El presidente Javier Milei partirá la noche de este lunes a Oslo, capital de Noruega, para asistir a la ceremonia de entrega del Premio Nobel de la Paz a la líder opositora venezolana, María Corina Machado, principal referente de la lucha por los derechos humanos en su país y la más importante opositora a la dictadura de Nicolás Maduro.

Tal como había anticipado Infobae, el mandatario argentino decidió asistir al evento que se realizará el próximo 10 de diciembre, ratificando así también su posición geopolítica alineada a la de Donald Trump, que en el último tiempo intensificó su ofensiva contra el régimen chavista.

De acuerdo con lo que precisaron a este medio fuentes oficiales, el líder libertario abordará por la noche un vuelo especial acompañado únicamente por su hermana y secretaria general, Karina Milei.

En línea con el cronograma previsto, la comitiva arribará a suelo noruego el martes, por lo que tendrá algunas horas libres ese día, ya que recién el miércoles se realizará el evento.

En el acto se encontrarán también los presidentes de Ecuador, Daniel Noboa; de Paraguay, Santiago Peña; de Panamá, José Raúl Mulino Quintero, y el presidente legítimo de Venezuela, Edmundo González Urrutia, quien ganó las últimas elecciones, pero no pudo asumir por el fraude a gran escala cometido por Maduro.

Asimismo, asistirán al encuentro varios referentes de la resistencia contra la dictadura, como la abogada Adriana Flores Márquez, directora de la agrupación Comando Venezuela en la Argentina y ex jefa de campaña de Corina Machado.

Para esta jornada, los dirigentes latinos planificaron una serie de actividades cerca del Centro Nobel de la Paz, un antiguo museo situado en el centro de la capital de Noruega, que es la sede de la ceremonia central.

Por caso, varios de ellos se reunirán a partir de las 12 del miércoles (hora noruega) en la Plaza del Ayuntamiento de Oslo, justo frente a este establecimiento, donde se montarán pantallas gigantes que transmitirán videos explicando las atrocidades cometidas por el régimen chavista.

Posteriormente, se realizará la tradicional Marcha de las Antorchas organizada por The Norwegian Venezuelan Justice Alliance, una ONG local que reclama por la libertad, la democracia y los derechos humanos en la nación caribeña.

Esta movilización, que se hace en honor a los galardonados desde la década de 1950, históricamente la coordina el Consejo Noruego de la Paz, pero este año no será así por diferencias ideológicas con la ganadora de la distinción, según pudo saber Infobae de fuentes interiorizadas con la organización del evento.

Para las 17:30 está prevista la concentración, quince minutos más tarde habrá una bienvenida por parte de quienes hacen la convocatoria y a las 18:15 comenzarán a encenderse las antorchas.

Los manifestantes se movilizarán iluminando todas las calles a su paso hasta llegar a la plaza situada frente al Stortinget (Parlamento de Noruega), donde a las 19:00 se llevará adelante un acto de clausura.

Dentro del Centro Nobel de la Paz, en tanto, las autoridades del premio también planificaron actividades con artistas y referentes de la cultura venezolana, como la pianista y compositora Gabriela Montero y el cantante de reguetón Daniel Alejandro Morales Reyes, más conocido como Danny Ocean.

El galardón a Corina Machado le será entregado por los encargados de la fundación en conjunto con los cuatro jefes de Estado que están confirmados, Milei, Peña, Noboa y Mulino Quintero.

Entre el público, estarán además María Elvira Salazar, miembro de la Cámara de Representantes de los Estados Unidos, y la diputada de España Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo, entre otros.

Por parte del gobierno de Milei, también viajará al evento Gabriel Volpi, encargado de negocios de Argentina en Venezuela y quien en el pasado recibió en Caracas a los líderes de la agrupación encabezada por Flores Márquez, todos ellos dirigentes de plena confianza de María Corina.

Recientemente, la resistencia a la dictadura denunció la muerte de Alfredo Díaz, ex gobernador del estado Nueva Esparta, quien permanecía detenido en El Helicoide, la principal sede del Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia Nacional (SEBIN).

