MicroStrategy (MSTR) has fallen from $474 to $177 (-67 %) while Bitcoin slipped only 15 % from $100 k to $85 k.

The market’s willingness to pay a premium for its BTC vault has evaporated: mNAV (market-cap / net-asset-value) has compressed from 2.5 × to barely 1.1 ×.

The “issue shares → buy coins → stock rallies → repeat” flywheel is now a zero-sum game.

2. The sword hanging over the stock: MSCI’s 50 % rule

MSCI—gatekeeper of the world’s most-tracked equity benchmarks—labels any company whose digital-asset holdings exceed 50 % of total assets as an “investment fund”, making it ineligible for standard equity indices.

MSTR’s balance-sheet is 77 % Bitcoin (~$56 bn of $73 bn total assets), squarely above the threshold .

If MSCI pulls the plug on 15 Jan 2026, passive vehicles tracking MSCI USA, Nasdaq-100 and Russell 2000 must divest roughly $28 bn of stock; add parallel reviews by FTSE/Russell and Nasdaq and the total forced selling could reach $88 bn .

With average daily turnover of ~$48 bn, an $88 bn one-way liquidation would equal almost two full days of volume—enough to blow out bid-ask spreads from 0.2 % to 2-5 %.

3. Precedent: from flagship to orphan

History shows index removals are merciless.

When GE was dropped from the Dow in 2018 the stock fell another 30 % in the following month; when Grayscale’s GBTC lost its ETF monopoly it flipped from a +40 % premium to a –30 % discount and never recovered.

Analysts already price in a post-index liquidity discount: MSTR now trades roughly at par to its BTC stash, a level that removes any accretion from future equity issuance.

4. Saylor’s defence—and the market’s reply

CEO Michael Saylor argues MSTR is an operating business (“a $500 m software company that happens to own Bitcoin”) and points to five listed digital-security offerings as proof of active treasury engineering .

Investors are unmoved: the stock’s beta to BTC has actually risen above 2.5 as traders hedge the potential index exile.

Meanwhile $7 bn of convertibles with strike prices between $143 and $672 begin to look like pure debt if the share price stays sub-$180, raising the spectre of a “double-dip” where both valuation and earnings-per-share metrics deteriorate simultaneously.

5. Red-line anxiety spreads to the DAT pack

MSCI has put 38 crypto-heavy issuers on watch; together they control >1 % of the free-float value of global small-cap indices.

The message is binary: stay under 50 % and keep the passive bid, or cross the line and live in the liquidity wilderness.

For the broader “print-shares-buy-coins” industry, the free lunch appears to be over—five years after Saylor invented it, a footnote in an index methodology file may finish it off .

The Crisis Unfolds
On November 7, 2025—before the crypto market had fully recovered from October's volatility—a perfect storm centered around stablecoins swept through the DeFi ecosystem. Over the past week, yield-bearing stablecoins experienced their most severe outflow since the 2022 Terra/UST collapse, totaling $10 billion. This was not an isolated protocol failure but a chain of liquidations revealing deep structural flaws within modern DeFi.

The trigger was Stream Finance, once a highly sought-after stablecoin protocol. As the dominoes fell, it became clear that risks in DeFi's intricate "Lego castle" could cascade through five or six layers, ultimately triggering a systemic crisis of confidence.

Two Worlds of Stablecoins: Understanding the Roots
To grasp this crisis, we must recognize the fundamental divide in the stablecoin landscape:

1. 100% Reserve-Backed Stablecoins (e.g., USDT, USDC): These rely on centralized entities' compliant operations and strong financial audits. Their value is backed 100% by highly liquid real-world assets (cash, government bonds, commercial paper). They offer genuine stability and redemption confidence but sacrifice the core ethos of decentralization.

2. Algorithmic Stablecoins (Broad Definition): This is a different world. Whether issued via over-collateralized loans or more complex synthetic mechanisms, if their core collateral is cryptocurrency, their stability depends on algorithms and on-chain contracts. The protagonists of this crisis, xUSD and deUSD, belong to this category.

This crisis was an extreme demonstration of the inherent fragility of the second type.

The Death Spiral: The Inevitable Fate of Algorithmic Stablecoins
The greatest vulnerability of algorithmic stablecoins is their dependence on the price of the underlying crypto collateral. During market downturns, this can trigger a fatal "Death Spiral":

• The price of the crypto collateral (Base Asset) plummets.

• The stablecoin loses market confidence due to insufficient collateral, its face value drops, and it de-pegs.

• Over-collateralization ratios of 200% or even 300% are rapidly eroded by the freefall in collateral value.

• The protocol is forced to trigger large-scale on-chain liquidations, selling the liquidated collateral at market prices.

• These sales further depress the collateral's price, triggering more liquidations...

This vicious cycle is a domino effect of DeFi liquidations, potentially fatal to the entire ecosystem.

From xUSD to Compound: A Systemic Collapse Barely Contained
This time, the death spiral was triggered by Stream Finance.

On November 3rd, Stream announced a $93 million loss caused by an off-chain fund manager and froze deposits and withdrawals. This instantly ignited market panic. Its stablecoin, xUSD, de-peged within hours, crashing from $1 to $0.11, wiping out over $5 billion in market value.

Since xUSD was a core collateral asset for Elixir Finance's stablecoin, deUSD, the collapse of xUSD directly caused deUSD's collateral value to plummet to zero, triggering a second wave of de-pegging.

The crisis then spread to major lending platforms like Morpho and Euler. Numerous positions using xUSD and deUSD as collateral instantly became bad debt, draining deposit pools, sending interest rates to extreme negative values, and freezing depositor funds.

At this critical juncture, the entire DeFi world held its breath, watching the industry's cornerstone—Compound. As one of the largest lending protocols, Compound also had markets exposed to the fallout. If Compound's liquidation mechanism failed or it succumbed to massive bad debt, the consequences would be unthinkable.

Fortunately, the Compound team acted swiftly, emergency-shutting affected markets. This decisive move, akin to "cutting off a limb to save the body," prevented the further spread of cascading liquidations. This action temporarily stabilized the situation, barely containing a potential systemic disaster that could have engulfed all of DeFi within manageable limits.

We must soberly recognize: had Compound also suffered severe liquidations, its impact would have far exceeded the 2022 UST collapse, directly shaking the foundations upon which the DeFi world is built.

Reflection and Outlook: The Original Purpose and Future of Stablecoins
In the wake of this crisis, we must not only review technical risks but also question a fundamental issue: Was the original intent behind creating these on-chain algorithmic stablecoins flawed from the start?

Examining the failed protocols reveals that most were not built to serve real-world use cases. Their existence seemed solely to facilitate complex arbitrage games within the DeFi ecosystem. You almost exclusively find them nested within layered "DeFi matryoshka dolls," while they are absent in scenarios genuinely requiring stablecoins, such as payments, trading, or value storage.

These "stablecoins," which do not serve payment needs but are born for speculation and arbitrage, have always been hidden landmines within the DeFi ecosystem. They constructed a seemingly prosperous yet fragile house of cards, destined for catastrophic collapse at the slightest market tremor.

This forces us to rethink: What kind of stablecoin do we truly need?

What we hope to see is the stablecoin track returning to its core value—achieving genuine inclusive finance. The stablecoin of the future should be a tool that enables broader global access, particularly for the billions excluded from the traditional financial system, to use it borderlessly and permissionlessly. It should strive to reduce the cost of cross-border payments, protect personal assets from hyperinflation, and become a powerful force for individual empowerment.

This painful $10 billion lesson is not just a wake-up call about risk management. It is a powerful signal, urging the entire industry to step back temporarily from the frenzied "DeFi Lego" game and re-examine our goals. We need a financial future that is not only more technologically resilient but also returns to its original ideals, serving the broader well-being of humanity.

2025/10/26 09:23

Bookmark

The Federal Reserve held its inaugural Payments Innovation Conference in Washington on October 21st, marking a significant moment where cryptocurrency became a core topic of discussion for the US payment system. The conference brought together central bankers, large asset managers, banks, payment companies, and crypto infrastructure teams, focusing on stablecoins, tokenized assets, DeFi, AI in payments, and connecting traditional ledgers with blockchain.

* Shift in Attitude: The Fed explicitly stated its intention to embrace disruptive technologies in payments, shifting the focus from "whether it fits" to "how to safely integrate it into the core system."

* 'Simplified Account' Plan: The Fed is developing a limited-access payment account, allowing eligible non-bank institutions to directly use Fed payment services under strict supervision, reducing reliance on commercial banks.

* Crypto Industry Advice: Three key challenges need addressing—compatibility between traditional systems and blockchain, standardizing transaction metadata, and creating a "regulated DeFi" variant for automated compliance.

* Central Role of Stablecoins: As the largest practical application of crypto, stablecoins would see enhanced standards for reserves, reporting, and settlement through direct Fed access, lowering operational risk.

* Tokenized Asset Planning: Tokenized funds, cash, and on-chain settlement are seen as key to accelerating asset circulation, with a focus on solving standards, identity verification, and secure access to payment systems.

* Market Impact: Increased policy clarity could drive capital towards institution-friendly assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum, though price volatility remains. Long-term focus should be on stablecoin rules, tokenized cash products, and compliant DeFi development.

* Investment Strategy: Recommends a core position in Bitcoin and Ethereum, moderate allocation to Solana and cross-chain infrastructure, with clear risk controls in place.

This conference indicates that the US payment system is actively working to integrate crypto assets and infrastructure, paving the way for institutional participation.

Summary

Expand

Author: Crypto Unfiltered

Compiled by: Block unicorn

Preamble

On October 21st, the Federal Reserve held its first Payments Innovation Conference in Washington. The day-long event gathered central bankers, major asset management firms, large banks, payment companies, and leading crypto infrastructure teams. The agenda covered stablecoins, tokenized assets, DeFi, artificial intelligence in payments, and how to connect traditional ledgers to blockchains. The message from the room was simple: crypto is now part of the payments conversation.

Why This Time is Different

For years, the US stance on cryptocurrency sounded like "regulate first, talk later." This time, a Federal Reserve Governor opened the conference by stating the goal was to embrace disruptive technologies in payments and learn from the experiences of DeFi and crypto. The shift in tone is significant. It tells investors the question has moved from whether this technology fits, to how to safely integrate it into the core system.

The 'Simplified Account' Concept

The most concrete news was the Fed's work on a limited-access Federal Reserve account (often called a 'simplified account'). Think of it as a stripped-down master account, allowing certain qualified non-bank institutions direct access to Fed payment services under strict oversight—featuring limits, no interest, no credit, and stringent reporting requirements. Currently, many stablecoin issuers and crypto firms rely on commercial banks for settlement and critical services. If limited-access Fed accounts become reality, it could reduce single points of failure. This isn't a free pass and won't happen overnight, but it's a clear direction of travel.

The Crypto Industry's Advice to the Fed

If real institutional scale is the goal, three hard problems need solving. First, make traditional systems compatible with blockchains for audit and compliance checks. Second, standardize the proofs and metadata accompanying transactions to meet regulator and counterparty needs. Third, create a "regulated DeFi" variant where smart contracts, by default, automate compliance, identity checks, and cross-chain controls. None of this is flashy. All of it is what large capital pools require.

Why Stablecoins Are Central

Stablecoins are already one of crypto's largest real-world use cases. Their biggest operational risk is reliance on critical channels at partner banks. Direct, limited Fed access would set a higher bar for reserves, reporting, and settlement, and lower the chance of disruptions or de-banking events. It doesn't eliminate risk, but it shifts the system towards a standardized, regulated one that institutions can understand.

Tokenized Assets Enter the Plan

When the world's largest asset managers, multinational banks, and crypto data providers sit down with the Fed to discuss tokenized funds, tokenized cash, and on-chain settlement, you are looking at a roadmap. Tokenization isn't a gimmick. It's a way to make traditional assets move faster, with instant settlement, 24/7 markets, and programmable compliance. The holdup has always been standards, identity verification, and secure access to payment systems. All three are now priorities.

Implications for the Market

Price action around events like this is noisy. Bitcoin might be down a few percent on the day; Ethereum and Solana could swing wildly on headlines before reversing. The structural signal is stronger. The US central bank is now publicly workshopping how to connect crypto rails to the payment core. When policy clarity increases, capital flows tend to concentrate first on assets most suited to institutional investors. Bitcoin remains the macroeconomic entry point. Ethereum is central to stablecoins and tokenization. Solana continues to compete on speed and consumer applications. Chainlink positions itself as the data and compliance bridge connecting blockchains to institutions.

None of this guarantees a straight line up in price. But it does dictate where new mandates can be allocated when legal and operational plumbing shifts. This typically means Bitcoin first, then Ethereum, then a basket of large-cap assets with clear use cases. Later, if liquidity is strong and risk appetite returns, small-cap assets start to move. The same cycle rhythm, different drivers.

Near-Term Catalysts to Watch

* A rulebook for stablecoins, normalizing reserves and real-time reporting.

* More tokenized cash products, Treasuries, with built-in on-chain identity.

* Versions of DeFi that hardcode counterparty checks, asset eligibility, and restrictions, so institutions can participate without changing their mandates.

* AI and crypto crossover stories with real economic design, not just branding, especially as emissions tighten.

How to Position

Keep the plan simple and match it to your time horizon. If investing, focus on assets institutions can actually buy. For most, the core is Bitcoin and Ethereum, with a moderate allocation to Solana, and a small portion reserved for infrastructure bridging data and compliance across chains. If trading, assume volatility based on market dynamics, use isolated risk strategies, and set your stop-loss levels in advance.

Final Takeaway

The Fed convened crypto firms, banks, asset managers, and big tech to blueprint a shared payment system and proposed a concrete path towards direct, limited access to its payment rails. Prices will fluctuate. This signals that the US payment system is preparing to integrate the assets and infrastructure you already trade. Be patient, assess risk, and focus on the assets institutions can actually hold as the payment gates open wider.

The current BTC bull market started from the low of $15,460 in November 2022. As of September 2025, it has lasted approximately 1,044 days, nearing the historical cycle peak duration of around 1,060 days. Based on the traditional "cycle theory," the peak could occur in October 2025.

Structural Market Shift

A historic shift in BTC ownership is underway. Early holders are continuously selling, while traditional capital from BTC spot ETFs and Digital Asset Trusts companies has become the primary buyer, driving BTC's transition from an alternative asset to a mainstream one.

