Notes from the 2025 Electronic Cash Conference

The 2025 Electronic Cash Conference was on October 4, 2025. The big news, of course, was the announcement that Avalanche Pre-Consensus would go live on November 15, 2025. However, there were several sessions that day, and I took notes as quickly as I could for people who could not attend (I also live-tweeted the event on X). Below are those notes. Forgive me if some don't make much sense out of context of the session or read like presentation slide transcription, but it was the best I could do from 2am-11am EDT to keep up with the presentations.
Why eCash Is the Best Network for Stablecoins
By Vin Armani
Vin is going to speak about what he’s been working on for about 6 years: stablecoins on Bitcoin. Started with Bitcoin Cash and continued on eCash. Many on eCash might be ambivalent about stablecoins, but we should be open to it because eCash is the best network for it.
Killer App
Example: email was the internet’s killer app.
Bitcoin’s “killer app” is stablecoins: tokenized fiat.
Venezuela embraces stablecoins amid bolivar collapse and soaring inflation—it is saving the country from cratering fiat and hyperinflation.
It proves the core value of Bitcoin as peer-to-peer electronic cash without a third party.
Tether is looking at a $500B valuation. If it reaches that, it would make Tether the most valuable privately held company in the world. That’s more valuable than SpaceX.
The first 100 Tether was minted in October 2014 on BTC—and, due to eCash being a fork of a fork of Bitcoin—is on eCash.
Then, they started to mint on Ethereum. Why did it leave? Is it an opportunity that the greater market as a whole not seeing?
The Ethereum shift was a step backwards. The UTXO model of Bitcoin is scalable and perfectly suited for P2P cash model. The account model is a true ledger. The UTXO model is unique and allows us to do some interesting things.
ETH requires gas fees for token transactions. So, if you want to move a token, you need to have enough ETH to pay the fees.
They were working on BCH in 2020 a gasless token experience (known as “postage”).
[Shows a video of a sample transaction for a meal]
The issue with accepting cryptocurrency for payments was the volatility of the currency. If they took BTC and BTC dropped 10%, then they lost 10%. So, they offered to transact in stablecoins along with cashing them out for 1% fee (CCs were 4% for them, so they took it immediately).
[Shows a video in Venezuela of the custodial experience]
The custodian was Binance, and they provided a one-token user experience without gas. No one pushed it; it happened on its own.
The only loss is digital sovereignty. There is a “free” version and a “not free” version, for example, from Binance. If we don’t fight, we’ll only get the “not free” version. If it’s all just custodial Binance. (note: he is referring to "free" as in free from third parties, not no cost)
GENIUS Act allows banks to participate. Visa now has an ad saying how great stablecoins are. The banks are now getting involved in stablecoins. Do you think that’s going to be the peer-to-peer experience or the custodial experience?
World Liberty Finance is an example of a major partnership between major players and the Trump Administration.
Circle is now exploring “reversible” transactions. This goes against the crypto ethos. The second sentence of the Bitcoin whitepaper talks about avoiding double-spends. This is the antithesis of that.
Introduces the island of Tinian and their unique combination of U.S. citizenship status with self-rule (i.e., U.S. citizens can’t buy land there). They passed a law and minted a stablecoin. The law was vetoed, but that veto was overruled by a supermajority vote.
Wyoming launched the first state-issued stable coin recently as well.
Introducing MUSD on eCash. Vin welcomes attendees to collaborate with him because “it’s going to be a gold rush” (meaning people will swarm to innovate with this new sovereign cryptocurrency stablecoin).
Why reinvent the wheel? The only way this works this well is Bitcoin (UTXO), and the best version of this is eCash. It’s proven, it enables multi-output transactions, and it has a robust tech stack.
If you’re interested in getting involved, stablecoins are going to take off.
Q&A
What is the status of the legal battles over the Tinian-issued stablecoin?
