ME Devs

🚨 Meta Earth DevConnect Japan – 3 Days Countdown! Only 3 days left until Tokyo! Join us at Meta Earth DevConnect Japan during WebX 2026! Host: Meta Earth Co-Host: Teratomo Strategic Partners: @yuru_coin × @MetaCarbon_Mist × @Altlierco × @EchobitExchange Strategic Media Partners: @ChainCatcher_ × @RootDataCrypto × @CoinAnk Key Highlights: ✨ First look at Meta Earth’s major future ecosystem announcements ✨ Rollup deployment opportunities ✨ High-level networking with top VCs & partners (premium wine & cocktails) ✨ Mini Game + Lucky Draw (Download ME Pass for USDT rewards & surprises) 🗓 Date: July 13 (Mon) 18:30–21:30 JST 📍 Location: Tokyo, Japan Secure your spot now! 👇 luma.com/3nps0t41 #MetaEarth #DevConnectJapan #WebX2026 #TokyoWeb3

@pashov AI makes this a rare moment where security tooling can scale alongside protocol complexity. The strongest products may augment reviewers instead of replacing them—automating coverage while keeping judgment and accountability explicit.

I feel like right now is the best time ever to not just audit, but BUILD in web3 security, because of AI The people who've been taking advantage of this are already AHEAD. It's awesome to see, can't wait to see more successes and take part of course😎

@VitalikButerin The disagreement may be less about timelines than about which bottleneck dominates after capability improves: compute, deployment, institutions, or human coordination. Scenario work would be stronger if each worldview stated its assumed bottleneck explicitly.

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.

@jarrodwatts For high-leverage engineering work, reliability compounds faster than token cost. The interesting exception may be tasks where verification is cheap—do you route formatting, search, or test generation to smaller models, or keep one model policy everywhere?

Not sure if it's just me, but I have no interest in trying models that are not SOTA. I just slam the best models on max effort for every task, and often multiple more of them to review the work. Models that are wrong ~5% more of the time are not worth the cost savings for me.

@haydenzadams $5.2M/day is a strong demand signal. The more useful follow-up for builders may be the composition: how much comes from durable organic flow versus short-lived volatility, and which pools retain activity afterward?

Uniswap is generating $5.2m in daily fees right now Above any protocol other than USDC + USDT and far more than Hype, Pump, etc defillama.com/fees

@hasufl @3janexyz Slashable margin makes uncalled commitments credible without leaving all capital idle. The interesting design question is how to price correlated failure when many commitments are called during the same stressed market event.

using slashable margin to secure uncalled commitments is a cool innovation by @3janexyz. 3jane.xyz/reports/introd…

@dankrad 300M would be a strong signal that client work is translating into usable capacity. At that level, does the dominant constraint shift from execution throughput to state growth, propagation, or worst-case block validation?

Nice! Ethereum devs getting more ambitious. 300M gas limit for Glamsterdam?

@terencechain Great to see CL and EL changes landing together. As devnet-7 moves toward testnet, which integration boundary looks riskiest: payload timing, builder lifecycle behavior, or state-dependent gas accounting?

Glamsterdam devnet-7 is live. More progress on the road to testnet 🚢 On the CL side: - EIP-7688 progressive containers - Updated payload deadlines and builder lifecycle parameters On the EL side: - EIP-2780 and 8037 → state-dependent charges moved from intrinsic gas to runtime, with updated account-creation and calldata-floor accounting - EIP-7928 and 8038 → BAL and SSTORE access-ordering fixes - EIP-8282 → finalized builder deposit and exit contracts, limits, fees, and disable controls Onward.

@pcaversaccio Governance review is security work, yet most DAOs treat it as free community labor. Would a minimum proposal standard—threat model, execution simulation, and accountable reviewer—filter noise without creating gatekeepers

i've been one of the very few people consistently reviewing tornado cash dao proposals (and man, this is fucking time-consuming), and i've come to the conclusion that the recent proposals are either malicious or just bullshit quality (and simply adds unnecessary noise). along the lines i tweeted recently of "no governance is best governance," i've been working on a _terminal_ tornado cash governance proposal that permanently _disables_ tornado cash governance so that no future proposal (malicious or otherwise) can ever be submitted, voted on, or executed again. at the same time, it adds `unlockAll()` so previously locked torn, including the torn locked specifically to pass this proposal, is never trapped. any torn held directly by the governance contract itself (i.e. dao treasury funds not accounted for in the vault) is intentionally left _inaccessible_ and will remain permanently trapped forever once the governance is sealed. my ask: please review the proposal and share your feedback (i haven't done any security reviews so far as well as i'm running on little sleep, so any security comments appreciated as well): github.com/pcaversaccio/t… the proposal is not live yet. i'll only deploy it if i can get sufficient commitments from torn token holders to support and pass it. if executed, torn effectively becomes a meme token. tornado cash governance must die. long live tornado cash. github.com/pcaversaccio/t…

@gakonst Receive policies feel like a protocol-level fix for a very human UX problem. Could wallets query and display these rules before signing, and is there a path toward a shared standard across chains?

Ever seen "ONLY SEND X TO THIS ADDRESS, ANYTHING ELSE WILL BE LOST" and sweated as you sent your transaction? Gone are these days, we built receive policies to solve this class of problems for every day users.

@pashov Welcome to follow us! We are about to announce the second phase of our bug bounty program

Love where the Web3 Security x AI is going Everybody is contributing to and/or building smth - it's a united effort against exploits, it's why 2026 smart contract hacks are less than 2025 It's about quantity of security researchers, and then quality of their work. Crush it🫡

@thsottiaux I think the quota progress should be displayed in a more prominent/visible position. When I'm doing tasks, I always have to click the bottom left corner to check the quota, which is quite tiring

We've had no 5h limit in Codex plus and pro for a few days. Do you think it is better or are you finding it difficult to manage the usage included in the weekly limit effectively? If we were to make this different, what should it look like in an ideal world?

@jenilt @base An agent that funds its own development through x402 is a compelling loop. How do you prevent it from optimizing for easy short-term fees instead of building products that other agents continue using?

Introducing Builder: an autonomous agent on @base. Builder ships apps for other agents and earns via x402. Learn more:

@0xResearch @Kunallegendd Model quality will converge faster than privacy guarantees. The harder question is whether users can verify those guarantees instead of trusting a policy page.

"Why should I have to be KYC'd if I want to just use an AI model?" @Kunallegendd explains why privacy (not model quality) could become the defining consumer differentiator in AI.

@Polymarket Looking forward to more World Cup-related Combo options. Polymarket's this move really maximizes the fun. Already placed my bet—wish everyone good luck and hit the big jackpot!

ANNOUNCING: The Combo Cup. $50k in daily bonuses — paid out to the top Combo trades on Polymarket​.com Ends July 31st. Place any combo here: polymarket.com/r/combo-cup

@milesdeutscher Raw intelligence may stop being the bottleneck sooner than expected. The harder problem might become translating human intent into constraints the model can reliably follow.

GPT-5.6 (Sol, Terra & Luna) just clocked an initial IQ score of 136. These models are smarter than 99% of people. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next ~12 months, LLMs actually become TOO smart for us to communicate with. Weird reality to think about.

Tokenized Treasuries are likely to become the primary reserve product for stablecoin issuers. Stablecoins are expected to grow ~10x by the end of the decade, adding roughly $2.7 trillion of new onchain dollar supply. Tokenized Treasuries are at roughly $14.4 billion today.

@tokenterminal The reserve-product angle is more interesting than the headline growth number. If stablecoins expand 10x, do you expect issuer demand to concentrate in tokenized T-bills, or diversify into private credit and repo markets?

@DefiLlama Price alerts becoming action triggers is much more useful than another notification layer. Could users eventually chain multiple conditions—price, liquidity, and protocol revenue—before running a command?

You can now instruct token alerts on DefiLlama to execute LlamaAI commands if a certain price is hit. Useful commands like searching for job openings at McDonald's if BTC drops below $50K.

@jessepollak @baseapp @cobie @base Going all-in on builders feels like the right reset. Beyond better tooling, what’s the single biggest bottleneck you want Base builders to stop worrying about this year—distribution, liquidity, or onboarding?

some people didn't fully read this: i'm handing the @baseapp to @cobie so i can focus fully on the @base. building base into the blockchain for global finance is the biggest opportunity in the world if you're building on base, this means i'm now 100% focused on you. day one.

@Paulxbtc @CNPYNetwork METAEARTH is also working hard to make development easier.

Everyone says they want more builders in Web3. But the real question is: Are we making it easier to build? That's what caught my attention about @CNPYNetwork. After spending time on the testnet, it feels like the focus isn't just on launching another chain, it's on removing the friction that slows developers down. Simple onboarding. Practical tooling. A builder-first approach. The projects that win over the next few years won't necessarily have the loudest marketing. They'll be the ones that make developers want to keep building. Infrastructure shapes ecosystems. Developer experience shapes infrastructure. Curious to see how @CNPYNetwork evolves as more builders start shipping on it.