SPIZZIE

@OpenWallet @DigiFrens Also built this as an alternative submission. github.com/Spizzerp/OWS-M…

@OpenWallet Demo video (a bit rough) built for @DigiFrens youtube.com/watch?v=NVwxwc…

I've entered into the @OpenWallet hackathon. - Your AI companion detects you're having a bad day - Verifies its spending authority via a ZK-proof delegation - Creates a virtual Visa and orders you a pizza - Pizza arrives at your door github.com/Spizzerp/Agent…

@citrini Analyst 3 really doing god's work

The difference in Strait activity from when #3 first arrived / began observing the strait about 4-5 days ago to today is stark. Traffic has meaningfully picked up - there are still “dark” runs and ships transiting without AIS turned on, but there’s a lot more going along the coast of Oman. At least 15 ships have crossed, including at least 3 VLCCs. When we arrived, virtually none were going through. Then a trickle through the Qeshm channel. It’s meaningful now, could be talking low double digit percent of pre-conflict volume. Meanwhile, expectations for a US operation involving “boots on the ground” within the next week or two are still high among locals. When analyst #3 first got to the strait we were hopeful we’d get a clear cut answer - bullish or bearish, open or closed, war or deal. It soon became clear that was the wrong framework through which to view this trip. On the same day that we learned it was the broad expectation of nearly everyone in the region - from locals to informed parties - that US ground troops would be launching an operation (“boots on the ground!”), we also observed multiple ships beginning to cross the strait. Soon they weren’t just limited to the Qeshm channel. It is clear to us that this isn’t as much a story in isolation as it is a story about the multipolar world and how it’s rapidly changing from what we’re used to. It’s a story about parallel warfare and diplomacy, US promises for the “Stone Age” in tandem with Allies’ seeking new venues for negotiation, and the changing global climate that necessitates this balance. Before, it would have been unlikely to imagine a world where Japan, the EU and other US allies were negotiating with a country the US is directly in conflict in to secure passage and work on agreements while the US still maintained footing for an escalation of kinetic warfare. Now, that’s simply how the world works. These countries must deal with the issues imposed, as the US won’t be sorting it out on their behalf. It’s undeniable the world is very different now and viewing this conflict through the lens of the past 50 years is a flawed approach. On Sunday, we will release our report that covers in depth what we’ve learned, how complex the situation is and what investment implications and nuances exist that have longer term implications than the next 100 points on SPX.

@citrini Analyst headed strait to the fried chicken

Couple higher conviction views of informed parties in the Gulf: 1) The US will launch a ground operation within the next week or so, as evidenced by much higher troop numbers than reported in the UAE with numbers recently accelerating. 2) Even considering the above, traffic through the Strait will continue to rise. Gradually and dependent on developments, but it will not go back to being fully closed as it was before the Larak channel opened up. Countries will continue making deals. 3) Hormuz fried chicken is 5/5 stars.

@k_grajeda Super dope

depth map ascii scan

@minnus Sign up flow to read the full article seems broken? Cant access the content after creating an account.

@blknoiz06 @praxisnation Hard shell is better hands down

@praxisnation you guys should do soft taco tuesdays

ANNOUNCING: PRAXIS STUDIO NYC DESIGNING THE CITY HOSTING RESIDENTS LIVE DAILY

@KEMOS4BE The G stands for garbage

accidentally let GPT 5.4 design a frontend for an app today most horrific thing I’ve ever seen the primary output window for it (markdown -> pretext layout) wasn’t even viewable. it was squished to be 173px high and like 809 long

@heyrimsha @peruvian_bull Old news ye

🚨BREAKING: Block (Jack Dorsey's company) just open-sourced a local AI agent that goes way beyond code suggestions. It's called Goose and it installs, executes, edits, and tests with any LLM fully on your machine. 100% Opensource.

@FabianoSolana In your DMs

If I want to maintain the page (needs daily manual checks) - I need at least 1–2 people who would love to help me with this little project (paid positions) Bonus if you have some coding knowledge (next to DeFi) - I'm also looking for sponsors Feel free to comment below

@0xapacx Sadly enough

@spizzurp How much did you lose?

Please note, I am NOT a lawyer - this is just my opinion.

Okay I hear you. From my research, it looks like the operating company is in Australia and the DAO foundation is in the Cayman Islands. Your characterization of this as a simple disclosure gap understates two things: that Australian misleading conduct provisions don't require intent, and that Drift made affirmative claims about smart contract control that were materially inaccurate. Additionally, as I was going through Drift's Terms of Use, trying to discern the validity of your restricted jurisdictions claim - I stumbled upon this: "THE SERVICES ARE NON-CUSTODIAL; WE DO NOT ACCESS OR CONTROL YOUR DIGITAL ASSETS," that claim applies to the lending product too. It applies to vault deposits. It applies to every way a user could deposit assets into Drift. But hey, I'm no lawyer - I'm just reading the Terms of Use we all agree upon when entering the application. Which I did in France (not stated to be a restricted area). So based on your thoughts above and my additional research, maybe fraud isn't the right angle here, instead I'd revamp my case to claim misleading or deceptive conduct - but regardless, it’s a matter of accountability. Ive made peace with the fact that I might not get back the 5 figures I put into @DriftProtocol via @fusewallet (only an amount I’m willing to risk) but sadly others didn’t go into it with that intention. I’m not sure if you’ve been in the Drift Discord but many people put in more than they were willing to lose. I argue this case for them - since at the moment there isn’t much hope that our funds will be recouped but at least those responsible for assigning a 2-out-of-5 multsig with 0 time lock to manage a protocol with HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of DOLLARS may be held responsible for their negligence. I’d assume that the strongest global mechanism would actually be if ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission) pursued enforcement action against the Australian entity and secured a remedy that applied to the protocol's entire user base - like mandating a compensation fund. But that would depend entirely on whether ASIC decides this falls within their remit and is worth pursuing. ASIC matters here because it has the authority to investigate and take enforcement action against Australian companies that engage in misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (the ASIC Act) and the Australian Consumer Law. If Drift Protocol Corp, operating out of Sydney, made representations about its security or risk profile that were materially misleading to depositors, ASIC could pursue that as a regulatory matter without individual depositors needing to file their own lawsuits. So, as someone who has direct exposure here - I'm simply taking a moment to share my thoughts. I wont ever be caught dead silencing my opinion (which this is as I am not a lawyer).

I think you need to address what duties they actually had as a Defi platform deploying on a blockchain with clear interface geoblocks restricting users. Big jurisdictional questions. You're also conflating a disclosure issue with willful fraud. In most jurisdictions, this is a compliance breach that doesn't result in recission of an investment. What do you hope to gain? Should people who used a VPN to willfully sidestep their T&Cs be able to recover? This is a square peg in a round hole that only ever comes up when something goes wrong. It's why Elizabeth Warren has a job, because people refuse to acknowledge the risks they took. That risk includes assuming a defi platform has protections like heavily regulated financial institutions. As someone who has indirect exposure here, I won't ever be caught dead trying to recoup my losses this way.

@0xDigitalLaw So yes, I think that would be fraud

Well, you have two options right? To pursue legal action in jurisdictions where (1) a majority of plaintiffs reside / have the strongest claim or (2) where the defendant (Drift) is incorporated and runs their business. That would be my assumption as a non lawyer though. But as a practicing attorney yourself - you should be aware of what I’m alleging to in my article. Which I make fairly clear in plain English. Drift inaccurately reported the risks associated with using their platform and in all easily identifiable and publicly facing documents associated with the protocol omitted the existence and usage of admin powers that subvert protocol guardrails and safeguards via a negligible multisig setup.

@Mr_PDRs @DriftProtocol @futarddotio @metaproph3t You’d think huh? Gross, borderline criminal negligence here.

@spizzurp @DriftProtocol @futarddotio @metaproph3t Its not only that the whole setup is ridiculous. I wouldn‘t have expected the secuirty standard to be so low (zero timelock). How is this responsible? Outflows of such amounts should require governance oversight. not possible if there is no time to verify decisions made.

Hear me out... If @DriftProtocol is: (1) Unable to recoup stolen funds (2) Reimburse depositors All depositors impacted should band together and seek legal action. Paying for lawyers via a @futarddotio raise. Would this be a fitting use-case for the platform? @metaproph3t

@Richard_ISC @circle dear god we're really just stacking a house of cards

Fun fact: @circle uses Nonce and 2/4 multisig. No time lock, no whitelist, no limit. Just raw dog native mintTo. They sign multiple tx per day.

@josipvolarevic @DriftProtocol @futarddotio @metaproph3t This might actually push founders to be more granular about protocol risks and set a better precedent moving forward for DEFI on SOL.

Ye, I'd be curious to hear what a lawyer thinks about this situation and what the possible outcomes of legal action would be... But, I think that focusing on this specific language - that Drift's protocol/usage risk wasnt properly disclosed and admin/multisig functionality was specifically not mentioned in user facing docs leading the misrepresentation of protocol risks - would reduce the risk of this specific lawsuit being used as precedent in other cases of a dissimilar nature or used to target external protocols or founders like Carrot, Reflect. But I am also not a lawyer.