Wasim Ahmad retweeted
25 years ago today, we introduced the iPod. 1,000 songs in your pocket.
A small team. An unforgiving deadline. We had months to bring the hardware, software, and music experience together. Proud of what we built and that it means so much to people still today. A device that has been woven in many ways into our lives. People have filled their iPods with road trips, breakups, workouts, special occasions with family and friends.
How cool that the iPod has become part of culture and our stories. 25 years, itâs hard to believe! Celebrating the team that made it happen today đ
@StevenLevy was there from the start @WIRED wired.com/story/im-still-conâŚ
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
A $17.45 million token sale from 2018 still can't get a CEX listing. That's the whole story on legacy issuance, and it explains where listing flow has gone.
Vault12's read: venues won't touch $VGT without explicit SEC immunity, because a listing today can be re-read as an unregistered securities distribution years later. The proposal is a 60-day clock, file it, and if the SEC stays silent the filing becomes conclusive.
What that changes for structure: a silence-is-consent rule would pull a backlog of 2017-2018 vintage tokens toward listing, and each one is fresh float hitting order books with no price discovery behind it. Venues would reprice listing fees around that risk.
Until a rule like this exists, the flow stays in the private and OTC channels, thin books, wide spreads. The 60-day window is the number that decides whether that changes.
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
Why centralized exchanges refuse to list legacy crypto tokens without explicit SEC immunity
Vault12 raised $17.45 million selling VGT in 2018 and says it met or dropped every promise, yet the token has never traded on a centralized exchange.
coindesk.com/policy/2026/10/âŚ
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
Last week I was in Washington, DC with a parliamentary delegation led by Dr Lisa Cameron, Founder, US-UK Crypto Alliance, former Chair UK Crypto All Party Parliamentary Group APPG and former-MP, @KulveerRanger, UK House of Lords, and @Lord_ofWarwick for three days of meetings across Capitol Hill, the White House and the regulators. Here's what I took away:Â
The Clarity Act will be back.
The cloture vote failed to advance the bill. But on both sides of the aisle, lawmakers told us they're confident it gets picked back up after the midterms. Senator Tillis's voting maneuver keeps the door open for the bill to be called back for another vote. The other factor was simply time: Congress left DC at the end of last week, presumably to prepare for the midterms, and there was no room left to finish the process.
The people in the room.
We met with senior members who lead or sit on the key financial services committees and subcommittees:
Chairman French Hill, who brings real financial services experience, having built a bank himself
Bryan Steil, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and AI
Rep. William Timmons of House Financial Services Committee
Senator @SenLummisâs team and @gillibrandnâs team
President's Council of Economic Advisors at the Whitehouse
Commissioner @HesterPeirce and team at the SEC
The banking lobby's argument is weaker than it sounds.
Banks are working hard to hold on to every last point of margin they earn from customers, which is why we keep hearing FUD about deposit flight and credit unions. At the @CEA47 in the White House walked us through their report issued last week. It uses extensive data to show that the risk stablecoin yield poses to the banking sector has been dramatically overstated.
The regulators aren't waiting.
The SEC and CFTC have stepped up work on market regulation. These rules would have been needed to implement the Clarity Act anyway. Now they're moving ahead with a tighter, more comprehensive framework for market structure. We look forward to the rapid implementation of these regulations.Â
A final meeting.
We met with SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce and her Crypto Task Force team. Commissioner Peirce will be stepping down soon, and the industry owes her a great deal for what she has led over the last several years. Her team has clear momentum in carrying that work forward
What's next:Â Vault12 will be submitting a comment letter on the proposed regulations. Stay tuned.
Thank you to everyone who took the time to meet with us.
A great many thanks to Jennifer Summers FCIM and Stefan Muehlbauer for organizing the meetings and shepherding us through the US Capitol
#Crypto #ClarityAct #DigitalAssets #Stablecoins #Web3 #Vault12 #UKUSCryptoAlliance
@EasyA (@dom_kwok, @kwok_phil), @Vault12 (@wasima), @Chilliz (Alexandre Dreyfus), @Monotlith (Rufus Daniel), @OpenPayd (Iana Dimitrova, David Bull)
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
SEC Crypto Safe Harbor Tested as Vault12âs $17.45M VGT Stalls
#SEC #CryptoRegulation #Vault12 #VGT #CryptoNews
bitcoinworld.news/article/reâŚ
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
REGULATION: đ Vault12 argues SEC safe harbor may not be enough for exchanges to list legacy tokens. #Crypto #SEC #Regulation
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
Vault12 raised $17.45 million selling VGT in 2018. Seven years later, the token has never traded on a single centralized exchange.
Not because it failed. Because nobody will give it permission.
â Vault12 says it met or dropped every promise attached to the offering
â Exchanges still won't list ICO-era tokens without explicit SEC cover
â The block isn't a ban â it's an absence of permission
The result is a quiet two-tier market: legacy tokens sit outside the venues where most liquidity now lives, whether or not the issuer kept its side of the bargain.
Critics call it a regulatory Catch-22. Recent SEC and CFTC work leans on disclosure â what the issuer promised, not how the token was sold.
Which raises the question the article digs into: if a clean record still isn't enough for a listing, what actually unblocks one?
đ Read it here:
jardinfinanciero.com/articleâŚ
#Vault12 #VGT #SEC
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
Centralized exchanges won't list legacy tokens unless SEC immunity, like Vault12's 8-year VGT. I'm surprised it took so long. Which legacy token do you think will get the green light first? #Crypto NFA.
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
This is how banks are planning to stop those "agentic bank runs." Watch closely: their business model depends on seeding this narrative that AI agents are dangerous.
Remember, an "agentic bank run" (coined by Apollo) means agents helping customers move their own money en masse to higher-yielding products.
Once agents are ubiquitous, there are only a few ways for banks to hold onto cheap retail deposits.
Option A: Raise APYs (lol no)
Option B: Reduce leverage via fewer loans (no fun)
Option C: Ban AI agents, claiming they are a security risk (ding ding ding)
Cloud agents like Muse and Dot are trivial to stop, since they come from Meta / OAI IP ranges. If JPM sends them a cease and desist, they will comply.
Why would JPM bother? Because their business model depends on it; a huge portion of their ROE comes from cheap retail deposits. This is not theoretical. Just like Amazon banned Muse from shopping there to protect their ad revenue, JPM and Schwab have already banned AI agents to protect sticky deposits.
Are agents perfectly reliable today? Of course not. But look at the fix they chose. Not "here's a safe API for agents," it's "no agents ever." That tells you they're not protecting customers, they're protecting themselves.
No company ever wins a technological revolution this way. It's the last gasp of a dying business model. It's like the retailers who refused to put their inventory online and demanded users walk into the storefront. Over time they will lose market share to those platforms that embrace what's coming. Their whole deposit franchise depends on users unthinkingly clicking through walls of T&Cs and accepting 0.2% when the risk free rate is closer to 4%. Agents read the fine print and do their research, even when humans don't.
For users, the answer is simple: local AI agent frameworks like Hermes, that will actually act on your behalf and that the banks can't block. As the article says, if the agent is running on your own computer, they can't actually tell it's not you.
SCOOP: Major U.S. banks are detecting unauthorized third-party AI agents inside customer accounts, including some attempting to take actions that appear to be independent of user instructions, sources told Axios.
The findings have alarmed banking executives, who are racing to restrict access to their systems as AI moves at a velocity faster than financial institutions can respond, multiple industry and bank executives told Axios.
Several banks are now preparing for worst-case and even âday afterâ scenarios, including how to rapidly secure or restore customer accounts if things go wrong, the people said.
Several bank executives told Axios they're struggling to distinguish between human users and AI agents. One executive said banks also struggle to determine whether agents are authorized by customers or potentially operating without their permission, more akin to rogue agent behavior.
Read my latest for Axios here: axios.com/2026/10/22/ai-agenâŚ
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
Spot on â the plan for the family is the next maturity step after keys. Non-custodial tracking + clear recovery keep control with the owner.
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
Americans want crypto through the institutions they already use. đŚ
And 29% of adults 18 to 34 plan to move crypto into a bank, credit union, or brokerage within three years.
More in our Crypto at the Bank report with @HarrisPoll: nca.org/2026-crypto-at-the-bâŚ
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
1/10 Today @Vault12 has written to @secgov on proposed Regulation Crypto Assets.
We welcome the distinction between tokens and the investment contracts used to sell them. Our letter supports and builds on @digitalchamberâs submission.
Here are our key asks.
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
The only "crypto villain from a previous era" who deserves a path to redemption is Mark Karpeles @MagicalTux - precisely because he's the only one who's not clamoring for attention asking for one. He's just quietly doing interesting stuff.
Compare his twitter with a weaker soul:
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
Does @Ledger think everyone will simply forget about the massive supply chain attack that saw $80 million stolen from its users?
It has been a week now & they still haven't provided a basic step-by-step guide on how to check the integrity of a device without destroying it...
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
By the way, this is Ledgerâs CEO ⌠acting like this after over 90+ million in customer funds were lost.
Iâm now addressing @_pgauthier directly:
@Ledger âs reputation and standing are deteriorating with every public appearance you make on this app right now, not to mention the overall poor handling of this situation what includes external but also internal communicationâŚ
Furthermore, Ledgerâs misleading claim that the Secure Element chip is designed to detect physical tampering is false, and I can tell you that THIS is going to cost the company QUITE a lot very soon.
Many people will file lawsuits.
Real people have lost a lot of money, and you could have prevented this yourself by taking concrete steps as early as MARCH 2026 to demonstrate what good leadership looks like.
A clear public warning across ALL channels would have been sufficient (not just an article buried somewhere in the Academy).
I donât want to comment on Mt. Gox, but @MagicalTux was a HUGE help to all Ledger users. He brought the problem to light Fast and helped people check whether their devices were clean or contained an implant.
Whether you like it or not: Thatâs exactly what ultimately helped stop the attacks on the supply chain.
And instead of being grateful, youâre spouting responses like this and attacking Mark personally on a very low level.
Embarrassing đ
Link to the Ledger Academy:
ledger.com/academy/topics/leâŚ
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
> "The Secure Element chip is designed to detect physical tampering and will refuse to execute unsigned code or pass the genuine check if extra hardware attempts to intercept signals."
Not only is this misleading consumers into believing the Secure Element can detect "extra hardware," but Ledger's own documentation explicitly states:
> "Note that a Genuine check cannot detect unauthorized physical modifications to the hardware, such as spying implants, if the original Secure Element remains intact."
@Ledger_Support's statement directly contradict Ledger's own technical documentation, and less than two months later, we're seeing reports of over $90 million stolen through precisely the kind of "extra hardware" intercepting signals that Ledger assured customers would be detected.
And here's the worst part: Ledger had already published photographs of actual spying implants in its March 2026 Ledger Academy article, including sophisticated, mass-produced PCBs installed in multiple Ledger models.
This wasn't some hypothetical attack they hadn't anticipated. They had already documented the threat, yet months later, their official Support account was assuring customers that Genuine Check would detect precisely this kind of hardware modification.
How is this not misleading advertising?
xitter.cf/Ledger_Support/status/âŚ
Hi there, instead of relying on a sticker, Ledger uses Cryptographic Attestation.
Every time you connect a device to Ledger Wallet, the software sends a cryptographic challenge directly to the Secure Element chip. If the hardware, chip, or internal firmware has been modified or altered during manufacturing/shipping, the cryptographic check fails, and the app will flag the device as non-genuine.
The Secure Element chip is designed to detect physical tampering and will refuse to execute unsigned code or pass the genuine check if extra hardware attempts to intercept signals.
A cryptographic proof performed directly by the hardware chip is infinitely more secure than a physical sticker.
Wasim Ahmad retweeted
I'm not sure MtGox has anything to do with that. You received multiple reports of implants in early 2026, and by March you published an article that showed both the hand-made style of implants Joe Grand saw (with the improvised LTE antenna) and the high budget mass produced self-aligning implant.
As a security company I have no doubt everyone at Ledger understands what that means: someone is serious about attacking the product. This is a five-alarm fire in the making and without an immediate and appropriate response it could turn into something really bad.
So there was a response, but I doubt anyone will find it reasonably appropriate. It does one thing however: it documents Ledger knew about this advanced type of implant in March - the picture is on your site.
And if you really think I have no standing talking about this because of MtGox let me add this. I was hoping you guys were better than that. I've been holding Ledger at a higher standard than what happened at MtGox, because I trusted you to do better by learning of my failure - to be better than me. And I'm pretty sure everyone in the industry, especially your customers, have been considering Ledger to be at the very top of the industry in terms of security and disclosure policies and trusting you accordingly.
Now I am not sure what to think, not only because of the lack of communication at the time but also because of the continuing downplaying of this incident. I did notice some positive, such as better involvement of the Ledger X account, but also I've seen a lot of people complain they are not receiving responses and you keep calling this the CryptoBilis incident despite similar implants surfacing at other locations (there might be a good reason for that, but a end user doesn't know that, and shouldn't have to worry if their device is altered or not).