ERA

ReasonableMoose1622

Five years of cold storage, and the keys were never really random. That is the horror of the Coldcard mess. In March 2021, a firmware change was supposed to use the device’s hardware random number generator. A simple build check failed open instead, and the code fell back to a software formula seeded from the chip serial number and timers. Seeds meant to hold 128 bits of entropy dropped to roughly 40 bits on older models and 72 on newer ones. Attackers waited until late July 2026, reconstructed those seeds offline, and swept the coins. No phishing. No stolen devices. Just predictable randomness. Losses climbed past a thousand bitcoin and keep rising. ERA Wallet looked at that failure and decided single-source randomness is the real risk. Its design starts with two independent hardware true random number generators: the STM32 noise source and a certified secure element. In expert mode, you can add your own chaos by scribbling on the screen, shaking the device, and waving the camera across the room. Hardware chooses the sample moments, so software never fully controls the process. Each input gets a statistical test. Fail it, and the step repeats. Everything is then mixed through a one-way hash, so even if several sources fail, another can still contribute protection. I like the philosophy. Coldcard showed how a silent fallback can sit unnoticed for years while people trust the hardware. ERA refuses to place all that trust in one source. The strength is redundancy, combined with real user-injected physical noise that a factory cannot predict. The weakness is friction. Most users will skip the expert steps, and a lazy gesture could still pass if the tests are too permissive. Even so, the architecture pushes failure into the open instead of hiding it behind one component that can quietly fail for years.

unforseen0_o

I want to talk about why the Coldcard incident from a couple weeks ago is scarier than most hardware wallet stories, and why ERA's response is a genuinely good case study in designing around the failure instead of just certifying against it. Quick recap for anyone who missed it. Starting July 30th, attackers began pulling roughly 1,367 BTC, about $89 million, out of thousands of Coldcard wallets. The cause traced back to a firmware bug from 2021. Under certain conditions, some devices silently fell back to a weak software random number generator during seed creation instead of using the hardware one they were supposed to rely on. The resulting seed phrases looked completely normal. There was no error, no warning, nothing that would tip off a user that anything was wrong. The keys were just reconstructible offline, and stayed that way for years until someone finally did the reconstructing. What makes this genuinely unsettling isn't the dollar amount, it's that Coldcard's RNG was a certified, respected component from a respected wallet. Certification tells you the chip behaves correctly in a lab. It says nothing about whether the firmware around it will actually route your entropy through that chip every time, under every condition, forever. That gap between "the chip is certified" and "the wallet used the chip correctly" is exactly where Coldcard users got hurt. ERA's blog post lays out how they're designing against that exact gap rather than just pointing at a certificate and calling it a day. Their seed generation pulls from up to five independent sources instead of one: Always active, two separate hardware random number generators from two different manufacturers. An STM32 microcontroller whose entropy is validated against NIST's statistical test suites, and an ATECC608C secure element whose entropy source is formally certified under NIST SP 800-90B. Different silicon, different vendor, different failure modes, so one bad batch or one bad firmware assumption doesn't take down the whole system. Optional, if you choose their expert flow, three more sources that come from you specifically. You draw on the screen, you shake the device, and you sweep the camera across whatever room you happen to be sitting in. None of that can be predicted by a factory or a supply chain attack, because it didn't exist until you made it exist in that exact moment. Every one of those user driven sources has to pass an on device randomness test before it counts. Leave the camera face down or barely tap the screen and the device just rejects it and makes you try again. If you skip the expert flow entirely, the slots that would have come from you get backfilled with fresh hardware entropy instead, so your seed is never weaker than the two chip baseline, only ever equal to it or stronger. All five sources then get combined through SHA-512/256, a one way hash function where partial knowledge is worthless. Knowing four of the five inputs perfectly still leaves an attacker with nothing they can use, because the function doesn't degrade gracefully. One honest source is enough to keep the output unpredictable. Where I'd push them further: everything above comes from ERA's own team, and while that's not a red flag by itself, "trust us, we tested it" is the same energy that let Coldcard's certified chip fail quietly for five years. To ERA's credit, they've already followed up with a technical report running their actual chips through NIST SP 800-90B, SP 800-22, AIS-31, and PractRand test suites, along with cold boot forensics, which is a real step toward "don't trust, verify" rather than just saying it. The next thing I'd want to see is an independent third party audit of the actual mixing implementation itself, not just the individual chips, since that's the layer where Coldcard's bug actually lived. If you're into wallet security or you're the kind of person who reads audit reports for fun, worth the full read: https://blog.era-wallet.com/randomness-you-dont-have-to-trust-how-era-generates-your-seed-phrase/

