we’re still early on the degeneracy curve acceleration begins when hypergambling is woven into daily obligations and becomes the default

easily the most addictive crypto app I’ve ever used (and this is just the demo) massive congrats to the pioneers of tap trading on the milestone @NathanWorsley_ @gmcaseycraig @johnnygannon

solana's approach to ecosystem building doesn't work because the bigger a project becomes, the stronger their incentive is to leave the chain. This sends the ecosystem to zero in the long term since they will only be able to retain the worst projects colosseum incubated and not the moonshots (Not bullish on pump or any solana projects personally). It's an issue of basic human incentives. Once projects reach a certain scale, they naturally (and very validly) question why they should allow solana to capture and monetize their orderflow through priority fees when they could retain that value themselves. Another big problem is when a project relies on a counterparty (solana) that doesn't even have MCL live to ship their own products. This is extra execution risk that isn't even in your control (bearish solana, no project wants this) An extra problem with building on solana is that your token's TAM is constrained by solana's token market fit (This probably won't be the case in a couple years, but now it's pretty much a thing). This is not looking good for most smartcontract platform's. Performance, which I guess is their main selling point, is just a commodity now. Why tunnel vision building only on solana as a serious builder? The lifestyle of a colosseum project should be something like the following: Get incubated -> Bullish stage, everyone's happy here because the relationship is quite symbiotic. Project's need to raise and solana needs ecosystem projects to raise to make it look like they're succeeding. Both parties benefit Projects start building their own relationships in the industry and realize that they might not need Solana. Some of these projects, especially the ones that have gained traction with investors, will realize that if they build on Solana, they'll always be capped by the success of the chain's token in a way and face extra execution risk. If the chain does badly, they'll do badly Bad projects that have no momo w/o solana will just remain on solana, so the chain experience won't be particularly interesting. They'll just retain the 'worst' projects It's quite funny because it very much mirrors Solana's evolution. Solana was in bed with FTX, which is stain on the industry but they've slowly pivoted away from this association. You can also see this phenomenon on web2 incubators. The more a product is successful, the less important it is if it's a YC company or not. Same thing applies for solana. No serious entrepreneur wants someone else to capture significant upside on their project unless they get something very tangible in return. I guess for Solana this is early stage support, which works if they were an incubator but doesn't really work if they're a blockchain with a token solana is the next scroll, DeGods won't be the only project to leave (Mosi is just bearish integrated chains don't take it personally everyone)

it’s almost midnight in Copenhagen (I'm typing these words in the darkness of our lovely hotel). we’ve just concluded the megamafia 2.0 program, a month-long residence program in copenhagen. most people have gone back home. Some have stayed extra days to enjoy nordic summer. now that I think about what happened in the last month, I'm convinced that the greatest joy in a startup is to see ideas become demo, demo get destroyed by feedbacks, new ideas surface from ashes that turn into new demo. this positive feedback loop brings the ultimate high and is almost the reason why megamafia offsites will always be a core pillar of mega’s ecosystem. net new apps net new experiences net new framework new friends If one doesn't push for the new, one shall starve.

Guys, the Whitehouse is bullish MegaETH

Yesterday we produced our billionth testnet block Here's a lookback at the improvements, attacks, milestones and gas burned since launch

YEAH SO ITS A PVP SOCIAL EXPERIENCE FOR TRADING PERPETUALS WITH LEVERAGE ON MEGAETH & GTE

Over 10 projects are already trying to copy @Euphoria_fi after our demo leaked. I'm flattered but sad that original thinking is so rare in crypto. The vibe-coded knockoffs all use perps or perimutuals, meaning broken payoffs & UX. The real TapTrading experience is coming soon!

I am going Bruce Lee mode on @avon_xyz Orderbook based credit infrastructure built by the young and talented @im0xPrince Prince is someone who I respect from using his tooling previously in the trenches but his potential spans far beyond that.

This is why, paradoxically, I’m almost sympathetic to people who cannot wrap their minds around the “revenue meta.” Not because these people are correct that it’s just a “meta”, they are very wrong and always have been, but because the first 10 years of crypto managed to completely nerdsnipe and indoctrinate so many in this industry into just writing open source code and assuming you’d capture value for ~reasons~ and the worst part was that it was *mainly true* for those 10 years, in other words, there was a positive feedback loop where these tokens *did* go up in value so people assumed they were on the right track, surely something wouldn’t go up in value if it was valueless. This was the wrong take away and now we reckon with the ramifications of this The fat protocol thesis brainfucked so many people into building infrastructure with no real path to a defensible moat or monetization and we are having to undo this insidious plague in real time. The whole “public goods” funding worked in the literal sense that it provided a lot of infra (even tho most of that infra is actually being siloed/ customized at this point), that part is probably true, but public goods *definitionally* do not make money, they are projects that would not be funded because because there is no financial incentive to do so. And a lot of god forsaken analogies were drawn to early OSS investment outside of crypto like red hat, mongodb, gitlab etc, but the strategy there to be very clear, was to write OSS and *then* sell it as SaaS like custom Linux or GitHub or database solutions / integrations / whatever. It wasn’t just hacking on a token and calling it a day which is what we did in crypto. And sure “building the infra first and then monetizing with the apps atop it later” is a reasonable strategy and has precedent in trad tech where acquiring users / building network effects before focusing on revenue later has worked well but this isn’t the same. Everyone was forced to hawk tokens that have a dubious value prop and people are realizing this now. The point though is we should be kind to, or at least understand, people who were deep in the sauce between 2016 to ~2023 who bought into this drivel, it was powerful and convincing to many and it made people feel like they were doing something different to make the world a better place and I at least understand why the idea of a project *actually* needing to make money is sort of jarring if you were brought up in this church