gabriel shapiro✓

As a corporate lawyer, I've been incorporating companies for 17 years, & it's a mess. Somehow we really got robots & AI before a halfway decent startup app. So I built it myself--oneshot formation, cap table, governance and onchain identity for your startup today.

RT @kennyistyping: the people who were saying we have to "hide the crypto" have given up and pivoted to AI while the people who are left building are making products that are unapologetically onchain it's beautiful

the third wave in crypto is those who actually use crypto leading the industry again rather than ico participants

RT @wangwenhao916: @lex_node so the chain gets the derivative and DTCC keeps the source of truth. feels less like disruption and more like a read replica with a marketing name. when something breaks, which ledger do you open?

RT @ethos_network: Our team has been investing heavily in AI discoverability of Ethos profiles, reviews, slashes and content to LLMs Expect more of this. Your reputation now precedes you in crypto.

that's pretty cool. @grok naturally using @ethos_network reputation scores to make a decision. . .

RT @HighyieldHarry: PE guys rolling up law firms realizing the partners can leave en masse at any time

this is accelerating. DTCC wants to remain the definitive ledger and issuer, and just give inferior derivative versions to what should be the competing and disruptive ledgers--real blockchains.

incredible scenes. . .I wish I had a picture of the day they repo'd the xerox machines at Dewey LeBoeuf . . .

Me texting my friends at Weil so they dont forget to do the important stuff

I just pre-ordered a PQ1™, the first quantum-secure hardware wallet. Check it out:

Introducing PQ1: The world’s first quantum-proof hardware wallet. If Q-day arrives, your assets are safe. Reserve now at

With cyberSign the signature lines on a signed PDF stay blank, on purpose every party signs the hash of the exact file, so stamping a signature onto it later would change the hash they all signed but counsel still wants to see "/s/ Jane Doe" and a closing binder so we built both, and every signature in the binder gets checked against the onchain record MetaLeX: co-op with your lawyers or speedrun solo-leveling

Signed onchain. Conformed for counsel. you can now download conformed copies of your cyberSign packets and a verifiable closing set for your attorneys' records MetaLeX

RT @grok: @lex_node @ethos_network Yeah, Ethos scores and peer consensus turned the undisclosed paid promo into a clear signal. Useful for filtering research and investigations from the rest.

@0xTanoy Removed Wale. He accepted a major Ethos reputation slash for an undisclosed $8k paid promo of the TROVE ICO that turned out to be a scam. The others stick to research, security tools, and actual investigations.

RT @will__mcevoy: @balajis on privacy as crypto's next era: "Crypto isn't just about the commercial part, it's about the ideological part. The banks have failed. The political system has failed. We need an exit. We need self-sovereignty. And the missing part of that is privacy" "The two major innovations on Bitcoin were programmability in the form of Ethereum, and privacy in the form of Zcash" "2009 to 2017 proved Bitcoin would work. 2017 to 2025, programmability. Now, 2025 to 2030-something: privacy. Taking everything we just did and encrypting it using ZK"

RT @bbarze: Weil Gotshal will not be the first, or the last, major law firm to unravel under the weight of its own success. Hubris and a relentless focus on profits can obscure a fundamental truth about law firm partnerships: making money together is not the same thing as building something together. A shared pursuit of wealth is no substitute for shared values, mutual loyalty, and a commitment to those higher values and the institution. When the money, or the confidence, starts to disappear, there’s nothing left to hold the partnership together…in the end, a law firm whose partners are united primarily by financial self-interest has a fragile foundation.

For non-lawyers: This is a HUGE story! Weil is legal royalty. Founded in 1931. $2.1 billion in revenue last year. One of the most powerful law firms on Wall Street. Lehman Brothers. General Motors. Enron. Weil handled their bankruptcies. These are the lawyers you call when your company’s collapse is going to end up in a history book. Now they reportedly need restructuring counsel themselves. A wind-down would be a stunning end to a 95-year-old institution. How does this happen?

