Telonic

@adamscochran A month or two ago X was flooded with ads from the left-wing parties, primarily with blatant clickbait misinformation about the conservative candidate - though imo any type of political ads should be blocked, just pointing out it doesn’t seem partisan but rather a big oversight

More election interference from Musk, this time in Canada. It’s impossible to get ads approved on X for anything quasi-political without being a politician. But users in Canada have reported a barrage of pro-right wing ads. But it gets **worse** Beyond just finding hundreds of pro-right wing tweets showing up as ads, when reaching out to users, some of these users claimed to not know their content was being used in ads *at all* Suggesting that someone at X is promoting these for them, or authorizing a third-party ad buyer to promote them without the knowledge of the user. (Both which would be a major violation of campaign finance laws and political advertising regulations in Canada) While some may be legit users who are slipping through the cracks, it’s impossible for them all to be. To make matters worse, some of these accounts that claim to be Canadian are purchased accounts that recently changed their usernames, or have old posts with geolocations outside of Canada. Musk’s team is either approving ads in violation of political advertising law, promoting the ads themselves, or allowing third-parties to do it. All which are illegal.

@guil_lambert I love the SPY analogy but I would’ve drawn an opposite conclusion - it’s the SPY investors that are too clueless about the IL they incur and they should pay more attention to the idea of “excess risk-adjusted returns”. Also Tax Man taxing people earning below RFR should be crime

Everyone has a rough understanding of what Uniswap LPs do and why it is riskier than your average buy and hold strategy. But the most misunderstood (and misapplied) concept in the AMM space is definitely Impermanent Loss (IL). Yes, many still misunderstand IL... Here's why: ***TLDR; LP positions are directional (positive delta). There is no loss due to IL on the upside*** What do I mean by that? First, when people speak about IL, they often refer to this formula --h/t @pintail_xyz from his Jan 2019 (!) article: It looks worse on a semilogx scale, but the idea is that the position will lose if the price is going down or up. LPs lose whichever way the price is going (!) and the only way to recover from those losses is to collect enough fees. BTW, the same formula can be derived for concentrated liquidity AMMs (CLAMMs). In that case, IL depends on the width of the concentrated liquidity position --the narrower the position, the steeper the rate of loss away from the mint price (so IL losses appear to be magnified): What's the problem with this formulation? Well, it compares the return from a LP position with holding the tokens. That, on its own, is a valid comparison. Here's the full formula: IL = (V_invest - V_hold) / V_hold) However, the main flaw is that it assumes the opportunity cost --ie. the profit that *would* have been realized from holding-- is effectively a loss. This is wrong! (this misconception comes up whenever I talk to non-LPs or people that used to LP but stopped, it's mind-boggling that people are still getting IL wrong 5 years later!) To compare this to a real life example, let's look at $10k invested in $SPY for 1 year. The return was 24.9% for the year 2024 (V_invest = $12,489)! But using IL logic, the same amount of cash invested in treasuries would have returned 4% (V_hold = $10,400). So while the "real" return you're seeing on your brokerage firm's statement is V_invest = +24.9%, the IL formula would claim the return is only +20.1%. The investor didn't *lose* $480, they simply missed out on it. There's no need to compare realized profits with a hypothetical treasury investment: why include potential treasury gains in the PnL calculation when their investment was 100% in equities? Similarly, if the $SPY return was flat at 0%, then IL would return a 4% *loss*. The question is: would the Tax Man allow you to claim a 4% loss on that position? Go try it out. The same thinking is not new, and it is often seen in the retail options trading world. It typically comes up when a (new) trader is selling a covered call: when that call goes ITM, that trader may feel like they lost on the potential upside of that price appreciation had they not sold that call in the first place. While this is a rookie mistake, it is understandable: there's an easy way to look at *not* selling that call and see the missed profits. But, there's also a myriad of other strategies that could have been used that could compared to it. Their returns are actually, tangibly, and factually positive for selling that covered call. And nobody ever went broke making money. Again, the tax man only looks at real numbers for your tax bill, and not some lost opportunities. Bringing this back to Uniswap LPing, the same comparison could be made, which is exactly what IL is claiming: I could have made more had I not provided liquidity (!). The missed opportunity loss PnL chart even looks very similar to the covered call one: But again, looking at opportunity cost as a loss is a fallacy: the trade they're in is the LP position, so even though they could have made more doing other strategies (including going 100x on a perp exchange, now we'd be talking). The end result is still that they made money when the price went up. An LP position is a directional bet on the price of the underlying (non-ETH) asset. It makes a profit as the price of the underlying asset goes up. There is no impermanent loss as the price increases. LP positions, just like covered calls, are directional and have a positive delta. The only way to lose when the price of an asset goes up is that if you're borrowing/shorting the asset. That short component does create a loss. I've described borrowing the non-ETH asset as my go-to strategy for LPing. In that case, there is some risk to the upside because the borrowed asset is now worth more and more. But unless you're borrowing the asset to LP with, and the vast majority of users don't and instead either buy the non-ETH asset, then LP positions make money when the asset goes up. That's it. ***TLDR^2; LP positions are directional (positive delta). There is no IL loss on the upside***

It’s an *option* on BTC with 5 year expiry and 500k strike. The premium is the lost interest due to lending at 0%. I’m too lazy to do the math on whether it’s a good deal or not, but the headlines misinterpret this deal a lot. It’s a pretty cool trade you can’t make elsewhere.

@fozzydiablo before fees

people out here buying $1 for $1

@dillonlin_ @derivexyz @DefiLlama In other words, if you choose not to trade on @derivexyz you hate koalas

Day 1: $1. Can't let these Koalas down. Each day @derivexyz is #1 in options on @DefiLlama, $1 goes to the Great Koala National Park (koalapark.org.au/support).

@fozzydiablo he’d have trouble to KYC (you’d think at least…)

I feel like the dude in charge of launching the missiles has to punt a couple puts on his robinhood app before hitting the launch right?

@fozzydiablo Idk my legs go numb after 10, I bet usage will skyrocket if @elonmusk solves this

this is great for making sure you don’t scroll Twitter for an hour while taking a shit most useful timer

@Sean241D Unbelievable

@TelonicID same book has to point out "equals", "1" and "2" lol

What is the sudden trend of having every term in an equation being labelled and over-explained? Unnecessary and ugly 🤮

People ask: “why vaults, I can do it myself with better pricing”. No you cannot.

Back where I’m from, “looping” is called “fractional reserve banking”

Lyra brings Real Yield to EigenLayer ⚡️⛈️🌪️ Deposit $weETH or $rswETH to earn: + $EIGEN + 10-50% APY + ETH Staking Rewards + 3x @ether_fi Points + 3x $LDX or + 4.5x @swellnetworkio Pearls + 4.5x $LDX Deposit now → lyra.finance/yield

@quant_arb - starts with for object in iterable - realizes a few min later “oh shit I need that index too” - slaps an enumerate Story of my loops

@Sean241D @0xmjs Not this I hope 😳

What’s in the 📦?

@merklepatricia_ @lyrafinance A call spread is like a cheaper way of making an “ETH goes up” bet (cheaper than just a long call). In this case it’s so cheap it’s free.

@TelonicID @lyrafinance ELI5 pls (just started studying options last night)

Wanna make a risk-free bet that ETH recovers and hits $4150 in a week? It does? You make $50. It doesn't? Nw @lyrafinance got it covered. Look at this spready boi - buy 4100 Call and sell 4150 Call. ZERO margin required. LYRA rewards 100% cover your costs. Free real estate.

@lyrafinance This one is supposed to be a fly spread btw: buy 3850, sell 2 of 3900, buy 3950

@lyrafinance Got another one for you: ETH between $3850 and $3950 - win up to $50 (max at $3900). Rewards are literally greater than the cost. ZERO margin required. The only way you lose is by not taking the bet.

@lyrafinance It’s not wash trading if you’re creative 😏

@alpinechicken @itseneff @andrewjleone @danrobinson @Sean241D Fair enough, fwiw both float vol and time-T markers would be lots more efficient if you can stat arb them in one place :)

@TelonicID @itseneff @andrewjleone @danrobinson @Sean241D Por que no los dos? ;)

everything is a perp! research.opyn.co/everything-is-… @danrobinson @alpinechicken and I teamed up to write about what that means and expand on this provocative take