The social trading meta around FOMO and PUMP right now is really interesting. A lot of these accounts are basically playing a weird version of the prisoner’s dilemma. They’re up enormous amounts of UPNL, while their main doxxed wallets are completely transparent for everyone to watch. There will absolutely be winners here that eventually get listed on venues with much deeper liquidity. But at current liquidity, a lot of these positions simply cannot be exited anywhere near the price they’re marked at. Some of the PNL you’re seeing could realistically be 3–4x what could actually be realized if someone tried to get out. And once everyone knows that, the game becomes pretty interesting. Also, shout out to @theunipcs. True talent at this game. Midas touch at this point.

Fomo might be the best named crypto product I’ve ever seen tbh There is nothing quite like seeing ppl you have no connection to and are almost guaranteed to never be able to compete with generating 7 fig uPnL’s daily on new coin launches and feeling like you can do it too

The Fogo Foundation experienced a compromise by an unknown actor which unfortunately resulted in 400mm FOGO tokens being sent to a bad actor. The Foundation alerted exchanges immediately and is actively communicating with law enforcement as well as forensic experts. There is no impact to the Fogo blockchain, which continues to operate as normal. More information will be provided as soon as possible.

The relationship between a project’s success and token performance is collapsing. In our recent piece on “The Broken Link between Protocol Revenues and Token Performance”, we looked at this from the revenue side: how projects can generate real revenue and use tokens only as a distribution tool, rather than structurally connecting the token to the underlying business. Part of the problem is how protocols are designed in the first place. MetaDAO is one of the first serious attempts to address this through Futarchy, using a governance and launch mechanism on Solana. They link the raise, governance, and execution layer on the same platform. One of MetaDAO's core mechanisms is decision markets. Instead of asking tokenholders to vote on what they prefer, these markets require participants to put capital behind what they think would improve the project. Prices aggregate the market’s expectation for each outcome, and the winning option executes. Their model is now used by multiple projects, including Drift, Sanctum, and Jito, and the category is stress-tested through real raises, high-volume markets, and malicious proposals the market rejected (Umbra). @umia_finance is bringing a version of this model to EVM. Every launch on Umia creates a legal wrapper, token, treasury, onchain fundraise, and decision-markets in one flow, before the usual split between team and tokens appears. Their solutions can be distributed to answer three questions around the project: 1. How can projects fundraise on Umia, and can it be gamed? Fundraising on Umia works through a Tailored Auction using Uniswap’s Continuous Clearing Auction (CCA). Umia's raise model differs from category incumbents. For example, in the MetaDAO ICO, one FDV is set, and everyone buys at the same price, with allocation decided by how early you are and how much you commit. In Umia, bidders commit a budget and a maximum price per token they are willing to pay. The token supply is released over a set window, typically about a week, and everyone filling at a given moment pays the same clearing price, reducing timing games and sniping. Moreover, the raise is called off if it falls below a set threshold, and bidders are refunded. At close, part of the proceeds seeds a Uniswap v4 pool at the discovered price, owned by the treasury. For security, all Umia contracts underwent an independent security review, performed by Certora. These raises can be further gated through zkTLS proofs, letting participants prove their eligibility without revealing their identity, like proving an exchange account cleared a certain trading volume. 2. Who controls the Treasury? How does governance work? The raise on the platform settles into a treasury outside the team’s control, with the team drawing a fixed monthly disbursement. Anything larger runs through a decision market, where the winning outcome executes. Decision Markets are at the centre of the system. Each possible decision gets its own market, and participants trade based on what they think that decision would do to the project. A deposit of the project token or paired stablecoin in these markets is converted into conditional tokens for every possible outcome, including no-action. Participants can then buy or sell exposure to each outcome. The outcome with the highest time-weighted average price (TWAP) wins, provided it beats no-action by a preset threshold. TWAP makes the result harder to manipulate with a last-minute trade. On top of this, Umia also supports multi-outcome markets, letting projects frame core decisions and price as many potential outcomes at once. Additionally, through these markets, projects can route revenue back to the treasury, aligning the token with the protocol’s growth. 3. Is there any legal enforcement to make sure projects align? Each project's legal side sits inside a segregated portfolio of a Cayman SPC, using MetaLeX’s framework, making the decision market outcome on Umia enforceable, whether for onchain or offchain actions. In the context of a launch, answering these three questions is crucial because they show that the token distribution is fair, the treasury is outside the team’s control, and every outcome is enforceable. The first test of this model is Umia itself, validating their thesis and product. We have seen this model succeed on Solana, with a stronger link between projects and tokenholders. Will Umia manage to replicate it on EVM?

We are excited to announce four updates regarding the Ethena ecosystem, further details on each point are provided in the blog linked below: 1. Buyout of early investors: The Ethena Foundation executed a buyout of all locked tokens from certain major seed investors that sold any ENA within the last 9 months. 2. Alignment of Token & Equity: The Ethena Foundation and Ethena Labs have reached agreement on a Master Framework Agreement, whereby IP and ownership of value accrued by the protocol is assigned to the Foundation exclusively and governed by token holders with no residual cash flow due to equity investors in the Labs entity. 3. Revenue Buybacks: Governance proposal now live for the implementation of the fee switch whereby net revenue accrued across all business lines under the Ethena brand will be used to programmatically buy back the ENA token. The vote for revenue buyback fee switch implementation is now here, and has already been approved by the Risk Committee: 4. Removal of monthly VC unlocks: The Ethena Foundation and lead investors have agreed to eliminate future overhang associated with monthly VC investor unlocks by releasing unvested tokens. All team tokens remain locked per the original vesting schedules. Further details and documentation is provided in the blog linked below: