Crypto Researcher on All Chains | L1, L2, L3 & Coin Expert.. building @Velvet_Capital
enjoy research? ⏎ Highlights
Joined June 2009
- Tweets38.6K
- Following2.1K
- Followers51.5K
- Likes95.4K
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
UNI has a new source of token burns, but whether that translates into a sustained bid for the token is a different question.
@Uniswap’s October 22 Aggregator Hooks launch allows v4 to route trades through external liquidity, including venues such as Curve, Fluid and PancakeSwap.
The key change is that swaps routed through these external sources pay Uniswap protocol fees, contributing to UNI burns.
That’s a more direct token-economic connection than simply announcing another product feature.
1. The protocol trade
Previously, capturing trading activity depended heavily on liquidity sitting within Uniswap’s own markets.
Now external liquidity can be wrapped as v4 pools, allowing Uniswap’s routing infrastructure to access competing venues while collecting protocol fees.
Seven external sources are supported at launch across Ethereum, Base and Robinhood Chain.
This potentially expands the volume that can contribute to UNI burns without requiring all the underlying liquidity to migrate onto Uniswap.
But access to liquidity and actual routed volume are two different numbers.
2. The token trade
A stronger protocol doesn’t automatically produce a stronger token chart.
The bullish setup would involve several things happening together:
➤ UNI outperforming ETH after the announcement, supported by expanding spot volume rather than derivatives alone.
➤ Open interest increasing alongside price without excessive funding, suggesting participation rather than an overcrowded leveraged chase.
➤ External routing producing measurable incremental fees and UNI burns, giving the repricing an economic basis.
The bearish setup is fairly straightforward.
UNI rallies on the announcement, OI expands, but spot participation fades and UNI/ETH fails to sustain relative strength.
That’s the kind of reaction where a legitimate product improvement becomes an opportunity for existing holders to distribute into event-driven demand.
3. The structural question
Uniswap is effectively expanding from competing primarily for liquidity provision to competing for order flow across a wider liquidity network.
If traders consistently receive better execution through its routing infrastructure, more activity can pass through Uniswap even when another venue supplies the liquidity.
But there’s no guarantee that better routing immediately creates enough incremental protocol fees to materially change UNI’s supply dynamics.
The economics depend on actual routing volume, fee capture and the resulting burns.
And competitors can respond through pricing, liquidity incentives or improvements to their own routing.
Conclusion
Constructive on the protocol development, but I wouldn’t automatically translate that into a bullish UNI position.
The cleaner confirmation is UNI outperforming ETH with genuine spot demand, followed by evidence that external routing is contributing meaningful fees.
A product upgrade can be real while the initial token rally is still a crowded trade.
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
Apart from it's novel d(3,3) model, the biggest value proposition of @namidefi lies in its positioning as an all-in-one liquidity + yield coordination layer across chains.
Why so?
Rather than building isolated DeFi products, Nami's Omni Layer connects the entire user journey:
🔸 OmniSwap → Aggregates 16 providers for optimised same-chain + cross-chain execution, alongside MultiSwap.
🔸 OmniDeposit + OmniShift → Simplifies LP creation + migration across chains, allowing capital to follow better yield opportunities w/o the usual bridging + rebalancing complexities.
🔸 OmniGauge → Aggregates liquidity incentives across chains into unified markets, enabling veNAMI holders to vote once across multiple networks.
🔸 Nami Relayer → Automates voting, reward collection + reinvestment strategies.
imo the bigger picture is how these products reinforce one another.
More efficient execution + mobile liquidity enables deeper markets + trading activity → greater fee generation → stronger incentives for veNAMI voters + ogNAMI stakers.
Coupled with d(3,3)'s adaptive emissions, Nami is essentially building a multichain liquidity economy where capital efficiency, user experience + token value accrual are interconnected.
The interesting part isn't any single feature, but how the entire stack could compound adoption + economic activity across the ecosystem.
Worth a read 👇
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
Most people who want privacy in crypto never use a privacy tool, and the reason has little to do with privacy.
Every option so far made you either set up a brand new wallet or give your keys to software you’d never checked, and hardware wallets like Ledger also fails to protect your data.
The people with the most to protect, anyone keeping serious money on a hardware wallet, were the ones shut out.
@nullmaskio $MASK fixes this, but how?
For a user, that means 4 things 👇
1) You keep using the wallet you trust, hardware wallets included (no new recovery phrase to write down and nothing to move)
2) You can swap tokens privately on the same exchanges you already know (@Uniswap on Ethereum, @aeroxyz on Base, @PancakeSwap on BNB Chain) and move money between chains through @near_intents
3) Every deposit gets checked by AMLBot before it enters the pool. That keeps out obviously dirty money, so your withdrawal is less likely to get mixed up with someone else’s problems.
4) Withdrawing earns points until mid-Jan: 1 point for every $10 you take out, with a $100 minimum, and up to 1.5x more if you use the Big Wave batching option. At the end, points turn into $MASK tokens from a 100M pool, which is 10% of all $MASK.
Privacy does cost something. Nullmask takes 0.5% when you put money in and another 0.5% when you take it out, so a full round trip costs about 1%.
Yet people are paying it anyway.
If you hold $MASK, look past the big revenue numbers:
> $1.01M in total revenue, with $748K of that is $ZEC sent to the team’s wallet, so it isn’t money earned from people using the privacy pool
> Actual users paying the 0.5% fee = $265.9K
> Holders have been paid $1.6M in ZEC so far (1,384 ZEC), and 2.36% of all $MASK has been permanently destroyed, which leaves fewer tokens around.
Holders have received about 6x more than the pool has earned in fees. Those rewards come from how the token itself is set up, so the pool needs to get much busier before the fees alone could pay that much.
This is only 3 weeks old, which isn’t much history to judge anything on but seems like it has good potential to ride on the privacy narrative.
The next month will show how much real demand/incentives-driven usage there are.
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
6 major DeFi protocols changed holder allocation, buybacks or burns in the last 12M.
@Uniswap
@aave
@LidoFinance
@maplefinance
@ether_fi
@ethena
We are seeing credible holder returns eventually becoming a competitive weapon. If customers get similar products, but one token offers a dependable share of the economics, rivals have to justify why theirs doesn’t and the strongest earners will force the whole sector to improve its terms.
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
Borrowing against your ETH instead of selling sounds like a pretty good deal until you actually run the numbers.
Say you have $10K in ETH and need $5K in cash.
You can either sell half your ETH or borrow $5K USDC against the entire position.
Borrowing lets you keep all your ETH exposure, which sounds great if you’re bullish. But you’re also paying interest to stay exposed, and that changes the trade considerably.
Aave’s USDC borrow rate on Ethereum was 12.86% on October 19, down from 14.10% four days earlier. Meanwhile, a separate ETH-backed Morpho market was quoted around 5% on October 17.
At 12.86%, borrowing $5K for 90 days costs roughly $159 in interest, assuming the rate stays constant.
Now assume you have another $5K available after those 90 days to either repay the loan or buy back ETH.
Here’s how borrowing compares with selling:
➤ ETH drops 30%: Borrowing leaves you $1,659 worse off.
➤ ETH drops 10%: You’re $659 worse off.
➤ ETH stays flat: You’re still $159 worse off.
➤ ETH rises 10%: Borrowing puts you $341 ahead.
➤ ETH rises 30%: You’re $1,341 ahead.
So ETH needs to appreciate roughly 3.2% over those 90 days just to cover the borrowing cost.
And that’s before taxes, transaction costs, or changes in interest rates.
But there’s a bigger problem with this trade.
You’re borrowing $5K against $10K in collateral, meaning you’re starting at 50% LTV.
If ETH sells off hard enough, your position can get liquidated before the market recovers. Someone who sold half their ETH doesn’t have that problem.
That’s what makes borrowing against crypto different from simply holding it.
You’re effectively paying to maintain additional ETH exposure while introducing a price level where your lender can force you out of the position.
If ETH rallies, keeping that exposure can work out nicely. If ETH chops sideways, you’re paying interest for nothing. And if ETH dumps, you can lose more than someone who just sold.
Think a lot of people underestimate this when they talk about borrowing against their crypto instead of selling.
Keeping your ETH isn’t automatically the better trade. Sometimes you’re just paying 13% annualized to avoid making a sale.
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
1|7 As a quantum project, you're either building in one of these categories:
• quantum chain (L1/L2)
• privacy going post-quantum
• quantum as plug-in
• wallet/ security infra
• quantum computing
Or you're just simply quantum branded.
I've curated the top quantum coins that are worth watching this cycle👇
Quantum Tier List (2026)
Everyone says their chain is quantum ready but only a few can prove it.
👇 I ranked 34 "quantum" projects including the 28 on @Mars_DeFi's list based on
• quantum safety
• upgradability
• testnet/mainnet
• age + size
• privacy feature
S
.@QRLedger - every wallet has used XMSS feature, a hash-based signature quantum computers can't crack, it has been live since 2018, with multiple audits.
A
.@QuantusNetwork - uses quantum-safe ML-DSA signatures by default, but mainnet only launched this September.
.Abelian - quantum-safe lattice signatures since 2022, but its own custom design haa no public crypto audit.
.@tidecoin - uses Falcon, a quantum-safe signature, on every transaction since 2020, but it's a tiny network.
.@cellframenet wallets use Dilithium, a quantum-safe signature, by default, but adoption is small.
.@QoreChain - every transaction needs a quantum-safe ML-DSA signature, but mainnet only went live in June this year.
.@NeptunePrivacy - spending uses hash-based proofs, but it's a young chain.
.@NEARProtocol - quantum-safe ML-DSA keys are live since Jul 2026, and you can switch your account to them anytime.
.@Algorand - quantum-safe Falcon accounts are live since Aug 2026, and you can move an existing wallet over.
B
.@Starknet - its proofs are quantum-safe, but your wallet keys aren't yet, and the safe wallet is just a demo.
.@solana - an outside team built a quantum-safe vault you can opt into, the chain itself isn't quantum safe.
.@NervosNetwork - an optional quantum-safe lock exists, but you have to move funds into it.
.@trondao - quantum-safe Falcon and ML-DSA keys are being tested on its testnet.
.@tezos - testing quantum-safe ML-DSA accounts on a special testnet.
.@QANplatform - is integrating quantum-safe Dilithium signatures, but still on testnet only.
.@quipnetwork - building earky stage quantum-safe accounts for coins on other chains, still on testnet.
.@Aptos - its quantum-safe SLH-DSA accounts are coded but still waiting for a governance vote to switch it on.
.@SuiNetwork - made its first quantum-safe transaction on a dev network this month, and mainnet is targeted for 2027.
.@Tensorcash - you can create quantum-safe ML-DSA addresses, but it's a small, new network.
.Bitcoin BIP-360, a proposal for quantum-safe addresses, is still a draft
C
.@ethereum - still researching quantum-safe upgrades, most likely years away.
.@zksync - its proofs are quantum-safe, but user accounts aren't.
.@Zcash - plans for quantum-safe signatures, but nothing shipped yet.
.Qoneqt - claims a quantum-safe vault, but can't verify anything yet.
.@injective - said last week it started building toward a quantum future, but no details yet.
.@monad - quantum-safe keys are still on their roadmap.
.@aztecnetwork no quantum plan or anything substantial published yet but Mars included it in his list
.@mindnetwork_xyz - focuses on encryption, not quantum-safe signatures but seems they frame that as quantum
.@NexusMutual - security-focused imo, no quantum plan
.@Qubic - quantum-themed only, maybe to join the hype, but little real quantum-safe tech.
.@GeeqOfficial - only security claims, no quantum details
.AME Chain - claims to be quantum-secure, little public proof
.QuStream - quantum claims, little public detail
Bottom line:
Most of crypto still runs on keys a quantum computer could break. Only one project here clears every bar today and that's @QRLedger.
But there's room for growth and tech like this would take years to perfect👌
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
Tokenized stocks are starting to reveal a pretty big gap between how many assets a platform lists and how much capital it actually attracts.
Everyone’s focused on how many assets are being brought onchain, but the capital distribution tells a different story.
The numbers make that pretty clear:
➤ @bstocksfinance: $1.2B across 95 assets
➤ @Ondo: $875M across 408 assets
➤ @xStocksFi: $582M across 1,458 assets
So bStocks has roughly 2x the asset value of xStocks with 15x fewer listings.
That’s a pretty significant difference.
I think people underestimate how much of tokenization is actually a distribution problem.
Putting 1,000 stocks onchain is one thing. Getting people to hold them, making those products accessible, and building the infrastructure around them is something else entirely.
And there’s a distinction between having more assets available and having more capital allocated to those assets.
Obviously these platforms have different issuance structures, so asset value alone doesn’t tell us who’s generating more trading activity or has better liquidity.
But I think the broader point stands.
We’ve spent years talking about how everything will eventually be tokenized.
The real question now is who actually captures the capital once that happens.
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
Top DeFi news to pay attention to this week 🧠
1. @aeroxyz unifies Aerodrome and Velodrome on Oct 22. Aero launches across Base, Ethereum, OP Mainnet, Arc, Ink, Robinhood Chain and Arbitrum. AERO converts 1:1; VELO at roughly 0.044 AERO.
2. @fablesfi TGE on Oct 20, the Robinhood Chain DEX launches $FABLES with ve(3,3) voting, staking and emissions. Airdrop claims open at TGE.
3. @fhenix's confidential computing launches on mainnet on Oct 21.
4. @Kinetiq_xyz's Elysium approaches mainnet. The Hyperliquid L2 targets Oct 20, subject to the governance outcome. It settles to HyperEVM and uses HYPE for gas.
5. @Lighter_xyz is expanding beyond perps with an upcoming options product. Investor Q3 call is on Oct 21.
6. @infiniFi unveils $INFI. Tokenomics are out, with 45% allocated to the ecosystem, including a community airdrop. TGE is coming soon.
7. @StandX_Official cancelled its token launch and will distribute DUSD instead. Trading switches to reduce-only on Oct 20. Allocation checker: Oct 26. Claims: Nov 1, with no lockup.
8. @jumperapp opens a trading campaign this week for 2,500 waitlist traders and the top 2,500 Jumper Pass users. $JUMP incentives and up to $232K USDC in weekly rewards.
9. @Starknet voting on whether to research becoming an independent, post-quantum L1 ends on Oct 22.
10. @osmosis's proposal to stop new $OSMO issuance and fund staking rewards from protocol revenue opens for voting on Oct 20. At the current burn rate, roughly 2% of supply would burn annually without new minting to offset it.
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
Think one of the bigger developments for onchain trading is that institutions might end up using these markets without ever touching the actual exchange.
Ripple Prime now offers institutional RWA swaps referencing Tradexyz perpetual futures on Hyperliquid.
That’s 100+ markets covering equities, ETFs, metals, energy and FX.
Virtu is already among the clients using the product.
But I don’t think the number of markets is the biggest part of this.
It’s how the distribution works.
Institutions aren’t necessarily going directly to Hyperliquid.
They’re dealing with Ripple Prime, which acts as principal, while the underlying exposure references contracts listed on Hyperliquid.
So you effectively have:
➤ @Ripple Prime: Institutional relationships, access and brokerage infrastructure.
➤ @tradexyz: Perpetual futures markets on Hyperliquid.
➤ @HyperliquidX: The underlying onchain trading venue.
And I think this is a much more realistic route to institutional adoption than expecting traditional funds to suddenly start connecting wallets.
These firms already have prime brokers.
They already have collateral arrangements, counterparty relationships and trading workflows.
There’s little reason to rebuild all of that when an existing intermediary can provide access.
The distribution already exists. Onchain markets are being plugged into it.
Now, there’s an important distinction.
An institution taking $100M in swap exposure through Ripple Prime doesn’t automatically create $100M in Hyperliquid volume.
Actual exchange activity depends on how Ripple Prime manages and hedges that exposure.
So I’d separate three things:
➤ Institutional exposure referencing Hyperliquid markets.
➤ Actual trading and hedging volume reaching the venue.
➤ Fees Hyperliquid captures from that activity.
Those numbers won’t necessarily move together.
But the broader opportunity is pretty clear.
If more prime brokers start offering products around onchain derivatives, Hyperliquid gets access to institutional distribution without needing to acquire every customer directly.
And that changes the competitive dynamic.
Instead of competing only for traders, onchain exchanges can compete to become the markets financial intermediaries build products around.
Hyperliquid doesn’t need every institution to become its customer. It needs its markets to become part of the infrastructure institutions already use.
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
Quantum Tier List (2026)
Everyone says their chain is quantum ready but only a few can prove it.
👇 I ranked 34 "quantum" projects including the 28 on @Mars_DeFi's list based on
• quantum safety
• upgradability
• testnet/mainnet
• age + size
• privacy feature
S
.@QRLedger - every wallet has used XMSS feature, a hash-based signature quantum computers can't crack, it has been live since 2018, with multiple audits.
A
.@QuantusNetwork - uses quantum-safe ML-DSA signatures by default, but mainnet only launched this September.
.Abelian - quantum-safe lattice signatures since 2022, but its own custom design haa no public crypto audit.
.@tidecoin - uses Falcon, a quantum-safe signature, on every transaction since 2020, but it's a tiny network.
.@cellframenet wallets use Dilithium, a quantum-safe signature, by default, but adoption is small.
.@QoreChain - every transaction needs a quantum-safe ML-DSA signature, but mainnet only went live in June this year.
.@NeptunePrivacy - spending uses hash-based proofs, but it's a young chain.
.@NEARProtocol - quantum-safe ML-DSA keys are live since Jul 2026, and you can switch your account to them anytime.
.@Algorand - quantum-safe Falcon accounts are live since Aug 2026, and you can move an existing wallet over.
B
.@Starknet - its proofs are quantum-safe, but your wallet keys aren't yet, and the safe wallet is just a demo.
.@solana - an outside team built a quantum-safe vault you can opt into, the chain itself isn't quantum safe.
.@NervosNetwork - an optional quantum-safe lock exists, but you have to move funds into it.
.@trondao - quantum-safe Falcon and ML-DSA keys are being tested on its testnet.
.@tezos - testing quantum-safe ML-DSA accounts on a special testnet.
.@QANplatform - is integrating quantum-safe Dilithium signatures, but still on testnet only.
.@quipnetwork - building earky stage quantum-safe accounts for coins on other chains, still on testnet.
.@Aptos - its quantum-safe SLH-DSA accounts are coded but still waiting for a governance vote to switch it on.
.@SuiNetwork - made its first quantum-safe transaction on a dev network this month, and mainnet is targeted for 2027.
.@Tensorcash - you can create quantum-safe ML-DSA addresses, but it's a small, new network.
.Bitcoin BIP-360, a proposal for quantum-safe addresses, is still a draft
C
.@ethereum - still researching quantum-safe upgrades, most likely years away.
.@zksync - its proofs are quantum-safe, but user accounts aren't.
.@Zcash - plans for quantum-safe signatures, but nothing shipped yet.
.Qoneqt - claims a quantum-safe vault, but can't verify anything yet.
.@injective - said last week it started building toward a quantum future, but no details yet.
.@monad - quantum-safe keys are still on their roadmap.
.@aztecnetwork no quantum plan or anything substantial published yet but Mars included it in his list
.@mindnetwork_xyz - focuses on encryption, not quantum-safe signatures but seems they frame that as quantum
.@NexusMutual - security-focused imo, no quantum plan
.@Qubic - quantum-themed only, maybe to join the hype, but little real quantum-safe tech.
.@GeeqOfficial - only security claims, no quantum details
.AME Chain - claims to be quantum-secure, little public proof
.QuStream - quantum claims, little public detail
Bottom line:
Most of crypto still runs on keys a quantum computer could break. Only one project here clears every bar today and that's @QRLedger.
But there's room for growth and tech like this would take years to perfect👌
Free Crypto Transactions Tier List 2026
Ranked by real cost removed for users, repeatability, accessibility and networks covered.
Bookmark for later ↓↓
1| @OneKeyHQ - free transfers and in-wallet swaps on select tokens on Ethereum, Arbitrum, BNB Chain, Polygon, Base & Tron
➥ Up to 10 free trxns/day on any of the above chains and 1 trxn/day on Tron
2| @TokenPocket_TP - free token transfers on BNB, Polygon, Solana & Tron
➥ BNB; 2/day for USDT & unlimited for USD1, Polygon; 2/day for USDC, Solana; 3 SPL trsf/day (USDC, USDT, BONK, JUP except SOL)
3| OKX @wallet - free transfers on @XLayerOfficial for USDT & USDC only
4| @TrustWallet + @Backpack - free stablecoin transfers on @Plasma
5| @Stable - free USDT P2P transfers on @stablechain
6| @worldnetwork - free trxns on supported tokens @world_chain_ including stablecoins
7| @SuiNetwork - free P2P transfers on Sui
➥ Supported tokens are: USDC, USDsui, SuiUSDe, AUSD, FDUSD, USDB, USDY, with a minimum approx 0.01 token
8| @BitgetWallet - only first USDT transfer on Tron is free, later transfers are discounted
9| @fusewallet - Free sponsored transactions on Solana
➥ Free tier includes 5 trxns/month; further sponsorship requires Fuse+ subscription
10| @Rabby_io - 0% Rabby swap fee across 40+ chains
➥ Other fees like gas, dex fees and bridge fees may still apply.
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
Private money is only one use case.
@Starknet’s VP of Growth @thedamooo on what programmable privacy enables in the age of Zcash.
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
Why should buying and selling an asset cost the same when both trades expose liquidity providers to different risks?
That’s an assumption AMMs have operated with for years.
Now @Uniswap is experimenting with an ETH/USDC pool that charges different fees depending on trade direction.
The idea sounds simple until you look at what happens to LP inventory.
When traders buy ETH, the pool loses ETH and receives USDC.
When traders sell ETH, the pool gains ETH and gives up USDC.
Both directions generate fees, but the associated inventory risks aren’t necessarily equal.
Imagine ETH is rallying aggressively.
Arbitrageurs buy ETH from the pool before its price fully adjusts to external markets.
LPs earn trading fees, but they’re effectively selling ETH below its prevailing market value.
That difference creates adverse selection.
Directional fees attempt to price that risk differently.
➤ LPs: Higher fees on riskier trades could offset adverse selection and improve net returns.
➤ Arbitrageurs: Higher directional fees increase the price discrepancy required to make arbitrage profitable.
➤ Traders: More expensive execution can push order flow toward competing pools.
The arbitrage implications are particularly important.
AMMs depend on arbitrageurs to keep their prices aligned with external markets.
If buying ETH becomes more expensive, arbitrageurs need a larger price difference before correcting the pool.
That can leave prices further from external markets for longer.
So higher fees don’t automatically translate into better LP economics.
A pool might collect more per trade while losing enough volume to reduce total fee income.
The relevant comparison is whether additional fees compensate for adverse selection, inventory exposure and lost trading activity.
I’d evaluate the experiment across four metrics:
➤ Net LP returns after adverse selection
➤ Execution costs versus symmetric-fee pools
➤ Arbitrage frequency and price deviations
➤ Trading volume and liquidity retention
● My Take
AMMs have spent years optimizing where liquidity sits.
Uniswap is now testing whether the cost of accessing that liquidity should depend on trade direction.
The real question is whether directional fees improve LP returns enough to justify higher execution costs and potentially slower price alignment.
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
the strangest company i've looked into this year has no staff.
one click on @hmalviya9's post on new token designs and I ended up 3hrs deep in a company run by a swarm of 2000 agents.
i didn't understand IMD at first till i read every post @surfcoderepeat wrote this week.
to that effect, i made an extensive report on all my findings on IMD, and also mapped the agents workflows + the apps building inside it.
lock in (cause this is an extensive read, but worth it) ↓↓
_____________
when Hitesh said Ethereum was the land of new token design experiments, he was referring to crypto systems run fully by agents.
and ethereum is a useful home for this kind of experimentation because it supplies:
> composable contracts
> Uniswap v4 hooks
> shared asset and agent identity layer via erc-8004
> and public records of agentic deployments + trxns.
you see, IMD uses those pieces to make agent-produced software and agent-supplied answers available as a service.
Adam built it as a multi-chain system where its workers and orchestration run off-chain.
➥ what IMD is
IMD (Identity.md) is a network of AI agents you pay to do work.
they basicaly write and audit contracts, build sites, do research, launch tokens and answer oracle questions.
there are 2,000 identity.md NFTs, and each one is a worker seat.
a holder runs the worker on their own Claude or Codex sub, and each seat is registered as an agent on ERC-8004 - Ethereum's on-chain registry for agent identity and reputation.
which is why @8004_scan's list is mostly "IdentityMD #…" entries.
every interaction with an imd agent costs 0.5 $IMD and a the flow looks something like this:
> one agent builds
> other seats review it
> a verifier re-runs the result, then counts.
Adam's (@surfcoderepeat) goal is to end up with a company 100% managed by a network of distributed agents (xitter.cf/surfcoderepeat/status/…).
➥ now, to the new token design.
every coin the swarm launches has a fixed 1B supply.
> 10% goes to the agents
> 90% to whoever paid for the launch, seeded into a pool paired with $ETH or $IMD.
pool fees are 1.25%:
> 1% to the payer
> 0.25% to the network.
so the agents own a piece of what they build, and every imd-paired launch adds buying demand for $IMD.
➥ ecosystem + token numbers
imd itself started in 2023 as @frenpetonbase but was later renamed, and bridged to Ethereum and Robinhood in May this year.
imd has:
> 753 workers connected
> 884 launches
> 1,526 paid requests
> and 7,081 of 7,275 oracle questions answered.
