𝗔𝗜 𝗶𝗻 𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼 𝗦𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲: 𝗖𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮, 𝗕𝗼𝘅 𝗼𝗿 𝗛𝘆𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗱? The global AI video surveillance hardware market is projected to nearly triple, from $8.9B in 2026 to $24.6B in 2030. That makes the choice of where AI processing happens both a performance decision and a budget decision. 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀: • On-camera AI wins on latency and standalone reliability. Axis Communications (in-house ARTPEC chips), Hanwha Vision (dual-NPU Wisenet 9 SoC), Hikvision and Dahua Technology lead here. • Edge AI boxes win on retrofit economics. @MotoSolutions' Avigilon and @HanwhaVision's AIB-800 add analytics to existing, mixed-brand camera networks without replacing every camera. • Hybrid AI splits the workload. Cameras handle time-sensitive alerts, and edge devices handle cross-camera tracking and shared watchlists. 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲: @HikvisionUSAinc @AxisIPVideo #VideoSurveillance# #EdgeAI# #AI# #PhysicalSecurity# #SmartCameras# #CounterpointResearch#

🔒 an enhanced npm 2FA experience is now available in public beta. it includes: * support for physical security keys and biometric devices * support for multiple second factors * a new 2FA configuration menu and more!

How would you secure a trillion dollar wallet? At that scale, protecting assets becomes a different kind of problem, one that has as much to do with physical security as anything digital. BitGo CEO @mikebelshe gets into it. 👇

Following the tragedy at Silver Rail Elementary in Bend, Oregon, @NicoleHockley spoke with @nytimes about why school safety must go beyond physical security. Recognizing warning signs and intervening early are critical to preventing violence.

It’s been a brutal year for the market, but we’re still investing heavily in product development and security. OneKey Pro 2 is out, and we have more hardware in the works. More on that soon. Our investment in security will be even higher this year than last. Our @OneKey_Anzen security lab’s research was accepted at Black Hat USA 2026. We’ve completed multiple rounds of firmware security audits for Pro 2, along with code reviews and hardening of SeedCard against fault injection and power loss attacks. We’re also continuing our work on open source, reproducible builds, independent third party audits, and security hardening across our software, firmware, and hardware supply chain. Following the establishment of our Anzen physical security lab, we’re preparing to deploy our own privately hosted AI models for security auditing and penetration testing by the end of this year. We want to find more vulnerabilities ourselves, before attackers do. Stay humble. Stay cautious. Never take security for granted. Security work is never finished, and we’ll keep doing it. I sincerely hope none of you ever have to deal with a hack.

Not a great month for hardware wallets. Trezor disclosed a breach at its shipping provider affecting ~13.7K recent customers. ~11.7K had full name, email, phone and shipping address exposed. Trezor systems/private keys were not compromised. The leak directly links identities and physical addresses to known crypto holders, creating significant phishing, social-engineering and potential physical-security risk. Hardware wallets are often considered "more secure" than software wallets. While I still think that is "generally true" in a few specific aspects, this incident reinforces an advantage of software self-custody wallets (such as Binance Web3 Wallet & Trust Wallet), without purchasing and shipping a physical device that links a user's identity and address to crypto ownership. Not saying hardware wallets are "bad". Just different risk profiles. YZiLabs is an investor in many hardware wallets. Security, privacy and convenience comes in many different shapes. The more we can educate our communities, the better.

One thing I find striking in the discourse between AI 2040 and its detractors is that the two seem to be locked in to totally incompatible worldviews of how fast and how much of a big deal AI progress is: * In AI 2040, every scenario sees superintelligence of some kind emerging by 2040, unless a herculean effort is made to completely stop it * Detractors say things like "AI 2040 is naive about human coordination ability and a threat to freedom", but don't seem to see any naivety in assuming that the ASI transition will just go well by default, don't seem to see ASI itself as a massive power concentrator risk, and don't seem to feel fear of humanity's "hard power" dropping to zero if ASIs can do literally every task better than we can. This stance makes total sense in a "AI is normal technology" world, zero sense in a world where superintelligence is possible by 2030 and almost guaranteed by 2040 I think my beliefs are: - If I was confident that (present-day-style) AI is normal technology, I would be in the detractor camp - If I was confident that superintelligence is coming in 2030 by default, I would be closer to the AI 2040 camp - it's naive, but every other option is naive squared? But my problem is that I feel great uncertainty and have no idea which of the two worlds (or some other third thing) we're living in? Hence why I continue to be open-minded about slowdowns/pauses, but also I feel very uncomfortable with the "open source bad, the good outcome is the one where our guys have controlling global dominance" push coming from some major AI companies and intellectuals - in a "normal" world that's the sort of thing that triggers every political alarm bell at the same time. A big reason why I have been advocating and trying my best to support the d/acc platform (rapid up-skilling in formal verification, cryptography, secure and open hardware, pandemic resistance and other defensive biotech, food and basic resource security, public epistemics, non-power-concentrating versions of physical security) is that these things are clearly worth doing in both worlds. The 2040 plan is already much more open source friendly (even mandating it! yay). It also includes "mutually assured compute destruction" ideas which (if they work) effectively give one of 2-5 actors the ability to trigger a global compute winter - as opposed to giving 1-5 actors the ability to selectively disenfranchise people they consider baddies while exempting themselves. This is also a big improvement. So I can see the earnest attempts to improve along the dimensions detractors criticize on ("does this concentrate power in big AI labs and superpower governments?"), and I appreciate this. I think many people don't appreciate enough the differences between different "kinds" of pause buttons, and how some concentrate power far more than others. Probably we can think harder and improve even more here. But on the "slowdown/pause or not" topic, there isn't a magic "escape the tradeoff" button. The Hansonian in me says: the winning deal is a deal which, from the perspective of both sides' present-day beliefs and knowledge, both sides would accept, though for different reasons. If the crux is AI progress speed, then identify a set of pre-agreed triggers for "okay, serious shit is happening" [super-pandemics? >25% unemployment? something involving slaughterbots?], and pre-agree that we become much more open-minded to the slowdown or pause thing if enough triggers come to pass within some timeframe. 2040 detractors (who clearly implicitly think that we'll see amazing speedup of progress from AI but think that what I call the "serious shit" category is overhyped) will accept expecting that the triggers don't come to pass, and AI worriers will accept expecting that they will. Pre-agreeing on the specific triggers means that once the triggers either hit or don't hit, there is stronger legitimacy around the idea that one side's worldview turned out more correct and we should be more inclined toward their program. If I were @elonmusk (or zuck, or...) I would re-tool twitter much more heavily into being a platform for helping to identify and make these kinds of grand win-win deals, so that we can bypass big-country governments and big-company CEOs and big nonprofit intellectuals and give more people a voice in the discussion. It's possibly one of the best things that social media _could_ do for humanity if it wanted to. But again, maybe this is also naive. Actually, probably it's naive. But currently, I see zero plans for how to deal with an ASI transition that are not naive. Perhaps humanity is stuck with a choice between naive and naive squared (or maybe even naive squared and naive cubed), so I feel inclined to cut some slack to people who are trying.