The methodology for sample selection, including filtering criteria for TESS Objects of Interest (TOIs) and cross-matching with Gaia DR3, is explained.The methodology for sample selection, including filtering criteria for TESS Objects of Interest (TOIs) and cross-matching with Gaia DR3, is explained.

How We Found Our Stars

Abstract and 1 Introduction

  1. Sample selection and properties

  2. Results

  3. Discussion

  4. Concluding remarks and References

    Appendix A: Sample selection

    Appendix B: Properties of the TOIs in this work

    Appendix C: Pre-MS estimates

Appendix A: Sample selection

The description of the TOIs catalog is in Guerrero et al. (2021), but the updated list including 6977 TOIs[2] was taken as a departure point for selecting the sample. The previous list was initially filtered by only considering the sources that according with the TOIs catalog have: i) A light curve that is compatible with planetary transits (i.e., not rejected as false positives, not related with instrumental noise, or not classified as eclipsing binaries, with sources showing centroid offsets also discarded, stellar variables, or ambiguous planet candidates). ii) An orbital period of P < 10 days. For the few exceptions where two or more planets are associated to a given star, only the one with the shortest period was considered.

\ The resulting list was cross-matched with the Gaia DR3 catalog of astrophysical parameters produced by the Apsis processing (Creevey et al. 2023; Fouesneau et al. 2023). A radius of 1" was used to cross-match the TOIs and Gaia coordinates. A second filter was then applied, keeping the single sources that have: iii) Gaia DR3 values for L∗, M∗, and R∗. iv) An evolutionary status consistent with being in the MS (i.e., Gaia DR3 "evolution stage" parameter of ≤ 420). After the previous process, the initial number of TOIs is reduced by more than a factor of 3. Among the resulting list, 25 intermediate-mass stars with light curves having either a "confirmed planet" (CP) or "Kepler planet" (KP) status in the TOIs catalog were identified. These are all TOIs with Gaia DR3 masses > 1.5M⊙ and confirmed short-period planets (i.e., less massive than 13 MJup) currently identified in the Encyclopaedia of Exoplanetary Systems[3]. This sample was kept and the remaining intermediate-mass stars were further filtered as follows.

\

\ In addition, we selected the 298 low-mass stars with CP or KP status in the TOIs catalog and inferred planetary sizes compatible with giant, gas made planets similar to those around the intermediate-mass sample. This list results from the step iv described above, constituting all TOIs with Gaia DR3 masses ≤ 1.5 M⊙ and confirmed short-period planets, in accordance with the Encyclopaedia of Exoplanetary Systems.

\

Appendix B: Properties of the TOIs in this work

Table B.1 lists main parameters of the 47 TOIs with intermediate-mass stars analysed in this work. Values for the stellar luminosities, temperatures, masses and radii were taken from the Gaia DR3 catalog "I/355/paramp: 1D astrophysical parameters produced by the Apsis processing chain developed in Gaia DPAC CU8". Among the different estimates for the effective temperatures available in that catalog, we selected the ones derived from BP/RP spectra. The main reason for this selection is that such temperature estimates cover a larger sample of stars than the rest. In addition, we checked that relative errors are mostly < 10% when compared with effective temperatures derived from higher resolution spectra also available in that catalog. Errorbars for the stellar parameters refer to the lower (16%) and upper (84%) confidence levels listed in the Gaia DR3 catalog. The planet classification status come from the "EXOFOP disposition" column in the TOIs catalog, from which the orbital periods and errors were also taken. Planet radii were derived from the Rp/R∗ values in the TOIs catalog and the stellar radii in the Gaia DR3 catalog. The propagation of the corresponding uncertainties served to provide the final errorbars listed for the planet radii. Finally, orbital radii were derived from the Kepler’s third law assuming that the planet mass is negligible compared with the stellar mass. Errorbars come from the propagation of the uncertainties in the orbital periods from the TOIs catalog and in the stellar masses from the Gaia DR3 catalog.

\ Figure B.1 shows the Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram of the TOIs, adding to the intermediate-mass sample the 298 lowmass stars. All these host planets with CP and KP classification status (Appendix A) and are plotted in red. Planets without such a classification around intermediate-mass stars (22 out of 47) are represented with blue squares. We also plotted the lower and upper dashed lines representing the beginning and the end of the MS phase (for details about the MS evolution, see, e.g., Salaris & Cassisi 2006). In addition, pre-MS tracks and isochrones from Siess et al. (2000) are indicated for a representative set of stellar masses and ages (see Appendix C).

\ With respect to the properties of the planets, Fig. B.2 shows the planetary radii and orbital periods for the TOIs in the sample. Planets around intermediate-and low-mass stars, as well as their classification status, are again indicated. Planet sizes in between that of Neptune and a few Jupiter radii homogeneously distribute along the whole range of periods for the intermediate and low-mass samples. Figure B.3 compares the distribution of orbital periods around intermediate- and low-mass stars. Planets around intermediate-mass stars peak at 1-2 days, contrasting with the “three-day pileup” of the population of hot Jupiters around low-mass stars observed here and, in the literature, (e.g., Yee & Winn 2023, and references therein). Apart from this, the distributions of periods are similar for both stellar mass regimes. Indeed, a two-sample K-S test does not reject the null hypothesis

\ Fig. B.1: Stellar luminosity vs temperature for all TOIs in this work. Intermediate- and low-mass stars are in blue and red, respectively. Intermediate-mass stars hosting planets with candidate status in Table B.1 are indicated with squares. The evolution along the MS is bracketed by the dashed lines, the bottom line being the ZAMS and the top line the end of the MS phase. Representative pre-MS tracks (dotted lines with the corresponding stellar masses indicated) and isochrones at 0, 1 and 3 Myr (green solid lines) are also indicated.

\ Fig. B.2: Planetary radii vs orbital periods for intermediate- (blue) and low-mass (red) TOIs in the sample. Planets around intermediate-mass stars with candidate status in Table B.1 are indicated with squares. For reference, the horizontal lines show the Neptune and Jupiter radii.

\ that the orbital periods around intermediate- and low-mass stars are drawn from the same parent distribution, at a significance level given by p-value = 0.0957.

\ The similarity between the distributions of TESS planet sizes and periods explored in this work (Figs. B.2 and B.3) suggests that the intermediate- and low-mass stars samples are similarly affected by potential observational biases. Thus, such biases should not originate the differences between both samples reported here (see Sect. 3).

\ Fig. B.3: Distributions of planetary orbital periods. The intermediate- and low-mass samples are in blue and red, as indicated in the legend.

\ Table B.1: Sample of intermediate-mass stars

\ Fig. C.1: Stellar luminosities (left) and radii (right) during the MS are compared with those inferred at 3 Myr for the TOIs considered in this work. The dashed lines indicates equal values in both axes. Intermediate- and low-mass stars are in blue and red, respectively

\

Appendix C: Pre-MS estimates

The Siess et al. (2000) isochrones provide, for a given age and metallicity, the corresponding values of the stellar parameters L∗, R∗, T∗, and M∗. In turn, the pre-MS evolution in the HR diagram can be inferred, for a given value of M∗ and metallicity, from the Siess et al. (2000) evolutionary tracks. Based on the Gaia DR3 stellar masses, the pre-MS values of L∗ and R∗ were inferred for each star in our sample using the 3 Myr isochrone from Siess et al. (2000), assuming solar metallicity. This isochrone is plotted in Fig. B.1, along with several representative evolutionary tracks. From this graphical perspective, the pre-MS values for a given stellar mass are inferred from the point where the 3 Myr isochrone and the corresponding evolutionary track coincide. Figure C.1 compares the MS luminosities and radii from Gaia DR3 with those estimated during the pre-MS at 3 Myr. Errorbars in the y-axes reflect the uncertainties in the Gaia DR3 stellar masses used to infer the pre-MS values of L∗ and R∗ based on the isochrone, and also take into account the fact that bins of 0.1M⊙ were assumed to be interpolated.