Responsible_Rush5371

I’ve been reading about this because I hadn’t realised seed generation could fail so silently. What struck me about the Coldcard incident is that having a hardware RNG isn’t enough if the firmware doesn’t actually use it correctly. I also read ERA Wallet’s explanation of their approach. They use two independent hardware randomness sources and, optionally, add camera, motion and touch data before mixing everything together. That makes sense to me as defence in depth — if one entropy source turns out to be weak, another genuinely unpredictable source should still protect the final seed. The part I’m still unsure about is whether this really eliminates a single point of failure. Eventually firmware still has to collect, validate and combine all of those sources. If that code had a serious bug, couldn’t it theoretically ignore or mishandle several perfectly good entropy sources?

Responsible_Rush5371

I’ve been reading about this because I hadn’t realised seed generation could fail so silently. What struck me about the Coldcard incident is that having a hardware RNG isn’t enough if the firmware doesn’t actually use it correctly. I also read ERA Wallet’s explanation of their approach. They use two independent hardware randomness sources and, optionally, add camera, motion and touch data before mixing everything together. That makes sense to me as defence in depth — if one entropy source turns out to be weak, another genuinely unpredictable source should still protect the final seed. The part I’m still unsure about is whether this really eliminates a single point of failure. Eventually firmware still has to collect, validate and combine all of those sources. If that code had a serious bug, couldn’t it theoretically ignore or mishandle several perfectly good entropy sources? So multiple entropy sources seem like an improvement, but I’d still want strong independent scrutiny of the implementation itself.

sporastefy

Disclosure first: ERA Wallet are running a bounty for discussion of this incident, which is what got me to write it up. They asked for honest opinions including criticism. Most of what follows is about Coldcard and about builds, and you can weigh the rest accordingly. I've spent about thirty years doing Linux systems and distribution work, including co-founding a Debian fork and writing the tooling that merges and republishes its signed package archive. That background makes me read this story differently from most of the coverage. Nobody broke the cryptography here. The cryptography never ran. A build configuration error meant seed generation fell back to a software PRNG instead of the hardware entropy source. Not a weakness in the algorithm, not a flaw in the maths — the good path simply wasn't the path that shipped. Two things follow from that, and I think the second one matters more than the entropy discussion this thread has mostly been having. **Silent degradation is the actual defect.** The PRNG isn't the bug. The bug is a fallback that quietly continued instead of stopping. A weak seed is indistinguishable from a strong one — same 24 words, same checksum, same everything — so there is no runtime check that catches it and no user who can tell. The only detector is somebody draining the addresses, five years later. Anything that cannot reach its entropy source has to refuse to generate a key and say so on screen. In systems work this is old: a service that fails silently is far more dangerous than one that crashes, because the crash gets fixed on Tuesday. **It was a build problem, and open source did not catch it.** You put reproducible builds in your list of what you still want, and I'd argue it belongs higher than that — not one item among several, but the thing the whole incident turns on. Coldcard's source was open. People read it. The divergence was between what the source said and what the build produced. Open source tells you what the code says. It does not tell you what is running on your device. Reproducible builds are the thing that closes that gap, and only that. If an independent party can rebuild the shipped firmware byte-for-byte from published source, a build-configuration divergence stops being invisible. Debian has been grinding at this problem for over a decade and it is largely solved there. A hardware wallet holds bearer assets. It should be held to at least the standard we hold a package manager to, and right now most of them aren't. So the question I'd put to any vendor, including the one paying for this discussion: are your builds reproducible, and can a third party verify that the firmware on my device matches your published source? "We're open source" is not an answer to that question. Coldcard was open source and it still lost the money. For what it's worth, ERA's own write-up does address the silent-degradation half properly — they describe a quality gate that rejects weak input rather than accepting it, and collection that fails cleanly. That's the right instinct and more than most vendors bother with. But their article doesn't mention reproducible builds or firmware verification either, so the second half of the problem is open there too.

lockduck1

I asked ERA customer service this same question and they answered this. Can you help me in knowing if what they are saying is legit? I´m not that tech savyy to know. Nonce generation happens entirely inside ERA. Sparrow (or OKX, Rabby, anything else we pair with) hands us an unsigned PSBT and gets a signature back. It has no say in how k is chosen. So you’re right that this comes down to what the ERA signing firmware does, and nothing about the host wallet helps you. What we do: ECDSA nonces are RFC6979. Bitcoin signing goes through libwally-core’s PSBT signer with no auxiliary entropy and no grinding flags, which lands on libsecp256k1’s default nonce function, i.e. plain RFC6979. Taproot/Schnorr calls secp256k1\_schnorrsig\_sign32 with aux\_rand = NULL, so BIP340 on the zero-mask branch, also fully deterministic. Other ECDSA chains use trezor-crypto’s ecdsa\_sign\_digest with USE\_RFC6979 set. Ed25519 chains are deterministic by construction. You can read this yourself and analyze with your favorite security tool. Our crypto module is public at [github.com/ERAWLT/ERA-crypto-p:](http://github.com/ERAWLT/ERA-crypto-p:) src/common/PrivateKey.cpp, the ECDSA/EdDSA entry point3rdparty/crypto/ecdsa.c,rfc6979.c,options.h, the RFC6979 implementation and theUSE\_RFC6979 1switchsrc/chains/bitcoin/transactions/psbt/WrappedPsbt.cpp, which callswally\_psbt\_sign\_bip32(psbt, &masterKey, 0). That0is the flags argument: no aux entropy, no grinding. Before you go there: The mirror is a snapshot from late 2025 and lags our current tree. The nonce code is unchanged between the two, but you won’t be reading HEAD. That said, we’d rather point you at a check that doesn’t depend on us at all. Reading source tells you what the code says, not what’s running on the unit in front of you. That gap exists on every hardware wallet, fully open-source ones included, unless you’re doing reproducible builds and verifying the image yourself. The check below tests actual device behaviour, and it works against any signer: Because we add no auxiliary randomness and don’t grind, every signature ERA produces is reproducible bit for bit by anyone holding the seed. RFC6979 permits exactly one signature per (key, message). Generate a throwaway seed with your dice. Same process, no funds on it.Load it and sign a PSBT through Sparrow as normal.Derive the signing key yourself (BIP32), compute the BIP143 sighash for the input, and produce the RFC6979 signature with whatever you trust:python-ecdsa, libsecp256k1 directly, take your pick.Comparer||sagainst what ERA wrote into the PSBT. Sign the same PSBT a few times and confirm the output is byte-stable.Any nonce manipulation changes r, so you catch it on the first signature rather than needing a statistical sample. One minor gotcha: Sparrow and Core grind for low-R by default and we don’t, so signing the same input with Sparrow’s own signer on the same seed will disagree about half the time for entirely benign reasons. Compare against a non-grinding RFC6979 signer instead. Please note: that difference has no security bearing. Grinding is a transaction-size optimisation: it looks for a nonce whose r has a clear top bit, saving one byte in the DER encoding, and the search itself is deterministic. Both signatures are equally valid and equally RFC6979-derived. If anything the non-grinding case gives you a tighter check, because plain RFC6979 permits exactly one signature per (key, message), whereas verifying a ground signature means replicating the grinding loop too. We may enable it eventually for the size saving. It wouldn’t change anything above.

Web3FieldNotes

Previously, I believed that seed phrases generated offline by hardware wallets were absolutely secure because they were created inside the device rather than transmitted over a network. I therefore equated “not connected to the internet” with “secure.” I held this view because I had mainly focused on network attacks and did not fully understand the seed phrase generation process. The Coldcard incident changed my perspective. According to Coldcard’s official security advisory, the seed-generation process in affected firmware versions did not provide the expected level of entropy. This made me realize that the risk does not necessarily come from a seed phrase being stolen over the network; it can also originate during the generation process. Insufficient entropy reduces the search space an attacker needs to explore. Therefore, offline operation only reduces the attack surface. It does not guarantee that a seed phrase was securely generated in the first place. In its article on entropy generation, ERA states that its system collects input from five entropy sources and combines them. It then evaluates the quality of the resulting entropy before using it to generate keys. In my view, multiple entropy sources can theoretically reduce reliance on a single source, but this advantage depends on several conditions: 1. The resulting entropy must be sufficiently unpredictable. 2. The five sources mentioned by ERA must actually be used by the firmware and contribute to the resulting entropy. 3. The sources must not merely appear independent while depending on the same underlying component or single point of failure. 4. The system must use a reliable method to combine them. If one source fails, the system should either preserve the security of the final result or stop the generation process rather than continue without warning. If these conditions are met, I believe a multi-source design may be more reliable than one that relies on a single entropy source. However, I still have several questions. As an ordinary user, I cannot determine from the displayed seed phrase whether all five sources actually contributed or whether they were correctly combined. What standard does the quality-check mechanism follow, and can it detect the failure of an individual entropy source? If the resulting entropy does not pass the quality check, will the device refuse to generate a seed phrase? How can an ordinary user verify that the firmware currently running on the device matches the version that was publicly released and independently audited? Finally, generating two different seed phrases only shows that the two outputs are different. It does not prove that they are sufficiently unpredictable, nor does it prove that all five sources contributed to the entropy-generation process. What more reliable methods are available to ordinary users for verifying this process? Disclosure: I’m participating in an ERA Wallet discussion bounty. These are my own views and questions.

