eigen_da (@eigen_da) • Hey

mwqk awerA EWEF

Stats

Following: 385
Followers: 343

Publications

The world that cannot be seen clearly
On June 20, there are six LayerZero market makers, namely GSR (received 11 million ZRO from LayerZero), Wintermute (received 6.5 million ZRO from LayerZero), Amber Group (received 5.69 million ZRO from LayerZero), Auros (received 360,000 ZRO from LayerZero), Animoca Brands (received 800,000 ZRO from LayerZero) and an unknown institution (received 500,000 ZRO from LayerZero). Now Wintermute and GSR have recharged ZRO to exchanges for testing, including OKX, Bybit, Gate KuCoin and Bitfinex, with a small proportion of tokens.
Only with unlimited imagination can we create unlimited possibilities
It’s Super Sunday! 🦄 Final day to join the Binance Web3 Wallet campaign and we raffle 3 Phaver-Up NFTs among those minting today INSIDE the Binance app! 📲 Even if you already minted earlier, find the Phaver banner in the Web3 Wallet Airdrops and re-mint today to participate! 😎 Steps: 1️⃣ Create a Binance Web3 Wallet inside Binance app 2️⃣ Select Web3 tab at the top & Discover at the bottom 3️⃣ Find Phaver banner in airdrops list and sign with your wallet 4️⃣ Even if you minted already you can repeat this flow successfully but will not receive a 2nd SBT
A better internet is an intertextual web of human connection.  Through the Lens ~ coming to FEST24 August 1-4 in Idyllwild, CA ༺∞༻ until then, collect only on @club/lens
Track 6 ARE YOU PROUD PAPA? 1/1. Collector has the rights to use the song as they wish. Made in collaboration w/ udio.
knowledge garden 🌿🔮
Guys! I just found @lens/0xzelda on twitter! If only there was a way to connect social media socials graphs. BUMMER IG.
The controversy caused by zkSync airdrop is the most controversial token issuance project I have ever seen Insider trading is only one aspect, but more importantly, they ignore the entire community, but they often talk about the community
Zero-knowledge proof paradigm: What is zkVM “In the next 5 years, we will be talking about the adoption of zero-knowledge protocols as much as we are about the adoption of blockchain protocols. The potential unlocked by the breakthroughs of the past few years will sweep the crypto mainstream.” — Jill, CSO of Espresso Systems, May 2021 Since 2021, the zero-knowledge proof (ZK) landscape has evolved into a diverse ecosystem of primitives, networks, and applications across multiple domains. However, while ZK is gradually gaining momentum, with the launch of ZK-powered rollups like Starknet and zkSync Era marking the latest advances in the space, much of ZK remains a mystery to ZK users and the crypto space as a whole. But times are changing. We believe that zero-knowledge crypto is a powerful, pervasive tool for scaling and securing software. Simply put, ZK is the bridge to crypto mass adoption. To quote Jill again, anything involving zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) will create tremendous value (both fundamental and speculative) in both web2 and web3. The best minds in crypto are working hard to iterate and make ZK economically viable and production-ready. Even so, there is still much that needs to be done before the model we envision becomes a reality. Compare ZK adoption to Bitcoin adoption, where one reason Bitcoin evolved from an internet currency on fringe enthusiast forums to “digital gold” approved by BlackRock was the proliferation of developer and community-generated content that fostered interest. For now, ZK exists in a bubble within a bubble. Information is fragmented and polarized, with articles either filled with arcane terms or too layman-like to convey any meaningful information beyond repetitive examples. It seems that everyone (experts and laymen) knows what zero-knowledge proofs are, but no one can describe how it actually works. As one of the teams contributing to the zero-knowledge paradigm, we hope to demystify our work and help a wider audience establish a canonical foundation for understanding and analyzing ZK systems and applications, in order to promote education and discussion among relevant parties and enable the spread of relevant information. In this article, we will introduce the basics of zero-knowledge proofs and zero-knowledge virtual machines, provide a high-level summary of the operation process of zkVM, and finally analyze the evaluation criteria of zkVM. 1\. Zero-knowledge proof basics What is a zero-knowledge proof (ZKP)? In short, a ZKP enables one party (the prover) to prove to another party (the verifier) that they know something without revealing the specific content of that thing or any other information. More specifically, a ZKP proves knowledge of a piece of data or the result of a calculation without revealing that data or the input. The process of creating a zero-knowledge proof involves a series of mathematical models that convert the result of a calculation into otherwise meaningless information that proves that the code was successfully executed, which will be verified later. In some cases, the amount of work required to verify a proof that has been constructed through multiple rounds of algebraic transformations and cryptography is less than the amount of work required to run the calculation. It is this unique combination of security and scalability that makes zero-knowledge cryptography such a powerful tool. zkSNARK: Zero-Knowledge Succinct Non-Interactive Argument of Knowledge · Relies on an initial (trusted or untrusted) setup process to establish parameters for verification · Requires at least one interaction between the prover and verifier · Proofs are small and easy to verify · Rollups like zkSync, Scroll, and Linea use SNARK-based proofs zkSTARK: Zero-Knowledge Scalable Transparent Argument of Knowledge · No trusted setup required · Provides high transparency by using publicly verifiable randomness to create a trustless verifiable system, i.e. generating provable random parameters for proofs and verification. · Highly scalable, as they can quickly (not always) generate and verify proofs, even if the underlying witness (data) is large. · No interaction is required between the prover and verifier · The trade-off is that STARKs generate larger proofs, which are harder to verify than SNARKs. · Proofs are harder to verify than some zkSNARK proofs, but relatively easier to verify than others. · Starknet and zkVMs such as Lita, Risc Zero, and Succinct Labs all use STARKs. (Note: Succinct bridge uses SNARKs, but SP1 is a STARK-based protocol) It is worth noting that all STARKs are SNARKs, but not all SNARKs are STARKs. 2\. What is zkVM? A virtual machine (VM) is a program that runs programs. In context, a zkVM is a virtual computer that is implemented as a system, general circuit, or tool for generating zero-knowledge proofs, used to generate zkVMs for any program or computation. zkVM does not require learning complex mathematics and cryptography to design and code ZK, allowing any developer to execute programs written in their favorite language and generate ZKPs (zero-knowledge proofs), making it easier to integrate and interact with zero-knowledge. Broadly speaking, most zkVMs mean a compiler toolchain and a proof system that are attached to the virtual machine that executes the program, not just the virtual machine itself. Below, we summarize the main components of zkVM and their functions The design and implementation of each component is governed by the choice of proofs (SNARKs or STARKs) and instruction set architecture (ISA) for the zkVM. Traditionally, an ISA specifies the capabilities of a CPU (data types, registers, memory, etc.) and the order of operations that the CPU performs when executing a program. In context, an ISA determines the machine code that can be interpreted and executed by a VM. The choice of ISA can make a fundamental difference in the accessibility and usability of a zkVM, as well as the speed and efficiency of the proof generation process, and supports the construction of any zkVM. Below are some examples of zkVMs and their components for reference only. For now, we will focus on the high-level interactions between each component to provide a framework for understanding the algebraic and cryptographic processes and design trade-offs of zkVM in later articles. 3\. Abstract zkVM flow The following figure is an abstract and generalized zkVM flow chart, splitting and classifying the format (input/output) as the program moves between zkVM components. The general process of zkVM is as follows: (1) Compilation phase The compiler first compiles the program written in traditional languages (C, C++, Rust, Solidity) into machine code. The format of the machine code is determined by the selected ISA. (2) VM phase The VM executes the machine code and generates an execution trace, which is a series of steps of the underlying program. Its format is determined by the choice of algorithm and the set of polynomial constraints. Common algorithm schemes include R1CS in Groth16, PLONKish algorithm in halo2, and AIR in plonky2 and plonky3. (3) Verification phase The prover receives the trace and represents it as a set of polynomials subject to a set of constraints, essentially converting the computation into algebra by mathematically mapping facts. The prover submits these polynomials using a polynomial commitment scheme (PCS). A commitment scheme is a protocol that allows the prover to create a fingerprint of some data X, which is called a commitment to X, and then use the commitment to X to prove facts about X without revealing the content of X. PCS is a fingerprint, a "preprocessed" concise version of the computational constraints. This allows the prover to use the random values that the verifier proposes in the next step to prove facts about the computation, now represented by a polynomial equation. The prover runs a Polynomial Interactive Oracle Proof (PIOP) to prove that the submitted polynomial represents an execution trace that satisfies the given constraints. PIOP is an interactive proof protocol where the prover sends a commitment to a polynomial, the verifier responds with random field values, and the prover provides an evaluation of the polynomial, similar to "solving" a polynomial equation using random values to convince the verifier in a probabilistic manner. Application of the Fiat-Shamir heuristic; the prover runs PIOP in non-interactive mode, where the verifier's actions are limited to sending anonymous random challenge points. In cryptography, the Fiat-Shamir heuristic converts an interactive proof of knowledge into a digital signature for verification. This step encrypts the proof and makes it a zero-knowledge proof. The prover must convince the verifier that the polynomial evaluation it sends to the verifier is correct, regarding the polynomial commitment it sends to the verifier. To do this, the prover produces an "evaluation" or "opening" proof, provided by the polynomial commitment scheme (fingerprint). (4) Verifier Phase The verifier checks the proof by following the verification protocol of the proof system, either using constraints or commitments. The verifier accepts or rejects the result based on the validity of the proof. In summary, a zkVM proof can prove that for a given program, a given result, and a given initial condition, there exists some input that causes the program to produce the given result when executed from the given initial condition. We can combine this statement with the flow to get the following description of zkVM. A zkVM proof will prove that for a given VM program and a given output, there exists some input that causes the given program to produce the given output when executed on the VM. 4\. Evaluating zkVM What is the criterion for evaluating zkVM? In other words, under what circumstances should we say that one zkVM is better than another? In practice, the answer depends on the use case. Lita's market research shows that for most commercial use cases, between speed, efficiency, and simplicity, the most important attribute is either speed or kernel time efficiency, depending on the application. Some applications are price-sensitive and want to optimize the proof process to be low-energy and low-cost. For these applications, kernel time efficiency may be the most important optimization metric. Other applications, especially those related to finance or trading, are very sensitive to latency and need to optimize for speed. Most public performance comparisons focus only on speed, which is certainly important, but is not a comprehensive measure of performance. There are also several important properties that measure the reliability of zkVM, most of which are not up to production standards, even for market-leading incumbents. We recommend evaluating zkVMs on the following criteria, divided into two subcategories: Baseline: used to measure the reliability of zkVM · Correctness · Security · Trust assumptions Performance: used to measure the capabilities of zkVM · Efficiency · Speed · Simplicity (1) Baseline: Correctness, Security, and Trust Assumptions Correctness and security should be used as baselines when evaluating zkVM for mission-critical applications. There needs to be sufficient reason to be confident in the correctness, and the security claims need to be strong enough. In addition, the trust assumptions need to be weak enough for the application. Without these properties, zkVM may be worse than useless for the application, as it may not perform as specified and expose users to hacker attacks and exploits. Correctness · The VM must perform the computation as expected · The proof system must satisfy the security properties it claims Correctness contains three major properties: · Robustness: The proof system is true, so everything it proves is true. The verifier rejects evidence of false statements and only accepts computational results where the input produces the actual computational result. · Completeness: The proof system is complete, able to prove all true statements. If the prover claims that it can prove the result of a computation, it must be able to produce a proof acceptable to the verifier. · Zero-knowledge proofs: Having a proof does not reveal more about the inputs to a computation than knowing the result itself. You can have completeness without soundness, if the proof system proves everything including false statements, it is obviously complete but not sound. And you can have soundness without completeness, if the proof system proves the existence of a program but cannot prove the computation, it is obviously sound (after all, it has never proved any false statements) but not complete. Security · Related to tolerances of soundness, completeness, and zero-knowledge proofs In practice, all three correctness properties have non-zero tolerances. This means that all proofs are statistical probabilities of correctness, rather than absolute certainty. Tolerance refers to the maximum tolerable probability that a property fails. Zero tolerance is of course ideal, but in practice zkVM does not achieve zero tolerance on all of these properties. Perfect robustness and completeness seem incompatible with simplicity, and there is no known way to achieve perfect zero-knowledge proofs. A common way to measure security is in bits of security, where a tolerance of 1/(2^n) is called n-bit security. The higher the bit, the better the security. If a zkVM is completely correct, this does not necessarily mean that it is reliable. Correctness only means that the zkVM satisfies its claimed security properties within the tolerance. It does not mean that the claimed tolerance is low enough to enter the market. Furthermore, if a zkVM is sufficiently secure, it does not mean that it is correct, and security refers to the claimed tolerance, not the tolerance actually achieved. Only when a zkVM is both completely correct and sufficiently secure can it be said that the zkVM is reliable within the claimed tolerance. Trust Assumptions · Assume the honesty of the prover and verifier to conclude that the zkVM operates reliably. When a zkVM has trust assumptions, it usually takes the form of a trusted setup process. The setup process of a ZK proof system is run once to generate some information called "setup data" before the first proof is generated using this proof system. In the trusted setup process, one or more individuals generate some randomness, which is incorporated into the setup data, and it is necessary to assume that at least one of these individuals removes the randomness they incorporated into the setup data. There are two common trust assumption models in practice. The "honest majority" trust assumption states that more than half of a group of N people behave honestly in certain specific interactions with the system, which is a trust assumption commonly used in blockchains. The "1/N" trust assumption states that at least one of a group of N people behaves honestly in certain specific interactions with the system, which is a trust assumption commonly used by MPC-based tools and applications. It is generally believed that zkVM without trust assumptions is more secure than zkVM with trust assumptions, all other things being equal. (2) zkVM trilemma: the balance between speed, efficiency, and simplicity in zkVM 9o0f7GPLNhZhjTlfyOmOcoXZvgbWjH5qf7L2Nk04.png Speed, efficiency, and simplicity are all scalable properties. All of these factors contribute to the end-user cost of zkVM. How to weigh them in the evaluation depends on the application. In general, the fastest solution is not the most efficient or the most concise, the concise solution is not the fastest or the most efficient, and so on. Before explaining how they relate, let's define the various properties. Speed · How fast the prover can generate a proof · Measured in wall-clock time, i.e., the time it takes to compute from start to finish Speed should be defined and measured based on the specific test program, input, and system to ensure that it can be quantitatively evaluated. This metric is critical for latency-sensitive applications where timely availability of proofs is essential, but it also comes with higher overhead and larger proofs. Efficiency · The resources consumed by the prover, the less the better. · Approximate user time, i.e., the computer time spent by the program code. The prover consumes two resources: kernel time and space. Therefore, efficiency can be broken down into kernel time efficiency and space efficiency. Kernel time efficiency: the average time the prover runs across all cores multiplied by the number of cores running the prover. For a single-core prover, kernel time consumption and speed are the same thing. For a multi-core function prover running in multi-core mode on a multi-core system, kernel time consumption and speed are not the same thing. If a program fully utilizes 5 cores or threads for 5 seconds, this would be 25 seconds of user time and 5 seconds of wall clock time. Space efficiency: refers to the amount of storage capacity used, such as RAM. It is very interesting to use user time as a proxy for the energy consumed to run a computation. In the case where almost all cores are fully utilized, the energy consumption of the CPU should remain relatively constant. In this case, the user time spent on a CPU-bound, mostly user-mode code execution should be roughly linearly proportional to the watt-hours (i.e. energy) consumed by the code execution. From the perspective of any proof operation of sufficient scale, saving energy consumption or the use of computing resources should be an interesting question, because the energy bill for proof (or cloud computing bill) is a significant cost of operation. For these reasons, user time is an interesting metric. Lower proof costs allow service providers to pass on lower proof prices to cost-sensitive customers. Both efficiencies are related to the energy consumption of the proof process and the amount of money used by the proof process, which in turn is related to the financial cost of the proof. In order for a definition of measuring efficiency to be operational, the definition must be related to one or more test programs, one or more test inputs for each program, and one or more test systems. Simplicity · Size of the proofs generated and the complexity of verifying them Simplicity is a combination of three different metrics, further broken down by the complexity of proof verification: · Proof size: The physical size of the proof, typically in kilobytes. · Proof verification time: The time required to verify the proof. · Proof verification space: The memory usage during proof verification. Verification is typically a single core operation, so speed and core time efficiency are often the same thing in this context. As with speed and efficiency, a definition of simplicity requires specifying the test program, test inputs, and test system. Once each performance attribute is defined, we will demonstrate the impact of optimizing one attribute over the others. · Speed: Fast proof generation results in larger proofs, but slower proof verification. The more resources consumed in generating proofs, the less efficient it is. · Simplicity: Prover needs more time to compress the proof. But proof verification is fast. The more concise the proof, the more computational overhead it has. · Efficiency: Minimizing resource usage will slow down proof generation and reduce proof simplicity. Generally, optimizing for one aspect means not optimizing for another, so a multi-dimensional analysis is needed to select the best solution on a case-by-case basis. A good way to weigh these attributes in an evaluation might be to define an acceptable level for each attribute and then determine which attributes are the most important. The most important attributes should be optimized while maintaining a good enough level on all other attributes. Below we summarize the attributes and their key considerations:
Take a souvenir of the beautiful scenery you pass by
It goes to another beautiful world
The trading and marketing sector (rather than the member of the agency) of the US Securities and Exchange Commission decided to approve a large number of Ethereum spot ETF forms. In the commands of Berlaide, Fidelity, Gray, Bitwise, VANECK, ARK, Jingshun Galaxy, and Franklin's Ethereum Etf 19B-4 form, a line of words revealed how the decision made the decision made of. The order wrote that the committee will be responsible for the implementation of the trade and market departments in accordance with the authorization. This means that the trading and marketing sector of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, rather than the US Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Gary Gensler or other four members made a decision to approve the spot Ethereum ETF.
Maybe you can't go to the world, but you are worth seeing
The importance of social networking Social networking has a vital role in better adapting to society. First of all, through social networking, people can understand different cultures, concepts, and lifestyles, thereby broaden their horizons and enhance their understanding of society. This cross -cultural communication helps to cultivate tolerance and adaptability. Secondly, social networking is also an important way to obtain information and resources. Establishing a connection with others can allow us to get valuable information more quickly, which is essential to make wise decisions in the workplace or daily life. Finally, social networking helps to establish a support system. In the face of challenges and difficulties, there is a powerful social network that can provide emotional support and actual help. Socially plays a vital role in promoting the development of the cause. First of all, social activities can help people build connections and expand business cooperation. By establishing contact with professionals inside and outside the industry, you can get more information and resources, so as to create more opportunities for your own cause. Secondly, social activities also help the construction of personal brands. Showing your professional knowledge and personal charm in social occasions can enhance the trust and favors of others on yourself, and then promote the development of the cause. Therefore, attaching importance to social networking not only helps individual growth, but also pave the way for the success of the cause. Sincerity is an indispensable element in social. In the interaction between people, sincerity is true, frank and unpretentious. It establishes a foundation for trust and understanding, so that both parties can truly express their ideas and feelings. Sincere communication will not only help build a deep interpersonal relationship, but also promote better communication and understanding. Lack of sincere social networking often leads to misunderstandings and gaps. Therefore, sincerity is one of the most important quality in social networking.
On May 18, the US SEC announced in a statement that the well -known cryptocurrency critic, Heather Slavkin Corzo, will resign from his policy director. SEC Chairman Gary Gensler appointed Corzo in April 2021. During his tenure, Corzo played a key role Protecting and simplifying capital formation process is praised. The subsequent SEC financial adviser Corey Klemmer will take over CORZO, and it is expected that SEC will maintain a doubt about cryptocurrencies.
In the encryption industry, of course, I hope that the next president will make the crypto industry a more healthy and complete development So voting is very important
FTX situation latest progress The cryptocurrency exchange FTX has accumulated billions of dollars of funds, exceeding customers who lost their losses in November 2022, which enables them to get full compensation after the company's bankruptcy. Additional cash will be used to pay the interest of the company's more than 2 million customers. This is a rare result, because in the United States bankruptcy, creditors can usually only get very little money. According to the company's statement, once the sale of all assets is completed, the company will have as many as $ 16.3 billion in cash to distribute. It owes clients and other non -governmental creditors about $ 11 billion. According to the court documents submitted by the Tuesday evening that the FTX case is dealing with the FTX case, the Fedeumi Federal Court of Fedeum, although all the debts will be repaid in full and the interest will be added, and the shareholders will not leave anything. According to the type of debt in the case, some creditors can get up to 142%of the arrears. However, the vast majority of customers may receive 118%compensation obtained on the FTX platform on the day of chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company is currently operated by a restructuring consultant and proposed to set up a fund to pay funds to some creditors (including creditors who borrowed FTX cryptocurrencies), otherwise these funds will flow to government regulators. As FTX gradually enters the final stage of the bankruptcy case, payment may take several months.
Tell me that you like that type of kitten
Everything is very beautiful
We believe it is in the protocol's best interest to distribute tokens to durable users — not sybil farmers. If you are a sybil, you have two options: – Self-report sybil addresses for 15% of your intended allocation. No questions asked. The deadline to do so is May 17th. – Do not report and receive nothing when an address is flagged by our internal sybil report or by bounty hunters. Sybil Self-Report Here: http://sybil.layerzero.network
future? Free collection
Hello everyone! Im freaking out with this piece of art designed by @lens/andresanemic , any resemblance to reality is mere coincidence! A pleasure to land here!
TMB Show #26 Audio version release
Can cz really predict the future CZ is really sentenced to four months What else is there in this world that is not controlled
Can cz really predict the future CZ is really sentenced to four months What else is there in this world that is not controlled
So you should be careful of this person, because if you take a photo with him, you may enter prison 😂😂
On April 30, the EIGEN Foundation's distribution of 2 10% (about 7.77 million EIGEN), Pendle, and some other unresolved (DEFI) contracts on the social platform issued the following clarification: Users of PENDLE or any UNRSOLVED (DEFI) contract will not be punished during distribution; · About 10%of the distribution of Season 1, the exact distribution of Phase 2 accounts for 9.28%; The distribution of Season 1 Phase 2 is not pre -determined, but reflects the total allocation related to the Unresolved (DEFI) contract. In addition, Season 2 is now open, and the ecological participants after the Snapshot on March 15 will be considered. EIGEN's initial total supply SEASON 1 specific distribution is as follows: Season 1: 5%, 83.68 million, of which: · PHASE 1: accounting for 4.54%, 75.91 million; · PHASE 2: 0.46%, 7.77 million pieces
The Hong Kong Exchange stated that today (Tuesday) is welcome to be listed on the first batch of virtual assets of virtual assets in Asia, increasing the product types of the Hong Kong market and providing richer choices for investors, and consolidating Hong Kong's position as the leading ETF market in Asia. Luo Boren, director of the development of securities products of the Hong Kong Exchange, said: Today, the newly listed virtual asset spot ETF will enrich the diversified and active ETF market ecosystem of the Hong Kong Exchange and provide investors with investment opportunities for new assets. Huaxia, Bo Shi Hashkey, and Castrol's 6 virtual assets of the spot ETF all fell below the issue price. As of the post, Huaxia Bitcoin ETF (3042.HK) is currently priced at HK $ 8.8.08 Hong Kong dollars; Huaxia Etita ETF (304666 .Hk) The current price is HK $ 7.835, the opening price is HK $ 7.95; the Castle Bitcoin spot ETF (3439.HK) is currently priced at HK $ 8.03, and the opening price is HK $ 8.115; Calligraphy Ethereum ETF (3179.HK) is currently priced at HK $ 7.85, the opening price, and the opening price HK $ 7.97; Boshi Hashkey Bitcoin ETF (3008.HK) is currently priced at HK $ 49.86, with a opening price of HK $ 50.54; Boshi Hashkey Ethereum ETF (3009.HK) is currently available at HK $ 24.9, and the opening price is HK $ 25.34.
According to the weekly safety report (April 22-April 28, 2024), a number of safety accidents occurred this week. The overall loss is not serious, and the total loss of more than 2,155,127 US dollars this week. There are many security events including: 1.ember Sword NFT auction is used: There is a vulnerability in the uncomfortable Ember Sword NFT auction, which caused 159 victims to lose 60 WETH and the value of about 195,000 US dollars. 2. Pike Finance's cross -chain attack: The cross -chain lending agreement Pike Finance was attacked by hackers, resulting in the exhaustion of USDC pool funds and a total of $ 299,127. 3.Xbank Finance is suspected of fraud: ZKSYNC ecological lending platform Xbank Finance is suspected of having fraud, the official account is frozen, liquid assets have dropped to individual digits to individual digits Essence 4.io (.) Net metadata leakage: The project has undergone a security incident, involving unauthorized metadata update, which is used from the mapping of user ID to device ID. 5. YIEDL on theBSC is used: the YIEDL project on the Binance Smart Chain was attacked by the attacker using contract vulnerabilities, causing about $ 300,000 in losses. 6. fengshou token vulnerability: Shortly after deployment, the fengshou (NGFS) tokens were attacked, causing a loss of about 191,000 US dollars. 7.z123 contracts were used: Z123 on the Binance Intelligent Chain was attacked due to contract vulnerabilities, and the loss was about $ 136,000. 8. Magpie Protocol contract vulnerability: decentralized liquidity aggregation protocol Magpie Protocol was attacked due to contract vulnerabilities, causing 221 wallets to lose $ 129,000. 9. VEFI Asset Management Agreement Velvet Capital's trading platform report appeared abnormal activities. 10. Merlin Chain's Discord invasion: Merlin Chain's official Discord server was attacked. 11. Suspicious transactions ofxbridge: There are many suspicious transactions in the cross -chain bridge XBridge, a total of $ 824,000.
If you like it, collect it, open it for free
2024 Public chain financial report in the first quarter: How many chains are making money? Last week, U.S. stocks ushered in the busiest "financial report" in the first quarter. Nearly half of US -listed companies chose to announce their financial reports this week. After the experience of a big plunge last Friday, the market's attention was staring at the financial reports that the technology giants would have published this week. Under the "Financial Report Hot", the blockchain data analysis company Token Terminal's "Public Chain Financial Report" data chart released on the official Twitter account two days ago also attracted the attention and discussion of the encrypted community. After several sets of data, the "financial status" of L1 and L2 public chains such as ETH, Solana, Base, etc. are a lot of intuition. However, the first reaction of more people to the "public chain financial report" is: Is this concept really reasonable? The term "financial report" has always been far from the encryption industry. In this business model, it has not yet been clear. The team's realization is still based on token issuance. The number of active addresses, TVL, and market value seems to be more intuitive and transparent. And is the traditional sense of financial report logic applied to the encryption market? Is the subjective subject agreement or a team? What statistical indicators should be used? These issues make the "chain" business incompatible compared to traditional business. The mouth shouted "Mass Adoption", and his heart was clear about the "Ponzi Game" door. So is the concept of the financial report appropriate in the encryption industry? I prefer a positive answer. Although there are many logical and logical differences in specific indicators, the public chain (especially universal public chains such as Ethereum and Solana) as a decentralized network, which essentially need to make hematopoietic hematopoietic as traditional companies, it is essentially the same as traditional companies. Ability, otherwise it will become real Ponzi. So for a chain, how can it be called "the ability to make hematopoiesis"? Crazy public chain In fact, in the current crypto industry, except for Bitcoin's decentralized account book, almost all public chains need to have the ability to make hematopoietic in order to survive for a long time and safely. For BTC, its market value and price reflect the volume of the external world to put their wealth into the Bitcoin account book. In order to obtain the security of the Bitcoin network, these wealth is willing to pay to the miners who can make it satisfied with Storage costs. But this set of common public chains such as Ethereum and Solana seem to be unreasonable. Because the miner is a group of profit -seeking, wherever you make money, and the "World Computer" that the general public chain wants to maintain is not much attractive to the wealth of the outside world. Therefore, from the perspective of supply and demand relationship Miners (of course are mostly verified as verifiedrs) to see the house, and the burden of paying costs is generally on the shoulders on the Internet. To put it simply, the general public chain needs to find a way to "create revenue" to pay the authentication of the maintenance network. Basic hematopoietic ability. Of course, hematopoietic is not all for "alive." In the stock market, the stronger the revenue ability means the stronger the repurchase strength and stock price expectations, and the same is true of the public chain business. According to this logic, what data should be in a "public chain financial report" is actually clear at a glance. First of all, it is naturally operating income. For the public chain, all of this part comes from network costs, and the destruction parts in the cost can be regarded as network revenue (equivalent to repurchase). The more online activities, the higher the cost income. The second is operating costs, including parts paid to the verifications in each network cost (supply fee; SUPPLY-SIDE Fees) and tokens issued by the network. Finally, it is gross profit, that is, to destroy the tos to the tokens (and the cost of the verification), which is the ultimate manifestation of a public chain hematopoietic ability and network value. It is not difficult to see that for a public chain, GAS destruction and block motivation distribution largely determine its revenue ability and self -sustainability. So in the first quarter of this year, how did the universal public chain's revenue perform? We have selected three representative cases for a comparative analysis, which are based on the Ethereum of the GAS repurchase based on the basic cost of the block, the 50% cost to repurchase the destroyed Solana, and all the 100% costs all Destroyed Avalanche. Judging from the final "quarterly statement", Ethereum is still the most powerful general chain in the current crypto world. In the first quarter of 2024, it achieved a revenue of $ 1.17 billion, and its net profit reached US $ 369 million. Although Solana has a strong ecological momentum in the past six months, because of advocating ultra -low GAS concepts and lack of dynamic cost mechanisms, only less than $ 100 million in revenue in the first quarter, while its network operating costs (ie token inspiration) are as high as high. 844 million US dollars, a total of $ 796 million. The avalanche network has almost no revenue in the first quarter, and the cost loss loss is 179 million US dollars
Consensys proposes four key reasons to support Ethereum non -securities status The US SEC re -examine whether Ethereum belongs to the securities category. Consensys proposed four major reasons to support Ethereum non -securities status: 1. Historical position: Former SEC supervisor said in 2018 that Ethereum does not belong to securities. This historic position provides a solid foundation for its non -securities position. 2. CFTC Category: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has been regarded as Ethereum as a commodity commodity for a long time, which is consistent with the position of SEC. 3. Decentralization and openness: Ethereum's decentralized architecture makes it different from securities. All information is open and accessible, and it does not have the characteristics of inside information asymmetry. 4. Consensus mechanism transformation is irrational: The transformation from the recent consensus mechanism from POW to POS does not affect the core nature of Ethereum, so it should not be a reason for re -classification. These factors jointly support the non -securities status of Ethereum in the regulatory world. For the re -examining SEC, the industry and communities continue to pay attention to the positioning of Ethereum.
My favorite athlete Zlatan Ibrahimović
Introducing the **Hey Score**! 🌟 A new way to shine on @lens/hey! Your interactions, posts, and secret sauce now brew up your unique score. Curious about where you stand? Dive in and discover your Hey Score today! Drop your Hey score below 😉
gm network 🍔 🍟 Believe it or not, McDonald's can be a spot for spiritual connection.
Who will collect the LAST EDITION 👀🫣
nah i’m la
Fun with friends✌️ 📷 @lens/benoit_tokyo
Went to see Hawthorne Heights today, bringing back lots of memories from high school haha. They played in one of the coolest venues I’ve ever been to, a barn. Awesome vibes
Everyone's lifestyle and love things are different May you bring you all the beauty in the new day, explore the future together, friends #Lens #NFT
Greg Solano, co -founder of Yuga Labs, has released a memorandum of announcing the company's reorganization since the CEO of the company in February. Regarding the reorganization announcement, Solano said: "Today is a very difficult day. I am determined to change Yuga and let us return to the original original intention, which means making difficult decisions. So far, the hardest decision is to say goodbye to some talents. team member." In the memorandum, Solano said that Yuga Labs "lost direction" will focus on the establishment of "a smaller, more flexible, and more encrypted team"
Renzo officially issued a post on social media that the first quarter of the integral integral airdrop receipt will be launched at 19:00 on April 30th, Beijing time, that is, one hour before the launch of Binance will be opened. The user will receive Rez for 30 days, and any unmanned token will be added to the second quarter airdrop reward. The official said that the second quarter of the integral integral airdrop activity is about to begin. This event will run for 3 months to allocate to token with a total supply of 5%of the participants. Participants in the first quarter will get 10%of points of points. After upgrading, Renzo will also launch several times more multiple points to earn a lot of points for decentralized financial partners.
This is the professional knowledge shared by security experts. It is related to everyone's asset safety. https://github.com/slowmist/Blockchain-dark-forest-selfguard-handbook/blob/main/README_CN.md Black Handbook (Blockchain Black Dark Forest Self -rescue Manual) V1.2 Edition V1.2 is first released. This difference is a bit difficult ... New "Those Tools" chapters and update "contributors" network ".
Data fixed Snapshot complete We've locked in points balances and unlinking or relinking your Twitter will no longer transfer points. Join us next week for when points go onchain. If you see any issues with your balance in-app, please contact us at support@frie@lens/friendtech
A pleasant day started, friends Share it with a very interesting picture, I admit that I saw this picture laughed for a long time, so that my stomach hurts a bit 🤣 When you wake up very happy, you feel that this is the meaning of living
On April 27th, according to official news, the Point NFT Loan Loan Agreement NFTFI Foundation announced that the NFTFI airdrop application will be opened at 20:30 on April 30, Beijing time, and lasts 41 days until June 10. Until -applied tokens will be returned to community and reward allocation and are used for future rewards. The total supply of tokens of NFTFI is 2 billion yuan, and the initial circulation supply is expected to be 220 million pieces. As an Ethereum main network on Ethereum, ERC-20 token is distributed. Tokens will be assigned: community and rewards, foundation and ecosystems, core contributors and strategic supporters. 84.5% of the NFTFI token supply was initially locked and unlocked within four years. 7.00%(140 million) supplied by NFTFI has been assigned to more than 3,000 qualified wallets from community and reward categories. This traceability airdrop is aimed at recognizing and rewarding the contribution of NFTFI users.
In the past few days, demonstrations, including several well -known institutions, have a demonstration in the campus of many universities in the United States, demanding permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, and stopping military assistance in the United States. Although some American politicians label the "anti -Semit" label, the anti -war movement still shows a strongest momentum. Mike Johnson, Speaker of the Republican House of Representatives of the United States Congress, went to Columbia University on April 24 to ask students to end anti -war protests and say that when necessary, the National Guard will be dispatched.
Politics is Bullshit
The Hong Kong Investor and Financial Education Commission stated that the investment scope of spot virtual asset ETF investment is limited to virtual assets provided to Hong Kong public on the virtual asset trading platform holding the securities commission license (currently limited to Bitcoin and Ethereum), trading The opponent must buy and sell virtual assets through licensed virtual asset trading platforms to reduce the risk of trading. Asset custody must be entrusted to keep virtual assets in the designated institutions regulated in Hong Kong, such as licensed virtual asset trading platforms, banks, or subsidiaries registered in Hong Kong to reduce the risk of custody. Investors can buy and sell virtual asset spot ETFs through securities banks or banks. Some virtual asset spot ETFs also provide non -listed fund units categories. Submitting and redemption.