与「zkSync」相关的搜索结果

我才意识到 从第一次说"放弃空投幻想，重新寻找出路" 到今天，已经过去两年半了！ 2024年 6 月 11 日的zksync我侥幸逃过女巫 6 月 20 日的layerzero被封了不少 那年6月，应该是空投转折原点，第一批人离开 厕纸之后，一片哀嚎，第二大批人离开 然后就是linea之后，人基本走的差不多了 只剩下信仰坚定的撸毛人和曾经拿下大结果的撸毛人，还有铁头的新人。 空投一直在走下坡路，值得撸的项目越来越少， 但是也不枉后面还是出现了avail、Hyperliquid、Movement、boundless、lighter这样的大空投 直到今天，空投环境已经恶劣至此，99%的空投人都已经离开，99%的空投相关项目都已关停，99%的项目都发不出一个像样的空投 我们还是不敢相信空投就此湮灭，因为我们还守望着那最后的1%——可怜的撸毛人

And yeah @fermah_xyz started with a problem that sits deep inside the ZK stack. Zero knowledge applications can prove that a computation was done correctly, but producing those proofs at scale takes serious infrastructure: specialised hardware, several proving systems, workload scheduling, and reliability and cost controls. A team building a ZK rollup, zkVM, bridge or coprocessor cannot simply ask for "a proof" and move on. Fermah's first answer was a universal proof generation layer. Provers with GPUs and other hardware supply capacity, applications that need proofs create the demand, and Fermah matches the two. That marketplace is now called Froben. The problem behind the proof Running this in production exposed something bigger. A proof is one step in a longer sequence. Something has to trigger the work, the work has to run, the result has to be verified, and then the result usually has to start the next action. Fermah's argument is that blockchains are good at recording state and weak at starting what happens next. Take a lending position that crosses its liquidation threshold. The chain records the fact, but nothing forces the liquidation. A keeper, bot or backend still has to notice the condition, build the transaction and submit it. Consensus settles what happened, and a human run service still decides what happens after. Fermah calls the missing piece protocol agency: a protocol's ability to act on a verifiable condition without depending on an outside operator. What Kernel does Kernel is Fermah's Protocol Agency Engine, and its pitch is short: Define. Execute. Attest. A developer defines a workflow, Kernel runs it, and the result is published onchain with a cryptographic proof. Three design choices matter here: -Typed nodes. Workflows are built from a library of verified building blocks such as HTTP calls, onchain reads, price feeds and math functions. The type system validates how they connect before anything runs. -Sandboxed execution. Workflows run in an isolated environment built for untrusted code, and the same inputs always produce the same output. - AI where it helps, code where it counts. Fermah says AI agents can compose workflows, but deterministic code executes them, with no LLM in the execution path. Kernel can work as an oracle too. A smart contract requests a workflow, Kernel runs it, and the contract receives the result with a proof that the workflow ran exactly as written. Froben and Flashcast Fermah did not walk away from ZK. Froben still runs, now on top of Kernel, and its paying customers include ZKsync Era and Abstract. In Froben, a workflow defines the proving pipeline and Kernel schedules the work across the prover fleet. Flashcast Social shows a different use of the same engine. A user posts a question, and within seconds it becomes a live prediction market. Kernel then runs the resolution workflow and settles the market automatically when the event happens, with no committee and no dispute window. Proof generation and market resolution have little in common on the surface. What they share is a condition that has to produce an action, and that is the workload Kernel is built around. Fermah also lists data aggregation, pricing oracles and cross chain coordination as things Kernel can run. Where agents fit Fermah's latest thinking extends this to autonomous software agents. An agent working onchain needs to find available actions, check whether it is allowed to run them, pay, execute, and use the output as the input to its next step. Fermah describes this as action manifests, which make actions machine readable across discovery, eligibility, execution, payment and output. The shift in one line The old question was how to generate ZK proofs efficiently at scale. The new one is how a protocol can turn a verifiable condition into a complete, executable sequence. Proving is still part of the system, but it is now one workload among several that Kernel coordinates.

如果你曾经撸过 Arb、Op、zkSync、W等等这些项目的空投 建议查一下相关地址 里面可能有你跨链的钱等着你领取 不用链接钱包，输入地址就可以查询 目前全网有超过 1.35亿美元的资产等着领取，涉及50多万个地址

📊 Top Chains by RWA Value Growth in 2026 🥇@BNBCHAIN +$3.6B 🥈@Solana +$2.6B 🥉@StellarOrg +$2.5B @Ethereum +$1.6B @avax +$1B @zksync +$750M @monad +$370M Total on-chain RWA value has already broken $39B, up over 50% since the start of 2026. And while Ethereum still holds the largest share of RWA value, @BNBCHAIN leads all chains by dollar growth in 2026.

今天分享一个阿联酋-阿布扎比背景的ETH L2，叫做 ADI Chain。 关注到这个链是因为前几天看新闻说，ADI 的预测市场成为 FIFA 的顶级合作伙伴，据报道这个合作价值 1.5 亿美元。 要知道这种体育预测，能搞定 FIFA 还是很难的，不光是钱，关系也得到位才行。 所以顺藤摸瓜，看看 ADI Chain 到底是什么背景。 首先，ADI Chain 刚刚宣布融了50M，但是没有公布投资者是谁。 于是稍微扒了一下，会发现 ADI Chain 的背后的团队是 Sirius International Holding，而 Sirius 又是 IHC 的子公司。 IHC 的话，在中东那边比较牛逼，市值2000 亿美金，这个基本可以理解为是阿布扎比的统治家族的资本。 公开资料都能查到，IHC 董事长是阿联酋总统 MBZ 的弟弟，最大股东是阿布扎比的王室 Royal Group。 所以，ADI Chain 上的资产很多也都是皇亲国戚资产或者政策绿灯资产。 例如，你能看到第一个迪拉姆稳定币 DDSC，阿联酋央行批准的，就是在 ADI Chain 上结算的，而且是独占结算。 另外，还有 PUSD，这个居然是一个“符合伊斯兰教义”的稳定币，沙特背景，也在 ADI Chain 上。 PS：伊斯兰教义要求不能有利息，当然估计实际操作上就是变相把利息以利润的形式发给持有者。 再例如，前几天组了一个超大联盟的 Open Standard/OUSD，也已经把 ADI 纳入了联盟。 另外上面还有 BNY 的托管业务、Settlemint 的数字证券等等。 最后是技术架构，它是基于 ZKsync 框架搭的，使用 ETH 作为 DA，严格意义上的 L2， $ADI 则作为 GAS 代币。 不过需要提醒的是，ADI 因为没有传统的那种私募公募，所以目前流通比例不大。但是因为背景有确实比较牛，所以 FDV 不小。 单从市值来说，ADI 已经超过 Arb、OP，以及它的技术架构 ZKsync，仅次于 MNT，是目前市值排名第二的 ETH L2。

Ahead of the @zksync Airbender V2 prover upgrade, @the_matter_labs brought us in to build the tools that formally verify their circuits. Not "we ran the tests and they passed." Mathematical proof that a whole class of soundness bug isn't there.

"This is happening. Data, assets and compliance workflows will all be living in the same onchain network." @gluk64 lays out his vision about the ZKsync Network that will enable assets move across Institutions without exposing their books in his conversation with @joerazz.

most people think banks are choosing technology. i'm not sure that's what they're actually choosing. they're choosing what becomes the default. that's an important difference. when JPMorgan's Kinexys has already processed more than $1.5T on blockchain rails, when DTCC is advancing SEC-cleared Treasury tokenization, and when institutions across New York, London, Singapore, Frankfurt, and Abu Dhabi are actively evaluating onchain settlement — the conversation shifts. the question is no longer “does tokenization work?” it's “which rails become the standard everyone else connects to?” history shows infrastructure decisions rarely get revisited. SWIFT wasn't inevitable because it had perfect technology. It became dominant because once enough institutions adopted the same standard, switching became structurally more expensive than staying. financial networks compound differently. 10 institutions create 45 possible settlement corridors. 100 institutions create nearly 5,000. every new participant doesn't just add one connection — it raises the cost for the next to choose differently. that's why early regulated deployments matter. They don't just win customers. They help set the architectural baseline others will inherit. several of the remaining institutional requirements are now moving from theory to production: • interbank interoperability for tokenized deposits • transaction privacy standards • RTGS-equivalent settlement • digital money governance (GFMA April 2026 report) the platforms solving these in live environments aren't just competing for pilots — they're competing to become the layer others build on. that's one reason I'm watching @zksync closely. not because institutional adoption “might happen someday,” but because the window where institutions are choosing their long-term rails appears to be open **right now** — and ZKsync already has production institutional deployments (private execution environments with zero-knowledge proofs published to Ethereum) that address exactly these constraints. history suggests those decisions tend to last much longer than anyone expects.