Carl Hua

1/ Unpopular Opinion: EVM is Fundamentally Flawed in Its Current Form! Or should I say the execution environments hosting the EVM are fundamentally flawed. The fatal flaw is that no matter how well-tested the smart contracts are, they still aren't safe enough.

Mercury is the best bank we have used so far - especially its "perks" feature. I literally just go to @mercury perks before signing up for any SaaS at this point - and usually there is a 3 digit credit partnership with one of the service providers.

if you think you’re safe because you hold HYPE, remember in 2022 people felt the same about sol and it went from $260 to $8 hyperliquid is just another flavor of the month cause perp dexes are hot right now, don’t mistake it for a bluechip in a year maybe nobody cares anymore

If xAI properly implements its X search API with Grok, their traction will increase 10 fold minimum @elonmusk , this is under monetized and under engineered.

Can anyone enlighten me, If Openai obfuscates CoT tokens, and make it encrypted. Why should we pay for it? This is not a technical question. If I am paying for your CoT tokens, you need to let me see them.

@petergostev Are you running this at 256k context?

GPT-5.5 is MUCH more reliable on longer running tasks - for the first time with any model. As we speak I have a migration running for over 7+ hours - this literally never happened before, the models would maybe run for 30 mins or of you really shout at them for 2-3 hours. Last night I went to sleep, set a long running task, then queued up 10 prompts to 'keep it going'. It did not stop after the first prompt and kept going for 8+ hours and I woke up to all the same prompts still queued up. The ability to run for a long time, in combination with ability to validate with computer use & other tools, makes it much more useful for building real applications.

deploy your strategies and trading logic directly on exchange, in real-time and privately makes the latency race a thing of the past and introduces a new era of trading this is @SynchronicityHQ

@kirbyongeo @nativemarkets depending on your size, >10K takes longer.

@carlhua @nativemarkets 15 MINS?!? I must be doing something wrong then jeez

@kirbyongeo @nativemarkets brother, something is not right here. cant stand the long offramp - usually USDH takes 15 min to land in my bank. you are doing it wrong /s

NGL @nativemarkets is now my fav on/off ramp Off-ramped $USDH straight to IBKR for the first time. 12:33PM UTC: Send $USDH to address on HyperEVM 2:03PM UTC: Received USD in IBKR All in all it took sub-10 minutes to set up. Once done with set-up it was just one transaction to off-ramp. Crazy

I analyzed the hack end to end. My (opinionated) conclusion first: 60% LayerZero's fault, 30% KelpDAO, 10% Aave. BUT THE MISSING PARTY: 0% allocated but 100% of the structural failure is the Ethereum execution environment itself. LayerZero: DVN compromise. The RPC infra was theirs, the failover logic was their design, and the mutable binaries were on their hosts. The monitoring was also theirs. They also allowed KelpDAO to run a 1/1 config. "We told you not to do it" is not an excuse. Incentives here are not aligned. LayerZero wants protocols to use the service; they don't care as much about the risk because the cost lands on someone else. KelpDAO: They were warned. LayerZero's integration checklist explicitly recommends multi-DVN. They had options. They chose the cheapest, simplest config for a >$1.5B escrow. That's negligent. Aave: Accepted rsETH as collateral because rsETH had high TVL, without doing much due diligence on the upstream bridge configuration. My honest take? KelpDAO and Aave simply lacked the expertise to truly assess the risk here. If they come out and say "we knew the risk," then they are admitting negligence, so they won't. Here is the reality though: I actually do NOT blame KelpDAO or Aave. The expertise required to understand this risk is far beyond any typical DeFi application developer. BUT GUESS WHAT, I ACTUALLY THINK THE BIGGEST OFFENDER HERE IS ETHEREUM ITSELF. Hear me out. People saying Aave should have "limit" checks and all that, this is all patchwork that doesn't work well. Today there is no way in Ethereum to perform security checks at the execution environment level, what I call "kernel guards." The EVM is a toy VM as it currently stands and should not be tasked to handle the TVL that Ethereum has. I posted about this back in 2024, @VitalikButerin if by chance you read this, pay attention to it plz. What we lack here is something very structural that even operating systems 30 years old already have. The philosophy is simple: you don't depend on the application itself to prevent hacks. You need the kernel to do the work. In the case of this hack, if kernel guards existed, the execution environment could have easily caught the large bridge outflow and the large deposit, pausing them based on hooks registered by Aave, LayerZero, or KelpDAO, or even chain-level defaults. This is far more structural than what people are saying. Anyway, my frustration is clear, and I won't waste time going into further details here. If anyone is interested, you can read my pinned post.| and before you decide to shit on my opinion, my software is running on Mars, Europa and the sky, with precisely 0 mission failure.

@ImLukeF did you ever solve this?

Codex is laggy as hell again, takes like 5 seconds just to send the message and several seconds to change chats. it was great before the updte

@resendedefi @gumsays @solana @kamino this literally just happened today.

@gumsays @solana @kamino Kamino and Jupiter multiply plays are looking really interesting. I’m running some positions on both. But it’s important to keep an eye on it, yields can drop pretty fast or even go to zero. If PYUSD borrow APY > USDG supply APY, you’re in negative yield.

NO ONE WANTS TO USE DEFI FOR A 3% APY Well, does a 30% APY on STABLES in the safest DeFi protocol on Solana interest you then? Go to Multiply page, supply PYUSD or USDG and choose your leverage. What is the risk? If PYUSD borrow rate is bigger than the USDG supply yield, your position slowly moves towards liquidation threshold This does not mean your position gets liquidated, it would need to stay there for some time. If you monitor it closely you can easily exit or let their auto deleveraging mechanism work for you.

reforge q1 2026 overview >5,054 companies/projects across private markets (fintech, ai, robotics, frontier tech) sourced through Ava >3,051 proceeded to deeper diligence and Ava's research stack produced an in-depth memo >202 teams received an email or DM from us; that's a 6% conversion from the prior diligence phase >20 of those were discussed at two or more ICs >2 investments made tldr: Top of funnel is healthy by quantity - more teams than ever building but quality is just not there; there's a lot of noise accompanying very little signal. Makes sense given the vibe coding craze and software commoditizing. So just because we decided not to participate in superfluous twitter discourse around fundraising in crypto or have our name put on a spreadsheet does not mean we are not extremely active. To us, the investable subset of opportunities is just extremely small. note 1: This does not include our inbound stats; that said, we execute a outbound-heavy strategy note 2: 3,051 -> 202 includes filtering out projects that may be too out-of-scope for us (robotics, frontier tech, etc.) but if there are signals that indicate a co could be generational, we'll still include in our pipeline reminder: Reforge is not just a "crypto vc". We are a venture capital and technology firm investing across the financial system value chain with a very broad mandate Some insights: Consensus is rising around core primitives but very few teams are actually solving the hard problems. the most crowded sectors are what you'd imagine and we’ve found difficult to build conviction in their long term sustainability: - x402/agentic payments/agent commerce rails - prediction markets: terminals, aggregators, wrappers - stablecoins/payments/neobanks - ai trading agents/execution wrappers Where we felt differentiation specifically in finance/crypto: - market-structure, risk-transfer, liquidity, and margin primitives - credit, settlement, and post-trade infrastructure - software-native markets with novel agent-workflow infrastructure (no wrappers!) With Ava, we have more data than ever on early-stage private markets across multiple sectors, predominately ai and finance. If you have any questions or are curious to learn more about what we’re seeing, just let us know

@rileybrown better:

If you want to use Claude Opus 4.7 in the codex app

This is amazing first step, I am a big supporter here. a few comments: 1. The flow to off ramp is USDC->deposit address, then another account needs to deposit into the withdrawl address. I understand the goal of USDH is to have users adopt USDH, but this offramp flow is nuanced. Perhaps charging a min fee and streamline one step offramp from USDC->fiat? 2. I tried a big deposit, and the confirmation time is currently > 1 hour. not a great UX

This morning we launched our zero-fee on & offramp. Users can now go directly from their bank or brokerage to Hyperliquid. No need for a centralized exchange. Try it out at dashboard.usdh.com

@nativemarkets gave it a try, ~18K deposit, waiting more than 30 minutes is not a good UX. smaller deposit worked well.

also shady practice - told me i would get a 500 dollar gift card if i took a call. then ghosted me for 2 weeks. and finally told me i need to send them my brex statements to qualify. also their sales call is 1/10 - try to learn from the pain point of customers vs aimlessly describing your features that everyone else has had it for the past 48 months.

the ramp sales reps are schizomaxxing

@Pranit OpenAI's 20x is probably 20X of Claude's 20x, so its fair.

OpenAI didn’t launch a new tier. They launched an upsell funnel. Plus users were paying $20 with Codex included. Now OpenAI is “rebalancing” that usage (read: reducing it) and introducing a $100/mo tier with 10x Codex access through May 31. The timing isn’t a coincidence. You reduce what people get at $20 at the exact moment you offer 10x at $100. The gap between the two tiers does the selling for you. At the end of May, the 10x drops to 5x. But by then you’ve already upgraded and $100/mo is just what you pay now. Anthropic did the same thing with Claude. Limits quietly got worse, then a temporary 2x off-peak promo showed up to ease the sting. Every AI subscription is subsidized at a loss. This is what the correction looks like: not a price hike, just a slow squeeze until the next tier up feels inevitable.

Is anyone building a memory layer similar to how human brain works? You activate different parts of the chain and traverse through the hot spots and all that?

@antirez This matches with my experience. I also caught Opus lying excessively with the progress during a complex task. Not hallucination, buy knowingly lying. Did you experience this as well?

During the last week I executed very long autonomous sessions of Claude Code Opus 4.6 and Codex GPT 5.4 (both at max thinking budget), in cloned directories (refreshed every time one was behind). I burned a lot of (flat rate, my OSS free account + my PRO account) of tokens...

@BillAckman @X She needs to pay for what she has done. Agree 100%

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?