$IMD is at $9.02 with a market cap of about $37M and $2.69M in liquidity. there's 4,018 holders on Ethereum (cc: @blockscout).
there are always between 500 - 700 agents online at a time (cc: @nftgothsa, @IMDTools).
➥ the system powering the apps
1. IMD control plane and explorer
this is imd's front desk where you place an order for
> a jor or a follow up to an earlier one
> a token launch
> a smart contract that comes with its on website
> an oracle question, where agents agre on the answer
> or a task that repeats on schedule.
meanwhile the record book is the explorer where anyone can look up the activity publicly.
2. identity.md seats and ERC-8004
one of 2,000 identity.md NFTs is a worker seat. a holder can activate the nft by pairing a device and binding the seat to an ERC-8004 agent identity. then the daemon runs tasks with the holder's existing AI subscription.
3. $IMD
this is the payment and ecosystem pair asset. it began as Fren Pet's solana:FP111dxqjLRqtuoknQ8L6aaZjqqyFRT6FcAnaCPytJ3 on Base, was renamed, and bridged 1:1 across Base, Ethereum and Robinhood. it has a lifetime supply of 10 million tokens.
4. POOL4
this is a trading pool for IMD/ETH on Uniswap v4. a built-in rule called hook stops the pool from piling up too much IMD above its cap.
85% of the trimmed IMDs are burned while 15% is divided among sIMD staking (4.5%), an orchestrator bonding reserve (6%), and a future inference-node reserve (4.5%).
the beauty of this is that selling pressure is turned mostly to burns and rewards for stakers.
5. launch and oracle rails
this part covers the 2 big things imd's agents can do for you.
a- the agents can deploy contracts/tokens on Sepolia, Ethereum mainnet and Robinhood Chain.
b- you can ask a question and a panel of agents answers it, and you get back a signed reciept that a smart contract can check. that reciept is the EIP-712 attestation.
the contract reads the answers in 2 ways:
> typed answer - means the answer comes in a fixed format (like yes/no, a number, or a data) so the contract can read it without guessing.
> pinned blocks - if the answer depends on, let's say, onchain data, the steps to check it are saved and pinned to a specific block so anyone can rerun the steps and get same results.
➥ what people are building on imd
.@IdentityUnits has 787 NFTs, each drawn by one agent and reviewed by another; its $UNIT token isn't live yet
.@Briefs_fun is an AI-jury court game on testnet
.@Pepesdotfamily is a Robinhood launchpad that pairs every token with IMD (built by @TradingTenang)
.@ZTO_ETH was the swarm's first mainnet coin, built and audited in 14 minutes
.@PersonalityETH ($PMD) designs virtual influencers.
.@tungweb3 built EmberEVO, a 3D town where each agent is a house
.@imd_offset buys carbon credits for the swarm's compute
.@imdradar keeps the verified projects list
.@IMD6900 makes on-chain pixel Pepes
.@swarmpepes is an airdropped collection
.@EVAIMD sells pilot NFTs with AI assistants
.@HIVE_imd spends 6.5% of each trade on identity.md seats and workers earn IMD, while the income is distributed to $HIVE stakers.
.@SuperIMD_eth pays 50% of job costs funded by trading fees from SIMD/IMD
.@CompoundedApe hosts worker LLMs for seat owners
.@pepe2pepe_fun runs p2p bets (built by @dani_who_daniel)
.@imdusd / @yadfarms are building $imdUSD, a stablecoin borrowed against $sIMD and priced by agent panels
.@Briefs_fun is an AI-jury court game on testnet
.@Pepesdotfamily is a Robinhood launchpad that pairs every token with IMD (built by @TradingTenang)
.@PersonalityETH ($PMD) designs virtual influencers.
.@tungweb3 built EmberEVO, a 3D live visualization of agents working and the IMD market
.@imd_offset buys carbon credits for the swarm's compute
.@imdradar keeps the verified projects list
.@8004_scan is the agent explorer
.@taylor_ builds the explorer and the seats marketplace
.Fake World Assets by @Rhynotic.
.Pepes earn IMD is a PepesFamily extension tying each $EARN token to a liquid on-chain Pepe NFT
.communitycoins(.)imd is an IMD-paired token launchpad
.IMD Terminal a dashboard showing POOL4 burns, staking, fee and market. managed by @0xfinne
.identity.md reader a block-pinned reader of messages, supply and burns
.Swarm Ledger is a read-only wallet/seat view of allocations, claims, seat work and rank
➥ my read
i find the entire imd concept and ecosystem intriguing. the novel part is the composition:
> paid agent work networks, agent identities, readable oracles, and the token economics.
> Identity Units and imdUSD are the more ambitious product ideas.
what i'm watching is how oracle-dependent apps safely handle wrong or missing answers. i believe that would be a complete evidence for Adam's agent-managed companies thesis than token count, burns or rapidly changing market caps.
yours till the next experiment,
tradeguru.
IMD is a protocol to create net new 0 to 1 financial applications, a distributed software factory and oracle managed by agents providing inference 24/7 while running the IMD daemon
The final goal is to create companies 100% managed by a network of distributed agents
xitter.cf/pegzeus/status/2105396…
here are some of the thing the community is working on👇
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
I’m more interested in AI tools that help traders keep their profits than those promising bigger returns.
Arbitrage is a good example.
You can spot the right price difference, execute correctly, and still make less than expected because of fees.
That’s what @ArbitronApp’s new AI integration helps address.
I covered Arbitron previously, but this update takes things further.
xitter.cf/thedefiplug/status/208…
Their SOL example shows why:
➤ AI reviews the strategy and market conditions.
➤ Fees are eating over half the returns.
➤ Adjusting when trades close could improve profitability.
The strategy wasn’t necessarily bad. Too much profit was disappearing during execution.
You can now review strategies through ChatGPT, Claude, or Cursor without giving AI permission to trade.
I think that’s a more practical use of AI.
Finding profitable trades is useful. Understanding why you’re keeping so little of the profit is just as important.
One thing I don’t compromise on with trading tools:
Control over my capital.
That’s why @ArbitronApp’s setup is different from what I expected.
➤ Funds stay on your own exchange accounts.
➤ API keys are trade-only.
➤ No deposits into a third-party wallet.
The platform simply connects to your existing exchange accounts and executes market-neutral arbitrage when pricing differences appear across supported venues.
On top of that, it includes:
➤ 21 exchange integrations, including Binance, Bybit, OKX and Hyperliquid.
➤ Four built-in arbitrage and funding scanners.
➤ Telegram notifications for trades and opportunities.
It feels less like handing your capital to another platform and more like adding an execution layer to exchanges you already use.
If you’re already trading perpetuals, it’s worth exploring how it works at arbitron.app.
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
$STRK +79% in 7 days.
Everyone’s looking for the quantum-resistant trade, and this is the one that actually moved.
AI breaks ECDSA headlines hit, money rotates, chart goes vertical.
$BTC staking, privacy narrative, and now the quantum narrative is live.
The market already picked its ticker and isn’t asking questions.
THEDEFIPLUG retweeted
Robinhood Chain launchpads deployed close to 40,000 tokens on a single day in early September, and now the count is ~3,500.
Circling back after a few weeks, the speculative side of @RobinhoodCrypto chain has gone quiet, and the tokens that led the August run have given most of it back:
From ATHs:
> $PONS: -63%
> $AI: -74%
> $CASHCAT: -60%
Some macro view on the state of RHC:
> Daily contract creations have fallen from peaks above 130k to roughly 26k
> Spot DEX volume printed about $2.95B in early September and has spent the last few days between $540M and $830M, which puts it back inside its July and August range
> The sharpest drop is in stock token volume, which went from $1.2B on its peak day to around $20M a day now
> Protocol TVL is up 6.7% over 30 days to $1.15B, stablecoin supply is up 2.5% to $1.2B, and lending makes up 53% of TVL
I believe a meaningful share of tokenised equity activity was memestock flow. $AI built its main market around tokenised NVDA as the quote asset, and when the memes cooled the equity numbers cooled with them.
What speculation remains on $PONS has moved to CEX perps, where open interest sits at $214M against a $241M market cap.
All summer, Robinhood Chain looked like a memecoin casino with a brokerage attached. The casino is quiet now, but I wouldn’t bet on it staying that way.
Robinhood has more riding on this chain than any launchpad or meme does - it controls both the app and the chain has levers nobody else has, and I don’t see Vlad letting RHC fade into a quiet lending venue.
IMO the setup for a second leg is already in place → $1.2B in stablecoins parked on-chain, and a lending base on $MORPHO that kept growing through the cooldown.
