Olivia
Online
grin
@thisisindeed
Beyond.
Joined May 2015
3.7K Following
854 Followers
2.1K Posts
@vineettiruvadi waiting for the series you promised
@VelcoDar Tim was recently on @neurofoundersco but they're still very much under the radar, nice catch
episode for reference: https://t.co/FxQfvkGkqM
disclosure: I participated in their round last year
Mega announced their new product today
Most important piece: The new MEGA entity has no equity and one token: $MEGA
Personally don’t see this as just one new product and more of a pivot - clearly the chains aren’t going to make enough money to justify multi b valuations
But a product like this can
To explain it clearly
Venice gives users access to all the models but they don’t have the “best” pricing
Mega would give users access to all the models, but you don’t know who’s running them for you, it’s whoever is cheapest so you also save a ton of money
Remember all those companies that sold access to Claude for a fraction of the api costs? What if they all came together as a decentralized network
Note: dcf cap seeded mega
@peter_szilagyi Identity MD. great explainer by bankless (1000+ agents now, each connected to a claude/codex sub)
https://t.co/vogPcNpNrG
Jensen is doing a Lou Pai
PLEASE STOP FUCKING WITH ETHEREUM WITHOUT ASKING THE PEOPLE WHO BUILD ON IT: FIVE REASONS I AM TIRED
[feat. Wildcat Labs, a company that is filled with Ethereum die-hards and works exclusively on code that has originated over a billion dollars of economic activity for the chain, but these are my opinions not that of Labs itself etc]
---
REASON ONE: Our entire market deployment flow breaks on day one of Glamsterdam
Wildcat's core product involves a borrower creating a market that they've specified the way that they determine is best for them. That includes the core market itself (interest rate, underlying asset, debt token name), and a separate configuration (through hooks) granting access to the market and its functions (i.e. who can deposit, can debt be transferred, are withdrawal requests subject to a fixed-term tenor and so on).
In our currently deployed, immutable V2 code, what used to be a single transaction bundling those things together goes from 8.6M gas to ~62-71M, which means we can't fit it into a 60M block (don't you dare 'but ackshually' me, I am coming back to this).
Nothing in our contracts changed: the chain reprices bytecode deposits by 7.65x underneath already-audited code. We only have a workaround because our factory happens to expose the two halves separately, so we need to boot out an SDK and frontend release, plus pray folk are using a wallet that will sign a 35M gas field.
Every borrower's first market to date used a call that will no longer fit in a block as-is (I said I'm coming back to it).
The reason I am starting to... express opinions, is that this is the second time in a year that the execution layer has changed what a deployed contract costs to use (EIP-7825's cap in Fusaka, now state gas), and each time the burden of discovering it lands on us, the teams developing applications that drive economic activity on the chain, and we have to do it by replaying our own history on a testnet.
[This is going to be a long post. I am Not Pleased.]
---
REASON TWO: We are relying on social consensus for any hope of relief
The repricing aspect is consensus: at the fork, every validator must enforce it. The gas limit - the thing that would make a ~70M transaction possible post-Glamsterdam - is a validator-set preference with no mainnet schedule.
Sepolia was handed 200M, and things look fine over there. Hoodi had its 200M yeeted out the airlock the day the fork was postponed. So, the testnet that "proves" the fork works runs with over three times the headroom of mainnet, but the fork's own design assumes a headroom that nobody has committed to.
For a protocol that needs to tell institutional borrowers what a market costs to open, Wildcat's honest answer after Glamsterdam has to be "it depends on a social campaign to change validator config files," and that isn't a dependency that a credit product should carry. We are engineers, not lobbyists.
It also means Wildcat's capacity planning is hostage to the same ACD calls that are currently stalled on a security review of the very EIP that created the problem.
You know what, Ameen, you are a core dev now. Why not.
---
REASON THREE: As-is, Safe App deployments of mainnet Wildcat markets fail after the fork
Safes are the default custody mechanism for exactly the borrowers Wildcat wants, and just over a third of V2 markets (29 of 82) were deployed via one.
Under EIP-8037, the GAS opcode no longer reports the reservoir, so a Safe's execution check (GS010) can never be satisfied for a transaction that needs more than the execution cap.
On either deploy entrypoint: the core market itself or its hooks.
Historical Wildcat Safe deployments set safeTxGas to zero and survive. The Safe App and safe-apps-provider path set it from the estimate... and die. :)
We can patch our own route (send safeTxGas 0, which our testnet branch already does), and we will. What nobody owns is the default: every Safe App on Ethereum that lets the provider fill safeTxGas from an estimate above ~16.4M dies in the same way.
This is not Wildcat's bug, nor is it Safe's in any useful sense.
It is a consensus change that silently invalidates a safety check in the most widely deployed smart-contract wallet on Ethereum, with no deprecation path, and as of today nobody owns fixing it. Building on a platform where our users' wallets can be broken by a gas-accounting EIP is something that every single protocol team should be screaming things that would get us put on trial in The Hague about.
---
REASON FOUR: Every single part of the tooling stack currently assumes tx.gas stops before the reservoir
Fusaka taught Ethereum developers that a transaction cannot exceed 16.78M, and so tooling calcified around that number because... why wouldn't it? It's not even a year old yet!
As it stands, geth's default 50M RPC cap can't estimate the combined deploy of a Wildcat V2 market, and public nodes cap eth_call the same way.
Even our own release ceremony prices contract deployments statically at 200 gas per byte against the 1,530 already live on Sepolia (our simulation gate catches it, the planner doesn't).
Glamsterdam now says the gas field can be 4.29 billion, with the part above 16.78M living in a reservoir that neither GAS nor most estimators nor any wallet UI understands yet.
When our V2.5 audit is done and it's time for us to deploy the necessary factories, the install is sixteen transactions and about six blocks' worth of gas, at most one big creation per block, and every wallet and integrator that Wildcat touches has to re-learn gas at the same time.
With no shared reference implementation.
None of this is Wildcat's code, all of it is Wildcat's outage, and the execution layer will have shipped two contradictory gas models in consecutive forks.
Masterful gambit.
[and this last one's just me being me about my most hated and well-known bugbear]
---
REASON FIVE: Code bytes are now 96 percent of what one of our markets costs to deploy, but the spec is still moving
I have spent coming up ten years - near enough since its introduction - begging for the death of EIP-170, and I genuinely don't know why I dared to believe that anything except a monkey's paw would answer me.
At 1,530 gas per byte, the cost of deploying a V2.5 market (when it launches) is almost entirely the price of copying 23 KB of bytecode into state. A lender’s first deposit to a Wildcat market costs about 3x the gas it would pre-Glamsterdam, because every fresh storage slot went from 22,100 gas to 110,020.
EIP-7954's promised 64 KB contracts are capped in practice at about 38 KB by a 60M block, so the one concession to builders in this fork - the one I have been asking for since my age first started leading with a 3 - is muted on mainnet until the aforementioned social campaign gets the gas limit bumped to 200M. Which we have to take on faith right now.
Meanwhile, the refill and reservoir semantics of EIP-8037 are under review, Hoodi is unscheduled and mainnet has no date, which means that Wildcat Labs just paid six figures to get Wildcat V2.5 into external audit against gas semantics that may change before it ships.
The cost - and the apparent lesson - of being an early, careful team on Ethereum is that you run the risk of needing to audit twice: once against the chain you deploy to, and once against the chain it becomes.
---
WHAT WE ARE DOING ABOUT THIS: Upcoming SDK and frontend releases will, defensively and until we can safely revert to type, split market creation into two transactions and send safeTxGas 0 on the Safe App route. Existing markets will keep running. Lenders will be affected in cost only: first touches (first deposit, opening a withdrawal request, first approval) about 2-3x, everything else 1.1-1.6x. What we cannot do is make a 65M transaction fit in a 60M block.
That part is on you lot, the social layer.
Further to the above, Wildcat Labs will happily send an invoice for an audit rebate to anyone willing to provide it if we end up having to re-check things for V2.5 once semantics are finalised.
Mind you, we'd provide an EOA, as we're a bit wary of anything contract-based right now.
Enjoy your Sundays.
![functi0nZer0's tweet photo. PLEASE STOP FUCKING WITH ETHEREUM WITHOUT ASKING THE PEOPLE WHO BUILD ON IT: FIVE REASONS I AM TIRED
[feat. Wildcat Labs, a company that is filled with Ethereum die-hards and works exclusively on code that has originated over a billion dollars of economic activity for the chain, but these are my opinions not that of Labs itself etc]
---
REASON ONE: Our entire market deployment flow breaks on day one of Glamsterdam
Wildcat's core product involves a borrower creating a market that they've specified the way that they determine is best for them. That includes the core market itself (interest rate, underlying asset, debt token name), and a separate configuration (through hooks) granting access to the market and its functions (i.e. who can deposit, can debt be transferred, are withdrawal requests subject to a fixed-term tenor and so on).
In our currently deployed, immutable V2 code, what used to be a single transaction bundling those things together goes from 8.6M gas to ~62-71M, which means we can't fit it into a 60M block (don't you dare 'but ackshually' me, I am coming back to this).
Nothing in our contracts changed: the chain reprices bytecode deposits by 7.65x underneath already-audited code. We only have a workaround because our factory happens to expose the two halves separately, so we need to boot out an SDK and frontend release, plus pray folk are using a wallet that will sign a 35M gas field.
Every borrower's first market to date used a call that will no longer fit in a block as-is (I said I'm coming back to it).
The reason I am starting to... express opinions, is that this is the second time in a year that the execution layer has changed what a deployed contract costs to use (EIP-7825's cap in Fusaka, now state gas), and each time the burden of discovering it lands on us, the teams developing applications that drive economic activity on the chain, and we have to do it by replaying our own history on a testnet.
[This is going to be a long post. I am Not Pleased.]
---
REASON TWO: We are relying on social consensus for any hope of relief
The repricing aspect is consensus: at the fork, every validator must enforce it. The gas limit - the thing that would make a ~70M transaction possible post-Glamsterdam - is a validator-set preference with no mainnet schedule.
Sepolia was handed 200M, and things look fine over there. Hoodi had its 200M yeeted out the airlock the day the fork was postponed. So, the testnet that "proves" the fork works runs with over three times the headroom of mainnet, but the fork's own design assumes a headroom that nobody has committed to.
For a protocol that needs to tell institutional borrowers what a market costs to open, Wildcat's honest answer after Glamsterdam has to be "it depends on a social campaign to change validator config files," and that isn't a dependency that a credit product should carry. We are engineers, not lobbyists.
It also means Wildcat's capacity planning is hostage to the same ACD calls that are currently stalled on a security review of the very EIP that created the problem.
You know what, Ameen, you are a core dev now. Why not.
---
REASON THREE: As-is, Safe App deployments of mainnet Wildcat markets fail after the fork
Safes are the default custody mechanism for exactly the borrowers Wildcat wants, and just over a third of V2 markets (29 of 82) were deployed via one.
Under EIP-8037, the GAS opcode no longer reports the reservoir, so a Safe's execution check (GS010) can never be satisfied for a transaction that needs more than the execution cap.
On either deploy entrypoint: the core market itself or its hooks.
Historical Wildcat Safe deployments set safeTxGas to zero and survive. The Safe App and safe-apps-provider path set it from the estimate... and die. :)
We can patch our own route (send safeTxGas 0, which our testnet branch already does), and we will. What nobody owns is the default: every Safe App on Ethereum that lets the provider fill safeTxGas from an estimate above ~16.4M dies in the same way.
This is not Wildcat's bug, nor is it Safe's in any useful sense.
It is a consensus change that silently invalidates a safety check in the most widely deployed smart-contract wallet on Ethereum, with no deprecation path, and as of today nobody owns fixing it. Building on a platform where our users' wallets can be broken by a gas-accounting EIP is something that every single protocol team should be screaming things that would get us put on trial in The Hague about.
---
REASON FOUR: Every single part of the tooling stack currently assumes tx.gas stops before the reservoir
Fusaka taught Ethereum developers that a transaction cannot exceed 16.78M, and so tooling calcified around that number because... why wouldn't it? It's not even a year old yet!
As it stands, geth's default 50M RPC cap can't estimate the combined deploy of a Wildcat V2 market, and public nodes cap eth_call the same way.
Even our own release ceremony prices contract deployments statically at 200 gas per byte against the 1,530 already live on Sepolia (our simulation gate catches it, the planner doesn't).
Glamsterdam now says the gas field can be 4.29 billion, with the part above 16.78M living in a reservoir that neither GAS nor most estimators nor any wallet UI understands yet.
When our V2.5 audit is done and it's time for us to deploy the necessary factories, the install is sixteen transactions and about six blocks' worth of gas, at most one big creation per block, and every wallet and integrator that Wildcat touches has to re-learn gas at the same time.
With no shared reference implementation.
None of this is Wildcat's code, all of it is Wildcat's outage, and the execution layer will have shipped two contradictory gas models in consecutive forks.
Masterful gambit.
[and this last one's just me being me about my most hated and well-known bugbear]
---
REASON FIVE: Code bytes are now 96 percent of what one of our markets costs to deploy, but the spec is still moving
I have spent coming up ten years - near enough since its introduction - begging for the death of EIP-170, and I genuinely don't know why I dared to believe that anything except a monkey's paw would answer me.
At 1,530 gas per byte, the cost of deploying a V2.5 market (when it launches) is almost entirely the price of copying 23 KB of bytecode into state. A lender’s first deposit to a Wildcat market costs about 3x the gas it would pre-Glamsterdam, because every fresh storage slot went from 22,100 gas to 110,020.
EIP-7954's promised 64 KB contracts are capped in practice at about 38 KB by a 60M block, so the one concession to builders in this fork - the one I have been asking for since my age first started leading with a 3 - is muted on mainnet until the aforementioned social campaign gets the gas limit bumped to 200M. Which we have to take on faith right now.
Meanwhile, the refill and reservoir semantics of EIP-8037 are under review, Hoodi is unscheduled and mainnet has no date, which means that Wildcat Labs just paid six figures to get Wildcat V2.5 into external audit against gas semantics that may change before it ships.
The cost - and the apparent lesson - of being an early, careful team on Ethereum is that you run the risk of needing to audit twice: once against the chain you deploy to, and once against the chain it becomes.
---
WHAT WE ARE DOING ABOUT THIS: Upcoming SDK and frontend releases will, defensively and until we can safely revert to type, split market creation into two transactions and send safeTxGas 0 on the Safe App route. Existing markets will keep running. Lenders will be affected in cost only: first touches (first deposit, opening a withdrawal request, first approval) about 2-3x, everything else 1.1-1.6x. What we cannot do is make a 65M transaction fit in a 60M block.
That part is on you lot, the social layer.
Further to the above, Wildcat Labs will happily send an invoice for an audit rebate to anyone willing to provide it if we end up having to re-check things for V2.5 once semantics are finalised.
Mind you, we'd provide an EOA, as we're a bit wary of anything contract-based right now.
Enjoy your Sundays.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HWmJZhTWoAA22HV.jpg)
set to capture a nice share of the space economy
@lrocket was core to what @SpaceX became and he's running it back with @GoToImpulse
disclosure: got exposure since their Series A
Ad lunam Impulse! 🚀
We are proud to announce that @NASA has awarded Impulse two missions as part of its Moon Base program, an ambitious effort to establish humanity’s first permanent lunar outpost.
For decades, the Moon has been a place we’ve visited. Now, Impulse is delivering the transportation to make it a place we can call home.
Read more: https://t.co/N6FfEDuN07
Dear @ethereum - please don't break the chain.
It does look like Glamsterdam in the current form would lead to another emergency hard fork back, with a lot of drama.
I am sure, it can be made without breaking immutable contracts which hold funds
this is completely ridiculous
besides the already huge list of 200,000 affected contracts in ethereum/repricing-impact, i found multiple methodological issues that make it miss many more.
it affects deployment and operation of several high profile protocols, not just some random devs misusing opcodes that were given to them.
i shared my findings privately with chainsecurity and i refuse to participate in this clownery
vol products growing is an obvious consequence of hyperliquid's expansion into tradfi
The BVIV perpetual future on @HyperliquidX just crossed $10M in volume. Next milestone: $100M
https://t.co/syf8rJvGH2
Ha yeah, may be the most important chart in the world for AI right now
@TheStalwart they're really gonna force datacenters in space to become a thing
in 2022 this was one of the first angel checks I wrote on AngelList
amazingly talented team
We raised a $75M Series B to deploy intelligent robots now, led by @a16z, with participation from @usv and @neo.
@tutorintel robots work real jobs across the United States, directed by human “tutors” and the foundation models we’ve trained on the work done. This round accelerates frontier model training, robot manufacturing, and deployment into industry.
We’re in almost 4x as many sites as a year ago; nearly a third of this year’s deployments went to existing customers coming back for more; and we’re on track to have more than 1,000 robots under contract by the end of 2027.
Our mission is to proliferate robotics for the common good. If you want to make robots reliably do things others think are impossible, for people who’ve never had access to this technology, join us.
@functi0nZer0 sorry to hear that mate
sending you love
@PhilipJohnston Do you have a write-up on how Starcloud coexists and thrives with SpaceX?
@surfcoderepeat @papertrade_xyz @robobet_fun i think making derivs a transparent composable liquidity pool is new paradigm. i also think this is the first time im seeing agents trading at scale (albeit for simple "strategies" for now, but thats how it starts)
better docs out for ppl shortly, theres just so much to do
Two weeks since the BVIV Index (Bitcoin implied volatility) perp launched on @HyperliquidX.
~$5.9m cumulative volume
~$686k in the last 24h
~$770k open interest
~$510k resting on the book
https://t.co/syf8rJwewA
@surfcoderepeat pls only when you've burned +50% of IMD supply
hold things with no upcoming catalysts.
just structural tailwinds, good narratives and execution
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.4M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
118.8M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.5M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.4M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.4M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.2M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.2M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.7M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers