Han | JLHvc.xyz

After China's cancellation of Meta's purchase of Manus, why would any founder start an AI company in China if they had a choice? In China you have access to less compute, less capital, and salaries are lower than in the West. And if you are so successful that a non-Chinese firm tries to acquire you for billions of dollars, the Chinese government will lure you back to Beijing, ban you from leaving the country, and take your profits by canceling the acquisition. Manus did everything right. They even moved their entire business to Singapore to comply with U.S. outbound investment restrictions. Their only mistake was that they originally founded the company in China. It's not even clear what it means for China to force Meta to unwind the transaction. Is it going to force Manus's researchers to return to China and place exit bans on them too? Is it going to force Manus's founders and shareholders to pay back $2 billion to Meta? This is what happens when you regulate by fiat rather than rule of law. Ultimately, this is a much larger defeat for the Chinese AI ecosystem than for the United States. Meta will be fine without Manus. But Chinese nationals looking to found AI companies will increasingly just start them overseas. The message from the Chinese government here is that every AI company founded in China will forever remain subject to Chinese government regulatory pressure and manipulation, regardless of its legal status or location. Lastly, given the Chinese government clearly believes that the US and Chinese AI ecosystems should be completely separate, we should stop helping their ecosystem succeed! China's AI companies remain extremely reliant on US compute, AI models, and chipmaking tools. If we tighten the screws on China's access to US tech, the Chinese ecosystem will be even less attractive to founders, and more will just start companies overseas.

这就巧了么不是 还剩去年投的一个 KOL 轮项目的币 现在账面上已经翻了40 倍，但解锁期被项目方强制延长了半年 猜猜是哪个

朋友找户子给我拍了个祝福视频，没想到预算那么充足…… （以后这钱不如直接给我，我可以自己祝福自己的）

DeFi United Update: Thank you for all contributions so far and we are discussing for more to strengthen the position. I am very grateful for all the support so far. It's been a difficult week and more work ahead. However with all the support, I remain confident. Next steps, we would expand our contributor base, we have seen already many DeFi teams and community members joining the effort, there will be more solutions suggested by the community including natives ones we are exploring to. DeFi United.

我去，DeepSeek V4 终于来了！ 有两个型号，一个 Flash，一个 Pro。 新版本的功能支持非常全面： 支持 JSON 输出 支持工具调用 支持对话前缀续写 支持 FIM 补全 价格方面： Flash 型号：每百万输入/输出的价格分别是 ¥0.2 和 ¥1 Pro 型号：每百万输入/输出的价格分别是 ¥1 和 ¥12 另外，100 万上下文的价格输出会翻一倍。

Kelp DAO got drained for $292M yesterday. Biggest DeFi hack of the year. Aave didn't get touched. Their contracts are fine. But someone used the stolen $rsETH as collateral on Aave to borrow $wETH against it, and now Aave is sitting on $196M of bad debt. $6.6 billion exited Aave in a few hours. wETH utilization hit 100%. The protocol froze. $AAVE down more than 20%. That's two nine figure DeFi hacks in 18 days. $600M+ gone in April alone.

To this day I do not understand why this decision was made. I vehemently opposed it as a pre-product friendly advisor, and I still oppose it now. Why like why. Everyone loves liquity. No body likes the name BOLD. (for a stablecoin that is. Not to be confused with a green frog that draws comics)

KuCoin admitted they pulled their MMs from replicating orders across other exchanges so they wouldn’t suffer losses. Instead they hedged against their own users. I have them on video saying they take the loss from users unlike every other exchange. The second they pulled MM liquidity, the order book went to zero open interest. Which leaves me with only one conclusion: KuCoin is insolvent and their only volume comes from hedging MMs against users.