Post

@Auduoduo See through the phenomena to the essence Cai Ge is awesome

@Auduoduo Anything that violates the theory of decentralization is a scam.

@Auduoduo He's the only one who's rich.

@Auduoduo You really messed up a great hand.

@Auduoduo This is the kind of tweet a blogger should post, thumbs up!

Fair criticism is useful, but this post mixes up provenance, safety, custody and curation, then treats disclosed design choices as if they had been uncovered. A few corrections: 1. LaunchProof was explicitly announced as an interface for Uniswap's launch infrastructure, not as an independent protocol. It uses Uniswap's contracts, takes no platform fee and never holds user funds. Repeating our own description is not exposing a hidden flaw. 2. Regular launches and the tracking dashboard are free. The 1M $LEAK requirement applies only to the optional X-linked process and the tokens are burned, not paid to me. Telegram access is a holder perk. You can dislike that utility model, but calling it a hidden extraction loop is inaccurate. My position and intended profit-taking were also disclosed publicly. For context, ~13M out of a 1B supply is roughly 1.3%. 3. The X link does not come from our opinion or manual judgment. Uniswap's official flow authenticates control of the X account and binds it to the deployer wallet. LaunchProof then cross-checks that data against the transaction sender and onchain metadata. The manual step only provides access to a flow that is not publicly self-serve yet. A purchased or compromised X account can obviously still be used maliciously. That is why the site explicitly says that verification proves provenance, not safety, quality or endorsement. Identity and integrity are different things. We have never claimed otherwise. 4. There is no contradiction between being non-custodial and having a manual process for an optional feature. Non-custodial describes what happens to users' funds and transactions. It does not mean every interface, notification channel or eligibility rule must be decentralized. 5. Dependency on unreleased infrastructure is a fair risk. Contracts and APIs can change, and the official UI may reduce part of the information advantage. We have been open about this being early infrastructure research. No permission or contract restriction was bypassed. 6. Nobody claimed Crowd Launch eliminates bots, insiders or information asymmetry. Price discovery is not the same claim as perfect fairness. These are Uniswap's launch models, not mechanisms invented by LaunchProof. The reasonable criticisms here are conflict-of-interest optics, the scalability of the optional manual process and dependency on infrastructure that may change. Those are worth discussing. Terms like "faking trust," "gray-area frontrunning" and "designed to pump" are conclusions about intent, not technical findings. They rely on collapsing several distinct concepts after those distinctions were already disclosed.

@Auduoduo Take the next one away

@Auduoduo pools.trade is dead.

@Auduoduo You're really good at this!

@Auduoduo, you're right. I feel like v4 hook doesn't have much substance. It's just deliberately creating a small bet to replace swap with an unequal bet, and forcibly adding NFT. I don't think it's very useful. Could you analyze uni's v4 hook mechanism when you have time to see if there's anything new or useful?

I get the criticism of capitalizing on the launch hype and using it to get liquidity into their own token, but the rest of the criticism is true for Uniswap as well. And you should read the CCA whitepaper on how it eliminates insider coordination (developers.uniswap.org/whitepa…). Not to say that this approach is perfect. But it is better than instant launches.

@Auduoduo I'm so lewd 🏓♟️ Anyone want to give a sharp critique of my luck?

@Auduoduo Those prettier than me aren't as sexy as me 🥞😍 Those sexier than me aren't as pretty.

@Auduoduo Thanks I bought more

@Auduoduo I bet nobody's more adventurous than me 🌹🍵 My luck isn't bad, you'll see!