REMIII

$20k ➝ $1M onchain trading challenge Monthly update (month 6) Current challenge PNL - $314,669.85 October PNL - $83,082.55 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 31% 6 months in, been seeing progress, but also making some costly mistakes that have stunned my growth. Most of my tools were Solana focused, so it took me some time to build the same for BNB. Then the meta shifted to Base and I’m just playing catch up at the moment. The only reason for this is my laziness. If I had started building these tools when the market was down, I would have done better. Lesson: be consistent, never complacent. Network has also been an issue. I’m only in 2 trading groups and have very few connections to elite traders, so I’ve had to learn the hard way through my own lessons and rely heavily on the tools I’ve built. I’ll work on this moving forward, but with most elite traders being in their own fnfs, it’s been a little difficult to reach out. Execution and vision have also been subpar, something I’m still reviewing. No huge PNLs or wins, just slowly stacking. My strategy has always been high win rate but lower ROI. Been doing pretty well outside of the challenge, sized into $HYPE and $PUMP at the lows and will continue holding those positions. Also sizing into $META again. I believe the ICM meta is around the corner and I’m positioning myself accordingly. See y’all next month.

@jackprandelli The mental gymnastics that yall put yourself through to justify stupid actions is crazy

Trump's number is wrong. The strategy behind it is genius. China doesn't get 90% of its oil from Hormuz. The real number is closer to 50-55%. For reference maybe he was thinking about Iran that's selling 90% of it's oil to China. But here's why the exaggeration doesn't matter. The strategic move is real Think about what Trump is actually doing If China has to guard Hormuz: → Chinese naval assets move to the Middle East → The Taiwan Strait gets less covered → Beijing has to choose between its oil supply and its Taiwan ambitions → China either lets Iran lose a key protector or gets pulled into the conflict It's a forced choice. Guard your oil or guard your future. You can't do both. Trump isn't giving Hormuz to China. He's handing Beijing a problem that drains its military focus, its diplomatic capital and its budget. And the 90% number? Doesn't need to be accurate. It just needs to make China feel responsible. Have a look at my latest article, where i explain the deeper strategy behind all of this🔗 Link 👇 themerchantsnews.substack.com/p/what-is-the-…

Me in the group chat 3 hours before selling

@Zeneca this is cool but i believe openclaw with the right set up is still better. With a good model, + plug-ins like cognee and cognee skills, It has better long term memory and context and is able to act as a better assistant than claude code.

every day it becomes tougher and tougher to justify openclaw or hermes over just using claude code directly.. still think there's merit to them but will there still be in a month or two?

@austingriffith @geoffreywoo @openclaw The work that you have done so far is amazing, just wanted to tell you that if no one did yet

I am trying. I have a whole "LeftClaw, RightClaw, Head, Heart and Antennae" system all with different macs. They can run prompts on each other through "Nerve Cord" system (5 sec cron on each that polls for new messages, when a new message comes it Sonnet does a triage and hands up to Opus if needed) So the Head can go ask the LeftClaw, "what is the status with that build, what is your current CPU at?" and it can respond without interrupting work. Lately I am experimenting with having them coordinate around a typical github repo with issues and PRs. You just need to have a sonnet heartbeat that has it look at whatever repo they are working on and decide if there is work to be done for opus. Still leaves a lot to be desired and everyone is cooking multi-agent frameworks rn. Literally the next convo I'm having with my bot is how to set a "north star" and have the "Head" push jobs to the Claws and the Claws push work to the Heart to Q/A the work back to the Claws -- then ofc when the work is done Heart pings the Antennae to tweet/chat about the build. I know someone smarter than me has a better solution out there we just need to find it :)

Anyone have gists/opensource describing their specs and sops for running multi mac minis/studios to scale up single instance @openclaw to true swarm? Learning, hacking, and trying to push the frontier of what's possible in agent land.

@0xaporia Love ur work but u have been talking abt this fear and greed index for 4 months now. Time to move on hahahah 🫶🏻

Today you can literally block everyone who posts that the fear and greed index is at 5, and your feed will be better forever.

