Raider (@Raider7019) header
Raider (@Raider7019) profile picture

Co-founder of @hexxagon_io

Joined May 2022
Photo by Raider (@Raider7019)Photo by Raider (@Raider7019)Photo by Raider (@Raider7019)Photo by Raider (@Raider7019)Photo by Raider (@Raider7019)Photo by Raider (@Raider7019)Photo by Raider (@Raider7019)Photo by Raider (@Raider7019)Photo by Raider (@Raider7019)Photo by Raider (@Raider7019)
Raider retweeted
The FBI did not name me to stop, and even if they did, I would be forced to comply and it would *still* have no bearing on the function of the protocol. The fact that the FBI did in fact call out the protocol —— and nobody could do anything —— means in fact the protocol is decentralised. Nobody in their right mind in a western country would flagrantly ignore a direction like that.
Replying to @jpthor
Enjoy the adventure man. Word of advice: when the FBI publicly names you and asks you to stop, it's not really a suggestion.
4
6
2
87
5,296
If you censor one group you will censor a second, then a third,.... Get out of crypto. We dont want your centralized NEAR-ly a DEX.
Replying to @Bernanacatl
Near intents never was for hackers
3
3
1
49
1,305
Totally agree. Crypto assets were supposed to be fungible. Now CEX puppets and their regulatory masters are attempting to destroy asset fungibility as a further attack on the crypto ecosystem. Never custody your funds with any CEX.
Star Xu’s response raises even more questions than it answers. @okx claims to prioritize user protection, yet where was that protection BEFORE users transferred their funds? If OKX knew that transfers from @MEXC could trigger account freezes and investigations, why wasn't this clearly communicated to users in advance? You had a 30-day transition period under FinCEN's measures. You chose to tighten restrictions ahead of schedule. That's your decision. But why should innocent users bear the consequences of a policy they were never properly warned about? You acknowledge that some users may be innocent. Then why subject their funds to freezing and prolonged investigations simply because they came from a particular platform? Compliance is not a justification for abandoning basic user fairness. If OKX wants to apply sanctions-level risk controls, it should also provide: - Clear advance warnings. - Transparent criteria for account restrictions. - Specific explanations for affected users. - A reasonable and timely process for releasing legitimate funds. Saying “protecting users is our top priority” means very little when users discover the risks only AFTER their money is already trapped. Users are not asking OKX to violate the law. They are asking for transparency, fairness, and the right to know the risks BEFORE making a transaction. You cannot claim to protect users while making them pay the price for your compliance decisions. That is not user protection. That is putting compliance first and asking users to deal with the consequences.
140
Yet another reason to never use CEXs. Never custody your funds on any CEX and risk having your funds arbitrarily placed under "review" with open-ended timelines and no recourse. The era of the quasi-tradfi CEX is coming to an end. Permissionless decentralised swaps are mainstream!! #THORChain #Maya_Protocol
Sorry for the inconvenience. We understand that you may be an innocent user caught up in this situation, and we sympathize with your frustration. Please avoid transferring funds directly from MEXC to OKX. OKX treats FinCEN special measures with a level of caution similar to sanctions. Under our compliance controls, funds associated with affected platforms may be frozen, and related accounts may be subject to further investigation. Although FinCEN has provided a 30-day transition period, OKX has already significantly strengthened its controls rather than waiting until the deadline. Protecting our users and maintaining the integrity of the financial system remain our highest priorities. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation.
1
137
Raider retweeted
Replying to @star_okx
The writing has been on the wall for CEX's. They have long believed they can inconvenience and harm their users while they conduct internal reviews, etc, because there will always be more new users to replace the unhappy users. But now there are hundreds of high quality alternatives. There is a very big difference between conducting a review (which they are welcome to do in the background without harming the user) and locking up a user's money indefinitely while they do this.
1
2
1,139
The rules are on-chain, the nodes have a say, and nobody gets to just wake up and change things because they feel like it. Code, consensus and accountability. That's the cypherpunk way.
On THORChain, decisions are made directly on the blockchain. For an important change to be accepted, ⅔ of its nodes have to vote for it. Right now, 111 nodes are active. They all bond at least 300,000 RUNE, put up as collateral to secure the network. Each node has one vote, no matter how much it has bonded. All nodes run software called THORNode. Anyone, from devs to community members, can suggest changes to this software. These ideas are discussed in Discord (open to anyone to join) and fine-tuned until they become code. The changes are then submitted to the nodes, who decide whether THORNode moves to the next version, or not. It takes the approval of ⅔ of the nodes. Nodes also vote on network parameters through a system called Mimir. For economic changes such as fees, it takes ⅔ of the nodes. For operational changes such as security, only 3 votes are required. 4 nodes can vote to rescind an operational mimir, then 5 node votes can counter the 4, and so on. Some actions don't need a vote at all. For example, two nodes are ejected from the network every churn period (roughly 3 days), the oldest node in the network and the node with the most slash points. Swapping is automatically halted if the network detects an insolvency.
2
6
1
42
737
Apparently @NEARProtocol invented cross chain swaps everybody! WOW! No one else figured out how to get blockchains to work together before. And to do it in such a centralized way, just never been done before. The future is ~~7 years ago~~ now!
Crypto has thousands of blockchains, but getting them to work together remains one of its BIGGEST challenges. NEAR co-founder @ilblackdragon believes he's found a way to solve it. From connecting blockchains to enabling AI agents to transact onchain, NEAR is building something much bigger. But what does this mean for near:native and for crypto as a whole? New Insider interview OUT NOW: youtu.be/q6DJCivzLyE
19
10
1
153
6,676
Raider retweeted
Security warning: Anyone using Keplr Wallet who originally created their wallet through Apple, Google, or email authentication is strongly advised to treat that wallet as potentially compromised. As a precaution, consider creating a new, secure wallet and transferring all your assets to it as soon as possible. Also, carefully check your wallet activity and transaction history. If you notice any unauthorised transactions or unstaking operations that you did not initiate, please send me a DM immediately. Better safe than sorry. Stay vigilant and stay safe. #lunc #luna #cosmos #keplr $lunc $luna
7
10
1
67
5,261
You're only as decentralized as your most centralized component. If i have a metal titanium chain, but the center link is a paperclip, the chain is only as strong as the paperclip. I might as well have a chain of just paperclips, it would be the same strength.
2
7
1
101
3,045
Raider retweeted
On THORChain, decisions are made directly on the blockchain. For an important change to be accepted, ⅔ of its nodes have to vote for it. Right now, 111 nodes are active. They all bond at least 300,000 RUNE, put up as collateral to secure the network. Each node has one vote, no matter how much it has bonded. All nodes run software called THORNode. Anyone, from devs to community members, can suggest changes to this software. These ideas are discussed in Discord (open to anyone to join) and fine-tuned until they become code. The changes are then submitted to the nodes, who decide whether THORNode moves to the next version, or not. It takes the approval of ⅔ of the nodes. Nodes also vote on network parameters through a system called Mimir. For economic changes such as fees, it takes ⅔ of the nodes. For operational changes such as security, only 3 votes are required. 4 nodes can vote to rescind an operational mimir, then 5 node votes can counter the 4, and so on. Some actions don't need a vote at all. For example, two nodes are ejected from the network every churn period (roughly 3 days), the oldest node in the network and the node with the most slash points. Swapping is automatically halted if the network detects an insolvency.
13
21
5
182
14,240
This is why you should've been building cypherpunk tech the whole time instead of proto-CBDCs and TrustMeBroFi. But that's none of my business. ☕
🚨JUST IN: 'Anti- Crypto' Elizabeth Warren set to become Senate Banking Committee chair, giving the outspoken crypto critic major influence over financial regulation. The role would put Warren at the center of crypto legislation, banking oversight and scrutiny of financial regulators. Democrats also plan to investigate financial ties between the crypto industry, President Trump and his family, per Bloomberg.
7
12
119
1,951
Not even sure if it's possible, but it would be amazing if @THORChain could scale to 1,000+ nodes. With Protocol-owned Liquidity doing its work already and monero:native being integrated soon, a few very important steps have been taken. Yet, with @THORChain offering permissionless privacy through monero:native and $ZEC, it also became an even bigger target for governments. More nodes mean more decentralization, making it harder to come after the protocol.
5
11
1
86
3,166
Not your keys, not your coins? Apparently, it's now: Your keys, our RPC. Your coins, our permission. A scammer sends 0.0001 dust to your wallet without your consent. You didn't approve anything. You didn't interact with the scammer. You simply received an unsolicited transaction on a public blockchain. Then Phantom's compliance filter kicks in: "Your address has interacted with a flagged malicious entity. Transactions disabled." Wait. WHAT? So a random scammer can poison my wallet address with dust, trigger your automated risk detection, and suddenly I can't use your wallet interface to move my own assets? Welcome to self-custody, where you own the keys but apparently need corporate permission to use them. The blockchain didn't freeze my account. The centralized frontend did. The irony is almost too good. We built crypto to escape banks freezing our money, only to end up with fintech apps wearing a decentralization costume. If a wallet can unilaterally disable your ability to transact because some random third party sent you dust, maybe it's time to rethink what "self-custody" actually means. Not your keys, not your coins? More like: Your keys. Their rules. Their permission. Peak Web3 UX. 🤡
296
256
90
1,494
133,584
Raider retweeted
Laura Shin is a bad actor in this space. Starts her post on a premise that isn't true to push her ongoing anti-Thorchain messaging to appease her sponsors (some of whom are TC competitors).
After the @binance hack, it took just three node votes to halt THORChain on 10 chains. ⛔ I asked @tanuki42_ and @pablosabbatella what that says about THORChain's claim to be as decentralized as Bitcoin or Ethereum. 🗳️ youtu.be/Lg84XNrPKTY
4
6
54
867
Regarding Terra Classic Governance Proposal #12236 We are genuinely struggling to understand the reasoning behind the NO WITH VETO votes on our proposal. Let's clarify a few things. We are simply asking for permission to update our own smart contracts for Juris Protocol and LSF Exchange. These updates are necessary to address security issues, maintain our infrastructure, and migrate our liquidation engine. We are NOT requesting permission to execute arbitrary code on Terra Classic, nor are we asking for Community Pool funding or control over anyone else's contracts. In principle, we strongly believe that Terra Classic should have permissionless smart contract deployments. We do not want a permanently permissioned environment in which developers need governance approval just to maintain their applications. In fact, we supported the introduction of the current temporary restrictions ourselves. We did so because of serious security concerns and specific circumstances that we unfortunately cannot disclose further details about at this time. These restrictions were never intended to become permanent. They are a temporary, responsible precaution while the underlying security issues are being addressed. We stand by that decision. However, responsible security measures should not unnecessarily prevent legitimate builders from maintaining and securing their existing applications. We are simply asking to continue developing and maintaining our own products within the security framework that we ourselves supported. We fully respect the right of every validator to disagree with our proposal. But we would genuinely appreciate understanding what specifically justifies a NO WITH VETO rather than a regular NO vote in this case. We remain committed to building on Terra Classic, improving its DeFi infrastructure, and contributing to a safer, more sustainable ecosystem. 🤝 $JURIS | $LUNC 🔗 validator.info/terra-classic… #TerraClassic #LUNC #JurisProtocol #DeFi
14
24
6
86
6,451
Raider retweeted
Take control of your validator setup with Hexxagon's non-custodial hosting solutions. Enjoy peace of mind knowing your keys and signing workflow remain securely in your hands, while we handle the infrastructure. Whether you're launching a new validator or migrating from an existing setup, our reliable services ensure smooth operations without the DevOps burden. Focus on your protocol, and let us handle the rest. Discover more at hexxagon.io. #Hexxagon #ValidatorHosting
1
1
3
866
.@THORChain was built for people like this. To give choice and a path to financial liberty from corrupt and tyrannical govts. This happens all day every day. But these voices are quiet against the sensational story of the latest hack.
