Pinned Tweet
We started small. A community space for crypto people
Looking for credible info, connection, and a voice.
Today, that idea has grown into Our Crypto Talk (OCT)
The first media house born on socials. 🧵👇
Looking for credible info, connection, and a voice.
Today, that idea has grown into Our Crypto Talk (OCT)
The first media house born on socials. 🧵👇
45
26
196
101,730
We've made 8 bold predictions (NFA) for the upcoming bull run 😎
$TAO => $1000
$AVAX => Top 10 crypto again
$LINK => New All Time High
$IO => 5x from here
$ANYONE => 10x from here
$SYRUP => $1B market cap
$LIT => $3B market cap
$GEOD => 5x from here
Why do we back them? 🧵 👇
$TAO => $1000
$AVAX => Top 10 crypto again
$LINK => New All Time High
$IO => 5x from here
$ANYONE => 10x from here
$SYRUP => $1B market cap
$LIT => $3B market cap
$GEOD => 5x from here
Why do we back them? 🧵 👇
7
7
47
5,551
8/ $LIT | @Lighter_xyz
Why $LIT | @Lighter_xyz is at least a $3B MC project for us?
$LIT has done a 5x in four months and just crossed $5.30. And yesterday Bitwise launched Europe's first Lighter ETP on Deutsche Börse Xetra.
My take: this shouldn't stay a sub-$3B token. Here's the case, and what tup in one line:
➠ In March, LIT bottomed at $0.78. Airdrop farmers had left, volume had collapsed, and the timeline had written it off as another farm-and-dump.
➠ Today it's $5.30, the exchange is back above $50B in monthly perp volume, it's plugged into Robinhood, and the first institutional product on the token trades on Germany's main exchange.
✦ The $3B question, no spin
At $5.30, with 250M LIT circulating, the market cap is about $1.33B. $3B means roughly $12 per token, about 2.3x from here.
For scale, Hyperliquid sits at around $20.8B. Right now the market values Lighter at about 1/16th of the category leader. $3B would put it at about 1/7th.
Can a top-three perp DEX, backed by Founders Fund, Ribbit, Haun and Robinhood Ventures, with a live Robinhood distribution deal, be worth 1/7th of Hyperliquid? That's the whole bet. It isn't a claim that LIT is mispriced today. On current earnings it trades at roughly the same multiple as HYPE. It's a bet that Lighter's revenue keeps growing faster than the market expects.
✦ The comeback is in the data, not just the chart
In February this looked finished. Weekly perp volume had fallen roughly 6x from the November peak after airdrop farming ended.
Here's where it is now:
➠ $54B in perp volume over the last 30 days, $2B+ on a typical day
➠ $844M in open interest
➠ TVL at $741M, up 30% in a month
➠ $1.8 trillion in cumulative perp volume
Revenue is growing again too. Q3 revenue is already above Q2 with a week left in the quarter. That's the first quarter-on-quarter increase since the launch-quarter peak.
✦ Real revenue, zero incentives, buybacks and burns
This is the part most perp DEX tokens can't claim.
Lighter has spent $0 on incentives. No emissions subsidising volume. Trailing annual revenue is about $65M, and more than $28M has gone into open-market LIT buybacks since launch.
It also moved from simple buybacks to buyback and burn, so supply is permanently removed rather than sitting in a treasury. On top of that, a revenue-share deal with Circle on USDC balances adds a steady income stream that doesn't depend on how busy trading is.
✦ Robinhood is the distribution play nobody priced in
Since July, Lighter's trading engine has been live inside the Robinhood ecosystem. In just the last 30 days, the Robinhood Chain deployment did over $10B in perp volume and produced nearly a third of Lighter's total revenue.
This is what separates Lighter from other "Hyperliquid challengers." It doesn't have to win crypto-native traders one by one. It has a pipe into one of the largest retail brokerages in the world.
✦ The Bitwise ETP: a signal more than a flow
Bitwise launched the Lighter Staking ETP (ticker BLIT) on Deutsche Börse Xetra. It's physically backed by LIT in BitGo cold storage, with Jane Street, Flow Traders and DRW making markets. European investors can now buy LIT through an ordinary brokerage account.
