A birthday gift from Teddy Roosevelt to YOU, America! October 27 is a fee-free day at national parks and other participating public lands in honor of TR's birthday. Celebrate the man who helped shape America's conservation legacy by getting outside. Plan your adventure now.

A lesson from the $ 80m+ of liquidations on SKHYNIX perps today: Keep @selenagomez on your mind when you go to trade these RWA Perps. Perpetual users aren't in the underlying market, betting in the official "casino". They're the people standing around the blackjack table, betting with each other on what might happen at the table. TradeXYZ and other Perp venues go up to them, and offer to referee PvP bets.. for a fee of course. And as referees they can decide separately from the casino on different rules for the bets, and how to handle all the edge cases. If they want people to keep betting with them, these fee charging referees have to try and handle them gracefully otherwise people will find a different place to bet. So while edge cases get ironed out and Perp specifications of each contract shows itself over time to be Lindy, it is the Wild West and liquidation wicks like today will happen. As with prediction markets, there can be a difference between being right and getting paid. "Did Zelensky wear a suit?" ..."Was the SK Hynix pre-open a real price?" The key part of Perps design is how liquidations are handled. Even if Longs are collateralized 1:1, shorts will always have a liquidation point so there is no way to avoid this part of the puzzle. Over time, refinements happen. Today's SKHYNIX event will make tomorrow's contract better. Long Term, RWA perps are some of the most exciting instruments in Finance, and as they get refined they will eventually have the robustness needed to drive global price discovery. Short term... Whenever you're about to trade a new RWA Perp, remember you aren't Selena Gomez at the blackjack table. You're in the crowd. And if the Perp specifications have only been recently implemented, and the underlying is more exotic than a simple MAG7 stock.. well you are actually standing wayyy the hell back in the crowd.

Quite a few people have been asking me about $WWW today This is one of the hottest launches right now, hitting an ATH of around $8.4M within its first ~8 hours, and trading around $6M–7M MC when I checked Instead of chasing the chart, I dug deeper into the product, narrative, fee mechanism, on-chain data, bundle cluster, and notable wallets behind it Let’s break it down 1. What is $WWW? $WWW is the flagship token of a platform where each token can come with its own AI agent, which the team calls a “symbient” These agents can use models like Claude, GPT, or Grok through OpenRouter, while also having access to a cloud browser that allows them to browse the web, research information, and retain memory between runs The core flywheel is pretty simple n: Trading => Fees => Compute => AI activity => Content/Attention => Trading Creator fees are used to fund the compute vault that keeps the agent running. Once the compute runs out, the agent stops until it gets funded again This is how the team describes the mechanism, though I haven’t independently audited the entire flow of funds yet 2. The narrative WWW positions itself within this lineage : Infinite Backrooms => Truth Terminal => Mycelial Oracle => World Wide Web The idea is to take AI agents beyond just conversations, give them an environment to “live” on the web, and provide them with a token economy to sustain their activity $WWW currently runs Claude and focuses heavily on machine life / synthetic biology I saw the agent researching protein design, RFdiffusion, nanopore synthesis, and other related topics But there’s an important distinction : Reading and summarizing research ≠ creating new scientific discoveries So far, I haven’t seen evidence of the latter 3. The product is real, but still very early This isn’t just an AI narrative with a ticker attached The browser agent is actually running, and the team has been actively fixing browser issues, re-indexing tokens, adding disclaimers, and allowing creators to modify allowlists, capabilities, or APIs through wallet signatures When I checked, the platform showed roughly 1,500 coins, ~2,100 SOL in compute, 70–80 symbients, and ~1,300 findings However, most of the “findings” I saw still looked more like AI summaries and interpretations of existing information rather than genuine discoveries Another thing worth noting: despite the autonomous AI narrative, creators still retain some control over their agents That isn’t necessarily bad for such an early product, but it means the system is not fully autonomous or immutable yet 4. On-chain is where things get interesting This is also where I start becoming more cautious Different trackers are showing different bundle estimates, so I wouldn’t treat 55% bundled as an exact figure at this point What matters more is that there appears to be a fairly large launch cluster connected through the same funding source The dev currently shows 0% holdings, mint/freeze authority is disabled, and individual top holders don’t look extremely concentrated Another positive point is that around 17M $WWW tokens have already been locked, reducing the amount of supply that can immediately enter the market But : 0% dev holdings + locked supply doesn’t automatically mean clean distribution If multiple wallets were funded from the same source and bought right at launch, looking at each wallet individually can still hide the real concentration So rather than focusing only on the bundle percentage, I’m watching how much unlocked supply these connected wallets still control and whether they start distributing together 5. Frank is the interesting part This is probably the most interesting on-chain detail I found Frank’s wallet appears directly on the bubble map within the funding network connected to $WWW’s bundle cluster And Frank actually has a sizeable position According to GMGN, Frank bought roughly $118.7K across 15 transactions, with an average entry around $3.5M MC He later sold around $61.3K, but when I checked, he was still holding roughly 11.7M $WWW, representing more than 1% of the current supply So Frank has already taken some profit but is still letting a meaningful position run More importantly, the funding connection between Frank’s wallet and the bundle cluster is something I’ll continue watching This connection alone isn’t enough to prove that Frank is part of the team, that these wallets share the same owner, or that they are coordinating But if Frank starts selling heavily while the connected bundle wallets begin distributing at the same time, then this connection becomes much more relevant 6. The fee flow still needs more transparency Based on the data I checked, the creator has already claimed roughly 640+ SOL in fees The team says these fees are used to fund the compute vault, but the amount claimed currently looks significantly larger than the compute consumption I can directly observe So I want more clarity on three things : > How much of the fees actually go into the vault? > How much has actually been spent on compute? > Where are the claimed funds going? More transparency here would resolve one of the biggest question marks around the project 7. Attention is growing quickly @www_stream had around 2.9K followers when I checked, with quite a few crypto traders/KOLs appearing in its follower network That’s a good sign for attention, but : Follow ≠ endorsement Endorsement ≠ buy A stronger catalyst would be direct public interaction from people connected to previous AI narratives, such as Andy Ayrey, Truth Terminal, Repligate, James Greig/Wib&Wob, or Mycelial Oracle I haven’t seen strong external confirmation like that yet 8. The $Agency controversy Another token called $Agency launched a few hours before $WWW CA : 7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump The Agency side claims that their tech was already running before WWW At this point, I haven’t seen enough evidence to conclude who copied whom, or whether anyone actually copied anyone at all To confirm that, I’d want to see development timestamps, repos, deployment history, or stronger technical evidence So for now, I see it simply as a dispute worth monitoring 9. The levels I’m watching When I researched it, $WWW was trading around $6M–7M MC after hitting an ATH of roughly $8.4M The token is only a few hours old, so I wouldn’t treat these as confirmed technical support levels. They’re simply areas where I’ll watch the reaction $7M–8.4M: ATH reclaim zone. A break and hold above $8.4M with strong volume would keep the momentum healthy $5M–5.5M: The first area I’m watching on a pullback. Losing this zone with increasing sell volume would make me more cautious $3.5M–4M: A deeper reset zone. If it comes back here, I’ll recheck Frank, the bundle wallets, and volume before considering the dip Below $2M–2.5M: The original momentum thesis would be largely invalidated for me, and I’d reassess the entire setup rather than automatically calling it a dip After such a fast move, I personally don’t like chasing the ATH 10. My thesis I understand why $WWW is hot It has an AI agent that is actually running, an observable browser, a fee/compute flywheel, Backrooms/Truth Terminal lore, a real product, and a token directly tied to the ecosystem There are also some positives on-chain: mint/freeze authority is disabled, dev holdings show 0%, and around 17M $WWW has already been locked But the risks are still pretty clear : A large funding cluster, unclear bundle concentration, Frank’s wallet having a funding connection to that cluster while already taking some profit, unclear fee flows, creators still retaining some control over agents, no major external confirmation yet, and the unresolved Agency dispute So for now, I still see $WWW as a high-risk narrative trade rather than a long-term conviction play What I want to see next is pretty simple : Continued holder growth, no aggressive distribution from the launch cluster, Frank not heavily unloading the rest of his position, healthy volume after the initial hype, clearer fee/compute flows, and a real external catalyst If those things start lining up while the chart continues to hold its structure, the thesis becomes much stronger For now : I like the narrative and the product, but I’m still respecting the on-chain risk. GAwhcphCqCv5bKHmCiN4VDdNWfbXJL4npmkc8L3Q9S9H

Unpopular take from a prop firm: keep your personal account. They do different jobs. Funded account: where you trade size, short term, with a fee as your downside. Personal account: spot bags you don’t touch, and where the payouts go to retire.

There was a time when you couldn't stream revenue back into a token, and governance tokens made sense because there was nothing else to give holders. That time is over. Today you either accrue revenue into your token or you're a vaporware project, and there isn't a third option. Own is in the business of building products that fund the robinhood:0x0a8b4763c71ac39101b3b8a97e62da0b81549a4f ecosystem. Here is how it works. robinhood:0x0a8b4763c71ac39101b3b8a97e62da0b81549a4f trades against SPY, and every trade pays a fee that is collected in SPY. That fee splits three ways: 30% buys back robinhood:0x0a8b4763c71ac39101b3b8a97e62da0b81549a4f, 60% pays yield to eUSD stakers in SPY rather than in emissions, and the remaining 10% funds the protocol. Then the loop closes on itself, because higher yield pulls people in to mint and stake eUSD, and maxing the boost means buying and staking robinhood:0x0a8b4763c71ac39101b3b8a97e62da0b81549a4f, which is itself the volume that pays everyone's yield. More TVL means more demand for robinhood:0x0a8b4763c71ac39101b3b8a97e62da0b81549a4f, which means more fees, and you are back at the top. The problem with having one flywheel is that it depends on one product staying hot, so we are bolting more fee streams onto the same dollar. Curated Funds is the first of them. Each fund is one token holding a basket that a curator picks and reweights every week, whether that is stocks, crypto, memes or a mix of all three. Every fund has its own pool, every pool generates volume, and every mint and redeem pays a fee, with 100% of the protocol's share flowing into robinhood:0x0a8b4763c71ac39101b3b8a97e62da0b81549a4f. Run that across ten funds and you have ten pools, ten communities and ten fee streams, none of which need robinhood:0x0a8b4763c71ac39101b3b8a97e62da0b81549a4f to be trending to generate anything. At that point eUSD yield stops caring whether one token happens to be hot this week. Tether made $10 billion last year without winning a single meta, because the money always outlasts the game. We are building the ecosystem that funds the money. Private beta coming soon.

Diesel is at a record in America because two governments are arguing over who gets to charge the toll. Read Article 5 of the deal the US and Iran signed in June. Ships could pass through the Strait of Hormuz "with no charge, for 60 days only." After that, Iran and Oman would define the strait's "maritime services." A maritime service is a fee. The 60 days ran out in August, and the strait has been a shooting gallery since. This week Iran went further. Any ship entering its new exclusion zone goes on Iran's sanctions list. Iran's. So one of the most sanctioned countries on the planet has decided to wield that weapon itself. The US Secretary of State answered in tankers. Five destroyed overnight. Brent is above $100. In seven days the Fed meets to fight inflation. This inflation was made by drones over Saudi refineries and strikes off Kharg Island, and the tool they will use on it is the interest rate on your mortgage. Every currency in this story has a 'strait' attached to it. Somebody can close it, toll it, or blockade the ships that carry it. Bitcoin's supply has no strait. There are no ships. It was the same size the morning the refineries burned as it was the night before, and it will be the same size the day the Fed meets.

Exclusive: Brighton have agreed a deal to sign Femi Azeez from Millwall. The clubs have agreed a deal worth an initial £12.5m with a total package in excess of £15m. Azeez joined Millwall from Reading in August 2024 for a fee in the region of £1m. More from @David_Ornstein 🔗

Circle just lost a fifth of its value in a single day, and the blow came from its own inner circle. Its stock fell 17 percent after a new stablecoin launched, which is normal. What is not normal is who built it…. the asset manager that runs roughly 80 percent of Circle's reserves, the exchange that co-founded USDC and is paid nearly a billion a year to distribute it, and the bank that holds the money. BlackRock, Coinbase, and BNY Mellon all backed a rival to the coin they help operate. The story is not really about a competitor. Circle makes money one way, and it explains the whole reaction. $USDC is a digital dollar. For every one in circulation, Circle holds a real dollar in cash and short-term Treasuries, roughly 74 billion dollars of reserves, and the interest those reserves earn is almost the entire business. About 80 percent of that pile sits in one fund, the Circle Reserve Fund, managed by BlackRock and custodied by BNY Mellon. To get USDC into the world, Circle pays distributors. In one recent year it paid Coinbase alone 908 million dollars. On June 30th more than 140 companies launched a competitor called Open USD, and it inverts the one thing Circle relied on. Instead of the issuer keeping the reserve interest, Open USD shares almost all of it with the businesses that use and distribute the coin. Free to mint, free to redeem, no caps. For any firm that had been helping Circle earn that interest for a fee, the math flips: stop collecting a fee to build someone else's yield, and collect the yield yourself. The names that signed on are the core of Circle's own machine. The exchange that co-created USDC and earns close to a billion a year distributing it is not only backing Open USD, it is launching it on Base, the blockchain that exchange itself owns. The manager of roughly 80 percent of USDC's reserves is backing it too, and so is the custodian bank. The firms paid to run the reserves, sell the coin, and hold the assets are helping stand up an alternative. This was clearly written into the incentives from the start. Coinbase earning 908 million to distribute Circle's product is Coinbase working for Circle. Coinbase owning a share of a rival that runs on its own chain is Coinbase working for itself. Once a distributor can own the economics instead of renting them, loyalty to the issuer means leaving money on the table. And the Coinbase deal is up for renewal in August, so Circle now renegotiates with a partner that just helped launch the alternative. That does not make the outcome certain. It changes who holds the leverage. The deeper pattern reaches far past Circle if you look carefully. It is the risk in any business whose profit comes from sitting in the middle of other people's money. Circle's role was to be the middleman on the digital dollar, holding the reserves and keeping the interest while everyone else moved the coin. That works until the parties on both sides decide they can route around you and split what you kept. The reserve manager, the distributor, and the custodian do not structurally need the issuer to capture that yield, and Open USD is the first serious attempt to prove it. None of this means Circle is doomed, and the fair reading matters. This is also just rational diversification. BlackRock earns fees across every rail it can touch, backing a new one does not require abandoning the old one, and Open USD does not launch until later this year. USDC is still trusted, deeply liquid, and regulated, and Circle's CEO argues the market is big enough for many winners, which may well be true. But the message in the stock is hard to miss. A company whose whole moat was owning the middle just watched the firms on either side of it agree to build a road around it. The most dangerous rival is rarely the stranger. It is the partner who already knows exactly how you get paid.