Topper和Argent联手为Argent用户提供无缝的菲亚特到加密货币转换

币界网Опубліковано о 2024-08-22Востаннє оновлено о 2024-08-22

币界网报道:

【新闻稿——美国旧金山,2024年8月22日】

Topper因其易用性、高批准率和广泛的资产支持的独特组合而成为加密货币领域首屈一指的入口解决方案。

Topper是全球web3金融平台Uphold推出的法币到加密货币的入口,它宣布与Starknet上领先的智能钱包Argent建立合作关系,Argent拥有超过200万用户。此次合作通过将Topper广泛的入口整合到Argent的钱包中,扩大了对Starknet生态系统的全球访问。

Topper的业务遍及150多个国家,为世界各地的人们加入Starknet打开了大门。现在,越来越多的用户可以通过Argent钱包轻松购买数字资产并使用Starknet,无论他们住在哪里。

Enterprise首席执行官Robin O'Connell分享道:“随着钱包成为web3用户体验的重要基础,Argent X的自我保管、智能合约钱包等产品——结合了安全性、可用性和低费用——将变得越来越重要。”。“我们共同推动主流加密货币的采用,促进生态系统的发展,并将Argent X定位为Starknet生态系统的领先钱包。”

Argent X是一个浏览器扩展钱包,允许用户探索Starknet生态系统。Starknet是一个有效性汇总(ZK汇总)第2层网络,在以太坊之上运行,通过链下STARK证明交易实现大规模。Starknet通过处理链下交易来提高以太坊的速度,确保零知识证明的隐私。

Argent首席执行官Itamar Lesuisse解释了用户的好处:“我们与Topper的整合简化了为我们的全球用户群获取数字资产的过程。这种合作关系消除了地理障碍,使更多的人无论身处何地都能参与Starknet生态系统。”

该合作关系建立在Uphold最近向Starknet生态系统扩张的基础上。2024年6月,Uphold启动了对Starknet主网的支持,允许本地STRK代币的存款和取款。这种集成增强了与Web3生态系统的连接,并使Uphold用户能够在其外部钱包和Uphold之间无缝移动资产。

随着加密货币领域的不断发展,Topper和Argent之间的这种合作关系为提高采用率和可用性铺平了道路,使每个人都能更容易地采用加密货币。

“在Topper,我们致力于简化全球用户从法币到加密货币的旅程。我们与Argent钱包的整合标志着这一使命向前迈出了重要一步,为用户提供了一个通往去中心化世界的无缝安全门户。凭借Topper行业领先的接受率,我们很高兴与Argent合作,Argent专注于用户友好、经济高效、非托管的解决方案,这与我们让每个人都能使用加密货币的愿景完全一致。”Topper全球销售主管Frankie Picciano说。

有关Starknet社区如何直接通过Argent X钱包将Topper用作无缝入口的更多信息,用户可以访问www.Argent.xyz。

关于Argent

Argent是一家领先的加密货币钱包提供商,致力于简化管理数字资产的复杂性。Argent专注于安全性、可用性和创新,使用户能够自信地与去中心化金融世界互动。

关于Topper

Topper是一种快速实施的web3支付工具,可以让加密项目处理更多客户的支付,支持的数字资产是竞争对手的两倍。Topper支付小部件旨在简化支付流程,接受更多货币,提供更高的批准率,从而减少拒绝。Topper由web3金融平台Uphold开发,是一个可靠、受监管和值得信赖的支付系统。

关于Uphold

Uphold致力于让web3变得简单。作为一个web3金融平台,Uphold为140多个国家的1000多万客户提供服务。它为企业和消费者提供了轻松访问数字资产和服务的途径。Uphold独特的“Anything to Anything”界面为最终用户提供了无缝访问数字资产、国家货币和贵金属的机会。独特的是,Uphold智能路由订单跨越30个交易场所,为客户提供最佳执行和卓越的流动性。Uphold从不借出客户资产,始终100%保留。该公司率先实现了彻底的透明度,并在公共网站上每30秒发布一次其资产和负债(https://uphold.com/en-us/transparency).

在美国,维护由FinCen和州监管机构监管。该公司分别在英国和加拿大的FCA和FINTRAC注册,在欧洲的立陶宛共和国内政部金融犯罪调查局注册。要了解更多关于Uphold的产品和服务,用户可以访问Uphold.com。

Пов'язані матеріали

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbit37 хв тому

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbit37 хв тому

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit1 год тому

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit1 год тому

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit1 год тому

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit1 год тому

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbit1 год тому

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片