与「tbt」相关的搜索结果

#TBT# Tuve el gusto de convivir con nuestras mujeres y hombres de mar, quienes, con esfuerzo, valentía y amor por Campeche, salen todos los días a ganarse la vida y llevar el sustento a miles de familias. Mi reconocimiento y gratitud por su trabajo, que fortalece nuestra economía y nos recuerda que el mar también es fuente de identidad y bienestar para nuestro estado. Siempre contarán con nuestro respaldo. #ElGobiernoDeTodosTransforma#

yah pada pengen tau ceritanya ya?? intinya aku ke jkt buat nemuin dia (ex ku). selama seminggu aing di jkt tp ketemu sm ex ku ky sekali duakali jujur janggal yg biasanya gabisa lepas tbtb jarang ketemu.. ternyata ada kenyataan yg bikin aku putusin buat udahan hehe. untungnya aku bawa mbg (mybotigue) buat nemenin ke jkt haha kalo ga kayanya gue udh jd orgil disana yg ngemis waktu ke ex gue. terimakasi mbg🫰🏻🫰🏻❤️❤️

我刚刚做了一个交易员版本的 MBTI 命名为 TBTI（Trader Behavior Type Indicator） 用 Claude 的 Fable 5 做的，但是因为 Fable 5 的生图能力有点差，这里的 16 个人格角色形象是用 Codex 的 imagegen 生成的。 我是接盘侠，快来测一测你是什么：

1. Intro Vitalik recently wrote about where the EF should go; Aya added a note to explain how we got here, and why. I’ll write about the execution. We now have enough clarity to stop treating “what is the EF for?” as an open-ended question. Our mandate is clear: The EF exists to ensure Ethereum is, becomes, and remains real permissionless infrastructure for self-sovereignty: censorship (and capture) resistant, free and open source, private, and secure; and capable of supporting sovereignty-preserving coordination at scales where trusted institutions hitherto have been unavoidable. The following are my thoughts on some of the points that follow from the mandate and how we are translating it to action. But first, a short reminder about 2. What the EF is not for We are not here to optimize for EF importance, corpo/pol appeal, or ecosystem popularity. We are also not here to please short-term speculators, prop up TBTF neo-SIFIs, market every app on Ethereum, help anyone look good to their crypto or investor friends, or provide on-demand entertainment for dinner parties and private retreats. 3. What the EF is for: Eliminating weaknesses We are here to defensively strengthen places where Ethereum is, or can still become, extractive, totalizing, or vulnerable to cartel or state capture, or authoritarian tools of surveillance or coercion. We will base our actions on a full examination of what Ethereum is and can be at the protocol layer (what is actually running as “Ethereum”), the access layer (what users use to interact with the protocol), the user layer (the end-users who need and will need Ethereum), and the institutional layer (the intermediated paths that scale self-sovereign usage). The EF exists to harden every surface of Ethereum, including those where Ethereum can remain formally permissionless while becoming practically captured. Some obvious surfaces are the transaction pipeline, staking and network security, access layer standards and interfaces, self-sovereignty norms, privacy expectations, institutional adoption patterns, and social layer governance processes. The primary concerns are similar across most of them: does the status quo and its future trajectory minimize trusted dependencies, minimize points of leverage and capture vectors, make user privacy the default, preserve exit, and make trust assumptions legible? The work starts with the EF itself. We are moving compensation and major financial relationships toward ETH and mandate-compliant Ethereum-native stables, with exceptions where positive law or unavoidable operational constraints require exceptions. Rather than a purity ritual or instruction for people to take unmanaged personal risk, it is robustness, alignment, and product pressure. If the EF’s work is to make Ethereum usable as infrastructure for self-sovereignty, everyone at the EF will increasingly live inside the constraints of the system the EF exists to improve: wallet UX, volatility, accounting, privacy gaps, payment friction, stablecoin trust assumptions, recovery, dependency risk, etc. If we can’t use these tools ourselves, it is unrealistic to expect others to. Ethereum is already mature; those who do not depend on the user-facing stack have no business trying to shape its future, at any layer. The transaction pipeline is next. Preventing toxic MEV capture is core EF work, not a peripheral market-structure concern. Transaction supply, ordering, inclusion, block construction, propagation, and settlement are part of Ethereum’s neutrality boundary. Some MEV may persist as an adversarial phenomenon the protocol contains, but it must be absolutely minimized and, for that to be possible, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by its beneficiaries. If credibly neutral execution is subverted by privileged orderflow, cartelized builders, trusted relays, opaque routing, or validators outsourcing into a narrow supply chain, Ethereum will look permissionless while users experience it as intermediated at the moment value moves. EF protocol work will therefore prioritize lower barriers to block building and validation, stronger inclusion guarantees, reduced extraction opacity, competitive transaction pipelines, user-facing legibility of trust assumptions, and more aggressively exploring the open orderflow solution space. None of this is simple. A good solution in one place can aggravate problems elsewhere. FOCIL is good for censorship resistance, but it may introduce more cross-block MEV. While ePBS solves the relayer trust problem, we must make sure that its implementation does not inadvertently obstruct long-term solutions to even larger problems. It would be unacceptable, for example, if ePBS enshrining the builder economy ends up making it harder to reduce reliance on the private orderflow that has emptied out the public mempool. Encrypted mempools may not only reduce pre-execution transparency and pending orderflow visibility, but also shift competitive advantage to new privileged actors, including specialized hardware operators in some designs, while adding protocol complexity. In order to avoid wasting time playing whack-a-mole, we must commit to solving the extraction problem at a whole system scale. Doing so will require creativity, courage, and the understanding that failure to solve this problem is unacceptable. If we fail, we will have left in place an unnecessary barrier to institutional adoption, but, more importantly, we will also have surrendered a core part of the promise of Ethereum - the replacement of extractive middlemen with permissionless, credibly neutral infrastructure and competitive markets. That must not happen. MEV is likely to be the next major front in the cypherpunk war. We must set ourselves up to win here. Privacy is just as fundamental. A public ledger without serious privacy defaults is a surveillance substrate with settlement guarantees. That is not an acceptable end state for the world computer. Unconditional privacy will be readily available across Ethereum, with programmability on top for selective disclosure, proofs, auditability, compliance logic, reputation, governance, identity, and other constraints chosen by users and their communities. The temporal order matters: unconditional privacy must exist first, opt-in constraints come second. It is also important to avoid forcing users to assemble a fragile stack of special wallets, RPCs, bridges, apps, compliance providers, and operational habits to attain privacy. Deep privacy must be more secure than this. Privacy is a condition for Ethereum’s viability as freedom-respecting coordination infrastructure and as such must be robust. Staking must be treated as protocol infrastructure risk. Staking is not merely a yield product, and liquid staking is not merely an app-layer market. If stake, liquidity, validator access, DeFi collateral, and governance influence concentrate around a small set of issuers or operators, Ethereum’s security layer becomes vulnerable to capture through capture of the economic layer around it. EF will support research, specifications, and designs that keep staking permissionless, private where possible, plural in operation, and resistant to intermediaries becoming permanent control points. The access interfaces are where users access either the protocol directly or through intermediated defaults. The primary problem to solve here is not getting Ethereum into more rooms directly, but making its users, both end users and institutions, more self-sovereign and less susceptible to coercion, and avoiding normalization of soft coercion in exchange for reach. EF will not help Ethereum become more acceptable by sanding off the properties that make it uniquely valuable. Ethereum does not need to become another permissioned settlement backend with better branding. It needs to show, in production, that self-sovereign coordination at scale is possible. Across Ethereum, the EF’s defensive work seeks to ensure that Ethereum is infrastructure people can still use when counterparties fail, platforms censor, governments overreach, intermediaries extract, and coordination problems become infeasible for trusted systems to handle. A core part of that is to make that infrastructure secure and robust against capture at every layer wherever capture opportunities can hide. 4. What the EF is also for: Seizing opportunities Shoring up the fundamentals is not enough. Ethereum’s potential is still largely unrealized, but that does not mean that the path ahead is going to be straight. Opportunities must be seized when the time is right. At this moment in time, a number are visible, including: * Ethereum becoming the first quantum-resistant global infrastructure. Ethereum researchers will lead the post-quantum cryptographic migration before the threat becomes urgent, not after it becomes a governance emergency. That means hardening Ethereum’s cryptographic foundations while there is still time to design carefully. The same applies to other long-horizon risks, where waiting for market demand means waiting until the window for principled design has already closed. * Verifiably self-sovereign stack, from soup to nuts, whether local or remote, with no censorship or extraction openings: browsers, wallets, intents, broadcasts, orderflow, inclusion, block construction, proposal, proving, exit, and recovery. Minimal MEV, and zero toxic MEV entrenchment, either in or around the protocol. No execution layer that is formally permissionless but practically gatekept by privileged supply chains. If there’s a funnel towards an extractive private lane, there’s other options that keep the game live. The goal is not only to prevent extraction or capture, but to make credibly neutral execution competitive enough that serious users prefer it. * Making ETH normal digital cash: a private, dignity-respecting, debasement-resistant and surveillance-resistant medium of exchange and store of value, as well as the native asset of private computation and private coordination for both humans and their agents. If Ethereum can make private economic life and private institutional life possible without routing users back through the friction and potential abuse of custodians, surveillance vendors, or permissioned ledgers with softer branding, as well as provide a venue for secure and competitive machine economics, the value unlocks will be immense. * Personal wallets with personal AI agents that users can actually own and run on their own personal computers. Not your keys, not your coins; not your model, not your mind. As agents become interfaces for more economic and social action, the question of who owns the wallet, the model, the memory, the policy, and the signing authority becomes an existential question about sovereignty instead of UX details - we are all users above any other roles, and no one at EF will forget this. * Institutional and