With all due respect to Chris, I completely disagree with this take. Chris argues that "web3," particularly crypto-powered gaming and media, failed due to scams and regulation, and that better regulation will unlock these non-financial cases. OK, think about this for a second. Does this pass the smell test? Do you think web3 gaming failed because of Gary Gensler? Do you think web3 media plays failed because the scammers crowded out the honest media innovators? Really? If this is true, why didn't they kill financial crypto, which had WAY more of both? Financial use cases were right in the crosshairs of the regulatory harassment, and they also attracted way more scams. Why shouldn't we instead accept the more obvious answer: non-financial use cases for crypto have failed because no one wants them. Let's just admit it. They were bad products. They failed the market test. It was not Gensler or SBF or Terra that caused these things to fail, it was that no one wanted any of it. Pretending otherwise is cope. Enormous sums of capital and talent explored these ideas, and we should acknowledge what we learned. That lesson is not "if we just had better laws, then finally people would finally be using decentralized Spotify" or whatever. Call a spade a spade. Every single use case in crypto that has worked at scale has been financial in nature. 2008: Bitcoin - non-sovereign store of value 2014: Tether - stablecoins 2015: Ethereum - programmable money 2017: ICOs - capital formation 2018: Prediction markets (Augur, later Polymarket) 2020: DeFi - literally finance is in the name 2021: NFTs - non-fungible financial assets (to the extent they worked) 2024: RWAs (the year BUIDL took off) All this stuff was adopted bottoms-up. We as investors discovered that people wanted to do these things with crypto. The web3 consumer stuff, on the other hand, was primarily conjured up by investors and pitch decks, ZIRP accelerationism, and "wouldn't it be crazy if" blog posts. This was the opposite of the "what smart people are doing on their weekends" thesis. In fact, if you go back to the Ethereum white paper from 2014, almost every single Ethereum use case Vitalik describes is financial in nature: token issuance, stablecoins, derivatives, on-chain treasuries/DAOs, on-chain savings, insurance, price feeds, escrow, gambling, prediction markets. It's all in there. This is nothing to be ashamed of. Finance is almost 10% of GDP. It's an enormous part of the world economy, and banks are some of the lowest NPS score companies in the world. People hate their banks and the outdated financial architectures their money runs on. It's literally why Bitcoin was created. There is so much to innovate in the realm of finance, and I truly believe we are only at the beginning of that displacement. You don't need to assume anything more to project the next 10x in crypto. The old saying goes "crypto will do to finance what the Internet did to every other industry." I respect Chris's optimism. But 18 years in, we should not be propagating this meme about consumer web3 use cases as though they're inevitable. If you are hanging around the rim hoping that crypto is going to disrupt media and gaming, you should know the history and look at it with clear eyes. Now if you as a founder believe that despite that, you know the secret to cracking this market--I respect that, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone to follow their convictions. But I think it's important that investors be honest that all the evidence points the other way.

疫情的时候，落下了毛病。经常连续性打大喷嚏，很怀疑是过敏性鼻炎。自己买药、用AI问诊也效果不大。 前几周去了三甲耳鼻喉专科开了这份药，试了两周，效果出奇好。 只差后续去复诊查查过敏源到底是不是所谓的螨虫

这可能是“卖方衰竭指数”的第2次信号点 在今年8月11日，“BTC卖方衰竭指数”给了我们在行情启动前最后一次精准的抄底指引。 它同时衡量的是低波动和高损失；当2个条件同时满足，就会触发信号。 从历史上看，只有在周期底部的时间段，卖方衰竭指数才有机会掉入“极端衰竭区”（红色区域）。 一旦走出底部结构后，便很难再现。即此后即便价格更低，但指数没有更低（图中标注1和2）。 所以，在一轮周期中，如果我们不小心错过了”最低点1”，那么就要尽可能把握“次低点2”。 就像我在今年8月11日的推文中所述：“2的确定性比1更高；但风险是，2的价格也可能比1更高”。 现在，“2”出现了！ 就在几天前，当BTC价格回调至$77,000时，卖方衰竭指数形成了本轮周期的次低点（仅高于今年8月）。 当然，我并不知道未来几周或几个月会怎样，但至少现在是这样。 那么问题来了：你是会赌“此后还有更低的信号点2”，还是相信这次就是“本轮的次低点2”？ 很遗憾，我给不了你确定的建议或答案。 因为在“1”出现的时候，我就已经选择了无条件相信，所以现在......我不需要再做选择。 It's your time to shine, bro! 🔥

We are excited to announce four updates regarding the Ethena ecosystem, further details on each point are provided in the blog linked below: 1. Buyout of early investors: The Ethena Foundation executed a buyout of all locked tokens from certain major seed investors that sold any ENA within the last 9 months. 2. Alignment of Token & Equity: The Ethena Foundation and Ethena Labs have reached agreement on a Master Framework Agreement, whereby IP and ownership of value accrued by the protocol is assigned to the Foundation exclusively and governed by token holders with no residual cash flow due to equity investors in the Labs entity. 3. Revenue Buybacks: Governance proposal now live for the implementation of the fee switch whereby net revenue accrued across all business lines under the Ethena brand will be used to programmatically buy back the ENA token. The vote for revenue buyback fee switch implementation is now here, and has already been approved by the Risk Committee: 4. Removal of monthly VC unlocks: The Ethena Foundation and lead investors have agreed to eliminate future overhang associated with monthly VC investor unlocks by releasing unvested tokens. All team tokens remain locked per the original vesting schedules. Further details and documentation is provided in the blog linked below:

很多交易者，交易的时候， 其实不自知，自己在赌什么东西。 举个换角度看的例子，就很容易明白： BTC趋势下跌300多天，相对低位100多天。 终于迎来突破阈值的暴涨，才1、2天， 连半根周线都没走完， 不少人就陷入了对价格绝对值的分析， 乃至在日级别上进行从多到空的大仓位反手操作， ---- 这是在赌第一根周线长上影线？ 知道自己其实在赌这个吗？ 最简单的，看之前的哪怕弱反弹，都至少有几根周线？ 时间，时间，时间。 时间维度远比价格绝对值更重要。 过去两年很多人都知道， BTC一波正式的大涨趋势， 是能持续100天这种时长级别的。 难道不是很多人，每次真来到接近100天的时候， 回头看开头那几天来回折腾的自己，像看傻子一样？ 最近同样跌了300天左右的，像是港股小米， 7月份的上涨趋势都持续了一个月。

1/ Synth's HFT team has found that @Kalshi’s 15-min BTC market is beginning to predict subsequent BTC moves on @binance and all other CEXs. And strength of this predictive relationship has grown materially throughout 2026 (see image). @Kalshi is becoming the venue for BTC price discovery on short time horizons. 🧵