Don’t have $500m? @FluxRPC provides more performant, fresher data than any other provider Get ahead of the pack without the crazy barriers to entry for “priority RPC”

Comparing costs from different RPC providers vs @FluxRPC Same workload, every provider. → 100 RPS → 535 GB bandwidth → 700M compute units → 52M – 25B credits (depending on each provider's credit math) Flux RPC saves you $240 to $2,800 vs the rest. Same workload. Lower bill.

Raydium is aware of an exploit involving unauthorized removal of liquidity from its legacy AMM V3 program which was previously phased out in 2021. No current users of Raydium are affected by this exploit or would have been able to interact with these pools through the UI since their deprecation. Raydium’s SDK and DAPP do not support mainnet interactions with legacy AMM V3 pools. The exploiter’s address is: 4WnPebowR4HHfumvNPaDjG6Pa5Hi1jxLm6xmmBq33QVk There were 5 pools affected: Sollet USDT - RAY Sollet ETH - RAY SRM - RAY USDC - RAY RAY - SOL An initial review of exploited assets of value are: ~150,177 RAY ~5,603 SOL ~893,700 USDC The market value of assets exploited is ~$1.34m. Full compensation will be handled by Raydium’s treasury. Legacy AMM V3 was previously only enabled to use deposited funds to place orders on the Serum order book. The program did not provide swap functionality and following the deprecation of Serum, the associated liquidity remained idle. For proportion checks, the program relied on the LP token supply. The vulnerability stemmed from insufficient validation of the LP mint. Because the program did not properly verify the LP mint address, an attacker was able to create a new mint and use it as the LP token, bypassing the intended proportion checks. By contrast, all other Raydium mainnet programs use a virtual supply mechanism for proportion checks and correctly verify the LP mint along with all other relevant account information, preventing this class of vulnerability. It is important to note that the vulnerability was caused by a self-contained logic flaw, not a key compromise or authority-level issue, so there is no propagation risk. Raydium's current programs are unaffected by this exploit. @Raydium core contributors are conducting a security review on all mainnet programs.

Picking a Solana RPC provider is a mess! And it's the billing, not just the tech. - Some bill credits, compute units, or per request. - Others require deposits & charge per call premiums. - They all mark up or restrict heavy calls in some way. - Most restrict gRPC/Streaming. You can never line up two quotes and know which is actually cheaper, because they don't want you to. So I built a matrix that runs them all on the same customizable workloads: Example - 10.85M calls/credits - 243.62 GB on the wire ~109M compute units Same data. Same @Solana. Wildly different bills. In the video I toggle streaming gRPC on and off and cycle through a few RPS tiers. The competitors trade places. @FluxRPC stays cheapest across all of them.

Building anything with streaming? @FluxRPC is the obvious call. Month 1: $15. Month 2 onward: $38/mo. Other RPCs charge $499 or demand a big pre-pay just to get in the door. With Flux you're streaming for under $40 instantly: cheaper, faster, no gatekeeping.

if someone hacks a privacy protocol and no one sees his transactions, did the hack really happen at all?

Solana RPC pricing 101: Credit RPC: 10 or 500 credits per call. Optimize your payload, save nothing. PAYG RPC: $0.05 per 1k calls. 30 req/s = $3,900/mo. @FluxRPC: $38/mo, 250 GB, flat. 30 req/s = $38/mo. Optimize, pay less.

Introducing Superluminal.

The hidden math of @solana RPC pricing Most providers charge per credit or per call. We charge per byte. Here's what that actually means... ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Per 1,000 getAccountInfo calls (Solana's most-called method): @FluxRPC → $0.0000234 Credit provider → $0.05 PAYG provider → $0.01 FluxRPC vs Credit provider: 2,133× cheaper FluxRPC vs PAYG provider: 428× cheaper ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ "But surely on heavy calls you lose?" getProgramAccounts (5 MB payload): FluxRPC → $0.293 per 1k calls Credit provider → $0.500 per 1k calls PAYG provider → $0.401 per 1k calls Why? One charges 10 credits per gPA call. The other charges $10 per million calls flat. FluxRPC just charges for the bytes. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Plan-for-plan capacity: $38/mo FluxRPC = 655M getAccountInfo calls $49/mo credit provider = 10M calls $849/mo FluxRPC = 40.3B getAccountInfo calls $999/mo credit provider = 200M calls 201x more calls. $150 cheaper. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ gRPC streaming (1 TB/mo): FluxRPC → $61.44 Credit provider → $157.29 PAYG provider → $81.92 Same gRPC. Different bill. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ And here's the part nobody talks about. Just to ACCESS mainnet gRPC: FluxRPC → $38/mo (Develop plan) PAYG provider → $125 prepaid minimum Credit provider → $499/mo (Business plan) 13x price gap before you stream a single byte. Same data. Just paywalled differently. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ No credit games. No method weighting. No per-call fee addon. No overage premiums. No absurd gRPC paywall.

What should I drop tomorrow? Why the headline pricing on legacy @solana RPCs is misleading, and what customers actually pay once credits, per-call fees, and method weighting kick in? or The Solana Kingmaker Index?

👏

The dev team has been tuning. Light calls. Heavy calls. Doesn't matter. @FluxRPC vs the legacy RPC's: → getMultipleAccounts → getProgramAccounts → getSlot Faster. Across the board.

Fluxbeam is joining @TheHUB as a @Fogo validator. Colocating in bare-metal is what institutional order flow requires: predictable fills, deep liquidity, and latency that competes with traditional markets. The model is already proven. Volume has migrated decisively to the venues running this architecture. This is the version of onchain trading we've been promised for years.

What about lighter calls like getslot? average of 3 runs per provider each time. @FluxRPC wins each one. $15 gRPC. What are you waiting for?

gPA on OreV2 TTFB - @FluxRPC is - 2x faster vs next best. - 3x faster vs 3rd place. - 8x faster vs 4th best. Total Time - FluxRPC is - 2x faster vs next best. - 4x faster vs 3rd best. - 5x faster vs 4th best. Higher RPS, No credits, Faster. If you haven't already - try it out!

Hey chad, look at your wallet!

At a time when Solana is fighting on many different battlefields, telling the users and founders of the past 6 years to go elsewhere is not a choice I'd make. It's still not consensus to bet on Solana. There's a lot of work that needs to be done for user trust, ecosystem growth, and application usage. Things are better than they were before, and have a lot of room to grow. That needs Champions and Missionaries who have ties into the ecosystem. Ignoring them is where it loses to other chains, in applications, users, and capital. Simply put - There's a lack of a "we".

We back👀 New world launching soon

Did any big accounts post bullish content on this that potentially screwed over retail users? Never happens right.