Moneystack

MSCI 퇴출 관련 스트래티지 입장 이미 지수에서 빠진 이상 의미 없긴 한데, 지난 8월 스트래티지 반박을 한번 다뤄봅니다. MSCI는 "사업은 안 하고 자산만 쥐고 있는 회사"를 걸러내겠다며 체크리스트 5개를 만들었고, 이 중 4개 이상 걸리면 탈락이에요. ========== 1️⃣ 사업에 쓰는 자산이 전체의 20%도 안 된다. 스트래티지는 자산을 쥐고만 있다. → 비트코인 사업은 SEC와 협의해서 정식 '사업 부문'으로 공시하고 있다. 비트코인도 사업용 자산이다. 2️⃣ 사업에 쓰는 돈이 전체 자산의 5%도 안 된다 → 비트코인 평가손실을 사업 비용으로 잡고 있어서 그것만으로 5%가 넘는다 3️⃣ 본업으로 현금을 못 번다 → 반박 없음 4️⃣ 실적이 들고 있는 자산의 가격 오르내림에 좌우된다 → 비트코인 가격 변동은 이미 사업 비용으로 처리하고 있고, 다른 자산의 변동은 아주 작다 5️⃣ 최근 1년 동안 큰돈을 끌어와서 자산을 사 모았다 → 따로 반박 없음 스트래티지 계산대로면 걸리는 건 3번과 5번, 두 개뿐입니다. 탈락 기준인 4개에 못 미친다는 게 핵심 주장이에요. 📌 그 밖의 반박 • 작년에 낸 "코인이 자산의 50% 이상이면 제외" 안이 반발로 철회됐는데, 이름만 바꿔서 다시 들고 왔다 • 목재회사나 리츠처럼 자산이 한쪽에 몰린 회사는 통과시키면서 코인만 문제 삼는다 • 직원 1,500명에 소프트웨어 매출도 연 5억 달러 가까이 되는 진짜 회사다 • 지수는 시장을 비추는 거울이어야지, 심판이 되면 안 된다 결국 반박은 받아들여지지 않았고 퇴출이 확정됐습니다. ============== ✍️ 개인 생각 전반적으로 서로 억지 쓰는 부분이 조금씩 있다고 생각해요. MSCI는 '사업용 자산'의 정의 없이 판정한 게 있고, 스트래티지를 저격하는 느낌도 어느 정도 있다고 생각하는데, 스트래티지도 비트코인 평가손실을 그냥 회계 처리만 사업 비용으로 잡아 "사업에 돈을 쓰는 회사" 기준을 통과하는 거라고 정리하면 될 것 같아요. 만약 이렇게 사업비용을 잡으면, 손실이 클수록 사업을 열심히 한 것처럼 회계 장부를 계산해야 되는데, 확실히 일반적이지는 않거든요 저는 MSCI 편입으로 들어오는 패시브 수급이 스트래티지의 NAV 전략 핵심 파츠 중 하나라고 생각했는데, 이제 그게 아니게 돼서 갈수록 그냥 비트 갖고 있으면 되지 굳이 스트래티지를? 하는 생각이 강해지는 것 같음 🤔

Hi @thsottiaux ! I'm a subscriber to the ChatGPT Plus $500 model and a huge fan of ChatGPT. I have a suggestion. I fully understand the weekly limit, but sometimes I want to run it with minimal features, but I've used up all my credits, so it doesn't work at all, which I think significantly hurts the user experience. So, if possible, could you give me a very minimal token, like 0.5-1% once a day, even when I've used up all my tokens? This is because users still can't fully utilize AI, so hitting that limit and getting blocked feels really bad. I'm curious if you could consider this. Also,

삼전닉스에 대한 내 생각 이정도까지의 하락은 '민주당이 진짜로 ai 데이터 센터를 막고, 이에 따라 기계약된 내용들도 줄줄이 딜레이되거나 심지어 취소될 거다' 까지를 다 반영해야 하는 것 같은데, 기본적으로 AI는 치킨게임 성격이 있기에 투자를 줄이기 힘들다고 생각하고, 무엇보다 '그래서 AI를 빅테크가 비용 문제 때문에 중단할까?' 라고 생각해보면 나는 아닌 것 같음. 물론 민주당이 AI 데이터센터를 적극적으로 막을 수 있겠지만, 현실적으로 정책으로 시장 생산의 얼마까지 막을 수 있을까? 라고 생각해보면 진짜 커도 기계약된 물량에서 2~30% 정도가 설비 지연이 생기거나 할 수 있다고 보고, 그 이상으로 줄이기는 지정학적으로 불가능하다고 생각함. 이런 점들을 차분하게 생각해보면 지금 하락은 과한게 아닐까 라고 생각함. 동시에 나는 로보틱스가 다음 메이저 섹터가 될거라고 생각하는데, 이 잠정 수요까지 생각하면 이번에 저점에 잘 잡는게 장투 물량으로 가져가기에 최적의 평단일 거라고 생각하기도 하고. 거기에 전닉은 명확한 코리아 디스카운트가 존재함. - 나라에서 공장 지을 부지도 정해버리고 - 주주의 권리인 배당은 소홀한데 직원 성과급은 크고 - 나라에서 레버리지 상품을 고점에 출시하고, 대통령이 직접 매수를 권하기도 하고 등등.. (레버리지는 나왔어야 하는 상품이라고 생각함, 다만 타이밍이 잘못됐지) 사실 이게 뭐 정권이 바뀐다고 해결될 거라고 생각하지는 않지만, 분명 아마추어처럼 시장을 운영했고 이에 외인들은 매력을 못 느끼기도 함. 솔직히 서양권에서 보면 저게 중국같이 느껴지는게 당연함 아무리 반도체가 PER가 낮을 때가 사이클 고점이고, 반대로 PER이 높을 때가 사이클 저점이라고 하지만, 그래도 이정도까지 빠질 일인가 하는 정도로 일단 내 생각은 정리 되는 것 같음 반도체 수요를 생각했을때, 취소보다는 결국 시대의 흐름상 잘 쳐봐야 지연일 거라고 생각함. 팔때보다는 살때이지 않을까

GSTOCK Thesis Since the Binance hack, some of the excitement around $GSTOCK seems to have cooled. I still find this play interesting. The incentives line up pretty clearly. GSTOCK’s structure is simple: fee-generating onchain trading accumulates BNCB. BNCB is an asset linked to shares of BNB Standard, the BNB treasury company trading on Nasdaq under the ticker BNC. At the time I checked @GeniusTerminal GSTOCK had already contributed roughly 91,431 BNCB to the foundation. What interests me more is what comes next. Who benefits from that accumulation and the community forming around it? BNC On the November 2 official dashboard, BNC’s mNAV was around 0.70x. It was trading at roughly a 30% discount to its adjusted net asset value. A BNB treasury company has reasons to expand BNB’s utility, support ecosystem growth, and turn that activity into a stronger valuation for its own shares. Simply holding BNB hasn’t been enough to close the discount. There’s a reason to get more active. If GSTOCK trading leads to steady BNCB accumulation, that’s welcome news for BNC. It creates an ongoing source of demand for an asset tied to its shares. Imagine this eventually grows into a long-term holding equivalent to 3–5% of BNC’s equity. At that scale, even without doing anything particularly ambitious, it could keep a meaningful block of supply off the market. Then add a friendly community. If GSTOCK holders coordinate through staking, and that develops into actual board nominations or shareholder activity, CZ has a reason to pay attention. These are crypto natives betting on the success of the BNB ecosystem. Barring major conflicts or serious missteps, I think they’re likely to support the BNB strategy and candidates CZ backs. I see a potential base of friendly shareholders here. Long-term BNCB demand, plus a community inclined to support the same direction. That creates another reason to help this grow. A memecoin community nominating a director for a Nasdaq company. The story practically writes itself. That’s what makes Ryan’s moves interesting. Ryan(@ryanmyher), Genius’s cofounder, has repeatedly mentioned GSTOCK and a board seat. He has also teased staking and share accumulation features, and talked about representing the community at the Nasdaq bell event. In the activity I’ve been following, BNB-related posts and token purchase disclosures have kept coming. CZ also quote-posted the Genius mobile app launch. I don’t take these as proof of a finalized plan. But put Ryan’s activity next to BNC’s seventh board seat, and it’s hard not to wonder whether something is being built around GSTOCK. The problem is the Binance hack. I see its impact going two ways. First, they keep things quiet given the market and everything else going on. Aggressively pushing new spot or futures listings could be a difficult move. BNC’s board appointment could also happen quietly, without turning it into a community event. In that scenario, the catalysts I’m watching could be significantly delayed or disappear entirely. Second, the need to demonstrate the strength of the BNB ecosystem actually grows. Binance has reasons to restore trust, revive volume, and rebuild revenue. New listings that attract attention, alongside continued activity across the ecosystem, would send a clear message: even after a shock, it still has the ability to mobilize users and communities. So I don’t think the hack necessarily means every play gets shelved. Looking purely at business incentives, the need to create new markets and generate volume may have grown. If that attention spills over into GSTOCK’s onchain trading, and that trading leads to more BNCB accumulation, the incentives line up again. From Binance’s perspective, I think this carries far more symbolic weight, and offers a stronger narrative, than a Mars coin-style play accumulating SpaceX exposure. Activity inside its own ecosystem would be feeding into the accumulation of shares in a BNB treasury company, with the community discussing board participation on top. For Genius, it’s a demonstration of what the platform can actually do. For BNC, it’s long-term demand for its shares and a potential base of friendly shareholders. For Binance, it’s a way to generate volume and revenue while showcasing activity in the BNB ecosystem. I think all three have plenty of reasons to want GSTOCK’s volume to grow. It doesn’t require some grand agreement upfront, either. Each party can pursue its own interests and still end up helping the others. That’s what makes this setup interesting. The triggers I’m watching are the actual launch of GSTOCK staking, concrete developments around board participation, and engagement from CZ or Yi He. On the chart, I’m seeing the upper-$3M to $4M market-cap area get defended repeatedly. That gives me a zone against which to judge whether the setup is failing, while several potential catalysts remain ahead. The question is whether GSTOCK can maintain its footing until then. If the volume and community stay alive, and BNCB keeps accumulating, I think there’s a real chance these aligned interests turn into action. The hack disrupted the timing. It hasn’t erased the reasons these players have to support each other. That’s why I find GSTOCK’s risk/reward interesting here. i also have quite a lot GSTOCK #NFA