enterprise use cases where Ethereum wins by not disappearing into an invisible backend, gatekept by intermediaries or terrible UX, and by not compromising into a compliant fintech rail with web3 branding. Rather, we will win through proving that credibly neutral infrastructure can handle disintermediated coordination so competitively that trusted intermediaries have to meet Ethereum users on Ethereum’s terms. * Security-preserving scaling. L2s and related infrastructure will be able to meet institutional-level needs without accepting dependencies on closed operators, opaque sequencing, custodial UX, or upgrade committees that users cannot realistically exit. Scale is not throughput alone. Scale is the guaranteed availability of self-sovereignty under real load. We are ensuring Ethereum remains the hardest bedrock for settlement, local and worldwide; and beyond that, a civilizational ledger and execution substrate to stand the test of time. When future civilizations speak of the infrastructure they inherited from the Antiquity of the Information Age, their first example should be Ethereum. Ethereum will outlast all of us. More than enough people watching understand this. Many wondered why it needed saying at all, but it did. If you don't believe us or don't get it, we don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. 5. Addressing departures There has been a lot of online speculation about departures from EF, both before and after the mandate. Some people resigned, others were terminated. Some departures were about strategy, some about role fit, some about normal institutional change, and some simply about people deciding that their best work for Ethereum should happen somewhere else. We will not litigate individual personnel matters on Twitter. That is the default because it is better for EF, better for the people involved, and better for Ethereum. People who contributed through EF deserve dignity on the way out. They do not deserve to have their employment history turned into factional content. Where possible, we have let people describe their departures in their own words as a matter of courtesy, and not concession. If public claims materially mislead people about EF’s direction, decision-making, or mandate, we may correct the record at the level of policy, process, and institutional facts. We still will not turn personal files into public spectacle. Ethereum is permissionless. People may disagree, criticize, compete, fork, and build elsewhere. We intend to keep exits dignified and expect others to do the same. It will suffice to say that we are thankful for what all contributors have built; we will continue to do work Ethereum needs. 6. Addressing EF spinouts Some work should and will leave the EF in the months to come. We hope and expect this process to result in some excellent work being done in service of scaling self-sovereign adoption, but we also must take care lest it becomes an abdication of responsibility or an excuse for undisciplined spending. Some work is not mandate-compatible and should not be carried forward with EF funds or EF endorsement, either inside or outside the Foundation. The efforts carried out by the spinouts will vary widely. Some efforts will leave EF because another org would be a better home for them; others will leave because markets should decide on their worth. Some will leave because they are not compatible with the direction set out in the mandate; others because they are useful but not EF work. Just as a spinout is not automatically good because it reduces EF headcount, former EF affiliation is not a claim on EF funding. The question we ask when deciding on funding is not “did this come from the EF?” But, rather the questions that should be asked about all external funding: “Is this work mandate-critical? Would the EF do this work internally if it had the organizational and financial capacity? Is there no better natural home? Can the external party execute without increasing