this-is-fine_custom-dcb93e90c4e1548ffb16978a5a8d182270c872a9-s1200-c85 13 min read "[We] were spending much of each day trudging to each other’s offices to complain about the crazy deals – characterized by low returns, high risk for investors, and a lot of optionality for issuers – that were easily being brought to market. “If deals like this can get done,” we agreed, “there’s something wrong with the market.” Few people, we thought, were demonstrating prudence, discipline, value consciousness, or the ability to resist the fear of missing out. Investors are supposed to act as disciplinarians, preventing undeserving securities from being issued, but in those days, they weren’t performing that function. This signaled a worrisome state of affairs." Howard Marks - Taking The Temperature July 10, 2023$^{[1]}$ What makes an investment investable? Or better yet, given a plethora of investments, how might you go about choosing which is best? There are many ways to analyze a potential investment - fundamentals, technicals, gut instincts - but almost all of them are ultimately guided by the same thing: historical performance. Evaluating the historical performance of an asset is one of the most common ways that we assess its quality and set future expectations. But the performance metrics used to gauge historical performance in traditional finance aren’t being used correctly by the cryptocurrency industry, which warrants reflection about their continued usage.

The idea / concept here is to develop a protocol primitive / standard which is to be adopted by wallets and advertisers / business operators which affords a direct to wallet means of marketing by which access is paid and revenues shared to those adopting the implementation. Standard Similar to an agreed NFT standard, this standard would operate with a marketplace by which access and distribution through the standard is only accessible through payment into the standard and revenues distributed to wallet providers adopting the standard and containing the address. This standard has two primary use cases, each with their own "tab" within the wallet. Advertisements and Loyalty Programs. Which both share a base primitive, but have different rulesets for access and distribution. On the buy side an advertiser / business would set an offer to be able to target addresses within the standard at different rates this could eventually contain an auction service for advertisements, but for now the idea is cNFTs which instead of spam, are legitimately paid for to hit the desired account. Take for example a NFT marketplace like MagicEden, they could pay in $1,200 to target all DegenApe holders with over $100 USDC balance which hasn't traded on ME for over a month. Where they send a cNFT which is a coupon for 20% of their next NFT purchase.

Overview Hummingbot is a strategy, order management, data aggregate and execution framework built for market making on Centralized and Decentralized platforms. It was originally developed as an in-house tool and has expanded to become an open source tool supporting many strategies and integrations. As such its implementation is diverse in its undertakings with much functionality unknown to those wishing to contribute or integrate. We propose developing a formal specification of the system that is Hummingbot and with that develop a formal specification outlining specifically the connectors interface, a stub connector with detailed explanation of functionality (as well as when, where and how its called), a dummy connector for example with implementation, and finally testing. This should showcase how and what people should be thinking about when implementing (vs a copy of something that is another's implementation). We propose this to take 30 working days and a $21,375 commitment. We can expand scope beyond this to document the gateway and specifically DEX connectors, however we would imagine that having an initial scope of the core Python framework best. The breakdown in cost and time, roughly, are as follows: Specification - 10 days $11,233 Stub Connectors - 7 days $4,052 Dummy Connectors - 7 days $3,050 Test Cases - 6 days $3,040

Background Meta-DAO is an experiment in governance on Solana. It's structured based on Futarchy which was first proposed by Robin Hanson in 2000. https://themetadao.org/ It's creator is Anon known as metaproph3t. https://metaproph3t.github.io/ It uses market / trading to vote such that there is finanical incentive to participate and allowing for "the market to decide." This is based on the information theory of markets where they are truly the best mechanism for information to flow.

Overview (NEEDS REVIEW) Currently, there is a lack of transparency in resource allocation for transactions, leading to suboptimal cluster performance. To address this issue, we need a solution that enables quick and cost-effective identification of a transaction's impact on cluster performance. We propose a fee structure based on the resources requested by transactions. This approach aligns the interests of both transaction submitters and operators by charging fees according to the resources required. Solana's current fee mechanisms are insufficient in applying "economic backpressure" with respect to account state access contention (hot region). With a flat base fee, local fee markets and thread localized priority fees the function still results in failed transactions landing on chain which suggests blockspace is not being priced correctly$^1$. With the mispricing being the current state of blockspace, there is a misalignment of incentives thus creating additional behaviors (latency) in order to facilitate inclusion within a block. This proposal is designed to highlight the current model and its design mechanics, expand upon it with a shift in one aspect of the base_fee calculation. This is accomplished by leveraging a new lamports/cu fee structure to assign a cost to resources estimated and consumed. While not a primary goal of this work, there are some notes about future design considerations and changes with respect to the economics of a transaction on Solana.

Background The basis for this exploration stems from a thought concerning a vote determined via economic unit (SOL in this case) while representative of PoS and "security" of the network (and an easy proxy for voting in governance), this economic unit is severely limited in total scope of all economics which facilitate a healthy, functioning network. Having an misrepresented vote can lead to a lack of representative vote amongst parties who may not have the free capital allocated in such configuration and may undercut the viability of a simple vote via stake. stake holder != stakeholder (at least not always) In plain terms, a dApp with 10s of millions raised may be using that capital to operate, and they may be producing incredible economic viability for the chain, but may not be able to stake for a vote. Or RPC operators may run significant infrastructure supporting large swaths of the network, but again may not have the capital to allocate to represent their value within the governance. Total value locked in PoS Securing the network while of large value, derives this value from the utilities provided on chain. This is one metric which carries heavy weight (as it should), however total volume traded is another, total NFT market cap, another. All which point as proxy to the underlying, but not necessarily 100% reflective. Therefore these aspects should be considered when governance is appropriate.

The Challenge Stake is required to secure the network and people MAY want to spend stake. To transact with the stake creates all kinds of complexities derived from the fact that that stake takes some time to be realized as SOL. All you, in theory, need to cover is the time required to unstake and realize that SOL. So the primitive just needs to account for that. Let the risk move directly to the party willing to onboard said risk vs socializing the risk. LST Challenges Providing any token and integration exposes unique attack vectors and exposes any integration to the issues of liquidity and maintenance of risk. You take $21M in stake, but still need to provide the ability to access $21M which requires $21M (if you properly manage risk) from elsewhere. It's a balance of the scales. So you need to tokenize the risk vs the representation of stake.