sb
271 posts
@sunboud0
Yield enjoyer and part time trader – Building @21Advisory1
This morning, between 14:18–14:23 UTC, Ostium experienced a security issue leading to a loss of funds from the public OLP vault. Our team identified the issue within minutes and immediately began taking steps to contain it, including coordinating to pause trading contracts within the hour. We are working closely with relevant law enforcement authorities, SEAL 911, and third-party cybersecurity experts. No founder ever wants to deliver an update like this. We recognize the responsibility that comes with building infrastructure that people choose to use and trust. We take that responsibility seriously, and our focus is on resolution and responding with transparency and accuracy. To the stablecoin issuers, bridges, protocols, and security partners who have moved quickly to assist us: thank you for your continued support. We will continue to provide updates as they arise.
Elon Musk: AI+Robots will be able to do everything, resulting in universal high income. Work will be optional.
100%++ APY YT play on USD3 from @3janexyz There's an asymmetric bet on YT-USD3-17DEC2026. Current leverage is 18.50×, you earn 18.5× the yield AND points on your notional. What makes it unique: 3Jane pays YT holders 2 different $JANE streams simultaneously: 1. YT bonus JANE (on your notional) 2. Native USD3 JANE (also on your notional, not your capital, it's confirmed by the team) Some calculations for $1K invested: > $1K buys you around $18,500 notional. > Native USD3 yield at maturity: $786. Net cost of points: only $214. > JANE earned over 24.86 weeks: 52,116 tokens. How to think about $JANE BE: $214 / 52,116 JANE = $0.0041 per JANE BE FDV: $4.6M at 1.111B TTS $13.7M at 3.333B TTS $27.4M at 6.667B TTS My base case ($0.03/JANE, FDV $100M, TTS 3.333B): $1,563 in $JANE + $786 yield = $2,349 on $1K invested (283% APY) Even the bear case ($0.0075/JANE) leaves you profitable. The break-even is a $13.7M FDV. Almost nothing. Disclosure: bet on $JANE having value at TGE. Risks: TVL dilution, protocol risk, $JANE = $0. Maturity Dec 17 , you don't get notional back, only the yield. @PendleIntern where am I wrong?
Two weeks ago, Ethereum researchers met in Berlin to continue charting the protocol's long-term trajectory, following along discussions with client teams in Svalbard in April. The updated strawmap is at strawmap.org, and I attached a picture of it to this post. My own high-level takeaways: * "Lean Ethereum" is not a single one-shot upgrade, it is a collection of improvements that will come online to the Ethereum network over the course of three or four years. But make no mistake, this IS the third major iteration of Ethereum in the same way that the Merge was the second. Almost every major piece of the protocol will be replaced: - Verification through recursive STARKs, rather than direct re-execution. Recursive STARKs become an enshrined first-class core component of the protocol - Replacing everything quantum-vulnerable with quantum-safe alternatives - Consensus: decoupled available chain and finality, one or two-round finality. Theoretically optimal security properties, simpler than today, and faster than today - Multidimensional gas - State: not just tree structure, but what *types* of state are available - Changes to client architecture ... At the same time, simplification, cleanup and future-proofing. And this will all be done in a way that minimizes disruption to existing application. We've done this before (the Merge), we can do it again. * H-star (aka Hegota) is probably Ethereum's last thematically "pre-Lean" fork. Starting from I-star, most of everything we do will have a very strong "Lean" feel to it in one way or another. * Privacy is no longer an afterthought, it is a first class goal. When designing Frames, the mempool, additions to the state tree, we explicitly ask the question "okay, how do quantum-safe, intermediary-free privacy protocol transactions go through this, and what is the overhead?" * Formal verification of everything for security. * FV also makes us much more comfortable with canonicalization (having pieces of the protocol that are directly defined as a piece of bytecode expressed in some language). evm-asm is being written in part to become a canonical proof system for the EVM. * Quantum safety has shifted up a LOT in priority. This adds a lot of work (eg. finalizing a quantum-safe blobs design has become urgent; this work has already been ongoing for months) * Probably the single most disruptive part of the plan is the changes to state. There is growing consensus around leaving present-day-style "dynamic state" mostly unchanged, but scaling it only a medium amount, and adding new types of state that are more scalability-friendly (eg. no need for builders to sync/store all of it) but more restrictive, and that will scale a large amount. eg. possible Ethereum in 2030: 2 TB of present-day-style (dynamic) state, and 100 TB of new-style (scalable but restrictive) state This "new-style" state would work very well for ERC20s, NFTs, many defi use cases, but not eg. highly "central" objects like Uniswap contracts, or onchain order books, or other complex things (which are crucial for Ethereum but which only take up a small percentage of state) Hence, it will not be *necessary* to rewrite any apps, but it will be *very cost-effective* to eg. rewrite an ERC20 token into a newer design that uses a new type of UTXO storage that is currently being explored, so that it will have >10x lower txfees. Design of these new state types (current ideas: keyed nonces, ring buffers, UTXOs, statically accessible state, temp state) is an area where we will need a lot of feedback from application developers (incl. privacy-friendly application developers) and probably several rounds of rethinking and iteration. * In the context of a much larger total state size, we need to figure out the incentive issues around who stores this state and what motivates them to. Even saying "each node stores 1%" is not good enough - why do they store that 1% and why are they willing to serve it? This is being elevated as a first-class research area. * Ethereum will need to have a "VM" other than EVM in one form or another - at the very least, we need something like leanISA for recursive STARKs - and the gains are large in exposing it to users so that we support programmable privacy and better scalability. Right now, the most likely contenders are leanISA and RISC-V. My own ideal is that in this world, we adjust the protocol so that the EVM becomes a high-level-language compiler-level feature, and the protocol only "sees" RISC-V / leanISA directly. But this is still far away. * Gas limit increases, blob increases and slot time decreases will happen many times over the next ~5 years. We expect a large gas limit increase with Glasterdam. Each step of increased scale or decreased slot time is a matter of getting to the point where it is safe to do it, which comes from a combination of client optimization and protocol changes. Ethereum is CROPS. Ethereum is scaling. Ethereum is reinventing itself. Onward.
company "buying BTC" is now willing to sell BTC to be able to pay for the bad debt from scam called STRC got it legend
I like Nic and generally agree with a lot of his work, but I think he's using the wrong framework here. This isn't a CCC bond. It's a distressed special situations security. I've spent the better part of two decades in distressed credit and roughly the last 12 years buying distressed crypto. I've competed with or worked alongside many of the largest distressed investors. When I ask myself who the marginal buyer of STRC is today, it isn't a traditional high-yield fund. It's an opportunistic credit fund. Those funds don't wake up looking for 15% returns. They generally need 30%+ IRRs before they commit capital to something this uncertain. Today you can buy: • Government refund claims targeting 10-15% IRRs. • Distressed crypto claims with recoveries denominated in dollars and often substantial collateral protection for 20-25%+ IRRs. STRC is riskier than both. You're subordinated. There are essentially no meaningful lender protections. The dividend is non-cumulative. The collateral is one volatile asset. There is negative convexity. And unlike a traditional distressed loan, you don't control the collateral or have meaningful enforcement rights. This isn't lending against Bitcoin. It's taking directional Bitcoin exposure through a structurally weak preferred security. There's an important distinction people miss. Common shareholders have a fiduciary relationship with management. Creditors don't. Management's job is to obtain the cheapest possible financing for shareholders - not to create an attractive security for creditors. To Strategy's credit, they did exactly that. They issued extraordinarily issuer-friendly paper because the market let them. Good for them! But once that paper leaves the hands of income-oriented crypto investors, who is the next buyer? That's the question. I think it's an opportunistic distressed investor. And that buyer isn't showing up for a 15-20% required return. They're looking for something closer to a 30%+ IRR. At an 11.5% coupon, that implies a price of roughly $38.33 (11.5 ÷ 30%), versus about $76.67 for a 15% yield and $57.50 for a 20% yield. Maybe 30% isn't exactly the right number. Maybe it's 35%. Maybe it's 40%. But I think anchoring this off CCC spreads misses who the actual marginal buyer is.
