state

@smyyguy @crypto_condom ty

@statelayer @crypto_condom nah they use basic outstanding, which excludes coverts or options that have yet to be exercised can see the stats here strategy.com

BMNR is only a hairsbreath away from mNAV of 1. The $ETH exit queue is 1m+ I believe we need to go down more to go up ($5k+). Let's see. Stables waiting patiently.

@smyyguy @crypto_condom think mstr uses diluted for mnav right?

@statelayer @crypto_condom that is fully diluted, not outstanding both are useful, but they are different

@smyyguy @crypto_condom bmnr said 221 x.com/BitMNR/status/…

@crypto_condom its *probably* higher, we just dont know the outstanding shares every data source shows 173m outstanding shares, but we know they have issued more shares over the last 2 weeks. its just impossible to know how many until they tell us tradfi kinda sucks

can Tom Lee do something

@hasufl but you're increasing the earnings per LDO which are in ETH

Personally, I think this is a strong argument against starting LDO buybacks today, because you would be selling ETH and not USD. And the performance of ETH is obviously much harder to beat

Lido protocol expenses have gone down every year since 2021

@hasufl headline a bit misleading PR just says they approved a program for when it would be better, doesn't seem like they'll do it asap

TOM LEE'S BITMINE, THE LARGEST ETHEREUM TREASURY, ANNOUNCES THEY WILL BE BUYING BACK UP TO $1B OF THEIR STOCK does that mean selling ETH or how does an ETH treco buy back its shares? do they take commitments in USD that they can decide to buy ETH or their own stock with?

When your ETH beta alts aren't going up with ETH

every CT alt for absolutely no reason while ETH +8%

@HadickM You're right, found it

@statelayer No. It’s in Coinbase filings

Interesting wrt to COIN valuation. Estimating that COIN's share of Reserve Income remains flat to Q1 (~53.5%) gets me to ~$1.29bn in revs to COIN. Using the same CRCL Net Rev multiple of 32.8x that implies that ~$42.3bn of COIN's ~$60.5bn EV (~70%) is due to this rev share agreement. It also implies, using some Wall Street estimates of the non-stablecoin revs (~85% of net revenue), that the rest of Coinbase's business is being valued at less than 3x net revenue - significantly below tradfi peers. So either one of three things is true, that there isn't a lot of (or at least outsized) demand in the market for non-stablecoin crypto exposure, the CRCL valuation will come down dramatically, or Coinbase needs to significantly re-rate upwards.

@HadickM wow okay i thought it had an expiry, where did you see that, their s1?

@statelayer It probably will. Coinbase has an option at their discretion to renew indefinitely.

@hasufl 100% agree, there is zero reason for a 20B+ AUM CEX to be blind signing transactions coming from a website for their cold wallets instead of having a institutional grade fully offline custody setup

Yes, but: While Safe frontend and not Bybit infra got compromised, Bybit infra was also insufficient to catch what is, at the end of the day, a pretty simple hack. There's no excuse for not verifying message integrity on a second airgapped machine when moving >$1b of funds.

This is a tricky thing to answer (and not because I'm investor in Safe - my stake is tiny and I couldn't care less about it relative to my reputation) For Safes and other smart wallets to be useful, the ability to make secure signatures must exist as a complement. Safe provides one such possibility through the centralized front end, but it should never be relied on exclusively. I would blame Safe most for not working more with the largest and most at-risk Safe users to educate them on secure signing practices to ensure secure signing is abundant. Secondarily, I would blame Safe for getting compromised, and I hope we eventually learn how that happened exactly. But the reality is that 1) independent message verification for Bybit is easy and prevents almost every hack 2) perpetually preventing a frontend from becoming compromised is comparatively much harder 3) drawing attention to 2) instead of 1) prevents people from learning the right lesson, which is to adopt secure signing practices and stop trusting frontends

@safe Since it is not clear in @safe’s update: The front end served by SAFE from safe.global was fully compromised and could have affected any users from that front end, however only Bybit was attacked.

Aptos VCs watching CT CTO a coin they still have 100M monthly unlocks on