Theta is proud to announce a new academic collaboration with Chung-Ang University’s Intelligent Information Processing Lab (IIPL), led by Professor Young Bin Kim. They join as Edgecloud’s 25th customer since platform launch in the summer of 2024, and EdgeCloud is now used by 4 of the Top 5 South Korea universities, top professional sports teams including NHL’s Las Vegas Knights and New Jersey Devils, and global esports teams FlyQuest and Evil Geniuses.

With Chung-Ang University joining the Theta EdgeCloud ecosystem, the platform continues to strengthen its role as a leading enabler of AI research and decentralized computing. IIPL(Intelligent Information Processing Lab) has built a global reputation in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing (NLP), consistently contributing to top-tier AI conferences such as NAACL, EMNLP, ECCV, AAAI, and ICLR. This partnership underscores Theta’s commitment to powering academic institutions globally with scalable, high-performance computing, which includes Seoul National University, KAIST, Korea University, Yonsei University, the University of Oregon, Michigan State University, and Singapore’s NTU.

“We evaluated multiple cloud based services from all the top tier providers and we’re excited to collaborate with Theta Labs to integrate EdgeCloud into our research,” said Professor Young Bin Kim, Associate Professor at Chung-Ang University. “We had the easiest access to EdgeCloud’s GPU computing infrastructure and received the most responsive customer service compared to all other providers. Looking forward to accelerating our AI model training and pushing the boundaries of NLP and multimodal AI in low-resource environments.”

Empowering AI Research with Theta EdgeCloud

Chung-Ang University’s Intelligent Information Processing Lab (IIPL) specializes in low-resource AI, natural language processing (NLP), multimodal AI, and data-efficient machine learning. Through this collaboration, Theta EdgeCloud will provide scalable and cost-effective GPU compute power to support various AI researches in:

• LLM-driven Data Generation and Augmentation: Enhancing the efficiency and scalability of dataset generation and augmentation by leveraging large language models and the high-performance computational resources of Theta EdgeCloud.
• Domain Generalization for Low-resource and Multimodal Tasks: Strengthening AI resilience in diverse, resource-constrained environments while ensuring consistent and robust performance through Theta EdgeCloud’s optimized edge computing capabilities and infrastructure.
• Bias Mitigation and Enhanced Model Robustness: Ensuring fairness and reliability in AI systems by employing advanced bias mitigation techniques and robust model training methods, powered by Theta EdgeCloud’s computational resources.

Theta EdgeCloud’s hybrid cloud-edge GPU computing platform enables Chung-Ang University’s researchers to scale deep learning models efficiently, overcoming the high costs and computational bottlenecks of traditional centralized cloud providers.

Source

🙏 Support My Work 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support:

💳 PayPal – Just scan the QR code 📲
🔗 Crypto – Send contributions via Coinbase Wallet to: Dinarian.cb.id

Your generosity keeps this mission alive! Namasté 🙏✨ #SupportIndependentMedia #Crypto

This event is part of a series of notable XRP transactions observed recently. Five days prior, Ripple facilitated a transfer of 200 million XRP, equivalent to about $457.39 million, to an unidentified wallet.

Potential Implications

Large-scale movements of XRP can have various implications. One possible explanation is liquidity management, as Ripple and other major holders might be redistributing assets to facilitate institutional transactions. 

The impact on the market is another critical consideration, as transfers to exchanges like Bithumb could signal potential sell-offs, which may influence XRP’s price action. Additionally, security measures could be a factor, with substantial wallet movements serving as a strategy to enhance security or reorganize holdings.

Community Speculations

The anonymity of the wallets involved has fueled widespread speculation among market participants. Some believe these transactions may indicate institutional involvement, suggesting that major financial entities or partners could be positioning themselves ahead of a significant announcement. Others suspect that Ripple is undergoing internal restructuring, potentially reallocating assets for upcoming projects or strategic business moves.

While the exact motives behind these substantial XRP transfers remain undisclosed, they highlight the dynamic nature of cryptocurrency markets and the importance of monitoring on-chain activities.

The sudden and frequent movement of large XRP holdings could signal preparation for significant developments within the ecosystem. Investors and enthusiasts are advised to stay informed and exercise caution, considering both the potential opportunities and risks associated with these transactions.

Disclaimer: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are urged to do in-depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.

 

Source

🙏 Support My Work 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support:

💳 PayPal – Just scan the QR code 📲
🔗 Crypto – Send contributions via Coinbase Wallet to: Dinarian.cb.id

Your generosity keeps this mission alive! Namasté 🙏✨ #SupportIndependentMedia #Crypto

The US Senate Banking Committee passed the GENIUS Act to regulate payment stablecoins. There are two sets of changes to the draft legislation. They include amendments passed as part of yesterday’s markup hearing plus changes to the Bill before the hearing.