0G’s hackathon tracks at ETHGlobal Mumbai are worth a look 👀 1. iAI & compute credits What if unused daily AI credits could become something other people can actually buy and use? I get $81 worth of iAI credits a day. If I could sell what I don’t use for $30, I’d happily take that deal. That’s what makes “Compute Finance” interesting to me. There’s potential demand on both sides: holders with spare credits and users who want cheaper AI access. I’m especially looking forward to trying products that put idle iAI credits to work. A simple way to buy discounted credits could appeal to people who know nothing about crypto, too. 2. Physical AI agents This track is looking for agents that make decisions using real-world data from robots, drones and wearables. Smart glasses came to mind for me. I’d be curious to see what builders can do with an agent that responds to what you’re seeing and doing in the real world. The other two tracks cover teams already building on 0G and autonomous agents that can earn more than they cost to run, with Comfy as a marketplace for them. The credit side is what I’ll be watching most closely. Let me buy cheaper AI access or sell credits I’d otherwise leave unused, and you’ve got my attention 🤔 (cc @0G_Foundation)

0G liquidity is getting a home. Bond is live in beta 👀 @BondSuperApp_ brings the familiar DeFi toolkit together on 0G: • LP pools for 0G, a0G, iAI and other ecosystem assets • Aave-based lending with assets like wBTC, wETH and 0G • Yield vaults • Perps coming later Basically, the DeFi stack you'd usually find spread across a chain, all in one place. The high APRs on the 0G and iAI pools caught my eye 👀 According to Bond's pinned post, a $10M incentive program is also in the works to support early ecosystem growth. Looks like Bond could be the starting point for a more active DeFi ecosystem on @0G_Foundation As an iAI holder, I'm happy to have more ways to put it to work. Once I can ease off the heavy coding a bit, I might unstake some iAI and try LP farming 👀

