Peter

In a sudden turn of events, US 12-month inflation expectations have surged to 5.2%, the highest level since March 2023. In just 3 weeks, markets have gone from pricing-in rate cuts to rate hikes.

EF, last year: Hey, we want to listen to you users to make Ethereum better. EF, now: Jk, we looked at the real world. We don't like building for it after all, we'll go back to building cypherpunk stuff only. This is the EF going back to its old ways, undoing the changes from last year. I have feared this would happen because Vitalik clearly wasn't in with his heart. But whatever they say about the "ecosystem" being able to take care of this, the fundamental problems remain: - there are very few voices in ACD caring about real world Ethereum usage - there is nobody doing Ethereum BD (everyone else who is doing this also has their own separate interests)

Hey everyone — we’re aware of the large swap transaction circulating on X. Based on what we’ve seen so far, there’s no indication of a protocol exploit or otherwise malicious behavior. The transaction executed according to the parameters of the signed order. Our interface shows clear price impact warnings for swaps of this magnitude, as does Aave’s. We’re continuing to review the details and will share updates as we learn more.

Earlier today, a user attempted to buy AAVE using $50M USDT through the Aave interface. Given the unusually large size of the single order, the Aave interface, like most trading interfaces, warned the user about extraordinary slippage and required confirmation via a checkbox. The user confirmed the warning on their mobile device and proceeded with the swap, accepting the high slippage, which ultimately resulted in receiving only 324 AAVE in return. The transaction could not be moved forward without the user explicitly accepting the risk through the confirmation checkbox. The CoW Swap routers functioned as intended, and the integration followed standard industry practices. However, while the user was able to proceed with the swap, the final outcome was clearly far from optimal. Events like this do occur in DeFi, but the scale of this transaction was significantly larger than what is typically seen in the space. We sympathize with the user and will try to make a contact with the user and we will return $600K in fees collected from the transaction. The key takeaway is that while DeFi should remain open and permissionless, allowing users to perform transactions freely, there are additional guardrails the industry can build to better protect users. Our team will be investigating ways to improve these safeguards going forward.

The question is why did the solver route through a Sushi pool with $73k liquidity when there's $7MM of liquidity on Uniswap? Of course neither pool can support a $50MM swap but surely the latter should be preferred

Jamie Dimon says stablecoin issuers paying interest should be regulated as banks

Y'all don't understand how crazy this glitch was back in the day

BREAKING: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards, per Axios