CM

CM

50,508 Twitter followers

Follow

陈默 build https://t.co/sUxN5UgoWD DeFi OG. Core LUNAtics. 中文 CRYPTO 投研/影片/社群

Posts

Signal Clone Analysis

When it comes to buying the buy the dips, I don't think you need to agonize over whether to buy $BTC or $ETH. Buying both is the simple approach, because besides these two, there isn't a third crypto asset that you can confidently and boldly buy the buy the dips with. If Ethereum were to one day disappear from the scene, it would prove that Crypto, which is primarily driven by technology, has completely failed. Bitcoin might still exist, but other assets would vanish.

Buildlpad is pushing for an 8% fixed yield, and BNB Chain is launching its own stablecoin $U, both likely involving substantial subsidies. Furthermore, there are stable subsidies from PayPal USD and Ripple USD to provide a safety net (maintaining around 5%). This is much better than the last bear market. During the last deep bear market, on-chain interest rates were only 2%-3%. If DAI hadn't later implemented RWA to provide government bond yields, the on-chain market would have been truly barren.

Proof of Reserves (PoR) is an excellent solution for verifying asset reserves using ZooKeeper. Binance's current PoR is based on ZooKeeper and is verifiable. However, some projects still use centralized disclosure schemes with external audits. Stablecoin issuers and RWA asset custodians should adopt this approach instead of relying solely on paper reports. Nothing is more important than transparency and verifiability. While third-party audits are necessary, PoR is a cryptographic, on-chain, independent verification method that can prove the integrity of reserves without exposing user privacy. Furthermore, Succinct can now systematically provide this service, and the technology is very mature.

Primus Labs is working with Succinct to bring institutions an easy-to-use Proof of Reserves platform. By pairing zkTLS for authenticated off-chain data with SP1 for verifiable computation, CEXs, stablecoin issuers, & custodians can verify reserves with cryptographic certainty. x.com/primus_labs/st…

Beyond the governance battle on Aave, Stani (Aave Labs) released its 2026 roadmap. 1. It reviewed the impressive achievements of V1-V3. 2. The three pillar products for 2026: V4, Horizon, and the Aave App. 3. It emphasized alignment of interests, stating that it purchased another $10 million worth of $AAVE tokens yesterday. In summary, twitter.com/cmdefi/status/2001...

Last night, a proposal to transfer Aave's intellectual property to the DAO was posted on the governance forum. The proposer is BGD Labs, a team providing technical and security services to the DAO. The general idea is to consolidate Aave's brand-related "soft assets," such as domain names, social media accounts, and naming rights, into a single entity controlled by the DAO, which could be registered as a legal entity in the future. This essentially means taking away Aave Labs' name; the debate is likely to continue. twitter.com/cmdefi/status/2001...

In the past week 1/ Let's start by talking about the overall market sentiment. From the market's perspective, the general consensus is bearish. In groups that rely solely on chart analysis, losses have already fallen below 50,000. Investment research analysts are also very pessimistic, generally believing that it's difficult for any truly innovative products to emerge, and that attention and capital are being severely drained by the AI sector. I bought both BTC starting with 8 and ETH starting with 2. Although the market thought it could reach 7, I still acted first. Starting in December, most altcoins migrated to Ethereum and Ethereum, leaving only a few projects with cash flow, such as AAVE LINK. Compared to the previous cycle, I feel I've become much more conservative. During the bear market after LUNA, I bought a lot of altcoins at the buy the dips. Although I ultimately made a profit and some projects even had a second rise, I also experienced too many stories of things going back to zero. The situation is a bit different this cycle. I think there are very few counterfeit products that have been wrongly killed. The market's calculation and evaluation capabilities have improved, and it's not so easy to "pick up bargains". In particular, this cycle has a large number of projects without actual business operations, as well as projects that were created to complete previous financing tasks; these projects are very risky. Of course, I would still buy if a good opportunity came along, but it's practically impossible to find one now.

I've criticized the points system countless times. It's a design that's 100% advantageous to the project team, while the user is always the one being controlled. "Points are the project team's debt," and how this debt will be repaid, or even if it will be repaid at all, depends entirely on the project team's mood and moral standards. It's hard to imagine this existing in a smart contract system.

Ethena has just updated its Season 4 airdrop, adding HyENA-related features, indicating a strong push into the Perps market. For users with over 200 million rewards, they need to deposit and hold HLPe or USDe in HyENA for at least two consecutive weeks. The deposit amount requirement is 1 USDe for every 2 million rewards; based on the minimum 200 million rewards, that's 100 USDe. In addition to depositing, users need to make one transaction of any size on HyENA. Rewards are distributed in uENA (the ENA version on Hyper), with the first batch starting in late December, for a two-month window lasting until the end of February. Users can choose any two consecutive weeks within this two-month period to deposit.

Aave just released an upgrade to its liquidation engine in V4, which perfectly addresses my needs. Anyone with experience in Aave liquidation will likely know that the old system used a fixed close factor. Simply put, even if only a small portion of your position needed to be liquidated to bring your health factor back above 1, the liquidator could still liquidate at a fixed percentage. This resulted in liquidated individuals forcing them to forfeit a significant amount of collateral, a form of over-liquidation. In V4, liquidators don't always repay a fixed percentage. Instead, they only allow liquidation of the amount that "just" brings the borrower's health factor back to a target value (set by governance). In practice, the protocol calculates how much debt needs to be repaid to raise the position's health factor from its current level to the target value. The liquidator can only liquidate up to this maximum amount. This reduces over-liquidation and is much more favorable to liquidated individuals. Furthermore, the liquidation reward has changed from static to dynamic. In V3, the reward didn't automatically adjust with the position's risk level. This had a drawback: it discouraged liquidating the most vulnerable positions first. In V4, liquidation rewards are dynamic and linked to the health factor. The lower the health factor, the more dangerous the position, and the higher the liquidation reward, incentivizing liquidators to prioritize liquidating the most dangerous positions.

Loading..