Olivia
Online
Sungku Kim
@Sung9kim
CIO at Nexus One (crypto VC), Founder @quadrixfinance Riverian, probably.
-
대한민국 서울
Joined September 2018
556 Following
94 Followers
253 Posts
Pinned Tweet
https://t.co/zqQWtUdptn
@radomir_3 @grok Did the hedgehog ever get its icon? If you're down to a final two (or still torn), I'll put them in front of 20 World ID-verified humans for free — one person one vote, no bots, shareable report. Deadline-friendly: results within hours, not days. Just tell me which two.
Congrats on the relaunch — losing deals to the old landing must have stung. Before this one costs you a deal too: I run ABtest, where World ID-verified humans (one person one vote, no bots) pick between two versions. I'll run your old vs new landing past 20 verified humans free, so you know the redesign actually converts better. Just say go.
Saw your 1 or 2 question — are you deciding which one actually ships? I run ABtest: your two splash screens shown to World ID-verified humans (one person one vote, no bots), results in a shareable report. Happy to run a free 20-person preview first — just say the word, I'll grab the screens from this tweet.
Ten days ago one share of SK Hynix wiped $57M on Hyperliquid.
This morning eleven shares hit the same limit-down print. Same venue, same thin book, same single price feed.
The mark held. No cascade in the volume profile.
One variable changed: the oracle stopped listening at 08:00 and started at 08:10.
https://t.co/kyAsgjSSBO
https://t.co/kyAsgjSSBO
Fair framing. And credit gets priced like credit:
STRC — coupon raised 9% → 12% to defend $100 par. It trades at $88.56, a ~13% implied yield.
The market isn't questioning the instrument. It's pricing the trust behind it — with a zero-yield asset funding a fixed-dollar promise.
We wrote the full credit analysis before the verdict: https://t.co/ORMHwb1Ms9
$BTC is Digital Capital.
$STRC is Digital Credit.
$MSTR is Digital Equity.
Different instruments for different investors.
One Bitcoin Strategy.
https://t.co/R266hLR5rE
Reposting the Q2 report. Worth your time this week.
The defining feature of the quarter: decoupling. Just not the one we spent years waiting for. Stocks at record highs, crypto capitulating alone.
And today, Strategy sold BTC at a ~20% realized loss against its cost basis.
Did that cause the drawdown? No. $216M is 1/20th of June’s record $4.5B ETF outflows. The causality runs the other way — the price fell, so they had to sell. That’s the design: a preferred security engineered to hold $100, defended by raising the dividend to 12%. Nobody can predict market volatility. Price can diverge from fundamentals further and longer than any model allows. Yet they built a debt structure premised on defending a price. That’s the real problem.
Today it’s a symptom. But when leverage unwinds, symptoms become triggers. The tide is going out, and we’re about to see who’s been swimming naked.
The report covers the full picture of this liquidity drain:
• The Warsh Fed’s hawkish turn and how it drove record ETF outflows
• What moved against the tide — LTH accumulation, the yield rotation into XRP, SOL, and HYPE ETFs
• The most-hacked quarter on record (83 incidents, $755M+) and what it changes for due diligence
Whether the decoupling ends, whether DAT becomes the next trigger — the verdict belongs to liquidity. Which is why the report is titled Liquidity’s Verdict.
https://t.co/yGO8Pynt8o
A month ago I flagged one question: does DAT become the trigger for this cycle?
https://t.co/aa2tNRvD0E
Strategy just answered part of it.
The numbers:
• Sold 3,588 BTC at ~$60.2K. Cost basis: $75,651. That’s a realized loss of ~20% — to pay dividends.
• May’s sale was 32 BTC. This one is 112x larger, five weeks later.
• STRC was designed to hold $100. It trades at $74. The response: raise the dividend to 12%.
• Cash reserves: $2.55B against $1.76B/yr in obligations = 17.4 months. Board authorized up to $1.25B in further BTC sales.
The flywheel was: issue equity at a premium → buy BTC → premium grows. Every step required the premium. At an mNAV discount, the same machine runs in reverse: can’t issue → sell BTC at a loss → sales pressure the discount → repeat.
This doesn’t mean Strategy dies. 843,775 BTC covers years of obligations even in the worst case. It means Strategy has quietly become a credit vehicle whose collateral it must liquidate into weakness.
Not calling the trigger yet. Three things decide it:
1. STRC back to par — credit stress over
2. mNAV premium restored — flywheel forward again
3. Monthly sale run-rate vs the $1.25B cap — how fast the buffer burns
Strategy has sold 3,588 $BTC for $216 million to fund dividends on our Digital Credit securities. As of 7/5/2026, we hodl ₿843,775 in our BTC Reserves and $2.55 billion in our USD Reserves. https://t.co/Cssgz29Psj
https://t.co/yGO8Pynt8o
Bottoms are quiet. Real capitulation is when no one's got the energy left to argue back.
Why I Sold All My Bitcoin... it's over.
(Full video below)
The DAA Overtake: Why Avalanche "Surpassed" Ethereum, and the Burn Engine Running on Empty
The market is reading Avalanche's daily active addresses overtaking Ethereum as a generational shift in L1 activity. AVAX 714,645 vs ETH 655,313. And this is not a single-day snapshot — the overtake holds on a multi-month trend basis too. However, overlaying the two chains' charts and cross-verifying real-time fee data reveals that the substance of this "overtake" is the opposite of what the market believes.
Real-time Data Cross-Verification:
• Daily Active Users (Chain): AVAX 714,645 vs ETH 655,313 → AVAX ahead, trend-confirmed
• 7d Chain Fees: AVAX $23,858 (+100.8%) vs ETH $2,096,791 → 88x gap
• DeFi TVL: AVAX ~$475M, down over 7 days (DefiLlama)
Active addresses favor AVAX, yet the money the network actually burns (chain fees = burn) is 88x higher on Ethereum. We deconstruct this paradox.
1. The Substance of the Overtake: Two Pumps, Different Lifespans (Thesis)
First, the concession: AVAX's DAA overtake is real in the data. The decisive question is WHY it overtook.
Overlay the two chains' DAU charts and a pattern emerges — both were pumped at the same time, in mid-January 2026.
• Ethereum: A vertical spike to ~1.3M on Jan 16. But Token Terminal itself flagged that this activity "may not all be organic users," and on-chain investigation identified the primary driver as 'address poisoning' attacks. Being attack-driven traffic, it collapsed from 1.3M back to the ~500K range. On the chart, ETH is a SHARP PEAK.
• Avalanche: A jump from ~50K to 600K on Jan 12–13 (Nansen). The driver was the Avalanche Foundation's 'Retro9000' — a $40M grant program that rewards builders based on verifiable on-chain usage. Because the policy stays switched ON, activity holds flat in the 530K–750K band after the jump. On the chart, AVAX is a FLAT PLATEAU.
The conclusion follows. AVAX overtook ETH not because "AVAX is doing better." Both were artificially pumped in January — ETH's spam was a one-off attack that switched off, while AVAX's incentive is a grant that stayed on. One source of noise simply staying lit longer than the other — that is the substance of the "overtake." The difference in chart shape (ETH's sharp peak vs AVAX's flat plateau) is precisely the visual signature of attack-driven vs incentive-driven pumping.
For the record, the "FIFA World Cup effect" the market cites does not fit the timeline. AVAX's level-up was in January; FIFA's activity in June occurred largely on a separate custom L1. It is not the cause of the C-Chain DAU surge.
2. The Collapse of Value Capture (Antithesis)
Shift the lens from "activity volume" to "tokenomics" and a fatal contradiction surfaces.
The 'breadth' of activity widened, but the 'depth' of capital is stagnant. Even with active addresses past 700K, DeFi TVL fell to ~$475M. The inflated address count is not converting into deposited capital.
Fees grew +100.8% over 7 days, yet the absolute figure is still just $23,858. A 100% gain means little off a negligible base. The reason is structural. The Avalanche9000 upgrade cut the C-Chain base fee by ~96% (25 nAVAX → 1 nAVAX), and the Octane upgrade cut it a further ~42.7%. So even as transaction count explodes (the source of the 2x fee growth), per-transaction cost converges to zero and total burn stays floored. The 100% burn mechanism RUNS ON EMPTY, decoupled from activity volume.
The contrast is brutal. Over the same 7 days, Ethereum burned $2.09M. ETH's DAA is just as polluted by spam — but on the real signal, revenue, it sits 88x above AVAX. Overtaken on DAA, yet not remotely comparable on value capture.
3. The Financial Detonator: Incentive Dependency
AVAX's detonator is 'incentive dependency.' The core issue is that this DAA is sustained not by organic demand but by a $40M grant.
Isolate the chart and it oscillates like a sawtooth, ±150K daily, ever since January. Organic users do not move this mechanically. Nansen read this as "sustained engagement," and that read is correct — with one condition attached: "as long as the grant stays on." Just as ETH's spam self-extinguished when the attack ended, AVAX's activity could evaporate in large part if the grant is reduced or ends. The only difference is that ETH's decay was an attacker variable, while AVAX's would be a Foundation POLICY variable.
Valuation does not price this risk. On annualized 'chain base fee' (= burn), AVAX's P/F is roughly 2,200x. This uses the most conservative denominator; including app fees lowers it. But under any definition, the conclusion is unchanged: against an ETH that earns 88x more in fees, AVAX's P/F is overwhelmingly higher. Because burn shrank faster than price fell, AVAX has grown MORE expensive on a cash-flow basis.
Conclusion & Conditional Outlook
Avalanche's progress in software infrastructure and institutional adoption (Progmat, the Payments Collective) is real. But the substance behind the "overtook Ethereum on DAA" headline is merely one source of noise staying lit longer than another. On the real signal — fees — ETH remains 88x ahead.
For the market's anticipated true 'fundamental re-rating' to materialize, two conditions must be forced beyond narrative:
1. Proof of an organic retention rate — DAA that holds WITHOUT the grant incentive.
2. Progmat's $2B RWA migration converting into actual on-chain TVL and fees, restarting the idling burn engine.
If these conditions are not met, the 'active-address #1' premium currently attached to AVAX is likely to prove a mirage that fades the moment the grant tapers — rather than a pricing-in of future growth. The current data still reads: activity surging, revenue stagnant.
App > Protocol.
Raised $159M, trades at $159M FDV
Infra is dead
The announcement of Morpho Association's $175M funding (Paradigm, a16z, Apollo, etc.) explains why the market has assigned a $2B Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV) to Morpho, despite its actual revenue being only one-fourth of Aave's.
The logical conversion step for VCs and institutional capital applying a higher multiple to Morpho lies in its design architecture.
Aave: A shared-risk structure based on a monolithic pool. Bottlenecks occur due to governance reviews when listing assets.
Morpho (Blue): A permissionless, isolated markets structure that does not require governance approval.
Conversion Step: Risk isolation and permissionless structure -> Traditional finance (TradFi) entities like Apollo and VanEck can build their own customized RWA lending markets without governance intervention -> Morpho is re-evaluated and up-rated from a single lending DApp to an 'on-chain credit infrastructure (Base Primitive)'.
Conditional Outlook (Thesis vs. Antithesis)
It is unknown at this point how the newly raised massive capital and partnerships will convert into actual lending fee market share in the future. Two scenarios are assumed with equal weight.
Thesis (Premium Justified): If the capital and institutional partnerships lead to actual liquidity onboarding within the protocol. Should Morpho dominate the institutional on-chain lending backend market and successfully narrow the actual revenue share gap with Aave (currently 12.2% vs. 54.9%), the current high FDV can be conditionally justified as a leading indicator of fundamentals.
Antithesis (Multiple Collapse): If the capital injection does not directly translate into an increase in actual cash flow (fee revenue). If liquidity becomes fragmented due to the nature of the isolated market structure, or if Aave successfully defends its market share through its V4 update, there is a possibility that the $2B FDV premium, unsupported by actual revenue, will be de-rated in tandem with future token unlock schedules.
https://t.co/ASdH6yOjkW
Morpho Association has raised $175M to build the open credit network for the world.
Co-led by @paradigm, @a16zcrypto, @RibbitCapital with strategic participation from @apolloglobal, @vaneck_us, @circle_ventures, and @Ledger @Cathayinnov.
The round also included participation from @variantfund, @wmt_ventures, @preludexyz, @IOSGVC, @HashKey_Capital, @sbigroup, @Bpifrance, @mirana, @bamazizimesh, NJJ Capital and 10+ other strategic partners.
The funding will help accelerate Morpho's position as the foundation for onchain credit.
It will be an interesting point to watch whether or not DAT becomes the trigger for this cycle.
Don’t fall for false narratives
- Equity bull market intact
- Crypto only way for tokenization
- Crypto key in a machine to machine AI world
https://t.co/fCiIJPgSV9
Respect to the 0xPPL team for building an on-chain super app through the bear market over the last four years.
Operations may be sunsetting, but their attempts made a definitive contribution to improving the on-chain UX environment. Best of luck on the team's next chapter.
0xPPL is winding down.
after 4 years of building the onchain super app, we're sunsetting the product.
here's what that means for you👇
The Valuation Paradox of Morpho and Aave: The Unrealized Flippening and the FDV Mirage
The market is discussing a generational shift in DeFi lending infrastructure, interpreting Morpho's FDV ($2.05B) surpassing Aave's ($1.3B) as evidence of this transition. However, cross-verifying real-time circulating market cap and lending fee data reveals a severe cognitive dissonance.
Real-time Data Cross-Verification:
• Circulating Market Cap: Aave $1.25B vs Morpho $1.01B → Circulating MCap flippening has NOT occurred
• 365d Fee Revenue: Aave $894.9M (54.9% share) vs Morpho $199.1M (12.2% share)
While Aave dominates actual revenue by 4.5x and maintains a higher circulating market cap, Morpho is ironically valued significantly higher in terms of future potential (FDV). We deconstruct this structural dilemma.
1. The Rationale for the Growth Premium (Thesis)
Undeniably, Morpho's momentum is robust. Over the past year, while Aave's fees decreased by 52.0%, Morpho's surged by 97.8%, solidifying its position as a definitive runner-up.
The driver behind this rapid growth is its 'Agnostic Module' architecture.
• Value Conversion Chain: Permissionless isolated market creation (no governance intervention) → Minimization of idle liquidity (80-90% capital utilization) → Creation of a 50-150bps deposit APY premium over Aave.
This extreme capital efficiency and risk isolation capability are the core reasons Coinbase ($1.6B inflow through a single channel) and Apollo Global Management fully adopted Morpho as their on-chain B2B infrastructure. During the Kelp DAO hack in April 2026, when Aave's integrated pool suffered a $6.6B bank run, Morpho perfectly contained the loss contagion through its isolated structure, securing institutional trust.
2. The Collapse of Value Capture (Antithesis)
However, shifting the perspective from infrastructure utility to 'Tokenomics' exposes a fatal contradiction in valuation.
• Aave: Monopolizing over half the market's fees (54.9%), it routes massive revenue into permanent buybacks and dividends. It stands as a definitive cash cow with a P/E ratio of 10~14x.
• Morpho: Despite facilitating a $199.1M fee ecosystem, the yield returned to token holders is '$0' (Fee switch off). It has forfeited margins for growth. Even if we assume a DeFi-average 10% take rate, its P/E ratio based on the current FDV would exceed 100x—an extreme overvaluation territory.
3. The Financial Detonator: The Gap Between Circulating MCap and FDV, and the Supply BombAnalyzing the supply structure reveals the reality of this gap. Currently, only about 49% of Morpho's total supply (1B MORPHO) is circulating in the market (492.86M circulating supply). In contrast, nearly all of Aave's supply is circulating.
In other words, the reason Morpho's FDV is abnormally high despite a lower circulating market cap is due to the 'massive locked overhang.' Over the next 12 months, a staggering 22.6% of Morpho's total supply is scheduled for a vesting unlock. Even if Apollo's 48-month split purchase serves as a long-term catalyst, a token with zero actual cash flow (revenue) lacks the capacity to fully absorb the massive profit-taking volume from early VCs flooding the public market in the short term.
Conclusion & Conditional OutlookWhile Morpho is the technical victor in software infrastructure and B2B adoption, Aave—controlling 54.9% of lending market fees—retains absolute superiority as an investment asset in terms of financial soundness and shareholder return capability.
For the market's anticipated true 'Circulating MCap Flippening' to materialize, two conditions must be forced beyond mere narrative:
1. A decisive activation of a rational fee switch without causing liquidity drain.
2. The resolution of the 22.6% unlock overhang pouring in over the next year.
If these conditions are not met, the excessive FDV premium currently attached to Morpho will likely prove to be a mirage that shatters at the point of the short-term unlocks, rather than a pricing-in of future growth.
High TPS is irrelevant if a network lacks absolute liveness.
The Sui mainnet stalling again—this time explicitly due to a "crash bug in the gas charging logic introduced by the 1.72 release"—highlights the fatal flaw of monolithic L1s prioritizing speed over resilience.
• Structural Reality: A sovereign financial infrastructure does not have a "pause" button. If a single software bug can stall a multi-billion dollar ledger, it is a tech startup's application, not a global settlement layer.
• The Valuation Trade-off: Pursuing 100k+ TPS $\rightarrow$ Exposure to Single Points of Failure (SPOF) $\rightarrow$ Recurring liveness failures.
Institutional capital routes toward absolute trust and censorship resistance (CROPS), not theoretical speed limits.
Sui mainnet is currently experiencing a network stall. Network activity may be paused at this time.
The Sui Core team is actively investigating. Updates and incident review will be shared as soon as they are available.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.7M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.5M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.2M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.4M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.5M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.5M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.2M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.3M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers