Pinned Tweet
After years of repeated CEX hacks, I still don’t understand how outgoing transfers of this size can happen without independent human review and signing.
Where are the circuit breakers? Why aren’t unusually large withdrawals automatically delayed, queued for review and subject to additional approval, especially when funds are moving to a new address?
Withdrawing $5,000 from a bank can involve questions and a manager’s approval. Yet somehow, $100 million++++ can flow out of an exchange to an unfamiliar address in seconds.
Make it make sense. Please.
Where are the circuit breakers? Why aren’t unusually large withdrawals automatically delayed, queued for review and subject to additional approval, especially when funds are moving to a new address?
Withdrawing $5,000 from a bank can involve questions and a manager’s approval. Yet somehow, $100 million++++ can flow out of an exchange to an unfamiliar address in seconds.
Make it make sense. Please.
Binance's initial investigation suggests that the security incident may involve a compromised DevOps engineer’s laptop, which allowed an attacker to gain access to a service container and submit unauthorized withdrawal transactions. We have found no evidence of any wallet private a detailed technical post-mortem once the investigation is complete and the facts are fully verified.
The estimated total impact sits at around $6.3B. We have worked with blockchain partners to freeze affected assets, with ~$3 billion frozen on-chain so far.
Binance will cover all losses from the SAFU fund and the company’s funds. User funds are safe. We will also publish an updated Proof of Reserves once the remediation is complete.
As an immediate precaution, Binance has:
- temporarily suspended deposits and withdrawals while security checks are completed;
- revoked the affected address authorisation;
- engaged law enforcement and blockchain intelligence partners to trace and recover funds.
Our teams are working around the clock to resolve this issue safely and thoroughly. We are working closely with our law enforcement partners to confirm the identity of these criminals and bring them to justice.
Please rely only on official Binance channels for updates. Please feel free to contact Binance Customer Support if you have any further questions.
binance.com/en/support/ann…
270
96
1,280
199,608
Matthew retweeted
Only the OGs will remember that Hyperliquid is allegedly an Arbitrum L2, meaning Elysium is an L3.
However, Arbitrum itself is an Ethereum L2, making Hyperliquid an L3 and Elysium an L4.
To make matters worse, Elysium is built with the Arbitrum stack, making it an Arbitrum L3, which begs the question:
Is Elysium = Hyperliquid?
However, Arbitrum itself is an Ethereum L2, making Hyperliquid an L3 and Elysium an L4.
To make matters worse, Elysium is built with the Arbitrum stack, making it an Arbitrum L3, which begs the question:
Is Elysium = Hyperliquid?
49
10
259
20,429
Those who preach revenue do not fully understand that tokens revenue is just a narrative.
Bear market, everyone wants fundamentals.
Bull market, fundamentals become optional.
Bear market, everyone wants fundamentals.
Bull market, fundamentals become optional.
🟣 Are the protocols that generate the most revenue really the best investments?
For the past two years, there’s been a lot of talk about revenue and buybacks in crypto.
The idea is simple, a protocol that generates a lot of revenue should, in theory, be a better investment erates none.
On paper, that makes sense, but is it really what we see in the market?
To find out, we ranked these protocols by the revenue they generated between October 2024 and September 2025, then looked at how their tokens performed over the following twelve months, and the results are quite interesting:
▫️ The 6 most profitable protocols (Hyperliquid, Pump(.)fun, Sky, Aave, Aero and Jupiter) show a median performance of -9.7%, versus -26.7% for Bitcoin
▫️ The other groups, ranked by revenue level, all do worse, with performances between -31% and -54%
At first glance, investing in the protocols that earn the most money looks like a pretty effective strategy.
Except that holding up better than the market doesn’t necessarily make for a good investment.
Even those six tokens show a negative median performance, with huge gaps between them, +101% for $HYPE versus -42% for $AAVE.
Above all, the players that generate the most revenue in crypto aren’t even in this ranking, simply because they don’t have a token.
In reality, a protocol’s profitability isn’t enough to tell whether its token is a good investment.
You also need to understand where the revenue actually goes, how much of it reaches holders, whether new token emissions cancel everything out, and whether the current valuation leaves enough upside.
That’s exactly what our latest Premium article is about.
We analyzed the market’s main profitable protocols, from @HyperliquidX to @aave, including @ethena, @Uniswap and @Pumpfun, to understand why some tokens perform and others don’t.
We also share a framework for evaluating a token before investing, with the questions to ask and the indicators to watch.
👉 Discover our full analysis on OAK Research Premium and get 30% off with the code 1ANOAK (link in the comments).
2
0
1
346
Very well said.
There is clearly "incredible demand" from people in emerging markets for access to U.S. markets.
How can they get it?
Simran Singh (@0xturbanurban) explains.
1
0
1
351
Matthew retweeted
Can’t believe Jensen popped the AI bubble with his dick.
1,115
11,791
175,972
6,204,512
If $ETH is a store of value, why does it keep inflating? Doesn’t that make it just like the inflationary fiat it was designed to escape?
Maybe the solution to all our problems is a bitcoin L2 after all
Maybe the solution to all our problems is a bitcoin L2 after all
Expanding on why I believe "ETH as store of value (SoV)" makes much more sense to focus on than "ETH as fee-burning token".
Three primary reasons:
1. ETH as fee-burning token never was as strong as it seemed
2. Optimizing for ETH as fee-burning token would demand Ethereum and ETH function in ways that are very hard to make compatible with decentralization and capture resistance.
3. Meanwhile, optimizing for ETH as SoV is aligned with Ethereum focusing on its unique strengths (decentralization and CROPS)
EIP-1559 (including its burn) is fine and good, we should keep them. But we should not feel sad if fee burn is < 10% of breakeven indefinitely; the value of ETH comes from elsewhere.
The core idea: the big thing that people appreciate about Ethereum is decentralization and CROPS. The main pragmatic benefit that these things translate into is stability. SoV is the category where that is not an unneeded extra we merely put effort into for ideological reasons, but rather a pragmatic strength from the perspective of people putting in their assets. And in the era of AI disruption, stability will be highly valued.
27
1
17
6,903
Layer 1 chains are scrambling
Expanding on why I believe "ETH as store of value (SoV)" makes much more sense to focus on than "ETH as fee-burning token".
Three primary reasons:
1. ETH as fee-burning token never was as strong as it seemed
2. Optimizing for ETH as fee-burning token would demand Ethereum and ETH function in ways that are very hard to make compatible with decentralization and capture resistance.
3. Meanwhile, optimizing for ETH as SoV is aligned with Ethereum focusing on its unique strengths (decentralization and CROPS)
EIP-1559 (including its burn) is fine and good, we should keep them. But we should not feel sad if fee burn is < 10% of breakeven indefinitely; the value of ETH comes from elsewhere.
The core idea: the big thing that people appreciate about Ethereum is decentralization and CROPS. The main pragmatic benefit that these things translate into is stability. SoV is the category where that is not an unneeded extra we merely put effort into for ideological reasons, but rather a pragmatic strength from the perspective of people putting in their assets. And in the era of AI disruption, stability will be highly valued.
2
0
4
1,026
$446,000,000 down the drain
Elon Musk was among the biggest losers of election night.
He doled out around $446 million — the most a non-candidate has ever spent on an election — but his preferred candidates were swamped, losing almost everywhere.
politico.com/storyline/live…
0
0
2
1,297
Matthew retweeted
I'm starting to think we won't all be getting $5000 checks.
1,052
2,774
37,704
698,229
CCTP > OFT ?
Applications settle, post collateral, and show balances on the chain where they actually run. If your ERC-20 only lives where you minted it, every other venue needs a one-off bridge or wrapped copy.
With CCTP on Arc you get one economic asset, one bridge identity: burn on source ation.
It could be a native crosschain ERC-20 token or a custom issuer-operated ERC-20. Same transfer flow. Fees in USDC. Predictable finality. Issue or hold inventory on Arc, then move it wherever the application needs it.
circle.com/blog/make-your…
0
0
3
479