With a population of under 50,000, there are local political battles between influential families and islands. The political battle is over the way the law was passed (some claim it’s local). They’re debating use cases, etc. and the U.S. regulation situation.
What do you think makes eCash so special?
Some protocols don’t enable this. BitcoinABC did. They fight to keep things simple yet include the infrastructure components necessary to grow the capabilities of the chain. A lot of it is the people. Avalanche as well. I’m betting on BitcoinABC and eCash. So is the government of this place (Tinian).
Can you compare the stablecoins done with eCash vs. the already existing giants like USDT or USDC?
The result of this GENIUS Act is that you’ll have bank-issued stablecoins, but you won’t have too many more private issuers. Any U.S. entity would be committing a crime if they created a stablecoin. You have to be a licensed and regulated entity.
Unlocking the Power of Bitcoin Script
By Mathieu Geukens
Thanks to everyone who pushes P2P electronic cash forward.
Background: in crypto since 2017, BCH since 2018, studied economics, and worked on several crypto projects.
The Script System is the most interesting part of Bitcoin. (referring to any Bitcoin-like chain, not just BTC)
Cryptocurrency as an application platform for smart contracts. It’s the most permissionless application platform. Allows for disintermediation (non-custodial and trust-minimized). Custom spending requirements (like multisigs). Uniquely suited for financial applications (derivatives, financial assets, yield instruments, crowdfunding, etc.).
After BCH was created, a lot of work was put into this work.
Satoshi disabled a bunch of opcodes before he left. The 2018 script upgrade was a major unlock. BTC devs still aspire to have OP_CAT and OP_CHECKDATASIG. Development on XEC has been on other areas than script (since 2018). He wants to make the case for reprioritizing script development.
General Script Problems
Every developer working with script in Bitcoin/XEC:
Need for roundabout emulations
(64-bit math, OP_MUL, introspection)Badly designed VM limits
Lack of accessible, high-level tooling
Especially the combination of need for emulation + the limits is bad.
If your script gets too large, you have to cut functionality.
Can we build MakerDAO on Bitcoin Cash?
3 Main Problems Hindering Contracts
Redundant repetition
Outdated script
Unverifiable tokens
Outdated script such as outdated stack ops, limited arithmetic, etc.
Tobias was right about the problem.
Mathieu’s main problems:
Native fungible tokens
Native NFTs (contract state, authentication, and attestations)
Solve roundabout emulations (64-bit math, OP_MUL, introspection)
Note: not even loops or VM limits are required
But script-verifiable tokens are a hard requirements!
Script-Verified Tokens
Tokens are an important building block for many applications
“Back-to-genesis” problem on BCH/XEC/BSV
With OP_CAT + SegWit (a CAT20-token standard already exists)
With “detached proofs”, we would have had the same on BCH/XEC/BSV, so we almost had script-verifiable tokens by accident!
[Shows a comparison of parent transaction verification between v1/v2 and PMv3]
Suggestions:
Develop high-level tooling
add native introspection
fix the VM limits
We see BTC looking at the “Great Script Restoration” vs. Simplicity (replacing the whole VM)
XEC has a choice to make here whether to embrace script, add new VM, or offload programmability to L2
How to embrace script?
Benefits of the BCH approach:
CashTokens did not break the transaction format
Native Introspection not waiting for new transaction format
Native Introspection & re-targeted VM limits unblocks application devs
Retargeted VM Limits as the enabler for new primitives
New primitives encourage tooling and compiler work
Shows the “periodic table” of Opcodes with new ones highlighted.
Pitch to eCash developers:
Need a counterweight to EVM as a standard
Sharing developer and tooling network effects
Network effects are crucial for the application layer to become an ecosystem
My hope is to not have needless incompatibilities
Let’s consider converging on the CashVM
Q&A
Which feature do you want to add the most with these new Opcodes?
Things like loops and functions for authentication and other applications. Zero-knowledge and quantum proof applications are examples.
Issue raised: Some coins like Cardano and Bitcoin Unlimited have multiple VMs. So, we should be careful because there's a tradeoff between trying to do something better and a proliferation of solutions.
New Transaction Format: For or Against
By Tobias Ruck
Tobias is the CTO of TixTown and also developed the Chronik Indexer and worked on a lot of other things like libraries, Agora, and other projects.
Three reasons for a new transaction format:
Efficiency (millions of transactions per second)
Fixes (fixing long-standing issues)
Features (add new capabilities)
Efficiency:
Splitting transaction-local and existence validation
UTXO hash set
Compact transaction
Intcode
Efficiency
Status quo: too many round-trips
Step 1: look up the UTXOs
Step 2: verify the transaction
Step 3: UTXO update
How to fix it:
Simply add the UTXO to the input, which removes the first step (UTXO lookup)
Now:
Step 1: Verify
Steps 2 and 3: UTXO existence check and update
Old: DB of all UTXOs indexed by outpoint
New: DB of all UTXO hashes
Result: >64 bytes per UTXO -> 32 bytes per UTXO
[Shows an example of a compact transaction (demonstrating input and output data reduction)]
Intcode
Average space savings for blocks: over 10%
Fixes
Don’t include the signatures as part of the transaction ID
Covenant Attested Token (CAT) Protocol - miner-validated tokens.
Miner-enforced tokens
SPV with tokens - SLP requires trusting the indexer
assumeutxo with tokens
Bidirectional Agora - Agora only goes from token->XEC; miner-enforced tokens would allow XEC->token or token->token offers
Token shareholder-owned UTXO - XEC/Tokens can be locked in
Features
Transaction Introspection Opcodes
Preambles
Flexible transactions
What if we want to add more fields?
Future-proof the transaction format so new fields can be added
[Gives examples of flexible transactions]
Transaction Introspection Opcodes
Have them on BCH
They don’t have them on XEC because they have an alternative (OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY and OP_CHECKSIG), but those can be simplified
Preambles - Efficient induction proofs
Verify tokens in script
CAT Protocol or CashTokens could solve buy order issues
Scale of miner-enforced tokens
SLP/ALP - no consensus change
CAT tokens - beneficial but requires a change
Cashtokens - Ultimate protocol - devs are confident that this covers all potential use cases
Is there an in-between solution?
Preamble tokens: small, generic change - add minimal primitives to make convenient tokens without committing to a protocol
[Shows example of preamble transactions using proof by induction]
[Shows examples of the scripts involved]
[Shows examples of Opcodes (e.g., OP_PICKPREAMBLEHASH, OP_INPUTPREAMBLESUM) and operations for non-inflatable tokens, genesis token transaction (one-time mint), and a mintable token preamble]
Inflatable token preamble example - if you have at least 1 input token, you can mint more
With just a few Opcodes, you can get to a lot of capabilities in a compact way
More examples:
Upgradable token preamble
Wrapped token preamble (can burn, etc. on demand)
Lock UTXO to token holders
How to get there
Testnet - for testing
Signet - requires back port from core
Avalanche subnet - real activity with real tokens
Mainnet
Q&A
Would an SLP or ALP token be upgradable to a new format to take advantage of the new functionality like buy orders, or would you have to create a new token that would have that upgradability?
You can deprecate the old token and airdrop the new token to all the holders.
Darkest Before the Dawn: Unstoppable Small-Caps in an Age of Memes
By Joey King
We have a crisis of meaning, and so people find meaning in silly things like memecoins.
Crypto Today
Easily the most embarrassing “industry”
Dominated by speculation
Over a decade of mature tech; limited impact
Crypto enthusiasts are more defined by what they are against vs. what they are for: against traditional finance, etc.
Companies are flipping crypto into the traditional space, which creates financial distortion.
Ensloppification
Modernity often leads to degradation
Harsh Realities
Crypto is speculation first, tech second
Retail does not care about the tech
Memcoins replace emergent systems of meaning
Potential: Open source tools replace fragile monetary system
Memes are not new
People see memecoins and think the meme is the new and important thing
Memecoins are a symptom, not the cause
Companies trading like memes, memes trading like companies
Chipotle, for example, is not a tech company but is “worth” $52B
What is the IP of a burrito recipe?
What are the actual trends?
The impact of the internet on communications tech and human reality is massively underappreciated
No memecoin cult has survived a price collapse
Non-speculative use cases also have exponential growth
Internet impact under appreciated
Mostly used to marginally improve legacy practices
Often the result is…ensloppification
Does LinkedIn really help you get a better job?
We are only beginning to see the impact of the internet on things like money, etc.
Bored Ape vs. eCash - crypto with a rock-solid infrastructure is more sustainable.
Non-speculative crypto growth is exponential
The dominance of speculation has obscured persistent growth in cryptos mission tech
So what? Why eCash?
The problems crypto was founded to solve are getting worse
The projects trying to solve them are getting better
Very few projects are trying to solve them
There are not “limitless” cryptos
Forks were very bad in 2017 because we had a speculative market
Today: memes have comparative advantage in speculation
Forking to preserve mission is better than stagnating
Small developments can push a system over the line
Athenian golden age kickstarted by mission-driven dev
With focus and determination, we can push through the memecoin nihilism to realize the potential that open source tools can replace a fragile monetary system.
eCash as a “fleet in being”
Cults of winning fade after losing
Long-term commitment to SHA256
Virtually 0 projects are building cash
Q&A
Why do you think severely flawed functional projects take off like ETH (gas fees), SOL (canceled transactions), etc.?
ETH was in the right place at the right time to improve upon BTC’s flaws, and then it had first-mover advantage after that.
What’s the distinction between cash-focused projects and other projects?
User interface. Don’t bring users up these lofty theoretical mountains—make it simple and easy to use as cash. It took a long time to get where we are to become serious cash, but it has to be something that’s practical, useful, and solves problems. Interface.
What about Monero? Good user experience?
God, no.
When was the last time you tried it? With the new kick wallet, etc.
It’s been a while—18 months, but some of the UX is intrinsic to the project: no auditability. It’s possible to have privacy AND auditability. It’s an architecture decision that’s unsolvable at the UX level.
Interlude
By Tobias Ruck
Why is naming things so hard?
Americans cracked Enigma.
It’s why all programming is done in English today.
But is that really the best?
German would’ve been worse
German is not concise
George R.R. Martin’s Game of Thrones had to be broken up into two books because the text is so long.
However, German is precise.
English is not precise.
We saw her duck.
He fed her cat food.
They are hunting dogs.
Also, verbs and nouns are often the same word
Example: A ride and to ride.
This hurts programming!
But latin is concise and precise.
10 reasons to write programs in Latin.
Backwards compatibility (for 2,000 years)
Simple pronunciation (unlike English, where tough, cough, drought, though, etc. are all pronounced differently)
Many “and” and “or” (et, ac, and -que)
No articles
Cases (motion toward/from)
Future participle
Conclusion: Latin is backwards compatible for 2,000 years and has forms that allows us to express engineering ideas very precisely
Keynote: Overview of Upcoming eCash Features
By Amaury Séchet
There will be some repetition from previous presentations to tell the whole story.
eCash
Fast confirmation
Transactions must go through or be rejected within 3s—longer than 5s is considered broken
Scalability
The network must not crumble under load when numerous users use it.
Entropy
Nodes do not agree on what the “real” DAG is.
Some have accepted a transaction, not others
Chronological ordering differs
Node my disagree on double-spends
Until a block is found
This converges slowly
Shows an example of how nodes drift apart until a block is complete.
When a new block is found, nodes reconcile. The node is idle most of the time. You can be more productive if you move more of the workload into the idle time. This will allow you to scale.
Nodes make no attempt to reconcile a state before a new block is found
Distance between nodes in state space can get large
Fast block relay becomes harder
Transactions are in a “quantum state” before being mined
Nodes must fight entropy continuously
Removing dimensions
Each transaction is included or not
n bits of information (1 per transaction)
n transaction mean n! orderings
n * log(n) bits of information
The vast majority of entropy is ordering!
10x for 1,000 transactions
20x for 1,000,000 transactions
CTOR reduce the entropy to O(n)
Avalanche
Nodes fight entropy by running Avalanche
Nodes query each others following the Avalanche protocol to do so
Shows example of nodes staying in consensus between blocks.
In case of a 51% attack, a miner mines in secret
The secret chain is released all at once
All nodes reorg to the new chain
Transactions are reverted
All nodes will switch to an alternate block several blocks down
eCash Post-Consensus
Is it an attack?
Small reorgs do happen naturally.
Heartbeat
Node can start rejecting nodes based on subjective criteria, such as their own clock
Node can reject “turbo” blocks
Blocks come more regularly, improving user experience
Pre-Consensus
We established how to decide which block is seen first, network-wide
We used that knowledge to mitigate 51% attacks
We can use that knowledge to avoid double spends
Easy to describe, hard to implement!
Transactions are more numerous than blocks
It’s easy to produce large numbers of conflicts
Block template construction for mining
But benefits are numerous
Users can know when their transaction is finalized within 2 seconds.
A block’s content is more predictable, so fast block propagation is easier.
This improves scalability.
Transaction filtering can use subjective criteria
Dynamic fee based on network load. The network can remain cheap to use and be resilient to spam.
Knot vs. Core style holy wars can be settled by the protocol.
Fighting entropy improves:
<2-second transaction finality
Scaling
Security against 51% attacks
Network stability with Heartbeat
Dynamic and subjective network policies
Pre-Consensus Launch
November 15, 2025 (12:00 UTC)
Pre-consensus will be live on eCash Mainnet
Q&A
What’s next?
We can do a fair amount of things to make pre-consensus better. Dynamic fees. Throughput.
Any changes in reward, voting, or other items?
Shift to 64-bit integer
Privacy
Instead of how Monero did it, you can have a privacy subnet. You get auditability because the same amount that goes in comes out, but the subnet remains private.
The On-Chain Privacy Landscape and Beyond
By Reuben Yap
When working on a VPN service, financial institutions treated him like a criminal and either refused to do business with him or de-banked him.
Being cut off from the financial system made him passionate about digital cash.
Lawyer until 2017 and worked on Zcoin.
Challenges
Projects that implement privacy face both technical and regulatory challenges
Navigation
How projects can implement good privacy while reducing risk
Why privacy?
Personal Financial Privacy
Business Confidentiality
Protection in Oppressive Regimes
Journalists and Activists
Balance between the State and the Citizen
Myths of Privacy
Main use case is illicit activity
Same argument used against VPNs, E2E communications
Criminal use shows that your privacy works
Most illicit activity happens in stablecoins (63%) and Bitcoin still
Even DPRK’s use of Tornado Cash was bad
Digital cash money should be a neutral value transfer just like the internet is for information transfer
What is unchain privacy?
Privacy isn’t a single switch; it’s a spectrum of protections. True financial privacy aims to conceal:
Sender
Receiver
Amount
Transaction Graph
Asset Type
Network Layer
Privacy Protocols: A Comparison
CoinJoins: Collaborative mixing
Ring Signatures: Plausible deniability
Mimblewimble
Coinjoins combine multiple transactions into a large transaction where you can’t tell where money came from and went to (but the money totals in and out are still auditable).