capture risk, private extraction, opacity, or dependence? Does supporting it reduce Ethereum’s dependence on the EF over time, without prematurely transferring resources and legitimacy to new organizations and thereby risking operational failure or mission drift?” EF funding for work being done externally can be appropriate when it is a capacity solution for mandate work - work the EF should responsibly want done; work that protects CROPS; work that advances self-sovereignty and scales it; essential work that no actor can or will reliably do without EF funding; and work that can be scoped, reviewed, and held accountable without creating a permanent dependency. Such funding is not appropriate when it is a lazy continuity payment, a friendship payment, a reputational hedge, a way to avoid making a hard decision, or a way to support work that is not compatible with the mandate. EF has finite funds, finite legitimacy, and a specific mandate. We will spend all three as if they matter. When we say “EF is one of many nodes”, we mean that we intend to be one of many nodes working to keep self-sovereignty and its scaling the North Star, and working to keep CROPS the undisplaceable first-class properties of the network. We don’t mean that we will support orgs or projects with different priorities. Diversity that leads to ecosystem resilience, coordination cost right-sizing, and better decision-making is good. Diversity that leads to mission drift is not. We are not neutral on the direction Ethereum takes. CROPS are not just things we “believe in”, they are characteristics we understand must be thoughtfully prioritized at every fork for Ethereum to realize its potential. We are partisans for and builders of something of such incredible neutrality that it will fundamentally reshape the world we live in; we wish to work with everyone committed to this shared purpose.

币安最近发布了一个《无国界金融 Finance Without Frontiers》的报告，读下来最大的感受是：Crypto 真正的主战场，可能不是「炒币」，而是金融入口重构。 核心逻辑是，全球仍有大量人被传统金融系统排除在外。在这些地区，链上金融并不是传统金融的的补充，而是正在成为新的金融基础设施。 世界银行的数据，全球有 13 亿成年人没有银行账户，占全球成年人口的 21%；其中 73% 位于中低收入国家。 而「没有银行账户」只是表层问题，更大的问题是 underbanked：有账户但缺乏信贷、数字支付、有息储蓄、跨境服务等能力。报告中说，有 47 亿成年人缺乏信贷或贷款渠道，36 亿中低收入国家成年人不用数字支付或银行卡，约 14 亿储户没有从存款中获得利息。 这就是报告的第一个洞察：金融普惠的问题，已经不是「有没有银行账户」这么简单，而是有没有真正可用的支付、储蓄、信贷、投资和跨境金融服务。 而链上金融的切入点，正是在这里。 全球无银行账户人群中，约 9 亿人拥有手机，约 5.3 亿人拥有智能手机。也就是说，大量没有被银行覆盖的人，其实已经具备进入自托管钱包和全球加密交易平台的硬件条件。金融服务的瓶颈，正在从「线下网点覆盖」转向「移动端产品体验 + 监管清晰度」 第二个场景是，跨境支付和汇款 传统 SWIFT 跨境转账最低成本约 20 美元，且结算需要数天，这对大量中低收入、小额汇款而言，成本实在太高了。而在高性能区块链上，稳定币转账成本可以低至 0.0001 美元，并且近乎即时结算。这也是为什么，稳定币发行量纷纷发行公链: Artemis 的数据显示，稳定币交易量已经在 2024 年超过 Visa，接近每月 8 万亿美元的规模。 第三个场景是，资本市场准入及机会 全球约有 6.3 亿成年人拥有线上券商账户，但真正能方便接触美国市场的人更少；而美国股票市场约占全球股票市值的一半。优质公司股权上链，可以一定程度缓解这种错配：让更多非美国本土投资者通过 24/7 交易、碎片化持有等方式拥有美股资产。 Altrata 的数据说，美国年收入超过 1 亿美元的公司中，87% 是私营公司；Apollo 数据显示，2024 和 2025 年 IPO 公司的中位年龄已经从 8 年上升到 14 年。这意味着，越来越多价值创造发生在公司 IPO 之前，而普通散户往往等到 IPO 后才有机会接盘。 去年我做了个视频说，我期待链上化 × 合规化两大趋势进行融合，也就是 ICO 的合规化，这也是 Project Crypto 的主旨思路之一 第四个方向，是 AI Agent 与可编程金融 未来每个人都会有多个 AI Agent，这又需要三种链上能力：可编程货币、无许可身份、可组合结算。因为传统卡组织存在成本底线，例如 Visa 小额支付成本约 30 美分，而 USDC 纳米支付可以处理约 0.0001 美元级别交易。 自 2025 年以来已有超过 1.7 万个 Agent 被启动，约 19% 的链上活动已是自动化或 Agentic 活动，76% 的稳定币转账量由 bot 驱动。 币安自身的一些业务数据，也跟这些趋势是一致的： 2020 年，Binance 用户中来自新兴市场的比例是 49%；到 2026 年，这一比例升至 77%。活跃使用两个以上产品的用户占总活跃用户 24%，使用三个以上产品的用户占 14%；而这些多产品用户中，83% 来自新兴市场。 更有意思的是，稳定币正在被当作一种「储蓄工具」使用。在币安，账户余额至少 10 美元的用户中，约 28% 的人至少一半资产配置在稳定币中；这个比例从 2020 年的 4% 上升到 2026 年的 28%。在新兴市场，这一比例达到 36%；全球稳定币储蓄型用户中，73% 来自新兴市场。 上面这些趋势和数据中，就是新的创业机会、投资方向： 第一，稳定币支付、跨境汇款的基础设施，这个不懂多说，稳定币的优势太大了。 第二，面向新兴市场的移动端金融入口。那几十亿无银行账户的人，关注的并不是哪个币能涨 10 倍，而是能有基础的金融工具 (储蓄 + 支付)。 第三，Pre-IPO 公司的股权上链。核心逻辑是：全球最大可投资资产集中在少数市场，但潜在需求分布在全球；而且公司上市越来越晚，普通投资者越来希望参与早期价值创造。我之前介绍过的 Jarsy ( 和 Tessera ( 等公司都是在这个领域创业。 第四，AI Agent 支付与身份基础设施。 报告已经把 AI Agent 视为一种新的经济参与者，而链上系统提供了纳米支付、身份验证和可组合结算能力。 这个过程中，也会有超级 app 的涌现，比如新兴市场用户更倾向于把 Binance 这类平台作为「储蓄 + 支付 + 投资」的综合金融栈，而不是单纯的交易所。 也许未来山寨币暴富的机会变少了，但区块链这个技术会更多维度地改变新兴市场用户的生活，尤其是在支付、储蓄、投资、私募市场和 AI Agent 经济方面，重新被打包成一种全球可访问的金融基础设施。