I first heard about Citrea (#1420746) as a company that had a lot of venture funding and was gonna do bitVM stuff. Then they became associated with the op-return stuff from last summer. There were lots of insinuations that Citrea was behind the removal of the op-return limit.
Then Citrea finally launched and I didn't really hear much about it again (except when a "privacy" tool called Crest was announced - #1454227).
So I guess it is not a surprise that Citrea is now launching a shitcoin.
Citrea’s ecosystem and capital have matured to a stage that requires a transition from top-down decisions to user-led economic coordination.
As part of Citrea’s user-owned growth stage, we're introducing CTR and its staked form, xCTR - the coordination asset for the Bitcoin economy.
Okay, so there's this thing called CTR and what it is useful for is staking. When you stake CTR you get xCTR and xCTR is useful for voting about governance?
Users stake CTR to receive xCTR, a non-transferable token that grants voting power over the Citrea Governance Treasury and the Citrea Network.
What does someone with voting power actually have the ability to so?
It seems that voting mostly controls emissions -- which I guess means voting determines who gets new CTR?
CTR has a fixed supply of 10 billion tokens, with 34.83% unlocked at launch. However, a significant portion of the ecosystem growth allocation is designated for staking, delegation, and long-term network support, and is not expected to enter active circulation at launch. CTR is natively issued on the Citrea Network as an ERC-20 token and is also available on the Base Network in bridged form.
This part really doesn't make sense to me. You get a token that you are supposed to stake to get another token so that you can vote about who gets new tokens that they can stake and vote about who gets new tokens. This is a little circuitous is it not? What stops runaway centralization?
I suppose this is all very normal for the shitcoiners, but I wish they had found a way to avoid these kind of mechanics. Is it just the nature of all the more complicated contracting things that they must try to do these things? It seems like such a precarious way to go about things.
If they built "trust-minimized BTC on a fully programmable Bitcoin layer," why not do staking and control or whatever-the-frack with bitcoin? Either:
It sounds like (2), which they kind of obfuscate via incentives break otherwise without providing evidence.
This could be a well-known phenomenon in altcoin protocols I guess, but to my ignorant ass it sounds a lot like "we need to profit sufficiently on speculative utility else we'll quit."
“how is that going to make me rich?”
The only use of BitVM/Covenants is shitcoinery
VCs: We’re building on Bitcoin bro.
Bitcoiners: Cool, what’s the product?
VCs: A token you stake for voting power over more tokens.
Bitcoiners: Ah, so another shitcoin.
Citrea: It’s different this time.
Another VC project graduating to full shitcoin mode. Staking for governance to decide more emissions, classic.
Bitcoin didn't need this
So is it finally fair to call Lopp a shitcoiner?
https://www.blog.citrea.xyz/announcing-citrea-series-a-round/
has been for awhile. casa still support eth?
I know, but he tried to nuance that.
not
suprised
35% pre launch distribution
side note.
how does the op__return crap relate to this if it does at all?
also you CAN avoid these mechanics, they used to call em 'tokenomics' its not like its much new.
dont worry it will be government compliant as well
It has nothing to do with it. In fact, that citrea actually did use "moon math" to make it possible to directly trade Bitcoin on the chain makes this token all the more laughable. There just isn't a real technical reason to have it. They're just trying to make money.
I mentioned it because the filteroors were so worked up that they concocted a conspiracy that claimed that the removal of the op return limit was somehow done at the behest of citrea. It was an absurd claim but nonetheless it was one of the reasons citrea came across people's radars.
thats for each person themselves to decide.
havent like lopp since he started supported eth with his casa company.
he can do whatever he wants. i can still call him a shitcoiner tho
regardless.
classic predistributed shitcoin.
Sigh premines
what a load of shit