Get live statistics and analysis of Haseeb ＞|＜'s profile on X / Twitter

Don't "work harder." Instead: Cut away distractions. Stop doing fake work. Ask for help. Plan. Solicit criticism. Automate what can be automated. Engage your mentors. Exercise. Get more sleep. Whatever you do, don't "work harder." It's pretty much never the answer.

Advice to men in their 20s: 1. Get better at speaking. Do embarrassing stuff like record yourself, Toastmasters, study good speakers and try to emulate them to try out their verbal techniques and see how they fit you. Charisma is the omni-skill. 2. Drink less, or not at all. It will force you to become a better conversationalist. 3. Buy art that your friends make and hang it on your walls. 4. Never lend money to family or close friends. Instead gift it to them, and if they pay you back, consider it a pleasant surprise. 5. Spend most of your money on experiences, not things. 6. Make sure your spending scales sublinearly compared to your income, and you will always feel rich. 7. Take a lot of risks. More risks that you think you should. When you're young, the downsides are never as big as you think, and other people's memories are short. 8. Every man is cobbled together from people they surround themselves with, both physically and mentally. Surround yourself with people you respect. If you never lose friends or never try to acquire better ones, you're doing it wrong. 9. Whenever you feel comfortable that you've made something of yourself, it's time to move on. Move to a bigger city. Try for a more prestigious company. Find the biggest games, and try your hand at them. 10. Say yes to every adventure, at least once. Your 20s are the only time you'll get to do that.

4 Lessons on losing lots of money (from someone who has done so many times) 👇

In Defense of Exponentials I used to tell founders, the reaction you are going to get to your launch is not hate, it’s indifference. By default, nobody cares about your new chain. I have to stop telling them that now. Monad just launched this week, and I’ve never seen so much hate about a blockchain that just launched. I’ve been investing into crypto professionally for 7+ years now. Before 2023, almost every chain I’ve ever seen that launched was mostly met with enthusiasm or indifference. But now, new chains are born into a chorus of hate. The amount of haters I’ve seen for projects like Monad, Tempo, MegaETH—before they even hit mainnet—is a genuinely new phenomenon. I’ve been trying to diagnose: why is this happening now, and what does it mean about the psychology of this market? The Cure is Worse than the Disease Forewarning: this is going to be the vaguest blockchain valuation post you ever read. I don’t have any fancy metrics or charts to sell you on. Instead, I’ll be arguing against the zeitgeist of Crypto Twitter, which for the last couple of years, I’ve been constantly on the opposite side of. In 2024, I felt like what I was arguing against was financial nihilism. Financial nihilism is the belief that none of these assets matter, it’s all memes at the end of the day, and everything we’ve built is inherently worthless. Thankfully, that’s no longer the vibe. We have broken out of that spell. But the zeitgeist now is what I’d call financial cynicism: OK, maybe some of this stuff has value, maybe it’s not all memes, but it’s grossly overvalued and it’s only a matter of time before Wall Street finds that out. Not that all chains are worthless. But these things are all maybe worth 1/5th-1/10th of what they’re currently trading at (have you seen these PE ratios?), and so you’d better pray like hell Wall Street doesn’t call us on our bluff, because once they do it’s all getting wiped out. You’ve got many bullish analysts now trying to conjure up optimistic L1 valuation models, inflating PE ratios, gross margins, DCFs, trying to fight against this mood. Late last year, Solana very proudly embraced REV as a metric that could finally justify their valuation. They proudly announced: we—and only we—are no longer bluffing to Wall Street! And, of course, almost immediately after REV was embraced, it fell off a cliff (though $SOL, tellingly, did better than REV did). Not that there’s anything wrong with REV. REV is a very clever metric. But the point of this post is not metric selection. Then came the launch of Hyperliquid. A DEX that had real revenue and buybacks and PE multiples. And the chorus said—look, look I told you! Finally, for the first time ever, a token that has some real profits and a proper PE multiple. (Nevermind BNB, we don’t talk about that.) Hyperliquid will eat everything because obviously Ethereum and Solana don’t make any real money, we can stop pretending to value them now. Hyperliquid, Pump, Sky, these buyback-heavy tokens are all great. But the market always had the ability to invest into exchanges. You could always buy Coinbase, or BNB, or whatever. We own $HYPE, and I agree that it’s a fantastic product. But that’s not why people were investing in ETH and SOL. The fact that L1s don't have exchange-like profit margins is not why people were buying them—if they wanted that, they could’ve bought Coinbase stock. So if I’m not critiquing blockchain financial metrics, maybe you think this post is going to be chiding the sinfulness of the token-industrial complex. Obviously, everyone has lost money on tokens in the last year, VCs included. Alts are down bad this year. And so the other half of the zeitgeist on CT is arguing about who's to blame. Who’s become greedy? Are the VCs greedy? Is Wintermute greedy? Is Binance greedy? Are the farmers greedy? Are the founders greedy? The answer, of course, is the same as it’s ever been. Everyone is greedy. Everyone. The VCs, Wintermute, the farmers, Binance, the KOLs, they're all greedy, and you are greedy too. But it doesn't matter. Because no functioning market has ever required anyone to act against their self-interest. If we're right about crypto, we can all be greedy and the investments will still work out. Trying to analyze a market that has gone down by figuring out “who’s greedy” is going to be about as fruitful as commissioning witch trials. I guarantee you, nobody just started being greedy in 2025. So this, too, is not what I’m going to be writing about. Many people want me to write a post about why $MON should be valued at X or $MEGA at Y. I’m not interested in writing this post, or advocating that you buy anything in particular. In fact, you probably shouldn’t buy any of them if you don’t already believe in them. Will any new challenger chain win? Who knows. But if it has a material chance of winning, it's going to be priced on that basis. If Ethereum is worth $300B or Solana is worth $80B, a project that has a 1-5% chance of becoming the next Ethereum or Solana will be priced according to those probabilities. Somehow CT is scandalized by this, but it’s no different than Biotech. A drug that has less than a 10% chance of curing Alzheimer's is priced by the market as worth billions of dollars, even if 90% chance it won’t pass stage 3 trials and will go to 0. That's how the math works—and turns out, markets are pretty good at doing math. Binary outcomes are priced on probabilities, not on run rates or moral turpitude. It’s the “shut up and calculate” school of valuation. I really don’t think that’s an interesting question to write about. “5% chance to win? No way, that’s clearly a 10% chance!” Markets, not articles, are the best way to assess that for any individual token. So here’s what I am going to write about: CT doesn't seem to believe anymore that chains are valuable. I don’t think this is because they don’t believe new chains can win market share. We just saw Solana dominate market share after emerging from the ashes less than 2 years ago. It’s not easy, but of course it’s possible. It’s more that people have come to believe that even if a new chain wins, there’s no prize worth winning. If $ETH is just a meme, if it’ll never generate real revenue, then even if you win, you won’t be worth $300B. The contest is not worth winning, because these valuations are all bunk and it’ll all come crashing down before you go to claim your prize. Being optimistic about chain valuations has become passé. Not that nobody is optimistic—obviously there must be optimists out there. For every seller there’s a buyer, and as much as CT cool kids love to drag L1s, people are comfortable buying SOL at $140, ETH at $3000. But there’s a perception now that all the smartest people are over buying smart contract chains. Smart people know the jig is up. If not now, then soon. The only people buying here are suckers—Uber drivers, Tom Lee, and KOLs who say stuff like “trillions.” And maybe the US Treasury. But not the smart money. This is bullshit. I don’t believe it, and you shouldn’t either. So I felt like I had to write a smart person’s manifesto on why general purpose chains are valuable. This post is not about Monad or MegaETH. It’s really in defense of ETH and SOL. Because if you believe ETH and SOL are valuable, the rest is straight downstream. Defending ETH and SOL valuations is generally not my job as a VC, but fuck it, if nobody else is willing to