We just launched the Full Version of LlamaFeed, a major upgrade to our free dashboard!

It includes:
- Expanded data
- Content filters
- New sections
- AI news recaps
- Revamped mobile

Available to Pro & Llama+ subscribers

All features 👇 AI-generated, personalised news recaps

Get a concise snapshot of the most important recent developments. Summaries refresh on demand every 10 minutes. If you’ve set filters in the News section, summaries reflect only your selected sources.

.@foundation's NFT contracts have an exploit that allows foundation's team to destroy almost all NFTs minted on their platform.

Here's a thread explaining the exploit👇 Foundation's collection contracts make use of a forwarder proxy pattern to save gas on deployments, which means that all collections call a single contract to use it's code

Normally this shouldn't be a problem, however in foundation's case this contract can be selfdestructed

The DefiLlama team is forking Defillama

@Defillama is undergoing a hostile takeover

There is an ongoing attempt to launch a token that does not represent us. We don't want to be associated with it

Use llama.fi and @llamadotfi instead! The person who controls both defillama’s twitter and domain has decided to launch a token despite everybody in the team not wanting it.

I've built a smart contract that executes that bet and funded it with 1 WBTC

It's here etherscan.io/address/0xa4bf…

In case I win the bet all money will be spent funding defillama so we can continue building open source projects that benefit the crypto space

https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1636827051419389952

The contract uses chainlink price feeds, but if those fail due to society's collapse caused by hiperinflation, or if there's a bug in the code, both participants can pull their funds 10 days after the 90d deadline

Contract is immutable

We've released LlamaZip, a UniswapV3 router specially optimized for Optimism, achieving huge gas reductions vs every other aggregator (in screenshot, 7.8x cheaper than 1inch).

To use it just swap on Optimism at swap.defillama.com

Thread on how we achieved it 👇 DEX aggregators deploy the same contracts across all chains, and these contracts are optimized against the gas costs of ethereum, bsc, avax, polygon... where storage is expensive and calldata cheap

But on Optimism, costs change: calldata is expensive but computation is cheap

What caused BUSD to fail was being bridged to BSC by Binance, will this affect other stables?

Here's data on how much supply has been bridged by 3rd parties for each stable

USDT: 6.4% bridged
USDC: 8.24% bridged
BUSD: 29.95% bridged
TUSD: 1.9% bridged

Breakdowns 👇 USDT

Mainly issued on Ethereum, tron, solana and avax, it has 3.18bn that were bridged to BSC by Binance and 0.715bn bridged to polygon

defillama.com/stablecoin/tet…

Too lazy to read our EOY report? Here's a speedrun of it through charts:
- DeFi TVL lags behind median DeFi yields
- TVL was heavily positively correlated with US inflation
- US treasury yields go up -> DeFi yields go down
- Evolution of DeFi categories Multichain thesis
- Ethereum used to be the only defi chain but lost dominance through last run
- Initially BSC TVL had a massive run, propped up by BNB price
- Then Polygon flourished with wildly successful Liquidity Mining
- Which was replicated by Avalanche and other chains

Chart of hourly net outflows into Binance over the last 48 hours in billions

Users were withdrawing 0.8bn/hour just a few hours ago and just in the last hour there was a positive net inflow of 0.3bn Total net outflows over the last 48h: -6.8 bn

Short explanation on the metamask privacy leak

As soon as you unlock the extension, MM sends a server (your RPC) a full list of all addresses inside MM

The server can then use that to link all your addresses together, so if a single address is doxxed all of them get doxxed And by default the server that this gets sent to is infura, a company owned by the parent company of metamask, and who recently changed their privacy policy to start storing requests and IPs

And metamask makes it impossible to change this server for the default eth network

There's extreme rate differences among lending markets rn, making people heavily overpay for their loans

From current rates for USDT borrows against ETH:
- Compound 2.7x more expensive than aave
- Protocols paying >10% to borrow??

🧵 on why that happens + how you can use this Some of this can be explained by token rewards skewing things, but even when you remove those there are still huge differences in rates

The other big reason is trust/risk, ppl will trust aave more than a new protocol. But is compound 2.7x less risky than compound?

Just had a look at the proof of reserves audits provided by kraken and other exchanges and actually none of them give you the addresses where coins are held

You need to trust that the auditor checked them for you, it's impossible to verify these audits independently

https://twitter.com/0xngmi/status/1590093332705075200

Here's a screenshot from gate.io's audit (same company that audits kraken)

It doesn't even tell you how much BTC/ETH the CEX holds, it just tells you the collateralization and you have to trust the auditor

No independent verification possible

Why LlamaLend?

Here's a thread exploring the current status quo of NFT lending, the approaches that other protocols are taking and why I chose to do things differently for LlamaLend Let's start by looking at the first NFT lending protocol, @NFTfi

It's completely P2P: if you want to borrow you post your loan terms (collateral, duration, APR...) and then wait for a lender to find them and give you the loan.

Today we're launching @llamalend: a protocol for borrowing ETH against your NFTs

- Instant loans
- No health-ratio/price liquidations
- Fixed interest
- Pay only for the time you borrow
- Supports ALL collections through isolated pools LlamaLend loans are very simple:

When you take a loan your NFT will be blocked and you'll receive ETH

You can repay that ETH at any time before expiry to get your NFT back, paying interest only for time borrowed.

If you don't repay loan before it expires, you'll lose your NFT.

This is huge but I never see people talk about this.

If instead of borrowing USDC directly, you borrow some shady stable and then swap to USDC, you likely get better rates and a potential huge payout if it depegs.

A thread on how this works

https://twitter.com/DefiLlama/status/1578061452367335424

Imagine you wanted to borrow USDC using WETH.

But instead you borrowed UST and then swapped to USDC

When UST depegged to 0.01, you could have just bought all of it back for 1% of your USDC, repaid the loan and kept 99% of your USDC and your collateral.

llamapay, with all expenses to-date at low 5 figures, is competing toe to toe with a company that raised 10M in venture capital

Here's how do we do it, our guerrilla tactics and why you don't need VC funding to go against VC companies Smol and focused team

We have a single person dedicated to llamapay, @nemusonaUwU. A smol team is important to avoid wasting time communicating and in meetings.

We also only focus on making the best product, avoiding anything not important like conferences and events.

Excited to launch tubbysea, a protocol for borrowing ETH using tubby cats as collateral

Tubbysea specializes in small and illiquid NFTs, taking an extremely borrower-friendly approach, without liquidations

Borrow against your tubbies now at borrow.tubbysea.com

More info👇 Why build it?

There are many other pooled NFT borrowing protocols but these don't work for small collections since they can't get into the main NFT lending pools due to illiquidity and risk

Quick thread on the macaliano brothers pumping TVL

So what they did was build multiple interlocked protocols, which increased TVL by having the same collateral count multiple times

Nowadays we have a toggle that prevents this, but imo this came too late First of all I want to apologize for it, users trust defillama metrics and in this case there's a person that purposefully abused our data to pump their metrics, something we should have prevented.

The issue was that we were way too slow in implementing a mechanism against it

In which days did aave lose most deposits?

You'll probably think of days where TVL drops the most.

However most of those days nobody was withdrawing, crypto prices just went down. Except one, when 4.5bn was withdrawn because of a potential exploit.

A thread on defillama alpha A big issue with TVL is that it heavily depends on crypto prices.

If I deposit 1 ETH and tomorrow ETH price 2xs, TVL will 2x even though nobody deposited more.

This makes it hard to track real growth, as TVL charts mix prices and usage.

Our new charts solve this

@kevinsekniqi i think you are characterizing node behavior as binary, either they are perfectly good or they are bad and try to double spend

there's a 3rd position where nodes are not bad or coordinated and just act to maximize own profit

(thread) @kevinsekniqi a node that signs all blocks will always earn more than a node that risks not signing contentious blocks, and if only a small amount of network does it there's no harm

megathread on milady and their founders:

- miya's writings
- Grooming
- Gaslighting
- Systemspace and suicide of 17yo teen
- Remilia implication

proof of everything will be at the end of the thread Essays from miya's old blog, discussing a voting ban for black people, homosexuality as a disease, killing jewish people and women as something to be "tamed"

Seeing multiple milady members come in support of the founders

imo this sends the very dangerous social signal that what they did was ok and socially boosts them, enabling them to keep doing it

here's a thread breaking these down for those not aware, miya is one of the main milady founders, and they have multiple tweets openly advocating for rape and saying how they targeted isolated neets to groom them