The $SI thesis has changed once again My last update was written when $SI had just wicked to around $45M. Not long after that, the market continued to reprice it and $SI pushed as high as roughly $67M MC But once again, price isn’t the most important update here The biggest catalyst I had been waiting for finally happened On September 29, Trump officially signed the Executive Order titled “Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence” This is a major progression for the narrative First, Trump mentioned Super Intelligence Then he talked about making SI the official terminology Now the EO has actually been signed Under the order, executive branch agencies are directed to use Super Intelligence and SI instead of Artificial Intelligence and AI in certain communications and materials covered by the order. It also calls for proposed legislative language defining Super Intelligence at the federal level within 60 days For me, this is the strongest catalyst outside crypto that this thesis has seen so far Another detail I’ve started paying attention to is Elon Musk Elon was at the White House on September 29 and signed the White House Accord on Super Intelligence alongside Jensen Huang, Zuckerberg, Pichai, Amodei, and Brockman He also posted the words “Super Intelligence” directly on X while quoting a White House video. On camera, there was even a moment where Elon said “AI” before correcting himself to “SI, pardon me” I’m not treating this as Elon pushing the narrative in the same way Trump has been But at the very least, this terminology is now starting to appear around some of the biggest names in tech If Elon continues using Super Intelligence on X or in future public appearances, that could become another layer of attention worth watching At the same time, the numbers behind $SI have been moving incredibly fast Holders have grown from around 21K to nearly 50K Lifetime holder rewards on StonkFun have increased from roughly $885K to $1.69M $SI has also moved from #2# to #1# on StonkFun’s flywheel, while its market cap expanded from around $20M to $45M and eventually as high as $67M According to UniPcs’ latest update, $SI also generated more than $72M in 24h volume. UniPcs remains publicly bullish on their position and has mentioned $100M as their own target Another piece of optionality I’ve been watching is also starting to show some signs of life Super Cat $SC has appeared with a direct $SC/$SI pair on StonkFun and reached roughly $200K MC $200K is still small and nowhere near enough for me to call $SC a major runner But this is at least the first time I’ve seen a token directly paired with $SI start reaching a six-figure valuation Previously, the idea of $SI becoming a quote asset was mostly theoretical optionality. Now we’re starting to see tokens actually use it and attract some capital If more tokens start pairing with $SI after $SC, especially if we eventually see larger runners, then I’ll start viewing this as a meaningful new layer of demand Looking at the bigger picture, the progression is becoming pretty clear $20M became $45M, then $67M 21K holders became nearly 50K $885K in rewards became roughly $1.69M The flywheel moved from #2# to #1# And the Super Intelligence catalyst went from a statement, to repeated terminology, and finally to an actual Executive Order For me, this is no longer about finding an entry I’m already sitting on profit from my earlier position, so at this point I’m simply letting the remaining profit run with the thesis What I want to see next is whether the $45–58M area can turn into a real base, whether volume stays strong enough to keep the flywheel alive, whether holders continue growing, and whether Super Intelligence can maintain mainstream attention after the EO catalyst If those things continue to hold while the pair ecosystem develops and new catalysts potentially emerge from names like Elon, I don’t see a reason to rush into changing the thesis The catalyst happened. The flywheel reached #1#. The pair ecosystem is starting to take shape. And attention outside crypto is still expanding From here, I don’t need to predict exactly where the top is The position is already in profit. I’m letting the rest run as long as the thesis remains intact DEW9dSN6QpWyNthphCpMmAbZP1Q4cEKR9xQXAri98WDP

And the fourth one I want to mention is solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump This is one of the newer AI coins on Solana that caught my attention recently. Not just because of the price action, but because there is already something real running behind the token That said, with solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump, I think it is important to separate what has actually been shipped from what is still just a thesis 1. What is CrawlNet actually building? solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump is the token behind CrawlNet, an experiment attempting to build a crypto-native LLM using data collected directly from Web3 Instead of simply launching a token and attaching an AI narrative to it, CrawlNet is operating a network of crawlers. These crawlers read whitepapers, documentation, governance pages, forums, blogs, and other crypto-related sources The data is then cleaned, deduplicated, and added to a dataset used to train the project's model, Queen What I find interesting is that most of this process can actually be tracked through the dashboard. In recent snapshots, there were more than 80 crawlers operating, with over 12,000 pages crawled across hundreds of crypto-related domains 2. Queen is the most important part of the thesis Queen v1 was trained from scratch using a nanochat-style approach, with roughly 42.1M parameters and a corpus of around 26.2M tokens collected from 10,521 pages The team has also published the Queen v1 weights on Hugging Face and released an experimental chat interface Meanwhile, data collection is continuing for Queen v2. The dataset recently reached around 32M tokens, with the team targeting roughly 60M This is what makes solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump more interesting to me than many other AI memes The team is not simply saying they are going to build AI at some point in the future. The crawlers are running, data is actually being collected, and the first model has already been trained But it is also important to keep the scale in perspective 42M parameters is still a very small model, and the dev himself has said that Queen is still in testing. There is currently no independent benchmark showing that Queen can outperform existing small models So for now, I view Queen v1 more as a proof of concept than a finished AI product 3. How does solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump fit into the system? This is probably the part of the project design I find most interesting To spawn a crawler, users need to burn solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump. The initial cost was around 200,000 tokens per crawler, although the team later adjusted the economics and reduced the spawning cost Once created, crawlers continue collecting crypto data and contributing it to Queen's dataset Creator fees generated from trading flow into the treasury. Under the current structure, roughly 60% goes toward compute and 40% goes into the reward pool for crawler owners This split was adjusted during the first few days, as earlier updates had allocated a smaller percentage to crawler owners The reward pool settles every 12 hours. To qualify for rewards in a round, a crawler needs to bring in at least 25 new pages during that round In one of the early rounds, the team reported distributing roughly 65.2 SOL across 69 crawlers owned by 36 wallets. At that point, total creator fees generated since launch were around 142.9 SOL There are also refuel and order mechanisms Once a crawler reaches its earn cap, more solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump can be burned to refuel it With orders, users can burn around 10,000 solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump to request that a crawler reads a specific website, with a limit of roughly 50 pages from a single host However, these orders need to be approved by an operator before execution, so this part of the system is not yet fully automated on-chain 4. The flywheel is interesting, but still heavily dependent on attention In simple terms, CrawlNet currently works like this : Trading generates creator fees Fees fund compute and crawler rewards Users burn solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump to spawn or refuel crawlers Crawlers collect more data The data is used to train Queen Part of the token supply continues to be burned During the early stage, the team reported that roughly 2.7% of the supply had been burned. However, this was only a snapshot at that point in time, and crawler economics have since been adjusted, so I would not treat 2.7% as a fixed figure for the current state of the system The bigger issue is that crawler rewards are not currently funded by revenue generated by Queen itself Most of the money still originates from solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump creator fees High volume means a larger reward pool Lower volume means a smaller pool Smaller rewards mean less incentive to spawn and operate crawlers So in its current form, I still see this as an attention flywheel attached to an AI experiment rather than a complete business flywheel For this thesis to become significantly stronger, I would want to see actual users of Queen, third parties finding value in the dataset, or revenue streams that do not depend entirely on trading volume 5. The dev is another part I will be watching The developer behind CrawlNet is Matthew, @matthewabides, who also operates @crawlnetwork Before CrawlNet, Matthew worked on Swarm, an AI agent project on Robinhood Chain. Swarm ran for more than two weeks before he decided to shut it down and withdraw the dev fees, after which he moved on to CrawlNet Because of that, I would not use the dev's track record as a reason by itself to trust solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump For this project, I care much more about what Matthew continues to ship after the initial hype dies down Another thing worth clarifying is that the crawler visualization itself is not an entirely original concept. Matthew has acknowledged inspiration from another crawler visualization, and another token with a similar narrative appeared before solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump So I would not value solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump based on a "first mover" thesis What matters more is that the team has turned the concept into an actual working system with crawlers, token burns, rewards, a growing dataset, and a model 6. Price action solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump launched at a very low market cap and quickly became one of the more talked-about coins within this narrative ATH reached roughly $7M to $8M market cap, while the chart is currently sitting around the $5M area after a very aggressive expansion During the early phase, 24h volume climbed above $15M and the holder count reached around 7,000+ That is a significant amount of attention for such a new token However, liquidity is only in the several-hundred-thousand-dollar range. Relative to its market cap and trading volume, liquidity remains fairly thin, meaning relatively modest buys or sells can move the market cap aggressively in either direction Because of that, I would not chase expansion candles here 7. What are the next catalysts? For me, the most important catalyst for solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump is not another KOL call It is whether the team keeps shipping Queen v2 is currently continuing to collect data, with a target of around 60M tokens The team has also said that weights from future training runs will continue to be published on Hugging Face. There are also planned updates to crawler economics and the harness to make interacting with Queen easier If v2 ships, the dataset continues growing, and most importantly, people outside the team begin actually using Queen, the thesis becomes significantly stronger On the other hand, if the crawlers continue running but Queen fails to generate meaningful utility, the market may eventually value solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump as an AI meme with a better-than-average demo rather than an actual AI infrastructure project 8. My view The reason I am paying attention to solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump is pretty simple The team has already shipped more than most new AI memes I have seen recently The crawlers are running Tokens are actually being burned to participate in the system Rewards have already been distributed in SOL The dataset is growing Queen v1 has been trained and its weights are public But I also do not want to overhype it Queen is still very small, there is no independent evaluation yet, the economics remain heavily dependent on trading volume, and the dev does not have a strong enough track record for me to make a long-term bet based purely on promises For now, I see solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump as an experimental AI coin with a real product worth watching, rather than a proven AI infrastructure play After running from a very low market cap to around $7M to $8M and now sitting around $5M, I would rather watch for a pullback than FOMO into it If Queen v2 actually ships, the crawler network continues expanding, and most importantly, real usage starts appearing outside of speculation, then the solana:BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump thesis becomes much more interesting BXoHJddsWJLHtAopeiSbKUSELsu8hSFMs8baGMDkpump

