@mobitoro ᛤ

GREAT NEWS FOR ALL HOLDERS!… @Brian_Shuster Dropping BIG NEWS LIVE RSVP! ⬇️⬇️⬇️ twitter.com/i/spaces/1LyGB…

Repost if you have never sold a single $DOG token

DOWNLOAD XAEON TODAY!… Join us Thursday for the official launch parties. Giveaways and more!

THIS THURSDAY! Come join the Utherverse launch party in #xaeon

Repost if you held your $DOG from airdrop to first tier-1 CEX listing!

@LeonidasNFT @PieterWeb3 @nadertheory

REPOST IF YOU ARE READY FOR THE FIRST $DOG TIER-1 CEX SPOT LISTING!!!!!

I’m going to @Utherverse’s upcoming Space. Will you join too? twitter.com/i/spaces/1zqJV…

@RoundtableSpace It’s $DOG Unstoppable

WHICH MEMECOIN HAS THE STRONGEST ARMY OUT THERE RIGHT NOW? DROP YOUR PICK.

@CoinMarketCap It’s $DOG the OAO

The ultimate meme coin showdown! 🏆 Which token takes the championship?

@RunelingsBTC Edgy af @EdgehogsNFT

If you could add any Ordinals project to the Runelings prize pool… Which one would it be? Tag them below. The chain is always listening. 🟧 Let's Make Bitcoin Fun Again!

After building in crypto for nearly 8 years (since 2017), this is the most optimistic I’ve ever been about where we’re headed. There are so many positive outcomes now to look forward to that will only help grow our space, with institutional adoption, increasing regulatory clarity, upcoming stablecoin legislation and more interesting use-cases being unlocked every cycle like prediction markets, on-chain CLOBs and decentralized social. We’re in a unique position ourselves with DeSo’s capabilities, having built from the ground up to to allow us to capture so many unique products and use-cases that wouldn’t be possible on most other chains today. And as we continue to build our vision, it’s only a matter of time before everyone is forced to take notice. We don’t think in bull cycles or bear cycles, we think about what we want to achieve in the long-term and what we can build and ship today to make that happen. This year will be exciting as we continue to polish up our products, onboard more people around the world and show everyone what DeSo is truly capable of.

#post2earn is real and it's working. Contributing big time to user retention on desocialworld.com and @desoprotocol Can you imagine how this thing will boost @FocusDotXYZ once @nadertheory releases the big bags for post2earn on that app? Wanna a piece of that? Check 👇

If you think you’ve seen an instance of foreign interference, reach out to our colleagues at the Commissioner of Canada Elections : cef-cce.ca/content.asp?do…

DONT MISS THIS WEEKS GIVE AWAYS! And THIS WEEKS 100+ PERSON SURPRISE 🤫 RSVP HERE ⬇️⬇️ twitter.com/i/spaces/1rmxP…

@nadertheory Awesome news! Happy for you Nader

The rumors are true and I can finally talk about it: The DOJ has dismissed its case against me and my name has been cleared. This is an amazing result for me, for my family, for my team, and for DeSo. There is no limit to what we can achieve from here. At some point, I'll share my full story. But for now, I just want to clarify a few important points since I can now speak openly. 1. My innocence withstood intense scrutiny. The government meticulously combed through my private texts, my private emails, and even private documents I'd written looking for any shred of wrongdoing. They went to people I'd done business with and essentially pressured them to say bad things about me (which nobody did, not even people I'd let go in the past). The process was extremely adversarial. They weren't looking for a reason to clear me, they were looking for a reason to convict me, and any reason would have worked as long as they thought it would convince a jury. After months of searching, using every method and tool at their disposal, including applying pressure to those around me, the government decided to dismiss their charges. It's hard to understate how rare a dismissal like this is. After going through this process myself and seeing what the government is capable of, I believe it's highly unlikely that anyone who has ever done anything wrong, or even anything that "feels" wrong, would ever survive the government's scrutiny without being convicted. I truly believe it only happened in my case because I've always gone above and beyond to do right by everyone I've ever done business with, and because I truly believe in my heart that what we're doing with DeSo is important for the world (and this came out in all my private communications). 2. There was no victim. In their complaint, the government claimed that a conversation they had with "Investor-1" led them to believe that I had defrauded this investor. Many things were incorrect about this claim after it was scrutinized: 1) I never lied about anything. In fact, I was beyond transparent at all times, and I'm confident that Investor-1 would agree 2) Investor-1 was and still is up on their purchase, even after the government's FUD tanked the price by over 70% 3) I am confident that Investor-1 does not consider themselves to be a victim. Not only that, but Investor-1 has never been anything less than an amazing partner to me all throughout my career for almost a decade now. When I saw them mentioned in the complaint I immediately suspected that the government had compelled their testimony, and was either misunderstanding or misrepresenting an innocent conversation to reach the conclusion they wanted to reach. I believe that if you asked Investor-1, the only entity they'd consider themselves a victim of is the US government for wasting so much of their time, and for costing them more in legal fees than the amount allegedly lost to fraud (which to be clear was zero because they are still up on their original purchase of tokens). In summary: I believe the case that was brought against me consisted of a no-loss non-fraud against an alleged victim who doesn't even consider anything negative to have occurred, other than the actions of the government itself. 3) DeSo is fully-decentralized. Perhaps the allegation that hurt the most was the government's claim that BitClout/DeSo, the blockchain that I've been working on for years now, is not fully-decentralized. They did this by pulling a text message I sent out of context. In the message, I said something like "even something that is fake decentralized would probably still not be a security." Right *after* that message I clarified that BitClout/DeSo is *actually* decentralized, and thus has virtually no securities risk as a result. Unfortunately, the government didn't include that context in their complaint, which in my opinion is an act of bad faith on the government's part. For the avoidance of doubt, I will say on the record right here and now that BitClout/DeSo has been fully-decentralized from approximately late 2020. To say I thought anything else would not only be wrong, it would contradict actual hard fact. 4) This was some hard stuff. A lot of things about what I went through were hard. One day I will tell the whole story and I think it will be quite interesting for people to hear-- but not today. I don't want to come off as arrogant or hyperbolic, but I feel I have to give my honest assessment and say that I'm pretty sure something like this would have broken most people. There is something "life or death" about a crisis like this that I feel few working in traditional companies have ever really dealt with, even at the highest levels. At minimum, it would break their team and make it hard to continue to operate normally... This being said, I'm proud to say that our team remained solidly intact, and we even successfully launched two major products through all the noise: Openfund and Focus (which you should try, by the way), as well as a major network upgrade to Proof of Stake. I always knew that I hadn't done anything wrong and that it would all get resolved. But everyone around me did as well, including my team. That belief, combined with the absolutely heroic support of my friends and family, made it manageable without too much stress. And of course, it doesn't hurt that I believe DeSo is one of the most important things I can be doing for the world, and worth fighting to the death for. Lastly, I have to mention that if it weren't for all of the efforts of others in our industry, especially @brian_armstrong and his work with Coinbase, I'm not sure crypto would be where it is today, and I'm not sure we would have gotten such a swift dismissal of my case. === In the short-term, I've got big plans for DeSo, Focus, Openfund, and HeroSwap (my team's core products). Every single one is best-in-class at what it does and a potential billion-dollar business on its own. Now that I'm able to operate at full capacity, free from stifling constraints, and with my reputation and network restored, I'm confident we'll realize that potential. Now, let's get back to work.

desocialworld.com Give it a try if you're grown tired of constant polar toxicity of X Its a social place where you can also earn by posting. Highly recommend!

#XAEON NEWEST PATCH AND MORE GIVE AWAYS! ITS FINALLY HAPPENING! Tune in Thursday to hear with team and founder @Brian_Shuster twitter.com/i/spaces/1lPKq…

@nadertheory Such interesting things to contemplate. Thanks for this!

How much should a Layer-1 be worth relative to an app that's built on top of it? I believe this is the most important question in crypto right now, and one that will decide the ultimate fates of Ethereum, Solana, and every other blockchain on the market today. Yet I don't see many people talking about it. What should the layer-1 premium be and why? 🧵 Right now, I think it's easy to dismiss layer-1s as a commodity product that is overvalued by the market. The reason is that apps built on blockchains can theoretically "swap out" what chain they're using to minimize costs. For example, an app can theoretically move to whatever the lowest-cost blockchain is in order to power its features. And apps like Focus even build cross-chain features in from day one to minimize friction for users coming from other chains (it even supports BTC). But what determines how commoditized blockchains will be in practice? I think the switching costs boil down to three categories of friction: 1) moving assets, 2) moving liquidity, and 3) moving user data. And these frictions are heavily affected by whether an app allows users to self-custody or not. Let me explain... When you want to move a user from one blockchain to another, the first question is whether your app does self-custody: I.e. whether the user controls their assets or the APP controls their assets. An exchange like Coinbase is custodial (meaning the operators of the exchange control users' assets) while an app like Focus is non-custodial (meaning the user's assets and account are wholly controlled by the user themselves). What are the implications of this? For a custodial app like Coinbase, they are able to achieve virtually "frictionless" switching between chains. If tomorrow they wanted to convert all customers' USDC from Ethereum to Solana, they could do it (and Binance even went so far as to convert all stablecoins from other chains to BUSD on Binance Chain under the hood). Cases like these make it understandable to assume that the layer-1 premium will be small. After all, why would Coinibase nudge users to anything but the lowest-cost blockchain in the long run? But where things get more complex is when non-custodial apps enter the picture. With an app like Focus, all of your assets and content are stored directly on-chain. If you make a post on Focus, the content of that post is stored on the DeSo blockchain. And if you place an order on Focus (or another DeSo app like Openfund), then that order is actually stored directly on the DeSo blockchain as well. The same goes for other self-custody apps like Uniswap or Raydium on Solana. This is where it's important to consider the three categories I mentioned previously: 1) assets, 2) liquidity, and 3) user data. When an app that is self-custody wants to move users to another chain, it requires an onerous opt-in from the user because you literally need them to sign a transaction that moves their money from one place to another. You can't do it "under the hood" like Coinbase can, and that's kind of the point: Your money belongs to YOU, not the app that you're using. But moving a user's assets is actually the easiest thing to do because it's a single-player decision. A user can switch from using USDC-ETH to using USDC-SOL or even USDC-DESO without that much of a hassle. Where things get more complex is actually with liquidity and user data (the other categories). It's one thing to move a user's assets to another chain but another thing entirely to move *liquidity* to another chain. What do I mean by liquidity? Well, consider an on-chain order-book like the DeSo DEX that powers Openfund (but you can also consider liquidity pools like Uniswap or Raydium). If there's millions of dollars in resting orders on a DEX, moving a user to another chain makes it much more onerous to trade because you have to move them BACK to the high-liquidity chain in order to execute all of their future orders. You can do it, but guess what: You're going to have to pay the toll on the high-liquidity chain no matter what (the network transaction fee), meaning that liquidity yields pricing power. What's more, having liquidity on your chain results in repeated transactions, one for every trade the user wants to do over their lifetime, vs a single-transaction single-player switching like moving assets gives you. How powerful is the "moat" provided by liquidity on your chain? It actually depends on what assets we're talking about. For major assets with lots of liquidity across a lot of venues like BTC, ETH, SOL, etc... I think reasonably strong but it's important to note that it's most likely not a "winner take all" dynamic, but rather a "split" dynamic. Chains above a certain threshold of liquidity, enough to get within a few basis points of spread of each other for such assets, will likely be somewhat inter-changable, though still hold pricing power in proportion to their share of the market. Where things get really interesting, though, is on longer-tail assets such as meme tokens or, eventually, wrapped securities on-chain. If a chain is the exclusive originator of a token, it's highly likely that the liquidity dynamics will switch from a split to winner-take-all. For example, if you launch your meme token on Focus or on PumpFun, it's highly unlikely that there will be a lot of liquidity on chains other than the original "issuing" chain. In such cases, the "pricing power" a blockchain has switches more to a winner-take-all dynamic rather than a split in my view. Lastly, I want to talk about a category of friction that hasn't really shown up in crypto yet, which is "user data" such as a user's identity or a user's on-chain content (like on a decentralized social network like DeSo). When it comes to content, I believe blockchains have much more competition from centralized players than they do with regard to liquidity. Blockchains offer permissionless access to assets, as well as the ability to issue your own assets (eg meme tokens), which gives DEX'es a major advantage over centralized exchanges. However, no such advantage exists when comparing a decentralized social network to a centralized one (they are effectively substitutes except for the fact that one is non-custodial and can't censor your content). Nevertheless, it is important to note that if a decentralized social network like DeSo were to gain traction, then I believe it would have the ultimate pricing power via its content. This is because when you make a post on a blockchain like DeSo, it is "fanned out" to all of the apps built on DeSo, meaning your reach is maximized from posting to the chain with the highest content liquidity. You will always post to all chains to maximize reach, but the toll charged by them will likely vary more like a winner take all rather than a split due to the highest coverage of the "dominant" content chain. So where does that put the layer-1 premium? Again, right now layer-1 network fees are really cheap because everyone is in a cutthroat battle to gain market share, and so it's easy to dismiss all layer-1s as having "low revenue potential." But ignoring the underlying power dynamics of the chains leads to the incorrect long-term assumption that they will be worthless, rather than have potentially-significant pricing power due to 1) liquidity aggregation and 2) content aggregation. Similar to saying Amazon is worthless because it's "not profitable" in 2005. As such, I believe focusing on the long-term power dynamics yields a different conclusion, which is that layer-1s with significant liquidity (both asset and content liquidity) should be valued at a significant premium to their current fees, and possibly even in proportion to the revenue made by apps built on top of them. I have a lot more to say here. I'm writing this post stream of consciousness (didn't even reread it because too busy). I will probably just record a long video about it all. But these are my raw thoughts in response to a question I've been getting.