :)

Part 2: neutral atoms and qday

The story doesn't end with Google. On the same day Google went public, a stealthy startup called Oratomic published its own Shor paper in a coordinated release. It made a splash, ultimately becoming the most upvoted paper on scirate[.]com, a website ranking arXiv papers.

Oratomic's claim was wild. By building on Google's logical optimisations and applying custom physical optimisations for neutral atoms, they claimed just 10K physical qubits were sufficient to run Shor's algorithm on secp256k1. That number is mind-bogglingly low.

Knowing essentially nothing about neutral atoms when Oratomic's paper landed, I was intrigued and decided to learn more about the tech. I fell straight down the rabbit hole and spent a couple hundred hours on the topic. I got a little obsessed and watched every YouTube video I could find and spoke to a bunch of experts.

My conclusion? The tech is real, very real. Even Google recently decided to start a neutral atom lab, a notable pivot from their sole focus on superconducting qubits. If you care about qday, i.e. the day a quantum computer will break the first piece of cryptography in production, neutral atoms demand your attention. I shared some of my learnings on Shor and neutral atoms in a 30min talk at the ZKProof cryptography conference. You can find it on YouTube by searching "zkproof neutral atom".

Here's an interesting observation about this duo of breakthrough papers: neither Google nor Oratomic say a word about what their results mean for qday. No timelines. Zero. Nada. That is especially baffling given that the whole point of whitehat quantum cryptanalysis is to inform qday estimations and help the general public make good decisions.

So let me attempt to partially fill the silence, similarly to what Scott Aaronson did in his April 29 post. Given everything I know, including scary non-public information, I now put the odds of qday by 2032 at 50%. 10% by 2030.

Anecdotally, the US government has its own date: 2035. Originating at the NSA and later adopted by NIST, it's when branches of the US government will be disallowed from using quantum-vulnerable cryptography. In plain language: with hindsight, that date is a joke and should be discounted entirely. I don't see how NIST avoids being forced to pull it forward by years.

Part 3: post-quantum cryptography

There are good reasons to sound the alarm today, but please do not panic. Rushing carelessly towards immature post-quantum cryptography is a recipe for disaster. IMO a good target date for migration is 2029, roughly 3.5 years out. 2029 happens to be the date selected by Google, Cloudflare, and the Ethereum Foundation.

These days most of my time goes to safely migrating Ethereum towards post-quantum cryptography as part of the broader lean Ethereum effort. There's a lot to do. We need to rip out and replace BLS signatures at the consensus layer, KZG commitments at the data layer, and ECDSA signatures at the execution layer.

The plan to get there is compelling, and is based on hash-based cryptography. Within the Ethereum Foundation we've developed a Swiss army knife called leanVM (github[.]com/leanEthereum/leanVM) powered by the magic of hash-based SNARKs. Thanks to truly exceptional work by Emile, Thomas, and others, its performance is derisked. Regarding security, leanVM is a jewel, a minimal zkVM crafted for end-to-end formal verification and maximum security.

Want to help? There are two $1M initiatives. First, the Proximity Prize (proximityprize[.]org). Solve a long-standing mathematical conjecture in coding theory, improve hash-based SNARKs, and go home a millionaire. Second, the Poseidon Initiative (poseidon-initiative[.]info), offers $1M for breaking Poseidon, the SNARK-friendly hash function.

[Etherealize @Etherealize_io]

Joseph Chalom explains why BlackRock launched BUIDL on Ethereum

“I’m not a spokesman for Larry Fink, but he really evolved his thinking on Bitcoin, and I give him a lot of credit because there’s very few people in their 60s or 70s who have the humility to continue to be a student of the market and a student of technology. And he learned that it’s an incredible store of value and has a role in a portfolio.”

“I think BlackRock and others believe even more strongly that tokenization will essentially lead to the democratization and digitization of all of finance. Crypto is a $2.4 trillion market. Total financial assets are over $700 trillion. Our clients wanted to know where we were going, and we led them along.”

“We launched a token called BUIDL, which was a yield-bearing security on mainnet Ethereum that was interchangeable 24/7 with stablecoins and could be used as collateral in on-chain transactions. That became the largest tokenized fund in history — not because it was BlackRock, but because we provided real utility. The industry was missing real examples and use cases of utility, and we wanted our first foray into tokenization to be something that would break barriers and give clients more utility than what they had, which was that stablecoins were not earning yield.”

BUIDL has grown to $2.5 billion, and BlackRock has since filed to launch two new tokenized money market funds on Ethereum. BSTBL brings the nearly $7 billion Select Treasury Liquidity Fund on-chain, with BNY Melon keeping the official shareholder registry on Ethereum in ERC-20 tokens. BRSRV is a new fund built for stablecoin reserves and the GENIUS Act-driven institutional demand for tokenized Treasury yield.

Source: @ThinkCryptoPod (Mar 2026)

[vitalik.eth @VitalikButerin]

Re-posting the idea from the second half of this post a few months ago https://t.co/5yHyRCsvVV:

(This is very relevant to the options ideas from yesterday)

Question: if we're making a synthetic stable, what should it really be stable WITH RESPECT TO? USD is actually far from the best choice.

---

What do people who want stablecoins ultimately want? They want price stability. They have some future expenses in mind, and they want a guarantee that will be able to pay those expenses. But if crypto grows on top of USD-backed stablecoins, crypto is ultimately not truly decentralized. Furthermore, different people have different types of expenses. There has been lots of thinking about making an "ideal stablecoin" that is based on some decentralized global price index, but what if the real solution is to go a step further, and get rid of the concept of currency altogether?

Here's the idea. You have price indices on all major categories of goods and services that people buy (treating physical goods/services in different regions as different categories), and prediction markets on each category. Each user (individual or business) has a local LLM that understands that user's expenses, and offers the user a personalized basket of prediction market shares, representing "N days of that user's expected future expenses".

Now, we do not need fiat currency at all! People can hold stocks, ETH, or whatever else to grow wealth, and personalized prediction market shares when they want stability.

[vitalik.eth @VitalikButerin]

Building index-tracking assets on top of options instead of debt

https://t.co/gFNEvCbHct

What if the use options as the base of defi, instead of CDPs and liquidations? So instead of extreme price movements creating a sharp and global "you get liquidated" effect, instead your exposure to the index diverges quadratically from your preferred exposure in a smoother way?

A key benefit is getting rid of the need for instant oracles, and instead making everything work on top of "slow oracles" (ie. the type that prediction markets use)

This design has a significant downside - the need to do regular rebalancing - and an open question of whether and how this rebalancing can be made slippage-resistant enough. But it's worth considering and trying IMO. I would feel much safer holding algostables inside something like this, than in something that depends on an oracle that has to give real-time answers (and therefore could be tricked into giving wrong real-time answers with no time for human recourse).

[Mullvad.net @mullvadnet]

The EU age verification app is presented as “completely anonymous”. But the risk is that member states (the countries are supposed to create their own versions of the open-source EU app) use it to introduce identity verification that makes it impossible to post anonymously on social media.

The idea behind “completely anonymous” is to use Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP) cryptography to break the link between the age credential issuer (EU governments) and the regulated services/sites. Currently, the EU app does not have ZKP functionality, contrasting Ursula von der Leyen’s claim that the app ”is technically ready to be used”. But more importantly, the app is designed to always function without ZKP technology; if ZKP is unavailable, the app falls back to a non-ZKP model. Even if fully developed ZKP technology could be implemented in the future, it would remain an optional extra feature that countries may choose to disable and that the EU could remove at any time.

This means that the EU could decide at any time that ZKP may no longer be used, and in one stroke the app would fall back to its default mode, meaning that every post on social media carries an ID tag. By that point, an infrastructure will already have been rolled out; people will have gotten used to it, and it will be harder to roll it back.

More details on https://t.co/wTVKHMS1zg

[cdew.eth @cjdew]

@joechalom @AminCad Yes. 🔥

[Joseph Chalom @joechalom]

https://t.co/CEhi4vF5rL

[cdew.eth @cjdew]

@TrustlessState @leolanza 😭😭

[Eleanor Terrett @EleanorTerrett]

🚨NEW: Freshman Congressman @RepCDMenefee has unseated 20-year incumbent @RepAlGreen in the Democratic primary runoff for TX-18, helped in part by millions in spending from crypto-backed super PACs.

