Singapore: Making Inter-Chain Interop Official
DBS and J.P. Morgan’s Kinexys are building a regulated bridge that will let JPM’s Base-chain Deposit Tokens settle 24/7 against DBS’s permissioned ledger. No SWIFT, no nostro/vostro delays—just atomic, cross-bank, cross-chain value moves. Singapore’s message: don’t fight the tech, codify it.

Hong Kong: A Multi-Storey Money Tower
Eddie Yue, HKMA chief, recently sketched Hong Kong’s blueprint:

• Top floor – e-HKD (CBDC, sovereign anchor)

• Mezzanine – tokenized deposits (commercial settlement rail)

• Ground floor – licensed stablecoins (Web3 circulation)
  Three layers, one roof: innovation and oversight under the same regulatory rafters.

United Kingdom: Realism First, Revolution Later
Six British giants—HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds among them—are running a sterling token pilot through mid-2026, covering remittances, mortgages and digital-asset legs. Governor Bailey’s mantra: “Tokenize to make the old plumbing faster, not riskier.” Licenses come before launch; sandbox today, scale tomorrow.

Japan: Cautious Skin, Pragmatic Bones
SBI Shinsei is quietly testing tokenized yen deposits for regional FX settlement. A CBDC is still years away; tokenized deposits let Tokyo upgrade speed and cut costs without breaching its risk ceiling. Same Japanese rulebook: evolve inside the lines.

Sovereignty, Speed and the New Architecture
Tokenized deposits are more than a tech tweak—they are a race to modernize monetary sovereignty. Stablecoins took the dollar on-chain and beyond central-bank reach; tokenized deposits bring the same efficiency back inside the perimeter.
Tomorrow’s money stack looks three-tier:

• CBDC layer – finality and sovereignty

• Bank-token layer – payments and credit

• Market-token layer – global liquidity & real-world assets (RWA)
  Not winner-take-all, but co-existing rails.

Real Assets, Real Chain
BNY projects US$ 3.6 trn in tokenized cash and stablecoins by 2030, half of it parked in bank tokens and money-market funds. The blockchain is no longer the garage tinkerer; it is pouring the foundation of the next financial edifice. The age of “institutional on-chaining” has begun.

Core Mechanism: Utilizing an RFQ model, users trade directly with the OLP, ensuring each order is balanced between long and short positions. Profits and losses are confined to the trading parties, reducing the risk of chain liquidations. The OLP simultaneously hedges its positions on other exchanges to maintain its own balance.

Differentiated Advantages:

* Loss subsidies are normalized as a customer acquisition strategy, attracting users during extreme market conditions.

* The sole market maker structure controls the impact of whales and can force liquidations under extreme circumstances to maintain market stability.

Market Impact:

* Offers users a new alternative to counter large market makers and platforms, though the OLP's operations still carry black-box risks.

* Provides more reliable institutional-grade market-making services for major exchanges like Binance and Hyperliquid, enhancing overall market liquidity integration.

Potential Challenges: Current trading volume is relatively small. Long-term subsidy sustainability and black-box transparency issues still require market validation.

Variational: Acting as the Counterparty for the Entire Contract Market

Variational doesn't produce liquidity; it merely transports it.

After extensively covering Hyperliquid's background, the discussion on its $USDH, DAT/ETF, and other capital operations surrounding $HYPE will be addressed separately later.

Binance's post-crisis public relations have become increasingly adept. OKX preemptively initiated internal clean-ups. Hyperliquid's rally shows no signs of stopping. Even if the 1011 event gradually liquidates a few market makers or YBS project teams, it's unlikely to significantly harm these major platforms. Even second or third-tier CEXs/DEXs like Lighter or MEXC demonstrate resilience far exceeding previous crisis periods.

HL's ascent has become unstoppable after Aster and the 1011 event. Unless it self-destructs or is shut down by regulators, Binance would find it difficult to take down HL as it did with FTX.

The cryptocurrency trading landscape has solidified. What can latecomer Perp DEXs do?

Market-Level Market Maker: The OLP Handles Everything

Variational's approach is to connect all available liquidity. It predicts that no single entity will dominate the future entirely, and even if one does, third-party market makers will still exist atop it.

As mentioned earlier, both Binance and HL claim to be open to market makers. Even HL's HLP purportedly accounts for only 1% of trading volume.

The logic isn't complicated. It's similar to Qualcomm selling off its telecom business to gain industry-wide acceptance, or Visa/Mastercard not starting their own banks, or Stripe's Tempo likely not issuing a stablecoin.

Only by being sufficiently neutral can an entity be willingly accepted by all market participants.

If Hyperliquid's Builder Codes represent the front-end of liquidity, then Variational's OLP is the counterparty to all market makers.

Strictly speaking, Variational isn't a traditional Perp DEX. On one hand, it has a highly centralized aspect. Under the RFQ framework, users actively request quotes, the sole market maker OLP provides them, order details are pre-configured by Variational, and the final execution price is also determined by the OLP.

Note: While CLOB solves the slippage issues inherent in AMMs, these issues resurface in Variational's RFQ mechanism. However, the ability to set limit orders mitigates this drawback.

But benefits arise from this structure. Every user order must have a counterparty. Long and short positions in the market are absolutely balanced, and each order is guaranteed by the OLP contract—profits and losses are contained between the direct parties involved.

Furthermore, the OLP is the only market maker on Variational; there are no third-party market makers. Any user must trade with the OLP. This ensures balance at the market's most granular level.

The advantage is that during extreme liquidations, your profit is only responsible for the loss of your specific order's counterparty. You are not liable for losses from other orders, thus minimizing the overall liquidation volume on Variational.

However, this doesn't prevent liquidations from spreading across the broader market. This isn't contradictory. Please note: the OLP is the user's sole counterparty on Variational, but the OLP itself does not operate solely on Variational.

Beyond common functions like managing user deposits for the OLP to earn yield and handling liquidations, the biggest difference between the OLP and HLP is that the OLP hedges its positions on other DEXs/CEXs in the market.

For example, if Alice opens a long position with the OLP and a corresponding short position isn't immediately available to match it, the OLP will directly open a corresponding short position on Binance or HL to achieve its own balance.

* Base L2 Network: Incubated by Coinbase, it uses the OP Stack, offers low transaction fees and high speed, has become a leading Layer 2 network, and serves as a testing ground for the on-chain future.

* Base Token Potential: Actively exploring the issuance of a network token, potentially linking its economic model to network growth, which could present airdrop opportunities for users.

* Base App Features: A super-app integrating social, payment, and financial functions, supporting Farcaster social features, BasePAY payments, AI agents, and more, with over 750,000 people on the waitlist.

* Key Ecosystem Projects: Include Giza (AI yield optimizer), Avantis (perpetuals exchange), Share (social trading app), and other Coinbase-backed projects poised to benefit from exposure via the Base App.

* DeFi Integration Strategy: Introducing on-chain lending and DEX trading within retail apps, e.g., offering USDC yield services via Morpho, and applying for a banking charter to expand payment capabilities.

* x402 Payment Protocol: An HTTP-based stablecoin payment protocol supporting use cases like API payments and AI agent transactions, with recent significant transaction volume growth.

Through application testing and protocol innovation, the Base ecosystem is building a synergistic financial future that bridges on-chain and off-chain worlds.

Summary

Expand

Author: blocmates

Compiled by: Felix, PANews

Coinbase's acquisition of Echo, coupled with statements about not rushing a Base token deployment and the upcoming Base app, all point towards strong momentum for the Base ecosystem in the coming months.

Simultaneously, Coinbase is making strategic moves elsewhere, including applying for a banking charter, gradually integrating DeFi into its retail app, and developing a new payment standard called x402.

With Coinbase's recent flurry of activity, this article serves as a mini-report on the company's developments.

What is the Base L2?

Base is a Layer 2 network incubated by Coinbase, utilizing the OP Stack, achieving 200ms block times via Flashblocks, and processing transactions for less than one cent.

Although launched just two years ago, Base has rapidly become a leading L2, consistently topping metrics like TVL and transaction volume almost daily.

The key point is that Base isn't just an L2 network: it's Coinbase's testing ground for the on-chain future. If executed well, participants in this "sandbox" might soon receive a substantial "airdrop reward."

A Potential Game-Changer: The $BASE Token

After years of denying token plans, Jesse Pollak announced at the BaseCamp event in September 2025 that they were "beginning to explore a network token." While information remains limited, clues exist.

Unlike most other L2s that typically conduct a TGE quickly, Base's hesitation is understandable given its direct ties to a US publicly-traded company (Coinbase).

In his keynote, Jesse indicated the company would work closely with regulators to ensure compliance. Given the token is still in the exploration phase, a TGE显然 won't happen imminently.

But this is also a good thing, as it gives users ample time to prepare.

Whenever the TGE occurs, it's undeniable that a Base token could be a major wealth-generation event and significantly boost Base's development.

To achieve this, Base must tether economic activity to the token, as the real value of L1 assets stems from their role as the gas token and the second token in AMM pairs.

ETH and SOL hold value because they are crucial for providing liquidity to new tokens in AMMs. As these ecosystems expand, demand for the quote currency increases, creating a positive feedback loop.

By distributing network fees as rewards to pools using $BASE as the quote currency, $BASE holders could encourage this activity and link the token's value to network growth.

One can expect Base to incentivize key protocols and distribute tokens to them post-launch. But how can users position themselves for the initial airdrop?

As Base aims to revolutionize blockchain participation and attract new users through its app, actively using the app could significantly increase chances of receiving an airdrop.

The Base App: The Frontend for the Entire Base Ecosystem

In this cycle, wallets have evolved from simple token storage tools to becoming, in some cases, the "frontend for DeFi." As Phantom and others expand the definition of the crypto frontend—adding trading and payment functions directly within the app—the race to build the ultimate super-app is on.

In this race, the Base App stands out. It's an all-in-one application integrating social networking, apps, payments, and finance, allowing users to earn yield, trade, and chat with people worldwide, all from one place.

Scheduled for public release this year, the app has already seen success in testing phases, with participants praising it, and has over 750,000 people on its waitlist.

The app includes social features powered by Farcaster, identity verification via ens.eth, payments through BasePAY, yield features via Morpho, AI agents like Giza's Arma and Moonwell's Mamo, chat powered by Zora, gamified experiences similar to Dimo, and numerous other mini-apps powered by Farcaster.

The current task involves identifying projects already on or coming to the platform that stand to benefit the most from the distribution and exposure the app will bring. Particular attention should be paid to applications Coinbase has invested in, as they are direct beneficiaries of the product's success.

Projects to Watch

Within the Base ecosystem, Coinbase typically makes small strategic investments rather than leading rounds, aiming for broad coverage and maintaining neutrality among competing protocols.

However, Coinbase has made larger investments in a few projects where it effectively "owns the stack" on Base, including liquidity (Aerodrome), core DeFi credit (Morpho), and creator engagement (Farcaster, Zora).

Regardless of investment size, these portfolio companies often receive preferential treatment on social media, get more business development connections, and can integrate quickly into the Base App.

Here are some of the most promising Coinbase-backed projects within the Base ecosystem (listed in no particular order) likely to gain significant momentum:

* Giza: Giza's autonomous agent Arma is an AI-powered yield optimizer already live in the Base app. With over $2B in agent trading volume and around $30M TVL, one could argue the current token valuation might be low.

* Avantis: The #1 perpetual exchange on Base, Avantis offers a diverse range of assets including crypto, stocks, indices, and even forex. Investor and team allocations make up 40% of the supply, with vesting only starting in September 2026.

* Share: Share is a yet-to-launch social trading app that recently raised $5M. This product bears a striking resemblance in features and branding to other social trading apps and, backed by Coinbase, is likely prioritized for Base App integration.

* Memory: Memory aims to build a world where digital identity can migrate freely across the internet. Recently, Memory announced the ability to sync your Twitter follows to the Base App. Given Base's focus on SocialFi, Memory plays a key role in the transition from traditional social media to the Base App.

* Coop Records: Coop Records is an on-chain record label with over 175 artists and 750+ albums since its launch in August 2023. Songs are purchased in ETH and paid out to artists in real-time, contrasting sharply with the traditional music industry's delayed royalty payments.

* IronFish: Brian Armstrong recently advocated for privacy and revealed acquiring the Iron Fish team in March this year. Does this mean the token will perform well long-term? It remains unclear.

* Backroom: If you believe the Internet Capital Markets (ICM) narrative still holds potential, Backroom is a protocol to watch, especially given its partnership with Aerodrome, Base's largest DEX.

* Noice: The winner of the first Base Batches Demo Day, Noice is a social tokenization protocol integrating Farcaster's programmable social layer and Zora's creator tokens. It enables micro-payments for social actions like likes, comments, and follows, turning engagement into economic value.

The Base Batches program is an excellent way for Base to stay ahead of the curve and discover emerging trends or products. The next event is scheduled for November 19th at DevConnect.

While interacting with the products listed above doesn't guarantee airdrop eligibility, nor does buying their tokens ensure appreciation, Base's track record of boosting its portfolio companies suggests new projects might also benefit.

As Coinbase pours hundreds of millions into the on-chain economy, one can't help but wonder: what is Brian's ultimate goal?

The DeFi "Mullet" Strategy

Let's be honest: the general public isn't concerned with on-chain reputation systems or AI agents for yield farming. Most just want to open their Coinbase app and tap the "Earn" tab.

Recognizing that DeFi offers easier access and higher returns, Coinbase has shown willingness to introduce these products to a broader audience through its app.

For example, the recently launched USDC on-chain lending feature, powered by Morpho and Steakhouse Financial, allows users to earn up to 10% yield on their stablecoins.

This isn't Coinbase's only integration with Morpho. Earlier this year, Coinbase launched Bitcoin-backed on-chain lending via Morpho, allowing customers to borrow up to $1M USDC against Bitcoin held on Coinbase.

Furthermore, Coinbase supports DEX trading, providing users access to on-chain tokens.

Coinbase's willingness to integrate DeFi protocols from Base into its retail app indicates that the Base App is a crucial platform for Coinbase to experiment with new features and protocols before a wider rollout.

X402: The Native Internet Payment Protocol

It's well-known that online payments have fundamental issues. Credit cards involve high friction and minimum payment amounts are too high. Moreover, they aren't programmable for the internet's needs and don't support an agentic software system.

X402 is Coinbase's proposed solution: an HTTP-based protocol for agents, context retrieval, APIs, and more, enabling instant, automatic stablecoin payments directly over HTTP.

x402 supports various use cases, including:

* Pay-per-request API services

* AI agents autonomously paying for API access

* Paid walls for digital content

* Microservices and tools monetized via microtransactions

* Agent services that aggregate and resell API functionalities

Although the protocol is network-agnostic, the Base ecosystem is naturally suited for its deployment due to integrations with Base's AgentKit and Farcaster's MiniKit (MiniApp SDK).

Recently, the protocol has seen a surge in activity, with total transactions nearing 200,000 and transaction volume approaching $150,000.

Conclusion

The Base app and the Coinbase app serve two different customer segments, with the former acting as a testing ground for the latter. Together, they create a positive feedback loop few companies in finance can match. After all, the future of finance isn't solely off-chain or on-chain, but a blend of both.

While Coinbase plays the long game in the TradFi world, gradually securing a banking charter to move the app closer to a neobank than a mere exchange, Base serves as the on-chain laboratory where the future is being prototyped.

Now, with a token on the horizon, everyone becomes a test subject for Coinbase. The main difference lies in who understands the rules of the game better.

In this context, the game involves tracking where Coinbase's capital flows and identifying which projects it is funding.

• Large-scale liquidations rapidly deplete the order book’s buy-side liquidity.

• Market maker accounts enter a "locked mode" due to insufficient margin, forcing them to cancel liquidity provision orders.

• Simultaneous flash crashes in ATOM, WBETH, and other tokens between 5:20-5:44 AM, indicating cascading liquidations in the same account.
  Market Impact: Approximately $150 million in losses to risk insurance funds in a single day, affecting both exchanges and users. The author emphasizes the need to rationally trace systemic flaws rather than assign blame.

How Far Can the Human Eye See?
Some say the horizon, where the sun, moon, and stars reside; others say it’s right before us, as a single leaf can block one’s vision. Different perspectives on different matters often yield unexpected insights and surprises. Today, let’s explore what happened on 10/11 through the lens of "leverage and liquidation mechanisms."

This article offers no conclusions, takes no sides, and merely presents diverse viewpoints. If you’re ready, give me 10 minutes.

Disclaimer:
I empathize with the prevailing frustration. This article will adopt a conversational tone to fit the context. It does not judge right or wrong or take sides but instead examines the issue dialectically from a mechanistic perspective, aiming to shed light on the underlying principles. The examples and figures used are not the focus; Binance is merely cited as a case study to illustrate the logic and mechanics.

1. The Financial Tactics and Leverage of Market Makers
Back in the 31st year of Daoguang, I wrote about how market makers use call options to market-make with tokens borrowed from projects (link: https://x.com/agintender/status/1946429507046645988).

It’s about time for an update.

As mentioned, due to the structure of call options and the trend of tokens peaking at launch, one optimal strategy for market makers is to sell most of the borrowed tokens early when liquidity is highest (retaining some for market-making) and buy back at lower prices.

This model relies on two conditions: ample liquidity and lack of third-party oversight (i.e., exchanges turning a blind eye).

As we all know, market conditions (spot) deteriorated rapidly, liquidity dried up, and Binance intensified its scrutiny. Thus, this once-viable path gradually faded—or at least, became less overt. But did this leave market makers helpless? Not at all. They turned their attention to contract trading.

The problem? They held mostly tokens, while altcoin contract trading requires USD. What to do?

They turned to Binance’s cross-margin leverage/earn/unified accounts. Ignoring all other features, let’s focus on collateral usage. This module allows market makers or whales to collateralize nearly 200 types of Binance-listed assets as margin for trading spot/contracts/options. Different altcoins have different collateral rates, as we’ll illustrate later.

So, how does it work?
Take ATOM (cross-margin leverage) as an example:

• I borrow 1 million ATOM from the ATOM Foundation at 5 USD per ATOM.

• Reserve 200,000 ATOM for daily market-making and collateralize the remaining 800,000 ATOM (“collateral”). Assuming a market value of 4 million USD, the available margin might be 1,120,000 USD (200,000 × 100% + 200,000 × 80% + 200,000 × 70% + 200,000 × 50% + ...).

Using Binance’s unified account example:

Two variables come into play: the value of the collateral and the value of the trading instruments.

From here, strategies diverge: Trader A might short contracts and manipulate spot supply for profit; Trader B might long contracts and influence contract prices, etc.

Why are collateral rates so low? This mirrors contract margin principles—larger positions exponentially increase risk. Additionally, collateral liquidation is based on "mark price," not market price.

Binance’s official stance on contract liquidation:

2. How Collateral Triggers Liquidation and Forced Closures
In unified accounts/earn/leverage, collateral isn’t evaluated per asset but based on the entire account/position’s equity versus margin requirements.

Using the unified account as an example:
Unified Account Maintenance Margin Ratio (uniMMR) = Adjusted Equity / Maintenance Margin Required.

The calculations are complex, but the essence is that all collateral/position values must meet margin requirements. Without delving into other cross-margin/earn liquidation details, the key point is:

• When uniMMR ≤ 1.2, the account enters "locked mode" (no new positions).

• When uniMMR ≤ 1.05, forced liquidation occurs. (This is critical and will be referenced later.)

Similarly, cross-margin/earn liquidations follow analogous procedures.

Liquidation of collateral primarily occurs via two methods: executing against order book liquidity or canceling existing orders.

3. The Capital Efficiency Hammer of Whales and Institutions
Beyond market makers, institutions, whales, and large holders also adopt these earn/cross-margin/unified account models.

Imagine you’re a devout ATOM believer holding 10 million ATOM. What would you do? You’d collateralize those 10 million ATOM for recursive lending, open contracts—buying the dip repeatedly, perhaps even diversifying into ATOM ecosystem projects, some hedging along the way—all while waiting for the dream altcoin bull market to cement your legacy.

This isn’t a fable; it’s a real-life OG story (now a tragedy).

Unfortunately, your position becomes critically overleveraged through constant maneuvering, and by then, the storm has arrived.

4. Revisiting 10/11
Let’s return to the dark and windy night of October 11th (using ATOM spot as an example).

Starting at 5:00 AM, ATOM’s price began a gradual decline. The volume chart showed increased activity, but prices stabilized around 3.7–3.8, indicating lingering liquidity.

At 5:13, the market plunged with heavy volume, each bar dropping from the previous one’s low—a sign of arbitrage liquidation bots kicking in. Whales’ collateral began liquidating (explaining the parallel decline in spot and contract prices). Liquidation bots directly executed market orders (as takers) for the collateral (ATOM) until liquidation was complete.

How do we know liquidation bots were the culprits?

• Until 5:19, the order book showed liquidity (with high volume).

• At 5:20, the order book entered a vacuum, with prices crashing to 0.001.

ATOM Spot Chart:

ATOM Futures Chart:

In contrast, the futures’ lowest price at 5:20 was 1.4. If this were futures-spot arbitrage, prices should converge, and 0.01 ATOM is a level no rational trader would execute. Only merciless liquidation bots could “heartlessly” complete the task.

In other words, the whales’ greed and denial set the stage, and liquidation bots executed the massacre.

Why did Binance’s ATOM spot experience a brief "liquidity vacuum"?
My speculative take: The primary market maker’s leverage/earn/unified account maintenance margin ratio likely fell below the threshold (triggering liquidation and locking), forcing the cancellation of existing orders and crippling liquidity provision.

Attached: WBETH and BNSOL Price Charts

The liquidity vacuum occurred almost simultaneously between 5:43–5:44 AM, suggesting these pairs’ primary market makers shared the same account, which entered liquidation/lock mode at that exact moment.

WBETH Price Chart:

BNSOL Price Chart:

Afterword
I hesitated to publish this article, as it might add fuel to the fire and attract labels like "traitor," "BN shill," or "paid propagandist." But I also felt all parties were somewhat unjustly blamed.

After much thought, I’ve written this informal piece for your reference.

Attached: ATOM Risk Insurance Fund Chart. On 10/11 alone, the fund lost ~$150 million (with 5x leverage, that’s $750 million in nominal value). Exchanges only profit reliably when liquidity is abundant; in extreme conditions, their losses are substantial. Motive-wise, they have no reason to deliberately stifle liquidity.

Finally, I’m also a victim, currently seeking recourse and awaiting compensation.

I’m sharing this to advocate for rational accountability—offering an additional perspective.

Right is right; wrong is wrong—and I won’t yield an inch on the latter.

Crypto never lacks popcorn material. While candles flicker red and green, the chat rooms fill with gossip.

On 8 October, OKX’s Star posted a long read on the MEME mania: “The real Web3 future is built neither on sentiment nor on speculation, but on conviction and construction. OKX’s mission is infrastructure—safe, seamless interaction across hundreds of chains. We are engineers, geeks, dreamers; we ship code, not slogans.”

Barely 24 hours later, Binance’s He Yi replied with “Come! Let’s Cultivate Together!” Fairness, she argued, justifies the MEME carnival. “‘Binance Life’ is no bubble; it’s a flash of enlightenment on the road of cultivation. We don’t chase shortcuts or manufacture hype; every mis-step and every brick paves the mass-adoption highway.”

Two titans, two sermons—one icy-tech, one incense-tinged. What do they really tell us?

---

Two Paths: Cultivation and Mechanical Ascension

Strip away the rhetoric and the quarrel is older than crypto: jump on the wave, or build the ocean.

Binance is the sword-riding cultivator who spots the qi of fortune, leaps skyward and ascends in plain sight.

OKX is the engineer in the lab, tightening bolts on a reactor that may one day power galaxies.

Both want the same immortality; they pick different pills.

---

Binance: The Dao of “Ride the Tide, Become Heaven”

He Yi’s essay retells Binance’s legend: “Cultivation has no shortcut; only a rock-solid dao-heart survives the demonic tribulations.”

Translate: feel the market’s pulse, mint the narrative, launch the rocket.

Launchpad, Alpha, Megadrop—each product is a spirit vein that funnels liquidity into the sect. Users don’t just trade; they join a kung-fu movie where anyone can be the chosen one.

The upside: lightning growth, cult-level community, a brand that can pump a coin with a single tweet.

The downside: when the dao-heart is really the market’s heart, it can break. Regulators, bears, or sheer fatigue can turn ascension into free-fall.

---

OKX: The Dao of “Everything Is Engineering”

Star’s credo: value = infrastructure × time.

From wallet kernels to DEX aggregators, from cross-chain relays to API latency, every commit is a rivet in a bridge no one sees until they need it.

Global licenses, SOC-2 audits, zk-proof research—boring paperwork today, competitive moat tomorrow.

The upside: when the tide goes out you’re still standing on reinforced concrete; institutions trust you; builders plant on your land.

The downside: the market is a nightclub, not a lab. If your bass drops too late, the crowd has already followed the cultivator’s flute.

---

Can the Two Daos Merge?

In the short arc, Binance’s capital alchemy will likely outrun the engineer’s treadmill.

In the long arc, regulators harden, yields compress and users demand proofs, not promises. Infrastructure ages like wine; narratives age like milk.

A healthy Web3 needs both: the fireworks that pull people in, and the sewers that keep the town from flooding.

One ignites the spark; the other lays the pipes.

Which dao is “correct”? The market is the ultimate oracle. Users will vote—with wallets, with code, with feet.

Ascend now, or build forever? History will record the hash of the winning block, but it will be minted on a chain reinforced by both monks and mechanics.

Core Insights

Market Trend: The mobile trading trend from traditional finance has extended into the crypto space. Retail users now seek fast, familiar, and low-friction mobile-native trading experiences. A "hyper-speculative" social culture and creator-driven content cycles are elevating user risk appetite. Mobile apps enhance stickiness by simplifying crypto complexity and integrating features like copy trading, fiat on-ramps, and yield tools.

Technology Driver: Hyperliquid's tech stack (HyperEVM + CoreWriter + Builder Code) significantly lowers development barriers for mobile frontends. It combines the execution efficiency of centralized exchanges with the self-custody, rapid listing capabilities, and fewer geographical restrictions of DEXs.

Application Ecosystem: Mobile apps on Hyperliquid (e.g., BasedApp, Mass.Money, Dexari, Supercexy) now handle a daily trading volume of ~$50,000, accounting for 3-6% of Hyperliquid's perpetual contract volume. They cater to diverse user segments—crypto-native users, Web2 retail investors, and professional traders.

Industry Significance: Crypto mobile trading apps are key to attracting mainstream Web2 users and fresh retail capital. By packaging products in a Web2-friendly manner, they lower entry barriers. They also offer sustainable revenue models with minimal marginal scaling costs, replacing earlier inefficient growth strategies in Web3.

TL;DR

• Retail investing in TradFi has gone mobile (zero-commission + app-based UX), and this trend is spreading to crypto—retail users want quick, familiar, low-friction mobile-native trading.

• Hyperliquid’s tech stack drastically reduces mobile frontend development barriers while delivering CEX-like execution efficiency and DEX advantages (self-custody, rapid listings, fewer geographic/KYC restrictions).

• A native mobile app wave on HL is underway: BasedApp, Mass.Money, Dexari, Supercexy. These apps generate ~$50k in daily trading volume (~$1.5M monthly recurring revenue), representing ~3-6% of HL’s perpetual trading volume, targeting distinct user groups.

• Why now? "Hyper-speculation" + creator content loops have raised retail risk tolerance; mobile apps shorten onboarding, simplify crypto complexity, and add sticky features (copy trading, fiat ramps, card payments, money markets, yield tools).

Core Thesis:

• Crypto mobile trading frontends benefit from strong tailwinds from Web2 mass adoption and retail behavior.

• For crypto markets to scale in size and volume, more crypto-native mobile apps tailored for mainstream Web2 consumers are essential.

• This vertical offers truly sustainable, scalable revenue with extremely low marginal costs, unlike many Web3 business models.

In recent months, there has been a notable rise in mobile trading + DeFi apps targeting retail consumers, most built on Hyperliquid infrastructure. This article delves into this vertical, analyzing leading applications and presenting key viewpoints.

Background

Over the past decade, retail participation in traditional investing has grown substantially. This trend began in 2019 when major US brokers eliminated stock trading commissions to compete with Robinhood, significantly reducing costs for small accounts. The 2020 pandemic accelerated this shift: lockdowns, stimulus checks, and continuously improving mobile experiences brought millions of novices into the market. By 2022, Fed survey data showed notable increases in stock market participation—58% of US households held stocks directly or indirectly, with direct ownership jumping from 15% to 21%, the largest increase on record.

Retail trading continues to constitute a significant portion of daily market activity: now accounting for 20-30% of US equity volume, far above pre-pandemic levels. This phenomenon isn’t confined to the US—it’s evident globally: Indian investment accounts surged from tens of millions pre-pandemic to over 200 million by 2025. Investment channels are also broadening—record ETF inflows in 2024-2025, alongside fractional shares and mobile brokerage services, have provided retail investors with more accessible tools. The combined impact of zero-commission cost shock, mobile app accessibility, and ETF liquidity has driven mass retail entry into public markets, establishing consumer investment apps as a structural force.

Mobile Trading Applications

Since 2021, the mobile trading app vertical within retail trading has continued expanding, fueled by rising mobile device penetration and a new generation of self-directed investors. The global investment app market is projected to reach approximately $254.9 billion by 2033, with a CAGR of 19.1%.

Why are mobile trading apps so popular among retail investors? The reasons can be summarized along two dimensions:

#Social Drivers (Everything Gamified, Gamblified)

Contemporary social culture is dominated by dopamine cycles, gamification mechanics, and hyper-speculative behavior. The creator economy and short-video platforms (e.g., TikTok, YouTube Shorts) have reshaped user behavior, fostering a demand for instant gratification—a need that mobile trading apps perfectly fulfill on multiple levels.

On social platforms like Reddit’s Wall Street Bets, users frequently flaunt massive gains or losses. Daily swings exceeding $100,000 have been normalized, desensitizing retail users to such amounts. Many dissociate their Robinhood balances from real money, treating their portfolios as gaming chips. Amid rising living costs, widening wealth gaps, and negative sentiment toward "rat race" culture, many working-class individuals believe only "hyper-speculation" can achieve the American dream—taking extreme risks for outsized returns.

Mobile trading apps have successfully captured this social cultural dividend. By offering short-term options, leveraged products, instant execution, and gamified interfaces, these apps divert users from casinos to stock markets. With just a phone, users get dopamine hits, gaming excitement, and speculative thrills simultaneously.

#App Characteristics

Mobile trading apps have significantly optimized across multiple dimensions. During onboarding, they compress account opening from days of paperwork to near-instant digital processes. All user flows—from identity verification to trade execution—are integrated into a single interface, allowing comprehensive portfolio management.

On the trading experience front, by eliminating friction points of traditional brokerage models and incorporating new value propositions like fractional shares and recurring investments, these platforms lower both capital and cognitive barriers. Adopting familiar consumer design language from mainstream apps shortens decision paths, while personalized features (e.g., curated watchlists, portfolio performance analytics) sustain user engagement.

Post-investment features like performance breakdowns and automated tax reporting make the experience closer to a full-service financial app rather than a mere trading terminal. Socially, content elements further reduce usage barriers through shareable interfaces, fostering social participation and incentives (e.g., WSB-driven behaviors). These characteristics collectively explain why mobile platforms have become the default investment channel and a enduring driver of retail market participation.

What Does This Mean for the Crypto Industry?

The mobile-first app trend has extended from TradFi/Web2 markets into Web3.

Over the past five years, crypto wallet app usage has surged, indicating demand for mobile-native crypto products. Since trading and yield generation are inherent to crypto, perpetual contracts and DeFi naturally became the first domains to be "mobilized."

With Hyperliquid's rise since late 2024 and its modular high-performance trading infrastructure, numerous mobile perpetual DEX trading and DeFi frontend products have begun building on HL infrastructure and entering the market.

Why Hyperliquid & DEX?

From a developer perspective, HyperEVM infrastructure is highly attractive due to its powerful tooling. CoreWriter and precompiled contracts allow smart contracts on HyperEVM to interact directly with HyperCore perpetual positions, enabling unique use cases and near-instant execution. Builder Code provides a clear incentive layer, allowing developers to earn fee shares when users trade through their frontends. These features not only lower development barriers but also make HyperEVM one of the most developer-aligned platforms, attracting top teams and talent. This is why 99% of crypto mobile trading frontends choose to build on Hyperliquid.

As for why DEX? Traders are generally drawn to the structural advantages of DEXs: broader access by eliminating KYC and jurisdictional restrictions, faster listings and richer token selection, and self-custody of funds. Previously, CEXs attracted retail users because they significantly reduced market participation complexity: offering multiple markets in a single polished web/app, with instant execution, low slippage, high liquidity, and integrated auxiliary functions like wallet management, stable yields, and fiat gateways. However, users bore substantial counterparty risk and relinquished self-custody.

Hyperliquid perfectly blends these elements. This on-chain DEX enjoys the structural benefits of DEX perpetual platforms while offering CEX-level liquidity, execution efficiency, and overall user experience. Thus, it becomes the ideal liquidity backend for building mobile crypto trading apps.

So How Does This Relate to Mobile Wallet Trading?

Thanks to the availability of this modular high-performance architecture, development costs for mobile trading frontends have become extremely low—precisely why numerous related apps are emerging.

Currently, most mobile trading frontends offer similar core features centered on perpetual contract trading, but some are expanding beyond perps to provide additional auxiliary products. Generally, these apps commonly include:

• Fiat On-Ramps: Support for credit/debit cards, bank transfers, Apple Pay, Google Pay, Venmo, etc.

• Investment Strategy Tools: Recurring investment plans, take-profit/stop-loss functions, early access to new tokens.

• Money Market Integration: One-stop access to DeFi lending protocols.

• Yield Generation: Automated compounding vaults.

• Dapp Explorer: Search and connect to emerging decentralized applications.

• Debit/Credit Card Services: Spend directly from self-custodied funds.

These functionalities are possible because Hyperliquid’s infrastructure greatly simplifies development for the core perpetuals product, allowing teams to focus on innovation in other derivative areas. Due to the ecosystem’s modular nature, most HL-based projects can easily pursue parallel development across multiple domains. The rich feature sets of many apps stem mainly from: 1) Low development barriers via Hypercore Builder Code; 2) High willingness of other protocols to integrate.

Beyond this, major apps compete primarily on UX/UI design and social/brand building. Current standout representatives include:

#Basedapp

Currently, Based app is the most watched and rapidly growing mobile trading frontend. Beyond perpetual and spot trading, it innovatively offers debit/credit card solutions directly linked to users’ trading wallets, supporting daily payment scenarios. Its long-term goal is to transform into a emerging digital bank akin to Etherfi.

#Mass.Money

Close behind in the mobile frontend race is Mass.money. Unlike Based app, it focuses more on Web2 retail users, a positioning reflected in its product design: besides standard HL perpetual and spot trading, it integrates Apple Pay on-ramps, social copy-trading, DeFi money market access, and cross-chain EVM spot swaps. Its interface deeply incorporates gamification elements, heavily borrowing Web2 consumer app design language.

However, due to its higher fee structure and broader product mix, its per-user revenue and trading volume significantly exceed Basedapp’s.

#Dexari

Following Mass.money is Dexari. This is a mobile frontend focused on professional traders, purely concentrating on trading functionality. Thus, its main product features include HL perpetual and spot trading, with UX/UI emphasizing asset discovery tools, analytics, and execution efficiency. Their aim is to become the Axiom of mobile trading frontends.

#Supercexy

Last but not least is Supercexy. This platform didn’t opt for a pure mobile frontend approach; it’s also optimizing the web experience for perpetual DEX trading, striving to deliver a CEX-like feel while being fully built on Hyperliquid infrastructure. Its product suite includes DeFi staking and money market access, thus primarily serving Web3-native traders.

Holistic Perspective

Overall Picture

Collectively, all relevant mobile trading frontends (including some unmentioned ones) generate approximately $50,000 in daily combined average revenue, equating to ~$1.5 million in monthly recurring revenue (MRR). These apps constitute about 3%-6% of Hyperliquid’s total perpetual contract volume. For reference, Hyperliquid’s HLP vault share is ~5%.

Conclusion

Core Arguments

Crypto mobile trading frontends benefit from strong Web2 demographic and retail behavior tailwinds

The "hyper-speculation" trend in society has fundamentally altered retail consumer behavior. As evidenced by the growth of Polymarket and Kalshi, most users now adopt high-risk tolerance strategies in the current environment. With speculative demand at historic highs, mobile trading apps emerge as the primary beneficiary product form. As noted, user growth and adoption rates for TradFi mobile apps like Robinhood, Wealthsimple, and TD Ameritrade have significantly increased, largely due to low entry barriers and business models willing to promote short-term, high-leverage, and gamblified products. Clearly, retail users want easy pathways to gain exposure and allocate capital—mobile trading apps are the logical solution.

Crypto mobile trading apps are fundamentally no different; if they effectively build product discoverability, they can similarly benefit from these consumer behaviors. The integration of crypto products into apps like Robinhood, Wealthsimple, and Revolut is testament. Even with extremely high fees, crypto products within these TradFi apps see substantial adoption, indicating strong retail demand for convenient mobile access to crypto markets. Without dedicated crypto mobile trading apps, the Web3 market would cede significant value capture opportunities to Web2 competitors.

For crypto markets to scale in size and volume, more crypto-native mobile apps for mainstream Web2 consumers are needed

Since 2023, the market has essentially seen no net new retail capital inflows. The total stablecoin market cap is only about 25% above its 2021 peak—over a four-year period, this growth rate is dismal for any industry, especially amid the most favorable regulatory environment for stablecoins and strong presidential crypto support.

The market needs solutions to attract fresh retail liquidity, but thus far hasn’t addressed major barriers to new retail capital entry. The primary obstacles are: 1) public perception that participating in crypto requires complex procedures, and 2) a lack of accessible apps that truly understand Web2 user needs. Web2 retail users won’t use complex wallets or transfer funds across multiple chains. They need products packaged in familiar ways, like Robinhood or Wealthsimple accounts offering simple on-ramps and friendly experiences.

Crypto mobile trading frontend apps are the solution—they package products in TradFi-like ways familiar to Web2 users, fundamentally eliminating the cognitive barrier of crypto complexity and lowering participation hurdles. This is the only effective way to expose cryptocurrency beyond the Web3 bubble to mainstream audiences.

A genuinely sustainable, scalable revenue model with extremely low scaling costs compared to Web3 business models

Crypto mobile trading frontends represent the dawn of a new generation of Web3 market applications—a more sustainable and compliant development path. Unlike earlier crypto products (whether infrastructure or DApps), most projects previously didn’t focus on scaling or revenue generation, as these weren’t core incentives. Most founders’ north star was acquiring initial users at any cost, regardless of how inefficient or extractive their growth funnel was, then raising venture capital, conducting OTC locked token sales or waiting for vesting periods to end without product improvement. Typical examples: Story Protocol ($IP), Blast, Sei Network ($SEI).

Crypto mobile trading frontends adopt the opposite strategy: leverage existing infrastructure to optimize scale, achieve revenue generation first, and raise capital if necessary. By aggregating different products and adopting basic fee structures, these frontends have a structural advantage enabling extremely low-cost integration across multiple verticals, while focusing on UX/UI to enhance user acquisition and retention. This combination means generating revenue from day one, with potential exponential growth as operations continue. The result is a more sustainable actual business layer and value layer for Web3, replacing previous extractive models. This will bring growing credibility to the entire Web3 industry.

Inside the DAO things were worse. Extractive delegates such as Gauntlet and Llama bled the treasury; TVL collapsed to US-$ 5 bn and the protocol was bleeding US-$ 35 m a year. Core talent quit under hostile regulatory pressure. Outside, copy-paste forks raised bigger rounds, handed out fatter airdrops, then blew up and left Aave holding the reputational bag.

We refused to surrender. With no funding and no guarantee, we walked away from comfortable jobs and launched the “Make Aave Great Again” campaign. It was a moon-shot, but it was the only shot.

The Chainsaw Arc
Eighteen months later the extractors were gone, verticals had been pruned, and a lean framework of elite service providers was running the DAO. Community delegates finally had a real voice. Initiatives such as Skywards, Dolce Vita and Orbit hard-wired process efficiency; BGD Labs (ex-founders) rewrote the codebase; the protocol turned cash-flow positive and clawed back market share while well-capitalised challengers—some having raised nine-figure war-chests—failed to dent us.

David beat Goliath because hundreds of unknown delegates picked up the axe. Every win was earned, not gifted.

The Comfortable Throne
Today Aave is the undisputed king of on-chain lending. TVL, revenue, market share, origination volume—every metric is at or near record highs. Competitors are stuck in three death spirals:

1. TVL-rental via unsustainable token subsidies.

2. Long-tail collateral stuffed with illiquid, high-beta assets.

3. Loss-leader distribution deals that boost TVL but generate zero income.

Aave’s annual net income now exceeds the combined cash reserves of every rival. We generate real cash; they need the next VC cheque. Our treasury keeps buying back >0.5 % of AAVE supply, and the market finally believes the token is backed by durable cash-flows.

Comfort, however, has never been our resting state.

Optimise, Focus, Accelerate
It is time to stop looking outward and start reorganising inward. The next sprint has five work-streams.

1. L2 Reality Check
The 2021 “deploy everywhere” playbook worked—then. In 2025 the average L2 life-cycle from TGE to TVL graveyard is <12 months. 86.6 % of Aave’s YTD revenue still comes from Mainnet; more than half of our non-Ethereum deployments are economic zombies.

We will propose winding down deployments on chains that cannot show (a) CeDeFi distribution scale (e.g. Kraken Ink) or (b) a unique native edge (e.g. Plasma USDT). Let competitors waste bandwidth on future ghost-chains.

2. Sunset the “Friendly Fork” Experiment
Top-10 Aave V3 forks together hold 3.8 % of our TVL and keep 100 % of their revenue. Spark alone drains >US-$ 600 m liquidity to our rivals and once saved them from liquidation with a nine-figure Ethena position; we still pay millions in incentives to offset the damage.

ACI will push to kill the friendly-fork framework except for two narrow cases:

• Non-EVM or exotic-EVM chains that the DAO will never prioritise.

• Asset classes outside our risk perimeter (e.g. Horizon’s RWA market).
  Any such fork must pay a super-majority revenue share and is forbidden from issuing a new token.

3. Retire the “Instances” Model
V3 Instances were a clever hack for risk isolation, but they fracture liquidity. Liquid eModes now deliver the same isolation with none of the fragmentation. Prime will keep running, yet no new Instances will be commissioned.

4. Align Service-Provider Incentives
We asked providers to perform miracles on ramen budgets—for three straight years. Going forward, compensation should mix cash + AAVE and be tied to measurable KPIs: origination growth, GHO supply, partner integrations, risk-adjusted revenue.

Tokenlogic, ACI, Aave Labs (growth) and Chaos Labs, LlamaRisk, BGD (risk & tech) should all vest AAVE that unlocks only when the DAO hits predefined growth or efficiency targets. We will table a new remuneration framework this quarter.

5. Pivot from Low-Margin Lending to High-Margin Stablecoins
Even with 70 % market share, pure lending is a 5–20 % margin game; 80-95 % of interest flow goes to LPs. At peak origination we net only ~US-$ 130 m a year—never a billion.

GHO flips the model: the protocol is the LP, keeps the spread, and pays only for secondary-market liquidity. Even after subsidising stakers, GHO’s margin is ~4× that of USDC lending.

Year-1 was beta; year-2 shipped the fixes and CeFi integrations. Year-3 will be scale: deeper CeDeFi distribution, credit-line strategies (à la Spark’s USDS playbook), and aggressive liquidity incentives funded by—not at the expense of—lending cash-flows.

We will back GHO for at least one more funding cycle; the upside is simply too large.

Closing Call
Aave won the lending war. The next war is for DeFi’s highest-margin product—stablecoins—and for the wallets, neobanks and exchanges that will distribute them.

With >US-$ 100 m in dry powder, a cash-generating core business, and the best provider network in crypto, the DAO has everything it needs to widen the moat.

Let’s optimise, focus, accelerate—and turn our dominance into a decade-long monopoly.

Bitcoin, a two-trillion-dollar asset class, is quietly morphing from digital bullion into programmable money. Tokenised BTC now tops US $40.18 billion across 20+ chains, according to Zeus Network’s inaugural On-Chain Bitcoin Economy Report. Capital is clustering around three moats: native Bitcoin integration (Stacks), frictionless user onboarding (Base) and high-octane DeFi performance (Solana). Base is leading the pack with a 99.83 % growth rate, followed by Stacks (79.65 %) and Solana (76.56 %).

---

The First Systematic Map of BTC-Fi

Until now, BTC-Fi has been a patchwork of experiments. Zeus Network’s report is the first to treat it as a coherent economy. In 2025 alone, the top four chains (Base, Ethereum, Stacks, Solana) added more than 26 000 BTC; the bottom five lost over 8 000. The takeaway: incumbency beats novelty. Coinbase’s 110 million KYC’d users give Base an acquisition engine no pure-tech fork can match, while Stacks’ tight coupling to Bitcoin’s base layer reassures orthodox holders. Solana’s 76 % surge proves that speed, cheap fees and deep DeFi liquidity are irresistible to yield-starved BTC holders.

---

Solana’s BTC Ecosystem in One Year: 2 Tokens → 8 Tokens → 21 Projects

Between August 2024 and August 2025, Solana’s menu of Bitcoin proxies expanded from WBTC and tBTC to eight variants, served by 21 projects: four DEXs (APOLLO, HawkFi, Jupiter, Meteora), twelve DeFi protocols (btcSOL, Drift, Kamino, Orca, Raydium …), four infra bridges (Portal/Wormhole, Zeus, Threshold) and one DAO (MonkeDAO). The takeaway: Solana is no longer an “alt-chain”; it is a BTC yield layer.

---

APOLLO: The First Native BTC DEX on Solana

Launched March 2025, APOLLO is Zeus Network’s flagship dApp: a permission-less venue to trade, swap and earn on any Bitcoin variant without custodians. All trades settle against zBTC, a 1:1 Solana-native Bitcoin backed by decentralised custody. An August upgrade added “Earn” tabs—lending pools, LP vaults and zBTC staking—turning APOLLO into a one-stop yield shop for BTC, BTCB, tBTC, WBTC and others.

---

btcSOL: Auto-Compounding BTC for SOL Stakers

July saw the release of btcSOL, a re-staking primitive that lets SOL or liquid-staked-SOL (LST-SOL) holders auto-convert staking rewards into zBTC. No bridges, no wrapped BTC, no extra clicks. A 5.5 % slice of Marinade staking yield is silently swapped into zBTC; the user simply watches their Bitcoin balance tick up. Version 1.5 (Sept 9) added jupSOL and kySOL to the accepted collateral list, widening the funnel of Solana natives who can “dollar-cost-average” into BTC while they sleep.

---

Risks on the Road to a BTC-Fi Future

Security exploits, regulatory headwinds and the small matter of convincing 98 % of BTC supply to move on-chain are still towering obstacles. Zeus Network’s roadmap tries to mitigate concentration risk by going multi-chain (Bitcoin, Solana, plus “more TBA”) and by open-sourcing dev libraries that let any community mint transparent, verifiable Bitcoin representations. Progressive decentralisation of governance is promised, but timelines remain vague.

---

Conclusion: When, Not If

Bitcoin’s reinvention as a yield-bearing asset has crossed the event horizon. Institutions already mint branded wrapped BTC; permission-less infra like Zeus lets any DAO, protocol or sub-reddit do the same. The trillion-dollar question is no longer whether BTC will join the on-chain economy, but how fast—and which chains will capture the flow. Solana, armed with APOLLO and btcSOL, has staked an early claim.

Pudgy Penguins dropped a mobile party game called Pudgy Party that feels like it was beamed in from a parallel universe: a Web3 IP that refuses to mention Web3. There’s no wallet connection, no NFT mall, no on-chain tokens, no “connect” button at all. You download, tap “Play,” and within seconds you’re a chubby little penguin racing 19 strangers through obstacle courses that look and feel like Fall Guys on ice. The game broke into the top-10 free chart in several regions within days—on pure IP and gameplay alone.

Why Strip the Crypto?

The de-crypto-ization is deliberate. GameFi is frozen over; Apple and Google still demand a 30 % cut of any NFT commerce, effectively kneecapping on-chain economies. Meanwhile there are 3-billion mobile gamers and maybe 50-million on-chain active wallets. By hiding the blockchain in the basement, Pudgy side-steps platform hostility and walks straight into the mainstream. Think of it as a Trojan iceberg: 90 % of the crypto is underwater, invisible to the player.

What You Actually See

Boot the app and you’re greeted by a big pink “Play” button. Matchmaking takes five seconds. Twenty penguins belly-flop through rotating hammers, collapsing floors, and narrow seesaws. Lose in round one and you still get XP and a cosmetic shard plus a consoling “Better luck next time!” sticker. Win and you unlock new skins—some permanent, some seasonal. The only hint that anything blockchainy might exist is a grayed-out tab labeled “Limited” that currently does nothing. No mint, no transfer, no gas.

The Invisible Chain

Developer Mythical Games admits there is a backend: every account quietly spawns a non-custodial wallet on Mythos Chain (Polkadot parachain). You never see an address, seed phrase, or private key; the chain is simply a silent ledger for future use. PENGU, the project’s ERC-20 token, is “being explored.” Translation: it’s not in the game, can’t be staked, can’t buy you a hat. Everything Web3 is on mute—probably while lawyers negotiate with Apple.

The Timing Is Everything

The game arrived just as “Play-to-Earn” became a punchline and NFT volume is down 90 % YoY. App-store policy hasn’t budged, and venture money for on-chain games is scarcer than Bitcoin at FTX. Pudgy’s move flips the old funnel: instead of squeezing the existing 8 000 NFT holders for more yield, it tries to scoop millions of mobile users first and then—maybe—let a few drip into Web3 later.

IP First, Blockchain Second

This is the larger pivot. Over the last cycle NFT projects behaved like country clubs: buy the pass, then we’ll build the amenities. Pudgy acts like a consumer brand: sell plush toys at Walmart, meme accounts on TikTok, and now a free-to-play game—blockchain optional. The PENGU token starts to look less like a utility coin and more like equity in the brand. Disney stock doesn’t get you a free churro at Disneyland, but the parks still make the shares valuable. The unanswered question is whether PENGU will ever collect metaphorical churro revenue.

Can “Invisible Crypto” Win?

If the model works it offers a blueprint for surviving the bear without sacrificing the bull: ship products normals love, hide the chain in the engine room, and let only the most engaged users ever see a seed phrase. Success is far from guaranteed—Pudgy’s IP muscle is hard to replicate, and the team still owes token holders a coherent value proposition. But in a season when shouting “Web3” clears the room, the loudest statement may be the one that doesn’t mention crypto at all.

Investment Thesis: $HYPE boasts a mature business model similar to traditional exchanges, with stable cash flow. It utilizes free cash flow for token buybacks, enhancing value per share.

Growth Potential: Hyperliquid is poised to capture market share from competitors and expand its ecosystem through mechanisms like Builder Codes and HIP-3, integrating more asset classes (e.g., stocks, Pre-IPO companies).

Market Advantage: $HYPE is difficult for US investors to access directly. The DAT structure provides a compliant entry point, expected to attract significant traditional capital inflows.

Management Strategy: The company will stake $HYPE to generate yield and cautiously participate in low-risk DeFi opportunities. Future fundraising to increase holdings is possible.

Valuation Perspective: Based on free cash flow and growth prospects, $HYPE's current valuation is attractive, with potential for further appreciation as the ecosystem expands.

Bob and David believe $HYPE is not only undervalued but also possesses long-term potential to surpass traditional exchanges.

Summary

Author: GLC Research

Compiled by: TechFlow Deep Tide

In this piece, we delve into an interview hosted by Keisan (@Keisan_Crypto) and Monk (@defi_monk) featuring Hyperliquid Strategies. The guests were Hyperliquid Strategies founders Bob Diamond (@rediamondjr) and David Schamis (@dschamis), whose goal is singular: to maximize the value per share of $HYPE.

The discussion was packed with insights and passion, and we can't wait to share some key takeaways.

If you missed the session, now is the perfect time to pause what you're doing and understand why we are bullish on $HYPE!

It's not just us; savvy investors like Keisan and Monk are also confident in $HYPE. And Bob and David—seasoned professionals with impressive backgrounds in traditional finance—are likewise betting big on $HYPE.

Bob and David are not ordinary investors. They have held significant positions at renowned institutions like Morgan Stanley, Barclays, and Salomon Brothers, bringing decades of traditional finance experience. They have been active observers of the digital asset space and now believe it's time to fully commit.

Here’s a recap of the interview highlights:

Q1 (Monk): Why decide to create a DAT company focused solely on $HYPE?

Throughout their careers in traditional finance, Bob and David focused on financial services businesses—those generating substantial cash flow. They invested in banks, insurance companies, and particularly brokers and exchanges, giving them deep understanding of this business model.

Given this background, they found it irrational to buy tokens lacking product-market fit or revenue foundations. Thus, they watched from the crypto sidelines in recent years without diving in.

This changed when their partners introduced them to the concept of $HYPE. $HYPE represented a familiar exchange business model with solid fundamentals, generating over $1 billion in annual cash flow and using that free cash flow to buy back its own tokens. The opportunity was clear and nearly impossible to ignore.

They quickly formulated an action plan. The initial goal was to raise $300 million, but they soon discovered Paradigm and other major firms were exploring the same idea. Choosing collaboration over competition, they joined forces.

In a very short time, the fundraising reached a staggering $888 million, far exceeding expectations. This reflected both strong interest from traditional finance investors and the immense appeal of $HYPE.

Of this capital, 65% was raised directly in HYPE, and 35% in cash, meaning approximately $300 million has yet to be deployed into HYPE.

Q2 (Monk): How do you gauge the potential demand for Hyperliquid Strategies?

They believe potential demand for Hyperliquid Strategies will be enormous.

Currently, most digital asset treasury companies focus on traditional crypto assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum. $HYPE, however, is different because it's not easily accessible. The Hyperliquid exchange is unavailable to US users, making direct purchase of $HYPE nearly impossible for the average American investor.

Another key factor is that Hyperliquid is the only relatively new project to break into the top echelons of crypto assets, unlike projects that have existed for a decade. This creates a significant opportunity to educate investors about Hyperliquid in the coming months and years.

Furthermore, they emphasized the quality of investors behind Hyperliquid Strategies. The investor base includes respected institutions such as Galaxy Digital, Pantera Capital, D1 Capital, Republic Digital, and 683 Capital.

With nearly $900 million committed at launch, their operational scale already far exceeds that of existing or potential competitors.

Therefore, they are confident in the strength of their investor team and capital scale, believing this will drive Hyperliquid Strategies' success and attract robust market demand.

Q3 (Monk): Has Hyperliquid Strategies started acquiring $HYPE?

The company announced the deal in mid-July and expects to close in Q4. The transaction requires shareholder approval, hence it's structured as "sign-and-close." This structure also allows $HYPE contributors to exchange their holdings tax-free, avoiding taxable gains from low-cost basis positions.

Due to this transaction structure, the company has not yet acquired any $HYPE nor received cash proceeds. Once the deal closes, management plans to deploy most of the cash on the balance sheet into $HYPE, retaining a smaller portion for operational expenses and ongoing needs as a public company.

Q4 (Keisan): What is your management strategy after accumulating $HYPE?

From day one, they plan to stake their $HYPE holdings to earn a yield slightly above 2%. After a few months, they will begin exploring and cautiously evaluating potential DeFi opportunities on Hyperliquid that might offer higher returns.

However, they emphasized that these opportunities must carry little to no additional risk.

They stated that any further engagement with the ecosystem would only make sense if the incremental returns reasonably compensate for the increased risk exposure.

Q5 (Keisan): How do you view $HYPE's valuation metrics?

Firstly, they focus on Free Cash Flow (FCF), although this can be slightly complex due to circulating supply and unlock mechanisms. But even if a large unlock happened tomorrow, they believe $HYPE would still trade at very attractive levels, though they don't expect this to happen.

When they say $HYPE looks "cheap," it's based not only on traditional valuation metrics but also growth potential. Firstly, they believe Hyperliquid still has room to capture market share from competitors in the perps market, enabling organic growth.

Additionally, they mentioned that @hyperunit has already added spot assets and native deposits on Hyperliquid, suggesting growth will also come from Unit and spot trading itself.

Regarding Builder Codes and HIP-3, they believe these areas are just beginning to show potential. They are impressed by the team's execution, noting that with just a few lines of code, other frontends or wallets can integrate perps trading into their applications.

@phantom was cited as a successful example, with the revenue from this integration being impressive. They also mentioned opportunities for HIP-3 in other asset classes that could eventually be traded via perps.

They gave an example: if someone wanted to start a stock trading business in a country, instead of building a new exchange or trading infrastructure from scratch, they could plug into Hyperliquid's core infrastructure—a more efficient approach.

They expressed excitement about the idea of trading pre-IPO companies on a perps market, finding it very appealing. They cited Circle as an example: as shareholders, they would have loved to see price discovery before its IPO, which priced at $31.

In summary, they believe the core business valuation is already very attractive. Adding Builder Codes, HIP-3, and other features that can be built on Hyperliquid—which generate permissionless revenue for the protocol without significant added operational costs (e.g., the Phantom integration didn't require hiring more people; the existing 11-person team handled it)—further enhances value.

Finally, they shared an anecdote: while preparing for a CNBC appearance, a well-known crypto figure told them: "You should go on CNBC and say that Hyperliquid will one day surpass Nasdaq."

While it sounds crazy, to them, it's not impossible.

Q6 (Keisan): How aggressively will Hyperliquid Strategies acquire $HYPE post-launch?

Keisan asked about Hyperliquid Strategies' acquisition strategy post-launch, comparing it to Tom Lee's strategy with Bitmine.

They explained that as long as the company trades at a premium to Net Asset Value (NAV), they will continuously seek to raise additional capital to acquire more $HYPE.

Furthermore, they plan to explore using other financial instruments, focusing on those not readily available to individual investors. The goal is to enhance the NAV premium using specific tools while always ensuring the security of the underlying asset, $HYPE.

Q7 (Keisan): Under what circumstances would you consider selling $HYPE?

David stated he wouldn't rule it out completely, but the only scenario he could imagine would be if the company's share price traded at a significant discount, forcing them to sell $HYPE. He emphasized hoping this never happens, but ultimately, they have a fiduciary duty to Hyperliquid Strategies shareholders.

In his view, the goal of any public company is to increase book value per share for investors, and his preferred method is for the company to trade at a premium, enabling it to issue shares and acquire more $HYPE.

Q8 (Monk): What misconceptions exist about DATs?

Bob stressed that $HYPE is fundamentally different from other DATs. He highlighted the exchange's excellence in cash generation, ongoing buybacks, trading volume, operational efficiency, and rapid market share capture.

In his view, Hyperliquid Strategies is objectively creating a highly valuable DAT because it will provide US equity investors access to $HYPE.

David added that there's still a massive amount of capital that can access the US stock market but not the crypto market. Despite crypto's strong performance over the past decade, its size still pales compared to the stock market. For him, this underscores the necessity of DATs and why they should trade at a premium.

This is especially true for Hyperliquid Strategies, given the difficulty of accessing $HYPE directly.

He concluded by stating that whatever premium MicroStrategy commands, Hyperliquid Strategies should command a higher one.

Q9 (Keisan): Any final thoughts on $HYPE and the broader ecosystem?

David expressed excitement about introducing $HYPE to a global audience on platforms like CNBC and Bloomberg, and also about engaging with the community and the broader Hyperliquid ecosystem.

Responding to a question from @andyhyfi (@HypurrFi), they explained that the current macro and regulatory environment has significantly improved compared to the Biden administration era, when Gary Gensler adopted a highly suppressive and negative stance towards crypto.

In their view, the current situation shows the US taking more steps in the right direction, creating a more favorable environment for innovation and progress. They noted that many influential US figures now publicly praise the crypto industry, and the largest companies are making significant investments in blockchain.

Given this context, it's hard not to be optimistic about the industry's future.

Closing Thoughts (@GLC_Research)

Thank you for reading this far. We thoroughly enjoyed compiling and creating this summary.

Fresh and profound voices are uncommon in the crypto community. Therefore, we particularly value experts from traditional finance (TradFi) joining the discussion and speaking with such passion about a compelling crypto asset like $HYPE.

Ethereum as the Franchisor
Ethereum plays the role of McDonald’s global headquarters: writing the rulebook, maintaining the brand, and supplying the critical infrastructure.

• ✅ Global settlement via Ethereum’s validator set

• ✅ A neutral, trusted settlement layer

• ✅ Standardized tooling: Solidity, EVM, wallets, bridges, RPCs

• ✅ A massive developer ecosystem and cultural trust

The value isn’t just technical. When a rollup plugs into L1, it inherits Ethereum’s “brand license”—a social, institutional, and cryptographic seal of approval that users and builders instinctively trust.

Rollups as Franchise Branches
Operators of rollups are franchisees: they run their own “on-chain storefront,” tailor the environment, and shoulder operational responsibility.

They can:

• ✅ Choose a runtime: EVM, zkVM, WASM, or a custom VM

• ✅ Design fee structures: zero-gas UX, fiat-pegged pricing, rebates

• ✅ Pick governance: DAOs, multisigs, token voting, or social recovery

• ✅ Swap infrastructure: sequencers, DA layers, bridges, proof systems

• ✅ Add features: identity layers, privacy precompiles, AI agents

In short, rollups are application-specific economies that control every aspect of execution while anchoring trust and interoperability to Ethereum.

Just like McDonald’s: the golden arches are everywhere, but the menus flex to local taste. The Rome outlet sports a black-and-gold aesthetic to match ancient architecture; Indian branches serve spicy paneer wraps; in France you can order espresso and macarons.
Likewise:

• ✅ DeFi rollup: zero gas + micro-optimized HFT

• ✅ Gaming rollup: WASM for real-time logic and UX abstraction

• ✅ Social rollup: focused on throughput, on-chain messaging, and identity

These are “McRollups”—standardized by Ethereum, settled to the base layer, interconnected via shared protocols.

Rollups as Products
Operating a rollup is not the same as deploying a smart contract. It’s closer to launching a company—or, more precisely, a full-stack SaaS platform:

• ✅ Uptime & infra: sequencers, DA, proofs, liveness

• ✅ Developer recruitment: SDKs, docs, ecosystem grants

• ✅ User support: wallets, block explorers, fiat on-ramps

• ✅ Economic design: gas tokens, bridge fees, MEV kickbacks, governance

The most successful teams treat a rollup as a vertically integrated business: storefront + backend + distribution + monetization engine, all optimized for the end user.

The Power of Shared Infrastructure
Rollup autonomy is only possible because the Ethereum ecosystem provides shared rails:

• ✅ Standardized bridges → seamless interoperability

• ✅ Shared sequencing layers (Superchain, AggLayer, Espresso) → atomic cross-rollup transactions

• ✅ DA networks (EigenDA, Celestia) → lower costs with Ethereum alignment

• ✅ Unified toolchains → developers never start from scratch

When synchronous composability works, accounts, assets, and identities flow across rollups as effortlessly as if they were on one chain.

Synchronous Composability: Ethereum’s Strategic Imperative
If rollups are franchise outlets, synchronous composability is the logistics, coordination, and communication network that turns isolated branches into one integrated global value chain. Without it, rollups are powerful but fragmented. With it, they become a tightly coupled, interoperable mesh of programmable economies.

What is synchronous composability?
It allows smart contracts on different rollups to interact within a single transaction context—atomically and deterministically. In plain terms:

• ✅ A contract on Rollup A can call a contract on Rollup B and get an immediate result

• ✅ Users enjoy single-chain UX across chains

• ✅ Developers never have to build asynchronous bridges

The result: rollups become modular parts of one system, rather than isolated chains stitched together by bridges.

Without synchronous composability
❌ Rollups become economic islands
❌ Liquidity fragments
❌ Users suffer tedious bridging UX
❌ Developers default to async flows
❌ dApps lose atomic logic

Ethereum’s superpower—seamless composability—would fracture.

With synchronous composability
✅ Instant cross-rollup contract calls
✅ Cross-domain flash loans and DAOs become trivial
✅ Liquidity flows freely
✅ Users never feel they are “crossing chains”
✅ Ethereum feels like a single, multi-flavor chain

Beyond UX, entirely new classes of decentralized applications become possible.

How it works (the plumbing)
See the technical deep-dive: Enabling Cross-Chain Synchronous Messages for the OP Stack

• ✅ Shared coordination networks that deterministically order transactions across rollups (e.g., Superchain, Espresso, Astria)

• ✅ Shared DA layers so every rollup publishes to and consumes from the same source

• ✅ Standardized messaging layers for secure, verifiable, atomic cross-chain calls

• ✅ Settlement on Ethereum, where finality, data validity, and dispute resolution converge

Together these components create a unified execution context across sovereign rollups.

Real-world use cases

• ✅ DeFi arbitrage: borrow on Rollup A → trade on Rollup B → repay, all in one transaction

• ✅ Cross-rollup NFTs: mint on A → play in game on B → sell on C, instantly

• ✅ Multi-rollup DAOs: proposals and executions spanning multiple rollups (treasury + governance logic)

• ✅ Unified front ends: users never know which rollup they’re on

The Risk Without Synchronous Composability: Rollup Flight
As rollups grow in users, capital, and brand power, their incentive to stay aligned with Ethereum weakens unless the ecosystem provides infrastructure that keeps them composable.

The escape trajectory
Without synchronous composability, Ethereum risks losing the rollups it helped bootstrap. Once mature—flush with users, liquidity, and developer mindshare—they become self-sufficient. At some point the logic becomes compelling:

“If we can’t benefit from shared liquidity or execution, why keep paying for Ethereum settlement?”

That’s the off-ramp. One by one, rollups could:

• ✅ Build their own full stacks (sequencer, DA, bridges)

• ✅ Anchor to alternative settlement layers

• ✅ Prioritize vertical integration over shared standards

Each departure erodes Ethereum’s network effects. Without composability, Ethereum ceases to be the connective tissue of Web3 and becomes just another Layer 1, while rollups evolve into sovereign cloud platforms—autonomous, isolated, and increasingly indifferent to Ethereum’s future.

Synchronous composability = Ethereum’s economic moat
To retain rollups, Ethereum must offer irreplaceable synergy:

• ✅ Shared liquidity → deeper markets

• ✅ Shared UX → higher retention

• ✅ Shared infra → faster development

• ✅ Shared state → deeper integration

Like Web2 network effects, the more composable rollups become, the more attractive the whole ecosystem is.

Closing Thoughts
Ethereum rollups are not just Layer 2s. They are franchise economic zones where founders become platform operators and users become citizens of sovereign yet interconnected digital nations. They are:

• ✅ Logically autonomous

• ✅ UX-tailored

• ✅ Tokenized in sequencing and infrastructure

• ✅ Aligned through Ethereum’s finality and values

This isn’t “your app, your chain.” It’s your chain, your market, your economy—running on Ethereum rails.

Welcome to the McRollups era.

Only the ones brave enough to burn cash get the right to print new money. This afternoon, OKX lobbed a bombshell into the market—65.25 million OKB tokens were incinerated in one shot, worth hundreds of millions of dollars at spot prices. Minutes after the announcement, OKB’s chart went vertical, doubling in less than an hour and stealing every headline in an otherwise sleepy market. Veteran traders felt an eerie sense of déjà vu.

Memories raced back four years to the fabled “token-burn war” of 2021, when exchanges competed by buying back and torching their own platform tokens. The playbook was brutally simple: shrink the float, engineer scarcity, and broadcast profitability all at once. Each new burn was another artillery shell in a bloodless but savage arms race—prices rocketed, market-cap rankings shuffled, and latecomers were left in the dust.

Now, as OKB lights another pyre, the same old question echoes: Could 2025 deliver another 10× run like 2021? The rules, the regulators, and the players have all changed, but the question refuses to die.

Rewinding the 2021 Burn War

Let’s roll the tape.

From late 2020 into early 2021, crypto entered an epic bull cycle. Bitcoin smashed through $20 k and kept climbing; Ethereum reclaimed four digits; alt-season followed like clockwork. Speculative capital poured into small-caps, then cycled back into exchanges, fattening their order books and P&L statements.

That profit glut created the perfect setup for platform tokens. Flush with cash, exchanges could buy back and burn tokens at scale, tightening supply and flexing financial muscle all at once. The big names turned destruction into marketing—each burn was a flex, each press release a gauntlet thrown. What started as post-alt-season “catch-up” trades quickly morphed into front-running leadership rallies.

No one wanted to spectate. Frequency, size, and spectacle all escalated in lockstep with the price candles. Some exchanges detonated megaton burns to shock and awe; others marched to a steady drumbeat; a few simply bid the tokens straight off the order book. Four distinct camps emerged—BNB, HT, OKB, and FTT—each pioneering a style that later entrants still copy-paste today.

BNB: The First Megaton Blast

In April 2021 Binance vaporized 1,099,888 BNB—worth $595 million then, a single-transaction record. CZ followed up with an even louder promise: the 100-million-BNB burn target would be hit early, and an automatic burn schedule would make the bonfire permanent. That mix of shock-and-awe plus predictability rocketed BNB from $37 to $690 and stapled it into the global top-three.

HT: The Late-Cycle Rocket

Huobi Token didn’t lead the first wave; it rode the reflux. After alt profits boomeranged into exchange coffers, HT finally ignited. Between January and May 2021 it went from roughly $4 to almost $39—nearly a 10× move.

OKB: Direct Fire on the Tape

OKB cut out the middleman. Instead of announcing a future buyback, it simply bought spot and sent the tokens to the burn address in real time. The tactic punched the chart directly, minimized frontrunning, and created headline-sized wicks. Roughly 30 million OKB were incinerated in 2021, rocketing the price from single digits to $40 and locking in a solid second-tier seat.

FTT: The High-Frequency Barrage

FTX opted for a weekly drumroll—every seven days, trading fees, leveraged-token redemption fees, and funding payments were funneled straight into FTT buy-and-burn. The cadence kept FTT in the news cycle all year, peaking at $85 and trailing only BNB and OKB. But the model was volume-addicted; when flows reversed in 2022, the magazine ran dry and FTT imploded from star to smoking crater.

The 2021 Battlefield Timeline

January–April 2021: near-daily record burns, nine-figure headlines, vertical candles.

July–September: burns continued but shrank; market reaction cooled to “maintenance mode.”

Q4: BTC and ETH stalled, volumes sagged, burn cadence withered, and the hype evaporated.

By year-end the landscape had been redrawn: BNB crowned itself king; OKB cemented second place; FTT became a cautionary tale about leverage and timing. The takeaway was clear—anyone can strike a match, but only the durable survive the blaze.

The 2025 Moonshots

Exchange tokens rarely crawl upward; they staircase-jump. Quiet accumulation, then—bam—a catalyst: a mega-burn, a flagship product, a coveted license, an ecosystem ignition. Price vaults to a new plateau and builds a fresh base.

In 2025, BNB, OKB, and BGB are each staging that exact play.

1. BNB: From Exchange Coupon to Layer-1 Reserve Asset

Price: $250 → $800 (3×+ in two years).

The fuse was Binance Alpha. For months Alpha has been crypto’s biggest traffic funnel: users stake BNB, complete quests, and win IDO allocations that can out-earn a white-collar salary. But Alpha is only the on-ramp. It funnels retail deep into BNB Chain—into PancakeSwap, Lista, Four.meme, Aster—turning passive holders into native DeFi players.

Metrics followed: BNB Chain flipped every competitor in weekly DEX volume; Maxwell upgrade cut block time to 0.75 s; institutions now treat BNB as a treasury asset alongside BTC. The token has graduated from fee-discount voucher to multi-chain reserve currency.

2. OKB: Global Licenses, Web3 Wallet, and the Final Burn

Price: $28 → $110.

Two parallel tracks:

• Global licensing blitz—France, Turkey, Dubai, Singapore, MiCA passport.

• OKX Wallet pivot—from in-app widget to 130-chain super-app with $44.5 B in custodied assets and 500 k new wallets daily.

Then came the last burn. On 13 August 2025, OKX annihilated 65 million OKB—its 29th and final manual burn—and flipped on a smart-contract that will auto-burn every future OKB fee, hard-capping supply at 21 million, Bitcoin-style. Within 25 minutes OKB doubled to $99, peaked at $134, and wrote a new chapter in volatility textbooks.

The burn was paired with the X Layer upgrade: a Polygon-CDK zkEVM L2 running at 5 k TPS, near-zero gas, and—crucially—OKB as sole gas and governance token. The IPO rumors (OKX weighing a U.S. listing post-Trump reopening) only add narrative rocket fuel. If the listing happens, OKB’s legal wrapper must morph from CEX coupon to L2 gas—exactly the transition the burn + X Layer combo telegraphs.

3. BGB: 25× in Two Years via Burn, Launchpad, and Wallet Flywheel

Price: $0.20 → $5.

Bitget copied OKX’s cadence but added its own twists:

• Accelerated burns—monthly now, funded straight from trading-fee income.

• Launchpad + stake-to-mine—lock BGB, get oversubscribed pre-list allocations plus DeFi yields.

• Bitget Wallet integration—on-chain swaps, bridges, and DeFi quests all route through BGB points, turning the token into both reward and payment inside and outside the exchange.

Quarter after quarter the flywheel spins: more burns → scarcer float → higher Launchpad demand → more wallet usage → more burns. The chart shows a staircase, not a spike, and that steady grind is exactly why BGB is outperforming peers while keeping volatility in check.

The Armistice That Never Comes

2021’s burn war minted new kings with real fire. Four years on, the weapons are sharper and the battlefield wider—licenses, L2s, wallets, IPOs. Platform tokens are no longer mere fee coupons; they’re tri-domain assets slugging it out on regulatory, on-chain, and capital-market fronts.

BNB, OKB, and BGB are the living case studies of this evolution. Whether 2025 marks the start of another arms race is unknowable. What is certain: in this arena there is no permanent cease-fire. The exchange that can burn brightest, endure longest, and sprint fastest will leave the others choking on its ashes.

On July 30, 2025—Ethereum’s 10th birthday—the community received more than nostalgic tweets. After a decade of experiments, the network’s scaling vision has a clear new direction.

Yes, ETH’s recent price surge helps morale, but the real excitement is technical: after years of relying on Layer-2 work-arounds, Ethereum’s Layer-1 finally has a credible path to extreme throughput without sacrificing decentralization.

In short, the gas limit and TPS will rise several-fold every year. Validators will stop re-executing every transaction and instead verify a single ZK-proof that attests the entire batch is correct. The base layer is on track for 10,000 TPS.

Layer-2s will scale in tandem, handling hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of TPS. A new flavor of L2 called “native rollups” will act like programmable shards, inheriting the full security of Layer-1.

None of these proposals are final, but they build on ideas Vitalik Buterin first sketched in 2017 and are now championed by Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake. Speaking at EthCC in July, Drake said:

“We’re at an inflection point for Ethereum scaling. I’m convinced we’re entering the L1 gigagas era—roughly 10,000 TPS. The key unlock is zkEVMs and real-time proving.”

Drake’s endgame: 10 million TPS for the entire Ethereum ecosystem within ten years. No single chain can hit that alone. The future is a “network of networks”—a constellation of Layer-2s, each optimized for different use-cases, trade-offs, and user needs.

01. Why Has Ethereum Layer-1 Struggled to Scale?
While other blockchains crank throughput by throwing bigger servers at the problem, Ethereum has clung—some say stubbornly—to decentralization.

To ETH maxis, “datacenter chains” like Solana present million-dollar attack surfaces: one subpoena, one raid, and censorship becomes trivial. Even lower-spec chains such as Sui impose bandwidth and hardware costs that price out home stakers.

Ethereum, by contrast, can run on a Raspberry Pi. That low bar keeps 15,000–16,000 public nodes and a million validators in the game. Censoring transactions is nearly impossible, and the network remains resilient. (After 50–70 % of validators complied with OFAC sanctions on Tornado Cash, the “little guys” kept processing those transactions anyway.)

The trade-off is speed: Ethereum currently processes 18–20 TPS; Solana does ~1,500.

Blockchains are intentionally inefficient—think of a Google Sheet that forces every copy-holder to recalculate the entire workbook before you can edit a single cell. This design keeps the barrier to entry low but caps raw throughput. As Succinct Labs co-founder Uma Roy puts it:

“Ethereum wants anyone to be able to re-execute the chain. That overhead prevents us from cranking the TPS dial indefinitely.”

Unable to scale L1 without compromising decentralization, Ethereum pivoted to the (often-criticized) Layer-2 roadmap in 2020.

02. How ZK Breaks the Blockchain “Impossible Triangle”
Vitalik coined the term “blockchain trilemma” to describe the tension between security, scalability, and decentralization. Most scaling solutions pick two and sacrifice the third—until now.

Zero-knowledge proofs, the “moon math” Drake references, make it possible to prove that a bundle of complex transactions was executed correctly—without revealing the transactions themselves.

Generating the proof is computationally heavy, but verifying it is lightning-fast and lightweight.

So instead of asking a swarm of Raspberry Pis to replay every opcode, the network only needs to check a tiny ZK-proof. Roy summarizes:

“Don’t re-execute—just hand validators a proof that the work was done right. Anyone can verify the proof without redoing the computation.”

Drake jokes that even a $7 Raspberry Pi Pico—one-tenth the power of its bigger sibling—will suffice to validate proofs.

03. The zkEVM: A Roadmap to 10,000 TPS
Ethereum Foundation researcher Sophia Gold recently set the community abuzz: a ZK-powered Ethereum Virtual Machine (zkEVM) could land on Layer-1 within a year.

Much of the practical groundwork has come from Layer-2 pioneers. Linea—spun out of ConsenSys, co-founded by Joe Lubin—is a 100 % EVM-equivalent ZK-rollup. Any dApp that runs on Ethereum runs unchanged on Linea, which sees itself as an extension of the mainnet. Linea even burns 20 % of its ETH fees to funnel value back to L1.

Declan Fox, head of Linea, explains the trilemma fix:

“ZK lets us raise the L1 gas limit by orders of magnitude. Computation scales while verification stays trivial—eventually on a smartwatch.”

But temper expectations: even if zkEVM ships within a year, 10,000 TPS won’t appear overnight.

04. Slow, Steady—Then All at Once
Ethereum runs on five major client implementations. If one crashes, the network keeps ticking (unlike certain monolithic chains).

The upgrade path looks like this:

1. Two or three clients release ZK-ready versions.

2. A small cohort of validators opts in, checking proofs instead of re-executing blocks.

3. Bugs get squashed, confidence grows, and more validators migrate.

Ladislaus from the Foundation’s protocol-coordination team calls it “a gradual transition to a snarkified EVM.” Users will first notice higher gas limits and cheaper L1 activity.

Last week the gas limit already bumped 22 % to 45 million. Dankrad Feist has floated an EIP that would auto-raise the limit three times a year; four years of that cadence yields ~2,000 TPS. Drake pushes the timeline two extra years to reach 1 gigagas—roughly 10,000 TPS—by 2031.

What Comes Next
Real-time proving—generating a proof for every 12-second block—remains the next big milestone. Succinct’s SP1 HyperCube zkVM already proves 93 % of mainnet blocks in real time on a 200-GPU cluster, and the team expects 99 % coverage by year-end. Hardware targets for provers sit under $100 k and 10 kW—garage-scale rigs, not datacenters.

Meanwhile, the Beam Chain upgrade will overhaul Ethereum’s consensus layer to be “ZK-friendly from day one,” Drake says. If native rollups follow, validators won’t just verify the L1—they’ll also certify Layer-2 state transitions, making a rollup as safe as Ethereum itself.

The Merge rewrote Ethereum’s consensus engine. Snarkifying the EVM could be just as transformative—and the gears are already turning.

On April 26, 1956, the Ideal X, a repurposed oil tanker, departed Newark Harbor carrying neither gold, oil, nor dignitaries—just 58 standardized, sealed metal boxes. This unremarkable moment marked humanity’s first glimpse of the shipping container’s revolutionary potential.

There were no cheering crowds or media fanfare. Yet historians later recognized this day as pivotal, rivaling the advent of steam engines or the internet. The container wasn’t a commodity itself, but it redefined how goods moved globally. It didn’t shrink oceans but rewired supply chains.

Decades later, another standard is emerging in the digital realm. Like the container, it doesn’t seek to reinvent money but to unify its flow across borders. Whether it will achieve the container’s legacy remains uncertain, but it shares the traits of all transformative innovations: misunderstood, resisted, underestimated—yet quietly reshaping our world.

Chaos Before the Container

In the 1950s, global shipping was a logistical nightmare.

Ports, companies, and nations used incompatible boxes, dock designs, and loading rules. Every shipment demanded multilingual negotiations, rife with delays, errors, and exorbitant costs. Loading a ship required hundreds of dockworkers laboring for days, manually hauling crates and sacks. Unloading risked lost, damaged, or stolen goods. Each port transfer meant repacking, with cargo loss rates exceeding 8%.

The Ideal X’s 58 containers sparked an efficiency revolution. UNCTAD data shows loading costs plummeted from $5.86 to $0.16 per ton—a 97% drop. Shipping times collapsed from weeks to days; port turnaround accelerated from 72 hours to under 8.

Employment transformed: New York Harbor’s labor demand fell 91% from 1.4 million worker-days (1963) to 127,000 (1975). People yielded to standards as the new orchestrators of trade.

The Ripple Effects of Standardization

By the 1970s, ISO’s adoption of 20- and 40-foot containers as global standards forced ports, trucks, and ships to redesign around them. Competition shifted from brute labor to efficiency and network scale.

Research by Bernhofen et al. estimated that containerization boosted trade between adopting nations by 790%, dwarfing the 45% growth from free-trade agreements. China’s export boom, Southeast Asia’s manufacturing rise, and Walmart’s supply chain empire all trace back to that unassuming metal box.

A nation could lack ports but couldn’t ignore containers; a factory might forgo branding but not container logistics. In two decades, this standard rewired global production and distribution.

Stablecoins: The Digital Age’s Containers

Stablecoins were initially dismissed as "technologically trivial."

To crypto purists, they lacked innovation; to Bitcoin maximalists, they were insufficiently decentralized; to regulators, they were gray-area disruptors. Yet their role—embedding monetary stability into a programmable, consensus-driven standard—has proven transformative.

If Bitcoin decentralized monetary authority, stablecoins standardized transactional efficiency. Unlike CBDCs, they avoid macroeconomic agendas; unlike DeFi, they don’t chase yield frontiers. Their singular focus: making stable value flow like code.

The impact? By 2025, stablecoins facilitate over $27 trillion in on-chain transactions—rivaling global card payments. Tether (USDT) alone commands a $155B market cap, dominating 60% of the space.

Their power lies not in price stability but in liquidity interoperability. A Ugandan fruit exporter receives payments in minutes, not days. Cross-border fees average $0.01 versus SWIFT’s 6.6% and 3–7-day delays (McKinsey/Chainalysis).

Financial Inclusion’s Silent Engine

Over 1.7 billion unbanked adults now access dollar-denominated accounts via smartphone wallets and stablecoins—no KYC or credit scores required. In Nigeria, Venezuela, and Argentina, stablecoins act as inflation hedges and de facto currencies. During Ukraine’s war, they became digital lifelines, enabling aid via Telegram bots, bypassing banks and governments.

From remittances and payroll to DeFi settlements and AI-agent economies, stablecoins are becoming the "digital containers" of finance—not the headline revolution, but the infrastructure enabling it.

Why Standards Outshine Technology

True disruption is often silent. Standards, not flashy tech, reshape systems because they are systems.

Containers weren’t high-tech; they were universal. Similarly, stablecoins aren’t about protocol supremacy but adoption as a shared liquidity layer. They allow distrusting parties to transact without negotiation—just as containers let rival nations trade seamlessly.

Today, 90% of global trade still relies on standardized containers. Stablecoins are on a parallel path:

• Hong Kong’s Stablecoin Ordinance and U.S. regulatory pushes signal legitimacy.

• Visa, Mastercard, and Stripe now integrate stablecoins.

• Africa’s Chipper Cash and Latin America’s Bitso run on stablecoin rails.

From crypto to payments to protocol layers, stablecoins are evolving into the "TCP/IP of value."

The Future: A World Built on Programmable Money

We’re in stablecoins’ 1956 moment.

They’re not yet mainstream, but the scaffolding is rising. They won’t replace banks but will make banking functions open-source options. They won’t redefine money but will redraw the boundaries of settlement and financial access.

The next global clearing network may weave together algorithms, smart contracts, and consensus mechanisms—with stablecoins as its atomic units. Like containers, they’ll operate invisibly, yet move the world.

What changes history isn’t the spark, but the standard that fans it into flame.

(Note: "Pork rice meal" and other culture-specific metaphors were adapted to Western analogies like "beer money" for readability while retaining intent.)

Key Pillars

• Clear-cut definitions and jurisdictional lines between the SEC and CFTC.

• CFTC will oversee exchanges, brokers, dealers, and projects that satisfy the new “Mature Blockchain” standard.

• SEC retains authority over assets with investment-contract characteristics.

What the Bill Actually Does

1. Codifies “Digital Commodity.” Assets such as BTC and ETH—fully decentralized and running on open blockchains—are classified as commodities under CFTC oversight.

2. Creates a “Mature Blockchain” pathway. Once a project meets decentralization, governance-minimization, and open-source thresholds, its token can migrate from “security” to “commodity,” exiting SEC jurisdiction.

3. DeFi safe-harbor. Protocols that neither custody assets nor act as intermediaries are exempt from registration; front-end builders and node operators are explicitly shielded from broker-dealer liability.

4. Enhanced disclosures & insider-trading bans. Digital-commodity exchanges, OTC desks, and market-makers must register with the CFTC, meet capital and risk-management standards, and segregate customer funds.

5. Green light for TradFi participation. Banks and broker-dealers gain statutory authority to custody and trade crypto assets, accelerating institutional adoption.

II. Market-Wide Impact

1. Regulatory Clarity → Confidence Boost
CLARITY ends the “regulation-by-enforcement” era. Projects and exchanges now operate within bright-line rules, lowering fraud risk and luring institutional capital. Mandatory disclosures and insider-trading restrictions further protect retail users.

2. The Great “De-SEC-ing”
For years the SEC treated most tokens as securities, ensnaring assets like XRP, SOL, ADA, and UNI in legal limbo. CLARITY structurally reallocates jurisdiction, allowing truly decentralized assets to bypass SEC oversight entirely.

3. Traditional Exchanges Enter the Chat
NASDAQ, NYSE, and other national exchanges may apply for “Digital Commodity Exchange” licenses, enabling seamless trading of both equities and crypto under one roof. Lower onboarding friction and a familiar user interface unlock mainstream capital inflows.

III. DeFi-Specific Implications

1. Developer & Protocol Safe-Harbor

• No custody = no intermediary. Smart-contract authors, node runners, and front-end hosts are not deemed financial-service providers.

• Publishing code ≠ issuing securities. Releasing a non-custodial wallet or contract is treated as a technology release, not a securities offering.

2. Statutory Right to Self-Custody
Section 105 enshrines Americans’ right to hold and transact digital assets via non-custodial wallets without third-party gatekeepers.

• Hardware & software wallets are protected.

• P2P transactions are explicitly legal.

• “Not your keys, not your coins” becomes federal law.

3. Representative DeFi Projects at a Glance

Token-Level Caveat
Protocol code may be exempt, but governance or fee-sharing tokens can still be securities if returns depend on managerial efforts. Teams must continue decentralizing control and transparentifying governance to harden their legal defenses.

IV. Road Ahead

As of 23 July 2025, CLARITY has cleared the House and awaits Senate markup. The biggest open question is whether the Senate will retain the House version’s DeFi exemptions and token-classification mechanics.

If enacted:

• Two-pillar regime: CLARITY (asset taxonomy & market structure) + the already-signed GENIUS Act (stablecoin safe-harbor) form a full compliance loop—exempt first, transition next, classify finally.

• Global leadership: The U.S. would cement its role in setting global digital-asset standards, attracting builders and capital while balancing innovation with consumer protection.

