📊 MARKET: There is almost more $ETH exiting staking than there is trying to enter. Once we cross that line, it'll be something we haven't seen since late 2025.

US CPI shows the stupidity of rate hikes. The entire impact comes from refined products. Rate hikes will not create more barrels nor increase refining, but they damage families and businesses.

Everyone sees base:0x311935cd80b76769bf2ecc9d8ab7635b2139cf82 outperforming peers on price, users, activity, & more. But many are sleeping on the fact that base:0x311935cd80b76769bf2ecc9d8ab7635b2139cf82 is CRUSHING it where it matters most: scaling. In 2026 alone, Solana has shipped 11 major protocol upgrades. Seven fully live, two activating now. 🔸 WHAT'S LIVE 🔸 • Larger transactions (1,232 → 4,096 bytes). Multi-hop swaps, large multisigs, and ZK proofs fit in one transaction instead of being split apart or failing. • 100M CU blocks (+66% capacity). More transactions land in every block, so congestion and fee spikes are rarer, and block times haven't changed. • BLS keys + Validator Admission Ticket. Thousands of votes now verify as one. Groundwork for what's coming. • Native BN254 and BLS12-381 curve ops. ZK bridges and proof-heavy apps got 10-20x cheaper. • Optimized Token Program (−98% compute). The most common action on Solana now costs a sliver of what it did, freeing ~10% more block space for everything else. • XDP networking (200x faster propagation). Validators read block data straight off the network card. This is what makes bigger blocks safe to run. • The Agave 3.1 feature set, activated across March and April. CPI account limits up 4x, faster Turbine propagation, Vote Account V4. Unglamorous plumbing, and the reason everything after it could ship. 🔸 ROLLING OUT NOW 🔸 • Slot times 400ms → 250ms, cut in four steps since August, with the final 200ms step activating now. Confirmations twice as fast, no app changes required. • Rent down ~90%. Accounts, tokens, and onchain data get dramatically cheaper; onboarding users at scale becomes cheaper. 🔸 APPROVED BY VOTE 🔸 • In August, Solana ran its first binding governance vote. SIMD-0550 passed: inflation now decays 30% a year instead of 15%. Terminal 1.5% inflation now arrives in 2.8 years instead of 5.7. That's ~18.9M SOL that never gets issued or hits the market. 🔸 SHIPPING NEXT 🔸 • Alpenglow (Agave 4.3, expected October). A full replacement for TowerBFT consensus. Validators vote directly to each other and bundle those votes into certificates. Finality drops from 12.8 seconds to ~150 milliseconds, 99% faster. A trade settles about as fast as a card swipe. • sBPFv3 (Agave 4.4, November). Four bytecode formats collapse to one. Existing programs keep running untouched, and the runtime stays lean as it scales. Watch out, because @Solana is the only chain delivering on its promise to scale. Nothing stops this chain. Keep tabs on all things base:0x311935cd80b76769bf2ecc9d8ab7635b2139cf82. 👉 StateOfSOL.com

I don't recommend anyone scramble to move their funds to new wallets today. But we should take the risks to cryptography from AI-accelerated math seriously, and minimize our exposure to not just quantum-vulnerable cryptography, but also potentially AI-vulnerable cryptography. The core new area of risk from this viewpoint is, unfortunately, ML-DSA / FHE / lattices. (and it's also another reason, along with quantum, why ECDSA might fall even faster than expected, hence the "fresh address" recommendation) So far most people have been in the mode of thinking "elliptic curves broken, hashes safe, lattices safe". But there is a good chance that the concrete security of lattices will take serious hits from the next two years of AI math. The basic threat model is: factoring is something that naively takes 2^(n/2) time, but over decades smart people have found and optimized number field sieves, and degraded that to 2^O(n^(1/3)), which is why RSA keys and signatures need to be ~400 bytes (and not 64 bytes). What if there are skeletons in the closet like that, both for elliptic curves and lattices, that we are simply not smart enough to discover - but bots soon will be? This is a major part of the reason why for the past year ethereum's lean roadmap has been going in the "hash-only" direction: no lattices, no ML-DSA, no Falcon, no lattice-based commitments inside ZK proofs, etc. Signatures in lean ethereum are all hash-based, either WOTS or SPHINCS-. For signatures and proofs, we already know how to go hash-only. The bigger challenge is for *public-key encryption* - and this goes far beyond blockchains. Secure communication, anonymizing protocols, lots of things need public-key encryption. And unfortunately there are long-standing mathematical theorems showing why public-key encryption cannot be done with hashes alone. You have to have some kind of trapdoor object that has at least one form of usable "structure" - either group theory (incl. isogenies) or lattices or code-based or potentially in the future even more newfangled and spooky things (local mixing?). But for anything that has structure, you should assume that AI will make at least some progress in breaking that structure. Here, one reasonable inference is that if you want to make something plausibly long-term secure, multiply the key sizes by 10. To me that's a very plausible world and something not at all extreme to predict. If AI will bring us 50 years of math in 2 years, then that 50 years of math may very plausibly include a "naive factoring -> GNFS" level of improvement to our ability to break lattices. In that world, lattices will still exist, but they will have to be significantly bigger to guarantee the same level of safety. And at those new larger sizes, hash-based constructions will beat lattice-based constructions on concrete efficiency in every use case where hash-based constructions are possible at all. Theoretically, of course it's possible that hashes are broken too (eg. P = NP would imply that). But I think P = NP is very unlikely. And intuitively, it's much more likely that a mathematical object has exactly no exploitable structure (like hashes are intended to), than that a mathematical object has exactly ~3 forms of exploitable structure (for elliptic curves: associativity, Schoof, pairings) and not some secret fourth form of structure we have not yet discovered that greatly degrades its security (for elliptic curves, ECDLP and pairing security). Similar for LWE, SVP, RLWE and the zoo of lattice problems. For this reason, we do not yet see any reason to worry and start padding the byte size of hashes (if we start to worry more, we would pad the round count first before doing anything to the byte size). Concrete TLDR, my own personal views: * Hash-based > lattice-based, in those situations where hash-based is possible at all * For anything lattice-based, be much more paranoid on param sizes. Remember that blockchains are only a small portion of the cryptography story; this point goes far beyond blockchains and applies to eg. access to websites, secure messaging, Tor / VPNs ... * For privacy protocols, strongly favor NOT putting encrypted notes onchain. Instead, send them offchain through some third-party mechanism. * If it's not difficult for you, keeping your funds in addresses which have not yet been used to make a transaction is a good idea. If it's easy for you, do it. **But be careful about migrations; I personally have lost more money in botched migrations than I have lost in all hacks combined**. * For multisig wallets, doing confirmations offchain is better than onchain, because this way the signatures of signer wallets do not get exposed to the public, so if ECDSA falls to AI much faster than expected, at least the multisig "gracefully degrades" to a 1-of-1 where the 1 is whoever was gathering the signatures - a much better place to be than "anyone can take the money" firefly.social/post/x/210783…