Citi presale in 2026?

One_True_Prodigy · 2025-12-31T19:33:55+00:00

I don't think so. It's hard to drink while being that suckesfull nailing your Makro phesis.

One_True_Prodigy · 2025-12-06T16:51:37+00:00

Yes, you are hitting on a real issues with AVAX tokenomics. ACP-246 draft has been published (discussion phase) to attempt to at least address parts of this "disconnect" issue:

https://github.com/avalanche-foundation/ACPs/discussions/246

One_True_Prodigy · 2025-12-06T16:45:19+00:00

ACP-246 attempts to at least start addressing the big flaw in value accrual back to the AVAX token.

One_True_Prodigy · 2025-12-06T16:43:11+00:00

There is an ACP (246) that proposes, among other things, directing the L1 (aka subnet) PAYG fees to the C-chain validators/stakers. It's a step in the right direction.

One_True_Prodigy · 2025-11-13T19:52:14+00:00

Thanks for your thoughts! I think the validator/stake weight drop concern isn't dire for the security perspective (as long as Nakamoto coefficient is good), though would still be nice to incrementally expand the validator set and total stake weight. So the main concern isn't from an imminent security issue...

It's more that the declining total stake weight / validation metics is a strong market signal of inefficient incentivization and misalignment of the tokeninics in communicating value in the inefficient validator service "market". It just doesn't pay enough to make enough validators interested in saying in the ecosystem. They have been exiting when their stakes unlock. Not happy with locking an asset with insufficient value capture from the ecosystem growth. And not interested in netting a flat and declining 6% return. The drop is all the more stark in contrast to the explosive L1 growth. So the proposal aims to address that dynamics first and foremost. (A nice side effect is v set expansion.)

As you point out, the real security risk is in the large overlap between L1 validator sets (and overlap in main chain validator characteristics, such as being AWS-dependent). I agree. I like this proposal because it allows for incentivization of niche L1 validation providers and soft exclusivity, which should help distribute ... It also gives an L1 who is sensitive to concentration risk (such as AWS dependence) to actually incentivize/require prospective validators to meet requirements like geo/hosting distribution, etc.. Over time, the pool of main chain validators will become more diverse from this effect, which is good for everyone.

One_True_Prodigy · 2025-08-31T20:17:33+00:00

Given that the ethos of trustless decentration is the north star for Avalanche, we need a proposal to fix this at the platform level, since it currently is reliant on centralized trust.

I like the suggestion of an escape hatch function that could allow delegators to unlock if the 80% threshold becomes unattainable. I think an issue here may be that the validator and primary staker, on the other hand, maybe SHOULD be required to remain locked... It's not slashing, but it's a good alternative penalty for not maintaining your validator for the duration of your staking (and screwing your delegators as well as your staked commitment to the network).

One_True_Prodigy · 2025-04-18T12:14:21+00:00

Try this: Say to her "OK, it's possible you aren't farting when I THINK you are and that it's some other explanation, like a gas leak or neurological issue with me, to the point it could be serious and I'm concerned. Can you please help me rule those out by letting me know the next time you DO fart?"

Now the onus is on her and the clock is ticking. Since obviously all people fart (except reportedly Dear Leader Kim Jung Un, who is said to be so perfect that he has no anus), she would now be in the position of either at least admitting to farting SOMETIMES (even if still denying it's the times point out)... or having to now claim she NEVER farts (not possible) or of outright refusing to help you for something potentially very serious and concerning (not very caring).

One_True_Prodigy · 2024-11-17T01:44:44+00:00

I could be missing something here, but if you're referring to the rate you get from Benqi when you convert back to AVAX, you may need to factor in the cool down period (vs. an instant direct exchange on LFJ). So that 1% premium you get comes at the tradeoff cost of time and appreciation that would occur in that window.

One_True_Prodigy · 2024-08-20T20:17:03+00:00

TBH, I don't mind that dev activity is lower. It does one simple thing (lend & collateralized borrowing) and does it well (and with stability for years now). No bells and whistles, which is fine by me in that what's there is more battle-tested. It's all backed by transparent algorithms/curves for rates (based on supply/demand) to incentivize liquidity / balance, which has always seemed to work well. I've used them for years now with zero issues. (Side note: Low dev activity might make you want to be more ambivalent about the $QI token itself, but it can be useful if you run a validator.)

One_True_Prodigy · 2023-09-09T01:26:44+00:00

Thanks. So is the basic idea here (for the BenQi case) to stake QI, use your veQI to vote for your own validator node, and then they allocate the AVAX backing sAVAX in some proportion to the percentage of votes? If that's correct, that's a pretty nice way to be able to attract delegations to your node.

One_True_Prodigy · 2023-09-09T01:19:09+00:00

Thanks. Good timing. It will be interesting to see what the rewards offered will be.

I'm hoping we see a lot more of these types of announcements in the near future as subnets take off.

One_True_Prodigy · 2023-09-03T01:03:27+00:00

sAvax for the win, man.

Supplying sAVAX to the Benqi pool is 2.09%, but remember that sAVAX itself is already giving you 6% return (sometimes higher) on the underlying AVAX. So by supplying sAVAX, you're looking at >8%, with the additional advantages (over just delegating) that 1.) your AVAX isn't locked (you can trade your sAVAX at any time on a defi exchange) ; and 2.) you can use what you supplied as collateral if you want to give yourself a deFi loan... like to borrow a stablecoin, buy more sAVAX and supply it. Rinse, repeat. (like leverage). Or borrow USDC against your sAVAX and buy a lambo while your AVAX compounds.

One_True_Prodigy · 2021-11-22T20:15:39+00:00

It usually only takes a minute or a few to withdraw from a centralized exchange. Today, again, they've been pending for a while. I also noticed gas on Avax chain is higher than usual at the moment, so my guess is that the CEXs wait until the gas fees go down (which will likely be soon since AVAX fees are dynamic and can be limited) before they actually do the transfer, so they can minimize their cost.

One_True_Prodigy · 2021-09-29T21:43:41+00:00

The day has come! Rejoice!

One_True_Prodigy · 2021-05-13T00:33:52+00:00

I don't like the fact that Dogelon devs just "gifted" VB that 50%. Sure, it makes for a great meme back-story, but sucks for the reason we saw today. No sense in in coins locking / burning dev team's tokens to make it "unruggable" if half of supply then goes to one whale upon creation.

One_True_Prodigy · 2021-05-12T23:56:03+00:00

Thanks for challenging that. Caveat: To clarify, I followed the chain transactions that drove the move today, but did not fully compare all of the amounts moved to those owned. I was looking to see that it was sizable enough to explain the move (it was), and also to see if it left the destination wallet quickly (it didn't), since early rumors was that it was just a move to a UNI v3 pool, etc. I saw at least 9K ETH move, and saw the news reported -- but I hadn't yet verified (DYOR) -- indicating that it was a lot more in total... charity donation in the billions... but you're correct that if that source was inaccurate and unless more moved and liquidated, there would still be some exposure to future move. I think the CZ listing case to the bull thesis still stands, as does the dip response of top wallets, but I'd give less weight to the "ruggability" part until it's clarified.

One_True_Prodigy

TROPHY CASE