Aaron

No Thank You, I Don't Smoke First, I want to thank @level941 for his detailed and thoughtful responses to the questions I put forth. I know it's not easy to be put to the hard questions and respect the time he took into crafting his reply. It's important that we bring this conversation back to reality, however. The reality is that - despite some code being written - this is an idea. Nothing more, nothing less. And new ideas in this space is what we all need more of. That said, @WhiteWhaleLabs would respectfully decline integrating this idea into our infrastracture for two primary reasons: 1. This idea only really works with Meteora's full support. Without it, direct bypasses of the burn router to the underlying pool can and will be made. Not to mention that at scale liquidity exists in a multitude of places (Raydium/Orca/FusionAMM/etc) and in the real world it would be impossible to not only predict within 30 days of launch where the majority of liquidity will ultimately end up but the very nature of permissionless finance says that liquidity can and will arrive at a variety of pool on a variety of protocols. The chances of Meteora giving their full support is highly unlikely. There is zero precedent for this. Meteora prioritizes open liquidity to attract volume and integrations - adding restrictions could reduce composability and drive away bots/aggregators. 2. @level941 claims the final outcome is not visible to aggregators, applied after the market clears, so it doesn't affect best-execution calcs. If the router is properly integrated, Jupiter wouldn't be "fooled". Jupiter (and other aggregators) simulate the entire atomic transaction path on-chain before quoting, including custom routers. If the burn router is registered as a valid route (as they have said they intend), Jupiter's algorithm would execute a test swap through the full sequence. This is how Jupiter handles other composable routes. This would then in fact directly impact the quoted execution and be seen up front. Which would drastically shift volume away from this router because the burn fee is an additional expense of execution above and beyond pool fees. If we flip to the other point of view and believe that this implementation somehow does fool Jupiter, how many complaints would it take from execution consistently being 1-2% less than quoted it is likely to generate complaints. Jupiter has delisted problematic routes in the past for reliability, and they do monitor user feedback. Aggregators like Jupiter prioritize user trust to maintain dominance. However I maintain that the fee is not truly invisible is the integration is done correctly, which will then result in the aggregators doing what they do best - finding the path of best execution - and a total transaction cost between pool fee and burn router of 2-3% loss of transaction would not be a path selected very often. From a high level point of view, and as a supporter of free and transparent markets, I would also personally find this methodology to be in conflict with my personal values. Having a hidden "tax" to punish sellers (hidden is debated, the dev believes it would be - I believe it would not be) sounds nice to bag holders and coin managers but it goes against the ethos of free and transparent access that was the ultimate crypto promise. Markets only exist with buyers and sellers. If the goal is deflationary measures, there are a multitude of ways to accomplish this without building a "hidden tax" on sellers and then relying on a third party to force adoption. For the most part, the majority of crypto users do not realize how fragmented liquidity really is. They simply swap on Jupiter/Titan, get their order filled, and move on with their life. Behind the scenes you have sometimes dozens of competing sources of liquidity between the various protocols that facilitate liquidity provision. It's not just Orca/Raydium/FusionAMM/Meteora and the like, it's the number of pools that exist on each for the token in question. You have pairs with SOL, pairs with stables, and even pairs with other volatile assets. New pairs can be created on a limitless basis in this grand, beatiful world of permissionless finance. While it's true that TVL does tend to gravitate to some of the more dominant pools this does resolve the fact that extreme fragmentation exists and that the only meaningful impact this proposal would have overlooks that fact. While this proposal makes incredible marketing for those who are not technically savvy (kinda like how XRP is going to replace SWIFT - makes for a great narrative but just doesn't jive with reality), it does not mean that I think @level941 is necessarily a bad actor. Everyone is a good actor until they aren't, right? The very fact that he's thinking outside the box to things that are new and innovative should be commended, even if they don't work out in the real world. As always, I wish him and his project nothing but the best - even if there is no viable path to collaborate on this particular invention. 🩶🐋