oh @CapApp points program is only going to give out the full airdrop to YT holders because "we have to make YT holders whole"? let's see who is their largest YT buyer.. ah its 0x23d0f8944468F79FB06850c136a0E6B3Ee4a450F! 19m YTs bought over 21-28 dec which turns out to be "@QiDaoProtocol Working capital account 2" aka founder @Benjamin918_ this is pathetic, you have got to cover your tracks much more thoroughly. i am happy to offer you a lesson for $4.2m cUSD i typically am only slightly suspicious of projects buying their YTs but basically pocketing the whole airdrop is actually a first @apyx_fi watch and learn since you have such a massive supply of YTs ICO committers really just put $ in the @CapApp team's hands (@Benjamin918_ and @defidave, surprised at the latter who i thought was upright, guess not)

$LIT and $ANSEM pumping proves the point again: narratives and attention matter more than product. $LIT is technically dogshit, but it's still 30x "cheaper" than $HYPE. $ANSEM is literally a useless memecoin, but Ansem is the biggest and still relatively credible CT account, and it's the newest, shiniest memecoin on $SOL. Sometimes you have to leftcurve things to make money, especially in crypto. One of the big narratives for the upcoming Variational TGE, at least for me, is that people will see $VAR as 50-100x cheaper $HYPE, so why not ape. Most people buying post-TGE will never touch the platform, same as with $LIT. I know maybe 3 people who actually use Lighter, but a decent amount who went long. Hyperliquid

i love competition and for the first time in a while @tether and @circle might have a real competitor if they play their cards right i’m well aware of how difficult this is. competing with USDT and USDC is mostly a distribution game. what i find most interesting is the revenue model; the companies backing OUSD will actually be able to earn from the underlying yield, giving them a direct financial incentive to integrate and promote it across their own products. that’s a pretty different dynamic from what we’ve seen until very recently with the hyperliquid/circle deal it won’t be easy and they might even be underestimating how much work(and resources!!) this will take, but it’s definitely something i’ll be keeping an eye on

this is EXTREMELY refreshing to see and i genuinely hope more teams follow this path tldr; > raised $60m > launched and TGE’d > realized it’s no longer '21 and apps>>chains > pivoted to building consumer apps on @base i’ll be honest, i was never a huge fan of Sophon because i felt they were targeting a very specific niche that said, the fact they were self-aware enough to recognize the market changed and willing to pivot makes me far more bullish on what they’ll build next than if they had kept forcing the original vision their first product, @paywithpyre, looks like it’s going after the growing crypto card market through gamification, interesting choice but i see the vision kinda reminds me of @itstuyo’s “buy now, pay maybe” concept ggs @0xsseb, excited to see where this goes next gSophon

could it be that the reason this bear market feels so boring is because, for the first time since crypto’s inception, it no longer offers the best asymmetric risk/reward? yields have compressed to high-yield savings account APRs, but with significantly higher intrinsic risk(ai could make it worse) at the same time, nearly $100b has left in the past 8 months alone it feels like the market is slowly reaching the same conclusion what am i missing?

update: to nobody’s surprise, @megaeth went with option 2 and, judging by the TL, things seem to be playing out exactly as i expected took some time before commenting because i didn’t want to be overly reactive, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that Mega lost the plot a while ago every major decision seems aimed at creating more distance between the team and the community that made them who they are, and the airdrop is simply the latest example whether it’s refusing to answer questions around the @ethena agreements, USDm supply, the Aave/Ethena situation, buybacks, favoritism, or now launching a token-gated tg(this is crazy in 2026 lmao), the pattern is pretty clear i’m not surprised people are upset, and i’m even less surprised that some of the ecosystem’s strongest teams are leaving(and will continue to) at some point it gets exhausting to keep asking for change when it’s clear nobody is listening it feels like they stopped building for the broader ecosystem and started building for themselves and a small circle of people who will never challenge the direction being taken i firmly believe you reap what you sow and, eventually, reality catches up gMega

looks like @tradexyz just made another victim. i won’t lie, i was a fan of Ventuals as they were among the first teams to bring Hyperliquid pre-IPO stocks onchain unfortunately for them tho tradexyz controls the vast majority of volume across overlapping HIP-3 markets, often capturing 90%+ market share; and when one venue owns the liquidity, mindshare, and order flow, everyone else is effectively fighting over scraps. Ventuals ultimately became the worst-performing HIP-3 deployment by cumulative PnL which led it to where it is now the bigger question is whether HIP-3 can sustainably support multiple deployers, or if this naturally becomes a winner-takes-most market where one player captures the majority of the economics. regardless, props to @alvinhsia and team for making it this far. looking forward to seeing what they build next. hyperliquid

is @Plasma generating revenue? had an interesting chat with my brother @river0x about this a few days ago. i’ll start by saying i’m generally not a fan of heavily incentivizing products with tokens, especially when users are encouraged to hold or stake them for additional benefits because, more often than not, it ends up being a net negative for everyone involved. that said, i understand why Plasma chose this route; the neobank space is extremely competitive, and incentives are often the fastest way to acquire users. we’ve seen this work before with @ether_fi aggressively incentivizing adoption through cashback programs and successfully used that distribution to expand into other products. today, their revenue mix is becoming increasingly diversified rather than relying on a single source(see attachment below) s/o @MikeSilagadze that’s important because neobanks are relatively low-margin businesses and the winners tend to either: > expand their product suite and monetize users across multiple products > scale volume aggressively by targeting specific markets, like @RedotPay did in emerging economies that’s why i think Plasma’s biggest opportunity right now is finding its niche and while incentives are still driving growth they should be doing everything possible to capture market share and build additional revenue streams so they don’t end up dependent on a single source of income long term. will personally continue using their card and keeping an eye on them gPlasma

the reason why this generation will never close the wealth gap is because boomers had the opportunity to buy into IPOs like apple at a $7b (infl. adj.) valuation, while we’re being told to buy unprofitable companies at $1.8t it’s over

being able to recognize when to get out is one of the reasons they’re rich. $XPL PA isn’t struggling because @Cbb0fe sold near the top and the same applies to $MEGA the people who took the real L are those who kept holding because they got emotionally attached to their bags, even as the team repeatedly showed that, at its current stage, the token has little to no utility it’s still baffling to me that in 2026 people get mad at profit takers while sitting on 70%+ drawdowns smh

btw, for perspective, @Morpho went from roughly 1/5 of @aave’s TVL ~8 months ago to nearly half of it today. i think people are massively underestimating how resilient Morpho has been throughout this period. also, for anyone wondering, Aave’s TVL decline started well before the Kelp drama. ggs @PaulFrambot

good tldr on the $ZEC situation by bread but it got me thinking... 25% of the total supply would’ve been worth roughly ~$2b pre-crash that’s definetly not a small amount, and it’s probably not something you could dump all at once without completely nuking the chart if i had access to mint 25% of the supply without anyone being able to notice, the last thing i’d do is dump it all at once. i’d probably mint gradually, slowly sell into liquidity over time, and maybe even spend months shilling it on the timeline with my friends while offloading millions(iykyk). ironically the chances of this happening are the same as the chances of it not happening schrodinger's exploit

how did @megaeth go from having one of the most successful ICOs in years, with over $1.39b in commitments and arguably more hype than @monad, to struggling for ecosystem traction and having their BD block me(lmao)? the responses to yesterday’s post got me thinking. is it funding? community? or market conditions? i don’t think it's any of those , at least not primarily from my perspective, the biggest issues were: > poor communication > limited builder support > favoritism toward @megamafia-incubated projects > over-engineering instead of using proven solutions disclaimer: this is mainly from a builder’s POV. i spent close to a year building on MegaETH and worked with many teams in the ecosystem. I) builder support for the longest time, @bread_ felt like the only person consistently helping teams while much of the broader team was difficult to reach. the result was predictable: bottlenecks, slower execution, and frustrated builders. II) MegaMafia the issue wasn't supporting incubated projects but rather the gap it created between incubated and non-incubated teams incubated projects were held to extremely high expectations, many struggled to meet them, and that reflected poorly on the ecosystem meanwhile, non-incubated teams often felt like second-class citizens when it came to attention and support both from the foundation and potential investors III) over-engineering the Terminal is probably the best example instead of using proven infrastructure, MegaETH often chose to build custom solutions why not run @merkl_xyz campaigns like you did with Aave? users always cared about outcomes more than novelty imo if mega wants to succeed it’ll have to go all in on communication, ecosystem strategy, builder retention, resource allocation and execution will they be able to pull it off? gMega

i genuinely can’t remember the last time i saw such a large exodus of apps from an ecosystem in such a short timeframe and tbh that’s what makes it concerning the worst part is that many of these teams were incubated by MegaMafia, meaning they had access, visibility, and priority that most other protocols didn’t so what exactly went wrong? is it still the farmers’ fault, @hotpot_dao? because at some point it becomes difficult to blame mercenary capital when it’s builders, founders, and long-time ecosystem participants walking away too and on top of that, losing them to @monad definitely hits different gMonad

lowkey @megaeth is kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place rn was reading through the Terminal sunset announcement and did some quick napkin math to estimate what my points could potentially be worth first of all, i actually think adding a $USDm component to the rewards was a smart move from the foundation but it also creates a pretty awkward situation going forward this week should mark the final points distribution before the mainnet campaign rewards are airdropped, currently worth roughly ~$17.5m in $MEGA (2.5% of supply) plus the additional $USDm cashdrop sounds great on paper, but the tricky part is distribution sizing, let me explain: if they go with a large airdrop, there’s a real chance it just creates additional sell pressure on an already fragile chart that's because the entire point of the campaign was to bootstrap usage and liquidity, and since organic activity never really picked up the way many expected, a large portion of recipients will probably just sell immediately to recoup / cut losses but if they go the conservative route and distribute less than expected, that probably just adds even more fuel to the ongoing drama since most users will end up dissatisfied with the allocation the third option would be leaning more heavily into distributing $USDm instead, but that also seems difficult it would be extremely expensive and, considering most of the stablecoin yield likely went toward the recent buyback, they’d probably have to tap into treasury / ICO funds while revenue is already down ~60% MoM regardless, genuinely curious to see how they handle this because there isn’t really an easy solution here what are your guesses? gMega