I'm no good at vague posting Hyperliquid and MetaDAO for Ownership ZEC for Privacy Pump for Crime

Name & Symbol: Pump.fun ($PUMP)
Address: pumpCmXqMfrsAkQ5r49WcJnRayYRqmXz6ae8H7H9Dfn

I don't know how high solana:METAwkXcqyXKy1AtsSgJ8JiUHwGCafnZL38n3vYmeta will go, I just know it's only getting started. MetaDao will win. https://t.co/y1oww7sa6Y

Name & Symbol: MetaDAO ($META)
Address: METAwkXcqyXKy1AtsSgJ8JiUHwGCafnZL38n3vYmeta

SOLANA ECOSYSTEM TOKENS WEEKLY CATCH UP ♻️ WEEK #15 MetaDAO token is making all the headlines this week after being listed on @Official_Upbit best performing solana weekly charts: 👇 1) $META from @MetaDAOProject current price -> $6.40 (+46%) ▪️started the week at $4.39 ▪️topped at $7.47 2) $ANSEM from @blknoiz06 (MEMECOIN) current price -> $0.2 (+13.91%) ▪️started the week at $0.176 ▪️topped at $0.202 3) $MET from @MeteoraAG (DEX) current price -> $0.169 (+5%) ▪️started the week at $0.161 ▪️topped at $0.18 👁️‍🗨️ watchlist: 4) $HUMA from @humafinance (DEFI) current price -> $0.0192 (-10.36%) ▪️started the week at $0.0214 ▪️topped at $0.0219

Name & Symbol: Meteora ($MET)
Address: METvsvVRapdj9cFLzq4Tr43xK4tAjQfwX76z3n6mWQL

@uttam_singhk Indeed, most of the highly successful things in crypto can't claim the latter (Hyperliquid, Binance, Ethereum, Solana, Pump)

Name & Symbol: Pump.fun ($PUMP)
Address: pumpCmXqMfrsAkQ5r49WcJnRayYRqmXz6ae8H7H9Dfn

I haven’t verified the wallet-overlap stat, but the business case alone looks weak. For every $1 Pump earns, its users pay roughly $0.12 to Solana validators. Pump’s three main programs account for about 25% of Solana REV. That $0.12 is what Pump could theoretically capture by launching its own chain. But it is important to be precise: this is not a cost to Pump today. Users pay transaction fees on top of Pump’s fee, so it never touches Pump’s top line. An SVM fork would not save Pump money. It would allow Pump to collect a toll its users already pay elsewhere. Doing some napkin math, Pump has averaged $1.08M in daily revenue over the past 30 days, equivalent to a $393M annualized run rate. Capturing another 11.8% would add approximately $46M per year. That is an optimistic ceiling, not the base case. It assumes: • 100% fee capture • Zero users lost during migration • No validator or security costs Every assumption only breaks in one direction. That potential $46M uplift is not worth building a performant chain from scratch, migrating away from Solana, rebuilding wallet, CEX and aggregator integrations, and absorbing the execution risk, all for a maximum revenue increase of roughly 12%. It is also strategically backwards. Pump owns the launchpad, the AMM and the terminal. Its goal is to own the user and the entire lifecycle of a coin, not the underlying infrastructure.

Name & Symbol: Pump.fun ($PUMP)
Address: pumpCmXqMfrsAkQ5r49WcJnRayYRqmXz6ae8H7H9Dfn

Chasing short-term speculative opportunities like memecoins, many fail to realize that MetaDAO is building a model that could become the next major step after ICOs — a new mechanism for the market to discover value and allocate capital to promising ideas. MetaDao will win. solana:METAwkXcqyXKy1AtsSgJ8JiUHwGCafnZL38n3vYmeta

Name & Symbol: MetaDAO ($META)
Address: METAwkXcqyXKy1AtsSgJ8JiUHwGCafnZL38n3vYmeta

Not a great example, since @LasoFinance’s ICO also had the lowest participation, with 715 contributors. Would be better to look at the impact of MetaDAO’s distribution on @avici and @UmbraPrivacy. Avici has already made the case. Umbra is a little harder to evaluate because the product went live a few months after the raise, but I’m pretty sure its first user base was made up of MetaDAO + Arcium community. source: @01Resolved

Name & Symbol: Arcium ($ARX)
Address: 0xd5f6ef5deabe61e6d5cdb49bfb6f156f2c1ca715

It's just great that you can research, look at the data, and estimate fair value without having to fear a predatory equity layer or a misaligned team. Founders have a huge incentive to launch at low valuations so their team's performance-based allocation can realistically be unlocked. solana:CREDBHvVqREBCAxMihzr8D1nepHMr2gmQoZWpmgGmeta launched at $9M against a $3.5M annualized run rate. You could have gotten into the ICO on @MetaDAOProject or just bought on the public market...it actually traded below the ICO price for 1–2 hours. There will be more ICOs in the future, and there are some gems among the first cohorts. No better time to study and understand MetaDAO. Follow @ownershipfm and @01Resolved too so you can keep track of all developments in the ecosystem. owners will keep winning

Name & Symbol: Credible Finance ($CRED)
Address: CREDBHvVqREBCAxMihzr8D1nepHMr2gmQoZWpmgGmeta

