Never fade the $PENDLE effect. @pendle_fi's RWA note looks at three yield sources that had almost nowhere to trade before they listed: a Nasdaq preferred, T-bills, and reinsurance premiums. The assets have nothing in common, yet each story ends the same way, with Pendle as the largest holder pricing a fixed rate above what the asset pays natively. $STRC > @apyx_fi's apyUSD grew from under $1M to $235M in 13 weeks > By the May peak, Pendle held over $500M across the linked markets, including 77% of APYX TVL and 53% of Saturn's > About half of USDat has sat in Pendle since mid-May (97% of the Monad float), and PT-USDat locks roughly 9.5% fixed on a T-bill dollar. $AUSD > After listing on Monad on 15 June, supply more than doubled to $72.7M inside a week, then ran from $32M to $198M over 12 weeks with Pendle holding as much as 82% > Pendle TVL peaked at $156.7M, and $103.1M of PT and LP, about 60% of that TVL, was posted as lending collateral at the peak @Re > Combined supply was about $1.2M at listing and has since grown about 250x to $299M > Pendle held $240.7M, roughly 80% of both tokens, and its share hasn't dipped below 40% since Oct 2025 > $499.9M notional has traded, with $174.9M of PT and LP posted as collateral, 73% of Pendle's Re TVL None of these issuers needed Pendle to create the yield, which stays offchain. What Pendle supplies is distribution → a price, a fixed leg, and most of the holders.

Worked on this thesis using @Glasscade_xyz data. In the bull case, @EthenaPay alone adds ~$0.43 to $ENA on top of Standard Chartered's $2, and that's before counting @ethena Whitelabel, which also feeds buybacks. Most valuations price one revenue line at a time. When they all route into the same buyback, they stack against a single supply figure, and that's where I think the bid is underpriced.

Never fade the $PENDLE effect. @pendle_fi's RWA note looks at three yield sources that had almost nowhere to trade before they listed: a Nasdaq preferred, T-bills, and reinsurance premiums. The assets have nothing in common, yet each story ends the same way, with Pendle as the largest holder pricing a fixed rate above what the asset pays natively. $STRC > @apyx_fi's apyUSD grew from under $1M to $235M in 13 weeks > By the May peak, Pendle held over $500M across the linked markets, including 77% of APYX TVL and 53% of Saturn's > About half of USDat has sat in Pendle since mid-May (97% of the Monad float), and PT-USDat locks roughly 9.5% fixed on a T-bill dollar. $AUSD > After listing on Monad on 15 June, supply more than doubled to $72.7M inside a week, then ran from $32M to $198M over 12 weeks with Pendle holding as much as 82% > Pendle TVL peaked at $156.7M, and $103.1M of PT and LP, about 60% of that TVL, was posted as lending collateral at the peak @Re > Combined supply was about $1.2M at listing and has since grown about 250x to $299M > Pendle held $240.7M, roughly 80% of both tokens, and its share hasn't dipped below 40% since Oct 2025 > $499.9M notional has traded, with $174.9M of PT and LP posted as collateral, 73% of Pendle's Re TVL None of these issuers needed Pendle to create the yield, which stays offchain. What Pendle supplies is distribution → a price, a fixed leg, and most of the holders.

Never fade the $PENDLE effect. @pendle_fi's RWA note looks at three yield sources that had almost nowhere to trade before they listed: a Nasdaq preferred, T-bills, and reinsurance premiums. The assets have nothing in common, yet each story ends the same way, with Pendle as the largest holder pricing a fixed rate above what the asset pays natively. $STRC > @apyx_fi's apyUSD grew from under $1M to $235M in 13 weeks > By the May peak, Pendle held over $500M across the linked markets, including 77% of APYX TVL and 53% of Saturn's > About half of USDat has sat in Pendle since mid-May (97% of the Monad float), and PT-USDat locks roughly 9.5% fixed on a T-bill dollar. $AUSD > After listing on Monad on 15 June, supply more than doubled to $72.7M inside a week, then ran from $32M to $198M over 12 weeks with Pendle holding as much as 82% > Pendle TVL peaked at $156.7M, and $103.1M of PT and LP, about 60% of that TVL, was posted as lending collateral at the peak @Re > Combined supply was about $1.2M at listing and has since grown about 250x to $299M > Pendle held $240.7M, roughly 80% of both tokens, and its share hasn't dipped below 40% since Oct 2025 > $499.9M notional has traded, with $174.9M of PT and LP posted as collateral, 73% of Pendle's Re TVL None of these issuers needed Pendle to create the yield, which stays offchain. What Pendle supplies is distribution → a price, a fixed leg, and most of the holders.

Worked on this thesis using @Glasscade_xyz data. In the bull case, @EthenaPay alone adds ~$0.43 to $ENA on top of Standard Chartered's $2, and that's before counting @ethena Whitelabel, which also feeds buybacks. Most valuations price one revenue line at a time. When they all route into the same buyback, they stack against a single supply figure, and that's where I think the bid is underpriced.

Worked on this thesis using @Glasscade_xyz data. In the bull case, @EthenaPay alone adds ~$0.43 to $ENA on top of Standard Chartered's $2, and that's before counting @ethena Whitelabel, which also feeds buybacks. Most valuations price one revenue line at a time. When they all route into the same buyback, they stack against a single supply figure, and that's where I think the bid is underpriced.

Imo the longer you stay in this space, the more sceptical you get about whether a chain/app can last They said they were aiming for 2-3B TGE but yet the chain did not manage to take off. That being said it does not mean @pudgypenguins ($PENGU et al.) cannot scale from here. It just means the filtering of chains and apps which does not make sense/cannot find PMF continues on… We had Blast winding down, now Abstract, and many more like these down the road for sure (you know who you are)

Today on MCG $NEAR | @NEARProtocol w/@ItsFloe Near is the unified commerce layer for assets and agents Highlights Include: 01:38 - Jeremy's Background 04:29 - Origin story 05:12 - Near protocol explained 06:39 - Full stack privacy platform & open models hosted 08:18 - Four core Near products & vision explained 10:07 - 30 day Volume explained 11:36 - Rhea protocol's deep Near ties 12:34 - NearCat, a perpetual bid and its traction 17:48 - Meme flywheel vs serious L1 17:44 - Rhea holds 95% of Near TVL 19:41 - Tokenomics, emissions cut, buybacks, revenue 21:17 - How does Near generate revenue? 24:23 - Sovereign DAT fund, NAV premium, NASDAQ listed 28:08 - Token 2049 activations this week 29:33 - Closing Thoughts

Imo the longer you stay in this space, the more sceptical you get about whether a chain/app can last They said they were aiming for 2-3B TGE but yet the chain did not manage to take off. That being said it does not mean @pudgypenguins ($PENGU et al.) cannot scale from here. It just means the filtering of chains and apps which does not make sense/cannot find PMF continues on… We had Blast winding down, now Abstract, and many more like these down the road for sure (you know who you are)

Very bullish interview on $CRED imo - 4x growth since Dec last year If they manage to secure huge consumer app partners and fire on all cylinders, it becomes clearer how much untapped potential there is for @crediblefin Probably see them on top 3 on infrastructure providers if added to the database...and one's valued at $1.95B in the beginning of the year... (Data: @Glasscade_xyz )

Most governance tokens launch first and sort out revenue later, and holders often wait years for a fee switch (if one ever passes). @namidefi flips that order with ogNAMI and its design ties it to protocol revenue from the start: > Presale tokens stay staked through Genesis and earn 10% of Genesis swap fees > All net protocol revenue funds buybacks, and 5% of every buyback burns ogNAMI > Supply is capped at 250,000 with no emissions The last two points work together. NAMI holders take their share through a token whose supply d(3,3) expands or cuts every epoch, while ogNAMI holders take theirs through a supply that can only shrink, so each token's slice of the buyback grows as volume does. The part I find most compelling is that being early here as a ogNAMI holder enables you to get get paid from Genesis swap fees onward, and every buyback after that makes their position a larger share of a fixed pie. For anyone who wants a direct line to DEX revenue, this is about as early as that line gets.

$HYPE has become such a behemoth that many perp DEXs are benchmarking their performance to it > Fees > Volume > Users > Multiples > Model etc. Whichever temporary 'triumph' over HL becomes outdated very soon You can be another perp DEX bull but you can't fade HL and HyperEVM eco

My bStocks thesis was that distribution beats issuance → Binance put tokenised stocks in front of an existing user base and took $276M in average daily volume, more than double the next four issuers combined (i.e. @OndoPerps , @xStocksFi, @RobinhoodApp, and @sunrise) While it did, @ArrakisFinance's holder data also adds a line item I hadn't priced in. > Distribution on bStocks came bundled with a volume multiplier, which saw farmers it attracted leave as quickly as the multipliers cut > On every other venue in the census, whales trade more often than small retail. bStocks runs the other way, with small-retail wallets logging 39 on-chain trades against 16 for its whales. Distribution still beats issuance. But it also has a price, and for a stretch this past summer bStocks seems to be paying it per trade.

.@nami_fi $ogNAMI presale is now live & here are the key details + important distinctions you'll need to know: $NAMI ≠ $ogNAMI $NAMI is the protocol's emissions + governance asset → lock it for veNAMI to direct incentives + participate in the d(3,3) economy. $ogNAMI is instead a fixed-supply token designed to capture value from Nami's revenue stream. With the presale now live, here's how it works: 🔸 Price: 10 USDC per ogNAMI 🔸 Max supply: 250k ogNAMI → $2.5M FDV at the presale price 🔸 Presale allocation: 200k ogNAMI → $2M fundraising target When staked as sogNAMI, holders receive a share of 10% of swap fees generated by Nami's permissioned pools across supported chains, converted into USDC + distributed each epoch. Nami’s Recursive Buyback Engine (RBE) also uses 5% of net protocol revenue to buy back + burn ogNAMI. So ogNAMI essentially sits on the value-capture side of Nami's economy → USDC fee distributions to stakers + protocol-funded supply reduction. There is a commitment trade-off though. Presale ogNAMI is automatically staked and cannot be unstaked throughout the 21-day Genesis Phase, after which the principal unlocks linearly across 12 weekly epochs. USDC fee distributions accrue from the start of protocol trading activity and remain claimable without affecting the staking bonus. Bonus: If you choose to remain fully staked beyond the principal unlock, you can earn up to an additional 10% ogNAMI. On top of all these, presale participants also receive exposure to the eventual $NAMI launch: 🔹 45,000 NAMI guaranteed base pool → equivalent to 0.225 NAMI/ogNAMI if the entire 200k presale allocation sells. 🔹 Additional 15,000 NAMI reserved for 15 random winners For the base allocation: a.) 60% immediately claimable as veNAMI b.) 40% distributed as NAMI after a 2-epoch cliff + 90-day linear unlock Alternatively, that remaining allocation can be converted into veNAMI for immediate claiming. So the presale essentially provides exposure to both sides of Nami's economy: 🔸 ogNAMI → fee capture + buybacks 🔸 NAMI/veNAMI → emissions, voting + liquidity coordination The trade-off is time commitment through the staking + vesting structure, while the actual USDC yield ultimately depends on Nami generating sustained trading activity. Hope these helps in understanding the tokenomic separation between coordinating the economy (NAMI) and capturing value from it (ogNAMI). NFA. DYOR.

The smartest card perks at Token2049 are the ones you can't calculate as a percentage - best time to showcase what it means to be a cardholder @ether_fi $ETHFI made its card the key to a lounge with free food and drinks in the coming days, and @KASTxyz greeted invited guests at the airport with a premium transport experience aka 'KAST treatment' Both programmes are using conference week to give their most engaged holders something memorable. Any other card programs up to deliver such experiences?

Top 10 card programs ranked by 7D volume change [29th Sep to 5th Oct] 1) @Exa_App +1344.6% 2) @Vaultleap +71.8% 3) @EthenaPay +37.0% 4) @avax Card +25.8% 5) @useTria +23.7% 6) @wirexapp +19.8% 7) @SafePal +18.1% 8) @ether_fi Cash +14.2% 9) @bfinancepay +13.6% 10) @KoloHub +10.7% @Exa_App didn't lead this week so much as rewrite the top of the board: +1344.6% on 7D, from about $427K in weekly spend to $5.6M. A 13x week isn't growth in the usual sense, it's a step-change, and it dragged the 30D figure to +343.6% along with it. Underneath the fireworks, a quieter signal worth more than the headline: @EthenaPay is still here, +37% on the week and +488.3% on 30D, the steepest monthly figure on the entire board. That's the 3rd week running we've flagged it, and it's the one program whose month keeps compounding while everyone argues about the week.

The first time I searched for tokenised Alphabet on @coingecko, I expected one ticker. I got nine, all tracking the same $GOOGL share at nearly the same price. I assumed it didn't matter which one you held, or where you traded it. It does. GOOGLx has the largest market cap, but GOOGLon ( $ONDO ) trades the most. And even within GOOGLon, the venue changes everything: > One GOOGLon pair on a single exchange did 38.6% of all tokenised Alphabet volume, yet about $31.6K of selling would move its price 2% > The GOOGLon pair on Ondo's own platform could absorb $4.02M of selling before moving 2%, but carried just 2.2% of the volume Same token, yet with an astounding ~127x difference in depth. If the volume clusters on one venue while liquidity sits on another, exiting through the busiest book can cost far more than its volume suggests. I now check the ticker behind a price before reading into it. RWA Charts lets you run that issuer check across stocks, commodities and ETFs which is helpful to gain an insight before committing. Have fun toggling the data for more insights here:

@raincards was valued at $1.95B on just over $3B of annual volume. @crediblefin processed ~$1.15B over the past 12 months and trades at $14.1M, ~50x cheaper per dollar of flow. I think its easy to overlook this as another 'metaDAO raise' or when attention is shifting to more major rev-generating protocols $CRED is currently supporting, 42+ markets, 37+ currencies, with 86+ payment methods, including UPI, Pix, SEPA and ACH. ~70% of pre-raise burn spent on banking, acquirer and merchant-of-record relationships The on-chain stats: > $1.31B processed to date > ~$165M a month over the last quarter > ~$4M annualised revenue at a reported 0.2% take rate @circle and @0xPolygon are backers, and Credible is onboarding onto OwlTing's OwlPay Harbor for regulated payouts into China. IMO the rev meta explains most of the discount. $CRED holders govern the treasury and IP, but Credible's revenue funds operations with no buyback or distribution currently so the market is probably holding back on this now. I'd expect fee switch to be on when certain stability has been reached, and then the repricing should come. (Data: @artemis )