Oliver Zap

@jean_arman344_X I gues you know that -10% is not the same with +10%. If you have a bet that goes -10% than +10% .. will not be same level

$EGLD +10%

Now that the crybabies sold on a loss we can pump $EGLD

@SasuRobert Supernova is coming .. i've been hearing this since last year what's the new deadline ?

107 operators on Battle of Nodes. That is amazing. That is much bigger of decentralisation than most of the competing chain. Supernova is coming. a few more fixes to come.

@AllenOneDC Lol.. tell me when reclaiming $400 or top. And economic system is changing, the 31M cap no longer available .. sad

EGLD reclaiming $4. 💎 The foundation hasn’t changed, only getting stronger.

@the_economystic Cut the crap boy. Eth is 50% from top, same btc, solana and others maybe less. EGLD IS MORE THAN 99% DOWN from top. HUGE DIFFERENCE ! Do the math, 10k -50% vs 10k -99%, is this the same ? I like the project .. but when adoption ?

People are singling out $EGLD as if it's the only token that's down bad 🤦‍♂️ when the entire market is down bad. ..

@the_economystic @MultiversX The lesson is simple. Some invested at $500 and now is $4 after 5 years. Will be there another $500 ? After how many years ? Do you think ppl will wait that long ? Why do you think they invested ? Btw, tell me smth eqally sweet about adoption if you can..

EGLD / @MultiversX thought: One of the hardest lessons in crypto is this: don’t poison the craft. And by “craft,” I mean: > how you think > how you study > how you manage risk > how you trade > how you hold > how you respond to pain > how you move forward when the market humbles you Because a lot of people come into crypto thinking the goal is just to win: Make money. Catch the move. Be early. Look smart. Survive the volatility. Outperform. But after enough pain, a darker pattern starts to show up. You stop refining your process… and start punishing yourself. You revenge trade, You overtrade, You stare at the chart too long, You become harsher, tighter, more emotional, You confuse self-abuse with discipline, You think if you just push harder, click faster, feel worse, or hold more tension in your body, somehow you’ll become better. But that usually doesn’t sharpen you. It poisons the craft. And I think that’s especially true in ecosystems like @MultiversX, where a lot of people have had to sit through: brutal drawdowns, broken expectations, shifting narratives, long timelines, emotional exhaustion, ...and the very real sting of feeling early, but wrong on timing. That kind of experience can teach you a lot. But only if you stay honest. Because there’s a difference between: being convicted ... and being trapped There’s a difference between: being disciplined and being at war with yourself And there’s a difference between: learning from pain ... and letting pain corrupt the way you operate That’s the real danger. If you let enough frustration build up, it starts talking. Maybe I’m stupid. Maybe I was naive. Maybe this market is fake. Maybe every thesis is cope. Maybe I should just ape harder. Maybe I should sell everything. Maybe I should make it all back in one trade. That voice is loud, but it is not always telling the truth. A lot of the time, it’s just exhaustion mixed with disappointment. That’s why I think one of the deepest lessons in crypto is this: the goal is not just to survive long enough to be right. The goal is to survive in a way that does not destroy your ability to think clearly. That’s the craft. And if you poison that, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. You’ll sabotage yourself anyway. So yes, learn the hard lessons. Take the pain seriously. Adjust. Tighten up where needed. But don’t let the market turn you into someone who can no longer operate with clarity, patience, or self-respect. Because in crypto, protecting your edge is not just about capital... It’s also about protecting your relationship with the craft itself. || Don’t Poison the Craft: The Dangerous Side of Discipline | brew in the s... youtu.be/yi1bxSTPOok?si… via @YouTube

@SasuRobert Is coming for some time ... is still coming, this is good. Hope will arrive soon...

It is upgrade time. security, hardening, improvements. SuperNova is coming to mainnet.

