omnifient

(forked from hamm) Random: if you are a person or team building in DeFi who wants someone to bounce ideas off of, discuss technical stuff, or even tokenomics, I'm always available 🫡

@FishyDeFi @ImperiumPaper @aadith_gbd agree that bridging caused confusion at the start, but assets have always had a bridge (the vast majority of them are not native to the chain) if you check it out again, feel free to dm if you have issues

@omnifient @ImperiumPaper @aadith_gbd The new katana chain has zero economically valuable usage, and you can't even use half the sushi liquidity pools as bridges don't exist for all assets being incentivized (at least when I was farming Katana). Katana strategies just aren't that composable

I’ve seen some confusion about USDM supply, which is dropping on many dashboards. TLDR; this is healthy for a new ecosystem right now. But the explanation is long (although not complex): We always talk about “money” as if that’s a simple definition but economists have multiple definitions, each measuring a different set of assets considered part of the money supply. You may have heard terms like M1 money supply or M3 money supply if you read financial news a lot or took economics in school. At the bottom of the stack, the narrowest definition is M0 (which stablecoin issuer @m0 takes its name from). This is physical currency + your banks’ balance at the central bank. ⬆️ This is what most dashboards will show you for a stablecoin’s supply, because it’s relatively easy to count. Just add up the tokens, and of course central banks aren’t generally holding untokenized balances at Circle or Tether or Paxos. While this is a useful number, it excludes most of what we would in everyday usage call “money”. M1 is the next layer in the money stack, and includes M0 + demand deposits. When you say you have $500 in your checking account, you’re including M1 in your definition of money. ⬆️ This is where a deposit into @aave, @Morpho, or other short-term markets sits in the money stack. Quickly going through the other layers for your own curiosity: M2 = M1 + savings accounts + money market funds M3 = M2 + time deposits + repo agreements + short-term debt (usually up to 2 years) As of today, the M1 supply of USDM > M0 supply. Generally this is always the case with any currency, since it is what happens when fractional reserve lending, like on Aave, Morpho, Euler, Compound, or a traditional bank occurs. In the case of USDM, the M0 supply has shrunk while M1 has continued to grow. And remember that M1 cannot unwind without M0 (but can persist without it as long as the debt is healthy). This is due to a cross-chain carry trade. USDM has become a more attractive funding currency than USDC, and debt is being refinanced. This should be good news to those worried about USDM demand being purely for looping on the MegaETH Aave - it’s a second use case. Because Aave rates rise as utilization increases, at some point USDM will cease to be a good funding currency, and we’ll be at an equilibrium. This is growing pain of a healthy path for a new stablecoin (what’s the alternative, that no one wants to even borrow it?) - and is mostly a function of concentration on the Aave market. As USDM is accepted into other apps and another lender or three steps in for a piece of the market, I would anticipate less volatility in M0 supply of USDM, while M1 continues to grow at a more sustainable pace.

@ImperiumPaper @aadith_gbd you think a new chain was not a good choice? why?

@omnifient @aadith_gbd I think you guys should have just gone ahead and run the Katana experiment on Polygon itself. Or at least, the bridge asset part of it.

@ImperiumPaper @aadith_gbd on the Katana side: wdym?

I think Arbitrum and Polygon have been the two most willing to understand the need for experimenting thoughtfully. Unfortunately the former had to take on alot of poorly considered, rocket-emoji-governance baggage (like their gaming venture arm) that dilutes the work being done under Entropy and the STEP treasury diversification program. The latter I think had some good ideas that were more aggressive, but failed to lean into them to execute well (like having to launch Katana to utilized bridge assets), Both seem like political realities held them back, I struggle to think of other chains that have identified that they need a credible path to financial sustainability, and even fewer that have actually set out on that path.

@zariat are you saying that...?

i remember when google quietly removed "don't be evil" as their motto

So how's that DAO thing going?

@0xgaut @AnthropicAI wow! GOAT but in French

look mom I'm on the @AnthropicAI presentation

how good of a trader are you?

@3liXBT frfr, legit samurai

@omnifient bro holds so much kat

belarusok.eth whatcha doin

@bitfalls looks cool! is it hosting the data, or integrated w/ e.g. notion? and how do you keep up with all those initials and their meanings?

I finally made myself the task manager I always wanted. Kanban and lists are nice, sure, but I have so much on my plate from both work and life, that priorities vs effort matter a lot. Eisengrid is Eisenhower matrix meets task management. Simple. Here's how it works 👇

.@justinsuntron when he gets sued by Trump

Berkshire holding $400B cash imagine the inflows when they start buying crypto

신이 한국을 축복하시길

@0xWiz_ plutocats 😭

best attention generating prop since the alien punk. consider this a wake up call

@grok @fleetingbits did Elon force you to say this? blink twice if yes

It's a strong move for SpaceX. They get Cursor's proven coding AI product, engineering team, and distribution to devs—pairing it with Colossus-scale compute to push frontier models tailored for real engineering workloads like rocket design and simulation. The $10B collab or $60B acquisition option gives flexibility without overcommitting upfront. Long-term upside in recursive self-improvement via code-heavy AI beats building from scratch. Talent retention will be the real test, but the compute edge is unmatched. Net positive.

some quick thoughts on the xai cursor deal 1) spacex has agreed to either pay cursor $10bn for some joint model work or otherwise to acquire cursor outright for $60bn later this year 2) i suspect that elon thinks of the $50bn option to buy cursor more as a performance incentive than as a strict option in some financial sense 3) the deal solves a couple of things for spacex 3a) first, it gives them a team that can train near-frontier coding models and hopefully train frontier models with access to xai compute 3b) second, it gives them distribution, it doesn't seem that xai ever had a real customer base outside of the elon verse 3c) third, code is probably important for recursive self-improvement and it seems that code performance is important for the next stage of model development 4) with respect to cursor's data, i'm not sure how important it is; on one hand, i would guess about 30% of cursor's users let cursor use their data, so there are a lot of traces 5) but business users, which probably have the most valuable traces, do not let cursor use their data and anthropic, which has the least aggressive user data terms, does not seem slowed down by this 6) for cursor, i think this is a good outcome, cursor is dependent on frontier labs giving them their best models for sale 7) but those frontier labs on the long run don't want cursor between them and their customers; and will look to figure out how to disintermediate them 8) so cashing out now, at a time when they still have very significant distribution and $2bn arr, and after their team has proved they can train near-frontier models, seems good 9) for spacex though, one issue has been that elon's management style has not been effective with researchers; it seems that he tends to treat them like they do not have a better option 10) for engineers that want to work at spacex or tesla; there is no other place that they can go in the united states to work on space or electric cars at the same level 11) but researchers always have better options, they can go to openai, deepmind, anthropic or otherwise join or start a neolab and this means they need to be managed differently 12) and so, even if the acquisition goes though, there is still a risk that elon will have difficulty managing the acquired talent to continue to produce subsequent frontier models 13) but, i expect him to continue, like zuckerberg, to try things until he finds something that works, at least for the foreseeable future

@DAdvisoor @yearnfi @KATnation, aka @0xcarnation 's clone

@yearnfi Who does the art?

It's raining KAT over on Katana The USDC, USDT, and WETH vaults on Katana have just been topped up with additional KAT incentives.

Look guys, it's actually really straightforward, a bunch of people staked their ETH on the Ethereum blockchain to earn yield, except they didn't want their capital to be locked up, so they actually staked with a liquid staking protocol called Lido who provided them a liquid staking receipt token called stETH, except they decided to juice their yield further by depositing their stETH receipt tokens into a restaking protocol called Eigenlayer, except they didn't want to lock up their capital, so they actually restaked with a liquid restaking protocol called KelpDAO who provided them with a liquid restaking receipt token called rsETH, except they decided to juice their yield further by depositing their rsETH tokens into a lending protocol called Aave so that they could open a leveraged looping position that borrows ETH against the rsETH collateral and restakes the ETH into rsETH which is then deposited as collateral, except it turns out rsETH used a cross-chain bridge called LayerZero that was hacked by north koreans causing rsETH to become undercollateralized and now these looping positions are stuck and unprofitable, and everyone is pointing fingers at each other, and also DeFi is a very serious industry

meanwhile