1/ I am excited to announce Lantern Capital @lanterncap_ , in partnership with @nethermind, with @tkstanczak joining as General Partner on behalf of Nethermind. Lantern Capital is an early stage venture capital firm, investing in founders accelerating machine-to-ledger communication in the near-AGI era.
If you are optimistic about a future where trade will become increasingly globalized
There's every reason to be optimistic about the possibility of an increasing number of transactions moving onchain.
As the world becomes more digitalized, nothing will matter more than privacy tech.
It's great to see Ethereum head in the right direction and prioritize privacy.
Re the recent issues with @HyperliquidX ETH and Jelly cases, if we were to summarize the two with a single term, it would be "liquidity mismatch."
(1) For the ETH case, the issue is that liquidity was too good when opening positions—it shouldn’t have been that good—while during liquidation, the liquidity was insufficient. So, @chameleon_jeff was right in saying that as market makers continue scaling up the problem could be solved. However, the challenge lies in ensuring that liquidity during liquidation can always match the level available when positions are opened.
(2) For JELLY, HL's Perp had better liquidity than the spot, making it easy to manipulate the spot market to attack the perp —an example of a typical oracle attack. In the end, Hyperliquid’s solution was to forcibly set an irrelevant price for settlement, which gave the impression that HL itself conducted an oracle attack.
So how do we address these problems?
Once we understand that the core issue is Liquidity: providing excessively good liquidity when it shouldn’t be, without regard for the consequences, the solution must involve restricting this liquidity. However, this approach comes with the downside of a relatively worse user experience.
This creates a philosophical balance between “user experience” and “security".
(1) For the ETH case, the most straightforward method would be to impose restrictions on withdrawing unrealized profits. Hyperliquid later improved this by partially restricting the withdrawl of such profits.
(2) For the Jelly case, possible preventive measures include:
1. Isolated margin for pairs with insufficient liquidity.
2. Isolated insurance fund.
3. Auto-deleveraging or imposing Total OI limits of a pair it becomes too large.
@SynFuturesDefi is the only fully onchain orderbook DEX in the market , order-matching onchain , settlement on chain. We’ve implemented all the safety and risk control measures mentioned above, offering better protection for users. However, this is based on three premises:
(1) Our view is that security is a part of the user experience—or perhaps the most important part.
(2) The worse the liquidity, the more safety restrictions we apply. We operate a truly decentralized order book, and under today’s public blockchain performance (currently 2 seconds per block), it’s an objective fact that our liquidity is worse compared to Hyperliquid.
However, I see developments like @base shortening block times, as well as performance improvements from projects like @monad_xyz and @pharos_network.... , which give me unprecedented confidence in supporting order books in a truly decentralized way. Enhancing the user experience in truly decentralzied Perp DEX is just around the corner!
(3) Having been in the market longer, we’ve witnessed more attacks and continuously refined our model.
Although we’re competitors and have had market share taken from us, I still have immense respect for Hyperliquid.
Every project goes through setbacks, followed by reflection and improvement. This process is accelerated by community participation, which is exactly the beauty of openness and transparency.
Re the recent issues with @HyperliquidX ETH and Jelly cases, if we were to summarize the two with a single term, it would be "liquidity mismatch."
(1) For the ETH case, the issue is that liquidity was too good when opening positions—it shouldn’t have been that good—while during liquidation, the liquidity was insufficient. So, @chameleon_jeff was right in saying that as market makers continue scaling up the problem could be solved. However, the challenge lies in ensuring that liquidity during liquidation can always match the level available when positions are opened.
(2) For JELLY, HL's Perp had better liquidity than the spot, making it easy to manipulate the spot market to attack the perp —an example of a typical oracle attack. In the end, Hyperliquid’s solution was to forcibly set an irrelevant price for settlement, which gave the impression that HL itself conducted an oracle attack.
So how do we address these problems?
Once we understand that the core issue is Liquidity: providing excessively good liquidity when it shouldn’t be, without regard for the consequences, the solution must involve restricting this liquidity. However, this approach comes with the downside of a relatively worse user experience.
This creates a philosophical balance between “user experience” and “security".
(1) For the ETH case, the most straightforward method would be to impose restrictions on withdrawing unrealized profits. Hyperliquid later improved this by partially restricting the withdrawl of such profits.
(2) For the Jelly case, possible preventive measures include:
1. Isolated margin for pairs with insufficient liquidity.
2. Isolated insurance fund.
3. Auto-deleveraging or imposing Total OI limits of a pair it becomes too large.
@SynFuturesDefi is the only fully onchain orderbook DEX in the market , order-matching onchain , settlement on chain. We’ve implemented all the safety and risk control measures mentioned above, offering better protection for users. However, this is based on three premises:
(1) Our view is that security is a part of the user experience—or perhaps the most important part.
(2) The worse the liquidity, the more safety restrictions we apply. We operate a truly decentralized order book, and under today’s public blockchain performance (currently 2 seconds per block), it’s an objective fact that our liquidity is worse compared to Hyperliquid.
However, I see developments like @base shortening block times, as well as performance improvements from projects like @monad_xyz and @pharos_network.... , which give me unprecedented confidence in supporting order books in a truly decentralized way. Enhancing the user experience in truly decentralzied Perp DEX is just around the corner!
(3) Having been in the market longer, we’ve witnessed more attacks and continuously refined our model.
Although we’re competitors and have had market share taken from us, I still have immense respect for Hyperliquid.
Every project goes through setbacks, followed by reflection and improvement. This process is accelerated by community participation, which is exactly the beauty of openness and transparency.
@0xsudogm You're absolutely right—that's precisely what we've designed and offered.
To be honest, though, this approach stems from our relatively longer presence in the market, which has allowed us to witness various types of attacks...
Re the recent issues with @HyperliquidX ETH and Jelly cases, if we were to summarize the two with a single term, it would be "liquidity mismatch."
(1) For the ETH case, the issue is that liquidity was too good when opening positions—it shouldn’t have been that good—while during liquidation, the liquidity was insufficient. So, @chameleon_jeff was right in saying that as market makers continue scaling up the problem could be solved. However, the challenge lies in ensuring that liquidity during liquidation can always match the level available when positions are opened.
(2) For JELLY, HL's Perp had better liquidity than the spot, making it easy to manipulate the spot market to attack the perp —an example of a typical oracle attack. In the end, Hyperliquid’s solution was to forcibly set an irrelevant price for settlement, which gave the impression that HL itself conducted an oracle attack.
So how do we address these problems?
Once we understand that the core issue is Liquidity: providing excessively good liquidity when it shouldn’t be, without regard for the consequences, the solution must involve restricting this liquidity. However, this approach comes with the downside of a relatively worse user experience.
This creates a philosophical balance between “user experience” and “security".
(1) For the ETH case, the most straightforward method would be to impose restrictions on withdrawing unrealized profits. Hyperliquid later improved this by partially restricting the withdrawl of such profits.
(2) For the Jelly case, possible preventive measures include:
1. Isolated margin for pairs with insufficient liquidity.
2. Isolated insurance fund.
3. Auto-deleveraging or imposing Total OI limits of a pair it becomes too large.
@SynFuturesDefi is the only fully onchain orderbook DEX in the market , order-matching onchain , settlement on chain. We’ve implemented all the safety and risk control measures mentioned above, offering better protection for users. However, this is based on three premises:
(1) Our view is that security is a part of the user experience—or perhaps the most important part.
(2) The worse the liquidity, the more safety restrictions we apply. We operate a truly decentralized order book, and under today’s public blockchain performance (currently 2 seconds per block), it’s an objective fact that our liquidity is worse compared to Hyperliquid.
However, I see developments like @base shortening block times, as well as performance improvements from projects like @monad_xyz and @pharos_network.... , which give me unprecedented confidence in supporting order books in a truly decentralized way. Enhancing the user experience in truly decentralzied Perp DEX is just around the corner!
(3) Having been in the market longer, we’ve witnessed more attacks and continuously refined our model.
Although we’re competitors and have had market share taken from us, I still have immense respect for Hyperliquid.
Every project goes through setbacks, followed by reflection and improvement. This process is accelerated by community participation, which is exactly the beauty of openness and transparency.
🚨 Hiring Alert 🚨
We're hiring AI-Agent Engineers.
If you have:
- 3+ years in software engineering with experience in AI, ML, and LLM
- expertise in Python and AI/ML frameworks
- basic understanding of DeFi and blockchains
We'd love to hear from you.
More details below 👇