Sol Beach Bum

Bullish on #Solana’s tech? But bearish on $Sol the asset? Myself and @StrategicHash have built a 🎉Solana Economic Model🎉 to put these theories to the test. TLDR? Sol can become one of the most expensive assets in the world… A thread

@0xAmol @RobertSagurton Seems to be your first time seeing this guy on your TL. FYI his ‘Solana killer’ is forked Firedancer with a centralised validator set to get latency down.

it’s fine to try to aim to build a solana killer. But then you talk about winning on perps. In which case Hyperliquid is your competition, not solana. And you don’t even register on their radar. you will be crawling uphill against the dead L1/L2s of the last 5 yrs. mega eth, monad, EOS, Cardano, XLM etc. all dead. not to mention building a community. and lastly youre taking a jab at solana by talking about respecting builders and users? the ecosystem if vast and there will always be some unhappy builders but top-down the Fndn still cares to address this issue. I’m not sure wha your personal gripe is w/ solana but I’d say a realistic 80% of builders are happy in the solana ecosystem.

Let’s call a spade a spade: Fogo was built to be a Solana killer. From designing for a competitive perps DEX, to actually delivering on IBRL in production. But the biggest difference? Respect for builders and users and a positive culture. The truth always comes out.

@joaomendoncaaaa @tamgros @kdotcrypto @vibhu And the idea that bulk is being deprioritised because it doesn’t accrue value to Solana is also a bit of a head scratcher. Stakers of Sol receive a higher yield. Price of Sol should be directly correlated to the yield it accrues… And all while Solana is miles behind on perps

I don't get the relevance of that distinction? *on Solana* here just means on the validator it doesn't matter if it's different blockspace when it's the same network the user story to receive that rev is the same, the validator which he's staked to pays him those proceeds *in solana*

I am biting my tongue a lot recently, wondering what good can come from sharing our experience on Solana The reality is, my time is better spent on making sure BULK has the most complete product offering for our users Nothing else matters, focus on winning 🫡

@BlockEnthusiast @mdudas @vibhu @kdotcrypto @JasonYanowitz @blockworksres This is about staking your sol or Eth to a validator and earning rewards for it. Not about staking your Eth to an app and receiving rewards (eg Aave). In what way do you think REV misses the full picture for Eth?

@mdudas @vibhu @kdotcrypto @SolBeachBum @JasonYanowitz @blockworksres its because if they actually use the spirit of what matters they have to include all the secondary market opportunities for staked ETH and the goal of REV is explicitly to make Solana look better then Ethereum.

@FabianoSolana @genuinearticles Except that many holders were geo restricted from trading on backpack and so couldn’t benefit from the multiplier on tier points.

that's a fair argument it's definitely not 2023 anymore where every project had a random nft collection (eg. zeus got a few $K) still if you have a look on that list backpack is by far the biggest project (with wormhole) and yes I think it was for everyone? which is also weird... a guy who bought 10d before snapshot shouldn't get the same as someone who staked for years imo

Mad Lads ATH was $40,000 and is now priced at $935 Holders get an airdrop of 1,000 $BP tokens Currently worth $200–$300 Yes, they’ve received total 5 figure airdrop in the past but the fact that $BP is one of the smallest seems to be disappointing for the community

@vibhu @kdotcrypto Is this any different from Jito? Its tips are included as REV for Sol stats but that only goes to participating validators. The fact that basically all of them did partake is besides the point - and every chance the same outcome as Bulk.

Right, to be very clear though. If I were to go to a validator and say hey, I can give you extra money if you do this *offchain* thing for me. That is good for the validators that have accepted the offer. But it's not REV, and the value capture may not be distributed. Or if it is, it's not distributed in a way that benefits all constituents equally. If every single validator installed Bulk Agave, I would be forced to agree with you. If Solana had strong perps execution on the L1 and Bulk was a direct competitor to those books, any fees that Bulk validators earned would come directly at a cost to the entirety of SOL stakers who would otherwise get paid for providing that execution. To your point about leaving it to the builders, that is always how it works. The market will always decide. No grants or distribution will change that.

@ClBlockchain @realpeterjm @koeppelmann @CoWSwap This. How can it be an aggregator and only find $50k of liquidity across all exchanges. Let alone allowing him to take the trade in the first place.

@realpeterjm @koeppelmann @CoWSwap ser, the user wanted to swap a HIGHLY liquid pair, the solver just routed his order into a scammy path,

It is a core value of @CoWSwap to protect users even if they make massive mistakes. This time, despite already having many layers of protection, that goal failed. There is only one conclusion: keep innovating and add even more layers of protection.

Second cycle in a row where Bitcoin was being suppressed by current, or former, Jane Street traders…

@joaomendoncaaaa @AnthropicAI Especially when their thing is open sourced vs your closed source. Cry me a river Claude…

@AnthropicAI your "distillation attacks" on the entire internet with no scruples or boundaries are okay but god forbid a non-american lab uses your thing to train their thing wow what a shocker what a crime against humanity 🤯

We’ve identified industrial-scale distillation attacks on our models by DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax. These labs created over 24,000 fraudulent accounts and generated over 16 million exchanges with Claude, extracting its capabilities to train and improve their own models.

@metaproph3t To me it’s further evidence to pivot towards the permissionless route. If you have 5 ICOs a day (in a bull) and 3 don’t reach their min target it’s no big deal. When you build up your once a month curated launches and thy flop - it hits Metadao’s image a lot more than it should

and yeah, to address the obvious... we took a lick today. I view this as half a market problem - market is down, lots of the patient capital has gotten killed off, etc. - and half an us problem - we didn't sufficiently get this in front of the patient capital that would have funded it more in monthly update, which will be out early next week

@zen_llama @zayn4pf Well said Zen.

When is the last time you used an app on the EVM that doesn’t also exist on Solana? “80% of innovation is on the EVM” reads like a line you put in a VC deck in 2021. The EVM is not the fastest growing developer ecosystem and hasn’t been for 2 years+. The world has changed, your assumptions are out of date. Monad is a separate L1. It is NOT Ethereum. Liquidity on Ethereum is as every bit as separate from Monad as it is to Solana. Being EVM has almost no relevance here, ETH doesn’t exist on Monad and has no security guarantees from Ethereum. It’s a completely separate L1. Fork choice is on Ethereum not on Monad. No ETH whale is moving their liquidity to Monad. They are selling it to USDC and moving it to Monad just like they would to Solana. It’s honestly wild to even try to make the liquidity argument as a separate L1. The lines you have been fed as arguments are designed to be purposely misleading—trust me I wrote a play book of how to make technical arguments that are correct under a narrow set of circumstances, just enough to not be called out for lying while leaving out the full picture for people who don’t know how to ask the right follow up questions. Monad’s explicit goal is to target EVM devs. I was literally the dev rel, you don’t get to try to gaslight me on this. “targeting all devs” is aspirational marketing speak you print on hackathon posters and say on conference stages to make it feel like the goals are grandiose and your ecosystem is punching above its weight. When you’re running hackathons at crypto conferences, you’re 100% basically only targeting EVM devs with the marginal non-EVM dev being a rounding error. To do differently would require a wildly different approach than I’m seeing today. No one cares what language your chain is in anymore. AIs are writing all the code and there is a hell of a lot more Rust code out there in the world for them to reference than Solidity code. The age of developer moats is dead. Novel app layer features can help, but even then the hard truth is that at this stage of the game, all that matters is where the users are or who already has native distribution. I’m almost certain that at this point in a few years all that is going to remain relevant are institutionally backed chains built by teams like Robinhood, Stripe, Google, and Amazon and 1-3 general purpose public blockchains with the top one taking 67%+ of the mindshare. The sad truth is we all thought adoption would mean they would buy our bags when the reality is they are just going to make their own. What all that in mind, talking about Monad speed and efficiency in broad general terms or getting a KOL on twitter isn’t going to move the needle a stitch. Go ahead try to name 1 thing you can build on Monad today you can’t build anywhere else? In my entire time at Monad I never got a compelling answer for this. We maybe came up with 1 or 2 things on the fringes, but nothing acutely unique to Monad. This despite me seeing multiple possible green fields that I tried to advocate for building out but could never get the buy in needed to properly execute on. That’s what I mean by a losing strategy. To be fair I don’t have the solution here. Part of the reason I’m building an app now instead of working directly on an ecosystem is because I couldn’t keep doing the ecosystem circle jerk anymore.

honestly, i’m like way more bullish Monad rn. i’ve always grounded my conviction in objectively measurable outcomes: e.g technology, directionality. never narratives. never relationships w the people representing the tech. those are fickle. and if your conviction is built on them, it’ll mirror their mood swings. (was telling @berzan this just yesterday) … Monad’s technology gives me hope because it proves we can push blockchain technology forward without necessarily needing to take shortcuts. imo, what matters for any infra is quite simple: can you stand the test of time? think decades. > can your shit remain directionally valid 10 years from now? > will it remain a good choice of infra for whatever gets built on top of it? > can it adapt to reality without distorting its foundations? Monad, at least theoretically, checks those boxes. theoretically being the key word. because execution is step two. great tech is step one. and what that tech enables is everything else. … i think Monad exists in a period where blockchains are in an identity crisis phase rn simply cos it’s genuinely hard to align your technology + what it enables to suit every other single purpose in an attractive way. and this is where the opportunity is / could be for Monad to quietly build some moat. as “general purpose” systems, most don’t really know what they’re building for anymore. and trying to be everything without having a *clear differentiation* in any, makes them nothing. Monad can do it different. ONE: find a niche in every category and make the narrative of “only possible on Monad today and will continue to remain possible tomorrow” sticky. this creates a funnel that makes you the natural choice for builders as they see you as a place where boundaries are pushed while preserving decentralization, so, no tech debt accrual. TWO: hire someone who basically lives online, understands internet culture deeply, understands blockchain tech at the skeletal level, and has the stamina of a fucking arctic tern. someone who basically forces Monad into the right conversations and can earn technical respect from builders. Monad rn feels like a shit ton of stuff are really cool about the technology and we somehow don’t have someone we can see everyday talking about it and forcing conversations around Monad’s relative strength as a blockchain. which is it’s technology. this guy would basically be like the vein of Monad that transports life across different parts that makes up the body of Monad. very very important hire Monad needs rn. cos this is how we can make more people take Monad seriously both within and beyond. let’s call this “ONE–TWO” for future reference. if this is done right, it will give the tech the validation it deserves. … now why does all this make me more bullish Monad now? let’s start w a bit of background talk… honestly, crypto has tired like a shit ton of participants out. years of bullshit have made it easier for niggas here to feel bad about things than ever feel good about anything. but Monad is one of the few places where, if you ignore the timeline and acc meet people in real life, they’re just… like, good. curious. grounded. fun. they still got their whimsy. that really matters. Monad needs to try to keep this set of people for longer while using em as a base to attract even more people that aren’t tired of crypto yet. … this is where the ONE-TWO can come in, cos honestly i do think people-based conviction alone is fragile. as people can get tired. people can feel fear. people can get emotional. technology, can not. it’s either working, better, or it isn’t. it’s either enabling cool shit, or it isn’t. so the real gift here w the“ONE-TWO” imo is that your'e kinda giving these great people stronger, more durable reasons to believe in what they’re part of. by grounding their conviction in something that won’t shake when things get hard. cos, it will. and when you have strong tech and great people bound to it, that’s where you want to be. people-based conviction can take an idea from 0-1 but technology-based conviction is what takes an idea from 1-♾️ … i say this cos a lil observation of mine is that simply cos they’re surrounded by great people, these great people base their belief on other great people and that’s a risk simply cos even great people can falter at times and the effect in that case can be bad since the belief in a people-based conviction setup is very interconnected and one node failing can affect every other node. we’ve gone 0-1, now it’s time for 1-♾️and I’m so excited for it. … i think the best people are here, the best technology is here. so yeah... the future is bright, twin.

@X_Orthodox Let me in goddamnit

Got in? You may still get a chance. Let me know in the comments 😉

@notpratty What is the token used for? Real question.

@sol_M_A_X_I @MiyaHedge @01Resolved @MetaDAOProject This. The repeat story from ICO fundraising over the past 10 years is 99.999% of the time the investors get screwed with no equity protections you’d get from investing in stocks. The pendulum has to swing back towards the investors if it is to have a future.

@MiyaHedge @01Resolved @MetaDAOProject You can always raise from VCs if MetaDAO is not the best option for a founder. Not all projects need tokens. Projects can succeed without ownership coins, but unfortunately there are not many projects with high levels of integrity and honesty. The majority are for quick cash.

