Refinable PreisFINE

yeah it's a bit odd right i kind of think the answer might be yes though? i mean ok fine reality is nebulous. sure. "ethnicity" means whatever it's useful to mean but one can consider (fruitfully) some curiosities through this lens

Appreciate this post by one of our longest bag holders. My personal take is that it's easy for outsiders to drive-by and conclude no progress = dead tech. That's fine; zero-to-one opportunities aren't always staring you in the face. Behind the scenes, and the OGs know this, the team has been iterating on a fully on-chain market maker for every token. This iteration has been, to some extent, "test in prod". Not with regard to safety but with regard to liquidity adjustments in real-world market conditions. $YES $MACHI $BSR $AI $FLAPPY $ONYX are pioneers in that regard. We're now at a point where we're close to developing market making logic that adjusts liquidity to market conditions, in real-time. Cadmus calls this V4; internally we call it Baseline Mercury. This will all be done on-chain & without team intervention. Liquidity will be aware of speculations/cooldowns/retracements & adjust accordingly. This logic will be inside every token launched with @BaselineMarkets tech. There is nothing like this on the market & it will accelerate internet capital markets formation & broader tokenization efforts of tradfi -> defi.

RT @realitywarp: it's actually fine that hyperEVM is still a ghost chain. people forget base started the same way until friendtech hyperEV…

Man I feel like I could write a novel about this poll. . . First, you have to break down the question. What do you mean by "easiest to rug", what do you mean by "rug"? One kind of "rugging" is outright fraud. Something like FTX. . .people literally stealing money, obvious crime, when audited etc. they just lie so there is basically no way to detect the crime before it is over. This is not so interesting--anyone can do this at any time. It usually gets caught, and gets heavily prosecuted. It doesn't matter how you are organized--fraud is fraud. One might say in general, putting everything onchain makes it less likely to happen and more likely to be detected if it does happen, because then you're asking the chain for information, and it doesn't lie, only people do. The more interesting thing is "legal rugs". Legal rugs can be harder or easier under different legal and governance structures. There is a reason why Delaware C-Corps were the favored venture investment vehicle before crypto (and still are outside of crypto). They impose *non-waivable* fiduciary duties of loyalty on management. Non-waivable means you don't have to read the fine print. They *always* apply. (Some of the lesser duties are waivable, exculpable...but not loyalty). Fiduciary duties have been described as requiring the exercise of "a punctilio of honor the most high." Your conduct can be completely legal in terms of regulation, etc., but you may still breach your fiduciary duty of loyalty to your stockholders--by self-dealing, misappropriating business opportunities, etc. Most kinds of "legal rugs" that are rampant in crypto--secretly siphoning off a promising new protocol to a separate foundation co etc. and not sharing it with prior investors--are breaches of fiduciary duty. DE courts are fast and competent--stockholders can sue and get recovery. Additionally, DE C-corps have various other non-waivable procedural protections (such as stockholder votes over various matters) and minority shareholder rights protections, such as appraisal rights in a merger. The strength here is the relative lack of flexibility--again, you don't have to read the fine print, you can't really get tricked, you are COVERED against any egregious wrongdoing, even if it does not constitute crime, fraud, or breach of a regulation. Foundations, by contrast (and even more mundane vehicles like LLCs) are highly customizable. Fiduciary duties may not even apply by default--when they do, they are waivable. The only non-waivable duty is often "the covenant of good faith and fair dealing" . You must read the goddamn fineprint--you must read and re-read it. Even after that, you should read it again. You can get rugged--probably a million ways, probably ways the team didn't even realize when they first set up the entity but may figure out later. It's really that bad. Of course, if responsible & ethical professionals set it up, it can be really strong, and can provide more fair/fine-tuned outcomes than a less flexible entity--but I'd say that's generally the exception. Now BORGs and DUNAs, this is a little bit of a different category. They could probably be done many different ways, we haven't seen many DUNAs yet, and most of the BORGs were, well, done by me = ). They're on a spectrum, but they should always involve at least some onchain elements--the more the better. In this case, there is a legal element of course, but also, there is a smart contract element. You must think about them like a DeFi protocol--assess upgradeability, onchain controls, even basic stuff like audits of the smart contract code. The legal part should come up for any logic that is not or cannot be embodied onchain--an example would be managing IP rights. On the legal part, there's no "BORG legal" per se--because you can use different entity types. You could use a DE nonstock corporation, you could use a Cayman foundation, you could use an LLC...so you just have to run that analysis. But hopefully, the legal matters much less because a great deal of logic is hardened onchain. In which event, rugs should be hard--like close to impossible. One BORG configuration we offer at MetaLeX is onchain rate-limitation on a multisig's spending combined with a 'deadman's switch' if the multisig just stops spending for too long (money reverts to DAO treasury). We can also give the DAO the power, either alone or in combination with some third party (say a "Supervisor" or an "Enforcer") to change multisig membership. You have to think through all the game theory of this both conceptually and technologically, but, again, in theory it should mean no rugs are feasible. You also have to think about "rug" from all perspectives BTW--the DAO can get rugged and that can be easy to protect against, but what about when the DAO tries to rug multisig signers (e.g., not fulfilling an indemnity clause)? What we want are fair deals, enforced onchain as rigorously as possible.

Playing poker over college worked out fine. Studying Spanish over French less so.