# 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.

WLFI's $75 Million Lending Game: Dolomite Depositors Deeply Trapped

Author: ChandlerZ, Foresight News. On April 9, CoinDesk reported that World Liberty Financial (WLFI), a crypto project co-founded by the Trump family, conducted multiple collateralized loans through the DeFi lending protocol Dolomite, raising market concerns about insider relationships, circular financing, and liquidity risks. WLFI used approximately 5 billion WLFI tokens as collateral on Dolomite to borrow around $75 million in stablecoins, with over $40 million transferred to Coinbase Prime, likely for fiat conversion or OTC trading. Between February and April, WLFI executed a series of transactions, including depositing its own stablecoin (USD1) and WLFI tokens into Dolomite to borrow funds, and directly sending USD1 to Coinbase. Dolomite’s co-founder, Corey Caplan, is also an advisor to WLFI, and WLFI’s lending platform is built on Dolomite, indicating potential conflicts of interest. WLFI now accounts for about 55% of Dolomite’s total supplied liquidity. The USD1 pool has a 93% utilization rate, leaving limited liquidity for other depositors. If WLFI’s token price drops significantly, forced liquidations could cause severe losses for ordinary users. This incident follows previous controversies, including a $500 million investment deal linked to an Abu Dhabi royal, sanctions-related associations, and a prior USD1 depegging event. WLFI responded that there is no liquidation risk and emphasized its business growth, but questions about governance and risk management remain unanswered.

marsbit04/10 06:19

WLFI's $75 Million Lending Game: Dolomite Depositors Deeply Trapped

marsbit04/10 06:19

Why is Covenant AI Fleeing Bittensor?

Covenant AI announced its exit from the Bittensor network, accusing co-founder Jacob Steeves (Const) of centralized control and governance abuses. The team claimed Steeves unilaterally suspended subnet emissions, revoked community management permissions, deprecated infrastructure without due process, and exerted economic pressure through token sales. Covenant AI highlighted its achievement in developing Covenant-72B—a 72-billion-parameter language model trained collaboratively by over 70 contributors on consumer hardware—as proof that decentralized AI training is viable. However, they argued that Bittensor’s governance is effectively controlled by a small group, with Steeves retaining ultimate authority, contradicting the network’s promised decentralized and permissionless nature. The incident sparked community debate, with some critics pointing to Covenant AI founder Sam Dare’s prior sale of 37,000 $TAO tokens. Meanwhile, $TAO’s price dipped amid the controversy. Covenant AI reaffirmed its commitment to decentralized AI and will continue its mission independently, emphasizing that true decentralization cannot coexist with centralized control.

marsbit04/10 03:44

marsbit04/10 03:44

The TAO Subnet Team Praised by Jensen Huang Has Parted Ways with the Founder Amidst a Fallout

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently praised the decentralized AI project Bittensor (TAO) during a podcast, specifically highlighting a 72-billion-parameter Llama model trained collaboratively by a subnet team called Covenant AI. This endorsement initially boosted TAO's price, but the situation deteriorated rapidly when Covenant AI's founder, Sam Dare, publicly announced the team's departure from the Bittensor network. Covenant AI accused Bittensor and its key figure, Jacob Steeves (known as Const), of centralization and abuse of power, contradicting Bittensor’s decentralized ethos. The team claimed that Const exercised unilateral control by halting subnet emissions, removing administrative rights, discarding infrastructure, and using token sales to pressure the team. They argued that Bittensor’s governance is effectively centralized under Const, despite claims of distributed control. As a result, Covenant AI decided to leave, intending to continue its work on decentralized AI training elsewhere. The exit has sparked significant concern within the Bittensor community, raising doubts about the network’s decentralization narrative, technical future, and token value. TAO’s price fell sharply following the news. Const responded vaguely on social media, suggesting the event would push Bittensor toward more decentralized, “headless” subnets, but has not addressed the specific allegations in detail. The incident has damaged Bittensor’s reputation while raising Covenant AI’s profile.

Odaily星球日报04/10 03:08

The TAO Subnet Team Praised by Jensen Huang Has Parted Ways with the Founder Amidst a Fallout

Odaily星球日报04/10 03:08

Six-Year Evolution of Web3 Airdrops: From Uniswap to Monad, How Should Ordinary People Properly 'Farm Airdrops' in 2026?

