Just joined the @FungoLabs airdrop campaign. For the culture. 3% of the total $FUNGO supply (300M tokens) is reserved for X creators. My personal expectation is a $10M to $20M FDV at launch. At that valuation, the X campaign reward pool alone would be worth around $300K to $600K. What makes Fungo interesting beyond the airdrop is its use of Zama's FHE technology to bring encrypted NFTs to Ethereum, keeping certain NFT traits private. No VC allocation, no presale, and 10% allocated to the team with a 12-month lock. Still early, but I think this one is worth watching. Let's see how it plays out.

Crypto VCs invested $4.52B across 296 deals in Q3. But the interesting part is where the money went. 76.5% of capital went to later stage companies, while trading, exchanges, investing and lending alone attracted $2.37B. Meanwhile, pre seed and seed made up almost 45% of all deals, but received only around 6% of total funding. So early stage crypto isn’t dead. Capital is just becoming much more selective. And I think this matters for liquid investors. A successful crypto company doesn’t automatically mean a successful token. More value is increasingly being captured by businesses, shareholders and products rather than native tokens. Crypto VC is maturing. The question now is not just what grows. It’s who actually captures the value. h/t: @galaxyhq

One thing I’d be careful about when looking at stablecoin growth by chain?? Market cap measures where liquidity sits, not how productively it’s being used. A $100M increase could come from fresh issuance, bridged funds or capital simply relocating from another network. Those have very different implications. I’d be more interested in comparing stablecoin growth against transfer volume, lending utilization and DEX activity over the following weeks. If balances rise while actual usage stays flat, the capital might just be sitting idle. Which chains are turning stablecoin liquidity into sustained economic activity, rather than simply accumulating it?

Hyperliquid generated roughly $105M in September fees, up 80% from July’s ~$58M. The changing revenue mix is what I found worth investigating further. Core trading still dominates, but HIP-3 deployer fees, builder fees and USDC reserve yield are contributing more. Hyperliquid is developing revenue streams beyond its core perpetuals exchange, potentially reducing its dependence on trading cycles. But if volumes fall again, will these newer fee sources be enough to cushion the slowdown?

Most people are still underestimating how big the RWA narrative could become. 500 teams are already building the infrastructure to bring traditional finance onchain. But here’s what matters. Not every project will survive, and not every token will capture value. The real winners will be those attracting institutional capital, generating revenue, and building actual liquidity. RWA isn’t just another crypto narrative. It’s a fundamental shift in how financial markets could operate.

$AAVE is one of 15 tokens in Citrini Research’s “Breaking The Wall” basket. But the allocations reveal a broader thesis. 48% is concentrated in the top five positions, while derivatives-focused protocols alone account for 27%. What interests me is that Solana gets just 8%, with the remaining 92% allocated to applications and infrastructure. I read this as a bet that more of crypto’s value could accrue above the blockchain layer. But protocol growth and tokenholder returns aren’t the same thing. Revenue capture and dilution will ultimately determine whether that thesis works. Are we entering an era where owning the applications becomes more valuable than owning the chains they run on?

$AAVE is one of 15 tokens in Citrini Research’s “Breaking The Wall” basket. But the allocations reveal a broader thesis. 48% is concentrated in the top five positions, while derivatives-focused protocols alone account for 27%. What interests me is that Solana gets just 8%, with the remaining 92% allocated to applications and infrastructure. I read this as a bet that more of crypto’s value could accrue above the blockchain layer. But protocol growth and tokenholder returns aren’t the same thing. Revenue capture and dilution will ultimately determine whether that thesis works. Are we entering an era where owning the applications becomes more valuable than owning the chains they run on?

$41.6B in open interest across $BTC, $ETH and $SOL. People easily stop at size, but the interesting part for me is what happens if price stops climbing. Rising OI alongside a recovery suggests traders are adding exposure, but it doesn’t tell us whether longs or shorts are driving it. And with ETH accounting for $15.5B, leverage is clearly not concentrated in Bitcoin alone. I’m watching funding rates and spot volume next. If price keeps rising with healthy spot demand, that’s constructive. If OI expands while spot buying fades, the recovery becomes increasingly vulnerable to a liquidation-driven reversal. Are we finally seeing genuine demand return?

Gold is dumping, but I’m still bullish. > Gold and $BTC share a macro connection, often benefiting from inflation and declining confidence in fiat currencies. The market is pricing in another Fed rate hike before the end of the year, putting pressure on gold. Meanwhile, rising oil prices are fueling global inflation, reinforcing expectations of tighter monetary policy. But here’s what matters: China has been accumulating gold for 23 consecutive months. Central banks are buying while the market is selling. Higher rates may keep gold under pressure for now, but they won’t last forever. My view? This is a temporary macro headwind, not the end of gold’s bull market. I’m expecting significantly higher gold prices in the coming years. Short term pressure. Long term accumulation.

Why should trading collateral stop earning the moment you decide to use it? That’s the part of Grvt 2.0 I keep returning to. Following its first 1.1M $GRVT buyback and burn, @grvt_io is preparing a broader product rollout. Grvt Earn targets up to 11% yield through tokenized fixed-income strategies, although returns aren’t guaranteed. But Yield as Margin is where the model gets interesting. Eligible Earn balances could continue generating yield while supporting trading positions. That’s potentially a meaningful change in how traders allocate capital. Of course, the real test will be collateral haircuts, liquidation mechanics and redemption liquidity. Can yield-bearing margin become a practical alternative to idle collateral?