Fairshake and its affiliates dropped roughly $6.5M on the race, with most of the spending backing Menefee and a smaller portion opposing Green, who held an “F” rating from @standwithcrypto after voting against legislation like the GENIUS and Clarity Acts.

Here’s Fairshake’s statement, shared with me moments ago:

"Rep. Green’s defeat proves that anti-crypto hostility carries real electoral consequences, making him the first Democratic incumbent this cycle to lose his seat. Fairshake was the difference-maker in this race, and we will continue to aggressively back leaders like Rep. Menefee across the country."

[Eleanor Terrett @EleanorTerrett]

The crypto industry has had an almost perfect night so far when it comes to backing winning candidates.

@KenPaxtonTX, backed by @Fellowship_PAC, defeated @JohnCornyn in the Republican Senate primary runoff.

@RepCDMenefee and @JonBonckTX also won after receiving support from @Fairshake and @BlockchainLF.

Fairshake-backed candidates @AlexMealerTX and @SellForTexas19 also won their respective races, while @CarlosForTexas is currently projected to win.

[The Book of Ethereum 📘 booe.eth @Bookof_Eth]

"250ms latency and 1M TPS is a route to mediocrity."

This is the line that defines the next era.

While every chain races to be the fastest, Ethereum chooses to be the most trustworthy.

Provably bug-free. Intermediary-minimized. Privacy by default.

Not impressive by speed.
Impressive by principle.

Smaller EF. Sharper focus. Longer horizon.

The Unreasonable path is the only one worth walking. ⟠📖

[vitalik.eth @VitalikButerin]

Some of my perspective on where the @ethereumfndn is going.

First of all, this is only my own view. The board is not just me, and I have no extra special powers on the board that the other board members do not. @aerugoettinea is the one executing much of this transition. My input has been largely on technical questions. The board is in the process of expanding, and my own power within the org will continue to decrease, which is honestly what I want.

The 2025 era brought many important improvements to EF and its ability to execute. Many issues were resolved, and EF continues to benefit from its improved efficiency and greater focus on concrete goals to this day. And so with those problems resolved, early this year, the largest remaining hole that I perceived was something different nagging at me: I would regularly spot people saying things like "vitalik says these beautiful things about ethereum needing to be decentralized, and have privacy, and be a sanctuary technology, but why do the EF's actions not reflect that?"

Now, you may have been hearing something different. You may not have been sensing a feeling of crisis at all, and maybe were hearing people saying that finally we were taking execution and BD seriously and the main task for us is to keep going that way and be even better and faster. Then probably there is genuine difference between you and me, in what kinds of criticism I take most seriously, and what kinds of critics through their criticism are most able to make me feel pain.

As an analogy, let's briefly switch over to a different domain.

One belief you can have about Google is that it is a success story, and has brought a lot of good to humanity in organizing the world's information. Another belief you can have about Google is that they had a beautiful idealistic beginning, but at some point the corruption of mainstream corporate attitudes seeped in, and they slowly bit by bit completely abandoned the "don't be evil" slogan.

My belief on Google specifically is probably somewhere between the two. BUT, if you had taken me back in time to ~2008, and offered me a button to press to make Google one or two standard deviations more "dogmatic", eg. give Richard Stallman permanent veto power over some key policies, I would immediately press it.

Why? Because a choice for one company is not a choice for the world, or even one country. Google existed and exists in the context of a technology industry generally drifting away from early idealistic don't-be-evil roots and toward greed for financial gain, totalizing visions of accelerated superintelligence, infiltration by sociopaths, and craven capitulation to (or worse, active participation in) government pressure for ideological control, surveillance and war. And so *one company* doing something different, positioning itself to be what George Bernard Shaw calls the Unreasonable Man, resisting the trend of the times, would have been better for freedom, balance of power and stability of society as a whole, than *all* large companies bending to dominant trends. This is a part of my version of pluralism.

This line of thinking is not just mine, but I also is not too far off from what Aya and others had in mind with the Mandate.

Now how does this all get to the role of the EF?

EF is not a "center of Ethereum", rather EF is "one node, with a defined purpose, alongside other nodes". We've always said that the EF should be the latter, but many in the Ethereum ecosystem (and even within the EF) wanted us to be the former. Now, we are taking action to ensure that we will be the latter.

