avatar
Jeff Dorman
44,183 Twitter followers
Follow
CIO @arca - digital assets investing | Former COO of Harvest Exchange | Former Lehman, Merrill, Citadel | Huge Cleveland Sports Fan | CFA charterholder
Posts
avatar
Jeff Dorman
12-02
Diving into one of the strangest crypto sell-offs ever. Wall Street is seeing all of the same bullish signs that I'm seeing -- equity, credit and gold/silver markets are launching to ATHs every month because the Fed is cutting rates, QT is ending, consumer spending is strong, record earnings, AI demand still incredibly strong, etc. Meanwhile, all of the "supposed reasons" for crypto selling off are easily debunked, or have reversed -- MSTR isn't selling, Tether isn't insolvent, DATs aren't selling, NVDA isn't blowing up, the Fed isn't turning hawkish, the tariff wars aren't restarting, etc. I still have no idea why crypto is down It may be as simple as "all of the positive progress with the tech, with Washington policy, and with Wall Street doesn't change the fact that there are no buyers within the crypto walls today. Crypto-native investors are exhausted, and new money isn't coming in. While investors are forward looking, they don't change their workflows -- so while it's great that Vanguard, State Street, BNY, JPM, MS, GS, etc are all COMING, they aren't here today. And until it's easy to buy via their existing mandates and systems, they just won't do it"
$SILVER
9.238490208477e10%
avatar
Jeff Dorman
12-02
I think a lot of us are actually saying the same thing. @santiagoroel and I have written similar things about Fat Protocol thesis being dead, and L1s being completely overvalued based on SOTP (but we both acknowledge that the majority of the world's assets aren't onchain yet, so these numbers could grow exponentially, quickly). Meanwhile, @hosseeb has written that current valuations of L1s based on today’s revenues and utility value are irrelevant, because the entire world’s assets will one day be moving on blockchain rails. And while that doesn’t mean that any individual L1 token is cheap, collectively it makes the total value of all blockchains cheap, and betting on any one L1 token is essentially a probability function of its success. And @DTAPCAP is arguing a similar point -- which is that consumer behavior on a social app is very different than financial behavior on a world money transfer app. But all of these arguments point to the same thing. The future of blockchain has never been more certain. We know more and more assets are coming onchain. But there is a huge divide right now between what the tech will be used for, versus what it is actually being used for today. So essentially, any bull or bear take on L1s simply comes down to a) how fast will all of the world's $600 trillion+ of debt, equity and real estate come on chain? The longer the time horizon, the more expensive these assets are. b) Which chain(s) will win? It's basically the same thesis, with different time horizons and different anointed winners.
avatar
Jeff Dorman
11-06
In response to a16z’s legal rebuttal of my $HOOD token idea. I believe Miles is the last crypto lawyer on the planet who still believes this, and it shows in a16z’s “investment” in $UNI, the most worthless token ever created because their firm refuses to allow a fee switch to happen First of all, there is nothing illegal about something being a security. And a16z knows this. If HOOD wanted to issue a token that is a security, they could do that and simply follow security laws. Second, if HOOD were to sell a token on the premise of profit sharing, yes, it would be a security. But notice I didn’t say sell a token. I said airdrop a token. 50% to users, 50% to their shareholders. There are no examples of this model violating securities laws. Using revenue to buyback tokens by itself does not make something a security. Selling a token under this guise may make it a security, but there is no sale. if a16z wants to die on this “everything with revenue is a security” hill, then fine. But the market, the SEC and plenty of other token issuers and lawyers now completely disagree with them. Their token taxonomy proposal is interesting but it is not the law. Crypto assets are completely worthless if they don’t have some form of financial (cash flows/buybacks), utility (spend ability/pay has/ get discounts) and social value (cool factor). There’s a reason $BNB and $HYPE are two of the most successful tokens ever created while the governance tokens a16z has backed have largely gone straight down. You can’t just blindly decide that all tokens have to be decentralized kabuki theatre crap. They can have actual value drivers, and more and more token issuers are going to figure this out.
miles jennings
@milesjennings
11-06
That’s just a profits interest, which is a type of security that’s been around for a long time. And using a security as collateral also isn’t new. Token + financial engineering + buzzwords ≠ innovation
HOOD
668.03%
loading indicator
Loading..