the Hyperliquid beta play is getting bigger than just kinetiq:native 7 days until @Enter_Elysium mainnet, and the eco is starting to look pretty stacked since my last post, more pieces have come together: → @pumpdotfun + @fomo: day 1 trading distribution → @Uniswap + @KyberNetwork: DEX liquidity and execution → @DeriveXYZ V3: onchain options → @xStocksFi: tokenized equities → @Kinetiq_xyz: 50% of Elysium sequencer revenue allocated to kinetiq:native buybacks & burns → early degen plays: launchpad tokens like $KLEO, $BOXA and $e/acc are already attracting attention ahead of mainnet Elysium uses $HYPE for gas + kinetiq:native has a direct link to sequencer rev through its planned buyback mechanism so the thesis isn't just another L2 launch it's about bringing meme trading, DeFi, options and RWAs into the Hyperliquid economy with an actual value-capture mechanism behind it i'm still watching kinetiq:native closely, alongside early Elysium-native plays like @AscendLaunch but the real test starts November 9 If Elysium gets the distribution right kinetiq:native could become one of the most interesting eco beta plays on Hyperliquid i think KNTQ can survive @CryptoHayes exit liquidity still early. still plenty of execution risk/rewards. e/acc.

top Hyperliquid’s beta play [1] @Kinetiq_xyz - not holding kinetiq:native is like not holding $HYPE when it TGE’d back in 2024 [2] @Enter_Elysium - Fomo & Pumpfun app supporting brings generational wealth effect for onchain similar to when $SOL had ran from $8 to $290 [3] @AscendLaunch - as a leading launchpad nobody ever focus, it’s like PONS the early days at $275K mcap

AMM-bivalent: how not to deploy tokenized stocks in DeFi i’m bullish on tokenized stocks, but Galaxy’s latest AMM research raised my bar for where i’d provide liquidity they modeled an AMM holding the S&P 500’s individual constituents: → ~3% underperformance versus holding, year-to-date → ~45x annual turnover needed to break even at a 0.05% swap fee → SPY turns over roughly 16x annually these are modeled results for a constant-weight AMM still, that’s a demanding fee target then i care about how how differently the stocks perform? as prices diverge, the pool sells relative winners and accumulates relative losers dispersion accounted for ~90% or more of impermanent loss in much of the analysis a rising index doesn’t prevent this neither does a falling market where stocks decline by different amounts i care about this because my equity thesis and my liquidity strategy need separate underwriting i can be right about stocks rising and still earn less by providing liquidity than by holding market needs to use tokenized index products for broad exposure consider lending or holding individual stocks, and favor structurally linked assets for passive pools from here, i’m comparing 4 approaches: → @Uniswap v4: assess whether custom execution and dynamic fees improve LP returns → @CurveFinance: assess which equity pairs have a durable reason to stay close → @Morpho: compare lending returns, demand, and liquidation risk → @1inch aqua: assess capital efficiency when one wallet balance supports multiple swap strategies aqua interests me because shared liquidity changes how capital is allocated but i’d still need evidence that the underlying strategies compensate LPs for adverse selection & impermanent loss no need doing DD here, you better ape one of these for the bullrun

➥ @phantom generated 29% more protocol revenue than Aave trailing 30d via Defillama: → Phantom: $6.37M revenue → Aave: $4.94M revenue → Phantom Perps: $2.35B trading volume Phantom's revenue breakdown is even more interesting: → $5.06M from Solana activity → $1.26M from Hyperliquid activity nearly 20% of its tracked revenue now comes through Hyperliquid and Phantom doesn't operate its own perp exchange, it routes orders to @HyperliquidX and collects frontend fees Phantom charges 0.85% on most wallet swaps and adds a 0.05% fee to Hyperliquid perp trades it monetizes users directly thru the interface, without needing to bootstrap its own trading liquidity of course, the @aave comparison needs context Aave generated $37.43M in total fees over the same 30D, with most going to liquidity suppliers its $4.94M represents the protocol's retained share these are different business models and Phantom's revenue momentum is cooling since its latest 7D revenue was $1.17M, below the pace implied by its 30D total i'm paying more attention to the wallet and trading-interface layer on top of $HYPE so the distribution angle is worth tracking third-party wallets can bring trading vol to Hyperliquid while building their own revenue businesses on top of it owning user distribution is becoming a serious business in crypto imho

