Startup Painkiller

Thanks a lot for your time reading and responding back! I agree on the pieces that you have raised here. Not knowing about the Yolo mode, not taking into the account the bigger packs, missing out with Dust wallet. I should have reached out to your team bofore publishing it and I acknowledge my actions. On the points raised on wash trading, I would like to be clear. I am not stating that the team has faked its revenue, but rather I cannot prove who owns those wallets. I wrote it on my own with a good faith, with no payment or external influence or being positioned in Cards. I would be glad to genuinely change my mind where I am wrong. If there is more parts that you think is not alligned to what your internal dashboards are seeing and my point is misleading feel free to point out or direct me towards to. I will restate it in public. I am glad that not only me are on similar points, but just with a slight different numbers. Shout out to @FourPillarsFP. Have read their post and the proposal for the call on the next week. I would be glad to join it too. We all agree that TCG market being new and real, which matters to holders. The question that I genuinely care more about is how much in the intersection of real collectioners and OGs in cards are flowing into our crypto railed products. How much of the reported revenue is fresh demand vs the same capital recycling. And I think this is a fair thing to debate in the open. Happy to be corrected and share my view on second piece with your team.

@yearnfi Incredible opportunity for onchain token maxxing

Yearn's risk team released a new tool highlighting dependency risk across different protocols Quick explainer on how to use this new tool

@mcasto_ Look at Canton Network too. You will be surprised.

$250m spent from the protocol that consistently runs at a loss because they heavily subsidize the network with emissions that are minted on nearly a daily basis, while token holders will not see value from these purchased MTLs. Side note that all four of Polygon's VEBloP block producers forward POL received to the same address, and two were funded by the same address. Why do they care so much about payment transactions routing through the chain when there's no upside to POL? It feels clear there is a single entity who receive 100% of the priority fees that are accrued to the VEBloPs. Another interesting note - the PIP-64/65 author is a core protocol engineer at Polygon Labs who works on validator architecture.

Thanks a lot for your time reading and responding back! I agree on the pieces that you have raised here. Not knowing about the Yolo mode, not taking into the account the bigger packs, missing out with Dust wallet. I should have reached out to your team bofore publishing it and I acknowledge my actions. On the points raised on wash trading, I would like to be clear. I am not stating that the team has faked its revenue, but rather I cannot prove who owns those wallets. I wrote it on my own with a good faith, with no payment or external influence or being positioned in Cards. I would be glad to genuinely change my mind where I am wrong. If there is more parts that you think is not alligned to what your internal dashboards are seeing and my point is misleading feel free to point out or direct me towards to. I will restate it in public. I am glad that not only me are on similar points, but just with a slight different numbers. Shout out to @FourPillarsFP. Have read their post and the proposal for the call on the next week. I would be glad to join it too. We all agree that TCG market being new and real, which matters to holders. The question that I genuinely care more about is how much in the intersection of real collectioners and OGs in cards are flowing into our crypto railed products. How much of the reported revenue is fresh demand vs the same capital recycling. And I think this is a fair thing to debate in the open. Happy to be corrected and share my view on second piece with your team.

Hi John, appreciate the thorough AI walkthrough. Let me guess, here is the prompt you gave to your Hermes agent, "I want to write a detailed article on Collector Crypt on chain transactions, I suspect they are wash trading, make no mistakes" I haven't read it all yet, and I will respond to the points in order because I think it would be helpful for users and future fudposters to understand, but here are some things I want to point out. 1) You make no attempt to look at cards that have been burned and shipped. You can start by looking at our minting address. If we were looping the way your AI concluded we wouldn't be shipping cards out. Please give it a try. 2) You make no attempt to look at new cards being minted. If what you say is true, we should be doing far less minting and far less shipping, and we'd be also washing the same cards (why get new cards on the platform?). Are our new cards unique? 3) You made no attempt to join our discord and search for the wallet addresses you mention. You'll find that the majority of them are in our discord and are verified users. Go message them yourself. Check their posting history, ask them if they're metronome bots. 4) You made no attempt to look at the top wallets, and see if they shipped any cards out, or did secondary trading activities on our marketplace, or hold any cards in their wallets. 5) You made no attempt to look at top wallets to see if they have used our competitors' platforms or hold any cards there. I'm sure some don't... but its a pretty good filter. These are five things an AI prompt and a researcher who doesn't really understand what they're talking about would miss. That's understandable. If you were truly interested in getting the story right, you would have messaged us first and asked, you'd say "my AI thinks these are metronome bots, can you help me understand" You decided to make an article with a bunch of false claims, pretty interesting for a "research firm" trying to get a story out. In real research firms, like ones on Wall Street, 100% of the time they try to do some real diligence, speak to users, speak to partners, speak to the team. Did you do any of this? We would have been happy to help you. If you're up for it, if you're willing to spend your time. I'll go through every single one of your points and explain how your AI might be reading data correctly, but making incorrect interpretations and hallucinating because of your bad prompt. But after I do so, I want you to issue a public restatement. You game?

@AresSprout @vibe_trading Dang really great CMO to promote project this way.

@johna2an If anyone thinks $CARDS is faking it and will crash You’re welcome to short it on @vibe_trading with up to 20x leverage Dm me if you need help onboarding or an access code 🫡

@feedmycat69 Very interesting point sir. I was out of TCG category for the last quarter.

interesting timing on all the cards fud as beezie (competitor) are currently doing a raise im sure is just a coincidence tho innit

@PineAnalytics Thanks. In Dune MCP we trust. 😁

@johna2an This paper feels like you dumped a handful of transaction CSVs into Claude and just said, “Go.” Each individual piece of evidence may be useful, but the paper lacks cohesion, context, and a clear thesis. Keep iterating. You’re on the right track.

@0xak_ @francescoweb3 @inversebrah Love your humour! 😁

@johna2an @francescoweb3 it is called a brain, the big squishy thing that claude cannot access directly @inversebrah

@MediaGiraffes oh haha there is no paid article or FUD campaign. those people just started following me early I followed back!

@johna2an Why are only the ONLY mutuals on your page Phygitals employees and founders?

@Ki1iko well stated!

First time I've ever seen an onchain 'researcher' admit they didn't actually research the product they want you to believe their research on. Not a single thing of value is ever found in desperation, go searching for fires and you quickly realise you're the one that needs to start them.

@johna2an Now do the same for Pump

@Dune can you guys add some credits to account please?

@JoeMunnsHK @PapaBeardedNFTs @TheBrazenSeeker @0xPhoenix77 @Collector_Crypt Love your comments! I just wanted to study your end user behaviour. Will share Part 2 in dms sir to make sure it does cause public hurting.

If you’d like to make this reply more public feel free! - multiple concurrent pack purchase is our multi rip feature “yolo mode” - whale heavy, yes, not a new finding - “wallet funding” $0.005 sent for dusting/address poisoning, prevalent across every major crypto app Happy to engage with any fundamental criticisms, but these are just plain wrong

@Collector_Crypt reports $62M in revenue. The wallets that made it deposited $58M to play. Same number. 1.07x. I spent two weeks rebuilding it from the chain, wallet by wallet. Here is what I found. 🧵

agree! 1) No comments. 2) I guess here it depends on the intentions. Some people deposit but do not all-in buy. Let's say I buy Rolex. The issuing company might have the secondary market but they do not control it or they do not get their cut of secondary sales. People own the watch. Read above a comment where person ordered physicall pack but yet still did not receive it. (maybe delivery problem I do not exclude). I guess same type of asking why do you hold your Stables in Exchange if your intention is owning Alts or other stuff. 3) Agree here. But I do not think you would appriciate 900 people playing around between each other and spending time of the casino as delta between the hands is not flowing back to the house.

Some good information here for readers willing to wade through all the ai slop restating the same thing over and over. But I mostly disagree with the big conclusions you've reached. First, revenues should roughly match deposits. The whole point of users depositing funds is to spend those funds, which then counts as revenue. I would expect revenue to match deposits, or else something is really wrong. Imagine a physical card shop, if users give the shop $100 to buy cards, then the shop's gross revenue is $100. Your central thesis is simply wrong here. What am I missing? Why is it a problem for revenues to deposits to roughly match? Second, the same money getting recycled over and over is literally the business model. The user spends, buys back, loses a cut to business on the buyback, spends again, buyback again, lose again, spend again, repeat until the money runs out. Why is it a problem that the same money gets recycled over and over when that's the business model? Third, the business is suppose to have a few wallets dominating volume. Every gacha game (including most mobile games which are gacha games disguised as something else) has extreme spending concentration among whales. Most of the mobile app industry is built on creating gamified gacha to capture big spender whales. If they are capturing big spender whales, the model is working and they are succeeding here. I do agree there's something worth investigating is the high volume automated non-human wallets. These don't make sense unless there's an incentive system for users to gamble as frequently as possible and keep recycling funds. Given it's crypto, I assume such an incentivize system exists for users and these wallets are trying to exploit those incentivizes, but I would need to investigate more.

@ethtwit To the point sir!

good example of how you can do solid research with interesting data but it becomes impossible to read when you put it in punchy slop cannon prose

@EgonBarta @Collector_Crypt ty for your support sir!

@johna2an @Collector_Crypt You'll have a lot more followers with quality research like this!

@chris_siris Great point. I had similar issues with Private Credit coming to DeFi wrappers with Risk Curators. How to ensure non default situation

I would like to publically apologise for wasting your time for reading AI sloppy article. 🙇‍♂️🙇‍♂️🙇‍♂️ Was first time writing something in twitter that actually went viral because people cared like I do. I was desperately looking for new opportunity for the last 1 month and at the same time developing onchain investigation skill for claude (pump token predictor based on 20 onchain metrics of manipulation) before seeing so many people around me in VC / Liquid Fund space talking about Collector's Crypt that I wanted to understand the onchain behavior of end users. On this one I agree on all three points! > Did not check the frontend for Yolo mode and their $2500 pricing tag (I tried to filter based on the small ones) thinking first order hypothesis being airdrop farmers who could be inflating the true volume. > Still I have double checked and found 900 wallets (at least to the honest extent that my claude with Dune MCP is telling me) inter trading between each other. Took me a while to label proper counterparties and see if some bots are steady buyers only or people are really burning 800k of trading volume just to hold cards with negative EV. So thinking that they just trade between each other and their cards get shuffled makes me still curious. I did not finish the website so that you guys could actually go and see everything in breadcrumbs way, but hereby attaching the screenshot of my points. FYI: Bot Metronome from picture: solscan.io/account/FfvHr4… bot Intermittent 2nd pic: solscan.io/account/3hcxpf… its transaction: solscan.io/tx/2YrFJ5JKpfU… Bot Steady 2nd pic: solscan.io/account/Dr4XWr… its transaction: solscan.io/tx/yv5eutVfe2m… If anyone from Dune or Data Indexers with MCP want to grant me with free credits DMs are open. My subscription could not cover all the historical data of each of those wallets.

@CharleyTakaya @RuneCrypto_ Agree

@RuneCrypto_ @johna2an AI Sloppy

@francescoweb3 Newbie to twitter. Any good Claude skill to cut it? lol

@johna2an Followed. Sir you have gud insights why use so much AI. Made it so hard to read for me. I could not reach the end only looked at charts

@GrindingPoet kinda first time coming to twitter, pardon me if I have wasted your time!

@johna2an bro you didn’t need a million words to end up finding out how everything works in these markets. With small margins, the whole point is recurring play. That’s the whole schtick.