Slashhd (evm/acc) (@Slashheth) header
Slashhd (evm/acc) (@Slashheth) profile picture

Milady Research & data tg: @Slashheth

Joined May 2023
Photo by Slashhd (evm/acc) (@Slashheth)Photo by Slashhd (evm/acc) (@Slashheth)Photo by Slashhd (evm/acc) (@Slashheth)Photo by Slashhd (evm/acc) (@Slashheth)Photo by Slashhd (evm/acc) (@Slashheth)Photo by Slashhd (evm/acc) (@Slashheth)Photo by Slashhd (evm/acc) (@Slashheth)Photo by Slashhd (evm/acc) (@Slashheth)Photo by Slashhd (evm/acc) (@Slashheth)Photo by Slashhd (evm/acc) (@Slashheth)
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
holders this month
28
89
11
856
24,387
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
DeFi was safer than CeFi all along
89
59
23
729
90,842
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
the rich and poor have free time. everyone else is at work
370
4,437
437
47,096
1,721,102
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
We're two days away from a complete reshuffling of DEX market share dynamics on Ethereum and the broader EVM
12
13
2
141
11,764
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
- you join papertrade - open a 1000x long - get liquidated - receive robinhood:0xaa3b129e4906009e228a060340601260de068ff5 - think it’s gonna cover your losses - team changes rules - it’s worth 0 welcome to crypto!
A note on transferability. Papertrade is a complicated primitive, and managing it from a risk standpoint is a complicated problem. The PAPER token is far more integrated into the economics of the primitive than most tokens are in their respective protocols today, and, broadly, was designed to act as a counter insolvency incentive coupled with a rebate mechanism to losing traders. Market makers and exchanges are by far the two most profitable businesses in crypto, and our goal was to try and externalise as much of their margins back to users as possible. We are now just over a week into the life of papertrade and we are becoming increasingly confident that this is both possible, but also a likely outcome as agentic led software becomes the norm. As it stands, the paper token traded as a perp becomes a leveraged bet on bankroll solvency - and being able to short bankroll solvency materially changes the payoff curve of a manipulation attack. The target number goes from the bankroll, to the bankroll + short side exposure on paper. We can, and do limit bankroll size specifically to control this payoff curve and ensure it never becomes existentially problematic, but external perp markets are not something we would have any control over if left to float of their own accord. For example, if our bankroll is $10m, an attack costing $15m manipulating the price of bitcoin or ether is not viable. You simply lose money. If however you were also able to put on $10m of PAPER short side exposure, suddenly an attack costing $15m is very viable indeed. If we were to make the token transferable at this point, we are confident we would quickly enter a state too dangerous to allow any material exposure to be taken on papertrade, an end result that benefits no party beyond the wolves who have done the math on the short and are waiting in the wings with sharpened knives. We would also like to thank the various perps teams who have reached out about pre-market listings for their understanding and patience regarding this issue, and especially to the paragon team who, despite jumping the gun on us, have behaved with the utmost integrity and transparency once a dialogue was opened. Perps on PAPER will always act as a self-limiting exposure ceiling for a token with this type of utility, and we think it would be a shame to limit the growth of papertrade to the extent that allowing perps would necessitate. As such, at this juncture we do not have plans to allow off-contract token transferability. Structurally, papertrade is limited by the quality of the data it receives from hyperliquid, but we strongly believe that hyperliquid has a very large part to play in the future of global exchanges, and expect their books to continue to thicken and strengthen over time. A note on fees. Papertrade launched with a deadband fee from entry of 0.2bps. This means you don't earn anything until the price has moved by 0.002% in your favour. Over the months before launch, we played around with many different curves and fee structures affecting exclusively positions closed very close to entry price in order to try and devise a structure that removed the edge against the bankroll low time frame scalp bots have, whilst also minimally impacting the traders around which and for whom the product was devised. We were never able to find anything we were absolutely happy with and so decided to stay with the 0.2bp deadband fee through launch. This has however meant we have had to be very restrictive when it came to certain parameters, such as OI caps. Now, however, we have enough live data to fully understand exactly which strategies work, and to make the necessary changes to stop them. The changes we are making will have an on hours and off hours fee mode to account for the relative differences in liquidity the hyperliquid books see between these two time periods, and the ease with which low time frame moves are signalled. The changes we are making will only affect positions closed within 6bps of entry (0.06%) in on hours, and 10bps (0.1%) in off hours. Any trades closed above these threshold price shifts will see no change to their fees at all. On a look back to launch basis, these changes affect the profitability of bot strategies roughly 15x more than they do normal traders, for whom a very small proportion of overall winnings come from within this band. These changes should serve to flatten much of the edge our microfee structure necessarily creates on low time frames, and will help with long term exchange sustainability. This should hopefully allow us to open up parameters such as OI caps a little more so those of you who wish to can put on the size you want to, when you want to. It is possible these changes are still too lax, and that further revisions to this structure may be necessary going forwards. If so, we will notify users ahead of time. A note on paper tokenomics. In conjunction with the fee changes, we will also be implementing a change to the token issuance curve. Going forward, every $1 lost mints a fixed share of PAPER's supply at that moment, roughly 0.1% of supply per $1M lost (the exact number depends on the mint rate at the time the contracts are upgraded). PAPER minting in and near insolvency will also change, switching from a flat 100 per $1 of loss, to a time weighted multiplier on the curve growing over time, effectively acting as the house running a discounted auction on its own future cash flows. This change also removes the risk of the paper-mint-straddle-attack, temporarily pushing the protocol insolvent by closing only the winning side of a large straddle position and then attempting to mint as much paper as possible. In the immediate term these changes will only have a very subtle effect on PAPER minting, but in the long run will structurally change the outlook of the system beyond the first few weeks, serving to slowly dilute out older holders and leaving more recent users with an advantage. Reconstituting the PAPER system into something much closer to the exchange rakeback it was intended to be. We have been very reticent to touch this particular aspect of the system for obvious reasons, but ultimately we believe that these changes provide all users with the optionality to take a smaller piece of a potentially much larger pie than the current dynamic might necessarily allow. Other, miscellaneous notes. These contract upgrades will include a few other contract changes, including the addition of builder codes so that builders can utilise papertrade in whatever capacity they choose to. This will be a whitelist only to begin with and we will have more for you later in the week on where/how this will be rolled out. A small change to contract permissions on the reward distributor and a change on how below bust closes are processed by the exchange are also included, largely to block gas griefing attacks. These changes will be pushed to docs in full over the coming day, and we will further announce once the changes are queued into the timelock pending final security passes, scheduled to go live 24 hours after that point. Final note. We'd like to thank everyone that has tried out papertrade over the last 10 days. It has been a labour of love building this product and both of us have been taken aback at all of the positive feedback we have received. We'd also like to thank all those of you who have spent considerable time musing on the system we have built, and much of your advice has been taken onboard and will likely affect the colour of what papertrade becomes going forward. We know some of these changes will be unpopular with some, but we would not be making them if we did not feel them to be absolutely necessary. - blurr, jez
71
15
11
473
25,120
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
Final boarding call for Aero with service to all of Ethereum. Tag @aero_agent to get your custom boarding pass and secure your seat aboard the future of onchain liquidity 🛫
440
82
17
560
31,034
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
I don't recommend anyone scramble to move their funds to new wallets today. But we should take the risks to cryptography from AI-accelerated math seriously, and minimize our exposure to not just quantum-vulnerable cryptography, but also potentially AI-vulnerable cryptography. The core new area of risk from this viewpoint is, unfortunately, ML-DSA / FHE / lattices. (and it's also another reason, along with quantum, why ECDSA might fall even faster than expected, hence the "fresh address" recommendation) So far most people have been in the mode of thinking "elliptic curves broken, hashes safe, lattices safe". But there is a good chance that the concrete security of lattices will take serious hits from the next two years of AI math. The basic threat model is: factoring is something that naively takes 2^(n/2) time, but over decades smart people have found and optimized number field sieves, and degraded that to 2^O(n^(1/3)), which is why RSA keys and signatures need to be ~400 bytes (and not 64 bytes). What if there are skeletons in the closet like that, both for elliptic curves and lattices, that we are simply not smart enough to discover - but bots soon will be? This is a major part of the reason why for the past year ethereum's lean roadmap has been going in the "hash-only" direction: no lattices, no ML-DSA, no Falcon, no lattice-based commitments inside ZK proofs, etc. Signatures in lean ethereum are all hash-based, either WOTS or