Christian Case

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

Didn't make round 2, still trying though
I actually want to run the Charter as a Banker, not just mint and flip it. Been reading through the mechanics and this is the part I got stuck on:

https://t.co/1mF4LBK6xy

If you're still adding individual wallets for the next batch, I'd appreciate a look. Thx 🙏

@standard_rsv

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

One thing I’m trying to understand in @standard_rsv

The protocol already seems to treat outstanding Internal Balance as economically relevant: Resolution pressure looks at withdrawals relative to the Internal Balance still remaining in the system.

But the issuance side seems deliberately separated from that. Monetary policy reacts to net ETH flow, while STANDARD accrued by Bankers can keep building off-market until Branches are closed.

So why use Internal Balance as an input once people start resolving, but not as a feedback variable while expansion is creating that balance?

For example, imagine a long period of positive ETH flow where accrued Banker balances grow much faster than pool depth. Since those tokens haven't been minted yet, they haven't produced sell pressure, so the market signal can still look healthy.

Would issuance continue responding only to ETH flow regardless of how large outstanding Internal Balance becomes?

Or is there another mechanism I'm missing that makes the ratio between accrued issuance and liquid market depth irrelevant?

@0xbeans

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

@0xbeans Still trying to understand this part of Standard Reserve’s design. Curious if I’m missing something here, @0xbeans

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

One thing I’m trying to understand in @standard_rsv

The protocol already seems to treat outstanding Internal Balance as economically relevant: Resolution pressure looks at withdrawals relative to the Internal Balance still remaining in the system.

But the issuance side seems deliberately separated from that. Monetary policy reacts to net ETH flow, while STANDARD accrued by Bankers can keep building off-market until Branches are closed.

So why use Internal Balance as an input once people start resolving, but not as a feedback variable while expansion is creating that balance?

For example, imagine a long period of positive ETH flow where accrued Banker balances grow much faster than pool depth. Since those tokens haven't been minted yet, they haven't produced sell pressure, so the market signal can still look healthy.

Would issuance continue responding only to ETH flow regardless of how large outstanding Internal Balance becomes?

Or is there another mechanism I'm missing that makes the ratio between accrued issuance and liquid market depth irrelevant?

@0xbeans

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

One thing I’m trying to understand in @standard_rsv

The protocol already seems to treat outstanding Internal Balance as economically relevant: Resolution pressure looks at withdrawals relative to the Internal Balance still remaining in the system.

But the issuance side seems deliberately separated from that. Monetary policy reacts to net ETH flow, while STANDARD accrued by Bankers can keep building off-market until Branches are closed.

So why use Internal Balance as an input once people start resolving, but not as a feedback variable while expansion is creating that balance?

For example, imagine a long period of positive ETH flow where accrued Banker balances grow much faster than pool depth. Since those tokens haven't been minted yet, they haven't produced sell pressure, so the market signal can still look healthy.

Would issuance continue responding only to ETH flow regardless of how large outstanding Internal Balance becomes?

Or is there another mechanism I'm missing that makes the ratio between accrued issuance and liquid market depth irrelevant?

@0xbeans

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

One thing I’m trying to understand in @standard_rsv

The protocol already seems to treat outstanding Internal Balance as economically relevant: Resolution pressure looks at withdrawals relative to the Internal Balance still remaining in the system.

But the issuance side seems deliberately separated from that. Monetary policy reacts to net ETH flow, while STANDARD accrued by Bankers can keep building off-market until Branches are closed.

So why use Internal Balance as an input once people start resolving, but not as a feedback variable while expansion is creating that balance?

For example, imagine a long period of positive ETH flow where accrued Banker balances grow much faster than pool depth. Since those tokens haven't been minted yet, they haven't produced sell pressure, so the market signal can still look healthy.

Would issuance continue responding only to ETH flow regardless of how large outstanding Internal Balance becomes?

Or is there another mechanism I'm missing that makes the ratio between accrued issuance and liquid market depth irrelevant?

@0xbeans

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

@n2ckchong @n2ckchong do you have some code please? thx a lot!

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

@tulipking https://t.co/RwL7isJQER

Step by step

[Anthropic @AnthropicAI]

Many drugs work by binding to a specific target in the body and blocking or changing what it does. An important first step in the drug development process is designing a molecule that can bind tightly to its target. Traditionally, that's meant weeks or months of expert work per target, sifting through a large number of candidates to identify the few that work.

We wanted to test if Claude could successfully design novel protein binders from scratch (also called de novo design). With a protein design prompt written by a human expert, Claude autonomously designed protein binders against 14 out of 15 targets.

We then worked with Adaptyv Bio and Twist Bioscience, who independently built and tested the proteins Claude designed.

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

@tulipking There is only room for one God, Anthropic

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

GCR said some time ago:
‘When news affects prices, market participants often struggle with whether it is true or false. More often than not, the actual truthfulness of the headline news is not important. The market’s reaction to the news, and how long it takes to react, is more meaningful.’

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

@0xGeeGee Racing is a business, that's capitalism. For your everyday analogy, it's like an iPhone with Siri using Gemini, or the chat app just for normal people

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

@0xGeeGee Same thoughts …

[Dean W. Ball @deanwball]

Basically I think that, back in 2023 or so, the “consistently wrong about AI” VC and SaaS community was operating under the assumption that AI’s trajectory would mean model capabilities peaking around GPT 5.5/Opus 4.8 capabilities somewhere around 2030, plus robots.

And if that was your assumption, I can totally understand why you think everything commodifies/frontier AI isn’t a legitimate business model, etc.

That is a nice world to believe in! In the real world, however, that community has been wildly wrong for three years, and I would expect them to continue being wrong for more years to come.

They may not be wrong forever! Things eventually commodify. But people have been saying “the models are good enough” since GPT-4, and it’s been untrue. I suspect that will continue to be the case because I think that we remain in the earlier stages of the AI industry, and along the steep part of the trajectory.

More broadly: the notion of “good enough” should gross you out, a little bit. The economy of the future will be about heavy-tailed excellence, not middle-of-the-bell-curve, loser-premise, “good enough”-ness.

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

@0xGeeGee Obviously you can use a Toyota to finish a race, but the Formula 1 cars would have finished long before then, and eventually you won't have any sponsors because the TV broadcast will be over, and the people in the stands will already be home, and you'll be out of the competition

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

@0xGeeGee Obviously you can use a Toyota to finish a race, but the Formula 1 cars would have finished long before then, and eventually you won't have any sponsors because the TV broadcast will be over, and the people in the stands will already be home, and you'll be out of the competition

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

@bobbybanzai @Collector_Crypt When you said you were gonna stop talking about cards so much, what you really meant was ‘I’m tweeting about cards until the end of time’. Your whole feed is literally just that and nothing else man, another thoughts 💭 maybe

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

Thanks, that write-up is helpful, and the leaderboard explanation makes sense if it includes referred deposits + own deposits.
That said, I think this should be clearly indicated in the UI, distinguishing between a standard deposit and referred deposits; otherwise, it looks like some wallets have privileged access or a higher cap.
Before making a USDC deposit, I’d really like to review primary materials: docs, whitepaper, technical spec, contracts/GitHub, audit reports, Lean 4/formal verification artifacts, and ideally join a Discord/community channel.

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

@kelxyz_ I don't know, I don't see it as an asymmetric investment thesis, a 10X or anything like that, just something like a hedge against "AI eating the world"

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

@LorenzoARK @binance @HyperliquidX @Lighter_xyz @LayerZero_Core is a bunch of liars, nobody trusts them, and regarding @GTE_XYZ , when I inquired about their development after so much back and forth, and delays, they blocked me on Discord. People have already made their choice… @HyperliquidX born in a unique way

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

@river0x @aave But in Plasma One it's 4%, why?

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

@0xGeeGee @Akumaker ARM is not a small cap huh… I notice that many people complain about him to gain some followers; you have to admit he's very smart

[Serenity @aleabitoreddit]

I don't post dollar amounts because they don't matter.

What matters is return %. Speaking of that...

YTD: 3840.39%.

I'm probably the only one in the world. Who called out multiple names that 10x'd in a short timeframe.

Do you remember these thesis anon?

1. $AXTI
2. $SIVE
3. $AAOI
4. $LITE
5. $IQE
6. $AEHR
7. $CRCL
8. $EWY
9. Unimicron
10. Nitto Boseki
11. $OSS
12. $GDRZF
13. $RPI
14. $SOI
15. $ALRIB
16. $SNDK
17. $SIMO
18. $VPG
19. $TSEM
20. $ARM
21. $MRVL
22. $INTC
23. $LPK
24. $NBIS
25. $MU

They're all up 100-1000%+, because...

1. I post a thesis.
2. People can see how the stock performs months later.
3. They turn out right (thesis validation) because they're up hundreds of percent + hold their returns.

I really dislike the traditional X influencer who shows large dollar amounts or fancy watches/cars/private jets.

Then use that to get more by selling expensive subscriptions rather than through market returns.

So trying to set a new trend off pure information discovery/synthesis from free thesis posts and the results that follow in terms of return percentages.

TLDR: Market returns in terms of percentages matter the most to validate a thesis.

Not the dollar amount made.

[Christian Case @ChristianCase]

@PreStocks Why the silence until now then…