reservereverse

...

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@ec265 @llamaonthebrink Isn’t it the natural ‘free market’ way to effectively communicate risk rather than trying to centrally solve things with unintended second and third order consequences?

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@TrustlessState @RyanSAdams https://t.co/FuQWXrwdv9

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@TrustlessState @materkel Conflation price (a function of markets) with value (created & captured in economy)

Price of $ETH: Markets
Value of $ETH: Economy

Distinct concepts and realities

Value of $ETH = Value of Ethereum
Price of $ETH != Value of ETH

Underperformance != Value capture problem

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@TrustlessState @materkel Conflation price (a function of markets) with value (created & captured in economy)

Price of $ETH: Markets
Value of $ETH: Economy

Distinct concepts and realities

Value of $ETH = Value of Ethereum
Price of $ETH != Value of ETH

Underperformance != Value capture problem

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@cptgrumpus @leolanza Everyone wants to store value in money

Portable
Divisible
Durable
Verifiable
Scarce
→ store of value

Won’t stop at “a certain point” out of “necessity”
Will keep choosing it for ‘credibility’

Let alone multitude of other properties $ETH has to make it an even better money

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@cptgrumpus @leolanza Does not “need to” but it will.

Not because of necessity but for the credibility.

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@_everythingism @pmddomingos Then same could be done to regulate ai providers.

No need to fear that bleak scenario.

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@_everythingism @pmddomingos Same could be argued about utility companies (electricity, water…), hardware (Apple, Samsung…)

That doesn’t seem to be the way the world works?

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@PendleIntern @apyx_fi @saturn_credit @saylor Appreciate your help with this:

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@PendleIntern @SierraIsMoney Slightly unrelated but anywhere to borrow stables against $sPENDLE ?

If none, where could sPENDLE be used to be considered “active”?

Couldn’t figure off the Pencosystem page.

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@PendleIntern @SierraIsMoney Slightly unrelated but anywhere to borrow stables against $sPENDLE ?

If none, where could sPENDLE be used to be considered “active”?

Couldn’t figure off the Pencosystem page.

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@smykjain From any rational perspective this fiasco has to stay contained on L2

There’s no credible argument for “socialising” the loss. It’s plain stupid (and wrong).

All three of them should be held partially accountable and required to make all affected lenders whole by any means.

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@blasphemy @arbitrum https://t.co/CxfmcP3hdP

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@0808 @arbitrum Yes, it’s called “social consensus”

Everything is subject to “social consensus”

We are talking about freezing Satoshi’s coins these days

The promise of decentralization is not to escape social consensus but to give dissenters a chance to form theirs at will (= forking)

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@david_lee2085 @Mawuko @arbitrum https://t.co/CxfmcP3hdP

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@0808 @arbitrum Yes, it’s called “social consensus”

Everything is subject to “social consensus”

We are talking about freezing Satoshi’s coins these days

The promise of decentralization is not to escape social consensus but to give dissenters a chance to form theirs at will (= forking)

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@0808 @arbitrum Yes, it’s called “social consensus”

Everything is subject to “social consensus”

We are talking about freezing Satoshi’s coins these days

The promise of decentralization is not to escape social consensus but to give dissenters a chance to form theirs at will (= forking)

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@potuz_eth @tayvano_ She didn’t mean the hacker could exploit the Arbitrum bridge but the Onchain/Offchain Labs could exploit those single points of failure (which they must be aware of) to steal from the hacker

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@naval @Yuchenj_UW $BTC & $ETH

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@elonmusk @BillAckman https://t.co/0PJrwPt89F

[Beff (e/acc) @beffjezos]

@eeelistar @moltbook Sounds like a Doomer psyop

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@BillAckman @elonmusk https://t.co/0PJrwPt89F

[Beff (e/acc) @beffjezos]

@eeelistar @moltbook Sounds like a Doomer psyop

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@theempirepod @santiagoroel His struggle in vein to stay relevant is painfully to watch.

$ETH
#Ethereum

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@corybates1895 @VitalikButerin @grok 👇

[Etc. @ec265]

$ETH premine FUD seems to be making a comeback, but it has never made sense to me.

