WRECKED. Hirono: Has any court said that DEI is unconstitutional? Yes or no? Hamilton: Yes. Hirono: Which court? Hamilton: The United States Supreme Court. Hirono: I disagree with you… Hamilton: You can go read it yourself. 🔥🔥🔥 https://t.co/Xz22zU4tLj

Wrapping up the moments at 𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕'𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒔𝒌𝒚 ? “Your Sky Fanmeet 🌥✨️ Thank you everyone for being a part of these memories. YOUR SKY FM IN THAILAND #YourSkyFanmeet# #กี่หมื่นฟ้า# #YourSkySeries# #MandeeWork# https://t.co/x6O1pOuM2U

Been writing more lately. Not just about what we’re building, but why. I share it all here: https://t.co/2Hhfn8s8Ln This space moves so fast. But the ideas that last take time to unpack. If you’re building or if you’re part of the Sui community pushing things forward, drop your Substack below. I want to connect with more builders who think long-term.

just wrote up a monster post with @sejal_rekhan around how ethereums ecosystem can become self-sufficient & circular Some of these ideas have sat in my head for ages & grateful to Sejal for making the push to comprehensively write up an entire roadmap here's a 5 point TL;DR 1. There's limited appetite for a "shared treasury" to fund infrastructure as that feels like "donating" however there is a desire by ecosystems to contribute to repos that they depend on, which feels more like integrating revenue & cost centers For eg, @CurveFinance makes use of @vyperlang ; so funding them isn't a donation so much as making their own product more secure 2. Eligibility requirements is the hard question to solve for; what repos should even be allowed into an ecosystems funding round, whatever the mechanism may be? On what grounds could Curve include vyper in their funding stream but reject solidity? 3. There's need for an L2Beat style system tracking the extent to which DAOs, dapps & L2s are funding software they make use of it would be quite manual though, since answering questions like "does @arbitrum contribute more or @Optimism" isn't straightforward, since @prylabs is funded by offchain labs but needs to be accounted for similarly some of optimisms funding goes to growing dapps on their ecosystem (creating dependents) rather than their dependencies, so opinionated calls would need to be made on how much of the retrofunding gets counted in the leaderboard 4. We propose augmenting the pledge to, ,,1% airdrop to @ProtocolGuild , 2% revenue to your own dependencie" Some estimates of funding amounts if this pledge gets taken; - @ensdomains earned $31 million over 12 months, so $620k to their dependencies - @Securitize gave $25.4 million in dividends, 92% on ethereum, 2% of which would be $467,360 - @nounsdao is currently selling at ~2 ETH/day, 2% of which over a year would be 14.6 ETH to repos they depend on 5. Finally, how would we go about fairly allocating to repos? Step 1 is simply generating a dependency graph of all repos that make your revenue generating product work well Step 2 is giving weights to each dependency. QF, Deep Funding, Futarchy, PG style time weighting, metrics based retrofunding etc are some ways to obtain weights Step 3 is encoding a stream from revenue earned to your local dependency graph, thus creating reliable & recurring funding for teams that your project depends on Curious to actually see how these ideas pan out in practice! if you're building in public goods, pivot from seeking donations to self-interested systems where projects can easily pay for the software they rely on