click retweeted
Visa making 10 bips on gpv means that in theory we could eventually convince visa to use solana because the cost seems even likely to be cheaper than their internal infra since it’s not fighting for the first 20ms of priority.
Why would everyone use someone else’s L1? They will if it makes them money and if they can always fork off.
That’s the whole decentralization play. It only makes sense if the L1 can sustain $50b in daily trading volume or 10ktps.
Basically that hits $1b in rev per year at 0.5 bips or $0.003 per tx. It’s a cost below the switching costs. The people complaining about this low of a fee are unlikely to have a viable business model at all. Maybe i am off by a small factor but its somewhere < 10 imho.
It works if costs are so low there is basically more value to be in the same L1 then trying to build your own. Which is why i think corp chains are ngmi. Its a good chain if its super cheap and if its super cheap the margins suck and ceo/shareholders doesnt gaf.
If smart contract crypto wins finance, it will be via one giant L1 that is cheap af and everyone uses, or a bunch of walled gardens that will get bolted down to maintain the margins.
click retweeted
After almost three great years together, Zoomer News and @velo_xyz are parting ways.
Working with Velo over the years has been an amazing experience and I am proud to have been a part of their journey. Velo charts are used industry wide; from retail punters to hedge fund managers, and it makes me smile seeing their charts on my timeline.
I look forward to continuing to build Zoomer News, and for our headlines to be as widespread as Velo charts are.
click retweeted
over the past few weeks, i got offered deals paying 30k-80k usd a month to promote some crypto apps on here
i must say i have been very very tempted to go for it as it feels like a lot of easy money for a formerly broke ass dude like me
when i created this account 3 years ago, it was mostly for fun and i never really expected people to give a fuck about what i had to say
i'm getting these opportunities thanks to you guys, so i wanted to thank you all for reading my yapping over the past 3 years
i decided to turn down all these deals mostly because i felt like i was giving up my freedom of speech and becoming accountable to a schedule and a company
imo the whole point of locking in for all these years was to be able to do whatever the fuck i want
to all of us winning
cbb
chinese AI companies have done a lot with their open weight models
deepseek v4.1 flash and glm 5.3 are very good models
buying a GPU rack is one of the best investments you can do rn
click retweeted
Remember, a hack or, an outage, can happen to anyone. Schadenfreude is an invitation to visit destruction upon yourself.
click retweeted
ok safe to say binance is pwned
The biggest assets were approximately:
• 1.615B USDT
• 62.6M RLUSD
• 29,934 wBETH
• 11,372 XAUt
• 6.19M UNI
• 198.4M ENA
• 7.175T PEPE
• 27.8M USD1
• 2.26M LINK
• 127,853 AAVE
about $2.5B at the explorer’s prices.
1. The attacker deployed a delegate contract, 0x63e842b0...73e9c6fAe, from the relayer at 15:59 UTC.
2. About four hours later, the relayer submitted an EIP-7702 authorization transaction
That installed the malicious 7702 delegate code on Binance 14.
3. The relayer then made a call to Binance 14, executing the delegate code, and transferring Binance 14’s ETH and token balances.
4. The calldata is labeled sweep(address, address[]). The second argument is a list of recognizable token-contract addresses plus the zero-address (eth).
5. The same relayer later used the same delegate to move 780M USDC from Binance Hot Wallet 34 into the same pool
• The relayer 0x7C... was funded by three Tornado Cash 0.1 ETH withdrawals over the prior two days.
• The same pool also received 28,005.6 ETH from Binance 16 24 seconds after the main sweep.
• The pool then forwarded 195,460 ETH to a fresh, unlabeled EOA
• That EOA has only one transaction and currently holds the 195,460 ETH.
What's a bit unclear is why the relayer was needed in the first place. If they had the private keys to the Binance wallets, they could have just sent the assets out in an atomic bundle without needing a relayer at all.
So it seems likely that they didn't have the private keys and instead just had the 7702 auth signatures, which must have been phished somehow.
I think we can go ahead and assume DPRK.
click retweeted
I am excited to be an investor in trade(xyz) as they partner with ICE to bring 24/7 perpetual futures on Hyperliquid to the United States. As a market participant, I am looking forward to to using their innovative product to enhance my investment process.
zero
It's been a long time coming... But it's finally time
Part of evolving as a business is recognising where your focus should be while remembering who your users are.
The reality is that we spent an incredible amount of time purpose-building a network that is specifically designed to cater to HFT and everything that it encompasses.
Execution needed to be faster and limitations to throughput hindered our ability to run real time risk checks as we think about scaling to 100,000 to 1,000,000 users and beyond.
For those who have been following along, its no secret that there has been friction between how we execute and what the preference is from Solana leadership.
I understand and respect their stance, however to continue to frame BULK a solana dex would be reductive to the actual offering, so we’re officially putting this on the record.
The stronger case is that multichain access expands BULK’s distribution and usable capital while bringing more activity into the same market.
Distribution follows where users hold their money.
As more people enter crypto through neobanks, wallets and payment applications, their first chain may simply be whichever network their provider uses. Their choice of trading venue will depend on execution quality, liquidity and convenience.
Requiring those users to move to a particular chain before they can trade creates an acquisition barrier: another transaction, another fee, another interface and another opportunity to abandon onboarding. It also asks wallets and neobanks to move customers away from their existing infrastructure to integrate BULK.
Multichain access lets BULK meet that distribution where it already exists. A wallet or neobank could offer its customers BULK markets through the rails they already use.
The lesson from multicurrency products like Wise is that a single financial relationship can span across several underlying currencies and payment systems. We expect users to increasingly demand the same convenience across chains.
A unified clearing layer can make capital more productive and markets more liquid.
The strongest clearinghouse analogy is capital efficiency. Traditional clearing infrastructure brings eligible collateral and positions into a common risk framework, allowing qualifying exposures to offset and reducing the capital required to support them.
This today belongs to CME Group.
For BULK, the opportunity is to connect capital held across supported chains to a common margin system and shared order book. A trader’s access to liquidity should not depend on which chain funded their account. A market maker should be able to serve that combined demand through the same BULK markets.
This creates an economic advantage: more sources of capital and order flow can support deeper books; deeper books can improve execution; better execution can attract more traders and integrations.
That advantage depends on keeping liquidity concentrated. Multichain access should bring users into the same markets, with eligible collateral recognized under a consistent risk framework. It should also let users withdraw available capital through supported destination chains, making BULK useful within their wider financial activity.
BULK’s specialised execution layer gives it a natural role connecting these rails.
BULK is a purpose-built trading L1 rolled into an order book, matching engine and risk engine. Its value comes from how efficiently it executes trades and manages risk. That specialization gives it a reason to serve capital from multiple ecosystems.
Today, collateral lives on Solana, and BULK’s ledger tracks the corresponding balances, positions and margin. Extending that model to supported networks such as Arc, Tempo, Arbitrum and HyperEVM would allow more funding and withdrawal routes to connect to the same execution system.
The architectural principle is to handle each chain’s confirmation and settlement requirements at the funding boundary. Once collateral is securely recognised, trading should run through BULK’s own execution and risk process. This allows BULK to preserve its performance while broadening access.
The intended experience is straightforward: fund from a supported chain, trade against BULK’s shared liquidity, and withdraw available balances to a supported destination. A user could enter from Solana and exit on HyperEVM, with BULK coordinating the accounting, settlement and destination liquidity required.
For wallets and neobanks, that would make BULK an exchange and clearing integration they can use across their supported networks. Each additional rail would expand access to the same venue, and strengthen the market already serving everyone else.
