Marco

The Lindy Effect says things that the survivors keep surviving. In DeFi it is treated it like a security badge. Been live since 2020 == battle-tested. Never been hacked == safe. TVL held through multiple bear markets == Fort Knox. April 2026 just tested that logic with 577M gone in 17 days. Thread on the Glass Lindy 🧵

@LowBeta Is comparing to covered calls (or the rough equivalent written puts) ATM really fair? Agree with the payoff profile shape but wouldn't it be more like OTM put writing? If btc doesn't nothing or goes down a lil, I assume they can still pay the preferreds dividends?

I’m sorry but I’m triggered again “When buy $STRC, you're buying a 0.5%-1% vol stock - your principal is as safe as it possibly can be and you're being paid 11.5% as a privilege.” Yikes!! Some thoughts: grayscale.com/the-stack/no-n…

The Glass Lindy: Why Surviving Isn’t the Same as Being Safe Revisiting the Lindy effect marco112358.medium.com/the-glass-lind…

The Glass Lindy checklist that actually matters in 2026: Annual audits (not just at launch) with real bug bounties in real dollars, and social engineering defenses + device separation. Please audit all of your single points of failure. Lindy is a heuristic. Not a security posture. Full piece: @marco112358/the-glass-lindy-why-surviving-isnt-the-same-as-being-safe-9770a2cc8dd4" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">medium.com/@marco112358/t… (Not a security expert or dev, just someone who cares about this space staying intact and hopefully growing)

17 days later, Kelp DAO lost 292M. The bridge worked. It just believed fake RPC nodes instead of real ones. 1-of-1 verifier was a known risk. Both attacks: likely the Lazarus Group... 577M in 17 days. "This is not a series of incidents. It is a cadence." ENS Labs CISO

The Lindy Effect says things that the survivors keep surviving. In DeFi it is treated it like a security badge. Been live since 2020 == battle-tested. Never been hacked == safe. TVL held through multiple bear markets == Fort Knox. April 2026 just tested that logic with 577M gone in 17 days. Thread on the Glass Lindy 🧵

Prolly my favorite one so far, focusing on isolated markets. Agreed mostly with this analysis, tho wonder if historical expected loss unbaised ex ante (given better tooling, Ai etc). Also hard for me to see institutional capital (whether their own balance sheet or client assets) putting money into defi for 35 bps over SOFR. But awesome piece

@flipdazed Is this not mostly an issue with stale pricing of private credit

I've been looking at this with a TradFi trading desk recently and one thing that was pointed out (which unintuitively makes sense) is that public CDS indices are a tricky hedge for private credit. 1. Public credit tends to actually drift the opposite way to private credit in prolonged market periods o uncertainty. When there is a flight to safety the market doesn't remove credit exposure, rather public credit with higher disclosures and certainty just gets more expensive. That means shorting public credit as a hedge for private credit is not a great idea if it's a slow bleed. 2. Public CDS can hedge extreme shocks. Public credit spreads were found to widen in relation to private credit shocks but only when they were extreme. I guess this is because it reflects macro concerns in the moment. The problem is that if the shock is prolonged, the CDS cost of carry (theta bleed) basically gives back all your PnL. This is similar to being Long Vega in options trading (or buying rolling Puts) What is left then? - Custom CDS name indices can solve for a lot of the exposure but requires a sophisticated investment banking partner to write such indices. - Run the same trade with public credit RWAs with public credit indices. This is a fairly obvious workaround. - Public credit hedges as tactical macro overlay. I don't see this being widely adopted as crypto funds don't really thinking about portfolio risk like this yet.

🚨 DeFi Liquidity Update 🚨 Attention all Cardano DeFi protocols! We are preparing for the 2nd withdrawal and are beginning the proposal process. The request for proposals and guidelines for submission are in the linked Google Doc. Make sure to tag your favorite protocol, like and share to spread the word. docs.google.com/document/d/1dZ…

Lean into decentralization. Ideal for tradfi institutions who desire public, permissionless ecosystems to deploy into. The challenge is ecosystem wide liquidity and traditional crypto primitives. And the desire to create permissioning at the "token" and "smart contact" level. Not at the chain level. See how firms like blackrock, jpm, janus, etc are deploying on ethereum. Desire for permissionless networks but permissioning at a different level (for kyc aml etc)

Cardano needs some kind of cool factor or focus factor marketing theme. The tech is incredible, the cool/focus is the last piece missing imho. Bitcoin - hard money Ethereum - DeFi & Institutions Solana - A million markets in your pocket Hype - does one thing extremely well Zcash - extreme cypherpunk privacy Avalanche - built for business Cardano - research, academia, governance Not sure where I am going with this. Just thinking out loud.

Big win for @ipor_io and @tesseractcrypto choosing (imo) the best vault infrastructure out there for complaint, custom vault strategies

@Only1temmy Crypto rails will be used. Probably defi to some extent as well. But this doesn't mean there is value capture at the token level... BTW same boat. The obvious answer is broad diversification into assets with legitimate risk premium. These r hard to justify for most tokens

i'm 35, married, with two young kids (4 and 2). i have a stable career in finance, a decent income, a mortgage, and the usual responsibilities. i'm not an expert in every new token, but i'm also not someone who thinks everything in crypto is a scam. i've been in crypto since 2017. i've seen the 2018 crash, defi summer, the 2022 collapses, and now what feels like a more institutional cycle. here's what i'm struggling with: defi was supposed to replace traditional finance, or at least seriously disrupt it. permissionless lending, decentralized exchanges, yield without middlemen. and technically, it works. but: • most users still speculate instead of actually using protocols • real-world adoption seems slow • regulation is tightening • institutions are building regulated defi, which kind of defeats the original point at 25, i would have gone all-in on the vision. at 35, with kids and long-term responsibilities, i think differently. i'm thinking in 10 to 20-year horizons. i don't care about a 10x in 6 months. i care about structural relevance. so my honest question: do you believe defi will still be meaningfully relevant in 10 years? or will it remain a niche playground for crypto-native capital? more specifically: • will defi integrate with traditional finance? • or will it be regulated into something unrecognizable? • or will most value accrue to centralized players anyway? i'm genuinely trying to assess whether allocating serious capital to defi protocols today is a rational long-term thesis, or just ideological conviction dressed up as an investment strategy. curious to hear thoughtful perspectives. not just "number go up" takes. ps: discussion is from reddit, just need more thoughts on this matter.

Thats a good way to think about it from the borrower side. I have seen levered looping curators purposefully wait in slightly unprofitable positions to not delever and tske the short term negative APR versus fixed trx costs. It makes sense. But in the "utility function" of the market, i may put more weight on 'liquidity' of lender position knowing it makes 'demand from borrowers' a bit lower due to higher rate sensitivity

Never talk about hard kink again - it’s 💩😆 In general borrowers repay when they’re unprofitable so a high rate isn’t even necessary, an unprofitable rate is necessary and we shouldn’t generally increase unnecessary volatility in that process of moving them into an unprofitable position. In general (having been a borrower) borrowers are incredibly reactive to interest rate delta. If the curve ramps from marginally unprofitable to catastrophically unprofitable, they do not just delever faster. They are less likely to use the market again. You want responsive incentives, not destruction of positions. The goal for a structurer on fixed income markets is to build demand on both sides of the trade.

@DarrenCamas Will be extremely curious to hear how this convos go!

topics I want to discuss at EthCC / VaultSummit - Vaultification - Institutional vaults - DeFi native rates and macro - RWA as DeFi collateral

What are your thoughts on curators should own a peice of the 'equity tranche' like first loss capital. Like risk retention rules that came out post GFC. I don't think it should be a requirement but I think curators showing they own a piece of the risk should give depositors more comfort in the overall risk tsking of the strategy. Vaults r just different wrappers. Tradfi constantly innovating wrappers (mutual funds to etfs to smas, closed end illiquid funds to interval funds/tender offers, etc)

Interesting read. I’ll just leave a couple comments that may be useful to anyone who is into this topic. > The ERC 4626 share price is the depositor's mark-to-market. When it falls below the entry price, the depositor has taken a loss. That loss reflects the vault shortfall How this works in practice has significant variation, even within the same protocol. For example, the difference between a Morpho v1.0 and v1.1 vault is the difference between enforced pari passu haircuts on everyone and race conditions to avoid being last out the door and being zeroed out. (Note that instant pari passu leaves open edge cases for flash loan manipulations of share price if not accounted for another way.) So there’s significant trade offs in the designs to handle insolvency. Everyone focuses on liquidity right now, but as dust settles, solvency becomes very important! I suspect most curators themselves couldn’t tell you easily which of their Morpho, Euler, or bespoke vaults handle a shortfall one way vs another. Depositors definitely don’t. And even devs who wrote the code likely have to go double check the docs before answering. This is part of a nagging problem in general with evergreen funds/vaults in DeFi, which is to get subordination or pari passu treatment to operate as intended. I would say it’s mostly an ignored problem until something bad happens and Depositor A gets out at 100% while Depositor B takes a 5% loss and Depositor C eats dirt. Whatever the mitigations and trade offs you prefer, I think no one wants seniority to be determined by speed. It’s prone to favor those who have inside information or just paying close attention, and makes depositors prone to withdrawals first and ask questions later. This destroys the value proposition of curators, because you have to constantly check up behind them and monitor the collateral issuers to avoid being the dumb, slow money - especially when the curators are usually most likely to be in a position to save their own funds at risk before anyone else. So to justify the fees, curators need to understand and communicate what the seniority stack actually is when a market goes bad. It’s in everyone’s interest to work out how an automated onchain bankruptcy plays out without relying on “bank run maximalist” as the winning strategy to be de facto senior to fellow depositors.

@mathy_research @cloud_r3n Have u checked put @xerberus rating reports of @ipor_io fusion vaults? If not, worth a look!