GM, I think $UNI, $LDO, $ENA, $PENDLE can outperform $ETH in the next risk-on phase. Look at the revenue layer: – @Uniswap ≈ $60M. – @aave ≈ $93M. – @LidoFinance ≈ $71M. – @HyperliquidX ≈ $75M. They are real cash-flow machines of the cycle and beyond if you look deep into their model. Meanwhile $ETH is trading around $1.9-2k, DeFi TVL compressed from ~$75B+ to ~$55B range after the correction. I believe ETH = base layer exposure, and DeFi tokens = leveraged exposure to ETH activity. When ETH pumps: – Trading volume spikes → $UNI benefits. – Borrow demand increases → $AAVE benefits. – More staking → $LDO revenue increases. – Yield narrative returns → $PENDLE & $ENA get flow. ETH captures burn + staking yield. DeFi tokens capture direct protocol revenue, buybacks, fee switch potential, narrative premium. We’ve seen this movie before: – 2020-2021 DeFi Summer. – 2024 liquid staking & restaking wave. Each late-cycle phase → capital rotates from majors into sector leaders. And here is the asymmetry: – ETH mcap ≈ hundreds of billions. – UNI/LDO/ENA/PENDLE = much smaller caps. If TVL rebounds 20-30%, these tokens can move 2-5x. But I’m not blind, they also crash 70% in risk-off. But this is high-beta rotation trade and I see ETH as foundation. But when sentiment flips risk-on in 2026, I believe DeFi leaders will outperform ETH on a percentage basis. Because they are more explosive. That’s my POV. DYOR.

Without DeFi, does RWA still make sense? I have spent a lot of time tracking tokenized treasuries, private credit, stocks, and funds. RWA still has value without DeFi, but most of that value comes from better issuance, settlement, distribution, and ownership records. The larger opportunity starts when the asset becomes usable. A tokenized Treasury fund that only sits in a wallet is still a Treasury fund. The format has changed, but its financial function has not. Once that token can be used as collateral, borrowed against, traded, hedged, or added to an automated strategy, it becomes part of an active capital market. This is why I see tokenization as the first stage, not the final product. If an RWA reaches its liquidation threshold on Sunday, a smart contract can seize the token immediately. But the underlying fund may not process the redemption until Monday or Tuesday. The token has been liquidated onchain, but the actual asset has not been converted into cash. This timing gap is one of the biggest risks in RWA-based DeFi. It also explains why a low-volatility Treasury token can sometimes require a larger collateral discount than ETH. ETH is volatile, but it trades continuously. An RWA price can look stable because its NAV has not been updated. » The current projects make this distinction clearer: [1] @Ondo = how the market is moving beyond issuance. Ondo Stocks now covers more than 440 tokenized stocks and ETFs, with about $1.04 billion in TVL. More importantly, Ondo is making these assets usable in DeFi. SPYon and QQQon can now be used as collateral for equity, commodity, and index perps on Ondo Perps. Ondo has also introduced 24/7 minting and redemption for eligible users. The asset is no longer only giving users price exposure. It can support margin, continuous liquidity, and hedging. This is much closer to the functionality investors already expect from mature financial markets. [2] I see a similar transition with @centrifuge and @aave Horizon. Centrifuge handles the tokenization and management of institutional funds. Aave Horizon lets qualified investors use those tokenized assets as collateral to borrow stablecoins. A recent example is the planned deployment of up to $100 million of JAAA, a tokenized AAA CLO fund, through Resolv and Aave Horizon. JAAA is not being held only for its underlying yield. It is being used as collateral inside a stablecoin strategy. That is the difference between tokenized ownership and financial utility. [3] @Morpho is solving another important part of the problem. RWA collateral cannot always share the same risk settings as ETH, BTC, or liquid staking tokens. Each fund can have different redemption periods, legal restrictions, pricing methods, and eligible investors. Morpho’s isolated lending markets allow curators to set specific collateral parameters for each RWA. This does not remove the underlying risk, but it limits how easily one failed market can affect unrelated lenders. [4] @plumenetwork shows what happens when several DeFi functions are added around the same RWA position. Users can deposit into RWA-backed vaults, borrow against the resulting tokens through Morpho, or trade the future yield through Pendle. I find this direction much more interesting than simply adding more assets onchain. It creates several possible actions from one position: – hold the asset and earn its underlying yield – borrow stablecoins without selling it – provide liquidity to borrowers – fix the future yield – take a view on whether the yield will rise or fall This is where DeFi adds clear value. [5] @chainlink Data is part of the product None of these markets can operate safely without reliable data. A lending protocol needs more than the latest quoted price. It may need current NAV, assets under management, reserve information, redemption status, market depth, and proof that the underlying assets still exist. Chainlink SmartData is relevant here because it brings NAV, AUM, yield, and reserve data onchain. Its Proof of Reserve system can also connect reserve information to actions such as minting limits or circuit breakers. A Treasury may be low-risk in a brokerage account and still be difficult collateral inside a 24/7 lending market. » DeFi creates utility, but also leverage I am excited about RWA and DeFi coming together, but I do not think every tokenized asset should become collateral. Leverage increases capital efficiency, but it also connects risks that were previously separate. A user could deposit a tokenized stock, borrow stablecoins against it, and use those stablecoins to open a leveraged long position on the same stock. If the stock falls outside US trading hours, the collateral and the perp position can both lose value. Market makers may reduce liquidity at the same time. The system then needs to liquidate an asset while its primary market is closed. So, does RWA work without DeFi? Yes. But it does not fully change what the asset can do. The next phase of RWA will not be measured only by how much value is tokenized. I will be watching how much of that value can be financed, traded, hedged, and liquidated safely. That is when RWA starts becoming a new financial market, rather than a new format for existing assets.

GM, $ETH will outperform bitcoin:native this cycle, imo. Why? [1] ETH has yield bitcoin:native gives exposure. $ETH gives exposure + staking yield, which makes it more attractive for institutional capital. [2] Wall Street is moving onchain Stablecoins, tokenized Treasuries and RWAs are growing fast, while Ethereum remains one of the main settlement layers for these assets. [3] Supply is getting tighter ~34% of ETH supply is already staked, while ETF demand, institutional accumulation and EIP-1559 continue reducing liquid supply. [4] Ethereum keeps improving Glamsterdam and the next upgrades are focused on higher L1 throughput, better block building and more capacity for onchain activity. [5] ETH still has more room to re-rate BTC already has a mature institutional narrative, while ETH is only starting to get priced as a yield-bearing asset and financial settlement layer. That’s why I still think $ETH has better upside vs bitcoin:native from here, and I’m still holding my ETH bag.