the reason I expect the AERO emissions to stay broadly similar (or increase modestly due to the supply base increasing 6% from the merger), is because the team themselves said they expect actual inflation to stay somewhere between 8-12% vs a current rate of ~12% I agree that the momentum fund could use their voting power to heavily incentivise strategic pools in the new markets, but without the total emissions budget expanding significantly from the forecasted 8-12%, this will mean directing their allocations away from the other existing pools which they were previously incentivising, risking losing market share there instead on incentive reflexivity, i think you're applying the old fixed-emissions logic to the new model - v3 pool caps cap the dollar value of incentives to a multiple of projected pool revenue where that cap is binding, a 2x AERO price would approximately halve the tokens required to deliver the same dollar compensation, rather than doubling the value of LP incentives - this improves token dilution, but doesn't automatically improve LP economics I will concede that upgraded dynamic fees, MEV internalisation and products like metaswaps could improve the economics but the qualifying question is how much incremental value they generate, and whether that's enough to sustain competitive LP returns across the expanded network overall I still think the market is overly optimistic - I have seen 20 people on the timeline shilling the expanded TAM / protocol upgrades but not a single person questioning whether the dilution of LP compensation could damage competitiveness; the long side of this trade is much more saturated than the short side if I am wrong then I take a haircut (limited participants left to buy who haven't already), if I'm right, I get to capitalise on all the bulls who haven't read the docs closing their perps longs + LPs selling their emissions

the ticker is UNI

blatantly untrue all of the tokens used for cashback come from genesis wallets and most importantly, none of these tokens have ever interacted with a DEX please let's stop with the paid kol shill campaign plasma one genuinely seems like a decent user-friendly product and I have no doubt that it will see continued success but no need to exaggerate where they are today in its current form, plasma is still just the age-old, zero-sum 'token-denominated yield' playbook wrapped in a nice aesthetic neobank UI I assume protocol revenue would come from ~60bps of merchant fees on card spend (with the remainder captured by rain until plasma can become a visa preferred partner in their own right) and some yield spread on deposits this revenue is nowhere to be seen on chain and is definitively NOT subsidising the cashback at present this doesn't mean that in the future the cashbacks won't be financed this way, but neobanks are highly competitive, capital intensive businesses to grow, with essentially unlimited licensing and user acquisition costs, meaning that doing the revenue buyback model implied here would just be a poor capital allocation decision check yourself on chain: genesis alloc 0x27e5e719b9edfdd887d2271cf4995dde97a5f203 0xf680b95b01d8e706d2f1e44092a9fd47be44c42e 0xF97Ba376d3ecb36c4472b1d3c5aaf2d158c28558 pass-through 0x5f3e1f6ea6c841055fddf393ab6d8f91148bb58c 0x6f3a0b545c1bf1065a1cbeebbf99fb045e4d5449 0xa1acb0ab13a32f5d6f42045ac4b85d8c25a32757 0x9f9eaeec5b318439af8a0b3d7d0c075b84c1675d 0x9f614ac8fe63eb59ca9c7920ff046f570e74eeb8 0x16ef7bc8d372606a355536f895d4ada8becd01b9 0xbc8a0f5e41857292d12ef620e2a5895ce65a5ce0 + some additional minor contibutors aggregation 0xe8fea4cec73b3093a34f7e03a99fe4cca24637af wrapping 0x3896ae8ace3f6cc08bdbfb8beb84ddf04698e22a 0x31477e9ad6390bcaa547b1a752ad04301820e7e2 0x1c92efdb6c924cb2acf7dceec29b7abb69ab58bc 0x998ca3d778f7d893030b1611d76b7679cd395884 cashback distributor 0x6322196fb6EE14852Ff4901b1885D5a9db7fa302

remember when you were saying the same bearish spiel about future cash flows at the pico bottom 65% lower? one of the loudest voices on here about fundamentals and archaic legacy valuation methodologies, but when a clear disconnect between fundamentals and PA presents itself you're vocally fading the bottom in an asset class where the most predictive indicator of price direction is beta, looking at arbitrary multiples in isolation has essentially 0 ability to predict future returns

in this case - I suppose you are correct to say that the MM fees aren't priced into the spread but they are to some degree priced into the realised execution slippage caused by adverse selection and toxic fills from the asymmetric latency the degree to which this is true is still yet to be seen - it's still entirely possible that the average slippage is still less than the hyperliquid fees but I am assuming that this data uses static orderbook snapshots to estimate the slippage, which fundamentally fails to capture the temporal impact of tiered latency (which doesn't exist on hyperliquid) on realised execution slippage

surely including the impact of latency is the whole point though? correct me if I’m misunderstanding here, but isn’t the heterogeneity of latency what causes worse execution for basic tier traders at a structural disposition to toxic fills / adverse selection on Lighter? i.e on Hyperliquid in theory, your execution wouldn’t be any worse as a result of adverse selection alone, even if the latency was greater, because it’s uniform across all participants, meaning you can’t be adversely filled as a result of the counterparty having access to lower latency

