This is craazy. I asked one of our PhD engineers to look into NEAR *Confidential* Intents wondering how they designed their system. Unredacted, word-for-word, this was his answer 😱😱😱 "Everything I found out about the privacy claims and confidential intents is so bad that it seems almost comical and I cannot believe what I am seeing. Apparently they run a completely separate instance of the protocol, which is called FAR (as an opposite to NEAR), and that has a permissioned operator set. The entire confidentiality claim seems to rest upon the fact that it is a permissioned chain and the nodes are trusted to keep things private, there doesn't seem to be any deep technology behind it and it also does not seem to be open source. The entities running the nodes are also not publicly known. I almost feel weird writing this because it is so absurdly bad that it feels like ... I don't know ... a simulation? I know the usual level of overpromising in Web3 but this is so many levels beyond believable that it still feels unreal."

second run of the day live now runner.party/live Follow @runnerdotparty and t.me/runnerdotparty

what if every buy and sell was literally controlling a character in a game? imagine a runner moving forward on a track. every 8 seconds, the market decides whether it goes left or right. more tokens bought than sold? right. more sold than bought? left. the bigger the difference, the harder it steers. now put a fork in the road. left leads to buybacks and burns, right leads to holder rewards. whichever path the market pushes the character towards determines where part of the trading fees go. there are obstacles to avoid, prizes to collect, and a finish line to reach. the funny part is that nobody needs to open the game to play. as long as you're trading through the pool, you're already controlling the character alongside everyone else. built a little experiment around this. curious what happens when traders have something else to fight over besides the price.