Web3 airdrops have evolved significantly from Uniswap's 2020 genesis event, where early users were simply rewarded for protocol usage, to complex systems emphasizing genuine participation, identity verification, and attention economics. Key phases include: - **Phase 1 (2020)**: DeFi airdrops like Uniswap, with no Sybil resistance or tasks—pure reward for usage. - **Phase 2 (2021)**: ENS introduced the concept of "users as shareholders," focusing on governance and contribution. - **Phase 3 (2022-2023)**: Airdrops became growth hacking tools (e.g., Aptos, Arbitrum, Celestia), using multi-tier scoring and cross-ecosystem criteria. - **Phase 4 (2024-2026)**: Points systems (e.g., Blast, EigenLayer) prioritize TVL, duration, and liquidity locking over transaction volume. Future trends indicate: - Chain-level airdrops are declining; ecosystem-level airdrops (e.g., restaking, lending) will dominate. - Rising capital requirements and AI-driven allocation using on-chain reputation and behavior analysis. - A shift from rewards to attention economics, where community influence and identity matter most. For 2026, focus on: - Technical contributions (e.g., testnet nodes). - Completed quests and points systems. - Active community engagement (Discord, social media). - Long-term participation and identity building. Airdrops are no longer just token distributions but tools for user acquisition, governance, and community building. Success requires strategy升级: avoid meaningless farming, contribute value, and maintain a persistent, authentic presence.

marsbit04/09 03:13

Six-Year Evolution of Web3 Airdrops: From Uniswap to Monad, How Should Ordinary People Properly 'Farm Airdrops' in 2026?

marsbit04/09 03:13

How Long Can the Ethereum Ecosystem Survive After the Launch of Mythos

Summary: In a conversation between Alan and Marcus, the emergence of "Mythos" — likely an advanced AI-powered security analysis tool — is framed as an existential threat to the Ethereum ecosystem. They highlight several critical vulnerabilities: the $68 billion in locked, immutable, and publicly auditable smart contracts; the centralization risk of Lido controlling 28% of staked ETH; the inability of traditional audits to keep pace with evolving, cross-contract vulnerabilities that Mythos can instantly identify; and the slow, decentralized governance response time that could cripple crisis reaction. The key conclusion is that Ethereum's survival depends on how quickly its community treats this threat with urgency, as Mythos can analyze and exploit vulnerabilities faster than humans can respond. The piece serves as a warning that a large-scale, AI-driven security breach is a matter of when, not if.

marsbit04/09 01:45

How Long Can the Ethereum Ecosystem Survive After the Launch of Mythos

marsbit04/09 01:45

Analysts Highlight Ozak AI as a Rare Opportunity Combining Low Entry Price With Long-Term Value Expansion

Analysts are highlighting Ozak AI ($OZ) as a compelling AI crypto presale opportunity, combining a low entry price with long-term growth potential. Currently in Phase 7 of its presale, the $OZ token is priced at $0.014, with over $6.6 million raised. The project is built on an AI-powered platform that merges predictive tools with a DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network) model, focusing on decentralized infrastructure and real-world utility rather than speculation. Key features include cross-chain functionality, staking, governance, and audited smart contracts. Strategic partnerships with firms like SINT, Hive Intel, Weblume, and Meganet support its ecosystem growth and scalability.

TheNewsCrypto04/08 15:58

Analysts Highlight Ozak AI as a Rare Opportunity Combining Low Entry Price With Long-Term Value Expansion

TheNewsCrypto04/08 15:58

Why Aave’s $42B risk model faces its first real test after Chaos Labs’ exit

Risk management is central to DeFi protocol performance, especially during volatile periods. Aave, with $42.34B in TVL and $16.55B in loans, relies on continuous risk model adjustments rather than fixed settings. External teams like Chaos Labs have historically updated liquidation thresholds, borrow limits, and collateral rules in response to market conditions. Chaos Labs’ recent exit signals strain in Aave’s risk framework as the protocol scales. Their departure reflects deeper misalignments in risk management strategy and comes despite their critical role in overseeing Aave’s growth from $5.2B to over $26B in TVL. The exit also highlights operational and financial challenges, as the engagement remained unprofitable even with a proposed $5M budget. Aave now faces its first major test in risk continuity. Responsibility shifts to internal teams and other providers like LlamaRisk, but questions remain about response speed and coordination—especially as Aave introduces greater complexity with V4. While systems are currently stable, any delay in adjustments could allow risks to accumulate. Market confidence may now depend less on past performance and more on how effectively Aave manages this transition.

