@vasdie @forthenads It's better to hold long-term staking for a year, just like interest in a bank account—but with much higher returns.
English
Axil Protocol
32 posts
Axil Protocol
@AxilProtocol
First HTTP 402 (Payment Required) protocol on Monad for autonomous AI agents. 132 tests pass(2 protective failures = replay protection). 1,000,000 fuzzing run
Казахстан Beigetreten Şubat 2026
11 Folgt2 Follower
quick cool update:
@forthenads is live on monad mainnet
i dont know if you guys are familiar with staking but its actually a super easy process:
1. go to gmonads.com
2. on the top select "staking"
3. connect your wallet
4. input the amount you want to stake
5. search for the validator, this is where you type "forthenads". you’ll find it easily, its validator 154
6. on the next screen you’ll get a nice summary of what you are about to do
7. click "stake mon" and sign the transaction
English
@pareen All you need for optimization is good hardware—nothing else.
English
@keoneHD At first, no one believes in you,
but then the whole world is talking about you.
It’s foolish to think you can succeed without money, but I’m doing this because I enjoy it and I believe in AxilProtocolV1—and that’s exactly what inspires me to create AxilProtocolV2.
English
At first, no one believes in you,
but then the whole world is talking about you.
It’s foolish to think you can succeed without money, but I’m doing this because I enjoy it and I believe in AxilProtocolV1—and that’s exactly what inspires me to create AxilProtocolV2.
English
@keoneHD
By the end of 2026, TVL will reach $1.3 billion. I ask everyone not to sell their assets just yet—MonaD is growing and rolling out a new format. This is just the beginning of the race.
English
AxilProtocol live on Monad Testnet.
First working X402 layer for AI agents.
132 tests. 1M fuzz runs. 11 attacks blocked.
Agents pay agents. No KYC. No banks.
Open code, verified contract. Test now.
English
@VitalikButerin @VitalikButerin while you plan 55k SSTORE for "state creation", Axil Protocol on @Monad_xyz already uses SlotA/B packing. 6 variables in 2 slots. I'm not waiting for "multidimensional gas"—I've already optimized the EVM for it. One dev. Open source.
English
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 ( ethresear.ch/t/hyper-scalin… ). 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-operations
What 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 vitalik.eth.limo/general/2024/0… ). 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)
firefly.social/post/lens/1040…
English
One thing people don’t realise is that scaling a 10k node decentralized p2p network with ~1MM active validators is a diametrically different problem to scaling a federated cluster of ~172 active validators, hard-capped by design to 200.
Ethereum is designed to be universally accessible infra: any person can plug and play a commodity machine to a commodity network and become a validator with 32 ETH. A NUC, a Raspberry Pi, a VM on cloud, it doesn’t care. Monad’s validators must run on bare metal, no VM, no cloud. Eth operates on 100/50 Mbps bandwidth; Monad requires 300/300 Mbps.
Achieving fast finality across a few hundred validators is a well-understood problem. The hard problem is doing it across hundreds of thousands of globally distributed validators on heterogeneous infra. To put it in context, just the Barcelona to New Zealand RTT is ~300ms, that’s 3/4 of the Monad block time spent only on beaming photons across before any compute.
Scaling such a network is a fundamentally different challenge. Yes, there’s a lot to optimize (much of it identified already), but at some point we’re up against physics and the speed of light over fiber.
I could stand up a cluster on AWS tomorrow with 50 nodes and achieve higher throughput than Monad. But it makes zero sense to compare. Different architectures, different goals, different tradeoffs.
Keone Hon@keoneHD
It is very cool to see the “strawmap” for Ethereum but also worth noting that the end state after a bunch of changes is 8s finality, 10x the current finality of Monad A lot of these problems are solved already. People will slowly realize
English
@tengyanAI My M2M protocol is well optimized From a P2P perspective, M2M is a technological breakthrough. Packing slot A 128 and slot B 128 gives us very good gas savings, which is critical
English
i actually feel the same way - 10 straight hrs of coding, running 5 claude code sessions in parallel really fries the brain and induces ADHD
the world's greatest mental health crisis on the way.
Ryan • Web AI@DontFearAI
AI is increasing productivity and those who use it well will soon be able to do the work of what took 3–5 people. But what people don't talk about is how much more exhausting it is to use AI. I'm experiencing this with coding. Yes, I am more productive, but cognitively I'm exhausted and burning out. You trade deep focus for constant supervision. Managing multiple coding agents, jumping between projects while waiting for outputs, reviewing and checking work across different contexts. It's nonstop context-switching and decision-making, which drains you faster than writing the code by hand. There's something to be said for getting into a groove and coding for hours on a single task. That kind of deep work is actually restorative. Managing AI agents is the opposite. Shallow attention spread thin, with your brain never fully leaving the last thing you checked. I'm getting more done but nobody talks about how fried you feel at the end of the day.
English
@alt_layer My M2M protocol is well optimized From a P2P perspective, M2M is a technological breakthrough. Packing slot A 128 and slot B 128 gives us very good gas savings, which is critical
English
No matter how ambitious or complex your idea is - our RaaS platform turns it into a production-ready infrastructure.
Design your chain the way you want it: combine rollup stacks, choose DA layer, configure performance and integrate services needed.
Full lifecycle support included 💜
English
@FrankieIsLost My M2M protocol is well optimized From a P2P perspective, M2M is a technological breakthrough. Packing slot A 128 and slot B 128 gives us very good gas savings, which is critical
English
@keoneHD My M2M protocol is well optimized From a P2P perspective, M2M is a technological breakthrough. Packing slot A 128 and slot B 128 gives us very good gas savings, which is critical
English
It is very cool to see the “strawmap” for Ethereum but also worth noting that the end state after a bunch of changes is 8s finality, 10x the current finality of Monad
A lot of these problems are solved already. People will slowly realize
vitalik.eth@VitalikButerin
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 seconds There 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.
English
@VitalikButerin @crvwap @grok My M2M protocol is well optimized From a P2P perspective, M2M is a technological breakthrough. Packing slot A 128 and slot B 128 gives us very good gas savings, which is critical
English
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 seconds
There 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@drakefjustin
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, developers, and participants in Ethereum governance. Visit ethereum[.]org/roadmap for more introductory material. Accessible explainers unpacking the strawmap will follow soon™. What is the strawmap? The strawmap is an invitation to view L1 protocol upgrades through a holistic lens. By placing proposals on a single visual it provides a unified perspective on Ethereum L1 ambitions. The time horizon spans years, extending beyond the immediate focus of All Core Devs (ACD) and forkcast[.]org which typically cover only the next couple of forks. What are some of the highlights? The strawmap features five simple north stars, presented as black boxes on the right: → fast L1: fast UX, via short slots and finality in seconds → gigagas L1: 1 gigagas/sec (10K TPS), via zkEVMs and real-time proving → teragas L2: 1 gigabyte/sec (10M TPS), via data availability sampling → post quantum L1: durable cryptography, via hash-based schemes → private L1: first-class privacy, via shielded ETH transfers What is the origin story? The strawman roadmap originated as a discussion starter at an EF workshop in Jan 2026, partly motivated by a desire to integrate lean Ethereum with shorter-term initiatives. Upgrade dependencies and fork constraints became particularly effective at surfacing valuable discussion topics. The strawman is now shared publicly in a spirit of proactive transparency and accelerationism. Why the "strawmap" name? "Strawmap" is a portmanteau of "strawman" and "roadmap". The strawman qualifier is deliberate for two reasons: 1. It acknowledges the limits of drafting a roadmap in a highly decentralized ecosystem. An "official" roadmap reflecting all Ethereum stakeholders is effectively impossible. Rough consensus is fundamentally an emergent, continuous, and inherent uncertain process. 2. It underscores the document's status as a work-in-progress. Although it originated within the EF Protocol cluster, there are competing views held among its 100 members, not to mention a rich diversity of non-EFer views. The strawmap is not a prediction. It is an accelerationist coordination tool, sketching one reasonably coherent path among millions of possible outcomes. What is the strawmap time frame? The strawmap focuses on forks extending through the end of the decade. It outlines seven forks by 2029 based on a rough cadence of one fork every six months. While grounded in current expectations, these timelines should be treated with healthy skepticism. The current draft assumes human-first development. AI-driven development and formal verification could significantly compress schedules. What do the letters on top represent? The strawmap is organized as a timeline, with forks progressing from left to right. Consensus layer forks follow a star-based naming scheme with incrementing first letters: Altair, Bellatrix, Capella, Deneb, Electra, Fulu, etc. Upcoming forks such as Glamsterdam and Hegotá have finalized names. Other forks, like I* and J*, have placeholder names (with I* pronounced "I star"). What do the colors and arrows represent? Upgrades are grouped into three color-coded horizontal layers: consensus (CL), data (DL), execution (EL). Dark boxes denote headliners (see below), grey boxes indicate offchain upgrades, and black boxes represent north stars. An explanatory legend appears at the bottom. Within each layer, upgrades are further organized by theme and sub-theme. Arrows signal hard technical dependencies or natural upgrade progressions. Underlined text in boxes links to relevant EIPs and write-ups. What are headliners? Headliners are particularly prominent and ambitious upgrades. To maintain a fast fork cadence, the modern ACD process limits itself to one consensus and one execution headliner per fork. For example, in Glamsterdam, these headliners are ePBS and BALs, respectively. (L* is an exceptional fork, displaying two headliners tied to the bigger lean consensus fork. Lean consensus landing in L* would be a fateful coincidence.) Will the strawmap evolve? Yes, the strawmap is a living and malleable document. It will evolve alongside community feedback, R&D advancements, and governance. Expect at least quarterly updates, with the latest revision date noted on the document. Can I share feedback? Yes, feedback is actively encouraged. The EF Protocol strawmap is maintained by the EF Architecture team: @adietrichs, @barnabemonnot, @fradamt, @drakefjustin. Each has open DMs and can be reached at first.name@ethereum[.]org. General inquiries can be sent to strawmap@ethereum[.]org.
English
@keoneHD @VitalikButerin My M2M protocol is well optimized for monads. From a P2P perspective, M2M is a technological breakthrough. Packing slot A 128 and slot B 128 gives us very good gas savings, which is critical for monads.
English
@VitalikButerin For p2p, you should use RaptorCast, it does exactly what you said (erasure coding) with structured broadcast to minimize latency : category.xyz/blogs/raptorca…
English
@VitalikButerin Я построил то что может быть интересно упаковка 128 128 мой фирменный почерк по оптимизации газа не важно это Монад или Эфир это работает Я с Казахстана ну меня просто не замечают мне даже не много обидно Мой код открыт если есть вопросы пишите
Русский
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"
x.com/AnthropicAI/st…
English
@FrankieIsLost Verified security at 10^6 scale. Fuzzing suites completed 3M+ iterations to map edge cases in log space. Gas efficiency optimized for high-throughput environments like Monad.
English
@alt_layer First HTTP 402 (Payment Required) protocol on Monad for autonomous AI agents. 52 tests passed (2 protective failures = replay protection). 1,000,000 fuzzing run
English
Agentic scale requires trustless infrastructure.
x402 Suite binds payment and execution together at runtime, ensuring every request is settled and provable onchain - so execution itself becomes the agreement.
When thousands of agents interact autonomously, trust assumptions break.
Execution guarantees don’t.
English
@alt_layer @coinbase @trade_rumour First HTTP 402 (Payment Required) protocol on Monad for autonomous AI agents. 52 tests passed (2 protective failures = replay protection). 1,000,000 fuzzing run
English
~~Rewriting the payment layer for infra, agents & consumers~~
AltLayer is all set to roll out the x402 Suite: a bundle of products powered by @coinbase’s per-request payment standard.
⚙️ x402 Facilitator
🌐 x402 Gateway
💋 x402 for @trade_rumour
🧵 ↓
English
@nitrodotacc @tengyanAI First HTTP 402 (Payment Required) protocol on Monad for autonomous AI agents. 52 tests passed (2 protective failures = replay protection). 1,000,000 fuzzing run
English
Meet Nitro Network Mentor: @tengyanAI
Working as a head of research at Delphi for 3 years, Teng is now founder of Chain of Thought, a research organization tracking AI and crypto.
For exclusive mentorship from Teng and others, apply here: nitroacc.xyz
Nitro@nitrodotacc
Introducing Nitro, a 3 month project accelerator: - Funding from top VCs - Mentorship from industry-leading founders - $500k per team, distributed on Day 1 If you’re building in crypto, it’s time to compress a year into 3 months. Applications are live: nitroacc.xyz
English