Simeonunity.Eth || 🌵

A lot of questions lately about what comes after Variational. We’ve tried plenty of new venues, but the largest allocations remain @variational_io and Robinhood Lighter (RH-Lighter). Lighter core and Hyperliquid(trade. xyz) also make up meaningful parts of the portfolio, with smaller amounts on @risextrade, @arcus_xyz, and a few other perp DEXs for funding opportunities. The main strategies remain centered on Variational, RH-Lighter, and @Lighter_xyz core, with decent estimated APR even excluding volume incentives. The image is a compact view of our funding desk, showing the estimated APR of the portfolio currently deployed. Point valuations and OI reward rates are based on the estimated points metrics shared on LinenMito’s X account. The model assumes a $2.5B FDV for Variational with estimated APR around 63%. (A more conservative $1.5B assumption puts estimated portfolio APR at around 45%.) Most of the estimated APR currently comes from OI rewards. In our experience, funding tends to contribute a larger share of returns during bull markets. FOMO drives demand for longs, sometimes pushing perp DEX funding to irrational levels. At the same time, points programs tend to become more crowded, reducing the efficiency of points farming. These conditions provide a practical reason to reduce net long exposure while still earning attractive funding APR. Reducing long exposure in those periods has generally worked well. The full funding desk includes more detail to handle the portfolio’s complexity, including liquidation risk management and better execution options. A similar setup, tailored to individual needs, can help with both risk management and improving returns. Good luck to everyone.

