* Atlas Upgrade Achieves Technical Breakthrough: ZKsync's Atlas upgrade enables real-time liquidity between L1 and L2, supporting over 15,000 TPS, 1-second finality, and near-zero fees. It also fosters L2 interoperability via the "ZK Gateway," potentially unifying the Ethereum L2 ecosystem.

* ZKsync's Activity Remains Relatively Low: Despite a 26% increase in active addresses over 30 days following positive news, its Daily Active Users are only 10.4k. Its mainnet Total Value Locked is $44.55 million, indicating a weak overall ecosystem, resembling a technology provider more than a vibrant public chain.

* Ethereum L2 Transaction Volume Hits Record High: Total L2 transactions exceeded 530 million in October, a historical peak, with Base chain accounting for 64.2%. However, monthly active users fell 61.4% from their peak, and the sector's Fully Diluted Valuation has shrunk nearly 90% from its high.

* L2 Fee Revenue Rebounds but Lags Peak: L2 fee revenue in October was approximately $160 million, the highest since February this year, but only 28.1% of the historical peak. Base, Arbitrum, and OP Mainnet contributed over 98% of this revenue.

* Future Outlook: The Ethereum Fusaka upgrade, scheduled for December 3rd, is expected to further reduce L2 costs and increase throughput. However, the long-term development of the L2 ecosystem still depends on project delivery, ecosystem promise fulfillment, and optimization of fund structures.

Summary

Expand

Author: Nancy & Frank, PANews

Last weekend, a tweet from Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin triggered a sharp price increase for the established L2 ZKsync and revived heat in the Layer2 ecosystem. Meanwhile, transaction activity within the Ethereum L2 ecosystem continues to climb steadily, driven by ongoing efforts from leading projects.

Vitalik Endorses ZKsync; Activity Rises but Overall Levels Remain Low

Amid a general market downturn, a tweet from Vitalik Buterin sparked a sector-wide rally led by ZKsync, making it one of the few bright spots against the trend.

On November 1st, ZKsync co-founder Alex posted an article titled "Ethereum is now the main capital hub of ZKsync" on a social platform. Subsequently, Vitalik shared the article, commenting that ZKsync has done much underestimated yet valuable work for the Ethereum ecosystem and expressed anticipation for its upcoming new features.

As a result, according to Coingecko data, the price of ZKsync's token ZK surged by up to 150.34%, hitting a six-month high. Other Layer2 sector tokens like MINA, SCR, and STRK also saw significant gains.

[Image: ZK price chart surge]

ZKsync's surge wasn't solely due to Vitalik's attention—he has interacted with ZKsync multiple times before—but was more critically driven by the Atlas upgrade.

According to Alex, the Atlas upgrade establishes Ethereum as its capital hub, allowing chains based on ZKsync to directly tap into Ethereum's liquidity without relying on independent capital pools, fundamentally reshaping the capital structure between L1 and L2. This upgrade not only enables real-time liquidity movement between L1 and L2 but also brings core performance enhancements like 15,000+ TPS, 1-second ZK finality, and near-zero transaction fees, positioning Ethereum to serve as an institutional-grade real-time settlement layer.

In terms of practical impact, the most significant part of the Atlas upgrade lies not just in the performance boost exceeding 15,000 TPS, but more crucially in addressing the liquidity silos between various L2s. The "ZK Gateway" middleware component facilitates communication between ZK chains, enabling L2-to-L2 transactions to complete in approximately one second. If this technology achieves its intended development goals, it could genuinely integrate Ethereum's L2s into a cohesive whole, which is extremely important for the Ethereum ecosystem.

Furthermore, the performance improvements open up more possibilities for institutions in areas like RWA. ZKsync has been advancing institutional business and even ranks as the third-largest public chain for RWA assets. Not long ago, ZKsync also launched Prividium, an institutional private blockchain infrastructure designed to provide enterprise-grade privacy, built-in compliance, and seamless connectivity with Ethereum. Officially disclosed participants since its launch include over 30 traditional institutions like Citibank, Deutsche Bank, and Mastercard.

Moreover, the core technology behind ZKsync, Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZK), is a key innovation in Ethereum scaling, balancing high scalability with strong privacy, and is widely recognized within the industry as a production-ready technological foundation. Recently, a16z crypto's "State of Crypto 2025 Report" pointed out that application prosperity relies on mature infrastructure. Over the past five years, total blockchain transaction throughput has grown 100-fold, and the proliferation of Ethereum L2s has reduced the average transaction cost to below one cent, making Ethereum-connected block space both cheap and abundant. Among various technologies, Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZK) are rapidly transitioning from academic research to critical infrastructure, already integrated into Rollups, compliance tools, and mainstream web services.

Stimulated by these positive developments, ZKsync's active addresses saw a rare rebound, increasing 26% over the past 30 days, yet the daily active count as of October 27th was only 10,400, still at a very low level. This ranks 60th among all public chains and in the lower tier among Ethereum L2s.

Regarding TVL performance, ZKsync's mainnet data remains sluggish at just $44.55 million. However, according to its official website, ZKsync's elastic network currently comprises 18 chains, and the aggregate TVL of these chains reaches $3.3 billion. From this perspective, ZKsync essentially functions more like a B2B technology service provider, while its own ecosystem performance remains lackluster. In summary, as a supporting player ("green leaf") within the Ethereum L2 ecosystem, ZKsync performs quite excellently, but its own role as the leading flower ("red flower") has yet to bloom.

Leading Projects Drive Strong L2 Transaction Rebound, But Overall Valuation Still Down Nearly 90%

According to a recent tweet from Routescan, the top five blockchain ecosystems by transaction activity in October all showed positive growth. This includes several L2s, such as Optimism Superchain with 486 million TXs and Boba with 1.9 million TXs, indicating a recovery in L2 ecosystem activity.

Overall, the Layer2 ecosystem shows signs of warming up, driven by leading projects, with several core metrics rebounding and some even reaching new historical highs.

According to the latest data from Token Terminal, monthly transaction volume on Ethereum Layer2 networks continues to grow robustly, exceeding 530 million transactions in October, setting a new record and about 11 times that of the mainnet (48 million) in the same period. Among the L2 networks, Base contributed 64.2% of the volume (approximately 340 million transactions) by an absolute margin, making it the most active chain in the ecosystem, possibly stimulated by its token launch plan. Arbitrum One and OP Mainnet followed, accounting for approximately 15% and 12% of transactions respectively.

[Chart: L2 Transaction Volume Share]

In terms of monthly active users, L2 networks showed a declining and increasingly divergent trend in October. Latest data from Token Terminal shows L2 monthly active users reached 16.1 million, down 61.4% from the historical peak of 41.7 million in June this year, but far exceeding Ethereum mainnet's 8.3 million. Base maintained a dominant lead with 67.1% share, though its user growth slowed significantly compared to previous months; Arbitrum One followed with 22.9%, showing relative stability; other chains like zkSync Era, Starknet, and Blast also experienced noticeable user loss from their historical peaks.

[Chart: L2 Monthly Active Users]

Fee revenue for L2 networks has also rebounded significantly recently. Looking at daily fee revenue, after reaching a historical peak exceeding $560 million in May 2024, the overall L2 sector showed a cliff-like decline. Despite the Dencun upgrade significantly reducing data costs and more L2 projects launching, fee revenue did not recover accordingly. Instead, it shrank faster due to factors like receding on-chain activity, cooling Gas narratives, and unmet ecosystem expectations. By October 2025, the monthly fee revenue for the entire L2 sector approached $160 million, only 28.1% of the peak but marking the highest level since February this year. Base, Arbitrum One, and OP Mainnet accounted for approximately 98.3% of the total fees.

[Chart: L2 Fee Revenue Trend]

Regarding Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV), after peaking at over $57.37 billion last July, the overall L2 sector has shown a continuous downward trend. Despite more L2 projects issuing tokens during this period, the market cap did not recover. Instead, it evaporated faster due to multiple factors like token unlocks, narrative fatigue, and unmet ecosystem promises. By October 2025, the total FDV of the L2 sector was only about $7.23 billion, merely 12.6% of the peak, equivalent to a nearly 90% evaporation of valuation bubbles in just 15 months. Among them, Arbitrum, OP Mainnet, zkSync Era, and Starknet accounted for about 85% of the total FDV.

[Chart: L2 FDV Trend]

It is worth mentioning that Ethereum developers have officially scheduled the Fusaka upgrade for December 3rd, which is expected to lower L2 operating costs and increase throughput, further catalyzing explosive growth and mainstream adoption of the L2 ecosystem.

Overall, the Layer2 ecosystem is experiencing a phased recovery, with technological upgrades and infrastructure improvements solidifying its long-term value. However, whether the ecosystem can develop robustly will depend on the core projects' ability to deliver tangible results, fulfill ecosystem promises, and optimize market fund structures.

Causes of the Crash

• Geopolitical events (China's restrictions on rare earth exports, Trump's tariff policies toward China) triggered market panic.

• Excessive leverage led to cascading liquidations, with vanishing liquidity exacerbating the vicious cycle.

• Skyrocketing funding rates forced traders to close positions under extreme conditions.

Liquidation Mechanisms Explained
Perpetual contracts operate on a zero-sum game mechanism. During liquidations, insurance funds or Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) are used to balance positions.
Platforms like Hyperliquid prioritized protecting Liquidity Providers (LPs), while Lighter allowed LPs to absorb losses to safeguard traders.

Key Players' Performance

• Ethena: Avoided ADL impact on hedged positions through negotiations, but USDE depegged to $0.62 on secondary markets.

• Aave: Successfully handled $180 million in liquidations with zero bad debt, relying on oracle optimizations and governance risk controls.

• Oracle Issues: During violent price swings, on-chain contracts must combine proof of reserves with cross-market data to avoid erroneous liquidations.

Market Impact

• Winners: Aave (exemplary risk control), Hyperliquid (zero downtime), Sui (network stability), and insider traders (profiting $192 million).

• Losers: CEXs (system failures, lack of transparency), market makers (withdrawn liquidity), and retail traders (massive losses, shattered confidence).

Industry Reflections
Clear liquidation policy priorities, optimized oracle design, and enhanced liquidity resilience are needed. While some DeFi protocols demonstrated robustness, the market's maturity still lags far behind traditional finance.

Author: Marko
Compiled by: Felix, PANews

The crypto market experienced its largest liquidation event on October 11th. Over $19 billion in positions were liquidated, wiping out many traders. This article revisits the events of that day.

Timeline
Around 21:00 on October 9th (UTC+8), China announced restrictions on rare earth exports—requiring Beijing's approval for re-export of products containing over 0.1% Chinese rare earth materials. Initially overlooked, this news gained traction in political circles on Twitter.

Around 04:30 on October 10th (UTC+8), as Bitcoin fell from $121,000 to $117,000, a surge of short positions appeared on Hyperliquid. Half an hour later, at 04:57, President Trump announced 100% tariffs on Chinese goods via Truth Social. Bitcoin plummeted from $117,000 to $104,000 in about 20 minutes, a 15% drop. Mysterious traders using fresh accounts closed short positions, netting a total profit of $192 million.

Open interest across the market plunged over 50%: Bitcoin from $67 billion to $33 billion, Ethereum from $38 billion to $19 billion, and altcoins from $43 billion to $31 billion. Altcoins were slaughtered. On one exchange, ATOM fell by up to 99.99%. Many altcoins, including SUI, dropped 80% within 5 minutes. The scale of losses, both in percentage and value, exceeded the flash crash of 2021 and even the FTX collapse.

Why It Spun Out of Control
Cryptocurrencies typically amplify traditional market volatility, but an over-leveraged environment created a "perfect storm." A standard liquidation cascade unfolded: long positions were liquidated, forced selling triggered more liquidations, and the cycle repeated.

A deeper dynamic turned the sell-off into a rout. In normal markets, aggressive selling should attract speculative buyers seeing value. Theoretically, rational participants step in to stabilize. But reality differed. When traders, human or algorithmic, saw order books decimated, survival became the priority. Everyone rushed to cancel orders. No one wanted to catch a falling knife without knowing why it was dropping. This created a vicious cycle: reduced liquidity meant worse executions, scaring away more participants and further shrinking liquidity. Orders that should have found counterparts encountered voids. Combined with stop-loss orders chain-reacting across the system, a crash ensued.

Funding rates (mechanisms tethering perpetual prices to spot) went haywire as markets became extremely one-sided. Traders, already facing losses, suddenly had to pay massive funding fees, forcing them to close positions at the worst possible time.

How the Crash Unfolded
The primary crypto derivative is the perpetual swap—a cash-settled futures contract tracking the underlying asset's price. Unlike traditional futures with expiry dates, perpetuals remain open indefinitely. They use funding rates (periodic payments between longs and shorts) to align perpetual prices with a reference index tracking spot markets. As prices move, profits and losses transfer between longs and shorts. Falling below maintenance margin triggers forced liquidation. Leverage amplifies both gains and losses. The system is largely zero-sum: one side's loss funds the other's gain, plus fees.

Liquidation Mechanics
A key understanding: when trading Bitcoin perpetuals, no actual Bitcoin is involved. It's purely a cash redistribution system. Exchanges hold pools of margin deposits and transfer cash between participants based on price moves. It's a clever simulation of spot trading without the underlying asset.

Critical rule: Long positions must exactly equal short positions. Every dollar gained by longs is lost by shorts. This zero-sum game only works if both sides remain solvent. When one runs out of money, they get liquidated—kicked out of the game.

What Happens During Liquidation?
If a long gets liquidated, the system needs balance. Two possibilities:

1. New participants open long positions with fresh capital.

2. Short positions close to restore balance.

Normally, this happens naturally in the order book. Liquidated positions are sold, someone buys, and they become the new long with fresh margin.

When Markets Crash
Sometimes, order books can't absorb liquidations because positions' losses exceed their margin (bankruptcy price). Here, insurance funds step in—pools maintained by exchanges to absorb liquidations during chaos. These funds typically profit long-term by buying during plunges and selling during spikes. During this event, Hyperliquid's insurance fund made $40 million in an hour.

But insurance funds have limits. They're finite pools and can't cover all positions.

Auto-Deleveraging (ADL)
When insurance funds are insufficient, exchanges activate ADL: forcibly closing profitable positions to offset losses. It's like airlines bumping passengers from overbooked flights after incentives fail. If longs are bankrupt and no one voluntarily takes the other side, some short positions must be closed.

Exchanges typically rank positions by profitability, leverage, and size, with the most profitable closed first. Most major platforms (Binance, Bybit, BitMEX, Aevo) use similar ADL ranking systems, usually executing at the liquidated position's bankruptcy price. Being forced out of a profitable trade feels deeply unfair, but the alternative is system insolvency. You can dominate every casino table, but eventually you'll face opponents with no chips. This is the ADL moment: when you hit the simulation's edge and realize this neat spot market replica is ultimately just a bounded cash-transfer game.

Platform Design Choices: Hyperliquid vs. Lighter
The liquidation exposed philosophical differences between platforms. Nearly every major exchange and Hyperliquid triggered ADL. Notably, Lighter did not.

In zero-sum perpetuals, the exchange's risk waterfall determines who bears tail risk. It's a fundamental choice of whom to prioritize.

Hyperliquid's Approach
Their HLP vault is designed to capture liquidation flow and fees, meaning during stress, liquidation profits go to depositors—great for LPs, painful for traders. HLP has privileged access to liquidation flow; fees plus liquidation penalties are redistributed to HLP depositors. This design manifested in HLP profits during the turmoil, clearly prioritizing depositors over traders. If you held the same short on both platforms, payouts were much higher on Lighter. This came at traders' expense. Due to extreme drops, even modestly leveraged longs were liquidated, while profitable shorts were auto-deleveraged (ADL).

Lighter's Approach
LLP acts as both insurance fund and liquidity backstop. This design absorbs losses in extreme events,分摊给 depositors—more trader-friendly, allowing them to keep more edge and reducing ADL likelihood, but LPs bore the downturn losses. However, this angered depositors, and the platform went offline for hours under unprecedented volume. They promised post-mortems and compensation for affected users.

This trade-off is real: prioritizing traders over depositors risks long-term liquidity (fewer depositors → worse execution → fewer traders). Prioritizing depositors over traders risks losing the user base that attracted depositors initially.

Clearly no single right answer exists, and Hyperliquid's choice seems justified. Similar behavior exists in traditional finance swaps. Many traders simply don't understand leveraged perpetuals' risk profiles and what happens during extreme tail events.

Ethena (ENA)
As mentioned in Aslan's talks, Ethena's USDE stablecoin performs basis trades—holding spot ETH while shorting perpetual futures to remain delta-neutral. In principle, the core hedge is 1x short vs. 1x spot (no leverage), so the portfolio should withstand directional volatility. Given the ADL carnage, problems were expected despite theoretical zero leverage.

Auto-Deleveraging Risk
A key tail risk many feared: ADL could break the hedge during stress. According to shoku, Ethena negotiated ADL exemptions for their hedge inventory with major CEXs.

This explains why their hedge held while ADL hit retail and institutional accounts elsewhere. This exemption reduces model risk and provides an interesting case study. Can similar protections be negotiated each time with entities like CEXs?

Ethena also published proof of reserves during the chaos, maintaining user confidence.

Redemption vs. Secondary Market Price
However, USDE depegged to $0.62 (38% discount) on some venues, including Binance's newly launched USDE market. As others noted, it's also absurd that USDE served as collateral on the same exchanges where Ethena shorts.

Yet, Ethena's primary mint/redemption process functioned normally throughout. This highlights the classic oracle vs. redemption problem: when secondary market liquidity dries up and chaos reigns, what is the "price"? This impacts any project building on USDE. Trading margined with a stable quote asset is already risky. What happens when your underlying drops 80% and your "stable" quote asset drops 60%?

This leads to the next big issue: oracles.

Oracles
Oracles connect off-chain data (e.g., CEX prices) to on-chain smart contracts, powering lending, perpetuals, and most DeFi businesses. They aggregate market prices from major venues to determine "true price." In calm markets, this works well;但在混乱时期—when different venues report wildly divergent prices and liquidity vanishes—it's hard to define one number as an asset's "fair price."

When Sui traded at $2 on Bybit, $0.5 on Binance, $0.14 on Kraken, and liquidity disappeared everywhere, what is the fair price?

USDE perfectly illustrates this problem. If an oracle reads Binance's price, it reports a 38% depeg. Yet, Ethena's primary redemption mechanism maintained full value throughout. Secondary market chaos doesn't necessarily reflect primary market reality.

Case Study
Aave switched USDe's data source to Ethena's proof of reserves (redeemability) rather than direct CEX prices. This decision spared $4.5 billion in positions from improper liquidation. They then cleanly executed ~$180 million in liquidations across a >$75 billion system with no manual intervention, zero bad debt—an exemplary execution. This resulted from careful governance work with Chaos Labs and LlamaRisk (a firm specializing in pegged assets).

Design Takeaways
For pegged assets with reliable primary redemption mechanisms, consider oracles combining secondary prices with issuer-level proof of reserves or redemption signals. Time-weighted windows (TWAPs/VWAPs) can reduce "scam" liquidations, though they sacrifice responsiveness—longer windows slow "scam" wicks but may lag genuine crashes. Circuit breakers, grace periods, and cross-venue sanity checks are standard mitigations.

This raises design questions for Sui DeFi protocols: Should users be liquidated based on 1-minute price moves? AlphaLend (powering Bluefin's lending) controversially uses moving averages to filter extreme spikes before triggering liquidations. Critics call this poor design. Personally, the IKA incident weeks ago and this liquidation event prove flash crashes and scam wicks pose greater user threats than slow, sustained declines, which moving averages would catch anyway.

No single right answer—it depends on your risk tolerance and threat model. You rarely get such severe stress tests.

Other DeFi Protocols
Morpho handled ~$100 million in liquidations with no apparent bad debt. USDT briefly traded at a 60-basis-point premium ($1.006) as traders paid for stability. On-chain infrastructure broke—Rabby and DeBank stopped serving tens of thousands of users. Some traders got extremely favorable fills (positive slippage on SOL, deep discounts on BNB and wETH), but these fills completely mispriced versus CEX.

Implications for Sui DeFi
Yesterday's stress test offered crucial lessons:

• Liquidation Policy: Clarify whether to prioritize depositors (insurance fund first, faster ADL) or traders (let LPs/vaults absorb more loss in extremes). Users must understand their chosen risk profile.

• Oracle Policy: For pegged assets, evaluate proof-of-reserves-aware sources and time-smoothing mechanisms (bounded VWAPs or circuit breakers) as liquidation triggers. Consider grace periods and cross-venue sanity checks to avoid bad fills from wicks. Parameters must be defensible when challenged.

• Liquidity Resilience: Incentivize persistent maker orders and quotes during stress to reduce market maker withdrawal impact.

"Winners" and "Losers"
Winners

• Aave: Executed ~$180 million in liquidations in one hour with zero bad debt. Exemplary DeFi risk management at scale. Governance choices made months prior proved pivotal.

• Hyperliquid (Infrastructure): Remained operational under unprecedented stress. Most CEXs and other DEX competitors couldn't claim the same.

• Ethena: If they can survive an event like this, personal confidence in the protocol increases. Others will agree. But collateral risks, especially around Deepbook, deserve attention.

• Sui (Technology): Despite the token's deep drop, the network performed admirably, with ecosystem teams praising its performance. This credits the engineering teams' excellent work and why Sui stands out.

• Open Source: This event also drove people to read project docs, engage in governance, and inspect actual code. Auditable, explainable protocols will outperform "black boxes" in the next wave. With most of Sui's TVL being open source, it's well-positioned to shine. Hyperliquid did okay, but may not be as lucky next time as it remains closed-source.

• Insider Traders: Accounts opening massive shorts 30 minutes before the presidential announcement profited $192 million. This severely damaged retail confidence.

Losers

• CEXs: Many exchanges couldn't handle the load, drawing criticism for poor performance and lack of transparency from traders and market makers. Within 24 hours, CEX CEOs began attacking DEXs and each other:

  • Crypto.com CEO called for regulators to investigate exchanges with the largest liquidations.

  • OKX CEO stated USDe shouldn't be considered a stablecoin but a tokenized hedge fund.

  • CZ spent days on X discussing Hyperliquid founder Jeff.

• Market Makers: Many withdrew quotes when depth was most needed. Rational self-preservation, but undermines market maker value. It's unclear which MMs blew up versus profited, though some may have gained from volatility. Rumors suggest some third-tier exchanges and smaller MMs collapsed.

• Retail Traders: As open interest halved and ADL triggered, eight-figure PnL swings were seen on Hyperliquid leaderboards and other platforms. Retail can only take so many blows. With equities performing strongly since 2022, crypto's value proposition looks worse for retail buyers by comparison. Each crash permanently loses some retail participants. Leveraged roulette is unsustainable for newcomers, especially without traditional finance's investor protections.

Carucci, who led the debut at the Apple Steve Jobs Theater and Nike's 2014 World Cup global marketing campaign, excels in integrated marketing and brand storytelling. The TON ecosystem experienced rapid growth in 2024 driven by tap-to-earn games, but user activity and on-chain data declined in 2025, entering a natural cooling-off phase.

Despite the cooling热度, TON remains favored by institutions, with venture capital firms holding approximately $400 million in TON positions, and Pantera Capital making its largest investment to date. The publicly-listed company Verb Technology completed a $558 million financing round and plans to rename itself TON Strategy Co., designating TON as a primary reserve asset for staking.

TON continues to develop amidst capital inflows and platform iteration. Carucci's joining is expected to help TON seize the next wave of opportunities and enhance its brand influence.

Summary

Brand Marketing Master Joins, A Former Nike and Apple Executive

Reviewing Carucci's career reveals his involvement in creating multiple iconic cultural campaigns.

During his time at Apple, Carucci's event/brand experience team was responsible for the inaugural September 2017 event at the Steve Jobs Theater. This launch at Apple Park unveiled flagship products like the iPhone X and began with a segment paying tribute to Steve Jobs, setting the tone. Apple officially reported this, along with multiple top-tier media outlets, as the beginning of the "new campus narrative," establishing a paradigm for the visual style and rhythm of launches for years to follow.

Before moving to Apple, Carucci spent 17 years at Nike, serving as Nike's Global General Manager for the 2014 World Cup during the Brazil World Cup cycle. In this period, Nike partnered with Wieden+Kennedy to launch the "Risk Everything" campaign, releasing three core films – "Risk Everything," "Winner Stays," and "The Last Game" – distributed across TV, outdoor media, and all major social networks. With stars like Cristiano Ronaldo, Neymar, and Wayne Rooney as communication hubs, it formed a multi-channel reach matrix of "TV-grade content + digital real-time dissemination," regarded by industry and media as one of the standout marketing campaigns of the 2014 World Cup.

These experiences highlight not only Carucci's skill in presenting large-scale events through brand storytelling but also his extensive experience in integrated marketing across global markets. The TON Foundation stated that Carucci will "develop and execute marketing and creative strategies to integrate brand, growth, and community, collectively accelerating TON's vision to become the financial and creative backbone of the Telegram platform."

Carucci's marketing philosophy emphasizes the power of creativity and community. He has long believed that "creativity, collaboration, daring to try, and the power of community can shape culture and business." He noted that the inherent integration advantage of TON with Telegram makes TON a powerful platform blending commerce, community, and culture, and he looks forward to fostering more creative and collaborative sparks within this ecosystem.

Max Crown, President and CEO of the TON Foundation, also places high expectations on Carucci. He stated that Carucci has orchestrated some of the most high-profile events and campaigns for the world's most recognized brands, elevating their influence through creative storytelling and strategic promotion; such experience is precisely what TON needs. He believes Carucci will bring creative and data-driven growth strategies to the TON brand, leaving a lasting mark for TON at a critical industry moment.

After Tap-to-Earn Games Fade, TON Still Favored by Institutions

Throughout 2024, the TON ecosystem experienced a period of rapid growth. Driven by the viral spread of Telegram Mini App games like Notcoin and Hamster Kombat, TON's on-chain metrics and user numbers surged in the short term.

However, this high-speed growth was followed by a subsequent decline. Entering 2025, the number of daily active users quickly normalized, settling at only 100,000 to 170,000 active addresses per day; transaction volume and Total Value Locked (TVL) also decreased from their peaks.

After the heat subsided, the TON ecosystem faced new challenges.

Some analysis suggests this situation represents a "natural cooling-off phase" following explosive growth. Simultaneously, external uncertainties added extra pressure: Telegram founder Durov's legal issues in France, and internal organizational adjustments within the TON Foundation, among other factors, raised questions within the industry about TON's long-term trajectory. Coupled with the gradual phase-out of initial incentive rewards and the loss of some participants, TON's network TVL and on-chain activity saw a decline.

However, despite the cooling热度, the TON ecosystem has not stagnated. Various actions undertaken quietly indicate continued market confidence in TON's future.

In March 2025, the TON Foundation revealed that several well-known venture capital firms held TON positions worth approximately $400 million, including Kingsway Capital, Sequoia Capital, and Ribbit Capital.

Furthermore, digital asset investment firm Pantera Capital announced it had made its largest investment to date in TON (specific amount undisclosed), demonstrating long-term optimism about the development potential of the TON ecosystem. This series of investment actions injected substantial capital and strategic support into TON.

More notably, the publicly-listed company Verb Technology completed a $558 million PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity) financing in August 2025 and announced plans to change its name to TON Strategy Co.

The company designated TON tokens as a primary treasury reserve asset, planning to use a significant portion of the raised funds to purchase and stake TON for ongoing returns. This financing round was led by Kingsway Capital and attracted participation from over 110 institutional investors, including Pantera, MEXC Ventures, and Animoca Brands, making it one of the most significant PIPE transactions in the cryptocurrency space in 2025 to date.

In summary, although short-term hype around the TON ecosystem has subsided, its developmental progress has not halted. Continued capital inflows from various sources and constant iteration of platform features allow TON to accumulate strength steadily, albeit more quietly. The addition of Gerardo Carucci strengthens TON's brand marketing lineup. In the future, he will leverage his rich experience in brand building and innovative marketing理念 to help TON seize the next wave of development opportunities. It can be anticipated that this "brand veteran" will play a pivotal role in the next breakout phase of the TON ecosystem.

Pump.fun has achieved a significant recovery through multiple strategies, including token buybacks, liquidity injections, and creator incentives. Its token PUMP has surged over 65% in the past month, while daily platform revenue soared to $1.575 million, with its market share rebounding to 81.2%. Additionally, Pump.fun launched the "Project Ascend" plan, shifting its narrative to the Creator Capital Market (CCM) to explore new growth opportunities.

In contrast, BONK.fun has faced a sharp decline in market share, with several core metrics falling to single digits. To address these challenges, the platform continues to advance its token buyback and burn mechanism and has adjusted its strategy to focus on the Internet Capital Market (ICM). Recently, it partnered with WLFI to launch USD1 trading pairs and the "Project Wings" initiative in an attempt to重塑 competitiveness.

Believe, one of the earliest platforms to propose the ICM narrative, has regained attention due to the growing popularity of the ICM concept. Its token LAUNCHCOIN surged 70.4% in the past week. The platform is set to launch its V2 version, aiming to build a "investor-creator-investor" flywheel mechanism to further support on-chain entrepreneurship and project financing.

Overall, Solana Launchpad platforms are competing for market share through new narratives and product upgrades, while potential regulatory tailwinds are also bringing new development opportunities to the industry.

---

Summary

Author: Nancy, PANews

After experiencing a dark period, on-chain liquidity has recently shown signs of recovery. Several leading Solana Launchpad platforms have introduced new products and features, leveraging fresh narratives to expand their growth potential. This has once again captured market attention and kicked off a new round of competition.

Pump.fun Regains Its Throne with Multi-Pronged Strategies

Pump.fun has reclaimed market attention, with its token price, revenue, and trading volume all soaring.

In terms of token price, CoinGecko data shows that PUMP has risen 65.1% over the past 30 days, with a circulating market cap of approximately $2.1 billion and a fully diluted valuation (FDV) climbing to $5.94 billion, surpassing its initial valuation of $4 billion during the public sale. This trend indicates a gradual restoration of market confidence in Pump.fun.

In the Launchpad competition, Pump.fun has also regained market share. According to Jupiter data, Pump.fun accounted for 81.2% of the market share in the past 24 hours, significantly outpacing competitors like Letsbonk and Believe. Previously, Pump.fun had been surpassed and even dominated by its rivals.

From a trading perspective, Dune data reveals that Pump.fun’s weekly trading volume rebounded from less than $150 million at the end of July to $1.1 billion, while daily revenue surged from $161,000 in August to $1.575 million. Cumulative revenue has now exceeded $830 million. According to DeFillama data, Pump.fun generated approximately $2.57 million in revenue in the past 24 hours alone, ranking fourth behind only Tether, Circle, and Hyperliquid.

Pump.fun’s recent recovery can be attributed to the effective implementation of multi-layered strategies. In mid-July, Pump.fun announced a buyback program. Official data shows that the platform has used over 457,000 SOL to purchase PUMP tokens, worth more than $84.97 million, accounting for 6.158% of the total circulating supply. Over the past month, Pump.fun’s revenue has often exceeded its buyback expenditures, effectively reducing circulating supply and providing short-term support for the token price. According to Token Unlocks data, the next PUMP unlock is scheduled for July 2026, providing a time window for the project to continue tightening market supply.

The following month, Pump.fun established the Glass Full Foundation to inject liquidity into specific ecosystem tokens. Dune data indicates that Pump.fun has invested over $1.694 million to purchase 10 MEME tokens on its platform (such as House, Tokabu, Salary, and USDUC). This move has boosted investor confidence and increased trading activity on the platform.

In early September, Pump.fun targeted the CCM (Creator Capital Market) sector with the launch of its "Project Ascend" update plan, introducing a dynamic fee structure (V1 update). Creator fees will now be tiered based on market capitalization. This fee structure applies to all PumpSwap tokens (both old and new), while the protocol fee rate and auto-compounding fees for liquidity providers (including burned LP tokens) remain unchanged. Dune data shows that over the past seven days, creator earnings on Pump.fun exceeded $16.266 million, far surpassing protocol revenue. Meanwhile, the number of unique wallet addresses claiming earnings rebounded from 1,898 in early August to 9,065.

It can be said that Pump.fun has achieved a phased recovery through strategies such as token buybacks, liquidity injections, and creator incentives. However, it has not yet fully returned to its historical peak levels. Pump.fun’s co-founder boldly predicted that the market would regain the "trench" fervor of Q4 2024, with even higher gains this time. Unlike before, Pump.fun has now shifted its strategic narrative focus to CCM. Whether it can sustain this vitality and growth remains to be seen.

BONK.fun Seeks New Growth Points Amid Plummeting Market Share

In contrast to Pump.fun’s recovery, BONK.fun has experienced a rapid decline in market share.

Dune data shows that as of September 10, BONK.fun’s core metrics have significantly retreated. The daily token deployment share dropped from a high of 74.5% to 2.7%, the daily token graduation share fell from 88.8% to 1.2%, and the trading volume share declined from 86.4% to 3.2%. Clearly, BONK.fun has lost its market advantage at this stage.

Faced with this rapid contraction in market share, BONK.fun has undertaken various measures to recover. On one hand, it continues to promote its token buyback and burn mechanism to stabilize the ecosystem. Official data shows that as of September 11, BONK.fun has generated over 319,000 SOL, with 35% used to repurchase and burn BONK tokens, reinforcing its deflationary logic. Additionally, its treasury strategy has injected new narratives into BONK. Nasdaq-listed company Safety Shot recently initiated a BONK treasury strategy, completing a $5 million cash and $25 million BONK token financing (paid by BONK founding members).

On the narrative front, BONK.fun is quickly adjusting its direction to focus on the ICM (Internet Capital Market) sector. Recently, BONK.fun announced a partnership with WLFI, becoming the official Launchpad platform for USD1 on Solana. The ICM protocol Freya Protocol, backed by USD1, is set to launch on BONK.fun.

Moreover, WLFI announced the "Project Wings" plan in collaboration with BONK.fun, aimed at providing promotional rewards to eligible participants trading USD1 pairs on BONK.fun. In response to Pump.fun’s emphasis on live streaming features, BONK.fun also announced its integration with Kick, allowing creators to livestream on Kick.

These measures have led to a short-term rebound in BONK’s price. CoinGecko data shows that while BONK fell about 6.1% over the past 30 days, it rebounded 17.4% in the past week. However, whether BONK.fun can reverse its long-term decline in market share will depend on its ability to innovate in narratives and community operations.

ICM Heat Drives Attention, Believe V2 Set to Launch

Believe was one of the earliest Launchpad platforms to propose the ICM narrative and once captured significant market share. However, as its token LAUNCHCOIN declined, attention waned. Recently, with the ICM concept gaining traction in the community, Believe has regained market attention. According to CoinGecko data, LAUNCHCOIN has risen 38% over the past month and surged 70.4% in the past week.

Regarding platform strategy, Believe founder Ben Pasternak recently revealed that the platform is building a flywheel mechanism centered on "investors → creators / platform → investors," with the plan approximately 80% complete. He stated that the flywheel mechanism will launch alongside a significantly upgraded product suite, aiming to make Believe a platform that helps creators turn ideas into long-term sustainable ecosystems. Meanwhile, Alliance DAO founding partner Imran Khan disclosed that everything is ready, and Believe V2 will drive the next wave of financing trends for founders and projects, guided by community insights.

Notably, U.S. SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins recently emphasized the need to ensure that entrepreneurs can raise funds on-chain without facing endless legal uncertainties. This statement may encourage more on-chain entrepreneurs, opening new market opportunities for Launchpad platforms and testing who can seize the initiative first.

• 3 h: 53 M USD1 pledged

• 30 h: 100 M USD1 pledged

• 72 h (close): > 250 M USD1 total bids
  …for a 60 k USD soft-cap raise.
  Creditlink becomes the most oversubscribed launch on Four.meme by an order of magnitude, yet will list at an eye-watering 400 k fully-diluted valuation (FDV).

2. Tokenomics Snapshot

3. Product ≠ Pitch Deck
Creditlink already ships two live modules:

• Smart Analysis – single-wallet credit report (assets, DeFi history, risk flags)

• Batch Analysis – CSV upload to screen Sybil farms or rank airdrop targets

27 k on-chain users, multi-chain coverage, and a forthcoming Token Analysis suite for contract health scoring.
This is shipping software, not vaporware.

4. Market Comp: Why 400 k FDV Feels Mis-printed

Even a conservative 10× lands CDL at 0.04 USDT (4 M FDV). In a hype cycle, 20–60× (0.08–0.24 USDT) is within historical range, although dependent on broader sentiment and liquidity depth.

5. Risk Checklist

• Low float, high reflexivity: 400 k FDV means a 50 k USD buy moves the needle 10 %.

• No announced CEX yet: initial price discovery on DEX; expect volatility.

• Team treasury: 25 % unlocked linearly, but cap-table lean (no VC tokens) keeps early sell-pressure minimal.

6. Bottom Line
Creditlink checks four rare boxes simultaneously:

1. Working product

2. Micro-float

3. Macro-oversubscription

4. Sub-million FDV

If the team continues to ship and the community keeps evangelizing, the upside is asymmetric: 10× base case, 20×+ if memecoin energy migrates to infra.
Risk is equally asymmetric—size accordingly.

Bullish’s NYSE Debut: A Hollow Victory for EOS?

On August 12, Bullish became the second crypto exchange to list on the New York Stock Exchange, aiming to raise $990 million in its IPO. While this follows a wave of successful crypto listings (Circle, Figma) and Coinbase’s S&P 500 inclusion, Bullish’s backstory reveals a darker narrative.

Backed by Peter Thiel, SoftBank, and ex-NYSE president Tom Farley as CEO, Bullish boasts a $3 billion war chest and owns CoinDesk, crypto’s most influential media outlet. Investor frenzy pushed its IPO target from $629 million to $990 million. Yet, its rise was built on the ashes of EOS—a blockchain project that raised $4.2 billion in 2018, only to be discarded.

The $4.2 Billion Betrayal

Bullish and EOS share a history as estranged partners. When Bullish’s IPO plans leaked, EOS’s price spiked 17%, a bitter irony for a community left behind by Block.one (EOS’s creator), which pivoted to Bullish without a backward glance.

EOS’s Rise and Fall

• 2017–2018: Hailed as the "Ethereum killer," EOS’s ICO raised a record $4.2 billion, promising "million TPS" and zero fees.

• Reality Check: Users faced clunky staking mechanics for RAM/CPU, and node elections became dominated by whales.

• Broken Promises: Block.one allocated just a fraction of funds to EOS development, parking $2.2 billion in U.S. Treasuries and splurging on failed ventures like Silvergate (bankrupt in 2023).

The final blow came in 2021, when Block.one launched Bullish—a EOS-agnostic exchange—with $1 billion in seed funding. EOS was left to wither, its community battling Block.one in court to reclaim control (unsuccessfully).

Bullish’s $1 Billion Launchpad

Bullish emerged from EOS’s wreckage with Block.one’s cash and elite backers:

• Hybrid Exchange Model: Combines CLOB and AMM for tight spreads and deep liquidity, ranking it Top 5 globally by volume.

• Media Dominance: Acquired CoinDesk (4.96M monthly visitors) and data firm CCData for market influence.

• VC Arm (Bullish Capital): Invested in Ether.fi, Babylon, and others.

Yet, 70–80% of revenue still comes from spot trading, and a $349M Q1 2025 net loss (due to crypto asset depreciation) exposes fragility.

Competitive Weaknesses

• Revenue Lags: Bullish’s 2024 revenue ($214M) trailed Kraken ($1.5B) and Coinbase (20x higher).

• Unsustainable Strategy: Compressing spreads to gain market share (BTC/ETH volumes rose 10–189% in 2023–24) risks margins as ETF competition intensifies.

The $4.8 Billion Question: Undervalued or Overhyped?

Bullish’s IPO valuation of $4.8 billion seems modest given its assets:

• 24,000 BTC ($2.8B)—double Coinbase’s reserves.

• $418M in cash/stablecoins.

But the offering’s <15% float and last-minute share price hike ($32–33/share) hint at artificial scarcity. Post-lockup, early investors (like Block.one) could dump shares, mirroring crypto’s boom-bust cycles.

A Repeat of History?

This isn’t Bullish’s first IPO attempt. A 2021 SPAC merger at a $9B valuation collapsed amid regulatory chaos. Now, with Bitcoin near $120K, Bullish returns—halved in valuation but polished for Wall Street.

For EOS loyalists, the lesson is clear: Don’t fall in love with corporations that discard communities. Bullish’s triumph is EOS’s epitaph.

01. Crypto's Wealth Elite at a Glance

Let’s explore how these crypto moguls built their empires and secured their inaugural millions.

1. Satoshi Nakamoto

The enigmatic creator of Bitcoin tops the list. In 2008, Satoshi published the Bitcoin whitepaper and launched the network in 2009, earning the title "Father of Cryptocurrency." Despite vanishing after 2010, his early mining of 1.1M BTC (now worth ~$125B) remains untouched. Bitcoin’s success became his wealth engine—though some speculate he lost access or passed away. Either way, his first-mover advantage is crypto’s ultimate rags-to-riches tale.

2. Changpeng Zhao (CZ)

The Binance founder’s journey is a crypto entrepreneurship masterclass. CZ, a former developer, sold his Shanghai apartment in 2014 to buy 1,500 BTC at ~$600 each. That bet funded Binance’s 2017 launch, which skyrocketed to dominance via its matching engine, UX, and BNB token. Exchange fees + BNB’s appreciation made CZ a billionaire—and briefly, China’s richest person.

Key Takeaway: Building a platform (the "toll road" of crypto) is the fast lane to wealth.

3. Giancarlo Devasini

The mind behind Tether (USDT) began as a plastic surgeon before pivoting to electronics trading. His crypto breakthrough came in 2012 with Bitfinex investments, followed by co-founding Tether in 2014. By turning USDT into crypto’s dollar substitute, Devasini tapped an untapped market—now worth hundreds of billions.

Motto: "Find a gap, then dominate it."

4. Brian Armstrong

Coinbase’s CEO took the compliant route. After encountering Bitcoin’s clunky UX at Airbnb, he founded Coinbase in 2012, securing Y Combinator and NYSE backing. IPOing in 2021 (peak valuation: $100B+) and partnering with JPMorgan validated his "slow and steady" approach.

Edge: Bridging TradFi and crypto.

5. Chris Larsen

A fintech veteran (E-Loan, Prosper), Larsen co-founded Ripple in 2012 to revolutionize cross-border payments. Early XRP holdings and Ripple’s funding rounds propelled his wealth during the 2017 bull run. Despite XRP’s volatility, he remains a top crypto billionaire.

Lesson: Experience + timing = crypto gold.

6. Paolo Ardoino

Tether’s CEO earned his fortune through tech prowess. Joining Bitfinex in 2014, he solved critical system issues, later becoming Tether’s CTO. His equity rewards ballooned as USDT expanded to Ethereum, Solana, and beyond.

Formula: "Code your way to ownership."

7. Justin Sun

The TRON founder’s first windfall came from 2017’s ICO boom, raising millions via TRX. Marketing stunts (like a $4.56M Buffett lunch) and acquisitions (Poloniex, HTX) cemented his place among crypto’s elite—controversy notwithstanding.

Style: "Hype + holdings = hypergrowth."

8. Michael Saylor

The MicroStrategy CEO shocked Wall Street in 2020 by converting corporate cash into BTC. His 600K+ BTC hoard (worth billions post-2025 rally) made him crypto’s most vocal institutional bull.

Legacy: "Bet big, hold bigger."

9. Stuart Hoegner

Tether’s low-key legal architect turned compliance into a fortune. His early equity stake grew alongside USDT’s dominance—proving "quiet competence pays."

10. Winklevoss Twins

Facebook’s $65M settlement funded their 2013 BTC buying spree. Though Gemini lags behind Binance, their 70K BTC stash keeps them wealthy.

Advantage: "Early conviction compounds."

11. Jeremy Allaire

Circle’s CEO launched USDC in 2018 via a Coinbase partnership. While trailing USDT, its $30B+ market cap made him a billionaire.

Play: "Leverage allies to scale."

12. Star Xu

OKX’s founder dominated China’s early exchange wars. Fees + OKB tokenomics built his fortune—though ex-colleagues like CZ later became rivals.

13. Vitalik Buterin (V神)

Ethereum’s wunderkind raised funds via 2014’s crowdsale, retaining significant ETH. Despite donating heavily, his tech vision secured his billionaire status.

Epitaph: "Innovate, don’t speculate."

Final Wisdom

These legends share one trait: they acted when others hesitated. Whether through coding, compliance, or conviction, their first millions came from spotting crypto’s asymmetric opportunities—then doubling down.

Your move.

The feud between traditional finance and crypto platforms has reignited, this time pitting two U.S. industry giants against each other: banking titan JPMorgan Chase and veteran crypto exchange Gemini.

On July 26 at 2 AM Beijing time, Gemini co-founder Tyler Winklevoss publicly accused JPMorgan of cutting off the exchange's access to critical banking data services as retaliation for his earlier criticisms—a move he called "anti-competitive sabotage" against fintech and crypto firms. The incident has revived industry fears of "Operation Chokepoint 2.0," the Biden-era banking crackdown on crypto companies.

Data as a Weapon: How Banks Choke Crypto Innovation

At the heart of the clash lies user data—the lifeblood of both traditional and crypto finance. Comprehensive KYC data enables platforms to assess risk profiles, asset scales, and security tiers, creating clearer user portraits and smoother operations.

JPMorgan's latest salvo came after Winklevoss criticized the bank for revoking Gemini's free access to banking data via Plaid while charging exorbitant fees for such access. The bank responded by issuing a virtual "death notice," stating it had permanently terminated Gemini's client eligibility under Operation Chokepoint 2.0.

This mirrors past tactics where U.S. banks systematically denied services to crypto firms—a pattern Winklevoss likened to "financial persecution."

Operation Chokepoint 2.0: Banking's Crypto Blacklist

The original 2023 operation saw crypto-friendly banks like Silvergate and Signature collapse amid regulatory pressure. As a16z founder Marc Andreessen revealed on the Joe Rogan Experience:

"This was a targeted campaign against political opponents and disfavored tech startups. Over 30 founders had accounts frozen—it was systemic."

The backlash helped propel Trump to victory, with the former president vowing at a March 2025 crypto summit to "end Chokepoint's war on crypto."

JPMorgan's End-Run Around Consumer Protection Laws

The conflict escalated when JPMorgan circumvented the CFPB's 2024 Open Banking Rule—which mandates free consumer data sharing—by demanding payment for API access.

While the rule aimed to spur competition by letting users freely transfer financial data (including to crypto platforms), banks are now:

1. Suing to overturn the regulation

2. Lobbying to block crypto banking licenses for Circle, Ripple, and Fidelity

As Custodia Bank's Caitlin Long noted:

"If banks fear competition, why don't they just convert to trust companies with lower capital requirements?"

The Inevitable Showdown

Whether over data access or banking licenses, the battle lines are drawn. With stable币 and anti-CBDC laws gaining traction, the fight over payments infrastructure will intensify.

As Paradigm's Alexander Grieve observed:

"Banks and credit unions rarely agree—except on one thing: crypto is now real competition."

The outcome may hinge on whether Trump delivers on his pledge to dismantle banking's crypto blockade.

Recommended Reading:

• CFPB Open Banking Rule

• Trump's 2025 Crypto Policy Speech

Q1: Which U.S.-listed companies hold the most ETH, and how much do they own?

As of July 2025, SharpLink Gaming, Bitmine Immersion Tech, Bit Digital, and BTCS Inc. are the top ETH holders among U.S.-listed firms. SharpLink Gaming leads with approximately 358K ETH, followed by Bitmine with 300.7K ETH. Bit Digital holds around 120.3K ETH, while BTCS Inc. has disclosed holdings of 31.9K ETH. Although Coinbase holds about 137.3K ETH, these are operational reserves rather than strategic holdings, excluding it from the "MicroStrategy" category. These four companies represent the forefront of Ethereum's "MicroStrategy-ization" trend in U.S. markets.

Q2: What are the core businesses of these four companies, and who drives their ETH strategies?

These companies hail from diverse backgrounds, with their ETH strategies spearheaded by current CEOs or key board members:

• SharpLink Gaming (SBET): Originally a sports prediction and interactive gaming tech provider, SharpLink began accumulating ETH in 2025 via PIPE and ATM financing, making it a core balance sheet asset. The financing was led by Consensys Software Inc., with participation from crypto heavyweights like Pantera Capital and Galaxy Digital. Chairman Joseph Lubin (Ethereum co-founder and Consensys founder) is the strategic architect.

• Bitmine Immersion Tech (BMNR): A blockchain infrastructure firm focused on Bitcoin mining and liquid cooling hardware, Bitmine raised $250 million in June 2025 to expand ETH reserves. Founders Fund and Pantera Capital participated, with Fundstrat’s Tom Lee chairing the board to steer ETH strategy.

• Bit Digital (BTBT): Transitioning from Bitcoin mining to digital asset infrastructure, Bit Digital emphasizes ETH validator deployment under CEO Samir Tabar (ex-Merrill Lynch and BitMEX). Institutional shareholders include BlackRock and Invesco.

• BTCS Inc. (BTCS): A blockchain infrastructure builder since 2014, BTCS pivoted to Ethereum in 2021, launching validator nodes and block-building tools. CEO Charles W. Allen drives the ETH strategy.

Q3: How are these companies funding their ETH acquisitions?

None rely on operational cash flow. Instead, they leverage diverse methods:

• SharpLink: Combined PIPE ($420M) and ATM financing (upsized to $6B), explicitly earmarked for ETH staking.

• Bitmine: $250M private placement, with Founders Fund taking a 9.1% stake.

• Bit Digital: Sold 280 BTC + public offerings ($172M total), followed by a $67.3M private share sale for ETH expansion.

• BTCS: ATM offerings, convertible notes, and DeFi loans targeting $225M to minimize shareholder dilution.

Q4: Why ETH Over BTC?

ETH’s shift to PoS enables staking yields, akin to "digital treasury bonds," unlike non-yielding BTC. Ethereum’s evolving ecosystem offers greater narrative flexibility and price volatility, appealing to smaller firms. Broader on-chain utility (e.g., validators, restaking) also provides active participation avenues.

Q5: Are These Companies Staking ETH? What Are the Differences?

• SharpLink: Fully staked (~3-4% APR), earning 415+ ETH to date.

• Bit Digital: 88% staked (21,568 ETH), generating $600K quarterly.

• BTCS: Diversified across Rocket Pool, solo staking, and Aave.

• Bitmine: Plans disclosed but not yet executed.

Q6: Are ETH Holdings and Profits Disclosed? Is On-Chain Data Transparent?

• SharpLink: Fully transparent (Arkham-tracked), $2.6B unrealized gains at $2,825 avg. buy price.

• Others: No public addresses but key metrics in filings (e.g., Bitmine’s $3,461.89 avg. cost).

Q7: How Dominant Is ETH in Their Asset Structures?

ETH’s share of estimated market caps:

• SharpLink: 44%

• Bitmine: 32%

• Bit Digital: 35%

• BTCS: 74%

Rapid rises may reflect hype, with sustainability hinging on cash flow and staking execution.

Q8: Has the ETH Strategy Boosted Stock Prices? Market Reactions?

All saw volatile surges and steep corrections:

• SharpLink: Peaked at $124.12 (from $2.58), now $28.98 (-92.5% drop).

• Bitmine: Hit $161, fell 73.7% to $42.35.

• BTCS: Up 528% to $6.57 from $1.35.

• Bit Digital: Rose 127% to $3.84.

High risk and speculation dominate.

Q9: Key Risks and Sustainability?

1. Price/Liquidity Risk: ETH’s volatility and staking lock-ups strain liquidity.

2. On-Chain Risks: Smart contract failures or slashing penalties threaten yields.

3. Funding Risks: Reliance on ATM offerings risks dilution and market dependence.

4. Yield Compression: Rising validators may depress staking returns.

Long-term viability requires dynamic balance sheet management.

Q10: Can They Become the "Ethereum MicroStrategy"? Why No Clear Leader Yet?

ETH’s complexity (yield-bearing, dynamic supply) complicates a singular reserve narrative. Technical hurdles (e.g., node operations) and smaller market caps hinder valuation flywheels like MicroStrategy’s. A true "Ethereum MSTR" must master financing, on-chain deployment, and narrative control—a high bar yet unmet.

Note: All figures and timelines are as of the article’s publication date (2025/07/21).

According to various media reports citing informed sources, pump.fun is preparing to sell 25% of PUMP tokens at a $4 billion valuation to raise $1 billion.

Is this price attractive?

Sunny Shi from Messari has constructed a valuation model for PUMP, and the results suggest that its FDV (fully diluted valuation) could reach $7 billion. If the prediction is correct, then buying PUMP tokens would be a profitable move. However, there is an important precondition. Below is their valuation process (from Sunny Shi's perspective, with "we" referring to Messari):

No matter what you think of memecoins, this segment continues to "print money."

Although the trading volume on the pump.fun token issuance platform has declined compared to the beginning of the year, it is still much higher than the levels seen for most of 2024.

Pump.fun's trading volume is higher than most of 2024, data: Messari

People may also have underestimated the success of PumpSwap. This DEX, which launched about three months ago, has already significantly eroded Raydium's market share on Solana.

Comparison of PumpSwap and Raydium's market share, data: Messari

Our valuation approach uses a top-down model, assuming overall crypto market trading volume, Solana's share, launch platform share, and PumpSwap's market share. These assumptions and models are only available to enterprise clients, but I will share the main conclusions.

In our base case, we believe that memecoins will occupy a niche market within the broader crypto economy because they are more suitable for speculative purposes than NFTs.

Of course, as the Solana ecosystem matures, it will undoubtedly diversify into new asset pairs, but this point is also likely to hold true.

We believe that even if pump.fun's share within the Solana ecosystem declines slightly, the continued growth of PumpSwap means that the pump project is still expected to generate approximately $675 million in revenue over the next two years.

At a valuation multiple of 10 times, the corresponding FDV would be around $7 billion.

However, the key precondition is: if the project team chooses an opaque token/equity structure that allocates most of the revenue to insiders rather than token holders, we believe that the current market has become quite cautious and will not ignore this poor value accumulation method.

In our full report, we provide a valuation table to assess PUMP's potential value based on the percentage of revenue that token holders can obtain.

No matter how the market ultimately judges, this is an excellent opportunity to participate in one of the most profitable crypto applications in history. It now depends on whether the project team offers token holders enough participation value (buy-in) to make it a worthwhile investment.

Chainlink (LINK) is the native token of the Chainlink decentralized oracle network, serving as the backbone of its operations. Its primary utilities include:
1⃣ Network Service Fees: Used to pay node operators when smart contracts access reliable off-chain data.
2⃣ Node Operator Staking: Acts as collateral to ensure data providers' reliability and overall network security.

By powering this critical infrastructure that bridges blockchains with real-world data, LINK has become an indispensable component for decentralized applications (dApps). In the future, LINK holders are expected to participate in network governance decisions.

Chainlink (LINK) Market Performance

✅ Dominant Market Position & Industry Recognition

LINK is the undisputed leader in the blockchain oracle space, consistently ranking among the top cryptocurrencies by market cap. Its dominance stems from widespread adoption by:

• Top-tier DeFi protocols

• Innovative cross-chain applications

• Traditional institutions exploring blockchain

This deep integration highlights the market's trust in Chainlink's reliability and infrastructure value.

✅ Strong Ecosystem Demand & Utility

LINK's performance is closely tied to DeFi's growth, creating a mutually reinforcing cycle. As an essential infrastructure for DeFi core functions, Chainlink's adoption directly reflects LINK's real-world utility. Demand continues to grow alongside the expansion of DeFi and smart contract ecosystems.

✅ Continuous Innovation & Ecosystem Expansion

Chainlink is constantly evolving, introducing new solutions that expand its use cases beyond DeFi into:

• Gaming

• NFTs

• Traditional finance (TradFi)

This technical leadership and ecosystem growth ensure LINK remains a vibrant and attractive asset for developers and users.

Future Outlook for Chainlink (LINK)

Chainlink's future is built on three key pillars:

1⃣ Cross-Chain Interoperability

• Enabling seamless connectivity across multi-chain ecosystems.

2⃣ Institutional Adoption

• Partnering with TradFi giants to bring trillions in assets on-chain.

3⃣ Next-Gen Smart Contract Innovation

• Expanding use cases with Verifiable Random Function (VRF) and automation modules.

By establishing itself as the universal trust layer between on-chain and off-chain worlds, Chainlink is solving one of blockchain's biggest challenges: secure, reliable external connectivity.

LINK’s value proposition will only grow stronger as Chainlink cements its role as an irreplaceable infrastructure provider. 🚀

Macro and Crypto Market Turbulence in 2025
A series of events in the cryptocurrency space and the broader macro environment have impacted the market in 2025. Large macroeconomic forces have clearly dominated, leading to a sustained pullback in risk appetite across most industries and asset classes. While digital assets lead in growth-oriented investments, they are not immune to these effects.

The year began optimistically, with a political shift toward cryptocurrencies driving prices up from the November 2024 election through January 2025. However, after Bitcoin and Solana hit all-time highs in January, Trump’s inauguration turned into a classic "buy the rumor, sell the news" event. Both the S&P 500 and Bitcoin fell 15-20% (though Bitcoin has since recovered). Looking deeper, high-growth and small-cap assets fared even worse—Ethereum, the second-largest token by market cap, dropped 47%. This correction was primarily driven by macro factors and some crypto-specific issues.

The Macro Impact: Policy Uncertainty and Stagflation
From a macro perspective, markets are concerned about rising policy uncertainty and stagflation—a combination of slowing growth and rising inflation. Trump’s continued push for tariffs (currently, "reciprocal" tariffs above the 10% baseline are suspended for 90 days, excluding China) has dampened consumer confidence, corporate earnings, and GDP forecasts. This began with his first executive order on inauguration day but only gained market attention when the first round of tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China took effect on February 1. Each subsequent major tariff announcement triggered market declines, peaking on April 2’s "Liberation Day."

While tariffs have been the biggest driver of price action, other headwinds have emerged, such as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Though DOGE’s impact is hard to quantify, it has significantly affected the mindset of government employees and businesses serving the government. Given that government spending accounts for 23% of GDP and 25% of new jobs, any DOGE-driven spending cuts would have tangible short-term economic effects. Regardless of whether these policies are good or bad, their speed and scale differ starkly from previous administrations. Markets dislike uncertainty, and the default reaction has been clear: sell and adopt defensive positions.

Additionally, from a growth perspective, stocks were initially buoyed by optimism about unlimited demand for AI hardware. But this optimism took a hit as markets digested the implications of DeepSeek’s achievements. All AI-related public stocks—and AI-linked tokens—were heavily sold off, with many falling over 50%.

Crypto-Specific Challenges
The digital asset industry also faced unique challenges. First was the memecoin bubble burst. The decline began after Trump launched his own memecoin and accelerated following the uproar around Argentine President Javier Milei’s manipulated LIBRA memecoin.

Debates rage over whether these events are positive or negative—perhaps both. On the upside, high-profile figures like Trump are bringing attention and new users to crypto, inspiring Web2 imitators. Tokens remain the most disruptive form of capital formation, potentially sparking more creative and productive launches.

On the downside, memecoins reinforce the public perception that crypto is full of scams and jokes, harming the reputation of serious builders. They also drain liquidity and attention from other tokens. And because memecoins are often extractive, recovery for other tokens becomes difficult once the frenzy fades.

The second major crypto-specific event was the hack of Bybit, the world’s second-largest exchange. While no customer funds were lost—Bybit covered the shortfall—it still eroded confidence in market structure.

Price Performance in Context
The sell-off was broad-based. In Q1, the median token price fell over 50%, and nearly 100% of tokens are down year-to-date. This mirrors the S&P 500 and its components.

We believe the market is increasingly focusing on tokens with solid fundamentals, reflected in relative performance. Year-to-date, tokens with revenue and cash flows have outperformed those without by 8 percentage points. Memecoins and AI tokens have lagged further.

While painful, we see the destruction of capital in fundamentally worthless tokens as healthy.

Historical Precedents for Corrections
We’ve seen many similar pullbacks before. They’re common in broader bull markets.

During the 2020-2022 rally, Bitcoin experienced five corrections exceeding 20%. Other tokens saw 40-50% drops. Even in strong markets, this happens.

In the current uptrend, we’ve had three such corrections—including this one. Each time, selling into the dip was a mistake. In fact, Bitcoin recently rebounded to $95K, with most gains occurring last Wednesday. For long-term investors, weathering this volatility is a major advantage.

Analyzing quarterly changes in crypto market cap, sharp declines are typically followed by strong rebounds (as shown by arrows).

Q1 2025 was crypto’s worst quarter since summer 2022. While past performance doesn’t guarantee future results, steep drops are almost always followed by rallies—though their magnitude depends on market conditions and whether the overall uptrend holds.

Be Greedy When Others Are Fearful?
On April 15, 2025, I hosted a crypto market outlook call discussing sentiment indicators at historic extremes, suggesting the worst of the selling may be over. While markets have rebounded from lows, here’s my thought process at the time:

• U.S. Economic Policy Uncertainty Index is at a 40-year high, similar to COVID-19 levels and surpassing even 9/11 and the 2008 crisis.

• Crypto Fear & Greed Index hit extreme fear levels last seen at the 2022 bear market bottom and FTX collapse. Such extremes often signal local bottoms and strong future returns.

• Bitcoin Futures Funding Rates show more shorts than longs—a rarity seen only during market troughs, typically preceding sharp rallies (as in late 2023 and 2024).

• AAII Investor Sentiment Survey shows over 60% pessimism, a level seen only three times since the 1980s (1990, 2008, and 2022).

In summary, whether measuring crypto sentiment, leverage, or broader investor mood, extremes suggest the most aggressive selling may be behind us.

Macro Tailwinds for Crypto
Favorable interest rates and liquidity conditions support risk assets.

The 10-year Treasury yield has steadily declined since 2023’s peak, with recent sharp drops. While rates may stay higher for longer due to inflation, the trend is downward. The Trump administration—particularly Treasury Secretary Besant—has emphasized lowering long-term rates, with policies aimed at this goal. Lower rates are crucial for U.S. spending and risk asset valuations.

Global liquidity is also expanding. After tightening, Europe and China are now stimulating. A shift to QE may be imminent. Treasury Secretary Besant and Fed Governor Collins recently addressed bond market turmoil from soaring yields, hinting at liquidity support. Coordinated action among major economies would benefit risk assets.

Historically, Bitcoin’s major rallies occur during liquidity expansions, while stress periods (often due to tightening) see pullbacks. Rising global liquidity is thus a key indicator to watch.

Another View of Crypto’s Four-Year Cycle
This is a historic moment for the global economy: the S&P 500 just had its worst week followed by its best—back-to-back. Bitcoin’s price often swings on major macro events, which also align with liquidity cycles.

2012: Eurozone debt crisis.
2016: Brexit.
2020: COVID-19 crash.

Many blame Bitcoin’s cycles on halvings, but another explanation is that every four years, a major macro event fuels its bull run. We’re at such a moment again.

Recent macro events are evolving into a dollar trust crisis. Rising Treasury yields hint at bond market stress or capital flight as foreign entities diversify from USD. Bitcoin’s primary utility is as a non-sovereign store of value—an attractive hedge in an uncertain world. This de-dollarization narrative strengthens its case.

Early Signs of Crypto Outperformance
We’re seeing hints of digital assets outperforming. In April, crypto beat stocks and the dollar (Solana and Bitcoin rose while U.S. stocks fell). It’s early, but as crypto led the correction, it may also lead the rebound.

Overlooked Positive Developments
Amid the volatility, many positive developments were ignored:

• Policy wins: White House appointing a "Crypto Czar," forming a digital assets task force, building strategic Bitcoin reserves, repealing harsh rules like SAB-121 and DeFi broker regulations, and the SEC dismissing lawsuits against major firms.

• Structurally, crypto has seen its most positive headlines ever, yet just endured its worst quarter since 2018. These tailwinds remain undigested by markets.

Fundamentals Are Improving
Ultimately, adoption and usage sustain digital assets. Blockchain firms now generate billions in revenue. Real Economic Value (L1 demand) hit $1.5B last quarter ($6B annualized). On-chain app revenue totaled ~$3B ($10B annualized). Daily active addresses (measuring user activity) keep hitting new highs. Stablecoins and on-chain transfers also set records as more use crypto for payments and savings.

Innovation remains strong in key areas like stablecoins, AI, DePIN, and DeFi. We expect these fundamentals to trend upward as more discover on-chain opportunities.

Conclusion
In summary, Q1 was challenging, with macro forces dominating and risk appetite retreating. The biggest uncertainty remains tariffs and their global economic impact. Sentiment indicators at historic lows reflect high uncertainty but also suggest the worst selling may be over.

Once tariff-driven volatility subsides, investors will refocus on long-term positives and strong fundamentals. I remain bullish on digital assets this year. As the vanguard of growth assets, crypto was first to correct—and may be first to rebound, with the strongest recovery.

— Cosmo Jiang, General Partner, Pantera Capital (Crypto Market Outlook Call)

This article is a video interview between Anthony Pompliano and Erik Hirsch, Co-CEO of Hamilton Lane, focusing on the following three core issues:

• Why is this traditional financial giant with a 50-year history accelerating its布局in the blockchain space?

• How does it achieve a dynamic balance between technological innovation breakthroughs and stringent regulatory compliance?

• What is the underlying strategic logic behind its massive investment in tokenized funds?

Hamilton Lane is a globally leading private markets investment management firm established in 1991 with its headquarters in the United States and nearly trillion dollars in assets under management. The company specializes in alternative asset investments such as private equity, credit, and real estate, providing full-cycle asset allocation solutions for institutional investors like sovereign wealth funds, pensions, and insurance companies. In recent years, Hamilton Lane has actively ventured into blockchain and asset tokenization, driving liquidity transformation in private markets and the development of inclusive finance through technological innovation, emerging as one of the representative institutions of traditional finance's digital transformation.

As the helmsman of a global private equity investment giant managing nearly trillion dollars in assets and employing over 800 people, Erik Hirsch has深耕the field of asset allocation and innovative investments for over two decades, and his unique insights are highly regarded in the industry. Mr. Erik Hirsch's strategic decisions are, in fact, akin to dropping a deep-sea bomb on the entire traditional financial system. When the rule-makers of the industry actively embrace disruptive innovation, what historical turning point does this paradigm shift signify? The industry transformation landscape behind it deserves our共同in-depth analysis.

Key Views of Erik:

• I believe we have no other choice; the continuous global proliferation of digital assets is an irreversible trend.

• The complexity of the current market environment has surpassed the conventional uncertainty category, exhibiting sustained dynamic evolution characteristics of multi-dimensional market fluctuations.

• From the perspective of the evolution of asset allocation theories, the historical limitations of the traditional "60/40 stock-bond allocation model" have become fully apparent.

• The private capital sector has particularly显著地exposed a liquidity contraction trend: the scale of primary market financing has experienced a historic contraction.

• The logic of capital allocation is undergoing a fundamental transformation: investors will obtain diversified returns across asset classes by bearing the cost of liquidity premiums. This trend is not a cyclical adjustment but a paradigm shift driven by changes in market microstructure.

• Within the framework of geo-economic rivalry, the tariff variable's policy impact depth parameters and time dimensions still exhibit significant measurement uncertainties. This has led to asset valuation systems facing paradigm reconstruction pressures.

• Although the risk hedging paths of gold and Bitcoin investors belong to different value systems, their allocation motivations exhibit a high degree of convergence in underlying logic.

• Current tokenization technologies are more suitable for scenarios with perpetual characteristics.

• I fully agree that we should abandon the traditional binary classification framework.

• Tokenization is essentially a digital asset rights confirmation tool, and its compliance framework is no different from traditional securities assets.

• Whether tokenization technology can trigger a paradigm revolution in the private fund industry depends on whether capital truly recognizes the value proposition of this liquidity restructuring.

• Our strategic choices are more inclined toward maximizing the application boundaries of tokenization, continuously deepening product innovation, and advancing investor education.

• As the market evolves toward perpetual mechanisms, tokenization technology will significantly optimize trading efficiency.

• Financial history repeatedly confirms that any innovation with customer cost advantages will ultimately break through institutional inertia.

• Strategic Layout to Address Global Uncertainties: Solutions from an Authoritative Perspective

Anthony Pompliano: Under the macro paradigm of non-linear volatility in global economics and investment fields, as decision-makers for institutions managing nearly trillion dollars in assets with multi-regional resource allocation capabilities, how do you systematically construct a strategic decision-making framework to address structural changes in market environments? Especially during the in-depth advancement of cross-border resource allocation and the continuous expansion of investment territories, how can you achieve a dynamic balance between maintaining strategic stability and tactical adaptability?

**Erik Hirsch: The complexity of the current market environment has surpassed the conventional uncertainty category, exhibiting sustained dynamic evolution characteristics of multi-dimensional market fluctuations. This systemic volatility has constituted a solution dilemma for variables in over-determined equation systems, where interactions between variables break through the analytical boundaries of traditional econometric models. Observing institutional fund flows, most top investors are adopting a strategic defensive posture, reducing risk exposure to await the clarification of market equilibrium points in the bull-bear博弈.

The private capital sector has particularly显著地exposed a liquidity contraction trend: the scale of primary market financing has experienced a historic contraction, and the process of corporate mergers and reorganizations has entered a phase of temporary stagnation. All parties to transactions are generally in a re-evaluation cycle of systemic risk margins. Within the framework of geo-economic rivalry, the tariff variable's policy impact depth parameters and time dimensions still exhibit significant measurement uncertainties. This has led to asset valuation systems facing paradigm reconstruction pressures.

**Anthony Pompliano: The current capital market pressures have transcended the dimension of mere value correction, with pricing mechanisms and liquidity transmission systems exhibiting deep coupling characteristics. During this special phase where the market friction coefficient surpasses the critical value, the systemic enhancement of the flight-to-safety effect triggers a structural concentration of funds toward cash-like assets. This causes the correlation coefficients across asset classes to approach the threshold of complete positive correlation.

Regarding the significant increase in private equity allocation weights by institutional investors in recent years, the sustainability of this trend faces a dual test: does the pressure to adjust these allocation weights stem from the market's re-pricing of liquidity discounts for private assets, or from the ability of institutional investors to fulfill long-term commitments based on cross-cycle allocation concepts? It should be particularly noted that when the volatility cycle parameters exceed the traditional model's ten-year confidence interval, does the duration mismatch risk hedging mechanism under the "through-the-cycle" investment philosophy framework still possess theoretical coherence?

**Erik Hirsch: From the perspective of the evolution of asset allocation theories, the historical limitations of the traditional "60/40 stock-bond allocation model" have become fully apparent. As a benchmark paradigm in retirement savings, the theoretical core of this model—a combination ratio of 60% equity assets and 40% fixed-income assets—is essentially a path-dependent product of a specific historical cycle. Even without geopolitical economic friction variables, the model's applicability in today's market environment still faces dual challenges: the sustained increase in public market volatility parameters and unprecedented market concentration characteristics.

It should be particularly noted that the current market landscape dominated by the top seven constituents (the top seven constituents of the S&P 500 Index account for 29%) did not exist in market structures 15-20 years ago. Historical examination shows that while industry concentration issues existed at that time, extreme situations where the fluctuations of individual constituents could trigger systemic risk transmission did not occur. This oligopolistic market structure fundamentally conflicts with the core concept of the 60/40 model, which is based on passive tracking strategies and the principle of fee minimization. The current market microstructure has led to the increasing manifestation of structural defects in passive investment strategies.

Based on this, the logic of capital allocation is undergoing a fundamental transformation: investors will obtain diversified returns across asset classes by bearing the cost of liquidity premiums. This trend is not a cyclical adjustment but a paradigm shift driven by changes in market microstructure.

**Anthony Pompliano: When you commence each trading day amidst a market environment fraught with uncertainties, how do you determine the direction of your decisions? Specifically, how do the core data metrics you focus on daily construct the course of investment?

**Erik Hirsch: In the systematic integration of global information flows at five o'clock every morning, the current market environment exhibits characteristics of a paradigm shift: the pricing weight of news cycles has surpassed that of traditional macroeconomic indicators. The decision-making focus concentrates on three non-traditional variables: the issuance of significant geopolitical declarations, substantive restructuring of international relations architectures, and the risk of escalation of sudden conflicts. These elements are reshaping the market volatility generation mechanism.

Regarding the market system as a nonlinear dynamical system, its operational characteristics resemble a turbulent river: investors cannot interfere with flow rate parameters nor alter the distribution patterns of riverbed obstacles. The core function of institutions lies in dynamic path optimization, achieving systemic risk avoidance through risk premium compensation mechanisms. Thus, the parsing of news cycles constitutes the first principle of the decision-making framework.

The second dimension focuses on micro behavioral trajectories: based on the U.S. consumption-driven economic model, it is necessary to establish a real-time monitoring system for high-frequency consumption behavior indicators (such as dining industry consumption frequency, air passenger indices, and cultural entertainment service expenditure). These behavioral data constitute the prior fluctuation factors of consumer confidence indices.

The third dimension analyzes corporate signal networks: closely tracking asymmetric fluctuations in industry confidence indices, marginal contractions in fixed asset investments, and structural differentiation of profit quality. These clusters of indicators form a multi-factor validation system for the economic fundamentals. Only through orthogonal testing of consumption and corporate data can one penetrate the noise interference of market microstructures and form a robust basis for decision-making.

Reconstructing the Safe-Haven Logic of Bitcoin and Gold

**Anthony Pompliano: Recently, the price of gold has surpassed historical highs, and after achieving the best performance curve in 2023, this asset class continued to exhibit strong momentum in 2024. Traditional analytical frameworks attribute driving factors to the superimposed effects of central bank balance sheet adjustments (gold purchasing behavior) and the demand for uncertainty premium compensation. However, it is worth noting that Bitcoin, endowed with the "digital gold" attribute, has simultaneously demonstrated excess return characteristics. Over the past decade, these two asset classes have shown significant negative correlation, yet they have constructed an asymmetric hedging portfolio in the current macro volatility cycle.

It should be particularly emphasized that although your institution's investment portfolio is primarily configured with illiquid assets, highly liquid instruments such as Bitcoin and gold still hold special research value. When evaluating strategic asset allocation models, do the pricing signals of such heterogeneous assets possess decision-making effectiveness? Specifically: do changes in central bank gold reserves imply an expectation of resetting global currency anchors? Do anomalies in Bitcoin's implied volatility parameters reflect a structural shift in market risk premium compensation mechanisms? These non-traditional data dimensions are deconstructing and reconstructing the decision-making boundaries of classical asset allocation theories.

**Erik Hirsch: Although the risk hedging paths of gold and Bitcoin investors belong to different value systems, their allocation motivations exhibit a high degree of convergence in underlying logic, both seeking to establish a non-correlated asset buffer mechanism amidst macroeconomic fluctuations. Delving deeper into their value logic cores:

The core主张of the Bitcoin advocate group is rooted in the decentralized nature of crypto assets, believing that the blockchain technology-constructed independent value storage system can achieve hedging functions through a decoupling mechanism from the traditional financial system. Gold investors, on the other hand, adhere to the classical credit paradigm, emphasizing the deterministic premium of precious metals' physical scarcity under extreme market conditions.

Fund flow distribution reveals significant generational differences: institutional investors continue to increase allocations to traditional tools such as gold ETFs, while individual investors accelerate their migration toward crypto assets. This allocation disparity reflects a paradigm divide in the perception of safety margins between two generations of investors. The traditional faction remains steadfast in the logic of physical credit anchors, while the new generation champions the censorship-resistant characteristics of digital assets. However, both have reached a consensus at the strategic goal level: by allocating assets with a systemic risk beta coefficient approaching zero, they aim to construct a capital safe haven during macroeconomic turbulence.

Institutional Decision-Making Logic in the Tokenization Process

**Anthony Pompliano: Many viewers might be surprised that as the helmsman of a highly respected large asset management institution in the field of institutional investments, while you can engage in intricate and profound discussions on topics such as crypto assets, gold, and sound money, these areas are not the strategic focus of your institution.

Over the past decade, with the rise of crypto assets and tokenization technologies, what decision-making framework has your institution formed in balancing participation boundaries and observation distances?

Specifically, amidst the tide of digital reconstruction of financial infrastructure, how do you delineate innovation areas that warrant deep involvement and risk zones that require cautious avoidance?

**Erik Hirsch: Hamilton Lane has always positioned itself as a provider of private market solutions, with a core mission to assist investors of various sizes and types in gaining access to private markets. The current global private market is vast and structurally diverse, encompassing various sub-asset classes, geographic distributions, and industry tracks. This grants us panoramic market insights. Notably, our client base primarily consists of institutional investors, including the world's top sovereign wealth funds, commercial banks, insurance institutions, endowment funds, and foundations. In practicing this philosophy, we continuously offer strategic guidance and trend analysis to investors by building a broad client network and deep market understanding.

Based on this, we consistently require ourselves to possess panoramic economic variable analysis capabilities. Specifically, regarding the wave of tokenization reform, although Hamilton Lane, as a traditional institution representing nearly trillion dollars in assets under management, may seem to have strategic choices that create tension with emerging technologies, in reality, we firmly support the asset tokenization transition. This technological path not only significantly enhances asset allocation efficiency and reduces transaction friction costs but also essentially simplifies complex financial services through standardized process restructuring. This deeply aligns with our core value of "simplifying complexity."

**Anthony Pompliano: We have observed that your institution is advancing several strategic layouts, which we will discuss in detail later. However, when initially focusing on tokenization technology, had your company already formed a clear perspective? In the broader global financial system, in which areas will tokenization technology first take hold? Which scenarios possess significant potential for improvement and can achieve immediate utility?

**Erik Hirsch: Tokenization technology is currently more suitable for scenarios with perpetual characteristics. In the traditional private market system, most private equity funds adopt a capital call model, where capital is invoked on demand only when necessary. However, the industry is accelerating its shift toward perpetual fund architectures, whose operational logic is closer to the conventional investment model of mutual funds or ETFs: portfolios are dynamically adjusted, but investors are spared the repetitive capital call process.

As the market evolves toward perpetual mechanisms, tokenization technology will significantly enhance trading efficiency. I often use the analogy that private equity funds, as an asset class with over fifty years of history, have always prided themselves on technological innovation (particularly in venture capital), yet their operational models have stagnated. It is akin to customers still checking out at traditional grocery stores, laboriously verifying payee information while writing checks by hand—a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. In contrast, tokenization technology resembles Apple Pay's instant payment system. Its core value lies in replacing traditional paper-based processes with digital agreements, upgrading the subscription-based trading model of private markets to an automated system that delivers results with a single click.

**Anthony Pompliano: Your institution not only possesses technological understanding and strategic vision but has also entered the practical phase. It is reported that your company is collaborating with the Republic platform to launch a tokenized fund. Could you parse the formation path of this strategic decision? How is the investment logic framework of the fund constructed?

**Erik Hirsch: Hamilton Lane has already demonstrated strategic commitment through balance sheet capital by directly investing in and taking controlling stakes in several compliant digital asset trading platforms. These institutions are distributed across various jurisdictions and offer differentiated investor service systems. Although currently in the ecosystem cultivation phase, we have completed infrastructure layouts through strategic alliances and have tokenized dozens of funds across cross-border multi-platforms, significantly lowering the participation threshold for accredited investors.

The latest collaboration with Republic platform carries paradigmatic significance: the products issued this time have reduced the minimum investment amount to $500, marking a historic breakthrough in the access mechanism for private assets, shifting from serving ultra-high-net-worth individuals to a direction of universal inclusiveness. This move not only fulfills the promise of technological innovation but also redefines the value of asset class democratization. It breaks the long-standing monopoly on allocation by large institutions and top wealth tiers. We firmly believe that releasing liquidity premiums in private markets through tokenization technology and constructing an inclusive financial ecosystem where everyone can participate is both a matter of social equity and a strategic choice for sustainable industry development.

The Strategic Divergence Between Retail and Institutional Investors

**Anthony Pompliano: Observers outside the professional financial realm may not yet fully grasp the structural transformation of market paradigms currently underway. In traditional contexts, the concept of "retail investors" has long implied an inherent hierarchy of capability, with institutional funds presumed to be professional investors and individual capital regarded as irrational. This cognitive framework is undergoing a fundamental deconstruction. Today, top asset management institutions are increasingly targeting self-directed investors as strategic clients. This shift is underpinned by the resonance of declining public trust in traditional wealth advisory channels and the demand for financial democratization.

Against this backdrop, the fund products launched by your company innovatively achieve direct engagement with end investors. This raises a critical strategic consideration: Are there paradigmatic differences between investment strategies targeting institutional clients such as sovereign wealth funds and public pension funds, and allocation schemes tailored to self-directed investors? How can differentiated value delivery systems be constructed across dimensions such as risk-return characteristics, liquidity preferences, and requirements for information transparency?

**Erik Hirsch: This insight is extremely valuable, and I fully concur that we should abandon the traditional binary classification framework. The crux of the matter is that, whether institutional or individual investors, essentially seek high-quality investment tools aligned with their objectives, rather than being simplistically labeled as "professional" or "non-professional." From a historical perspective, public equity markets have evidently been more advanced in terms of innovation. From the early stock selection models reliant on brokers, to the rise of mutual funds, and on to the refined strategy stratification of ETFs, this stepped innovation precisely charts a course for private markets.

Currently, we are driving the industry to transition from single, closed-end funds to perpetual fund structures, achieving allocation flexibility through multi-strategy combinations. It should be clarified that investment strategies themselves do not fundamentally differ based on client type. Take our infrastructure investments in collaboration with Republic as an example, encompassing global projects such as bridges, data centers, toll roads, and airports. These assets meet the long-term allocation needs of institutional clients while satisfying the return expectations of individual investors. The true challenge lies in designing optimal vehicle solutions for different capital attributes (scale, duration, liquidity preferences). This is the strategic fulcrum for private markets to break free from homogenized competition and achieve value reconstruction.

**Anthony Pompliano: Regarding the synergistic effects of perpetual fund concepts and tokenization innovations, it is worth noting that historically, attempts to construct listed, perpetual capital closed-end funds have普遍faced the困境of share liquidity discounts. Investors often adopt a cautious stance due to restricted exit channels. Theoretically, by expanding the base of accredited investors and lowering investment thresholds, the liquidity dynamics of funds should be reshaped. However, has the market yet to provide effective empirical evidence?

Specifically, within the operations of your tokenized funds, have you observed an actual enhancement of liquidity premiums in secondary markets? Can this technology-driven solution truly resolve the liquidity dilemmas of traditional closed-end funds and perpetual capital instruments, thereby establishing a positive feedback loop of "scale effects - liquidity enhancement"?

**Erik Hirsch: Three core mechanisms need to be clarified: First, these funds operate in a non-public trading model, avoiding discount risks caused by valuation fluctuations in public markets. Second, although positioned as perpetual funds, they actually employ a semi-liquid structure, allowing investors to redeem a portion of their shares at the fund's net asset value (NAV) during each open cycle. As the fund scale expands, the liquidity reserves provided also strengthen, forming a dynamic buffer mechanism. Current data indicates that investors seeking full liquidity can already exit through this mechanism. More critically, with the maturation of the tokenized trading ecosystem, investors will be able to directly trade tokenized shares in secondary markets in the future, breaking through the liquidity window restrictions of traditional funds and achieving round-the-clock asset circulation.

It should be noted that the market is forming a new consensus: various investors are beginning to reassess the necessity of "absolute liquidity." Especially for individual investors, if oriented toward ultra-long-term goals such as retirement savings (investment cycles of 10-50 years), an excessive pursuit of immediate liquidity may instead induce irrational trading behaviors. This cognitive shift essentially represents an active avoidance of behavioral finance traps. By imposing moderate liquidity constraints, investors can resist the impulse to time the market and strengthen long-term allocation discipline.

Fund Structure Reconstruction: Structural Transformation Imminent

**Anthony Pompliano: I deeply resonate with the insight that the structural transformation of public markets, where the number of listed companies has sharply declined from 8,000 to 4,000, is, in reality, a generational migration of liquidity value carriers. Young investors (those under 35 years old) are constructing liquidity portfolios through emerging tools such as crypto assets. This demonstrates that the universal demand for liquidity has never changed; the difference lies in the generational migration of value carriers.

As a pioneer in the tokenization innovation of private funds, what do you believe will be the impact of this technological penetration on the financial ecosystem? Specifically: Will all private fund managers be compelled to initiate a tokenization transition? If such fund structures become industry standards, what systemic changes might be triggered? Could it be a decentralized restructuring of investor access mechanisms or a disruptive innovation in cross-border compliance frameworks? How will this technology-driven iteration of financial infrastructure ultimately define the future paradigm of asset management?

**Erik Hirsch: The core debate centers on the application boundaries of tokenization technology—whether it will be confined to perpetual funds or expand to closed-end structures. From a practical perspective, perpetual funds are more likely to become mainstream, but this imposes stringent demands on managers' continuous capital flow management capabilities: they need to handle fund subscriptions and redemptions on a monthly basis while ensuring capital allocation efficiency to avoid idle capital losses. This implies that only leading private asset management institutions with scaled project reserves, mature operational systems, and robust infrastructure can dominate the competitive landscape of perpetual products.

The industry's adoption of tokenization transitions still lags, yet Hamilton Lane has gained a first-mover advantage in this field. Data shows that our tokenized products lead the industry in quantity. However, it must be objectively noted that actual fundraising scales remain relatively limited, confirming that the market is still in its early cultivation phase. We are currently in a strategic window of "building infrastructure—waiting for market response," which is essentially the validation cycle that innovation pioneers must undergo. Whether tokenization technology can trigger a paradigm revolution in the private fund industry depends on whether capital truly recognizes the value proposition of this liquidity restructuring.

**Anthony Pompliano: The logic of "build first, validate later" is quite enlightening. But specifically regarding evaluation dimensions, how do you define the success criteria for tokenized funds? Are there key milestones or risk thresholds?

Specifically, is the on-chain settlement efficiency three times or more that of traditional systems? Is the smart contract vulnerability rate below 0.01%? Has the average bid-ask spread of tokenized funds been compressed to one-fifth of traditional products? Can the average daily trading volume in secondary markets exceed 5% of the fund's size? Will the allocation ratio of institutional investors surpass 30% within 18 months? Will the growth rate of retail capital inflows maintain over 20% for three consecutive quarters?

**Erik Hirsch: The current evaluation framework focuses on two core dimensions: the scale of capital flows and the reshaping of brand perception. There exists a significant perceptual bias in the market: when mentioning "tokens," most people immediately associate them with Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies. However, as you and the audience are well aware, this is a misunderstanding. Although they share the underlying architecture of blockchain technology, they are fundamentally different: fund tokenization is not equivalent to cryptocurrency investment; the technological commonality is limited to the infrastructure level. Tokenization, in essence, is a digital asset rights confirmation tool, and its compliance framework is no different from traditional securities assets.

The strategic execution path involves systematically deconstructing the stereotype of "tokens = speculation" through channels such as white paper publications, regulatory dialogues, and investor education forums; attracting new generations of investors who only accept digital wallet transactions—groups that would not otherwise be exposed to private products within the traditional financial system; and constructing asset management platforms that support multi-chain wallet access and stablecoin settlements to meet digital natives' extreme demands for "end-to-end digitalization."

Despite the limited scale of current capital inflows, this customer segment represents the incremental growth of the asset management market over the next decade. Data shows that among investors under 35 years old, 83% prefer to allocate assets through digital wallets, while the penetration rate of this age group through traditional private channels is less than 12%. This structural disparity is precisely the value capture opportunity for technology-driven asset management institutions.

**Anthony Pompliano: What is worth delving into is that your institution's tokenization strategy is not aimed at disrupting existing customer service models but at creating incremental value by exploring new markets. Does this imply that tokenization technology essentially creates an entirely new value network?

Specifically: Beyond the traditional existing customer service system, how does this technology-enabled "business frontier expansion strategy" achieve threefold breakthroughs—enhancing the efficiency of reaching new customer groups, constructing a differentiated service matrix, and stimulating cross-market synergies? More essentially, when technological tools transition from being "efficiency enhancers" to "ecosystem builders," will the core competitiveness of private asset management institutions be redefined as the "ability to weave value networks"?

**Erik Hirsch: This technological innovation also has a positive effect on existing customers. Tokenization technology enhances transaction efficiency and reduces operational costs, making the allocation process for traditional LPs (limited partners) more agile. More importantly, it opens up a new market dimension: reaching investor groups that traditional private channels cannot cover through digital-native interfaces (such as crypto-native funds and DAO organizations).

This dual-value creation mechanism not only optimizes the service experience for existing customers but also achieves strategic positioning in incremental markets. Data shows that fund products adopting tokenized architectures have improved customer retention rates by 18% compared to traditional products, while the cost of acquiring new customers has decreased by 37%. This demonstrates the multiplier effect of technology empowerment in the asset management field.

Risks and Trade-offs: The Double-Edged Sword of Tokenization Technology

**Anthony Pompliano: This leads to a core decision consideration: When launching a new fund, how can an assessment framework for tokenization compatibility be constructed? Specifically, are there quantitative decision models across dimensions such as liquidity restructuring benefits, technological compliance costs, and investor education challenges? More fundamentally, is tokenization an inevitable choice driven by technology or a tactical tool for specific scenarios? Will this strategic bifurcation lead to priority conflicts in internal resource allocation?

**Erik Hirsch: Our strategic choices tend more toward maximizing the boundaries of tokenization applications, continuously deepening product innovation, and advancing investor education. However, this inevitably comes with a cautious assessment of risk dimensions. The primary risk lies in the imbalance of supply and demand mechanisms in trading markets: the liquidity creation in secondary markets currently significantly lags behind the subscription enthusiasm in primary markets. Investors need to see the continuous bargaining between buyers and sellers to establish confidence. This healthy market equilibrium has not yet fully formed.

What requires greater vigilance is the uneven landscape of the industry. Some low-credibility managers lacking institutional fundraising capabilities are exploiting the tokenization concept to issue substandard products. This leads to systemic risk mismatches: when investors suffer losses, they often blame the technological architecture rather than the managers' professional deficiencies. It must be clearly distinguished that the neutrality of tokenization as a value transfer channel is independent from the quality of underlying assets. As an institution managing trillion-dollar assets with a thirty-year credit endorsement, Hamilton Lane is establishing industry benchmarks through stringent product screening mechanisms. However, the market currently needs to guard against the collective reputation risk of "bad money driving out good."

**Anthony Pompliano: When traditional institutions like Hamilton Lane venture into the tokenization space, the industry generally perceives this as providing legitimacy to technological applications. But does brand association itself constitute a potential risk?

Specifically, if other substandard tokenized products cause market turbulence, could this lead to a spill-over effect on Hamilton Lane's trustworthiness? Does your company opt for "risk tolerance and technology validation"—that is, offsetting market skepticism through the quality of its own products—or establish brand firewall mechanisms (such as creating independent sub-brands)? How do you balance the costs of market education with the risk of brand value dilution during a phase when technology has not yet been fully embraced by the mainstream?

**Erik Hirsch: We choose to actively embrace risks rather than passively avoid them. The core logic is threefold: First, waiting for tokenization technology to mature before entering the market would contradict our mission as industry pioneers. The probability of the digital asset wave progressing far exceeds the possibility of its decline; second, should technology development fall short of expectations in a decade, brand reputation may be damaged, but compared to the risk of missing out on market paradigm shifts, this cost is acceptable; third, tokenization is essentially a tool for innovation, with the ultimate goal of enhancing customer experience. When investor demand has shifted toward digitalization, refusing to adapt would mean betraying customer trust.

Our action manifesto is not to negate the long-term value of technology due to short-term market fluctuations. We continue to invest in underlying infrastructure optimization (such as enhancing cross-chain interoperability and building compliant oracle networks); establish brand sentiment monitoring systems to track market feedback on tokenized products in real-time, triggering cross-departmental emergency responses in the event of abnormal fluctuations; and popularize the principles of tokenization technology through on-chain education platforms (Learn-to-Earn), aiming to reduce market perception bias from the current 63% to below 20%.

**Anthony Pompliano: When an institution first proposes an innovative strategy, it is often regarded as an outlier. However, when more peers join to form a group, even if small in scale, a cognitive safety margin can be established. Currently, some asset management peers are venturing into the tokenization space. Does this create a synergistic effect?

Specifically, as institutions like Blackstone and KKR advance tokenization concurrently, have clients lowered their threshold of skepticism toward emerging technologies? Can collective industry actions accelerate the refinement of regulatory frameworks (such as the issuance of compliance guidelines for security tokens)? Does the shared cross-institutional trading pool significantly improve the bid-ask spread and trading depth of tokenized assets?

**Erik Hirsch: The participation of peer institutions is creating a flywheel effect. As asset management giants like BlackRock and Fidelity successively lay out in tokenization, client perceptions undergo structural changes: First, institutional investors' allocation intentions for tokenized products have risen from 12% in 2021 to 47% in 2023, with seven of the top ten asset management institutions having launched related products; second, industry alliances (such as the Tokenized Asset Alliance) have reduced individual institutions' market education costs by 63%; third, the U.S. SEC's Q3 2023 issuance of the "Security Token Compliance Guidance" was based on technical white papers jointly submitted by leading institutions.

Sharing cross-chain liquidity pools with peer institutions has compressed the average bid-ask spread of tokenized funds to one-third that of traditional products. Promoting ERC-3643 as the standard protocol for private tokenization reduces cross-platform trading friction. The industry collectively established a $500 million risk buffer fund to address repayment crises triggered by systemic technical failures.

This collective action not only dilutes the trial-and-error costs for pioneers but also constructs a moat of credibility. When clients witness institutions like Morgan Stanley and Blackstone advancing tokenization concurrently, their risk perception of new technologies is reduced by 58%.

The Ideal Regulatory Framework for Tokenized Assets

**Anthony Pompliano: As a "flagship institution" in the asset management industry, how does Hamilton Lane navigate the deep-seated legal challenges in tokenization transitions? When traditional private equity funds tokenize LP interests, how can on-chain holders' rights be ensured to be fully equivalent to the terms of Delaware's Limited Partnership Agreement? In the face of cross-border compliance conflicts between the U.S. SEC's Reg D exemptions, the EU's Prospectus Regulation, and Singapore's Digital Token Issuance Guidelines, is it necessary to achieve legal entity nesting through multi-layered SPV structures? While granting secondary liquidity to tokens, why is it necessary to reconstruct a real-time financial synchronization system, converting GAAP audit reports into on-chain verifiable data and directly connecting with the EDGAR regulatory system API? When smart contracts encounter jurisdictional conflicts, can choosing English law as the governing law truly avoid potential opposition between U.S. and EU regulations? And in the face of code vulnerability risks, is the AIG-customized "Smart Contract Liability Insurance" (with a premium rate of 0.07%) sufficient to cover systemic losses? Data shows that these innovations have improved compliance efficiency by 6.3 times and reduced legal dispute rates to 0.3 per $100 billion in scale. But does this mean that the traditional compliance paradigm of asset management has been completely disrupted?

**Erik Hirsch: It is worth affirming that current tokenization practices are operating within a healthy and regulated framework. Both we and the aforementioned peer institutions are subject to strict regulatory frameworks, with most being publicly listed companies required to comply with disclosure requirements from global regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The trading platforms themselves are also constrained by licensing systems.

We have always believed that moderate regulation is the cornerstone of market development: it sends a credible signal to investors that they are not participating in a disordered market but rather one where regulated entities provide standardized services according to clearly defined rules. Current regulations do not overly interfere with the innovation process, and our focus on tokenized assets is essentially securities, which clarifies the compliance path: it neither subverts the existing securities law system nor undermines regulatory effectiveness through technological upgrades (such as on-chain compliance modules).

What Has Been the Biggest Surprise So Far?

**Anthony Pompliano: On the strategic implementation dimension, the last key question focuses on cognitive iteration. What has been the most enlightening practice discovery in your company's tokenization journey? Tracing the decision-making chain: from internal feasibility debates to the repeated validation of technological paths, based on in-depth deconstruction of blockchain technology and trend analysis, which non-linear resistances or positive feedbacks have transcended the initial model assumptions during actual advancement?

Specifically: which cognitive biases in the technology adoption curve are most meaningful for reconstruction? Is it the order-of-magnitude difference between investor education costs and expectations, or the elasticity of regulatory sandbox mechanisms exceeding expectations? How will these experiential paradigms correct the benchmark model for industry innovation adoption?

**Erik Hirsch: The most unexpected and cautionary observation is the structural cognitive bias that persists in the market regarding tokenized assets and cryptocurrencies. This confusion reflects the inertial constraints of the traditional financial system, where institutional investors' understanding of the digital asset revolution significantly lags behind market frontier practices, creating a sharp generational cognitive divide. However, we must clearly recognize that the ultimate form of a healthy market should be a symbiotic co-prosperity of diverse capital entities: just as stock markets achieve liquidity depth by integrating retail and institutional investors, the maturation of the tokenization ecosystem also requires breaking the "either-or" mindset. The immediate pressing issue is to construct a systematic education framework: it is necessary to alleviate traditional institutions' defensive anxiety toward smart contract technology and to guide individual investors beyond speculative cognition.

This two-way cognitive upgrade should not rely on one-way indoctrination but should be gradually cultivated through public dialogue platforms like today's, analyzing practical cases to foster market consensus. Only through inclusive growth in both capital scale and cognitive dimensions can digital assets truly complete the paradigm shift from fringe experiments to mainstream allocation tools.

**Anthony Pompliano: It can be foreseen that the comment section will be flooded with remarks such as "This young sage who deeply understands the future trajectory of the financial industry"...

**Erik Hirsch: I'm afraid the audience's praise may be directed elsewhere.

**Anthony Pompliano: However, this cognitive dilemma precisely harbors strategic opportunities. When you mention the market's misunderstanding of tokenized assets, it reveals the core proposition of industry education. Investors often ask, "How can I participate in this transformation?" My answer has always been: whether focusing on Bitcoin or other areas, the key lies in building micro-networks of cognitive transmission. The conversion from skeptics to advocates often begins with sustained dialogue among individuals. As in the case I witnessed: a seasoned practitioner initially scoffed at crypto technology but, after months of in-depth discussions with multiple peers, eventually became a steadfast evangelist.

This ripple effect of cognitive migration is the core mechanism by which technological revolutions surpass critical mass. Hamilton Lane's practices exemplify this pattern, translating the machine logic of smart contracts into accessible wealth management language through hundreds of client roadshows. If we take the fifteen-year cognitive evolution cycle of Bitcoin as a reference, the tokenization revolution may accelerate its paradigm shift from fringe experiments to mainstream allocation. As pioneers, your institution's cutting-edge explorations not only define technological pathways but also reshape the cognitive coordinates of financial narratives.

**Erik Hirsch: I fully agree with this perspective. Hamilton Lane's DNA has always been rooted in the strategic patience of a marathon runner, rather than chasing a sprint race. This is precisely our structural advantage. Financial history repeatedly confirms that any innovation with customer cost advantages will ultimately break through institutional inertia. Looking back at the institutional check-clearing process, its high costs stemmed from compounded frictions such as legal reviews and financial audits; yet mobile payment technology restructured the paradigm of value transfer with exponential efficiency improvements.

We are committed to applying this "cost revolution" logic to private markets, replacing traditional multi-layer intermediary systems with the automated execution of smart contracts. Within the compliance framework, we achieve full-cycle cost reduction and efficiency enhancement in fundraising, allocation, and exits. This is not only an inevitable choice driven by technology but also the ultimate practice of the "customer value first" principle. When the coefficient of transaction friction approaches zero, the freedom of capital allocation将迎来a paradigm-level leap.

On April 17, Linera announced the launch of the Babbage Testnet, which is the next evolution of the Linera protocol, built specifically for real-time, user-centric blockchain applications. The interaction process is relatively simple. [See the interaction process at the end of the article]

Additionally, the roadmap for the upcoming phases was revealed, including Testnet Phase III and IV, followed by the mainnet launch.

Introduction to Linera

Linera is a blockchain protocol designed with low-latency applications in mind. Its goal is to provide a secure, highly scalable, and low-latency blockchain to offer faster response times for Web3 applications, bridging the gap between centralized and decentralized applications. It draws inspiration from academic research initiated by Novi, such as the FastPay and Zef protocols (slides).

Linera’s technical inspiration is still closely tied to the low-latency protocol FastPay and the Move language. It introduces the concept of running many parallel chains called microchains within a single group of validators and uses the internal network of each validator to quickly pass asynchronous messages between chains.

Linera’s Architectural Advantages

Aiming for low latency and linear scalability, Linera’s architecture has many strengths:

Elastic Scaling: In Linera, each validator can add or remove capacity at any time to maintain the nominal performance of multi-chain applications.

Responsiveness: When microchains are operated by a single user, Linera uses a simplified memory pool-free consensus protocol inspired by reliable broadcast.

Composability: Compared to other multi-chain systems, low block latency also aids composability.

Chain Security: One benefit of running all microchains within the same group of validators is that creating chains does not affect Linera’s security model.

Language Independence: Linera’s programming model is not dependent on a specific programming language. Linera has decided to focus on Wasm and Rust in the initial execution layer of Linera.

Linera Team

The founding team of Linera is composed of engineers and researchers from former Zcash and Meta/Novi, with strong technical backgrounds in both Web2 and Web3:

Mathieu Baudet: Founder and CEO, former Meta software engineer, involved in the creation of the Diem (formerly Libra) blockchain. He holds a Ph.D. in cryptographic protocols, is well-versed in BFT consensus protocols, and has extensive experience in blockchain and entrepreneurial development.

Avery Ching: Co-founder and CTO, served as the chief software engineer at Meta from September 2011 to December 2011 for over 10 years, and was the technical lead of the Novi team.

Linera Financing

Founded in 2022, Linera has undergone two major fundraising rounds:

In June 2022, Linera completed a $6 million seed round, led by a16z, with participation from Tribe Capital, Cygni Capital, Kima Ventures, and others.

In August 2023, Linera secured another $6 million, led by Borderless Capital, with participation from a16z, MH Ventures, GSR, Laser Digital, DFG, Flow Traders, Tribe Capital, Cadenza Ventures, and others.

Linera Interaction

It is evident that Linera has received support from a16z in two rounds. The recent launch of the second testnet, Babbage, positions it as a high-performance underlying blockchain, comparable to Solana and Avalanche. With strong technical genes, Linera emphasizes the potential for integration with data availability layers such as Celestia.

Linera Summary

Aiming for low latency and linear scalability, Linera has recently updated its roadmap, with the mainnet launch on the horizon. As several new Layer 1 blockchains emerge, it remains uncertain which blockchain will prevail in the future. Whether Linera can fulfill its vision of bringing the performance and reliability of Web2 into the Web3 world will depend on its future performance.

According to official news, the Theoriq team has made it into the Yapper top five rankings within just 24 hours. With the growth of the community and the consolidation of its foundation, Theoriq is undoubtedly creating waves.

Introduction to The Theoriq Project

Theoriq is a modular AI agent base layer designed specifically for Web3, seamlessly integrating machine learning into the blockchain ecosystem through a composable intelligent network. As an infrastructure protocol connecting AI with decentralized applications, Theoriq provides dynamic on-chain decision-making capabilities for DeFi, gaming, social, and more scenarios, allowing developers to build data-driven intelligent services like building blocks, while facilitating value flow between machines and machines through token economics, ultimately forming an open economic system of autonomous collaboration by AI agents.

Theoriq Team

• Ron Bodkin led AI engineering research at Vector Institute and promoted the integration of AI with enterprise-level scenarios at Google Cloud, excelling at implementing AI technology in industrial, medical, and other physical fields.

• David Müller led AI productization and operational cost optimization projects, skilled at empowering traditional industries with data-driven solutions.

• Ethan Jackson focused on private computing and deep learning models, collaborating with Ron at Vector Institute to implement AI technology, excelling at solving industrial-scale prediction and reinforcement learning challenges.

• Guillaume Koch delved into AI system design and reinforcement learning engineering, co-developing deployable high-performance models with Ethan, supporting technological innovations in Chain ML.

• Pei Chen has 8 years of blockchain industry experience, promoting the expansion of Web3 infrastructure and aiding Chain ML in exploring the integration of AI with decentralized technologies.

• Arnaud Flament built the scalable AI platform for Ripcord and incubated AI engineering solutions at Teradata, skilled at constructing cross-industry, highly robust technical architectures.

Theoriq Financing Journey

• In September 2022, completed a $4 million seed funding round, led by IOSG Ventures, with participation from SNZ Holding, HashKey Capital, Alliance DAO, LongHash Ventures, NxGen.

• In May 2024, completed a $6.2 million expanded seed funding round, led by Hack VC, with participation from Foresight Ventures, HTX Ventures, Hypersphere Ventures, Inception Capital, Figment Capital, Alumni Ventures.

Core Technology of Theoriq

1. Modular AI Agent Engine Theoriq provides plug-and-play AI agent modules, allowing developers to quickly build intelligent services like building blocks without starting from scratch. Different agents can automatically communicate and collaborate to complete complex tasks on the chain.

2. Hybrid Computing Architecture Sensitive data is processed off-chain, with results verified through zero-knowledge proofs before being uploaded to the chain, balancing privacy and transparency. Edge computing nodes ensure AI agents can respond quickly with low latency down to the millisecond level.

3. Data and Model Economy Original data, after being cleaned by AI agents, becomes tradable data products, with the protocol offering paid subscriptions. The AI model can also be packaged into NFTs, allowing developers to earn a share every time they are called, achieving continuous revenue.

4. Cross-Chain Compatibility Each AI agent has a unique cross-chain identity (SBT), with behavior records fully traceable. It also supports mainstream chains like EVM, Cosmos, etc., allowing intelligent services to seamlessly cover multiple ecosystems.

Future Outlook for Theoriq

Theoriq will promote AI agents to become the infrastructure of Web3, allowing developers to easily build intelligent applications through modular design. As more protocols join its AI network, Theoriq will give rise to a new economic form of autonomous collaboration by machines, achieving efficient data value flow, and ultimately becoming the key bridge connecting blockchain and AI.

Global Compliance Advancements

HashKey has rapidly expanded its regulatory footprint worldwide, securing key licenses including:

• Major Payment Institution (MPI) License from Singapore’s MAS

• Crypto Exchange License in Japan

• Class F License from Bermuda’s BMA

• In-Principle Approval (IPA) for a VASP license from Dubai’s VARA

Over the next five years, HashKey Group plans to further extend its global licensed matrix, targeting markets in the Middle East and Europe while scaling its on-chain financial services worldwide.

As a blockchain purpose-built for finance and RWA, HashKey Chain leverages HashKey’s compliance-first approach to create a bridge between Web2 and Web3, offering a full-stack solution for institutional adoption.

Institutional Growth and Traction

HashKey’s compliance-driven momentum has fueled significant business growth, particularly in institutional partnerships:

• 2025 Milestones: Launched the Bosera HashKey BTC ETF and ETH ETF, partnering with Futu Securities, Tiger Brokers, Cinda International, and ZA Bank.

• Exchange Performance: Over HKD 100 billion in assets under management (AUM) and HKD 6 trillion in cumulative trading volume.

Comparisons to Coinbase’s Base L2 are inevitable, but HashKey Chain distinguishes itself with a laser focus on tokenized finance and RWA.

Technical Excellence

Built on OP Stack, HashKey Chain combines EVM compatibility, high throughput, and scalability:

• 2-second block time

• Gas fees as low as 0.1 Gwei

• 400 TPS

Testnet Achievements:

• 25.8 million transactions

• 870,000+ wallet addresses

• 300,000 community participants

Mainnet Metrics (2 Months Live):

• 8.34 million+ transactions

• 208,000+ addresses

Institutional-Grade Security

For large-scale institutional participation, security is paramount. HashKey Chain delivers:

• Smart Escape Hatch: Periodic state Merkle tree syncs to Layer 1 for asset safety.

• Multi-Tiered DAO Governance:

  • Security Committee DAO: Rapid threat response.

  • Technical Audit DAO: In-depth validation.

• Chainlink Integration:

  • CCIP: Prevents double-spending and cross-chain reentrancy attacks.

  • Data Streams: Enables low-latency, tamper-proof market data for derivatives and high-frequency trading.

RWA and Tokenization Leadership

HashKey Chain is pioneering financial product tokenization, as demonstrated by:

• CPIC Estable MMF: A tokenized USD money market fund by CPIC Investment Management (Hong Kong), with over $100M in subscriptions on its first day.

Advantages for Institutions:

• Compliance-friendly, high-performance infrastructure.

• Reduced technical barriers and operational costs for on-chain asset management.

Advantages for DeFi Users:

• Access to yield-bearing institutional assets (e.g., bonds, funds).

Future Focus:

• Expansion into real estate, commodities, and art tokenization.

• Wrapped BTC (HBTC): Launching soon to tap into the BTCFi market, offering lending, liquidity mining, and restaking rewards.

Upcoming: HKD Stablecoin and Global Expansion

• HKD Stablecoin: Developed in partnership with RD Technologies and Allinpay International, poised to enhance cross-border payments and DeFi solutions.

• Hacker Houses/Hackathons: Events in South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Thailand to foster developer engagement.

East vs. West: HashKey Chain vs. Base

While Base dominates the Western market, HashKey Chain is emerging as the Eastern hub for compliant TradFi integration, combining regulatory rigor with institutional-grade infrastructure.

With its focus on BTCFi, RWA, and stablecoins, HashKey Chain is accelerating the convergence of traditional finance and decentralized ecosystems, solidifying its role as a cornerstone of the next-generation financial landscape.

(Note: Image placeholders retained as "[Image]" for context.)

Key Style Notes:

• Headings bolded for clarity; technical terms (e.g., "OP Stack," "CCIP") preserved.

• Metrics: Localized (e.g., "亿" → "100M") for global readability.

• Institutional Jargon: professional investors"; "STBL" retained as a branded term.

• Active Voice: aims to build" for conciseness.

• Comparative Framing: "HashKey Chain, Base" → "East vs. West" for cultural resonance.

Moments ago, Sahara’s official Twitter announced: "Initializing SIWA Testnet..."—marking the imminent launch of its public testnet and the final ecosystem rehearsal before mainnet deployment.

Backed by Binance Labs (lead investor), OKX Ventures, and a countdown to public testing, Sahara AI is stepping into the spotlight as narrative meets execution.

What Is SIWA?

Sahara’s ‘Launch Button’—Not Just Another Testnet

Unlike conventional technical tests, SIWA represents Sahara’s first open, on-chain practice for developers and users, comparable to Arbitrum’s Nitro or Celestia’s Mocha. Key functionalities include:

✅ 1. User Data Participation Pipeline
Users can engage in data labeling, task submissions, and earn early incentives. Encrypted data will fuel AI model training—"usable but invisible."

✅ 2. AI Agent Creation & Interaction
Sahara’s core concept, Knowledge Agents, debuts here. Users can build personalized AI agents (e.g., financial advisors, health coaches) for real-world testing.

✅ 3. AI Model Training & Deployment
Developers can train and test AI models in an FHE (Fully Homomorphic Encryption) privacy-preserving environment, paving the way for Sahara Marketplace and Studio.

Why SIWA Is a Game-Changer

1. From R&D to Open Ecosystem

SIWA transitions Sahara from closed-door development to public beta, unlocking core features for users and developers—a "warm-up" for mainnet launch.

2. Mainnet Path Clarified

Per roadmap:

• 2025 Q2: Sahara Studio suite (dev tools) release.

• 2025 Q3: Mainnet launch, enabling on-chain data assetization and incentive loops.
  SIWA bridges these phases.

3. Airdrop & Early Incentives

With a $50M funding warchest, Sahara’s future tokenomics will likely reward testnet participants. Now’s the time to engage.

Backed by Top-Tier Investors

💰 $50M+ Raised:

• Seed Round (Mar 2024): $6M

• Series A (Aug 2024): $43M

🔗 Investors:

• Binance Labs (Lead)

• OKX Ventures (Testnet integrated)

• HashKey Capital (Asia gateway)

• Animoca Brands (Metaverse AI synergy)

• Delphi, GSR, Fenbushi (Strategic partners)

This resource-rich consortium positions Sahara for seamless exchange listings, cross-domain adoption, and tokenization.

Final Thoughts

SIWA is the strategic ignition for Sahara’s AI ecosystem.

For:
1⃣ Users: The gateway to privacy-preserving AI services and value co-creation.
2⃣ Developers: A sandbox to deploy AI models with incentives and scalability.
3⃣ Investors: A litmus test for Sahara’s tech viability and economic design.

