在抗量子威胁方面，至少目前来看，以太坊 $ETH 确实有希望成为第一个具有量子安全性的加密资产。
以太坊在量子安全上的进展：
1/ 2026年1月成立Post-Quantum专用量子安全团队，由
@tcoratger
领导。
2/ 量子抵抗已融入以太坊的长期路线图，The Splurge阶段将聚焦于构建量子防御。
3/ 基金会承诺200万美元作为奖励基金，用于加速后量子研究。
从时间上来说，量子抵抗模型仍处于研究阶段，到实施阶段预计至少还需几年，但以太坊的抗量子性已从纯理论转向实际测试，在所有加密资产中，它的反应速度是最快的。
Crypto really needs to move soon. This is literally its time to shine. This is the exact thesis that the narrative was built on. Global instability, hyperinflation, civil chaos, and Dollar decline. All of these would create a rush to the safety of assets: Real Estate, Metals, and Bitcoin. Metals are ripping and Bitcoin et al., is only crashing.
Everything seems to have changed after whatever happened on 10/10. Combine that with the Quantum concerns and lack of a clear regulatory framework and people have no desire for Crypto right now.
In reality, something like Bitcoin, with all of its attributes, including ease of moving money, should be mooning right now. This was the exact moment in time created for Bitcoin to shine and it's not delivering on its thesis.
How to deal with crypto blues?
I've been in crypto since 2013. I witnessed the birth of Ethereum, its highs and lows, same with Solana. I co-founded two projects, Zcash and StarkWare, and have believed in each through thick and thin.
In other words, I've chewed my share of glass and am still around.
Why? What keeps me going?
I believe that crypto will utterly change the way markets, money, the economy and all of society works. Even if things are volatile, crypto will be too big and important to ignore.
I'll repeat: Crypto, not the individual assets, but the truly decentralized, OWN-YOUR-LIFE, way of doing things, will be how our children know money and markets.
I strongly believe that: (1) the values that crypto brings will become the default standard for how we manage out lives, and (2) that Starknet (and, to some extent, Zcash), will be a major pillar of the world to come.
Bringing that world about is why I keep going, with a lot of optimism and energy.
AI OS 的雏形正在显现。
刚看到有人用 Clawdbot 搭建了一个"缝合怪"系统：多模型CLI + Skills + 本地管理界面，同时接入 WhatsApp、Telegram、iMessage、Slack。
语音识别、多层记忆、日历管理、邮件处理、定时任务、编程能力...非程序员也能上手。
这种架构让我想到了 Web3 基础设施的演进路径。当 AI 开始整合多平台数据流时，去中心化存储和计算的价值会更加凸显。
ClawdBot可能是未来（至少这两年）c端（当然也包括b端）ai 应用落地的一个方向 --- 极致agent化
这也很可能将改变个人计算（边缘计算）。
ClawdBot 这样的应用，本质是一个长期常驻的智能代理。模型负责“想”，但本地系统负责“做”：监听事件、维护状态、调度工具、执行命令、管理权限。
这直接改变了硬件的侧重点。本地GPU 不需要是核心算力，只需承担界面渲染、浏览器自动化和少量兜底计算即可，集显已基本够用。
但 CPU 不但不能简化，反而被重新抬高了地位。
Agent 型应用高度依赖单核性能、低延迟响应、频繁上下文切换和 IO 能力。它们不需要堆核心数，却极度依赖“随叫随到”的执行能力；不追求峰值算力，却要求 24 小时低功耗常驻、快速唤醒、稳定可控。
换句话说，本地（边缘） CPU 正在从通用算力变成系统中枢。
而本地（边缘） GPU跑常用的，高io，低延迟的推理
未来的电脑（或手机），不是为了跑最大模型，而是为了托管一个随时能行动的智能代理。
我们已经可以依稀看出未来的应用形态和计算架构
I no longer agree with this previous tweet of mine - since 2017, I have become a much more willing connoisseur of mountains. It's worth explaining why.
https://x.com/VitalikButerin/status/873177382164848641
First, the original context. That tweet was in a debate with Ian Grigg, who argued that blockchains should track the order of transactions, but not the state (eg. user balances, smart contract code and storage):
> The messages are logged, but the state (e.g., UTXO) is implied, which means it is constructed by the computer internally, and then (can be) thrown away.
