PFYT

[PhiMarHal @PhiMarHal]

@lex_node I've seen your selfies. This whole tweet is a humble flex ("you are often physically molested"), and I'm not falling for it.

[David | www.usd.ai @0xZergs]

more and more, vitalik reads less like a technologist and more like an omega libertarian capitalist in the wall street sense. classic silicon valley vs wall street perspective: and this is very much the path eth should be taking

to give you a demonstration of his extremely clear foresight based on this worldview: remember how he said defi was a ouroboros? in his own language. he was effectively describing how defi was an unproductive money markets. this is why that Stream thing happened, because you were chasing a yield that was actually imaginary. you cant make great yield giving money loans against money. money doesnt /do/ anything productive. thats called a capital markets, because capital DOES something (eg tractor, or business, or whatever).

next chatper: now he calls it low-risk defi.. yeah that's also known as the risk free rate (libor/sofr). ouroboros, and low-risk defi... aka unproductive money markets and risk free rate. hes just in process of creating his own language of a similar but harder financial system.

the kind obsessed with neutrality, invariance, and systems that survive adversarial conditions. it makes sense to me that this worldview is severely allergic to concepts like product-market fit or user adoption or this bullshit spewed by silicon valley (and in part by othe protocols) because those are demand signals, not truth signals, and because vitalik is actually about true neurality.

why is it that the "defi yield money" and most of the world's stablecoins stay on ethereum, and you see near no defi adoption on other chains? that's because that yield money is also called "debt capital markets." the most pessimistic, mercenary money ever, would only route to the most neutral chain ever

finance does not have "pmf" like a shitty dashboard (if you tell me you have PMF, im just gonna assume youre going down the risk curve and giving shit fico loans). -> finance creates instrumentations of risk. risk is not something you grow into. it is something you measure, constrain, and survive

neutrality is a prerequisite for correct risk pricing. the moment a financial system optimizes for users, growth, or engagement, it introduces bias. bias distorts signals. distorted signals misprice risk. mispriced risk eventually explodes. privacy is a major part of expressing that neutrality in its purest form. this is why sealed bid voting/auctions exists. transparency is a bias in of it self. you see what all the other guys are doing, and just copy their votes.

this is why real neutrality looks so so boring, rule bound, and anti discretionary. it ignores who you are and what you want and only responds to facts, constraints, and settlement.

bitcoin might be the hardest form of money. but in that frame, ethereum is enforcing a harder form of capital markets, or the hardest form of settlement. one where capital is priced under uncertainty and correctness is proven by surviving stress rather than by adoption

pmf/siliconvalley user adoption circlejerk language fails here because there is no product to fit into a market. vitalik has a vision in creating an invariant risk machinery. notice the language hes going wiht. this was the same path that made bitcoin name itself "hard money." vitalik is on his era where he knows what ethereum is (eth had /such/ a branding problem), and now its become very clear to me what he wants. hard capital markets.

risk only respects neutrality and radical truth

[PFYT @PFYTx7]

@Pollo2x I have been following you for years. You have a taste for memes I appreciate a lot. The humor, the levity and the aesthetics. Would you share some primary sources? I spread the 'good' ones as well . Lets max infect

[PFYT @PFYTx7]

@varrock ju funi

[PFYT @PFYTx7]

@DaanCrypto underrated, esp considering the simplicity of bucketing. did this 2 years ago intuitively and over time. 0to1 for both mental clarity/stress management as well as returns for the medium obsessed/iq. easy to do. gud post

[0xnagu @0xnagu]

The $653M Hyperliquid ADL debate isn’t about who’s wrong, it’s about which space you’re modeling in.

@danrobinson is right: Hyperliquid’s ADL closes contracts, not equity.

@tarunchitra is also right: ADL is a wealth redistribution mechanism, and queues concentrate pain unfairly.

The core issue is a mismatch in abstraction layers:

- Production ADL operates in contract space
- Theoretical fairness operates in wealth space

My breakdown covers:
✅ Where Dan’s critique is correct
✅ Where Tarun’s model holds
✅ Why the $653M figure needs transparent methodology
✅ How to improve the paper’s exposition without losing its core insight

Spoiler: Both are partially right. The way forward is clearer modeling, not dismissal.

Read the full analysis → https://t.co/SfN3Brhpk3

[PFYT @PFYTx7]

@lex_node he.. knows

[_gabrielShapir0 @lex_node]

I honestly think FOCIL may be Ethereum's most bold and innovative feature, and most marketable feature, shipped in years

Why?

