Onur 🍌🦍's banner
Onur 🍌🦍's profile picture

Onur 🍌🦍

@0xc06115,462 subscribers

Trader || Alpha Threads 🧵 || DeFi Maxi ||

Videos

0xc06's profile picture

Tomorrow a company that holds close to 5% of all ethereum is set to join the russell 1000. Once done, index funds that have never had an opinion on crypto will be forced to buy it. Nobody in those funds chose this, a benchmark rule did it for them 👇 ◢ How index inclusion actually works Getting added to a major index is one of the strongest demand events in markets, and it has nothing to do with whether the company is good. Funds that track the russell 1000 have to hold what the russell 1000 holds, or they stop tracking it. So, when a stock joins, every passive fund benchmarked to that index becomes a forced buyer, at whatever the price is, on the schedule the index sets. Passive vehicles tend to hold something like 20 to 25% of a large-cap stock, which for this one points to roughly $2B of buying that arrives because a rule says it must. ◢ The part that makes it crypto Bitmine is not a normal company that happens to get indexed, it's an ethereum treasury, sitting on millions of $ETH as its core balance sheet. So the chain runs like this: the index adds the stock, passive funds are forced to buy the stock, and the stock is essentially a wrapper around a giant pile of ETH. The result is that ordinary equity index money ends up with ethereum exposure without a single person deciding they wanted it. No ETF approval, allocation vote or opinion required. ◢ A side door, not a front door Everyone in crypto watches the spot ETF as the official entrance for institutional money, the thing that needs sign-off and gets headlines. Index inclusion is the entrance nobody guards. strategy walked a bitcoin treasury into the nasdaq 100. Coinbase took a crypto exchange into the s&p 500. now an ethereum treasury is stepping into the russell 1000. Each time, the underlying business didn't change. what changed is who was suddenly required to own it. ◢ Why front-running it is harder than it looks The mechanism is concrete, but the easy trade around it usually isn't. The inclusion isn't final until the reconstitution actually closes, so the flow is conditional, not guaranteed. The stock is already down around 50% on the year, which is a reminder that a one-time wave of buying doesn't repair something tied to ETH's price and to confidence in the treasury model. And there's a quieter problem: "diversified" index funds are now obligated to hold a leveraged, single-asset crypto bet that most of their investors would never have picked on purpose. What it means that the biggest new buyer of a crypto-linked company is a rule, not a person, and that millions of people now hold a slice of ethereum because an index told their fund to?

Onur 🍌🦍

14,337 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

0xc06's profile picture

Last week, Mastercard, Visa, Ripple & Coinbase 🛡️ all shipped payment rails for AI agents. Every one of them reached for stablecoins Instead of traditional cards. A choice that is the whole story 👇🏻 ◢ An unpriced problem Card networks are built around a human pressing approve. One purchase, one confirmation, a fee that only makes sense above a certain size. Agents don’t work like that. They pay continuously, programmatically, often in fractions of a cent, for things like an API call or a second of compute. A bot paying $0.004 a thousand times an hour is a transaction pattern the card model physically can’t process at a profit. The rails we built for people don’t fit the machines. ◢ Four giants, one answer On june 3 mastercard opened card settlement in stablecoins across eight chains. On june 10 it launched Agent Pay for Machines, letting agents settle in stablecoins with permissions recorded onchain. The same day, ripple shipped a toolkit putting RLUSD and the x402 standard under agent payments, visa announced an agentic commerce tie-up with openai, and coinbase switched on agentic trading. Four of the biggest names in payments moved in a single week and all landed on the same primitive. ◢ Why it had to be stablecoins Strip out the branding and the requirements are mechanical. The money has to be programmable, so code can hold and move it without a bank in the loop. It has to clear sub-cent payments, which card fees make impossible. It also has to settle in seconds with finality, because that’s the speed agents run at. And it has to be always on, because machines don’t take weekends. A dollar in a bank account fails most of those, while a dollar as a stablecoin passes all of them. ◢ Conclusive Insights For years stablecoins were pitched at consumers who already had working banks and mostly didn’t bite. The adoption story kept underdelivering because the product was aimed at the wrong buyer. The agent economy doesn’t have that problem. It has no legacy banking relationship, no human patience, and no other option that clears at machine speed. The demand that stablecoins were always promised is finally showing up, but not from the customer everyone expected. My take: the entire stablecoin debate was framed around human payments, which is why it kept stalling.

Onur 🍌🦍

13,595 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

0xc06's profile picture

Everyone ranks L2s by TVL. But it’s the laziest scoreboard in crypto. It tells you where money is sitting, not who’s actually winning. Here’s what I look for 👇🏻 ◢ TVL = Vanity Metric Parked capital is not a business. A chain can hold billions in deposits and still bleed money every month covering its own costs. TVL measures where liquidity is camping today, not whether the chain earns, profits, or survives a real bear. for years we ranked these networks by the one number that says the least about their survival. ◢ The Pie Is Shrinking Here’s the part nobody says out loud. Total L2 revenue has been falling, not growing. After Dencun crushed data costs in 2024, fees collapsed with them, and the money these chains collectively earn dropped hard from its peak. So, this stopped being a land grab a while ago. It’s now a fight for share of a market that’s actively getting smaller, which changes everything about who actually wins. ◢ Rented Users Don't Count In a shrinking market, only one question matters: can you get users without paying for them. Incentives, airdrops, points farms, none of that is growth, it’s renting volume by the day. The second the rewards stop, the mercenaries leave and the chain goes silent. We already watched it happen to 50+ rollups that are functionally dead now, billions in “TVL” that vanished the moment emissions dried up. ◢ Distribution Beat Tech The one chain that actually solved this didn’t out-engineer anyone. The tech is good, not magic. What it really did was plug into a userbase it already owned and route millions of verified accounts onto the chain by default, at zero acquisition cost. Distribution beat technology, again. It's the most repeated lesson in this entire industry and still the one founders refuse to learn. ◢ The Real Ranking Stack the three majors up by who earns, who profits, and who keeps their users, instead of who has the most money parked on them, and the ranking flips from the one everyone repeats. I put them side by side in the video with the revenue, the profit, the users, and a flat verdict on each. So, in a market that’s contracting, would you rather own the chain with the most capital sitting on it, or the one that still earns when every incentive in crypto finally switches off?

Onur 🍌🦍

17,447 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

0xc06's profile picture

Gm Gm! Happy weekend

Onur 🍌🦍

14,099 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Daha fazla içerik yok.