Ignas | DeFi

23.3K posts

Ignas | DeFi banner
Ignas | DeFi

Ignas | DeFi

@DefiIgnas

Subscribe to my DeFi blog to get ahead of the curve 👉 https://t.co/7O0WAdXUnT Co-founder of @PinkBrains_io DeFi Creator Studio

Katılım Şubat 2017
1.8K Takip Edilen160.2K Takipçiler
Ignas | DeFi
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas·
I use Telegram daily yet I don't use TON on TG anymore. I used it to buy eSIM data and test a few apps. It means the Foundation failed. But Telegram + TON's potential is much bigger. Payments are obvious: when I was in Bali I paid bike rent in USDT on Tron, but TON would have been a much easier option. Plus, integrated apps (Lighter's perp integration being one), prediction markets on phone (seriously, such low hanging fruit for Polymarket), and gambling/game apps (coz retail loves this) All of it could pump Telegram and TON revenue. No other app besides X has this potential for consumer adoption. Dreaming bigger, Telegram is a freedom of speech platform with Pavel as a strong proponent of libertarianism. But I worry about TON's centralization. SEC blocked Telegram from running TON in 2020, forcing the community to fork the code and keep the project alive. Turns out it was fake decentralization. A 'community fork' isn't really one if Pavel can retake control this easily. We've gone full circle. But if regulators push again, he'll need to decentralize TON for real next time.
Pavel Durov@durov

⚡️ In one week, TON fees will drop 6× — to just 0.00039 TON (~$0.0005) per transaction, fixed regardless of network load. 🆓 Soon after most transactions go fully feeless. Zero commission. MTONGA!

English
33
5
158
24K
Ignas | DeFi
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas·
@0xWismerhill I really respect the effort. Really. DAOs need to be responsible. And Gnosis team being quite quiet on this is why I am happy that there is 7 day period for the vote.
English
2
0
2
289
Wismerhill
Wismerhill@0xWismerhill·
How can you call that raiding. Who is raiding who here? Who is spending $30M on 132 people and has delivered 0 value since this funding? Sure these products have users, but does the growth trajectory seem to justify that cash burn? We pushed this proposal because Ltd decided to arbitrarily introduce some tokens they held on behalf of the DAO as circulating. That’s hostile against every GNO holder, including you. We have been supportive of the treasury management change and of an improvement of the op co management, but not of adding circ supply because they know their funding is drying up. You will discover in the coming days that this isn’t a stunt from ‘raiders’, but rooted in deep long term GNO holders disappointment. I still believe in Gnosis enterprise value and products, but not on the back of insane cash burn and irresponsible financial decisions.
English
2
0
12
317
Ignas | DeFi
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas·
RFV Raiders are back. Gnosis DAO is the new target. It's a fun game, but first... a reminder: In 2023 Real Value Raiders took down Rook (5x return), Tribe (Fei wind-down), and you'll probably remember they pushed Aragon to repurpose its treasury (they fought back). Old playbook was finding DAOs where token mcap < treasury value, accumulate enough tokens, force a dissolution vote, distribute the treasury pro-rata. Now the playbook is harder to fight. ---- GIP-150 on Gnosis is the new playbook: Gnosis treasury sits at $223M (ETH, stables, ecosystem tokens). 1.3M GNO tokens are eligible to redeem against it. So each redeemable GNO has ~$170 of treasury behind it. But GNO trades at $135.95. That's a ~$33 per GNO discount to NAV. Or 24% gain risk free if redemption goes through. (Although RFVs likely bought at lower price). So holders started asking: why am I funding Ltd while my GNO trades below treasury? GIP-150 proposes opt-in redemption. Holders surrender GNO, get their share of the treasury back. Liquid assets (ETH, stables) distributed at face value. Illiquid investments (offchain investments, Gnosis Ltd value) gets a claim token (gLTD-CLAIM) that pays out as values realize.. So this opt-in design is supposed to protect non-participants. The RFV logic has a point: If Gnosis Ltd takes ~$30M/year of DAO money and produced $400k of revenue AND token trades below NAV, token holders' aren't happy. So these 'attacks' put responsibility towards token holders. It also protects holders from teams that slow-quit by burning treasury in salaries while not really building anything. But for RFVs this is pure arbitrage trade, not some moral mission. In this case almost every DAO and projects beyond Hyperliquid and Tron should be shut down and Treasuries returned to token holders. Whatever Gnosis Ltd is actually building (Gnosis Pay, Circles, Gnosis Chain) loses funding, and some of that work has real users. That is why I voted Against. And building takes time. Plus market is bad so it is common that token trades under NAV for years. Every other DAO trading below NAV becomes a target. Beefy is next btw. Builders at DAO-funded entities now have to plan for potential redemption votes from coordinated holders. Think to do buybacks, pump token or whatever. Exciting times. P.s. If I made any mistakes, sorry. It is my night night time. GN
Ignas | DeFi tweet mediaIgnas | DeFi tweet media
English
12
4
42
4.9K
Ignas | DeFi
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas·
Often think about how I would’ve done during the dot-com crash. Amazon dumped -94%, then ~670x from the bottom. Priceline (now Booking) was worse: $990 → $6.60 (-99%), then ~700x to today. Would I have bought the dip and held until now? Maybe not. Crypto taught me that short- to mid-term holding is optimal. But times are changing, and crypto feels post-dot-com right now. Speculation is gone, but real adoption keeps growing. The tricky part is profiting from that adoption. Airdrop farming was an easier game. Anyway, the AMZN and Booking of this cycle are already live. Just need to find the right tickers.
English
39
12
228
21.1K
Ignas | DeFi
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas·
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas

RFV Raiders are back. Gnosis DAO is the new target. It's a fun game, but first... a reminder: In 2023 Real Value Raiders took down Rook (5x return), Tribe (Fei wind-down), and you'll probably remember they pushed Aragon to repurpose its treasury (they fought back). Old playbook was finding DAOs where token mcap < treasury value, accumulate enough tokens, force a dissolution vote, distribute the treasury pro-rata. Now the playbook is harder to fight. ---- GIP-150 on Gnosis is the new playbook: Gnosis treasury sits at $223M (ETH, stables, ecosystem tokens). 1.3M GNO tokens are eligible to redeem against it. So each redeemable GNO has ~$170 of treasury behind it. But GNO trades at $135.95. That's a ~$33 per GNO discount to NAV. Or 24% gain risk free if redemption goes through. (Although RFVs likely bought at lower price). So holders started asking: why am I funding Ltd while my GNO trades below treasury? GIP-150 proposes opt-in redemption. Holders surrender GNO, get their share of the treasury back. Liquid assets (ETH, stables) distributed at face value. Illiquid investments (offchain investments, Gnosis Ltd value) gets a claim token (gLTD-CLAIM) that pays out as values realize.. So this opt-in design is supposed to protect non-participants. The RFV logic has a point: If Gnosis Ltd takes ~$30M/year of DAO money and produced $400k of revenue AND token trades below NAV, token holders' aren't happy. So these 'attacks' put responsibility towards token holders. It also protects holders from teams that slow-quit by burning treasury in salaries while not really building anything. But for RFVs this is pure arbitrage trade, not some moral mission. In this case almost every DAO and projects beyond Hyperliquid and Tron should be shut down and Treasuries returned to token holders. Whatever Gnosis Ltd is actually building (Gnosis Pay, Circles, Gnosis Chain) loses funding, and some of that work has real users. That is why I voted Against. And building takes time. Plus market is bad so it is common that token trades under NAV for years. Every other DAO trading below NAV becomes a target. Beefy is next btw. Builders at DAO-funded entities now have to plan for potential redemption votes from coordinated holders. Think to do buybacks, pump token or whatever. Exciting times. P.s. If I made any mistakes, sorry. It is my night night time. GN

QME
0
0
0
104
Wismerhill
Wismerhill@0xWismerhill·
The proposal to let GNO holders redeem their pro-rata share of the Gnosis DAO treasury is now live. If you hold GNO, vote in favor. snapshot.box/#/s:gnosis.eth… Here is why it exists: Gnosis Ltd, the operating company led by Gnosis' original cofounders and funded by the DAO treasury, is structurally misaligned with the tokenholders paying for it and is starting to act with hostility against them. Holders expect financially rational decisions and value accrual. What they have received is careless spending, no path nor consideration for profitability, and a management team that hides behind product pivots to mask the absence of product-market fit and stay away from having to make hard decisions. Ten months ago, Gnosis Ltd received $30M in DAO funding under GIP-128. Across the two quarters they disclosed revenue, the total was under $300k. They stopped disclosing it in Q1. Per the latest report, headcount sits at 132. They stopped reporting that too in Q1 (simply because it’s gross). This is not a company built to return value to GNO holders. It is a charity operation funding the founders' vanity projects and a pure cash sink. Pro-rata treasury value per GNO is currently ~$171, roughly 30% above market. That figure excludes the enterprise value of Gnosis Chain and Gnosis Pay, and marks the venture portfolio at the operator's own number, which is almost certainly conservative. The obvious question: why not buybacks? They are part of the treasury manager's mandate. They were on the table. Actually, buybacks have been stop-start to accommodate a dual mandate of value accrual to Ltd at the expense of purely focusing on returning to NAV. But this is also when Gnosis Ltd made their move. The treasury manager was ordered to reclassify 250k Ltd-held GNO as circulating supply, with no Snapshot vote, no GIP, no announcement. That single change would cut NAV per GNO by ~16.5% overnight. The implication is that Ltd holds those tokens as a separate beneficial owner with a claim on the treasury. That contradicts the purpose-driven entity structure under which Ltd was restructured in 2025. Those tokens are held on behalf of the DAO. They are not Ltd's to claim against. This proposal exists because the buyback path was poisoned at the source. Redemption gives every holder a way out at real NAV, on terms the operator cannot manipulate.
Wismerhill tweet media
English
2
3
14
4.4K
Steven
Steven@Dogetoshi·
Ekubo hacked for like 17WBTC (~$1.4M) and exploiter converted it to WETH and DAI.
Steven tweet media
English
14
20
193
43.3K
Ignas | DeFi
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas·
@croll83 mhm, i wouldn't need Lending apps as mini app. Whales wont use telegram for size. Better fit is different retail apps i believe
English
1
0
0
137
Ignas | DeFi
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas·
Thoughts and prayers
English
0
0
3
1.8K
Ignas | DeFi
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas·
(i know i can use margin account but still)
English
0
0
3
1.3K
Ignas | DeFi
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas·
Sold some stocks on Xetra (Germany) exchange to buy Nasdaq listed stocks on IBKR. Need to wait for 2 days until EUR cash settles. Being used to rotate money in seconds/minutes to days is crazy.
English
15
0
80
5.4K
Ignas | DeFi
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas·
@FabianoSolana man your posts are good. and dedication to solana ecosystem is fascinating. CT would be better with more accounts like you
English
0
0
6
530
fabiano.sol
fabiano.sol@FabianoSolana·
this might be a bold prediction: but I think JUP goes easily back to $0.4–$0.5 if they fix ONE thing why? buybacks & burn work but only when unlock pressure is low → that’s why pump didn’t work → that’s why hyperliquid does work it has to be deflationary (+ no fear of unlocks) Jupiter finally moved in that direction with net-zero emissions. In theory, they could buy back +20% of supply over the next few years but here’s the problem (maybe two): Jupiter’s revenue is trending down, Hyperliquid’s is stable (Hyperliquid also generates ~10x more revenue than Jupiter) and it gets worse: ~60% of Jupiter’s revenue comes from perps and even tho they're the 3d biggest perps earner they only generate 1% of the total perps volume Since the canceled airdrop, even more users left Jupiter Perps, and honestly, it's understandable given the high fees and only three pairs. Perps revenue is among the top three earnings in crypto and if they want to stop the downtrend of revenue, there's just one way out (no card, no juplend, etc.) second issue: token utility JUP still lacks a strong reason to hold (→ compare that to Hyperliquid’s fee rebates model) I really hope they cooked in the background with perps because if they did the JUP token is coded for a huge rally
fabiano.sol tweet mediafabiano.sol tweet media
English
31
6
158
66.9K
Bruce Not Wayne
Bruce Not Wayne@dexbruce_eth·
@DefiIgnas @worldmarketsinc 1. trades are not showing up. (this actually requires a good backend) 2. open interest is not shown, so how is the funding rate is being calculated?
English
2
0
2
247
Ignas | DeFi
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas·
Public request to MegaETH's World markets perp DEX: Please add PnL info. Such a basic thing, but why missing? @worldmarketsinc
English
28
0
86
7.3K
Ignas | DeFi
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas·
@zacxbt lol i have been slow with blogs. feels like few good market opportunities. but hopefully market improves
English
1
0
1
242
Ignas | DeFi
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas·
What's the most interesting thing you read about crypto recently? Please share!
English
75
1
105
13.8K
Ignas | DeFi
Ignas | DeFi@DefiIgnas·
@kirbyongeo Something is really off with that deal. Feel like We dont have the real info on it.
English
5
0
31
2.3K
kirbycrypto
kirbycrypto@kirbyongeo·
Coinbase paid $375M acquiring Echo last October. Today, they laid off 14% (roughly 660-700 employees) That $375M would have conservatively kept every single one of them employed for at least the next two years. Was it worth it?
kirbycrypto tweet media
Brian Armstrong@brian_armstrong

This is an email I sent earlier today to all employees at Coinbase: Team, Today I’ve made the difficult decision to reduce the size of Coinbase by ~14%. I want to walk you through why we're doing this now, what it means for those affected, and how this positions us for the future. Why now Two forces are converging at the same time. We need to be front footed to respond to both. First, the market. Coinbase is well-capitalized, has diversified revenue streams, and is well-positioned to weather any storm. Crypto is also on the verge of the next wave of adoption, with stablecoins, prediction markets, tokenization, and more taking off. However, our business is still volatile from quarter to quarter. While we've managed through that cyclicality many times before and come out stronger on the other side, we’re currently in a down market and need to adjust our cost structure now so that we emerge from this period leaner, faster, and more efficient for our next phase of growth. Second, AI is changing how we work. Over the past year, I’ve watched engineers use AI to ship in days what used to take a team weeks. Non-technical teams are now shipping production code and many of our workflows are being automated. The pace of what's possible with a small, focused team has changed dramatically, and it's accelerating every day. All of this has led us to an inflection point, not just for Coinbase, but for every company. The biggest risk now is not taking action. We are adjusting early and deliberately to rebuild Coinbase to be lean, fast, and AI-native. We need to return to the speed and focus of our startup founding, with AI at our core. What this means To get there, we are not just reducing headcount and cutting costs, we’re fundamentally changing how we operate: rebuilding Coinbase as an intelligence, with humans around the edge aligning it. What does this mean in practice? - Fewer layers, faster decisions: We are flattening our org structure to 5 layers max below CEO/COO. Layers slow things down and create coordination tax. The future is small, high context teams that can move quickly. Leaders will own much more, with as many as 15+ direct reports. Fewer layers also means a leaner cost structure that is built to perform through all market cycles. - No pure managers: Every leader at Coinbase must also be a strong and active individual contributor. Managers should be like player-coaches, getting their hands dirty alongside their teams. - AI-native pods: We’ll be concentrating around AI-native talent who can manage fleets of agents to drive outsized impact. We’ll also be experimenting with reduced pod sizes, including “one person teams” with engineers, designers, and product managers all in one role. In short: AI is bringing a profound shift in how companies operate, and we’re reshaping Coinbase to lead in this new era. This is a new way of working, and we need to leverage AI across every facet of our jobs. To those who are affected I know there are real people behind these decisions — talented colleagues who have poured themselves into this company and our mission. To those of you who will be leaving: thank you. You’ve helped build Coinbase into what it is today, and I am sincerely grateful for everything you've done. All impacted team members will receive an email to their personal account in the next hour with more information, and an invitation to meet with an HRBP and a senior leader in your organization. Coinbase system access has been removed today. I know this feels sudden and harsh, but it is the only responsible choice given our duty to protect customer information. To those affected, we will be providing a comprehensive package to support you through this transition. US employees will receive a minimum of 16 weeks base pay (plus 2 weeks per year worked), their next equity vest, and 6 months of COBRA. Employees on a work visa will get extra transition support. Those outside of the US will receive similar support, based on local factors and subject to any consultation requirements. Coinbase prides itself on talent density. Our employees are among the most talented people in the world, and I have no doubt that your skills and experience will be highly sought after as you pursue your next chapters. How we move forward To the team that is staying, I know this is a difficult day. We’re saying goodbye to colleagues and friends you've been in the trenches with. But here’s what I want you to know as we move forward together: Over the past 13 years, we have weathered four crypto winters, gone public, and built the most trusted platform in our industry. We’ve made it this far by making hard decisions and by always staying focused on our mission. This time will be no different – nothing has changed about the long term outlook of our company or industry. And most importantly, our mission has never been more important for the world. Increasing economic freedom requires a new financial system, and we’re building it. The Coinbase that emerges from this will be more capable than ever to achieve our mission. Brian

English
97
18
546
107.6K
DeFi Warhol
DeFi Warhol@Defi_Warhol·
Today we cancel Ash
ZachXBT@zachxbt

What’s funny is people forget @AshCrypto (AshWSB) ran a similar pump & dump schemes for illiquid alt tokens on CEXs Example: -Ash made a call for ROYA -Few hours later posted “Who the f is selling like this” -Said “We are holding 100% of our roya + buying more here.” -Meanwhile Ash had been the one dumping tokens on his followers from a wallet he had shared to send payments for his paid group etherscan.io/token/0x7eaf9c…

English
10
9
56
8.2K