How to Identify Potential Winners Airdrop From the Rest of the Perp DEX Market? Here are some of our airdrop winnings from Perp-Dexs: $HYPE~ $20M+ From main wallet + 6Figs $LIT ~ 6Figs $ASTER ~ 6Figs $BP ~ Top 5Figs $EDGE ~ 5Figs etc. The next big perpDEX MIGHT not be the one with the most points, the loudest community, or the biggest trading volume today. And if you're farming every new perp DEX that launches, there's a chance you're optimizing for the wrong thing. We've seen this cycle before. A new protocol launches, points go live, trading competitions begin, the leaderboard fills up, volume starts climbing, and suddenly everyone is trying to figure out which platform could produce the next $HYPE. But here's the problem. By the time a protocol becomes the obvious winner, the opportunity to position yourself early may already have passed. Now the real edge is identifying which protocols have the potential to become winners BEFORE the market agrees. And to do that, we need to look beyond the numbers everyone is posting and start looking at these👇: 1. Volume is a signal, But what kind of volume? Volume is one of the first metrics traders look at when evaluating a perp DEX. High volume can indicate demand, activity and growing relevance. But volume without context can be misleading. Is the activity driven by organic traders or incentives? Is the same capital being recycled repeatedly? Are users returning because the product is good, or because the points are attractive? None of these questions can be answered by a volume leaderboard alone. That doesn't mean high-volume protocols should be dismissed. It means volume should be the beginning of your research, not the conclusion. Look for consistency across multiple periods. Examine open interest, liquidity, revenue where available, and changes in activity as incentives evolve. Most importantly, look for evidence that the platform is becoming more useful to traders over time. The question isn't just how much a perp DEX is trading today. It's whether that activity has a reason to exist tomorrow. 2. Product-market fit will matter when the points stop For farmers, points are often the initial attraction. For investors, the future token is often the thesis. But for a perp DEX to survive, someone has to want to trade there even when neither points nor token speculation is the primary motivation. Eg @HyperliquidX This is where I think many people underestimate the importance of product-market fit. A platform can attract thousands of users with an aggressive incentive program. Keeping them is an entirely different challenge. Look at the actual trading experience: - Are execution costs competitive? - Is liquidity sufficient for the size you want to trade? - Does the platform offer markets that traders genuinely want? - Is the interface reliable when market conditions become stressful? - Does it solve a problem that competing venues haven't solved as well? These are not just questions for long-term investors. They're relevant to farmers too. A protocol that people genuinely use has a different foundation from one whose activity depends heavily on the next rewards announcement. Neither guarantees a successful token launch, but the former gives you more reasons to investigate its long-term potential. Points can attract users. A good product gives them a reason to stay. 3. Understand what actually makes the product different The perp DEX market is becoming increasingly competitive. Zero explicit trading fees. High leverage. Points campaigns. Referral bonuses. RWA markets. Attractive interfaces. These features can help a protocol gain traction, but many are relatively easy to replicate. So what is the moat? It could be superior execution, deeper liquidity, more efficient capital usage, differentiated markets, better risk management or an experience that traders genuinely prefer. Consider @variational_io as an example. Its approach to trading costs and its expansion into markets beyond conventional crypto perps offer useful areas to investigate. But the important question isn't simply whether another protocol offers similar features. It's whether that competitor can deliver a comparable or better experience in practice. The same standard should apply to every platform in this market, including Variational. When evaluating a potential winner, ask yourself: - What does this protocol do meaningfully better? - How difficult would that advantage be for a competitor to reproduce? - Is there evidence that users value the difference? - Can the team continue improving the product as competition increases? If the entire thesis depends on a points multiplier or a feature that five competitors already offer, you may not have identified a durable advantage. You may have identified a temporary marketing advantage. 4. Tokenomics can make or break an otherwise promising protocol This is where farmers need to be particularly careful. A great product does not automatically mean a great airdrop. And a generous airdrop allocation does not automatically mean a valuable token. You need to understand how value is distributed, how much supply becomes liquid at launch, and what the market may be required to absorb. Before committing significant time or capital to a campaign, investigate: Supply and allocation: What percentage is allocated to users? How much goes to investors, the team, the treasury and future incentives? Circulating supply: How much of the token will actually be tradable at TGE? A headline FDV can look impressive while the initial liquid supply tells a very different story. Unlocks: When do investor and team tokens unlock? What does the vesting schedule look like, and how might future supply affect market dynamics? Distribution methodology: Is the allocation based on points, volume, trading quality, time-weighted participation or another system? Are the rules clear enough to make a reasonable estimate? Potential selling pressure: How many recipients might be looking to exit immediately, and what liquidity could realistically be available? The objective isn't to predict the exact token price. That's often impossible before launch. It's to understand the range of plausible outcomes and avoid treating an advertised allocation as guaranteed profit. A protocol can have a successful launch and still disappoint farmers who entered at the wrong cost or built unrealistic expectations. Don't just ask how many tokens you might receive. Ask what those tokens could realistically be worth, how much it costs you to earn them, and what assumptions your estimate depends on. 5. The real competition may be for liquidity, not users A platform can attract a large community and still struggle to deliver a competitive trading experience. Perpetual exchanges need more than accounts and transaction counts. They need liquidity that allows users to enter and exit positions at acceptable prices. This is particularly important for traders operating at scale. A venue may look attractive when markets are calm, but spreads can widen, available depth can shrink and execution can deteriorate when volatility rises. That's why traders should look beyond headline TVL or open interest. Investigate effective spreads, slippage at realistic order sizes, available depth and performance under different market conditions. For farmers, liquidity also matters because it affects the cost of participating in trading-based campaigns. If you need to trade repeatedly to earn points, even small execution costs can accumulate. A points program that looks lucrative on paper may be less attractive once you account for the actual cost of participation. The best opportunity isn't necessarily the protocol offering the most points. It's the one where the potential reward makes sense relative to the cost, risk and uncertainty involved. 6. Revenue and sustainability matter more than announcements At some point, every serious protocol needs to answer a difficult question: How does this become a sustainable business? Funding announcements can extend a team's runway. Incentives can accelerate adoption. A token can finance ecosystem development. But none of these automatically establishes sustainable economics. Look for evidence of recurring demand, credible revenue sources, sensible operating costs and a clear plan for maintaining the product. Where data is available, examine how revenue relates to trading activity and whether the protocol can retain users without continually increasing subsidies. Be careful with comparisons, too. Different venues may define revenue, fees and volume differently, making headline numbers difficult to compare directly. For farmers, sustainability is relevant because a team that continues building and maintaining a useful product may have more reasons to support an ecosystem after the initial campaign ends. For investors, the question is whether the token has a credible relationship to the protocol's long-term economics. A popular product and a valuable token are not necessarily the same thing. The protocol can win users while the token underperforms. Learn to separate the two theses. 7. Timing matters, but so does the cost of being early Early positioning can create opportunities. It can also mean spending months on a protocol that never produces a meaningful return. This is particularly relevant in the current perp DEX landscape, where traders are constantly choosing between established platforms and emerging projects with uncertain token timelines. Being early ALONE isn't an advantage by itself. You need a thesis about why the opportunity exists, what could make it work, and what evidence would cause you to change your mind. For farmers, that means considering the opportunity cost of your capital, time and trading activity. Could the same capital be deployed more efficiently elsewhere? Are you taking unnecessary market risk to qualify for a speculative reward? Is the campaign still attractive after accounting for costs? For investors, it means examining whether the market has already priced in the expected growth. A promising protocol can still be a poor investment at an excessive valuation. Likewise, a project with less attention may have room to grow if it demonstrates genuine product progress and a credible path to adoption. The goal isn't to predict every winner. It's to build a repeatable process for identifying opportunities where the potential upside justifies the uncertainty. 8. What would make you change your mind? This is one of the most underrated parts of evaluating a protocol. People are good at finding evidence that supports a thesis they already believe. Once they start farming a project, join its community or accumulate a large number of points, they can become emotionally invested in its success. That makes it harder to evaluate new information objectively. Instead, define your thesis before you become attached to the outcome. If your thesis depends on organic growth, what would declining activity after incentives weaken? If your thesis depends on superior execution, what happens if competitors consistently offer better fills? If your thesis depends on a generous airdrop, what happens if the allocation methodology changes or the tokenomics disappoint? If your thesis depends on a future token, what happens if the launch is delayed? These aren't reasons to avoid emerging protocols. They're reasons to evaluate them honestly. A good thesis should have conditions under which it becomes stronger and conditions under which it becomes weaker. If no possible evidence would make you reconsider a protocol, you're probably defending a belief rather than evaluating an opportunity.

