Dinero’s Evolving Product Suite: Originally known as Redacted (with the BTRFLY token), Dinero has rebranded and expanded beyond its “Curve Wars” origins to offer multiple synergistic DeFi products.
Key products include:
pxETH / Pirex ETH: A liquid staking derivative (LST) for ETH that auto-compounds yield via Redacted’s Pirex platform. Dinero’s validators stake deposited ETH, issuing pxETH that’s soft-pegged ~1:1 to ETH. pxETH yields and liquidity form the backbone of Dinero’s stablecoin and relayer products.
apxETH: An “amplified” staking token for users seeking higher yield by forgoing liquidity (paired with pxETH’s liquidity-focused design).
DINERO Stablecoin: An ETH-collateralized stablecoin (like DAI) minted against pxETH deposits. It’s over-collateralized by staked ETH and aims for a $1 peg, with key innovations when combined with the relayer (explained below).
Redacted Relayer: A permissionless transaction relayer that enhances user experience and MEV protection by submitting Ethereum transactions on behalf of users. Dinero’s relayer has three components:
Meta Transactions: Allows users to execute Ethereum transactions without paying gas in ETH; instead, they “tip” in DINERO.
Searcher’s ETH Reserve: Dinero uses part of the pxETH collateral (beyond staking needs) to pay Ethereum gas fees, effectively burning DINERO to cover costs.
Private Transactions: Planned feature where Dinero’s relayer can bundle private, MEV-shielded transactions, using DINERO as the gateway token for accessing pxETH blockspace.
Hidden Hand Integration: Redacted’s Hidden Hand marketplace (for protocol bribes) historically provided fee revenue to BTRFLY lockers. Under Dinero, Hidden Hand fees are split 50% to DINERO stakers, 35% to the treasury, and 15% to DAO reserves. This diversifies Dinero’s revenue beyond just staking yields or stablecoin interest.
Other Ethereum Integrations: Dinero leverages its treasury and governance clout to integrate with Ethereum DeFi. For example, Redacted has significant Curve and Convex holdings to influence liquidity gauges, which can support pxETH and DINERO liquidity. The protocol also runs validators (earning staking rewards) and can offer institutional products like ipxETH – a permissioned version of pxETH for accredited players.
Revenue Generation: At scale, Dinero’s revenue streams could include:
ETH staking yields from validators (a portion directed to pxETH holders and the protocol).
Stability fees or interest from DINERO stablecoin loans.
Relayer fees (user-paid in DINERO) when they use gasless transactions.
MEV capture from private order flow once the relayer is fully active.
Fee revenue from Hidden Hand bribe facilitation and Pirex wrappers (75% of Pirex fees flow to Redacted/Dinero, split as noted above).
Deep Ethereum Integration: Dinero is effectively embedding itself into Ethereum’s core infrastructure. By operating validators, offering a liquid staking token (pxETH), and building a transaction relayer, Dinero taps multiple layers of Ethereum’s stack:
Consensus Layer: via its validators earning ETH rewards.
Execution/Transaction Layer: via the Redacted Relayer, potentially becoming a gateway for transactions (similar to Flashbots or alternative bundles, but user-facing with DINERO token integration).
DeFi Layer: through its stablecoin and integrations with platforms like Curve, Convex, Frax, etc.
MEV Mitigation: offering a service that competes with other MEV-protected transaction pools.
Competitive Positioning:
Liquid Staking: Competes with Lido (stETH), Rocket Pool (rETH), and Frax ETH. Dinero’s twist is the two-token system (pxETH & apxETH) which caters to both liquidity seekers and max yield seekers. Dinero’s pxETH TVL grew from ~10K ETH to 36K ETH (>$115M) in the first half of 2024, indicating solid early traction, though still smaller than Lido’s multi-million ETH dominance.
Stablecoin (DINERO): As an over-collateralized ETH stablecoin, it faces DAI (multi-collateral) and other LSD-backed stables like Rai or ones from Frax. Dinero’s edge is direct integration with its own LST and relayer – users can stake ETH, borrow DINERO, and use Dinero’s relayer for gasless transactions, all in one ecosystem.
Relayer/Blockspace: Competes conceptually with Flashbots (private mempools) and other user-facing bundlers. Dinero’s advantage is vertical integration – it controls the staking (block production) and the user interface (relayer), and it requires DINERO token for fees, potentially driving demand. If successful, Dinero could capture a piece of Ethereum’s blockspace monetization, a unique revenue source few DeFi protocols have. As Blocmates notes: “blockspace... is the commodity of the future, and Dinero will offer unprecedented access to Ethereum blockspace once everything is built out”.
Institutional Services: Through ipxETH (institutional pxETH), Dinero targets enterprises that need compliant, permissioned staking. This is a relatively untapped niche – competing perhaps with Coinbase’s staking service or liquid staking “for institutions” offered by providers like Blockdaemon. Dinero’s white-glove DeFi approach positions it uniquely to bridge traditional finance and DeFi for Ethereum staking.
Supply & Emissions: The DINERO token (governance and utility) was launched in July 2024 as the successor to BTRFLY, with a fixed supply of 1.3 billion tokens distributed over 10 years. The migration ratio was 1 BTRFLY = 2,000 DINERO. Emissions are scheduled, not purely linear, to support long-term development. (Exact emission schedule is detailed in Dinero docs, but broadly it implies a controlled release to avoid inflation shock.)
Staking Mechanism: DINERO holders can stake tokens (replacing the old rlBTRFLY lock model):
Lock-Up: 7-day “warm-up” when staking (no withdrawals, but earning auto-compounding DINERO rewards), and 7-day cooldown when unstaking (no rewards during cooldown).
Rewards: Stakers earn DINERO rewards (from emissions and possibly revenue distribution) instead of the old model where BTRFLY stakers earned ETH. Under new tokenomics, ETH rewards were removed in favor of paying out protocol revenue in DINERO. This suggests the protocol may use revenue (fees, yields) to market-buy DINERO or distribute from the treasury, aligning with growth.
Governance: Staked DINERO has 3× voting power in the DAO, encouraging long-term holding and participation.
Fee Distribution & Treasury: Dinero’s treasury (built from early Olympus-style bonding) remains a strength – valued at ~$13.5M (bottom of bear market) with 40+ diversified assets. This war chest can subsidize liquidity (especially for DINERO stablecoin and pxETH/ETH pools) and fund development. Fee flows:
Hidden Hand bribe fees: split 50% to stakers, 35% treasury, 15% reserves.
Pirex fees: 75% to Redacted (Dinero) protocol, then split 42.5% to stakers, 42.5% treasury, 15% reserves.
Other product fees (if any from the stablecoin or relayer) likely follow similar splits to reward stakers and sustain the DAO.
Sustainability: With a 10-year emission runway and multiple revenue streams coming online, DINERO’s model aims to balance growth incentives with real yield:
Early stakers get high DINERO emission rewards (bootstrapping staking).
As products gain adoption, fees (in ETH, bribes, etc.) are used to buy or distribute DINERO, creating real demand-backed yield. For example, DINERO as the “gas” for the relayer means users must buy DINERO to use the service.
The treasury can backstop operations and has assets to deploy if needed.
Key Tokenomics Points:
Large Supply: 1.3B tokens means price-per-token could stay low; focus on market cap and revenue per token is crucial.
Inflation Control: Emissions over a decade are long but finite. The DAO could also vote to adjust, but initial structure indicates a tapering schedule.
Use Cases: Governance, staking (yield and voting power), and utility (needed for relayer fees and possibly other Dinero services). The integration of DINERO in core protocol usage gives it embedded value beyond pure governance.
Revenue at Scale: If Dinero captures even a modest share of Ethereum’s infrastructure:
Liquid Staking: With Ethereum staking yields ~4-5%, and assuming Dinero grows to, say, 500K ETH staked (~1% of Ethereum’s stake, which is ambitious but not impossible given Lido’s multi-million ETH), that’s ~$10M in ETH rewards/year. Dinero could redirect a portion as protocol revenue (via fees or a cut of yields).
Stablecoin: DINERO’s supply could grow with demand for leverage on staked ETH. If pxETH is popular, users might mint DINERO to farm yields elsewhere. The protocol could charge a stability fee (e.g., MakerDAO charges ~1-2%). A $100M DINERO supply at 1% fee is $1M/year in revenue.
Relayer/MEV: This is harder to quantify, but if Dinero’s relayer processes, say, 1% of Ethereum daily transactions and takes a small fee in DINERO, this could be significant. Moreover, private order flow could attract traders willing to pay for MEV protection. These fees are directly value-accretive to DINERO (since users buy DINERO to pay them).
Hidden Hand & Others: Hidden Hand was already a cash-flow generator in Redacted days (collecting fees on bribes). As long as protocols continue to bribe for votes (Curve, Balancer, etc.), Dinero’s DAO receives a share. This is more ancillary but diversifies revenue.
Growth Catalysts:
The Shanghai/Capella upgrade (enabling ETH withdrawals) has spurred LST adoption. Dinero launched pxETH at an opportune time post-Shanghai, and further Ethereum staking growth benefits it.
Institutional adoption of ETH staking (via ipxETH) could bring large deposits if Dinero can offer compliance (KYC, etc.) plus competitive yields. Partnerships with funds or integration in institutional platforms would be big catalysts.
MEV demand: As users/traders become more aware of MEV losses, solutions like private relayers gain appeal. If Dinero’s relayer can integrate easily with wallets or dApps, it could see rapid uptake. Being chain-neutral is also an option: while starting on Ethereum, Dinero could potentially offer relayers on L2s or other chains, multiplying its addressable market.
DeFi integrations: Dinero’s stablecoin and pxETH need integration (as collateral on lending platforms, in yield farms, etc.). Success here would deepen liquidity and utility. Already, Redacted’s team has deep DeFi connections which could foster such integrations.
Risks:
Competitive Moats: Lido’s dominance in staking is a tough barrier. Dinero must offer clearly better yields or features to pull users. Similarly, MakerDAO’s DAI and other new ETH-backed stables (like those by EigenLayer restaking or upcoming protocols) could challenge DINERO stablecoin adoption.
Complexity & Execution: Building an all-in-one ecosystem (LST, stablecoin, relayer, etc.) is ambitious. Technical failure or delays (especially with the relayer’s MEV components) could stall momentum. No protocol has combined these pieces before – integration risks are non-trivial.
Regulatory: By targeting institutional clients and running a stablecoin, Dinero navigates regulatory minefields. Stablecoins backed by staking are new; unclear treatment by regulators could impact institutional uptake or even retail use (e.g., U.S. users and DINERO token if deemed a security).
Token Value Capture: If most revenue is paid back out as DINERO, token value hinges on continuous demand for protocol services. Inflation could outpace revenue if adoption lags. Also, DINERO as a gas token only has value if the relayer sees real usage; otherwise it’s just inflationary rewards.
Long-Term Outlook: Dinero aims to be an Ethereum infrastructure powerhouse – a bet on Ethereum’s growth with multiple shots on goal (staking, stablecoin, MEV). If Ethereum blockspace and staking yield remain valuable commodities (which is a reasonable thesis), Dinero is positioned to capture part of that value. With a seasoned team (ex-Redacted) and a hefty treasury, it has resources to execute. Viability will depend on delivering products that earn organic fees. If they succeed, DINERO could be a multi-billion protocol (driven by its treasury, staked ETH, and stablecoin TVL). If not, the token risks being just another emission-heavy governance coin.
Dominance in Solana NFT Infrastructure: Metaplex is often described as the backbone of Solana’s NFT ecosystem, and for good reason. It provides the underlying standards and tools (Smart Contract Programs) for creating and managing NFTs on Solana:
Token Metadata Program: Essentially every Solana NFT uses Metaplex’s metadata standard – it’s responsible for 90%+ of NFTs and ~90% of fungible tokens on Solana. Platforms like Magic Eden, Tensor, and various wallets rely on it to fetch NFT data (name, image URL, attributes). This ubiquity gives Metaplex a de facto monopoly on Solana NFT minting.
Candy Machine: A program for fair NFT mints (randomized distribution, whitelist management, etc.), widely used by Solana NFT projects.
Auction House & Marketplaces: Tools enabling anyone to set up NFT marketplaces or sales.
Compression (Bubblegum): Technology for “compressed NFTs” (cheaper, scaled minting) – used for things like large collectible drops or gaming assets.
Solana Core Contributions: Metaplex recently launched “Aura”, a decentralized indexing and data availability network for Solana and SVM chains. Aura’s aim is to solve RPC/data retrieval issues by incentivizing nodes (using MPLX) to index and serve data efficiently. This broadens Metaplex beyond NFTs into general Solana infra.
Business Model & Fees: Historically, Metaplex didn’t monetize core NFT mints heavily (early Candy Machine mints had minimal fees). However, in May 2023, Metaplex introduced micro-fees on its programs to fund ongoing development. Key points:
Total revenue from launch of fees to late 2024: ~128,347 SOL (roughly $6.5M if SOL is $50, more if SOL is higher).
These fees likely come from minting NFTs, listing or trading via Auction House, and other on-chain actions using Metaplex contracts. The Bitget article indicates the revenue was significant enough that Metaplex averaged 7,956 SOL ($1M) in monthly fees in mid-2024, on par or higher than leading Solana NFT marketplace Tensor’s revenue.