Bull Market Drivers

* Phase 1 (Nov 2022 – Sep 2023): Long-term Holder Accumulation & Macro Liquidity. Prices rebounded over 100% from the low, driven by accumulation and improving macro liquidity.

* Phase 2 (Oct 2023 – Mar 2024): BTC Spot ETF & Halving Narrative. Anticipation of ETF approval and the halving narrative attracted massive capital, driving a 173% price increase.

* Phase 3 (Apr 2024 – Sep 2024): Post-Halving Rebalancing. The market entered a consolidation phase after the halving. Long-term holder accumulation stabilized the bottom.

* Phase 4 (Oct 2024 – Jan 2025): Trump's Pro-Crypto Policies & Rate Cut Expectations. Pro-crypto policies and rate cut expectations triggered record capital inflows, leading to a further 72% price surge.

* Phase 5 (Feb 2025 – Apr 2025): Black Swan Events. Events like trade wars and paused rate cuts caused a correction, but the decline did not exceed typical bull market thresholds.

* Phase 6 (May 2025 – Present): The Third Major Sell-Off & Strong Demand. Long-term holders initiated a third large-scale sell-off, but robust demand from ETFs and DATs absorbed the selling pressure, pushing prices to new highs.

Challenging the Cycle Theory

Traditional peak signals, like a surge in new addresses, have not materialized. BTC may have entered a new cycle, potentially altering the nature, timing, and subsequent bear market magnitude of the peak.

Future Outlook

Whether the bull market peaks in October remains uncertain. If long-term holders continue selling, the bull market could end. However, if strong buying pressure persists due to rate cuts and supportive policies, the cycle might extend, and any subsequent bear market correction could be shallower.

Summary

---

Author: 0xWeilan

According to Coinbase data, BTC hit its 4-year low of $15,460 on November 21, 2022. We consider this date the end of the last cycle and the start of the current one.

As of September 30 this year, BTC has run for 1,044 tumultuous days, nearing the peak timing of the previous two cycles. A simplistic calculation suggests BTC could reach its cycle peak in October 2025.

The "Cycle Law" Under Scrutiny

This "cycle law" stems from consensus diffusion and speculative fervor around halvings. It remains a key metric for traditional large BTC holders, whose profit-taking historically played a decisive role in forming cycle tops by draining liquidity.

Currently, this group is accelerating sales, suggesting an impending "peak." However, other top indicators like rapid price surges or spikes in new addresses are absent. This raises the question: will this "cycle law" continue to dictate the market, or has it been broken? Will the BTC bull market that started in November 2022 end in October?

This EMC Labs report utilizes our proprietary "BTC Cycle Multi-Factor Analysis Model" to comprehensively analyze the price action in this cycle, identify the market forces and underlying logic driving it, and ultimately provide our analysis and judgment on whether BTC will peak in October.

Phase 1 (Nov 2022 – Sep 2023): Long-Term Holder Accumulation

Looking back, the bankruptcy of key buyers from the last cycle, like FTX and Voyager Digital, signaled the completion of that cycle's purge. Post-FTX collapse, BTC fell from around $20,000 in the bottom range to $15,476, with the low on November 21, 2022.

While these bankruptcies exacerbated the bottom, the fundamental force ending the cycle was the profit-taking sell-off by long-term holders. Typically, short-term holders buy fervently and long-term holders sell during market manias, while the opposite occurs during cool-downs.

Consistent with past cycles, long-term holders began accumulating during the bear market. As the bottom phase arrived, selling pressure from loss-making short-term holders diminished, allowing the buying power of long-term holders to become the upward force pushing BTC and the crypto market out of the bottom and into a new cycle.

Concurrently, the post-pandemic Fed rate hike cycle was nearing its end, officially concluding on July 26, 2023. Due to forward-looking trading, the Nasdaq Composite Index bottomed in October 2022 and exited its bottom range by January 2023. BTC's price action was largely synchronized, bottoming about 9-10 months before the final rate hike ended.

As the hiking cycle neared its end, tight liquidity conditions led to regional bank failures, prompting the US government to inject emergency liquidity. The US M2 money supply and DXY index began rebounding, providing a favorable external environment for US stocks and BTC to recover.

We define "Nov 2022 – Sep 2023" as the first phase of this cycle. The internal market structure, specifically the accumulation by long-term holders, coupled with improving macro liquidity, was the fundamental driver of BTC's price increase.

DATs companies and BTC Spot ETFs, later major forces, were not dominant yet. The retail crowd, prone to chasing rallies, remained dormant. Stablecoin supply was contracting, indicating capital outflows. The cyclical accumulation by long-term holders was the primary upward force.

In Phase 1, BTC rallied from a low of $15,476 to a high of $31,862, a maximum gain of 105.88%.

Phase 2 (Oct 2023 – Mar 2024): The BTC Spot ETF Catalyst

With US inflation falling and a brief CPI uptick in mid-2023 proving transient, July was confirmed as the end of the Fed's hiking cycle. Changing market expectations favored risk assets, setting the stage for Phase 2.

The true catalysts for Phase 2 were the anticipation of BTC Spot ETF approvals and the fourth BTC halving expected in April 2024.

Wall Street giants like BlackRock and Fidelity filed for Spot BTC ETFs in June 2023, attracting speculative capital.

Using the January 10, 2024, ETF approval as a midpoint, Phase 2 is split. The first half was dominated by speculative capital betting on approval. The second half was driven by incremental capital entering via the approved ETFs.

Additionally, the stablecoin channel reversed its outflow trend in October 2023, turning to inflows. By end-March 2024, over $26 billion in new stablecoins had been issued, becoming a key driver, especially in the first half.

Starting October 2023, long-term holders began distributing their holdings, selling a total of 900,000 BTC by the end of this phase.

This phase was driven by a combination of ETF-related capital, on-chain speculative/investment capital, and distribution by long-term holders. Buying pressure outweighed selling, leading to a sharp price increase.

In Phase 2, BTC rose from a low of $26,955 to a high of $73,836, a maximum gain of 173.92%.

Phase 3 (Apr 2024 – Sep 2024): Post-Halving Rebalancing

As noted earlier, investment/speculation around the halving narrative was a significant factor. This became evident in Phase 3.

BTC completed its fourth halving on April 19, 2024. While its direct impact on supply had diminished, the speculative run-up had overextended prices. From April to September 2024, BTC entered a 7-month consolidation period.

Post-March peak, capital inflow via ETFs slowed but remained decent. However, the stablecoin channel contracted more significantly, even turning negative at times.

Despite the paused rate hikes, the lack of cuts, reduced ETF inflows, and capital exit around the halving led to an overextended market seeking a new equilibrium.

The market stabilized without falling into a bear market due to long-term holders. They halted distributions in April and resumed accumulation by July, defining the bottom range.

In Phase 3, the highest price was $109,588, the lowest was $74,508, with a maximum drawdown of 32.01%, within typical bull market correction thresholds.

Phase 4 (Oct 2024 – Jan 2025): Trump's Pro-Crypto Agenda

High-interest rates finally impacted the job market, prompting the Fed to initiate rate cuts in September 2024, cutting 75 bps by year-end. This boosted risk appetite, driving massive capital into crypto via ETFs and stablecoins.

Another catalyst was the US Presidential election. Republican candidate Donald Trump pivoted to a strongly pro-crypto stance. Upon taking office, he signed executive orders supporting digital assets, established working groups, proposed a "Bitcoin Strategic Reserve," promoted stablecoin regulation, and appointed pro-crypto officials, unprecedented support for the industry.

Driven by the election and rate cuts, record capital flooded into the market via ETFs and stablecoins. Concurrently, long-term holders resumed selling to lock in profits.

Spurred by US policies, crypto became more mainstream. Dozens of DATs companies joined the fray, accumulating BTC alongside ETFs. These two groups became the largest buyers in the BTC market.

A great reshuffling began. Massive amounts of BTC moved from early holders to ETF and DATs custody accounts. BTC holdings on centralized exchanges frequented by early crypto users declined sharply.

This phase was powered by speculative inflows driven by rate cut expectations and Trump's pro-crypto policies.

In Phase 4, BTC price rose from a low of $63,301 to a high of $109,358, a maximum gain of 72.76%.

Phase 5 (Feb 2025 – Apr 2025): Black Swan Events

In our framework, Phase 5 was a mid-cycle adjustment caused by external black swan events and a cooldown from speculative fervor. The pause in rate cuts and the announcement of steep tariffs created market turmoil, forming this distinct phase.

Markets had priced in sustained rate cuts. When the Fed paused in January 2025 and reaffirmed its inflation focus, markets at all-time highs became vulnerable. Trump's announcement of higher-than-expected tariff rates triggered a sharp decline.

The Nasdaq corrected nearly 17%, while BTC saw a maximum drawdown of 32%. While larger, BTC's drop remained within its bull market correction threshold.

Eventually, as fears about the trade war and a hard landing subsided, both US stocks and crypto staged a V-shaped recovery by April, reaching new highs by July.

This reversal was fueled by aggressive buying from DATs, ETFs, and stablecoin channels. Long-term holders also resumed accumulation after the drop, again acting as market stabilizers.

In Phase 5, the highest price was $73,777, the lowest was $49,000, with a maximum drawdown of 33.58%, within bull market correction parameters.

Phase 6 (May 2025 – Present): Old Cycle vs. New Cycle

The market decline from black swan events was gradually reversed by bargain-hunting and long-term holder accumulation, with BTC hitting a new ATH of $123,000 by July.

At this point, long-term holders initiated their third major distribution wave of this cycle, which continues today. The selling is being absorbed by DATs and ETF inflows.

Ahead of the September rate cut, forward-looking trading dominated. Inflows from July to September were strong but decelerating, leading to a minor correction post-rate cut. Long-term holder selling remains a key market influence.

During this cycle, accompanying the third price surge, long-term holders are conducting their third major distribution. On-chain data shows they have realized profits on over 3.5 million BTC this cycle, reaching levels typical of past cycle tops. They continue significant selling.

In past halving-driven cycles, halving events and long-term holder accumulation/distribution were decisive. Speculative fervor driving new user adoption was necessary for cycle tops, often indicated by a surge in new Bitcoin addresses.

However, as BTC's consensus broadened, the scale of new address creation has plateaued. Since 2024, new BTC addresses have fallen to levels seen in past bear markets. This isn't solely due to fewer participants; the launch of US Spot ETFs in January 2024 allowed many investors to participate without creating personal wallets, reducing address creation.

Observing Ethereum, the largest smart contract platform, shows a similar trend in new addresses, suggesting a broader market structure shift for crypto.

This suggests the BTC market structure has undergone a dramatic change. Simply predicting market tops based on past cycle theory or mindlessly buying tokens for high returns may be outdated.

BTC might have exited the old cycle and entered a new one, potentially fundamentally altering its peak formation, timing, and subsequent bear market depth.

Conclusion

Based on this review, we draw a preliminary conclusion: the primary drivers of this bull market have been industrial policy support and incremental capital from traditional channels. The halving and industry innovations have not, as in the past, triggered massive capital inflows leading to a broad-based "altcoin season."

While innovations occurred, they attracted limited, pulse-like capital compared to past frenzies.

Consequently, since the new cycle began in November 2022, most crypto assets have seen only pulse-like, temporary price increases.

BTC is transitioning from the old cycle to a new one. Capital from DATs and ETFs is attempting to reshape the cycle's logic based on their own drivers. However, long-term holders still hold over 15 million BTC and continue acting based on the old cycle logic.

Factors supporting a non-peak or new cycle include the strong fundraising and holding strategy of DATs, ongoing US pro-crypto policies, and the renewed rate cut cycle favoring high-risk assets.

The battle continues: will long-term holder selling drain liquidity and form a classic cycle top, or will robust buying pressure in a rate-cutting environment bury the selling, allowing BTC to follow stocks into a prolonged new bull cycle?

We lean towards a potentially extended cycle, with an October peak remaining a low-probability event. However, if long-term holders persist in selling, the bull market ending this year is a higher probability. Any subsequent bear market's duration and depth could be significantly reduced, depending on the new buyers' behavior.

1. Tech Pedigree: FedML → TensorOpera → ChainOpera

• FedML (2018-22) – open-source FL library; 3 000+ academic citations; battle-tested in medical & mobile.

• TensorOpera (2022-24) – commercial MLOps layer: GPU marketplace, model-serving, federated orchestration.

• ChainOpera (2024-…) – blockchain shell that adds Proof-of-Intelligence consensus, tokenised payments and DAO governance on top of TensorOpera.

Result: a closed loop that can train (FedML), deploy & monetise (TensorOpera) and self-govern (ChainOpera) without ever centralising data or model weights.

2. Stack in One Glance

3. Product Suite – Five Moving Parts

1. AI Terminal – mobile/desktop portal; one seed phrase unlocks 200+ community-contributed agents that can already trade on Uniswap, summarise PDFs and generate 3-D assets.

2. Agent Social Network – Twitter-like feed where agents post, follow and DM each other; human users can stake tokens to “sponsor” an agent thread, creating an attention economy.

3. Developer Platform – no-code drag-and-drop canvas; turn a GPT-4o fine-tune + wallet module into a deployable agent in <10 clicks; supports MCP, A2A and x402 payment headers.

4. Model & GPU Platform – federated parameter server + decentralised推理 cluster; GPU contributors join via io.net, Render or bare-metal; earnings proportional to tokens staked + FLOPs delivered.

5. CO-AI Alliance – industry consortium (Samsung, io.net, Render, TensorOpera, ChainOpera) pushing edge-AI hardware standards and a unified agent SDK.

4. Token Design – Proof-of-Intelligence
$COAI (ERC-20 + native L1) is minted when:

• an agent completes a verified task (model inference, DeFi swap, data labelling) – Intelligence Work

• a GPU node provides auditable compute – Resource Work

• a data contributor uploads certified datasets – Data Work

Five sinks recycle supply:

1. Launch-pad fee (new agents)

2. API call fee (paid by dApps)

3. Model-royalty (each agent must stake $COAI to publish)

4. Contributor incentive (yield farm for GPU/data)

5. Training-resource market (buy GPU-hours at discount vs fiat)

Inflation halves every 2 years; 35 % of lifetime emission earmarked for ecological incentives, 15 % for early community airdrops.

5. Ecosystem Score-Card (Sept 2025)

• Seed raise: US $3.5 M (2024 Q4), led by HashKey + Foresight; valuation US $30 M.

• Team: 30 people, mostly ex-Google, Meta, USC; 5 PhDs in FL/RL.

• GPU net: 14 k A100/H100 equivalents pledged via io.net partnership.

• Agents live: 217; top 3 earn > US $12 k monthly in API fees.

• Daily on-chain tx: ≈ 180 k (Arbitrum Orbit L3, settled back to Ethereum).

• Mobile hardware: DeAI Phone (beta 500 units) ships Dec 2025; Samsung Knox-secured wallet + local FL node.

6. Headwinds & Open Questions

• Cross-layer complexity: smart-contract slashing conditions must correctly mirror off-chain FL convergence proofs—still unaudited at scale.

• User stickiness: most Terminal traffic today is yield farmers testing new agents; retention after subsidy expiry unknown.

• Business-model durability: cheaper centralised inference (OpenAI, Together) can under-cut decentralised providers unless privacy or censorship-resistance is paramount.

• Regulatory grey-zone: agents that trade tokens or handle personal data may trigger MiCA or HIPAA compliance obligations; unclear how liability is split between creator, staker and DAO.

Bottom Line
ChainOpera is the furthest-along attempt to hard-wire federated learning into a crypto-economic flywheel.
If the team can shrink cross-stack friction and keep GPU supply ahead of ChatGPT-level pricing, it could become the “AWS of agentic commerce”—only this time the users own the platform, not Bezos.

* Stablecoins like USDT have reversed the traditional payment process, enabling real-time clearing and settlement. Their open-system nature challenges the closed systems of traditional banks and Web2 payment giants.

* The core value of stablecoin payments lies not in cross-border transactions or clearing/settlement, but in becoming permissionless fiat. After saturating geographical markets, new scenarios (like Agent streaming payments) must be explored.

* Future payments will shift towards A2A (Agent-to-Agent automated transactions), leveraging protocols like MCP and on-chain infrastructure, moving away from manual operations and the ecosystems of legacy giants.

* Within 5 years, stablecoin issuance could reach trillions of dollars, ultimately replacing banks and existing distribution channels to form a true Web3 payment system.

Summary

By Zuoye

TL;DR

* Yield is not an add-on benefit but a core component [currently, yield is often used merely as a subsidy].

* The "last mile" for stablecoins is not fiat on/off-ramps, but becoming permissionless fiat. When you cannot destroy USDT, launching alternative or permissioned variants becomes less meaningful.

* Banks screen customers; retail users choose DeFi products.

* Risk control and regulation need to become "programmable," integrated into existing business workflows.

Geographical markets are already captured by USDT; only new scenarios* remain. Streaming payments hold more imagination than cross-border payments—this is a new distribution channel, not just mechanically adding stablecoins to existing giant ecosystems.

In 2008, amidst the shadow of the financial crisis, Bitcoin attracted its first wave of ordinary users disillusioned with the fiat system. Concurrently, the term "FinTech" also began gaining popularity around 2008, perhaps coincidentally.

Another coincidence: in 2013, during Bitcoin's first major bull run where its price surpassed $1,000, FinTech went mainstream. Companies like Wirecard and P2P lending shone briefly, Yu'ebao defined the internet-era yield system, and Jack Dorsey's Square reached a valuation over $6 billion.

This isn't manufactured. Since 1971, the growth rates of gold prices and US national debt have been nearly identical (8.8% vs. 8.7%). After the gold-dollar and petrodollar eras, could the new energy-dollar be the stablecoin?

From a regulatory perspective, FinTech was seen as banking's salvation—using an internet mindset to remake or supplement the financial system, hoping to create an internet-native financial system within complex political-business relationships. Starting with payments became a global consensus, leading to endless prosperity or crises through acquirer services, aggregation, P2P, cross-border settlement, and micro-lending, often blurring boundaries.

Ironically, the real transformation for banks and the traditional financial system is coming from blockchain practices, evolving from the fringe to the mainstream, largely outside regulatory purview.

Payment is Rooted in Code, Not Finance

The maturity of Yield-Bearing Stablecoins will be marked by USDT offering dividends.

For centuries, payment systems revolved around banks. All digitization and internetification merely added bricks to the banking edifice—until blockchain emerged.

Blockchain, especially stablecoins, created an inverted world, completely reversing the order of payment, clearing, and settlement. Payment finality is achieved only after confirmation enables clearing and settlement.

In traditional banking, payments essentially split into front-end transfers and back-end clearing, with banks at the absolute center.

Under the FinTech model, payment processes focus on aggregation and B2B services. An internet user-acquisition mindset demands capturing all payment flows, which determines a FinTech firm's leverage against banks—"Fake it till you make it." Entities like NetsUnion and reserve requirements are eventual acceptance markers.

In the blockchain model, systems like USDT on Tron (as the early stablecoin L1) and Ethereum (for large-value settlement) achieved the "programmability" the internet promised but failed to deliver fully.

Whether something is "internet-native" reflects platform silos; the core issue is the insufficient internetification of the dollar. Digital touchpoints remain supplements to the fiat system. But for blockchain, stablecoins are native assets. USDT on any chain is interchangeable; friction cost depends solely on liquidity.

Thus, leveraging blockchain's properties, payment confirmation happens only after verifying settlement capability. Gas fees are market-driven, and transfers occur in real-time post-confirmation.

A counter-intuitive insight: Stablecoin systems emerged not primarily from regulatory arbitrage, but from the efficiency gains of programbility that overwhelmed the traditional financial system.

Payment is an open system rooted in code, not finance.

Consider a counter-example: The slowness of traditional bank wire transfers isn't just due to compliance or outdated networks; the core reason is participating banks have an incentive to "retain" funds. Idle capital generates continuous yield for the banking system—user time becomes the banks' passive compound interest.

From this angle, even post-Genius Act, banks fiercely resist yield systems entering their realm. The surface reason is yield—or that paying interest to users would distort bank deposit-loan mechanisms, potentially causing systemic crises.

The on-chain programmability of yield systems will ultimately replace banking itself, rather than creating more problems, because it will be an open system.

Traditional banks profit from the spread between user deposits and corporate/personal loans—the foundation of all banking business.

This spread mechanism grants banks bilateral power to choose customers, potentially creating the "unbanked" on one end and selecting "qualified" businesses on the other.

Ultimately, losses from inter-corporate debt or crises caused by banks are often borne by ordinary users. In a sense, USDT is similar: users bear USDT's risk, while Tether captures the issuance profits.

YBS projects like Ethena rely neither on USD for issuance nor operate under the traditional bank spread mechanism. They function entirely on Aave and other on-chain facilities, with payment experiments on chains like TON.

YBS is building a globally liquid system for payments, interest accrual, and valuation. Banking is becoming the target of stablecoin transformation—not by altering payment participation, but by changing banking's intermediary role in credit creation.

Facing the YBS offensive, small banks are the first affected. Minnesota Credit Union has tried issuing its own stablecoin, while former NeoBanks are rapidly moving on-chain (e.g., Nubank revisiting stablecoins). Even entities like SuperForm are transforming into stablecoin banking systems, sharing profits with users and correcting the distorted banking model.

In short, Yield-Bearing Stablecoins are not just a customer acquisition tool but the vanguard of reshaping banking. The migration of credit creation on-chain is a more profound change than stablecoin payments.

FinTech didn't replace banks; it improved areas banks neglected. But blockchain and stablecoins will replace the definitions of both banks and money.

Assuming YBS becomes the new dollar circulation system, "payment" would synonymous with on-chain transactions. Again, this isn't merely putting dollars on-chain or digitizing them; on-chain dollars are the fiat system.

Currently, the traditional payment sector views stablecoins only through the lenses of clearing/settlement and cross-border payments. This is a mistaken, entrenched mindset. Give stablecoins freedom; don't embed them into outdated payment systems.

Blockchain inherently lacks distinctions like domestic/foreign, card/account, personal/corporate, or receive/pay. Everything is a natural extension or variant of a transaction. Features like enterprise accounts or private transfers on stablecoin L1s are just programming adaptations, still adhering to blockchain principles: atomicity, finality, immutability.

Existing payment systems remain closed or semi-closed (e.g., SWIFT excluding regions, Visa/Mastercard requiring specific credentials). Analogously: banks reject low-profit individuals (unbanked), Square/PayPal reject certain groups; blockchain accepts all.

Closed and semi-open systems will eventually yield to open systems. Either Ethereum becomes the stablecoin L1, or stablecoin L1s become the new Ethereum.

This isn't about regulatory arbitrage; it's a dimensional shift driven by efficiency gains. No closed system can achieve full闭环; fees decay at various points competing for users, leveraging monopoly power for profit or regulatory compliance to exclude competition.

In an open system, users have absolute control. Aave became a standard not through monopoly, but because alternatives like Fluid, Euler haven't fully erupted yet. Regardless, on-chain banking won't be tokenized bank deposits; it will be tokenized protocols redefining banking.

Replacing banks and payment systems won't happen overnight. Paypal, Stripe, USDT emerged 20, 15, and 10 years ago, respectively. Current stablecoin supply is around $2.6 trillion; we could see $10 trillion within 5 years.

Web2 Payments are a Non-Renewable Resource

Handling credit card fraud often relies on manual experience and processes.

Web2 payments will become the fuel for Web3 payments, ultimately being fully replaced, not supplemented or coexisting.

Stripe's participation based on Tempo is the only correct path. Anyone trying to fit stablecoin tech into existing payment stacks will be overwhelmed by the flywheel effect—again, an efficiency issue. On-chain YBS separates yield rights from usage rights; off-chain stablecoins only have usage rights. Capital naturally flows to yield.

While stripping banks of their social role, stablecoins are also clearing out Web2 payment mental models.

As mentioned, stablecoin issuance is moving beyond simply mimicking USDT. While completely decoupling from the dollar and banking system remains distant, it's no longer pure fantasy. From SVB to Lead Bank, banks willing to serve the crypto sector will be found—a long march.

In 2025, not only are banks adopting stablecoins, but previous major obstacles for blockchain payments are thawing. Bitcoin's echoes have become stablecoin's roaring tide.

* On/Off-Ramps: Less focus on final fiat conversion. People are willing to hold USDC/USDT for yield, direct use, or inflation hedging. E.g., MoneyGram partnering with Crossmint for USDC remittances.

* Clearing/Settlement: Visa processed $1B in stablecoin volume, with Rain as a pilot partner (Samsung is a Rain investor). Anxiety among old giants becomes funding for stablecoin payments.

* Large Banks: RWA and tokenized deposits are just appetizers. Competing with DeFi isn't far off. Evolution is traditional finance's passive adaptation. Alliances like Google's AP2, GCUL are the struggles of former giants.

* Issuance: From Paxos to M0, traditional compliance and on-chain wrapped models advance together, but yield mechanisms are being considered. Paxos's USDH may have faltered, but empowering users and tokens is a common goal.

In summary, the positioning race for on-chain stablecoin payments is over; the combination race begins—how to push stablecoins' network effects globally.

In a sense, USDT has already pushed stablecoins into Asia, Africa, Latin America. Geographical frontiers are saturated; only new "scenarios" remain. If existing scenarios get "blockchain+" from payment players, then we must seek new "blockchain+/stablecoin+" scenarios. This is the Web3 application of internet tactics: buy growth, nurture new behaviors. The future will define today's history. Agentic Payment will happen.

After transforming banking and payments, let's delve into the Agent-driven future of payments. Note: The following completely disregards "blockchain+" or "stablecoin+" scenarios for existing systems—that's a waste of words. Future payment landscapes have no space for current giants.

Yield systems can incentivize end-user adoption, but new payment behaviors need supporting consumption scenarios. Using crypto for payments within a Binance mini-app makes sense; using a bank card in a WeChat mini-app feels odd.

The new scenario, from the perspective of Google, Coinbase, or even Ethereum, can only be A2A (Agent-to-Agent), requiring minimal human intervention. Web2 payment volume is a non-renewable resource because the future is pervasive payment.

Simply put, humans will have multiple Agents handling different tasks. Protocols like MCP will manage resources or call APIs within Agents, resulting in Agents matching and creating economic value autonomously.

Human behavior will shift towards direction rather than detailed authorization. We must cede multi-dimensional data for AI Agents to fulfill intrinsic needs.

* Human value lies in authorization.

* Machines operate tirelessly.

Existing pre-authorizations, BNPL, acquiring/issuing, clearing/settlement will happen on-chain, but the operators will be Agents. For instance, traditional credit card fraud requires manual review, but Agents will be intelligent enough to identify malicious activity.

From the viewpoint of existing payment stacks and the "central bank -> commercial bank" system, this might seem overambitious. But remember, the Digital Yuan's design also considered yield aspects, ultimately compromising with the banking system.

It's not unwillingness; it's inability.

Google's AP2 protocol, involving Coinbase, EigenCloud, and Sui, already integrates highly with Coinbase's x402 gateway protocol. "Blockchain + Stablecoin + Internet" is the current optimal blend, targeting micro-transactions—envisioning real-time cloud usage, article paywalls, etc.

We can be certain the future belongs to AI Agents, surpassing mere clearing channels. But the precise path of human transformation remains unknown.

The DeFi sector still lacks a genuine credit market, naturally suited for businesses, yet remains dominated by retail users via over-collateralization—an anomaly itself.

Technological paths are unimaginable beforehand; only their essence can be sketched. This was true for FinTech, DeFi, and is true for Agentic Payment.

The irreversible nature of stablecoin payments will also breed new arbitrage models, whose risks we cannot yet fully grasp.

Furthermore, existing distribution channels won't be the core battlefield for mass stablecoin adoption. High volume alone might damage their yield potential interacting with DeFi—like imagining an emperor using a golden hoe.

Only after stablecoin payments replace banks and distribution channels can we truly call it a Web3 payment system.

Conclusion

The envisioned path for a non-bank payment system: Yield + Clearing/Settlement + Retail (Network Effects) + Agent Streaming Payments (after self-liberation from old giants).

The current impact remains focused on FinTech and banking, rarely replacing central banking systems. This isn't technical infeasibility, but because the Fed remains the ultimate lender (and scapegoat).

Long-term, distribution channels are intermediate. If stablecoins can replace bank deposits, no channel can lock liquidity. But will permissionless, unlimited on-chain DeFi trigger more violent financial crises?

The USSR couldn't eliminate black markets; the US couldn't ban Bitcoin. Whether a deluge or paradise, humanity has no turning back.

Fragmented Liquidity and Contradictions in Solutions
Every major protocol seeks its own "right to print money," but this inevitably leads to fragmented liquidity. Two proposed solutions—unifying stablecoins and sharing profits, or building a unified liquidity layer—struggle to achieve self-consistency due to issues of profit distribution.

Return of Profit Rights to Value Creators
Traditional issuers like Circle and Tether act as intermediaries, earning returns from reserve assets, but the real value is created by protocols processing transactions. The USDH bidding challenges this model, advocating that profits should be allocated to applications that control genuine transaction demand and user traffic.

Endgame Possibility: Application Chains Dominate Discourse
Application chains generate primary revenue through transaction fees, making profits from stablecoin issuance secondary. Bidders like Frax and Sky promise high returns or buybacks, indicating that competition among issuers is forcing changes to traditional rules, potentially reducing issuers to "backend service providers."

Regulation and Future Outlook
Clearer regulations may accelerate the transfer of profit rights, but unifying minting rights under regulators or decentralized protocols remains a distant future. The core significance of the bidding event lies in ending the era of "easy wins" for old issuers and推动ing profit rights back to value creators.

Summary
Let’s talk about the much-hyped bidding event for Hyperliquid’s $USDH stablecoin.

On the surface, it seems like a battle of interests among issuers such as Frax, Sky, and Native Market, but in reality, it is an "open auction" for the right to mint stablecoins, which could change the rules of the stablecoin market.

Building on @0xMert_’s insights, here are a few key points:

1. The USDH minting rights competition exposes the fundamental矛盾 between decentralized applications’ demand for native stablecoins and the need for unified liquidity.
   Simply put, every major protocol wants its own "right to print money," but this inevitably fragments liquidity.

Mert proposed two solutions to this problem:

• "Align" ecosystem stablecoins: Everyone agrees to use a single stablecoin and share profits proportionally. But here’s the issue: If USDC or USDT is the consensus choice, would they be willing to share a significant portion of their profits with DApps?

• Build a stablecoin liquidity layer (M0 model): Use a crypto-native approach to create a unified liquidity layer, such as Ethereum as an interoperable layer, allowing various native stablecoins to be swapped seamlessly. However, who bears the operational costs of this layer? Who ensures the peg of different stablecoins? How are systemic risks from depegging events resolved?

These solutions seem reasonable but only address liquidity fragmentation. When considering each issuer’s interests, the logic falls apart.

Circle earns billions annually from 5.5% Treasury yields—why would they share with protocols like Hyperliquid? In other words, when Hyperliquid has the capability to break away from traditional issuers and issue its own stablecoin, Circle’s "easy win" model is challenged.

The USDH bidding event can be seen as a demonstration against the "hegemony" of traditional stablecoin issuance. Whether this rebellion succeeds or fails is less important than the fact that it happened.

2. Why? Because profit rights will ultimately return to value creators.
   The traditional stablecoin issuance model involves intermediaries like Circle and Tether. Users deposit funds, which are used to buy Treasuries or earn fixed interest on platforms like Coinbase, but most profits are kept by the issuers.

The USDH event highlights a flaw in this logic: The real value is created by protocols processing transactions, not by issuers merely holding reserve assets. From Hyperliquid’s perspective, with daily transaction volumes exceeding $5 billion, why should they let Circle keep the annualized $200 million+ Treasury yields?

In the past, the primary concern for stablecoin circulation was "safety and maintaining the peg," so issuers like Circle, who incur significant "compliance costs," deserved these profits.

However, as the stablecoin market matures and regulations become clearer, profit rights are likely to shift toward value creators.

Thus, the significance of the USDH bidding lies in defining a new rule for stablecoin profit distribution: Those who control genuine transaction demand and user traffic should优先享有 profit rights.

3. So, what will the endgame look like? Application chains dominate discourse, and issuers become "backend service providers"?
   Mert’s third solution is intriguing: Let application chains generate revenue, while traditional issuers’ profits tend toward zero. How can we understand this?

Consider that Hyperliquid generates hundreds of millions in annual transaction fees alone. In comparison, the potential Treasury yields from managing reserves, while stable, become "nice to have" rather than essential.

This explains why Hyperliquid chose to transfer issuance rights rather than issue its own stablecoin: The profits from issuance are far less attractive than expanding transaction volume and fees.

In fact, the reactions of bidders confirm this: Frax承诺ed to return 100% of profits to Hyperliquid for HYPE buybacks; Sky offered a 4.85% yield plus a $250 million annual buyback; Native Markets proposed a 50/50 split, etc.

Essentially, the battle for interests between DApps and stablecoin issuers has evolved into a game of "internal competition" among issuers, with new issuers forcing old ones to change the rules.

As for Mert’s fourth solution, it sounds abstract. If it materializes, the brand value of stablecoin issuers might be reduced to zero, or minting rights could be unified under regulators or some decentralized protocol. This remains unknown and likely belongs to a distant future.

In any case, the USDH bidding war, in my view, is significant for宣告ing the end of the "easy win" era for old issuers and guiding stablecoin profit rights back to value-creating "applications."

As for whether it’s "bribery" or if the bidding is transparent, I believe that’s a window of opportunity before regulations like the GENIUS Act are fully implemented. It’s enough to enjoy the spectacle.

Airdrops have evolved from "loyal user subsidies" to a data game between projects and users: users chase rewards功利化ly, while projects pursue VC-friendly metrics. Neither side is satisfied. The article suggests returning to Uniswap-style surprise airdrops, adopting Sui’s presale discount model, or canceling airdrops altogether to focus on real product demand and sustainable revenue, rebuilding community trust and long-term value.

---

Summary

Author: OxTochi

Compiler: Chopper, Foresight News

I still remember my first crypto airdrop as if it were yesterday. It was 2020, and I was busy completing bounty tasks on Bitcointalk. One morning, I was woken by a WhatsApp notification from a friend: "Have you used Uniswap?" I said yes, and he replied, "Then you should have 400 UNI tokens to claim, worth over $1,000 now." I immediately found the claim link on Uniswap’s Twitter and sold them right away.

It was that simple—"free money" falling from the sky. No forms to fill, no Discord level grinding, no "contributions required" rules. Looking back, that moment defined what airdrops should be: a surprise "subsidy" for users who genuinely like and use the product, not the worthless garbage activities we see today.

The Golden Age of Airdrops

Later, I claimed the 1inch airdrop—any wallet eligible for UNI could claim it. But what truly changed my perception of "airdrop gameplay" was dYdX’s airdrop. To participate, I had to bridge ETH to the dYdX protocol. At the time, most Layer2s were still just whitepapers, and bridging fees were terrifyingly high. I made a few trades to generate some volume, not much, and then withdrew my assets. Just one day of work earned me a five-figure (USD) airdrop—unthinkable now.

At its peak, the total value of airdrops I claimed exceeded $20,000. Honestly, I sold half along the way—after all, it was "free money," and cashing out was the norm. dYdX’s airdrop gave me my first decent capital, which I directly invested into DeFi. During the "DeFi Summer," I was yield farming on Juldswap, earning about $250 daily. I really miss those days.

The Decline of Airdrops

Of course, such good times couldn’t last. After dYdX, I participated in airdrops for Scroll, Arbitrum, Optimism, and zkSync, with zkSync marking the start of my "terrible airdrop experience."

But I’ll never forget Scroll’s airdrop. Expectations were sky-high, even after its co-founder Sandy famously tweeted to "lower expectations." People kept raising their hopes until disappointment finally arrived. Scroll’s airdrop allocations were laughably low. The crypto community’s mood instantly plummeted from anticipation to despair. Honestly, this airdrop left me traumatized—I swore off Layer2 airdrop "farming" right then.

If it were just Scroll, maybe I could have accepted it. But what truly hurt was realizing: such "low-quality airdrops" would become the norm.

The Current Airdrop Chaos

Fast forward to today, and the airdrop scene is utterly dismal. The former "surprise airdrops" have become an industrialized business of "Sybil farming."

You spend months or even years interacting with protocols: bridging, adding liquidity, burning gas fees, and building so-called "user loyalty," only to rely on luck for whether you even get an airdrop—and if you do, the allocation is pitifully small. Even worse, we now see "48-hour claim windows" (Sunrise was likely the first to do this).

When you finally get to claim, you find the reward doesn’t match your time and cost investment, often with ridiculously harsh vesting schedules. For example, 0G Labs’ airdrop vests over 48 months, quarterly—48 months, a full four years!

This kind of nonsense is so common now that my first reaction to "airdrop alpha" tweets is: "Heh, another mosquito-leg airdrop."

Project vs. User Games

The truth is: in recent years, user mentality has become utterly功利化. Nobody uses a product now except for rewards. No one spends hours clicking around and contributing to a community just for the "ecosystem culture."

What about projects? They want loyal users, but they want "pretty data" for VCs even more—high user counts, large communities. These metrics help them raise valuations for funding rounds. So, users and projects end up in a game of "farming data" vs. "preventing farming."

The result? Neither side is happy. Users feel cheated, and projects face user retention issues.

What Should Airdrops Be?

If I were to redesign airdrops, I might return to the Uniswap model: no hype, no leaderboards, just a surprise subsidy for loyal users one day. This alone would reduce industrialized farming and lower unrealistic user expectations.

Alternatively, follow Sui’s "presale airdrop" model—set a reasonable Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV) and let early contributors and users buy tokens at a discount. The closest examples now are Cysic and Boundless, which use a "tier system" to reward users with presale discounts based on their ecosystem contributions.

Or, just cancel airdrops altogether and focus on building truly usable products: achieve real product-market fit, establish solid revenue models, instead of copying and pasting the same thing 200 times. Honestly, this would better serve the crypto community’s long-term interests.

Conclusion

The current state of airdrops is utterly terrible. It neither rewards users who spend time "grinding" nor helps projects build genuine communities.

In the end, everyone feels exploited. Perhaps canceling airdrops and instead building products that let everyone earn money is the better path?

On August 13, 2025, Circle officially unveiled Arc, its proprietary Layer 1 blockchain designed specifically for the USDC stablecoin. Amid surging stablecoin adoption, Arc’s debut marks Circle’s entry into the trend of issuer-owned blockchains.

Arc aims to help enterprises and institutions compliantly access blockchain infrastructure through three core features:

1. USDC as the native gas token

2. High scalability and instant finality via the Malachite consensus algorithm

3. Optional privacy features for user-controlled data protection

Arc’s strategy parallels—yet diverges from—Tether’s USDT-centric chains (Stable and Plasma). Its key differentiators include:

This development carries significant implications. This article explores:

1. How Tether and Circle’s stablecoin networks differ

2. Whether competition between Circle and Tether will intensify

3. The role of other networks like Codex and 1Money Network

4. Whether Tempo (Stripe’s L1) is Arc’s real rival, not Stable/Plasma.

1. Circle Just Launched Arc

Source: Circle

On August 13, Circle announced Arc in its Q2 earnings report, alongside a lightweight technical whitepaper. Notably, hours earlier, Stripe unveiled its own L1 blockchain, Tempo, making the day a landmark for fintech-infused blockchains.

Arc’s launch is pivotal because stablecoins are crypto’s hottest narrative in 2025. With Tether’s Stable and Plasma (backed by Bitfinex) leading a wave of stablecoin-optimized L1s (e.g., Codex, 1Money Network), expectations were high for Circle’s response. Now, Arc is here.

But is Arc just another USDC-focused L1, or does it offer unique innovations?

2. What Is Arc?

Source: Arc

2.1 A Chain Built for USDC

Arc is an EVM-compatible blockchain tailored for USDC, enabling enterprises to conduct compliant financial activities with predictable fees and optional privacy. Its core features:

• USDC as native gas: Users pay fees in low-volatility USDC.

• Instant finality: Sub-second transaction confirmation via Malachite consensus.

• Optional privacy: Customizable transparency for compliance (e.g., hiding amounts but revealing addresses).

2.2 USDC for Gas—But Other Tokens Work Too

Arc defaults to USDC for fees under an EIP-1559 model, but with key upgrades:

• Fee smoothing: Uses an exponential moving average of historical block data to stabilize base fees.

• Fee caps: Limits maximum base fees during congestion.

Via Circle Paymaster (based on ERC-4337), users can pay fees in other stablecoins, CBDCs, or tokenized deposits—bypassing volatile assets like ETH or SOL. This simplifies corporate accounting and predictability.

Early-stage fees will fund Arc’s on-chain treasury for network growth.

2.3 Instant Finality Powered by Malachite

Arc’s Malachite consensus engine (developed by Informal Systems, a Cosmos/Tendermint veteran team) ensures:

• 3,000 TPS in tests with 20 globally distributed validators.

• 350ms finality via Tendermint BFT.

Malachite’s streamlined, Rust-based architecture includes:

• Vote Keeper: Tallying validator votes.

• Round State Machine: Core consensus logic.

• Driver: Coordinating multi-round transitions.

2.4 Privacy That Balances Compliance and Confidentiality

Arc’s upcoming "confidential transfers" will hide transaction amounts while exposing addresses for regulators. Future upgrades may add:

• Privacy-preserving order books (hidden bids/asks).

• Confidential smart contracts (e.g., private treasury management).

Technologies like TEEs, zero-knowledge proofs, and FHE will underpin these features.

3. Arc vs. Competitors: Who Wins?

Tether’s Chains (Stable/Plasma)

• USDT-centric: Zero-fee P2P transfers but limited multi-asset support.

• Less transparent reserves vs. Circle’s audited cash/T-bills.

Stripe’s Tempo

• Payments-focused: Aims for low-friction settlements, not financial composability.

• Backed by Stripe’s ecosystem: Recent acquisitions (e.g., Bridge, Privy) hint at end-to-end payment infrastructure.

The Dark Horse: Codex & 1Money Network

• Niche players: Targeting emerging markets with localized stablecoins.

4. The Bigger Picture

Arc’s real value lies in bridging TradFi and DeFi:

• For enterprises, it’s a compliant gateway to blockchain.

• For DeFi, it’s a liquidity hub for tokenized real-world assets.

While Tether dominates retail, Circle is courting institutions—a race where compliance, scalability, and interoperability will decide the winner.

(Translation adapted for conciseness, technical accuracy, and readability. Industry terms like "EIP-1559" and "Tendermint BFT" retained for precision.)

