10Δ

10Δ

12,470 Twitter followers

Follow

macro dilettante. crypto investor. occasional shitposter.

Posts

Every past crypto cycle was defined by a distinct technological breakthrough & speculative narrative that drove the broader market megatrend. 2009-2013: BTC -> PoW Chains 2015-2017: ETH/ERC-20s-> ICOs 2019-2021: COMP/UNI -> DeFi 2023-2024: SOL/RLB/UNIBOT -> Memes & Finanancial Nihilism It clearly seems, that AI & utility-driven infra will be the defining themes that characterize the years to come. As expected, the market is maturing, & this time “smart money” is allocating to tech with real PMF.

$HYPE already at ATHs $VVV already at ATHs $ZEC & $NEAR pending IMO x.com/gumsays/status…

Interesting & I am also fully convinced in USDC’s key position in this future. However, why should an investor purchase ARC instead of CRCL, or vice-versa?

Liquidity vortex #1: yields pushing ever higher as a knock-on effect of the elevated energy prices. Liquidity vortex #2: incoming IPO mega wave forcing allocators to make room in their portfolio for the next hot thing. Everyone is allocated, with cash positions at an all time low. There's simply not enough capital in the current system.

Too little, too late. The banks finally read the fine print they signed. A week after the Tillis-Alsobrooks compromise dropped (& after their lobbyists sat in the White House negotiation sessions that produced it). They've suddenly noticed that "rewards calculated by referencing a user's account balance" is a long way of saying "interest". They're right & that's the whole point. But they're also a week late & a Senate markup short. The deal is "complete & final" as Tillis & Lummis have declared. Trump is behind the bill (his admin knows what's at stake).. Treasury wants the carve out because the Bretton Woods 3.0 framework depends on it. What banks could realistically still extract: tighter definitional language, disclosure requirements, sunset clauses (more cosmetic stuff). But they won't get the removal of the balance or duration calculation method because that's the core of the entire compromise. The banks own letter gives away the game: they argue the carve out will "incentivize customers to hold & grow stablecoin balances at the expense of deposits." That's right. Welcome to free markets, may the best player win. Banks lost the entire fight the moment Treasury decided that stablecoins will be the marginal buyer of US debt. Bretton Woods 3.0 doesn't need their consent. Hyper digital dollar maximalism. twitter.com/_10delta_/status/2...

RWAs good. What about VWAs (Virtual World Assets)? MMORPGs are worlds in their own right, with functioning markets driven by supply & demand, narrative cycles around expansions, item rebalances & meta shifts, decades of price history & genuine internal price discovery. As gaming continues to normalize as a serious career path, the bridge from closed game economies to broader capital markets becomes an interesting gap in the financialization stack. The crucial aspect is tokenizing legacy game economies that already work, rather than building speculative economies into games that don’t (e.g. the failed attempts of “GameFi” from previous cycles). Think “GameFi” might prove to be one of those “early, but not wrong” ideas. twitter.com/_10delta_/status/2...

AI is deflating the value of every digital good toward zero & every knowledge work moat is eroding. Meanwhile, nation states are transitioning to a mercantilist-imperialist model: stockpiling commodities, securing energy, & acquiring (farm)land. As a capital allocator, the logical path is to adopt the neo-mercantilist model as well, that is: Own the physical. You simply can’t prompt engineer a harvest.

What many characterize as the end of America is very unlikely, if not outright wrong.. The much more plausible outcome is the end of the Republic & the rise of the (American) Empire.

Loading..