Our CEO, Dr. @bengoertzel, has responded to the @BernieSanders–Casar “Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act,” which would permanently prohibit the development and deployment of superintelligent AI, pause advanced AI development pending federal review, and direct US foreign policy toward preventing superintelligence from being built anywhere in the world.
The legislation focuses on the concentration of frontier AI development among a small number of large corporations. Dr. Goertzel agrees that this concentration creates a problem and supports external audits, incident reporting, and independent technical oversight. He disagrees with prohibition as the response.
AGI development does not depend on a scarce physical resource that can be controlled through international agreements. The research consists of mathematics, software, published algorithms, and commodity hardware. A global ban would therefore require surveillance of general-purpose computing while leaving states, military programs, and other actors outside that system able to continue their work.
The effect on open development is a central concern. A ban carrying severe criminal penalties would be easier to enforce against researchers who publish their work, open-source their code, and collaborate across institutions than against programs operating in secret. “It selectively destroys the development that is visible, which is to say, the open, decentralized, academically published, internationally collaborative work, while leaving intact the development that is hidden.”
The proposed pause on advanced AI development raises another issue. Establishing a new federal agency and review process could favor companies with large compliance teams and existing relationships with regulators. The result could be greater advantage for the same incumbents the legislation seeks to constrain.
Dr. Goertzel proposes a different approach centered on public compute, open development, external oversight, cognitive-liberty protections, and mechanisms for distributing AI-generated economic gains. The question he puts forward is “under whose control, with what values, and toward whose benefit.”
55·BShort
n
news9/7news
Our CEO, Dr. @bengoertzel, has responded to the @BernieSanders–Casar “Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act,” which would permanently prohibit the development and deployment of superintelligent AI, pause advanced AI development pending federal review, and direct US foreign policy toward preventing superintelligence from being built anywhere in the world.
The legislation focuses on the concentration of frontier AI development among a small number of large corporations. Dr. Goertzel agrees that this concentration creates a problem and supports external audits, incident reporting, and independent technical oversight. He disagrees with prohibition as the response.
AGI development does not depend on a scarce physical resource that can be controlled through international agreements. The research consists of mathematics, software, published algorithms, and commodity hardware. A global ban would therefore require surveillance of general-purpose computing while leaving states, military programs, and other actors outside that system able to continue their work.
The effect on open development is a central concern. A ban carrying severe criminal penalties would be easier to enforce against researchers who publish their work, open-source their code, and collaborate across institutions than against programs operating in secret. “It selectively destroys the development that is visible, which is to say, the open, decentralized, academically published, internationally collaborative work, while leaving intact the development that is hidden.”
The proposed pause on advanced AI development raises another issue. Establishing a new federal agency and review process could favor companies with large compliance teams and existing relationships with regulators. The result could be greater advantage for the same incumbents the legislation seeks to constrain.
Dr. Goertzel proposes a different approach centered on public compute, open development, external oversight, cognitive-liberty protections, and mechanisms for distributing AI-generated economic gains. The question he puts forward is “under whose control, with what values, and toward whose benefit.”
55·BShort
m
meme9/6meme
quote: Tokenizing a Treasury is cool.
But if the cash still lives somewhere else, you’ve only moved half the trade.
Here's the simple version of what just changed 🧵 https://x.com/worldlibertyfi/status/2092264439277916635 | USD1 → @CantonNetwork.
The blockchain purpose-built for institutional finance. Privacy enabled. Leading global financial institutions at the table.
USD1 is now natively issued on Canton.
More coming this week. 🦅☝️
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260825271361/en/World-Liberty-Financial-Launches-USD1-on-Canton-Network-to-Accelerate-RWA-Tokenization https://x.com/CantonNetwork/status/2092261213438918716
0·-Neutral
m
meme9/3meme
quote: A consortium of twenty-one banks and asset managers, including Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Fidelity and WisdomTree, will form a company in the second half of 2026 and issue a dollar-pegged stablecoin in the first half of 2027, then expand to the euro and other G7 currencies.
The group has more than doubled since an October 2025 exploration by ten banks. Sponsors say the token will serve wholesale, institutional and retail uses, from cross-border payments to tokenized-asset settlement, and will be designed to comply with the U.S. GENIUS Act and, where relevant, the EU’s MiCA rules.
Private dollar tokens already dominate on-chain settlement. Tether still leads with more than $180 billion outstanding, recycling reserves into short-term Treasuries. Circle’s USDC is the main regulated rival. A bank coin will not automatically displace them; Société Générale’s earlier dollar token showed how little demand appears without distribution and liquidity.
Markets still treated the plan as a competitive threat. Circle shares fell about six percent as investors priced in the risk that large banks would keep more of the float, distribution and reserve economics on their own rails.
The contest is also a fight over the architecture of money. The GENIUS Act, signed in July 2025, created the first federal regime for payment stablecoins: one-to-one reserves in cash, insured deposits and short-dated government paper, monthly disclosures, anti-money-laundering and sanctions duties, and a finding that such tokens are neither securities nor federally insured deposits.
Core licensing rules phase in around January 2027, which is why the launch window is not arbitrary. A market-structure bill, often called the Clarity Act, faces a Senate test in mid-September. Crypto firms have poured a record $190 million to more than $200 million into the 2026 midterms, becoming the largest corporate political spender, to lock in those rules and preserve banking access. Their 2024 outlays helped produce the stablecoin statute; this cycle is an attempt to finish the federal framework before control of Congress may shift.
Geopolitics pulls the other way. Dollar stablecoins already function as a private extension of reserve-currency status. The Bank for International Settlements has warned that large-scale adoption abroad can amount to digital dollarization, weakening local policy transmission.
ECB President Christine Lagarde has argued that privately issued stablecoins, even in euros, pose risks to monetary policy and financial stability. Isabel Schnabel has called them complements, not substitutes, for central-bank money and urged official settlement to move on-chain.
That is why Qivalis, a thirty-seven-bank European consortium, is racing to launch a euro token later in 2026 under Dutch supervision. Some lenders, including BBVA, sit in both groups. The result is a contest among dollar rails, euro rails and official experiments in tokenized deposits.
The political overlay is American. President Trump’s support revived institutional interest after the 2024 crypto rebound, and his family’s World Liberty Financial has issued its own token. That proximity has complicated talks on rewards, illicit finance and self-dealing. November’s midterms will decide whether the current statutory path is completed or reopened.
Banks are positioning for regulated digital dollars as ordinary plumbing. Crypto-native firms are spending to keep that plumbing from being written only in bank language. Central banks elsewhere are trying to keep the settlement layer public. The 2027 coin is less a product launch than a bet that the dollar, U.S. law and large-balance-sheet distribution will still define the next generation of digital money even as geopolitics, inflation and elections keep rewriting the terms. | From stablecoins being the center of attention to crypto companies ploughing money into the US midterms, Francis Maguire rounds up the crypto stories of the week https://reut.rs/4iqHOP9
95·A+Neutral
n
news9/3news
A consortium of twenty-one banks and asset managers, including Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Fidelity and WisdomTree, will form a company in the second half of 2026 and issue a dollar-pegged stablecoin in the first half of 2027, then expand to the euro and other G7 currencies.
The group has more than doubled since an October 2025 exploration by ten banks. Sponsors say the token will serve wholesale, institutional and retail uses, from cross-border payments to tokenized-asset settlement, and will be designed to comply with the U.S. GENIUS Act and, where relevant, the EU’s MiCA rules.
Private dollar tokens already dominate on-chain settlement. Tether still leads with more than $180 billion outstanding, recycling reserves into short-term Treasuries. Circle’s USDC is the main regulated rival. A bank coin will not automatically displace them; Société Générale’s earlier dollar token showed how little demand appears without distribution and liquidity.
Markets still treated the plan as a competitive threat. Circle shares fell about six percent as investors priced in the risk that large banks would keep more of the float, distribution and reserve economics on their own rails.
The contest is also a fight over the architecture of money. The GENIUS Act, signed in July 2025, created the first federal regime for payment stablecoins: one-to-one reserves in cash, insured deposits and short-dated government paper, monthly disclosures, anti-money-laundering and sanctions duties, and a finding that such tokens are neither securities nor federally insured deposits.
Core licensing rules phase in around January 2027, which is why the launch window is not arbitrary. A market-structure bill, often called the Clarity Act, faces a Senate test in mid-September. Crypto firms have poured a record $190 million to more than $200 million into the 2026 midterms, becoming the largest corporate political spender, to lock in those rules and preserve banking access. Their 2024 outlays helped produce the stablecoin statute; this cycle is an attempt to finish the federal framework before control of Congress may shift.
Geopolitics pulls the other way. Dollar stablecoins already function as a private extension of reserve-currency status. The Bank for International Settlements has warned that large-scale adoption abroad can amount to digital dollarization, weakening local policy transmission.
ECB President Christine Lagarde has argued that privately issued stablecoins, even in euros, pose risks to monetary policy and financial stability. Isabel Schnabel has called them complements, not substitutes, for central-bank money and urged official settlement to move on-chain.
That is why Qivalis, a thirty-seven-bank European consortium, is racing to launch a euro token later in 2026 under Dutch supervision. Some lenders, including BBVA, sit in both groups. The result is a contest among dollar rails, euro rails and official experiments in tokenized deposits.
The political overlay is American. President Trump’s support revived institutional interest after the 2024 crypto rebound, and his family’s World Liberty Financial has issued its own token. That proximity has complicated talks on rewards, illicit finance and self-dealing. November’s midterms will decide whether the current statutory path is completed or reopened.
Banks are positioning for regulated digital dollars as ordinary plumbing. Crypto-native firms are spending to keep that plumbing from being written only in bank language. Central banks elsewhere are trying to keep the settlement layer public. The 2027 coin is less a product launch than a bet that the dollar, U.S. law and large-balance-sheet distribution will still define the next generation of digital money even as geopolitics, inflation and elections keep rewriting the terms.