ETH price

ON-CHAIN ALERT: SharpLink Gaming continues its aggressive #Ethereum accumulation, buying another 11,200 $ETH (~$43M) via an OTC deal with Galaxy Digital. This was a classic OTC transaction, with 43M $USDT sent to Galaxy Digital hours before the ETH was received. #SharpLink #ETH #OnChain #OTC #GalaxyDigita

🥧 Cake is a type of pie right? Glad to be part of so many of Ethereum's Birthday celebrations - would love to see some pictures in the replies @ETHGlobal

Recently at @BRRRDAOxyz, we dropped a comprehensive OEV analysis, comparing @Chainlink SVR with other existing solutions. ​ Everyone's debating revenue splits, but I don't want to talk about whether 60% beats 90%. I want to talk about why the "best" technical solution might lose anyway. Thoughts on infrastructure wars and what the OEV competition reveals: ​ Everyone sees: "Oval gives 90%, SVR only 60%, obvious choice" ​ I see: Distribution beats optimization every time. ​ Look at the data: • Chainlink SVR: 60% split, Ethereum-only, 5-block theoretical max • Oval: 90% split, but building from scratch • Redstone: 50/50 split, "hostile participant" assumptions • API3: 80% split, multi-chain complexity ​ The revenue split paradox: Aave chose 65% over 90%. Why? ​ It's not about percentage - it's about infrastructure reliability. SVR leverages battle-tested Flashbots infrastructure while competitors build new auction mechanisms. ​ Real performance? 95% of SVR auctions complete in 1-2 blocks. The theoretical 5-block maximum matters less than actual reliability. ​ Plot twist: This isn't even about OEV extraction. ​ SVR is Chainlink's first Payment Abstraction implementation. Converting fees to their native token. They're building a sustainable token economy. ​ The quiet alpha: While everyone optimizes for revenue splits, Chainlink is optimizing for ecosystem lock-in. ​ Second-order effects everyone's missing: ​ • OEV revenue correlates with market stress, not protocol adoption • Multi-chain support = more failure points, not more value • Network effects > technical specifications • Ecosystem integration > pure performance metrics ​ The path of least resistance: ​ Protocols choose 60% + reliability over 90% + risk because downtime costs more than the revenue difference. ​ My take: Infrastructure wars aren't won by the best technology. They're won by the best distribution. ​ When technical differences are marginal, trust and ecosystem positioning matter more than feature comparisons. ​ Worth watching how many protocols follow Aave's lead vs chase higher splits. ​ Thoughts?