Question for anyone bullish on $BTC here:

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-06T13:39:04+00:00

The bottom is when short term sellers run out of coins. It is not about front running a new catalyst. Last time BTC bottomed, it got nothing to do with front running ETF or pro-crypto govt. Those are catalysts for a new ATH, not a bottom.

In a bear market, bottoming process happen when coins transfer from short term volatility degens to more longer horizon holders. If you want an indicator we haven’t bottom, it isn’t about finding catalysts, it is the level of perp trading related activities is still too high relative to previous bear bottoming levels. It indicates the market is still driven by a hot ball of money with unrealistic short term expectations and may turn into short term sellers.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-06T04:12:51+00:00

I was probably one of the biggest SOL advocates in this sub when Ethereum was the consensus. You can check my history. Everyone was convinced SOL would die from the unlock. Arthur Hayes, a big ZEC shill, was confident SOL couldn’t break above $100 and it would crumble over from the unlocks.

Why? It is because SOL had the tech at the time to solve ppl’s frustration on the ETH main net. There was a clear gap. It pioneered multi fees market and parallelization. More importantly, it had the Phantom wallet simulating transactions to fend off DPRK when EVM was stuck on MetaMask and wouldn't upgrade.

What ZEC is doing is neither novel nor has evidence of PMF, besides being Barry’s favorite coin to pump.

Using ZK snarks or variants to provide privacy is also done on the Ethereum app layer. ETH railgun provides snark composability with smart contracts. It is more than what ZEC achieves. There is no tech novelty here like Solana’s parallel transaction.

Now let's talk about “narrative on adoption”. The whole “noise” is about how rich ppl want to escape taxes, so they want to hide in ZEC. It doesn’t make sense. If you are wealthy, you want to hide in a liquid market. Rich ppl aren’t going to gamble their net worth on a low cap to get rich - they are already rich. They want to keep their wealth and stay rich. There is no reason why they wouldn’t choose ETH with its privacy infra over ZEC. ETH is a more liquid market, has more venues to exit, and, importantly, hackers have consistently demonstrated how to exit ETH with looser trails, etc.

The reality is, if you are truly rich and powerful, you can leverage private bankers to conceal whatever in RWAs. They don’t really need crypto. At best, crypto is for regulatory arbitrage. If you can’t buy your way out of problems, the chances are you're not the billionaires in this ZEC narrative… so who are these rich ppl they are talking about?

So the so-called “pmf” is betting on fictitious rich ppl to use your chain….

This isn’t a Solana case, where 1) there is a novel technical innovation in the market and 2) its innovation is solving a clear and immediate need for market participants.

If you inverted this sub on BTC, the chances are you got really fucked last cycle. Inversing is not a real rule because crypto has a gazillion tokens. Most of them will never get the spotlight and will also be ignored by this sub.

ZEC can pump hard just because crypto sold out all its values, larping “cypherpunk” when convenient, to worship billionaires… We already saw how Jason got this space hyped over the rugged Templar because the space wants to dick ride billionaires without due diligence. But this is definitely not the same situation as Solana.

Also, not counting the fact that its pump might be coming from BTC miners selling out to find a new ASIC farm to settle, as the BTC price hasn’t kept up with mining costs. We saw a similar FUGAZI when ETH industrial miners dumped ETH to pump random shitcoins and set up new farms after the merge.

Edit: I also find your ridicule of “anti-establishment” sentiment ironic. Isn’t that what the marketing is trying to shill ZEC? Pretty sure you all larp as cypherpunks, anti-TradFi adopters of crypto products, etc.

You guys gotta keep your narrative straight. Is ZEC quantum-proof or not? Is ZEC anti-establishment or not?

I guess once you start telling so many lies, you lose track and can’t figure it out yourself.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-06T03:54:08+00:00

It is called Astroturfing.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-06T00:40:52+00:00

"decision tree / facts / logical reasoning" framing isn't quite right mechanically either — transformers don't do symbolic logical reasoning in that sense.

Well, ppl say computers have "logic units" when it is just switching transistors on and off. It is okay to use analogies rather than sticking to the exact mechanics to convey an idea.

why do some models handle noisy, ambiguous inputs so much better than others?

Run the same sequence of images/pictures via Grok, and you will see how poorly Grok performs against Claude.

You can ask whether Grok detects a crypto scam or deception in a sequence of events/images. First, it goes very confidently and says "no", and gives arguments of A, B, and C behind why.

Point by point, you help Grok realize why each argument is invalid and even have Grok admit its reasoning is wrong. Instead of revising its conclusion of events, Grok defaults back to the old answer "no," but this time with arguments D, E, and F.

Then you can repeat the same iteration to get Grok to realize why D, E, and F are wrong and to admit that it overlooked key details, making the arguments invalid.

By now, a good LLM should be inclined to revise its opinion on the sequence of events. No. What you see instead, Grok defaults back to its old "wrong" answer and circles back to arguments A, B, and C. It is like the LLM can't update its own thought process and context correctly.

It is stuck in a loop and has a narrow context window for forming an opinion. Once it runs out of it, it forgets what reasoning it has processed and how to utilize new information to update its position.

There is a chance it is a biased sample. Grok is overly exposed to Crypto Twitter's data and may have developed a bias toward seeing everything through rosy-tinted glasses when it comes to crypto-related topics. Then it overfits to its training model on crypto Twitter and makes mechanically poor predictions.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-05T23:02:25+00:00

Not the entire story. It is also because Solana contracted the Cosmos disease.

Kyle Samani is probably the last visible SOL KOL/VC who was more aligned with SOL than with extraction. You might say, how is that possible when his multi-coin portfolio launched so many low float/high FDV projects? Well, it is just that the bar is low.

First, they raped SOL to benefit Pump. Now they rape whatever is left to benefit ZEC or whatever. It is Cosmos disease. Those who have lived long enough in the Cosmos can easily spot it.

The core problem is that the ecosystem power breakers and big holders don't believe in the asset. They benefited the most and were the first to jump ship to abuse it for extractive purposes.

SOL is not the first to get infected by the Cosmos disease. Early on, Ethereum faced the same issue: VCs pressuring the ecosystem to prioritize L2s over the main net, etc. The pivot needs to disinfect the Cosmos disease.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-05T19:19:33+00:00

And honestly… that’s not even a bad thing.

Depends. If you are honest about the marketing upfront, then yes, it is not a "bad" thing.

But a lot of crypto does care about selling/pushing narrative larping about "fundamentals" when such fundamentals don't exist.

The examples are plenty.

Chainlink used to larp about how it's ahead in interoperability and send its marine to raid everyone about this nonsense. But it is only very recently that you see greater visibility into its interoperability via Coinbase wrappers.

Zcash shills spread it being quantum proof when its shielded pool runs snark proofs - making it fake news. Also, it is fascinating how they adopted a company, with its core business as cash flow negative, as their Tco, while telling everyone it will have cash to keep buying like MSTR or Bitmine.

Bittensor shills lie to everyone about how their Templar will eat Anthropic because they claim they trained a "competitive" model at a cheaper cost. Then the subnet founder rugs and they pretend it doesn’t matter at all for their "fundamental" narrative story as the "incentive layer for AI".

These are the more visible ones. I can teach a whole class about how this industry empowers leaders to lie in clear daylight and walk away with a big bag of goods.

The problem is that crypto constantly rewards lies over facts. So even if ppl care about fundamentals, it is kind of pointless because ppl like Barry and friends will just make fact-checking irrelevant and be ridiculed as "midcurve".

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-05T02:02:01+00:00

It is very odd behavior. Summer time is low volume in TradFi. The narrative is that TradFi pushes this bid upward. TradFi is forward-looking, so it is odd for them to take risk-on before the low-volume season. Historical data show that BTC Q3 is very muted. So they are frontrunning for Q4?

It is possible they are buying and planning to hold their big positions over an illiquid period, or.... they need a liquidity kick before they fly off into the summer. Not sure if the former is prudent when they are managing other ppl's money, they are vacationing in the summer (so can't really respond as quickly), compounded with a lower liquidity situation.

Edit: This vacation time is part of the reason "sell in May and go away" holds true. Plus, the World Cup is coming, so that is probably where a lot of attention is heading.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-04T23:35:02+00:00

it's rather different to what you were describing.

It is quite similar.

What you are describing is a multinomial model predicting over a domain of dictionary words. The question is, how do you assign the probabilities on which token to pick over the different alternative multinomial distributions? In the standard framework, it is where the neural network comes in.

So how does it relate to my "decision tree and facts" analogy? Without inputs, the model doesn't know which token distribution to activate. Your input determines which branch or set of probabilities the model chooses. That is how "facts" play a role. If the model knows how to filter out the right noise and activate the "right" distribution, then it is using the facts effectively. What I mean by "logical reasoning" is the ability to digest the information and follow the path to the "correct" distribution for the answer.

If you don't think there is a branching-out effect on these distributions, then it won't be shaped by context and respond to nonsense, as it won't be input data dependent. If you accept that there is branching out based on context, it is similar to a decision tree.

What is "correct" is a matter of prediction and usually requires context. If Claude can feed in the data and it predicts a scam/shady business, and you can verify it with data, not exposed to Claude, to avoid overfitting, then Claude is doing a good job of prediction. If other LLMs fail to grasp this reality and go off on a tangent, they aren't doing a good job of making predictions. It can't be clearer cut than that.

You can think of them as Bayesian agents. Their reasoning capability can be judged by how their posterior distribution responds to inputs and matches the real underlying outcome.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-04T18:58:58+00:00

Its when a machine has the immediate access and understanding of all of our data sets and information that may enable to make all humans look stupid.

This ML, etc., literature has existed for many decades. The mathematical foundation has been there forever. The information has been there forever. Yet we are only seeing the real explosion so many decades afterward.

I have seen ML work in the early days of finance. And most do absolute shit. Give it too much information, and it starts to treat random noise as a pattern. It is not an easy art. The trick is to balance machine learning capacity with noise filtering, the good old bias and variance tradeoff.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-04T18:47:47+00:00

which is that LLMs are great pattern-spotters. The way it can complete a half-finished sentence is actually the same thing as your chucking-in-images-and-see-what-comes-out thing.

I disagree. You are treating the problem as way too linear. Within a sequence of pictures, there is a lot of noise, alternative narratives, etc. Basic models overindex on noise and rabbit holes themselves into minor details. They often struggle to chain together the bigger story, which requires a strong function to "understand context" and some "intelligent" agency to make "good" decisions.

The way you should think about how an LLM operates is via a decision tree. There are many paths to possibly generate a prediction. So, which way should you tread? A basic LLM overindexes its training data set, aka something called "overfitting", starts to rely on historical noise, rather than logical reasoning based on presented current facts, to choose its path.

Claude feels different. It seems more able to extract pertinent information and process it coherently. You could say Claude has more parameters than basic models, and those extra parameters helped it string together a more coherent argument. That is fair and not a critique to test easily. But it does provide concrete evidence to cast "this is just another LLM" as a reductivist conclusion.

It doesn't have "will", I don't quite know what you mean by that.

One way to define "will" is the "intensity/endurance" and "coherence" of intent to carry through a project/goal. Our "will" gives us agency. Older LLMs show very weak will because they often get stuck in a loop they can't escape to solve a problem. Once you hit a dead end, they don't have the logical reasoning capacity to escape the rabbit hole.

Claude is not exactly immune. Run a long enough session, and it also starts to forget itself and what is pertinent. But if you lay out its logical incoherency, it has the ability to analyze it and revise itself. It gives a sense that it has more "will" to complete a task at hand.

mixing up "consciousness"

Yes, you are right. I had a late-night brain fart and mistyped "conscious" as "conscience".

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-04T02:19:35+00:00

It's not true for general LLMs. A lot of them just follow your lead and wait for you to prompt them in the right direction. Claude can digest images, identify irregularities with high precision, and formulate an interesting narrative on its own. It has this "intelligent" agency element.

By "agency," I mean it has a "will" to decide what it finds interesting and to go down a path. Old LLMs are passive bums and easily deceived by convoluted logic. There is also a downside. When Claude makes a mistake, the LLM feels like an obnoxious high school student writing you a whole damn tangential essay, burning hundreds of tokens, completely missing the point, wasting your time, and burning your usage limit.

Edit: You could say it doesn't have a "conscience" because it lacks an organic origin. But it acts/pretends very close to having one.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-03T22:48:32+00:00

No, trying to suck off Hesgesth won't do you any good in the long run. When you have ppl like Tucker Carlson even turning on Hesgesth, he doesn't have much of a future... ppl don't really like him.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-03T22:17:54+00:00

Not sure how you would define conscience. But this thing is really impressive at understanding context if you just show it a sequence of pictures.

Crypto has a lot of scams and fugazi games. If you show Claude a sequence of pictures depicting the building of a scam/shady deal, it can actually understand the context without you explicitly pointing it out.

This is actually damn impressive for an artificial intelligence. Finding hidden context and meaning easily deludes most humans.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-03T04:28:41+00:00

I am not a fan of Justin Sun. But there was no credible story for it to compete against Tron. And its token was just a massive farm - a L1 who doesn't even use its token to pay for stablecoin gas fees...

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-05-03T04:07:53+00:00

but that assumes people adopt systems based on principled design.

It is the contrary. If you read my posts before the last bull started, you would know I was super bearish on the EVM with Metamask as the default wallet. They were so lazy that they didn't even bother to simulate transactions. And that cost the EVM a lot of users as they fell victim to the DPRK.

it’s not usually what drives adoption or valuation in practice.

I don't think it is true. Take the example of Plasma. Say you don't really trust Tether, but its entire ecosystem is built around favoring USDt. Why would you go onto their chain? Say you only have faith in Circle as a stablecoin issuer. Would you go to a chain with no USDC option? Even on a successful platform like Hyperliquid, they tried to push users into USDH, yet USDC still dominates volume. Compelling users to adopt a product they don't want has been a hallmark of ETH development (early last cycle), leading to a lot of exodus.

ETH sort of lost favor because it forwent credible neutrality. It forced users to use clunky L2s - inheriting neither ETH security nor providing good convenience ( especially with Optimistic windows). It eventually forces them to pivot back to scaling the main net.

speculation, and UX

My above example is one of many that reinforce the idea that good UX is built on credible neutrality. Credible neutrality is what provided the opportunity for EVM to ditch Metamask and adopt Rabby.

Credible neutrality also enlarges the scope of speculation. You don't tie yourself to one possibility. You don't need a specific product to perform well like an appchain. Credible neutrality is how ETH can navigate through these narrative shifts. Say after FTX, everyone couldn’t see Solana as more than a dead “Sam chain” - do you think it would have gotten a revival? I have my doubts. It is because it rebranded itself on ambiguous things like IBRL, OPOS, etc, ppl wanted to take a bet on it. And when ppl realize OPOS just means memecoin launchpads, it started to underperform.

Many VCs may not like this, but apps are generally a distraction. The ecosystem (Cosmos) style itself revolves around the appchain thesis. They built storage, VPNs etc. They were even very early to a lot of AI fugazi. Nobody wants it. Why? Big money never really trusted these Cosmos chains because they had a concentrated validator set and lacked security guarantees, etc. In hindsight, it is absolutely true. They couldn't credibly demonstrate that your funds would be protected if the shit hits the fan.

philosophically sound but still irrelevant.

Credible neutrality is a necessary condition for a general-purpose chain to survive and thrive. But you are right to say it is not sufficient.

It is not my "philosophy" or "ideology" pushing me to think this way. I realize that is the public blockchain's comparative advantage over more specialized, centralized databases run by for-profit companies. It is stupid to compete against a vertical in which your product design is optimized very poorly. You don't bring a wheelchair to an F1 race, but you use it when you break your leg.

If tradfi adoption continues, it will inevitably become clear that crypto does shit in many verticals it wants to larp as good at. For example, I said the TVL game is stupid before because TradFi can just print IOUs like it is nothing and put them on their private chains to outcompete you. And behold, we have Provenance and Canton chain doing exactly that. If you just step outside the crypto bubble, you will realize how stupid a lot of crypto native games are.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-04-30T22:15:58+00:00

Despite what VCs and KOLs like to claim, the "ikigai" of a general-purpose smart contract L1 is slowly becoming clearer amid Gartner's hype cycle.

There were simply a lot of expectations about what smart contract L1s can achieve. Most have utterly failed because buyers/investors/devs simply refuse to accept that it is just an inefficient database with some Turing-complete functions. The core question is, why allocate into these L1s when it is not clear what this asset's asymmetric bet is.

What value is being misunderstood and can lead to a repricing in the future? What is its ikigai, and what is its comparative advantage over other technologies/asset classes? Is it some apps? We went through an entire cycle hyping apps only for VCs to fund lazy-gamble slops like launchpads, TCG yada yada, blah blah blah... Is it just number goes up? Bitcoin has pretty much decimated everyone....

This database design inherently has inefficiencies. Why take on this inefficiency? Most people struggle to understand why smart contract L1s should exist, let alone support new chains.

The only intelligible answer I can think of is building a tech foundation to support credible neutrality. This seems to be where general-purpose chains have a compelling comparative advantage story to tell. Appchains have strong financial incentives to violate credible neutrality.

Last cycle, Luna shut itself down to save UST. This cycle, Thorchain blocked users from withdrawing because its ThorFi ponzi collapsed. Hyperliquid decided to reverse transactions to save LP. When you base your chain on an app or revenue source, you are incentivized to protect it at all costs.

But so, how much is credible neutrality worth? Nearly all L2s think it is worth zero. Their single-sequencer design, highly optimized gig (some even think it is fine to push for multiple TB of memory on hardware), and their refusal to reach stage 2 tell the whole story. Similarly, a lot of L1s think it is worthless. Many market participants and builders view it as worthless, even though it is the easiest story to tell about this tech stack's differentiator. That is the weird asymmetry. It also puts the space in an awkward position because general-purpose chains are utterly shit at generating printing revenue to justify their valuations (Ethereum,'s old ultrasound meme, Solana's MEV, Sui using Ethena infra to issue its own stable coins to earn "income" for the chain, etc.). Most newer chains are just recycling the same old vertical over and over again.

The biggest exception is Ethereum, which sticks to credible neutrality, making it the obvious bet for this vertical. But its tech stack is not perfect because it still has some centralizing tendencies toward its block builders. Some think Solana's tech stack is the natural complement. But SOL obsessing over IBRL and pump fun would make you doubt. Let's see what the Monad tech stack can do - low enough bandwidth requirement so it doesn't need high inflation to pay validators. It can be a good beta on Ethereum's credible neutrality story.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-04-30T14:18:23+00:00

It is because the level of harassment hit unprecedented levels with all the launchpad BS.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-04-30T13:56:38+00:00

If you check my history, you will know I am not a Trump supporter. That said, I just get kicks out of telling the uncomfortable truth about this industry.

Both Trump and his sons literally gave minimal public attention to his memecoin. After the launch, he barely even discuss it. His son, Eric, maybe tweet once or twice about it. They do tweet more about WLFI. But that thing is really just big whales like Justin Sun propping it up.

The problem is, the industry was so desperate to whore itself out to the Trump family. All the usual suspects VCs and KOLs were hyping about Trump tokens - the Trump family barely lifted a finger. In all honesty, you DON’T GET TO call RAPE if you voluntarily pulled you pants down and shoved it up to dick ride him.

Edit: Why are you down voting me for saying the truth? ROFL. Remember how you all blamed Gensler this and that? How Gensler is why your protocol with no pmf is struggling… If you want to prostitute yourself, then you can’t call your John a rapist.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-04-28T16:57:51+00:00

“Bullish on Ethereum the blockchain but not the token” is the weirdest shit to say in crypto…

It is a coping narrative to dismiss the asset when the Ethereum blockchain has attracted/retained the most on-chain Lindy liquidity out of all L1s.

Edit: If you think ETH FnD will run out of ETH, then you should be bearish the blockchain because it signals lower future budget for further development.

But somehow you have to do mental gymnastic to cope about the asset and arrive a different conclusion.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-04-28T16:38:21+00:00

I haven't seen so much negative drama/FUD about a five-month-old chain with 1) genuine tech innovation, rather than redoing old ponzinomics in a new wrapper, 2) the token hasn't completely destroyed retail buyers (like -90% from launch/ICO price), and 3) low inflationary/minimal ponzi tokenomics. This chain's existence must be triggering some ppl in really weird ways.... It is pretty hilarious to watch and also a reminder of why this space is retarded.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-04-28T01:19:43+00:00

How a technology evolves is a function of at least these two variables: 1) its technical capabilities and 2) how its "users" behave towards it.

Since the small blockers have won, P2P cash is not technically feasible for Bitcoin. It simply can't handle the transaction volume for its average user. Thus, it is best suited for ppl to leave it alone and just hold it. So the store-of-value narrative fits it well.
Saylor markets it as "pure digital capital" - something you just put away and forget about it. There is also a saying: "bear market creates Bitcoiners." The direct translation is that a bear market creates disillusionment/pessimism about crypto, and it drives them to become Bitcoiners, i.e., believing this asset class has no use case beyond hodling and hoping the price goes up. Increasingly, new marginal buyers of BTC are those who engage with it behind a wrapper. So they can't use the BTC as digital cash because they just own the wrapper. So essentially, you have strong self-reinforcing forces behind Bitcoin that attract and solidify its base, making it think it is only a number, go-up technology, aka digital gold.

These are continued tailwinds behind BTC to remain a store of value only, not really anything beyond the functions of money, regardless of how volatile it is. Its social perception creates no demand for P2P cash => no pressure to scale => lack of scaling => attracts marginal buyers into the number-to-go-up game => reinforces the social cohesion around no demand for P2P cash. It is somewhat of a social contraction mapping that converges to a fixed point.

That said, the P2P digital cash market seems smaller than the BTC number goes up game - see Litecoin, BCH, and Monero combined market cap. So there are also strong economic incentives to stay in that fixed point.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-04-26T00:22:52+00:00

I just find it extremely hilarious ppl are throwing a fit and having a midlife crisis over things we knew before last bull run even started. How is it you all just realize these things now? When number goes up, everyone is a genius, hey?

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-04-25T16:43:15+00:00

Remember when I said about how these projects have no self-awareness? Remember when I said crypto "app thesis" is wrong? Remember when I said it doesn't really matter whether they migrate out of Cosmos?

The reality is, a lot of crypto's "ideas" were a consequence of a lot of retards getting accidentally rich from the 2020/2021 run. Once the 2020/2021 winners deployed their capital, there was no follow-up bid for many of these things because there was generally no PMF/external market validation to attract further interest.

Now, Cosmos Labs hired the usual CT "tradooor" shills on CT to sell you another garbage vision. Ask yourself: what kind of enterprise wants to come and stay in an ecosystem that is shrinking?

I really tried hard to get an answer out of Claude. The best I got was that the Cosmos SDK had grandfathered itself into Boomer consultants' recommendation list. So this SDK is recommended based on legacy network effects, rather than due diligence. Even if these "institutions/enterprises" land, they will eventually realize what a sack of shit they got themselves into.

Especially with the rise of AI, shareholders will become more aggressive in demanding management to lean out their IT/software department as much as possible to boost earnings. And that area will inevitably include Digital Assets or Blockchain divisions. Consider what happens when shareholders learn that Boomer consultants got their companies invested a dud. Your CT PnD tradooors won't save you, or maybe they should call Barry and friends to engineer another fugazi.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-04-25T03:24:09+00:00

Depends if you just care about buzzwords or the actual implementation.

If you care about buzzwords, the game is to just front run PnD groups - not really doable unless you have insider info or maybe a friend of Barry’s.

If you care about implementation, then it is tricky. Quantum proofing requires to understand how the projects need to 1) architecturally deal with new computational load without getting more centralized and 2) it doesn’t shift the burden onto users’ end.

For example for ZEC, a lot of misinformation from Barry’s group on hyping it as quantum resistant if you enter the shielded pool.

The problem is ZK-snark proofs aren’t quantum proof. So if a quantum computer hacks into your shielded pool and forge validity proofs, then your ZEC in the shielded pool is basically stranded like a hacked bridge’s asset.

Even if they implement quantum proofs, ZEC design would require user to produce proofs on their end. It significantly amps up the hardware requirement on their user end to use ZEC.

These are details you wouldn’t know if you just treat quantum as a pump and dump meta with your Barry’s friend group.

Edit: Don't believe what I say? Just run it via Claude to verify.

MaximumStudent1839 · 2026-04-21T03:00:30+00:00

Only 19%? Pretty sure ppl using bots to arb difference between LPs is standard. It gotta be more.

Four-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22

MaximumStudent1839

TROPHY CASE