RWA Hot Wheels platform @ripcarsio is raising $250,000 on @MetaDAOProject. Collectibles are violently growing as a market on @solana, and RipCars are the first to bring Hot Wheels to market. Listen to the founder @allocateur and I chat about it https://t.co/W3Lv8PXYPi

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e

'It's just a little bit crazy to throw all this money with no accountability,' @metaproph3t told me about ENS's treasury. @DrNickA sees it differently. They also touched on BonkDAO, VVV and MetaDAO. 🍯 Timestamps: 🏛️ 01:06 Laura frames the DAO reckoning: disbandments, low turnout, and the Venice fight 📉 08:26 How ENS DAO's collapsing voter turnout let a 3% stake decide its fate ⚖️ 12:55 Proph3t on why voting is a cost, and how a 51% attack captures a DAO 🏦 19:11 Nick maps DAOs' next phase: substructures picked for expertise, not popularity 🍯 24:09 Why Jeff Lau called ENS's treasury plan a honeypot with zero accountability 📣 28:50 Cape: Get 33% off six months of privacy first mobile service at https://t.co/2ZtLziXsHV 🏗️ 29:49 Why founders like Nick Johnson get vilified for wanting DAOs to run efficiently 🗳️ 36:35 Why Nick Johnson's silent vote against ENS's Security Council reads as an attack 💰 41:34 How BonkDAO lost $20 million to one proposal backed by just seven votes 🧩 46:22 Why Proph3t would not buy Venice's VVV token despite defending its disclosures 🔮 56:45 Proph3t on MetaDAO's origin story: pro oversight, not pro governance

Name & Symbol: Venice Token ($VVV)
Address: 0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf

Was searching for old public talks about OpenBook/Serum to understand why Raydium remains the biggest AMM on Solana despite all the innovation @0xSoju has been doing with Meteora, and found this amazing talk from Breakpoint 2023. [Some references claimed OpenBook integration was a big factor, something I'm skeptical of, but maybe also because concentrated liquidity usually requires far less capital and still makes up a substantial share of total spot volume.] I was watching it around the same time as Colosseum demo day and the MetaDAOProject Inaugural Ownership Meeting. Despite @tr4ce4 being there and dropping a small alpha about Omnipair, I couldn't make it. I had a lot of FOMO (again, after the previous Breakpoint and multiple mtnDAO meetups), so I escaped it by working while watching this, and ended up finding this hidden lore about @metaproph3t. When I met proph3t, MetaDAO was already well established and had one of the most passionate & cultic ecosystems. Something I admired. And when I researched MetaDAO more and stumbled across the older stuff (proph3t's anon CV, the conditional vault implementation), my respect for proph3t, @metanallok, and a lot of the futards kept growing. MetaDAO found PMF after a lot of grinding and pivoting around a highly complex idea that stayed in the theory domain for so long (despite Vitalik, as usual, trying to introduce it, yet no one built it, probably because no one understood it or its importance at the time) MetaDAO is phenomenal

Name & Symbol: Meteora ($MET)
Address: METvsvVRapdj9cFLzq4Tr43xK4tAjQfwX76z3n6mWQL

Ranga, Co-founder of Solomon Labs, on his path from BlackBerry to building a better dollar "My first corporate job was an internship co-op at BlackBerry. I was a software programmer working on quality and the new products. Around that time was when I discovered Bitcoin, mostly out of intrigue around this internet dollar you could transact with. This was already around 2012, 2013, and my first purchase was around 2013, 2014. I read the Bitcoin paper, I loved the simplicity of it" "After BlackBerry I finished my degree in electrical and biomedical engineering and started my career building airport baggage handling and control systems, flying airport to airport. Around 2014, 2015 I started hearing about Ethereum, the programmability, smart contracts, and I was instantly hooked on this idea that you could create financial systems on the internet and they would just work out of the box" "In 2017 I took a deeper dive with my first startup, a protocol called Zywo, about democratizing ownership of renewable energy assets and bringing renewable energy yields onchain, an early form of RWA, a bit too early for its time. We had one of the earliest VC investments and ran pilots in California and Brazil before closing up shop around 2019" "I went back to my traditional career as a senior staff engineer developing the Common Industrial Protocol, the language most industrial devices and PLCs speak. That background led me back into standards and protocols in crypto. I dove back in around 2021 in the NFT space, and around 2024, 2025 is when I started thinking about how we could build a better dollar"

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e

1) adverse selection - yes, all launchpads face this. but if you look at the projects that have launched on metadao - like omnipair, solomon, and laso - I think you will find that most are venture-backable startups that explicitly chose a metadao ico over private vc 2) forced futarchy - by this, I assume you mean "metadao takes decision-making power away from great founders." if this is what you mean, then yes, I agree this would be concerning **if** that was happening. but that is not what's happening. metadao only forces teams to use decision markets (futarchy) for two big things and two big things only: (1) when teams have a large treasury spend and (2) when they want to mint more tokens. both of these decisions involve rug risk, so decision markets act as a rug check. every other decision - product, strategy, hiring, etc - is all founder mode. metadao does not believe in decentralized governance maxxing. we just want to win 3) ownership coins as public goods - i'm not sure what you mean by this. ownership coins are special bc of metadao's decision markets and offchain legal structure . the combination of the two components give investors far more certainty in the asset they are holding. they solve many of the problems that currently plague other tokens such as vvv, pump, and jup. if we were designing crypto businesses from scratch, we would use either a token or equity as the sole economic unit, but not both. we ended up with these bizarre frankenstein's monster of dual token/equity as a result of gensler's regime of terror. we now have a different regulatory environment and metadao's ownership coins are attempting to build a token standard that is on par, and in many ways surpasses, the protections afforded to equity holders metadao is solving the most important problem in our space. if we don't fix tokens, there's a chance everything ends up being a tokenized equity where the real value is held offchain. that's not the cypherpunk future that first got me excited about crypto. metadao is our best chance to make tokens the greatest assets on earth. join us!

