NEAR is building at the intersection of two problems for crypto and AI. Crypto has a usability problem. Hundreds of blockchains each have their own assets and rules, and moving money between them can be costly and risky. AI has a centralization problem. A handful of companies control the most powerful models and the data we hand them. New research from @Matt_Hougan and @RasterlyRock lays out why @NEARProtocol matters for AI agents, cross-chain trading, and the next wave of crypto adoption. Read "NEAR in Plain English”: bitwiseinvestments.com/crypt…

One week until our Q3 2026 Earnings Call. Mark your calendar for Thursday, Oct. 29 at 5 PM ET, live on X and YouTube. $MSTR $STRC

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, JPMorgan, and Wells Fargo detect unauthorized AI agents accessing customer accounts and attempting to act without user instructions.

My senses are going off. Something is happening. All of a sudden, Fidelity and BlackRock are putting out promotional pieces on Bitcoin. BlackRock's IBIT just took in $665M in a single day, its biggest inflow in over a year. J.P. Morgan is now predicting Bitcoin will be the best performing asset over the next decade. The Bitcoin bull market is going to kick off in a big way.

The largest Bitcoin ETF (Blackrock) just had its biggest inflow since the start of 2026. The only recent IBIT net inflow this large was a few months ago in August. bitcoin:native rallied +20% from $69k to $87k in the weeks that followed.

It amazes me that even though the LGC [Logarithmic Growth Curve] has predicted how the range price would develop since 2018, people continue to reject it. But then again, perhaps just a sign of the irrationality of the times.😒 davethewave.substack.com/p/b…

Reflexive assets trade on the belief that someone is obligated to buy them MSCI decides on DATs Friday, with ~80% odds of deletion. Saylor does not write angry letters to people who are undecided Expect flows from forced selling to follow in late November

TOMORROW. Live on stream with @ilblackdragon, @mert, @zkDragon and @tulipking AT 1015am est What does the future look like for our coins

NRR Day 10 | Share Creation Signal @Bitwise's $NRR was +21% at the open, but the premium to NAV is only +0.3% - the ETF is catching up to $NEAR's weekend, not outrunning it. The real demand signal is the share count: • 2.23M → 2.73M shares last 3 days (+22%) • 11.6M → 14.3M NEAR held • $3.3M → $4.0M → $5.1M daily creations Bitwise Flows | Accelerating ○ $71M cumulative creations ○~$80M AUM at today's price ○ Creations grew through Oct 8** ○ *Despite -16% Omni bridge hack* ○ ~92% of trust NEAR already staked ○ Trust holds ~1.1% of NEAR supply Market Signals | Bears Punished ○ $NEAR +21% Fri → Sun close ○ $BTC only +1.4% during that period ○ Sunday close $5.90 = 1st > $5.59 ○ $6.2M shorts liquidated (24h) ○ Aggregate OI $1.1B (99th pct) ○ Funding only +5.7% (annual) Potential Flow Scenarios | 30d Outlook ○ Fade: week-1 tail (~$0.5M/day) → +$10M ○ Hold: (~$4M/day) → +$80M, AUM ~$160M ○ Breakout: (creations ≥$10M/day) ○ Breakout AUM projection ~$200M+ Watch List | Next 48 Hours ○ Tonight's issuer print - creation streak? ○ NRR session volume above $20M ○ Retest $5.59 Day 10 is where $ZCSH leg began on our launch compass, but creations, not the headline %, decide whether NRR follows it.

NEAR JUST GOT A WALL STREET ON-RAMP WITH STAKING BUILT IN. Bitwise's $NRR began trading on September 29, giving U.S. brokerage investors direct exposure to $NEAR through an exchange-traded product. The numbers: → 4.92% gross staking reward rate → 3.30% net staking reward rate → Direct exposure to NEAR → Institutional custody through Coinbase Custody The bigger thesis: NEAR is positioning itself for the agentic economy, where AI agents transact and coordinate onchain. Now traditional investors have a regulated-market route to gain exposure. $NEAR is moving beyond crypto-native adoption.

/ NEAR How am I supposed to get more bids filled with this dip for ants?

