1/ Let's talk about Impermanent Loss and how it can be solved using tranches and segregating returns between parties.

โš ๏ธ๐‚๐ฅ๐š๐ข๐ฆ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐š๐ข๐ง๐ฌ ๐€๐ฅ๐ฉ๐ก๐š ๐š๐ซ๐ž ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ž๐.

2/ @saffronfinance_ is building a tranche ecosystem that is bifurcating yields between high-risk/high-return and low-risk/low return tranches. The initial products were aimed at interest generation. High-risk tranche earns 10x interest of low tranche, in exchange for insuring the
3/ principal of the low-risk tranche if there is an adverse event in one of the underlying lending/yield aggregating platforms. Now, thinking outside the box and expanding a bit this can be applied to insurance, more specifically IL insurance.
4/ A low-risk tranche (LPs) can deposit their LP tokens (Uniswap, Sushiswap, etc.) into this tranche in exchange for a portion of their LP rewards & trading fees. A high-risk/high-yield tranche contains both of the LP tokens and covers the IL of the low-risk tranche.
5/ If the low-risk tranche has IL, the tokens are taken out from the high-yield tranche. The low-risk tranche can now be a LP and earn at least 12% APY with *zero* risk of IL. The high-yield tranche will receive elevated returns from the LP rewards + trading fees obtained from
6/ insuring the low-risk tranche. Yields for this tranche could very well be 88% APY. Now imagine users can only enter the high-yield tranche by having the $SFI and staking it, which is fixed and limited in supply.
7/ If the pair has excessive IL and the high-yield tranche is losing too much principal a third tranche could be created that also contains the two principal tokens. This tranche would receive $SFI rewards as compensation. Conceivably in the future, the $SFI token could receive
8/ protocol fees among all tranche products making it a cash-flow generating token, and a bet that there is high-demand for tranche products. Given its unique PMF and basically no competitors in DeFi, it is.
9/ Now also imagine that @iearnfinance does not have a tranche product, and is basically acquiring the entire DeFi stack. What if?

Some other similarities between the two projects: the lead dev for @saffronfinance_ could have rugged 50m DAI, but choose not to. Andre could have
10/ rugged 198m DAI in July (initial $YFI farming) but choose not to. Both products are focused on composability and improving DeFi, while also making returns more simple and sustainable. Andre has also been experimenting/thinking about IL insurance for quite some time.
11/ I would have shared this information in @basedkarbon 's paid group, but he is a scammer and I cancelled my subscription.

Tokyo is back on the menu $100k EOY.

Imagine the smell.

More from For later read

Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet๐Ÿงต

Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmerโ€™s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.

Rachel Riley is listed as patron.
https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0


SFFN claims that it has been โ€œa project of the Center For Countering Digital Hateโ€ since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks

Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisationโ€™s only director was Morgan McSweeney โ€“ Labour leader Keir Starmerโ€™s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendallโ€™s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut

Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the โ€œanti-Semitismโ€ crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove
I should mention, this is why I keep talking about this. Because I know so many people who legally CAN'T.

How do I know they have NDAs, if they can't talk legally about them? Because they trusted me with their secrets... after I said something. That's how they knew I was safe.


Some of the people who have reached out to me privately have been sitting with the pain of what happened to them and the regret that they signed for YEARS. But at the time, it didn't seem like they had any other option BUT to sign.

I do not blame *anyone* for signing an NDA, especially when it's attached to a financial lifeline. When you feel like your family's wellbeing is at stake, you'll do anything -- even sign away your own voice -- to provide for them. That's not a "choice"; that's survival.

And yes, many of the people whose stories I now know were pressured into signing an NDA by my husband's ex-employer. Some of whom I *never* would have guessed. People I thought "left well." Turns out, they've just been *very* good at abiding by the terms of their NDA.

(And others who have reached out had similar experiences with other Christian orgs. Turns out abuse, and the use of NDAs to cover up that abuse, is rampant in a LOT of places.)
the whole point of Dunks was you could go cop them at VIM whenever you wanted for $65. this shit is like having to enter a raffle to buy milk.


like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.

the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more

the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500

adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160โ€”and modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"

You May Also Like