Jesús Crypto Plaza 🦇🔊

El DARWIN SYO de @sersansistemas , alcanza un nuevo máximo histórico. ¿Lo que hay detrás? Constancia. Trabajo duro. Paciencia para absorber los baches y un respeto absoluto por el propio sistema de trading. Un compromiso férreo con el desarrollo y la mejora continua. El trading profesional es una carrera de fondo, exactamente igual que cualquier otra disciplina de alto rendimiento. Los resultados consistentes no se le conceden al que busca el atajo rápido; se los gana el que tiene la madurez necesaria para persistir en cualquier escenario. Gracias SYO, por ser fuente de inspiración.

@RyanSAdams Great conversation that needs more than a narrative change. @cryptoplaza/prices-change-narratives-more-than-narratives-change-prices" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">paragraph.com/@cryptoplaza/p…

We took the fight to the podcast. Full 20 min debate on the Ethereum not ETH fallacy. Still friends.😉

De vuelta a casa después de un fin de semana muy intenso en Madrid 🚆 Robotrader, La Kedada Madrid, grabaciones para “Charlando con…” y muchas conversaciones sobre trading, sistemas, mercado y comunidad. Nos volvemos cansados, pero muy contentos por todo lo vivido. Gracias, Madrid. #SersanSistemas #Robotrader #KedadaMadrid25 #XTrader #TradingAlgoritmico #Trading @SergiSersan

For decades, investing in exciting private companies meant buy and wait. No yield, volatility trading, or weekend markets. Today, that changes. Users can now access $SPCXx, a tokenized representation of @SpaceX, and trade it onchain 24/7 on Panoptic V2. Start Here: app.panoptic.xyz/swap

La previa de @ROBOTRADERworld XV Edición terminó como mejor podía terminar: con una cena entre traders. @SergiSersan, @IvanScherman Andrea Unger, @0xChainValue, Eduardo de Robotrader, @rupertacho, @escapasistema @AMunozCabanes.. compartiendo ideas, mercado, sistemas y comunidad. Esto también es trading: conversar, aprender y conectar. #Trading #TradingAlgoritmico #Robotrader

📈 Para quienes vivimos con pasión el trading y los mercados financieros, hay momentos que son difíciles de olvidar. Anoche tuve la oportunidad de compartir mesa y conversación con dos auténticas leyendas del trading de futuros: 🏆@IvanScherman y 🏆 Andrea Unger, ambos campeones del mundo. Para ponerlo en perspectiva, sería algo parecido a que un aficionado al fútbol pudiera cenar con ⚽ Maradona o ⚽ Cruyff, o que un amante de la música tuviera la oportunidad de compartir una velada con 🎤 Michael Jackson o 🎤 Madonna. 💡 Más allá de sus impresionantes resultados, fue un privilegio escuchar sus experiencias, reflexiones y aprendizajes acumulados tras décadas en los mercados. 🙏 Mi agradecimiento a @ELG23GO por organizar esta magnífica velada, y a todos los asistentes por una conversación tan enriquecedora: @SergiSersan, @juanmowin, Jaime Agulló, @escapasistema, @0xChainValue y @rupertacho 🤝 No todos los días se tiene la oportunidad de sentarse a cenar con auténticos referentes de una profesión. Una noche para aprender, compartir ideas y seguir creciendo como trader.

I’ve heard the podcasts — but “ETH as money” isn’t a mechanism, it’s a destination. Money isn’t a property you declare; it’s a competitive outcome. An asset becomes a store of value by winning against the alternatives a saver actually has. So the real question is: why would the marginal saver pick ETH? Right now Bitcoin is the stronger monetary asset — harder, simpler, clearer narrative. For ETH to compete it needs an edge BTC doesn’t have, and the obvious one is staking: a real yield that compensates holders for choosing ETH. That’s the lever that could move the balance. The problem is the Foundation’s own roadmap pushes that lever the wrong way. Staking yield has already fallen from ~4.5% (2022) to ~2.4%, and the Scourge / issuance-curve proposals explicitly aim to flatten it toward zero — even negative beyond a target — to deter staking. The stated motivation is protocol security, not monetary competitiveness. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say “ETH’s value is anchored in its role as money” while simultaneously reducing the yield paid to holders of that money. No monetary authority that wants to defend demand for its currency makes it less attractive to hold — weak-currency central banks raise rates to compensate holders; Ethereum’s debate points the opposite way. So yes, the mechanism is clear. The trouble is the protocol is steering against it. “ETH as money” as the thesis, and policy that weakens the one incentive that could win the monetary competition, can’t both be the plan.

@TrustlessState The mechanism is ETH getting used as a SoV, medium of exchange, or unit of account. ETH as money. We did like 100 podcasts on this? You can believe it’s not happening or will never happen or can’t happen. But the mechanism is clear and has always has been clear.

The Ethereum not ETH stuff is the mental fallacy that triggered me into writing and podcasting in the first place. There is no strong Ethereum without an ETH worth trillions. Without ETH as a global store of value, Ethereum is a failed project. Full stop. ETH is economic bandwidth for DeFi. It is the only asset maximized for CROPs, fail at high value ETH, fail at CROPs, fail at Ethereum. Saying you’re bullish Ethereum not ETH is like saying you’re bullish America not the American economy. They are one and the same - economic engines. Better to admit Ethereum is a failed project than “Ethereum not ETH”. So spew that weak blockchain not crypto stuff out of your mouth, it doesn’t make sense for BTC, ZEC, ETH, or any truly crypto native project.

That’s a testable claim, and I tested it: the economy DID grow — TVL above its 2021 peak, stablecoins at all-time highs — yet the activity→ETH link went to zero. Correlation +0.88 → ~0 post-Dencun, elasticity 2.0 → 0. The mechanism you’re describing stopped working. Not opinion — data. linkedin.com/posts/jesusper…

@RyanSAdams @TrustlessState It truly is that simple. If the Ethereum economy grows, so does the demand for the only pristine native asset

As a success thesis, you’re right: “Ethereum not ETH” is incoherent. You can’t declare victory on Ethereum’s original terms while ETH is weak — the covenant was that activity would accrue to the asset. On that, I fully agree with you. Where I push back is the binary: strong ETH or failure. There’s a third state, and we’re already in it — the chain keeps growing while the asset decouples. TVL is above its 2021 peak, stablecoin supply is at all-time highs, and DeFi is increasingly denominated in dollars, not ETH (stables are ~40% of the on-chain monetary stock). So empirically, “strong DeFi starts and ends with strong ETH” hasn’t held: DeFi has grown precisely on dollars while ETH decoupled. That’s the part the data won’t let me call simple failure. What it actually is, is a mutation: Ethereum is becoming Linux. Incredible software, used everywhere, that works — but can’t fund its own evolution from its own economy. The chain doesn’t need a strong asset to keep running; this whole decline proves that. (The asset side of this is what I argued here — a currency that thinks it’s a commodity: @cryptoplaza/ethereums-monetary-paradox-a-currency-that-thinks-its-a-commodity" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">paragraph.com/@cryptoplaza/e…) The resilience properties probably aren’t the same in that world — but it’s an architecture that can grow without a strong native asset, and it has. So I wouldn’t say “Ethereum is failing” either. I’d say Ethereum is succeeding as infrastructure and failing as an economy. And the real risk isn’t a price collapse — it’s the Linux endgame: without resources to keep evolving, users migrate to the next “OS,” and Ethereum ends up as hidden plumbing maintained by technologists, while the value and the users live elsewhere.

> Improvements on these mechanisms is what is required Maybe, maybe not. But you haven’t addressed my point. You’re saying, once again, you can’t see a path to high value ETH. Fine, that’s a coherent position. What’s incoherent is the Ethereum not ETH talk. The entire purpose and design of Ethereum is strong DeFi with shared CROPs. Strong DeFi starts and ends with a strong decentralized store of value - ETH. You can say strong DeFi is less likely than you once thought. You can say ETH it now looks like ETH will be outcompeted as money by others. What you can’t say is that Ethereum is successful in any sense of the word with a weak ETH. There’s no Ethereum not ETH position when the thing Ethereum is designed to be is a strong DeFi network…that’s just called failure. Yes, Vitalik never said this and should have. That doesn’t make it less true. At the end of the day I’d just rather hear you say “Ethereum is failing” than Ethereum not ETH. Leave the blockchain not crypto weak brew for normies and tradfi who never understood DeFi in the first place.

Exactly — and that’s the honest conclusion most people avoid. You can’t find the A→B mechanism because under the current architecture there isn’t one. That’s not rhetoric, it’s the empirical finding: the correlation between on-chain activity and ETH value has gone to zero. The noble-properties story is real, but it never actually translates into the asset. So the Foundation has, in practice, made a choice: move from an economy financed by the asset — fees → burn → ETH value → public-goods funding — to one financed by donations and discretionary support. A Linux-style model. And yes, in part that’s the ecosystem’s DNA: open source, public good, minimize rent-seeking. But Ethereum is not Linux. Linux doesn’t have a $300B+ native asset whose balance sheet is supposed to fund its own infrastructure. Today the model works only because the ETH treasury is large enough in USD terms. The problem is the refill: the only sustainable way to refill it is fee flow from on-chain activity into the asset — and that flow is gone. $113M/year in L1 fees cannot finance the infrastructure of a $300B+ settlement network indefinitely. Which leaves two honest options. Either (1) we build the mechanism — make part of the economic activity Ethereum hosts finance the protocol itself (that’s the S in SCROPS: economic sustainability as a first-class design principle), or (2) we admit ETH is a pure belief/narrative asset and the protocol runs on donations. There is no third option where “noble properties” silently price themselves into ETH. My point isn’t that the price must go up. It’s that a protocol of this scale should normally finance itself through the economy it hosts — not float on its own reflection while the infrastructure depends on a depleting treasury. @cryptoplaza/ethereum-is-not-linux-%E2%80%94-and-the-foundation-is-taking-us-there" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">paragraph.com/@cryptoplaza/e…

> Saying you’re bullish Ethereum not ETH is like saying you’re bullish America not the American economy. I don't think this is true. The analogy doesn't hold. These are two different mediums with different contexts. There needs to be a mechanism that drives value to ETH. Ethereum has been architecturally designed to minimize rent-seeking and value capture. Ethereum's architectural philosophy is antagonistic to explicit value capture. I want ETH to be a global store of value, but I can't find anyone to explain how it actually gets from A to B, without instead talking about the noble properties of Ethereum and assuming that becomes priced in ETH

I actually agree with your premise — ETH and Ethereum are one economic engine, you can’t be bullish one without the other. But the Foundation doesn’t share that approach, and it proves it in how it defines its mission. CROPS — censorship resistance, open source, privacy, security — has no sustainability dimension, and therefore nothing that ties the network’s economy back to the asset. Value accrual to ETH isn’t a first-class objective; at best it’s an implicit assumption. Ethereum is framed as an “escape hatch,” not a growth vehicle. That’s exactly why I proposed SCROPS: adding economic Sustainability as a first-class principle, at the same rank as the other four — not as a slogan, but as a real filter for evaluating technical decisions. Because here’s the core problem: there used to be a real link between Ethereum’s economic activity and the value of ETH. Dencun broke it — and it broke precisely because technical decisions have never been evaluated from an economic standpoint. The rollup-centric roadmap optimized L2 cost without ever measuring what it did to L1 value capture. This isn’t an opinion, I show it in numbers. The 90-day rolling correlation between log(price) and log(fees) fell from +0.88 (2015–2022) to +0.32 post-Dencun to ~0 post-Fusaka. HAC elasticity collapsed from β≈2.0 to ≈0. Johansen cointegration is formally rejected at 5%. L1 fees are down 99.5% from peak ($23.5B/yr → ~$113M/yr) — a $5B+/year wedge versus the pre-Dencun relationship. Four independent econometric tests, one verdict. And note: activity didn’t collapse. TVL is above its 2021 peak, stablecoin supply is at all-time highs. What collapsed is the translation of that activity into ETH. The asset now floats on reflexive, narrative-driven demand — ETFs, treasury vehicles like Bitmine — not on the economy it hosts. So “Ethereum not ETH” isn’t just a commentator’s fallacy. The official framework already leaves the asset out of the mission. Better to recognize that and fix it (SCROPS) than keep insisting the link is intact when the data says it isn’t. Full paper 👇 linkedin.com/posts/jesusper…

📈

Feliz Bitcoin Pizza Day. Hace 15 años, dos pizzas costaron 10.000 BTC. Hoy, una pizza de unos 20 € equivale aproximadamente a 0,0003 BTC al precio actual de bitcoin en euros. Más allá de la anécdota, la fecha recuerda algo importante: lo que entonces parecía una cantidad “usable” de bitcoin, hoy representa una escasez y un valor que el mercado ha terminado reconociendo. Bitcoin cambia. La lección sobre su escasez, no.

1/ The EF exodus isn't mysterious. It's the logical outcome of an organization that literally defined its success as "how unnecessary it becomes." A thread on why the departures are rational, not FUD. 🧵 2/ The EF just published a 38-page mandate codifying Buterin's "walkaway test" — the idea that Ethereum should work perfectly if the Foundation vanished tomorrow. They also formalized a philosophy of "subtraction": progressively removing the EF from the ecosystem. 3/ Now think about what that means for talent retention. In any normal org, you keep senior people with mission + compensation + career trajectory. The EF has deliberately eliminated the third leg. There is no "next chapter" inside an institution designed to shrink. 4/ Stańczak's case is the perfect illustration. Joined as co-ED in March 2025, left 11 months later saying the restructuring goals were "either completed or structurally embedded." That's the paradox: if you do your job well at the EF, your job ceases to exist. 5/ Then add the financial layer. The EF announced a multi-year austerity program and retired its old model of selling ETH to fund operations. Meanwhile, rival L1s, L2s, and private crypto companies are paying aggressively for the exact same talent profiles. 6/ Julian Ma described how his role gradually shifted from research to product and growth work — exactly the kind of work that pays better and scales faster outside a contracting nonprofit. At some point the math just doesn't math. 7/ The EF itself recognizes the pattern. Their own Project Odin was created because they kept seeing critical infrastructure teams living in "a perpetual state of fragility," unable to plan beyond the next grant cycle. The irony? The Foundation suffers from the same disease it's trying to cure. 8/ Unconfirmed reports suggest staff were asked to formally align with the new mandate. The EF hasn't confirmed this, and no one who left cited it as their reason. But you don't need a purge. A 38-page doc redefining your org as one that seeks its own irrelevance is a powerful self-selection mechanism. 9/ Ryan Berckmans, an 8-year ETH veteran, argues the departures aren't about loss of faith in Ethereum — they're about disagreements on sub-strategies plus a deliberate generational shift. That's consistent with the structural argument. This isn't dysfunction. It's design. 10/ The hard number: Ethereum core devs dropped from 225 in May 2025 to 169 in May 2026. Ecosystem developers now lag behind Solana. The protocol works independently of the EF. But the walkaway test is being executed in practice before it was maybe planned. 11/ Bottom line: the EF consciously designed an organization that self-destructs. The surprise shouldn't be that people are leaving. It should be that anyone expected them not to. The real question isn't "why are they going" — it's "who and what structure replaces them."

What's happening at the EF? At least 5 high profile EF contributors publicly announced their departures within a month. How many not public? And why? Stopped believing in Ethereum? Pay is low and competitors paying more? Or just tired? Would love to know the REAL reasons behind it. Tomasz Stańczak short tenure was especially weird to me. - NOT FUD-

Introducing alt(.)fun: Launch coins backed by Hyperliquid perps

Para entender las bitcoin treasuries, primero hay que entender Bitcoin. En su entrevista en Skiller Talks de @negocios_tv, Esaú Rojo, CEO de Vanadi Treasury, lo resume de forma sencilla: Bitcoin es capital. Un capital digital, escaso, global, líquido y resistente, con características que lo diferencian de otras formas tradicionales de reserva y gestión de valor. Si no se entiende primero el activo, difícilmente puede entenderse después por qué cada vez más empresas empiezan a incorporarlo en balance.

3 protocols have now earned a perfect 5-green chart on defipunkd.com: @Uniswap's uniswap-v4 @CurveFinance's curve-dex @liquity's liquity-v1 Honorable mention to @tethergold: the first one to earn a perfect 5-red chart (I'm sure there will be many more to come🙃)

> Spark to $10B BDE

Very proud to see this reveal! Osero is the final Star Agent in Sky Ecosystem, one of only 5 Star agents that have been directly funded by Sky Governance and whose Star Tokens will be distributed as Token Rewards to USDS holders, alongside Spark, Grove, Keel and Skybase