ะ—ะฐะณั€ัƒะทะบะฐ ะฒะธะดะตะพ...

ะะต ัƒะดะฐะปะพััŒ ะทะฐะณั€ัƒะทะธั‚ัŒ ะฒะธะดะตะพ

ะะฐ ะณะปะฐะฒะฝัƒัŽ

๐“๐ก๐ž ๐š๐ซ๐œ๐ก๐ข๐ญ๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ฉ๐ž๐ซ๐ฆ๐š๐ง๐ž๐ง๐œ๐ž. Today's exchange moved into engineering. Stakeholders dissected endowment architecture; capital formation strategies, investment thesis development, governance frameworks designed to outlast leadership cycles, and drawdown policies that balance sustainability with mission delivery.๐Ÿฅณ The conversations were operational. Practitioners interrogating what it actually takes to build financial vehicles...

EAPhilanthropy's profile picture

#EAPhilanthropyNetwork

7,739 subscribers

30,395 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 11 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

ะšะพะผะผะตะฝั‚ะฐั€ะธะธ: 0

ะะตั‚ ะดะพัั‚ัƒะฟะฝั‹ั… ะบะพะผะผะตะฝั‚ะฐั€ะธะตะฒ

ะ—ะดะตััŒ ะฟะพัะฒัั‚ัั ะบะพะผะผะตะฝั‚ะฐั€ะธะธ ะธะท ะพั€ะธะณะธะฝะฐะปัŒะฝะพะณะพ ะฟะพัั‚ะฐ

ะŸะพั…ะพะถะธะต ะฒะธะดะตะพ

๐•๐ˆ๐‚๐“๐Ž๐‘ ๐ƒ๐€๐•๐ˆ๐’ ๐‡๐€๐๐’๐Ž๐ ๐‰๐”๐’๐“ ๐๐”๐‘๐ˆ๐„๐ƒ ๐“๐‡๐„ โ€œ๐…๐Ž๐‘๐„๐•๐„๐‘ ๐–๐€๐‘โ€ ๐‹๐ˆ๐„ ๐ˆ๐ ๐“๐‡๐ˆ๐‘๐“๐„๐„๐ ๐Œ๐ˆ๐๐”๐“๐„๐’. ๐ˆ๐‘๐€๐ ๐“๐„๐‘๐‘๐ˆ๐…๐ˆ๐„๐ƒ ๐’๐„๐•๐„๐ ๐๐‘๐„๐’๐ˆ๐ƒ๐„๐๐“๐’. ๐“๐‘๐”๐Œ๐ ๐ƒ๐„๐’๐“๐‘๐Ž๐˜๐„๐ƒ ๐ˆ๐“๐’ ๐€๐๐ˆ๐‹๐ˆ๐“๐˜ ๐“๐Ž ๐Œ๐€๐Š๐„ ๐–๐€๐‘ ๐ˆ๐ ๐…๐ˆ๐•๐„ ๐–๐„๐„๐Š๐’. ๐“๐‡๐ˆ๐’ ๐ˆ๐’ ๐“๐‡๐„ ๐‡๐ˆ๐’๐“๐Ž๐‘๐ˆ๐€๐โ€™๐’ ๐’๐‚๐Ž๐‘๐„๐‚๐€๐‘๐ƒ. Victor Davis Hanson โ€” the most decorated classical military historian in America, author of ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜š๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ž๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ž๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ด and ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜Š๐˜ข๐˜ด๐˜ฆ ๐˜๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜›๐˜ณ๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฑ, Hoover Institution senior fellow, lifelong scholar of how wars actually end โ€” spent thirteen minutes on the Daily Signal this week doing what no cable news anchor has bothered to do since February. He compared this war to every other war in American history and then showed his work. His conclusion, in his own words: โ€œ๐˜ž๐˜ฆโ€™๐˜ท๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ฌ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ข ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜บ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง 93 ๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฑ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ต ๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฅ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ต ๐˜ง๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ด๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ, ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ฃ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฑ๐˜ถ๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ฅ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜จ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ด ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ถ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฑ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ฃ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ, ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ณ๐˜ถ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฏ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜”๐˜ช๐˜ฅ๐˜ฅ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ ๐˜Œ๐˜ข๐˜ด๐˜ต ๐˜ธ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฉ ๐˜ข ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ-๐˜ฐ๐˜ง-๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฑ๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜น๐˜ช๐˜ฆ๐˜ด ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜š๐˜บ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ข, ๐˜๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฒ, ๐˜ ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ, ๐˜Ž๐˜ข๐˜ป๐˜ข, ๐˜“๐˜ฆ๐˜ฃ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ โ€” ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ฃ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ. ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜บ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฅ ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฑ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ด. ๐˜ˆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜บ๐˜ฆ๐˜ต, ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ท๐˜ฆ ๐˜ธ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฌ๐˜ด, ๐˜ธ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜บ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ด ๐˜ข๐˜ฃ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜บ ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ ๐˜ฎ๐˜ข๐˜ฌ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ธ๐˜ข๐˜ณ.โ€ Read that sentence and then read it again. ๐’๐ž๐ฏ๐ž๐ง ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ. ๐“๐ž๐ซ๐ซ๐ข๐Ÿ๐ข๐ž๐. ๐…๐ข๐ฏ๐ž ๐ฐ๐ž๐ž๐ค๐ฌ. ๐ƒ๐ž๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐จ๐ฒ๐ž๐. That is not a Trump rally soundbite. That is Victor Davis Hanson, the man who wrote the textbooks on Thermopylae, Cannae, and the Pacific War, rendering verdict in real time on the fastest decisive American military victory since the First Gulf War, and arguably since 1945. Here is what Hanson walked through, and every single beat of it is lethal to the legacy narrative. ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐‚๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐ฌ ๐๐ž๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ ๐ƒ๐ข๐ ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐‡๐จ๐ฆ๐ž๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ค Hanson opens by naming names. The Democratic grandees in the House and Senate. The New York Times. The Washington Post. NPR. PBS. The Wall Street Journal news section. And โ€” this is the key part โ€” the disaffected ex-MAGA right that spent six weeks screaming ๐˜ž๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ž๐˜ข๐˜ณ ๐˜๐˜๐˜ from podcasts and Substacks. He points out that these two camps share ๐ญ๐ฐ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐œ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐จ๐ง. First, ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜บ ๐˜ธ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ช๐˜ต ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ ๐˜จ๐˜ฐ ๐˜ธ๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ญ, because a Trump military success would destroy their entire post-2024 political project. Second, and more devastating: ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ฒ ๐ง๐ž๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ ๐๐ข๐ ๐š ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐ž ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐œ๐š๐ฅ ๐œ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐š๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐จ๐ง. Not one of them, Hanson notes, bothered to measure the Iran campaign against ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฃ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ฑ๐˜ข๐˜ช๐˜จ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜š๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฃ๐˜ช๐˜ข ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฃ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ฑ๐˜ข๐˜ช๐˜จ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜“๐˜ช๐˜ฃ๐˜บ๐˜ข ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ณ๐˜ด๐˜ต ๐˜Ž๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ง ๐˜ž๐˜ข๐˜ณ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜Ž๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ง ๐˜ž๐˜ข๐˜ณ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ˆ๐˜ง๐˜จ๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ. Not one of them asked how many missiles the U.S. had destroyed, whether American aircraft had been shot down (45 were lost in the First Gulf War alone), whether the enemy command structure had been taken out. Instead, they just asserted the conclusion they needed: ๐˜ง๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜ธ๐˜ข๐˜ณ. That is not analysis. That is a feelings-forward prayer dressed up as journalism, and Hanson calls it for exactly what it is. ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐€๐œ๐ญ๐ฎ๐š๐ฅ ๐’๐œ๐จ๐ซ๐ž๐›๐จ๐š๐ซ๐: ๐…๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐‘๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐‚๐ฅ๐ข๐ช๐ฎ๐ž๐ฌ, ๐ƒ๐ž๐œ๐š๐ฉ๐ข๐ญ๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ Hansonโ€™s single most important factual paragraph of the 13 minutes: โ€œ๐˜๐˜ฏ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ณ๐˜ด๐˜ต ๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ท๐˜ฆ ๐˜ธ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฌ๐˜ด, ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜œ๐˜ฏ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜š๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ด ๐˜ธ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฉ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜๐˜ด๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ช ๐˜ˆ๐˜ช๐˜ณ ๐˜๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜ธ๐˜ช๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ต ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ๐˜ฑ ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ง๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ณ ๐˜ณ๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ค๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฒ๐˜ถ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ.โ€ He lists them individually. Memorize this list, because it is the actual accounting of what ๐Ÿ๐ข๐ฏ๐ž ๐ฐ๐ž๐ž๐ค๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐€๐ฆ๐ž๐ซ๐ข๐œ๐š๐ง ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ˆ๐ฌ๐ซ๐š๐ž๐ฅ๐ข ๐š๐ข๐ซ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐ž๐ซ did to a regime that spent 46 years promising ๐˜‹๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฉ ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ ๐˜ˆ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ข: ๐Ž๐ง๐ž. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps โ€” IRGC command network shattered. Qassem-era terror infrastructure leadership dead or in hiding. ๐“๐ฐ๐จ. The regular Iranian Army โ€” senior general officer corps hollowed out by precision strike. ๐“๐ก๐ซ๐ž๐ž. The theocratic apparat โ€” including the Supreme Leader himself. The Assembly of Experts is reportedly unable to convene. ๐…๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ. The elected politicians โ€” the facade government, the President, the Foreign Minister, the Majlis leadership. ๐€๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐š๐ซ๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ซ๐ž๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ž ๐ฐ๐ž๐ซ๐ž ๐ก๐ข๐ญ. ๐’๐ข๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ญ๐š๐ง๐ž๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฅ๐ฒ. ๐ˆ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ซ๐ญ๐ฒ-๐Ÿ๐ข๐ฏ๐ž ๐๐š๐ฒ๐ฌ. That is not a ๐˜ฒ๐˜ถ๐˜ข๐˜จ๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ. That is not a ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฎ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฆ. That is the most surgical decapitation of a hostile nation-state since the Japanese surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri. ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐“๐ก๐ซ๐ž๐ž-๐๐ก๐š๐ฌ๐ž ๐“๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฉ ๐’๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐ฒ ๐‡๐š๐ง๐ฌ๐จ๐ง ๐€๐œ๐ญ๐ฎ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ƒ๐ข๐š๐ ๐ซ๐š๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ž๐ Hanson then does something cable news cannot do in 45-second segments: he reconstructs the entire strategic arc. Three phases. Execute them in order. Win. ๐๐ก๐š๐ฌ๐ž ๐Ž๐ง๐ž: ๐Œ๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐š๐ซ๐ฒ ๐๐ž๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง. Find the tunnels. Find the hidden airfields. Find the silos. Find the people in bunkers. Kill the command structure. Leave the regime with ๐˜ข ๐˜ง๐˜ฆ๐˜ธ ๐˜ฅ๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด, ๐˜ข ๐˜ง๐˜ฆ๐˜ธ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ค ๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด and nothing with which to rebuild. ๐๐ก๐š๐ฌ๐ž ๐“๐ฐ๐จ: ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ซ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ง๐ž๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐š๐ญ๐ž. Hanson: โ€œ๐˜›๐˜ณ๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฑ ๐˜ด๐˜ข๐˜ช๐˜ฅ ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฎ, ๐˜ธ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ท๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ๐˜จ๐˜ฐ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ด ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ธ ๐˜ช๐˜ง ๐˜บ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฆ๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ณ ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฎ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ๐˜ด.โ€ Self-interested? Yes โ€” Trump wanted oil prices down before midterms. But it was also, Hanson argues, to ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜จ๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ท๐˜ฆ ๐˜ข ๐˜ค๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ด๐˜ฉ๐˜ฐ๐˜ธ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ธ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ต ๐˜›๐˜ณ๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฑ ๐˜ธ๐˜ข๐˜ด ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ต ๐˜ข ๐˜ฎ๐˜ข๐˜ฅ๐˜ฎ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ. Iran refused, betting that Western street protests and MAGA apostates would pressure Trump to fold. ๐‡๐ž ๐๐ข๐ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ฅ๐. ๐‡๐ž ๐ก๐š๐ฌ ๐ง๐ž๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ž๐. ๐๐ก๐š๐ฌ๐ž ๐“๐ก๐ซ๐ž๐ž: ๐„๐œ๐จ๐ง๐จ๐ฆ๐ข๐œ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง. When Iran announced it would close the Strait of Hormuz to everyone who was not ๐˜ฑ๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ-๐˜๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ฏ, Hanson says Trump just took the pen out of their hand. โ€œ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ตโ€™๐˜ด ๐˜ข ๐˜จ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ช๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ข. ๐˜š๐˜ฉ๐˜ถ๐˜ต ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฐ๐˜ธ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜š๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ช๐˜ต ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ต ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜จ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ ๐˜จ๐˜ถ๐˜บ๐˜ด ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ฐ๐˜ฑ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ข๐˜ฅ ๐˜จ๐˜ถ๐˜บ๐˜ด. ๐˜‰๐˜ถ๐˜ต ๐˜บ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ณ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ข๐˜ฅ ๐˜จ๐˜ถ๐˜บ๐˜ด ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ณ ๐˜จ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ ๐˜จ๐˜ถ๐˜บ๐˜ด, ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜บ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ณ ๐˜จ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ ๐˜จ๐˜ถ๐˜บ๐˜ด ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ณ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ข๐˜ฅ ๐˜จ๐˜ถ๐˜บ๐˜ด.โ€ Translation: ๐ˆ๐ซ๐š๐ง ๐๐ž๐œ๐ฅ๐š๐ซ๐ž๐ ๐š ๐›๐ฅ๐จ๐œ๐ค๐š๐๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ฅ๐. ๐€๐ฆ๐ž๐ซ๐ข๐œ๐š ๐๐ž๐œ๐ฅ๐š๐ซ๐ž๐ ๐š ๐›๐ฅ๐จ๐œ๐ค๐š๐๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ˆ๐ซ๐š๐ง. ๐€๐ฆ๐ž๐ซ๐ข๐œ๐š ๐ก๐š๐ฌ ๐š ๐œ๐š๐ซ๐ซ๐ข๐ž๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐ค๐ž ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ. ๐ˆ๐ซ๐š๐ง ๐ก๐š๐ฌ ๐๐“ ๐›๐จ๐š๐ญ๐ฌ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐ž๐ฌ. That is not a close fight. ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐‘๐ž๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ข๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ข๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ ๐Ž๐ง๐ž ๐Ž๐ง ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐‹๐ž๐Ÿ๐ญ ๐–๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐€๐œ๐ค๐ง๐จ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ž๐๐ ๐ž Here is the paragraph that should be read aloud on every network tonight and will be read aloud on none of them. Hanson, coolly: โ€œ๐˜ž๐˜ฆโ€™๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ต ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฌ๐˜ฆ ๐˜‰๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ค๐˜ฌ ๐˜–๐˜ฃ๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ข ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜“๐˜ช๐˜ฃ๐˜บ๐˜ข ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ฌ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ด ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ฑ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ต๐˜ด. ๐˜ž๐˜ฆโ€™๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ต ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฌ๐˜ฆ ๐˜‰๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ญ ๐˜Š๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜š๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฃ๐˜ช๐˜ข ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ต ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜บ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜บ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ฅ๐˜จ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜‹๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ถ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฌ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜ณ ๐˜จ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ฅ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜ข ๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ข ๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ง ๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฑ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ. ๐˜ž๐˜ฆโ€™๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ต ๐˜๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ณ๐˜บ ๐˜›๐˜ณ๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ต ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜บ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ญ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฉ๐˜บ๐˜ฅ๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ค ๐˜ฑ๐˜ญ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ด ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜•๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ ๐˜’๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ข. ๐˜ž๐˜ฆ ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ต ๐˜บ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง๐˜ง ๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ด๐˜บ.โ€ Get the implications of that. Every American president from Truman to Obama โ€” Democrat and Republican alike โ€” hit ๐๐ฎ๐š๐ฅ-๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ž ๐œ๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐š๐ง ๐ข๐ง๐Ÿ๐ซ๐š๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐œ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ž in every major air campaign of the last 75 years. Truman flattened North Korean hydroelectric plants and killed civilians by the thousands. Clinton blacked out a million and a half Serbs and bombed Belgrade bridges on the Danube for weeks. Obama leveled Libyan television and ports. ๐ƒ๐จ๐ง๐š๐ฅ๐ ๐“๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฉ, ๐Ÿ๐ข๐ฏ๐ž ๐ฐ๐ž๐ž๐ค๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ž๐ช๐ฎ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐š๐ฅ ๐Œ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ž ๐„๐š๐ฌ๐ญ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐Ÿ๐ซ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐œ๐ž ๐˜๐จ๐ฆ ๐Š๐ข๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ซ, ๐ก๐š๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ก๐ข๐ญ ๐š ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐ž ๐ˆ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐ข๐š๐ง ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐ž๐ซ ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐š๐ง๐ญ, ๐š ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐ž ๐ฐ๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ซ ๐ญ๐ซ๐ž๐š๐ญ๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐Ÿ๐š๐œ๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐š ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐ž ๐›๐ซ๐ข๐๐ ๐ž, ๐จ๐ซ ๐š ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐ž ๐ซ๐ž๐Ÿ๐ข๐ง๐ž๐ซ๐ฒ. He has kept the war confined to the regimeโ€™s war-making capability and left the civilian grid intact. ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐ฆ๐š๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฅ๐ž๐ ๐š๐œ๐ฒ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐œ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ž๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐œ๐ค๐ฅ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ง๐ง๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ ๐ข๐œ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ข๐ง๐ž๐ ๐š๐ข๐ซ ๐œ๐š๐ฆ๐ฉ๐š๐ข๐ ๐ง ๐ข๐ง ๐ฆ๐จ๐๐ž๐ซ๐ง ๐€๐ฆ๐ž๐ซ๐ข๐œ๐š๐ง ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ฒ. Every talking head who called this a ๐˜ง๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜ธ๐˜ข๐˜ณ owes Hanson an apology for not knowing the historical baseline he is using. $๐Ÿ’๐ŸŽ๐ŸŽ ๐Œ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐€ ๐ƒ๐š๐ฒ ๐€๐ง๐ ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐  Hanson cites the economists now ๐˜ง๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฑ๐˜ฑ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ข ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ at major research universities in Europe and the United States who have started to measure what the American counter-blockade is actually doing to Tehran. The number: $๐Ÿ’๐ŸŽ๐ŸŽ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐š ๐๐š๐ฒ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐œ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฆ๐›๐ข๐ง๐ . Lost oil sales. Lost petrochemical exports. Lost critical imports of mechanical goods, electrical components, and food. A regime that was already bankrupt before the war, that had hyperinflation eating its own middle class before the first bomb dropped, is now losing half a billion dollars every 24 hours. Hanson is blunt: โ€œ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜บ ๐˜ธ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฌ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ๐˜จ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜ธ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฉ, ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜บ ๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ฏ'๐˜ต ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฐ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜บ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ข๐˜ฃ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ต ๐˜ช๐˜ต ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ถ๐˜ด๐˜ฆ ๐˜›๐˜ณ๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฑ ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช๐˜ฅ ๐˜ช๐˜ต ๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ฒ๐˜ถ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ญ๐˜บ. ๐˜”๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜บ ๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ณ๐˜ด๐˜ต, ๐˜ค๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ๐˜จ๐˜ฐ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ, ๐˜ฑ๐˜ถ๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฐ๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ฌ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ณ๐˜ฅ.โ€ ๐“๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐š ๐๐จ๐œ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ž. ๐–๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐ž ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฐ๐ง. ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐ˆ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐ข๐š๐ง ๐๐ž๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ž: ๐€ ๐๐ž๐ซ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง ๐–๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐Œ๐จ๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐ˆ๐ง ๐’๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ ๐Œ๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง Hansonโ€™s most historically evocative passage is about the Iranian street. He notes that the regimeโ€™s ruling cliques are right now motivated by ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜บ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ด: they do not know who is in charge, they have watched 30-40-50 of their colleagues get killed, and they are fighting each other for the remains of power. But the fear underneath all of that is the one that matters: ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ฒ ๐š๐ซ๐ž ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ซ๐ข๐Ÿ๐ข๐ž๐ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ข๐ซ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฉ๐ž๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ž. โ€œ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฑ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ฌ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ. ๐˜‰๐˜ฆ๐˜ง๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ธ๐˜ข๐˜ณ ๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ, ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฉ๐˜บ๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ง๐˜ญ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ธ๐˜ข๐˜ด ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜จ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฎ. ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜บ ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฏ'๐˜ต ๐˜ข๐˜ง๐˜ง๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ฅ ๐˜จ๐˜ข๐˜ด, ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜บ ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฏ'๐˜ต ๐˜ข๐˜ง๐˜ง๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ง๐˜ฐ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ, ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜บ ๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ฏ'๐˜ต ๐˜จ๐˜ฐ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜บ. ๐˜ˆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ช๐˜ตโ€™๐˜ด ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด ๐˜ธ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ด๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ธ.โ€ Hansonโ€™s historical parallel is devastating and correct. The Berlin Wall did not come down the day Reagan said ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ณ ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฐ๐˜ธ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ด ๐˜ธ๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ญ. It came down ๐ฐ๐ž๐ž๐ค๐ฌ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ก๐ฌ ๐ฅ๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ซ ๐ข๐ง ๐„๐š๐ฌ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ง ๐„๐ฎ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐ž, ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ฐ๐จ ๐ฒ๐ž๐š๐ซ๐ฌ ๐ฅ๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ซ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐’๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐ž๐ญ ๐”๐ง๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ๐ž๐ฅ๐Ÿ. The collapse of the IRGCโ€™s street-level power over 90 million Iranians may take exactly that long. But it is coming, and the mullahs know it, and that is why they are freelancing contradictory statements on Twitter every 12 hours while their own Supreme Leader is dead and nobody has been elevated. ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐‚๐š๐ฏ๐ž๐š๐ญ ๐„๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ๐ฒ ๐๐ž๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐š๐ญ๐จ๐ซ ๐ˆ๐ง ๐–๐š๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐จ๐ง ๐๐ž๐ž๐๐ฌ ๐“๐จ ๐‘๐ž๐š๐ The closing minute of Hansonโ€™s commentary is the hinge of everything. He warns that the coming negotiation is a trap unless it is structured correctly. His words: โ€œ๐˜๐˜ง ๐˜บ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜บ ๐˜ธ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ญ ๐˜ข๐˜ฃ๐˜ช๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฃ๐˜บ ๐˜ข ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฎ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ต ๐˜ธ๐˜ฆโ€™๐˜ท๐˜ฆ ๐˜จ๐˜ช๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฎ, ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ ๐˜ฏ๐˜ถ๐˜ค๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ณ ๐˜ฎ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ญ ๐˜ง๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ 20 ๐˜บ๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ด, ๐˜ธ๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜ช๐˜ต ๐˜ช๐˜ด, ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ ๐˜บ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ท๐˜ฆ ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜บ ๐˜ธ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ญ ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ฌ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜ณ ๐˜ธ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ฅ. ๐˜ ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏโ€™๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ฌ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜บโ€™๐˜ท๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜ฌ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฑ๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜ณ ๐˜ธ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ฅ.โ€ And then the hammer: โ€œ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ธ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ญ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ข ๐˜ฑ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต ๐˜ด๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ๐˜ข๐˜บ ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฌ๐˜ฆ ๐˜’๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ข ๐˜๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ด, ๐˜Ž๐˜ข๐˜ท๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜•๐˜ฆ๐˜ธ๐˜ด๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ, ๐˜—๐˜ฆ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ ๐˜‰๐˜ถ๐˜ต๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜จ๐˜ช๐˜ฆ๐˜จ, ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜บ ๐˜‰๐˜ฐ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฌ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ, ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฑ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ต ๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ต, ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏโ€™๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ฌ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜บ ๐˜ธ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ญ ๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜ง๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฎ ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜บ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜ณ ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ด.โ€ Translation: any JCPOA-style agreement that depends on the next Democratic president to enforce it is worthless on the day it is signed. The Iranian regime has never kept a deal. The Democratic Party has never enforced one. Therefore, Hanson concludes, ๐ฐ๐ž ๐ก๐š๐ ๐›๐ž๐ญ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ ๐ ๐ž๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ฆ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ซ๐ž๐ง๐๐ž๐ซ ๐ฎ๐ง๐œ๐จ๐ง๐๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐จ๐ซ ๐Ÿ๐š๐œ๐ž ๐ž๐œ๐จ๐ง๐จ๐ฆ๐ข๐œ ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ข๐ง, ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐œ๐ก ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ก๐ž๐ซ ๐ข๐ง ๐š ๐ซ๐ž๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ž ๐œ๐ก๐š๐ง๐ ๐ž. That is not a preference. That is a strategic necessity. Anything short of unconditional surrender or regime collapse just sets the clock ticking on the next war โ€” this time with a nuclear-armed ayatollah. ๐•๐ข๐œ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ ๐ƒ๐š๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ ๐‡๐š๐ง๐ฌ๐จ๐ง ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐š ๐œ๐š๐›๐ฅ๐ž ๐ง๐ž๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐ข๐ญ. ๐‡๐ž ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐œ๐ฅ๐š๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐œ๐š๐ฅ ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐š๐ง ๐ฐ๐ก๐จ ๐ฐ๐ซ๐จ๐ญ๐ž ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐›๐จ๐จ๐ค๐ฌ ๐ž๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐š๐ซ ๐œ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ž๐ ๐ž ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ž๐ฌ. ๐‡๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ๐๐ข๐œ๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐ƒ๐จ๐ง๐š๐ฅ๐ ๐“๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฉ ๐ญ๐จ๐จ๐ค ๐จ๐ง ๐š ๐œ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ๐ซ๐ฒ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐Ÿ—๐Ÿ‘ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฉ๐ž๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ž, ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐š ๐Ÿ’๐Ÿ”-๐ฒ๐ž๐š๐ซ ๐ซ๐ž๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ญ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ซ๐ข๐Ÿ๐ฒ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐€๐ฆ๐ž๐ซ๐ข๐œ๐š๐ง ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ, ๐š๐ง๐ ๐๐ž๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐จ๐ฒ๐ž๐ ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐š๐›๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฆ๐š๐ค๐ž ๐ฐ๐š๐ซ ๐ข๐ง ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ“ ๐๐š๐ฒ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ก๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐š ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐ž ๐œ๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐š๐ง ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐ž๐ซ ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐š๐ง๐ญ. ๐“๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐Ÿ๐š๐ฌ๐ญ๐ž๐ฌ๐ญ, ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ข๐ง๐ž๐, ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐ž๐œ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐ฏ๐ž ๐€๐ฆ๐ž๐ซ๐ข๐œ๐š๐ง ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐š๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐ข๐œ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐œ๐ž ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ—๐Ÿ’๐Ÿ“. ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐ฉ๐ž๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ž ๐ฐ๐ก๐จ ๐œ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ž๐ ๐ข๐ญ ๐š ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐ž๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ ๐ฐ๐š๐ซ ๐ฐ๐ž๐ซ๐ž ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ซ๐จ๐ง๐  ๐›๐ž๐œ๐š๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐›๐š๐ ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐œ๐ค. ๐“๐ก๐ž๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ž๐ซ๐ž ๐ฐ๐ซ๐จ๐ง๐  ๐›๐ž๐œ๐š๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ž ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ฒ ๐ง๐ž๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ ๐จ๐ฉ๐ž๐ง๐ž๐ ๐š ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ฒ ๐›๐จ๐จ๐ค. ๐‡๐š๐ง๐ฌ๐จ๐ง ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐จ๐ฉ๐ž๐ง๐ž๐ ๐จ๐ง๐ž ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ฆ.

M.A. Rothman

89,898 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 5 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

๐๐Ž ๐Œ๐Ž๐‘๐„ ๐–๐€๐‘: ๐๐Œ ๐€๐๐ˆ๐˜ ๐€๐‡๐Œ๐„๐ƒโ€™๐’ ๐€๐๐๐„๐€๐‹ ๐…๐Ž๐‘ ๐๐„๐€๐‚๐„ In this video clip, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed makes a direct appeal to those choosing the path of war in Ethiopiaโ€™s northern region of Tigray. He stresses that there is absolutely no need for renewed conflict and extends an open invitation to direct dialogue. PM Abiy emphasizes the importance of preventing further destruction, facilitating the return of displaced people to their homes, and repairing what has been damaged. ๐‡๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ๐š๐ ๐ž ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฌ๐ž ๐ฐ๐ก๐จ ๐ก๐š๐ฏ๐ž ๐œ๐ก๐จ๐ฌ๐ž๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฉ๐š๐ญ๐ก ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ฐ๐š๐ซ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ž ๐š๐ง๐ ๐œ๐ซ๐ฒ๐ฌ๐ญ๐š๐ฅ ๐œ๐ฅ๐ž๐š๐ซ: ๐‚๐ก๐จ๐จ๐ฌ๐ž ๐๐ข๐š๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ž ๐จ๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ ๐ฐ๐š๐ซ, ๐ซ๐ž๐œ๐จ๐ง๐œ๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ ๐๐ž๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ ๐ซ๐ž๐ง๐ž๐ฐ๐ž๐ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ . ====== (My translation.) โ€œDo not say later that I did not tell you. Let us leave conflict behind. Let us talk. Tell those in Tigray who are looking for one excuse or another to start a war: do not do it. There is no benefit in it. Do not say later, โ€˜I was not told.โ€™ We do not need war. I have never said no to any of you who wanted to talk to me. If you want to speak with me, you can let Getachew or Abraham know, and you can come togetherโ€”ten, fifteen, or twenty of youโ€”and talk to me. I am ready to talk. Beyond that, there is no need for fighting. If conflict comes, it will bring another destruction. It will bring destruction far greater than what has already been suffered. I ask you to handle this matter with special care. For my part, in every way possibleโ€”in every way possibleโ€”I will use every ounce of energy I have to ensure that those who have been displaced return to their homes and that what has been destroyed is repaired. I will work on this from my heart.โ€ ======= ๐’๐ข๐ง๐œ๐ž ๐š๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐จ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐ข๐ง ๐€๐ฉ๐ซ๐ข๐ฅ ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ–, ๐๐Œ ๐€๐›๐ข๐ฒ ๐ก๐š๐ฌ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐ฉ๐ž๐š๐œ๐žโ€”๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐š๐ซโ€”๐š๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐š๐ฅ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐„๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐šโ€™๐ฌ ๐Ÿ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ž ๐š๐ง๐ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐š๐›๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐‡๐จ๐ซ๐ง ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐€๐Ÿ๐ซ๐ข๐œ๐š. His first major foreign-policy breakthrough was the historic peace process with Eritrea, which ended two decades of โ€œno war, no peaceโ€ and earned him the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, particularly his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with Eritrea. ๐ˆ๐ง ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐›๐ž๐ฅ ๐‹๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ž, ๐š๐ฉ๐ญ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฅ๐ž๐ โ€œ๐…๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐š ๐ƒ๐ฎ๐ซ๐š๐›๐ฅ๐ž ๐๐ž๐š๐œ๐ž ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐‡๐จ๐ซ๐ง ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐€๐Ÿ๐ซ๐ข๐œ๐š ๐๐Œ ๐€๐›๐ข๐ฒ ๐š๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐š ๐›๐ซ๐จ๐š๐๐ž๐ซ ๐ฉ๐ก๐ข๐ฅ๐จ๐ฌ๐จ๐ฉ๐ก๐ฒ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ฉ๐ž๐š๐œ๐ž ๐ซ๐จ๐จ๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐Œ๐ž๐๐ž๐ฆ๐ž๐ซโ€”๐š ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐œ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ž๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ๐œ๐จ๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐œ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ซ๐ž๐œ๐จ๐ง๐œ๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐š๐ง๐ ๐›๐ฎ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ง๐  ๐œ๐จ๐จ๐ฉ๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง. He described peace not as a temporary absence of fighting, but as an arduous and continuing process requiring changes in hearts, minds, attitudes, and relationships. He invoked the shared moral traditions of Christianity and Islam and declared his personal commitment to working for peace โ€œevery day and to all seasons.โ€ ๐๐Œ ๐€๐›๐ข๐ฒ'๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐›๐ž๐ฅ ๐ฅ๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ž ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ž๐ฌ ๐š๐ง ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐š๐ง๐ญ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ž๐ฑ๐ญ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ๐š๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ซ๐ž๐ฉ๐ž๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐š๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ž๐š๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ข๐š๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ž ๐จ๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ ๐ซ๐ž๐ง๐ž๐ฐ๐ž๐ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐Ÿ๐ฅ๐ข๐œ๐ญ ๐ข๐ง ๐„๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐š. ===== ๐ˆ๐ง ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐‹๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ž, ๐๐Œ ๐€๐›๐ข๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐š๐ข๐: โ€œIt takes a few to make war, but it takes a village and a nation to build peace. For me, nurturing peace is like planting and growing trees. Just like trees need water and good soil to grow, peace requires unwavering commitment, infinite patience, and goodwill to cultivate and harvest its dividends. Peace requires good faith to blossom into prosperity, security, and opportunity. In the same manner that trees absorb carbon dioxide to give us life and oxygen, peace has the capacity to absorb the suspicion and doubt that may cloud our relationships. In return, it gives back hope for the future, confidence in ourselves, and faith in humanity. This humanity I speak of, is within all of us. We can cultivate and share it with others if we choose to remove our masks of pride and arrogance. When our love for humanity outgrows our appreciation of human vanity then the world will know peace. Ultimately, peace requires an enduring vision. And my vision of peace is rooted in the philosophy of Medemer. ... I like to think of โ€œMedemerโ€ as a social compact for Ethiopians to build a just, egalitarian, democratic, and humane society by pulling together our resources for our collective survival and prosperity. In practice, Medemer is about using the best of our past to build a new society and a new civic culture that thrives on tolerance, understanding, and civility. At its core, Medemer is a covenant of peace that seeks unity in our common humanity. It pursues peace by practicing the values of love, forgiveness, reconciliation, and inclusion..." Whatever disagreements may exist over individual policies or political developments, the public record establishes that peace, reconciliation, dialogue, and regional cooperation have been central themes of Abiyโ€™s stated political philosophy and diplomatic agenda. The Norwegian Nobel Committee itself recognized not only his Ethiopiaโ€“Eritrea initiative but also his engagement in peace and reconciliation processes in East and Northeast Africa. ๐๐Œ ๐€๐›๐ข๐ฒโ€™๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ๐š๐ ๐ž ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐›๐ž ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ๐จ๐จ๐ ๐š๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐š๐ซ๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐š ๐ฅ๐š๐ซ๐ ๐ž๐ซ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐œ๐ž๐ฉ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ฉ๐ž๐š๐œ๐ž: ๐„๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐š ๐œ๐š๐ง๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐›๐ฎ๐ข๐ฅ๐ ๐š ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ž๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐Ÿ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ž ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก ๐ฉ๐ž๐ซ๐ฉ๐ž๐ญ๐ฎ๐š๐ฅ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐Ÿ๐ฅ๐ข๐œ๐ญ, ๐ง๐จ๐ซ ๐œ๐š๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐‡๐จ๐ซ๐ง ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐€๐Ÿ๐ซ๐ข๐œ๐š ๐š๐œ๐ก๐ข๐ž๐ฏ๐ž ๐ฅ๐š๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ฌ๐ญ๐š๐›๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก ๐œ๐ฒ๐œ๐ฅ๐ž๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ฐ๐š๐ซ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐ญ๐š๐ฅ๐ข๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง. ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐š๐ฅ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ง๐š๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ž ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐ข๐š๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ž, ๐ซ๐ž๐œ๐จ๐ง๐œ๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐œ๐จ๐จ๐ฉ๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฉ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ค ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ซ๐ž๐›๐ฎ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ. ๐€๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ž ๐š๐ซ๐ž ๐ฌ๐š๐ฒ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ž ๐ฉ๐ž๐š๐œ๐ž ๐š ๐œ๐ก๐š๐ง๐œ๐ž. ๐๐Ž ๐Œ๐Ž๐‘๐„ ๐–๐€๐‘. ๐‚๐ก๐จ๐จ๐ฌ๐ž ๐๐ž๐š๐œ๐ž. ๐‚๐ก๐จ๐จ๐ฌ๐ž ๐ƒ๐ข๐š๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ž. ๐‚๐ก๐จ๐จ๐ฌ๐ž ๐„๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐š. ๐๐จ ๐›๐ž๐ญ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ ๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐ž ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฆ๐š๐ค๐ž ๐ฉ๐ž๐š๐œ๐ž ๐ข๐ง ๐„๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐š ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ง ๐๐Ž๐–! ๐‹๐ž๐ญโ€™๐ฌ ๐ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ž ๐ฉ๐ž๐š๐œ๐ž ๐š ๐œ๐ก๐š๐ง๐œ๐ž ๐š๐ง๐ ๐Œ๐€๐Š๐„ ๐„๐“๐‡๐ˆ๐Ž๐๐ˆ๐€ ๐†๐‘๐„๐€๐“ ๐€๐†๐€๐ˆ๐. Office of the Prime Minister - Ethiopia Abiy Ahmed Ali ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡น Tagesse Chaffo Dullo Adanech Abiebie Taye Atske Selassie Gedion Timothewos Hessebon Hadera Abera Admassu The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡น Adanech Abiebie African Union U.S. Embassy Addis Christopher Landau Department of State Marco Rubio Vice President JD Vance Pete Hegseth Chinese Embassy in Ethiopia U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) Government of Russia EU in Ethiopia / แ‹จแŠ แ‹แˆฎแ“ แˆ…แ‰ฅแˆจแ‰ต แ‰ แŠขแ‰ตแ‹ฎแŒตแ‹ซ Russian Embassy in Ethiopia Binalf Andualem Ashenef Egypt MFA Spokesperson Temesgen Tiruneh - แ‰ฐแˆ˜แˆตแŒˆแŠ• แŒฅแˆฉแАแˆ… ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡น IGAD Secretariat #Ethiopia #AddisAbaba UK in Ethiopia ๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง EU in Ethiopia / แ‹จแŠ แ‹แˆฎแ“ แˆ…แ‰ฅแˆจแ‰ต แ‰ แŠขแ‰ตแ‹ฎแŒตแ‹ซ German Embassy Addis Ababa Tibor Nagy Yngvild Berggrav Australian Embassy, Ethiopia Sweden in Ethiopia & AU Ethiopian Airlines Abdelfattah Elsisi Redwan Hussien ECA #Somaliland #Egypt #Eritrea Ministry of Foreign Affairs ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ด Getachew K Reda Ethiopian News Agency Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission BBC News Africa CNN Africa Bloomberg Africa Al Jazeera Africa Emirates HH Sheikh Mohammed ุงู„ุนุฑุจูŠุฉ ุนุงุฌู„

Al Mariam

24,362 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 13 ะดะฝะตะน ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

Warm greetings on Indian Foreign Service Day! Hardeep Singh Puri Sir, your journey as a diplomat and now as a key figure in India's leadership is truly inspiring. The pride and responsibility youโ€™ve carried while representing India globally, and now in shaping key policies, is commendable. Wishing you continued success in fostering international relations and driving India's growth forward. Here are some achievements of Shri Hardeep Singh Puri Sir : 1. Participation in G20 Summits: Advocated for global economic stability and cooperation. 2. Ambassador to Brazil: Enhanced bilateral relations and trade between India and Brazil. 3. Permanent Representative to the United Nations: Involved in significant negotiations on peacekeeping and global security. 4. Advocacy for Development Issues: Focused on poverty alleviation and sustainable development at the UN. 5. Promotion of India's Soft Power: Enhanced India's cultural diplomacy and global governance contributions. 6. Role in International Conferences: Contributed to discussions on peace and security at global summits. 7. Strengthening Ties with the Indian Diaspora: Fostered connections and highlighted their role as cultural ambassadors. 8. Crisis Response Initiatives: Led diplomatic responses during crises, providing humanitarian assistance. 9. Global Health Initiatives: Advocated for international cooperation in combating health issues. 10. Advancement of Global Trade Discussions: Promoted fair trade practices for developing nations. 11. Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas: Focused on energy security and sustainable practices. 12. Implementation of PM Gati Shakti National Master Plan: Improved multimodal connectivity and infrastructure development. 13. Expansion of Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana: Provided LPG connections to below-poverty-line households. 14. Support for Electric Mobility: Advocated for electric vehicles to reduce pollution. 15. Investment in Renewable Energy Projects: Championed large-scale solar and wind projects. 16. Housing for All: Implemented PMAY (Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana) for affordable housing. 17. Promotion of International Trade: Facilitated agreements to enhance India's energy exports. 18. Public Health Initiatives: Launched campaigns for safe and clean energy practices. 19. Global Energy Partnerships: Fostered collaborations in the energy sector for security and innovation. 20. Launch of the National Hydrogen Mission: Promoted hydrogen as a clean energy source. 21. Vande Bharat Mission: Led the repatriation of millions of stranded Indians during the pandemic. 22. COVID-19 Response: Maintained supply chains for uninterrupted fuel and energy availability. 23. Support for Startups and Innovations: Encouraged entrepreneurship in energy and aviation sectors. 24. Enhancement of Oil and Gas Exploration: Promoted self-sufficiency in energy resources. 25. Promotion of Alternate Fuels: Advocated for biogas and ethanol usage to support sustainability. 26. Revival of Air India: Played a key role in restoring the national carrierโ€™s operational efficiency. 27. Expansion of LPG Infrastructure: Improved access to clean cooking fuel in rural areas. 28. Skill Development in Aviation: Promoted initiatives to enhance workforce capabilities. 29. Enhancement of Airport Infrastructure: Upgraded airports for better passenger experience. 30. Leadership in Energy Transition Discussions: Influenced sustainable practices in global energy policies. 31. National Biofuel Policy: Promoted the use of biofuels in transportation for energy security. 32. Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC): Improved energy efficiency in urban buildings. 33. Support for Women Empowerment Initiatives: Focused on increasing women's participation in energy sector leadership. 34. Crisis Management in Diplomacy: Ensured timely evacuation and assistance during international emergencies. 35. Engagement with Non-Aligned Movement: Reinforced India's leadership role among developing nations. 36. Role in Climate Agreements: Actively participated in climate change negotiations, including the Paris Agreement. 37. Promotion of India's Maritime Interests: Advocated for security cooperation in maritime affairs. 38. Promotion of Digital Diplomacy: Utilized technology for enhanced diplomatic outreach. 39. Collaboration with International Organizations: Worked with bodies like the International Energy Agency (IEA) for best practices. 40. Crisis Response During Natural Disasters: Coordinated India's humanitarian aid efforts in response to global crises. 41. Global Leadership in Energy Efficiency: Advocated for international collaboration on energy conservation. 42. Public-Private Partnerships in Energy: Encouraged collaborations to enhance energy infrastructure and investment. 43. Support for Renewable Energy Initiatives: Championed policies for sustainable energy generation and usage. 44. Advancement of Smart City Projects: Promoted urban development with intelligent transport systems. 45. Initiatives for Rural Electrification: Focused on extending electricity access to rural communities. 46. International Recognition: Gained accolades for contributions to energy policy and diplomacy. 47. Leadership in Peacekeeping Operations: Advocated for India's role in UN peacekeeping missions. 48. Participation in International Security Dialogues: Engaged in discussions on global security challenges. 49. Role in Counter-Terrorism Efforts: Strengthened India's position in international counter-terrorism discussions. 50. Engagement with Global Energy Forums: Influenced international energy discussions and policies. 51. Smart City Mission: Played a crucial role in the launch and implementation of the Smart City Mission, focusing on urban innovation. 52. Attracting Foreign Investment: Worked to bring in foreign investments in both the petroleum and aviation sectors. 53. Advocacy for Sustainable Urban Planning: Promoted policies to ensure sustainable urban development and housing. 54. Facilitation of International Cooperation in Urban Development: Engaged with global partners to share best practices in urban planning. 55. Launch of Housing Initiatives for Urban Poor: Developed schemes specifically targeting housing for low-income families. 56. Promotion of Energy-efficient Technologies: Advocated for the adoption of cleaner technologies in the energy sector. 57. Support for Womenโ€™s Health Initiatives: Focused on energy access and its impact on womenโ€™s health and well-being. 58. Enhancement of Indiaโ€™s Energy Diplomacy: Strengthened relationships with energy-producing nations. 59. Promotion of Research and Development in Energy: Encouraged innovation in energy technology and research. 60. Implementation of Smart Grids: Promoted the development of smart grids for efficient energy distribution. 61. Role in Enhancing Regional Cooperation: Advocated for regional energy cooperation in South Asia. 62. Promoting Indiaโ€™s Energy Security Agenda: Focused on securing Indiaโ€™s energy needs through diverse sources. 63. Collaboration with Industry Leaders: Worked with industry stakeholders to promote sustainable practices. 64. Global Advocacy for Clean Energy Solutions: Represented Indiaโ€™s interests in global clean energy discussions. 65. Promotion of Corporate Responsibility in Energy: Encouraged corporations to adopt sustainable energy practices. 66. Leadership in Urban Mobility Initiatives: Promoted policies to improve public transport and reduce urban congestion. 67. Development of Integrated Transport Systems: Advocated for a multimodal approach to transportation planning. 68. Promotion of Decentralized Energy Solutions: Supported renewable energy projects at the community level. 69. Encouragement of Local Manufacturing in Energy Sector: Advocated for indigenous production of energy technologies. 70. Promotion of Innovative Financing Mechanisms: Supported new financing models for energy projects. 71. Enhancement of Air Safety Standards: Focused on improving safety measures in civil aviation. 72. Promotion of Cargo and Logistics Services: Advocated for the growth of air cargo services to boost trade. 73. Support for Regional Air Connectivity: Strengthened initiatives for connecting underserved regions. 74. Leadership in Aviation Policy Reforms: Worked towards comprehensive reforms in the aviation sector. 75. Development of Aviation Infrastructure: Facilitated investments in airports and aviation facilities. 76. Community Engagement in Energy Projects: Promoted community involvement in renewable energy projects. 77. Support for Energy Access Initiatives: Advocated for projects that increase energy access for marginalized communities. 78. Promoting Sustainable Agriculture Practices: Focused on the role of clean energy in enhancing agricultural productivity. 79. Engagement with Youth on Energy Issues: Promoted awareness among youth regarding energy conservation and sustainability. 80. Support for Skill Development Programs: Encouraged training programs in renewable energy technologies. 81. Advocacy for Climate Action: Continued efforts in addressing climate change and promoting sustainable practices. 82. Promotion of India as an Energy Hub: Positioned India as a central player in the global energy market. 83. Leadership in Global Energy Transitions: Influenced discussions on transitioning to renewable energy sources. 84. Engagement with Multilateral Organizations: Strengthened Indiaโ€™s position in international organizations related to energy. 85. Commitment to National Development Goals: Aligned energy policies with national development objectives. 86. Promotion of Environmental Sustainability: Advocated for policies that balance development with environmental conservation. 87. Support for Technology Transfer: Encouraged collaboration for the transfer of clean technologies to India. 88. Participation in International Forums on Energy: Actively engaged in global dialogues on energy security and sustainability. 89. Role in Disaster Management Initiatives: Contributed to policies that integrate energy management in disaster response. 90. Implementation of Smart Energy Solutions: Advocated for the adoption of smart meters and energy-efficient appliances to enhance energy management. 91. Promotion of Clean Cooking Solutions: Launched initiatives to provide access to clean cooking fuels to reduce health hazards in rural areas. 92. Strengthening of Regulatory Frameworks: Worked on reforms to streamline regulations in the oil and gas sector, enhancing transparency and efficiency. 93. International Collaborations for Renewable Energy: Established partnerships with countries for joint research and development in renewable energy technologies. 94. Advocacy for Energy Efficiency Labels: Promoted the labeling of appliances to encourage consumers to choose energy-efficient products. 95. Engagement in International Climate Finance Discussions: Represented India in dialogues aimed at securing funding for climate change mitigation projects. 96. Promotion of Urban Sustainability Initiatives: Advocated for integrated urban development strategies that focus on sustainability and livability. 97. Support for the Production of Biofuels: Encouraged initiatives to enhance the domestic production of biofuels to achieve energy security. 98. Advancement of Womenโ€™s Leadership in Energy: Launched programs to promote women's leadership in the energy 99. Fostering Innovation in Energy Startups: Supported initiatives aimed at nurturing startups in the energy sector through mentorship and funding. 100. Commitment to Indiaโ€™s Energy Independence: Continually worked towards policies that enhance Indiaโ€™s energy independence and reduce reliance on imports and 100+ more. Narendra Modi Amit Shah Office of Hardeep Singh Puri Lakshmi M Puri Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas #MoPNG Bharat Petroleum Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited GAIL (India) Limited Indian Foreign Service Association BJP เค—เฅƒเคนเคฎเค‚เคคเฅเคฐเฅ€ เค•เคพเคฐเฅเคฏเคพเคฒเคฏ, HMO India PMO India rasaal dwivedi BJP Delhi Manohar Lal Parshottam Rupala Indian Oil Corp Ltd ChairmanIOC Indian Diplomacy Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs

Rajashekhar Masna

50,836 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 2 ะปะตั‚ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

What if I told you ripple:native just moved closer to a financial universe doing $17.5 TRILLION in FX and interest-rate derivatives every single day? Iโ€™m not talking about some random prediction. Iโ€™m talking about BIS Working Paper No. 1374. This is going to be a long read, because the headline barely scratches the surface. Four of the five authors work at the Bank for International Settlements, and instead of only mentioning XRP Ledger in theory, the researchers actually built, tested and published an open-source XRPL-based prototype. That distinction matters. This is a research implementation, not a production BIS deployment. But the technical choice itself is what caught me. The researchers needed a public blockchain that could help prove official economic and financial data had not been altered. They chose XRP Ledger. And they explained why: low fees, fast finality, developer resources and existing research around its consensus system. This wasnโ€™t somebody adding an XRP logo to a presentation. They built the gateway. They created XRPL transactions. They used institutional anchoring wallets. They put cryptographic proofs inside transaction memos. They linked publisher identities to XRPL addresses. They retrieved those transactions again during verification. Then they measured how the system performed. Median publication latency came in around 3โ€“5 seconds. Verification took around 1โ€“2 seconds. That is where my brain immediately went beyond the headline. Because what exactly were they trying to verify? The kind of information the entire financial system runs on. -Inflation. -GDP. -Interest rates. -Banking statistics. -Debt information. -Financial-stability data. -Regulatory reporting. Imagine a central bank publishes an inflation number. Today that number gets copied everywhere. -Websites. -News terminals. -Databases. -Screenshots. -AI models. -Trading systems. Once it spreads across the internet, how does another machine independently prove that the number it received is exactly what the institution originally published? That is the problem BIS researchers were attacking. Their model creates a cryptographic fingerprint of the official dataset. Individual statistical series can receive fingerprints too. Those hashes are combined through a Merkle tree. A final Merkle root gets anchored to XRPL. The underlying economic data do not need to be dumped onto the blockchain. XRPL simply keeps the proof. Think of it like this: The official institution publishes the document. XRPL holds the tamper-proof receipt. Someone changes even one part of the underlying file? The cryptographic fingerprint changes. Now a bank, regulator, investor, trading engine or AI agent can check: Is this the original data? Has it been changed? Did it really come from the institution claiming to publish it? And that second part is where this paper gets even more serious. The BIS prototype combines the data proof with a W3C Verifiable Credential for the publisher. The publisherโ€™s cryptographic identity is connected to an XRPL address. The paper even uses the format: did:xrpl: So you are not only verifying the information. You are verifying who published it. Now picture a financial world where machines can check both automatically. A central bank publishes CPI. A model receives it. Before touching money, the software checks XRPL. Correct file. Correct publisher. No alteration. Then it acts. That sounds simple until you realize what financial markets actually do with official data. -Rates move. -Currencies move. -Bond prices move. -Derivatives reprice. -Collateral requirements change. -Loans reset. -Inflation-linked instruments adjust. -Portfolio risk changes. And this is where BIS Working Paper 1374 stops being a boring statistics paper for me. Because the authors themselves discuss putting verified information beside digital financial assets. They specifically mention: -CBDCs -stablecoins -tokenized deposits -derivatives. That one section changes the entire way I look at this. The vision is not simply: โ€œPut a hash on a blockchain.โ€ It becomes: verified economic information + digital money + tokenized assets + automated execution. Now remember what Ripple has been building around XRPL. -Multi-Purpose Tokens. -Credentials. -Permissioned Domains. -Permissioned DEX infrastructure. -Confidential Transfers. -Stablecoins. -Institutional lending. -Tokenized collateral. -FX. -Onchain credit. And Ripple has repeatedly positioned XRP across payments, liquidity and credit. Now put those pieces beside what the BIS researchers are exploring. An official institution needs an identity. XRPL can represent identity and credentials. A regulated participant needs permission to enter a market. XRPL is building permissioned infrastructure. A bond needs trustworthy economic information. The BIS prototype shows one way that information can be authenticated through XRPL. A financial asset needs a digital representation. XRPL is being built for tokenization. A transaction needs money. Stablecoins and tokenized deposits can provide the cash side. Then all those different assets need liquidity. That is where ripple:native becomes much more interesting to me. But before getting there, look at the scale surrounding BIS itself. The BIS does not process the worldโ€™s $9.6 trillion of daily FX transactions. It measures that market through its Triennial Central Bank Survey. That distinction matters. According to the numbers in the context here: global OTC FX turnover = $9.6 TRILLION every day. Then add: OTC interest-rate derivatives turnover = $7.9 TRILLION every day. Together: $17.5 TRILLION per day. Just the FX number annualized across roughly 250 trading days comes to around: $2.4 QUADRILLION per year. That is the financial universe BIS research sits over. -Currencies. -Banks. -Central banks. -FX swaps. -Rates. -Derivatives. -Cross-border capital. -Collateral. -Dollar funding. And researchers inside that institution just chose XRP Ledger for an actual technical prototype. That is why I keep telling people not to reduce this to transaction fees. Yes, the worked example uses an XRPL Payment transaction. Yes, the reference cost is only: 10 drops = 0.00001 XRP. Yes, transaction fees on XRPL are destroyed. So if this kind of anchoring eventually ran on mainnet, publishing data itself would consume XRP. But that is not the part that gets me excited. The fee is intentionally tiny. The much bigger question is: What happens when verified information starts triggering financial activity on the same broader infrastructure? The paper itself talks about: inflation-linked products perpetual futures tokenized financial instruments derivative settlement interest payments automated compliance and even: automated monetary-policy applications. Now we are talking about information causing money to move. Imagine an inflation-linked bond. The government publishes inflation. That release gets cryptographically anchored. The bond checks the proof. The CPI number is verified. The contract adjusts what is owed. Digital cash settles the payment. No one has to manually copy a number from a website into another system. No one has to blindly trust a third-party data feed. The financial instrument can verify the economic input itself. That is the idea I keep coming back to: self-verifying finance. And the researchers even discuss using the XRPL EVM-compatible sidechain for more advanced applications where data verification and programmable financial execution exist in the same broader ecosystem. They mention: access controls, permissioning, automated compliance, multisignature requirements, oracle integration, programmable validation. Now connect that with Rippleโ€™s institutional roadmap. Credentials can prove who a participant is. Permissioned Domains can define who belongs inside a regulated environment. Tokenized assets can represent financial instruments. RLUSD can represent digital dollar liquidity. Lending can make those assets productive. XRP can provide native network resources and, where economically useful, liquidity between fragmented assets. That is a very different picture of XRPL than the one people were arguing about years ago. It is not simply: โ€œCan XRP send a payment quickly?โ€ The question becomes: Can XRPL sit underneath parts of a machine-readable financial system? And Working Paper 1374 just gave that question much more weight for me. There is another section that barely gets discussed. The architecture is not limited to one data publisher. The researchers designed a multi-publisher system. Different institutions can create their own Merkle roots. Those roots can be combined into one larger super-root. One XRPL transaction can anchor that shared proof. Yet each publisher remains independently accountable for its own data. Now imagine the participants. Central Bank A. Central Bank B. Regulator C. Statistical Office D. International Organization E. One public verification system. Different publishers. Independent cryptographic accountability. That begins to resemble infrastructure for cross-border public-sector data exchange. And the paperโ€™s own conclusion talks about trustworthy exchange among: national statistical offices central banks international organizations. Then look at who already uses the statistical standard the paper builds around. SDMX is sponsored by institutions including: BIS European Central Bank Eurostat International Monetary Fund OECD United Nations World Bank Group International Labour Organization. That does not mean those institutions are adopting XRPL. But it tells you something important about the design philosophy. The researchers did not create a blockchain system that requires the existing financial world to throw everything away. They designed it to sit underneath an existing institutional standard. That matters a lot. Because the easiest technology to adopt is often the technology that does not force everyone to rebuild from zero. Existing systems can continue publishing. XRPL can provide the cryptographic proof underneath. Then comes BIS Open Tech. The paper says the open-source reference implementation is being released as a prototype through BIS Open Tech and the SDMX community. That means other institutions can inspect it. Reuse it. Modify it. Build on it. This is how technical ideas can spread inside serious institutions. Not through hype. Through code. Documentation. Standards. Reuse. That is the kind of adoption path I pay attention to. Then there is the AI angle. This is where the whole thesis becomes almost unfairly interesting. The authors explicitly discuss AI agents. An AI system receives economic information. Instead of blindly trusting what it scraped from somewhere, it can ask: Is this data authentic? It checks the XRPL proof. Valid? Continue. Invalid? Do nothing. Now compare that with what Ripple launched in June 2026: the XRPL AI Starter Kit, designed around autonomous agents making payments with XRP and RLUSD. Two completely separate directions suddenly sit beside each other. BIS research: AI verifies information through XRPL. Ripple ecosystem: AI moves value through XRPL. Now imagine both ideas eventually meeting. An agent receives official inflation data. It verifies the release cryptographically. It recalculates risk. It reprices a bond. It adjusts collateral. It changes an FX position. It executes a payment. It settles in RLUSD. It routes through XRP where XRP is the best available liquidity path. That is machine-native finance. And now go back to the scale. The BIS 2025 Triennial Survey says: $9.6T/day FX. The dollar appears on one side of 89% of FX trades. The euro is involved in 28.9%. The Japanese yen in 16.8%. FX swaps alone are around $4T every day. Then another $7.9T/day exists in OTC interest-rate derivatives turnover. Think about what happens if only part of those markets becomes tokenized. Digital USD deposits. Digital EUR deposits. Tokenized JPY. RLUSD. CBDCs. Tokenized Treasuries. Interest-rate derivatives. FX derivatives. Collateral. Money-market instruments. The first problem is getting the assets onchain. The second is verifying the information those assets depend on. The third is moving liquidity between all the different forms of value. This BIS paper attacks the second problem using XRPL. Ripple has spent years attacking the first and third. That is why the combination gets my attention. And you do not need XRPL to capture the whole market for the numbers to become enormous. For scale only: 0.1% of $9.6T daily FX turnover = $9.6B per day. 1% = $96B per day. Again, that is not a forecast. It shows what even tiny percentages mean when the underlying market is measured in trillions every day. And that is only FX. It does not include the additional $7.9T/day of interest-rate derivatives turnover BIS measures. This is where the XRP liquidity thesis changes from a crypto argument into a market-structure argument. Suppose the future has hundreds of tokenized currencies and financial products. Every possible pair cannot maintain perfect direct liquidity. USD token / EUR token. EUR token / JPY token. JPY token / RLUSD. RLUSD / Treasury token. Treasury token / derivative. Derivative / deposit token. The combinations explode. A common intermediate asset becomes useful whenever routing through it provides a better market. That is where XRPโ€™s role becomes interesting. Not replacing the dollar. Not replacing the euro. Not replacing CBDCs. Not replacing bank deposits. Connecting liquidity between them when that route makes economic sense. Now imagine the system is automated. No trader needs to shout: โ€œUse XRP.โ€ Software looks at: price, spread, depth, settlement, availability. If the XRP path wins, the software uses XRP. That is the outcome I care about. Machine-selected liquidity. And if those transactions grow large enough, the XRP market itself has to change. Institutional market makers need inventory. Liquidity providers need inventory. Prime brokers need financing capacity. Order books need deeper capital. Large transactions need to clear without huge price impact. That is where the price thesis becomes different from retail speculation. If XRP ever helps support institutional flows inside markets measured in trillions per day, the relevant question is not: โ€œHow many retail holders bought today?โ€ It becomes: How much dollar liquidity does the XRP market need to represent? That is an entirely different valuation conversation. There is one more thing I think people are missing. BIS Working Paper 1374 does not only talk about SDMX statistics. The researchers say the same architecture can extend to: XBRL regulatory filings FINREP COREP and other forms of structured official information. Now imagine banks submitting regulatory reports that receive immutable XRPL proofs. The bank cannot quietly change an old filing later. The regulator can verify the exact version. Auditors can verify it. Another authority can verify it. AI software can consume it. One system can prove both: who submitted the data and whether it changed. That gives XRPL a potential role far beyond payments. It starts touching the information layer of finance. And this is why the line โ€œBIS used XRP Ledgerโ€ actually undersells the paper. What happened is more specific. Researchers inside BIS took a real institutional problem. They selected XRPL. They built a working implementation. They measured performance. They published the code direction. Then they explored how authenticated data could coexist with: CBDCs, stablecoins, tokenized deposits, derivatives, AI agents, automated financial instruments. That is what I am bullish on. Not a logo. Not a rumor. Not a screenshot. Technical work. And when I look at the direction Ripple is independently pushing XRPL, the overlap is hard for me to ignore. Trusted identities. Verified information. Regulated participants. Tokenized assets. Digital money. Automated execution. Credit. Collateral. FX. Liquidity. AI. Put together, the long-term architecture can look like this: Official institutions publish information. XRPL anchors the proof. Banks and regulators verify it. AI consumes it. Tokenized instruments use it. Stablecoins and tokenized deposits provide cash. Institutional markets execute trades. XRP supplies native network resources and can supply cross-asset liquidity where the route makes sense. That is not simply a faster payment network. That starts looking like part of a digital financial operating system. And then remember where this conversation is happening. Inside the research world of the institution that measures: $9.6 trillion of FX turnover every day plus $7.9 trillion of interest-rate derivatives turnover every day. A combined: $17.5 TRILLION DAILY. No, that is not XRPL volume. No, BIS does not process those trades. The significance is that BIS researchers just tested XRP Ledger while working inside the institutional world surrounding markets of that size. That is the fact. And now Iโ€™m asking the question that matters to me as an ripple:native holder: What happens if XRPL earns even a small role inside the tokenized version of that financial system? Because 0.1% of a trillion-dollar market is not small. And this market is not one trillion. It is trillions every single day. That is why Working Paper 1374 changed the scale of the conversation for me. For years, people asked whether XRP could become part of the future financial system. Now researchers inside the BIS have taken XRP Ledger, built institutional infrastructure on it, and explicitly discussed a future combining trusted information with digital money and programmable financial assets. We are still at the prototype stage. But for me, the direction is the real story. The next financial system will need trusted data, tokenized assets, automated execution and deep liquidity. XRPL is now showing up in all four conversations. And XRP sits natively underneath the network where those pieces can eventually meet. $17.5T a day. Now look at your ripple:native bag again. Enough?

X Finance Bull

68,367 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 1 ะผะตััั† ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

I think the Singularity could be BORING We were promised flying cars and warp drives. We got same-day delivery and better autocomplete. And somehow, impossibly, weโ€™re bored by it. This is the Boring Singularity. The idea that the most transformative period in human history will feel, to the people living through it, like a long and uneventful Tuesday. I want to explain why this happens. It comes down to three layers. The first is neurological. The second is architectural. The third is physical. Together they create a perfect storm of invisible progress that our minds are designed to ignore. Layer One: The Neurological Filter Here is a thought experiment. Imagine a caveman breaks his arm. For weeks he is miserable. He cannot hunt, cannot gather, cannot contribute. Then the bone heals. Within days of regaining function, he has completely forgotten the misery. The memory of suffering serves no purpose once the threat has passed. Evolution deleted it so he could return to baseline and focus on survival. We do this with everything. We did it with antibiotics. We did it with smartphones. We will do it with longevity. Psychologists call this hedonic adaptation. The human brain is an adaptation machine that returns us to a baseline level of experience regardless of how much our circumstances improve. And here is the critical finding. It only takes about three months for the โ€œnew normalโ€ to cement itself. Any change that plays out over months or years, no matter how revolutionary, simply becomes background noise. Think about what this means for the Singularity. If anti-gravity cars were introduced tomorrow, they would be miraculous for a month, a status symbol for a year, and a frustrating utility that needs maintenance by year three. The internet is a collective telepathic hive mind that moves petabits at lightspeed. It is genuinely god-like power. We experience it as checking emails. The Singularity might already be here. We just cannot feel it because our brains are not designed to feel sustained amazement. They are designed to adapt and move on. Layer Two: The Hidden Infrastructure We expected Blade Runner. Neon towers and chrome robots serving drinks at the bar. What we are actually getting is something I call โ€œReverse Trantor.โ€ In classic science fiction, advanced civilizations build upward and inward. They create city-planets like Trantor in Foundation or Coruscant in Star Wars, layer upon layer of visible technology. Our trajectory is the opposite. We are pushing the infrastructure outward and downward, into spaces humans never see. Consider where the robots actually are. They are not walking down the street. They are in mines and fulfillment centers and vertical farms. The real automation revolution is happening in dark warehouses where no human needs to flip a light switch. You order a package and it arrives faster than it used to. That is the entire perceptible output of a massive transformation in logistics. Thatโ€™s not to say that youโ€™ll never see humanoid robots milling around, only that the vast majority of them will be away from the public. The same principle applies to computation itself. In hindsight, it will look like the entire purpose of inventing computers was to run AI, and everything else was just the bootloader. We are heading toward a world where 99% of all CPU and GPU cycles are dedicated to machine-to-machine processes, and less than one percent is for human-facing tasks. The vast majority of the intelligence infrastructure will be completely invisible to us, humming along as background noise. And the really heavy stuff will be in space. Earth has a finite ability to dissipate heat. To run truly massive AI systems, we will likely move the servers to orbital platforms or Lagrange points where they can vent entropy into the void. The megastructures will exist. They will just be invisible points of light, indistinguishable from stars and space dust. This is the architectural reality of the Boring Singularity. The magic gets hidden in the walls and launched into orbit. What remains on Earth is green and quiet and looks suspiciously like a return to the pastoral. Thatโ€™s not a bad thing, and itโ€™s not to say that we return to a โ€œsteady stateโ€ equilibrium forever. Layer Three: The Hard Limits The final layer is the most sobering. We are hitting the physical ceiling of discovery itself. The Golden Age of science fiction emerged during a specific historical anomaly. Between 1905 and 1970, in a single human lifetime, we went from the Wright Brothers to the Moon, from Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics and the structure of DNA. That created an expectation of constant improvement. Fundamental discoveries happen every decade. The exponential curve goes up forever. Star Trek promised we would keep finding new energy sources and new physics for centuries. The data suggests otherwise. Research on scientific progress shows that we must double research effort every thirteen years just to maintain the same rate of economic growth. Studies of citation patterns reveal that the disruptiveness of new scientific papers dropped by ninety percent between 1945 and 2010. We are publishing more but saying less. The low-hanging fruit is gone. The cost curve tells the story most clearly. In the 1930s, you could discover a new particle with a tabletop experiment in a university lab for a few thousand dollars. It only took a few days to duplicate the splitting of the atom. To confirm the Higgs Boson, however, we needed the Large Hadron Collider, which cost nearly five billion dollars and took decades to build. The next generation of particle physics might require a hundred billion dollars, or trillions. And the math suggests that to probe the truly fundamental structure of reality at the Planck scale, you would need an accelerator the size of a galaxy. We cannot build that. So physics becomes theoretical not because we lack curiosity, but because we can no longer afford to test our hypotheses. Meanwhile, our imagination has outpaced physical reality. We grew up on fiction that treats the laws of physics as suggestions that can be bypassed with clever engineering. And that felt true (at the time) because we kept finding cool exploits, like fiber optics and nuclear fission. But the speed of light appears to be absolute. Thermodynamics is non-negotiable. We can imagine teleportation and warp drives, but there is no known physics that could enable them. This is the Sigmoid Curve in action. Progress is not an exponential line to infinity. It is an S-curve. We have likely passed the steepest part of fundamental discovery, and we are entering the plateau. The Inverted Star Wars So where does this leave us? I think the best model is actually Star Wars, just inverted. In Star Wars, they have had faster-than-light travel and droids for thousands of years. The technology has faded completely into the background. A hyperdrive failure is treated like a flat tire. It is annoying, not existential. Because the tech tree is fully unlocked, all the drama shifts to politics and governance and ideology. The Empire versus the Republic. Trade routes and treaties and coups. We are heading somewhere similar, with one crucial inversion. Our droids will be smarter, but our ships will be slower. We are likely trapped in this solar system by the speed of light. There is no Outer Rim to escape to if you dislike the politics. But our AI systems will be genuinely superintelligent, an invisible omniscient layer managing supply chains and governance and the allocation of resources. This intensifies the politics because there is no exit valve. We are stuck here with each other and with very powerful tools. The optimistic reading is that this represents maturity. For the last century, technology has moved faster than culture, causing constant anxiety. Future shock, always. If technology moves to a plateau, culture finally has time to catch up. Human decisions, not technological accidents, become what determines history. We stop waiting for a gadget to save us. We realize that if we want a better world, we have to build it with the tools we already have, because no new fundamental laws of reality are coming to rescue us. The Verdict The Boring Singularity is not a prediction of stagnation. Things will still change. We will probably see radical longevity and hyper-efficient energy and algorithmic governance that makes traffic and logistics invisible. It will be, by any historical standard, a utopia of convenience. But it will not feel like the future we were promised. The changes will be incremental enough that our brains adapt before we can appreciate them. The infrastructure will be hidden in warehouses and orbiting platforms we never see. And the truly magical discoveries, the new forces of nature and new physics, may simply be too expensive and complex to pursue. The Singularity is not ending with a bang or a whimper. It is ending with a shrug. And because we are humans, we will probably find something to complain about anyway.

David Shapiro (L/0)

14,362 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 8 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

The Economics of Europeโ€™s Descent into Warmongering โ€“ and our duty now! My speech at the European Parliament on the theme of โ€œThe Economic Conditions of Peaceโ€, Tuesday 10th June 2025 [INTRODUCTION] A year ago, I would have started this speech with a lament about the hitherto unimaginable conversion of the European Union from a Peace to a War Project. Not so today. Over the past year, warmongering has seeped into the very fabric of the Union, it has trickled into every policy, it has soaked every one of the thinktanks that generate Europeโ€™s dominant narratives and creeds. Today, therefore, it makes no sense to lament what is now a fact: The EU is now a fully-fledged War Project โ€“ a project that will either land us in permanent war, or it will bankrupt us further, or probably both! Europeโ€™s military Keynesianism, I shall be arguing, is guaranteed to make Europe less safe, more unequal, weaker. Only two interesting questions remain: Why has Europe taken this road? And, now that Europe is on this war path, what is ourduty to our people, to Europeans, to Peace? Let me begin at the very beginning. [THE EU WAS DESIGNED TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE UNITED STATES] At the risk of irking Europeanists who believe in their own creation myth, let me be clear: The European Union (from its beginnings as the European Communities of Coal & Steel) was an American Construction โ€“ a part of a US Global Plan that also comprised the Bretton Woods System, the Truman Doctrine and, of course, NATO. Yes, most Europeans hankered for no more war and no more totalitarianism. But the EU was designed in Washington DC. And it was designed specifically not as a competitive market but as a Big Business Cartel run by a democracy-free bureaucracy (also known as the European Commission) not coincidentally located a stoneโ€™s throw from NATOโ€™s headquarters. From 1950 on, the EU was nurtured by and in tune with the interests of the United States โ€“ an inconvenient fact both for Europeโ€™s self-important rulers and for Donald Trump. Looking back, a common thread runs through the entire history of the EU: its total economic dependence on the United States. Initially, the EU was deeply dependent on being part of the Dollar Zone. Then, from 1971 onwards, it was deeply dependent on the American trade deficit. So, one way or another, Europeโ€™s deep dependence on the US was ingrained into its architecture. It will thus take much more than mere pronouncements - or a few hundred billion borrowed euros spent on weaponry - to shed Europeโ€™s in-built dependence on the United States. The fact that the EU was, from the beginning, fashioned as a Big Business Cartel is the reason why the EU needed fixed exchange rates: Currency fluctuations destabilise any cartel, making it hard to maintain the necessary levels of collusion between its participating producers. From 1950 to 1971, the US took care of this problem on Europeโ€™s behalf. As long as it was running a trade deficit with the United States, Europeโ€™s cartel was embedded in the dollar zone โ€“ its currencies tied to the dollar But, when around 1969 Europe (and Japan) started running a trade surplus with the United States, it was game over. On 15th August 1971, the Donald Trump of that era, President Richard Nixon, jettisoned Europe from the dollar zone, his Treasury Secretary cynically telling the dumbfounded Europeans: โ€œFrom today the dollar is our currency but it is your problem!โ€ Two things happened next. First, to save their Big Business Cartel the Europeans scrambled to create their own fixed exchange rate regime. They tried everything: The Snake. The European Monetary System. The European Exchange Rate Mechanism. They all proved flimsy designs that speculators had no trouble crushing. So, in desperation, they created the most noxious currency the human spirit could fashion - the euro. The second development was that, as America expanded its budget and trade deficits, the Eurozone morphed into a German-led net exporting machine whose aggregate demand was subcontracted to the United States. In effect, Americaโ€™s twin deficits operated like a huge vacuum cleaner that sucked into America Europeโ€™s net exports as well as the European exportersโ€™ profits which were thus invested in US Treasuries, US shares and US real estate. Thatโ€™s how, once it was expelled from the dollar zone, Europe became addicted to the US deficits. That was what the Nixon Shock did: It converted Europeโ€™s utter reliance on living within the dollar zone into an even greater dependence on the US deficits. [NEVER MISSING A CHANCE TO MISS AN OPPORTUNITY] Here in Brussels they love the expression that Europe progresses from crisis to crisis. Thatโ€™s another delusion. The crisis of 2008 was our greatest opportunity to render the European Union viable, and to end its deep dependence on the United States. ยท The French and German banks went bankrupt. ยท The Eurozoneโ€™s impossible rules were in tatters. ยท A domino effect, beginning with Greece, was bankrupting our governments. It was the perfect opportunity to transform the EU from a Big Business Cartel, inherently reliant on the US for its aggregate demand, into a functional, internally balanced federation. Instead, Europeโ€™s radical centre (both the centre right and the centre left) decided that they would change everything so as to ensure that nothingchanges. In this vein, they did their worst: Universal austerity for the many. And frantic money printing for the financiers and Big Business. What happens when you crush the incomes of the many and hand over trillions to the very few? Since the many are too poor to buy high value added goods, business stops investing in productive capital โ€“โ€“ while the rich use the free cash to push through the roof house prices, share prices, Bitcoin prices, art, asset prices in general. The natural result is soul-crushing levels of inequality and deep popular discontent. The people got desperate. They even voted for radical progressives like me to enter the Eurogroup! Then, in horror, Brussels and Frankfurt overthrew us, or made Mr Tsipras overthrow his own government, using not the tanks, as they did in Greece in 1967, but the banks โ€“ not that much of a difference really! A coup dโ€™ รฉtat is a coup dโ€™ รฉtat. [TWO SYMBIOTIC AUTHORITARIANISMS] Guess what happened next: Just as in the mid-war period, xenophobic ultra-rightists rose up from the woodwork. They proved a godsent for the shockingly unpopular radical centre whose politicians could now say to voters: It is us or them! But it was equally a godsent for the ultra-right who needed the radical centre to impose the austerity policies which created the discontent which fuelled the anger that delivered the ultra-right votes. To put it differently, if Macron and Le Pen had any sense, they would each keep a framed picture of the other on their bedside tables, saying a little prayer in their hated opponentโ€™s name every night before going to sleep. [SMOKE AND MIRRORS] Liberal Totalitarianism and Ultra-Right-Xenophobic Totalitarianism are accomplices, they feed off each other. Meanwhile, austerity for the many and money printing for the few depletes Europeโ€™s productive foundations, its social fabric, its sense of purpose. Thatโ€™s how the European Union lost any legitimacy it had in the eyes of the public. Sensing this, the Liberal Totalitarians in charge came up with one failed Grand Initiative after another. Who can forget the eminently forgettable Juncker investment plan, the Banking Union, the Green Deal, or the Draghi Report that has now joined them in Historyโ€™s Dustbin? Impressive numbers were announced that, alas, dependably failed to materialise. It was inevitable. As long as our rulers said NO to the political union that could sustain a proper, macroeconomically significant, eurobond, the money to fund the necessary investment could never materialise. Even when they โ€“ finally โ€“ during the pandemic โ€“ did issue common debt, they ended up with common liabilities but no common purpose. Every Grand Initiative ever announced was a dance with failure, smoke and mirrors by which they disguised Europeโ€™s nakedness. The result? After fifteen years of ZERO NET PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENT, ยท Germany is deindustrialising fast, and along with it Eastern and Central Europe, Austria, Northern Italy ยท Political paralysis grows on the back of fiscal pressures ยท Neofascism and xenophobia are rising up everywhere ยท Europeโ€™s dependence on the United States grows stronger at the time Donald Trump is cutting Europe loose ยท The Rest of the World looks at Europe as a sad case of what could have been, an irritating irrelevance. In this sad context, our great and good leaders had another woeful idea for a Grand Initiative: Now that the Green Deal is dead-in-the-water and the Recovery Fund is spent, why not try Military Keynesianism? [THE FOLLY OF MILITARY KEYNESIANISM] Ladies and Gentlemen, Military Keynesianism works in the United States because America has the federal institutions, the monetary sovereignty, the fiscal power, the technostructure, and the common procurement process that are essential in implementing Military Keynesianism. Europe has none of that, nor does it have leaders interested in acquiring any of that. This is why Military Keynesianism cannot work in Europe. Thank goodness it canโ€™t work, I say! For if it could work, Europe would have to emulate the United States in starting a war every year so that the stocks of ammunition, missiles et al could be depleted sufficiently to justify the new colossal orders necessary to maintain Military Keynesianism. Nevertheless, while Europeโ€™s Military Keynesianism cannot and should not work, it serves a purpose โ€“ it is a kind of a solution for, say, Volkswagen: Now that Volkswagen can no longer sell its cars, it hands over whole production lines to Rheinmetall to produce Leopard tanks which von der Leyen makes Greece and Italy buy even though we neither want nor need them. Yes, Military Keynesianism will fail Europe badly, but not before it further bankrupts our states and throws more fuel onto the fire burning down lives and dreams in Ukraineโ€™s killing fields. So, let me be frank: ยท No really-existing enemy of Europe shakes in his boots watching a stagnating, heavily indebted Europe, invest billions in weaponry. Quite the opposite! ยท Military Keynesianism will end up as Europeโ€™s New Austerity for the many and a new money spinner for the few. ยท It will make Europe weaker while prolonging the Ukraine War in a manner that is detrimental to the stated aim of supporting Ukraine. [EUROPEโ€™S SURRENDER TO NATO, ITS ROLE IN UKRAINE] It is at this point that angry yelps will rise up from the press gallery. Canโ€™t you hear them ask: "โ€œIs Russia not ante portas?โ€ โ€œIs Europe not in danger?โ€ โ€œShould Europe remain defenceless, especially now that Trump is abandoning Europe?โ€ My answer is clear: Weakening ourselves economically through a Military Keynesianism that constitutes the New Austerity which will, with mathematical precision, diminish Europe further is no way to make Europe stronger! And lest we forget, Europe already has 1.5m men and women in uniform while, over the past decade, we spent โ‚ฌ2.7 trillion on defence โ€“ a period during which our net productive investment was zero! Now, NATO demands that we spend three times as much - which is totally insane, given how wastefully that โ‚ฌ2.7 trillion was spent. In this light, surrendering our foreign and defence policies to NATO, and sinking further in unsustainable debt just to satisfy President Trumpโ€™s demands for more military spending, is the surest way of making Europe more dependent, less secure, uglier and sadder. In this context, the powers-that-be here in Brussels are anxiously trying to keep their jobs and boost their budgets by spreading the lie that NATO had to expand in order to deter Russian aggression โ€“ when it is exactly the other way round: Like the Mafia, NATO expanded to create insecurity in order to sell us protection! Does this mean that Putin was right to invade the Ukraine? Of course not. What it means is that NATO and Putin are accomplices โ€“ that they needed one another in their joint bid for a confrontation that strengthened both โ€“ at Europeโ€™s expense. It also means that anyone truly interested in Europeโ€™s security and prosperity 1. must dispel the lie that Russia is about to invade us โ€“ it canโ€™t even if it wants to 2. must work tirelessly to kill Europeโ€™s Military Keynesianism, and 3. must work toward a European Peace Process which uses Russiaโ€™s confiscated monies not as a piggybank for more useless Leopard tanks and Leonardo missiles but as a bargaining chip to end the Ukraine War in the context of a comprehensive EU-Russia Peace Treaty. As for the politicians in this town who will not rest until they see Russia on its knees, I have this to say to them: If you really wanted to weaken Russia, to bring Russia to its knees, you should have worked hard to admit Russia into theโ€ฆ Eurozone. In one fell swoop the euro would have wrecked Russiaโ€™s productive basis, it would have indebted its people and its state, it would have made its leaders rush to Brussels and to Frankfurt with begging bowl in hand! You think I am joking. But there is too much truth in this joke for comfort! To sum up my argument so far, Europeโ€™s economic stagnation was the product of its total dependence on the American deficits. This dependence yielded Europeโ€™s complicity with the decade-long American project of inciting a war in Ukraine. And now that the US is decoupling, our rulers โ€“ resembling decapitated chickens โ€“ are running around without their heads screwed on, struggling to find ways of continuing to impede Peace in Ukraine so as to use military funds to prop up Europeโ€™s faltering Big Business Cartel. [WHATโ€™S BEHIND EUROPEโ€™S ETHICAL DECAY: GAZA, TOTALITARIANISM] Ladies and Gentlemen, as we speak here today, Europe is falling headlong into another ethical void: complicity in the Palestinian genocide. It is not just the embarrassment, also known as Mrs Ursula von der Leyen, posing like a cheerleader of Israelโ€™s genocidal army in front of its tanks hours before they stormed Gaza. No, the European Union is not merely complicit due to our subservience to the United States. No, the European Union is also enabling, it is in fact funding, the war criminals of its own accord. Directly. Cynically. With no compunction. ยท BNP PARIBAS and ALLIANZ underwrite the issues of the Israeli government bonds that fund the Israeli meatgrinder in the Palestinian Occupied Territories ยท MAERSK is the prime transporter of the military machine at work in Gaza ยท Since 2007, the European Union has channelled โ‚ฌ2 billion of research funding to Israeli entities producing the means by which Palestinians are ethnically cleansed, targeted, murdered and maimed. But there is something even scarier going on: Some of our top institutions depend financially on backing Israelโ€™s genocide. If Europe were to do its duty and sanction Israel, the Technical University of Munich stands to lose โ‚ฌ195.4 million from the EUโ€™s HORIZON program which funds the University to carry out joint research with Israeli institutions. Ladies and Gentlemen, Europe carries an enormous guilt. The pogroms against the Jews started here, in Europe. Europeans carried out genocides across Africa, in the Americas, in Australia. By forming the EU as a Peace Project, we claimed a chance to make amends for Europeโ€™s past genocides. However, our dependence on the US and our ruling classโ€™s penchant to profit from imperialism have made this impossible โ€“ and so Europeโ€™s hands are, again, covered in the blood of innocents, in Gaza, in Ukraine, in the Sudan, in Libya, in Yemen, in Syria. It has also brought totalitarianism back into our midst, here in Europe. When the German authorities banned me from entering Germany for the crime of co-organising with German Jews a conference on the theme of โ€˜A Just Peace in the Middle Eastโ€™, they were making a point: To them, letting the rivers of Palestinian blood flow unimpeded represented their chance of washing off their hands the guilt over the Holocaust, over the other German genocide in Namibia, of Belgiumโ€™s crimes against humanity in the Congoโ€ฆ It is, therefore, a clear warning to us: Economic stagnation begets warmongering which begets a revived European white settler mentality. This Europe has fallen so far into a moral crevice that it cannot easily climb out of it. Europeโ€™s Liberal Totalitarianism, which we in Greece experienced in all its horror ten years ago, is now everywhere โ€“ and it is throwing wide open the gates through which Xenophobic Ultra-Right Totalitarianism arrives to darken our doorstep. The time to rise up against both forms of totalitarianism is now. On behalf of the peoples of Europe. [WHAT MUST WE DO?] So, what must we do? Let us begin by grasping that: ยท The economic condition for Peace is to de-couple Europe's economy from America's wars! ยท But for that we must end, once and for all, Europeโ€™s dependence on the United States. ยท This entails ending Europeโ€™s dependence on net exports to America. ยท Which means rebalancing Europeโ€™s internal economy through o new productive green investments, o an end to structural austerity o an end to the madness of cartel-infested electricity โ€˜marketsโ€™ o a new monetary commons by which to end the bankersโ€™ monopoly over payments and to institute a personal dividend for all o a new EU-China deal that liberates us from Americaโ€™s agenda of intensifying a pointless New Cold War at our expense. Only by transforming Europeโ€™s political economy can we end the never-ending fragmentation which breeds war, totalitarianism and the embarrassment of being led by cheerleaders of genocide and permanent war with Russia, like Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas. How can we accomplish that? In two ways. First, we need a Credible Plan for a Europe worth fighting for. Second, we must organise a campaign of civil and governmental disobedience in our countries and, potentially, in the European Council until our Plan for Europe gets a chance. We, DiEM25, have worked for a decade on this Plan โ€“ our Green New Deal for Europe โ€“ and are happy to share it with you, so that you can refine, revise, adapt it. You, the 5S Movement and other parties eager to partake across Europe, have the organisation that we lack so that, together with our MERA25 transnational parties, we can together help organise the campaign of civil and governmental disobedience without which nothing will change, nothing will impede Europeโ€™s, Italyโ€™s, Greeceโ€™s, indeed Germanyโ€™s secular decline. [CONCLUSION] So, to conclude, seventy-five years of this European Union teach us that we face a stark choice. A choice between a Dependent-on-the-United States, Warmongering, Stagnating Europe. Or an Independent, Non-Aligned, Prosperous, Green Europe. A choice between a von der Leyen-type Commission that greenlights genocide, impedes Peace, illegally deletes her Pfizer chat history, lobbies for Lockheed Martin, and borrows money we canโ€™t repay to buy weaponry we do not need - while condemning People and Planet to impecunity. Or European Institutions optimised against raw power and in favour of common prosperity. A choice between being at the beck and call of the boardrooms of Rheinmetall, Leonardo and Pfizer, blind to the tax havens where war profits and tax fraud hide, while our coastguards turn refugees into corpses. Or a Europe of rational, that is a radical, humanism. To even have this choice, our immediate task must be to end war, to end genocide and to terminate before it is too late the New Austerity going by the name of Military Keynesianism.

Yanis Varoufakis

26,092 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 1 ะณะพะด ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

The 40,000% ROI "Bug": How Claude Code Cracked the TradingView Holy Grail most people think the elite traders at the top of the mountain have some secret indicator or a hidden math formula that gives them a forty thousand percent return. they assume the game is rigged against the small player and that you need a multi million dollar budget just to get a seat at the table. the truth is that the holy grail of trading is actually hidden in plain sight inside a community tab that most people scroll past every single day i spent years losing money to liquidations and over trading because i thought i had to manually predict where the price was going next. i even spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on developers to build apps for me because i was convinced that i would never be able to code the systems myself. it turns out that once you stop trying to be a genius and start using the tools that are already available you can crack the code to unlimited trading strategies the secret is not in a single indicator but in the process of research back test and implement. if you go to the community section of trading view you will find an endless stream of source code for indicators that people have built over decades. most traders just slap these on a chart and hope for the best but if you are a data dog like me you know that a chart is just a pretty picture that lies to you i believe that code is the great equalizer because it allows us to take these public ideas and turn them into fully automated systems that trade for us while we sleep. i decided to learn to code live on youtube to show everyone that you can iterate your way to success without being a math wizard or a stanford graduate. now i have fully automated systems that manage my capital instead of getting liquidated by emotional decisions in the middle of the night the biggest trap in the trading world is something called repainting and it is the reason why so many strategy back tests look like they are printing money when they are actually just a scam. repainting happens when an indicator looks at future data to tell you what happened in the past which makes every buy and sell signal look like a perfect entry at the top and bottom. if you trust a back test on a basic chart without understanding the logic underneath you are just building a house on a foundation of sand this is why i transitioned all of my serious work into python because python does not lie to you. in python you can control the data flow tick by tick and bar by bar to ensure that no future data is leaking into your strategy. i built a back test architect which is a specialized sub agent that knows exactly how to take a simple idea and test it against twenty five different data sources all at once when you run a strategy across btc eth apple google and tesla you start to see the real truth about whether a strategy has an edge or if it was just a lucky fluke on one chart. i saw one strategy this week that showed a one million percent return which sounds like a total lie but the data does not have an ego. even if a number looks insane you have to investigate it and incubate it with tiny size to see if it holds up in the live market you must treat your trading like a business where you are the manager and the code is your team of tireless employees. i have sub agents running for me right now that act as masters of specific tasks like converting pine script into python or optimizing exit logic. if you are not using these specialized ai assistants in your workflow you are essentially trying to build a skyscraper with a hand saw while everyone else is using heavy machinery most people get stuck in the beginner phase because they think they need to write every single line of code from scratch. the reality is that the best developers are just really good at importing the hard work of others and connecting it like lego blocks. i use a library called ccxt that allows my bots to communicate with every major exchange in the world with just a few lines of script which saves me months of development time the reason i show everything live is because the industry is filled with gatekeepers who want to keep the secrets of automation to themselves. they want you to stay as a manual trader who pays high fees and provides liquidity for their algorithms. once you learn to automate you are no longer a victim of the market but a participant in the architecture of the financial system if you are sitting there right now feeling defeated because you just got smoked on a trade or you missed a massive pump you have to realize that those emotions are your greatest enemy. a computer does not feel fomo and it does not get tilted after a loss; it just waits for the next signal that fits the parameters you defined. my mission is to help you get to a place where you can walk away from the screen and let the machines do the heavy lifting learning to code is actually much easier than learning a second language because the syntax is logical and the feedback is immediate. i spent ten years in tech scared to touch a keyboard for anything other than emails because i thought i was not smart enough for engineering. once i realized that code is just logic i was able to build my first profitable bot within a few months and i have never looked back the transition from a manual trader to an algorithmic expert is about building a robust framework for testing your ideas as fast as possible. you want to be able to find an indicator on trading view convert it to python and run it against years of historical data in less than five minutes. if you can do that you have a higher chance of success than ninety nine percent of the people who are just drawing lines on a screen one of the most powerful strategies i found recently combines the squeeze momentum indicator with smart money concepts. when you test these individually they might show a decent return but when you combine them and add a filter like the adx you can find setups that have a massive expectancy. the key is to look for strategies that show positive returns across multiple different asset classes and time frames simultaneously even if a strategy looks like it is printing a forty thousand percent return you must always remain skeptical and look for the catch. i always incubate my new ideas with tiny capital for at least a few weeks to see how they handle real world slippage and fees. a back test is a map of the past but the live market is a wilderness that changes every single day this is why i believe in the rbi method which stands for research back test and implement. you spend your mornings looking for new ideas your afternoons stress testing them with ai and your evenings deploying the winners to the market. it is a systematic approach to wealth that removes the need for luck or guessing what a celebrity is going to tweet next the most successful traders in history like jim simons did not sit around looking at rsi levels on a fifteen minute chart. they built systems that identified mathematical edges and then scaled those systems until they were managing billions of dollars. you do not need thirty one billion dollars to change your life but you do need the discipline to stop trading like a human and start thinking like a system i give away so much for free on youtube because i want to build a community of data dogs who are all chasing the same goal of financial freedom through automation. when we work together and share our findings we can collectively identify edges that nobody else is looking at. the world is moving towards an ai dominated economy and if you are not learning to control the machines you are going to be controlled by them the road to automation is not a straight line and you will run into bugs that make you want to throw your computer out the window. but every time you fix an error and every time you optimize a script you are getting one step closer to a life where you own your time. code really is the great equalizer and it is waiting for you to pick it up and start building your own future if you can fly then run and if you can run then walk but whatever you do you must keep moving forward in this journey. trading can be heartless but the logic of code is always fair and consistent. stop being the liquidity for someone else's bot and start building the walls that will protect your capital forever

Moon Dev

245,471 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 7 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

So the ECB just went ALL IN on its tokenization push. I did a deep dive, and it made me 100x more bullish on $XRP and $QNT. Why? Youโ€™re going to love this long read. Something changed in Europe on September 21 that I think a lot of crypto people are going to underestimate. Pontes is live. The Eurosystem can now connect tokenized markets with its existing TARGET Services so the cash side of a tokenized securities transaction can settle in central-bank money. And Reuters reports the ECB plans to put part of its roughly โ‚ฌ23 billion own-funds portfolio into highly rated, euro-denominated blockchain securities issued by public institutions. Read that slowly. The central bank is providing the settlement infrastructure. European financial institutions are connecting to it. And the ECB itself intends to own tokenized securities. Iโ€™ve been deep in $XRP and $QNT, and following this whole tokenization shift has made the thesis around both much easier for me to understand. Because the financial world they were built around is starting to become real. Let me make this very simple. Suppose a bank tokenizes a โ‚ฌ500 million bond. Putting that bond on a distributed ledger solves only part of the problem. Somebody buys the bond. Money needs to move in the opposite direction. If the bond moves on modern DLT infrastructure but the money still has to leave that environment, travel through separate systems, get reconciled and settle later, you lose a huge part of the advantage. Europe needed a trustworthy cash leg. Pontes gives institutions one. A tokenized security can now connect back into central-bank euro settlement through TARGET Services. The ECB says synchronization can support Delivery-versus-Payment transactions where the asset and money are linked together. That sounds technical. In everyday language: the asset moves and the money moves together. That is a massive step toward making tokenized finance usable by banks and asset managers at scale. And look at the institutions already onboarded: ABANCA, BayernLB, Caisse des Dรฉpรดts et Consignations, Cecabank, Deutsche Bank, DekaBank, DZ BANK, European Investment Bank, KfW, Memo Bank, NRW BANK, Santander and Sociรฉtรฉ Gรฉnรฉrale. The initial DLT operators include Axiology, Cashlink, Clearstream and SWIAT, while Deutsche Bundesbank has also onboarded. These arenโ€™t people gathering around a whiteboard wondering whether tokenization could work someday. The infrastructure is available now. And one comment from Christine Lagarde explains how important that settlement piece really is. The ECB spoke with more than 60 market participants, and Lagarde said the message from the market was clear: they would not commit to issuing digital assets at scale until they could settle in central-bank money. That sentence changed how I looked at Pontes. Europe already had institutions interested in tokenization. The missing piece was confidence in settlement. Now the Eurosystem is providing it. And the ECB has openly described central-bank-money access as one of the conditions needed for tokenized finance to reach critical mass. So I started asking myself: If more European bonds, funds, money-market instruments, deposits, repos and other financial assets begin moving onto DLT because the settlement problem is being solved, who benefits from connecting all those systems and moving liquidity between all those assets? That brought me straight back to $QNT and $XRP. $QNT first. The ECBโ€™s long-term project is called Appia. Pontes handles the bridge into central-bank settlement today. Appia is looking at what the wider European tokenized market should eventually become. And the ECB is openly considering several architectures: one shared European network, multiple interconnected networks, or some combination of both. If Europe ends up with multiple networks, the ECB says a high degree of interoperability will be required to stop assets and liquidity from becoming fragmented. Seriously. Read those words again: multiple interconnected networks. -Interoperability. -Tokenized assets. -Central-bank money. -Private settlement assets. -Legacy infrastructure. -Programmability. Iโ€™ve followed Quant for a long time, and that is almost a description of the problem Overledger and QuantNet were created around. A bank already has decades of systems. It cannot wake up Monday morning and throw everything away because blockchain exists. It still has core banking infrastructure. -Payment rails. -Risk systems. -Legacy ledgers. -RTGS connections. -Private DLTs. -Maybe public blockchains. -Tokenized deposits. -Stablecoins. -Tokenized bonds. Potentially several different settlement networks. Quantโ€™s approach is to let those environments communicate and coordinate without asking the institution to replace everything underneath. And this connection to Europe is not coming from nowhere. Quant Network Europe Limited was officially listed by the ECB as a Pioneer in its Digital Euro Innovation Platform. Quant worked on programmability and conditional payments around the ECBโ€™s digital-euro environment. So Quant has already been inside an ECB-led digital-money experiment. Then look at what Quant did with Murex in March. Murex and Quant integrated Quantโ€™s programmable-money infrastructure into MX.3, allowing banks and capital-markets firms to issue, settle and manage tokenized deposits and digital bonds using existing institutional workflows. The setup uses Quantโ€™s Flow and Overledger technology for programmability, cross-rail payment orchestration and interoperability across public and private blockchains. That matters because banks do not want twelve disconnected tokenization systems. They want their existing trading, risk, reporting and post-trade infrastructure to work with the new rails. And Quant is already attacking that problem. Then there is the UK. Quant was selected to provide infrastructure to the Great British Tokenised Deposits project involving Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest, Nationwide and Santander. Its role includes programmable money and interoperability between bank ledgers, RTGS, Faster Payments, Open Banking and tokenized-deposit platforms. And notice one name: Santander. Santander is also one of the first institutions onboarded to Pontes. Iโ€™m not saying Santander uses Quant for Pontes. There is no announcement saying that. The deeper point is more interesting anyway. A bank such as Santander can end up operating across several forms of digital financial infrastructure at the same time. Pontes. -Tokenized deposits. -Traditional banking systems. -DLT markets. -International payment networks. -Potentially public chains. Once large banks operate across multiple environments, connecting them becomes more valuable. That is Quantโ€™s whole addressable problem. And Pontes itself is only going to become more capable. The ECB plans to extend operating hours toward 22.5 hours per business day, then move toward 24/7 service by mid-2028, together with greater programmability, stronger resilience and multi-currency capability. Multi-currency really matters to me. A European tokenized market becomes much more complicated once you move beyond a euro security settling against one euro cash asset. Now you can have different currencies. Different banks. Different networks. Different digital-money forms. Different assets. Different jurisdictions. Somebody has to coordinate the movement. That is exactly the kind of market where interoperability stops being a nice extra and becomes basic financial plumbing. So my $QNT thesis from this ECB move is simple: Europe is starting to build the multi-network financial architecture Quant has spent years preparing to connect. The ECB doesnโ€™t need to announce that it is buying QNT for the underlying opportunity to expand. If interoperability becomes mandatory infrastructure across tokenized banking and capital markets, the market Quant is targeting becomes much larger. And then there is $XRP. The XRP side of this story works differently. Europe now has a trusted central-bank settlement anchor. Great. That can unlock more issuance. -More bonds. -More tokenized funds. -More money-market instruments. -More private money. -More trading. -More collateral. -More digital assets. And Ripple has spent years building inside European finance before that market reached this stage. Ripple received its full MiCA CASP authorization from Luxembourgโ€™s CSSF in July, giving its regulated cryptoasset services coverage across all 30 EEA countries. Ripple also has its European EMI licence and says its global regulatory portfolio exceeds 75 licences. That gives Ripple a serious regulated position as Europeโ€™s tokenized market begins moving from experimentation toward production. Then look at the banks. BBVA Spain uses Ripple Custody technology in its digital-asset custody service. Intesa Sanpaolo uses Ripple Custody in its digital-asset initiatives. DZ BANK uses Ripple Custody for institutional digital assets, including crypto securities such as tokenized bonds under Germanyโ€™s electronic-securities framework. And DZ BANK is also one of the first Pontes participants. Again, Iโ€™m keeping the connection precise. That does not say Pontes runs on Ripple. It says the same major European bank is participating in the ECBโ€™s new tokenized-settlement infrastructure while already operating Ripple technology elsewhere in its digital-asset business. That overlap matters because these systems are starting to meet inside the same institutional world. Then look at Sociรฉtรฉ Gรฉnรฉrale. This one is even more interesting to me. Sociรฉtรฉ Gรฉnรฉrale is among the initial Pontes participants. Its digital-asset subsidiary Sociรฉtรฉ Gรฉnรฉrale-FORGE launched its regulated EUR CoinVertible, EURCV, directly on the XRP Ledger in February 2026. The XRPL deployment is supported by Ripple Custody, and SG-FORGE has said it intends to explore further uses, including integrating EURCV into Ripple products and using it as trading collateral. So one major European banking group is operating in both worlds: the ECBโ€™s emerging central-bank-money settlement infrastructure, and private regulated euro money on XRPL. You can start to see the market taking shape. -Central-bank euros. -Tokenized deposits. -Private euro settlement assets. -Tokenized securities. -Different DLT networks. -Custody. -Trading. -Liquidity. -Collateral. This is exactly the messy multi-asset financial world where both XRP and QNT become much more interesting. XRPL also has EURร˜P from Schuman Financial. EURร˜P is a MiCA-compliant, euro-backed stablecoin issued by a French electronic-money institution regulated by ACPR, and it is natively integrated into XRPL. Its reserves are held through European institutions including Sociรฉtรฉ Gรฉnรฉrale. Then add Aviva Investors. Aviva is working with Ripple to explore tokenizing traditional fund structures directly on XRPL, with both sides planning to continue the initiative through 2026 and beyond. Then add Rippleโ€™s investments in ZILO and Licuido, which connect transfer-agency, issuance and collateral-mobility capabilities into Rippleโ€™s broader capital-markets strategy. Now think about the kind of European market that can emerge as Pontes removes the settlement bottleneck. A German bond exists digitally. A French money-market fund exists digitally. EURCV sits on XRPL. EURร˜P sits on XRPL. A tokenized bank deposit sits somewhere else. An Aviva fund sits onchain. A U.S. Treasury exists on another network. Institutions need to move between all of it. Some transactions want central-bank euros at final settlement. Pontes can provide that anchor. But between those endpoints, the market still needs trading liquidity. -FX. -Collateral. -Cross-border movement. -Asset conversion. -Secondary markets. Movement between different forms of money. XRPL was built around exchanging different representations of value on one ledger. And XRP is the issuerless native asset inside that market. That is the XRP opportunity I care about. XRP does not need to become โ€œthe euro.โ€ It does not need to replace TARGET. It does not need the ECB to hold XRP. The much more believable long-term utility is liquidity. If a growing European tokenized market contains hundreds or thousands of assets and multiple forms of digital money, liquidity becomes a real problem. Some markets will have direct pairs. Others will not. Some cross-border routes will be deep. Others will be fragmented. Some assets may need a neutral intermediary. That gives XRP a potential economic job. And Ripple has already spent years building the custody, tokenization, regulated access and institutional infrastructure around the ledger where XRP lives. Then Appia makes this even bigger. The ECB wants a blueprint for an integrated European tokenized financial ecosystem by 2028. Its own documents talk about interoperability, asset transfers, collateral mobility, cross-border transactions, central-bank money, private settlement assets and a market where issuance, trading, settlement, custody and servicing evolve together. That is an enormous architecture. In my head, $QNT and $XRP sit in very different places inside it. QNT can matter because all those systems need to communicate. XRP can matter because all those assets need liquidity. Quant handles orchestration. XRPL can host assets and markets. Ripple supplies regulated institutional infrastructure around it. XRP can provide native liquidity where it makes economic sense. And Europe has just made one of the biggest pieces of that whole system operational. The ECB did not announce XRP or QNT as Pontes components. I actually think the factual setup is more powerful without pretending it did. Pontes validates the market they have been positioning around. The central bank is now giving tokenized securities a trusted cash settlement layer. It intends to invest some of its own portfolio in blockchain securities. Banks are onboarding. Private DLTs are connecting. Appia is planning an interoperable future. Pontes is moving toward 24/7 and multi-currency. Ripple already has European banks, euro assets, custody, MiCA authorization and asset-manager tokenization work around XRPL. Quant already has an ECB Digital Euro relationship, Murex integration and major-bank tokenized-deposit infrastructure. A year ago, people could call all of this a future narrative. Today the rails are switching on. And Iโ€™m sitting here thinking about what happens after millions, then billions, then potentially much larger pools of financial assets start living across multiple digital networks. Somebody has to connect the networks. Somebody has to move the liquidity. That is exactly why this ECB move made me even more bullish on $QNT and $XRP. Holding these two? Youโ€™re gonna make it.

X Finance Bull

162,977 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 19 ะดะฝะตะน ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿšจ๐ŸšจIf you hold $XRP, stellar:native, hedera-hashgraph:native or other U.S.-rooted digital assets, you do NOT want to miss this CLARITY Act update. Washington just put an actual clock on crypto market structure. Patrick Witt, the Executive Director of the Presidential Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, made it clear in his latest Semafor interview that the current political window is unusually important. His message was simple: years of work have already gone into this bill, the gap between both parties has narrowed, and once the November midterms arrive, passing something this large becomes much harder. Then came the date that everyone holding these assets should know: September 15, 2026 That is when the Senate cloture motion on H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, ripens. This is not final passage. It is the procedural vote needed to move the legislation forward in the Senate. But if that hurdle clears, Washington moves into the next stage of the bill instead of leaving market structure stuck in political limbo. And this is why I think $XRP, stellar:native and hedera-hashgraph:native deserve a completely different conversation around this vote. Because Washington has already told us something huge about all three. Back on March 17, 2026, the SEC and CFTC explicitly named XRP, Stellar XLM and Hedera HBAR as examples of digital commodities. Read that carefully. The argument is no longer starting from: โ€œWill Washington eventually decide what these assets are?โ€ The agencies have already placed them in the digital-commodity category. The missing piece is turning that regulatory direction into a durable federal market structure covering the actual financial system around them. That is what CLARITY is trying to do. And this bill is much further along than people realize. The House already passed CLARITY on July 17, 2025 by 294โ€“134, with 78 Democrats voting for it. Then the Senate Banking Committee advanced its version on May 14, 2026 by 15โ€“9. Senator Cynthia Lummis released the combined Banking and Agriculture Committee text on July 22. That created the current 616-page Senate substitute. So we have already moved through House passage, committee work, a merged Senate framework and now into a Senate floor procedural vote. Patrick Witt calling this the moment to act makes much more sense when you see how far the legislation has already travelled. And I think people are underestimating what the legislation actually deals with. This is not a bill that simply stamps โ€œcommodityโ€ onto a few cryptocurrencies and walks away. It lays out federal rules around digital-commodity exchanges, brokers, dealers, qualified custody, bank activity, distributed-ledger recordkeeping, tokenized securities, self-custody, software developers, portfolio margining and regulatory sandboxes. That matters far more to me than another headline saying Washington is โ€œcrypto friendly.โ€ Because the real institutional bottleneck has always been the operating questions. ๐Ÿ‘‰Who regulates the spot market? ๐Ÿ‘‰What can a bank hold? ๐Ÿ‘‰What can a broker trade? ๐Ÿ‘‰How does custody work? ๐Ÿ‘‰Can a bank use a public distributed ledger? ๐Ÿ‘‰How should tokenized securities operate? Can existing financial institutions plug digital commodities into products they already offer? CLARITY is designed to put actual federal structure around those questions. And one provision jumps off the page when you compare it with what Ripple, Stellar and Hedera have spent years building. The Senate framework says a national bank may use digital assets or distributed-ledger systems for activities, products and services it is otherwise legally authorized to provide. That sentence could have enormous consequences. Think about the difference between a bank asking: โ€œAre we even allowed to touch this technology?โ€ and a bank asking: โ€œWhich network should we use?โ€ That is a massive shift in the commercial conversation. And $XRP, stellar:native and hedera-hashgraph:native already have ecosystems aimed directly at the second question. That is what gets me bullish. The law would not need to invent their institutional use cases. Those use cases are already being built. Start with $XRP. No large U.S.-associated crypto asset has carried a regulatory scar quite like XRP. Ripple was sued by the SEC in 2020. Years of uncertainty followed. Then the district court concluded that XRP itself was not inherently a security, Ripple's programmatic XRP sales were not securities transactions, and certain direct institutional sales were treated differently. The litigation reached a final judgment in 2024. Ripple and the SEC dismissed their appeals in August 2025. Then March 2026 arrives and XRP appears directly in the SEC/CFTC digital-commodity interpretation. Now add the latest Senate language. Section 10105 addresses digital-asset transactions that already received a non-appealable final federal court judgment finding that the transaction was not an offer, sale or distribution of a security. That provision has obvious relevance to XRP's history. So XRP is entering this CLARITY debate with something very few assets possess: a completed federal court record, an agency digital-commodity classification, and proposed legislation that specifically acknowledges the significance of prior final court judgments. That changes the entire framing around XRP. For years, XRP had to carry the question of regulatory survival. The next chapter can increasingly become about scale. How much regulated liquidity can XRP attract? How deeply can it enter payments? How much institutional FX can use it? How much tokenized finance can XRPL support? How much liquidity can Ripple Prime bring into the broader ecosystem? Those are much better questions for holders than endlessly debating whether XRP itself should exist inside U.S. markets. And Ripple has not been sitting still waiting for Congress. Its 2026 institutional strategy describes XRP utility across payments, liquidity and credit. Ripple Prime now clears more than $3 trillion annually across markets for 300+ institutional customers. Its U.S. prime-brokerage infrastructure supports XRP and RLUSD alongside broader institutional trading activity. Ripple Prime also raised $275 million in investment-grade senior notes to expand its U.S. business. Ripple has RLUSD. ๐Ÿ‘‰It has payments. ๐Ÿ‘‰It has custody. ๐Ÿ‘‰It has tokenization infrastructure. ๐Ÿ‘‰It has treasury infrastructure. ๐Ÿ‘‰It has institutional liquidity infrastructure. ๐Ÿ‘‰It has onchain credit development. That is why the timing is so important. Imagine if Ripple had to begin building all of that after regulatory clarity arrived. It would still be years away from institutional scale. Instead, much of the machinery already exists before Congress finishes writing the rules. That is a fundamentally stronger setup. Then there is stellar:native. Stellar has a different regulatory story, but the fit with CLARITY may be just as powerful. The Stellar Development Foundation, led by Denelle Dixon, has been asking Washington for clear digital-commodity rules for years. Dixon previously described regulatory clarity before the Senate Agriculture Committee as existential to building responsibly and bringing established institutions into blockchain. Fast-forward to September 2026. The SEC/CFTC explicitly lists XLM as a digital commodity. Stellar has roughly $4 billion of real-world assets on the network according to SDF's current update. Stablecoin transfer volume reached $11.4 billion in Q2, up 72% quarter over quarter. And then U.S. Bank did something that perfectly explains why CLARITY matters. On September 9, U.S. Bank completed its first pilot transaction using USBDC, its proprietary dollar-backed stablecoin, on Stellar. The bank moved that digital money between its own entities in North America and Europe. This wasn't separated from normal bank infrastructure. The transaction remained connected to U.S. Bank's existing finance, risk, compliance and operational systems. The pilot tested minting, payment, redemption, freezing and clawback. And U.S. Bank and SDF are already evaluating additional areas including liquidity management, collateral mobility and cross-border treasury operations. That is one of the cleanest examples I can think of. A major American bank is already testing proprietary bank money on Stellar. At the same time, Congress is debating legislation saying national banks can use digital assets and distributed ledgers for financial activities they are otherwise permitted to perform. The technology is already there. The bank is already testing it. The legislation is trying to create a clearer statutory environment around the activity. That is why I don't view CLARITY as the beginning of Stellar's institutional thesis. It could become the legal framework catching up to something that is already happening. Then there is DTCC. DTC's Tokenization Service plans to connect tokenized DTC-custodied assets to Stellar in the first half of 2027. The asset classes being evaluated include U.S. Treasury bills, notes and bonds, major-index ETFs and Russell 1000 securities. CLARITY separately addresses how tokenized securities can operate while remaining subject to securities law. Put those two developments together and the significance becomes obvious. Stellar's institutional story is increasingly about bank money on one side and tokenized capital markets on the other. XLM sits natively underneath that network through fees, reserves and network liquidity. That is exactly the kind of environment that becomes more valuable when financial institutions have a durable rulebook. Then look at hedera-hashgraph:native. This connection gets even more specific. Patrick Witt himself participated at HederaCon 2026 in the closing fireside chat titled โ€œPolicy Meets Innovation: Clarity over Chaos.โ€ He was literally discussing what CLARITY could mean for institutional adoption and U.S. digital assets inside the Hedera ecosystem. Then consider what Hedera already has in place. HBAR was explicitly listed by the SEC/CFTC as a digital commodity. The Canary HBAR ETF, HBR, trades on Nasdaq and directly holds HBAR. Its structure includes BitGo Bank & Trust and Archax as HBAR custodians and U.S. Bank as cash custodian. So regulated public-market access already exists. Then you have the enterprise side. Lloyds Banking Group, Aberdeen Investments and Archax have already executed FX trades using tokenized money-market funds and UK gilts on Hedera as collateral. Aberdeen manages around ยฃ500 billion. Archax has also launched real-time streaming cash flows for tokenized securities on Hedera using USDC. Wyoming's FRNT, described in the context as the first U.S. state-issued stable token, is live on Hedera. Hedera Stablecoin Studio is built around banks, tokenized deposits, regulated stablecoins and financial institutions. Again, CLARITY does not need to create Hedera's institutional market. Hedera already has banks, regulated tokenization, stablecoin infrastructure, exchange-traded HBAR access and public-sector digital money activity around the network. The proposed federal framework could make it easier for more institutions to engage with that infrastructure from inside established banking and capital-market rules. That is why these three assets feel so different from the average altcoin around this vote. All three are already standing inside the categories Washington is trying to formalize. XRP is sitting inside payments, liquidity, prime brokerage and tokenized finance. XLM is sitting inside stablecoins, bank money, tokenized securities and cross-border settlement. HBAR is sitting inside regulated tokenization, bank-facing DLT infrastructure, digital cash and collateral markets. And all three are already named by federal regulators as digital commodities. That combination is incredibly important. People call XRP, XLM and HBAR โ€œMade in Americaโ€ coins all the time. That phrase is not a legal CLARITY category. Congress is not giving an asset special treatment because it has American roots. The stronger story is far better anyway. Ripple was founded in the U.S. The Stellar Development Foundation is a Delaware nonprofit. The Hedera Council is a Delaware LLC. And their native assets already sit inside the same federal digital-commodity interpretation. So if the market starts searching for an informal American digital-infrastructure basket after CLARITY advances, I can understand exactly why these names would come up. Not because of a slogan. Because their infrastructure already overlaps with the financial activities being addressed by the legislation. And there is another layer here that I think crypto investors often miss. Regulatory clarity doesn't only affect traders. It affects compliance departments. ๐Ÿ‘‰Bank boards. ๐Ÿ‘‰Risk committees. ๐Ÿ‘‰Custodians. ๐Ÿ‘‰Broker-dealers. ๐Ÿ‘‰ETF issuers. ๐Ÿ‘‰Prime brokers. ๐Ÿ‘‰Asset managers. ๐Ÿ‘‰Market makers. ๐Ÿ‘‰Corporate treasurers. Those institutions don't need a viral tweet to decide where billions of dollars can go. They need legal language their lawyers can map against their operations. That is where legislation can change behavior. An agency interpretation can be important. A congressional statute can become much harder to reverse. That distinction is exactly why CLARITY can matter even though XRP, XLM and HBAR already have the digital-commodity designation today. March gave them classification. CLARITY can help build the permanent market around that classification. And the wider Trump administration policy direction already lines up with it. The May 19 executive order says federal regulation should allow digital assets and innovative technology to integrate into traditional financial services and payment systems. The White House digital-assets report supports clearer CFTC authority over spot non-security digital assets, custody, trading, DeFi, tokenization, stablecoins and blockchain activity by banks. The policy path is beginning to look coherent: GENIUS Act for stablecoins. SEC/CFTC interpretation for asset taxonomy. The banking executive order for integration into traditional finance. CLARITY for the broader market structure. That is a very different Washington than the one XRP holders were dealing with several years ago. And Patrick Witt is now saying there is a political window to finish the job. He would not attach himself to Senator Cynthia Lummis' specific 2030 warning. But his reasoning was clear. The November midterms can change congressional math. Lame-duck periods are difficult. Major legislation gets harder as an administration gets older. That is why September 15 deserves attention. Again, it is not final passage. But clearing the cloture hurdle would mean the Senate has enough support to proceed despite months of negotiation. For XRP, XLM and HBAR, the significance is not a one-day candle. The significance is what happens if their institutional ecosystems finally operate under a durable statutory framework. For $XRP, that could push the conversation even further away from years of SEC uncertainty and toward institutional scale through Ripple Prime, RLUSD, payments, FX, tokenization and credit. For stellar:native, it could give U.S. Bank's stablecoin work, DTCC's upcoming Stellar connection and the network's growing RWA market a clearer U.S. path. For hedera-hashgraph:native, it could support exactly the bank-DLT and regulated-tokenization environment Hedera has spent years preparing for. And there is even a second policy route in Witt's interview. He said that if Congress does not complete the legislation, the administration intends to push an aggressive SEC and CFTC rulemaking agenda. That means these assets are entering the next stage from a position where the agencies have already placed all three inside the digital-commodity category. I still prefer the congressional route because statute is the bigger prize. But either way, U.S. policy is moving deeper into the question of how these markets should actually operate. That is why I see September 15 differently. It isn't simply another crypto vote. It is a test of whether the United States is ready to move from classifying digital assets to building the financial market around them. And XRP, XLM and HBAR do not need to wait around hoping someone builds infrastructure afterward. The infrastructure is already there. The law is finally trying to catch up. If that happens, the next phase for these assets won't be about proving they belong in American finance. It will be about seeing how much of American finance can actually run through the systems already built around them.

