Smart Game Financeの‌価格SMART

Tagged my friends to check @stayloudio - $LOUD > @HouseofChimera > @stacy_muur > @belizardd > @SherifDefi > @0xCheeezzyyyy > @moic_digital > @Mars_DeFi > @Nick_Researcher > @YashasEdu > @thelearningpill > @kenodnb > @Flowslikeosmo > @AlwaysBeenChoze > @satyaXBT > @Haylesdefi > @Hercules_Defi > @DeRonin_ > @0xAndrewMoh > @0xDefiLeo > @Defi_Warhol > @CryptMoose_ > @TheDeFiPlug > @arndxt_xo > @CryptoShiro_ > @the_smart_ape

Bitget Onchain Trading (Onchain) Launches Project ELDE Bitget Onchain Trading (Onchain) launched the project ELDE, and users can start trading in the Onchain Trading section. Bitget Onchain Trading (Onchain) aims to seamlessly connect CEX and DEX, providing users with a more convenient, efficient and secure on-chain trading experience. Users can directly use Bitget spot accounts (USDT/USDC) to trade popular assets on the chain. Currently, popular public chains such as Solana (SOL), BNB Smart Chain (BSC) and Base are supported.

Appreciate the effort to try to quantify moneyness / SoV, but most of this here is wrong: 1) This idea that you fundamentally can’t do cashflow analysis on L1s because of a circular reference (i.e., that fees are charged in native token) is wrong. I've seen this argument before, but it's simply not true. First of all, there’s no explanation of why this is a problem and why it actually means you can't do a DCF. It’s just repeatedly stated circular reference → therefore can’t do cashflow analysis. It actually doesn’t really matter. You can always look at the spot values of the payment currency and convert to whatever reference asset you want (e.g., looking at $USD values at time of payment) to derive whatever number you want. Additionally, this circular reference isn’t fundamental if we wanted to even change it. Users can pay in tokens other than the base asset, and stakers can obviously always sell the payment currency for whatever they want immediately. In many networks, users can always pay in whatever currency they want. In some other cases, some portion of fees is required by the protocol to be paid in the base asset (e.g., base fees in ETH on Ethereum via EIP-1559), but even this is not fundamental. The podcast cited an example to try to support this idea: “Here's a sort of like mental like quick test you can do to understand whether or not you should be using a DCF model. And that is if one person if one account one bank account one wallet owned the entire supply of shares of Apple like I said it wouldn't change the value of Apple, but if one person one account one wallet owned the entire supply of ETH, of SOL, of BTC, of TON of Bittensor, of whatever, right the value of that would be zero because there's there's no one paying fees there's no doing anything.” However, this example actually demonstrates the exact opposite point! In a PoS network, the owner of all the tokens would receive all REV paid by users. (You could DCF this.) The users don’t even need to own the base asset. They can simply pay the network owner in whatever currency they desire (e.g., USDC). Even if we assume that the network remains unchanged and it has a base fee mechanism that requires spending the native currency, then the token/network owner can simply gas abstract this away from users, sponsoring the requisite gas cost (e.g., sponsoring the minimum ETH base fee which goes back to themself) in return for payment in another currency (e.g., USDC). This isn’t even hypothetical - we’re increasingly seeing gas abstraction remove native assets from the view of normie users, and we’ll continue to see more of this. You can also imagine a simple tradfi analogy to see why it falls apart. Imagine tomorrow, Apple announced you must pay for all Apple products using AAPL shares. Obviously this would be a stupid decision and in practice result in lower sales, but it doesn’t mean investors would throw out the DCFs on Apple and say “AAPL is money.” You’d just convert the AAPL shares to a reference asset (eg $USD) to see user demand and what was paid. What Apple really did here is just streamline a share buyback mechanic where they require users to buyback the shares and pay them in, as opposed to taking in $USD and buying shares themself. They can also obviously change this mechanic at any later date, accepting $USD again. 2) I don’t think RSOV actually measures what it’s purported to, and I generally don’t see it as a particularly meaningful measure in valuing an asset as a SoV. RSOV doesn’t seem to actually measure $ inflows/outflows as it’s described. If I sell my ETH to you at a higher $ price, this isn’t captured here. Conversely, RSOV would go up if I held ETH for a long time, the price went up, then I staked it or put it into some DeFi smart contract (even though no new $ came in). All I did was use/move my assets. No money came in (or out in the example where price dropped in between) Maybe this can measure and understand some usage patterns, but it’s not measuring the strength of a SoV or the $ inflows or anything else of that sort. Putting valuation multiples on this just doesn’t hold. What the price of an asset was at any given time when people last moved it to stake/use in defi provides no intrinsic floor or reason for me to hold the asset at that given price (unlike cashflows which do provide an intrinsic value floor).

🔮 My Take: • Let’s be objective, of course there are risks. Any DeFi platform can potentially get hacked or suffer from smart contract bugs. • That being said, the potential upside of farming both APY and an airdrop makes this a good smart move in my opinion. • For example, Marinade offers about 9% APY, but with FragSOL on Exponent, you get similar (or better) returns plus the chance to qualify for an airdrop. • So if you’re looking to maximize returns in this market, this is definitely a smart move right now.

Totally agree with @LexaproTrader smart money will look for smart memes that are fully and have abnormal upside potential for example $USDUC that is the very first and only Unstable coin competing against $60B dead $USDC coin and #propaganda coin that makes the community spread funny lies to pump their bags. Smart money loves clever / new memes they are not going to buy old recycled memes. Quality is what they look for 🥳