JAN3 CEO Samson Mow: No Need to Panic Over Ethereum Researcher's Comments
JAN3 CEO Samson Mow stated that not reusing addresses is best practice, but there is no need to panic over the comments made by an Ethereum researcher. He emphasized at the end of his post that the speaker is an Ethereum researcher.
The post did not provide new technical parameters or request users to migrate on the same day. He separated the two issues: not reusing addresses is valid; treating the researcher's warning as an urgent risk is not valid. The background corresponds to Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake's proposal of a bunker mode, suggesting gradually moving funds to new addresses that have never made transactions to avoid exposing public keys before spending, while he also wrote not to rush migration.
Vitalik Buterin later expanded the risk from elliptic curves to lattice-based cryptography, stating that the specific security strength of ML-DSA, fully homomorphic encryption, and lattice-based constructions is likely to be weakened by advancements in artificial intelligence mathematics in the next two years, and similarly suggested using unspent addresses when convenient. He also clarified that he does not recommend rushing to change wallets today, stating that his losses from migration errors exceed those from hacking. Mow did not respond to key length, hashing schemes, or the two-year window, only denying the panic itself.
Mow's identity is that of a proponent for national adoption of Bitcoin, and JAN3 focuses on the national-level implementation of Bitcoin, not Ethereum protocol research. Bitcoin uses an unspent output model, where addresses expose public keys after spending, and the community has long established "one address, one use" as the default practice for wallets; Ethereum uses an account model, where repeatedly sending and receiving from the same address is the norm. He used the phrase "Remember, that is an Ethereum researcher" to extract address hygiene from the narrative of AI threats.
At the time of the post, interaction was still low, with the content being a stance rather than an operational manual. There were no new on-chain migration data or exchange announcements following. The only executable part on the Bitcoin side remains the old rule: change addresses after spending to avoid exposing public keys on-chain prematurely.
This is a narrative diversion, not a capital migration. The buyers are those treating AI decryption as a reason for recent transactions, while the sellers are those refusing to import the Ethereum research narrative into Bitcoin holdings. Beneficiaries are Bitcoin wallets and custodians that continue to emphasize address hygiene without making urgent changes; under pressure are those propagating bunker mode as an immediate risk across the industry. The event does not change the mathematics of private keys, but alters the pricing of this warning within Bitcoin funds.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Samson Mow has shifted from his role as Chief Strategy Officer at Blockstream to focus on national adoption rather than protocol research. He has been involved in the implementation of Bitcoin in El Salvador and the marketing of volcano bonds, subsequently using JAN3 to replicate the same government adoption model, with Aqua wallet responsible for consolidating Bitcoin and stablecoins into one terminal. Public controversies have followed this path: bond delays, questioned adoption data, and referring to Ethereum research as "silly things" all align with the narrative of "Bitcoin main chain, other chains are noise."
Capital does not enter cryptographic research but flows into government balances and national propaganda. The resource mobilization of JAN3 involves presidential offices, legal texts, and reserve announcements, not signature algorithm migrations. Mow left "do not reuse addresses" as best practice because this approach already exists in Bitcoin's unspent output model, without needing to borrow a two-year window from Ethereum researchers. Urgent migrations could lead to operational errors and custodial inquiries, which would detract from his narrative of "hold and do not act due to external papers."
A parallel can be drawn to the 2017 Bitcoin Cash fork, where Bitcoin core supporters compressed their response into "keep private keys unchanged, coins on the original chain," rather than following the competitor's chain operations. The industry position is one of control: the narrative of national adoption has already been established, and current actions aim to block external security warnings from rewriting holder behavior. Drake and Vitalik aim to change the habit of exposing public keys in Ethereum accounts; Mow refuses to let this habit escalate into a reason for Bitcoin sell-offs or migrations.
Structurally, this is a transfer of pricing power. If the pricing power of security advice remains in the hands of Ethereum researchers, Bitcoin holdings will be re-evaluated based on others' threat models; Mow reclaims pricing power to the old address hygiene rules. The mechanism is that the protocol shapes differ: the account model inevitably reuses addresses, while the unspent output model can use one address per transaction. Who defines "whether to move coins today" determines whether short-term funds will flow from self-custody to exchanges and trading services.
ABAB News · Law of Cognition
- Old hygiene rules borrowed by new threats can become reasons for transactions.
- Different protocol shapes cannot share urgency.
- Who defines whether to move, who sets the pricing for holdings.