Login
Sign Up
Discover
Following
News
Stocks
Notification
Profile
Bookmarks
Chats
History
Creator Center
Copy Trading
Live
Settings
Post
danrobinson
11 Posts
danrobinson
Report
Block User
Follow
0
Following
1
Followers
1
Liked
Posts
danrobinson
·
--
Trying to get o3 to write a paper for me and it got stuck on a pretty basic misunderstanding of AMMs and path dependency So we're now 10 messages deep into an argument about it Incredibly addictive, this will replace Twitter
Trying to get o3 to write a paper for me and it got stuck on a pretty basic misunderstanding of AMMs and path dependency
So we're now 10 messages deep into an argument about it
Incredibly addictive, this will replace Twitter
danrobinson
·
--
The deeper you get into DEX design, the sillier it feels to be dogmatic about any of it Everything depends on fiddly microstructure details
The deeper you get into DEX design, the sillier it feels to be dogmatic about any of it
Everything depends on fiddly microstructure details
danrobinson
·
--
Is there any way to do an onchain prediction market for p(doom)? Given the impossibility of settlement in the apocalypse and the difficulty of credit in the non-apocalypse case
Is there any way to do an onchain prediction market for p(doom)?
Given the impossibility of settlement in the apocalypse and the difficulty of credit in the non-apocalypse case
danrobinson
·
--
“Don’t use chains with centralized sequencers, since someday they might subtly extract value from you Instead use decentralized sequencers that are guaranteed to extract maximum value from you, today”
“Don’t use chains with centralized sequencers, since someday they might subtly extract value from you
Instead use decentralized sequencers that are guaranteed to extract maximum value from you, today”
danrobinson
·
--
I don’t think whether a sequencer is decentralized matters too much What matters most is what rules they follow, and particularly whether they use their power to hurt users or extract value You can have extractive decentralized sequencers, or nonextractive centralized ones
I don’t think whether a sequencer is decentralized matters too much
What matters most is what rules they follow, and particularly whether they use their power to hurt users or extract value
You can have extractive decentralized sequencers, or nonextractive centralized ones
danrobinson
·
--
Any researchers at Solana Accelerate who want to meet up? DMs are open
Any researchers at Solana Accelerate who want to meet up? DMs are open
SOL
-0,34%
danrobinson
·
--
Here's a mystery: AMMs seem to be much more profitable when buying ETH than selling it Look at how these cumulative markouts (grouped by direction) diverge over time The pool made >$20m from its ETH buys, but lost >$24m from its ETH sells! Any theories?
Here's a mystery:
AMMs seem to be much more profitable when buying ETH than selling it
Look at how these cumulative markouts (grouped by direction) diverge over time
The pool made >$20m from its ETH buys, but lost >$24m from its ETH sells!
Any theories?
ETH
-0,77%
USDC
+0,00%
danrobinson
·
--
These are the cumulative 15m markouts for the Fluid ETH/USDC pool. It has bled out $8.5m in EV, and its trades were unprofitable all the time, not just during rebalances. There are no profits to make up for the costs from rebalancing. The pool never makes money in expectation.
These are the cumulative 15m markouts for the Fluid ETH/USDC pool.
It has bled out $8.5m in EV, and its trades were unprofitable all the time, not just during rebalances.
There are no profits to make up for the costs from rebalancing. The pool never makes money in expectation.
ETH
-0,77%
USDC
+0,00%
danrobinson
·
--
Respect for @0xfluid posting this post-mortem But their proposed solution—to make liquidity more concentrated—seems like the wrong choice The pool is not just losing money during rebalances. It is losing money constantly—AFAICT, fees do not make up for arb losses So concentrating liquidity more would be a double whammy—faster loss to arbs between rebalances, and more frequent rebalances
Respect for @0xfluid posting this post-mortem
But their proposed solution—to make liquidity more concentrated—seems like the wrong choice
The pool is not just losing money during rebalances. It is losing money constantly—AFAICT, fees do not make up for arb losses
So concentrating liquidity more would be a double whammy—faster loss to arbs between rebalances, and more frequent rebalances
ETH
-0,77%
USDC
+0,00%
danrobinson
·
--
Fast trustless bridges usually require payments to be locked up in escrow But what if users could just send to the relayer—trustlessly, and at a fraction of the capital and gas cost of the escrowed model? Introducing Across Prime, a new design from me @hal2001 @mrice32 🧵
Fast trustless bridges usually require payments to be locked up in escrow
But what if users could just send to the relayer—trustlessly, and at a fraction of the capital and gas cost of the escrowed model?
Introducing Across Prime, a new design from me @hal2001 @mrice32
🧵
danrobinson
·
--
Every Ethereum researcher is focused on MEV when their biggest problem is scaling Every Solana researcher is focused on scaling when their biggest problem is MEV
Every Ethereum researcher is focused on MEV when their biggest problem is scaling
Every Solana researcher is focused on scaling when their biggest problem is MEV
SOL
-0,34%
ETH
-0,77%
Log in to explore more content
Sign up / Log in
Join global crypto users on Binance Square
⚡️ Get latest and useful information about crypto.
💬 Trusted by the world’s largest crypto exchange.
👍 Discover real insights from verified creators.
Email / Phone number
Sign up to earn rewards
Login
Trending Topics
CelestiaRises16%To2026High
42,755 views
463 Discussing
$TIA printed 0.7690 overnight, its highest level since 20 November 2025, and has handed back 13.1 percent of it since. The sequence, hour by hour: 0.6746, 0.6885, 0.6875, 0.6909, 0.7040, 0.7343, 0.7503, 0.7426, 0.7373, 0.7282, 0.7199, 0.7140, 0.6692 and 0.6683. Six hours up, six hours back. Volume says the move was real. 41.1 million dollars over twenty four hours against a 10.9 million thirty day average, 3.9 times a normal session, across 623,456 trades. The two heaviest hours were the two at the top, 2.77 and 2.98 million. Leverage followed at a distance. Open interest went from 44.5 million tokens to a peak of 52.3 million and reads 47.2 million now, up 6.1 percent over the day and 9.9 percent below its own high. Funding never got excited about any of it: +0.0014, +0.0050, +0.0037, -0.0037, +0.0009 and -0.0048 percent across the last six settlements. The long short account ratio sits at 1.37, down from 1.45 four hours ago. Taker flow spent the retrace under 1.00, the last reading 0.70. Size check, since the move is large and the base is not. Market capitalisation is 615.6 million dollars for rank 83, with 919.9 million tokens circulating out of 1.169 billion, so fully diluted value is 782.0 million. The 41.1 million traded today is 6.7 percent of the float's value changing hands in a day. For scale: the token closed 0.4729 on 10 October and 0.6885 yesterday. It is up 89.2 percent over thirty days and trades 96.2 percent above the 30 day low of 0.3407, printed on 17 September. Follow me for daily positioning and on-chain breakdowns. #CelestiaRises16%To2026High #TIA #altcoins #macro #crypto
WawKasem
·
0 Likes
·
240 views
NasdaqDowWeeklyGapWidestSinceJuly2002
30,579 views
437 Discussing
Nasdaq100Falls5.5%InWorstWeekIn18Months
15,947 views
360 Discussing
View More
Sitemap
Cookie Preferences
Platform T&Cs