Binance Square
ANDREW COLLINS
16.2k 投稿

ANDREW COLLINS

厳選トピック確認済+
Gentle with feelings. Dangerous with potential...
取引を発注
USD1ホルダー
USD1ホルダー
超高頻度トレーダー
1.8年
767 フォロー
35.5K+ フォロワー
27.1K+ いいね
投稿
ポートフォリオ
·
--
翻訳参照
Honestly, one thing keeps bothering me whenever I compare financial systems. Two institutions can be solving almost the same problem, yet their authorization process can look completely different.... I don't think every organization should follow identical rules, but I do think the way those rules are evaluated can become much more consistent. That's what caught my attention about @NewtonProtocol . Instead of embedding authorization inside every application, it introduces a shared policy layer where decisions can be evaluated before execution. To me, that's less about standardization and more about building dependable infrastructure. Institutions stay independent, while authorization becomes easier to manage, review and improve over time. That's why NEWT keeps my attention. If @NewtonProtocol continues developing this architecture, NEWT could become associated with making financial authorization more consistent without limiting innovation. Can financial institutions keep their own policies while sharing a common authorization framework, or will every system always need to solve the same problem differently?? @NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT {spot}(NEWTUSDT) $T {future}(TUSDT) $SYN {spot}(SYNUSDT) Can financial institutions preserve independent policies while relying on a shared authorization framework like Newton Protocol??
Honestly, one thing keeps bothering me whenever I compare financial systems.

Two institutions can be solving almost the same problem, yet their authorization process can look completely different....

I don't think every organization should follow identical rules, but I do think the way those rules are evaluated can become much more consistent.
That's what caught my attention about @NewtonProtocol .
Instead of embedding authorization inside every application, it introduces a shared policy layer where decisions can be evaluated before execution.
To me, that's less about standardization and more about building dependable infrastructure. Institutions stay independent, while authorization becomes easier to manage, review and
improve over time. That's why NEWT keeps my attention. If @NewtonProtocol continues developing this architecture,
NEWT could become associated with making financial authorization more consistent without limiting innovation.

Can financial institutions keep their own policies while sharing a common authorization framework, or will every system always need to solve the same problem differently??

@NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT
$T
$SYN

Can financial institutions preserve independent policies while relying on a shared authorization framework like Newton Protocol??
Shared Framework
Independent Systems
15 残り時間
翻訳参照
I keep coming back to one idea lately: simple systems usually last longer than complicated ones. The more I read about @grvt_io , the more I notice it isn't trying to add extra layers just because it can. It feels like the focus is on making every step more efficient instead of making everything look more advanced. Thats something I dont see often. To me, @grvt_io is asking a better question. How can people do more with less friction? Not how many features can fit into one product. I think thats a smarter direction, even if it doesnt grab attention as quickly. Real efficiency saves time, reduces mistakes, and makes people trust a system over time. That matters alot more than flashy ideas. When I think about long-term adoption, I honestly believe $GRVT benefits from this mindset. Less complexity also means fewer things can go wrong. Of course, no project gets everything right, and there will always be challenges. But building around efficiency feels like a stronger foundation than building around endless complexity. Maybe im wrong, but this approach makes more sense to me every time I look at it. That is one of the biggest reasons I keep watching GRVT, and why I believe $GRVT is moving in the right direction. I'll keep following $GRVT because efficiency is a foundation that can last, and $GRVT seems to understand that. #grvt @grvt_io $IMX {spot}(IMXUSDT) $DEXE {spot}(DEXEUSDT)
I keep coming back to one idea lately: simple systems usually last longer than complicated ones.

The more I read about @grvt_io , the more I notice it isn't trying to add extra layers just because it can.

It feels like the focus is on making every step more efficient instead of making everything look more advanced.

Thats something I dont see often.

To me, @grvt_io is asking a better question.

How can people do more with less friction?

Not how many features can fit into one product.

I think thats a smarter direction, even if it doesnt grab attention as quickly.

Real efficiency saves time, reduces mistakes, and makes people trust a system over time.

That matters alot more than flashy ideas.

When I think about long-term adoption, I honestly believe $GRVT benefits from this mindset.

Less complexity also means fewer things can go wrong.

Of course, no project gets everything right, and there will always be challenges.

But building around efficiency feels like a stronger foundation than building around endless complexity.

Maybe im wrong, but this approach makes more sense to me every time I look at it.

That is one of the biggest reasons I keep watching GRVT, and why I believe $GRVT is moving in the right direction. I'll keep following $GRVT because efficiency is a foundation that can last, and $GRVT seems to understand that.

#grvt @grvt_io $IMX
$DEXE
記事
翻訳参照
Newton Protocol Could Make Financial Governance More Reusable Than Financial SoftwareThe more I study financial systems, the more one question keeps coming back. Why do institutions repeatedly solve the same governance problems? Different organizations may serve different customers, operate under different regulations and build different products. That's expected. What surprised me is how often they recreate nearly identical approval structures from the ground up. The software changes. The governance logic often doesn't. That observation changed how I looked at @NewtonProtocol . Instead of embedding authorization rules inside every application, the protocol introduces a dedicated policy layer where governance can be defined separately from product logic. Applications remain unique, while policy frameworks become easier to reuse, refine and maintain. To me, that feels like an architectural improvement rather than simply another blockchain feature. Software engineering has evolved by reducing unnecessary repetition. Developers rarely build a database engine for every new application. Authentication is usually handled through shared frameworks. Networking follows common standards instead of custom implementations. Governance may be approaching the same transition. Many financial institutions still spend significant resources rebuilding approval workflows that are conceptually very similar. Not because they need different infrastructure. Because there hasn't been a practical way to separate governance from application development. A reusable policy layer changes that relationship. Institutions remain free to define their own rules while relying on infrastructure designed specifically for authorization. Of course, reusable governance doesn't mean identical governance. Every organization still determines its own risk tolerance. Every regulator still defines different requirements. Policies remain local. The infrastructure supporting those policies becomes reusable. That's an important distinction. That's one reason NEWT continues to keep my attention. I don't think Newton Protocol is trying to standardize financial decisions. I think it's trying to standardize the infrastructure that makes those decisions enforceable. Sometimes technology creates the most value by reducing repeated engineering rather than introducing entirely new capabilities. If governance becomes easier to reuse, innovation may finally shift toward building better financial products instead of rebuilding the same authorization systems over and over again. As financial institutions continue expanding, will reusable governance frameworks become just as valuable as reusable software frameworks? @NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT $IMX $SXT {future}(IMXUSDT)

Newton Protocol Could Make Financial Governance More Reusable Than Financial Software

The more I study financial systems, the more one question keeps coming back.
Why do institutions repeatedly solve the same governance problems?
Different organizations may serve different customers, operate under different regulations and build different products. That's expected.
What surprised me is how often they recreate nearly identical approval structures from the ground up.
The software changes.
The governance logic often doesn't.
That observation changed how I looked at @NewtonProtocol .
Instead of embedding authorization rules inside every application, the protocol introduces a dedicated policy layer where governance can be defined separately from product logic. Applications remain unique, while policy frameworks become easier to reuse, refine and maintain.
To me, that feels like an architectural improvement rather than simply another blockchain feature.
Software engineering has evolved by reducing unnecessary repetition.
Developers rarely build a database engine for every new application.
Authentication is usually handled through shared frameworks.
Networking follows common standards instead of custom implementations.
Governance may be approaching the same transition.
Many financial institutions still spend significant resources rebuilding approval workflows that are conceptually very similar.
Not because they need different infrastructure.
Because there hasn't been a practical way to separate governance from application development.
A reusable policy layer changes that relationship.
Institutions remain free to define their own rules while relying on infrastructure designed specifically for authorization.
Of course, reusable governance doesn't mean identical governance.
Every organization still determines its own risk tolerance.
Every regulator still defines different requirements.
Policies remain local.
The infrastructure supporting those policies becomes reusable.
That's an important distinction.
That's one reason NEWT continues to keep my attention.
I don't think Newton Protocol is trying to standardize financial decisions.
I think it's trying to standardize the infrastructure that makes those decisions enforceable.
Sometimes technology creates the most value by reducing repeated engineering rather than introducing entirely new capabilities.
If governance becomes easier to reuse, innovation may finally shift toward building better financial products instead of rebuilding the same authorization systems over and over again.
As financial institutions continue expanding, will reusable governance frameworks become just as valuable as reusable software frameworks?
@NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT $IMX $SXT
私は、最大の課題は銀行をDeFiに接続することだとは思い続けていません。 問題は、その接続を信頼できるものにしながら、パーミッションレス・システムが価値ある理由を損なわないことです。 だから私は、<0-9]{11} @NewtonProtocol を繰り返し思い出します。 私が注目しているのは、ニュートン・プロトコルがパーミッションレスな仕組みを置き換えようとはしていない点です。 その代わりに、本当に意味があるところに、制度的ガードレールを導入しています。 それは現実的な前進の道だと感じます。 銀行には、明確なルール、承認、そして説明責任が必要です。 パーミッションレスのネットワークには、開放性と自由が必要です。 それらの考えは両立できないと思う人もいますが、私はもうそこまで完全には同意できません。 <0-9]{11} @NewtonProtocol について学べば学ぶほど、設計がよりバランスよく感じられます。 私は、NEWT がこのビジョンを支えるピースでありながら、分散型金融の価値を生むものを変えないと見ています。 NEWT では、重要なアクションの前に認可が行われるため、中央集権的なコントロールを強いることなく信頼が生まれます。 その点が、私が最も興味を引かれるところです。 私は以前、機関投資家とパーミッションレスな金融は、常に別のものとして切り離され続けると思っていました。 でも今は、慎重なガードレールが、双方がより確信を持ってやり取りする助けになると考えています。 私にとって、<0-9]{11} $NEWT は極端を追いかけることではありません。 現実的で、持続可能で、見守る価値のある橋を架けているのです。 だから私は、ニュートン・プロトコルと NEWT の両方が、本当に重要な問題を解決していると信じています。 #IEACutsRussiaOilOutputForecast #SheinHKListingFilingRegisteredWithCSRC $NEWT #Newt ニュートン・プロトコルは、分散化を損なうことなく、機関投資家による金融とパーミッションレスの DeFi をうまく橋渡しできるのでしょうか?
私は、最大の課題は銀行をDeFiに接続することだとは思い続けていません。

問題は、その接続を信頼できるものにしながら、パーミッションレス・システムが価値ある理由を損なわないことです。

だから私は、<0-9]{11} @NewtonProtocol を繰り返し思い出します。

私が注目しているのは、ニュートン・プロトコルがパーミッションレスな仕組みを置き換えようとはしていない点です。

その代わりに、本当に意味があるところに、制度的ガードレールを導入しています。

それは現実的な前進の道だと感じます。

銀行には、明確なルール、承認、そして説明責任が必要です。

パーミッションレスのネットワークには、開放性と自由が必要です。

それらの考えは両立できないと思う人もいますが、私はもうそこまで完全には同意できません。

<0-9]{11} @NewtonProtocol について学べば学ぶほど、設計がよりバランスよく感じられます。

私は、NEWT がこのビジョンを支えるピースでありながら、分散型金融の価値を生むものを変えないと見ています。

NEWT では、重要なアクションの前に認可が行われるため、中央集権的なコントロールを強いることなく信頼が生まれます。

その点が、私が最も興味を引かれるところです。

私は以前、機関投資家とパーミッションレスな金融は、常に別のものとして切り離され続けると思っていました。

でも今は、慎重なガードレールが、双方がより確信を持ってやり取りする助けになると考えています。

私にとって、<0-9]{11} $NEWT は極端を追いかけることではありません。

現実的で、持続可能で、見守る価値のある橋を架けているのです。

だから私は、ニュートン・プロトコルと NEWT の両方が、本当に重要な問題を解決していると信じています。 #IEACutsRussiaOilOutputForecast #SheinHKListingFilingRegisteredWithCSRC $NEWT #Newt

