J. Valeska 🦊🎩🫂 on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Frogzu🎩🍖 🎭 pfp

Frogzu🎩🍖 🎭

🟩 DEGEN INFLATION RATE AND LOCKING MECHANISM IMPACT Let's analyze this Circulating supply is 12500M $DEGEN Max Monthly DEGEN Emissions NOW ARE 150M (5M x 30 days) But real is less than 3M -> https://dune.com/queries/3692983 That is less than 1% monthly inflation And around 10% per YEAR ------------- Now imagine Impact in locking mechanism 103M DEGEN locked now That is only 0,8% But ¿What happen if 10% or 20% of total DEGEN is locked? Flyingwheel Effect If more people wants maximum allocation -> more demand -> more DEGEN Needed to have 0,22% of total DEGEN Staked Interesting Can we return to DEGEN 0,05$ ? Can we reach DEGEN 1$ ?

4 replies

1 recast

14 reactions

baubergo pfp

The other side: People won’t stake because there's no point in staking 100k to get a 200 daily allowance or even less in the future. Locking a huge amount of stack for 3 months, being exposed to the market, without any assurance you will get something back, and we are not even talking about how this will badly affect the quality of the casts here. This will only concentrate degen into the hands of a few, leading to centralization, which we know is never a good thing. Most importantly, it seems the contract hasn’t been audited by an external company! This will become a massive honeypot without external auditing. How the hell people are not talking about this.

3 replies

0 recast

4 reactions

Frogzu🎩🍖 🎭 pfp

Frogzu🎩🍖 🎭

Good points!! 107 million DEGEN locked now that is a very important amount of money with all weakenesses that @baubergo- points What do you think @wake.eth @especulacion @jacek ?

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

wake 🎩 pfp

I think it's way too early to draw /any/ useful conclusions.

1 reply

0 recast

5 reactions

baubergo pfp

Agree. My main concern is what I mentioned last: security. Was the contract audited by an external company? How are people not worried about this? It's a huge honeypot, potentially holding millions of dollars, without a proper audit.

3 replies

0 recast

4 reactions

wake 🎩 pfp

Agree with that too. Not sure about whether the contract is complex enough to merit a formal audit, but a comment from Jacek about security guarantees (there probably are none) will help clarify risk.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

baubergo pfp

Even if it's not strictly necessary, having an audit is often about the appearance of safety and reliability—it reassures users. If I'm not mistaken, @jvaleska.eth found an issue that was addressed, which only underscores the need for a formal audit. It would provide an extra layer of confidence that everything is secure.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

wake 🎩 pfp

Yep, agree with all that. If nothing else, it's part of the "theater of launching a crypto product" and a reasonable expectation from users (albeit no guarantee of safety).

1 reply

1 recast

2 reactions

J. Valeska 🦊🎩🫂 pfp

J. Valeska 🦊🎩🫂

yeah, an audit cannot solve bugs nor vulnerabilities found in the future.. nor provide 100% safety.. they use to remind it in the audit. Just like I did in my own review.. I cannot promise that nothing can happen.. but I can say that the contract looks safe and it is based on battle tested standards.. the major issue is with the use of timestamps, what means that node validators could be evil.. and manipulate it, but at at this point.. we would be all already f**, not only degen staking..

0 reply

1 recast

2 reactions