Ken Kodama

【速報】 「大半のトークンは有価証券に非該当」、米SECとCFTCが仮想通貨分類指針を公開　 ✅68ページの仮想通貨規制解釈指針を共同発行 ✅デジタルコモディティ・ステーブルコイン・デジタルツールは有価証券に非該当と明示 coinpost.jp/?p=695183

There have recently been some discussions on the ongoing role of L2s in the Ethereum ecosystem, especially in the face of two facts: * L2s' progress to stage 2 (and, secondarily, on interop) has been far slower and more difficult than originally expected * L1 itself is scaling, fees are very low, and gaslimits are projected to increase greatly in 2026 Both of these facts, for their own separate reasons, mean that the original vision of L2s and their role in Ethereum no longer makes sense, and we need a new path. First, let us recap the original vision. Ethereum needs to scale. The definition of "Ethereum scaling" is the existence of large quantities of block space that is backed by the full faith and credit of Ethereum - that is, block space where, if you do things (including with ETH) inside that block space, your activities are guaranteed to be valid, uncensored, unreverted, untouched, as long as Ethereum itself functions. If you create a 10000 TPS EVM where its connection to L1 is mediated by a multisig bridge, then you are not scaling Ethereum. This vision no longer makes sense. L1 does not need L2s to be "branded shards", because L1 is itself scaling. And L2s are not able or willing to satisfy the properties that a true "branded shard" would require. I've even seen at least one explicitly saying that they may never want to go beyond stage 1, not just for technical reasons around ZK-EVM safety, but also because their customers' regulatory needs require them to have ultimate control. This may be doing the right thing for your customers. But it should be obvious that if you are doing this, then you are not "scaling Ethereum" in the sense meant by the rollup-centric roadmap. But that's fine! it's fine because Ethereum itself is now scaling directly on L1, with large planned increases to its gas limit this year and the years ahead. We should stop thinking about L2s as literally being "branded shards" of Ethereum, with the social status and responsibilities that this entails. Instead, we can think of L2s as being a full spectrum, which includes both chains backed by the full faith and credit of Ethereum with various unique properties (eg. not just EVM), as well as a whole array of options at different levels of connection to Ethereum, that each person (or bot) is free to care about or not care about depending on their needs. What would I do today if I were an L2? * Identify a value add other than "scaling". Examples: (i) non-EVM specialized features/VMs around privacy, (ii) efficiency specialized around a particular application, (iii) truly extreme levels of scaling that even a greatly expanded L1 will not do, (iv) a totally different design for non-financial applications, eg. social, identity, AI, (v) ultra-low-latency and other sequencing properties, (vi) maybe built-in oracles or decentralized dispute resolution or other "non-computationally-verifiable" features * Be stage 1 at the minimum (otherwise you really are just a separate L1 with a bridge, and you should just call yourself that) if you're doing things with ETH or other ethereum-issued assets * Support maximum interoperability with Ethereum, though this will differ for each one (eg. what if you're not EVM, or even not financial?) From Ethereum's side, over the past few months I've become more convinced of the value of the native rollup precompile, particuarly once we have enshrined ZK-EVM proofs that we need anyway to scale L1. This is a precompile that verifies a ZK-EVM proof, and it's "part of Ethereum", so (i) it auto-upgrades along with Ethereum, and (ii) if the precompile has a bug, Ethereum will hard-fork to fix the bug. The native rollup precompile would make full, security-council-free, EVM verification accessible. We should spend much more time working out how to design it in such a way that if your L2 is "EVM plus other stuff", then the native rollup precompile would verify the EVM, and you only have to bring your own prover for the "other stuff" (eg. Stylus). This might involve a canonical way of exposing a lookup table between contract call inputs and outputs, and letting you provide your own values to the lookup table (that you would prove separately). This would make it easy to have safe, strong, trustless interoperability with Ethereum. It also enables synchronous composability (see: ethresear.ch/t/combining-pr… and ethresear.ch/t/synchronous-… ). And from there, it's each L2's choice exactly what they want to build. Don't just "extend L1", figure out something new to add. This of course means that some will add things that are trust-dependent, or backdoored, or otherwise insecure; this is unavoidable in a permissionless ecosystem where developers have freedom. Our job should make to make it clear to users what guarantees they have, and to build up the strongest Ethereum that we can.

Congratulations Midnight x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

【トクリュウ敵対拠点侵入 34人検挙】 news.yahoo.co.jp/pickup/6558683

【史上最長 米政府閉鎖43日間で終了】 news.yahoo.co.jp/pickup/6558785

米SEC委員長、仮想通貨の分類体系を明確化へ coinpost.jp/?p=665783

Cardano is taking a major step into global digital payments. 🌍 💳 We're partnering with @wirexapp to launch the official Cardano Card, integrated into the Wirex app and accessible to over 6 million users in 130 countries. 🧵 1/4

これが通ってしまえば、日本の暗号資産ビジネスは完全に潰れる。（すでに砂漠のようになってしまっているが。） coindeskjapan.com/323135/ 新しいイノベーションの本質を理解しないまま、旧来の金融の枠組みで縛ることに何の意味があるのか。 技術の進化は止まらない。 もし本当に投資家を守りたいなら、「過度な規制」ではなく「正しい情報公開」「無駄のない審査」で守るべきだ。 詐欺的な誤情報だけを罰すればいい。正しい情報公開のみ登録制にすれば、嘘はあとから必ず暴かれる。技術者や金融イノベータの挑戦まで罰する必要はない。 規制を強化しても、海外は止まらない。インターネットで世界がつながる時代に、日本だけ鎖国してどうする？ 結果としてスタートアップは海外へ逃げ、10年後、日本の金融は海外のWeb3企業に蹂躙されるだろう。 日本からWeb3ユニコーンが一社も出ていないのは偶然ではない。これは日本金融の構造的問題であり、守るべきは「既得権」ではなく「未来」だ。 そもそも、JVCEAが１社だけ独占的に「自主規制機関」として特別扱いされていること自体が歪だ。株式でもISMSなど他の制度では、審査機関が複数存在し、競争原理が働いている。暗号資産でも、複数の審査機関を公認し、ライセンス制で健全な競争を生むべきだ。 我々は海外では長くても３ヶ月と言われる審査を、２年もかけさせられたIEO審査を経て上場したのに、取扱業者BitTradeは初歩的な設定ミスでシステム障害を起こし、弊社も投資家も甚大な被害を受けた。 それにも関わらず、金融庁からBitTradeに何らアクションがあったという話は聞かない。IPO当日に東証のシステムが止まったらどうなるか？スルーなどあり得ない。 今に至っても、BitTradeは投資家の入庫を拒み、マーケットメイクも行わず、取引所としての最低限の責任すら果たしていない。 それでいて、審査委員が「IEO後の価格が低迷している」などと指摘する。筋違いもはなはだしい。 そもそも現在暗号資産交換所が取り扱っている暗号資産の大半が海外銘柄であることを理解しているのか。なぜ日本の暗号資産が出てこないのか、よく考えるべきだ。 これでは、挑戦者がいなくなる。 本当に守るべきは、リスクを取って挑戦する人たちだ。 未来を創る力を、今ここで潰してはいけない。