Haotian | CryptoInsight

Haotian | CryptoInsight

41,221 Twitter followers

Follow

独立研究员| Researcher | 以技术和商业视角解读区块链前沿科技 | ZK、AI Agent、DePIN ,etc | 硬核科普 | Previously：@ambergroup_io | @peckshield | DMs for Collab ｜社群只对Substack订阅会员开放

Posts

Haotian | CryptoInsight

Regarding whether $VINE will be replaced by "Imagine", here are some logical points: 1) $VINE has always been a meme, carrying the market's expectation of successfully relaunching the previously shut down Vine short video platform. Therefore, as long as neither @elonmusk nor @rus clearly indicates abandoning the Vine restart plan, VINE will continue to exist; 2) Elon's high-frequency promotion of Grok Imagine does not necessarily mean Imagine will replace VINE, even if Elon says Grok Imagine is AI Vine. This is because Imagine is a product branch function, similar to how Grok is an AI module for X. Imagine is just a picture-to-video function module of Grok. Elon's high-profile promotion of Grok Imagine is to highlight Grok's AI enhancement capabilities, which does not mean using Imagine to rename Vine, at least not with Musk's "clear" statement; 3) "Bring back Vine" is not just a slogan, but contains complex cultural, emotional, brand, and IP factors. This means Vine is a cultural symbol carrying internet memories of a generation, with emotional value difficult to replace. In this context, Elon's statement about restarting Vine in AI form ultimately aims to restart Vine. Grok Imagine is just a core product capability demonstration before achieving this ultimate goal. In other words, if there were no intention to restart Vine, there would be no need to mention Vine; 4) The emphasis on Grok Imagine being AI Vine is to express that Vine will "accelerate" its return in an AI-enabled form. Remember, Vine's core was 6-second videos. If Imagine can directly convert images to 6-second videos through real-time rendering as Elon suggests, this would be a core selling point for Vine's relaunch. It's likely that Imagine will exist as a creation tool, with Vine as a social distribution platform, which Rus's "both" response can also attest to; 5) The market's expectation for $VINE has always been about whether Vine will truly be relaunched, whether Rus can hold an important position at X, especially with Vine's logo integrated into X's content interface, and whether VINE might circulate as a tipping currency. However, it must be noted that currently, the meme only carries a cultural emotional belonging. Unless X as a commercial entity clearly states empowerment for the relaunched Vine and its corresponding token $VINE, market expectations of valuation, price growth, and sentiment carry speculative risks; Note: The meme market is highly volatile. Please be sure to pay attention to investment risks. The above analysis is for reference only, and this short video might make it even more interesting 😄.

Bring memes to life with the @Grok app!

Haotian | CryptoInsight

I saw that @plumenetwork shared a set of RWA track data. In July alone, the number of RWA holders on the Plume chain surged by 55%, breaking through 160,000, while the TVL also exceeded $320 million. Additionally, $PLUME achieved equity tokenization of Pre-IPO stocks, and so on. The question is, what does this data growth mean? The answer is actually quite simple: does it indicate that the RWA track has moved from the "proof of concept" phase to the "commercial implementation" super cycle? 1) 160,000 RWA holders mean that RWA assets are no longer exclusively a game for a few institutional players, but have truly reached the rigid demand of ordinary users. Pre-IPO equity tokenization is the best example - "pre-listing equity investment," which was originally only accessible to PE and VC institutions, can now be participated in by ordinary retail investors through tokenization, directly breaking down the access barriers of traditional finance. 2) The 55% monthly growth indicates that the RWA track is moving from the "budding stage" to the "outbreak stage". When traditional financial assets can be traded as smoothly as crypto assets, the true imagination space of this market will be opened. As an RWAFi advocate, Plume's opportunity is not just about early dividends, but enjoying the structural opportunity of the entire track's outbreak; 3) The $320 million TVL is actually a trust vote with real money. As TVL grows daily, it shows that RWA is no longer a marginal niche track, but has the scale effect to compete with mainstream DeFi. In fact, only when traditional assets are "on-chain" at scale and achieve a scale effect will Plume's strategic value of early positioning be highlighted; Specific data Dashboard is as follows: dune.com/plume/plume-dashboard…

Haotian | CryptoInsight

After observing recently favored projects in the primary investment market, I found a common characteristic: they tend to "hybrid innovation", using web3 technical infrastructure to carry mature business logic verified by web2 business models. For example, @go_lightyear moved traditional stock ETF investment logic to Web3, @HilbertCapital specializes in digital asset quantitative strategies, @bitcoin2100m focuses on professional crypto asset allocation, @ElysiumLab_io builds a <Bit> payment wallet for daily Bitcoin transactions, and so on. These projects mostly belong to the category of integrated innovation, essentially consistent with the operational logic behind some web3 projects "backdoor listing" and some US stocks reserving crypto assets. Why does this trend emerge? Frankly, there are three core reasons: 1) Pure native chain innovation projects have encountered a ceiling. Not only is user scale difficult to break through, but the business model is highly dependent on Tokenomics incentives. Critically, narrative and business design have fallen into a "self-entertaining" dilemma, which would be very passive in a low liquidity market; 2) The "crypto-friendly" regulatory environment is emerging. Spot ETFs for <BTC>, <ETH>, establishment of <GENIUS> and <CLARITY> bills, Wall Street financial institutions' FOMO entry, etc., have transformed crypto assets from niche speculative targets to more mainstream financial derivatives. Undoubtedly, in this situation, actively embracing mature traditional financial business models or proactively seeking web3's usable technical infrastructure will be highly attractive; 3) User investment needs are also becoming more mature. Originally, crypto users often cared about whether a product or protocol was decentralized and rated projects based on consensus strength. However, with the influx of mainstream web2 mass users, they actually only care about usability, safety, and profitability. Therefore, products with simpler experiences and more direct returns will have a better market. So, what will the investment direction be next? Following this logic, we can judge that the mainstream investment direction in the next 3-5 years might revolve around "crypto transformation of traditional businesses": 1) Investment, payment, asset management, insurance, credit, supply chain finance, cross-border trade settlement and other financial market segments will emerge with numerous projects featuring "traditional business logic + crypto underlying technology". Crypto infrastructure will tend to be hidden in the backend, only solving cost, efficiency, and transparency issues, with front-end user experiences almost indistinguishable from traditional products; 2) Technical standardization and infrastructure "invisibility" will become an important trend. New infrastructure supporting web3+web2 hybrid innovation will no longer be limited to the previous Crypto Native scope, nor pursue cool technical concepts, but focus on providing reliable, efficient, and low-cost crypto technical support. "Modularization, chain abstraction" will no longer be sought-after hot tracks, but will practically become the underlying foundation for some outstanding products; 3) Traditional financial institutions will shift to "active entry". They will no longer simply buy coins, reserve assets, or invest in Web3 projects, but directly use their licenses, resources, and user bases to localize crypto businesses. For example, banks launching stablecoin payments, insurance companies creating on-chain policies, securities firms managing crypto asset custody. Such giants' entry will bring larger-scale funds and users, intensify product development, and drive industry maturation.

Haotian | CryptoInsight

Here's the translation: Let's talk about OpenChat, recently released by @OpenledgerHQ, which under the banner of "Proof of Attribution" claims to ensure that every contributor to AI-generated content receives their due compensation. How exactly will they do this? 1) From a product implementation perspective, OpenChat is indeed attempting a technically challenging task. Its core selling point is: every message you send, shared dataset, and fine-tuned model will be recorded on-chain, and you'll receive a share of profits once used by others. From a technical perspective, this is thanks to its "attribution engine", a high-fidelity ∞-gram language model that uses suffix arrays to perform millisecond-level matching across trillions of Tokens, breaking down each sentence into Token windows, using vector embedding logic through BERT, Sentence-T5, and precisely matching to original data sources. Simply put, it's like installing a "super microscope" for AI content generation, where the "DNA" of each Token can be traced. The user interface will underline which content comes from which dataset, with confidence scores clearly marked. Each chat will trigger an on-chain transaction in real-time, calculating platform fees, data network costs, and model fees - you'll be paid based on how many sentences of your data are used. 2) After analyzing the product logic, OpenChat's business logic becomes clear: attempting to reconstruct the entire value distribution system for AI content generation. Traditional AI services are "black-box profit sharing" - you call the OpenAI interface without knowing how profits are divided. OpenChat aims to make every AI call a "public accounting", where data contributors and model developers can receive real-time profit shares based on their contributions. Plainly speaking, Openledger is building an AI technical sovereignty data blockchain, abstracting a three-layer technical architecture: bottom-layer chain protocol, mid-layer attribution engine, top-layer user application. Clearly, OpenChat is a technical validation of OpenLedger's entire technical architecture, "concretizing" the abstract AI data contribution public accounting system through a chat interface. Its goal is to verify: data calls can be completely transparent, the source of each Token can be precisely traced, and value distribution can be executed automatically in real-time. 3) However, precisely tracking and on-chain recording of large-scale data is not easy, especially in the "on-chain design". OpenLedger chose a heavy "real-time on-chain" approach, ensuring instant profit sharing for each conversation. Just thinking about it reveals the significant considerations for gas fees and transaction frequency. This design directly faces performance bottlenecks. If OpenChat has tens of thousands of simultaneous online users, it might generate hundreds of thousands of attribution calculations and profit-sharing transactions per second, a throughput TPS that far exceeds most public chains' processing capabilities. Even on a relatively high-performance sidechain, ensuring millisecond-level attribution matching with real-time on-chain settlement places extremely high demands on the entire technical stack. A more realistic issue is economic feasibility. Each on-chain transaction requires gas fees, and even if individual fees are low, the cost would become a burden for users at scale. Will users be willing to bear additional fees for each chat for the sake of "fair accounting"? In fact, Openledger could have chosen a compromise of batch settlement or periodic on-chain recording, but by selecting real-time on-chain and instant fair distribution, they are clearly attempting an extreme exploration. Whether they will ultimately adjust the mechanism is unknown, but such an attempt is quite meaningful.

Haotian | CryptoInsight

Once @Circle, which quietly invested in Sei, has achieved brilliant results on Wall Street, is it now time to "help an old friend"? After the native USDC went live on Sei, many people might wonder why it would be @SeiNetwork? What impact will the "new identity" of a compliant stablecoin issuer have? 1) Sei is a high-performance layer1 blockchain born specifically for digital asset trading optimization. Through its parallel EVM architecture, it achieves simultaneous processing of multiple transactions, reaching a final determination of 390 milliseconds and a parallel processing capability of 28,300 TPS, making it a typical representative of emerging high-performance blockchains. Moreover, the key is not just the "performance score". The performance mechanism of high-performance layer1 actually aims to open up a brand new high-frequency application scenario that can solve enterprise-level high-concurrency payments. Sei's differentiation lies in its bottom-layer optimization specifically for trading scenarios: built-in native order matching engine (OME) directly countering MEV issues, dual-turbo consensus mechanism, SeiDB storage layer preventing on-chain data bloat, etc., making it precisely the "exclusive" track for stablecoin high-frequency circulation. So, with USDC's new identity as a compliant listed company joining hands with old friend Sei, one providing a high-speed highway and the other a racing car, isn't this a perfect partnership? If Circle's early investment in Sei could be considered strategic investment, then USDC's launch is clearly a commercial realization of that initial investment. 2) As a compliant stablecoin issuer that has gone public, USDC, being the most trusted and regulated stablecoin globally, will naturally inject massive liquidity into Sei and bring compliant stablecoin underlying assets to its DeFi, payment, gaming, and other subdivided application scenarios. But the deeper benefit is that I feel this is actually Wall Street's "procurement standard" for crypto infrastructure. Recalling how stablecoins were questioned three years ago, to BlackRock and Fidelity actively deploying digital asset infrastructure, to the introduction of the GENIUS bill, and Circle becoming a new favorite on US stocks - without surprise, Wall Street will likely next screen for more "qualified suppliers" capable of receiving institutional funds. After going public, Circle faces pressure of performance growth and financial report disclosure, and can only more forcefully push USDC towards "mainstream commercial applications". The only path to separate stablecoin application scenarios from pure trading internal circulation is a breakthrough in enterprise-level high-frequency payment scenarios, including real-time wage distribution, millisecond cross-border B2B settlement, supply chain financial payments, and other subdivided scenarios. I believe this is the core meaning of Circle, as a compliant stablecoin issuer, quickly "marrying" with $SEI as a new high-performance trading optimization layer1.

Haotian | CryptoInsight

Regarding this wave of Ethereum's "MicroStrategy Summer," can $ETH truly replicate BTC MicroStrategy's "positive flywheel"? Here are some personal perspectives: 1) The ETH MicroStrategy is indeed emulating BTC MicroStrategy's successful model, and in the short term, many US stock companies will attempt FOMO, creating a positive flywheel. Regardless of the stock market's operators, the real institutional funds and stock investor buying power that take $ETH as a reserve asset have practically pulled Ethereum out of its long-term sluggish state. In other words, FOMO-driven growth is an unchanging iron law in the crypto market, but this time the FOMO subject is no longer pure retail investors, but Wall Street's real money. This at least verifies that ETH has finally broken free from purely relying on crypto narrative stacking and begun attracting incremental funds from outside the crypto circle; 2) BTC is closer to a "digital gold" reserve asset positioning, with relatively stable value and clear expectations, while ETH is essentially a "productive asset" whose value is tied to multiple factors like Ethereum network usage, Gas fee income, and ecosystem development. This means ETH as a reserve asset has greater volatility and uncertainty. Once the Ethereum ecosystem encounters significant technical security issues, or regulators pressure DeFi, Staking, and other functions, the risks and variables ETH faces as a reserve asset are far more complex than BTC's. So while BTC MicroStrategy's narrative logic can be borrowed, it doesn't mean market pricing and valuation logic can remain consistent; 3) The Ethereum ecosystem has more mature DeFi infrastructure and more expansive narrative potential compared to BTC. Through the staking mechanism, ETH can generate approximately 3-4% native yield, making it equivalent to a "on-chain interest-bearing government bond" in the crypto world. Institutional buy-in to this narrative is short-term negative for BTC's layer 2 infrastructure, but long-term, it might conversely stimulate faster BTC ecosystem infrastructure development once ETH's programmable interest-bearing asset catalyst plays a larger role; 4) This MicroStrategy Summer essentially reshuffles Crypto's previous narrative orientation. Previously, project teams built projects and spread technical narratives to VCs and retail market investors—essentially speaking to crypto natives. Now, this new narrative, whether about RWA or TradiFi, will need to tell stories to Wall Street. The key difference is that Wall Street doesn't buy pure concept stories; they want PMF—real user growth, revenue models, market scale, etc. This forces crypto projects to shift from "technology narrative-driven" to "business value-driven"—isn't this the pressure Solana brought to Ethereum before? Ultimately, they must face it; 5) This round includes US stock MicroStrategy concept operators like SharpLink Gaming, Bitmine immersion Tech, Bit Digital, BTCS inc.—mostly traditional capital market businesses with limited growth, seeking breakthrough by integrating Crypto. Their all-in approach to crypto assets often stems from lacking growth points in their main business. These operators' aggressive stance largely exploits the "arbitrage window" before the US government's comprehensive crypto industry reform and mature regulatory mechanisms. Short-term, they've navigated numerous legal and compliance gray areas—such as accounting standards' ambiguous crypto asset classification, SEC's lenient disclosure requirements, and tax treatment's gray zones. MicroStrategy's success largely benefited from BTC's super bull market, but as copycats, they might not have the same luck and operational capabilities. Therefore, the market heat these operators bring isn't significantly different from previous pure crypto native narrative hype—essentially still a high-stakes gamble and trial-and-error. Remember to be cautious of investment risks. Note: This MicroStrategy Summer is more like a "grand military exercise" for Crypto entering mainstream financial systems—a success would be celebrated, and a failure would be a small celebration (after all, an experiment that drags ETH out of its narrative stagnation is a success regardless of outcome!)

Loading..