erazz101.eth

@WisdomTreeEU @DSilenskyteWT @HuxtableJonny @linkpoolio wen wisdomtree x morpho x wstlink ?

Crypto is powered by systems most users never see. In the latest episode of Crypto Clarified, @DSilenskyteWT and @vihnqtran519 are joined by @HuxtableJonny and Johannes Goettsch from @linkpoolio. Together they look under the hood of crypto and explore the systems powering smart contracts, DeFi and tokenisation. Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/episode/31LRHh… Watch on YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=KQF0-2… #marketingcommunication

Smartcon 5 was announced mid april last year . We should have an announcement anytime soon.

@ARiHBARi @CryptoHayes @scottmelker @The_DTCC @chainlink how big of a cognitive dissonance it must be to go from this tweet : x.com/scottmelker/st… to the current one.

🚨 @CRYPTOHAYES & @SCOTTMELKER TRY TO DISCREDIT @THE_DTCC & @CHAINLINK PARTNERSHIP BY SAYING "OVER TIME WE SEE THAT NONE OF THESE DEALS MEAN ANYTHING" BECAUSE "IT DOESN'T MOVE THE TOKEN🚨 $LINK

Sheesh Chainlink just dropped the biggest partnership of all time and people are still sleeping on it The alpha, anon, is that most people don't even know what the DTCC is or how big it is... $3.7 QUADRILLION in 2025 yearly volume That's patently absurd Most people can't comprehend 1 Trillion dollars, let alone 1 Quadrillion which is 1000x a Trillion The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) is the premier, industry-owned, post-trade market infrastructure for the global financial services industry Aka, the entire world's trades run on its platform It operates as the central backbone of U.S. capital markets by providing clearing, settlement, and information services for equities, corporate/municipal bonds, and derivatives And @chainlink just casually dropped a partnership announcement saying the DTCC chose their infra as the main oracle for on/off chain data 24/7 markets now running on the DTCC via ChainLink I'm starting to ask myself if this is one of the biggest partnerships by a crypto company ever And if it's one of the biggest indicators all-time of just how early we are Yes, I am positioned in ethereum:0x514910771af9ca656af840dff83e8264ecf986ca. I first started buying in October of 2019 and sold on the way up in 2021. After seeing this, I'm adding to my positions as I think it's a 10x from here during the next liquidity cycle If we want the whole world to come onchain, or the blockchain to marry TradFi's current infra, my bet is that Chainlink will be the tech in the middle They are a mature company with a real product and an outstanding executive team These are the kind of bets you want to be making Adoption --> Revenue --> Scale

@CatfishFishy @jing0_ Although they launched their platform without any mention of chainlink

x.com/chainlink/stat… >Entities like the DTCC and Citadel don't want to rely on Sergey owning their security infra. You're speaking about the organization and protocol that is magnitudes ahead of everyone else in terms of institutional adoption. LayerZero's only non DeFi integration is the Wyoming stablecoin.

"It was built so that every single application can completely own their security end-to-end and do not need to rely on LayerZero Labs at all. ... Our thesis was that this is the only method that institutional assets and institutions themselves would adopt long term. This architecture is exactly why it has been chosen by the largest asset issuers in the world". I think this pretty important point is getting glossed over by all the $link marines... Entities like the DTCC and Citadel don't want to rely on Sergey owning their security infra.

It sounds weird to say, but It’s actually a good thing when the link marines show up again Chain link was built when decentralization was still cool. The fact it matters again, is a good sign.

@colorado_crypto Not to say what

It’s literally taking everything I got not to say anything rn. 🤐 $Link

@PowerHasheur C'est quoi l'annonce de LINK?

Seconde bombe dans la même journée. Juste après l’annonce de LINK pour les agents IA C’est typiquement ce que je mentionnais dans ma dernière vidéo youtu.be/dy4oaqMW0fg

6m$ week inflow for chainlink ETF's, that roughly 6times the accumulation pattern of the chainlink reserve. $link

A proposal for Lido DAO to contribute to @aave’s coordinated rsETH relief effort has landed on the Research Forum following this week’s Kelp's rsETH LayerZero bridge exploit. The proposal authorizes a one-time, capped contribution of up to 2,500 stETH to a dedicated relief vehicle, solely as part of a fully funded recovery package. The proposal is designed to reduce broader ecosystem spillover and support an orderly resolution for affected users. DeFi United. Read more below: research.lido.fi/t/lido-dao-con…

@bkiepuszewski I did'nt knew that, thanks for that information. It might be useful

Lot's of discussion re: should reETH mainnet holders be affected by kelpDAO LZ bridge hack or not. Some argue that every reETH (on L1 and L2s) is "equal", part of the same "social contract" that should be known to all reETH holders. Also, for all intents and purposes, they are fungible, so how can they not be the same ? Others point out that, from the technical PoV, we actually have two different tokens on mainnet - rsETH and rsETH-OFT wrapper. Is this really a technicality, an unimportant implementation detail, and they are part of the same, common "social contract" or they cannot be ? In my opinion implementation which anyone can (and should) verify should follow a social contract. KelpDAO implemented reETH w/out OFT functionality first. Later, they could have upgraded it to include OFT functionality. The ability to upgrade is part of a social contract (as it can be seen in the code and anyone that buys reETH agrees to the upgradability functionality). Ideally there should be a time delay, so if you are reETH holder and you see an upgrade that you don't like, you can rage-quit. Monitoring of upgrades and time delays should be the norm as is the case in any social contract in the real world - your supplier changes Terms - you should be able to quit the contract But KelpDAO did not do the upgrade. Instead they created a seperate reETH-OFT wrapper. This action cannot be detected by reETH holder just by observing reETH contract onchain. I fail to see how reETH holders could automatically enter the new "social contract" of an OFT version of reETH. The confusion clearly comes from the fact that every single UI, ranging from wallets to exchanges and DeFi apps fooled everybody that reETH and reETH-OFT are the same tokens. No, they are not. They carry very different operational risks. Hiding this fact is something I am strongly opposed to. You want the convenience (and risks) of an OFT token? Fine, issue your token as a pure burn-mint OFT or upgrade the existing token to it. But if you create an OFT wrapper, you create a new token with a new social contract. The main problem with this interpretation is that - ironically - it creates much bigger losses for Aave (see governance.aave.com/t/rseth-incide…), so it is perhaps not surprising that the "all rsETH is the same" theory is being promoted. But don't be fooled - if you are a mainnet rsETH holder, you should not be exposed to rsETH-OFT wrapper risks.

@josefabregab @aave need a crystal clear resolution for that..

@Dark_Emi_ @BoubouSGC de plus en plus l'impression que ca vient plus du fisc que d'ailleurs

@BoubouSGC Même les gens pas dox se font kidnapper, ca change franchement pas grand chose Ce qui compte c'est les infos dans les fichiers leaké

Les influenceurs crypto français qui sont dox doivent tellement regretter ce choix de carrière.

There is still a lot of misunderstanding I see, key point is: native rsETH != OFT rsETH Native rsETH = claim to re-staked ETH on mainnet OFT rsETH = claim to native rsETH held in LayerZero They are not equivalent or fungible, you can't just say "rsETH is unbacked by 18%" that is not the case and assumes all rsETH is fungible. More accurately: native rsETH is backed 100% (all of the ETH backing is still available and claims can be exercised 1:1); OFT rsETH is backed ~25% (40k ETH of backing rescued by Kelp team after the Hack, rest of the backing is gone) There is an explicit difference between the two assets, native rsETH is a claim to the underlying ETH and is exposed to risks associated with slashing, smart contracts, etc. The OFT is a claim to native rsETH inheriting all of it's risk but with the additional risk of LZ infrastructure. Two different assets, two different risk profiles. The fact they had the same Max LLTV (95%) on AAVE on both L1 and L2 implied the risk curator fully discounted the associated bridge risk of the OFT, if the risk of LayerZero would have been quantified to non-0 the Max LLTV on L2s should have been lower then on mainnet to account for extra risk.

@delucinator Blame ranking: 1. Layer Zero (looks like their centralized thing is what got exploited) 2. Kelp rsETH (trusted centralized Layer Zero) 3. L2 rsETH users (chose to use trustful L2s with trustful bridge) 4. AAVE (allowed dogshit rsETH as collateral)

@SovereignIntern Where have you seen they maxed out loan ? From what defiprime said it was more around 70% loan

以太坊链上5万个+arb链上2万个，*13%，坏账约等于9000个eth.

刚才帖子不对，即使kelpdao修改官方的rseth和eth的汇率也还是有坏账的，aave按照9.3折借出去，底层资产最多能收回8折，也就是至少借出金额的13%的差额无法收回。这是预估的坏账规模，也就是2000万美金级别坏账。

@retiredpotatoz @llamaonthebrink Well, the loan was overcollateraliazed around 70%, right ? So theoriticaly, even if ~18% bad debt, it could bé paid ?

Well Aave part is true. On Kelp dao part, actually issue occured on main net, it wasnt bridged and minted on arbitrum. For kelp dao logical and fair would be giving haircut of %18 to everyone. And maybe find a buyer that would make everyone a whole. Its their fault so they have to oay for it as a team someway. If its %18, then Aave bad debt is below 40 mil. Which is literally a nothing burger. I mean even 170 , it can be handled. But why should Aave carry all loss , whatever haircut the token gets Aave gets the same dmg.

It might not be that simple though. According to Aave docs, the junior tranche, aka Umbrella depositors, are supposed to strictly be exposed to the chain they are staking on. That means that an aWETH Umbrella staker on Ethereum mainnet shouldn’t be punished for an unbacked LRT on other chains. The issue is that Aave has no control over how KelpDAO decides to handle the loss. Technically Aave V3 on mainnet is fully collateralized because rsETH on mainnet is fully collateralized. It’s Aave V3 on Arbitrum that technically has bad debt. In a sense I sympathize with the view that the bridged rsETH should bear the brunt of this exploit. Umbrella stakers on mainnet by definition did not sign up to cover losses from another chain. I’m honestly so saddened by this situation. There’s a longtime DeFi user in my DMs who’s suffering as a result of this exploit, and it really breaks my heart💔

@Dialectic_Group Could you elaborate further on these différence between l2 and mainnet ?

@Marczeller @PhiMarHal Kek,put all m'y eth in umbrella for the 28 days lock in case of french wrench attack only to get this. Seriously fuck this

@Erazz101 @PhiMarHal full nuke, but that's what they signed up for. (I have some wETH in umbrella)

Bloody hell. Lost a lot on this one, and can only blame myself. Thank God the drama was public and I withdrew most of my funds weeks ago, but I wish I cleaned all my wallets thoroughly.

@Marczeller @PhiMarHal Whats the worst case for umbrella depositoors ?

@PhiMarHal I think worst case current scenario is 5-8% haircut. you won't get nuked.