Entrepreneur. Crypto / AI / Biotech. Built OPNX, CoinFLEX (exit to bk) and Coinfloor (acq). Bitcoin since 2012.

Joined April 2012
Pyth integration makes the price feeds super reliable for high leverage stock perps.
1
2
53
Can you do less than 500x leverage perchance Would be nice to trade equities with like 3-10x but that appears to be something very few brokerages allow
2
2
1
9
587
😂
Can you do less than 500x leverage perchance Would be nice to trade equities with like 3-10x but that appears to be something very few brokerages allow
193
Coming soon to a web browser near you? @TradeEverythin_
2
5
349
Mark Lamb retweeted
the ai trade is extremely uninteresting compared to crypto at this moment and by 2028 crypto will remind everyone who the greatest market on earth is
46
74
10
692
38,073
How does 500x, $20M+ sizes on top equity perps sound @roundtrip00 tradeeverything.xyz/ Would love ur thoughts
equity perps ultimately get decided by who quotes size the tightest not which chain its on gvar
3
1
9
508
Replying to @TradeEverythin_
🫡
1
9
306
Mark Lamb retweeted
Announcing tradeeverything.xyz which I’d love feedback on as we plan to go live on Monday. Trade perps on major stocks like SPCX, NVDA, META, SKHY, SDNK and more @ up to 500X leverage against a user-loss funded LP smart contract. Price oracle provided by @PythNetwork and built on the HyperEVM chain with 20% of the EVERYTHING tokens going to holders of $PAPER. Users can also sell options via Promise Orders and collect premium. When I saw PaperTrade.xyz it was impressive how novel, pristine and effective the system design was in terms of bootstrapping both the initial liquidity and user base that every new exchange so badly needs and most never get and thus never get to critical mass. Its mechanism enables 1000x on BTC and ETH but can also be applied to 200+ stocks for enabling much more liquidity in these RWA perps than exists on major perp exchanges today, albeit with a payout asymmetry that may deter some sharp traders and arbitrageurs, but should be highly compelling to pure directional leveraged users. I’ve started several exchanges over my 14 years in crypto and most require large amounts of VC capital + a meaningful team to operate and are subject to attacks from all sides. This LP and leverage model enables a hyper-focused approach purely on a product users love and communicating that product to the audience. We also wanted to reward PAPER holders with 20% of the loss-earned token supply, giving them a chance to participate in the build out of the ecosystem PaperTrade has created. We will funnel our BTC and ETH perp volumes through PaperTrade.xyz as well once Builder Codes are released. Would love your thoughts and feedback on this concept. Check out the docs docs.tradeeverything.xyz/ and try the demo. Our transferability plans are here: docs.tradeeverything.xyz/tra… - again feedback appreciated.
Try out tradeeverything.xyz and give us feedback! Going live October 26th @ 13:30 UTC. - Trade stock perps @ up to 500x leverage vs a user-loss funded LP - Earn EVERYTHING for losing trades - Earn for your $PAPER holdings (20% supply to PAPER holders) - @PythNetwork as the on chain oracle for equities pricing - Built on HyperEVM and @papertrade_xyz
4
2
8
892
Try out tradeeverything.xyz and give us feedback! Going live October 26th @ 13:30 UTC. - Trade stock perps @ up to 500x leverage vs a user-loss funded LP - Earn EVERYTHING for losing trades - Earn for your $PAPER holdings (20% supply to PAPER holders) - @PythNetwork as the on chain oracle for equities pricing - Built on HyperEVM and @papertrade_xyz
6
8
1
28
3,616
Announcing tradeeverything.xyz which I’d love feedback on as we plan to go live on Monday. Trade perps on major stocks like SPCX, NVDA, META, SKHY, SDNK and more @ up to 500X leverage against a user-loss funded LP smart contract. Price oracle provided by @PythNetwork and built on the HyperEVM chain with 20% of the EVERYTHING tokens going to holders of $PAPER. Users can also sell options via Promise Orders and collect premium. When I saw PaperTrade.xyz it was impressive how novel, pristine and effective the system design was in terms of bootstrapping both the initial liquidity and user base that every new exchange so badly needs and most never get and thus never get to critical mass. Its mechanism enables 1000x on BTC and ETH but can also be applied to 200+ stocks for enabling much more liquidity in these RWA perps than exists on major perp exchanges today, albeit with a payout asymmetry that may deter some sharp traders and arbitrageurs, but should be highly compelling to pure directional leveraged users. I’ve started several exchanges over my 14 years in crypto and most require large amounts of VC capital + a meaningful team to operate and are subject to attacks from all sides. This LP and leverage model enables a hyper-focused approach purely on a product users love and communicating that product to the audience. We also wanted to reward PAPER holders with 20% of the loss-earned token supply, giving them a chance to participate in the build out of the ecosystem PaperTrade has created. We will funnel our BTC and ETH perp volumes through PaperTrade.xyz as well once Builder Codes are released. Would love your thoughts and feedback on this concept. Check out the docs docs.tradeeverything.xyz/ and try the demo. Our transferability plans are here: docs.tradeeverything.xyz/tra… - again feedback appreciated.
Try out tradeeverything.xyz and give us feedback! Going live October 26th @ 13:30 UTC. - Trade stock perps @ up to 500x leverage vs a user-loss funded LP - Earn EVERYTHING for losing trades - Earn for your $PAPER holdings (20% supply to PAPER holders) - @PythNetwork as the on chain oracle for equities pricing - Built on HyperEVM and @papertrade_xyz
4
2
8
892
Mark Lamb retweeted
I think the interesting thing about Papertrade is that it’s an experiment in “controlled insolvency”. Like in any derivatives market, the PnL is just imaginary, so you can create whatever rules you want around it. ADL was the original controlled insolvency mechanism. And its invention basically enabled the existence of the perps trading. Since then, almost everyone has used pretty much the same formula. Papertrade was the first that tried a totally different mechanism. Whether it works or not remains to be seen. But it’s cool to see experiments around the general mechanism of controlled insolvency.
6
2
1
75
5,586
A note on transferability. Papertrade is a complicated primitive, and managing it from a risk standpoint is a complicated problem. The PAPER token is far more integrated into the economics of the primitive than most tokens are in their respective protocols today, and, broadly, was designed to act as a counter insolvency incentive coupled with a rebate mechanism to losing traders. Market makers and exchanges are by far the two most profitable businesses in crypto, and our goal was to try and externalise as much of their margins back to users as possible. We are now just over a week into the life of papertrade and we are becoming increasingly confident that this is both possible, but also a likely outcome as agentic led software becomes the norm. As it stands, the paper token traded as a perp becomes a leveraged bet on bankroll solvency - and being able to short bankroll solvency materially changes the payoff curve of a manipulation attack. The target number goes from the bankroll, to the bankroll + short side exposure on paper. We can, and do limit bankroll size specifically to control this payoff curve and ensure it never becomes existentially problematic, but external perp markets are not something we would have any control over if left to float of their own accord. For example, if our bankroll is $10m, an attack costing $15m manipulating the price of bitcoin or ether is not viable. You simply lose money. If however you were also able to put on $10m of PAPER short side exposure, suddenly an attack costing $15m is very viable indeed. If we were to make the token transferable at this point, we are confident we would quickly enter a state too dangerous to allow any material exposure to be taken on papertrade, an end result that benefits no party beyond the wolves who have done the math on the short and are waiting in the wings with sharpened knives. We would also like to thank the various perps teams who have reached out about pre-market listings for their understanding and patience regarding this issue, and especially to the paragon team who, despite jumping the gun on us, have behaved with the utmost integrity and transparency once a dialogue was opened. Perps on PAPER will always act as a self-limiting exposure ceiling for a token with this type of utility, and we think it would be a shame to limit the growth of papertrade to the extent that allowing perps would necessitate. As such, at this juncture we do not have plans to allow off-contract token transferability. Structurally, papertrade is limited by the quality of the data it receives from hyperliquid, but we strongly believe that hyperliquid has a very large part to play in the future of global exchanges, and expect their books to continue to thicken and strengthen over time. A note on fees. Papertrade launched with a deadband fee from entry of 0.2bps. This means you don't earn anything until the price has moved by 0.002% in your favour. Over the months before launch, we played around with many different curves and fee structures affecting exclusively positions closed very close to entry price in order to try and devise a structure that removed the edge against the bankroll low time frame scalp bots have, whilst also minimally impacting the traders around which and for whom the product was devised. We were never able to find anything we were absolutely happy with and so decided to stay with the 0.2bp deadband fee through launch. This has however meant we have had to be very restrictive when it came to certain parameters, such as OI caps. Now, however, we have enough live data to fully understand exactly which strategies work, and to make the necessary changes to stop them. The changes we are making will have an on hours and off hours fee mode to account for the relative differences in liquidity the hyperliquid books see between these two time periods, and the ease with which low time frame moves are signalled. The changes we are making will only affect positions closed within 6bps of entry (0.06%) in on hours, and 10bps (0.1%) in off hours. Any trades closed above these threshold price shifts will see no change to their fees at all. On a look back to launch basis, these changes affect the profitability of bot strategies roughly 15x more than they do normal traders, for whom a very small proportion of overall winnings come from within this band. These changes should serve to flatten much of the edge our microfee structure necessarily creates on low time frames, and will help with long term exchange sustainability. This should hopefully allow us to open up parameters such as OI caps a little more so those of you who wish to can put on the size you want to, when you want to. It is possible these changes are still too lax, and that further revisions to this structure may be necessary going forwards. If so, we will notify users ahead of time. A note on paper tokenomics. In conjunction with the fee changes, we will also be implementing a change to the token issuance curve. Going forward, every $1 lost mints a fixed share of PAPER's supply at that moment, roughly 0.1% of supply per $1M lost (the exact number depends on the mint rate at the time the contracts are upgraded). PAPER minting in and near insolvency will also change, switching from a flat 100 per $1 of loss, to a time weighted multiplier on the curve growing over time, effectively acting as the house running a discounted auction on its own future cash flows. This change also removes the risk of the paper-mint-straddle-attack, temporarily pushing the protocol insolvent by closing only the winning side of a large straddle position and then attempting to mint as much paper as possible. In the immediate term these changes will only have a very subtle effect on PAPER minting, but in the long run will structurally change the outlook of the system beyond the first few weeks, serving to slowly dilute out older holders and leaving more recent users with an advantage. Reconstituting the PAPER system into something much closer to the exchange rakeback it was intended to be. We have been very reticent to touch this particular aspect of the system for obvious reasons, but ultimately we believe that these changes provide all users with the optionality to take a smaller piece of a potentially much larger pie than the current dynamic might necessarily allow. Other, miscellaneous notes. These contract upgrades will include a few other contract changes, including the addition of builder codes so that builders can utilise papertrade in whatever capacity they choose to. This will be a whitelist only to begin with and we will have more for you later in the week on where/how this will be rolled out. A small change to contract permissions on the reward distributor and a change on how below bust closes are processed by the exchange are also included, largely to block gas griefing attacks. These changes will be pushed to docs in full over the coming day, and we will further announce once the changes are queued into the timelock pending final security passes, scheduled to go live 24 hours after that point. Final note. We'd like to thank everyone that has tried out papertrade over the last 10 days. It has been a labour of love building this product and both of us have been taken aback at all of the positive feedback we have received. We'd also like to thank all those of you who have spent considerable time musing on the system we have built, and much of your advice has been taken onboard and will likely affect the colour of what papertrade becomes going forward. We know some of these changes will be unpopular with some, but we would not be making them if we did not feel them to be absolutely necessary. - blurr, jez
527
92
597
1,226
1,102,928
just pick up the phone and start dialing
Jensen reveals he first met the Founder of TSMC by cold calling their number off Yellow Pages "I heard about this company in Taiwan, TSMC and UMC at the time. They were of course quite poor companies themselves, and they were barely making it." "TSMC was probably about $300 million, something like that. It's a tiny little company. I heard about Morris Chang. And so I tried to call their US office." "Back in the old days there were yellow pages. I looked it up, TSMC. There's a number there. I called their number and it's a recording. I left my name and my number and said a few things about NVIDIA: we're a new startup company building computer graphics chips. I called several times. Nobody called me back." "And so I finally wrote a letter to Morris Chang. Didn't hear anything for a long time, and then one day it was 6 o'clock or something, this person called and said 'this is Morris Chang from TSMC.'" "And meanwhile, everybody outside my office was playing video games and they're all laughing and screaming. 'Hey shut up! It's Morris!' I was so happy that the founder would actually call us back, because hey, maybe we won't have to die." "And so we talked and he invited me to Taiwan. I came back to Taiwan, and that was the start of everything. Not just that partnership, but just the whole industry."
3
8
502
Good run rate
Papertrade (@papertrade_xyz)'s revenue has far surpassed Hyperliquid's, and it now ranks third with $6.01M in 24H revenue. Interestingly, #papertrade's daily trading volume reached a staggering $910B, with $28.4B in liquidation volume. defillama.com/revenue
2
6
340
A noble bet. However I do not have the liquidity for it; Valar is 100% of my net worth. I'm betting with my time and energy.
1
1
73
65,902
Every seed round that closes is in itself a miracle
Seed and early-stage funds take an enormous amount of risk -- way more than growth-stage funds. Without pro rata rights, how does the seed/early model not collapse? Why would LPs fund it?
3
18
1,179
Mark Lamb retweeted
Seed and early-stage funds take an enormous amount of risk -- way more than growth-stage funds. Without pro rata rights, how does the seed/early model not collapse? Why would LPs fund it?
27
10
4
281
29,494
Mark Lamb retweeted
good take
Hi @isaiah_p_taylor , some advice from someone who has been in many lawsuits (as plaintiff and defendant) and never lost a lawsuit and raised a lot less VC money than you but still some large rounds. - your biggest mistake wasn't taking Day One money, if you hadn't you'd be dead, so stop thinking it was - your biggest mistake was initiating the lawsuit instead of letting any legal threats exhaust themselves. Defendants have huge advantage and a judge is not going to grant you declaratory relief. - You will lose @ the Summary Judgement stage and it will provide the clear body of evidence and judgement basis for Day One to win a final crushing blow, that gets them their ability to exercise pro rata. - Given this is the case, you should just strike a deal now when the outcome is unclear and both sides can then come out congratulating each other rather than antagonising each other. - No matter how BAD you guys make each other look, there's ALWAYS room to take it all back and make each other look great - if you notice, @mashadrokova is clearly giving room for this in her messaging, she clearly wants you to win and doesn't like making you look bad. - You should understand her fiduciary duty and obligation is to exercise this right that she paid for, she probably thinks your company is going to IPO for 20-30B and she doesn't want to reduce % ownership. - Your second biggest mistake was airing this dispute on X, because now 50%+ of ppl are questioning whether you're a man of your word. Disputes that get made public suck because people get entrenched into their antagonistic positions of the opponents and think in negative sum mindset rather than positive sum capitalistic value creation mindset. I've been there before & rooting for the best for you dude.
10
1
29
2,937
Hi @isaiah_p_taylor , some advice from someone who has been in many lawsuits (as plaintiff and defendant) and never lost a lawsuit and raised a lot less VC money than you but still some large rounds. - your biggest mistake wasn't taking Day One money, if you hadn't you'd be dead, so stop thinking it was - your biggest mistake was initiating the lawsuit instead of letting any legal threats exhaust themselves. Defendants have huge advantage and a judge is not going to grant you declaratory relief. - You will lose @ the Summary Judgement stage and it will provide the clear body of evidence and judgement basis for Day One to win a final crushing blow, that gets them their ability to exercise pro rata. - Given this is the case, you should just strike a deal now when the outcome is unclear and both sides can then come out congratulating each other rather than antagonising each other. - No matter how BAD you guys make each other look, there's ALWAYS room to take it all back and make each other look great - if you notice, @mashadrokova is clearly giving room for this in her messaging, she clearly wants you to win and doesn't like making you look bad. - You should understand her fiduciary duty and obligation is to exercise this right that she paid for, she probably thinks your company is going to IPO for 20-30B and she doesn't want to reduce % ownership. - Your second biggest mistake was airing this dispute on X, because now 50%+ of ppl are questioning whether you're a man of your word. Disputes that get made public suck because people get entrenched into their antagonistic positions of the opponents and think in negative sum mindset rather than positive sum capitalistic value creation mindset. I've been there before & rooting for the best for you dude.
Just to be clear, letting Day One onto my cap table is the single worst mistake I've made since founding the company. It was very obvious to everyone around me at the time that they would be nothing but trouble, but I was desperate for cash. I’ll never make that mistake again.
34
13
10
741
62,958
Let’s just rewrite this horrendous take so it makes it clear what @chandr3w really thinks without euphemisms: "If your own portco hates you so much they decide to steal from you, its your fault (for being hated) not theirs. Even if Valar stole from Day One Ventures, game theory dictates that Day One should tolerate theft and take it without complaint. I (Andrew) support theft as long as we can categorise it as “something shady” and “not technically illegal” and justify the theft by saying the people that were stolen from were bad people bc Epstein association and she’s a foreigner etc. Even if Day One had every legal right, they shouldn’t do their fiduciary duty and pursue those rights when they hit the rare big winner, because it’s “short sighted”. ROI is negative because I think that property rights should be based around popularity contests and how big your following is on X and how much Founders (we worship them, they are always right) hate you the evil greedy VC." God bless America, the land where property rights function correctly and not how Andrew thinks they function.
If your own portco that you allegedly saved multiple times hates you so much they exclude you from a secondary sale and actively tries to decrease your ownership, you should probably be looking inward, not to lawyers. I’ve seen some nasty VC drama and a few even nastier lawsuits (somehow) in my career, and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. The great news is, State of California lets you buy civil court docs so we’ll know soon enough 🍿🍿🍿 With that: unsurprising response, even if they were in the wrong at this point game theory dictates you have to double down. Realistically my bet would be on the company having done something shady (getting terms amended to screw over one investor is exactly that) but not technically illegal. Think Saverin and Facebook. Maybe a case around info rights but similarly Valar can probably claim national security for withholding that. Doesn’t change though that venture is a long game, and that even if you had every legal claim here, this is still likely short-sighted. The ROI on you suing your own portfolio company is always negative especially if they’re well-liked and have a big enough following to weaponize that against you. Especially if in the process they talk about how much they hate you.
1
1
47
4,062