wait so i can borrow USDC against tokenized stocks on @aave over the weekend, but it’s still using Friday’s price? if bad news comes out on Saturday, people can keep borrowing against that old price until the feed updates? how much room do their collateral limits leave for that?
I will look like barter system is back
you've probably used @MetaMask hundreds of times but do you know who actually built it? two guys, Dan Finlay(@danfinlay) and Aaron Davis (Kumavis). the interesting part is neither came from a traditional computer science background. Dan studied English Literature, worked as a portrait artist, chess coach, even a balloon twister. he learned programming because he wanted to build a fart synthesizer lol. Aaron studied Japanese and wanted to become an interpreter. he was also into video games and taught himself coding by reading and modifying other people's code. they met in 2013, worked on an open-source Minecraft clone, and eventually started experimenting with Ethereum. back then even connecting a website to Ethereum wasn't straightforward. Aaron initially built a complicated account manager, basically a browser inside a browser. then they simplified the whole idea into a browser extension. that's how MetaMask launched in July 2016. and the fox? Aaron chose it because he associated it with independence, cleverness and self-custody. 10 years later, MetaMask has crossed 100 million downloads. funny how two guys from completely different backgrounds ended up building one of the most recognizable tools in crypto. and it all started with trying to make @ethereum usable from a browser.
everyone is talking about Akash leaving Cosmos for Solana but there's something interesting happening with IBC that I think deserves more attention. Cosmos already connected Ethereum through IBC Eureka back in 2025, but they've been doing a lot more since then. IBC v2 has Solidity implementations, Ethereum light clients and ZK proof verification using SP1. they've also been working on GMP (General Message Passing) for cross-chain contract calls and IFT (Interchain Fungible Tokens) for moving assets across chains using a mint/burn model. I was looking through their GitHub repos and found that they upgraded the Ethereum mainnet IBC infrastructure to v3 in June, and confirmed live Cosmos Hub packets were still relaying after the upgrade. they're also working on Solana support and connecting more EVM chains and L2s. not all of that is live yet though. what I find interesting is that Cosmos spent years building infrastructure for sovereign appchains, and now some of that same infrastructure is being extended to chains outside Cosmos. makes me wonder if the future of Cosmos is less about how many chains are built using Cosmos SDK and more about how many chains end up using IBC. https://t.co/9Lu7xS34ey
was going through the Cosmos IBC implementation on Ethereum and found something pretty interesting. Ethereum is verifying Cosmos consensus using zero knowledge proofs through SP1. instead of running the entire CometBFT light client verification inside an Ethereum contract, they run the verification off-chain in a Rust program, generate a ZK proof, and verify that proof on Ethereum. and this is already running on mainnet. I found their June upgrade records where they migrated the Ethereum light clients to SP1 v6.1 and successfully relayed Cosmos Hub packets using the new verifier. also checked their gas benchmarks. receiving an existing ERC20 through IBC takes around 551k gas in their Foundry tests, but when they batch 50 packets together, the average drops to around 175k gas per packet. that's roughly 68% less gas per packet. but there's another side to this. the system still depends on the Cosmos validator set, correct SP1 verification programs and keys, and a governance setup that can upgrade or recover the light clients. so ZK verification doesn't automatically mean there are zero trust assumptions. I think this is the interesting part of where interoperability is heading. we're moving complex consensus verification off-chain and using cryptographic proofs to make it practical on other blockchains. source: https://t.co/Y6IL0hSehd
Spent some time digging into Cosmos IBC Eureka's SP1 Tendermint light client on Ethereum. Was curious whether newer SP1 versions could still work with the existing deployed verifier without requiring a contract upgrade. Found some interesting things. Pulled all 4 official production ELFs and reproduced their exact program verification keys using SP1 v6.1 and v6.9. Then generated a real Cosmos Hub Tendermint update witness and executed the original production ELF using both versions. Both executions passed and produced identical 768-byte public outputs, same execution gas and same SHA-256 hash. The more interesting part: SP1 v6.1, v6.9 and v6.10 all still report circuit version v6.1.0. Compared the actual Groth16 verification-key binaries from v6.1 and v6.10. They're byte-for-byte identical. Their SHA-256 also matches the verifier hash already deployed on Ethereum: 0x4388a21c687fdd5f218d7e3d13190cac4c5355818d3605fd5fb811df468ee696 So at least at the program identity, execution and Groth16 verification-key level, compatibility is holding up across these versions. Still haven't generated a genuine proof using the newer prover or tested it against the live Ethereum verifier. That's the next part. Interesting to see how much of the proving stack can change while the verification interface stays the same.
was looking into the Cosmos IBC contracts deployed on Ethereum and found something interesting about how their ZK light clients are managed. the SP1 proofs verify Cosmos consensus, but the light client implementation itself can still be migrated through governance. they actually used this during the June upgrade to move the Tendermint clients to SP1 v6.1. the current setup uses an OpenZeppelin AccessManager, a 4-of-7 governance Safe and a 72 hour timelock. so even though the consensus verification is cryptographic, the system still has an administrative trust layer. and I think that's worth understanding. if someone can change which light client implementation the router trusts, then the security of the whole system also depends on who controls that permission. not saying there's a vulnerability here. the migration mechanism is intentional and useful for upgrades and recovery. but I want to understand what happens if the governance keys are compromised, whether every sensitive change really goes through the timelock, and how users can verify an upgrade before it happens. source: https://t.co/dnN5drqJMi
been looking into how Cosmos IBC verifies consensus on Ethereum using SP1 proofs. something I'm more interested in than the ZK proofs themselves is who controls the verifier. because you can have mathematically valid proofs, but if someone has permission to upgrade the light client or change which verification keys are trusted, that's a completely different security question. the Ethereum deployment uses a 4-of-7 multisig with timelocked administrative controls. now I want to trace exactly what those admins can change, whether a malicious verifier could be introduced through an upgrade, and what users can actually do during the timelock. ZK proves that a particular computation was executed correctly. it doesn't prove that the people controlling which computation gets verified can't change it. that's the part I want to dig into.
some crazy rumours going around in tech rn OpenAI reportedly trying to raise $30B before Anthropic IPO Nvidia might invest $10B in Anthropic IPO Anthropic could be valued at $2 trillion lol OpenAI apparently in talks to acquire Trail of Bits Datadog reportedly offered almost $4B for Upwind Security SpaceX reportedly exploring $40B in financing to buy Nvidia GPUs not everything is confirmed yet but the amount of money moving around in AI is insane
