Trendaavat aiheet
#
Bonk Eco continues to show strength amid $USELESS rally
#
Pump.fun to raise $1B token sale, traders speculating on airdrop
#
Boop.Fun leading the way with a new launchpad on Solana.

Robbie Petersen
Investing @dragonfly_xyz | prev @delphi_digital
There’s a compelling yet underexplored opportunity for stablecoin startups taking a vertical-specific approach
While stablecoins in isolation offer superior unit economics — lower costs, faster settlement, programmability — most payment flows are embedded within nuanced operational workflows that vary dramatically across industries
Trade finance is the most obvious example imo. While the payment itself is quite straightforward, there are vertical-specific nuances from bills of lading to certificates of origin to regulatory heterogeneity across geographies etc
Vertical-specific stabelcoin solutions that use the improved unit economics of stablecoins as a wedge to build a broader full-stack solution that integrates with and abstracts these operational workflows present an interesting opportunity
It’s also possible that, as stablecoin payments infra gets increasingly commoditized, verticalized approaches are best positioned to capture value as they build moats around (1) tailoring to the nuances of a specific industry and (2) owning more of the operational stack
2,69K
Whether or not a crypto project should return value to tokenholders can be reduced to a simple question:
Can you generate a higher ROIC than the risk free rate?
If the answer is yes, the project should reinvest these cashflows and grow the business
If the answer is no, the project should return this value to tokenholders
One of the many precedents crypto can learn from TradFi
759
Whether or not a crypto project should return value to tokenholders can be reduced to a simple question:
Can you generate a higher ROIC than the risk free rate?
If the answer is yes, the project should reinvest these cashflows and grow the business
If the answer is no, the project should return this value to tokenholders
One of the many precedents crypto can learn more TradFi
159
When you take the “who owns the end user?” question to its logical end, it’s not blockchains nor apps, but rather the tokens themselves that own the end user
A simple thought experiment proves this: why do you use one blockchain over another?
It’s not because of the chain itself. I’d also argue it’s not because of the apps. Irrespective of a handful of truly differentiated apps (eg Polymarket), all of the low hanging primitives — spot DEXs, perp DEXs, lend/borrow etc — look the same across every chain
Instead, the reason I use Solana is simply because Solana has tokens that I want to trade that Ethereum doesn't. And as soon as I want to trade AAVE or MKR, I'll use Ethereum. And if Base has a token I like, I'll use Base
In other words, user behavior is principally governed by the tokens themselves
In the near term, this suggests that the blockchain that wins will be the blockchain that is the leader with respect to “desirable tokens”
19,96K
When you take the “who owns the end user?” question to its logical end, it’s not blockchains nor apps, but rather the tokens themselves that own the end user
A simple thought experiment proves this: why do you use one blockchain over another?
It’s not because of the chain itself. I’d also argue it’s not because of the apps. Irrespective of a handful of truly differentiated apps (eg Polymarket), all of the low hanging primitives — spot DEXs, perp DEXs, lend/borrow etc — look the same across every chain
Instead, the reason I use Solana is simply because Solana has tokens that I want to trade that Ethereum doesn't. And as soon as I want to trade AAVE or MKR, I'll use Ethereum. And if Base has a token I like, I'll use Base
In other words, in a world where the principal goal of on-chain users is simply to make money, user behavior is ultimately governed by the atomic vehicle that makes this possible – tokens
In the near term, this suggests that the blockchain that wins will be the blockchain that is the leader with respect to “desirable tokens”
8,52K
Stablecoins are the next logical evolution of closed-loop payment networks
Historically, large merchants like Starbucks and Target built out their own internal payment networks in an attempt to circumvent fees paid to card networks and banks
Users upload funds onto their app → the merchant monetizes this “float” by investing it into liquid low-risk assets on the back-end → the merchant simply updates their internal ledger when the funds are spent
Given this model meaningfully improves their bottom-line, merchants have historically subsidized adoption with rewards
However, the tradeoff with closed-loop networks has always been interoperability — my Starbucks dollars aren’t fungible with my Target dollars given they exist on two independent payment networks
This has hamstrung the adoption of closed loop networks as users need to on and off-ramp into independent apps each time they want to spend
Blockchains and stablecoins however fundamentally change this
As open and programable networks, Amazon, Walmart and Target could each issue their own interoperable stablecoins
In other words, my Amazon dollars, Starbucks dollars, and Target dollars would all exist in the same wallet on the same open network (perhaps an even better model would be a consortium)
Said differently, stablecoins rails offer merchants all the benefits of having their own closed-loop payment network — float income, evading fees — with the same benefits of operating on an open network — interoperability
Stripe, Shopify, OpenAI, X, Amazon and Walmart are realizing that blockchains are credibly neutral infrastructure that allow them to own more of the payments stack themselves
While the incentives are there for merchants, the open question is whether consumers will overcome the path-dependent inertia of card payments
106,07K
Stablecoins are the next logical evolution of closed-loop payment networks
Historically, large merchants like Starbucks and Target built out their own internal payment networks in an attempt to circumvent fees paid to card networks and banks
Users upload funds onto their app → the merchant monetizes this “float” by investing it into liquid low-risk assets on the back-end → the merchant simply updates their internal ledger when the funds are spent
Given this model meaningfully improves their bottom-line, merchants have historically subsidized adoption with rewards
However, the tradeoff with closed-loop networks has always been interoperability — my Starbucks dollars aren’t fungible with my Target dollars given they exist on two independent payment networks
This has hamstrung the adoption of closed loop networks as users need to on and off-ramp into independent apps each time they want to spend
Blockchains and stablecoins however fundamentally change this
As open and programable networks, Amazon, Walmart and Target could each issue their own interoperable stablecoins
In other words, my Amazon dollars, Starbucks dollars, and Target dollars would all exist in the same wallet on the same open network (perhaps an even better model would be a consortium)
Said differently, stablecoins rails offer merchants all the benefits of having their own closed-loop payment network — float income, evading fees — with the same benefits of operating on an open network — interoperability
Stripe, Shopify, OpenAI, X, Amazon and Walmart are realizing that blockchains are credibly neutral infrastructure that allow them to own more of the payments stack themselves
While the incentives are there for merchants, the open question is whether consumers will overcome the path-dependent inertia of card payments
117
Johtavat
Rankkaus
Suosikit
Ketjussa trendaava
Trendaa X:ssä
Viimeisimmät suosituimmat rahoitukset
Merkittävin