Someone is analyzing the pattern of Claude account bans: those writing crime podcast outlines get banned more often, product managers who just verbally instruct AI to write code get banned more, while programmers who seriously build architectures get banned less. It is speculated to be related to "whether the model is being contributed skill increments." This is a personal inference, not an official statement. The direction I agree with is: the higher the account value, the more you should avoid using it for low-information repetitive tasks. If you're really afraid of getting banned, don't rush to change your IP; first change your usage method, and move testing and trial-and-error to free models.

The first payment after the X original content reward update has been sent. Creators from the same batch shared three different outcomes: some received $777, some still got $0, not even reaching the minimum payout threshold. The $777 screenshot came from the original content reward page, showing an income of $777.47 with two payment records. The zero-balance page was more straightforward: minimum threshold not met, next payment postponed to September 25. Another group shared that their results were "about the same as before," with niche content and low traffic, but the bonus was still paid. The differences are not due to luck. Content niche, interaction quality, and posting discipline all affect weighting; frequent spamming can lead to penalties. Don’t take the high payout cases shared as the general norm. If you want to take this monetization path seriously, calculate three things clearly: what the minimum payout threshold is, whether your content is niche enough, and if your posting frequency avoids penalty thresholds. Once these three are clear, decide whether to invest your time.

L2 has always been freeloading on Ethereum's security premium. growthepie tracks about 25 L2s, with the total settlement fees handed over to the Ethereum mainnet around $1,900 per day, about $55,700 in the last 30 days, and approximately $335 million cumulatively. In contrast, Robinhood Chain's daily user fees are about $4.5 million, but it pays Ethereum only about $398 that day, a ratio close to one to eleven thousand. Base had a 30-day window with 292 million operations, paying L1 about $8,800. The scale of revenue sharing and the revenue sharing ratio are not the same thing. Now fees are charged by bytes and by batch; after Dencun, blob capacity has increased faster than actual demand, compressing rent, and Pectra and Fusaka have added another layer of capacity. If it were truly linked to scale, it would have to be changed to 10% to 20% of net protocol revenue or set a minimum settlement fee. The scarcest thing ironically has the weakest pricing power. This is not just a valuation issue. The security budget has long relied on issuance and L1 execution fees; if settlement layer income does not increase with asset scale, the protected economic activity is actually not paying for its protection.

SEC Grants Five-Year Exemption for Secondary Trading of On-Chain Stocks, Boundaries Defined by Six Conditions** On September 17, the SEC issued Release 2026-90, granting a temporary exemption to "Tokenized Securities Venues" (TSV): such venues are no longer subject to the definition of "exchange" under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and may use permissioned AMMs and liquidity pools to match tokenized NMS stocks, i.e., stocks listed on the U.S. National Market System. The same order also exempts institutions providing liquidity in these pools with proprietary funds from being classified as "dealers" under 3(a)(5). The exemption expires five years after publication, and the order simultaneously solicits public comments, which will be published on the SEC website and the Federal Register. The conditions are even more noteworthy than the exemption itself. The order lists six conditions: limits on the number of trading symbols and trading volume; venues must verify that holders of tokenized stocks enjoy the same rights and privileges as holders of the same class of traditional stocks; when stocks are tokenized by unrelated third parties, the issuer must be notified in writing in advance and given an opportunity to object; the smart contracts used must be auditable, public, and deployed on a public, permissionless distributed ledger; tokenized stocks must be suspended simultaneously when the underlying stock is suspended on its primary listing exchange; venues must publicly disclose their operations, trading activities, and related-party transactions on their platform. On the same day, the CFTC’s Market Participants Division issued Release 9300-26, providing a no-action position for "passive software providers": under certain conditions, they will not be subject to enforcement for failing to register as introducing brokers or their associated persons. The applicable scenario is providing and marketing software to users, placing orders through registered FCMs, IBs, and DCMs. The press release did not list the conditions, and the letter itself was not obtained. This announcement is easily misread as "on-chain stocks are about to be widely adopted" or "RWA demand is rising," but the announcement contains none of these. The change is that boundaries have been codified for the first time: previously, whether stocks could be traded on-chain or whether software developers counted as brokers was only addressed through enforcement guidance and narratives. Now, both issues have official documents with conditions and time limits issued in the same window. The focus shifts from "whether it will be allowed" to "who applies first and how conditions will change."