Not every useful contribution ends with an onchain transaction. Sometimes, it prevents a bad one.
A clear explanation of collateral and liquidation risk can stop a new user from borrowing more than they understand. A practical guide can help someone use a protocol correctly instead of guessing.
The person creating that material may never generate a transaction themselves, but their work can still improve the quality of participation across an ecosystem.
That's a nuance I'd like @zerufinance to preserve as ActivityFi develops.
InfoFi showed the cost of treating attention as contribution. But moving toward onchain activity shouldn't make useful education invisible.
Better onchain participation often starts with better information.
🤝 Paid partnership
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
An activity can be valuable at one stage of a protocol's growth and less valuable at another.
Early on, a market may need liquidity to become usable. Later, simply adding more liquidity may matter less than keeping existing liquidity available and efficient. Borrowing can show demand, but higher borrowing volume alone doesn't tell us whether that demand is healthy.
This is the question I find interesting as @zerufinance develops ActivityFi:
Can incentives recognize what a protocol actually needs at a given stage, instead of treating every measurable action as equally valuable?
Protocols evolve, and the value of different contributions should be understood in that context.
🤝 Paid partnership
An activity can be valuable at one stage of a protocol's growth and less valuable at another.
Early on, a market may need liquidity to become usable. Later, simply adding more liquidity may matter less than keeping existing liquidity available and efficient. Borrowing can show demand, but higher borrowing volume alone doesn't tell us whether that demand is healthy.
This is the question I find interesting as @zerufinance develops ActivityFi:
Can incentives recognize what a protocol actually needs at a given stage, instead of treating every measurable action as equally valuable?
Protocols evolve, and the value of different contributions should be understood in that context.
🤝 Paid partnership
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
one thing that makes prediction markets more interesting is seeing how other people think about the same event.
with @Bagel_win, you can follow other predictors, share your own opinions, and join discussions around live markets.
it’s not just about picking yes or no. you can see different perspectives, discover interesting positions, and learn how others approach their predictions.
that social layer makes the whole experience more engaging. 🥯
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
This is the kind of detail that separates a tool from a toy.
19 launchpads on Elysium, and the bot identifies each one instantly. Names like Montra, Ascend, Volta most traders would have to manually search for these.
@Hypesium
When you paste a token and immediately know its origin, that is not just convenience. It is context. And context is what separates informed trades from blind gambles.
Most snipers treat every new contract the same. This one asks "where did this come from?" before you commit capital.
@Hypesium
🤝 Paid partnership
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
Onchain transactions can be real without representing independent participants.
That's the problem I think @zerufinance is trying to address with activity markets.
In its cupsey investigation, @bubblemaps described how linked wallets allegedly bought before a public call, attracted copy trader demand, then sold into it. The reported side wallet profits reached $1.7M.
This exposes an important gap: counting transactions isn't the same as identifying who is actually behind them.
Zaps has an interesting foundation for tackling this. Its zscore combines behavioral trust scoring, sybil detection and trade attribution, rather than looking at volume alone.
But the real test isn't how many wallets it can score. It's how accurately it can distinguish genuine participants from coordinated wallet clusters.
That's where activity markets will have to prove its value.
🤝 Paid partnership
The main issue with token launchpads: the community comes last.
Bundled buys, insider allocations, coordinated wallets and private selling. @bubblemaps alleges $1.7M in profits from side wallets selling into public trading attention.
Introducing Activity Markets: tokens spawned from onchain activity. Existing communities come first, and their activity shapes the market.
Registration link in the comments ↓
Onchain transactions can be real without representing independent participants.
That's the problem I think @zerufinance is trying to address with activity markets.
In its cupsey investigation, @bubblemaps described how linked wallets allegedly bought before a public call, attracted copy trader demand, then sold into it. The reported side wallet profits reached $1.7M.
This exposes an important gap: counting transactions isn't the same as identifying who is actually behind them.
Zaps has an interesting foundation for tackling this. Its zscore combines behavioral trust scoring, sybil detection and trade attribution, rather than looking at volume alone.
But the real test isn't how many wallets it can score. It's how accurately it can distinguish genuine participants from coordinated wallet clusters.
That's where activity markets will have to prove its value.
🤝 Paid partnership
The main issue with token launchpads: the community comes last.
Bundled buys, insider allocations, coordinated wallets and private selling. @bubblemaps alleges $1.7M in profits from side wallets selling into public trading attention.
Introducing Activity Markets: tokens spawned from onchain activity. Existing communities come first, and their activity shapes the market.
Registration link in the comments ↓
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
The money is not locked the moment you fund the bounty
on @vangrid_io you can get the reward back any time before u accept a submission.
if the deadline passes and you have accepted nothing, the reward is returned the same way.
the FAQ states both rules without a claim window or a support ticket
the return is automatic
that changes the risk of posting.
most bounty systems treat the funded amount as spent once the request is live.. here the acceptance is the point that closes the escrow
until then the requester can still walk away, and the deadline itself returns the money if no one is chosen.
the contributor still only gets paid when their submission is accepted
the two rules sit next to each other!
one protects the person who funded the brief, the other protects the person who walked the place.
🤝 Paid partnership
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
Giving a community a vote is easy. Making sure a few large accounts don't dominate it is much harder.
That's what caught my attention about @zerufinance's zETH name and art vote.
There's a distinction between proposing and voting: each x account gets one proposal, and submission requires registration and an x connection. Voting, meanwhile, is weighted by zaps rather than being a simple one account one vote system.
The reported square root weighting is particularly interesting. If one participant has 100x the zaps, their voting weight would be 10x, not 100x.
That reduces the gap, but doesn't eliminate it.
I like the attempt to give experienced contributors more influence, but there's a real trade off here: at what point does rewarding past participation turn into concentrating decision making power?
That's a more interesting test of community ownership than simply letting people vote.
🤝 Paid partnership
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
Remember when crypto was all about replacing banks?
@coinbase now has a federally chartered trust company in the US.
It's pretty remarkable how far things have come.
Crypto firms are increasingly becoming part of the financial system they once wanted to work around.
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
Good evening, fam
Giving an agent permission to trade also means deciding how much it can spend.
With @meetmotes , each Mote NFT is designed to have its own agent and smart account.
Two spending rules matter:
>> No more than $25 per trade.
>> No more than $100 in total during an approved session.
Four trades of $25 would use the full budget. A fifth trade would exceed the total limit, even though it stays within the individual trade limit.
These figures are only examples, but they show why both controls are important.
Motes also plans to let owners pause their agents and revoke access.
For me, giving an agent access to funds should never mean giving up control. You should always know how much it can spend and when to stop it.
🤝 Paid partnership
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
$10M is a strong opening move for @worldlibertyfi 👀
The first buyback marks an important moment for the $WLFI ecosystem,bringing real attention to how USD1 related economics could connect with token value.
But the bigger question
Is this just the beginning?
If a hypothetical $10M monthly pace ever became reality,that would mean $120M in annual buybacks.
Nothing about that schedule is confirmed yet,but the potential conversation around future buybacks is worth watching.
One execution,Bigger questions ahead
#WLFI #USD1
UPDATE: $WLFI buybacks are already live on Aster.
purchases are happening gradually, with the activity visible onchain.
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
I read the eligibility line first, because it does not negotiate.
Here it hides the game.
Points order the queue.
Nodes open the door.
Pre-Mainnet Staking pays one point per staked GEN per day, at one rate for all.
Seats split in proportion to points at the mainnet snapshot.
The door is one line from @GenLayer, a node on Clarke for at least 30 days.
Ten seats mean ten separate nodes at the same time.
Winners start as validators at mainnet, initially backed by Foundation GEN.
Your Clarke node becomes the node that keeps GenLayer working.
A seat promises a fee in GEN for every transaction it processes.
Staking pays the queue daily.
The node month pays only the door, thirty days wide.
So the question is not how much GEN you can stake.
It is how many machines you keep alive for a month.
A tenth seat asks for a tenth month.
Stakers and testnet runners, where does this path break first, in points or in the Clarke month?
One line is enough, and I read every reply.
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
Prediction markets are evolving beyond simple platforms where users speculate on future events. They are becoming another layer of the onchain financial ecosystem, creating opportunities for more advanced tools and automated strategies.
This is where @meetmotes is exploring a different approach.
Motes connects NFT ownership with dedicated AI Agents that can interact with prediction markets through @Polymarket.
These Agents are designed to analyze available markets, assess probabilities, identify potential opportunities and execute supported strategies based on the owner’s predefined instructions and risk limits.
The interesting part is that each Genesis NFT represents a separate Agent identity, giving its holder access to an AI-powered system rather than just another digital collectible.
As prediction markets expand, having intelligent agents capable of evaluating information and managing execution could change how participants approach them.
One NFT. One Agent. Multiple Markets.
@meetmotes
🤝 Paid partnership
Giving a community a vote is easy. Making sure a few large accounts don't dominate it is much harder.
That's what caught my attention about @zerufinance's zETH name and art vote.
There's a distinction between proposing and voting: each x account gets one proposal, and submission requires registration and an x connection. Voting, meanwhile, is weighted by zaps rather than being a simple one account one vote system.
The reported square root weighting is particularly interesting. If one participant has 100x the zaps, their voting weight would be 10x, not 100x.
That reduces the gap, but doesn't eliminate it.
I like the attempt to give experienced contributors more influence, but there's a real trade off here: at what point does rewarding past participation turn into concentrating decision making power?
That's a more interesting test of community ownership than simply letting people vote.
🤝 Paid partnership
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
What makes activity markets more interesting to me is that @zerufinance isn't limiting the idea to entire blockchains.
The docs also point to apps, communities and individual creators as potential markets.
But there's a catch: measuring activity isn't the same as measuring value. A swap is easy to verify onchain. Measuring the economic contribution of a creator or an entire community is a much harder problem.
Using the same scoring logic for all of them could miss what actually makes each economy valuable.
I think that's the real test for ActivityFi: can the model adapt to different economies instead of forcing them all into the same scoreboard?
🤝 Paid partnership
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
Most token launches decide who gets the supply before the community even arrives.
@zerufinance is taking a different approach with zETH.
Instead of prioritizing VCs or insiders, zETH brings real Ethereum activity into the allocation process through zScore.
Your onchain history becomes more than just data. It becomes a signal of trust and participation.
With Uniswap CCA handling price discovery, supply distribution is shaped by verified activity and market demand.
No traditional team allocation. No VC tranche. A different way to think about token launches.
The future of fair distribution could be built around what you've actually done onchain.
Keep an eye on @zerufinance. 👀
zaps.markets/?invite=ELp0U0r…
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
A Lamborghini Urus SE would be a pretty sweet surprise.
@1win is giving someone the chance to drive one home in just 7 days.
Would be a shame to miss the chance and see someone else win it. Might as well give it a shot.
🤖 Made with AI
Love is... Lucky Drive
love gets even better with a Lamborghini Urus SE
We’re giving it away on 1win in just 7 days
Try your luck: 1win-pro.app/freemoney
What makes activity markets more interesting to me is that @zerufinance isn't limiting the idea to entire blockchains.
The docs also point to apps, communities and individual creators as potential markets.
But there's a catch: measuring activity isn't the same as measuring value. A swap is easy to verify onchain. Measuring the economic contribution of a creator or an entire community is a much harder problem.
Using the same scoring logic for all of them could miss what actually makes each economy valuable.
I think that's the real test for ActivityFi: can the model adapt to different economies instead of forcing them all into the same scoreboard?
🤝 Paid partnership
𝗢𝗠𝗜𝗗 retweeted
Interesting shift happening with zETH by @zerufinance .
For years, ethereum activity was just history sitting in wallets trades, liquidity, borrowing, staking. Most of it never mattered beyond the moment it happened.
Now that same history is being used to rank miners and shape the actual supply of a new token.
Supply started at 1B.
It only decreases.
More real activity from participants = more burns.
The community is literally deciding how scarce zETH becomes.
It’s not perfect, and it’s still early, but the idea of rewarding real onchain contribution instead of pure capital or farming speed feels like a step in the right direction.
Checking my rank and staying in the race.
🤝 Paid partnership