@SCHIZO_FREQ The control they are using kinda doesnt make sense. It should be vs single non glp users over x time. Not vs already partnered glp users (who can only stay the same or go down in partnership)
@xBartega 1. Soju never ran risk
2. Any of today's platforms would have suffered similar (or worse) losses given how they operate
3. Didn't "have to close". the risk (low on chain liquidity) to reward (not much usage anyway), made it make sense to take some time to rearchitect some things.
@yieldsandmore@k3_capital@elixir company A borrowed 10m from company B
company B borrowed 12 m from company A
company B: "hey sorry i can't pay you back the 12m but pls return the 10m to me"
company A: ...
@kingdonutcrypto@0xPain__@0xrooter "like any other token that has a buy back." just was giving you 2 of the biggest examples of tokens with buybacks that both don't burn. anyway feels pointless to continue convo since you assume bad by default so iiwii no worries.
@kingdonutcrypto@0xPain__@0xrooter hype: no burn
pump: no burn
better examples than blue or up
also it would be pretty stupid for the dao to sell tokens when the price was down bad as it would just be diluting it down, if token price was ever down so bad it would be better to redeem or do buybacks
@0xkydo@ThogardPvP Spec is explicitly not an implementation, there is already a implementation (the chain literally runs). It's a rigorous description of required features to be considered a valid client.