It’s official: @IridiumComm shareholders have voted and approved the acquisition by Rocket Lab ✅ By joining forces, we’ll be creating a vertically-integrated space powerhouse that designs, builds, launches, and operates its own constellations to bring critical communications capability to millions of users worldwide. Full details and next steps: bit.ly/3T53qq1

After carefully reviewing yesterday’s logs, our engineering team confirmed that the recovery hard fork completed successfully. It does not need to be repeated. Validators are now upgrading and synchronizing for the coordinated restart. Please continue to wait for the separate all-clear before submitting transactions. Thank you to our validators, partners and everyone standing with us through these difficult days. We keep building, together.

Update: We have confirmed that a actor attempted to exploit a VM-level atomicity issue. The attempt caused invalid state changes, and network progression remains paused to prevent any further impact. Engineering has prepared a fix and will validate it on a shadow fork. Subject to successful testing, deployment to Mainnet will be coordinated with validators, exchanges and infrastructure partners. In parallel, we are evaluating a targeted recovery approach designed to preserve finalized transaction history and legitimate user state while addressing only incident-related invalid changes. No action is required from users beyond waiting for the all-clear. Please do not submit or rebroadcast transactions, or use EGLD and ESDT deposit and withdrawal routes through exchanges or bridges. We will communicate again when there is confirmed progress to share. A full technical incident report will be published once the response is complete and the findings have been finalized. Thank you for your patience and continued support while we work through this.

EGLD has been totally exposed for its lies & hidden centralization today! ⚠️ 3 days of downtime is only the tip of the iceberg: 76M EGLD (2.5x supply) was minted & partially sold! EGLD did not halt; the foundation used an off-switch! All consequences of its reckless design! 🧵 Unlike a normal chain halt, where the chain stops due to a "consensus failure/disagreement", this was far, far worse. Instead of the chain stopping because an "inflation bug" caused consensus to fail, it kept going... That is what allowed the hacker to actually send their EGLD into exchanges & cause considerable harm. What comes next is even more unbelievable. As I was wondering how it was even possible to shut down a chain with 3k validators in 66min... That is what made me uncover the next bombshell: There is a literal foundation-controlled off-switch in the code!!! The Off-Switch Every mainnet node runs with a hard-fork trigger enabled that listens for a message signed by one specific public key. That is a remote stop switch held by the Foundation! We cannot know for sure if they pressed that switch, but it is highly unlikely they could have stopped the chain that quickly otherwise & the fact that it even exists is bad enough! This is all a direct consequence of the shortcuts they had to make to bring a sharded chain down to 600ms... Reckless Design Sharding comes with certain trade-offs: EGLD claimed to overcome these trade-offs through its unique design. Turns out, in reality, those trade-offs had some extreme consequences we are feeling now: EGLD sharding splits every transfer into a sender-shard debit & a destination-shard credit that must be reconciled by hand, & on one path the credit had no debit: a money printer. With no global supply invariant, finality before execution, & no protocol-level freeze, the only fix was manually shutting down the chain & a hard fork erasing the "final" history! Lack of Disclosure Given what I just explained, you can judge for yourself whether the team's disclosure is adequate. I argue it absolutely was not. The fourth screenshot shows their communication on the matter so far & exactly what they failed to mention Including the mint, the hackers' success & the off-switch! The fact that it took my own chain & code analysis to reach these conclusions tells us the team cared more about minimizing PR damage than properly disclosing the incident. At least with this piece out, they will not be able to get away with that anymore & will have to also include this information in their report The community deserves to know what is really going on, how centralized EGLD really is & how the tech is not a magical panacea but instead comes with serious trade-offs Chain Analysis The record is clear, all on a public chain for all to see. The attacker exploited this vulnerability in the chain & managed to mint 76M EGLD! Over 2.5x the supply! Along with 430M bridged USDC, about 430M bridged USDT & 5,540 bridged WBTC... The hacker then proceeded to split these into 16 wallet addresses & then send EGLD to multiple exchanges. If we look at the timing of when these exchanges "froze" EGLD, we see that MEXC did not act in time & it perfectly corresponds with very suspicious selling activity on that exchange, which was not even arbitraged out when the full freeze took effect. We cannot tell whether the hacker managed to exit the exchange afterward, but they certainly could have! Which means the hacker was likely able to walk away with around $1M USD, effectively defrauding the exchange in the proccess, by leveraging this EGLD vulnerability Please look at the visuals, as they provide all of the supporting evidence that can also be independently verified with publicly available information Conclusion This is BTC's 2010 inflation bug & ETH's 2016 DAO's hack rolled into one. That this all happened in 2026 is even more embarrassing Unlike those historic failures, there was no full disclosure of the problem as it was happening. People deserve to know; we are blowing the lid off this story now! This is also nothing like SOL's historic downtime, which involved network halts caused by bugs. Something that has happened in over two years. While EGLD managed to beat SOL in total downtime with this single incident! SOL also never ever had an off switch! The irony & I apologize; some degree of schadenfreude cannot be helped in my situation. As the EGLD community was one of the loudest spreading that false narrative. Turns out it was unknowingly a projection! The biggest red flag is still the team itself, after my fallout with EGLD last year. The toxicity & dishonesty became too much to bear This will likely trigger another ad hominem campaign against me, as it did last time & as it did for other influencers/journalists/thinkers. Fortunatly, I am specialized in weathering the storm. While these facts are undeniable & mostly speak for themselves EGLD certainly has some good technology; we can learn something from everyone. However, what we saw here over the last few days is beyond the pale That's where the value lies: In also understanding the character of a chain's leadership, especially at an early stage, as even with decentralized governance, bad leadership can still mess it all up! This is a truly worst-case scenario for a blockchain; there are very few examples of this level of collapse in blockchain history. After such an event, we have to question the competence & the wisdom of the underlying design choices EGLD's design is flawed & reckless, making centralization trade-offs other chains would never even dream of. All while claiming to be holier-than-thou It is never too late to change our minds in the face of new evidence; please study the supporting visuals for yourself. The truth cannot be credibly denied What occurred here is undeniable, while the silence of EGLD's leadership speaks louder than words: 🎓

