關於 rough trade ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

佛心索尼！數千名創作者、製作人將首次獲得版稅收入！

https://sonomusic.co/news/sony-music-to-pay-royalties-to-unrecouped-legacy-artists-and-producers-in-major-policy-change/

音樂產業進入數位時代，看似更友善、透明的分潤制度，許多創作者卻因為與唱片公司不平等、過時的合約條款，而無法拿到應得的報酬，過去一年隨著疫情在全球迅速蔓延，數位平台的收入也成為許多創作者的唯一收入來源。

去年英國音樂人 Tom Gray 所發起的 #BrokenRecord 運動，呼籲外界關注創作人在數位平台上的版稅問題，同時也提出自己因為「預付款」的問題，至今仍然無法從數位平台上得到任何收入。

「預付款」是當藝人在與唱片廠牌簽約時，藝人會從廠牌得到一筆款項，用於製作唱片、宣傳等開銷，這筆款項則會從未來的版稅中扣除，簡單說就是預支未來的版稅，由於多數藝人的財務狀況並不足以應付各項開銷，因此多數人會選擇以較低的版稅分潤爭取較高的預付款，加上合約裡的各項灌水條目，導致許多藝人最終被迫支付超出預付款數倍的金額。

在 90 年代許多黑人創作者都簽下了極度不平等的條款，導致最後欠下大筆債務而破產，最有名的大概就是專輯《CrazySexyCool》大賣，隔年卻宣布破產的女子天團 TLC（當然背後還有其他因素）。一直到現在仍有許多創作者因為預付款尚未還清而從未收到版稅。

這個月 SONY 透過信件宣布啟動「Artists Forward」企劃，其中一點是免除所有在 2000 年之前與 SONY 簽約藝人至今仍未還清的預付款，時間將回溯至 2021 年 1 月 1 日開始，預計會有數千名創作者因此受惠。

這項舉動並非唱片業的創舉，旗下擁有 4AD、Rough Trade Records、Matador Records、XL Recordings 以及 Young 的英國廠牌 Beggars Group，在合約中明定藝人合約期間最後一張作品發行滿 15 年後，尚未清償的預付款將自動免除。不過 SONY 仍是首個免除藝人預付額的主流廠牌，被視為唱片產業重要的一項變革，各界也呼籲其他主流廠牌能夠跟進。

其實算是蠻重要的一件事情，可惜各地的媒體關注度並不算太高。

#sonymusic

📜 [專欄新文章] Uniswap v3 Features Explained in Depth

✍️ 田少谷 Shao

📥 歡迎投稿： https://medium.com/taipei-ethereum-meetup #徵技術分享文 #使用心得 #教學文 #medium

Once again the game-changing DEX 🦄 👑

Image source: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/

Outline

0. Intro1. Uniswap & AMM recap2. Ticks 3. Concentrated liquidity4. Range orders: reversible limit orders5. Impacts of v36. Conclusion

0. Intro

The announcement of Uniswap v3 is no doubt one of the most exciting news in the DeFi place recently 🔥🔥🔥

While most have talked about the impact v3 can potentially bring on the market, seldom explain the delicate implementation techniques to realize all those amazing features, such as concentrated liquidity, limit-order-like range orders, etc.

Since I’ve covered Uniswap v1 & v2 (if you happen to know Mandarin, here are v1 & v2), there’s no reason for me to not cover v3 as well ✅

Thus, this article aims to guide readers through Uniswap v3, based on their official whitepaper and examples made on the announcement page. However, one needs not to be an engineer, as not many codes are involved, nor a math major, as the math involved is definitely taught in your high school, to fully understand the following content 😊😊😊

If you really make it through but still don’t get shxt, feedbacks are welcomed! 🙏

There should be another article focusing on the codebase, so stay tuned and let’s get started with some background noise!

1. Uniswap & AMM recap

Before diving in, we have to first recap the uniqueness of Uniswap and compare it to traditional order book exchanges.

Uniswap v1 & v2 are a kind of AMMs (automated market marker) that follow the constant product equation x * y = k, with x & y stand for the amount of two tokens X and Y in a pool and k as a constant.

Comparing to order book exchanges, AMMs, such as the previous versions of Uniswap, offer quite a distinct user experience:

AMMs have pricing functions that offer the price for the two tokens, which make their users always price takers, while users of order book exchanges can be both makers or takers.

Uniswap as well as most AMMs have infinite liquidity¹, while order book exchanges don’t. The liquidity of Uniswap v1 & v2 is provided throughout the price range [0,∞]².

Uniswap as well as most AMMs have price slippage³ and it’s due to the pricing function, while there isn’t always price slippage on order book exchanges as long as an order is fulfilled within one tick.

In an order book, each price (whether in green or red) is a tick. Image source: https://ftx.com/trade/BTC-PERP

¹ though the price gets worse over time; AMM of constant sum such as mStable does not have infinite liquidity

² the range is in fact [-∞,∞], while a price in most cases won’t be negative

³ AMM of constant sum does not have price slippage

2. Tick

The whole innovation of Uniswap v3 starts from ticks.

For those unfamiliar with what is a tick:

Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tick.asp

By slicing the price range [0,∞] into numerous granular ticks, trading on v3 is highly similar to trading on order book exchanges, with only three differences:

The price range of each tick is predefined by the system instead of being proposed by users.

Trades that happen within a tick still follows the pricing function of the AMM, while the equation has to be updated once the price crosses the tick.

Orders can be executed with any price within the price range, instead of being fulfilled at the same one price on order book exchanges.

With the tick design, Uniswap v3 possesses most of the merits of both AMM and an order book exchange! 💯💯💯

So, how is the price range of a tick decided?

This question is actually somewhat related to the tick explanation above: the minimum tick size for stocks trading above 1$ is one cent.

The underlying meaning of a tick size traditionally being one cent is that one cent (1% of 1$) is the basis point of price changes between ticks, ex: 1.02 — 1.01 = 0.1.

Uniswap v3 employs a similar idea: compared to the previous/next price, the price change should always be 0.01% = 1 basis point.

However, notice the difference is that in the traditional basis point, the price change is defined with subtraction, while here in Uniswap it’s division.

This is how price ranges of ticks are decided⁴:

Image source: https://uniswap.org/whitepaper-v3.pdf

With the above equation, the tick/price range can be recorded in the index form [i, i+1], instead of some crazy numbers such as 1.0001¹⁰⁰ = 1.0100496621.

As each price is the multiplication of 1.0001 of the previous price, the price change is always 1.0001 — 1 = 0.0001 = 0.01%.

For example, when i=1, p(1) = 1.0001; when i=2, p(2) = 1.00020001.

p(2) / p(1) = 1.00020001 / 1.0001 = 1.0001

See the connection between the traditional basis point 1 cent (=1% of 1$) and Uniswap v3’s basis point 0.01%?

Image source: https://tenor.com/view/coin-master-cool-gif-19748052

But sir, are prices really granular enough? There are many shitcoins with prices less than 0.000001$. Will such prices be covered as well?

Price range: max & min

To know if an extremely small price is covered or not, we have to figure out the max & min price range of v3 by looking into the spec: there is a int24 tick state variable in UniswapV3Pool.sol.

Image source: https://uniswap.org/whitepaper-v3.pdf

The reason for a signed integer int instead of an uint is that negative power represents prices less than 1 but greater than 0.

24 bits can cover the range between 1.0001 ^ (2²³ — 1) and 1.0001 ^ -(2)²³. Even Google cannot calculate such numbers, so allow me to offer smaller values to have a rough idea of the whole price range:

1.0001 ^ (2¹⁸) = 242,214,459,604.341

1.0001 ^ -(2¹⁷) = 0.000002031888943

I think it’s safe to say that with a int24 the range can cover > 99.99% of the prices of all assets in the universe 👌

⁴ For implementation concern, however, a square root is added to both sides of the equation.

How about finding out which tick does a price belong to?

Tick index from price

The answer to this question is rather easy, as we know that p(i) = 1.0001^i, simply takes a log with base 1.0001 on both sides of the equation⁴:

Image source: https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php

Let’s try this out, say we wanna find out the tick index of 1000000.

Image source: https://ncalculators.com/number-conversion/log-logarithm-calculator.htm

Now, 1.0001¹³⁸¹⁶² = 999,998.678087146. Voila!

⁵ This formula is also slightly modified to fit the real implementation usage.

3. Concentrated liquidity

Now that we know how ticks and price ranges are decided, let’s talk about how orders are executed in a tick, what is concentrated liquidity and how it enables v3 to compete with stablecoin-specialized DEXs (decentralized exchange), such as Curve, by improving the capital efficiency.

Concentrated liquidity means LPs (liquidity providers) can provide liquidity to any price range/tick at their wish, which causes the liquidity to be imbalanced in ticks.

As each tick has a different liquidity depth, the corresponding pricing function x * y = k also won’t be the same!

Each tick has its own liquidity depth. Image source: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/

Mmm… examples are always helpful for abstract descriptions 😂

Say the original pricing function is 100(x) * 1000(y) = 100000(k), with the price of X token 1000 / 100 = 10 and we’re now in the price range [9.08, 11.08].

If the liquidity of the price range [11.08, 13.08] is the same as [9.08, 11.08], we don’t have to modify the pricing function if the price goes from 10 to 11.08, which is the boundary between two ticks.

The price of X is 1052.63 / 95 = 11.08 when the equation is 1052.63 * 95 = 100000.

However, if the liquidity of the price range [11.08, 13.08] is two times that of the current range [9.08, 11.08], balances of x and y should be doubled, which makes the equation become 2105.26 * 220 = 400000, which is (1052.63 * 2) * (110 * 2) = (100000 * 2 * 2).

We can observe the following two points from the above example:

Trades always follow the pricing function x * y = k, while once the price crosses the current price range/tick, the liquidity/equation has to be updated.

√(x * y) = √k = L is how we represent the liquidity, as I say the liquidity of x * y = 400000 is two times the liquidity of x * y = 100000, as √(400000 / 100000) = 2.

What’s more, compared to liquidity on v1 & v2 is always spread across [0,∞], liquidity on v3 can be concentrated within certain price ranges and thus results in higher capital efficiency from traders’ swapping fees!

Let’s say if I provide liquidity in the range [1200, 2800], the capital efficiency will then be 4.24x higher than v2 with the range [0,∞] 😮😮😮 There’s a capital efficiency comparison calculator, make sure to try it out!

Image source: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/

It’s worth noticing that the concept of concentrated liquidity was proposed and already implemented by Kyper, prior to Uniswap, which is called Automated Price Reserve in their case.⁵

⁶ Thanks to Yenwen Feng for the information.

4. Range orders: reversible limit orders

As explained in the above section, LPs of v3 can provide liquidity to any price range/tick at their wish. Depending on the current price and the targeted price range, there are three scenarios:

current price < the targeted price range

current price > the targeted price range

current price belongs to the targeted price range

The first two scenarios are called range orders. They have unique characteristics and are essentially fee-earning reversible limit orders, which will be explained later.

The last case is the exact same liquidity providing mechanism as the previous versions: LPs provide liquidity in both tokens of the same value (= amount * price).

There’s also an identical product to the case: grid trading, a very powerful investment tool for a time of consolidation. Dunno what’s grid trading? Check out Binance’s explanation on this, as this topic won’t be covered!

In fact, LPs of Uniswap v1 & v2 are grid trading with a range of [0,∞] and the entry price as the baseline.

Range orders

To understand range orders, we’d have to first revisit how price is discovered on Uniswap with the equation x * y = k, for x & y stand for the amount of two tokens X and Y and k as a constant.

The price of X compared to Y is y / x, which means how many Y one can get for 1 unit of X, and vice versa the price of Y compared to X is x / y.

For the price of X to go up, y has to increase and x decrease.

With this pricing mechanism in mind, it’s example time!

Say an LP plans to place liquidity in the price range [15.625, 17.313], higher than the current price of X 10, when 100(x) * 1000(y) = 100000(k).

The price of X is 1250 / 80 = 15.625 when the equation is 80 * 1250 = 100000.

The price of X is 1315.789 / 76 = 17.313 when the equation is 76 * 1315.789 = 100000.

If now the price of X reaches 15.625, the only way for the price of X to go even higher is to further increase y and decrease x, which means exchanging a certain amount of X for Y.

Thus, to provide liquidity in the range [15.625, 17.313], an LP needs only to prepare 80 — 76 = 4 of X. If the price exceeds 17.313, all 4 X of the LP is swapped into 1315.789 — 1250 = 65.798 Y, and then the LP has nothing more to do with the pool, as his/her liquidity is drained.

What if the price stays in the range? It’s exactly what LPs would love to see, as they can earn swapping fees for all transactions in the range! Also, the balance of X will swing between [76, 80] and the balance of Y between [1250, 1315.789].

This might not be obvious, but the example above shows an interesting insight: if the liquidity of one token is provided, only when the token becomes more valuable will it be exchanged for the less valuable one.

…wut? 🤔

Remember that if 4 X is provided within [15.625, 17.313], only when the price of X goes up from 15.625 to 17.313 is 4 X gradually swapped into Y, the less valuable one!

What if the price of X drops back immediately after reaching 17.313? As X becomes less valuable, others are going to exchange Y for X.

The below image illustrates the scenario of DAI/USDC pair with a price range of [1.001, 1.002] well: the pool is always composed entirely of one token on both sides of the tick, while in the middle 1.001499⁶ is of both tokens.

Image source: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/

Similarly, to provide liquidity in a price range < current price, an LP has to prepare a certain amount of Y for others to exchange Y for X within the range.

To wrap up such an interesting feature, we know that:

Only one token is required for range orders.

Only when the current price is within the range of the range order can LP earn trading fees. This is the main reason why most people believe LPs of v3 have to monitor the price more actively to maximize their income, which also means that LPs of v3 have become arbitrageurs 🤯

I will be discussing more the impacts of v3 in 5. Impacts of v3.

⁷ 1.001499988 = √(1.0001 * 1.0002) is the geometric mean of 1.0001 and 1.0002. The implication is that the geometric mean of two prices is the average execution price within the range of the two prices.

Reversible limit orders

As the example in the last section demonstrates, if there is 4 X in range [15.625, 17.313], the 4 X will be completely converted into 65.798 Y when the price goes over 17.313.

We all know that a price can stay in a wide range such as [10, 11] for quite some time, while it’s unlikely so in a narrow range such as [15.625, 15.626].

Thus, if an LP provides liquidity in [15.625, 15.626], we can expect that once the price of X goes over 15.625 and immediately also 15.626, and does not drop back, all X are then forever converted into Y.

The concept of having a targeted price and the order will be executed after the price is crossed is exactly the concept of limit orders! The only difference is that if the range of a range order is not narrow enough, it’s highly possible that the conversion of tokens will be reverted once the price falls back to the range.

As price ranges follow the equation p(i) = 1.0001 ^ i, the range can be quite narrow and a range order can thus effectively serve as a limit order:

When i = 27490, 1.0001²⁷⁴⁹⁰ = 15.6248.⁸

When i = 27491, 1.0001²⁷⁴⁹¹ = 15.6264.⁸

A range of 0.0016 is not THAT narrow but can certainly satisfy most limit order use cases!

⁸ As mentioned previously in note #4, there is a square root in the equation of the price and index, thus the numbers here are for explantion only.

5. Impacts of v3

Higher capital efficiency, LPs become arbitrageurs… as v3 has made tons of radical changes, I’d like to summarize my personal takes of the impacts of v3:

Higher capital efficiency makes one of the most frequently considered indices in DeFi: TVL, total value locked, becomes less meaningful, as 1$ on Uniswap v3 might have the same effect as 100$ or even 2000$ on v2.

The ease of spot exchanging between spot exchanges used to be a huge advantage of spot markets over derivative markets. As LPs will take up the role of arbitrageurs and arbitraging is more likely to happen on v3 itself other than between DEXs, this gap is narrowed … to what extent? No idea though.

LP strategies and the aggregation of NFT of Uniswap v3 liquidity token are becoming the blue ocean for new DeFi startups: see Visor and Lixir. In fact, this might be the turning point for both DeFi and NFT: the two main reasons of blockchain going mainstream now come to the alignment of interest: solving the $$ problem 😏😏😏

In the right venue, which means a place where transaction fees are low enough, such as Optimism, we might see Algo trading firms coming in to share the market of designing LP strategies on Uniswap v3, as I believe Algo trading is way stronger than on-chain strategies or DAO voting to add liquidity that sort of thing.

After reading this article by Parsec.finance: The Dex to Rule Them All, I cannot help but wonder: maybe there is going to be centralized crypto exchanges adopting v3’s approach. The reason is that since orders of LPs in the same tick are executed pro-rata, the endless front-running speeding-competition issue in the Algo trading world, to some degree, is… solved? 🤔

Anyway, personal opinions can be biased and seriously wrong 🙈 I’m merely throwing out a sprat to catch a whale. Having a different voice? Leave your comment down below!

6. Conclusion

That was kinda tough, isn’t it? Glad you make it through here 🥂🥂🥂

There are actually many more details and also a huge section of Oracle yet to be covered. However, since this article is more about features and targeting normal DeFi users, I’ll leave those to the next one; hope there is one 😅

If you have any doubt or find any mistake, please feel free to reach out to me and I’d try to reply AFAP!

Stay tuned and in the meantime let’s wait and see how Uniswap v3 is again pioneering the innovation of DeFi 🌟

Uniswap v3 Features Explained in Depth was originally published in Taipei Ethereum Meetup on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

👏 歡迎轉載分享鼓掌

*不好意思，已sold out 😆

地鐵卡工商時間又來了！

如同往常30-Day unlimited (expiration date都在一年後)，每張$100.00(勿議價，以經是rough trade了！🤪）

有意購買者請留言購買張數， First comes, first served. 賣完為止。

For one game, fellow guards Larry Hughes and Eric Snow stole the spotlight from Allen Iverson.

Hughes hit a tying 3-pointer with seven-tenths of a second left in regulation and Snow sank a 16-footer at the overtime buzzer, giving the Philadelphia 76ers a 122-121 victory over the Detroit Pistons.

In the final two minutes of the fourth quarter, the Pistons did an effective job of cutting off the high-scoring Iverson and appeared to have closed the game with a 7-0 burst until Hughes forced overtime with just his sixth 3-pointer of the season.

Detroit scored the first five points of overtime and still held a 119-114 lead with 1:42 left after consecutive baskets by Jerome Williams. Iverson and Snow made jumpers and the 76ers converted a turnover by Grant Hill into a breakaway layup by Iverson for a 120-119 lead with 16 seconds to go.

Hill atoned for his giveaway by drawing a foul on a drive and making both free throws for a one-point lead with 8.4 seconds left. The Sixers elected not to call timeout and inbounded to the speedy Iverson, who dribbled up the right side of the court and passed to Aaron McKie. McKie swung a pass to the left side to Snow, who faked a defender and buried the open shot as the buzzer sounded.

"It was a great decision because they didn't get to set up and we didn't have to worry about setting up in the half-court," Iverson said. "It was get it and go and it worked for us."

"It was all about taking advantage of the opportunity," Snow said. "I knew they were gonna double-team Allen; I told him so. So I just got the ball, took a good shot and fortunately it went in."

Philadelphia coach Larry Brown did not think Snow would end up with the game in his hands.

"I didn't know he would be the guy but the kid made three jumpers in overtime and played defense like crazy with five fouls on him.," Brown said. "If you ask me if I thought it was going to end like this, I would have said, `No way.' It's a great end to a long day."

Iverson and the rest of the Sixers threw a hug around Snow, a stark contrast to Saturday's 104-91 loss in Detroit. In that game, Brown benched his starters with 8:15 left in the third quarter and Iverson reacted by asking for a trade.

With 76ers president Pat Croce mediating, Brown and Iverson met today and ironed out their differences.

"I felt like I was a 10-year-old kid being punished on Christmas morning with no toys," Iverson said before the game, backing off his trade talk. "I know I reacted badly. If it happens again I won't run my mouth."

"He felt by not playing him I was disrespecting him," Brown said after today's practice. "I felt bad about it because that was not my intention."

After the game, Brown and Iverson appeared to be on the same page.

"There are gonna be days with him that are gonna be rough and some that are gonna be easy. It's like dealing with family," Brown said. "There are things that were said that needed to be said and probably need to be said again."

"After I left the room this morning, I had a good feeling about me, coach and the team," Brown said. "It was the realest conversation I had with coach. I know he's not gonna do anything to hurt this team. Coach and me are gonna do this together. We're all soldiers. It's as simple as that."

Iverson scored 32 points on 12-of-29 shooting. Hughes scored 20 points off the bench. Snow scored six of his 10 points in the extra session and added a season-high 12 assists. Iverson had seven assists and Snow and Hughes made three steals apiece.

"We've got a good group of guys here," Snow said. "Nothing bothers this team much."

Hill scored 32 points on 13-of-22 shooting for the Pistons, who had seven players in double figures.

"We had it covered. We had all the people we wanted to cover and got the ball out of Iverson's hands," Pistons coach Alvin Gentry said. "(Snow) was the guy we wanted to make the shot and to his credit, he did."

With Hill taking control, the Pistons led throughout most of the first three quarters and took an 86-82 advantage into the fourth period. The Sixers opened the quarter with an 11-4 run to take the lead and the Pistons tied it at 101-101 with 3:16 remaining on a 3-pointer by Lindsey Hunter, who scored 10 points.

Iverson answered with a pair of 3-pointers around a basket by Christian Laettner to give Philadelphia a 107-103 lead with 2:19 to go. But Hunter blanketed Iverson down the stretch and his two free throws gave Detroit a 110-107 lead with 5.1 seconds to play, setting up Hughes' heroics.

"They hit two buzzer-beaters, at regulation and at overtime," Hill said. "We're up by three with five seconds to play and we didn't close it out. We have to go back and regroup."

Allen Iverson fought through jet lag, car sickness and pregame butterflies that felt more like birds before he finally got to play his first game for the Denver Nuggets.

When his debut with the depleted Nuggets was over Friday night, the feeling was familiar for the former 76er. Another crowd-pleasing performance, 22 points and 10 assists over 39 minutes, wasn't enough to prevent a loss -- 101-96 to the Sacramento Kings.

"I'm glad it's over," Iverson said. "That's the only thing I thought about, just getting the first one by me. I wish it could've ended with a win. I felt it could've ended with a win."

As it turned out, it was another former Philadelphia player, fifth-year guard John Salmons, who was the game's most valuable player. He finished with his first career triple-double -- 21 points, 11 rebounds and 10 assists -- to lift the Kings to a satisfying win.

Rough weather in Denver put them in a travel bind, and they arrived at the Pepsi Center only 90 minutes before tipoff, or about the same time Iverson finally made it.

"We will never have a worse travel day than today," Kings coach Eric Musselman said. "Our energy and effort was phenomenal."

The Kings might go down as a trivia answer if Iverson's arrival in the blockbuster trade that sent Andre Miller and Joe Smith to Philadelphia takes the Nuggets where they hope it will.

In his debut, playing on a team with only eight healthy players, the newest Nugget gave the kind of gritty, gutty performance that has become his trademark.

He played 39 minutes after a whirlwind of a day in which he arrived in Denver in the late afternoon, was whisked to the Pepsi Center, passed his physical, took a few jumpers on the practice court then suited up to be on the floor for tipoff.

He spent the first 8:35 on the bench. When he finally came in, he received a standing ovation, and never left the floor.

This was widely considered the biggest trade in Denver sports history since the Broncos brought John Elway to town nearly 25 years ago. It's a trade many think could put the Nuggets -- who have long played second fiddle in this city -- into championship mode.

"They embraced me here," Iverson said of the welcome he received. "It was just a great feeling and it was a feeling I wanted to get. A feeling I hoped to get. It was special to me, something I'll remember and cherish the rest of my life."

During a stretch late in the third quarter, Iverson was at his tiptoeing, no-look-passing best, giving a preview of the difference he can make to this team.

He made a pair of 3-pointers, created an open 15-footer for himself and also had a sweet pass to Linas Kleiza as part of a big run that gave the Nuggets their first lead since early in the first quarter.

The highlight was a tiptoe down the baseline, followed by a no-look pass to Reggie Evans through traffic in the key for an easy bucket.

The game was tied at 87 with 3½ minutes left when the Kings started pulling away with six straight points on a pair of baskets by Salmons and a layup by Shareef Abdur-Rahim.

Iverson would have had 20 assists were it not for the struggles of his new teammates, many of them unused to the minutes they played and none of them accustomed to receiving the kind of passes Iverson throws.

"I was just playing basketball, taking what the defense gave me," Iverson said of the Kings, who played a lot of zone trying to stop Iverson. "When they crowded me, and I saw guys open, I made the right plays."

Iverson finished 9-for-15 and this was one of those rare games in which he may not have shot the ball enough.

Earl Boykins scored 25 points on an 8-for-23 night in which the Nuggets shot 37 percent as a team.

"It was a tough game," Nuggets coach George Karl said. "We really wanted to win it for AI and the team. The courage was good, the commitment was good. It was the little basketball frustrations that slowly built to a level that was difficult to overcome."

Certainly, things will change when Carmelo Anthony returns 13 games from now after serving out his suspension for his fight with the Knicks.

But as it currently stands, the Nuggets need everything from Iverson. They are also missing J.R. Smith -- also on suspension -- and learned that center Marcus Camby could be out a while because of a finger injury he suffered earlier this week.