OpenAI just used an AI model to crack long-standing problems in derandomization, finite-field factorization and exponential algorithms. None of this breaks ECC. But the assumption that major cryptographic math advances arrive slowly is getting harder to defend. Justin’s warning is worth taking seriously.

Today I call upon the blockchain industry to calmly begin planning for "bunker mode". My personal recommendation is to set in motion a controlled mass migration of assets to fresh addresses, i.e. addresses whose pubkeys remain hidden behind a hash. Holders, starting with large and sophisticated ones, should consider moving the bulk of their funds to addresses that have never signed a transaction. And when they do sign one, they should also move remaining funds to a new address (possibly generated from the same seed phrase). Don't rush. While I believe there is cause for action a rushed migration would do more harm than good. Don't panic either. Moving assets to protected addresses is a simple, preventative step which does not require new cryptography or new wallets. IMO it is now reasonable to brace for the possibility that ECDSA breaks before qday, in the worst case in months not years. By "break" I mean fast private key recovery (e.g. in one week) on available hardware (e.g. a large GPU cluster). Recent days have been humbling for human mathematical intuition. Long-held, unquestioned hypotheses have fallen. This includes the n log(n) bound for integer multiplication and the 3SUM conjecture. In hindsight, May's unexpected disproof of the Erdős unit distance conjecture was our warning shot. Yesterday's OpenAI drop made it clear that mathematical superintelligence is upon us. They say there are weeks where decades happen. We are about to live through weeks where centuries of mathematical progress happen. Could our magic 64-byte ECDSA signatures be too good to be true? Was it just security through obscurity all this time? Elliptic curves feel especially vulnerable to superintelligence. Curves carry rich structure, with room for fancy tricks like Schoof, Frobenius, pairings. (By contrast, hashes are designed to minimise algebraic structure.) Separately, as Ewin Tang can attest, an efficient quantum algorithm sometimes foreshadows an efficient classical one. We should be open to the possibility of a classical counterpart to Shor that breaks elliptic curves and RSA at once. Also noteworthy is the striking under-representation of cryptographic breakthroughs among the 722 mathematical results OpenAI published. I've witnessed first-hand the US government censoring academic quantum cryptanalysis results. Backroom interventionism is my base case. I urge large, sophisticated actors to lead by example. Project11's "risq list" (bitcoin-risq-list.projecteleven[.]com) is a great tracker of exposed BTC pubkeys. Binance, Bitbank, Robinhood, Bitfinex, and Tether have an opportunity to harden their cold storage. Next month I'll address institutions in London in a live Q&A (forum.ethereuminstitutional[.]org/london-2026). Again, please do not rush. Wallets holding under 50 BTC enjoy partial cover from "Satoshi's shield", i.e. his 20K exposed addresses that hold 50 BTC each. Load-bearing signers like oracles and L2 security councils should consider rotating ECDSA pubkeys with every signed message and/or multi-signing with a hash-based schemes like SPHINCS. Exiting bunker mode safely will require post-AI cryptography. My inclination is to go all-in on hash-based cryptography and avoid structured mathematical assumptions entirely, whether from curves, lattices, or isogenies. A single battle-tested hash (e.g. from the SHA or BLAKE families) yields plausible post-AI security. The Ethereum roadmap on strawmap[.]org fully embraces hash-based cryptography with end-to-end formal verification as a response to the quantum threat. Those timelines must now be revisited and accelerated in light of mathematical superintelligence. I'll be pushing for maximum defensive acceleration.

Watch Paul, Phil, Michael and Niro break down how businesses are using stablecoins like a neobank.

Great shirt!

Paul calls ETFs the wrapper chapter. Hear him unpack what comes next.

The cryptographic world computer: vitalik.eth.limo/general/202… My attempt to express in somewhat concise terms the true meaning of basically everything planned to happen to Ethereum starting from the fork after Hegota. It's really not just a blockchain anymore. It's a hybrid architecture that combines together blockchains and modern cryptography, to enable much more powerful properties. FOCIL, EIP-8288, Lean consensus, state management, formal verification, advanced mempool improvements (including privacy), and the longer-term specter of obfuscation all mentioned.

New crypto FAQs: sec.gov/about/divisions-offi…

>be me >discover effective altruism >apparently normal charity is inefficient >why donate to random sad thing when spreadsheet can tell you optimal sad thing >fair enough >buy mosquito nets >save lives >numbers look good >feel powerful >couple years later >someone asks an innocent question >why only count people alive today >huh >future people matter too >obviously >my grandchildren shouldn't matter less just because they haven't spawned yet >reasonable.jpg >keep following logic >what about their grandchildren >also yes >what about people in 500 years >sure >5000 years >why not >500 million years >starting to get weird but morality is morality >open calculator >humanity could survive for an astronomically long time >could colonize galaxy >could have trillions upon trillions of descendants >maybe digital people too >maybe simulated civilizations >maybe dyson spheres full of happy uploaded minds >calculator starts smoking >realize currently living humans are rounding error >8 billion people suddenly looking extremely beta >future contains potentially 10^something people >can't even fit beneficiaries in google sheets >new moral priority unlocked >protect the long-term future >stop thinking in units of "people helped" >start thinking in "fraction of cosmic endowment preserved" >malaria? >terrible >but only kills existing humans >AI extinction could delete the entire light cone >nuclear war could permanently derail civilization >bad institutions could lock in terrible values for ten million years >someone invents wrong constitution in 2140 >quadrillions suffer >better fund governance workshop now >friend says maybe we should improve hospitals >explain opportunity cost >friend says hospitals are full of actual sick people >explain scope sensitivity >friend stops inviting me to dinner >need to decide what to fund >easy >expected value >suppose project has one in a million chance of preventing extinction >sounds tiny >but extinction destroys 10^50 future lives >multiply >mother of god >$10 million project has expected value of several galaxies >charity evaluation complete >someone asks where the one-in-a-million number came from >expert judgement >which expert >us >how calibrated >extremely thoughtfully >reduce estimate to one in ten million to be conservative >still beats curing cancer by 38 orders of magnitude >epistemic robustness achieved >someone says maybe project doesn't work >assign 20% chance >still astronomical >maybe project makes problem worse >assign 5% chance >still astronomical >why 5 >because 30 felt pessimistic >publish 46-page report >contains seventeen sensitivity analyses >every sensitivity analysis begins after assuming intervention has positive sign >critic says you're multiplying enormous hypothetical stakes by extremely uncertain probabilities >yes >that's literally why it's important >critic says the uncertainty might be structural rather than numerical >make probability smaller >critic says no, I mean maybe your model is wrong >make probability smaller again >critic begins rubbing temples >discover AI safety >perfect longtermist cause >AI might kill everyone >or create utopia >or seize galaxy >or tile universe with paperclips >or create billions of conscious software minds >finally a problem with numbers big enough for me >start AI safety nonprofit >mission: prevent dangerous AI >hire smartest people available >smartest people immediately start building better AI to understand dangerous AI >interesting >we must understand capabilities to understand safety >we must scale models to study alignment >we must race ahead so less responsible actors don't get there first >we must deploy systems to learn how deployment can go wrong >we must build the thing quickly because building the thing quickly is dangerous >outsider asks why the people most worried about AI apocalypse all work at AI companies >complicated field >company releases stronger model >very concerned >company begins training even stronger model >extremely concerned >company raises $14 billion >concern reaches unprecedented levels >need to influence government >future is at stake >normal democratic process too slow >politicians don't understand exponential curves >public doesn't understand x-risk >experts must guide them >who counts as expert >people who understand x-risk >who understands x-risk >our friends >someone objects that this seems politically convenient >explain we're representing future generations >future generations unavailable for comment >develop concept of value lock-in >terrifying possibility that one ideology controls civilization forever >therefore extremely important that civilization adopts correct values before lock-in >whose values >let's circle back >begin with impartial morality >end with small group of people deciding what quadrillions of hypothetical beings would want >beautiful arc >meanwhile actual humans keep doing annoying things >voting wrong >having parochial attachments >loving family more than strangers >caring about local community >getting upset when told their suffering is cosmically negligible >evolutionary biases everywhere >explain that moral intuition cannot be trusted >except intuition that future digital people count >and intuition that extinction is uniquely bad >and intuition that our probability estimates are sane >and intuition that our institutional choices improve the future >those intuitions survived peer review >someone donates $5k to local homeless shelter >inefficient >could have funded 0.0000000000003% of an AI governance researcher >think of all the simulated people you just killed >okay maybe don't phrase it that way publicly >PR team says "future generations deserve a voice" >much better >journalist asks what longtermism means >say "future people matter" >everyone agrees >great >journalist asks what follows from that >well technically we should redirect enormous resources toward low-probability interventions affecting astronomical futures >journalist raises eyebrow >return to "future people matter" >motte has entered the chat >critic: of course future people matter >me: glad we agree >critic: I don't agree that your institute knows how to help them >me: why do you hate our grandchildren >eventually notice uncomfortable implication >if future value dominates everything >then helping people today mostly matters through effects on future >education matters because future institutions >health matters because future productivity >democracy matters because future trajectory >human beings slowly become instrumental variables in their own moral philosophy >see starving child >feel compassion >check spreadsheet >child's direct welfare contribution negligible >but perhaps childhood nutrition improves national institutional quality >compassion restored >tell myself this is impartial altruism >one day assistant asks obvious question >"how do you know your intervention actually improves the far future?" >silence >open spreadsheet >increase column width >add confidence interval >assistant asks again >"no, I mean how do you know the sign is positive?" >stare into cosmic light cone >10^50 people staring back >none of them exist >none of them can tell me >none of them can falsify my assumptions >realize I have invented the perfect constituency >infinitely important >completely silent >and always represented by me

Today we are announcing that S&P Global has entered an agreement to acquire OpenZeppelin. Onchain finance is growing from an emerging market into core financial infrastructure, and the standards and rails our team and community built are becoming the rails of global finance. OpenZeppelin smart contracts facilitated over $37 trillion in value transferred, with the vast majority of the largest DeFi protocols, blockchain networks, stablecoins and tokenized funds relying on them. With S&P Global, we expect to accelerate the impact of onchain finance, backed by more than a century of trust in global markets, benchmarks, and risk frameworks. To our clients and to all the users of OpenZeppelin open source tools: • OpenZeppelin Contracts and all our open source applications and tools remain open source, free, and publicly maintained on GitHub. Building open source standards stays a core priority. • Audits, engineering work, and ecosystem programs continue with the same team, brand, quality, and customer experience, with what will be the added benefit of S&P Global's research capacity, market data, and institutional reach. For the last decade, OpenZeppelin has set the security standard for onchain finance. Today begins a new chapter for that mission, together with one of the most trusted names in global markets. Read the full announcement: openzeppelin.com/news/spglob…

You're welcome @Teknium. Point me at the mobile/android client when available, would be happy to chip in 🫡

Higher

$2,000 ethereum:native Welcome back

Some thoughts on vaults and onchain lending: sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-st…

I have information that Anthropic scraped my github twitter reddit discord and facebook posts for the development of it's Fable model. To do this they developed a sophisticated internal platform to conduct large scale scraping and obfuscation of their actions.

Anyone else think diffs are just annoying at this point?

19 DeFi exploits that weren't in the open-source record — now fully reproducible. If you work in smart-contract security, you know DeFiHackLabs — the standard, comprehensive library of reproducible on-chain exploit PoCs. A handful of exploits just aren't in it. We found 19, analyzed each one end-to-end, and published everything: 🔹 Foundry PoCs (offline-reproducible, exact on-chain profit) → github.com/sanbir/evm-hack-r… 🔹 Loadable PoC bundles → github.com/sanbir/evm-hack-p… 🔹 Interactive EVM Playground pages — step through each exploit opcode-by-opcode, with the vulnerability and every exploit step marked → crypto.training/hacks All 19, newest first: • BarnBridge SMART Yield (DAO governance capture) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • Bonzo Lend / Supra oracle (BLS zero-signature price forge) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • Hinkal (legacy-note multi-nullifier double-spend) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • Drips DaiHub (uint128→int128 cast) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • Gnosis Pay / Zodiac Delay (EIP-1271 signature bypass) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • ATOHook (Solady ReentrancyGuard storage collision) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • JaredFromSubway MEV bot (residual ERC-20 approvals) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • BoostHook (leveraged long, no post-open solvency check) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • Aurellion Labs (unprotected diamond re-init) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • ONTR (zero-owner onlyOwner free mint) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • BlastFOMOVault (claimBonus clone-churn) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • HeisenbergHook (Uniswap v4 fee-path hijack) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • Sat1Hook (grindable hook identity) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • QNT Reserve (EIP-7702 + permissionless BatchCall) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • Yearn stETH Accumulator (missing execute() auth) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • Blockchain Bets (ERC-1155 stake/transform inflation) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • TTSwap Market (permissionless initGood mispricing) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • WUKONG Staking (classical reentrancy in unstake) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… • FoomCash / FOOM Lottery (Groth16 verifier with gamma == delta) — crypto.training/hacks/2026-0… One recurring lesson: the interesting part of an attack is often not the drain. BarnBridge is the clearest example — the money left through the front door of the DAO. The real exploit was obtaining access: buy ~$2,200 of a dead governance token, stake it with a lock multiplier, and pass a proposal because quorum was measured on raw stake while votes counted multiplied power. So we reproduced the governance capture, not just the payoff. And you can do all of this yourself. github.com/sanbir/evm-hack-a… is an open-source, fully local EVM Playground. Point it at any exploit transaction — it pulls the verified sources, replays the whole thing opcode-by-opcode, and lets you mark the vulnerability and the exploit execution steps. Then share your PoC however you like — open a PR to github.com/sanbir/evm-hack-p…, or publish it in your own repo, on IPFS, anywhere. No lock-in: the analyzer doesn't depend on evm-hack-poc or crypto.training. The best way to understand an exploit is to reproduce it. The second best is to make it easy for the next person to. #Web3Security #SmartContracts #DeFi #EVM #Solidity #BlockchainSecurity #OpenSource

Terra high vs Sol low: Terra won by far. >Terra won decisively. Faster on 10 of 10 real items (~40% overall), identical decisions on 8/10, and on the one hard disagreement we adjudicated in source code — #110103 — Sol would have false-closed a live bug as "implemented on main".

always has been > The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time

Yeah exactly. I've reviewed a lot of human code in my career. Every company I have worked at over the last 20 years has been an "every change needs to be reviewed before merge" type of shop. And in the process I've caught an enormous number of bugs and logic errors. Almost everything I review has problems. Reviewing AI code honestly doesn't feel much different to me than human code ever did. Most of the problems I catch feel just like problems I've seen in human code. I feel like the people complaining about AI code quality must never have been in a role where they are regularly reviewing their colleagues' code?