ones

love

[ones @Js43506Kd]

@mediastorm_en meeeee

[ones @Js43506Kd]

@BitcoinPulseX @grok Done

[ones @Js43506Kd]

@Raphael1402X DONE

[ones @Js43506Kd]

@ohyishi 我也想抽一个

[ones @Js43506Kd]

@binghe @grok 确认

[ones @Js43506Kd]

@zstmfhy @grok 整理给我

[ones @Js43506Kd]

1. 混淆“ASIC”与“GPU”：算力转移的技术谬误这是大佬观点中最严重的硬伤。他认为“矿厂转做数据中心挖 AI，导致比特币算力下降”。第一性原理：比特币挖矿使用的是 ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) 芯片，专门为 SHA-256 算法设计。这些机器除了算哈希值，什么都干不了。你不能用蚂蚁矿机去跑 ChatGPT 的推理或训练。攻击：能够转向 AI 的是“电力资源”和“机房设施”，而不是“矿机”。如果矿工要转做 AI，他们必须扔掉所有的比特币矿机，重新购买昂贵的 H100/GPU。结论：算力下降是因为旧机器在当前币价下无利可图而关机，而不是因为算力“跑去”算 AI 了。算力并没有转移，只是淘汰了低效产能。2. 倒果为因：生产成本谬误 (Cost of Production Fallacy)大佬认为：“挖矿成本下降到 2 万，所以币价会跌到 2 万”。这是经典的经济学错误。反直觉事实：在商品市场，成本决定底价；但在比特币网络，价格决定成本。机制解析：比特币有难度调整机制（Difficulty Adjustment）。$$Difficulty \propto Hashrate \propto Price$$如果是价格跌到 2 万，大量矿工亏损关机，算力下降，难度下调，使得剩下的人挖矿成本降低，不仅不会导致死亡螺旋，反而让留存者利润增加。攻击：只要有人愿意以 $20,001 的价格买入，成本 $20,000 就不是底。现在的算力下降是对之前价格下跌的滞后反应，用滞后指标去预测未来价格崩盘，是典型的驾驶时只看后视镜。3. “绅士化”厌恶 (Gentrification Aversion) 与博弈论盲区大佬因为比特币“变成了美元资产”而感到厌恶并卖出。这是典型的早期理想主义者的洁癖，而非理性的投资逻辑。博弈论视角：如果美国真的将比特币作为战略储备（Strategic Reserve），这恰恰消除了比特币最大的尾部风险（被全球最强权取缔）。盲区：他说“中俄只买黄金”。错误。博弈论告诉我们，如果美国控制了比特币的算力和定价权，且比特币成为了全球储备资产的一部分，中俄为了对冲美元霸权，反而不得不配置比特币，或者被迫在链上争夺算力权。现实：比特币从“地下朋克货币”变成“华尔街资产”，这是资产阶级跃迁的必经之路。这种“不清真”恰恰是它走向 $100k+ 的标志。因为单纯的抗审查货币（如 Monero）虽然性感，但承载不了万亿级别的资金体量。

[ones @Js43506Kd]

@howbuybtc 拉我

[ones @Js43506Kd]

@haowue @grok
整理这个16个提示词发给我

[ones @Js43506Kd]

@yyyole @grok 整理给我

[ones @Js43506Kd]

@MissCat_AI @grok 整理发我

[ones @Js43506Kd]

@dada8989896 @QingQ77 @grok @grok 帮我规避风险并整理使用说明

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

If you have a womb, you are a woman.

Otherwise, you are not.

[ones @Js43506Kd]

@StaniKulechov 加入我，使用 Aave App 开始赚取 6.00% 年化收益率 的储蓄收益！注册时输入推荐码 CD320B，即可提升候补名单位置。 https://t.co/vv9ZnYBiMQ

[ones @Js43506Kd]

@bencongQKL 支持你！

[ones @Js43506Kd]

I'm supporting Lombard to build the onchain Bitcoin Capital Markets through its Community Sale on Buidlpad Now! @Lombard_Finance @buidlpad https://t.co/aRuZCergox

[Buidlpad @buidlpad]

✨ Subscribe NOW to Enter the $BARD Lucky Draw! ✨

A chance to win undiluted $BARD allocations.
🥇 $20,000 for one winner
🥈 $1,500 each for ten winners

Note: Ensure to subscribe first and link your X

Time to be creative and follow the rules below ⬇️

[ones @Js43506Kd]

@liulaol31408107 @22333D 可以接受被run，但不接受以这种方式

[3D 加密频道 @22333D]

resupply 在被盗之后的表现，简直只能用“畜生”的去形容。想知道发生了什么，请看着这条影片。也欢迎大家点赞转发支持我们。

[Yishi @ohyishi]

as one of the top three investors in the resupply project, with millions of dollars at stake, this incident has caused not only significant financial loss, but also intense psychological pressure. yet simply for raising reasonable concerns in the official discord, i was muted without cause. that kind of response is unacceptable.

at this point, debating the definition or mechanics of the insurance pool is meaningless. i want to make my position clear:

1/ many investors, myself included, only dared to commit this level of capital because resupply was presented as having the credibility of curve behind it. let’s be honest. if teams like curve, convex, and yearn had not publicly or privately signaled involvement, few would have touched a new protocol like this with size. now, those same parties are distancing themselves, which is infuriating.

2/ this loss was not caused by market volatility or a bad debt event. it was a critical technical failure — an erc4626 inflation bug that happened because the team failed to burn initial shares when deploying a new vault. this allowed an attacker to mint unlimited shares at almost no cost and drain the assets. this is a protocol-level issue and a severe oversight.

3/ in any security incident, the first step should be to investigate the exploit and protect user funds. instead, the resupply team’s first reaction was to push losses onto insurance pool depositors, while silencing and mocking those who disagreed. i have been in defi for years. i have never seen a team act with such a lack of accountability.

4/ the insurance pool was never meant to cover technical failures by the development team. if protocol creators start treating user funds as a backstop for their own mistakes, they are effectively saying that depositors exist to take the hit. insurance is meant to cover black swan events and market risk, not internal negligence.

5/ there is no defi precedent where an insurance pool covers damage from a bug caused by the protocol team. if resupply intended that, it should have been clearly stated in the docs. it was not. instead, the team continues to twist the narrative in discord while muting anyone who pushes back.

6/ curve and crvusd benefited materially from resupply. they should not be allowed to walk away from this. the exploit was not a market issue. it was a critical design and deployment flaw. responsibility lies with the team, not the users.

7/ c2 stepping up personally to cover around 1.5 million dollars shows character. but that cost should not fall on one individual. it should come from convex or yearn’s treasury if they still stand by the project they helped launch.

8/ i respect what michael has done for curve, and i appreciate his effort to mediate throughout this situation. but that does not mean i will back down.

9/ what i and every resupply investor need now is a fair resolution. return the user funds that were lost due to your own mistake. do the right thing.