just psyops 🧉🇦🇷 @Delphi_Digital l prev. Growth @MakerDAO
Hogsmeade
Joined February 2018
- Tweets1.4K
- Following646
- Followers2.9K
- Likes9.7K
In a market with an oversupply of blockspace and too little demand to match it, distribution is the only thing that matters.
The players best positioned to own it are obv tradfi companies (RH, Stripe, Coinbase, Circle etc)
I expect none of those will ship fancy new zk ai tech in their chains, and it won’t matter.
The irony is they’ll probably onboard more users into crypto than all of the high performance chains, simply by embedding crypto rails invisibly into products people already use.
If you’re still optimizing for block times instead of focusing on killer apps ngmi. Competing with corporate chains on distribution with just another fast L1 is a dead end
hyperliquid
Profesor Utonio retweeted
Even though the AWS/Celestia analogy seems fair (and I have used it), i think it falls short to some extent
Apps rely on AWS because they *have to*, it's not the same as with Celestia. it's true what you said: it's easier to delegate these infra costs for them in web2.
The difference i see with crypto is that apps don't really *have to* rely on an altDA if they decide to go the fully centralized route. If you think about it, here it's kinda ironic that AWS could be considered a competitor to Celestia lol
Celestia's tech is great have said this multiple times, and it’s a bet on the core values that many of us crypto-natives care about: credible neutrality, decentralization, and permissionless access (e.g. DAS, light clients at ultra-low cost, etc)
But the bear case for Celestia is exactly those values. As proven, users don't care about any of those values, as they're not impediments to using one chain or app over another. The perfect example is obv Hyperliquid, or even Solana.
What if this trend continues (as we've seen)? And apps/chains continue to verticalize in-house, rather than relying on external layers, just to have the decentralization tradeoffs that no user actually demands?
Modular thesis is a great pitch in theory, but i'm growing more and more skeptical that it's the final form crypto will take.
Optimism earned more fees from chains part of the Superchain through revenue-share deals (~44M)* than what those rollups (and all rollups posting DA/proofs) paid in blobs to Ethereum (~12M)
If all (valuable) economic activity take place within the Superchain, and OP pay minimal blob fees to Ethereum, then REV will be higher for OP > Ethereum.
For some people, that should translate into $OP being valued higher than $ETH
Ethereum bears the cost of security/DA and subsidize it, while letting L2s capture ~all economic upside.
See the future that awaits you, Celestia.
*I know this number is not pure profit as Optimism has given $OP grants to some chains to build within the Superchain (e.g. Ink, BASE)
REV-based analysis to justify valuations in crypto don’t really make sense.
You can have an asset with high REV sitting at rank 50, and another with zero revenue sitting at rank 4.
In this market, generating meaningful revenue is the exception, not the norm. So it’s not as simple as 'REV up → price up'
REV is just another metric: useful, but far from the full picture.
makes sense, and that’s the point.
XRP, ADA, DOGE, and ~most of the top100 can’t justify their vals through revenue. So it’s not as straightforward as REV up → price up.
Almost no one generates meaningful revenue, actually it’s usually the other way around. Price moves first, revenue (sometimes) follows.
REV is generally the exception in this market i believe
We even have examples of the exact opposite: $MKR generates ~$100M in organic annual revenue and still struggles to stay in the top100.
What a market
Those who claim REV is the most important and holistic metric - while saying BTC is the only exception - are the same ones shilling $TIA, a protocol with ~$0 in revenue.
Re-read your takes once in a while so you don’t contradict yourself.
Would you get the chip? your first instinct is prob no, but think about it for a sec.
It won’t be a choice, it’ll be adapt or fall behind. Most will be forced to do so or risk becoming obsolete to the society.
because the one thing that always drives mass adoption is convenience.
It’s refreshing to read someone with a professional and clear market mindset, something rare on CT.
We're constantly confusing luck with skill (myself included), but when the returns hit you straight in the face, you realize how poorly you’ve actually been playing all along.
Trusting your chain’s entire TVL to Gauntlet, the griftiest party of them all. What could possibly go wrong? 🤔
How VaultBridge works:
🔽 Users bridge assets to chain and receive a 1:1 vbToken. Supports ETH, USDC, /USDT, WBTC out-of-the-box, and native gas tokens
🔽 VaultBridge routs assets into Morpho Vaults, original tokens remain in VaultBridge
🔽 Vault capital is deployed into yield-generating strategies and managed by @gauntlet_xyz and @SteakhouseFi
🔽 Yield generated is streamed back to chain and Agglayer ecosystem
AggChains receive 100% of the revenue, with no fees to integrate.
Important to note: chains can configure VaultBridge to give users the option to participate or opt-out
Could you imagine the drama if Flashbots charged a fixed fee on MEV-boost, launched a token, and cannibalize Ethereum's three systemic risk layers?
- MEV client (Flashbots)
- Staking (Lido)
- Restaking (Eigenlayer)
Well, this is Solana with Jito. Jito's stats:
* >95% adoption of Jito’s MEV client, charging 4.5% from tips, split between the DAO and Labs,
* >42% market share of SOL LST,
* >72% dominance in restaking.
Jito’s battle-tested product and strong reputation make it hard to challenge without a superior alternative, but it's worth asking if this centralization lvl is desirable for Solana.
Profesor Utonio retweeted
Great piece by Facu.
>If Celestia captures $5B in DA revenue, as some suggest, that would imply $100B+ in rollup revenue.
so basically betting on $TIA at current valuation is a bet that crypto 100x's, and it's all based on Celestia. Sigma 3 event.
Good tech tho
Y'all worrying about censorship-resistance, credible neutrality, and decentralization at the protocol layer. Meanwhile, the weakest layer is the internet's submarine cables.
Decentralize and tokenize the cables now. The real choke points are underwater.
1. Break social media by flooding it with AI bots
2. Build 'proof of humanity' protocol
3. Launch your own social platform that only accepts verified humans, OR
3.1. Sell your solution back to Twitter to fix the mess
4. GGWP
This quoted post is unavailable.
Decentralization doesn’t matter, until it does.
When your fav chain is forced to enforce KYC by the U.S. gov, or your high-performance chain is subpoenaed and asked to halt the network, it will matter.
And when that happens, REV won’t save you.
Until then, this word will continue to be a cliche.
despite Solana having much higher inflation, validators still need to be propped up by the Foundation (897 validators depend on it (teapaw.org/0xkydo/status/19152122…))
it was estimated that 100-300 validators would've become un-profitable if SIMD-228 had passed, which still would've been triple Ethereum's inflation rate
This is due to the enormous cost of running a Solana validator, which is necessary for Solana's L1 scaling strategy.
Solana people seem fine with this:
"The size of the validator set is pretty meaningless. What matters is that we have a decentralized system. I don't think there is a single investor on the planet that would change their thesis and leave the Solana ecosystem if the node count went from 1300 down to 1000 or even less" -teapaw.org/maxekaplan/status/1895…
"No user has ever decided to use or not to Use Solana because of the number of validators the chains have" -(teapaw.org/MaxResnick1/status/191…) (see also: teapaw.org/MaxResnick1/status/191…)
"Home stakers are on government regulated ISPs. If the government cracked down and forced ISPs to do layer7 filtering and kill all home stakers ethereum wouldn’t “survive” in the same shape or form. In that environment there is no point for a high performance blockchain anyways. It’s moot." (teapaw.org/aeyakovenko/status/191…)
This is a radically different philosophy from Ethereum, which emphasizes censorship resistance--currently achieved because you can run your own node and even validator at relatively modest cost, and potentially in the future achieved with inclusion lists etc. (albeit still some doubt around the limits of those).
I think Solana's is an internally coherent but flawed philosophy. What it ultimately is based on is that *a nation-state-power resistant blockchain is not even possible* (teapaw.org/aeyakovenko/status/191…) so why bother with all the performance tradeoffs that come from building for that?
They could even be right. But it doesn't interest me and I don't think blockchains are actually very valuable if it's right--autonomy (freedom from extrinsic acts of power, permissionless ability to transact on your own behalf *without intermediaries*) and decentralization (widespread distribution of any power entrusted in others) are imo the core areas where blockchain systems shine. Obviously yes blockchains do have other benefits ("transparency", "composability") but they are nugatory in comparison to decentralization/autonomy.
A bet on this philosophy, imo, is a bet on blockchains just not being very valuable at all in the long-run.
