I set up a node two years ago, ran it for several months, and didn’t get anything in return. They should at least reimburse the server rental costs; I think $100,000 would be enough to cover 6,700 people who held the "node runner" role

Genlayer first claim 20%

Everything depends on the team

A dead blockchain and a fabricated funding round. There’s no one and nothing there

I spent two years with the ritual and got nothing. I start a node, made a testnet, built dApps, minted the genesis of nft and nothing

What do you know about pain, I put a node two years ago and it was quite complicated and I didn't get anything

4.20B GEN at genesis. 42,000 GEN to run a validator. 42 GEN to delegate. And the DAO is called DeepThought. GenLayer’s tokenomics paper is out, and the answer is still 42. Here’s everything that matters ↓ ▸ SUPPLY & ALLOCATION • Genesis supply: 4.20B GEN, committed in the contracts • Community 25% (Growth 19.5% + Early ecosystem 5.5%) • Foundation 20% · Early contributors 19.06% · GenLayer Labs 17.64% · Investors 13.29% · DeepThought DAO 5% ▸ UNLOCKS • 30.4% transferable at TGE. Team lockups inside the Foundation bucket bring the effective float to ~24.4% • Investors, early contributors and Labs get 0% at TGE and hit their cliff at month 12 • 95% of supply is transferable by month 48. The DAO’s 210M stays locked until the DAO is deployed • Vesting restricts transfer, not staking: everything except the DAO can stake from genesis • Labs and the Foundation self-stake at most 10%. The rest is delegated only to independent community validators ▸ INFLATION • Inverse-sigmoid curve: 8.93% at launch, 6.5% at the midpoint (~year 4), 4% tail • Always computed on the genesis base, so inflation on current supply falls from ~8.7% to ~2.5% by year 10 • It’s a ceiling: penalty burns and unused developer issuance can only push it lower • Year one: ~362M GEN issued ▸ WHERE REWARDS GO • Fees: 70% stakers · 15% validators · 10% developers · 5% DeepThought DAO • Inflation: 75% stakers · 15% validators · up to 10% developers • The DAO is paid from fees only, so its income tracks real usage • Developers earn 10% of their contract’s fees plus an inflation top-up capped at the same amount, through a transferable NFT per contract • Wash-trading your own contract recovers at most 20% of what you spend ▸ STAKING • 1,543 active validators, 1-day epochs, 7-day unbonding • No commissions, and delegator rewards auto compound • Weight = √(0.6 × self-stake + 0.4 × delegated). Doubling your stake gives only ~41% more weight • Voting with the losing side isn’t slashed as a %: the validator forfeits its fee and pays a fee-sized penalty from its own self-stake, never from delegators • Idleness and provable fraud are slashed, split 80% operator / 20% delegated ▸ GOVERNANCE • Supply and the issuance curve are committed and will be locked progressively until they’re immutable on-chain • Everything else is set by on-chain governance So long, and thanks for all the fees. NFA. Source: GenLayer Tokenomics, Design & Rationale (Oct 2026) @Genlayer

I've never seen a worse airdrop. It would be better not to go out at all and shut up

Yes, you can forget about the ritual, useless blockchain

Only 852 wallets eligible

Good bye bro

Only 852 wallets eligible

Yet another stillborn blockchain that will shut down before long

Google translate?

I don’t think $SEA will be launched, there’s no point in releasing it given the current valuation, but the money needs to be returned

I set out to benchmark Primus's open-source FHE library. I came back with two upstream bug reports, and both were filed before this was published. The first one I found by accident. primus-fhe does not build on Apple Silicon: 47 errors on an M4. The cause is not "code for x86". In prime64/mod.rs, the avx2 module is gated on the target architecture and the avx512 module right below it is not. Gating that one line was not enough, and that is where it got interesting. The scalar fast path, whose fields are documented as "always available, not gated by target_arch", builds its Barrett preconditioners with a helper that lives inside the AVX-512 module. The helper contains no SIMD at all. It is plain arithmetic sitting in an x86-only folder. Every precompute.rs under an AVX folder turned out to be the same: zero intrinsics. Move that one function, gate the module, gate one test, silence one dead-code warning. Five files, +24/-19. On the M4: build passes, 309 tests pass with 0 failed, and clippy with -D warnings is clean, the exact command their CI runs. Then, to prove the patch changed nothing on x86, I ran their own CI on it. One test segfaulted. So I ran the same CI on the untouched upstream commit, five times each way, recording the CPU in every job, and repeated the failing test 200 times per job: AMD EPYC 7763, no AVX-512: 0/200 Intel Xeon Platinum 8573C: 200/200 AMD EPYC 9V45: 200/200 AMD EPYC 9V74: 200/200 Same result with and without my patch. The processor decides. AddressSanitizer put the bad read at prime32/avx512/transform.rs:88, at an address just above zero. The cause is two functions that disagree about where AVX-512 begins. The dispatcher sends anything with n >= 32 to the SIMD path. The builder of the AVX-512 root tables assumes n < 64 never gets there, and returns an empty table. At exactly n = 32, the kernel reads roots that were never built. Its reach is narrow, and I want to be exact about it: a 32-point table over 32-bit words, on a CPU with AVX 512. It crashes, it does not return a wrong answer silently, and it touches none of the chapter's benchmark numbers, which come from the u64 table at n = 4096. It survived because the benches never use n = 32, and in my ten CI jobs half of the runners had no AVX-512 and passed. The benchmark itself has a point of its own: the same code, same commit, same backend, runs 2.95x apart across three server CPUs. A "5 ms bootstrap" with no hardware named is not anchored to anything. Reported as primus-fhe #190 (the crash) and #191 (the ARM build, patch included). Chapter 06 has the full trail, every run linked. signed-bytes.netlify.app/06-… Community work, not affiliated with @primus_labs.

Proof Desk has a new hub. Fourteen dispatches on Fermah since May, each in its own format: a console for an agent, a receipt for a payment, a control room for a liquidation, a grid for a catalogue. Now they live in one place, and the deck on the front is made of the real pages. Hover a dispatch and it pulls its own page out. The hub also gathers everything else I've built for the ecosystem: Fermah Atlas, an unofficial archive of the Fermah ecosystem in three lenses: Powered by Fermah, Built with Fermah, Fermafia. It keeps the Community Spotlight record: 24 weeks, 185+ creators, every entry sourced. Seven open source models behind the dispatches, ready to run yourself. A pull request to Fermah's own docs: a Prover Node installation overview. fermah-proof-desk.netlify.ap… @fermah_xyz @fermah_atlas

Fermah put it plainly on Oct 13: composite markets scale when conditions can be executed, not manually interpreted. "Did A happen before B crossed $X?" should be one programmable outcome. Across 100,000+ resolved markets, each composite still needed fresh specification and resolution work. So I built the instrument. Compose the question from blocks. Read it back in plain English. Compile it to a canonical spec with its own address. Run it against a market hour. "Will a goal be scored before ETH crosses $3,000?" compiles to spec:7ec06f0c45226f5a. On day one it locks TRUE at 06:40, 53 minutes before close. Across thirty days, 28 settle before the bell. Ask "rain and gas" or "gas and rain": same id, one instrument. Ask "rain before gas" or "gas before rain": two ids, because order is the question. Six feeds already make 78 composite markets. By hand that is 156 jobs. Compiled, it is 10. At 24 feeds: 2,352 against 28. Proof Desk 14, live and open source. composite-markets.netlify.ap… @fermah_xyz

Never, BASE for builders