あわてて203で買い戻すなど

backpackからspacexをwithdrawしてsolanaで売る マーケットが閉じてる時でもそれが簡単にできるのは便利 少しだけど210くらいで売れたよ どこかで買い戻すか

"Intent based minting" is just a fancy way of saying you're buying through a brokerage, which is already supported, today. The difference is that any project can easily build their own just in time liquidity layer, because all of this is natively built into the brokerage itself. What matters here is not simply being able to buy on the brokerage. This has existed for a long time and is not particularly interesting. Show that screenshot over the weekend, which is the whole point of native onchain liquidity. Buy on Solana Sunday morning, transfer it into Schwab on Monday. That's the beauty of it all.

zinc周りの話はDeFi projectのtoken購入を躊躇させる 株トークンを買え

彼がbuildしているproductのトークンは少なくとも絶対に買えないね

metaDAOでraiseして別のproductを裏で作る 成功したらraise分返してお終い 失敗したらproduct自体うまくいかなかったねでお終い 今後metaDAOでlaunchするtokenへも投資は難しくなったんじゃないか？

Unpopular Opinion: I don’t think ZINC is a rug, they owe nothing to the ZKFG holders, and MetaDAO works as intended For those that haven’t followed, Zinc is the wildly successful “Private ORE” coin that is now the 2nd highest revenue generating protocol on Solana this week It was created from the same team that launched ZKFG on MetaDAO, and it’s this part that is creating a lot of contention around the ownership of the successful Zinc protocol The narrative (first shared by @imprfekt) is that the ZKFG coin is the owner of the IP and the revenues. They raised funding on MetaDAO, and they used part of that funding to launch Zinc. Projects that launch on MetaDAO are considered unruggable, protected by a combination of futarchy and legal structures. To their credit; ZKFG team has already returned 500k of fundraising back to token holders. That should have ended everything, but the team later suggested that a portion of the ZINC revenue would go back to the ZKFG Treasury. The enforceability and the legal requirement to do so is up for debate, but onchain analysis shows they have been sending money. The recent proposals to buyback the token and take ZINC private show that the team doesn’t want this to continue The above is my attempt to summarise what’s happened so far. If there is a critical detail, I’d appreciate your correction in the replies Below, I’ll layout what I think the situation is for each participant and what I think makes the most ”win-win” outcome Many holders are suggesting that this is a rug; ZINC is a success and the original ZKFG holders are not going to enjoy the upside This narrative is a problem for MetaDAO; you can’t have an unruggable platform if the most profitable one to emerge gives nothing to holders But does ZKFG really own anything from ZINC? I don’t think so. Maybe the Twitter account. In the next tweet I’ll prove that They tried an idea, it failed, they returned what they had left, and went to do ZINC with the money they earned while working on ZKFG Were the ZKFG holders able to stop them? Possibly they could have liquidated earlier, but not much more. Did the ZINC team mislead ZKFG holders and later retract those statements? Yes But the one truth that everyone will hate is that this could never be enforced with the MetaDAO framework; it wasn’t built for that, and it shouldn’t try to. Now, people will pull them into a losing fight; relying on courts when no one involved wants to go to court It can be a perceived blow to the Unruggable narrative; but I think that is wrong too. ZKFG was not a rug. The liquidation proposal worked. Everything is working as designed, but many are trying to take advantage of this narrative misperception So what should they do? ZINC has no downside; there is no mechanism that can force them to give any revenue and there is no public blowback that can hurt the cash cow. @WhiteWhaleLabs has also shown support, going as far as saying he will pay for any legal costs to ensure the team comes out ahead MetaDAO has the most to lose if it tries to win a fight it shouldn’t be in; ZINC wasn’t launched on the platform and the team already returned funds from the original raise. By spending too much time and resources on this, Meta risks inflating the false narrative that this was a rug. There could be a failure to enforce any IP ownership. Other teams could look at this and consider it a bad option for their own raises The best outcome is one where: MetaDAO stays unruggable and enforces IP protections ZINC is freed from any ZKFG relationship To accomplish this, I suggest that ZINC forfeit their ownership of the Twitter account to the ZKFG holders or purchase it directly from them This might sound silly, but it is a win for all involved. MetaDAO shows that IP was protected (ZKFG team changed the Twitter to ZINC, likely out of laziness to make a new account) and ZINC rids itself of this issue But the bigger problem remains unsolved 👇

backpack EUが来るかもしれないということは solana:BPxxfRCXkUVhig4HS1Lh7kZqV6SPJhzfEk4x6fVBjPCy の PRE-IPOのいくらかも配られるのも近づいたという事か

Trading stocks on @Backpack — join me: backpack.exchange/join/896cj…

bulkのpre depositは抜くタイミングを考えないとな 正直もうあんまり美味しくない気がする

Pacifica is not solana and who is using GMtrade ?

WAO

JTO下品な上がり方だ

Backpackの株トークンはめっちゃいいんだけど 今のところ自分の中でDeFiに持っていくモチベーションがない Backpack内だけで十分そうだ 他の株トークンもどうようなんだけどDeFiでトークン持つ理由が弱い

この価格(<0.15)でZKFG 007のYESを買わない理由って何？