Jayant Krishnamurthy

Pyth is designed as a decentralized protocol to avoid single points of failure. An obvious way to build an oracle is to run a server somewhere that collects data, aggregates it, and sends it to the blockchain. The problem with this approach is that the server is a centralized single point of failure. If that server goes down, the oracle does too. Also, the owner of the server could manipulate the results. That tradeoff is unacceptable for oracle users who demand security and reliability.

As someone who’s been in the crypto industry since 2013, one of the simplest yet most challenging questions I’ve faced is how to think about noncustodial trading interfaces. Do operators or developers of these NTIs have any regulatory obligations? Ideally not. I’m thrilled to finally have an opportunity to voice my opinion on the question in an effort to make a real change and provide a long-awaited answer. Today, I’ve submitted written comments to @SECGov’s crypto task force in an effort to make clear that NTIs—and folks developing or operating them—have no obligations under the securities laws to register as a broker or an exchange. NTIs serve simply as informational tools and technology layers that make communicating with blockchain systems easier. @HesterPeirce looking forward to hearing your thoughts! sec.gov/files/ctf-writ…

Today’s Pectra release is the final unlock necessary for widespread adoption of ERC-7412: erc7412.github.io Here’s a thread explaining why this is exciting for apps that run on Ethereum…

@nic_carter smart is a 2x2: good/bad at talking/doing. People in the good talking / bad doing quadrant are actively dangerous -- they can convince others to do stupid things.

Tldr being smart is a prerequisite for getting to the truth, but on its own insufficient, and maybe harmful. Smarts + courage is how you really get there

One of my biggest realizations these last few years is that being smart doesn’t make you better at apprehending the truth. In fact it’s often inversely related since smart people are more adept at crafting and believing elaborate fantasies

@ErikVoorhees Permissionless innovation is permissionless Most websites are junk, but you also get google and facebook. It's just the nature of the thing.

Don't fret, brother. Crypto is, and has always been, 99% nonsense grifty garbage/scams/jokes, and 1% fundamental global financial system revolution. But this 99/1 is based just on quantity of projects. Considered by market cap, it's more like 75% quality, 25% nonsense. Bitcoin is good. Ethereum is good. Stablecoins are good. Several dozen defi projects are good. Wildly cool technology permeates through all of it, and sound economics underpins its long term growth, though the short term feels often like an appallingly irrational market. How to cope with this dichotomy? Embrace the degen frontier and have fun, and recognize that amidst it all, a decentralized financial system is real, is important, and is working. None of it is forced on anyone, after all. We are building and we are attracting the world toward us... and much of the world simply wants to gamble and have fun. This is okay, and actually provides capital for the important work happening behind the casino. It is, actually, working. We are realizing the wildest dreams of those who are into it for all the right reasons, despite the accompanying fantasies of those who aren't. Just keep building, and build well.

honestly pretty cool implementation from @KaminoFinance even better than the mechanism, is the marketing on this product. its absolutely brilliant, rebranding limit orders as zero slippage is verifiably genius. big props to the kamino growth/marketing team limit orders by design are zero slippage in fact their product does have slippage, slippage can be both positive and negative, what kamino has done is eliminate negative slippage if i understand "surplus" in their docs correctly, that is slippage, but its just beneficial to the user who place the limit order what i do find strange when reading through their docs is that they turn market orders into limit orders that default +/-.1% off mark price. sure, this gets them to their "zero slippage" because its a its really just a limit order, but this means just means a market order may not fill immediately if solvers cannot find enough liquidity at that price i think that delineation is important to understand as a trader leveraging this mechanism your orders are never guaranteed to get filled when you place a limit order. you can have full, partial, or no fill at all. at the end of the day, intents systems are very similar to order books overall very cool mech from the kamino team and excited to see how it evolves over time!

disclaimer: I wrote this in about 30 minutes with Cursor. Use at your own risk.

Have you ever wanted to shard a seed phrase? There hasn't been a good tool to do it ... until now! Check out BIP39-shard: github.com/jayantk/bip39-… It splits a 24 word mnemonic into parts using k-of-n threshold signatures. Each part is a mnemonic for easy offline storage.

@kofinas This bond issue is equivalent to China selling down their UST FX reserves. Instead of Saudi buying a fresh UST from Treasury, they get one China already owns (at a slight discount). Doesn't seem like an earthshattering development.

In the latest season of "When Prophesy Fails," USD doom porn stenographers rebrand "de-dollarization" as "re-dollarization," arguing that MORE demand for dollars and dollar-denominated debt is BEARISH for the only country that can issue dollars to buy its own debt. Just think about it for a moment. This individual argues in their article that by issuing sovereign bonds in Dollars rather than in Yuan, China will "price out" the US Treasury from the dollar market because people would rather lend to China than to "the devil" (literally her term for "America"). Let's say this is true and that every single investor on planet Earth would prefer to lend money to China than to America. What this would mean is that the value of the Dollar goes UP because more dollar loans are being issued that need to be repaid WITH INTEREST. Since the Fed has a monopoly on dollar currency issuance (not eurodollars or "china dollars"), the U.S. would use this opportunity to buy its own bonds with freshly minted dollars. Normally, debt monetization has its limits, but if the ENTIRE WORLD dollarizes, that creates what is known in central bank jargon as the "policy space" to print more money without worrying about inflation. If the world is demanding MORE dollars, this allows the Federal Reserve (all things being equal) to ISSUE more dollars without impacting the dollar's exchange rate. If the argument then becomes, "Well, sure, but that will hollow out U.S. industry even more by making the U.S. even less competitive via the exchange rate," my response would be, "Only if the U.S. doesn't take policy measures to offset the rise, either by raising tariffs, issuing more debt for capital investment, or something else." I don't really understand the nature of the confusion (or unrelenting bias) that produces such nonsense, but people need to recognize that what they are reading makes absolutely no sense.

@DavidSacks There's a deeper betrayal of trust in the ruling elites as well -- Harris is their figurehead, but not the cause x.com/jayantkrish/st…

WHY TRUMP WON While the legacy media has a meltdown searching for hitherto undiagnosed psychoses in the electorate to explain its embrace of a Hitlerian strongman, the truth is much simpler than their fictions. This election is a reminder that after all the manufactured drama and overheated rhetoric, politics is still about issues. Whether you agreed with him or not, Trump ran a substantive campaign based on issues like the border, inflation, crime, and war. Harris ran on vibes, celebrity endorsements, name-calling (“convicted felon”, “fascist”), debunked hoaxes (“very fine people”), and platitudes (“democracy”). She would neither defend the Biden-Harris record nor say what she would do differently. When she did talk about specific issues, they were often stolen from Trump (child tax credit; no tax on tips; border funding). On the one issue where Democrats had an advantage, abortion, Trump deftly got ahead of the issue by rejecting a national ban and removing problematic language from the GOP platform. Harris wore out the issue by blatantly lying about Trump’s position and by exhibiting her own party’s extremism (nobody needed to see an abortion truck at the DNC). While Trump expanded his coalition with MAHA (health) and DOGE (government efficiency), Harris concluded her ersatz campaign by going all in on demonizing her opponent, pretending Madison Square Garden was a Nazi convention. The fact that voters saw through it should be reassuring, even if you don’t agree with the result. Voters want to know how a candidate will give them a better life and, increasingly, they have learned to tune out the rest as noise. While the legacy media creates excuses and impugns the motives of voters to explain why Trump won, the reason is simple: Trump is the candidate who spoke to voters’ concerns directly. It’s the issues, stupid.

@poxdotcom @politicalmath 100% agree

@jayantkrish @politicalmath Easier said than done esp given that the media is on the side of those very ppl who will say any fair due process-led consequences are in fact discriminatory against them

In regards to their political foes, Trump admin should be:

@paulg Here's my attempt at a (thoughtful) response x.com/jayantkrish/st…

If you haven't decided yet who to vote for, here's why I think you should vote for Harris.

The election is a referendum on the American ruling class. The ruling class consists of both Democrats and Republicans. Their interests are the policies that both parties support. Every administration supports foreign wars. Every administration supports key corporate interests, including the pharmaceutical industry and the banks. There’s very little difference between Bush and Obama: they both started a bunch of wars, they both expanded free trade, they both passed healthcare legislation without solving the drug cost problem, etc. The policies of our ruling class have hurt the people of this country. The people don’t want to fight wars in the Middle East – these have nothing to do with our defense, and they’ve bankrupted the country. Free trade has eliminated industry and people’s livelihoods. The 2008 crisis response further drove wealth inequality. We have the world’s largest healthcare spending and yet worse life expectancy than countries that spend half as much. We’ve lost the chance at building a peaceful world post Soviet Union and instead are at the brink of nuclear war. We’ve gone from being a rich productive country to one whose key export is financial instruments – this is a pending disaster that will impoverish us (regardless of administration) over the next decade as the world dedollarizes. The vast majority of the American people see that the ruling class doesn’t support their interests, and they’re angry. They’ve been angry since 2008, and we’ve seen this anger manifest in different ways: Occupy Wall Street, Bernie Sanders, and of course, Donald Trump. These movements are nominally left vs. right, but this is not the distinction that matters. They’re populist movements with the same underlying cause. Instead of responding to popular anger by actually helping the people, the ruling class has ruthlessly suppressed these challenges to its power. They rigged the Democratic primary in 2016. They created fake Russian interference theories to impeach Donald Trump, then did it again to suppress the legitimate evidence of corruption against Trump’s opponent in 2020. There are no bounds to their corruption and falsehood: the ruling class will do whatever it takes to hold on to power. In their quest for power, the ruling class has destroyed the legitimacy of our society’s institutions. Government agencies and the media are no longer trusted because they have consistently lied to the public. They have politicized law enforcement and used it as a weapon against their enemies, destroying rule of law. (Hillary is still claiming the 2016 election was stolen – where’s her court case?) They’ve created a vast censorship complex of government agencies and NGOs for combating “misinformation” on the internet, which is a direct attack on freedom of speech. This loss of legitimacy is extremely dangerous, and demonstrates the extent to which the ruling class will go to hold on to power. Ironically, as these attacks have escalated, they have actually helped @realDonaldTrump . In their desperation to stop him, the ruling class has escalated to increasingly obvious lies and corruption. The flagrant lies are waking people up – the gap between the lie and reality is simply too large to be ignored. If you listen to the media describe Trump, then listen to Trump himself, you instantly realize that the media has lied to you. The lie is so flagrant that it completely destroys the media’s credibility – you realize they simply do not care about the truth, and never have. It’s like seeing the matrix – it snaps you to a new interpretation of reality, where you see everything in a new light. It’s Wittgenstein’s ruler (“When you use a ruler to measure the table, you are also using the table to measure the ruler”) and you realize the ruler has been wrong the whole time. (Tangentially, the previous paragraph explains many of the so-called “mysteries” of the election. You periodically see the media wonder “how can all these people support a racist convicted felon who’s literally Hitler?” Well, there’s your answer – every time the media attacks Trump, they’re actually attacking themselves.) By surviving, Trump has attracted a counter-elite. All the people he’s touring with – @TulsiGabbard , @RobertKennedyJr , @JDVance , @VivekGRamaswamy , @elonmusk – are the counter-elite. It’s an assorted cast of characters, but the common theme amongst them is that they stand against one or more interests of the ruling class. Tulsi is anti-war, Elon is pro-free-speech, etc. This counter-elite is the seed of a new ruling class. Thus, the election is ultimately a choice between ruling classes. Do you want to stick with Hillary and Cheney? Or do you want to try something new? This is a freak event – few people have Trump’s survival skills – and you’ll never get another opportunity in your lifetime. Choose carefully.

@hosseeb when you started * (execution velocity + structural market tailwind) = where you are today

@hosseeb There's certainly an early mover advantage, but it's not determinative. It's a factor along with other things. It's time in market + execution that matters. If you're bad at building, being first won't save you.

I've increasingly come to believe crypto doesn't really have a first mover advantage. To wit: Uniswap was not the first AMM (Bancor) Coinbase/Binance were not the first exchanges (Mt. Gox, Bitstamp) Tether was not the first stablecoin (bitUSD) Solana was not the first high performance smart contract platform (EOS) Hyperliquid was not the first perp DEX (dYdX) AAVE was not the first on-chain money market (Compound) Avalanche was not the first chain of chains (Cosmos Hub) Base was not the first EVM rollup (Arbitrum)

Finding out that @Polymarket is using @PythNetwork via @matt_levine is the epitome of permissionless integrations

in my experience working on @PythNetwork there isn't a 0-to-1 benefit. Rather, there are incremental benefits: - linear types can statically enforce properties like correct accounting - statically typed language that's easy to work in (better designed than Solidity etc) The first one is the primary benefit of Move specifically. Everything else you would get from using Rust (like Solana). Drawback of Move relative to Rust is library support.

Many of this cycle's breakout chains are using the same smart contract language: Move Sui, Aptos, Movement Seems to be some preliminary safety advantages from features like borrow checking, but what 0-to-1 advantages does this enable? What Move apps don't work on EVM?

@llamaonthebrink The irony being that there are very real AI safety questions -- autonomous weapons anyone? -- that are being ignored because we're scared that LLMs will be politically incorrect.

IMO there are two different camps within AI safety: (1) woke grifters, who are simply in it to exercise power, and (2) hyper "rationalists", who have convinced themselves that LLMs are going to become superintelligence that are actually dangerous. The second group is well-meaning but too narrow-minded to see the fragilities in their long chain of reasoning. (It's pretty clear who is who if you use those categories)

AI safety sounds so damn grifty bruv, I can't even. I really don't get the pessimism these ppl have towards our future. The idea that unfiltered AI can somehow destroy human civilization is textbook fear mongering. My theory is that tech hippies (perhaps subconsciously) see it as a way to secure funding to research the most up to date AI tech, without actually needing to build models or secure data for training, etc. It could also be that these ppl all expect AI models to be highly commoditized and that the extraction will be in "safety licences" that are selectively distributed to trusted and regulatory captured entities. It's a pretty alarming trend imo. AI is a massive unlock for humanity and the race seems to be on to control and capture this tech. Do not believe the hippies that use fear tactics to justify their beliefs, they're just as self serving as the profit motivated companies, except worse because their interests are not transparent.

@kofinas Demetri the reason is very simple: one side wants to kill their businesses, and the other side doesn't. If they stopped trying to kill them, then it wouldn't be an issue.

"The other way of viewing the Valley’s political exertions is as a symptom of systemic rot—as proof that American governance and legislation have become so perverted by money that it is nearly impossible for people other than billionaires to further their agendas. This dynamic can be seen as particularly dangerous given that the U.S. economy has dumped lavish riches on a tiny group of disaffected, defiantly unaccountable technologists. As many critics of Silicon Valley see it, today’s startup founders and venture capitalists are, like the nouveaux riches of previous eras, using their wealth for selfish aims. In doing so, they have revealed themselves to be as ruthless as the robber barons and industrial tyrants of a century ago—not coincidentally, the last time that income inequality was as extreme as it is today.