Pinned Tweet
this incident doesn't change my long-term view on near:native
i still believe @NEARProtocol is building toward a future where users won't need to care which chain they're on, and zcash:native belongs in it
bookmark this
we'll come back to it in 2028
Earlier today NEAR Intents services were stopped after a security incident was detected. The incident was caused by a bug in the Omni deposit and withdrawal infrastructure interaction with NEAR Intents smart contract.
The preliminary report indicates the total loss of approximately $3.8M. These funds will be compensated in full.
The contract-side vulnerability has been patched. The operations of the NEAR Intents and near(.)com are expected to resume within 1h.
Deposits and withdrawals on the following networks will remain unavailable for an additional ~12 hours while fixes to the Omni infrastructure are completed: BSC, Polygon, TON, Optimism, Avalanche, Stellar, Monad, LayerX, Adi, Scroll and Plasma.
In case users hold any assets from these chains inside NEAR Intents (for example, in HOT wallet or on near(.)com), they will be able to swap them into other assets once NEAR Intents is back up (in ~1h).
The incident has been reported to law enforcement, and we are working with security and blockchain analytics partners to trace the funds and pursue recovery. A detailed report will be shared publicly in the following days.
Ansem: "Hyperliquid is the first live example of what tokenization actually looks like."
one of the most-followed traders of the cycle, on-stage last week. the thesis isn't about perps, it's about what happens when businesses align users, teams and economics with a single token.
more private companies will skip the IPO route entirely. the equity stack becomes legacy, the token stack becomes default.
Druckenmiller is already there. Watkins is early to the next chapter. CT is still arguing about memecoin rotations.
his full argument is in the clip.
A conversation w/ @RyanWatkins_ co-founder of Syncracy Capital, a thesis-driven crypto hedge fund.
We discuss what most people are still missing with Hyperliquid, perps coming to Wall Street, Stan Druckenmiller's bet, why categories don't matter anymore, revenues vs money, respecting the pump, social trading, whether Solana or _____ wins, and finding the next secular trends.
00:00 Intro
00:37 Hyperliquid hyperliquid:native
03:00 Finding Big Ideas
06:22 Hidden Alpha
09:16 Secret to Success
10:31 Beginner's Mindset
11:43 Writing & Conviction
13:31 Wall Street Discovers Hyperliquid
14:45 Druckenmiller's Bet
16:30 Perps Taking Over
19:06 Why Categories Don't Matter
20:13 All of Finance
20:35 Sponsored by Kraken
21:40 Assessing Risks
26:02 Comparative Analysis
30:30 Downstream Effects
34:40 Who wins? solana:So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112
37:30 Finding Next Secular Trends
40:09 Social Trading & Memes
46:51 Weak vs. Strong Form
48:40 How Syncracy Finds Big Ideas
52:00 Revenue and zcash:native
56:00 Respect the Pump
1:00:48 Frameworks & Timing
Ansem: "i'd rather focus on managing risk, taking profits where appropriate and keeping flexibility."
one of the loudest bulls of the cycle is pulling back.
BTC, ETH and SOL at important support, bias dropped from bullish to cautious in days.
his breakdown is the clearest read on why the smartest money is sidelining into year-end.
Kyle Soska: "I don't know what it is, but I feel like I need to be in this in size, or I'm gonna regret it."
that's what Flood told him before going max size on HYPE at TGE.
Flood had years of conviction that perps were the future and Hyperliquid was the platform.
Soska's breakdown is the clearest insider look at how generational trades actually get made.
flood/soska best traders of this cycle and its not particularly close
>hype since tge with max size + clear thesis
>shorted memory top
>longed btc bottom ~62k
>called for recent equities/semis sell off
the point of an X account posting trades isn’t to deliver you exact entries & exits or have 100% hitrate
it’s simply to introduce you to potentially life changing trade ideas
who cares about their shitposts or upbringing or personality
are they posting genuine alpha or not? it’s so rare that the idea that randoms are dunking on the dude is wild
Raoul Pal: “the more volatile the asset, the less of it you hold.”
that’s the whole risk management framework in one line.
volatility is how you understand how risky an asset actually is, that’s how you size positions.
the principle is the same for everyone, only risk tolerance changes.
his breakdown is the simplest sizing lesson you’ll hear this cycle.
Kimchi, fresh off $40M on TRUMP, pulled up to dinner in a $500K Rainbow Rolex Daytona, called the whole table fake poor, and still paid for everyone's food.
JasonTheWeen: "You got it bro"
Kimchi: "I know that streamer money be hitting. You fake poor"
JasonTheWeen: "Kimchi's cool. He did not pull up late he was actually on time but he did pay for the dinner though"
why do most memecoin traders lose?
384 million swaps on Solana since August.
7.7 million wallets involved.
19% house edge, most trading models lost money.
WhiteWhaleLabs ran the audit no one wanted to see.
@blknoiz06 has been saying the real edge is holder distribution and knowing who controls the attention.
his breakdown is the clearest take on why most lose.
The Audit Of The Memecoin Casino
Since late August we have recorded every trade on every pump fun and Stonk launch on Solana. Not a sample. All of it: 384 million swaps from 7.7 million wallets across more than a million pools, every bonding curve and every pool that follows it. That is over 56 GB of data and 820 million rows of market history, and it grows by 18 to 25 million trades, up to a million wallets and more than 60,000 new launches every day.
We measured each coin minute by minute. We scored every entry by what the coin did next. We trained neural nets on the result, then went wallet by wallet looking for the people who actually win.
The question was simple: can anyone see the big move coming before it happens?
The short answer is no. The long answer is worse than no, because the data does not just fail to find an edge for you. It shows, in detail, who holds the edge, how they use it, and what they do with you.
Start with a coin that has actually caught a bid: real volume, real buyers, the kind of thing that shows up on your screener. From any given moment, about one in ten of those doubles within the next 24 hours. The rest bleed, and the bleeding is not gentle.
Now take a wallet's first buy into a live coin. Every first buy, 22.8 million of them over a two-week window. In 17% of those entries the coin doubles before it drops 40%. Trade that mechanically, double or stop, and you lose about 19% per attempt after costs.
Call that the house hold. A slot machine keeps 5 to 10%. This keeps 19%, per pull, before any skill or selection is applied.
The reason is the shape of the payoff. A 2× pays you 100%. The failures do not cost you 10%; they cost you 50%, 80%, 95%. To break even you have to be right far more often than the game allows.
The cabal is real, and we can see it
CT calls it the cabal. The data calls it a cluster: a set of wallets whose first buys land within a minute of each other, on the same brand-new coins, over and over. We do not find them by name or PFP. They fall out of the trade stream all on their own.
They are there. Swarms of 450, 1,400 and 2,000 wallets that hit hundreds of launches a week, moving in within the first minute or two of a coin's life. Smaller, tighter groups of 7 to 50 wallets that pick their spots. Across daily refreshes the count has run from 9 groups to 33, with members rotating in and out as wallets burn and fresh ones take their place.
They are not guessing. The coins the big swarms pile into double 28 to 46% of the time, three to four times the base rate. Their own entries, across every coin they touch, run 50 to 60% to a 2× before a 40% drop, against 17% for everyone else.
That is what an edge looks like in this market. It belongs to a few hundred wallets, and it is applied to tens of thousands of launches with industrial regularity.
Copying them loses too
The obvious retort: find the cabal, copy the cabal. We did exactly that. A machine watches every launch every minute and flags the moment a known group piles in. Then we traded every flag the way a fast human could: in two minutes behind the group, double or stop out at −40%, out after a day.
Following the big swarms lost 41% per coin across 93 coins. The median result was −95%. Not because they were wrong; their coins doubled 28% of the time. Two minutes behind them is simply already the top of the move. They bought at launch. You bought the candle they are selling into.
Following only the groups with a positive track record still lost 11% per coin. Following one good wallet on its own lost 20% per trade in our back-tests. The single pocket that came out ahead, a handful of small, tight groups, made about 10% per coin over 16 coins. That is a few days of trades and nothing anyone should bet a bankroll on.
The cabal's edge is not information you can borrow. It is position. By the time their trade is visible on-chain, the thing that made it profitable is gone.
The best model we could build still loses
We also tried the honest version: no cabal, just prediction. Dozens of signals per coin every minute, price, flow, liquidity, holder behaviour, bot share, fed into neural nets trained on our own history and tested on days they had never seen.
It works, in the sense a quant would recognize. The top of its ranking doubles 26% of the time against a 10% base rate. Two and a half times better than chance.
It also loses money every single day. 771 picks over eight days; every day negative; −11% per pick on the same double-or-stop rule; the median pick down 45%; 55% stopped out within 24 hours.
The ranking is real and the P&L is still red. The losers are deeper than the winners are tall, and nothing observable at the five-minute mark separates the coin that keeps going from the one that reverses. That is the part worth meditating on: a model 2.5× better than chance odds is still a losing model.
Why nobody sees it coming
The reason is simple, and it should change how you look at every chart. A meme coin moves because a few people decide to move it: the operator holding the supply, the caller with an audience, the wallet group with the bankroll. That decision is made off-chain. The chain only shows you its execution, the swaps, the volume, the new holders, and by then the first leg is done.
Everything a trader looks at, from a screener to a chart to a wallet tracker, is a photograph of a decision that has already been made. The data is enormous and almost all of it is the crowd reacting. The informative part, a few hundred wallets' intent, is visible only at the instant it executes, and the people executing it are the ones selling to you a few minutes later.
Add 60,000 launches a day, and the future 100× at minute one is indistinguishable from the 59,999 that die. The casino does not need to hide the cards because it deals them faster than anyone can read and analyze them.
Conclusion
After spending thousands of dollars in API credits, VPS costs, Claude credits, etc the goal was simple: find alpha - if it exists - in order to be able to monetize it.
Instead, all we were able to prove is what we all have suspected all along - the meme coin casino is almost entirely cabal driven.
🫡 From the depths —
The White Whale 🐋
Based16z was dating a multi-billionaire's daughter who couldn't understand why he was grinding for $10M when that's not even real money.
"In 2022 I was dating this girl whose dad is a multibillionaire"
"She was like 'Man, you spend all day on the computer. You're trying to run up, what, $10,000,000? It's like no money. Just come chill with me'"
Ansem unplugged from active trading in 2025 right at his peak, because he already learned in 2022 what overstaying a top actually costs.
"In 2025, I unplugged a lot. I made money on HYPE, I made money on Trump, and I closed a lot of positions afterwards"
"In 2022, I had made a lot of money, sold pretty close to the top, except for Jewel, DFK, but I kept trading"
"I ended up giving a lot of money back in 2022 because I was trading in a market that I shouldn't have been as active in"
"I hit a lot, I just did really well, I'm on track, and I have some good profit. I'm gonna take a step back"
"It was definitely very beneficial for me, mentally and also for my portfolio"
"The good thing about being a trader is you make your own hours. You can trade when you want to, especially if you're doing well. You got to use that to your advantage"
Jack Duval walked onto stream swearing he only uses 4 wallets to buy supply, and chat buried him on 300 in real time.
"Yeah, I multi-wallet. I mean, I'm not deploying and bundling. I use 3-4 wallets."
Rasmr: "Yo, chat is calling major cap, bro. Chat is saying, 'LMAO, cap, cap, cap.' They're saying you have 300 wallets, bro."
"In total wallets that I've used, probably, like, I don't know. A lot. I go back and forth between wallets, for sure, but I'm not buying with 80 wallets on a coin."
"On a new pair, I'll buy a shitload of a coin. I'm buying whatever I can. I'll buy like 10 SOL, and if it's bad, I just sell immediately. Probably like 15, 20, maybe 15. But we're talking about a $5K market cap. We're not talking about a $500K market cap."
Jesse Livermore turned $187 into $30B (in today's money). four separate times. died broke at 63.
the greatest trader who ever lived made 4 fortunes and blew every single one. the mistake he kept making is the same one crypto twitter makes every cycle.
"started as a chalkboard clerk at 14 in 1891. in six years he turned $187 into $336,000."
"by 23 he was up $1.7M. lost all of it the next year. $16k in debt by 24."
"29: zero into $12.4M. then zero. then $12.5M. then zero again. same year."
"age 37 he's $28M in debt. he had been up $150M."
"41 he's up $175M. by 48, $481M. then lost $400M in one year."
"age 52 he turns $500M into $1.6B. that year was 1929. is that enough? Jesse decided no."
"next five years, $1.6B turns into -$100M."
"at 60 he's up $15.6M. generational wealth, grandkids, everybody's good forever."
"the last three years of his life, +$15M to -$7M."
what everyone misses:
Livermore didn't lose because he couldn't trade. he lost because he couldn't STOP trading at the top.
the trade that makes you is the trade that unmakes you if you don't close the game.
every blown-up crypto fortune last cycle is this exact movie. Do Kwon at the top of Terra. Alameda at the top of FTX. Three Arrows at peak AUM. all of them kept pressing.
Livermore 1929: "enough? decided no."
Su Zhu 2021: "enough? decided no."
same mistake. 92 years apart.
the only skill nobody teaches is knowing when you've won.
what's your "enough" number? and would you actually stop there?
Togi says memecoin traders have no aura.
he's right. but not for the reason he thinks.
"no shade to Kimchi, but he made $40,000,000 off of TRUMP. it's so not cool."
"how legendary is it to be the guy that made $10,000,000 doing stocks, the guy that made $5,000,000 fishing? much cooler than the guy that made money gambling."
the part he gets wrong:
aura isn't about the asset. aura is about the thesis.
$40M on TRUMP has no aura because the trade was "line go up, find a greater fool." that's not a thesis. that's a slot machine that happened to pay.
Flood on $HYPE at the Hyperliquid TGE: pure memecoin, pure conviction, publicly staked, held through the chop. that has aura. same asset class, opposite trade.
would you tell this story at a dinner table in ten years? → aura.
would you quietly delete the chat? → no aura.
most memecoin wins fail that test. not because memecoins are shady. because the trader was ape-and-pray with no frame to defend when it moved against them.
name one crypto trade from the last two years that would survive the dinner table test. and the thesis behind it.
The CPI report tomorrow is going to get the gasoline treatment. Economists see the headline jumping 0.6% in a month on fuel while core sits around 2.5% on the year, so the read will be that it's all the pump and the Fed can look through it.
Beth Hammack answered that yesterday, a day early. "I can look through one supply shock without changing course. I have a much harder time looking through shocks that arrive one after another." She also described a retailer in her district that plans to raise prices by more than its costs went up, because more inflation is coming from somewhere.
I think she's right, and core is the wrong comfort. Nobody asks for a raise off a basket with the fuel taken out. In August she told CNBC about a man in Erie who gave up his son's travel football this spring because of what gas cost. That is a gasoline story, and it's also how people start expecting prices to keep rising.
She dissented for a hike in July and still didn't ask for one on October 28. If core comes in soft tomorrow, $SPY gets a relief morning and the hold is safe. If it doesn't, hers is the first vote I'd expect to move.
Kevin Warsh used his first press conference as Fed chair to announce "We've dropped forward guidance." He doesn't hand in dots of his own either, and after the September hike he told reporters he's "not in the forward guidance business."
This morning the economics Nobel went to Robert Hall and Michael Woodford, for models in which what a central bank says about its plans does part of the work. The committee's own summary: when central banks "communicate their plans," they can "move the economy in the right direction."
I see why Warsh did it. His case is that spelling out the path ties the Fed's hands, which made sense in a crisis and less so now. The trouble is that someone still has to do the talking. In Istanbul last week Waller said that saying nothing about the path "could surprise markets and create volatility." He lands on what he calls "the signaling option" and says the dots already do that job.
So markets are still being guided, by 18 people, and the chair isn't one of them. I'd rather hear the path from the man who runs the meeting. If CPI comes in hot on Wednesday and he still won't say what it means for October 28, $TLT gets to guess.
Back in May, when consumer sentiment hit its record low, Kevin Hassett, who runs the White House economic council, went on TV and said we should "stop calling it consumer sentiment and start calling it political sentiment."
I'd like to hear him try that again this weekend. Friday's reading was 46.3, the second-worst in the survey's history, and this time Democrats and Republicans both got a bit more cheerful. The drop came from independents, from lower-income households and from people who don't own much stock. The survey's own description of them is "groups that have fewer resources to weather increases in prices."
Meanwhile $SPY closed the week a hair under its record. So this isn't a party thing. It's the gap between people who own the rally and people who just buy gas. The second group now expects 4.7% inflation over the next year, and the answer on offer is a $5,000 check. Asked this week how it gets paid for, a Treasury counselor said "we'll cross that bridge when we get there."
September CPI lands Wednesday. If it runs hot, the next hike moves closer and those same households pay more to borrow on top of everything else. Calling that politics won't change how it feels on November 3.
Mike McKee asked Alberto Musalem the only question that mattered on stage in New York yesterday: "October 28th?"
Musalem smiled and wouldn't touch it. He goes into every meeting "with a very open mind," he said, seconds after explaining that rates have to go up again within six to nine months. Waller did the same thing in Istanbul the same day. More hikes are coming, but they "do not need to come at consecutive meetings."
The market has already done the math: a hold in October, a hike in December. The October meeting is six days before the midterms. December 8–9 lands safely after them, with a fresh set of dots to explain it.
I don't think anyone at the Fed is taking orders from the White House. But a committee that hiked unanimously in September, and wrote that another hike is likely by year end, has gotten very patient about the one meeting before people vote. If December brings the hike on data that looks like today's, we'll know what the wait was for, and I wouldn't read a quiet October as a green light for $SPY .
Chris Waller is the one Fed governor nobody can file under "Obama and Biden picks." Trump put him on the board in 2020 and interviewed him for the chair job.
In Istanbul today he said it plainly: "If the economic data continue to come in as expected, I anticipate additional hikes." Plural. Not necessarily at back-to-back meetings, he added, but "in place in an acceptable period of time."
He also took apart the story that September was a panic over one hot print. For him it was months of evidence piling up: oil staying high, the AI buildout pushing tech prices up, fresh tariff threats, and inflation that will soon have run above target for five and a half years.
So the president's own pick is now telling markets more hikes are coming, with $DXYZ and long yields already near their highs. If next week's CPI runs hot, December is a formality, and the "hostile board" line won't survive another month.
The minutes are out, and the "hostile board" story didn't survive them.
All participants supported the September hike, not just the voters. Several said policy still isn't restrictive, or only mildly. Most think another hike is likely by year end.
That's the room Warsh runs. Earlier today the IMF's Georgieva praised him for showing price stability matters "not only with words but also with actions." The White House line has been that a board out to hurt the president did this and Warsh got dragged along. Nobody in that room needed dragging.
October 28 is three weeks out, six days before the midterms. If the next CPI print runs hot, "most participants" turns into a second hike, and I'd expect the president to stop sparing Warsh well before then. If you're long $TLT into that, read the minutes twice.
Minutes from the September hike land Wednesday at 2pm, and the line I'll be reading for is how many participants still call policy restrictive.
Warsh already refused to play that game at the podium. Asked where rates sit against neutral, his answer was "in a word, no," and he said the neutral rate has no operational effect on what they decide. He also said he and his colleagues were "hard-pressed" to call financial conditions restrictive.
Meanwhile the 10-year closed Monday at 5.31%, a new high for the year.
If the minutes show more than a few participants wanting another hike soon, I'd treat December as the base case and stop waiting for the long end to bail out $TLT
Trump in last week's magazine interview: "I don't blame Kevin Warsh. I probably would have voted against the board if I were him." In his telling, the board is "Obama and Biden picks" who want to hurt him.
September's hike was 12-0. Chris Waller and Michelle Bowman, both his own first-term appointees, voted for it too. And Warsh's line from the podium was "These are decisions we make."
Blaming the board works as politics. As a read on October 28 it's wrong, and I wouldn't price a split board into $SPY until one of his own appointees starts arguing for patience.