\ To estimate how disk dissipation timescales different than the typical 3 Myr affect our results and conclusions, we considered two cases. First, it was assumed that disk dissipation in intermediate-mass stars is faster than in low-mass stars. This difference has been suggested in earlier works indicating that disks around intermediate- and low-mass stars dissipate mostly at ∼ 1 Myr and ∼ 3 Myr, respectively (e.g., Ribas et al. 2015). The 1 Myr isochorne from Siess et al. (2000) is plotted in Figure B.1 along with the 3 Myr isochrone. For a typical intermediate-mass star with M∗ = 2M⊙, L∗ at 1 Myr is ∼ 0.2 dex larger than at 3 Myr. Because T∗ is slightly smaller at 1 Myr, R∗ at this age is larger by a factor ∼ 1.4 (0.1 dex) compared with that at 3 Myr. The net result is a slight displacement of the intermediate-mass stars to the right of both panels in Fig. 2, and to the left in Fig. 3. In other words, our conclusion that planetary orbits around intermediate-mass stars tend to be smaller than the dust-destruction radius and consistent with small magnetospheres would be reinforced under this scenario.

\

\ Fig. C.2: Planetary orbital radii versus MS stellar luminosities (left) and radii (right). Intermediate- and low-mass stars are in blue and red, respectively. In the left panel, the dashed line indicates the inner dust disk for a dust sublimation temperature of 1500 K. In the right panel, the dashed lines indicate the magnetospheric inner gas disk at 10, 7.5, 5, 2.5, and 1R∗.

\ Fig. C.3: Distributions of planetary orbital radii in terms of of MS stellar radii. The intermediate- and low-mass samples are in blue and red, as indicated in the legend.

\ In addition, compared with the previously discussed changes of the disk dissipation timescale, the use of metallicities that are different than solar or evolutionary tracks and isochrones different to those in Siess et al. (2000) have a negligible effect on the pre-MS values inferred for L∗ and R∗ (see, e.g., Siess et al. 2000; Stassun et al. 2014).

\ In summary, although different assumptions to infer the stellar luminosities and radii during disk dissipation have an effect on their specific values and related statistics, the general results and conclusions of this work remain unaltered.

:::info Authors:

(1) I. Mendigutía, Centro de Astrobiología (CAB), CSIC-INTA, Camino Bajo del Castillo s/n, 28692, Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid, Spain;

(2) J. Lillo-Box, Centro de Astrobiología (CAB), CSIC-INTA, Camino Bajo del Castillo s/n, 28692, Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid, Spain;

(3) M. Vioque, European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 2, D-85748 Garching bei München, Germany and Joint ALMA Observatory, Alonso de Córdova 3107, Vitacura, Santiago 763-0355, Chile;

(4) J. Maldonado, INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Palermo, Piazza del Parlamento 1, I-90134 Palermo, Italy;

(8) B. Montesinos, Centro de Astrobiología (CAB), CSIC-INTA, Camino Bajo del Castillo s/n, 28692, Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid, Spain;

(6) N. Huélamo, Centro de Astrobiología (CAB), CSIC-INTA, Camino Bajo del Castillo s/n, 28692, Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid, Spain;

(7) J. Wang, Departamento de Física Teórica, Módulo 15, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain.

:::


:::info This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED license.

:::

[2] https://tev.mit.edu/data/

\ .[3] https://exoplanet.eu/home/

Market Opportunity
CROSS Logo
CROSS Price(CROSS)
$0.11455
$0.11455$0.11455
-2.16%
USD
CROSS (CROSS) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Crucial: Australia’s Digital Asset Licensing Mandate Set to Transform Crypto Landscape

Crucial: Australia’s Digital Asset Licensing Mandate Set to Transform Crypto Landscape

BitcoinWorld Crucial: Australia’s Digital Asset Licensing Mandate Set to Transform Crypto Landscape Australia is taking a significant step towards a more regulated cryptocurrency environment. Recent proposals suggest that digital asset platforms operating in the country will soon face mandatory Australia’s Digital Asset Licensing requirements. This move signals a growing global trend towards establishing clear rules for the rapidly evolving digital finance sector. Why is Australia Embracing Mandatory Digital Asset Licensing? The Australian government’s draft regulation, as reported by Yahoo Finance, aims to bring much-needed clarity and protection to the digital asset space. The primary goal is to safeguard consumers and foster market integrity. Without proper oversight, the risks of fraud, scams, and market manipulation can be higher, eroding public trust in digital assets. This initiative seeks to level the playing field, ensuring that all platforms adhere to a baseline of operational excellence and accountability. It’s about creating a secure environment where innovation can still thrive, but not at the expense of user safety. Key Requirements for Digital Asset Platforms The proposed framework outlines several crucial obligations for platforms dealing with digital assets. These are designed to ensure transparency, security, and consumer recourse: Financial Services License: Platforms will need to obtain a specific financial services license, aligning them with traditional financial institutions. This ensures they meet stringent regulatory standards. Dispute Resolution System: A robust system for resolving customer complaints and disputes will be mandatory. This gives users a clear path to address issues, enhancing consumer protection. Minimum Standards for Custody: Platforms holding customer digital assets must meet specific standards for secure custody. This protects users’ funds from hacks, theft, and mismanagement. Payment Standards: Requirements for payment processes will be introduced, aiming to ensure efficient and secure transactions. This builds confidence in the operational reliability of these platforms. What are the Benefits of Robust Australia’s Digital Asset Licensing? While some in the crypto community might view regulation with skepticism, there are significant advantages to a well-structured regulatory framework. Firstly, it can dramatically boost investor confidence. Knowing that platforms are licensed and subject to oversight can encourage more mainstream adoption and institutional investment. Moreover, it helps in combating illicit activities. By requiring platforms to identify their clients and monitor transactions, the new rules can make it harder for bad actors to use digital assets for money laundering or terrorist financing. This ultimately strengthens the reputation of the entire digital asset industry. Navigating the Challenges of Digital Asset Licensing Of course, implementing such comprehensive regulations is not without its challenges. Smaller platforms and startups might face increased compliance costs, potentially hindering their ability to compete. There’s also the delicate balance of fostering innovation versus imposing overly restrictive rules. Regulators must work closely with the industry to ensure the framework is practical and forward-looking. Another challenge is the dynamic nature of digital assets themselves. The technology evolves rapidly, and regulations must be flexible enough to adapt without becoming outdated too quickly. The success of Australia’s Digital Asset Licensing will depend on its ability to strike this balance. What Does This Mean for You, the Crypto User? For individuals trading or holding digital assets in Australia, these proposed changes are generally positive. They promise a safer and more transparent environment. You can expect platforms to be more accountable, with clearer avenues for support and dispute resolution. This shift could lead to a more stable and trustworthy market, encouraging broader participation. It’s an exciting time as Australia moves to solidify its position in the global digital economy, demonstrating a commitment to responsible growth in the crypto space. The framework for Australia’s Digital Asset Licensing is a pivotal step. Conclusion: Australia’s proposal for mandatory digital asset licensing marks a pivotal moment for its crypto industry. By introducing clear regulatory standards, the nation aims to enhance consumer protection, foster market integrity, and build greater trust in digital assets. While challenges in implementation will exist, this proactive approach positions Australia as a leader in creating a secure and responsible environment for the future of finance. It’s a move that promises a more mature and reliable ecosystem for all participants. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Q1: What is the main goal of Australia’s proposed digital asset licensing? A1: The primary goal is to enhance consumer protection, ensure market integrity, and prevent illicit activities within the digital asset sector by requiring platforms to meet specific regulatory standards. Q2: Which platforms will be affected by these new regulations? A2: The regulations will primarily affect digital asset platforms operating in Australia that facilitate the exchange, custody, or payment services involving cryptocurrencies and other digital assets. Q3: What are some key requirements for platforms under the new licensing? A3: Key requirements include obtaining a financial services license, establishing a robust dispute resolution system, and meeting minimum standards for the custody and payment processing of digital assets. Q4: How will these changes benefit crypto users in Australia? A4: Crypto users can expect a safer, more transparent, and trustworthy environment. Platforms will be more accountable, with clearer processes for dispute resolution and enhanced security for their digital assets. Q5: When are these new regulations expected to come into effect? A5: The proposal is currently in a draft stage. After public consultation and parliamentary processes, a final timeline for implementation will be announced. Users should stay informed via official government and financial news channels. Found this article insightful? Share it with your friends, colleagues, and anyone interested in the evolving world of cryptocurrency regulation! Your shares help us spread crucial information and foster a more informed digital asset community. To learn more about the latest crypto market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping Bitcoin institutional adoption. This post Crucial: Australia’s Digital Asset Licensing Mandate Set to Transform Crypto Landscape first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/25 08:10
Atlassian’s Monumental DX Acquisition: Revolutionizing Developer Productivity for a Billion-Dollar Future

