VanEck’s BNB ETF Scraps Staking as Regulatory Risks Loom

The post Yi Lihua Backs Buybacks, ETH Faces Short Squeeze appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Points: WLFI rises 50% as Ethereum braces for potential short squeeze. Yi Lihua backs WLFI and highlights ETH’s undervaluation. Market reactions signal confidence in buyback strategies. Yi Lihua, founder of Liquid Capital, announced on Platform X that WLFI rose 50% due to aggressive buybacks, while ETH might face a short squeeze amid heavy institutional shorting. This surge and potential ETH short squeeze highlight key market dynamics and investor strategies amid undervaluation perceptions, drawing attention to underlying fundamentals and policy conditions. WLFI Spikes 50% Driven by Strategic Buybacks Yi Lihua, founder of Liquid Capital, asserted that WLFI’s major buybacks fueled a 50% increase against the market. WLFI’s alignment with larger DeFi lending agreements, such as with Aave, enhances its ecosystem integration. Lihua also indicated Ethereum’s favorable set up despite being undervalued due to current macro conditions. The surge in WLFI’s value demonstrates Lihua’s commitment to fundamentally strong projects. The situation contrasts with Ethereum facing potential pressures from institutional shorting, creating a possibility for a future short squeeze. Market observers are closely watching the strategies at play. Responses from key figures, such as Stani Kulechov of Aave, who confirmed a partnership with WLFI, reflect growing institutional confidence in DeFi developments. Yi Lihua’s strategic allocations and macroeconomic insights are influencing investor expectations. Ethereum Faces Potential Short Squeeze Amid Institutional Strategies Did you know? WLFI’s 50% surge against market trends has been described as an exceptional event in today’s stablecoin market, showcasing the potential for stablecoins to drive market shifts comparable to historical landmarks from past cycles. Ethereum (ETH) is currently priced at $2,926.21 with a market cap of $353.18 billion and maintains a market dominance of 11.79%. Despite a 90-day loss of 35.69%, daily trading volumes were recorded at $22.62 billion. CoinMarketCap monitors ETH’s ongoing performance. Ethereum(ETH), daily chart, screenshot on CoinMarketCap…

The post Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. “It’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress,” writes Pipes. Getty Images Washington is addicted to taxing success. Now, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is floating a plan to skim half the patent earnings from inventions developed at universities with federal funding. It’s being sold as a way to shore up programs like Social Security. In reality, it’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress. Yes, taxpayer dollars support early-stage research. But the real payoff comes later—in the jobs created, cures discovered, and industries launched when universities and private industry turn those discoveries into real products. By comparison, the sums at stake in patent licensing are trivial. Universities collectively earn only about $3.6 billion annually in patent income—less than the federal government spends on Social Security in a single day. Even confiscating half would barely register against a $6 trillion federal budget. And yet the damage from such a policy would be anything but trivial. The true return on taxpayer investment isn’t in licensing checks sent to Washington, but in the downstream economic activity that federally supported research unleashes. Thanks to the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, universities and private industry have powerful incentives to translate early-stage discoveries into real-world products. Before Bayh-Dole, the government hoarded patents from federally funded research, and fewer than 5% were ever licensed. Once universities could own and license their own inventions, innovation exploded. The result has been one of the best returns on investment in government history. Since 1996, university research has added nearly $2 trillion to U.S. industrial output, supported 6.5 million jobs, and launched more than 19,000 startups. Those companies pay…

Author: Zhixiong Pan Vitalik’s article “Galaxy Brain Resistance”, published a few weeks ago, is actually quite obscure and difficult to understand, and I haven’t seen a good interpretation of it, so I’ll give it a try. After all, I saw that Karpathy, the creator of the term "Vibe Coding," also read this article and took notes, so there must be something special about it. First, let's explain what Galaxy Brain and Resistance mean in the title. Once you understand the title, you'll have a general idea of what this article is about. 1️⃣ The Chinese translation of Galaxy Brain is "银河脑" (Yinhe Naozi), but it actually comes from an internet meme, similar to an image with (????????) combined together, which you've definitely seen before. Initially, this was a compliment, used to praise someone's brilliant idea, or in other words, their intelligence. However, as its usage became widespread, it gradually turned into a form of irony, roughly meaning "overthinking, going too far with logic." Vitalik's mention of ???????? here specifically refers to the behavior of "using high intelligence to perform mental gymnastics, forcing illogical statements to appear profoundly reasonable." For example: - They are clearly laying off employees to save money, but they insist on calling it "delivering high-quality talent to society". - They are clearly issuing worthless cryptocurrencies to fleece investors, yet they claim to be "empowering the global economy through decentralized governance." Both can be considered "Galaxy Brain" style thinking. 2️⃣ So what does Resistance mean? This concept is easy to get confused about. In popular terms, it can be compared to "the ability to avoid being misled" or "the ability to avoid being fooled". Therefore, Galaxy Brain Resistance should be Resistance to [becoming] Galaxy Brain, that is, "the ability to resist (evolving) into a galactic brain (nonsense)". Or more accurately, it describes how easy or difficult it is for a certain thinking/argumentation style to be abused to "prove any conclusion you want". Therefore, this "resistance" can be directed against a specific "theory," for example, - The theory of low resistance: With a little scrutiny, it can evolve into the extremely absurd logic of the "galactic brain". - The theory of high resistance: No matter how you examine it, it remains the same and it is difficult to evolve into absurd logic. For example, Vitalik Buterin said that his ideal social law should have a red line: a behavior should only be prohibited when it can be clearly explained how it harms or risks a specific victim. This standard is very resistant to Galaxy Brain because it does not accept infinitely stretchable or vague reasons such as "I subjectively don't like it" or "it's offensive to public morals." 3️⃣ Vitalik also gave many examples in the article, even using theories we often hear, such as "long-termism" and "necessism". "Long-termism" is hard to resist the erosion of a "crazy" mindset because it has very low resistance; it's practically a "blank check." This is because the "future" is too distant and too vague. - The claim of high resistance: "This tree will grow to 5 meters tall in 10 years." This is verifiable and not easily made up. - Low-resistance "long-termism": "Although I am about to do something extremely immoral (such as eliminating a group of people or starting a war), it is for the sake of a utopian life for humanity 500 years from now. According to my calculations, the total amount of future happiness is infinite, so the sacrifices we make now are negligible." You see, if you extend the timeframe enough, you can justify any immediate wrongdoing. As Vitalik said, "If your argument can justify anything, then your argument proves nothing." However, Vitalik also acknowledged that "the long term is important," and his criticism was that "overly vague and unverifiable long-term benefits are used to cover up the clear harm in the present." Another major problem area is "necessityism". This is also the most popular self-defense technique in Silicon Valley and the tech industry. The rhetoric goes like this: "AI replacing human jobs is an inevitable historical trend. Even if I don't do it, someone else will. So my aggressive development of AI now is not for making money, but to follow the historical trend." Where does low resistance lie? It perfectly negates a person's sense of responsibility. Since it's "inevitable," then I don't need to be responsible for the damage I cause. This is also a typical example of a galactic mind: packaging the selfish desire of "I want to make money/I want to be in power" as "I am carrying out a historical mission". 4️⃣ So what should we do when faced with these "smart people's traps"? Vitalik's solution is surprisingly simple, even a bit "clumsy." He believes that the smarter a person is, the more resistant they need rules to restrain themselves and prevent them from overdoing their mental acrobatics. First, adhere to "deontological ethics," which is essentially a kindergarten-level moral code. Forget about complicated math problems "for the future of all mankind," let's go back to the most rigid principles: - Do not steal - Don't kill innocent people. - Don't scam - Respect the freedom of others These rules are extremely resistant because they are black and white, with no room for negotiation. When you try to explain why you would misappropriate user funds using grand principles of "long-termism," the rigid rule of "don't steal" will directly slap you in the face: stealing is stealing, don't talk about some great financial revolution. Second, hold the correct "position," including even the physical location. As the saying goes, where you sit determines where you think. If you spend all your time in that echo chamber of the San Francisco Bay Area, surrounded by people working on AI accelerationism, it's hard to stay clear-headed. Vitalik even offered a physically resistant suggestion: don't live in the San Francisco Bay Area. 5️⃣ Summary Vitalik's article is actually a warning to those exceptionally intelligent elites: don't think that just because you have a high IQ, you can bypass basic moral principles. Those "galactic brain" theories that seem to explain everything are often the most dangerous all-purpose excuses. On the contrary, those seemingly rigid and dogmatic "high-resistance" rules are the last line of defense against self-deception.