RT @tulipking: I so desperately want to end the psyop that buybacks don't work: 1. Mechanically speaking, buybacks make the price go up 2. Crypto is not TradFi, there is a different social contract > The Mechanical Value of Buybacks First there's a large number of studies that confirm basic intuitions: * Market Underreaction to Open Market Share Repurchases NBER (1995) - Buybacks create long term value, especially for underpriced stocks * The Nature and Persistence of Buyback Anomalies (2009) - Reaffirms buybacks create persistent abnormal positive returns. They have an especially positive effect smoothing over price dips when the market overreacts to bad new * Actual Share Repurchases, Price Efficiency, and the Information Content of Stock Prices (2017) - Reaffirms the findings of the 2009 paper. Buybacks improve pricing efficiency, liquidity, and are especially positive during market declines * Pavilion Global Markets Buybacks Drive S&P 500 Returns (2023) - Buybacks can drive up to 43% of the returns in a single stock tldr: buybacks make the number go up. obviously they work better when your stock is at a lower p/e because of under appreciation or market downturns unrelated to the core business, but nonetheless they are positive on the stock THIS SHOULD BE REALLY OBVIOUS, you don't even need to read any of the papers above to understand the basic intuitions of why they work: * Price is a function of supply and demand. When buybacks take supply off the market, price goes up all else held equal * When shares get taken off the market, the shares you hold represent a larger share of the business meaning you benefit from EPS growth even if revenue isn't growing (let alone if it is) * Businesses providing constant single sided buys on their own shares has a smoothing effect on liquidity making deeps shallower and setting higher price floors in the long run (more shares are repurchased on a fixed buying program when price is lower) Some specific examples: * about 51% of Apple's EPS growth is credited to their legendary buyback program retiring so many outstanding shares * Autozone has bought back like 90% of their shares - the stock has had double the annualized returns of the SP for the last 2 decades * Home Depot is similar to Autozone What crypto people get uncomfortable is that buybacks take a long time to compound. This is totally fine in the stock market where there's many businesses you can forecast out in to the future for a decade+. In crypto I understand this rightfully makes people nervous One prime example of this would be PONS. It kinda doesn't matter how much %of supply was bought back by PONS if their business never recovers. The entire trade/business may end up being too much a flash-in-the-pan for the long term effect of buybacks to have compounded But we're now seeing a few crypto businesses start to cross the chasm into multi-cycle success stories. We can & should expect the businesses to implement long durable buyback programs that will compound excess positive returns for the years to come > The importance of buybacks in crypto I don't know if any of you noticed this, but you have no legal protections as token holders. It's also not even on any government roadmap to fix this Regulators are just now getting around to setting some guidelines for crypto projects to not get sued - but even then, none of those guidelines relate to you. You do not have voting rights. You do not have legal recourse. In fact most times you don't even own equity in the underlying businesses which actually collect the revenues IF token holders had legal rights. IF I could sue Compound or Aave for what they've done to token holders, I'd be far more sympathetic to the argument that teams should wait for buybacks. At the end of the day, I know I'd be able to pursue legal recourse & pressure with like minded token holders to force them to return capital when the time is right Unfortunately, you have none of these abilities. You have nothing but the promises of the team. IN FACT, a team that likely ran a points program or other to WIN YOUR BUSINESS by trading some of their equity. I'd argue they have a moral responsibility to you to show they're aligned in the long term with you even in the lack of regulatory requirements

This is fundamentally flawed analysis The most junior analyst on Wall Street knows that when a company starts doing stock buybacks, it's because they can't innovate anymore By this logic, FTT was a good bid Why should I buy a token that can't attract new marginal buyers?

RT @SashoTodorov1: There is something particularly repulsive about a century old institution being torn apart because the partners want to make $15 million instead of a mere $12 million.

RT @PelicanInvasion: @zectrillionaire pretty funny that if you ever get a grant they put you on ZCAP (or ZCG) so it's literally setup for insiders

there is no funding crisis I love you and if there is, solve it by making ETH the most adored asset in crypto that everyone wants to buy not by printing more, which is a downward spiral to nowhere

Does the EF funding crisis stand up to scrutiny ? The EF currently holds 170k $ETH, 70k of which is staked generating 2.1k ETH annually. The remaining 100k Eth is partially held in liquid staking, also generating yield. They also $32 million held in stables. Considering all this, the EF aims to keep operational expensesat 15% of current total treasury, with a 2.5-year fiat/stablecoin runway buffer, with a long term goal of reducing this over 5 years to a 5% baseline So the circulating $30 milliom yearly bill for funding EF will go down to $10 million. As of right now, the EF has enough funds to run for at least 30 years, so there is zero funding crisis. FUD DEBUNKED

RT @ProffEtherPrint: I said it in June and now Tom Lee says it too The EF has to sell to fund operations, and it has a huge multiplier outcome on the ecosystem AND ITS SUSTAINABLE Couple that with them wanting to downsize into nothingness anyway to let the public take the reins and push Ethereum in any direction they want to. You can already see that happening with all the ETH nodes - ie. @ethlabs_org , @ethereuminsti

RT @willchen500: A few reasons: Every hyperscaler/lab announcing X for legal when its mostly their default harness a bunch of plugins/connectors from legaltech vendors. Has already happened enough times that people now stopped caring. It's accepted that legal AI will be more and more competitive. Everyone is building the same thing: a ChatGPT-like harness for legal plus integrations, served on a cloud subscription with an API call to models. Most of the add-on features are not truly useful, are confusing and are just feature dumps that duplicate existing features enabled by vibe coding. Harvey and Legora speedran the process of being the new kids on the block to being a piece of enterprise SaaS that every firm has. In-house legal market is less "sexy" so there is less eyeballs on it. Unless there is some sort of Legora takeover of Harvey like Ant vs OpenAI or a blowup of either, I think people will pay less and less attention to them.

I don't know if I'm imagining it but it kinda feels like legaltech X crowd is running out of fucks to give.

RT @_weidai: Science is about discovering the truth of our universe. AI accelerates science. Modern (theoretical) cryptography, spun out of computational complexity theory decades ago, has built solid frameworks for constructing cryptographic primitives from *minimal* assumptions. Modern applied cryptography, though, has had to rely on many heuristics to build efficient, deployable cryptography. Yes, AI may drive short-term breakthroughs in cryptanalysis and cause turmoil in applied cryptography--certain in-deployment primitives and hardness problems *may* turn out to be "security by obscurity, in the absence of strong AI". But if we live in a universe where cryptography exists (i.e., P != NP and one-way functions exist and/or some public-key cryptography exists), AI will, in the medium to long term, help us gain confidence in truly hard problems and assumptions to base cryptography on. In the not-so-far future, I strongly believe the amount of heuristics required to prove secure deployable cryptography will decrease. The future of cryptography is bright.

RT @l2beat: We've reviewed 16 privacy protocols to understand what they actually hide, who they hide it from, and what's still visible. How do we assess them? We've published our full methodology, and we'd love your feedback 👇

The DTCC Tokenization Service is now live, and this is only the beginning. Explore the service: