I keep coming back to $GLXY because I’m not sure the market fully appreciates what Helios is becoming. Forget crypto for a second. Do the megawatt math. Helios: ~1.63 GW ERCOT-approved power CoreWeave: 800 MW gross → 526 MW critical IT load Contract economics: $1B+ annual revenue at full ramp Implied revenue: ~$1.9M per critical MW/year CoreWeave has effectively absorbed only ~49% of Helios’ CURRENT approved gross power. If the remaining capacity eventually achieves comparable density/economics, 1.63 GW could theoretically support ~1.07 GW of critical IT load - implying roughly $2B/year of revenue capacity. And Galaxy has discussed Helios ultimately reaching ~3.5 GW. Apply the same crude math and you’re talking ~2.3 GW of critical compute and >$4B/year of theoretical revenue capacity. Obviously, power ≠ compute ≠ contracted revenue. There are enormous capex, construction, financing and execution assumptions between those numbers. But that’s precisely the point. In the AI race, GPUs are manufactured. Gigawatts of interconnected power are much harder to manufacture. $GLXY started as a crypto company and somehow ended up owning one of the scarcer commodities of the AI era: energized land at scale. Crypto funded the optionality. Helios may end up being the asset that matters most.

Just bought more Litecoin $LTC. FOMO sets in at $100+. I don’t make the rules.

I don’t subscribe to the take by @BitcoinStrat on $LTC below. I think the “34% rally is almost entirely leverage” conclusion is doing more work than the data supports. Rising OI alongside price tells you leverage is participating, not that spot demand is absent. Perp volume being multiples of spot is also normal in crypto and, by itself, says very little about who is actually setting the marginal price. Likewise, “72% of accounts are long” is not the same thing as 72% of notional exposure being long. The more interesting data is underneath: spot volume has expanded, on-chain activity has jumped, LTC has materially outperformed BTC, Grayscale is pursuing an ETF conversion, and the asset still has a fixed 84M supply with another halving ahead. The “ETF inflows must exceed daily miner issuance” framework is also too simplistic. Price is determined by the marginal supply available for sale, not by mechanically matching every newly mined coin dollar-for-dollar. If holders become less willing to sell while new demand enters, price can re-rate very quickly. And the treasury company selling 110K LTC is a company-specific capital-allocation decision, not evidence that Litecoin itself lacks demand. Leverage can absolutely amplify the move and create violent flushes. But saying leverage caused the move is very different from saying leverage is accelerating a move already being driven by improving spot demand, liquidity and narrative.

I think $LTC could be setting up for the same kind of narrative-driven repricing we just watched happen in $ZEC. The market suddenly remembered that privacy and fungibility still carry real value. Litecoin has been largely excluded from that conversation despite MWEB giving it an optional confidential transaction layer, while the base asset still benefits from deep liquidity, broad exchange support, a fixed 84M supply and nearly 15 years of network history. The important point is that MWEB does not need to make Litecoin technologically identical to Zcash. Markets price narratives, optionality and marginal demand. If investors begin treating $LTC not just as an “old payments coin,” but as a scarce, highly liquid monetary asset with embedded privacy functionality, the valuation framework changes. $ZEC showed how quickly that rerating can happen once the market decides an ignored feature suddenly matters. I think $LTC may be next.

Y’all I’m not kidding. I think CT is going to full send $LTC. I’m talking higher than circa 2021.

I.e. Crypto ethereum:native

Contrarian theory: Yes, crypto is a risk-on, high-beta asset class. But the forward returns from $BTC and $ETH likely pale in comparison to what early holders captured from 2010–2022. At today’s market caps, I think the next major liquidity wave into crypto needs an altseason first. Retail needs to experience 3–10x returns in relatively short periods. Those gains create fresh capital, renewed risk appetite, and ultimately liquidity rotation back into large caps like Bitcoin and Ethereum. Without a meaningful altseason, I’m not convinced crypto moves materially higher from here. Altseason may not be the finale. It may be the liquidity engine that powers the next leg up.

You can’t spell aLTCoin season without litecoin:native.

Going to be honest, I took a look at litecoin:native earlier this year when it was in the $40’s and didn’t think much of it. But the more I dig into Litecoin, the more interesting it gets. Launched in 2011, it is one of crypto’s true OGs and has survived every major cycle while maintaining a simple utility case: fast, cheap, decentralized payments. It is also one of the few cryptocurrencies supported directly by PayPal/Venmo, which gives it a level of mainstream distribution most altcoins still do not have. What surprised me even more is that development is still active. MWEB improves privacy and fungibility. LitVM is working toward bringing smart-contract functionality to Litecoin. Litecoin Computer is exploring DeFi and programmable applications. Wallet infrastructure and Lightning-related integrations are also still progressing. Then there is the supply dynamic. $LTC has a hard cap of just 84M coins. With most of that supply already circulating, there is no endless token issuance waiting on the sidelines. Combine a fixed supply with a much smaller market cap and thinner liquidity than BTC or ETH, and meaningful new volume can have an outsized impact on price. I also found out a good friend of mine, a PhD economist and former professor at a Top 10 business program, has quietly HODLed his Litecoin position this entire time. Obviously, that alone means nothing. But 14+ years of network survival, real payment utility, low fees, mainstream fintech support, optional privacy, and an active development pipeline makes me wonder if the market has written $LTC off a little too aggressively. Sometimes the interesting trade is not the new shiny thing. It is the asset everyone stopped paying attention to. $100+ is possible, but $200-300+ and its gets VERY interesting. This could be Zcash 2.0.

Very nice. Congratulations @marcuslemonis and team. A move in the right direction.👏 $NXH

CT is going to run up $LTC aren’t they…

Litecoin looks ready to pull a Zcash

Why the hell is my X feed inundated with $LTC bull posts all of a sudden. Of all alts…

$ETH will go so much higher than anyone realizes

The special meeting tomorrow morning will dictate whether or not I decide to buy a boatload of $NXH shares or not.

My $BMNR roadmap from here: I think the next few weeks get very interesting. A stronger $ETH tape + positioning/short covering could push $BMNR into a squeeze and send mNAV materially >1.0x. And there are a few accelerants people may be overlooking. First: $ORBS. BMNR put $100M into Eightco and owns ~100.7M shares, most recently marked around $105M. If ORBS catches a squeeze of its own, that creates another NAV kicker for BMNR and adds fuel to the reflexivity. Second:@fundstrat takes the stage at Korea Blockchain Week on Sept. 30 for a 25-minute keynote. Interesting timing as BMNR sits essentially at the finish line of the “Alchemy of 5%.” I’m not assuming an announcement, but the increased attention comes at a very interesting point in this trade. And BMNR still reported $714M of cash + marketable securities as of Sept. 20. My expectation for the capital-allocation playbook: BMNR near/below NAV → buy back shares. BMNR squeezes well above NAV → flip the switch and issue equity. Tom has already repurchased 20.8M+ shares under the $4B authorization. But once mNAV becomes meaningfully >1.0x, issuing expensive $BMNR equity to acquire more $ETH becomes accretive to NAV/ETH per share. That’s when I expect dilution. And I think people will initially misunderstand it. The stock may sell off. A healthy 10–15% correction sometime in October wouldn’t surprise me at all and could ultimately create the more durable bottom. If you’re long and strong, that shouldn’t bother you. Because the dilution itself may be the signal: Tom Lee isn’t preparing to stop at the Alchemy of 5%. He may be building the capital-markets machine needed for the Alchemy of 10%. Squeeze → premium mNAV → accretive issuance → more ETH → reset → repeat. 5% was the proof of concept. 10%+ could be the real game. And after that reset, IMO, the move toward $100+ $BMNR begins.

Last time Saylor sold $BTC, Bitcoin went on to rally 7.4x. This time, he sold around $70,000. Even if we assume Bitcoin only does half of that move (3.7x), that puts it roughly at $259K by the end of this cycle’s run. And that’s the conservative scenario.

Phenomenal take. The stablecoin thesis shouldn’t just be “saving 1% on payment fees.” That’s missing the big picture. The bigger opportunity is capital efficiency within business operations. Businesses have huge amounts of cash trapped in receivables, prefunding, reserves and settlement delays. Stablecoins can help move and settle money globally 24/7, freeing up capital and potentially improving ROE considerably on a case by case basis. I would add Ethereum is a major part of the rails: roughly 48% of global stablecoin supply sits on $ETH mainnet alone, before counting L2s like Base and Arbitrum. Stablecoins are the digital dollars. Ethereum is increasingly the settlement layer they move on. But the use case for stablecoins is grossly misunderstood.

do whatever you want with this information