#

stablecoin

(10 articles)

How To Steal Bitcoin: The Landauer Attack

Bitcoin's base layer was designed as a minimal, thermodynamically efficient ledger for value transfer. Over the past decade, a sequence of protocol changes and narrative shifts has progressively loaded the chain with non-payment data and institutional dependency. This report applies Landauer's principle, the thermodynamic cost of information, to Bitcoin's governance history, identifying a pattern of incremental complexity addition that threatens the protocol's core function as censorship-resistant money. The pattern is not hypothetical. It is documented in protocol commit histories, DOJ-released Epstein files, ETF prospectus language, and the public statements of the actors involved. The August 2026 BIP-110 activation window represents the first organized attempt to reverse this trajectory, and the institutional response to it reveals which actors benefit from the accumulated complexity.

No Centralized Bridges Required: How BCH is Building a Sovereign DeFi Ecosystem

The promise of Decentralized Finance (DeFi) is true financial sovereignty—complete control over your assets without relying on a bank, broker, or intermediary. For years, however, achieving true DeFi utility required most users to accept a dangerous trade-off: crossing a centralized bridge. Most "interoperable" DeFi relies on locking native assets (like BTC) into a complex, smart contract managed by a third party, receiving a "wrapped" representation (like WBTC) on another chain. Every bridge is a single point of failure and a high-value target for hackers. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is quietly proving there is a better way. By leveraging its native scaling features, BCH is delivering high-throughput, low-fee decentralized services without the need for centralized bridges. The Secret Weapon: CashTokens The May 2023 upgrade introduced CashTokens to the BCH mainnet, a protocol that enables the creation of native tokens and complex smart contracts directly on the Layer 1 chain. This is a crucial distinction from models that fragment liquidity across multiple layer-2 networks. • Native Stablecoins: CashTokens allow developers to build algorithms and protocols for scalable, native stablecoins. By anchoring them directly to the security of the BCH ledger, these stablecoins eliminate cross-chain counterparty risk. • Trustless DEXs: Native Decentralized Exchanges (DEXs) on BCH mean you can swap peer-to-peer between BCH and CashTokens directly. Your funds remain entirely within your sovereign custody until the moment the trade is executed by the immutable smart contract. • Low Fees, No Fragmentation: Unlike ecosystems plagued by high gas fees or divided user bases across L2s, BCH maintains sub-cent transaction fees. This keeps the entire ecosystem liquid and usable for everyone. By focusing on native Layer 1 solutions, Bitcoin Cash is validating the original promise of cryptocurrency: true peer-to-peer electronic cash, now capable of advanced financial utility, all while maintaining absolute user sovereignty. The future isn't a complex web of bridges; it’s a robust, sovereign mainnet ecosystem.

肖风谈稳定币与区块链

source: [对话肖风:在香港稳定币的沸腾时刻,一些回归常识的冷思考(全文)](https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/MuNHDKM4segkkOd2erUE6Q) ### 大陆接受 crypto 的可能路径 稳定币 --> 公链 --> RWA --> 比特币等加密货币。 ### RWA 三阶段 法定货币的代币化:USDT, USDC。 金融资产的代币化:美元债券基金、货币基金等代币化上链(BlackRock、Franklin Templeton等机构)。 实物资产代币化:有个核心问题没解决,预言机。非常难,现在没有很好的解决方案。 ### 为什么我们需要区块链? 最近大家讨论稳定币,都从非常宏观的层面,从货币的角度来解读它,但这些解读都缺乏底层逻辑和技术基础。 区块链的核心技术的是,分布式账本。 一句话概括经典的金融市场基础设施:关于交易、清算和结算的一整套制度安排。无论是股票、资金、债券还是其他交易,本质都是一样的。 传统的金融市场基础设施实行中央登记、中央存管、中央对手方交易和中央结算。例如,股票交易需要券商、交易所、资金结算和股份清算四家中介的协助。 而在分布式账本上构建的新金融市场,这些中介全部消失了,变成了点对点交易。 区块链分布式账本是一个全球公开透明的公共账本。从第一性原理来看,它就是一个全球公共账本,所有人都在上面记账,所有人也能看到所有信息。 因此,不再需要中介,交易变成了点对点,不再依赖中央登记、中央存管、中央交易和中央结算。这种点对点交易系统可以实现秒级到账和几乎零费用。 从商业角度看,如果一个新的金融市场基础设施能够实现更高效率、更低成本和更少环节,它一定具有生命力。假以时日,它一定会取代旧体系。如果无法取代,那就违背了商业规律。这是从交易机制角度的分析。 从结算机制来看,传统的金融市场基础设施采用净额结算。例如,银行系统通常在下午5点停止交易,之后如果是机构交易,银行就不再处理。停下来的意义是什么?是为了算账,完成当天的轧差。而新的金融市场基础设施采用逐笔结算,交易确认即结算完成。 这就是股票交易所和Crypto交易所的巨大区别。Crypto交易所建立在逐笔结算制度上,因此可以7×24小时运行,不需要轧差算账。股票交易所为什么不能7×24小时?因为它是净额结算制度,必须有一个截止时间点来完成算账和轧差。例如,纽交所今年计划推行5+23小时的交易,为什么是23小时而不是24小时?因为它必须留出1小时算账,否则账目会混乱。 从结算制度来看,如果有人说新的金融市场基础设施没有生命力,而旧的有生命力,那就是违背商业规律。更高效率、更低成本、更少环节的系统,一定比更多环节、更低效率、更高成本的系统更具生命力。假以时日,新体系一定会取代旧体系。 分布式账本的改变带来了金融市场基础设施的改变。稳定币和其他代币都是基于这套基础设施、区块链技术和新的记账方法构建的。因此,看待稳定币不能仅从货币角度出发。 ### 反洗钱 香港的稳定币立法中,对于获得许可发行的稳定币,最核心的关注点是反洗钱。 实际上,整个金融市场的反洗钱标准是完全一致的,并不存在专门针对Crypto的独立反洗钱标准。 2021年到2022年期间,国际反洗钱组织在全球范围内将Crypto的反洗钱要求纳入规则体系。 传统金融和加密货币的反洗钱机制因为技术逻辑不同,存在本质区别。 传统金融基于身份认证体系,而加密货币在链上是匿名的,所以传统金融机构曾经认为加密货币无法有效实施反洗钱。但实际上,Crypto的反洗钱可以通过追踪钱包地址来实现。 传统金融反洗钱,如公安部门反诈中心可以查阅银行账户,从而堵截诈骗资金。但如果涉及资金的跨境流动,反洗钱是很难进行下去的,因为其他国家不会配合你,除非你打算履行冗长复杂的司法程序。 可以说,传统金融机构的跨境反洗钱是一个低效、高成本、且很难实际执行的系统。 但Crypto不需要这些,只要是代币,我们就可以通过技术追踪代币诞生的那一天你去过什么地方,经过哪几个钱包。 全球加密货币发行机构每天都在标记钱包地址的属性(黑名单或白名单)。只要某个代币流经黑名单地址,我们就会拒绝接受,这套机制比传统金融的反洗钱更高效。 传统金融人士也认同这套做法是足够的,并且是最好的解决方案。 ### 作为金融机构,为什么要一定要选择稳定币? 稳定币解决了普惠金融的“最后一公里”问题。 以美元稳定币为例,它比传统美元更容易获取,不需要银行账户。在美元短缺的国家,即使你有银行账户,银行也可能没法提供美元兑换服务。 持有美元稳定币最多的人群在哪?在非洲。尼日利亚约有30%-40%的人口持有美元稳定币,这些人大多无法获得银行服务。 另一个案例就是香港的菲佣。他们每个月会汇1-2千港币给远在菲律宾乡下的父母,现有的这套系统需要15天的时间,并收取7%-10%的费用。如果使用稳定币,可以实现秒级到账,并且不需要支付7%-10%的费用,这才是真正的普惠金融。 ### 在我们资本账户尚未完全开放的背景下,人民币稳定币的具体使用场景在哪里? 在对稳定币的理解被局限在支付工具的范畴,我觉得这个定位是不准确的。 实际上,现在99%的美元稳定币不是用于支付,而是用于交易场景。 具体来说,是用于Crypto与稳定币之间的交易,未来也会成为RWA资产的交易媒介。它将发展成为链上加密资产和RWA的价值尺度和交易媒介。 未来港币稳定币和离岸人民币稳定币的主要应用场景也会是RWA等资产的交易媒介。支付功能当然存在,但至少未来三年内不会是主要用途。 稳定币最初被创造出来不是为了支付,而是因为加密货币波动太大,我们需要一个相对稳定的计价工具来进行交易。稳定币的"稳定"是相对于比特币的波动而言,不是相对于美元。 回想2014年稳定币刚出现时,就是因为市场呼吁:Crypto波动太大,无法作为交易媒介,我们需要一个稳定的计价单位。 但必须指出,2014年美元稳定币刚诞生的时候,其实有好几年都没什么人用。那时所有加密货币都是用法定货币定价的,无论是美元还是人民币。当时各国监管比较宽松,比如中国的几家交易所都直接支持人民币交易。 ### 联盟链行不通 区块链的精髓就在于自带Token,如果没有Token,它就还是互联网。 区块链之所以能发展,“无需许可”是关键特性。任何人都可以自由加入或退出网络。 区块链从比特币矿工开始就是这样发展的,大多数成功的应用都是在无需许可的环境下产生的。 要真正推广成功,就必须遵循区块链的基本准则,包括Token机制。 ### 新加坡 vs 香港 新加坡的定位是亚洲的瑞士,香港的定位是亚洲的华尔街。 如果你的定位是亚洲的瑞士,你就希望社会安定,市场平静,而不希望大起大落,被人诟病,所以才会出现这一次让那些不在新加坡持牌,不服务新加坡人的Crypto机构离开新加坡。 但是如果你定位为亚洲的华尔街,就必须让你的市场很活跃,必须提供很多的投资机会、交易机会给大家,要不然你就不是华尔街。 ### 肖风 15 年投资了以太坊 那时以太坊主网还未上线,投钱是支持以太坊的开发,不是买币。略。 有几年中国就是区块链世界的中心之一。

The Bitcoindollar Debate: Can Hard and Soft Money Coexist?

The ["Bitcoindollar" system](https://www.bitcoindollar.net/)—an emerging term which describes the interplay of U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoins and Bitcoin as complementary forces in the evolving monetary framework of the digital era (and which replaces the defunct Petrodollar system)—has sparked an interesting debate on Nostr with PowMaxi. You will find the thread links at the bottom of this article. Powmaxi argues that attempting to merge hard money (Bitcoin) with soft money (the U.S. dollar) is structurally doomed, because the systems are inherently contradictory and cannot coexist without one eventually destroying the other. This critique is certainly valid, but ONLY if the Bitcoindollar is viewed as a final system. But I never claim that. To the contrary, the conclusion in my book is that this is a system that buys time for fiat, absorbs global demand for monetary stability, and ushers in a Bitcoinized world without the immediate collapse and the reset of the fiat system which would otherwise cause dramatic consequences. The Bitcoindollar is the only way to a gradual Bitcoin dominance in 10-20 years time while avoiding sudden collapse of the fiat system, so that also the power elites who hold the keys to this system can adapt.\ At least this is my hope. Therefore the "fusion" isn't the future. The siphoning is. And the U.S. may try to ride it as long as possible. The Bitcoindollar system is a transitional strategic framework, not a\ permanent monetary equilibrium. In the end I agree with PowMaxi. His detailed critique deserves an equally detailed analysis. Here's how the objections break down and why they don’t necessarily undermine the Bitcoindollar system. ### 1. Hard Money vs. Soft Money: Opposed Systems? **Objection:** Bitcoin is a closed, decentralized system with a fixed supply; the dollar is an open, elastic system governed by central banks and political power. These traits are mutually exclusive and incompatible. **Response:** Ideologically, yes. Practically, no. Hybrid financial systems are not uncommon. Bitcoin and stablecoins serve different user needs: Bitcoin is a store of value; stablecoins are mediums of exchange. Their coexistence mirrors real-world economic needs. The contradiction can be managed, and is not fatal at least for the transitional phase. ### 2. Scarcity vs. Elasticity: Economic Incompatibility? **Objection:** Bitcoin can’t inject liquidity in crises; fiat systems can. Anchoring fiat to Bitcoin removes policymakers' tools. **Response:** Correct — but that’s *why Bitcoin is held as a reserve*, not used as the primary medium of exchange in the Bitcoindollar model. Fiat-based liquidity mechanisms still function via stablecoins, while Bitcoin acts as a **counterweight to long-term monetary debasement**. The **system’s strength is in its optionality**: you don’t have to use Bitcoin until you *want* an exit ramp from fiat. ### 3. No Stable Equilibrium: One Must Win? **Objection:** The system will destabilize. Either Bitcoin undermines fiat or fiat suppresses Bitcoin. **Response:** Not necessarily in this transitional phase. **The “conflict” isn’t between tools — it’s between control philosophies**. The dollar won’t disappear overnight, and Bitcoin isn’t going away. The likely outcome is a **gradual shifting of savings and settlement layers to Bitcoin**, while fiat continues to dominate day-to-day payments and credit markets — until Bitcoin becomes structurally better in both. ### 4. Gresham’s and Thiers’ Law: Hollowing Fiat? **Objection:** People save in Bitcoin and spend fiat, eroding fiat value. **Response:** Yes — and that’s *been happening since 2009*. But this isn’t a flaw; it’s a **transition mechanism**. The Bitcoindollar model recognizes this and creates a bridge: it monetizes U.S. debt while preserving access to hard money. In the long run, **my expectation is that naturally bitcoin will prevail both as a SOV and currency**, but until then, stablecoins and T-bill-backed tokens serve useful roles in the global economy. ### 5. Philosophical Incompatibility? **Objection:** Bitcoin prioritizes individual sovereignty; fiat systems are hierarchical. They can't be reconciled. **Response:** They don’t need to be reconciled ideologically to function in parallel. Users choose the tool that suits their needs. One empowers individual autonomy; the other offers state-backed convenience. This is a competition of values, not a mechanical incompatibility. **The Bitcoindollar model is a strategy**. It’s **a bridge between old and new systems**, not a permanent coexistence. ### 6. Fusion is Impossible? **Objection:** It’s only a temporary bridge. One side must lose. **Response:** Exactly. The Bitcoindollar system *is* a transitional bridge. But that doesn’t reduce its value. It provides a functional pathway for individuals, companies, and governments to gradually exit broken monetary systems and experiment with new models. In the meantime, the U.S. benefits from stablecoin-driven Treasury demand, while Bitcoin continues to grow as a global reserve asset. ### Bottom line: A Strategic Convergence, Not a Permanent Fusion **The Bitcoindollar system isn’t a contradiction. It’s a convergence zone.** It reflects the reality that **monetary systems evolve gradually**, not cleanly. Bitcoin and fiat will compete, overlap, and influence each other. **Eventually, yes — hard money wins. But until then, hybrid systems offer powerful stepping stones.** **Thread links:** Thread started [from this initial post](https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqsza9ns7qlcrf93mp78dr5ck0dd9lm8kz9kcjwf7l48v8emndu485qpas40p). [Thread Powmaxi](https://primal.net/e/nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqr6l7jnm9dlrcpj4ecthe584ngsdvn86g4936ug7prh8h52xa4n9qqsf7kmjfy6ak9f73nfr4splfy08x7wgu7mn088glsauyq57kjhk4wcmy58he) [PowMaxi profile](https://primal.net/p/nprofile1qqsq7hl557et0c7qv4wwza7dpav6yrtye7j9fvwhz8sgaeaaz3hdvegh7srg6)

Trump has only one good card left to play: The Bitcoindollar is America’s Best Bet

