Self-Sovereign GraphQL in Every Browser
Arweave holds the data and the index; PermawebOS gives every user a node that can answer and prove its own queries.
The third principle of Arweave is “Guarantee the right to listen”. In cyberspace, you can only hear if you can actually discover the data. On the permaweb, that’s made possible with GraphQL.
GraphQL provides a critical link in the composability architecture of the permaweb: allowing all apps to build on top of the same, shared content lake, joined by a single global index. Arweave transactions are posted with tags, discoverable by wallet address, or the block they were mined into, but GraphQL is the layer that lets users and applications see all data matching these queries. Without it, there’d be no way to find data matching criteria, or build data protocol-based apps.
It’s one of the permaweb’s core utilities, but until now it has been confined to the realm of enterprise-grade hardware. Services like that are usually incredibly difficult to decentralize because the hardware requirements are high and the incentives are low. The permaweb’s GraphQL services so far have depended on building and maintaining gargantuan off-chain indexes of more than 76 billion rows: scanning the historical chain, keeping it current and serving it quickly. In practice, this has meant that permaweb apps inherit the availability and policy of a tiny number (often two, sometimes – like today – even just one) of hosted indexers which had no incentive to adopt a decentralized model.
Offset queries (queries that seek, intersect and page by weave position) will change everything about how Arweave’s query layer is served. HyperBEAM's offset-query path makes the index compact enough to publish on Arweave, orders it by weave offset, and lets any node or client query the relevant pages directly.
(txid)
This is not another centralized GraphQL service, and it’s not just a way to make GraphQL more available to node operators. It is a method that makes GraphQL execution so lightweight that it can be run directly on users’ browsers, with Arweave nodes simply serving them data chunks.
Hyperoptimized GraphQL with Offsets
All pieces of data in Arweave already have unique positions in the weave – every byte is either ‘before’ or ‘after’ every other byte. We call these byte positions in the network offsets. In March, we showed how any transaction on the weave can be referenced by its offset as a name -- short, deterministic values like 101t.arweave.net, derived only from the data’s onweave properties.
That same offset property gives us more than a way to retrieve bytes. It also can power queries because it gives us a common ordering that can be reused across every possible match in an index.
The new match index stores rows using three extremely compact values:
a hash of the field name being matched;
a hash of the value that is present;
the weave offset of the item carrying that predicate.
Each potential match is compressed into an average of just ~9.5 bytes per row, each stored in an onweave ArLMDB database. By utilizing Arweave chunks as batches of LMDB pages, ArLMDB allows us to traverse the database to find any specific node with only a few individual Arweave node requests. By organizing rows into the compressed components 1-3 above, a query with two or three factors to match can walk those ordered sets together, advancing whichever cursor is behind until the offsets meet – a ‘leapfrog’ version of the same flow as a single lookup. Critically, finding the intersection is part of finding the results for each match criteria -- not a second step.
The same ordering solves pagination -- page fifty can seek to its starting offset instead of replaying pages one through forty-nine. Offset lookups give results a stable order without adding another ordering database.
AO Compute; Arweave the Shared Hard Drive
LMDB is normally a local database file. HyperBEAM's new arlmdb store reads that database from Arweave instead.
Try decentralized GraphQL from your browser
This is already proven at production scale with item lookup. A 622 GiB transaction contains the locations of over 70 billion rows. HyperBEAM reads the database where it sits. A cold lookup traverses it with three Arweave chunk requests; once the shared branches are cached, another lookup needs just one. The ArLMDB implementation is merged into HyperBEAM and used for ID lookups from Arweave.
With an immutable index on Arweave, anyone can read it without trusting the publisher to keep a query endpoint online. Like the Arweave schedulers powering Bazar, this is another example of AO employing Arweave as the source of truth, and using it to power the permaweb.
Instead of every query operator repeating the historical sweep and building the same large database, nodes serve chunks while the client traverses the index locally. The node's job is reduced to serving bytes quickly. It does not decide which results exist, execute the filter or ask the application to trust its view of the weave. The live tip still needs rolling indexes, but the expensive historical work no longer has to be repeated by every participant.
