🚨 StonkFun is quietly becoming a serious name in the launchpad revenue race. The latest numbers put it at #5 in 24H fees: • $529.1K fees • 8.4% market share • $148.47M spot volume for FOMO above it • $249K fees for Raydium LaunchLab below it • 1.19M $STONK was burned from the latest revenue cycle And the context matters. StonkFun’s 7D activity is down 50.8%, yet it is still producing more than half a million dollars in daily fees. If activity comes back across the launchpad sector, the interesting question is how much of that recovery StonkFun can capture. The revenue base is already there. Now it’s about consistency and market share. 🔥

🚨 $ENA DATs just had a 70% week, yet the mNAV is still sitting at only 0.51x. That tells you the move hasn’t really been driven by a valuation rerating. The underlying NAV has been doing the heavy lifting: • Total mNAV: 0.51x • Unlocked mNAV: 1.28x • NAV continues to climb • Market cap is still below the value of the underlying assets Basically, the market is paying around $0.51 for every $1 of NAV. If the NAV keeps growing and the market eventually starts closing that discount, there’s a second leg to the move that doesn’t require the underlying assets to explode. The first move was the market noticing it. The next one could be the market actually repricing it. 👀

$PENDLE Tokenomics check 👀 The supply side is looking very different from where it was earlier this year. • Emissions down 92% YTD • Buybacks running at multiples of new supply • sPENDLE has replaced the old locking system • Staked supply remains a key metric to watch • Revenue comes from YT yield share, AMM fees and Boros The important part is that supply dynamics are becoming increasingly favorable while the protocol continues to generate revenue from multiple products. I’d pay less attention to short-term price noise and more attention to how much supply is being staked, how fast new emissions are coming down, and where protocol fees are actually coming from. That’s where the real tokenomics story is. 🔥

Most people are reading Uniswap completely wrong. 👀 They see $200M+ in fees and assume $UNI is making $200M. That’s not how the economics work. Here’s the actual breakdown: Fees: • $209M over the last 30 days • This is what traders pay across the protocol • Most of it ultimately goes to liquidity providers Protocol revenue: • $16.1M over 30 days • This is the portion actually captured by the protocol Holders revenue: • $15.9M over 30 days • This is the revenue attributed to UNI holders through the protocol’s buyback/burn mechanisms That distinction is the entire point. Uniswap can generate more than $200M in fees while only capturing around $16M as protocol revenue. Looking at the fee number alone makes the protocol look like a massive cash machine for UNI, when the economics are much more nuanced. So when you value UNI, don't just screenshot “Fees” and call it earnings. Look at Fees → Revenue → Holders Revenue.

$ONDO is taking the RWA game to the next level 🔥 Ondo just launched Intelligent Portfolios, turning professionally designed investment strategies into a single onchain token. The first lineup is powered by portfolio strategies developed by BlackRock for Ondo: • High Income • Diversified Growth • High Growth Each portfolio is programmatically allocated and rebalanced, with exposure coming from tokenized stocks and ETFs backed by real securities. The bigger part is what you can do with the portfolio once it’s onchain: • 24/7 global access • Self-custody • Fully transparent onchain • Freely transferable • Composable across DeFi • Can potentially be used as collateral for lending and perps Ondo already has serious RWA scale: • $3.86B RWA value • 495K holders • $170M net inflows over 30D • 460 tokenized assets This is the evolution I’m watching. First Ondo tokenized the assets. Now it’s turning those assets into complete investment strategies. And as more stocks, ETFs, crypto, perps and other assets come onchain, the portfolio itself could become the main product. That’s a pretty powerful RWA primitive.

$NEAR ✍️ Something has changed with the NEAR thesis. Daily REV just hit its highest level since April 2024, and unlike the last major revenue cycle, NEAR Intents is now a major part of the story. That matters because NEAR is increasingly sitting at the intersection of liquidity, privacy and agent-driven activity. The latest numbers are already getting attention: • +81% NEAR from Sep 13 to Sep 20 • +119% dollar-denominated open interest • +21% open interest measured in NEAR • Funding hit 1.6x its 2-month median • $30B Intents volume • $48M Intents fees The Sep 17 confidential perps launch is an important catalyst, but the bigger story is the infrastructure being built underneath it. Cross-chain liquidity through Intents. Confidential execution. AI agents that can hold capital. A unified UX through https://t.co/p05YciAWWf. This is why I think the “just another L1” framing misses what NEAR is becoming. The real moat is the rails. 🚀

What if $ZEC is the alternative $BTC thesis… and $NEAR is the alternative $ETH thesis? That’s roughly how @mert frames it. NEAR already delivered sharding and is now connecting chains through NEAR Intents. Pretty interesting comparison. 🔥 https://t.co/On098vQcjY

Everyone is watching the $ZEC price. I’m watching the usage. 62,379 shielded transactions last week, the highest weekly total since 2022. Four-year high in actual shielded activity. That’s a metric the market shouldn’t ignore. 👀 https://t.co/P6kXumqaT5

This is the kind of growth you want to see from $JUP. 👀 Jupiter Lend just hit a new ATH with $2.41B in total deposits. Solana DeFi liquidity keeps getting deeper, and Jupiter is right at the center of it. 🚀 https://t.co/jtboet5K59

.@mert says the $ZEC thesis goes way beyond privacy. Privacy may be the current edge, but the bigger thesis is building a stronger store of value around privacy, fungibility, quantum resistance and scale. That’s a much bigger narrative than “privacy coin.” 🧠 https://t.co/TSeAJFupQz