Protocol Fee Allocation: As of March 2024, 50% of all Metaplex fees are used to buy back MPLX and send to the Metaplex DAO treasury, while the other 50% funds the Foundation’s operations. This effectively ties protocol usage to MPLX demand (via buybacks) and treasury growth. It’s a strong value-capture mechanism uncommon in many infra tokens.
Treasury and Holdings: The Metaplex DAO treasury accumulates purchased MPLX. Additionally, 50% of historical fees (pre-March 2024) were also allocated to buy MPLX. By late 2024, tens of millions of MPLX have been repurchased (13.44M MPLX by Aug 2023, and likely more since). This makes the DAO treasury a significant stakeholder, potentially able to fund grants or burn tokens as decided by governance.
Solana Infra Role: Beyond NFTs:
Metaplex’s standards are critical for Solana gaming, social dApps, and any app issuing tokens or NFTs. It is expanding into broader data infrastructure (Aura).
Notably, 90% of fungible tokens on Solana use Metaplex’s token program. This is like having a cut on almost every token mint (though fungible token fees are minuscule per mint).
With Solana’s resurgence (Sol’s price and activity rebounding through 2023–2024), any uptick in NFT activity (mints, trades) directly increases Metaplex fee revenue. In essence, MPLX is a leveraged bet on Solana’s NFT and token activity.
Supply & Circulation: MPLX has a max supply of 1 billion tokens. As of Nov 2024, ~755.8M (75.6%) are in circulation – a high circulating percentage, meaning most tokens are already unlocked. The token launched in Sept 2022 via an airdrop to creators and some investors:
Initial Distribution: Creators & Early Supporters: 21.9% (this likely includes the airdrop recipients and perhaps early contributors like developers).
Metaplex Foundation: 20.31% (for development, likely vested over time).
Metaplex DAO: 16% (treasury for the DAO – now being fed by buybacks too).
Strategic Investors: 10.2% (raised $46M in early 2022).
Everstake: 10% (Everstake is a staking service that was an early partner).
Metaplex Studios: 9.75% (likely the original corporate entity/team allocation).
Founding Advisors: 3.34%, Founding Partners: 3.1%.
Community Airdrop: 5.4% (not the creator airdrop, but likely future ecosystem airdrops; note a planned collector airdrop of 40M MPLX was announced later).
This distribution shows a broad allocation with significant portions to the community and contributors. It also reveals that by late 2024, most investor/team tokens are likely unlocked or circulating, which reduces future sell pressure, assuming no cliffs remain.
Utility & Governance: MPLX is a governance and utility token for the Metaplex DAO:
Holders can vote on protocol changes, fee parameters, or treasury use.
It’s also used to incentivize network participants like Aura node operators (for indexing data).
By committing 50% of fees to buybacks, Metaplex directly links utility (protocol usage) to token value. This is akin to a dividend or revenue-sharing model, except paid via token accumulation in the DAO.
Sustainability: Metaplex’s model is arguably one of the healthier in crypto infra:
It has actual cash flows (in SOL) from usage of its programs. This is sustainable as long as Solana usage persists. In recent months, NFT activities like Mad Lads, Tensor’s growth, etc., show the ecosystem is alive.
The Foundation’s funding (via the other 50% of fees plus the initial treasury) supports development without needing high token inflation. MPLX inflation seems minimal after the airdrops; the majority of tokens are already out.
If needed, the DAO could vote to use its MPLX treasury (which grows from buybacks) to incentivize certain behavior (e.g., liquidity mining, grants to projects building on Metaplex), creating a virtuous cycle of growth and token demand.
Concerns:
A large circulating supply can mean price remains diluted unless demand (from governance influence or fee capture) grows. However, high circulation also means the market has more fully priced in known unlocks.
The Foundation and big holders (Everstake, etc.) might still control governance if they haven’t decentralized those holdings or delegated votes to the community.
MPLX’s fate is tied to Solana; if Solana falters, MPLX does too. There’s not much cross-chain applicability for Metaplex’s tools (though SVM chains could use them in theory).
Growth Catalysts:
Solana Surge: Solana’s recent tech improvements (e.g., Firedancer validator client, network stability gains) and higher adoption (Visa using Solana, etc.) could lead to more tokens and NFTs. If another bull run spurs NFT mania on Solana, Metaplex’s fee revenue could multiply accordingly (remember, every mint pays them).
New Products: Metaplex is expanding with Aura (decentralized indexing) and possibly other infra (could they move into fungible token standards upgrades, or gaming-specific tooling?). Each new widely-used program is a new fee stream.
Buyback Continuation: They’re already buying 10,000 SOL worth of MPLX monthly since mid-2023. If SOL’s price rises, the dollar value of buybacks rises too, taking more MPLX off the market or into long-term DAO custody. This steady buy pressure is a strong catalyst for value accumulation.
Undervalued vs. Comps: The Bitget article notes that competitor Tensor (an NFT marketplace) has a higher FDV (~$350M) despite similar or lower fees than Metaplex. Magic Eden (if it tokenizes) could be even higher. Metaplex, being more infra than front-end, might have been overlooked. If investors rotate into “picks-and-shovels” plays of Solana (like MPLX), it could re-rate towards that $1B+ valuation tier.
Ecosystem Funding or Acquisitions: If Metaplex DAO accumulates a significant treasury, it could fund projects building on Solana, further entrenching its role. Outside interest (Pantera and others buying from a large holder suggests institutions see long-term value).
Risks:
Competition: While Metaplex currently has no serious rivals for Solana NFT standards (due to first-mover advantage and deep integration), one risk is if Solana core devs or other entities build alternative NFT standards or if large marketplaces find ways to reduce dependence on Metaplex (e.g., Tensor’s compressed NFT experiment uses Metaplex’s Bubblegum, so even that ties back). For now, this risk is low given network effects.
Solana Dependence: If Solana’s user base doesn’t grow, Metaplex’s revenue won’t grow. It’s largely a bet on Solana’s success in NFTs, gaming, and new token launches. The recent positive momentum needs to sustain.
Regulatory/Market Changes: NFT trading volume is very speculative; downturns (as seen in mid-2022) drastically reduce fees. If NFT market interest shifts to other chains or to new paradigms (like Ethereum L2s or Ethereum itself regaining NFT share), Solana activity might stagnate.
Token Utility Beyond Governance: Right now, MPLX is mostly governance + fee accrual via buybacks. If holders don’t see direct benefits (like dividends or staking yields), some might not hold long term. The DAO treasury holds the bought-back MPLX – depending on governance, they could even decide to burn some, which would be a catalyst, or redistribute to stakers, etc. Lack of clarity on this could keep some investors away.
Path to $1B+ Protocol: Metaplex’s FDV is around $300-400M at ~$0.28 per token currently (with ~760M circulating). Achieving $1B+ is feasible if:
Solana’s NFT and token activity continues to rise, pushing monthly fees from ~$1M to $5M+ (especially if SOL price rises, as fees are in SOL).
That would mean ~$2.5M/month used to buy MPLX for the DAO. Annualized, $30M+ spent on MPLX buybacks.
With a price-to-sales (P/S) or price-to-fee ratio approach, even a 10× multiple on $12M/year (Metaplex’s half of fees for itself) is $120M, and on $30M/year (all fees) is $300M. In a bullish scenario, markets might price the growth and monopoly status higher, say 20-30×, which could put it in the $1B range.
Compared to centralized marketplace tokens (e.g., LooksRare or Magic Eden if it had one), Metaplex is more infrastructure-like (less flashy, but more persistent revenue perhaps).
Competitive/Complementary Bets on Solana Infra: Beyond MPLX (for NFTs) and the obvious SOL (layer-1 exposure) or liquid staking (stSOL, JitoSOL, etc.), other infrastructure plays on Solana could include:
Jito (MEV/Validator infrastructure): Jito Labs focuses on MEV and has a token for its liquid staking (JitoSOL) and perhaps future MEV profit-sharing.
Tensor (TNSR): Solana NFT marketplace token, as mentioned. A play on NFT trading volume (more directly tied to marketplace success).
MarginFi / Solend / OpenBook: Key DeFi primitives that could grow if Solana usage increases. Though these are more DeFi than base infra.
Helium (on Solana now): For IoT network on Solana, though quite a different vertical.
Hedge Protocol / LSTfi: If one wanted to bet on Solana beyond NFTs, looking at growth in DeFi or unique Solana features (like high throughput for new types of dApps) might be options. However, there’s arguably no direct equivalent to Metaplex in dominance except perhaps Jito in the validator/MEV space.
Software/Dev Infra: Eg. Helius (indexing, not tokenized) or Phantom (wallet, not tokenized). If looking strictly for tokens: $MPLX is unique for broad ecosystem exposure.
Dinero vs. Metaplex vs. Other Infra Plays:
Nature of Dominance: Metaplex already has dominance (almost monopoly) in its niche on Solana. Dinero is aspiring to a significant position in Ethereum infra but has formidable competition (Lido, Maker, Flashbots, etc.). Thus, MPLX is a more established bet on an existing cash-flow machine, whereas DINERO is a bet on building multiple new machines.
Cross-Ecosystem vs. Single-Ecosystem: Dinero focuses on Ethereum (with multi-chain aspirations via L2s), while Metaplex is Solana-centric (with possible SVM expansion). Ethereum’s TAM (total addressable market) is larger today, but Solana’s growth could be high. For diversification, they expose one to two different layer-1 ecosystems.
Revenue and Token Value: Metaplex’s fee-to-buyback model is transparent and already showing results (millions of MPLX repurchased). Dinero’s model will depend on the DAO implementing fee capture (the Mirror indicates product revenue will distribute as DINERO, likely via buybacks or direct distribution). Dinero’s tokenomics post-migration seem to mirror some of Metaplex’s approach: end unsustainable emissions (no more ETH reward; only DINERO given) and focus on product revenue to reward token holders. Both seem to aim for real yield.
Overlooked Risks & Limitations:
For Dinero: Technical complexity (delivering a relayer that competes with state-of-the-art MEV solutions), regulatory risk for stablecoin, and liquidity risk (needing deep liquidity for pxETH and DINERO stablecoin to succeed). Also, user adoption – will DeFi users trust a relatively new stablecoin or switch from stETH to pxETH?
For Metaplex: Centralization perception (the foundation and a few entities hold large shares; Solana’s past outages might cause wariness), and lack of retail mindshare – NFT traders know marketplaces like Magic Eden, but MPLX is more behind-the-scenes, possibly leading to undervaluation until more people realize its role (which is also an opportunity).
Both face crypto market risk: as infra, if a downturn happens, usage (and revenues) drop while token inflation (for Dinero) continues, which could hurt prices.
Other Solana Bets beyond MPLX:
If one is bullish on Solana’s resurgence: Staked SOL (e.g., Marinade, Lido’s stSOL, JitoSOL) gives direct network yield plus upside, though not a “builder infra” bet.
Solana DeFi Protocols: like Drift (perp exchange, has a token), Phoenix (orderbook DEX, no token yet), or stablecoin projects like UXD or PsiOptions – but these are more specific and risky.
Ecosystem Funds or Indexes: There’s no index token yet, but some might consider exposure via venture funds (not accessible to most).
Memecoins on Solana: Not infra at all, and very speculative. The user specifically asked beyond “memecoins and staked SOL,” implying they seek more fundamental plays – MPLX is one, maybe Jito/Tensor as mentioned. Also UXD (decentralized stablecoin on Solana) or MARGINFi (for fixed-income) could be considered if looking at diverse angles.
Conclusion:
Both Dinero and Metaplex represent infrastructure-layer investments capturing different blockchain economies (Ethereum vs. Solana):
Dinero is a bold multi-pronged bet on Ethereum’s future – if it succeeds, it could become a decentralized “BlackRock of Ethereum” managing staked assets, issuing a major stablecoin, and controlling a slice of blockspace. It carries higher execution risk but also potentially multiple revenue pillars. Key metrics to watch would be pxETH market share, DINERO stablecoin circulation, relayer usage, and fee flows to stakers. Early signs (rapid TVL growth, strong treasury) are promising.
Metaplex is akin to investing in “Solana’s AWS” for NFTs – every project uses it under the hood. It already has significant cash flows and a clear token value link via buybacks. It’s perhaps underappreciated due to being behind the scenes, but recent analysis calls it undervalued given its dominance and lack of direct competition. For long-term, if Solana thrives, Metaplex almost certainly will too, making MPLX a potentially solid bet with fewer unknowns.
In comparing to other infra plays: On Ethereum, analogous plays are Lido (liquid staking leader, but less diversified than Dinero’s vision) or Layer-2 tokens (Arbitrum/Optimism, though different focus). On Solana, as discussed, few match Metaplex’s entrenched position.
For an investor seeking diversified infra exposure, holding both could hedge between ecosystems. Dinero offers upside tied to Ethereum’s conservative growth plus new service adoption, whereas Metaplex offers a play on Solana’s high-growth potential with an already entrenched product-market fit. Both have credible paths to sustaining $1B+ valuations if their ecosystems flourish.
