MZ

We’ve announced @joinvdao (incubated by @5thWorld_com) at @EthereumDenver 2024 and we’ve grown it to a very vibrant community, pioneering the concept of “regenerative network states”. This is not your typical regen / climate project, this is about decentralization of and self-custody over physical infrastructure: energy, food, water, etc. We’re gearing up for a product launch in Q3 this year, join us to learn more!

Ethereum must be CROPS: - Censorship-resistant - Robust / secure - Open source - Private - Secure

@owocki @gitcoin 🔥🔥🔥

I co-founded @Gitcoin in 2017. Today I went to gitcoin.co and realized it has quietly become something new: a community-curated playbook for crowdfunding the Ethereum and AI ecosystems. Which honestly feels like the natural next step. Some of the latest trends: 1/ Quadratic Funding is now basic infrastructure. Hundreds of rounds. Dozens of forks. Anyone can spin up a QF deployment. The hard question is no longer how to run QF. It is when to use it versus retro funding, milestone grants, or something else. 2/ The funding design space is exploding. QF. RetroPGF. Hypercerts. Conviction voting. Streaming. Milestone-based funding. Vaults. Outcome-based rewards. Hybrid models. & more. This is becoming a full capital allocation design space, not a single product. Checkout gitcoin.co/mechanisms 3/ $60M+ distributed created a dataset. Gitcoin learned more from what failed than what worked. In a world where you can spin up a new funding mechanism in a weekend, institutional knowledge becomes the real moat. 4/ Funding is shifting from rounds to flows. Grant rounds create bottlenecks and funding gaps. New experiments are moving toward continuous funding, streaming, and always-on allocation systems. 5/ The source of capital matters as much as the mechanism. Donations were the bootstrap phase. The next era is structural capital: yield, protocol revenues, treasuries, and mechanisms that create recurring funding for public goods. 6/ Getting upside in funded projects is becoming a meta. Pure donations are giving way to hybrid models where funders can share in the upside. Hypercerts, retro rewards, token allocations, and other mechanisms are blurring the line between grants and investment. 7/ AI-driven capital allocation is emerging. As the design space explodes, humans alone cannot evaluate everything. AI systems will increasingly help surface projects, analyze impact, simulate mechanisms, and guide allocation decisions. 8/ Capital allocation infrastructure is becoming its own industry. Designing mechanisms, running experiments, publishing results, and mapping the space is becoming a core layer of the ecosystem. Mechanisms are getting cheaper to deploy. Which means the scarce resource is not mechanisms. It is maps of: • which mechanisms work at which stage of a project • which governance structures reduce capture • which incentive models actually produce public goods So maybe @Gitcoin’s most important role in 2026 is not running funding rounds. Maybe it is helping the ecosystem learn how to fund itself. More @ gitcoin.co

@ankurnagpal QSBS

QSBS is the most generous tax break in America today: - Start a C-Corp - Hold shares 5 years - No taxes on $15M on sale Advanced features can multiply the impact: - Gifting shares - Setting up trusts - Rolling over QSBS - Converting a LLC at $50M Comment QSBS for my guide

Liquity V2 is built to last as long as @ethereum exists $BOLD is - immutable - offers real yield - only backed by ETH, wstETH, rETH diversify into the ultimate cypherpunk dollar check out the interview 👇

@koeppelmann 😂

Certainly not a good look to get the decimals wrong when minting stables and not having procedures in place to catch that early.

@zerohedge True. That is why Bitcoin is based on energy: you can issue fake fiat currency, and every government in history has done so, but it is impossible to fake energy.

There’s several issues here. First, even if we agree to go with a middle ground, then USDe should have been allowed to depeg for DeFi to .995 rather than be hard coded to 1. This is safer because there could be instances where the deepest pools of liquidity depeg more than that. Second, I even if I agree with the framing that the goal is to separate out the case of temporary secondary price dislocation versus permanent impairment of collateral, this goal is not easily achievable in true tail scenarios. From the perspective of Binance, they can 1) use an oracle that looks at deeper liquidity pools that are not their own to determine if USDe should be liquidated as collat or 2) they can treat all of DeFi and other exchanges as invisible and exogenous to their own closed system. If they chose 2), then they are not able to determine what is a temporary dislocation versus a true impairment of collateral because it looks the same to them. So then how things played out is exactly the result. If they choose 1), then there are other tradeoffs. 1a) They are effectively loaning their own balance sheet out temporarily based on the trust they have toward the custodian, the oracle provider, and other exchanges. In extreme cases where let’s say USDe becomes hugely successful and much bigger, Binance would be betting the solvency of their exchange on trusted third parties. If they are wrong in their judgement, users hold the bag. At this point, you might as well just formalize a cross-industry clearinghouse thus reinventing the wheel from tradfi. That would at least be better than the current structure. 1b) In the time it takes MMs to cut over liquidity from USDe DeFi pools to CeFi, the liquidity on Curve/Uni/Fluid could deteriorate. In other words, local books guarantee higher solvency than expecting liquidity to be cut over from external books which is not as instant. Easy example is if two exchanges have local book dislocations and then wait to liquidate based on a DeFi oracle. MMs go to grab the same liquidity to service two exchanges. You can’t grab the same liquidity even though it initially looks like you can. Third, at some point the tri-party custodian agreements will be tested. The custodian will have to decide whether an incoming margin call is real or fictitious. If they ignore a real margin call, Ethena is safe but the exchange and its users get rekt. If they fulfill a fictitious margin call, Ethena gets rekt and true impairment of collateral will happen. Fourth, if Ethena has a special deal with exchanges for ADL protection, does that mean any firm with the same transparency, similar risk profile, and a tri-party custody agreement can get this privilege? If not, this would break exchange neutrality. If so, it puts undue burden on the exchanges to have case-by-case customized integrations to check up on any user who wants this. The issue here is that exchanges are taking on brokerage function. The exchange should be neutral while the brokerage doesn’t have to be. The brokerage risks their own balance sheet in isolation but the exchange, by risking their balance sheet, affects solvency for all users. This would also be a reinventing of the wheel from tradfi but long term would help avoid conflicts of interest.

Why is nobody talking about the fact that clearly, Binance had special non ADL deals with certain counterparties and is clearly violating the fact they're supposed to be a neutral entity? What other preferential treatment do they give to insiders? Info on users? Special APIs?

Agreed

@hosseeb What about this x.com/mikeippolito_/…

Did Ethena Really Depeg? I’ve seen a lot of chatter about the Ethena depeg during the market mayhem this weekend. The story is that USDe briefly depegged to ~68c before recovering. Here’s the Binance chart everyone is quoting: But digging into the data and talking to a bunch of folks over last couple days, it's now clear this story is not correct. USDe did *not* depeg. First thing to understand about USDe: its most liquid venue is actually not on exchanges, it’s on Curve. There’s hundreds of millions of dollars of standing liquidity on Curve, while only tens of millions on any given exchange, including Binance. So if you just look at that chart of USDe on Binance, it looks like USDe depegged. But if you superimpose the other liquid venues for USDe, you get a different picture: We see here that while USDe wicked down on every CEX, it did not do so uniformly. Bybit briefly hit $0.95 then quickly recovered, yet Binance depegged a crazy amount and took forever to regain the peg. Curve meanwhile dipped a mere 0.3%. What explains this difference? Remember, every single exchange was under immense load on that day—it was the single largest liquidation event in crypto history. Binance was extremely unstable during this period, causing MMs to be unable to shift inventory because APIs were failing and withdrawals and deposits were bricked. Nobody was able to step in and arb. It’s like a fire broke out on Binance, but all of the roads were blocked and firefighters couldn’t make their way in. This caused a wildfire to break out on Binance, but pretty much everywhere else, that fire was immediately put out by bridging liquidity. (As Guy shows in his post, USDC also depegged a few cents temporarily on Binance due to the same general instability issues—liquidity just couldn’t get ferried in, but this wasn’t a depeg event for USDC either.) So OK. Unsurprising that while there’s API instability, prices on exchanges are wildly different because nobody can get inventory in. But why did it decline so much deeper on Binance than on Bybit? The answer is twofold—first, Binance did not have any primary dealer relationship with Ethena to be able to directly mint and redeem on-platform (Bybit and other exchanges have this integrated) which allows MMs to stay on-platform and still perform peg arbitrage. This is huge, as otherwise an MM has to take their money *out* of Binance, go do the Ethena peg arb, and then bring back their inventory. Nobody was doing that in a moment of crisis when APIs were failing (plus so many other coins were cratering). Second, Binance had their oracle poorly implemented and started liquidating positions they shouldn’t have—good liquidation mechanisms don’t trigger on flash crashes. If you are not the primary venue for an asset (which Binance is not for USDe) then you should look at the price on the primary venue. If you are only looking at your own order book, you will liquidate too aggressively. This caused Binance to start liquidating USDe as though it was worth $0.80 or whatever, which caused a cascade. This is a big part of the reason why Binance is refunding people who were liquidated on USDe (other exchanges AFAIK are not doing so)—they messed up by only looking at their own price instead of the true external price. So this was a Binance-specific flash crash, which better market structure could’ve prevented. USDe on its primary venue, Curve, was actually trading at a tight peg the entire day. This is really different from what you’d describe as a depeg. If you remember USDC in 2023 during the banking crisis, this is what an actual depeg looks like: During the banking crisis, USDC traded down on every single venue. There was *no* place where you could buy USDC for $1. Redemptions were literally halted, so $0.87 was the *true* price. That’s what a depeg means. This instead was a Binance-specific dislocation. It’s a big lesson for market infra, but critical to understand the nuance here if you are trying to draw inferences about USDe’s mechanism from this weekend. USDe was fully collateralized and worth $1 on its primary venue through the entire episode and actually increased its backing collateral over the weekend due to the price action. That said, this kind of market instability is ultimately good because it exposes lessons for the whole industry. Guy’s post below lays out how any exchange, including Binance, can avoid this kind of issue in the future. TL;DR: USDe did not depeg, Binance did.

Ethereum is the world’s deepest and purest well of programmable digital trust.

Believe in SomeETHing

This looks interesting…

@aubreystrobel Hahaha reminds me of this Seinfeld episode: youtu.be/-0Hbu4Z4pGI?si…

I’m asking all Americans to dress up for your life. Stop wearing sweats to the airport. Try.

@chainyoda lool

@Bfaviero 😂😂😂

VCs today: "Looking to invest in the next Privy"

@sytaylor The dial-up era of crypto integration just ended 💯 The era of crypto payment networks is here.

BREAKING: Stripe just made their second major crypto acquisition. Wow! 😮 After spending $1.1bn on Bridge, they just bought Privy for an undisclosed sum) Most people missed what this combination actually means. Here's the play that's about to change everything: - Bridge ($1.1bn) = Stablecoin Infrastructure Stripe can now process stablecoin payments like any other transaction. - Privy (just acquired) = Wallet-as-a-Service Makes wallet creation, balance management, and transaction signing as simple as an API call. The combination is lethal: - Bridge handles the stablecoin rails - Privy handles the wallet complexity - Stripe keeps its reputation for simplifying complexity for developers What this enables: - Any marketplace can offer "crypto" wallets to users - Any fintech can add stablecoin accounts - Any platform can settle globally in seconds - All through APIs developers already trust. The real insight: Stripe is going beyond payments. They're building infrastructure for every business to become use crypto rails without the complexity. Without the technical headaches. The dial-up era of crypto integration just ended

@mdudas @stripe @privy_io Lool

@kaili_jenner @circle @privy_io Congrats!

with the @circle IPO and @privy_io acquisition within 1 week of each other, i'm not sure if life is even real anymore feeling very lucky to be a part of both families, congrats to all!!!