Founder @ https://xitter.gq/t.co/CofUyEeUaU | @umadotrocks https://xitter.gq/t.co/jDjW3E47XE
Remote
Joined April 2010
- Tweets712
- Following2K
- Followers293
- Likes3.8K
Lancelot retweeted
🚨 C'est officiel, le parti de David Lisnard devient le 1er parti de France
Avec près de 113 000 adhérents, Nouvelle Énergie a déjà dépassé Les Républicains et passe devant le RN ce matin. Aucun parti ne reste devant.
9 places gagnées depuis début septembre 📈🇫🇷
Lancelot retweeted
No
People need to understand that Ethereum is not a business and Ethereum needs to continue to do exactly the *opposite* of what other blockchains are doing
It’s quite literally the whole point
RIP near.ai
Anthropic is releasing an open source library, FlashProve, for provable inference. It was measured on Llama 4 Maverick, a 400B-parameter mixture of experts model.
Code:
github.com/anthropics/FlashP…
Blog post:
anthropic.com/research/prova…
The ratios ETH/BTC and HYPE/NEAR are criminally low and may well be the most underrated crypto trades of the decade.
Thesis for ETH/BTC going up:
BTC is valued 6x more than ETH even though it has the quantum threat, the security budget problem, no privacy, no smart contracts, no Defi, $20M/day selling pressure from miners to cover energy bills, and bad decentralization (you need a datacenter at home to be a miner). ETH has none of these issues.
Thesis for HYPE/NEAR going up:
Holders revenue (buybacks) for NEAR is 11.2x (or 2.6x using FDV) lower than HYPE per $ of market cap, its buybacks are not even burned, and its moat is much weaker than Hyperliquid: NEAR doesn't own the distribution (no app, no frontend), has to beg 3rd parties for integrations VS Hyperliquid's users/liquidity/OI are sticky and hard to replicate.
Another reason why ratio trades are good is that in times of uncertainty like we are now, betting on ratios is far safer and more resistant to black swan events than betting on single coins. You're much less likely to be liquidated if the whole market crashes. Plus funding fees balance each other if you are 50% long and 50% short at the same time. So you can literrally open these trades now and let them run for a few years while paying almost no fees.
Also, NEAR intents is forced to compete with cheaper alternatives like ERC-7683 and the Open Intents Framework, both supported by the EF.
erc7683.org/
Another advantage of betting on ratios is that your Sharpe Ratio is high so you can increase your leverage to earn more while keeping your liquidation risk low.
Beautifully explained in this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=9HD6xo2i…
Lancelot retweeted
Ce qui est inquiétant en France, ce n'est pas tellement la situation économique ou politique, mais le profond décalage entre la réalité et le logiciel mental des français.
Personne n'est mentalement préparé à ce qui va arriver. Le breakdown mental sera cataclysmique pour beaucoup, comparable à celui d'un communiste convaincu vivant la chute de l'URSS.
🇫🇷 France's protests are turning into something MUCH BIGGER than a weekend of unrest.
Huge crowds are flooding the streets over soaring living costs and concerns about democracy.
In Paris alone, police counted 110,000 demonstrators.
And the movement isn't winding down.
Protest organizers are already building toward a nationwide GENERAL STRIKE on November 5.
What started as street protests is becoming a sustained challenge to the French government.
Writer: Oliver
Lancelot retweeted
totalement d'accord avec Taleb, l'IA est le meilleur filtre à bullshit de l'histoire moderne pour tous ceux dont le métier se résumait à aligner des mots sans jamais penser par eux-mêmes
notez que la panique générale qu'on observe chez les cols blancs en dit long car la plupart découvrent en direct que leur prétendue plus-value professionnelle tenait simplement au fait qu'écrire des rapports creux prenait du temps
ce qu'on vit c'est une purge systémique, tous ceux qui pensaient en formule toute faite se font balayer, tandis que les esprits vraiment vivants, ceux qui créent du chaos, de la poésie et de la stratégie pure…deviennent infiniment plus rares et donc infiniment plus précieux
Lancelot retweeted
Idiots think "traveling" is a virtue or something special, like it's the pinnacle of human experience or achievement.
This isn't the 1700s. There's nothing inherently difficult, special, or impressive about traveling anymore.
It's just another form of consumption, like watching TV.
For a lot of people, it's just an excuse to avoid developing any genuine intellectual curiosity, mastering something, or building anything real.
They confuse consuming experiences with actually accomplishing something.
Fuck traveling. There's nothing to see, nowhere to go. Especially nowadays, when the entire world is converging into one giant monoculture.
Lancelot retweeted
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."
The Open Intents Framework ( openintents.xyz ) is basically the same as NEAR Intents but without fees.
Already adopted at scale by LI.FI.
There is unfortunately no future for $NEAR.
Lancelot retweeted
My first job out of college was as an options market maker at SIG. I have a CFA, MBA, and I traded the first ever Bitcoin VAR swap. I’ve been a net loser in equity options over my lifetime, and that was without any blowups or big mistakes. Better to just avoid them (rare exceptions.) Buy good assets and hold them until A. You find much better assets or B. Those original assets are clearly overvalued.
Leopold Aschenbrenner might genuinely be the unluckiest motherfucker alive.
After getting absolutely destroyed in July and being forced to liquidate much of his AI portfolio, he reportedly came back swinging in early September, buying hundreds of millions of dollars worth of options premium.
Look at how those stocks have performed since September 8:
$CRWV: -37.4%
$SKHY: -25.8%
$SNDK: -23.8%
$DRAM: -22.9%
$BE: -18.1%
$INTC: -9.4%
$AMD: +9.1%
Six out of seven are underwater, with an average decline of roughly 18.6%.
And remember, we're talking about someone who reportedly rebuilt exposure through leveraged options, not just common shares.
Imagine surviving a massive forced liquidation, watching your favorite stocks recover, deciding it's finally safe to get back in, and then getting hit by ANOTHER brutal selloff barely a month later.
The worst part about options is that you can be absolutely right about the long-term AI infrastructure thesis and still lose a fortune because your timing was wrong.
I genuinely feel for the guy.
The market has absolutely no mercy.
Probably the most bearish stat of the year for Bitcoin.
After a three-week competition on yukon.org/qsb to cut the cost of a quantum-safe Bitcoin transaction, with 27 solvers from around the world competing, the best estimate is still $59 per transaction.
It’s unlikely to get much better than that anytime soon.
You can mathematically prove that $NEAR is going to zero in the long term.
The reason is quite simple actually.
Near Intents are a middleware inside bridges (CoWSwap, Relay, Across, ...), they don't own the frontend, bridges own it.
Bridges don't care who you are, they will just pick the best quote available at any given time and give it to the user.
So the more NEAR charges fees to spend on buybacks, the less good their quotes will be, and the less likely they are to win quotes.
As long as someone in the world is willing to charge just 0.01% less than what NEAR charges, this person will win the quote and NEAR will lose it.
Eventually, give it enough time and they will be forced by the market to lower their fees to zero.
All of this because they don't own the frontend/distribution.
This reasoning doesn't apply to Hyperliquid for example because Hyperliquid can always charge more fees without losing users because they own the distribution and there is a switching cost for users.
In the case of NEAR, charging more fees automatically and inexorably translates to losing users.
Owning the frontend/distribution is the moat. If you're a middleware, you're competing with everyone else on fees and it's a race to zero.
Lancelot retweeted
The rise of propAMMs has much larger impact on Ethereum than on other chains
propAMMs beat traditional AMMs because their prices are a full block time fresher. That's substantial on a chain with a few 100ms block times. It's massive on Ethereum with multi-second slots.
pAMMs are dramatically improving Ethereum as a trading venue without making geographic decentralisation and robustness tradeoffs that low latency blocks can require
Check out our docs to integrate: buildernet.org/docs/api#stat…
Metric is live: metric.xyz
Swap. Provide liquidity. Deploy your own pool.
Now open on Robinhood Chain, @BNBCHAIN and @ethereum.
Lancelot retweeted
String theory: playing at science
String theory is sterile toying with formalism. Nothing follows from it.
Despite the name, it is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory sticks its neck out: it says what will happen, and if that doesn’t happen, it dies. String theory never sticks its neck out. Its equations allow so many possible universes that ours is just one more, somewhere in the pile. Whatever we observe, the theory says: yes, I allow that.
A structure that can accommodate anything explains nothing. It tells you nothing about the world, only about itself.
Every trader knows this kind of model. Give a model enough free parameters and it will fit any past data perfectly – and predict nothing. In finance we call it overfitting, and we fire people for it. In physics, it gets tenure.
Forty years. No prediction tested. No experiment proposed that could kill it. And the defenders always say the same thing: wait. The energies are too high, the instruments too weak, the next generation will see. A prophecy whose date is always next decade.
Its defenders also point to the beautiful mathematics it produced. Fine – then call it mathematics, and fund it as mathematics.
Then there is the institution. Physics used to have a judge outside itself: the experiment. Nature said yes or no. String theory removed the judge. What is left is peers judging peers – string theorists hiring string theorists, reviewing string theorists, funding string theorists. A closed economy with no price signal. We know how those end: not in collapse, but in endless self-confirmation.
The money is not even the main cost — though over forty years it has probably run to billions, for no result. The main cost is the posts, the careers, the best minds of two generations – the ones who could have done physics – spent on a game whose rules guarantee it never loses.
We want, and we need, a science that brings understanding of the world – understanding that can ultimately serve the magnificence and expansion of life. Science that lets us build, heal, travel further, live more. That is what we fund it for. A game with no exit to reality serves only its players.
Real science can be wrong. That is its dignity. String theory cannot be wrong – which is exactly why it cannot be right. And an institution built around a theory that cannot fail becomes an institution that cannot fail either: no result embarrasses it, no decade ends it.
Not science. Playing at science – with tenure.
Stop the money flow. It will do everyone good – physics, the taxpayer, and the string theorists most of all.
Encore une fois, Elon Musk avait raison. Et les scientifiques vont se prendre une vraie blessure narcissique.
Il y a deux mois, j'ai dîné avec un professeur de physique quantique à Normale Sup, l'une des meilleures écoles de France.
Il se présente avec cette phrase :
"Je suis le seul prof pas gauchiste dans un marécage de profs gauchistes décroissantistes."
Ses collègues sont tous anti-IA. La raison ? Ça consomme de l'eau.
Le mec est passionnant. On part très loin : l'espace, le temps, la conscience. Des discussions complètement perchées.
Et à un moment, il me lâche :
"Tu sais, depuis les années 70, aucun sujet vraiment sérieux en physique n'est financé."
Je lui demande ce qui est financé, alors.
"Des cathédrales théoriques. Magnifiques. Qui ne servent quasiment à rien."
Je lui demande pourquoi.
"Après tout ce qui s'est passé avec le nucléaire, le monde académique s'est imposé un principe de précaution. Il a peur de trouver des choses réellement profondes."
Relisez cette phrase.
La science a peur de trouver.
C'est exactement ce que décrit François Chollet aujourd'hui : la théorie des cordes, c'est ce qui arrive quand une intelligence est coupée du réel. Elle hallucine. Elle construit des cathédrales. Elon a répondu avec un seul emoji : 🎯
Ce n'est pas un accident. C'est une capture.
Je parle souvent de Gramsci. Son idée centrale : on ne prend pas le pouvoir par la force, on prend les institutions. Universités, médias, culture. Et une fois qu'on les tient, on décide de ce qui est pensable.
La recherche n'y a pas échappé. On finance ce qui est publiable, consensuel, sans risque. On ne finance plus ce qui pourrait tout changer.
C'est pour ça que beaucoup de gens en France pleurent en ce moment. Ils sentent que leur monde factice est en train de mourir. Ce monde où un titre suffisait. Où un statut remplaçait un résultat. Où l'on pouvait passer trente ans à écrire des papiers lus par douze personnes sans jamais se confronter au réel.
Elon l'a dit sans filtre : une grande partie des PhD ne servent à rien. Et chez xAI, il a supprimé le titre de "chercheur". Il n'y a que des ingénieurs.
Le message est limpide. On ne te paie pas pour chercher. On te paie pour trouver.
La science va devoir retrouver son vrai but. Pas produire des papiers. Pas décrocher des grants. Pas briller en colloque. Comprendre le réel, et le plier.
Et l'IA va accélérer tout ça brutalement. Quand l'intelligence devient abondante, elle n'est plus le goulot d'étranglement. Ce qui compte, c'est le courage de la confronter au monde physique, encore et encore.
Alors physiciens, mathématiciens : il est temps de vous sortir les doigts du cul et de créer de la vraie valeur pour le monde.
On veut l'antimatière.
On veut l'antigravité.
On veut le warp drive.
On veut comprendre la conscience au niveau de l'infiniment petit.
Les vrais sujets. Ceux qu'on a eu peur de toucher pendant cinquante ans.
La science a été capturée. Elle va être libérée.
Et ça va faire très mal à certains egos.