do it, then I’ll write it. Feeling the Exponential My partner Bo experienced the Chinese Internet boom first-hand as a VC. I’ve heard how “crypto is like the Internet” so many times now that it doesn’t even register for me anymore. But when I hear his stories, it always reminds me how costly it is to be wrong about these things. A story he often tells is about when all the early e-commerce VCs (it was a small group back then) got together for coffee in the early 2000s. They debated: how big is the market for e-commerce going to be? Is it going to be mostly electronics (maybe only techies will use PCs)? Could it ever work for women (perhaps they’re too tactile)? What about food (maybe impossible to manage perishables)? These were deeply important questions for early VCs to decide what to invest in and what prices to pay. The answer, of course, was that literally every single one of them was devastatingly wrong. E-commerce would sell everything, and the target audience was the whole fucking world. But nobody at the time actually believed it. And even if they did, it would be too absurd to say out loud. You just had to wait long enough for the exponential to show you. Even among the believers, very few thought e-commerce would become as big as it became. And those few who did, almost all of them became billionaires from just not selling. Every other VC—as Bo tells me, since he was one of them—sold too early. It has become passé in crypto to believe in the exponential. I believe in the crypto exponential. Because I’ve lived it. When I started in crypto, nobody used this stuff. It was tiny and broken and awful. TVL on-chain was in the millions. We invested into the first generation of DeFi, MakerDAO, Compound, 1inch, back when they were science projects. I remember playing around on EtherDelta back when DEXes traded single digit millions a day, and that was considered to be a huge success. It was complete dogshit. Now we routinely trade in the tens of billions on-chain every day. I remember believing it was crazy that Tether hit a billion dollars in issuance and was being written up in the NYT as a ponzi scheme on the brink of shutdown. Now stablecoins are over $300B and regulated by the Federal Reserve. I believe in the exponential because I’ve lived it. I’ve seen it over and over again. But you might respond—well, stablecoin growth might be exponential, maybe DeFi volumes are exponential, but they don’t accrue to ETH or SOL. The value doesn’t get captured by the chains. To which I answer: you still don’t believe in the exponential. Because the exponential’s answer is always the same: it doesn’t matter. This stuff is going to be so much bigger than it is today. And when it’s absolutely enormous, you’ll make it up on scale. Study this chart. This is Amazon’s P&L from 1995 to 2019. That’s 24 years. Red is revenue, gray is profit. You see that little blip on the end where the gray line goes up? That’s when, 22 years in, Amazon started actually making a profit. Amazon was 22 years old when this little gray line of net income first peeled off of 0. Every single year before then, there were op eds and critics and short sellers claiming that Amazon was a ponzi scheme that would never make any money. Ethereum just turned 10 years old. This is what the first 10 years of Amazon stock looked like: 10 years of chop. All along the way, Amazon was beset with doubters and non-believers. Is e-commerce a VC-subsidized charity? They’re selling underpriced cheap low-quality knick-knacks to bargain hunters, who cares? How are they ever going to make actual money, like Walmart or GE? If you were arguing about Amazon’s P/E ratio, you were in the wrong regime. That’s the regime of linear growth. But e-commerce was not a linear trend, and so every single person for 22 years arguing about P/E ratios was devastatingly wrong. No matter what you paid, no matter when you bought, you were not bullish enough. Because that’s what exponentials do. When it comes to truly exponential technologies, no matter how big you think it’s going to get, it just keeps getting even bigger. This is the thing that Silicon Valley has always understood better than Wall Street. Silicon Valley was raised on exponentials, while Wall Street was raised on linearity. And over the last few years, crypto’s center of gravity has migrated from Silicon Valley to Wall Street. You can feel it. Granted, crypto growth doesn’t look as smooth as e-commerce’s growth. It’s burstier, it goes in fits and starts. This is because crypto, being about money, is deeply tied to macro forces, and it also has more violent regulatory push and pull than e-commerce. Crypto strikes at the heart of the state—money—and so it’s more unnerving to governments than e-commerce ever was. But the exponential is no less inevitable. It's a crude argument. But if crypto is exponential, then the crude argument is correct. Zoom out. Financial assets want to be free. They want to be open. They want to be interconnected. Crypto turns financial assets into file formats, makes it as easy to send a dollar or a stock as to send a PDF. Crypto makes it possible for everything to talk to everything. It makes it all 24/7, global, interconnected, and open. That will win. Open always wins. If there’s no other lesson I've learned from the Internet, it’s that. Incumbents will fight against it, governments will huff and puff, but eventually they will give up against the adoption, the generativeness, the sheer efficiency that this technology enables. It’s what the Internet did to every other industry. Blockchains are how that same trend will gobble up all of finance and money. Yes—with enough time—all of it. An old saying goes: people overestimate what can happen in two years, but they underestimate what can happen in ten. If you believe in the exponential, if you zoom out enough, then it’s all still cheap. And it should humble you that every day, the holders outlast the sellers and naysayers. Big capital has a longer time horizon than CT swing traders might lead you to believe. Big capital has been trained through history not to fade big technologies. You know, the big gushy story that originally got you to buy $ETH or $SOL? Big capital believes that story and hasn't stopped. So what exactly am I arguing? I am arguing that applying P/E ratios to smart contract chains (the “revenue meta,” as it’s now called), is giving up on the exponential. It means you have consigned this industry to the regime of linear growth. It means you believe 30 million DAUs on-chain and <1% of M2 is it. Crypto is just one of the things in the world. A sideshow. It did not win. It was not inevitable. More than anything, I’m arguing to be a believer. Not just a believer, but a long-term believer. I’m arguing that this exponential will be bigger than anything else you’ve been a part of in your life. That this is your e-commerce. That you will look back when you’re old and tell your kids—I was there when it all happened. Not everyone believed it was possible, that whole societies could change, that all of money and finance would be transformed by programs running on decentralized computers that we collectively owned. But it actually happened. It changed the world. And you were a part of it. Disclosure: These are my own views. Dragonfly is an investor in $MON, $MEGA, $ETH, $SOL, $HYPE, $SKY among many other tokens. Dragonfly believes in the exponential. This is not investment advice, but is advice of another kind.

Damn. Bybit just released their audit report—the compromise was not Bybit, but SAFE's servers. They hot swapped the Gnosis SAFE UI with JS code that ONLY targeted Bybit's cold wallet. Independently confirmed by WaybackMachine snapshots. Lazarus Group is on another level.

The SEC's new "Project Crypto" is the most bullish thing I've seen in a long time from a regulator. Read the speech, it's incredible: * Almost all tokens are not securities * Want to discourage decentralization kabuki theater * Americans should not get excluded by IP/VPN blocks * Explicit exemptions for ICOs, airdrops, etc. * Non-securities should be tradeable alongside securities on the same platforms * Protect software engineers * Streamline licensing requirements * "Innovation exemption" to protect builders pre-decentralization Wow. Wow wow wow.

Dragonfly invested into PepperSec, Inc., the developers of Tornado Cash, in August of 2020. We made this investment because we believe in the importance of open-source privacy-preserving technology. Prior to our investment, we obtained an outside legal opinion that confirmed that Tornado Cash as built complied with the law, under the guidance given by FinCEN in 2019. The government has now stated in open court that they are contemplating charges against Dragonfly for having invested into the Tornado Cash team in 2020. On counsel’s advice, we have refrained from public comment. But we can no longer remain silent. We believe deeply in Americans’ right to privacy, and the lack of it remains one of crypto’s largest unsolved problems. We therefore stand by our investment. We did not operate or exercise any control over Tornado Cash, we had no contact with any malicious users, we always encouraged our portfolio companies to follow the law, and we maintain that Tornado Cash itself has a lawful right to exist—a view reinforced by Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury and OFAC’s subsequent rescission of sanctions. Charging a venture firm for a portfolio company’s alleged misconduct would be unprecedented, especially under these circumstances. In 2023 we received a DOJ subpoena and have fully cooperated with the government’s investigation of Tornado Cash, confident that we have always complied with the law. The DOJ has made clear that we are not ourselves a target of their investigation. As with every investment, we provided PepperSec the same advice and support we offer all portfolio companies. We believe the government’s statement in court today was primarily to undermine a defense of Tornado Cash—to make it more difficult for the defense to call Tom to testify on the stand. After all of this time—years later—bringing charges against Dragonfly would be outrageous, contrary to the facts and the law, and would induce a chilling effect onto all investment into crypto and privacy-preserving technologies in America. We don’t believe the DOJ would actually bring such absurd and groundless charges. But if they do, we intend to vigorously defend ourselves.

Anthropic is now testing on smart contract exploits and discovering zero-days. This stuff is going from theoretical to practical scarily fast.

TBH this is the easiest bear market I've ever seen. Seems like most of you have forgotten what 2022 was like. Luna collapsing, then 3AC, then FTX, then Genesis, BlockFi, Axie, NFTs--pretty much everything felt like a house of cards. And then after all that stuff collapsed, the BANKS collapsed, stablecoins depegged, Gary Gensler and the president tried to destroy almost every company in the industry--I really wasn't sure how much of this stuff was going to survive. Compared to that? This is breezy. Prices have gone down, yeah whatever. Fundamentals are great. Crypto is working. So relax, get something to eat. Lock in. We'll be fine.

In Defense of Exponentials I used to tell founders, the reaction you are going to get to your launch is not hate, it’s indifference. By default, nobody cares about your new chain. I have to stop telling them that now. Monad just launched this week, and I’ve never seen so much hate about a blockchain that just launched. I’ve been investing into crypto professionally for 7+ years now. Before 2023, almost every chain I’ve ever seen that launched was mostly met with enthusiasm or indifference. But now, new chains are born into a chorus of hate. The amount of haters I’ve seen for projects like Monad, Tempo, MegaETH—before they even hit mainnet—is a genuinely new phenomenon. I’ve been trying to diagnose: why is this happening now, and what does it mean about the psychology of this market? The Cure is Worse than the Disease Forewarning: this is going to be the vaguest blockchain valuation post you ever read. I don’t have any fancy metrics or charts to sell you on. Instead, I’ll be arguing against the zeitgeist of Crypto Twitter, which for the last couple of years, I’ve been constantly on the opposite side of. In 2024, I felt like what I was arguing against was financial nihilism. Financial nihilism is the belief that none of these assets matter, it’s all memes at the end of the day, and everything we’ve built is inherently worthless. Thankfully, that’s no longer the vibe. We have broken out of that spell. But the zeitgeist now is what I’d call financial cynicism: OK, maybe some of this stuff has value, maybe it’s not all memes, but it’s grossly overvalued and it’s only a matter of time before Wall Street finds that out. Not that all chains are worthless. But these things are all maybe worth 1/5th-1/10th of what they’re currently trading at (have you seen these PE ratios?), and so you’d better pray like hell Wall Street doesn’t call us on our bluff, because once they do it’s all getting wiped out. You’ve got many bullish analysts now trying to conjure up optimistic L1 valuation models, inflating PE ratios, gross margins, DCFs, trying to fight against this mood. Late last year, Solana very proudly embraced REV as a metric that could finally justify their valuation. They proudly announced: we—and only we—are no longer bluffing to Wall Street! And, of course, almost immediately after REV was embraced, it fell off a cliff (though $SOL, tellingly, did better than REV did). Not that there’s anything wrong with REV. REV is a very clever metric. But the point of this post is not metric selection. Then came the launch of Hyperliquid. A DEX that had real revenue and buybacks and PE multiples. And the chorus said—look, look I told you! Finally, for the first time ever, a token that has some real profits and a proper PE multiple. (Nevermind BNB, we don’t talk about that.) Hyperliquid will eat everything because obviously Ethereum and Solana don’t make any real money, we can stop pretending to value them now. Hyperliquid, Pump, Sky, these buyback-heavy tokens are all great. But the market always had the ability to invest into exchanges. You could always buy Coinbase, or BNB, or whatever. We own $HYPE, and I agree that it’s a fantastic product. But that’s not why people were investing in ETH and SOL. The fact that L1s don't have exchange-like profit margins is not why people were buying them—if they wanted that, they could’ve bought Coinbase stock. So if I’m not critiquing blockchain financial metrics, maybe you think this post is going to be chiding the sinfulness of the token-industrial complex. Obviously, everyone has lost money on tokens in the last year, VCs included. Alts are down bad this year. And so the other half of the zeitgeist on CT is arguing about who's to blame. Who’s become greedy? Are the VCs greedy? Is Wintermute greedy? Is Binance greedy? Are the farmers greedy? Are the founders greedy? The answer, of course, is the same as it’s ever been. Everyone is greedy. Everyone. The VCs, Wintermute, the farmers, Binance, the KOLs, they're all greedy, and you are greedy too. But it doesn't matter. Because no functioning market has ever required anyone to act against their self-interest. If we're right about crypto, we can all be greedy and the investments will still work out. Trying to analyze a market that has gone down by figuring out “who’s greedy” is going to be about as fruitful as commissioning witch trials. I guarantee you, nobody just started being greedy in 2025. So this, too, is not what I’m going to be writing about. Many people want me to write a post about why $MON should be valued at X or $MEGA at Y. I’m not interested in writing this post, or advocating that you buy anything in particular. In fact, you probably shouldn’t buy any of them if you don’t already believe in them. Will any new challenger chain win? Who knows. But if it has a material chance of winning, it's going to be priced on that basis. If Ethereum is worth $300B or Solana is worth $80B, a project that has a 1-5% chance of becoming the next Ethereum or Solana will be priced according to those probabilities. Somehow CT is scandalized by this, but it’s no different than Biotech. A drug that has less than a 10% chance of curing Alzheimer's is priced by the market as worth billions of dollars, even if 90% chance it won’t pass stage 3 trials and will go to 0. That's how the math works—and turns out, markets are pretty good at doing math. Binary outcomes are priced on probabilities, not on run rates or moral turpitude. It’s the “shut up and calculate” school of valuation. I really don’t think that’s an interesting question to write about. “5% chance to win? No way, that’s clearly a 10% chance!” Markets, not articles, are the best way to assess that for any individual token. So here’s what I am going to write about: CT doesn't seem to believe anymore that chains are valuable. I don’t think this is because they don’t believe new chains can win market share. We just saw Solana dominate market share after emerging from the ashes less than 2 years ago. It’s not easy, but of course it’s possible. It’s more that people have come to believe that even if a new chain wins, there’s no prize worth winning. If $ETH is just a meme, if it’ll never generate real revenue, then even if you win, you won’t be worth $300B. The contest is not worth winning, because these valuations are all bunk and it’ll all come crashing down before you go to claim your prize. Being optimistic about chain valuations has become passé. Not that nobody is optimistic—obviously there must be optimists out there. For every seller there’s a buyer, and as much as CT cool kids love to drag L1s, people are comfortable buying SOL at $140, ETH at $3000. But there’s a perception now that all the smartest people are over buying smart contract chains. Smart people know the jig is up. If not now, then soon. The only people buying here are suckers—Uber drivers, Tom Lee, and KOLs who say stuff like “trillions.” And maybe the US Treasury. But not the smart money. This is bullshit. I don’t believe it, and you shouldn’t either. So I felt like I had to write a smart person’s manifesto on why general purpose chains are valuable. This post is not about Monad or MegaETH. It’s really in defense of ETH and SOL. Because if you believe ETH and SOL are valuable, the rest is straight downstream. Defending ETH and SOL valuations is generally not my job as a VC, but fuck it, if nobody else is willing to do it, then I’ll write it. Feeling the