SSR*

Our parent token $ASTX CA: 0x0000000000ca73A6df4C58b84C5B4b847FE8Ff39 is now a strategy on its own. One supply, two surfaces. ERC-7631 links ERC20 and ERC721 so liquidity actions and identity actions point to the same outcome.

🎯 Established projects pumping. Rumors about NFT treasury companies. They won't be buying this week's new mint, but instead they will invest in the established, proven NFT projects with battle-tested communities. And there are not too many of them left. Look for the BTC, ETH etc of NFTs, not the catwifhat equivalent

Our next mission is clear: We’re building the infrastructure L2s need to thrive. Infra that can help entire chains reach positive EV and unlock models that actually work long term. A fresh new primitive. One that could give L2s a real shot both technically and economically.

Excited to launch the "Divisible NFT" standard (DN404) which aims to be a hybrid ERC20/721 token. ERC404 took the crypto world by storm over the past few days, but it doesn't follow existing standards, is inefficient, and breaks at certain edge cases. Here's how DN404 works 🧵:

I would advise you to think twice about launching a fair launch coin if you intend on using it to fund a long-duration project. Teams need resources to build. Generally, when a team raises a Series A from VCs, they give away 10-20% and keep 80-90% of the initial capital. If the project becomes a unicorn (> $1B) then usually the team owns a significant share of that which they can use for operations. In the current "fair launch" meta, teams end up with 5-15% supply at TGE after giving away 85-95%. This causes a whole range of problems. 1. No supply control means that anyone can just buy the token and start caballing it. Many of the AI projects have a token price set by the cabal choosing to support them which goes to 0 as the cabal farms the user base. In the end, the devs usually get very little, since they feel a moral obligation to go down with the ship. 2. It's really hard to give equity that satisfies teammates with prior expectations-- everyone looks at the big number, compares the "fair launch" projects to projects of old and thinks "wait why are you giving me .1%-.2% of this? That's not fair!" when proportionally it represents a far larger portion of the team's allocation than 1-10% of a more normal project launch. 3. Extremely low liquidity favors early traders but fucks over just about everyone else. Any time the liquidity becomes significant there is a risk of a big whale making an exit and selling into that liquidity, crashing the price a lot. Fair launch coins almost always have a really bad liquidity problem-- this is a feature for traders who want to see major price movements and a nightmare for builders who just want to build drama-free. 4. Fair launch only rewards builders who already have capital to put in and who coordinate smashing the button immediately with their SOL or bundling their launches. Many teams have launched a project and then have had to literally beg the community for resources to have enough to build. The only reason we've been able to get so far is because one whale extremely generously donated 11%. 5. Fair launch for real projects can create legal requirements that cost a lot of time and money retroactively moving to fix. Setting up an offshore token foundation, onshore dev co, hiring multiple lawyers, etc. *after launch* is risky and expensive. 6. Nobody expects a pumpcoin to release revolutionary L1-level tech in 2-3 years. The daosdotfun meta was created to enable traders to casually run a fund for a year and take their carry when the fund closes. We're following metas which reward projects for the first few weeks, then become major albatrosses. 7. Traders have absolutely no idea what goes into building products most of the time, and their expectations are just absolutely unrealistic. When we're building things that have never been built before, it is very hard to assess exactly how long things will take or what the technical risks really are until we've crossed those bridges. Vitalik expected PoS to be finished in 2017 and allocated tokens accordingly, if ETH hadn't shot up to $3k they'd be cooked. 8. There is also just a general problem with open source public goods, which is that people see them as free and rush to capitalize on them without consideration for how to build a sustainable and symbiotic relationship with the creators of those goods. If there were a way that I could continue to work on open source public goods forever and not have to build launchpads and tokenomics and other products to accrue value, everyone else would benefit so much more. But since very very few people are establishing win/win relationships with our project and are just using it for free to make money for themselves, I have no choice but to focus on those things. I've been thinking a lot about how we can balance the spirit of fair launch-- enabling everyone to get what usually only the VCs get-- with realistic mechanisms to enable teams to build real tech. I've been working with some really incredible folks in the space to codify this into a system and we'll be releasing a whitepaper soon.

This is something that has been weighing on my mind for a while and Shaw breaks it down perfectly. Fair launches sound great in theory but given the current market participants mentality, they turn every raise into a PvP/PvBot bloodbath. Instead of strategic capital allocation, you get a race to the bottom where the fastest, most optimized players, bots, whales, and insiders extract value before real builders can even execute. Snipers make this even worse. A fair launch isn’t fair when anyone with basic scripting knowledge can deploy a bot to frontrun retail, dominate early allocations, and extract liquidity before real believers even get a chance. The space is littered with these tools, making it nearly impossible for organic participants to compete. The real killer is supply control. Without it, liquidity becomes uncontrollable. Token distribution gets hijacked, having these bots or insiders crashing the price while highly likely causing retail to be EL. Instead of compounding value, projects end up fighting off price collapse and instability before they’ve even have the chance to deliver. Without structured capital, there’s no alignment, no buffer, no real growth strategy. Just hyper financialized chaos where everyone is optimizing for exit over execution. If this trend continues, we’re not democratizing acces but rather, engineering a battlefield where efficiency beats innovation, and short term extraction kills long term value. Our next leap is building towards a sustainable future that rewards innovation, leveraging gud tek to create more resilient ecosystems. The best systems should not be just functional but rather, exciting and built to last. The reality is simple. No coordination, no moat, no longevity. Just a feeding frenzy.

Btc PoW centralization vs ETH PoS decentralization