appreciate the love, and you can choose your preferred networks for the methodology. i stacked tia this bear because it has many similarities to prior networks that i experienced asymmetric upside with from similar levels: strong team unwavering in commitment, building mission critical infrastructure, mostly hated because the coin went up a lot, and then went down a lot. anyone who digs deep respects the merits of what the team is building. currently sits at ~$700M FDV, I'll take the asymmetry.

In times like this, if you're a long term investor, you don't want to be waffling about being in or out, you want to be stacking units systematically. Don't get confused by the traders, it's a separate game. On unit accumulation, depending on how long you've been in the game, it's helpful to think in "relative units" of the investment you did best with. I'll use $ETH because the math is easy and relates well to younger networks. ETH has ~120M units. Let's say I once held 10 ETH. Now I'm looking to stack $SOL, but SOL has ~636M units, or ~5.3x the # of units. Therefore, to have an equivalent position size in network terms, I'd need 53 SOL. If I want to own double the network % of SOL, that I owned of ETH, I'd need 106 SOL. Or, perhaps I'm considering $TIA, which has ~1.16B total supply, or ~9.7x the # of units of ETH. In that case, I'd need 97 units of TIA to have a network equivalent. If I want to place a bigger network bet on TIA, because the network value is lower than when I entered ETH, then 10x the % ownership would require me to accumulate 970 TIA. 100x the % ownership = 9,700 TIA. Going for significantly more ownership, at cheap prices, if you're right, can lead to asymmetric outcomes. $ZEC is another good example of this, since its supply mirrors $BTC's. And so it's easy to think of your "dream # of BTC," and aim to accumulate that in ZEC, if you're so inclined. Pick your networks of choice, and do the math. I have always found thinking in unit terms keeps me grounded, optimistic, and goal oriented in dreary times. I can then dream about future upside in the thick of the bull, but the important thing is to systematically stack the units with a high conviction methodology in the bear or early-bull pullbacks. In terms of where we are now, which is probably why most of you are still reading :) BTC has been bleeding out the long-tail while remaining resilient, with many names 20-40%+ down from the highs while BTC is down just shy of 10%. You can either say BTC has already bled the risk appetite out of the market and so most of the work is done, or you can say BTC hasn't dropped much so it'll be really terrible if it goes cliff diving. I'm sympathetic to the former view. I read this as an early-bull opportunity rather than a warning sign that this move was a "bull trap," and so I'm inclined to be a buyer. You have to respect the possibility of lower levels, and so tranche out any dry powder that remains with % cash used corresponding to % probability those levels are the local bottom - yes, you likely end up with some excess cash if not all levels are hit, but that's okay. And don't forget, there's already opportunity in front of you.

In 2017 a wise man told me: “When you think it’s over, it’ll just be getting started.” I think we’ll reflect upon 2026 as such a period for blockchains.

Tokens with sustained demand, and diminishing annual supply inflation, stand to do well over time, and explains why some “dinocoins” have awoken this cycle.

Market seems to be waking up to the insane throughput of Fibre, one of the few architectures able to satisfy the mind-numbing scale of an agentic wave of demand.

The Internet Needs Crypto to Survive AI: youtube.com/watch?v=TKVY4hVA… One of the most exciting, and underrated, developments in crypto atm revolves around this @Bankless conversation with @eastdakota of @Cloudflare. ~20% of all websites are routed through Cloudflare, and in this conversation Matthew tells us that the business model of the Web is under attack. To put it simply, agentic traffic is exploding, and agents don't click on ads, but ads underpin much of the "free" stuff we get online. The infrastructure is creaking under agent load. Matthew's assertion is that microtransactions, at a scale not previously seen, will be needed to pay for access to content, as the advertising model of the Web falls apart with agents. Crypto people have talked about microtransactions forever, but it was for people, which never worked, whereas we're now contemplating it for agents. He says Cloudflare handles ~500M requests per second, and that 1-10% of those requests may be suitable for this microtransaction model. A blockchain environment is the only payment network that could theoretically handle this scale, and it would need to hit 5-50M TPS. 5-50M TPS in prod dwarfs anything yet attempted in crypto, and is far beyond anything TradFi can handle. There are very few blockchain environments that could conceivably provide this throughput. Just as important as the scale, is the model and trust assumptions. While Cloudflare may roll this out as a solution for its customers first, what's implicit here is the potential for an entirely new business model for the Web. If Cloudflare walks this path, I hope that what they build has permissionless validation, allowing for anyone to audit the network. Cloudflare has been a torch bearer for the open Internet, and so it only follows that if they're to pioneer a new business model for the Web, that the architecture be an open network. Doing so will engender the most trust, goodwill, and adoption in the long run. Web 3.0 is dead, long live Web 3.0.