@Restuta@DegenerateKong@toly Whereas scammers hold call option of spending >= cost(V_ń) if/when +EV looks positive.
i.e. $BONK devs can commit $10k to grind addr "bonkReal..."
$BONK FDV grows to 100M => scammers incentivized to also spend $10k+ "bonkReal...", rendering initial vanity endeavor worthless
@Restuta@DegenerateKong@toly Whereas scammers hold call option of spending >= cost(V_ń) if/when +EV looks positive.
i.e. $BONK devs can commit $10k to grind addr "bonkReal..."
$BONK FDV grows to 100M => scammers incentivized to also spend $10k+ "bonkReal...", rendering initial vanity endeavor worthless
@Restuta @matt_degods @DegenerateKong@toly i thought we were talking abt token address, i haven't considered metadata maybe there's something to be had there
@DegenerateKong@Restuta@toly @matt_degods With that being said, the topic you want to address/solve @Restuta is important.
I’ll sit on it and try to add some ideas instead of just being negative lol
@Restuta@DegenerateKong@toly Im also out and abt rn, sent this from my phone 5 min after seeing this.
Lmk if that makes sense, or if I’m hallucinating, or missing something
@Restuta@DegenerateKong@toly 2) cont’d
Assume cost Č of some unit of compute.
Cost of vanity address length Ń (V_ń) looks something like
cost(V_ń) = Č * 58^Ń
Prior to launch, team spends some amt X for some length prefix
If token successful, more economically viable to spend amt Z > X
Scammers win
@spacemandev@edgarpavlovsky ik im dragging wormhole there, but do you get my point?
holding USDC im convinced there's at least partial recovery in the worst case bc of corporate structure, insurance, etc
additional smart contract risk introduces tail risk
retail won't care but on-chain size will