In my book “[Bitcoindollar The Dawn of American Hegemony in the Digital Era](https://www.bitcoindollar.net/),” I challenge the prevailing narrative that de-dollarization is a distant or hypothetical threat. Rather, I present a body of evidence suggesting that we are already living in a world where de-dollarization is unfolding—not through bombastic proclamations or sudden abandonment of the dollar in trade—but through a quieter, more telling trend: the steady escape of emerging powers like China, Russia, India, and much of the Global South from US Treasuries as the global reserve asset. ## Structural, Not Cyclical: The Causes Behind the Exodus This transformation is not cyclical or temporary; it is structural. The root causes run deep and stem from decades of US foreign and monetary policy—specifically, the aggressive military posturing that has defined American global engagement, the weaponization of dollar-based financial systems, and the overuse of sanctions as instruments of coercion rather than diplomacy. The result has been a widespread erosion of trust in the US as a neutral monetary steward. Increasingly, large economies and trading blocs—such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), BRICS, and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—are seeking alternatives. They are diversifying their reserves, entering bilateral currency agreements, stockpiling gold, and in some cases, launching central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). The message is clear: the era of unquestioned dollar supremacy is over. ## The Treasury Dilemma: Who Will Fund America’s Debt? This structural shift raises a daunting question for American policymakers: who will buy US Treasuries in the future? For decades, the demand for Treasuries rested on the premise of dollar dominance. Global trade surpluses—especially from oil-exporting nations under the Petrodollar system—were recycled into US debt markets. This “exorbitant privilege” allowed the US to run persistent deficits, finance wars, and project power without facing the immediate fiscal consequences most nations would. But that privilege is now in peril. ## The Bitcoindollar System: A Strategic Response In my book, I argue that the United States still has one viable path forward—a path that does not require relinquishing its leadership role, but rather reimagining it for the digital era. I call this new paradigm the **Bitcoindollar system**. It is an evolutionary successor to the Petrodollar framework, and it hinges on embracing bitcoin as the global store of value and dollar denominated stablecoins to maintain the US dollar’s relevance in a multipolar world. Under the Bitcoindollar system, global capital flows are incentivized to enter dollar-denominated stablecoins such as USDC and USDT. These stablecoins can then be recycled into short-term US debt instruments like Treasury bills, creating a digital-era version of the Petrodollar recycling mechanism. At the heart of this system lies Bitcoin—not as a threat to the dollar, but as a global decentralized and uncensorable **Store of Value (SOV)** that drives capital into the broader dollar-denominated ecosystem. As Bitcoin grows in adoption and price, it draws global attention and capital toward stablecoins, which in turn creates natural demand for dollar-based instruments such as Treasuries. This system offers the United States a first-mover advantage. **No other nation has the credibility, capital markets depth, or global network effects to replicate it—if, and only if, the dollar’s digital rails are perceived as trustworthy and politically neutral. Herein lies the great conundrum: trust cannot be mandated.** **It must be earned, particularly in a geopolitical climate where the United States continues to alienate both allies and adversaries alike**. ## Trump’s Paradox: Economic Nationalism vs Monetary Hegemony The current Trump administration, despite its rhetoric on economic nationalism, continues along a path that exacerbates this alienation. By doubling down on tariffs, aggressive posturing toward China, and unconditional support for Israel’s supremacist regional ambitions, it perpetuates the same policies that catalyzed de-dollarization in the first place. **Tariffs, in this context, are a distraction**. **The US trade deficit is not primarily the result of unfair trade practices by other countries—it is largely the result of the dollar's role as the global reserve currency**. To sustain global demand for dollars, the US has had to export dollars—and therefore run trade deficits. The dollar’s dominance enabled vast capital inflows and supported America’s imperial military architecture, but this model is fundamentally incompatible with dreams of reshoring industry, reducing deficits, and limiting foreign entanglements. **Furthermore, these policies undermine any future attempt to establish dollar stablecoins as trusted global instruments. Why would a nation park its savings in a dollar-based asset, however digitized, if it fears arbitrary sanctions or seizure at the stroke of a keyboard?** Despite his aggressive posturing, Trump, like Zelensky and the EU before him, has no cards to play to force China or Russia to the table. ## A Fork in the Road: Choose Multipolar Collaboration or Decline Absent a disastrous military escalation—which will not prevent the fall of American unipolar hegemony—**the US is left with ONLY ONE path forward**: **a deliberate, peaceful shift from military and imperial posturing toward a more collaborative, multipolar engagement with the world**. This means treating allies, adversaries, and vassal states alike with respect and inclusion in a reimagined dollar-based system—one that is digital, decentralized, and incentivized by global participation. **The Bitcoindollar system can serve as the financial infrastructure of this new era, but it demands that the United States rehabilitate its image as a trustworthy party**. For the Trump administration to succeed in securing America’s future financial relevance, it must course-correct immediately. This includes ending the influence of the neo-conservative and Zionist hardliners who perpetuate conflict and distrust for their own interest, and embracing a vision of digital dollar diplomacy that builds bridges instead of burning them. **In conclusion, the Bitcoindollar is not just a financial mechanism—it is a strategic opportunity for the United States to retain leadership in the emerging multipolar order. The alternative is clear: a continued slide into irrelevance, fiscal instability, and geopolitical isolation or a mutually assured destruction through war.** **The time to act boldly for President Trump is now.** #bitcoin #bitcoindollar #stablecoin

Degenerados

Onde anda o espírito cypherpunk? Aquele espírito revolucionário, como o objetivo de tornar o mundo melhor. Satoshi iniciou esse movimento de tentar criar um sistema financeiro melhor que o atual, mas esse espírito pouco tem crescido nos últimos anos. Apenas uma parte da comunidade do Bitcoin ou da Monero mantém esse espírito, o restante ecossistema cripto, está a seguir um caminho ridículo. É verdade que o mundo cripto/web3 desenvolveu-se brutalmente mas para uma direção errada. Ethereum nem é carne nem é peixe, é um híbrido manhoso. Não é descentralizado, mas não é centralizado o suficiente para permitir muitas transações e a baixo custo. Olhamos para o actual panorama, possivelmente as blockchains que mais crescem são a Solana e Base, projectos completamente centralizados. No anterior ciclo a Solana era um meme devido os seus problemas, estava sempre a parar, agora está a ter uma adoção massiva, como é possível? Eu tenho pensado muito sobre isto, as pessoas não querem saber da descentralização? ou simplesmente não compreendem o que é a descentralização? A descentralização é algo abstrato, possivelmente as pessoas só vão compreender a sua importância quando sentirem na pele a sua não existência, ou seja, quando os governos começarem a atacar os projectos vão compreender a importância da descentralização. O ataque ainda mal começou, eu quero ver o que vão fazer as empresas/fundações que estão por detrás desses projectos, quando os governos exigirem os KYC obrigatório, _backdoor_ e _kill switch_. Eu quero ver o que as pessoas vão fazer quando a Tether exigir KYC. Também quero ver os países com controle de capitais proibirem a Tether de prestar serviços em seu território, ou exigir o congelamento de todos os ativos. Não deverá faltar muito, para que as políticas comecem a atacar os comerciantes que aceitam stablecoins, confiscam os equipamentos, identificam as carteiras dos empresários e o dos clientes e obrigam a tether a congelar os fundos. Nem será necessário fazer a todos os empresários, basta fazer alguns e mostrar nas tvs como exemplo. Como vão reagir as pessoas quando tudo o for centralizado for atacado e seus bens confiscados? Eu acredito que nos próximos tempos vão sofrer um ataque terrível. Apesar das _stablecoins_ terem o problema da centralização, reconhece que desempenham um papel importante, especialmente em países com inflações altas e com controle de capitais, mas o restante mundo web3 está perdido. Até poderá ter coisas interessantes, não contesto, mas a esmagadora dos utilizadores querem é _pump_ e _dump_, o querer enriquecer rapidamente. É só _memecoin_, NFTs e _tokens_ sem qualquer propósito, foi tudo transformado num enorme casino em redes distribuídas. Perderam a noção da realidade e esta mentalidade atraiu um monte de scammers, é meio mundo a enganar, o outro meio mundo. Chegamos ao cumulo, em dois meses (Abril e Maio) foram [criados mais de 1 milhões de _tokens_](https://br.cointelegraph.com/news/over-one-million-new-tokens-memecoins-launch-april-solana-base), essencialmente _memecoins_. O _market cap_ das _memes_ é completamente absurdo, como é possível a Doge valer 12x mais que a Sonae, a Shiba Inu 8x e Pepe 3.4x. Como é possível, projetos sem qualquer valor, são apenas _memes,_ valerem múltiplas vezes mais que uma das maiores empresas de Portugal, que emprega quase 50 mil pessoas. O _market cap_ de Doge equivale a 9% do PIB de Portugal. Este mercado de _memes_ e de NFTs é completamente irracional. O triste é que a taxa de crescimento desses degenerados é muito superior ao restante. A comunidade de bitcoin não sai imaculada, existem também muitos degenerado entre nós. Alguns desses degenerados vivem numa ilusão que os estados não conseguem impedir as _memecoins_, porque acreditam que no último caso existirá as DEX. Aqui está o primeiro problema, a maioria dos degenerados não usa DEX. Depois terá que rodar um nó para assinar contratos, porque a Infura/MetaMask e as restantes _wallets_  também são centralizadas, logo tem que seguir as regulamentações. Acreditam mesmo que as pessoas vão rodar um nó da Base ou do Ethereum, claro que não vão. Só uma pequena parte conseguirá transacionar nas DEX, mas depois terá outro problema, caso tenha um enorme lucro com as _memes_, como vão justificar a origem dessas mais valias. A malta dos _memecoins_ não está neste ecossistema pela liberdade, está para ganhar mais FIAT, em qualquer momento vai necessitar de sair do mundo cripto para comprar o seu Lamborghini, aí as CEX, os bancos e os governos vão exigir comprovantes de origem. Os NFTs têm uma situação similar, a OpenSea e afins terão que cumprir com as mesmas regras da tradicionais CEXs, especialmente as regras de KYC/AML. Além de serem cobradores de impostos, sobretudo de IVA. Actualmente o ecossistema cripto, está a criar um bomba relógio, os _tokens_ de _restaking_, será inevitável o seu colapso. Na prática estes _tokens_ é similar à reserva fracionária, no mundo TradFi, é um castelo de carta pronto a desmoronar. Curiosamente foi este problema, o da inflação da moeda, que teve na origem da criação do Bitcoin, uma alternativa ao sistema fiduciário. Este lado cripto deixou de ser uma alternativa, começou a imitar o sistema TradFi. Voltando à centralização, eu não sou contra a utilização de serviços centralizados, ela será necessária para permitir a escalabilidade, mas ao utilizar temos que compreender os riscos inerentes, entre eles, a possibilidade da perda de fundos e que temos que cumprir a lei. A burrice é não cumprir a lei e querer utilizar coisas centralizadas. Para um bom funcionamento do sistema é imprescindível que a _blockchain_/_layer_ 1 seja descentralizada, a centralização deve acontecer apenas em serviços de terceiros ou _layers_ 2. Podemos utilizar, mas com muito cuidado e com uma pequena parte do nosso capital, em caso de perda de fundo, não seja dramático. Eu sou um maximalista, mas utilizo wallets LN custodiais, gosto de cashu, a Liquid tem alguns casos de uso interessantes. Em suma, deve ser utilizado com moderação. Uma coisa é certa, os próximos anos serão muito duros para o mundo cripto, em especial as _stablecoins_, os estados não querem perder o monopólio da moeda e do poder absoluto. No próximo mês, entra em vigor a regulamentação da Europa da _stablecoins_ As empresas estão a encontrar muitos problemas em conseguir cumprir a lei, mas o cerco ainda vai apertar mais, as lei ainda serão mais duras, ficando apenas _stablecoins_ de euro. Nas CEX as _stablecoins_ de dólar não estarão acessiveis. Estamos numa boa altura, para os degenerados refletirem bem no que estão a fazer... temos que colocar os pés no chão e voltar ao _ethos_.