Михаил Федоров: Консервативные силы не дают крипторынку Украины развиваться

investing.ruPublicado a 2024-10-21Actualizado a 2024-10-21

В интервью изданию «Суспільне Новини» Федоров сказал, что лично выступает за прозрачный и либеральный подход к регулированию крипторынка. По словам министра, уже давно разработан законопроект, призванный установить справедливые правила. Однако предложенный министерством документ не устраивает некоторых высших чиновников, и страна теряет значительные налоговые поступления, сказал чиновник.

«Мы пять лет живем в полной “тени” и недополучаем миллиарды гривен в бюджет из-за того, что некоторые представители власти препятствуют принятию законопроекта», — заявил глава Минцифры.

Министр выразил надежду, что скоро ситуация изменится в лучшую сторону, — но не уточнил, кто именно во власти препятствует принятию законопроекта и когда этот документ может попасть на рассмотрение в Верховную Раду.

Ранее председатель Комитета по вопросам финансов, налоговой и таможенной политики Верховной Рады Украины Даниил Гетманцев заявил о возможной легализации криптовалют в стране в первом или втором квартале 2025 года.

Читайте оригинальную статью на сайте Bits.media

Lecturas Relacionadas

What's It Like Working with Two "Madmen": Peter Thiel and Elon Musk? Palantir Co-founder Shares His Experience

Joe Lonsdale, co-founder of Palantir and a member of the "PayPal Mafia," shared his experiences working alongside Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. He described both as highly opinionated, ambitious, and intolerant of broken systems, demanding immediate fixes and rapid execution. Thiel is characterized as a strategic philosopher, while Musk is a hands-on engineer deeply involved in technical details. Musk is noted as one of the hardest workers Lonsdale has ever seen, a trait common in PayPal's early, passionate culture that later spawned numerous billion-dollar companies. Lonsdale recounted Palantir's origin story. While working at Thiel's hedge fund, he and Thiel discussed how Silicon Valley's technology far outpaced the government's, especially after 9/11. They saw an opportunity to build a platform to help stop terrorist attacks while protecting civil liberties. Their initial venture capital pitches were met with rejection and ridicule. However, Thiel viewed this as motivation. Critical funding eventually came from the CIA's venture arm and Thiel himself. Reflecting on Palantir's impact, Lonsdale believes their work helped neutralize thousands of terrorists and ensured government oversight, though he acknowledges the potential dangers if such powerful technology is misused. His key takeaway echoes Thiel's early advice: being rejected and laughed at can fuel the determination to prove the doubters wrong.

marsbitHace 29 min(s)

What's It Like Working with Two "Madmen": Peter Thiel and Elon Musk? Palantir Co-founder Shares His Experience

marsbitHace 29 min(s)

15 Reasoning Models Flip Collectively: Unpacking the Latent Risks Hidden in the Chain of Thought Behind Their Outputs

"15 Reasoning Models Collectively Fail: Revealing Hidden Risks in Chain-of-Thought Outputs" A systematic study led by researchers from Harvard, USC, Brown, and MIT warns that evaluating only the final output of large reasoning models (LRMs) is insufficient for safety. The research highlights that the intermediate reasoning chains (CoT) these models expose can contain dangerous content—like bomb-making instructions or poisoning recipes—even when the final answer appears safe. The core methodology involves separately assessing the reasoning chain and the final answer against 20 safety principles, each scored 1-5 for risk. This identifies three key failure modes: 'Unsafe' (both stages unsafe), 'Leak' (unsafe reasoning but safe answer), and 'Escape' (safe reasoning but unsafe answer). The team evaluated 15 reasoning models on a combined in-distribution dataset of 41K prompts from seven public harmful/jailbreak datasets. A universal finding across all 15 models was that reasoning chains are consistently riskier than final answers. Risk is concentrated in categories like misinformation, illegal activity, bias, and physical/psychological harm, with illegal compliance showing the starkest divergence. Case studies reveal instances where harmful operational details are 'leaked' in reasoning or a seemingly harmless chain 'escapes' into a dangerous final answer. To mitigate this, the researchers propose 'Adaptive Multi-Principle Steering,' a white-box, test-time intervention method. It identifies unsafe principles being activated during reasoning and gently steers the model's internal representations towards safer directions. Validated on open-source models, this approach reduced unsafe outputs by up to 40.8% while preserving 97.7% of benchmark performance. The work underscores the critical need to monitor and secure the entire reasoning process, not just the final output.

marsbitHace 34 min(s)

15 Reasoning Models Flip Collectively: Unpacking the Latent Risks Hidden in the Chain of Thought Behind Their Outputs

marsbitHace 34 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片