@Evan_ss6 @FreddieRaynolds @Anaxagoraas @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon Obviously, it will end up as 0-sum ponzi if the only things which are going on are locking and unlocking. So indeed, accounting problem here is not that simple

@Evan\u ss6@FreddieRaynolds@Anaxagoras@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon显然，如果唯一发生的事情是锁定和解锁，它将最终成为0和庞氏骗局。所以实际上，这里的会计问题并不是那么简单

@FreddieRaynolds @Anaxagoraas @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon They are. It's about continuous transition and exemplifying inadequacy of traditional accounting. And 4 years land somewhere in between.
// also as someone mentioned, Convex locks are forever

@FreddieRaynolds@anaxagoras@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon他们是。这是关于持续过渡和传统会计不足的例证。4年的时间介于两者之间。
//正如有人提到的，凸面锁是永恒的

@foldfinance @FreddieRaynolds @Anaxagoraas @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon lim revenue(amount_locked, locktime) at locktime->infinity = amount_locked
lim revenue(amount_locked, locktime) at locktime->0 = 0
function revenue(amount_locked, locktime) needs to be found

@foldfinance@FreddieRaynolds@Anaxagoras@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon lim收入（锁定金额，锁定时间）->；无穷大=金额\u锁定
锁定时间的lim收入（amount\u locked，locktime）->；0 = 0
需要找到功能收入（amount\u locked，locktime）

@FreddieRaynolds @Anaxagoraas @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon They don't. But there should be continuous transition.
Lock for infinite number of years = it goes away. There should be a smooth transition from zero to infinite - otherwise we don't account for it properly

@FreddieRaynolds@anaxagoras@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon他们没有。但应该有持续的过渡。
锁定无限年=它消失了。应该有一个从零到无限的平滑过渡，否则我们不能正确地解释它

@FreddieRaynolds @Anaxagoraas @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon Of course (and accounting records that - great!).
But for those whole 100 years shares disappeared from circulation (and arguably the effect was the same as them disappearing forever). If 100 is not enough - make it 1000, 10000. Something ridiculous which definitely IS infinity

@FreddieRaynolds@anaxagoras@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon（当然还有会计记录-太棒了！）。
但在整整100年的时间里，股票从流通中消失了（可以说，其影响与股票永远消失是一样的）。如果100还不够，那就定为1000、10000。荒谬的东西，绝对是无限的

@FreddieRaynolds @Anaxagoraas @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon What if it occurs in 1000 years? Effect of that should be the same as permanent lock, but accounting doesn't recognize it as such

@FreddieRaynolds@Anaxagoras@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon如果1000年后发生呢？这样做的效果应该与永久锁定的效果相同，但会计部门并没有将其视为永久锁定

@FreddieRaynolds @Anaxagoraas @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon Btw with buyback vs voluntarily lock - it's a thin bondary.
Buyback = revenue, ok. But lock for 100 years is practically the same? But maybe lock for 1 second is not? How to continuously account for any lock? Traditional accounting fails that.

@FreddieRaynolds@Anaxagoras@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon顺便说一句，回购vs自愿锁定-这是一个薄薄的债券。
回购=收入，ok。但100年的锁实际上是一样的吗？但也许锁定1秒不是吗？如何持续说明任何锁？传统会计无法做到这一点。

@FreddieRaynolds @Anaxagoraas @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon Good example btw but not ridiculous enough. Imagine 99.999999994% of AAPL shares being locked for 4 years (maybe people extend the lock weekly, maybe not). We have 1 share left on the free market for those 4 years. What happens?

@FreddieRaynolds@anaxagoras@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon顺便提一下，这是一个很好的例子，但还不够荒谬。想象一下，99.9999999 4%的AAPL股票被锁定了4年（也许人们每周都会延长锁定时间，也许不会）。在这四年里，我们在自由市场上还剩下1股。发生了什么？

@FreddieRaynolds @Anaxagoraas @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon When building a new model, there is nothing nonsensical at all. Not seeing why would't that be recognized as 1T of revenue and/or expenses in an alternative accounting metric.
Whether that, or traditional one applies better - up to you.

@FreddieRaynolds@anaxagoras@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon在构建新模型时，没有任何荒谬之处。不明白为什么不能在替代会计指标中确认为1吨收入和/或费用。
无论是那样，还是传统的方法，都更适用于你。

@DefiThanos @FreddieRaynolds @Anaxagoraas @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon 😱

@DefiThanos @FreddieRaynolds @Anaxagoraas @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon 😱

@FreddieRaynolds @Anaxagoraas @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon Well, but why wouldn't you count it as expense again when it unlocks? Looks fair.
You could apply Vitalik's token velocity framework, but that doesn't quite work when one has revenues. Need something which encompasses both

@FreddieRaynolds@anaxagoras@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon好吧，但当它解锁时，你为什么不把它再次算作费用呢？看起来很公平。
您可以应用Vitalik的token velocity框架，但当您有收入时，这并不能完全奏效。需要同时包含两者的东西

@FreddieRaynolds @Anaxagoraas @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon If you count emissions as expenses (why not indeed), can also count what's locked as revenues (and what is unlocked as expenses) 😱

@FreddieRaynolds@Anaxagoras@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon如果你将排放量计算为费用（为什么不算），也可以将锁定的部分计算为收入（以及解锁的部分计算为费用）😱

@cryptokolev @FreddieRaynolds @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon The model of course only works with healthy revenues. You cannot outponzi something which doesn't work: that would violate all conservation laws.
May would assume that ve-nomics can band-aid fix everything. That's incorrect!

@cryptokolev@FreddieRaynolds@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon当然，这种模式只适用于健康的收入。你不能把不起作用的东西输给庞兹：那将违反所有的守恒定律。
梅会假设ve经济学可以用创可贴修复一切。那是不对的！

RT: Short thread about $CRV inflation
1/6
Many don't understand the emission schedule of @CurveFinance's token $CRV. (me included until 20mins ago)
Each year the inflation decreases by around 16% compared to the previous year. The exact formula for which I've attached as a photo. https://t.co/bvvBSAZtDD

RT：关于$CRV通货膨胀的短线
1/6
许多人不了解@CurveFinance的代币$CRV的排放计划。（20分钟前包括me）
与前一年相比，通货膨胀每年下降约16%。确切的公式，我附上了一张照片。https://t.co/bvvBSAZtDD

@FreddieRaynolds @Anaxagoraas @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon Tradfi intensifies!
Though, good to build analogies. Imagine stock compensation with optional (voluntary) lockups to get dividends only when locked.

@FreddieRaynolds@Anaxagoras@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon Tradfi强化！
不过，建立类比很好。想象一下，股票薪酬有选择性（自愿）锁定，只有在锁定时才能获得股息。

@FreddieRaynolds @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon Not that it shouldn’t be analyzed. It should!
Our hypothesis is that over time to equilibrate (years) the system may stabilize at emissions = hard earnings. Will see

@FreddieRaynolds@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon并不是说它不应该被分析。应该这样！
我们的假设是，随着时间的推移，达到平衡（年），系统可能会稳定在排放量=硬收入。将看到

@FreddieRaynolds @0xHamz @0ctoshi @DefiMoon Why isn’t this logic applied to Bitcoin? And when earnings are >0 on Ethereum, we call it “ultrasound money”.
Probably because it only well applies to fixed supply?

@FreddieRaynolds@0xHamz@0ctoshi@DefiMoon为什么这种逻辑不适用于比特币？当收益大于；以太坊上的0，我们称之为“超声波钱”。
可能是因为它只适用于固定供应？

So upon checking, @dexguru seems to only have correct data for same/same pairs. v2 pools not supported there (yet!), but soon https://twitter.com/dexguru/st...

所以经过检查，@dexguru似乎只有相同/相同对的正确数据。v2池不受支持（目前！），但很快https://twitter.com/dexguru/st...

@dexguru Ok, upon re-checking - it was still incorrect. At least how you select ETH on that screenshot is not what you compare with

@dexguru Ok，重新检查后-仍然不正确。至少你在截图上选择ETH的方式并不是你所比较的

@dexguru Though no! It's not correct to measure this way ser.
Selecting "ETH" means ONLY ETH/ETH pools. Do this way https://t.co/L5ipCrcwDI

@德克斯古鲁不是！用这种方法测量ser是不正确的。
选择“ETH”仅表示ETH/ETH池。这样做吧https://t.co/L5ipCrcwDI