ニュートン・プロトコルは、分散化を損なうことなく、機関投資家による金融とパーミッションレスの DeFi をうまく橋渡しできるのでしょうか?
Yes, Absolutely
Still Unsure
12 残り時間
@NewtonProtocol のアーキテクチャをまた読み返していたところ、あるエンジニアリング上の疑問がずっと頭から離れませんでした。 私たちはいつもポリシーのアップグレードについて話しますが、古いポリシーバージョンに依存している既存のアプリケーションに、実際に何が起きるのかを尋ねることはめったにありません……。 伝統的なソフトウェアでは、互換性は最も難しい長期課題の1つになりがちです。認可インフラも同じ問題に直面していると思います。新しいポリシーが、接続されているすべてのアプリケーションに即時の書き換えを強いるべきではありません。これが、@NewtonProtocol が興味深い方向性に感じる理由です。ポリシー評価をアプリケーションのロジックから切り離せば、ガバナンスは進化しつつ、既存のシステムは安定したまま保てます。 それが、成熟したインフラの兆候だと思います。つまり、良いシステムは「変わるために」設計されるだけでなく🙂 それを変えても、周囲のものを壊さないために設計されているんです。だからこそNEWTが私の注目を引き続けます。もし@NewtonProtocol がバージョンを意識した認可の構築を続けるなら、 NEWTは、ポリシーのアップグレードを“破壊的”ではなく“予測可能”にすることと結び付けられる可能性があります。だからこそNEWTは監視リストに残っています。 金融インフラが進化していく中で、新しいポリシーバージョンは常に既存アプリケーションとの互換性を保つべきなのでしょうか?それとも、破壊的変更がときに不可避なのでしょうか?? @NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT {future}(NEWTUSDT) $SKL $A 金融インフラが進化していく中で、新しいポリシーバージョンは常に既存アプリケーションとの互換性を保つべきなのでしょうか?それとも、破壊的変更がときに必要なのでしょうか?
@NewtonProtocol のアーキテクチャをまた読み返していたところ、あるエンジニアリング上の疑問がずっと頭から離れませんでした。

私たちはいつもポリシーのアップグレードについて話しますが、古いポリシーバージョンに依存している既存のアプリケーションに、実際に何が起きるのかを尋ねることはめったにありません……。
伝統的なソフトウェアでは、互換性は最も難しい長期課題の1つになりがちです。認可インフラも同じ問題に直面していると思います。新しいポリシーが、接続されているすべてのアプリケーションに即時の書き換えを強いるべきではありません。これが、@NewtonProtocol が興味深い方向性に感じる理由です。ポリシー評価をアプリケーションのロジックから切り離せば、ガバナンスは進化しつつ、既存のシステムは安定したまま保てます。
それが、成熟したインフラの兆候だと思います。つまり、良いシステムは「変わるために」設計されるだけでなく🙂
それを変えても、周囲のものを壊さないために設計されているんです。だからこそNEWTが私の注目を引き続けます。もし@NewtonProtocol がバージョンを意識した認可の構築を続けるなら、

NEWTは、ポリシーのアップグレードを“破壊的”ではなく“予測可能”にすることと結び付けられる可能性があります。だからこそNEWTは監視リストに残っています。

金融インフラが進化していく中で、新しいポリシーバージョンは常に既存アプリケーションとの互換性を保つべきなのでしょうか?それとも、破壊的変更がときに不可避なのでしょうか??

@NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT

$SKL

$A

金融インフラが進化していく中で、新しいポリシーバージョンは常に既存アプリケーションとの互換性を保つべきなのでしょうか?それとも、破壊的変更がときに必要なのでしょうか?
Always Compatible
100%
Breaking Acceptable
0%
1 投票 • 投票は終了しました
翻訳参照
I used to think every exchange solved the same problem. But after spending more time learning, I started paying closer attention to hybrid exchanges. They feel like a different direction, not just another version of what already exists. What really pulled me in was how @grvt_io approaches the balance between speed and control. It made me stop and think for a sec. That idea stayed with me. The more I looked into $GRVT, the more I realized I was changing how I judged trading infrastructure. I dont only look at execution anymore. I also care about how assets are handled behind the scenes. That shift wasn't instant, but it felt real. I still ask questions, and I still double check things, but $GRVT keeps coming back to my research because the hybrid model actually makes sense to me. It isnt about chasing trends. I think @grvt_io is pushing a conversation that deserves more attention, even if people arent talking about it enough yet. Maybe I could be wrong, but $GRVT made me rethink what I expect from an exchange, and thats not something that happens often. For now, $GRVT is one of the few projects that has genuinely changed how I evaluate hybrid exchanges, and @grvt_io is a big reason why. $SKL #grvt {future}(SKLUSDT) $THE {spot}(THEUSDT) $VANRY {future}(VANRYUSDT) a big reason why.I've been paying more attention to hybrid exchanges lately because they seem to offer a different approach. What matters most to you when evaluating a hybrid exchange?
I used to think every exchange solved the same problem.

But after spending more time learning, I started paying closer attention to hybrid exchanges. They feel like a different direction, not just another version of what already exists.

What really pulled me in was how @grvt_io approaches the balance between speed and control. It made me stop and think for a sec. That idea stayed with me.

The more I looked into $GRVT, the more I realized I was changing how I judged trading infrastructure. I dont only look at execution anymore. I also care about how assets are handled behind the scenes.

That shift wasn't instant, but it felt real.

I still ask questions, and I still double check things, but $GRVT keeps coming back to my research because the hybrid model actually makes sense to me. It isnt about chasing trends.

I think @grvt_io is pushing a conversation that deserves more attention, even if people arent talking about it enough yet.

Maybe I could be wrong, but $GRVT made me rethink what I expect from an exchange, and thats not something that happens often.

For now, $GRVT is one of the few projects that has genuinely changed how I evaluate hybrid exchanges, and @grvt_io is a big reason why.

$SKL #grvt
$THE
$VANRY
a big reason why.I've been paying more attention to hybrid exchanges lately because they seem to offer a different approach. What matters most to you when evaluating a hybrid exchange?
🔘 Transparency First
67%
🔘 Better Control
33%
3 投票 • 投票は終了しました
翻訳参照
I spend a lot of time hearing developers talk about technical debt, but almost nobody talks about policy debt. Rules that made sense a year ago can quietly become outdated as markets, regulations and user behavior evolve. Thats one reason @NewtonProtocol caught my attention. Authorization isnt only about checking policies before execution its also about giving organizations a structured way to evolve those policies instead of letting old rules silently accumulate risk. I think forgotten policies can become just as dangerous as forgotten code. Thats why NEWT keeps my attention. If @NewtonProtocol continues improving policy-driven infrastructure, NEWT could become associated with helping institutions manage policy debt before it becomes operational debt. Thats one reason NEWT remains on my watchlist. Could outdated policies become a bigger long-term risk than outdated software in financial systems?? @NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT {future}(NEWTUSDT) $AGLD {future}(AGLDUSDT) $NFP {spot}(NFPUSDT) What's the bigger long-term risk for financial systems: outdated policies or outdated software?
I spend a lot of time hearing developers talk about technical debt,
but almost nobody talks about policy debt.

Rules that made sense a year ago can quietly become outdated as markets, regulations and user behavior evolve.

Thats one reason @NewtonProtocol caught my attention.
Authorization isnt only about checking policies before execution its also about giving

organizations a structured way to evolve those policies instead of letting old rules silently accumulate risk.

I think forgotten policies can become just as dangerous as forgotten code. Thats why NEWT keeps my attention.
If @NewtonProtocol continues improving policy-driven infrastructure,
NEWT could become associated with helping institutions manage policy debt before it becomes operational debt.

Thats one reason NEWT remains on my watchlist.

Could outdated policies become a bigger long-term risk than outdated software in financial systems??

