plonk
4.1K posts
Minting my Etherean by @gami_vc
Fully onchain NFT on Ethereum
R2U5QC
etherean.ai
English
@Arbdhul69 @oxtochi Yeah absolute L trade making 150m kek. Classic CT.
English
"whale dumps $150m worth of bitcoin"
ct: someone just moved 2100 bitcoin that hadn't been touched since 2012
TFTC@TFTC21
Someone just moved 2,100 BTC that hadn't been touched since 2012. They paid $13,700 total. $6.52 per bitcoin. Today it's worth $148 million. A 10,823x return. 13 years of conviction.
English
plonk retweetledi
New monthly forecast up on moonwave.pro!
- Recap of the last 4 weeks' performance
- Simple, actionable trading plan for the 4 weeks ahead
English
anthropic is trying to disrupt work and then repeat the same error as microsoft excel, imposing poor taste onto millions of people as a default.
someone ship a bunch of edward tufte books to their headquarters till they understand pie charts should not be a thing.
Michael Livs@micLivs
Anthropic shipped generative UI for Claude. I reverse-engineered how it works and rebuilt it for PI. Extracted the full design system from a conversation export. Live streaming HTML into native macOS windows via morphdom DOM diffing. Article: michaellivs.com/blog/reverse-e… Repo: github.com/Michaelliv/pi-… Built on @badlogicgames's pi and @DanielGri's Glimpse.
English
@Marczeller @0xLouisT Thats an actual response by an actual aave employee? Looks like my "high opinion" of aave wasnt that right kek.
English
@0xLouisT Imagine calling someone that
1) was brave enough to leave CeFi to use your product
2) Had the intention to use unholy amount of wealth to buy your shitcoin and support you
"retarded".
That's literally first rule of doing business. never, ever bite the hand that feed you.
English
Imagine building a front-end that allows 99.9% slippage.
If we want web3 to go mainstream this is definitely NOT the way. Either gross incompetence or ignorance. Just hire a serious web2 PM.
As mentioned by @Marczeller, it's crazy to think that a product manager removed the previous 30% slippage cap on the front-end. If I were Aave Labs, I would be paying for that employee NOT to ever come close to the product again.
Stani@StaniKulechov
Earlier today, a user attempted to buy AAVE using $50M USDT through the Aave interface. Given the unusually large size of the single order, the Aave interface, like most trading interfaces, warned the user about extraordinary slippage and required confirmation via a checkbox. The user confirmed the warning on their mobile device and proceeded with the swap, accepting the high slippage, which ultimately resulted in receiving only 324 AAVE in return. The transaction could not be moved forward without the user explicitly accepting the risk through the confirmation checkbox. The CoW Swap routers functioned as intended, and the integration followed standard industry practices. However, while the user was able to proceed with the swap, the final outcome was clearly far from optimal. Events like this do occur in DeFi, but the scale of this transaction was significantly larger than what is typically seen in the space. We sympathize with the user and will try to make a contact with the user and we will return $600K in fees collected from the transaction. The key takeaway is that while DeFi should remain open and permissionless, allowing users to perform transactions freely, there are additional guardrails the industry can build to better protect users. Our team will be investigating ways to improve these safeguards going forward.
English
How the fuck is CT grading this response on tone instead of product judgment?
Thinking the issue is that a warning appeared, that a user checked a box, or that the trade could technically be completed, is stupid.
The issue is that a leading interface in DeFi allowed a $50M order to move through a flow where catastrophic execution was an entirely predictable outcome. Once you know the order size, know the available liquidity, know the expected slippage, and know the probable output degradation, responsibility shifts to the system design itself.
At that point, hiding behind user consent is weak as fuck.
Consent inside a badly designed decision environment does not suddenly become good product architecture. Imagine using the same checkbox for acceptable slippage on a normal trade and on a trade that can lose $50M....
What they are doing, through lack of vision and lack of standards, is pushing liability downstream.
What makes this worse is that the solution is obvious.
Extreme order sizes should trigger a different class of interface behavior because they belong to a different class of risk.
Hard execution thresholds, delayed confirmations, forced acknowledgment of minimum output in large font, segmented execution paths, deeper routing logic, stronger friction as size detaches from liquidity, and escalation rules for absurd trades.
None of this requires a research breakthrough.
It requires teams to stop acting like legality at the transaction layer is enough to claim integrity at the product layer.
Aave has enough stature, enough resources, and enough industry visibility to know this.
So when one of the flagship names in crypto answers an event like this with “the warning was shown and the system worked as intended,” what it really communicates is something much uglier: the mindset of too many crypto founders is complacent as fuck, and that is exactly why the industry still struggles to earn the trust it keeps claiming it wants.
Stani@StaniKulechov
Earlier today, a user attempted to buy AAVE using $50M USDT through the Aave interface. Given the unusually large size of the single order, the Aave interface, like most trading interfaces, warned the user about extraordinary slippage and required confirmation via a checkbox. The user confirmed the warning on their mobile device and proceeded with the swap, accepting the high slippage, which ultimately resulted in receiving only 324 AAVE in return. The transaction could not be moved forward without the user explicitly accepting the risk through the confirmation checkbox. The CoW Swap routers functioned as intended, and the integration followed standard industry practices. However, while the user was able to proceed with the swap, the final outcome was clearly far from optimal. Events like this do occur in DeFi, but the scale of this transaction was significantly larger than what is typically seen in the space. We sympathize with the user and will try to make a contact with the user and we will return $600K in fees collected from the transaction. The key takeaway is that while DeFi should remain open and permissionless, allowing users to perform transactions freely, there are additional guardrails the industry can build to better protect users. Our team will be investigating ways to improve these safeguards going forward.
English
Can someone explain to me why $HYPE is pumping in a bear market?
English
@allgarbled foodtruck, carpenter or a small farm far away (with at least 5G, ngl, cant live without interwebs)
English
Realizing another cycle is gone
You go home, shower, eat, scroll through timeline but the feeling that you roundtripped everything wont leave you
English
