The crypto landscape for 2025–2026 is shaping up to be a battle between established giants like Ethereum and Solana, and fast-rising challengers like Hyperliquid (HYPE). With the launch of HyperEVM, Hyperliquid has the chance to expand from its stronghold in perpetual trading into broader DeFi, Real-World Assets (RWAs), and potentially rival Solana in transaction speed. But how realistic is this vision?
1. HyperEVM: The Gateway to DeFi Expansion
Until now, Hyperliquid has been synonymous with decentralized perpetual trading. It dominates the sector with more than 70% market share, $1.6 trillion in cumulative trading, and over $90M monthly revenue. But the introduction of HyperEVM changes the game.
EVM compatibility means Ethereum-based apps can easily port over.
Zero-gas transactions and sub-second finality give developers and users a frictionless experience.
Liquidity incentives tied to HYPE’s buyback and burn model could bootstrap early adoption.
Outlook: With these advantages, HyperEVM could capture 5–15% of DeFi market share within 1–2 years, pulling liquidity from smaller Ethereum L2s and even attracting new native projects.
2. RWAs: The Tougher Frontier
Real-World Assets are the hottest institutional narrative in crypto, with tokenized treasuries, bonds, and real estate projected to reach $10T+ by 2030.
Ethereum leads this space with BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, MakerDAO, and Centrifuge.
Hyperliquid’s zero-gas and ultra-fast settlement could appeal to smaller issuers and crypto-native RWA protocols.
The challenge is institutional trust and partnerships — Ethereum already has a head start with major financial players.
Outlook: Hyperliquid can carve out niches in crypto-native RWAs, but competing head-to-head with Ethereum’s institutional moat is unlikely in the near term.
3. Speed Wars: Hyperliquid vs. Solana
One of the boldest claims from Hyperliquid is its ability to process 200,000 TPS with 0.2s latency using HyperBFT consensus. On paper, this surpasses Solana’s benchmarks:
Caveat: Many of Hyperliquid’s performance metrics come from high-frequency order processing rather than general-purpose DeFi activity. Solana, meanwhile, has an established NFT, gaming, and memecoin culture that generates organic demand for blockspace.
Outlook: Hyperliquid can rival or even exceed Solana technically. But ecosystem demand — not raw TPS — will decide the winner. Solana has culture; Hyperliquid needs its own beyond perps.
4. Data-Driven Comparison
Feature
Ethereum (ETH)
Solana (SOL)
Hyperliquid (HYPE)
Strengths
Institutional RWAs, L2 ecosystem
High-speed, NFT & retail adoption
Dominates perps, zero-gas DeFi hub
Market Cap (FDV)
$400B+
$100–120B
~$40B
Revenue (annualized)
~$3.5–4B
~$250–300M
~$1.1B
P/S Multiple
100–120x
330–400x
35–40x
TPS / Latency
~30 TPS / ~12s
~1,500 sustained / ~400ms block time
Claims 200k TPS / ~0.2s latency
Cultural Edge
Institutions, DeFi, RWAs
NFTs, gaming, memecoins
Perps culture, DeFi traders
5. Where Hyperliquid Could Dominate
Each chain has carved its niche:
Ethereum: Institutional RWA + L2 hub.
Solana: High-speed retail + NFT culture.
Hyperliquid: Zero-gas perps + DeFi liquidity hub.
If Hyperliquid successfully expands with HyperEVM and builds a broader community around DeFi apps, it could become the go-to chain for active trading, leveraged finance, and liquidity aggregation.
Conclusion
Hyperliquid is not just another L1 experiment. With HyperEVM, it has the tools to:
Pull in DeFi projects from Ethereum.
Capture crypto-native RWA niches.
Rival Solana in transaction throughput.
The question is whether Hyperliquid can grow its ecosystem demand and cultural identity to match its technical prowess. If it does, 2025–2026 could see Hyperliquid evolve from a perps powerhouse into a full-spectrum DeFi chain capable of standing beside Ethereum and Solana.
Ready to Experience Hyperliquid?
Discover the next level of decentralized trading with Hyperliquid. Discover Hyperliquid!
MicroStrategy has transformed itself from a software company into the world’s largest publicly traded Bitcoin proxy. Through its financing arm Strategy, it now offers investors new ways to gain exposure to Bitcoin — each with its own mix of risks and rewards.
How It Works
Every time MicroStrategy or Strategy raises capital — by issuing common stock (MSTR), preferred stock (STRC), or convertible debt — the proceeds are used to buy more Bitcoin.
This creates a flywheel:
Bitcoin rises → balance sheet grows → easier to issue more securities.
Bitcoin falls → balance sheet shrinks → obligations get harder to sustain.
Both MSTR and STRC holders are diluted each time new securities are sold. What differs is how they benefit from Bitcoin’s moves.
Breaking Down the Products
MSTR (common stock): Equity ownership. Gains are leveraged to Bitcoin’s price, but dilution reduces your share.
STRC (preferred stock): Pays ~9% annual dividend. Works like a bond — you don’t own the company, you just expect income. Returns are capped, and dividends depend on Strategy’s ability to fund them.
BTC ETF: Pure Bitcoin exposure. No dilution, no yield, but transparent and liquid.
Physical Bitcoin (self-custody): The purest exposure. No counterparty risk, no dilution, no engineering. But it requires discipline: securing private keys, protecting seed phrases, and resisting the temptation to offload custody to third parties. For long-term believers, this is the safest and most sovereign way to hold Bitcoin.
Where Does STRC’s Yield Come From?
The ~9% yield on STRC doesn’t come from “Bitcoin interest” — it’s financed by Strategy’s capital structure. Dividends can be paid in three ways:
From operating cash flows (MicroStrategy still sells software and services, though this is modest compared to Bitcoin exposure).
From new debt or equity issuance, which brings in fresh capital.
From Bitcoin appreciation, allowing Strategy to borrow against or sell Bitcoin at higher prices.
In a sustained downturn, these sources shrink. If Bitcoin falls far enough, Strategy may need to sell Bitcoin to cover obligations. That creates a potential feedback loop: selling pressure pushes Bitcoin down further, which weakens the balance sheet, forcing more selling.
This loop is the key fragility of the model. Unlike a Bitcoin ETF or self-custody, STRC’s stability depends not just on Bitcoin’s long-term direction, but also on Strategy’s ability to continually finance dividends in rough markets.
Data Snapshot (5-Year Simulation)
Starting BTC price: $116,000
BTC Future Price
Direct BTC
MSTR (leveraged)
STRC (dividends + principal)
$30,000
–74%
–90%+
~+$45k total income
$60,000
–48%
–70%
~+$45k total income
$120,000
~0%
~0%
~+$45k total income
$200,000
+72%
+152%
~+$45k total income
Takeaway:
STRC looks stable — but only if Strategy can keep paying.
MSTR swings harder than Bitcoin in both directions.
ETFs give clean exposure.
Holding Bitcoin directly gives you full upside with no dilution, but puts security in your hands.
Lessons from History
Financial engineering is not new. Past examples — mortgage-backed securities (2008) or structured notes in Europe (2010s) — looked stable until the underlying assets wobbled.
STRC isn’t a scheme — it’s backed by real Bitcoin. But its yield depends entirely on Bitcoin’s long-term path, and new issuances dilute existing holders
ETF: The “Endgame”?
The arrival of spot Bitcoin ETFs brings institutional legitimacy. For many investors, ETFs will be the endgame: simple, regulated, and transparent.
But for others:
MSTR → leverage for amplified gains (and amplified risks).
STRC → yield for those who want Bitcoin-linked income.
Physical Bitcoin → sovereignty for those who can manage self-custody.
Bottom Line
Strategy’s products are clever financial engineering — not scams, but not free of fragility either. Investors must remember: whether through MSTR, STRC, ETFs, or cold storage wallets, all paths ultimately depend on one factor.
If Bitcoin rises, every version of the strategy shines. If it falls, every version suffers — only in different ways.
Since February 2025, President Trump’s escalating tariff announcements have sent shockwaves through global markets. From initial levies on Canada and Mexico to sweeping tariffs affecting 57 countries, each policy shift has triggered significant volatility across equities, cryptocurrencies, and commodities.
Below is a timeline of key tariff-related events, market reactions, and the BTC price swings they triggered.
📆 Timeline of Trump Tariff Announcements vs Market Reactions
Here’s a snapshot of the most volatile days:
📅 Date
🗞️ Announcement
📉 S&P 500
₿ Bitcoin
🪙 Altcoins
🏆Gold
Feb 1
25% tariffs on Canada/Mexico; 10% on China
N/A
-3.0%
-12.0% (XRP, SOL, ETH hardest hit)
~$2,540
Mar 12
25% global steel/aluminum tariffs
-1.5%
-1.5%
-3.0%
~$2,780
Apr 2
Emergency tariffs: 10–54% on 57 countries
-3.4%
-10.0%
-25.0% (market cap halved)
~$3,167
Apr 3–4
Enforcement begins, then recession panic. Aditional tariffs on Israel and Vietnam
-4.88% → -5.97%
-5.0%
-10% to -15% more (Coinbase down 7.7%)
~$3,004
Apr 9
Tariff pause; 25% auto tariffs (China at 125%) sparks rally
+9.52%
+8.0%
+10.0% (XRP, SOL rebound strongest)
~$3,245
Apr 10
Market digests pause; no new announcement
-2.5%
-4%
-5%
~$3,180
Apr 14
Exemptions for electronics (Apple, etc.)
+0.79%
+1.5%
+3.0% (tech-linked alts benefit e.g., Apple shares)
~$3,212
Apr 22
Gold hits record high amid market uncertainty
+0.5%
+2.0%
+4.0%
$3,500 (intraday)
Note: Gold and silver prices are approximate and based on available data.
📊 Visualizing the Chaos
The chart below shows the parallel trajectory of the S&P 500 and Bitcoin through the turbulence of Trump’s trade moves:
🔶 Bitcoin declined across most announcements until the April 9 pause triggered a sharp relief rally.
🔷 The S&P 500 saw sharper daily percentage drops than Bitcoin, highlighting the broad risk-off sentiment.
🟡 Gold held its ground — and then rallied hard — as safe-haven demand returned.
🪙 Altcoins exhibited the most volatility, with sharp losses and rebound attempts tied to macro sentiment.
What This Shows Us
🧯 Crypto ≠ Hedge (At Least Not Short-Term)
Bitcoin mirrored equities more often than not, suggesting that macro fears — like sudden tariff escalations — continue to pull crypto into broader market turbulence.
🎭 Policy Uncertainty Wrecks Confidence
Markets don’t just fear bad news — they fear unpredictability. The Trump strategy of announcing, delaying, then doubling down created persistent anxiety, which hit all asset classes hard.
🕊️ Pause = Relief
The April 9 policy pause was met with immediate risk-on appetite. Stocks, Bitcoin, and altcoins all posted strong gains — highlighting just how starved markets were for clarity.
🧪 Asset Highlights
Altcoins & XRP: Highly sensitive to macro narratives. Saw deep losses on Feb 1 and Apr 2, but also led in rebounds post-pause.
SOL: Frequently among the hardest-hit but also one of the fastest to recover, especially in bullish pockets like Apr 9–14.
Apple & Tech Stocks: Benefited from exemptions. Their recovery lifted tech-linked altcoins and improved sentiment across risk assets.
Ondo Finance: Outperformed many majors during volatility. The RWA narrative continued to resonate as TradFi institutions looked for yield-bearing digital instruments.
Coinbase (COIN): Declined sharply on Apr 3 as fears around U.S. policy spillover weighed heavily on publicly traded crypto firms.
🔭 Where Do We Look From Here?
1. Macro-Driven Markets Are the New Normal
Gone are the days when crypto danced to its own beat. The correlation between equities and crypto is tighter than ever — especially in the face of unpredictable geopolitical and trade policies. When Trump speaks, crypto bleeds, just like stocks.
2. BTC is Resilient, Alts Are Risk-On Bets
Holding alts continues to reflect high-volatility exposure to global risk sentiment. Bitcoin may bounce back after 10% drops, but alts often need coordinated bull runs or macro relief to fully recover.
3. Narrative Is Everything
Projects like Ondo and tokenized real-world asset (RWA) platforms showed signs of strength even during the turbulence. Safe yield and TradFi-linked infrastructure might emerge as the next defensive play in crypto.
🧩 Lessons Learned
Announcements punch first — policy plans are often priced in before they take effect.
Delays still sting — the Feb 1 to Mar 4 window saw markets fall before the actual implementation.
Watch for pivots — April 9’s sudden pause reversed days of damage.
Diversification matters — BTC declined 3–10%; alts dropped 10–30%. Risk tolerance is more important than ever.
🧭 Navigating the Tariff Pause
The current 90-day pause on escalations gives markets some breathing room. But if this cycle has shown anything, it’s that traders today need to be macro-aware, responsive, and measured. Crypto is no longer isolated — it’s macro-attached.
🌅 Is a Bitcoin Decoupling on the Horizon?
While Bitcoin has largely traded like a risk asset during recent macro shocks, its long-term fundamentals — such as fixed supply, decentralized settlement, and increasing adoption by sovereigns and institutions — may lay the groundwork for future decoupling. As traditional markets face growing debt burdens and monetary interventions, Bitcoin’s digital scarcity could start to resonate more like gold than tech — especially if the demand for neutral, self-custodied assets rises in politically volatile environments.
🏆 Gold: The Traditional Safe Haven
Gold’s climb from ~$2,540 to $3,500 during this window reinforces its role as a traditional hedge. But it’s worth noting that the paper-to-physical gold ratio (sometimes exceeding 100:1) raises questions about how accurately markets price real demand — especially in a crisis. Structural fragility could still impact how gold performs in future market stress.
🥈 Silver: The Underestimated Play
While less discussed, silver posted meaningful gains in tandem with gold. With gold peaking, one key metric to watch closely is the gold-to-silver ratio — currently near historically high levels. When this ratio stretches (e.g., 80:1 or higher), it has often marked strong buying windows for silver. Historically, silver tends to play catch-up in late-stage commodity rallies, offering outsized upside when capital flows rotate from gold into undervalued metals.
Here’s a historical chart of the Gold-to-Silver ratio from 2020 to 2025, highlighting how we’re again near the 80–100 range — a zone that has often preceded strong silver rallies.
Last time we talked about Real World Assets (RWA), we explored three different approaches to bringing off-chain assets onto the blockchain. One of the rising stars at the time was Mantra, a Layer 1 blockchain based on the Cosmos SDK and designed specifically to support the growing RWA narrative.
Fast forward to last week — despite announcing promising partnerships and development milestones, $OM, the native token of Mantra, dropped as much as 90% in a matter of days. What went wrong? And more importantly, what does it tell us about the current state — and future — of RWA in crypto?
What Went Wrong with Mantra?
Mantra entered the spotlight with all the right ingredients: a slick narrative around real-world assets, low float/high FDV tokenomics, and apparent traction in the Middle East. But like many new Layer 1s, it faced the challenge of maintaining momentum ahead of large token unlocks — a period that often brings volatility and uncertainty.
It appears that efforts to support the token’s price — whether through coordinated market activity or organic trading — may have fallen short. With thin liquidity and a small circulating supply, once confidence wavered, the market had no cushion. The price collapsed, and there was little natural demand to absorb the sell pressure.
Investors largely overlooked that Mantra was essentially a fork of Cosmos with some custom RWA-focused modules. Many chased the narrative, ignoring fundamentals and better-positioned competitors. The result was a hard reset for both the project and its supporters.
Do We Really Need a Layer 1 for RWA?
Here’s the question more people should have asked earlier: Do RWAs need their own blockchain at all? Most users would rather have their tokenized assets — whether it’s real estate or T-bills — on Ethereum or a major L2, not on a niche chain that might not survive the next market cycle.
Why?
Security: Ethereum has the most battle-tested smart contracts and validator network.
