Attention all Truebit holders. Do not interact with the contract until @Truebitprotocol provide further information. What we know so far: malicious actors have exploited the OS reserve/mint functions and drained 8000 Ethereum from the reserve. My friend Marcus has added a security incident page to his Tru Watch site: tru.watch/security-incident Here you can track the flow of the funds and monitor the attacker's wallets. Currently, the 8000 Eth stolen is sitting in two wallets. Please see the page. I hope you are all okay, this is the worst start to a year I have ever experienced. DM me if I can do anything for you.

Truebit is continuing to work with US law enforcement and external cybersecurity specialists to investigate the recent attack on the TRU smart contracts. Truebit’s new platform, Truebit Verify, has been in development over the last four years. The recent attack on the TRU smart contracts did not compromise Truebit Verify’s operation. TRU interfaces with Truebit Verify as a staking-based countermeasure intended to protect against Sybil attacks and faulty behavior. These protections remain in effect, including managing Node operator participation, auditable dispute resolution, and deregistration of identified faulty Nodes. Truebit Verify’s API tasks, Dynamic Oracles, and Verified Orchestration features also remain fully functional.

DO NOT TRUST anything claiming to be from us unless it’s posted by @Truebitprotocol. Any other websites, social posts, or messages are not official unless they come from this account.

Our team is tirelessly working to address the incident we reported yesterday, and has engaged additional resources to strengthen tracing and recovery. Updates will follow through our official channels.

This is exactly why the rails debate is missing the point. Even in private workflows, the question becomes "can counterparties/auditors/regulators verify what rules ran and what data drove the outcome without trusting a single operator?" That’s the gap RWAs keep tripping over, i.e., provable policy and provable computation. What’s Canton’s story for auditability of calculations (NAV, eligibility, limits) beyond “attestations”?

If RWAs are just “tokenised stocks you can lever on,” then yea the CEXs will nail it. Where it gets bigger is using RWAs to rebuild the "plumbing" so think real-time verified reserves for stables, provable bank/compliance workflows (GENIUS-style) and also tax / reporting computed off-chain but proven back on-chain. It all needs to be verified though ;)

Quarterly reports aren't enough for a 24/7, real-time market. The gap between digital asset promises and traditional verification methods is the market's "trust tax." Investors demand: 1. Continuous Custody Verification 2. Real-Time Operational Transparency 3. Programmatic Risk Management See why verification is the infrastructure that bridges the gap: truebit.io/beyond-trust-us-v…

“Secure data flows” are necessary, but they’re not the whole middleware story. For RWAs and credit you don’t just need to move data on-chain, you need to prove the off-chain compute that transforms it (risk models, eligibility tests, tax, etc.). That’s where dynamic, verifiable compute oracles (arbitrary code and API calls with proofs) become as important as price feeds. I know you have your GLINK Fund to promote, but it wouldn't hurt to be a little more technically sophisticated.

