I think @virtuals_io's TP Cooldown (also known as 'paper hand penalty') has several unreasonable aspects. I'll write them down and discuss with the virgen ecosystem, which does not constitute FUD or financial investment advice:
1. For projects launching at genesis, the core income is a 70% share of transaction fees, not selling tokens. If trading is deemed as paper hands, it is clear that trading volume will decline, which I can only understand as the platform not encouraging trading.
2. Rewards and punishments should not coexist. The staking of agent tokens can obtain more quota for new token offerings, which itself can reduce selling pressure, while the TP Cooldown adds another layer of locking from a punishment perspective, which is not very meaningful.
3. It hinders value discovery. Without sufficient trading and turnover, the chips remain in the hands of the first batch of users participating in the new offerings, which essentially caps the market value.
Now, the virtual team itself is probably quite worried. Aside from pulling the token with zero-cost $virtual and then going on CEX (preferably bn alpha), there aren't many incremental players entering. For example, during today's $virgen launch, I did not see anyone in any alpha groups outside of the virtual ecosystem group posting CA.
Overall, I think the virtual team has a good grasp of the rhythm of ve33 and slow trading, but a system that combines staking and point systems is definitely not a vibrant ecosystem; there are already many failed examples.
This is a rational discussion, purely for leisure writing; there are no advertising fees or consulting fees for this article.
Hyperliquid is so interesting, reflexive stage, if you have the guts, come on, today's show features the big short on US Treasury bonds hunting the small long Bitcoin trader James.
- The first AMM on Solana that prevents front-running and sandwich attacks, achieving fixed time + fixed supply + fair distribution.
- "Unified script, same track," truly standardizing all pre-sales, no more fear of rogue developers. (Think about @10KWorld_ from a couple of days ago)
- $IBRL is the first token of the platform, equivalent in status to $pasternek on @believeapp (now $launchcoin).
- According to the platform mechanism, LP will be withdrawn at a rate of 1 basis point for every 2000 slots, with a maximum of 20,000 withdrawals, starting 7 days after the AMM begins trading.
- Conclusion: After seven days, $IBRL will have a buyback and burn of 17,570 SOL, which is nearly 3M in buy orders.
- IBRL stands for "Increase bandwidth reduce latency," signifying faster and fairer on-chain token distribution.
- @aeyakovenko openly expressed willingness to issue his own token on an AMM capable of preventing front-running, just like CZ is willing to issue personal tokens on a non-front-running DEX on BSC.
Above, please choose your hero. Invest in real DeFi innovation, fairness, fairness, and for goodness' sake, fairness.
Just in case, I mean just in case, @gavelxyz is the next @believeapp, what if $IBRL is the next $launchcoin. This time I called you when BTC hit a new high, next time don’t regret your weak hands and doubts.
I really like the launch mechanism and slow-paced gameplay of Virtual, but I still want to say that this launch experience is like selecting courses in college, a bunch of people are waiting on the potato server, refreshing the webpage for a long time without getting any content.
Is this due to the backend engineer not doing well, or is it a case of 'it's not a bug, it's a feature', a cunning strategy to deploy a pool and let the Devs compete for tokens?
Yesterday I calculated YT and hedging for a long time, and found that I still can't play with staking. Now the part that is staked by default has already lost all the principal.
If there were a single ledger shared across the world, there would be no arbitrage. Conversely, this is easy to understand; opportunities abound everywhere.