Maya 💙💛

Who says gold needs to be extracted to create value? @nGRND_io is exploring a different approach where verified gold remains untouched underground. No mining, no transportation and no storage expenses. David Lucatch shares why keeping gold in the ground could actually make more sense.

More than 200 platforms are competing in tokenization, but @Ondo now accounts for roughly 10% of the reported non-stablecoin RWA market. According to Ondo’s November 5 disclosure, the platform has reached: - $4B+ in tokenized assets - 484 tokenized products - 565,000+ holders - #1 among 203 platforms tracked by RWAxyz The broader non-stablecoin tokenized asset market stands above $39B. That puts Ondo’s reported share at approximately one-tenth of the market. And I think the concentration is worth examining beyond the headline numbers. Tokenization has become easier to launch. More chains support RWAs, more issuers are bringing financial products onchain, and infrastructure providers are competing to handle issuance, custody and settlement. But launching a tokenized asset and building a distribution network capable of attracting billions in capital are very different businesses. Ondo’s position illustrates that gap. Its product range spans tokenized Treasury exposure and securities-linked products, giving investors access to different financial assets through onchain infrastructure. That breadth creates multiple distribution channels rather than relying on demand for a single tokenized product. There are also two different ways to interpret the 484-asset figure. A large catalog demonstrates product coverage, but it doesn’t tell us how evenly capital is distributed. A platform with $4B across 484 assets could have a handful of products holding the majority of the value, while hundreds of others account for relatively little. The same applies to its 565,000 reported holders. Wallet count alone doesn’t establish unique investors, average investment size or repeat activity. So I’d separate Ondo’s position into three components: 1. Asset origination: Access to financial products that investors actually want to hold. 2. Distribution: The ability to reach eligible investors and attract capital across products and networks. 3. Liquidity: The ability to support transfers, trading and redemptions after assets have been issued. The first two help explain how a tokenization platform reaches scale. The third determines how financially functional those assets become. There is also an important market-share caveat. The $4B and $39B figures come from reported measurements, and the comparison depends on consistent asset classifications and valuation dates. It shouldn’t be interpreted as Ondo controlling 10% of every form of tokenized finance. Still, the competitive picture is becoming clearer. The tokenization market can support hundreds of platforms without distributing capital equally among them. Ondo’s next test is whether its growing asset catalog translates into deeper liquidity, broader investor participation and sustained capital inflows. Because in tokenization, issuing more assets is only one part of building the business. Getting investors to hold and use them is the harder part.

the same $10,000 can produce $38, $350 or potentially $1,100 in a year. where you put your capital matters. consider 3 different yield scenarios over the same 12-month period: → traditional savings at 0.38%: $38 → @grvt_io earn at 3.5% apy: $350 → grvt high yield earn at up to 11% target apy: $1,100 the difference is substantial, but the more important part is understanding what sits behind these numbers. grvt high yield earn isn’t built around a single yield source. it combines four strategies across traditional finance and crypto markets: → real-world asset financing → tokenised fixed income → crypto credit → market-neutral strategies this matters because each strategy has a different return mechanism. diversification across these sources is designed to reduce concentration risk rather than make the entire yield dependent on one market or lending activity. there’s also a 3.5% base apy on grvt earn, while high yield earn targets up to 11%. these are separate offerings with different yield profiles. of course, a higher potential return comes with a different risk profile. traditional bank deposits may benefit from deposit protection, while crypto yield products carry market, liquidity, counterparty and smart contract risks. a higher apy will always attract attention. but the real measure of a yield product is whether its underlying strategies can sustain the returns and justify the risks taken to achieve them. that’s the part of @grvt_io’s model i’d be watching. 11% is a target apy, not guaranteed. high yield earn carries moderate risk. dyor. nfa.

➥ An earnings report can change the outlook for a stock in minutes. The harder part is deciding what to do when that report arrives after the market closes. That’s the setup with @iRhythmTech ($IRTC), which reports its Q3 results on November 5 after the US market closes. The company delivered $224.2M in Q2 revenue, up 20.1% year over year, and raised its full-year 2026 revenue guidance to $880M–$890M. For Q3, analyst expectations are around $222M in revenue, representing roughly 15% year-over-year growth. That’s slower than Q2’s 20.1%, so revenue growth alone won’t tell the full story. I’ll be looking at Zio volumes, margins and the integration of VitalConnect, alongside management’s forward guidance, to understand whether the growth trajectory remains sustainable. There are also a few price levels worth keeping in view: → $126: the current pivot zone → $130–$135: the area bulls need to reclaim for a stronger breakout → $100.70: the downside invalidation level if the setup breaks down There’s also a trading angle here. An after-hours earnings release can change market expectations before the next regular US session begins. Waiting for the market to reopen isn’t always ideal for traders who want to respond to new information. This is where @bitget and @Bitget_TradFi’s rIRTC market becomes relevant. Through Bitget, traders can access USDT-based exposure to iRhythm during extended US equity trading sessions. Execution matters too. Order-book depth and bid-ask spreads can vary with market conditions, particularly outside regular US trading hours. Around earnings, I’d pay attention to available liquidity, use limit orders where appropriate and keep position sizes reasonable to manage potential slippage and sudden price movements. I’ll be watching how iRhythm’s results and management commentary shape the market’s next move. Explore rIRTC/USDT: bitget.com/spot/RIRTCUSDT Trading involves risk, including volatility, liquidity and execution risks. rTokens provide economic exposure to underlying securities, not direct share ownership. Availability is subject to regional restrictions. #Bitget #rIRTC

Two delta-neutral dollars can report healthy reserve ratios while relying on very different systems to establish their backing. I’ve been comparing $USDe and $USDu, particularly how Ethena and Unitas verify assets held across custodians, exchanges and onchain positions. The difference is quite substantial. Ethena relies on institutional custody arrangements, monthly custodian attestations and a separate weekly cryptographic Proof-of-Reserves process. Its verification system incorporates information from custodians, exchanges and onchain records to assess reserve coverage, eligible collateral and hedge conditions. That’s a comprehensive approach combining institutional reporting with cryptographic checks. Unitas is approaching the same challenge through a different architecture built with @primus_labs and @brevis_zk. $USDu’s backing includes onchain assets and exchange-held positions. The difficult part is making those external positions verifiable without requiring the issuer to publish its entire trading book. Primus’s zkTLS infrastructure authenticates data retrieved from exchanges, while Brevis uses its Pico zkVM to prove calculations over the supplied reserve information. A TEE protects sensitive information during processing. Together, these components allow Unitas to publish reserve totals, USDu supply and collateralization information backed by cryptographic evidence. And the reporting cadence is notable. + Ethena: monthly custodian attestations and weekly cryptographic verification. + Unitas: a monitoring system configured for 15-minute data retrieval, alongside separate weekly third-party reserve reports. The intervals aren’t directly comparable. Retrieving data every 15 minutes doesn’t necessarily mean an independently verified proof is published every 15 minutes. But the architecture demonstrates a valuable application for Primus. Authenticated financial data can become an input to independently verifiable computation without exposing every underlying position. That’s particularly relevant for delta-neutral stablecoins. Their backing isn’t always sitting in publicly inspectable wallets. Exchange-held collateral, hedges and margin positions can represent important parts of the financial structure. Primus gives applications a way to authenticate selected information from those external systems. Brevis adds verification of the calculations performed using that information. Neither eliminates funding risk, counterparty exposure or the possibility that liabilities fall outside the verified dataset. But those limitations shouldn’t obscure what the integration achieves. Unitas provides a concrete example of Primus’s technology being applied to a real financial product, where offchain records are essential to assessing backing. And imo that’s a stronger demonstration of the technology’s commercial potential than another isolated cryptographic benchmark. Primus isn’t just proving that external information can be authenticated. It’s showing how that capability can become part of the financial infrastructure supporting an actual dollar-denominated product.

➥ GRVT is looking beyond crypto-native yield. Its latest move brings traditional financial markets into the picture. On October 27, @grvt_io announced a collaboration with Mirae Asset Securities (HK), part of Mirae Asset Financial Group, which oversees more than $1 trillion in client assets globally. There’s an important detail here that makes this more than another partnership announcement. GRVT has already subscribed to tokenised funding notes arranged by Mirae Asset Securities (HK). Here’s what the collaboration involves: → The initial subscription is to tokenised funding notes. → GRVT intends to use the resulting exposure in connection with Grvt Earn, subject to applicable requirements. → Both firms are exploring additional tokenised products, including government Treasuries, corporate bonds and ETFs. Why does this matter? A lot of crypto yield strategies depend on opportunities within digital asset markets. Bringing tokenised traditional financial instruments into the picture creates another potential source of exposure. This is also relevant to GRVT’s High Yield Earn, which targets up to 11% APY through diversified TradFi and crypto strategies. Rather than relying on a single source of yield, the product combines opportunities across real-world asset financing, tokenised fixed income, crypto credit and market-neutral strategies. The Mirae collaboration gives a clearer picture of how traditional financial instruments could contribute to that broader approach. Of course, the proposed Treasuries, bonds and ETFs are still exploratory. The real test will be how these opportunities translate into actual products and sustainable yield. The bigger question is whether these institutional connections can translate into meaningful, sustainable yield opportunities for users. 11% is a target APY, not a guaranteed return. High Yield Earn carries moderate risk. DYOR. NFA.

Last month, @ether_fi added $13.1M in measured card spending. That’s 40.8% of the net growth recorded across the entire eleven-program crypto-card market. The numbers: + September spending: $128.78M + October spending: $141.88M + Monthly increase: +$13.10M + Growth rate: +10.2% Across all eleven tracked programs, spending increased by $32.1M. So EtherFi alone contributed more than two-fifths of the market’s net dollar growth. That’s a considerable amount of growth coming from one product. And it tells us something about how concentrated crypto-card adoption remains. A market can report healthy aggregate growth without that growth being evenly distributed across competing programs. The largest products can account for a disproportionate share of new spending, while smaller competitors grow more slowly or even contract. There’s an important distinction here. 40.8% is EtherFi’s contribution to net market growth, not its share of total card spending. Net contributions can also become unusually large when some programs experience declining volumes, offsetting gains elsewhere. So I’d be careful interpreting rising industry-wide spending as evidence that every crypto-card provider is gaining traction. The stronger conclusion is that a relatively small number of established products are still responsible for a substantial portion of measured expansion. And until growth becomes more evenly distributed, the market’s headline numbers will remain heavily influenced by the performance of its largest players.

Binance reported roughly $3.64B in net customer outflows during the first 9.5 hours after withdrawals resumed on November 1. But the money wasn’t necessarily leaving centralized exchanges altogether. The latest exchange-wallet tracking snapshot shows: • @okx: +$331.76M in 24h inflows • @gate: +$85.33M • @Bybit_Official: +$62.92M • @bitget: +$38.28M • @cryptocom: +$36.94M OKX alone accounted for nearly 60% of the combined $555.23M in positive flows across those five exchanges. The longer windows tell a different story. OKX gained $526.32M over seven days and $757.1M over 30 days. Bybit, despite its positive 24-hour reading, recorded $34.42M in seven-day outflows and $96.42M over 30 days. Bitget gained $38.28M in the latest 24 hours but lost $159.65M over seven days. So the short-term inflows aren’t necessarily evidence of sustained exchange migration. There’s also an accounting problem. Binance’s $3.64B figure comes from its own customer-flow reporting. Third-party dashboards track movements between labeled exchange wallets, which can include internal transfers and other activity unrelated to customer withdrawals. The visible data supports one conclusion: several competing exchanges were receiving net inflows during the withdrawal wave. It doesn’t yet establish how much of that capital came directly from Binance, or whether total centralized exchange balances increased or declined.

What would it take to scale Primus’s reported encrypted-computation throughput? @primus_labs reports that its AutoHoG engine processes 210+ encrypted transfer computations per second using eight RTX 5090 GPUs. If throughput scaled perfectly linearly from a 210 tps baseline, the theoretical progression would look like this: + 8 GPUs: 210+ transfers/sec (reported) + 16 GPUs: ~420 transfers/sec + 24 GPUs: ~630 transfers/sec + 32 GPUs: ~840 transfers/sec + 40 GPUs: ~1,050 transfers/sec Only the eight-GPU figure is the reported benchmark. Everything beyond that is a mathematical projection, not measured performance. And there’s an important difference between encrypted computation throughput and actual blockchain settlement speed. The former measures how quickly supported operations execute on encrypted balances. The latter also depends on transaction submission, network processing and finality. I think the bigger opportunity for Primus lies in the economics of scaling that computation. If GPU acceleration can sustain high throughput without costs rising disproportionately, confidential financial applications become more practical to operate. The next evidence will be how AutoHoG performs under larger GPU configurations, sustained workloads and real production conditions. s.kaito.ai/Zhl9J3o

Robinhood Chain already has $246.7M in RWA capital deployed across DeFi. That’s 76.3% of its $323.55M onchain RWA supply. But the breakdown is where it gets interesting. + Robinhood-issued assets: $161.27M + Deployed in DeFi: $89.65M + Utilization: 55.6% The rest of the network’s deployed capital comes from other issuers, including Maple and Midas. So the chain-wide 76.3% utilization rate isn’t a measure of Robinhood’s stock tokens alone. @RobinhoodApp is building distribution for tokenized equities, but the lending and liquidity infrastructure is already attracting capital from other issuers. The bigger business could end up being the financial activity built around those assets, not just the issuance itself.

A crypto protocol can generate $100M in annual revenue and still be one of the worst tokens to hold through a bear market. The numbers behind crypto’s revenue cycles are pretty brutal. Across 227 protocols, median revenue contracted by more than 60% during major market downturns. + DEX-volume downturn: -62% + Bitcoin-market downturn: -65% A protocol earning $10M monthly could see that fall toward $3.5M under comparable conditions. Now imagine valuing that business using earnings from its strongest quarter. The multiple might look attractive, but the underlying revenue could be far less durable than it appears. I think this is one of the biggest problems with how crypto fundamentals are evaluated. Over the past 30 days, protocols generated approximately $1.22B in revenue. + @tether : $506M + @circle : $203M + Combined contribution: ~58% Two stablecoin issuers accounted for more than half of tracked revenue. Their economics are quite different from those of DEXs, derivatives exchanges and launchpads, where earnings depend heavily on trading activity and leverage. Stablecoin issuers earn primarily from reserve assets and outstanding balances. Lending protocols depend on borrowing demand, utilization and interest rates. These businesses can all experience revenue declines, but they don’t necessarily contract for the same reasons or at the same pace. And there’s another complication. A protocol generating more revenue doesn’t automatically have better token economics. Consider two hypothetical businesses: + Protocol A: $50M annual revenue, with $40M allocated to token buybacks. + Protocol B: $100M annual revenue, with no direct tokenholder distribution. Now assume A’s revenue falls 25% during a downturn while B’s declines 70%. A would still generate $37.5M annually. B would fall to $30M. The smaller business would now earn more through the downturn, while maintaining a clearer mechanism for returning economic value to its token. That doesn’t guarantee A’s token will outperform. Entry valuation, dilution and buyback execution still influence returns. But it shows why revenue size alone tells us very little about the quality of a token investment. A derivatives exchange reporting record fees during a leverage-driven rally could be an excellent business. The question is how much of that revenue remains when leverage disappears and trading activity contracts. The same applies to launchpads and protocols that rely heavily on incentives to attract users. Personally, I’d rather evaluate a business generating $30M consistently across market conditions than one earning $100M at the peak and $10M when activity dries up, assuming comparable valuations and tokenholder economics. Because a high-revenue protocol isn’t necessarily a durable business, and a durable business isn’t automatically a good token investment. The strongest fundamental opportunities may come from protocols that can preserve earnings through downturns and convert those earnings into tangible value for tokenholders.

.@Raydium’s revenue more than tripled in Q3, but memecoins are no longer its biggest source of swap fees. According to Blockworks Research, Raydium generated $8M in net revenue during Q3 2026, with tokenized assets becoming its largest source of swap fees. The numbers: + Q3 net revenue: $8M + Revenue growth: More than 3x + Annualized net revenue: $32M + Largest swap fee category: Tokenized assets For a DEX historically tied to Solana’s speculative trading cycles, the changing revenue mix is arguably more important than the growth itself. Consider $1B in trading volume. + At 5 bps: $500K in gross swap fees + At 20 bps: $2M in gross swap fees That’s four times the fee generation without any increase in volume. Of course, gross swap fees aren’t Raydium’s net revenue. LP allocations and protocol take rates determine how much the business retains. But this illustrates how a different trading mix can improve fee generation without requiring equivalent growth in volume. Tokenized assets also introduce different liquidity requirements, market-making costs and trading behavior, so their long-term profitability remains unproven. Still, Raydium is developing another meaningful revenue source beyond memecoin trading. If that continues across market cycles, it could change how investors assess Raydium’s business and the economics behind $RAY.

bStocks has won the first round: distribution. Keeping that lead after the incentives fade is a different problem. That’s where I’d judge the tokenized-stock race. As of Oct 22, RWA.xyz puts tokenized-stock distributed value at $3.58B: • @bstocksfinance: $1.30B • @OndoFinance: $908M • @xStocksFi: $628M Together, they account for roughly 79% of the market. bStocks reached $1B in 125 days. Binance Research says the total market grew 119% since launch; excluding bStocks, growth was still 45%. It attributes over 60% of the increase to bStocks. That points to market expansion alongside share gains. Distribution explains the speed, but “it’s just campaigns” is too simple. Binance Research reports 56% of bStocks trading happened outside US market hours, weekly volume averaged 1.65x AUM, and margin collateral rose 6.5x since June 30. That’s activity, not proof of retention. The wider market has a counter-signal. RWA.xyz’s latest 30 day snapshot shows distributed value up 13.4%, but transfer volume fell 74.2% and active addresses fell 49.6%; holders rose 14.8%. That doesn’t prove demand is fading. It does show AUM and activity need separate scorecards. Wallet holders aren’t the same as users. One person can hold multiple addresses, and a large custodial wallet can represent many customers. Holder counts alone don’t tell us retention, average balance or whether users come back after rewards stop. RWA.xyz shows 1,472 for xStocks under “RWA count”; Kraken’s FAQ lists 131 assets. Those measures aren’t directly comparable, so I wouldn’t present 1,472 as 1,472 distinct stock choices. Asset counts need the same definition. Same ticker doesn’t mean same product: backing, legal claims, redemption and country access vary. My take: bStocks leads distribution, Ondo has breadth and mint/redemption, and xStocks brings multichain reach. The durable winner keeps repeat users, tight liquidity and net inflows after incentives fade.

DeFi can have $300B+ in stablecoins around it and still struggle to turn that capital into consistent user activity. That’s the part of stablecoin growth we need to look at more closely. @DefiLlama puts stablecoin supply at roughly $301B, while DeFi TVL sits around $90B. These numbers measure different things, but they raise an important question: how much of the liquidity available onchain is actually being used in DeFi? Look at @Aave. It holds around $18B in TVL, with approximately $12.3B in active loans and $38M in fees over 30 days. The active loans figure matters because it shows capital being borrowed, not just deposited. The fees also reflect demand for borrowing and liquidity. However, they don’t tell us how many unique borrowers are using Aave or whether those users will return next month. Then there’s @Uniswap, with roughly $4.2B in TVL and $71B in trading volume over 30 days, alongside about $108M in fees. That volume shows substantial demand for token swaps and liquidity. But trading volume can count repeated transactions, so $71B doesn’t mean $71B of new capital entered DeFi, nor does it tell us how many people are trading. This is why I wouldn’t measure DeFi adoption by stablecoin supply alone. I’d look at whether borrowing demand is growing, trading activity is sustained, users keep returning and protocols generate revenue without depending entirely on incentives. Stablecoins provide the liquidity. Protocols give that liquidity a purpose. The real test isn’t how much money enters crypto. It’s whether people have enough reason to keep using it.

$8.37B in tokenized RWAs, but ~$1.52B in 24H volume. That ratio tells a more revealing story than the headline market cap. @coingecko’s RWA data shows how differently tokenized assets are behaving beneath the surface. Gold alone accounts for more than $5B of tokenized value, while tokenized equities are still much smaller by market cap but already generating meaningful daily activity. CoinGecko RWA Charts So the question isn’t simply how large the RWA market is. It’s which assets are actually developing liquidity. That distinction matters because tokenization can grow through new issuance without necessarily creating deeper markets. Capital concentration, trading activity and asset creation are three different signals. Looking at all three gives a much better read on where onchain markets are actually maturing.

I’ve been studying the altcoin market, and I think the current situation is more nuanced than simply saying altseason is coming or altcoins are losing momentum. There are signs of a genuine recovery, but I’m not convinced the rotation is strong enough yet. @coinbase reported that average altcoin market cap grew roughly 22% in September. The Altcoin Season Index also climbed from 39 to 65 over a month. These are meaningful improvements. But they don’t tell the full story. During the October 5–9 sell-off, $BTC fell 4.5%, while $ETH dropped 8.9%, $SOL 10.3% and $XRP 8.2%. That difference matters. Altcoins can outperform during a recovery and still struggle to hold their gains when market conditions deteriorate. Liquidity adds another layer to this. @CoinDesk Research found that dollar denominated order-book depth across its altcoin basket had declined by roughly a third since January 2025. Thinner order books mean that large orders can have a greater impact on prices, particularly for smaller tokens. I also think we need to be careful with derivatives data. Rising open interest can signal growing participation, but it measures outstanding contracts, not fresh capital entering spot markets. So how do I think about the current market? I’m not dismissing the possibility of an altseason. The improvement in market cap and positioning suggests that the recovery has substance. But I want to see that strength translate into broader participation and sustained spot demand. For me, three things matter now: 1. More altcoins consistently outperforming BTC across different timeframes. 2. $ETH/ $BTC showing sustained strength, rather than brief rallies. 3. Spot volume and market depth improving alongside prices. If these signals begin to align, the case for a sustainable altcoin rotation becomes much stronger. Until then, I think it’s premature to treat every rally as confirmation that altseason is here. The question isn’t whether altcoins can rally. It’s whether the market is building the depth and participation needed to sustain that rally.