JoshMax

Is Ore money, is it a Store of Value, or is it a utility asset? To evaluate this, I will be using the recent Glassnode x Keyrock report that looked at 5 main factors: - Dormancy - Turnover - Productive Float - Anchored Float - Exchange Supply Dormancy Dormancy is the degree to which coins stay in a wallet against those moved. This is a key indicator according to the report as it signals hoarding and low turnover, which are core traits of a SoV profile. To provide context, BTC's ≥1y dormancy rate is currently around ~61.1% whereas ETH's ≥1y rate is ~51.7%. Now comparing this to Ore, currently has a ≥1y rate of around ~22.9% when including the never moved Ore in this calculation. Turnover This is the measure of percentage of circulating supply that is transferred daily. For Ore, we will be taking into account the last 4 weeks daily volume divided by the Daily closing price which provides an approximated number of tokens traded daily. Using data from Coingecko, this came to 42,695 tokens traded per day on average for the last 30 days. Taken as a percentage of the 411k circulating supply, this represents a turnover of 9.62% per day. As a comparison, BTC has ~0.61% of free float per day whereas ETH has ~1.34% of free float per day. This is a sign that Ore in the turnover category would lean more to being a medium of exchange rather than a Store of Value or Utility asset. Anchored Float Anchored float in the report is defined as supply of the asset that is difficult to mobilise quickly. Since Ore does not have a lock up time in its staking mechanism, and there is no unlock period when it comes to its usage in DeFi, it can be assumed that the Anchored float is near 0%. However, due to the buyback mechanism, there is a percentage of Ore that never gets to touch the market. We will take this as anchored float for this evaluation since it is hard to mobilize something that never enters the market. With an average of -808 Ore emitted according to Dune, this creates an anchored float of ~0.19% compared to BTC's ~6.7% and ETH's ~25.1%. Productive Float This builds on anchored float and can be seen as a % of supply that is deployed to DeFi applications as collateral such as liquidity provision. In the case of Ore, there are only two main use cases; one is native staking (the refining mechanism and plain staking), the other liquidity provision in apps such as Meteora. Currently there is ~291,370 Ore staked in both of the staking mechanisms as well as ~11,381 Ore in public liquidity pools. Combined this is 302,751 Ore in anchored float which is ~73.6% excluding DATs compared to BTC's ~4.66% and ETH's ~16.05%. Exchange Supply Exchange supply is the supply of circulating coins held in Central Exchanges which represent the fastest path to transact back to fiat, meaning a lower share generally signals SoV holding behaviour. When it comes to Ore, this is extremely low according to Arkham with just over 0.3% in Swissborg's hot Wallet, ~0.09% in Flash Trade's and negligible amounts in Mexc, Lbank and BingX combining to just over ~0.4%. In comparison, BTC has around ~14.3% on exchanges whilst ETH has ~11.3% supply on exchanges. Bringing it all together Using the original reports Behavioural Scorecard, the findings might suggest that @toly was on the money when he stated ''Ore is money'' but it also be argued that it is currently a utility asset due to the high productive float. For Ore to gain more SoV standing, we would need to see lower turnover and higher dormancy rates which would also reduce the productive float rate. It will be interesting to see how this develops over time as Ore has only reintroduced itself about a month ago. But for now, the hardhat stays on and I will see you in the mines👷⛏️

I’ve gotten many DMs about Ore over the past 2 weeks. And there's plenty to say about its potential as a non-sovereign SoV within DeFi. But most importantly: Ore just doesn’t die Bitcoin didn’t die after Mt. Gox. Solana didn’t die after FTX. Great projects have a will to live.

"Isn't ORE just another OHM?" There are some similarities after all. OHM's Model: • High APY (8,000%+) → Attracts stakers → Price up → More staking → Reflexive loop • Worked during 2021 bull → Collapsed spectacularly when growth stopped • "Decentralized reserve currency" narrative → Math that worked until it didn't ORE's Model: • High yields (~130% unrefined, ~23% staking) → Attracts miners → Revenue → Buybacks → Deflation → Price up → More mining • Working during current favorable conditions → Untested in prolonged bear • "Perfect store of value" narrative → Math that works with sufficient activity The reflexive loop structure is eerily similar. Both require continuous participation to maintain their core value proposition. The Critical Differences: 1. Yield OHM: • 8,000% APY paid entirely in newly minted OHM • Zero external revenue, pure dilution • Mathematically guaranteed to collapse without infinite growth ORE: • 20% ORE APY paid from 10% of buybacks (funded by mining fees in SOL) • 130% ORE APY paid from 10% refining fees (paid by claimers) • Real external value flowing in through mining fees 2. Fair Launch vs. VC Extraction OHM: Early investors and team had preferential allocations, accelerating collapse when they exited. ORE: 100% fair launch means no insider dumping, only whales and traders to contend with. Counterpoint: With ORE we all get rekt together if it collapses. Fair launch doesn't guarantee viability. 3. Entertainment Value OHM: Pure staking, zero entertainment beyond number-go-up. ORE: Strategic mining game with PVP/PVE, motherlode lottery, actual gameplay But: Most blockchain games die. Is ORE's game compelling enough to sustain activity for years without price appreciation? The Honest Assessment ORE is better designed than OHM in every measurable way: • Lower, more sustainable yields • Real revenue from external sources (SOL fees) • Fair launch eliminating insider extraction • Counter-cyclical mechanisms (unrefined APR increases during volatility) • Transparent, auditable mechanics But it has vulnerabilities: • Revenue requires sustained mining activity • Activity may decrease in unfavorable conditions • No proven entertainment value sufficient to sustain through multi-year bear • No major network effects or Lindy, yet TLDR: OMH was structured to collapse. It was mathematically impossible to sustain. ORE is theoretically possible to sustain if mining activity stabilizes at a level where revenue covers emissions or there is a strong enough base of accumulators. The real debate around ore is "Is ORE's value proposition compelling enough to sustain activity?" Which is the exact same question asked of all startups and businesses.

Self sovereignty. Financial privacy. Censorship resistance. Freedom from fiat. These things matter.

few understand.

This weekend i spent some time freshening up on my UI skillset while exploring potential $ORE implementations. The Questions: * Can we use the ORE contract to enable trustless, on-chain betting? * What is the most straightforward on-chain implementation that would also allow non-crypto participation? The Result: 1. Users pick their odds to play 2. Users enter an amount to bet 3. Wait for the round to end & claim winnings The nice thing about ore is you can essentially provide this for free by instead just claiming a portion of the refined ore as a fee rather than direct on the SOL bets. I have built out an initial MVP of how this works (links below) called RockBet - attempting to abstract any on-chain logic away from the user & provide a standard betting interface.

🚀 MOTHERLODE GROWING! 🚀 💰 Current Jackpot: 300 $ORE ($108,651.00 USD) The motherlode keeps climbing! Will you be the one to hit it? Powered by refinore.com

JUST IN: Everyone across the Solana ecosystem can't stop talking about $ORE. Is this the future $BTC of $SOL or is it another extraction to make the rich insiders, richer?

SoV assets leak value when relying on PoW miners who burn electricity & cover costs by selling tokens for fiat. @OREsupply's insight: What if that flow is inverted? Can miner costs be redirected into the token instead of out and keep the value within the onchain system? Yes.

Today’s post of daily wisdom addresses the nuance between money and a store of value. Money is a medium of exchange, something to avoid needing the double coincidence of wants when transacting. When I want a coffee, I don’t want to trade 5 minutes of crypto advice like our buddy @chooserich . I want to walk into that store and know what a coffee costs and reach into my wallet and pay. I want to come back the next day and have a reasonably good idea on what that coffee will cost. Maybe next year the price goes from $4 to $4.50. The best money in the world is USD. I can get off a plane in about anywhere in the world and hand it to a cab driver and they will take me where I need to go. The best money in the world is actually a horrible store of value. No one would ever think to keep their life savings in USD. To be good money we just need short term price stability. I need to be able to earn USD and then convert that into goods and services I need now and then save the rest for later. When I save the rest for later I convert it into SoV (stocks/bonds/RE/gold/crypto). L1 to date have been used as both money and a SoV. The problem with this is money should be easy to use. You should never feel friction when using money or it’s bad money. BTC was slow and expensive so we wrap it in other L1 ecosystems to make it usable. ETH was faster but also expensive so it to gets wrapped to make it more usable. Solana was the first that was cheap and fast for the consumer and why I fell in love with it after a decade in BTC and ETH ecosystems. Once you used solana coming from eth it was like a lightbulb went off that this is how the world should work. Okay so where am I going with this… if solana goes to 10 trillion tomorrow it actually becomes worse money. People will start posting their wtf eth gas posts for solana of how much they spent transacting on the chain. We want solana to stay cheap and fast. This is where ore enters the chat. If ore becomes the native solana store of value, which imo increasingly looks to be becoming the case, then we can separate money from a store of value. Transaction fees to use ore in defi or send it to family overseas will cost the same whether ore is $500 or $50k… and it will be super cheap to use because that is what solana delivers. Solana probably stabilizes some as well if people are no longer betting on it as a SoV. People would buy solana like they buy gas… you get it when you need it and you don’t care about the price. You will care about spending your ore and the price you spend it at but not what price solana is when transacting with your ore. Ore is a feature not a bug for solana. Together they form a union of money and store of value that no L1 has had to date. As soon as I came to this conclusion I could not unsee it. If you see this today you are still early. There are only 400k ore in circulation… few will be able to own a whole ore but that doesn’t mean you can’t try to today. But it on the market or enter the mines or do both. You don’t control when you first find out about ore… but you do control how long you sit on that info before dedicating the time to learn about it

ORE has solved the original sin of crypto. 🧵👇

It just keeps increasing lol😂 $80k from flipping @AxiomExchange in daily rev to become the #2 protocol on @solana by daily rev $700k daily is $255 million ARR for reference. 100% of which goes towards buybacks Imagine $255 million in yearly buy pressure Yeah, that is $ORE

Ore is money

$SERV Prediction Market Agents x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

$SERV will be the biggest PVE runners on mainnet/$base soon enough Everybody will be building & using agents built on the platform All those agents will be propelling the token to dizzying heights with tokenomics Team still in 2nd gear rn - we simply early $20m range atm

CEX's, market markets, and funds will either have to mine ORE or buy it directly from the market. Still early.

rev chain. only possible on @solana