The Open Robotics Lab is live. Apply now for your Access ID Level up your credentials, earn Bolts, and collect Badges when you: > contribute robotics work > participate in special subnet campaigns > refer new users Submit your application:

Disappointing to see the @WSJopinion – usually a champion of free markets and competition – abandon serious analysis, defend regulatory moats and recycle bank association talking points. Stablecoin rewards are subject to multiple restrictions under CLARITY, and are tied to customer activity. There is no evidence to support the “deposit flight” claims: three independent studies (including one from the White House @CEA47) have looked at this exhaustively. Plus, there's the fact that stablecoins and bank deposits have grown side by side for years - even without the restrictions banks successfully lobbied for in the bill. CLARITY also doesn’t give DeFi a free pass for criminals. It draws a bright line between writing code and running a financial intermediary – while fraud, sanctions, and money-laundering violations remain fully prosecutable. Americans deserve durable federal rules. They also deserve a more serious take from the @WSJ. The Senate should pass CLARITY.

More than a year ago, the House passed the Clarity Act. There’s been progress since — thousands of hours of bipartisan negotiations took place at the staff and Member levels. The Senate Committees on Banking and Agriculture advanced their respective titles. And Senate Republicans produced a floor-ready product that, as I type this, is waiting for a vote. It’s disappointing — but not surprising — that Senate Democrats are choosing politics on the cusp of a major victory for American leadership. Find another instance in history where Congress, when given the choice, opted to push an industry out of the United States rather than smartly regulate it. American Exceptionalism was once a bipartisan goal; if Clarity fails, I have serious doubts. These same Democrats — many of whom have taken millions of dollars from the crypto industry — proclaim that Clarity lacks safeguards for consumers and falls short in countering illicit finance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Titles II and III materially uplift regulatory and compliance obligations for digital asset intermediaries, placing them on similar footing with traditional financial institutions. The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act — which Washington lobbyists have spun up as a boogeyman for certain groups of prosecutors and law enforcement — does nothing other than codify longstanding Treasury Department policy that’s remained consistent across Administrations: non-custodial builders and developers are not, and have never been, subject to registration obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act. And at this point, major law enforcement trades that once opposed the bill, including the Fraternal Order of Police, have now endorsed it. The Senate needs to vote NOW on this landmark legislation. The truth is that Senate Democrats are afraid to advance the Clarity Act as they fear Senator Warren and the “Anti-Crypto Army” she once promised to build. In the days ahead, Leader Thune will put this theory to the test. Will Senate Democrats be on the side of American Exceptionalism, or will they opt to cede American leadership of a global industry for fear of the bespectacled squirrel’s Left flank? America will lead or America won’t. It’s not more complicated than that. I believe Satoshi once said it best: “If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry.”

I'm so disgusted with both sides. We wouldn't be in this position if the Dems hadn't let Gary Gensler be completely unfair and partisan rather than neutral and if Trump hadn't become the Max Extractor in Chief. Politicians suck

I don't think it's a lack of imagination. I also used to work at Anthropic, think trends will continue, and used to agree with this. But I've changed my mind and now disagree with this take. Open models are already capable enough to do what you described. For example, I used Opus 4.6 to gain access to other folks medical records, hijack bank accounts, etc. back in February. GLM 5.1 is more capable than Opus 4.6 in most pentesting environments, and it came out in April. Despite capable open-weight models existing, the sketchier folks I know are still using a Claude Code or Codex subscription for hacking. (Even well-resourced groups in other countries! They use the grey/black market of discounted Ant/OAI subscription tokens sold through resellers.) So I see most of the materialized risk here as still coming from Anthropic and OpenAI; safeguards aren't sufficient to stop a moderately dedicated actor. The groups I know who are using open-weight models are legitimate offensive security companies. They won't break the rules to use subscription-based pricing, the open-weight models are more reliable in that they don't require specific jailbreaks nor hit classifiers, and the labs use massive partnerships or spend as a prereq for lowering classifiers/safeguards. I know of three legitimate groups running GLM 5.2 as their primary model. That last part applies for Anthropic, too: I know of two instances where two different Anthropic GTM people used large comitted spend contracts as a prereq for lowering safeguards, and I directly witnessed one. On the inside, I know the narrative and intent is genuinely about safety. But from the outside, Anthropic-the-system seems to be optimizing for revenue and control/power, isn't diffusing capabilities to defenders, and also doesn't have adequate safeguards to prevent misuse from dedicated bad actors. As a result, I now lean towards a future where capable open models are freely available (at least for cyber, bio is harder); I don't trust Anthropic or other frontier labs to handle this sufficiently well without diffused capabilties given what I've seen so far.

1/ Introducing HIW-500 (Humanoids-in-the-Wild 500): the largest open-source humanoid teleop dataset collected in real homes Built w/ @UnitreeRobotics @huggingface across 12 homes in Southeast Asia, it covers: > 500+ hrs > 23K+ episodes > 10+ TB > 10+ household tasks

All the major news outlets agree: The biggest winner in the Anthropic controversy is open source. And I wholeheartedly agree. I said it a few days ago, and I'll say it again: it's the biggest PR win for open source ever. Whether it's Bloomberg, Fortune, or CNBC: the consensus is clear: "Making the model open means that companies, governments or organizations with sufficient hardware can run it locally, and never have to worry about it being yanked on a whim." (Bloomberg) The reason is as simple as it is straightforward: Companies and entire alliances of states that have had their access cut off overnight will look for a sovereign solution that makes them relatively insensitive to shutdowns. By far the most significant and powerful open-source models come from China. This has, in effect, done China a great favor, probably unintentionally. Open source is essentially a lifeline, the opportunity to continue participating in this revolution with the assurance of independence. That's why the GLM 5.2 release was so important and came at precisely the right time. Open source is the solution.

reminiscent of a certain admin that would say "come in and register" even when you couldnt comply even if you wanted to anyways, AI has a bit of a view into what the remedy is (start suing, lobby for regulatory clarity)

We’re excited to partner with BitRobot Network, Lightwheel AI, Singapore Institute of Technology and contributors like Jie Tan (Deepmind), Steve Xie (Lightwheel), Michael Cho (FrodoBots), etc. Looking forward to push the boundary of humanoid loco-manipulation in this Humanoid IKEA Assembly Challenge!