MegAggregator

@levelsio I think in France you even pay that for 2nd hand product (and including phones obviously)

/r/mildlyinteresting In Portugal you pay up to €7.50 when you buy a laptop called a "copyright levy" You pay €4/TB of storage in the computer, so for a MacBook Neo 13" with 512GB that's €2.05 It's regulation made in 1998 to compensate artists for you illegally sharing MP3 files which nowadays of course doesn't make sense anymore since we have Spotify and YouTube Much of the money doesn't even arrive with artists btw, 30% is taken by the organization collecting the tax and lot of it remains unclaimed and some of that goes again to the organization collecting the tax as "operational costs" 🤡

@mindsharexbt 💀💀💀💀💀

@MegAggregator Je connais pas assez l’arbitrage sur Polymarket donc j’ai parlé de ce que je savais sur Solana mais globalement ça reste l’infra le problème mis à part l’ordre book offchain

arrêtez maintenant de croire que tout le monde peut dev un bot rentable sur ces marchés Polymarket en effet tout le monde peut détecter des opportunités d'arbitrages, mais prendre le trade nécessite des RPC privés, des bundles Jito, un routing de transactions custom et une latence sous les 400 ms soit une infrastructure inaccessible pour la plupart d'entre vous, en + du code ultra optimisé qui ne passe pas uniquement par claude code c'est ce que vous devez prendre en compte avant de vouloir dev votre propre bot

@vordexmega @megaeth Hi how can I try the app. Thanks 🙏

Large orders should not damage the market they move through With #Vordex TWAMM on @megaeth , a large order is not executed in one aggressive swap. It is split into a very high number of small trades executed over a defined time horizon #veDEX $VEX #megaeth $MEGA

@rahulios1 You are exposed to the nav fluctuation. If the fluctuation is larger than the LTV you are rekt too You are less exposed to the variation of the yield tho as loopers will lock their position for a while and won’t loop/unloop every 2 days

Yesterday I argued that RWA looping is good for Lenders too. The obvious follow-up question is: "If the underlying RWA yields 7% and I am lending at 6% - why wouldn't I just buy the RWA?" The answer is lending and borrowing are two different risk profiles and can't be directly compared. In this case, Lenders get: 1. No direct asset exposure - Lenders deposit USDC and get USDC back. No exposure to the underlying NAV fluctuations. 2. More Liquidity - Lenders can withdraw and redeploy capital at any time, without penalty. 3. Better Diversification - Lenders deposit into a curated vault allocating across multiple collateral markets - reducing single asset risk. 4. An Equity Cushion - Borrowers face the first loss on drawdowns, insulating lenders from all but tail scenarios. 5. Operational Simplicity - Lenders just deposit USDC while Borrowers need to manage all the onchain actions to execute the loop. Net-net, Lenders take less risk and get more liquidity, which is reflected in the yield differentials.

@thokani Nah we cool

france is a generational fumble ngl u have a stunning landscape, language is beautiful and u have amazing artist like edith piaf and charles trenet sadly the french people now are genuine scum

@llamaonthebrink But you can’t swap 50m to 30k while hearing moooooo on solana tho

There are so many good options out there by he knows this. He built he’s account as an ETH hater and wants to remain in the spirit of being on brand. If it were a swap on Solano? He would be shilling whichever “start up” he used to execute the trade as the future of finance.

@palis Even easier to do that now because apps display a « new member » tag on profiles

One of the best strategies on dating apps is spawn camping This is where you swipe through the entire dating market in a distance + age range. It can take a week or so of 30min per day, but narrow the distance setting (and age range) so it’s easier. Then when you swipe daily you mainly hit new members. When you want to expand past spawn camping, just expand the distance/age ranges again This is incredibly effective for men because a significant percent of women have low retention rates (*green flag*) and do not spend a long time on these apps. These women either get swooped up quickly because some high elo guy established a connection (usually she’ll get burned, sometimes she’ll get lucky and find a man), or these girls become quickly overwhelmed by the number of likes, matches and draining nature of low quality pickup messages from burned out men, and leave the app Women who are on dating apps long term is often a huge red flag in a variety of ways. Not all of them, but if they’re attractive it means they’re usually either serial daters or aren’t getting into relationships for a very good reason and you don’t want to waste your time finding out why Spawn camping like this can also sometimes allow you to bat way out of your league, if you establish a connection and contact outside the app, and she stops opening it before encountering the 10/10 players who will ruin everything for you once she’s matched a handful of them I’d say this is in my top-3 most important and effective strategies when using dating apps

@0xpeternguyen @Ehsan1579 The quote he signed

@0xpeternguyen @Ehsan1579 The quote went through susi that’s the problem

@PhiMarHal The 50m drama now Future of finance

Log on Twitter. See a random post about Aave wrongly liquidating $27M yesterday. Check Aave account. Nothing except self congratulatory posts about the next party they're having. Low risk DeFi.

@Ehsan1579 Still doesn’t answer why the initial quote is through sushi lol But it’s ok thanks for the answer g

In Aave’s CoW collateral-swap flow, the frontend does not bind the user to a specific venue or path; it requests a CoW amount quote, stores only the output numbers, and the main output box is populated from an optimistic destSpotAmount, not from the final signed minimum. Then, in a separate step, Aave recomputes the actual order’s buyAmount lower by subtracting network fee, partner fee, flash-loan fee, and slippage, while the quote request itself is missing the adapter hook/flash-loan appData that defines real execution. So the user was not really signing “a Sushi route” or “a Uniswap route” in the first place; they were signing a generic CoW order with a catastrophically weak minimum receive. Once that malformed floor was low enough, the solver was free to encode the Sushi hop because that tiny pool was still sufficient to satisfy the signed minimum, even though it was absurd versus available Uniswap liquidity.

@unfinished_kek @CoWSwap At least is costs you 0$ in gas 😎

you can verify the quotes you would get for swapping $50M AAVE tokens on Ethereum. But what's funny here is: why would @CoWSwap provide such inferior quotes compared to other aggregators? The only explanation is the incompetence of their solvers?

@unfinished_kek @CoWSwap Why tho, can’t find the answer anywhere on ct and too lazy to investigate myself omg

@Ehsan1579 x.com/unfinished_kek…

@Ehsan1579 It still doesn’t answer why the UI quote through sushi not uni? Why did the user was able to sign that in the first place, doesn’t make sense

@Ehsan1579 Thanks Just skimmed through it and it doesn’t answer tho? « The primary failure is on the CoW routing, quote, and solver side. The stack allowed a gigantic order to terminate in a microscopic final-hop pool » it should have terminated with the uni part not sushi, no?

@MegAggregator x.com/Ehsan1579/stat…

The solver routed through Sushi not because Uniswap liquidity was unavailable, but because the route generator was solving the wrong objective. At block 24643150, the Uniswap v3 AAVE/WETH pool 0x5ab53ee1d50eef2c1dd3d5402789cd27bb52c1bb held 53,164.7261 AAVE and 523.4226 WETH, which is about $6.93M at the incident-block Aave oracle prices, while the Sushi pool 0xd75ea151a61d06868e31f8988d28dfe5e9df57b4 held only 331.6320 AAVE and 17.6533 WETH, about $72.8K. But the replay trace of the actual settlement shows the executor 0x699c... explicitly did USDT -> WETH on Uniswap v3 0x4e68..., then called Sushi getReserves() on 0xd75e..., then immediately called Sushi swap(); the original calldata already embedded the Sushi pool address, so this was pre-encoded route selection, not runtime discovery. The reason this could still “win” is that CoW only had to satisfy the signed minimum 324.949260918... aEthAAVE, with an implied quote of only about 328.93 AAVE, so from the solver’s perspective a pool containing roughly 331 AAVE was enough inventory to clear the order, even though it was economically insane relative to fair value. In other words, the solver was not constrained by “find the deepest AAVE venue” or “find output consistent with market reality”; it was constrained by a catastrophically bad order floor, and once that floor was wrong, a dust-liquidity Sushi pool became admissible even though a rational fair-value router should either have used deeper Uniswap AAVE liquidity or rejected the route outright.

@0xAkina Évidemment que c’est fake ptdr chef concentre toi

Encore un entretien avec l'un des plus gros MM crypto où l'on me demande de télécharger un logiciel pour l'entretien. Je ne sais pas si c'est fake, mais si ça ne l'est pas, les candidats qui le téléchargent sans même poser de questions sont, à mon goût, un red flag direct quant à leur culture crypto. En tant que recruteur, je serais presque tenté de faire ce test pour écrémer les candidats. Bref, faites attention.

@jpn_memelord Do you have some intuition on why do the liquidity stays on this pool? Don’t most volume comes from aggregator, and switching to another DEX would save them uni fee with negligible order flow loss? Why do they stay with uni

Started looking at Uniswap fee switch on Base and encountered an anomaly. So it looks like Uniswap protocol fees may be ~$45k/day on Base, which is quite impressive (roughly half what they are bringing in on mainnet right now). But found something odd in the distribution.