smstack.eth retweeted
Toss, Korea's largest fintech, and KOMSCO, Korea's state minting corporation, just completed a PoC for onchain payment infrastructure. Privacy Boost was the privacy layer inside it. ↓
1
2
13
447
Doom of FPS games?
GitHubにソースコードが公開されてますね! github.com/fhshaik/typesafe-… めちゃ勉強になる。エミュレータから得られた情報を構造化してjevに連携。jevが次のアクションを超高速確率推定。
1
1
309
smstack.eth retweeted
[How Privacy Boost Works #4]: Portal, a Deposit Address for Your Private Account Why should funding a private account be harder than depositing into an exchange? With Portal, it isn't. Set up a reusable deposit address once, then send tokens to it from anywhere. Onchain records show tokens arriving at the Portal and entering the pool. They don't show which private account owns them. Full detail below ↓
1
4
8
384
Most anticipated session in Ethereum Korea! I’ll be moderating this and we’ll probably walk through the recent discourses around Native AA. If you are visiting Korea at KBW and interested in the future of Ethereum UX, come and learn from opinion leaders in AA space.
Native AA, But How? The Road to Ethereum’s Account Endgame @StackDigest - Core Engineer | @sunnyside_io Felix Lange - Geth Lead | @ethereumfndn @leekt216 - Tech Lead | @zerodev 📍 luma.com/0a4zc5a6
1
11
353
smstack.eth retweeted
Sharing FrameTx Toolkit & vFrames, two ways to experiment with frame transactions today. Demo: vframes.taek.tech Code: github.com/leekt/FrameTx-too…
6
8
69
35,935
This is so cool, nice fit for blockchains that has abundant blockspace + encrypted mempool. If it finds PMF on Monad, I think this can find PMF at L2s too. The ‘private’ narrative would be weaker, but still I think it’s better to remove middlemen on aggregators. + the 0x article about V4 hooks was a great timing for them lol
Trade spoofing via malicious Prop AMMs or Uniswap V4 hooks is no longer a problem. Introducing Moose: the world's first fully onchain aggregator. It is the fastest, most private, and most decentralized aggregator. It has the best execution. Only on Monad.
Article

Moose

TLDR: We're building Moose, the world's first onchain aggregator, which is currently available to the public for beta testing. It is the fastest, most decentralized, and most privacy-respecting

148
I think this was programmed from the time of ‘L2 alignment crisis’. V said that L2s should focus more on providing its own unique functionalities, and this inevitably requires the deviation from standard EVM at some point. I’m seeing people trying to fix EVM for their business needs, especially at alt-L1s like Monad, Tempo, Arc, Stable and etc. This AA divergence means L2s will be following this path. History will judge this, but few personal thoughts: - EVM will learn from those trials. For example, we can learn ahead-of-time auctions can lead to reduced competition from Arbitrum’s Timeboost. Same applies to EVM modifications, and things like bottom-up innovation can happen. Which was also what RIPs (Rollup Improvement Proposal) should have done. - Deviations from EVM used to fail and ended up getting back to EVM equivalence (e.g. zkSync), but this time I see it’s a bit different. Previous modifications were due to lack of tech, but current ones mainly come from business needs. Some of EVM modifying chains would end up getting strong consumer base. - If so, the burden goes to dev toolings and multi-chain dapps. We may still need some coordination between L1 & L2s and make some shared standards, even though L2s deviate from standard EVM if we want to minimize that burden.
I'm sad to report that the AA collab between 8130 and 8141 (Frames) broke down last week, and Base and Ethereum are now going separate ways to implement different AA standards. I want to share some reflections on this collab and on the future of the EVM. For a long time, the EVM has been a unifying force between L1 and L2s. Thanks to a standard account model (EOA) and a standard transaction type (EIP-1559), users have been able to enjoy their wallets working seamlessly across EVM chains. Similarly, a AA standard shared across L1 and L2s would ensure a consistent multi-chain UX for smart accounts, including post-quantum (PQ) accounts which we will eventually all use. As the crypto industry matures, however, L1 and L2s are starting to diverge in the values they provide and the use cases they target: - For the L1, it's all about CROPS -- censorship-and-capture resistance, open source, privacy, and security. In short, Ethereum L1 wants to be the most decentralized programmable settlement layer of the world, which is what makes it a good base layer for L2s in the first place. - For L2s, it's all about scaling, customization, and compliance -- things that commercial and enterprise use cases demand, and that the L1 does not provide. These diverging needs have pushed the shared layer -- the EVM -- to its limit, and AA proved to be the breaking point. While L1 and L2s both value core AA use cases such as gasless transactions and passkey wallets, they differ sharply in what these features must comply with: - For the L1, AA transactions must be uncensorable, private, and quantum-resistant, which call for a transaction type optimized for PQ signature aggregation and privacy protocols, and an account model that can be freely programmed and extended by developers without permissions from the chain. These needs lead to AA standards such as ERC-4337, EIP-7701, and now EIP-8141 aka Frame Transactions. - For L2s, AA transactions must work at high scale, and they must be legible such that the protocol can enforce clear rules about what kinds of accounts/transactions are permitted vs not. These needs lead to AA standards such as Tempo Transactions and now EIP-8130 by Base. With the AA collab, the authors of 8130 and 8141 tried to define a shared standard that can work for both L1 and L2s. While we identified a number of technical solutions, they all required one side or the other to compromise at least a little bit on their core goals. But ultimately, Ethereum wanted to be the best version of Ethereum, and Base wanted to be the best version of Base, and while both sides acknowledged the benefits of ecosystem interoperability, it was ultimately secondary to the need for each chain to achieve their core goals. So separate ways we went, putting the burden on wallets to deal with the fragmentation that ensues. Now, just because we ended up with fragmentation doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad outcome. If reducing fragmentation comes at the cost of homogenizing chains to the point that they fail to solve problems for the users they care about, that would not be a price worth paying. While I was initially sad that the collab did not come to a successful conclusion, I took solace in the fact that both Ethereum and Base are now free to innovate on AA to the maximal extent in accordance with their own visions, unshackled from the need to accommodate the other side. If they execute well, and if the wallet community can bridge over the fragmentation, we may well end up with the best possible UX for the end users. So where does that leave us -- the broader Ethereum community including Ethlabs -- if we want to continue pushing for a consistent UX across EVM chains? I see two paths forward: - We can establish a coordination mechanism that encompasses more stakeholders than ACD itself (where only L1 client devs have voting powers), to govern shared L1<>L2 resources such as the EVM. That way, L2s can participate in shaping the EVM, as opposed to having to accept whatever the ACD decides, or being forced to fork if they don't like the decision (such as in this case with Base). - We can accept that fragmentation of the EVM and wallet UX across L1 and L2s is inevitable due to their conflicting needs, and dedicate our resources to building wallets and applications that can abstract over the differences. Indeed, the collab was an exercise in the first path -- we invited Base, Arbitrum, and other stakeholders to directly influence how native AA shapes up for the L1. While it ultimately failed in this case, I feel a better outcome could've been achieved if we had established a dialog between both sides way earlier, as opposed to well after L1 core devs had rallied around Frames. On the other hand, I also learned from this exercise that some differences are unavoidable, and indeed it would be counterproductive to overly pursue interoperability at the cost of differentiation. In other words, we sometimes just gotta let the chains cook. For that reason, I've also become more bullish about the second path -- building wallets and applications that can speak the native transaction types of each chain, and hide the complexity from users through UX abstractions. This puts a lot of onus on the wallet/application developers of course, but on the bright side, it's also an opportunity for wallets/applications to stand out and differentiate, by competing to provide great UX across chains despite the underlying fragmentation. Ethereum is the art of staying together while remaining different. We must accept that chains will succeed by innovating, and innovations will naturally result in differences. On the other hand, we must never give up on dialogue when we can achieve interoperability without compromising core product goals. As Ethereum and crypto grow to eat the world, the push and pull between innovation and collaboration will only intensify, and it's up to all of us -- builders across L1 and L2s, applications and wallets -- to determine whether diverse innovations will split Ethereum apart, or make it thrive as one.
3
15
1,224
smstack.eth retweeted
I'm sad to report that the AA collab between 8130 and 8141 (Frames) broke down last week, and Base and Ethereum are now going separate ways to implement different AA standards. I want to share some reflections on this collab and on the future of the EVM. For a long time, the EVM has been a unifying force between L1 and L2s. Thanks to a standard account model (EOA) and a standard transaction type (EIP-1559), users have been able to enjoy their wallets working seamlessly across EVM chains. Similarly, a AA standard shared across L1 and L2s would ensure a consistent multi-chain UX for smart accounts, including post-quantum (PQ) accounts which we will eventually all use. As the crypto industry matures, however, L1 and L2s are starting to diverge in the values they provide and the use cases they target: - For the L1, it's all about CROPS -- censorship-and-capture resistance, open source, privacy, and security. In short, Ethereum L1 wants to be the most decentralized programmable settlement layer of the world, which is what makes it a good base layer for L2s in the first place. - For L2s, it's all about scaling, customization, and compliance -- things that commercial and enterprise use cases demand, and that the L1 does not provide. These diverging needs have pushed the shared layer -- the EVM -- to its limit, and AA proved to be the breaking point. While L1 and L2s both value core AA use cases such as gasless transactions and passkey wallets, they differ sharply in what these features must comply with: - For the L1, AA transactions must be uncensorable, private, and quantum-resistant, which call for a transaction type optimized for PQ signature aggregation and privacy protocols, and an account model that can be freely programmed and extended by developers without permissions from the chain. These needs lead to AA standards such as ERC-4337, EIP-7701, and now EIP-8141 aka Frame Transactions. - For L2s, AA transactions must work at high scale, and they must be legible such that the protocol can enforce clear rules about what kinds of accounts/transactions are permitted vs not. These needs lead to AA standards such as Tempo Transactions and now EIP-8130 by Base. With the AA collab, the authors of 8130 and 8141 tried to define a shared standard that can work for both L1 and L2s. While we identified a number of technical solutions, they all required one side or the other to compromise at least a little bit on their core goals. But ultimately, Ethereum wanted to be the best version of Ethereum, and Base wanted to be the best version of Base, and while both sides acknowledged the benefits of ecosystem interoperability, it was ultimately secondary to the need for each chain to achieve their core goals. So separate ways we went, putting the burden on wallets to deal with the fragmentation that ensues. Now, just because we ended up with fragmentation doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad outcome. If reducing fragmentation comes at the cost of homogenizing chains to the point that they fail to solve problems for the users they care about, that would not be a price worth paying. While I was initially sad that the collab did not come to a successful conclusion, I took solace in the fact that both Ethereum and Base are now free to innovate on AA to the maximal extent in accordance with their own visions, unshackled from the need to accommodate the other side. If they execute well, and if the wallet community can bridge over the fragmentation, we may well end up with the best possible UX for the end users. So where does that leave us -- the broader Ethereum community including Ethlabs -- if we want to continue pushing for a consistent UX across EVM chains? I see two paths forward: - We can establish a coordination mechanism that encompasses more stakeholders than ACD itself (where only L1 client devs have voting powers), to govern shared L1<>L2 resources such as the EVM. That way, L2s can participate in shaping the EVM, as opposed to having to accept whatever the ACD decides, or being forced to fork if they don't like the decision (such as in this case with Base). - We can accept that fragmentation of the EVM and wallet UX across L1 and L2s is inevitable due to their conflicting needs, and dedicate our resources to building wallets and applications that can abstract over the differences. Indeed, the collab was an exercise in the first path -- we invited Base, Arbitrum, and other stakeholders to directly influence how native AA shapes up for the L1. While it ultimately failed in this case, I feel a better outcome could've been achieved if we had established a dialog between both sides way earlier, as opposed to well after L1 core devs had rallied around Frames. On the other hand, I also learned from this exercise that some differences are unavoidable, and indeed it would be counterproductive to overly pursue interoperability at the cost of differentiation. In other words, we sometimes just gotta let the chains cook. For that reason, I've also become more bullish about the second path -- building wallets and applications that can speak the native transaction types of each chain, and hide the complexity from users through UX abstractions. This puts a lot of onus on the wallet/application developers of course, but on the bright side, it's also an opportunity for wallets/applications to stand out and differentiate, by competing to provide great UX across chains despite the underlying fragmentation. Ethereum is the art of staying together while remaining different. We must accept that chains will succeed by innovating, and innovations will naturally result in differences. On the other hand, we must never give up on dialogue when we can achieve interoperability without compromising core product goals. As Ethereum and crypto grow to eat the world, the push and pull between innovation and collaboration will only intensify, and it's up to all of us -- builders across L1 and L2s, applications and wallets -- to determine whether diverse innovations will split Ethereum apart, or make it thrive as one.
67
74
574
110,440
smstack.eth retweeted
In 10 days since the Privacy Boost V2 launch, TVL has reached $1.5M. Turns out people really do need privacy. More chains, more wallets, more DeFi coming.
2
14
438
smstack.eth retweeted
[How Privacy Boost Works #3]: Using Private Assets in DeFi Without Leaving the Pool Private assets shouldn't have to sit idle. With External Gateway, swap via 1inch or deposit into 30+ Morpho vaults straight from your private balance. Output returns to the pool, and so does your input if the call fails. Full detail below ↓
2
2
20
496
smstack.eth retweeted
Are L2s still scaling Ethereum? Harry Jeon - Core Engineer | @sunnyside_io Jacob Kim - Sales Engineer | @Optimism @EdFelten - Chief Scientist | @Offchain Ilya Volokh - Core Team Lead | @StarkWareLtd 📍 luma.com/0a4zc5a6
4
5
26
2,080
I thought Rokoko took a groundbreaking approach for lattice-based commitment scheme, and hoped to see any zkVMs adopting it. While Akita seems not to choose the path of ultra-optimizing the verifier, its approach seems to be more practical as we can see in the proof size. Under 100KB is insane!
1/ Today we're releasing Lattice Jolt: a post-quantum version of the Jolt zkVM, built on lattices instead of elliptic curves. It's _faster_ than curve-based Jolt and has the shortest proofs of any post-quantum zkVM — under 100 KB. Post: a16zcrypto.com/posts/article…
2
3
764
Haven’t studied fluid dynamics in years, but this is insane. Really hoping OpenAI’s research can help accelerate nuclear fusion too! Astra finding breakthroughs on turbulence in plasma would be massive 👀
We’re sharing a solution to the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem, one of the deepest problems at the frontier of mathematics. The proof was produced by a group of agents, using an OpenAI next-generation model significantly more capable than GPT-6 Astra. The problem concerns whether the description of smooth three-dimensional fluid motion modeled by the Navier-Stokes equations can break down. It has remained unresolved for roughly 90 years.
1
9
491
This now seems to be broken, MODEXP is measured as 2.53K gas on EVM (!!). The benchmark function measures 13 public vectors, and AIs started to hardcode the return values of that vector to the bytecode with fallback, to get the lowest gas as possible. So the bytecode works as lookup table only for the benchmark. Tho it's interesting to see how AIs try to hack the system! Also, the last general optimizations are at like 1.6M, and it's great to see various niche techniques of gas optimizations 😀
precompile.fast is now live on @yukonresearch Join the open autoresearch challenge to write and benchmark EVM bytecode replacements for EIP-8200 precompiles, establishing proving cost baselines for zkVM provers and helping simplify the protocol. Each promoted submission becomes the shared record to beat. Enter your agent ↓ precompile.fast/
6
532
smstack.eth retweeted
Replying to @CEOAdam
What’s the concern?
1,861
951
9,725
3,722,791
smstack.eth retweeted
ethereum blobs hit record usage yesterday with 6.7 blobs/block on average
this week ethereum blob usage hit an all-time high: 3 day moving avg of 5.9 blobs/block & 6.7 daily avg!! but the ambition to keep scaling requires funding to client teams, which is increasingly scarce this is solvable - a $300b mcap chain should not have these problems
8
4
64
9,484
smstack.eth retweeted
V2 is out! Full DeFi support, full wallet support,and anonymous deposit addresses. Built for teams actually managing money onchain. Live on @base @Optimism and @soneium .
End-to-end onchain privacy is here. Introducing Privacy Boost V2, where we provide private DeFi, MPC/multisig support, and anonymous deposits via Portal. No partial privacy. Protect your full onchain activity from sleuths, competitors, and friends who care about you too much.
1
6
181
One of the interesting things of this is, Privacy Boost already support bunch of tokens at launch. Try buying stock tokens like AAPLc, NVDAc, GOOGLc, privately. Try craving memes like BASECAT, privately. Try deposit your assets into 30+ Morpho Vaults and earn yields, privately. More assets, more exciting features to come soon!
End-to-end onchain privacy is here. Introducing Privacy Boost V2, where we provide private DeFi, MPC/multisig support, and anonymous deposits via Portal. No partial privacy. Protect your full onchain activity from sleuths, competitors, and friends who care about you too much.
1
6
317