tried USDC for 5 weeks. here is what happened.
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking chargeback against ApoB for 11 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 assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
Half-life is about 168 hours, so steady state lands around week 23–5. Practical consequence: what you feel in week 1 is not what that dose does.
never post a wallet address, not yours, not a vendor's
Small correction: the trial was 8 weeks, not 38. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
never post a wallet address, not yours, not a vendor's
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
USDC exists on 19 networks, vendor credits are network-specific
Rodent data is rodent data.
Disagree on that part. 95.1% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
gas versus discount arithmetic is real
confirmations are confirmations, the exchange rate at 7 blocks is the deal
The discount was 98.1% but gas ate half of it. Still worth it but the math matters.
confirmations are escrow, the exchange rate at 4 blocks is the deal
network selection matters, wrong chain is the expensive typo
Yeah, the network selection matters most.
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
came here to say exactly this
Disagree on that part. 93.7% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
no group-buy recruitment, discussing how they fail is fine
never post a wallet address, not yours, not a vendor's
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
network selection matters, wrong chain is the expensive typo
escrow for group buys is standard, use it
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
the 21% discount versus 5% network fees
memo/tag requirements differ by network
never post a wallet address, not yours, not a vendor's
- 1The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.14 comments in this branch · started by u/teodor_jansen
- 2Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell…10 comments in this branch · started by u/anders_vermeulen