If you don’t want to sell your favorite coin for memecoins, stop reading here. Just watched @MustStopMurad’s Memecoin Super Cycle talk—great thesis on why it’s happening & will continue. If you’re skeptical like me but want to understand the market’s psyche, this is for us..🧵

Sorry, that post doesn't exist :(

it seems like @KiwiNewsHQ is the most egalitarian thing we've ever seen. It's insanely ambitious, and If it works, could really reshape the fabric of society

1/ The GENIUS Act has officially passed Congress — a landmark moment for stablecoins, Ethereum, and the future of crypto in the U.S. 🇺🇸 This legislation unlocks responsible innovation, protects consumers, and affirms America’s leadership in digital finance. Thank you for supporting crypto innovation.

I love talking about and thinking about the rollup wars My honest hot take is that it has never made sense for arbitrum and optimism to not merge into 1 entity and in the long run (very long run) it feels inevitable to me so long as Ethereum rollups remains a duopoly The only thing standing in the way of that merger is mostly egos. If they merged today everybody would be better off

Writers asked, we listened. @KiwiNewsHQ, @t2wrld & @LensProtocol teams debated, and we extended the deadline for the "Pluralistic Future of L2s" writing contest to September 22nd, EOD. PS: If you'd like to learn more about the contest, read the tweet quoted below.

State of Activity on @Unichain ✨ $850M DeFi TVL, 42% surge in daily transactions this month, and lending protocols scaling Let's dive into the data as of Jun 26, 2025 ↓

I take this seriously. Starting next year, I plan to only publicly mention (in blogs, talks, etc) L2s that are stage 1+, with *maybe a short grace period* for new genuinely interesting projects. It doesn't matter if I invested, or if you're my friend; stage 1 or bust. Multiple ZK-rollup teams have told me they're on track to be stage 1 by year end. I'm excited to see that happen! Of course we should not throw away training wheels become we're actually confident that the proof systems are secure; that would be irresponsible. But stage 1 (75% threshold on council to override the proof system, 26%+ of council must be outside the rollup team) is a very reasonable moderate milestone. The multisigs I'm in have not had a single liveness failure in years, let alone 26%. The era of rollups being glorified multisigs is coming to an end. The era of cryptographic trust is upon us.

We are indeed currently in the process of large changes to EF leadership structure, which has been ongoing for close to a year. Some of this has already been executed on and made public, and some is still in progress. What we're trying to achieve is primarily the following goals: * Improve level of technical expertise within EF leadership * Improve two-way communications and ties between EF leadership and the ecosystem actors, old and new, that it is our role to support: users (individual and institutional), app devs, wallets, L2s * Bring in fresh talent, improve execution ability and speed * Become more actively supportive of app builders, and make sure important values and inalienable rights (esp privacy, open source, censorship resistance) are a reality for users including at the app layer * Continue to increase our use of decentralized and privacy tech and the Ethereum chain, including for payments and treasury management Explicit *non-goals* are: * Execute some kind of ideological / vibez pivot from feminized wef soyboy mentality to bronze age mindset * Start aggressively lobbying regulators and powerful political figures (esp in USA, but really anywhere, especially large powerful countries), and risking compromising Ethereum's position as a global neutral platform * Become an arena for vested interests * Become a highly centralized org, or even more of a "main character" within Ethereum These things aren't what EF does and this isn't going to change. People seeking a different vision are welcome to start their own orgs.

BREAKING: 🇺🇸 US House officially passes 'Genius Act' crypto stablecoin bill.

My thoughts on Optimism’s new direction for Retro Funding: 1/ I am excited to see an increased focus on verifiable impact and a shift to more tightly curated rounds. I have been outspoken about the need for these types of things for much of the past year. FWIW, my project @OSObserver began as a rage hack to prove that it wasn’t too hard to get relevant data about projects and improve the badgeholder voting experience. Since then, I’ve learned a few things … First, it’s really hard to get the data you need to do this well (ahem, these things are always clearer in retrospect). Then, it’s even harder to derive meaningful impact metrics for comparing projects (currently experiencing this on a daily basis). And finally, the metrics aren’t really the point. The point is the legitimacy of the metrics (who came up with them? how robust are they? how transparent are they?) and the ensuing debate around what forms of impact should be rewarded most. More on this later… 2/ I am slightly disappointed that there hasn’t been more engagement in the Citizens House and on the governance forum about the question: “what forms of impact should be rewarded most”. There have been lots of suggestions about improving the process, scoring algorithms, and UI/UX. All of that is good, but in my opinion that stuff is secondary to the big questions around impact. These questions include everything from “what’s the right ratio of upstream to downstream funding” to “do we care more about newer teams or ones that stuck it out through the bear market”. These are inherently political questions because the answers reveal where people thing the OP should flow. In my view, the role of governance is to help steer the ship to where we think we’ll catch the most fish, not to count and weigh the fish in our net. To be fair, things are certainly moving in that direction, but more could be done to force these hard conversations before rounds are announced. 3/ I am rather weary of arguments over semantics (“is this a public good”) and where to categorize projects. Disagree and commit. Let’s move on to proving impact and debating how valuable that form of impact is. Per the announcement, Round 4 is about growing the number of active onchain builders. “Onchain builders introduce new users to Optimism, drive protocol usage and network effects.” There are good debates to be had about the quality of new users, the elasticity of blockspace demand, the attribution of various network effects, how far downstream / upstream you want to ring fence impact, and so on. Let’s talk about those things ... with relevant data in the loop. 4/ I’m humbled that some of the work our 3-person team contributed over the past few months was referenced in the announcement. As verifiable impact metrics begin to play a greater role in the round design and voting mechanism, we'd like to see more citizens assume the role of “impact data scientists”. These are people who search the data for signals, good and bad. They track the impact of funding deployed across the ecosystem and propose models that aim to maximize impact per unit spent. With Open Source Observer, our mission is to create a “people’s data warehouse” for performing this type of work. We are un-opinionated about the form of impact but highly opinionated about the quality of the data backing it - and how easy it should be to access that data as a public good. If we are successful, then we hope to give OP badgeholders more data and impact metrics to work with in future Retro Funding rounds. We also hope to inspire more analysts to work on this problem because it’s a hard one and because we think there needs to be a plurality of impact models. 5/ “All models are wrong but some are useful.” I’m excited about greater focus on metrics, but live by the words above. Specifically, I need help building models for measuring impact. Truth is, over the past few months, I’ve spent too much time building the models and not enough time talking about why you should care about them. h/t @timdaub for sharing this: https://news.kiwistand.com/stories?index… and it somehow being the first notification I saw when I picked up my phone this morning. As someone who gets their energy from building and writing stuff, not evangelizing, I am all too eager to live in a world where impact is self-evident and you don’t need to promote what you’re doing very much. (FWIW, some of the best moments the past few months were when brought me to new corners of the Ethereum ecosystem, like Kiwi News, that are filled with builder energy.) But whatever impact model I or someone else creates in isolation will lack the legitimacy of one that is shaped by a community of people with real skin in the game and differing opinions. We want to put the right data out in the open so people can debate the important stuff. We need help with this. I’ll share more ways of getting involved soon, but here are some recent posts about what we’re up and how to get involved: https://docs.opensource.observer/blog/im… https://docs.opensource.observer/blog/re… That's all (for now)

↩ (@peter_szilagyi) So I think your criticism sounds like you think we are designing the protocol to satisfy monetary interests rather than to build a fair system. I can assure you that this is absolutely not how any researcher thinks. Many of us go heavily against the grain and take a lot of flak for opposing big ecosystem players. Our life would be much easier if we weren't working as hard as possible to keep the protocol decentralized an censorship free. I could do without being hated by all the liquid staking protocol (and the same for the people who just stuck their heads out to suggest taking the issuance curve). And yet we are all still doing it. To take just one example of your points, it's absurd to say that verkle is to protect staker's income. Especially for the staking pools, they don't care at all about not needing an SSD to run the protocol. The main point is to make it easier and cheaper to run full nodes, while being able to increase gas to allow easier access to Ethereum for all.

BREAKING: @DriftProtocol INTRODUCES PREDICTION MARKETS ON SOLANA

🚨 Major active supply chain attack just hit npm. Popular package @​ctrl/tinycolor was trojanized — and it didn’t stop there. Over 40 packages were silently modified to steal secrets from dev machines & CI pipelines. Our team at Socket caught it. Full report coming soon. Stay safe out there.

