Every year, countless outlooks and predictions emerge in the cryptocurrency market. Most are quickly forgotten. However, a few predictions truly influence the flow of capital, talent, and attention. Among them is Messarri's annual "Crypto Theory" report, which holds a unique position.
For many organizations, this report is less a forecast and more a strategic memo. It not only explores market trends but also implicitly defines... what will happen in the next cycle. Industries highlighted in Messari's theory tend to become the focus of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs in the coming year.
The 2026 report revolves around a clear transformation: cryptocurrencies are shifting from pure speculation to systemic integration. In the first part of this three-part series, I will focus on several core arguments from the report, along with my personal interpretations and questions, particularly emphasizing the perspective of market participants rather than purely first-order research.
The valuation trap of L1 blockchain
Between 2024 and 2025, a wave of venture capital-backed Layer 1 blockchain projects emerged, often boasting fully diluted valuations of tens of billions of dollars. Projects like Monad, Berachain, and Sei appeared with familiar promises: higher TPS, stronger teams, and superior execution environments. The implicit assumption was that each new L1 blockchain had the potential to become "the next Ethereum."
Mesari believes that this assumption has now been refuted by real data.
Early valuation logic viewed L1 tokens as potential currencies. If a chain could become a settlement layer with sufficient activity, then a huge currency premium seemed justified. However, in practice, most such networks eventually became highly inflated systems with negligible revenue. Token issuance far exceeded on-chain transaction fee revenue, leading to structural losses for many L1 tokens.
At the same time, the market environment has changed. Ethereum's Layer 2 ecosystem has matured significantly, while Solana has solidified its dominance in the high-performance consumer cryptocurrency space. In this context, it's difficult for new chains to attract loyal long-term token holders. Instead, they attract airdrop farmers and short-term liquidity tourists.
Messari's conclusion is straightforward: apart from BTC and a few truly compelling ecosystems (Solana and Base are the most frequently cited examples), most L1 valuations have completely deviated from fundamentals.
Looking ahead to 2026, the report anticipates the market will actively strip away the so-called "currency premium" of L1 tokens. Simply touting high throughput is insufficient to support billions of dollars in FDV (Final Value). At a minimum, a chain's daily gas fee revenue should exceed the amount distributed through inflation rewards. Otherwise, the consequences will be dire.
In extreme cases, some newly launched parallel EVM chains are trading at prices as high as $5 billion to $10 billion, while daily gas revenue is less than $10,000. At this rate, it would take thousands of years for transaction fee revenue to offset token issuance costs. This is not a temporary mismatch, but a structural problem.
While Messari remains optimistic about Solana—perhaps influenced by its own investments—the broader implications are more significant: a viable L1 platform must possess genuine "command power" or some form of application-level monopoly. Speed itself is no longer the winning formula.
Chain abstraction as a survival strategy
One area highlighted in the report that I think deserves more detailed study is chain abstraction.
The goal of blockchain abstraction is theoretically simple, but its practical impact is far-reaching. Users don't need to know which chain they are using. With just a wallet and a balance denominated in stablecoins, users can initiate operations, and the system will automatically handle all aspects in the background, including bridging, gas conversion, routing, and signing.
If this vision is realized, blockchain will no longer be a consumer-facing product, but rather a backend infrastructure.
For example, projects like Near and Berachain are experimenting with different versions of this concept. Near positions itself as an AI-centric distributed platform, while Berachain strengthens capital stickiness through its "liquidity consensus" model, effectively forcing liquidity to remain within its ecosystem.
From an investment perspective, this redefines how L1-level blockchains are evaluated. Blockchains that simply process transactions faster can be replaced, while those that can control user traffic, liquidity routing, or application distribution can maintain their influence. In the post-abstraction era, power no longer depends on execution speed, but on coordination and control.
The Rise of the Agent Economy
Perhaps the most controversial claim in the Messari report is that by 2026, most on-chain activity will no longer be driven by humans.
Conversely, AI agents will dominate transaction volume.
