Since co-founding @DeribitInsights in 2019 with @zhusu, we have turned it into one of the premier research outlets in crypto. Exchanges giving back to the community by funding development and research is a special thing that only exists in crypto, and we should be proud of it.❤️
After 1.5 years of writing and another six months as general editor, I am ending this chapter of my crypto life and taking my leave. Deribit Insights is in great hands with the amazing @AviFelman, @benjaminsimon97, @mrjasonchoi, and @SplitCapital.🤝
A lot of important work happens in the background:
Special thanks go to our ops/marketing wizards @tldrFo and @CryptoDutchy as well as former team member @Andras5k!
And ofc the biggest thanks to you for reading and sharing our work!🙏
Finally, I want to look back and share my favorite articles for Deribit Insights.🔎
9) A game-theoretic analysis with @gakonst why rational Ethereum miners would accept the activation of EIP-1559 (which, six months later, they did) insights.deribit.com/market-researc…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yesterday a friend of mine got scammed for a pretty substantial amount in an OTC trade on Telegram. I had not seen this method before and thought others should be aware of it:
The typical workflow in an OTC trade is that you have two parties, A and B, who want to trade with each other but neither wants to send first. So they both send their funds to third-party escrow E, who will send A's funds to B and vice versa.
In this case, we also have these parties
- my friend (A)
- his counterparty (B)
- an escrow (E)
After the terms had been agreed on, B made a Telegram channel with A and E. Then E posted the deposit address into the channel, A sent a test which E confirmed, then A sent the rest.
All NFT launches face similar challenges (e.g. pricing, randomness, gas-efficiency...), causing design patterns to emerge.
An anti-pattern is a common response to a problem that is ineffective or even counter-productive.
We start by highlighting anti-patterns in NFT-land that have been harming users in the wild.
For example, "More Loot" used transparent metadata. This allowed savvy users to rank items by scarcity before minting them and snipe only the rarest ones.
Economic interactions are only possible when trust between parties can be established.
So humans create institutions like moral codes/religion, a monopoly on violence, the legal system, markets, money, etc. to establish trust between participants and lower transaction costs.
But existing institutions can be faulty, expensive, unfair, or too local (how do you establish trust between someone in the US and China?)
This is where blockchains and smart contracts come in.
One for my MEV friends: I always said that EIP-1559 has no impact on MEV, but is that true? Assume we are still in PGA world and no bundles
1. in EIP-1559, the goal is for many txns to have the same priority fee (1-2 gwei, wallet default) 2. miners tend to group same-fee txns
3. as a front/backrunner, how do you communicate your target position to miners? Using less gwei would put you behind the entire batch (bad case) or even out of the block entirely (worst case). Using more gwei would put you ahead of the entire batch (bad case)
4. If the above were true (and remember only PGAs no bundles), then EIP-1559 would effectively lead to batch settlement instead of ordering by gas price which makes front/backrunning harder.
- actively ignores due process: this could never pass EIP process
- power grab & attempt to shoehorn rent into core protocol parameters by a rogue team + VC investors
I am watching very closely who supports this & have alrdy updated my priors accordingly.
I was offered to invest in this before it launched & declined immediately. Horrible project
Why do many hacks and rugpulls coincide with overall market downturns?
Same reason crime explodes in an economic depression.
People stop seeing the market as a long-term positive-sum game. Instead, they switch into survival mode, taking with force what the market „owes“ them.
For most people, this means making self-destructive moves, like using high leverage to „make it all back in one trade“.
Others are willing to take from other people - by force.
There are two important takeaways from this:
1) In theory, smart contracts allow us to build applications that require no trust in the developers.
In practice, there‘s a near endless number of governance apologists, telling you that this or that loophole is necessary.