1499

[1499 @YYwhale]

@KateMillerGems YEC

[1499 @YYwhale]

@Aqqssaa12 CANTON CC

[Yuval Rooz @YuvalRooz]

I think HYPE is undervalued and buying it back makes sense.

When we designed @CantonNetwork, burn was a critical metric in our option. Therefore we didn’t have MEV. No payment for validators for ordering. You want to transact on the network, you burn coins. Long term, the price which determines how many coins will be burned will reflect the multiple the market gives on the $ utility the network generates which I think is healthy.

I think multiples will come down on networks that don’t generate revenues. It’s all a question of when. And my prediction is that when it happens, it will be violent.

@dotcuriouscat should have added $CC multiples. 😀

[1499 @YYwhale]

@BaseHubHB CANTON CC

[1499 @YYwhale]

@Sophia_WebX CANTON CC

[1499 @YYwhale]

@HafeezBhut62976 CANTON CC

[1499 @YYwhale]

@lourdesanchezok CANTON CC

[1499 @YYwhale]

@xmiiru_ CANTON CC

[1499 @YYwhale]

@Hania16836 canton cc

[1499 @YYwhale]

@Aqqssaa12 canton cc

[1499 @YYwhale]

@krakenfx canton cc

[1499 @YYwhale]

@DanaShostak canton cc

[1499 @YYwhale]

@lourdesanchezok canton cc

[1499 @YYwhale]

@CryptoHayes CANTON CC

[Nick Research @Nick_Researcher]

➥ Canton vs Ethereum: I see the $100T Regulatory Capture Play nobody is talking about

Most CT say this is a technical debate about blockchains

I think it's a regulatory land grab and @ethereum is losing by not showing up

@CantonNetwork is trying to certify before $ETH gets a chance to compete, and from my POV it's already working

☒ What's actually happening

Canton is a permissioned chain backed by Goldman Sachs, Citadel, DRW, Visa, Circle, and Paxos.

The numbers are real:
- $350B in daily US Treasury repo volume already runs on Canton rails
- JPM Coin went live on Canton in January
- Visa joined as a super validator in March
- @LayerZero_Core now routes Canton assets across 165+ public blockchains
- $CC trades at a $5B fully diluted valuation

But here's the part I find more interesting than any of those numbers

Canton's co-founder is now in closed-door regulatory meetings arguing that ZKPs are too dangerous for institutional finance

FYI, the co-founder is who literally co-authored libsnark, one of the foundational ZK cryptography libraries

☒ The argument and why it doesn't need to be right

The ZK argument goes like this: bugs go undetected, data stays private, damage spreads silently before anyone notices

They point to the April 2025 Solana zero-day in Confidential Transfers as a real example

I'm not saying the concern is fabricated because ZK bugs are real

But I think the goal is to make ZK feel risky to people who already don't fully trust crypto, before the ZK camp can frame the conversation first

If you can define what "safe" means before regulation crystallizes, you don't need to compete on merit, instead you compete on permission

That's a different game entirely and it's one Canton is playing very well

☒ The irony I can't get past

Via LayerZero, Canton-based tokenized assets now flow into Ethereum, Arbitrum, and ZK-native DeFi

So in practice: a bank holds tokenized Treasuries on Canton → routes through LayerZero → posts as collateral on @aave → running on ZK infra

Canton is lobbying against ZK while routing institutional capital through it

I think that's the point, use crypto's liquidity pools → get regulators to close the door behind you

☒ Why this matters for ETH specifically

This is where I think people are sleeping

The $100T tokenization opportunity isn't going to be decided by which chain is technically better

It's going to be decided by which framework regulators feel comfortable approving first

- If ZK gets categorized as systemic risk → institutional tokenization lands on permissioned rails → ETH settles DeFi, not global finance

- If ZK earns regulatory clearance → the same chain securing DeFi starts securing RWAs → ETH's role in the financial stack expands dramatically

Standard Chartered's 2028 forecast puts $2T of RWA majority on ETH

I think that number only materializes if ZK infra gets regulatory permission to touch institutional assets

☒ What I'm watching

- CLARITY Act Senate markup, targeted second half of April → does it create a clear path for ZK-based compliance or leave it in a gray zone?

- zkSync Prividium and institutional ZK tooling → does it reach regulators before the frame is locked?

- Canton's next validator announcements → each one makes the institutional flywheel harder to reverse

I don't think that argument should win. But right now, only one side is in the room where it gets decided

[1499 @YYwhale]

@KateMillerGems canton cc

[1499 @YYwhale]

@zoyafatma12781 CANTON CC

[1499 @YYwhale]

@cryptofergani CANTON CC

[BSCN @BSCNews]

https://t.co/hnGWc8L8c5

[1499 @YYwhale]

@lourdesanchezok CANTON CC