与「Governance」相关的搜索结果

"A lot of people liked the Lean Startup, but no one ever said it made them cry." In 16 days, @EricRies's new book Incorruptible comes out. It's about why you can taste it when your favorite restaurant gets bought by a PE firm, why even Steve Jobs got fired from Apple, and why over 80% of founders get fired within 3 years of taking their company public. In our real-talk conversation, we discuss: 🔸 "Financial gravity": the force that predictably pushes successful companies into mediocrity 🔸 The Groupon email death spiral every public company eventually runs 🔸 "It is always too early to protect your company. Until it's too late." 🔸 The "governance fortress" Anthropic, Costco, and Patagonia all have—and your company probably doesn't 🔸 Three things founders can do this week to protect their company long-term. Listen now 👇

🚀SlowMist RWA Smart Contract Security Audit Service Officially Launched！ RWA (Real World Assets) has become a major frontier where #Web3# meets traditional finance. Unlike traditional DeFi projects, #RWA# security involves far greater complexity — including ownership verification, compliance governance, and on-chain/off-chain consistency. Drawing on years of blockchain security expertise, SlowMist has officially launched a specialized RWA smart contract audit service, delivering comprehensive protection across compliance, permission systems, and on/off-chain consistency. Read full announcement👇 RWA project teams and institutions are welcome to contact us for collaboration! 🤗 📮team@slowmist.com

Gravity Points Allocation: Season 1 To accelerate $STRC expansion in DeFi, the Saturn Foundation may allocate up to 5% of the initial token supply to Season 1 participants. Conditioned on the launch of the Saturn governance token.

The final verdict from @trueo_’s most contentious market has been delivered. The Jury voted for an outcome Reset. In other words, they ruled that it was too early to resolve the market. But there were some very interesting things about this dispute… For starters, both TRUE holders and Attesters voted against the Oracle Council’s initial decision. The Oracle Council voted 3-2 in favor of a YES outcome (I was among the YES voters). But TRUE holders and Attesters voted in supermajority support of the dispute. They deemed that the proposal came too early, and that Polymarket had not really released a “token” yet. Or did they? I personally voted YES as an oracle council member because I felt like the rules, though ambiguous, were satisfied as written when Polymarket released pUSD. I wasn’t happy about it, obviously it didn’t capture the essence of the market which was clearly meant to be about a potential network or governance token, but I voted YES nonetheless because I felt like the criteria in a literal sense was met when pUSD dropped. But TRUE holders and Attesters felt otherwise. They must have felt like the purpose of the market wasn’t satisfied even if the rules in a very rigid and literal sense were. I know the outcome might not be to everyone’s liking, and I know that some users would have preferred a YES outcome, but I do hope that they at least found some consolation in the process it self. Namely that the various arguments were aired, and that multiple desperate judgements came to pass on the dispute. In the future these contentious markets can be avoided with more precise resolution rules, but there is always some room for interpretation or some hidden ambiguity in the spectrum of possibilities. Getting these things right is very difficult, and ultimately, what I believe is more important than the outcome itself, is the process through which an outcome is derived. All this being said, there’s nothing stopping someone from proposing the same outcome again in hopes that TRUE holders have changed their minds, or that a different batch of Attesters gets selected who are more sympathetic to the resolution. Prediction markets are vey tricky specifically because of their subjective nature. But that’s also what makes them interesting! We still have much to improve on, and we learned a lot from this dispute, but hopefully we were able to prove that we take the concept of due process very seriously. Because at the end of the day, a prediction market is only as good as its oracle!

关于 Arbitrum / KelpDAO 冻结资产被 DPRK 判决债权人盯上这件事。 太长不看： 1. DPRK judgment creditors 已经启动纽约判决执行程序，并取得法院批准替代送达。当前效果只是先锁住资产，法院没有判定这笔 ETH 最终归谁。 2. Arbitrum / Security Council 现在不能安全地绕开法院，短期内要把 ETH 转给 Kelp recovery 的可能性非常低。 3. Kelp-side 的强论点：如果这批 ETH 是被盗资产的可追踪 proceeds，DPRK / Lazarus 作为 thief 通常没有 good title。 4. Kelp-side 的最大风险：tracing、ownership、standing、recovery mechanism 证明是一个技术活。 所以...用户要做好“持久战”的心理准备，哪怕 Defiunited 再募捐到额外 30,000 ETH 替代 Arbitrum 这笔冻结，直接对用户进行赔付可能会让这个问题在未来愈发的复杂。 如果还有没走的用户建议早点走uniswap撤离吧： 卖出 aArbWETH 直接换 WETH，磨损只有0.05%-0.2%，大额可能要twap慢慢换，小额随时都能走。 Pool: aArbWETH <-> WETH --- 以下是正文 --- 纽约州南区法院的法庭判令的原始文件： 当前情况在大部分web3用户眼里就是“DPRK 受害人律师要抢 Kelp/AAVE用户的钱”；不过从法律程序看，情况更复杂。 目前发生的链条大致是： 4月19日，Kelp / rsETH 相关资产遭遇攻击，攻击者被认为与 DPRK / Lazarus 有关。大约 36,167 rsETH 被跨链到 Arbitrum 上，并存入 AAVE 借出 ETH 和 wstETH，最终全部兑换为 30,766 ETH。 4 月 21 日，Arbitrum Security Council 紧急冻结了攻击者地址的 ETH。 4 月 30 日，DPRK 受害人一方的律师启动纽约判决执行程序，向 Arbitrum DAO 发出 **CPLR § 5222 restraining notice**，并请求法院批准替代送达。 5 月 1 日，S.D.N.Y. 法院批准了替代送达。也就是说，可以通过 Arbitrum governance forum、Security Council 成员、相关实体和律师等渠道，把 restraining notice 和 writs of execution 送达到 Arbitrum DAO 相关方。 5 月 2 日左右，相关 notice 被贴到 Arbitrum governance forum。 所以现在的状态是：这批资产已经进入一个正式的 judgment enforcement 程序。它不只是普通律师函，也不是 DAO 社区可以无视的治理争议。当然这一步也没有等于法院已经判定 DPRK 受害人可以拿走钱。 当前状况是：在法院进一步处理前，Arbitrum DAO / Security Council 不应擅自转移、释放或处分这批被主张为 DPRK / Lazarus 相关的资产。 这一点对 Arbitrum 很关键。 如果 Security Council 或 DAO 在 restraining notice 没有被解除、修改，或者没有拿到 court order 的情况下直接把资产转给 Kelp recovery wallet，法律风险会非常大。即使 Kelp-side 最后在实体权利上有理，Arbitrum 也可能因为违反 restraining notice 被追究责任。 所以最可能的路径是走完法院程序，再动资产： Arbitrum / Kelp-side 进入法院程序，提出 defenses，主张 adverse claim，要求法院确认 DPRK 对这批资产没有可执行的 property interest，或者请求法院批准一个 court-supervised recovery plan。 接下来时间上可能会有几个节点： 第一，短期内可能会出现 emergency briefing 或 hearing。 如果 Arbitrum、Kelp 或其他受影响方主动出庭，法院可能会先处理一个很实际的问题：资产能不能继续冻结、能不能进入 escrow、能不能允许某种受控 recovery plan。 第二，如果双方只争“先不要动资产”，这个问题可能比较快进入法院视野。 但如果争的是最终 ownership / priority，也就是谁有权拿走这批 ETH，时间可能会明显拉长。 第三，CPLR § 5222 对第三方 garnishee 的 restraining notice 通常有一个很重要的时间维度：对第三方来说，restraining effect 一般可以持续到送达后一年，或者 judgment 被 satisfied / vacated，以较早者为准。 所以如果法院没有更早修改或解除 restraint，理论上这类冻结可能拖到接近一年。当然，实际中如果各方快速出庭、证据清楚，也可能更早解决。 这对 Kelp / AAVE 用户的影响很直接： 1. 短期内，Arbitrum 冻结的这部分 ETH 很难被用于kelp recovery处置。 资产技术上被冻结，法律上也被 restraining notice 锁住。即使 DAO 社区支持归还，也需要解决法院程序问题。 2. 中期看，用户能否尽快恢复损失，有不少争议问题需要明确： 🤔 frozen ETH 和 Kelp exploit 的链上路径是否足够清楚； 🤔这批 ETH 是原始被盗资产、直接 proceeds，还是经过 swap / bridge / conversion 后的混合资产； 🤔谁有资格代表受害人出庭主张权利； 🤔recovery wallet 或 claims process 是否能被法院接受； 🤔Arbitrum DAO / Security Council 在法律上到底是 custodian、controller，还是只是有技术 freeze / unfreeze 能力的治理主体。 当然，个人觉得Kelp-side 的实体论点其实还可以：如果这批 frozen assets 能被证明是 Kelp / rsETH exploit 中被盗资产的可追踪 proceeds，那么 DPRK / Lazarus 只是 thief。一般法律原则下，thief does not get good title。小偷偷来的东西，通常不会因为经过钱包、桥或 DEX，就变成可以拿来偿还小偷旧债的合法财产。 这也是 DPRK judgment creditors 最需要跨过的门槛：他们只能执行 DPRK 的 property interest，不能执行本来属于第三方受害人的财产。 但 Kelp-side 最大的挑战也在这里。 法院不会只听一句“这是 Kelp 用户的钱”。法院会看 tracing、ownership、standing 和 recovery mechanism。 如果链上路径不够干净，或者资产经过多次转换后已经很难证明是特定受害人的 property / proceeds，DPRK judgment creditors 的策略就会变强。他们会说，这些资产现在已经是 DPRK / Lazarus 控制下的 proceeds，因此可以用于执行旧判决。（当然我是觉得链路还算干净，唯一复杂的就是通过AAVE抵押套了一层借贷关系） 以上均非法律意见，只是基于公开材料的程序性分析。

AI 会犯错误，而且喜欢犯同样的错误，如何确保在更换模型、切换上下文的时候，AI 不再犯？ 最有效的办法就是，把 AI 犯过的错误记录下来，然后将它变成规则文档或者程序脚本，每次提交前都强制检测一次，成为门禁。 我当前的设计是，AI 犯错后会自动更新两类产物：1）rules docs，每次 AI Code Review 的时候，会加载这部分内容；2）governance scripts，将可程序化的检测工作全部变成脚本，例如 git commit 规范、大函数检测、单测覆盖、代码引用规范等等。 项目跑的越久，AI 犯错的概率就越低。

The Arbitrum Security Council has taken emergency action to freeze the 30,766 ETH being held in the address on Arbitrum One that is connected to the KelpDAO exploit. The Security Council acted with input from law enforcement as to the exploiter’s identity, and, at all times, weighed its commitment to the security and integrity of the Arbitrum community without impacting any Arbitrum users or applications. After significant technical diligence and deliberation, the Security Council identified and executed a technical approach to move funds to safety without affecting any other chain state or Arbitrum users. As of April 20 11:26pm ET the funds have been successfully transferred to an intermediary frozen wallet. They are no longer accessible to the address that originally held the funds, and can only be moved by further action by Arbitrum governance, which will be coordinated with relevant parties.

Spec-driven development (SDD) 的通用实现基本会参照 openspec，实践下来，效果还是一般，大模型会偷懒，任务拆解不充分，也缺少 review 过程。 想让 Agent 持续跑长程任务，同时确保交付质量，需要让它明确项目目标，并将任务拆解到最小颗粒度，再让每个小任务在干净的环境下执行，执行之后，用子 Agent 对当前提交的代码进行 review，进入到 review → feedback → modify → review 的循环。 每个环节都需要精心构造最有效的 context，例如 review 过程，需要给定代码上下文、修改记录、验证手段、脚本工具库等等。 真实项目的执行过程，会包含立项、拆迭代、拆任务等过程，将这套流程复刻到 coding agent 的 plan 过程，依然奏效。如图一，它是一个跑了大概半天任务，而对于更复杂的任务，可以跑一两天不停歇。 每个 sprints 和 tasks 的执行过程，以及 review 的规范，尽量严苛，可以考虑编写脚本的方式来保障质量，例如架构必须分层，L2 可以调用 L1 和 L0，倘若 L0 调用了 L2 就是反模式，需要报错阻断，这种规则问题就可以交给 eslint + governance scripts 来保障的。code review 过程中，也可以要求 AI 根据需要，自主编写文档/程序来确保项目规则/脚本持续沉淀。

A New Chapter: Building the Next Generation of Financial Infrastructure Our partnership with Intercontinental Exchange marks an important moment for OKX and for the broader evolution of digital asset markets. ICE has built and operated some of the most important financial infrastructure in the world, including the New York Stock Exchange and global derivatives and clearing platforms. Their decision to invest in OKX, and join our board, reflects a shared belief that digital asset technology will play an enduring role in the future of financial markets. For OKX, this partnership also represents a new chapter in how we approach the United States. In many ways, we view our presence in the U.S. as a blank sheet of paper — an opportunity to build thoughtfully, engage constructively with regulators and institutions, and contribute to the development of market infrastructure that meets the standards of the world’s most sophisticated capital markets. Financial markets are entering a period of structural transformation. Blockchain technology allows assets to move and settle globally with unprecedented efficiency. Artificial intelligence is reshaping how markets analyze information and manage risk. At the same time, expectations around safety, transparency, and investor protection remain as important as ever. The next generation of financial infrastructure must bring these elements together. One area where we see tremendous potential is the development of tokenized securities and digital representations of traditional assets. In the future, issuers may be able to bring securities directly to global investors through modern digital infrastructure, while still benefiting from the governance, market structure, and regulatory frameworks that have long defined traditional exchanges. Working alongside ICE and the broader New York Stock Exchange ecosystem gives us a unique opportunity to explore how these models can evolve responsibly. Our focus is not simply on new technology, but on building durable infrastructure for the global financial system. This includes improving market structure, strengthening risk management and clearing frameworks, expanding institutional access to digital assets, and creating platforms that protect consumers while enabling innovation. OKX today serves more than 120 million people globally and operates under licensing frameworks in major financial jurisdictions. Over the past decade, we have built high-performance trading systems, onchain technologies, payment systems and security frameworks capable of supporting large-scale global markets. As digital assets continue to mature, we believe collaboration between technology innovators and established financial institutions will be essential. Our partnership with ICE reflects this principle. Together we will explore how traditional exchange infrastructure and digital asset technology can complement each other to build stronger, more efficient markets. This investment is not an endpoint — it is the beginning of a deeper collaboration. Our goal is to help shape the next chapter of financial markets, where digital and traditional infrastructure work together to expand access, strengthen trust, and support innovation across the global economy.

President Xi Jinping pointed out in his meeting with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer that unilateralism, protectionism and power politics are running rampant. The international order is under great strain. International law can be truly effective only when all countries abide by it. Major countries in particular should set an example, otherwise the world will revert to the law of the jungle. Both China and the U.K. support multilateralism and free trade. We should jointly advocate and practice true multilateralism, make the global governance system more just and equitable, and work to build an equal and orderly multipolar world and a universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalization.