hache

building synchronous markets

[hache @LadesSandy]

@brendan_ Good for managing risk on tail events

[Synchronicity @SynchronicityHQ]

Great strategists are students of history.

Build a strategy, run it against historical data, and see how it would have performed, including returns, drawdown and every buy and sell.

Backtesting is now live in Synchronicity.

[ben weintraub (1≈1) @bwein_]

sealed bid auctions coming on chain is the next big move in market microstructure. exciting to see!

[hache @LadesSandy]

@SynchronicityHQ Game changer

[hache @LadesSandy]

@SynchronicityHQ Cycles >>>

Strats on a whole new level

[Synchronicity @SynchronicityHQ]

Taking set it and forget it to another level.

Introducing Cycles.

Cycles automatically repeat your trading strategy when it completes.

Strategize once and run it over and over again.

[Tom Crown @TomCrown]

Privacy is a human right

[The White Whale @WhiteWhaleLabs]

We evaluate coins all wrong.

We love to talk about protocol revenue like we’re analyzing stock market tickers.

“Look at the fees.”
“Look at the revenue.”
“Look at the fundamentals.”

Cool.

But these are not shares of a company.

Most protocols do not pay dividends. Most tokens do not entitle holders to cash flow. Most “governance” is an illusion of shareholder rights, except without the shareholder rights.

So why are we larping as TradFi analysts?

If a token captures no revenue, controls no meaningful value, and gives holders no enforceable economic claim, then protocol revenue may be great for the protocol, great for insiders, great for validators, great for market makers…

But what exactly is it doing for the token holder?

That is the question nobody wants to ask.

“Utility” gets thrown around the same way.

Utility for whom?

Utility for the average holder?
Utility for the protocol?
Utility for the team?
Utility for liquidity providers?
Utility for insiders who already own the supply?
Utility only for the scarce few B2B customers?

Because "utility" without broad usage is not a scaleable argument for adoption.

A protocol can be useful while its token is structurally useless.

A chain can have activity but yet gas fees are so low it doesn't even matter if everyone uses that chain. Not when a $50 purchase of the native coin can be a lifetime of gas fees for the average user.

A governance token can have billions in FDV while giving holders the sacred right to vote on proposals that insiders, foundations, delegates, and whales already effectively control.

That is not ownership.

The real question is not, “Does this protocol make money?”

The real question is:

Does the token own anything?

Does it control anything?

Does value actually flow back to the asset?

Is there a structural reason the token must appreciate if the protocol succeeds?

Or are you just donating exit liquidity to people who figured out token design better than you did?

The next phase of crypto valuation needs to move past surface-level “revenue” hype and start asking harder questions about ownership, control, value capture, dilution, supply structure, and who actually benefits when the machine works.

Because in crypto, the protocol can win while the token holder loses.

And once you see that, you stop asking, “What does this protocol do?”

You start asking, “What does this token own?”

If a token:
Does not act as a scarce store of value
Does not have a case for mass-market utility
Does not share revenue with holders

Then:
Be aware you are only bidding on the belief that other bidders will come after you to make the price go up.

If you find yourself doing mental gymnastics about what a token actually is in order to justify your bullish posture, it may be time to reevaluate your trade thesis.

🫡 From the depths —
The White Whale 🐋

[hache @LadesSandy]

@Gemini agreed.

[hache @LadesSandy]

@scottmelker not to mention, no ones talking about all his Ls

[hache @LadesSandy]

@ClaudeDevs damn. my usage limit was already reset today. plug me with a reset in 3 days plz.

[hache @LadesSandy]

Latency arb is a feature, not a bug, for exchanges. They take fees on both sides of every trade, so the extra volume from arbitrageurs picking off stale quotes is pure revenue. No incentive to solve it.

[hache @LadesSandy]

@mdudas @KyleSamani Even less trivial, is implementing it in combination with Frequent Batch Auctions.

Orders must be able to clear in accordance with margin limits. Orders that fill the account bellow margin limits needs to be cancelled and the batch must run again.

[hache @LadesSandy]

@CryptoWendyO the btc standard.

[hache @LadesSandy]

@binance imagine being able to live life outside while your strategy works autonomously for you - true alpha prevails and people can enjoy

[hache @LadesSandy]

@aaronjmars building trustless and verifiable real world data sources will be a big industry

[hache @LadesSandy]

@Kalshi man it looks flat

[hache @LadesSandy]

@Cointelegraph where is this data source?

[hache @LadesSandy]

@scottmelker trading can be too... whats your point

its all a matter of how you do it.

[hache @LadesSandy]

@bwein_ Budish cooked. We developed.