Maher
65 posts
@MaherWeb3
Tokenomics designer. I break down why most tokens fail.
The first memecoin on @Stable? Fefer incoming.
Not really? Zoom out. It looks how I'd expect it to look. Also looks pretty similar to broader crypto spot volumes. Some people are just addicted to memecoin trading. They're just not getting attention on CT. (0 exposure)
Why does @base need a token? For two years the honest answer was: it doesn't The new answer is buried deep in securities liquidity - in whose shares stand behind "1:1 backed", and in who pays for depth once stocks start trading against TradFi books. By the end of this post it has a job. The replies under this post are litigating derivatives vs 1:1. Robinhood Chain tokens are also backed 1:1 - shares held at a US custodian. Accurate, but wrong axis. "1:1 backed" answers where the shares sit, never whose they are and the same label is currently being shipped as three different financial instruments. A derivative. Robinhood's EU classic tokens. A contract against the broker, not even onchain. A note. Robinhood Chain, xStocks, Ondo. The shares exist, and the terms inform you what you hold: "tokenized debt securities... do not grant investors any legal or beneficial rights in those underlying securities". A claim on a Jersey SPV. A share. The one Coinbase announced in June. Equity behind the token, dividends, shareholder rights. The message was of ownership. The note is the stablecoin economics applied to equities. You get the peg to the price. Whatever else the shares in custody provide stays within the wrapper. Dividends are "reinvested net of applicable withholding taxes," up to 30% incorporated into the multiplier, and your tax treaty cannot carry over into the SPV. Documentation from every issuer goes mute on securities lending of the custodied portfolio – the quiet fuel that powers zero-commission brokerage in TradFi. In case of insolvency an agent sells the shares and wires you the money. Payee, never the owner. It's a $1.7bn market, and over half of it sits in assets that weren't even onchain a year ago. The standard of the wrapper is being set in advance of the critical mass. The share model sends those benefits back to the holders. This is literally why it is the heavier lift regulation-wise, and why transfer agents are pressuring the SEC right now over who gets to call their product a stock. So Base's version comes down to one clause in the future terms of the product. Namely, when shipped as a token, would the holder retain the ownership claim, or would it be squashed into another note due to composability? Base has already laid tracks for that answer. B20 went live on mainnet two weeks ago, a native ERC-20 superset with built-in transfer policies and issuer controls, with documentation naming tokenized equities as a target use case. It is that very toolkit which allows a share to stay a share onchain, i.e., compliance baked into the protocol rather than a Jersey wrapper. If the claim survives, it will be the first instrument of this type on any public EVM, thanks to B20. If it is squashed into another note, the comparison with Robinhood is gone too. Now, the token part. The share version is the one institutions can hold, and institutional size is the entire point of the liquidity war. One of the founders in these replies chose Robinhood Chain over Base for his v2 precisely because Base lacks tokenized stock liquidity. And that liquidity has to live onchain - if trading stays inside Coinbase's own book, there is no need for an ERC-20 at all, since the whole pitch is composability. An onchain book is up against TradFi, where hundreds of billions change hands on a daily basis, and it starts from zero. Zero gets filled in one way only - emissions. Every single major L2 got its DeFi liquidity by way of emissions, the only subsidy a public company may pay out without burning money on the income statement. Base is the only one running its emissions engine on a third-party token. And no one runs the monetary policy of their flagship market on a token they do not control. Polymarket currently prices a $BASE token by December at around 12%, almost half of what it was just one week ago. These probabilities are listening to the silence of Coinbase. Read the product, not the odds - an ERC-20 share claim is the first thing on Base which requires an emissions engine of its own. This is how a token that is merely possible differs from a token with a purpose. Jesse says a couple of weeks. Bookmark this for the release of the terms.
i have a thesis that buybacks don't actually work hyperliquid makes $800M annualized revenue pump fun makes $440M annualized revenue $HYPE trades at $65B FDV while $PUMP trades at $1.4B FDV both teams do regularly recurring buybacks with portions of their profits from the business but they trade at vastly different ratios to their revenues i believe the difference is not in how much actual revenue is generated by the business but instead its reflective of the trust premium ascribed to the team determined by their actions and decisions in the market, hyperliquid never overpromised anything, only focused on shipping product and emphatically rewarded their core users based on pre-determined metrics that contributed the most to the platform, the core users of hyperliquid have a very high trust rating with Jeff, & even if you believe the perps revenues are slightly more durable which maybe they are, i believe this trust premium on their execution and social alignment with the community is a major factor in why the token trades so well in contrast, pump fun made $1B in revenue, raised another $1B in their ICO, and promised an airdrop to users that was never delivered, even though they are one of the most successful and consistent businesses in crypto, they do not have social alignment with their core userbase and therefore do not have a comparable trust premium that hyperliquid has, recently it seems they've made concerted effort to improve comms and talk to community more, i believe that if they were ever to seriously focus attention on shifting this dynamic by actually doing the airdrop they've promised and responding to the concerns of their core user base, then the token would trade 10-15x higher, as it would also likely materially increase their volume, attention, and resulting revenues on their platform bitcoin makes $0 in revenue but has a ~$1.3T market cap, it has the greatest trust premium of any asset to ever exist, people know that there will only ever be 21M coins, and they know that the network will always continue to function no matter what to fulfill its necessary actions this is part of what ive been talking about when i say that there is intangible value that contributes to the valuation of a business in addition to the tangible value that is determined purely from revenues and other metrics trust, memetics, and attention are all very important and heavily underdiscussed in markets
bought $PUMP here on the reclaim of old support @ .001675 thesis: making 30-40M a month during bear market for onchain, believe that $SOL will dominate retail activity again this cycle and pump.fun will be most likely beneficiary of this activity if that happens hard for me to believe that they don't see the opportunity in front of them by providing a stimulus package to the trenches w/ the airdrop, especially given historical precedent of how Jito & Jupiter jumpstarted onchain activity in late 2023, if they do airdrop 300M+ then volumes/attention/activity should improve meaningfully regularly competing w/ hyperliquid & polymarket for most profitable crypto protocol also just hard for me to believe that they don't want the token to do well as they own a meaningful amount of it which just started unlocking & their entire business is centered around allowing retail to speculate on tokenization invalidation at lows during unlock selloff around .0014
