blothecap

We published this article a while back predicting hyperliquid:native price at $105 based on buybacks and burns. The reason its easier to sell hyperliquid:native to wall street is because of its structured buybacks and burns, you can build models such as these to value the token. The point is not that our model is accurate, the bigger point is you can build models like these to price the token. Do give it a read if you have time. blog.blothecap.xyz/how-to-price-t…

@claudeai can be a great teacher. Used it to teach myself some fundamentals about studying AI stack for investing. Hope it can help you as well. github.com/blothecap/ai-s…

I have been thinking about why companies like @SpaceX and @Tesla get such high valuation multiples. The common explanation is that @elonmusk is good at storytelling. That is true, but incomplete. The deeper reason is that he does not build companies around normal business problems. He builds them around problems that initially sound almost impossible. Electrify every car in the world. Make humanity multiplanetary. Build reusable rockets. Solve autonomous driving. Build humanoid robots. These are not merely hard problems. At the beginning, they look close to impossible. And that matters. Think about it, do you know the big problems Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon are solving! You most likely don't. Most successful startups solve a big problem, raise capital, build the right team, execute well, and eventually become mature companies. Once the original problem is mostly solved, improvements become incremental. The company shifts from imagination to optimization. Margins, efficiency, distribution, market share, quarterly numbers. At that point, the market can put the company in a box. Auto company. SaaS company. Consumer hardware company. Aerospace company. And once the market can put you in a box, it knows how to value you. Multiples compress. What Musk does differently is that he keeps his companies out of the box. He starts with a mission so large that the market cannot value it through current cash flows alone. Then he breaks the impossible problem into visible milestones. Each milestone makes the original mission look slightly less impossible. Tesla made EVs desirable. SpaceX made reusable rockets real. Starlink turned launch capability into global internet infrastructure. Each step reduces the “impossible” discount. And as the problem starts looking less impossible, more people align with the vision. Capital comes in. Talent comes in. Governments pay attention. Suppliers take the company seriously. Customers become believers. Investors start underwriting not just the current business, but the next layer of optionality. This is the key point: capital is not just a result of the vision. Capital becomes part of the execution engine. A high valuation allows the company to raise more money, hire better people, absorb more failures, build more infrastructure, and move faster than competitors. The valuation itself becomes reflexive. Vision creates capital. Capital creates progress. Progress validates the vision. Validated vision attracts more capital. That loop is extremely powerful when the company keeps executing. This is also why the companies can remain in a perpetual startup phase. Not because they are immature, but because the mission keeps expanding before the market can value them as mature businesses. When Tesla started getting close to proving EV scale, the story moved to autonomy, robotaxis, energy, AI, and Optimus. When SpaceX proved launch dominance, the story expanded to Starlink, defense, space logistics, Starship, Mars, and eventually an entirely new space economy. The bar keeps moving. But it does not move randomly. It moves into adjacent impossible problems where the company’s existing capabilities give it some unfair advantage. This is why the multiples stay high. The market is not only valuing what Tesla or SpaceX are today. It is valuing a portfolio of future call options attached to a founder and organization that have already made impossible things less impossible before. Of course, this can go wrong. If the narrative runs too far ahead of execution, the same reflexive loop can reverse. High valuation can become high expectations. High expectations can become disappointment. And when the market finally decides a company belongs in a normal box, the multiple can collapse very quickly. So the real question is not whether these companies deserve high multiples because the vision is big. The real question is whether they can keep converting impossible claims into partially de-risked realities. That is the actual Elon premium. Not storytelling alone. Storytelling plus execution. Vision plus capital formation. Impossible problems broken into visible milestones. And a company that keeps expanding the frontier before the market can call it mature.

I think it’s time to revisit the accredited investor laws in the US. Companies are staying private longer, where only accredited investors (aka rich people!) can invest. Retail investors can only come in after IPO, when much of the upside has already been captured. These rules were created with the best of intentions, to protect regular people from scams - a noble idea. Unfortunately, in practice they've often made it illegal to get richer, unless you're already rich. A regressive tax! We have to judge policies based on their outcomes, not on their intentions. These are two possible routes I see: 1) Replace the rule with something merit-based, like a financial literacy test. Pass it and you're accredited. Having a qualification based on competency rather than your bank balance or income seems far more fair. 2) Remove the rule entirely. Let consenting adults assess their own risk. Disclosure requirements stay and fraud enforcement stays to punish bad actors.

@Punk9277 @itsthefuture Its a pretty small index etf market once you remove S&P

@itsthefuture x.com/SawyerMerritt/…

seen some takes on "i'd buy SPCX in 3 months at a lower price" sure - but that's on a fundamentally different thesis the thesis at open should be entirely based on flow - val doesn't matter because you have a stock that has - 4.2% float - o/w only 20% to retail -> this means 0.8% possible sell pressure (rest to long-only) - o/w >50% won't sell given flipping policy / natural hodler -> 0.4% possible sell pressure while index funds are expected to buy 20bn / 1% 1% >> 0.4% it's like elon launches at coin with 99.6% control while a DAT is coming in 2 weeks. insanity

There are some massive funding rate opportunities between Hyperliquid and Ondo Equity Perps even on large names like Google. Easy 25-50% APR and because its google, its unlikely you will get liquidated on your shorts. In case you can't access Ondo, you can use this link app.ondoperps.xyz/?ref=817GXH

We all know what happens to low MC, High FDV tokens. Thats what SpaceX is right now. The investor unlocks start next month. If you are buying I don't think you will make money for a long time on the stock. There is a very high probability that SpaceX will become much more valuable over long run but there will most likely be a much better opportunity to enter into SpaceX at a much better price. For now it makes sense to short SpaceX. Its not really a bet against the company, its a bet against market perception of the valuation of the company. Not a financial advice, do your own research.

Top wallet positions in $SPCX on Hyperliquid

@_LetMeDo_ Bearish on price set by market not Elon

@blothecap Why is everybody bearish on Elon

It’s $SPCX day 🚀 How we feeling chat??

Someone please explain to him the meaning of local top and local bottom 🤯

@Barnstorm1 @TokensWolf We usually see this when there is a broader change in momentum

@blothecap @TokensWolf What was the cause of the drawdown? Anything specific? One or two positions, or just yesterday's the across the board pull back of many tokens and stocks?

Our Vault has an expected drawdown of 25% based on our backtests. i.e. You should be willing to risk that much of the capital while investing. Invest only if you can tolerate this kind of risk. Thanks @TokensWolf for pointing out that we do not include this in our vault updates. Going forward every update will have this risk disclaimer.

@RyskyGeronimo @TokensWolf Thanks, will check it out

@blothecap @TokensWolf Use HyperOpen's monte carlo simulator to understand the range of possible drawdowns for this (or any) vault.

So far what we see in simulations is pretty much getting replicated in live execution. Our positions aren't super price sensitive, so small amount of deviation in execution from simulations doesn't seem to affect the performance a lot. Our risk disclaimer is based on the past and in future we might run into scenarios where drawdown could end up being even higher.

@blothecap @TokensWolf Great point, and investors should be made aware at all times what the risks are. Appreciate the transparency from your end. As for ‘expected drawdown’, how are you guys managing parity between backtest simulations and what is seen in the live execution environment?

@TokensWolf Yes agree, will make sure to include this in further tweets. We do declare it on the vault page though. Thanks for the feedback 😊

@blothecap well, maybe stop flexing huge APRs like you did. there was no info about DD on tweets flexing 300-400 APR. be responsible

Vault Update: The last few days have been difficult. The vault is currently in a drawdown of around 12%, and some investors who entered near the recent highs are now in loss. A few have also chosen to withdraw. I want to be very clear about this: drawdowns are part of this strategy. Based on our backtests, a drawdown of up to around 24% is within the expected range for the vault. The current drawdown is uncomfortable, but it is not outside the risk profile we have communicated internally and built the strategy around. That also means this vault is not suitable for everyone. If you cannot tolerate this kind of drawdown, you should not be invested in the vault. We do not want investors taking risk they are not prepared for, and we sincerely do not want anyone to lose money because they entered without understanding the volatility involved. The worst outcome is usually not the drawdown itself. The worst outcome is entering during good performance, panicking during a drawdown, and withdrawing at the exact point where patience is required. That is how temporary mark-to-market losses become realized losses. This vault is built for investors who understand that returns come with volatility, and who are willing to stay through difficult periods as long as the strategy remains within its expected risk range. If that does not describe you, it is better to stay out than to enter, panic, and exit at the wrong time.