“Su integridad y su vida eran responsabilidad exclusiva de quienes lo mantenían arbitrariamente secuestrado en una sede que ha sido ampliamente denunciada por organismos internacionales como un centro sistemático de torturas y otras violaciones a los Derechos Humanos”, indicó un texto firmado por Corina Machado y González Urrutia.

Por su parte, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos responsabilizó al chavismo por la muerte en prisión del ex gobernador opositor y calificó el hecho como “otro recordatorio más de la naturaleza vil del régimen criminal de Maduro”.

La declaración se produce en un momento de máxima tensión ante una posible acción de Washington contra Venezuela tras su despliegue militar cerca del país, en el mar Caribe, bajo el argumento de combatir el narcotráfico.

De hecho, a finales de noviembre el propio Trump se comunicó telefónicamente con el dictador bolivariano, tal como contó Infobae, para advertirle que multiplicará las acciones armadas, si no abandona Caracas en el corto plazo.

Okay, so check this out—privacy isn’t dead. Wow! The buzz around cryptocurrencies often centers on price, apps, and quick swaps, but something felt off about how little attention mainstream wallets give to real, default privacy. My instinct said: people are trading privacy for convenience, and that tradeoff is more permanent than most folks realize. Initially I thought privacy coins were niche, only for the privacy-obsessed. But then I watched normal users get tracked by heuristics and chain-analysis tools, and I changed my mind.

Here’s the thing. Monero (XMR) isn’t magic. Seriously? No. It’s practical cryptography layered in real-world decision-making. It uses ring signatures, stealth addresses, and confidential transactions to obscure who sent what to whom. Those are the technical pillars, but the real win is that privacy is the default—transactions are private unless you deliberately share them. That design choice matters more than raw algorithmic novelty, because defaults shape behavior. On one hand, defaults protect novices; on the other hand, defaults complicate audits and transparency for regulators, which is why debates get heated. Though actually, there’s nuance here: privacy for residents and privacy for bad actors are very different conversations.

I’m biased, but I think wallets make or break user privacy. If your wallet leaks metadata, then all the fancy math is wasted. I’ve used a few wallets and the differences are stark. Some are polished; some are sloppy. Some prioritize UX over privacy in subtle ways—like prefetching network data or using centralized nodes without clear consent. (Oh, and by the way… that bugs me.) If you want something straightforward and privacy-respecting, a lightweight option that still connects you to trusted infrastructure is often the sweet spot. Check out an xmr wallet that balances ease and privacy when you want a pragmatic route into Monero.

Privacy Fundamentals—Short, Then Deep

Short version: Minimize linkability. Longer version: think about three layers—on-chain, off-chain, and operational hygiene. On-chain privacy comes from the protocol: ring signatures mix outputs, stealth addresses hide recipients, and RingCT hides amounts. Off-chain privacy means how and where you connect: are you using a remote node? Are you exposing your IP when broadcasting transactions? Operational hygiene is about patterns: do you reuse addresses? Do you aggregate funds in ways that create long-term linkage?

Mm—this part always surprises people. You can be careful on-chain but sloppy off-chain and get deanonymized. For example, broadcasting a transaction from your home IP leaves a breadcrumb trail. My first thought was “just use Tor”—but actually wait—Tor, VPNs, and remote nodes each have tradeoffs, latency being one and trust being another. On one hand Tor hides IP; though actually using a public remote node can be risky because that node sees your transactions. So you pick your poison, or you run your own node. Running a node is ideal, though it’s not for everyone.

Also: mixing coins to mimic privacy isn’t equivalent to native privacy. With Monero, mixing is baked in at the protocol level. That means you don’t need to outsource privacy to third-party tumblers, which is a huge operational simplification. Still, somethin’ about the ecosystem—like UX and liquidity—lags behind more popular coins, and that’s where wallets and services can help or harm you.

Choosing and Using a Wallet

I’ll be honest: wallets are a messy middle ground between usability and privacy. Short tip: prefer wallets that let you connect to your own node or a trusted remote node over ones that obscure details with proprietary servers. Medium tip: prioritize deterministic seed backups, hardware wallet support, and the ability to view and verify transactions offline. Long thought: if you want reproducible privacy, you need a repeatable workflow—how you receive funds, when you consolidate outputs, how you spend from multiple receipts—these patterns determine linkability across months and years.

Many people ask me which wallet to pick. I won’t ghost you with a single answer, because different users have different needs. But if you want a simple, privacy-first entry without running a full node, finding a reputable lightweight app that supports Monero and lets you control your own seed is key. You can learn more about a reliable xmr wallet and how it might fit your goals at this link.

Something else: hardware wallets paired with Monero-capable software minimize key exposure. The hardware keeps private keys offline while the software handles transaction construction. That combo reduces attack surface dramatically. However, hardware still needs to interact with software, and that software must be audited and maintained. No silver bullets here. Not even close.

Common Mistakes That Break Privacy

People make the same mistakes over and over. Reusing addresses is the classic. Re-using addresses ties activity together like a string. Using custodial exchanges to move funds introduces KYC metadata. Broadcasting transactions from repeatable IPs creates correlation. Oh—some of you will try to ‘clean’ funds by swapping between coins on mixers. That often creates new traces, and it sometimes makes you a target for additional scrutiny. On one hand, these tactics may help in specific contexts; on the other hand, they produce patterns that can be exploited.

Here’s a concrete, non-actionable caution: never assume anonymity equals impunity. If you’re operating in an adversarial environment—say, targeted surveillance—then tools must be paired with disciplined behavior. Discipline is harder than tech. It’s behavioral. People slip. I slip. You will too. Acknowledge that and design your workflow with redundancies and fallbacks.

Wrapping this up feels odd because I don’t want to sound preachy. But seriously—privacy is a layered problem. At the start I was skeptical, then I saw patterns that changed my mind. Now I’m cautious and optimistic. There’s good tech here, and there are good people building sensible tools. If you’re serious about privacy, treat Monero as a practical option, not a panacea. And remember: consistent, humble habits matter more than grand gestures. Alright, that’s my take—I’m not 100% sure about everything, and some things will change, but it’s a start…

Okay, so check this out—MEV used to be a niche headache for traders and bots, but now it sits squarely in the middle of every wallet, optimizer, and protocol conversation. Seriously. People think of front-running like a market quirk, but it’s a deep structural problem that nudges users toward worse outcomes: higher slippage, failed txns, and surprise sandwiching. My instinct says this is solvable, though not with a single silver bullet.

Here’s the thing. MEV—Miner/Maximal Extractable Value—drives incentives in ways most users don’t see. And wallets are the front line. They decide how transactions get packaged, whether simulations run, who gets priority, and whether user privacy is preserved. If that layer fails, everything downstream is less safe. So let’s walk through what good MEV protection looks like, where DeFi protocols fit in, and what to look for in a Web3 wallet that actually reduces user risk.

First impressions matter. The typical user just wants their trade to execute and not cost an arm and a leg. But the underlying mechanics are messy. On one hand there’s arbitrage that increases market efficiency. On the other hand, predatory bots and extractive ordering steal value from ordinary users. Balancing those forces is the whole game.

What MEV really means for your trades

Short version: MEV is value that can be extracted by ordering, inserting, or censoring transactions. It shows up as front-running, back-running, sandwich attacks, and more exotic block-level manipulations. Longer: these are emergent behaviors from permissionless ordering combined with economic incentives. And when miners/validators or block builders can reorder txns, they can capture profit at the expense of users.

So how does that play out at the wallet level? Wallets control how a transaction is signed, when it’s broadcast, and whether it’s wrapped in privacy-preserving techniques. A naive wallet broadcasts immediately. A smarter one offers simulation, gas estimation, private relays, or MEV-aware routing. Each decision changes the attack surface.

Here’s a concrete pattern: a user submits a large swap. Front-running bots detect the pending txn in the mempool. They place orders ahead of it to push the price, then sell after the user’s transaction executes—sandwich complete. The user pays more for their swap; value leaked to bots. That’s not theoretical. It’s an everyday UX failure if your wallet doesn’t account for it.

Wallet features that materially reduce MEV risk

Not every feature is equal. Some help a lot; some are theater. If you care about real protection, prioritize these:

• Transaction simulation and slippage modeling — know the expected outcome before you sign.
• Private relays or submission through block builders that hide txns from the public mempool.
• Price-impact aware routing — route across DEXs to minimize exposure to sandwich attacks.
• Gas strategy customization — letting users choose between speed and privacy rather than defaulting to “fast.”
• Integration with MEV-resistant protocols — e.g., use of batch auctions, time-weighted execution, or proposer/builder separation when available.

Many wallets have simulation tools now, which is good. But simulation without context is limited. You want simulations that factor in slippage sensitivity, slippage tolerance, and the probability of re-orgs. That nuance matters. It’s where a wallet moves from being just an interface to being a risk manager.

Where DeFi protocols can and should help

DeFi protocols are not helpless bystanders. They can design their contracts and UX to reduce exploitable surfaces. For example, AMMs can adopt concentrated liquidity with better-or-worse UI choices; auctions can batch orders to remove mempool visibility; lending markets can build rebalancing mechanisms that are less sensitive to ordering. On top of that, integration points with wallets can expose metadata that helps wallets decide how to handle transactions.

On one hand, smart contracts are neutral pieces of code. On the other, the way they’re used determines extraction. Protocols that expect public mempool trading will be more vulnerable. Protocols that intentionally batch and schedule can reduce MEV windows. It’s not magic; it’s design trade-offs.

But there’s a catch. Improving protocol-level MEV resistance often requires trade-offs—latency for fairness, complexity for safety. So a practical approach blends protocol fixes with better wallet behavior. That combo is where users see the most tangible benefits.

What a good Web3 wallet actually does—beyond promises

A wallet that helps protect users from MEV will do three things well: it simulates accurately, it manages submission privacy, and it helps users make informed tradeoffs. For example, when a wallet offers private transaction submission, that can close the visibility window, reducing the front-running vector. When a wallet shows a realistic estimate of worst-case slippage, users can pick tolerances more wisely.

Consider wallets that integrate with block builders and private relays. They should be upfront about trade-offs: private submission can reduce exposure but may increase confirmation time or routing fees. Transparency is crucial. And hey—user control matters. Let people choose, rather than hiding defaults in “smart” mode that are actually extractive.

Practical tip: look for wallets that surface simulation results in a clear way, and that support multiple submission paths. It’s one reason practitioners recommend tools that combine simulation, gas-tuning, and private relays under a single UX—because context switching is where mistakes happen. For a straightforward option that offers strong transaction tooling and a developer-friendly experience, check out rabby wallet. It bundles simulation and privacy-focused features in a way that users can actually act on.

Design patterns that protocols and wallets should coordinate on

Coordination beats solo fixes. Here are a few patterns I think deserve wider adoption:

• Batch auctions for swaps — reduce ordering incentives by executing many trades at a single clearing price.
• Delay-and-batch for sensitive operations — brief windows where transactions are hidden and executed together.
• Signed intent plus execution relays — users sign the intent and relays submit to builders without exposing raw txns in the mempool.
• Better UX for slippage — explain worst-case outcomes, not just median estimates.

On one hand these patterns may introduce latency or complexity. On the other hand they meaningfully reduce extractable rent. So protocols need to think in terms of overall user welfare, not just throughput numbers.

Operational realities and trade-offs

I’ll be honest—some MEV is inevitable. The system rewards clever ordering. Trying to stamp it out entirely is unrealistic and may push costs elsewhere. But you can reduce the user-facing harms. That’s the pragmatic approach: mitigation rather than impossible elimination.

Also, not every user needs the highest level of protection. Power traders will accept slippage and speed trade-offs. Retail users prefer simplicity. Good wallet design offers sensible defaults and easy upgrades for more protection. That flexibility is underappreciated.

Finally, there’s the ecosystem question. Builders, relays, and validators are economic actors. Policies, market structures, and even regulation will shape incentives. Wallets that can adapt—expose choices, educate users, and route intelligently—will help shape healthier outcomes.

So where does that leave us? MEV is a system-level problem that requires layered defenses. Wallets are the immediate user touchpoint and can make a real difference. Protocols and validators play their part too. The most practical path forward is pragmatic: ship protections that reduce harm, educate users about trade-offs, and let choices be explicit rather than hidden.

I’m biased toward tools that make those trade-offs visible and actionable. That transparency is the difference between a wallet that just signs transactions and one that actually protects users in the messy, incentive-driven world of DeFi. It’s messy. But manageable. And worth fixing.