[Discussion] we are measuring USDC at the wrong time and calling it noise
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom. I have been tracking confirmations against eGFR for 13 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here. Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one…
Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
no price talk, no tickers, no investment discussion
Did you check confirmation speed on that chain?
Did you check confirmation speed on that chain?
Disagree on that part. 99.2% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
USDC exists on 18 networks, vendor credits are network-specific
no price talk, no tickers, no investment discussion
Small correction: the trial was 2 weeks, not 8. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
gas versus discount arithmetic is real
Yeah, the network selection matters most.
never post a wallet address, not yours, not a vendor's
Yeah, the network selection matters most.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
Which network and did the vendor confirm they credit it?
the 24% discount versus 27% network fees