@shaguncrypto Buy S&P, borrow USD against it, buy BTC with the borrowed USD, borrow USD against BTC, Buy S&P with the borrowed USD, borrow USD against S&P… let the loop run. Your son won’t get any money but he will get a life lesson 😈

My son is 5. I have two options for his future: A) Put $50,000 into S&P 500 B) Buy 1 Bitcoin and forget about it for 15 years Which one are you choosing?

@citrini Research just added Hyperliquid to its list of “compelling investments.” That matters because Citrini has built a reputation for spotting major macro and market shifts before they become consensus. So when they spotlight something in crypto, the question is not whether to blindly follow the call. The question is: what are they seeing that the market may still be underpricing? With Hyperliquid, the answer is straightforward. Most crypto tokens still run on narrative, momentum, and belief. Hyperliquid actually earns. The protocol is reportedly generating $1.06B in annualized fees. That is not a vague “future utility” story. That is a real business model running through a decentralized exchange with real users, real volume, and real liquidity. But the more important point is not just that Hyperliquid generates fees. It is what happens to those fees. Over 97% of platform fees reportedly go toward buying back HYPE on the open market. Since launch, more than $1.3B has been spent on buybacks, with the fund now holding $2B+ worth of HYPE. That is nearly half of all token buyback activity across the entire crypto industry coming from one protocol. This changes how HYPE should be looked at. In most crypto projects, token value and protocol success are loosely connected. The product may grow, but tokenholders often have to rely on narrative to capture that growth. Hyperliquid is different. More volume creates more fees. More fees create more buybacks. More buybacks strengthen HYPE fundamentals. That is a real flywheel. And now institutional capital is starting to notice. Bitwise and 21Shares have both launched Hyperliquid products, with reported net inflows of $160M since mid-May, even while Bitcoin ETFs were bleeding capital. Grayscale has now filed for its own Hyperliquid ETF under ticker $GHYP. Bitwise. 21Shares. Grayscale. Three of the biggest names in crypto asset management moving toward the same protocol. Institutions do not launch products on vibes alone. They launch them when there is demand, liquidity, a credible market structure, and fundamentals strong enough to package into an investable product. Hyperliquid is increasingly crossing that line. The old conversation was whether Hyperliquid was legitimate. That conversation is over. The new conversation is whether any other protocol can build a comparable economic machine before Hyperliquid’s lead becomes structurally difficult to challenge. Real volume. Real fees. Real buybacks. Real institutional attention. The flywheel is already spinning. Where do you think the ceiling is for $HYPE?

@eronita_co Your call, whenever you feel comfortable. Thanks ☺️

@blothecap Sir，I want to transfer funds into the vault. Do I need to wait for the ARP rate to decrease?

Vault Update: One of the primary goals we set for ourselves with this vault was simple: beat bitcoin:native returns. So far, the vault is up 15%, while BTC is down 25%. That puts us roughly 40 percentage points ahead of Bitcoin. There is only one major coin we clearly lost to: $HYPE. No surprises there. Any strategy that took a strong fundamental view that HYPE would outperform almost everything else would have beaten us comfortably. Some of them have. That is fine. But that is not what we are trying to build. We do not run this vault by taking discretionary fundamental calls on individual coins. We do not decide that we “like” a token and therefore force the portfolio to be long it. We let the algorithms make the decisions. There have been times when the system has been short HYPE. As people who believe deeply in Hyperliquid, we obviously hate seeing that. But the moment we override the model because of our personal bias, the vault stops being systematic and becomes just another discretionary trading account. That is not the mandate. The mandate is not to always be long the coin we like most. The mandate is to compound capital with discipline, manage downside, and beat BTC over time. So far, that is what the vault has done.