DTCC's entire business is being a ledger. Fundamentally, they compete with L1s like Ethereum and Solana--at most, what they are doing in crypto could be seen as adding some bridges, like Solana having an Ethereum bridge or vice versa, or APIs, like a totally centralized bank being gracious enough to offer a heavily permissioned and expensive API into the bank. Ethereum and Solana should view DTCC and similar intermediaries like Broadridge as competitors, to be disrupted and destroyed by a superior, fully peer to peer technology. Ethereum people simping for DTCC to "tokenize on Ethereum" means asking DTCC to mint on Ethereum receipt tokens representing claims back on DTCC's ledger, which remains definitive in all respects. This would be like Solana people begging for assets to be tokenized on Ethereum and then bridged to Solana--fundamentally a very cucked mentality.

Peter Thiel says even a 5-10% chance of AI extinction is better than a world with no growth "I don't think the probabilities are very high. On the other hand, if the probability is even 5% or 10%, that seems pretty bad." "It doesn't necessarily follow that you should always go slower and always go in the precautionary direction, because if you do nothing, if there is no progress on any dimension, I don't think our societies work at all." "The intergenerational progressive compact in our society was that there was progress from one generation to the next. Maybe economic progress, material progress, progress in health. And when that breaks down, I think the whole society starts to derange in very, very strange ways." "There's a picture that people implicitly have that the alternative to AI, let's say, a zero-growth world where there's no progress at all, will somehow be this peaceful, social democratic society. And I don't think that's true." Mathias Döpfner: “If America is slowing down and China is accelerating, we are just strengthening China, but it's not solving anything."

It's an underappreciated triumph of Ethereum client developers that PeerDAS has now been running for nearly a year with basically no problems. PeerDAS was a complex task: it's the first large-scale instance of a blockchain that achieves consensus on the availability of data without needing any single node to download the entire block. Decentralized consensus without replication. And yet, it worked.

prediction: the DTCC will do official US tokenized treasuries and it will be on ethereum

SonicStrategy has acquired 500,000 $SYN tokens via open-market purchases at ~US$0.23 (~US$115,000). Initial treasury position in on-chain derivatives. $SYN is tied to Hypercall, a decentralized options protocol building on Hyperliquid. 🇺🇸 $SONIF 🇨🇦 $SONIC 🔗 sonicstrategy.io/news/sonics… @SynapseProtocol

There seems to be two adminstration policies taking shape now: Developers and management are responsible for agents actions, agents cannot be blamed. And If you want to pace development, go ahead and place yourself as much as you like, but don't tell anyone else what to do.

The real GTA 6 You need to find a way to make money and get out

read the SEC's new crypto assets FAQ the securities laws are starting to look opt-in now, at least as applied by the SEC to crypto if you raise money by selling a non-rights-bearing token, are careful about what you represent or promise, and have a functional crypto system, there is now an extremely broad path outside the securities laws--arguably 'functionality' is not even necessary but there's some equivocation on this the buyback guidance goes further than I expected. once the system is functional, even announcing a token buyback *program* (which I guess even could be a 'perpetual program') does not, in the staff's view, constitute a promise of essential managerial efforts. same for promises to improve the system or grow its network effects so you can retain enormous influence over the thing, keep developing it, support its price with buybacks (including under a permanent "program"), and get many of the benefits of having a public investment instrument, without giving holders the rights or protections that normally come with one they have opened a loophole in a regulatory regime whose whole point was supposed to be that you couldn't draft your way around economic reality (see e.g. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…) can't really say if this is good or bad, but VCs etc. got a lot of what they wanted & the market should absorb all the implications of this among others, I am growing skeptical how much of a 'long tail' there will be for tokenized equity. . .if you can get people to buy a coin in the style of BNB, HYPE, PUMP, etc., with minimal regulation, why voluntarily take on the burdens of selling them equity? if you are not mag-7 level, it doesn't seem there would be much reason to focus on equity securities for your capital-raising. . . if you want to access 'traditional buyers' you can wrap the token in an equity instrument like an ADR for those institutions. . . the obvious next question is how far this extends beyond crypto businesses. can an ordinary company attach a functional token to its business and apply 100% of its profits to discretionary buybacks, without giving holders any right to those profits or making representations about future business efforts that independently trigger Howey? the FAQ doesn't expressly resolve that, but it opens a pretty enormous door equity still gives investors something a discretionary buyback token doesn't. . .the question is whether the market will pay enough for those rights to make granting them worthwhile. otherwise the incentive is to keep the equity for insiders and sell everyone else the coin crypto's current focus on hyping tokenized equity may be misguided, the bigger trend is "get all the benefits of equity with none of the burdens" of course this is SEC guidance, not a repeal of the statutes or a command to the courts. a private plaintiff or a future SEC could have other ideas but did not think I'd see it in my lifetime. . .the securities laws are being "disrupted" in substantial part by incentivizing making fewer commitments to investors. and if Warren Dems eventually take control and try to undo all this, after an entire market has organized around it, the resulting chaos will be something to behold sec.gov/about/divisions-offi…

This categorisation doesn’t make sense and is pretty much self-serving. First of all, arguing that a vault where a curator has discretion over how capital is allocated across markets, and can even expand into new markets beyond the user’s initial mandate, which, btw, is a known Morpho drawback (very non-LP friendly), should be considered non-custodial simply because it has a timelock is about as strong an argument as a wet European paper straw. Especially the part of implicit approvals that simply changes the whole allocation mandate and users don’t even have the proper tools to monitor these changes. Also the part on relying roles, doesn't really solve much, simply creates a blame game and relocates potentially liability but doesn't solve the actual problem. Vaults that could reasonably be considered non-custodial are those without a manager. For example, vaults that simply wrap deposits into a lending protocol, or the original Yearn vaults. These are make sense to be categorized as non-custodial vaults. There’s nothing inherently wrong with discretionary vaults, as long as the regulatory path is figured out. I’m all for developing industry standards, but let’s at least do it in a way that serves the broader industry rather than your own interests. 😂