Is there an explanation for why it is more monetizable?

Maybe ARPU per American is just so much higher relative to other nations?

Curious

this link doesn't work btw

They had a few updates in response to the criticisms:

Turning power users into "investors": https://twitter.com/TensorFdn/status/1778848625231110433

Update on rebates/fee-sharing:
https://twitter.com/tensor_hq/status/1780329437289939207

I think there are some teams building it but most of them are still in stealth

Great! Appreciate the kind words

Karak invite codes below:

lKJxH SKX9t 3WaAT AVSkZ ItmS9

People really like to gamble huh? I wonder if there's a deeper explanation for this beyond the GCR thesis

Do these make their way backs to $UNIBOT holders? Buy backs? How exactly is revenue shared?

think the other factors at play here are

• holder demographics (mkr had a lot of overhang supply from defi summer, including VCs and large bag holders)

• market likes RWAs at the moment but they ascribe RLB revenues being more "sustainable" (online casino thesis)

as Fed begins cutting i expect this trend (RLB up, MKR down) to accelerate if MKR doesn't do anything to hedge their positive duration

I wonder if it makes sense for $MKR to hedge out interest rate risks

e.g. taking 1-5% of their revenue and buying long dated rate swaps or SPY leaps

This quickly devolves into an exercise in portfolio mgmt but if you are MKR or other RWA issuers, finding ways to sustain current revenues is probably top of mind

This mechanism is the equivalent of them adding $DAI directly into the pre-existing $DAI - $MKR LP right?

If they purchase $MKR (with $DAI), the $DAI - $MKR becomes slightly imbalanced, pushing $MKR price up relatively.

They then add addition $DAI - $MKR at this new ratio into the LP.

It probably isn't much day to day, but there should be a gas optimization here so this operation isn't multiple txns (buy, provide more liq) and should instead just be one

zero mention of cryptocurrencies in this article huh

A++ imagery

i wonder if there's a graph that shows the mobility b/t income groups as a result of global capitalism

Would be cool to see a more heavily labelled chart -- using ~40 vix as the threshold

It'd be useful to see what events precipitates p99 volatility spikes

boomer's version of defi summer

would argue that usd is a claim on us equities market.. which is a ~claim on US gdp

us financial system (and tech more recently) is the primary export of the US

still true today!

Yeah, as I read this I realized that "didn't work" isn't quite the right way to put it. It's probably unfair to say that considering that Solana did go from sub $3 to $250 last cycle, and I do think the low float, high FDV played a role in that

Agree with your arguments -- but i actually think low float, high FDV helped with the liquidity. I don't rmr the exact #s but SBF definitely collateralized his set of tokens and borrowed against it, funneling more capital into the eco system

I do wonder whether this lesson will be learned. You and I clearly remember this, but amidst the euphoria that comes with ATH breaks, will ppl fall for this again? If we look at history for an answer -- the answer, an overwhelming # of times, is yes, people will fall for this again

In terms of token design, I don't think there has been a standard formula to follow for alt coins + tokenomics

It really comes down to -- what are you trying to achieve with the token? Are we trying to incentivize participation? How can we do so while minimizing the amount of mercenary capital?

I think the issue is that, given the nascency of DeFi, it isn't really clear what the "ideal" behavior is. On one hand, the low float, high FDV tokens serve well as collateral. This creates more $$ in the system, inevitably pumping token prices. Is that good? Maybe, speculation is one way to bootstrap an ecosystem.

I do think its time for tokenomics to be designed from the lens of sustainability and longer term thinking.

an interesting thought experiment is -- if everyone sold their uniswap airdrop at the same time, would the net value be smaller / equal / larger than the value created if folks were to go do DeFi (use it as collateral on aave, provide liq in a pool2, etc) with it

my guess i no, and thus having some additional utility / incentive around the token to discourage selling is probably the best thing

i also think the lower float, higher fdv (with a lot of overhang supply via vesting, unlocks) the token is, the more value would come out of doing DeFi activities

I think SBF also realized this lol

I think the ISM paints a nice narrative but disagree that there is any strong causation between it's peaks / troughs and BTC's

If at all, ISM is (at best) a proxy to macro / credit conditions, and I would argue that macro has very little effect on the crypto markets at this stage (sub 1T total marketcap)

Why? Here are 2 counterarguments:

1. If you look at rates historically, 2016 - 2018 were filled with rate hikes and we still had a blow off top in crypto markets towards the end of 2017 where BTC rallied 100x

2. If you look at the internet bubble of 2000, we saw the nasdaq rally 10x over the course of 4 years against headwinds of a higher rates regime (5%+) and rate hikes towards the tail-end

Of course there are other factors at play here..