What's going on in Indonesia re MSCI? The simple summary is this: Locals cornered and wash traded a bunch of stocks up, artificially boosting market cap & liquidity with the goal of achieving index inclusion & unloading into passive buying. In other words, they tried to game MSCI. This went on for years and was succeeding, but it eventually reached utterly egregious levels where almost half the market cap was "saham gorengan" (deep fried shares), and some of the said stocks were trading at P/E ratios of 500x. Retail investors also jumped in, as did local institutions who feared underperforming the local market cap weighted index (JCI). The market distortions eventually became so blatantly obvious that even blundering MSCI eventually realized they were being gamed, but their blunt processes were not equipped to differentiate between "real" and "fake" prices (pro tip MSCI, real stocks trade at 5-10x PEs and fake ones >100x). MSCI decided if their systems can't differentiate between the two, the easiest and most bureaucratic option was to just boot Indonesia out of the indices. The lack of appropriate domestic market supervision & safeguards against market manipulation can be criticized. However, OJK (the local regulator) has already been taking action. The prices of many saham gorengan have already fallen 80% since MSCI announced earlier this year it was freezing new inclusions and considering downgrading Indonesia to FM (frontier). However, manipulation is not always that easy to clamp down on, some of the activity has moved to offshore vehicles, Indo retail and local benchmark hugging institutions also participated, and, it must be said, some of the players are politically connected, putting OJK in a difficult position. But they have been moving in the right direction & progress has been made. That is what makes MSCI's most recent escalation of threatening to kick Indonesia not just out of EM into FM, but excluding it from FM as well, a little puzzling and draconian. MSCI's behaviour is in a way not that surprising though, as like rating agencies, it is bureaucratic and usually behind the curve. They kicked Nigeria out of the frontier index for instance after years of currency convertibility problems (during which it should have been excluded), but they did so right at the point when a new government had been elected and had just floated the currency. My take is that while Indonesian conduct bears a meaningful portion of the blame, so does MSCI/passive. With passive growing to become such a large force in financial markets, it was only a matter of time before it was gamed, and what we are also seeing here is some of the stuctural problems/limitations of passive investing. Passive works best when its a small part of the market that can free ride reasonably efficient markets driven by active investors. However, when passive grows to become sufficiently large it can become distortionary, and capable of driving major market inefficiency and being gamed/arbbed. Recent developments potentially provide a substantial buying opportunity for long term benchmark unaware investors, though it will require a long term focus and volatility tolerance to benefit from. Exclusion from major indices will structurally raise the Indonesian cost of equity and result in a potentially durable valuation discount. Long term investors can benefit from that in the form of higher returns priced into stocks, but that doesn't mean a fast (or even any) recovery in valuations will necessarily occur (though it could). There is still 8mths until MSCI's final decision so the market may be oversold short term (active might not dump until its actually excluded from indices), but there could also be a wall of forced selling coming mid next year. Indonesia has other problems to be sure (governance under Prabowo), but that is not the proximate cause of the recent sell-off - it is purely fears of downgrade triggering passive and offshore active outflows (if Indonesia is small, off benchmark, and not a good news story, many active instos won't bother with it), and investors are thus front running those anticipated outflows. I for one am a buyer.

72 hour update on reseller CryptoBilis incident 🔽 As the investigation continues, we are working with relevant authorities. The volume of impacted devices is limited. We know this is concerning, especially for those directly affected, and we are reaching out to impacted users. To date, all confirmed cases related to the disclosed draining incident of Oct 9th, 2026, involve devices sold through the Southeast Asia reseller CryptoBilis. Our systems and direct sales channels remain unaffected. We take the CryptoBilis situation seriously and are actively investigating. We encourage impacted users to reach out to Ledger Support through official channels and file complaints with their local law enforcement authorities. As a reminder, CryptoBilis has confirmed having ceased all sales of hardware wallets. We are reminding our authorized resellers and distributors to source products only through authorized channels and never to restock returned products. Also, we strongly advise users not to purchase from unauthorized resellers, where the risk of buying suspicious, counterfeit or modified devices is important as nothing operates under ledger security guidelines. Security isn’t static and this incident underscores why we continuously review and strengthen our distribution and anti-tamper processes. We are continuously improving that work now and events like this strengthen our resolution: reviewing authorized reseller controls, advancing hardware protections, and cooperating with authorities. Thanks to @SEAL_911 for their collaborative support and all their efforts. This is an ongoing threat that doesn’t just impact Ledger, but the whole ecosystem, and we are calling others in the space to work with us on making improvements for users. We believe in jointly working with researchers, other vendors and partners on improving industry chain-of-custody practices and anti-tamper techniques. Raising the bar on physical supply-chain integrity benefits the entire ecosystem. If you have relevant information, contact [email protected]. For CryptoBilis buyers: do not initialize unused devices. If already set up, move to a new seed on a device from Ledger. If you have concerns that your device was impacted by the CryptoBilis incident, please contact Ledger Support through the official site: support.Ledger.com. Ledger Support is available 24/7 to answer your questions and concerns. Scammers often try to take advantage of incidents like this. Rely only on official Ledger channels. Ledger will never call you, DM you, or ask for your 24-word recovery phrase.

En un chat, terminar una frase con un punto a veces se siente como una declaración de guerra. 😅 Para darle más calidez y expresividad a la pantalla, los emojis planos evolucionan a 3D con Noto 3D: ✨ Expresividad en 360°: Diseñados con más dimensión, textura y personalidad para tus conversaciones. 🎨 Detrás del diseño: Conoce los retos creativos para transformar íconos 2D en personajes tridimensionales completos. 👀 Spoiler: Sí, pensamos absolutamente en cada ángulo (incluso en los que no te esperabas). 🍑 Descubre el proceso de diseño detrás de esta evolución: ➡️ goo.gle/4diXoc0 Para español: En Chrome > Clic derecho > Traducir.

Kami segenap keluarga besar dan staf Bybit Indonesia mengucapkan Selamat Ulang Tahun kepada Bapak @LawrenceGS selaku CEO Bybit Indonesia. Semoga senantiasa diberikan kesehatan, kebahagiaan, kesuksesan, serta kelancaran dalam setiap langkah dan pengabdian. Terus menginspirasi dan memberikan kontribusi terbaik bagi kemajuan industri aset keuangan digital di Indonesia

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…

Satu platform, lebih banyak pilihan. Kini Anda bisa menjelajahi tokenized stocks dan aset kripto dalam satu halaman Market di Website Bybit Indonesia. Lebih banyak akses. Lebih banyak peluang. Anda yang menentukan langkah selanjutnya. Make your own move: bybit.id/id-IDN/trade/spot/A…

📢 Pembaruan Biaya CFX Bybit Indonesia akan melakukan penyesuaian pada biaya CFX yang berlaku untuk transaksi di platform. Penyesuaian ini akan berlaku pada 1 Oktober 2026 pukul 00.00 WIB. Pastikan Anda memahami perubahan biaya sebelum melakukan transaksi.