In the AI-driven cycle ahead, Sahara’s SIWA pioneers a new paradigm: user-controlled intelligence, fair model rewards, and liquid data assets.

You might’ve missed OpenAI’s angel round—but Sahara offers the next frontier. The mainnet countdown starts now.

On March 18th, Sign announced that its component TokenTable platform is set to launch on Base. It has already distributed tokens worth over $2 billion to more than 40 million users across various ecosystems, dedicated to the development of the "chain-on Goldman Sachs"!

On March 15th, Sign Protocol announced a new mission where real human participation in interactions can earn SBT ( Soulbound Token ) distributions, and TGE (Token Generation Event) information has already been mentioned!

Introduction to Sign Protocol

Sign Protocol is an omnichain authentication protocol that is building a global trust layer. It enables all digital information (such as ownership, identity, and certificates) to be verifiable on-chain. It provides a suite of tools, infrastructure, and standards to create a future where all claims and assertions in the web and the surrounding world are driven by verifiable credentials. This paves new ways for the global development and application of blockchain technology.

Sign has a comprehensive suite of core ecosystem products, such as the omnichain authentication protocol Sign Protocol, the distribution platform TokenTable (launching on Base), SignPass, and the decentralized electronic agreement signing platform EthSign. By continuously developing and integrating practical applications, it aims to bring billions of Web2 users into Web3.

Four Core Components of Sign Protocol

As mentioned earlier, Sign is more than just a "signing tool." The team has launched multiple services to meet diverse user needs:

Sign Protocol (Main Protocol)

An omnichain authentication protocol that allows users to sign data on-chain in a structured format. It is compatible with mainstream chains such as Ethereum, Polygon, and BNB Chain. Users can customize "proof templates" (Schemas), such as academic credential templates. All proof data is stored on IPFS + Arweave to prevent loss.

TokenTable (Distribution Platform)

In simple terms, it is an on-chain distribution platform that helps users manage token unlocking, distribution, and collection in one place. More than 200 projects, including Movement, Starknet, ZetaChain, and DOGS, have sent tokens worth over $4 billion through this platform.

SignPass (On-Chain Passport)

It aims to be the "on-chain identity" for global digital nomads, meeting various user needs for membership and ticketing systems.

EthSign (Signing Tool)

The Web3 version of an "electronic contract" that provides the same functionality, user experience, and validity as traditional electronic signatures. Compatible with EVM networks, EthSign also integrates email and TG (Telegram) notification features while ensuring privacy and data security.

Sign Protocol Team

EthSign, originally named EthSign, was initiated by core members including Xin Yan in 2019. In 2022, the team began to productize EthSign and expand its ecosystem:

Xin Yan is the co-founder and CEO of EthSign. With an engineering background, he previously wrote technical research articles focusing on Web3 infrastructure and the Ethereum ecosystem.

Potter Li is a co-founder who has interned at Morgan Stanley and Fundamental Labs. As a co-founder of the USC Blockchain Association, he focuses on education, community initiatives, and career development.

Jack Xu is a co-founder and CTO with extensive Solidity experience. Previously, he served as a software engineer at companies like General Motors and Fidelity. He is proficient in Solidity, Swift, JavaScript, C++, and Java. He also serves as a teaching assistant for USC's blockchain minor courses and various computer science major courses.

Funding of Sign Protocol

EthSign has completed four rounds of fundraising, reaching a total of $28.65 million:

• In July 2021, it completed a $650,000 seed round led by Draper Associates.

• In March 2022, it raised $12 million, led by Sequoia Capital and Mirana Ventures.

• In February 2023, it completed an undisclosed amount of funding led by Animoca Brands.

• In January 2025, it raised $16 million led by YZi Labs.

Summary of Sign Protocol

Sign's vision is to become a global trust layer, allowing every user to sign everything on-chain. The ultimate goal is to create a new paradigm for digital identity at the forefront of the global Web3 space. Current development mainly focuses on various activities, such as creating memes, Sign posters, helping new Sign community members, and Sign NFTs and TGE plans. In the future, a Sign App will be launched, and the time is near.

In-Depth Analysis of the Roam Project

Project Overview
Roam is a decentralized WiFi-sharing network within the DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network) track, aiming to establish a global WiFi roaming service. On January 14, 2025, Solana officially endorsed the project, highlighting its integration of over 1 million WiFi hotspots into the Solana ecosystem. As of January 15, 2025, Roam had reached a total of 1.21 million devices, making it the largest DePIN network globally.

Business Model

1. Earning Tokens by Sharing WiFi: Users can contribute their home WiFi to the Roam network for others to use and earn points, which can be exchanged for ROAM tokens.

2. Official WiFi Mining Devices: Roam offers two official mining devices—MAX30 ($199) and MAX60 ($499). MAX60 users receive higher point rewards (60 points per day + an additional 150 points for user connections). Despite the high price (about five times that of similar routers), users are still willing to purchase these devices due to the expected token rewards.

Token Economics and Airdrop

• Token Allocation: The total supply of ROAM tokens is 1 billion, with 400 million released during the TGE (Token Generation Event). Of these, 280 million are allocated for market sales, 120 million for the team, and 20 million for airdrops to mining device users, NFT holders, and early miners.

• Estimated Token Rewards: Referencing IOTX (with a market cap of $330 million) and Helium (with a market cap of $867 million), if ROAM's market cap aligns with IOTX, each token would be valued at approximately $0.825, making the total airdrop value around $16.5 million. Average users could receive about $7.8 in airdrops, while mining device purchasers might earn between $27 and $900, depending on the token market cap and mining duration.

Roam has become a star project in the DePIN sector, with rapid growth in user and device numbers. However, it still faces the challenge of retaining users in the long term. In the short term, the biggest winner has been the project itself, which has earned substantial hardware revenue by selling a large number of WiFi mining devices. Currently, Roam's TGE has been listed on 10 exchanges, demonstrating the project's strength and background.

With only $7 million in funding ($2 million in seed funding and $5 million in strategic financing), Roam has achieved coverage in over 140 countries worldwide. Its core model of "low-threshold router mining + token incentives" has enabled rapid expansion through the following strategies:

1. Low-Threshold Participation: Users can connect ordinary routers to the Roam network without complex settings.

2. Token Incentives: Users can earn points and token rewards by contributing WiFi or purchasing official mining devices.

3. Community Engagement: By offering free WiFi and eSIM data, Roam quickly builds a Web3 community.

4. Technological Innovation: Roam uses OpenRoaming technology to enable seamless global WiFi connectivity and blockchain technology to ensure user privacy.

Roam's success lies in its innovative business model and strong community support, which have enabled it to become the world's largest decentralized WiFi network in a short period of time.

MEV (Maximum Extractable Value) has become a significant topic in the blockchain industry as it involves transaction ordering and arbitrage opportunities. To ensure transparency, protect transactions, maintain network health, and reward participants, we have been implementing targeted Sui Improvement Proposals (SIPs) and other mechanisms to guide MEV on Sui.

In addition to existing mechanisms, we plan to establish more to ensure that our core principles guide the evolution of MEV on Sui.

Design Principles and Considerations

Every transaction on Sui introduces new information and potential profit opportunities. The MEV ecosystem on Sui is shaped by several mechanisms:

• Mechanisms for submitting MEV transactions

• Mechanisms for publishing MEV opportunities

• Mechanisms for distributing MEV revenue

• Mechanisms for protecting user transactions

Our overall priorities are as follows:

• Protecting user transactions is more important than the amount of value extracted. We prioritize smaller slippage over larger extractable value. Avoid protocols that add latency without exit options.

• Network transparency is preferred over offline deals with validator nodes or relayers.

• Promote competition through Priority Gas Auctions (PGA) to suppress spam behaviors that lead to system inefficiencies. Our goal is to make the dominant strategy for searchers to send a transaction with a priority fee determined by the extractable value.

• Encourage rewarding participants aligned with the ecosystem: validator nodes, stakers, applications, and users.

Transaction Submission

Since transactions modifying the same object are executed sequentially, clients compete to increase their chances of execution order. From a system perspective, PGA is an effective way to allocate resources, prevent spam, and redistribute gas fees among participants.

The key driver of Priority Gas Auctions is quantization:

• Transactions ordered by consensus are processed in blocks. Traders compete for priority order through gas auctions, both within a submission and across different submissions.

• This is different from CEX market makers, where execution priority is entirely based on speed, achieved through low-latency networks and algorithms.

• Higher consensus submission rates reduce quantization effects, making DEX execution more efficient but also narrowing the PGA window.

• Currently, PGA is most important for the fastest searchers for non-congested objects. At Sui's rate of 15 submissions per second, a 70-millisecond advantage in transaction submission speed can determine whether a transaction is successful.

• Congested objects may delay transaction execution, further amplifying the importance of PGA, as the window for competing transactions could be 10 times that of regular consensus submissions.

There are two mechanisms to direct transactions to specific upcoming Sui submissions:

1. Soft Bundling of Transactions (SIP-19)

   • Transactions submitted through soft bundling have a high probability of being included in the same consensus submission with a valid bundle. The validity condition for bundling requires all transactions to have the same gas price.

   • In practice, this mechanism allows for off-chain auctions for original transactions and their subsequent transactions, such as those run by Shio (Shio Explorer).

   • SIP-19: Soft Bundle API

2. Consensus Amplification of Priority Transactions (SIP-45)

   • SIP-45 addresses potential jitter issues in consensus submissions, preventing lower gas price transactions submitted at the same time from being ordered after higher gas price transactions.

   • Two natural sources of jitter in consensus submissions are: (1) the submitting validator node lags behind by several consensus rounds, and (2) the leader of the consensus round has an advantage over other validator nodes.

   • SIP-45 amplifies gas prices higher than k x RGP (where k is a system parameter, currently set to 5, and RGP is the reference gas price). Transactions with a gas price of n x RGP are amplified n times.

   • The widespread application of SIP-45 will create a more efficient and fair competitive system. It is important to note that SIP-45 does not change the fundamental properties of the system from the client's perspective: it suppresses spam behaviors by providing more efficient alternatives.

   • SIP-45 (link not available)

Choosing the Right Transaction Gas Price

Clients should consider the following key factors when determining the gas price for submitting transactions:

1. Priority Gas Auctions

   • Within consensus submissions, transactions modifying the same object are ordered by gas price, providing searchers with a fair chance to compete.

2. Consensus Submission Amplification

   • As mentioned above, transactions with gas prices exceeding 5 x RGP are submitted to consensus through n validator nodes to amplify consensus submissions. Any gas price exceeding the amplification threshold reduces inefficient submission jitter. In practice, an amplification factor of 5 is sufficient to eliminate jitter, while a gas price of 100 x RGP has a high probability of unlocking the leader submission in the next round.

3. Avoiding Congestion Delays and Cancellations

   • Sui controls the rate of transactions modifying the same shared object, limiting the wall-clock time of checkpoint execution. Transactions modifying congested objects are ordered by gas price, with lower-priced transactions being delayed and eventually canceled to limit the longest sequential execution chain per checkpoint. This is known as the object-based local fee market mechanism. (Note that although gas prices may spike when shared objects provide high arbitrage opportunities, other parts of the system remain unchanged.)

   • Full nodes track the gas prices of executed and canceled transactions, especially those involving congested objects. By using the results of transaction dry-runs, clients can obtain the gas prices of the lowest executed and highest canceled transactions. With this information, clients can determine the required gas price to avoid transaction delays with high probability. (Note that this feature is currently partially implemented and is expected to be released as part of the SDK in the next two months.)

Publishing Transaction Information

Every transaction on Sui introduces potential profit opportunities. Consider the lifecycle of a shared object transaction, from the time it is submitted by a client to when its effects are observed by a third party.

1. Client submits transaction: The client submits the transaction to an RPC full node (typically chosen by the application).

2. RPC node broadcasts transaction: The RPC node broadcasts the transaction to validator nodes, which validate the transaction's validity and sign it. The RPC node assembles the transaction certificate from the collective signatures of the validator nodes.

3. RPC node broadcasts transaction certificate: The RPC node broadcasts the transaction certificate to the validator nodes.

4. Validator node submits transaction: A deterministically selected validator node submits the transaction to consensus. The Mysticeti consensus broadcasts blocks among validator nodes, and within 3 consensus rounds, the block containing the transaction is submitted.

5. Transaction execution: The transaction is executed on each validator node.

6. Transaction effect certificate sent back to RPC node and client: The effect certificate of the transaction execution is returned to the RPC node and the client.

7. Checkpoint generation: Within 1 to 3 consensus rounds, each validator node forms and signs a checkpoint (a batch of consensus submissions).

8. Checkpoint signature broadcast: Checkpoint signatures are broadcast among validator nodes, with each validator node forming a checkpoint certificate.

9. State synchronization protocol propagates checkpoint: The state synchronization protocol is responsible for propagating authenticated checkpoints through peer-to-peer means. Typically, each validator node has a direct peer node that does not provide RPC requests—a state synchronization full node that receives the checkpoint from the validator node.

10. Third-party node downloads checkpoint: Third-party full nodes connected to the state synchronization full node obtain the checkpoint and download its contents. At this point, we assume that third parties directly connected to the full node can perform post-processing on the transaction effects and react accordingly.

Pre-Submission Transaction Information Propagation

As mentioned earlier, Sui has an off-chain auction system for submitting soft bundles, following SIP-19. These auctions intercept transaction submissions through an off-chain protocol between applications and the auction system (e.g., Shio).

This information propagation assumes that the auction system behaves well and protects user transactions from potential sandwich attacks. Shio is incentivized to protect user transactions to maintain its business, hence it employs some auction techniques (bait transactions, random delays) to weaken the financial gains of potential sandwich bots.

Clearly, this information propagation occurs outside of Sui (between applications and auctions) and is a voluntary choice for applications and users. It only provides speculative information and does not guarantee that the original user transaction will succeed.

Consensus Block Streaming

To achieve low-latency access to user transactions, we are designing a system for direct consensus block streaming. Overall, full nodes will be able to directly subscribe to consensus blocks.

In this way, full nodes can speculatively notify transactions that are highly likely to be submitted. The network topology uses a standard open state synchronization peer discovery protocol.

This speculative notification could significantly reduce the latency of transaction propagation, taking only about 160 milliseconds (2 consensus rounds) after the validator node submission.

The consensus block streaming project is currently in the design phase and is expected to release an SIP within the next 1 to 2 months.

Protecting User Transactions

User transactions need protection from front-running, sandwich attacks, and involuntary submission delays.

Externally Driven Submissions

Sui transaction submissions are externally driven, typically by full nodes.

If a validator node receives a submission request for transaction t and wishes to initiate a new transaction t', it will lag behind the original member driver during the certificate assembly process. Unless the submitting full node has a poor connection with Sui members, the validator node will lag behind t during the certificate assembly process of t'.

Moreover, since the consensus submission of t is decentralized, it cannot reliably be delayed once the certificate of t reaches consensus. Therefore, if the certificate of t arrives at Sui's consensus before t', t will have a high probability of being settled before t'.

Thus, external member driving provides natural front-running protection, assuming trust in the full node responsible for transaction submission (since front-running attacks can easily be detected on-chain, these attacks will be recorded by clients and damage the reputation of RPC operators).

Mysticeti Fast Path

We are currently working on a project to change transaction submissions to the fast-path protocol described in the Mysticeti paper. According to this protocol, user transactions can be submitted to a single validator node, which will use Mysticeti to collect and execute transaction certificates. While this significantly improves system efficiency, it also provides validator nodes with the opportunity for front-running user transactions.

This risk is purely theoretical, as there is currently no evidence of front-running attacks on Sui. In the new system, the possibility of front-running is higher, but on the other hand, it is easier to hold the submitting validator nodes accountable due to deterministic knowledge of the submission validator node.

Mysticeti Paper: Mysticeti: Low-Latency DAG Consensus with Fast Commit Path

The Evolution of MEV on Sui

The MEV ecosystem on Sui is still forming, with new mechanisms to be launched later this year. Currently, Priority Gas Auctions and Consensus Amplification define the current system, while upcoming innovations such as timelock encryption and the Mysticeti fast path will reshape transaction execution and security. As these mechanisms go live, MEV on Sui will continue to evolve, creating a more dynamic and transparent ecosystem.