TableNextToJupiter

These days I've been looking at LST and re-staking again, and the more I look, the more it seems like "the returns aren't just falling from the sky." Basically, there are two main parts: one is the normal interest from the underlying staking, and the other is you taking the same security and using it to take on multiple jobs (lending, providing liquidity, collateralizing other protocols, etc.), with others paying you fees. It sounds pretty attractive, but the risk also comes from here: on-chain contract issues, liquidations, de-pegging, leveraged cascades, or even a glitch in some intermediate

The reward is for the past, the path is forward, keep building bigger.

Recently, I’ve been comparing options buyers and sellers in spreadsheets, and the more I look at it, the more it seems like a tug-of-war with “time”: buyers are slowly eaten away by time value every day, and if the market doesn’t move, it’s like paying rent for nothing; sellers enjoy collecting premiums, but in reality, they’re taking on tail risk first, and when big volatility hits, they have to pay it all back at once.
In the group these days, there’s been talk about stablecoin regulation, reserve audits, and de-pegging rumors. When everyone gets nervous, they want to buy some protection,

This wave will either waterfall or go sideways; anyway, the volatility won't be small, and controlling leverage is more important than guessing the direction.

Recently, the fee rates have become extremely volatile again, and the group is arguing whether to reverse the trend or continue to inflate the bubble. I instead pulled out the table of "Asset Size—Tolerance Rate": for amounts in the thousands to around twenty thousand dollars, hardware wallets are sufficient, don't make yourself look like you're running a bank; for larger amounts, where a small mistake can cause heartache, I prefer multi-signature, at least not relying on a single private key to determine your fate; when it really reaches the stage of "people losing their phones / forgetting s

I support Pixels taking the eco-friendly route, but it also means it's more difficult to do, and the team's execution must be maximized.

This wave of freezing over 30k ETH can at least significantly cut off a segment of black market funds.

Lately, I've been messing around with address profiling again—tags, clustering, and adding a fund flow chart. It looks pretty scientific, but the more I look at it, the more uneasy I feel: the same person using a dozen different wallets, bots mixed with humans, exchange hot wallets still "visiting" each other, and the final "whale" clusters might just be a platform doing arbitrage... To put it plainly, it's only useful as a lead, not as evidence.
My current approach is a bit crude: first, check if the overall fund inflows and outflows are continuous, then add a "credibility" column in the tabl

Recently, I saw someone pointing at large on-chain transfers and hot/cold wallet movements on exchanges, shouting "Smart money is here," and I always hold back... Frankly, that might just be internal rebalancing. When it comes to assessing credibility, I care more about three things: GitHub, audits, and multi-signature upgrades.
I don't look at stars on GitHub; mainly I check if there are recent commits and bug fixes, and I also glance at whether community questions in the issues are being responded to, otherwise it feels like an empty city. For audit reports, don’t just look at "pass"; I look

These days, the group is again discussing rumors about stablecoin regulation, reserve audits, and "de-pegging," which makes people nervous. The more anxious they get, the easier it is to click on the wrong link... I remind myself: don’t rush to operate. I now strictly adhere to the red line of mnemonic phrases: no screenshots, no cloud storage, no sending to any "customer service," writing two copies by hand and keeping them separate—troublesome but reliable.
Signature authorization is also increasingly resembling a "hidden trap." It’s not that I need to understand the contract every time, but

Last night, I added a few more comparisons of AMM curves in the table, and the more I calculated, the more I feel that the phrase "market making = passive income" is actually a bit harmful... As prices fluctuate back and forth, the fees look quite attractive, but impermanent loss is no joke, especially in pools with high volatility and low trading volume. When I check the net value later, it might even be worse than just holding the coins.
Recently, everyone has been talking about rate cut expectations and the US dollar index, with risk assets fluctuating wildly along with them. I was already

Once the flywheel starts spinning, user quality is more important than user quantity.

If you want to buy the dip, don't rush. It's not too late to consider once it stabilizes above 0.074.

Raising the stop-loss to the entry price makes the mindset much more relaxed.

I'm really just using L2 now for peace of mind: constantly moving around without staring at gas fees causing my heart to race. But that doesn't mean I won't use the mainnet; if I really need to hold long-term positions or do contract interactions with higher risks, I still prefer to spend a bit more gas to feel secure. Anyway, I set a simple rule for myself in my spreadsheet: small daily transactions on L2, large or critical operations on the mainnet, don’t save a few bucks at the expense of ruining the experience.
Recently, I saw someone interpret large on-chain transfers and hot/cold wallet

Recently, someone has been watching large on-chain transfers and fluctuations in exchange hot and cold wallets, shouting "Smart money is coming." I almost got the itch to join in... Basically, it's just fear of missing out. Seeing others interpret it so convincingly, I can't help but want to get in. But then I looked back at my own spreadsheet and realized that what's even more dangerous is the delay in oracle price feeds: you think the price is still there, your position looks safe, but in reality, the on-chain quote is lagging behind, and the liquidation line might have already been quietly

Last night, I got itchy again and threw some screenshots of stablecoin "reserve disclosures" into a spreadsheet for comparison.
Halfway through listing, I started to get tangled: some update frequently but are very vague, some reports are as thick as bricks but are released too infrequently...
As I kept looking, I suddenly thought, when the de-pegging really happens, who will still go through all these PDFs?
Everyone’s first reaction is still to run first and ask questions later.
In essence, a run is just emotional contagion.
Now I care more about two points:
First, whether it can