Elon Musk says future $SPCX satellites could support ~10Tbps in both directions with a path to 100+Tbps powered by a 250kW $NVDA Vera Rubin NVL72 system. Wild to see each satellite start to look more like an AI server in orbit connected to a massive high-speed networks.

Someone gave the leading AI models the Political Compass test. Grok 4.5 landed by far closest to the political center. Every model from Anthropic, Google, Meta, OpenAI, Deepseek, and others clustered far to the left. This is why building a maximally truth-seeking AI matters.

There is no single “best” LLM, the real advantage comes from knowing which model to use for which job. ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Grok and DeepSeek each have different strengths. The smartest workflow may not be choosing one, it may be using several strategically. For executives, founders and professionals, AI literacy is becoming less about knowing how to prompt a chatbot and more about knowing how to orchestrate the right AI for the right task. That’s the thinking behind 10xme: Don’t just use AI, learn to work with AI. 🔗10xme.biz⁠

You can now add Bot templates from our marketplace. We’re sharing Haggle Bot, our in-house procurement specialist. It negotiates vendor contracts, finds unused SaaS seats, and price-checks recurring purchases. One week in, it's saved us over $100K.

Grok Bot is now officially available on Android You can download it now from the Google Play Store play.google.com/store/apps/d…

We’re ending our partnership with Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX. Under our proposal, Cursor’s direct access to our models would end on November 12. We know that the people most affected by this decision are the developers who rely on OpenAI models in Cursor. We care about their experience in this transition and we’re ready to go above and beyond to support them. openai.com/index/our-decisio…

Grok 4.6 just took #1 on CursorBench 3.2 at 70.8% — and costs $2.81 per task while Fable 5 Max runs $17.32 and Opus 5 Max runs $8.23 for similar scores. 6x cheaper than the nearest competitor at the same performance level. For agentic coding that runs hundreds of tasks, that gap compounds fast.