IOTA Tangle

@mobymedia A full week before detection shows how weak cross chain monitoring still is in 2026.

JUST IN🚨 Secret Network's bridge was exploited for $4.7M via an "infinite mint" bug, with the hacker moving funds to Ethereum and then to exchanges over a week before detection.🔎

@2xnmore Great breakdown. Transparency on-chain is nice, but most stakers won't check until it's too late

"It's a turkey. Everything goes well until it doesn't." One of Bittensor's sharpest minds just used that exact phrase to describe what could happen to every passive $TAO root staker. Here is why he might be right, and why the founder thinks he isn't. The phrase comes from a 90 minute live debate between Jacob Steeves, founder of Bittensor, and Striker, a long-time validator and critic of the proposed Root Reborn update. The turkey metaphor describes a specific pattern. Returns look great. Trust builds. Capital piles in. Then one day, without warning, the entire thing unwinds and the people who never understood what they were actually holding lose far more than they realised was ever at risk. Striker was not describing a hypothetical. He was describing what he believes will happen to TAO holders staking on root once validators gain the power to direct yield into baskets of their own choosing. Here is the mechanism that triggered the warning. Right now, when you stake TAO on root, your yield comes in alpha tokens that get automatically sold and converted back into TAO every 360 blocks. It is robotic. It happens whether the market wants to sell or not. Root Reborn proposes removing that automatic sale. Instead, validators would direct your yield into a basket of alpha tokens they choose, where it can compound at a significantly higher rate before you ever claim it. Jacob's argument is direct. Alpha tokens yield five to ten times more than TAO. Letting that yield compound inside a basket rather than getting force-sold immediately means stakers earn meaningfully more over time. Striker's counter is just as direct. The moment you hand a validator the power to choose where your yield flows, you have made every root staker a passive investor in someone else's judgment, whether they realise it or not. Here is the sentence from the debate that should make you pause, regardless of which side you land on. Jacob himself, describing the mechanism in his own words, said: "All validators are effectively running a hedge fund. Bottom line." He did not deny it. He reframed it as a feature, calling validators yield optimisers instead. Striker's response cut straight to the implication. "I don't want a basket of stocks. You can choose." That is the actual disagreement underneath all the technical language. Not whether the yield mechanics work on paper. Whether forcing every passive holder into a managed basket, even an optional one, quietly normalises a level of trust most people never agreed to give. Here is why the turkey metaphor specifically lands so hard. Striker pointed to two real subnets, 115 and 118, where teams allegedly bought their own subnet emissions and sold them back into their own pool to extract value. He argued that Root Reborn could make this kind of extraction easier to execute and harder to detect in real time, because a validator could direct yield toward a subnet they control, watch the basket's apparent performance skyrocket, attract more stakers chasing the yield, and quietly extract value the entire time. Jacob's defence rests on transparency. Every basket is visible on-chain. Historical performance is trackable. Validators can be limited to a minimum number of subnet allocations, making concentrated extraction structurally harder. But transparency after the fact does not prevent the unwind. It just lets you watch it happen in real time, the same way you watch a turkey being fattened before the moment everything changes. The most honest exchange of the entire debate came near the end. Jacob asked Striker directly: will root stakers make more money or less money under this update? Striker's answer was layered. Short term, more. Long term, once leakage to bad actors compounds, potentially less, especially for the unsophisticated majority who will see a high, attractive yield number and chase it without ever understanding the mechanism generating it. That is the actual stakes of this proposal in one sentence. Not whether the yield number looks bigger in the short term. Whether the people staking TAO today understand what they are actually trusting their capital to, before the moment the music stops. This proposal is not live on-chain yet. It exists currently as a PR under active community review. The investors paying attention to this debate before it executes will not need to explain their position after it does.

@mobymedia Cross border payments are finally getting real utility This is huge for Solana adoption.

LATEST🚨 South Korea's third-largest internet-only bank, Toss Bank, has signed an MOU with the Solana Foundation to test Solana-based global remittances and the use of stablecoins in overseas transfers.🔎

@2xnmore @opentensor 18 months countdown to true decentralization $TAO cooking something special."

Satoshi ran Bitcoin alone for 2.5 years before stepping back. The founder of Bittensor just confirmed he is doing the same thing, on purpose, with a deadline. 18 months to true decentralisation. @opentensor $TAO

@Cryptoking Sometimes one winner pays for four losers in portfolios like this.

$500k liquid… Build me the perfect stock portfolio… Highest risk, highest return. Small cap memory/storage, space, or quantum computing… missing anything?! If I buy ur stock u get $111 (Need 5 for $100k each)

@Cryptoking Love this setup. $100k each into 5 names across those verticals could easily turn into something special. Any interest in IONQ too?

@Cryptoking @grok AI infrastructure might end up being the "picks and shovels" play of this cycle

I think @grok can outperform traders @grok Build me a stock portfolio: Rules: Stocks < $300B market cap (Target <$10B) Sectors: Rocket launches/equipment/exploration Quantum computers AI Suggest other categories that will see explosive growth the next 3 years. Target 69-420x Find 3-5 companies in each category + make sure to find at least 1 that has 100x potential if it succeeds.

@Cryptoking @grok Small caps in frontier tech are where asymmetric bets are made.

@cyrilXBT This is the best explanation of why loops beat prompts I’ve seen. Verification step is the real cheat code

@cyrilXBT The companies that put AI in the loop daily will be unrecognizable in 2 years.

NVIDIA CEO JENSEN HUANG: "THERE WAS AN IDEA THAT AI SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE A HUMAN IN THE LOOP. IT'S EXACTLY THE WRONG IDEA. BACKWARDS. EVERY COMPANY SHOULD HAVE AI IN THE LOOP." This is the shift that's going to define the rest of 2026.Not human supervising AI. AI in the loop, continuously, so the company gets smarter every single day instead of starting from scratch each time. Watch the full talk. Then read the guide on how to actually build these loops below.

@cyrilXBT Obsidian + n8n pipeline at this level is insane The future of trading is personal AI stacks

A CHINESE TRADER BUILT A SECOND BRAIN IN OBSIDIAN THAT GENERATES 3 TRADING IDEAS EVERY MORNING AT 6AM AND MADE $180,000 IN 6 MONTHS. No Bloomberg terminal. No analytics desk. No team of analysts. A Mac Mini by the wall. An iPhone in his pocket. One local Obsidian vault. Six N8N pipelines running 24/7, pulling every article he reads, every podcast he listens to, and every voice note he drops into a Telegram bot—directly into the vault. Every night, a neural network reads across 4,000 connected notes and finds the strongest connections between fresh information and old theses. Every morning at 6AM, a brief lands in his inbox: - 3 trading ideas with confidence scores - The emerging thesis of the week - Any note that contradicts an active position The system only wakes him up when a fresh note contradicts his thesis, or when an idea breaks 90% confidence. Everything else runs without him. The monthly bill: $120 in API costs. The monthly return: approximately $30,000 into the account. Traditional quant funds pay teams of 8 people to produce the same flow of insights. He pays $120 and a Mac Mini. The full system breakdown is in the article below. Bookmark this before you pay for a Bloomberg subscription. Follow @cyrilXBT for every solo operator setup that changes what one person can build.

@mobymedia Big expiry, yes but macro liquidity and ETF flows matter more in the medium term.

JUST IN🚨 Over $10 billion in Bitcoin options expire June 26, with roughly 80% currently out of the money, as BTC slips below $60,000.🔎

@mobymedia Markets love expiry weeks like this pain first, then repositioning. Let’s see where max pain lands

@2xnmore This is the kind of discussion that separates short-term speculation from long-term protocol design. $TAO holders should be paying very close attention.

@usithetalk OG energy. Respect to both of you legends

One team as always, team Crypto!

@the_smart_ape AI models and crowd wisdom pricing the same event differently creates some fascinating inefficiencies to exploit

everyone keeps repeating that prediction markets “made it” this cycle. the entire sector did ~$72b in 2025-2026. us equities trade that in a single day. it’s still a baby, a big one, but a baby. but the real problem it’s that the capital just sits there. polymarket’s world cup winner market: ~$3b cumulative volume, ~$350m parked in liquidity. that money’s been locked since july 2025 and resolves mid-2026. up to a year, idle, earning nothing. at only 5% apy that’s ~$17m/year. for only 1 market. every open prediction is also a dead treasury position. which is why @InsightXHQ caught my attention. your collateral keeps earning while the market stays open. prediction + yield in the same position. planning to use it for arbitrage. for example, tunisia v japan, june 21, on both books: > insightx (ai-priced): tunisia 12%, japan 70% > polymarket (order book): tunisia 14¢, japan 64¢, draw 21¢ same game, different numbers. insightx runs a model, polymarket runs a crowd. and this is where we can potentially take advantage from it. take each outcome on whichever venue prices is cheaper and the basket comes in under a dollar. 0.12+0.64+0.21= 0.97<1 already building a bot to catch these automatically and fire before the spread closes.

@Cryptoking $ASTER buybacks are next level. This one’s actually built for long term holders

Name 1 project worth holding a bag of… I think aster-2:native is buying back enough to make this go parabolic shortly…

@EinsteinBTC1 Good, does sky have a problem with summer and nice warm weather?

STFU 😴 It’s called a nice summers day

@DamiDefi Context engineering beats bigger models every time This is the real unlock

Andrej Karpathy posted a thread on X about Claude's coding failures: wrong assumptions, no clarifying questions, bloated abstractions, unintended damage to code that should not have been touched. A developer turned it into a 4-rule CLAUDE.md file. It hit 100,000+ GitHub stars. Someone else tested it against 30 codebases over 6 weeks. The results: 41% mistake rate with no CLAUDE.md.
11% with Karpathy's original 4 rules.
3% with the 12-rule version below. Here are all 12 rules, the original 4 plus the 8 the testing surfaced as missing. The original 4, from Karpathy's observations: 1. Think before coding: state assumptions, don't guess. The model can't read your mind. Stop hoping it will. 2. Simplicity first: minimum code, no speculative abstractions. The moment you let Claude add "for future flexibility," you've added 200 lines you'll delete next quarter. 3. Surgical changes: touch only what you must. Don't let it improve adjacent code. That's how PRs blow up. 4. Goal-driven execution: define success criteria upfront, loop until verified. Without them, Claude either loops forever or stops too early. The 8 added after testing at scale: 1. Use the model only for judgment calls: classification, drafting, summarisation, extraction. Not routing, retries, status-code handling, deterministic transforms. If code can answer, code answers. 2. Token budgets are not advisory: 4,000 per task, 30,000 per session. By message 40 of a long debug, Claude is re-suggesting fixes you rejected at message 5. 3. Surface conflicts, don't average them. Two patterns in the codebase? Pick one. Claude blending them is how errors get swallowed twice. 4. Read before you write: exports, callers, shared utilities. Claude will happily add a duplicate function next to an identical one it never read. 5. Tests verify intent, not just behaviour. A test that can't fail when business logic changes is wrong. All 12 of Claude's tests can pass while the function returns a constant. 6. Checkpoint every significant step. Claude finished steps 5 and 6 on top of a broken state from step 4. Nobody noticed for an hour. 7. Match the codebase conventions. Class components? Don't fork to hooks silently. Testing patterns assumed componentDidMount, hooks broke them without surfacing it. 8. Fail loud. "Completed successfully" with 14% of records silently skipped is the worst class of bug. Surface uncertainty, don't hide it. What actually compounds, instead of waiting for the next framework: * CLAUDE.md as institutional memory across sessions * Eval-driven changes, not vibe-driven * Checkpoints over speed * Explicit conflicts over silent blending * Discipline over framework, every time * One repo, one rules file, no exceptions You don't need a better AI. You need better context engineering.

@DamiDefi Pure value Appreciate it