Andre Cronje - infinite AMA

Sorry oddly i thought your comment here was under the post for zk-Menace. Fantom would be wasted potential as an l2. Not trying to be rude, but what Andre mentioned on “the block” to be fair, Andre had and still doesn’t have, knowledge of the zk-menace proposal and how powerful of a rollup it is. Compared to exist zk-rollups. But the idea of being a sidechain to eth would just be a waste as there are better contenders for what Fantom would you even be able to accomplish positioning itself that way? Whereas ZK menace.
Has potential to become the thought to be mythological “ethereum killer.”

I mean, if I really had to I know. We could always just fork fantom and do it ourselves, but realistically I feel like once Andre and everyone else has a had a chance to read the research report, it will be come very clear to them as well. if not, I’m posting it on eth research where it will be viewed by many talented individuals.

why circle didn’t launch usdc on ftm yet?
they launching natively on mainet for six blockechain.
Please answer my question

Hi Andre …I hope you’re doing well! Have you tried any of these telegram bots for interacting with defi, like Maestro or Unibot? If so, curious as to what your thoughts are on that new vertical in defi.

Hi Andre, it’s me again. I was wondering if there are any updates for FUSD, are we still on track? Is the project scrapped? What roadblocks are we facing to see some updates on the situation.

Would love to get your insight.


Hi Andre (and Michael), hope all is well. That interview you both did with TheBlock a while back I think was really insightful. Thanks for doing that.

The comment you both made on exploring options for Fantom in terms of adopting OPT, ARB or roll-up tech for FTM’s own canonical bridge into ETH’s ecosystem is really exciting. From how it was positioned, it seems the FF is exploring options and no definite decision on this was made yet. It has been some time, and I was wondering if there is more clarity around this currently? How certain is it that FTM will be adopting this tech? It seems there are many technological developments ongoing already and it is probably not realistic for this to be in place until second half of next year.

Congratulations on the Sonic testnet launch. I understood from Michael’s tweet this is just the beginning, so what’s next?

Thanks for the response, and apologize for the delayed reply. A few follow up questions if you don’t mind;

  1. Do you think that the concept of the TWAR was a misunderstood part of Solidly? Asking because I didn’t see any of the various forks really utilize TWAR and its benefits to their advantage (& know you talked this up elsewhere in the thread)
  2. Was the simplified version of the self-referential pool ever published? If not would you be willing to make it available?
  3. Interested to hear your thoughts on why a simplified version would be better for the price movement behavior of forex asset stables in a pool, is there any insight you’d share?
  4. On the topic of Solidly and its forks, do you think it’s a natural evolution that the volatile pools have been replaced by V3 forks? Do you see CL as complementary to the x3y+y3x=k formula?

Separately, congrats to the Fantom team in achieving Sonic

veNFT made sense given 4 year lockups, as Fantom staking does not have anything so severe, it makes somewhat less sense. Staking also happens at the base layer, which means the NFT logic needs to be encapsulated in the node logic, which can add additional threat vectors.

The banking license does allow us to issue a stablecoin natively, we are exploring that from a regulatory and legal perspective.

Yes, and MC was an asset seizure by government, not a hack.

No, not an area of interest for me.

At this point our focus is predominantly on Sonic and its launch, post that we will revisit bridges. As they are not natively part of the base layer, it is a secondary issue currently.

Prefer to keep this thread Fantom focused, but will add some responses;

  1. TWAR is more confusing than TWAP, just as TWAP is more confusing than SPOT. When building a protocol relying on a decentralized oracle, you likely first use SPOT, and first need to make the mistakes to understand why SPOT is bad, then you switch to TWAP, and then need to understand why TWAP is bad. The implications aren’t obvious. TWAR is also specific for fully decentralized protocols (where there only source of liquidation for example is on-chain pools, and then liquidity becomes important). TWAR is also suited for dynamic LTV ratio’s, something that we have seen is repeatedly exploited in lending protocols.

  2. No it was not, I have no plans to make any of my code available going forward

  3. Curve v2 pools are a good place to look at, since they use an internal oracle to condense liquidity around that point. Similar concept.

  4. Yes, concentrated liquidity is better than xyk in every way.

1 Like

Clear, thanks Andre. Sonic is exciting tech and well done Fantom team.

Thanks, appreciate the responses and making an exception to answer these questions :pray:

Hi @andre, I’m curious about the Fantom Foundation’s interest and motivation in ensuring the success of the chain and continuous development. Considering it doesn’t seem like the foundation earns anything from the Dapps team or users, and with validators meant to be distributed, I’m also interested in understanding the foundation’s sources of revenue and how it plans to break even with the annual operating costs. Thank you.