quote: The most common Drake counterargument is “banks, internet, society would be screwed if ECDSA breaks." This counterargument was perfect for quantum FUD, but doesn't work for ECDSA. There’s a big difference even ultrasharp CT posters like Giver, who I greatly respect, are missing. This is one big reason I completely ignored quantum FUD but take ECDSA risk seriously. Drake says: “brace for the possibility that ECDSA breaks…[meaning] fast private key recovery (e.g. in one week) on available hardware (e.g. a large GPU cluster).” The quantum scenario is that encryption everywhere becomes useless. In that quantum scenario, all defenses evaporate. all banks and society are naked and defenseless, so the counterargument works. Drake’s scenario is more like someone has a magical key gun that can open any lock, but can only fire it once a week or so. Defenses still exist, but the key gun can unlock a single target at a time. Would an attacker with this gun target a bank (with multiple forms of cybersecurity, access logs, defensive frontier models, and government recourse) or crypto? Would you rather steal from a max security bank, or an unguarded crypto vault with a single lock? To me, it seems obvious that any attacker should target crypto first, which probably has more money than they could ever safely launder anyway. Way higher chance of succeeding and getting away with it. The argument for crypto to be the first target is very straightforward and compelling. Unlike quantum, not everything would be screwed equally. Crypto would be uniquely first in line, cheeks wide open, to be screwed. | Everyone is free to make their own decisions on allocation. I applaud decisive decision making. No specific comment vs OP below, in fact am not super familiar w metavestor so truly have no pro/against him/her personally Speaking to the points: 1) Measuring for tail events is savvy as a personal wealth decision. Everything worth doing however, usually has some sort of drag / burden / hurdle to it. Measuring & checking against priors is something you pretty much have to do with everything. It may feel unacceptable to some that the underlying asset in of itself faces security risk. That is understandable. To me, that is a category of risk that the market has actually shown itself as being ready to digest in capacity over time: bridge/exchange exploits, LUNA, Celsius/FTX, USDC depeg, etc. It is not equivalent of course, but they all speak to binary sponsorship unravelling & going to 0 BTC's history in fact predates this as - 2) I would argue that total perceived risk was actually much higher: RE: custody risk + rug risk + adoption risk + legal risk being elevated in BTC's infancy; namely an existential question to whether BTC would even graduate to being a social consensus asset. The reason this risk existed is probably a big primary driver of its return So let's just be clean about this: the risk reward PROFILE isn't appealing to the author. The risk in an absolute sense itself is not the issue - in fact, it seems the author actually prefers HIGHER absolute left tail existential risk if anything - biotech RE: the most risk probably of any industry, see picture attached). Maybe the precision element is meaningful to the author though. This is not meant as a "gotcha" comment. Intended to be exploratory, because I do not think the sentence written as-is actually makes sense 3) "Does this make you want to long crypto?" - a peer of mine writes. In an absolute sense, no. That is obvious. However, does the escalation in the war on Iran make you want to long QQQ? Did Liberation Day make you want to long memory? The reason I bring this up is that markets rarely move on the margin on things that are *true* in an absolute sense. It is probably the 3rd, 4th or 5th derivative that matters. So not 2026 revenue, or QoQ revenue growth, or guidance on QoQ revenue growth, but rather what consensus was on QoQ revenue growth, and the actual ▲ beat/miss b/w Q2 reported & that The reason this is important to bring up is that if there was some advancement in AI that specifically attached to crypto and only cryptocurrencies, that is net bearish ubiquitously. A potentially emerging super-cracker that can crack anything is just horrible for all things finance; this includes attaching/attacking bigger vulnerabilities & bigger industries with more liquidity. But in a world where there are bank runs and resulting anarchy, I think there is an argument to be made that permission-less currency ends up gaining MORE relative value net overall, especially vs fiat. Do you know how hard it is to withdraw even $10K cash from a bank? Do you actually think your bank / the gov't is going to step in and cover you? It is probably investing calories on what this draconian world looks like. The more concept of money would be very challenged - your passwords included. 4. I think the author misses or misunderstands what quantum concerns are. Quantum FUD and AI FUD is exactly the same. Which is: assuming unbounded leaps in progress that the human capacity cannot account for yet [assuming weeks, not years] it is theoretically possible that cryptography is cracked Lastly, the author writes that the appeal of crypto initially to him/her was the tech, and that may/does not appeal any longer. That is a strong claim, but that was easily the case 2 years ago, and at the minimum 1 year ago. I just mostly think the author did not update his/her priors on this, and, like many do, use interesting events like this as an excuse/push to do something they had wanted to do for a while anyways Ultimately, it seems that the author's argument is that banks are Too Big To Fail, which is why Drake's update is uniquely bad for crypto. I do not agree. Monetization of hacking is actually really worth thinking about & what that looks like too My stance - 1) The Drake update will be a positive one in hindsight and may actually elicit real change with people taking preventive measures more seriously 2) Custody probably moves toward being coupled (so not DEFI) and around ETFs vs cold storage 3a) This was not the reason for the sell-off. You do not have to take my word for it - BTC and QQQ are down the exact same amount (~80 bps) since Drake's tweet. The OpenAI $20B revenue miss has more to do w risk pop than this, in all likelihood 3b) If Drake's update made you want to short, 3a) isn't actually bad for you if you think the mkt has not moved sufficiently on this, as it has yet to happen. If you are under writing this as the reason for being short/bearish, I believe you are mistaken 4) Apologies for all this word slop - it is worth noting though that I am bearish locally. Just had to make it clear it is not because of any of this(Historical earnings: For 2026Q1 (period ended 2026-03-28), Intel reported basic EPS of -0.73, diluted EPS of -0.73, and net income of USD -3.728 billion. In the prior-year 2026Q1 comparative (period ended 2025-03-29), basic EPS was -0.19, diluted EPS was -0.19, and net income was USD -0.821 billion. For 2025FY (period ended 2025-12-27), basic EPS was -0.06, diluted EPS was -0.06, and net income was USD -0.267 billion, compared with 2025FY comparative (period ended 2024-12-28) basic EPS of -4.38, diluted EPS of -4.38, and net income of USD -18.756 billion. Consensus expectations: For 2026Q3, consensus EPS estimate is 0.3946 and revenue estimate is USD 16.738 billion. For 2026Q4, consensus EPS estimate is 0.4332 and revenue estimate is USD 17.322 billion.)