io36x.eth / 浪人 🥡🥢

7 yrs crypto. AI obsessed. While others talk — I ship. 🔥

[NBA @NBA]

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 53 YEARS, THE KNICKS ARE NBA CHAMPIONS 🏆

New York defeats San Antonio 4-1 in the NBA Finals, capturing their third championship in franchise history!

[beeple @beeple]

CHAMPIONS

[io36x.eth / 浪人 🥡🥢 @io36x]

@phygitals Like 💪🏻⚡️

[phygitals @phygitals]

i guess we will give a random person who engages with this post a free pack

[Jupiter @JupiterExchange]

The $10B TCG market just gained access to onchain credit.

First Edition Charizards are held like treasury assets.

A Pikachu Illustrator sold for over $16M.

These aren't just cards, they never were, but here's the part nobody solved, until now.

Turn your cards into money, without selling them👇

[433 @433]

𝐎𝐔𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐁𝐄𝐋𝐄. 🥶

[Спортс" @sportsru]

🇷🇺 ❤️ 🇬🇪 Семьи Сафонова и Кварацхелии отмечают заслуженную победу в ЛЧ

[io36x.eth / 浪人 🥡🥢 @io36x]

Я только что выиграл на @Polymarket. https://t.co/xQXRMO1fNB

[io36x.eth / 浪人 🥡🥢 @io36x]

@OndoFinance RIP 😭🕊️

[Aerodrome @AerodromeFi]

It's @base szn.

[io36x.eth / 浪人 🥡🥢 @io36x]

@DoCryptoBred @0xCragHack факич все таки сильно повлиял на снг инфлов 😅

[io36x.eth / 浪人 🥡🥢 @io36x]

@JulianMKD Omg 😨 idiot 🤣🤡

[BredoStrategy @DoCryptoBred]

As promised, every Thursday we’ll be summing up the weekly results of the Vault — epoch #11.

BredoStrategy Vault:
https://t.co/EZLT76Vfpo
The Vault started on February 17, when BTC was at $67,960.

—————————————————————
BTC since last week: +6.22% ($76,500 → $81,260)

Vault profit since last week: +$574,139
—————————————————————
BTC since the Vault launch: +19.57% ($67,960 → $81,260)
Vault profit since launch: +$597,503

Vault all-time high.
Feels like there is a lot to say, and at the same time I don’t really want to say much.
This was exactly what the Vault was created for.

We could have waited a year+ for moments like this, or they could have happened this week.

They happened.

I’d say 20–30% of what I created the Vault for has already played out. Now we wait for the remaining 70–80%, then close the Vault, wait for new pullbacks, and so on.

Thanks everyone.

Everything is just getting started!

Previous reports:
April 30 — https://t.co/CgIwxi8o0r
April 23 — https://t.co/AcmVzU38gY
April 16 — https://t.co/wu16tqAdnh
April 9 — https://t.co/032wtHpfpo
April 2 — https://t.co/LVCxILbwA6
March 26 — https://t.co/4ibJD2SeUQ
March 19 — https://t.co/zMQZNAjI7I
March 12 — https://t.co/VHcRhFb9Ix
March 5 — https://t.co/v7rPt28UmF
February 26 — https://t.co/4mjexE8IzL

————————————————————
BredoStrategy Vault:
https://t.co/EZLT76Vfpo

Hyperliquid referral:
https://t.co/DTGaMiNjNT

BredoStrategySubs:
https://t.co/f4qUrBYLwZ

#Hyperliquid #HYPE #Vault #Bitcoin #BTC #DeFi #Crypto $BTC $HYPE

[io36x.eth / 浪人 🥡🥢 @io36x]

@ChigaCzr 3:1 PSG

[Bryan Pellegrino (臭企鹅) @PrimordialAA]

A ton of this is just completely untrue.

1) Kelp originally used the defaults which were MultiDVN or DeadDVN and manually migrated to a 1/1 config later

2) Almost 100% of the volume on a 1/1 config was rsETH

3) Not using a 1/1 for production applications is mentioned many times in the documentation.

The defaults Kelp is referencing in their screenshot were multiDVN or DeadDVN, which force-rejects an application using the defaults at all and requires them to manually set configuration.

rsETH was originally configured to use the default LayerZero configuration of a multiDVN setup of LayerZero Labs + Google:

Here are the exact transactions where that happens

Ethereum → Arbitrum:
https://t.co/C2uCxmpBCX
at 2024-02-06 03:09:47 UTC

Ethereum → Optimism:
https://t.co/vuQWxeyUUA
at 2024-02-06 03:09:59 UTC

KelpDAO then manually changed these to 1/1 configs:

For the original Feb 6 Ethereum routes to Arbitrum/Optimism, KelpDAO’s Ethereum contract switched from defaults to manual OApp-scoped config on 2024-04-01:

Send-side manual config:
https://t.co/HKCE8C8n7F
2024-04-01 07:12:11 UTC

Receive-side manual config:
https://t.co/FZTiol0qAp
2024-04-01 07:12:23 UTC

From this point on, Kelp began deploying all of their configurations as 1/1 configs. Here is Kelp’s deployment on Unichain:

Unichain → Ethereum was opened on 2025-04-01 18:55:41 UTC.

Pathway-open / setPeer tx:
https://t.co/0MlFpIxCfA

The manual ULN config followed 6 seconds later in https://t.co/0di0j78zYc.

During this time the Unichain -> Ethereum and Ethereum -> Unichain defaults were set to DeadDVN which is a contract which makes it impossible for any application to transact without manually configuring their DVNs, this was not possible on the defaults of this pathway.

Here is the code in the DeadDVN (https://t.co/mAge3W6NhP) that specifically prohibits this.

(Screenshot 1)

This is called out many many times in the docs:

1. Integration Checklist — "Do" list

- Last edited: 2025-11-26 (Nazreen)
- Content: "Do: … Use more than one DVN for each production pathway instead of relying on a single DVN."
- File: v2/tools/integration-checklist.mdx:244
- URL: https://t.co/h9GHby9ynE

2. Integration Checklist — "Don't" list

- Last edited: 2025-11-26 (Nazreen)
- Content: "Don't: … Configure only one DVN for a pathway and treat it as production‑ready."
- File: v2/tools/integration-checklist.mdx:251
- URL: https://t.co/h9GHby9ynE

3. Integration Checklist — Defaults are not safe

- Last edited: 2025-09-25 (Tino Martínez Molina)
- Content: "Do not assume defaults are safe for production. Always check explicitly: getSendLibrary, getReceiveLibrary, and getConfig. If these resolve to defaults, confirm whether the defaults are valid for the intended pathway. Unintentional fallbacks to defaults are a common cause of blocked or failing pathways."
- File: v2/tools/integration-checklist.mdx:126-128
- URL: https://t.co/a6SdjYCbOu

4. Integration Checklist — Default fallback warning

- Last edited: 2026-02-26 (migration; same wording predates it)
- Content: "Warning: If no configuration is set, the OApp will fallback to the default settings set by LayerZero Labs."
- File: v2/tools/integration-checklist.mdx:222-238
- URL: https://t.co/h9GHby9ynE

5. ONFT Quickstart — Production guidance

- Last edited: 2025-02-20 (Radek Sienkiewicz)
- Content: "DVN Settings: Use multiple DVNs in production to ensure message verification is robust."
- File: v2/developers/evm/onft/quickstart.mdx:700
- URL: https://t.co/b8nO2yrEiX

6. ONFT Quickstart — Strong recommendation to configure

- Last edited: 2025-03-10 (Radek Sienkiewicz)
- Content: "We strongly recommend reviewing these settings carefully and configuring your security stack according to your needs and preferences."
- File: v2/developers/evm/onft/quickstart.mdx:366
- URL: https://t.co/WcNuXHLbiG

7. Starknet FAQ — "Should I use multiple DVNs?"

- Last edited: 2026-01-21 (Nazreen)
- Content:
▎ Should I use multiple DVNs?

▎ Recommended for production. Multiple DVNs provide:
▎ - Increased security (multiple independent verifiers)
▎ - Resilience (no single point of failure)
▎ - Trust minimization
- File: v2/developers/starknet/troubleshooting/faq.mdx:290-296
- URL: https://t.co/vtSZUFLZPJ

Here are the exact recommendations we gave KelpDAO when asked about DVNs (typically 2/3)

(Screenshot 2)

Other LayerZero applications speaking on exactly what is advised by the team

https://t.co/0ulWmlTZ2y

https://t.co/vQ2B8YQrw9

For how much volume was actually configured on 1/1 here is the exact data.

(Screenshot 3)

We will publish a complete post-mortem as soon as the external security firms have completed it.

[io36x.eth / 浪人 🥡🥢 @io36x]

@PrimordialAA Brian, do you think it's okay to raise funds through donations? Why should people pay for project mistakes while founders buy themselves mansions?

[io36x.eth / 浪人 🥡🥢 @io36x]

@zachxbt @ImNotTheWolf @AshCrypto 🤣🤣🤣

[io36x.eth / 浪人 🥡🥢 @io36x]

@valleourie Скам

[Lookonchain @lookonchain]

This is the unluckiest guy I've ever seen!

80 days ago, trader 0x5811 spent $542 to buy 7.43B $ASTEROID.

Just one day before $ASTEROID pumped, he sold all 7.43B $ASTEROID for $405, taking a $137 loss.

Today, those 7.43B $ASTEROID are worth over $2.6M.

He missed a life-changing profit.

https://t.co/V4wzylHGd3

[ZachXBT @zachxbt]

A summary of the RAVE -95% price fluctuation from $26 to $1 over the past 24 hours.

RAVE Timeline: April 18, 2026

7:26 am UTC: I posted a call to action for Binance, Bitget, & Gate to investigate RAVE market manipulation and offered a $10K bounty.

10:56 am UTC: I posted an update increasing the bounty to $25K.

11:18 am UTC: Bitget publicly acknowledged the call to action.

2:08 pm UTC: Binance publicly acknowledged the call to action.

3:06 pm UTC: RaveDAO posted claiming they have no involvement.

4:19 pm UTC: Gate publicly acknowledged the call to action.

In the days leading up, on April 13 & 14, I confronted RaveDAO co-founder Yemu Xu (wildwoomoo) but have yet to receive an answer.

RAVE launched in Dec 2025 on Binance Alpha with a 1B total supply. The addresses below, linked to the initial distribution, control ~95% of the RAVE supply (h/t Mlm):

0x9831156F1a6E506Fca41503590b42F07c2e80f54
0x8Ed6245C3276307E1A9D9Dc872E98A0E770070fd
0x6020656d1EF182173E45D4Fc375BDD5a48c674B0
0x2664cB80a5ee7D8EC05fe7C752dD62E078056E6d
0x2D81F8AeBf3e58A5e638006c9fd8F38C5220ecab
0x31694d761A8e851cFFbCd286aC54D01e5Ce5aFe6
0x0A1F07993a51CcEb4f52CA67765AECeADDA790d7
0xEB74Df8588cFC1C179Df4bd96C0bB8B227B9bE92
0x53d7d52301366DC14E1916b14eFeC1aDD8F3487b

I found suspicious CEX activity in April 2026 tied to RaveDAO team addresses onchain, which potentially contradicts their recent statement:
Bitget
0x2dc20f2180582172f5450c5d71e23fa438a7031b
0xa3a02aeb97fc1737c66f50d07d024799c137891d
0x2d95eb42525e6087e0cb7869f98da6838ed2e743
Gate
0x31711246b05d71e9eda5e38a3abb654020ee3353

Given the supply concentration, the team at minimum knows who is responsible for this price action.

A simple litmus test: $6B in market cap was wiped out on just $52M of 24hr liquidations (h/t CoinGlass). That ratio points to a manipulated and unsustainable valuation.

RAVE is not the only token with manipulation we have seen on major centralized exchanges. It's just the most blatant, reaching a top 15 market cap within 10 days before dropping 95% in hours.

Other projects with highly questionable price action recently include: SIREN, MYX, COAI, M, PIPPIN, RIVER.

Exchanges need faster intervention on manipulation. Detection at scale isn't easy, but each day of delay means retail traders absorb losses while platforms collect fees on the volume. The outcome is the same regardless of intent.

While it's good the exchanges responded, I find it unlikely this activity wasn't spotted internally before I raised it publicly.

I recognize how much this behavior takes from retail traders, and I plan to investigate similar movements in hopes of identifying the responsible parties.

I want to reiterate that I did not take a position. If I had, I would have been liquidated myself. I also could not anticipate if or when the exchanges would comment publicly.

My $25K bounty will remain active since the only DMs received were unverified claims rather than non-public information with supporting evidence as requested.