Brian ᴸ¹ 🔺

This is what the future of finance looks like.

BREAKING: Hyundai completes first stablecoin payments on Avalanche Hyundai Card and Hyundai Motor Company have laid the groundwork for stablecoin payments on Avalanche, completing a successful pilot with Tether and Axiym.

We've built the easiest way to bring DeFi into user-facing applications. Stable Vaults offer fixed yield, cross-chain access, multi-strategy allocation, tier-based rates, and more. Stable Vaults power the Aave App's Earn experience and are now available to businesses looking to offer stablecoin yield to their users.

To the Avalanche community: Yes. I've been quiet. Quiet isn't idle. I understand why the two look the same from the outside, and closing that gap is on me. So here's what the quiet actually held. We put forward three ACPs aimed at validator economics and how the network rewards the work of securing itself. We built more precise ways to measure the chain's economic activity, and shared early results. Behind that, we tightened how the team runs day to day. Less visible, but it's why the rest moved, and why it moves faster now. I recognize the frustration, because this work isn't always visible from the outside. But the work happened, and it's happening. I did a poor job telling you what we could. That's my communication failure, not a work failure. I've written a piece that lays out the exact economic reasoning behind the recent proposals and the direction they point, and it goes out with this letter. Now the part I want to be straight about: tokenomics is not a solved problem. Not here, not anywhere. I'm not interested in patches that look good for a cycle and unwind in the next one. I'm interested in fixes that compound. And compounding is slow before it's fast. We're being deliberate about the order. You can't design how a network captures value until you've defined what value it actually produces, and that "what" has been loosely defined across this industry for years. So we started there. Think of it the way an economy tracks more than one number. There's the value produced on the chain, the revenue protocols earn because they build here, which is what our gross chain product metric captures. And there's the value that accrues to the people using it, the activity that exists only because the chain does. We're building measures for both, to see value from enough angles to form a cohesive picture. Measure the "what," then design the "how." Get it backwards and you optimize for the wrong thing. That design could eventually include new transaction types or new primitives at the platform level, conveniences worth paying for. That can only come once measurement tells us what's worth building. How we find the "right" design is by experimenting. Short term, that means taking parameters that have sat as static constants since launch and letting the network set them dynamically, measured and adjusted on purpose, so we can watch how the system responds to small changes. ACP-283 is one example: it's about learning empirically where fees begin to dampen on-chain activity, so the network can stay well below that line instead of guessing at it with a number set years ago. Everyone contributes here. Validators decide whether these changes activate, and where the fee floor sits over time. My job is to make the case in the open and show the work, not hand down an answer. I'll also be honest about the limits. There's only so much we can test without risking the robustness of the chain, which is exactly why these initial changes are small. Every data point we can gather safely matters. Each one is a hint about whether the long-term design holds, or whether it's time to go back to the drawing board. The answer won't be identical for every chain. It can't be. But the process I trust is the same everywhere: measure honestly, design deliberately, ship, observe, adjust. I know patience is thin and the doubt is real. I'm not going to narrate it back to you; you and I both live in it. What I'll say is that my confidence comes from the work I see every day, from people who could be somewhere easier and aren't. They stay because the hard problems are the ones worth staying for. One thing I want understood because it's the whole point. In proof of stake, security isn't a feature you ship. It's a bill an attacker has to pay, denominated in the network's own token. The economic weight behind that token isn't incidental to security. It *is* the security. And it sets a ceiling: no serious institution settles more value on a chain than it would cost to compromise it, because past that line the attack stops being a tail risk and becomes a trade. Getting the economics right is what keeps that ceiling above the value the chain carries, even as that value grows. That's not a vanity exercise. That's the work, and it's why I prioritize it. So yes, AVAX matters. On communication: you'll see the detail behind the ACPs and the metrics, not just letters like this one. Hold me to that. I came here to be a compounding force in this ecosystem. That's a slow way to start and a hard one to stop 🔺