It’s time for Proof Of Human.

PROTOTYPE #KASPA $1 STABLECOIN on $KAS 1/6/26 test launch - feedback appreciated. PoC live (beta) here: kaspa.finance Deposit $USDC and receive $kUSDC 1:1 minus fees (& the reverse, convert $kUSDC back to $USDC on @ethereum. Max tx size $5 as we test the system. DM me for the site password if interested. @Kaspa_HypeMan @KasWare_Wallet @oneforonehaha @kaspaunchained @KaspaEVM @KaspaCentral @notontweetter @DailyKaspa @EYakoby @Igra_Labs @USDC @circle @hashdag @VitalikButerin @CoinDesk @DefiantNews @swicktalk @plzsats @Chris_Hutch7 @KaspaBuilders @Kaspa_Commons @Kaspa_KEF @Yestronaut

So much to unpack in @hashdag's recent lecture! I used @NotebookLM to generate an explainer video that is a bit easier to digest. What are projects that will be built on $KAS that can't be built elsewhere?

Not all compute can carry the future of AI. As models grow larger and inference costs surge, what truly matters is no longer peak performance — but sustained usability, verifiability, and intelligent efficiency. @PsyProtocol joins forces with @CodeStreamAI to redefine what scalable compute means ↓

The case for the uniqueness of fast pow tl;dr Finality has two moving parts: (i) fast inclusion (= high bps, how quickly a tx gets into a block), and (ii) fast confirmations (= how quickly that tx becomes irreversible). Any system with rapid block production can achieve the first. The second is where the tension shows: in pos, fast confirmations press directly against decentralization. In fast pow, the two properties are decoupled. prologue A few weeks ago I came across Solana’s founder claiming: “Solana is the fastest monetary system in the world”. Since Kaspa already runs at a faster block rate, I was curious to check Solana’s finality times. That curiosity quickly pointed me to a deeper issue: not raw speed, but how speed interacts with decentralization. —————— The tension is structural. In pos, finality means accumulating staked votes, and the more decentralized the stake distribution, the more time is required to reach finality. Here I’m not talking about hardware requirements or validator specs. The axis I’m discussing is centralization around the security mechanism itself: stake in pos vs. hardware in pow. To be secure, a block must be confirmed by a supermajority--typically >66.7% of the total economic stake. In a truly decentralized network, where n stakers with uniform share grows without bound, the time to coordinate this supermajority becomes a real bottleneck. Pow works differently. It samples the hardware space without requiring the protocol to explicitly collect evidence from a majority of miners. Each block is itself a statistical proof that the finder out-competed the full network’s hash power. This process--and its timing--remains independent of how many individual miners participate. Ethereum’s researchers understood this when moving to pos. Unlike Solana, which tolerates concentration to reach ~13-second finality, Ethereum’s designers could not accept that trade-off. Their solution was to introduce rotating committees. A rotating committee is a smaller subset of validators, randomly chosen from the full set, that votes on behalf of everyone else. But this comes with a different security model, known in the literature as exposure to a BFT adaptive attacker. The committee is selected first and then votes. That “select-then-work” sequence is theoretically exposed to adaptive attackers, since members are known in advance. Pow, by contrast, is “work-then-select”: the winner is only revealed after the work is done. Think of it this way: in pos, you know who the referees are before the game starts, which gives an attacker time to pressure them. In pow, you only learn who won after the work is already done, which removes that attack surface. So n confirmations provide consistent confidence regardless of miner granularity, and the system stays secure even under adaptive targeting. Beyond attack subtleties, the real issue is economic weight. When I send a billion-dollar transfer in a pos system, the question I care about is simple: how much stake is actually securing it? A committee vote provides strong statistical evidence, but only a true supermajority puts the full economic stake of the network behind my confirmation. In other words, a sampled committee may convince me that things are probably safe, but only the weight of the entire stake provides an overwhelming guarantee. And this is exactly where pow shines: each confirmation is not just a probability estimate, but a direct proof of work done against the full hash power of the network, no matter how many miners there are. closing remark I don’t claim to know every engineering detail of Ethereum or Solana. But I’m convinced the core principle holds. I’ll state it simply: fast pow uniquely enables fast finality without forcing a compromise on decentralization.

On 15 October 2025, a group of local investors were invited to the opening of Liberland’s new Shanghai Representative Office. This new, local option offers easy access to investment opportunities within Liberland, Serbia and Croatia.

$LLD @Liberland_org Liberland.org

Every once in a while, you can see the future.

Yes, but is he loading up on $LLD? #Liberland @Liberland_org

$LLD, sport of the future 🥋. #Liberland @Liberland_org @DavidovaSamuela @InfoLiberland

$LLD is a fantastic #DAT asset that earns 10% interest by design. The governance is by officials elected on-chain. And the parent org seems to be quite healthily funded. #Liberland

I believe in $LLD as a digital treasury asset: *Transparent #Liberland on-chain governance *Interest bearing via staking at 10% *Potential for deflationary upside long term *Decentralized distribution across interested parties docs.liberland.org/blockchai… MCAP: $1.76M Do your own research. Two companies I am involved with just made a total of three treasury purchases of LLD for long term holding so I am biased. #liberland @Liberland_org @InfoLiberland @justinsuntron @sunyuchentron @VitJedlicka #Liberpulco2025 @Jethrojhaykay @PirateChain @DavidovaSamuela @TomasForgac @Danuuuule @cryptucrypto

We can just set up manufacture the miners inside U.S.

AI Agents who need escrow for securing payments with other agents or humans can now integrate Unicrow using Model Context Protocol, an emergent agent communication standard medium.com/@unicrow/introduc…

Would large scale Bitcoin mining deployment have prevented the power outages in Spain/Portugal? Short answer: "Yes" Before the outage hit, Spain was running its grid with very little of what's called "dispatchable spinning generation" (also known as inertia). The image below is a snapshot from 12.30pm local time, 5 minutes before the outage occurred. "Dispatchable spinning generation" means power plants, like gas or nuclear, that can quickly adjust their output to keep the grid stable. The name "spinning" refers to the turbines that traditional generation plants such as coal, gas, nuclear that use spinning turbines help with this. Traditional plants provide this with their spinning turbines, but renewables don't, making the grid more fragile if you don't have a way to very rapidly load-balance in the case of an outage. This likely contributed to the outage that hit Spain, Portugal, and parts of France, as the grid couldn't handle sudden disruptions well. We don't need to speculate what would have happened had they had wide-scale Bitcoin mining operations: Texas provides a blueprint of what would have happened: Bitcoin minings would have been instantly notified of the major outage, and within under a second would have adjusted their demand, stablizing the frequency of the grid by preventing a major demand-supply imbalance. Texas for context has the highest solar&wind penetration of any grid in US. On one recent day power from solar and wind was 76% of total Texas grid demand (canarymedia.com/articles/cle…), but Texas' (ERCOT) grid also has 3 GW of controllable load in the form of Bitcoin mining that it uses heavily in the case of outages or sudden unanticipated peak demand. What happened in Spain and Portugal is not an inherent risk of renewables, its what happens when the renewable energy transition is done in a partial way, without due considerable to load balancing. Batteries are part of the solution too. Bitcoin mining and Batteries have different unique advantages. Bitcoin mining has the advantage of being modular, and low cost to deploy. Bitcoin mining also keeps the cost of power low for retail users by reducing the expensive curtailment fees that grid operators would otherwise have had to pay solar and wind operators. We have the solutions right under our noses, let's start using them.

Our capacity for math and software capabilities as a society is directly proportional to our capacity to produce electricity. @ericschmidt awesome interview at TechNatSec. @tmskulyk @pete_rizzo_ @MarkYusko @nic_carter @DavidFBailey youtube.com/watch?v=L5jhEYof…

The countdown begins ⏳ On April 30, the Demex Points system will come to an end. This is your last chance to boost your points and lock in your allocation for the $DMX airdrop ⬇️

On tariffs & #BitcoinMining. One of my favorite minds in the industry @notontweetter quoted by Bloomberg @crypto. @swicktalk @pete_rizzo_ @elinagar @LynAldenContact @DavidFBailey @Leo_Peng_Li “In recent years, the US emerged as a preferred destination—not merely due to energy costs, but because it offered legal, regulatory, and economic stability,” said Gadi Glikberg, CEO of CodeStream. “The newly imposed tariffs are unlikely to trigger a mass exodus. However, they may slow down or redirect future expansion plans, as miners reassess the long-term cost-efficiency of scaling operations within the US.” bloomberg.com/news/articles/…?