Context matters: Bitwise launched a Hyperliquid staking ETP in April. Lighter is only the second perp DEX token it has built a product around. That puts Lighter in the "institutional product" tier of the category.
Being honest about size: BLIT started with under $5M in assets, and staking isn't live yet. The point isn't the day-one inflow. The point is that a regulated door now exists.
✦ The honest counterpoint
The unlock cliff is close. On December 27, 2026, the 50% of supply held by the team and investors starts vesting linearly over three years.
That's roughly 456K LIT a day, around $2.4M per day at today's price. Current buybacks are nowhere near that. Unless revenue grows a lot, this is the main source of supply pressure heading into 2027.
The float is small. Only 25% of supply circulates, which is part of why the price can move 5x in four months. The same thin float works in reverse.
Zero retail fees cut both ways. Lighter makes much less per dollar of volume than Hyperliquid. The volume is real, but turning it into revenue is still in progress.
Competition is intense. Hyperliquid, Aster and others are fighting for the same traders, and switching costs are low.
✦ Bottom line
Same disclaimer as always: there's no guaranteed trade in crypto, this is speculation, and none of it is financial advice.
A token that was written off in March is now a 5x, with a Robinhood distribution pipe, zero-incentive revenue going into buybacks and burns, and a Bitwise ETP on Xetra.
At $1.33B, the market is still valuing it as a distant runner-up.
$3B isn't just going to happen. It needs the revenue curve to keep rising through the December unlock. But if Lighter becomes the Robinhood-native perp venture it's positioning itself as, is 1/16th of Hyperliquid really the right price?
Image 3 credits: @thelearningpill
1
0
2
473
Will $GEOD | @GEODNET do a 5x in 2027? 👀
The setup in one line:
➠ GEODNET is already billing 150+ enterprise customers, did $2.78M in revenue in Q3 2026 alone, and uses 80% of that revenue to buy back and burn its own token every week.
➠ The market values all of that at is real and compouding. 2026 has been the year of the tokens with revenue
✦ Quarterly protocol revenue in 2026:
Q1: $1.75M
Q2: $2.59M
Q3: $2.78M
That's ~$7.1M in the first nine months of 2026, already ~1.7x everything GEODNET made in all of 2025 (~$4.2M). Q3 alone was more than double Q3 2025.
The last 30 days did ~$927K. Annualize that and you're at an ~$11M run rate.
And this isn't fee revenue from traders flipping a token. It's companies paying for positioning data because their machines literally don't work without it.
This is huge because this is a great working and selling product.
✦ The tech is the kind big players actually want
Regular GPS is accurate to a few meters. Fine for your phone. Useless for a tractor autosteering a row, a drone spraying a field, or a robot on a construction site. Those need centimeter accuracy, and that comes from RTK correction networks.
Historically, those networks were built by governments and incumbents like Trimble and Hexagon, station by station, over decades, at massive cost.
GEODNET changed the model: community-hosted base stations costing a few hundred dollars, rewarded in GEOD.
The result: 22,000+ stations across 160 countries, the largest RTK network in the world.
For context, Romania's government network runs around 50 stations, and operators there are choosing GEODNET instead.
Who's plugged in: DJI, Quectel, DroneDeploy, Propeller, and the USDA, which partnered with GEODNET to bring affordable RTK to American farmers. VanEck invested directly in the token.
✦ The physical AI tailwind
Every robot, drone, autonomous tractor and delivery bot has the same problem: it needs to know exactly where it is.
That's why GEODNET now pitches itself as the positioning layer for physical AI, and why the customer list keeps growing.
The HyfixAI partnership for GEO-SWARM, an autonomous drone-in-a-box, is lined up for late 2026, and India is next on the expansion list.
Robotics demand doesn't care about crypto cycles. That's what makes this revenue different.
✦ Supply
Not going to oversell this part.
Circulating supply is roughly 47% of the 1B max, so FDV sits around 2x the market cap. Miners are still paid in GEOD, so emissions are real.
BUT the math has turned. 80% of revenue goes to weekly buybacks and burns, and after the August halving, GEOD went net deflationary on August 1, 2026. More tokens are now being burned than issued.
✦ The 5x math
5x from ~$145M is ~$725M.
Today GEODNET trades at roughly 13x its revenue run rate. If it keeps doubling revenue year over year, which is exactly what Q3 just did, 2027 revenue lands somewhere in the $20M to $25M range. At $725M, that's ~30x revenue.
Rich? A bit. Crazy for a network growing 2x a year that burns its own supply with every paying customer? Not really.
We've seen worse performing projects do much better with their tokens, so I definitely wouldn't bet against it.
✦ Bottom line
Same disclaimer as always: there's no guaranteed trade in crypto, this is speculation, and none of it is financial advice.
Here's what I keep coming back to: the largest RTK network on earth, doubling revenue, 150+ paying enterprises, a USDA partnership, and a token that gets scarcer every time a customer pays. Priced like a mid-cap narrative token.
So do you really think the network the USDA and DJI already run on stays a $145M asset through 2027?
0
0
2
433
WE ZOOMED OUT ON ECOSYSTEM 💪
Now let's zoom out on charts.
The mood on X right now is fear, but sentiment and structure are two different things.
If you look at BTC, Total 2, ETH/BTC and USDT dominance together, the setup looks a lot like the early phase of the last cycle.
rts are showing.
Bitcoin is repeating its 2023 pattern
BTC just printed a pullback that looks very close to the one from mid-2023, when it ranged under $30K before the real move started.
Back then, most people read that range as weakness and sold into it.
Now we have the same shape forming around the $80K area, after a strong recovery from the lows near $60K.
👉 Total 2 is showing bullish divergence again
Price on the altcoin market cap made a lower low while RSI made a higher low, the same signal we saw at the 2023 bottom.
That setup preceded a long climb from around $400B to well above $1.7T.
Total 2 is now sitting near $1.05T, and the divergence is already playing out with a bounce off the lows.
👉 ETH is retesting the golden pocket against BTC
ETH/BTC broke out of its falling wedge and came back to retest the golden pocket zone.
A clean retest of broken structure is usually where strong rotations get their footing.
If ETH starts leading again, capital tends to flow down the risk curve into altcoins.
👉 USDT dominance is rejecting from the top
Dominance has been climbing in a rising channel for years, and it just got turned away near 9%.
It is now heading back toward long-term trendline support around 6%.
Falling dominance means money leaving stablecoins and going back into risk assets.
Sentiment is bearish, but the charts are lining up for the opposite.
Nothing here is financial advice, just what the structure is saying.
Now let's zoom out on charts.
The mood on X right now is fear, but sentiment and structure are two different things.
If you look at BTC, Total 2, ETH/BTC and USDT dominance together, the setup looks a lot like the early phase of the last cycle.
rts are showing.
Bitcoin is repeating its 2023 pattern
BTC just printed a pullback that looks very close to the one from mid-2023, when it ranged under $30K before the real move started.
Back then, most people read that range as weakness and sold into it.
Now we have the same shape forming around the $80K area, after a strong recovery from the lows near $60K.
👉 Total 2 is showing bullish divergence again
Price on the altcoin market cap made a lower low while RSI made a higher low, the same signal we saw at the 2023 bottom.
That setup preceded a long climb from around $400B to well above $1.7T.
Total 2 is now sitting near $1.05T, and the divergence is already playing out with a bounce off the lows.
👉 ETH is retesting the golden pocket against BTC
ETH/BTC broke out of its falling wedge and came back to retest the golden pocket zone.
A clean retest of broken structure is usually where strong rotations get their footing.
If ETH starts leading again, capital tends to flow down the risk curve into altcoins.
👉 USDT dominance is rejecting from the top
Dominance has been climbing in a rising channel for years, and it just got turned away near 9%.
It is now heading back toward long-term trendline support around 6%.
Falling dominance means money leaving stablecoins and going back into risk assets.
Sentiment is bearish, but the charts are lining up for the opposite.
Nothing here is financial advice, just what the structure is saying.
Sometimes, its not just the charts that you need to zoom out 👀
Which dips are you buying?
👇
3
7
21
3,191
Our Crypto Talk retweeted
Sometimes, its not just the charts that you need to zoom out 👀
Which dips are you buying?
👇
Which dips are you buying?
👇
55
126
1,046
126,180
Our Crypto Talk retweeted
Arthur Hayes sold "bottoms" in 2026
He lined up another sale today
Here is every sale he has made in 2026, from sale price to price today.
$HYPE $65.2 → $81 (+24%)
$NEAR $2.23 → $4.91 (+120%)
$ZEC $390 → $1,220 (+200%+)
$WLD $0.41 → $0.58 (+40%)
Now he is selling $ETH he said HYPE would beat every top ten coin through year end, with a $150 target for August. Three days later he sold the entire bag.
He called HYPE, ZEC and NEAR his holy trinity on May 22 and was out of all three by Jun 5, with ZEC dumped right after a 30% drop on the Orchard bug.
WLD went the same way, sold a day after he said he would hold it through the SpaceX IPO. ZachXBT accused him of using followers as exit liquidity on the whole run.
Each exit came right after a flush, with NEAR down 22% on the day. A wallet linked to him even bought back about $2M of HYPE on Jun 8 near $59, and HYPE later hit $97.96 in September.
Where this leaves the latest sale
His ETH and ENA sales sit almost exactly at today's prices, so it is too early to judge this one.
But after four June misses it is hard to treat his exit as a signal, since he keeps selling the bottom of the flush while the market recovers without him.
Do you fade him here or respect the caution?
He lined up another sale today
Here is every sale he has made in 2026, from sale price to price today.
$HYPE $65.2 → $81 (+24%)
$NEAR $2.23 → $4.91 (+120%)
$ZEC $390 → $1,220 (+200%+)
$WLD $0.41 → $0.58 (+40%)
Now he is selling $ETH he said HYPE would beat every top ten coin through year end, with a $150 target for August. Three days later he sold the entire bag.
He called HYPE, ZEC and NEAR his holy trinity on May 22 and was out of all three by Jun 5, with ZEC dumped right after a 30% drop on the Orchard bug.
WLD went the same way, sold a day after he said he would hold it through the SpaceX IPO. ZachXBT accused him of using followers as exit liquidity on the whole run.
Each exit came right after a flush, with NEAR down 22% on the day. A wallet linked to him even bought back about $2M of HYPE on Jun 8 near $59, and HYPE later hit $97.96 in September.
Where this leaves the latest sale
His ETH and ENA sales sit almost exactly at today's prices, so it is too early to judge this one.
But after four June misses it is hard to treat his exit as a signal, since he keeps selling the bottom of the flush while the market recovers without him.
Do you fade him here or respect the caution?
28
18
128
21,836
Sometimes, its not just the charts that you need to zoom out 👀
Which dips are you buying?
👇
Which dips are you buying?
👇
55
126
1,046
126,180
Arthur Hayes sold "bottoms" in 2026
He lined up another sale today
Here is every sale he has made in 2026, from sale price to price today.
$HYPE $65.2 → $81 (+24%)
$NEAR $2.23 → $4.91 (+120%)
$ZEC $390 → $1,220 (+200%+)
$WLD $0.41 → $0.58 (+40%)
Now he is selling $ETH he said HYPE would beat every top ten coin through year end, with a $150 target for August. Three days later he sold the entire bag.
He called HYPE, ZEC and NEAR his holy trinity on May 22 and was out of all three by Jun 5, with ZEC dumped right after a 30% drop on the Orchard bug.
WLD went the same way, sold a day after he said he would hold it through the SpaceX IPO. ZachXBT accused him of using followers as exit liquidity on the whole run.
Each exit came right after a flush, with NEAR down 22% on the day. A wallet linked to him even bought back about $2M of HYPE on Jun 8 near $59, and HYPE later hit $97.96 in September.
Where this leaves the latest sale
His ETH and ENA sales sit almost exactly at today's prices, so it is too early to judge this one.
But after four June misses it is hard to treat his exit as a signal, since he keeps selling the bottom of the flush while the market recovers without him.
Do you fade him here or respect the caution?
He lined up another sale today
Here is every sale he has made in 2026, from sale price to price today.
$HYPE $65.2 → $81 (+24%)
$NEAR $2.23 → $4.91 (+120%)
$ZEC $390 → $1,220 (+200%+)
$WLD $0.41 → $0.58 (+40%)
Now he is selling $ETH he said HYPE would beat every top ten coin through year end, with a $150 target for August. Three days later he sold the entire bag.
He called HYPE, ZEC and NEAR his holy trinity on May 22 and was out of all three by Jun 5, with ZEC dumped right after a 30% drop on the Orchard bug.
WLD went the same way, sold a day after he said he would hold it through the SpaceX IPO. ZachXBT accused him of using followers as exit liquidity on the whole run.
Each exit came right after a flush, with NEAR down 22% on the day. A wallet linked to him even bought back about $2M of HYPE on Jun 8 near $59, and HYPE later hit $97.96 in September.
Where this leaves the latest sale
His ETH and ENA sales sit almost exactly at today's prices, so it is too early to judge this one.
But after four June misses it is hard to treat his exit as a signal, since he keeps selling the bottom of the flush while the market recovers without him.
Do you fade him here or respect the caution?
28
18
128
21,836
Will $CARDS | @Collector_Crypt do a 5x in 2027? 👀
The setup in one line:
➠ Collector Crypt is a top-10 revenue protocol in all of crypto, did $18.1M in revenue in the last 30 days alone, and is out-earning Uniswap, Polymarket, Aave and Chainlink.
➠ The market values all of revenue is real and compounding. 2026 has been the year of the tokens with revenue
✦ Quarterly gross profit:
Q3 2025: $10.2M
Q1 2026: $11.9M
Q3 2026: $25.4M
Q3 2026 was a record quarter: $433.5M in pack sales and $25.4M in gross profit, ~2.5x the same quarter last year.
The last 30 days did ~$18.1M. That’s #7 on DefiLlama’s revenue rankings across ALL of crypto, and #5 if you strip out stablecoin issuers. On Solana, only @Pumpfun earns more.
And this isn’t fee revenue from traders flipping a memecoin. It’s collectors buying packs of real Pokémon cards, at scale, every single day (I know a few of them tbh 🤷♂️ )
All of it is run by a team of 8. That’s ~$4M in revenue per employee.
✦ Now compare that to Uniswap
Just to tell you - we're huge fans of Uniswap here at Our Crypto Talk so this is no way a diss.
Uniswap, last 30 days: $8.2M in revenue. Market cap: ~$4.6B.
Collector Crypt, last 30 days: $18.1M in revenue. Market cap: ~$150M.
$CARDS earns 2.2x what $UNI earns, at roughly 1/30th of the valuation.
This is all I need to know and all I need to tell you.
✦ Tokenization that’s actually backed by something
Most “RWA” talk is about treasuries and paperwork. Collector Crypt tokenizes something people already obsess over.
Real graded cards are stored in vaults and tokenized on Solana. You can open packs onchain, trade the cards instantly, or redeem them and get the physical card shipped to you.
This isn’t theoretical:
$55.1M of tokenized card inventory
30%+ of users have redeemed physical cards
Two 1st Edition Charizards sold in September for $600K and $825K
$1B+ in cumulative volume
This is RWA you can actually hold in your hand.
✦ The collector market tailwind
Trading card games are a ~$9.2B market in 2026. Pokémon alone does about $2B a year in card sales. Zoom out to global collectibles and you’re looking at $600B+.
Almost none of it is onchain yet.
Collector Crypt is already the leader of the slice that is. Its Q3 revenue was 3.3x that of its nearest rival, Courtyard.
Distribution keeps stacking up too:
Jupiter started selling packs in July, and active wallets went from 7K to 9.1K in 30 days. Coincidence? 🤔
Solflare now has a packs integration
Rarible’s Gacha Station runs on Collector Crypt
Collectors don’t care about crypto cycles. Charizard was valuable before Bitcoin existed. That’s what makes this revenue different.
✦ Supply
Not going to oversell this part.
