blk443

@HugoPhilion @FlareNetworks BTC is great but we need to see more traditional assets on chain and not just more native crypto tokens. STocks, real estate, commodities like gold/silver, oil,.

More assets on Flare = more opportunities for ecosystem growth. Under FIP16 this then compounds back into FLR and the ecosystem. Other than FBTC what do you want to see on the network?

@CryptoColee @MLFootball @DustBaker @JJVikings @vikesinsider @VikesCentral @VikingsDaily @RavensTalkPod @RavensTattooGuy @FilmstudyRavens @TitanAnderson1 @TitanOilers It’s not, one played in a defense where physicality and run heavy were more prioritized. The other played in an era where pass defense was more prioritized. Can you guess which one played in which? Both great backs but one had more of a handicap than the other.

@blk4432 @MLFootball @DustBaker @JJVikings @vikesinsider @VikesCentral @VikingsDaily @RavensTalkPod @RavensTattooGuy @FilmstudyRavens @TitanAnderson1 @TitanOilers Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know football is hilarious gaslighting.

WHO IS THE BETTER RUNNING BACK IN #NFL HISTORY…? DERRICK HENRY OR ADRIAN PETERSON 🧐🧐🧐

@sentosumosaba @talktomefrosty So did he force them to use his predictions. I don’t care for any “influencer” but none of them to my knowledge forced folks to invest. Sure they scam, hype and rug but personal responsibility dictates you shouldn’t put more than willing to lose., especially from people.

@talktomefrosty I will disagree. I have real-world examples of where his predictions were used to make life-altering money decisions that were not good.

History often serves as a good teacher. #XRPpricepredictions

@sentosumosaba @CryptoBigTex He forced someone in a financial bind?

As long as he doesn't create future monster haters or put someone in a financial bind, he's free to have an opinion. Jake, D.K. and a few other hype accounts were not in this community when the Red Folder Holder Deal Sheet came to light, nor were probably half of this current X community. So visiting history is important.

@SchwetyBigBags FIRE needs to be programmatic that does consistent buys utilized for the ecosystem/FLR and not to fund any foundation or anything. END OF STORY.

Everyone seems to be providing feedback on the new FIP, so here’s mine. Overall it’s very impressive. Even radical in certain areas. Especially the MEV strategy. It’s rare and potentially HUGE if the ecosystem expands massively. My comments mainly apply to FIRE, and probably echo what others have already stated. A few thoughts on FIRE: Funds arrive to FIRE as a mix of FLR, stablecoins, FAssets, etc. Once they arrive to FIRE the committee does 1 of 5 things with them: 1. Substitute inflation rewards (pay validators instead of printing new flr) 2. Buy flr on the open market (and then do something with it, burn it, distribute it, etc) 3. Reward asset issuers 4. Boost dapp liquidity and yield 5. Fund flare foundation The good: - Strong focus on supply reduction - Creates a real flywheel: Captures actual network revenue (fees + MEV) and recycles it back into the token and ecosystem instead of leaking value. This could be HUGE! - MEV redirection: Turns extracted value into a public good for all FLR holders. The bad: - Initial centralization: Fully controlled by the Flare Foundation at launch (committee decides timing and allocation mix). Who’s on the committee? Can I be on the committee? - No fixed schedule: “Periodically” is vague. Buybacks/burns could be lumpy and slow. Automatic/Programmatic would be better. - Discretion on allocation: No insight into the allocation of funds. How much will go towards buybacks? How much goes to the flare foundation? I would argue that buying $flr on the open market is the most important of the mandates. Sustained buy pressure is needed more than distributing flr to stakers, who are holders by nature anyway and don’t apply sell pressure. - Growth dependency: If on-chain activity (FAssets, DeFi, etc.) stays low, the revenue pot remains small and impact is limited. Need fBTC, and others quickly, to feel the impact. - Governance hurdle: Switching to joint control requires a high 50% inflatable supply vote, which will be impossible to achieve. (FIPs are lucky to get 5%-10% of supply to participate). The introduction of FIRE could have a big impact on the price of FLR if managed properly. For example, if the incoming revenue is used to buyback flr, then it’ll have a positive impact on the price because it’s providing constant upwards buying pressure. However, if the incoming revenue is used to fund the foundation, then no, it’ll have limited impact on price. Also, I wish they would move away from the vague language of “periodically” and move to something automated. For example, all revenue automatically converted to flr, then a certain portion burned, a certain portioned distributed, etc. The percentages could be changed at a later point (if needed) with a FIP. I don’t like the fact that the decision is left in a few people’s hands, who may not have the communities interest in mind. For a network that preaches trustless-ness, a committee that’s managed by the flare foundation is not the best look. If grading, I’d give it a A+ for the concepts, and a A- for the implementation of FIRE. (A few changes and I’d give it an A+). Good job @FlareNetworks team. Good job @HugoPhilion

@Cryptoinsightuk Never thought it would be associated with F-assets lockup as Hugo stated prior with TEEs and PMVs collateral wouldn’t be needed anymore. I think the most “radical” move is the MEV approach imo. Moving those funds back to FLR may yield more results in FLR price.

I read through this, honest take: Overall, I'd say it's a step in the right direction. I can't say I'm blown away by innovation. I like the idea of FIRE so long as it's transparent, bringing inflation down a little is good, but not revolutionary and I'm undecided on whether increasing pricing per transaction is a net gain or not. I would've personally like to have seen some sort of value lock through FAssets collatoralisation or something, like lock 100 XRP to FXRP and have to lock flr as collateral or something along those lines to really focus on supply side of the tokenomics

@TheGrungieNFTs Doubt that. Hugo in the past several times mentioned TEEs and PMVs were gonna make FLR collateral for F-assets not needed

Prediction: Increased $FLR collateral for FAssets More collateral = stronger security + higher trust in the system It’s a simple shift if implemented that strengthens the entire ecosystem from the ground up. ☀️🕶️

@lafamiliacrypto @FlareNetworks Exactly. Now the caveat in this post is that it says “used”. Everyone in crypto usually think “gas”. However if it is radical as hyped, maybe there is a different utilization for $FLR here that we may be actually new to crypto. Otherwise HUGE disappointment if just gas.

@blk4432 @FlareNetworks Yes gas is not enough I will be very very disappointed if the proposal is just about flare being tied to increase in gas fees

The busier the network, the more $FLR gets used. You'll want to keep this in mind.

@lafamiliacrypto @FlareNetworks It’s not radical if FLR is just used for gas unless it’s just a substantial amount that affects price.

@blk4432 @FlareNetworks Facts

@KhushieFiji @Anubis_Crypto_ I don’t think it will shoot flare. I think it will be a gradual increase as more folks understand the potential of FLR from the proposal. What really needs to happen in those 6-18 months is seeing the usage of the network drive FLR price action and not just speculation.

@Anubis_Crypto_ The only hype I worry about is everyone thinks FIP implementation will shoot FLR. It will but, it could take up to 6-18 after implementation for the effects to show. I hope holders understand and have patience.

Interesting observation from yesterday 👀 I dropped 2 posts about building in a bear market: • First one → 1.2K views • Second one on $FLR PA → 8.5K views x.com/anubis_crypto_… x.com/anubis_crypto_… This is actually valuable data for analysis - especially for @FlareNetworks - showing what really resonates with people right now. But here’s the real talk: We have real influence over the “building” part… while price action? We have very little control over it. So the question is: Is it really worth getting that hyped about things we can’t influence? 🤔 What’s your take?

@patiencewins77 @HugoPhilion Value or not no one was ever gonna put most of their liquidity on SGB. Personally I think canary is just semantics. To think this network was gonna be worth more than FLR was silly. The trend over the past year shows folks are simply skipping SGB and going right to FLR.

@blk4432 @HugoPhilion with no real value?

