So I did a couple of data crunch on friend.tech, here is the dashboard: lnkd.in/dSxXsieB

Context, what is friendt.tech, here is the GPT Summary of lnkd.in/dcT353Zq, so you don't have to, though I haven't done full fact-check:

1. Friend.tech is a decentralized social app, built on the Base network, that connects creators with their audience through tokenized attention.

2. The influence of creators on Friend.tech is represented by "keys" which can be traded to access exclusive perks.

3. The application launched on August 10, 2023, and soon after it saw a surge in usage with over 200,000 users and $230 million in trading volume.

4. Friend.tech allows creators to monetize their social reach, offering new opportunities for creators to connect with their audience.

5. The value of creators' keys is dictated by supply and demand, allowing for variability in what these keys can offer (e.g., exclusive chatrooms).

6. Friend.tech has attracted cryptocurrency influencers and esports personalities since its launch.

7. The platform operates via a Progressive Web Application (PWA), allowing users to manage their accounts from a browser-enabled mobile application.

8. Aside from its social aspect, Friend.tech also has an airdrop tab, which introduces a point system with future uses in the platform.

9. Despite its growing popularity, there have been concerns about user privacy on Friend.tech, particularly with the link between users' Twitter profiles and wallet addresses.

10. Friend.tech aims to tokenize influence and attention in unique ways, opening up new possibilities in decentralized social platforms.

I have only very superfcial takeway to share for now, please read the dashboard and let me now if you can infer anything from it. The superficial takeways from me are:

1. There are still lots of on-chain capital in small accounts willing to jump into new products to try out.

2. Majority are still likely airdrop farmers.

3. Nonetheless, it has contributed ~$31M dollar worth of friend.tech protocol fees in ETH. 

slickgpt.vercel.app/shared/tight-weak-australia

A cypherpunk, technocrat, speculator, and grifter sat on the edge of the digital sea. A single golden Bitcoin floated on the water, glinting in the simulated sunlight.

"Look," the cypherpunk said, delight filling his voice, "a symbol of freedom, its encryption unlocking chains of trust."

"But it is merely code," the technocrat argued, "No matter how complex, or encrypted, it falls under the templates of technology.”

"It is an investment, heralding prosperity," proclaimed the speculator, his eyes wide with dreams of wealth.

Yet the grifter, quiet until now, smiled, saying: "It's neither. Nor. And both."

And in that moment, the Bitcoin sank beneath the digital waves, gone, leaving them in silence. And yet, their arguments did not cease. For, in truth, the Bitcoin was not the source of their struggle, but merely a reflection of it.

From this, we understand that the value, like all things, is often not inherent, but perceived; Not in the object, but in the eye of the beholder.

As a cypherpunk, one doesn't need a business case for being so.

But for ones want to make money from crypto natives, you better have a business. Here is one analysis of SAFE on ethereum, polygon and optimism: dune.com/miaozc/safe-business-research; and my write-up on linkedin: www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7115988433977667584/

www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7115988433977667584/

Before talking about how we use Echidna, certora, and the future plan of making future Superfluid protocol correct-by-construction, let's talk about the mundane testing strategy first.

Superfluid protocol monorepo started when the tooling choices were between truffle and hardhat. Since foundry was created, we have been converting tests to foundry tests.

We merge the LCOV reports from both hardhat and foundry into one, then upload to codecov publically. You can view our code coverage of the ethereum-contracts package at app.codecov.io/gh/superfluid-finance/protocol-monorepo/tree/dev/packages%2Fethereum-contracts, which stood around a loudable ~97%.

In the next post, I will talk about something more more exciting: how we use Echidina (github.com/crytic/echidna)) to further enhance our testing strategy.

Right, do things; do the right things; or do things right?

In the decentralized finance part of web3, we have exhausted the bull market for the "right, do things" phase, and now many projects are figuring out how to "do the right things."

Additionally, the commitment to a permission-less system and code-is-law immutability makes the decentralized finance vision of web3 uniquely challenging compared to traditional finance. The complexity arises from this commitment's need for privacy and security. And complexity is the enemy of "doing things right." While the principle for doing things right in programming is the pursuit of "program correctness."

For this conundrum, we have a few approaches:

1. Keep things simple.

2. Compromise on immutability through upgradability.

3. Pile in post-hoc verification, including testing, automatic theorem proving, etc.

4. Use tooling that is friendlier for correctness-by-construction.

The vision behind Superfluid is extensive, and taking compromising on immutability is not acceptable to many either. So it comes down to how I can manage the complexity.

In the following posts, I will describe how our v1 code base has used techniques for post-hoc verification, including the experiment with the Certora Verification Language v1. In time, I will also show what correctness-by-construction is and what steps I have been taking to make it a closer reality to the Ethereum ecosystem.