LSOracle

🚨 The banking cartel is in full panic mode. 🚨 While Americans were celebrating Mother’s Day with their families, the CEO of the American Bankers Association sent a frantic alert to every bank CEO in the country, demanding “immediate engagement” to lobby Senators and kill stablecoins that would finally let everyday Americans earn real yields on their own money. This line in the letter sticks out: “we believe committee members may not be fully aware of the risks to the economy by the stablecoin loophole.” That’s both intellectually dishonest and simultaneously demeaning. First, there is no “loophole.” This entire issue was litigated during the GENIUS Act debate. @BillHagertyTN worked tirelessly on this issue and this statement is an insult to his and others work. For decades, these banks have treated your deposits like their personal piggy bank, paying you next to nothing while lending YOUR money out for massive profits and executive bonuses. During the Biden era, these same banks worked hand-in-glove with @SenWarren and her allies to debank Americans, including President Trump’s own family. They shut down accounts of conservatives, patriots, and anyone who dared challenge the regime, all while regulators applied pressure under schemes like Operation Choke Point 2.0. It wasn’t about risk. It was about political control. Now that innovative stablecoins threaten to break their monopoly and give you actual financial freedom? They’re running to Congress again, screaming about “threats to economic growth and financial stability.” Translation: Protect the racket at all costs. The Senate Banking Committee votes on landmark crypto legislation this Thursday. As a member of that committee, my message is clear: Hands off the people’s money. Let Americans choose real competition and better returns. No more shielding Wall Street from the future. The banking elite’s days of rigging the system and debanking their political enemies are over. Innovation, freedom, and the American people will win. I’m voting to break the cartel.

I am so proud of the @CoinbaseDev team for this. AWS's platform for building and deploying agents at scale, AgentCore, now uses CDP Wallets and x402 to make payments. We're shipping the infrastructure layer for agentic finance. And it's coming to life, now.

Now AI agents on AWS can pay for services in USDC, settled on @base

x.com/i/article/2052…

The final verdict from @trueo_’s most contentious market has been delivered. The Jury voted for an outcome Reset. In other words, they ruled that it was too early to resolve the market. But there were some very interesting things about this dispute… For starters, both TRUE holders and Attesters voted against the Oracle Council’s initial decision. The Oracle Council voted 3-2 in favor of a YES outcome (I was among the YES voters). But TRUE holders and Attesters voted in supermajority support of the dispute. They deemed that the proposal came too early, and that Polymarket had not really released a “token” yet. Or did they? I personally voted YES as an oracle council member because I felt like the rules, though ambiguous, were satisfied as written when Polymarket released pUSD. I wasn’t happy about it, obviously it didn’t capture the essence of the market which was clearly meant to be about a potential network or governance token, but I voted YES nonetheless because I felt like the criteria in a literal sense was met when pUSD dropped. But TRUE holders and Attesters felt otherwise. They must have felt like the purpose of the market wasn’t satisfied even if the rules in a very rigid and literal sense were. I know the outcome might not be to everyone’s liking, and I know that some users would have preferred a YES outcome, but I do hope that they at least found some consolation in the process it self. Namely that the various arguments were aired, and that multiple desperate judgements came to pass on the dispute. In the future these contentious markets can be avoided with more precise resolution rules, but there is always some room for interpretation or some hidden ambiguity in the spectrum of possibilities. Getting these things right is very difficult, and ultimately, what I believe is more important than the outcome itself, is the process through which an outcome is derived. All this being said, there’s nothing stopping someone from proposing the same outcome again in hopes that TRUE holders have changed their minds, or that a different batch of Attesters gets selected who are more sympathetic to the resolution. Prediction markets are vey tricky specifically because of their subjective nature. But that’s also what makes them interesting! We still have much to improve on, and we learned a lot from this dispute, but hopefully we were able to prove that we take the concept of due process very seriously. Because at the end of the day, a prediction market is only as good as its oracle!