Limitle$$ | BEARISH

Fulltime Shitcoin Trader
meanwhile, engage in some shit posting

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

@fincontrarian It's over bro

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

@fincontrarian Now it's been hacked @fincontrarian

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

What's this bridge model XRP delusional folks are going on about?

Zero chance a cryptocurrency becomes a FX pair through which capital flows cross border in a large way.

Credit risk, settlement risk, risk weighted assets - there's just no way a regulated bank approves this.

[Neil Moonstrong 🌙 💪🏿 @NeilMoonstrong]

You’re mixing up settlement theory with how capital actually moves in the real world

DvP sounds clean on paper. It always does
But it doesn’t remove the core problem it just changes how it’s handled

If Bank A sells USD to buy EUR under DvP they still need
access to EUR liquidity
a counterparty willing to take the other side
credit lines or prefunded accounts to make it work

That’s the part you’re skipping

DvP doesn’t eliminate liquidity requirements
It just synchronizes delivery and payment

So unless every bank in the world has perfectly balanced flows at all times they don’t you still end up with

trapped capital
prefunding
credit exposure
fragmented liquidity

That’s exactly what systems like XRP are trying to solve

Now your volatility argument

You’re acting like banks are sitting on XRP exposure for hours or days that’s not how it works

In a bridge model

USD to XRP to EUR

The exposure window is seconds

That’s not taking XRP risk in the way you’re framing it that’s using it as a transient settlement asset

FX desks already deal with spreads slippage and execution risk constantly

So the idea that a sub second bridge introduces some unmanageable risk doesn’t hold up

Now the real issue you’re missing

You’re thinking from the perspective of large well connected banks with deep bilateral relationships

Those banks can already net flows and use credit lines

The problem is the global system isn’t just top tier banks

It’s smaller banks payment providers corridors with low liquidity regions where prefunding is expensive

That’s where the inefficiency is

That’s where trapped capital exists

Your model assumes everyone can just trade USD for EUR directly

Reality is not everyone has direct access deep liquidity cheap credit or efficient corridors

You’re defending a system that requires capital to be parked globally relies on credit relationships and fragments liquidity across institutions

And calling that more efficient than on demand liquidity

DvP improves coordination
It doesn’t eliminate the need for liquidity

Bridging solves the liquidity problem itself

That’s the difference you’re not seeing

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

A must read

[Yiannis @bc1pxxx]

https://t.co/FdtTnhMttN

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

@fincontrarian I studied

https://t.co/sXi8zZaLjU

THORchain has been infiltrated. Better not bag hold.

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

@fincontrarian Would recommend you not waste time and money on altcoins like Thor. They will all disappear in 2027

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

Hahaha this guy is an adjunct professor... teaching the wrong outcomes

[Omid Malekan @malekanoms]

Prediction: In the years to come, a stablecoin issuer will differentiate itself by its refusal to intervene or do freeze and seize, pushing this to the boundaries of what's possible legally. This will be a killer GTM strategy and take massive marketshare.

Logic: Everyone and their mother is going to issue a stablecoin, but they are notoriously difficult to differentiate. As Tolstoy said, every narrow bank is the same, fractional-reserve banks are each fractional in their own way;

Neutrality and none-intervention is one of the few ways a stablecoin could distinguish itself, and this will appeal to DeFi a great deal. And most users.

Counter: But...but...hacks and smart contract errors..and regulators...and Liz Warren...and none believers...and Suits and their Simps...they want seize. They want freeze. They want 1-800-REFUND functionality.

My Response: That's TradFi. Feel free to keep using it. Not being that way is the whole point of crypto.

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

@TrenchWeb3 @ethentree Most RWAs focused on decentralised blockchains and defi composability cannot stand up to regulatory scrutiny or are housed in tax havens and offshore jurisdictions that are not the safest for investors.

[Shaul Kfir @ShaulKfir]

Y'all are attacking a strawman.
How about trying to learn how Canton actually works?

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

@Nomaticcap Lol

We knew what a Blockchain is..we also know what institutions won't use. No matter how much you try shoving permissionless down their throats

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

Shame on you

[P2P.me @P2Pdotme]

A note on the Polymarket positions you've seen on-chain - the account named "P2P Team" is ours.

We wanted to come out honestly. The capital came from our foundation account and all proceeds return to it. Here's the full picture.

10 days before our raise went live, we placed bets that we'd hit our $6M+ target. At that point we had one oral commitment from Multicoin ($3M) - no signed term sheets, no guaranteed allocations, nothing binding. We were betting on ourselves.

We'd told the market we were raising over $6M. We believed we could. That bet was our way of backing our word with our own money at a moment when the outcome was genuinely uncertain.

Over the following 10 days we made our case, secured commitments, and the raise closed at $5.2M - entirely from outside investors we don't control.

We understand why this raises questions. Trading on an outcome you can influence erodes trust. We don't believe we were trading on a done deal, but we recognize reasonable people can see it differently. We named the account "P2P Team" deliberately - to give a marketing signal of our presence to the community and reflect our intent to be transparent. But intent isn't the same as action. Not disclosing at the time was a mistake we own. We took time to study the legal implications before speaking, which is why we stayed silent until now with a "No Comments" stance! - that too is a fair criticism.

All proceeds go back into our futarchy-governed MetaDAO treasury. We will be liquidating all positions in the next few hours and are putting together a formal company policy on prediction market trading going forward.

One thing we want to be unambiguous about: MetaDAO (@MetaDAOProject ) had zero knowledge of or involvement in these bets. We're genuinely excited to join this community and wanted to start on the right note - which means being straight with you about this.

[Louis Sykes @haumicharts]

https://t.co/mxgnmnzuRa

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

@joinelastic Please at least read Canton's white paper before posting. This makes you look stupid if you keep insisting it depends on trust anchors.

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

@ec265 In 5 years time, that would be called Bitcoin and altcoins. There wouldn't really be much else is there. Institutions will be using DLR in the way that they should, none of your cyberpunk permissionless risky stuff.

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

@ryanberckmans You could be early... Or already past the considerations for institutional adoption.

Painting a permissionless future as inevitable is irresponsible. It is much more unlikely to happen than it will.

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

Painful to read...

The ZK guys don't know.. who's gonna tell them?

Who's gonna tell them that in a regulated world, some centralised entity is going to trigger the covenants. If the covenants are programmatically triggered...I doubt big money will ever go near it.

[ALEX | ZK @gluk64]

Yuval is trying to manufacture a gotcha, so let me set the record straight:

If you deploy a smart contract on Ethereum, you have FULL CONTROL over how that contract will behave. Same if you deploy your own L2 or a Prividium instance: you determine the rules of that environment completely. This is exactly why banks and institutions are comfortable building on public chains.

But any real smart contract limits the ability of transacting parties to exert control over the assets inside it. That's the entire point. You set the rules upfront, enforced by code in real time — not by contractual promises that take years and millions of dollars to litigate. This is what makes blockchains a genuine upgrade over legacy financial infrastructure.

Would an issuer ever want to limit their own control? Of course! Issuers do it every day. Anti-dilution protections, debt covenants, dividend waterfalls — these are all promises issuers make to investors that say "I won't do X." Today those promises are enforced by lawyers. Smart contracts can enforce them by math.

So the real question every institution should ask their blockchain provider: can your platform actually enforce this logic, or does the issuer always retain root access to the asset?

Canton requires issuers to retain full administrative control, which fundamentally undermines the network's ability to protect transacting parties. On Ethereum, enforcement is guaranteed by math and open-source code.

Canton calls that a feature, but every investor on the other side of the trade should call it a risk.

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

😂 own goal

Canton 1 - 0 Zksync

[Yuval Rooz @YuvalRooz]

Screenshot taken.

I dare you to say:

“…the issuer cannot exert this control anymore” in front of one of your bank clients. Please.

You’re saying I’m dishonest? You are either lying to your followers or you are lying to your clients because I can bet my life they wouldn’t be ok with what you just wrote.

@DeutscheBank

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

@MusicBuddha1 @andyyy @CaitlinLong_ Lol.

No one is stopping you from trusting Bitcoin and Ethereum and Solana. Don't be salty when banks says I'll rather trust Canton.

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

😂 so this is what defi does. Makes it more expensive than Tradfi.

[Graham Ferguson @grahamfergs]

Intra-quarter redemption for @Securitize + @ApolloGlobal's ACRED at a sub-2% haircut.

Powered by @FissionXYZ on @Loopscale.

Making illiquid assets liquid one asset at a time.

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

What a free hit.

Look at Shaun's reply to him

[Sean Bowe @ebfull]

This Canton guy has "co-author of Zcash's zkSNARK" in his bio, which is basically a total lie? He apparently contributed some code to libsnark circa 2014, mainly the gadgetlib2 portion of it that we never used in Zcash. He's not a co-author of any papers we use.

[Limitle$$ | BEARISH @markFinchCrypto]

@CryptoWalker46 stop using strawman arguments.

privacy is made possible in Canton by its architecture, only validators participating in the tx will receive sharded smart contract data. the trusted operators assist in connecting validators, but do not have any visibility into tx data.