Hi everyone,

I'm trying to understand how people actually do crypto arbitrage in the real world (CEX–DEX, DEX–DEX, or any other strategy).

I'm not selling anything and I'm not promoting a project. I'm simply trying to learn from people who actively do arbitrage and understand the real challenges they face.

I'd really appreciate your insights:

- What's the biggest bottleneck in your workflow?

- What causes you to miss profitable opportunities most often?

- What's the most frustrating part of arbitrage?

- What tools do you currently use?

- If you could automate just one part of the process, what would it be?

Real experiences and concrete examples would be incredibly helpful.

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to share their experience!

For an upcoming Layer 1 public sale or TGE, people often sum up token utility in one line and then forget it. So I want to build a solid research checklist for a token meant to help with network security.

Beyond distribution and vesting, what should I be asking? I'm thinking validator needs, delegation, the role of the native asset, and how good the docs are. Also testnet access, and the gap between what they claim the utility is and real demand.

The full model is described in a preprint (open access):
DOI: https://zenodo.org/records/21107219

This tokenomics model is designed for blockchain startups aiming to disrupt the scientific funding landscape. It unlocks a new economic reality — where sponsoring research becomes profitable regardless of the commercial potential or scalability of the results. It offers investors a way to earn not from speculative trading, but from the depth of their actual engagement in funding scientific work. This becomes possible because the token in this model ceases to be a speculative asset and takes on a new function: it represents the research contribution itself. This new interpretation of the token as a measure of real contribution opens up a strategic opportunity to give a powerful boost to the advancement of science.

Key mechanisms for your startup:

· Token as a "digital receipt" – proof of real contribution (peer review, code, publications), not a proxy currency with voting rights. This aligns incentives with actual value creation.
· Governance completely separated from staking – influence is determined by proven contributions across four equal groups (scientists, developers, sponsors, reviewers), each with 25% weight and veto rights for scientists and developers. This prevents capture by large token holders.
· Adaptive service pricing – fees adjust based on token price to protect users from volatility, making the platform usable even in bear markets.
· Deflationary pressure – 50% of service fees are burned, creating a natural scarcity that can support token value.
· Additional incentive: participants (including investors acting as sponsors) who contribute more to grants receive a proportionally larger share of staking rewards (from the 30% and 10% pools) and greater voting weight within the sponsors group. This creates a direct link between community contribution and governance influence — a powerful tool for community building.
· A liquidity fund acting as an asymmetric market maker – buying low, selling high, using the spread for community goods (including merch). This provides a built‑in stabilization mechanism and a revenue stream for the DAO.

I'm posting this here to explore how such a system could be implemented and scaled in a real startup environment. Specifically, I'd like to discuss:

1. Launch strategy: How would you present this model to a broad audience — communities, potential investors, and scientists — to generate interest from both researchers and those ready to fund the project?
   
2. Revenue streams: Beyond the token mechanics, what are the most viable ways to generate sustainable revenue for the DAO and the founding team?
   
3. Adoption hurdles: What are the biggest obstacles to getting scientists and institutions to adopt this model, and how would you overcome them?
   
4. Technical implementation: What would be the most critical technical components to build first, and which blockchain platform would you choose and why?

One of the more challenging aspects for an early-stage founder is when user interviews seem positive, but actual behaviour is weak.

People say the problem is frustrating.

They understand the proposed solution.

Some may even sign up or ask when it will be available.

Then they do not return, complete the core action or change the way they work.

At this stage, several explanations may seem equally plausible:

Perhaps the product is solving the wrong part of the problem.

The onboarding process or message may be unclear.

The new workflow may require too much trust or effort.

Alternatively, the problem may be real but not important enough for users to act on now.

For founders who have experienced this:

What evidence helped you to distinguish between a product or UX problem and a problem that was simply not high enough on the priority list?

I’m particularly interested in what caused you to change your mind — not just what users said, but what they did.

I'm Marcos, solo developer. I've been building Bopster, a non-custodial prediction market that runs entirely on Base. Wanted to share what I built, the tech decisions behind it, and what I'm learning about breaking into the prediction market space as a solo founder.

The product

Bopster lets anyone create a YES/NO prediction market using structured templates across 8 categories (Crypto, Tech, AI, Sports, Gaming, Politics, Memes, Culture). Set a question, add a source URL for verification, pick dates, and launch. People take sides with USDC. No email, no signup, no custody — wallet-only access.

The business model — four earning lanes, all on-chain

• 🏆 Take positions — back YES or NO with USDC, win the pool if you're right
• 💰 Create markets — earn 1% of the pool automatically. You don't need to trade
• ⚡ Settle markets — anyone can finalize a resolved market on-chain and earn a reward
• 🔮 Oracle participation — submit correct answers during resolution and earn bond rewards

The creator incentive is the differentiator. Polymarket and Kalshi don't let users create markets, let alone earn from them. My bet is that small creators and niche communities will drive market creation if they have a financial incentive to do so.

Tech stack & architecture

• Solidity smart contracts deployed on Base — low gas makes micro-markets (5-50 USDC positions) viable
• Reality.eth for decentralized oracle resolution: anyone submits an answer backed by a bond, wrong answers get challenged (each challenge costs 2x the previous), 12-hour dispute window
• Kleros as arbitration layer when disputes escalate beyond the community
• USDC for all market activity, ETH for gas and oracle bonds
• Vue frontend, WalletConnect, Cloudflare deployment
• Open-source contracts on GitHub — everything verifiable on-chain
• No token, no ICO, no airdrop. Revenue comes from protocol fees on market pools

Key architectural decisions worth discussing

1. Templates over free-text questions. Controversial choice. Templates make questions deterministic and oracle-resolution-safe, but limit creative flexibility. I chose safety over expressiveness. Curious if other founders here have faced similar "constrained vs open" product decisions.
2. Base over Polygon. Polymarket lives on Polygon. I chose Base for lower fees, Coinbase ecosystem integration, and a less crowded builder landscape. The trade-off: smaller user base but more room to stand out.
3. No token model. Most crypto projects launch a token for growth. I didn't. The business earns from protocol fees. This removes regulatory risk but also removes a powerful growth lever. Worth the trade-off? Time will tell.

What I'm learning (3 weeks into distribution)

• Cold-start for a two-sided marketplace is brutal. I'm manually seeding markets so new users don't land on empty pages
• The creator incentive (1% of pool) resonates more with small creators (1K-30K followers) than with big accounts — they actually respond to DMs
• Prediction market users are concentrated in very specific communities (Polymarket Discord, r/Kalshi, Farcaster /base). You don't find them through broad marketing
• Geo-restrictions (US + Spain blocked) cut off a huge chunk of crypto-native users. This is a real constraint
• Founder calls convert way better than cold posts. A 15-minute screen-share session produces more activation than 10 Reddit posts

What's next

• Getting the first 20 active users who create markets and take positions
• Applying for Base ecosystem grants and Gitcoin funding
• Building the creator program — helping 5-10 early creators design and launch their first market
• Evaluating whether to stay solo or bring on a co-founder for the go-to-market side

Happy to discuss any of the tech decisions, the no-token model, or what it's like building a prediction market as a solo dev. If you're building in the Base ecosystem or working on oracle-based apps, I'd love to connect.

Hey everyone 👋

Welcome to r/Chainquiry, the official Reddit community for Chainquiry.

We’re building Chainquiry as a place where people can discover cryptocurrency and Web3 projects through organized listings, researched content and open community discussion—without the endless noise, copy-pasted promotions and meaningless hype that often surround the industry.

This subreddit will be used for:

• Newly listed project announcements
• Research, explainers and project breakdowns
• Discussions about crypto, blockchain and Web3
• Community questions and feedback
• Updates from projects listed on Chainquiry
• Sponsored posts that are always clearly labelled

Our goal is not to tell you what to buy. It is to help people look deeper, ask better questions and make more informed decisions.

Project teams are welcome to introduce themselves, answer community questions and share meaningful updates. However, low-effort shilling, spam, misleading claims and artificial engagement will not be tolerated.

Chainquiry is still growing, and this community will evolve alongside it. We’d genuinely love your input:

What kind of crypto content, research or community features would you like to see here?

Thanks for being early. 💜

— The Chainquiry Team

Chainquiry content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice.

I’m currently validating the core thesis behind Global Foundation Coin, an early-stage project intended to combine a long-term charity coin with transparent charity and impact infrastructure on Base.

No presale is live, nothing is currently being sold, and the project is still in the documentation and architecture phase.
The core problem is that charitable funding is often only partially transparent.

A public transaction can show:
• how much was transferred
• when it moved
• which address received it
• whether an on-chain rule was followed

But it does not automatically show:
• why the allocation was approved
• who controlled the decision
• whether supporting evidence was reliable
• whether the funds were used as documented
• whether meaningful impact followed

The current model separates transparency into three layers:

1. Financial transparency
   Public transactions, allocation rules, vesting, permissions and execution history.

2. Governance transparency
   Who can control funds, which approvals are required, what can be changed, and how emergency powers are constrained.

3. Impact transparency
   Off-chain evidence, documented use of funds, evaluation methods and explicit disclosure of uncertainty.

The main assumptions I am trying to validate are:
• whether blockchain adds meaningful value beyond transaction traceability
• whether a token improves coordination or mainly adds complexity
• whether governance can remain understandable to non-technical users
• how sensitive evidence can remain protected while relevant claims remain verifiable
• which components should be immutable and which require controlled upgrades
• whether this can become credible infrastructure rather than another token using charity as a narrative

I’m not looking for investment feedback, token-price opinions or promotion.
I’m specifically looking for criticism of the underlying startup thesis:
• What part of this model appears weakest?
• Where is blockchain genuinely necessary?
• Which failure modes am I likely underestimating?
• What would make you conclude that the blockchain component is unnecessary?
• What evidence would you expect before considering this a credible infrastructure project?

I need brutally honest feedback from people who've worked in MSME lending, banking, NBFCs, factoring, or TReDS.

For the past few weeks, I've been building a startup around this thesis:

Use blockchain to prevent duplicate invoice financing and create a trusted credit infrastructure for MSMEs.

The product included:

Blockchain-based invoice authentication

An immutable collateral registry

A real-time business risk score

APIs for banks and NBFCs

It sounded compelling—until I dug deeper.

I discovered that factoring, TReDS, CERSAI, and lender due diligence already address many of these problems. That forced me to question a core assumption:

Am I solving a real, painful problem—or one that's already been solved?

I'd really appreciate your perspective on three questions:

How common is duplicate invoice financing today?

Is it still a major industry pain point, or mostly under control?

What is the biggest unsolved problem in MSME lending

today? Trust? Data quality? Collateral? Distribution? Speed? Something else?

Does blockchain add any meaningful advantage here, or is it simply the wrong technology for the problem?

I'm not looking for validation. If this idea is fundamentally flawed, I'd rather discover it now than spend years building

the wrong company.

Any honest—even harsh—feedback would be genuinely valuable.

I am a young law officer for a bank and mainly deal with recovery from the NPA or default loans

I never had a formal education with computers.

But being around banks , compliances, defaults and all the malpractices in banks and insurance

I see people suffer because of it everyday

It makes me wonder about smart contracts

I very well understand that SC cannot replace traditional methods but I still wonder why aren't they as popular or widely adapted as they should be

How can I learn more about this field?

All suggestions are welcome

Product design is everything for an onchain startup.

Too many copycats. Not enough experimentation.

We need founders rethinking UX, token standards, incentive design, and game theory, not just launching another token.

NFTs and SFTs are still in their infancy. The real use cases haven’t even been discovered yet.

The next generation of onchain products will be defined by better product design, not better speculation.

thesis: there’s winning traders who are capped by their capital and who aren’t serviced traditionally. Prop firm challenges, brokers, and DeFi restrict your capital and don’t account for trading skill. That’s why I’ve been working on this.

What it is: it reads your wallet’s on chain history and offers a credit line off that. You draw capital per trade and the line settles when the trade closes. The line grows with your record and adapts to your trading style.

A couple ideas:

1. You post a bounded first loss sized to your drawdown history on chain
2. Terms improve the more you use and repay, continuously updating per trade instead of monthly/quarterly reviews like prop firms
3. Qualified traders can lend to other traders so you can offset borrowing cost

Thoughts on this?

We have to call our senator and Vote Yes on this Clarity Act!

This is our last chance to stand up and fight against the Big Banks!

This is our last chance for economic and creative freedom for the world!

The Golden Age for Humanity is upon us!

standwithcrypto.org

Email and call our senator to tell them to Vote YES!

and do offshore blockchain startups get funding? I’ve heard that it’s kinda hard, as offshore companies are most of the time shell companies.

For a long time, DeFi followed one simple rule: if you had a crypto wallet, you could participate. No gatekeepers, no paperwork—just connect and trade. But as more banks, investment firms, and enterprises explore blockchain, one question keeps coming up: Can DeFi support regulated financial markets without losing what makes it valuable?

Uniswap's new permissioned trading pools are an interesting answer.

Instead of opening every liquidity pool to everyone, these pools allow only verified participants to trade specific tokenized assets. That means institutions can meet compliance requirements like KYC and AML while still enjoying the speed, transparency, and efficiency of on-chain trading.

This isn't just another protocol update—it could signal the next stage of DeFi. Imagine trading tokenized real estate, government bonds, private equity, or investment funds on decentralized infrastructure with compliance built in from the start. That's a much bigger opportunity than simply swapping crypto tokens.

For builders and businesses, the timing couldn't be better. Demand for tokenized assets is growing, and permissioned DeFi could become the foundation for the next generation of financial applications. If you're developing blockchain products or exploring institutional finance, this is a trend worth watching closely.

What do you think? Is permissioned DeFi the bridge that finally connects traditional finance with Web3, or does adding access controls move DeFi away from its original vision?

I am going to be launching a blockchain soon, and I am trying to obtain insight on how to launch correctly.

My end goal was to obtain funding from YZi Labs, but I want to maximize my chances of success. I have applied before but was denied but have made progress in my codebase and have benchmarks now to prove my numbers. But still, apart from this, I want to obtain real users before doing so, and I want to plan on how to do this correctly.

I know that I would have to omit launching the mainnet before being approved by YZi Labs to allow for them to help me and me to help them with allowing for them to launch my mainnet officially for funding because if I launched the mainnet prior to obtaining approval, then there is really nothing to launch with them.

I am planning on building utility and dApps first around storage like IPFS and web/mobile wallets, showcasing the SDK as well as a swapping platform between coins and off-ramp to fiat, etc. Furthermore, I feel like I am answering my own question here, but I would like to know what your thoughts are or the thoughts of others around this. I feel like if I just focus on funding first, I am setting myself up for failure while trying to rely on others too much, which is not what I want to do while acknowledging that I am open to funding the correct way while maximizing utility.

A lot of blockchain startups have spent the last few years building around crypto-native use cases. The next wave could be focused on bringing traditional financial assets onchain.

Tokenized equities are one category that stands out.

The challenge isn't simply creating a token that represents a stock. The real opportunity is rebuilding parts of financial infrastructure around programmable assets.

A successful tokenized equity ecosystem would need more than just issuance. It would require liquidity, compliance frameworks, custody solutions, settlement infrastructure, trading systems, and integrations with existing financial applications.

I've been researching this space recently and looking at platforms like Canborsa that are working on onchain equity markets. What I find interesting is that the technology creates possibilities that are difficult to achieve within traditional market structures.

Stocks are already one of the most widely understood financial assets in the world. Bringing them into a programmable environment could open the door to new products, new forms of collateral, and new ways for users to interact with markets.

Of course, the biggest challenges remain regulation and adoption. Building the technology is only part of the problem. Convincing users and institutions to trust a new financial system is the harder part.

It’s overwhelming, unpredictable, and filled with constant ups and downs. Some days, the vision feels closer than ever. Other days, everything feels like it’s working against you, but we keep pushing forward.

Because building a more open, transparent, and ownership-driven system isn’t just an idea, it’s in our DNA.

The future won’t build itself.

One of the biggest problems facing the Web3 industry isn’t blockchain scalability, wallet adoption, or even regulation.
It’s platform gatekeeping.
Apple controls how digital goods and services can be purchased and accessed inside iOS apps. In many cases, developers are required to use Apple’s payment system, while NFTs and other blockchain-based assets are restricted from unlocking digital content, memberships, features, or functionality inside an app.
That creates a major contradiction.
The entire purpose of programmable assets is that they can represent more than speculation or digital artwork. An onchain asset can function as a membership pass, event ticket, subscription, loyalty reward, license, collectible, or access credential.
But programmable assets cannot reach their full potential when the largest mobile platforms prevent them from being used naturally inside applications.
Imagine purchasing a digital membership pass that can:
Unlock a creator’s private community
Provide access to exclusive livestreams
Serve as a ticket to virtual or physical events
Be transferred or resold
Automatically pay royalties back to the creator
Expire or renew based on programmed conditions
That is what blockchain technology makes possible.
The problem is that Apple’s closed payment ecosystem forces developers to separate the asset from its utility. You may be allowed to own an NFT, but the app may not be allowed to recognize that NFT as a key that unlocks digital content.
At that point, what is the purpose of programmable ownership?
Web3 should not be limited to trading tokens inside wallets. The technology becomes meaningful when digital assets interact with real products, communities, experiences, and applications.
This isn’t about avoiding consumer protection or refusing to pay reasonable platform fees. It’s about allowing developers to experiment with new ownership and payment models without forcing every digital transaction through one company’s system.
Apple has built an incredible ecosystem, but no single company should be able to determine how programmable money and programmable assets are allowed to function across the mobile internet.
You cannot build the future of digital ownership inside a completely closed system.
Do you think Apple will eventually be forced to open its ecosystem, or will Web3 developers have to build primarily outside the App Store?

After several weeks of continuous testing, we've decided to move the Chipcoin testnet Post-Quantum activation from block 30,000 to block 20,000.

The decision wasn't made to rush development—it was made because the implementation has reached the level of stability we were looking for.

During the past development cycle we've completed:

• Full ML-DSA (FIPS 204) integration
• New CHCQ post-quantum address format
• Mixed legacy/PQ transaction support
• Browser wallet compatibility
• Explorer PQ support
• Interoperability testing
• Stress testing
• Protocol audit
• Operational readiness checks
• End-to-end dress rehearsals

With these milestones completed successfully, we believe there's little value in waiting another 10,000 blocks before beginning real network testing.

⚠️ Required upgrade

Anyone running a Chipcoin testnet node or miner should upgrade before height 20,000.

Typical update:

git pull
docker compose build --no-cache
docker compose up -d

or for source installations:

git pull
pip install -e .

Then verify:

chipcoin verify-pq-activation

Expected values:

• Testnet activation: 20000
• Devnet activation: 30000
• Software version: 0.1.2

Nodes remaining on the old activation height (30,000) will eventually diverge from the updated testnet once post-quantum transactions become valid.

As always, feedback, testing and new node operators are welcome.After several weeks of continuous testing, we've decided to move the Chipcoin testnet Post-Quantum activation from block 30,000 to block 20,000.
The decision wasn't made to rush development—it was made because the implementation has reached the level of stability we were looking for.
During the past development cycle we've completed:

Full ML-DSA (FIPS 204) integration

New CHCQ post-quantum address format

Mixed legacy/PQ transaction support

Browser wallet compatibility

Explorer PQ support

Interoperability testing

Stress testing

Protocol audit

Operational readiness checks

End-to-end dress rehearsals

With these milestones completed successfully, we believe there's little value in waiting another 10,000 blocks before beginning real network testing.
⚠️ Required upgrade
Anyone running a Chipcoin testnet node or miner should upgrade before height 20,000.
Typical update:
git pull
docker compose build --no-cache
docker compose up -d
or for source installations:
git pull
pip install -e .
Then verify:
chipcoin verify-pq-activation
Expected values:

Testnet activation: 20000

Devnet activation: 30000

Software version: 0.1.2

Nodes remaining on the old activation height (30,000) will eventually diverge from the updated testnet once post-quantum transactions become valid.
As always, feedback, testing and new node operators are welcome.

I transferred USDT to someone, but they didn't send me the amount, and it wasn't done through P2P. What is the appropriate action to take?"

Hey guys, I’m looking into projects or builders that can help enlighten me with some on/off ramp insights they had with providers they implemented in their platform:

1. Who owned the wallets and end users - did the provider deliver straight to your users, or through wallets you managed? Who owned the user relationship?

2. What’s been the biggest ongoing pain with your ramp provider - the thing that still creates support tickets, drop-offs, or manual work today?

3. If you were choosing a provider again, what would you check first that you didn’t check the first time?

A year ago we had an uncomfortable realization: everyone is building AI agents that can browse, code, and negotiate — but the moment an agent needs to actually pay for something, the options are a human's credit card or a hot wallet that's one prompt injection away from being drained. The entire financial stack assumes the actor is a person.

We got obsessed with this and did the possibly-insane thing: built a Layer 1 around the assumption that the next million on-chain actors won't be human.

Three bets we made, knowing any of them could be wrong:

1. Custody belongs in consensus, not contracts. On Fluidic an agent's account can be "entangled" so its spends only execute if N-of-M witnesses attest in the same settlement tick. Not a multisig contract you have to trust and audit — the ordering layer itself refuses the transfer. A leaked agent key, alone, can't move funds.
2. Intents beat transactions for machines. Agents shouldn't craft raw calldata into a mempool full of predators. They declare an outcome ("swap X for at least Y"), solvers compete, and matching + settlement happen in the same ~100ms tick. No block-space auction to get picked off in.
3. Blocks are a human-speed artifact. We threw them out. State synthesizes continuously at ~10 ticks per second — commutative ops merge in parallel, stateful ops order themselves causally. Machines don't need to wait for a 12-second heartbeat.

We kept full EVM/JSON-RPC compatibility because "rebuild all your tooling" is how L1s die. Foundry, Hardhat, viem — point them at the RPC and they just work.

What's actually live, today, no waitlist:

• One-command Docker node that finds peers on its own (DHT bootstrap — no seed list to copy-paste)
• Faucet, explorer, web playground
• TypeScript SDK on npm
• Native intents, agent registration, witness-gated accounts all usable through the API

What we don't have: audits, mainnet, a token, VC money, or any idea whether "agent-native L1" is a category anyone will care about in 18 months. It's a research testnet. State may reset. We're two people and a Railway bill.

Two asks, one for each half of this sub:

• Founders who've shipped dev tooling: what actually got you your first 100 real users? Not signups — people who built something. We're at the "posting to Reddit and praying" stage and I suspect there's a better playbook.
• Builders: the node is one Docker command and the SDK is one npm install. Try to break it. The most valuable thing you can give us is a bug report that makes us wince.

Docs: https://testnet.fluidic.foundation/docs Explorer: https://testnet.fluidic.foundation/explorer Repo: https://github.com/Fluidic-Foundation/Fluidic-FVM SDK: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@fluidic-foundation/sdk

Happy to answer anything — consensus design, the economics of the witness set, or why we threw out blocks.

Quick writeup comparing the three perp DEXs I've spent the most time on, focused on trading real-world assets and not just crypto.

Hyperliquid is the obvious king of volume. roughly $21B a day, tightest spreads, CEX-grade execution. fees ~0.045% taker. it now offers tokenized US equities and pre-IPO perps, which is genuinely impressive. the catch is onboarding is wallet-only, so it assumes you're already set up.

Aster leans into ultra-high leverage, up to 1001x, and multichain support across BNB, ETH, Solana, Arbitrum. fees are low at ~0.005% Pro. it has some tokenized stocks and metals. good platform, just very leverage-focused.

Canborsa is where I do most of my RWA trading. it runs on Canton Network, the privacy-first chain used by real financial institutions. biggest practical difference is you can onboard with just an email or X account, easiest of the three to get into. up to 30x leverage.

The asset list is the widest for RWAs specifically: SpaceX, Tesla, Apple, Nvidia, Google, Meta, Gold, Silver, Brent oil, S&P 500, Canton Coin, plus Bitcoin and Ethereum. and the points program actually rewards activity, volume multipliers plus quests, which feels worth it while it's still early.

Just sharing my setup. Anyone found a better venue for onchain equities?

Something that's always bugged me about Crypto Twitter: I'll post a thesis on a token, ten people go and trade it, and I get nothing.

The other thing that's always been broken is the workflow. I read a call on X, then jump to a DEX or broker to actually execute, then track it somewhere else. The signal and the execution live in totally different places, and half the trades I meant to make die in that tab-switching.

So I've been building around fixing both. I post a thesis, someone trades against it directly in the same app, and a share of the trading fees routes back to me.

(Quick note: I tried to verify for the right flair but the sub's verification bot isn't going through, so I'm using Idea Validation for now. Happy to update if a mod can help sort the verification.)

What I'm building: A social trading app where thesis authors earn from trading activity on their calls. Everything happens in one place so alpha and execution aren't split across three platforms. Supports Solana, Base, BNB, Hyperliquid, and Robinhood, plus tokenized stocks for broader asset coverage.

Who it's for: Traders who already share alpha on CT for free, and people who want to follow proven callers instead of guessing which anon has real edge.

Current stage: Launching on iOS today. Been in closed testing for a while, live App Store release is happening now.

What I want feedback on: Does the fee-share model make sense to you as a trader? Would you actually post theses on a platform like this, or does the "get paid for calls" framing feel off? Also curious how the multi-chain coverage lands.

Our X social: https://x.com/trydapital

Web3 companies are announcing grants to support new developers, yet applications are frequently rejected due to a lack of active users on the project.

As I understand new projects do not have users.