the Digital Asset Treasury Phenom is v clever but it all boils down to foundations selling tokens privately to VIPs for $x/token and using the proceeds to buy the tokens back publicly much higher at $2x/token obviously for much less tokens. We're just so good at financial engineering around here.

what seems to be a contrarian take here is that AMMs can only be likened to be the google glass of web3. There are still people out there who think they can be iterated on, but really the only iterations moving forward will need more and more centralisation for a modicum of better UX

I am extremely unsure of whether btc / ai trinity / gold outperforms over the next 5-10 years. Nothing stops this train?

tbh and all jokes aside literally no one at this point believes in the first part of this tweet. Almost all central banks follow the same Keynesian playbook and the dollar is the global reserve ccy.

$debtcoin might pay for my retirement Tbh fuck it debtcoin might even pay for America’s retirement. That social security deficit isn’t gonna plug itself.

$XPL IS THE NEW $XRP ERASE THE BANKS, ABOLISH SWIFT, GORILLON OF TPS

Funny that the tulip meta died. A cross border, credibly neutral, sufficiently decentralised 17th-century money rail sounds unbeatable. any idea why it failed?

In crypto you can make a multi billion + token project even if your product is only temporarily useful. $PUMP fits this bill exactly. Other interesting cases include the myriad of L2s on ETH, such as $ARB which are barely used today. Last cycle of course you had Axie ($AXS), NFTs with $BLUR etc. All multibillion dollar projects / all with a similar fate. It’s not the fault of the team that crypto investors poorly project out how sustainable the underlying economic activity is (which is extrinsic to the team’s ability to execute) and by extension earnings/cash flow..

$pump is quite clearly a terrible long term/ medium term ‘investment’ tbqh, only thing you gotta do is read (between the lines). Too many things that were off about the sale structure and a sprinkle of duplicity. Think the original call to hedge ICO contributions was the correct one irrespective of the ensuing result.

On the Pump Dot Fun Sale (@pumpdotfun): It is inconceivable to me to see $PUMP trade at a persistent 20%+ premium to the $4bn valuation ICO sale on pre-market venues such as @HyperliquidX , particularly on large >$100m volume and not insignificant OI. To me, that pre-market price is really a prediction market on one question: how quickly the project can pull in the full $600 million public hard cap. My view is that the raise will take much longer than people expect for a few reasons. The raise and therefore the day 1 float is massive. Pump has already taken $720m from institutional/private investors at the same valuation (unbeknownst to participants :D). Add another $600 million from retail and you’re asking the alt-coin market to swallow $1.3 billion of fresh supply at a time when genuine dry powder feels scarce. Hard to say how much latent liquidity there is in the alt-coin markets willing to bid such opportunities, but my gut sense is that it is much less than Hyperliquid speculators think. Looking back to the closest comp is probably @worldlibertyfi , their $590m raise took months to fill out with POTUS and co on the board. Strongly believe there will be no to rush to fill this raise, despite the instant liquidity afforded, which obviously means this is incredibly bearish the nonsensical premium. Everyone will have enough time to participate. I have some sympathy to the argument that a higher pre-market price will result in a faster sale cap out, as nimble delta-neutral funds try to capture the pre-market<>ICO arb by buying the ICO and selling the perp but given OI constraints with e.g. HL OI at $50m, i.e. <10% of public deposit cap I find this to be an argument for the convergence of the arb since OI is nowhere near large enough to do the entire sale delta-neutral. The more plausible path is convergence to an equilibrium price thats further down as reality kicks in. Could the team back-stop the raise with its own $720 million war chest or juice the launch with clever incentives? Sure, absolutely. Its in their interest ... somewhat... despite the massive amounts of cash liquidity they've secured already. I'd assume they'd try to fill it especially if the raise itself is longer than expected, but that should give enough time to react and close closer to the ICO price. I don't think any discussion on revenues / rev share matter here given that most participants are gambling at a LTF.