Why settle for wrapped assets when you can have native BTC? 🟠 ⚡ Real BTC, not synthetic 🛠️ No extra gas token needed 🔐 Trustless bridge via @op_catlayer 📈 More usage = deeper BTC liquidity Bitcoin, but actually usable. 🚀

bitcoin wallets that cannot be hacked in 2016 malte moser, @ittayeyal and @el33th4xor published “bitcoin vaults” and “bitcoin covenants”, describing how a simple, harmless upgrade to bitcoin script could help build hack-resistant wallets the secret is simple: instead of attempting to build a perfect self-custody system, accept that humans are imperfect and WILL make mistakes. therefore mistakes must be recoverable moser-eyal-sirer “vaults” add a delay to transactions. imagine if your hardware wallet had a 24 hour delay whenever sending transactions. during that delay, if you notice something is fishy (you’re getting hacked!) you hit a special button and your funds are directed to your coinbase deposit address instead, for example that’s it! you only rely on coinbase (again, just an example) if your main wallet got hacked. if you’re not hacked, you use your wallet normally and coinbase cannot control it. you simply have to wait 24 hours when sending. for long-term storage this is usually fine in crypto (non-bitcoin), institutional grade solutions like Safe on EVM and Squads on solana protect over $100B in assets in constructs that are similar to the 2016 vault proposal. many/most major companies in those ecosystems use those solutions and they are considered an obvious best-practice over there but in bitcoin, this can’t be implemented without simple upgrades like OP_CTV, OP_VAULT, OP_CAT, or others over the years, in addition to moser, eyal and sirer, many experts like @jamesob, @JeremyRubin, @kanzure, @EliBenSasson — and even retards like yours truly — have attempted to promote any of those proposals to enable this kind of safer custody. it still hasn’t been done, imo mostly due to political and puritanical reasons (various versions of “i don’t like the people who proposed this”) but the truth is that if this feature was in bitcoin, many coldcard users would’ve been directed to use it, and would’ve been safe today. vaults and covenants don’t require wallets and humans to be perfect. they assume that they aren’t. people who don’t want to use vaults and covenants don’t have to. but people who want to use them should be allowed to. it’s time to give bitcoiners covenants.

The question is no longer when you can trade. It's how fast you can respond. Catherine Chen on how ETF-based digital assets are giving institutions the speed and flexibility to manage portfolios across markets in real time. Full op-ed 👉

I sat down with the legend @CryptoHayes to discuss: - Scott Bessent's money printing playbook - Stanley Druckenmiller's AI-written op-ed - why bitcoin got overshadowed by the AI trade - gold's next move - how Arthur allocates to BTC, gold & stocks - his new project tokenizing AI compute itself Enjoy! YouTube: Apple: Spotify: TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 - Intro 1:09 - Bessent, Treasury printing & Druckenmiller's op-ed 7:21 - Bitcoin & gold's reaction to money printing signals 10:06 - Real estate, land & inflation hedges 12:55 - Bitcoin's next 12 months & why it lagged AI 17:49 - Bitcoin adoption catalysts & sovereign buyers 20:49 - Gold's outlook, portfolio allocation & public equities 26:14 - Stablecoins, tokenization & real world assets 30:15 - ETH will have a hater rally? 31:47 - Hyperliquid & Arthur's most asymmetric bet 34:33 - Flop: tokenizing AI compute 46:17 - Money printing, scarcity vs abundance & closing thoughts

[Tickets Info] Sunday, November 8 2:00pm NHK Hall No. 2074 Subscription (Program A) 🔻Program Prokofiev / Violin Concerto No. 1 D Major Op. 19 Shostakovich / Symphony No. 8 C Minor Op. 65 Conductor: Tugan Sokhiev Violin: Mayuko Kamio 🎫Same-Day Tickets Available for purchase at the venue from 1:00pm, subject to availability. Seating category may be selected, but not a specific seat. Please note that same-day ticket sales at the venue may not be offered if tickets sell out in advance.

"Super intelligence leads to abundance." Elon Musk posted that last night, and he attached a real example from Cochise County, Arizona. High desert. Cattle country. A small town called Willcox about 13 miles from the site. SpaceX wants to build one of the largest AI data centers in America there, up to $50 billion of investment and around 6 gigawatts at full build-out. Frank Antenori, chairman of the county board, ran the numbers in a live Q&A. Arizona caps how much a county can spend. When revenue goes past that limit, the law sends the extra back to taxpayers. His words: "We could be reducing property taxes across the board in Cochise County, the entire county, by 20%." That includes every resident who came to the meeting to oppose it. He also said the construction sales tax alone could pay off the county jail in 2 to 3 years instead of 13 to 20. What about the water? SpaceX plans to dry-cool the campus with air. No groundwater pumped for industrial use. At full build-out, total water use would be roughly what 20 to 30 Arizona homes use. Add $3.6 billion in grid upgrades and about 1,000 permanent jobs. At the Baron conference in New York, Elon Musk said the opposition to data centers mostly comes from places that don't have one yet. "Memphis is booming because of SpaceX. The restaurants are full, the hotels are full." The owner of a diner in Memphis can tell you that better than any op-ed. For a hundred years, a big factory meant a steel town or a car town. What SpaceX is building in places like Memphis and Cochise County is a new kind of industry: quiet buildings full of chips that turn electricity into intelligence, and in this case, into a lower tax bill for the whole county. The public hearing in Cochise County is on December 9. I hope they say yes.

@RemixGG_ just handed you a fake painting. AFTER HOURS: MUSEUM HEIST is live on — an action/adventure/puzzle game by @Andrei_RPK. Sneak through 8 galleries, steal valuable paintings and replace them with fakes, time the laser traps, dodge security cameras and guards, escape before the museum locks down. Solo or co-op up to 4 players, each with their own Remix character. Undetected theft earns a clean bonus; solo mode competes for fastest escape time. 168 plays, 61 players, 9 likes. The art: blocky 3D graphics, simple blocky characters, a dark moody night museum with green walls, soft lighting — and large classical paintings with humorous touches, like a skeleton posing like a masterpiece. The heist-movie opening sets the tone: stay quiet, stay unseen. The catalog keeps growing — and every game is a one-click play. With 21.7K followers, backing from Base, Archetype, Lemniscap, and Variant, Remix Desktop in beta (102.5K views), "You made a game. Now put it everywhere." (35.5K views), and the Patch Notes trailer (10.9K views), the platform is the distribution. Most heist games give you a gun. This one gives you a fake — and the fake is the weapon. Steal the art. Swap the fake. Escape before lockdown.