Exponential My partner Bo experienced the Chinese Internet boom first-hand as a VC. I’ve heard how “crypto is like the Internet” so many times now that it doesn’t even register for me anymore. But when I hear his stories, it always reminds me how costly it is to be wrong about these things. A story he often tells is about when all the early e-commerce VCs (it was a small group back then) got together for coffee in the early 2000s. They debated: how big is the market for e-commerce going to be? Is it going to be mostly electronics (maybe only techies will use PCs)? Could it ever work for women (perhaps they’re too tactile)? What about food (maybe impossible to manage perishables)? These were deeply important questions for early VCs to decide what to invest in and what prices to pay. The answer, of course, was that literally every single one of them was devastatingly wrong. E-commerce would sell everything, and the target audience was the whole fucking world. But nobody at the time actually believed it. And even if they did, it would be too absurd to say out loud. You just had to wait long enough for the exponential to show you. Even among the believers, very few thought e-commerce would become as big as it became. And those few who did, almost all of them became billionaires from just not selling. Every other VC—as Bo tells me, since he was one of them—sold too early. It has become passé in crypto to believe in the exponential. I believe in the crypto exponential. Because I’ve lived it. When I started in crypto, nobody used this stuff. It was tiny and broken and awful. TVL on-chain was in the millions. We invested into the first generation of DeFi, MakerDAO, Compound, 1inch, back when they were science projects. I remember playing around on EtherDelta back when DEXes traded single digit millions a day, and that was considered to be a huge success. It was complete dogshit. Now we routinely trade in the tens of billions on-chain every day. I remember believing it was crazy that Tether hit a billion dollars in issuance and was being written up in the NYT as a ponzi scheme on the brink of shutdown. Now stablecoins are over $300B and regulated by the Federal Reserve. I believe in the exponential because I’ve lived it. I’ve seen it over and over again. But you might respond—well, stablecoin growth might be exponential, maybe DeFi volumes are exponential, but they don’t accrue to ETH or SOL. The value doesn’t get captured by the chains. To which I answer: you still don’t believe in the exponential. Because the exponential’s answer is always the same: it doesn’t matter. This stuff is going to be so much bigger than it is today. And when it’s absolutely enormous, you’ll make it up on scale. Study this chart. This is Amazon’s P&L from 1995 to 2019. That’s 24 years. Red is revenue, gray is profit. You see that little blip on the end where the gray line goes up? That’s when, 22 years in, Amazon started actually making a profit. Amazon was 22 years old when this little gray line of net income first peeled off of 0. Every single year before then, there were op eds and critics and short sellers claiming that Amazon was a ponzi scheme that would never make any money. Ethereum just turned 10 years old. This is what the first 10 years of Amazon stock looked like: 10 years of chop. All along the way, Amazon was beset with doubters and non-believers. Is e-commerce a VC-subsidized charity? They’re selling underpriced cheap low-quality knick-knacks to bargain hunters, who cares? How are they ever going to make actual money, like Walmart or GE? If you were arguing about Amazon’s P/E ratio, you were in the wrong regime. That’s the regime of linear growth. But e-commerce was not a linear trend, and so every single person for 22 years arguing about P/E ratios was devastatingly wrong. No matter what you paid, no matter when you bought, you were not bullish enough. Because that’s what exponentials do. When it comes to truly exponential technologies, no matter how big you think it’s going to get, it just keeps getting even bigger. This is the thing that Silicon Valley has always understood better than Wall Street. Silicon Valley was raised on exponentials, while Wall Street was raised on linearity. And over the last few years, crypto’s center of gravity has migrated from Silicon Valley to Wall Street. You can feel it. Granted, crypto growth doesn’t look as smooth as e-commerce’s growth. It’s burstier, it goes in fits and starts. This is because crypto, being about money, is deeply tied to macro forces, and it also has more violent regulatory push and pull than e-commerce. Crypto strikes at the heart of the state—money—and so it’s more unnerving to governments than e-commerce ever was. But the exponential is no less inevitable. It's a crude argument. But if crypto is exponential, then the crude argument is correct. Zoom out. Financial assets want to be free. They want to be open. They want to be interconnected. Crypto turns financial assets into file formats, makes it as easy to send a dollar or a stock as to send a PDF. Crypto makes it possible for everything to talk to everything. It makes it all 24/7, global, interconnected, and open. That will win. Open always wins. If there’s no other lesson I've learned from the Internet, it’s that. Incumbents will fight against it, governments will huff and puff, but eventually they will give up against the adoption, the generativeness, the sheer efficiency that this technology enables. It’s what the Internet did to every other industry. Blockchains are how that same trend will gobble up all of finance and money. Yes—with enough time—all of it. An old saying goes: people overestimate what can happen in two years, but they underestimate what can happen in ten. If you believe in the exponential, if you zoom out enough, then it’s all still cheap. And it should humble you that every day, the holders outlast the sellers and naysayers. Big capital has a longer time horizon than CT swing traders might lead you to believe. Big capital has been trained through history not to fade big technologies. You know, the big gushy story that originally got you to buy $ETH or $SOL? Big capital believes that story and hasn't stopped. So what exactly am I arguing? I am arguing that applying P/E ratios to smart contract chains (the “revenue meta,” as it’s now called), is giving up on the exponential. It means you have consigned this industry to the regime of linear growth. It means you believe 30 million DAUs on-chain and <1% of M2 is it. Crypto is just one of the things in the world. A sideshow. It did not win. It was not inevitable. More than anything, I’m arguing to be a believer. Not just a believer, but a long-term believer. I’m arguing that this exponential will be bigger than anything else you’ve been a part of in your life. That this is your e-commerce. That you will look back when you’re old and tell your kids—I was there when it all happened. Not everyone believed it was possible, that whole societies could change, that all of money and finance would be transformed by programs running on decentralized computers that we collectively owned. But it actually happened. It changed the world. And you were a part of it. Disclosure: These are my own views. Dragonfly is an investor in $MON, $MEGA, $ETH, $SOL, $HYPE, $SKY among many other tokens. Dragonfly believes in the exponential. This is not investment advice, but is advice of another kind.

What's the crypto one-liner that lives in your head rent-free? For me it's "the price is the product."

Best theory of why crypto market is holding up so well?

TBH this is the easiest bear market I've ever seen. Seems like most of you have forgotten what 2022 was like. Luna collapsing, then 3AC, then FTX, then Genesis, BlockFi, Axie, NFTs--pretty much everything felt like a house of cards. And then after all that stuff collapsed, the BANKS collapsed, stablecoins depegged, Gary Gensler and the president tried to destroy almost every company in the industry--I really wasn't sure how much of this stuff was going to survive. Compared to that? This is breezy. Prices have gone down, yeah whatever. Fundamentals are great. Crypto is working. So relax, get something to eat. Lock in. We'll be fine.

We just closed Dragonfly Fund IV at $650M. It's a big milestone, and yet, it’s a weird time to celebrate. Spirits are low, fear is extreme, and the gloom of a bear market has set in. But here's the thing: we raised almost every single Dragonfly fund into bear markets. Fund I we raised through the 2018 ICO winter, when almost nobody believed in this space anymore. Fund III we raised right before Luna collapsed. Those were brutal times to deploy capital. But they turned out to be our best vintages. Last week I caught a lot of heat for arguing that non-financial crypto has failed. I meant that. But the flip side of that argument is: financial crypto is exploding. Stablecoins are eating the world. DeFi has grown so big it's rivaling CeFi. Financial institutions around the world are racing to build out their crypto strategies. And prediction markets are becoming the most trusted source of truth on the internet. Fund IV is our biggest bet yet that the crypto revolution is still early in its exponential. If you look at our recent bets—Polymarket, Ethena, Rain, Mesh—the growth speaks for itself. Agentic payments, on-chain privacy, the tokenization of everything—crypto's surface area is about to explode, and we want to be backing the founders at the center of it. We've always believed that the most important work gets done when the noise dies down. We believe moment is now. In fact, we’re putting money on it. If you're building what comes next, @ us.

Things crypto used to care about, but seemingly no longer does: * Whitepapers * Over-reliance on Etherscan / block explorers / RPCs * On-chain voter turnout * Decentralized frontends * "Code is law" * Key ceremonies * Resistance to nation-state level attacks What else?

Dragonfly invested into PepperSec, Inc., the developers of Tornado Cash, in August of 2020. We made this investment because we believe in the importance of open-source privacy-preserving technology. Prior to our investment, we obtained an outside legal opinion that confirmed that Tornado Cash as built complied with the law, under the guidance given by FinCEN in 2019. The government has now stated in open court that they are contemplating charges against Dragonfly for having invested into the Tornado Cash team in 2020. On counsel’s advice, we have refrained from public comment. But we can no longer remain silent. We believe deeply in Americans’ right to privacy, and the lack of it remains one of crypto’s largest unsolved problems. We therefore stand by our investment. We did not operate or exercise any control over Tornado Cash, we had no contact with any malicious users, we always encouraged our portfolio companies to follow the law, and we maintain that Tornado Cash itself has a lawful right to exist—a view reinforced by Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury and OFAC’s subsequent rescission of sanctions. Charging a venture firm for a portfolio company’s alleged misconduct would be unprecedented, especially under these circumstances. In 2023 we received a DOJ subpoena and have fully cooperated with the government’s investigation of Tornado Cash, confident that we have always complied with the law. The DOJ has made clear that we are not ourselves a target of their investigation. As with every investment, we provided PepperSec the same advice and support we offer all portfolio companies. We believe the government’s statement in court today was primarily to undermine a defense of Tornado Cash—to make it more difficult for the defense to call Tom to testify on the stand. After all of this time—years later—bringing charges against Dragonfly would be outrageous, contrary to the facts and the law, and would induce a chilling effect onto all investment into crypto and privacy-preserving technologies in America. We don’t believe the DOJ would actually bring such absurd and groundless charges. But if they do, we intend to vigorously defend ourselves.