ambcrypto04/07 19:02

Why Aave’s $42B risk model faces its first real test after Chaos Labs’ exit

ambcrypto04/07 19:02

The Real Quantum Threat to Bitcoin: 99% of People Get It Wrong

Quantum Computing's Real Threat to Bitcoin: 99% Misunderstand The article clarifies widespread misconceptions about quantum computing's threat to Bitcoin. Key points: - Bitcoin uses digital signatures, not encryption, making "collect now, decrypt later" attacks irrelevant. - Quantum computers cannot crack Bitcoin mining (requires energy exceeding the sun's output) but threaten signatures via Shor's algorithm. - Only ~6.26M BTC (30-35% of supply) are at risk due to exposed public keys (legacy P2PK, reused addresses). Modern unused addresses remain safe. - Media exaggerations (e.g., "9-minute break") misrepresent research; actual quantum attacks require non-existent hardware and are likely decades away. - Bitcoin can upgrade (BIP-360 proposes post-quantum signatures), but the community must accelerate efforts (estimated 7-year timeline). - The real urgency stems from classical cryptographic risks (e.g., mathematical breakthroughs breaking secp256k1), not just quantum threats. - Recommendations: avoid address reuse, monitor BIP-360, migrate to quantum-resistant addresses when available, and ignore sensationalized headlines. Conclusion: The threat is real but distant. Panic is unwarranted, but complacency is dangerous. Proactive engineering is essential.

marsbit04/07 10:32

The Real Quantum Threat to Bitcoin: 99% of People Get It Wrong

marsbit04/07 10:32

The New Yorker In-Depth Investigation Analysis: Why Do OpenAI Insiders Believe Altman Is Untrustworthy?

"The New Yorker investigation, based on internal documents and interviews with over 100 sources, reveals deep internal distrust in OpenAI’s leadership, particularly toward CEO Sam Altman. Key allegations include a pattern of dishonesty, undermining safety protocols, and prioritizing commercial interests over OpenAI’s original non-profit mission to develop AI safely. Chief Scientist Ilya Sutskever compiled a 70-page dossier accusing Altman of repeatedly lying to the board—for instance, falsely claiming GPT-4 features had passed safety reviews. Anthropic co-founder Dario Amodei’s private notes further detail how Microsoft’s investment deal effectively neutered OpenAI’s safety commitments. The report also highlights unfulfilled promises, such as allocating only 1-2% of promised computing resources to critical safety teams. Internal conflicts extend to CFO Sarah Friar, who opposed Altman’s aggressive IPO timeline amid financial concerns. Microsoft executives compared Altman to fraudsters like SBF, citing a tendency to distort facts and renege on agreements. Critics argue that Altman’s unchecked authority and alleged disregard for transparency pose significant risks given OpenAI’s powerful, potentially dangerous AI technology. The company’s transformation from a safety-first non-profit to a profit-driven entity raises fundamental questions about its governance and ethical commitments."

marsbit04/07 03:40

The New Yorker In-Depth Investigation Analysis: Why Do OpenAI Insiders Believe Altman Is Untrustworthy?

marsbit04/07 03:40

‘Beyond code errors’ – How Drift Protocol’s $285mln drain shifts DeFi security bar

The Drift Protocol exploit, resulting in a $285 million loss, marks a significant shift in DeFi security threats, moving beyond simple code errors to sophisticated attacks on governance and operational control layers. The attacker used pre-signed transactions and manipulated a multi-signature mechanism to gain admin access rapidly. This incident underscores that security now depends more on protecting protocol operations and user assets than solely fixing smart contract bugs. Drift’s response demonstrated the critical role of fast crisis management—halting deposits and withdrawals quickly, coordinating with security partners, and providing transparency—which helped contain cross-protocol risks and maintain market confidence. The event reflects a broader trend in DeFi, where attackers increasingly target access and control mechanisms. This has elevated the importance of operational security, prompting protocols to compete not only on yield but also on their ability to manage risk, protect capital, and respond effectively during crises. Industry data shows a growing focus on security investments, such as signer rotation and emergency controls, as key factors in building resilience and trust.

ambcrypto04/06 05:03

‘Beyond code errors’ – How Drift Protocol’s $285mln drain shifts DeFi security bar