If you've heard about @GldstnOnChain but haven't had a chance to dig in, watch this 2 min video with the sound on. It does a great job of breaking down the model.

“I see Zenith as Canton’s first credible entry point for Solidity developers. But it is still a testnet,…” We appreciate the nod! Respectable post. But if I may… A handful of testnets have been in prod for several months already with clients. It’s only a marketing choice when to announce things 👀 “…not an active application economy.” This is the core value proposition of having a single public, permissionless EVM virtual blockchain deployed to Canton. We could have just left it at Zenith Stack deploying EVM subnets for specific businesses, but like you noted, that would not yield Robinhood-esque results. You’ll be pleasantly surprised. Your post is accurate in its scope, but still only a small fraction of what’s possible with this technology and what we impact we can actually make. Zenith Stack VBs going live will be the first time the EVM has been baked natively into a non-EVM L1, with true atomicity - not marketing jargon. Brew on the implications. And hey, we can do any VM. “Zenith could solve the developer-access problem. It does not solve distribution by itself.” Could? It does. Can’t solve distribution? Says who? Unlike the ecosystems of yesteryear: 1. I believe bringing the technology to MainNet is only the starting line of the race. 2. I believe incubator/accelerator/start-up/hackathon driven application level ecosystems are doomed from the jump. 3. I believe only mature, robust, stress-tested and trusted applications matter. 4. I believe asset issuance is nearly worthless without bringing the entire value chain… onchain. Why tokenize if you haven’t found the buyer/lender? I could care less personally who the intermediary technology provider is to connect the two as long as it’s on the Zenith Stack and both parties agree to it. 5. I believe in focusing on PMF not market meta noise. I was steering the company in this direction since mid-2024. 6. I believe RWAs will just be called digital assets. Back to the basics. 7. I believe in 10-20 years global financial markets will be entirely migrated with some, if not all, of the backend onchain. Blockchain will just be a technology, not a trend. 8. I believe we’re in an institutional hype bubble with regards to the deployment phase. It’s fine, but there’s lots of noise and shaking trees. 9. I believe CMC/CoinMarketCap top100 is unlikely to include many Web3-first companies/assets in 10 years. 10. I believe applications should pay for protocol dependencies, not the network. As such, what if it could be amortized by all applications and subnets? 11. I believe you shouldn’t overly hype your launch. 12. I believe in rising tides and finding angles to work with all parties, even “competitors.” 13. I believe there is no winner take all. 14. I believe innovative technology isn’t the core element of a successful business. Just a useful piece of the puzzle. 15. I believe in my team. Between my co-founder, our head of ecosystem, and myself we have over 35 years of Web3 experience in core architecture, ecosystem growth, governance, advisory, investment, leadership/board seats. We’re not in Kansas anymore Dorothy. Zth.

Helius CEO @mert has joined the NEAR Foundation Council, NEAR Foundation’s governing body. An early NEAR Intents user and leading voice on privacy, Mert brings an operator’s view to how NEAR builds and grows. “For crypto to win, we need connected, unstoppable liquidity at planetary scale. A market of markets. Neither Solana, Zcash, or Bitcoin can win on their own, we must work together. And NEAR is how." near.org/blog/mert-mumtaz-jo…

“AI is the sword. ZK is the shield.” @balajis and @ilblackdragon on digital borders, the post AGI world, and the intersection of AI and crypto. Here’s their full conversation with @TrustlessState from Quantum & Privacy Day:

Say Bitcoin runs to 90K over the next month and NEAR gets to $10. Could happen, it's a bull run. At that point NEAR's very expensive. That's where I call the trade over and I'm out

Bought a coin on SafeTrade. Super low MC, I think around 2M. It runs on Poseidon2b a brand-new cryptographic paper published in January 2026. The team implemented this construction and launched a working ecosystem within months. This points to an exceptionally high-IQ founder who was either working on this tech beforehand or is directly connected to the paper's authors (e.g., Dmitry Khovratovich). ​Core Tech: ​Recursive Validity Proofs: Instant node sync via state proofs without replaying transaction history. ​Quantum & ZK Privacy: NIST PQC Category 1 quantum resilience + zero-knowledge privacy. ​Tokenomics & Supply Squeeze: ​100% Fair Launch: Zero premine, zero VCs (Poseidon2b PoW).

Aped $NOID with size. Looking to size in heavier since it's LOW MC on Safetrade. Patience in this market pays, and you MUST be bidding plays that are under the radar. Sharing some of my actual research later 🤝 Buy It Here; safetrade.com/exchange/NOID-… - Studious

🚨NEAR IS BUILDING THE ZCASH SETUP! @AlexAuroraDev, who runs @near_intents, told @therollupco the $ZEC rally was four things. A simple pitch, tech that holds up, a wallet you can actually use, and known names saying it makes sense. He said near:native has been building that same experience. Privacy, a simple app at near.com, and money that moves without fighting other chains for deposits.

Doomerism approach is never a helpful framing, even if it starts with "calmly" and with best intentions. What we need is risk assessment, practical timelines, and actionable plan. AI is starting to overturn some of the long-held assumptions on mathematical complexity. At the same time risk of more intelligence applied to these problems yielding new surprising results is growing. But so far, we haven't seen practical security timelines for elliptic cruves materially changing. It's important for crypto space to keep vigilance and flexibility, but speculating about specific "months" timeline creates an unnecessary panic. Going "bunker mode" is not practical nor a safe approach given how complex it is in operations. We can have better approaches here, for example by recording recovery PQC keys in parallel on application level. Better approach is making sure that blockchains and tooling around them is designed with cryptographic agility in mind, allowing to evolve cryptography and let users easily update without sacrificing user experience. NEAR account model was design with this in mind from the start - ability to manage and rotate keys, add and remove supported cryptography. NEAR already supports post-quantum ML-DSA and we are planning to add hash-based cryptography too over time. User can just rotate keys on your accounts without needing to move anything or have a complex operations. Industry should accelerate post-quantum readiness, not because we have updated timelines, but because upgrading cryptography should be a routine operation, not a crisis response.

WARNING: Crypto Must Prepare for Bunker Day | Santiago Santos Full Interview

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…

update on $QTC. Can scale into a high 6 figure size with that LP and still only 32M circulating MC. Quantum day today