8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ (@eightbitsim) header
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ (@eightbitsim) profile picture

onchain pirate

svm
Joined August 2021
Photo by 8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ (@eightbitsim)Photo by 8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ (@eightbitsim)Photo by 8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ (@eightbitsim)Photo by 8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ (@eightbitsim)Photo by 8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ (@eightbitsim)Photo by 8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ (@eightbitsim)Photo by 8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ (@eightbitsim)Photo by 8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ (@eightbitsim)Photo by 8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ (@eightbitsim)Photo by 8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ (@eightbitsim)
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
Replying to @degenroot
A few things worth saying plainly: Validators share revenue with delegators, sometimes through private deals on income that should go to the operator alone. Ethereum has the same thing. Validators compete for delegators. There's a market for stake, and it runs on bids. So it's safe to assume the extra revenue from this activity ends up with institutional delegators, whether they know it or not. I want to make that not knowing impossible. Stake should follow the best revenue and clean on-chain behaviour, not revenue alone. Otherwise everyone ends up running @defidevcorp style slot lagging, plus whatever else squeezes out the last bit of yield. As the article shows, this is happening on large nodes, @coinbase among them, which hold institutional stake. This can't be policed at the protocol level, and nobody claims it can. But @SolanaFndn has a role here, not quietly backing these builders, and applying social pressure on them to stop. Tokenized equities now trade on @solana. If a retail order in an on chain stock gets sandwiched inside a single builder's blocks, it's the kind of thing a regulator will ask about. Serious wall street activity won't move on chain until we resolve this. It's better to work this out now. @TimGarcia0 @MaxResnick
3
2
9
355
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
Another sign of Helius exposing order flow and mempool leakage.I analyzed 2mqrindMAjJEQPLhroYWyiYPo5h9iAsahfdd4QtsjwdY from Jun 1-Jul 8. Pattern: on mints where it sends 2+ buys, it uses multiple buy attempts with descending CU price, so the buy can land after the dev mint tx. If CU is higher than dev, the token may not exist yet. Dataset: - 1,363 qualified mints - 5,306 deduped buy txs - 21,224 nearby leader-slot rows checked - 99.85% leader coverage Helius accounts for: - 27.12% across slots -2/-1/0/+1 - 31.47% at the actual tx slot This does not look like normal public-chain reaction speed. The wallet appears to know the dev mint flow early enough to ladder buys behind the create tx, and those attempts are disproportionately concentrated around Helius-led slots. Helius needs to explain this order-flow pattern.
3
4
2
15
2,462
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
Good article. The forest has gotten a lot darker this year. Apologies for the long tweet but I have a lot of thoughts as we've seen these trends grow. 1. These services claim no front-running but enforcement is spotty and retroactive. We saw persistent sandwhiching instances from them on popular retail apps that were not corrected until outside intervention. 2. SOL's investment pitch is REV. With these and similar deals, REV capture is structurally declining. The value still exists but it's captured in opaque side deals. Our community should probably rethink REV as a KPI if we accept these as inevitable. It is going down only as these arrangements proliferate. 3. Stakers get screwed. Opaque yield is captured by validator operators or sophisticated institutional stakers that shop their stake to the highest bidder. Average staker doesn't have knowledge or access to this. This further reduces incentive to own SOL. 4. This disadvantages less sophisticated validators and centralizes stake. Each validator builds their own prop trading operation to internalize the profit. Only a handful have enough scale to do it right and capture maximum value. Jito was founded to bring structure to the dark world of Solana MEV capture. The system is transparent, identical for everyone, whether big or small validator, and stakers of any size. The mechanism includes strong protections to prevent info leakage and front-running. In some cases, this structure means slightly less yield. BAM was introduced a year ago as the next generation of block building. It has ~35% of network stake. BAM's design prevents most side deals. It was designed to put the network's user first - that rigidity is actually our biggest blocker from a validator onboarding perspective. Many operators want flexibility for side income they can keep for themselves, despite the impact on our network's lifeblood: users. MCP solves some of these concerns but makes others worse. Regardless, the train has left the station and MCP isn't going to fix it soon. I appreciate Andrei surfacing some of these items. We as a community should make proactive decisions about how we want the network to operate and what our ultimate values our. The status quo is letting it quietly change under the surface: centralized stake, disadvantaged retail stakers, little REV and worse user execution. The window for real discussion is now, otherwise the momentum will be irreversible.
Orderflow article is out. Private TPU feeds, a rev-share vault, and the validators getting paid from it.
11
22
2
132
11,493
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
Who is staking to DFDV validator you may ask? Almost all of their stake comes from their own LST - dfdvSOL What is even more interesting is that almost all of that comes from a DFDV-managed multisig multiplying 75k SOL at ~11.5x multi on Jupiter Lend, getting them to well over 1 million SOL directed to their own validator. Why Jupiter even added support for dfdvSOL in the first place is beyond me.
DeFi Dev Corp is once again lagging slots. They stopped briefly for ~1 epoch, then resumed under a new, unnamed identity and with 400k SOL more in stake. You are not shaming them enough.
4
7
2
29
5,112
I'll repost this every day until decentralization becomes a central theme on CT again. If one entity can switch it off, what exactly are we decentralizing? Day 6
Replying to @mdudas
I do agree, another centralized β€œchain” is what we needed. This is the most bullish thing I’ve seen in whole bullish-land in years
1
6
512
I'll repost this every day until decentralization becomes a central theme on CT again. Decentralization is not merely a feature. Day 3
Replying to @mdudas
I do agree, another centralized β€œchain” is what we needed. This is the most bullish thing I’ve seen in whole bullish-land in years
2
1
15
916
Truth is, no one looks into data because otherwise you can't build fake narratives
3
2
1
19
3,293
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
Replying to @toly @eightbitsim
isn’t this what the priority fees are designed for? they’re just loosely enforced at the moment so the validators can willy nilly do whatever they want
1
1
2
553
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
Another example here that proves this issue. Seen @mert try to claim that they don't offer order flow privately, which is unequivocally false It's making it impossible for HFT firms to operate profitably right now. nitter.cf/Bruce_allinsol/status/…
Another sign of Helius exposing order flow and mempool leakage.I analyzed 2mqrindMAjJEQPLhroYWyiYPo5h9iAsahfdd4QtsjwdY from Jun 1-Jul 8. Pattern: on mints where it sends 2+ buys, it uses multiple buy attempts with descending CU price, so the buy can land after the dev mint tx. If CU is higher than dev, the token may not exist yet. Dataset: - 1,363 qualified mints - 5,306 deduped buy txs - 21,224 nearby leader-slot rows checked - 99.85% leader coverage Helius accounts for: - 27.12% across slots -2/-1/0/+1 - 31.47% at the actual tx slot This does not look like normal public-chain reaction speed. The wallet appears to know the dev mint flow early enough to ladder buys behind the create tx, and those attempts are disproportionately concentrated around Helius-led slots. Helius needs to explain this order-flow pattern.
2
6
623
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
Solana's game is mostly rigged (imho). Validators sell orderflow, landing providers sell orderflow, launchpads sell orderflow .. and everyone else with any distribution moat. You should start by convincing someone to smuggle some orderflow for you (for a decent commission ofc) or just don't bother at all. The effort to payoff ratio is too undesirable.
2
2
1
11
1,641
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
I spend my life on Circular and we even tag most of the orderflow transactions with β€œDark Tips”, users already know about this; they just don’t post about it on X πŸ‘€
1
1
3
329
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
Replying to @mert @alessandrod
This ends now. Even if I must drag the gods down with it. lets go over simple set of assumptions i am making @mert let me know which one doesn't make sense. I bill 10SOL per slot for consults. 1. the validator has to periodically release shreds [thus txns reaching the TPU have to pass through without delaying] - Network requirement/Social consensus 2. ⁠Backrunning any txn - Involves route searching across the chain state - takes 10-20 ms atleast [including latency even if co located] 3. ⁠A backrun can be done in two ways -> either the source is passed through and the searcher only gets a signal and backrun goes separately [CASE 1] or you bundle the source and backrun [CASE 2] 4. ⁠in CASE 1 [10-20 ms delay = txn will be several positions apart] CASE 2 [src,backrun will be n and n+1] 5. ⁠As multiple txns in this thread have shown, there are CASE 2s with this searcher on bald slots. 6. ⁠Thus to do Case 2; you have to hold the source for 10-20 ms 7. ⁠Which means, the price of execution [within users slippage tolerance] - would differ than what he could have gotten in case 1 8. ⁠CASE 1 is fine, CASE 2 is not 9. ⁠@toly and you both are trying to make a fool of your audience, letting them think you are doing CASE 1, but doing CASE 2. Because 2 makes much more money per backrun vs CASE 1 [coz your guy mriya, gets a priority lane behind the user] coming up with straight answers is rough, requires acceptance, balls, agency & courage. hope you'll use it this time. @trentdotsol @sonic_from_ny @toly @uriklarman @bencirc @0xrafal @alessandrod @niteshnath @bigtimetapin @helius
7
2
1
18
7,235
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
"I don't need to check the randomness, surely they are not scamming me"
7
2
53
3,472
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
You have to wonder why Solana has been shilling a product actively wrecking their users by selling them to the highest bidder & actively blocking out other competition
4
1
35
3,781
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
Replying to @solana
@solana's biggest DEXes today aren't AMMs you've heard of. They're private market makers @SolFiAMM, @tessera_v, ZeroFi, @humidifi quoting through Jupiter with on-chain oracle updates. The findings are insane.
1
1
829
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
I don't see any red in the 0slot column? πŸ€”
1
1
1
323
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
It looks like Drift has been exploited! HkGz4KmoZ7Zmk7HN6ndJ31UJ1qZ2qgwQxgVqQwovpZES
6
20
18
195
50,670
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
Ambassador Announcement! Thrilled to welcome @mandoct as a long-term advisor and ambassador! With great experience in trading and finance, Mando will help us revolutionise DeFi and legacy industries with blockchain technology! #Tectum #BlockchainRevolution #Partnership
32
37
5
169
67,574
8bit0 πŸ΄β€β˜ οΈ retweeted
Gas prices fluctuate and go up, transactions get stuck, fees go up, people complain. Bull market issues… πŸ€·β€β™‚οΈ Look on the bright side though, still faster and cheaper than fiat. πŸ™
BTC is unusable, why not just use something else like BSV?
1,097
673
151
4,041
1,461,342