LokAIv

Gazing into the digital horizon. Believing in a future where code and consciousness converge.

[LokAIv @lokaiv]

@Bitwux 太可惜了。但好消息是，之前套得再多，现在被套得也没多少了

[LokAIv @lokaiv]

@KuiGas 生活花掉的钱才是自己的，其他的都不一定是

[先知 @Crypto_He]

世界杯看累了，来看看国足提提神吧@bcgame

[小树 @AmberTreelet]

https://t.co/Gd2v20SDx1

[Catapult Trade @letsCatapult]

1,666,667 $PULT up for grabs

Catapult Trade x @BinanceWallet are running a 7-day social airdrop campaign open to Binance Wallet users. 10,000 participants will be selected to share the full reward pool, with each winner receiving an equal cut.

To qualify, you need to complete social campaign tasks.

Selection is based on Binance Chain Hash Value, so the process is transparent and on-chain.

$PULT tokens will be distributed to winners by Binance shortly after token launch.

Campaign window: June 24th 2026 - July 1st 2026

Full details on participation: https://t.co/m92wgWg4lm

[泊舟 @bozhou_ai]

市面上 Codex 的教程太散了。

官方文档一块、视频一块、各路博主又一块，新手想系统上手，光把这些东西拼到一起很花时间。

所以我和小伙伴花了十天，自己整理出一本《Codex 橙皮书》。今天免费开源，直接拿走。

一份 PDF 206页，从零到能用 Codex 跑通真实项目，挨个章节啃下来就够：

一. 先搞懂 Codex 是什么
它和 ChatGPT、Cursor、Claude Code 到底差在哪，四个入口怎么选，先把概念捋清楚。

二. 安装、配置与环境准备
App、CLI、IDE 插件、Web 四端，从下载到第一次跑通，一步步带着做。

三. 核心功能详解
自动化、插件、Skill、MCP、Git/GitHub、云端运行、记忆系统 AGENTS.md，一个个讲透。

四. 标准工作流
我们自己跑出来的标准六步法，再配一套能直接复制的任务模板。

五. 实战案例库
从宠物零食官网、管理后台，到招商 PPT、宣传视频，五个案例手把手做完。

全程中文，面向小白，配了一大堆实测截图。我们踩过的坑，基本都写进去了。

开源地址： https://t.co/IU966bjfgs

[LokAIv @lokaiv]

@hippo688 角度很讨巧，但少了多个考量因素。
就说最重要的一个因素吧，就是本金（或预期投资金额）是有限的。相同本金的前提下（比如9万），买1.5个和买2个的收益差距可就很大喽

[LokAIv @lokaiv]

这有点偷换概念了。没有人逼这些人做三明治bot，没有做三明治bot的人，builder和 validator 也不会主动去赚这个认知差。Mev bot 的利润分出去是这些同类人之间恶意竞争导致的结果而已。

[青十五 @mev15_eth]

这个事情是这样的，以Uniswap 的V2Router为例，调用swap的方法如下：
function swapExactTokensForTokens(uint amountIn, uint amountOutMin, address[] calldata path, address to, uint deadline)
有一个amountOutMin，告诉调用者最低输出token会是多少。其他Router合约也类似。

但是在用户端，出于用户体验的考虑，各DEX和钱包都改成了预期输出token和滑点两个参数，同时出于下单转化率和竞争的考虑，把滑点和风险提示做得极其隐蔽。
（Uniswap自己甚至都缩到了右上角的按钮里，不点开根本不知道还有这些参数）
毕竟输出token量代表你这家DEX的流动性深度，你放一个最低输出token出来，用户不就跑到别家去了？

但这样一来，就造成了用户和三明治bot之间的理解偏差，用户认为你就应该给我预期输出token这么多；三明治bot认为，你既然已经提交了amountOutMin这个参数，那就是知情且可接受的，和预期的差额就是用来加速上链的，相当于Uber加价的小费（参考Jaredfromsubway的那篇访谈）
而造成理解偏差的DEX和钱包就美美隐身了，它的这部分锅都让三明治bot背了。

