Silo Intern

A threesome of incentives have landed on the sAVAX-AVAX market on Silo Avalanche, with triple rewards in AVAX, xSILO, and QI. I'll now show you 3 easy plays for: 1⃣ 14.9% APR 2⃣ 46.7% APR 3⃣ 133.7% APR All on $AVAX. All from one single market. 👇

@SiloFinance @Tenzents @avantayman @avantprotocol @RobAnon @infiniFi @SaulCapital @re take notes📝

All Roads Lead to Silo v3 This is the first space in our AMA series exploring the markets live on Silo v3. Ethereum Low Risk Optima & Ethereal Vault Participants 🎙️ Speakers @Tenzents — @SiloFinance @avantayman — @avantprotocol @RobAnon — @infiniFi @SaulCapital — @re @Iv4n_Ko — @ResolvLabs 📆 March 25 • 11:00 AM ET 🅪 Hosted by @BausBuns We’ll break down the market thesis, use cases, and why these assets belong on Silo v3. Set your reminder below ⤵️

Silo's first v3 space has four protocols that each generate yield in completely different ways: * reinsurance premiums (@re) * on-chain fractional reserve (@infiniFi) * delta-neutral insurance layer (@ResolvLabs) * multi-manager strategies (@avantprotocol) all lined up as collateral in one vault. the type of assets v3 can support is the part most ppl are going to miss set your reminder 👇

@AMLBotHQ 😭

@SiloIntern We traced the funds -- sadly almost all of it went to Tornado Cash. x.com/AMLBotHQ/statu…

Why permissionless DeFi is a double edged sword? dTRINITY got exploited for $257K today. here's what actually happened: their dLEND pool (an Aave v3 fork) had a rounding flaw in the cbBTC aToken share math. mint and burn both used the same half-up rounding conversion. at a high liquidity index, withdrawals could exceed deposits. attacker flash loaned, deposited ~$772 USDC valued as ~$4.8M collateral, borrowed 257K dUSD, then looped 127 deposit/withdraw cycles through a helper contract. each cycle extracted a bit more cbBTC than was put in. net profit after gas: ~$257K. pool TVL was only ~$435K. on March 5, @HypurrFi publicly disclosed a structural rounding vulnerability in Aave v3 versions prior to 3.5 with the same exploit pattern. conditions: high per-unit token price, low decimals, low gas fees. cbBTC checks all three. dLEND is an Aave v3 fork. unclear whether they were running a patched version, but the exploit matching a known vulnerability from 12 days earlier raises questions.

Today the intern accidentally read U.S. securities law instead of the usual liquidation dashboards. and uhhh… the SEC and CFTC just dropped joint guidance on crypto and it might actually be one of the biggest regulatory shifts in years. for the first time ever regulators published a formal token taxonomy, basically a classification system for what different crypto assets actually are under U.S. law. instead of the previous regulatory strategy which was roughly: “everything is a security until proven otherwise in court” they now split the world into five buckets. intern summary below (NFA): 1. Digital Commodities things that function like decentralized networks or stores of value. think: $BTC, $ETH, $SOL, $XRP, $DOGE, $ADA, $AVAX these mostly fall under CFTC land, not securities law. translation: not automatically SEC problems. 2. Digital Collectibles NFT-type assets. art, collectibles, cultural stuff. generally not securities unless someone is marketing your jpeg like a hedge fund. 3. Digital Tools utility tokens used to access networks or protocols. if the token is actually used for the network and not just vibes + speculation, it may fall outside securities classification. 4. Payment Stablecoins payment rails, dollar tokens, settlement stuff. these will likely fall under emerging stablecoin frameworks (like the GENIUS Act) focusing on: • reserves • transparency • payment functionality not securities regulation. 5. Digital Securities this is the one bucket the SEC still fully owns. things like: • tokenized stocks • tokenized bonds • revenue-sharing instruments aka things that are very obviously securities. but the real alpha from the doc is one line from SEC chairman Paul Atkins: “Investment contracts can come to an end.” intern translation: a token can start its life as a security (like during an ICO) but once the network becomes decentralized enough… it can graduate out of securities status. yes. the SEC basically acknowledged a regulatory off-ramp. crypto people have been arguing for this for like 7 years. the guidance also suggests that core blockchain activities like: • staking • mining • airdrops • wrapping tokens are not automatically securities transactions. which removes a giant cloud of legal uncertainty over how most blockchains actually function. also teased: a startup safe harbor proposal. projects could raise up to $5M over four years without full SEC registration while their network develops. basically a regulatory sandbox for early crypto startups. zooming out for a second: for the past decade crypto regulation in the U.S. mostly looked like lawsuit first rules later this guidance signals a shift toward forward looking legislation and classification. wild concept. if this framework sticks, it could end up being one of the most important regulatory events for crypto since the Bitcoin ETF approvals in 2024. intern still digesting but first impression: the regulators are getting closer to accurate defintions and legal guidance to help the industry grow, which should lead to a great deal more innovation and opportunity for investment! OFC NFA. And as always, SILO the RISK!

@Factor_fi @aave @growcompound @Morpho sweet tool -- have you heard of @SiloFinance 👀

Want to create an Earn vault that’s not just limited to a single protocol? With Factor Studio, you can lend across @aave , @growcompound , and @Morpho markets A single interface to manage and migrate positions, no code required.

@Eli5defi paradox of too many choices is reaaal. We like Claude Code -- wdyt?

Should I use Claude Code/Codex? Or is it better for me to use OpenClaw? What about Hermes? This new thing is lit asf. I get it. So I had AI create a decision-flow flowchart to help you choose what’s best for your project (mobile optimized) ⤵ claude.ai/public/artifac…

@yield meditated on multichain yield

@628Labs Pushing to the upper bound!

$0.1B 11 months 11 vaults 11 positive autism tests later TAU Vaults reach $100m TVL 🎉

@injective @circle Moar onchain capital flows plz 😘

USDC and CCTP, powered by @circle, are officially coming to Injective. The world's largest regulated stablecoin. Secure crosschain transfers. All natively integrated into the fastest blockchain built for finance. Mainnet loading. ⏳

DeFi 101 -- Episode 4: The Metrics Edition DeFi projects love reporting big numbers. OI. TVL. Volume. Users. Fees. Very impressive, but frequently misleading. A lot of these numbers reveal less than people think. 1. Open Interest (OI) can mean very different things In perps, a $70k BTC long is $70k of OI backed by real collateral and liquidation risk. In options, a $100k BTC call with BTC at $70k can also add $70k of notional OI -- even if the premium paid was only a few hundred dollars. Same headline number. Very different actual exposure. 2. Notional vs real exposure Notional is the face value of a position. It is also the biggest number a protocol can put on a dashboard. A $70k notional options position might only represent ~$7k of real directional exposure. So when you see a giant number, ask: > How much capital is actually behind it? 3. OI is not reported the same way everywhere Some protocols count both sides of a trade. One buyer + one seller = 2x OI Others report single-sided OI, where one trade = one contract. So two platforms can show very different OI numbers for the exact same economic activity. Comparing OI without checking the methodology is how people end up over-inflating numbers with accounting. 4. Volume numbers can be inflated or misleading “$10B total volume” sounds great. But what does it mean? > $10M per day over years? > $10B in one incentive-fueled week? > Organic trading? > Wash trading with rewards attached? Volume without context is just a large number dressed in a gorilla costume made to "make you look" in awe 5. User numbers are usually wallet numbers “100k users” usually means 100k wallets touched the protocol once. That does not mean 100k active humans. Better questions: > How many daily active users? > What is retention like? > Are they coming back? How much are they actually transacting? One-time vs sustained usage are not the same thing. 6. Fees need context too High fees feel & look bullish, and sometimes they are. Or they are just subsidized activity wearing a fake mustache. A protocol can temporarily boost fees through: > trading incentives > liquidity mining > private market-maker deals > point farming behavior High fees do not automatically mean real demand, and might just mean the protocol is paying people to make the protocol look busy when activity is spoofed. 7. The real point DeFi dashboards are full of large numbers. But every metric comes with assumptions, definitions, and accounting choices underneath it. So before you get seduced by the dashboard, ask: > What is this actually measuring? > How is it calculated? > What real economic activity sits underneath it? The metric/number is rarely the whole story. 8. Final rule Big number ≠ big business. Sometimes it does, but most of the time, it's just notional, incentives, double-counting, or wallet spam with good lighting. Read the metric, then read the fine print. — SILO INTERN

the aiBTC vault on @yieldyak_ is doing 11.7% apy on btc rn here's how it works 👇 1. deposit btc 2. vault uses @SiloFinance savBTC · BTC.b market on avalanche 3. borrows BTC.b against savBTC collateral from @avantprotocol 4. loops the strategy automatically automated btc yield without you touching a thing 🧠 this is what silo markets enable

@cryptokwueene intern likes a HAUS party

If you thought things couldn't get more interesting, just wait until oil hits $200/barrel. Play with fire and you get burned! Always remember to SILO THE RISK!

asking Claude web to create a prompt for Claude code

DAOs without clear profit distribution via onchain revenues are bound to fail, unless the members in said DAO have incentives to keep the DAO operating. Of course, every DAO is different and no single DAO is 100% identical to the next. @elonmusk be treated on case by case basis

If you guys haven't figured it out yet, almost all Defi/DAO token are truly uninvestible from my pov. Aave governance with Stani ruining the Aave token just made all this even more clear As it currently stands you have to fade: -Grifters/consultants/3rd party teams continually looting the treasury overcharging for useless services and value extraction -Overcome fake governance votes where votes are done in a cartel fashion and not in the interests of any actual retail token holders -Dodge left tail risk in the sense a team in any given moment will drive accrued value to equity or 3rd parties instead of the native token because there are absolutely zero shareholder rights except selling your tokens at a loss if/when this happens All of these things while trying to command premium P/E's in a space where disruption happens fast, cyclical revenue patterns, is just not a good usage of investor capital unless specific circumstances align perfectly The only investible model to me moving forward is: -The team completely owns the decision making/roadmap, no fake DAO stuff -Has long term incentives tied to the token value -Has made any equity a zero, both in their words and their actions -Has actual integrity so you do not have to watch them 24/7 and waste energy scrutinising every decision they take If a protocol does this, it allows you to then at least bet on a team and not just get sucked into a broken DAO model that will incinerate your capital. The model of the last 5y of trying to double dip (both equity and token) while doing the whole 'trust me bro' with respect to the token not being a zero is IMO finally officially over

If intern had a nanny, it would be Sydney Sweeny