Albums | Why CoinJoin Still Matters: A Practical Guide to Bitcoin Privacy Without the Hype
Posted by Spice on October 7, 2025
Wow! Privacy conversations about Bitcoin always devolve into shouting matches. Seriously. My instinct said this would be another rehash of the same arguments, but then I dug into recent coordinator designs and realized there’s nuance people keep missing.
Here’s the thing. Coin mixing—most commonly implemented as CoinJoin—isn’t magic. It’s a straightforward social protocol: many users pool inputs and receive outputs in a way that severs direct input?output links on-chain. That reduces the effectiveness of heuristics used by blockchain analytics firms. Short sentence. The result is not perfect anonymity, though; it’s improved transactional privacy when used correctly and with realistic expectations.
Let me be upfront: I’m biased toward tools that minimize trust. I prefer wallets and services that avoid single points of control, and that have reproducible, auditable code. (Oh, and by the way… usability still bugs me.) At the same time, I’m not naive. CoinJoin can help protect everyday privacy, but it shouldn’t be sold as a cloak for illegal behavior, and it doesn’t erase the need for operational discipline off-chain.
What CoinJoin Actually Does (and Doesn’t)
CoinJoin mixes the metadata, not the money. It’s not laundering in the criminal sense—what changes is your linkability. On one hand, multiple participants create a single transaction containing many inputs and outputs, which muddles which input paid which output. On the other hand, though, metadata leaks still exist: timing, amounts, and on-chain patterns can reduce anonymity if you’re careless.
CoinJoin reduces deterministic clustering heuristics. That much is true. But if you reuse addresses, or repeatedly mix identical denominations in the same pattern, you’re giving analysts a breadcrumb trail. Initially I thought a few sessions would be enough to be safe, but experience—and yes, somethin’ felt off about early setups—shows that privacy is cumulative and fragile. You need habits, not just a one-off mix.
Another point: not all mixers are the same. There are custodial mixers where you hand funds to a service, and noncustodial CoinJoin implementations where the protocol coordinates participants but never takes custody of coins. The latter model preserves the key property I care about: trust-minimization. I’m not 100% sure any system can be perfectly trust-minimized, but it’s a clear improvement over delegating custody.
Why Wallet Choice Matters
Wallets shape user behavior. They frame how fees, denomination choices, change outputs, and address reuse are handled. A good privacy-first wallet automates hard things and nudges you away from mistakes—without making you feel like you’re using a different planet’s UX.
If you’re exploring coin mixing, check wallets that integrate CoinJoin or similar protocols in a transparent way. For example, see this implementation and deeper documentation here: https://sites.google.com/walletcryptoextension.com/wasabi-wallet/ This is one link, and it’s useful as a starting point for understanding how a widely used noncustodial CoinJoin wallet operates.
That said, technology is only half the battle. Your on-chain privacy only holds if you maintain off-chain discipline. Avoid address reuse. Separate your identities. Don’t post public receipts that tie an address to your real-world identity—because chain analysis firms will happily stitch those together for you.
Real Risks and Trade-offs
There are practical trade-offs. CoinJoin sessions cost fees. They take time, especially if you wait for a high anonymity set. They can be blocked or flagged by exchanges and custodial services which use heuristics—some of them blunt—leading to delays or extra KYC scrutiny. I’m not trying to be alarmist, but these are real user experience costs.
Also, regulators and compliance teams are increasingly attentive. Using privacy tools can attract questions. On one hand, privacy is a civil liberty; on the other hand, mixing services used to hide criminal proceeds are in the crosshairs of enforcement. Balance matters. If you’re moving funds for legitimate privacy reasons, be prepared to explain provenance if you interact with centralized services much later.
One more thing—timing leaks. If you join a CoinJoin round and then immediately spend from the outputs in a way that recreates unique patterns, you can evaporate the privacy gains. Wait times and spending patterns matter. I’d recommend spacing activity and avoiding linking mixed outputs to prior public identities.
Good Practices Without Giving a Step-by-Step Playbook
Okay, so check this out—there are practical habits that improve outcomes without needing a how-to guide on stealth. Use a privacy-focused wallet that automates mixing decisions. Keep separate wallets for public-facing activity (donations, commerce) and private holdings. Prefer noncustodial tools to reduce trust risk. Short sentence.
Mix conservatively. Don’t funnel all your funds through a single, predictable pattern. Keep transactions varied and avoid predictable denomination reuse. On the legal side, document your sources when funds originate from lawful activity—this helps if you ever need to demonstrate provenance to an exchange or regulator. I’m biased toward transparency where possible; privacy doesn’t mean chaos.
Finally, diversify your privacy approach. Combine on-chain measures like CoinJoin with off-chain prudence: use different contact points, avoid public reuse of addresses, and consider privacy-respecting onramps/offramps where available. It’s not a single silver bullet. Treat it like a layered defense.
FAQ
Is CoinJoin legal?
Generally yes. Using CoinJoin for privacy is legal in most jurisdictions. However, using it to obscure criminal proceeds is illegal. The legal landscape can vary, so be aware of local regulations and compliance requirements of services you interact with.
Will CoinJoin make me anonymous?
No tool guarantees full anonymity. CoinJoin improves on-chain unlinkability but doesn’t obfuscate off-chain data or human mistakes. Good operational security and a privacy-aware toolchain are essential.
Can exchanges block mixed coins?
Some exchanges and custodial services flag or delay deposits that appear mixed. That can result in additional KYC checks or temporary holds. Plan for that possibility if you rely on centralized services.
Albums | Reading Market Cap Signals: Where Yield Farming and DeFi Protocols Hide Value
Posted by Spice on April 15, 2025
Whoa! The market cap number grabs attention fast. Traders see a big figure and react. My instinct said “big means safe” more times than I care to admit. Initially I thought high market cap equaled lower risk, but then I dug into tokenomics and found holes. On one hand, a large market cap can reflect real adoption; on the other hand, it can mask concentrated holdings that make tvl and real liquidity fragile.
Really? Yes. Market cap is a headline metric. It tells you price times circulating supply. That math is simple. But the implications are not. You can have a project with a modest market cap that powers serious yield opportunities because its protocol locks value in smart contracts. Conversely, a token with a huge cap might have most tokens in vesting or in a small group’s wallet. So you have to read past the number and into ownership, vesting schedules, and on-chain flows.
Here’s the thing. Yield farming isn’t just APY banners on a dashboard. It’s an interplay of incentive design, TVL (total value locked), and risk distribution. I remember a midwest friend who jumped on a 300% APY pool because the interface looked slick. She made decent yield for a week. Then rewards dwindled, and withdrawals got gas-heavy. We both learned the same lesson: surface APY is seductive. My takeaways felt obvious after the fact, though we were both a little burned and a lot wiser.
Hmm… think about market cap as a signpost, not a roadmap. A signpost tells you direction, not the terrain quality. If you measure a token’s health, check supply mechanics first. Is circulating supply clearly defined? Are there burn mechanisms? Are vested allocations transparent and on-chain? Also look at TVL and the breakdown by pools. If 80% of TVL sits in a single pool managed by one contract, that is a fragility point. On the flip side, diverse liquidity across AMMs and lending markets suggests resilience.
How to read market cap as a DeFi trader
Okay—here are the practical signs I watch, with a few personal biases thrown in. First, examine liquidity depth on major AMMs. Shallow liquidity amplifies slippage and rug risk. Second, verify token distribution via on-chain explorers. Third, compare market cap to TVL. When market cap is much larger than TVL, the market is pricing future utility or speculative demand; that’s fine, but it raises the stakes. Fourth, check where rewards are paid from. If rewards mint new tokens ad infinitum, APY is likely unsustainable and very very risky.
At a more technical level, calculate Market Cap / TVL as a ratio. Low ratios can indicate underpriced protocol value or undervalued utility. High ratios might flag speculation. But don’t treat thresholds as gospel. I tend to prefer protocols where the market cap is aligned with the value actually locked in smart contracts, with a safety margin for governance tokens and incentives.
Something felt off with a token I watched recently. It had a modest market cap and huge TVL, which looked great. Then I noticed governance-controlled vaults with privileged withdrawal rights. Whoa—adoption on paper didn’t equal safety. That nuance is why on-chain due diligence matters.
Now, about yield farming opportunities. High APYs often come from inflationary token emissions. That creates temporary yield but dilutes holders. Look for farms that combine sustainable fees, protocol revenue sharing, and lockup incentives. If a protocol pays yield from transaction fees or from stable revenue streams, that’s a much better long-term signal than pure emission-based APY.
Initially I thought fees-as-yield was rare. But actually, more projects are experimenting with fee-sharing, buybacks, and partial burns to support sustainable yield. On one hand, such mechanisms can stabilize tokenomics; though actually, they also require consistent user activity. If user activity drops, so does yield—and there goes your APY. So examine user retention and fee history, not just last month’s numbers.
Let me be blunt—I’m biased toward protocols with clear, on-chain revenue streams and multisig transparency. I’m not a fan of projects where the whitepaper promises “infinite liquidity” or “guaranteed APY.” That part bugs me. I’m also not 100% sure every revenue model survives macro stress. So I hedge: smaller allocations, staggered entry, and active monitoring of oracle behavior and multisig activity.
Here’s a practical checklist I use before allocating capital to a farm or protocol. Short list first. Check token distribution. Check TVL trends. Check on-chain revenue. Check audits and open-source contracts. Then go deeper. Review vesting cliff dates. Monitor top holder wallets for unusual concentration. Simulate withdrawal slippage across AMMs. Read forum discussions and governance proposals. That ritual isn’t glamorous, but it’s effective.
Seriously? Yes. You will miss somethin’ if you skip community sentiment and governance dynamics. Voting patterns tell you who actually influences protocol policy. If a handful of wallets swing votes, governance is less decentralized than marketed. That matters when decisions about rewards or emergency shutdowns are on the table.
When assessing yield farms, consider time horizons. Short-term traders exploit emission-driven APYs effectively. Long-term stakers should prefer fee-backed yields and vesting schedules that reduce inflation risk. There’s a middle path too: strategies that harvest emissions and convert them into protocol-native staked positions with bonding curves or ve-token locking. Those can align incentives, but they also lock liquidity which can be a liquidity trap in downturns.
On risk modeling, build scenarios. Base case. Bear case. Black swan. I map out probable fee revenue declines under each scenario and see how APY would react. Doing this math changed my behavior during the last market crunch. I had positions in protocols that looked safe on paper but were heavily dependent on cross-chain bridges; when those bridges slowed, yields cratered—and so did confidence.
Check developer activity too. Sustained GitHub commits, active testnets, and clear upgrade paths matter. But beware of noise: marketing teams can hype partnerships without delivering. Developer activity isn’t a magic bullet but it correlates with long-term adaptability. On one project I reviewed, commits spiked right before token launch and then declined sharply. That was a red flag that became a real problem later.
FAQ
How should I interpret Market Cap / TVL ratio?
Use it as a sanity check. Low ratio can imply undervaluation or strong protocol utility. High ratio suggests speculative pricing. Combine this ratio with token distribution and revenue analysis before drawing conclusions.
Are high APYs always bad?
No. High APYs can be legitimate when backed by fees or real revenue. But many come from token emissions which dilute value over time. Check where the yield originates and whether emissions are temporary or permanent.
What tools help with this analysis?
On-chain explorers, TVL trackers, and liquidity dashboards are essential. For quick token screening and pair liquidity checks I often reference the dexscreener official site app when I’m cross-referencing pool health and slippage. It saves time and gives a clear view on pair prices and liquidity depth.
Okay—to finish (and I’m purposely not wrapping with a neat bow), here’s my practical model: read market cap, but verify ownership and emission mechanics; read TVL, but check where value is locked and who controls it; read APY, but chase the revenue source. This trio gives you a more complete picture than any single metric. I’m leaving some threads loose on purpose because DeFi evolves fast and some answers change weekly. Still, if you adopt these habits, you’ll avoid many rookie traps and spot real yield opportunities that others miss.
Albums | Why Transaction Privacy, Coin Control, and Multi-Currency Support Still Matter (Even if You’re Paranoid)
Posted by Spice on March 25, 2025
Okay, so check this out—privacy in crypto isn’t just a buzzword. I’m curious and a little skeptical at the same time. Whoa! Some things feel obvious until you look under the hood. Initially I thought wallets solved most problems, but then I dug into how addresses, change outputs, and broadcast paths leak metadata.
My instinct said: treat this like carrying cash versus using a tethered card. Hmm… It’s not the same risk, though actually—there are parallels. Short of going off-grid, your transaction graph can paint a pretty detailed picture of behavior and relationships. That part bugs me, honestly, because people assume “blockchain = transparent + immutable” and stop thinking about what that transparency means for privacy.
Really? Yes. Even casual reuse of addresses creates linkages. Medium sentences help explain: reuse ties funds to identities unless steps are taken to separate them. Longer take: if you habitually spend from one cluster of addresses, analytics firms will correlate those clusters and infer patterns that are hard to unsee, which then affects everything from targeted scams to worse—unwanted attention from opportunists. I’m biased, but that tradeoff is often underappreciated.
Here’s the thing. Coin control is a practical lever you can use. Wow! It isn’t magic though. You choose which UTXOs to spend and how change is returned, and that changes the shape of the ledger. On one hand it helps reduce linkability; on the other hand, poor coin selection can actually worsen footprint.
Something felt off about wallet defaults. Hmm… Wallets often prioritize UX and fee minimization over privacy. Actually, wait—let me rephrase that: they prioritize convenience and cost, and privacy tends to be an afterthought. That means typical users, especially newbies, get a neat experience but leave privacy protections disabled or hidden.
Seriously? Yes, and sometimes for good reasons: complexity, cost, speed. Medium point: privacy-preserving transactions may be slower or cost a bit more, depending on the approach. Long view: there’s a tension between mainstream adoption (fast, cheap, intuitive) and the nuanced requirements of privacy-minded users who want coin control, address hygiene, and multi-currency compartmentalization all working smoothly together.
Okay, so how do you make better choices without becoming obsessive? Short answer: be deliberate. I’m not talking about hiding illegal activity—don’t do that—I’m talking about basic hygiene for lawful privacy. Use fresh addresses for incoming funds when possible. Use coin control to avoid consolidating unrelated funds (that’s a common mistake).
Whoa! This next bit matters. Medium explanation: when you consolidate small inputs carelessly, you create new links between distinct sources of funds. Longer thought: once those links exist on-chain, analytics tools and chain sleuths can trace backward and forward, connecting transactions that you wanted to keep separate—so coin selection strategy matters more than many expect.
Hmm… Multi-currency accounts complicate things. Short sentence: they leak context. If you hold ETH and BTC in the same account and you use on-ramps or bridges, the on-chain relationships across chains (or associated custodial records) can be correlated. Medium detail: cross-chain swaps and custodial intermediaries often require identity ties, which then undermine any privacy you hoped to achieve purely onchain. Longer nuance: managing multiple assets requires thinking about compartmentalization—treat them like different pockets in your wallet, not the same nightstand drawer.
Here’s an industry tip from real experience: hardware wallets and good software together make a big difference. Wow! A hardware device protects keys from malware and keyloggers. But software controls coin selection, address generation, and how transactions are assembled. If the UI doesn’t expose coin control or multisig options, the hardware alone won’t save you. I found this out the hard way a while back when I trusted defaults too much and had to unwind very messy on-chain ties—lesson learned and documented in my notes, somethin’ I keep coming back to.
Check this practical angle—I recommend using a modern desktop suite that gives you explicit coin control and multi-currency visibility. Short: use something that supports multiple assets cleanly. For me, that meant trying different interfaces until one balanced safety with usability; one of the better experiences is with the trezor suite app which shows UTXOs clearly and integrates hardware signing without burying advanced options. Medium: it also helps to label accounts and transactions, which is mundane but powerful for keeping separation over time. Long: consistent labeling, disciplined incoming address use, and careful coin selection compound into a privacy posture that’s resilient against casual chain analysis, even if it won’t fool nation-state adversaries.
Practical Tradeoffs and What I Actually Do
I’ll be honest—I’m not perfect. Short: I mix strategies. Medium: for everyday small spends I use fresh addresses and avoid consolidating small amounts unless fees make it unavoidable. For larger movements I plan batched transactions and sometimes split funds over time to reduce one-off linkage spikes. Longer reasoning: by thinking several steps ahead (how funds will be spent, which services might require identity, and potential privacy leaks from change outputs), you minimize predictable patterns that analytics vendors love to exploit.
On one hand, multisig adds a layer of security and, when used thoughtfully, privacy benefits through distributed custody. Though actually—multisig transactions can be larger and more fingerprintable on certain chains, so there’s a tradeoff between security and anonymity that depends on context. Use multisig for funds you want to protect from single-point failure, not just for privacy theater.
Something I’ve seen is people over-relying on mixing services because they think it’s a privacy panacea. Hmm… I avoid recommending that path. Medium: mixing can create more problems than it solves, especially when you introduce centralized actors into the flow. Longer: if you need to interact with regulated on/off ramps, plan ahead and separate funds meant for compliance from funds you want kept private, with clear accounting and documentation—this keeps you lawful and reduces accidental leakage.
Really, the key is simplicity with intention. Short: plan your accounts. Medium: treat privacy as an operational habit, not a one-time setup. Longer: document and label your wallets, keep backups of hardware seeds offline, practice coin control in a sandbox until it feels natural, and periodically review your risk model as your holdings, behavior, or threat landscape changes.
Common Questions
What is coin control and why should I care?
Coin control lets you pick which UTXOs to spend. Short: it gives you agency. Medium: by selecting inputs deliberately you avoid accidental consolidation and can manage fee strategy. Longer: over time coin control reduces address clustering and gives you more predictable privacy outcomes, though it’s not a cure-all.
Does multi-currency support hurt privacy?
Not inherently. Short: it depends on how you use it. Medium: holding many currencies in one custodial account can create cross-asset linkages if that custodian connects identities to transactions. Longer: self-custody with clear compartmentalization and disciplined address use keeps assets isolated in practice, which is the safer route for privacy-minded users.
Albums | Cheapest DeFi Bridges and Why Cross-Chain Aggregators Are the Unsung Heroes
Posted by Spice on January 9, 2025
Whoa! The noise around cross-chain transfers gets louder every month. Seriously? Yes. Fees, failed txs, and slow confirmations stack up like unpaid parking tickets. My instinct said this space would calm down by now, but nope — it’s messy and fast. Here’s the thing. Users want cheap, reliable routes. They want predictability. They want to move assets without losing half the transfer to fees or getting stuck on chain bridges that look trustworthy until they aren’t.
Okay, so check this out—I’ll be candid. I’m biased, but cheaper isn’t always better if the tradeoff is safety. Hmm… many bridges promise rock-bottom fees. Some hit you with price slippage or wrapped assets that are hard to redeem. Initially I thought the market would simply pick winners by cost. But then I realized that trust assumptions, liquidity fragmentation, and UX are equally decisive. Actually, wait—let me rephrase that: low fees attract attention, though reliability keeps users. There, that’s clearer.
Let’s cut through marketing. Cheap bridges fall into three practical categories: native canonical bridges (simple but sometimes centralized), liquidity-pool bridges (fast but can be costly if liquidity is thin), and aggregator-led routes (smart, often cheapest, but dependent on many moving parts). On one hand, canonical bridges reduce complexity. On the other hand, aggregators stitch many pools and chains together to find the least costly path, though actually aggregators can amplify counterparty risk if not audited well. This is why cross-chain aggregators are often underrated—they save cost by combining liquidity across multiple venues.
Why cheapest doesn’t mean best
There’s a cognitive bias here. People equate low fee with smart choice. That’s natural. But fees are only one axis. Security assumptions differ. Some bridges rely on a multisig that’s effectively centralized. Others use light clients or fraud proofs. Those choices change the risk profile. Somethin’ subtle is at play: a $1 fee with a 0.1% chance of losing funds is not the same thing as a $5 fee with strong guarantees. Traders often ignore probabilistic outcomes when they see a low absolute cost. Funny, but true.
Also, UX friction matters. If a bridge requires manual unwrapping, long waits, or multiple approvals, the “cheap” option becomes expensive in time and effort. People value time. People value clarity. Time is money, literally and figuratively. I’m not 100% sure about the exact dollar value for each user, but for active traders small delays destroy strategies.
How aggregators find the cheapest route
Aggregators use smart routing logic that evaluates on-chain liquidity, slippage, and gas. They can split a transfer across multiple pools to minimize price impact. On paper this is elegant. In practice you have to watch oracle timing, front-running risks, and router contracts. Initially I thought routing was just about math. But then I realized that timing and real-time liquidity shifts are part code, part market psychology.
Consider a cross-chain swap from Ethereum to BSC. A naive approach: lock tokens on chain A, mint on chain B. A smarter aggregator might route A?Polygon?BSC, leveraging deep pools on Polygon to reduce slippage. That can cut costs. Yet each hop increases complexity. Multi-hop saves fees, though it raises composability risk. On one hand you save a bunch on fees; on the other hand you now trust more contracts. Tradeoffs everywhere.
When to trust a bridge or aggregator
Look for a few simple signals. Short list: audited code, meaningful TVL, active bug bounty, and clear governance. Also check withdrawal timelines and the custodial model. Non-custodial designs with on-chain validator sets and proven proof-of-reserve are better. However, audits aren’t a silver bullet. Audits find issues, but they don’t guarantee flawless operation. Human error and economic-exploit vectors persist.
I’m biased toward designs that minimize centralized control. That’s my preference. It bugs me when teams hide behind marketing language that sounds decentralized while maintaining keys. Be wary of bridges that are very very cheap up front but opaque about the multisig or oracle setup.
Practical checklist for cheapest-but-safe transfers
Short checklist. Quick wins first. Check transaction previews. Compare total cost including on-chain approvals. Look at historical transfer times. Confirm the supported token’s canonical status. Use wallets with integrated route comparison. And if you want a single place that often shows competitive routes and a clean UX, consider checking out relay bridge — it’s worth a look as a low-friction aggregator option.
Note: the cheapest path can change within seconds. That is market microstructure. So automated routing is helpful. But automation can fail spectacularly if route selection is based on stale data. On a good day, aggregators outperform manual routing by cutting slippage and aggregating depth. On a bad day, oracle lag or mempool squeezes can produce ugly losses. So monitor trades closely.
Cost components you should know
Gas is obvious, though its impact varies across chains. Native token swaps add bridging fees. Slippage can be the silent killer. Conversion fees and token wraps add hidden costs. Some bridges also tack on “protocol fees” for routing. You want the full effective cost, not just the headline fee. That’s my main gripe with many interfaces—they show the gas estimate and the protocol fee separately, then surprise you at settlement. Annoying.
Another hidden factor: one-sided liquidity. If a pool lacks depth on one side, routes that look cheap will eat liquidity and spike slippage. Aggregators try to split orders to avoid this. That’s clever. But splitting increases the number of transactions and thus cumulative gas. There’s tradeoff math here. The optimal split depends on gas vs slippage ratio. Nerdy? Sure. But it matters for big transfers.
Real-world patterns I’ve observed
Many users start on the cheapest bridge, then migrate to safer alternatives after a bad day. Some will accept higher fees for convenience and speed. Others chase low-cost routes like coupon hunters—always searching. On one hand, price sensitivity drives innovation. On the other hand, it encourages marginal players to compete primarily on price, sometimes cutting corners. That dynamic compresses margins and sometimes corners safety.
Policy and regulation add another layer. US-based users should be mindful of compliance risk when routing through unknown bridges. Rules will continue to evolve. That uncertainty affects liquidity providers and thus the ultimate cost model.
FAQ
How do I find the cheapest bridge without sacrificing safety?
Compare route previews across aggregators, check audits and TVL, and prefer non-custodial designs. Also estimate total cost: gas + slippage + protocol fees. If something is far cheaper than competitors, ask why. Sometimes cheap equals subsidized, and subsidies can disappear suddenly.
Are aggregators always cheaper than single bridges?
Not always. Aggregators can be cheaper by slicing orders and tapping deeper liquidity, but they add complexity. In low-liquidity markets a single trusted bridge might be more predictable. Watch for stale quote vulnerabilities when using aggregators.
What are safe practices for large transfers?
Split transfers into smaller chunks, use well-audited paths, time transfers during stable market periods, and monitor mempool conditions. Always confirm token contract addresses and be cautious about wrapped tokens you cannot easily redeem.
House | Kanye West – Deep/Slaves/Mercy (SomeOneHad2DoIt Edition)
Posted by BIGLIFE on November 14, 2014
Well, here we go. Another anonymous producer on our hands. At least that’s the way it’s been billed and pitched to the masses. I can’t blame these producers for posting anonymously. Fans are close minded and will turn on you fast if you release something they’re not accustomed to. SomeOneHad2DoIt steps up to the plate to put his “future house” spin on Kanye West’s signature tracks with impressive results.
Do we have another ZHU on our hands? I’d argue it’s too early to tell. The track is good but not great. What I don’t like is their aesthetic. Using Kate Upton (who’s built like a rectangle) isn’t my cup of tea and cheapens the song in my opinion. Further, it’s less impressive from a creative standpoint now that many are attempting to follow the model that Jake Udell largely pioneered. Just my two cents.
Criticism aside, I’m sure this will show up on Oliver’s “Heldeep Radio” soon enough.
House | Shadow Child & Doorly – Climbin’ (Piano Weapon)
Posted by BIGLIFE on September 18, 2014
Following the Oliver Heldens add a vocal edit to a already fantastic instrumental model, Shadow Child and Doorly enlist an unknown vocalist to lay down a sultry topline that destined for radio. Premiered on Annie Mac’s Radio 1, the new vocal version was co-written by the very talented MNEK, who you’re all familiar with. “Climbin'” releases November via Polydor Records, and is available for pre-order on iTunes here. We can’t wait for the release. Top tune. There’s no question about it. Keep on flying.