Calvin

gm 🦧

@hiphopApe @cz_binance The Laffer curve.

@cz_binance @CraniumCalvin literally what u were saying about over taxing

Math: double the fee, double the revenue. Human: double the fee, half the revenue. Half the fee, double the revenue. 🤯

Completely agree. It’s a tough one. To create an on chain voting system that guarantees 1 vote per person seems impossible right now. Proof of humanity could be created via some sort of zero knowledge on chain ID, but even then it could probably still be gamed. DAO currently don’t scale well due to this IMO. But there are reputation based voting systems around, so some are trying to solve this issue.

@CraniumCalvin Yeah token weighted voting sounds fair in theory, but capital concentration always creeps in. Without better delegation or reputation layers, most DAOs just mirror trad power dynamics onchain. Still early though. @CraniumCalvin follow back appreciated fr

The main problem with many large-scale DAOs right now is that they tend to devolve into plutocracies, if they aren’t already from the outset.

We need more DAOs - but different and better DAOs. The original drive to build Ethereum was heavily inspired by decentralized autonomous organizations: systems of code and rules that lived on decentralized networks that could manage resources and direct activity, more efficiently and more robustly than traditional governments and corporations could. Since then, the concept of DAOs has migrated to essentially referring to a treasury controlled by token holder voting - a design which "works", hence why it got copied so much, but a design which is inefficient, vulnerable to capture, and fails utterly at the goal of mitigating the weaknesses of human politics. As a result, many have become cynical about DAOs. But we need DAOs. * We need DAOs to create better oracles. Today, decentralized stablecoins, prediction markets, and other basic building blocks of defi are built on oracle designs that we are not satisfied with. If the oracle is token based, whales can manipulate the answer on a subjective issue and it becomes difficult to counteract them. Fundamentally, a token-based oracle cannot have a cost of attack higher than its market cap, which in turn means it cannot secure assets without extracting rent higher than the discount rate. And if the oracle uses human curation, then it's not very decentralized. The problem here is not greed. The problem is that we have bad oracle designs, we need better ones, and bootstrapping them is not just a technical problem but also a social problem. * We need DAOs for onchain dispute resolution, a necessary component of many types of more advanced smart contract use cases (eg. insurance). This is the same type of problem as price oracles, but even more subjective, and so even harder to get right. * We need DAOs to maintain lists. This includes: lists of applications known to be secure or not scams, lists of canonical interfaces, lists of token contract addresses, and much more. * We need DAOs to get projects off the ground quickly. If you have a group of people, who all want something done and are willing to contribute some funds (perhaps in exchange for benefits), then how do you manage this, especially if the task is too short-duration for legal entities to be worth it? * We need DAOs to do long-term project maintenance. If the original team of a project disappears, how can a community keep going, and how can new people coming in get the funding they need? One framework that I use to analyze this is "convex vs concave" from vitalik.eth.limo/general/2020/1… . If the DAO is solving a concave problem, then it is in an environment where, if faced with two possible courses of action, a compromise is better than a coin flip. Hence, you want systems that maximize robustness by averaging (or rather, medianing) in input from many sources, and protect against capture and financial attacks. If the DAO is solving a convex problem, then you want the ability to make decisive choices and follow through on them. In this case, leaders can be good, and the job of the decentralized process should be to keep the leaders in check. For all of this to work, we need to solve two problems: privacy, and decision fatigue. Without privacy, governance becomes a social game (see vitalik.eth.limo/general/2025/0… ). And if people have to make decisions every week, for the first month you see excited participation, but over time willingness to participate, and even to stay informed, declines. I see modern technology as opening the door to a renaissance here. Specifically: * ZK (and in some cases MPC/FHE, though these should be used only when ZK along cannot solve the problem) for privacy * AI to solve decision fatigue * Consensus-finding communication tools (like pol.is, but going further) AI must be used carefully: we must *not* put full-size deepseek (or worse, GPT 5.2) in charge of a DAO and call it a day. Rather, AI must be put in thoughtfully, as something that scales and enhances human intention and judgement, rather than replacing it. This could be done at DAO level (eg. see how deepfunding.org works), or at individual level (user-controlled local LLMs that vote on their behalf). It is important to think about the "DAO stack" as also including the communication layer, hence the need for forums and platforms specially designed for the purpose. A multisig plus well-designed consensus-finding tools can easily beat idealized collusion-resistant quadratic funding plus crypto twitter. But in all cases, we need new designs. Projects that need new oracles and want to build their own should see that as 50% of their job, not 10%. Projects working on new governance designs should build with ZK and AI in mind, and they should treat the communication layer as 50% of their job, not 10%. This is how we can ensure the decentralization and robustness of the Ethereum base layer also applies to the world that gets built on top.

The main issue with DAOs is the voting is its structure; people shouldn’t be able to buy more votes, as that becomes a plutocracy, and we’ve seen this many times. This raises the issue of “proof of humanity” to ensure each token holder gets only one vote—the one thing stopping on-chain voting from really taking off, in my opinion. I wonder if we can consider using ZK proofs for an on-chain passport that protects identity.

@hiphopApe @calvincranium Yes, sadly due to lack of access I can’t delete it 🤣

@calvincranium @CraniumCalvin still here 🤪

GM all! I just wanted to remind you all that in the next few days I’ll be deleting this account due to limited access, please follow me on my new account @CraniumCalvin #SkullsBackSkulls #EthalienInvasion

Not a user, but lose the lock ups. Pointless exercise that just kicks the can down the road. Pull the band aid off, release all tokens and let the market find the value. This will happen whether you have lock ups or not. But without them, the road to recovery will likely start a lot sooner.

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.

@rexoeth Problem is that the way votes are allocated incentivises this.

@rexoeth @apecoin Yea, I think that work has been done to increase demand, but this will take time to be apparent in the price, and we all just need to be more patient. I just don’t think burning will really make much of a lasting impact.

Deflationary ApeCoin: Will it help? Personally, I think this was wrongly diagnosed as a supply issue. It's not; it's a demand issue, and always has been.

@Luara_Btc @apecoin Sure does.

It’s not the first time this conversation has been had. Some projects have already burned supply’s for this exact reason. But IMO this is not the way. You could slash the supply down to 100 in most cases and it wouldn’t make a difference. Lowering supply does not increase demand, if there is little to no demand already. Projects need to focus on increasing demand, not reducing their supply. Reducing supply may seem like a great idea now, when overall demand is low, but burn now and projects would likely regret it later on, as a lower supply massively limits the scope of the project in most cases. I believe PFPs need larger numbers to attract larger communities. I personally think 10k is a great number.

Gonna say something out loud that everyone dances around and no one wants to admit about this space. Long term, pfps in general are useless UNLESS you get supply down substantially and then they become collectibles and scarce. I’m talking 500-1,000 NFTs per collection and that might even be too high.

@kingpickle @balloonsonape @ApeChainHUB gm gm 🦧

GM 🎈 Still can't believe I won this bad boi yesterday. Thanks @balloonsonape!

@Carlitoswa_y Most of the time yes. But it rips off the bandaid rather than prolonging the sell pressure across months/years. Realistically both approaches have their pros and cons and cons. There are many other aspects that are more important IMO.

Full unlock of token at tge = price dump

gm

@kingpickle @ApeChainHUB @DENGSonApe Will send a DM 🤝

@CraniumCalvin @ApeChainHUB @DENGSonApe Let’s do it!! Would love to find any synergies 🤝

Fuck it. This is what I've been built over the last 2 weeks all by myself. "FareLaunch". A token presale launchpad for ApeChain. With a suite of free ERC20 tools. Even a liquidity locker. Fully functioning (w/ light & dark mode). Coming in the next 2 weeks. Eat your heart out. Here's a 🧵👇

@moonpay @TrustWallet @CryptoKage

to celebrate our new partnership with Trust Wallet, we're giving away $3,000 in crypto! 👨‍🚀 reply to this post tagging your best friend in crypto ✅ follow @MoonPay and @TrustWallet the winner will get $1,500 + $1,500 for their friend

@RonCS5 @nicrypto Again, if I don’t like apples, it doesn’t mean I must like oranges. I don’t think deflation is the answer to all our problems, it doesn’t mean I must love inflation.

No you are cherry picking one section to fit your narrative. I also stated “The problem with Fiat was never the uncapped supplies, it was the people in control of the supply.” So quite obviously I wasn’t suggesting another centralised entity 🤦🏻‍♂️ I am also not quoting anything, because I also state that inflation is also not good. I have my own theory, and my own opinion. There are likely cross overs of many different theory’s, it doesn’t mean that it fits within just 1. A lot of economic theories have good ideas, along with some bad ones, and they usually only work in theory because humans are corruptible and often have their own agendas. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t snippets of truth and good ideas within them. Surely the goal is to learn from all data and find something that works, regardless of whom the some of the ideas initially came from.

Bitcoin was $16k when he said this. It's up 7.1x since then. Never has such an ignorant statement been made with such confidence.