Alright frens, I didn't want to go down this road, but here’s the REKT PLEB GUIDE to TRU Utility – The Verify Edition This is for people who only care about 'number go up' and are allergic to documentation, and to those that keep tagging me with "token not needed" messages. 1) “Is the token actually used, or is it just a relic from the original design?” This is from the FAQ: “The primary purpose of the TRU token is to secure the operation of the Truebit Node Network. Before Nodes can join the Truebit Verify network, they must lock up (stake) TRU tokens as collateral.” This is in the node operator part of the dev docs: "Running a Truebit node requires 2,000 TRU tokens to be staked. This stake is essential for the slashing and reward mechanism that ensures honest participation...” This is from the Terms of Use on the official website: “The TRU Token is intended solely to facilitate certain functionality within the Services or the Protocol...” This means that in the new platform: No TRU means no node, and no node means no share of the verification pie. TRU is therefore the collateral that keeps the network honest. That is the OPPOSITE of "token not needed." 2) “Isn’t this just fiat SaaS with a pet rock token?” Yes and No. The documentation is explicit when it comes to the split. This is also from the FAQ page: “Nodes will receive rewards for their work in stablecoin.” As I said in my GA post, the yield is in stables, which is predictable and normie-friendly. However, the risk and access is in TRU, you have to put TRU down to play the game. That's deliberate, as people and enterprises running nodes want predicatble bills in fiat, not a potentially volatile token. However, the "levered bet" on the network demand is moved to the TRU holders and node operators via the staking. More from the FAQ: “Task Payment Option (coming soon): In the near future, it will be possible to use TRU tokens to pay for Truebit Developer and Custom subscriptions." The Terms of Use repeat this: “We may…….accept TRU Tokens as payment for subscriptions and other Platform fees.” This means TRU is mandatory for security and node staking, and optional but REAL for paying for access (fees). Anyone saying this is pure fiat SaaS alongside a defunct token needs to re-read their docs. 3. “Why is supply so high, wen burn and wen low float?” This is from the original Truebit OS article (which Verify links to): “TRU tokens are created and destroyed over time according to cumulative demand. Users can purchase or retire TRU tokens in exchange for ETH. Each Truebit task also burns TRU tokens.” and also this: “Each purchase transaction deposits some ETH into a reserve escrow.....some ETH is withdrawn from the reserve through each retire transaction.” This basically means that mints (via the OS purchase contract) require paying ETH into a reserve, the retires send TRU back and pull ETH out, meaning the TRU is gone from circulation. Tasks themselves also burn TRU as part of their fee logic. Over the years, thanks to the diligence of some community members such as @GrimeChain we have clarified that retiring tokens does not lower or raise mint or retire, but minting tokens increases both mint and retire. So the updated reality is that retiring doesn’t move the OS price band, it just deletes tokens. Minting is expensive (you pay ETH at OS mint price), so with TRU being cheap on Uniswap, nobody sane is going to want to mint when they can just buy existing TRU. The supply is elastic downward via the OS retire (arb) and the task burns. Don't forget, the current high supply of approximately 164M tokens is a historical scar from the April-May 2021 mint mania, but the system design will always make new mints expensive, and lets anyone who cares about price burn the float for profit when the Uniswap price is < retire price. For a speculator, that’s structurally better than a fixed, forever-inflating emissions schedule (like a lot of the vapourware tokens you all seem to love). Also, someone asked in the Telegram group if maybe Truebit themselves were involved in the burning in order to reduce the float that should never have existed. Maybe, maybe not, but you don’t need conspiracies to explain it, this system is cleverly and explicitly designed so that speculative mispricing gets corrected by burning away surplus TRU while paying arbitrageurs in ETH. 4) “Come on TruebitGod, the token is not needed" Let’s unpack the official statements: Utility-only by design “TRU Token is intended solely to facilitate certain functionality within the Services or the Protocol and does not.....confer any ownership interest, right to profits, equity, or governance....” Translation: this isn’t an equity cosplay, it’s meant to be a tool inside the system, think back to the OS docs, "created and destroyed over time according to cumulative demand." Security-critical asset I'll just re-paste this quote - “Running a Truebit node requires 2,000 TRU tokens to be staked. This stake is essential for the slashing and reward mechanism” Payment and rewards rail “Node Operators may be paid in TRU Tokens at our discretion” and “We may....accept TRU Tokens as payment for subscriptions and other Platform fees.” If TRU were truly “not needed,” you’d expect no mandatory stake, no explicit TRU payment option, and no language about facilitating functionality inside the Protocol. Instead, they do the opposite by baking TRU into the staking, rewards, and the (soon-to-be) task payments, while keeping enterprise billing fiat-friendly. 5) “Okay ser, but token is secondary to fiat SaaS” Again, the FAQ spells out the split: “The primary purpose of the TRU token is to secure the operation of the Truebit Node Network...Nodes will receive rewards for their work in stablecoin.” Think of it like this: a] Fiat/stables = cashflow layer for enterprises and node operators. b] TRU = risk security access layer. c] Nodes are basically delta-neutral yield farms where you earn stables, but you must hold 2,000 TRU at risk (slashing and price fluctuations). d] As the demand for verification grows, more nodes are needed (or higher stake per node) and that will mean more TRU gets locked just to keep the machine running. And if they lean into the whole task payment option it means that devs/customers who want to pay in TRU add direct demand on top of that. So yes, fiat is front-and-centre. But that doesn’t make TRU irrelevant, it makes it the leveraged back-end instrument whose job is to: a] Secure the network. b] Gate participation. c] Potentially soak up some of the value flow (if any TRU payments are burned/retired/treasured instead of instantly market sold). 6) “What if they just turn TRU off?” The Protocol section of the Terms is brutally honest, they may “cease issuing TRU Tokens, change the software which issues and controls them, or disable them at any time.” And they tell us that we bear “all risk of loss associated with acquiring, holding, and/or using the TRU Token.” That's a legal part they have to include. I believe the full sheet will be lifted once the Market Structure/Clarity Act is done and dusted early in 2026. The important nuance is that they still chose to: a] Keep the OS mint/retire docs live and linked via the new GA docs. b] Require 2,000 TRU for node staking. c] Advertise TRU task payments as “coming soon." d] Explicitly mention TRU in relation to node rewards and platform fees. If the plan was “TRU is dead in this new system, we’re pure SaaS now, sorry,” then the clean legal move would be no new TRU docs, no staking requirement, and definitely no “pay with TRU” teaser on the website. Instead, they’re doing the opposite while telling you in the ToS that they can change this later if regulators or reality force them to. So yes, the risk is real but the current architecture choices are pointing toward using TRU, not burying it. 7) "Okay TruebitGod, but wen numba go up? I DESPISE even indirectly talking about price, but for a pure price, no-morals pleb, the big levers from the docs are: Elastic supply with real burns a] “TRU tokens are created and destroyed over time according to cumulative demand.” b] Users can “purchase or retire TRU tokens in exchange for ETH.” c] “Each Truebit task also burns TRU tokens.” So structurally it's the bloated supply from the 2021 mint mania now coming up against no new mints retires burns, basically the supply is shrinking as usage and arbitrage both do their thing. The Staking a] Each node needs 2,000 TRU staked. b] That stake is tied to a “slashing and reward mechanism that ensures honest participation.” c] More adoption is going to mean more nodes and more capacity, which will mean more TRU will end up being locked. If TRU is cheap then the cost of an attack is going to be low. So long-term, security pressure itself argues for either: a] Higher TRU price. or b] Higher stake per node. Either way, security means implicit buy pressure. TRU as an optional fee asset The best case for the price is some portion of those TRU fees are burned, retired, or held, not market-sold. Even if they just pass them to node operators it will be okay because node ops already need stake, so TRU rewards and TRU staking can form a closed loop of demand among people who actually run the network. Final thought Please stop commenting on posts about TRU and price, it's embarrassing. Let's not be like the rest of the cryptosphere, this is a unique protocol with incredibly well designed mechanics. It's all quite groundbreaking in my humble opinion. The point is unlike most casino chips in this market, TRU has a credible path to being priced by work and risk, not just by tweets and hope, and the company’s own docs, not community copium, are what put it there. #AI #VerifiableComputation #Truebit #ProgrammableTrust #OnChainTrust #TrustlessProofs #Web3Infra #ERC3643 #RWAs #JustVerifyIt #TruebitVerify #TRU #AgeOfVerification #VerificationLayer

Can you name me the platform, that is ERC3643 native, and that automates compliance workflows and provides cryptographic proofs for off-chain processes?

Well in Zeus, this is a really good “what it looks like” explanation. The part I think RWA people still underestimate is that on-chain you see the token and the payment, right? However off-chain there’s a big compute and data engine you’re still trusting. 100% agree tokenisation doesn’t fix a bad asset, but I'd go one step further and say tokenisation doesn't fix a bad process either. If the underwriting and risk valuations are all on some PDFs and spreadsheets then the token is just a nice little wrapper for a very unverified and outdated process.

Tokenisation isn’t new finance, it’s somewhat new packaging. New finance is when the underlying compute (pricing, risk, cashflows, compliance) is cryptographically verifiable, not just written to a smart contract after the fact. Tokens without verifiable compute are just better wrappers around the same black boxes.

Tired of waiting for @chainlink Runtime Environment? Try Truebit Verify. Blue DON or auditable red pill? @Truebitprotocol #dynamicoracle

It sure is, "just trust us" is OVER. Verify Everything.

The report nails the scale ($3Qn flows, trillions tokenised) but assumes the hard part is connectivity, hence “Chainlink as standard”. For RWAs at that scale the real bottleneck is verifiable compute: proving that the off-chain engines (pricing, risk, servicing, compliance) did what they claim before a token/state update hits chain. Fittingly, Water Tower mentioned oracles, and Truebit Verify just shipped a WatchTower contract that turns arbitrary off-chain computation into verifiable on-chain facts. x.com/TravisMJohn/status/199…

Scaling credit markets on Solana is one piece. Who proves the math in the black boxes? Risk engines, loan books, servicing flows, this is all off-chain compute. Without verifiable compute, RWA pipelines are still “trust me bro” wrapped in fast blockspace. I keep hammering this point I know but it is what it is - x.com/TruebitGod/status/1996…

“Every bank as an Ethereum L2” is a powerful idea, but it still assumes trust in the bank's black-box. Settlement on Ethereum is great because it tells us where balances end up. It does not tell us whether the bank’s off-chain risk engine, collateral calcs, KYC, or credit checks were executed correctly. If banks cluster as L2s around ETH liquidity, the missing piece is verifiable compute for those private L2s , cryptographic proofs of the process, not just of the final state. See here fren - x.com/TruebitGod/status/1996…

Stablecoins are the biggest meta. The next meta is proving the off-chain dollars and logic that those stables point to. Ethereum has the liquidity but now it needs industrial-grade verification for all that compute.

Who will do the offchain compute Sergey? x.com/truebitgod/status/1996…