danrobinson
11 Publications
danrobinson
Signaler
Bloquer l’utilisateur
0 Suivis
1 Abonnés
1 J’aime
Publications
·
--
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
So we're now 10 messages deep into an argument about it
Incredibly addictive, this will replace Twitter
6
·
--
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
Everything depends on fiddly microstructure details
96
·
--
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
Given the impossibility of settlement in the apocalypse and the difficulty of credit in the non-apocalypse case
121
·
--
“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”
Instead use decentralized sequencers that are guaranteed to extract maximum value from you, today”
177
·
--
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
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
480
·
--
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
8
·
--
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?
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?
6
·
--
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.
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.
1
124
·
--
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
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
125
·
--
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
🧵
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
🧵
6
·
--
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
Every Solana researcher is focused on scaling when their biggest problem is MEV
8
Connectez-vous pour découvrir plus de contenu
Rejoignez la communauté mondiale des adeptes de cryptomonnaies sur Binance Square
⚡️ Suviez les dernières informations importantes sur les cryptomonnaies.
💬 Jugé digne de confiance par la plus grande plateforme d’échange de cryptomonnaies au monde.
👍 Découvrez les connaissances que partagent les créateurs vérifiés.
Adresse e-mail/Nº de téléphone
Sujets d’actualité
BitcoinSlipsBelow$80KAgain
264 vues
17 mentions
BTC Is Bleeding While the Whale W Move Out — Stacked Against a Corporate Bid
Seven days of downside, and it wasn't retail that drove.
The: BTC closed ~79,796 on Oct27, down ~2.6% over 7 days and ~5.2% over 30 days. Daily RSI(12) sits at 39.8. The week's range: high ~84,377 (Oct 22), low ~79,220 (Oct 24). No capitulation candle. No reclaim of 84K. Just grind.
The supply side is doing the talking. Dormant wallets moved 2,571 BTC (~$206.5M) toward institutional exchanges. That is supply arriving at the venue, not leaving it. Treasury appetite also cooled — Strategy redirected $204.9M into share buybacks instead of BTC.
The bid underneath is corporate, not speculative. Strive acquired 6,182 BTC (~$511.4M); public firms added 6,200+ BTC combined. That is a real floor argument near $79.7K — but it is a floor, not a breakout catalyst.
Momentum is not on the bulls' side. MACD histogram at −23.99, price under the 99 EMA. Upside is capped below ~$80.5K until that structure fl.
Positioning is mildly bullish, not euphoric. Square community poll: 2,116 bullish vs 1,714 bearish of 3,830 votes A limited sample — worth knowing, not worth trading on alone.
My read: this is distribution into a corporate bid. The floor is real; the momentum is not there. Watching whether the 79.2K–79.7K zone absorbs the exchange inflow is the whole story this week.
#BitcoinSlipsBelow$80KAgain
_Mr_Singh_
·0 mentions J’aime
·321 vues
ThailandLaunchesWORPTStablecoinToQRPaymentApp
50 vues
28 mentions
StrategySkipsBitcoinPurchasesSpends$205MOnSTRCBuybacks
2,820 vues
64 mentions