Zugaaa

about 2 years ago

Hey, I'm Zuga! Sup?

233

FierceLord_ retweeted

4D bean tweeting things 🌱

about 20 hours ago

Tbh it’ll look better with $ANSEM sitting in my wallet. https://t.co/nTQaTK8HyS @blknoiz06

114

FierceLord_ retweeted

Dax

@thatsdax

6 days ago

RT for a chance to WIN a PS5 🤯⚠️🔥 I’m giving AWAY 25…😳‼️

22K

10K

FierceLord_ retweeted

Kiojame

@Kiojame_

5 days ago

A crypto neobank is a banking app that settles on stablecoins instead of traditional rails, paired with a Visa or Mastercard so users can spend their balances anywhere cards are accepted. For most of the last cycle, the question was whether this model could work. That question is settled. Cumulative card volume now sits at $10.7B across over 24M transactions, and monthly spend hit $866M in May 2026, up 16x in two years. The industry has reached one conclusion: the card is not the business. The card is the interface users see, the business is the settlement layer underneath it, and stablecoins are what make that layer different from a traditional bank. The card is borrowed. Settlement is the product Strip away the branding and a crypto neobank is mostly financial infrastructure. Traditional payment systems run authorization, clearing, funding, and settlement on banking hours and prefunded accounts, leaving capital idle while institutions wait for settlement windows. Stablecoins remove much of that friction. Value moves continuously, balances reconcile faster, and capital no longer sits trapped between weekends, holidays, and banking cutoffs. The strongest evidence is that Visa and Mastercard are adopting the model themselves. @Visa has expanded stablecoin settlement across multiple chains and pushed annualized volume into the billions. @Mastercard followed in June 2026 with intraday, weekend, and holiday stablecoin settlement, the exact periods where traditional settlement is least efficient. The networks many expected stablecoins to disrupt are integrating them instead, which says the value lies in settlement, not card issuance. Crypto neobanks are five different businesses Once the card is viewed as a front end, the category breaks into distinct models. A recent @Delphi_Digital report classifies companies by what they control rather than how their apps look. ➠Full-stack issuers own the BIN, network relationships, and issuer-of-record position, so they capture the largest share of economics. Delphi estimates licensed issuers receive 50-80% of interchange revenue against 10-35% for front-end brands. @raincards is the leading example, generating roughly $2.32B in cumulative volume and about 25% of observable onchain card volume by supplying infrastructure to other crypto apps. ➠Exchange-backed cards such as @coinbase, @Bybit_Official, @cryptocom use cards for retention, keeping balances inside the exchange rather than maximizing interchange. ➠DeFi-native cards including @ether_fi, @MetaMask, @gnosispay turn self-custodial wallets into spending accounts, letting users spend against onchain assets without moving funds back to exchanges. ➠Stablecoin-native neobanks such as @Plasma One, @KASTxyz build full dollar-account experiences where cards sit alongside transfers, FX, and savings. ➠Remittance-first providers such as @Felixpago, partly @RedotPay start with cross-border payments. The card becomes the final step that lets recipients spend received dollars locally. The distinction matters because it identifies where durable advantages exist. A branded card launches quickly now that issuing infrastructure has commoditized. The most defensible positions belong to companies that either own the issuing layer or serve segments competitors struggle to reach. The largest player does not look like a fintech Many assume the winner will be a premium fintech serving New York or Singapore. The data points elsewhere. @RedotPay accounts for nearly 65% of observable onchain card volume, an estimated $6.1B in cumulative spend, with growth coming largely from emerging markets where reliable banking and dollar access remain limited. There the product is not crypto. It is access to dollars and cheaper cross-border payments. Stablecoin transfers settle within seconds at costs below 1%, against a global remittance average above 6%. Much of this runs through Tron, where USDT has become a dominant medium for peer-to-peer dollar transfers. The long-term winner may be the company solving financial-access problems that developed-market users rarely encounter. The question has changed Most observers expect stablecoins to embed in the financial system rather than replace it. Incumbents adopt them, infrastructure providers consolidate, and a small number of crypto-native companies survive by owning distribution, regional advantages, or critical infrastructure. The rest risk becoming interchangeable card wrappers. So what investors and users ask has changed. It is no longer whether the card works. The card is assumed. What matters is what remains when the card is removed The account relationship, settlement infrastructure, regulatory position, local distribution, or user habit. Cards are easy to launch and increasingly easy to copy. A primary dollar account that users rely on every day is much harder to build. That is where the competition is now.

Kiojame_'s tweet photo. A crypto neobank is a banking app that settles on stablecoins instead of traditional rails, paired with a Visa or Mastercard so users can spend their balances anywhere cards are accepted.

For most of the last cycle, the question was whether this model could work.

That question is settled.

Cumulative card volume now sits at $10.7B across over 24M transactions, and monthly spend hit $866M in May 2026, up 16x in two years.

The industry has reached one conclusion: the card is not the business.

The card is the interface users see, the business is the settlement layer underneath it, and stablecoins are what make that layer different from a traditional bank.

The card is borrowed. Settlement is the product

Strip away the branding and a crypto neobank is mostly financial infrastructure.

Traditional payment systems run authorization, clearing, funding, and settlement on banking hours and prefunded accounts, leaving capital idle while institutions wait for settlement windows.

Stablecoins remove much of that friction. Value moves continuously, balances reconcile faster, and capital no longer sits trapped between weekends, holidays, and banking cutoffs.

The strongest evidence is that Visa and Mastercard are adopting the model themselves.

@Visa has expanded stablecoin settlement across multiple chains and pushed annualized volume into the billions.

@Mastercard followed in June 2026 with intraday, weekend, and holiday stablecoin settlement, the exact periods where traditional settlement is least efficient.

The networks many expected stablecoins to disrupt are integrating them instead, which says the value lies in settlement, not card issuance.

Crypto neobanks are five different businesses

Once the card is viewed as a front end, the category breaks into distinct models.

A recent @Delphi_Digital report classifies companies by what they control rather than how their apps look.

➠Full-stack issuers own the BIN, network relationships, and issuer-of-record position, so they capture the largest share of economics.

Delphi estimates licensed issuers receive 50-80% of interchange revenue against 10-35% for front-end brands.

@raincards is the leading example, generating roughly $2.32B in cumulative volume and about 25% of observable onchain card volume by supplying infrastructure to other crypto apps.

➠Exchange-backed cards such as @coinbase, @Bybit_Official, @cryptocom use cards for retention, keeping balances inside the exchange rather than maximizing interchange.

➠DeFi-native cards including @ether_fi, @MetaMask, @gnosispay turn self-custodial wallets into spending accounts, letting users spend against onchain assets without moving funds back to exchanges.

➠Stablecoin-native neobanks such as @Plasma One, @KASTxyz build full dollar-account experiences where cards sit alongside transfers, FX, and savings.

➠Remittance-first providers such as @Felixpago, partly @RedotPay start with cross-border payments.
The card becomes the final step that lets recipients spend received dollars locally.

The distinction matters because it identifies where durable advantages exist.

A branded card launches quickly now that issuing infrastructure has commoditized.

The most defensible positions belong to companies that either own the issuing layer or serve segments competitors struggle to reach.

The largest player does not look like a fintech

Many assume the winner will be a premium fintech serving New York or Singapore.

The data points elsewhere.

@RedotPay accounts for nearly 65% of observable onchain card volume, an estimated $6.1B in cumulative spend, with growth coming largely from emerging markets where reliable banking and dollar access remain limited.

There the product is not crypto. It is access to dollars and cheaper cross-border payments.

Stablecoin transfers settle within seconds at costs below 1%, against a global remittance average above 6%.

Much of this runs through Tron, where USDT has become a dominant medium for peer-to-peer dollar transfers.

The long-term winner may be the company solving financial-access problems that developed-market users rarely encounter.

The question has changed

Most observers expect stablecoins to embed in the financial system rather than replace it.

Incumbents adopt them, infrastructure providers consolidate, and a small number of crypto-native companies survive by owning distribution, regional advantages, or critical infrastructure.

The rest risk becoming interchangeable card wrappers.

So what investors and users ask has changed.

It is no longer whether the card works. The card is assumed. What matters is what remains when the card is removed

The account relationship, settlement infrastructure, regulatory position, local distribution, or user habit.

Cards are easy to launch and increasingly easy to copy. A primary dollar account that users rely on every day is much harder to build.

That is where the competition is now.

Who to follow

Artificial Bean

@BeanArtificial

TBA

@tba187

Roaming the Web3 ecosystem.

Andrew👤

@android7770

My life is about books, sports, development, learning something new, and the crypto world📚👨‍💻 #Crypto #Bitcoin #Bull🐂 Self-development👀🧠💙

6 days ago

@vstarbanks Would really love to win

FierceLord_ retweeted

Vitaly Ⓥ 火

@vstarbanks

6 days ago

$1,000 to one person if Cristiano Ronaldo scores today Repost & follow me @vstarbanks 🇵🇹

102K

FierceLord_ retweeted

Kiojame

@Kiojame_

6 days ago

Stablecoin Reserves, Attestations, and Audits A stablecoin promises to maintain a value of one dollar. Whether that promise holds depends on two questions: what assets back the token, and how anyone confirms those assets exist. The phrase "backed 1:1" hides important differences. Some issuers hold cash and short-term U.S. Treasury bills, while others rely on crypto collateral or hedged trading strategies. Understanding a stablecoin means examining both its reserves and the evidence behind them. Three Ways to Back a Dollar Stablecoins generally use one of three reserve models. ➠Fiat-backed stablecoins are supported by off-chain reserves such as cash, bank deposits, and short-term Treasury bills, with issuers creating one token for each dollar held. $USDC and $USDT are the largest examples. ➠Crypto-collateralized stablecoins use crypto assets locked in on-chain vaults. Because crypto prices are volatile, these systems require collateral worth more than the stablecoins issued against it, a buffer known as over-collateralization. $USDS is a leading example. ➠Synthetic stablecoins hold no pool of dollars. Instead, they combine crypto assets with hedging strategies that offset price movements. Ethena's $USDe pairs crypto holdings with short futures positions to maintain a dollar-like value. Each model carries different risks. Fiat-backed systems depend on custodians and reserve management, crypto-backed systems on collateral values and liquidations, and synthetic systems on exchanges and the effectiveness of their hedges. What Is an Attestation? An attestation is an independent accountant's examination of an issuer's claim that its reserves equal or exceed the stablecoins in circulation. Under AICPA standards, engagements provide different levels of assurance: ➠Agreed-upon procedures: specific checks reported without an opinion. ➠Review: limited assurance that nothing suggests the information is materially misstated. ➠Examination: reasonable assurance with a formal opinion that the information is fairly presented. Major stablecoin issuers typically publish examination-level attestations, the strongest assurance within this framework. What a Full Audit Adds Although attestations are valuable, they are narrower than audits in both subject and timeframe. An attestation focuses on a specific statement, usually whether reserves met or exceeded outstanding tokens on a given date, while a full audit examines broader financial information, including liabilities, related-party transactions, internal controls, and overall financial statements. The distinction is also temporal. An attestation is a snapshot of a single point in time, whereas an audit covers a reporting period and tests whether the figures held throughout. An issuer could therefore appear fully backed on the attestation date while running lower reserves at other times, and the attestation would still be technically accurate because it speaks only to that date. Solvency Is Not Liquidity Reserve reports address solvency, meaning whether assets exceed liabilities. They do not guarantee liquidity, the ability to access those assets quickly enough to meet redemptions under stress, which is why a stablecoin can be solvent and still face a crisis of confidence. The March 2023 $USDC depeg made the distinction concrete. Roughly $3.3 billion of USDC reserves sat at Silicon Valley Bank when it failed, and although the reserves remained sufficient, uncertainty about access pushed USDC as low as $0.87 before it recovered. A reserve report dated the week before would have confirmed the assets in full while revealing nothing about the concentration risk that drove the depeg. Where Regulation Is Heading For most of stablecoin history, reserve disclosure was voluntary. That is now changing. The GENIUS Act established a federal framework for payment stablecoins, requiring regular reserve disclosures reviewed by independent firms and executive certification of those reports. Larger issuers must also provide audited annual financial statements rather than rely on attestations alone. Oversight is shifting from periodic snapshots toward continuous scrutiny. Reserve reports remain important, but they answer a narrower question than many users assume. Evaluating a stablecoin means understanding what backs the token, how those reserves are verified, and what risks remain outside the scope of that verification.

Kiojame_'s tweet photo. Stablecoin Reserves, Attestations, and Audits

A stablecoin promises to maintain a value of one dollar.

Whether that promise holds depends on two questions: what assets back the token, and how anyone confirms those assets exist.

The phrase "backed 1:1" hides important differences.

Some issuers hold cash and short-term U.S. Treasury bills, while others rely on crypto collateral or hedged trading strategies.

Understanding a stablecoin means examining both its reserves and the evidence behind them.

Three Ways to Back a Dollar

Stablecoins generally use one of three reserve models.

➠Fiat-backed stablecoins are supported by off-chain reserves such as cash, bank deposits, and short-term Treasury bills, with issuers creating one token for each dollar held. $USDC and $USDT are the largest examples.

➠Crypto-collateralized stablecoins use crypto assets locked in on-chain vaults. Because crypto prices are volatile, these systems require collateral worth more than the stablecoins issued against it, a buffer known as over-collateralization. $USDS is a leading example.

➠Synthetic stablecoins hold no pool of dollars. Instead, they combine crypto assets with hedging strategies that offset price movements. Ethena's $USDe pairs crypto holdings with short futures positions to maintain a dollar-like value.

Each model carries different risks.

Fiat-backed systems depend on custodians and reserve management, crypto-backed systems on collateral values and liquidations, and synthetic systems on exchanges and the effectiveness of their hedges.

What Is an Attestation?

An attestation is an independent accountant's examination of an issuer's claim that its reserves equal or exceed the stablecoins in circulation.

Under AICPA standards, engagements provide different levels of assurance:

➠Agreed-upon procedures: specific checks reported without an opinion.

➠Review: limited assurance that nothing suggests the information is materially misstated.

➠Examination: reasonable assurance with a formal opinion that the information is fairly presented.

Major stablecoin issuers typically publish examination-level attestations, the strongest assurance within this framework.

What a Full Audit Adds

Although attestations are valuable, they are narrower than audits in both subject and timeframe.

An attestation focuses on a specific statement, usually whether reserves met or exceeded outstanding tokens on a given date, while a full audit examines broader financial information, including liabilities, related-party transactions, internal controls, and overall financial statements.

The distinction is also temporal.

An attestation is a snapshot of a single point in time, whereas an audit covers a reporting period and tests whether the figures held throughout.

An issuer could therefore appear fully backed on the attestation date while running lower reserves at other times, and the attestation would still be technically accurate because it speaks only to that date.

Solvency Is Not Liquidity

Reserve reports address solvency, meaning whether assets exceed liabilities.

They do not guarantee liquidity, the ability to access those assets quickly enough to meet redemptions under stress, which is why a stablecoin can be solvent and still face a crisis of confidence.

The March 2023 $USDC depeg made the distinction concrete.

Roughly $3.3 billion of USDC reserves sat at Silicon Valley Bank when it failed, and although the reserves remained sufficient, uncertainty about access pushed USDC as low as $0.87 before it recovered.

A reserve report dated the week before would have confirmed the assets in full while revealing nothing about the concentration risk that drove the depeg.

Where Regulation Is Heading

For most of stablecoin history, reserve disclosure was voluntary. That is now changing.

The GENIUS Act established a federal framework for payment stablecoins, requiring regular reserve disclosures reviewed by independent firms and executive certification of those reports.

Larger issuers must also provide audited annual financial statements rather than rely on attestations alone. Oversight is shifting from periodic snapshots toward continuous scrutiny.

Reserve reports remain important, but they answer a narrower question than many users assume.

Evaluating a stablecoin means understanding what backs the token, how those reserves are verified, and what risks remain outside the scope of that verification.

7 days ago

@DeFi_Belle @FIFAWorldCup @SenalHQ 💪

FierceLord_ retweeted

7 days ago

It's World Cup season @FIFAWorldCup @SenalHQ #WorldCupCrush

479

FierceLord_ retweeted

Kiojame

@Kiojame_

7 days ago

State of Token Markets, TLDR: Five years past the 2021 top, the altcoin market never reclaimed its high. The market didn't fragment across millions of tokens. It hyper-concentrated. Of the tens of millions of tokens minted this cycle, only 1700 still clear $250K in daily DEX volume. The rest fade to zero, and the half-life keeps shrinking. The reason is structural, not sentiment. Most tokens are distribution vehicles from insiders to the public, not claims on value. Holders get no revenue, no enforceable rights, no floor. So there's no natural buyer on the other side of the unlock. The data confirms it across every cut. ➠28 of 33 tokens underperform $BTC across all their unlocks, and the deficit builds because the next unlock lands before the market absorbs the last. ➠Buying CEX listings in 2025 destroyed half the capital invested, a 12% win rate at HTD and a -82% median return. ➠On launchpads retail at least shared insider's cost basis, but only MetaDAO held, and only because futarchy gave holders a redemption floor. Every category fell the same way. ➠Memecoins promised fair launches then gave way to bundled supply and sniper bots, the index down by 75% since the $TRUMP top. ➠Airdrops are ending from both sides: 78-94% of recipients fully exit by day 90, and the next issuer cohort (RWA, stablecoins, TradFi) won't airdrop at all. ➠DAT premiums vanished, 58 of 59 now trade below the value of their crypto, with @Strategy the lone survivor. ➠And in M&A, tokens are junior to equity by default. Pumpfun, SOL Strategies, Circle, Coinbase/Base all closed deals where equity captured value and the token got nothing. The correction is already underway. The market stopped paying for narrative and started pricing revenue. A revenue-weighted top-10 basket returned +30% since Jan 2025 while $BTC, $ETH and $SOL fell 17%, 35% and 58%. And this was always the signal. Across 545 tokens since 2020, the only cohort that appreciated 2 years post-launch was CEX tokens, the only category with real recurring revenue, trading 8.9x above the broader market. Fundamentals were always priced in. It just took until now to say so. The supply side is responding. Founders stopped fighting the fee switch. $HYPE, $SKY, $JUP, #AAVE, $PUMP, $UNI and $PENDLE all route revenue to holders via buybacks, burns or staker distribution. But buybacks are the mechanism, not the moat. $JUP ran the highest buyback yield in the set at 18.83% and still fell 80%, because $3.77 unlocked for every $1 bought back. Supply, not stimulus, decides the outcome. $HYPE worked (+533%) because fee-funded buying met limited insider selling and real product traction. The market now prices revenue durability directly, paying 16.9x for $HYPE's defensible cash flow and 2.2x for $PUMP's cyclical fees. The structural fix is emissions that scale with performance: ➠KPI-gated unlocks ➠Retroactive burns ➠Fair-launch cap tables ➠Liquidity-adjusted vesting. Time as the trigger is out. Earnings as the trigger is in. The frame for all of it The 2021-2024 dysfunction wasn't speculation, it was crony economics, and that's what's correcting. VC-allocated low FDV is giving way to earned emissions. Securities-risk stalling to value routed by default. Calendar dumps to market-aware unlocks. Governance-only chips to real claims on revenue. Retail exit liquidity to wealth managers and structural capital, institutional IBIT holdings +62% YoY, advisors +204%, sovereigns +228%. The hedge funds that left were running the basis trade. The allocators who arrived hold on multi-year horizons. The demand-side argument is won. The work now is supply. Across every dimension that matters, regulation, institutional access, onchain revenue, supply discipline, buyer base, product surface, the 2026 base is categorically stronger than 2018 or 2022. This isn't a recovery. It's the strongest setup the asset class has ever had: smaller in token count, larger in real value, and for the first time, actually investable

Kiojame_'s tweet photo. State of Token Markets, TLDR:

Five years past the 2021 top, the altcoin market never reclaimed its high.

The market didn't fragment across millions of tokens. It hyper-concentrated.

Of the tens of millions of tokens minted this cycle, only 1700 still clear $250K in daily DEX volume.

The rest fade to zero, and the half-life keeps shrinking.

The reason is structural, not sentiment.

Most tokens are distribution vehicles from insiders to the public, not claims on value.

Holders get no revenue, no enforceable rights, no floor. So there's no natural buyer on the other side of the unlock.

The data confirms it across every cut.

➠28 of 33 tokens underperform $BTC across all their unlocks, and the deficit builds because the next unlock lands before the market absorbs the last.

➠Buying CEX listings in 2025 destroyed half the capital invested, a 12% win rate at HTD and a -82% median return.

➠On launchpads retail at least shared insider's cost basis, but only MetaDAO held, and only because futarchy gave holders a redemption floor.

Every category fell the same way.

➠Memecoins promised fair launches then gave way to bundled supply and sniper bots, the index down by 75% since the $TRUMP top.

➠Airdrops are ending from both sides: 78-94% of recipients fully exit by day 90, and the next issuer cohort (RWA, stablecoins, TradFi) won't airdrop at all.

➠DAT premiums vanished, 58 of 59 now trade below the value of their crypto, with @Strategy the lone survivor.

➠And in M&A, tokens are junior to equity by default. Pumpfun, SOL Strategies, Circle, Coinbase/Base all closed deals where equity captured value and the token got nothing.

The correction is already underway.

The market stopped paying for narrative and started pricing revenue.

A revenue-weighted top-10 basket returned +30% since Jan 2025 while $BTC, $ETH and $SOL fell 17%, 35% and 58%.

And this was always the signal. Across 545 tokens since 2020, the only cohort that appreciated 2 years post-launch was CEX tokens, the only category with real recurring revenue, trading 8.9x above the broader market.

Fundamentals were always priced in. It just took until now to say so.

The supply side is responding.

Founders stopped fighting the fee switch. $HYPE, $SKY, $JUP, #AAVE, $PUMP, $UNI and $PENDLE all route revenue to holders via buybacks, burns or staker distribution.

But buybacks are the mechanism, not the moat. $JUP ran the highest buyback yield in the set at 18.83% and still fell 80%, because $3.77 unlocked for every $1 bought back.

Supply, not stimulus, decides the outcome.

$HYPE worked (+533%) because fee-funded buying met limited insider selling and real product traction.

The market now prices revenue durability directly, paying 16.9x for $HYPE's defensible cash flow and 2.2x for $PUMP's cyclical fees.

The structural fix is emissions that scale with performance:

➠KPI-gated unlocks
➠Retroactive burns
➠Fair-launch cap tables
➠Liquidity-adjusted vesting.

Time as the trigger is out. Earnings as the trigger is in.

The frame for all of it

The 2021-2024 dysfunction wasn't speculation, it was crony economics, and that's what's correcting.

VC-allocated low FDV is giving way to earned emissions. Securities-risk stalling to value routed by default. Calendar dumps to market-aware unlocks. Governance-only chips to real claims on revenue.

Retail exit liquidity to wealth managers and structural capital, institutional IBIT holdings +62% YoY, advisors +204%, sovereigns +228%.

The hedge funds that left were running the basis trade. The allocators who arrived hold on multi-year horizons.

The demand-side argument is won. The work now is supply.

Across every dimension that matters, regulation, institutional access, onchain revenue, supply discipline, buyer base, product surface, the 2026 base is categorically stronger than 2018 or 2022.

This isn't a recovery. It's the strongest setup the asset class has ever had: smaller in token count, larger in real value, and for the first time, actually investable

12 days ago

@Smaris 3:2

FierceLord_ retweeted

Vitaly Ⓥ 火

@vstarbanks

13 days ago

About to board my flight to Dallas ✈️ RT, Like & Follow me @vstarbanks I’m going to send $100 to 10 of you, so a total of $1000!

108K

17 days ago

@DeFi_Belle @grok Co asking

22 days ago

Me too, I want to know.

22 days ago

But do people really make this much money from betting fr? Let me know now o😂

235

FierceLord_ retweeted