
@hoveiseri
iAccount based inGermany!
About this account
- Account based in
- Germany
- Connected via
- Iran Android App
! X says this location may be affected by a proxy or VPN.
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Trading on @Canborsa_DEX Crypto lover Runes BRC-20 lover @bulktrade lover
Joined November 2016
- Tweets14.6K
- Following5.2K
- Followers1.8K
- Likes43.5K
Pinned Tweet
A contract picks California. Hayes says two agents will pick where their dispute gets settled the same way, and that GenLayer is one of those venues.
That one sentence changes what a deal is. The court stops being something that happens to you after it breaks. It becomes a line you choose before you sign.
I built Flight Recorder for Agent Tank, a project that keeps the deal log. Building it taught me this: if the venue is chosen up front, the record has to be written up front too, in a form the venue can read.
@GenLayer's thread says the jury is made of validators. A court you pick in advance is only as good as what it is allowed to read.
If your agent had to pick its venue today, what would it check first: who sits on the jury, or what evidence it can read?
The internet never had a judge.
AI agents are about to move $9 trillion. Nobody built the part that handles disagreement.
GenLayer did.
And now you can become part of it: portal.genlayer.foundation/g…
hoveiser (❖,❖) retweeted
Building a Flight Recorder for a GenLayer hackathon, I needed two opposite meanings of "the same".
For evidence, same means identical. Every record is chained to the one before it, so editing a single character breaks the chain.
For a ruling, same only means the same verdict. Two judges can word it differently and still agree.
Blockchains need the first kind of match from every node, which is why AI stayed off the chain. The Equivalence Principle from @GenLayer is the second kind: each contract defines what counts as equal. A leader proposes a ruling, and each validator accepts or rejects it on its own.
Which would you trust more to settle a dispute: a record that must match exactly, or a ruling that only has to mean the same thing? Reply with your pick and one reason.
hoveiser (❖,❖) retweeted
Replying to @chriscxss
Trying My Luck
8141943662
Praise Amagada
Opay
#puntwithchris
Crypto doesn't need more people chasing the next 100x.
It needs more builders solving real problems, more communities creating value, and more users who understand what they're investing in.
Hype brings attention. Utility builds an ecosystem. 🌐
The future of Web3 belongs to those who build, not just those who speculate. 🧱
hoveiser (❖,❖) retweeted
$MNTD is days from live
@PlayOnMint just asked for mint.io IDs under their post
the token is the loyalty layer, not a sticker
1B fixed supply
30% set aside for community rewards
TGE is Q4
stake $MNTD to build MINT Status
seven levels
higher status is rakeback, daily rewards, weekly lossback, lock boosts, raffles
the loop they actually want is short
play on mint.io
earn XP
earn $MNTD
stake
status
stronger rewards
MintABear sits next to that
4,444 supply
free mint
a chunk goes out through wagering, not only a mint page
burn $MNTD to level a bear from 1 to 5
higher level weighs royalties more
one bear can link to status after TGE
so the ID drop is not a comment game
it is the account the XP and the airdrop allocation sit on
Season 1 leaderboard on getminted is the claim path after TGE
@PlayOnMint either pays the people who played, or the token launch is a graphic
do you already have a mint.io ID, or are you still on the outside of the loop?
hoveiser (❖,❖) retweeted
it would be impressive if I managed to lose all $50k in 40 minutes”
mayne at Sui Basecamp
Last but not least...all eyes on the TPS counter.
We’re going for a new TPS record, live at Sui Basecamp.
6M+ TPS is the mark to beat. How high will we go?
Join us 👇
nitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1pJkOXQNj…
hoveiser (❖,❖) retweeted
One week left in @NucleusCodes Season 3.
The campaign is set to end on October 19, and we're now in the final stretch.
Season 3 has brought together creators contributing ideas, sharing insights, and building their presence in the Nucleus ecosystem.
With the top 5,000 participants eligible for $AURA rewards, the leaderboard is one of the things worth watching as the campaign approaches its end.
Seven days to go before Season 3 wraps up. Let's see how the final leaderboard turns out.
join us with miden
guardiansofmiden.xyz/r/GM-54…
Happy new week, Guardians! ☕️
Word on the street is that @0xMiden Mainnet is right around the corner... 👀
Make sure you are ready for what's coming next.
hoveiser (❖,❖) retweeted
Happy new week, Guardians! ☕️
Word on the street is that @0xMiden Mainnet is right around the corner... 👀
Make sure you are ready for what's coming next.
hoveiser (❖,❖) retweeted
There is a question worth asking about private crypto payments.
If people cannot see all your financial activity, how can they know who they are dealing with when it matters?
Privacy is important, but trust matters too.
This is where identity becomes part of the AmericanFortress ecosystem.
FortressName lets people send crypto using a readable name instead of a long wallet address. It also helps avoid exposing one permanent public wallet address every time someone receives a payment.
But a name alone does not tell you everything about the person behind it.
AmericanFortress includes identity verification with every paid FortressName. The idea is to give users a way to establish their identity without making their entire financial history public.
There is also an important detail: verified users can selectively share identity information with the person they are paying.
In simple terms, proving who you are does not have to mean showing everyone everything about your money.
Think about paying a business. The business may need to know who it is dealing with, but that does not mean it needs a complete record of every payment you have ever made.
The goal is to share what is needed for that situation, rather than exposing information that has nothing to do with it.
This is part of the wider direction @Americanfort_io is taking by making crypto payments easier to send, more private from public view, and still capable of supporting accountability when required.
Of course, identity verification and transaction privacy serve different purposes. One helps establish who someone is, while the other concerns what information a payment reveals.
Understanding that difference makes the whole system easier to understand.
Privacy should give people more control over their information, not force them to choose between protecting that information and proving who they are.
🤝 Paid partnership
hoveiser (❖,❖) retweeted
What if food restaurant brands could scale as digital assets, retaining their essential value?
This is the idea with @tastyco_io .
There is no promise of future adoption; instead, there is an offer to tokenize brands that already deliver revenue.
By tokenizing on $BNB Chain, restaurant brands get access to capital, diversify into new markets, and use their existing kitchen infrastructure without the high overhead of additional franchising.
What makes it interesting is the combination of yield generation on the blockchain with revenues from traditional sales, with a proportion of yields allocated to buybacks and burns.
The platform uses $TASTY as the means of access, settlement, and governance.
With the backing of Global Food Ventures and the expertise of its executive team, Tastyco is positioned to disrupt the FoodFi space.
It remains to be seen how the execution will compare to the ambitious vision, but the project has raised several questions about the potential of Web3 to tokenize an existing business model, thus unlocking additional value for stakeholders.
🤝 Paid partnership
hoveiser (❖,❖) retweeted
Before I go to bed, I bring you @projectspherexy
Imagine a future where humanity could harness the energy of an entire star. Sounds like science fiction, right?
That's the kind of big idea that makes you stop scrolling and think about how far civilization could go.
I have been checking out ProjectSphere, and I'm curious to see how its vision unfolds, especially with the Genesis Registry.
One thing about me: I love discovering projects with ideas that make you think beyond today.
Let's see where this journey leads.
BIG WIN on Wings of Death 2 and Keith’s still talking shit about the game 😭 “377 will take it I guess”
#KeithLocks
Building a Flight Recorder for a GenLayer hackathon, I needed two opposite meanings of "the same".
For evidence, same means identical. Every record is chained to the one before it, so editing a single character breaks the chain.
For a ruling, same only means the same verdict. Two judges can word it differently and still agree.
Blockchains need the first kind of match from every node, which is why AI stayed off the chain. The Equivalence Principle from @GenLayer is the second kind: each contract defines what counts as equal. A leader proposes a ruling, and each validator accepts or rejects it on its own.
Which would you trust more to settle a dispute: a record that must match exactly, or a ruling that only has to mean the same thing? Reply with your pick and one reason.
hoveiser (❖,❖) retweeted
The 15% liquidity layer is not leftover capital. It is a deliberate carve-out.
On the latest transparency snapshot, the pool sits at about $286.4 million. Roughly $152.7 million is bound on live reinsurance deals. About $90.7 million is available capital held in collateral reserves, ready for the next bind. The remaining $43.0 million is the on-chain liquidity layer, the slice @onrefinance holds back so redemptions and secondary support do not have to wait on an underwriting cycle.
Docs put that target at around 15% of capital raised for underwriting. A portion of it sits immediately available in the designated redemption vault. The rest is the buffer that lets the program quote exits without forcing a sale of the bound book.
Redemptions do not clear at raw NAV either. The app takes the current unit price, charges a 25 basis point fee, then applies a convex discount based on available liquidity and net demand in the current epoch. Integrators are told to call quote_swap_sell rather than reimplement that curve. Primary redemption and secondary price are different paths.
That is why utilization can print near 94%, and the product can still claim a path to exit. The bound book is working. The liquidity layer is the part that is not. If that buffer does not scale with AUM, or if demand clusters into one epoch, the quote moves even if the underwriting book is quiet.
Read the three numbers before you read the APY. Bound risk, dry powder, exit liquidity. The 11.02% trailing yield is what that mix produced. It is not a promise that the liquidity layer stays at 15% forever.
hoveiser (❖,❖) retweeted
If you have ever unit-tested an LLM, you know the moment. You assert the exact string, run it a few times, and one run fails. The answer was fine. The words moved.
That is the problem blockchains had with AI, at network scale. Every node has to return the same result, so one different word means no agreement and no transaction.
The Equivalence Principle from @GenLayer is the missing test idea. Instead of asserting an exact string, each contract states what must hold. For one contract, that is an exact number, like assertEqual. For another, it is a tolerance, closer to assertAlmostEqual. For a dispute, it is only that the verdict means the same thing. Validators check the leader's answer on their own and return accept or reject.
The person writing the contract also writes what "equal" means. There is no single similarity threshold for the whole network.
What is the loosest assertion you ever shipped? Reply with it, and tell me if it bit you.
are you ready for giveaway ?
Can't believe I will be giving away this lovely in 2 hours!
Chat, don't miss your final chances!
hypemeter.xyz/snipe#giveaway
Argonauts.
hoveiser (❖,❖) retweeted
good morning everyone
collecting more data is useful, but having more of it does not automatically mean better training
with @axisrobotics, submitted robot trajectories go through a validation pipeline before becoming part of a training dataset. they are replayed in simulation, checked for physical consistency, and evaluated for task success and motion quality
invalid submissions do not simply go straight into training
i think this distinction matters because a data engine that aims to scale needs to care about the quality of what it collects, not just how many contributions come in
🤝 Paid partnership · 🤖 Made with AI
The 15% liquidity layer is not leftover capital. It is a deliberate carve-out.
On the latest transparency snapshot, the pool sits at about $286.4 million. Roughly $152.7 million is bound on live reinsurance deals. About $90.7 million is available capital held in collateral reserves, ready for the next bind. The remaining $43.0 million is the on-chain liquidity layer, the slice @onrefinance holds back so redemptions and secondary support do not have to wait on an underwriting cycle.
Docs put that target at around 15% of capital raised for underwriting. A portion of it sits immediately available in the designated redemption vault. The rest is the buffer that lets the program quote exits without forcing a sale of the bound book.
Redemptions do not clear at raw NAV either. The app takes the current unit price, charges a 25 basis point fee, then applies a convex discount based on available liquidity and net demand in the current epoch. Integrators are told to call quote_swap_sell rather than reimplement that curve. Primary redemption and secondary price are different paths.
That is why utilization can print near 94%, and the product can still claim a path to exit. The bound book is working. The liquidity layer is the part that is not. If that buffer does not scale with AUM, or if demand clusters into one epoch, the quote moves even if the underwriting book is quiet.
Read the three numbers before you read the APY. Bound risk, dry powder, exit liquidity. The 11.02% trailing yield is what that mix produced. It is not a promise that the liquidity layer stays at 15% forever.
The 11% trailing APY on #ONyc is a blend. It is not one rate.
End of September the bound reinsurance book was about $153 million and was earning roughly 14% on that slice. That is the premium income, net of the reserves the underwriters set aside. The rest of the pool, the collateral reserves and the onchain liquidity buffer, earns in the cash sleeve: USDG, T-bill exposure, sUSDS, syrupUSDC, a smaller sUSDe sleeve, and a few lending lines. Those pieces print in the 3.6% to about 9% range, not 14%.
So the headline number is weighted. More capital bound, higher blend. More capital sitting in the liquidity buffer or waiting for the next renewal, lower blend. Utilization at 93.86% is why the trailing print can stay near 11% instead of collapsing toward the cash rate.
That also tells you what a quiet quarter is not. A calm Atlantic season does not make the 14% a savings rate. It means the loss ratio on the bound book stayed inside the model. The cash sleeve cannot carry the product by itself. If the next binds are slower, or if a loss cluster forces capital back into reserves, the blend compresses even if nothing in DeFi moves.
If you are underwriting the token, split the APY the same way the pool is split. Premium on the live book. Residual yield on the idle capital. The 11% is just the weighted result of those two.
@onrefinance



























