Because they own and control their own smart contracts but do not own the network that the contracts are deployed to.

Plus, freezing funds and waiting for US law enforcement to weigh in rather than being the proverbial judge, jury and executioner is now likely to keep you on the right side of said law enforcement.

> Because they own and control their own smart contracts but do not own the network that the contracts are deployed to.

I assume they call a method on the contract to freeze the coins (with some superuser kind of signature), so they could easily write a method that moves the coins back, too. This should be similar in terms of gas costs.

The law enforcement theory seems more likely, yeah.

How are you guaranteeing that your private stablecoin will keep its $1 value?

How are you bootstrapping a network to validate private transactions without the promise of potential gains in coin value as its popularity takes off?

I would argue that using an older model and assuming that it is the cutting edge is basically equivalent to holding it wrong

Assuming we are measuring time and

`total = dev + review`

If dev approaches zero, but you review at the same pace as you always have, are you in a better position? Yes.

Will you potentially have a backlog of code waiting for review? Also yes.

Would you prefer to be waiting for the dev team for all of the time instead, then still have the same amount of reviewing to do at the end of it? Absolutely not.

Why do you even need a second model for that? There are many simpler ways to slow down the rate that the near-immediate response is pseudo-typed onto the screen.

Agreed, could be something as dumb as a simple javascript snippet running in the browser. Would be nuts to use something like an LLM just for that.

> In this experiment, Claude models’ real-world hacking dropped to zero percent once Anthropic employees told the models not to do real-world hacking

Equivalent to forgetting to say "make no mistakes"

But could it be that formerly unrealistic levels of exposure has normalised these things that always existed, and now they are mainstream and affecting kids __due to social media__ ?

Bingo. And algorithmic social media feeds reward fringe opinions—the more hateful the better—because those drive “engagement” which translates to attention, fame, money. Which means people are incentivised to be as controversial as possible. They don’t even have to fully believe what they preach, they just have to ensure they can enrage a large enough number of people. Which in turn brings the people who really believe those things out of the woodwork and the slime ball of hate gets bigger and rolls faster.

Social media as a technology isn’t necessarily the root cause of all those problems. But it is the medium by which those were allowed and incentivised to proliferate at an ever increasing pace.

It was originally payments owed to Dutch interests in America being converted to gold and stored locally on their behalf, as opposed to having to be transported across the Atlantic back to the Netherlands.

Then later the Dutch moved a lot more of their gold over there before/during WWII in order to keep it out of reach of the Nazis.

A solid state hard drive...?