People often talk in extremely conspiratorial and grandiose terms about things that *could* possibly happen on other chains. It’s already happening on Flare - at scale - and only getting larger.

@patiencewins77 @HugoPhilion As a testnet which was already stated

@HugoPhilion ignoring songbird is wild, why create it $sgb

@VanAllen58 @eyrockmusic Agreed

@eyrockmusic @blk4432 The bird’s dead, stick with Flare.

Okay, here’s where we are and what’s coming. Yesterday, Flare hit another major milestone with Confidential Compute going live on testnet. This is going to unlock a new wave of applications for XRPFi and institutional use cases. I expect adoption to start gradually, then accelerate quickly once one or two major use cases break through. Over the weekend, I’ll be helping developers building with TEEs and Flare Smart Accounts to create new solutions. There are also several important pieces connected to FCC, including meaningful updates around both FDC and FAssets. I’m especially excited about what’s coming for FAssets, because it should give exchanges and custodians much more seamless access to XRP yield, with important unlocks for future integrations. More on that soon. Another big thing the community is waiting for is the FIP. I’ve gone through the draft, and once it’s published, I think people should take the time to read it carefully because it will reshape Flare over the long term, in a positive way. It’s clear that FLR needed stronger value capture now that we’ve found product-market fit, and in my view this proposal moves in the right direction. That said, the effects might not be instantaneous. Some benefits will happen very quickly, while others might roll out in phases. I expect the proposal to be published within the next couple of days, and I also expect the community will want to debate it in depth. I’ll be here to help however I can, but this is clearly a key moment for the community. Finally, on FBTC, I don’t have much to share yet. I spoke with the devs and things are looking good. But it’s worth remembering that Bitcoin is not easy to integrate because of its UTXO model. It’s a very different beast. Once this goes live, though, I think we will see another major step up in TVL, similar to what happened with XRPFi. And the value capture mechanism should be noticeable by then. We are going to win.

@eyrockmusic @MONTHER94051462 @0xQuantic Opinion. But the last year or so should be proof enough of where the trend has been heading. Most folks are launching on FLR without testing SGB.

@blk4432 @MONTHER94051462 @0xQuantic Got any sources or just your opinion?🙏

@eyrockmusic @MONTHER94051462 @0xQuantic No

@MONTHER94051462 @0xQuantic Is this going to be adopted by/on Songbird as well- trying to get my head around if the intention is to still use this🤷‍♂️

@NicholasLobue @4windsbar Yeah bt that’s wt I was saying. We need to see utility impact price movement (however that may come) as a true signal to say to the market “hey the token he to do something to be relevant”. Otherwise the market will continue to follow BTC. Hopefully this proposal can break tht

@blk4432 @4windsbar To be fair, 99% of the market is priced in BTC movement which has been exceptionally frustrating on many levels. Especially given the amount of utility outside of BTC. I think we could all agree it shouldn’t be this way

This goes over basically everyones head. Introducing stables alongside $FLR as underlying collateral for FAssets decoupled bridge security from market price of $FLR. Meaning that, in a market downturn (currently experiencing) the security of the bridge isn't compromised. A legitimate attack vector on something like Axelar.

@NicholasLobue @4windsbar I think what people have been wanting to see for years now is to have a token get carried alittle more in price with the demand coming from its utility. Speculation will always impact but it just seems the market hs just been following the tune of BTC.

@blk4432 @4windsbar BTC doesn’t have much to do with it, the order book is thin and the price is down. Different problems require certain solutions The market is down and people must be forced to see the utility, it doesn’t mean $FLR has no utility without this FIP

@NicholasLobue @4windsbar Why wouldn’t there be a FIP if market conditions were favorable? I would have thought this would have came regardless to claim that utility is causes demand vs just follow BTC.

@4windsbar Im with yah but also if market conditions were favorable, there wouldn’t be either. Either way the FIP should hopefully strengthen the monetary value in both scenarios