You can't claim to believe in financial freedom while depending on permission-based infrastructure to move your money. If the money is permissionless, shouldn't the means of exchanging it be too? This is something I think the crypto industry needs to think about more seriously. Crypto was never supposed to be another version of the financial system we already had. The whole point was to create an alternative. One where people could own their money, move their assets freely and participate in a financial system without needing permission from a bank, government or corporation. Bitcoin introduced that idea to the world. Not because humans suddenly became trustworthy, but because we could build systems that didn't require us to trust them in the first place. And that's an important distinction. Don't blame the technology for what humans choose to do with it. People will always find ways to manipulate systems, protect their interests and exercise control over others. That's human nature. But the technology itself can be designed to minimise the power any individual or institution has over everyone else. That's what decentralisation is supposed to achieve. Where I come from, this isn't some abstract conversation about financial sovereignty. I'm Nigerian. I've watched a reckless government preside over an economy where the local currency has lost so much of its value that simply preserving what you earn has become a challenge for ordinary people. For many Nigerians, crypto became more than an investment opportunity. It became a way to access a global financial system, protect value, move money and participate in an economy that wasn't restricted by the limitations of our local financial infrastructure. When your currency is constantly losing purchasing power and access to your own money can come with unnecessary restrictions, the ability to hold and move an asset without asking anyone for permission means something entirely different. But here's something I think we sometimes overlook. What good is having permissionless money if the avenue through which you exchange it is permissioned? What good is self-custody if you eventually have to surrender your assets to an intermediary before you can swap them? What good is financial freedom if a company can decide that you're no longer allowed to participate? We cannot claim to have built an alternative financial system while recreating the same gatekeepers, restrictions and dependencies we set out to escape. This is why @THORChain matters. You don't need to create an account, submit your passport, take a selfie or provide your home address before using the protocol. You don't need to deposit your assets into a centralised exchange and trust someone else to hold them for you. You interact directly with the protocol from your own wallet and swap native assets across different blockchains. No central exchange needs to approve your participation. No company needs to take custody of your funds. Behind it is a decentralised network of node operators facilitating and securing the swaps, with transactions settled on-chain and independently verifiable. And this is the part I find particularly important: THORChain isn't trying to become another institution that people have to trust. It's building infrastructure that allows people to exchange value without having to place that trust in a central intermediary. Of course, decentralisation doesn't mean every human interaction becomes fair or that every problem disappears. But it changes where power sits. Instead of concentrating it in the hands of a company, it distributes the responsibility across an open network. That's the direction crypto was supposed to take. Not recreating the traditional financial system with blockchain branding. Not building more sophisticated gatekeepers. Not making financial participation conditional on somebody else's approval. We wanted money that could move freely, that belonged to its owners and that wasn't controlled by a single authority. And if the money is supposed to be permissionless, the infrastructure through which we trade it should be permissionless too. That's why I have so much respect for what THORChain is building. Financial freedom cannot be built on permission-based infrastructure.
10
21
1
138
4,918
Raider retweeted
No, this isn't simply about Democrats supposedly shutting down data centres or stopping AI development. Investors and the market are finally waking up from the AI gold rush dream. Let's look at the economics. Big Tech has poured hundreds of billions into AI infrastructure: data centres, GPUs, energy and computing capacity. But where is the revenue to justify this extraordinary level of investment? Even if millions of people pay monthly AI subscriptions, does that generate enough money to cover the astronomical costs of building and operating this infrastructure? And the problem doesn't stop there. Companies like NVIDIA have benefited enormously from selling GPUs into this massive infrastructure boom. But what happens when data centre investment slows, demand falls and customers are left sitting on expensive computing capacity they cannot fully monetise? Meanwhile, AI is becoming increasingly accessible. Open-source models and powerful local AI are giving people alternatives that don't require expensive monthly subscriptions or permanent dependence on cloud providers. The uncomfortable reality is that AI can be revolutionary technology and still be a terrible investment at the prices and valuations we're seeing. The technology isn't necessarily the bubble. The economic expectations built around it might be. And when those expectations collapse, the damage won't be limited to AI stocks. The AI bubble may be starting to deflate, and the wider market could be caught in the fallout.
This is just insane. $2.1 Trillion has been wiped out from the US stock market in just 55 minutes. Tech stocks are selling off as if Democrats will close all the data centers and completely stop AI development.
3
3
36
3,827
🇫🇷 French crypto holders may soon have to declare self-custodied crypto worth €100,000 or more. Under the new rule, French taxpayers would have to report crypto held in their own wallets, rather than on exchanges. It would apply if those holdings total €100,000 or more on December 31, with fines of up to €10,000 for not declaring. France’s National Assembly voted 150 to 44 to add it to the 2027 finance bill. It is not law yet, as the Senate starts debating the bill on November 20. Lawmakers also rejected a proposal to exempt crypto payments of up to €1,000 from tax.
38
55
16
252
51,353