Lagrange price

Quality Posts vs Shitposting🧐 I am writing my posts by mixing quality posts and shitposting as naturally as possible, like the marbling of beef. But I suddenly became curious about which one gets more views/interactions, so I did some research. So, I ranked the posts I wrote over the past three weeks while yapping in order of views. 1. Shitposting - Popular Posts Related to Yapping (Views: 12,000) 2. Quality Post - Summary of the Trump vs Musk Fight (Views: 9,700) 3. Shitposting - LOUD Follow Back Post (Views: 6,800) 4. Shitposting - Virtual Blood Has Been Cleared! (Views: 6,700) 5. Shitposting - Right to Know) $LA Meetup Ed $3,000 Breakthrough (Views: 4,300) 6. Quality Post - Introduction to $IRIS (Views: 4,200) 7. Shitposting - Achieved 4,444 Followers (Views: 3,100) 8. Quality Post - Introduction to @HanaNetwork (Views: 1,800) 9. Shitposting - @virtuals_io Points Skyrocketing (Views: 1,700) 10. Quality Post - Attendance Check Introduction for @UXLINKofficial (Views: 1,700) Summary Quality Posts make up 40% of the TOP 10, Shitposting 60% Quality Posts make up 20% of the TOP 5, Shitposting 80% Writing time: Quality Posts make up 90%, Shitposting 10% Shitposting is the future..!! Still, I will try to write as evenly as possible for those who believe in and read my posts. Hehe

Proof without distribution is just potential. @lagrangedev is unlocking both—bringing their Prover Network + $LA to 7 chains via @LayerZero_Core. Cross-chain infra done right.👇

Lagrange is now live with LayerZero. The @lagrangedev Prover Network is one of our DVNs—and they’ve chosen LayerZero for $LA token issuance. 7 chains supported (including Solana). All connected by OFT. All powered by LayerZero. Proof, meet distribution.

Lagrange is now live with LayerZero. The @LagrangeLabs Prover Network is one of our DVNs—and they’ve chosen LayerZero for $LA token issuance. 7 chains supported (including Solana). All connected by OFT. All powered by LayerZero. Proof, meet distribution.

