Luka.eth 🛡️

Important roadmap update ! $eth #ethereum #cryptocurrecy

I am once again begging DeFi to not fuck it all up. All so fucking busy playing blame game and "im more right than you!" Sit down. Shut the actual fuck up. No one is perfect. Mistakes were made. BY EVERYONE. Mistakes are ACTIVELY BEING MADE BY EVERYONE ELSE. Go fix your shit. YOUR shit. NOW. If you can't do this, the lawyers (*ALL* of them) will win. And they absolutely deserve to win and take all your stupid fucking money. Yes, that will mean that the actual people harmed here don't get money back. Lawsuits and bickering here will NOT recover $ to victims. Seriously. Stop being fucking goddamn morons. Please.

As a final nod of appreciation to @SenThomTillis and @Sen_Alsobrooks on their efforts to find a compromise, I want to point out just how dishonest the bank trades are in their latest analysis of the yield issue, even in these waning hours. Their joint press release complaining about the new language [1] mentions research that "demonstrates that yield-earning stablecoins could reduce all consumer, small-business, and farm loans by one-fifth or more, making it essential for the prohibition to be clear and transparent." That "research" is a post in Open Banker by Andrew Nigrinis [2] which summarizes the paper he wrote on this issue [3]. The analysis in both is rather troubling, bordering on dishonest. In the post, Nigrinis stated that any yield related to stablecoins could "siphon trillions of dollars from deposits." The word siphon is a link to a Reuters story about a Standard Chartered analysis that stablecoins could "..suck $1 trillion from EM banks in next three years." [4] The emphasis is mine, because StanChart is talking about emerging market banks, not American community banks. It's right there in the headline! The article even mentions specific countries like Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Kenya. Nigrinis' conflation of the two is deceptive. If anything, stablecoins competing with offshore bank deposits will increase domestic deposits, as I argued in my response to the OCC on proposed rules for GENIUS. [5] Next, Nigrinis references "The U.S. Treasury’s April 2025 report." But as we all know, there is no such report. Instead what he links to is the Treasury Advisory Committee "thought experiment" [6], which was a private sector document (partially written by bank execs) that lacked rigor. Lastly, he cites an influential paper on CBDCs by Whited et al (one that I also mentioned in my comment letter). His reference doesn't mention the fact that this paper is. talking about a central bank digital currency, a far more radical product than a stablecoin. He quotes their analysis that $1 going into a CBDC may result in a loss of 80 cents in bank deposits, but leaves out their belief bank lending would only fall by only a quarter as much. He also ignores the overall thrust of the paper, which is that banks can still adapt in such a (radical, unlikely) world if there is a loosening of regs and capital requirements, both of which are happening independent of CLARITY. Sometimes, all you need to know when deciding who should win a debate is how badly one side is willing to ruin its own credibility to get its way. The bank trade group arguments on this issue were always rather swampy. At this point you could smell the rot. [1] bpi.com/banking-trades… [2] openbanker.beehiiv.com/p/stablecoinsh… [3] papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… [4] reuters.com/business/finan… [5] regulations.gov/comment/OCC-20… [6] home.treasury.gov/system/files/2…

You are ignoring the elephant in the room LayerZero Labs’ centralized infrastructure was infiltrated by North Korea, which resulted in a $292 million bridge exploit How did this massive security failure, which occurred on your infrastructure, take place exactly? Rather than throwing Kelp under the bus, again, maybe you can address some of these points: 1. How exactly did North Korea (DPRK) gain access to your core node & RPC servers on your supposedly hardened infrastructure? What was their initial access? 2. How did your endpoint detection (EDR) and cloud monitoring not detect this intrusion? Were these not running in these critical systems? 3. How long did the DPRK have persistence on the LayerZero infrastructure without being detected? 4. What other systems, data, code, and internal sensitive customer information did they access? If they were on your cloud infra, it stands to reason they also had access to your internal tools (GDrive, Email, Slack, etc). 5. Will you or LayerZero Labs take responsibility for these security failures or has your legal counsel advised you not to comment to avoid accepting liability?

We've raised $2.2B in committed capital to invest in the next generation of crypto. Announcing Crypto Fund 5

Haven’t met anyone working less after adopting the AI.

if you still own LEND, Aave labs decided to raise unexpectedly a proposal to AIP stage. You have 5 days to migrate or you will lose your ability to do it and hold worthless tokens. While I supported working on this in the past, doing it overnight in a whole different context of ownership of the DAO is clearly not something I support. We're talking about 30m$ worth of tokens at current market price. here's the migration contact: etherscan.io/address/0x3176…

🚨NEW: Joint statement from @SenThomTillis and @Sen_Alsobrooks on the stablecoin yield compromise amid pushback from banking trades, signaling the deal is likely final. "…we respectfully agree to disagree."

