0xlide

勿論、いつもの堅実な利回りでの運用あってのですが。

Claude Codeで即実装/検証/実践の時代だからこそ、的を絞っていく

的確な課題設定も優先度もAIに…

軽い鬱状態でこれがのしかかってきてる

@0xLide 無限再帰ヘッジ♾️

Polymarket USD

The $DRV Era🫡

It appears @Scroll_ZKP transaction costs jumped massively as @Ether_Fi began their migration to Optimism. Total txn fees from EtherFi based products used to total $250 daily and have since jumped to roughly $16k a day Scroll's single sequencer began reporting inflated L1 gas prices to the L2 oracle contract with values significantly higher than actual Ethereum L1 conditions at around ~09:00 UTC on March 31st Is this the first example of a single sequencer being manipulated in what appears to be a potentially malicious manner?

hibaUSD is live, powered by @ShiftProtocol_ Earn yield + points. Capped at $250K, deposit before its too late! x.com/ShiftProtocol_…

昨日発表した次世代Ethereumクライアント「Verity」について開発者にインタビューしました。 形式検証、量子耐性移行、新規クライアントに関して話しました。 youtu.be/VhQ3HL0X0Gk?si…

Have you traded @xStocksFi on Tydro yet? Swaps are live on Tydro via @CoWSwap. Phase 2: Borrow & lend against your XStocks soon Phase 3: TBA 😏

I had an interesting discussion about the quantum threat to crypto at dinner last night so I thought I outline some key arguments that I think have been missing from the public debate: The Google paper on quantum attacks against elliptic curve crypto is important. But the market reaction in crypto has been a classic category error: people saw a lower resource estimate and translated it into a near-term hardware reality. Those are not the same thing. What the paper really shows is that the algorithmic side of the attack has improved. The circuit got tighter. The estimate got leaner. That matters. But a more efficient algorithm does not magically summon the machine required to run it. This is where the qubit gap matters, and where a lot of the panic starts to look sloppy. When people hear “qubits,” they tend to imagine a single linear race: 100 qubits, 1,000 qubits, 1 million qubits. But for an attack on Bitcoin-style elliptic curve cryptography, the relevant unit is not raw physical qubits sitting on a chip. It is fault-tolerant logical qubits running a very deep circuit, with stable error correction, fast classical decoding, high-throughput magic state distillation, and clock speeds that can actually finish the computation in a useful attack window. That is a very different machine. The gap is not just from 100 to 1,000. It is from today’s noisy, early-stage systems to a full-stack cryptanalytic factory. You do not get there by scaling a demo. You get there by solving several brutal engineering problems simultaneously: physical error rates, correction overhead, decoder latency, control systems, routing, factory throughput, and the ability to sustain tens of millions of reliable logical operations without the whole computation collapsing under its own entropy. That is why the phrase “Google says Bitcoin is vulnerable” is directionally true but temporally misleading. Yes, a cryptanalytically relevant quantum computer would be a real threat. Yes, the industry should migrate well before that machine exists. But the existence of a better estimate does not imply the existence of the hardware. The paper narrows the software gap. The hardware gap remains enormous. And that hardware gap is not just about qubit count. It is about quality and speed. A slow architecture with a lot of qubits is not automatically dangerous if its gate times and correction cycles are too sluggish to complete the attack in the narrow time budget that matters for on-spend scenarios. A machine with the wrong latency profile is like owning a massive datacenter wired together with dial-up. Impressive on paper. Useless for the job. So the sober takeaway is this: the paper is a migration memo, not a doomsday memo. Crypto should absolutely prepare for a post-quantum world. Wallet design, address reuse, signature schemes, migration paths, protocol coordination—these are serious problems. But the leap from “resource estimates are improving” to “Bitcoin is about to be broken” skips the hardest part of the story. Quantum threat is real. Quantum imminence is not. The right posture is neither denial nor panic. It is engineering: acknowledge the progress, understand the qubit gap, and start upgrading the system before the hardware catches up.

A person I trust commented that sometimes it is important not to ignore weird propaganda, no matter how silly it seems. So, just a thought, which is highly possibly my last on the topic. Maintenance & incremental updates are not (only) what BGD was doing for 4 years in Aave. However, those tasks were very fulfilling work, way more important than people think, and for anybody looking around, a big reason of success in mature products. To be a bit more blunt: the cemetery is full of good initial ideas not well taken care of after. I would argue that indirectly trying to diminish that role precisely now on Aave, is very very far from a good idea.

It’s been a real privilege working alongside Kasper to bring Euler into its next phase. A clear, honest assessment of what worked and what didn’t is non-negotiable as we move forward. Euler’s core architecture and protocol design proved sound, but the lessons learned are just as important and are directly informing how we build from here. Euler V2 remains the most flexible and tested vault infrastructure capable of supporting lending markets across a wide range of structures, with the level of control required by professional risk curators and institutional participants. From here, the focus is straightforward — build the best lending infrastructure onchain. That means materially advancing curator tooling, user experience, the underlying technical foundation and much more. We’re executing against that vision now. More to share soon.

RWA perpetuals are one of the fastest growing segments in tokenised assets. Six months ago they were 0.1% of all onchain derivatives volume. In March they hit 10.1%. Hyperliquid's HIP-3 between October and March: > Weekday avg daily volume: $43M → $2.8B (+6,500%) > Weekend avg daily volume: $28M → $662M (+2,260%) > Weekend/weekday ratio holding steady at 18-23% since December At current growth rates, we expect RWA perps to account for half of all onchain derivatives volume by 2028. We cover this and more in our new report with @Securitize, out tomorrow.

My working theory is its about 1/3 each: 1. It won't happen to me (trust me, it will) 2. Slightly worse UX for users (the worst UX is losing customer money) 3. Seen as "not permissionless" (totally false)

Tanken USDCさんもResolvでくらってるのか

Farm the bes yields with Secure Decentralized Stablecoin🫡

いいものを構築してるチームはいるので、そういうのを見逃さず楽しんでいきたい

ハッキングだの、詐欺だの、PJ閉鎖だの、冬もゆくとこまできたな