CashFusion
Amount: Variable
Core Principle: Combinatorial Ambiguity
Architecture: Centralized Coordinator
Other CoinJoins:
Whirlpool
WabiSabi
CoinShuffle++
CoinJoin Pros and Cons
Benefits:
Quantum Resistant
Protocol Simplicity
Regulatory Friendliness
Drawbacks:
High User Friction
Post-Mix Hygiene is Difficult
Centralization Risk
Liveness Requirements
Ring Signatures
Primary implementation: Monero (XMR), Zano
How it works:
Hides the true sender by mixing their signature with a number of “decoys” (past transaction outputs)
An observer can verify that one of the participants is the true sender but can’t tell who
Problem with decoy-based systems
You’re adding “noise” to real transactions
Decent privacy, but against an attacker with access to other records might be able to figure it out
An active attacker who floods the network with their own transactions can reduce the anonymity guarantees (because they know their own transactions)
The more repeated transactions you perform, the more you are exposing yourself
Shows an example of an overseer attack where they track repeat customers
Shows an example of a tainted dust attack where someone can see where money is spent/going
Mimblewimble
Pioneered by: Grin, Beam | Adopted by: Litecoin
How it works:
Encrypts all amounts
Uses aggregation techniques
Leverages “cut-through”, where intermediate transactions are removed to reduce the blockchain size
Analysis:
Privacy: Hides sender, receiver, and amounts well, but weaker on transaction graph privacy
Usability: new implementation is non-interactive, a great leap forward
Niche: Great middle ground for chains wanting lightweight privacy
zkSNARKs: Cutting Edge
Concept: Zero-Knowledge proofs allow a user to prove a statement is true without revealing the underlying information.
Orchard (Current Cash)
No trusted setup
Slower performance than Sapling
Halo2 allows for recursive proofs
Tachyon
Lelantus Spark
Primary implementation: Firo, (Seraphis?)
How it works:
A modular design that avoids monolithic, complex ZK circuits
Uses a combination of specialized, well-understood cryptographic proofs for each task
One-out-of-many proofs
Bulletproofs
Analysis:
Much simpler to design, audit, maintain, and upgrade
Flexibility: Can be extended to support confidential assets
FCMP++
Primary implementation: Monero
How it works:
Maintains Monero’s existing address structure but enables full view support
Analysis:
Global anonymity set and still much simpler than Zcash’s circuits. No trusted setup.
Proceeding to Alpha testate soon.
Network Layer Privacy
Don’t forget the network layer!
Even with perfect on-chain cryptography, your privacy is incomplete if your IP address is exposed
Broadcasting a transaction from your home IP address links your on-chain activity to your real-world identity.
Solutions:
Tor
Dandelion
Mixnets
Bridging the Gap: Compliance Tools
Strong privacy doesn’t have to mean zero compliance. Modern privacy tech includes tools for selective disclosure.
View keys: Grant read-only access to an auditor, regulator, or business partner to view your transaction history without giving them spending authority.
Transparent addresses
Privacy pools
AVOID backdoors!
Challenges for privacy projects:
Regulatory: Pressure from regulators
Technical: Much harder to build things
Delistings: Constant threat to delist the coin
What do exchanges want?
Volume and interest
Satisfy regulators
Ease of compliance
The art of stealth privacy
Smart branding: Don’t call yourself a privacy coin
Architectural separation
Extension blocks: Make privacy optional
No protocol privacy but app privacy
Controlled interaction: design the ecosystem so exchanges only ever interact with transparent addresses—shielded funds are unshielded before deposit
Lean on the ecosystem: Allow third-party mixers and services to distance it from direct responsibility on the core protocol
Exchange tolerance
Stealth addressing: Needs return function for exchanges uncomfortable with certain funds.
Shielded exchange interaction: As long as exchanges don’t directly touch shielded assets, it reduces their risk.
Hiding amounts: This is a gray area, but projects are moving forward (e.g., Dash).
MWEB for eCash?
Soft fork
Proven in practice
Lightweight
Opt-in
Q&A
eCash is doing a privacy subnet, what would be appropriate for us?
Discusses Zcash's Sapling
