Ethereum’s founder, Vitalik Buterin, is making headlines with a revolutionary proposal: transitioning from Casper FFG to Minimint. While Minimint can finalize blocks faster, it reduces fault tolerance from 33% to 17%. This change could enhance censorship resistance and recovery capabilities—but may also introduce new risks for ETH and its ecosystem. 🚀✨ #Ethereum #VitalikButerin

OG ETH wallet breaks silence after a decade, shifting 100.3 coins. That early stash now flexes big numbers. Ancient bags, fresh action. Chain remembers every step.

Liquidation cascades are one of the most powerful forces in modern crypto markets. When large amounts of leverage build up, the market becomes fragile—small pushes can trigger forced selling that snowballs into massive price moves, which is exactly what Jane Street was exploiting. That’s why targeting leverage can be far more effective than simply dumping spot assets. Once the cascade starts, the market does the work for you: liquidations trigger more liquidations, sentiment collapses, and buyers stop stepping in. Over time, that kind of pressure doesn’t just move price—it exhausts bulls and convinces traders that every rally will fail. #Bitcoin #CryptoMarkets #CryptoLeverage #CryptoTrading #BTC

Jane Street moving $19M in BTC… coincidence? Wallets linked to Jane Street just deposited ~$19,000,000 in BTC to institutional-focused exchanges. These are the same types of platforms where the infamous 10:00 AM slams have historically originated. When firms like Jane Street move size, they’re rarely “investing.” Watch the tape...

Liquidium․Fi has been LIVE via invite only for a week and just hit a quarter of $1M in TVL from users! 🎊 Do you know any companies or funds that are bullish on BTC and don't want to sell? Use Liquidium․Fi as a native BTC‑backed credit line. 🔥 • Deposit BTC as collateral • Borrow USDT at some of the lowest rates in the market • Put that USDT to work without ever selling your BTC

One important technical item that I forgot to mention is the proposed switch from Casper FFG to Minimmit as the finality gadget. To summarize, Casper FFG provides two-round finality: it requires each attester to sign once to "justify" the block, and then again to "finalize" it. Minimmit only requires one round. In exchange, Minimmit's fault tolerance (in our parametrization) drops to 17%, compared to Casper FFG's 33%. Within Ethereum consensus discussions, I have always been the security assumptions hawk: I've insisted on getting to the theoretical bound of 49% fault tolerance under synchrony, kept pushing for 51% attack recovery gadgets, came up with DAS to make data availability checks dishonest-majority-resistant, etc. But I am fine with Minimmit's properties, in fact even enthusiastic in some respects. In this post, I will explain why. Let's lay out the exact security properties of both 3SF (not the current beacon chain, which is needlessly weak in many ways, but the ideal 3SF) and Minimmit. "Synchronous network" means "network latency less than 1/4 slot or so", "asynchronous network" means "potentially very high latency, even some nodes go offline for hours at a time". The percentages ("attacker has <33%") refer to percentages of active staked ETH. ## Properties of 3SF Synchronous network case: * Attacker has p < 33%: nothing bad happens * 33% < p < 50%: attacker can stop finality (at the cost of losing massive funds via inactivity leak), but the chain keeps progressing normally * 50% < p 67%: attacker can finalize things at will, much harder for good guys to do minority soft fork Asynchronous network case: * Attacker has p 33%: can revert finality, at the cost of losing massive funds via slashing ## Properties of Minimmit Synchronous network case: * Attacker has p < 17%: nothing bad happens * 17% < p < 50%: attacker can stop finality (at the cost of losing massive funds via inactivity leak), but the chain keeps progressing normally * 50% < p 83%: attacker can finalize things at will, much harder for good guys to do minority soft fork Asynchronous network case: * Attacker has p 17%: can revert finality, at the cost of losing massive funds via slashing I actually think that the latter is a better tradeoff. Here's my reasoning why: * The worst kind of attack is actually not finality reversion, it's censorship. The reason is that finality reversion creates massive publicly available evidence that can be used to immediately cost the attacker millions of ETH (ie. billions of dollars), whereas censorship requires social coordination to get around * In both of the above, a censorship attack requires 50% * A censorship attack becomes *much harder* to coordinate around when the censoring attacker can unilaterally finalize (ie. >67% in 3SF, >83% in Minimmit). If they can't, then if the good guys counter-coordinate, you get two non-finalizing chains dueling for a few days, and users can pick on. If they can, then there's no natural schelling point to coordinate soft-forking * In the case of a client bug, the worst thing that can happen is finalizing something bugged. In 3SF, you only need 67% of clients to share a bug for it to finalize, in Minimmit, you need 83%. Basicallly, Minimmit maximizes the set of situations that "default to two chains dueling each other", and that is actually a much healthier and much more recoverable outcome than "the wrong thing finalizing". We want finality to mean final. So in situations of uncertainty (whether attacks or software bugs), we should be more okay with having periods of hours or days where the chain does not finalize, and instead progresses based on the fork choice rule. This gives us time to think and make sure which chain is correct. Also, I think the "33% slashed to revert finality" of 3SF is overkill. If there is even eg. 15 million ETH staking, then that's 5M ($10B) slashed to revert the chain once. If you had $10B, and you are willing to commit mayhem of a type that violates many countries' computer hacking laws, there are FAR BETTER ways to spend it than to attack a chain. Even if your goal is breaking Ethereum, there are far better attack vectors. And so if we have the baseline guarantee of >= 17% slashed to revert finality (which Minimmit provides), we should judge the two systems from there based on their other properties - where, for the reasons I described above, I think Minimmit performs better.

Bitcoin surged 7% past $71K, but 120K+ traders got liquidated in 24 hours. The real surprise? Most were LONG positions, not shorts. If you're holding BTC now, would you take profits or risk another liquidation wave? Weekly reports are for followers only—follow to get the full analysis. #Bitcoin #Liquidation #Crypto $BTC @Bitcoin @APompliano

🧵 Is there an “infinite money glitch” on @AftermathFi right now? Let’s look at real data from one of our bots running through @mithril_money. 30 day stats: Volume: $63,200 P&L: -$98.58 Fills: 540 Avg CPM: $1,560 Sounds bad right? But here’s the interesting part 👇 From this activity I received: 17,182 Aftermath points But more interestingly i also receiwed: $161.80 in liquid rewards (SUI) Not points. Not promises. Actual tokens. Claimable today. Step 1 - The real cost of volume My net trading cost over 30 days was: $98.58 But I received: $161.80 Meaning: Net profit = $63.22 Just from liquid SUI (trading incentives). Step 2 - What CPM does this imply? My bot generated: $63,200 volume And cost: $98.58 So my real CPM (cost per $1M volume) was: ~$1,560 But the rewards paid: $161.80 Which equals: ~$2,560 per $1M volume in rewards Step 3 - The key thresholds This gives us three important levels: 🟢 Profit zone If your CPM is below ~$2,560 / $1M You are profitable purely from liquid rewards Meaning: You are literally getting paid to trade 🟡 Break-even zone If your CPM is around ~$2,560 / $1M Trading costs ≈ rewards But you still accumulate points + incentives Meaning: Free farming 🔴 Too expensive If your CPM is well above ~$2,560 / $1M Then incentives no longer cover trading costs. This usually means: • spreads too wide • liquidity too thin • config needs tuning Why this matters Most incentive programs give you speculative points. You farm. You hope. You wait months for a token. Aftermath just distributed liquid tokens. Which changes the game completely. The strategy Right now the optimal play is simple: • Run high volume / low cost bots • Optimize CPM aggressively • Stay below reward thresholds If done right: Rewards > trading cost Points become upside. Why Mithril helps here This is exactly what automated strategies are good at. Bots can: • generate consistent volume • optimize spreads • minimize CPM • capture incentives efficiently Manual trading struggles to do this. Automation thrives on it. Early means uncomfortable This was the first reward distribution. Data is still forming. Configs are evolving. But the opportunity is obvious.

A few hours ago, someone put $41M on Bitcoin using 40x leverage on Hyperliquid. The question everyone was asking: "What do they know?" ... here's the better question: Did they understand what they were risking? At 40x leverage, your maintenance margin is approximately 2.5% of notional value. The trader entered at $71,441. Liquidation sat at $70,001. $BTC is now at 68.7k. Meaning they've either been liquidated or are covering HARD rn. Most people see "$41M" and assume size equals conviction. It doesn't. Size x leverage = exposure. And 40x leverage means the market barely has to move to wipe the entire position.