The logic is simple. Traditional banking systems cannot open accounts for autonomous software agents. However, AI systems increasingly require uninterrupted 24/7 access to payments, hedging tools, and yield optimization features. Crypto-native assets, especially stablecoins, are perfectly suited to this role.
If AI agents achieve economic autonomy, they will be able to pay each other, rebalance portfolios, and seek optimal execution paths without human intervention. Messari estimates that up to 80% of on-chain transactions could be generated by machines in the next cycle.
This shift has profound implications. The importance of user interfaces, dashboards, and retail-friendly design has decreased. APIs, smart contracts, and machine-readable financial primitives have become the real battleground.
The virtual protocols Virtuals and Wayfinder represent early attempts to build the infrastructure for this world. Virtuals positions itself as a platform where AI agents can have autonomous identities and control over their funds. Wayfinder, on the other hand, focuses on handling complex on-chain operations on behalf of agents.
However, the real opportunities may lie elsewhere. Rather than speculating on abstract "AI tokens," Messari is actually encouraging people to focus on the consumables of AI: such as gas optimization layers, proxy authentication systems, and the infrastructure that AI must possess. Paying to use these works is less about narrative and more about tools and instruments.
Perpetual Equity Contracts and New Frontiers in Derivatives
Another important theme is the emergence of equity perpetual contracts.
Following the success of protocols like these, Hyperliquid DeFi is expanding from crypto-native assets to global stock price exposure. Stock perpetual contracts are synthetic derivatives whose prices are anchored to oracles and funding rates, rather than ownership.
This distinction is crucial. Trading Nvidia stock options involves no dividends or shareholder equity. It is purely a bet on price movement, realized through a financing interest rate mechanism. If the underlying stock rises, the short seller gains the profits of the long position; if it falls, the opposite occurs.
Messari compared this model to tokenized stock. While tokenized stock theoretically represents ownership, it suffers from issues such as insufficient liquidity, opaque custody, and platform risks. Currently, equity incentive models appear to be more scalable.
Messari believes that if the Hyperliquid market truly expands in 2026, its surrounding ecosystem could experience exponential growth. Of course, other competitive models also exist. Aster, often considered closely integrated with the Binance ecosystem, uses cross-chain liquidity aggregation rather than building a vertically integrated L1 service.
Hyperliquid, by owning the entire blockchain technology stack, prioritizes on-chain transparency and performance. Aster, on the other hand, prioritizes capital efficiency and convenience, allowing users to deploy leverage across chains with minimal friction. In a bull market, the latter's appeal is obvious. However, its architectural complexity also introduces higher systemic risks.
Decentralization and the shift to real income
Finally, Messari points out that DePIN is the only industry it expects to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in verifiable revenue by 2026.
This argument is not without controversy. DePIN's concept was once popular, but mostly failed because unilateral supply growth lacked genuine demand. Many early projects encouraged hardware deployment but ignored the question of who would pay for the service.
The report argues that this landscape is changing. The infrastructure is in place. What follows is demand—driven primarily by a shortage of AI computing power.
Similar projects like io.net focus on GPU aggregation rather than speculative data collection. A key metric is external revenue: does the token buyback funding come from genuine enterprise contracts, or simply from new participants purchasing equipment?
Messari points to Aethir as an example, whose annual recurring revenue exceeded $160 million in the third quarter, primarily driven by users who couldn't afford AI computing services due to the high cost of high-end hardware. Whether this growth momentum can be sustained remains to be seen, but the model is already clear.
For DePIN, revenue quality (rather than network size) will determine its viability.
One last thing to note
While Messari's report is detailed, it primarily reflects a firsthand market perspective. For retail investors, fundamentals alone rarely drive price movements. Liquidity and market narratives still dominate returns.
Usage is not equivalent to revenue; only marginal capital flow is equivalent to revenue.
This tension—between what should be important and what will actually determine the market's direction in the next cycle—is precisely what makes the critical interpretation of reports like Mesari's most valuable.
To be continued (Part Two).
The above viewpoints are all referenced from @Web3___Ace
