抛开 FTX 挪用用户资金和造假欺诈行为，单纯从交易所产品的角度看，每个 Crypto 交易所的产品经理都应该仔细学习 FTX 的账户和资产逻辑。
通过分子账户实现风险隔离，每个子账户是完全的统一账户。
现在的这些交易所没有一个能打的，假统一账户，乱七八糟的账户系统，屎一样的 API 接口文档和设计。
Wayne retweeted
SEC has *approved* both the Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF & Franklin Crypto Index ETF...
Will initially hold both btc & eth.
👀
We expect a wave of cryptocurrency ETFs next year, albeit not all at once. First out is likely the btc + eth combo ETFs, then prob Litecoin (bc its fork of btc = commodity), then HBAR (bc not labeled security) and then XRP/Solana (which have been labeled securities in pending lawsuits) via @JSeyff in his outlook today which you can find here: blinks.bloomberg.com/news/st…
Wayne retweeted
1. Aave pitches multiple bridges to deposit assets on Aave.
2. A proposal goes live to use Morpho and not Aave.
3. Aave says bridges should not do it anymore.
Wayne retweeted
BIG UPDATE REGARDING STAKE THE BRIDGE AND AAVE SITUATION!
A few days back @AllezLabs and @Yearnfi put up a “Pre-PIP”, a proposal for the proposal, to enable staking of Polygon PoS bridge funds. The Polygon community made their voice heard and was generally against the proposal. I personally spoke to 50+ community members and feel that the pre-proposal in its current form does not address some of the concerns of the community and hence I am also unsupportive of the proposal. Considering many other Polygon community members, this STB pre-proposal looks to be rejected. Voicing loudly opinions against a proposal is a huge success of Polygon Governance.
NOW! Let's talk about what Aave leadership did here, but first a few facts:
Aave Campaigned Hard for the similar proposition previously
When this pre-proposal was first brought into discussion, Aave leadership was super excited about it and lobbied heavily to make sure the bridge funds go to Aave deployment.
During the public RFP process on Polygon Governance portal, Aave leadership had multiple meetings and invited Polygon Labs leadership to various dinner meetings and presentations to garner Polygon Labs support to “select Aave” for stake the bridge process.
They posted their own pre-PIP, which generated very little conversation in the Polygon community.
What Morpho Did Differently
Considering what Morpho wanted to bring into the Polygon ecosystem — huge grants to Polygon Defi community as incentives, superior decentralisation and control over contracts for the Polygon community, as well as very simple smart contracts with fewer attack vectors — Morpho got a head start in garnering other community members who were supportive of their vision of STBl. In this version, Aave was still going to receive a large part of the yield for its users on Polygon POS deployment.
Aave Attacking Polygon
Once there was some traction after Morpho (and others) posted their pre-PIP, Marc Zeller — a vocal delegate in the Aave community —posted a vicious threat proposing to discontinue Aave deployment on Polygon PoS bringing huge hassle to their users, just to make sure that the biggest and fastest-rising competitor to Aave - Morpho — didn’t get the growth boost from STB.
The proposal disregards the security measures already in place and feels more like “sour grapes” than a constructive contribution to the dialogue. Ironically, this move would harm the very users it claims to protect by disrupting their access to a stable and thriving DeFi ecosystem. It's hypocritical to claim concern for user security while simultaneously attempting to destabilize an ecosystem that so many depend on.
To underscore just how personal this attack was, a prominent Aave leader even went as far as tweeting, "Operation Polygon(e)."
This is extremely monopolistic and anti-competitive behaviour from Aave leadership and not at all aligned with the Ethos of Web3. This is a prominent example of a DAO leadership engaging in anti-competitive tactics and bullying other ecosystems to play to their tune.
The Polygon community should not be intimidated by monopolistic tactics or aggression and should continue to explore innovative mechanisms to achieve more success.
Our commitment is to a thriving, competitive, and truly decentralised DeFi ecosystem that serves the best interests of all users and builders. The Polygon community will continue to push the boundaries of what’s possible, standing resolute against any actions that undermine the principles of Web3.
We remain open and eager for positive, constructive dialogue with the community, but on equal terms. This goes both as well as with both for Morpho, and Aave or any other Web3 player to ensure a collaborative path forward.
RE: Stake the Bridge proposal and Aave’s “Operation Polygon(e)”
Recently, a pre-PIP went live from @AllezLabs, @MorphoLabs and @Yearnfi regarding the staking of Polygon PoS bridge funds.
A pre-PIP is exactly what it sounds like: an early proposal to get feedback and gauge sentiment from the community. It was the first contentious proposal in the fledgling Polygon Governance community, and there was a very serious public discourse that got huge traction and engagement.
Although the proposal includes security measures, many community members voiced concerns about the lack of an opt-in mechanism—a valid concern. Given the community’s concern around the pre-PIP it seems unlikely for this proposal to progress, but it doesn’t mean innovative or even aggressive ideas shouldn’t be explored in the future. The governance community is evidently engaged in Polygon protocol developments.
We are extremely thankful to all the community members, like @JourneyMacro, @dcbuilder, @cupojoseph, @puniaviision, @doganeth_en, @LHerfel, @Davyegld and others, who respectfully and passionately voiced their opinions no matter the outcome. A governance system with these types of debates is a HUGE success for Polygon Governance.
However, Aave leadership’s response was very disappointing. Despite their initial excitement and zealous pitch for a similar proposition, they resorted to threats to dismantle Aave’s deployment on Polygon PoS once their main competitor gained more traction as the leading protocol. The Polygon community should refuse to be intimidated by monopolistic tactics or attempts to stifle innovation.
Whether you support or oppose the Pre-PIP, no one should fear retaliation for proposing ideas or engaging in formal governance processes. Progress comes from constructive debate, not shutting doors on those who bring fresh perspectives.
Innovation and new ideas are at the heart of crypto – it’s what allows us to build systems that are more open, efficient and decentralized. Every new idea, even when imperfect, contributes to the broader mission of pushing the boundaries of what’s possible. Polygon Labs’ commitment is to a thriving, competitive, and truly decentralized DeFi ecosystem that serves the best interests of all users and builders. We invite you to join the discussions on the forum: forum.polygon.technology/t/p…
We remain open and eager for positive, constructive dialogue with the community, as well as with both Morpho and Aave, to ensure a collaborative path forward 🤝🏽
There's a new version of this post
Wayne retweeted
One of Max's more earnest suggestions was his insistence that the L1 should adopt Sol-style scaling, and in doing so, trade credible neutrality and decentralization for L1 execution.
If Eth adopted Sol-style L1 scaling, it would make some of today's users happy while sacrificing Eth's strategic position as the risk-minimized global hub. This would be a terrible plan for us because among all chains, Eth is uniquely on track to attract capital and integrations from the world's largest entities, specifically due to our best-in-class decentralization. If we give up an ounce of neutrality for L1 execution scaling, then we'd be giving up what makes Ethereum special and also giving up trillions in future hub growth as the entire world comes onchain.
Eth's strategy of a maximally decentralized L1+marketplace of L2s is the correct winning strategy. No strategy change is needed. The L1 is thriving as the hub. 70% of all app capital in crypto is on the L1. L2s are growing faster than alt L1s, with many tech stacks and business models. L2 rent paid to L1 is trending way up. ETH is used heavily on all major L2s.
As the global hub, Eth is capturing the lion's share of capital and integrations. This trend will continue for years. Hopefully even for decades/centuries. But no single chain can capture even 1% of the future market for execution. Not Sol (this is their monolith crisis). Certainly not the L1, even if pivoted to focus on execution scaling.
A lot of people tried to explain this all to Max. He mostly didn't engage in public debate. I've found that you can usually spot a non earnest participant because they don't reply. Truthseeking generally requires replying. Attention farmers and politicians stop replying as soon as the net expected audience impact swings against them.
Strategically, Ethereum only needs sufficient L1 execution scaling for the L1 to continue thriving as the global hub.
imo, the goal should be to maximize L1 execution (and blob) scaling while rigorously ensuring that there's no loss of decentralization or credible neutrality. This is not a novel or radical idea. Much of this goal is already built into today's Eth roadmap.
I agree we should raise the L1 gas limit now. But always judiciously and based on science.
It could be worth exploring enshrining something like a minimum gas limit into the protocol. The current method of raising the gas limit solely via validator signaling is de facto token governance and seems to suffer from the classic ills of token governance, which Vitalik has written about several times vitalik.eth.limo/general/202….
It's difficult to muster community activation energy to raise the gas limit on everybody's validators. This creates an understandable incentive to make any rare successful gas limit increase as large as possible. Some of the higher gas limits proposed recently have been shown by several researchers to possibly harm decentralization in various ways. Enshrining a minimum (but not maximum) gas limit into the protocol could help alleviate this tension and, alongside regular blob supply increases, may serve as a mechanism to bundle other direct scaling EIPs into "scaling updates", such as reducing gas costs for overpriced opcodes.
In short, Eth strategy is a maximally decentralized L1+marketplace of L2s. This is a winning strategy. It implies that it's crucial to scale L1 execution, but only in the sense of facilitating the L1's role as the hub. L1 execution scaling must be designed to strictly avoid any loss of decentralization or credible neutrality - because being the most risk minimized chain is what makes Eth uniquely suitable as the hub for large scale capital and integrations. This explains why adopting Sol-style L1 scaling would be a disaster for Eth, even if it would benefit some of today's users. Max didn't seem to care to understand or debate this.
“你最近干了什么吊事了（你骂人家去 Sol）”
“我搞了第一个去中心化支付处理器，你吊逼干啥了？努力让比特币更像以太坊？
“我 tm 要是想让比特币更像以太坊，我 tm 只需要卖币就行”
“以太坊虽慢但扎实，不像某些叼币要看 Saylor 能往你嘴里塞多少***”
“你 tm 去以太坊群里跟朋友们讨论一个多小时才想出来上一句反击的话”
“我 tm 要哄孩子睡觉了”
“精彩的配图”
Great to see that Max has left Eth's extended core dev community.
Ethereum is for everybody, and Eth has many earnest critics, but Max wasn't one of them.
Max has joined Solana. He writes:
> In my first 100 days, I plan on writing a spec for as much of the Solana protocol as I can get to.
Critics like Max have frequently claimed that Ethereum needs to become more like Solana. But in reality, Ethereum's strategy of a maximally decentralized L1 scaled by a marketplace of L2s is apex - no strategy changes are needed. What's actually happening now is that Solana is taking big steps to try to become more like Ethereum, not vice versa.
Solana will try to buy things Eth already has, including client diversity, a real protocol spec, a research community, and much more onchain capital. Max is now part of Sol's effort to become more like Ethereum. That's ironic considering he kept saying Ethereum had to become more like Solana.
However, all of Solana's money will not enable them to buy decentralization.
Decentralization is something that must be grown intentionally over many years. You can't buy it at the "decentralization store".
Solana is fundamentally centralized. That's going to limit their growth in a huge way as global partners see the much higher level of risk and liability on Sol vs Eth.
Sol is a data center chain (10gbps upload recommended). They are years away from achieving client diversity, if ever. Their token is famously closely held - it's more like an enterprise token. Much of the supply is still uncirculating. And lots of the circulating supply is owned by a small circle of Sol insiders. The EF owns 0.25% of all ETH, ~100x less than just the percentage of uncirculating SOL.
Solana's technology is also increasingly obsolete. They have built a real community and app layer when compared to failing alt L1s. But their monolith will soon be slower and more expensive than the fastest L2s, by a lot. L2 app and dev ecosystems are growing faster than Sol. Eth interop is improving rapidly. Soon, cross-L2 UX will be seamless. Solana's pivot to try to become more like Ethereum - in terms of growing their L2 ecosystem and attempting (and mostly failing) to become more decentralized - is their tacit acknowledgment of their major tech strategy weakness.
In short, Solana is mostly a paper tiger with deep pockets. Unsurprisingly, that's a great fit for Max.
还有最多最离谱的一类
“地址给你刷一下 TVL，记得给我币哦”
“只是地址借你用，币不能动”
“要保证收益率哦”
浅谈比特币生态核心问题：比特币如何生息？
上周babylon staking cap2算是比特币再质押赛道的短期里程碑，TVL近24000BTC，但收益仍难预估。归根结底，比特币生态发展围绕一个核心问题：比特币如何生息？分享我的几点思考。
首先，比特币是否有生息的需求？
众所周知，比特币基于POW，总量有限。多年来，对比特币的共识是“去中心化的抗通胀风险的数字黄金”。那比特币还需要生息吗？
我认为是存在的。第一，每四年减半意味着边际收入递减，挖矿和网络维护成本居高不下，矿工们需要新的收入模型作为动力来维护比特币网络。
第二，@thecryptoskanda 大佬提到的，机构/大户有链上套保对冲需求。交易所本身受限于合规、过往MtGOX/Celcius/FTX破产清算说明CeFi安全风险依然存在，长期来看链上资管的需求会增长。
第三，囤币党和散户对于持币被动理财也有一定需求。
那么，收益从哪里来？
目前已知的收益方式有四种：staking奖励、CeDeFi收益、链上合约交易所收益以及RWA。
1. 质押收益
以 @babylonlabs_io 为例，LP质押BTC，得到的收益来自于：
- POS收益（Babylon链的区块奖励）
- 安全收益：实际来自对恶意节点的罚没（出于敏感性，这部分收益几乎不会实现）
- 多链奖励：从Babylon”租借流动性”的各条链出让一部分token作为奖励
- 节点收益分成：用户通过delegate资金给节点，获得节点收入分成
除了Babylon及其LRT生态，还有很多其他链上的BTC staking协议，如 @AcreBTC_CN , @Pell_Network, @EchoProtocol_ ，其收益来源是公链提供的token补贴，或者项目方跑多链节点的收入，本质还是POS收益。
2. CeDeFi 收益
CeDeFi算是最符合市场现状的PMF，前端做一个DeFi界面，募集的BTC转入 @CeffuGlobal /@binance, 在交易所内跑中性策略套利收益返还LP，再在链上套一层restaking/套利收益，长期发展为BTC基金超市。
@bouncebit 是BTC CeDeFi的代表，这类业务机构导向，务实的另一面是想象空间小，毕竟收益主要来自CeFi资金费率+发币，token没啥用例，上币容易被大户砸盘。
3. 链上合约交易所
大户的币本位套保需求在链上的天然延伸，套保收益来自PerpDEX的资金费率套利+手续费收入。目前，主流Perp DEX如 @HyperliquidX @GMX_IO 和 @DriftProtocol 还没有完全吸收这部分需求，体验丝滑的BTC本位Perp DEX对于比特币L2还是一个大机会。
4. RWA收益
RWA是从币圈募资，把场外收益带进crypto。BTC持有者是否有RWA生息需求我个人有些存疑，一方面RWA类收益只有熊市吃香，另一方面设立家办的千币侯们做多种资产管理也不是难事。反倒是Microstrategy玩的更溜，用上市公司的资金购买比特币—> 比特币上涨预期发新股 —>买更多比特币—>股价上涨，制造反向飞轮。
以上四类生息途径只有第2类完全实现，再质押赛道还要看babylon和LRT们发币后的表现。期待看到更多BTCFi的创新和落地，也欢迎大家多多赐教，关于比特币生息有其他观点欢迎讨论。
WBTC 被 Sky (MakerDao) 移除的提案正式通过了。
提案细数 HBTC HUSD HTX 还有 USDD 过往发生的情况。WBTC 目前每年能够 Sky 带来 15M 的利润，占据总利润的差不多 6%，也就是说 Sky 每年是 2.5 亿美元左右。
对于 BTC 作为抵押品的支持，Sky 提到了可能会考虑 coinbase 的 cbBTC，tBTC 等。forum.makerdao.com/t/wbtc-ch…
