"How did it feel watching the Hyperliquid community getting airdropped $1B? It felt very good." - Jeff Yan I think current Hyperliquid vs. Solana perps debate misses how much of Hyperliquid's strength comes from ownership. HYPE airdrop was a generational wealth event that created a massive cult, and Hyperliquid tokenomics push for maximal alignment. No better UX or builder codes will change that. This is very hard to replicate. credit: @KevinWSHPod

Even if you don’t plan to participate in the @refihub sale on @craftsdev, it’s worth watching how it plays out. Crypto has a bad reputation for inflated FDVs. With a sealed-bid auction, FDV is discovered by the market, not arbitrarily set by the team. Basically ICO on Crafts works like this: The clearing price (final sale price) is the lowest price at which the full token allocation can be sold. -> Let’s say the ICO allocation is 1,000 tokens. We need to find the price at which those 1,000 tokens can clear. Investors submit bids: A bids for 200 tokens at $1.00 B bids for 300 tokens at $0.80 C bids for 400 tokens at $0.60 D bids for 500 tokens at $0.40 The auction sorts bids from highest price to lowest: At $1.00, demand = 200 tokens At $0.80, cumulative demand = 500 tokens At $0.60, cumulative demand = 900 tokens At $0.40, cumulative demand = 1,400 tokens The sale needs to place 1,000 tokens. At $0.60, demand is still too low because only 900 tokens want to buy at $0.60 or higher. At $0.40, demand reaches 1,400 tokens, more than the 1,000 tokens available. ➝ So the clearing price becomes $0.40. ➝ A, B, and C get filled in full. ➝ D gets partially filled for the remaining 100 tokens. ➝ Everyone pays the same price: $0.40. If cumulative demand at $0.60 had reached 1,000 tokens instead of 900, then the clearing price would have been $0.60. TLDR: the auction stops at the first price level where demand is high enough to absorb the full allocation. If you want to test your assumptions around market-driven FDV, make sure to understand the dual structure that comes with Crafts. Crafts links the token to a legal structure where an SPV/DAO LLC signs a SAFE with the company, and token holders get exposure through that entity.

MegaETH lost its aura when it started optimizing for optics at all costs. This whole KPI-gated thing only makes sense if the KPIs are meaningful in the first place. Do the airdrop now, stop the rewards, reset the inflated metrics, and start again from day zero. The key messaging needs to be structured around the winning condition: you can’t tell me USDm is the revenue engine while putting most of your effort and communication into promoting gambling apps. Either MegaETH aims to become a hub for payments and DeFi, or it should stop talking about USDm, because strategy, vision and execution now look messy. Trying to be uniquely consumer-facing while the growth case relies on boring DeFi is super confusing. $MEGA is now trading below $1B FDV, and that sounds like a good place to start buying. I think the team will eventually figure it out. Still surprised they leaned so hard into incentives and airdrops when that clearly fails most of the time.

Looks like @ranger_finance was already under pressure before the MetaDAO raise. Now imagine how this ends without @MetaDAOProject’s ownership framework. No treasury liquidation mechanism. No direct path for investors to force capital back: the team probably keeps trying to survive for as long as possible. Maybe it works. Maybe it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t, investors likely take a bigger hit. Instead, after concerns emerged around Ranger’s early adoption metrics, governance liquidated the treasury and returned capital to investors. That’s MetaDAO’s core value proposition: a trust-minimized environment where investors and teams can take early-stage risk together, while still having protections when the company no longer looks viable. And credit to the Ranger team for choosing the ownership path in the first place.

Dope concept. Pricing the consequences of events, rather than just their probability, forces you to think much more clearly about what you actually believe. That’s an exercise I already do a lot on my own, so I’m excited to see @ProofMarkets turn it into a market structure.

The Umbra SDK thesis is starting to play out. It’s hard to keep track of current and potential integrations because most partnerships are not communicated through @UmbraPrivacy main account, but through team members’ personal accounts instead. But traction is starting to show. Roadshow episodes on @ownershipfm have already featured a couple of teams building on top of Umbra. Umbra brings compliant privacy to Solana with a live wallet, shielded balances, private transfers through a UTXO mixer, and an ownership token launched via MetaDAO.

Great piece by @0xjawor. @SkyEcosystem feels mispriced at ~11x earnings. ➝ Record quarter (strong resilience during bear market) ➝ USDS supply still growing ➝ Years of battle-tested infra, reputable name in the ethereum space Token got punished after buybacks were temporarily reduced to build a stronger buffer. Worth noting: Sky’s treasury also holds around $190M worth of SKY. That gives governance useful capital allocation flexibility, and part of the value-accrual story still comes from the Smart Burn Engine buying back / burning SKY with protocol surplus. But the treasury position also creates a potential supply overhang if the market expects those tokens to be distributed, sold, or used for incentives. overall, bullish on SKY

Worth paying attention to @prlnet. Many Kaspa whales are likely looking for the next PoW trade, and Pearl sits at the intersection of two powerful narratives: PoUW and AI compute. Remember 2022/2023 and the run early PoWs had during the bear. Also, @optimist’s recent track record has been really strong. You won’t lose much by reading the article.

Arthur Hayes says $NEAR could eventually become deflationary thanks to NEAR Intents and the Zcash integration. ➝ This could work, but only if NEAR burns 100% of the NEAR collected as revenue. NEAR has two revenue streams with different supply impacts: 1) Protocol-level fees (gas fees) 2) Product revenue from NEAR Intents (and other products like NEAR AI) "Protocol fees" have a direct burn mechanism: ➝ 70% of base fees are burned "Product revenue" works differently. Product revenue can fund buybacks, staking, locking, or other supply-impact strats, but this depends on governance. It is not an automatic 100% burn. Current situation: ➝ Annual inflation is now 2.5% ➝ Daily revenue currently = 14% of daily emissions ➝ Since January 1, 2026, NEAR captured around 1.6M NEAR in revenue ➝ Over the same period, cumulative emissions reached around 11.4M NEAR ➝ Only around 186K NEAR came from protocol-level fees. 70% of that equals 130,005.68 NEAR burned (approx. 1% of total emissions). TLDR: a) If NEAR burned 100% of all revenue like Hyperliquid, usage would need to grow by roughly 7x from here to reach neutral emissions. Very doable, especially if Zcash becomes more popular - Near intents has been integrated by many partners, so the number could go up fast once onchain activity heats up. b) If NEAR keeps burning only 70% of protocol-level fees, usage would need to grow by roughly 100x to reach neutrality. (hard) The deflationary scenario has a path, but it’s a hard one right now. Source for dashboard: revenue.near(.)org

Serious question: how many projects in crypto can claim this level of community enthusiasm? @MetaDAOProject is priced like another launchpad, while it’s becoming the category-defining venue for capital formation. And there’s so much signal coming from the community at every level. In his article, Connor shows that institutional interest around ownership coins is starting to emerge, with initiatives from @colosseum, @Novora_, and @TheiaResearch. On the distribution side, we have ownership-focused media like @ownershipfm and @01Resolved. Looking only at MetaDAO’s fees on DeFiLlama makes you miss the most interesting part of the picture: There’s a global crowd pushing and iterating toward making MetaDAO the best place to raise capital onchain.

Close to $10M committed to @JurassicFi - tokenizing dinosaur fossils on Solana. That’s what happens when an ownership coin gives investors protection, transparency, and enforceable rights. Capital becomes willing to fund ideas that look too strange, too early, too exotic, too crazy. Market sleeping on what @MetaDAOProject brings to the table.

You’re still early here. @umia_finance is building an ownership launchpad for AI-native ventures that can go from a GitHub repo to PMF faster than capital formation can keep up. Built on the @MetaLeX_Labs BORG framework, each venture gets a legal wrapper where the token is the main ownership and governance instrument. The thesis: ➝ AI is compressing the cost of execution. ➝ A solo founder can now ship product, manage infra, run analytics, write GTM, and iterate at a speed that used to require a full team. But the surrounding stack is still slow. ➝ Legal formation takes weeks, fundraising takes months, and onchain governance is usually weak, vague and doesn't signal alignement between tokenholders and project. Umia’s vision: If software creation becomes agentic, venture formation has to become programmable too. Through Umia, a founder can go from a GitHub repo to a legally formed, token-issuing venture with decision-market governance and built-in ownership protections in minutes. Interesting features: ➝ Umia Score Umia gives projects a score before launch by analyzing the repo, social presence, founder profiles, developer mindshare, uniqueness, and investment thesis. The goal is simple: help the market understand what an early venture could be worth before it has obvious comps. It also gives each project a Token Potential Value, so founders can see how their idea might be valued if it launched through Umia. ➝ zkTLS audience targeting Projects can target specific groups without public KYC. For example: GitHub contributors, token holders, active users, or reputation-based communities. ➝ Community Track Early projects can apply permissionlessly. Instead of the Umia team deciding everything, UMIA tokenholders rank projects through decision markets based on which ones they expect to create the most value for umia. I think this mechanism should be replicated by other launchpads. It’s a great way to find a compromise between curated and permissionless ICOs without hurting reputation or quality. "UMIA holders will have to ask themselves "is it ev+ for UMIA if this project Iaunches here?" Bullish on ownership protection. It makes capital formation easier for early startups that lack reputation and credibility. Investors can still allocate capital because the structure gives them real downside protection.

$CRCL may be the cleaner way to play the Arc thesis than Arc’s token. (1) not just because the token's likely to be the weaker instrument, but (2) because Arc is designed to expand distribution for Circle’s entire product suite. ➝ USDC dominance ➝ Circle products deployed natively from day one: USDC, EURC, cirBTC, etc. ➝ 200+ partners across finance, payments, and crypto: Goldman Sachs, Visa, Mastercard, etc. If Arc gains traction ➝ becomes a massive accelerator for Circle. Where is the consensus that value will accrue? Token or equity? Until stated otherwise, I always assume the token is the weakest instrument in any dual structure.