I was heavily against this philosophy, because it would imply that users have no way to get the state other than either (i) running a node that processed every transaction in all of history, or (ii) trusting someone else.
In blockchains that commit to the state in the block header (like Ethereum), you can simply prove any value in the state with a Merkle branch. This is conditional on the honest majority assumption: if >= 50% of the consensus participants are honest, then the chain with the most PoW (or PoS) support will be valid, and so the state root will be correct.
Trusting an honest majority is far better than trusting a single RPC provider. Not trusting at all (by personally verifying every transaction in the chain) is theoretically ideal, but it's a computation load infeasible for regular users, unless we take the (even worse) tradeoff of keeping blockchain capacity so low that most people cannot even use the chain.
Now, what has changed since then?
The biggest thing is of course ZK-SNARKs. We now have a technology that lets you verify the correctness of the chain, without literally re-executing every transaction. WE INVENTED THE THING THAT GETS YOU THE BENEFITS WITHOUT THE COSTS! This is like if someone from the future teleported back into US healthcare debates in 2008, and demonstrated a clearly working pill that anyone could make for $15 that cured all diseases. Like, yes, if we have that pill, we should get the government fully out of healthcare, let people make the pill and sell it at Walgreens, and healthcare becomes super affordable so everyone is happy. ZK-SNARKs are literally like that but for the block size war. (With two asterisks for block building centralization and data bandwidth, but that's a separate topic)
With better technology, we should raise our expectations, and revisit tradeoffs that we made grudgingly in a previous era.
But also, I have actually changed my mind on some of the underlying issues. In 2017, I was thinking about blockchains in terms of academic assumptions - what is okay to rely on honest majority for, when we are ok with 1-of-N trust assumption, etc. If a construction gave better properties under known-acceptable assumptions, I would eagerly embrace it.
On a raw subconscious level, I don't think I was sufficiently appreciative of the fact that _in the real world, lots of things break_. Sometimes the p2p network goes down. Sometimes the p2p network has 20x the latency you expected - anyone who has played WoW can attest to long spans of time when the latency spiked up from its usual ~200ms to 1000-5000ms. Sometimes a third party service you've been relying on for years shuts down, and there isn't a good alternative. If the alternative is that you personally go through a github repo and figure out how to PERSONALLY RUN A SERVER, lots of people will give up and never figure it out and end up permanently losing access to their money. Sometimes mining or staking gets concentrated to the point where 51% attacks are very easy to imagine, and you almost have to game-theoretically analyze consensus security as though 75% of miners or stakers are controlled by one single agent. Sometimes, as we saw with tornado cash, intermediaries all start censoring some application, and your *only* option becomes to directly use the chain.
If we are making a self-sovereign blockchain to last through the ages, THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE CONUNDRUMS CANNOT ALWAYS BE "CALL THE DEVS". If it is, the devs themselves become the point of centralization - they become DEVS in the ancient Roman sense, where the letter V was used to represent the U sound.
The Mountain Man's cabin is not meant as the replacement lifestyle for everyone. It is meant as the safe place to retreat to when things go wrong. It is also meant as the universal BATNA ("Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement") - the alternative option that improves your well-being not just in the case when you end up needing it, but also because knowledge of it existing motivates third parties to give you better terms. This is like how Bittorrent existing is an important check on the power of music and video streaming platforms, driving them to offer customers better terms.
We do not need to start living every day in the Mountain Man's cabin. But part of maintaining the infinite garden of Ethereum is certainly keeping the cabin well-maintained.
过去半年用了一堆 Agent 框架和各种魔改"AI 个人助理"，直到昨天折腾了一天 Clawdbot——
我好像初窥到了 AI OS 的原型。
它是个"缝合怪"：
多模型CLI接入 + Skills 系统+本地网页端管理 + 多平台连接器同时接入 WhatsApp、Telegram、iMessage、Slack...
发语音能听懂，有短/中/长记忆，能帮你管日历、读邮件,能跑定时任务,能编程... 非程序员也能玩
I think the entities buying gold (sovereigns, particularly China) have a very long time horizon and it's the right move for a 5-15 year forward facing "end of the long term debt cycle" scenario.
Meanwhile it's really hard to convince sovereigns and fiduciary institutions to buy a nascent asset like BTC with 17 years of history (which is less than a retail home mortgage). Then think about their perspective on quantum uncertainty over the next 5-15 years.
IMO fixing BTC's quantum issue is the single most important thing for BTC development and it's urgent due to the current scale of buyers.
I think the excuse of "it's 20 years away" does not cut it. The investors looking to allocate think in exactly these time horizons. So time to get our ducks in a row.
Where the world is heading into, the world needs BTC for what it was designed for, Gold becomes the fallback that's in a state of readiness (for 6000 years) and they are buying.
But to the question at hand on the shorter term, I'm on the side of a large global macro bear market coming, so yeah, maybe we get a sharp pull back in Gold due to a flight to safety before the safehaven trade resumes. (See the last one: 2008-2012)
My hope is BTC's quantum issue resolves quickly to play a part in the macro geopolitics of our time. It was built for this.
在 prediction market 上，中西方开始明显分野。
西方选择了金融化与机构化。所以我们看到IB founder说，最高频交易的是天气/温度合约。更广泛意义上讲，比如能源、农业、航运这些行业都长期暴露在气候风险之下，却始终缺乏足够精细、可交易的对冲工具。在这个语境里，prediction market 的发展方向变成了能不能规模化流动性、能不能做出足够强的衍生品结构、能不能被机构风控体系理解并接纳。创业者思考的是如何把它打磨成合格的金融基础设施。
东方则走向了互联网化与内容化。它更像一种娱乐化的信息消费与表达机制。在这个语境里，核心是用户在什么时间点、愿意为什么下注。它是内容的一种变现形态：下注是参与感，赔率是叙事强度，交易量是情绪共识。产品要解决的不是复杂的金融工程，而是一套内容运营逻辑，即如何把热点、舆论、社交讨论，转化为持续的交易动机。
这个底层是由两边的需求（用户）与供给（创业者基因）共同决定的。we are still early
Okie, we all know arbitrage for perps / spot.
But this one is a next-level play: Prediction market arbitrage.
(So you farm several prediction market airdrops at once basically).
The core strategy is simple: capture price differences across platforms.
→ $40M (!) extracted in the past year.
Finding arbitrage opportunities isn't the main challenge, there are literally bots that do it.
The hard part is verifying that BOTH markets will resolve the same way, executing both legs fast enough that prices don't move on you, and having your capital allocated properly across platforms.
Also the resolution risk thing is underrated.
I looked into that Venezuela election market - UMA token holders basically overrode the market rules and paid out based on what felt fair instead of what was specified.
If you're doing cross-platform arb and one side resolves differently, you're toast.
So prediction markets arbitrage feels like one of those windows that exists during a market structure transition but closes once things mature.
PS: Amazing article below.
一个月前，看全球基金经理现金配置的时候就已经是历史最低点的 3.3% 了，一个多月以后的现在，全球基金经理的现金配置再次创造了历史新低，来到了 3.2% 。
这代表着全球基金经理的现金储备已经极低了。现金占比越低，代表机构仓位越满，风险偏好越靠前，市场的定价也越依赖“继续顺风”这件事。一旦风向没变，低现金会变成托底力量，因为所有人都在车上，跌一点就会有人忍不住补。
但一旦风向变了，低现金也会瞬间变成脆弱点，因为没有现金缓冲，只能卖资产换现金，赎回、止损、风险预算收缩会带动连锁反应。
当然这并不是一个立刻见顶的信号，去年12月就已经是历史新低，而一个月以后美股又迎来了新高，但对应新高的是基金经理能打出去的子弹已经所剩无几了，继续向上突破靠的不是机构继续加仓，而是靠外部新增资金或者靠杠杆把风险再往上叠。
而如果出现不受控制的负面情况，杀伤力可能会更大，因为市场已经没有太多现金去接盘。说人话就是后面的行情会越来越像一场风险溢价的博弈，利好要靠增量才能推得动，利空却可能因为拥挤而被放大。
目前最好的剧本就是市场出现 FOMO 情绪，散户的购买力增加，基金经理出货一部分给散户，然后基金经理继续沉淀资金，在有明显利好的时候再次杀入。这样价格可能才能持续的前进。
而最差的剧本就是四月的情况再出现一次，基金经理清掉大量资产重新囤积现金，等待更好的机构重新再来。
@bitget VIP，费率更低，福利更狠
Bitcoin is stalling while gold grinds higher.
The reason could be in Japanese bonds.
Normally rising yields pressure gold by increasing the opportunity cost of holding a non yielding asset.
When gold and yields move together, the market is pricing policy stress and balance sheet fragility instead of growth.
Japan's 10Y bonds are sitting at +3.65 standard deviations above its long run mean.
Japanese banks are structurally long duration and deeply exposed to Japanese government bonds as both assets and collateral.
While Gold is absorbing this stress. BTC has remained inversely correlated with JP10Y, and over longer horizons has consistently struggled as Japanese yields rise.
If the BOJ steps in to stabilize the JGB market, the stress premium in gold could ease and BTC gets room to recover.
Given some rumors, wanted to post a few clarifications:
Farcaster is not shutting down. The protocol works and will continue to work. There were 250,000 MAU in December and over 100,000 funded wallets. The acquirer, Neynar, is a venture-backed startup and plans to shift Farcaster in a more developer-focused direction.
As for Merkle, we’re planning to return the full $180M raised back to investors. Over the last 5 years, we tried to be a good steward of investor capital.
Finally, I bought my house with Coinbase IPO proceeds.
I no longer agree with this previous tweet of mine - since 2017, I have become a much more willing connoisseur of mountains. It's worth explaining why.
https://x.com/VitalikButerin/status/873177382164848641
First, the original context. That tweet was in a debate with Ian Grigg, who argued that blockchains should track the order of transactions, but not the state (eg. user balances, smart contract code and storage):
> The messages are logged, but the state (e.g., UTXO) is implied, which means it is constructed by the computer internally, and then (can be) thrown away.
I was heavily against this philosophy, because it would imply that users have no way to get the state other than either (i) running a node that processed every transaction in all of history, or (ii) trusting someone else.
In blockchains that commit to the state in the block header (like Ethereum), you can simply prove any value in the state with a Merkle branch. This is conditional on the honest majority assumption: if >= 50% of the consensus participants are honest, then the chain with the most PoW (or PoS) support will be valid, and so the state root will be correct.
Trusting an honest majority is far better than trusting a single RPC provider. Not trusting at all (by personally verifying every transaction in the chain) is theoretically ideal, but it's a computation load infeasible for regular users, unless we take the (even worse) tradeoff of keeping blockchain capacity so low that most people cannot even use the chain.
Now, what has changed since then?
The biggest thing is of course ZK-SNARKs. We now have a technology that lets you verify the correctness of the chain, without literally re-executing every transaction. WE INVENTED THE THING THAT GETS YOU THE BENEFITS WITHOUT THE COSTS! This is like if someone from the future teleported back into US healthcare debates in 2008, and demonstrated a clearly working pill that anyone could make for $15 that cured all diseases. Like, yes, if we have that pill, we should get the government fully out of healthcare, let people make the pill and sell it at Walgreens, and healthcare becomes super affordable so everyone is happy. ZK-SNARKs are literally like that but for the block size war. (With two asterisks for block building centralization and data bandwidth, but that's a separate topic)
With better technology, we should raise our expectations, and revisit tradeoffs that we made grudgingly in a previous era.
But also, I have actually changed my mind on some of the underlying issues. In 2017, I was thinking about blockchains in terms of academic assumptions - what is okay to rely on honest majority for, when we are ok with 1-of-N trust assumption, etc. If a construction gave better properties under known-acceptable assumptions, I would eagerly embrace it.
On a raw subconscious level, I don't think I was sufficiently appreciative of the fact that _in the real world, lots of things break_. Sometimes the p2p network goes down. Sometimes the p2p network has 20x the latency you expected - anyone who has played WoW can attest to long spans of time when the latency spiked up from its usual ~200ms to 1000-5000ms. Sometimes a third party service you've been relying on for years shuts down, and there isn't a good alternative. If the alternative is that you personally go through a github repo and figure out how to PERSONALLY RUN A SERVER, lots of people will give up and never figure it out and end up permanently losing access to their money. Sometimes mining or staking gets concentrated to the point where 51% attacks are very easy to imagine, and you almost have to game-theoretically analyze consensus security as though 75% of miners or stakers are controlled by one single agent. Sometimes, as we saw with tornado cash, intermediaries all start censoring some application, and your *only* option becomes to directly use the chain.
If we are making a self-sovereign blockchain to last through the ages, THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE CONUNDRUMS CANNOT ALWAYS BE "CALL THE DEVS". If it is, the devs themselves become the point of centralization - they become DEVS in the ancient Roman sense, where the letter V was used to represent the U sound.
The Mountain Man's cabin is not meant as the replacement lifestyle for everyone. It is meant as the safe place to retreat to when things go wrong. It is also meant as the universal BATNA ("Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement") - the alternative option that improves your well-being not just in the case when you end up needing it, but also because knowledge of it existing motivates third parties to give you better terms. This is like how Bittorrent existing is an important check on the power of music and video streaming platforms, driving them to offer customers better terms.
We do not need to start living every day in the Mountain Man's cabin. But part of maintaining the infinite garden of Ethereum is certainly keeping the cabin well-maintained.
Bitcoin is now deeply entrenched in global financial market portfolio managers.
ETH is next in line to have its institutional cycle.
However, it has a long ways to go in its current roadmap from the tech POV, with some major improvements coming:
- privacy implementation with ZKVMs
- better UX across L2s
- shorter block times & improved interop
- faster finality
And then trying to solve some major issues:
- internalizing fees & solving MEV supply chain issues
- overreliance on Base / Coinbase
- DCF or P/E modeling for revenues
- community splintering
- competing with Solana, Tempo, Plasma, and others
The undisputed home of neo finance remains Ethereum. Its censorship resistant properties are extremely appealing to large capital allocators (and it’s currently home to the largest DeFi apps).
Expect to see a lot more institutional inflows in 2026-2028 for Ethereum as we did BTC in 23’-‘25.
Zoom out.
在 prediction market 上，中西方开始明显分野。
西方选择了金融化与机构化。所以我们看到IB founder说，最高频交易的是天气/温度合约。更广泛意义上讲，比如能源、农业、航运这些行业都长期暴露在气候风险之下，却始终缺乏足够精细、可交易的对冲工具。在这个语境里，prediction market 的发展方向变成了能不能规模化流动性、能不能做出足够强的衍生品结构、能不能被机构风控体系理解并接纳。创业者思考的是如何把它打磨成合格的金融基础设施。
东方则走向了互联网化与内容化。它更像一种娱乐化的信息消费与表达机制。在这个语境里，核心是用户在什么时间点、愿意为什么下注。它是内容的一种变现形态：下注是参与感，赔率是叙事强度，交易量是情绪共识。产品要解决的不是复杂的金融工程，而是一套内容运营逻辑，即如何把热点、舆论、社交讨论，转化为持续的交易动机。
这个底层是由两边的需求（用户）与供给（创业者基因）共同决定的。we are still early
The latest Bitwise Crypto Market Review just dropped—and it’s the most important one we’ve ever published.
Why? Because it shows a tension in crypto markets that has historically signaled a bear-market bottom (see Q1 2023).
Receipts: During Q4 2025…
- ETH’s price fell 29% … at the same time that Ethereum transactions hit new all-time highs.
- Crypto equities fell 20% … while crypto company revenues were on pace to grow 3x faster than any other sector.
- Sentiment turned bearish … while stablecoin AUM and transactions soared to new heights.
That’s typically what you get at the bottom of bear markets: sentiment down, fundamentals up.
"Kalshi, the US-regulated exchange, prices the probability of American acquisition of Greenland at roughly 42%. Polymarket, the decentralized platform populated by global crypto-natives and offshore speculators, prices it at 15-23%."
I'm no expert on geopolitics but I do know arbitrage. Doesn't matter who the average user is, it only takes one person with access to both platforms to arb the spread down
Price differences like this in prediction markets come down to (sometimes subtle) differences in what is being bet, not different user bases
Skimmed both platforms and likely what is being compared is polymarket probability of it happening in 2026 (23% right now) to kalshi probability of it happening during trumps entire term (45% now) - two different bets
Theres a 5% spread btwn polymarket / kalshi on 2026 but that is explainable through things like different phrasing, settlement conditions and oracles... which can lead to people pricing risk differently between the two. The zelensky suit market is the best example of the subtleties here
It's now happening. The existing fiat monetary order, the domestic political order, and the international geopolitical order are all breaking down, so we are at the brink of wars. It all is happening because of the Big Cycle that is driven by the five big forces I've described repeatedly and laid out in detail in my book and Youtube video titled Principles for Dealing with The Changing World Order. You can find the video linked in the comments below.
In 2026, I plan to be fully back to decentralized social.
If we want a better society, we need better mass communication tools. We need mass communication tools that surface the best information and arguments and help people find points of agreement. We need mass communication tools that serve the user's long-term interest, not maximize short-term engagement. There is no simple trick that solves these problems. But there is one important place to start: more competition. Decentralization is the way to enable that: a shared data layer, with anyone being able to build their own client on top.
In fact, since the start of the year I've been back to decentralized social already. Every post I've made this year, or read this year, I made or read with https://t.co/BJ3J4TvNNu, a multi-client that covers reading and posting to X, Lens, Farcaster and Bluesky (though bluesky has a 300 char limit, so they don't get to see my beautiful long rants).
But crypto social projects has often gone the wrong way. Too often, we in crypto think that if you insert a speculative coin into something, that counts as "innovating", and moves the world forward. Mixing money and social is not inherently wrong: Substack shows that it's possible to create an economy that supports very high-quality content. But Substack is about _subscribing to creators_, not _creating price bubbles around them_. Over the past decade, we have seen many many attempts at incentivizing creators by creating price bubbles around them, and all fail by (i) rewarding not content quality, but pre-existing social capital, and (ii) the tokens all going to zero after one or two years anyway.
Too many people make galaxy-brained arguments that creating new markets and new assets is automatically good because it "elicits information", when the rest of their product development actions clearly betray that they're not actually interested in maximizing people's ability to benefit from that information. That is not Hayekian info-utopia, that is corposlop.
Hence, decentralized social should be run by people who deeply believe in the "social" part, and are motivated first and foremost by solving the problems of social.
The Aave team has done a great job stewarding Lens up to this point. I'm excited about what will happen to Lens over the next year, because I think the new team coming in are people who actually are interested in the "social": even back when the decentralized social space barely existed, they were trying to figure out how to do encrypted tweets.
I plan to post more there this year.
I encourage everyone to spend more time in Lens, Farcaster and the broader decentralized social world this year. We need to move beyond everyone constantly tweeting inside a single global info warzone, and into a reopened frontier, where new and better forms of interaction become possible.
日历
1 月 26 日
数据请求中
在 App 打开
