Crypto Data is a sector that hasn't yet garnered significant market attention but is well worth exploring. Imagine a future in which an increasing number of financial activities—such as trading, lending, asset issuance, protocol fee income, and token buybacks and burns—are moved on-chain. All of this data would be directly recorded on the blockchain. In such a scenario, investors seeking to analyze a company’s revenue and profits, or to assess how much value a protocol has generated, may need to directly collect and organize on-chain data. This means on-chain data could evolve beyond being merely a tool for crypto traders tracking fund flows, and instead become a potential data source for the entire financial market. Traditional finance already has data giants like Bloomberg, FactSet, and LSEG. If more assets and financial activities move on-chain in the future, crypto could give rise to its own Bloomberg.

its happening

Why isn't there a $HOOD memestock pool on RH Chain yet?

I like how degen pendle teams are

UNI has recently returned to a high near $4.3. Protocol revenue and UNI burn volumes have also reached阶段性 highs once again. The market is currently primarily trading on the value capture following the launch of the v4 Protocol Fee. After all, v4 now accounts for nearly half of Uniswap’s trading volume, generating a substantial amount of UNI burns. Based on the 30-day rolling annualized calculation, the annualized UNI burn volume is approximately 19.5 million tokens, equivalent to about 3.1% of the circulating supply. On the other hand, tokenized assets remain in their early stages on Uniswap. Compared to L1/L2 tokens and stablecoins, RWA-related trading currently contributes only about 5% of total trading volume. Thus, if the long-term outlook is that RWA will see broader on-chain adoption, this current level of trading volume is still very early 🤫

The U.S. Senate is currently in recess until September 14, meaning senators won’t return until then. As a result, there is very little time left for the CLARITY Act to move forward. If the full legislative process isn’t completed this year, it won’t just be a matter of “delaying a few more months.” The 119th Congress will end in January 2027, and any bill not passed by then will automatically expire. If the next Congress wishes to pursue it, they would essentially need to reintroduce the bill and restart the entire process—including committee reviews and votes in both chambers.

Aave, Morpho, and Kamino are all engaged in RWA lending, but each follows a distinctly different path. Aave Horizon: A standalone, permissioned institutional market Aave places RWA in a separate Horizon market. Institutions must undergo KYC via issuers to collateralize RWA assets, while the stablecoin funding side remains open—anyone can deposit USDC, RLUSD, or GHO. Asset eligibility, risk parameters, and liquidation frameworks are centrally managed by Aave governance and a dedicated risk team. Morpho: Isolated markets + Curator capital allocation Morpho does not build a standalone RWA product. Instead, each RWA asset can establish its own independent lending market. Curators decide which markets receive capital and how much funding each market can access. Kamino: Customizable markets + Vault layer Kamino also employs a market layer and Vault layer, but with greater flexibility. A single market can support multiple collateral and debt assets, with customizable LTV ratios, interest rate curves oracles, supply caps, and permission settings. It functions more like a customizable, multi-asset RWA lending platform. RWA Share Across Protocols Aave: 2.5% Aave’s overall lending volume is large, so RWA currently represents only a small portion. Representative assets include Superstate USTB, Janus Henderson JAAA, VanEck VBILL, and Superstate USCC. Its strategy is clear: start with government bonds, bond funds, and high-grade credit—focused on institutional, standardized assets. Morpho: 16.9% Morpho’s RWA segment is already a major business line with the broadest asset coverage. Beyond private credit assets like Hastra PRIME, Maple syrupUSDG, and Midas mF-ONE, it also includes reinsurance assets like reUSD and tokenized gold like XAUt. This shows Morpho operates more like an open RWA credit marketplace—asset inclusion depends entirely on whether a Curator is willing to allocate capital to it. Kamino: 33.5% Kamino has the highest RWA share, nearing one-third of its total lending TVL. Representative assets include Prime Reserve, OnRe, Maple syrupUSDC, Superstate USCC, and Hastra AUTO. Notably, OnRe (reinsurance) and AUTO (auto loans) demonstrate that Kamino is not limited to government bonds—it actively integrates vertical private credit assets with clear cash flows.

Traditional projects focus on equity and issue tokens to find later buyers. Lighter flips this model: after the TGE, it converts the economic rights of equity investors into token allocations, treating equity as an early-stage fundraising tool, with all future value consolidated back into LIT. Reviving the Token Play!

I love $BOT

So the tension between token and equity ownership has always been one of the most debated issues in crypto. Through @Blockworks’ TTF disclosure framework, we can get a clearer view of how projects usually handle the relationship between company equity and protocol tokens. The core issue is pretty simple: If a project gives its token more explicit economic value through buybacks, dividends, revenue sharing, or governance rights, it may strengthen the token’s securities-like characteristics and create regulatory risk. But if a project deliberately weakens the token’s value just to avoid regulatory pressure, the token can easily become an empty points system, a narrative tool, or simply an exit liquidity vehicle. Looking across 32 B-2 filings, projects generally fall into three models: Model 1: No independent equity entity Examples: Morpho, dYdX, Aerodrome, Gearbox. These projects usually do not have a separate equity entity that independently captures value. Instead, the value generated by the protocol mainly accrues to the DAO and token holders. Because there is no separate shareholder interest, the structure reduces the potential conflict between equity holders and token holders. Morpho is a good example. While Morpho Labs exists as a development entity, it has publicly committed to holding only MORPHO tokens as its sole asset, making the structure much closer to a pure DAO model. Model 2: Protocol revenue goes to the token, not equity Examples: Raydium, Jito, Rocket Pool, Marinade. These projects may still have a development company or foundation, but protocol fees are directed to token holders through buybacks, staking rewards, fee sharing, or similar mechanisms, rather than flowing to equity holders. In simple terms, the equity entity handles development and operations, while the token captures the economic value of the protocol layer. Model 3: Dual-entity structure with separated rights Examples: Jupiter, ZKsync, WalletConnect, Maple Finance, https://t.co/nLInD0h6gC. This is the most common model, and also the most controversial one. The development company represents the equity layer, while the DAO represents the token layer. Shareholders have voting and economic rights at the company level, while token holders have protocol governance rights and network-related rights. The real question is: If the protocol’s traffic, brand, and user trust are created by the broader token network, which revenue should belong to the company, and which value should flow back to the DAO and token holders? This is exactly why token transparency disclosure is becoming more important.