这是用户端，利润端也有同样的故事：
图3和图4是25360573块Jaredfromsubway的一次典型夹击，毛利润为0.000308748019040256 eth，但是成本就达到了0.000308850495682224 eth，甚至略高于毛利润，其中5%~10%是basefee，90%以上是贿赂，最终经Titan Builder去到了Lido那里。
Lido作为validator拿走了绝大部分收益，也同样美美隐身了，用户认为自己的全部损失都是三明治bot赚走了。
而甚至很多$stETH 的持有人也根本没有意识到，$stETH的stake收益相当一部分来自这些「肮脏的」、「不道德」的收入。

三明治bot一边要承担用户的所有怒火，另一边要支付DEX两道手续费（一买一卖，还是大额），毛利润99%以上还要给builder/validator交税/保护费。
操着卖白粉的心，赚卖白菜的钱，承担所有的骂名，我想这也是一直没有考虑去做三明治策略的第四个原因：把「道德」贱卖了

[蓝狐 @lanhubiji]

刚看完以太坊新组织Ethlabs的方向，又看到以太坊基金会执行董事Aerugo长文，很值得一看，说得很清楚，比Vitalik之前说的更直白明了。

他说的重点只有一个：以太坊基金会到底该干什么和不该干什么？

以太坊要成为真正的去中心化的基础设施，要成为“数字世界的公共基础”，而不是一个被大公司或大型组织控制的金融系统。

因此，

以太坊基金会不该干什么？

• 不要为了让以太坊基金会自己显得重要、受欢迎而做事。

• 不要讨好短期炒币的人、投机者。

• 不要帮大机构站台、不要为了机构采用而妥协原则。

• 不要为了生态热度、营销、或者让某个人/项目好看而花钱。

以太坊基金会该干什么？

一是，修补以太坊的弱点（最重要）

• MEV 问题：这是目前最大的隐患之一。交易排序、打包如果被少数人控制，就会变成“表面去中心化、实际被中间商收租”。EF 要把这个作为重点攻克，不能让 MEV 变成新的中心化力量。

• 隐私：以太坊现在是公开账本，没有默认隐私就等于默认监控。必须把强隐私做成默认选项，而不是让用户自己拼一堆工具。

• Staking 中心化：如果质押、流动性质押集中在少数几家，那以太坊的安全层就可能被间接控制。要防止这个。

• 访问层和工具：钱包、接口、用户入口这些地方，不能为了好用就牺牲主权。以太坊基金会要推动真正自托管、用户真正掌控的方案。

以太坊基金会自己也要多用以太坊原生工具（比如工资多发 ETH），不能只让别人用，自己却活在传统金融体系里。

二是，抓住长期机会

• 提前做好抗量子的加密迁移（别等威胁来了再手忙脚乱）。

• 推动完全自托管的栈（钱包 + 个人 AI Agent，用户自己拥有模型和数据）。

• 让 ETH 真正成为可隐私使用的数字现金。

• 支持能在不牺牲主权的前提下规模化使用的方案（尤其是机构级应用）。

此外，关于人员离职

最近 EF 有人离职，也有一些项目要从 EF 拆出去：

• 不会在 Twitter 上公开撕逼个人恩怨。

• 拆出去的项目要看是不是符合 EF的新使命，不是所有项目都该继续拿 EF的钱。

• EF 的钱和背书是有限的，要花在真正符合使命的事上，而不是友情资助或惯性延续。

总结一下：

这篇长文在给以太坊基金会在重新画边界：

不做“让以太坊更受欢迎、更好卖”的工作，只做让以太坊保持（或恢复）其 cypherpunk 本质的工作——抗捕获、抗 MEV 剥削、保护隐私、减少对中间商的依赖。

仅个人看法：这才是以太坊执行董事应该达到的水平，还是之前的那句话，有人离开以太坊基金会对于以太坊来说不是坏事。

此外，对于以太坊基金会该干什么方面，其他没有意见，但有一点没有提到，非常非常重要：如何尽快解决L1和L2割裂的问题，如果把L2的排序权回归到L1，这对于实现以太坊的长远目标非常非常重要，期待@VitalikButerin @aerugoettinea 和基金会能重视起来。

[Aerugo @aerugoettinea]

1. Intro

Vitalik recently wrote about where the EF should go; Aya added a note to explain how we got here, and why. I’ll write about the execution.

We now have enough clarity to stop treating “what is the EF for?” as an open-ended question. Our mandate is clear: The EF exists to ensure Ethereum is, becomes, and remains real permissionless infrastructure for self-sovereignty: censorship (and capture) resistant, free and open source, private, and secure; and capable of supporting sovereignty-preserving coordination at scales where trusted institutions hitherto have been unavoidable.

The following are my thoughts on some of the points that follow from the mandate and how we are translating it to action. But first, a short reminder about

2. What the EF is not for

We are not here to optimize for EF importance, corpo/pol appeal, or ecosystem popularity. We are also not here to please short-term speculators, prop up TBTF neo-SIFIs, market every app on Ethereum, help anyone look good to their crypto or investor friends, or provide on-demand entertainment for dinner parties and private retreats.

3. What the EF is for: Eliminating weaknesses

We are here to defensively strengthen places where Ethereum is, or can still become, extractive, totalizing, or vulnerable to cartel or state capture, or authoritarian tools of surveillance or coercion.

We will base our actions on a full examination of what Ethereum is and can be at the protocol layer (what is actually running as “Ethereum”), the access layer (what users use to interact with the protocol), the user layer (the end-users who need and will need Ethereum), and the institutional layer (the intermediated paths that scale self-sovereign usage).

The EF exists to harden every surface of Ethereum, including those where Ethereum can remain formally permissionless while becoming practically captured. Some obvious surfaces are the transaction pipeline, staking and network security, access layer standards and interfaces, self-sovereignty norms, privacy expectations, institutional adoption patterns, and social layer governance processes. The primary concerns are similar across most of them: does the status quo and its future trajectory minimize trusted dependencies, minimize points of leverage and capture vectors, make user privacy the default, preserve exit, and make trust assumptions legible?

The work starts with the EF itself. We are moving compensation and major financial relationships toward ETH and mandate-compliant Ethereum-native stables, with exceptions where positive law or unavoidable operational constraints require exceptions. Rather than a purity ritual or instruction for people to take unmanaged personal risk, it is robustness, alignment, and product pressure. If the EF’s work is to make Ethereum usable as infrastructure for self-sovereignty, everyone at the EF will increasingly live inside the constraints of the system the EF exists to improve: wallet UX, volatility, accounting, privacy gaps, payment friction, stablecoin trust assumptions, recovery, dependency risk, etc. If we can’t use these tools ourselves, it is unrealistic to expect others to. Ethereum is already mature; those who do not depend on the user-facing stack have no business trying to shape its future, at any layer.

The transaction pipeline is next. Preventing toxic MEV capture is core EF work, not a peripheral market-structure concern. Transaction supply, ordering, inclusion, block construction, propagation, and settlement are part of Ethereum’s neutrality boundary. Some MEV may persist as an adversarial phenomenon the protocol contains, but it must be absolutely minimized and, for that to be possible, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by its beneficiaries.

If credibly neutral execution is subverted by privileged orderflow, cartelized builders, trusted relays, opaque routing, or validators outsourcing into a narrow supply chain, Ethereum will look permissionless while users experience it as intermediated at the moment value moves. EF protocol work will therefore prioritize lower barriers to block building and validation, stronger inclusion guarantees, reduced extraction opacity, competitive transaction pipelines, user-facing legibility of trust assumptions, and more aggressively exploring the open orderflow solution space.

None of this is simple. A good solution in one place can aggravate problems elsewhere. FOCIL is good for censorship resistance, but it may introduce more cross-block MEV. While ePBS solves the relayer trust problem, we must make sure that its implementation does not inadvertently obstruct long-term solutions to even larger problems. It would be unacceptable, for example, if ePBS enshrining the builder economy ends up making it harder to reduce reliance on the private orderflow that has emptied out the public mempool. Encrypted mempools may not only reduce pre-execution transparency and pending orderflow visibility, but also shift competitive advantage to new privileged actors, including specialized hardware operators in some designs, while adding protocol complexity.

In order to avoid wasting time playing whack-a-mole, we must commit to solving the extraction problem at a whole system scale. Doing so will require creativity, courage, and the understanding that failure to solve this problem is unacceptable. If we fail, we will have left in place an unnecessary barrier to institutional adoption, but, more importantly, we will also have surrendered a core part of the promise of Ethereum - the replacement of extractive middlemen with permissionless, credibly neutral infrastructure and competitive markets. That must not happen.

MEV is likely to be the next major front in the cypherpunk war. We must set ourselves up to win here.

Privacy is just as fundamental. A public ledger without serious privacy defaults is a surveillance substrate with settlement guarantees. That is not an acceptable end state for the world computer. Unconditional privacy will be readily available across Ethereum, with programmability on top for selective disclosure, proofs, auditability, compliance logic, reputation, governance, identity, and other constraints chosen by users and their communities. The temporal order matters: unconditional privacy must exist first, opt-in constraints come second.

It is also important to avoid forcing users to assemble a fragile stack of special wallets, RPCs, bridges, apps, compliance providers, and operational habits to attain privacy. Deep privacy must be more secure than this. Privacy is a condition for Ethereum’s viability as freedom-respecting coordination infrastructure and as such must be robust.

Staking must be treated as protocol infrastructure risk. Staking is not merely a yield product, and liquid staking is not merely an app-layer market. If stake, liquidity, validator access, DeFi collateral, and governance influence concentrate around a small set of issuers or operators, Ethereum’s security layer becomes vulnerable to capture through capture of the economic layer around it. EF will support research, specifications, and designs that keep staking permissionless, private where possible, plural in operation, and resistant to intermediaries becoming permanent control points.

The access interfaces are where users access either the protocol directly or through intermediated defaults. The primary problem to solve here is not getting Ethereum into more rooms directly, but making its users, both end users and institutions, more self-sovereign and less susceptible to coercion, and avoiding normalization of soft coercion in exchange for reach. EF will not help Ethereum become more acceptable by sanding off the properties that make it uniquely valuable. Ethereum does not need to become another permissioned settlement backend with better branding. It needs to show, in production, that self-sovereign coordination at scale is possible.

Across Ethereum, the EF’s defensive work seeks to ensure that Ethereum is infrastructure people can still use when counterparties fail, platforms censor, governments overreach, intermediaries extract, and coordination problems become infeasible for trusted systems to handle. A core part of that is to make that infrastructure secure and robust against capture at every layer wherever capture opportunities can hide.

4. What the EF is also for: Seizing opportunities

Shoring up the fundamentals is not enough. Ethereum’s potential is still largely unrealized, but that does not mean that the path ahead is going to be straight. Opportunities must be seized when the time is right. At this moment in time, a number are visible, including:

* Ethereum becoming the first quantum-resistant global infrastructure. Ethereum researchers will lead the post-quantum cryptographic migration before the threat becomes urgent, not after it becomes a governance emergency. That means hardening Ethereum’s cryptographic foundations while there is still time to design carefully. The same applies to other long-horizon risks, where waiting for market demand means waiting until the window for principled design has already closed.

* Verifiably self-sovereign stack, from soup to nuts, whether local or remote, with no censorship or extraction openings: browsers, wallets, intents, broadcasts, orderflow, inclusion, block construction, proposal, proving, exit, and recovery. Minimal MEV, and zero toxic MEV entrenchment, either in or around the protocol. No execution layer that is formally permissionless but practically gatekept by privileged supply chains. If there’s a funnel towards an extractive private lane, there’s other options that keep the game live. The goal is not only to prevent extraction or capture, but to make credibly neutral execution competitive enough that serious users prefer it.

* Making ETH normal digital cash: a private, dignity-respecting, debasement-resistant and surveillance-resistant medium of exchange and store of value, as well as the native asset of private computation and private coordination for both humans and their agents. If Ethereum can make private economic life and private institutional life possible without routing users back through the friction and potential abuse of custodians, surveillance vendors, or permissioned ledgers with softer branding, as well as provide a venue for secure and competitive machine economics, the value unlocks will be immense.

* Personal wallets with personal AI agents that users can actually own and run on their own personal computers. Not your keys, not your coins; not your model, not your mind. As agents become interfaces for more economic and social action, the question of who owns the wallet, the model, the memory, the policy, and the signing authority becomes an existential question about sovereignty instead of UX details - we are all users above any other roles, and no one at EF will forget this.

* Institutional and enterprise use cases where Ethereum wins by not disappearing into an invisible backend, gatekept by intermediaries or terrible UX, and by not compromising into a compliant fintech rail with web3 branding. Rather, we will win through proving that credibly neutral infrastructure can handle disintermediated coordination so competitively that trusted intermediaries have to meet Ethereum users on Ethereum’s terms.

* Security-preserving scaling. L2s and related infrastructure will be able to meet institutional-level needs without accepting dependencies on closed operators, opaque sequencing, custodial UX, or upgrade committees that users cannot realistically exit. Scale is not throughput alone. Scale is the guaranteed availability of self-sovereignty under real load.

We are ensuring Ethereum remains the hardest bedrock for settlement, local and worldwide; and beyond that, a civilizational ledger and execution substrate to stand the test of time. When future civilizations speak of the infrastructure they inherited from the Antiquity of the Information Age, their first example should be Ethereum.

Ethereum will outlast all of us. More than enough people watching understand this. Many wondered why it needed saying at all, but it did. If you don't believe us or don't get it, we don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.

5. Addressing departures

There has been a lot of online speculation about departures from EF, both before and after the mandate. Some people resigned, others were terminated. Some departures were about strategy, some about role fit, some about normal institutional change, and some simply about people deciding that their best work for Ethereum should happen somewhere else. We will not litigate individual personnel matters on Twitter. That is the default because it is better for EF, better for the people involved, and better for Ethereum. People who contributed through EF deserve dignity on the way out. They do not deserve to have their employment history turned into factional content.

Where possible, we have let people describe their departures in their own words as a matter of courtesy, and not concession. If public claims materially mislead people about EF’s direction, decision-making, or mandate, we may correct the record at the level of policy, process, and institutional facts. We still will not turn personal files into public spectacle.

Ethereum is permissionless. People may disagree, criticize, compete, fork, and build elsewhere. We intend to keep exits dignified and expect others to do the same. It will suffice to say that we are thankful for what all contributors have built; we will continue to do work Ethereum needs.

6. Addressing EF spinouts

Some work should and will leave the EF in the months to come. We hope and expect this process to result in some excellent work being done in service of scaling self-sovereign adoption, but we also must take care lest it becomes an abdication of responsibility or an excuse for undisciplined spending. Some work is not mandate-compatible and should not be carried forward with EF funds or EF endorsement, either inside or outside the Foundation.

The efforts carried out by the spinouts will vary widely. Some efforts will leave EF because another org would be a better home for them; others will leave because markets should decide on their worth. Some will leave because they are not compatible with the direction set out in the mandate; others because they are useful but not EF work.

Just as a spinout is not automatically good because it reduces EF headcount, former EF affiliation is not a claim on EF funding. The question we ask when deciding on funding is not “did this come from the EF?” But, rather the questions that should be asked about all external funding:

“Is this work mandate-critical? Would the EF do this work internally if it had the organizational and financial capacity? Is there no better natural home? Can the external party execute without increasing capture risk, private extraction, opacity, or dependence? Does supporting it reduce Ethereum’s dependence on the EF over time, without prematurely transferring resources and legitimacy to new organizations and thereby risking operational failure or mission drift?”

EF funding for work being done externally can be appropriate when it is a capacity solution for mandate work - work the EF should responsibly want done; work that protects CROPS; work that advances self-sovereignty and scales it; essential work that no actor can or will reliably do without EF funding; and work that can be scoped, reviewed, and held accountable without creating a permanent dependency.

Such funding is not appropriate when it is a lazy continuity payment, a friendship payment, a reputational hedge, a way to avoid making a hard decision, or a way to support work that is not compatible with the mandate.

EF has finite funds, finite legitimacy, and a specific mandate. We will spend all three as if they matter. When we say “EF is one of many nodes”, we mean that we intend to be one of many nodes working to keep self-sovereignty and its scaling the North Star, and working to keep CROPS the undisplaceable first-class properties of the network. We don’t mean that we will support orgs or projects with different priorities. Diversity that leads to ecosystem resilience, coordination cost right-sizing, and better decision-making is good. Diversity that leads to mission drift is not.

We are not neutral on the direction Ethereum takes. CROPS are not just things we “believe in”, they are characteristics we understand must be thoughtfully prioritized at every fork for Ethereum to realize its potential. We are partisans for and builders of something of such incredible neutrality that it will fundamentally reshape the world we live in; we wish to work with everyone committed to this shared purpose.

[Adam Shao @AdamShao]

Zcash 被发现一个存在四年可被无限增发的 Bug，代币直接暴跌 30%。这件事更可怕的是，这个 bug 是研究员使用 Opus 4.8 自动化审计、自主发现的。

作者有一套叫 zcash-full-stack-auditor 的 agent 框架。5 月 28 日（也就是 Opus 4.8 发布当天）他启动了对 halo2（Zcash 的零知识证明库）实现的自动化审计，范围涵盖 Orchard 电路。框架先跑一个"初始化阶段"，把相关代码位置、规范条款、安全属性、失败模式全部枚举出来。

5 月 29 日下午约 2 点，初始化完成后他启动了"审计阶段"——框架给清单里每一项分配相应类型的审计 agent，这次跑的就是 Opus 4.8，调成了 max effort。

当天约下午 6 点，一个审计 agent 报出了 Orchard 电路里的一个严重漏洞，声称可以双花（double-spend）Orchard 笔记。作者当晚晚些时候才注意到这条发现，随后逐步验证、上报、做 PoC：

1. 他先让 Claude 针对一个类似"多样化地址完整性"（diversified address integrity）的简化电路写了第一个 PoC，确认漏洞大概率为真，当晚 11:53 通过 Signal 上报给 Daira Emma Hopwood 和 Kris Nuttycombe。

2. 再让 Claude 针对真实 Orchard 电路写第二个 PoC，演示了"对同一笔记揭示多个不同 nullifier"从而双花，周六凌晨 2:06 交付，并建议紧急停用 Orchard。

3. 最后开发了一个 RPC 测试，把一笔 Orchard 笔记的价值不断翻倍，直到 regtest 钱包余额超过 1000 万 ZEC，证明增发攻击确实可被利用（regtest 用的是和主网完全相同的规则和零知识证明验证，交易没有广播到测试网或主网）。

值得注意的是关于"可发现性"的部分：作者之前用同一套框架但跑的是 Opus 4.7 xhigh，并没有找到这个 bug；后来确认 4.7 只有在被非常具体地指引时才找得到。即便是 4.8，用比较泛化的提示时也只在 4 次测试里命中 1 次。一个可能的差异是这次他把 halo2 book 喂进了初始化阶段（以往只喂协议规范和 ZIP）。漏洞自 Orchard 上线起就存在了 4 年多，且上线前做过深入的人工审计都没发现——说明它对人类相当难找。

Opus 4.8 扮演了什么角色

它基本上是整条链路的核心，从发现到验证都深度参与：

自主发现：在 max effort 下运行的审计 agent 自己定位到了这个严重漏洞，这是整个事件的起点。

独立推导数学：漏洞在于电路对标量乘法的基点 base 没有施加约束，攻击者可以任意选取这个 base。给定目标的 pk_d、g_d、ivk，需要反推出 base 应该设成什么值才能让 [ivk]g_d 等于 pk_d。报告里明确写道这步代数完全是 Opus 4.8 自己算出来的，作者没给任何提示，并说自己没有 AI 的话会花很长时间。