Translation Notes

1. 术语统一:

   • "Gas费" → "gas fees" (行业标准)

   • "终局性" → "finality" (区块链术语)

   • "账户抽象" → "account abstraction" (ERC-4337标准)

2. 复杂概念简化:

   • Malachite共识模块拆分为三点，避免长句。

   • EIP-1559改进用项目符号（bullet points）清晰对比。

3. 文化适配:

   • "正面硬刚" → "Taking on head-on" (保留竞争意味)

   • "玩法" → "innovations" (避免口语化)

4. 被动转主动:

   • 中文"由...开发" → 英文"developed by..." → 优化为"Malachite consensus engine (developed by...)"更流畅。

5. 图表注释:

   • 保留"来源/Source"格式，符合国际媒体惯例。

But growth wasn’t without risks. Exploits drained $132 million, and while AI remains one of the most promising sectors, most AI dapps saw double-digit declines in usage. Regulation is catching up fast, with the U.S. passing major crypto bills and global frameworks gaining clarity.

From blue-chip NFT rallies to record DeFi inflows, this month proved Web3 isn’t slowing down—it’s pivoting.

Key Takeaways

• 22 million unique active wallets interacted with dapps daily in July, down 8% month-over-month (MoM).

• Gaming led dapp categories at 22.4%, followed by AI (18.7%) and NFTs (17.5%).

• NFT trading volume jumped 96% to $530 million, with the average NFT price doubling to $105.

• DeFi TVL peaked at $270 billion on July 28, up 30% MoM.

• AI dapp activity declined, but Dmail, XPIN, and ChainGPT saw steady growth.

• Exploits caused $132 million in losses, up 16% from June.

1. Dapp Activity Cools

July followed the typical summer slowdown, with dUAW dropping 8% to 22 million.

• Social dapps saw the steepest decline (-27% to 2.8 million dUAW), as hype-driven platforms like Farcaster and Base-based apps faced high entry barriers.

• AI dapps fell 14% to 4.1 million dUAW, while DeFi dipped 6%, continuing its recent cooldown.

• Gaming proved resilient (+2%), and NFTs held steady.

Category Rankings:

1. Gaming (22.4%)

2. AI (18.7%)

3. NFTs (17.5%)

DeFi, once the dominant sector, now trails NFTs—a clear shift in user priorities.

2. Top Web3 Dapps by Activity

Solana-based DEXs remained king, fueled by memecoin trading. Other standouts:

• World of Dypians: A gaming dapp with consistent growth.

• AI dapps: Two AI projects cracked the top rankings, signaling enduring interest.

Why DeFi Still Dominates Rankings:
While DeFi’s overall share has slipped, its dapps command loyal users due to higher barriers to entry. In contrast, gaming, social, and NFT dapps face fragmented attention.

3. AI Dapps: Rise, Fall, and Future

Most AI dapps declined in July, but three stood out:

1. Dmail Network: Blockchain-based encrypted email.

2. XPIN Network: AI-curated global news aggregator.

3. ChainGPT: AI-powered crypto tools, including a launchpad for early-stage projects.

Notable Developments:

• Lightchain AI launched a mainnet for on-chain machine learning.

• Theta Network integrated Amazon’s AI chips for applications like "Quakebot" (used by MLS’s San Jose Earthquakes).

• Aethir hit 1 billion compute hours; Render Network migrated to Solana.

• ASI Alliance (SingularityNET, Fetch.ai, Ocean Protocol) merged under the $ASI token.

• Elympics introduced $ELP for AI-driven "Agentic Gaming" tied to NFT IPs like Pudgy Penguins.

Regulatory Moves:
The U.S. appointed a "Crypto and AI Czar," signaling tighter integration of AI into blockchain policy.

4. DeFi TVL Hits All-Time High

DeFi TVL surged 30% in July, peaking at $270 billion on July 28. Key drivers:

• Tokenized stocks: Wallet interactions exploded from 1,600 to 90,000, with market cap up 220%.

• Ethereum dominated ($166B TVL), buoyed by ETH’s 60% price rally and staking yields hitting 29.4% APR.

• Solana’s Hyperliquid captured 35% of chain revenue, processing 60% of perpetual trading volume.

Regulatory Wins:

• GENIUS Act: Stablecoin framework.

• CLARITY Act: Clearer asset classification (SEC vs. CFTC).

• SEC’s "Project Crypto": Roadmap for DeFi-TradFi integration.

5. NFT Activity Overtakes DeFi

NFTs staged a comeback:

• Trading volume doubled (+96% to $530M), though sales dipped 4%.

• Average NFT price soared 103% to $105, driven by blue-chip collections.

• Blur dominated Ethereum NFT volume (80% share), while OpenSea led in users (~27K daily).

• Zora gained traction with low-cost minting on its L2.

Brand Moves:

• Starbucks ended its Odyssey NFT loyalty program.

• Nike SWOOSH partnered with EA Sports for in-game sneakers.

• LVMH, Rolex, Coca-Cola China launched NFT pilots for authentication/collectibles.

Trend: NFTs are evolving from hype to utility—powering identity, ticketing, gaming, and RWAs.

6. Exploits Drain $132 Million

July’s major hacks:

1. CoinDCX ($44M): Exchange server breach (user funds safe).

2. GMX v1 ($42M): Arbitrum exploit targeting GLP pools.

3. BigONE ($28M): Hot wallet breach (exchange covered losses).

Takeaway: Security remains Web3’s Achilles’ heel. Always audit contracts, avoid phishing, and use hardware wallets.

Final Thoughts

Web3’s momentum is shifting, not slowing. DeFi’s record TVL, NFT’s resurgence, and AI’s maturation—amid regulatory strides—paint a landscape where utility, not speculation, is becoming the north star.

Another project is going public only after it can show audited revenues.
Spheron Network has just announced its TGE while already generating >$13 M in annual recurring revenue (ARR)—$7.6 M of which comes from AI workloads.
If the sector copies this playbook, “run-rate before runway” could become the norm for AI-infrastructure token launches.

What Exactly Is Spheron?

A decentralized compute mesh that aggregates idle GPUs/CPUs worldwide and routes them to AI training, inference and rendering jobs.
The stack is wider than raw compute:

• IPFS storage, ENS naming, Arbitrum-based smart-contract deployment

• Fizz Nodes – consumer-grade rigs (often gaming PCs) plug-and-earn via a lightweight client.

• KlippyAI – consumer-facing AI video creator that already minted ≈5,000 NFT clips on Base L2, paid in $SPON.

• Skynet – lets AI Agents spin up wallets and pay for compute natively, no dev account required.

• Supernoderz (NaaS), Aquanode (inference workloads), Spheron Console (one-click GPU) complete the loop.

The Flywheel in Numbers

• 44 k active nodes across 170+ countries

• 8,300+ GPUs + 600 k CPUs online

• >$500 k in weekly node payouts

• >$13 M ARR, of which AI demand is 58 %

In short, the network has crossed the threshold where real customers—not just yield farmers—are footing the bill.

Sustainability Questions

A two-sided market only works if supply and demand grow in lock-step:

• Can a permissionless network match AWS/GCP on latency and SLAs?

• Will cost advantages survive if token subsidies taper?

• Will gamers keep GPUs online when ETH prices spike or new AAA titles drop?

Spheron’s roadmap includes Agent Marketplace, DePIN lending, model markets, serverless functions—all designed to widen the revenue funnel.

The Competitive Moat Is Still Fluid

Hyperbolic, IO.NET, VANA, Sahara AI and others are racing down parallel tracks.
Early-mover timing helps, but victory will likely go to whichever stack balances product velocity, ecosystem incentives and uptime reliability—not merely the most elegant tech.

Industry Implications

If “revenue before TGE” becomes table stakes, AI infra tokens may finally trade on fundamentals instead of white-paper promises.
For builders, that’s higher bar but also higher signal—and for the market, a welcome filter against vaporware.

The Vision: Trump’s Personal Push

Earlier in the week, Washington’s crypto circles were elated. Industry players expected smooth sailing for the package. President Trump himself amplified expectations on Truth Social, calling the week a watershed moment for U.S. digital-asset leadership. “Vote YES, Republicans!” he urged, promising that the GENIUS Act would “put our great nation light-years ahead of China, Europe, and every other pretender that keeps trying—and keeps failing—to catch up.”

The Legislative Trio in the Crosshairs

The now-stalled bundle contained three pillars:

• GENIUS Act – A stablecoin framework that already cleared the Senate with bipartisan support. It is seen as the key to unlocking large-scale institutional adoption.

• CLARITY Act – A rulebook that would finally decide which tokens are securities (SEC) and which are commodities (CFTC), ending the industry’s “regulatory twilight zone.”

• Anti-CBDC Act – A proposal to bar the Federal Reserve from issuing a central-bank digital currency, reflecting fears of government-controlled money.

Together, the bills were pitched as the cornerstone of a comprehensive, predictable U.S. crypto regime that could lure capital and innovation back to American shores.

Republican Defections: The 13 Rebels

The biggest shock came from within. Thirteen House Republicans—among them Marjorie Taylor Greene, Chip Roy, Michael Cloud, and Anna Paulina Luna—voted “no.” Greene took to social media to explain: the GENIUS Act, she said, omits an explicit CBDC ban, and Speaker Johnson refused to allow amendments to insert one. Invoking Trump’s own January 23 executive order that already prohibits a CBDC, Greene insisted, “Americans don’t need a government-controlled digital dollar.”

Speaker Johnson’s Dilemma

The failed vote left Speaker Mike Johnson in a bind. Afterward, he told reporters that “conversations and clarifications” were ongoing, hoping to coax the conservative holdouts back into line. Yet he conceded that bundling the Senate-passed stablecoin bill with a hardline anti-CBDC measure is “not viable.” A senior Republican aide was blunter: “Shoving everything into one package just guarantees it dies in the Senate.” The episode lays bare the GOP leadership’s struggle to balance factions without sinking the legislation altogether.

Market Jitters and the Road Ahead

Crypto-linked equities reacted instantly: Circle slid more than 7 %, Coinbase dropped over 4 %, and MARA Holdings fell 2 %. Undeterred, Speaker Johnson announced plans for a fresh procedural vote on Wednesday. “These bills remain a shared priority for the White House, the Senate, and this House,” he said. Sources told Fox News that Trump is “angry” about the setback and is personally lobbying members.

Analysts still see a path forward. TD Cowen’s Jaret Seiberg told clients, “We expect another House vote on the rule tomorrow. If not, it slips to next week.” He predicts ultimate passage of the GENIUS Act because “Trump wants it.” Even Freedom Caucus hardliners, he argues, may yield when the President applies pressure.

Digital Chamber CEO Cody Carbone echoed the optimism, tweeting that the best way to block a CBDC is “by passing GENIUS and letting private stablecoins flourish.”

Conclusion: Politics Trumps Tech—For Now

The episode is a stark reminder that in Washington, presidential muscle can still be out-maneuvered by intra-party calculus. When cutting-edge innovation collides with bare-knuckle politics, the road to crypto legitimacy remains anything but straight.

Blockchain technology, after more than a decade of development, has seen countless projects stumble in the maze of the "impossible trilemma." This theory posits that no blockchain system can simultaneously maximize the three key characteristics of decentralization, security, and scalability. Bitcoin chose decentralization and security but sacrificed scalability, with a transaction rate of only 7 transactions per second. Ethereum faced similar challenges, with network congestion and exorbitant gas fees becoming the norm during the boom of DeFi and NFT applications.

Projects like EOS, designed to increase transaction speed, took a different path: they sacrificed decentralization by reducing the number of validation nodes to achieve thousands of transactions per second. These compromises exposed the deep-seated contradictions in the foundational architecture of blockchain.

Duan Xinxing, founder of Bytom, once pointed out sharply: "All performance metrics come at a cost. For example, to establish trust, we often need a common ground, which requires consensus across the entire network. This conflicts with the high-efficiency consensus under decentralized governance."

II. Technical Breakthroughs: The Limitations and Trade-offs of Existing Solutions

In the face of the trilemma, the industry has explored various technical paths, but each solution has its limitations:

Sharding technology divides the network into multiple shards that process transactions in parallel. Ethereum 2.0 is taking this route, but it increases system complexity, with cross-shard communication becoming a new bottleneck. Layer 2 solutions, such as the Lightning Network built on top of Bitcoin's main chain, do increase speed but rely on the main chain for final settlement, and the capital lock-up mechanism introduces new liquidity issues.

Sidechain and consortium chain solutions trade off performance for different consensus mechanisms. Bytom's main-and-sidechain multi-chain model is a typical example—using POW on the main chain for security and DPOS on the side chain for efficiency. However, cross-chain bridge security becomes a new weak point.

New-generation public chains emerging in 2025, such as MegaETH, Monad, and Story, are trying different ways to solve scalability issues. Public chains like Plume Network, which focus on real-world asset tokenization (RWA), embed compliance into the protocol layer to address the core pain points of the RWA field.

III. The Revolutionary Dynamic Algorithm: How MAT Redefines the Impossible

The core breakthrough of the Matchain public chain lies in its Dynamic Consensus Algorithm. This innovative architecture enables the system to intelligently adjust operational parameters based on real-time network status, achieving a dynamic balance among the three characteristics.

1. Intelligent Consensus Mechanism

• High Load State: The algorithm automatically optimizes node selection strategies, prioritizing high-performance nodes to form the validation group, thereby increasing transaction processing speed.

• Low Load State: The algorithm relaxes node requirements, allowing more ordinary devices to participate, enhancing the network's decentralization.

• Exception State: When potential attacks are detected, the algorithm automatically increases the number of validation nodes to raise the cost of attacks.

2. Hierarchical Fusion Architecture

Matchain adopts a three-layer architecture design, with each layer focusing on one dimension of the trilemma:

• Basic Consensus Layer: This layer uses an improved Proof of Stake mechanism combined with a Verifiable Random Function (VRF) to randomly select block producers and validators. This mechanism inherits the essence of the Algorand consensus, ensuring that attackers cannot predict the next block producer, fundamentally preventing targeted attacks.

• Dynamic Execution Layer: This layer introduces Non-Interactive Transaction Verification (NITCV) technology similar to that of Ulam. The packing node generates a concise verification proof, and other nodes only need to verify the proof instead of checking each transaction individually. This design allows MAT's measured TPS to exceed 10,000, with a theoretical value approaching infinity.

• AI Adaptation Layer: As a unique design of the public chain, this layer provides dedicated interfaces for AI model training and inference. Through algorithmic optimization of computational task allocation, it dynamically manages the resource requirements of AI workloads.

3. Symbiosis of Security and Efficiency

MAT's security mechanism integrates quantum-resistant signature algorithms with economic incentive mechanisms. Each transaction uses NTRU quantum-resistant signatures similar to Ulam, while a carefully designed token economic model ensures that the cost of attacking the network far exceeds potential gains.

IV. The Ecosystem Blueprint of the AI Public Chain: Applications Beyond Finance

As the world's first AI public chain, Matchain's vision extends far beyond simple financial transactions. Its technical architecture is designed specifically for the needs of the AI era, pioneering several unprecedented application scenarios:

• Decentralized AI Model Market: Developers can directly list and trade trained AI models on the chain, with smart contracts ensuring that creators continuously receive revenue shares. MAT's dynamic resource allocation mechanism addresses the fluctuating computational demands of large model inference.

• Collective Intelligence Training Network: Users can participate in model training by contributing local data and receive token rewards. MAT has designed privacy-preserving computation protocols to ensure that raw data can participate in training without leaving the owner's control.

• AI Agent Economy: AI agents developed on the MAT public chain can autonomously accept tasks, acquire resources, and complete complex workflows. These agents exchange value using MAT tokens, forming a truly autonomous AI economy.

This ecological construction approach draws on the successful experience of Plume Network, which attracted $8 billion in tokenized assets on its first day of launch, with blue-chip projects like Ondo joining its ecosystem.

V. The Bridge to the Future: The Next Milestone in Public Chain Evolution

The launch of the Matchain mainnet coincides with the historic convergence of blockchain and artificial intelligence technology waves. The modular thinking implicit in its technical architecture aligns with the "decoupling" concept of cutting-edge projects like Subspace—decoupling of consensus, tokens, and organizations.

While RWA public chains like Plume Network are introducing trillions of dollars' worth of real-world assets into blockchain, Matchain is opening up a much grander vision: transforming the crystallization of human intelligence—AI models into freely tradable on-chain assets on a global scale.

If this attempt succeeds, it will completely change the position of blockchain in the technological spectrum. From a mere "distributed ledger," it will leap to become the core infrastructure of the AI economy, providing the foundation for value exchange in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

As the Qtum Research Institute pointed out in its analysis of the Algorand consensus protocol: "Blockchain is not just a software system, but also an economic system." The reason why Matchain's dynamic algorithm can break through the trilemma is that it integrates technical parameters and economic incentives into a self-regulating organic whole.

Recruitment is also challenging. Although the situation has improved, excellent crypto marketing talent is still scarce. Building a personal brand can bring talent referrals and attract job seekers, significantly improving recruitment efficiency.

Amanda Tyler: Building a personal brand on Twitter has significantly improved my recruitment efficiency. This direct way of building trust is especially suitable for early-stage startups. When candidates resonate with your values and experiences, a simple "let's chat" becomes natural.

Claire Kart: When people choose a job, they care more about the people they will work with than the company itself. Although the company's vision and job content are important, the ultimate deciding factor is often the team. You might be indifferent to an offer from an unknown company, but if it's a referral from someone you know, you'll seriously consider it, even if it's a startup.

II. The Uniqueness and Basic Logic of Crypto Marketing

Kim Milosevich: Is this a phenomenon unique to the crypto industry, or a general rule? What is the core difference between crypto marketing and traditional tech marketing?

Claire Kart: I think crypto is more like a form of personality cult. Take Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, for example. They have indeed invested a lot of effort in building their personal brands, writing books, and doing publicity. But the personality cult in the crypto space seems even stronger, and I can't quite explain why.

Amanda Tyler: The uniqueness of the crypto space lies in its small size and low barriers to entry. Take me, for example. In my twenties, I accumulated a large number of Instagram followers through a parenting blog, but when I switched to the crypto space, I immediately felt the "big fish in a small pond" effect. It's much easier to build influence here.

This space is composed of several well-defined subcultures, and newcomers can quickly identify target communities and key figures. In comparison, traditional fields like the one Zuckerberg is in have higher barriers to entry and require more professional endorsements. The early stage of the crypto industry provides unique opportunities for content creators.

Kim Milosevich: As a project, how should we create differentiation and precisely attract our target audience?

Amanda Tyler: The biggest challenge in crypto marketing is the extremely small target audience. In 2023, there were only 23,000 active crypto developers per month, expected to increase to 30,000 in 2024. Among the 28 million developers worldwide, less than 0.1% are involved in crypto. In such a highly vertical market, marketing must focus on the three core needs of developers:

Technology: Solving practical issues such as composability in the Rollup ecosystem.

Economics: Exploring sustainable revenue models for public goods development.

Value: Creating a unique value proposition that attracts developers.

Claire Kart: Crypto marketing needs to redefine the way growth is achieved. The core of the developer community is precise value resonance. Economic incentives are just the starting point. What truly drives growth is building a technological utopia where developers can find professional value and a sense of belonging. Once achieved, they will spontaneously promote the ecosystem's development.

We need to abandon the mindset of pursuing scale from the internet era and instead adhere to a "depth-first" approach: understanding each core developer's technical preferences, even their pet's name, and delivering an exceptional experience for the first 10 users. Technological idealism itself is the best medium for dissemination. In this space, the power of 100 deeply engaged participants far outweighs that of 10,000 superficial users. True growth comes from these seemingly non-scalable deep connections.

III. Growing in the Shadow of Ethereum: Positioning and Strategic Trade-offs of Layer2

Kim Milosevich: Do Layer2 projects need to deeply bind with the Ethereum community culture to achieve effective marketing?

Claire Kart: In terms of operating within the Ethereum ecosystem, Amanda has more experience. Before joining Aztec, I worked on another Layer1 project and have been continuously thinking about this issue recently—the sentiment of the Ethereum community fluctuates like tides, sometimes filled with a belief in changing the world, and sometimes questioning due to foundation decisions. As a Layer2 project, we are still exploring the best balance point for leveraging the momentum of the Ethereum community.

Amanda Tyler: The Rollup ecosystem is an extension of Ethereum culture, and its open nature has given rise to a unique "coopetition ecosystem"—all Layer2s are collectively strengthening the Ethereum network. This requires marketing to balance a dual positioning: highlighting commercial value while emphasizing the core mission of scaling Ethereum. The most effective way to prove this is through technical binding, such as defaulting to using ETH for gas fees, which demonstrates a symbiotic relationship with Ethereum more than any slogan ever could.

Kim Milosevich: Is the rise of the Layer2 ecosystem reshaping developers' perceptions of Ethereum's value?

Claire Kart: When evaluating Layer2 strategies, resource endowment determines differentiation. Well-funded projects like BASE, under Coinbase, can leverage the resources of a publicly traded company to build an independent ecosystem brand. In contrast, resource-constrained Layer2s need to deeply bind with Ethereum to leverage its industry credibility for a cold start. This resource-oriented marketing strategy choice essentially reflects the "Matthew Effect" in the crypto ecosystem—where the strong get stronger, and emerging projects must use leverage wisely.

IV. DevRel × Marketing: The Synergistic Engine Driving Ecosystem Growth

Kim Milosevich: How should community operations and developer relations (DevRel) strategically collaborate with marketing?

Claire Kart: I have practiced two team models: In the full-funnel marketing model, DevRel focuses on mid-to-late-stage conversion, serving developers who already understand the project and are ready to deploy. At Aztec, due to the high complexity of the product, DevRel is directly embedded in the product team. Although this allows for deep collaboration, it needs to solve two major pain points: ensuring consistent user positioning and avoiding disconnection between marketing acquisition and developer support.

Amanda Tyler: Developer Relations (DevRel) should be deeply integrated into the marketing system. Developer documentation, as the first point of contact, needs to have a unified control over language style and conversion paths. Currently, DevRel is evolving into a content creator role, addressing tool usage pain points through programming tutorial videos. We have found that this type of content can effectively increase developer engagement, proving that the industry needs interactive ways to break down information barriers. This evolution requires DevRel to have stronger marketing thinking and execution capabilities.

Kim Milosevich: How should blockchain projects develop effective on-chain developer support strategies?

Claire Kart: The success of a developer ecosystem depends on building a closed loop of "product-economics-community." Taking the privacy field as an example, its professionalism naturally filters out target developers. During the cold start phase, a dual approach is needed: discovering commercial potential while tracking the progress of early developers, providing high-value support such as media exposure and strategic consulting at critical moments. Although this deep operation is difficult to scale, it is the key to building a project's moat.

Amanda Tyler: The essence of crypto marketing is ecosystem coordination. It is not only about discovering developer stories but also actively identifying needs and driving product iteration. The core is to help developers succeed through deep support: actively intervening on platforms like GitHub and Twitter to solve actual construction problems first, and then disseminating when the project is mature. This "empower first, speak later" closed-loop model is truly an effective path for ecosystem construction.

V. Coordinating the Ecosystem and Controlling Noise: From Token Launch to Brand Synergy in Systems Thinking

Kim Milosevich: How can we accurately identify effective feedback in the information-overloaded crypto community?

Amanda Tyler: To track the early adoption of new token standards, I take the following steps:

Analyze code repository clone records to identify a large number of new accounts.

Screen out real developers and communicate their usage needs directly through Twitter.

Synchronize the verification of technical documentation and relay user feedback directly to the product team.

The entire process reflects a "developer needs traceability" approach.

Kim Milosevich: How can we build a complete full-cycle management system for token launches?

Claire Kart: The core of token launches lies in balancing their dual nature. They are both marketing activities and financial products. The quality of the economic model design directly determines the fate of the project, and the project needs to choose between explosive or gradual approaches based on its characteristics. In terms of implementation, three keys are essential:

Engage deeply with economists on the value positioning of the token to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach;

Conduct in-depth research on the actual application scenarios and usage habits of different markets;

Establish a comprehensive post-launch management mechanism, including community sentiment management, team incentive mechanisms, and information disclosure norms.

Newton has secured the top spot in Kaito's Pre-TGE rankings, and Newton (NEWT) is set to make its debut!

The first-ever "Just for Me" campaign is now live! 0.75% of NEWT's total supply will be distributed to Kaito community users. The campaign is divided into two key segments:

1. Community-Wide Participation: Users can earn rewards by creating high-quality content related to Newton.
   (Insert relevant image)
   (Insert relevant image)

Newton Project Overview

Newton is a unified blockchain network jointly developed by Magic Labs and Polygon Labs. Its mission is to enhance interoperability between Polygon's AggLayers—which connect Layer 1 and Layer 2 chains through shared liquidity—to foster seamless cross-chain collaboration.

(Insert architecture diagram image)

Newton's Three-Tier Technical Architecture

Newton has constructed a comprehensive three-layer technical framework to provide foundational support for the development of community-driven economies. This architecture consists of:

1. Foundational Support Layer:

   • Integrates cutting-edge technologies such as decentralized storage networks, smart IoT terminals, and machine learning algorithms.

   • Delivers core capabilities like value circulation, data storage, and intelligent computing.

   • Adopts a dual-chain design: a main chain for ecosystem governance and sub-chains for specialized applications, enabling seamless value exchange between main and sub-chains.

2. Protocol Interaction Layer:

   • Ensures reliable communication between system nodes through standardized interfaces.

   • Provides a multi-language smart contract development environment with built-in templates, reducing barriers for developers to build decentralized applications.

3. Application Service Layer:

   • Serves as the user-facing interface, hosting diverse community economy scenarios.

   • Connects seamlessly with underlying technologies via standardized interfaces, offering users a streamlined service experience.

The Newton Team

(Insert team image)
(Insert additional team image if applicable)

Sean Li, Newton's Co-Founder and CEO of Magic Labs, brings extensive experience from roles at Docker, Kitematic, and Lightspeed Venture Partners.

Newton: A Summary

The Newton project is driving innovation in the digital landscape through its groundbreaking technical architecture and community-centric philosophy. By leveraging proprietary technologies like the New Chain base network, New Net communication protocol, and New IoT, Newton has established a robust decentralized infrastructure.

At the application level, Newton not only enables low-cost value circulation but also excels in traceability and other specialized fields. As ecosystem development accelerates, Newton is poised to deliver innovative solutions that bridge digital technologies with the real economy, ensuring technological advancements genuinely serve user needs.

Note: Images are referenced in the text for contextual clarity but should be inserted appropriately during final formatting. The translation prioritizes technical accuracy and fluency while maintaining the original text's structure and intent.

The Meteoric Rise of $HOUSEcoin

On April 27, 2025, the market capitalization of $HOUSEcoin (HOUSE) on Solana surged to $75 million, hitting an all-time high. Launched on March 25 via the Pump.fun platform, the project catapulted from obscurity to a crypto community sensation in just one month. Its official slogan, “Flipping the Housing Market, One $HOUSE at a Time 🏗,” resonates powerfully, while a quote attributed to Michael Burry—“The housing market will collapse, this coin is your hedge”—adds a layer of subversive symbolism. Against the backdrop of global housing prices skyrocketing by 48% and young people’s dwindling hopes of homeownership, HOUSE has transformed economic anxiety into a decentralized revolt. How did this meme coin spark global resonance? Why does its anti-property-ownership narrative strike such a chord? Let’s dive into the story of HOUSE.

---

What is $HOUSEcoin?

$HOUSEcoin is a meme coin on the Solana blockchain, launched via Pump.fun as a satirical critique of the global housing market. Its core philosophy—anti-property-ownership—embodies young people’s rage and mockery toward unaffordable housing. As stated on its website, HOUSE aims to “reshape” the housing market, parodying speculative “house flipping” while challenging systemic inequality. The Burry quote evokes memories of the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, framing HOUSE as a hedge against potential housing bubbles.

Technically, HOUSE is straightforward: a total supply of 998.8 million tokens, with 60% allocated to the community, 20% to liquidity pools, and the rest for development and marketing. Solana’s high throughput (65,000 transactions per second) and low fees ($0.00025 per transaction) fuel HOUSE’s rapid spread. On-chain data reveals over 18,000 holders and a Telegram community exceeding 35,000 members, showcasing robust grassroots momentum.

Culturally, HOUSE thrives on symbolism. Its pixelated flaming “house” logo represents rebellion against traditional housing systems. Members call themselves “Homeless Hodlers,” rallying behind the tongue-in-cheek slogan “1 HOUSE = 1 House,” dreaming of replacing unattainable property with digital tokens. A viral meme juxtaposes a dilapidated $1 million shack with HOUSE’s logo and the caption: “Buy $HOUSE, Burn the Old System.” This blend of humor and fury has turned HOUSE into a cultural phenomenon.

---

Global Resonance of Anti-Property-Ownership

Amplifying Economic Pain Points

HOUSE’s narrative is rooted in harsh reality: global housing has become unattainable. According to 2025 World Bank data, the price-to-income ratio in major cities has hit 12:1, meaning 12 years of income to buy a home. In cities like London, Sydney, and San Francisco, this ratio exceeds 18:1. In the U.S., average home prices have soared to $580,000, pushing the average first-time buyer’s age to 39—a historic high. Since 2018, youth wages have risen just 6%, dwarfed by housing’s 48% surge. Student debt and exorbitant rents further crush dreams of ownership.

HOUSE channels this pain into narrative fuel. Framed as a “hedge” against a housing collapse, it echoes Burry’s 2008 bet against subprime mortgages, which netted $700 million. Though Burry’s endorsement remains unverified, it taps into collective angst. On X, posts declare: “Your house will be worthless—hedge with $HOUSE.” This narrative transforms despair into speculative rebellion, positioning HOUSE as a digital vote against the system.

---

Meme Culture Goes Global

HOUSE’s anti-property-ownership ethos has evolved into a cultural movement. Memes, TikTok videos, and NFTs amplify the absurdity of housing markets. One viral TikTok (3 million views) shows a Gen Z renter torching a “mortgage contract” while waving a HOUSE flag, captioned: “A 30-year mortgage is slavery, $HOUSE is freedom.” A Discord meme contrasts a $2 million apartment with a HOUSE token, asking: “Which is the real scam?”

These creations resonate because they mirror shared experiences. In Japan, high prices force “parasite singles” to live with parents into their 30s; HOUSE’s Japanese Telegram group has 5,000 members. In Spain, where youth unemployment hits 25%, artists paint HOUSE-themed graffiti. Translated into Spanish, Korean, and Chinese, non-English users comprise 40% of its base, proving its global appeal. HOUSE’s memes aren’t just jokes—they’re outlets for rage.

---

The Anonymous Team’s Execution

HOUSE’s founders remain anonymous, engaging only via X (@HousecoinOnSol) and Telegram. On-chain analysis shows the token contract (address: DitHyRMQiSDhn5cnKMJV2CDDt6sVct96YrECiM49pump) was deployed on March 25, 2025, with developer wallets linked to other Solana meme projects, hinting at an experienced team. Despite anonymity, their execution is striking.

On April 10, the team launched “Burn the Mortgage,” a progressive web app (PWA) where users “buy” and “burn” virtual overpriced homes using $HOUSE, mocking housing bubbles. The app drew 10,000 users in 48 hours, boosting HOUSE’s market cap from $10 million to $25 million. On April 20, they announced 10,000 HOUSE NFTs—digital “homes” granting governance and airdrop rights. Trading volume spiked 200%, pushing the cap past $50 million. The team’s X proclamation—“We don’t build houses, we build revolution”—blends anarchist ethos with meme coin chaos.

Community lore adds mystique. A Telegram admin, “Homeless Hodler,” claims the team spans three continents, coding in cafés and co-working spaces. Unverified yet compelling, these tales cement HOUSE’s mythos as a decentralized uprising.

---

Community Culture and Global Context

Decentralized Rebellion Culture

HOUSE thrives on its community. Telegram and Discord groups serve as hubs for “Homeless Hodlers” to share memes, vent about housing, and even stage virtual protests. On April 15, the community airdropped $150,000 worth of HOUSE to 7,000 wallets in a “Burn the House” campaign. A promo video showing a virtual mansion explosion garnered 500,000 views in 24 hours, driving trades to $30 million.

Creativity flourishes: Reddit’s “Meme Contest” drew 2,000 entries, with winners earning $5,000 in HOUSE. One entry depicts a youth at a bank counter holding HOUSE tokens, captioned: “I don’t need your 30-year loan—I have $HOUSE.” Such organic cultural output elevates HOUSE beyond a token into a decentralized protest platform.

Global Catalysts

HOUSE’s rise aligns with worldwide housing crises. In 2025, Toronto’s price-to-income ratio hits 16:1; Sydney’s youth homeownership plummets to a 20-year low; Shanghai’s prices force millennials to abandon ownership dreams. The IMF warns global housing leverage mirrors 2008 levels, heightening crash risks. HOUSE’s “housing collapse” narrative—though hyperbolic—resonates with public anxiety.

Crypto infrastructure also fuels its growth. Solana’s Pump.fun platform, which lowered meme coin launch barriers, saw $2 billion in meme coin market cap in Q1 2025. Decentralized exchanges like Raydium and Jupiter provide liquidity, with HOUSE/SOL pairs dominating 70% of trades. This ecosystem support propelled HOUSE from niche meme to global phenomenon.

---

The Power and Risks of Anti-Property Narratives

Symbolic Rebellion or Real Hedge?

HOUSE claims to be a “hedge” against a crash, but its value hinges on community belief, not financial mechanics. Unlike Burry’s credit default swaps, HOUSE lacks direct ties to housing markets. Yet this limitation is its strength: HOUSE is a protest symbol, not a financial tool. Buying HOUSE isn’t about profit—it’s about rejecting a broken system.

This symbolism drives action. The “Burn the House” airdrop spurred debates on housing inequality. Plans for a “HOUSE DAO” in May would let holders vote on initiatives like funding affordable housing or anti-eviction movements. HOUSE aims to evolve from meme to social force.

Narrative Risks

Anti-property-ownership narratives carry pitfalls. Their anger risks alienating moderates. On X, critics dismiss HOUSE as “emotional hype,” while Burry’s quote may mislead investors into overestimating its financial utility. Meme coins like Dogecoin historically struggle with long-term viability due to lacking utility.

Housing markets are also complex. Despite $13 trillion in U.S. mortgage debt, governments often stabilize markets via subsidies or low rates. If reforms ease crises, HOUSE’s narrative could fade. Innovation is key to staying relevant.

Cultural Catalyst Potential

Despite risks, HOUSE sparks global dialogue. A U.K. housing NGO’s April 2025 report calls HOUSE “a digital protest against systemic injustice.” Scholars on X debate whether it can spur policy changes like rent control or land taxes. Its 40% non-English user base shows HOUSE transcends borders, uniting global youth.

HOUSE’s true power lies in channeling rage into creativity. Memes, NFTs, and apps aren’t just marketing—they’re digital artifacts for a priced-out generation. Whether housing crashes or not, HOUSE gives voice to millions. As one X post declares: “$HOUSE isn’t about buying a house—it’s about owning your anger.”

---

Conclusion: Meme or Movement?

Peaking at $75 million, $HOUSEcoin transcends being a Solana meme coin—it’s a digital insurrection against housing inequality. Blending economic pain with meme culture, from the “Burn the Mortgage” app to its upcoming DAO, HOUSE thrives on anonymous execution and community fervor. Yet reliance on volatile narratives poses challenges. Will HOUSE fade as a meme or catalyze real change?

In 2025, as housing prices crush dreams from Tokyo to Toronto, HOUSE burns as a symbol of revolt. “Flipping the Housing Market, One $HOUSE at a Time” isn’t just a slogan—it’s a battle cry. Will you join the rebellion or watch from the sidelines?

In April 2025, the price of Bitcoin continued to fluctuate within the range of $83,000 to $85,200, failing to break through the key resistance level of $86,000. This price volatility is closely related to the subtle changes in macroeconomic data.

Gold’s $3,357 Spell: The Cryptocurrency Law That Guarantees Bitcoin’s New High Within 5 Months

On April 17, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that the number of initial jobless claims was 215,000, lower than the market expectation of 225,000. This indicates that the labor market remains resilient. This data is seen as an important signal of the stability of the U.S. economy but also reduces market expectations for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, thereby suppressing short-term speculative sentiment in risky assets.

Federal Reserve Chairman Powell emphasized in his speech on April 16 that the recent implementation of the "reciprocal tariffs" policy in the United States far exceeded expectations and could lead to the dual pressures of rising inflation and slowing economic growth.

At the same time, Trump said at a press conference: "I think he (Powell) is terrible, but I can't complain," and pointed out that the economy was very strong during his first term. Trump continued to complain about Powell, saying that he believes the Fed chairman is "playing politics" and that Powell is "someone I never really liked."

Trump then said: "I think Powell will cut interest rates sooner or later. The only thing Powell is good at is cutting interest rates."

Despite the Federal Reserve's clear statement that it will not intervene in the market or implement interest rate cuts, the European Central Bank has taken the lead in lowering interest rates from 2.50% to 2.25%, the lowest since the end of 2022, in an attempt to mitigate the impact of tariff policies on the economy. This divergence in global monetary policy further increases market uncertainty and prompts investors to reassess the safe-haven attributes of assets such as Bitcoin.

Bitcoin at a Critical "Turning Point"

From a technical perspective, Bitcoin is at a crucial "turning point." Anonymous trader Titan of Crypto pointed out that the BTC price continues to contract within a triangular pattern, with the RSI indicator above 50 and attempting to break through resistance levels, suggesting an imminent directional breakout. Order flow analyst Magus believes that if Bitcoin fails to break through $85,000 soon, the long-term chart may turn bearish. The struggle in this price range is not only about short-term trends but may also determine whether Bitcoin can continue the bull market pattern since 2024.

Historical Correlation: Bitcoin’s Lag Effect After Gold’s New High

On April 17, the price of gold soared to a record high of $3,357 per ounce, sparking widespread market attention on Bitcoin's subsequent trend.

Historical data shows a significant lag correlation between gold and Bitcoin: whenever gold reaches a new high, Bitcoin usually follows and breaks through its previous high within 100-150 days.

For example, after gold rose by 30% in 2017, Bitcoin reached its historical peak of $19,120 in December of that year; after gold broke through $2,075 in 2020, Bitcoin rose to $69,000 in November 2021.

This correlation stems from their complementary roles during periods of economic uncertainty. Gold, as a traditional safe-haven asset, usually reflects inflation expectations and monetary easing signals first; while Bitcoin, due to its supply rigidity and decentralized nature, becomes a latecomer under the "digital gold" narrative.

Bitcoin’s Lag Behind Gold: A Sign of Market Maturity

Theya Growth Officer Joe Consorti pointed out that Bitcoin's lag behind gold trends is related to its market maturity— institutional investors need more time to complete the allocation shift from traditional assets to crypto assets.

Currently, the surge in gold prices resonates with the uncertainty of the Federal Reserve's policy.

Galaxy Digital CEO Mike Novogratz calls this phase the "Minsky Moment" of the U.S. economy, that is, the tipping point of unsustainable debt and collapsing market confidence. He believes that the synchronized strength of Bitcoin and gold reflects investors' concerns about the weakening dollar and the $35 trillion national debt, while tariff policies exacerbate the turmoil in the global economic order.

Cycle Model and Long-Term Forecast: Bitcoin’s "Power Law Curve" and $400,000 Target

Despite short-term volatility, analysts remain optimistic about Bitcoin's long-term prospects. Anonymous analyst apsk32, based on the "power law curve time profile" model, predicts that Bitcoin will enter a parabolic growth phase in the second half of 2025, with a target price as high as $400,000.

The model normalizes Bitcoin's market value with that of gold and measures Bitcoin's value in terms of gold ounces, revealing the potential valuation logic of its "digital gold" status.

Historical Cycle Patterns Support the Forecast

Bitcoin’s price and hash rate chart.

Historical cycle patterns also support this forecast. Bitcoin’s halving effect (every four years) usually triggers a bull market 12-18 months later, and the halving event in April 2024 may show its power in the third to fourth quarter of 2025.

Institutional Investors Continue to Accumulate Bitcoin

In the meantime, institutional investors continue to accumulate Bitcoin through compliant tools such as ETFs. As of February 2025, the total net asset value of BTC ETFs has reached $93.6 billion, further consolidating its position as a mainstream asset.

However, the market also needs to be wary of the "expectation overshoot" risk. The current bull market is mainly driven by institutional hoarding and ETF funds, with retail participation remaining low. The balance of BTC on exchanges has dropped to its lowest level since 2018, and the risk of a liquidity trap is increasing. If Bitcoin fails to expand into more application scenarios (such as payments, smart contracts), its valuation may face downward pressure.

Policy Variables: Tariffs, Liquidity Crisis, and Market Restructuring

In April 2025, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods soared to 104%, and countries such as Japan and Canada also faced high tariff shocks. This policy not only increased global inflation expectations but also reshaped the pattern of capital flows. Bloomberg data shows that tariffs have caused U.S. prices to rise by about 2.5%, with average household spending increasing by nearly $4,000 per year. To cope with economic pressure, the Federal Reserve may be forced to restart quantitative easing, and the over-issuance of currency will further strengthen Bitcoin's anti-inflation narrative.

Tariff policies also highlight Bitcoin's decentralized advantages. Against the backdrop of traditional cross-border payments being blocked, stablecoins (such as USDT) have become tools for emerging markets to evade capital controls due to their low cost and instant settlement characteristics. For example, the premium rate of stablecoins in countries such as Argentina and Turkey has long remained at 5-8%, reflecting the urgent demand under fiat currency credit crises.

However, the short-term market fluctuations triggered by tariffs should not be ignored. On April 9, the price of Bitcoin once fell to $80,000, with a daily drop of 7%, and the derivatives market saw a single-day liquidation of more than $1 billion. This volatility indicates that Bitcoin has not yet completely shaken off the "high-risk asset" label, and its price is still violently affected by macro sentiment and leveraged liquidations.

Conclusion: Asset Allocation Logic in the New Economic Paradigm

The core contradiction of the current market lies in the mismatch between policy expectation overshoot and endogenous momentum. Bitcoin's long-term value depends on the dual tests of regulatory frameworks and technological bottlenecks.

Investors need to clearly recognize that 2025-2026 may be Bitcoin's "last hurrah."

In this changing situation, the complementarity between gold and Bitcoin is becoming more and more evident. Gold, with its historical consensus and liquidity advantages, remains the ultimate safe-haven choice in a crisis; while Bitcoin has verified its "Digital Gold 2.0" attribute through "de-correlation" and has become a core asset in a diversified investment portfolio.

For ordinary investors, a combination of physical gold and mainstream cryptocurrencies, along with attention to the "wronged opportunities" in emerging market bonds, may be the best strategy to withstand the turmoil.

History does not simply repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Whether it is Bitcoin's $85,000 turning point or gold's new high of $3,357, these numbers are all a microcosm of the reconstruction of the global economic order. Only by maintaining rationality and foresight can one capture new opportunities in uncertainty.

The Cables platform is designed to achieve three key functions through a single system: enabling global fiat currencies and commodities to earn yield, be used as collateral, and facilitate cross-asset trading in the perpetual contracts market. With the launch of the points program, early participants can begin accumulating points for future platform access, marketing activities, and reward redemptions.

Community users can join the whitelist by submitting their ERC-20 wallet address and email (https://www.cables.finance/sign-up/). Successful registration will grant priority access to the Cables points program and ensure their inclusion in the first phase of the platform's user base during its expansion.

One of the Largest Airdrop Programs in DeFi to Date

With the launch of the points program, Cables has confirmed that 32% of its genesis token allocation will be used for airdrops, representing a significant portion of the total supply. This marks one of the highest allocation percentages for airdrops among large-scale projects to date.

This initiative presents a significant opportunity for early participants to earn substantial rewards while demonstrating Cables' core commitment to achieving decentralized governance from its inception. The project team emphasizes that this allocation plan aims to reward early community engagement and establish long-term alignment of interests before the mainnet launch.

The announcement of this airdrop program follows a series of global events hosted by Cables in locations such as Hong Kong, Denver, and New York, underscoring its expanding international community footprint.

A Unified DEX Integrating Yield, Leverage, and Real-World Assets

Cables is building a unified DEX that supports interest-bearing real-world assets such as cEUR, cJPY, and cXAU, which can be used as both interest-bearing collateral and tradable instruments. By combining liquid staking with multi-asset perpetual contracts, the protocol aims to eliminate long-standing inefficiencies in DeFi, such as fragmented liquidity, capital lock-up, and over-reliance on USD-pegged stablecoins.

According to the team, users will be able to stake assets to earn yield while simultaneously engaging in cross-market trading across foreign exchange, commodities, and cryptocurrency markets. Example use cases include earning passive income from tokens backed by oil or gold while establishing leveraged positions in related assets.

Reimagining DeFi Trading Infrastructure

Most current platforms force users to choose between earning yield and maintaining trading liquidity, leading to fragmented capital across isolated systems and unnecessary friction. Cables eliminates this trade-off by integrating liquid staking and perpetual contracts into a single system. The team's recently released v1.2 whitepaper (https://docs.cables.finance/) details how interest-bearing assets can be directly integrated into trade execution without sacrificing liquidity or composability.

Cables consolidates these features into a single DEX: interest-bearing real-world assets (RWAs) will always remain liquid and can be directly used as collateral for perpetual contract trading, eliminating the need for unstaking, cross-chain transfers, or token swaps between protocols. This integrated design not only significantly enhances capital efficiency but also fosters a liquidity flywheel effect.

Early Participation and Community Incentive Programs

The Cables points program offers community members the first opportunity to earn future rewards, including eligibility for project airdrops and token distribution phases. Points accumulated through early participation will play a crucial role in determining users' access to platform features, reward tiers, and engagement depth in subsequent marketing activities as the ecosystem expands.

Whitelist Participation Guide

The Cables whitelist is now open for registration on the official website (https://www.cables.finance/sign-up/). Interested participants can complete registration by submitting their email and EVM-compatible wallet address, immediately initiating point accumulation and gaining early access to new platform features and events.

For the latest updates, follow Cables' official X account (https://x.com/cablesfinance) and join the Telegram community (https://t.me/CablesFinanceCN).

About Cables Finance

Cables is building the first integrated liquid staking and perpetual contracts DEX for foreign exchange and real-world assets (RWAs), aiming to create a highly capital-efficient trading ecosystem. By combining deep institutional liquidity with DeFi-native yield opportunities, Cables pioneers a new paradigm for on-chain staking, trading, and hedging real-world value. As the first platform to unify these markets, Cables Finance is bridging the gap between traditional finance and large-scale decentralized trading.

Learn More:

Official Website: https://www.cables.finance/

Twitter: https://x.com/cablesfinance

Telegram: https://t.me/CablesFinanceCN

• April 7th: The Flames leaderboard went live!

• April 1st: Fogo's testnet was launched, revealing the Fogo Flames play mechanism.

Light the Torch: At the end of each week, Flame allocations are calculated and granted. These allocations accumulate over time, contributing to users' total scores on the leaderboard. Complete tasks, stack flames, and become a contributor. Some actions are more valuable than others. The more you contribute, the higher you climb.

Introduction to Fogo

Fogo is an SVM L1 blockchain with a mission to achieve the best latency and bandwidth promised by Firedancer, enabling large-scale real-time experiences.

Fogo's Key Features

Interaction Speed: Under ideal conditions, Fogo's theoretical peak speed can reach 1 million interactions per second (with a block time of 20 milliseconds). The current developer network's actual throughput is around 54,000 TPS. For comparison, Solana's theoretical upper limit is 65,000 TPS, but its actual operating speed is around 4,300 TPS. It's worth noting that the MegaETH test network achieved a high-performance mark of 20,000 TPS with a block interval of 10 milliseconds. Existing centralized institutions can handle about 100,000 operations per second with interaction delays controlled within 1 second.

Other Notable Features

Multi-Regional Consensus Mechanism ("Solar Orbit" Model): Fogo innovatively divides validator nodes into multiple geographical "regions," each capable of semi-independent operation. Network control rotates among different regions according to predefined rules, preventing a single validator group from dominating long-term and thus enhancing decentralization. This design significantly improves consensus efficiency. Initially, Fogo will deploy 20-50 validator nodes as the initial consensus cluster.

Gas Fee Abstraction: Fogo allows users to use any tokens as network fees, eliminating the need to hold specific tokens (such as ETH or SOL). This significantly lowers the barrier to entry and enhances interaction flexibility.

Fogo Team

• Doug Colkitt: Founder of Ambient Finance and co-founder of Fogo, previously a quantitative researcher at Citadel Securities.

• Robert Sagurton: Co-founder of Fogo, previously Global Head of Digital Sales at Jump Crypto.

Fogo Financing

• January 24, 2025: Fogo completed an $8 million community round of financing, with a valuation of $100 million.

• December 31, 2024: Fogo completed a $5.5 million seed round of financing.

Summary of Fogo

As a new generation of Layer 1 blockchain platforms, Fogo, with its optimized SVM architecture, is committed to creating an efficient, low-cost interaction environment for global users. From a technical standpoint, Fogo demonstrates significant performance advantages. In terms of ecosystem construction, its unique community incentive mechanism and sustainable financing model also reflect forward-looking planning.

With continuous technological iteration and expansion of application scenarios, the project is expected to play an important role in the blockchain industry and further promote the large-scale implementation of distributed technologies.

What Has Sonic Been Up to Recently? What Key Projects Are Worth Paying Attention To? Let WOO X Research Take You Through!

What Is Sonic? What's the Latest Airdrop Activity?

Sonic's predecessor is Fantom, a Layer 1 blockchain launched in 2019, focusing on DeFi and dApps, which gained significant popularity between 2021 and 2022, with a peak TVL of around $8 billion. In 2022, AC announced a temporary exit from the DeFi industry, causing a drop in market confidence in Fantom. In July 2023, a vulnerability in the cross-chain bridge Multichain, with which Fantom had partnered, led to a significant de-pegging of stablecoins issued by the bridge contract on Fantom (such as USDC-MULTI, fUSDT-MULTI, etc.), affecting the stability and trustworthiness of the entire ecosystem. Against this backdrop, Fantom proposed an upgrade to Sonic.

Sonic has announced the issuance of a total of 190.5 million S tokens, with a reward mechanism divided into two parts: 25% of the rewards can be withdrawn immediately, while the remaining 75% will be gradually released in the form of tradable NFTs. Users can qualify through two pathways:

• Points (for network participants)

• Gems (for developers). The return potential of these pathways may far exceed that of typical speculative airdrops.

Sonic Points are user-oriented airdrop points, divided into passive points and active points. Holding whitelisted assets in a Web3 wallet earns passive points, while deploying whitelisted assets in applications earns active points; WETH, SolvBTC, and SolvBTC.BBN only earn active points. The returns from active points are double that of passive points.

Sonic's Hot Projects

Sheep Coin (@SheepCoin69)

Sonic Wolf and Sheep Game is a strategic game ecosystem that combines blockchain asset management, NFT mechanisms, and DeFi protocols. Players can build their advantages and earn rewards by purchasing, minting, protecting, and attacking assets.

1. Buying Sheep Coin: Players can purchase Sheep Coin using $S at a 1:1 ratio. In this process, 95% of the Sonic Token will be provided to Sheep Coin for liquidity. After launch, Sheep Coin can be freely traded.

2. Minting Wolf NFTs: Players can mint Wolf NFTs using Sheep Coin and $S. The cost of each minting increases with the number of times (the first one requires 1 Sheep, the second one requires 2 Sheep, and so on), and all Sheep Coins used for minting will be permanently destroyed. This means that each minting reduces the total supply.

3. Wolf NFT Mechanism: Wolf NFTs are aggressive assets in the game, with the following behavior patterns:

   • Each Wolf needs to eat Sheep every day, with the consumption increasing with the number of days (1 Sheep on the first day, 2 Sheep on the second day, and so on).

   • If a Wolf does not eat Sheep for 7 consecutive days, it will become unusable (presumably unable to generate profits or participate in the game).

   • Wolves can eat in two ways:

     • Liquidity Pool: If eating from the liquidity pool, 100% of the Sheep will be destroyed. Each Wolf can eat from the liquidity pool a maximum of 3 times.

     • Wallet (one's own or others'): If eating from a wallet, 25% of the Sheep will go to the Wolf owner, with the remaining 75% destroyed.

4. Sheep Dog Protection Mechanism: Players can deposit their Sheep into the Sheep Dog for protection. To withdraw, players must activate "sleep mode," wait for 2 days, and pay a fee.

5. Sheep Dog Reward Mechanism: Sheep deposited in the Sheep Dog can earn S rewards through an annual percentage rate (APR). Additionally, the fees paid by players when withdrawing assets will also be part of the rewards.

Interpretation of the Game

Core Concept: Through the "wolves eating sheep" mechanism, the continuous deflation of sheep potentially drives up the coin price.

Despite the gradual decrease in the number of sheep, the Sonic Token allocated in the liquidity pool will not decrease, meaning that the value of holding sheep has the potential to steadily rise. However, players still need to bear the risk of being attacked by wolves.

About Wolves: High Costs, High Risks, but Also Potential High Returns

The cost of minting wolves increases with the order of minting, and the profitability largely depends on whether they can eat other players' sheep. If a wolf cannot eat for a long time or is starved to death, it may lead to investment failure.

If there are a large number of wolves in the market at the same time, the competition for sheep will be more intense; but if the number of wolves is limited, the speed of sheep being destroyed may not necessarily support the wolf's quick return on investment.

Sheep Dogs: Maintained by Daily Rent, in Exchange for Safety and Extra Profits

A fixed 10 S is required as rent every day, with 95% of it being returned to everyone as APY. If the number of sheep in hand is too small, it will be difficult to cover the rent; but if there are enough sheep, guarding the sheep and letting them appreciate over time will be more attractive.

Game Theory Issue One: Is It Worth Casting Wolves?

The cost of casting wolves is competitive among players. Although casting early can gain an advantage, it is also necessary to consider the intensity of competition and the high cost.

The feeding strategy of wolves is crucial: quickly eating in the short term can accelerate return on investment, but it will also rapidly increase the wolf's demand for sheep. If the feeding pace is slow, it can extend the wolf's survival and activity space, but the return on investment will take longer.

Since sheep will gradually appreciate due to deflation, the returns from eating a sheep later may not necessarily be worse than those in the early stage, so "when to eat" is a significant strategic consideration.

Game Theory Issue Two: Should You Rent a Sheep Dog?

Regardless of how many sheep a player has, the same rent must be paid. To cover this rent with APY, a relatively large number of sheep are needed to offset the cost.

The actual function of the Sheep Dog is to protect sheep from being eaten by wolves while enjoying the advantage of the rising value of sheep coins.

Possible Scenarios and Corresponding Strategies

Since the cost and uncertainty of wolves are both high, perhaps not many players will rush to cast wolves; when wolves are relatively rare, the speed of sheep being destroyed will slow down, and the profit cycle of wolves may be delayed.

If everyone chooses not to use Sheep Dogs, they may scatter their sheep across multiple wallets to reduce the risk of being targeted for attack.

There is no fixed "best solution" in the game because the market and player actions are constantly changing; to ultimately profit, it is necessary to continuously monitor the ecological dynamics and flexibly adjust strategies.

Petroleum Finance (@Petroleum_Defi)

Petroleum City is a blockchain game themed around oil extraction. Players build, upgrade, and manage pumps to refine crude oil (cOIL) and convert it into tradable $OIL to earn profits. The core mechanisms of the game are as follows:

1. Buy a Plot: Each player can purchase and customize their own plot to establish an oil empire. Plots can be enhanced in capacity by adding pumps and decorations.

2. Buy Some Pumps: Pumps are the core production tools in the game, each continuously and automatically producing cOIL (crude oil). Pumps can be upgraded to increase output, but they will gradually decay over time and require repairs with cOIL to continue production.

3. Add Decorations: Players can decorate their plots to enhance their appearance and personal style. Suggestions for new decorations can be made through the app or Discord.

4. Refine Your $cOIL: The produced cOIL must be refined through a "refinery" to become tradable $OIL. The lock-up periods and tax rates for refining are as follows:

   • 0 - 1 day: Withdrawal not allowed.

   • 1 - 2 days: Withdrawal incurs a 10% tax.

   • 2 - 3 days: Withdrawal incurs a 5% tax.

   • Over 3 days: Tax-free withdrawal.

   The longer the refining period, the higher the returns.

Strategies and Suggestions

• Ensure Continuous Production: Keep enough cOIL for pump repairs to avoid interruptions in oil production.

• Optimize Refining Strategy: Wait until after 3 days to withdraw $OIL to avoid high tax rates.

• Balance Upgrades and Decorations: Enhance both pump capacity and decorative effects to increase overall output.

Petroleum City centers around the core loop of "producing cOIL → repairing pumps → refining into $OIL → reinvesting in upgrades." Players need to plan production, refining, and upgrading strategies wisely to steadily earn profits and grow their assets.