SCOOP: President Trump is set to announce billions of dollars in private sector investment to build artificial intelligence infrastructure in the United States, @CBSNews has learned.  OpenAI, Softbank and Oracle are planning a joint venture called Stargate, according to multiple people familiar with the deal. cbsnews.com/news/trump-annou…

Top 5 Bridges in the last 30 days: @StargateFinance ~ $213M @AcrossProtocol ~ $167M @CelerNetwork ~ $109M @MayanFinance ~ $107M @arbitrum ~ $11M 💜

The CCDM will change liquidity in a cross-chain world. Powered by @RoycoProtocol Entirely open source, instructions soon.

And intents are the path for ultra fast value transfer between crypto’s many chains.

If you're a small country that would like to be the richest per capita, buy up all the Bitcoin you can and announce adoption. You're welcome

TikTokers, pivot to crypto.

Stargate was not built for altVMs Across was not built for altVMs CrossCats was built for altVMs

Dear @AcrossProtocol team, I’m writing to you during your office hours of 9-5pm on M-F and have no reason to believe today is a national holiday. I’d like to inform you that your token contract has a critical issue. You mistakenly exposed what was meant to be an internal private function written by Open Zeppelin in their ERC20 token implementation, meant for burning tokens, and gave it to your contract owner – allowing you to take tokens out of any wallet at any point in time, arbitrarily rugging any account to 0. Additionally both your @AcrossProtocol and @UMAprotocol contracts have the ability to infinite mint tokens (ironic given @hal2001's rant against infinite mint power on tokens last week), but I’ve already informed you of both of these and you don’t seem to care. To fix the issue without needing to reissue your token: Transfer ownership to a new smart contract that prevents minting beyond the total supply and disallows burning. Since this is a permanent vulnerability, the new contract must be immutable, and it should not include any functionality to transfer ownership. If you have an active bug bounty program feel free to credit this to the @LayerZero_Core team. Best of luck -LZ

Bryan, deflection is not helpful. I’m asking questions about OFTs and their minting rights. USDO is an OFT—what are the risks here? I care a lot a lot about crypto users, USDO holders, and everyone building in our industry, including you and the Tapioca team. Like you, I want bugs and exploits to stop. There is no grave dancing. Our industry will get better by learning from past mistakes. You deflecting to questioning ACX seems… like deflection. The ACX screenshot you took is of industry-standard OpenZepplin libraries that Aave, Compound and others use. If you want to ask questions about our design, please do—and we’ll respond during the work week. But please stop distracting from my questions.

dude, this is entirely misleading. Please walk through this scenario, and don't hand wave: I have a billion dollar protocol secured by Stargate and Nethermind DVNs, which are 1 of 1 multisigs. Something happens where those DVNs get shut down. It could be regulatory or otherwise. What happens to the protocol? Path 1: I have some ability to instantly change DVNs. If this is true, it means my protocol is entirely centralized. It means that at any moment I could be hacked and have my DVNs switch to North Korea or whatever. This is very bad—my entire security is centralized. Path 2: I have some timelocks or governance to prevent the immediate switching of my DVNs. This is good because my security is not centralized. However, I cannot immediately switch DVNs and my protocol is bricked until governance or timelock passes. What am I missing? This setup seems like a big problem.