Zcash on the front page of the WSJ.... wow. Privacy has been one of crypto's biggest missing pieces for years So cool to see a project that's been building for so long finally get this kind of recognition Such a huge step forward

Zcash on the front page of the WSJ.... wow. Privacy has been one of crypto's biggest missing pieces for years So cool to see a project that's been building for so long finally get this kind of recognition Such a huge step forward

Anthropic IPO Consensus Views: - Overvalued at $1.5T - Revenue is flattening - Token are commoditized due to open source - Token prices falling faster than demand - Anthropic shouldn't go public b/c robbing general public of upside and passing on risk. - Anthropic is Twilio but for intelligence. Contrarian - Anthropic is still a 10x from here and has venture upside. - $80B ARR reported by WSJ is just primarily coding agents and will re-accel with Fable / Mythos - Finance, legal, life sciences, Ode are all super early ... - Agents = still early and most businesses think of AI = ChatGPT / Claude app. - Anthropic will zoom past $100B ARR EOY with release of Fable 5.2 / Mythos 5.2 - Retail is starving for direct exposure to frontier labs and will ape in and drive Anthropic to $3T marketcap. - Anthropic is easily a $500B revenue business in 2030 with simple assumption Fortune 500 spent 0.1% of OPEX today ... Stripe spends 1% and not crazy Fortune 500 replace labor with tokens in 2030. 1% of OPEX would imply 10x of the $75b revenue Q3'26 so $750B revenue in 2030. Full thesis + model coming out Wednesday H/T @zhengjielimm

Agents that can execute transactions will soon be a staple of most applications. Now companies can give their agents the ability to receive, spend, and send money, with one integration. Tailored to their own needs.

In its October 2026 report, the @AtlantaFed says US companies spend about $1,024 per employee per year on AI. But if we look at their May post, the very same survey shows $2,068. I think we can be fairly confident that both numbers are right. The only difference is how many of the biggest spenders you count. Cut the top 5%, and the average falls by half. A small number of companies account for almost all the spending, while the rest simply buy a few subscriptions. $1,024 a year is roughly one ChatGPT license + one Copilot, and that’s it. No agents, no API, no premium tools. If we look at @tryramp card data, we see the same picture: the median company spends $190 a year, the top 1% spend $115k. So while headlines like “AI spending has doubled” are just words, in reality for most companies it doubled to the price of two basic subscriptions. The ones actually paying for the data centres sit 600x to the right of the median firm.

In its October 2026 report, the @AtlantaFed says US companies spend about $1,024 per employee per year on AI. But if we look at their May post, the very same survey shows $2,068. I think we can be fairly confident that both numbers are right. The only difference is how many of the biggest spenders you count. Cut the top 5%, and the average falls by half. A small number of companies account for almost all the spending, while the rest simply buy a few subscriptions. $1,024 a year is roughly one ChatGPT license + one Copilot, and that’s it. No agents, no API, no premium tools. If we look at @tryramp card data, we see the same picture: the median company spends $190 a year, the top 1% spend $115k. So while headlines like “AI spending has doubled” are just words, in reality for most companies it doubled to the price of two basic subscriptions. The ones actually paying for the data centres sit 600x to the right of the median firm.

Idk why this hasn't become popular yet. It's the best thing I've read in the last six months. Everything is on point and gets the message across. Fundraising needs to be engineered, not improvised. If you're preparing to raise funds for your project, this material is a must-read 👇🏻

Idk why this hasn't become popular yet. It's the best thing I've read in the last six months. Everything is on point and gets the message across. Fundraising needs to be engineered, not improvised. If you're preparing to raise funds for your project, this material is a must-read 👇🏻

Zipline is now one of the largest autonomous robotics companies in the world, operating with scale, safety, and a magical user experience for consumers and merchants (including Walmart, Uber, etc) Excited for Paradigm to lead this $1.5B round

@tradexyz: the money did not leave, it settled in Everyone talks about RWA perp volume. Volume does not tell you what people do with the contracts. For that you need open interest and one operation: divide the first by the second. So I did. Here is the result. Weekly volume on @tradexyz rose from $300M in November 2025 to a peak of $36.4B in the week of 27 July. In the week of 2 November it was $13.4B, 37% of the high. Look only here and the market has cooled. OI moved differently: $59M in November 2025, $1B in early March, $3B at the end of June, $4.37B in the week of 2 November - an all-time high. Over the year OI grew 74x and did not decline in any quarter. Volume at a third of its peak, OI at a record. Together this means one thing: positions are held longer. In winter turned its OI over 9-13 times a week. In July, at peak volume, 10. In September, 3.4. In the week of 2 November, 3.1, the lowest in the series. In holding-period terms: in winter the average position lived about nine hours, today two and a half days. In eight months the horizon of a typical position lengthened six-fold. That is not how a cooling market behaves. It is how a market behaves when it changes its customer. Who sits in those $4.4B the data does not say. But the candidates are few: market makers in tokenized equities hedging inventory; basis traders holding carry for weeks; long directional positions replacing a margin account at a broker. Possibly some capital parked delta-neutral for incentives - worth checking separately, because that OI is dead. In every case the conclusion is the same: the market has moved from trading to positioning. Fees are charged on volume. OI pays nothing. If in spring every dollar of open interest produced ten dollars of weekly volume and now produces three, revenue per dollar of capital in the system has fallen three-fold. The OI growth everyone celebrates does not convert into revenue growth: the base grows, the multiplier shrinks. On traditional futures markets OI turns over in days, not hours. That is where hedgers and carry live, and that is what makes a market a market. In eight months tradexyz travelled a road that usually takes years. It is the strongest evidence yet that RWA perps are a real product. The problem is that the same number hits the thesis the valuation rests on. Volume is revenue, OI is trust. tradexyz has gained the second and is losing the first. An investor in @HyperliquidX, or in a future deployer token, has to decide what they are paying for: a maturing market or a compressing fee stream. Both are true at once, and the consensus so far sees only one.

@tradexyz: the money did not leave, it settled in Everyone talks about RWA perp volume. Volume does not tell you what people do with the contracts. For that you need open interest and one operation: divide the first by the second. So I did. Here is the result. Weekly volume on @tradexyz rose from $300M in November 2025 to a peak of $36.4B in the week of 27 July. In the week of 2 November it was $13.4B, 37% of the high. Look only here and the market has cooled. OI moved differently: $59M in November 2025, $1B in early March, $3B at the end of June, $4.37B in the week of 2 November - an all-time high. Over the year OI grew 74x and did not decline in any quarter. Volume at a third of its peak, OI at a record. Together this means one thing: positions are held longer. In winter turned its OI over 9-13 times a week. In July, at peak volume, 10. In September, 3.4. In the week of 2 November, 3.1, the lowest in the series. In holding-period terms: in winter the average position lived about nine hours, today two and a half days. In eight months the horizon of a typical position lengthened six-fold. That is not how a cooling market behaves. It is how a market behaves when it changes its customer. Who sits in those $4.4B the data does not say. But the candidates are few: market makers in tokenized equities hedging inventory; basis traders holding carry for weeks; long directional positions replacing a margin account at a broker. Possibly some capital parked delta-neutral for incentives - worth checking separately, because that OI is dead. In every case the conclusion is the same: the market has moved from trading to positioning. Fees are charged on volume. OI pays nothing. If in spring every dollar of open interest produced ten dollars of weekly volume and now produces three, revenue per dollar of capital in the system has fallen three-fold. The OI growth everyone celebrates does not convert into revenue growth: the base grows, the multiplier shrinks. On traditional futures markets OI turns over in days, not hours. That is where hedgers and carry live, and that is what makes a market a market. In eight months tradexyz travelled a road that usually takes years. It is the strongest evidence yet that RWA perps are a real product. The problem is that the same number hits the thesis the valuation rests on. Volume is revenue, OI is trust. tradexyz has gained the second and is losing the first. An investor in @HyperliquidX, or in a future deployer token, has to decide what they are paying for: a maturing market or a compressing fee stream. Both are true at once, and the consensus so far sees only one.

Thanks @cookie3 for putting my stablecoin rails work next to @superformxyz and @hare_xyz. Good company. One thing I’d push back on though. Attention didn’t leave DeFi. The word did. Perps, credit vaults, tokenized stocks, stablecoin rails - all of that is still DeFi, it just stopped calling itself that. When you split a category into five smaller ones, the parent category always looks like it’s dying. What actually changed is the question people ask. In 2021 it was “what’s the APY”. Now it’s “who settles, on which chain, for whom, and how much of that is real volume vs wash”. That’s a harder question and it filters out most of the crowd, which is why the mentions count dropped. I track stablecoin rails because that’s where the answer is on-chain and checkable, not because the narrative moved there. Narratives move every quarter. Settlement doesn’t.

Thanks @cookie3 for putting my stablecoin rails work next to @superformxyz and @hare_xyz. Good company. One thing I’d push back on though. Attention didn’t leave DeFi. The word did. Perps, credit vaults, tokenized stocks, stablecoin rails - all of that is still DeFi, it just stopped calling itself that. When you split a category into five smaller ones, the parent category always looks like it’s dying. What actually changed is the question people ask. In 2021 it was “what’s the APY”. Now it’s “who settles, on which chain, for whom, and how much of that is real volume vs wash”. That’s a harder question and it filters out most of the crowd, which is why the mentions count dropped. I track stablecoin rails because that’s where the answer is on-chain and checkable, not because the narrative moved there. Narratives move every quarter. Settlement doesn’t.

$958M in spend volume over such a short period doesn’t happen organically. You need a strong incentive to grow that fast, which is why they introduced the high points/cashback system ahead of the expected TGE. Users weren’t trying to “support the business.” They were simply counting on a specific outcome - a token, or at least something liquid with real value. Big funding rounds aren’t raised on a good product and organic growth. Unfortunately, everyone wants results here and now, and a quick return on investment. From here on, everything will depend on the @KASTxyz team and the product. If the product is genuinely strong and volume holds up without the rewards, this decision could turn out to be beneficial. But if volume drops significantly, we saw $121M in October - investors will start questioning how much of the growth was organic versus incentive-driven, which could hurt trust in the team. It’ll be interesting to see the November numbers.

. @arq_finance (ex-DolarApp) announced USDs on @tempo yesterday. On-chain, the story started months earlier. The USDs contract has been live since March. For 6 months supply never topped $4k - only test mints and burns. Then, in 5 weeks: - Sep 24: first real mint, $10m - by Oct 20: $31m - Oct 28: +$22m in a single day, 5 days before the announcement Today: $53m supply. Mints land in a @Stablecoin wallet first, then move to ARQ. Redemptions were tested end-to-end with $5-10 a week before launch. 97.6% of supply ($51.75m) now sits in an address that has never sent a transaction - a classic hot/cold treasury split for a custodial app. Worth noting: USDs is closed in practice, not at the contract level. The contract uses a blocklist, so technically any address can hold and transfer it. But it’s issued only for ARQ, the mint and redemption flows I traced all run through Bridge and ARQ, and nearly all supply was moved by ARQ into a single address that has never sent a transaction. For now, USDs looks like ARQ’s internal ledger moved on-chain - not a dollar circulating in the open market.

. @arq_finance (ex-DolarApp) announced USDs on @tempo yesterday. On-chain, the story started months earlier. The USDs contract has been live since March. For 6 months supply never topped $4k - only test mints and burns. Then, in 5 weeks: - Sep 24: first real mint, $10m - by Oct 20: $31m - Oct 28: +$22m in a single day, 5 days before the announcement Today: $53m supply. Mints land in a @Stablecoin wallet first, then move to ARQ. Redemptions were tested end-to-end with $5-10 a week before launch. 97.6% of supply ($51.75m) now sits in an address that has never sent a transaction - a classic hot/cold treasury split for a custodial app. Worth noting: USDs is closed in practice, not at the contract level. The contract uses a blocklist, so technically any address can hold and transfer it. But it’s issued only for ARQ, the mint and redemption flows I traced all run through Bridge and ARQ, and nearly all supply was moved by ARQ into a single address that has never sent a transaction. For now, USDs looks like ARQ’s internal ledger moved on-chain - not a dollar circulating in the open market.

$958M in spend volume over such a short period doesn’t happen organically. You need a strong incentive to grow that fast, which is why they introduced the high points/cashback system ahead of the expected TGE. Users weren’t trying to “support the business.” They were simply counting on a specific outcome - a token, or at least something liquid with real value. Big funding rounds aren’t raised on a good product and organic growth. Unfortunately, everyone wants results here and now, and a quick return on investment. From here on, everything will depend on the @KASTxyz team and the product. If the product is genuinely strong and volume holds up without the rewards, this decision could turn out to be beneficial. But if volume drops significantly, we saw $121M in October - investors will start questioning how much of the growth was organic versus incentive-driven, which could hurt trust in the team. It’ll be interesting to see the November numbers.