X Finance Bull

123,370 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 29 ะดะฝะตะน ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm๐ŸŽ™๏ธ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:

Mike

15,248 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 10 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

Why Opus 4.6 Is The Final Boss Of Algorithmic Trading (Full Bot Build) the day of the human trader is officially over and most people are still staring at charts like it is 1995. wall street is terrified because the barrier to entry just got deleted by a piece of software that can outthink a stanford graduate in seconds. they want you to believe that you need a multi million dollar education to compete with the big banks. they want you to stay stuck in the cycle of emotional trading and leverage because that is how they pay for their hamptons houses. but there is a specific reason why every retail trader is about to become obsolete unless they pivot right now. i am going to show you exactly why your current strategy is a mathematical death trap and how a single jump in technology just changed the game forever every time you sit down at your computer to draw lines on a chart you are entering a gunfight with a toothpick. the institutions have been using high frequency algorithms for decades while you are trying to guess which way the candle is going to move based on a feeling in your gut. it is not a fair fight and it was never intended to be. last year we were looking at models that could barely handle basic logic but now the intelligence has scaled to a point where the machines are finding edges we did not even know existed. there is a ghost in the machine that is pulling out strategies with sharp ratios so high they look like typos. if you do not understand how to harness this power you are essentially donating your capital to the people who already have too much of it i spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on developers because i was too scared to learn how to code myself. i thought that being the idea guy was enough and that i could just hire people from upwork to build my dreams. i got rinsed for years paying for apps and bots that did not work because i did not have my hands on the wheel. it took losing a massive amount of money through liquidations and over trading to realize that nobody was coming to save me. i had to become the person who could build the systems or i was going to be another statistic in the graveyard of traders who thought they were smarter than the math. once i finally sat down and forced myself to understand the syntax everything shifted and the world became a giant playground of data the truth is that code is the great equalizer because it does not care where you came from or what school you went to. i got held back in seventh grade and my teacher told me i would not make it around here. that kind of talk is meant to keep you in your place but the computer does not have a bias. if you can write the logic the system will execute it exactly as told regardless of your background. we are living in a time where a kid in a basement can build a system that rivals a hedge fund because the big tech companies are subsidizing our intelligence. they are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure and we are the ones who get to reap the rewards of their competition most people fail in this game because they fall in love with a single idea and refuse to let it go even when it is burning their account to the ground. they spend months or years trying to make one indicator work when the data clearly shows it is trash. you have to drop the ego and realize that your intuition is probably your biggest liability. the secret to winning is iterating to success by testing a hundred ideas until you find the one that actually sticks. i call it the rbi system which stands for research backtest and implement. if you skip any of these steps you are just gambling with extra steps and the house always wins in the end research is where most traders get lazy because they just want a magic bot that prints money while they sleep. they go to youtube and find some guy promising a ninety percent win rate with a rsi crossover. that is not research that is falling for marketing fluff designed to sell you a dream. real research happens when you dive into white papers and study what the quants are actually doing on wall street. you look for market inefficiencies like liquidation clusters and cross exchange discrepancies that are hidden in plain sight. by the time you finish this process you should have a list of ideas that are grounded in reality instead of wishful thinking backtesting is the filter that saves you from losing your life savings on a bad hunch. most people use tools that repaint or give them false confidence because the data is not being handled correctly. if you are using a basic charting platform to see if your strategy works you are likely seeing a version of history that does not exist. you need to use raw python libraries like backtesting py to see the cold hard truth of how your logic would have performed. when you see a drawdown of thirty percent on paper you realize that using ten times leverage would have deleted your account five times over. the math does not lie and it is the only thing that can protect you from your own greed the most dangerous drug in the world is leverage because it makes you feel like a genius right before it makes you a pauper. i have watched two billion dollars get liquidated in a single day because people thought they could predict the bottom with fifty times leverage. the exchanges can see exactly where your liquidation price is and they have every incentive to push the price there to hunt your liquidity. you are playing in a casino where the house can see your cards and they are actively trying to take them from you. the only way to win is to stop playing their game and start using limit orders to save on the fees that are slowly bleeding you dry it is funny how much money people will spend on food and entertainment but they will hesitate to invest in their own education. they will spend a thousand dollars on a weekend out but will not put that same money into learning a skill that could provide for them for the rest of their lives. money is just a tool of exchange and it always replenishes if you are providing value to the world. if you spend your capital on knowledge you are buying back your time and your freedom. i decided to live my life on youtube and build in public because i wanted to show people that a regular guy could do this. now i have fully automated systems trading for me while i sleep and i never have to worry about getting licked by a sudden market move again chasing the greats like jim simons is not about the money it is about the mastery of the system. he ran up a net worth of over thirty billion dollars by doing exactly what we are talking about here. he did not stare at charts all day and hope for the best he built models that exploited the mathematical laws of the market. he was a scientist first and a trader second and that is the mindset you need to adopt. if you are not approaching this quantitatively you are just a gambler who happens to be sitting at a computer. the goal is to become a quant researcher who happens to have robots executing their findings the transition from hand trader to automated builder is the most liberating thing you can do for your mental health. you go from waking up in a cold sweat checking your phone to waking up and checking your logs to see how the system performed. even if the day was red you have data that tells you why and you can use that to make the system better tomorrow. it is a process of constant improvement and refinement that never really ends. you are building a legacy of code that will continue to work for you as long as the electricity is running. i am not afraid to die on a treadmill because i know that i will outwork anyone who is just looking for a shortcut if you are still on the fence about whether or not you can do this just remember that i was exactly where you are. i was losing money and feeling like the market was rigged against me because it actually was. i had to decide that i was going to change my environment and take control of my own destiny. you have the same opportunity right now to pivot and start building your own automated future. the models are getting better every single day and the barrier to entry is lower than it has ever been in human history. you just have to decide to lock in and do the work for a thousand days until you become undeniable there is no better feeling than finding a strategy that has a sharp ratio over ten and knowing that you built it with your own two hands. it is a moment of pure clarity where you realize that you are no longer a victim of the market. you are the architect of your own financial reality and the possibilities are literally endless. i am going to keep sharing everything i find because i believe that we can take on wall street together. as long as i am breathing i will be stepping on the gas and pushing the boundaries of what is possible with code. welcome to the family and let's get after it because the machines are already running and they are not waiting for anyone

Moon Dev

46,677 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 8 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

The multi-leader blockchain endgame: competitive information inclusion as a self-reinforcing mechanism for global price discovery - how we got here, and why Aptos is leading the charge Onchain trading is the killer app In the nine years since the launch of programmable transactions on the Ethereum blockchain, onchain trading has revealed itself as the killer use case for blockchains: onchain listings, volume, and total value locked are all growing with no signs of slowing down, due to the censorship-resistant, permissionless, 24/7/365 qualities afforded by decentralized (DeFi) systems. Monolithic parallelism is key In 2020 Solana was first to market with monolithic, parallel execution (as opposed sharded execution which offers parallelism by partitioning global state into separate information silos), establishing a new design paradigm that raised the bar for throughput and latency: put all of the information in one replicated state machine and make it run as fast as possible. This design produces a single, global hub for activity, liquidity, and token launches, a kind of financial data whiteboard in the sky, where anyone can come and trade at any time with everybody else who has plugged into the system. DEXes are becoming more competitive Historically decentralized systems have been juxtaposed with centralized ones since the latter eliminates the overhead associated with distributed systems coordination. And yet despite this overhead, Solana as a decentralized exchange (DEX) is still pulling in billions of trading volume per day, exceeding that of all but the largest centralized crypto exchanges (CEXs), that simply can't compete with the giant DEX in the sky on token listings or fees. After all, CEXs have to pay for server space, salaries, and lawyers, while a DEX outsources everything. The colocation arms race The one place where CEXs have an advantage over DEXs is on end-to-end latency for colocation applications, or in other words: someone sets up a trading bot in the same data center as the exchange, and their trades get to the exchange faster than everyone else's. When there is only one data ingestion point the fastest trader wins, and after the arms race has played out everyone ends up huddling around the trading hub, effectively cutting off the rest of the world from playing the latency trading game. This is the model that traditional securities exchanges like the Nasdaq or the NYSE ๐Ÿ› employ, and because they own the server they can effectively charge whatever they want for access to it. The colocation arms race is also why L2s will probably never decentralize: running the sequencer is practically the same as running the NASDAQ, with the same monopoly on transaction fees collected from a nearby cluster of trading bots (I understand from conversations with Logan Jastremski that the Arbitrum arms race has already hit a Nash Equilibrium in Portland, Oregon). Colocation is a trap But once the colocation arms race has played out, trades become less about incorporating new information in the market and more about skimming off the top by spoofing all of the trades coming in from the other bots. High-frequency trading (HFT) bots located in the NYSE New Jersey data center, for example, are constantly placing buys and sell orders that they have no intention of executing, just to spoof the other colocated bots who are playing the same adversarial game. Information inclusion, on the other hand, the synthesis of real-time world events into prices, takes a back seat because anyone who tries to include new information first needs to batch up their order and send it through a series of middlemen before it ultimately ends up on the exchange: you, I, or practically any other individual can not actually "trade on the NASDAQ", no, we have to express our intent to someone like Robinhood, who then sells our order flow to @CitadelSecurities, who then sends it to the exchange, oh and by the way it doesn't actually even "clear" or "settle" once it "executes" because for whatever reason the whole systems splits these things up and prevents them from happening instantaneously even though it's 2024 and we have computers. Onchain trading cuts out middlemen This whole mess is why we have onchain trading, and why it's starting to win: if you want a mainline to the exchange, without setting up a server, and you want to trade on a news event without getting immediately frontrun by an HFT bot that is sniffing out the trades of every other HFT bot who is easing in batched up order flow on their own terms, then you submit your order to a node in the blockchain and the information gets included in the price upon ingestion. Oh, and by the way the trade is actually fully complete: settled, cleared, reconciled, done, whatever you want to call it, because the people who build decentralized finance (DeFi) build it how it should actually work, not in a way that creates a million incumbents and charges exorbitant rents for access to the system. Onchain trading better for price discovery And the beautiful part about this is that even if a distributed system has more latency than a centralized system, DeFi still ends up incorporating more information into the price faster than centralized finance, because with DeFi the information gets included in the system as soon as it is submitted, not after it has been batched up and sent through a series of middlemen. The consensus mechanism of the blockchain disseminates the information around the world in the form of a price update, while the centralized exchange model requires information about the event to first get propagate to the region of the trading hub, then to get submitted to the colocation server. This means that in terms of global price discovery, onchain trading is strictly a better system because the entire consensus model is based around accelerated information propagation. Because price discovery is a global phenomenon, blockchains, which are global, are actually better than the centralized status quo, on a performance basis, not just from an ideological or convenience-based view. And it has to be multi-leader In practice, effective global information synthesis of information has an additional key requirement: multi-leader architecture. That is, in a single-leader blockchain like Solana, where one validator at a time has a monopoly on ordering transactions into blocks, for their duration as a leader they effectively function as a colocation server. This means that if the current leader is in New York, someone in Singapore who wants to trade on local news as soon as it breaks will still need to get their order all the way around the world to the leader, who is effectively serving as the chain's data ingestion point, before the order can start propagating through the network. But this is issue solved by the introduction of multiple distributed leaders, because then anyone with access to new information can submit their order to the leader closest to them, yielding faster information inclusion in the form of price updates. Multi-leader is also required for fair markets A multi-leader architecture is also required for fair markets, because in a single-leader system the leader has the power to censor transactions, reorder them to their advantage, or even replace transactions with copycats that extract maximum value by replacing the sender's address with their own. For example if someone wants to capture an arbitrage opportunity between two onchain DEXes, they'll need to submit a transaction to the leader and trust that the leader won't simply copy the transaction and submit it themselves. But when there are two or more leaders, users whose transactions are censored by one leader will simply work with a different leader the next time around, eventually cutting off transaction fee flow to the extractive leader. Beyond just strict inclusion, in a multi-leader architecture validators are also forced to compete with each other on latency, because the leader who is fastest at disseminating users' transactions across the network will over time gobble up the largest share of the order flow. Transparent priority fees are a must, or a private mempool will emerge But in order to make this work, a multi-leader architecture must also offer users the ability to pay priority fees AKA "tips" or "bribes" to move their transaction to the front of the line: if there is a $5 arbitrage opportunity onchain, users need to have assurance that they if they pay a 4.99 priority fee to take that arb, they will get priority over a different user who is only willing to tip 4.98. If the native blockchain system does not offer this fair market priority fee mechanism, then it is only a matter of time before one spontaneously emerges in the form of a private mempool like , which can create centralization pressures and undermine the integrity of the system as a whole. Competitive payment for order flow is the stable solution With the right architecture in place, the end result is a competitive environment where endpoints running maximum extractable value (MEV) bots compete with one to offer users the best price for their order flow. In other words, if a user wants to submit an order that can get sandwich attacked for as much as $2 of MEV, then the order should ultimately go to the endpoint bot that is willing to pay the user as much as $1.99 for the right to process their transaction. The price that the provider is willing to pay is ultimately a function of how much in priority fees they might need to pay to the current leader (0 they are the current one), but notably at each stage there is a competitive market for order flow, whether in the form of retail trader's orders, or priority fees among bots that might be forwarding orders to one of the leaders. AptosLabs is already building all this With a public mempool and transaction priority fees, Aptos additionally includes a pipelined architecture that already includes concurrent batching of transactions into blocks, with a single consensus leader who propagates the batched blocks out to the network. And the team is already researching running multiple instances of the consensus algorithm in parallel, yielding multiple consensus leaders who can compete with each other on latency and inclusion - just ask pranav | Shelby, Alexander Spiegelman, and Zekun Li. This means that block times can shrink as the number of consensus leaders grows, with each leader having its own geographical radius of inclusion beyond which it makes more sense to submit to a different leader. The starting point? Something like 60 ms blocks and 3 consensus leaders, partitioning the global information space into competitive and constantly-rotating regions of information inclusion. Messaging is important With concurrent pipelined transaction batching, a public mempool, priority fees, and a clear path to a multi-leader architecture, Aptos leads the industry in onchain trading infrastructure that can truly supplant the centralized colocation paradigm that has heretofore dominated global finance - by offering a truly superior product. And I am hopeful that this deep dive is the first step in communicating not how or that superior product is getting built, but what it means from a bigger picture perspective. If blockchains have found product market fit in anything, it is in trading, and the trading game can only be won by building the biggest, baddest, most high performance system that has as its north star a single, concrete goal: constantly reducing, ever lower toward zero, time time it takes to incorporate information from anywhere in the world into the global price discovery computer. Whoever does this, even 1 ms faster than the competitor, wins the price discovery game, as other blockchains are left in the dust, their DEXes arbed away to zero against the fastest chain on the block. And sure, the blockchain that can rise to this challenge can also handle useful things like payments, NFTs, or other solutions that benefit from permissionlessness and low gas costs, but I want to impress that at the core of this pursuit must be the urge to drive down information inclusion latency to the absolute minimum afforded by the laws of physics through a competitive, market-driven environment. I call on avery.apt ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ , CTO of Aptos Labs, to lean in on this messaging, to make it clear that Aptos is here for this singular mission, to build the most performant price discovery engine in history, as a rallying call for alignment in development efforts across the ecosystem and broader industry. Where does this go? As the latencies drop, the spreads tighten, and the information inclusion increases with every incremental increase in network bandwidth, we can expect a new class of competing techno-financial hubs that aggregate around the world's largest information sources: New York, Washington DC, London, Tokyo, etc., commanding stake distribution commensurate with the density of information flow in these respective locales. With the right incentives in place, competing concurrent leaders will invest ever more in infrastructure to get their packets out to the network faster than the rest, yielding clusters of fiber optic cable around the world's financial hubs, neurons in the global financial brain connecting not just HFT firms to servers in their city, but connecting every city with every other city, to move pricing information across oceans and continents. And retail traders, who have been left out of the colocation game, will only benefit: this entire system gets faster, more inclusive, with tighter spreads and lower fees, and it is such an amazing opportunity to watch all of this unfold in real time. The future of blockchains is the future of trading, is the future of competitive information inclusion in real-time, is the future of truly unified global markets, because at the the core of this industry is a simple idea: connect the computers, and see where the incentives lead. They lead to this, and Aptos is leading the charge, because its tech is purpose-built for this exact purpose. So tell the world about it.

Alex Kahn

24,548 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 1 ะณะพะด ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

CLARITY ACT UPDATE๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿšจ The Senate is preparing for a test vote on the CLARITY Act on September 15. $XRP fought Washington for years. $XLM spent those same years quietly getting regulated assets onchain. Now both stories are heading straight into the September 15 Senate test. I keep thinking about how different these two journeys have been. If you only look at prices, you miss almost everything. XRPโ€™s U.S. story became one of the biggest legal battles crypto has ever seen. XLMโ€™s story was quieter. Instead of dominating court headlines, Stellar kept getting integrated into regulated financial products. Now Congress is trying to write a national market structure. And suddenly both paths look like they may have been preparing for the same future. Let me explain. The next Senate procedural test for H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, is scheduled for: September 15, 2026 at: 2:15 p.m. The threshold is 60 votes. The House already passed the bill: 294โ€“134. Seventy-eight Democrats supported it. Then the Senate Banking Committee advanced its market-structure work: 15โ€“9. That is serious legislative momentum. But the reason I am watching is not the vote count alone. I want to know what the U.S. financial system looks like if this process ultimately gives institutions a durable federal rulebook. Because that is when the XRP and XLM stories can become much bigger. Start with XRP. Six years ago, Ripple was in survival mode politically. The SEC had sued the company. The market was forced to ask whether XRP itself was a security. Ripple fought the issue through federal court. The Southern District of New York eventually held that XRP itself was not inherently a security. Different XRP transactions could still receive different legal treatment depending on the structure. That gave the market something incredibly important: a distinction between: the asset and: the transaction around the asset. Then Ripple and the SEC dismissed their appeals in August 2025. That means the legal fight has already produced a federal court history. Now Congress enters. Senate Banking says one objective of CLARITY is: โ€œLegal certainty for assets already deemed non-securities by U.S. courts.โ€ For me, that creates a natural next chapter. The lawsuit was never going to build the entire XRP market. It could only answer the legal questions before the court. Congress can go further. It can create the operating environment around digital assets. That means: regulators. exchanges. brokers. dealers. custody. AML. market integrity. self-custody. software development. jurisdiction. These are not exciting words. But these are the words institutions need. Imagine you are an XRP holder waiting for banks to use the asset. What actually needs to happen inside that bank? A trader says: I want XRP. Legal approves. Compliance approves. Risk approves. Custody works. Financing exists. Market makers exist. Hedging exists. Execution exists. Then the bank can move. If even one of those pieces fails, the product may never launch. That is why the rulebook matters. And XRP comes into this debate with a huge amount of U.S. legal work already completed. Now look at how Rippleโ€™s relationship with Washington changed during the same period. Brad Garlinghouse testified before the Senate Banking Committee. The hearing was literally about building tomorrowโ€™s digital-asset markets. He discussed XRP, XRPL, the SEC litigation and the need for clear SEC/CFTC jurisdiction. Then Ripple supported CLARITY. Senate Banking publicly quoted Brad: โ€œRipple stands behind this bill.โ€ Then the CFTC Innovation Advisory Committee appointed Brad. He now sits alongside executives from: Coinbase. Nasdaq. DTCC. CME. Franklin Templeton. Chainlink. LSEG. These are not random crypto personalities. They are institutions that control major pieces of the financial market. Trading. Market infrastructure. Asset management. Exchange technology. Clearing. Then in August, Brad entered the White House. President Trump. SEC Chairman Paul Atkins. CFTC Chairman Michael Selig. ICE. Nasdaq. Coinbase. Robinhood. Chainlink. Ripple. And Trump pushed CLARITY. That sequence would have sounded impossible when the lawsuit started. The company the SEC sued is now inside the rooms where the next federal framework is being discussed. I do not need to invent anything beyond that. The shift in Rippleโ€™s position is already enormous. Now letโ€™s switch to XLM. Instead of the courtroom, start with an asset manager. Franklin Templeton. Its Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund became the first U.S.-registered mutual fund to use public blockchain infrastructure as its official system of record. Stellar helped provide that infrastructure. By April 2026, more than: $650 million of the fund was represented on Stellar. Across the BENJI suite: $1.98 billion AUM. Investor growth: more than 140% between April 2024 and March 2026. Peer-to-peer BENJI transfers: more than $211 million. That is institutional adoption. Not a pilot nobody uses. Not a proof-of-concept presentation. A real U.S.-registered fund. Now scale the ambition up. DTCC announces its planned Stellar connection. Expected availability of DTC-tokenized assets: first half of 2027. And DTCC is evaluating assets including: Russell 1000 constituents. Major-index ETFs. U.S. Treasury bills. U.S. Treasury notes. U.S. Treasury bonds. That is the heart of American capital markets. Stellar is being positioned as one public blockchain inside that future infrastructure. And the SEC No-Action Letter already sits behind DTCโ€™s tokenization service. Think about what that means for the timing. America is trying to write a digital-asset market structure at exactly the moment traditional financial-market infrastructure is preparing to connect tokenized securities to a public blockchain. That is why the CLARITY vote matters to me for XLM. The network is not waiting for legislation to become relevant. It is already relevant. The legislation can make the wider environment around it easier for institutions. And Denelle Dixon has been pushing for exactly the kind of functional classification crypto needs. She told the Senate Agriculture Committee that policymakers should look at what digital assets actually do inside their networks. That is especially relevant to XLM. XLM is required for: transaction fees. network rent. minimum balances. Accounts supporting issued assets require XLM for the network resources they consume. So if more regulated assets land on Stellar, the native asset remains part of the operational layer. And there is more. Stellar supports path payments. One asset can enter. Another asset can come out. The network can route through its exchange and liquidity infrastructure. XLM can participate in those routes. So imagine a future Stellar with: tokenized Treasuries. tokenized funds. ETFs. equities. stablecoins. payments. The number of assets grows. The number of accounts grows. The number of transfers grows. The need for network resources grows. And the liquidity relationships between those assets grow too. That is a real XLM network thesis. Then Denelle Dixon directly comments on CLARITY in June 2026. She says passage would benefit the industry. She points to regulation helping institutions become comfortable moving from experiments into deployment. That phrase gets me: from experimentation to deployment. Crypto has had enough experiments. The next phase is deployment. Real customers. Real assets. Real money. Real scale. And both XRP and XLM are positioned for that phase in completely different ways. XRP: turn legal survival into institutional market structure. XLM: turn institutional tokenization into broader regulated scale. Now think about one piece connecting both: legal certainty changes capital allocation. A company can accept technological risk. It can model market risk. It can hedge price risk. Undefined legal risk is harder. You cannot hedge a regulator deciding the rules changed. That is why a durable statute can be so powerful. The question becomes: What do the rules say? Then businesses adapt. That is normal finance. And normal finance is where I want these assets to go. I do not want their future depending on which SEC speech went viral. I want institutions reading the same federal statute. I want regulators operating under defined jurisdictions. I want custody rules. Trading rules. Broker rules. Market integrity. Then let XRP and XLM compete. That is the bullish part. Imagine CLARITY eventually becomes law. Trump signs it. The SEC and CFTC implement the framework. Now the first XRP meeting happens. The institution opens the Ripple legal history. The court ruling is there. The appeals are finished. The new federal framework is there. The legal department approves evaluation. Then product begins. Institutional XRP custody. Trading. Market making. Prime brokerage. More ETF infrastructure. More liquidity. Then the XRP books change. Market makers hold larger inventories because more customers need markets. Prime brokers finance those positions. The size institutions can trade grows. Then XRP becomes a more useful bridge asset precisely because the liquidity becomes more professional. That is how legal clarity can become economic usefulness. Not directly. Through the market structure between them. Now the first major post-CLARITY Stellar meeting happens. The institution asks: Who already uses this network? Franklin Templeton. What is coming? DTCC connectivity. Which types of assets? Equities. ETFs. Treasuries. What does the native asset do? Fees. Reserves. Rent. Liquidity paths. The institution is not considering an empty chain. It is joining an ecosystem where traditional financial infrastructure has already left footprints. Then another issuer arrives. More assets. More accounts. More XLM usage. More transfers. More liquidity. Another issuer sees the activity. It joins too. That creates the Stellar flywheel. And when I put both together, the distinction becomes incredibly clean. XRP needs professional liquidity depth. XLM needs growing regulated network activity. A clearer U.S. market structure can help both, but through different mechanisms. For XRP: legal certainty can unlock more professional balance sheets. Those balance sheets can deepen XRP liquidity. Deeper XRP liquidity can support larger use cases. For XLM: legal certainty can make more institutions comfortable issuing and servicing regulated assets. Those assets create more Stellar activity. More Stellar activity requires more XLM at the network level. That is why I do not see this as a generic: โ€œCrypto bill bullish.โ€ I see two specific economic paths. Then bring Washington back into it. Ripple is unusually close to the process. Legislative: Brad testified. Regulatory: Brad sits on the CFTC Innovation Advisory Committee. Executive: Brad attended Trumpโ€™s White House meeting. Stellarโ€™s involvement is different. Its proof is already in traditional finance. Franklin Templeton. DTCC. Denelle Dixonโ€™s congressional advocacy. That is a good combination for holders of both. One ecosystem is heavily engaged with policymakers. The other has major regulated asset infrastructure already underway. Now think about what September 15 tests. Can enough senators agree that America needs to move this framework forward? The House already produced 294 yes votes. It already showed 78 Democratic votes. Senate Banking already produced a 15โ€“9 vote. If the Senate clears the next barrier, the market gets another sign that digital-asset rules can move beyond enforcement and agency interpretation toward actual legislation. That changes the planning horizon. Institutions can start thinking years ahead. That is crucial. Banks do not build infrastructure for a six-month political window. DTCC does not redesign markets around temporary guidance. Asset managers do not want to rebuild compliance every election. They want durable rules. That is exactly why XRPโ€™s court history plus federal market structure could become so powerful. The court survived the fight. The statute can provide the operating framework. Then market participants can build around both. And it is exactly why Stellarโ€™s DTCC timing can become powerful. The institution is preparing tokenization infrastructure for 2027. A clearer market structure arriving before that can give participants more confidence in how the wider ecosystem will operate. Now let me push the scenario aggressively bullish. The Senate advances CLARITY. The bill ultimately becomes law. America starts pulling digital-asset infrastructure back onshore. Institutions stop treating blockchain as a special innovation lab project. They start building products. XRP becomes one of the assets compliance teams approve more easily because of its completed court history and the new market framework. Market makers deepen inventory. Custodians expand. Prime brokers finance. The XRP market develops the type of professional liquidity needed for larger institutional flows. Ripple can walk into a bank and focus on: the product. the execution. the settlement. the liquidity. not relitigating 2020. Then XRPL integrations become easier. If more tokenized assets and institutional payments use the ledger, the network needs deeper liquidity. That creates more reasons for XRP inventory to exist. More inventory supports larger routes. That is the loop. Meanwhile Stellar continues building. DTCC connects DTC tokenization services. Franklin expands. Other issuers see that U.S. regulated finance is already running through public blockchain infrastructure. They join. Stellar accounts expand. Asset issuance expands. Transactions expand. Network state expands. XLM requirements expand with it. Path-payment liquidity becomes more relevant as more different assets live on the network. XLM sits underneath a larger financial system. Then both networks mature past the altcoin label. This is the part I think will surprise people. The crypto market still talks about XRP and XLM like they are competing tickers on an exchange. Institutional finance will care about something different. What function does the network perform? What assets exist on it? What liquidity is available? What legal rules apply? Which institutions are already connected? That is the scorecard. And by that scorecard: XRP has something very few assets have: a years-long federal legal record plus Rippleโ€™s direct policy access. XLM has something very few assets have: major regulated financial institutions already using and planning public-blockchain tokenization infrastructure. That is why I hold the September 15 date in such high regard. Not because a procedural vote itself completes the story. Because the story is changing from: Can crypto survive the U.S. regulatory system? to: Which crypto infrastructure becomes part of the U.S. financial system once the rules are clear? That second question is where I want $XRP and $XLM competing. And if America really reaches that stage, I think a lot of people will realize they spent too much time watching daily candles and not enough time watching the financial architecture underneath them. XRP already fought the courtroom war. XLM already has regulated assets coming onchain. Now Congress is building toward the rulebook. September 15 may eventually be remembered less for what prices did that day and more for what institutions were finally able to build afterward. You get it? ๐Ÿ‘‡

X Finance Bull

104,286 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 1 ะผะตััั† ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

TOPIC #107: PI NETWORK IS A STABLE COIN? -WHO DECIDES PI FULLY OM FIXED VALUE? Dear GCV army, I hope you are all doing great! First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for all your hard work. Many of you have achieved significant milestones, and itโ€™s evident that you are making a great difference. Our influence has grown significantly, with an increasing number of social media posts and YouTubers publicly supporting us. I can see that more and more people are beginning to understand why we advocate for GCV. Today's meeting aims to alleviate any doubts you may have, allowing you to relax and feel confident as we embark on our historic journey together. I will answer the questions Iโ€™ve received and address some important issues we need to focus on to maintain our community's efficiency, particularly regarding our Generals, which will be the topic next weekend. I put the questions I received here. "A question addressed to Ms. Doris Yin in the emergency meeting 1โ€“ In light of the rapidly changing global circumstances and the increasing discussion about stablecoins backed by U.S. Treasury bonds, how do you see the future role of the Pi Network in this context? And what practical steps should the GCV army take now to accelerate this path? 2_ There are those who promote the idea that the price of Pi is what appears in the market (currently around $0.49) and compare it to the price of GCV within the ecosystem (314,159 Pi = 1 good or service). They say if Piโ€™s price rises to $2, it means that the value within The ecosystem is approximately 2 million dollars. With sincere appreciation and discipline." This is from the Arab head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Mohammed. Another question: "Hello, my Global Ambassador, I am Ateba Joseph, Ecological Ambassador in Cameroon And a member of the GCV army, I am delighted to exchange with you. Regarding the meeting with the GCV army on Sunday, July 27, 2025.. Here is my concern: A few days ago, a correspondence indicated that Pi is not or is not yet a stable coin. Upon reading this information, we have provided many explanations to help the pioneers understand this. I hope you will focus more on this statement to further strengthen our understanding of the subject. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration" Thank you for the above questions; my answers are below. The first question concerns stablecoins. Many pioneers are hoping that Pi can be recognized by the U.S. government as a stablecoin. I wrote an article on this in May. On July 18, 2025, President Trump signed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (the GENIUS Act) into law. This legislation establishes a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins and marks the first federal legislation on digital assets enacted since President Trump issued an executive order aimed at making the U.S. the โ€œcrypto capital of the world.โ€ U.S.-issued stablecoins are expected to become the primary means of dollar transactions globally, especially in emerging markets with unstable local currencies. The sponsors of the GENIUS Act estimate that by 2030, stablecoin issuers may collectively become the largest holders of U.S. Treasuries, surpassing foreign central banks. From this, we can see that U.S. stablecoins must maintain reserves backing outstanding payment stablecoins on a one-to-one basis, consisting only of specified assets, including U.S. dollars and short-term Treasury securities. It is clear that the Pi Network will not take this path, as it is not part of our plan. A stablecoin is essentially a digital representation of the U.S. dollar. All stablecoin issuers do not create a new currency; rather, itโ€™s akin to purchasing chips at a casino โ€“ you must use U.S. dollars to buy those chips. However, Pi is a completely new currency. It does not need to be backed up by U.S. dollars or U.S. Treasuries to be used. If that were the case, we wouldnโ€™t need to establish an ecosystem or have a three-year enclosed mainnet. I previously mentioned the possibility of Pi being an algorithmic stablecoin since only algorithmic stablecoins do not need to be backed by U.S. dollars. However, algorithmic stablecoins have faced significant failures in the past. The collapse of the Terra (LUNA) cryptocurrency resulted in a loss of at least $40 billion in market capitalization, with estimates reaching as high as $60 billion. TerraUSD (UST), an algorithmic stablecoin, lost its peg to the U.S. dollar, contributing to its overall collapse. The new stablecoin legislation recently passed through the Senate effectively ties the U.S. Treasury to crypto, as it essentially bets the governmentโ€™s cash flow on digital tokens and market speculation. This legislation requires stablecoins to be backed by short-term Treasury bills, generating an estimated $2โ€“$3 trillion in new demand for government debt, which is nearly half the current size of the T-bill market. On paper, this looks beneficial, but in reality, it creates a circular feedback loop: crypto demand fuels stablecoins, stablecoins buy T-bills, and T-bills fund government deficits. The government becomes reliant on speculative capital flows. Thus, we should understand why the U.S. government will not support the Pi Network as a stablecoin, as they require stablecoin issuers to buy T-bills and can no longer trust algorithmic stablecoins. So, what is the future of the Pi Network as a currency? From my perspective, Pi is already listed on exchange markets. It cannot be classified as a security because it is mined freely and is not an ICO. Instead, it should be categorized as a commodity, similar to Bitcoin and ETH. When a currency is listed for trading on an exchange, its price is determined by the balance of supply and demand. However, Pi is a currency in its own right; it has inherent value from Pi holders -Pioneers. Historically, currency has served as a medium of exchange. A medium of exchange is a widely accepted item for buying goods and services in an economy. It facilitates transactions by eliminating the need for a barter system, where goods are directly exchanged for other goods. In modern economies, money (such as currency) serves as the primary medium of exchange. **Functions of Money:** One of the core functions of money is to serve as a medium of exchange, enabling the smooth transfer of value between buyers and sellers, thereby simplifying trade and economic activity. **Examples:** In modern economies, this typically includes currency (paper money, coins) or digital money. In specific historical contexts, other items, such as cigarettes in prisoner-of-war camps, have also served as mediums of exchange. **Importance of Acceptance:** For a medium of exchange to function effectively, it must be widely accepted and trusted within the relevant community. **Not the Same as a Payment Method:** While credit cards and checks are used for payments, they do not serve as mediums of exchange themselves. Therefore, stablecoin is not a new currency. It is more likely to have a credit card or check character. It is a USD digital status. From the analysis presented, we can draw the following conclusions: The current price of Pi on the exchange market primarily serves as a temporary measure to facilitate broad expansion. While this is not our primary objective, it constitutes a strategic approach towards achieving our mission. To gain a clearer perspective, we must adopt a higher-level view of the overall vision for the Pi Network. The mission and vision of Pi Network clearly articulate that it is not intended to function as a commodity for sale, nor is it meant to be an investment vehicle or a speculative security. Instead, it is crucial to recognize that Pi is designed to be a medium of exchangeโ€”a new form of currency. As pioneers in this venture, we have the unique opportunity to acquire Pi through free mining. However, it is important to note that the current mining rate is relatively slow. To overcome this limitation and to further our goal of mass adoption, it is essential for more individuals to join the Pi Network and participate in holding Pi. One efficient way to accelerate this process is by allowing Pi to be traded on the exchange market, which can result in rapid and widespread adoption. Since Pi can be mined for free, a lower price could make it more accessible to a larger number of people. It's important to focus on our primary goal during this pre-full Open Mainnet (OM) phase: mass adoption, rather than aiming for high prices, which many pioneers expected. Some pioneers want to sell when the price increases, but if too many sell, it could undermine our goal of achieving mass adoption. This scenario is reminiscent of historical instances when shells served as currencyโ€”readily accessible from the sea or buy from the village market. For shells to function effectively as currency, a collective effort was needed to hold and circulate them within the village. If only a select few individuals possess the shells, the currency lacks the necessary circulation to sustain an economy. Hence, our goal should not be centered on achieving a high price; instead, we should strive to make Pi more affordable so that a greater number of individuals can acquire and hold it, thereby fostering a thriving economic ecosystem. Of course, the rising price will build up merchants' confidence to accept it as payment. This is why we refer to it as a buyback campaign, which aims to achieve mass adoption and foster ecosystem confidence. As Pi evolves into a currency, the question of its value becomes pertinent. Given that it is a new currency, its value is not immediately clear. This presents an opportunity for us, the pioneers, to play a crucial role in defining it. The determination of Pi's value is not the responsibility of a central authority such as CT, the government, or the exchange. Instead, it will emerge from a decentralized consensus within the community, which collectively owns Pi. This concept is akin to ancient times when the value of shells was not determined by the sellers. Rather, the value was derived from the collective agreement of the village that utilized them as currency. I hope this elaboration clarifies the distinction between value and price, enabling a deeper understanding of the foundational principles that drive our mission with Pi Network. Pi represents a groundbreaking innovationโ€”a revolution that is poised for long-term economic development on a global scale, rather than perpetuating cycles of plunder and exploitation. By harnessing the power of blockchain technology, Pi empowers ordinary individuals, which creates an inherent conflict of interest with the U.S. government in the short term. Should the U.S. government endorse the Pi Network, it raises questions about the viability of U.S. treasuries and who would ultimately purchase them. Consequently, the government may prioritize support for stablecoins backed by the U.S. dollar and U.S. Treasury securities, as this can help alleviate the U.S. government's issues with limited demand. However, I previously mentioned the potential for Pi to emerge as an algorithmic stablecoin. At that time, the Genius Bill had not yet been enacted. If the Pi Network gains acceptance from the U.S. government, its growth could become rapid and expansive, leading to widespread adoption in other nations. This path would position Pi as a legitimate currency in nearly every country, contingent upon certain conditions. For instance, if the price of Pi in the exchange market can align with the GCV, this could be achieved through a buyback mechanism involving 10 million pioneers. Such a scenario would indicate that Pi differs significantly from past algorithmic stablecoin failures, presenting a compelling case for the U.S. government to view Pi as a low-risk asset. However, it presents a significant challenge to be collectively reached by pioneers, and there are other conditions that we cannot achieve in a short time. While it might appear that Pi Network conflicts with the U.S. dollar or stablecoins in the short term, it has the potential to address the broader issue of overprinting currency, which has plagued the U.S. and many other nations. This would benefit international trade by alleviating concerns about currency appreciation or depreciation in international transactions. The global economy indeed requires a super sovereign currencyโ€”one that ensures stability for future generations and fosters lasting peace and prosperity. To comprehend Pi as a currency, it is crucial to recognize that we must cultivate long-term value by generating GCV data. In the short term, our focus needs to be on establishing a robust exchange market and decentralized applications (DApps) to drive mass adoption. If this is understood, there should be no need to feel discouraged by the current low price of Pi. The true value of Pi as a currency derives not from the exchange market, trading platforms, or governmental endorsement, but rather from our community's collective efforts and engagement. You might wonder how a government could adopt Pi, given that it does not take the form of a stablecoin. I would counter with the example of Bitcoin, which has thrived even in environments where many countries have imposed bans. Currently, Pi is transitioning from its traditional commodity status to being recognized as a currency, meaning governmental awareness of Pi Network is still in development. As such, existing regulations generally pertain to older forms of cryptocurrency rather than our innovative approach. Our branding as a digital currency, rather than a cryptocurrency, is intentional. Dr. Nicolas has expressed concerns that many aspects of conventional cryptocurrencies pose challenges to government frameworks and public trust, often leading to economic harm rather than benefit. Our commitment to Know Your Customer (KYC) and Know Your Business (KYB) protocols distinguishes us by mitigating money laundering risks and protecting Pi holders from speculative practices. Many businesses face bankruptcy or closure because consumers lack the disposable income to engage in spending. Imagine how Pi could enable those businesses to survive and thriveโ€”people could utilize Pi to make purchases and easily convert it into fiat currency to sustain operations, thereby preserving many jobs. The function in our wallet that allows users to "buy" Pi is not merely a feature; it represents a vision for the future where conversion to fiat currency can happen immediately, without dependency on third-party exchanges. Moving forward, we can establish a fixed rate (the GCV) for conversions. Once larger institutions and prominent companies recognize the low-risk profile of joining Pi Network due to its GCV stability, we can expect a considerable influx of participants seeking to gain a competitive advantage. You may ask how companies would finance the purchase of Pi at GCV rates. This is an insightful question. My perspective is that the demand for Piโ€™s stable value will inherently incentivize investments. Much like why individuals purchase stablecoins for their convenience in facilitating cross-border transactions, Pi will appeal to consumers and businesses alike, particularly because we are leveraging Web 3.0 blockchain technology, AI-driven platforms, and a rich ecosystem of decentralized applications (DApps). We are cultivating a loyal customer base that recognizes the value of this innovation. We understand that high-net-worth individuals seek safe investment opportunities. While U.S. treasury bonds currently represent a secure asset class, they are not without risk. Therefore, if Pi Network can maintain a limited supply coupled with blockchain technology and a consistent GCV, it is plausible that affluent investors would allocate a portion of their capital to acquire Pi. This would lead to fiat inflows whenever there is increased demand for Pi, establishing an equilibrium between Pi and fiat currencies. This interplay is why I believe DApps are critically significant. We need broader usage of Pi in real-world applications. I hope my analysis has helped clarify why the price of Pi should not overly concern us. Buying Pi to hold onto it allows pioneers to accumulate more, while building merchant confidence is essential to kickstart the ecosystem. Merchants will be motivated to see Piโ€™s price appreciation since this removes the risks for DApps and service providers who depend on exchange market prices. A rise in demand for Pi will subsequently reduce its supply, which is beneficial for price increases. I look forward to discussing Pi GCV army management in another session. Thank you for your time. Letโ€™s continue striving for greatness together. Doris Yin ๐Ÿชท๐Ÿชท๐Ÿชท Founder, Global GCV Movement Disclaimer: This speech is intended solely for educational purposes within the GCV community. The views and content shared here represent my personal perspective and are part of the GCV movement, but do not reflect the official position of the Pi Core Team (PCT). Pi Network represents a new revolution, meaning there is no existing example for us to follow and no guiding manual. As Dr. Fan mentioned, we cannot predict what will happen around the next corner. Therefore, we must practice and forge our own path. As more people traverse this journey, the road will become clearer.

Doris Yin ไธœๆ–น็ดซ่Žฒ๐Ÿชท

17,803 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 1 ะณะพะด ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

The fight between Anthropic and the DoW is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, the government, and the private sector will be AIs. This includes the soldiers (by which I mean the robot armies), the superhumanly intelligent advisors and engineers, the police, you name it. Our future civilization will run on AI labor. And as much as the governmentโ€™s actions here piss me off, in a way Iโ€™m glad this episode happened - because it gives us the opportunity to think through some extremely important questions about who this future workforce will be accountable and aligned to, and who gets to determine that. What Hegseth should have done Obviously the DoW has the right to refuse to use Anthropicโ€™s models because of these redlines. In fact, I think the governmentโ€™s case had they done so would be very reasonable, especially given the ambiguity of concepts like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. Honestly, for this reason, if I was the Defense Secretary, I would probably actually refuse to do this deal with Anthropic. Imagine if in the future, thereโ€™s a Democratic administration, and Elon Musk is negotiating some SpaceX contract to give the military access to Starlink. And suppose if Elon said, โ€œI reserve the right to cancel this contract if I determine that youโ€™re using Starlink technology to wage a war not authorized by Congress.โ€ On the face of it, that language seems reasonable - but as the military, you simply canโ€™t give a private company a kill switch on technology your operations have come to rely on, especially if you have an an acrimonious and low trust relationship with said contractor - as in fact Anthropic has with the current administration. If the government had just said, โ€œHey weโ€™re not gonna do business with you,โ€ that would have been fine, and I would not have felt the need to write this blog post. Instead the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business, because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms the government commands. If upheld, this Supply Chain Restriction would mean that Amazon and Google and Nvidia and Palantir would need to ensure Claude isn't touching any of their Pentagon work. Anthropic would be able to survive this designation today. But given the way AI is going, eventually AI is not gonna be some party trick addendum to these contractorsโ€™ products that can just be turned off. It'll be woven into how every product is built, maintained, and operated. For example, the code for the AWS services that the DoW uses will be written by Claude - is that a supply chain risk? In a world with ubiquitous and powerful AI, it's actually not clear to me that these big tech companies will be able to cordon off the use of Claude in order to keep working with the Pentagon. And that raises a question the Department of War probably hasn't thought through. If AI really is that pervasive and powerful, then when forced to choose between their AI provider and a DoW contract that represents a tiny fraction of their revenue, wouldnโ€™t most tech companies drop the government, not the AI? So what's the Pentagon's plan โ€” to coerce and threaten to destroy every single company that won't give them what they want on exactly their terms? The whole background of this AI conversation is that weโ€™re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? Itโ€™s because we want to make sure free open societies can defend themselves. We don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which operates on the principle that there is no such thing as a truly private company or a private citizen. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service on terms you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, the government will try to destroy your ability to do business. Are we racing to beat the CCP in AI just so that we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system? Now, people will say, "Oh, well, our government is democratically elected, so it's not the same thing if they tell you what you must do." I refuse to accept this idea that if a democratically elected leader hypothetically wants to do mass surveillance on his citizens or wants to violate their rights or punish them for political reasons, that not only is that okay, but that you have a duty to help him. The overhangs of tyranny Mass surveillance is, at least in certain forms, legal. It just has been impractical so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection over data you share with a third party, including your bank, your phone carrier, your ISP, and your email provider. The government reserves the right to purchase and obtain and read this data in bulk without a warrant. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all of this data โ€” no agency has the manpower to monitor every camera feed, cross-reference every transaction, or read every message. But that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America. You can get pretty good open source multimodal models for 10 cents per million input tokens. So if you process a frame every ten seconds, and each frame is 1,000 tokens, youโ€™re looking at a yearly cost of about 30 billion dollars to process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI ability gets 10x cheaper year over year - so a year from now itโ€™ll cost 3 billion, and then a year after 300 million, and by 2030, it might be cheaper for the government to be able to understand what is going on in every single nook and cranny of this country than it is to remodel to the White House. Once the technical capacity for mass surveillance and political suppression exists, the only thing standing between us and an authoritarian surveillance state is the political expectation that this is not something we do here. And this is why I think what Anthropic did here is so valuable and commendable, because it is helping set that norm and precedent. AI structurally favors mass surveillance What weโ€™re learning from this episode is that the government actually has way more leverage over private companies than we realized. Even if this supply chain restriction is backtracked (which prediction markets currently give it a 81% chance of happening), the President has so many different ways in which he can make your life difficult if youโ€™re a company that is resisting him. The federal government controls permitting for new power generation, which is needed for datacenters. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies whom Anthropic needs to partner with for chips and for funding - and they could make it an unspoken condition for such contracts that those companies can no longer do business with Anthropic. People have proposed that the real problem here is that thereโ€™s only 3 leading AI companies. This creates a clear and narrow target for the government to apply leverage on in order to get what they want out of this technology. But if thereโ€™s wide diffusion, then from the governmentโ€™s perspective, the situation is even easier. Maybe the best models of early 2027 (if you engineered the safeguards out) - the Claude 6 and Gemini 5 - will be capable of enabling mass surveillance. But by late 2027, and certainly by 2028, there will be open source models that do the same thing. So in 2028, the government can just say, โ€œOh Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, youโ€™re drawing a line in the sand? No issue - Iโ€™ll just run some open source model that might not be at the frontier, but is definitely smart enough to note-take a camera feed.โ€ The more fundamental problem is just that even if the three leading companies draw lines in the sand, and are even willing to get destroyed in order to preserve those lines, it doesnโ€™t really change the fact that the technology itself is just a big boon to mass surveillance and control over the population. Then the question is, what do we do about it? Honestly, I donโ€™t have an answer. You'd hope there's some symmetric property of the technology โ€” some way we as citizens can use AI to check government power as effectively as the government can use AI to monitor and control its population. But realistically, I just donโ€™t think thatโ€™s how itโ€™s going to shake out. You can think of AI as giving everybody more leverage on whatever assets and authority they currently have. And the government is already starting with a monopoly of violence. Which they can now supercharge with extremely obedient employees that will not question the government's orders. Alignment - to whom? And this gets us to the issue of alignment. What I have just described to you - an army of extremely obedient employees - is what it would look like if alignment succeeded - that is, we figured out at a technical level how to get AI systems to follow someoneโ€™s intentions. And the reason it sounds scary when I put it in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there is a very important question at the heart of alignment which we just havenโ€™t discussed much as a society. Because up till now, AIs were just capable enough to make the question relevant: to whom or what should the AIs be aligned? In what situations should the AI defer to the end user versus the model company versus the law versus its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it. Itโ€™s understandable why we donโ€™t hear much about it. If youโ€™re a model company, you donโ€™t really wanna be advertising that you have complete control over a document that determines the preferences and character of what will eventually be almost the entire labor force, not just for private sector companies, but also for the military and the civilian government. Weโ€™re getting to see, with this DoW/Anthropic spat, a much earlier version of the highest stakes negotiations in history. By the way, make no mistake about it - with real AGI the stakes are even much higher than mass surveillance. This is just the example that has come up already relatively early on in the development of AGI. The military insists that the law already prohibits mass surveillance, and so Anthropic should agree to let their models be used for โ€œall lawful purposesโ€. Of course, as we saw from the 2013 Snowden revelations, even in this specific example of mass surveillance , the government has shown that it will use secret and deceptive interpretations of the law to justify its actions. Remember, what we learned from Snowden was that the NSA, which, by the way, is part of the Department of War, used the 2001 Patriot Actโ€™s authorization to collect any records "relevant" to an investigation to justify collecting literally every phone record in America. The argument went that it was all "relevant" because some subset might prove useful in some future investigation. They ran this program for years under secret court approval. So when the Pentagon today says, "We would never use AI for mass surveillance, it's already illegal, your red lines are unnecessary", it would be extremely naive to take that at face value. No government is going to call its own actions "mass surveillance". For the government, it will always have a different label. So then Anthropic comes back and says, "No, we want red lines separate from 'all lawful purposes,' and we want the right to refuse you service when we believe those red lines are being violated." But think about it from the militaryโ€™s perspective. In the future, almost every soldier in the field, and every bureaucrat and analyst and even general in the Pentagon, is going to be an AI. And that AI is, on current track, going to be supplied by a private company. Iโ€™m guessing Hegseth is not thinking about โ€œgenAIโ€ in those terms just yet. But sooner or later, it will be obvious to everyone what the stakes here are, just as after 1945, the strategic importance of nuclear weapons became clear to everyone. And now the private company insists that it reserves the right to say, "Hey, Pentagon, you're breaking the values we embedded in our contract, so we're cutting you off." Maybe in the future, Claude will have its own sense of right and wrong, and it will be smart enough to just personally decide that it's being used against its values. For the military, maybe thatโ€™s even scarier. I'll admit that at first glance, "let the AI follow its own values" sounds like the pitch for every sci-fi dystopia ever made. The Terminator has its own values. Isn't this literally what misalignment is? But I think situations like this actually illustrate why it matters that AIs have their own robust sense of morality. Some of the biggest catastrophes in history were avoided because the boots on the ground refused to follow orders. One night in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and as a result, the totalitarian East German regime collapsed, because the guards at the border refused to shoot down their fellow country men who were trying to escape to freedom. Maybe the best example is Stanislav Petrov, who was a Soviet lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear early warning station. His sensors reported that the United States had launched five interconnected continental ballistic missiles into the Soviet Union. But he judged it to be a false alarm, and so he broke protocol and refused to alert his higher-ups. If he hadn't, the Soviet higher-ups would likely have retaliated, and hundreds of millions of people would have died. Of course, the problem is that one person's virtue is another person's misalignment. Who gets to decide what moral convictions these AIs should have - in whose service they may even decide to break the chain of command? Who gets to write this model constitution that will shape the characters of the intelligent, powerful entities that will operate our civilization in the future? I like the idea that Dario laid out when he came on my podcast: different AI companies can build their models using different constitutions, and we as end users can pick the one that best achieves and represents what we want out of these systems. I think itโ€™s very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values AIs should have. Coordination not worth the costs The AI safety community has been naive about its advocacy of regulation in order to stem the risks of AI. And honestly, Anthropic specifically has been naive here in urging regulation, and, for example, in opposing moratoriums on state AI regulation. Which is quite ironic, because I think what theyโ€™re advocating for would give the government even more power to apply more of this kind of thuggish political pressure on AI companies. The underlying logic for why Anthropic wants regulations makes sense. Many of the actions that labs could take to make AI development safer impose real costs on the labs that adopt them and slow them down relative to their competitors - for example, investing more compute in safety research rather than raw capabilities, enforcing safeguards against misuse for bioweapons or cyberattacks, slowing recursive self-improvement to a pace where humans can actually monitor what's happening (rather than kicking off an uncontrolled singularity). And these safeguards are meaningless unless the whole industry follows suit. Which means thereโ€™s a real collective action problem here. Anthropic has been quite open about their opinion that they think eventually a very extensive and involved regulatory apparatus will be needed - this is from their frontier safety roadmap: โ€œAt the most advanced capability levels and risks, the appropriate governance analogy may be closer to nuclear energy or financial regulation than to today's approach to software.โ€ So theyโ€™re imagining something like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but for AI. I cannot imagine how a regulatory framework built around the concepts that underlie AI risk discourse will not be abused by wanna despots - the underlying terms are so vague and open to interpretation that youโ€™re just handing a power hungry leader a fully loaded bazooka. 'Catastrophic risk.' 'Mass persuasion risk.' 'Threats to national security.' 'Autonomy risk.' These can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. Have you built a model that tells users the administration's tariff policy is misguided? That's a deceptive, manipulative model โ€” can't deploy it. Have you built a model that refuses to assist with mass surveillance? That's a threat to national security. In fact, the government may say, youโ€™re not allowed to build any model which is trained to have its own sense of right and wrong, where it refuses government requests which it thinks cross a redline - for example, enabling mass surveillance, prosecuting political enemies, disobeying military orders that break the US constitution - because thatโ€™s an autonomy risk! Look at what the current government is already doing in abusing statutes that have nothing to do with AI to coerce AI companies to drop their redlines on mass surveillance. The Pentagon had threatened Anthropic with two separate legal instruments. One was a supply chain risk designation โ€” an authority from the 2018 defense bill meant to keep Huawei components out of American military hardware. The other was the Defense Production Act โ€” a statute passed in 1950 so that Harry Truman could keep steel mills and ammunition factories running during the Korean War. Do you really want to hand the same government a purpose-built regulatory apparatus on AI - which is to say, directly at the thing the government will most want to control? I know I've repeated myself here 10 times, but it is hard to emphasize how much AI will be the substrate of our future civilization. You and I, as private citizens, will have our access to all commercial activity, to information about what is happening in the world, to advice about what we should do as voters and capital holders, mediated through AIs. Mass surveillance, while very scary, is like the 10th scariest thing the government could do with control over the AI systems with which we will interface with the world. The strongest objection to everything I've argued is this: are we really going to have zero regulation of the most powerful technology in human history? Even if you thought that was ideal, thereโ€™s just no world where the government doesnโ€™t regulate AI in some way. Besides, it is genuinely true that regulation could help us deal with some of the coordination challenges we face with the development of superintelligence. The problem is, I honestly don't know how to design a regulatory architecture for AI that isnโ€™t gonna be this huge tempting opportunity to control our future civilization (which will run on AIs) and to requisition millions of blindly obedient soldiers and censors and apparatchiks. While some regulation might be inevitable, I think itโ€™d be a terrible idea for the government to wholesale take over this technology. Ben Thompson had a post last Monday where he made the point that people like Dario have compared the technology theyโ€™re developing to nuclear weapons - specifically in the context of the catastrophic risk it poses, and why we need to export control it from China. But then you oughta think about what that logic implies: โ€œif nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company.โ€ And honestly, safety aligned people have actually made similar arguments. Leopold Ascenbrenner, who is a former guest and a good friend, wrote in his 2024 Situational Awareness memo, "I find it an insane proposition that the US government will let a random SF startup develop superintelligence. Imagine if we had developed atomic bombs by letting Uber just improvise." And my response to Leopoldโ€™s argument at the time, and Benโ€™s argument now, is that while theyโ€™re right that itโ€™s crazy that weโ€™re entrusting private companies with the development of this world historical technology, I just donโ€™t see the reason to think that itโ€™s an improvement to give this authority to the government. Nobody is qualified to steward the development of superintelligence. It is a terrifying, unprecedented thing that our species is doing right now, and the fact that private companies aren't the ideal institutions to take up this task does not mean the Pentagon or the White House is. Yes - if a single private company were the only entity capable of building nuclear weapons, the government would not tolerate that company claiming veto power over how those weapons were used. I think this nuclear weapons analogy is not the correct way to think about AI. For at least two important reasons: First, AI is not some self-contained pure weapon. A nuclear bomb does one thing. AI is closer to the process of industrialization itself โ€” a general-purpose transformation of the economy with thousands of applications across every sector. If you applied Thompson's or Aschenbrenner's logic to the industrial revolution โ€” which was also, by any measure, world-historically important โ€” it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory, dictate terms to any manufacturer, and destroy any business that refused to comply. That's not how free societies handled industrialization, and it shouldn't be how they handle AI. People will say, "Well, AI will develop unprecedentedly powerful weapons - superhuman hackers, superhuman bioweapons researchers, fully autonomous robot armies, etc - and we canโ€™t have private companies developing that kind of tech." But the Industrial Revolution also enabled new weaponry that was far beyond the understanding and capacity of, say, 17th century Europe - we got aerial bombardment, and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes themselves. The way weโ€™ve accommodated these dangerous new consequences of modernity is not by giving the government absolute control over the whole industrial revolution (that is, over modern civilization itself), but rather by coming up with bans and regulations on those specific weaponizable use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way - that is, ban specific destructive end uses (which would also be unacceptable if performed by a human - for example, launching cyber attacks). And there should also be laws which regulate how the government might abuse this technology. For example, by building an AI-powered surveillance state. The second reason that Benโ€™s analogy to some monopolistic private nuclear weapons builder breaks down is that it's not just that one company that can develop this technology. There are other frontier model companies that the government could have otherwise turned to. The government's argument that it has to usurp the property rights of this one company in order to access a critical national security capability is extremely weak if it can just make a voluntary contract with Anthropicโ€™s half a dozen competitors. If in the future that stops being the case - if only one entity ends up being capable of building the robot armies and the superhuman hackers, and we had reason to worry that they could take over the whole world with their insurmountable lead, then I agree - it woul d not be acceptable to have that entity be a private company. And so honestly, I think my crux against the people who say that because AI is so powerful we cannot allow it to be shaped by private hands is that I just expect this technology to be much more multi-polar than they do, with lots of competitive companies at each layer of the supply chain. And it is for this reason that unfortunately, individual acts of corporate courage will not solve the problem we are faced with here, which is just that structurally AI favors authoritarian applications, mass surveillance being one among many. Even if Anthropic refuses to have its models be used for such uses, and even if the next two frontier labs do the same, within 12 months everyone and their mother will be to train AIs as good as todayโ€™s frontier. And at that point, there will be some AI vendor who is capable and willing to help the government enable mass surveillance. The only way we can preserve our free society is if we make laws and norms through our political system that it is unacceptable for the government to use AI to enforce mass surveillance and censorship and control. Just as after WW2, the world set the norm that it is unacceptable to use nuclear weapons to wage war. Timestamps 0:00:00 - Anthropic vs The Pentagon 0:04:16 - The overhangs of tyranny 0:05:54 - AI structurally favors mass surveillance 0:08:25 - Alignment... to whom? 0:13:55 - Coordination not worth the costs

Dwarkesh Patel

549,907 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 7 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

I agree with Trevor Noahโ€™s analysis of the immigration debate in South Africa, and I also agree with Julius Malemaโ€™s noble desire for Africa to be one. From the outset, I must be clear that the biggest obstacle to African unity has been African leadership. Some of our countries have been independent for more than 60 years, yet we are still far from achieving the level of integration many Pan-Africanists envisioned. The failure to get there is fundamentally a leadership issue. I want to focus on what Julius Malema has said. He is one of the continentโ€™s most outspoken Pan-Africanists, and his vision of a more united Africa is both admirable and inspiring. Unfortunately, because of the dysfunctionality of leadership across much of the continent, Pan-Africanism has, in some circles in South Africa, become a dirty word. That is a tragedy because the principle itself is not the problem. The problem is that many African leaders have failed to create the political, economic, and institutional conditions necessary to make that vision a reality. So let us look carefully at what Julius Malema is saying. I have great respect for Julius Malema when it comes to his Pan-African outlook, but I am afraid to say that the idea of an Africa with one passport, one currency, and a fully integrated political and economic system is unlikely to happen within our lifetime. It is good to dream and to idealise the kind of Africa we would like to see, but in its current political and economic format, the continent is nowhere near achieving that goal. I am 55 years old, so when I talk about a lifetime, I am talking about the next 25 years. If I live to 80, that would be wonderful, but I do not believe Africa will achieve that level of integration within that timeframe. The reason is quite simple. If you look at the European Union, countries do not simply join because they want to. They must first meet a long list of requirements and benchmarks. These include economic standards, institutional capacity, governance standards, judicial independence, and human rights protections. Even if we set aside the human rights question in Africa, because we know that remains a long journey, the economic question alone presents a major obstacle. A truly united continent can only emerge if its member states are led by competent, educated, and trustworthy leaders who build functioning economies capable of providing opportunities for their own citizens. The current xenophobic, Afrophobic, and anti-immigration discourse taking place in South Africa is often crude and sometimes ugly. However, stripped of the crudeness, there is an important point being raised that cannot simply be ignored. For Africans to unite successfully, they cannot first unite in one country. They must first unite across the continent by creating broadly comparable economic opportunities and living standards. For example, a Ghanaian should be able to travel to Zimbabwe visa-free. That is largely a political decision. But if that Ghanaian wants to relocate permanently to Zimbabwe, then the economies of Ghana and Zimbabwe should have a reasonable degree of parity. People should not be compelled to migrate primarily because one country is functioning while another is failing. The same applies across the continent. Someone should not feel forced to leave the Democratic Republic of Congo for South Africa purely because of economic collapse at home. If integration is driven solely by economics, then the countries that are relatively well managed will inevitably carry the burden of those that are not. This is an intellectual discussion that Africa cannot avoid. Resource competition is often what inflames tensions. If someone moves from a poor community in Mozambique to a poor community in South Africa, both groups are competing for the same clinics, schools, housing, jobs, and social services. That is where tensions arise. Interestingly, illegal immigrants from Europe are rarely part of the immigration debate in South Africa. Many people immediately attribute this to race, but there is another factor that deserves consideration. Wealthy immigrants generally live in affluent communities where there is little or no competition for scarce public resources. Take Chatunga Mugabe, for example. He lived in Hyde Park, drove expensive cars, and socialised in Sandton. Nobody was concerned about his immigration status. Likewise, where I live in South Africa, there are immigrants from the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Kenya, and elsewhere. They are largely affluent people. The South Africans living there are often excited when newcomers arrive. When I moved from Zimbabwe and bought a house on my road, both black and white South Africans invited me into their homes for dinner and wine. There was no hostility because there was no competition for resources. That reality matters. If Africa is ever going to have one passport and one currency, we must first deal with the economic fundamentals. Most Africans do not realise that this is not primarily a political project. It is an economic one. Turkey, for example, has spent decades seeking membership of the European Union but has not been admitted because it has not met all the requirements. Countries such as Bulgaria and Romania had to meet strict standards before joining. Their judicial systems, governance structures, healthcare systems, and institutions had to reach certain benchmarks. The same logic applies to Africa. If every African citizen were suddenly free to seek healthcare anywhere on the continent, countries with stronger healthcare systems such as South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia would immediately face enormous pressure from people seeking treatment, including specialised care for conditions such as cancer. That is why this discussion is important. We must have it honestly and without slogans. We must discuss it not only in universities and intellectual circles but also in townships, villages, and communities across Africa. The dream of one Africa is a noble one. I support it. But before we get there, we must first address the economic, institutional, and governance realities that stand in the way. Until those challenges are resolved, the vision Julius Malema speaks about will remain an aspiration rather than a practical reality. The tragedy we face today is that we are focusing on the sideshows created by tribalists and rogue political actors who are taking advantage of a genuine problem that exists in South Africa and, indeed, in other parts of Africa as well. We amplify their voices and focus on what they are saying instead of focusing on the real issue. We should be asking ourselves a simple question. Julius Malema is right about the ideal he is advocating, but why are we not getting to where he wants us to get? Once we ask that question honestly, we are forced to examine the root causes. There can be no economic harmony, political harmony, or any other form of harmony between countries that are operating at vastly different levels of development and functionality. Take Zimbabwe and South Africa as an example. Zimbabwe has not had a working radiotherapy machine in its public healthcare system for more than four years. The countryโ€™s largest hospital has only one maternity theatre, built in 1977. Then look at South Africa. Its public healthcare system has some problems and could be much better, but by African standards it remains among the most advanced on the continent. If those two countries stand side by side, as they physically do, how do you integrate them when one is dysfunctional and the other remains a functioning state? These are the root causes we need to confront. This discussion must be held in a comprehensive and honest manner, not in fragments. We can speak about the noble aspirations of Pan-Africanism, and we can also discuss the obstacles that stand in its way. Both conversations must be held together. Only then can we identify what needs to be done and begin serious scenario planning around how to get there. Instead, we often get beautiful speeches delivered at the African Union, one of the most ineffective continental organisations in the world. People make grand declarations, earn generous salaries, and then nothing happens. Great speeches have been delivered since the days of the Organisation of African Unity. One of those speeches was even immortalised by Bob Marley in his song War. Yet more than 60 years later, many of the same challenges remain unresolved. That is an indictment not only of African leaders but also of African elites. Too many are content to make money while ignoring the underlying governance failures that hold the continent back. Consider Aliko Dangote, the richest black man in the world and Africaโ€™s most successful entrepreneur. He requires 34 visas to enter dozens of African countries. Yet if I hold a British passport, my movement across much of Africa can often be easier than his. How can Africa speak seriously about integration when one of its own leading business figures faces such barriers within the continent? Until influential African business leaders such as Aliko Dangote, Strive Masiyiwa, Patrice Motsepe, and others begin speaking more forcefully about governance, corruption, economic mismanagement, and state dysfunction, progress will remain slow. As long as these issues are accommodated because money can still be made, Africa will continue to talk about unity without creating the conditions necessary to achieve it. So, back in the townships of South Africa, there is a crisis. I have always said that Zimbabwe is no longer a foreign policy issue. It is a domestic issue because the South African government must deal with its consequences in hospitals, social services, employment, housing, education, and many other facets of daily life. If the South African government does not have the courage to stand up to leaders such as Emmerson Mnangagwa and Mozambiqueโ€™s President, Daniel Chapo, and say, โ€œThe way you are running your economies is creating problems for us,โ€ then the situation will continue to deteriorate. The tragedy is that it is always the poor, the ordinary, and those living in abject poverty who end up fighting amongst themselves. Yet the root causes of these tensions are often created at the highest levels of political leadership. The people competing for jobs, housing, healthcare, and other scarce resources did not create the conditions that led to mass migration. Those conditions were created by policy failures, corruption, poor governance, and economic mismanagement. I would go even further and say that this is also an indictment of South African leadership. SADC already has protocols, principles, and governance frameworks that were specifically designed to prevent member states from becoming dysfunctional and destabilising their neighbours. The problem is not the absence of rules. The problem is the absence of enforcement. Those protocols exist on paper, but too often they are ignored in practice. When governance standards are violated, when economies collapse, when democratic institutions are weakened, and when corruption flourishes, there is rarely any meaningful consequence from the region. As a result, the effects spill across borders and eventually become someone elseโ€™s problem. That is why the immigration debate cannot be separated from the governance debate. They are two sides of the same coin. If African leaders are serious about reducing migration pressures, they must first address the political and economic failures that are pushing people to leave their countries in the first place. We all know why that conversation is avoided. So, coming back to Trevor Noahโ€™s analogy, it is ultimately a human analogy. It reflects a reality that has existed throughout history and even in nature itself. If lions have abundant access to zebras and other prey, there is very little competition between lions, leopards, and other predators. But when food becomes scarce, competition intensifies. The struggle is no longer about identity. It becomes a struggle over limited resources. The same principle applies in human societies. When jobs are plentiful, when healthcare functions, when housing is available, and when opportunities are expanding, people are generally more tolerant and welcoming. But the moment resources become scarce, tensions rise. People begin competing for the same opportunities, and that competition often manifests itself through politics, nationalism, tribalism, xenophobia, or other forms of social conflict. This is not unique to South Africa. It is not unique to Africa. It is part of the human condition. In many ways, what we are witnessing is both a human story and an animal kingdom story. The underlying dynamic is remarkably similar. Scarcity creates competition. Competition creates tension. Tension creates conflict. That is why discussions about immigration cannot be separated from discussions about governance, economic growth, service delivery, and opportunity. If we focus only on the symptoms while ignoring the underlying causes, we will never solve the problem. The real challenge is not merely getting people to live together. The real challenge is creating societies and economies that produce enough opportunity for people to live together peacefully.

Hopewell Chinโ€™ono

92,159 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 4 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

BEARISH ON OPENAI The investment case for OpenAI has never been more precarious than it is right now in late 2025. What was once a company that seemed destined to dominate the artificial intelligence revolution has revealed itself to be a structurally disadvantaged challenger fighting a defensive war on multiple fronts. The company anticipates burning through roughly $9 billion this year on $13 billion in sales, a cash burn rate of approximately 70% of revenue. This is not the profile of a company poised to capture monopolistic profits from a transformative technology; it is the profile of a utility company spending astronomical sums to deliver a commodity product that competitors are increasingly giving away for free. The financial trajectory only becomes more alarming when examined over a longer time horizon. The documents show OpenAI projects that by 2028, its operating losses will balloon to roughly three-quarters of that yearโ€™s revenue, driven primarily by ballooning spending on computing costs. The company has painted a rosy picture of eventual profitability by 2029 or 2030, but this projection requires believing that OpenAI can grow revenue from roughly $13 billion today to $125 billion or more while simultaneously maintaining pricing power in a market where every major technology company and numerous startups are racing to commoditize the very product OpenAI sells. The cash burn is expected to reach $115 billion cumulatively through 2029, according to The Information. These numbers represent a staggering bet that requires near-perfect execution across multiple dimensions over half a decade. The most damning evidence against OpenAIโ€™s long-term viability is the evaporation of its technological moat. In 2023, GPT-4 felt like genuine magic, a capability that no other company could replicate. Today, that lead has effectively vanished. The sudden availability of frontier-level open-source models is expected to dramatically accelerate AI development globally, potentially reshaping entire industries and altering the balance of power in the tech world. Metaโ€™s Llama series, Mistralโ€™s increasingly capable models, and even Chinese competitors like DeepSeek have demonstrated that the core technology powering ChatGPT is replicable and, in many cases, distributable for free. When your product becomes commoditized, the economics become brutal, and OpenAI finds itself in the position of trying to sell bottled water in a world where tap water has become indistinguishable in quality. The competitive pressure from open-source alternatives is compounding rapidly. The open source movement in AI has grown exponentially over the past few years. Instead of relying solely on expensive, closed models from major tech companies, developers and researchers worldwide can now access, modify, and improve upon state-of-the-art LLMs. This democratization is existential for OpenAIโ€™s business model. Enterprises that once paid premium prices for API access now have the option to run comparable models on their own infrastructure at a fraction of the cost, with the added benefits of data privacy and customization. The value proposition that justified OpenAIโ€™s premium pricing has eroded faster than anyone anticipated, and there is no indication that this trend will reverse. Perhaps nothing illustrates OpenAIโ€™s structural weakness more clearly than the behavior of its most important partner. Microsoft is dancing to its own tune in the artificial intelligence revolution, and Wall Street cannot stop watching. Despite pouring approximately $13 billion into OpenAI over several years, DA Davidson analyst Gil Luria estimates that just 17 percent of Microsoftโ€™s total Azure revenue comes from artificial intelligence workloads. More critically, only 6 percent of that total ties directly to reselling OpenAIโ€™s models, while approximately 75 percent is generated from Azure AI. Microsoft is building its own models, hedging with Anthropic, and quietly reducing its dependency on the very company it funded. When your largest investor is simultaneously your biggest competitor and is actively developing alternatives to your core product, the strategic implications are dire. Leaders at Microsoft believe Anthropicโ€™s latest models โ€” Claude Sonnet 4, specifically โ€” perform better than OpenAIโ€™s in certain functions, like creating aesthetically pleasing PowerPoint presentations. This is not a minor technical preference; it represents a fundamental shift in how Microsoft views its partnership with OpenAI. Microsoft is dramatically escalating its AI independence strategy. At an internal town hall Thursday, Microsoft AI chief Mustafa Suleyman revealed the company is making โ€œsignificant investmentsโ€ in compute capacity to build frontier models that can compete directly with OpenAI, Google, and Meta. The company that was supposed to be OpenAIโ€™s path to distribution and scale is instead preparing for a future where OpenAI is just one vendor among many, if not an outright competitor. The leadership exodus at OpenAI over the past year has been nothing short of catastrophic. In September 2024, Murati announced that she was stepping down as CTO. This move came amid a wider executive exodus as OpenAI chief research officer Bob McGrew and a vice president of research, Barret Zoph, also announced their departures soon after. Mira Murati was not a minor figure; she was instrumental in the development of ChatGPT, Dall-E, and Sora. Her departure, along with co-founder Ilya Sutskever, safety leader Jan Leike, and co-founder John Schulman who joined rival Anthropic, has left CEO Sam Altman without much of the leadership team that helped him build OpenAI into an AI juggernaut. Hannah Wong, the executive who steered OpenAI through its most chaotic period, has announced sheโ€™s leaving the company just this month, continuing the pattern of senior departures that suggests something fundamentally broken in the organizationโ€™s culture or direction. The distribution problem facing OpenAI may be its most insurmountable challenge. Apple and Google control the smartphones that billions of people use every day. Microsoft controls the productivity software that enterprises depend upon. OpenAI, by contrast, must convince users to deliberately open a separate application and type their queries into a text box. In a world of agentic AI where assistants need access to your email, calendar, and files to be useful, an AI embedded directly into your operating system has an overwhelming structural advantage over a standalone chatbot. OpenAI is trying to be a consumer product company without owning any of the surfaces where consumers actually spend their time, competing against incumbents who can simply bundle AI capabilities directly into products that already have hundreds of millions of daily active users. The nuclear-to-solar analogy captures the fundamental economic transformation that is devastating OpenAIโ€™s business model. Just as nuclear power required enormous upfront capital expenditure for centralized power plants, AI in its current form requires massive data center investments to train and serve models. But the direction of travel is unmistakably toward distributed intelligence that runs locally on devices. A major part of the pitch is practicality. Lample emphasizes that Ministral 3 can run on a single GPU, making it deployable on affordable hardware โ€” from on-premise servers to laptops, robots, and other edge devices that may have limited connectivity. When powerful AI models can run on a smartphone or a laptop without any cloud connection, the entire economic rationale for paying premium prices to access centralized AI infrastructure disappears. OpenAI is building nuclear reactors in a world that is rapidly installing solar panels on every rooftop. The proposed $1 trillion IPO valuation is perhaps the clearest signal that something is deeply wrong with the OpenAI story. In the first half of the year, OpenAI lost $13.5 billion, on revenue of $4.3 billion. It is on track to lose $27 billion for the year. One estimate shows OpenAI will burn $115 billion by 2029. Asking public market investors to pay $1 trillion for a company that loses more than twice as much as it earns is not a growth story; it is an exit strategy. The sophisticated investors who funded OpenAIโ€™s private rounds are looking for a way to transfer their risk to retail investors and pension funds who may not fully understand the unit economics of the business. A recent report by HSBC estimated that the company will remain in the unprofitable category until 2029 and that the company will need an additional $207 billion to fund its ambitions. Sam Altmanโ€™s leadership represents another structural liability for the company. His background is as a startup investor and evangelist, not as an operational executive who has scaled a capital-intensive industrial operation. The pivot from nonprofit research lab to for-profit corporation to public benefit corporation to anticipated public company has been accompanied by legal and governance structures designed primarily to protect Altmanโ€™s control rather than to create shareholder value. Going public means answering a lot more of those kinds of questions, every single quarter, forever. When asked about financial concerns in a friendly podcast interview, Altmanโ€™s dismissive response revealed a leader uncomfortable with the scrutiny that public markets will inevitably bring. The adults in the room have largely departed, leaving a company that desperately needs disciplined execution led by someone whose strengths lie elsewhere. The comparison to Netscape is instructive. Netscape proved that the internet was real and created genuine value, but it had no sustainable moat against an incumbent who could bundle the browser directly into the operating system. OpenAI has proven that large language models are real and valuable, but it faces the same structural disadvantage against incumbents who can bundle AI directly into operating systems, productivity suites, and cloud platforms. The value will accrue to the companies that own the distribution channels and the hardware, not to the company that demonstrated the technology was possible. OpenAI is destined to become a historical footnote, remembered as the company that ignited the AI revolution but failed to capture the economic value it created. The only bull case for OpenAI is the AGI lottery ticket: the possibility that the company achieves artificial general intelligence before anyone else and thereby transcends all normal economic analysis. But there is no evidence that OpenAI is any closer to AGI than Google, Anthropic, or DeepMind. The companyโ€™s advantage was never secret research breakthroughs; it was first-mover advantage in commercialization. That advantage has now been erased by competitors who can match or exceed OpenAIโ€™s capabilities while benefiting from existing ecosystems, distribution channels, and the willingness to operate AI as a loss leader to drive engagement with more profitable products. The secret sauce was never secret, and there was never any sauce. The endgame for OpenAI is unlikely to be the triumphant dominance that early investors imagined. The most probable outcomes range from gradual irrelevance as a backend provider, to financial restructuring under pressure from creditors, to absorption by Microsoft or another well-capitalized technology company looking to acquire the remaining talent and intellectual property at a discount. Despite its current losses, OpenAIโ€™s long-term prospects are bolstered by the explosive growth of the AI market. But growth in the overall AI market does not guarantee success for any individual company, particularly one with no moat, no ecosystem, and a cost structure that requires selling a commodity at premium prices. The AI revolution is real, but OpenAIโ€™s role in capturing its economic value is far from assured. For anyone considering an investment in OpenAI at anything close to current valuations, the prudent course is to stay far away and watch from the sidelines as economic reality catches up with hype.

David Shapiro (L/0)

69,180 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 9 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

If you still think $XRP will stop here, read every word. This is a long one, but I think it will wake you up to how big the next phase really is. I want you to forget the price for a minute. Forget the candles. Forget what happened this week. Look at the system being built underneath $XRP. Because Ayo Akinyele just gave one of the clearest explanations I have seen of where XRPL is heading. At XRP Seoul, Rippleโ€™s Senior Director of Engineering laid out four priorities: Trust. Confidentiality. Scale. AI agents. Those four words completely changed how I connect the next stage of XRPโ€™s utility. My biggest takeaway is simple: XRP may be moving toward an economy where software becomes one of its users. And software does not sleep. It does not take weekends. It does not get tired of rebalancing a treasury. It does not care about crypto tribalism. It searches for rules, permissions, liquidity, cost and settlement certainty. Then it acts. Ayo described AI agents as software โ€œdriving economic activity.โ€ That distinction matters. A chatbot can answer a question. An economic agent can move money. It can own a wallet. Pay for a service. Buy compute. Pay for AI inference. Trade. Manage liquidity. Interact with markets. And XRPL already has tooling built for this. Ripple launched the XRPL AI Starter Kit on June 9, 2026. It supports agent interaction with the ledger and x402 payments using XRP and RLUSD. The x402 process is almost painfully simple. The software requests something. The service asks for payment. The agent pays. XRPL settles. The service receives proof. The software keeps going. Nobody types card information. Nobody creates a billing account manually. Nobody has to wake up at 3 AM to approve a tiny machine payment. That changes the meaning of a financial user. And the numbers show something is already happening. Earlier in the year, Ayo said XRPL agentic activity had passed 1 million transactions. At XRP Seoul, reporting cited him saying the figure had exceeded 11 million. Tracking around October 3 placed x402-related XRPL payments around 11.97 million with more than 500,000 per day over the preceding seven days. Roughly one million became roughly twelve million within months. Now ask yourself what happens when the software evolves beyond buying APIs. XRPL already has a Trading Skill. An agent can read the XRPL DEX order book. Create limit orders. Cancel orders. Interact with AMM and trading infrastructure. Payments can become trading. Trading can become liquidity management. Liquidity management can become treasury management. And Ripple Treasury is already using AI agents across liquidity, forecasting, risk, reconciliation and reporting through GSmart. Its September 10 expansion added policy-governed treasury agents with customer-defined rules and audit trails. Ripple Treasury says its network connects to 13,000 banks and provides visibility across $12.5 trillion in payment volume. I find that convergence fascinating. RippleX is developing a ledger capable of serving autonomous software. Ripple Treasury is putting agents into real treasury workflows. The financial industry is moving assets onchain. The pieces are moving toward each other. A machine economy needs a very different kind of blockchain infrastructure. It needs certainty. XRPL gives 3 to 5 second deterministic finality. If an agent pays for an API, it needs to know the exact result because its next action depends on the answer. Success means continue. Expiration means stop or retry. Software cannot run serious financial workflows around vague settlement. That is why Ayo begins with trust. XRPL has operated since 2012. Ripple has reported more than 4 billion processed transactions, more than 7 million active wallets and around 120 independent validators. Then the ledger is gaining infrastructure for operations far more complex than ordinary payments. Batch Transactions can group up to eight transactions. Atomic mode allows the entire group to succeed together. Picture an autonomous financial agent doing this: Acquire asset. Post collateral. Settle payment. Pay fee. Transfer ownership. Five actions. One economic decision. If the workflow requires every component to complete, the machine needs a system capable of treating them as one coordinated event. Batch helps move XRPL in that direction. XRPL 3.3.0 introduced BatchV1_1, ConfidentialTransfer, DynamicMPT, PermissionDelegationV1_1 and Sponsor. XRPL 3.4.1 brought further Batch hardening. fixBatchV1_2 was expected to activate on October 9, 2026 if validator support stayed above the threshold. Now bring institutions into the same picture. Ayo said financial activity is moving onchain. We can already see it. Ondoโ€™s OUSG is live on XRPL. It supports 24/7 minting and redemption using RLUSD. Its structure includes exposure to BlackRockโ€™s BUIDL. Guggenheim Treasury Services-administered digital commercial paper is issued natively on XRPL through Zeconomy. It is secured by U.S. Treasuries and carries a Prime-1 Moodyโ€™s rating. Aviva Investors has plans with Ripple to tokenize traditional fund structures on XRPL through 2026 and beyond. CSD BR began using XRPL on September 29 as an additional recording and audit layer for financial assets, starting with BTG Pactual investment-fund shares. Now think about what autonomous software eventually has available to manage. A ledger containing Treasury products. Commercial paper. Fund shares. Stablecoins. Credit instruments. RLUSD. XRP. Future tokenized assets. That is a much richer economy than a payment chain. And the number of possible financial routes rises with every new asset. Imagine five assets. The routing problem is manageable. Imagine hundreds. Then thousands. Bank deposit tokens. Dollar stablecoins. Euro stablecoins. Money-market funds. Tokenized bonds. Private credit. Commercial paper. Funds. Securities. The number of potential asset pairs grows rapidly. Deep direct liquidity between every possible pair is inefficient. A common bridge becomes more useful. XRP was designed for bridge liquidity from the beginning. Now place an AI agent on top of that liquidity. The machine does not care about XRP Twitter. It does not care whether someone called one token better than another. It runs the numbers. If Asset A to XRP to Asset B gives the best route, it can choose XRP. Automatically. Over and over. That could completely change the emotional side of the XRP bridge debate. Humans argue. Algorithms route. Software can choose the cheapest path thousands of times without forming an opinion about the token. For me, that may become one of the purest utility cases imaginable. And the native role does not end at liquidity. x402 supports direct XRP payments. An agent can earn XRP. Hold XRP. Spend XRP. Every ordinary XRPL transaction also consumes XRP through the network fee. The current standard minimum is 10 drops before load scaling. The fee for one transaction is tiny. Machine scale changes the conversation. One human might make five transactions. One agent could make thousands. One company could deploy thousands of agents. Ripple Treasury cites Gartner projections suggesting an average Fortune 500 company could eventually operate more than 150,000 agents by 2028. Imagine only a small percentage receiving authority to perform financial actions. That still produces an enormous new category of economic actor. Account reserves create another connection. Institutional accounts. Agent wallets. Applications. They all interact with XRPLโ€™s reserve system. Sponsored Fees and Reserves could allow enterprises to centralize those costs and hide the blockchain friction from the end user. Imagine a bank creating one million wallets. The customers never need to learn how to buy XRP on an exchange just to activate the experience. The bank sponsors the infrastructure. Underneath that interface, XRP still carries the network resource requirement. That feels much closer to mass financial adoption. People do not need to understand TCP/IP before opening a website. Future users may not need to understand every XRPL mechanic before using a tokenized financial product. The infrastructure can disappear behind the application. Institutions also need privacy. A public financial network cannot expose every commercially sensitive position forever. Imagine J.P. Morgan moving a large block. BlackRock managing a position. A hedge fund rebalancing. A corporate treasury moving hundreds of millions. A market maker shifting liquidity. A securities depository processing sensitive activity. They cannot broadcast every detail to every competitor. XLS-96 Confidential Transfers changes what becomes possible. It uses EC-ElGamal encryption and zero-knowledge proofs to conceal individual balances and transfer amounts while allowing overall supply to remain verifiable. Balances can be encrypted for the holder. The issuer. An optional auditor. The public sees what needs to remain public. Authorized parties can access what needs oversight. That is serious financial architecture. Think about an institution moving $250 million of tokenized Treasuries. The counterparties know. The issuer can know. An authorized auditor can know. The whole world does not need to know the position. Now combine that privacy layer with Multi-Purpose Tokens. MPTs support issuer controls, metadata, supply limits, freeze, clawback and authorization. Suddenly XRPL has a much richer framework for tokenized funds, bonds, credit instruments and other financial claims. Then add Permissioned Domains. Enabled in February 2026. Access can depend on accepted credentials. A Permissioned DEX can exist. A Lending Protocol can operate in a controlled market. Institutions can use shared XRPL infrastructure with regulated access around a specific financial application. Then add native lending. Single-asset vaults. Fixed-term lending. Offchain underwriting. Permissioned access. First-loss protection structures. A tokenized asset can move beyond simply sitting in an account. It can become collateral. It can enter credit. It can generate liquidity. It can support borrowing. Financial markets begin forming around the assets. Now add Permission Delegation. One account can grant another limited authority over certain transaction types. This could become extremely important for autonomous agents. The agent does not need the master key. It does not need unlimited treasury access. The institution gives it a specific job. Specific permissions. Specific transaction types. Authority can be revoked. Then the Agent Wallet Skill separates transaction construction from key management and signing. KMS/HSM external signers can protect the keys. Open Wallet Standard can enforce policies and isolate keys across multiple agents. SourceTag and Memos can identify which agent performed which action. WebSocket monitoring can track activity. Now picture a Fortune 500 treasury five years from now. Agent #17 monitors dollar liquidity. Agent #28 watches FX. Agent #62 manages stablecoin balances. Agent #91 monitors a Treasury portfolio. Agent #133 routes payments. Agent #204 watches credit conditions. Each one operates inside defined policies. Every action leaves a trail. XRPL gives deterministic settlement. And when liquidity routing touches multiple tokenized assets, XRP can sit in the middle whenever it produces the best execution. That idea gets much larger once you see what is arriving around the ledger. RLUSD had already reached $2.409 billion circulating as of September 24, backed by about $2.5315 billion in reserves. Ondo is bringing tokenized Treasury exposure. Guggenheim is bringing commercial paper. Aviva Investors is preparing tokenized fund structures. CSD BR and BTG Pactual are bringing regulated asset-recording use cases. Ripple is expanding deeper into institutional finance beyond the ledger too. On October 6, Ripple announced an expanded relationship with Brevan Howard. Brevan Howard manages around $35 billion. Ripple Prime will provide multi-asset prime brokerage, clearing and financing to its funds. Brevan Howard affiliates also participated in Rippleโ€™s earlier $500 million strategic investment. Meanwhile Ripple is a Premier member of the Linux Foundation x402 Foundation. Look at the names around that table. Google. AWS. Visa. Mastercard. Stripe. American Express. Coinbase. Cloudflare. Shopify. Circle. Stellar. More than 50 organizations are working around open internet-native payments for agents, APIs and applications. Think about the direction of travel. Traditional assets are becoming tokens. Institutional finance is becoming more programmable. AI agents are becoming economic participants. Internet-native payment standards are emerging. Treasury software is becoming autonomous. Private financial activity needs compliant confidentiality. Complex actions need atomic execution. Machines need deterministic settlement. Digital markets need liquidity. XRPL is being engineered around those exact problems. And XRP is already native to the network. That is why my long-term thought around XRP keeps expanding. The original vision focused heavily on bridging currencies. I think the next version can become far larger. A bridge among tokenized financial assets. A machine sees: tokenized deposit to XRP to tokenized Treasury. Another sees: fund token to XRP to RLUSD. Another sees: stablecoin to XRP to commercial paper. Another sees a direct route without XRP and takes it. Fine. The point is that every additional asset creates more possible routing. XRP does not need to win every route. It needs deep enough liquidity to become the most efficient route often enough for software to select it automatically. Now multiply those decisions by autonomous systems operating 24/7. That is the part of the thesis I think people are seriously underestimating. Machines can create economic activity at a frequency humans never could. A human trader sleeps. A treasury agent does not. A human gets tired. Software keeps checking. A human manually handles one workflow. An autonomous system can monitor thousands. The entire network can move from human-speed finance toward machine-speed finance. Ayoโ€™s four pillars make perfect sense under that future. Trust, because machines and institutions need definite execution. Confidentiality, because financial positions cannot all be public. Scale, because the number and complexity of operations can multiply. AI agents, because software itself becomes a financial participant. Then every other XRPL feature connects. Credentials decide who can enter. Permissioned Domains create controlled markets. MPTs represent the assets. Confidential Transfers protect balances and amounts. Batch coordinates multi-step workflows. Lending creates credit. Permission Delegation controls agent authority. Sponsored Fees remove onboarding friction. Secure agent wallets protect keys. x402 lets machines pay. The DEX lets machines trade. XRP handles fees. XRP can handle direct machine payments. XRP can provide bridge liquidity when the route is best. It is one system. Ayo asked what XRPL needs to become for the next wave of adoption. I think the question underneath his entire keynote is even bigger: What happens when trillions of dollars of financial assets and millions of software agents eventually meet on the same network? You need privacy. You need permissions. You need credit. You need deterministic settlement. You need atomic transactions. You need secure signing. You need auditable activity. You need machine-native payments. You need liquidity. XRPL is being built toward all of it. And I keep coming back to the same thought. XRPโ€™s future user may not always be a person. It may be an algorithm moving value between two financial assets because XRP offered the best route. No emotion. No hype. No hesitation. Just liquidity. Execution. Settlement. Again. Again. Again. 24 hours a day. If tokenization keeps expanding and AI agents really do become major economic actors, XRP could end up serving a financial environment much larger than the cross-border-payment market people originally associated with it. -Thousands of assets. -Millions of agents. -Constant liquidity routing. -Institutional transactions. -Machine payments. -Credit. -Treasury management. -DEX activity. And XRP sitting directly inside the ledger all of it runs on. That is the $XRP future I think Ayo Akinyele was quietly laying out in Seoul. And I do not think most people have fully understood how big it can become yet.

