The Business And Technology Network

The Sei Foundation has proposed an upgrade to the Sei blockchain, targeting a transition to version 2.

ERC-7683 aims create a universal filler network for all cross-chain intents to follow in their order structure, tackling relayer fragmentation. 

Artificial intelligence (AI) firms have reportedly begun offering “AI-in-a-box” tools for companies to run in-house.

It’s a trend that presents a threat to the AI cloud computing business of Chinese tech giants like Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu, the Financial Times (FT) reported Saturday (May 18).

According to the report, among the firms in question is Huawei, which has gotten more than a dozen AI start-ups to bundle and market their large language models with its AI processors and other hardware.

Huawei estimates the Chinese market for “all-in-one machines,” as they are known in the country, will reach $2.3bn this year. Analysts at Minsheng Securities project the government market for AI boxes could reach $62 billion by 2027.

Dylan Patel, chief analyst at research group SemiAnalysis, said that although some Chinese companies may want on-premises artificial intelligence, it would not be as efficient as using a public cloud or employing APIs to connect to large language models.

“Usage is going to be very sporadic, which means you’re going to have all this very expensive AI hardware that is not utilized properly,” he said.

The FT report notes that this trend marks a sharp contrast to how AI is being commercialized in western countries, and capitalizes on data protection fears at Chinese companies.

According to the report, research notes from Chinese investment banks have played up security lapses among western AI companies, like when OpenAI’s ChatGPT accidentally unveiled users’ search histories or Samsung employees alleged leak of trade secrets to the chatbot.

“Organizations need to be able to protect their data, and building a private cloud is the way to prevent leaking valuable data,” Liu Qingfeng, founder of language specialist iFlytek, told potential customers.

Baidu earlier this month posted better-than-expected results for the first quarter, with its investment in AI helping to offset softer online advertising sales. Revenue from its core business, which includes its flagship search engine and AI initiatives, climbed 4% to 23.8 billion yuan, while revenue for the company’s AI Cloud unit rose 6%.

“As a new era of Gen-AI unfolds in China, foundation models like ERNIE will serve as the underlying infrastructure,” Robin Li, Baidu’s co-founder and CEO, said in a news release.

The company has also been expanding its ERNIE family of large language models, aiming to make the technology more affordable and efficient.

The post Chinese Tech Giants Threatened by Smaller AI Products appeared first on PYMNTS.com.

Microsoft has taken the wraps off the new Surface Laptop — an Arm-based laptop for consumers. It’s got one big difference from the Surface Laptop 6 for Business announced in March — it’s equipped with Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X Elite chip instead of Intel’s Core Ultra, leveling the playing field, the company hopes, with Apple’s powerful and efficient MacBook laptops.

The new Surface laptop comes in four colors and 13.8- and- 15-inch options for its 600-nit displays. The company says it’s “80 percent faster than our previous generation” and offers “up to 22 hours of local video playback.” It’s got a haptic touchpad, just as Apple’s MacBooks have had for years. Unlike the MacBook Air, Microsoft said it will support three 4K monitors — on top…

Continue reading…

Hims and Hers is the latest pharmacy to offer GLP-1 drugs from compounding pharmacies. | Illustration by Hugo Herrera for The Verge

Hims & Hers Health, one of the online pharmacies that got its start prescribing dick pills, is now offering knockoff versions of GLP-1 weight loss drugs. Hims & Hers says it will offer drugs that mimic Ozempic and Wegovy, the active ingredient of which is semaglutide.

The copycat versions are made by compounding pharmacies. The formulations aren’t the same as the FDA-approved versions of the drug and haven’t been directly evaluated by the FDA, either. But they’re cheaper than the real thing: $199 a month, compared to the branded version, which can cost more than $1,000 a month without insurance.

Compounding pharmacies can make knockoff versions of branded drugs when they are in shortage, as the GLP-1 drugs — prescribed for diabetes and…

Continue reading…

Prometheum, a New York-based digital asset firm, has launched the first SEC-compliant Ethereum (ETH) custody service, marking a new milestone for regulatory compliance in the industry.

This service treats ETH as a security in line with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations.

Prometheum Pioneers Regulated Ethereum Custody Service

Prometheum, known for its controversial stance on digital assets, started its ETH custody service with a select group of companies. The full-scale launch is set for the first week of June. Co-CEO Aaron Kaplan highlighted this is the first instance where an investment contract involving a digital asset has been custodied and treated under securities laws.

“This launch is a significant step towards a regulated and secure digital asset market,” said Kaplan.

Prometheum designed the service for institutional clients such as asset management firms, hedge funds, banks, and registered investment advisors. The company aims to expand to retail clients within 2024, offering comprehensive digital asset management under strict regulatory compliance.

Read more: Ethereum (ETH) Price Prediction 2024/2025/2030

In 2023, Prometheum secured a special-purpose broker-dealer license from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the SEC. Despite this achievement, many industry leaders oppose classifying cryptocurrencies as securities, which contrasts with Prometheum’s approach.

The regulatory discrepancy adds to this uncertainty. SEC Chair Gary Gensler suggested that Ethereum might be a security. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Rostin Behnam, however, views it as a commodity. In March, House Financial Services Committee Chair Patrick McHenry and House Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn Thompson urged the SEC to clarify ETH classification.

Prometheum believes a clear legal path for crypto exists and demonstrates this through its ether custody service. As the SEC continues to enforce its regulations, Prometheum’s move may set a precedent for other firms. If successful, it could validate the SEC’s regulatory framework and serve as a model for other digital asset companies seeking compliance.

The post Prometheum Sets Precedent with SEC-Compliant Ethereum Custody Service Launch appeared first on BeInCrypto.

It’s no secret that Elon Musk can be petty and vindictive over the dumbest shit. You may have heard that he fired the entire Supercharger team a few weeks ago entirely due to him getting upset at what the woman who led that team told him (he’s now scrambling to try to rehire the team he fired — another thing that’s happened before).

Sometimes it gets even sillier. You may recall a couple of years ago when Tesla demanded that law firm Cooley LLP fire a lawyer who happened to have worked at the SEC back when Elon was fined for tweeting about his supposed plans to take the company private.

Pressuring law firms is apparently becoming a pattern.

Charles Elson, a retired Finance Professor at the University of Delaware, is a well-recognized authority on corporate governance issues. And it seems that Elon is terrified he might give his opinions to the Delaware Court of Chancery that is handling his compensation lawsuit.

In the past, I’ve explained how this whole lawsuit doesn’t make that much sense to me. It’s one case where I think Elon’s argument is actually entirely plausible. I wouldn’t vote in favor of his $55 billion pay package, but I can see why some people might not find it problematic. But, it seems that Elon is really, really scared about losing that payday. Hell, Tesla, which is famous for not advertising anything, is advertising to shareholders to tell them to vote to reinstate Elon’s pay package.

Still, even if I find the lawsuit a bit perplexing, it seems that Musk wants to handicap the opposition.

Elson filed one hell of a motion, asking for leave to file his expected amicus brief, noting that the Musk Team started playing hardball to try to force him not to file.

Professor Elson, a leading authority on corporate law, moves for leave to submit a second proposed amicus curiae brief in this action. Professor Elson previously submitted an amicus brief concerning the development and goals of equity-linked executive compensation during the post-trial briefing stage of this action, which the Court found “persuasive.” Professor Elson now writes to provide the Court with additional context and analysis in connection with the Tesla Board’s unprecedented attempt to seek a post-trial stockholder vote to ratify the Award.

Additional context, you say? What sort of context? Perhaps some of it has to do with how badly Elon doesn’t want Elson to say anything.

It’s pretty typical for parties to consent to amicus briefs being filed as a matter of course. Even if they know the briefs will challenge or disagree with their arguments. It’s just professional courtesy, and courts expect it. Opposing efforts to file an amicus brief can raise eyebrows. And Tesla went all in trying to block Elson:

Plaintiff consents to this motion. Defendants do not and Musk was willing to go to extraordinary—and appalling—lengths to prevent this Court from reading the Brief.

Early Friday morning, Professor Elson’s counsel emailed a copy of the Brief to counsel for the parties, asking whether they would consent to a motion for leave to file it. Plaintiff’s counsel responded that they did not oppose its submission. Tesla’s counsel from DLA Piper telephoned Professor Elson’s counsel to assert, without further explanation, that Professor Elson “may have a conflict” and asked counsel to hold off on filing the brief.

Soon after, Professor Elson received an email from Holland & Knight LLP, a law firm with which Professor Elson had a consulting relationship. Holland & Knight informed Professor Elson that the firm represents Tesla in certain unrelated matters and that Tesla had threatened to fire Holland & Knight if Professor Elson submitted this amicus brief.

The assertion that Professor Elson was conflicted is risible—which is presumably why Tesla’s then-counsel raised no objection when Professor Elson submitted his prior amicus brief in this matter. The rules of professional conduct prevent a lawyer from representing a client if the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client. None of those elements was present here:

• Professor Elson is neither acting as a lawyer nor representing a client in this action; he is represented by counsel and seeks leave to file a brief as an amicus.
• Nor was Professor Elson acting as a lawyer at Holland & Knight; the rules of professional conduct do not impute conflicts from a consultant to a law firm or from a law firm to a consultant.
• Nor is Professor Elson acting adversely to Tesla; his brief is defending a multi-billion-dollar judgment in Tesla’s favor.

I mean, all of this is incredible. The threat. The weak ass claims of a “conflict.” But, most of all, the very fact (as Elson points out) that his argument is actually in support of Tesla which benefits by not having to give out this massive pay package if Elon loses.

To avoid having his professional associates suffer because of Elon’s petty vindictiveness, Elson chose to resign from Holland & Knight, “ending a relationship of nearly thirty years.”

This is doubly ridiculous given all of the conflicts that Elon has between his various companies, and the fact that he’s been claiming that he “deserves” this $55 billion pay package for all his hard work. Does Elson not then deserve to continue his relationship with H&K for all of his work? Of course not. The primary motive of everything Elon is “what benefits Elon?”

And, of course, the whole thing acts as a kind of Streisand Effect highlighting the key point that Elson was trying to raise. Tesla and Elon’s interests are averse here, yet the company is acting as if they’re aligned, which at least gives pretty strong credence to the idea (at the heart of the lawsuit) that the board is focused on helping Musk, rather than looking out for Tesla’s best interests.

The Court should have no illusions about what happened here. The frivolous assertion of a conflict was a fig leaf for Musk, acting through Tesla, to try to bully a law professor by making a serious economic threat to a law firm with which the professor had a consulting relationship. This is not the first time that Tesla has threatened to fire a law firm for employing someone who annoyed Elon Musk by doing his job. That it did so again here only emphasizes the correctness of the Court’s conclusion that Musk controls Tesla

And, of course, it’s giving everyone yet another glimpse into the ways in which Musk will let any slight turn him into a vindictive asshole.

Meanwhile, at the very end of the week, Tesla filed with the court to “reject the amicus’s motion that it is ‘appalling’ or ‘bullying…” but still admitting that they did, in fact, everything that Elson said, though they claim they were just raising “a potential conflict issue.”

Um. No. Again, Elson’s brief was on behalf of Tesla suggesting that they shouldn’t have to pay Musk his huge compensation. If there’s any “potential conflict issue” here, it seems to be on the lawyers ostensibly representing “Tesla” but instead advocating for something that would harm Tesla, while benefiting Elon Musk.

US billionaire Frank McCourt is leading a consortium to acquire TikTok and decentralize it using the Decentralized Social Networking Protocol (DSNP) from Project Liberty.

TikTok, boasting over 170 million users, is being pressured by the US government to sell due to national security concerns and purported links to the Chinese government.

McCourt’s initiative, termed the “people’s bid,” represents one of several US corporate interests in the platform. He is collaborating with investment bank Guggenheim Securities and law firm Kirkland & Ellis on this venture.

In a press statement, McCourt highlighted that the bid aims to empower users by migrating TikTok to an open-source protocol. This move intends to restore control over digital identities and data, offering Americans a significant voice and stake in the web’s future.

TikTok meets Polkadot

McCourt’s plan to rebuild TikTok with DSNP will leverage Polkadot parachain social platform Frequency.

In November 2022, Frequency secured its position as a parachain on the Polkadot network. According to its website, the parachain was built to “empower individuals to ensure the portability of their content and safeguard their privacy. The protocol enables ownership of digital identity and control over online presence.”

McCourt noted that the decentralization move would return control and value to the users while empowering them to participate in the future of the Internet. He commented:

“The foundation of our digital infrastructure is broken, and it’s time to fix it… We see this potential acquisition as an incredible opportunity to catalyze an alternative to the current tech model that has colonized the internet.”

Additionally, McCourt’s vision for TikTok prioritizes data protection and empowers social media creators by granting them greater control over their data through DSNP. He said:

“A new and better version of the internet where individuals are respected and they own and control their identity and their data.”

Meanwhile, several Polkadot enthusiasts have welcomed the news, viewing it as proof of the blockchain network’s technological advancements.

The post Potential US TikTok buyer plans to decentralize TikTok, could relay on Polkadot parachain appeared first on CryptoSlate.