running ethereum products @ flashbots advisor @ lido, steakhouse
- Tweets 32,428
- Following 1,424
- Followers 262,740
- Likes 61,637
Hasu⚡️🤖 retweeted
Today I am excited to announce the launch of Senepol.
@Senepol_ky is the latest business to emerge from @SteakhouseFi, sitting alongside our vault curation business and Grove Labs.
At Senepol, we provide directorship and governance services for projects in the digital assets space. I will be leading the initiative from the Cayman Islands with my talented colleague @tavia_te.
Our philosophy is “by builders, for builders,” and that captures how we think. Senepol is the culmination of what we have learned at Steakhouse over the past few years. We know firsthand how quickly the crypto landscape evolves, and how much work it takes to keep pace with new developments at the intersection of tech and finance.
If you are a project team and that sounds like a good fit, let’s talk.
To keep up with our updates and learn more, please follow us at the page below.
Today, we’re launching Senepol.
Senepol provides directorship and governance services for digital asset foundations and related token structures in the Cayman Islands.
Senepol is backed by Steakhouse Financial. Over the past few years, the Steakhouse team has developed deep expertise across vault curation, protocol development, and complex cross-border transactions, giving it direct operational experience with the structures that underpin onchain finance.
Senepol is a natural outcome of that work. As onchain finance continues to grow, we’re excited to bring what we’ve learned at Steakhouse to our clients.
If you’re building something ambitious, we’d love to hear from you.
senepol.ky/
6
6
39
4,479
it's really hard to sustain speculation (buying with the intent to sell it higher) for multiple weeks, let alone months. should be obvious that RH chain has tremendous potential, but this wasn't what drove the early spike
34
2
89
22,144
wild stuff
There's some confusion about what, exactly, was exploited here.
I've seen claims that this was a long-standing bug, exploited after the "fix" was pushed to the open source repo but before that fix could be rolled out in production.
That does not appear to be true.
Instead, it seems that the fix *was* deployed, but inadvertently introduced a new bug which was subsequently exploited.
Most of the network was still running official releases, none of which contain the new bug. Those nodes correctly rejected the block containing the exploit and stalled at height 4050335.
The timeline is roughly as follows:
• 2016-07-12: Range proof caching added
• 2017-11-08: Range proofs extended to support assets
• 2019-03-19: Range proof cache key "simplified", dropping asset & script fields. introduces Bug A.
• 2026-09-01: Bug A "fixed" by extending cache key to include asset + script. introduces Bug B.
• 2026-09-06: Bug B exploited, reserves drained, chain split.
The original "Bug A" allows some limited cache poisoning because the cache key doesn't commit to the asset and script, allowing a cached result for a range proof for one asset to be applied to a different asset or context.
Exploiting this in practice looks quite difficult, since the amount must match the primer and the proof must be genuine.
The 2026 "fix" added those missing fields to the cache key, producing a format like:
"proof | amount | asset | scriptpubkey"
But this unfortunately made the key easier to manipulate and exploit:
The four fields are concatenated without separators or length indicators.
Since both the proof and the scriptpubkey are variable length, an attacker can stretch the proof and shrink the script to produce the exact same cache key from different proofs, amounts, assets and scripts.
This lets an attacker smuggle arbitrary confidential output amounts and junk proofs past the range proof checker without proper validation, which breaks the guarantees that prevent hidden inflation.
On-chain evidence suggests that this second bug is what was exploited:
Two primer transactions each created an op_return with carefully constructed scriptpubkey and valid range proof for a (presumably) zero value output.
blockstream.info/liquid/tx/2…
blockstream.info/liquid/tx/7…
This produced a cache key like:
"<valid proof> | <valid amount> | <L-BTC> | OP_RETURN <negative amount> <L-BTC> OP_RETURN"
The exploit transaction then created a large negative op_return output with an invalid range proof:
blockstream.info/liquid/tx/f…
The invalid proof is padded with bytes corresponding to the primer's valid amount and asset fields, aligning the actual amount and asset fields with the same bytes from the primer's opreturn payload:
"<valid proof> <valid amount> <L-BTC> OP_RETURN | <negative amount> | <L-BTC> | OP_RETURN"
The exploit transaction could then include a second output crediting the attacker with a large positive value, balanced out by the fake negative amount.
Because the success was already cached, the invalid proof was never actually checked and the transaction was accepted as valid by nodes running versions of the software vulnerable to bug B.
Although the amounts are blinded, this is the only output with an invalid range proof anywhere in the peg-out's recent ancestry, so this must be where the inflated coins were created.
And since the padding only produces a cacheable key under the new format, it must have been the newer bug that was exploited.
7
1
28
12,703
No one has concern trolled Ethereum’s “attack surface” near as much as Samson Mow and Adam Back
Fate loves irony
It looks like ~4,000 BTC just moved from the Liquid Network bridge all at once with an OP Return saying, "we are whitehats. contact us on chain".