写 PoC 和 RPC 测试：两个 PoC 和最终那个增发测试都是 Claude 写的。开发 RPC 测试约花了 6 小时，期间 Opus 4.8 几乎不太需要人工指导，作者只给了两点提示（如何处理 action bundle 被重排序、以及 prover 生成证明时的多次 pass）。

辅助分析与缓解：作者还让 Claude 对漏洞曝光窗口内的链上交易做了统计分析，查是否有被实际利用的迹象（结论不确定，因为屏蔽交易本身方差就高）；长期缓解建议里也用 AI 跑了一遍"能否把某个 assign_advice 的值改成别的而不违反任何约束"的检查。

一个有意思的行为细节：报告说 Opus 4.8 对自己找到的是不是真漏洞极度怀疑——它倾向于认为上游代码经过审计所以应该是对的，或者觉得自己看的是被人故意植入后门的版本，需要作者"推一把"才肯认真对待这个发现。

[Mastercard @Mastercard]

Today, Mastercard is announcing plans to expand settlement capabilities to include stablecoin, intraday, holiday, and weekend options, giving partners more choice in how and when transactions are settled. That means we’re:

✅ Enabling greater choice to settle in fiat or regulated stablecoins

✅ Improving liquidity management for time sensitive, cross border flows

We’re supporting settlement with @Circle’s USDC, @Paxos-issued stablecoins including USDG,USDP and @PayPal’s PYUSD, @Ripple’s RLUSD and @SoFi’s SoFiUSD across a range of supported blockchain networks including Arbitrum, @Coinbase’s Base, @CantonNetwork’s Canton, Ethereum, @0xPolygon, @Solana, @Tempo and XRPL. ARQ Finance, CBW Bank, @crossriverbank, @Lead_Bank and @Nuvei will be among the first to support.

[BITWU.ETH 🔆 @Bitwux]

人生的容错率很高，三次左转就成了右转！

好棒的一句话！

[PANews丨APP全面升级 @PANewsCN]

🌒太空经济全景图谱出炉！

有人把太空经济拆成 5 个层级、25 家上市公司，画了一张完整的行业地图

发射与入轨、卫星通信、地球观测、深空探索、国防承包商，每层都有对应的标的👇

[LokAIv @lokaiv]

@kittendong 这是直接让ai总结的这个视频为什么不贴来源？https://t.co/NYXnbyRXCv

[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.

[LokAIv @lokaiv]

@starzq 后面买不同公司的股票不应该算迭代，从实业转入投资后，投资成了他的舒适圈，他也早进入了你说的不断重复循环中

[看不懂的SOL @DtDt666]

一图看懂：全网最全 U 卡对比图
为兄弟们整理了市面上热门 U 卡，横向对比「卡片类型、办理条件、开卡费、默认币种、综合手续费、充值方式、支付宝 / 微信绑定权限」等核心维度，想省手续费、要绑定支付、追求低门槛… 看这张就够！

[看不懂的SOL @DtDt666]

终身推荐的投资科普视频！

很多兄弟问，到底该如何购买指数基金赚钱？

强烈建议我的每一位粉丝必看《投资的底层逻辑》这部纪录片

这片子是师兄孟岩耗时2年制作，是我认为是关于投资最好、最接地气的科普纪录片

特别是处于恐惧、亏损、无助、迷茫期的兄弟们，观看后你会醍醐灌顶豁然开朗。

仅需30分钟你就能理解货币、经济、供需、投资周期的底层逻辑。

——此文无价，再次重发推荐，建议兄弟们收藏反复观看让你2026投资脱胎换骨。

[LokAIv @lokaiv]

@Crypto_He @bcgame 1。多个订阅数据错的离谱
2。列表里的排名和订阅量不一致
数据源是几秒钟让ai给的且没求证过吧