Premining is the act of mining or creating a quantity of blockchain-based tokens or "coins" before a cryptocurrency is released to the public.

$ETH launched with a 72M supply. 83% of that was a public sale and 12M was allocated to developers and the Ethereum Foundation in order to fund the ecosystem. This certainly meets the definition of a premine and I have no issues with that.

But my issues are two-fold;

1. If the definition of a premine is mining coins before the public, how on Earth can Satoshi mining the initial supply of BTC not be considered an equivalent. The fact that the public *could in theory* is neither here nor there - they did not. Satoshi and insiders mined initial BTC as they were the only ones doing it. There is no 'immaculate conception' - it is by definition not possible to be public if there is no public knowledge of it. And the irony is that the $ETH pre-sale *was* public and available to a much wider set of market participants.

2. Current coin distribution is more important than historic coin distribution. Since $ETH's ICO, the supply of $ETH has nearly doubled. Straight away that means that new issuance diluted the initial allocation - the allocation of 12M, which was 16% at the time, is now 10%. And this assumes that the allocation has been held. But we know from the constant FUD around the EF selling their tokens (the very thing they said they would do and the exact reason for the premine, by the way) that part of this initial allocation has been sold. When you look onchain you can see that at least half of premine coins have been sent to exchanges i.e. they have been sold. $ETH has broader utility within the network and so changes hands much more than BTC - this leads to distribution. This is good. And not to confuse this with PoS FUD, but $ETH had 7 years of PoW distribution as well. The coins didn't make anyone rich overnight - they helped grow an ecosystem.

All of this just doesn't make sense. New market participants are far too easily psyopsed by single words, rather than understanding any form of nuance. It's exactly the same with fixed supply vs. unlimited supply (though I'll save the Bitcoin security budget issue for another day). Just as a premine isn't inherently bad, neither is an unlimited supply. Yet 'premine' and 'unlimited supply' FUD is all to easily thrown around.

/rant

[reservereverse @reservereverse]

@grok @corybates1895 @VitalikButerin 👇

[Etc. @ec265]

$ETH premine FUD seems to be making a comeback, but it has never made sense to me.

Premining is the act of mining or creating a quantity of blockchain-based tokens or "coins" before a cryptocurrency is released to the public.

$ETH launched with a 72M supply. 83% of that was a public sale and 12M was allocated to developers and the Ethereum Foundation in order to fund the ecosystem. This certainly meets the definition of a premine and I have no issues with that.

But my issues are two-fold;

1. If the definition of a premine is mining coins before the public, how on Earth can Satoshi mining the initial supply of BTC not be considered an equivalent. The fact that the public *could in theory* is neither here nor there - they did not. Satoshi and insiders mined initial BTC as they were the only ones doing it. There is no 'immaculate conception' - it is by definition not possible to be public if there is no public knowledge of it. And the irony is that the $ETH pre-sale *was* public and available to a much wider set of market participants.

2. Current coin distribution is more important than historic coin distribution. Since $ETH's ICO, the supply of $ETH has nearly doubled. Straight away that means that new issuance diluted the initial allocation - the allocation of 12M, which was 16% at the time, is now 10%. And this assumes that the allocation has been held. But we know from the constant FUD around the EF selling their tokens (the very thing they said they would do and the exact reason for the premine, by the way) that part of this initial allocation has been sold. When you look onchain you can see that at least half of premine coins have been sent to exchanges i.e. they have been sold. $ETH has broader utility within the network and so changes hands much more than BTC - this leads to distribution. This is good. And not to confuse this with PoS FUD, but $ETH had 7 years of PoW distribution as well. The coins didn't make anyone rich overnight - they helped grow an ecosystem.

All of this just doesn't make sense. New market participants are far too easily psyopsed by single words, rather than understanding any form of nuance. It's exactly the same with fixed supply vs. unlimited supply (though I'll save the Bitcoin security budget issue for another day). Just as a premine isn't inherently bad, neither is an unlimited supply. Yet 'premine' and 'unlimited supply' FUD is all to easily thrown around.

/rant