I've said this a couple of times already but I'm not a fan of the whole ownership coins narrative and how founder-unfriendly the current frameworks are. I think we are drifting towards a place where "OWNERSHIP or SCAM" will be the consensus mindset crypto-founders will be exposed to. "If you're not choosing an ownership framework you're scamming investors". This is a productive stance to eventually take, but the current ownership structures just are so founder-unfriendly, that most talented founders will just chose against tokenising ever because they don't want to give up control or fundraising flexibility in the future. Right now as a crypto founder you stand in front of a heavy decision: (01) Lose control over your startup post-tokenisation (02) Load your companies books with senior debt (03) Do a Rainbow or ERC-S style structure yourself I've had multiple conversations with founders in the last months which we rejected for Street, not because they are "bad startups", but just because our clients are usually Web2 startups and we can't onboard them through Street and every rejection felt especially awful knowing the structure we provide is the only productive structure out there which is not a) removing all control or b) killing their future fundraising flexibility. I applaud @RainbowFND & @mikedemarais for doing essentially a ERC-S style structure without Street & I think more crypto projects should take a look at what Rainbow is doing and replicate it, if we reject them. One VC asked me: What stops people from doing ERC-S themselves without involving Street. My answer was: Nothing, actually we open sourced ERC-S with all the legal files to encourage that to happen. When Y Combinator invented the YC SAFE, they didn't gatekeep it only for themselves, that would be incredibly unproductive. ERC-S isn't a moat we have, neither should we gate keep it. Obviously going through us is legally more secure because we take on a looot of legal risk for you via indemnification agreement, we pay for the legal bills, we structure it for you, we stand with our brand up for you, we connect you to VCs, angels, other projects building on Street & guide and advice you daily. We give you customized software solutions & intro you to anyone you need and invite you to all the IRL workshops we do. But none of these mean it's not possible to do a Rainbow-like structure without us. (Just don't call it ERC-S). To make this possible for crypto-native founders we are releasing a side-letter next week which allows you to raise through equity + token warrants while still having the optionality to go for a Rainbow like structure later. Please don't kill your business just to call yourself an ownership coin.

@mattytay @K__c__G @Zedge_ORE @CompoundORE Holder here. The yield comes from the protocol selling newly inflated supply in an auction of sorts. If the amount paid (tax taken by the protoocol) is more than the market value of the new supply then yep it’s real yield. However supply is increasing currently so not true rn

Chatted with @Zedge_ORE recently and he pointed out that ORE is one of the few (only?) crypto assets with a real yield. Not a yield from inflation, but a true yield generated inherently by the protocol enabling DeFi products like @CompoundORE to offer no-interest cash advances.

@sayinshallah 2018-19 was worse

never seen the sentiment this bad in crypto. literally everyone has given up on trying to build anything. everyone is trying to trade stocks that are up 100%+ ytd or doing some ai stuff. this is the first bear cycle I think it might genuinely be over

@aadvark89 @metaproph3t Your problem is with Polymarket not Metadao

@metaproph3t not blaming metadao directly here, but there should be some dd done before allowing sales of stuff like ranger

ICOs are back they said, it'll be like 2017 they said ICO landscape lately: - Trove: doesn't even need an explanation - Fluent: barely 600 NFTs minted of the 5k supply - Infinex: reduced sale FDV from $300M to $100M, still couldn't sell out so removed individual deposit caps - FOGO: tried raising at $1B FDV, cancelled the sale. then raised at $350M on Binance (now underwater at $300M) - Metadao sales: straight up crime with fake demand to profit off of Polymarket bets multiple times - Gensyn, Zama, Aztec: nobody even knows what these do but tried raising at $300M+ valuations only to fail miserably - Legion sales: every legion sale ended in loss (except YB and Fuel) - Monad: successfully grifted $190M after already having $225M in funding from earlier probably missed a few, drop them in the comments 👇

@TheiaResearch Don’t think anyone believes this is the end state Team already said they aim to do no cap raises in the future which is one solution. Other being charging tax on deposits made.

agree with this (and so do the founders and community so expect it to be solved over the next few months)

@8bitpenis @Austin_Federa I also thought that’s what he meant but his follow up tweet seems to clarify he meant that as long as it gives some stake in the company then that’s doing something. The issue - which is correct - are the tokens which denote no benefit to the holders. MetaDAO ftw

@Austin_Federa no, the token should represent a stake in the company. blockchain allows us to do things never before possible. i dont get why being against new ownership primitives is the answer.

If the token doesn't do anything, the project shouldn't have a token

@TheiaResearch Been saying this for months (as have you). What’s the point of having inbuilt investor protections if the team only does one highly curated launch a month. Also - they risk losing a lot of market share to the next futarchy platform that does offer permissionless launches

MetaDAO needs to go permissionless. The market desperately needs ICOs with proper tokenholder protections and a few launches approved by the internal IC won’t be nearly sufficient to meet market demand.

@kantianum @mhonkasalo This doesn’t stop there being curated launches And there’s also a load of value in permissionless launches. As proven by Eth during ICO phase and pump fun for memecoins

@mhonkasalo somehow i think there is lots of value in curated / restricted launches

Permissionless launches is the #1 focus for MetaDAO right now. (in case you haven't kept up)