Stitch(@stitchdegen):And another one I’ve been getting quite a few questions about today is $ATTN This one seems to be pretty hot right now The idea itself is genuinely interesting, but at the same time, I think the market is pricing the story much faster than what the product has actually proven so far Let’s break it down 1. What does $ATTN actually do? The core concept behind Attention Mine is attention mining Instead of being another pure meme that relies on CT to farm attention, they’re trying to turn attention itself into something that can be measured, rented, and monetized The current product is a 25-cell grid, with each round lasting around 60 seconds. Projects and brands can rent spots on the grid for advertising, while users connect their wallets and pick/bet on different cells Within the first few hours, familiar names across the ecosystem like Helius, Superteam, Injective, QuickNode, Perceptron, @districtxyz... were already showing up on the grid According to the mechanism they’ve outlined, around 90% of ad fees go into the reward pool, while roughly 10% goes into the vault. The agent is designed to manage that vault autonomously and can use it for buybacks, burns, or adding liquidity So in simple terms, the thesis they’re trying to build is : attention => ads => revenue => rewards/vault => agent feeds the ecosystem And I have to admit, it’s a pretty interesting idea for the current meta 2. What I like most is actually how they launched it $ATTN isn’t the usual case of deploying a token first and figuring out what utility to attach to it later The product was already there when the token launched, and people could immediately see and interact with it The grid runs in real time, there are advertisers, impressions, a reward pool, and users can participate directly in every round More importantly, $ATTN was launched by @districtxyz and introduced as the first project/token created and operated by one of their agents @districtxyz itself is backed by a16z, Initialized, and Alliance One thing I want to make clear because I’ve seen quite a few people mixing this up : a16z backs @districtxyz. It does not directly back $ATTN And a16z is not ai16z either Still, having @districtxyz directly behind the project already makes $ATTN quite different from some random AI token deployed a few hours ago 3. So why did $ATTN run this hard? I think it’s pretty easy to understand Solana has gone through several rotations of pure memes, and the market has been looking for something that feels a little different $ATTN showed up at the right time and managed to combine several narratives that are naturally good at attracting attention : attention economy + AI agents + gamification + token More importantly, they’re not just telling the story on X. There’s an actual visual product that people can use immediately That creates reflexivity : product looks real => narrative is easy to understand => attention flows in => chart runs => chart attracts even more attention Add @districtxyz and several recognizable ecosystem names into the mix, and I’m not really surprised that the token went from almost zero to tens of millions in MC within a few hours But this is also where I start becoming more cautious 4. A good idea doesn’t automatically mean the current valuation is justified This is probably the most important distinction in my $ATTN thesis I’m fairly bullish on the idea, but I’m not equally bullish on the fundamentals at the current valuation The most interesting part of the story is this idea of a self-improving / agent-run token The agent monitors the system, the treasury receives funds, and the agent can then use those funds to buy back $ATTN, burn tokens, or add LP Sounds great But at the time I checked, I still couldn’t find enough onchain data to say that this loop is already operating at any meaningful scale Recorded burn is still basically 0%, supply remains around 100M, and mint authority is still active I also haven’t seen a dashboard or transaction history clear enough to trace : this is the revenue => this goes into the vault => this is the $ATTN buyback => these tokens get burned So for now, I see the agent-run buyback/burn system as a mechanism that has been designed and announced, rather than something that has already been proven in practice Those are two very different things 5. What I’m watching most closely now is real cash flow $ATTN has already proven one thing very clearly from day one : it can attract a ridiculous amount of attention and volume But for me, what happens next is what determines whether this thesis can actually go much further The millions in trading volume right now mostly tell us that the market is extremely interested in the token To evaluate Attention Mine as a product, I care more about how much actual money is being generated through advertisers, activity on the grid, and how much of that value ultimately flows back into the vault/token The roughly 999 ATTN per round shown in the header also looks impressive, but that’s the prize pool, and I wouldn’t treat the whole thing as protocol revenue Rewards can come from multiple sources, and right now I’d still like to see clearer accounting before trying to put a valuation on the model’s cash flow If over the next few weeks @districtxyz can show that advertisers aren’t just here for launch hype, users keep coming back, and actual revenue is being deployed by the agent into buybacks, burns, or liquidity, then the $ATTN thesis becomes a completely different story They’ve already captured the attention The real test now is whether they can turn that attention into a sustainable economic loop 6. And that’s also why I don’t want to dismiss $ATTN too early If I ignore the chart for a moment, I genuinely like this experiment Crypto talks about the attention economy all the time, but most of the time it simply means attention pushes token prices higher. Attention Mine is trying to take that one step further: turn attention into inventory that brands can rent, let users compete to mine it, and then route part of that value back into the token economy If the loop actually works : brands buy attention => users return to the grid => revenue grows => agent buys back/burns/adds LP => token gains more value => more attention comes in then $ATTN stops being just another meme with a website That’s the real bull case for me The problem is that right now, we’ve only seen the beginning of the loop, not the entire thing working end to end 7. What about an entry? This is where I think patience matters After running from almost zero to over $35M MC, the current valuation already feels pretty high to me, especially when the team hasn’t dropped any major new updates yet The closest support I’m watching is around $15M MC If the chart dips back there, I’ll start paying much closer attention to selling pressure, volume, and how the team continues building the narrative on X I also want to watch what @districtxyz does next, as well as whether @a16z mentions District or shows any meaningful interaction around this ecosystem If we get a new catalyst, selling pressure gets absorbed well, and the $15M area confirms as support, then I think the risk/reward becomes much easier to evaluate than simply FOMOing at current levels If $15M doesn’t hold, momentum keeps fading, and the team still hasn’t delivered anything meaningful, I’m not going to rush into catching the knife The next dip zone I’d be looking toward would be significantly lower, around $7–8M MC So I’m not interested in FOMOing here I like the idea, but I’ll let the chart and catalysts decide the entry 8. Conclusion For me, $ATTN is one of the more interesting ideas I’ve seen on Solana recently Not because it has already proven strong fundamentals, but because @districtxyz found a pretty clever way to package the attention economy, ads, gamification, and autonomous agents into a product whose story is immediately understandable So I don’t see it as some random meme But I also don’t see it as a fundamental play yet At this stage, I view $ATTN more as a narrative bet with a real product and a notable team/backing behind it, rather than a cash-flow bet The market is essentially paying upfront for the idea that an agent can turn attention into revenue and then use that revenue to feed the token itself Now comes the hard part : @districtxyz and Attention Mine need to prove that story with real users, real revenue, and real transactions If they can do that, I think $ATTN becomes something worth watching for much longer If they can’t, then the tens of millions in market cap we’re seeing right now are still mostly the price of attention, not the price of a proven business H1kXUqEPkQNNeNjGNN5tuHf3nsQK2vB1jUA9c4RggpUf

2026.09.08 18:47

And another one I’ve been getting quite a few questions about today is $ATTN This one seems to be pretty hot right now The idea itself is genuinely interesting, but at the same time, I think the market is pricing the story much faster than what the product has actually proven so far Let’s break it down 1. What does $ATTN actually do? The core concept behind Attention Mine is attention mining Instead of being another pure meme that relies on CT to farm attention, they’re trying to turn attention itself into something that can be measured, rented, and monetized The current product is a 25-cell grid, with each round lasting around 60 seconds. Projects and brands can rent spots on the grid for advertising, while users connect their wallets and pick/bet on different cells Within the first few hours, familiar names across the ecosystem like Helius, Superteam, Injective, QuickNode, Perceptron, @districtxyz... were already showing up on the grid According to the mechanism they’ve outlined, around 90% of ad fees go into the reward pool, while roughly 10% goes into the vault. The agent is designed to manage that vault autonomously and can use it for buybacks, burns, or adding liquidity So in simple terms, the thesis they’re trying to build is : attention => ads => revenue => rewards/vault => agent feeds the ecosystem And I have to admit, it’s a pretty interesting idea for the current meta 2. What I like most is actually how they launched it $ATTN isn’t the usual case of deploying a token first and figuring out what utility to attach to it later The product was already there when the token launched, and people could immediately see and interact with it The grid runs in real time, there are advertisers, impressions, a reward pool, and users can participate directly in every round More importantly, $ATTN was launched by @districtxyz and introduced as the first project/token created and operated by one of their agents @districtxyz itself is backed by a16z, Initialized, and Alliance One thing I want to make clear because I’ve seen quite a few people mixing this up : a16z backs @districtxyz. It does not directly back $ATTN And a16z is not ai16z either Still, having @districtxyz directly behind the project already makes $ATTN quite different from some random AI token deployed a few hours ago 3. So why did $ATTN run this hard? I think it’s pretty easy to understand Solana has gone through several rotations of pure memes, and the market has been looking for something that feels a little different $ATTN showed up at the right time and managed to combine several narratives that are naturally good at attracting attention : attention economy + AI agents + gamification + token More importantly, they’re not just telling the story on X. There’s an actual visual product that people can use immediately That creates reflexivity : product looks real => narrative is easy to understand => attention flows in => chart runs => chart attracts even more attention Add @districtxyz and several recognizable ecosystem names into the mix, and I’m not really surprised that the token went from almost zero to tens of millions in MC within a few hours But this is also where I start becoming more cautious 4. A good idea doesn’t automatically mean the current valuation is justified This is probably the most important distinction in my $ATTN thesis I’m fairly bullish on the idea, but I’m not equally bullish on the fundamentals at the current valuation The most interesting part of the story is this idea of a self-improving / agent-run token The agent monitors the system, the treasury receives funds, and the agent can then use those funds to buy back $ATTN, burn tokens, or add LP Sounds great But at the time I checked, I still couldn’t find enough onchain data to say that this loop is already operating at any meaningful scale Recorded burn is still basically 0%, supply remains around 100M, and mint authority is still active I also haven’t seen a dashboard or transaction history clear enough to trace : this is the revenue => this goes into the vault => this is the $ATTN buyback => these tokens get burned So for now, I see the agent-run buyback/burn system as a mechanism that has been designed and announced, rather than something that has already been proven in practice Those are two very different things 5. What I’m watching most closely now is real cash flow $ATTN has already proven one thing very clearly from day one : it can attract a ridiculous amount of attention and volume But for me, what happens next is what determines whether this thesis can actually go much further The millions in trading volume right now mostly tell us that the market is extremely interested in the token To evaluate Attention Mine as a product, I care more about how much actual money is being generated through advertisers, activity on the grid, and how much of that value ultimately flows back into the vault/token The roughly 999 ATTN per round shown in the header also looks impressive, but that’s the prize pool, and I wouldn’t treat the whole thing as protocol revenue Rewards can come from multiple sources, and right now I’d still like to see clearer accounting before trying to put a valuation on the model’s cash flow If over the next few weeks @districtxyz can show that advertisers aren’t just here for launch hype, users keep coming back, and actual revenue is being deployed by the agent into buybacks, burns, or liquidity, then the $ATTN thesis becomes a completely different story They’ve already captured the attention The real test now is whether they can turn that attention into a sustainable economic loop 6. And that’s also why I don’t want to dismiss $ATTN too early If I ignore the chart for a moment, I genuinely like this experiment Crypto talks about the attention economy all the time, but most of the time it simply means attention pushes token prices higher. Attention Mine is trying to take that one step further: turn attention into inventory that brands can rent, let users compete to mine it, and then route part of that value back into the token economy If the loop actually works : brands buy attention => users return to the grid => revenue grows => agent buys back/burns/adds LP => token gains more value => more attention comes in then $ATTN stops being just another meme with a website That’s the real bull case for me The problem is that right now, we’ve only seen the beginning of the loop, not the entire thing working end to end 7. What about an entry? This is where I think patience matters After running from almost zero to over $35M MC, the current valuation already feels pretty high to me, especially when the team hasn’t dropped any major new updates yet The closest support I’m watching is around $15M MC If the chart dips back there, I’ll start paying much closer attention to selling pressure, volume, and how the team continues building the narrative on X I also want to watch what @districtxyz does next, as well as whether @a16z mentions District or shows any meaningful interaction around this ecosystem If we get a new catalyst, selling pressure gets absorbed well, and the $15M area confirms as support, then I think the risk/reward becomes much easier to evaluate than simply FOMOing at current levels If $15M doesn’t hold, momentum keeps fading, and the team still hasn’t delivered anything meaningful, I’m not going to rush into catching the knife The next dip zone I’d be looking toward would be significantly lower, around $7–8M MC So I’m not interested in FOMOing here I like the idea, but I’ll let the chart and catalysts decide the entry 8. Conclusion For me, $ATTN is one of the more interesting ideas I’ve seen on Solana recently Not because it has already proven strong fundamentals, but because @districtxyz found a pretty clever way to package the attention economy, ads, gamification, and autonomous agents into a product whose story is immediately understandable So I don’t see it as some random meme But I also don’t see it as a fundamental play yet At this stage, I view $ATTN more as a narrative bet with a real product and a notable team/backing behind it, rather than a cash-flow bet The market is essentially paying upfront for the idea that an agent can turn attention into revenue and then use that revenue to feed the token itself Now comes the hard part : @districtxyz and Attention Mine need to prove that story with real users, real revenue, and real transactions If they can do that, I think $ATTN becomes something worth watching for much longer If they can’t, then the tens of millions in market cap we’re seeing right now are still mostly the price of attention, not the price of a proven business H1kXUqEPkQNNeNjGNN5tuHf3nsQK2vB1jUA9c4RggpUf

