We have completed an additional $350,000 OTC sale of solana:CARSsxWPkpQWvfyRBwfGMGvysJBHdHGfE46X5MNgmeta to @Colosseum. The transaction was executed at USD $0.0987 per token for 3,546,099.30 solana:CARSsxWPkpQWvfyRBwfGMGvysJBHdHGfE46X5MNgmeta, with no vesting and no lockup. All proceeds will go to the treasury.

I remember when people were buying base:0xd262a4c7108c8139b2b189758e8d17c3dfc91a38 as solana:BANKJmvhT8tiJRsBSS1n2HryMBPvT5Ze4HU95DUAmeta beta Now it's hopefully clear why that doesn't make sense

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

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

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

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

Buyback debates too often conflate: 1) tokenholders' desire for buybacks 2) tokenholders' desire for ownership & control of funds Reinvesting $ to grow the business is good for the token if the token owns the business Its not good if the equity owns everything

Pump should relaunch on MetaDAO - contribute all cash to a closed ICO raise - distribute ICO ownership tokens to Pump tokenholders pro rata - link up revenue to a treasury controlled by Futarchy I believe this would trade at a higher valuation than Pump’s existing token on day one. Right now Pump trades at a discount because outsiders like me don’t know exactly what is going on with the cash raised / how much of the revenue will go to buybacks vs equity going forward. You may believe this is not an issue at all (and you may be completely right! The point is that I don’t know) but I promise the market is haircutting valuation based on these concerns. Why not send those concerns to 0.00 with haste. Embrace the Futarchy

The team isn’t aligned with tokenholders now just bc they own some tokens They own all of the equity, have total control, the token has 0 rights or protections, and they have a history of explicitly picking equity > token

Good day for the llamas Not so much for dune and aster

Happy ATH Higher https://t.co/YySivG4Zig

Can also short the perp on Lighter + hold spot on Hyperliquid to farm Lighter + Unit and capture the funding Pretty juicy on tokens like XPL where fundings been crazy

DoubleZero is one of the most ambitious projects we've ever invested in. Their technology will make all high performance blockchains faster and more performant. This is the innovation we need if we want on-chain price discovery for all of the world's assets. IBRL

My 2Z thesis in two paragraphs: Scaling blockchains is one of the biggest problems in the industry. Almost every blockchain's latency is ultimately network-bound. How much value do you create by cutting the block time of a chain in half? And how much value can you capture if every blockchain has to use you to stay competitive? A: Solve a big problem, win a big prize. The only path to true speed-of-light transmission is dedicated fiber. That’s how YouTube moves data around the world—you can’t match it over the public Internet. 2Z is building that for blockchains. If it works, it will be bigger than just blockchains. There, that's the thesis. (Congrats to @doublezero on the launch 👏) Note: Dragonfly is an early investor in 2Z.

For XPL, Hyperliquid is the #1 exchange in perps OI + #3 in spot volume Nearly 10% of circulating supply has been bridged over https://t.co/IyAMJGJMyj

Spoke too soon - Users have now deposited 162M XPL ($161M) to Hyperliquid, equal to 1.62% of the total supply and 8.76% of the circulating supply. https://t.co/2XHt7Ylzfr Spot $XPL volumes on Hyperliquid have already flipped BTC, ETH, SOL, and PUMP - making it the third-largest trading venue by volume, ahead of names like Bybit and OKX. Even crazier: $XPL has also overtaken PUMP and ETH in total spot deposits, becoming the #2 most deposited coin on Hyperliquid after BTC. Trade spot $XPL with the lowest fees on Hyperliquid https://t.co/htMMQKFAmd

Spoke too soon - Users have now deposited 162M XPL ($161M) to Hyperliquid, equal to 1.62% of the total supply and 8.76% of the circulating supply. https://t.co/2XHt7Ylzfr Spot $XPL volumes on Hyperliquid have already flipped BTC, ETH, SOL, and PUMP - making it the third-largest trading venue by volume, ahead of names like Bybit and OKX. Even crazier: $XPL has also overtaken PUMP and ETH in total spot deposits, becoming the #2 most deposited coin on Hyperliquid after BTC. Trade spot $XPL with the lowest fees on Hyperliquid https://t.co/htMMQKFAmd

Since spot $XPL officially launched on Hyperliquid 1 hour ago, users have deposited over 92M XPL ($69M). That’s already 0.92% of the total supply and about 5% of the circulating supply. Incredibly, Plasma’s TVL on Hyperliquid has already surpassed SOL, FARTCOIN, BONK, and SPX - all within its first 1 hour live. https://t.co/2XHt7Ylzfr

Since spot $XPL officially launched on Hyperliquid 1 hour ago, users have deposited over 92M XPL ($69M). That’s already 0.92% of the total supply and about 5% of the circulating supply. Incredibly, Plasma’s TVL on Hyperliquid has already surpassed SOL, FARTCOIN, BONK, and SPX - all within its first 1 hour live. https://t.co/2XHt7Ylzfr

Since spot $XPL officially launched on Hyperliquid 1 hour ago, users have deposited over 92M XPL ($69M). That’s already 0.92% of the total supply and about 5% of the circulating supply. Incredibly, Plasma’s TVL on Hyperliquid has already surpassed SOL, FARTCOIN, BONK, and SPX - all within its first 1 hour live. https://t.co/2XHt7Ylzfr

If CZ just launched an explicit personal memecoin (like TRUMP) how would it be trading vs ASTER?

This is the most bullish thing I could imagine for coins that aren’t Vapor that tradfi would bid $HYPE $PUMP And extremely bearish Dino Vapor that’s relying on being “etf coins” $XRP $ADA

@TenreiroDaniel everyone losing their mind over the trenches while pump is 5% off ath. nobody holds good coins nobody holds pump. onchain is back but only on the best coins. burn memescope and own the casino

Literally just have a token with cashflows Overly complex ponzinomics are primarily just used to obfuscate poor fundamentals and/or confuse token holders while diverting the real value away from them (eg to equity)

These “fees” don’t make sense as a comp for protocols like ENA vs HYPE/PUMP “Fees” for Ethena are yield that needs to mostly pass through to USDe ENA will at most capture a small % of that For HYPE/PUMP its measuring actual protocol revenue which ~all goes to buybacks

Protocols like Aerodrome technically return funds to token holders, but these returns have yet to exceed cost of revenue from new token issuance. So token holders are certainly losing money, which is fine if you bet on growth, we just shouldn't pretend otherwise.

The genius of creator fees on Pump is that it removed the Gainzy dump outcome from launchers. Now you have aligned incentives - Creators stream more for volume - Holders lose dev dump overhang You can hear the token destigmatization in this clip. https://t.co/fAC9CSCd95

This is clearly the killer barbell on majors rn: Gold+BTC | SOL+HYPE SoV | Cashflows/growth Others like PUMP and ENA also performing really well as you move out the curve Expect this general trend continues to hold

Do you own PUMP

Ideal Crypto Portfolio BTC SOL - the best coin to own if you are bullish crypto HYPE - revenue + stablecoin narrative PUMP - onchain degeneracy growth GLXY - crypto x AI bet (can buy onchain too, on SOL) This is where all of my attention is when it comes to size

so @pumpdotfun has bought back 6.11% of the circulating $PUMP supply in less than 2 months post-TGE, including $2.52m yesterday for a total of $84m the market cap is only $1.88b, and pump has more than $2b in cash to invest in creator growth that powers the token flywheel pump. https://t.co/Hdw5AbFNlJ

It’s crazy seeing so many people comp Tempo/Arc to the corpo chain announcements from past cycles, concluding these must fail as a result Seems incredibly obvious this is a totally different level of commitment, talent, & resources behind them + totally different market backdrop

If Kanye had launched his token on Zora the timeline would be flipped even if it was just as extractive send tweet

The scale of Pump's potential buybacks deserves attention. Over the past 7 days, they've averaged ~$1.8M daily revenue, up dramatically from the $680k they averaged in July. With 100% of revenue directed towards $PUMP buybacks, the math becomes compelling: Annualizing last week's performance would put them at $656M in potential buybacks against a $1.27B market cap. That's roughly 52% of circulating supply, with no new unlocks until July 2026 (assuming no dilution from an airdrop/incentives). For perspective: Hyperliquid averaged $3.52M daily revenue this week, translating to $1.28B annualized buybacks. But against their $15B market cap, that represents just 8.56%.