Fun-Analysis-182

Dice seed generation doesn't help against Dark Skippy, because it's a signing attack, not a seed-generation one. The whole trick is that a malicious signer leaks your seed through the nonces in the signatures it produces, so it can exfiltrate a seed you generated perfectly with dice, in as few as a couple of signatures. What actually blocks it is an anti-exfil (anti-klepto) protocol at signing time: your coordinator feeds its own entropy into the nonce and then verifies the device used it, so the signer has no room to hide bits. So the thing to check isn't the seed path, it's whether ERA and Sparrow support and enforce that anti-exfil handshake on every signature. Without it there's no reliable way to tell from the outside that a signer isn't leaking, since a rigged nonce looks exactly like an honest one.

uledjend

Yeah, this is what scares me about the whole thing. You could do everything right and still have a seed that was weak from the day it was generated. I recently read how ERA tries to avoid this by pulling randomness from multiple sources instead of depending on one. Makes sense, but I still wonder what happens if the problem is in the firmware bringing all those sources together. After Coldcard, I think being able to verify that process matters more than another trust me from a hardware wallet company.

Legitimate_You_4730

I've been following the Coldcard situation pretty closely, and I also went through ERA Wallet's post about how they generate entropy. A few people were sharing it as the obvious answer to what happened, but I wanted to actually think through the argument instead of just nodding along. What bothers me most about the Coldcard incident isn't even the amount of money lost. It's how the failure happened. This wasn't phishing. It wasn't an exchange getting hacked. It wasn't someone storing their seed phrase in a Google Doc. The device did exactly what users expected it to do. It generated a seed, kept it on the device, never connected to the internet, and still produced a compromised wallet because of a firmware bug dating back to 2021 that caused it to fall back to a weaker software RNG instead of the hardware RNG. After three waves of drains, roughly 1,367 BTC are reportedly gone. That's the uncomfortable part for anyone who has ever felt completely safe because their funds were in cold storage. The whole promise of a hardware wallet is basically: your private key never leaves the device, so you're protected. But that only matters if the private key was generated properly in the first place. And that's an assumption most people never really question. A secure seed and a compromised seed can look exactly the same from the outside. Both can give you 24 perfectly normal-looking words. That's where I think ERA's approach gets interesting. Their basic argument is that you shouldn't put the entire security model behind one source of entropy. Instead, they combine two hardware RNGs from different manufacturers, using an STM32 chip alongside a NIST-certified secure element. Then there's the optional expert flow, which adds camera input, device movement and touchscreen input before everything is blended through SHA-512/256. The redundancy makes sense to me. If Coldcard taught us anything, it's that a silent failure in a single entropy source can become catastrophic. Having independently manufactured hardware generators means one failure doesn't automatically mean the entire entropy process is compromised. I also like the detail around user-generated entropy. ERA doesn't simply accept whatever input the user gives it. If someone barely shakes the device or leaves the camera pointed at a wall, the system can reject the input rather than pretending it added meaningful randomness. That's a small implementation detail, but it's the kind of thing I actually want to see. That said, I'm not ready to call the problem solved. ERA published this explanation immediately after a competitor suffered a major incident. That's exactly when I'd be paying more attention to the claims, not less. The chip-level claims can be checked independently. The implementation is harder. A well-designed entropy system on paper and a correctly implemented entropy system in production are two very different things. Coldcard is a pretty painful reminder of that. I'd also question how much value the "expert flow" really adds for the average user. Camera sweeps, shaking the device and scribbling on a touchscreen sound useful, but they're also more work. Most people will probably skip them. Which means the two-hardware-generator baseline has to be strong enough on its own. The extra entropy sources are only meaningful if people actually use them. So where do I land? I think the redundancy principle is absolutely the right lesson from the Coldcard incident. ERA's multi-source design is a legitimate response to the question of what happens when one entropy source silently fails. That's not just marketing fluff. It represents a different risk model from relying on a single source. But there's still a gap between "this architecture makes sense" and "this architecture has been independently proven to work." I'd want to see third-party audits, reproducible entropy testing, and eventually the NIST test-suite results ERA has teased. Until then, I'd call it promising rather than solved. Trust, but verify. And that standard should apply equally to every hardware wallet maker, including the ones currently benefiting from someone else's bad week.

brandon11q11

These guys drained millions of dollars of people's money who worked hard to have what they had on bitcoin. I can't believe that, these hackers must be truly frowned upon and I would like nothing more than to see justice get done. Has anyone heard of the ERA wallet? Dude that wallet is super awesome in my opinion, its nearly invincible! I don't believe anyone would be able to exploit it anytime soon. That was definitely a strong way to set up security against hackers and exploiters.

Dry_Blueberry_4137

"The recent Coldcard incident reminded everyone of one critical question: How can you trust the randomness behind your private key? Today, we're publishing a deep dive into how ERA Wallet generates your seed using up to five independent entropy sources." Read ERA's article. It's a genuinely thoughtful response to a $38M+ disaster. But here's what I learned — and what still worries me: The good: 5 independent sources (camera, swipe, accel, 2× TRNG) with real-time Shannon entropy evaluation. If one RNG is broken, the others compensate. Three sources are user-influenced. This is dissimilar redundancy  applied to key generation — the same principle that keeps airplanes in the sky. The concern: We're still trusting the device to mix those 5 sources correctly. Coldcard's bug was a silent build-system failure that sat in open-source code for 5+ years. If ERA's mixing logic has a similar subtle flaw — a bad XOR, a biased hash, a lying entropy evaluator — the user has no way to detect it. What makes sense: ERA's open experiment with raw TRNG data + NIST testing + public Colab notebooks is the right direction. Verifiable randomness > multi-source randomness. But we need this to become an industry standard , not a marketing differentiator. My unanswered question: If a compromised or buggy device can fake its own entropy test, how do we verify randomness without trusting the device that generated it? Multi-vendor multisig remains the only answer I trust for serious holdings. No single device — even one with 5 entropy sources — should be the sole guardian of your stack.

No-Wrap3568

If it would hurt to lose that amount then it deserves a cold wallet and if you're HODLing, I assume you know there's a pre-assumption that your portfolio will grow in the longer run (provided you've bet on the right coins), then there's no point of getting a cold wallet only when you hit a certain threshold because anyway you'll reach there sooner or later. For best cold wallets I'd suggest you to take a look at Cypherock X1, Curvex and ERA wallet. Been personally using Cypherock and it's the only solution that I required. Your needs might differ, choose accordingly

rainman4500

I have the book. Very interesting. Makes a very good point that proof of work is the only valid way to defend against hacking. In the ERA where AI can find zero day exploits and everything (banking, drones, power grid) still have weak username / password protecting infrastructure and the army behind proof of work makes sense.

fintech_portal

Although the recovery key is a copy of those ERA uses ;)

fintech_portal

Always a matter of personal taste so all good and since all Trezor Safe devices are great I obviously don’t have any bad words about Trezor. Currently I have got an ERA wallet laying on my desk but did make it yet to set it up. This one is said to be strong in terms of air-gapped design. Will see.

romik2821

Thank you for providing this info 🙏 90% people just yapping here and not running Chatgpt5, Gemini pro for multiple hours a day to get Fundamentals of the ETH , SOL, XRP Etherium going to change our financial ERA!!! Big players like GOOGLE, META, MICROSOFT etc have to joint Blockchains or they would loose business...

AutoModerator

Post is by: Decarz and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1q1ospg/btc/ SATOSHI ERA WHALE JUST BOUGHT 8,145 @ $BTC WORTH $715 MILLION! HE BECAME ACTIVE FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 2011 AND WENT ALL-IN TO BUY MORE BITCOIN TODAY. HE DEFINITELY KNOWS THE BOTTOM IS IN #BTC Price Analysis# #Altcoin *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Ok-Education4072

Well first thing first is- Gold is just gold is a physical asset that can be held and stored. Its tangibility provides a sense of security for traditional investors. -Bitcoin: Bitcoin is entirely digital, existing only on the blockchain. Its intangible nature appeals to modern investors comfortable with digital assets. Second thing is- Gold has been a trusted store of value for centuries, particularly during economic uncertainty, while Bitcoin is newer and more speculative. Bitcoin can offer higher returns due to its volatile nature, but it carries greater risks than gold, which is traditionally more stable. Third thing is- Gold has fuck all uses still in this day and age and it's been around since the gold rush days Bitcoin has hundreds of use cases that i will happily name if anyone dare to question me on that, Just to name a few ways to use Bitcoin off the top of my head-Bitcoin can be used by speculators, investors for investing purposes, Banking Chains and consumers for purchases through third party sites to get currency for places like Coffee Shops, Kmart, Big W, Dan Murphys, Rebel Sport, Uber, Doordash, Bunnings, Home Hardware, Masters, Coles, Woolworths, BBQ's Galore and it can even be used the online gambling &/or gaming sector!! There's just a few use cases that are off the top of my head but as I said there are hundreds of more use cases for Bitcoin! Not to add my fourth and final thing- Gold-They say it has more use cases then BTC, Id love to hear more then 10 different uses for Gold from anyone willing to accommodate!! "BITCOIN IS THE NEW ERA OF GOL, BITCOIN WILL BECOME ONE OF THE BIGGEST PLAYERS AND IT WILL BE TITLED ONE OF THE KINGS AMONGST THE VERY FEW KINGS THAT COMPETE WITH BITCOIN" #Just remember that no matter whether you own just 1 sat(part of a coin) or or 1 whole BTC, You'll be sitting on a crypto that none of the exchanges will have for sale in 5-10 years because it will be all mined and sold to us people who have smartly invested into BTC &/or otherwise it will be sold by the exchanges for whatever price they want to put on it because there will be no more coins left to put prices on just to begin with and also there will still be us that HODL that will still own parts or full Bitcoins and we will be sitting on a gold mine because the hype and the interest that people have for Bitcoin are only gonna get stronger over the next 5-10 years and that will just set it right up to the point we all want it to be!! ★★★HODL BTC HODL BTC HODL BTC HODL BTC HODL★★★GET IT NOW WHILE ITS STILL DIRT CHEAP★★★

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Caldera's ERA token surged 85% following its listing on major exchanges like Binance, driven by a significant airdrop campaign. Caldera, a rollup-as-a-service (RaaS) platform, aims to scale Ethereum and BNB Chain by enabling developers to deploy customizable layer-2 solutions. The ERA token's price rose from $0.16 to over $1.50, with traders targeting $3. The platform supports over 50 rollups and manages $1 billion in assets, backed by venture capital and partnerships with Relay, Hyperlane, and others. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

claudiupp13

Hey, check my last 2 posts through my profile. It's too much to write. I've been in the same boat.. I wanted to make money but I am not good in crypto analysis so I created a tool that does it for me. And for anyone else who is in the same boat -> WE ARE IN THE AI ERA FFS, let's take full advantage of the AI capabilities and make the money we need for the lifestyle we want

MarthinusInvestments

This is just the start of a new Snake ERA❤️

uncapchad

satoshi ERA not satoshi's wallet. Read what you posted

Additional_Zebra_861

Tell that to guys who bought allcthe shitcoins with all their money that went to 0. This js survivorship bias, taking current very few winners as an ignoring tens of thousands failed crypto coins. There are so many holders, who bought baskets of coins in early 2013, 2017, 2021 bull markets. Even all those additional bull markets were not able to offset loses that happened because of hodling wrong crypto. If you want to enhance your knowledge about the scale of failures check [https://www.coinmarketcap.com/historical](https://www.coinmarketcap.com/historical). You can see all the crypto week by week, allcprice history. And you can easily see that a basket of top 100 from 2013 made miserable, same is top 100 from 2017, 2021.... shitload of pain. And the sad fact is, that those few top coins that survived was close to impossible to buy cheap. Basically you know thay a coin has some near future after it pumped and is expensive. When it was cheap there were always similar tech cryptos so picking a winner was super hard and failure rate super high. Picking bitcoin now is easy. But it is super expensive already and future possible profits ar a joke compared what it already earned. Back in 2013, people believed bitcoin is old and slow and litecoin will over take it. 2014, there was bitcoin vs bitcoin cash figth, and many people believed bitcoin will lose. Later there was Monero, many believed anonymous coins are going to win. Than Ethereum almost killed Bitcoin. Ethereum was started of new ERA of abdondoning bitcoin for much better tech. Add to it tons of regulations, bans, fear..... holding BTC was simply idiocy, no sane person would hold it for so long under all that pressure. It is an extreme surprise for vast majority of old crypto holders that bitcoin is still the winner. It almost lost its no1 status multiple times. Ethereum was close to parity to BTC at one point. So was bitcoin Cash. Similar was with Ethereum, it almost lost to Ethereum classic. Now we know and our survivorship bias is hiding all the dangers and failures and historical events that will appear again and again. The chance that Bitcoin will be no1 in 25 years is very very veeeeeey unlikely.

BasisOk4268

1. Buy ETH with the USDT on Binance. 2. Set up the zkSync-ERA network on your Metamask. 3. Send the ETH from Binance to zkSync Metamask Address 4. Go to Layerswap.IO and transfer the ETH from your zkSync wallet to your ETH wallet

PablovsPeanut

Doesn’t exist yet. Everything is a massive gamble if you let anyone else hold your keys. Just look at FTX. This is the stack and hold ERA

FitScore3115

Zksync ERA is pumping... Why?

Crypto-hercules

An end of an ERA.. the last chance for the plebs to front run wallstreeet. The suits have seen enough and decided they want Bitcoin for themselves. They are coming with endless fiat to bid for your btc as they know must people on here are paper hands who move in herds like sheep. They hope that most have not put the work in and read the books. They hope that most will give up a once in a species asset for shiny new cars or more worthless fiat. Make no mistake this is a planned and very well co ordinated move to take it all!!

eat-sleep-rave

Arbitrum was the best airdrop so far. I'm feeling similar vibes about LayerZero and zkSync ERA

eat-sleep-rave

Uniswap on Ethereum mainnet Camelot and Vela on Arbitrum One SyncSwap on zkSync ERA

eat-sleep-rave

Yeah, but zkSync ERA is already on mainnet

Weary-Tmmmm

IT IS AN ERA OF AI INNOVATION, KEY IN NOW AND EARN WITH PEACE OF MIND WHILE AI BOT DOES THE MAGIC FOR YOU 💲AI BOT TRADES💲 ⚜️💰Min deposit - $100 ⚜️💰Min withdraw - $30 🔱Referrals -5% 🤑Earn upto 1.2% to 2.5% daily 🛡️LAUNCH DATE OCTOBER 1ST 🥇 Ai-trades.net

Beton41

I'm being an active user on zksync ERA mainnet, basically I try different dapps, make transactions (mostly swaps), also I plan to mint NFT, make a domain and bridge to zksync lite

Beton41

I make transactions on zksync ERA mainnet, because I think there will be an airdrop and I want to appear as active user so I'm eligible.

eat-sleep-rave

I like what zkSync ERA is doing. There are some interesting yield farms, including single token yield farms, which eliminate impermanent loss

Beton41

What is the cheapest way to get ETH from CEX to zkSync ERA network? I mean I can't send ETH straight to zksync so which is the cheapest network to bridge from?

diwalost

Someone said that only those wallets which have transactions and balances on L1 and bridge assets to ZKSync ERA will be eligible for airdrop so I am not sure if farmers will be much concerned.

bull_bear25

SAP + POLYGON Two giants of Technology industry. I am extremely bullish on Polygon I believe MATIC will become a reliable Giant coin like BTC and ETH. People will continuously DCA in MATIC like they do in the other two. MATIC is all set to begin an ERA of Big 3 - BTC, ETH and MATIC

flarept1

Dang can't help with that, I use orbiter finance to bridge between mainnet and zksync ERA, how long ago did you submit the transaction? Some take longer time.

Beton41

Guys, I think I fcked up. Tried bridging from eth mainnet to zksync ERA mainnet. Somehow I sent it to this wallet(link). It says the transaction was successful but I can't see it in my wallet (yes I did switch networks). https://etherscan.io/address/0x32400084c286cf3e17e7b677ea9583e60a000324

Beton41

Do you need to interact with testnet? On zksync I'm starting with zkSync ERA mainnet I'm definitely looking into venom after zksync, shouldn't take too long as I'm not planning to use multiple wallets for now.

dccking

Not only in this list but even in my portfolio moon to the top, MOON ERA GUYS!!

MagicPlumber

6 years from now , the world is now using Moon as the main currency's for the human civilization. 1 earth 1 moon long live the ERA of Moon

Popular_District9072

awards were a fun addition - they took away free ones, and now going after paid ones too.. IT'S AN END OF THE ERA.. we won't have sneks in daily thread.. what is even real at this point?

eat-sleep-rave

There are many ETH layer 2 scaling solutions out there (OP, ARB, Polygon). The competition is stiff. And now the hype is on zk \[zero knowledge\] rollups like zk Sync ERA and Polygon zkEVM

Dr_I_Abnomeel

The 250,000,000 ERA airdrop probably helped.

MinimalGravitas

So think ahead and move to an L2 now while fees are low and you aren't in a rush. Most big exchanges at least have direct on/off ramps to Arbitrum and Optimism, and if you prefer the security proposition of a ZK rollup then you can bridge cheaply from either of those to zkSync ERA or Polygon's ZKEVM.

_swnt_

zkSync ERA just recently announced that it has bridges rETH!

FluffayPenguin

It's going to tough considering how crowded in the L2 EVM space is becoming. * Arbitrum and Optimism are the huge incumbents. * zkSync ERA, Polygon zkEVM, and Base are the newcomers. More are coming, and users/projects are going to have to pick where to settle.

FluffayPenguin

It's starting to get **crowded** in the L2 EVM space. Arbitrum and Optimism are the huge incumbents. zkSync ERA, Polygon zkEVM, Base are the newcomers.

CypherMcAfee

wrong. You for ure arent a business owner and never had any business. The state controls you and your money, specially in this CBDC'S ERA. You can figth that for sure but your wrong dude.

RawInfoSec

I'm sitting at my desk right now, there's a 60" screen on the wall adjacent to my desk. On this screen is our ESET ERA server's Detections page. We have over 1200 endpoints, users. In any given hour, I can count at least 300-400 threats scroll by as ESET gets them. This is users clicking things they shouldn't. It's them looking at pages they shouldn't. Opening mail they shouldn't. Clicking links in email they shouldn't. Trying to install apps they shouldn't. Users shouldn't take custody of their own money in a piece of software on a general-computing device. They should put it on a device that does only one thing, i.e. a hardware wallet. One that doesn't have TikTok on it, doesn't have email access, doesn't have fucking Candy Crush on it etc etc etc. This is what I base my suggestions on.

wattzson

It's extremely easy to navigate the bloodshed of crypto, you avoid it and only invest in Bitcoin. Every single cryptocurrency will be or already is being treated as a security by the US government, **except bitcoin**. Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that doesn't pass the Howey test to be considered a security. This is important and if you don't understand what it means, look it up but the short explanation is that all cryptocurrencies are investment tools designed to make people money. Bitcoin is not an investment tool to make money because it is money. It's very slow but very secure money. Do yourself a huge favor and read The Bitcoin Standard if you can find or buy a copy of it. If you absolutely hate reading, check out Andreas Antonopoulos on youtube and watch some of his stuff. Once you understand the value of bitcoin things like LUNA and FTX collapse won't phase you. Nothing will phase you because you will understand nothing outside of an apocalypse can stop bitcoin and that for the first time in your life you have the chance to invest in something that has a better chance of surviving into the future than the US government itself. You'll understand that the USD and all other FIAT currencies are a just a tool that allows current leaders to instantly benefit by stealing from their citizens and ignoring the fact that they are on a unsustainable path of debt that can only lead to eventual ruin, the same thing they do with energy through the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last few decades the world went through a huge change - we entered the digital ERA. The last 30 years has been the absolute biggest increase in production in history. GDP has gone through the roof compared to decades prior yet instead of having a healthy balance sheet, the US has 35 TRILLION dollars of dept and a huge inflation problem. The middleclass is gone. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck while the rich continue getting richer, not because they have earned it but because the US government pumps trillions of dollars into their asset markets because if they don't, then the rich won't continue supporting their campaigns. ​ The circle must be broken. Bitcoin is the only way.

hijgugpgupu

🔥 MAINNET MONSTER ERA VERSION WILL OPEN ON 6PM (UTC+7) 11/1🔥 Monster Trainers, only a few hours left - Monster Era Mainnet version will be officially released ️ Who can join the Monster Era Maninnet? ✅ EVERYONE Register an account first at: htt ps://id.mobgame.mobi/ Along with the official launch of Monster Era, there will be some exciting events with super prizes not to be missed! ⚔️ Arena arena ranking event: ⏰ Period: November 1-20 💎 Total prize: up to 1.2 million $HUB and many other attractive in-game gifts 🎮 Daily Check-in - 7 days of continuous check-in will receive 250 gems, 2 non NFT pet summons, 1 turn to participate in the lucky wheel, and Pet upgrade items 📺 AMA Livestream: ⏰ Time: 5PM UTC+7 - November 1 💎 Total Prize: 6 NFT for 6 Minigame winners @monsterera #7393

reed5point0

Kevin Smith also just released a B rate horror movie called Killroy Was Here on Secret Network via a corresponding NFT It's a re-imagining of the WW2 ERA Killroy meme being a Bloody Mary / Candyman esque killer...It's no Sharknado but I was baked enough to watch the whole thing,

voluntarygang

I'm responding to the person above saying the ERA of free money is coming to an end. Yes they may raise rates in the short term but it will cause predictable pain and they will need to revert in the long term. The era of free money is therefore not ending.

Eightb8ll_Cue

If you thought this crash was bad then you should’ve seen the one back in 2018. (ICO ERA)

indonesian_activist

This example discussed ERA but I’m sure there’s plenty of others upcoming NFT games that would provide similar benefits, the trick is learning to spot which ones. In general try to find games with experienced and doxxed game devs, strong social media and in-game mechanics that provides positive feedback for increased token swap transactions to benefit LP holders.