*Ethereum L1 performance (slot times etc.) should ofc keep improving but they will never compete with Solana, Monad, L2s, etc. so you're always just racing for second/third/fourth place in terms of performance

*In contrast, what Wall St. institutions and corporates have clearly signaled is that they value Ethereum for its decentralization, censorship resistance, credible neutrality, and the ensuing reductions of counterparty and sovereignty risks

*Today, there is actually no blockchain that includes censorship resistance in the actual protocol. All chains treat censorship resistance as an optimistic epiphenomenon of free market + decentralization + financial incentives. The idea is that there is enough geographic, legal & ideological diversity that someone somewhere will always be willing to include every type of transaction for a (implicitly, reasonable) price. For example, even if a transaction is illegal in the U.S. well someone in Romania who dgaf about U.S. law sees the unwillingness of U.S. validators to approve that transaction as a profit opportunity and so will include this transaction for a fee. There is no actual protocol rule of non-censorship or being punished for censoring etc.--there is just an incentive for someone somewhere to not censor, and we hope there is always enough diversity that the price of this incentive does not need to become enormous to outweigh the counter incentives (which exist even for someone in Romania--that the U.S. govt may prosecute them or U.S. parties may blacklist them, etc.)

*As chains scale up for performance & centralize block builder pipelines to reduce MEV, the premise of this viewpoint is challenged-->both Ethereum and Solana independent validator operator counts & distribution are going down & in Ethereum mempool txs are decreasing due to private order flow within MEV mitigation pipelines. This trend will only increase and probably should increase as we want chains to be more performant and we want less adverse MEV or more fairly distributed MEV , which involves various centralized / proprietary solutions by commercial operators who will tend to follow global consensus legal rules (FATF etc.)

*Consider what has been happening in Bitcoin, with a vocal 'plebsec' minority pushing for Bitcoin miners and gossip nodes to censor all but the 'pure money' uses of Bitcoin on the grounds that other uses increase legal attack surface (which they are right about, they do!). Now imagine years from now half of Wall St. activity involved in Ethereum somehow, the price of ETH being quadruple what it is now, and a campaign that including txs disliked by the U.S. govt is opening Ethereum to legal attack and potential loss of its lead as 'the Wall St. chain' and this will affect ETH price adversely so there needs to be a lot more censorship--and after all this is fine, as 'everyone knows' all validators are just personal property of the operator and they have free discretion what txs to include and not to include, this has ALWAYS been the rule, right guys? We just all need to decide now not to include these 'evil transactions' anymore, for the good of Ethereum? This is exactly the kind of argument that has gained huge mindshare in Bitcoin and is essentially a pro-censorship position that, ultimately, has a lot of legit commercial and legal logic behind it.

*To avoid this while scaling, Ethereum should be the first chain ever to enshrine censorship resistance and credible neutrality within the protocol itself. This is a huge, unique selling factor that no other chain has--we can then fairly argue that being non-censoring /credibly neutral is part of the job of a validator, that this aspect of the social consensus of Ethereum is credibly embedded in the protocol itself and can be relied upon as a durable feature of Ethereum, unlike for every other blockchain where censorship resistance is a market-based epiphenomenon rather than a protocol guarantee! It also frees it up to then be more aggressive on the scaling side without fear of eroding the core premise that it is censorship resistant. Even if block building is generally very centralized, there is a certain baseline of transaction inclusion even for politically and commercially unpopular transactions! That is huge!

*In general I think Ethereum has also distinguished itself by being unwilling to be a pure 'market absolutist' chain. It recognizes that intrinsic incentives are not always enough, because extrinsic incentives may outweigh them. Again, censorship is probably the area where this is most true. As rightfully pointed out by the plebseccers, the incentive not to go to prison (e.g. because you passed CSAM through your node) outweighs any possible other incentive. In my opinion, the only way to 'give cover' to non-censorship is to remove the censorship option by making non-censorship a part of the protocol. (People can always just *not* be validators if they feel that the risk is too high even with this cover).

*The time to do this is now, *before it is a hot political issue* and the Elizabeth Warrens of the world who want to make individual validators be regulated like individual discretionary money services businesses regain power. Adding this to the protocol will give us great arguments on the law/policy side that indeed validators are very little like discretionary money transmittters as the protocol itself sets as much of the policy as possible and enforces neutrality.

Just some thoughts from an ETH-pilled law/policy guy still naive enough to believe in this cypherpunk thing.

[PFYT @PFYTx7]

@lex_node (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
Alas

[_gabrielShapir0 @lex_node]

he calls it "biofedefense" but it's really necrobotics, if you've been following my account for a while you know I was early to this....I also play Resident Evil . . .

[PFYT @PFYTx7]

@Route2FI https://t.co/zdwcNMlrqE

[The Chopping Block @_choppingblock]

still trying to decode what happened here

[CryptoCat.🇺🇦 @CryptoCatVC]

Rough. Down to 6 users.

[Rudy Havenstein, Senior Markets Commentator. @RudyHavenstein]

What is Gary Gensler trying to tell us here?

[PFYT @PFYTx7]

@Cryptoyieldinfo delet

[PFYT @PFYTx7]

@BadgerDAO Gm

[jordan @jordanteague]

Front ends are illegal because they help you access smart contracts.
Google is illegal because it helps you find front ends.
The internet is illegal because it lets you access Google.
Your brain is illegal because that is where your impulse to access the internet originated.

[banteg @banteg]

🚨 today we are cancelling the apocalypse

i made an arc boost that would go though the tedious process of reporting scam for you.

https://t.co/4aNaJpHGON

[PFYT @PFYTx7]

@LimitlessFi_ ✊

[PFYT @PFYTx7]

@LimitlessFi_ ✊