Hago que los impuestos sean lo menos aburrido de tu semana. Bueno, casi.

anthropic has quietly started a wet lab

"Sanae, Barron is asking where something called the One Piece is hidden. What the hell is he talking about?"

A few short-term personal thoughts. I don’t speak for the EF, so want to share a subjective view (which can be bent - I have no ego in this, so please fire away) ⤵️ 1. I was silent because there is nothing of hard substance to communicate. Firstly, communicating about abstaining does no good and only makes the efforts of protocols working on a resolution - harder. It might also throw implicit shade (which there is none). So why do that. Secondly, communicating “we are speaking to the parties involved and hope a resolution is found soon” is wordsalad. I don’t appreciate such empty statements by third parties. When affected protocols do it, it makes sense, because they need to do it for legal and optics reasons. But EF doesn’t make decisions for protocols, doesn’t control any of those keys or permissions, none of that - so it can’t speak for others. While we did talk and gave our opinions, such situations are ultimately up to the teams’ legal counsel, ethics, abilities, vision, funding. Those that pull through are the heroes here - and not us who “oh ye we talked to teams”. I find such comms to be rude instead if released. 2. On the inaction so far, many founders have already expressed why they think that: creating a dangerous precedent. But that reasoning reads rude at first. You immediately get hit with “but it is one of the main OG protocols, it is contagion, etc.” Arguing on the severity is moot, but I also never pulled out my personal lending balance from Aave (I have on Morpho, Spark, Gearbox, Liquity, and more too) so that says something? It’s tough but it’s a resilience test. If you plug this hole even a bit, it’s not just about the future, it’s also about past teams being rightfully very mad for not getting such support before. And then what about permissionless protocols, curated instances? Gets even messier. What EF did do is - reduce the debt of @LidoFinance / @mellowprotocol vaults and relieve their pain from high borrow rates (by swapping the position: nitter.net/ethereumfndn/status/20…). EF gets liquidity, treasury is safu at 1:1, Lido/Mellow cover their debt and save a lot. Is this an ecosystem-wide help? Personally I treat it as a neutral move, it’s maybe tiny positive in fact, but not worthy of self-glazing. I personally find it amazing that the community came together and has now almost fully closed the hole. Well done to the parties involved, and on the great branding around it (cc @aave). The least we could have done, if not being active, is to stfu and let them cook. We don’t need to give opinions and say “oh, why this way, and not another way to deal with it”. Time constraints, stress, multiple parties involved, etc. - this is why it’s up to the teams to man up, these are their businesses and decisions. We must trust them to be grown-up, mature, and ready to survive situations like this. It’s okay to disagree here, I disagree with myself here (I hate both sides in this case). 3. We obviously want to talk about security, standards, efforts to avoid such cases, etc. - but now is bad timing. Putting salt on the wound is not a good idea, so we will address this in due time (so will the teams, without EF hand-holding anyone). 4. Also on tone deaf, sure the EF still appears like that sometimes, for example, the timing of the last periodic sale was crap, no way around it. All the troll memes are deserved, but they don’t change all the other good initiatives EF is working on. Not everything can be perfectly timed when there are many parallel things involved. On that specific sale I already posted here nitter.net/ivangbi_/status/204193… and here nitter.net/ivangbi_/status/204772…. —— I hope to appear logical and open-agile in anything I touch with regard to EF + DeFi, even if I am often not responsible for that and have no direct say in it. I hope this reply and others show the logic more clearly and allow for a discussion if needed. I don’t do this for the money honestly, and thus I am also not a fan of self-glazing empty statements.

The fact that SC on @arbitrum has instant upgrade power is two clicks away (click on "pizza" or "Risk Analysis" and hover on Exit Window Red Warning Should it be one click away ? Should we be more specific here ? (how decentralized is the SC, a link to the constitution specifing SC mandate, etc..) Should we make it more obvious what is "instant upgrade" and what it enables in practice ? How can we, at @l2beat be better at what we do ?

I’m starting to understand why vitalik hates DeFi

Don't be surprised when a LayerZero multisig exploit ends up funding some more DPRK tests 🫡 612 days ago

Unpopular opinion - warn about bad DVN setups before the hacks, not after. I personally feel sorry for what happened to rsETH. At the same time so many times I was told that : - users only care about speed and cost of bridging - bridge hacks are so 2024 or earlier - there's only short, in-flight risk for users, once you are on the other side you're safe I wonder how long people will be interested to listen about interop and asset risk before all is forgotten again and we start to be ignored as usual DeFi slowly puts itself into a very bad place - yields similar to TradFi (or lower) but risks much greater. This is not a good place to be

Hot take: most companies don't need devrel they need integration engineers and solution architects. Blockchain software is now used by enterprises, which means we need to actually graduate into the mindset of: how can we best service our customers? There was a flaw in the early DeFi days that teams needed an active community of devs working on top of your protocol, that need devrels jumping in every hackathons across the world, having community calls, doing youtube videos, etc. The truth is: - it's 95% a waste of time and money: hackathons are very expensive, sending a few team members is very expensive as well, and the community of developers you create does not bring much value. - it's even more true now than it was in 2020/21: the space is more mature, instits and classic web2 companies are all coming onchain. they dont need devrel they need to be reassured on tech, business, legal first - people chasing hackathons usually don't care about your product/protocol or don't care about building a long-term product (they usually care about leveling their skills or grabbing money so they can attend the next hackathon in Bali). The few that do end up building a product have 95%+ of failing and the few that survive won't bring much value before a year or so - yes it's a lot of fun for those devrels that you hired, but the right question is: where could this money be better spent? What has the biggest ROI? You have to restart from 1st principle - you'd better allocate that money on sales people to close customers - and you'd better have solution architect and integration engineers that can provide great support to those customers - you'd rather focus your energy on existing and live projects for which you're truly solving a problem *now* - you have to realize that in many B2B companies, the one who makes the decision are often not the developers but the exec or product people Dont get me wrong, i do think having comprehensive documentation is important, i do see value for some projects in doing hackathons to battle-test your product, or hire talents or whatever, i do see value in having a developer community. But I strongly think that people should apply more 1st principle thinking before allocating significant resources to creating a community of developers.

Amiguitos de la internet, un pedido: ¿Alguien acá hizo o tiene data de algún research sobre reputación, identidad, confianza o proof-of-algo entre usuarios que me puedan compartir? Necesito que me tiren un centro con data confiable para entender mejor sobre el tema! Gracias!

Gave Clawdbot access to my portfolio. "Trade this to $1M. Don't make mistakes" 25 strategies. 3,000+ reports. 12 new algos. It scanned every X post. Charted every technical. Traded 24/7. It lost everything. But boy was it beautiful.

If you are coming from Ethereum to Solana and expect a similar level of transparency and auditability, you are in for a shock. Nobody there seems to be interested in verifying contracts and tooling is so basic, it feels like 2016. Clearly different priorities and tradoffs

Because I don't think holding USDC on Ethereum is more secure than holding USD in a MMF or treasuries. Ethereum doesn't add security, it adds the convenience of worldwide interoperability of your assets.

when are we running back the bi-annual CLOB vs. AMM debate

we successfully reproduced zk verifiers and host programs for all @zksync elastic chains using boojum. all verification steps can be found in the project page, and if anyone goes through the same steps, tell us and we'll add your social attestation h/t @sergeyshemyakov

My 2 gwei as an AMM maxi:  I feel qualified and neutral enough to speak on this debate given that my project currently integrates every version of Uniswap except for V1. •We use UniV2 for our token’s liquidity on Base despite the common trend of new tokens launching on Aerodrome given the massive amount of support that the Base team as well as Coinbase ventures has poured into Aero. •We used UniV3 for our initial prediction markets (in a very crafty way I might add). •And we have built the only conditional token UniV4 PM-AMM hook, which we currently use for all our latest markets. We build on top of Uniswap because we believe their product is still among the most innovative in the space, and because they have an excellent security track record. But Hayden is not entirely on the right side of this debate.  I’ve followed Alex’s rise from when he just entered crypto and was writing informative threads about Solidly and its ve mechanics back when Andre Cronje first created it. Then Alex launched Velodrome on Optimism and we had a few calls where he pitched me several times on the veAMM design. I told him I was skeptical, and I still am. But after years of the veAMMs working despite my skepticism, is it possible that the mechanics he swears by are more robust than I thought?  I think so. In his comment here Hayden says that Uniswap is not funded through token emissions, that token holders are not bearing the burden of Uniswap’s operational expenses, and that those costs come from Uniswap Labs’s fund raises.  Which begs the question:  what do these investors get in return for their funding if not UNI tokens? The answer is Uniswap Labs equity. At this point the facade that there’s no tension between company equity and issued tokens has mostly been lifted.  Everyone knows that the equity is subtractive from the token. So Alex is right that token holders *are* bearing the cost of Uniswap’s growth and development. And perhaps it’s possible that Aerodrome’s approach of funneling emissions directly to LPs in return for fees makes sense to a degree. But it’s more nuanced than that. Aerodrome too has development costs, and to the extent that these costs are less than Uniswap’s, it’s likely because Aero’s core AMM code is mostly a clone of Uniswap’s. Hayden is also right that Aerodome’s revenue is primarily sourced through a fee rebate model, and that it can’t be directly compared to Uniswap’s revenue. So where am I going with all this?  Well let me put it this way, the very fact that Hayden is engaging in this debate at all tells me that the competition is real. Hayden is notorious for not acknowledging even the projects that are complimentary to Uniswap unless they work out of the same Brooklyn office, much less entrain a competitor on the timeline. So that tells me that Aerodrome’s ve mechanics are yielding positive network effects to the point that it’s posing a real threat to Uniswap. Some ppl might be thinking that “well if Uniswap were to make all their code business licensed then they wouldn’t have to deal with Aero’s pesky competition!”  But Aerodrome didn’t invent the veModel, Curve did. Had Curve adopted a more volatile-token-friendly design instead of focusing on stablecoins and helping Do Kwon and Jump run up a $60B house of cards (sorry Mich but it’s true), it could very well have been them fighting this battle without reusing any of Uniswap’s code. (Funny enough Curve’s code is licensed while Uniswap’s isn’t.. heh) So the TLDR here is that Hayden is right, but so is Alex. Uniswap’s revenue is categorically different from Aerodrome’s.  However, Uniswap’s revenue can’t be modelled as trivially as Hayden lays out either; remember there is that hidden equity conflict of interest lurking about. If UNI represented holistic value accrual for all of Uniswap and Labs, then this whole debate could be put to rest with a less rigorous analysis. But alas…

“USDT pays you no yield - what a rip off!” For the world’s poor, zero yield is very competitive with alternative forms of savings. Take “deposit collectors” as an example. These are individuals who are contracted to come around daily or weekly for pick up cash savings. At the end of the term, the lump sum is returned to the saver, minus a fee. A woman may contract to save 10 rupees a day for 220 days. At the end of the term, the woman would have saved Rs2,200, of which Rs2,000 would be returned to her (~$25). That’s 9% of the total paid to the deposit collector to keep the savings safe. But it’s even worse than that in APY. It works out to nearly NEGATIVE 30% yield on savings. You can see why 0% APY USDT looks attractive. It’s still safer than storing cash at home where it could be lost or stolen. It’s still invisible to relatives who may come asking for assistance. The rug risk by @paoloardoino is surely much lower than a local deposit collector in rural West Africa or South Asia. It’s easy to forget that USDT’s dominance doesn’t come from trying to compete with JPM or HSBC as the most capital efficient stablecoin. They dominate because they do business in places no one else bothers to compete in. Stablecoin issuers need to know their target market(s). Most issuers ignore the markets with weak competition - like the -30% APY savings instruments - to the detriment of their own growth and the crypto promise to bring services to the underserved.

siempre me sorprende lo poco que la gente en cripto entiende los mercados de predicción, dado que los cypherpunks los vieron como la posibilidad más emocionante en mercados descentralizados y, en cierto sentido, todo cripto es un arranque hacia eso. el insider trading es un producto positivo y deseable de los mercados de predicción, ya que su función es comunicar información. Hanson lo discutió en 2005 (“Information Aggregation and Manipulation in an Experimental Market”). la cuestión de cuándo los mercados empiezan a comunicar de vuelta para influir en eventos reales es menos entendida, pero inevitable, y nick land la ha abordado durante tres décadas: mercados de predicción suficientemente líquidos convergen con jugadores vivos para dictar no solo el consenso sino para hiperesticionalizar activamente la realidad. por ejemplo, brian armstrong no manipuló el mercado; el mercado lo manipuló a él. esto ocurrirá a escala, de forma imperceptible, a medida que los mercados de predicción sigan devorando todos los mercados, y la realidad misma. cripto siempre fue un bootstrap para esto; así es como disrumpe completamente a la sociedad. miya habló de esto: hiperfinanciarlo todo; ninguno de ustedes leyó la lista de correo de los cypherpunks y se nota.

At DevConnect Buenos Aires, the details of EIL @ethinteroplayer - Ethereum Interoperability Layer were unveiled. We’ve been deep-diving interop protocols for months and our initial assessment of EIL contracts (deployed on testnets already) is following 🧵👇