Everytime I see a solution claiming to scale or in this case, shied btc WITHOUT changing consensus or soft fork, I get skeptical. It must means it always involved external actors & you won’t get the full security guarantees of btc’s base layer. The quality of security will affect the quality of privacy. Not able to change base layer is bearish and not bullish, because projects needs to work with extreme limitations and btc’s intentional ossification is both a feature and bug. You don’t keep the cake and also eat it. Even if this privacy solution works, what will be the impact on additional latency, costs since btc’s block/capacity are finite? Already, adopting bigger size post quantum signatures will surely severely impact btc’s scalability, let alone adding this cost of privacy as well. zcash:native on the other hand, natively integrate privacy at base layer. And tackles both scalability and quantum resistant with @TachyonZcash hand in hand as they are closely intertwined. Zcash have clear road map to be future proof private, quantum resistant (already is quantum recoverable) and scalable everyday money/SOV. If anything, judging by the response of bitcoiners suddenly getting excited 😂 by privacy, this further validate the bullishness of Zcash’s long term potential!

So tldr, your angle is using txs activity to justify valuation? I think activity is merely 1 metric among many. Other metrics matters too like Zcash gives options for 100% transparency, 100% privacy and auditable tool for somewhere in between. These mitigate risks that comes with either ONLY extreme end of private or transparency spectrum. Having options increases the TAM to cater to different audiences. Eg: zcash:native .@ZcashETF ETF would not be possible if Zcash does not have transparent pool, thus limiting institutional flows and upside potential. .@TachyonZcash, the scaling initiative that BTC does NOT have, the rise in shielded pool TVL (more PRIVACY adoption) should necessarily counts into Zcash current and future valuation too.

Update 2 weeks later: zcash:native from 214.14% to now 474.9% price performance last 6 months period. Top 3 performers in watchlist *ALL* ZEC related (ETF, Mining) and above major cryptos, AI related/energy stocks Now add on solana:HcRLc9VDgjLeK154xDawfb1dmVJ98DoSqcwTHGqiDeJR reflexive meme companion (more retail flow & awareness) to Zcash + undoubtedly more ZEC ETFs in the pipeline (more institutional flows), not impossible to see zcash:native possibly crossing above $5000 by year end.

Strictly speaking, zcash:native has outperformed all major Semis, Hyperscalers, Neoclouds, Memory, MAGS, Photonics, Robotics, Energy etc companies (which was all the rage) in my watchlist from last 6 months till date. This is a seminal moment. It proves crypto (with fundamental value/features) can outperform AI again. Just need patience.

Hey bro .@tomwanhh Love your updates and also your ethena dashboard are comprehensive. Some views & questions, if I may: 1) regarding $ENA fundamentals, I think just comparing fdv/revenue may not tell the whole story. Your revenue refers to gross? I think we need to factor in all related costs (including team if info is available) to determine actual net cash left that may possibly accrue to sENA. I think costs are non trivial esp if sUSDe tvl grows, so too will the reserve fund as USDe is inherently not risks free. And esp reserve fund ratio stands currently < 1%. Would like more context to fundamentals in terms of profit margin/“capital efficiency” of revenue/how much actual est yield to sENA, n then compare it to fdv to determine if it’s undervalued. With current cash from treasury play pumping ENA price (rather than using organic net cash to buyback), I am more inclined to think ENA is overvalued. Would love further inputs from you. 2) for products under converge chain, any ideas what and how revenue sources captured from Converge will accrue to ENA, net costs? Would be great if these data points can be in your dashboards. 3) for USDtb, even if it’s Genius complaint, how does it create more “credibility” for USDe? They are 2 very different products with different R/R profile. Are you implying revenue earned from USDtb would allocate to reserve fund or cover de pegging risks? If yes, I think there will be direct trades off, because that would means less yield to sENA? Alternatively, if USDtb holders demands yield on their stables, then will there be enough cash to cover USDe risks or yield to sENA ? I think there many variables to costs, and how revenue flows to cover these areas will have direct trade off to ENA’s attractiveness. Hear from you soon bro.