Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/brypto
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ted (not lasso) pfp
ted (not lasso)
@ted
it's inevitable that crypto product frontends will price access in stables and allow users to pay in whatever asset they want. pricing access to a product in a volatile asset is too bad of a user AND builder experience for it to remain the norm. speculators buy access they'll never use, drive up prices and lock out potential real users. bad for builders (who need real usage), bad for users (who can't get in). "what's wrong with adjusting access requirements as price changes?" if you're dropping access from 10k $token to 1k $token while nothing about the product changed, you're already pricing in stables — you're just using $token as an unstable middleman, introducing volatility risk for users and extra work for yourself. defi enables any product frontend to show price to access at a stable $25, yet users can still pay in whatever they want (ETH, USDC, ANON, HIGHER, VEIL). the tech for this already exists today. zero friction for users. zero complexity for builders. zero volatility risk for everyone.
17 replies
24 recasts
170 reactions
EulerLagrangodamus - tevm/acc pfp
EulerLagrangodamus - tevm/acc
@eulerlagrange.eth
The only reason paying in a volatile asset is a thing is because most projects do airdrops to subsidize demand. By default this creates a lot of sell pressure. The trick around this is to get people to spend and burn those tokens, dec supply -> inc price. Imo it’s retarded, because you need to update burn rate with price, usually pegged to a dollar amount. —— If you charge in usdc, use that to buy/burn, it’s much better. But people would have to spend money
1 reply
5 recasts
33 reactions
Jack Lhasa pfp
Jack Lhasa
@jacklhasa
I wish I could agree with this, but in the 4 years I’ve been trading crypto, I’ve only received about half a dozen airdrops and they were mostly peanuts.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
EulerLagrangodamus - tevm/acc pfp
EulerLagrangodamus - tevm/acc
@eulerlagrange.eth
The only way to spend crypto that works is gas. L1s are unique in this way. For rollups it’s pretty clear now that gas should be the priced using L1 gas. Uniswap token made 0 sense In helium they had a mechanism to buy burn to hedge against future price increases but too complicated. With EigenLayer most network token plays are DOA since shared security is cheaper.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Jack Lhasa pfp
Jack Lhasa
@jacklhasa
I don’t disagree. However, it is a concept that the average consumer will not be able to understand. The ZERO L2 can make it work. Ethereum and Bitcoin will likely always use gas, like most L1s, as you say. However, L2s are more customer friendly in this regard. Mass adoption won’t start with L1s. It will most likely be L2s that use a straight forward, transparent fee structure. Fees people understand. Their banks have fees. But gas is a concept. That’s why it won’t help mass adoption. But, as I mentioned, many chains are already working to remedy the gas issue. The Zero chain is doing it best, but ZkSync Era, Base, and others have extremely low gas costs, and will likely lead the way in this area.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction