Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Out of Cycle Update.
[00:00:02] What good is printed money if nobody's there to spend it? CryptoTalk FM. My name is Leister, I am your host. I'm doing a special episode. Those that used to be in what was known as the Libero ecosystem then changed to the Libera ecosystem. And I told them that's a bad idea.
[00:00:21] This ecosystem, it's still the ecosystem still exists. But these devs and anybody's listened to Leister here for a while understands that Lyster is the only one that really communicates effectively what it is that they're doing and warns you at every single milestone what was going to happen. And everything that I predicted came to be the truth and you saw it yourself of the decline of what could have been a really good project. If you're new, you have no idea what I'm talking about and I want to take you back and I want to tell the story and I won't take too long. But in 2021 we saw the rise of many tokens that were focusing on rebase mechanics. Ample 4th is still out there as a rebase token. Arguably one of the more popular rebase mechanics out there. We saw token project spin up and the big one was Titano. Tatana then spawned a bunch of forks, as in forked off contract code to the Seifu, you know, with the car sales would scam. And we saw Ascent Protocol, Sphere Finance and tons. And then of course Libero.
[00:01:26] The problem as I called out way back, was the unrealistic APYs. I referred to all of these as cucarachas because they kept popping up during that time. They kept popping up during that time because they were trying to bank on the popularity of Titano prior to them stealing that money from the whale that they did. And the unrealistic apy. I explained and I'm breaking this down because some may not have heard that episode. I broke down that the reason they're able to do the unrealistic APY has to do with the way that they did the rebase mechanic, which ultimately is the reason why the vast majority of them failed and were doomed to fail in the long term. And I had the die hards in Seifu calling me a fudder course their project in the crapper at 12 cents when it peaked at over $300. I digress. I felt I wanted to explain because may people may not understand, they might not get it.
[00:02:18] And this was inspired by a post from the devs last year of what was Libero on the Dow for F Libero, which unfortunately the Dow is merged between Libero and F Libero. And the only way you would know that this particular vote was out there is if you go to their telescam, which of course I do not. If I had seen that there was a Dao vote out there, I have enough tokens in F Libero that I could have influenced the vote. The vote basically said either keep the rebase or drop the rebase. If you remember on Libero, they did a dao vote to drop the rebase mechanic and then Libero lost all of the rest of its value because you didn't get anything else from it. Right. And your stuff's stuck in the bank and you're watching it dwindle. They eventually did migrate to Libera. Well, Libera was crapping because Libera depended on the mechanics that Libero brought. If you didn't have Liberal's mechanics, Libero was not going to succeed, as I warned was going to be the case. And I told the truth and nobody listened. I had some people come by in my lives and they said, we're trying to get the devs to reach out. And I did hear from the devs and they gave me some bullshit story about how he can't speak English words and that's the reason why he didn't want to get on a call. And I said, we're not doing telescam and we need to do something that's not your telescam and we're going to make a deal so I can help communicate what you're doing and give you these ideas to help get the project back on track. And they didn't listen to me. And then they ended up abandoning, as they had done with Multiverse Capital, as they had done with Epic Hero, as they had done with the Thunder Tokens, as he had done with Garuda and Cerberus when those got breached. And every single time I refer to as a shiny with this team, however, they're still here. Where Tatano is dead. Seifu might as well be dead. Ascent Protocol might as well be dead. Sphere Finance is here, but it might as well be dead. And so on. All of these cucarachas, this team was the only one still standing. And then I see last year that they do a DAO vote, which means they're still around. So if you're one of those that chooses to go to their telescam and you hear about these things, here's my request. To you, let us know. CryptoTalk FM. Hit the contact form. If there happens to be something where you think that we can help make a difference. But the vote should keep the rebase. Drop the rebase. I would have voted to keep the rebase. Here's why the and that's what one was to keep the rebase. Some people said drop the rebase because at this point it's of no value. I wanted to explain that and the reason why I would have voted to keep the rebase at this point, for the most part, they left F Libero alone after they launched it. I said when they were about to launch it, they made a mistake making it a separate token instead of just releasing Libero on the Phantom chain and then bridging the two. The reason that I wanted that done and I want to break down what I would have done at the end of this episode, is because if you create a synergy across two chains, it helps you manage by way of arbitrage and by way of joined burn the supply. And the supply is the reason it got out of whack.
[00:05:18] These tokens. The difference between all of these cucarachas and what amplefor did I described before as the positive rebase and negative rebasing. A positive rebase simply says, I'm going to print more tokens on the fly. And in this case they're printing it for the rebase to add to everybody's wallet. That's the positive rebase. A negative rebase, which none of them were doing, a negative rebase is critical. And I called this out before and nobody listened, but I called it out before, that a negative rebase is critical. Here's why. If you have a positive rebase and nothing but a positive rebase, it's inflation. You're just printing and printing and printing and printing and printing. That would work if you have a constant stream of buy activity. I want to stress that again, if you have a constant stream of buy activity, the positive rebase would actually work. Because what the positive rebase is essentially doing is it's adding more of that token to the liquidity pool. But your other side, which is your, let's say wrapped phantom, wrapped bnb, whatever that core token is, which is really the value aspect calculated, that's staying the same or it's decreasing as people sell, well, your liquidity pool is getting out of balance. That's why we saw the price just drop and drop and drop. That's why SEIFU crapped, because they went all in even deeper than liberal did with the positive rebase. And then there was a form of wasp trading from the car salesman and artificial money coming in and then it dumped back out. The liquidity pool got out of whack and I warned people, this is not going to sustain because if you have high sell pressure, it's going to get out of balance. That's exactly what happened. So those die hards disappeared, didn't come out. Get my credit. But the point is, on the liberal side, the team acknowledged later that this was the problem. The problem all along had been the rebase mechanic because they just copied what Tatano had started and didn't have a game plan for sustained positive. When they did the Times Square, I said, why didn't you go back and do it again? When they dropped the bonding, I said, this is a bad idea by your own business because consider what the bonding does at the core. And I did a whole episode about the bonding. The bonding encourages buy activity. Encouraging buy activity adds that liquidity money back into the pool. You need a constant stream of buys. If you're offering the bond at a discount, it's going to encourage buy in conjunction with a solid marketing strategy. If they had done that, it would have helped sustain the price. What killed it is they killed off the burn number one. Then they killed off this bonding. Then they killed off when you lock it in the bank, they killed off the rewards on the secondary token, not the main. So I'm not talking about, you know, BNB or whatever, I'm talking the secondary one. They killed off those rewards because they were trying to kill off the cell pressure. It was all reactive because they didn't understand why it was a problem because all they did was copy Titano without a fundamental understanding of why it was going to be a risk. When they had the burn at the time, they sold you on the narrative that the burn was going to help manage the supply. What they failed to understand and the real flaw behind a positive only rebase rebasing basically overrides the concept of a total supply. If you have a rebase in effect, your total supply is elastic, which means it'll never stop. That's why you need the negative. You've got to have it bring it back down according to price pressure. That still would have affected the price. But what it does is some people would have been their price would have gone up because they had more tokens. They didn't. None of them implemented the negative rebase, which is why it got out of control, because there's a rebase in place, but it's just climbing, climbing, climbing. And your equity pool is getting out of whack and your total supply is extremely inflated and it'll never stop. That's the problem. So when Seifu launches with 300,000 tokens, it doesn't have 300,000 now because it's printing out of control. I've call this out multiple occasions. That's the reason Libero crapped. It crapped because they copied from Tatano without a full understanding about what it was they were copying and what the impacts were. There was no analysis done to understand what the impact of this decision was going to be. The car salesman, I'm pretty sure he knew what was going to happen. His wash trading is evidence of what he was really trying to influence. He was trying to influence, okay, we're gonna get a bunch of people up in this business and then dump out on them. Which is exactly what happened. I think a set protocol just didn't understand it. I think Sphere Finance didn't understand it. I think some of these other ones just didn't understand because they just copied what looked good for Tatana. I think Drip, same thing, crapped, same thing, did not understand it. Drip built a pyramid scheme to try to keep it going as long as they could. But at the end of it, many of those people were just spinning up multiple wallets so they were self pyramiding, which wasn't going to solve the problem because you're not getting real new money, at some point they're going to stop. Right? You're not getting real new money flowing into the project in a positive only rebase you cannot sustain if you don't have constant buy pressure on what you're doing. And if you're not doing enough marketing to get people on board, it's not going to go anywhere. Like if you took the current state of what was happening back then, if you took that and brought it now and you had negative rebasing in place, you're Libero. There'd be millionaires minted by now because the way they did it worked in a bull run, it didn't work in a bear because they didn't have a negative rebase to help manage it and weather the storm. That when we get to this run where bitcoin doubles, you'd had because some of them would have been sitting on major value. Even if your tokens started to decrease, you'd have been sitting on major value. And then if you, if you couple that with the bonding which they took and put it on thorium, but it doesn't have the same value because thorium, they were burning total supply. They didn't understand it was an overreaction to what happened with libero. What they did with thorium, it was never the right answer. All along, the liberal team had the key, but they killed off the two things that would have helped this keep succeeding. The bond is number one and then the aggressive burn. And I say aggressive burn by way of my way. I would have done it. It's all past now, but the way I would have done it. And frankly, they could still do it on F libero if they were smart enough. I don't think that they are because they could use F libero right now if marketed correctly to help salvage libero if they were smart enough. I don't think they are. Number one, I would. Because you jacked up and created F libro as a separate token, you can't do a seamless bridging. But what you can do is create a pair for F libero to phantoms wrapped bnb because it's there. Create a pair From Libero to BnB's wrapped Phantom over there. Create a tool in your web and I know the web development sucks, but create a tool that lets you now bridge between the two. You bridge between the two. You take what's on the phantom side and if somebody wants to send it over to the libero side, instead of sending the token straight over there, it's simply going to send the value equivalent, whatever that is in the wrapped bnb and bridge it over. That's going to add to the liquidity because of the fact that now it's not doing a sell, it's just adding it to the liquidity pool. And then issue the liberal token equivalent to on that side. That's number one. Number two is the bonding reimplement. The bonding. Do it on both sides. If somebody does a bond on the liberal side, let's say it's at this point you'd have to do like a billion. But let's say you do a bond on the liberal side, somebody does it. You do a lockup period of three to five days. It doesn't have to be long, but you want to lock up to make sure there's not an immediate sell. That happens when the bond is purchased and locked in on the phantom side, you initiate a burn from what it would have done from the supply pool. You initiate a burn of the same amount of tokens that the bond just did on this Side, you set up the same bond on the F liberal side for the same reason. Now you set the bond amount of tokens high enough that you could help burn off some of that excess supply that's out there. And they just basically interplay, similar in concept to the Luna Classic and USTC as a base, as in one is instructing the supply of the other as they interrupt. Then you, you have to culminate that into a marketing strategy. You have to tell people, we're not going to lock you into the bank. If you want to be in the bank, we're going to issue you rewards, but you're not locked in there, you're not forced to stay in there. If you do stay, for every day, we're going to give you 1% of. And in this case I would give them the token. So let's say F libero 1% is your return next day, 2% next day 3% next day, 4% next day 5. What does that do? It takes the tokens that are being rebased and it gives it to a locked mechanism. Because it's locked, that's total value locked.
[00:14:31] As it does this, you tell the engine, take an equivalent percentage of what we just issued that person and burn it so that it's managed. It's basically, if I do 1%, it's burning, it's taking 1% burning, 1% distribute. So it's a 2% distribute for 2%, it's a 4 for 4%, it's an 8. Now what you're doing is as people interact with your essentially a staking mechanism, you're implementing a burn off the side to help manage this excess supply that's being dumped back into the liquidity pool to get rid of it. But it's being triggered by people interacting with these tools. You could do that on both sides, cap that all off. Now, if somebody chooses to get into Thorium, I'm talking the, the bank, the exchange, both. If you choose to get into Thorium in any way, you tell Thorium the, whatever that is, let's say the bank. You tell Thorium bank. One of the tokens I'm going to issue, they used to have this. One of the tokens I'm going to issue you is Libero and or f Libero. But if you claim it from here, it's going to add it to that bank. So what we're doing is we're adding it to your bank assets, which increases your return by way of whatever other token that you get. So you're compounding by way of interacting with thorium bank, use the value of the thorium bank to help pull back some of that supply from the libero and f libero side and stake it so that it's locked in there. If somebody sells because they want to get the money out of it, charge a 50% sell tax, take the 50% that you took as a tax and burn it. Now what you're doing is you're helping manage the excess supply, but you're encouraging people to interact with the supply on both sides. This is why I wanted them to do libero on both chains because they could have done it easier had they done that with a simple bridge and they chose not to do it. I might also consider that the thorium exchange should implement a burn if it's used for anything that it does. So if you use thorium exchange to transact any token on the binance side, it will initiate a burn of, in this case, libero on. On the back end. And it's. It's another. So you're adding all these mechanisms to help manage on what should have been a negative rebase using these creative burn mechanics that are driven off of them, actually using the damn tool. That's what I would have done, frankly, that they didn't do and they won't hear me. But if you're. If you're. Again, one of those goes telescam.
[00:16:59] I tried, okay? I tried to help them. These are the things where it's obvious, right? If you've heard me for a while, you've been hearing me talk about why the bond was the key and why these other things were the key and why they were doing it wrong and why this is going to happen. Here we are. I'm not Nostradamus. It was obvious for anybody to pay attention. I tried to help them. They didn't want my help. Here we are them putting up a Dow vote on the. It says liberal, but it's for F Libero and nobody hardly saw it because they're only in the telescam and they don't communicate what they're doing outside the box. They don't do the website because the website sucks and there's no way nobody, nobody could see that was out there. The reason in closing, that I would have said to keep the rebase is one person had a good point. He said, right now that's the only utility you have left. And he's correct. I don't think dropping the rebase is the answer. I think if they really give a damn other than spinning up shinies, I would do the bridge concept I'm describing and I would get it to where the supply is managed and back in order versus just abandoning it, which is what they're doing. I would just get creative on how we manage the supply and get it back on track. And I think with all the different shit that they've created that they could do it. They tried everything under the sun, folks, to get more money. That's what BNB Garden was for. They did that to get more money and then they took it from you to try to help because it was bleeding. Is bleeding. They tried the beans because it was bleeding. They tried all these tools and then they dropped them. They took the money and they spun it back over here to try to salvage what they had jacked up because they didn't understand what happened. That's. That's the truth that Leister's been telling you for over a year and a half now, minimum. Been telling you it was going to be the case.
[00:18:43] So if you're intelliscam, you know you can. And assuming they're active, I'm not going to telescam. I refuse. I am a real business. But if you've listened this long and you're hearing and you're like, everything sounds like it makes sense, sounds like it could actually fix this shit, sounds like you get people some money back. Sounds like it gets something, especially in the bull. Are you kidding me? When, when people are out there actively looking for token projects, could you imagine if they did what I'm suggesting in the bridge that I was referring to? And could you imagine if they linked Libero to Solana in addition to the Binance one because Solana is going on runs. Could you imagine if they added some of these other tokens that people, you know, the bonk crap and all these other ones to the thorium exchange for transactions? And then you say that doing the work there in initiates burns on all the other stuff. Could you imagine if they had a key marketing strategy like they did the first time, if they kept doing that stuff, something that has a statute of liberty at the time when Donald Trump is out there talking about making America great again? Do you understand what I'm describing here and how simple it really could be if they weren't a bunch of numb nuts that actually gave a damn? That's. That's what I'm saying. So it's out there now. You know why this went south? They took a contract. They didn't Understand it. They just plugged it in, sold you on a sky high apy knowing it was due to fail all the time. I just said, they're doing what they told me. And it did. It just said, you're going to get all these tokens. They never guaranteed you that they were going to have significant value. They did say you get passive income. You did. All of them paid out. The only one that stopped was F Libero. And even F Libero, you can still take the tokens and sell them. They still have any value because of the problem. But the concept of staking and getting some passive value is still there to this day. They're the only ones still left. So I'm. That's why it's so frustrating. It's like that's why I knew way back they're the only ones that seem to get it. But I called out that other project and I forget the name off top that was yelling at Tatano saying that Tatano stole their code. And didn't you give me any credit? You just stole my code. And I said, I speculated that maybe there was a flaw in that contract because it crapped. Where it copied over to Tano because they crapped and then all these cucaraches copied the same flaw and they crap. Maybe this is the flaw. Right? Because all of them crapped. And then in this one, this team just said, okay, we're going to go to this key of life crap. And they've done drops, so you still have the value. They done migration, so you still have the value. The one thing that they didn't do was take the time to try to fix what they broke. And I think it could have been fixed. I think even now it could be fixed. But you got to get creative with how you do it. And I don't think they have it in them. And it's sad because now's the time where they could capitalize on the momentum we have all around us.
