Jonathan Galea

1.2K posts

Jonathan Galea banner
Jonathan Galea

Jonathan Galea

@ImpermanentGain

Lawyer who survived multiple winters, and lived to tell the tale. Partner at @CahillNXT (ofc, my views only here).

London Katılım Temmuz 2020
1.5K Takip Edilen1.3K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Jonathan Galea
Jonathan Galea@ImpermanentGain·
In January, we published a legal opinion for the @SkyEcosystem detailing arguments on why $DAI and $USDS can be admitted to trading by trading platforms in the EU. Today, we published a follow-up on how all other CASPs can continue offering their services for both. /1
Jonathan Galea tweet media
English
3
1
20
1.8K
Jonathan Galea
Jonathan Galea@ImpermanentGain·
Over the past 13 years, I have seen tens of self-proclaimed "Bitcoin killers" come, go, and fail. The current and future ones will be no different.
English
0
1
10
80
Balaji
Balaji@balajis·
Every AI agent ultimately has a human principal.
English
193
70
895
71.8K
Jonathan Galea
Jonathan Galea@ImpermanentGain·
Built* - haven't had my 2nd coffee yet
English
0
0
0
23
Jonathan Galea
Jonathan Galea@ImpermanentGain·
Genuinely excited for what will hopefully be a new era for crypto legislation in the U.S., but like with any new legal framework, it usually takes years for familiarity to build up. Fortunately, we've build a free tool for the industry to make the journey easier - check it out!
Lewis Cohen@NYcryptolawyer

1/ Yesterday’s bipartisan vote on the Clarity Act was a historic step forward. But digesting 309 pages of technical legislation – how’s that going to work!? To help everyone dig in, we developed in interactive map of Title 1: static.cahill.com/cahillnxt-clar…. Come play!

English
1
0
8
311
Samson Mow
Samson Mow@Excellion·
FYI I’m not in Vegas and also will be skipping as many conferences I can this year except for Lugano.
English
30
12
553
28.5K
Jonathan Galea
Jonathan Galea@ImpermanentGain·
Perhaps it's also inevitable as humans tend to gravitate towards centralisation for efficiency (e.g. direct democracy towards representative democracy). Anything with a centralised point of control can be, and usually is, impervious to true decentralisation. This is why the term "DeFi" is an anomaly.
English
0
0
1
67
_gabrielShapir0
_gabrielShapir0@lex_node·
what bothers me about Arbitrum funds confiscation is not that it was done (it had to be done under the circumstances), but that the circumstances enabling it--9 people controlling all money on a blockhain--are terrible and unsustainable, as well as being fundamentally uninteresting & not-useful from a financial systems and social evolution point of view the defenses I've heard as to why this is suddenly entirely compatible with and still counts "DeFi" and "decentralized" and "autonomous" and "a DAO" (and thus maybe even should be a permanent feature or at least not one we're in a hurry to sunset) are: (1) the DAO voted for these people & could remove them, and thus whatever they do counts as "decentralized" (2) the fact that these people have control of all money on Arbitrum by being able to do an upgrade at any time is permitted by the code, thus anything they do with that power is "code is law" there are a bunch of reasons why these arguments are dubious (for example, if the Security Council can simply remove all onchain powers of the DAO via an upgrade, thus the DAO is actually accountable to the Security Council rather than the other way around), but I thought a more principled reasoning would be good rather than taking potshots, so I revised the article to explain why, despite superficial appearances to the contrary, this confiscation action violates the three laws of DAObotics explained by Stan Larimer in the first article on DAOs (initially called DACs by him until Vitalik broadened the concept) I would love to see crypto people going back to building systems that are orders of magnitude better than (or at least different from) existing financial services, which means we trust code, algorithms and systems, and embed them with strong *intrinsic* due process protections, rather than deferring to small groups of elitist humans who think they are the best arbiters of justice and morality, as is done in tradfi (but worse, as at least there are some rules and accountability for these people in tradfi--in crypto there are nearly none) x.com/lex_node/statu…
_gabrielShapir0 tweet media_gabrielShapir0 tweet media_gabrielShapir0 tweet media_gabrielShapir0 tweet media
English
34
19
194
37.5K
Jonathan Galea
Jonathan Galea@ImpermanentGain·
@lex_node Agreed, although that also comes with a notably increased cost.
English
0
0
1
30
_gabrielShapir0
_gabrielShapir0@lex_node·
yes and no...if there were 100 truly independent verifiers they would have diverse setups and any given exploit would be harder regardless of whether setup is verified correct or not...this is illustrated even by this incident where one of the verifiers didn't succumb to the fraud but merely had downtime...
English
3
0
1
280
Jonathan Galea
Jonathan Galea@ImpermanentGain·
"the fix isn't multi-anything. the fix is that verifiers should attest to their own substrate, not just to chain state. until you can audit a DVN's upstream topology, which RPC providers, which client software, which clouds, which regions, "M-of-N secured" is marketing copy for a property that hasn't actually been built."
The Smart Ape 🔥@the_smart_ape

x.com/i/article/2046…

English
2
0
6
745
Jonathan Galea retweetledi
_gabrielShapir0
_gabrielShapir0@lex_node·
it's really not and anyone saying this is showing their true colors the failures from this tradfi/neobank wave of people building crypto stuff with zero real concept of or belief in why something should use crypto rails will be enormous and the ones that survive will be those that understood crypto ethos and how to fuse it with the real world meaningfully, which will come from people with 'crypto tenure' mostly
English
9
1
76
1.8K
Jonathan Galea
Jonathan Galea@ImpermanentGain·
@tayvano_ @z0r0zzz Tbf the current language is asserting straight away that the recipient is a scammer, and that alone could expose BlockAid to liability. At the very least, they should insert qualifying language such as "may be a scammer". No need to significantly change the warning.
English
1
0
1
48
Tay 💖
Tay 💖@tayvano_·
@z0r0zzz If it makes 5% more people click thru true positives, still fine?
English
2
0
0
123
ross.wei
ross.wei@z0r0zzz·
should I launch a DAICO to sue blockaid for libeling defi developers all the time -- and we share the proceeds?
ross.wei tweet mediaross.wei tweet media
English
12
1
51
11.1K
Jonathan Galea retweetledi
Adam Back
Adam Back@adam3us·
@JohnCarreyrou @AaronvanW I also don't know who satoshi is, and i think it is good for bitcoin that this is the case, as it helps bitcoin be viewed a new asset class, the mathematically scarce digital commodity.
English
87
108
1.5K
194.3K
senftinger
senftinger@JakeSenftinger·
@ImpermanentGain Replace all "protocols" with "narrow contributors in a fully decentralized an permissionless system with no joint liability whatsoever"
English
1
0
1
39
Jonathan Galea
Jonathan Galea@ImpermanentGain·
At the risk of sounding pedantic, one should keep in mind that "protocols" are incapable of taking actions. We should be refraining from conflating computer protocols with human actions, something of importance at least from a legal perspective.
Keone Hon@keoneHD

PROTOCOLS SHOULD USE DEDICATED COMPUTERS FOR MULTISIG OPERATIONS Many protocols are not doing this right now - if this is you, adjust with urgency An "everyday computer" is one that is used for browsing the internet, coding, running Claude Code, joining meetings, reading telegram, etc. A "dedicated signing computer" is one that has the bare minimum set of tools for preparing transactions, handing them off to a hardware wallet, and sending the signed version to the blockchain. It is not used for ANYTHING other than this. In the wake of any major hack, there are a variety of storylines and contributing factors. The Drift hack had many contributing storylines, but in my opinion the single most important action item for other teams (and one which currently many teams deviate from) is - use dedicated signing computers. Why? Because everyday computers can easily be compromised. (The Drift hack featured several interesting examples of how an everyday computer got compromised, and we hear about others on a nearly daily basis.) When a computer is compromised, hackers have full control and can make anything appear to be true. The rest of the multisig procedure (e.g. verifying that a particular set of instructions produces a particular hash) becomes unreliable, since the computer from which you are viewing the operation is no longer a reliable narrator. When you plug a hardware wallet into a compromised computer and proceed to sign, all bets are off. The hacker can present a malicious payload to the device, causing you to sign what the hacker wants. DeFi Protocol teams have a massive checklist of items to harden their security. (Two great checklists are linked in the next thread.) But the checklist can be overwhelming, and it is important to prioritize. If your team is using everyday computers for signing, make it a priority to switch to dedicated devices asap. We'll have more to say shortly on how the Monad Foundation is encouraging teams to adopt this practice.

English
1
0
3
174