socrates

Every time you see some “X billions in longs were liquidated” or “ETFs shed 800M as BTC hovers near 100k.” Just remember 1 thing. THERE IS AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF CASH AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE

@garyColeman1554 @zama @NullaNetwork Gary always on top of the niche tech projects lol. I'll do a deep dive later tomorrow and report back my take to you fren.

@0xSoc @zama Have u seen @NullaNetwork? There GitHub is not fully open source yet Still building, it’s homomorphoc encryption Privacy l1

Oh so @zama is FHE? Saw someone comment that it is but haven’t looked into their specifics, however if this is the case it is the final stage of privacy imo. FHE is the future of privacy.

I probably just went through the toughest 2 months of my personal life along side the market crash. I’m deciding my comeback arc starts today.

They moved ai slop from X to moltbook and u think its bullish lmfao

@andrewcourt1 They charged Mr. Davide Ramsey or the CME ?

What’s being described here is cross-market manipulation - take a position in a derivative, move the underlying to make it settle in your favor. Here’s a CFTC case with the identical playbook (in binary options plus futures!) cftc.gov/PressRoom/Pres… That guy got caught, fined, and banned for years because regulated markets have surveillance. I’m sure Polymarket will be right on this…

Does it all just converge to a n8n style interface

@gakonst Observing the progress first hand also makes you realize how powerful these models are getting. Prev. to the current SOTA i never used them to code cause fixing the slop (be it docs or impl) was worse than writing my own. Now I've increased my copilot budget 3x this week.

watching twitter's reaction to ai is extremely expensive, best to just learn to use the tool yourself. way more powerful than anyone gives it credit for if you set it up right.

@sayinshallah Ai16z was provider agnostic you could use Anthropic even then

So ai16z was using gpt as a wrapper and the new ai meta is using claude for multiple agents?

Only success I’ve had with conventions / process rules is to create prompt files for it and just forcing myself to include them in all messages. Especially for react where I’m OCD about file structure around clients, hooks, FCs etc. Otherwise deep enough in a convo it just does whatever it wants and doesn’t follow whatever guidelines I initially laid out.

Are there any models that have any kind of taste in API/library design, naming variables, etc Neither opus nor codex-5.2-xhigh can figure out how to use consistent conventions in the interfaces of two tiny libraries even when explicitly prompted

@redacted_noah @8bitpenis What you’re seeing is the market approving $2m of exit liquidity for investors to exit at B/E, this is a fine decision and only possible in futarchy. Everyone is just framing it as a focus on short term gain instead of the above.

@8bitpenis I disagree. I see Futarchy making a pretty clearly bad decision for short term gain. If it’s not good at decision making, why would I want it?

the most recent RNGR proposal makes this apparent btw there is no reason why the pass market should be trading below NAV ($0.78) when the proposal passing would mean that it *directly* pumps it up to NAV spot market should also be converging there, given 90% chance of pass

@danrobinson Recently I’ve liked this flow working with an external team where AI summarizes the PR and what it is related to from PRD/user stories. Sets my expectations before diving into code.

Which is a better pattern

@mert @ShivanshuMadan Along side the above futarchy does impose an evolutionary pressure on participants as how you trade can directly affect your exposure. Screenshots are from a paper I’m writing (living doc) relating to the discussion here Full paper: whitepaper.archdao.fi

@ShivanshuMadan it's a relative comparison for example, what's the alternative? generally, some fake or skewed data that 'experts' will gaslight you with or the common man will misinterpret because reading complex data is very difficult

@SolanaStatus I thought “Beta” tag was supposed to be dropped

URGENT RELEASE: The v3.0.14 release is now recommended for general use by Mainnet-Beta validators. This release contains a critical set of patches and should be applied to staked and unstaked Mainnet-Beta validators.

@frankdegods @mntruell They’re just prompt files no? code.visualstudio.com/docs/copilot/c…

@mntruell At least need to have feature parity as fast as possible with Claude Code. Haven't tried the new context implementation but when I onboard friends to coding, it's obvious Cursor is easier than CLI. But it's hard to recommend Cursor while skills & subagents are only in Claude.

Cursor seeks to be the best and most powerful way to code with AI. What are the ways in which we could be better?

You’re statement “But if the odds on YES are already high, what motivation could whales have to manipulate the sale? Wouldn't it be easier to buy NO positions and not enter the sale?” Is a logical fallacy. The important thing about this market is that YES outcome can be manipulated by any entity (single person or group) with enough capital and result in a risk-free arbitrage. Ie Buy YES and fill the sale can be coordinated. By buying NO you can’t be sure someone won’t fill the sale or the sale won’t fill, so there is no risk-free opportunity.

Everyone's loading YES on Ranger sale hitting $60M+... I just dropped $2K on NO shares on Polymarket Apparently, the entire CT is now confident that the pattern in MetaDao will repeat itself and whales will start making huge deposits in the last hour Stats at this moment: >2.2M$ total commited >+40k$ commitments in hour >3 days 7 hours left If deposits continue at the same rate, total commitments will be $5 million It seems that everyone is absolutely confident in large investments at the end of the sale But if the odds on YES are already high, what motivation could whales have to manipulate the sale? Wouldn't it be easier to buy NO positions and not enter the sale?

Additional points: 1) Suppose you 3x the price in the next month, an intelligent investor would likely view (and could materially benefit) from increasing your voting power (available capital to trade). 2) there is no reason you couldn’t design an instrument which keeps the voting power in tact by allowing you to interact with conditional markets (split, merge) and trade them, then during proposal resolution if your left with USDC it buys the token back from the spot market. Ofc there are implications but allows you to participate in proposals without releasing the supply. x.com/elonmusk/statu…

This is interesting, you describe a plan, which most stakeholders would probably view as what you'd expect from a "good"/"fair" leader committed to the long-term development of their project. - 3 year lock-up of any team incentive (absurdly long compared to 'the norm') - 25% divided among core team is relatively low ownership (when compared to how a founder may launch a typical startup) - Core team accepts additional risk/loss of future token dilution (Increased difficulty to reach KPI, decreased realized future ownership share) This is nothing shy of martyrdom. Initial questions: - Is avici cash flow positive and what is average monthly revenue ? - Do you or other core members currently hold any token and what is the share? I understand the reasoning behind this, but I'm reminded of Machiavelli's description of a "honest politician". "How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation". Specifically, my interpretation of this proposal is that you structured it in an exceptionally honest way, if you were a token launched by the norms of today. I posit that for non-equity-split tokens governed with futarchy, time-based vesting schedules contradict the evolutionary pressure imposed by the models mechanics. With an vesting date in place, you are incentivized to achieve X price by Date instead of achieve X price as fast as possible. For example suppose you under-estimate your acceleration a year from now you reach 4B (approaching target), under this proposal structure there is no real incentive to you or the team to keep the pace up. You have 2 more years and only 1B to go. I also believe the fixed allocation causes potential incentive-misalignments between core team and the project. The linked metadao example specifically states "Fixed Token Allocation: 10% of supply equals 1,975 META per person. This number remains fixed regardless of further META dilution." And following that logic, there exists potential scenarios which contradict with your statement in 'How to design incentives': "Ensure the expected utility beats the team’s outside option, such as working at a different startup." There exists a scenario where the project, for one reason or another, may dilute the supply. Top-tier talent would understandably view this potential outcome as unfavorable as opposed to getting an RSU from a top-tier web2 company. Overtime this could cause friction for core and result in departures for more financially favorable conditions. What i would propose here is that you leverage to the fullest the dynamic capabilities of the futarchy model, and limit your proposal to the smallest and immediate KPI. ie: Issue a total of 1% of the token supply to be used as team incentives upon reaching 100M market cap. (Add your twap conditions, other conditions, destination addresses and allocation etc). This allows you, the project lead, to have some long-term incentive structure in mind/planned. It optimizes for achieving the goal in the shortest time possible. It reduces uncertainty for core. It allows for long-term flexibility and ability to adapt to unknown future market conditions. Gives core more frequent rewards, instead of delayed gratification. If you happen to speed run it in the next month, then that is phenomenal, i don't imagine any investor would be upset being up 3x and rewarding the team that achieved. Additionally, I think you should consider (for your own internal long-term plan : D), splitting your KPI between price and revenue. You have about 2.5 years of runway left in the treasury (from what i found, first time looking into your project), and there is likely an argument to be made where at some point for a project this is more important then price (ie price falls off a cliff if servers can't be paid haha), but i have typed too much. Modeling against the elon stock options is noble but Tesla was a 15 year old, and it was designed aa 10-year plan however vest only had KPI targets and he achieved all 12 tranches in 6 years.

Another one. I get random spikes of this type of spam but when it starts it persists for a while

@elonmusk @nikitabier how come accounts like this are not being flagged and purged much sooner? They have 200 posts identically structured, tagging people they don’t follow, unverified and no followers. Seems like a simple low hanging fruit

@infinex So you're trying to raise at 300m for a wrapper?

We got the sale wrong. We tried to balance existing Patron holders, new participants, and fair distribution all at once and the result was a sale that (almost) nobody wanted to participate in. Retail hates the lock. Whales hate the cap. Everyone hates the complexity. To our community: you've been telling us. And you were right. And we apologize for how we handled this. So, here's what's changing: 1/ Caps removed. No more $2,500 maximum. If you want to put in more, you can. We're done trying to guess the right number. The market will decide. 2/ Bottom-up fill. We're switching from random allocation to a "max-min fair allocation", also known as water filling. Everyone's allocation rises equally until it's full or supply runs out. Any excess contribution is refunded. 3/ Patron preference stays. Patrons still get priority on allocations, but we're waiting until the end of the sale to finalize exactly how - once we have real data on total demand instead of guessing. We're keeping the lock. We still believe lockups create the long-term alignment for those who believe in the product. Which brings us to the product – we haven’t spent enough time showing and telling you why you should use Infinex. Which changes now. So here's what we've actually built - a new kind of crypto app that feels like a CEX but is self-custodial: → A best-in-class swap and bridge aggregator - live on 24 chains, including OG networks like ZEC, XRP and DOGE that are hard to access elsewhere → A perps trading experience built from the ground up by @0xEquinox_ and team, starting as a frontend for @HyperliquidX (#2 builder code), with @Lighter_xyz and @synthetix_io coming soon → A browser extension (led by the Herculean efforts of @ben_kurrek) that lets you take your Infinex account to any onchain app - currently 5★ on Chrome Web Store → Passkey-secured accounts powered by @turnkeyhq - no seed phrases, no custody responsibility pushed onto users → Unified portfolio and wallet management, giving you access to all your crypto wallets across devices → An unmatched customer service team headed by @Khaleesi_98 We created Infinex because crypto should be easier to use, and we made a big dent in our goal last year. We have a massive feature roadmap planned for 2026, including a native mobile app, private sends, hardware wallet support, and much more. We've built an amazing team and a compelling product, and we’re here to build for the long term. We've spent a lot of time trying to get your attention – for better and worse. Now we're asking you to try the product and make up your own mind.