I don't recommend anyone scramble to move their funds to new wallets today. But we should take the risks to cryptography from AI-accelerated math seriously, and minimize our exposure to not just quantum-vulnerable cryptography, but also potentially AI-vulnerable cryptography. The core new area of risk from this viewpoint is, unfortunately, ML-DSA / FHE / lattices. (and it's also another reason, along with quantum, why ECDSA might fall even faster than expected, hence the "fresh address" recommendation) So far most people have been in the mode of thinking "elliptic curves broken, hashes safe, lattices safe". But there is a good chance that the concrete security of lattices will take serious hits from the next two years of AI math. The basic threat model is: factoring is something that naively takes 2^(n/2) time, but over decades smart people have found and optimized number field sieves, and degraded that to 2^O(n^(1/3)), which is why RSA keys and signatures need to be ~400 bytes (and not 64 bytes). What if there are skeletons in the closet like that, both for elliptic curves and lattices, that we are simply not smart enough to discover - but bots soon will be? This is a major part of the reason why for the past year ethereum's lean roadmap has been going in the "hash-only" direction: no lattices, no ML-DSA, no Falcon, no lattice-based commitments inside ZK proofs, etc. Signatures in lean ethereum are all hash-based, either WOTS or SPHINCS-. For signatures and proofs, we already know how to go hash-only. The bigger challenge is for *public-key encryption* - and this goes far beyond blockchains. Secure communication, anonymizing protocols, lots of things need public-key encryption. And unfortunately there are long-standing mathematical theorems showing why public-key encryption cannot be done with hashes alone. You have to have some kind of trapdoor object that has at least one form of usable "structure" - either group theory (incl. isogenies) or lattices or code-based or potentially in the future even more newfangled and spooky things (local mixing?). But for anything that has structure, you should assume that AI will make at least some progress in breaking that structure. Here, one reasonable inference is that if you want to make something plausibly long-term secure, multiply the key sizes by 10. To me that's a very plausible world and something not at all extreme to predict. If AI will bring us 50 years of math in 2 years, then that 50 years of math may very plausibly include a "naive factoring -> GNFS" level of improvement to our ability to break lattices. In that world, lattices will still exist, but they will have to be significantly bigger to guarantee the same level of safety. And at those new larger sizes, hash-based constructions will beat lattice-based constructions on concrete efficiency in every use case where hash-based constructions are possible at all. Theoretically, of course it's possible that hashes are broken too (eg. P = NP would imply that). But I think P = NP is very unlikely. And intuitively, it's much more likely that a mathematical object has exactly no exploitable structure (like hashes are intended to), than that a mathematical object has exactly ~3 forms of exploitable structure (for elliptic curves: associativity, Schoof, pairings) and not some secret fourth form of structure we have not yet discovered that greatly degrades its security (for elliptic curves, ECDLP and pairing security). Similar for LWE, SVP, RLWE and the zoo of lattice problems. For this reason, we do not yet see any reason to worry and start padding the byte size of hashes (if we start to worry more, we would pad the round count first before doing anything to the byte size). Concrete TLDR, my own personal views: * Hash-based > lattice-based, in those situations where hash-based is possible at all * For anything lattice-based, be much more paranoid on param sizes. Remember that blockchains are only a small portion of the cryptography story; this point goes far beyond blockchains and applies to eg. access to websites, secure messaging, Tor / VPNs ... * For privacy protocols, strongly favor NOT putting encrypted notes onchain. Instead, send them offchain through some third-party mechanism. * If it's not difficult for you, keeping your funds in addresses which have not yet been used to make a transaction is a good idea. If it's easy for you, do it. **But be careful about migrations; I personally have lost more money in botched migrations than I have lost in all hacks combined**. * For multisig wallets, doing confirmations offchain is better than onchain, because this way the signatures of signer wallets do not get exposed to the public, so if ECDSA falls to AI much faster than expected, at least the multisig "gracefully degrades" to a 1-of-1 where the 1 is whoever was gathering the signatures - a much better place to be than "anyone can take the money" firefly.social/post/x/210783…

FULL CONVERSATION: Matt Hougan & Sal Ternullo: NEAR Is The Best Positioned Asset In The Market (Here's Why Bitwise Launched NRR) I sat down with Matt and Sal late last week to catch up on the latest in the NEAR ecosystem. Be more bullish. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 01:41 NEAR Is Fundamentally Mispriced 03:53 Why Bitwise Chose NEAR For Its Latest ETP 05:03 NEAR's AI Privacy Stack vs. Frontier Labs 08:56 How To Explain NEAR To Investors 12:59 Buybacks, Fee Switch, And Token Value Accrual 16:18 A Differentiated Bull Market: Winners And Losers 19:45 The Hyperliquid Effect On Token Design 23:34 Virtual Cards vs. Stablecoins For Agents 27:28 24/7 Markets And Why TradFi Isn’t Ready @Matt_Hougan @sal_ternullo @NEARProtocol @Bitwise

This is literally the window of max opportunity. It only comes around once every 3–4 years. A lot of altcoins are in their stage 3 bottom phase before the good ones rip towards new highs. Just like PUMP, Cashcat, and a couple of others already did, many more are sitting there waiting. Two clear examples are NEAR and ENA. Gonna catch as many as possible.