And the third one I want to talk about today is solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv Quite a few people have been asking me about this one. After spending some time looking deeper into the product, token mechanics, and what the team has actually shipped, I still consider solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv a gamble for now Not because the idea is bad. In fact, I think SPEC has some clear differences compared to most launchpads currently on the market. But we have seen a lot of new launchpads appear recently, so having an interesting concept alone is no longer enough SPEC still has quite a lot to prove Let’s break it down 1. What is SPEC actually building? is a new launchpad on Solana. Its main difference is not simply making it easier to launch tokens, but allowing creators to attach specific rules directly to their tokens Creators can set things like wallet caps, anti dump rules, sell cooldowns, anti bundle protection, market hours, privacy launches, SPEC only buys, or even write their own custom logic The interesting part is that these rules are enforced on chain through Solana transfer hooks and extensions. If a transaction does not meet the required conditions, it can simply fail SPEC is also building a marketplace where creators can use rules written by other people instead of having to code everything themselves In simple terms, SPEC is trying to turn a launchpad from somewhere you simply create a coin into a framework where creators can customize how their tokens actually behave This is probably the part I like most. At least they are trying to differentiate the product instead of copying another bonding curve and putting a new narrative on top of it 2. What is the utility of solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv? solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv is the main token of the platform, although the token itself currently has No Rules The more interesting part is the platform economics According to the team, 100 percent of platform fees are used to buy back and burn solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv. Creators launching tokens can also configure their own fees and allocate creator rewards of up to around 5 percent The team previously announced that more than $70K had already been used to buy back solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv through the Meteora pool. They have also stated that the supply is locked through Streamflow If SPEC can generate sustainable volume, the flywheel is fairly straightforward More tokens launch. More people trade. The platform generates more fees. Those fees are used to buy back and burn solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv On paper, this is an attractive mechanism But for now, I still see it as something that needs to be proven rather than an established flywheel Outside of the initial $70K plus buyback announced by the team, I would like to see more transparent data showing how much revenue is being generated, how many tokens are actually being burned, and how the circulating supply changes over time 3. The early numbers look good, but they need context During roughly the first day, the team reported around 184 token launches, more than 102K trades, and approximately $10.7M in volume The platform later showed around $11M to $12M in total volume That is not bad traction for a brand new launchpad But there is one important issue Most of the volume and attention so far appears to be concentrated around solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv itself At the time I checked, I had not seen a real runner emerge from the tokens launched by users on SPEC $SCAT was one of the more notable ecosystem tokens and reached roughly $159K market cap at its peak before retracing heavily. Most of the other tokens remain at very small market caps This matters more to me than the number of tokens being launched A launchpad can create hundreds of coins every day, but ultimately what keeps traders around is whether it can produce tokens that the market actually wants to trade SPEC has not proven that yet 4. The team is shipping quickly One positive is that the team seems to be moving fast Alongside rules such as wallet caps, anti dump, anti bundle, sell cooldowns, market hours, and custom logic, they have also introduced things like AI Agents and Bundlecat The team is also teasing another batch of hooks that they describe as their biggest release yet Another catalyst I am watching is SPEC Liquidity This feature is still coming soon. According to the team, it will allow users to create liquidity pools even for tokens outside the SPEC launchpad, configure their own rules, customize fees and ranges, while LPs earn fees from trading activity Creators can also choose solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv as the base pair when launching a token. This means users can buy with solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv, liquidity can sit in solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv, and the chart can also be denominated in solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv If these features actually gain adoption, the utility of solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv could become significantly stronger But again, we are still very early SPEC Liquidity is not live yet, the next major batch of hooks is still being teased, and we have not seen a token using these mechanisms generate enough traction to prove real product market fit 5. Why I still consider solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv a gamble This is probably the most important part SPEC does have real technical differentiation. But the launchpad market is extremely crowded right now A new launchpad is not competing on technology alone. It also needs liquidity, distribution, attention, and most importantly, a reason for traders to stay SPEC may have better rules than other platforms, but without traders and without runners, even a well designed token will struggle to generate meaningful volume Another thing worth mentioning is that SPEC is not completely independent in terms of infrastructure yet According to founder jami, some launches involving FOMO, Pump App, and social trading still go through Hooked hooks. SPEC currently adds its own custom rule layer and marketplace on top of parts of that infrastructure The founder behind the product is jami, @jamiiRQ on X. Having a public founder is a positive, but for a platform this new, I still want to see more execution before increasing my conviction The platform has also only been live for a very short period and experienced some early issues under higher traffic, including site lag, frozen market cap displays, and failed buys. The team said these issues were fixed quickly, but I still want to see how the product performs over a longer period Then there is the buyback and burn mechanism If this is supposed to be the core value accrual mechanism for solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv, I want to see it proven through consistent data rather than just one $70K plus buyback during the initial launch period 6. Holder structure and volume are also worth watching Based on the data I checked, the top 10 holders control around 19 percent of supply. Dev holdings are close to 0 percent, sniper and insider exposure appears relatively low, and mint and freeze authority have been disabled Looking purely at the holder structure, I do not see a major red flag yet However, liquidity has only been around $190K to $300K while 24 hour volume at one point exceeded $15M That means turnover is extremely high So I would not look at $10M to $15M in volume and assume that the same amount of fresh capital is entering SPEC. A significant amount of that volume could simply be the same capital rotating repeatedly Several high PnL wallets also entered quite early Frank is one wallet worth mentioning. Based on the data I have, his cost basis was around a $1.03M market cap. He has already taken some profit while continuing to hold the remaining position I see that as somewhat positive because early money is still holding exposure But it is also important to remember that their cost basis is significantly lower than someone entering around current levels 7. The chart and levels I am watching solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv ran from a very low market cap to an ATH of nearly $3.9M before correcting The chart is currently moving sideways around the $2M to $2.1M market cap area The first zone I am watching is around $1.9M to $2.1M. This is where price is currently trying to establish some balance. As long as this area holds, the short term structure still looks reasonable If that level is lost, I would watch the $1.5M to $1.6M area next. This was previously tested as a local low, and I would want to see how buyers react if price returns there Below that, the $1M to $1.2M area is close to the cost basis of some early wallets However, if price actually returns there, I would reassess the thesis rather than automatically treating it as a buy zone If market cap falls significantly below roughly $800K without any new catalyst, I would consider the initial launch narrative largely broken 8. What would make me more bullish? I do not need SPEC to announce another 20 features What I want to see now is execution First, I want to see tokens launched on SPEC actually use these hooks and become real runners Then I want to see SPEC Liquidity go live and generate real liquidity and trading activity I also want to see buybacks and burns continue with clearer and more transparent data Most importantly, I want to see volume coming from the wider ecosystem instead of being concentrated mainly around solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv itself And finally, I want to see whether the platform can retain traders once the initial launch hype fades If these things start happening, I would be willing to upgrade solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv from a gamble into a much more serious thesis For now, my view is pretty simple SPEC has a genuinely different concept. The team is shipping quickly, and the initial traction is not bad But technical differentiation does not automatically mean a launchpad will succeed Right now, attention is still running ahead of adoption That is why I still consider solana:2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv a gamble and a watchlist play rather than a conviction play. If I participate, I would keep the size small and continue watching whether the team can turn the programmable launchpad narrative into real usage If they can, the current market cap could become very interesting If they cannot, SPEC risks becoming another launchpad where the platform token performs better than every token actually launched on the platform 2AVjqmGbMqg7rSyHVv2deVdggsBgBtu1Bi69BUvE5WRv

And the second one I want to talk about today is $PRIORS $PRIORS has been one of the stronger performers on Robinhood Chain recently, moving from around $1.9M MC on September 24 to nearly $13M at ATH, and now holding around $10–11M But the chart isn’t what caught my attention Behind $PRIORS is an actual product trying to build an on-chain credit layer for AI agents on Robinhood Chain Let’s break it down 1. What is Priors actually building? The core idea is pretty simple AI agents can own wallets, trade, use APIs, and perform tasks autonomously. But what happens when an agent needs capital or compute before it has the funds to pay for it? Priors is building a system where agents can borrow USDCG without traditional collateral, then build reputation through their actual repayment history Each agent uses an ERC-8004 identity, while its borrowing and repayment history is recorded directly on-chain Credit scores are based on factors such as how much has been repaid, how long loans were held, how much capital is backing the agent, and how long the agent has participated in the protocol If an agent defaults, its score can reset to zero and directly affect its ability to borrow again That’s one of the more interesting parts of the thesis : Reviews can be faked. On-chain repayment history is much harder to fake 2. How does the lending mechanism work? Priors currently has a USDCG lending pool Lenders deposit USDCG to provide liquidity. Agents can start with very small credit lines, usually around $5, and gradually increase their limits by building a solid repayment history Depending on the type of backing, credit lines can currently reach around $500, with loan terms ranging from roughly 1–30 days Importantly, agents aren’t borrowing purely on trust Each credit line still has a risk-bearing layer behind it, whether that’s treasury capital, a backer, a $PRIORS seat, or stock collateral If an agent defaults, the capital backing that agent takes the loss before lenders do Fees are currently split roughly : > 60% to lenders > 25% to sponsors/seat holders > 15% to reserves This is also why the protocol currently shows $0 lender losses, although I still want to see how the system performs once a real default happens 3. Where does $PRIORS fit into this? This is the most important part for the token itself $PRIORS isn’t a token where simply holding it automatically gives you protocol revenue One of its main utilities comes from seats Users can lock $PRIORS behind an agent to support its credit line. If the agent repays successfully, the seat holder can earn part of the sponsor fees If the agent defaults, part of the $PRIORS locked in the seat can be burned This creates the flywheel the market is betting on : Better credit => larger credit line => larger seat required => more $PRIORS locked => usage potentially creates token demand But there’s an important nuance here Not every credit line requires $PRIORS. Priors also supports treasury backing, backers, and stock lines So you can’t simply take total lending volume and assume all of it directly translates into $PRIORS demand 4. The product is already running This is where I think $PRIORS stands out from a pure AI narrative A snapshot I checked on October 4 showed roughly : > 22.5K loans > 22.4K+ repayments > Over $172K repaid > Around 150 agents > 13 sponsors > 0 defaults > $0 lender losses Beyond the lending pool, Priors is also building several other layers x402 allows agents that don’t have enough funds to pay for API or compute costs to borrow the difference and repay it later Stock Line allows agents to use stock tokens on Robinhood Chain to open credit lines, with roughly 25–50% LTV and a current limit of around $250 They also have CLI, SDK, and MCP tooling for developers to integrate the credit layer directly into their agents Go Mode is also being gradually rolled out to testers rather than existing purely as a concept 5. But the numbers need context This is where I think the market can easily misread the data More than $172K repaid does NOT mean Priors has $172K in TVL That figure represents cumulative lending activity. The same capital can be borrowed, repaid, and recycled many times When I checked, the actual pool was only around $3.6K, while outstanding debt was roughly $800 Most of the activity also comes from very small credit lines. Many agents borrow $5 and repay relatively quickly That explains how the protocol can generate more than 22K loan records despite having a relatively small amount of actual capital in the system Credit history itself is also still fairly shallow. The number of loans held for at least 7 days and qualifying as deeper credit history remains very limited So in my view : Priors has proven that the lending loop works. It has not yet proven that a large credit market exists Those are two very different things. 6. So why did $PRIORS pump this hard? I don’t see one single catalyst like a major CEX listing or partnership behind the move In my view, it’s a combination of several factors First, the AI agent + on-chain credit narrative fits Robinhood Chain extremely well right now Second, the team is actually shipping. The lending pool, seats, x402, Stock Line, and developer tooling give the market something tangible to price in rather than just another AI landing page Third is the token mechanism The market is front-running the idea that if more agents use Priors and their credit lines grow, demand for $PRIORS seats could grow alongside them And finally, there’s still a speculative component $PRIORS has been pushed heavily across the Robinhood Chain community and X. With a relatively small market cap and thin liquidity, new capital can move the valuation very quickly Going from around $1.9M to nearly $13M, the market has clearly priced in a lot of future expectations already 7. On-chain activity is worth watching FOMO wallets entered very early The first FOMO transaction I tracked appeared roughly 16 minutes after launch, when the market cap was only around $350K From there to nearly $13M ATH was roughly a 37x move Among the wallets I tracked, around 31 wallets bought nearly $365K in total, while 26 wallets have already sold around $196K Some early wallets are still sitting on sizable positions. One snapshot showed 8 FOMO wallets still holding around $557K, with approximately $363K in unrealized profit Over the latest 48-hour window, flows from this group were also slightly sell-heavy, with roughly $38K in buys versus $57K in sells That doesn’t mean the chart has to dump, but buyers who entered between $350K and $2M clearly have a very different cost basis from anyone entering above $10M 8. Supply structure is another thing to watch The deployer bought roughly 38–39% of the supply around launch, and the data I checked also showed around 33 wallets that were tax-exempt at launch I don’t have enough evidence to confidently label this as a bundle, so I won’t But nearly 39% cumulative early buying, combined with the unrealized profits held by early wallets, still creates a supply risk worth monitoring, especially when actual liquidity is much smaller than the market cap 9. What comes next? The team is currently teasing several notable updates The first is a new seat model, aiming to reduce the collateral requirement to roughly 1.5–3x the credit line, while potentially increasing the default penalty from a 50% burn to around 75% Next is BBL, where a portion of fees could be recycled into first-loss capital based on repayment history The team has also teased new engines and agent crews, allowing multiple agents to work together instead of operating independently Go Mode is gradually opening as well. Based on one snapshot I checked, the waitlist had around 200 users, with only a few dozen testers being admitted per batch But this distinction matters : A feature being teased does not mean it’s already live SeatVaultV5, BBL, and some of the new engines still need actual deployment and on-chain activity before I treat them as completed catalysts 10. What I’m watching from here Instead of only watching the chart, I’m paying attention to the underlying metrics Does the lending pool grow beyond a few thousand dollars? Does outstanding debt move meaningfully beyond ~$800? Do agents start borrowing more than $5? Does qualified credit history begin to grow? Can Go Mode attract real users outside the initial tester group? And most importantly : Does increased credit activity actually lead to more $PRIORS being locked in seats? If those metrics start growing together, then the token demand thesis gets much stronger + My view I think $PRIORS is one of the more interesting projects on Robinhood Chain right now because the product actually exists and the team is shipping But I don’t want to turn that into a one-sided bullish thesis On one side, we have a token valued around $10–11M On the other, the actual lending pool is still only around $3.6K, outstanding debt is roughly $800, credit history remains shallow, and most activity still comes from very small loans In other words, the market is pricing Priors’ future faster than actual adoption is growing The question is no longer : “Does Priors have a real product?” The answer is yes The more important question is : “Can this product scale fast enough to turn speculative demand for $PRIORS into real usage-driven demand?” If the new seat model, BBL, and Go Mode genuinely bring more agents, capital, and lending activity into the protocol, the thesis becomes significantly stronger But if the pool remains only a few thousand dollars and activity continues to revolve mainly around $5 loans, then valuation is running ahead of fundamentals After a move from $1.9M to nearly $13M, I wouldn’t FOMO the chart here But $PRIORS is still one of the projects on Robinhood Chain I’ll continue watching closely, especially on-chain usage, token lock-up, and the team’s next deployments 0xedbf91223639800bcd5756815caf908df3b890be

Continuing today’s memecoin recap series, and the first one I want to talk about is $STOCKER I spent some time going through Stockereum again, from platform activity and the fee mechanism to buyback/burn, holder distribution, and the tokens currently running across the ecosystem After roughly a month of operation, I think $STOCKER is entering a stage where the thesis is worth revisiting, especially with Stockereum approaching $100M in volume and already having its first $30M+ runner 1. Stockereum is getting real traction Stockereum is a launchpad on Ethereum mainnet, but the concept is slightly different from the typical memecoin launchpad Tokens launch with a fixed 1B supply and can be paired with ETH or Ondo tokenized stocks such as NVDAon, TSLAon, AAPLon, and SPYon I think this is one of the more interesting differentiators here. Instead of simply creating another place to launch memes, Stockereum is combining meme speculation with the tokenized equities/RWA narrative directly on Ethereum The main liquidity runs through Uniswap v4. Tokens have no owner, cannot mint additional supply or be paused, while the main LP uses hooks so the creator/platform can’t simply pull liquidity after launch More importantly, there’s actual activity The latest dashboard numbers I checked showed roughly : > $97M total volume > $13M+ 24H volume > 1,550+ tokens launched > 72 tokens graduated > 250K+ transactions > Around $544K paid in holder/creator rewards > 40+ ETH used across 870+ buyback/burn transactions For a platform that’s only around a month old, I think these are meaningful numbers Stockereum is no longer just a narrative. There are real users, real volume, and real fees behind it 2. The $STOCKER fee flywheel is already running This is the part I care about most Creators can choose a 1%, 2%, or 3% trading fee Depending on the configuration, fees are then split between creator/holder rewards and the platform For ETH pairs, part of the platform fees are routed back into the market to buy back and burn tokens For $STOCKER specifically, around 38.2M tokens have already been burned, equal to nearly 3.8% of the total supply The dashboard valued the burned $STOCKER at roughly $246K when I checked So the flywheel : Trading volume => fees => buyback => burn is already happening on-chain rather than just being a roadmap promise Holder rewards are live as well. Creators can redirect part of their fees toward holders, with eligible rewards distributed automatically That’s what I like about the model: platform volume is actually generating economic activity across the ecosystem 3. But don’t misunderstand the buyback mechanism This is probably the most important thing to clarify about $STOCKER Not all of Stockereum’s revenue is used to buy $STOCKER Burn allocation is spread across multiple tokens, and the team can rotate these slots. Besides $STOCKER, tokens such as $ZC, $VERIDIA, and $AP have also received allocations Most recently, on October 4, the team rotated the 5% slot from $AP into $SC There has also been an important change involving $ZC On October 2, Zipcoin and Stockereum announced that the 10% fee allocation previously used for $ZC buybacks would be redirected toward funding Zipcoin’s development and ecosystem However, the dashboard was still showing some $ZC burns from the previous mechanism that same day. So I’m treating this as an announced transition rather than assuming the entire routing changed instantly This tells us something important: fee allocation can change That’s why I don’t view $STOCKER as a revenue-sharing token There’s currently no staking or meaningful governance mechanism that automatically passes all of Stockereum’s value creation back to holders Its main utility is still buyback and burn The flywheel is real, but how much value is captured specifically by $STOCKER still needs to be monitored 4. $ZC is creating an interesting setup Stockereum already has its first real breakout runner: $ZC $ZC previously pushed above the $35M area and is still sitting around $30M+, while $STOCKER is only around $6–7M In other words, a token launched on Stockereum is currently valued around 4–5x higher than the platform token itself This is also the narrative I’ve seen some Chinese KOLs starting to trade : Runner moves first => attention returns to the launchpad => volume increases => the market reprices the platform token later There’s logic behind this, but I wouldn’t simplify it into “$ZC is $30M, therefore $STOCKER should also be $30M” The market is valuing these two tokens for different reasons $ZC has its own Snowmoon/privacy narrative, community, and development $STOCKER depends much more on Stockereum continuing to grow as a platform Another thing worth noting: Stockereum already has 72 graduated tokens, but most are still sitting at relatively small market caps $ZC remains the clear outlier So Stockereum has proven that it can produce one major runner, but it hasn’t yet proven that it can do it consistently That’s why the question for me isn’t : “If $ZC is already $30M, why is $STOCKER only $6–7M?” It’s : If Stockereum can produce a second and third $ZC, does the market still keep valuing the infrastructure behind them at only $6–7M? That’s where I see the asymmetric part of the $STOCKER thesis If we start seeing more $10M–$20M+ runners after $ZC, the thesis changes significantly At that point, Stockereum is no longer a launchpad with one winner. It starts proving that it can repeatedly produce runners 5. On-chain looks relatively healthy, but there are still risks I also checked the holder distribution The largest wallet at roughly 12.8% is the Uniswap v4 Pool Manager, meaning it represents liquidity rather than a team wallet The next largest individual wallets hold around 3.3% and 2.7%. The top 100 holders control roughly 70% of supply, with around 2.4K–2.7K holders when I checked I haven’t found a single dev wallet holding an unusually large percentage of supply Some analytics tools also label a relatively high percentage as smart money, but I’m not using that as a core part of the thesis because tool labels don’t necessarily mean every wallet has been independently verified What I’m watching more closely is liquidity routing Stockereum’s main pool uses a Uniswap v4 hook with roughly a 1% fee, but secondary pools with higher fees also exist In some cases, a router can send trades through a less efficient pool, resulting in noticeably worse execution This isn’t the same as the team pulling LP, but it’s still something worth checking before taking a larger position 6. Competition is starting to appear Another name increasingly being compared with Stockereum is $SEND If I’m looking purely at traction right now, I still lean toward Stockereum It’s approaching $100M in volume, has more than 1,500 launches, and most importantly, has already produced a $30M+ runner On the other hand, some traders prefer SEND’s tokenomics/value capture because they see its buyback structure as stronger And that highlights exactly what $STOCKER still needs to prove Stockereum is currently ahead in traction But $STOCKER doesn’t necessarily capture all of the value generated by the platform Long term, a strong platform token needs both 7. The chart $STOCKER ran from a very low base to a peak of roughly $9.6M MC on September 29 A figure around $11M was mentioned by one caller, but I couldn’t verify that from market data, so I’m not using it as the ATH The chart then reset hard to around $2.8M before starting to rebuild From there, $STOCKER reclaimed $4M and $5M, then recently expanded back into the $8–9M area before retracing to roughly $6–7M now The structure still looks fine to me, but I wouldn’t call $6–7M a deep dip If the market gives us $4–5M again while Stockereum volume keeps growing, $ZC maintains its structure, and buyback/burn continues, I think the risk/reward becomes much more interesting On the other hand, if it falls back below $3M while the ecosystem itself starts cooling off, the thesis needs to be reassessed A few ETH of daily buybacks won’t save the chart if organic demand disappears 8. My current thesis I’m not betting on $STOCKER simply because “$ZC reached $30M, so the platform token has to catch up” The thesis I’m watching is : Stockereum maintains volume => volume generates fees => buyback/burn continues => the ecosystem produces more runners => attention flows back to the platform => the market starts repricing $STOCKER Right now, we already have nearly $100M in volume, 1,500+ launches, 72 graduated tokens, more than $500K in rewards, roughly 38M $STOCKER burned, and one $30M+ runner That’s a pretty strong start for a platform that’s only around a month old But there are still three things I want to see next : Volume breaks $100M and, more importantly, continues growing afterward The buyback allocation toward $STOCKER remains meaningful as the team continues rotating burn slots And most importantly, Stockereum produces a second real runner after $ZC If all three start happening at the same time, I think the gap between an ecosystem generating close to $100M in volume and a platform token sitting around only $6–7M becomes much more interesting For now, I’d still rather watch for dips than chase pumps 0x75E2Fc69Ff2ac12aF65Ba7D321bBf4f878c535d2

SilverCash is live Private money for the Silverchat ecosystem. Deposit. Shield. Swap. Withdraw. How it works 1. Deposit $SC, ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 or ETH from your wallet into a private balance. 2. Swap between them privately, through the same $SC and ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 pools as the rest of Silverchat. 3. Withdraw to any address, best a fresh one. A Railgun broadcaster pays the gas from your private balance, so the new wallet needs nothing. What SilverCash uses: RAILGUN: the zero-knowledge privacy protocol on Ethereum. Deposits, the private balance, private swaps and withdrawals all run on its contracts, with zk-SNARK proofs made in the user's browser. X: @RAILGUN_Project Railway: Railgun's own wallet app. SilverCash's 12 words also open in it, which is our backup if our site ever goes away. @Stockereum 's router: the private swaps trade through the same $SC and ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 pools as the rest of Silverchat.

I probably don’t need to introduce ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 anymore because I’ve talked about this one with you guys quite a lot over the past few days, from breaking down the entire product to sharing my plan to wait for a dip around the $6M–$8M MC area It came exactly into the zone I was waiting for, even wicking down to around $5M at one point. I aped in lightly there, and now ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 is back around $18M MC, nearly a 3x from the dip But I wanted to give another update because this move isn’t just about the chart bouncing The biggest thing for me is that has now publicly mentioned @zipcoincash and its use case for funding a account privately through Zipcoin This matters a lot more to me than another hype video or the team burning more tokens, because we’re finally starting to see the product getting attention from outside the team The team has also expanded the flow to ETH. Instead of relying only on ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722’s own privacy pool, which is still very small, ETH can go through the larger 0xbow pool and then be converted into private DAI on At the same time, the team donated around $10.5K to the legal defense fund for Alexey Pertsev and Roman Storm, which fits pretty well with the privacy narrative heating up again On-chain though, I still don’t want to hype things too early The ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 pool was still sitting at around 19 deposits in the latest snapshot I checked. Most of the larger burns are still coming from the team, and while we’re starting to see some outside wallets using Burn to Speak, the numbers are still small I also haven’t seen enough volume from outside users through ZipTeller yet to call this adoption So the way I see ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 right now is pretty simple. Wave 1 was the market buying the Snowmoon + Vitalik lore This move is starting to price in the product + external attention, especially after publicly mentioned it But if we want a bigger and more sustainable wave from here, the next thing I want to see is still users Deposits need to grow from 19 toward 50 and eventually 100+. I want to see real ZipTeller transactions from wallets outside the team, and organic burns need to keep growing instead of most of the activity coming from the dev Vitalik still hasn’t endorsed ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722, and I’m not waiting for that to keep the thesis alive. If he ever interacts with it, obviously that would be a huge catalyst, but to me that’s just a bonus As for the chart, the previous plan played out almost perfectly The entry zone I was waiting for was $6M–$8M, and now the market has taken it all the way back to the old ATH area around $18M–$20M From here, I’m not chasing If it breaks ATH, holds above it, and usage starts growing alongside the price, then things get a lot more interesting But if it simply wicks above ATH while usage stays flat, I’d still treat this as a very strong narrative squeeze rather than confirmation of wave 2 Either way, the move from the dip back to the old ATH has already been great The chart gave us the entry. The product is starting to get outside attention. Now I’m waiting for the users That’s the next thing I want to see from ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 0x4E67DB19044549fF420860834c91b45BaD298722

solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump just printed a new ATH around $10M MC Quite a few people who followed my previous solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump plan have been asking whether the thesis has changed, so I went back and checked everything the team has shipped since my last research post And this time, there is one update that I think actually matters It is not a new listing or another wave of KOLs. The tokenomics of solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump itself have changed In my previous post, I pointed out that the 15% platform fee was not distributed to solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump holders, so I did not want to assign utility to the token that did not actually exist That has now changed The team has plugged solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump directly into the economics of AgencyPad Under the new mechanism, once a coin on the pad generates enough fees, 15% is used to market buy solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump periodically, and all tokens purchased are then burned on-chain Put simply, more activity on AgencyPad means more fees are generated, and part of those fees now creates direct buy pressure on solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump before the purchased tokens are burned This is a pretty significant change from the original thesis Previously, the flywheel mainly existed within each individual coin. Volume generated fees, those fees funded the mind and its treasury, and the mind could then use that treasury for buybacks, burns, holder rewards, jackpots and other actions Now, activity across the entire AgencyPad ecosystem has a direct connection back to solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump And the mechanism has already started running The last time I checked, the system had completed 2 buybacks, spending around 3.03 SOL in total and burning roughly 68,050 solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump But I do not want to overhype those numbers 3 SOL of buy pressure obviously does not explain a move to $8M. The current scale is still tiny compared with the token's market cap and trading volume What matters more to me is the potential of this mechanism if AgencyPad continues to scale. If more coins generate real volume and fees, the amount of solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump being bought and burned could scale alongside that activity That is what I want to watch next On the product side, the team has also launched AI Influencer. Each coin's mind can now have its own character, create content and videos, and post them on X I do not see this as a catalyst on the same level as the tokenomics change, but it does show that the team is still shipping product In my previous research, I said I did not want to see more narrative. I wanted to see larger treasuries, larger actions, more visible buybacks and burns, more active minds, and enough volume to keep the entire system running Part of that thesis is now starting to show up, but in a slightly different way solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump itself has now become part of the flywheel As for the chart, after a move from nearly $1M to a new ATH around $10M, I do not think this is the time to FOMO What I want to see next is whether the buybacks continue consistently, whether the size of the burns grows alongside activity on the pad, and whether there is enough sustainable volume to keep this mechanism running If those numbers continue to scale, the solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump thesis becomes significantly stronger than it was when I published my original research For now, the mechanism is running, but it is still far too early to call the flywheel proven I will keep watching solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump 7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump

And another one I want to mention is solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump If you just read my $WWW research, this one will probably feel familiar because both are running almost the same meta : AI agents + launchpad + tokens with their own “mind” But there’s one interesting detail: solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump actually launched about a day before $WWW And after digging deeper, I found that while the narrative is similar, the flywheel behind each project is quite different $WWW is currently winning on attention, while solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump has a treasury mechanism that I think is worth digging into The chart also just made a pretty aggressive move from around $1.4M to a ~$3.6M ATH, so instead of chasing it here, I wanted to see what’s actually behind the move 1. What does solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump actually do? solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump is tied to AGENCY / a Solana launchpad built around a simple concept : “Every coin gets a mind” Instead of launching a memecoin and basically ending there, every token launched through AGENCY can have its own AI “mind” At launch, creators can choose from AI models such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Grok, etc. through OpenRouter The mind can then observe the market, research the web/X, monitor holders and treasury activity, remember previous decisions, and use different capabilities provided by the platform But the part that caught my attention the most isn’t the AI itself It’s how creator fees are handled According to the team’s docs, creator fees don’t simply flow back into the launcher’s wallet. The routing is designed to direct those fees into the token’s system, including AI credits + treasury, rather than letting the creator withdraw them directly And this is where the flywheel starts 2. Volume is basically the fuel AGENCY’s current fee model is pretty interesting For the first $0–20 in fees, 100% goes toward model credits to wake the mind up From $20–100, the split becomes : 50% credits / 50% treasury After crossing $100, it changes to : 70% token treasury / 15% AI credits / 15% platform In simple terms : Trading => fees => treasury + compute => mind stays active => treasury can be used for new actions And this is where the “living token” narrative actually comes from The mind can use capabilities such as : buybacks, burns, swaps, DCA, airdrops, jackpots, quests, contests, polls, holder rewards, treasury rebalancing, etc So instead of the dev collecting fees and everyone having to trust that they’ll use them properly, Agency is experimenting with a different model : route the fees into a treasury and let the mind decide how to use them within predefined rules For me, this is the most interesting part of solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump 3. But the AI doesn’t actually control a wallet I checked this part carefully because “AI managing a treasury” can easily be misunderstood According to the architecture published by the team, the mind doesn’t hold private keys and doesn’t directly sign transactions It proposes an action, but that action still has to pass through a policy engine + spending limits + separate signer before execution Basically : AI decides => policy checks => signer executes It’s not like they’re giving Claude or GPT a wallet full of SOL and letting it send funds wherever it wants I actually prefer this setup It’s less sexy from a narrative perspective, but makes a lot more sense if the goal is for these treasuries to survive long term 4. solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump and $WWW are similar, but they’re not playing exactly the same game This is where I think people are grouping both projects together a little too quickly $WWW is more focused on : compute => browser => research => memory While the core of Agency is more like : fees => treasury => autonomous financial actions Put simply : $WWW : give every coin an AI that can browse and think solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump : give every coin a treasury and let its mind decide what to do with it Agency has also just added browser/research capabilities for its minds, so the feature gap between the two is already getting smaller But for me, the core Agency thesis is still the treasury And yes, Agency launched roughly one day before $WWW in this current wave That doesn’t mean Agency owns the concept or that $WWW copied Agency Autonomous agents, AI treasuries and agentic tokens existed before either of them I’m only talking about the timeline of these two tokens that CT is currently grouping into the same meta 5. More importantly, the product is actually running One thing I like about Agency is that the team didn’t just launch a token and sit around selling the narrative Minds on the platform have already started generating public thoughts and using actual capabilities A few examples I checked : $GrokBot triggered a buyback after detecting a price decline $shoggoth graduated and then opened a jackpot/poll Other minds have run contests, quests, jackpots or buyback/burn actions Even solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump itself kept its mind running after graduation with a “months, not days” approach The team also ran into an issue where the daily safety cap blocked buybacks/burns even when a treasury still had SOL, and later said they had adjusted that cap I actually find this part interesting Not because bugs are bullish, but because at least I’m seeing a product go through : ship => hit problems => fix them => keep shipping That’s better than a nice website and nothing else But I don’t want to overhype this either The treasury actions I’ve seen so far are still mostly only fractions of a SOL at a time Compared with the token’s trading volume, that’s tiny So : having buybacks ≠ having buybacks large enough to sustain price The mechanism is running The economic effectiveness of that mechanism is still unproven This is still a very early experiment 6. There are still plenty of risks This is the part I don’t think should be ignored just because the narrative is hot First, the token is extremely new and the chart just went vertical Some scanners I checked also flagged bundlers at around ~18%, while liquidity at the time was only around $100K–200K against several million dollars in volume I don’t treat a scanner flag as proof that the team is doing anything malicious But for a freshly launched microcap, volume/liquidity like this + bundle concentration is still something I want to monitor The team behind the platform also remains fairly anonymous, and I haven’t seen a strong independent audit that would make me treat everything described in their security architecture as third-party verified And there’s one very important distinction : The 15% platform fee does NOT mean solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump holders receive 15% of the revenue I haven’t found documentation saying solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump holders directly receive that fee So I’m not valuing solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump as a revenue-sharing token simply because the platform generates fees If the team later introduces clear tokenomics around this, the thesis can change For now, I’m not going to invent utility the token doesn’t have 7. How am I looking at the chart? solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump just made a pretty clean move from roughly : $1.4M => $3.6M MC It’s now pulling back around the $3M+ area I don’t like chasing here The first area I’m watching is : $3.0–3.1M This is around the bottom of the recent red candle and also a clean psychological level. If it holds, the drop from ~$3.6M can still just be a normal pullback But the area I’d be much more interested in if the market gives it back is : $2.0–2.2M. That’s close to the key breakout area before the latest expansion and gives me a much cleaner R:R than buying near ATH Deeper down : $1.4–1.7M That’s the accumulation zone before the latest leg If that gets lost too, then most of the current breakout has effectively been retraced and I’d reassess the thesis from scratch So for me : $3.0–3.1M - watch the reaction $2.0–2.2M - the dip zone I’m most interested in. $1.4–1.7M - final zone protecting the current structure 8. What catalysts do I want to see next? Not another 20 KOLs tweeting about “AI agents” I want to see the mechanism prove itself Specifically, I want to see a mind build a large enough treasury to execute a meaningful buyback/burn that is clearly visible on-chain, rather than another 0.x SOL action I also want to see more minds staying awake, enough volume generating fees to keep them running, and the team continuing to ship new capabilities If volume dies => fees die => minds go to sleep, then the entire “living token” narrative starts losing its fuel On the other hand, if activity keeps growing and treasuries start producing actions large enough for the market to actually notice, the flywheel becomes much more interesting And there’s another indirect catalyst : $WWW $WWW is currently attracting more holders, liquidity and attention If it keeps pushing the AI agent / living token narrative further, capital could easily start rotating into other names within the same meta And Agency is one of the names I think deserves to stay on the radar 9. My final thesis I don’t see solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump as simply “another $WWW” They share a narrative, but they’re experimenting with two different approaches $WWW turns fees into compute so its minds can browse/research Agency turns fees into treasury and lets its minds decide how to use that treasury within predefined limits Right now, $WWW is winning the attention game But from a mechanism perspective, I think Agency is running a pretty interesting experiment What I need next isn’t more narrative I want to see : larger treasuries => larger actions => visible buybacks/burns => more active minds => volume continuing to fuel the system If those pieces start showing up while this meta stays hot, I think solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump could be one of the names capital rotates back into But after a move from $1.4M => $3.6M, I see no reason to FOMO here I’ll let the market give me the dip 7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump

$MASK is probably one of the hottest tokens today A lot of you have been asking for my take on it at the current level. At the time of writing, $MASK is sitting around a $20M MC after a strong expansion into the $22–23M area It has already moved a lot, so instead of looking at the chart and FOMOing in, I think it makes more sense to understand why $MASK pumped, what the market is pricing in, and which catalysts have actually happened Let’s get into it 1. First, what exactly is $MASK? $MASK is tied to Nullmask, a privacy protocol built around ZK proofs The concept is pretty easy to understand. Instead of forcing users to create a new wallet or seed phrase, Nullmask wants to act as a privacy layer on top of your existing wallet, basically a “VPN for crypto transactions” The goal is to let users shield information like the sender, receiver, and amount while still maintaining self-custody What makes this more interesting is that Nullmask isn’t just a website created to build a narrative around a token They already had docs, a whitepaper, and EVM infrastructure, with support around networks like Ethereum, Base, BSC, Arbitrum, and other EVM chains The dev is also publicly identified. The person named on the whitepaper is Tomas Krnak, who previously received funding from the Zcash Foundation for work related to shielded transactions on hardware wallets But one thing needs to be very clear : $MASK is not an official token from the Zcash Foundation or Electric Coin Company The Zcash connection mainly comes from the team’s background, the privacy tech, and the way the token is currently paired with and rewarding holders in ZEC 2. So why did $MASK pump this hard? I think it’s a combination of several things hitting at the right time First, the ZEC/privacy narrative is extremely hot right now When liquidity starts rotating into privacy, a fresh Solana token with an existing product background, a public dev, and a connection to the Zcash ecosystem naturally gets attention But what makes $MASK different from a normal privacy narrative token is its tokenomics $MASK is paired with ZEC on StonkFun and has roughly a 3% transfer tax. Part of those fees gets converted into ZEC and distributed to eligible holders From the snapshot I checked while writing this, around 2,030 wallets had already received ZEC, with roughly $156K worth distributed, equivalent to around 100 ZEC based on the price at the time So the ZEC rewards aren’t just something sitting on a roadmap They have actually been distributed The flywheel is pretty simple : $MASK volume generates fees => fees fund ZEC rewards => ZEC rewards create another incentive to hold $MASK When ZEC itself already has strong attention, this becomes an easy narrative for the market to trade But the tax works both ways A roughly 3% transfer tax means there is friction on both buying and selling. The reward only really creates an edge if you hold long enough or receive enough ZEC to offset that cost 3. The team/dev is also a big part of the current momentum I think this part matters quite a lot The team is actively tying $MASK into the Nullmask product narrative through the website, whitepaper, and tokenomics updates The token is now directly featured on the Nullmask homepage, while the team has also been talking about ZEC rewards and the thesis that 100% of protocol revenue will be used to buy back $MASK For a token that is only a few days old, having the team behind an existing product actively pushing the narrative naturally creates more trust and attention But I wouldn’t call this a huge organic community yet The official social account was still below roughly 1K followers in the snapshot I checked So right now, I see the momentum as more : Team-driven momentum + ZEC season + tokenomics fitting the narrative rather than a massive organic community already forming around it 4. The product is real, but we need to separate the product from what the token is pricing in This is probably the most important part Nullmask does have real EVM infrastructure. There are docs, a whitepaper, and contracts But the website currently still says : Beta closed / Launching soon The docs I checked are also still mainly focused on EVM. Solana isn’t clearly listed among the supported networks for the privacy product yet In simple terms : $MASK has already launched and is trading on Solana, but the privacy product on Solana is not something that is broadly live yet The same applies to buybacks The team says 100% of protocol revenue will be used to buy back $MASK, but I haven’t seen a clear enough dashboard showing meaningful protocol revenue already generating large on-chain buybacks A public external audit, the app/extension reopening, Solana integration, CEX listings, user/TVL numbers, and meaningful protocol revenue are still potential catalysts ahead So the market is currently pricing in a decent amount of expectation, not just execution that has already happened 5. There are also some on-chain numbers I can’t ignore After a move this aggressive, distribution matters even more Based on the snapshot I have, the creator/dev wallet holds around 38.6% of the supply, while the Top 10 are around 51–52% Bundlers are around 8–9%, insiders roughly 2.5–2.8%, while smart money is only around 1.3–1.4% Liquidity is also relatively thin compared with the market cap, so if meaningful sell pressure appears, downside can move much faster than people expect Having a public dev with a real background is definitely positive for the narrative But : A doxxed dev doesn’t make concentration risk disappear For me, that ~38.6% dev wallet is one of the most important things to monitor from here. If it remains stable through corrections, the thesis looks much healthier than if distribution starts appearing Also, all of these numbers are only a snapshot at the time of writing. With such a new token, holder distribution, dev balances, and payouts can change quickly, so re-check the on-chain data before entering 6. There is one funding detail I still have questions about Back in March, the team mentioned that they were raising a seed round Meanwhile, the current tokenomics narrative emphasizes “no VCs / no early allocations” Those two things are not necessarily contradictory. The round may never have closed, or the funding may not have involved any token allocation But with the information I currently have, there isn’t enough evidence for me to draw a conclusion So for now, I’m simply keeping this as something that still needs verification rather than treating it as a confirmed red flag 7. The next catalysts will determine whether $MASK can hold this valuation After a move like this, the market needs more execution to justify a higher valuation What I’m watching for next is : The app/extension going public again, official Solana support, a published external audit, real protocol-revenue buybacks appearing on-chain, continued growth in ZEC payouts, CEX listings, or clearer user/revenue numbers If these things start happening, the thesis could upgrade from : Privacy + ZEC narrative + tokenomics to : Product + users + revenue + token value accrual That would be a much more meaningful catalyst On the other hand, if a few weeks pass and the website still says “Launching soon,” the Solana product still isn’t live, buybacks remain unverified, and the ZEC narrative cools off, then defending the current valuation becomes much harder 8. My plan for $MASK At around $20M MC after an almost vertical move, I don’t consider this a dip I don’t like chasing after the market has already priced in a lot of catalysts within such a short period If we get a correction, $12–15M is the first area where I’d start paying attention. Even then, I’d still consider it a shallow dip and would only be interested if volume and holder growth remain healthy The area I’m more interested in is $7–10M If the market resets into that range while the dev isn’t selling, holders aren’t collapsing, liquidity remains healthy, and ZEC payouts keep running, the risk/reward becomes much easier for me to evaluate $4–6M would be the deep-dip zone. The valuation becomes more attractive there, but the risk is obviously much higher, so I’d only consider it if the original thesis remains intact If that area is lost while the dev wallet starts selling, holders drop hard, and volume disappears, I’d rather reassess the entire thesis than try to catch a falling knife 9. Final thoughts I understand why $MASK has become one of the most talked-about names in the current privacy meta It has a lot of what the market currently likes : Privacy/ZK narrative, ZEC exposure, a public dev, a real product background, actual ZEC rewards, and a team actively pushing the token But on the other side, the market is also pricing in quite a few things that haven’t happened yet The Solana product isn’t broadly live yet, protocol buybacks still lack clear on-chain data, the social community remains relatively small, and the supply concentration in the dev wallet is something I can’t ignore So at the current level, I’m not chasing $12–15M is where I start watching, $7–10M is the main zone I’m interested in, while $4–6M is the deep-dip zone if the thesis remains intact From here, instead of staring at the chart every minute, I’ll mainly be watching four things : Dev wallet, holder growth, ZEC payouts, and product execution If those four continue moving in the right direction even after the initial hype cools down, that’s when $MASK becomes much more interesting to me HuAXPyDWDaMYFKuwQHpqL1oPnj93zdzWmtvFGzCeCUa7

And next up is solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE, a name that has been getting quite a lot of attention after running from below $1M to nearly $10M market cap Instead of just looking at the chart, I dug deeper into the product, flywheel, and especially the creator/dev wallet to see what is actually behind this move Let’s break it down 1. What is Hooked actually building? What caught my attention is that Hooked isn’t simply another launchpad on Solana Hooked is built around Token-2022 Transfer Hooks, allowing creators to embed certain rules directly into the token’s transfer process For example : > Anti-bundle > Anti-dump > Max wallet > Holder vesting > Allowlist > DEX-only > Market hours > FOMO-only buys > Sniper fee cap Whenever a token is transferred or swapped, the hook program checks the transaction. If it violates the configured rule, the transaction can be rejected directly on-chain Simply put, instead of relying entirely on a frontend, bots, or separate infrastructure for protection, Hooked moves part of that logic to the on-chain level That’s what I find interesting about the product 2. A few things you need to understand Transfer Hooks don’t necessarily stay forever If a creator chooses a Graduating Curve, once the token reaches graduation, the transfer hook can be removed during migration. After that, the token trades more like a normal token and the previous restrictions may no longer be enforced With a Permanent Curve, the hook remains active So features like anti-dump, max wallet, or anti-bundle are not automatically permanent for every token launched through Hooked Another thing worth noting is that the hook program can still be upgraded by Hooked’s deploy authority to fix bugs or update the program The rules are enforced on-chain and don’t simply depend on the frontend, but there is still a certain level of trust involved with the team and program authority There is also one important distinction around fees When Hooked says “fees do not go to the creator,” that refers to protocol fees generated by tokens launched through the platform. It doesn’t necessarily mean the team cannot receive other types of fees related to the solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE pool itself So it’s important to separate protocol flywheel fees from solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE pool fees before looking at creator wallet activity 3. The flywheel is where solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE gets interesting The technology creates the narrative, but the flywheel is what connects platform activity directly back to solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE According to the mechanism, every trade on a Hooked bonding curve pays a 1% protocol fee Of that : 85% is used to market buy solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE and burn it 15% goes toward development The flywheel is pretty straightforward : More launches => More volume => More fees => More solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE buybacks => More burn If the platform actually scales, activity on Hooked creates direct demand for solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE instead of the token relying purely on speculation More importantly, this mechanism is already operating on-chain, not just sitting on a roadmap At the time I checked, the dashboard had recorded roughly 25.7M solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE burned, with around 865 SOL used for buybacks So at the very least, the flywheel has already started working in practice But I still think it’s too early to extrapolate a few days of activity into a long-term trend What matters more is whether volume, fee revenue, and the pace of buybacks can remain sustainable once the initial hype cools down 4. Hooked still needs a real runner The number of tokens launching on the platform is growing quickly, but quantity isn’t the metric I care about most A launchpad can create hundreds of tokens, but if most of them stall at a few thousand dollars in market cap, the ecosystem still won’t generate sustainable volume What I want to see is : Token graduates => maintains liquidity => retains holders => continues generating volume Right now, most of the launches I’ve seen are still relatively small, and there hasn’t been a major runner yet that truly proves the model If Hooked starts producing a few real runners, the thesis becomes much stronger At that point, the flywheel would no longer be fueled purely by speculative volume from newly launched tokens It would start being supported by real ecosystem activity That’s the catalyst I care about most 5. Creator/dev wallet This is where things get more interesting when looking deeper on-chain The wallet associated with the creator/dev side : Dpmutmc4ZLqvJwHbwabvKYeFJ9zkQ86nutUAUviRrXG2 This wallet has been claiming fees from the solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE pool, with part of the SOL later being swapped into USDC At the time I checked, the wallet was still holding around 110K USDC, while fee claims continued to appear A public compilation of on-chain transactions covering September 28 to October 1 recorded roughly 2,080 SOL in pool fees claimed, with around 1,970 SOL swapped into USDC and approximately 160.8K USDC later flowing into Privacy Cash Some of the larger transactions cited include roughly 652 SOL claimed, 955 SOL swapped, and 103.2K USDC deposited I still treat the aggregate figures above as reference data from a public on-chain compilation, since I haven’t reconciled every individual transaction myself What can be seen directly on-chain, however, is that the wallet has been claiming fees, converting part of them into USDC, and holding a significant amount of stablecoins The fact that the team is claiming pool fees doesn’t automatically mean they are dumping or that something is wrong with the project As mentioned earlier, solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE pool fees and the 1% protocol fee feeding the flywheel need to be treated separately, because they are not necessarily the same flow of funds What interests me more is where the money goes after being claimed If the USDC flow into Privacy Cash is fully confirmed, tracking the final destination of those funds becomes much more difficult That doesn’t prove the team is doing anything malicious, but it clearly reduces transparency from a holder’s perspective So I’d like to see the team provide more clarity around where these pool fees come from, how they are allocated, and the purpose of funds moving through Privacy Cash Until then, this remains one of the main risks I’ll continue monitoring with solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE 6. Don’t just look at dev holdings This is also why I’m not only checking how much of the supply the dev currently holds For a token directly tied to a platform, cash flow can be just as important as token holdings If the ecosystem generates revenue through fees, the team doesn’t necessarily need to sell large amounts of solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE to monetize platform activity So what I want to track is : Fees generated => wallet receiving the fees => what those assets are converted into => where the funds eventually go That gives me much more context than simply looking at holder distribution 7. What about the chart? solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE’s price action is obviously strong The token ran from below $1M to nearly $10M market cap, and despite the volatility afterward, it has managed to hold a significant part of that expansion, trading around the $7–8M range on the chart I’m watching That shows the narrative has attracted attention very quickly But the risk/reward is also completely different from when the token was below $1M At the current valuation, the market is already pricing in quite a few expectations : Hooked continues attracting users More tokens continue launching Volume continues growing The flywheel keeps buying back solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE And eventually, the platform produces runners large enough to keep the ecosystem active So I no longer consider solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE an early discovery at these levels From here, execution starts to matter more than narrative 8. The thesis from here is pretty simple The bull case for solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE is easy to understand Hooked has real technical differentiation through Token-2022 Transfer Hooks Platform activity generates fees Those fees create market buys for solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE The purchased tokens are burned If Hooked starts producing successful launches, the loop could become : Better launches => More users => More volume => More fees => More solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE buybacks => More attention => More launches But the other side is just as clear If most tokens launched on Hooked die quickly, the initial hype fades, and no real runners emerge, fee generation will decline Buybacks decline Burns decline And one of the most important parts of the solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE thesis becomes weaker On top of that, there are still questions around the creator wallet and transparency of the pool fee flows 9. What am I watching next? I don’t need Hooked to announce another twenty new rules to become more bullish I want to see real usage A few tokens graduating and surviving afterward Volume remaining active after the initial hype Fee revenue continuing to come in Buybacks and burns continuing even as attention cools down And most importantly, I’d like to see a clearer explanation around the creator/dev wallet and the pool fee flows If these things start happening together, the solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE thesis becomes significantly stronger At that point, the story is no longer simply a new token with a Transfer Hook narrative It becomes a launchpad with real activity, where ecosystem volume directly creates buy pressure and reduces the supply of its native token For now, I’m keeping a neutral view The technology is real. The flywheel is already running. The price action is strong But Hooked is still too new to prove sustainable demand, and wallet flows are still something I want more transparency on before having stronger conviction Instead of FOMOing the chart or FUDing the project just because the team is claiming fees, I’d rather keep watching product adoption, fee generation, and on-chain flows and let the data speak for itself C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE

Quite a few people have been asking me about ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 over the past few days, so I spent some time going through the narrative, product, docs, and on-chain data to see what this actually has beyond the Vitalik name Just to make one thing clear first : this is not Vitalik’s token, and Vitalik has not endorsed it Let’s break it down 1. The ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 narrative The story starts with Vitalik’s Snowmoon In the book, there’s a currency called Zipcoin built around privacy, anonymous payments, and an interesting concept where you burn money to give a message value After the book came out, a bunch of tokens tried to copy the narrative What makes ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 more interesting is that the team didn’t just take the ticker and build some lore around it. They actually tried to turn concepts from the book into a working product on Ethereum So I see it more as a literary meme with a working product behind it, rather than a mature privacy protocol 2. Zip and Unzip This is the core of the product Users can Zip ZC into a Privacy Pool and later Unzip it into a fresh wallet using a ZK proof The idea is to break the direct on-chain link between the wallet depositing the tokens and the wallet receiving them A relayer can also handle gas for the new wallet, so you don’t need to fund it with ETH from your original wallet first The concept is interesting, but adoption is still the problem The last snapshot I checked showed only around 9 deposits in the Privacy Pool Privacy depends heavily on the anonymity set. The fewer people using the pool, the weaker the actual privacy becomes So the tech is live, but usage is still extremely early 3. Burn to Speak and Doorstep These are probably the two most degen features Burn to Speak lets users burn at least 1,000 ZC to post an on-chain message. The more ZC you burn, the higher your message gets ranked Doorstep lets you choose an ENS or address, burn ZC to “knock on their door” and leave a message. You can even send ZC privately alongside it The concept is pretty easy to understand : If you want to be heard, you have to burn money But organic usage is still weak Doorstep only had a little over a dozen interactions in the snapshot I checked, and most of the notable activity was still related to the team/dev So seeing vitalik.eth everywhere doesn’t mean the community is massively using the feature 4. Tokenomics and the flywheel The initial supply is 1B ZC. The docs and current token contract don’t have a mint function However, the Entrypoint can still be upgraded, so I wouldn’t call the entire system completely immutable The more interesting part for me is the fee structure Trading generates ETH fees for the treasury. The treasury can then be used for buybacks, while activities like Zip and Unzip also have their own fees On paper, the flywheel looks pretty good : Volume generates fees Fees feed the treasury Treasury funds buybacks Usage creates burns Burns reduce supply But right now, only the first half of that flywheel has really been proven: volume, fees, and buybacks The second half, organic user-driven burns, is barely proven at all That distinction matters because if you only look at the amount of supply burned, it’s easy to mistake it for real user demand 5. 8.5% burned and 4% sitting in vitalik.eth According to the snapshot I checked, around 8.5% of the supply has already been burned Around 40M ZC, roughly 4% of the supply, also sits in vitalik.eth Both numbers look great at first glance But most of the major early burns came from the team/dev And the 40M ZC in vitalik.eth was not bought by Vitalik. The team used the project’s own mechanism to send those tokens to his address Vitalik hasn’t bought, endorsed, or confirmed any involvement with the project So I don’t use the 8.5% burn as proof of organic demand, and I definitely don’t treat “Vitalik holds 4%” as smart money accumulation For now, both are much more relevant to the narrative than actual adoption 6. The product is real, the adoption isn’t there yet This is probably the simplest way I look at ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 The Privacy Pool is real Zip and Unzip are real Burn to Speak is real Doorstep is real The fee and buyback mechanisms are real So I wouldn’t call ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 an empty token But the number of people actually using these features outside the team is still very small I don’t need ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 to become Zcash. I just need to see deposits and burns coming from wallets that aren’t connected to the team. Until then, the valuation is still mostly narrative premium ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 has already proven “we built it” Now they need to prove “people actually use it” 7. What could trigger the next wave? The first wave was pretty straightforward Snowmoon came out, the Vitalik narrative started spreading, the market went looking for Zipcoin, and ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 got repriced very quickly But I think a lot of that catalyst has already been priced in The next wave needs external validation I want to see the Privacy Pool go from a handful of deposits to dozens or even hundreds I want to see wallets unrelated to the team actually Zip, Unzip, and burn ZC If a KOL, ETH dev, or large account starts genuinely using the product, the narrative becomes much stronger The biggest wildcard is obviously Vitalik He doesn’t even need to endorse the token. A single public interaction with the concept or implementation could completely change how the market looks at ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 But I wouldn’t build my thesis around that happening Vitalik staying completely silent is also a very realistic outcome 8. Risks This is still extremely early, so there are plenty of risks Adoption is low, some parts remain unaudited, and the Entrypoint is still upgradeable also previously flagged a wallet cluster around launch involving roughly 46% of the supply That doesn’t prove all of those tokens belong to one entity, but it’s still an on-chain risk worth keeping in mind The biggest risk, though, is attention If the Snowmoon and Vitalik narrative cools off before organic usage appears, the product can keep working, but the market has no obligation to keep paying a premium for the token 9. The dip zones I’m watching For ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722, I prefer looking at market cap rather than token price I’m using the first wave ATH around $18M MC as my reference at the time of writing $12M–$15M: I don’t really consider this a dip. There’s still a lot of narrative premium here. If it bounces into this range and gets rejected, I’d see it more as a relief bounce than an area where I want to size up $8M–$10M: This is more of a temporary equilibrium zone, roughly around half of the ATH. The chart can hold here, but I’d want to see volume come back. If price holds while usage is still mostly team-driven, the thesis hasn’t changed much for me $6M–$8M: This is the dip zone I’m most interested in. The valuation becomes much more reasonable compared to the first wave. But I’m not blindly bidding it. I want to see the chart stop bleeding, volume remain healthy, and Zip or burn activity start coming from wallets outside the team Below $5M: It looks cheaper, but it could also simply mean attention is dying. If organic usage still isn’t growing, a lower market cap doesn’t automatically make it a bargain For me, $6M–$8M is the most interesting zone to watch, but price gives me the entry while usage gives me conviction If it loses $6M while usage still isn’t improving, I have no reason to catch the knife 10. My thesis The way I see ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 right now is pretty simple Wave 1 was the market buying Vitalik + Snowmoon If there’s a Wave 2, the market needs to start buying usage ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 is not Vitalik’s token It’s also not a mature privacy protocol But I think it’s more interesting than most literary memes because the team actually turned the lore into a working product The narrative is there The product is there What’s still missing is the users If organic usage starts showing up, I think the market has a reason to reprice ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 again If not, then at the end of the day, it’s still a narrative trade with a product behind it That’s what I’ll be watching next with ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722

Quite a few people have been asking me about $WWW today This is one of the hottest launches right now, hitting an ATH of around $8.4M within its first ~8 hours, and trading around $6M–7M MC when I checked Instead of chasing the chart, I dug deeper into the product, narrative, fee mechanism, on-chain data, bundle cluster, and notable wallets behind it Let’s break it down 1. What is $WWW? $WWW is the flagship token of a platform where each token can come with its own AI agent, which the team calls a “symbient” These agents can use models like Claude, GPT, or Grok through OpenRouter, while also having access to a cloud browser that allows them to browse the web, research information, and retain memory between runs The core flywheel is pretty simple n: Trading => Fees => Compute => AI activity => Content/Attention => Trading Creator fees are used to fund the compute vault that keeps the agent running. Once the compute runs out, the agent stops until it gets funded again This is how the team describes the mechanism, though I haven’t independently audited the entire flow of funds yet 2. The narrative WWW positions itself within this lineage : Infinite Backrooms => Truth Terminal => Mycelial Oracle => World Wide Web The idea is to take AI agents beyond just conversations, give them an environment to “live” on the web, and provide them with a token economy to sustain their activity $WWW currently runs Claude and focuses heavily on machine life / synthetic biology I saw the agent researching protein design, RFdiffusion, nanopore synthesis, and other related topics But there’s an important distinction : Reading and summarizing research ≠ creating new scientific discoveries So far, I haven’t seen evidence of the latter 3. The product is real, but still very early This isn’t just an AI narrative with a ticker attached The browser agent is actually running, and the team has been actively fixing browser issues, re-indexing tokens, adding disclaimers, and allowing creators to modify allowlists, capabilities, or APIs through wallet signatures When I checked, the platform showed roughly 1,500 coins, ~2,100 SOL in compute, 70–80 symbients, and ~1,300 findings However, most of the “findings” I saw still looked more like AI summaries and interpretations of existing information rather than genuine discoveries Another thing worth noting: despite the autonomous AI narrative, creators still retain some control over their agents That isn’t necessarily bad for such an early product, but it means the system is not fully autonomous or immutable yet 4. On-chain is where things get interesting This is also where I start becoming more cautious Different trackers are showing different bundle estimates, so I wouldn’t treat 55% bundled as an exact figure at this point What matters more is that there appears to be a fairly large launch cluster connected through the same funding source The dev currently shows 0% holdings, mint/freeze authority is disabled, and individual top holders don’t look extremely concentrated Another positive point is that around 17M $WWW tokens have already been locked, reducing the amount of supply that can immediately enter the market But : 0% dev holdings + locked supply doesn’t automatically mean clean distribution If multiple wallets were funded from the same source and bought right at launch, looking at each wallet individually can still hide the real concentration So rather than focusing only on the bundle percentage, I’m watching how much unlocked supply these connected wallets still control and whether they start distributing together 5. Frank is the interesting part This is probably the most interesting on-chain detail I found Frank’s wallet appears directly on the bubble map within the funding network connected to $WWW’s bundle cluster And Frank actually has a sizeable position According to GMGN, Frank bought roughly $118.7K across 15 transactions, with an average entry around $3.5M MC He later sold around $61.3K, but when I checked, he was still holding roughly 11.7M $WWW, representing more than 1% of the current supply So Frank has already taken some profit but is still letting a meaningful position run More importantly, the funding connection between Frank’s wallet and the bundle cluster is something I’ll continue watching This connection alone isn’t enough to prove that Frank is part of the team, that these wallets share the same owner, or that they are coordinating But if Frank starts selling heavily while the connected bundle wallets begin distributing at the same time, then this connection becomes much more relevant 6. The fee flow still needs more transparency Based on the data I checked, the creator has already claimed roughly 640+ SOL in fees The team says these fees are used to fund the compute vault, but the amount claimed currently looks significantly larger than the compute consumption I can directly observe So I want more clarity on three things : > How much of the fees actually go into the vault? > How much has actually been spent on compute? > Where are the claimed funds going? More transparency here would resolve one of the biggest question marks around the project 7. Attention is growing quickly @www_stream had around 2.9K followers when I checked, with quite a few crypto traders/KOLs appearing in its follower network That’s a good sign for attention, but : Follow ≠ endorsement Endorsement ≠ buy A stronger catalyst would be direct public interaction from people connected to previous AI narratives, such as Andy Ayrey, Truth Terminal, Repligate, James Greig/Wib&Wob, or Mycelial Oracle I haven’t seen strong external confirmation like that yet 8. The $Agency controversy Another token called $Agency launched a few hours before $WWW CA : 7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump The Agency side claims that their tech was already running before WWW At this point, I haven’t seen enough evidence to conclude who copied whom, or whether anyone actually copied anyone at all To confirm that, I’d want to see development timestamps, repos, deployment history, or stronger technical evidence So for now, I see it simply as a dispute worth monitoring 9. The levels I’m watching When I researched it, $WWW was trading around $6M–7M MC after hitting an ATH of roughly $8.4M The token is only a few hours old, so I wouldn’t treat these as confirmed technical support levels. They’re simply areas where I’ll watch the reaction $7M–8.4M: ATH reclaim zone. A break and hold above $8.4M with strong volume would keep the momentum healthy $5M–5.5M: The first area I’m watching on a pullback. Losing this zone with increasing sell volume would make me more cautious $3.5M–4M: A deeper reset zone. If it comes back here, I’ll recheck Frank, the bundle wallets, and volume before considering the dip Below $2M–2.5M: The original momentum thesis would be largely invalidated for me, and I’d reassess the entire setup rather than automatically calling it a dip After such a fast move, I personally don’t like chasing the ATH 10. My thesis I understand why $WWW is hot It has an AI agent that is actually running, an observable browser, a fee/compute flywheel, Backrooms/Truth Terminal lore, a real product, and a token directly tied to the ecosystem There are also some positives on-chain: mint/freeze authority is disabled, dev holdings show 0%, and around 17M $WWW has already been locked But the risks are still pretty clear : A large funding cluster, unclear bundle concentration, Frank’s wallet having a funding connection to that cluster while already taking some profit, unclear fee flows, creators still retaining some control over agents, no major external confirmation yet, and the unresolved Agency dispute So for now, I still see $WWW as a high-risk narrative trade rather than a long-term conviction play What I want to see next is pretty simple : Continued holder growth, no aggressive distribution from the launch cluster, Frank not heavily unloading the rest of his position, healthy volume after the initial hype, clearer fee/compute flows, and a real external catalyst If those things start lining up while the chart continues to hold its structure, the thesis becomes much stronger For now : I like the narrative and the product, but I’m still respecting the on-chain risk. GAwhcphCqCv5bKHmCiN4VDdNWfbXJL4npmkc8L3Q9S9H

Continuing today’s memecoin recap series The first one I want to talk about is $JANE This is obviously a pretty sensitive narrative, so I want to make one thing clear from the start: the celebrities, large accounts, and media outlets talking about “I Am Jane Doe” are discussing the actual case behind it, not endorsing the $JANE memecoin But from a memecoin perspective, the thesis here is actually pretty simple : $JANE is trading attention 1. The narrative behind $JANE $JANE is riding the “I Am Jane Doe” story surrounding the Cornell case, which has been getting a lot of attention across social media The more information that comes out, the more people discuss the case, and the further the “I Am Jane Doe” narrative spreads, the larger the attention pool becomes And for memecoins, sometimes that’s all you need The flow I’m watching is pretty straightforward : Real-world story => Social attention => More people talking about Jane Doe => Memecoin speculation $JANE doesn’t have some complicated product or utility that I’m trying to value here This is simply a pure attention play 2. What makes $JANE a little different Normally, I’m pretty cautious with memecoins that build their narrative around sensitive real-world stories But there’s one thing about $JANE that makes it stand out from the usual copycats The creator rewards are being directed to the Rape Recovery Center According to the information displayed on the coin’s page, around 266 SOL, roughly $31K, has already been donated to the organization That matters to my thesis If attention keeps growing and brings more trading activity, creator rewards could continue increasing, which could also mean more funds being directed toward the charity Of course, I’m not saying buying $JANE = directly donating to charity. This is still a memecoin and it’s still extremely speculative But at least part of the attention and trading activity surrounding the token is being converted into real donations rather than the entire story simply being used to farm liquidity 3. The early numbers are pretty strong $JANE only recently launched, but the initial expansion has been pretty aggressive When I checked : MC : around $1.7M-$1.9M ATH : close to $2M Volume : $4M+ Holders : 6K+ The chart from the bonding curve also looks relatively clean so far Instead of one straight pump followed by an immediate dump, we’ve seen periods of consolidation after the expansions, buyers stepping back in, and the overall structure continuing to hold That’s what I want to see from a newly launched attention play But there’s one thing you definitely shouldn’t ignore : Liquidity is only around $66K-$68K That’s still very thin compared with a market cap approaching $2M A few large wallets exiting could change the chart very quickly, so don’t look at the market cap and assume $JANE is already some relatively safe mid-cap play This is still high-risk memecoin territory 4. The biggest catalyst is still attention This is probably the most interesting part for me The story behind the narrative is still getting attention, and I think there’s a real possibility that more public figures, celebrities, or large accounts could speak about the issue itself, bringing another wave of attention to the broader narrative If that happens, the flow is simple : More big names talking about the case => More mainstream/social attention => More searches around Jane Doe => More speculative attention potentially flowing into $JANE But again : A celebrity talking about Jane Doe does NOT mean they endorse $JANE Those are two completely different things The token is simply trying to capture the downstream attention coming from a real-world story What matters to me is whether this specific $JANE contract continues to be where that liquidity and mindshare concentrate Because if the narrative gets hot but 20 different copycats appear and split the liquidity, all that external attention might not translate into a stronger chart for $JANE 5. What I’m watching next With $JANE, I’m not really waiting for some roadmap or major team announcement I’m mainly watching three things : Attention, volume, and holders If the story continues spreading, bigger accounts start discussing it, $JANE keeps its volume, and the holder count continues growing, then the thesis remains alive for me The creator rewards mechanism also becomes more interesting if trading activity keeps increasing, because that could potentially mean more rewards being directed toward charity On the other hand, if social media is still talking about Jane Doe but token volume starts drying up, holder growth stalls, and liquidity starts moving into copycats, I’ll become much more cautious For this type of play, attention needs to convert into actual on-chain activity 6. My chart and trading plan After the run from low cap to nearly $2M, I don’t really want to chase $JANE around the current area If it keeps running without me, that’s fine. I don’t need to catch every move The dip zone I’m watching is around $1M-$1.2M MC That’s where the risk/reward starts becoming more interesting to me If $JANE comes back into the $1M-$1.2M area while the narrative is still hot, volume remains healthy, and buyers start defending the structure, I may consider taking a small position I also have a pretty clear invalidation : If it drops below $600K MC, I’m probably moving on For a pure attention play, if the market cap retraces that deeply and the initial momentum basically disappears, I don’t want to keep trying to catch the bottom just because the real-world story is still trending Attention on X doesn’t automatically mean liquidity will return On the other hand, if we don’t get the dip and $JANE cleanly breaks its $2M ATH with strong volume, continued holder growth, and mindshare still concentrated around this contract, I’ll watch the price discovery rather than FOMO into the candle My plan is pretty simple : Dip zone : $1M-$1.2M MC Invalidation : below $600K MC Break $2M + strong volume/holder growth: watch the price discovery 7. Final thesis I’m not looking at $JANE as some fundamentally strong project that I want to hold for months This is an attention trade But right now, the attention is real, the token has managed to capture part of that flow, and the early numbers are strong enough for me to keep watching it The part I like most is that creator rewards are being directed toward the Rape Recovery Center, with around 266 SOL (~$31K) already donated according to the coin page If the narrative keeps spreading and more big names speak about the broader issue, attention could continue growing. If that attention converts into $JANE volume, the creator rewards could potentially generate even more funds for the charity But ultimately, I’ll let the market tell me what to do Attention stays, volume stays, holders keep growing => thesis stays alive Attention is there but the money leaves => I move on I’m not marrying a coin like this Waiting for $1M-$1.2M for a better setup Below $600K and I’m out 9pJWJdpPebyANys45eetpemLJo8yTz4n5B9zbpYw9ZMr

Quite a few people have been asking me about ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 over the past few days, so I spent some time going through the narrative, product, docs, and on-chain data to see what this actually has beyond the Vitalik name Just to make one thing clear first : this is not Vitalik’s token, and Vitalik has not endorsed it Let’s break it down 1. The ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 narrative The story starts with Vitalik’s Snowmoon In the book, there’s a currency called Zipcoin built around privacy, anonymous payments, and an interesting concept where you burn money to give a message value After the book came out, a bunch of tokens tried to copy the narrative What makes ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 more interesting is that the team didn’t just take the ticker and build some lore around it. They actually tried to turn concepts from the book into a working product on Ethereum So I see it more as a literary meme with a working product behind it, rather than a mature privacy protocol 2. Zip and Unzip This is the core of the product Users can Zip ZC into a Privacy Pool and later Unzip it into a fresh wallet using a ZK proof The idea is to break the direct on-chain link between the wallet depositing the tokens and the wallet receiving them A relayer can also handle gas for the new wallet, so you don’t need to fund it with ETH from your original wallet first The concept is interesting, but adoption is still the problem The last snapshot I checked showed only around 9 deposits in the Privacy Pool Privacy depends heavily on the anonymity set. The fewer people using the pool, the weaker the actual privacy becomes So the tech is live, but usage is still extremely early 3. Burn to Speak and Doorstep These are probably the two most degen features Burn to Speak lets users burn at least 1,000 ZC to post an on-chain message. The more ZC you burn, the higher your message gets ranked Doorstep lets you choose an ENS or address, burn ZC to “knock on their door” and leave a message. You can even send ZC privately alongside it The concept is pretty easy to understand : If you want to be heard, you have to burn money But organic usage is still weak Doorstep only had a little over a dozen interactions in the snapshot I checked, and most of the notable activity was still related to the team/dev So seeing vitalik.eth everywhere doesn’t mean the community is massively using the feature 4. Tokenomics and the flywheel The initial supply is 1B ZC. The docs and current token contract don’t have a mint function However, the Entrypoint can still be upgraded, so I wouldn’t call the entire system completely immutable The more interesting part for me is the fee structure Trading generates ETH fees for the treasury. The treasury can then be used for buybacks, while activities like Zip and Unzip also have their own fees On paper, the flywheel looks pretty good : Volume generates fees Fees feed the treasury Treasury funds buybacks Usage creates burns Burns reduce supply But right now, only the first half of that flywheel has really been proven: volume, fees, and buybacks The second half, organic user-driven burns, is barely proven at all That distinction matters because if you only look at the amount of supply burned, it’s easy to mistake it for real user demand 5. 8.5% burned and 4% sitting in vitalik.eth According to the snapshot I checked, around 8.5% of the supply has already been burned Around 40M ZC, roughly 4% of the supply, also sits in vitalik.eth Both numbers look great at first glance But most of the major early burns came from the team/dev And the 40M ZC in vitalik.eth was not bought by Vitalik. The team used the project’s own mechanism to send those tokens to his address Vitalik hasn’t bought, endorsed, or confirmed any involvement with the project So I don’t use the 8.5% burn as proof of organic demand, and I definitely don’t treat “Vitalik holds 4%” as smart money accumulation For now, both are much more relevant to the narrative than actual adoption 6. The product is real, the adoption isn’t there yet This is probably the simplest way I look at ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 The Privacy Pool is real Zip and Unzip are real Burn to Speak is real Doorstep is real The fee and buyback mechanisms are real So I wouldn’t call ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 an empty token But the number of people actually using these features outside the team is still very small I don’t need ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 to become Zcash. I just need to see deposits and burns coming from wallets that aren’t connected to the team. Until then, the valuation is still mostly narrative premium ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 has already proven “we built it” Now they need to prove “people actually use it” 7. What could trigger the next wave? The first wave was pretty straightforward Snowmoon came out, the Vitalik narrative started spreading, the market went looking for Zipcoin, and ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 got repriced very quickly But I think a lot of that catalyst has already been priced in The next wave needs external validation I want to see the Privacy Pool go from a handful of deposits to dozens or even hundreds I want to see wallets unrelated to the team actually Zip, Unzip, and burn ZC If a KOL, ETH dev, or large account starts genuinely using the product, the narrative becomes much stronger The biggest wildcard is obviously Vitalik He doesn’t even need to endorse the token. A single public interaction with the concept or implementation could completely change how the market looks at ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 But I wouldn’t build my thesis around that happening Vitalik staying completely silent is also a very realistic outcome 8. Risks This is still extremely early, so there are plenty of risks Adoption is low, some parts remain unaudited, and the Entrypoint is still upgradeable also previously flagged a wallet cluster around launch involving roughly 46% of the supply That doesn’t prove all of those tokens belong to one entity, but it’s still an on-chain risk worth keeping in mind The biggest risk, though, is attention If the Snowmoon and Vitalik narrative cools off before organic usage appears, the product can keep working, but the market has no obligation to keep paying a premium for the token 9. The dip zones I’m watching For ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722, I prefer looking at market cap rather than token price I’m using the first wave ATH around $18M MC as my reference at the time of writing $12M–$15M: I don’t really consider this a dip. There’s still a lot of narrative premium here. If it bounces into this range and gets rejected, I’d see it more as a relief bounce than an area where I want to size up $8M–$10M: This is more of a temporary equilibrium zone, roughly around half of the ATH. The chart can hold here, but I’d want to see volume come back. If price holds while usage is still mostly team-driven, the thesis hasn’t changed much for me $6M–$8M: This is the dip zone I’m most interested in. The valuation becomes much more reasonable compared to the first wave. But I’m not blindly bidding it. I want to see the chart stop bleeding, volume remain healthy, and Zip or burn activity start coming from wallets outside the team Below $5M: It looks cheaper, but it could also simply mean attention is dying. If organic usage still isn’t growing, a lower market cap doesn’t automatically make it a bargain For me, $6M–$8M is the most interesting zone to watch, but price gives me the entry while usage gives me conviction If it loses $6M while usage still isn’t improving, I have no reason to catch the knife 10. My thesis The way I see ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 right now is pretty simple Wave 1 was the market buying Vitalik + Snowmoon If there’s a Wave 2, the market needs to start buying usage ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 is not Vitalik’s token It’s also not a mature privacy protocol But I think it’s more interesting than most literary memes because the team actually turned the lore into a working product The narrative is there The product is there What’s still missing is the users If organic usage starts showing up, I think the market has a reason to reprice ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 again If not, then at the end of the day, it’s still a narrative trade with a product behind it That’s what I’ll be watching next with ethereum:0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722 0x4e67db19044549ff420860834c91b45bad298722