yyctradΞr

Longed ETH and SOL I like the R/R here

Points repricing incoming

Kelp DAO is moving rsETH to @chainlink and says LayerZero "blamed users for an issue caused by their own infrastructure failure." @KelpDAO argues the 1-of-1 DVN setup at the center of the $300M hack was LayerZero's own documented default. thedefiant.io/news/defi/kelp…

DeFi United Has Now Raised $300M+ Is it a sign of a strong community or will a one-off solution be perceived as a weakness going forward? Join us LIVE TOMORROW WED APRIL 29 @ 1 PM EST W/ @DeanEigenmann @binji_x @divine_economy Hosted by: @CamiRusso twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1…

The Ethereum Foundation has so far sold $33.51M of ETH to Bitmine Their most recent sale was only 2 days ago. The ETH Foundation holds $214.8M ETH. If they continue selling at this rate, they will have no ETH left by 2027.

This is like 2021 except you’re 5 years older and this time nobody believes in anything

The privacy trilemma. We investigated. @RektHQ × @DefiantNews - first time, exclusive, in partnership with @StellarOrg. Documentary. April 22.

@izebel_eth @beaniemaxi Wasn't it $BLOOT

@beaniemaxi In case anybody is interested I will make it my life mission to integrate $BGLD into everything I do in crypto. As a payment option, as lending collateral, for staking to earn other NFTs. I also don’t know the anon dev that created it, and the keys are burned. But it feels right.

$500 million deposited at a 4.27% APY. Crypto is not a serious industry.

Canton founders claim ZK proofs are too risky for institutional finance. They have been making this argument to buyers and regulators, publicly and behind closed doors. It deserves a public answer. Let's see if the argument holds — and if Canton's infrastructure passes its own test. The argument Their case, stated fairly: ZKPs are complex. Bugs are inevitable in any sufficiently complex system. If a flaw exists in a proof system, it could go undetected because the underlying data is private. If it goes undetected, it spreads throughout the system. This creates systemic risk. Therefore, ZKPs cannot be used for critical financial infrastructure. This is a real concern. Let's take it seriously and follow the logic. The flaw in the logic Strip away the ZKP-specific language, here's the story: Technology X can have implementation flaws. Technology X serves a mission-critical function. If it fails, the consequences are catastrophic. Therefore, Technology X can never be used. Read it again. There is a hidden assumption doing all the work: that Technology X is your only line of defense. If this logic held, we would not have aviation. Fly-by-wire, engine controllers, autopilot — every one of these systems has bugs, is mission-critical, and can fail catastrophically. Nuclear reactor control systems, robotic surgery, radiation therapy dosing, implantable cardiac devices, and many other systems all run on software that can fail catastrophically. But they are somehow still in use. How? Redundancy and containment The foundation for these mission-critical systems is the explicit assumption in their architectures that every component will eventually fail. They all rely on two things: redundancy and containment. Redundancy = multiple independent systems, each capable of catching a failure in the others. Containment = when failure occurs, limit the blast radius so it cannot become systemic. This is the only question that matters for any mission-critical system: does your architecture have more than one line of defense? Canton's architecture Let's apply this test to Canton. Canton's privacy and integrity model relies on a single mechanism: trusted operators segregating data between participants. There is no cryptographic verification layer and no independent check. If a few keys of the operators in a validation domain are compromised, manipulated state propagates silently inside opaque chains of UTXOs with nothing watching. This is a real systemic risk, accelerated by the rise of AI-assisted cyberattacks. By Canton's own logic — a single point of failure with catastrophic consequences — this is the architecture that should concern regulators. Prividium's architecture Now look at how Prividium is built. Redundancy. Prividium has three independent lines of defense. First, institutional partners operate Prividium nodes within their own security environments, the same infrastructure banks already trust and regulate. Second, zero-knowledge proofs provide cryptographic integrity verification as an independent layer on top, verifying operational security rather than replacing it. Third, as ZK proof systems standardize, multiple independent provers can verify the same computation. A flaw in one implementation gets caught by another. Containment. Each Prividium instance is an individual chain operated by an individual institution. When institutions interact across chains, Prividium's interop layer implements inter-chain accounting mechanisms that are independently enforced by the participating institutions, asset issuers, or on-chain. Even an attacker who compromises a single institution's internal IT infrastructure and simultaneously finds a ZKP bug could only affect that one Prividium instance. The damage cannot propagate to the broader network. The net balance: Canton has a single mechanism, no fallback, silent failure propagation across the network. Prividium has layered defenses, independent verification, blast radius contained by design. Importance of open standards Multiple lines of defense only matter if each line is itself strong. What makes a technology strong? The depth of adversarial testing it has survived. Shaul points to a compiler bug example in his post, and it actually illustrates this well. ZKsync embraced full EVM equivalence over a year ago. This was shaped precisely by the understanding that the more you deviate from an open standard, the larger your attack surface becomes. And Ethereum is not battle-tested in some polite, academic sense. For over a decade, its smart contract infrastructure has been completely open to scrutiny by the most sophisticated adversarial actors in the world, with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. Vulnerabilities and exploits fed directly back into the ecosystem: new audit standards, formal verification tools, compiler safeguards, and hardened design patterns. The EVM that exists today is the product of a decade of continuous adversarial stress testing at a scale no other smart contract platform has experienced. Canton went the opposite direction. DAML is a proprietary smart contract language with a closed ecosystem and a fraction of the developer and security community. Every growing pain that Ethereum went through over the last ten years still lies ahead for DAML, except DAML will face them with orders of magnitude fewer eyes watching. Every maturity concern Canton raises about ZKPs applies to their own technology stack with far less mitigation available. The safest technology is the one that has survived the longest under the harshest conditions. For smart contract infrastructure, that is Ethereum. It's not close. So to answer the question directly: everyone agrees bugs exist. The question is whether your architecture has redundancy to catch them and containment to limit the damage when they slip through. Cryptographic verification provides both. Trust in operators provides neither.

Help me qualify for (3,3) on @blackhaven to get early access. Sign up through my link and grab yours before it's too late. early.blackhaven.xyz/ref/yyctrader1

JUST IN 🚨: Japan's 40-Year Treasury Yield jumps above 3.87%, its highest level in history 👻😱

Discovered my Gas ID via ETHGas - turning my gas spend into rewards 🫘 As a Divine Jack, I've spent 36.0994 ETH on gas but earned 4000 Beans back. Get your Gas ID and Beans here: ethgas.com/community/gas-…

@elethera_art @siw0bbyte @the8102game @CamelsNFT @MuskersBB @EvilTBC @SavedSoulsNFT @pepebabes @base @TheFisters @ApeChainHUB @NiFTeesNfts @GU1_PUNX @LoveGotchi @DuDuNinja1 @Wooddruff1011 @SuperChillBean @_lonederanger @xMrG__ @dtudball14 @dontDriponMe Missed quite a few missions but made it this time

@siw0bbyte @the8102game @CamelsNFT @MuskersBB @EvilTBC @SavedSoulsNFT @pepebabes @base @TheFisters @ApeChainHUB Did you send your teams to rescue Bruce? @NiFTeesNfts @GU1_PUNX @yyctrader1 @LoveGotchi @DuDuNinja1 @Wooddruff1011 @SuperChillBean @_lonederanger @xMrG__ @dtudball14 @dontDriponMe

GM friends ☀️⛵️ Less than 24h left to join our first mission of 2026: Rescue Bruce! Don't forget to screenshot your teams and post them as a Tweet to enter our yacht giveaway!

@fuegonft 🔥

1. We’ve told you WHO Fuego is. 2. We’ve told you WHY Fuego exists. 3. We’ve shared HOW Fuego works. 4. Today, we explain WHAT Fuego is: > Fuego is not just an art project. > Fuego is the community layer built alongside Lighter, designed to reward active traders and strengthen the Lighter trading community. > 90% of Fuego mint proceeds will be committed directly into Lighter’s LLP. > That commitment is focused on two core outputs: (1) Large scale, recurring trading competitions on Lighter, built for real traders, with meaningful and scalable prize pools. Participation will require Fuego ownership. (2) Strategic $LIT and Fuego buybacks with long term treasury building, with resources directed toward additional prizes and community initiatives (such as the 23 global events we helped host December). > Fuego is designed to grow and scale alongside Lighter over the long term. > Already trading on Lighter? Fuego converts trading skill into recurring, performance-driven rewards. > Not trading on Lighter yet? Fuego is your entry into a trader-first community built by early Lighter OGs and Amigos. > You now know "WHO", "WHY", "HOW", and "WHAT". Stay tuned for the "WHEN" 🕯️

Apes Together Strong.