Author: momo, ChainCatcher   Recently, Gate.io fell into a storm due to the abnormal "pin" of the $LA/USDT contract. A number of users alleged that Gate.io was suspected of manipulation during the period of sharp fluctuations in contract prices, resulting in many users' positions being abnormally liquidated or even liquidated, resulting in heavy losses. Although Gate.io has responded to the cause of the accident and the compensation plan, the community users do not seem to be buying it. ChainCatcher sought further responses from Gate.io on user queries, but Gate.io's replies to the key causes of the accident and compensation plans were basically the same as in the announcement, and there were no new details for the time being. Why wasn't Gate.io's response bought by users? At 8 p.m. on June 4 (UTC+8), Gate.io launched the $LA/USDT perpetual swap. About 4 minutes after the market opened, the price of $LA skyrocketed from around 0.36 USDT to 27 USDT in a matter of seconds, and then flashed down to around 0.2 USDT. During this period, the spot price of LA and the on-chain price on other exchanges with the same currency are mostly around 1 USDT. This "pin" phenomenon that deviates from normal fluctuations has led to a large number of users liquidating their positions in a short period of time, and some accounts have even lost their positions. The crypto KOL@Elizabethofyou said that the loss reached 20,000 USDT in this incident, while the @BTC_Alert_ said that it lost 100,000 USDT and owed 120,000 USDT to the platform, and it was impossible to add and close positions during the period. Gate.io subsequently removed the contract, and announced at around 9:28 p.m. that night that it would compensate for the part of the position. @BTC_Alert_, @Elizabethofyou and other users reported that the delivery order of the transaction was tampered with after the Gate.io issued the compensation for the loss of positions. @Elizabethofyou said that there were 3 trading orders with a total trading volume of 4,994 USDT, 7,999 USDT, and 13,990 USDT, which were changed to 49.94 USDT, 79.99 USDT, and 139.34 USDT respectively. As a result, some of the damaged users questioned Gate.io platform for suspected "malicious trading" or problems with the platform's risk control. On June 5th, Gate.ioCBO Kevin Lee further responded to the abnormal trading of the contract, saying that the cause of the incident was the abnormal source data of the contract index and the superposition effect of the automatic risk control mechanism, and there was no internal operation behavior, nor did there be any "single point liquidation" or deliberate behavior to blow up users. Gate.io also denied that the platform had tampered with user transaction data. In terms of the compensation plan, the Gate.io still only pays all the parts of the position. The amount of the loss payout, plus the fact that all users are allowed to keep the profits they have made, Gate.io bear a total payout of about $30 million. But many users don't buy it. First, it is considered that the compensation plan is unreasonable. The user believes that whether it is liquidation or liquidation, it is caused by the price deviation from the normal fluctuation caused by problems on the platform, why only compensate for the liquidation part, but not for the losses of liquidated users? Second, it is not convincing to attribute the cause of the accident to the abnormality of the data source. Some users suggested that the platform should disclose the index source composition and exception logs to prove that there was no internal manipulation. In addition, affected users expressed dissatisfaction with the platform's feedback and response speed and attitude throughout the Gate.io incident. For example, why did you respond to why the AMA refused to allow users to go to the microphone and only opened an AMA in English? Under the platform vulnerability, what is the basis for Gate.io not to pay for liquidation? In response to the user's concerns in the Gate.io response, ChainCatcher sought further responses from Gate.io, eliminated some duplicates with the announcement, and Gate.io the key responses as follows: 1. ChainCatcher: Gate.io lacks a specific explanation of the index source anomaly, such as which data source is the problem? Why can't platform risk control detect anomalies in advance? Is there market manipulation involved? Can you provide further evidence and elaborate? Gate.io did not provide further evidence or clarification. (Because the content of the reply and the announcement are basically the same, no specific presentation will be made)   2. ChainCatcher: Due to the abnormal transaction of the user due to the abnormal data source of the Gate.io, why only pay for the liquidation and not the liquidation part? On what basis? Gate.io: After technical inquiry, all LAUSDT contract transactions are executed in strict accordance with the predetermined trading rules, and the matching and liquidation mechanisms are triggered normally based on the index price rules, and no system abnormalities are found, so the losses caused by liquidation are not within the scope of the platform's compensation. In addition, the loss of liquidation is usually borne by the user, and other platforms in the industry follow similar rules. However, this compensation is an additional subsidy that the platform takes the initiative to bear, and it is a reflection of its responsibility for the systematic liquidation results caused by extreme markets.   3. ChainCatcher: According to the feedback from the X platform, many Chinese users have suffered a lot of losses due to the abnormal $LA/USDT contract. Why did Gate only choose to respond with an AMA in English? And why was the user's microphone request denied and the reply limit for that tweet was set? Considering another Chinese AMA response? Gate.io: The AMA was held within 24 hours of the incident, and the primary goal was to quickly respond to market concerns and convey the platform's position in a timely manner. Given the wide distribution of Gate users around the world, we prioritize AMAs in English to ensure that the information reaches the majority of affected users as soon as possible. We also attach great importance to the voices and demands of Chinese users, and have simultaneously strengthened communication with Chinese users through multiple channels such as internal messages, communities and customer service. If there is further demand from the community or users, we are willing to arrange an AMA specifically for Chinese users in the near future to provide more direct and open communication opportunities. Our decision not to open the microphone and reply privileges is mainly for the balance of maintaining the pace of the discussion and avoiding the escalation of the dispute, and there is no intention of avoiding communication. We will refine the questioning mechanism in the follow-up arrangements to achieve fuller interaction and response.   4. ChainCatcher: @Elizabethofyou. More than @BTC_Alert_ users reported that the order was tampered with, and the user did not accept it after you responded that there was no tampering. Gate.io: We attach great importance to the abnormal feedback of individual users in the community on the order records, and the technical team carried out a case-by-case check at the first time, and has not found any cases of orders being tampered with. The price jump shown in the screenshots of some users is actually a normal result of the amplification of the difference between the transaction price and the mark price in extreme markets. We welcome users to provide more detailed original records (such as order IDs, transaction screenshots, etc.), and we will continue to cooperate with the survey and provide targeted feedback to each user who raises questions.   5. ChainCatcher: Users affected by the $LA/USDT futures incident still have questions about Gate's compensation and response, will you have a new response and compensation plan? Gate.io: At present, there is no new unified compensation plan, if there are other questions or special circumstances outside the existing mechanism, we welcome users to continue to submit information. A crisis of confidence in the wake of frequent accidents in CEX contracts Contracts are CEX's core profitable business. However, the controversy caused by the Bitget VOXEL contract turmoil to the Gate.io LA contract anomaly reflects the technical and risk control challenges faced by CEXs in high-leverage and high-risk contract trading. However, there are problems such as lack of transparency and insufficient guarantee of user rights and interests in CEX crisis management, which further leads to a crisis of trust among users. In a highly competitive market, CEX may be the only way to rebuild user trust by responding more actively to user demands and making up for various shortcomings such as risk control.