@NewtonProtocol #Newt
$NEWT

$AGLD

$NFP


What's the bigger long-term risk for financial systems: outdated policies or outdated software?
Policy Debt
0%
Software Debt
100%
1 投票 • 投票は終了しました
記事
翻訳参照
Newton Protocol Could Redefine Trust Without Changing Blockchainsone Question stayed in my mind long after I finished reading about **Newton Protocol**. For years, blockchain innovation has focused on making transactions faster, cheaper and more secure. Those improvements matter, but I started wondering if they're solving the final step of the process rather than the first. A blockchain can execute a transaction exactly as instructed. But who decides whether that transaction should have been approved in the first place? That's where Newton Protocol began to look different to me. Instead of changing how blockchains execute transactions, **Newton Protocol** introduces a programmable authorization layer that evaluates transaction intents against predefined policies before execution. The blockchain still performs settlement, but the decision-making process becomes a separate piece of infrastructure. That distinction completely changed how I viewed the protocol. Trust is one of those ideas that sounds simple until you try to automate it. Financial institutions don't rely on trust because people are honest. They rely on processes, approvals, limits and governance that reduce uncertainty. Most blockchain applications still implement those controls independently. Every team writes different authorization logic. Every platform maintains different approval workflows. Every institution recreates similar policy systems. The result is duplicated engineering effort and inconsistent authorization across applications. Newton Protocol explores another path. Instead of rebuilding authorization inside every product, it provides a shared policy framework capable of evaluating decisions before assets move. Applications remain independent. Policies remain customizable. But the authorization process itself becomes much more consistent. Consistency matters more than many people realise. Users rarely notice infrastructure when it behaves predictably. They only notice it when something unexpected happens. The same principle applies to financial systems. People don't simply want transactions to succeed. They want confidence that similar situations are evaluated using the same standards every time. That's where I think Newton Protocol becomes particularly interesting. Its architecture isn't designed to replace existing financial products. It's designed to become a reliable authorization layer sitting underneath them. That feels much closer to infrastructure than application software. Of course, shared authorization creates new responsibilities. Policies require governance. Institutions still define their own business rules. Developers need transparency into why a decision was approved or rejected. @NewtonProtocol doesn't eliminate those challenges. Instead, it creates an environment where those challenges can be managed through structured policy evaluation rather than scattered application logic. To me, that's a healthier long-term direction. It's also why NEWT continues to keep my attention. I don't see @NewtonProtocol competing to become another blockchain application. I see it attempting to become part of the infrastructure that many applications may eventually depend on. History often rewards technologies that quietly remove repeated work instead of creating new complexity. If authorization becomes shared infrastructure, developers may spend less time rebuilding trust and more time building products. That possibility alone makes @NewtonProtocol one of the more interesting infrastructure projects I'm following. If blockchains already execute transactions efficiently, could the next major evolution be building infrastructure that decides which transactions deserve to be executed in the first place? @NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT $POL $OGN

Newton Protocol Could Redefine Trust Without Changing Blockchains

one Question stayed in my mind long after I finished reading about **Newton Protocol**.
For years, blockchain innovation has focused on making transactions faster, cheaper and more secure. Those improvements matter, but I started wondering if they're solving the final step of the process rather than the first.
A blockchain can execute a transaction exactly as instructed.
But who decides whether that transaction should have been approved in the first place?
That's where Newton Protocol began to look different to me.
Instead of changing how blockchains execute transactions, **Newton Protocol** introduces a programmable authorization layer that evaluates transaction intents against predefined policies before execution. The blockchain still performs settlement, but the decision-making process becomes a separate piece of infrastructure.
That distinction completely changed how I viewed the protocol.
Trust is one of those ideas that sounds simple until you try to automate it.
Financial institutions don't rely on trust because people are honest.
They rely on processes, approvals, limits and governance that reduce uncertainty.
Most blockchain applications still implement those controls independently.
Every team writes different authorization logic.
Every platform maintains different approval workflows.
Every institution recreates similar policy systems.
The result is duplicated engineering effort and inconsistent authorization across applications.
Newton Protocol explores another path.
Instead of rebuilding authorization inside every product, it provides a shared policy framework capable of evaluating decisions before assets move.
Applications remain independent.
Policies remain customizable.
But the authorization process itself becomes much more consistent.
Consistency matters more than many people realise.
Users rarely notice infrastructure when it behaves predictably.
They only notice it when something unexpected happens.
The same principle applies to financial systems.
People don't simply want transactions to succeed.
They want confidence that similar situations are evaluated using the same standards every time.
That's where I think Newton Protocol becomes particularly interesting.
Its architecture isn't designed to replace existing financial products.
It's designed to become a reliable authorization layer sitting underneath them.
That feels much closer to infrastructure than application software.
Of course, shared authorization creates new responsibilities.
Policies require governance.
Institutions still define their own business rules.
Developers need transparency into why a decision was approved or rejected.
@NewtonProtocol doesn't eliminate those challenges.
Instead, it creates an environment where those challenges can be managed through structured policy evaluation rather than scattered application logic.
To me, that's a healthier long-term direction.
It's also why NEWT continues to keep my attention.
I don't see @NewtonProtocol competing to become another blockchain application.
I see it attempting to become part of the infrastructure that many applications may eventually depend on.
History often rewards technologies that quietly remove repeated work instead of creating new complexity.
If authorization becomes shared infrastructure, developers may spend less time rebuilding trust and more time building products.
That possibility alone makes @NewtonProtocol one of the more interesting infrastructure projects I'm following.
If blockchains already execute transactions efficiently, could the next major evolution be building infrastructure that decides which transactions deserve to be executed in the first place?
@NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT $POL $OGN
翻訳参照
$CLO Could Rally As Selling Pressure Continues To Fade Trade Setup: Long Entry Zone: 0.173 – 0.175 TP1: 0.180 TP2: 0.186 TP3: 0.194 SL: 0.168 The recent long liquidation has eased downside pressure by clearing weak positions. A stable move above support would improve the probability of a bullish continuation. Trade Here On $CLO 👇 {future}(CLOUSDT)
$CLO Could Rally As Selling Pressure Continues To Fade
Trade Setup: Long
Entry Zone: 0.173 – 0.175
TP1: 0.180
TP2: 0.186
TP3: 0.194
SL: 0.168
The recent long liquidation has eased downside pressure by clearing weak positions. A stable move above support would improve the probability of a bullish continuation.
Trade Here On $CLO 👇
翻訳参照
$LAB Bulls Prepare For A Recovery Move From Support Trade Setup: Long Entry Zone: 1.25 – 1.28 TP1: 1.32 TP2: 1.37 TP3: 1.43 SL: 1.21 The liquidation-driven decline has likely flushed out weaker market participants. Holding above the current support zone could encourage buyers to regain control. Trade Here On $LAB 👇 {future}(LABUSDT)
$LAB Bulls Prepare For A Recovery Move From Support
Trade Setup: Long
Entry Zone: 1.25 – 1.28
TP1: 1.32
TP2: 1.37
TP3: 1.43
SL: 1.21
The liquidation-driven decline has likely flushed out weaker market participants. Holding above the current support zone could encourage buyers to regain control.
Trade Here On $LAB 👇
政策主導型システムについて読んだあと、一つの疑問を抱えるようになりました。 私たちはルールを作るのに多くの時間を費やしますが、 それらのルールが信頼されなくなるのはいつかを問う時間はほとんどありません。 市場は変化し、規制は進化し、組織は適応します。それでも古いポリシーは静かに長年そのまま残り続けることがあります。 そこで <c-1/>(@NewtonProtocol )が私の中で意味を持ち始めました。プログラム可能な認可レイヤーは、ポリシーを強制することだけを目的とするものではありません。 ポリシー管理を、後回しの「ついで」にするのではなく、インフラの一部として組み込むことでもあるのです。 私は、すべてのルールが永遠に続くべきだとは思いません。そして、ポリシーの見直しが、それを書き起こすことと同じくらい重要になるかもしれないとも考えています。だからこそ、NEWTは私の関心を引きつけ続けています。 もし <c-1/>(@NewtonProtocol )がプログラム可能なポリシー基盤の構築を続けるなら、NEWTは金融システムが、昨日のルールを明日の市場に置き去りにするのではなく、認可ロジックを進化させることを支援する存在として結びついていく可能性があります。 金融システムは、定期的に自らが強制するルールを再評価すべきなのでしょうか?それとも、誰かが手動で置き換えるまでポリシーは変わらないままでいるべきなのでしょうか?? @NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT $SPELL $HMSTR
政策主導型システムについて読んだあと、一つの疑問を抱えるようになりました。

私たちはルールを作るのに多くの時間を費やしますが、
それらのルールが信頼されなくなるのはいつかを問う時間はほとんどありません。

市場は変化し、規制は進化し、組織は適応します。それでも古いポリシーは静かに長年そのまま残り続けることがあります。
そこで <c-1/>(@NewtonProtocol )が私の中で意味を持ち始めました。プログラム可能な認可レイヤーは、ポリシーを強制することだけを目的とするものではありません。
ポリシー管理を、後回しの「ついで」にするのではなく、インフラの一部として組み込むことでもあるのです。

私は、すべてのルールが永遠に続くべきだとは思いません。そして、ポリシーの見直しが、それを書き起こすことと同じくらい重要になるかもしれないとも考えています。だからこそ、NEWTは私の関心を引きつけ続けています。

もし <c-1/>(@NewtonProtocol )がプログラム可能なポリシー基盤の構築を続けるなら、NEWTは金融システムが、昨日のルールを明日の市場に置き去りにするのではなく、認可ロジックを進化させることを支援する存在として結びついていく可能性があります。

金融システムは、定期的に自らが強制するルールを再評価すべきなのでしょうか?それとも、誰かが手動で置き換えるまでポリシーは変わらないままでいるべきなのでしょうか??

@NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT $SPELL $HMSTR
記事
ニュートン・プロトコルは、より速いブロックチェーンを作っているのではありません。金融上の意思決定の“記憶”を作っているのです昨夜、私はMySelF ThinkInG AbOutという、ブロックチェーンの議論ではほとんど見かけない何かを見つけました。 私たちは、取引が成功したのかどうかを延々と確かめようとします。 ほとんど誰も、…私たちが来年になってもそれが成功した理由をまだ理解できるのかどうかは聞きません😊。 その違いは、最初に聞こえるよりずっと大きく感じます。 金融システムには、「何が起きたか」の記録だけが必要なわけではありません🫡。 最終的には、それらの行動が当時「許容できる」とみなされた理由を説明する記録が必要になります。 その文脈がないと、歴史はゆっくりと不完全になっていきます。

ニュートン・プロトコルは、より速いブロックチェーンを作っているのではありません。金融上の意思決定の“記憶”を作っているのです

昨夜、私はMySelF ThinkInG AbOutという、ブロックチェーンの議論ではほとんど見かけない何かを見つけました。
私たちは、取引が成功したのかどうかを延々と確かめようとします。
ほとんど誰も、…私たちが来年になってもそれが成功した理由をまだ理解できるのかどうかは聞きません😊。
その違いは、最初に聞こえるよりずっと大きく感じます。
金融システムには、「何が起きたか」の記録だけが必要なわけではありません🫡。
最終的には、それらの行動が当時「許容できる」とみなされた理由を説明する記録が必要になります。
その文脈がないと、歴史はゆっくりと不完全になっていきます。
ログインして、さらにコンテンツを読む
厳選トピックで世界の暗号資産トレーダーの仲間入り
⚡️ 暗号資産に関する最新かつ有益な情報が見つかります。
💬 世界最大の暗号資産取引所から信頼されています。
👍 認証を受けたクリエイターから、有益なインサイトを得られます。
メール / 電話番号
サイトマップ
Cookieの設定
プラットフォーム利用規約