Sibshops

cross-posted from: https://rss.ponder.cat/post/196572

Picture this: You’re a researcher who has spent years developing a grant proposal, gone through layers of expert review, and received National Science Foundation (NSF) approval. Then some kid barely out of college — whose main qualification appears to be founding a company that puts ads on the blockchain — logs into a Zoom meeting, pays more attention to his fingernails than the discussion, and kills your grant with a disinterested thumbs down.

Welcome to science under DOGE.

This isn’t hyperbole. It’s exactly what prompted Alondra Nelson — a pioneering scholar at the intersection of tech, policy, and society who led the Social Science Research Council and headed the Office of Science and Technology Policy under Biden — to publicly resign from both the National Science Foundation and the Library of Congress. As she explained in a piece at Time Magazine, the DOGE/Trump assault on institutions is systematically destroying scientific inquiry and academic freedom.

The NSF’s investments have shaped some of the most transformative technologies of our time—from GPS to the internet—and supported vital research in the social and behavioral sciences that helps the nation understand itself and evaluate its progress toward its democratic ideals. So in 2024, I was honored to be appointed to the National Science Board, which is charged under 42 U.S. Code § 1863 with establishing the policies of the Foundation and providing oversight of its mission.

But the meaning of oversight changed with the arrival of DOGE. That historical tension—between the promise of scientific freedom and the peril of political control—may now be resurfacing in troubling ways. Last month, when a National Science Board statement was released on occasion of the April 2025 resignation of Trump-appointed NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan, it was done so without the participation or notice of all members of the Board.

Last week, as the Board held its 494th meeting, I listened to NSF staff say that DOGE had by fiat the authority to give thumbs up or down to grant applications which had been systematically vetted by layers of subject matter experts. Our closed-to-the-public deliberations were observed by Zachary Terrell from the DOGE team. Through his Zoom screen, Terrell showed more interest in his water bottle and his cuticles than in the discussion. According to Nature Terrell, listed as a “consultant” in the NSF directory, had accessed the NSF awards system to block the dispersal of approved grants. The message I received was that the National Science Board had a role to play in name only.

Meet Zachary Terrell, DOGE’s apparent authority on scientific merit. Fedscoop identified him as one of three DOGE operatives deployed to NSF. They had such little info on him that they didn’t even list any associations (unlike the other two DOGE kids at NSF). Terrell’s apparent qualifications for overruling decades of scientific expertise? A 2022 bachelor’s degree from Kansas State and a brief career in crypto.

Since graduating, Terrell has managed to found three companies, including “Spindl,” which Coinbase acquired earlier this year for its groundbreaking innovation of… putting ads on the blockchain. His LinkedIn profile lists his current government role as “Yeoman” — apparently the official title for “person who kills research grants while playing with water bottles.”

This is the expertise now trumping peer review at the NSF. Not content knowledge, not research experience, not even basic familiarity with how science works. Just the confidence that comes with being a 23-year-old techbro who thinks he knows better than any actual expert.

This is who Elon had sit in NSF board meetings, staring at his water bottle, and then giving the up/down vote on grants over the decisions of actual knowledgeable and experienced experts.

The pattern extends beyond NSF. Nelson also resigned from the Library of Congress following Trump’s firing of Librarian Carla Hayden over completely fabricated claims about “inappropriate books for children”—despite the fact that the Library of Congress doesn’t lend books and restricts access to those over 16.

What we’re witnessing isn’t just administrative incompetence — it’s the systematic replacement of expertise with ideology. Nelson recognizes this broader authoritarian pattern, along with the only logical response for herself.

The steady accumulation of procedural adjustments, each seemingly minor, stand to systematically and collectively alter the purpose and impact of our institutions. The dismissal of Hayden, who took the helm of the Library of Congress with a vow to extend its resources to all of us, represents not merely a personnel change but a statement about what kind of knowledge stewardship is deemed acceptable.