Name & Symbol: TokenFi ($TOKEN)
Address: 0x4507cef57c46789ef8d1a19ea45f4216bae2b528

1) adverse selection - yes, all launchpads face this. but if you look at the projects that have launched on metadao - like omnipair, solomon, and laso - I think you will find that most are venture-backable startups that explicitly chose a metadao ico over private vc 2) forced futarchy - by this, I assume you mean "metadao takes decision-making power away from great founders." if this is what you mean, then yes, I agree this would be concerning **if** that was happening. but that is not what's happening. metadao only forces teams to use decision markets (futarchy) for two big things and two big things only: (1) when teams have a large treasury spend and (2) when they want to mint more tokens. both of these decisions involve rug risk, so decision markets act as a rug check. every other decision - product, strategy, hiring, etc - is all founder mode. metadao does not believe in decentralized governance maxxing. we just want to win 3) ownership coins as public goods - i'm not sure what you mean by this. ownership coins are special bc of metadao's decision markets and offchain legal structure . the combination of the two components give investors far more certainty in the asset they are holding. they solve many of the problems that currently plague other tokens such as vvv, pump, and jup. if we were designing crypto businesses from scratch, we would use either a token or equity as the sole economic unit, but not both. we ended up with these bizarre frankenstein's monster of dual token/equity as a result of gensler's regime of terror. we now have a different regulatory environment and metadao's ownership coins are attempting to build a token standard that is on par, and in many ways surpasses, the protections afforded to equity holders metadao is solving the most important problem in our space. if we don't fix tokens, there's a chance everything ends up being a tokenized equity where the real value is held offchain. that's not the cypherpunk future that first got me excited about crypto. metadao is our best chance to make tokens the greatest assets on earth. join us!

Name & Symbol: Pump.fun ($PUMP)
Address: pumpCmXqMfrsAkQ5r49WcJnRayYRqmXz6ae8H7H9Dfn

1) adverse selection - yes, all launchpads face this. but if you look at the projects that have launched on metadao - like omnipair, solomon, and laso - I think you will find that most are venture-backable startups that explicitly chose a metadao ico over private vc 2) forced futarchy - by this, I assume you mean "metadao takes decision-making power away from great founders." if this is what you mean, then yes, I agree this would be concerning **if** that was happening. but that is not what's happening. metadao only forces teams to use decision markets (futarchy) for two big things and two big things only: (1) when teams have a large treasury spend and (2) when they want to mint more tokens. both of these decisions involve rug risk, so decision markets act as a rug check. every other decision - product, strategy, hiring, etc - is all founder mode. metadao does not believe in decentralized governance maxxing. we just want to win 3) ownership coins as public goods - i'm not sure what you mean by this. ownership coins are special bc of metadao's decision markets and offchain legal structure . the combination of the two components give investors far more certainty in the asset they are holding. they solve many of the problems that currently plague other tokens such as vvv, pump, and jup. if we were designing crypto businesses from scratch, we would use either a token or equity as the sole economic unit, but not both. we ended up with these bizarre frankenstein's monster of dual token/equity as a result of gensler's regime of terror. we now have a different regulatory environment and metadao's ownership coins are attempting to build a token standard that is on par, and in many ways surpasses, the protections afforded to equity holders metadao is solving the most important problem in our space. if we don't fix tokens, there's a chance everything ends up being a tokenized equity where the real value is held offchain. that's not the cypherpunk future that first got me excited about crypto. metadao is our best chance to make tokens the greatest assets on earth. join us!

Name & Symbol: Venice Token ($VVV)
Address: 0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf

Meteora Ecosystem 🤝 Cypherpunk Privacy. Permissionless systems. Internet-native freedom. We’re kicking off MetEco CypherPunk season by celebrating builders bringing that legacy to life, with Meteora. First up: MetaDAO & Futardio. Ownership on Solana. https://t.co/pswTTJnRg2

Name & Symbol: Meteora ($MET)
Address: METvsvVRapdj9cFLzq4Tr43xK4tAjQfwX76z3n6mWQL

@Crypto_McKenna thanks for the very clear breakdown on this. Just reinforces my view that I do not want to hold VVV here, hence I sold last week. I'm fully MetaDAO pilled now and these examples just reinforce why. VVV was a great buy when it was just a token but no longer sadly.