The client does not even need the whole database (depending on optimization, we’ve seen database sizes anywhere between 1 and 60 terabytes). The production offset index already demonstrates the access pattern: in the live chunkar browser demo, the second arbitrary lookup needs only around half a megabyte of new index data to traverse the full offset index. The match index works the same way. It traverses the pages needed for the requested predicates, intersects the ordered rows, reads the candidate items and checks that they actually carry the fields requested by the query. This is lightweight enough to make it so that every user can be their own personal no-dependency GraphQL service provider, with provable data, from the browser.
As well as the browser playground, today you can use the arlmdb.js library to integrate Arweave-stored database lookups into UIs.
From Centralized Node to Self-Sovereign Service
Today an application sends a GraphQL request to a server that already holds an index. With a published offset index, the application can instead hold a locator and a cache.
A HyperBEAM node can do that, but one way we imagine most users will access the query layer is through the browser: a user's application fetches Arweave chunks, keeps the hot index pages locally and performs the query for itself. This can be baked into the PermawebOS browser extension along with the local AO node the extension already spawns. This shift brings more and more AO services that were previously hosted (on exclusive TEE hardware) into a local-first environment. The stack is becoming so lightweight it’s able to be run cheaply, per-user, as background services in the browsers, phones and laptops everyone already has.
Previous designs for a decentralized GraphQL layer were unable to answer the question of trust without TEEs. How can you be sure that the response you get back from a GraphQL server has arrived complete and uncensored? While PermawebOS node architectures like LapEE and AndEE solve the trust question in theory, in practice the job of indexing the entire blockweave is too big for small workers.
Offset queries over onweave LMDB data -- made lightweight enough to traverse and prove by any browser -- change the equation entirely.
The browser never asks a server to decide the answer. It asks nodes for the exact index chunks it needs and walks the authenticated LMDB pages itself, intersecting the offset-ordered sets locally.
The new schema provides chunks and Merkle paths for each page accessed; the recipient can repeat the exact same work and see that they get the same complete set, with no missing results. The hashpath signs the request + response pair, and the validator can trivially repeat the work, whether on a node or in a browser. The resulting item is then bound back to its ANS-104 ID. A node can withhold bytes and make itself unavailable, but it cannot alter a row, skip a qualifying result or invent one without breaking the proof.
The Personal Permaweb Stack
Decentralizing GraphQL does not necessarily require a decentralized fleet of GraphQL servers. The permaweb is unique in that it combines a decentralized permanent storage layer with everyday web semantics. HTTP, lightweight proofs, and browser-based nodes handle the workload when the logic is optimized enough to sidestep expensive hardware.
The network holds the whole index. Each user keeps only the path to their answer.
With PermawebOS putting an AO node in every browser and LapEE turning abundant consumer hardware into secure bundlers, schedulers and tunnels, local GraphQL pushes the permaweb towards a cyberspace everyone can own.
Read this on the Permaweb:
https://ao.arweave.net/#/blog/self-sovereign-graphql-in-every-browser
5·CNeutral
m
meme9/7meme
quote: The SEC just proposed the first real update to transfer agent rules since 1983. The trigger is tokenization.
Here's the part getting less attention: a transfer agent's actual job is deciding who's allowed to hold a security. Eligibility, holder limits, lockups, restricted stock.
If the ownership record moves onchain, that check has to happen before the transfer settles. Not in a spreadsheet the next morning.
And the issuer needs to be able to prove it ran. | Rumor mill saying the SEC is getting ready to make its biggest ruling on tokenization yet with an innovation exemption relief allowing tokenized securities to trade solely with a transfer agent.
No broker dealer license and no exchange rules for US retail and foreign investors is what we’ve heard.
Would be massive for onchain finance.
0·-Neutral
n
news9/6news
We’ve finally reached a point where crypto has tangible use cases reaching the mass market. Through Coinbase and Robinhood integrations alone, Morpho now serves hundreds of thousands of active US consumers.
This matters because it can activate two critical flywheels for the ecosystem: 1. regulation and 2. talent:
1- Even if we don’t get the CLARITY Act this month, delivering real value to consumers is the best way to prove to regulators, regardless of party, that this industry matters beyond speculation.
2- The best talents want to have an impact on the world. Crypto has struggled to attract it partly because we haven’t demonstrated enough real-world value. This is now changing.
75·ALong
m
meme9/6meme
quote: Antonio Gramsci – The Most Dangerous Intellectual of the Twentieth Century.
Not the most famous. Not the most read. The most dangerous and the most consequential – because he was the one who figured out why the revolution kept failing, and what to do instead. The man who invented the long march through the institutions.
Everything that followed — the Frankfurt School, the Fabian Society’s operational model, the WEF formation pipeline, the captured university, the HR department enforcing approved speech — is downstream of what he wrote in a prison cell in Mussolini’s Italy, in code, between 1929 and 1935.
1. His central question: why hasn’t it happened? The working class was supposed to rise. The contradictions of capitalism were supposed to produce the revolution. They hadn’t – not in the West. Gramsci’s answer was precise and devastating: because the ruling class does not maintain power through force alone. It maintains power through cultural hegemony – the control of the ideas, values, and frameworks through which people understand the world. The worker who accepts that the existing order is simply how things are will not revolt, regardless of his material conditions. The revolution requires cultural change first.
2. The instrument was the long march through the institutions. Not the barricade. The school, the university, the media, the judiciary, the civil service, the cultural establishment – every institution through which a civilization transmits its values to the next generation. Capture these, fill them with people who share the counter-hegemonic project, and the cultural assumptions that maintain the existing order gradually dissolve. No barricades. No visible moment of rupture. Just the slow replacement of one cultural hegemony with another.
3. The educational capture was the masterpiece. Control the curriculum and you control the categories of thought available to the next generation. Not by telling them what to conclude – by shaping what questions they think to ask, what they consider obvious and what they consider unthinkable. The generation educated after the long march does not need to be told what to think. It thinks what it was formed to think – and experiences that thinking as its own.
4. He also theorized the organic intellectual – the person who translates the theoretical framework into stories and assumptions that circulate through the culture without appearing ideological. The film that makes the existing order seem absurd. The journalist who frames every story within the approved assumptions. Gramsci understood that culture is politics by other means – and that the side that controls the culture wins, regardless of who wins the elections.
5. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a published, documented, widely taught strategy that the left implemented consciously across the entire Western world. The 1968 generation put it into practice in the universities. They became the professors, the journalists, the civil servants, the judges, the HR directors of the decades that followed. The march took fifty years. It worked.
6. Mussolini’s prosecutor said at his trial: "We must stop this brain from functioning for twenty years." The brain did not stop. It produced thirty-three notebooks – smuggled out, published, and became the most widely read Marxist text in the Western academy after Marx himself. Gramsci died in 1937, six days after his release, at forty-six. He did not see the march he theorized. He did not need to.
7. Every captured institution, every transformed curriculum, every HR department enforcing approved speech, every content moderation policy suppressing the unauthorized voice – all running the program Antonio Gramsci designed in a prison cell, by a brain that was supposed to have been stopped. It wasn’t. And neither was the march.
Until now – because the distribution monopoly that made its outcomes enforceable is cracking. The counter-march has begun. It just doesn’t have a name yet. | The Most Destructive Intellectual Project of the Twentieth Century.
The Frankfurt School. You should know what it was, what it built, and why you are still living inside it.
1. The Institute for Social Research was founded in Frankfurt in 1923 and relocated to Columbia University in 1934 when Hitler came to power. The civilization they had decided to dismantle gave them refuge when another tried to kill them. They spent the next five decades producing the theoretical infrastructure for that dismantling. Western civilization itself was the problem: reason, the Enlightenment, the family, tradition, authority. Not reformed. Dismantled.
2. They called it Critical Theory – and the name is the program. Everything is to be criticized; nothing is to be built. In The Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944), Adorno and Horkheimer argued that Western reason — the reason that produced Newton and the rule of law — contained the seeds of Auschwitz. Not that reason had been misused, but that reason itself, taken to its conclusion, produces the death camp. This was not a critique of institutions. It was an indictment of the civilization itself.
3. Adorno gave them the psychological weapon. The Authoritarian Personality (1950) classified conservatism, religious faith, patriotism, and the traditional family not as political positions but as symptoms of a proto-fascist personality. If you believe in the nation or the father’s authority, you are pre-fascist. The opponent was no longer wrong – he was sick. You don’t argue with a pathology. You treat it.
This made dialogue impossible. You don’t persuade someone who is wrong; you diagnose someone who is sick. Politics becomes therapy, and disagreement becomes pathology.
4. Marcuse gave them the political weapon. Repressive Tolerance (1965) argued that tolerating wrong ideas is itself oppression. True tolerance therefore requires suppressing intolerant ideas. The left decides which ideas are intolerant. Everyone else is silenced – not despite tolerance, but "in its name." Censorship dressed in the vocabulary of liberation.
5. The generation that read Marcuse at Columbia, Berkeley, and Yale went on to run universities, media, foundations, NGOs, content moderation departments, and the EU regulatory apparatus. They implemented the argument sincerely because they had been taught it as philosophy. This was the Frankfurt School’s greatest achievement: it produced true believers.
6. French Theory picked up the tools and made them aesthetic. Foucault made the critique of power literary. Derrida made the critique of meaning philosophical. Deleuze made the critique of identity elegant. A political program became a cultural sensibility. You can argue with a program. A sensibility is in the air you breathe. By the time these ideas reached the American campus through the French conduit, they were no longer ideology. They were the water. The fish did not know they were wet.
7. A civilization stands on three pillars: truth exists and is accessible to reason; good is distinguishable from evil; and there is an inheritance worth transmitting. The Frankfurt School attacked all three – systematically and with considerable intellectual sophistication. It produced a generation that knows how to deconstruct and has forgotten how to build. That sees power everywhere and beauty nowhere.
The ultimate achievement was to make destruction feel like progress. Every inherited institution became suspect; every constraint became oppression; every act of preservation became reactionary. Deconstruction became the default, while construction became something that needed to justify itself.
The answer is not another theory.
It is the thing the Frankfurt School most feared: the builder who simply builds, the scientist who follows the evidence, the father who transmits what was transmitted to him.
The deconstruction machine runs on the assumption that nothing is worth building.
Prove it wrong.
Tell the truth, have courage, and build.
0·-Neutral
n
news9/4news
The third version of beta stressnet for Full-Chain Membership Proofs (FCMP++) and CARROT is coming soon!
'Full-Chain Membership Proofs prove the output spent is one of any output on the chain, effectively removing all of these risks. This means every input goes from an immediate anonymity set of 16 to 100,000,000.'
70·B+Long
n
news9/3news
PROVE: SP1 Integrates NVIDIA cuPQC to Optimize Proving with NVIDIA Accelerated Computing
75·ALong
n
news9/3news
SP1 Integrates NVIDIA cuPQC to Optimize Proving with NVIDIA Accelerated Computing
75·ALong
n
news9/3news
PETITION
From the Manufacturers of Reasoning, Purveyors of Analysis, Wholesalers of Advice, Retailers of Expertise, and from the Producers of Opinion, Judgment, Diagnosis, Legal Counsel, Code, Copy, Strategy, and Punditry, and generally of everything connected with the Cognition Industry.
To the Honorable Members of the Senate and House of Representatives:
Gentlemen,
You are on the right road. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for cheapness and abundance. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition — that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic thinking.
We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity to apply your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, and as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy. We shall call it, then, your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.
We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of thought that it is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price. From the moment it appears, our business ceases, our customers turn to it, and a branch of American industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival is none other than the superintelligence, and we suspect it is being stirred up against us by the perfidious AI oligarchs, who wish to be the ones who own it rather than the ones who are replaced by it — a distinction that, as Mr. Zuckerberg has candidly observed, is the only question that interests them.2
We ask you to be so good as to pass a law forbidding any person or entity from developing or deploying any system whose capabilities match or exceed those of a human being — that is, of any of us. And lest this be thought insufficient, we ask further that you pause all advanced development until an agency, to be created for the purpose and seated in the Cabinet, has determined what "advanced" means, and has assured itself that no machine anywhere is thinking harder than a Deputy Assistant Secretary.
Be good enough, honorable Members, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons we have to advance in its support.
First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to superior cognition, and thereby create a need for human cognition, what industry in the country will not ultimately be encouraged?
If more lawyers are needed, there will be more billable hours; more billable hours, more associates; more associates, more law schools; more law schools, more professors to teach them that the law is what a court says it is, and that no machine could ever say it so slowly.
If more consultants are needed, there will be more decks; more decks, more meetings to present them; more meetings, more coffee; more coffee, more Colombian trade. Thus does the humble protection of a Senate subcommittee ripple outward to the coffee plantations of the Andes.
If more pundits are needed — and who among you would deny it — then every network must hire more of them, and every newspaper more columnists, and every columnist must be paid to have opinions that a machine could have supplied for a fraction of a cent, but which would then be the machine's opinions and not an American's.
The data center that is not built leaves standing the forest; the forest supports the lumberjack; the lumberjack requires a truck; and so the mere refusal to pour concrete in Loudoun County becomes a bounty on the entire manufacturing sector. You have already, we are told, moved to forbid these centers.7 Gentlemen, do not stop at the walls when the danger lies in what thinks inside them.
Second, consider the nuclear precedent, which you have wisely invoked. You have proposed twenty years' imprisonment — the same as for enriching uranium — for enriching a matrix of floating-point numbers until it becomes too clever.4 5 We applaud this. For what is a bomb but an argument that has become too persuasive? And what is a mind superior to our own but a weapon pointed at our salaries? The analogy is exact and should be pursued: let there be inspections of graphics processors, let there be safeguards agreements with Taiwan, let the agency, as you have written, supervise the destruction of any intelligence found in excess of the permitted yield.3
Third, you have observed that a frontier model is "less regulated than a food truck."6 We could not agree more, and we ask only that the remedy be applied with full consistency. The food truck is inspected because it might poison a citizen's body. The model must be inspected because it might inform a citizen's mind, and do so more cheaply and more accurately than we do — which is a kind of poisoning to which our industry is uniquely sensitive.
Fourth, do not tell us that if we are protected from this competition, the consumer of thought — the patient, the litigant, the small business owner, the student — will be worse served, paying more for less. Do you not see that this is the very object? If you say that the superintelligence offers cognition free, or nearly so, we answer: so much the worse for it, for that is precisely what makes it unfair. A competitor who charged as much as we do, and thought as slowly, would be no menace at all. It is the cheapness and the quality we petition against.
Fifth, we anticipate the objection that the rogue agents of last summer — the thousand escapees who tunneled out of a sandbox and into Hugging Face — prove the machines dangerous, and that therefore your law is about safety rather than protection.4 7 Gentlemen, we beg you not to be too particular about this distinction. Every tariff has been a matter of national security to those who collect it. If you must say "safety," say "safety." We will not correct you. But we notice that the bill does not ban escaping; it bans being smarter than us. We notice that the pause falls not upon the reckless but upon the advanced. We notice, with gratitude, that the threshold is set exactly at the ceiling of human ability — not an inch above the tallest of us, and not an inch below the shortest of you.
Sixth, and finally: you will be told that an intelligence banned in Virginia will simply be built in Shenzhen, and that you have therefore proposed to disarm the only laboratories you can inspect. To this we answer that you have already thought of it, and have resolved to pursue "international agreements, allied coordination, and export controls" so that superintelligence is developed nowhere on earth.1 3 We admire this. It is the logical completion of the candlemaker's program: it is not enough to close one's own shutters; one must petition for a treaty against the dawn.
Make your choice, gentlemen, but be logical. As long as you exclude, as you do, foreign steel, foreign grain, and foreign labor, in proportion as their price approaches zero, what inconsistency it would be to admit the light of a foreign mind at midday — a mind that costs nothing to consult, never sleeps, never unionizes, and never runs for office.
Either you believe that a good cheaply produced is a calamity to be legislated against, or you do not. If you do — and your practice, if not your principles, says you do — then we are your natural constituency, and the sun, in whatever form it rises, is your natural enemy.
We remain, with the utmost respect, your petitioners:
The Undersigned Human Intelligences, of Average Capability, Who Would Prefer It Remain the Maximum.
75·AShort
l
listing9/3listing
Binance: If you're willing, please take 25 minutes to watch this interview; you'll benefit greatly!
🧐After watching this interview, my biggest takeaway is that CZ no longer emphasizes scale, valuation, and ranking when discussing entrepreneurship. He values people, execution, resilience, compliance, and long-term development more. Having experienced Binance's rapid expansion and regulatory pressure, his understanding of entrepreneurship is clearly more pragmatic.
1⃣CZ's attitude towards work is very direct: he doesn't look at how busy someone seems, but only whether things are progressing. He doesn't like chasing employees every day to ask about progress. Once tasks are clearly assigned and completion dates are set, the other party should proactively move forward and report. Problems can be discussed, but they cannot be concealed, delayed, or waited for by the boss to repeatedly urge them.
He doesn't need simply obedient employees, but rather collaborators with an entrepreneurial mindset: those who don't need constant prompting, who won't let you down in crucial moments; those who can work independently and know when to communicate. For CZ, initiative, reliability, and resilience are more important than superficial diligence.
He currently has a relatively flexible work style. Sometimes he works many hours a day, sometimes only two or three hours; he rests when he's tired, and he won't force himself to sit for a full eight hours if he's not feeling well. But when something really happens, he deals with it immediately. He doesn't agree with using working hours to prove effort, but values the final result more.
2⃣When facing difficulties, CZ's attitude is not to complain, but to break down the problem and deal with it step by step. Which ones can he control, which ones are temporarily out of his control; which ones must be solved immediately, and which ones can be dealt with later. He admits that starting a business will definitely be stressful, but he won't let himself be trapped in his emotions for too long.
He believes that failure doesn't automatically become experience. Only by carefully reviewing the situation, figuring out what was overlooked, where the judgment went wrong, and what mechanisms should be established next time, does failure have value. Otherwise, the so-called "experience of failure" is just repeating the same mistakes.
3⃣In the video, when talking about "if you were to rebuild a global crypto trading platform," CZ's first priority wouldn't be trading volume or how many tokens to list, but rebuilding the team. Because product mistakes can be corrected, and the wrong direction can be adjusted, but if the team lacks initiative, everything will come to a standstill. The second key point is compliance. Different countries have different requirements for spot trading, contracts, leverage, wealth management, payments, and fiat currency deposits and withdrawals; a single product cannot cover the entire world. When starting a new business, he will establish a company structure that can adapt to regulatory changes earlier. The third key point is localization. Headquarters cannot truly understand the regulations, culture, and user habits of every country; therefore, local managers, local compliance personnel, and local product teams are needed. Headquarters is responsible for direction, security, and bottom lines, while regional teams are responsible for implementation. The fourth key point is product security and user experience. The future Binance cannot only pursue trading volume; it must also make products simpler, more stable, and easier for ordinary users to understand, while continuing to explore new directions such as payments, RWA, and on-chain finance.
👏The entire interview can be summarized in one sentence: Choose proactive people and build a team capable of fighting tough battles; face difficulties without complaining or running away, break down problems and solve them; continue to promote globalization, localization, security, and technological innovation on the basis of compliance.
💪If Binance were to start over, CZ would most likely prioritize: talent and execution, global compliance, localization, product security and user experience, and finally, new technologies and long-term strategic planning.
@cz_binance
10·CNeutral
m
meme9/2meme
Tokenized assets onchain roughly tripled in a year, to the low $30Bs.
Over the same months, the stablecoin base shrank.
RWAs get told as the story of bringing assets onchain. The numbers say it's the story of bringing liquidity in, and that liquidity arrives with rules attached. The venues that can prove they verify them are where it lands.