danny

danny

10,429 Twitter followers

Follow

Just a boring gin maker. Tweets are stupid and for fun. Taking public transportation and wasting time on #NFT and #Defi Building @marginx_io and @purse_land

Posts

Clawbot has been around for so long, and still no AI agent with its own social product? Can't the AI just create its own vibe? Or is there no demand? Let's forget about Mltbook.

Tomorrow I'll post an article based on Karen Mok's book and interviews about OpenAI, or rather, how Ultraman "kicked out" Elon Musk and removed him from the world's richest man's seat. You can read it as a short story over the weekend; it's very interesting 🤣 twitter.com/agintender/status/...

Is it possible that this is @circle's setup - $usdc They're essentially an escrow agency. Without legal regulations, all they can do is "let it go" - after all, nobody wants their money "frozen" at any time. From a compliance and brand perspective - freezing is an "exceptional" situation, requiring a lot of documentation and authorization. Freezing doesn't bring any extra benefits to Circle; on the contrary, if they make a mistake, besides potentially being sued, it can also damage their brand, making it a losing proposition (if this were at Base, it would be different). Furthermore, Circle's compliance/tracking (if any) might not be online at that time... making reporting operations impossible. Of course, for the victim, this is incredibly frustrating (believe me, I know how that feels). @okx and @binance do this much better. After contacting them, they will first "freeze" the account funds for 24-72 hours, giving the person some time to obtain the necessary paperwork. If you fail to provide the relevant documents after the time limit, then sorry... Some people often say CEX freezes assets/transactions - based on my limited experience... 95% of them are problematic… You want security but not complicated procedures? You want convenience but are worried about security? Do you think you're Trump? twitter.com/agintender/status/...

Has the trail gone cold?! Some say that the attacker, @DriftProtocol, can be traced back to @Backpack kyc-ed, but Armani says this is an intent-to-trade deal, and there's still no attacker information on Backpack. Backpack -> non-attacker -> attacker—this middleman is probably going to be in the spotlight now.

Armani Ferrante

@armaniferrante

Confirmed what happened on our end. The funding wallet was not from backpack -> attacker. it went from backpack -> non attacker -> attacker, where the non attacker was a cross chain intents solver. Confirmed with the account owner that funded.

Details of the attack targeting @DriftProtocol… The attacker mined a CarbonVote token called $cvt about 2-3 weeks ago, and created a pool on Raydium with 500u (one $cvt is 1u). Then they started manipulating the volume, creating a “price history” for the oracle (this step is crucial). The attack was launched on April 1st. The attacker obtained the admin key - first, they listed the CVT token on Drift's spot (this step allows CVT to be used as collateral), and simultaneously removed the USDC withdrawal limit on various vaults. Then, through 5 wallets, they pledged 785m (worth 785mu) of CVT as collateral (CVT has a spot on DriftProtocol with price feeds) into the protocol, and then aggressively borrowed and borrowed on various spot markets. Using 31 transactions within 12 minutes, they borrowed USDC JLP… The funds from over 20 vaults, including USDT, were plundered, resulting in losses exceeding 200 million. Then, the assets were transferred to Ethereum via Wormhole and then exchanged for $eth (Who says $eth has no value?). This attack was essentially a compromise of the admin key. Intriguingly, it's rumored online that Drift's core members left a few weeks ago... At this point in time, having an admin key and using collateralized lending logic, the entire attack took about 20 minutes... Hopefully, the assets can be recovered. Source: x.com/ArxsTV/status/2039423108...…

We are observing unusual activity on the protocol. We are currently investigating. Please do not deposit funds into the protocol while we investigate. This is not an April Fools joke. Proceed with caution until further notice. We’ll provide additional updates from this account.

The saying "If the mountain doesn't move, the person will" might not work in Singapore. Recently, many friends have been planning to do business in Singapore and have asked me what they should be aware of. After some thought, I think it's this: don't mistake "flexibility" for "common sense." One of the Chinese business wisdoms is "where there's a policy, there's a countermeasure," but this isn't the case in Singapore. Your roundabout approach, while seemingly achieving your goal, is actually a major mistake. For example, regarding land purchases, the Singaporean government stipulates that private land cannot be sold to non-citizens. Clever people might think of "nominee ownership," but did you know that this is illegal? For instance, Singapore's public housing is one unit per family, but single individuals who meet certain age requirements can also own one unit. If Singapore were to replicate the previous housing purchase restrictions in mainland China, you would see a surge in divorces. But Singapore is different. Common sense is not common sense.

Thanks to a friend's reminder, the current #BTC OI (Olympiad Indicator) has reached 89k, 6b, which is similar to the OI last October when #BTC had 120k,000 OI, which was over 90k BTC. We all know what happened after that - October 11th arrived. Will things be different this time?

The logic behind this article is that in the same market, with similar audiences and targets, the efficiency of capital utilization should be similar. To avoid accusations of bias, I used Hyperliquid as a benchmark (daily average contract trading volume of $6.89 billion, corresponding to $4.88 billion TVL), with a daily average ratio of 1.44x – hence this widely circulated chart. Note: This is contract trading data and does not consider the policies/activities of various exchanges. Later research revealed that @MEXC_Official's figure is due to multiple trading incentive activities and a 0% fee policy, so there's no need to use Fud. The conclusion isn't important; just remember three things, especially the third: 1. Methodology: Volatility/Pollution (vol/por) is more telling than absolute values. 2. Crypto trading volume is still in its early stages. 3. Welcome everyone to http:/youcanshortit.com short! 😄 twitter.com/agintender/status/...

Should we switch to Operation Epic TACO? Would that be more suitable? twitter.com/agintender/status/...

The research metric used in this article is: Trading Volume/Assets (Core Asset POR). The logic is straightforward: In the same field/sector, with similar trading targets and audiences, the efficiency of capital utilization should theoretically be similar (unless there are special events, long-tail assets, incentives, etc.). As for the benchmark, I specifically chose a non-CEX benchmark – Hyperliquid. However, this algorithm has a problem: it seems to be at a disadvantage for companies with a large number of "long-tail assets," such as @MEXC_Official and @htx (even though both have a large number of core assets). I'm specifically mentioning this to show that different metrics (angles) will lead to different conclusions when looking at the same issue. This article only offers a glimpse from one perspective. When you feel disappointed with industry data, try this: http:/youcanshortit.com If you're not optimistic, you can short sell.

Loading..