Celer has built an L2 rollup for farming that aggregates users movements and executes them together, saving on fees.
It works like a bus, if 3 people want to move their farming from AAVE to curve, celer aggregates that into a single tx (avoiding 2 txs) 👇
The way it works is that once you have deposited money on the rollup, you can decide in which protocol you want to farm with your money, then you can move your assets between these only paying rollup fees (much lower since only calldata needs to be sent to L1)
Then, every 6 hours, all the user changes are aggregated together and funds are moved from protocol to protocol in L1 (eg: if a person chooses to move 30$ from aave to curve and another wants to move 20$ from curve to aave, 10$ will be moved from aave to curve in 1 tx)
This kind of cost savings are similar to yearn's, where by aggregating money it allows fixed costs like gas to go down in relative terms, but here you retain full control of your money
On top of that, movements are completely trustless, since it's all secured by an optimistic rollup.
However, the contract has some code that allows owner to drain everything, and the owner is a normal wallet without timelock, so it all could be stolen instantly.
Something usually overlooked for stablecoins like UST, alUSD, MIM or FRAX is that what matters the most for their success is people wanting to hold the stable.
If nobody is willing to hold them, that puts a cap on their growth and impairs long term viability.
A thread 👇
Let's take a look at alUSD, if someone wants to use alchemix they'll mint 100 alUSD, but they can't use that anywhere, so they'll swap it for USDT, which they can use freely.
This swap lowers the price of alUSD, slightly depegging it.
What keeps alUSD in peg is that someone that minted alUSD before will buy it back and burn it to repay their position at a discount. But this makes the system shrink by 100$, which combined with the 100$ growth, cancel themselves out: system can't grow
If you listen to CT it's easy to end up thinking that bitcoin is boomer tech and bitcoin defi is a meme.
However, this is just not true, bitcoin has an active set of people building on it, and a thriving ecosystem.
Here's a thread on it 👇
@hodlhodl is doing overcollateralized lending directly on top of bitcoin (very similar to compound/aave, but loans are peer-to-peer instead of pool-based), allowing anyone to borrow usd with bitcoin collateral. They also have a p2p bitcoin on/off-ramp market
@bisq_network is a decentralized market for p2p bitcoin/fiat trades. They have a token-based DAO that receives cashflows from the trading and handles governance over the system.
Idea: untraceable optimistic p2p gambling on bitcoin
a common issue for bitcoin gambling sites is that offramps like coinbase will blacklist all addresses that deposit/withdraw from these sites
my system solves this by making txs that look like regular transfers 👇
Bob and alice want to gamble on a coinflip, so they both pick a random number and send the hashed value to the other. Using these hashes both can generate an address with a taproot script that has two branches: one that uses a 2-of-2 multisig and one that verifies the coinflip
Then both alice and bob send their coins to that address and reveal their numbers. They can tell who's the winner so they can:
- cooperate and sign a multisig tx that sends money to the winner
- not cooperate, forcing a verification of the coinflip
I wonder if it may be easier to reach anti-nft artists by accepting their arguments instead of laughing them off or going against them, especially since a lot of these are actually true
- When you create NFTs that get sold you are increasing the fees paid to miners, which leads to an increase of energy spent today (if efficient market) or in the future (if max capacity is reached)
- Most NFTs are used for speculation, by creating NFTs you are enabling that