Satyajeet

@PropJoshD @QuantTekel must be the first one in that list lmaooo

From a birds eye view, there seems to be quite a few props who are denying everyday traders but paying influencers payouts. The influencers then defend the prop saying that all is well here. This is really strange behavior and to me suggests these particular influencers are without morals.

@Sai_Prasan @PropJoshD Yes, that manual trade cut is an issue. But they said they are working on it to automate the switching. Hope it goes live soon.

Yes but that 14k needs to come when you are at break-even and shifted to a book u have to cut your banger trade and retake entry once it's shifted to a book they won't let u to take one trade recover 5% when you are in a dd of 2% so that's an opportunity miss No one can judge what my next trade would be unless you trade a fixed rr always

I need everyones help on something. So I have been reviewing a few props who are using the A/B switch logic. That is - a book to start, if lose 1% (lets use 1% for this experiment) go to B, when break even back to A, you have to make back the A-book loss and then everything above is part of the profit split. There are some variables im modelling for fun to check it out but - if this model exists and if payouts are on demand condition free (subject to cheating checks of course) is this appetizing? What I am trying to figure out is where the market is, is that initial 1% dd a deal breaker? Is the having to make up your a-book loss a deal breaker? I will have a few more posts in the coming week about this as I look deeper but am road tripping at the moment.

@Wasi11778 @propfundsquad @fundingpips @FundedHive You can make some buffer on that 1% before going DeGen mode too 😋

@SBRCapital @propfundsquad @fundingpips @FundedHive 1% drawdown lol

🚨 BREAKING: @fundingpips Just Changed the Game FundingPips is officially moving beyond demo environments… ➡️ Introducing REAL FUNDED ACCOUNTS. This could mark the first time a prop firm is stepping into actual live capital deployment at scale — a massive shift from the traditional “simulated funding” model. If executed right, this changes EVERYTHING: • Real market exposure • Real liquidity impact • Real trader accountability The prop firm industry has been built on simulations for years… Now the question is Is this the beginning of a new era, or just another experiment? 👀 All eyes on @fundingpips

@Sai_Prasan @PropJoshD Hello @Sai_Prasan, I really look up to you as a trader. The 3rd point you mentioned, I thought like this initially too. But the 1k cap is not really that kind of an issue ig. You make 14k in a day, withdraw 1k everyday treating it like a 14 day cycle. Equivalent, no ?

As a trader my risk is 499 for a 100k challenge it's almost the same if i take it from anywhere else which pay and are legit I have to make 3 win days to pass each phase which is not much a deal breaker. There are far more easier challenges at this price 2nd as a trader drawdown phases are eminent whenever i hit a 1% down prop forces me to make 2% back to earn back money so technically there is absolutely 0 risk which prop is taking here making it harder for the trader and what happens to the 499 i paid and the no of attempts it took to pass? Plus you fail th account once you go to drawdown 3-4 times even though you didn't breach 3rd these companies have a cap of 1k or so imagine you hit a nice swing or a great trade the same i could request a payout post 7 days or 14 days can be more than the amount i earn on a capped 1k split account requesting it daily

@PropJoshD @FundedHive is doing this, and I absolutely love their system. Especially because all of this is under the Web3 system. I can atleast sleep peacefully knowing whatever profit I make is in my control already, the team can't interfere in the payouts citing any kind of BS.

@Rv_Tradez @FTMarketslive 4 Digit Payout Comingggg 🚀

Finally got funded with @FTMarketslive 💙 Most underrated Firm Out there. What I like most about them is: Smooth Executions On demand payouts Best Spreads And yes the cherry on the top is Their Payout speed , Supeeeerrrrrr sexyyy. Definitely a Must try recommendation

@Rv_Tradez @FundedHive 👉👈

@FundedHive Satyajeet Kundu 😘

🐝🔥 Meet another successful trader from FundedHive Satyajeet , who has secured an impressive $52,633 in payouts 💰📈 What makes this even more inspiring is that most of these payouts were achieved in just the last 2–3 weeks. His journey started like many others. He purchased $2K Classic accounts during our RACE promo and earned a free $100K Classic account after passing. From there, he stayed consistent, got funded, received payouts, reinvested into more accounts, and kept building. Today, his results speak for themselves 🚀 And yes — all of his payouts were processed in under 60 seconds ⚡ This is exactly why profitable traders love Hive: ✅ Daily payouts ✅ No consistency rules ✅ Trader-friendly conditions ✅ Fast and reliable payout experience Stories like this show what can happen when discipline meets the right opportunity. Start your journey with Hive today 🐝 fundedhive.com

@FundedHive Thanks for this shoutout @FundedHive @thomas_heinfart . Thanks for building this beautiful prop firm pioneering on Transparency and Innovation ❤️

Thanks for this shoutout @FundedHive @thomas_heinfart . Thanks for building this beautiful prop firm pioneering on Transparency and Innovation ❤️