One important addition is the Bill now excludes stablecoins that offer interest or yield. However, it’s not clear that it explicitly bans such stablecoins. It’s likely that interest bearing stablecoins will be considered securities.

Amendments passed during the markup session

At the start of the session a package of bipartisan amendments were approved. These aimed to:

• clarify the treatment of payment stablecoins that are not issued by a permitted issuer
• consider the competence, experience and integrity of key leaders at an applicant’s company
• prohibit the use of deceptive names by a payment stablecoin
• maintain the status quo as it relates to the master account access at the Federal Reserve
• give customers of a stablecoin super priority over other creditors in bankruptcy
• clarify the stablecoin reserve requirements.

These topics were only mentioned in brief, and several of the descriptions appear to expand on other amendments to the published draft.

Key changes in latest GENIUS stablecoin draft

These are the changes to the updated draft published before the above amendments.

Tightens up the payment stablecoin definition:

• excludes those earning interest or yield
• excludes tokenized deposits or DLT based bank accounts
• also excludes certain types of securities
• a payment stablecoin not authorized under the Act (presumably offshore) cannot be used for interbank settlement
• the issuer of an unauthorized stablecoin in the US is subject to penalties of $1m for each infraction or up to 5 years prison

Reserves:

• expands cash to include “money standing to the credit of an account with a Federal Reserve Bank” (yet one of the amendments implies no master account access for issuers)
• repo shortened to overnight (from seven days)
• previous version included money market funds. What qualifies as a money market fund has been tightened
• additional liquid assets with “similar profiles” can be approved by the Federal regulator
• any of the specified reserve assets can be in tokenized form.
  (we’d observe the big variance in quality, custody and oversight between tokenization firms. Without caveats, this is risky in an FTX kind of way.)

Capital requirements:

• are tailored to the business model and risk profile of issuers
• stablecoin subsidiary of a bank doesn’t need to hold any extra capital (leverage or risk-based) other than required by the issuer under the Act

AML:

• Issuer treated as a financial institution under the Bank Secrecy Act. This was included in first draft, but now adds details such as AML/sanction programs, record retention, monitoring and reporting, etc
• FinCEN has to tailor rules to size and complexity of stablecoin issuer
• Beyond AML, the stablecoin issuer must have the technical ability to block the digital assets of a foreign person if instructed to do so by the Treasury or by a court order.
• Foreign stablecoin issuers cannot distribute stablecoins in the United States unless they can comply with the above clause.
• There is a new major section dealing with non compliant foreign stablecoin issuers. They will be listed on the Federal Register and digital asset service providers (DASP) are not allowed to provide secondary trading for these non-compliant stablecoins.
• There are hefty penalties on the foreign issuer and any DASP allowing trading

Prohibition on tying of services:

• A stablecoin issuer cannot require a user of one of its services to also use another paid service. Nor can it link the use of a service to blocking the use of a competitor’s offering.

Governance:

• A stablecoin issuer with more than $50 billion issuance must get an audit. Smaller issuers might need an audit if SEC rules require it.
• Marketing: Issuers don’t have a government backstop nor do they have federal insurance (FDIC or otherwise), so it’s unlawful to misrepresent their insurance status.
• A person convicted of certain felonies cannot act as an officer of a stablecoin issuer. Relevant felonies include insider trading, embezzlement, cybercrime, money laundering, financing of terrorism, or financial fraud.

State – Federal regulation boundaries: (only some highlights):

• Previously bank subsidiary stablecoin issuers had to be federally regulated. Now they can be state regulated if under $10 billion.
• The bank’s Federal regulator can sanction or stop a Federally regulated stablecoin issuer, but not a state regulated one.
• In exigent circumstances, the Fed or Comptroller could already step in regarding a State regulated stablecoin, provided it gave five days notice. That’s reduced to two days

Bankruptcy:

• The wording is substantially expanded with a target of starting to distribute reserves to stablecoin holders within 14 days of the relevant hearing.

Reciprocity:

• The existing clause relating to reciprocal arrangements with foreign jurisdictions with similar laws has been expanded in two ways:
  
  
  • added details regarding ‘similar’ – reserve requirements, supervision, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism features, sanctions compliance standards, liquidity requirements, and risk management standards
  • added a two year deadline for the Treasury to implement the arrangements

Source

🙏 Support My Work 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support:

💳 PayPal – Just scan the QR code 📲
🔗 Crypto – Send contributions via Coinbase Wallet to: Dinarian.cb.id

Your generosity keeps this mission alive! Namasté 🙏✨ #SupportIndependentMedia #Crypto