Butler and the Third Stringers

>head of X product drops “solana advisor” from bio >CT magically reunited from a single algo tweak >everyone returns to their roots Don’t need a tinfoil hat to connect these dots 🤷

" ethereum:native is money. Everything else is credit" -JP Morgan (probably)

@mewwts @ethereum Already am 😎

We have to get people excited about building on @ethereum again

@materkel believe in somETHing

@DanDeFiEd I’ll let you know tomorrow 😉

many of you asked for USDC collateral for cash secured puts on eth mainnet so devs shipped it what asset should we add next?

you must believe you are special and then go so hard, for so long, with such violent refusal to accept any other ending, that reality itself starts running out of ways to tell you no. you must wage a war daily against the ordinary outcome, until the belief you invented out of nothing in a room by yourself has been hammered into the world so many times that it stops being a claim and becomes reality.

🚨 Active supply chain attack on AsyncAPI. Five malicious @​asyncapi packages were published to npm today, shipped through the project's own GitHub Actions trusted publishing pipeline after an attacker poisoned a commit on the next branch. Affected versions: @asyncapi/generator@3.3.1 @asyncapi/generator-helpers@1.1.1 @asyncapi/generator-components@0.7.1 @asyncapi/specs@6.11.2 @asyncapi/specs@6.11.2-alpha.1 The first three were published within a six-second window at 07:10 UTC. AsyncAPI tooling runs on developer machines and CI runners, so the implant executes directly in build environments. Socket AI Scanner flagged all five releases as confirmed malware. This is a multi-stage botnet loader: • On load, an obfuscated implant spawns a detached, hidden Node.js child process • The child downloads an 8.25 MB encrypted payload (sync.js) from IPFS into a fake "NodeJS" data directory on Windows, macOS, or Linux • HKDF-SHA256 key derivation and AES-256-GCM decryption unpack the final stage • That final stage is Miasma, a 3.09 MB command framework with REST-based C2 plus fallback channels over Nostr, IPFS, Ethereum RPC, and BitTorrent DHT • 12 command types, including ShellExec, file get/put/delete, payload updates, and self-destruct • Persists on Linux via a systemd user service (miasma-monitor.service) The campaign config is labeled "miasma-train-p1" and contains dormant modules for PyPI, RubyGems, and Cargo. npm appears to be phase one. If you installed any affected version, treat the host as potentially compromised. Check for detached Node.js processes with ignored stdio, connections to 85[.]137[.]53[.]71, fake NodeJS directories, and the miasma-monitor service. Pin to known-good versions and audit lockfiles before your next install. Full analysis: socket.dev/blog/asyncapi-… Developing story...

stop

Building anything decentralized in 2026, is an insane uphill battle. You’re constantly compared to centralized alternatives that are 1000x more well resourced. You have to work way harder to reproduce a thing that’s easy to do in a centralized way. The cost is significantly higher. The simplest contract change requires a new round of audits. In a centralized system, that same change is quick overnight tweak to the code running on a local server. Users don’t appreciate it until it’s too late. And even when they’re reminded why it matters, they forget quickly after cuz they have goldfish memory. There’s no longer a value premium for doing anything in a decentralized way, and often there’s a discount applied. It just takes a lot of commitment to stick by decentralization in 2026. If you’re building something that optimizes for decentralization in this era, you’re in a unique crowd. A minority. Ppl will crack jokes about you on X. They’ll discourage you. They’ll dismiss you. They’ll say you shouldn’t exist because the centralized options are sufficient. You need real heart and determination to build for decentralization in 2026. But if you can weather through it and stay committed, eventually ppl will appreciate what you built. They’ll be grateful because this industry derives its purpose from the values of decentralization. Every so often, the crowd returns to it its roots. And when they do, you’ll gey your recognition. It ain’t much, but it’s honest work.

Love it, hate it, but ethereum:native is going to trillions.

⚡️NEW: CAMBRIDGE DATA CONFIRMS ETHEREUM'S POWER DEMAND HAS COLLAPSED 99.9% SINCE THE MERGE Data from new Cambridge study confirms that Ethereum's annual energy consumption has dropped to just 7.87 GWh following the transition to proof-of-stake, slashing the network's power usage by over 99.9%. The dramatic reduction in energy demand is expected to strengthen Ethereum's appeal among institutions and investors focused on ESG standards.

@llamaonthebrink 🤝

I refuse to accept this self inflicted ridicule. Ethereum is literally our last hope. At this point if you’re against Ethereum you’re against crypto. War-time Millie.

You can literally buy $1 for less than 2 cents right now 👀 ethereum:native

there are 4 core narratives in crypto right now: -perps -stablecoins -prediction markets -tokenized equities - ethereum is capturing a serious share of the perp market through lighter L2 and that share looks set to grow - ethereum mainnet currently holds 50% of all stablecoins - when it comes to prediction markets, there isn't a single chain that can even compete with ethereum right now (polygon = evm = ethereum) (thank you for your attention to this matter) - on tokenized equities it's clear that ethereum will be the leader through robinhood L2. especially when you consider that 99.69% of tokenized stock volume on solana is wash volume on top of all this, memecoins which will genuinely onboard retail that has never touched crypto are organically starting to run on robinhood l2 if you aren’t bullish on ethereum:native while it literally holds every single major narrative in its hands, you are strictly choosing to stay poor $10,000

@0x_Mist 4 seems hand-wavey. From my vantage point the KYC, compliance, and fiat-crypto integration are hurdles that limit entrants by itself. For the ones that can bypass that I suppose it’s all the same, but there will probably be more than one winner. What is an atom in this context?

Just chatted with an A-tier founder who built a crypto neobank to solid retention and real volume, and still decided to shut it down and pivot. His two-year takeaway on why crypto neobanks don't work: 1/ Incumbents going downstream. Deel used to be where you received money and sent it to your bank. Now it's a full neobank: virtual accounts, cards, tokenized stocks soon. Revolut is going all-in on stables and opening charters in emerging markets. 2/ Unit economics never close. Everyone rents the same providers, so margins are identical and the only weapon left is cashback, a subsidy war you can't win without a war chest. Meanwhile he estimates most stablecoin "volume" is fraud + KYC mules, which blows up compliance costs for everyone. 3/ The prize is shrinking. The target user is the emerging-market freelancer... right as AI guts Upwork/Fiverr and white-collar offshore work gets pulled back onshore. 4/ The real lesson: with AI, anyone can one-shot a neobank in a week. If everybody can build it, it's worth nothing. He kept ~$1M of runway and is going where software can't be copy-pasted: physical infrastructure. Unless there's an amazing distribution advantage, think: Mr. Beast's Neobank, it simply is too easy to replicate. Fintech wrappers are dead. Atoms are the new moat.

Provenance is still a moat. Censorship resistance is still a moat. Privacy-compatible is still a moat. Only one asset on planet earth possesses all three of those things while being programmable. The ticker is ethereum:native

One thing I find striking in the discourse between AI 2040 and its detractors is that the two seem to be locked in to totally incompatible worldviews of how fast and how much of a big deal AI progress is: * In AI 2040, every scenario sees superintelligence of some kind emerging by 2040, unless a herculean effort is made to completely stop it * Detractors say things like "AI 2040 is naive about human coordination ability and a threat to freedom", but don't seem to see any naivety in assuming that the ASI transition will just go well by default, don't seem to see ASI itself as a massive power concentrator risk, and don't seem to feel fear of humanity's "hard power" dropping to zero if ASIs can do literally every task better than we can. This stance makes total sense in a "AI is normal technology" world, zero sense in a world where superintelligence is possible by 2030 and almost guaranteed by 2040 I think my beliefs are: - If I was confident that (present-day-style) AI is normal technology, I would be in the detractor camp - If I was confident that superintelligence is coming in 2030 by default, I would be closer to the AI 2040 camp - it's naive, but every other option is naive squared? But my problem is that I feel great uncertainty and have no idea which of the two worlds (or some other third thing) we're living in? Hence why I continue to be open-minded about slowdowns/pauses, but also I feel very uncomfortable with the "open source bad, the good outcome is the one where our guys have controlling global dominance" push coming from some major AI companies and intellectuals - in a "normal" world that's the sort of thing that triggers every political alarm bell at the same time. A big reason why I have been advocating and trying my best to support the d/acc platform (rapid up-skilling in formal verification, cryptography, secure and open hardware, pandemic resistance and other defensive biotech, food and basic resource security, public epistemics, non-power-concentrating versions of physical security) is that these things are clearly worth doing in both worlds. The 2040 plan is already much more open source friendly (even mandating it! yay). It also includes "mutually assured compute destruction" ideas which (if they work) effectively give one of 2-5 actors the ability to trigger a global compute winter - as opposed to giving 1-5 actors the ability to selectively disenfranchise people they consider baddies while exempting themselves. This is also a big improvement. So I can see the earnest attempts to improve along the dimensions detractors criticize on ("does this concentrate power in big AI labs and superpower governments?"), and I appreciate this. I think many people don't appreciate enough the differences between different "kinds" of pause buttons, and how some concentrate power far more than others. Probably we can think harder and improve even more here. But on the "slowdown/pause or not" topic, there isn't a magic "escape the tradeoff" button. The Hansonian in me says: the winning deal is a deal which, from the perspective of both sides' present-day beliefs and knowledge, both sides would accept, though for different reasons. If the crux is AI progress speed, then identify a set of pre-agreed triggers for "okay, serious shit is happening" [super-pandemics? >25% unemployment? something involving slaughterbots?], and pre-agree that we become much more open-minded to the slowdown or pause thing if enough triggers come to pass within some timeframe. 2040 detractors (who clearly implicitly think that we'll see amazing speedup of progress from AI but think that what I call the "serious shit" category is overhyped) will accept expecting that the triggers don't come to pass, and AI worriers will accept expecting that they will. Pre-agreeing on the specific triggers means that once the triggers either hit or don't hit, there is stronger legitimacy around the idea that one side's worldview turned out more correct and we should be more inclined toward their program. If I were @elonmusk (or zuck, or...) I would re-tool twitter much more heavily into being a platform for helping to identify and make these kinds of grand win-win deals, so that we can bypass big-country governments and big-company CEOs and big nonprofit intellectuals and give more people a voice in the discussion. It's possibly one of the best things that social media _could_ do for humanity if it wanted to. But again, maybe this is also naive. Actually, probably it's naive. But currently, I see zero plans for how to deal with an ASI transition that are not naive. Perhaps humanity is stuck with a choice between naive and naive squared (or maybe even naive squared and naive cubed), so I feel inclined to cut some slack to people who are trying.

🔥 NOW: Robinhood Chain flips Hyperliquid in 24-hour Dex volume, per DefiLlama data. Robinhood Chain: $433.19M Hyperliquid: $296.23M

Robinhood 7 days old and yesterday bought ~1 GB of blob data from eth L1. Slowly then suddenly. We're in the middle of "slowly"