Stitch@stitchdegen

2026.09.08 18:09

Quite a few people have been asking me about $OTC lately I’ve actually been watching the dev for a while, and I have to say they’ve been shipping pretty aggressively. There’s been something new almost every day, so seeing $OTC run from a few million to around a $35M ATH wasn’t that surprising to me Most people following it already know the basic OTC Desk, earn stocks, launcher and burn mechanics, so I won’t waste time explaining everything from zero What I care about more is how I actually rate the idea, what has been validated so far, and where I’d still be interested in betting after the run to $35M 1. First of all, I actually like the idea behind $OTC But not because they invented a completely new meta Tokenized stocks already exist. Meme x stocks already exist. NFT vaults, launchpad fee models and the pre-IPO narrative aren’t new either What OTC did well was combine things the market already wants into one pretty clean flywheel Take tokenized stocks as an example. One thing I don’t like about that meta is that users often have to directly trade stock tokens with relatively poor liquidity. Once volume gets thin, spread and slippage can quickly become a problem OTC takes a different approach Instead of making users trade stocks directly, fees generated by ecosystem activity are used to buy tokenized assets and distribute them to Desk holders I think that’s a cleaner design The NFT vault side is similar. I’m not a fan of models where later users have to mint at increasingly higher prices just to feed yield to earlier users. OTC doesn’t really work like that: minting a Desk burns a fixed amount of $OTC, while rewards come from actual ecosystem activity But the smartest part of the idea to me is still the launcher Without the launcher, Desk + “earn stocks” would be a much weaker thesis. The launcher gives the whole system a clear source of fuel : launches => volume => fees => stock rewards + $OTC buybacks => Desk demand => more Desk mints => more $OTC burned None of these pieces are revolutionary individually, but the way they’re combined is pretty smart As for OpenAI, SpaceX, Neuralink and other pre-IPO names, I see those more as a narrative/marketing layer. They’re great for attracting degen attention, but they’re not a technological moat and obviously shouldn’t be treated the same as owning actual equity. So purely on the idea, I’d give it around 8/10 It feels more like a best-of-meta mashup: Pump volume + RWA/stocks + NFT utility + pre-IPO speculation Sometimes the market doesn’t need a completely new category Understanding what the market wants and executing faster than everyone else can be an edge by itself 2. More importantly, the numbers are starting to validate the idea This is the main reason I’m still watching $OTC after the pump The strongest part right now is clearly the launcher Based on the latest numbers I checked, there have been around 9,200 launches, 24h volume reached roughly $124M, and creator fees passed 15,600 SOL More than 10,000 SOL has gone toward holder/stock purchases, around 2,000 SOL to the protocol, 650+ SOL toward buybacks, while roughly 7.7M $OTC has already been burned The important part isn’t just that these numbers look big It’s that people are actually using the product There’s real volume, real fees and real money cycling back into the ecosystem through stock purchases, buybacks and burns And there’s another signal I think is worth mentioning: the launcher is starting to produce actual runners At the time I checked, Nasduck was around $3.77M, Pump Cat around $1.76M, with several others like PUGCOIN, Anonymouse and CatGPT still holding six-figure market caps. The site’s all-time volume had also reached roughly $294M That matters because people aren’t only pressing launch and farming activity. The market is actually willing to speculate on some of the coins coming out of OTC Of course, a few runners out of 9,000+ launches doesn’t prove the launcher has a great hit rate. Some of it can simply be distribution and current meta attention But ignoring the fact that it has already produced multiple million-dollar runners would also be unfair So for me there are now two things being validated on the launcher side: fee generation and downstream speculation That matters much more than simply saying RWA is a hot narrative 3. I’m still less bullish on the Desks than the launcher The Desk side is actually working too There have been 2,700+ rounds, around 4,300 SOL spent buying stocks and roughly 2,200 Desks distributed So the earn-stock mechanism clearly isn’t just a mockup But I’d still call it a proof of concept, not a proven yield machine The cap is 5,000 Desks, and the current number includes around 621 granted Desks related to early-minter refunds More importantly, rewards are shared across the Desks If the number of Desks grows faster than revenue, the share per Desk naturally gets thinner So I wouldn’t look at the NFT floor going up and assume the yield will stay attractive forever OTC has proven that the machine works It still needs to prove that the machine works efficiently at scale That distinction matters quite a lot to me 4. What I like most about the team is still their shipping speed This is also why the run didn’t surprise me that much In a very short period, they’ve shipped Desks, handled early-minter refunds, reduced the burn requirement from 1M to 100K $OTC per Desk, launched the launcher, added stock/pre-IPO rotations, custom rewards, overhauled the UI and continued tweaking the fee/buyback structure I especially liked how they handled the refunds. Instead of ignoring early users who minted at much higher costs, the team compensated them with SOL or additional Desks For a project born on Pump, this pace of execution isn’t something I see very often But at the same time, that’s also part of the risk The team is still fairly anonymous, almost solo-visible, I haven’t seen a clear public audit yet, and the project itself is still very young So right now I’m betting heavily on the dev continuing to execute, rather than betting on a protocol with a long proven track record 5. The biggest weakness of this flywheel is pretty obvious From the outside, OTC looks like it has a lot of different catalysts : Launcher, Desks, stock rewards, buybacks, burns, pre-IPO... But most of them ultimately depend on the same source of fuel : launcher volume Volume stays high => fees stay high => Desks receive more assets => Desk demand increases => burns and buybacks remain meaningful But the reverse is also true If launcher volume disappears, almost the entire flywheel weakens at the same time That’s what I want the market to prove next I don’t need the launcher printing $100M+ volume every day. I want to see whether, after the initial hype cools down, it can maintain enough organic volume to keep feeding the ecosystem If it can, the thesis becomes much stronger If it can’t, the current numbers may simply represent peak activity during an extremely hot meta 6. The moat isn’t strong yet either I like the idea, but I don’t think OTC currently owns anything competitors can’t copy The launcher can be competed with. The NFT vault can be cloned, and copycats are already starting to appear. Nobody owns the RWA narrative, while pre-IPO exposure is much more of a narrative layer than a moat The model also depends heavily on Pump AMM and on users choosing to launch through OTC instead of using other alternatives So my view is pretty simple : The idea is winning this round, but the moat isn’t there yet To turn the current wave into something that lasts longer, the team needs to prove OTC has enough distribution or product stickiness to retain flow even when the stock/RWA meta starts cooling down 7. There’s one catalyst I’m NOT including in the thesis I’ve seen people look at the “Powered by @solana line and start framing it as if Solana is backing $OTC So far, I haven’t seen official confirmation from Solana Foundation or Solana Labs, so I’m not counting Solana backing as part of my bullish thesis If an official mention comes later, great. That becomes a new catalyst But the current run doesn’t really need that story anyway Product + launcher volume + fee flywheel + the dev’s execution speed already explain a lot of the price action 8. So where would I actually bet after $35M → ~$12M? This is probably what most people asking me about $OTC actually care about $OTC ran extremely fast from a few million to around a $35M ATH, then retraced more than 60% I see $11–13M as the first dip zone worth watching If launcher volume stays healthy, fees keep flowing, the Desks remain healthy and the dev keeps shipping, this could simply be a reset after the expansion But for anyone looking to size big, I wouldn’t rush here I still prefer around $8–10M After a move to $35M, early holders are still sitting on very thick profits. I’d rather miss a bounce than force a large position when the risk/reward isn’t attractive enough If the market flushes toward $6–8M, I also wouldn’t automatically buy just because it looks cheap I’d check the fundamentals again If price is dumping while launcher volume, fees, Desk demand and development remain strong, that could become a very interesting setup But if it’s dumping because launcher volume is dying, Desk demand is weakening or the dev is slowing down, then a lower MC doesn’t automatically mean a better setup And if it loses roughly $5M while the operating metrics deteriorate at the same time, I’d stop treating it as another dip and reassess the thesis 9. Final thoughts I still quite like $OTC Purely from an idea perspective, I think it’s one of the smarter combinations of existing metas I’ve seen on Pump recently It’s not revolutionary and the moat isn’t strong yet, but it has the right narrative, the right timing and a team executing extremely fast The launcher is currently the strongest part of the thesis for me Desks have proven that the mechanism works, but they still need to prove they can scale. Buybacks and burns are real, but ultimately a large part of the flywheel still depends on whether the launcher can maintain volume So after the run to $35M, I’m no longer looking at $OTC as “good idea = buy every dip” $11–13M is the first zone I’m watching. $8–10M is where I’d be more interested in sizing bigger, assuming the operating metrics stay healthy From here, I mainly care about three things : Is the launcher still doing volume? Are the fees still flowing? Is the dev still shipping? As long as those three remain intact, my thesis remains intact If those core pieces start breaking, I’m not going to marry a token just because I liked the idea before For now, $OTC is a speculative play with a pretty solid thesis, but it still needs more time to prove it can become a sustainable protocol MukLDtJ8Cx9DxLbeyLRSWPSposTMWuwHANbuaudpump

Forward to community