TXID:
c103de95817b43f2df635ec6f35ff126ca26a7c6d20570c4b01866b2b3e69a19
11
6
168
22,991
The BuilderNet team supports faster slots on Ethereum. Read more: collective.flashbots.net/t/a…
EIP-8198 introduces infra for variable slot timing, enabling Ethereum to gradually shorten slots as bottlenecks are better understood.
We published our take on it, supporting the move toward shorter slots while arguing that geo incentives should remain part of the evaluation 👇
16
11
70
13,318
Germany is doing pretty well in spite of that, now imagine Germany if it got their shit together
There has been a lot of attack vs. defense of Germany and German bureaucracy for start-ups following @patrickc's post on the matter.
So let me give you a list of the FKIN insanity I faced after acquiring a German company - list is not exhaustive. In random order:
* 16hs live read at the notary of financing documents
* Embassy-apostilled wet signature to change address
* Officer to monitor working hours of (remote) workers
* Notarized Etherscan-printout to validate Ethereum tx
* Notary to escrow a Safe multisig (lol again)
* PostIndent on everything that moves (in German)
* Purchase of nominal share price only in EUR
* Pre-study for foreign investing in strategic (any) assets
* BONUS: try to do performance management in GER
Fun fact on (1): after 16hs reading financing docs, at 11.30 PM, the notary informed us that if we wouldn't have finished by midnight they would have had to change the date on the contracts and re-read them again from scratch.
What I have seen in Germany blew my mind. And to anyone complaining of X anti-European spirit, I am European, born and bred, and I still think Europe is *BY FAR* the best place to spend your money. Maybe not the best place to make the money in the first place.
14
4
72
15,843
what a brilliant example of one guy reading a post, taking one sentence out of context in a way that is probably meant to deceive, and many others retweeting because it supports their political orientation
what you would think reading this + its retweets: thinking models are politically right wing! duh, how obvious, its because its the only way an actually thinking person could vote
but if you go to aipolcom.net/#s00 and see what it *actually* says, it is that all tested models landed strongly left-leaning (and yes, libertarian too), and the higher thinking ones move very slightly more to the center *within that leftist quadrant*
twitter x the political economy in a nutshell.
12
12
93
14,318
Hasu⚡️🤖 retweeted
When lenders don’t feel safe lending their capital, the market declines for everyone. In the long run, everyone should want the industry to trend towards lending markets that prioritize lenders.
9
9
64
26,190
I've said it before (in spite of supporting the small block vision at the time) but in hindsight, Bitcoin actually lost the block size wars.
At the same time, block size isn't the main or even the only reason why activity moved to other chains. That was programmability, and here I don't think Bitcoin should have competed for it.
The idea of having a simple chain optimized for holding + spending in a trust minimized way is a good one. But then its fairly clear to me that you want just a little bit more programmability (e.g. covenants for better custody), bigger blocks, and faster finality.
The challenge was always doing that without creating a technocracy that undermines the immutability concept that underpins it all
It is so sad. Bitcoin usage was growing exponentially up until 2014ish.
And then we collectively told the world we didn't want them using our precious "block space," by keeping the 1 MB limit.
We had more demand than we ever hoped for but rather than building out the infrastructure, we pretended that blockchains couldn't scale. Why?
42
12
177
34,926
the type of wholesome content we need @ethlabs_org
10
12
143
17,399
>disagree on the distinction, all issuance changes, 1559, the merge, progpow were hotly contested by miners
that is my whole point. you could relatively easy walk over miners, which is why the majority of these changes actually happened. miners != owners/users of the chain
that's no longer true now. you made your chain owners also the validators, which has all kinds of advantages. but it also has the downside that as a constituency, they have an effective veto right on everything.
its not a hard veto, its more of a soft veto in the sense things that are bad for stakers will be disliked already by 35% of your owner base. and this is a near impossible activation cost to pay. it can be done, but only at an absurd expenditure of fiancial, human, and political capital. not to speak of the opportunity cost of not building features that actually matter
and *this* is a lesson I don't think Ethereum has internalized yet.
7
1
32
5,073
this is one of big differences between PoW and PoS:
miners and holders+users are for the most part non-overlapping sets, hence can be compartmentalized nicely into the service provider role.
stakers, not so easily! these are basically your same folks that own + use the chain, making any change way more political
I think you basically have to accept that PoS systems are really hard to change after launch, so you better get it roughly right the first time around.
fortunately, I think that the range of workable outcomes is pretty wide, and it doesn't really matter what happens on Ethereum.
if proposed today, EIP-1559 would see parallels to today's "no issuance reduction": base-fee income for vals+insti, support for solo stakers/decentralization
how should EIP "contentiousness" be weighted vs diffuse positive user welfare? what's similar/diff about these contexts?
11
7
47
14,619
Hasu⚡️🤖 retweeted
An aggressive slot time reduction should have been the Hegotá headliner, but that time has passed. If we don't at least lay the groundwork now for it to happen in future forks, we're likely going to have 12 second slots for many more years to come. Ship quick slots.
We published a (very!) detailed snapshot of our thinking on Hegotá priorities.
You’ll hear me continue to discuss faster ethereum and faster blocks in the coming weeks, we think this is a critical one to get done here.
2
11
67
8,373