Xiaominweb3

Most Meme projects discuss:
Which coin, which meme, who goes all-in first.
But I think @MemeMax_Fi is doing something different:
It’s dealing with emotions themselves.
The essence of Meme is not assets, but volatility, consensus, and emotional density.
And Perp happens to be the most suitable structure to carry this.
Putting emotions scattered across different chains and pools into one engine,
Allowing both longs and shorts to be amplified, hedged, and expressed—
This is much more fundamental than simply "posting another Meme."

Many systems treat on-chain state as a "shared database,"
all computations revolve around this public state.
@0xMiden's account model is distinctly different.
Here, accounts are more like constrained state machines,
each state change itself is a computational process that needs to be proven.
This leads to an important result:
State growth no longer necessarily means verification costs spiral out of control,
because state changes are inherently verifiable units by design.
This doesn't make development easier,
but it makes the long-term operation of complex systems more managea

2026 is called the "Year of NFT Revival" by its team.
@spaace_io's entire design seems to be tailored precisely for this narrative cycle.
The previous NFT bull market was driven by "avatar JPEGs" and social identities. The next phase's core narrative is likely to shift toward "practicality and composability."
@spaace_io's mechanism happens to resonate with this:
Its "reputation badges" and "community cards" serve as practical identity credentials;
"Squad mode" empowers collaborative organizations;
In the future, based on these credit and identity data, a variety of applications such as leasing

On the surface, @0xMiden uses a mature ZK toolchain,
but its true barrier is not in cryptography itself.
What is difficult to replicate is the path it has taken from the very beginning, centered around "provable execution"
reverse designing virtual machines, instruction sets, and account models.
This means it is not simply "plugging in ZK" onto an existing execution model,
but rather making ZK a prerequisite for the execution model.
Once this choice is made, it is difficult to adjust midway,
which also explains why this route seems to progress slowly but has a complete structure.

Most blockchain systems make very simple assumptions about users:
Users are only responsible for submitting transactions; execution and proof are handled at the system layer.
@0xMiden's assumptions about users are clearly more advanced.
In its model, users are not passive request initiators,
but the primary responsible party for execution.
Logic runs locally on the user,
proofs are generated on the user side,
and the chain is only responsible for verifying whether the state is reasonable.
This means the system does not aim to "reduce all complexity,"
but rather hands the complexity back to the

Happy Friday! The weekend is just around the corner.
After a busy week, my mind is actually more easily attracted to some truly interesting things.
Recently, what made me stop and think seriously is a core idea from @0xMiden:
It doesn't insist on a TPS number race, but instead chooses to return to a more fundamental question—where should computation actually happen?
Through local execution, on-chain verification, and the "proof as the result" design, it shifts the source of scalability from simply node performance to user-side computational power.
The changes brought about by this approach are

Privacy is not about "hiding data," but:
Others can verify that you are correct, but cannot see what you have done.
@0xMiden's local execution + zero-knowledge proof model naturally supports this.
The logic runs on your device, and the proof is verified on the chain.
It's not about adding privacy as an afterthought, but making privacy the default and optional.

Early on in my contract trading, I took many detours.
Position control and risk awareness were not up to par. When the market moved against me, I faced direct liquidation during retracements. After being whipped for a long time,
I realized that for retail investors, the market never sleeps and is never short of opportunities. Staying in the market is the only way to seize those opportunities.
Recently, I’ve been using Gate’s leveraged ETFs, which come with 3x and 5x leverage. Unlike futures contracts, there’s no liquidation line.
Market volatility is reflected in the net asset value’s ups and

Many blockchain projects compete to be faster and have higher TPS.
But @0xMiden chose a more fundamental question:
Why must all transactions be executed on the chain?
In @0xMiden, execution happens locally on the user's device,
The chain is only responsible for verifying whether the results are correct.
What does this mean?
It means that computational load, privacy risks, and costs are no longer entirely borne by the chain.
It’s not about "speeding up" the blockchain,
But about redistributing power:
Returning verification to the chain and giving users true execution authority.
This is also why

The true limitations to the development of Web3 applications are often not "not enough chains," but the difficulty in balancing privacy, performance, and composability.
Many blockchains, in pursuit of one or two of these features, have to sacrifice the others—either sacrificing privacy for speed and transparency, or impacting scalability or interactivity to protect privacy.
@0xMiden's attempt is like a framework that tries to incorporate all three into a single design blueprint.
It does not pursue short-term popularity but focuses on underlying infrastructure capable of supporting long-term ec