Max supply is 2B, and only ~46% is circulating, so FDV is ~$700M. The next unlock lands on October 29.
Value capture is also informal. There’s no revenue share to holders, and the team hasn’t promised one.
BUT buybacks have started showing up onchain. 25.5M CARDS have been burned so far, across two burns in August and October.
✦ The 5x math
5x from ~$150M is ~$750M.
Using the more conservative number, Q3 gross profit, the annualized run rate is ~$100M. At $750M, that’s ~7.5x earnings.
Using the last 30 days of revenue, the run rate is ~$218M. At $750M, that’s ~3.4x.
Rich? Not even close. Find me another top-10 revenue protocol in crypto that trades at single-digit multiples.
We’ve seen projects with a fraction of this revenue do much better with their tokens, so I definitely wouldn’t bet against it.
✦ Bottom line
Same disclaimer as always: there’s no guaranteed trade in crypto, this is speculation, and none of it is financial advice.
Here’s what I keep coming back to: a top-10 revenue protocol, the onchain leader in a $9B+ card market, real Charizards trading for six figures, and a team of 8 printing record quarters.
So do you really think the protocol out-earning Uniswap stays a $150M asset through 2027?
The setup in one line:
➠ Collector Crypt is a top-10 revenue protocol in all of crypto, did $18.1M in revenue in the last 30 days alone, and is out-earning Uniswap, Polymarket, Aave and Chainlink.
➠ The market values all of revenue is real and compounding. 2026 has been the year of the tokens with revenue
✦ Quarterly gross profit:
Q3 2025: $10.2M
Q1 2026: $11.9M
Q3 2026: $25.4M
Q3 2026 was a record quarter: $433.5M in pack sales and $25.4M in gross profit, ~2.5x the same quarter last year.
The last 30 days did ~$18.1M. That’s #7 on DefiLlama’s revenue rankings across ALL of crypto, and #5 if you strip out stablecoin issuers. On Solana, only @Pumpfun earns more.
And this isn’t fee revenue from traders flipping a memecoin. It’s collectors buying packs of real Pokémon cards, at scale, every single day (I know a few of them tbh 🤷♂️ )
All of it is run by a team of 8. That’s ~$4M in revenue per employee.
✦ Now compare that to Uniswap
Just to tell you - we're huge fans of Uniswap here at Our Crypto Talk so this is no way a diss.
Uniswap, last 30 days: $8.2M in revenue. Market cap: ~$4.6B.
Collector Crypt, last 30 days: $18.1M in revenue. Market cap: ~$150M.
$CARDS earns 2.2x what $UNI earns, at roughly 1/30th of the valuation.
This is all I need to know and all I need to tell you.
✦ Tokenization that’s actually backed by something
Most “RWA” talk is about treasuries and paperwork. Collector Crypt tokenizes something people already obsess over.
Real graded cards are stored in vaults and tokenized on Solana. You can open packs onchain, trade the cards instantly, or redeem them and get the physical card shipped to you.
This isn’t theoretical:
$55.1M of tokenized card inventory
30%+ of users have redeemed physical cards
Two 1st Edition Charizards sold in September for $600K and $825K
$1B+ in cumulative volume
This is RWA you can actually hold in your hand.
✦ The collector market tailwind
Trading card games are a ~$9.2B market in 2026. Pokémon alone does about $2B a year in card sales. Zoom out to global collectibles and you’re looking at $600B+.
Almost none of it is onchain yet.
Collector Crypt is already the leader of the slice that is. Its Q3 revenue was 3.3x that of its nearest rival, Courtyard.
Distribution keeps stacking up too:
Jupiter started selling packs in July, and active wallets went from 7K to 9.1K in 30 days. Coincidence? 🤔
Solflare now has a packs integration
Rarible’s Gacha Station runs on Collector Crypt
Collectors don’t care about crypto cycles. Charizard was valuable before Bitcoin existed. That’s what makes this revenue different.
✦ Supply
Not going to oversell this part.
Max supply is 2B, and only ~46% is circulating, so FDV is ~$700M. The next unlock lands on October 29.
Value capture is also informal. There’s no revenue share to holders, and the team hasn’t promised one.
BUT buybacks have started showing up onchain. 25.5M CARDS have been burned so far, across two burns in August and October.
✦ The 5x math
5x from ~$150M is ~$750M.
Using the more conservative number, Q3 gross profit, the annualized run rate is ~$100M. At $750M, that’s ~7.5x earnings.
Using the last 30 days of revenue, the run rate is ~$218M. At $750M, that’s ~3.4x.
Rich? Not even close. Find me another top-10 revenue protocol in crypto that trades at single-digit multiples.
We’ve seen projects with a fraction of this revenue do much better with their tokens, so I definitely wouldn’t bet against it.
✦ Bottom line
Same disclaimer as always: there’s no guaranteed trade in crypto, this is speculation, and none of it is financial advice.
Here’s what I keep coming back to: a top-10 revenue protocol, the onchain leader in a $9B+ card market, real Charizards trading for six figures, and a team of 8 printing record quarters.
So do you really think the protocol out-earning Uniswap stays a $150M asset through 2027?
13
6
38
6,171
$NEAR vs $ICP
Dom may be right about the cryptography, but he's losing the only scoreboard that pays anyone.
> Chain TVL: $244M vs $12M
> Below ATH: -76% vs -99.7%
> Market cap / TVL: ~25x vs ~100x
> Since Feb : 4.3x vs flat
👉 What Dom actually said about NEAR
Dom shared a PhD engineerdential Intents a permissioned instance with trusted operators, no public code and no public operator list.
He later escalated to calling it snake oil and floated legal action over vetKeys, putting his odds at 70% to 85%, though all of that remains allegation.
👉 Where the criticism lands and where not
On the trust model he has a point, since a private shard with a handful of permissioned validators and a TEE bridge is not threshold cryptography.
Disclosure is weaker ground, because NEAR described the permissioned shard and TEE bridge publicly from its February launch.
👉 What the market chose to pay for
Confidential Intents now holds $171M, up 6.4x since June, though part of that growth was incentivized. All of ICP holds about $12M.
👉 My take
You could argue users never asked for the purest design, they asked for private swaps with compliance built in, and NEAR shipped that first.
Dom's engineering points deserve a technical answer, but a founder attacking a rival from 99.7% below ATH will always get read as marketing.
ICP's own docs also say standard subnet state is readable by node operators, so neither side offers privacy by default.
If you had to pick, does cryptographic purity still matter when the market keeps paying for the practical version?
Dom may be right about the cryptography, but he's losing the only scoreboard that pays anyone.
> Chain TVL: $244M vs $12M
> Below ATH: -76% vs -99.7%
> Market cap / TVL: ~25x vs ~100x
> Since Feb : 4.3x vs flat
👉 What Dom actually said about NEAR
Dom shared a PhD engineerdential Intents a permissioned instance with trusted operators, no public code and no public operator list.
He later escalated to calling it snake oil and floated legal action over vetKeys, putting his odds at 70% to 85%, though all of that remains allegation.
👉 Where the criticism lands and where not
On the trust model he has a point, since a private shard with a handful of permissioned validators and a TEE bridge is not threshold cryptography.
Disclosure is weaker ground, because NEAR described the permissioned shard and TEE bridge publicly from its February launch.
👉 What the market chose to pay for
Confidential Intents now holds $171M, up 6.4x since June, though part of that growth was incentivized. All of ICP holds about $12M.
👉 My take
You could argue users never asked for the purest design, they asked for private swaps with compliance built in, and NEAR shipped that first.
Dom's engineering points deserve a technical answer, but a founder attacking a rival from 99.7% below ATH will always get read as marketing.
ICP's own docs also say standard subnet state is readable by node operators, so neither side offers privacy by default.
If you had to pick, does cryptographic purity still matter when the market keeps paying for the practical version?
48
31
132
16,055
People keep sorting these three into one bucket. They’re not the same product. Each one does a different job.
✦ Quantus: quantum-safe money.
Post-quantum cash, live on mainnet. It deliberately has no smart contracts. The job is holding value that holds up against future quantum uilding apps in public.
Its scaling comes from STARK proofs, and everything on it is a transparent, programmable environment for DeFi and apps. Accounts still use elliptic-curve signatures.
✦ $XNT + Leviathan: building apps in private.
@NeptunePrivacy keeps the base layer private, using hash-based STARKs with no trusted setup. Leviathan is the programmable layer on top: a wallet, NeptuneSwap (a DEX), and Private AI, all live on public testnet.
Quantum-safe money. Public apps. Private apps.
Three chains, three jobs.
neptune-privacy.gitbook.io/leviathan
✦ Quantus: quantum-safe money.
Post-quantum cash, live on mainnet. It deliberately has no smart contracts. The job is holding value that holds up against future quantum uilding apps in public.
Its scaling comes from STARK proofs, and everything on it is a transparent, programmable environment for DeFi and apps. Accounts still use elliptic-curve signatures.
✦ $XNT + Leviathan: building apps in private.
@NeptunePrivacy keeps the base layer private, using hash-based STARKs with no trusted setup. Leviathan is the programmable layer on top: a wallet, NeptuneSwap (a DEX), and Private AI, all live on public testnet.
Quantum-safe money. Public apps. Private apps.
Three chains, three jobs.
neptune-privacy.gitbook.io/leviathan
10
5
20
4,056
Our Crypto Talk retweeted
$NEAR vs $ICP
Dom may be right about the cryptography, but he's losing the only scoreboard that pays anyone.
> Chain TVL: $244M vs $12M
> Below ATH: -76% vs -99.7%
> Market cap / TVL: ~25x vs ~100x
> Since Feb : 4.3x vs flat
👉 What Dom actually said about NEAR
Dom shared a PhD engineerdential Intents a permissioned instance with trusted operators, no public code and no public operator list.
He later escalated to calling it snake oil and floated legal action over vetKeys, putting his odds at 70% to 85%, though all of that remains allegation.
👉 Where the criticism lands and where not
On the trust model he has a point, since a private shard with a handful of permissioned validators and a TEE bridge is not threshold cryptography.
Disclosure is weaker ground, because NEAR described the permissioned shard and TEE bridge publicly from its February launch.
👉 What the market chose to pay for
Confidential Intents now holds $171M, up 6.4x since June, though part of that growth was incentivized. All of ICP holds about $12M.
👉 My take
You could argue users never asked for the purest design, they asked for private swaps with compliance built in, and NEAR shipped that first.
Dom's engineering points deserve a technical answer, but a founder attacking a rival from 99.7% below ATH will always get read as marketing.
ICP's own docs also say standard subnet state is readable by node operators, so neither side offers privacy by default.
If you had to pick, does cryptographic purity still matter when the market keeps paying for the practical version?
Dom may be right about the cryptography, but he's losing the only scoreboard that pays anyone.
> Chain TVL: $244M vs $12M
> Below ATH: -76% vs -99.7%
> Market cap / TVL: ~25x vs ~100x
> Since Feb : 4.3x vs flat
👉 What Dom actually said about NEAR
Dom shared a PhD engineerdential Intents a permissioned instance with trusted operators, no public code and no public operator list.
He later escalated to calling it snake oil and floated legal action over vetKeys, putting his odds at 70% to 85%, though all of that remains allegation.
👉 Where the criticism lands and where not
On the trust model he has a point, since a private shard with a handful of permissioned validators and a TEE bridge is not threshold cryptography.
Disclosure is weaker ground, because NEAR described the permissioned shard and TEE bridge publicly from its February launch.
👉 What the market chose to pay for
Confidential Intents now holds $171M, up 6.4x since June, though part of that growth was incentivized. All of ICP holds about $12M.
👉 My take
You could argue users never asked for the purest design, they asked for private swaps with compliance built in, and NEAR shipped that first.
Dom's engineering points deserve a technical answer, but a founder attacking a rival from 99.7% below ATH will always get read as marketing.
ICP's own docs also say standard subnet state is readable by node operators, so neither side offers privacy by default.
If you had to pick, does cryptographic purity still matter when the market keeps paying for the practical version?
48
31
132
16,055