🔺️lunchwithbashir

bring back Xchain NFTs 🔺️

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@RebaseMan Yep

[Justin The Photographer 📸 @JustnThePhotog]

Abalaba got a 96 and you’re bearish?

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@JustnThePhotog That would sure explain the lack of transparency, why everyone left and 30m to coinbase

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@ExcelBaller Sorry only got another 30m to coinbase

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@AvaxTeam1 Stop.

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@0xFrenchy @AihansuCrypto Could not afford = boycot

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@VanHoVibes Na

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@AvalancheKorea @avax But does not support avax token

[ΞxcelBaller @ExcelBaller]

Something must be done by Emin and Co. to accrue value back to the coin

This model makes it so you can stand up a chain for less than $10 per validator and enjoy all the benefits of the tech (I understand this was done to be competitive with other chains) but then it does not generate any revenue or drive value back to the native token. It’s like all of these updates with ETNA were done and then no one even considered how this would play out.

Dumping minted-out-of-thin air $AVAX treasury to fund operations and expensive Summits while championing “business 🔺doption” is not revenue or sustainable and is leaving the 10s of thousands of holders in shambles. Do better. This isn’t FUD.

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@Ryan02020419 But how much did fdn send to coinbase?

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@Ryan02020419 But does not support avax

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@QuadSigmaX @bit_mani @VanHoVibes As a community we could try spamming the socials until they listen. I for one am tired of all the bs.

[QuadSigma (4σ)⚡⟠♠️ @QuadSigmaX]

The model Labs uses now is structured like Avalanche is a private company and the chain as its asset. They sell the tech directly to L1 institutions, via means external to the token, accruing immense benefit to them directly, while leaving investors (who footed the bill for the growth and development and marketing of the network) footing the bill. Investment occurred when the model was for a fixed 2000 AVAX fee per validator, etc. The terms changed underneath us, without any corresponding consideration of value accrual and investor impact. They just started syphoning the growth directly. A "Labs to Instutions" BD pipeline that allowed them to negotiate the terms extraneously to any linkages to the token. Origianl tokenomics linked gwoth to the token. Then we were rugged, with no recourse. AVAX had plunged ever since. And if they were transparent about what they are siphoning off by this dirext relationshsipnwith the institutional L1 (payments, consult frees, etc.), that would be one thing. But they are not.

There needs to be a legal demand made to disclose Labs' revenue streams. We've made this call politely and informally, as a community, but it is always ignored. Tone deaf. When does it become not polite or informal anymore? When does it get teeth?

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@Stupifff Shame its only 31th and not 66th. Maybe soon though

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@JustnThePhotog @VirtualQuery Shut it all down. Dinari was right all along

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@ijaack94 @minerminer @VirtualQuery @tylxL1 They are welcome to provide more transparency

[Alex @minerminer]

@VirtualQuery @tylxL1 Lots of interesting info on Crunchbase!

https://t.co/WMO3Voj1Ik

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@HoneyBear9k @DinariGlobal What a joke

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@frostLedger Read the comments

[🔺️lunchwithbashir @lunchwithbashir]

@MunichHaidTom @frostLedger Avalanche not good enough to support. Swing and a miss