Mxwll Smrt

CIA? No, CONTROL... DM for espionage... Tweets may self-destruct... Cone of Silence advocate... Shoe phone is the last line of defense...

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

For the past year, much of what has visibly emerged has appeared far more concentrated around financial products, institutional access pathways, affiliated structures, and exposure vehicles than anything recognizable as genuine foundational infrastructure.

And in my opinion, that’s where the real opportunity has been missed entirely. The larger opportunity should have never been about simply monetizing products or flow between DeFi and TradFi.

It should have been the path and lead into the infrastructure and economic architecture surrounding machine-mediated environments, machine-to-machine behavior and the underlying supports necessary to prevent eventual systemic cave-ins as computational complexity accelerates.

Perhaps you and I will get a chance to discuss this sometime.

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

@jhnwtt @Forson @JanvanEck3 @matthew_sigel @novogratz @DeFiTechGlobal @Valour @olivierfrancois @CSchlauf

This post is for all to see - as well as a few legal, regulatory, and other varied market participants.

In regard to DeFi Technologies Inc. ($DEFT), please be aware that many long-term shareholders are no longer evaluating the information contained within the shareholder meeting circular and related developments as isolated corporate actions.

In fact, they are evaluating the cumulative pattern formed by prolonged equity destruction, expanding discretionary authority, institutional alignment, governance concentration, cross-entity relationships, limited visible execution of shareholder-supportive measures, and increasingly constrained shareholder influence.

My concern is that if the broader trajectory ultimately evolves in the manner many shareholders increasingly fear, the resulting scrutiny may extend well beyond ordinary market disappointment.

At that point, questions surrounding disclosure sufficiency, fiduciary alignment, negligent misrepresentation, material omission or concealment, governance process, related-party visibility, and the overall fairness of shareholder treatment may become materially more significant - particularly within modern digital environments where communications, sequencing, governance actions, disclosures, incentives, relationships, and structural decisions create durable informational continuity that can later be reconstructed, analyzed, and evaluated in ways many participants still materially underestimate.

Some of my concerns are informed by contemporaneous communications and representations I received during the relevant period regarding the Galaxy transaction, related counterparties, and certain institutional relationships. Others are from being an institutionally sized retail shareholder.

Nonetheless, my experiences coupled with those communications, which would require depositions immediately, have materially shaped my understanding of how particular events, interactions, and consequences unfolded and contributed to my belief that substantially greater transparency and clarity may eventually become necessary surrounding what shareholders were told, what relationships and counterparties were involved, and how certain strategic and institutional developments ultimately evolved.

The concern some shareholders also increasingly have is not merely about stock performance alone, but whether the broader economic and institutional architecture surrounding the company has evolved in ways where the public equity itself may no longer represent the primary locus of long-term value capture.

From that perspective, shareholders are beginning to evaluate whether institutional access to products, affiliated structures, strategic relationships, and adjacent entities may allow substantial economic participation and incentive alignment outside the direct benefit of long-term common shareholders, particularly during periods where the public equity continues experiencing prolonged weakness and expanding governance discretion.

When viewed alongside cross-entity relationships, significant cash positioning, international governance complexity, and the cumulative history experienced by shareholders over recent years, some investors increasingly question whether the incentives between management, affiliated participants, institutions, and long-term public shareholders remain fully aligned.

Many shareholders are more than beginning to evaluate the practical implications of increasingly internationalized governance structures and expanded discretionary authority, particularly where key participants, affiliated entities, and decision-makers operate across multiple jurisdictions. Even where entirely lawful, such structures can materially complicate transparency, accountability pathways, shareholder oversight, and the practical realities of fiduciary enforcement should disputes later arise.

Should these concerns ultimately prove well-founded, I believe the consequences would likely extend far beyond any single company or transaction. The broader marketplace itself could be materially affected, particularly as market participants, counterparties, regulators, shareholders, and the investing public increasingly evaluate the conduct, incentives, disclosures, and responsibilities of all materially involved parties.

I would strongly advise the Board, management, and all materially involved parties to fully consider the long-term implications of the path being pursued here.

If these concerns continue compounding unresolved, some shareholders may ultimately conclude that materially different leadership, governance structures, or strategic stewardship are necessary to restore alignment between the company, its public shareholders, and the broader economic value being generated around the ecosystem.

There is still time for substantially greater transparency, clarity, and alignment before further structurally consequential authority is granted - or before meaningful shareholder-led legal, regulatory, fiduciary, and market accountability efforts begin to materially emerge.

I believe significant unresolved issues may exist surrounding governance, disclosure, alignment, and the broader economic and institutional structure presently evolving around the company.

The long-term implications of those issues - particularly within increasingly reconstructable digital and financial environments - should not be underestimated.

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

@MattMematic Why do you say that?

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

In regard to DeFi Technologies Inc. ($DEFT), please be aware that many long-term shareholders are no longer evaluating the information contained within the shareholder meeting circular and related developments as isolated corporate actions.

In fact, they are evaluating the cumulative pattern formed by prolonged equity destruction, expanding discretionary authority, institutional alignment, governance concentration, cross-entity relationships, limited visible execution of shareholder-supportive measures, and increasingly constrained shareholder influence.

My concern is that if the broader trajectory ultimately evolves in the manner many shareholders increasingly fear, the resulting scrutiny may extend well beyond ordinary market disappointment.

At that point, questions surrounding disclosure sufficiency, fiduciary alignment, negligent misrepresentation, material omission or concealment, governance process, related-party visibility, and the overall fairness of shareholder treatment may become materially more significant - particularly within modern digital environments where communications, sequencing, governance actions, disclosures, incentives, relationships, and structural decisions create durable informational continuity that can later be reconstructed, analyzed, and evaluated in ways many participants still materially underestimate.

Some of my concerns are informed by contemporaneous communications and representations I received during the relevant period regarding the Galaxy transaction, related counterparties, and certain institutional relationships. Others are from being an institutionally sized retail shareholder.

Nonetheless, my experiences coupled with those communications, which would require depositions immediately, have materially shaped my understanding of how particular events, interactions, and consequences unfolded and contributed to my belief that substantially greater transparency and clarity may eventually become necessary surrounding what shareholders were told, what relationships and counterparties were involved, and how certain strategic and institutional developments ultimately evolved.

The concern some shareholders also increasingly have is not merely about stock performance alone, but whether the broader economic and institutional architecture surrounding the company has evolved in ways where the public equity itself may no longer represent the primary locus of long-term value capture.

From that perspective, shareholders are beginning to evaluate whether institutional access to products, affiliated structures, strategic relationships, and adjacent entities may allow substantial economic participation and incentive alignment outside the direct benefit of long-term common shareholders, particularly during periods where the public equity continues experiencing prolonged weakness and expanding governance discretion.

When viewed alongside cross-entity relationships, significant cash positioning, international governance complexity, and the cumulative history experienced by shareholders over recent years, some investors increasingly question whether the incentives between management, affiliated participants, institutions, and long-term public shareholders remain fully aligned.

Many shareholders are more than beginning to evaluate the practical implications of increasingly internationalized governance structures and expanded discretionary authority, particularly where key participants, affiliated entities, and decision-makers operate across multiple jurisdictions. Even where entirely lawful, such structures can materially complicate transparency, accountability pathways, shareholder oversight, and the practical realities of fiduciary enforcement should disputes later arise.

Should these concerns ultimately prove well-founded, I believe the consequences would likely extend far beyond any single company or transaction. The broader marketplace itself could be materially affected, particularly as market participants, counterparties, regulators, shareholders, and the investing public increasingly evaluate the conduct, incentives, disclosures, and responsibilities of all materially involved parties.

I would strongly advise the Board, management, and all materially involved parties to fully consider the long-term implications of the path being pursued here.

If these concerns continue compounding unresolved, some shareholders may ultimately conclude that materially different leadership, governance structures, or strategic stewardship are necessary to restore alignment between the company, its public shareholders, and the broader economic value being generated around the ecosystem.

There is still time for substantially greater transparency, clarity, and alignment before further structurally consequential authority is granted - or before meaningful shareholder-led legal, regulatory, fiduciary, and market accountability efforts begin to materially emerge.

I believe significant unresolved issues may exist surrounding governance, disclosure, alignment, and the broader economic and institutional structure presently evolving around the company.

The long-term implications of those issues - particularly within increasingly reconstructable digital and financial environments - should not be underestimated.

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

@64phillies @GoodwoodAlpha @JoosyJew +1

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

@UKLFI Thank you... so if the strongest concrete provision is the requirement that senior officials evaluate whether aid indirectly relieves the Palestinian Authority of costs it would otherwise bear, what can I do to support and assist from this side of the pond?

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

@10VT328215 Yes!!! Thanks....

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

The reality is that my earlier note represented one structural lens through which to evaluate what has occurred over the past 5 years as a long-term shareholder.

But markets - especially emerging infrastructure markets are rarely one-dimensional.

And while I still believe many of the concerns I raised surrounding dilution, execution fatigue, narrative sprawl, and shareholder alignment are legitimate, I also think there is another side of the equation that deserves equal attention - the possibility that both the market and many analysts still fundamentally misunderstand what the company may actually be attempting to position for structurally.

That distinction matters.

To be clear, my observations were not written from the perspective of someone rooting against the company - quite the opposite.

I remain genuinely fascinated by what DeFi Technologies has attempted to build. In many ways, I think the market still underestimates the breadth of what sits under the surface.

Most companies in this space still seem focused on gaining exposure to the trend itself or leveraging the weight and relationships they already built in traditional finance.

What has always interested me about DEFT is that it appears to be trying to move closer to the infrastructure side of the market rather than simply participating in it.

That distinction matters as well.

The issue is not necessarily whether the company has products, partnerships, or intelligent people involved. It clearly does.

The issue is that the market increasingly struggles to understand how all of the pieces fit together into a coherent long-term architecture that shareholders can model and believe in.

Here’s an example of what I mean structurally.

If institutions already operating inside regulated digital asset banking environments - including players like AMINA Bank - still do not fully appreciate what is beginning to emerge structurally across yield-bearing digital instruments, sovereign-backed structures, regulated stablecoin infrastructure, and institutional settlement layers, then DEFT should be willing to pursue strategic relationships with banking institutions that do.

Because I genuinely believe the first major regulated structure that successfully bridges:

1. compliant banking,
2. sovereign-linked yield,
3. digital asset settlement,
4. and scalable institutional distribution

will materially alter decentralized finance permanently.

Not incrementally. Structurally.

At that point, the conversation likely stops being about “crypto products” and starts becoming about the modernization of financial infrastructure itself.

And when that shift finally becomes visible to the broader market, many people will probably look back and say “Wow… that was sitting there the entire time.”

That is part of why I continue to believe narrative clarity matters so much right now.

Markets can tolerate volatility, long build cycles, and even complexity. What they struggle with is failing to understand what is actually being built until after the architecture is already obvious.

It can tolerate long build cycles. It can even tolerate complexity.

What it struggles with is failing to understand what is actually being built until after the architecture is already obvious.

And that becomes important after multiple years.

At some point, “we’re building” stops being enough for the public markets - not because building lacks value, but because public markets eventually want clarity around what is strategically central, what becomes recurring, what creates dependency, and what ultimately accrues durable value back to shareholders.

To me, some of the most important developments are not necessarily the obvious ones.

The disclosure of UCITS related initiatives matters because UCITS is not simply another product wrapper. It represents an entirely different class of regulated financial product infrastructure capable of opening institutional capital pools and distribution frameworks that many existing digital asset vehicles still cannot access.

Yield-bearing instruments tied to sovereign debt structures matter because they move digital assets closer to financial plumbing rather than speculative positioning.

Stablecoin infrastructure matters because whoever controls compliant conversion, liquidity routing, settlement relationships, and trusted rails may ultimately become more important than whoever simply launches another token.

Strategic alliances matter because this industry is becoming too regulated, too capital intensive, and too politically sensitive for isolated participants to scale alone.

And importantly, the market may still not fully appreciate how strategically important certain acquisitions, banking relationships, or infrastructure partnerships could become if integrated correctly over time.

But I also think there is another issue developing… the company increasingly needs a disciplined narrative structure.

Not hype. Not promotion. Not endless announcements. Clarity.

A clearer explanation of what the company is becoming, how the businesses connect, where the durable economics emerge, and why the positioning becomes difficult to replicate. Because when narratives become too diffuse, markets often default to confusion rather than assigning value.

Ironically, I actually think Russell Starr was one of the perfect archetypes to communicate the company during earlier phases and have stated so for years.

Not because everyone always agreed with him - but because he understood how to speak about ambition, asymmetry, misconceptions, and market structure in a way that made people pay attention.

He gave the company personality during a period when most people still did not understand where digital asset infrastructure markets were heading.

In many ways, he helped carry the “why” behind the effort.

Today, the challenge is different. The company no longer simply needs excitement around possibility. It needs the market to understand the architecture of what is being built and how that architecture could eventually become structurally important.

Because if DeFi Technologies successfully evolves from a participant in digital asset markets into infrastructure that other systems increasingly rely upon, then the conversation surrounding the company changes materially.

And if it does not clearly explain that transition itself, the market may continue misunderstanding what sits in front of it.

When I see $1.45 valuation targets attached to a company attempting to position itself across institutional digital asset infrastructure, regulated yield structures, stablecoin frameworks, ETP distribution, and emerging financial rails, it tells me many analysts still fundamentally do not understand what they are looking at.

And frankly, I increasingly suspect a meaningful amount of coverage in this sector is becoming commoditized through generalized AI-assisted modeling layered onto superficial comparables rather than deep structural analysis.

That is not meant as an insult. It is simply the reality of modern coverage environments.

Many analysts today are producing enormous volumes of reports simultaneously across multiple sectors, companies, and themes. Under those conditions, nuanced architectural positioning often gets compressed into simplistic valuation frameworks that fail to capture optionality, strategic asymmetry, infrastructure positioning, or long-duration structural shifts.

As a result, companies attempting to build something unconventional often get analyzed as though they are simply another cyclical product business.

In my opinion, that misses the point entirely.

Because if DEFT successfully executes on even part of the broader infrastructure thesis surrounding regulated digital asset distribution, sovereign-linked yield structures, settlement rails, institutional partnerships, and financial interoperability, then traditional surface-level valuation approaches may ultimately look extraordinarily disconnected from what was actually developing underneath.

@CSchlauf @jhnwtt @Russ_N_Starr @Forson @olivierfrancois @APompliano @etiennecol @wombat_oz_14 @scottmelker @novogratz

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

@MattMematic Yes. Thanks.

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

As a long-term shareholder who has held DeFi Technologies since almost its beginning, I think the core issue increasingly facing the company is no longer whether crypto survives, whether Bitcoin succeeds or whether digital assets eventually become institutionalized.

The issue now is whether DeFi Technologies, as a public company, can consistently convert opportunity into durable shareholder value over time.

That distinction matters.

For years, the company benefited from operating within one of the most narrative-driven sectors in the market… digital assets, institutional adoption, ETP growth, DeFi infrastructure, staking, treasury exposure, AI adjacency, and broader crypto financialization.

In easier liquidity environments, markets reward optionality, future positioning, strategic vision, and participation in emerging sectors. But as macro conditions tighten and inflation concerns persist, markets become far less forgiving of delayed execution, missed timelines, repeated “next quarter” expectations, and prolonged dependence on narrative momentum.

After nearly five years (wow) as a shareholder, the conversation naturally changes from “this is still early” to “is this becoming a structural management pattern?”

Unfortunately that is a much harder question.

Public markets will tolerate delays and evolving strategy for a while, especially in emerging sectors. But eventually investors begin evaluating management quality and execution reliability more than the original vision itself.

And honestly, I think that is where DeFi Technologies now sits.

The concern is not necessarily operational collapse or bankruptcy. The more realistic bear case is actually much more subtle and much more common in public markets.

The company survives. Crypto continues maturing. Institutional adoption increases. Revenues may even grow.

And yet the equity itself remains structurally impaired because market confidence in execution weakens over time while the broader digital asset landscape becomes increasingly competitive, institutionalized, and crowded.

That is an important distinction.

In the early stages of emerging industries, markets reward vision, positioning, optionality, and being early.

But eventually industries mature. And once they mature, markets stop rewarding “we were here first, “look at all our products,” or “look at everything we’re involved in.”

Instead, markets begin rewarding operational consistency, execution reliability, scalable economics, profitability, differentiation, and sustained shareholder value creation.

That transition may now be occurring across the broader digital asset sector.

After all these years as a shareholder, the hardest realization is probably being directionally right about the future of crypto does not automatically mean every early participant becomes a long-term winner.

At some point, the market begins separating narrative from execution, participation from dominance, and presence from durable competitive advantage.

And if management credibility weakens at the same time competition intensifies, the market can begin treating the company less like an emerging category leader and more like one participant among many in an increasingly crowded field.

That is where risk can become structural rather than cyclical and any decline in institutional ownership reinforces this concern.

The company reportedly went from approximately 120 institutional investors holding roughly 50 million shares to approximately 112 institutional investors holding roughly 33 million shares.

To me, the important signal is not merely that several institutions exited. It is that roughly 17 million shares appear to have rotated out of institutional ownership.

That suggests at least some combination of reduced conviction, risk reduction, speculative exposure trimming, liquidity concerns, or weakening confidence in execution consistency.

And in tighter macro conditions, institutions typically reduce exposure first to smaller-cap speculative growth stories where future monetization remains uncertain.

This creates a dangerous feedback loop - declining institutional ownership, weaker liquidity, greater volatility, multiple compression, and growing shareholder fatigue.

There are also broader structural market concerns that increasingly affect many smaller-cap and high-volatility equities, particularly those tied to thematic or speculative sectors such as crypto.

The growth of synthetic exposure through derivatives, swaps, options structures, market-maker positioning, and various forms of leveraged or synthetic trading activity can create trading environments where price behavior increasingly disconnects from underlying business fundamentals.

Around major options expirations especially, stocks can become heavily influenced by dealer hedging flows, gamma positioning, short-term volatility suppression or amplification, synthetic liquidity, and mechanical trading behavior rather than long-term shareholder conviction (in addition to a variety of stupid trader tricks).

For companies with elevated volatility and strong retail participation, these effects can become even more pronounced.

As a result, shareholders can experience situations where positive operational developments fail to materially impact price, momentum reverses abruptly around expirations, rallies are repeatedly suppressed, or the stock appears trapped within persistent trading structures disconnected from long-term business progress.

Whether fully justified or not, many long-term shareholders increasingly feel that modern market structure itself has become part of the risk profile and when those structural pressures are layered on top of dilution concerns, execution fatigue, declining institutional participation, and intensifying competition, the result can become deeply frustrating for long-duration shareholders attempting to evaluate the company fundamentally.

The Galaxy financing also perfectly represents both the bull case and the bear case simultaneously.

On one hand, having a major institutional participant like Galaxy involved should have been interpreted as meaningful validation. This is a sophisticated player who understands crypto infrastructure, ETP economics, capital markets, and institutional digital asset adoption.

But large institutional financings also dramatically raise expectations.

Once a company raises significant capital, markets expect accelerated execution, operational leverage, and visible conversion of capital into shareholder value.

The financing reduced survival risk, but it also raised the standard management would be and probably has been judged against.

At the same time, the capital structure expanded materially through tens of millions of additional shares and warrant overhang, creating dilution concerns and future selling pressure risk.

Retail shareholders often experience these dynamics very differently than institutions because institutional participants frequently receive structures and protections unavailable to ordinary shareholders.

Another issue is narrative sprawl. At different times, DeFi Technologies has been framed as an ETP business, a crypto treasury vehicle, a trading infrastructure company, a staking company, a DeFi ecosystem participant, an AI-adjacent story, a Quantum adjacent company and an institutional digital asset platform simultaneously.

In bull markets, that creates excitement and optionality. In more difficult markets, investors begin asking, “What exactly are we actually underwriting here?” Markets under stress tend to reward simplicity, predictability, and operational clarity.

Now, the Nasdaq deficiency issue also mattered psychologically more than many people probably admit.

Once a company begins entering conversations around prolonged share-price weakness or listing compliance concerns, the market narrative can shift from “emerging institutional infrastructure company” to “speculative small-cap struggling to maintain credibility.”

That transition can be extremely damaging.

What makes this difficult emotionally as a long-term shareholder is that it is entirely possible to still believe the industry is real, crypto adoption will continue, digital assets are becoming institutionalized, and parts of the company genuinely have value, while simultaneously questioning whether this particular public equity structure will ever fully monetize that opportunity for common shareholders the way originally expected.

That is the tension.

Investors can be directionally right about the future and still own the wrong public vehicle for capturing it and after years, shareholders stop asking: “Could this work?” and begin asking“Why hasn’t it already worked?”

To me, that is the real issue now. The bear case is no longer really about crypto failing.

The bear case is about confidence erosion, repeated expectation resets, dilution, intensifying competition, difficult market structure dynamics, and the possibility that the market no longer grants management the premium multiple it once did because trust has weakened over time while the industry itself becomes more crowded and mature.

And unfortunately, once a public company enters that category, rebuilding credibility usually requires multiple quarters - sometimes years - of consistent operational execution, underpromising, overdelivering, and proving durable differentiation before sentiment truly changes.

And that is the reality of repeatedly saying “next quarter.” Eventually shareholders begin questioning whether management incentives, compensation structures, dilution decisions, and capital allocation priorities remain properly aligned with long-term shareholder outcomes.

Whether fair or not, once that perception begins forming inside a shareholder base, rebuilding trust becomes extraordinarily difficult.

I’m accountable… I drank the cool aid… And maybe that is ultimately the hardest realization for this long-term shareholder.

Not whether crypto succeeds. Not whether digital assets become institutionalized. Not whether the industry itself survives.

But whether the structure surrounding the company was ever truly optimized for long-duration common shareholders in the first place.

It reminds me a bit of a set of old experiences and one particular table at Spago.

Everyone saw the restaurant. Everyone saw the celebrities. Everyone saw the excitement, exclusivity, momentum, and the perception of importance.

And when you were hot, you were hot and placed at that special table…

But as others came into view, whether as hot or hotter, and as stars faded and others became brighter than bright, eventually there’s a realization that not everyone inside the system is participating under the same conditions.

Some people are part of the experience. Others are part of the business model.

So with 1st to market and after enough years of dilution, repeated “next quarter” expectations, shifting narratives, compensation votes, institutional structures, and persistent underperformance, long-term shareholders naturally begin asking a difficult question... who really has consistently benefited from this system over time?

Because once shareholders begin feeling like they are financing the atmosphere more than participating in the outcome, trust begins eroding in ways that become very difficult to repair.

And unfortunately, markets can tolerate operational struggles far longer than they can tolerate weakening alignment between management and shareholders.

That is usually where sentiment finally breaks.

Lastly, I do think Russell’s return matters. There is institutional memory there, sector familiarity, and perhaps a renewed attempt to restore operational focus and market confidence. And honestly, I hope he works because he gets it.

But after years of repeated resets, I also hope the market does not begin perceiving him as a kind of Sisyphus figure, continuously pushing the same boulder uphill through recurring cycles of expectation, dilution, narrative rebuilding, and credibility repair, only to watch momentum repeatedly roll backward before durable shareholder outcomes are achieved.

Because at some point, markets stop asking whether management is trying or that the BoD is conscious or heavily medicated. They begin asking whether the structure itself is capable of consistently delivering.

Perhaps the OMFIF participation will help… the question is who it will help. Like I used to say to my friend Everett, “we’ll see”.... @CSchlauf @jhnwtt @Russ_N_Starr @Forson @olivierfrancois @APompliano @etiennecol @wombat_oz_14 @scottmelker @novogratz

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

@CSchlauf The bigger problem though is I just don't believe you or anyone in management anymore. The directional movement we're seeing says something else is going on. We don't have to email about this.

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

What has become increasingly clear is that the issue is not whether DeFi Technologies identified valuable market opportunities.

It did.

The issue is whether the public entity and its shareholders remain the primary beneficiaries of those opportunities.

That distinction matters.

The company demonstrated that infrastructure adjacency, strategic positioning, and roll-up execution can create meaningful value. Stillman Digital, Neuronomics AG, and ZKP all support that conclusion.

However, as adjacent entities, private structures, and selective ownership arrangements continue to emerge around the ecosystem, it becomes harder to determine whether shareholders are participating in the core economic upside or merely financing the environment around it.

That uncertainty is compounded by inconsistent communication, perceived preferential access, and an increasing reliance on external promotional ecosystems to sustain investor enthusiasm.

At some point, investors have to evaluate not only whether a model works, but whom it ultimately works for.

There are two events ahead that matter: earnings and the shareholder meeting.

Those events should clarify whether shareholder alignment remains central to the structure or whether the economic gravity has shifted elsewhere.

I personally have supported the company for a long time and through significant volatility because I've believed the company was evolving into a structurally important participant in digital asset markets.

But if that evolution increasingly benefits adjacent structures more than the public entity itself, then eventually even long-term holders like me have to reassess their position.

And when enough long-duration capital begins reaching that conclusion simultaneously, the implications extend well beyond sentiment. @DeFiTechGlobal @ValourFunds @CSchlauf @Forson @jhnwtt @olivierfrancois

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

And to be clear, I agree the company has demonstrated it can run a lean and profitable operation. I’ve said that repeatedly.

The point I was raising is that operational profitability and long-term structural positioning are not necessarily the same discussion.

My concern isn’t whether the company can execute today. It’s whether the public entity itself remains positioned to retain durable economic advantage as the sector institutionalizes, competition accelerates, and infrastructure value increasingly concentrates into the entities the ecosystem structurally depends on.

That’s the distinction I was trying to articulate.

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

@LaydenRobinson @EricLDaugh Was I President?

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

The core claim doesn’t fully hold... The paper states that zero-knowledge proofs eliminate the trade off between control and connectivity, with “no trusted operator in the loop.” But the system still depends on an operator-controlled environment for data availability, transaction ordering, and inclusion.

The proofs verify that what is submitted is processed correctly. They don’t guarantee that everything that should be included is actually present.

So the trade-off isn’t eliminated... it’s shifted. Control remains, and the guarantees are bounded by the system that defines them.

[Mxwll Smrt @Smartnotreally]

Perhaps with 102 ETP's, a premier, institutional-grade digital asset liquidity provider, Canada's first regulatory-compliant, Canadian-dollar-pegged stablecoin, Africa’s first regulated stablecoin managed by a private consortium under SEC Nigeria oversight, an AI-driven asset management company (majority-owned by DeFi Technologies) that uses computational neuroscience and artificial intelligence to create quantitative trading strategies (Neuronomics AG) and a financial benchmark (DVIO) and a relationship through a co-founder who also is the CEO of a quantum technology company specializing in post-quantum cryptography(PQC) and quantum-safe security solutions as well as a piece of a Swiss Bank should be looking to do a deal with perhaps a financial company that has something like 38 Million accounts and almost $11.8 Trillion... and I'm conveniently leaving out a bevy of new products... @DeFiTechGlobal @ValourFunds @DigitalStillman @stablecorp @cngn_co @BTQ_Tech @AMINABankGlobal @jhnwtt @olivierfrancois @CharlesSchwab #CryptoNews #CharlesSchwab #RickWurster #CryptoTrading #Finance #Investing #StockMarket #Blockchain #Bitcoin #Ethereum #Altcoins #HODL #FinTech #DeFi #PopCulture #CryptoRevolution #DigitalAssets #MarketMoves