OV

Huh? Yes you do. You know the max amount and the amount they’ve sold. There’s also a blockchain explorer. This is more old regurgitated dumb shit. Needs to get on board with the more current desperate Solana FUD. Then block schedule is highly public and basically don’t at this point. Grants and funding are otherwise public. solana.org/grants-funding This retard is willfully ignorant

@DefiIgnas thats one of the biggest problems with solana tbh we have no idea about the supply control they have same with bnb

Solana Foundation's last transparency report was on August 2020. Almost 6 years ago. At the time they were giving up to 8M SOL per month for grants, exchange deals, fundraising etc. Founders held 62.5M SOL. SAFT investors held 176.9M. The Foundation and Solana Labs never disclosed an exact number on how much they actually held. Since then $SOL pumped from $3 to $295 and back to $80. The Foundation sold large discounted SOL blocks to DATs but no public accounting of how much they still hold or how much they've sold. Wen a new transparency report?

Solana has generated twice as much revenue as Ethereum in the last 24h That puts it in second place among all chains And some people still say Solana is dead

@thememeshunterx @solana He made a few jokes and you soft retards act like he’s pushing drugs to kids.

Can y’all explain wtf is this $BURNIE ? The founder of @solana finally decides to support memes and proceeds to shill the dumbest coin ever made instead to support real cults. Dev probably just typed on Grok “make me a boomer style image for a crypto coin.” Absolute joke.

@CryptoCurb You’ve described like 90% of defi. It’s a spectrum.

DeFi isn't "Decentralized Finance" if 100% of customer funds are at the hands of a couple fucking admin keys. We must do better as an industry.

@alpha_co Merely making a joke = hard shilling to you soft ass kids apparently

the founder of solana just hard shilled a token 4 times in the last hour and it topped out at $4 mil mc… i’m at a loss for words

@KillaXBT “You” cracked the code lol

I have cracked the fucking code. We bottom this year August-September latest. Earlier than previous cycles. It then takes $BTC just under a year to create a new ATH. Based on the math, we are 427 days from creating a new all time high. And we are 120 days from creating a bottom. That means... we form a new ATH precisely between April and August 2027. Based on this metric, we have completed 75% of the bear market. In this image, I am measuring the time from each election to the first bull market peak, as well as how long it takes Bitcoin to surpass that peak following the subsequent election day. The cycles are accelerating, with shorter bear markets and faster recoveries. In the next 1 year, I’m either going to look like a genius or a complete fool. This is my prediction based on current patterns and their timing.

@metadev5 You’re just gonna lie at the several statements over the last two days? Cool cool

Drift got hacked. Here's what you need to know: • Multisig was 2/5 — dangerously low threshold • No timelock on executed decisions • None of this was clearly disclosed in their docs This wasn't just bad luck. This was negligence. $280M lost on Solana. $600-700M at peak. And the team? Silent. No statement. No community call. Discord mods offline. Telegram ghosted. Everyone went dark the moment accountability was needed. At this point, calling it an exit isn't a conspiracy it's the only logical conclusion when no one steps up to prove otherwise. Teams like this shouldn't be celebrated. They shouldn't even have a home on Solana. We need higher standards. We need to stop excusing incompetence dressed up as decentralization. @solana @SolanaFndn @toly @DriftProtocol

@kirbyongeo Bizarre take since they need to reimburse parties and likely need to liquidate everything.

You really can’t make this shit up This industry is a joke

@blucolarETHmaxi @marilyn100x @solana Wtf are you even saying lol

@0xDigitalLaw @marilyn100x @solana You’d have to zoom out past the 60 second chart to see it witch I know you soylana boys don’t like to do

Congrats on 500B transactions. Here are the metrics that tell the other side of the story about $ETH vs $SOL TVL: > Ethereum: $53.19B > Solana: $5.4B Stablecoin supply: > Ethereum: $163B > Solana: $15B > ETH staked (economic security): 37.25M ETH ATH > Solana validator count: down from 2,000 to 791. > Ethereum RWA issuance: $15B+ > Solana RWA issuance: $1.9B+ > Solana inflation cost to holders: $4.32B/year > Ethereum inflation cost to holders: $1.88B/year

@blucolarETHmaxi @marilyn100x @solana Sure guy

@0xDigitalLaw @marilyn100x @solana Your in an echo chamber bro sol is cooked and your heads in the sand

@RiccoRosas @vibhu Bitter boi

“If memecoins don’t come back, Solana will die. The Chillhouse dev works 100x harder than anyone in the Solana Foundation” @vibhu Fuck you.

@binji_x @antiprosynth As Ethereum KOLs collectively and aggressively post self serving slop anytime something else happens to any other chain or ecosystem regardless of of victims

I love it when Ethereum overtakes the timeline and it’s based on substance + true discussions and not moonboy marketingslop

What specific allegations do you have against the AU Drift Entity? Does it have any assets that can be recouped? You're doing a lot of LLM searching here for a stretch, but still not tying in how the Drift Protocol Corp might be liable when the Foundation entity is the one with a disclosure about admin keys. Typically, entities setup are not hierarchical or standing with any real power. Cindy may not even be a part of that entity. They're used to bridge facilitate the tradfi paying of expenses to vendors (e.g., Legal). Probably retains 0 assets that can even be reclaimed. In other words, it's likely judgment proof. You're not just sharing thoughts. You're making a call to action to bring legal action. I would be a little more cautious. I challenge that any of this is "worth pursuing" if you can't answer the first two questions here. You're quick to assume negligence. All of CT are evidently cybersecurity experts, but Drift were probably operating within the 'reasonable' range for how most similar defi businesses operate and have operated, especially since there's third-party actors who intentionally attacked the protocol, manipulated markets, stole keys and ultimately the corpus of assets. Very victim blamey 48 hours after the event based entirely off on twitter sentiment and minimal technical background.

Okay I hear you. From my research, it looks like the operating company is in Australia and the DAO foundation is in the Cayman Islands. Your characterization of this as a simple disclosure gap understates two things: that Australian misleading conduct provisions don't require intent, and that Drift made affirmative claims about smart contract control that were materially inaccurate. Additionally, as I was going through Drift's Terms of Use, trying to discern the validity of your restricted jurisdictions claim - I stumbled upon this: "THE SERVICES ARE NON-CUSTODIAL; WE DO NOT ACCESS OR CONTROL YOUR DIGITAL ASSETS," that claim applies to the lending product too. It applies to vault deposits. It applies to every way a user could deposit assets into Drift. But hey, I'm no lawyer - I'm just reading the Terms of Use we all agree upon when entering the application. Which I did in France (not stated to be a restricted area). So based on your thoughts above and my additional research, maybe fraud isn't the right angle here, instead I'd revamp my case to claim misleading or deceptive conduct - but regardless, it’s a matter of accountability. Ive made peace with the fact that I might not get back the 5 figures I put into @DriftProtocol via @fusewallet (only an amount I’m willing to risk) but sadly others didn’t go into it with that intention. I’m not sure if you’ve been in the Drift Discord but many people put in more than they were willing to lose. I argue this case for them - since at the moment there isn’t much hope that our funds will be recouped but at least those responsible for assigning a 2-out-of-5 multsig with 0 time lock to manage a protocol with HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of DOLLARS may be held responsible for their negligence. I’d assume that the strongest global mechanism would actually be if ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission) pursued enforcement action against the Australian entity and secured a remedy that applied to the protocol's entire user base - like mandating a compensation fund. But that would depend entirely on whether ASIC decides this falls within their remit and is worth pursuing. ASIC matters here because it has the authority to investigate and take enforcement action against Australian companies that engage in misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (the ASIC Act) and the Australian Consumer Law. If Drift Protocol Corp, operating out of Sydney, made representations about its security or risk profile that were materially misleading to depositors, ASIC could pursue that as a regulatory matter without individual depositors needing to file their own lawsuits. So, as someone who has direct exposure here - I'm simply taking a moment to share my thoughts. I wont ever be caught dead silencing my opinion (which this is as I am not a lawyer).

@christine_dkim I'm assuming you had a take on Resolv and Balancer too, right? Would be interesting to see your analysis since these are more topical to your expertise.

"When push comes to shove, developers need to choose between building protocols for individual freedom and sovereignty or protocols for institutional adoption and scale. Every on-chain exploit, hack, and bug, large and small, since the beginning of DeFi reinforces the conclusion that there is no future where they can build for both."

I think you need to address what duties they actually had as a Defi platform deploying on a blockchain with clear interface geoblocks restricting users. Big jurisdictional questions. You're also conflating a disclosure issue with willful fraud. In most jurisdictions, this is a compliance breach that doesn't result in recission of an investment. What do you hope to gain? Should people who used a VPN to willfully sidestep their T&Cs be able to recover? This is a square peg in a round hole that only ever comes up when something goes wrong. It's why Elizabeth Warren has a job, because people refuse to acknowledge the risks they took. That risk includes assuming a defi platform has protections like heavily regulated financial institutions. As someone who has indirect exposure here, I won't ever be caught dead trying to recoup my losses this way.

Well, you have two options right? To pursue legal action in jurisdictions where (1) a majority of plaintiffs reside / have the strongest claim or (2) where the defendant (Drift) is incorporated and runs their business. That would be my assumption as a non lawyer though. But as a practicing attorney yourself - you should be aware of what I’m alleging to in my article. Which I make fairly clear in plain English. Drift inaccurately reported the risks associated with using their platform and in all easily identifiable and publicly facing documents associated with the protocol omitted the existence and usage of admin powers that subvert protocol guardrails and safeguards via a negligible multisig setup.

Taking a step away from special little magic internet coins to appreciate going to the fucking moon again and marvels like this. jfc.

@SolanaHub_ I love that Cardano is even here.

Which altcoin are you holding long-term? 🧐 $SOL $SEI $ETH $SUI $ADA $APT

@mert This feels like a vintage Mert post. Mix in some bitching about Canada please.

toly talked so much shit about iran and despots that north korea came after solana directly