obligatory quarterly fluid bullpost: really like fluid's distribution strategy of essentially verticalising and allowing other products with established sticky user bases to tap into their tech for a fee as opposed to taking the costly, high-risk approach of attempting to launch a direct competitor kind of mirrors the aws approach to growth: > build technical stack to enable your end product > once marketshare is established, open up the tech to other teams in other ecosystems where it doesn't overlap with your market share > benefit from their existing distribution without the operational uplift, partners benefit from 'plug-and-play' tech and avoid reinventing the wheel hyperliquid have taken the same approach with HIP-3 and builder codes and it's proven to be very successful; phantom, metamask, axiom (who own their users) all benefit from a best-in-class perps trading infrastructure, while hyperliquid gets a cut of the fees also diversifies their user base / revenue streams from pure front-end prosumers builder codes alone now account for 6% of hyperliquid's revenue, which, given the scale of their total revenue, is not insignificant refreshing to see some maturation of growth strategy beyond just 'launch chain' - hats off to the fluid / instadapp team, they're developing a strong track record of successful revenue stream expansion: defi aggregator -> borrow/lend platform -> DEX -> multi-chain liquidity infrastructure provider some of the strongest and most robust directional metrics charts in crypto - unfortunately, I think the market already has a grasp on this and the token is priced accordingly at 22.6x annual revenue so not much edge from this information but is definitely one of the tokens on christmas wish list if we see more weakness in the broader market

poorly worded on my part, apologies what I mean is that the main trading pair is TRUMP-SOL and the rest are highly saturated, low-margin pairs like: SOL-USDC, USDT-USDC etc. then some dust volume from meteora launchpad tokens (which have 1-2 days of non-negligible volume on average before dying) the way solana is headed, with specialised prop AMMs accounting for a higher and higher share of volumes, it will be very difficult for meteora to compete on the mentioned saturated pairs using just a passive, one-size-fits-all DAMM model this trend is exacerbated by the fact that so much of solana spot volume is routed through aggregators / jupiter where it will just indiscriminately choose the best price, abstracting away any brand or front-end loyalty the main moat / market segment for meteora, can only really be long-tail, illiquid tokens launched on their own launchpad (same as pumpswap's moat) where the edge is that there is earlier liquidity than anywhere else because the bonding curve is directly transformed into a liquidity pool upon graduation this can still be a very profitable market segment, conditional on there being some big runners launched via the launchpad (like TRUMP), but it's much less predictable than general-purpose trading platforms and carries revenue volatility / reflexivity which equates to a lower valuation multiple not to mention tokenholders don't benefit from any of the revenue anyway just my opinion and absolutely happy to be corrected / educated

omeone didn’t read the proposal… 1. fee switch is only going live on main net pools initially anyway 2. the MEV internalisation increases LP profitability by 5-25% which, in most cases, will offset the 15% decrease in LP fees now going to buybacks

people had negative balances on lighter and weren’t liquidated even when price sat below liq levels for 5+ mins HLP made money because it provided the bid-side liquidity at the lows, in the form of positive EV liquidations that kept HL solvent when books elsewhere were empty HL also managed ADLs in a controlled way, and despite being suboptimal, this at least meant that risk could be transferred in a non-chaotic and efficient way traders on lighter only came out better off this time because prices bounced if they hadn’t, losses would've been socialised, penalising those who managed risk more prudently and rewarding traders who took disproportionate risk (moral hazard) yes, traders will be (understandably) salty that they were liquidated or ADL on HL but what’s worse: being closed out of a positioned with redefined risk, at a level you knew in advance or being penalised and eating the losses of other traders because the exchange couldn't liquidate them properly most won't be able to see beyond the immediate pain, but coming at a time where we are starting to see the first real doubts about the long-term sustainability of hyperliquid's marketshare in the perp DEX vertical, this is material evidence that HL is by far the most robust trading platform

there was a similar situation with the story protocol DAT, heritage distilling holding company (IPST, formerly CASK) they raised the capital through direct and warrant issuance, then purchased IP tokens with the cash / accepted in-kind contributions before any shareholder vote had taken place the need for a shareholder vote is driven by a nasdaq listing rule (5635d) that says if you are going to issue more than 20% of the previously outstanding common stock, then an official vote must be held, which many of the initial DATs were ignoring (or getting around by issuing warrants as opposed to direct equity) the IP price then proceeded to rally from $5.80 to almost $15 in the interim period this meant that there was a brief period where CASK was trading at just 2% of their NAV, and existing shareholders effectively held $45 worth of IP for every $1 of stock if these (undiluted at this point) shareholders were to vote YES to the new issuance, they would be diluted by 15x and the subsequent NAV per share would drop drastically since only these pre-issuance shareholders were eligible to vote, it makes sense that they would vote against diluting themselves, and simply liquidate the tokens (either to refund the warrants and pocket the PnL or to simply retain the cash) in reality however, this didn't happen and the shareholder vote passed - I suspect due to the fear of being tied up in years of litigation / disputes with the PIPE investors will be interesting to see if this plays out the same way or whether shareholders take a more activist approach when exercising their voting rights excuse the slightly outdated figures below - the analysis is a few weeks old

just updated this chart with more granular / up-to-date data - seems like the relationship still clearly holds the gravity of supply always pulls price back in-line in retrospect, the trade here would've been to short into the major divergence at the end of 2024 (when plotting the BTC price on the chart, seems like the divergence was driven by general beta causing market-wide repricing) with the resurgence of the low-float, high-FDV meta, (particularly for infra projects without revenue or clear valuation frameworks), these relationships will be the ones to watch a basket of assets instantly comes to mind looking out for divergences from the supply normalised FDV (and understanding the drivers / sustainability of them) will highlight medium-term short opportunities these are the type of positions you want to use to hedge your beta when the market feels overheated / toppy and you want to protect your gains

talking about over / undervalued in a dysfunctional market doesn't make sense this price is not a reflection of how the market is valuing plasma, and I don't think many people are taking the other side of your argument here claiming that $10b is fair value it's just a product of the pre-market structure and supply (or lack thereof) / demand dynamics, not organic price discovery if there's no way to synthetically re-create the exposure of the contract, then there's no way to arb it and no anchoring of the price to a fixed fair value study the no-arbitrage condition lol derivatives 101