SPHINCS-. For signatures and proofs, we already know how to go hash-only. The bigger challenge is for *public-key encryption* - and this goes far beyond blockchains. Secure communication, anonymizing protocols, lots of things need public-key encryption. And unfortunately there are long-standing mathematical theorems showing why public-key encryption cannot be done with hashes alone. You have to have some kind of trapdoor object that has at least one form of usable "structure" - either group theory (incl. isogenies) or lattices or code-based or potentially in the future even more newfangled and spooky things (local mixing?). But for anything that has structure, you should assume that AI will make at least some progress in breaking that structure. Here, one reasonable inference is that if you want to make something plausibly long-term secure, multiply the key sizes by 10. To me that's a very plausible world and something not at all extreme to predict. If AI will bring us 50 years of math in 2 years, then that 50 years of math may very plausibly include a "naive factoring -> GNFS" level of improvement to our ability to break lattices. In that world, lattices will still exist, but they will have to be significantly bigger to guarantee the same level of safety. And at those new larger sizes, hash-based constructions will beat lattice-based constructions on concrete efficiency in every use case where hash-based constructions are possible at all. Theoretically, of course it's possible that hashes are broken too (eg. P = NP would imply that). But I think P = NP is very unlikely. And intuitively, it's much more likely that a mathematical object has exactly no exploitable structure (like hashes are intended to), than that a mathematical object has exactly ~3 forms of exploitable structure (for elliptic curves: associativity, Schoof, pairings) and not some secret fourth form of structure we have not yet discovered that greatly degrades its security (for elliptic curves, ECDLP and pairing security). Similar for LWE, SVP, RLWE and the zoo of lattice problems. For this reason, we do not yet see any reason to worry and start padding the byte size of hashes (if we start to worry more, we would pad the round count first before doing anything to the byte size). Concrete TLDR, my own personal views: * Hash-based > lattice-based, in those situations where hash-based is possible at all * For anything lattice-based, be much more paranoid on param sizes. Remember that blockchains are only a small portion of the cryptography story; this point goes far beyond blockchains and applies to eg. access to websites, secure messaging, Tor / VPNs ... * For privacy protocols, strongly favor NOT putting encrypted notes onchain. Instead, send them offchain through some third-party mechanism. * If it's not difficult for you, keeping your funds in addresses which have not yet been used to make a transaction is a good idea. If it's easy for you, do it. **But be careful about migrations; I personally have lost more money in botched migrations than I have lost in all hacks combined**. * For multisig wallets, doing confirmations offchain is better than onchain, because this way the signatures of signer wallets do not get exposed to the public, so if ECDSA falls to AI much faster than expected, at least the multisig "gracefully degrades" to a 1-of-1 where the 1 is whoever was gathering the signatures - a much better place to be than "anyone can take the money" firefly.social/post/x/210783…
1,249
1,919
895
11,168
3,954,633
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
Since this @zachxbt post: • Coldcard - a Bitcoin hardware wallet, was hacked for $40 million. • Trezor - one of the largest cold wallets, experienced a major data leak. • SafePal - one of the largest cold wallets, experienced a major data leak. Incredible timing.
Dear community, While your SafePal wallet, seed phrase, and private keys are secure; we identified a flaw in the order-tracking plug-in that led to unauthorized access to information of a subset of customers. The issue has been fixed with additional security measures introduced. The incident impacts approximately 39,798 customers who placed orders between March 2, 2025 and April 11, 2026. Exposed information includes name, email address, shipping address, phone number, and purchase details. All affected customers have been notified individually by email. We have also published this webpage safepal.com/scam-protection for customers to verify if they are affected using order ID number and shipping country. For a complete disclosure of the incident and the actions we’ve taken, along with FAQs and guidance, please refer to our blog: safepal.com/blog/security-up… This incident did not involve your seed phrase, private keys, wallet password, or other wallet credentials, bank account information, payment card numbers, or government-issued identification numbers. Never share your seed phrase, private key, or password with anyone, and stay vigilant against phishing or impersonation attempts. We are extremely sorry to the community and those who are affected. Updates will be posted on our blog as we continue to work through things.
87
92
13
877
139,557
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
Altitude Public Beta is now live. A trading terminal built around Hyperliquid. Trade spot, leveraged perps and prediction markets from one interface.
10
14
1
28
1,648
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
ethereum looking good today
70
149
23
1,253
156,373
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
Two weeks ago, Ethereum researchers met in Berlin to continue charting the protocol's long-term trajectory, following along discussions with client teams in Svalbard in April. The updated strawmap is at strawmap.org, and I attached a picture of it to this post. My own high-level takeaways: * "Lean Ethereum" is not a single one-shot upgrade, it is a collection of improvements that will come online to the Ethereum network over the course of three or four years. But make no mistake, this IS the third major iteration of Ethereum in the same way that the Merge was the second. Almost every major piece of the protocol will be replaced: - Verification through recursive STARKs, rather than direct re-execution. Recursive STARKs become an enshrined first-class core component of the protocol - Replacing everything quantum-vulnerable with quantum-safe alternatives - Consensus: decoupled available chain and finality, one or two-round finality. Theoretically optimal security properties, simpler than today, and faster than today - Multidimensional gas - State: not just tree structure, but what *types* of state are available - Changes to client architecture ... At the same time, simplification, cleanup and future-proofing. And this will all be done in a way that minimizes disruption to existing application. We've done this before (the Merge), we can do it again. * H-star (aka Hegota) is probably Ethereum's last thematically "pre-Lean" fork. Starting from I-star, most of everything we do will have a very strong "Lean" feel to it in one way or another. * Privacy is no longer an afterthought, it is a first class goal. When designing Frames, the mempool, additions to the state tree, we explicitly ask the question "okay, how do quantum-safe, intermediary-free privacy protocol transactions go through this, and what is the overhead?" * Formal verification of everything for security. * FV also makes us much more comfortable with canonicalization (having pieces of the protocol that are directly defined as a piece of bytecode expressed in some language). evm-asm is being written in part to become a canonical proof system for the EVM. * Quantum safety has shifted up a LOT in priority. This adds a lot of work (eg. finalizing a quantum-safe blobs design has become urgent; this work has already been ongoing for months) * Probably the single most disruptive part of the plan is the changes to state. There is growing consensus around leaving present-day-style "dynamic state" mostly unchanged, but scaling it only a medium amount, and adding new types of state that are more scalability-friendly (eg. no need for builders to sync/store all of it) but more restrictive, and that will scale a large amount. eg. possible Ethereum in 2030: 2 TB of present-day-style (dynamic) state, and 100 TB of new-style (scalable but restrictive) state This "new-style" state would work very well for ERC20s, NFTs, many defi use cases, but not eg. highly "central" objects like Uniswap contracts, or onchain order books, or other complex things (which are crucial for Ethereum but which only take up a small percentage of state) Hence, it will not be *necessary* to rewrite any apps, but it will be *very cost-effective* to eg. rewrite an ERC20 token into a newer design that uses a new type of UTXO storage that is currently being explored, so that it will have >10x lower txfees. Design of these new state types (current ideas: keyed nonces, ring buffers, UTXOs, statically accessible state, temp state) is an area where we will need a lot of feedback from application developers (incl. privacy-friendly application developers) and probably several rounds of rethinking and iteration. * In the context of a much larger total state size, we need to figure out the incentive issues around who stores this state and what motivates them to. Even saying "each node stores 1%" is not good enough - why do they store that 1% and why are they willing to serve it? This is being elevated as a first-class research area. * Ethereum will need to have a "VM" other than EVM in one form or another - at the very least, we need something like leanISA for recursive STARKs - and the gains are large in exposing it to users so that we support programmable privacy and better scalability. Right now, the most likely contenders are leanISA and RISC-V. My own ideal is that in this world, we adjust the protocol so that the EVM becomes a high-level-language compiler-level feature, and the protocol only "sees" RISC-V / leanISA directly. But this is still far away. * Gas limit increases, blob increases and slot time decreases will happen many times over the next ~5 years. We expect a large gas limit increase with Glasterdam. Each step of increased scale or decreased slot time is a matter of getting to the point where it is safe to do it, which comes from a combination of client optimization and protocol changes. Ethereum is CROPS. Ethereum is scaling. Ethereum is reinventing itself. Onward.
696
1,391
489
5,262
1,479,510
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
Crypto is fucked. Most projects treat their token as exit liquidity - dump on retail, funnel the real value to equity holders behind the curtain. We don't. For us, $aeon is the only asset. Yes, there's a company - everyone has one. The difference is what the equity can do. Ours is boxed in: no VCs, no share sale, no cap table getting paid before you. We're the first @base project running on Bedrock - a structure + enforcement fund built specifically to block unauthorized extraction. Value has one exit. The token. No shareholder class in front of you. Contributors get paid in USDC out of fee revenue - lead maintainer holds 0 $aeon. Treasury never sells; any OTC is announced publicly with a mandatory lock-up. Buybacks are policy, not a vibe. 50% of non-fee revenue → $aeon. Fair launched at a ~$27K cap. No SAFEs, no warrants, no team allocation, no vesting. This is what community-first actually looks like. B1 transparency filing from @Blockworks scored 40/40 - same as Meteora & MetaDAO. Value accrues to the token or it accrues to shareholders. We picked the token. Discover our new Transparency dashboard 👇
20
20
5
144
20,587
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
Aeon Inc now owns all IPs of @aeonframework ⭐ We've also adopted a new legal structure to protect token holders + commited to buybacks on aeon products 🤷‍♂️
The base:0xbf8e8f0e8866a7052f948c16508644347c57aba3 B1 Token Transparency Filing is live on @Blockworks ⭐ Score: 40/40, same as @MeteoraAG or @MetaDAOProject 🤝 Highlighting 'Aeon Inc', our new legal structure built on @BedrockFndn: an independent foundation holds a golden share on our cap table, so the company can't be sold or asset-stripped without token holders being bought out at a premium Value accrual operates two ways: - Native-aeon portion of trading fees accrues to the protocol treasury. We don't sell. - 50% of any non-trading-fee project revenue is directed to aeon buybacks Building great foundations, so thousands of startups thrives on top of aeon ⭐
18
19
4
93
18,142
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
Tangent will launch with 12 markets. The following stablecoins, powered by top-tier DeFi protocols, will be included as collateral via @CurveFinance LPs: - $crvUSD & $scrvUSD from @CurveFinance - $frxUSD from @fraxfinance - $fxUSD from @protocol_fx - $reUSD from @ResupplyFi - $sUSDS from @SkyEcosystem - $OUSD from @OriginProtocol - $eUSD from @reserveprotocol - $sDOLA from @InverseFinance - $BOLD from @LiquityProtocol - $USDC from @circle - $USDT from @tether - $PYUSD from @PayPal - $RLUSD from @Ripple @pendle_fi markets will be added shortly after launch, expanding collateral options and yield opportunities.
4
13
3
67
5,039
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
Both $USG pools are now live on @beefyfinance. These high-yield autocompounding vaults are built atop the OnlyBoost infrastructure from @StakeDAOHQ. Tangent 🤝 Stake DAO 🤝 Beefy
I've got a fetish for geometry. Oh Yields 👀 $USG - $frxUSD: 28% APY $USG - $USDC: 26% APY Sorry, I got off on a tangent right there.
1
6
1
24
2,779
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
The USG/frxUSD pool has now surpassed $2M TVL on @CurveFinance. Beyond the strong APRs on @StakeDAOHQ and @ConvexFinance, depositors are also securing their $TAN allocation and farming points simultaneously. Full details & link in the quoted post below 👇
Public Pre-Deposit access is live. Deposit $USDC or $frxUSD to secure your future $TAN allocation, score points, and earn yield. Link and details below.
4
7
2
22
5,936
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
Public Pre-Deposit access is live. Deposit $USDC or $frxUSD to secure your future $TAN allocation, score points, and earn yield. Link and details below.
7
18
8
52
18,936
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
Tangent’s public Pre-Deposit campaign: Monday, May 18th. Provide liquidity with $USDC or ethereum:0xcacd6fd266af91b8aed52accc382b4e165586e29, hold your position, earn yield, and secure your share of $TAN tokens. Details below 👇
1
16
5
50
17,449
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
91
719
48
11,725
189,493
Slashhd (evm/acc) retweeted
Most onchain research workflows: open Dune → write SQL → wait → export → paste chart into a doc → repeat. Here's what it looks like with the Dune MCP Prompt sent to @claudeai: "Give me a 30-day summary of Aave's TVL, active borrower count, and liquidation events across Ethereum and Arbitrum. Flag any anomalies." And get results like this 👇
6
13
1
109
24,954