Atlassian’s Monumental DX Acquisition: Revolutionizing Developer Productivity for a Billion-Dollar Future

BitcoinWorld Atlassian’s Monumental DX Acquisition: Revolutionizing Developer Productivity for a Billion-Dollar Future In a move that sends ripples across the tech industry, impacting everything from foundational infrastructure to the cutting-edge innovations seen in blockchain and cryptocurrency development, productivity software giant Atlassian has made its largest acquisition to date. This isn’t just another corporate buyout; it’s a strategic investment in the very fabric of how software is built. The Atlassian acquisition of DX, a pioneering developer productivity platform, for a staggering $1 billion, signals a profound commitment to optimizing engineering workflows and understanding the true pulse of development teams. For those invested in the efficiency and scalability of digital ecosystems, this development underscores the growing importance of robust tooling at every layer. Unpacking the Monumental Atlassian Acquisition: A Billion-Dollar Bet on Developer Efficiency On a recent Thursday, Atlassian officially announced its agreement to acquire DX for $1 billion, a sum comprising both cash and restricted stock. This substantial investment highlights Atlassian’s belief in the critical role of developer insights in today’s fast-paced tech landscape. For years, Atlassian has been synonymous with collaboration and project management tools, powering teams worldwide with products like Jira, Confluence, and Trello. However, recognizing a growing need, the company has now decisively moved to integrate a dedicated developer productivity insight platform into its formidable product suite. This acquisition isn’t merely about expanding market share; it’s about deepening Atlassian’s value proposition by providing comprehensive visibility into the health and efficiency of engineering operations. The strategic rationale behind this billion-dollar move is multifaceted. Atlassian co-founder and CEO Mike Cannon-Brookes shared with Bitcoin World that after a three-year attempt to build an in-house developer productivity insight tool, his Sydney-based company realized the immense value of an external, existing solution. This candid admission speaks volumes about the complexity and specialized nature of developer productivity measurement. DX emerged as the natural choice, not least because an impressive 90% of DX’s existing customers were already leveraging Atlassian’s project management and collaboration tools. This pre-existing synergy promises a smoother integration and immediate value for a significant portion of the combined customer base. What is the DX Platform and Why is it a Game-Changer? At its core, DX is designed to empower enterprises by providing deep analytics into how productive their engineering teams truly are. More importantly, it helps identify and unblock bottlenecks that can significantly slow down development cycles. Launched five years ago by Abi Noda and Greyson Junggren, DX emerged from a fundamental challenge: the lack of accurate and non-intrusive metrics to understand developer friction. Abi Noda, in a 2022 interview with Bitcoin World, articulated his founding vision: to move beyond superficial metrics that often failed to capture the full picture of engineering challenges. His experience as a product manager at GitHub revealed that traditional measures often felt like surveillance rather than support, leading to skewed perceptions of productivity. DX was built on a different philosophy, focusing on qualitative and quantitative insights that truly reflect what hinders teams, without making developers feel scrutinized. Noda noted, “The assumptions we had about what we needed to help ship products faster were quite different than what the teams and developers were saying was getting in their way.” Since emerging from stealth in 2022, the DX platform has demonstrated remarkable growth, tripling its customer base every year. It now serves over 350 enterprise customers, including industry giants like ADP, Adyen, and GitHub. What makes DX’s success even more impressive is its lean operational model; the company achieved this rapid expansion while raising less than $5 million in venture funding. This efficiency underscores the inherent value and strong market demand for its solution, making it an exceptionally attractive target for Atlassian. Boosting Developer Productivity: Atlassian’s Strategic Vision The acquisition of DX is a clear signal of Atlassian’s strategic intent to not just manage tasks, but to optimize the entire software development lifecycle. By integrating DX’s capabilities, Atlassian aims to offer an end-to-end “flywheel” for engineering teams. This means providing tools that not only facilitate collaboration and project tracking but also offer actionable insights into where processes are breaking down and how they can be improved. Mike Cannon-Brookes elaborated on this synergy, stating, “DX has done an amazing job [of] understanding the qualitative and quantitative aspects of developer productivity and turning that into actions that can improve those companies and give them insights and comparisons to others in their industry, others at their size, etc.” This capability to benchmark and identify specific areas for improvement is invaluable for organizations striving for continuous enhancement. Abi Noda echoed this sentiment, telling Bitcoin World that the combined entities are “better together than apart.” He emphasized how Atlassian’s extensive suite of tools complements the data and information gathered by DX. “We are able to provide customers with that full flywheel to get the data and understand where we are unhealthy,” Noda explained. “They can plug in Atlassian’s tools and solutions to go address those bottlenecks. An end-to-end flywheel that is ultimately what customers want.” This integration promises to create a seamless experience, allowing teams to move from identifying an issue to implementing a solution within a unified ecosystem. The Intersection of Enterprise Software and Emerging Tech Trends This landmark acquisition also highlights a significant trend in the broader enterprise software landscape: a shift towards more intelligent, data-driven solutions that directly impact operational efficiency and competitive advantage. As companies continue to invest heavily in digital transformation, the ability to measure and optimize the output of their most valuable asset — their engineering talent — becomes paramount. DX’s impressive roster of over 350 enterprise customers, including some of the largest and most technologically advanced organizations, is a testament to the universal need for such a platform. These companies recognize that merely tracking tasks isn’t enough; they need to understand the underlying dynamics of their engineering teams to truly unlock their potential. The integration of DX into Atlassian’s ecosystem will likely set a new standard for what enterprise software can offer, pushing competitors to enhance their own productivity insights. Moreover, this move by Atlassian, a global leader in enterprise collaboration, underscores a broader investment thesis in foundational tooling. Just as robust blockchain infrastructure is critical for the future of decentralized finance, powerful and insightful developer tools are essential for the evolution of all software, including the complex applications underpinning Web3. The success of companies like DX, which scale without massive external funding, also resonates with the lean, efficient ethos often celebrated in the crypto space. Navigating the Era of AI Tools: Measuring Impact and ROI Perhaps one of the most compelling aspects of this acquisition, as highlighted by Atlassian’s CEO, is its timely relevance in the era of rapidly advancing AI tools. Mike Cannon-Brookes noted that the rise of AI has created a new imperative for companies to measure its usage and effectiveness. “You suddenly have these budgets that are going up. Is that a good thing? Is that not a good thing? Am I spending the money in the right ways? It’s really, really important and critical.” With AI-powered coding assistants and other generative AI solutions becoming increasingly prevalent in development workflows, organizations are grappling with how to quantify the return on investment (ROI) of these new technologies. DX’s platform can provide the necessary insights to understand if AI tools are genuinely boosting productivity, reducing bottlenecks, or simply adding to complexity. By offering clear data on how AI impacts developer efficiency, DX will help enterprises make smarter, data-driven decisions about their AI investments. This foresight positions Atlassian not just as a provider of developer tools, but as a strategic partner in navigating the complexities of modern software development, particularly as AI integrates more deeply into every facet of the engineering process. It’s about empowering organizations to leverage AI effectively, ensuring that these powerful new tools translate into tangible improvements in output and innovation. The Atlassian acquisition of DX represents a significant milestone for both companies and the broader tech industry. It’s a testament to the growing recognition that developer productivity is not just a buzzword, but a measurable and critical factor in an organization’s success. By combining DX’s powerful insights with Atlassian’s extensive suite of collaboration and project management tools, the merged entity is poised to offer an unparalleled, end-to-end solution for optimizing software development. This strategic move, valued at a billion dollars, underscores Atlassian’s commitment to innovation and its vision for a future where engineering teams are not only efficient but also deeply understood and supported, paving the way for a more productive and insightful era in enterprise software. To learn more about the latest AI market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping AI features. This post Atlassian’s Monumental DX Acquisition: Revolutionizing Developer Productivity for a Billion-Dollar Future first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 21:40
OUSG (OUSG) - Complete Fundamental Analysis

OUSG (OUSG) - Complete Fundamental Analysis

OUSG (OUSG) Cryptocurrency Overview ## Core Technology and Blockchain Architecture OUSG is a tokenized short-term U.S. Treasury bills ETF managed by Ondo Finance

Share
Coinstats2026/02/01 09:01