🚨🗞️NEW: Stablecoin Yield Deal Clears Path for Clarity Act Markup — What’s Next? A key provision on software developers under Section 1960 is awaiting sign-off from Sen. @ChuckGrassley as the Clarity Act heads into final touch ups before markup. ⬇️ cryptoinamerica.com/p/stablecoin-y…

Aave LLC has filed an emergency motion to vacate a restraining notice served on Arbitrum DAO on May 1, 2026 that attempts to seize approximately $71 million in ETH belonging to victims of the April 18 exploit. A thief does not gain lawful ownership of stolen property simply by taking it, and the law is clear on this. Those assets were recovered to be returned to users victimized in the April 18, 2026 exploit. Freezing them harms the very people this recovery effort is designed to protect. We’ve asked the court for an expedited hearing and a temporary vacatur, and we are continuing to work alongside the Arbitrum community and DeFi United to make affected users whole.

Here's a reality check on @ethena I've been covering this protocol since early days. If you hold ENA or use sUSDe, this is something you need to see👇 ➥ The Ethena we all bought: ➢ Delta-neutral synthetic dollar (short crypto perps against spot) ➢ Earn funding rates ➢ Pass yield to sUSDe holders ➢ Protocol takes a cut At the peak that model generated $151M in a single quarter and sUSDe yielded 27% where the protocol kept $10.18M. Take rate was 6.74% ➥ The Ethena that exists today: ➢ 93% of USDe backing was delta-neutral at the start of 2025. Now it's 11% ➢ Crypto funding rates compressed and the engine stopped ➢ sUSDe yield dropped to 3.20% The protocol pivoted to institutional lending and RWA allocations to keep any yield flowing at all changing the product. ➥ Here's the income statement that tells us everything: ‣ Q1 2026 had $65M gross revenue while the protocol earnings were $655K ‣ Q2 2026 is tracking $20.26M gross with $370K in earnings so far ‣ Annualized fees of $193M. What the protocol actually keeps is $3.99M (that's a 2% take rate) ‣ Monthly revenue of $327K with a mcap of $889M. We're holding a token at ~320x its actual earnings The fee switch won't fix this as the activation conditions were met when USDe supply was above $6B with peak revenue. Supply is $3.9B now and revenue has collapsed. Activating it today means taking yield away from sUSDe holders already earning less than Sky's sUSDS. Every basis point redirected to ENA stakers makes USDe less competitive against the one rival it can't afford to lose to. The catalyst everyone is waiting for is trapped in a paradox where activating it makes the underlying product worse. ➥ Here's what still works👇 1. Their $62.45M reserve fund held through every BIG crisis of Bybit hack, 10/10 depeg, rsETH exploit 2. Collateralization at 101.2% 3. USDe as a stablecoin product is sound 4. If you hold sUSDe purely for yield the product delivers what it promises. Whether 3.72% justifies the risk compared to simpler options is the question you need to answer for yourself. ➥ What could change everything? Ethena is expanding delta-neutral into commodities and equities through HIP-3 on Hyperliquid via HyENA. Gold funding rates on Binance averaged 24.6% in March 2026 while crypto sat near zero. If commodity delta-neutral works ⭢ the yield premium returns ⭢ sUSDe becomes competitive again ⭢ the take rate has room to grow The fee switch math that fails at 3.72% yield might work at 15-20%. HIP-3 OI grew from $70M to $1.43B in 6 months. HyENA already uses USDe as collateral. The infrastructure exists but Ethena has never executed delta-neutral on commodity/equity markets so this is a test for it. Also beyond HIP-3, the pipeline is aggressive: ‣ Converge chain with Securitize targeting institutional settlement ‣ iUSDe wrapping sUSDe for regulated capital backed by Franklin Templeton and Fidelity ‣ Stablecoin-as-a-Service whitelabeling USDe for other ecosystems These need to generate protocol revenue over a period of time to prove the models work and the post needs to be judged on what exists today, not what's planned. ➥ Here are the three numbers to watch before making any decision👇 1. sUSDe vs sUSDS. The moment sUSDe consistently beats Sky's yield again is when depositor demand returns (rn it's losing) 2. Take rate needs to be recovered. There is slight recovery but needs to sustain above 3-4% before protocol earnings matter at this valuation (Q3 2025: 6.74% | Q4 2025: 0.48% | Q1 2026: 1.01% | Q2 so far: 1.80%) 3. HyENA commodity volume. If gold and equity perps start generating real funding rate revenue for USDe backing, the thesis changes entirely (track it weekly) The protocol and neither the model is dead or broken but the version of Ethena that justified an $889M mcap doesn't exist right now. What exists is a fee passthrough machine earning $327K a month betting that commodity delta-neutral will restart the engine that crypto funding rates turned off. That bet might pay off. If you hold $ENA today, make sure you understand you're holding a transition, not a proven model. The proven model ended in Q3 2025. NOTE: NFA. Use this information for educational purposes only and not any financial decisions. Thankyou. h/t to @DefiLlama @EntropyAdvisors for the data

@williamlegate @usePolyArb Be careful @williamlegate PolyArb is a fake prediction market product that has a wallet drainer on the site. You replying to them gives them reach for new potential victims.

@CogniCarbon Did you do @foundmyfitness ?

I built a tool that ranks health influencers by how well their claims match 150,000 research papers. Here's the leaderboard. Will post more results soon!

What’s funny is people forget @AshCrypto (AshWSB) ran a similar pump & dump schemes for illiquid alt tokens on CEXs Example: -Ash made a call for ROYA -Few hours later posted “Who the f is selling like this” -Said “We are holding 100% of our roya + buying more here.” -Meanwhile Ash had been the one dumping tokens on his followers from a wallet he had shared to send payments for his paid group etherscan.io/token/0x7eaf9c…

$COIN only says this crap after they got their conditional banking charter approved. Pretty sad to see the entire industry get sold out under this administration. Enjoy your .05% checking account interest while traditional banks profit a 4% spread shafting every day US retail. Had hopes we’d actually see some positive change.

If it isn't already clear, it'll become much clearer in the coming years that $ETH is at a point where we've solved some of the hardest problems around censorship resistance, decentralization, permissionless compute, and lindy. The next phase is going to be about scaling and bringing activity back to L1. I think people are underestimating how quickly fees can be brought down, whereas many other chains are going to hit the problem of maintaining performance while trying to meet some of the core properties that make blockchains special.

A fact I feel like almost nobody knows: Ethereum's gas limit will be increased to ~200M after Glamsterdam, a huge increase from the 60M we have today. That’s a 3x+ of L1 execution capacity, with expectation of further doubling soons after that. Assuming no similar increase in demand, fees could stay near zero for years. This is the result of several innovations coming together at the right time: ePBS gives payloads more time, BALs let clients prefetch/parallelize execution work, and gas repricings make higher limits safe.

hate to be that guy but where is LayerZero here?

Clarity Act is now poised to accelerate the “Bretton Woods 3.0” framework that I’ve talked about. The yield “ban” is cosmetic & simply something for banks to tout as a victory. It bans stablecoins from paying you interest for just holding them: the way a savings account does. But it explicitly allows stablecoins to pay you rewards for using them: buying things, lending, providing liquidity, participating in any program.. Now consider that those rewards can be calculated based on how much you hold & for how long. I think that’s what we just call interest, but it will now be rebranded under a new name. So, the implications: - The fact that there is now a carve-out for stablecoin yield will accelerate the Bretton Woods 3.0 system. If the ban had been real (no yield in any form) there’s no reason for anyone to hold stablecoins over a bank account. Stablecoin adoption would flatline (especially in Developed Markets) & Bessent’s $3.7T target would be hard to achieve. This carve out keeps the incentive to hold stablecoins, which keeps the growth flywheel spinning. - CBDCs can’t compete. No central bank would design its digital currency to pay activity based rewards calculated by balance & duration (too close to monetary policy). However, dollar stablecoins can. So in every market where a CBDC competes against a $ stablecoin, the dollar product is economically superior. The Clarity Act now guarantees that advantage persists. - The dollar now goes global without permission. The new text allows platforms to pay incentives for payments, remittances, & settlement activity using stablecoins. That’s a subsidy for global dollar adoption funded by private companies (not taxpayers). Meanwhile, increasing Treasury demand in the background. For example, a Filipino worker now gets a rebate for sending remittances in USDC. There’s an additional incentive for him to now transact in stablecoins, which, unbeknownst to him, purchases American debt behind the scenes. A win-win for global stablecoin users & the American economy (fiscal situation). The compromise looks like a ban. But it’s actually a growth mandate. As I’ve stated, the US government needs stablecoins to scale because it needs someone to buy its debt. Bretton Woods 3.0

@ImperiumPaper CT needs to form a DAO that legally harasses them.