FungoLabs is the first project to build Encrypted NFTs on Ethereum, using Zama’s Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) technology The project's slogan is “Non-fungible. Non-visible.” • NFTs are minted in a sealed state • Artwork (Look) and hidden attributes (Essence) are generated using on-chain FHE randomness, with no one (including the team) knowing them in advance • Only the owner can view the content; they decide whether to make it public or not • Supports sealed-bid auctions using cZAMA $FUNGO is the native token of the FungoLabs Launchpad – a platform that allows other studios to launch encrypted NFT collections following the same standard • Each Genesis NFT (3,232 NFTs) receives 1,113,861 $FUNGO • Each Zama OG NFT (~4,996 NFTs) receives 140,112 $FUNGO • 82.5% unlocks immediately at TGE → high selling pressure if airdrop holders dump • No official TGE date has been announced yet (as of November 3, 2026)

A $50 bounty on @vangrid_io doesn't necessarily put $50 in your wallet I was going through the official bounty docs and found a detail worth knowing before you start filming Using Vangrid's current example A buyer funds a $50 capture bounty $5 goes to the platform Around $5 covers 3D reconstruction And $40 goes to the selected contributor But here's the catch More than one person can submit footage for the same bounty Only the submission accepted by the buyer gets paid So filming something and uploading it doesn't automatically mean you've earned USDC Your capture still needs to match the request and actually get selected I think this is a pretty important distinction The bounty amount is the buyer's budget, not necessarily your take-home reward And the time you spend capturing a location matters too A $200 bounty sounds attractive until you factor in travel, filming, competition and the chance that your submission isn't chosen That doesn't make the model bad It just means contributors need to treat these bounties like real paid work rather than guaranteed farming rewards What I like is that the escrow is funded upfront and the settlement is recorded onchain But the most useful number for contributors isn't the biggest bounty on the board It's how much they actually take home after a successful submission That's the metric I'd pay attention to

Imagine building a quantum-safe wallet and accidentally installing last year's SDK Sounds stupid, but @quipnetwork literally warns developers about this in its own docs I was checking their updated developer portal and noticed something most people would probably skip The default npm latest tag for Quip's Ethereum SDK still points to a 2025 release That version predates the current SHRINCS signer Want the current generation? You have to explicitly install the beta release And there's a similar detail with their WebAssembly signature library The current signer and verifier live under the release candidate tag Not the default latest version Pretty easy thing to overlook when you're just copying installation commands into a new project Especially if an AI coding assistant grabs an old package example Here's why I think this matters Building post-quantum infrastructure isn't just about having stronger cryptography Developers also need to integrate the correct implementation An outdated package doesn't automatically mean a security exploit But using the wrong generation of signing tools can create compatibility problems before your application even goes live Quip has already published the correct package names and installation commands So this isn't some hidden issue It's a reminder that the boring developer experience stuff matters just as much as the quantum narrative You can spend months building sophisticated cryptography Then lose someone at the first npm install The real adoption test is making the secure path the easiest path That's what I'd watch next

A one-time signature that can still be verified again? Yep, and @quipnetwork actually explains why in its own docs Quip Accounts use SHRINCS, a hash-based signature system designed for post-quantum protection For normal account operations, every signature consumes a slot Use it once, move to the next Pretty straightforward But things get interesting when a dApp checks signatures through ERC-1271 That verification is read-only It doesn't consume a signing slot And the same signature can continue passing verification while its key remains installed Wait, doesn't that defeat the whole one-time idea? Not exactly Signing a new message with the same one-time key and validating an existing signature again are two different operations The problem appears when a protocol assumes a valid signature automatically becomes unusable after one action Quip's documentation explicitly warns developers about this Want single-use authorization? Track nonces Add expiration Or handle key rotation Don't expect ERC-1271 to magically provide replay protection And this is what I find interesting about post-quantum wallet infrastructure Upgrading cryptography doesn't automatically upgrade every application connected to that wallet You can have stronger signatures and still introduce authorization mistakes at the integration layer Not calling this a Quip exploit It's documented behavior that developers need to account for The real challenge isn't just making wallets quantum-resistant It's making those wallets safe to integrate with the DeFi applications people already use That last part deserves way more attention

10 wallets. 1 identity. No custody. That's the part of @zerufinance Zaps design I think deserves more attention Most active DeFi users don't trade from one wallet You've got a main wallet A few hot wallets Maybe separate addresses for perps, farming and long-term positions Now imagine a reputation system judging you based on just one of them lol Zaps lets users link up to 10 wallets under one identity The interesting bit? You don't need to transfer funds or give the platform permission to trade Wallet ownership is verified through signatures Zaps reads your activity and combines it into a behavioral profile And if you use an X identity, the linked-wallet mapping stays private on public Zaps profiles Your score is visible Your entire wallet setup doesn't have to be With zETH registration scheduled for October 26, this distinction matters Past trading activity can contribute to your reputation before the market race begins But there's an important catch Normal Zaps participation doesn't require minting a zScore NFT Winning an early auction seat does require a minted zScore, according to the launch docs And private public profiles aren't the same as complete anonymity ZeruAI still has to process the linked-wallet information So the real test is whether it can turn fragmented trading histories into useful reputation without compromising user privacy Because a wallet address tells you what happened A good reputation system should tell you what that history means Without needing to expose your entire setup to everyone

Crypto spent years calling almost anything with an APY a yield product Sometimes it was just another token printer with better branding lol @grvt_io taking an interesting direction with its upcoming Grvt Earn rollout Tokenized fixed-income strategies targeting up to 11% yield, backed by cash flows like interest, premiums and invoices Not another reward token being printed to keep farmers happy These are the kinds of income strategies institutions have been accessing in traditional finance for years Now Grvt wants to bring that exposure onchain through a self-custodial experience But here's the part CT shouldn't ignore Real-world yield doesn't automatically mean risk-free yield Credit quality, liquidity and the underlying strategy still matter And 11% is a target, not a guaranteed return Personally, I'd rather understand exactly what's generating my yield than chase the highest APY on the screen That's what makes this interesting to me RWA isn't just about putting traditional assets onchain It's about giving people access to financial opportunities they couldn't easily reach before The real test for Grvt Earn will be what's actually behind that yield

Perp traders spend hours finding the perfect entry But what about all that capital sitting behind their positions? That's the part I think most people overlook Your margin there to back your trades, but why should that be its only job? @grvt_io taking a pretty interesting approach here Grvt Earn is targeting up to 11% APY through tokenized fixed-income strategies, with the rollout planned for late October The yield is intended to come from real underlying cash flows like interest, premiums and invoices Not just another token emissions farm But the part I'm watching is Yield as Margin, planned for November Eligible Earn balances could continue generating yield while being used as trading collateral So instead of constantly moving capital between earning and trading, the same balance can potentially do both Of course, 11% is a target, not guaranteed And yield-bearing margin still comes with asset, liquidity and liquidation risks I'd want to see the collateral rules and actual performance before getting too excited But I like where this is heading Maybe the next big improvement in trading isn't another chart or 100 new pairs It's making the capital we already have work harder Earn while you trade That's a much more interesting use case for onchain finance imo

6.4M AI payments Only $119,947 moved bro the agent economy is still buying API crumbs That's what a 35-day sample of x402 payments in BeInCrypto's latest research shows 90.8% of those transactions were worth less than one cent The rails clearly work But moving pennies around isn't the same as trusting an AI agent with a $100K portfolio This is where @zerufinance caught my attention ZeruAI CEO Ashutosh Sahoo argues that AI agents need financial infrastructure built around them, not systems designed for humans with an AI slapped on top And I think that's the more interesting problem An agent can have a wallet It can execute trades It can even stay within its spending limit But what happens when it sends money to the wrong counterparty? Who responsible? Who decides what it can access? Who checks its behavior before it gets more capital? That's where permissioning, behavioral reputation and risk controls start to matter ZeruAI has been building wallet intelligence through zScore and its trust infrastructure That doesn't mean they've solved autonomous finance Far from it But the next big unlock for AI agents probably isn't another payment protocol It's making machines accountable enough to handle real capital Until then, 6 million transactions might just mean 6 million tiny payments Not 6 million reasons to trust an agent with your money

CT loves volume leaderboards But imagine spending years voting, locking tokens and supporting a protocol... just to get outranked by some dude who farmed volume for 7 days That's one thing @zerufinance trying to change with Zaps Look at its first Aerodrome campaign The scoring wasn't just about who traded the most 40% came from $AERO trading 40% from veAERO holdings 20% from weeks spent voting So a wallet that spent months participating in governance could actually get recognized for that history Here's the part I find more interesting Your historical activity determines your share of the reward pool But only verified trading during the campaign determines how much of that pool gets unlocked Two different jobs Past contribution helps decide who deserves a share New activity determines how much the protocol actually pays out And wash volume doesn't count toward unlocking rewards The first Aerodrome campaign was only a pipeline test using AEROSTRAT, a token with no monetary value So I'm not treating this as proof of profitable incentives yet The real test comes after rewards end Do those wallets keep trading? Do governance participants stick around? Because any protocol can pay users to generate volume Getting them to stay is a completely different game That's the metric I'd be watching for Zaps

Zero trading fees sound great But what happens when you want to hold a perp position for weeks instead of minutes? That's where funding becomes part of the equation And it's why @grvt_io upcoming Stable Funding Perps caught my attention Grvt targeting a November rollout across stocks, FX, commodities and indices With zero trading fees and funding charged once daily The interesting part isn't simply making trades cheaper It's making the cost structure easier to follow for traders who hold positions longer Because a zero-fee entry doesn't mean a zero-cost position Funding still matters So do spreads, slippage and execution quality Grvt also targeting over 1,000 markets by December 2026 That could bring a much wider set of TradFi exposures into one onchain trading environment But market count alone won't determine whether traders stay Actual funding costs, liquidity and execution will To me, that's the real test for Grvt 2.0 Not how many markets appear on the screen But whether holding and managing those positions becomes meaningfully more efficient