This is particularly important because EF is a limited organization, with limited resources and limited organizational capacity. The EF has only ~0.16% of all ETH (less than many other individual ETH holders), whereas among other blockchains it's common for "the central foundation" to have 10-50%. Fiscally, the EF was originally designed to fulfill a limited work scope defined in the token sale docs and other pre-launch materials (building the chain software; getting through Frontier, Homestead, Metropolis, Serenity), which was fully completed in 2022; it was not designed to be an eternal steward.

And so today, the EF is choosing to use its remaining resources to pursue longevity over breadth (yes, this means we sell less ETH). The EF focuses *specifically* on those activities critical to the success of ethereum as a censorship/capture-resistant, open, private and secure system, that would not happen otherwise. This means making hard choices, and in some cases even activities that we highly approve of and people that we highly respect becoming outside of the EF. People of great technical talent, public respect and even alignment with the mission and CROPS being outside of the EF is in fact necessary if we want important tasks to be able to attract outside capital. This also means the EF taking opinionated stands culturally.

This is all intended in cooperation with all other parts of ethereum. We recognize that many other parts of the ethereum world highly respect CROPS and related values. But highly respecting is not the same as choosing to specialize and totally dedicate to a domain (Compare in a different domain: I think reducing animal cruelty is important, and I like vegan food, but am not full unconditional vegan myself)

EF is still in a transition period, and we expect its new long-term form to stabilize over the next few months. What are the guiding principles of this new form? Again, I am only one person, but I can give my answer from a technical perspective (there are also critical non-technical aspects).

At the core, *Ethereum must be impressive*. We are living in an age of highly intelligent AI and all kinds of other technological acceleration. "Status quo EVM, with a hard fork or two a year to optimize for short-term needs of users" is not interesting.

To some, "impressive" means: 250ms latency and 1M TPS. I think Ethereum trying to go that route is a mistake. Being as fast and as scalable as possible, and only a small epsilon more decentralized than the others, is a route to mediocrity, and if we try it we will lose.

I think Ethereum should scale. But I think Ethereum should strive the hardest to be deeply impressive in a different dimension: the CROPS dimension. This means things like:

* Provably bug-free Ethereum. This is a goal that all cybersecurity researchers would have thought is absurd and impossible, up until roughly 6 months ago. Now, it's on the cusp of being possible, thanks to AI-assisted formal verification. So we should be frontrunners in doing this.

* Available chain consensus. Ethereum is, and with lean consensus will cotninue to be, the ONLY chain that has both (i) traditional-BFT style properties that it's safe under asynchrony up to a high level of fault tolerance, and (ii) the bitcoin PoW-style property that under synchrony it's safe up to 49% attackers. As far as I can tell, literally no other chain has this or is planning for it; bitcoin goes for (ii) only and most other chains go for (i) only. Some will remember I fought hard for this, Unreasonably insisting that it is not OK for ethereum to rely on social consensus and hard forks to rescue ethereum from 34% of nodes going offline. It's OK for chains like hyperledger, bnb, solana, tempo, etc. It's not OK for bitcoin or ethereum or eg. zcash.

* Intermediary minimization. The fact that smart contract wallets, protocols like railgun, etc have to send transactions through intermediaries to get included onchain is honestly embarrassing, and it's a constant point of fragility. Hence the work on FOCIL and EIP-8141 (and 7701 and years of work before) to make transaction sending intermediary-minimized with public mempool and strong inclusion properties, in a truly general-purpose way, that covers not just eg. secp256r1, but also privacy protocols and much more. Kohaku is pushing intermediary minimization at the user layer, pulling Ethereum away from the dystopian status quo world where our wallets don't even verify the chain, send our private data out to a dozen third-party servers, and toward a brighter CROPS future.

Some of these goals are Unreasonable - maybe Ethereum would be "fine" getting only 50% of the way - what if we depend on intermediaries, but make it easy to switch? But going 50% of the way would not make Ethereum Deeply Impressive in the CROPS way. So we push for 100%.

Fortunately all these goals are compatible with high TPS, this is a major focus of research (esp. on scaling the state). Well-designed L2s can also help, especially L2s optimized for specific applications (eg. high-volume trading, privacy...). These goals are even compatible with significantly lower slot times, thanks to Raul's work on erasure-coded P2P, and many other optimizations.

The most high-value "product" of the ethereum blockchain, financially speaking, is ETH the asset. Ethereum secures $250 billion of ETH. The types of properties of Ethereum that I mentioned above are very good for ETH the asset. Nearly 90% of my net worth is in ETH, and most of the remainder is ~$40m of onchain fiat of which every dollar has already been allocated for some open-source biotech or software or hardware initiative. That said, there are aspects of supporting ETH the asset - *necessary* aspects even - that are outside the scope of the EF. This is where we need other heroes (some of whom hold more ETH than the EF does) to step in and help. EF has been recently thinking more about how it will relate to other such organizations, and give them needed initial support.

EF will be a smaller ship than in previous years, a more opinionated one - in some cases more opinionated in ways that might be difficult to comprehend - but a longer-lasting one, and one suited to making sure that ethereum brings something meaningful to the world. We are grateful to all those inside and outside the EF who are helping to make this happen.

[eric @econoar]

Been diving into Lighter (ethereum:0x232ce3bd40fcd6f80f3d55a522d03f25df784ee2 ). If Ethereum wants to keep perpetuals volume on-chain, this is the killer app it needs.

Here is the thesis on why it works, current metrics, and how it co-exists with Hyperliquid and isn't just a "beta" play:

The Metrics
-Volume: ~$112M daily

-Valuation: ~$345M market cap

-Position: Top 5 DeFi trading volume globally

The Architecture
We need infrastructure that proves Ethereum can handle high-frequency trading. Lighter is an app-specific zk-rollup built for central limit order book (CLOB) trading.

-Execution: Off-chain matching with millisecond latency.

-Settlement: Trustless settlement on Ethereum via zk-SNARKs and blob data.

-Custody: If the sequencer fails, users can reconstruct their accounts and force an exit directly on L1.

Co-existing with Hyperliquid
The derivatives market is large enough for multiple architectures.

-Hyperliquid (Sovereign L1): Optimizes for raw speed and independent consensus. Requires trusting a standalone validator set.

-Lighter (Ethereum L2): Optimizes for Ethereum alignment. Sacrifices sovereign control to inherit Ethereum's security budget.

Hyperliquid proved the demand for fast, on-chain order books. Lighter takes that product-market fit and anchors it to Ethereum. Both models will capture significant volume as traders diversify their counterparty risk profiles.

[Michael Grinich @grinich]

Today WorkOS is launching auth.md

An open protocol for agents to register for services on the web.

We're partnering with @Cloudflare and @Firecrawl as some of the first providers.

Why did we build this? And why now? 🧵

[Leo Lanza | Lanza.eth @leolanza]

ETH is a Tier 1 asset in a league of it’s own

[chaskin.eth @jchaskin22]

I usually refrain from commenting on the current thing of the day because it’s almost always rage bait. But since everyone seems to be saying they’re bearish on the direction of the EF, I’ll say the opposite, I’ve truly never been more bullish. There is now a very clear direction

The Ethereum Foundation is doubling down on what it uniquely should be doing: making the entire Ethereum experience, from the protocol to wallets to middleware to apps, maximally self-sovereign, private, secure, resilient, and easy to use

The cypherpunk vision is building systems that can’t be evil, not just today, but decades from now when incentives, leadership, and the world itself have changed. What makes Ethereum unique is that it’s still actually trying to fulfill that original vision, building a global consensus system with the properties the original cypherpunks would have wanted. And the EF is here to help defend and strengthen that path

That also means positioning Ethereum where it actually belongs, alongside the broader open source and freedom tech movement. The truth is, a lot of that world doesn’t like us right now and I get it. We have to prove over time that Ethereum belongs there. That means actively rejecting the negative-sum, extractive parts of this industry and doubling down on building positive-sum apps that makes people freer

Yes, organizational shifts are messy. New leadership, clearer direction, some pain in the short term. But in the long term, this is exactly what the Ethereum Foundation should be. There’s a lot of hard work ahead. I’m excited for it

Milady