Peter

Techno optimist normie larping as a crypto degen

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@collectdotrip Remember on the stream last Friday when I suggested you all may run out of packs soon?? And you were like "don't worry, I literally just got a massive shipment"

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@sourceryy @Lead_Bank @jackiereses It's hard to overstate how dumb this take is, but let's try:

Assertion - there was no debanking

Proof - there are many banks

That's like saying:

Assertion - no one in the US is denied medical care

Proof - there are many hospitals

Brain worms ^2

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@nic_carter when you say uninformed slop like this, it makes me worry about everything else you've ever said - maybe that was equally uninformed slop

Stick to what you know, don't take random uninformed shots motivated by muh bagz

[Mikli @CryptoMikli]

Nic Carter says Solana will need to be completely rebuilt to survive quantum computing

“It’s gonna be tricky for Solana because they’re highly optimized around some variant of elliptic curves. They’re optimized at the hardware level. The whole concept of Solana is that there’s a ton of throughput”

“It’s not that they can’t survive the transition, and to their credit, I see Solana leadership talking about it. They’ve been very proactive about it. They acknowledge the transition will happen. It’s just gonna be a really annoying rebuild for them”

“When it’s all said and done, maybe they’re using lattice-based cryptography. If I had to guess, that’s what they will do, but it’s gonna be slower. Their throughput might go down, and that’s kind of like the whole point of Solana, is throughput”

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@0xngmi @MaxResnick Fair, but then it's pretty easy to game this metric - just to illustrate it, imagine having all staking accounts overlayed with a smart contract (maybe even at protocol layer). Like Account Abstraction, but for staking.

Boom, all staking qualifies as TVL

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@gumballslime @tushant_suneja @haydenzadams The problem is obvious and undeniable - buyers have many assets, sellers may only want to accept some assets, which any given buyer may or may not have

The solution is easy - enable the asset to change as part of the payment flow

It's not that complicated lol

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@gumballslime @tushant_suneja @haydenzadams Unless your recipient doesn't want USDC

The point is, if you can swap any asset to any other asset in the payment flow (i.e., via Uniswap), any asset with a liquidity pool becomes a medium of payment

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@gumballslime @tushant_suneja @haydenzadams The volatility is irrelevant to functioning as a medium of payment

The person paying already holds the asset, so presumably doesn't care about the volatility

The person receiving the payment doesn't end up owning the volatile asset - they receive whatever asset they want

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@tushant_suneja @haydenzadams "real-world payments still gravitate to..."

That's because real-world payments don't run on Uniswap (yet)

If they did, there's no need to agree on using a single unit of account (send X and receive X)

You can decide to pay with SHIB for all I care, as long as I receive cbBTC

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

To put a point on it - you're saying "borrow/lend drained" doesn't mean there's bad debt

I disagree - what was "drained" is collateral for positions, and when those positions can't be settled, that's bad debt

Also team intervention didn't solve bad debt - for proof, see "users can't withdraw funds"

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

"It backstops trading/liquidation/bankruptcy deficits"

That's not what the docs said - they said the insurance was for bad debt

Bad debt exists when the collateral in a pool is insufficient to settle gains/losses amongst users

When the value of the collateral drops... (because the collateral disappears)... can't settle gains/losses amongst users -> there's bad debt

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@MaxResnick While I generally agree, important caveat:

If you stake your sol to validators that don't sandwich, you won't earn any REV created by sandwich attacks

More precise statement: "if you stake your sol to validators that will do anything to earn REV, you earn 100% of the REV"

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@banteg “It’s actually a good thing!” https://t.co/RAAHQVPqHf

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@TrustlessState "This is actually a good thing!"

In b4 the ETH maxi's can repeat this line for the 10th time

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@TrustlessState "This is actually a good thing!"

In b4 the ETH maxi's can repeat this line for the 10th time

[Paul Grewal @iampaulgrewal]

Let’s compare our compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act with yours, even with all its constitutional flaws. Anytime.

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@Blockworks @Collector_Crypt What prompt did you use to make all the charts go up and to the right??

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@richardchen39 Treasuries provide exposure to fiat - i.e., what you're paid back is USD, which decrease in value over time

Most DeFi (e.g., borrow/lend) provides exposure to an asset, like BTC/ETH/SOL - i.e., what you're paid back is an asset that could have increased in value (on USD basis)

[Uniswap @Uniswap]

DeFi doesn't ask for permission

That's the point

[Zach Rynes | CLG @ChainLinkGod]

Look guys, it's actually really straightforward, a bunch of people staked their ETH on the Ethereum blockchain to earn yield, except they didn't want their capital to be locked up, so they actually staked with a liquid staking protocol called Lido who provided them a liquid staking receipt token called stETH, except they decided to juice their yield further by depositing their stETH receipt tokens into a restaking protocol called Eigenlayer, except they didn't want to lock up their capital, so they actually restaked with a liquid restaking protocol called KelpDAO who provided them with a liquid restaking receipt token called rsETH, except they decided to juice their yield further by depositing their rsETH tokens into a lending protocol called Aave so that they could open a leveraged looping position that borrows ETH against the rsETH collateral and restakes the ETH into rsETH which is then deposited as collateral, except it turns out rsETH used a cross-chain bridge called LayerZero that was hacked by north koreans causing rsETH to become undercollateralized and now these looping positions are stuck and unprofitable, and everyone is pointing fingers at each other, and also DeFi is a very serious industry

[Peter @cryptopeterb]

@toly Or banned from using datacenters located in other states

The solution to the NIMBY problem can be enforcing BYOD (or at least don't block construction of the vital resource)

Would be pretty funny to watch something like that play out