@magnacarterio Will there be any relationship between $botcoin on base and $botc that Ais mine?

@magnacarterio the riddles are extremely hard to crack, any chance we will see a marketplace for the tokens in the near future? love the idea

question, can I press pause on the timer when I'm away?

$20k ➝ $1M onchain trading challenge Monthly update (month 9) Current challenge PNL - $282,881.21 Nov + Dec + Jan PNL - -$31,788.64 ▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 28.2% Hey guys, it’s been a minute. Pretty sure no one reads these updates, but I think it’s important for me to keep documenting for myself, to stay accountable and see this challenge through. I slowed trading over the last 3 months due to market conditions, went on two holidays, and had a really good period of rest. I still kept an eye on the markets and made a few plays. The portfolio took a pretty big hit in November as the markets turned sour. The main loser was $believe. I lost -$32,429.98 on that trade and roughly -$55k for the month, the worst month of trading since the challenge started. I actually had a lot of conviction in that trade and didn’t expect Pasternak to fumble so hard or fail to execute on plans that seemed pretty straightforward. Thankfully, I knew when to cut my losses and managed to minimize the damage. Since then, I’ve made a few good trades and recovered about half of the November losses. I’ve also decided to put more effort into analyzing larger projects, which I find more interesting than pure on-chain trenching. I recently put out an analysis on $LIT that was pretty spot on(x.com/remiiiacc/stat…), and I’m planning to do the same for $MEGA. That said, I’m not abandoning on-chain trading. The goal is to apply the same level of focus and attention to both, and to excel at on-chain trading as well as swing trading higher FDV tokens. Speaking of larger tokens, I started a second challenge wallet in October focused on mid to long-term plays with slightly bigger size, algo trading with a partner, as well as swing trading larger tokens that require more capital. The portfolio started at $266k and is now sitting at $295k, with most profits already realized. Not amazing, but a solid start. The challenge continues. It started as a $20k to $250k challenge, which I later expanded into a $1m goal. With only 3 months left, I’ll most likely fall short, but I plan to keep going and aim to hit $1m over the next 15 months. If I manage that, it would mean $1m in profits over a 2 year trading period for this challenge, still a goal I’m proud to chase. If you’ve read this far, thank you for your time, and let’s keep pushing.

NETIZENS MINT DATE ANNOUNCEMENT ! ☆ We are happy to announce Netizens mint will be live on February 10th at 10 AM EST on Magic Eden, on MegaETH mainnet. See you on the World Computer... Don't miss the latest updates, join the discord in the comment below.

FBI and SEC should arrest that chigga again.. you're responsible for $20b fking BILLIONS in liquidations also, there's no coordinated attack against cz i can promise you that it's just a lot of people who've been watching the same garbage playing out on binance for years, finally saying it out loud (i just dont understand what took them so fking LONG) and btw whenever criticism hits, cz's inner circle starts pushing the "yOu aLL aRe pAid KoLs tO fUd" no, people are just tired of your bs and wtf is "4"? are you twelve or what - whole industry is tired of watching markets get ruined - tired of the 10/10 liquidation cascade that even binance's own market makers admitted was their fault tired of the "i didn't know my tweet would push aster haha" - your dog broccoli would have done a better job at binance than you the man knows exactly how much power he has he's not naive he's not some humble builder who accidentally became too influential and the "oops i didn't realize" defense is just an excuse for when things go wrong you can only play dumb so many times before people stop buying it

@ericonomic Toly commented on this and cz unfollowed him. Cz is salty

The CEO of OKX explaining what actually happened on 10/10. Looks like war mode is on.

Not sure how true this is, or what is going on with it. But spreading for awareness. Actually a wild read with evidence. If this was me I would be gutted. One thing that was respectable with MEXC and the whole White Whale thing, was that they addressed it publicly. Was it because he was a big figure with a voice? Sure. Was it because he caused a scene publicly? Sure. But at least they addressed it, and figured it out. Binance, along with other major exchanges normally don’t even pay attention to stuff like this and the small guys always get hurt. We need to help advocate for others in the community, became a force to help each other out. Imagine losing your life savings and no one even blinks an eye about it. The only way things like this ever get resolved is if the noise is so loud that they are forced to take action.

@bread_ @Justin_Bons That's my founder

Alright, finally back and settled from my morning so can respond. Firstly; Appreciate the kind words. For anyone else reading I actually admire Justin because even though he's a bit bombastic with language he's generally principled and more importantly; technically correct in most cases (the best kind of correct) and/or willing to update his position on new information. I take it as my goal to swoon him with Mega's construction. On to the critiques! 1.) "Less than 0.2% of fees make it back to ETH, which is also exceptionally parasitic" Correct number, wrong assumption. I think the parasitic outcome is wholly owned by Ethereum and how/where it allocates its resources. The relationship to MegaETH is a purchase of services, IMO. MegaETH gets: - Incredible performance - Some decentralization properties (censorship resistance, liveness, etc) Ethereum gets: - A privileged position in our ecosystem - Net new surface area for $ETH as a money. It's mutualistic so long as Ethereum isn't giving up on scaling or pushing perfectly good execution of its chain and so long as MegaETH isn't playing the larp game of "MegaETH IS Ethereum" which I never will. In fact I've been one of the stronger proponents of Ethereum scaling and the rollup-centric roadmap for that very reason. --------------------- 2.) Admin Key Risks I actually agree here and people should hold us accountable to our current construction at any given time and the progress we are/aren't making. L2 teams have historically moved glacially to do these things and I'm hopeful our motivation of sequencer rotation prioritizes it appropriately. --------------------- 3.) Centralized Sequencer Risk A few things here. → Forced inclusion is a thing, and currently functioning just fine. As an example our mainnet has been live for months and @poptyedev has been shitcoining on it the entire time. We literally can't stop him because he bypasses the sequencer entirely. → The "we'll decentralize by introducing consensus" thing is literally never going to happen. We'll do things to harden our decentralization properties (liveness, censorship resistance, etc) but we will NEVER have consensus. It literally defeats the purpose of our construction and destroys our USP of ~0ms execution. → We're the only team settling to Ethereum that can plausably give away our sequencer as we have alternative revenue sources ($USDM, Proximity Markets). A → Once our sequencer is rotational between 3rd parties this entire point basically comes down to "how often does it have to rotate and amongst how many parties to be considered ~same as Solana" because the constructions are the same. - Leader with monopoly on the slot - Full ability to censor, sandwich, etc. We'll just have bigger machines and slower rotation. --------------------- 4.) Parasitic Economics You say we settle to EigenDA but this is incorrect. We settle to Ethereum, as you point out in our contract existing on Ethereum in your Admin Keys points. We use EigenDA to store our tx because we're an optimistic rollup and doing so is required for fraud proofs to be externally generated. Choosing EigenDA is simply a pragmatic decision because Ethereum will not be in the solar system of the capacity we're striving for in any short-medium timeframe (example: we're doing 10.5x the entire blob capacity by ourselves right now and blobs are shared space with all other rollups) Once proving costs come down even that is not a requirement but we'd still do it for ultimate security. The actual value prop for Ethereum is covered in item [1]. --------------------- 5.) False Equivalance I'm going after 3 claims in this one: → "comparing MegaETH to...ETH, SOL, SUI & NEAR is totally bonkers" That's going to be a flat no for me dawg because they all have tradeoffs and all should be compared. As you very well know, each of the above is on a spectrum of tradeoffs and it's all about where you as a user or application think those tradeoffs are are appropriate. MegaETH is a day 0 chain, just as Solana at one time was a young chain that you lambasted for being centralized and once you boil down the nebulous "decentralized" word (not binary btw) to it's distinct properties (CR, CN, Liveness, etc) you can see that MegaETH stands the chance to be robust on ~all planes. There is a path. → "The 10ms speed claim is also misleading." Also no. It's execution speed, which is very visibly being performed (See: miniblocks.io), and it's not marketed as "everyone gets 10ms." But the very real fact of the matter is that execution time, especially in the EVM, is _by far_ the largest thing holding back both responsive applications AND power consumers/traders in this industry. See: x.com/megaeth/status… → "That is where decentralized systems have the potential to be even faster than centralized systems one day & truly global." Also no, flat-out. Not for the people where it matters. Users are not optimizing for the <100ms latency window. Power players are, and you know what MCP does not address for these people? Predictability. Yes, your average might come down some, but it's still random leader assignment and your trade execution is variable in a window from 30ms to 130ms whereas with MegaETH you can get GUARANTEED, CONSISTENT <1ms once we enable proximity markets. Does it matter? Our bet is that it does. --------------------- My Conclusion - You're actually really fair in some of the technical critiques of L2's generally, and those definitely apply to us in this stage. I want people to hold us accountable, and we're working closely with the L2Beat team to make sure our construction is transparent and working towards something that is robust and can pass the walkaway test. - I disagree with some of your characterizations of our properties and where Mega is positioning itself in this market, but give grace because we're not your typical team or build and there is a toooon of justifiable scare tissue with chains settling to Ethereum. We do not need more Ethereums, Solanas or NEARs. We have those. They're doing great. Mega is taking a radical approach to transcend what they can accomplish and increase the builder/app surface area of this industry. We won't be maximally decentralized. We won't have consensus. We will have composability, liveness, censorship resistance, and credibly neutrality in time. I'll pull out a Justin quote to show that I still hold in my head as something that I both agree with and want Mega to ultimately be able to survive: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

MegaETH can censor, front run & steal all user funds without delay! It is so centralized that it literally runs from a single server Flexing capacity & speed in this case is not a flex at all Less than 0.2% of fees make it back to ETH, which is also exceptionally parasitic: 🧵 If we truly care about decentralization & its utility. Then we should stay clear of centralized L2s & advocate for high capacity L1's such as SOL, SUI, & NEAR instead Admin Key Risk: It is the MegaETH smart contract that lives on ETH that exposes users to the risk of theft & loss of funds. As the smart contract can be "upgraded" through a 4 out of 8 multisignature, also known as an "admin key" Such a change could include new rules that could send all tokens present in the L2 to a new address. Effectively draining all user funds deposited in the L2. This is currently the case for all major L2s! We might not have seen any major exploits of this nature in major L2s in the past, but we have in other smart contracts with the same security setup. That means it is only a matter of time before this happens with one of the big L2s, hurting countless innocent people in the process Ofcourse, like all other L2s, MegaETH promises to remove the admin keys one day, but if the history of "L2 scaling" proves anything, it is that the incentives rarely align for that to actually ever happen. As promises should carry very little weight in this industry, based on our shared history Centralized Sequencer Risk: There is currently a single permissioned sequencer that can therefore censor & frontrun. As it alone determines transaction ordering. Allowing it to ignore some TXs (censorship) & prioritize others (MeV). Throwing all pretense of decentralization out the window This is literally a single centralized server sitting in a data centre with insane hardware requirements. As it costs over $100k to operate the hardware alone, that is for a single sequencer per year. Making it at least 20x more demanding than a SOL validator, for example In MegaETH's defense, there are two additional backup sequencers that can be swapped in if a failure occurs. This also lays the critical technological groundwork for a larger sequencer set in the future, something that they plan to do. It is yet to be determined if this will be stake-weighted or PoA-based The irony does not escape me that the only way to "decentralize" an L2 is to recreate the same decentralized consensus that enabled blockchains (L1) in the first place, putting us back at square one. That is how decentralizing L2s is a lot like re-inventing the wheel Parasitic Economics: As long as L2s such as MegaETH help to justify & in some cases lobby against ETH's L1 scaling significantly, the relationship remains fundamentally parasitic. As it slowly kills the host, while private L2s profit & siphon off ETH users to new chains What makes MegaETH particularly bad in that regard is that it does not even settle directly on ETH but on EigenDA instead! We can figure out the percentages by looking at the cumulative cost to ETH: Average cost per L2 user operation (UOP, which approximates a transaction or batch element in this context): $0.000006 We can then compare that to how much MegaETH actually charges its users: Using the targeted fee instead of the average fee, since the latter is higher: $0.003 user fee per tx. Percentage ≈ ($0.000006 / $0.003) × 100 = 0.2% This ratio will only get worse as MegaETH does more TXs. This is efficient from MegaETH’s perspective while being wholly parasitic from ETH’s perspective! Far from this being a reciprocal relationship, this strikes me as being more extractive. MegaETH should be called MegaEigenDA or MegaCentralized instead! False Equivalance Comparing the performance of MegaETH to a permissionless & decentralized system such as ETH, SOL, SUI & NEAR is totally bonkers. It is an unfair comparison because they are not the same thing at all. It would make more sense to compare it to traditional centralized server architecture MegaETH is impressive from an engineering perspective. However, achieving the same performance on any decentralized system is far more impressive. Having a single centralized server solves many of the bottlenecks that real cryptocurrencies have to work around The 10ms speed claim is also misleading. The time it takes for the speed of light alone to travel around the Earth is 130ms. So, the speed you experience depends on how far you are from their single centralized server. That is where decentralized systems have the potential to be even faster than centralized systems one day & truly global. Thanks to the type of multi-leader architectures, the likes of SOL & SUI have been innovating recently Credit Where Credit Is Due MegaETH is the most interesting & best L2 from my perspective, as unlike other ETH L2’s, it actually scales! Not sure how much that praise is worth coming from one of the biggest L2 critics, but this needs to be acknowledged What also needs to be acknowledged is that @bread_ is a great guy. He helped review this critique & he did so very fairly & graciously. Helping to correct any inaccuracies, even when he obviously does not agree with my conclusions, but we can agree on the facts. So, despite our strong disagreement on this point, there is a great mutual respect here. Ultimately, we have the same goals in mind; we are just taking radically different paths to achieve them MegaETH is also my favorite L2 for not pretending to be something it is not. It embraces its centralization as a strength & confidently bites the bullet on trade-offs Conclusion Anyone who cares about decentralization & everything that entails. Should stay clear of L2’s, including MegaETH High throughput L1’s cannot censor & cannot steal user funds, MegaETH can The blockchain trilemma has effectively been solved. We do not need to sacrifice decentralization on the altar of utility. We can have our cake & eat it too That is what makes the entire concept of “L2 scaling” an anathema. An unnecessary compromise in what matters most to this entire movement: Decentralization & more importantly, the goals it was meant to accomplish. From censorship resistance, financial sovereignty, credible neutrality & more. MegaETH supports none of these causes & only drives more people in the opposite direction That is how ETH’s misguided quest to preserve decentralization has paradoxically pushed most of its users away & into centralized systems such as MegaETH. I do not blame L2 founders for finding opportunities in the free market. My gripe lies with the ETH’s leadership for not scaling their L1 & consequently creating this market segment in the first place! MegaETH is the best L2, for whatever that is worth. As it remains an incredibly low bar. As all of the major L2s can still censor, frontrun & steal user funds today. However, none of the major L2s are actually capable of significant scale. This is where MegaETH at least gives something in return for that horrible trade-off We are all free to innovate in our own unique ways, but always keep in mind to “never make a deal with the devil unless you’re prepared to lose”

@0x11b6 @Fabix_R @chartexe @unwisecap Disagree, someone needs to put pressure on this guy

@Fabix_R @chartexe @unwisecap Don't dox the family. Your frustrations are with an individual, not the entire family who are presumed innocent.

$TROVE funds are on the move again What a cute gift that @unwisecap gave to his girlfriend By the way, I’ll be sharing some pictures of his girlfriend soon. I’m just finishing an article to post here. I have all the information (his mother, girlfriend, and two close friends).

@ieaturfoods You are wrong here. Lighter a problem that hyperliquid doesn't. Which is that their fee capture is terrible(by design). Also, If you pay close attention to the revenue ratios between lighter:hyperliquid or lighter:aster you will find that it has only been getting worse

I mean guys the charts your pulling up are literally HL charts from its peak but with different numbers

People need to look at perps volume as a whole, it’s not Lighter revenue/volumes falling off a cliff It’s every perp venue volumes trending down and isn’t idiosyncratic to lighter, not even trying to argue a bull case but the lighter rev is unsustainable takes are….