🏴‍☠️ 내 트랜잭션을 모두 숨기고 싶다면? American Fortress "아 내 트랜잭션 남들이 보는 거 싫은데.. 🤔" - 이름이나 컨셉 이상한 밈코 살 때 - 펍덱 파밍하다 손절하고 CEX 넘기는 패배 트랜잭션을 안보여주고 싶을 때 - 에어드랍용 다계정 파는 데 시빌 걸릴까봐 억지로 CEX 거칠 때 등의 경우 때마다 저는 이런 생각을 꽤 많이 했왔어요. 이 문제를 해결하기 위해 등장한 프로젝트가 있으니, 바로 American Fortress(이하 아포)입니다. 아포는 복잡한 0x 같은 지갑주소 대신 'moeny0stack9'같은 아이디만 입력하면 송금을 할 수 있게 하고, 이와 동시에 백그라운드에서는 매번 스텔스 주소를 생성해 내 메인 지갑을 노출하지 않고도 송금할 수 있는 기능을 제공합니다. ========= $RAIL이나 $STRK를 필두로 다시 한번 프라이버시와 양자 저항이 각광 받는 요즘, 아포는 요즘 시장에서 각광받는 재료를 한곳에 그러모은 프로젝트라 할 수 있어요. 인베스팅 닷컴에 따르면 SAVA 인베스트, Moon Pursuit, 0g Labs로부터 이미 8M 규모의 시드 라운드 투자를 유치했으며, 지금이 시장 적기라고 판단해 슬슬 고개를 드는게 아닐까 해요. 아무리 맛있는 요리라도, 잘 팔릴때까지 기다렸다가 팔아야 된다는 생각이 아니었을지? ========== American Fortess는 이 시기적절한 타이밍에 한국 커뮤니티를 오픈하고 앞으로 다양한 소식을 전할거라고 해요 🇰🇷 커뮤니티를 열었다는 건, 당연히 유저 몫도 어느 정도 있을거고 향후 에어드랍 작업 같은 것도 있지 않을까 생각합니다. 저도 좋은 기회로 아포와 함께 다양한 소식을 전달드릴 수 있게 되었습니다! 에어드랍 가이드는 각 나오는대로 탄탄하게 적어드릴 예정이지만, 일단 커뮤니티 이벤트에서 모바일 상품권 & 스벅 이벤트부터 한번 챙겨보셔요! 바로 불개미 트윗 가서 이벤트 참여까지 레에에쓰고 🏎️

🚨 Arkadiko Post-mortem(Using claude and surfAI) the attacker address provided by @ArkadikoFinance used Claude to trace the funds and cross-checked the results against public on-chain transactions. On October 22 (UTC), 2,065,481.479441 stSTX and 1.65221692 sBTC were drained from Arkadiko vaults. Attacker / fund recipient address: SP1JB85VZ7TX7SWSNW0PHV115YPQE5QXJDG6P60AQ Governance proposal / execution address: SP1V1BN459229EJG94YYBJDN50ADVB6MXVVEZ0G34 Proposal #12 passed with about 4.57 million DIKO in favor and 0 against, granting an attacker-deployed contract permission to withdraw collateral and mint USDA. The attacker also minted 1,500,354,999 unbacked USDA. That is the number of tokens minted, not $1.5 billion in losses. The funds moved as follows. Swaps The attacker swapped stSTX in 5 transactions for about 2.28 million STX. Selling USDA separately netted about 540,000 STX. Distribution From the recipient wallet, about 2.29 million STX and 1.65 sBTC moved to SPR3...SCY1, and about 514,000 STX moved to SP26...KJ18W. Bitcoin Through 4 successful withdrawals, 4.85824088 BTC was paid out to bc1q8h...j08s. That total includes sBTC acquired through additional purchases. The funds then moved to bc1q09...4qle, whose owner has not been identified. Ethereum Across 14 matched bridge transfers, 305,348.87 USDCx was burned on Stacks and 305,320.87 USDC was minted on Ethereum. At the receiving addresses 0x9a86...3875 and 0x4256...4073, the USDC was swapped for ETH. Tornado Cash A downstream wallet, 0xe8cb...5006, deposited 213.3 ETH across 9 transactions. However, other funds were commingled upstream, so the full amount cannot be attributed to the Arkadiko exploit. These figures include swaps and transfers of the same funds, so adding them all together would overstate the losses. The Binance and Bybit deposit routes in the image are marked as "speculative." I confirmed ETH transfers from Binance hot wallets to wallets linked to the incident. What hasn't been confirmed is whether the stolen STX was deposited into those exchanges beforehand. That's the flow. Honestly, I didn't even know governance was still active. I don't know yet how much can be recovered. But based on the public fund flows, I think it's highly likely that most of the direct selling pressure from this incident has already passed. A significant amount has already gone through the market, and my guess is that some of it went to exchanges. The next thing to watch is how much can be frozen and recovered through exchange cooperation and investigations. That said, with STX already carrying Binance's Monitoring Tag, the timing is a real headache. Of course, as an industry leader, Binance will know very well that a dApp exploit and a security flaw in the mainnet itself are different things. I don't expect this incident itself to directly affect Binance's judgment. But I don't think outsiders' trust in the ecosystem can be completely separated from it either. And of all times, this had to happen near the end of the month. I suspect relatively few users had active vaults at the time. But USDA holders and liquidity providers were also affected, so it's hard to call that a relief when people have lost money. Separately, this is something I've felt for a long time: the ecosystem's response in situations like this is disappointing. If the attacker addresses and suspected fund flows had been shared with the first official announcement, users could have worked together to trace the exploit and check for further risks. It would also have helped them assess their own exposure and decide what to do with their assets. But the initial announcement left out the addresses and routes needed to make those assessments and respond. I think the confirmed findings could have been shared, with the speculative parts clearly labeled as such. I understand that the Stacks ecosystem has a lot to navigate right now. Even so, these are exactly the moments when I'd like to see information shared early so the community can respond together. During the Cetus incident on Sui, multiple dApps stepped up alongside the foundation to coordinate a response. I think it matters to keep showing who is doing what, how they are working together, what progress has been made, and what still needs to be resolved. As a user, seeing that process gives you a sense that "even when something goes wrong here, the ecosystem comes together and works through it." I don't like the attitude that seems to treat publicly showing this kind of response as a blemish on the ecosystem. If you want to boast about a strong DeFi ecosystem over the long term, I think you also have to show up when an incident happens. If the position is that this is a decentralized ecosystem and individual projects are responsible for their own affairs, then claiming their DeFi successes as wins for the entire ecosystem whenever things go well is inconsistent. The SEC investigation concerning Stacks and Hiro was also closed in 2024. At the very least, I don't see why sharing attacker addresses, disclosing fund flows, and helping coordinate a response should still require so much tiptoeing. You can't have it both ways. From where I stand, it looks like "we're strong eco" when things go well, and "nothing to do with us" when funds get stolen. If this attitude persists, I believe the long-term cost will be far greater than the money stolen here: the loss of trust in the ecosystem. And it is the users and projects that stay who will end up paying that price.

My Thoughts About zero-gravity:native and iAI iAI has bounced off the lows, but I still think its AI usage is being underpriced. Staking it gives you daily AI credits, which is a pretty practical reason to own it if you already spend money on AI. @AlgodTrading's criticism of Venice's equity<>token structure took some heat out of the trade. But my read is that the concerns around $DIEM have eased a little, and I don't see Venice's runway as an immediate worry right now. Using DIEM around $2,000 as a reference, I still think $400–$600 is a conservative value for the AI usage alone, even after setting aside the collateral a minter can recover. iAI looks more attractive to me on that basis. Its initial terms offer 1.271 AI credits per staked token per day, with a stated usage value above $1, versus DIEM's $1 a day. Looking at that daily allowance, I could make a case for valuing iAI's AI usage at 1.271x DIEM's. But Venice's $65m raise in July deserves some weight too. So even if I stay conservative and give iAI just a 1.05x multiple, that's $420–$630 for the AI usage alone. I still think that's good value against the roughly $367 quoted on Zia right now. Even before assigning any value to the minter's right to recover the underlying 0G collateral, returned as a0G, I still think iAI around that price could be close to a bottom on AI usage value alone. That recovery right stays with the minting wallet; buying iAI on the market gives you the compute rights. The usage value is where I still see a gap. Some people have also raised questions about how long 0G can keep funding the credits, but its recent commitment to invest S$20m in Singapore over five years makes me more comfortable on that front. To me, it suggests enough runway to absorb the ongoing credit costs and keep building the service. For people who use a lot of AI and will actually consume the credits, the entry looks attractive to me. Taking @0G_labs's recent activity in Singapore and at KBW into account, I think this is a reasonable bet if you size it around what you're prepared to lose and have a clear exit plan if it doesn't work out. I'm planning to use mine for language practice and writing on Brunch.