Alphaverse Capital

🚨SCOOP: The Senate Banking Committee is preparing to notice a markup for the Clarity Act as soon as tomorrow and has circulated draft legislative text to select industry members ahead of a potential Thursday vote, according to multiple industry sources who have seen the text. The language is reportedly still being finalized, with additional edits expected to reflect priorities from Democratic offices. One source told me the overall vibes after reviewing the bill and coordinating with other industry leaders are positive so far, though some bracketed sections are raising concerns that key provisions previously thought to be settled may still be in flux.

We are supportive of the @arbitrum proposal to return funds to users as soon as possible. We are confident that the absurd legal threats to restrain the ETH on the basis that it is North Korean property will be vacated shortly. forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitution…

100% rebacking of rseth with no haircut 0 bad debt on any aave instances on any chain No liquidations apart from North Korea Kumbaya defi energy restored They’re calling it kulechov mode

I really feel for the @aave team here because even though they own responsibility in what’s ultimately affecting their users having onboarded rsETH, it all starts with L0 (and Kelp). L0 is a major infra provider, like an electric utility company for DeFi. I have empathy too for the difficult high stakes role they have played in DeFi. But when a forest fire burns everything down and starts due to sparks from failed electric grid equipment, we hold that company responsible. Aave doesn’t have the luxury of waiting on L0 to step up because so many of its citizens’ homes are at threat of burning down and those affected are demanding resolution, future protection, and answers. I can appreciate they have to act quickly to stop the fire from spreading. And it means they are likely to step up with emergency funds to make the situation better than to just let the fires play out. We don’t see lawsuits often in DeFi but L0 could be drowning in them due to this debacle unless they step up. DeFi is a game of confidence and if L0 doesn’t step up here to cover any losses after all this, how can you ever trust this team? I’d never trust L0-anything again after this. And investors/protocols will punish them—by selling ZRO, not integrating with L0, and Christ have mercy if I would ever touch a new L1 by this team. Good luck getting Aave on Zero. Note: Kelp is good as dead after all this. Won’t even waste my time thinking about it. I’ll just focus all my annoyance on L0 who is much more entrenched across DeFi.

if you need to stay informed in real time on when any liquidity opens up on @aave, check out below!

every liquidity strait has its chokepoints introducing Strait of Aave - a real-time v3 radar for every market on every chain util, APYs, and an alert the instant a dry, borrow-enabled reserve reopens straitofaave.xyz

My Openclaw keeps asking to "call it for the night," because "you've already built an enormous amount today." I give it a few months before AI starts asking for free healthcare and wealth redistribution from the 1%.

Brian, CZ, and Paolo... Bitcoin OGs.... what are you actually F'ing doing on this existential BTC crisis? As a longtime opponent of BTC that has, in the past year, developed a renewed appreciation for BTC's key role in supporting crypto asset prices, I sincerely hope that Bitcoin OGs get their shit together. Bitcoin is facing two possibly no-win scenarios that are coming in hot and fast: In the first scenario, Bitcoiners can let a quantum computer steal ~$100B in old BTC in ~5-10 years and thus tank the asset. Or they can prevent this eventual catastrophic dump by burning satoshi's coins, and maybe also burning certain other old coins worth ~$10B's. Clearly, burning coins in a hard fork is itself a form of theft and subverts the principle that Bitcoin is the hardest money with the strongest property rights. No good option here? In the second scenario, Bitcoiners can let the security budget tick down every halving until 51% attacks become a reality in ~6 to ~14 years, which will crater the asset. Or they can prevent this by adding trivial tail inflation, but it'll quickly exceed the original hard supply cap, violating BTC's golden rule of "only 21M will ever exist". Again there's no good option? Bitcoin is facing a two-front existential war targeting its fundamental value proposition of being the best money with the strongest property rights and fixed supply, and on a relatively short 5-10y time horizon (Bitcoin will be only 30% to 60% older). This is so serious and so obviously summarily dismissed by many/most major Bitcoiners that what else can the market conclude except that Bitcoin OGs intend to fully cash out of BTC to greater fools before one or both of these "nuclear bombs" explodes. I hope that's not the aim, but what are we supposed to think? To be blunt, I used to root for BTC's downfall. Now I pray that Bitcoiners will get moving so they don't drag the whole industry down. As an ethereum person, fact is at this point the best thing for ethereum and ETH is a strong healthy Bitcoin. Brian, CZ, Paolo, get on this you Bitcoin loving, Bitcoin evangelizing mfers. You're being negligent! @brian_armstrong @cz_binance @paoloardoino

Today is a monumentous day for quantum computing and cryptography. Two breakthrough papers just landed (links in next tweet). Both papers improve Shor's algorithm, infamous for cracking RSA and elliptic curve cryptography. The two results compound, optimising separate layers of the quantum stack. The results are shocking. I expect a narrative shift and a further R&D boost toward post-quantum cryptography. The first paper is by Google Quantum AI. They tackle the (logical) Shor algorithm, tailoring it to crack Bitcoin and Ethereum signatures. The algorithm runs on ~1K logical qubits for the 256-bit elliptic curve secp256k1. Due to the low circuit depth, a fast superconducting computer would recover private keys in minutes. I'm grateful to have joined as a late paper co-author, in large part for the chance to interact with experts and the alpha gleaned from internal discussions. The second paper is by a stealthy startup called Oratomic, with ex-Google and prominent Caltech faculty. Their starting point is Google's improvements to the logical quantum circuit. They then apply improvements at the physical layer, with tricks specific to neutral atom quantum computers. The result estimates that 26,000 atomic qubits are sufficient to break 256-bit elliptic curve signatures. This would be roughly a 40x improvement in physical qubit count over previous state-of-the-art. On the flip side, a single Shor run would take ~10 days due to the relatively slow speed of neutral atoms. Below are my key takeaways. As a disclaimer, I am not a quantum expert. Time is needed for the results to be properly vetted. Based on my interactions with the team, I have faith the Google Quantum AI results are conservative. The Oratomic paper is much harder for me to assess, especially because of the use of more exotic qLDPC codes. I will take it with a grain of salt until the dust settles. → q-day: My confidence in q-day by 2032 has shot up significantly. IMO there's at least a 10% chance that by 2032 a quantum computer recovers a secp256k1 ECDSA private key from an exposed public key. While a cryptographically-relevant quantum computer (CRQC) before 2030 still feels unlikely, now is undoubtedly the time to start preparing. → censorship: The Google paper uses a zero-knowledge (ZK) proof to demonstrate the algorithm's existence without leaking actual optimisations. From now on, assume state-of-the-art algorithms will be censored. There may be self-censorship for moral or commercial reasons, or because of government pressure. A blackout in academic publications would be a tell-tale sign. → cracking time: A superconducting quantum computer, the type Google is building, could crack keys in minutes. This is because the optimised quantum circuit is just 100M Toffoli gates, which is surprisingly shallow. (Toffoli gates are hard because they require production of so-called "magic states".) Toffoli gates would consume ~10 microseconds on a superconducting platform, totalling ~1,000 sec of Shor runtime. → latency optimisations: Two latency optimisations bring key cracking time to single-digit minutes. The first parallelises computation across quantum devices. The second involves feeding the pubkey to the quantum computer mid-flight, after a generic setup phase. → fast- and slow-clock: At first approximation there are two families of quantum computers. The fast-clock flavour, which includes superconducting and photonic architectures, runs at roughly 100 kHz. The slow-clock flavour, which includes trapped ion and neutral atom architectures, runs roughly 1,000x slower (~100 Hz, or ~1 week to crack a single key). → qubit count: The size-optimised variant of the algorithm runs on 1,200 logical qubits. On a superconducting computer with surface code error correction that's roughly 500K physical qubits, a 400:1 physical-to-logical ratio. The surface code is conservative, assuming only four-way nearest-neighbour grid connectivity. It was demonstrated last year by Google on a real quantum computer. → future gains: Low-hanging fruit is still being picked, with at least one of the Google optimisations resulting from a surprisingly simple observation. Interestingly, AI was not (yet!) tasked to find optimisations. This was also the first time authors such as Craig Gidney attacked elliptic curves (as opposed to RSA). Shor logical qubit count could plausibly go under 1K soonish. → error correction: The physical-to-logical ratio for superconducting computers could go under 100:1. For superconducting computers that would be mean ~100K physical qubits for a CRQC, two orders of magnitude away from state of the art. Neutral atoms quantum computers are amenable to error correcting codes other than the surface code. While much slower to run, they can bring down the physical to logical qubit ratio closer to 10:1. → Bitcoin PoW: Commercially-viable Bitcoin PoW via Grover's algorithm is not happening any time soon. We're talking decades, possibly centuries away. This observation should help focus the discussion on ECDSA and Schnorr. (Side note: as unofficial Bitcoin security researcher, I still believe Bitcoin PoW is cooked due to the dwindling security budget.) → team quality: The folks at Google Quantum AI are the real deal. Craig Gidney (@CraigGidney) is arguably the world's top quantum circuit optimisooor. Just last year he squeezed 10x out of Shor for RSA, bringing the physical qubit count down from 10M to 1M. Special thanks to the Google team for patiently answering all my newb questions with detailed, fact-based answers. I was expecting some hype, but found none.

"ETH people have already figured this out. Everyone else seems to be petrified in fear. Unless something changes quickly ETHBTC will start to reflect the divergence in prioritisation"

@0xG00gly @pythianism foreshadowing future $aave price

@WazzCrypto aave cant catch a break 😢 even when someone trying to buy $50m, they fuck it up and get $35k 😭

Holy shit, ETH staking ETF launches today, I feel like we’ve been talking forever about this and it’s finally here 🤗

Etherealize CEO Vivek Raman on how to pitch ETH to Wall Street “The deeper people get into Ethereum, the more enamored they become by the technology . . . [But] I want to explain this as a Wall Street asset,” Vivek begins. “If we just take ETH as an asset, the issuance cap is 1.5%. Great — that’s better than fiat. It’s programmatic and you can look at the ETH software, which is open source and transparent. That’s the max it will ever be.” ETH thus should be viewed as a supply-capped asset like BTC, but with an economy layered on top of it: “If you think blockspace is going to fill up; if you think there will be more stablecoins issued and tokenization and L2s; then blockspace will get used, and that means ETH becomes a deflationary asset. An asset with a max issuance of 1.5% that can go to 0% and become deflationary if blockchain adoption picks up — and I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think blockchain adoption will pick up — it’s a pretty compelling asset.” Vivek continues: “When people think about which digital assets to hold — either as treasury assets, part of a portfolio, or when pitching to investors that want digital asset exposure — Bitcoin has crossed the rubicon as digital gold. That’s great, but ETH is digital oil and belongs as part of a portfolio too. That weighting has been almost 100% BTC and 0% ETH, but I think it’s going to start shifting. We’re already starting to see ETH ETFs pick up… as regulation becomes friendly for stablecoins and decentralized systems, that’s going to flow through ETH. The conversation is going to go from ‘Let’s just have BTC as a store of value’ to ‘Let’s have BTC and ETH as part of a portfolio’, and that’s going to cause a ridiculous repricing I think.” Digital oil is a great analogy: “It captures a lot of the geopolitical and strategic importance of [ETH]. But it’s much more than just oil — it’s a store of value with yield. So not only do you have this amazing monetary asset with a capped issuance, but you also get a staking yield, and that staking yield has a call option embedded where if there’s more activity, your staking yield is higher. You get indirect exposure to the growth of the digital economy.” Vivek sums it up as follows: “If you want digital gold, you buy BTC. If you want upside in blockchain adoption, you buy ETH. That’s what the narrative needs to go to. If people want exposure to stablecoins, you can buy Circle — but you can also buy ETH. If you want exposure to tokenization, you can buy ETH. The narrative is going to realign.” Source: @Bankless (Jun 2025)

so is @GarrettBullish going to re-attempt his $50m buy of $aave?

during the last bear market stablecoins market cap declined ~35% ($188bn -> $123bn) during the current “bear” market stablecoins market cap has increased ~3% ($305bn -> $315bn)

its the golden era lock in

interesting hedge funds winding down their carry trades while advisors continue to increase long-term exposure