If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
Freedom or safety: choose one. This is the false bargain we were offered after 9/11, the ideology underpinning the PATRIOT Act and the (permanent) suspension of human rights. This ideology has metastasized out of the realm of airport security theater and mass surveillance, ossifying into a bedrock axiom about technology design itself.
Ironically, it's not just conservative bed-wetters who've rejected the idea that freedom isn't free, and we all have to trade away our autonomy for a safe and secure online experience. There were plenty of techno-progressives who insisted that the problems with Twitter and Facebook could be solved by forcing their zuckermuskian overlords to invest sufficient resources in their Trust and Safety teams.
There's nothing wrong with asking people who host social spaces to invest in moderation, but the idea that we improve the lives of people stuck in these obviously irreparable corporate spaces is by making their owners care about our welfare is just bankrupt. Far better to make it easy for us to leave these platforms:
https://www.eff.org/interoperablefacebook
Mandating interoperability – federation – for these legacy social media services means that if somehow it turns out that neither Zuck, nor Musk (nor anyone who succeeds them) is fit to preside over the social lives of hundreds of millions or billions of people, then those users can leave, without losing touch with the people they currently stay on these platforms to be in community with.
We don't have to choose between safety and freedom. We can have both. Franklin had it wrong when he wrote, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
It's not that you don't deserve these things, it's that you won't get them. Give Apple control over which apps you can install and who can fix your device and which accessories you can use with your devices, and Apple will spy on you and they'll let other people spy on you and rip you off:
Apple's security model works well. To the extent that Apple is both benevolent and competent, it makes products that are safe and reliable. But this model fails horribly, because any time Apple decides to trade off its customers' privacy, safety, or utility for its own priorities, those customers are rendered defenseless by Apple's total control:
Being an Apple customer is like being in a 24/7 BDSM relationship…without a safe-word. Maybe you like the control Apple exerts over your life most of the time, but if they ever start to hurt you, there's no way to make them stop:
Apple's story – the story of all centralized, authoritarian technology – is that you have to trade freedom for security. If you want technology that Just Works(TM), you need to give up on the idea of being able to override the manufacturer's decisions. It's always prix-fixe, never a la carte.
This is a kind of vulgar Thatcherism, a high-tech version of her maxim that "there is no alternative." Decomposing the iPhone into its constituent parts – thoughtful, well-tested technology; total control by a single vendor – is posed as a logical impossibility, like a demand for water that's not wet:
Today, much of the world is trying to figure out what life looks like after US Big Tech. Outside of the USA, there's a growing consensus that Big Tech is an arm of the US state, a way to project soft (and even hard) American power around the globe:
Europe in particular is investing in free/open source alternatives to American Big Tech (the "Eurostack"). A big question is whether software built and maintained as a commons can ever match the slick user-friendliness of the tech companies – in other words, are we going to have to sacrifice the convenience of a Just Works(TM) platform for freedom from Big Tech?
I think this is a lazy conclusion. It's true that it takes more steps to sign up for Mastodon than it does to get onboard with Instagram, and that Instagram has a recommendation system that can help you bootstrap your network and start to populate your feed. But it's also true that Instagram has thousands of engineers and UX/UI people working on it, while Mastodon operates on a skeleton crew.
The idea that Mastodon's rough edges are due to the fact that it's open and federated – and not because it operates with a fraction of a percent of the resources as Instagram – is pretty implausible to my mind.
Indeed, there's a long history of tools designed by and for developers being picked up by commercial teams and polished into mass consumer products, which suggests that the tools' usability problems stemmed from resource constraints, not the openness or the flexibility of the tool. Think of how Slack transformed irc, or how Android packaged up GNU/Linux.
Another way to think about investment in improving free/open tools that suffer from being overly technical is that there is tons of room for improvement. There are so many easy wins to be scored when it comes to Libreoffice, Mastodon, The Gimp, ffmpeg, etc. Under the hood, these tools are stunning, but their front-ends have lagged.
By contrast, Big Tech has done so much fine-tuning of its user interfaces and workflows that there's very little room to maneuver. Every new product release for a dominant Big Tech tool is as much a regression as it is an improvement, and often these releases are expensive catastrophes:
People are often baffled at how a company with all these experts can produce "improvements" that are actually massive steps backwards, but that's what happens when you try to add more polish to something you've already been polishing for a decade or more:
There's plenty of room at the bottom (of the tech stack). It's hard to overstate just how under-resourced some free/open projects are, how many millions of people rely on the work of just one dedicated maintainer. Snowden coordinated his disclosures to journalists using GPG, the free/open version of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), a way to secure email conversations. After the Snowden revelations, many people tried to use GPG – and failed. It was just too complicated.
But is GPG too complicated to use because it's impossible to make it easier to use? Maybe. But maybe it was the fact that one part-time volunteer was doing all the work on GPG/email integration:
Likewise, there are millions of people who rely on Pidgin, a tool that lets you use multiple chat systems from a single interface. Those millions of users are supported by one part-time developer who funds the work out of his dayjob:
If the EU were to fund even a small team to improve the usability of these systems, they could plausibly make them ten or twenty times easier to use (that is, put them within the technical understanding of ten to twenty times more users). What a growth opportunity! Does anyone think Apple can make iOS twenty times more legible?
Getting these free/open tools over a threshold for everyday usage puts them on a glide path to sustainability. As more users – and more kinds of users – pile into them, this improves the business-case for different kinds of organizations (co-ops, tinkerers, government agencies, startups) investing in improving them. And because these tools are free/open, those improvements go back into the commons, and benefit all the users. This is the kind of network effect we love to see.
And these tools won't just work better – they'll also fail better. For years now, I've been using Framework laptops, designed to be upgraded, repaired and maintained by their users:
For years, I relied on Apple hardware, and had to buy my Powerbooks in pairs, because one of them was always broken and had to be sent back to Applecare for repair. After I switched to Thinkpads, I was able to buy IBM (then Lenovo's) global, onsite, next-day hardware replacement warranty, and so I was able to just have one laptop at a time, and use an old one for 24-36 hours while I waited for a technician to travel to my home or hotel room to fix my machine.
But with the Framework, I just fix whatever breaks myself. When I dropped my laptop during a UK tour, I was able to get a replacement screen Fedexed to my hotel. I did the screen swap in 15 minutes, at midnight, after getting off a late train from Edinburgh. It worked the first time, and the next day I turned in two columns and did a livecast.
Last week, I discovered that my laptop battery had overheated and swollen so much I could barely keep the case screwed shut – something that happens to all kind of hardware. It's really dangerous, presenting a serious risk of fire. If that had happened to a Mac or a Thinkpad, I would have been screwed, unable to safely board my airplane on Friday morning.
But I was able to remove the battery before checking out of my hotel in Ithaca (the desk clerk accepted it to be given to facilities people for safe disposal), and Framework sent a replacement battery to my next hotel in NYC, so after I got off my plane and checked in there, I was able to swap my new battery in and pick right up again.
The other day, my wife said that she thought that between my operating system (Ubuntu, a flavor of GNU/Linux) and hardware (the Framework), I was having more technical problems than I used to have with my Macs. I was shocked – but after we talked it over, I realized she got that impression because when something goes wrong with my laptop, I can fix it, so I spend a bunch of time tinkering with things, rather than bringing it to an Apple Store and switching to a backup computer.
Another example: while I was in Ithaca, I decided to upgrade my 2TB solid state drive to a 4TB one. The reliable way to do this is to install the OS and all my apps on the new drive, and then copy over my user files, but that requires a lot of manual attending. I wanted a process that I could start before bed and then pick up in the morning. So I used "dd," a command that duplicates whole disks, to copy the 2TB disk to the 4TB one.
Then I used a bunch of arcane utilities to resize the partition to fill the disk (a task that was made much more complex because I have full-disk encryption turned on). It worked – but then the disk wouldn't boot. Turned out this operation had messed up GRUB, a key part of the Linux boot system.
I had many choices at that juncture. I could have scrapped the project and started over, wiping the disk, installing the OS and apps, and re-copying my data. I could have parked the whole project until I was back home in LA. Instead, I worked with some great tech support people at Canonical (who make Ubuntu) to fix GRUB, and an hour or two later, I was up and running.
The point here is that I had all options open to me. I could do this The Mac Way (bringing my machine to a technician and asking them to do it). I could do it the labor-intensive but reliable way (install OS and apps, move data). I could do it the risky, high-tech way (dd, resize partition, fix GRUB). If I'd been at home with a light work week, I might have done the middle option. If I was advising a friend without a lot of technical chops on how to do this, I might have recommended the first option. But the fact that I was on the road with limited time didn't place this upgrade out of reach. I got to decide which tradeoffs I wanted to make.
What's more, the only reason my method was so damned tricky is that no one's bothered to automate it. The process involved cutting and pasting a lot of long, machine-readable, alphanumeric identifiers into config files, and I screwed up a step. There's nothing about this process that's intrinsically hard, it's just hard because I was doing it manually. If lots of people had the ability to swap their hard drives (a process that takes less than five minutes with a Framework), it would absolutely be worth someone's time to turn all that fiddly work into an app with one big button labeled "MAKE BOOTABLE COPY GO NOW."
I love it when a system works well, but I really hate it when a system fails badly. It doesn't matter how much you can get done with your technology when it works properly if it's broken and you can't get it to work.
We've had decades of massive investment in systems that work well, but fail badly. With US Big Tech off the menu for more and more of us, it's time to think about making our resilient, gracefully failing tools easier to use – and stop hoping that someday, somehow, companies with an investment in selling us something new when their products break decide to make them easier to fix.
Delivery of the First 3 F-35As to Poland: NATO, Russia, and European Industry
Warsaw/Łask, May 22, 2026 – Poland has officially received its first three F-35A “Husarz” aircraft, delivered to the Łask Tactical Air Base. This delivery, confirmed on May 22, 2026, by the Polish Ministry of Defense and the F-35 Joint Program Office, marks the country’s operational entry into the 5th generation of air combat.
These aircraft are part of a contract signed in January 2020 for 32 F-35As, under a government-to-government agreement between Poland and the United States, with Lockheed Martin as the prime contractor.
A Rapid Build-Up of NATO’s Eastern Flank
The arrival of F-35s in Poland is part of a structural transformation of NATO’s posture in Central Europe. According to communications from the F-35 Joint Program Office (May 2026) and Lockheed Martin, Poland is becoming a new operational anchor point for the F-35 network on the eastern flank.
Key dates in the program:
August 28, 2024: First Polish aircraft officially unveiled (roll-out) at Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth
May 2026: Start of operational deliveries in Poland
May 22, 2026: Arrival of the first three aircraft in Łask (Polish Ministry of Defense)
2026–2030: Gradual delivery of the 32 aircraft (JPO schedule)
This integration makes Poland a strategic hub for NATO's network-based warfare, where the F-35s act as advanced sensors and data fusion platforms.
An explicit strengthening of deterrence against Russia
From a strategic perspective, the delivery of the F-35s alters the military balance on the eastern flank.
Reduced freedom of action for Russian air defenses in the Kaliningrad region
Improved NATO penetration and deep strike capabilities
Strengthened multi-domain surveillance (air-land-sea-cyber) in Eastern Europe
The F-35 is not just a fighter jet: it functions as a stealth air command center, significantly complicating adversary planning.
Increased technological dependence on the United States
The F-35 program illustrates the American centralization of 5th generation capabilities. The system is managed through:
the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) for program governance,
Lockheed Martin for production and industrial support,
and a software and logistics infrastructure largely controlled by the United States.
While this strengthens NATO interoperability, it also creates a marked technological and operational dependence, particularly for:
software updates,
mission data management, and
stealth capability maintenance.
European Industry: Accelerating Strategic Divergence
For European industry, this delivery highlights a growing tension.
On the one hand:
the F-35 is becoming a dominant NATO standard in Central and Eastern Europe,
it enables a rapid build-up to counter threats, and
it creates secondary industrial opportunities (maintenance, infrastructure, MRO).
On the other hand:
it marginalizes competing European programs (Rafale, Eurofighter),
it reduces the potential volumes for future European systems (SCAF/FCAS, GCAP), and
it locks a portion of the European market into a US-centric architecture.
This dynamic undermines Europe's ambition for industrial sovereignty in next-generation air combat.
A Central Political Dimension: American Reliability in Question
Beyond industrial considerations, one question is paramount in European debates: the long-term strategic reliability of the United States as a security partner.
Recurring debates on burden-sharing within the Alliance,
potential policy shifts at the whim of successive US administrations,
European dependence on critical systems controlled outside Europe (such as the F-35),
and uncertainties about the continuity of US military commitments in Europe.
The delivery of F-35s to Poland thus highlights a contradiction: Europe strengthens its immediate security through the United States while simultaneously increasing its dependence on a partner whose future political trajectory is considered less predictable.
Conclusion
The delivery of the F-35A to Poland on May 22, 2026, represents:
a major consolidation of NATO's eastern flank,
a strengthening of deterrence against Russia,
an increased dependence on the American industrial ecosystem,
and growing strategic tension in Europe regarding defense sovereignty.
More than just a weapons program, the F-35 acts as a revealer of the transatlantic political and industrial balances of the 21st century.
Ever wanted to create your own cryptocurrency? Thanks to the ERC20 Token Generator, it’s more accessible than ever. Dive into the world of blockchain and see how simple it can be.
What is an ERC20 Token?
ERC20 tokens are digital assets built on the Ethereum blockchain. They follow a specific standard, allowing them to interact seamlessly with platforms and other tokens.
Benefits of ERC20 Tokens:
Interoperability: All ERC20 tokens adhere to the same protocol.
Widespread Acceptance: Many platforms on Ethereum support these tokens.
Developer Support: Extensive documentation and community support.
How Does the ERC20 Token Generator Work?
Creating a token might sound complex, but the ERC20 Token Generator simplifies the process. Here’s a step-by-step guide:
Define Your Token:
Choose a name and symbol.
Set the total supply.
Access the Generator:
Use online tools designed for token creation.
Input your token details.
Deploy to the Blockchain:
Confirm your details.
Launch your token on the Ethereum network.
Key Features of ERC20 Tokens
These tokens offer various features that make them attractive for both developers and investors:
Standardized Functions: Such as balance checking and transfers.
Smart Contract Integration: Seamlessly integrate with smart contracts.
Security: Built on the robust Ethereum blockchain.
Why Create an ERC20 Token?
Creating your own token can offer several advantages:
Fundraising: Launch your own ICO (Initial Coin Offering).
Community Building: Reward loyal customers or followers.
Innovation: Develop new applications and uses for blockchain.
Potential Challenges
Despite the ease of creation, there are challenges:
Technical Knowledge: Basic understanding of blockchain is required.
Security Risks: Vulnerabilities can lead to exploitation.
Regulatory Issues: Compliance with local laws is crucial.
Best Practices for Creating ERC20 Tokens
To ensure success, follow these guidelines:
Audit Your Code: Ensure there are no security loopholes.
Engage with the Community: Gather feedback and make improvements.
Stay Informed: Keep up with blockchain trends and regulations.
Conclusion
The ERC20 Token Generator opens doors to the exciting world of cryptocurrency creation. Whether you're an entrepreneur, developer, or enthusiast, it offers an innovative way to engage with blockchain technology.
Final Thoughts
Creating an ERC20 token can be a game-changer. It empowers you to participate in the digital economy and experiment with new ideas.
FAQs
1. What is an ERC20 Token Generator?
An ERC20 Token Generator is a tool that simplifies the creation of custom tokens on the Ethereum blockchain.
2. Is technical knowledge necessary to create a token?
Basic blockchain understanding is helpful, but many generators offer user-friendly interfaces.
3. Can I sell my ERC20 tokens?
Yes, you can list them on cryptocurrency exchanges or sell directly to users.
4. Are there costs associated with creating a token?
Yes, deploying tokens on Ethereum requires gas fees, paid in Ether.
5. How do I ensure my token is secure?
Regular code audits and following best practices can enhance security.
North Korean-linked hackers were likely behind the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars in cryptocurrency over the weekend, a blockchain
SEOUL, April 22 (UPI) -- North Korean-linked hackers were likely behind the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars in cryptocurrency over the weekend, a blockchain technology firm said, marking the latest in a series of high-profile cyber heists tied to Pyongyang.
KelpDAO, a decentralized finance platform that allows users to earn yield on crypto deposits, confirmed Tuesday its systems were breached in an April 18 attack that siphoned digital assets from its platform.
The company said a token linked to the Ethereum cryptocurrency was drained through a forged cross-chain message after parts of the underlying infrastructure were compromised.
The system relies on LayerZero, a blockchain interoperability protocol that enables communication between different networks.
"On April 18, 2026, KelpDAO was exploited for approximately $290 million," LayerZero said in a statement Monday. "Preliminary indicators suggest attribution to a highly sophisticated state actor, likely DPRK's Lazarus Group."
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is the official name of North Korea.
Lazarus, a North Korean state-backed hacking group, has been tied to a string of large and increasingly sophisticated cyber thefts. In February 2025, the group stole about $1.5 billion from the cryptocurrency exchange Bybit, in what the FBI described as the largest single heist on record.
Authorities say such operations are a key source of revenue for North Korea, which faces sweeping international sanctions over its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.
A now-disbanded U.N. panel of experts estimated in a 2024 report that illicit cyber activity accounted for about 40% of funding for Pyongyang's weapons programs.
The U.S. Treasury Department said in November that North Korea had stolen more than $3 billion over the previous three years through cyberattacks targeting financial institutions and cryptocurrency platforms.
The North has also turned to illicit IT work to raise funds. Last week, a federal court sentenced two Americans for their roles in a scheme that enabled North Korean IT workers to infiltrate more than 100 U.S. companies using stolen identities, generating millions of dollars for the regime.
LayerZero said the breach was limited to KelpDAO's configuration and did not affect other applications on its network.
However, the hack sent shockwaves through the decentralized finance sector. More than $13 billion was wiped from total value locked across DeFi platforms in the two days following the breach, digital currency news site CoinDesk reported.
Blockchain Interoperability Infrastructure Compared With Diversified Real-World-Asset-Backed Digital Value
Introduction
As blockchain technology matures, digital assets are no longer evaluated solely on innovation or market hype. Investors, institutions, and enterprises now assess projects based on their role in the ecosystem, underlying value model, risk profile, and long-term sustainability. This evolution has made it essential to distinguish between infrastructure-focused blockchain platforms and value-anchored digital assets.
This distinction is especially clear when comparing Quant (QNT) and the VittaGems Multi-Asset-Backed Token. While both are blockchain-based, they serve fundamentally different purposes and appeal to different types of participants.
Quant is designed as an interoperability and enterprise infrastructure solution, enabling blockchains and legacy systems to communicate securely. VittaGems, by contrast, is structured as a multi-asset-backed digital token, anchored to tangible real-world assets such as precious metals, diamonds, and mining-linked resources.
This article provides an in-depth, educational comparison of Quant and VittaGems, explaining how infrastructure-driven utility tokens differ from diversified asset-backed digital value instruments, and why this distinction matters for long-term investors and professionals.
Understanding Quant (QNT)
Quant was created to solve one of the most persistent challenges in blockchain adoption: interoperability. As distributed ledger technologies evolved, they did so in isolated ecosystems, each with its own protocols and standards. This fragmentation created inefficiencies for enterprises and institutions that required systems to communicate seamlessly across networks.
Quant’s technology enables multiple blockchains and traditional systems to interact without forcing them to alter their underlying architecture. This design makes Quant particularly attractive to enterprises, financial institutions, and governments that seek blockchain integration without replacing existing infrastructure.
The QNT token plays a functional role within this ecosystem. It is primarily used for licensing, access, and participation in Quant’s services. Its value is therefore tied to network adoption, enterprise demand, and the long-term relevance of interoperability infrastructure, rather than to physical assets or intrinsic reserves.
Strengths and Limitations of the Quant Model
Quant’s primary strength lies in its technical and infrastructural relevance. Interoperability is a real and long-term problem, and solutions in this area are likely to remain important as blockchain adoption expands. Quant’s enterprise-focused approach aligns well with large-scale digital transformation initiatives.
However, QNT is not designed as a value-preservation asset. The token is not backed by tangible resources, and its market price is influenced by adoption expectations, competition, and broader crypto market sentiment. Like most infrastructure tokens, it can experience substantial volatility during market downturns, regardless of technological progress.
As a result, Quant is best understood as a technology-driven utility asset, rather than a hedge against inflation or a store of intrinsic economic value.
Overview of the VittaGems Multi-Asset-Backed Token
The VittaGems Multi-Asset-Backed Token follows a fundamentally different design philosophy. Instead of deriving value from software adoption or network effects, VittaGems anchors its token to verifiable real-world assets held in secure custody.
These assets include precious metals, diamonds, and mining-linked investments, creating a diversified reserve base. Blockchain technology is used to enhance transparency, auditability, and global accessibility, while the underlying assets provide intrinsic economic value.
VittaGems aligns with the broader movement toward real-world asset tokenization, where digital tokens represent tangible off-chain value rather than purely digital utility or speculative demand.
Infrastructure Utility vs Multi-Asset-Backed Stability
The core difference between Quant and VittaGems lies in how value is created and preserved.
Quant’s value is driven by demand for interoperability services. As adoption grows, demand for QNT may increase, but there is no intrinsic value floor independent of market conditions.
VittaGems’ value is driven by diversified real-world assets that exist outside the blockchain ecosystem. This structure is designed to provide stability even during periods of reduced market confidence or technological disruption.
This distinction has significant implications for volatility, downside risk, and long-term investment suitability.
Volatility and Risk Exposure
Infrastructure tokens like QNT are closely tied to broader crypto market cycles. Even strong platforms may experience sharp price swings driven by sentiment, liquidity shifts, or macroeconomic conditions.
Multi-asset-backed tokens like VittaGems aim to moderate volatility by anchoring value to diversified physical assets. While asset prices can fluctuate, they generally behave differently from speculative digital markets, offering a stabilizing effect over longer time horizons.
Transparency and Trust Models
Quant builds trust through technical execution, enterprise adoption, and system reliability. Confidence depends on continued usage and long-term relevance of its infrastructure.
VittaGems builds trust through audited reserves, real-time proof-of-reserves reporting, and structured custody frameworks, allowing stakeholders to independently verify that physical assets exist and are properly managed.
Liquidity and Accessibility
QNT liquidity depends on exchange availability and market demand for interoperability infrastructure. Ownership does not provide exposure to real-world assets.
VittaGems seeks to combine digital liquidity with physical asset exposure, allowing users to access real-world value without traditional challenges such as storage, insurance, transportation, or resale complexity.
Portfolio Role and Strategic Fit
Quant is best suited for enterprises, developers, and institutions focused on blockchain connectivity and system integration. Its success depends on sustained infrastructure adoption.
VittaGems is designed for participants seeking asset-backed stability, diversification, and long-term value preservation, potentially complemented by yield generated from real economic activity.
These projects serve different roles and should be evaluated based on strategic intent rather than direct competition.
FAQ Section
Is this suitable for long-term investment?
Yes. VittaGems is designed for long-term capital preservation, supported by diversified real-world asset backing. In addition to stability, the model also supports yield generation, making it suitable for investors seeking asset-backed value continuity over extended time horizons.
What is the biggest advantage of VittaGems?
The biggest advantage lies in its integrated approach that combines real-asset backing, sustainable yield generation, strong compliance orientation, and multi-asset diversification. This structure reduces reliance on any single asset class, market cycle, or economic condition.
Who governs the protocol?
VittaGems operates under a hybrid governance model that blends corporate oversight with community participation. Governance includes structured leadership alongside community voting mechanisms, such as quadratic voting, to balance accountability with decentralized input.
How transparent is the reserve system?
The reserve system is designed for high transparency through a real-time Proof-of-Reserves dashboard and regular monthly audit reports. These tools allow stakeholders to independently verify asset backing, custody arrangements, and reserve integrity.
What is the roadmap for VittaGems?
The roadmap follows a phased strategy beginning with launch, followed by exchange listings targeted for 2026, a structured yield rollout, and continued expansion toward global scaling and institutional adoption by 2027.
Final Conclusion
Quant and the VittaGems Multi-Asset-Backed Token represent two fundamentally different approaches within blockchain finance. Quant focuses on interoperability infrastructure, enabling systems and networks to communicate efficiently. Its value proposition is rooted in technology adoption and long-term relevance.
VittaGems represents a diversified, multi-asset-backed digital value model, emphasizing tangible reserves, transparency, governance, and long-term stability. Rather than relying on speculative demand or software usage, it anchors value in real-world assets.
Quant may appeal to those focused on infrastructure innovation, while VittaGems may suit participants prioritizing asset-backed security, diversification, and long-term value preservation. Understanding these distinctions allows investors and professionals to align their blockchain exposure with broader financial objectives.
Every person who uses the internet should read this book!
The Internet Con
How to Seize the Means of Computation
By Cory Doctorow
The platforms locked us into their systems and made us easy pickings, ripe for extraction. Twitter, Facebook and other Big Tech platforms hard to leave by design. They hold hostage the people we love, the communities that matter to us, the audiences and customers we rely on. The impossibility of staying connected to these people after you delete your account has nothing to do with technological limitations: it’s a business strategy in service to commodifying your personal life and relationships.
We can – we must – dismantle the tech platforms. In The Internet Con, Cory Doctorow explains how to seize the means of computation, by forcing Silicon Valley to do the thing it fears most: interoperate. Interoperability will tear down the walls between technologies, allowing users leave platforms, remix their media, and reconfigure their devices without corporate permission.
Interoperability is the only route to the rapid and enduring annihilation of the platforms. The Internet Con is the disassembly manual we need to take back our internet.
Demystifying the Berachain Airdrop: Your Gateway to Early Adoption
The cryptocurrency landscape is abuzz with the Berachain airdrop, an exciting program that beckons early adopters with the promise of free $BERA tokens. This article unveils the purpose of Berachain, its airdrop initiative, and the path to becoming a participant.
Berachain: A Revolutionary Blockchain Emerges
CoinLaunch introduces us to Berachain, a next-generation L1 blockchain network. This network tackles the age-old issues of liquidity and security with its groundbreaking Proof of Liquidity consensus mechanism.
QuickNode offers a complementary perspective, describing Berachain as an EVM-compatible L1 blockchain built on the Cosmos SDK. This construction, thanks to its interoperability and modularity, allows for seamless communication and integration with other blockchain ecosystems.
The Berachain Airdrop: Fueling a Thriving Community
The Berachain airdrop program serves as a strategic move to incentivize those who join the network early and foster a vibrant community around it. By participating, you have the opportunity to claim free $BERA tokens, the lifeblood of the Berachain ecosystem.
Unlocking Your Eligibility for the Berachain Airdrop
The good news is that taking part in the Berachain airdrop is a straightforward process. Here's a roadmap to guide you:
Equipping Yourself with a Wallet:The first step is to ensure you have a crypto wallet compatible with the Berachain network. Once you've chosen your preferred wallet, follow the instructions to add the Berachain network.
Gathering Testnet $BERA Tokens:With your wallet configured, you'll need to acquire testnet $BERA tokens. CoinLaunch suggests that QuickNode can be a helpful tool for claiming these tokens. For specific instructions, consult the official Berachain documentation or explore resources on QuickNode.
Actively Engaging with the NetworkNow for the engaging part! To qualify for the airdrop, you'll need to actively participate in the Berachain network. Both CoinLaunch and QuickNode highlight several ways to achieve this:
Engaging in Token Swaps: Try swapping tokens on the Berachain network. For example, you could swap some of your testnet $BERA tokens for $HONEY, a stablecoin mentioned by CoinLaunch.
Boosting Liquidity: Become a liquidity provider on the BEX DEX, Berachain's decentralized exchange. By supplying liquidity to the DEX, you help maintain a healthy trading environment on the platform.
Exploring DeFi Applications: Delve into and interact with various DeFi applications built on Berachain. Experimenting with these applications demonstrates your involvement in the Berachain ecosystem.
Important Considerations for Participation
While the airdrop presents a tempting opportunity, a cautious approach is crucial. Here are some key points to remember:
Official Sources Only: Always rely on official Berachain channels for the latest information and instructions regarding the airdrop. Be wary of any information from untrusted sources.
No Guarantees of Reward: Participating in the airdrop doesn't guarantee you'll receive tokens. The airdrop allocation might be based on various factors, including the level and nature of your engagement with the network.
Long-Term Vision: While the airdrop is a fantastic way to get started with Berachain, it's wise to focus on the project's long-term potential. Research Berachain's technology, roadmap, and team to make informed decisions about your involvement.
By following these steps and maintaining a cautious approach, you can participate in the Berachain airdrop and potentially become a founding member of a promising new blockchain network. Remember, the success of any airdrop hinges on your active contribution to the network's growth.
I woke in the middle of the night to see that Gaia had managed to unlock more of the facility. While she continued booting up, piecing herself back together with Minerva, I did a little more exploring.
As Gaia's integrated herself further with the Control Centre's systems, I can see a whole lot more with my Focus. Just scanning the server racks gives me information about each one, a summary of its internal data and its utility to us. She's been busy.
Most crucial in terms of utility: showers, sinks, and toilets. The plumbing is in ruins, but Gaia indicated that it wouldn't take much in way of repairs to get things patched up. It'd be amazing to get it all working—otherwise it's either out on the frigid mountain or down the elevator shaft.
There are sleeping quarters next to the amenities, four sections with a bed, desk, and plenty of storage space. The blankets have decomposed to scrap and the place reeks of mould, but with a bit of cleaning, it could be a nice place to stay. Better than a Nora bedhouse, for sure.
Gaia still didn't have all the rooms hooked into the power supply, but she unlocked a few for me to explore, one stocked with more servers and a smaller holographic projector. Again, Gaia had got their interfaces up and running to help me process their data on my Focus. There isn't much left; this place was meant to hold knowledge specific to operating and improving the terraforming system, but it was wiped clear along with Apollo.
There were a couple of offices accessible as well, similar to the offices in Zero Dawn facilities, but cleaner and better kept. They reminded me of Elisabet's office.
I don't need an office as such—with its physical monitors and old, creaky chairs—but I could use a place to stash my stuff, work on my gadgets and weapons. This is sure to worsen my hoarding problem. No more lugging everything around until I can pawn it off on the next merchant, and no more leaving stuff behind at secluded camps hoping it won't be stolen. I'm not going to let myself lose everything again.
The last accessible room was a little more useful—a lab, with a lot of mechanisms still operational. Most exciting was the fabrication terminal, a contraption capable of taking in scrap metal and other parts and rebuilding them to certain specifications. It was built to be interoperable with Gaia's machines, so using it to analyse and recreate structures from machine parts will help build the data I need to complete those corrupted override schemas I lifted from the Tau Cauldron core. I'm sure there's a whole lot more I can do with it too.
Watching it at work on a small test sample, tiny machines swirling behind the glass, it reminded me of the golden machine swarms wielded by the intruders at the Proving Lab. Maybe a more advanced form of similar technology?
Varl woke and joined me as I finished poking around the lab. He and Zo had similarly found somewhere passably warm to curl up. He wanted to know what was next; so did I. I tried not to come across as completely clueless about our plans going forward. I didn't tell him about the intruders at the lab, or the other clone. Not yet. Not until I know who they are and what they're really after.
As we were talking, Gaia called me over Focus to summon me back to the projection theatre. Her initialisation and merge with Minerva was complete. She was ready to talk and, I hoped, make everything clear.
She spoke to me first about the state of the biosphere. Not good, was the general prognosis. Gaia said it would only take about four months for the rabid terraforming system to degrade beyond all reasonable hope of repair. The good news was, since the RCC was built for long range communication, unlike Latopolis, Gaia could now run a far more sophisticated scan for the escaped subfunctions. However, the scan could take days or more likely weeks to complete, given she'd have to pinpoint each function's mutated signature and circumvent the many techniques they've likely employed to hide themselves. The others are unlikely to be as forthcoming as Minerva.
The only subfunction that Gaia could detect deafeningly loud and blindingly clear was Hephaestus. Figures, I've seen it around too. Gaia explained that it's scattered across the global Cauldron network, and in any attempt to capture it, it would simply slip away to some distant location, as I'd experienced at Firebreak and in Cauldron Tau. It had no reason to hide its activities.
Gaia would continue devising a plan to lock it out of the network and capture it, though attempting to do so before she had been reunited with at least three more of her subfunctions would lead to disaster. Hephaestus had mutated to a dangerous degree since the original Gaia's self-destruction. Given freedom of movement it had grown massive, volatile, and hostile; as it absorbed Cyan, it would absorb this more rudimentary, weaker version of Gaia with ease. She needed to be powerful enough to match it in battle by increasing her 'processing density'. The mission remained as it always had been: repair Gaia. Just because she was here, speaking and smiling and strategising, that didn't mean I was done. Far from it.
Hephaestus is our most important target. Without it, Gaia can't build machines of her own or take control of the Cauldron network. The machines are like her tools, her hands, able to act upon her orders and bring the terraforming system back into balance. With the other subfunctions, she would be able to enact some measure of change using existing machines and facilities to temper the most acute affects of system collapse, but without new machines to join the effort, that temperance wouldn't last long. That's to say nothing of the threat of Hephaestus itself as it continues to take direct control of Cauldrons, building more dangerous machines meant to cull humankind to make way for its own purple progeny.
So that's problem one: we need at least three subfunctions, along with a plan to bring Hephaestus to heel. We still have no clue where those other subfunctions could be, if they still exist, except that they'll be hiding in processor cores somewhere within rapid networking distance of Gaia Prime. That only leaves just about everywhere not on the other side of an ocean, if I'm lucky.
Gaia said she will devote as much of her internal resources as possible to detecting more of her subfunctions and notify me as soon as they're located. There's not much sense in me striking out into the open before then, especially with what I know is waiting for me, wanting me dead and well out of their way.
I asked Gaia then about the strangers at the Proving Lab.
She'd seen the whole encounter through my Focus, and she shared in my unease. She then laid out her theory, and it was worse than I ever speculated. Bombshell one: the signal that woke Hades, which Gaia ominously calls 'the extinction signal', didn't come from anywhere on Earth. She showed me, in projection form, Earth from a distance, moon and stars surrounding, then pulled back, the image moving so fast that the stars were coloured streaks racing past us. I was transfixed; horrified, but morbidly awestruck. What was so far away that would want to harm us here on Earth? Other worlds, other life?
This was the distance that the signal travelled to reach Gaia, a length so vast that light itself takes 8.6 years to cross it. That number was familiar, somewhere in the back of my mind, but I didn't realise where I'd heard it until Gaia's projection reached its destination, the motion of light finally ceasing.
There it was, orbiting a planet of brown landmasses, dark blue oceans, and thick swirls of clouds: the Odyssey. It was the same projection that Osvald Dalgaard used in his presentation at the Far Zenith launch facility. 8.6 light years...he used the same figure when describing the Odyssey's destination, the Sirius system.
Gaia said it was the only logical origin, though realistically the signal could have come from any direction of the same approximate distance away. As Hades said, the signal repeated for 17.22 years, and Gaia explained as I continued trying to get my head around distances that light crossed at a long crawl. That was 8.6 years once the signal arrived, for the fact of its failure to reach its sender, and another 8.6 for the sender's ceasing order to make it back to Earth.
Working theory: Far Zenith lied about their shuttle's explosion. After Travis' attack on their systems, and their deal with Zero Dawn coming to an end, they clearly didn't trust the descendants of the project to leave them alone. I know that Elisabet's view of Far Zenith was less than favourable; maybe they saw that as a potential threat. So, Far Zenith fake the destruction of their ship to keep Zero Dawn off their backs for good, and stay hidden from those that the project would raise and educate under Gaia's care.
I know they were paranoid. In the Old World, no one knew who the members of Far Zenith were, and it seems like a large portion of the public hated them for their flagrant wealth and hoarded power. They kept themselves secret on Earth, then hid their presence in space. They tried to steal Gaia before they left Earth, then tried to use their 'extinction signal' to steal her again, planning to take the whole world down in the process. Why?
I suppose they didn't know that Apollo was destroyed, maybe they thought we were still a threat, but even so, we didn't know about them. We couldn't have known, thanks to their cover up. So, what was it? They sent their signal to wake Hades and destroy all life on Earth, clean it of 'filth', as Hades put it, and then what? They subdue Hades, reinstate Gaia and...re-program her, maybe. Use her to create the world that they want. Play god, just as Elisabet feared. This is why she didn't want to hand over a copy of Gaia in the first place, but in refusing, in retaliating...did she doom us, here and now?
I posed my thoughts to Gaia, and she agreed that it was her own conclusion as well. Far Zenith had always planned to flee Earth in its dying days. Maybe they always planned to return as well. Return and claim the world they once dominated.
I thought there was only one inheritor of the human legacy, but there were two. One, Elisabet's, and the other...the space-born descendants of Peter Tshivhumbe.
Gaia confirmed something else that Hades said: the signal was meant for it alone, and the mutations imparted on the other subfunctions were only incidental, only unleashed when Hades was unable to assume control fast enough as Gaia initiated self-destruction, something Far Zenith couldn't anticipate. It was an incredibly advanced piece of malware, as Sylens observed, and Gaia said that only someone with in-depth knowledge of her code structures and her system as a whole could have engineered it. So...maybe Far Zenith was able to steal more of Zero Dawn's data than Travis thought. Maybe they've been working on reverse-engineering it ever since.
Suddenly, the strangers at the Proving Lab made a whole lot more sense. Their advanced technology, their flashy weaponry, their gilded ornamentation...Far Zenith, grown formidable with the knowledge of the Old Ones, given by Zero Dawn, on their side. They came here to do what their extinction signal failed to do: wipe out life on Earth, and use a stolen backup of Gaia to build it all over again for them to rule, destroying Elisabet's dream forever.
And all I could think about was that clone, moving on their orders, silent, weak. How could she go along with this plan? She stole Gaia for them, handing her over to Elisabet's enemy for them to use, to twist into a weapon to destroy and remake the world into some abomination, some paradise for these people who think themselves entitled to the planet.
How did they make a clone in the first place? Why, when their technology is supposedly so powerful?
Gaia explained that Far Zenith could have obtained a sample of Elisabet's DNA, with or without her consent, and stored it on board the Odyssey along with their many Earth life samples and human zygotes. She said that even with their ability to engineer powerful malware, obtaining a physical backup of Gaia in a shut-down state could only be done by walking in and taking it, and only someone with Elisabet Sobeck's genetic code could do that. Far Zenith made the clone as a key, just as Gaia made me. The only crucial difference is I was made to save the world, not kill everything on it.
Gaia had her doubts about the clone. She seems to think it's more likely that she's a subordinate, some sort of slave forced to take their orders. No way. She's Elisabet Sobeck, just as much as I am, she's no subordinate. Elisabet loved life; she gave everything for this world, just for this clone to come along and destroy it all? No. Just the thought of her makes me sick.
So it's all down to me. I knew it would be; it always is. Gaia can't do much from here but keep scanning for the other subordinate functions. As soon as she finds them, I'll be her eyes and hands. Vessel, if we want to get all Nora about it. I'll have to go and load each subfunction onto the cartridge I found Gaia on, then bring them back here to merge into her new system. Meanwhile, that other clone is running around with Far Zenith, who likely have way more advanced scanning capabilities, hunting the subfunctions right alongside me, with their own version of Gaia to mold and command. If they get to Hephaestus first, merge it into their version of Gaia...it'll be over. They'll have control over every Cauldron on the planet. They'll rule the biosphere and be able to build whatever devastating weapons they can dream up to kill us all.
But if I can beat them to it, we'll have the upper hand. Enough damage will take down the Zenith's shields, which to my onslaught seemed impenetrable. With an army of machines, we'll have the ability to destroy Far Zenith and their Specters on Earth, but even then...how many more of them are out there? How far have they already spread across the stars? How long will this fight go on?
It's...a lot. It's everything. My hands leapt to Elisabet's pendant without my knowing, tracing its comforting shapes and textures. Peeling paint, rusted hinges; the last thing Elisabet ever touched. I couldn't help but profess my doubts to Gaia. Even if it wasn't exactly her idea to create me, it was a version of her. Somewhere in her un-lived future there's a part of her that believes I am her best hope to save this world.
She gave me comfort. After all, she'd listened to her predecessor's final message too, trusting it. She'd seen that future, and repeated its words. Though her phrasing was mechanical, flat, ringing against old metal, the message was the same as I'd always heard when facing adversity, from Rost. Though the odds may seem insurmountable, there is hope. You are capable. You have prevailed many times.
Look deeper. Keep moving forward.
Before I left the theatre, I noticed a console on the circumference of the room. Gaia told me more about it; it was meant for uploading and accessing footage from observation drones. These drones were meant to be deployed in an emergency when biosphere observation could not be handled by personnel in the RCC. The centre had deployed them automatically a few years ago, when the first signs of blight start showing up. It took something extremely anomalous to trigger the system, apparently, and due to its degradation, the RCC soon lost connection to all the dispatched drones.
So, that explained the drone I found circling near that Thunderjaw in No Man's Land. I was able to upload the data I'd taken off it to the console, allowing the RCC to reconnect to the drone. And there it was, a live feed of red rocks and rusted bots. Those closest stones almost looked real. I figured that reconnecting these drones could be of some use to Gaia, who can observe the lands through them until she takes control of the Cauldron network again. Until, no if's.
I spoke to Varl and Zo briefly before heading back out into the wilds. They plan on staying behind to get up to speed on things with Gaia and make some repairs to the centre's facilities. Who knows, maybe I'll come back to a working shower.
Without any clear direction to where the subfunctions might be hiding, I may as well make myself useful in doing what I can to help the people of these lands. After Hephaestus' attack, the Utaru are sure to be struggling, and with Regalla's rebels still prowling their territory, the danger isn't over.
Sylens and his little army fits into all of this somehow. He knew who the Zeniths were, I'm sure of it. I'm willing to bet he was using me as some sort of bargaining chip; he leads Far Zenith to a backup of Gaia and a clone of Elisabet, he asks for a copy of Apollo in return. Then he uses his army to, what, conquer? That doesn't seem like his style. Maybe he thought Far Zenith would let him join up, otherwise I have no idea how he was planning to survive their plan for the world. What a self-absorbed idiot.
I thought it'd be a quick journey down the mountain with my Shield Wing. Beautiful views, pleasant weather, and no signs of total war and ruin down in Plainsong.
Not so quick once the rain started and a few Skydrifters came swooping in. I kept them down with spark cell detonations before going in for spear strikes. Ropes to keep the others from moving around too much in the meantime. A Burrower came to join in too, but I silenced it before it could call any more machines to the area. Fortunately, none of them were Hephaestus' deadly creations.
Continuing on my way down, I passed a signal tower like the one I found back in the Daunt. Scanning it, I picked up another corrupted projection. I made the quick climb back up to the ruin on the rise to repair the image from its original vantage. It showed the turbines and satellite dishes that now house Plainsong.
It was another site of the Miriam Technologies tour. This satellite array was once used to detect and monitor near-Earth objects—big rocks, I guess—rich in minerals. Miriam Technologies developed machines for the automated mining of these minerals out in space. I guess there wasn't much left of the stuff on Earth after the Claw Back, but it's pretty cool to think about. Unfortunately, there's only one near-Earth object I need to be concerned with right now, and that's the fucking Odyssey.
No need to dwell on it right now. There are people here who need my help. I continued down toward Plainsong.