• Smart Followers — how many high-quality KOLs/devs follow you. One retweet from them beats 100 likes from randos.

• Mindshare — the mind-space share your topic owns in the community. Early, accurate, deep = higher weight.

• Point Rules — posting is just the foot in the door; deep engagement from Smart Followers (quotes, long replies, like-chains) is the multiplier.

2⃣ 0 → 5 000 Followers in Three Tiers

3⃣ Case Study: Low-Follower Account Hitting the Charts
@Alvin0617 grew Smart Followers by 80 % in six months:

• Precision replies: only engages mid-tier KOLs (3k–15k followers), ignores mega accounts.

• Early calls: wrote the first long thread on Huma last August; when it blew up, his Mindshare spiked to 15 %.

• Data proof: every tweet carries an on-chain screenshot or dashboard—zero AI word-salad.

4⃣ Picking Projects: One Heat-Map

Track ≤ 3 projects at once—more than that and focus frays.

5⃣ One High-Impact Tweet S.O.P.
1⃣ Hook (≤ 20 chars): shock data / hot take, e.g. “X-chain gas down 42 % in 7 days.”
2⃣ Body (2–3 short paras): why + on-chain screenshot.
3⃣ Call to reply: end with an open question to lure long-form replies.
4⃣ Timing: 12:00 or 20:00 HKT = max real-time traffic.

6⃣ Mindset Patch

• Don’t be PUA’d by gain-porn: top KOLs built moats over years—just beat yesterday’s you.

• Skip AI copy-pasta: algorithms already down-rank duplicates; originality wins.

• Play the long game: InfoFi is a marathon, not a lottery.

One-Sentence Recap
Nail the topic → attract Smart Followers → deepen engagement → loop.
Stick to it for 30 days and you’ll see your own name on the leaderboard.

But why is Circle—the issuer of USDC—supporting Codex so early? The answer lies in the fundamental limitations of existing blockchain systems when it comes to stablecoin usability.

The Problem: Why Stablecoins Aren’t Truly "Stable" in Practice

Stablecoins promise uniformity: 1 USDC should always equal 1 USD, regardless of where it’s held or how it’s transferred. However, in reality:

• 1 USDC ≠ 1 USD in an Indonesian bank account (due to exchange rate spreads and fees).

• 1 USDC ≠ the correct amount of IDRT (Indonesian Rupiah stablecoin) (due to liquidity mismatches).

• 1 USDC ≠ the "right" amount of local fiat upon withdrawal (due to compliance delays and intermediary costs).

Key Pain Points:

1. Fragmented Compliance & Custody – Different on/off-ramp providers have varying risk profiles, leading to inconsistent user experiences.

2. High Friction in Cross-Border Transfers – Transactions can get stuck, fail, or incur high fees when converting to local currencies.

3. Slow Settlement – Without compatible banking channels, stablecoin redemptions move at SWIFT speeds, defeating the purpose of blockchain efficiency.

Codex’s Solution: A New Infrastructure for Stablecoins

Codex tackles these issues by building a blockchain designed specifically for stablecoin transactions, integrating compliance, liquidity, and settlement into a seamless system. Its core innovations include:

1. T+0 Wholesale FX (Private Beta)

• Instant USD ↔ Stablecoin swaps at near 1:1 rates, even for large transactions.

• Global FX coverage – Supports fiat-to-stablecoin conversions in dozens of countries at low cost.

2. Atomic Off-Ramps (Q4 2025)

• Compliance checks happen on-chain before transactions execute, preventing frozen funds.

• Failed transactions are rolled back, ensuring users don’t lose assets due to compliance issues.

3. Risk-Free Fiat Settlement (Q4 2025)

• Uses a validator network to ensure reliable payouts in emerging markets.

• Penalizes bad actors via slashing mechanisms, reducing fraud and failed settlements.

Why Circle Supports Codex

Circle’s early backing suggests Codex is addressing critical gaps in stablecoin adoption:

• Eliminating redundant compliance work – Instead of each issuer securing licenses and banking partners, Codex provides a unified infrastructure.

• Solving the "last-mile problem" – Even giants like Walmart and Amazon would struggle with stablecoin issuance due to regulatory complexity. Codex streamlines this process.

The Future of Stablecoins?

If successful, Codex could reshape global payments by making stablecoins as seamless as traditional banking—but faster, cheaper, and more transparent. With its institutional-grade FX, atomic compliance, and risk-mitigated settlements, Codex is positioning itself as the go-to blockchain for enterprise stablecoin adoption.

Final Thought:
Stablecoins aren’t just for crypto traders anymore. With solutions like Codex, they could soon become the default rails for global business transactions.

Dubbed the "largest in history" by multiple cybersecurity researchers, this breach involves a colossal database circulating on the dark web, containing login credentials from nearly all major platforms we use daily—Apple, Google, Facebook, GitHub, and more.

This is no ordinary data leak. It’s a globally weaponized blueprint for cyberattacks. For every digital citizen, especially those holding crypto assets, this is an imminent security storm. Below is your ultimate security checklist. Act now to fortify your defenses.

1. More Than Just Passwords: The Lethal Risks of This Breach

To grasp the urgency of defense, understand the severity of the threat. This leak is uniquely dangerous due to the unprecedented level of sensitive data exposed:

• Credential Stuffing Attacks: Hackers are using leaked "email + password" combinations to automate login attempts on major crypto exchanges. If you reuse or slightly modify passwords across platforms, your exchange account could be compromised without your knowledge.

• Email as a Master Key: If attackers gain control of your primary email (e.g., Gmail) via leaked credentials, they can exploit "forgot password" features to reset access to all linked financial and social accounts—rendering SMS or email verification useless.

• Password Managers’ Achilles’ Heel: If your password manager’s master password is weak or lacks two-factor authentication (2FA), attackers could gain access to every stored credential, including seed phrases, private keys, and API keys.

• Hyper-Targeted Phishing: Scammers can leverage leaked personal data (names, emails, frequently used sites) to impersonate exchange support teams, DAO admins, or even trusted contacts, crafting highly customized, hard-to-detect phishing scams.

2. Action Plan: A Multi-Layered Defense from Accounts to On-Chain

Facing industrial-scale threats requires a comprehensive defense strategy.

Account Layer: Reinforce Your Digital Gates

• Password Overhaul:
  This is the most critical and urgent step. Immediately replace passwords for all key accounts (especially exchanges and email) with unique, complex combinations of uppercase/lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols.

• 2FA Upgrade:
  Two-factor authentication (2FA) is your account’s "second lock," but not all methods are equal. Disable SMS-based 2FA immediately—it’s vulnerable to SIM-swapping. Switch to authenticator apps like Google Authenticator. For high-value accounts, use hardware security keys, the gold standard for consumer-grade protection.

On-Chain Layer: Eliminate Wallet Backdoors

Wallet security goes beyond private keys. Your interactions with decentralized apps (DApps) can leave hidden risks.

• Use tools like DeBank or Revoke.cash to audit your wallet’s token approvals (Approve). Revoke unlimited permissions for unused, untrusted, or overly permissive DApps to close potential backdoors for hackers.

3. Mindset Defense: Adopt a "Zero Trust" Philosophy

Beyond technical measures, habits and vigilance form your final barrier.

• Zero Trust Principle: In today’s hostile environment, treat every request for signatures, private keys, approvals, or wallet connections with extreme skepticism—even if it appears to come from a trusted contact (their account may be compromised).

• Stick to Official Channels: Always access exchange or wallet sites via bookmarks or manually typed URLs. This is the most effective way to avoid phishing traps.

Security isn’t a one-time task but a discipline. In a perilous digital world, prudence is the only—and ultimate—way to safeguard your wealth.

Mind Network is a privacy-preserving computation network built on Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) technology, dedicated to providing secure data processing services for various applications. Through innovative cryptographic protocols, the project enables efficient utilization of data while it remains encrypted, ensuring user privacy. Its native token is primarily used for paying network service fees, participating in governance decisions, and incentivizing ecosystem contributors.

The network places special emphasis on secure computation needs in AI and blockchain sectors. By collaborating with technical partners, it continues to enhance its infrastructure, offering developers reliable privacy-preserving tools. The project has already gained industry recognition and is now tradable on multiple major exchanges.

Mind Network (FHE) Team Overview

• Christian Pusateri, Co-founder and CEO of Mind Labs, previously served as Sales Lead at BurstIQ. With extensive market experience and leadership skills, he drives the company's innovative growth.

• George S., Co-founder and CTO of Mind Network, is a former technical lead at Alibaba Cloud and Barclays. Holding a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Nottingham, he brings profound technical expertise and leads the team’s innovation efforts.

• Mason, Co-founder of Mind Network, contributes core strength to the team with his innovative thinking and sharp market insight, ensuring the company’s steady progress.

• Dennis Song, Chief Security Officer at Mind Labs, is a former Security Engineer at Microsoft Corporation. A graduate of Fudan University and Shanghai Jiao Tong University, he safeguards the company’s information security with solid professional knowledge.

Market Performance of Mind Network (FHE)

✅ Circulation & Trading
The native token of Mind Network currently has a circulating supply of approximately 24.9% of its total supply and is listed on multiple leading digital asset exchanges. As a project focused on privacy-preserving computation, its token price fluctuations correlate with technological advancements and ecosystem development, reflecting the characteristics of a tech-driven asset. Liquidity continues to improve as network adoption grows.

✅ Development & Adoption
The project has secured backing from top-tier investment firms, with funds primarily allocated to advancing FHE R&D and real-world applications. Currently, the network serves scenarios such as AI data processing and cross-chain interactions, with adoption rates showing steady growth. Community engagement remains high, evident in governance voting and network staking activities, signaling long-term confidence in its technological roadmap. The team is continuously refining core protocols to strengthen its competitive edge in privacy protection.

Future Prospects of Mind Network (FHE)
Moving forward, Mind Network (FHE) will focus on commercializing FHE technology by improving computational efficiency and reducing barriers to entry, enabling large-scale adoption in finance, healthcare, and AI. The project plans to enhance cross-chain interoperability, deepen integration with major blockchains, and build a developer-friendly privacy computation toolkit to attract more ecosystem applications.

As Web3’s demand for data privacy grows, Mind Network is poised to become a key player in privacy-preserving infrastructure, driving the widespread adoption and innovation of secure computation technologies.

This conflict ended the close cooperation that had seen Musk push for a "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) to streamline budgets in Trump's second term and raised concerns about the future of Musk's Tesla and SpaceX. After the conflict erupted, Tesla's market value suffered its largest single-day drop in history, although the stock price has since recovered gradually.

"I regret some of my posts about President Trump (@realDonaldTrump) last week. They were too harsh," Musk wrote on the social media platform X.

The spark of the conflict was Musk's opposition to Trump's support for the "Beautiful America Act," a tax and spending plan. In an interview, Musk claimed the plan "undermined" the work of DOGE and further criticized it on social media for potentially increasing the US budget deficit significantly. The Trump administration refuted this.

By last Saturday, Musk appeared to have deleted some of the posts that exacerbated the conflict with the White House, including one accusing Trump of having "files" on the late sex offender Epstein. The White House had previously denied this. Another post in which Musk responded "agree" to a user's call to "impeach Trump and let Vice President Vance take over" also disappeared.

In this dispute, which played out simultaneously on Musk's X platform and Trump's Truth Social, Trump had also hinted at terminating government contracts and subsidies awarded to Musk's companies. However, on Monday, Trump said he planned to keep Starlink technology, a satellite internet service under Musk's SpaceX, in the White House.

Analysts believe that Musk's apology is unlikely to heal the rift. Trump, who is known for holding grudges, said "best of luck to him" but made it clear that he would not rekindle the relationship. The golden period of their relationship was in the first few months of Trump's second term when Musk-led DOGE tried to cut $1 trillion in federal spending but only achieved a $180 billion target.

Wedbush technology analyst Dan Ives believes that "though the relationship between Musk and Trump is unlikely to be fully repaired, it may improve in the coming months." After all, "Trump needs Musk to maintain relations with the Republican Party, and Musk needs Trump even more" — especially for key policies like the federal framework for autonomous driving.

This conflict has revealed the fragility of the relationship between Silicon Valley and the White House. In the five months since Trump took office, he has pressured all the tech CEOs who attended his inauguration through lawsuits or public statements — including Zuckerberg of Meta, Cook of Apple, Bezos of Amazon, and Pichai of Google. Microsoft, though a rare winner (approved to acquire Activision Blizzard for $69 billion), is still under FTC scrutiny for its relationship with OpenAI.

Anat Alon-Beck, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, pointed out that "tech giants have no choice but to accept the conditions set by the current administration." Although Trump has continued many of the antitrust investigations from the Biden era, his move to repeal the AI safety executive order and ease the regulatory environment has still provided some breathing room for the industry.