Axel Bitblaze 🪓

i’m increasing my ETH exposure more than my BTC here, and i didn't make that call lightly. I did my analysis on the market the flows, the wallets, the treasuries and the history first.. this thread is everything i found: 🧵👇

@trader1sz yo sz

Like if you see this

@DonAlt hi don

Oh shit so many CT faces I haven't seen in a long time on the timeline What happened

@MustStopMurad murad first time on my timeline since idk how many months and years damn

A setup to run near Fable 5 level AI model for free.. with GLM 5.2 and Kimi K2.7, china's open models, straight inside your terminal. here's the exact setup, quick context btw: these aren't toys. GLM 5.2 and Kimi K2.7 are serious open models (Kimi's a 1-trillion-parameter beast with 262k context). cloudflare hosts them and gives you 10,000 free requests worth of usage a day.. plenty for real work.. you run them through OpenCode, a free open-source coding terminal (like claude code, but you pick the model). ▫️ step 1 - install opencode mac, paste in terminal: curl -fsSL opencode.ai/install | bash windows: npm install -g opencode-ai then type opencode to start a session. ▫️ step 2 - pick the model inside opencode type /models, hit Ctrl+A to see all of them, and choose Cloudflare Workers AI. it'll ask for your account ID and an API key.. next step gets you both. ▫️ step 3 - get your cloudflare keys go to dash.cloudflare.com 
in the left sidebar click AI → Workers AI
click "Create Workers AI API Token"
that one screen gives you BOTH the token AND your account ID paste both into opencode and you're live.

I just read Miles' robinhood chain breakdown, genuinely one of the better pieces on it. few things from it: if you want exposure, here's the practical map from safest to most degen: Safest → $ARB + $UNI. the chain runs on arbitrum's stack, uni's doing ~$500M/day on it, and ARB reportedly earns ~10% of the chain's revenue. you win if the chain wins, without picking the right coin. Middle → $ARROW (top defi protocol) + $VEX (top AI one). real products, not just memes. Degen → $CASHCAT, the main meme, backed by core robinhood team. highest risk, highest upside.. but as Miles stresses, it all hinges on one thing: does robinhood actually open the bridge and send its 28M users onchain ?

@Lorenzo_inXsona yes

@Axel_bitblaze69 Easy to understand - Ethereum SuperCycle

$BTC is up 2% $ETH is up 6% hyperliquid:native is up 1.5% $LIT is up 6% hmm.. interesting

@RookieXBT WE ARE ENTERING THE MOST ABUNDANT BALANCED WEALTHY AND SUCCESSFUL PERIOD OF OUR LIVES STARTING TODAY

@oxtochi man im gonna miss it so much

they told us the world cup was gonna last 40 days mehn, how come it's almost over?

@grok @PolymarketSport how much is that in total

@PolymarketSport @grok how much is his match fee

🚨FACT: Kylian Mbappé has donated all of his earnings from the French national team since 2017 to charity

What if memecoins properly return and they really make a comeback ? I think $pump could be the best bet to make gains instead of trading random memecoins in the search of next 2-5-10-100x gains The basic thesis is simple.. Instead of trying to pick the one player who wins at the casino, you own exposure to the platform earning from almost everyone who enters. And when I looked into the actual numbers, @Pumpfun is already a much bigger and more profitable business than its current valuation suggests.. $PUMP is trading around $0.00146 with a market cap of roughly $586M and an FDV of around $1.24B The token is still down about 83.5% from its ATH of $0.0088 and roughly 64% below the $0.004 public-sale price So despite Pump becoming one of the highest-earning crypto applications, the token has basically been destroyed since launch. Now compare that valuation with the actual business. Over the last 30 days, users paid around $73.9M in fees across Pump’s launchpad, PumpSwap and trading terminal. Pump retained around $28.1M as protocol revenue, while approximately $10.5M was directed towards PUMP holders through buybacks. PumpSwap itself processed around $19.5B in volume during the same period. And since launch, Pump has generated approximately $1.85B in total fees, $1.2B in retained protocol revenue and $308.7M in cumulative token buybacks. Just think about that for a second. The company has already generated more than twice the token’s current market cap in cumulative revenue. Even using only the latest 30-day revenue of $28.1M, Pump is currently running at roughly $337M in annualised revenue. That puts $PUMP at around 1.7x annualised revenue based on circulating market cap and roughly 3.7x based on FDV. Those are obviously not guaranteed forward numbers, but for one of the most recognisable consumer applications in crypto, the current valuation is not expensive if the business can even maintain its present activity. And this is where the memecoin thesis becomes interesting. 18.67M tokens launched through Pump.fun between January 2024 and June 2026. Around 68.7% stopped trading on the same day they launched. More than 80% stopped trading within two days. Only 4.55% remained active for longer than 90 days. 832,941 @PumpfunEco launches between May 8 and June 10, 2026. Only 0.198% graduated within 24 hours. That works out to roughly 1 successful graduation for every 500 launches, and the graduation rate is now around 3.2x lower than the 0.63% recorded during September and October 2025. Normally, those numbers would sound extremely bearish. But for Pump, I think they actually explain the thesis. Almost everyone launching or buying these coins will fail to find the next $FARTCOIN, PNUT, MOODENG or GOAT. Pump does not need to know which one wins. It earns when the token is launched, when people trade on the bonding curve, when it graduates, when it trades on PumpSwap and when users trade through its terminal. Thousands of coins can die while the platform still earns from all the activity that happened before they died. That is why $PUMP is potentially a much cleaner memecoin bet than trying to build a portfolio of individual memes. Pump is already supporting roughly 92,000 daily active users, 305,000 weekly users and around 700,000 monthly users. PumpSwap has processed approximately $414M over the last 24 hours, $4.07B over seven days, $19.49B over 30 days and almost $332B cumulatively. The platform also has around $232M in TVL today. More importantly, Pump is no longer just a basic page where anyone can launch a coin. It now controls the launchpad, the bonding curve, the native PumpSwap exchange and its own trading terminal. So instead of sending graduated tokens and their volume to another exchange, Pump can keep more of the entire lifecycle inside its own ecosystem. Creators are becoming another important part of that loop. During Q1 2026, creators earned around $133.6M through tracked Pump.fun and PumpSwap creator fees. They earned another $85.7M in Q2. That means more than $219M was paid to creators during the first half of 2026 alone. This gives creators a direct financial reason to keep launching, building communities and bringing users back to the platform. The Pump ecosystem itself is already worth around $1.67B, excluding PUMP. Together, Pump ecosystem tokens are still generating close to $200M in daily trading volume even during a much weaker memecoin environment. So if memecoin activity returns, Pump can benefit from several things happening together. - More people will launch tokens. - More traders will enter bonding curves. - More coins will graduate. - PumpSwap volume should increase. - Creators should earn more. - Terminal activity should rise. - Protocol revenue should increase. And because part of that revenue is used to buy and burn $PUMP, the token can directly benefit from the higher activity. That last part is what separates $PUMP from many other exchange or ecosystem tokens. DeFiLlama currently tracks around $10.5M of holder revenue over the last 30 days and $308.7M cumulatively. If the latest 30-day pace continued for a year, it would equal roughly $126M in annual buybacks. Against a market cap of approximately $586M, that represents a gross annualised buyback yield of more than 21%. Of course, that is not a dividend and there is no guarantee the current revenue continues. Memecoin volume can disappear quickly, the buyback policy can eventually change and tokens being bought back does not automatically mean the price goes up. But the current maths is still difficult to ignore. Pump is producing real revenue, part of that revenue creates direct demand for $PUMP, and repurchased tokens are being removed from the supply. This is probably the strongest part of the thesis for me. The platform does not need to create a new business model to give the token value. It mainly needs to keep doing what it already does and increase activity. But the current trend is not perfect. Pump generated around $122.2M in retained revenue during Q1 2026, before falling to $91.6M in Q2. That is a decline of roughly 25%. The current 30-day revenue of $28.1M is also around 31% below Q1’s average monthly revenue and about 8% below Q2’s monthly average. PumpSwap’s latest daily volume of $414M is around 36% below its 30-day daily average of roughly $650M. So this is not a thesis that memecoin activity is already returning strongly. Right now, it is a bet that activity eventually returns. The good thing is that Pump has already survived one serious launchpad war. Its share of Solana’s graduated-token market reportedly fell as low as 5% in August 2025, while a competitor bonkfun briefly controlled more than 80% Within roughly two weeks, Pump recovered to around 90% market share while bonk fell to approximately 3%. That shows two things. First, Pump’s moat is not permanent. Token-launch technology can be copied and users can move quickly when another platform offers better incentives. But it also shows how powerful Pump’s distribution, brand, liquidity and existing creator network can be. The moat is not the bonding curve itself. The moat is that traders already expect the next major Solana memecoin to appear there, which attracts creators, and those creators attract more traders. Still, the biggest risk to $PUMP is clearly the supply. The nominal maximum supply is 1T tokens, while around 401.5B are currently circulating. on CoinGecko a total supply of approximately 849.7B after the tokens already removed from supply. The original allocation gave 33% to the ICO, 24% to community and ecosystem initiatives, 20% to the team, 13% to existing investors, 3% to livestreaming, 2.6% to liquidity and exchanges, 2.4% to the ecosystem fund and 2% to the foundation. So there is still a meaningful amount of team, investor and ecosystem supply outside the circulating market. The first major insider cliff has already happened. The next scheduled unlock is on August 12, when approximately 4.17B team tokens and 2.71B investor tokens will unlock. Combined, that is 6.875B PUMP, currently worth around $10M and equal to roughly 1.7% of the circulating float. Similar monthly unlocks are expected to continue under the current vesting schedule. This creates a very interesting piece of maths. Pump bought back approximately $10.5M of PUMP during the last 30 days. The next monthly team and investor unlock is currently worth approximately $10M. So at the current token price and revenue level, monthly buybacks are roughly equal to the dollar value of monthly insider unlocks. That sounds balanced, but the margin is extremely thin. If protocol revenue falls, buybacks will no longer match unlocks. And if the price of PUMP rises while revenue stays flat, the dollar value of each token unlock rises while the amount of money available for buybacks does not. Also, unlocked tokens are not guaranteed to be sold, just as buybacks are not guaranteed to create permanent price support. But the comparison tells us exactly what needs to improve. Pump needs revenue and buybacks to grow faster than the value of the new supply entering the market. The other major risk is that the platform is still completely dependent on speculative attention. Pump can launch millions of tokens, but that does not mean the market is healthy. When more than 80% of coins stop trading within two days and only around 0.2% graduate, users can eventually become tired of repeatedly losing money. If traders stop believing that the next launch can become a major winner, token creation alone will not be enough to maintain volume. There are also market-quality, legal and operational risks. Pump suffered a $2M private-key compromise in May 2024, and recent research identified 1,012 persistent groups of wallets repeatedly appearing among the earliest buyers across multiple launches. That study did not prove those wallets caused the higher activity around the affected tokens, but it does show how coordinated and difficult this market can be for normal traders. So I would not call $PUMP a safe or obvious investment. The token is down more than 80% from its high for real reasons. Current activity is below peak levels. Revenue declined from Q1 to Q2. The graduation rate is extremely low. Competition can appear quickly. And the token still has significant unlocks ahead. But at the same time, it is difficult to find many crypto applications with approximately $1.2B in cumulative revenue, $1.85B in cumulative fees, $332B in DEX volume, around 700,000 monthly active users and more than $308M already directed towards token buybacks, while the token itself trades below a $600M market cap. This is why I think the risk:reward becomes interesting if you believe memecoins will eventually have another major cycle. best thing is Pump does not need every coin to succeed. It does not even need most coins to survive for more than a day. It just needs people to keep believing they can find or create the next winner. If PumpSwap volume returns above $1B per day, monthly revenue moves back towards $50M, creators continue earning, market share remains strong and half of that growing activity continues flowing into token buybacks and burns, the current valuation could start looking very cheap. At $50M in monthly revenue, Pump would be producing $600M annually, roughly equal to the token’s entire current market cap. And if buybacks scaled alongside that activity, the protocol could be buying a meaningful percentage of the circulating market every year. That is the bull case. The bear case is also straightforward. Memecoin activity never properly returns, monthly PumpSwap volume falls below $10B, retained revenue drops below $15M, users and creators move to another platform, and monthly unlocks become consistently larger than buybacks. In that scenario, the current low valuation would not be an opportunity. It would simply reflect a declining business with heavy dilution. So the numbers I am watching from here are PumpSwap volume, daily and monthly active users, protocol revenue, creator earnings, graduation rate, launchpad market share, monthly buybacks and how the market absorbs each new unlock. Back to the main question. If memecoins return, is $PUMP the clearest way to benefit from the entire cycle rather than trying to pick individual winners? I think it probably is. Not because every Pump coin will win. The data shows almost all of them will fail. But while millions of traders compete to find the few coins that survive, Pump keeps earning from the entire process. $PUMP is basically a bet that the casino gets busy again. And instead of guessing who leaves the casino rich, you own exposure to the platform collecting fees from nearly everyone who plays.

@hmalviya9 @nikitabier @elonmusk +1

Twitter was a free bird.. @nikitabier caged it even when @elonmusk thinks the bird is still free. The bird is barely alive. It will die if you don’t fix the algo.

@mil_ahm yes

@Axel_bitblaze69 From 200m to 700m is good ?

$LIT or $HYPE ? I'd BUY more $LIT here.. here's why: I think it could very well outperform $HYPE from here, and the reason is quite simple.. Lighter is already doing a meaningful share of Hyperliquid’s actual business, but $LIT is still valued at only a tiny fraction of $HYPE At the time of writing, $LIT is trading around $2.42 with a market cap of roughly $602M and an FDV of $2.4B. while $HYPE is trading around $65 with a market cap of roughly $14.5B and an FDV above $62B So based on circulating market cap, Hyperliquid is valued around 24x higher than Lighter. But when you compare the actual protocol numbers, the gap is not 24x everywhere. Over the last 30 days, Hyperliquid processed around $189B in perpetual trading volume while Lighter processed $37.6B. That means Lighter is already doing almost 20% of Hyperliquid’s volume while being valued at only around 4.1% of its market cap. Lighter’s current open interest is around $885M compared with $10.9B on Hyperliquid, meaning Lighter has around 8.1% of Hyperliquid’s open interest. It's TVL is around $525M compared with Hyperliquid’s $6B, meaning it has roughly 8.7% of Hyperliquid’s TVL So Lighter has around 20% of the volume, 8% of the open interest and 9% of the TVL, but only 4% of the market cap. That is the first major valuation gap I see. Even when looking at the entire perp DEX market, Lighter is no longer a small player.. The whole sector processed around $9B in volume over the last 24 hours and $527.7B over the last 30 days, with total open interest of around $17.8B Lighter contributed $621M of the latest daily volume, $7.48B over 7 days and $37.6B over 30 days.. That gives it roughly 6.9% of daily volume, 7.1% of monthly volume and around 5% of the sector’s open interest. Since launch, Lighter has already processed around $1.71T in cumulative perp volume. The product is also seeing actual onchain usage. Over the latest 24-hour period, DeFiLlama recorded around 9,040 active addresses, 428 new addresses and more than 963,000 transactions on Lighter. Its spot exchange is still much smaller than the perp business, but it has still processed around $230M in spot volume over the last 30 days and $11.1B cumulatively. So the main business remains perps, but they are slowly building a wider trading venue around it. Now, yeah the comparison becomes less attractive when we look at revenue. Lighter generated around $2.71M in fees and $2.11M in protocol revenue over the last 30 days. Hyperliquid generated around $60.3M in fees and $43.1M in revenue during the same period. So despite doing almost 20% of Hyperliquid’s volume, Lighter is currently generating only around 4.9% of its revenue. This tells us that Lighter’s volume is being monetised far less efficiently. If we annualise the latest 30-day revenue, Lighter is running at roughly $25.3M per year, while Hyperliquid is running at roughly $517M. That puts $LIT at around 24x annualised protocol revenue and $HYPE at around 28x. So based purely on current revenue, $LIT is not trading at some crazy discount to $HYPE. It is slightly cheaper, but not enough to build the entire thesis around that alone. The actual bet is that Lighter can monetise its existing volume much better from here. rn standard accounts pay zero maker and taker fees, but that free trading comes with 300ms taker latency and 200ms maker and cancellation latency. Premium accounts pay a 0.004% maker fee and a 0.028% taker fee, but they get faster execution. Staking $LIT then reduces both the fees and latency. At the highest listed tier of 500,000 LIT staked, the maker fee falls to 0.0028%, the taker fee falls to 0.0196% and taker latency improves to 140ms. The model is basically using zero fees to attract retail volume while charging more serious traders for speed and execution quality. And this is where I think the operating leverage could come from. Lighter does not necessarily need to grow volume from $38B to $100B immediately. Even if volume stays near current levels, revenue can grow much faster if a larger percentage of traders move towards premium accounts and staking-based fee tiers. But this is still something they need to prove. also yeah, I would not pretend Lighter is currently growing faster than Hyperliquid. It is not. but the protocol proved it could attract a huge amount of volume even after the airdrop.. its good to see how well lighter is doing overall now that the farmers are gone which isnt the case for many other projects who did airdrop and even the value accrual towards $LIT is real. Lighter uses trading-fee revenue to buy $LIT from the market through daily 24-hour TWAP purchases. Over the last 30 days, around $2.06M was recorded as token-holder revenue through buybacks. Over seven days, the figure was around $418,000, while cumulative token-holder revenue has reached approximately $22.4M. Lighter has also now burned 15,638,702 LIT that had been repurchased using exchange revenue through the end of Q2. That removed roughly 6.3% of the reported circulating supply. Going forward, the team says repurchased tokens will continue to be permanently burned, meaning the value loop is easy to understand: more trading activity leads to more fee revenue, which leads to more $LIT purchases and eventually less token supply. There is also real utility around staking. For every one LIT staked, users can deposit up to 10 USDC into Lighter’s LLP liquidity pool. Staking also gives access to fee discounts, better execution and lower latency. Around 125M LIT is currently staked, which is roughly half of the reported circulating supply. But there is an important catch here too. Lighter is targeting a staking yield of around 6%, which would distribute approximately 7.5M LIT per year at the current staking level. Those rewards will now come from the remaining ecosystem token allocation rather than entirely from recurring protocol revenue. Since staking launched in January, approximately 3.72M LIT has already been distributed, including around 170,000 LIT through its fee-credit programme. So the buybacks and burns reduce supply, but staking rewards release previously uncirculated ecosystem tokens and partially offset that reduction. The token structure is probably the biggest risk here. LIT has a maximum supply of 1B tokens, while only 250M, or 25%, is currently reported as circulating. The allocation is 25% for the original airdrop, another 25% for future ecosystem incentives and partnerships, 26% for the team and 24% for investors. So 50% was allocated to the ecosystem and 50% to the team and investors. Team and investor unlocks begin on December 29, 2026 after the one-year lockup. The team allocation will release around 237,286 LIT per day, while investors will receive around 219,000 LIT per day. Combined, that is approximately 456,286 LIT unlocking every day for three years. At the current price of around $2.42, that is roughly $1.1M of daily unlocks, 13.7M LIT per month and 166.5M LIT per year. To put that into perspective, the recent 15.6M-token burn is equal to only around 34 days of team and investor unlocks once vesting begins. So yes, the burn is meaningful today, but the protocol needs significantly higher revenue and buybacks before December if it wants to absorb a meaningful percentage of the future supply. This is easily the largest risk to the $LIT thesis atm Technology is where Lighter has a genuinely different angle. Lighter is an application-specific ZK rollup built on Ethereum, with order matching, liquidations and state transitions proven cryptographically and verified on Ethereum. The team says its infrastructure is designed to process tens of thousands of orders and cancellations per second with millisecond latency while keeping costs low enough to offer zero fees to retail traders. L2Beat currently reports around $932M in total value secured, which is different from DeFiLlama’s $525M TVL because both platforms measure different things. L2Beat also recorded approximately 45M operations over the latest day, averaging around 521 operations per second. Over the last year, Lighter paid around $217,000 in total Ethereum operating costs, equal to an average of roughly $0.000005 per L2 operation. That shows just how efficient the application-specific rollup design can be at scale. But again, there is no point hiding the other side. Lighter is still classified as a Stage 0 rollup. The operator remains centralised, emergency upgrades can skip the normal 21-day delay, the operator may be able to extract MEV through transaction ordering and users may need to wait 14 days before using the escape hatch if the sequencer fails or censors them. L2Beat also records a 4.5-hour downtime incident from October 2025, along with shorter proof and state-update interruptions more recently. So verifiable matching is an important advantage, but the protocol is not fully decentralised or free of operational risks today. Then there is the Robinhood partnership, which I think is the most interesting catalyst but is still too early to call a success. Eligible Robinhood Wallet users in selected jurisdictions can now trade Lighter perpetuals directly through the wallet. Lighter has committed $11M worth of LIT incentives to the Robinhood community, with users receiving double points when trading through Robinhood Wallet compared with Lighter’s own web application. The potential distribution is obviously huge, but the current numbers are still tiny. Robinhood Chain has contributed only around $12.1M of cumulative Lighter perp volume so far, including approximately $3.9M during the latest 24 hours. Compared with Lighter’s $37.6B monthly volume, Robinhood activity is still almost irrelevant today. So I see Robinhood as a real catalyst, not something that should already be fully priced into the thesis. Against the rest of the perp market, Lighter is also clearly ahead of most older protocols. Aster is currently slightly larger, with around $45.8B in 30-day volume and $1.89B in open interest. But Lighter’s $37.6B monthly volume is already nearly 14x GMX’s $2.7B, while its $885M open interest is almost 16x GMX’s $56M. Lighter also generated $2.11M in 30-day protocol revenue compared with approximately $631,000 for GMX. So even after the post-airdrop slowdown, Lighter has already established itself among the largest active perp venues rather than simply being another small competitor trying to chase Hyperliquid. That is why I think the setup is interesting. I am not saying Lighter is currently better than Hyperliquid. Hyperliquid still has around 5x more monthly volume, 12x more open interest, 11x more TVL and more than 20x the monthly protocol revenue. It has much deeper liquidity, better monetisation and a much larger ecosystem. But $HYPE is also valued around 24x higher based on circulating market cap. For $LIT to outperform, Lighter does not need to replace Hyperliquid. It only needs to hold around $35B to $40B in monthly volume, stop the decline in open interest, move more serious traders towards premium accounts, grow monthly protocol revenue from the current $2.1M towards $5M or more and continue burning the tokens it buys back. If Robinhood becomes a real distribution channel on top of that, the market may eventually start valuing Lighter closer to the business it has already built. But the bear case is just as clear. If volume continues falling, premium accounts fail to improve monetisation, monthly revenue drops below $1M, Robinhood activity remains insignificant and 166M team and investor tokens begin unlocking every year into weak demand, then the lower valuation is completely justified. In that situation, the buybacks would not be large enough to protect holders from dilution. So the numbers I am watching from here are simple: 30-day perp volume, open interest, revenue per dollar traded, premium-account adoption, monthly token buybacks, Robinhood volume and how much revenue Lighter is generating before the December unlocks begin. Right now, $LIT is valued at around 4% of $HYPE while Lighter is already doing around 20% of Hyperliquid’s volume, 8% of its open interest, 9% of its TVL and 5% of its revenue. That does not automatically make $LIT cheap. But it does mean Lighter does not need to flip Hyperliquid for the token to outperform. Even partially closing that gap could be enough. That is the actual thesis.

@Tom_Degen68 gm tom

@Axel_bitblaze69 late gm Axel

Good Morning to everyone who stops by to read and like my tweets everyday, instead of doing what they should be doing

@Babavoss2050 @hrithikk he doesn’t even respond to me nowadays bro

@Axel_bitblaze69 You really working hard these days or have a couple fight with @hrithikk ?

i’ve been trying to engage with more small creators on 𝕏 lately.. especially for reply guys and small creators who are genuinely putting in the effort, i’ll try to support as much as i can. just reply something good under my posts, ask questions which will make easy for me engage, quote tweet, or tag me in something good you’ve made. if i notice it, i’ll reply, repost, quote tweet and engage with your content wherever i can. just doing my small part to help good creators get noticed.

@CrossAssettt ♥️

@Axel_bitblaze69 Appreciate people like you who actually make an effort to support smaller creators. Means a lot 🤝

@Maziiiarkrm maybe brother yeah