# Сопутствующие статьи по теме Governance

Новостной центр HTX предлагает последние статьи и углубленный анализ по "Governance", охватывающие рыночные тренды, новости проектов, развитие технологий и политику регулирования в криптоиндустрии.

Will OpenAI Swallow the Application Layer? a16z Says Real Opportunities Lie Outside General Models

As large language models (LLMs) from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic become more powerful, many fear they will dominate the AI application layer, leaving no room for startups. However, this article argues that the real opportunity lies not on the "Yellow Brick Road"—the high-profile, general-purpose tasks like code and text generation that model labs are directly pursuing—but in the "rest of Oz": complex, vertical-specific applications. On the Yellow Brick Road, model companies have inherent advantages: control over the model, better margins, pricing power, and strong distribution. Startups building generic, horizontal "co-pilot" tools for standard tasks are competing directly on this path and are vulnerable. True defensibility and value are found in specialized, vertical applications. These involve deep integration into messy, multi-step business workflows (e.g., sales, insurance, legal), handling legacy systems, data quality issues, compliance, and governance. The "scaffolding" around the model—the specialized tools, automations, workflows, and industry knowledge—becomes more critical than the raw model power itself. Vertical AI companies can build defensible moats through: * **Data & Learning Flywheels:** Capturing unwritten industry practices and specific customer feedback not found in public training data. * **Managing Model Complexity:** Routinely evaluating and routing queries across multiple models (including open-source) to optimize for performance and cost, and absorbing the migration burden of model upgrades for clients. * **Cost Optimization:** Using cheaper, fine-tuned models for specific sub-tasks instead of always calling the most expensive, general-purpose model. * **Governance & Compliance:** Providing the control plane for permissions, auditing, and ensuring compliance with industry-specific regulations (e.g., HIPAA, FINRA). Examples from sales (11x) and insurance (FurtherAI) illustrate that clients pay for systems that drive specific business outcomes (e.g., sales pipeline, policy underwriting), not for generic intelligence. These systems become the "operational memory" of a business, a layer that is hard to replace, even as the underlying LLMs commoditize and improve. To test if a startup is building in the "rest of Oz," it should pass checks like the **Tool & Steps Test** (requires complex, multi-step workflows), the **System Test** (owns the end-to-end workflow, not just a tool on top), and the **Hedge Fund / P&L Test** (measured by client business outcomes, not benchmark scores). Both model labs and vertical application companies will win. The next generation of enterprise software will be built in the specialized, complex, and high-value territory beyond the Yellow Brick Road.

marsbit05/28 04:28

Will OpenAI Swallow the Application Layer? a16z Says Real Opportunities Lie Outside General Models

marsbit05/28 04:28

When Vitalik Stops Blogging to Write Sci-Fi

Vitalik Buterin, founder of Ethereum, has announced a pause in his long-form technical blogging to instead write a science fiction novel exploring decentralized governance. The story, set in a fictional nation called Veridia, follows a member of a governance body that uses complex systems like quadratic voting, privacy-preserving audits, and AI-assisted decision-making to guide society through incentive structures rather than outright bans. This creative shift comes at a pivotal moment for the Ethereum ecosystem. The Ethereum Foundation has seen significant internal upheaval in 2026, with at least nine core contributors, including key protocol leaders, departing. Just days before his announcement, Vitalik published a statement addressing this turbulence, framing the Foundation as a "smaller ship" that will now focus on core principles like censorship resistance and security, while moving from a growth-oriented to a sustainability-focused organization. The novel's themes directly mirror Vitalik's long-standing technical interests in governance mechanisms. Community reactions are mixed: some see it as a thoughtful exploration of ideas through narrative, while others view the timing—amidst core team departures and a significant drop in ETH's price—as pointedly symbolic. The move is also interpreted as a personal transition, signaling Vitalik's evolving role from a central executive figure to one of many decentralized thought leaders within the Ethereum ecosystem.

marsbit05/28 02:50

When Vitalik Stops Blogging to Write Sci-Fi

marsbit05/28 02:50

Why Sam Altman's 'Water and Electricity Theory' Sparks Copyright Controversy

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's recent statement that "intelligence will become a utility like electricity or water" has sparked significant controversy, primarily around copyright issues and the nature of AI development. While positioning AI as a utility serves as a compelling narrative for infrastructure investors, critics argue the analogy is flawed in three key areas. First, there's a fundamental "property gap." Traditional utilities like water and power create new, physical infrastructure from scratch. In contrast, major AI models are trained by reorganizing vast amounts of existing human-created content—books, articles, code, etc.—often scraped from the web without explicit permission or compensation to creators. This "free acquisition, paid resale" model is seen by many as ethically problematic. Second, there's a "pricing gap." True public utilities are typically regulated to ensure universal service with non-discriminatory, cost-plus pricing. AI's token-based pricing, however, involves significant price discrimination (e.g., output tokens costing much more than input tokens) and is designed for revenue maximization, not equitable access. Third, a "governance gap" exists. Utilities operate under public oversight, while AI pricing and development are currently controlled by a few private companies. Furthermore, the industry's own shift toward buying licensed training data (e.g., deals with Reddit or news publishers) undermines its previous legal reliance on "fair use" for freely scraped data. In conclusion, while AI is indeed becoming a foundational technology, calling it a public utility remains contentious. The title requires not just scale and a pay-per-use model, but also credible solutions for data provenance, equitable pricing, and public governance.

marsbit05/27 10:03

Why Sam Altman's 'Water and Electricity Theory' Sparks Copyright Controversy

marsbit05/27 10:03

Kelp DAO's $400 Million Bad Debt Was Covered, But at a $12 Billion Cost to Aave

On May 26th, Kelp DAO successfully transferred its final batch of rsETH, completing the 37-day process of fully backing rsETH 1:1 after a security incident. However, the resolution came at a significant cost to Aave. The protocol's TVL plummeted by over $12 billion in the following month. Furthermore, a separate legal battle over 30,766 frozen ETH continues in court, posing ongoing reputational risk. The recovery was enabled by an unprecedented, one-time coalition dubbed "DeFi United," involving major contributions from Aave's founder, treasury, Consensys, Mantle, and others. Despite this, the event triggered a major outflow of funds, with whales like Justin Sun moving capital to competitors like Spark. Aave's path to regaining its position relies heavily on the successful execution of its multi-pronged strategy. Its new V4 protocol, designed for open, heterogeneous asset markets, faces delays due to internal governance disputes. Meanwhile, the V3 version remains the core revenue generator, and the permissioned Horizon fork is targeting institutional RWA (Real-World Assets) growth—a segment less impacted by the rsETH incident but dependent on traditional finance adoption timelines. The key takeaway is that while the immediate bad debt was covered, Aave paid a steep price in lost trust and capital. Recovering market share depends on accelerating V4's rollout and advancing its institutional RWA offerings, both of which face external and internal hurdles. The "DeFi United" safety net is unlikely to be replicable for future crises.

marsbit05/26 11:09

Kelp DAO's $400 Million Bad Debt Was Covered, But at a $12 Billion Cost to Aave

marsbit05/26 11:09

IOSG: DeFi at Its Most Critical Moment, The Real Vulnerability Lies Not in the Code

In April 2026, a series of major DeFi exploits—targeting Drift Protocol ($285M), KelpDAO ($292M via bridge), and Wasabi Protocol ($4.5M)—revealed a fundamental security crisis. None involved smart contract code vulnerabilities. Instead, losses stemmed from compromised operational foundations: social engineering of multi-signature signers, a single-point-of-failure bridge validator, and stolen admin private keys. This month, where over $625M was stolen across ~30 incidents, marked the collapse of DeFi's core security premise: that rigorous code audits alone ensure safety. The real vulnerabilities lay in trusted operational components—admin keys, governance councils, and bridge configurations—areas audits typically ignore. The KelpDAO incident triggered an asymmetric domino effect: its $2.92B unsupported token mint caused ~$8.5B in outflows from Aave and a $13.2B total DeFi TVL drop in 48 hours, showcasing how one protocol's operational failure can cascade through composable systems. The article argues that most so-called "DeFi" is actually "OpenFi": permissionless and transparent on-chain, but critically reliant on trusted third parties for key operations. This inherent trade-off between decentralization and operational feasibility is often obscured by marketing. The industry's path forward requires honest disclosure of trust assumptions (like L2Beat's framework), treating operational security as a first-class discipline alongside code audits, and designing systems whose risks can be clearly assessed and insured. The April events were not a code security failure but a breakdown in the mental model surrounding it.

marsbit05/26 03:08

IOSG: DeFi at Its Most Critical Moment, The Real Vulnerability Lies Not in the Code

marsbit05/26 03:08

DeFi Has Reached Its Most Dangerous Moment: The Real Vulnerabilities Are Not in the Code

DeFi in Peril: The Real Vulnerability Isn't in the Code April 2026 marked a paradigm shift in DeFi security, with over $625 million lost across 30 incidents—the worst month in crypto history by event count. Crucially, none of the major exploits (Drift Protocol: $285M, KelpDAO: $292M, Wasabi Protocol: $4.5M) resulted from smart contract vulnerabilities. Instead, failures occurred in the operational "plumbing": social engineering to compromise multi-signature councils, a single-point-of-failure 1-of-1 bridge validator, and stolen admin private keys. These events expose a fundamental misalignment: the industry's security model has long focused on code audits, while the actual attack surface has shifted to privileged access points and off-chain infrastructure. The article introduces the term "OpenFi" to describe this reality: permissionless, on-chain, yet operationally dependent on trusted third parties (admins, validators, oracles) at key junctures. The KelpDAO exploit vividly demonstrated asymmetric "contagion risk." A configuration error in a smaller protocol triggered a panic, causing approximately $13.2 billion in outflows from larger, unaffected protocols like Aave within 48 hours, as users fled uncertain collateral. The core dilemma is the double-edged sword of centralization. Operational levers like emergency councils (e.g., Arbitrum freezing stolen funds post-KelpDAO) enable crisis response but also create catastrophic attack surfaces if compromised (e.g., Drift). The path forward demands radical honesty: protocols must clearly disclose their trust assumptions, operational levers, and failure modes. The industry must treat operational security (key management, configurations, incident response) with the same rigor as code security. Survival depends on building systems whose risks can be understood, priced, and insured, moving beyond the outdated "code is law" mantra to a mature model of disclosed and managed trust.

链捕手05/25 15:17

DeFi Has Reached Its Most Dangerous Moment: The Real Vulnerabilities Are Not in the Code

链捕手05/25 15:17

Vitalik's Article Emphasizes Ethereum Must Be 'Amazing', But Foundation Is Not the Center

Vitalik Buterin has published a lengthy response to recent community criticism directed at the Ethereum Foundation (EF). Acknowledging a sense of "unease," he addresses concerns about the EF's strategic direction, its perceived disconnect from ETH's price performance, and calls for its reduced central role. Vitalik rejects the notion that the EF should be the central governing body of Ethereum, framing it instead as one "node with a clear mandate" among many within the ecosystem. He highlights the EF's limited ETH holdings (≈0.16% of supply) compared to other blockchain foundations and states it will no longer sell significant amounts of ETH. Its future focus will be on long-term, critical projects that align with Ethereum's core values of censorship-resistance and decentralization, which might not otherwise happen. A core argument is that Ethereum must be "amazing," but not by merely chasing higher transaction speeds at the cost of decentralization. He proposes focusing on the "CROPS" dimensions: creating a Cryptographically provable, Reliable, Open, Private, and Secure network. This includes pursuing goals like a formally verifiable, bug-free Ethereum client and minimizing protocol-level reliance on intermediaries. The article concludes by noting that while Vitalik clarifies the EF's refocused role, he does not directly address community suggestions for creating a new organization explicitly aligned with ETH's economic interests. This "alignment gap" is presented as a key challenge for Ethereum's future.

链捕手05/25 15:07

Vitalik's Article Emphasizes Ethereum Must Be 'Amazing', But Foundation Is Not the Center

链捕手05/25 15:07

Vitalik on the Future of the Ethereum Foundation: A Smaller, More Distinct, but Longer-Lasting Ship

Vitalik discusses the future direction of the Ethereum Foundation (EF), emphasizing a shift towards a smaller, more focused, and longer-lasting organization. He clarifies this is his personal view and that his own influence within EF is diminishing, which he welcomes. The key driver is aligning EF's actions with its stated values of decentralization, privacy, and being a "sanctuary technology," addressing criticism that its operations haven't fully reflected these ideals. He argues that EF should not be the "center" of Ethereum but one node among many with a specific mandate. With limited resources (holding only ~0.16% of all ETH), EF must focus its remaining efforts on long-term, mission-critical activities that wouldn't happen without its push, particularly those reinforcing Ethereum's core CROPS values (Censorship-Resistance, Resilience, Openness, Privacy, Security). This means making hard choices, potentially spinning out even respected projects to attract external capital, and cultivating a distinct cultural stance. The core technical vision is for Ethereum to be "amazing" not by chasing maximal throughput, but by excelling in the CROPS dimension. Key goals include: a provably bug-free Ethereum via AI-assisted formal verification; high-availability chain consensus combining the best of BFT and Bitcoin-style security; and minimization of intermediaries in transaction sending and user experience. These "unreasonable" ambitions aim to make Ethereum profoundly impressive in its core values, which also support ETH as a robust asset. The future EF will be a smaller, more opinionated ship built for longevity and meaningful impact.

链捕手05/25 06:44

Vitalik on the Future of the Ethereum Foundation: A Smaller, More Distinct, but Longer-Lasting Ship

链捕手05/25 06:44

活动图片