Ecosystem support: Integrations with wallets, exchanges, and DeFi protocols already exist.
Longevity: Institutional players want to know their assets will outlive a startup chain.
Launching a custom L1 adds technical debt, fragmentation, and regulatory risk — without necessarily adding user value. Unless there’s a truly novel consensus or compliance mechanism, building on Ethereum (or even leveraging modular frameworks like Celestia or Rollups) is a smarter path.
Tokenomics & Transparency: Lessons Learned
One of the biggest takeaways from Mantra is the importance of token design and transparency. Many crypto projects continue to launch with:
Low circulating supply
High insider allocations
Poorly communicated unlocks
Artificial price support via market makers
These setups are unsustainable. They create the illusion of value — until tokens unlock or sentiment shifts. Then, they unravel fast. Going forward, both builders and investors need to demand clear unlock schedules, publicly auditable wallets, and honest disclosures about how much supply is under team or investor control.
What Real Innovation in RWA Looks Like
The real challenges in RWA aren’t about spinning up a new chain — they’re about solving the messy real-world problems like:
Regulatory compliance (KYC/AML)
Reliable asset custody and legal wrappers
On-chain identity and registries
Permissioned smart contracts for institutional access
The projects that succeed in this space will be the ones building compliant, composable infrastructure — not just hype-driven chains. Expect more focus on oracles, metadata standards, and identity layers rather than yet another Layer 1.
Will RWA Really Generate Revenue?
Let’s do some simple math on whether RWAs are actually profitable — and for whom.
💰 Hypothetical Revenue Breakdown:
$1B in tokenized assets
0.5% origination fee → $5M one-time
0.25% annual management fee → $2.5M/year
$100M traded monthly at 0.05% protocol fee → $600K/year
That’s around $8.1M in Year 1 revenue — from just $1B in assets.
Scale that to $10B, and now you’re looking at a legitimate eight-figure revenue stream.
🤔 But Here’s the Catch:
Most RWA protocols don’t own the custody or origination.
If you’re just a blockchain, how much of this fee flow do you actually capture?
You need users, developers, and legal infrastructure — not just tokenomics.
Real revenue in RWA exists — but only if you own key parts of the stack.
Who’s Building the Next Phase of RWA?
Here are some of the most promising players leading the way — along with the tech they’re using and the risks they face.
📌 Pinlink
What It Does: Asset identity registry — think ENS for real-world things.
Tech: Built on Ethereum. Uses IPFS and NFTs to link physical assets to legal metadata.
Risks: Still early. Legal enforceability of claims may be untested in court. Competing projects may enter.
💵 Ondo Finance
What It Does: Tokenized securities, starting with U.S. Treasuries (OUSG).
Tech: Ethereum-based. Leverages real custodians (e.g., BlackRock) and whitelisted smart contracts.
Risks: Highly dependent on U.S. regulatory clarity. Centralized custody is a risk.
After some quiet months, Ondo is gaining attention again thanks to its institutional-grade tokenized T-bills (OUSG) and expansion into APAC markets. With Coinbase and BlackRock nods, they’re positioning as a credible bridge for TradFi.
⚙️ Chex
What It Does: Tokenizing commodities and logistics assets (e.g. oil, metals, grain).
Tech: Multi-chain — using Ethereum and Polygon, with Chainlink for data oracles and RFID integration.
Risks: Logistics infrastructure is messy. Data integrity is critical. Institutional adoption may lag.
🏗️ Centrifuge
What It Does: RWA lending with real-world collateral (e.g. invoices, real estate).
Tech: Built as a Polkadot parachain with Ethereum bridging. Uses NFT-based asset tokenization.
Risks: Less visibility outside Polkadot. Loan performance depends on off-chain enforcement.
🪙 Maple Finance
What It Does: On-chain undercollateralized lending for institutions, now expanding into RWA credit lines.
Tech: Ethereum and Solana-based. Uses smart contracts and pool delegates for underwriting.
Risks: Credit risk. Some past defaults. Regulatory friction with unsecured lending.
🧭 Where Do We Go From Here?
The Mantra saga should be a turning point. The RWA narrative is real — it’s not just hype — but it needs infrastructure, not speculation. What comes next?
Shift from L1s to middleware and application layers
Focus on compliant infrastructure, not forks
RWA liquidity pools, registries, and oracles > empty chains
Real revenue, not token inflation
Mantra may have fallen, but the future of RWA is still very much alive — and maybe this reset is exactly what the space needed.
The Pell Network has officially launched its airdrop claim, opening the gates to early adopters and restakers eager to participate in the next evolution of crypto infrastructure. As restaking continues to redefine economic security, Pell stands out by bringing this innovation to Bitcoin—the most trusted and secure asset in crypto. But Pell isn’t just about hype; it’s building a modular security layer with tangible use cases and a strong economic model that could reshape how Bitcoin is leveraged across decentralized ecosystems.
What is Pell Network?
Pell is a restaking protocol that enables users to stake BTC to secure modular services, known as Actively Validated Services (AVSs), similar to what EigenLayer has introduced on Ethereum. It allows Bitcoin holders to put their capital to work, generating yield by securing decentralized oracles, bridges, data availability (DA) layers, and more—all without needing to bootstrap new validator sets from scratch.
How Pell Works: Bridging Bitcoin to Modular Security
Since Bitcoin does not natively support smart contracts or staking, Pell enables BTC restaking via liquid staking tokens (LSTs) such as wBTC, tBTC, and BTCB across EVM-compatible blockchains like Ethereum, BNB Chain, BoB network, Core, ZetaChain and others. Users stake their LSTs on Pell’s platform, which then restakes them to provide slashing-backed security for AVSs. In return, AVSs pay fees for this security, and rewards are distributed to BTC restakers. This structure enables Pell to bring Bitcoin’s economic weight into modular crypto infrastructure while maintaining a decentralized, slashing-compatible security layer.
How Pell Compares: EigenLayer, Karak, and Beyond
While EigenLayer pioneered Ethereum restaking and Karak is pushing a cross-chain approach, Pell is uniquely positioned to capture the untapped value of Bitcoin’s idle liquidity. Where EigenLayer focuses on ETH-based AVSs and Karak explores multi-chain restaking, Pell applies Bitcoin’s economic weight as collateral for AVS security.
Competitors like BounceBit and Babylon also aim to bring restaking or timestamped security to Bitcoin, but Pell’s architecture prioritizes slashing-backed guarantees and modular integration, making it more aligned with the EigenLayer thesis, but for BTC-native environments.
Potential Use Cases for Pell AVSs
Oracle networks secured by BTC restakers
Bitcoin-backed bridge networks and zk-rollups
Data availability layers with slashing mechanisms
Coordination layers for multisig custody and validator committees
Revenue Streams and Economic Incentives
AVSs will pay Pell in BTC or PELL tokens to lease security. Fees are then distributed to BTC restakers and validator operators. Pell may also implement token buyback programs and burns to enhance value capture. While EigenLayer has already demonstrated a potential $100M+ annual revenue model through AVS consumption, Pell could unlock similar value from Bitcoin’s vast liquidity pool.
Who’s Behind Pell?
Although detailed founder information is still limited, Pell has drawn early attention from restaking enthusiasts. It is actively engaging with AVS developers and modular infrastructure providers. As the ecosystem matures, we can expect integrations and AVS partnerships to be formally announced.
Risks to Consider
As with any early-stage crypto protocol, Pell faces several risks:
Technical risks in slashing arbitration and AVS reliability
Smart contract risks
Limited AVS adoption until network effects grow
Custodial or bridge-based BTC staking mechanisms introducing centralized points of failure
Market volatility and uncertain regulatory outlook for BTC-based DeFi
Pell offers a bold new vision for Bitcoin—one where BTC is no longer passive capital but a foundational layer in modular crypto security. But with innovation comes risk, and early participants should weigh the upside carefully against potential protocol maturity hurdles. As the airdrop goes live, Pell marks the beginning of a new narrative: Bitcoin as the backbone of decentralized security. Don’t forget to check if you are eligible for the airdrop!
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