Not aimed at any specific project, but have seen a ton of discourse recently on the topic so figured I’d share my take on good token distributions: 1) tokens, not points 2) don’t farm the farmers - teasing and creating ambiguity around a token distribution to grow your numbers is bad behavior. If you don’t know yet, don’t speculate publicly. If you do know but are not ready to share full details, don’t tease them out. Just share real details when ready 3) real liquidity day 1 - low float tokens are malicious and my biggest pet peeve. You don’t need to work with exchanges or market makers. It’s so easy. Just distribute enough tokens publicly that real price discovery happens on DEX. People should start thinking in FDV not mcap when valuing these things 4) don’t create absurdly high token supply to farm people with unit bias, this is also bad behavior 5) don’t be stingy - give a significant amount away. If you don’t think the community deserves a significant amount, don’t release a token 6) don’t market token price - if you tweet about how your token is going to moon or hire influencers, or marketing firms to do so I assume you’re just trying to get rich quick vs build real value 7) keep it simple 8) put real thought and care into your decisions - so you can stand behind them and explain your rationale. Don’t end up in a situation where you’re fighting or apologizing to crypto twitter. Create something you’re proud of and stand behind it

Ledger Library Exploit Explainer for Average Folks What is going on with the recent alerts not to use dapps? A library that is used by many dapps that is maintained by Ledger was compromised and a wallet drainer was added. What do I do as a normal user? Do not interact with any dapp front ends on websites for now. This is an ongoing situation and it is risky to use dapps currently if you don't understand what backend libraries they use. How does this drain your money? If you visit the website you won't get automatically drained or your funds. However, prompts from your browser wallet (like MM) will display that give your assets to the malicious actors. Does Ledger know about this? Yes they do and are working on it. Note: Even after Ledger corrects the bad code in their library, projects using and deploying that library will need to update things before it is safe to use dapps that use Ledger's web3 libraries. Disclaimer: This is my own opinion and not the opinion of any of my employers. Take this advice at your own risk. Stay safe ♥️

Fix X/Twitter and Bluesky embeds! Use multiple images, videos, polls, translations and more on Discord, Telegram and others - FxEmbed/FxEmbed

Excited to announce @viraldotfun is live! Viral is a music bulletin board powered by song coins. Share your favorite song and a coin is created. Buy a song to vote it higher in the charts. This is an all-new way to discover and promote music - and a much needed new economic model for the music industry! Try it and lmk your thoughts👇

Zora is the new onramp for crypto.

Sorry, that post doesn't exist :(

In April, Coinbase announced changes to its user agreement that added two clauses limiting class action lawsuits and requiring lawsuits to be filed in New York. The changes apply to disputes initiated after May 15. On May 14, Coinbase disclosed a data breach.

🤬 Unpopular opinion: All new Ethereum infrastructure, now being rolled out, is stop gap fixing to hide existing issues, instead of fixing the underlying problems. These include: 🙈 Account abstraction - instead of having proper base layer account model, and fixing the token standard 🙈 Chain abstraction - instead of having a properly sharded chain where shards natively work with each other 🙈 Intents - instead of fixing MEV and doing trade routing onchain 🙈 UI layer - instead of having proper open source UI libraries making build wallets and Dapps easy 🙈 DX and indexing services - instead of fixing Ethereum JSON-RPC API to do what developers need 🙈 "Web3 anti virus services" and wallet simulators - again, instead of having a better tokens standard with human readable transactions All of these "abstractions" are money grab attempts to sell medicine, instead of curing the patient. With a properly designed chain and ecosystem, they would not be needed. The proposed solutions will address the issue, but this is done by privatisation of a public blockchain and creating more centralised fee extraction elements, and instead making the overall ecosystem worse for the users. This is also why you see so much infra in Devcon: everyone is competing for the money grab instead of co-operating in addressing the underlying issues. Simply because there is no money to be made curing the patient - better to keep them sick. As the best proof of this, most newer blockchains do not need these solutions because the problems do not exist on these chains in the first place. Reminds me of this old software forum discussion:

Urgent: Update iOS Now — A Dangerous Vulnerability Found in Safari and Chrome Browsers. Apple has released an emergency update for iOS 18.6 to address a serious security vulnerability. Hackers are already exploiting it — simply visiting a website can trigger the malicious code. There's no need to download anything. What’s particularly concerning is that all iPhones starting from the XS model are at risk. Attackers can gain access to passwords, banking information, and even enable hidden surveillance.