Now, the quantum resistance roadmap. Today, four things in Ethereum are quantum-vulnerable: * consensus-layer BLS signatures * data availability (KZG commitments+proofs) * EOA signatures (ECDSA) * Application-layer ZK proofs (KZG or groth16) We can tackle these step by step: ## Consensus-layer signatures Lean consensus includes fully replacing BLS signatures with hash-based signatures (some variant of Winternitz), and using STARKs to do aggregation. Before lean finality, we stand a good chance of getting the Lean available chain. This also involves hash-based signatures, but there are much fewer signatures (eg. 256-1024 per slot), so we do not need STARKs for aggregation. One important thing upstream of this is choosing the hash function. This may be "Ethereum's last hash function", so it's important to choose wisely. Conventional hashes are too slow, and the most aggressive forms of Poseidon have taken hits on their security analysis recently. Likely options are: * Poseidon2 plus extra rounds, potentially non-arithmetic layers (eg. Monolith) mixed in * Poseidon1 (the older version of Poseidon, not vulnerable to any of the recent attacks on Poseidon2, but 2x slower) * BLAKE3 or similar (take the most efficient conventional hash we know) ## Data availability Today, we rely pretty heavily on KZG for erasure coding. We could move to STARKs, but this has two problems: 1. If we want to do 2D DAS, then our current setup for this relies on the "linearity" property of KZG commitments; with STARKs we don't have that. However, our current thinking is that it should be sufficient given our scale targets to just max out 1D DAS (ie. PeerDAS). Ethereum is taking a more conservative posture, it's not trying to be a high-scale data layer for the world. 2. We need proofs that erasure coded blobs are correctly constructed. KZG does this "for free". STARKs can substitute, but a STARK is ... bigger than a blob. So you need recursive starks (though there's also alternative techniques, that have their own tradeoffs). This is okay, but the logistics of this get harder if you want to support distributed blob selection. Summary: it's manageable, but there's a lot of engineering work to do. ## EOA signatures Here, the answer is clear: we add native AA (see eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-8141 ), so that we get first-class accounts that can use any signature algorithm. However, to make this work, we also need quantum-resistant signature algorithms to actually be viable. ECDSA signature verification costs 3000 gas. Quantum-resistant signatures are ... much much larger and heavier to verify. We know of quantum-resistant hash-based signatures that are in the ~200k gas range to verify. We also know of lattice-based quantum-resistant signatures. Today, these are extremely inefficient to verify. However, there is work on vectorized math precompiles, that let you perform operations (+, *, %, dot product, also NTT / butterfly permutations) that are at the core of lattice math, and also STARKs. This could greatly reduce the gas cost of lattice-based signatures to a similar range, and potentially go even lower. The long-term fix is protocol-layer recursive signature and proof aggregation, which could reduce these gas overheads to near-zero. ## Proofs Today, a ZK-SNARK costs ~300-500k gas. A quantum-resistant STARK is more like 10m gas. The latter is unacceptable for privacy protocols, L2s, and other users of proofs. The solution again is protocol-layer recursive signature and proof aggregation. So let's talk about what this is. In EIP-8141, transactions have the ability to include a "validation frame", during which signature verifications and similar operations are supposed to happen. Validation frames cannot access the outside world, they can only look at their calldata and return a value, and nothing else can look at their calldata. This is designed so that it's possible to replace any validation frame (and its calldata) with a STARK that verifies it (potentially a single STARK for all the validation frames in a block). This way, a block could "contain" a thousand validation frames, each of which contains either a 3 kB signature or even a 256 kB proof, but that 3-256 MB (and the computation needed to verify it) would never come onchain. Instead, it would all get replaced by a proof verifying that the computation is correct. Potentially, this proving does not even need to be done by the block builder. Instead, I envision that it happens at mempool layer: every 500ms, each node could pass along the new valid transactions that it has seen, along with a proof verifying that they are all valid (including having validation frames that match their stated effects). The overhead is static: only one proof per 500ms. Here's a post where I talk about this: ethresear.ch/t/recursive-st… firefly.social/post/farcaster…

The Citrini report caused a market sell off. But Citadel and others published rebuttals. Pricing the likelihood of this AI doomsday scenario could decrease uncertainty in the broader market and make asset prices more efficient. Kalshi has it at 11%. citriniodds.com

@EzraWAF @JamesBeali @atlasfunded @EzraWAF @JamesBeali @atlasfunded No response?

@EzraWAF @JamesBeali @atlasfunded . Just got my 1×100k + 2×50k funded accounts wrongly terminated. Can we talk about it to resolve the matter before things get ugly ?

@TimesAlgebraIND @grok is this true ?

BIG NEWS 🚨 Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman said "We want to destroy Islamic extremism" He said "we want to co-exist with other religions" During his tenure, Saudi Arabia has introduced major reforms, shaping a more modern and moderate state. Kingdom has also reduced the influence of religious conservatism. A clip from a few years ago has gone viral 🔥

Starship can make life multiplanetary for the first time in Earth’s ~4.5 billion year existence.