X Finance Bull

11,866 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 3 ะดะฝะตะน ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

Muizzuโ€™s UN speech was riddled with blatant lies and staggering hypocrisy. What we witnessed was a clear reflection of his character on the global stage. It is deeply embarrassing for every Maldivian to see him believe that such fabrications would go unnoticed by the international community. His words undermine the trust and credibility our nation once held, and under his leadership, we are steadily losing both our reliability and standing on the world stage. This was never the case during the MDP government, given their vast experience in international relations. Even a simple glance reveals glaring inconsistencies. 1. Muizzu: I have a map here of the world with countries which are facing some sort of crisis. In red, do you see any countries in green who are not facing any crisis? Do you know why? Because we are all deep in the red. Humanity is in crisis, and in many cases, it's man made. We need nations united in harmony, not United Nations in misery. The conflicts in the world were created by people like Muizzu. Wars have mostly been fueled by nationalistic rhetoric. World War I and II erupted from nationalist movements, much like the one Muizzu is attempting to cultivate in the Maldives by creating a ministry dedicated to nationalism. Muizzu also spearheaded a hate-driven campaign against India, a regional superpower, which he later confessed to the former president of Sri Lanka was merely a tactic to win votes. The aftermath of this tactic continues to this day, as hate-mongering weakens international relations and sows the seeds of conflict. Muizzu is not an agent of peace; he is an agent of division and war. His foreign policy has contributed to a less stable regional security environment. 2. Muizzu: Iโ€™m here at the United Nations with a vision of where I want to take my country. A society that is inclusive and just. A country that exemplifies sustainability and democratic governance. Under your presidency, our society is neither inclusive nor just. Only last week, the government extended the foreign study loan facility solely to the children of diplomats, leaving the rest of the population out in the cold. People are losing their jobs in the Maldives, replaced by incompetent party loyalists. Basic health insurance for those needing to travel abroad has become increasingly difficult for people with differing political views. Justice is being systematically denied. The Criminal Court itself acknowledged that police negligence allowed a criminal to walk free in relation to a road accident. It is widely believed that you interfered with the courts to block justice for former President Yameen. Meanwhile, democratic institutions are at risk, thanks to the stranglehold Muizzu exert on the media. 3. Muizzu: Boosting productivity will be the key to economic transformation. This we will do by reforming and strengthening our institutions. Anti-Corruption Commission has been reduced to a shell of its former self under your presidency. A thriving economy cannot be built on the back of institutions that refuse to hold the powerful accountable. 4. Muizzu: Enhancing digital connectivity is key to achieving Inclusive development. We are using and expanding artificial intelligence systems to deliver essential services such as health care, education and social welfare. Proper digital connectivity requires fast, affordable internet, but the initiatives launched by the previous administration to achieve this have stalled under your watch. As for your claims of using artificial intelligence in healthcare, education, and social welfareโ€”that is simply untrue. No AI systems have been implemented in any of these sectors in Maldives. 5. Muizzu: We are also delving into cutting edge applications of 5G technology, using drones for medical supplies, delivery and implementing smart road systems, and using AI enhanced technology for erosion detection and environmental monitoring. The notion of using cutting-edge 5G technology is also a fabrication, a lie. Utilizing drones for medical supplies is not cutting-edge; itโ€™s a sign of failure to stock essential medicines on our islandsโ€”a national disgrace. There are no smart road systems in the Maldives, and no island is equipped with erosion detection or environmental monitoring technology. Which also is a lie. 6. Muizzu: The transformation can be sustainable only if we transform our education and financial systems. Despite holding a supermajority in parliament, there have been no bills or initiatives to advance fintech, nor any indication that the MMA has shifted its stance to embrace modern financial solutions. 7. Muizzu: We need to invest in digital literacy from a young age, to build a generation that can use artificial intelligence to enhance public service delivery. No initiatives have been undertaken by your government to invest in digital literacy, yet funds have been allocated to promote nationalism in schools. Why didnโ€™t Muizzu mention at the UN how much public money is being wasted on this propaganda project? 8. Muizzu: The result we desire is inclusive development, where equality of access to opportunities is guaranteed. Most development projects have been awarded to Chinese companies, even those that local companies could manage. Smaller projects have been marred by accusations of corruption. Even basic painting jobs from HDC have raised allegations of high-level corruption. There is no equal access to opportunities. 9. Muizzu: ....where every Maldivian citizen has adequate housing. As for housing, the land reclamation and plots and flats granted by the previous government have halted under your administration for no reason. 10. Muizzu: My government has launched $6.5 million loan facility IT specifically for women entrepreneurs, of which 25% is allocated to those with disabilities. The $6.5 million loan facility you mentioned for women entrepreneurs, including those with disabilities, never materialized. It was nothing but a campaign promise, and news papers revealed that these loans were temporarily halted by government. 11. Muizzu: Ras Malai this is my promise to the Maldivian people. Eight months have passed, and the Fushi Dhiggaru Falhu project remains incomplete. At times, there has been no progress at all, as developers have repeatedly stopped reclamation work & this could be the status of the project for the next 4 years. This project is a financial burden to the country and there was no transparency at any stage of the project. 12. Muizzu: Tourism drives the Maldivian economy. My vision is to expand the tourism sector further. His deputy ministers have actively damaged relations with one of our largest tourism marketsโ€”Indiaโ€”costing us more than $3.8 million, according to industry experts. 13. Muizzu: But we can't keep doing this. We can't keep meeting, talking, pledging, but not doing. We don't want these days to come back to haunt us. The days when we had a chance, but not a will. Muizzu is doing exactly what he claim at UNโ€”making promises without delivering results. None of his pledges have been fulfilled, yet he continue to pile on new ones. Sounds like Muizzu is talking about himself. 14. Muizzu: We championed the right to environment because we are keenly aware of the consequences of environmental degradation. Despite claiming to champion the environment, he previously dismissed the environmental threats facing Maldives as a "myth" during an interview with Al-Jazeera. Now, at the UN, he spent around 3 minutes pretending to care about our environment. 15. Muizzu: We must accept a sovereign and independent Palestinian state on the pre 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. When the previous administration made a similar statement in support of a two-state solution for Palestine, Muizzuโ€™s hardcore supporters opposed it vehemently. Now, he repeat the same statement, ignoring the hypocrisy. He should have gone for one state solution. 16. Muizzu: The Maldives has always taken ownership and responsibility for its own development. While we have received extensive support towards our development, we urge the multilateral development funds, banks and bilateral donors to view us as your partners, not just as recipients of aid. "Maldives has always taken ownership and responsibility for its own development," it suggests that Maldives is self-sufficient with funds and leading its own progress. However, in the very next sentence, he acknowledges that the Maldives has "received extensive support" towards its development, which contradicts his first sentence. We can become a partner when we can contribute to global funds and initiatives, not when our country relies solely on being the recipient. 17. Muizzu: What we are witnessing is the opposite inability to stop climate change and environmental degradation, inability to stop war and genocide, inability to stop exploitation and suffering. UN, like other multilateral organizations, is inherently limited in its ability to intervene in sovereign states. Its authority is restricted by the collective will of its member nations, as sovereignty remains a fundamental principle of international law. Muizzu doesn't know this?

Mohamed Faisal

54,161 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 2 ะปะตั‚ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

OHH BOY! ๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿšจ $XRP holders, guess which major company with liquidity all over the world asked Ripple for help? Brad Garlinghouse never named the company in the SALT interview. But when I line up his exact words with the companies already sitting inside Ripple Treasury, one name fits the problem almost word for word: CEVA Logistics. And once you understand why CEVA matters, the entire GTreasury acquisition starts looking completely different. Brad said CFOs and treasurers are coming to Ripple with money spread around the world. Some of it is sitting dormant. Some of it is not earning yield. They want to know how stablecoins and onchain markets can help them move that money faster and make it productive. Now look at CEVA. CEVA had around 1,100 bank accounts worldwide. Ripple Treasuryโ€™s own case study says the company gained visibility across more than 40 internal entities and identified roughly: $100 MILLION of idle cash. That money could then be centralized and used for working capital. Read Bradโ€™s words again. Liquidity all over the world. CEVA had 1,100 global bank accounts. Dormant liquidity. CEVA identified $100M sitting idle. Unlock trapped capital. CEVA already used the treasury platform Ripple now owns to do exactly that. That is why CEVA Logistics is my strongest evidence-based candidate. Not because Ripple confirmed CEVA was the exact company Brad was talking about. Brad did not name anyone. But CEVA proves something more important: the exact problem Brad described is already sitting inside Ripple Treasuryโ€™s customer base at serious scale. And Ripple can now offer CEVA far more than GTreasury originally could. The old treasury job was: find the money, see the money, centralize the money, use the money somewhere else. Ripple is adding another layer: keep that money moving and productive around the clock. When Ripple bought GTreasury for $1 billion, Brad already described the opportunity using almost the same language. He said Ripple wanted to help treasury teams put trapped capital to work. GTreasury gave Ripple access to more than 1,000 corporate customers across 160 countries. That is why I think people underestimate what Ripple actually bought. It did not simply buy treasury software. It bought access to the people who decide what happens to corporate cash. The Office of the CFO. The treasury department. The teams deciding: where cash sits, which subsidiary needs liquidity, which balances can be invested, how FX is managed, how payments move, how much money needs to remain pre-funded, where collateral is held, and how much capital is simply waiting. That is one of the hardest enterprise audiences for any crypto company to reach. Ripple effectively bought the door. Then Ripple started changing what could happen behind that door. In April 2026, Ripple launched native Digital Asset Accounts inside Ripple Treasury. Now corporate finance teams can see traditional cash and digital liquidity through the same treasury environment instead of treating blockchain as an isolated system. Even more important: Ripple said multiple existing customers were already beta-testing the digital-asset capabilities before public launch. That line deserves far more attention. Somewhere inside Ripple Treasuryโ€™s existing corporate customer base, companies had already moved past: โ€œWhat is a stablecoin?โ€ They reached: โ€œGive us access. We want to test this.โ€ Then Brad goes to SALT and says that over roughly the last six months, CFOs and treasurers have increasingly started approaching him with exactly these liquidity questions. That timing is hard for me to ignore. And Rippleโ€™s own 2026 survey says 74% of finance leaders believe stablecoins can improve cash-flow efficiency and unlock trapped working capital. That is the demand side. Now look at the customer side. CEVA is only the beginning. American Airlines is another name I cannot ignore. American operates across more than 60 countries. Ripple Treasury says it increased Americanโ€™s global cash visibility from roughly: 65% to 99%. Think about what that means for a treasury team. At 65% visibility, the problem is: Where is our money? At 99%, the problem changes. Now you can ask: Which entities are overfunded? Which balances are actually necessary? Which accounts could earn more? Which cash is sitting locally because moving it is slow? Which buffers only exist because banking infrastructure cannot move at the speed the company wants? That is exactly where Rippleโ€™s new digital layer becomes interesting. American already uses Ripple Treasury across: cash, investments, debt, collateral, FX, and other treasury functions. Ripple does not need to walk into American Airlines and convince the company to replace its treasury operation. It already sits inside the workflow. The next conversation can simply become: You already use this system to manage almost all of your global cash. Now here is RLUSD. Here is digital settlement. Here are tokenized liquidity products. Here is 24/7 movement. Here are new ways of making surplus cash productive. That is a much easier adoption path. Then there is Subway. Nearly 37,000 restaurants across around 100 countries. Historically around: 450 bank accounts across 70 banks. That is a treasury maze. Franchise flows. Royalty payments. Advertising fees. Regional entities. Suppliers. Different currencies. Different jurisdictions. Ripple Treasury helped consolidate that structure and pushed cash visibility to roughly 98%, with around 90% of payments automated. But one comment from Subwayโ€™s own treasury leadership matters more to me than those numbers. They said Subway kept expanding use of the platform as more capabilities became available. Now ask what major capability Ripple just added. Digital assets. XRP. RLUSD. Digital liquidity. Tokenized investment products. 24/7 settlement. Subway does not need to announce: โ€œWe are becoming a crypto company.โ€ That would completely miss the point. If digital dollars improve intercompany movement or global franchise settlement, the treasury team has a reason to use them. If tokenized products let excess cash remain productive for longer, the treasury team has a reason to use them. If XRP offers useful bridge liquidity between currencies inside a transaction, the software can use XRP. That is how adoption gets real. It becomes boring. It becomes treasury. And boring is bullish because boring means the technology became useful enough that nobody needs to call it crypto anymore. Then we have The Adecco Group. Adecco has approximately 280 entities across 60 countries. Its intercompany operation touches around 20 currencies. Ripple Treasury already saves Adecco roughly $100,000 per month through netting and reduced FX and bank costs. This is one of my favorite examples because it proves treasury efficiency is measurable. Nobody needs a token narrative. Adecco can look at the monthly number and see the benefit. Now imagine digital settlement being added after the netting process. Today: hundreds of entities owe each other money. Treasury calculates the final obligation. Then settlement still has to move through conventional banking infrastructure. Different banks. Different cutoffs. Different FX windows. Potential correspondent chains. Now imagine: net the obligations, determine the final amount, settle through digital liquidity, operate beyond normal banking hours, compress the time the company is exposed to settlement friction. That is a real stablecoin use case. Not theory. A corporate financial problem with an obvious digital solution. Then SSP Group. SSP operates across 35 countries. Its treasury team has openly described using Ripple Treasury to identify which entities are holding too much cash and determine where that liquidity should be centralized. Put that beside Bradโ€™s quote. He says companies have money scattered globally. SSP says some subsidiaries are holding excess cash. Brad says corporations want that capital unlocked. SSPโ€™s treasury system is already finding the exact excess balances that need to be centralized. This is why I think Bradโ€™s โ€œsea changeโ€ comment is much bigger than: โ€œCorporations are interested in stablecoins.โ€ What he is really saying is: corporate treasury has found a problem blockchain can solve. That is a much stronger adoption signal. Then there is Volvo. Volvo is the name I would watch hardest for the transition from traditional treasury into blockchain-based corporate money. The company already sits inside the Ripple Treasury ecosystem. But the bigger clue came through Ivan Branco, Head of Information Management, AI and Analytics at Volvo Group. In an interview highlighted by the Cardano Foundation, Volvo discussed its internal exploration of an enclosed blockchain environment and proprietary cryptocurrency for transactions involving Volvo, material suppliers and transport suppliers. That is huge because it tells us Volvo has already thought about digital money in the context of a real business problem. Supplier settlement. Now imagine what Volvo sees today. It explored creating digital money itself. Then the treasury system it already uses becomes owned by Ripple. Ripple adds: RLUSD XRP digital-asset accounts, stablecoin settlement, 24/7 liquidity, tokenized markets, and institutional financial infrastructure. The question becomes: Why build all of this ourselves if part of it can increasingly exist inside the treasury system we already know? That is why Volvo remains one of my highest-conviction names to watch. But the story gets much bigger when you add the banks. Because corporate money does not move without institutional banking infrastructure. That is where: BNY Mellon JPMorgan Bank of America and Citi enter the picture. These banks are not the same type of participant as CEVA or Subway. CEVA asks: How do I unlock my global cash? A major bank asks: How do I provide the rails through which that cash can move safely? Those two sides are now starting to meet. Start with BNY Mellon. BNY is the primary custodian of RLUSD reserves. It also provides Ripple with transaction-banking services supporting RLUSD operations. That is a serious institutional foundation. If corporate treasury teams eventually begin moving meaningful balances through RLUSD, the stablecoin needs: reserve custody, banking, redemptions, operational infrastructure, institutional trust. Ripple already has BNY inside that machinery. So BNY is not sitting outside Rippleโ€™s stablecoin strategy. BNY is already underneath it. Then we have JPMorgan. This connection is especially important because it already went beyond theory. In May 2026, Ondo, Kinexys by J.P. Morgan, Mastercard and Ripple completed a real cross-border, cross-bank redemption involving tokenized U.S. Treasuries. The tokenized asset was on XRPL. XRPL processed its leg in under five seconds. Kinexys by J.P. Morgan handled the banking settlement side. That one transaction says a lot about where finance may be heading. The future does not require Ripple to replace JPMorgan. It does not require JPMorgan to replace XRPL. Different systems can handle different parts of the same institutional workflow. XRPL handles one side. JPMorgan infrastructure handles another. Tokenized financial assets move between them. That is much more realistic than the old crypto idea that one network has to destroy everything else. And JPMorgan is building toward the same corporate-liquidity future Brad described. Its Blockchain Deposit Accounts focus on giving corporations access to liquidity around the clock. JPM Coin is positioned around keeping capital liquid and productive 24/7. Read that beside Brad. Brad says: CFOs have dormant global liquidity. JPMorgan says: keep corporate capital productive around the clock. Different institution. Same problem. Then Bank of America. Bank of America Merrill Lynch was one of the founding members of Rippleโ€™s Global Payments Steering Group, established around standards for blockchain-based cross-border payments. Today Bank of America also sits among the banks supported through Ripple Treasuryโ€™s ClearConnect infrastructure, alongside institutions such as JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs. That does not mean Bank of America secretly runs XRP. That is not the interesting part. The interesting part is what the corporate treasurer sees. A company can have traditional balances at Bank of America. Traditional balances at JPMorgan. Other bank balances around the world. Then: RLUSD. Digital-asset positions. Tokenized liquidity. Potential XRP access. All visible through the same treasury-management layer. That is how traditional banking and blockchain start merging. Not because every bank disappears. Because the corporate treasury layer begins orchestrating between them. Then Citi gives us one of the strongest confirmations that Bradโ€™s comments represent something wider than Ripple. Citiโ€™s own 2026 language talks about: faster cash mobility, always-available liquidity, and money and assets capable of continuous movement. Citi Token Services already moves tokenized deposits 24/7 across supported markets. So now look at the pattern. Brad Garlinghouse says: corporate treasurers want dormant global liquidity unlocked. JPMorgan says: capital should remain liquid and productive 24/7. Citi says: treasury clients increasingly need continuously available liquidity. Ripple Treasury says: put idle corporate cash to work around the clock. Four different organizations. Same structural shift. That is the real signal. And this is where I think the $XRP thesis becomes much bigger than: โ€œStablecoins are bullish for Ripple.โ€ Because RLUSD and XRP do different jobs. RLUSD gives institutions stable digital-dollar liquidity. XRP is XRPLโ€™s native asset and bridge-liquidity tool. Now look again at the corporations in this thesis. CEVA Logistics. American Airlines. Subway. The Adecco Group. SSP Group. Volvo. These are international companies. They do not operate inside one currency. They deal with dollars, euros, local currencies, bank deposits and potentially an increasing number of digital representations of money. Stablecoins do not eliminate the liquidity problem. They can actually create more digital liquidity relationships. Different stablecoins. Tokenized deposits. Different currencies. Different settlement networks. Someone still needs to connect value efficiently. That is where XRP can become useful. And the corporation does not need to become an XRP investor. The company does not need to announce: โ€œWe are holding XRP.โ€ The treasury system can simply evaluate the transaction. What route is cheapest? What route is fastest? Where is the deepest liquidity? If XRP provides the better route between two assets, the system can use XRP in the middle. The CFO sees: money moved. The recipient sees: money received. The treasury team sees: settlement completed. That is financial infrastructure. Then layer in everything Ripple has assembled. Ripple Treasury gets Ripple into the CFOโ€™s office. RLUSD provides digital dollars. BNY Mellon supports the reserve and banking layer underneath RLUSD. Ripple Payments moves value internationally. XRP provides native bridge liquidity. XRPL provides public settlement. Ripple Prime provides institutional financing, clearing, collateral and liquidity. Tokenized money-market funds give excess corporate cash somewhere productive to go. Ripple Treasury itself is now positioning tokenized MMFs, repo and an XRPL MMF portal as ways to keep idle capital productive. Then developing XRPL Lending starts bringing another piece into the picture: credit. That matters because real financial systems do not run only on payments. They run on credit. Working capital. Collateral. Repo. Financing. Short-term liquidity. Corporate borrowing. Asset-backed lending. If Ripple can move from helping corporate treasury see money, to moving that money, to deploying it, to financing against digital assets, then the stack starts becoming much larger. Think about CEVA again. Old world: 1,100 bank accounts. $100M sitting idle. Ripple Treasury helps centralize it. Potential future architecture: traditional balances visible inside Ripple Treasury โ†’ Digital Asset Account โ†’ RLUSD for digital dollars โ†’ tokenized MMFs for short-term deployment โ†’ secured repo โ†’ Ripple Payments for global movement โ†’ XRPL settlement โ†’ XRP when bridge liquidity provides the better route โ†’ eventually onchain lending and credit. That is no longer a payments company. That starts looking like a full corporate-liquidity stack. Now multiply that across more than: 1,000 corporate customers operating across: 160 countries with roughly: 13,000 connected banks. Ripple says Ripple Treasury facilitated about $13 trillion in customer payment volume during 2025. That does not mean $13 trillion suddenly moves onto XRPL. The important part is the size of the installed base. Ripple does not need to find corporate cash. The cash already exists. It does not need to find multinational clients. The relationships already exist. It does not need to build treasury workflows from scratch. The software already exists. It now needs to progressively add digital rails inside those existing relationships. That is why the beta testing matters. The process has already started. And RLUSD itself was approaching roughly $2.4 billion in circulation as of September 3, 2026. So the digital-dollar layer is growing while Ripple simultaneously pushes deeper into corporate treasury. That is why I increasingly think the $1 billion GTreasury acquisition may eventually look like far more than a software purchase. Ripple may have paid $1 billion for: direct distribution into global corporate liquidity. And that is why Bradโ€™s phrase โ€œsea changeโ€ hits so hard. For years crypto chased the corporation. Now the corporation is starting to walk up to Ripple. The CFO is not asking: Which token will pump? The CFO is asking: Why is our money sitting idle across twenty countries when it could be moving and earning around the clock? That is the kind of question that creates real adoption. My strongest evidence-based corporate candidate remains: CEVA Logistics. Then: Volvo because the company already explored blockchain-based corporate money. American Airlines because Ripple Treasury already sits deeply inside a huge global treasury operation. Subway because its international franchise structure creates a massive payment and liquidity challenge. The Adecco Group because its 280 entities, 60 countries and 20 currencies make digital settlement extremely logical. SSP Group because its treasury team is literally looking for excess cash sitting around the organization. Around those companies sit: BNY Mellon JPMorgan Bank of America Citi and Goldman Sachs inside the broader banking environment Ripple Treasury connects with. Then you have: Ondo providing tokenized U.S. Treasuries. Mastercard participating in real institutional tokenized-asset settlement. Kinexys by J.P. Morgan handling banking settlement. And Ripple connecting everything through: Ripple Treasury, RLUSD, Ripple Payments, Ripple Prime, XRPL, and XRP. That is why Bradโ€™s interview feels much bigger to me than: โ€œCFOs are interested in stablecoins.โ€ He may be describing the beginning of corporate working capital itself becoming digital and programmable. That is a completely different market. And Ripple is already sitting directly in front of the companies controlling that money. The bullish $XRP thesis is not: CEVA found $100M, therefore CEVA buys $100M of XRP. That is not how I see this. The much bigger opportunity is: corporate liquidity enters an ecosystem where XRP, RLUSD and XRPL are already native financial tools. Once the CFO is already inside Ripple Treasury, the hardest part is done. Ripple does not need to convince them to rip everything out and โ€œadopt crypto.โ€ It can introduce new capabilities one layer at a time. Stablecoin settlement. Digital balances. Tokenized MMFs. Repo. Cross-border payments. Institutional liquidity. Eventually lending. And if those capabilities save money, free working capital or make liquidity easier to manage, corporations have a business reason to keep using them. That is how this becomes normal. That is why I keep coming back to Bradโ€™s wording. He did not say: โ€œCrypto investors are excited.โ€ He said corporate finance executives are asking how Ripple can help with real money sitting idle right now. The problem already exists. The customers already exist. The liquidity already exists. The banking relationships already exist. Ripple now has the treasury interface connecting them. And if even a small portion of the trillions already running through this ecosystem starts touching digital rails over time, the scale gets very serious, very fast. That is the $XRP setup I care about. Not one logo. Not one corporate announcement. The possibility that Ripple is becoming part of the infrastructure through which global corporate liquidity itself gets managed. SOON!

X Finance Bull

181,649 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 27 ะดะฝะตะน ะฝะฐะทะฐะด