Bringing this again There have been so many posts popping up about @variational_io lately. Some people are questioning the RFQ model, while others are raising what may be legitimate concerns. However, not every criticism is necessarily coming from a place of genuine concern. We've seen similar narratives around several projects in their early days: $BTC: Just a failed state experiment. $ZEC: Criminal-centric because of its privacy. $HYPE: Just another CEX pretending to be a DEX. The point is simple: there will always be something to criticize about any project, especially one challenging existing norms. You have to do your own research, understand the fundamentals, weigh the risks, and decide what aligns with your conviction. As traders operating at significant scale, we use Variational, enjoy the platform, and have found real value in what it offers. Our intention is to keep using it for as long as it continues to deliver value. You don't have to agree with every narrative. Just make sure your decisions are based on your own research and experience, not the noise. g $VAR

The @binance hack came as a shock to us. The screenshot below is from April (Can't share a more recent one for security reasons and how the recent market has messed with our PnLs 😁) . We've been actively trading on Binance for years, and it remains one of our primary trading venues, with a significant portion of our portfolio held on the platform in $BTC, $ETH, and other alts. Yesterday's incident was unexpected, especially given how much we rely on the exchange. But beyond the immediate concerns, it's another reminder of how much the industry still needs to evolve. Crypto has come a long way, but for this industry to achieve mainstream adoption, security, infrastructure, and user trust must continue to improve. Shoutout to @cz_binance and the entire Binance team for addressing the situation swiftly. We trust that protecting users' assets remains a top priority, and we're counting on the team to continue delivering on that responsibility. The industry is still growing, and incidents like this remind us that there is still work to be done.

hyperliquid:native goes to Trillions $VAR and $LIT goes to Billions Other perps dexs perform well That’s the cue you need

If a protocol's entire value proposition can be copied overnight, perhaps the more important question isn't who copied whom. It's whether there was a real competitive advantage there to begin with. A Dex Model should evolve around more reasons to use it!

New Competition on @variational_io: $18,000 Prize Pool Variational is hosting a 3-day TradFi trading competition, with $18K up for grabs. Here's how to enter 👇 1. Open a position with at least $1,000 in notional value on an eligible market after Oct 26, 15:00 UTC. 2. Post your TradFi PnL card on X and tag @variational_io. 3. Submit your entry through the official entry form before Oct 30, 15:00 UTC. Eligible Markets & Competition Schedule: 📅 Day 1 Oct 27: $HOOD, $V, $STX, $TER, $SKHY 📅 Day 2 Oct 28: $GOOGL, $MSFT, $KLAC 📅 Day 3 Oct 29: $AMZN, $COIN, $MSTR, $RDDT, $SNDK Prizes Each Day: 🏆 Largest Gain (%) : $2,500 💰 Largest Gain (%) : 2,500 📝 Best Post: $1,000 Total of $18K in total price, $6K daily Winners will be announced after the competition concludes from the official Variational Account. If you're already trading TradFi markets on Variational, this is another opportunity to put your trading skills to the test. See full announcement 👇👇:

Back in the @BitMEX days, we did over 1,300 bitcoin:native in Profits For many, that’s retirement money. But we quickly realized that making money is one thing; staying in the game is another. To remain competitive, we had to build a systematic strategy for long term sustainability. We moved into Perp DEXs, then Hyperliquid, where we generated 7 to 8 figures in profits, even missing out on claiming some of our $HYPE. The same goes for $LIT and other opportunities along the way. As the @Usoppu suggests, making money can be relatively easy. The real challenge is sustaining it. Looking back, if we had stopped grinding after our early wins, we probably wouldn’t still be at the top today. The goal isn’t just to make money once. It’s to build a system that keeps you in the game for the long run.

Just as we always update the community, here’s last week progress from our major projects interactions 1. @Lighter_xyz x @RobinhoodCrypto We closed with 7K+ points, and ranked #10. Despite $LIT performance, we believe this is a good play 2. @variational_io We closed with 90,668 points, we believe $VAR is a good play also Have a great week ahead

Last week, we closed 90,668 points on @variational_io with a cumulative volume (+ref) of about $4B Last week was the least points we’ve made in a week We’ve been maintaining OI, and a few volume across $BTC, $ETH, $BNB, $HYPE, RWA and SWAP gVAR

For the people asking what projects LinenMito are positioning on with good size? 👇👇👇 1. @variational_io So far, we believe in the product and we’ve been trading on VAR for a while now, earning over 90K points soon to be $VAR tokens 2. @Lighter_xyz + @RobinhoodCrypto We believe this is a good play also, considering the reward potentials We are still keeping our eyes on others, and will share them as soon as our conviction builds and if they align with our strategy.! (we’ve shared several reasons, analysis and risk-rewards analysis on our previous posts as to why we are interacting here with decent size) PS: This is not a promotion post.

We've saved $59,644.81 in trading fees using @variational_io For traders trading at the scale we do, this is far from a trivial number. Over time, we've traded Billions of dollars cumulatively in volume across $BTC, $ETH, $BNB, $HYPE, RWAs, and Variational's Swap markets. At that scale, trading costs become a serious part of the equation. What looks like a negligible fee on an individual trade can compound into tens of thousands of dollars across thousands of fills. And that's capital you could otherwise retain, deploy, or put to work elsewhere. This is one of the biggest reasons we value @variational_io. Variational charges zero explicit trading fees, giving active traders a compelling alternative to venues where trading fees accumulate with every transaction. But the bigger picture goes beyond fees alone. For traders operating at significant scale, the real objective is to minimize the total cost of execution. Spreads, slippage, funding, and market impact all matter. The goal isn't simply to trade for free on paper; it's to execute efficiently and retain more value over time. This is where Variational becomes particularly interesting. When you're generating substantial volume, even small improvements in trading economics can make a meaningful difference to your bottom line. Points and airdrops may attract traders initially, but incentives are temporary. Execution costs are part of your trading economics for as long as you remain active. The real edge isn't just finding the right trade. It's optimizing how you execute it and keeping more of what you make. That's why Variational remains an important part of our trading even beyond the airdrop. If you're trading serious size, your choice of platform deserves as much attention as your strategy.

PS: To clear this further (Addition to /2). If the Points program ends in December = ~2.3M total points. Therefore: $LIT @$2 → 21% $LIT @$3 → 31% $LIT @$4 → 42% $LIT @$5 → 52% But if it ends in March → ~4.0M total points $LIT @$2 → 12% $LIT @$3 → 18% $LIT @$4 → 24% $LIT @$5 → 30% The later the program ends, the more each point is diluted. In other words, the more the program extends, the more the dillution

An update on our estimates, and some context on how we allocate capital. @RobinhoodCrypto x @Lighter_xyz 1/ Blended estimate for a book split roughly 50/50 between crypto and stock perps: Live Points ≈ 5.5 per $1M OI-week OI component inside the Weekly Drop ≈ 15.5 Total ≈ 21 points per $1M OI-week Crypto-heavy books appear to earn more than this, while stock-heavy books appear to earn less. Rates also seem to move week to week, so treat these as averages, not constants. 2/ Estimated gross reward APR at 20x gross OI, assuming issuance continues at roughly 130K points per week: Program ends in December → ~2.3M total points $LIT $2 → 12% $LIT $3 → 18% $LIT $4 → 24% $LIT $5 → 30% The later the program ends, the more each point is diluted. 3/ These are gross APR estimates from rewards, before funding, basis and hedge PnL, and execution costs. Liquidation risk also needs to be considered. If the data says otherwise, these estimates will be revised again. 4/ We generally target minimum annual returns above 20% on the capital we deploy in crypto. For us, the 17% - 18% range is an attractive benchmark for leveraged funding arbitrage, given the capital and ongoing work involved. That sets the bar. If another strategy requires additional work or risk, we want a higher expected return to justify it. 5/ Below our target, we do not think the expected return offers enough compensation for the risks we take by deploying capital in crypto. That is why we see value in trading on Lighter through Robinhood Chain and earning rewards along the way. We assess the overall expected return, accounting for rewards, funding, basis and hedge PnL, and execution costs. When that clears our hurdle, the strategy makes economic sense for us. 6/ Opportunities like @variational_io do not come around every day. In between, we think it is worth considering strategies where we can form a clearer view of the expected rewards and the risks involved, then allocate capital accordingly. Good Luck