Cena FreeRossDAOFREE

RT @Jack55750: Jesse Pollak explains how Base has revolutionised creator monetisation "The free market values your content and that value…

The new Believe App FLYWHEEL just dropped! LFG! Their coins are gonna ZOOM, and the main coin is gonna pump right? plz right? WELL! Let's see what Pasternak actually meant by flywheel (a word he admitted to learning last month) I read the whole doc and basically it's a mixture of these points: - Claims that multi-signature protection is a FLYWHEEL mechanism because it ensures secure coin operations - The main components are as listed below, which are a bunch of stuff that has existed in crypto for the past ten years but in a bit more automatic fashion: If somebody buys a pair of socks from your website, you can trigger an action to burn whatever token was used, and then airdrop more tokens to whoever bought those socks to reward them In more trending situations, you can do this with social media platforms where, anytime anybody creates a post, tokens are burned for it. Based on your impressions of the post, you can reward creators via token airdrops (like a worse Zora) yup that's it BUT: Lock, unlocks, and buybacks aren't out yet, they're still coming soon lol (you can do this rn on Streamflow for free for the past 3 years) If done correctly, I can understand how this would be super effective, but all of this relies on your product's (token's) overall reach. Any platform you're going to install this into has to have an increase in users for this to benefit anyone, which is easier said than done. A Flywheel for a platform with the problems that Believe has should help creators go from 0 to 1, not just 1 to 20, and I don't think this helps in that way because it offers no significant impact to the current stage that most Believe tokens are in I know that Believe has a bunch of money stored up, and they just hired a banger intern and stuff (shoutout shark guy), so I think it might have been more productive if they just did a bunch of the usual burns and buybacks of their main token, because that's apparently what everybody cares about anyways (which again isn't an answer to the problem anyways) I made a video on these guys a couple of weeks ago, so I'm not a hater, but I am just being honest about what I've seen from this announcement. They also dropped this on a Sunday at 8PM (this, I blame on shark guy).

RT @LukeGromen: $1.4B Fartcoin is what you get when the "risk free" asset underpinning the entire banking & currency system is a bond issue…

RT @free_dom_xyz: NASDAQ420 🛜 🪽 Not just a token a sigil of transcendence. Forged in the mythos of markets, it coils beyond fiat, beyond…

There is a lot of debate on the timeline on the rented TVL and stuff, so I wanted to share how we approach it at Fluid One of the things we are most proud of is that we have never relied on private LP deals. So how do we attract liquidity and users? It is no secret that new projects need to offer more both in returns and in product quality to compete. We pay an additional 2–3% APR public incentives on stablecoins to attract lenders. Passive capital is always looking for better risk-adjusted returns, and that's the cost of acquiring it. Once you have liquidity, borrowers may come, but only if your terms are competitive. Here Fluid shines with the highest LTVs, lowest liquidation penalties, LP tokens as collateral, etc. This helps us to achieve steady and organic growth without relying on external factors. And to be clear, I'm not saying private LP deals are inherently bad. Probably 9 out of 10 projects have LP deals, and some of them succeeded. This is another type of growth strategy, and it can also pay off. These deals can help bootstrap early traction. TVL grows, revenue appears strong, and the valuation follows. Most users (and even funds) don't check on-chain to see where the TVL comes from, they see the raw metrics and believe in the adoption story. For instance, a project might pay 20% APR on $100M in stablecoins, and the valuation jumps by $400M. That can look great at first glance. But if the project fails to achieve real adoption before those LP deals expire, or if they can’t convince liquid funds to support their token, the whole thing can collapse (many such cases). By the way, there is another type of private LP deals, where projects pay for exclusivity. There are numerous situations where a project pays astronomical fees to the infrastructure/distribution partners (the biggest fee I heard so far is $15m for 1y exclusivity) to secure a partnership and not let competitors in. And as more "institutional" players are coming on-chain, you will be hearing even more exclusive partnership announcements. Just keep in mind that these are not free. So again. LP deals are not right or wrong. They are just another path. But at Fluid, we chose not to take it. But what really doesn't make sense to me is when these deals are used to inflate metrics in an unsustainable and inorganic way: - Paying high incentives for markets that clearly won’t survive without them - Use partners' money to inflate metrics to get more money from them to keep doing that - Over-incentivizing to attract professional farmers who will leave the moment rewards dry up I've seen this over and over again for so many projects and chains. Btw, I believe this is due to a severe lack of competence. At Fluid, we’re playing the long game. Sustainable growth > short-term gains.