With all respect to Star, this story is candidly ridiculous. Star is trying to claim that the root cause of 10/10 was Binance creating an Ethena yield campaign, causing USDe to get overleveraged from traders looping it on Binance, which eventually unwound because of a small price move. The problems with this story: 1) The timing of this story doesn't line up. BTC bottomed a full 30 minutes before USDe price was affected on Binance. So USDe clearly can't have *caused* the liquidation cascade. This is clearly misplacing cause and effect. 2) USDe price diverged ONLY on Binance, it did not diverge on other venues. But the liquidation spiral was happening everywhere. So if the USDe "depeg" did not propagate across the market, it can't explain how *every single exchange* saw huge wipeouts. This is very much unlike Terra, which depegged everywhere and caused the same damage across every venue. So maybe you could hedge Star's argument by saying "OK, maybe Ethena didn't *cause* 10/10, but it amplified it." But even as an amplifier, USDe fails the test because it didn't propagate cross-exchange. We know what a good explanation of a crash looks like—Terra, 3AC, FTX, all had global balance sheet effects that were felt everywhere. USDe did not do that, it was a Binance order book isolated event. 3) This begs the question: why is Star "revealing" this now, months later? Star does not produce any new evidence for this theory that people didn't already know and analyze to death. All of the order book data has been public for 4+ months and suddenly he claims this? This feels more like Star is picking a fight with CZ and using this simple story as a pretext to make it sound like CZ was in on it, or caused 10/10 through his own irresponsibility. Look, the reality is, there's no simple story explaining 10/10 that survives scrutiny. I don't have one either. If there was a simple story that could explain 10/10, there would already be widespread agreement about what caused it, like the agreement around the 3AC or FTX crashes. The best story to explain 10/10 is, to my mind: * Trump spooked markets with tariff threats on a Friday evening * This caused markets to sell off dramatically because crypto was the only thing to trade * Flurry of activity caused Binance APIs to go down, causing huge price dislocations and preventing market makers from balancing inventory across exchanges. This caused huge liquidations that could not get filled, but liquidation engines keep firing regardless, and all this got amplified by ADLs initiating everywhere and breaking hedges and risk management * This caused MMs to get wiped out, and they were unable to pick up the pieces—MMs need APIs to rebalance inventory, and without MMs, there were no buyers of last resort for many alts. Retail was not going to step in on a chaotic Friday evening to buy stuff * Crypto liquidation mechanisms are not designed to be self-stabilizing the way that TradFi mechanisms are (circuit breakers, etc.), crypto liquidations are designed purely to minimize insolvency risk * Altcoin prices are extremely path dependent, and we ended up in a bad path That's my story. It's not a very satisfying one, but neither is this "Binance + Ethena did it" story. A better root cause explanation is "APIs went down at the worst possible time," but that doesn't really sound so dastardly. Where simple stories do not suffice, unfortunately you have to choose a complicated one. And I think this complicated story is the best one for what actually happened on 10/10. Thankfully, the history of crypto is a long series of these "bad things happened, and later the market recovered." In the long run, I'm not worried that 10/10 permanently broke the market. Just that prices are path-dependent, retail + MMs got hurt bad on 10/10, and will need time to recover.

I've increasingly come to believe crypto doesn't really have a first mover advantage. To wit: Uniswap was not the first AMM (Bancor) Coinbase/Binance were not the first exchanges (Mt. Gox, Bitstamp) Tether was not the first stablecoin (bitUSD) Solana was not the first high performance smart contract platform (EOS) Hyperliquid was not the first perp DEX (dYdX) AAVE was not the first on-chain money market (Compound) Avalanche was not the first chain of chains (Cosmos Hub) Base was not the first EVM rollup (Arbitrum)

With all due respect to Chris, I completely disagree with this take. Chris argues that "web3," particularly crypto-powered gaming and media, failed due to scams and regulation, and that better regulation will unlock these non-financial cases. OK, think about this for a second. Does this pass the smell test? Do you think web3 gaming failed because of Gary Gensler? Do you think web3 media plays failed because the scammers crowded out the honest media innovators? Really? If this is true, why didn't they kill financial crypto, which had WAY more of both? Financial use cases were right in the crosshairs of the regulatory harassment, and they also attracted way more scams. Why shouldn't we instead accept the more obvious answer: non-financial use cases for crypto have failed because no one wants them. Let's just admit it. They were bad products. They failed the market test. It was not Gensler or SBF or Terra that caused these things to fail, it was that no one wanted any of it. Pretending otherwise is cope. Enormous sums of capital and talent explored these ideas, and we should acknowledge what we learned. That lesson is not "if we just had better laws, then finally people would finally be using decentralized Spotify" or whatever. Call a spade a spade. Every single use case in crypto that has worked at scale has been financial in nature. 2008: Bitcoin - non-sovereign store of value 2014: Tether - stablecoins 2015: Ethereum - programmable money 2017: ICOs - capital formation 2018: Prediction markets (Augur, later Polymarket) 2020: DeFi - literally finance is in the name 2021: NFTs - non-fungible financial assets (to the extent they worked) 2024: RWAs (the year BUIDL took off) All this stuff was adopted bottoms-up. We as investors discovered that people wanted to do these things with crypto. The web3 consumer stuff, on the other hand, was primarily conjured up by investors and pitch decks, ZIRP accelerationism, and "wouldn't it be crazy if" blog posts. This was the opposite of the "what smart people are doing on their weekends" thesis. In fact, if you go back to the Ethereum white paper from 2014, almost every single Ethereum use case Vitalik describes is financial in nature: token issuance, stablecoins, derivatives, on-chain treasuries/DAOs, on-chain savings, insurance, price feeds, escrow, gambling, prediction markets. It's all in there. This is nothing to be ashamed of. Finance is almost 10% of GDP. It's an enormous part of the world economy, and banks are some of the lowest NPS score companies in the world. People hate their banks and the outdated financial architectures their money runs on. It's literally why Bitcoin was created. There is so much to innovate in the realm of finance, and I truly believe we are only at the beginning of that displacement. You don't need to assume anything more to project the next 10x in crypto. The old saying goes "crypto will do to finance what the Internet did to every other industry." I respect Chris's optimism. But 18 years in, we should not be propagating this meme about consumer web3 use cases as though they're inevitable. If you are hanging around the rim hoping that crypto is going to disrupt media and gaming, you should know the history and look at it with clear eyes. Now if you as a founder believe that despite that, you know the secret to cracking this market--I respect that, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone to follow their convictions. But I think it's important that investors be honest that all the evidence points the other way.