To watch these changes unfold without naming them for what they are is to participate in a collective amnesia about how knowledge infrastructures shape power relations. Like the shopkeeper in an authoritarian society described by Vaclav Havel in his essay “The Power of the Powerless,” who participates in his own oppression through small daily acts of complicity, placing a party slogan in his window not out of conviction but out of habit. To remain on advisory boards that have been stripped of meaningful advisory function is to become that shopkeeper, to lend legitimacy to a process that has been systematically delegitimized.

As she rightly notes, it’s much more powerful for her to make the statement by publicly resigning and calling this out, than adding legitimacy to illegitimate activities:

What then, is the responsible course of action? For me, the answer now lies in refusal, the withdrawal of participation from systems that require dishonesty as the price of belonging. My resignation represents such a refusal, not a surrender of responsibility but an assertion of it.

The NSF helped create GPS, the internet, and countless innovations that define modern life. Now it’s being run by someone who thinks blockchain advertising represents the cutting edge of human knowledge.

And Nelson is right to speak out on how terrifying this is:

The aim of my resignation is to break free of powers that seek to limit knowledge and silence voice. To signal that certain boundary lines have been crossed. To insist that advisory roles must expand knowledge and be more than appendages to predetermined decisions.

From Techdirt via this RSS feed

cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/29277772

Taiwanese crypto exchange BitoPro only confirmed the $11M hack after crypto sleuth ZachXBT revealed it took place three weeks ago. The post Crypto exchange BitoPro took three weeks to admit it was hacked appeared first on Protos.

cross-posted from: https://sub.wetshaving.social/post/2511739

A common talking point is that Bitcoin is decentralized, while fiat is centralized. But this framing has less to do with how the systems actually work, and more to do with how Bitcoin supporters want fiat to look by comparison.

When I send fiat, I can choose from multiple completely distinct transfer methods: PayPal, Western Union, ACH, SWIFT, Zelle, Venmo, and so on. These systems are operated by different companies, run on different infrastructure, and have no technical dependency on each other.

That is decentralization, not just in theory but in practice. It is the same kind we see with package delivery (UPS, FedEx, USPS) or messaging (Signal, WhatsApp, SMS).

And just like with those systems, regulation does not make something centralized. With a lawful order, the government can still intercept, block, or reverse a package. The same applies to fiat, but that does not mean the network itself is centralized.

In other words, fiat transfers have no single point of failure. Fiat does not "go down." If one service fails, others remain fully operational.

Some argue fiat is centralized because it is issued by a central bank. That is true, but issuance is not the same as transfer. Tether (USDT), for example, is issued by a single company, yet it is often described as decentralized because it can move across blockchains and platforms. By that standard, fiat transfer is just as decentralized as many so-called decentralized systems.

So why is fiat still called centralized?

Because it sounds better for Bitcoin. It is a rhetorical move, not a technical distinction. Fiat is called centralized not because it has a single infrastructure or point of failure, but because it is regulated and compliant. Bitcoin is called decentralized even though most people use it through centralized exchanges, custodians, and infrastructure.

Let’s be honest:
Calling fiat "centralized" and Bitcoin "decentralized" is a branding decision, not a technical one.

And it works, because "decentralized" sounds a lot better than saying "unlawful."

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/39210445

George Stephanopoulos, on Sunday, ripped President Donald Trump — highlighting the “unprecedented money-making by a sitting president and his family.”

In a scorching show open on ABC’s This Week, Stephanopoulos called out the Trumps for cashing in on the office — while noting that those who are filling the Trump family coffers are benefitting from “official actions” taken by the White House.

“The scale is staggering,” Stephanopoulos said. “President Trump and his family are making hundreds of millions, potentially billions of dollars — as Trump and his administration take official actions that benefit contributors and investors.”

The ABC News anchor called out Trump’s “pardons to tax cheats,” and various windfalls originating from the Trump family’s foray into cryptocurrency.