ekius retweeted
In 2018, Nike let Roger Federer walk rather than pay him roughly $10M a year. He signed with a small Swiss running brand called On instead, and took an ownership stake.
When On went public in 2021, that stake was worth around $300M. His career prize money from 20 Grand Slams and 24 years of tennis was $130M. The equity made him more than double what the entire playing career did.
Kylian Mbappé just ran the same play.
He'd worn Nike since he was 8 years old. Twelve signature Mercurials. His contract quietly expired on July 31 and he let it die, and the reporting on the On deal describes equity in the company, his own signature sub-brand, direct work with the product teams, and a term around ten years.
So he's now a part-owner of an $11B company that sells its first football boot in 2027. Nike was paying him to advertise Mercurials. On has him sharing in whatever the boots earn, which for a 27-year-old with a decade-long deal is a very different bet.
On also knew exactly who to send. Thierry Henry came in as Director of Football and reportedly played a big role in getting the deal done. Nike had 19 years and unlimited money and still lost him to a recruiter.
Federer's version of the trade took two years to pay off. Mbappé's boot hits the market before his next World Cup.
🚨🚨| BREAKING: Kylian Mbappé 𝐐𝐔𝐈𝐓𝐒 Nike to sign with Swiss brand On Running, becoming the face of their debut football boot. 👟🇫🇷
On has also appointed Thierry Henry as Director of Football as part of their expansion into football.
[@TheAthleticFC]
ekius retweeted
CFTC is not playing around.
Wasting no time, yesterday they filed what appears to be a proposed rule for interagency review entitled “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets.”
Things are going to move fast in DC.
reginfo.gov/public/do/eoRevi…
ekius retweeted
Most tech giants in the 2000s built their infrastructure and product as one entangled unit. Amazon had the foresight to separate out AWS as an API layer, of which Amazon retail was the first of many users. Today, AWS generates more profit than all of Amazon's other business lines combined.
Hyperliquid is built with the same philosophy. Housing all of finance requires thoughtfully designed, open financial primitives. Each primitive should obey the Unix principle of "Do one thing and do it well." Talented builders then have the foundation to chain these together to create magical applications.
HyperCore borrowing is an example to highlight this philosophy in action.
Most other platforms implement portfolio margin by marking an account's collateral to market value with an LTV haircut, creating borrowed assets without an explicit lender. This system is simpler to implement, but misses a golden opportunity for composability.
Hyperliquid instead begins with a borrow/lend protocol on HyperCore. Every borrowed asset is sourced from a supplier, so risk is isolated within the borrow/lend primitive instead of platform-wide. HyperCore's portfolio margin system is implemented as an orchestration layer that composes borrow/lend, with other primitives such as perps, spot, and outcome trading.
This decomposition has several nice corollaries:
1. Today's announcement of manual borrowing is not a new feature, but simply an extension of the underlying primitive. Borrowers on day one have access to 400M and growing of supplied liquidity.
2. Portfolio margin users earn interest on their idle stablecoin collateral. This is not a new feature, but a natural byproduct of composing trading with lending.
3. System safety is easier to reason about when perp and borrow/lend margining are independent.
In the same way that math theorems almost prove themselves when the right abstractions are defined, composable designs just feel right.
Manual borrows are live on Hyperliquid
Portfolio margin and manual borrows use the same underlying HyperCore infrastructure, with $269M in assets borrowed today.
Users can supply HYPE and BTC as collateral to borrow quote assets (USDC and USDT). Borrowed quote assets pay interest, and supplied quote assets earn interest, with rates set by utilization.
ekius retweeted
Jev from @typesafeai is on AI Gateway.
Build agents that decide, route, score, and stop in milliseconds:
𝚊𝚠𝚊𝚒𝚝 𝚎𝚟𝚊𝚕𝚞𝚊𝚝𝚎({
𝚖𝚘𝚍𝚎𝚕: '𝚝𝚢𝚙𝚎𝚜𝚊𝚏𝚎-𝚊𝚒/𝚓𝚎𝚟',
𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚝𝚎,
𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚜,
});
vercel.com/changelog/typesaf…
Do you understand yet?
Without factoring in any additional perp flows, @Enter_Elysium could make more money for @HyperliquidX, for example, than every builder code app has generated for it combined
This is unprecedented
Reverse Baby !!!
Arthur Hayes: Bitcoin Could Break Its All-Time High Before the End of the Year
On September 8, 2026, BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes @CryptoHayes said in an interview with The Rollup @therollupco that Bitcoin could reach a new all-time high before the end of the year. As structural factors continue to drive monetary easing, the process could ultimately lead to large-scale money printing, although the U.S. political cycle may affect the pace of policy implementation. He believes Bitcoin’s rally could follow a pattern of a sharp surge, followed by a period of consolidation and correction, and then another rise.
Wu Blockchain cautioned that Arthur Hayes’ historical track record for market predictions has been relatively inaccurate and that his views are often subject to change. It recommends focusing on his analytical framework rather than his specific price and timing predictions.
This is a trend
JUST IN: Hyperliquid L1 flipped Arbitrum in chain total value locked ranking, both at $1.40B, moving Hyperliquid to #7.
Hyperliquid ranked #8 yesterday.
Meanwhile, Hyperliquid's total value locked across the protocol stands at $6.73 billion, up 11.6% over 30 days.
@Hyperliquid
ekius retweeted
HIP-4 is blowing up since they released permisionless markets
+184% daily volume
+2423% unique markets
All in only 2 weeks since the permisionless markets update.
@HyperliquidX picked the hard way but ultimately it was the right way
When they launched in June, HIP-4 was incomplete
- no good UI
- no liquidity incentives
- very few markets
This resulted in them "missing" on the World Cup, while Polymarket made billions in volume off it.
But they had a vision and they kept to it
now HIP-4 looks very different :
- Permisionless market creation mechanism with deployers competing against each other
- multiple competing good UIs (@tradexyz, @Outcomexyz)
- native liquidity rewards + deployers boosting liquidity of their markets
And in the end it doesn't matter much than Polymarket or Kalshi made more volume than them on the world cup
They build a solid infra, battle tested it, and now the growth phase begins
fade at your own risk
ekius retweeted
.@DavidSacks says if Dario Amodei truly believes frontier AI could end humanity, he has no business running Anthropic. Make it safe, shut the lab down, or step aside.
ekius retweeted
So, this new blog from the Chief Information Security Officer of the Wyoming Stablecoin has revealed a whole new cesspit of issues with LayerZero:
>LayerZero repeated pattern of operational security failures
So, there were even *MORE* opsec failures beyond North Korea hacking LayerZero Lab's DVN, specifically relevant to the work between the state of Wyoming and LayerZero.
>Lost control of the private key for the state of Wyoming
How do you simply just "lose control of a private key" which controls government assets?
Was Wyoming's token contract being entrusted to a single employee rather than a set of signers?
If so, what kind of employee are you not able to get a private key back from? Did they literally just lose the key because it was scribbled on a napkin?
Or did the employee simply refuse to give the private key back? if that's the case, what kind of employee and under what set of circumstances would be willing to do that?
Given that LayerZero's previous DVN hack involved inflitration by North Korea, one possible hypothesis could be that this "lost control of a private key" with Wyoming reads as North Korean involvement again.
>Inadequate disclosures about incidents
This is a polite way of saying that the LayerZero team then proceeded to lie to the state of Wyoming about what is actually happening with the safety of their assets.
If LayerZero is willing to cut corners on security and then lie to a government-level partner, how could anyone even trust them for anything?
If they will lie to the government, why would you believe their claims about their volume numbers being organic?
If they will lie to the government (which could cause serious legal issues), why wouldn't they lie to their other integration partners?
If they will lie to the government, why would you believe them about literally anything at all?
$ZRO
ekius retweeted
🚨 Waterloo is often described as the MIT of Canada. On CBC, Waterloo math instructor Dan Wolczuk describes first-year students arriving with inflated grades, missing foundational math skills, and unprepared for university math. The problem has worsened over time.
He makes several important points:
- High school math classes have been weakened so students can get better grades.
- Less testing in high school and fewer standardized tests both hurt student learning and lead to grade inflation.
- Grade inflation doesn't help students in the long run. It's demoralizing to get 99% in high school and fail your first calculus test b/c prerequisite knowledge isn't secure.
- Some memorization is necessary in math. Math builds on itself and students need to be able to easily retrieve foundational knowledge.
- The testing effect matters. More testing helps students retain information long term.
- More low stakes testing also helps curb test anxiety.
Dan thinks we need a national standardized test in Canada. I wholeheardedly agree.
Link below (Excellent job by @KrissyHolmes CBC, Newfoundland & Labrador, Sept 9) @CBCNL 👇
ekius retweeted
1) AI will not eradicate humanity. Humans survived an ice age, the Black Death, two world wars, and (so far) the advent of nuclear weapons. Anyone who is loudly warning of AI-caused human extinction should not be taken seriously.
2) If you worked in a company where you anticipated a 10% chance that your product would kill ten people, let alone all people, the correct response would be horror, ceasing all operations, and likely contacting the police or other criminal authorities. I am obviously no Coxon booster but at least his behavior is in line with his stated beliefs. Any current AI company employees saying "yes, me too, the thing we are building and about to IPO may kill all humans" should, again, not be taken seriously. Their actions betray their actual beliefs.
3) Antitrust law does not prevent AI companies from coordinating to make sure AI does not hurt people. It does not prevent companies working together to make sure it doesn't hack people; the DOJ and FTC made this clear a decade ago when they issued a policy statement saying that the agencies "do not believe that antitrust is – or should be – a roadblock to legitimate cybersecurity information sharing." The same principles apply here. See: justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/…
4) Antitrust law does absolutely prevent AI companies from organizing to prevent the entry of cheaper, upstart rivals because the bigger companies are burning cash and failing to achieve sufficient profitability. The panic of individual employees may be sincere if misguided, but the moves by their CEOs to achieve some kind of broad "antitrust waiver" or "exemption" should be meet with deep skepticism in light of the economics of the industry and the threat they face from open models.
ekius retweeted
People killed by AI: zero
People killed by governments: millions
Let's give control of AI to the governments and call it safety
true true
Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.
You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.
I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.
But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier.
Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.
Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.
So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.
If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.
A lot of people are missing Terence Tao’s point and thinking “mathematicians are upset that AI is better than them.” That’s not what he’s saying, and some people are forgetting that Tao is one of the most AI-pilled mathematicians out there.
His point is that when people work on discovering something, along the way they invent new concepts. Those concepts later become useful far beyond the original goal, and enables further inventions. Finding a solution does matter, but the intermediate idea is often what makes the field richer, because other people can share it and build the next thing from it.
In tech, we can use the analogy of collaborative software. We started with algorithms for merging changes in a Word document, and evolved that to concepts about versions, diffs, and merges, and later to real-time collaboration tools like Git, Google Docs, and Figma. Humans built upon these concepts and developed more powerful solutions.
Terence’s worry is that a machine automating a solution robs the field of the value of developing the intermediate discoveries in the pursuit of larger discoveries.
When automating a solution, the intermediate discoveries and invention of concepts can be buried or completely hidden in the black box. We don’t learn from them to build the next thing; it’s like we never made the invention of collaborative document editing and thus could not have the conceptual understanding to invent the next version – and since it’s hidden, we also don’t socialize them to allow other people to invent, too, a core tenet of collective discovery.
So then, in both code and math, this leads to the atrophy of development of concepts in the field.
In other words: pure ‘solution extraction’ that hides the process of discovery can leave the field with a checked-off theorem but little new insight or new questions to pursue. And it might prevent us from understanding a field deeper.
I am seeing, first-hand, that atrophying of skills in software development. We push buttons and get solutions. There is much less incentive to develop new concepts and human skill. The bet most software companies are making is that LLMs are so effective in writing code that you’re still shipping overwhelmingly more value even with human skill atrophy, and it’s the right bet IMO.
However, much of the software industry is built upon building things, not necessarily novel invention and research. In such an environment, you can say that you accept some atrophying of conceptual invention and human skill for more output.
On the other hand, sectors like math and pure sciences that are focused on invention and insight might be the hardest hit by this.
Practical/applied sciences might fall somewhere in the middle. An Alzheimer’s cure, room-temperature semiconductor, or highly effective carbon capture solution are far too valuable to sandbag and say only humans can do that to develop concepts in the ‘proper’ way. The outcome matters too much to treat the preservation of concept invention as the highest goal. Even there, though, hidden intermediates can slow the next breakthrough if nobody can see how the first one actually worked.
So the question is not “is AI allowed to solve hard problems?” It is “in this field (math, science, tech, etc.), is the answer itself the main point, or are the concepts and abstractions we use to get there also the thing we need to maintain?”
In pure math, there’s an argument that the intermediates are often more useful than the solution, and atrophy in concept development is highly detrimental to the field. Solving Navier–Stokes, contrary to what some people claim, has little practical application, and pure math might be one of those fields where just finding a solution isn’t the entire point, and can actually be contrary to the field, which is what Tao is worried about.
