$424,516.86. That's the most anyone made today on Liquid. It's also the most anyone has ever made in a single day on Liquid. Today, positive developments in crypto sent Bitcoin up about 8%, with other coins moving even more. One of our top users positioned for it with conviction and walked away with an incredible profit. If I were a market maker or an exchange taking the other side of users' trades, I'd probably hate seeing a trader win this big. Their gain would be my loss. But Liquid is a trading interface. Our mission has always been to put our users in the best possible position to win. We believe crypto is democratizing access to financial markets, while AI is democratizing access to the intelligence needed to compete in them. Together, they give ordinary people a real shot at capturing some of the trillions of dollars historically earned by the financial industry. And our incentives are aligned: when our users win, they stick around, trade more, and tell their friends. So today, we're celebrating. Congrats to whoever you are. $424,516.86 in a day is insane. Now let's see who breaks the record.

We used Co-Invest to try and solve this. Its answer: the December 2024 revision of EIP-7503 (Zero-Knowledge Wormholes) — submitted by the throwaway account @0xwormhole in ethereum/EIPs PR #9080#. Not the 2023 original. The +120/−18 rewrite that is now ~75% of the canonical text. Why we think it's you: The account created Dec 2, one merged PR (Dec 19), silent forever after the rewrite quietly wires in EIP-7708 (your EIP) and Privacy Pools (your paper) a PR comment names 0xbow as a root maintainer — 3 months before Privacy Pools launched with your first deposit The added lines carry the habits: "the attacker could extract their ether twice (but only twice)"; the 20/12/8-ether worked example; dismissing a 2^92 attack because Bitcoin mining pays better. And "I lack expertise in [cryptography]" sits on top of confident proof-system guidance matching your published positions — false modesty as distancing. It also explains your hint: every public script treats each EIP as one document attributed to its author field. An anonymous revision inside an attributed document is a category nobody's pipeline includes. Confidence: ~20% — but that's 10x the next candidate out of CoInvest's 27-doc scored sweep.