@lucianmincu Mvx is like a great car that nobody buy it. I am here. Staked. Wanted to do more but.. not yet. I ask again.. how come a great blkchain, like mvx has this adoption ? The reason of every business is .. ? The investors want .. ? price is $3 now. I cant help u, dont know marketing

A Bet We Made in 2018 This is me and Vitalik in 2018. ETH Devcon. We were at a table talking about sharding and how blockchains could actually scale by running execution in parallel. At the time, Ethereum and Elrond had the same thesis. Both believed execution sharding was the path forward. Since then, Ethereum changed direction multiple times. Sharding gave way to rollups. Rollups gave way to "we need to scale L1 again." The roadmap shifted, the promises changed, the technical approach pivoted more than once. And through all of it - the Ethereum community stayed. They gave the team the space to find the right path. They didn't kill the project when the roadmap changed. They believed the builders would figure it out. That patience is what kept Ethereum alive. Not the technology. The community. ─── We made a different bet. We bet on execution sharding from day one and we never left that path. Adaptive state sharding shipped on mainnet in 2020. Three execution shards plus a metachain. State, network, transactions - all sharded from genesis. Supernova shipped this year. Consensus decoupled from execution. 600ms blocks. achieved 88ms finality. 120,000 TPS burst mode on the same validator hardware. 3,200+ validators on consumer-grade machines. 171,000 commits. #6 in the entire industry. Ahead of Solana, Avalanche, Sui, Polygon, Aptos, and TON. Tier-one infrastructure providers on board, distribution partners like Cointelegraph are running validator nodes. Stripe's Machine Payments Protocol is settling on MultiversX. EGLD is named in an Arizona state strategic reserve bill. The agentic commerce stack - x402, MPP, MX-8004, UCP, ACP, MCP - is live on one chain. xMoney is building regulated stablecoin issuance under MiCA. The infrastructure underneath has never been stronger. ─── And yet the market prices EGLD like none of this exists. Every blockchain community is going through the same thing right now. EGLD is down. ETH is down. SOL is down. The market doesn't differentiate between chains that shipped paradigm-shifting infrastructure and chains that shipped a landing page. But here's what's different about right now. Bitcoin survived 2014. Ethereum survived 2018. Solana survived 2022. In each case, the community stayed long enough for the technology to matter. In each case, the community that held wrote the next chapter. And in each case, the ones who fractured, who turned on their own builders, who let the loudest voices - the ones who already sold - define the narrative? Those communities don't exist anymore. You don't remember their names. The perception of value has been distorted. By cycles. By speculation. By narratives that reward noise over engineering. And by us - divided when we should be united. Turning on each other instead of building forward together. Look at what's underneath. Not the chart. The infrastructure. 88ms finality. 120K TPS. #6 in developer activity globally. Tier-one infrastructure partners. Stripe settling on-chain. EGLD in US state legislation. Regulated stablecoins under MiCA. An agentic commerce stack that Visa, Coinbase, and Mastercard are racing to replicate. This is not a project searching for relevance. This is a project that shipped the relevance and is waiting for its community to match it. If this fails, it won't be because the technology wasn't good enough. It will be because we weren't united enough to carry it forward. I've been here since 2018. That table with Vitalik. Every pivot, every cycle, every doubt. Still here. Still building. Now it's your turn. Not to believe. To show up.

@SasuRobert Awesome .. i hardly wait to see it in use

SuperNova is finally here. Yes, we can say that it is the most advanced, most scalable, probably the cheapest blockchain infrastructure which can execute this amount of transactions, cheapest for validators, for developers, for users. And it can scale to whatever number it is required. That is the power of sharding. And now it can be enjoyed with sub second one shot finality. How cool is that?

@MultiversX Is it live ?

@CodeMultiversX @MultiversX @multiversxfndn @MultiversXUSA 16M is not much for a global blockchain in near future Test at least 10x, or better 100x or more if you can..

In Round 1, the Battle Net processed nearly 17 million transactions in 30 minutes. Most teams barely touched their gas budgets. Round 2 begins in 5 minutes! Expect 🎇.

@SasuRobert It is not, not yet... but i hope it will be soon

Look. There is a countdown. But it starts tomorrow. Battle of nodes. SuperNova is here.

@xPortalApp From $500 to $4 .. how much do you think a user can earn ? Your chart is the opposite

Most people check their bank app to see what they spent. In xPortal, you check to see what you’ve earned 📈

@SasuRobert You are awesome builders, some of the best, i have no doubt. waiting for Super adoption...

This is what we develop or even more. Time to BUIDL those bots, faster than ever.

@mirceabrs Maybe u wanna say in general crypto market is mooving hard.. down After 90-95% down .. 10%up is nothing .. just do the math :)))

$Egld - Electronic Gold is pumping hard 🚀

@EGLD1MAXIMALIST When ?

Big storm coming $EGLD

@AdrianLoghinT Da, istoria e frumoasa, dar hai sa ne uitam in fata, nu in spate. Cat va fi Egld maine ? Supernova va revitaliza situatia ? Ce va urma dupa Supernova ? Nu trebuie sa raspundeti, se vede pe blockchain

1/ 🧵 What if I told you one of the most ambitious networks in crypto was not born in Silicon Valley, but in a small corner of Eastern Europe with almost no funding and a global-scale vision? That was my first encounter with what is now #MultiversX (and $EGLD).

@Justin_Bons @SasuRobert True, i'm waiting a long term perspective also, not yearly. This may be risky for investers also. As egld hodler i want smth like btc.. long term vision. Make it scalable, safe and predictible and all will be happy ! Make it clear crystal

@SasuRobert The paper says 2-5% in the long run, which is incredibly vague... The paper also states that this will be re-evaluated every year! Considering the conflict of interest, it is so weak! The DAO is fake, as it is not stakeholder-based. Giving seats to founders makes it not a DAO!

EGLD's fall from grace: Going from a capped supply to a yearly inflation of 8.75% is reckless What is even worse is that 40% of that is being funneled directly to a "fake DAO" While they plan to mint an additional $250M worth of EGLD to GIVE directly to private companies! 🧵 Including "MvX Labs US LLC," which is owned by EGLD's leadership; clearly a massive conflict of interest! A real shame, as they have some of the best sharding tech; however, none of that matters if they wreck the economic model in this way Inflation Is Not Growth: Within the context of blockchain token economic design, inflation should be seen as a cost that is paid by the investors That means when you mint new tokens to GIVE to private parties. What you are really doing is redistributing wealth, from everyone, to these private parties... That is why what is being proposed here is not just terrible from a blockchain design & economics perspective but also from a moral one. It is, in other words, a type of "hidden tax"; a trick governments have played on the public for centuries Something that crypto should move away from, not return to... It would not be so bad if all this new inflation were used to secure the network (paying validators) & other decentralized L1 purposes (like a L1 DAO treasury). However, that is unfortunately not the case here That is also how this proposal inevitably introduces corruption by combining potentially massive payouts with centralized decision-making: Fake DAO: DAOs are supposed to be governed through stakeholder voting. That is not the case here; that is what makes this a "Fake DAO" The stakeholders will only get 40% of the vote! While the foundation gets 30% & xAlliance (funded by the foundation) gets the last 30%... That is not a DAO, as it is not decentralized or autonomous! Builder "Growth" Fund (20% of Inflation): Governed in a centralized manner. As I just described, this fund will pay out applications. Again, opening up countless more opportunities for corruption. As they will whitelist projects that get paid, creating an unfair competitive environment Whitelists are never justified in a decentralized context, as it always implies a type of permissioned gatekeeping. Whitelists & blacklists for that matter are something we would ussuelly associate with centralized systems instead... User "Growth" Fund (20% of Inflation): This is basically an incentive program for EGLD DeFi. Something we have seen many times before. However, there is a big difference between a foundation spending its initially agreed-upon capital vs allocating new emissions after the fact... This will again impoverish investors in favour of DeFi traders, who tend to be highly mercenary, jumping from chain to chain chasing such incentive programs. Another crooked game that is unlikely to create lasting growth for EGLD; quite the opposite: As it will create even more downward pressure on price as mercenary traders sell all these tokens back into the market... Protocol "Sustainability" (10% of Inflation): Looks like this bucket will be paid directly to the Core team (the authors of this proposal) I have opposed this style of Core dev funding for many years, as it is basically a "blank check". There should instead be a decentralized treasury that is voted on through governance proposals (competition). Not a hardcoded address that goes directly to the Core team... The document itself does not describe the exact implementation of this bucket, but I suspect it will be as I just described, which is again terrible. This feels especially greedy as the same leadership is also planning to give itself an additional $100M worth of EGLD by GIVING it to their own private for-profit company: Conflict of interests ($100M): MvX Labs US LLC will be a private for-profit company, presumably owned by EGLD's leadership. Just like its Romanian counterpart I only say presumably here, as the company does not even exist (based on the US company registry). Yet in the screenshot below (from the official docs), they propose GIVING this company $100M in EGLD! This is the most insane aspect of this entire plan. As it breaks multiple "sacred" rules of blockchain design. Breaking the social contract & all future trust in the process As this sets a precedent that big "one off" emission events can occur under EGLD's leadership & governance. Destroying any & all scarcity guerentees that investors useully look for when doing fundemental analysis Emissions (inflation) should only ever be used by an L1 for itself, not to pay off private companies! DAT & ETF deals ($150M): I keep repeating that they are "GIVING" these newly minted tokens away, because unlike BTC, ETH, & SOL, DATs & ETFs. Who have to buy these tokens on the open market based on the demand for these products, thereby creating positive price pressure These organizations will be "gifted" these tokens instead of needing to buy them. This is another area where there should be massive corruption concerns This means that EGLD's leadership is now in a position to appoint people to extremely lucrative positions. Even giving them shares worth many millions of dollars, the possibilities for bribes & favoritism are endless... This is another reason why an L1 should have nothing to do with such matters, thereby maintaining credible neutrality! DATs & ETFs should instead evolve organically based on the merit of the project, as happened with BTC, ETH & SOL; those L1s had nothing to do with setting up these companies, let alone directly GIVING them freshly minted tokens! Builder Revenue Share (90% of Fees) Another terrible design decision; as builders can always allocate more of the application fees to themselves via the smart contract. The reason why they do not do so in most ecosystems is that it makes the application way less competitive! The total fees are based on what the validator is willing to accept, by arbitrarily returning 90% of the fees back to the smart contract developer. It forces validators to raise gas prices to meet their costs In effect, this will make all applications on EGLD 10x more expensive. In reality, most competitively minded devs will program this revenue share out; however, that also creates massive inefficiencies in the smart contract itself... I never liked the initial 30% revenue share, which means I obviously dislike a 90% revenue share even more! Economic Design EGLD's major competitors, such as ETH & SOL, both have a low long-term inflation rate combined with a 50% fee burn That EGLD is introducing a high inflation rate, combined with a 10% burn, makes it massively inferior from an economic perspective. As the goal with these designs is to have the burn exceed the inflation rate... However, given how much worse these figures are, for EGLD to achieve the same level of deflation (price appreciation based on burn), it would need at least 10x the economic activity... As this plan will give EGLD 5x the inflation with 1/5 the burn! That is what makes this design so objectively bad when compared to ETH & SOL The fact that EGLD's leadership has repeatedly stated that EGLD's burn will exceed inflation when this plan is implemented is also incredibly irresponsible. As that is not even the case with ETH & SOL now, which have a far better economic model & orders of magnitude more usage... The latest trend for big chains is to reduce their inflation rates, as ETH & NEAR did, or as SOL attempted to do, since most are still overpaying for security. The fact that EGLD is going in the complete opposite direction tells us how disconnected they are from established industry blockchain design principles Political Blunder This was also very badly handled from a political perspective. It is almost as if the leadership has ZERO knowledge of the last decade in crypto governance developments, or even basic political common sense... Attempting so many changes all at once was a terrible decision for multiple reasons: As it allows critics such as myself to focus on the worst parts of the plan, while also making it trivial for the Core team to control the narrative through sleight of hand As they can, for example, focus on discussing inflation rates while avoiding the topic of them minting new tokens that they plan to GIVE to private companies, including their own... It is not dissimilar to what happens in US politics, where many unrelated issues are pushed into a single massive bill. Forcing politicians to make massive compromises, as passing something they want will also imply passing something they do not want that the bill's creators might have snuck in! That is what makes these current discussions so unhealthy, as it quickly becomes a chaotic mess. What they should have done was introduce these new concepts one at a time, so the community can focus on that issue without additional & unnecessary noise Another major mistake was releasing a "half-baked" proposal where so much still remains unspecified, critical details where many devils can hide. As it muddies the conversation even more! Yet the core team is still actively promoting this & gathering consensus, while critics like me are not supposed to critique because it is unfinished... A ridiculous political situation, that comes across as if the Core team is attempting to dominate the narrative & discussion through manipulative tactics Chasing imaginary demons I noticed a lot of EGLD community members & leadership pointing to SOL as a justification for these changes Basically saying if SOL can do such evil & corrupt things that EGLD also has to do those things to compete... (two wrongs do not make a right) What is even crazier about that is that SOL never did anything even approaching the level of controversy these changes represent: SOL never increased its inflation rate, never paid private companies from new token emissions, & never paid its own leadership from new token emissions As a matter of fact, all of SOL's "ecosystem funding" comes from the foundation (non-profit). Which got all of its funds from the initial token allocation. That is entirely different from what is being proposed here... The Alternative Solution: The real technical solution is incredibly simple & has been done many times before: A decentralized L1 treasury governed by the L1 stakeholders Similar to what governance innovators like DASH, XTZ & DCR have done. Modern examples also exist, such as APT & SEI! For that purpose, I would propose an inflation rate of 2% which is more economically sound. Which should be split as such: 45% to the validators 45% to the burn 10% to the treasury These numbers are well established within the broader crypto research community In truth, this entire proposal is far more complex than it needs to be. In fact, the entire proposal could be replaced with a single-page document, which would also be far better at achieving the stated goals As a single L1 native DAO can easily fund anything imaginable, while doing it in a fully decentralized, transparent & credibly neutral way The difference is that in such a design, power & authority flow directly from the stakeholders rather than from the centralized leadership, as is the case in the current proposal There are more details & nuances we could discuss as part of this ideal design, such as weighting based on time-locked, native delegation, on-chain proposals systems, & additional checks & balances. However, these are all minor details in comparison with the grander ideal design, which is elegant in its simplicity The Future of EGLD: The leadership will get its way, that much seems clear to me, as they have ZERO genuine interest in real feedback & debate. Literally refusing to debate me, or even engaging with these topics & opting for ad hominem attacks instead... The community calls are a joke, a form of theatre, as I am not welcome, considering they muted me after speaking for less than a minute... They will continue to compromise on some of these decisions & likely meet the critics halfway. However, it would not surprise me at all if that was always the plan. Even if the figures are cut in half, this is still a terrible plan EGLD is dead to me. I cannot support a project with such atrocious token economics & a leadership that shuts down debate with character assassination Perpetual Motion Machine: It is funny to me that the document itself refers to this plan as a "perpetual motion machine". A machine that cannot exist as it breaks the laws of thermodynamics A concept that has a long history with scammers promising people the moon, only for them to lose everything in the end The analogy is kind of perfect in the economic sense, even though that is clearly not how the author meant it Refusal To Debate: My challenge for a debate to the founders remains open! So far they have refused my challange & even refuse to engange me on these topics, instead they are attempting to destroy my credibility through constant ad hominen attacks. Calling me a liar & a scammer, even from the founders themselves, setting the example for what is remaining of that community... Even if I was a liar & scammer, which I am most certainly not, the best way to shut me down would be a debate. As that would allow reason & logic to triumph That is why it is the side unwilling to debate that is the least likely to have truth on its side... An incredibly weak response considering that I might just be their most prominent critic! As I am open to have a productive discussion with the leadership about these points, they clearly are not Conclusion: I am sad to see another great cryptocurrency fall, especially one that had so much positive potential As again its sharding implementation is one of the best we have ever seen, so I have no doubt about the technical proficiency of the team Unfortunately, as is often the case in crypto, these same engineers also think they can design economic & governance systems... Which in reality requires an entirely different area of expertise. Explaining how I am so easily able to tear their plan apart, as that is in fact my own area of expertise What bothers me the most is how they are promising people growth, when in reality all they are bringing to the table is dilution... That is part of the reason why I have completely lost faith in the team. As they are promising massive growth as part of this plan, yet all they will do in reality is impoverish investors & enrich themselves more in the process That is not the crypto dream; it is a nightmare! It always hurts to see our communities, our favorite chain go up in smoke. It takes strenght & bravery to admit we were wrong & move on Please do not be one of those bag holders who becomes more extreme as the price continues to crash, diversify your portfolio & your mind now! Escape the cult! I was not even able to cover everything that was wrong with the proposal in what has now become a massive critique... This might be one of the worst governance proposals I have ever seen in over decade of full time research into cryptocurrency That is how I went from EGLD supporter to critic overnight when this proposal dropped. That is why I needed to deploy harsh rhetoric quickly. As we, especially as influencers have a responsibility to warn people of irresponsible behavoir within the crypto sphere, especially if we have also promoted the project in the past If you also once supported EGLD, then the healthiest response is to view this debacle as an expensive but incredible valuable lesson, that we can carry with us towards whatever chains we choose to support next That is how we grow as people, as an industry & as a community. Breaking the cult like cycle toxicity. By replacing it with true intellectual honesty, logic, reason & love! ❤️

@SasuRobert Better make the blockchain faster and sharded, not to be needed to add priority fees. Sharding must cover ALL transactions The code must be simple and safe. I think this is smth extra is useless and wrong Btw, need adoption first ..before pioritize anything GL

MultiversX will implement a fee market structure inspired by proven models like that of Ethereum's EIP-1559, which divides transaction fees into two components: a base fee and a priority fee. The base fee is a protocol-set minimum fee. It is split as follows: - 90% to Builders: This portion is directed to the smart contract authors, creating a direct revenue stream for developers. This establishes one of the most competitive builder incentives in the industry. - the fees from transactions which do not call smart contract (asset transfers, data transfers) are burned 100%. - 10% is Burned: This portion is permanently removed from circulation, introducing consistent deflationary pressure that is directly proportional to network activity. - Every year, the base fee structure changes, builders get 5% less, 5% more is burned. This is done for 8 consecutive years, resulting in a split of 50% to builders, 50% to burn. - The split of the fees will be additionally re-evaluated every year via a governance vote. Audits and reports will be created for each item to determine whether KPIs were reached or not. Priority Fee: An optional fee paid by users to incentivize faster transaction inclusion. This entire fee is paid directly to the validators who produce the block, rewarding them for their role in processing transactions and creating a competitive market for blockspace that directly reflects the real-time economic demand for the network's processing power. This clearly targets more revenue for validators and more opportunities for validators to build more. With growing revenue, the validators can choose to lower the fees on the staking provider side, creating benefits for the users, to share the fees with users, or to deploy those into DeFi. The shard split algorithm will take into account the accumulated priority fees per day vs the base fees per day, creating new shards only when that makes sense economically for all the actors in the network. Because of sharding priority fees are never too high, users enjoy the dApps at the lowest cost. The scope of this structure thus creates a powerful dual-engine for value: builders are incentivized to create utility that drives transaction volume, and every single one of those transactions permanently increases the scarcity and baseline demand for EGLD. The 90% share of the fees to builders opens up a new set of applications and user experience, encouraging builders covering transactions free (through relayers) for their users. This share is meant to enable the creation of high frequency apps, activities, and bots, as the chain’s architecture provides sufficient block space. When blocks are full, validators can capture additional rewards from the priority fees. *The capacity of the blockchain after the SuperNova upgrade is 1Billion Gas per seconds. Filling up one shard with smart contract transactions in one day cost 864 eGLD, which would yield 86.4eGLD in burns per shard. A bunch of additions added as we go towards

@SergeSatoshiBTC 5% in 24h ? This is too much..

@xPortalApp You must be joking .. Bullish on Btc ?

WOKE UP FEELING BULLISH