Name & Symbol: Venice Token ($VVV)
Address: 0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf

Hi Haseeb, long term listener, first time caller… If VVV’s primary justification at a 1B FDV is a “perpetual pro-rata claim on compute,” the valuation doesn’t hold up. The mechanism gives stakers proportional access to Venice’s daily inference capacity through a credit system (DIEM). In practice, this is a right to draw dollar denom usage credits inside one provider’s platform. Not ownership of GPUs, data centers, or raw compute. The company fully controls the infrastructure, mint rates, credit parameters, and capacity expansion. There is no governance, so holders have no say over how the asset evolves or is priced. This differs sharply from real infrastructure ownership. A perpetual claim on bandwidth or power in traditional markets usually comes with asset ownership, long-term contracts with pricing power, or governance rights. Here, stakers get usage rights in a credit framework from a centralised operator that is still largely leasing GPUs and only now raising capital to build its own capacity. Token holders do not own or control that build-out. Valuing the tokenised claim on this capacity at $1B implies Venice’s inference output deserves a premium comparable to owning slices of real compute infrastructure. In reality, inference is rapidly commoditizing through spot GPU markets and efficiency gains. A credit-based access right inside one provider’s system does not create equivalent scarcity or pricing power. The “perpetual claim on compute” is a useful product feature for access. It is not, by itself, a foundation that supports a $1B FDV for the token. Real infrastructure is valued on ownership, control, and physical scarcity none of which exist here in a form that justifies the current valuation.

Name & Symbol: Venice Token ($VVV)
Address: 0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf

When push comes to shove, owning equity in the company gives you legal rights regarding company profits. Owning VVV gives you no such legal rights. It's ultimately based on a promise that Venice, the company, will not change the "terms" of the token in the future. If you have the opportunity to buy equity, it's only natural that you'd also want to capture the potential upside of the VVV token (you get both the downside protection and the upside potential from the equity). So having the VVV token as well is just more upside. But owning just VVV is a completely different risk profile; you ultimately have no legal weight in the matter. Why not let retail buy part of the equity as well? As usual, that's a game just reserved for the in-group.

Name & Symbol: Venice Token ($VVV)
Address: 0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf

This week in the Ownership ecosystem: @LasoFinance completed its raise on MetaDAO, with $25M committed from 700+ contributors. @UmbraPrivacy introduced “Private Payroll” on Solana: private USDC payments with built-in compliance. @JurassicFi detailed “Deaton,” its first dinosaur acquisition raise. 660K USDC target. Starts in July. @FlashTrade released V2 on mainnet. Sub-50ms execution, 100+ assets, fees from 2 bps. @loyal_hq launched Loyal Earn, auto-routing idle USDC to Kamino vaults. Up to 10% APY. @P2Pdotme announced its Builder Programme: hit 100 ramps and list on @futarddotio for $5K plus raise support. @01Resolved published the “June Ownership Coin Monthly” report. @AviciMoney crossed 1 million transactions.

Name & Symbol: Kamino ($KMNO)
Address: KMNo3nJsBXfcpJTVhZcXLW7RmTwTt4GVFE7suUBo9sS

I’m not buying what Haseeb is selling here but i have to hand it to him he’s extremely articulate. If i was even remotely interested i’d probably be more convinced of why VVV was alright and not a total misunderstanding of how value is perceived or even assigned by markets in cases where two financial instruments could be presumed to be the primary instrument for value accrual (and causing market fatigue) Maybe I’m wrong and maybe the market treats VVV like it did Hype but if there’s any takeaway for other founders out there it is that you can longer take your holders for a spin Get your act together and pick between token/equity or roll a dice and pray

Name & Symbol: Venice Token ($VVV)
Address: 0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf

With all the discourse around $VVV and $GRASS, it's finally time for me to drop my Simplified tier list on asset structures in crypto: -------------- A+: Public equity or @MetaDAOProject ownership coin B+: protocol level buy-and-burn with no / minimal leakage ($HYPE, $GEOD to a lesser degree). OR the approaches teams like $MORPHO and $SYRUP have taken (no equity, only token) C: no external equity holders, non-founders only hold token, but you trust the founder(s) ($GRASS, $CARDS) D: token + external equity holders , but you trust the founder(s) ($VVV) F: pretty much everything else -------------- A few big picture comments: - There is a huge gap between A+ tier and everything else - Everything below A tier to hinges to some degree on “just trust me bro” wrt the the founders. It’s just that the amount of trust you need to have goes up the further down the tier list you go. So for the B+ structures you don’t need as much trust, but for the D+ tier you need a lot of trust because the founder has to fight external shareholders in any case where interests between token and equity conflict - The price action on $GRASS, $CARDS, and $VVV have been in part trust reratings on the @0xdrej , @tuom, and @ErikVoorhees imo, Implicit signaling that trust in the founders exists / has increased - In all 3 of tokens mentioned above, I think the trust is warranted. That said, there are certain scenarios, esp acquisition, that will really stress test this trust and token holders are just praying to the heavens they won’t get shafted. And the historical track record indicates they will - yes I am glossing over structural differences between tokens for the sake of simplicity ---------------------- Edit: it has been brought to my attention $GRASS should be considered B+ tier given the Foundation owns the IP and earns the revenue. I think that is reasonable edit

Name & Symbol: Venice Token ($VVV)
Address: 0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf

With all the discourse around $VVV and $GRASS, it's finally time for me to drop my Simplified tier list on asset structures in crypto: -------------- A+: Public equity or @MetaDAOProject ownership coin B+: protocol level buy-and-burn with no / minimal leakage ($HYPE, $GEOD to a lesser degree). OR the approaches teams like $MORPHO and $SYRUP have taken (no equity, only token) C: no external equity holders, non-founders only hold token, but you trust the founder(s) ($GRASS, $CARDS) D: token + external equity holders , but you trust the founder(s) ($VVV) F: pretty much everything else -------------- A few big picture comments: - There is a huge gap between A+ tier and everything else - Everything below A tier to hinges to some degree on “just trust me bro” wrt the the founders. It’s just that the amount of trust you need to have goes up the further down the tier list you go. So for the B+ structures you don’t need as much trust, but for the D+ tier you need a lot of trust because the founder has to fight external shareholders in any case where interests between token and equity conflict - The price action on $GRASS, $CARDS, and $VVV have been in part trust reratings on the @0xdrej , @tuom, and @ErikVoorhees imo, Implicit signaling that trust in the founders exists / has increased - In all 3 of tokens mentioned above, I think the trust is warranted. That said, there are certain scenarios, esp acquisition, that will really stress test this trust and token holders are just praying to the heavens they won’t get shafted. And the historical track record indicates they will - yes I am glossing over structural differences between tokens for the sake of simplicity ---------------------- Edit: it has been brought to my attention $GRASS should be considered B+ tier given the Foundation owns the IP and earns the revenue. I think that is reasonable edit

Name & Symbol: Grass ($GRASS)
Address: Grass7B4RdKfBCjTKgSqnXkqjwiGvQyFbuSCUJr3XXjs

With all the discourse around $VVV and $GRASS, it's finally time for me to drop my Simplified tier list on asset structures in crypto: -------------- A+: Public equity or @MetaDAOProject ownership coin B+: protocol level buy-and-burn with no / minimal leakage ($HYPE, $GEOD to a lesser degree). OR the approaches teams like $MORPHO and $SYRUP have taken (no equity, only token) C: no external equity holders, non-founders only hold token, but you trust the founder(s) ($GRASS, $CARDS) D: token + external equity holders , but you trust the founder(s) ($VVV) F: pretty much everything else -------------- A few big picture comments: - There is a huge gap between A+ tier and everything else - Everything below A tier to hinges to some degree on “just trust me bro” wrt the the founders. It’s just that the amount of trust you need to have goes up the further down the tier list you go. So for the B+ structures you don’t need as much trust, but for the D+ tier you need a lot of trust because the founder has to fight external shareholders in any case where interests between token and equity conflict - The price action on $GRASS, $CARDS, and $VVV have been in part trust reratings on the @0xdrej , @tuom, and @ErikVoorhees imo, Implicit signaling that trust in the founders exists / has increased - In all 3 of tokens mentioned above, I think the trust is warranted. That said, there are certain scenarios, esp acquisition, that will really stress test this trust and token holders are just praying to the heavens they won’t get shafted. And the historical track record indicates they will - yes I am glossing over structural differences between tokens for the sake of simplicity ---------------------- Edit: it has been brought to my attention $GRASS should be considered B+ tier given the Foundation owns the IP and earns the revenue. I think that is reasonable edit

Name & Symbol: Morpho Token ($MORPHO)
Address: 0x58d97b57bb95320f9a05dc918aef65434969c2b2

even if erik’s intentions are good with vvv, the reaction today is clear the market is fed up with dual token + equity structures and the buyer base for tokens with dual structures is significantly impaired. most just will not touch after being burned too many times.

Name & Symbol: Venice Token ($VVV)
Address: 0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf

June’s Ownership Coin Monthly is now live. In the report, we explain why so much of crypto trades on short-term narratives instead of long-term fundamentals, and why ownership coins are making fundamental analysis meaningful again. Inside this month’s report: ▪ How analysis of non-ownership coins fails ▪ Why ownership coins are worth analyzing ▪ NAV Analysis: solana:METAwkXcqyXKy1AtsSgJ8JiUHwGCafnZL38n3vYmeta trades at a premium ▪ NAV Analysis: solana:SoLo9oxzLDpcq1dpqAgMwgce5WqkRDtNXK7EPnbmeta trades at a discount ▪ Resolved @MetaDAOProject decision markets ▪ Project spotlight: @benchdotmarkets ▪ Fundamentals across @Solomon_Labs, @Omnipair, @UmbraPrivacy, @JurassicFi, and more. [Full Report in Replies]

Name & Symbol: MetaDAO ($META)
Address: METAwkXcqyXKy1AtsSgJ8JiUHwGCafnZL38n3vYmeta

Another free add campaign for @MetaDAOProject Companies and protocols will continue to fck over existing token holders There is zero alignment in this industry and it is completely broken https://t.co/ev23WIW9HV MetaDAO is the only legitimate solution for crypto and token holders at this point. If you're a company/protocol that actual cares and prioritizes your user base and token holders, reach out solana:METAwkXcqyXKy1AtsSgJ8JiUHwGCafnZL38n3vYmeta is criminally undervalued here imo. NFA.

Name & Symbol: MetaDAO ($META)
Address: METAwkXcqyXKy1AtsSgJ8JiUHwGCafnZL38n3vYmeta

Venice is probably cool but the token equity split sucks. Equity holders have legal protections, token holders have "trust me bro we'll keep buying and burning". Said in another way, the company has a legal duty to maximize value to its equity holders. Let's say they have a sustainable $100m income stream, I think it's a difficult argument to make that the best use of that revenue stream is to buy and burn a token rather than pay it out as dividends. (Yes the token value may go up as long as they keep buying but as soon as they start selling the token it will crash. So holding a lot of VVV doesn't change this.)

Name & Symbol: Venice Token ($VVV)
Address: 0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf

Ownership Podcast S1 E9: Hunter (@LasoFinance) "Privacy at the Point of Spend" 00:00 - Intro 00:47 - From Meta Engineer to Bitcoin Lightning Cards 03:36 - The Raise That Took Three Years to Say Yes 07:52 - Privacy at the Point of Spend 09:57 - What Actually Makes Laso Different 12:13 - Compliance Without the ID Upload 17:25 - "I Lost My Keys in a Boating Accident" 21:13 - 96% Humans, 4% Agents 26:56 - Agents That Build Businesses, Not Buy Snacks 36:11 - A Trillion Dollars or Zero 41:16 - The On-Chain Endgame: Tempo and Plasma Hosted by @8bitpenis Produced by @BlockformerLLC Powered by @MetaDAOProject & @UmbraPrivacy

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

@IcedKnife if i have absolutely anything of substance to direct attention to onchain then i promise it will flow this direction lol hyperliquid great start solana+backpack+jito+phoenix+bulk+cards+pump+metadao+jup+phantom+[insert ai teams here] can also be great outcome

Name & Symbol: Pump.fun ($PUMP)
Address: pumpCmXqMfrsAkQ5r49WcJnRayYRqmXz6ae8H7H9Dfn

Still giga bullish @MetaDAOProject and the entire meta ecosystem. People will move to ownership and I think RWA’s/stocks on chain are reflecting this. At some point people will look for undervalued entities they can own…Meta’s eco will win.

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e

ZKFG-008, the decision market to take solana:ZKFHiLAfAFMTcDAuCtjNW54VzpERvoe7PBF9mYgmeta private, was approved. After entering the TWAP window almost evenly split, the market finished with ~$650K in volume across ~2K trades and passed by ~4% against a 1.50% threshold. Trader alignment leaned pass at roughly 60% to 40%, but volume by economic direction finished almost perfectly even. That split captures the market well. More traders supported approval, but capital remained divided through the decision window. This was the third attempt to take ZKFG private at $0.15 per token. ZKFG-006 passed but lacked key execution details. ZKFG-007 added more structure but failed. ZKFG-008, backed by the solana:zinc155BS4mSPk8GXQj4R5hkVDQXcW253pTYq5SGyfi / solana:ZKFHiLAfAFMTcDAuCtjNW54VzpERvoe7PBF9mYgmeta founder, came back with an escrow account, IP transfer terms, and a clearer path to redemption. The market has now approved the buyout, but approval does not yet complete the transaction. The buyout only proceeds if, after the 7-day escrow window, there is enough available USDC between DAO-controlled assets and escrow to support the $0.15 redemption for ZKFG holders. If that condition is met, holders can redeem each ZKFG for $0.15 USDC for at least 365 days. If not, the liquidation does not proceed, the authorizations become void, and escrowed assets are returned. In our last update, we said ZKFG had stress tested decision markets by surfacing questions around proposal drafting, financial transparency, information parity, and independent review before high stakes proposals go live. The market has resolved, but the questions around process, disclosure, and execution remain.

Name & Symbol: ZINC ($ZINC)
Address: zinc155BS4mSPk8GXQj4R5hkVDQXcW253pTYq5SGyfi

Seeing this all over my timeline so here are some thoughts re @zinc_cash and @MetaDAOProject. It’s been a while since we had a good old legal / governance dispute worth commenting on. And this one seems pretty pivotal to the ownership and wider RWA coin narrative. So here’s the background as I understand it. MetaDAO investors fund ZKSol for just under a million. The team drew down 50k a month in line with MetaDAOs rules. The project fails and 500k was spent on buying back the supply of the ZKFG token. The remainder, presumably continued to be drawn down by the team. Around this time, likely when the ZKSol raise continued to fund the team, the team builds Zinc - which turns out to be very successful (and has its own token ZINC). The team seems to acknowledge the ZKFG tokens role in Zinc by allocating a large portion of revenues to it in its public comms. The token price comes back up. Suddenly, a futarchy proposal to take the ZKFG token private shows up on MetaDAO, started by unknown persons (likely Zinc team). It passes quietly. The MetaDAO team states that the proposal had procedural issues re IP rights transfers and re-issues the proposal. This time, strangely, the Zinc team campaigns against its passing. This has led to a lot of commentary, mostly uninformed, as ZINC holders and ZKFG holders PvP over the Zinc projects economics. Here is an additional uninformed take - reasoning from first principles. The MetaDAO raise for ZKSol via ZKFG worked by creating a DAO LLC - a Marshall Islands entity that ostensibly belongs to tokenholders of ZKFG. The IP for ZKSol belongs to this DAO LLC, as does the treasury. Every month, 50k can be transferred out of the DAO LLCs assets to pay salaries. When ZKSol failed - what likely happened was the team set up a new entity to build Zinc. So in their eyes, Zinc IP is new IP that sits inside of this NewCo. But from MetaDAOs POV, it appears that Zinc team continued to draw the ZKSol funds while they were building Zinc, and so it makes sense that the DAO LLC should own anything they built. The difficulty is that the truth is likely in the middle. MetaDAO likely does not think a founder of a failed project should have to slave for the failed projects investors forever. But it’s also apparent that Zinc was funded by MetaDAO money - and the Zinc team seemed to accept they at least had a “moral” obligation. I think it came to a head because of the IP language. Same proposal, different outcomes purely because the MetaDAO one was explicit on IP. Zinc believes it has a moral, non-legal obligation to ZKFG which it tried to discharge by buying out ZKFG via proposal. MetaDAOs language would explicitly have them acknowledge their obligations are legal. They refused. I’m minded to think that MetaDAO are likely morally in the right but Zinc has a decent legal position too. Their argument would be that after the 50k is paid out monthly as salaries, the individual contractors built a side project using their own capital. Anything they give to ZKFG thereafter is thus a “good faith” rather than legal arrangement. For the sake of the industry, I hope MetaDAO gets a good result here. The danger of “ownership” coins or RWAs is the risk of them becoming “legal memecoins” where you “in theory” have rights but in practice have none. Rights are only worth anything if you enforce them. I think, if MetaDAO are confident in their ownership structure, the most bullish course of action is for MetaDAO to sue Zinc and demonstrate the robustness of its framework. A victory in courts would validate the “on-chain ownership” thesis and its seriousness - and set MetaDAO apart from all others as a battle tested framework.

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e

Another pattern also stood out in the data: solana:zinc155BS4mSPk8GXQj4R5hkVDQXcW253pTYq5SGyfi selling volume seems to increase around ATH levels. Some wallets appear to be adding meaningful sell pressure near those price zones. The relationship between these wallets needs deeper investigation, but so far, the data suggests solana:zinc155BS4mSPk8GXQj4R5hkVDQXcW253pTYq5SGyfi ’s buybacks are running into a stronger sell-side wall than solana:oreoU2P8bN6jkk3jbaiVxYnG1dCXcYxwhwyK9jSybcp ’s.

Name & Symbol: ORE ($ORE)
Address: oreoU2P8bN6jkk3jbaiVxYnG1dCXcYxwhwyK9jSybcp

Another pattern also stood out in the data: solana:zinc155BS4mSPk8GXQj4R5hkVDQXcW253pTYq5SGyfi selling volume seems to increase around ATH levels. Some wallets appear to be adding meaningful sell pressure near those price zones. The relationship between these wallets needs deeper investigation, but so far, the data suggests solana:zinc155BS4mSPk8GXQj4R5hkVDQXcW253pTYq5SGyfi ’s buybacks are running into a stronger sell-side wall than solana:oreoU2P8bN6jkk3jbaiVxYnG1dCXcYxwhwyK9jSybcp ’s.

Name & Symbol: ZINC ($ZINC)
Address: zinc155BS4mSPk8GXQj4R5hkVDQXcW253pTYq5SGyfi

what's the best way to short solana:zinc155BS4mSPk8GXQj4R5hkVDQXcW253pTYq5SGyfi? no matter what happens now its clear that there are deep ethical issues with the team you should expect the token to go to ≈0 once the mania has subsided revenue share doesnt ultimately matter as this project will be worthless within a year

Name & Symbol: ZINC ($ZINC)
Address: zinc155BS4mSPk8GXQj4R5hkVDQXcW253pTYq5SGyfi

Aschenbrenner has been cursed with his first extreme degen bets working out fantastically, hopefully doesn’t end in eventual blow up

Name & Symbol: Degen ($DEGEN)
Address: 0x4ed4e862860bed51a9570b96d89af5e1b0efefed

just realized Morpho is now worth more than Aave despite having 50% lower TVL pretty crazy considering Morpho started as an optimizer on top of Aave https://t.co/E0sofMVVDG

Name & Symbol: Morpho Token ($MORPHO)
Address: 0x58d97b57bb95320f9a05dc918aef65434969c2b2

fyi, solana:4K1m7gAMDKzrxQn68yuZAd767w57Fw7Ykw69dG3umeta's total supply on coingecko is listed at ~1bn when in reality it's ~25M so fdv is ~$1.5M not ~$60M

Name & Symbol: Jurassic ($RAWR)
Address: 4K1m7gAMDKzrxQn68yuZAd767w57Fw7Ykw69dG3umeta

This is so unbelievably bullish. The only person I know to successfully acquire and fractionalize Dinosaurs is @robpetrozzo and he’s now advising @JurassicFi on how to acquire and fractionalize dinos onchain. Let’s solana:4K1m7gAMDKzrxQn68yuZAd767w57Fw7Ykw69dG3umeta

Name & Symbol: Jurassic ($RAWR)
Address: 4K1m7gAMDKzrxQn68yuZAd767w57Fw7Ykw69dG3umeta

I find relative asset positioning quite boring - what matters is high level market structure and response. The mindshare and value of hyperliquid:native is actually a symptom of crypto healing. It provides high utility, attracted a lot of traders, and has a lot of revenue. One of the first networks the market rewarded in this way is solana:So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112 and I think it’s sign of the market maturing that both continue to be valued quite well by the market. This is bullish for anyone building real things, and puts appropriate pressure on teams to built stuff people want to actually use.

Name & Symbol: Wrapped SOL ($SOL)
Address: So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112

1/ @JurassicFi is literally fractionalizing million-year-old dinosaur fossils into on-chain tokens. Sounds like a total meme at first, but the setup is actually clever. They wrap these multi-million dollar fossils into individual legal entities (SPVs) so anyone can buy a piece of a Triceratops for a few hundred bucks. It's a great mix for retail looking for weird alternative assets and degens chasing a fresh narrative.

Name & Symbol: Degen ($DEGEN)
Address: 0x4ed4e862860bed51a9570b96d89af5e1b0efefed

Ownership Coins Weekly 003 is live. For anyone too busy to spend all day on X, you can now get caught up in ~5 minutes. - @MetaDAOProject's Coinbase listing - @Zinc_Cash mainnet launch - @CraftsDev STS v2 explained / @Refihub STO primer - @PaystreamLabs restructuring - Updates from @UmbraPrivacy, @Loyal_HQ, @StardotFun, @JurassicFi and more. Full rundown below 👇

Name & Symbol: StakeStone ($STO)
Address: 0xdaf1695c41327b61b9b9965ac6a5843a3198cf07

Ownership coins are for everyone. solana:METAwkXcqyXKy1AtsSgJ8JiUHwGCafnZL38n3vYmeta is now trading on Coinbase https://t.co/p85BTNr8BA

Name & Symbol: MetaDAO ($META)
Address: METAwkXcqyXKy1AtsSgJ8JiUHwGCafnZL38n3vYmeta

solana:PRVT6TB7uss3FrUd2D9xs2zqDBsa3GbMJMwCQsgmeta is up over 50% in the last 24h hours 7 of 13 Metadao launches have yielded positive returns since ICO https://t.co/7MEIfIyk22

Name & Symbol: Umbra ($UMBRA)
Address: PRVT6TB7uss3FrUd2D9xs2zqDBsa3GbMJMwCQsgmeta

solana:BANKJmvhT8tiJRsBSS1n2HryMBPvT5Ze4HU95DUAmeta is incredibly interesting. #1 crypto card app. let's just pretend they launch their own layer as they could emerge into a payment/money ecosystem what would we want to compare it to? $plasma? at $230m mcap??? see my point. if they ship, they win forever

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

solana:BANKJmvhT8tiJRsBSS1n2HryMBPvT5Ze4HU95DUAmeta is incredibly interesting. #1 crypto card app. let's just pretend they launch their own layer as they could emerge into a payment/money ecosystem what would we want to compare it to? $plasma? at $230m mcap??? see my point. if they ship, they win forever

Name & Symbol: Avici ($AVICI)
Address: BANKJmvhT8tiJRsBSS1n2HryMBPvT5Ze4HU95DUAmeta

My prediction is that will eventually have a high velocity futarchy use case to complement the low velocity ICO model Today's numbers: ~ $33M in raises leading to ~ $3.3M in revenue to date I can see these number scaling to $330M in raises annually leading to $ 30 - 50M in revenue annually (assuming some time erosion of revenue per raise, assuming 0 take rate on deposits and no change in AMM fees) another $100M annual revenue for Metadao will come from usecases we have not thought about yet Luckily solana:METAwkXcqyXKy1AtsSgJ8JiUHwGCafnZL38n3vYmeta is an ownership coin which means this value accrues to the token holders

Name & Symbol: MetaDAO ($META)
Address: METAwkXcqyXKy1AtsSgJ8JiUHwGCafnZL38n3vYmeta

$RAWR is officially live on @Solana  Contract address: 4K1m7gAMDKzrxQn68yuZAd767w57Fw7Ykw69dG3umeta @MetaDAOProject ICO claim page: https://t.co/jA8tIzqXnc https://t.co/wGm93zkB1g

Name & Symbol: Jurassic ($RAWR)
Address: 4K1m7gAMDKzrxQn68yuZAd767w57Fw7Ykw69dG3umeta

The first oversubscribed raise by @JustSparkIdeas just resolved. $BASKET, a Solana multi-asset index protocol proposed by @rakka_sol of @Omnipair, enables traders to long or short whole categories like ownership coins, LSTs, privacy, DeFi, RWA, or prediction markets, instead of concentrating risk in a single asset. The idea is novel, but so was the mechanism behind the raise. The $10k funding goal was reached in under 24 hours. By close, the raise had $21,275.38 committed from 55 investors, reaching 212.8% of the minimum funding goal and exceeding the $20k hard cap. That forced Spark into its first live user selection test: Who gets allocation when the launch is oversubscribed? Spark’s answer was not purely to reward early participants. Once the raise became oversubscribed, the hard cap was split across the ideator slot, pro rata allocation, and tier weighted allocation. The tier system rewarded wallets with exposure across partner ecosystem tokens like $SPARK, $OMFG, $BORG, $ZC, and $META. With Spark v1, the design favoured ecosystem alignment. Now that funding has closed, excess deposits should be refunded, accepted allocation should settle around the $20k cap, and $BASKET moves into the token launch phase where a builder is selected via decision market. Spark did not just test whether an idea can raise capital and attract the right builder. It also tested how capital should be allocated when an ownership coin launch has more demand than supply. For a category trying to build better internet capital markets, this is an experiment worth watching.

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e