This is how banks are planning to stop those "agentic bank runs." Watch closely: their business model depends on seeding this narrative that AI agents are dangerous. Remember, an "agentic bank run" (coined by Apollo) means agents helping customers move their own money en masse to higher-yielding products. Once agents are ubiquitous, there are only a few ways for banks to hold onto cheap retail deposits. Option A: Raise APYs (lol no) Option B: Reduce leverage via fewer loans (no fun) Option C: Ban AI agents, claiming they are a security risk (ding ding ding) Cloud agents like Muse and Dot are trivial to stop, since they come from Meta / OAI IP ranges. If JPM sends them a cease and desist, they will comply. Why would JPM bother? Because their business model depends on it; a huge portion of their ROE comes from cheap retail deposits. This is not theoretical. Just like Amazon banned Muse from shopping there to protect their ad revenue, JPM and Schwab have already banned AI agents to protect sticky deposits. Are agents perfectly reliable today? Of course not. But look at the fix they chose. Not "here's a safe API for agents," it's "no agents ever." That tells you they're not protecting customers, they're protecting themselves. No company ever wins a technological revolution this way. It's the last gasp of a dying business model. It's like the retailers who refused to put their inventory online and demanded users walk into the storefront. Over time they will lose market share to those platforms that embrace what's coming. Their whole deposit franchise depends on users unthinkingly clicking through walls of T&Cs and accepting 0.2% when the risk free rate is closer to 4%. Agents read the fine print and do their research, even when humans don't. For users, the answer is simple: local AI agent frameworks like Hermes, that will actually act on your behalf and that the banks can't block. As the article says, if the agent is running on your own computer, they can't actually tell it's not you.

This is true Ramses blacklisted our veRAM NFT from migration, leaving it essentially worthless. I was involved in these discussions, so here’s what happened: Ramses ran incentive programs encouraging partners to spend more. Depending on the program, they would match our spending with RAM added to voting incentives, sent to us, or deposited directly into our NFT. They explicitly encouraged us to grow that position. For Inverse, Curve and Aerodrome delivered far better liquidity ROI. The RAM subsidies were a major reason we continued spending on Ramses: they compensated for poor liquidity results while growing our long-term veRAM position. We would not have committed those amounts without them. DOG keeps pointing to approximately 240k RAM bought on the market as though that captures our investment. It doesn’t. Our wallets paid roughly $180k in voting incentives on Ramses, valued at the time of payment. The growth from 3.25m to around 8.6m included purchases, incentive matches, reinvested rewards and rebases. Spending money to earn locked RAM under their programs was still an investment. Those earned matches were not unconditional gifts. Return demands were already underway by May 2024, initially offering a replacement NFT of 1.25m, later offering to let us keep 1.5m. We explained that returning a DAO-owned asset required governance and invited them to submit a proposal. We explicitly told them we believed the DAO would very likely support returning the original 3.25m. Looking back, I think the DAO would also have been happy to return the rebases attributable to that 3.25m, keeping the rest. During those discussions, they repeatedly threatened to freeze the NFT. Our reading is that the position had become too large for their liking: too much voting power available for DOLA rather than the higher-volume ETH/USDC pools they wanted supported. We subsequently agreed to a temporary compromise directing at least 6m votes to ETH/USDC, with fees ours to harvest or recycle. We made that change, pending the planned sINV/sDOLA deployment. We were genuinely excited about those pools and thought they could be a big success on Ramses. Unfortunately, substantial delays getting the bridge infrastructure ready meant they never materialised, particularly on sDOLA’s side, as we were planning to use its yield to fund incentives. The migration then blacklisted the entire NFT, including purchased RAM and incentive-earned additions. Ramses’ decision left that accumulated position essentially worthless to us: no useful liquidity, no ongoing income. Pure value destruction. Saying “all partner NFTs were excluded” does nothing to justify it. And spare us the “focus on repaying bad debt” jabs. Inverse has already repaid over $14.4m valued at historical repayment prices (approximately $16.2m at current market prices). There is still work to do. That does not excuse Ramses’ conduct. Encourage partners to spend, reward that spending with locked tokens, demand the accumulated position back under threat of a freeze, then blacklist the whole thing from migration. That is why we call it a rug.

Inverse picked Ramses and got rugged. Ramses migrated veRAM to a new contract and blacklisted our NFT ID from the migration, leaving us with worthless tokens. We’re talking about a large position, stolen specifically from our wallet. Shut up and give our money back @RamsesExchange

oh my god this is worse than we thought here's @Ledger $86M exploits explained > cryptobilis was a reputable and authorized Ledger/Trezor/OneKey dealer for over 4 years > they decided to sell the company to a Chinese guy (most likely patsy for DPRK) from northern China in MARCH 2026 > the "Chinese guy" modded the devices within the supply chain itself (physical), namely Nano X devices, to contain an implant module > ledger validity/genuineness check CANNOT detect this because hw wasn't actually tampered with, just spied on > quoting @MagicalTux: " implant just monitors what's shown on the screen, will take note of the seed as it's shown to you, then transmits it to 3rd party" > former owner chimes in on X (pic below) to say that "they were under a NDA" to not mention anything to anyone for 6 months > they obviously didn't alert any of their partners that they were authorized to sell devices of... because NDA, duh!! its in the name! > conveniently, funds start getting siphoned a few weeks before this magical NDA due date, and being laundered across all blockchains

Aero is set for takeoff 🛫 Launch date and details here: aero.xyz/articles/aero-launc…

Hey @llama summarize onchain trends from August 2026?

Protocol Security Request #27 approved. RAILGUN is deploying on @base. Base users can now use self-custodial, fully on-chain private DeFi without leaving the chain. Send, receive, swap, lend, borrow, and more with battle-tested stealth technology.

lol I got banned on the ramses discord for posting the wallet that signs/creates all Ramses contracts on X what type of dictatorship is this? the only reason why ramses will probably never win is because their founders don't give a single fuck about you, the $RAM token holder. DOG thinks his "PHDs" are the only ones that know about Economics...lmao they are too busy gaslighting you into thinking that they will win some time in the future and that they will be here in 3 years. If you holded Ramses thinking it was going to be the next Aero, you are probably rekt FREE YOURSELF FROM THE REKTNESS

there are a few reasons why $RAM is not winning on RH yet: 1. $UNI is a very well recognized brand and battle tested (but so is ramses) 2. The team at Ramses are some of the best in this industry but apparently they are comfy with their $8m dollar bags. 3. Team doesn't promote Ramses at all. 4. Devs don't want a mansion like Mitch. I don't see any other reason. best platform to lp best fees best UX