USDT supply recorded its sharpest 60-day contraction since 2022. -$6.6B over 60 days. For context, the post-FTX contraction was around $3.2B. That’s more than twice the decline, yet $BTC is still trading around $75K. One thing I’d be careful about here: shrinking USDT supply doesn’t automatically mean $6.6B was sold out of crypto. Capital could be rotating into other stablecoins, or leaving the market entirely. I’d watch total stablecoin supply alongside spot volumes before calling this a liquidity crisis. If the broader stablecoin market is shrinking too, BTC has a much tougher environment to recover in.

Ethereum has roughly 22% of applications in this chart, yet 67% of DeFi TVL. That gap is worth analyzing more than another transaction-count comparison. Alongside it sits around 50% of stablecoin supply and 43% of tokenized assets. My read is that Ethereum’s advantage increasingly comes from having capital, collateral and financial applications close enough to work together. An app can be replicated. Rebuilding the liquidity and integrations that make it useful takes more work. The institutional figures need context: Ethereum’s roughly 71% futures share here covers CME products excluding Bitcoin. It doesn’t represent the entire futures market. For me, this chart makes a stronger case for Ethereum’s financial network than it does for automatic ETH value capture. As that capital gets used, how much translates into higher fees and sustained demand for ETH?

Solana trading terminals are pushing $6B+ in weekly volume again. And the most interesting part of this chart is probably who’s capturing it. The top 3 terminals account for 89% of volume, down from 93–95% during previous activity spikes. That’s still an extremely concentrated market, but competition seems to be getting stronger even as volumes recover. The real test comes when activity cools down. Do smaller terminals keep their share, or does liquidity flow back to the dominant players once the hype fades? That’s what I’d watch before calling this a structural change.

We've seen hundreds of L1s launch over the years. Most of them promise the same things. But @strato_net has a pretty interesting background. The team has been building Ethereum infrastructure since 2014. Their Haskell client was one of six compatible with Ethereum at launch, and BlockApps joined Microsoft's Azure Ethereum offering in 2015. Fast forward to today, they're building something called HardFi. The idea is simple. Instead of just tokenizing real-world assets and leaving them in wallets, STRATO wants to make them useful across DeFi. Gold, silver, borrowing, trading and savings are all part of the same ecosystem. And with $STRATO approaching its TGE, there's another piece to watch. The token has a maximum supply of 100M, with 55.2% allocated to the community. Staking and validator participation are central to its network utility. I wouldn't judge this project by its TGE alone. What matters more is whether people actually keep using these financial applications over time. That's what I'll be watching.

For years, NFTs have been about making everything public. > @FungoLabs is taking a different approach. Using Zama’s FHE technology, they’re bringing encrypted NFTs to Ethereum, where ownership stays public but content can remain private. And now, 300M $FUNGO (3% of total supply) is allocated to X creators. I believe privacy is still one of crypto’s most underrated narratives. Already secured my WL and joined the campaign.

Tether is generating roughly $135M in revenue. Compared with $54M for Circle and $20M for Hyperliquid. What stands out to me is how much of crypto’s revenue is being captured by companies issuing dollars rather than the networks moving them. Tether and Circle alone account for more than the rest of the named projects combined. There’s an interesting economic imbalance here: blockchains compete to attract stablecoin liquidity, while issuers can earn substantial revenue from the reserves backing that liquidity. Of course, issuer revenue and protocol fees aren’t directly comparable. But it raises a bigger question: As stablecoin adoption grows, who captures more of the value: the infrastructure processing transactions or the companies issuing the dollars?

Bitmine now reportedly controls 4.96% of Ethereum’s entire supply. That’s 6.065M $ETH worth roughly $13.7B, following another 5,000 ETH purchase worth $11.22M. What stands out to me is the scale of the existing position. The latest purchase increases its holdings by just 0.08%. At this point, the story is less about individual buys and more about concentration. A single corporate treasury holding nearly 1 in every 20 ETH creates enormous exposure to the same asset. And accumulation cuts both ways: it can absorb supply during weak markets, but it also concentrates financial risk. What happens to ETH’s market structure when a handful of corporate treasuries start controlling meaningful portions of its supply?

Tether made $16.4M in revenue in 24 hours while Ethereum made $3.7M. It’s 4.4x more. Even more interesting: Tether, Tron and Circle generated $31.1M combined, roughly 71% of the revenue across these top 10 projects. My takeaway is that stablecoin issuance and payment infrastructure are capturing a massive share of crypto’s economics, while the networks processing those transactions capture a different slice. Of course, revenue isn’t profit, and these businesses have very different cost structures. But it raises a question I’ve been thinking about: Are we overvaluing the infrastructure that moves money and undervaluing the businesses that actually monetize it?

13,137 new $UNI wallets in a single day.: highest reading since 2020. Daily active addresses also hit 14,591, a one-year high. Yet UNI is back below $7. I’m curious how much of this activity is actually new demand. Santiment tracks UNI token transfers, so exchange movements and funds moving between wallets count too. Recent Uniswap upgrades could explain some of the attention, but I’d want to see activity hold up for several days. Especially with price struggling to reclaim $7. How many of those new wallets will still be active next week?

300 million stablecoin-holding addresses, and one detail in this chart really stands out. According to ARK Invest, ~94% are on EVM-compatible chains. But look at where the growth is coming from. Tron and BNB Chain account for a massive share, while Ethereum and its L2s are expanding alongside them. My takeaway: stablecoin adoption seems increasingly driven by where moving dollars is cheap, accessible and convenient. And the 300M figure measures addresses, not unique people, so there’s still a lot we don’t know about actual adoption. If stablecoins become the default way to move money globally, will users care which blockchain they’re using??