Long time no @monad @monad has been making decent progress while $MON has spent almost a year going nowhere The onchain numbers are actually quite solid: - TVL recently reached $1B, including ~$680M in stablecoins - DEX volume is holding around $5B/month - @aave V3 is attracting users, with V4 expansion into RWA being prepared And @monad still has its high-performance parallel EVM, targeting around 10K TPS with sub-second execution Meanwhile, $MON is trading around $0.021, down more than 50% from its peak and even below its $0.025 @coinbase public sale price Looks tempting, right? But there's a pretty big supply problem coming On November 24, around 16.6B $MON belonging to the team, VCs and treasury is scheduled to unlock after a one-year cliff That's roughly $350M–$450M worth of tokens, compared with only ~11.8B $MON currently circulating More tokens unlocking than the entire circulating supply is a serious test for liquidity Of course, unlock doesn't mean everyone will dump immediately. And if the market can absorb that supply without breaking down, I think $MON could become much more interesting Price has been ranging between $0.015 and $0.038 for almost a year I'd rather wait to see how it reacts around November 24, especially near the $0.015–$0.016 support area If we see a sharp selloff followed by a quick recovery back into the range, or price simply holds up despite the unlock, I'd consider that a much better setup for accumulation The ecosystem is growing, and the token is getting cheaper But with this much supply about to become liquid, I don't mind missing the first bounce Let's see who is still buying after the unlock

$STRK holders celebrating a 4x until someone zooms out I bet most already sold it when it pumped 50% 😏😏 https://t.co/7aQBupxbGT

🔥 Project Analysis - @WalrusProtocol @SuiNetwork seems to be getting serious about the data business Most people still think of @SuiNetwork as a fast L1, but lately I'm seeing them put much more attention into data infrastructure, especially for AI And I think this direction could be much more interesting than another race for faster transactions since most already done it The latest move is a $30M investment into DATA Network, which has already recorded over 250M data contributions and processes more than 3M receipts daily Instead of building another AI platform from scratch and hoping users show up, Sui is bringing an existing data network into its ecosystem @datafdn plans to migrate to Sui, while @WalrusProtocol will become the default storage layer for DATA Foundation applications For those unfamiliar, Walrus is a decentralized storage network developed by @Mysten_Labs, the team behind Sui A blockchain can record ownership and transactions, but storing huge amounts of videos, documents and AI training data directly onchain isn't very practical Walrus handles those large files while applications can use Sui to manage the transactions and permissions around them And I can see why this could matter for AI Imagine an AI company purchasing thousands of datasets to train a model. It needs access to the original files, records of who contributed them and a way to check what it's allowed to use With DATA Network handling contribution records and usage rights, Walrus storing the files and Sui managing transactions, more of that process could happen within the same ecosystem For data contributors, this could make it easier to track how their work is used and how they get paid For developers, it reduces the need to build separate systems for storage, ownership and payments Walrus is also working on persistent memory for AI agents, allowing them to retrieve information from previous sessions rather than repeatedly starting from scratch The potential market goes beyond crypto trading activity, which is what I like about this direction But the economics of $WAL are still a different story Storage is paid in $WAL at around $0.023/GB/month, and the token is also used for staking to secure the network That's a real use case, but storage is cheap by design. Walrus needs a lot of paying customers before those fees become meaningful Current storage revenue is only around $3.7K per month, while roughly 52% of the 5B maximum $WAL supply is circulating And those 250M contributions from DATA Network don't automatically translate into 250M paid storage transactions on Walrus I like the idea of bringing an existing user base into the infrastructure instead of waiting years for organic adoption But I want to see how much actual storage demand follows the migration, especially with more $WAL supply still waiting to unlock For Sui, I think the longer-term opportunity is building an ecosystem where AI companies can access data, manage ownership and pay contributors without having to piece everything together themselves Walrus could become an important part of that I'm more interested in the direction Sui is taking than in chasing $WAL just because of the AI narrative The next few months should tell us whether these partnerships can finally turn into paying customers

It's sad seeing @monad and @megaeth become background noise this fast A year ago, these were two of the most hyped bets on the future of the EVM - @megaeth’s public sale had $1.39B in demand for only ~$50M offered - @monad raised $269M from more than 85K participants Both were selling a similar dream: make the EVM insanely fast And they actually delivered a lot of it - @monad can handle up to 10K TPS with 300ms blocks - @megaeth delivered ~10ms mini-blocks and reached tens of thousands of TPS in testing But almost nobody is using anywhere close to that capacity In August, @monad averaged only ~51 TPS & @megaeth was around 25 TPS They spent years solving the speed problem, then launched into a market where speed wasn’t really the bottleneck - @megaeth probably shows this best TVL fell from a ~$245M peak in May to around $22M by the end of September - @monad looks healthier with over $1B TVL, but nearly 90% of that sits in lending protocols, while @aave came with $15M of first-year incentives So the real test is still simple: What stays when the incentives stop? They were debating which one would become the next big chain year ago. Now both barely get mentioned Maybe the hard part is getting people to actually care was than just get the people Report from: @OAK_Res

This market is starting to look way too leveraged for me Altcoin leverage has already climbed back to the same peak we saw last October At the same time, $BTC ETF inflows just hit $1B for the first time since October last year That sounds bullish on the surface, but I’m more focused on how crowded the system is getting Altcoin leverage is already at ATH levels while $BTC would still need roughly another 50% move to get back to its high And we haven’t even reached the stage where liquidity is being pumped aggressively into the system For me, that means a lot of the available money is already being used When leverage gets this heavy, eventually some of that liquidity has to be pulled back And when that happens, the selling isn’t always voluntary Positions get liquidated, those liquidations push price lower, then more leverage gets wiped out That’s how one normal correction turns into something much uglier This is also when people find out how bad their favorite altcoin can actually look once the market stops going up So I’m being much more careful with leverage here Building a large position after prices have already run hard means taking more downside risk while the upside gets less attractive One fast move down is enough to trap people who thought they would “just exit later” Sometimes the best trade after a hot run is simply making sure you’re still around for the next one

Turns out being the cleverest L2 still doesn’t guarantee you survive @blast is shutting down because the economics no longer make sense for running the chain sustainably And that’s what makes this one interesting Blast actually had one of the more original models from that L2 cycle: make the chain big enough, earn yield from Ethereum underneath, then recycle part of that yield back to users inside the ecosystem At launch, it was fighting in the same arena as @zksync, @Starknet, @Optimism and @arbitrum Years later, those chains are still around while Blast is the one leaving My read is the difference wasn’t just tech $OP, $ARB, $STRK and $ZK entered the market with stronger backers, deeper @ethereum relationships and ecosystems that had already been building roots long before their tokens or mainnets became the main story Blast had a smart mechanism, but a smart mechanism still needs enough users, capital and distribution to keep the machine alive once incentives cool down That’s probably the lesson from this L2 cycle

If @AbstractChain wants to kill the shutdown rumor, the onchain numbers aren’t helping TVL peaked around $58M on May 13, 2025 Now it’s closer to $10M, while chain revenue is only around $3K–$5K Then you have the offchain signals @LucaNetz removed Abstract from his X name, @0xCygaar's wallet was seen withdrawing funds from the chain, and both Mason and 0xBeans left the team in August The official @AbstractChain account has also been mostly quiet Individually, none of these things mean much Put them together with an ~80% TVL drawdown and barely any revenue, and I can see why people are starting to ask whether Abstract still has a future There’s still no official shutdown aIf Abstract wants to kill the shutdown rumor, the onchain numbers aren’t helping TVL peaked around $58M on May 13, 2025 Now it’s closer to $10M, while chain revenue is only around $3K–$5K Then you have the offchain signals Luca Netz removed Abstract from his X name, Cygaar’s wallet was seen withdrawing funds from the chain, and both Mason and 0xBeans left the team in August The official @AbstractChain account has also been mostly quiet Individually, none of these things mean much Put them together with an ~80% TVL drawdown and barely any revenue, and I can see why people are starting to ask whether Abstract still has a future There’s still no official shutdown announcement, so calling it dead right now would be too early But after seeing Polygon zkEVM and Zero Network already give up, another L2 slowly fading out wouldn’t exactly shock the marketnnouncement, so calling it dead right now would be too early But after seeing Polygon zkEVM and Zero Network already give up, another L2 slowly fading out wouldn’t exactly shock the market

Bro it’s literally October 1st and we already have FUD 😭 If this actually turns out to be a real hack, the market could get ugly pretty fast What we know so far: @MetaMask is proactively exiting affected validators from its non custodial staking service as a precaution, working with customers, partners and security advisors Meanwhile, people are circulating claims that $ETH linked to the Consensys founder is being moved to new wallets No confirmation that those transfers are related to the incident though, so I wouldn’t treat that as evidence yet October really wasting no time

Is @Polkadot coming back? One of the biggest players in the market 5 years ago, but now its TVL is only around $100M. $DOT has spent years fixing its supply problem Since March, @Polkadot has cut annual $DOT issuance by around 54%, from roughly 120M to ~55M tokens per year Supply is now capped at 2.1B $DOT, issuance will keep stepping down every 2 years, and around 51% of supply is currently staked But the challenge for them is giving people a reason to actually need the token, and lower inflation doesn’t guarantee demand. This is why JAM showed up Polkadot is moving away from being mainly a parachain network toward a more general compute layer where different services can buy network resources through Coretime And the important part for holders: JAM won’t have a separate token $DOT stays the native asset and is still used for network resources, staking and governance JAM is also moving beyond the whitepaper stage now, with production preparation and parachain finality being migrated toward JAM services So the $DOT thesis is starting to look different Less issuance helps the supply side JAM could help the demand side if developers actually start paying for compute and Coretime That “if” is still doing a lot of work though Polkadot has had plenty of capacity before without enough demand to monetize it So I wouldn’t buy $DOT just because inflation got cut I’d watch whether JAM can finally turn Polkadot’s infrastructure into something people are willing to pay for

The biggest mistake in crypto is believing whales show you what they’re holding A whale can hold hundreds of millions in spot and still hedge somewhere else That’s why I never read “he still holds the spot” as automatically bullish Around the time $ZEC pushed toward $1,500, I was already seeing roughly $300M in short exposure opening while longs started getting reduced Then Garrett showed nearly $300M in spot $ZEC The market saw one thing: “He’s still holding. He’s bullish.” But that public spot position also brought a huge amount of attention exactly when liquidity was getting deeper After he showed the spot wallet and closed the visible short, people became even more confident and were willing to buy higher That’s where I get more careful Large holders don’t need to sell their public spot wallet to reduce risk or take profit. They can hedge, short, use market makers, or manage exposure somewhere the crowd can’t easily track We’ve seen similar setups before where onchain holdings stayed untouched while part of the exposure was managed offchain Murad is one example. His spot position stayed visible onchain while part of the position was reportedly sold through a market maker agreement So I wouldn’t spend too much time asking whether Garrett is bullish or bearish I’d rather ask: Why did short exposure grow that much near $1,500? Why were longs already being reduced before the spot position was shown? And why did everyone suddenly become more comfortable buying after seeing the wallet? Calling the exact top is almost impossible But when the whole market starts treating one whale’s public wallet as proof that price must go higher, I usually get more careful, not less