Onchain options are quietly entering their strongest phase in years. Q3 notional volume reached $7.52B, the highest level in two years and up 73% QoQ. But there is one important catch: Nearly 90% of that activity came from @DeriveXYZ . So while the headline says Onchain options are growing, the more interesting question is whether we are watching the emergence of a real options market or simply the rise of one dominant protocol. The numbers tell the story. — ● Q3 was the breakout quarter Activity accelerated sharply throughout the quarter, particularly into September. Onchain options recorded: • $7.52B Q3 notional • $1.26B weekly notional ATH • $2.37B September volume, 24% above the previous monthly record • 459 daily active traders, +68% WoW • Nearly 11,800 trades, +83% That is a meaningful step up from where the sector was earlier in the year. And importantly, the growth did not come from one isolated spike. Volume, traders and trade count were all expanding together. But there is an important distinction here. — ● $7.52B in notional does not mean $7.52B of capital Options volume can look much larger than the actual amount of money changing hands. Three metrics matter: • Notional : the face value of the underlying exposure. • Premium : the capital actually paid to purchase the option. • Open Interest : the value of positions still outstanding. For Onchain options, premium is typically only around 2% of notional. By late September, the market was sitting around: • $4.84B 30d notional • $84.33M 30d premium • $1.80B open interest So the $7.52B headline shows the scale of exposure being traded. It should not be interpreted as $7.52B of fresh capital flowing into Onchain options. And once you move past the headline number, another thing becomes obvious. — ● Onchain options are basically a Derive market right now @DeriveXYZ processed roughly $6.64B of Q3 volume which is around 88% of the entire sector. The concentration becomes even stronger depending on which metric you use: • 91.8% of 30d premium • 92% of open interest • 87.4% of YTD premium @paradex is currently the closest meaningful challenger, but the gap remains huge. Which means most of the recent growth in Onchain options is really the growth of Derive. And I think the reason is largely structural. — ● Derive changed the architecture The first generation of Onchain options leaned heavily on AMMs. That worked for bringing options onchain, but options are significantly more complicated to price and hedge than spot assets. Derive moved toward something much closer to professional exchange infrastructure: Lyra AMM -> Derive CLOB + RFQ + portfolio margin Its current stack combines: • CLOB execution • RFQ liquidity • Portfolio margin • Gas-free trading • OP Stack L2 infrastructure That combination matters. Options markets need capital-efficient margin, deep liquidity and the ability for sophisticated market makers to hedge positions quickly. The more options markets mature, the harder it becomes for simple pool-based models to compete with that infrastructure. Derive appears to be benefiting from that transition but infrastructure is only half of the story. The macro environment helped too. — ● Yield compression created a reason to trade options Earlier in 2026, stablecoin lending yields compressed toward roughly 2%. That changes the opportunity cost of capital. When passive stablecoin yield is high, there is less incentive to take additional complexity or volatility risk. When yields fall: As lending yields decline, investors begin searching for alternative sources of carry. This makes volatility-based strategies increasingly attractive, potentially driving more capital into the options market and increasing trading activity. Selling volatility, covered calls and structured option strategies suddenly become more competitive sources of yield. That gives the recent options expansion a broader DeFi explanation. Capital did not suddenly discover options. The relative return available elsewhere simply became less attractive. But this also means part of the thesis depends on stablecoin yields remaining compressed. If passive lending yields move significantly higher again, some of that capital can rotate back. — ● And Derive is still tiny compared with Deribit This is probably the most important reality check. Onchain options may be hitting multi-year highs, but they remain small compared with centralized options markets. Over the comparable 30-day period: • Onchain options: $4.84B notional • @DeribitOfficial : $79.9B • Onchain volume = roughly 6.1% of Deribit At the mid-September snapshot, Deribit also controlled around 78.8% of global options OI. Derive accounted for roughly 3.2%. So I do not think the interesting competition here is Onchain options versus perpetual DEXs. The real battle is can Onchain options take meaningful flow away from centralized options venues? That is a much harder problem. — ● Derive's dominance is both the bull case and the risk Having one protocol capture almost the entire market proves that there is demand.But it also shows how immature the sector still is. A healthy market should eventually support multiple venues, liquidity sources and trading models. Right now, Derive controls roughly 88–92% of most major activity metrics. That means sector growth is highly dependent on one venue continuing to perform. There are also signs worth watching. September activity benefited partly from the DRV attention cycle, while 30-day premium had already started cooling even as quarterly notional printed records. So the next test is whether activity remains once the attention fades. — ● The rest of the market is still experimenting Outside Derive, the sector is fragmented across several different approaches. @paradex is building around CLOB/RFQ infrastructure and larger structured flow. @aevoxyz combines options with a broader derivatives venue. @Panoptic_xyz is approaching options through Uniswap-native LP liquidity. @HegicOptions continues with a pool-based model. @CallPutApp is still smaller, but has been showing growing activity. @ryskfinance focuses more heavily on structured options and yield strategies. So there is still significant experimentation happening beneath Derive's dominance. And that is probably where the next phase becomes interesting. — Onchain options just produced their strongest quarter in two years. But another volume ATH alone would not prove the sector has matured. The bigger milestone would be seeing: More persistent premium -> deeper OI -> broader venue share -> durable liquidity Because right now, Derive has clearly proven that there is demand for sophisticated options infrastructure Onchain. What has not yet been proven is whether that demand can expand into a genuinely competitive Onchain options market. That is the next unlock.

AGIBOT releases GE-Act 2.0 — the first native World Action Model to validate a pretraining and scaling path for embodied AI. 📖 Explore the project: Trained entirely from scratch on embodied manipulation data: visual representation, future generation, and action prediction, all from random initialization. No inherited video generators. No task-specific fine-tuning. Put straight to a ruthless real-robot zero-shot test — unseen scenes, unseen objects, 100 atomic tasks, 20 skill categories, and two robot embodiments: ✅ Data scaled 100×: from 300 to 30,000 hours ✅ Task success climbs from 17.1% to 44.1% on G1-OP — with no sign of saturation ✅ New skills emerge at scale: folding towels, nesting paper cups, uncapping pens, arranging flowers ✅ Cross-embodiment transfer: G2-90D, under 2% of the training data, still gains 17.7 percentage points ✅ Failure data becomes a training asset — 2,000 hours of failed manipulations and deployment rollouts A capable model envisions reality before it acts. #AGIBOT# #EmbodiedAI# #WorldModel# #PhysicalAI# #Robotics#