>All the incentives for stablecoin issuers are to invest at least some of their reserves in riskier assets to get higher returns.
No.
The GENIUS Act requires 100% reserve backing with liquid assets like U.S. dollars or short-term Treasuries and requires issuers to make monthly, public disclosures of the composition of reserves.
It boggles my mind that they gave police a legal avenue to take over accounts and modify data a few years later:
The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021 (SLAID Act) introduced new powers for Australian law enforcement to combat serious cyber-enabled crime. These powers include data disruption warrants, network activity warrants, and account takeover warrants.
Of course, "the powers that be" can want things to change, but not want to pay the cost required to truly change it.
As hyperbole, you can stop all court cases, assume everyone is guilty if they're arrested, and give everyone capital punishment. That would most likely end cartel issues rather quickly, but it would absolutely mess with society to a dangerous level. El Salvador took a (less hyperbolic) extreme approach, and it dramatically reduced crime, but it's not clear that citizens are actually happy with this outcome as.
Of course, it could be possible that leaders are corrupt, but it could simply be that the cost to fixing things is very high.
They can already do that, see e.g. what the UK is doing in response to tweets. You don't need identity verification to have an ISP tell you the person behind an IP.
IP addresses don't have anything like a 1:1 mapping to human beings and it's pretty trivial and inexpensive to get one from someone other than your ISP (e.g. use a VPN) if you have any concerns about that sort of thing.
This area is where I see riscv excelling ahead of current proprietary options. I don't think it can compete on speed in terms of general purpose computing at this point.
The way I see it, once guaranteed security is offered, security conscious IT admins will insist on using it and the herd will eventually follow.
I haven’t reviewed it rigorously, but I’m a mathematician in a vaguely related domain and the proof outline seems plausible to me.
Prior work in https://arxiv.org/pdf/2408.07818 claims to prove that Boltzmann’s laws are the limit of a certain species of “hard sphere dynamics” as the number of particles gets large and the radius shrinks. This in the setting of unbounded Euclidean space. This is known classically for short time, which is why the 2024 paper purports to cover long time evolution.
The new preprint proves this result in the setting of a compact torus, which is more difficult because particles can collide an unbounded number of times. They seem to address this obstruction.
I give it a “more likely true than false; plausible even if there happen to be technical errors in the exposition.”
As for implications, eh, perhaps in some exotic systems. I suppose one could ask a similar question for magnetically driven particles and see if the answer was magnetohydrodynamics.
No.
The GENIUS Act requires 100% reserve backing with liquid assets like U.S. dollars or short-term Treasuries and requires issuers to make monthly, public disclosures of the composition of reserves.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/07/fact-sheet-pr...