正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

MPC wallets: 5 devices, 3 signers, 0 single points of failure. Safe? Not quite. Today attackers don’t steal keys, they corrupt the transaction itself. That’s the MPC paradox. Strong custody, weak security. Replay the full breakdown in our webinar 👇

1,220,822 次观看 • 11 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

🔥 Clear Signing on Safe is here — with Ledger Multisig. Tens of billions in assets are secured by Safe, the gold standard for onchain multisig. But nearly every team using it shares the same fatal flaw: blind signing. You’re asked to approve a treasury transaction, and all you see is a random hex string. You’re forced to trust your browser. That’s not security. That’s a gamble. And a lot of people are losing at this game. Today, we’re fixing it. Introducing Ledger Multisig, built on Safe, powered by Ledger’s world-class hardware security. It’s the missing link: the security and clarity layer every multisig should have. With Ledger Multisig, Clear Signing comes to every collective operation. No more guessing. Every transaction, amount, destination, contract function, is displayed in plain English on your Ledger’s Secure Screen. What you see is what you sign. Always. For existing Safe users, the transition is instant. No migrations. No setup pain. Just connect your Ledger, your Safes appear, now protected by Ledger security and Transaction Checks. It just works. We’re launching on EVMs today, securing Safe first, and expanding fast. Support for Solana Squads and native Bitcoin multisig is already in development. Our goal: a universal security layer for all on-chain collaboration. And the best part? Ledger Multisig is free. No extra cost. No complexity. Now there’s truly no excuse to blind-sign a treasury transaction. No excuse to “trust” an interface. No excuse for compromise. Secure your collective assets, today.

Charles Guillemet

183,414 次观看 • 9 个月前

‼️🚨 RUBIO ON SECURITY GUARANTEES FOR UKRAINE: Any security guarantees would come into effect after the conflict ends. They would involve the deployment of European troops on the ground, backed by the U.S. Europe does not have the capability to provide a credible security guarantee without a U.S. backstop — which means the U.S. could potentially be committed in a future conflict. SENATOR (R) JIM RISCH: I understand you to say that the portion of the discussions regarding security for Ukraine is essentially agreed to by both sides? Because that’s news to me, and it’s big news if that’s a fact. SECRETARY OF STATE, MARCO RUBIO: I think you could argue they’re agreed to from our side of the equation, right. There’s obviously a Russian dynamic at play here. Of course, any security guarantees would come into play after the conflict were to end, so there’s that component to it. But the broader point I was making is that in all these discussions about security guarantees that people are putting out there, it’s pretty clear that the only security guarantee people keep pushing forward is one that involves the deployment of some European troops on the ground, but with a very strong U.S. backstop. In Europe, they don’t have the capability to provide a real security guarantee without a U.S. backstop, which tells you the capability gap that needs to be closed. And it’s one of the reasons why the president keeps pointing to NATO and the need for our partners to get stronger. And it is true — they’ve committed to 5% spending. That’s obviously going to take some time, but that’s really the broader point I was trying to make in that regard. But every notion of a security guarantee that’s been talked about and that the Europeans have pushed is one that requires a strong commitment by the United States as a backstop, which in essence means we would potentially be committed in a future conflict. And that’s something that I think needs to be understood in the context of what I’ve just described as the problems with NATO capabilities.

Kateryna Lisunova

25,550 次观看 • 6 个月前