i prefer $WIRE’s launch funding design on one clear point: LCO proceeds are committed to network liquidity to be specific, it's a $450M planned launch FDV and an LCO that commits 100% of proceeds to network liquidity i put it beside LayerZero and NEAR Intents to compare valuation, infra and launch structure LayerZero gives me the clearest valuation reference - $ZRO has a 1B total supply and opened at ~$4B FDV - current FDV is ~$1.72B NEAR Intents gives me a useful execution benchmark as well - NEAR network currently has a reported FDV of ~$6.16B - covers the whole protocol, rather than Intents alone NEAR Intents uses competing solvers to fulfill requested outcomes its official overview reports >$33B in cumulative swap volume, showing that multichain execution already serves meaningful demand valuation needs context, LayerZero and NEAR already has deployed infra, integrations and applications using its messaging layer @WireNetwork’s planned $450M launch setting is below both figures what makes Wire’s launch structure stand out to me is the use of proceeds under the current campaign terms: • 1B $WIRE supply • launch FDV currently set at $450M, or $0.45 per token • 100% of LCO proceeds committed to network liquidity • 0 LCO proceeds allocated to company operations • pre-tokens convert 1:1 into $WIRE at the launch threshold i believe a launch becomes more compelling when its valuation is supported by a clear plan to finance trading depth - FDV is a pricing calculation - liquidity requires capital deployed into markets Wire’s LCO explicitly assigns participation proceeds to that liquidity i prefer having that commitment defined before launch, with the result judged thru actual pool deployment, trading depth, liquidity controls i also separate this from the product thesis Wire’s stated UTL design targets native-asset coordination across 200+ chains without traditional bridges token liquidity can support the launch; apps and users still have to generate demand eligible participants can access pre-tokens directly or thru approved ETH/SOL staking pathways via the Outposts The LCO is token access, you can access it here: https://t.co/T00MAZfo4Z

➥ BisonFi with just $21M in TVL is doing more monthly volume than both Raydium + Orca on Solana latest 30D, ending Oct 26: → BisonFi | @FWDind: $8.28B volume | $20.69M TVL → @orca_so: $7.75B volume | $301M TVL → @Raydium: $5.75B volume | $1.14B TVL BisonFi processed 44% more trading volume than Raydium with ~55x less capital locked that's ~400x monthly volume relative to current TVL but the interesting part is how BisonFi operates it's a proprietary AMM, where professional MMs actively manage liquidity + pricing instead of relying on traditional passive LP pools aggregators like Jupiter can route trades toward whichever venue offers competitive execution and this is changing Solana's DEX market structure Raydium + Orca still hold significantly more liquidity but prop AMMs are proving they can compete for trading flow with much smaller capital bases i'm paying more attention to Solana's prop AMM sector, particularly BisonFi, @humidifi and @Tessera_PE for $RAY and solana:orcaEKTdK7LKz57vaAYr9QeNsVEPfiu6QeMU1kektZE , i'd watch whether they can defend trading share and fee generation as professional MMs capture more flow

Privacy infra - pt.2 i’m making privacy a research priority for the next 2 years as more finance moves onchain, public balances, trading strategies & business payments become a commercial problem i see demand for confidential execution is heating up lately verifiable financial data and private computation are also inevitable by now quantum is a real trigger for reviewing the security behind these systems Google’s latest research reduced the estimated physical qubits needed to break widely used elliptic-curve cryptography by 20× i expect preparation and security spending before a working attack arrives NIST already urges migration, and replacing cryptography takes time that makes the next 2 years worth watching closely in cryptographic landscape i assess privacy and quantum resistance separately these are the approaches i’m following: [1] @QuantusNetwork | $QTC - capped supply at 21M and PoW - combined with encrypted payments and post-quantum cryptography for long-term asset security [2] @NEARProtocol | $NEAR - existing intents integrations can add confidential cross-chain execution - reducing the work needed to offer privacy [3] @primus_labs - credit + audit use case in combining zkTLS data verification with encrypted computation - financial info can be checked without exposing every underlying record [4] @nillion | ethereum:0x7cf9a80db3b29ee8efe3710aadb7b95270572d47 - private computation beyond payments - analyze sensitive data while limiting access by the infra operators processing it [5] @SilentSwap - private, noncustodial cross-chain swaps for traders and treasury managers - limit disclosure of portfolio movements [6] @anoma | ethereum:0xcedbea37c8872c4171259cdfd5255cb8923cf8e7 - generalized intents with selective disclosure - apps can coordinate financial txns across supported chains while controlling what info gets shared [7] @nockchain | base:0x9b5e262cf9bb04869ab40b19af91d2dc85761722 - mining-subsidized ZK proof generation can lower the cost of private financial applications - proving costs matter if these products are going to scale best lowcap dou i’m looking to hold multiple cycle = $QTC NFA, DYOR!

top-notch protocols turning institutional strategies into onchain yield a dollar token can give you exposure to crypto funding, gold carry, Turkish rates, or corporate credit here’sre 7 protocols i’m watching that bring institutional strategies and income sources into DeFi: → @tori_finance - global money-market carry Tori combines money-market strategies, futures arbitrage, and calendar spreads through trUSD / strUSD you have access to yield sources beyond crypto trading demand → @ethena - crypto funding and basis USDe / sUSDe draws on perp funding, futures basis, and income from staked assets & liquid stables i look at funding conditions & the backing mix when assessing how much yield it can sustain → @falconfinance - multiple trading strategies USDf / sUSDf combines options, funding arbitrage, staking, and price arbitrage i’m interested in how each strategy contributes to returns as market conditions change → @AxisFDN - arbitrage across assets and venues Axis uses its trading infra to capture pricing differences, distributing returns through the USDx / sUSDx structure execution quality & strategy capacity are what i want to understand here → @PikuFinance - FX and emerging-market strategies Piku offers USD/TRY arbitrage, leveraged TRY carry, and Turkish equity basis strategies through its Morini vaults i find the access interesting, but i assess each separately FX arbitrage & leveraged currency carry have different exposures → @Theo_Network - hedged gold carry Theo’s thUSD / sthUSD structure brings together physical gold leasing, short CME gold futures, and Treasury collateral income i have huge position here, very good R/R → @Saturn_Credit - preferred-stock income Saturn connects Strategy’s STRC dividends to sUSDat i treat this as exposure to an issuer’s preferred equity, with credit and dividend risk central to the analysis eventually, onchain distribution can expand access to these strategies and make the resulting positions easier to use across DeFi

➥ @Collector_Crypt is generating more protocol revenue than Polymarket latest 30D, ending Oct 24: → Collector Crypt: $18.22M revenue → @Polymarket: $15.36M revenue → Collector Crypt pack sales: $197.58M → solana:CARDSccUMFKoPRZxt5vt3ksUbxEFEcnZ3H2pd3dKxYjp holder revenue: just $160.4K ~19% more tracked revenue than Polymarket, coming primarily from tokenized physical trading cards Collector Crypt generated $14.91M in revenue during October 1-24, compared with $12.53M for the entire Sept users buy randomized packs containing tokenized Pokémon and other collectible cards they can trade the cards, sell eligible cards back, or redeem the physical assets integrations with Jupiter have helped bring new users into the product according to @PineAnalytics, 92% of sampled Jupiter pack buyers in Q3 were new relative to Q2 that's an interesting example of crypto distribution reaching consumers outside traditional DeFi but i'm watching solana:CARDSccUMFKoPRZxt5vt3ksUbxEFEcnZ3H2pd3dKxYjp economics carefully DeFiLlama's revenue figure is net of card buybacks, not net profit after operating expenses and only 0.9% of the latest 30D revenue was reflected in tracked tokenholder buybacks & burns estimated ~59M CARDS unlocking monthly, against ~1.1M tokens burned per month that's a significant supply imbalance tbh i'm increasingly interested in Collector Crypt as a consumer crypto business NFA, solana:CARDSccUMFKoPRZxt5vt3ksUbxEFEcnZ3H2pd3dKxYjp is on my watchlist

➥ $PENDLE has lost 93% of its TVL from ATH for context, @pendle_fi's TVL peaked at $13.39B in Sept 2025 as of October 24, DeFiLlama reports: - $958M TVL, -20% / 30D - $815.6M DEX volume / 30D - $452K protocol revenue / 30D - $129.8M Boros open interest but its new derivatives product has already processed over $7B in trading volume Pendle's official investor dashboard shows: → $94.4B+ cumulative Pendle V2 trading volume → $7.1B cumulative Boros trading volume → $152M Boros volume / 7D @boros_fi has now processed ~7.5% of Pendle V2's lifetime trading volume, despite being a much younger product i think this is where the next part of the $PENDLE thesis gets interesting - Pendle V2 built its business around splitting yield-bearing assets into principal and yield exposure - Boros takes that model into perpetual funding rates instead of simply earning floating funding, traders can hedge or speculate on where those rates are heading and that's a market that exists regardless of which stablecoin or yield-farming strategy is popular there's also an important difference in monetization Pendle's investor dashboard currently shows $15.9M annualized revenue for V2, compared with only $800K for Boros so Boros has meaningful trading activity, but it remains a much smaller revenue contributor its revenue is also retained internally rather than distributed to token holders i'm interested in $PENDLE as an onchain interest-rate infra play the combination of fixed-yield markets and funding-rate derivatives gives Pendle exposure to 2 different sources of demand but I'm not ignoring the declining TVL or the relatively modest revenue coming from Boros i hope Boros growing beyond $130M OI while turning more of its trading activity into sustainable protocol revenue if that happens alongside a recovery in V2 deposits, the investment case becomes much more interesting for now, I'm keeping $PENDLE on my watchlist