That's step 1
I'm sure someone else has explained this, but it is just so cool and I want to explain how this works.
— Andre Cronje (@AndreCronjeTech) January 15, 2021
That's step 1
Swap $1m sUSD for $1m sBTC? flat 0.3% fee
Swap $10m sUSD for $10m sBTC? flat 0.3% fee
swap $100m sUSD for $100m sBTC? Well, there isn't that many synths in Curve, yet but you get the point. The only limit is the pool depth
1. Curve lets you swap like-assets with extremely low slippage and a low fee
2. Synthetix lets you convert synths to other synths, with no slippage and a low fee
What happens if we just... combine them?
1. I swap my "real asset" (e.g. USDC) for a "synthetic" one (e.g. sUSD)
2. I exchange one synthetic asset for another (e.g. sUSD -> sBTC)
3. I swap my new synthetic asset to a "real" asset again (e.g. wBTC)
It is. It's not cheap either, at over 1m gas to execute. And to make matters worse, due to how a Synthetix swap works, you actually have to wait a few minutes between the swap, so it isn't even full atomic!
The answer is capital efficiency. AMMs with a curve that allows trading assets that are dissimilar are inefficient with larger and larger swaps.
For example, a $10m USDC -> wBTC swap on Uniswap right now has >13% slippage!
Of course you would pick this option now!
But on principle, this will be the best way to perform a high-value swap!
I think as we have seen, gas fees are just going up and up and up. Optimism soft-launched their L2 today, but Ethereum's success means that block space will always be at a premium.
The gas costs will not be coming down as much as you'd think!
This more efficient means of large-value swaps will see a lot of use on base layer Ethereum, as gas prices continue to grow.
Hobbyist/frequent traders will move to Layer 2, where smaller value trades will be economically more efficient.
More from Crypto
https://t.co/PbjQkSlTT3
@quant_network are collaborating with MIT in the creation of ODAP
$QNT
2/ "In order for blockchain-based services to scale globally, blockchain networks must be able to interoperate with one another following a standardized protocol and interfaces (APIs)"
Gilbert founded ISO TC307 which 60 countries are working towards standardizing the interfaces
3/ "We believe that a blockchain gateway is needed for blockchain networks to interoperate in a manner similar
to border gateway routers in IP networks. Just as border gateway routers use the BGPv4 protocol to interact with one another in a peered fashion we believe that a...
4/ blockchain gateway protocol will be needed to permit the movement of virtual assets and related information across blockchain networks in a secure and privacy-preserving manner"
You can read more about the gateway protocol ODAP in this 21 tweet
See this 21-tweet thread about the creation of an Internet scale protocol to move digital assets involving Quant, MIT, US Government, Intel, Juniper, Payment and Telecom companies \U0001f447https://t.co/n7VGIIlAvq pic.twitter.com/mTUEmCMFZM
— Seq (@CryptoSeq) December 22, 2020
5/
"We motivate the need for blockchain gateways and blockchain gateway protocols in the following summary:
✅Enables blockchain interoperability:
Blockchain gateways provide an interface for the interoperability between blockchain/DLT systems that operate distinct consensus...
Short version:
The NFT token you bought either points to a URL on the internet, or an IPFS hash. In most circumstances it references an IPFS gateway on the internet run by the startup you bought the NFT from.
Oh, and that URL is not the media. That URL is a JSON metadata file
Here's an example. This artwork is by Beeple and sold via Nifty:
https://t.co/TlJKH8kAew
The NFT token is for this JSON file hosted directly on Nifty's servers:
https://t.co/GQUaCnObvX
THAT file refers to the actual media you just "bought". Which in this case is hosted via a @cloudinary CDN, served by Nifty's servers again.
So if Nifty goes bust, your token is now worthless. It refers to nothing. This can't be changed.
"But you said some use IPFS!"
Let's look at the $65m Beeple, sold by Christies. Fancy.
https://t.co/1G9nCAdetk
That NFT token refers directly to an IPFS hash (https://t.co/QUdtdgtssH). We can take that IPFS hash and fetch the JSON metadata using a public gateway:
https://t.co/CoML7psBhF
ok, I lied. but strictly it's not a new graph, just a new trendline (now a quadratic on the log plot). looks um... quite a good fit. so I'd say that was interesting. pic.twitter.com/qkgyMf1ya8
— James Ward (@JamesWard73) January 27, 2021
WARNING: this is a long thread, and it’s a bit of a roller-coaster. We find some apparently strong patterns in the data, and then start to unpick them a bit. So if you start getting excited half way through you might find you’re less excited at the end. But we’ll see…
First we first have to go back a bit. @bristoliver posted a thread a few days ago explaining why, with a constant vaccination rate, a log plot of cases should show a quadratic form. In other words, it should fit an equation like: a + b.x + c.x^2
I meant to link in the model thread there - here it is
Been thinking about where we are, where we might be going, what effect vaccines might have and how to tell. This thread may not happen all at once, and will get a bit mathematical in a couple of places (sorry!), but I will put in pictures. It's yet another argument for log scales
— Oliver Johnson (@BristOliver) January 24, 2021
the quadratic coefficient – the ‘c’ in that equation – gives an estimate of the % of the population who are being newly protected by the vaccine each day. Please note ‘protected by the vaccine’, not ‘vaccinated’ – as we don't expect 100% protection after the first dose
You May Also Like
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
One thing I've been noticing about responses to today's column is that many people still don't get how strong the forces behind regional divergence are, and how hard to reverse 1/ https://t.co/Ft2aH1NcQt
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 20, 2018
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote: