Binance built a playbook. Binance Alpha, IDO, Futures, Spot—each one serves as a gate in a multi-stage listing funnel. I tracked 150+ projects across tokens that are listed on Binance venues + their subsequent listing on Bitget, Bybit, Coinbase, and Upbit… and uncovered this:

Your credit card rewards exist because someone else is paying 25% APR. Cap that at 10% and the points don’t survive. I spent years working inside fintech and card programs. That interest margin is the invisible buffer that makes rewards, lounges, and credits pencil out. Capping credit card APRs at 10% sounds like an obvious consumer win. Cards charge 20 to 30%, many consumers revolve balances, and the system feels punitive. But credit card economics are not just about interest rates. They are a cross-subsidized system where revolvers subsidize transactors, rewards rely on behavioral inefficiency, and risk-based pricing subsidizes access. Remove one leg of that stool and the system does not become fairer; it rebalances. And the costs show up where consumers notice most. Lets look at how this would impact 3 programs 1. AMEX Platinum A 10% credit card APR cap would not make your card cheaper or better. You would still have access, but you would almost certainly get less value for the same or higher price. The Platinum brand survives because its customers are affluent, pay in full, and tolerate high annual fees. What quietly supports that ecosystem is portfolio-level profitability, which allows AMEX to tolerate loss, overuse, and inefficiency in premium benefits. When that margin shrinks, the cost shows up directly in your (lesser) benefits. In a world where: - Rewards economics tighten - Devaluations become more likely - Flexibility is reduced Points become a liability to the issuer, and liabilities get repriced. So what this likely means for you as a Platinum cardholder: - Lounges do not expand to fix crowding. Instead, access tightens or amenities are reduced. - Statement credits become harder to use, more fragmented, or less generous. - Annual fees go up - New approvals become more selective, even for high earners. Your card still works, but the value proposition shifts. Platinum becomes more explicitly pay-to-play, with fewer hidden subsidies propping up premium perks. You pay the same or more, and you get a little less in return. Which is why some people are already warning that points devaluations become more likely in this environment (like @BowTiedBull this morning saying "Dump ALL your credit card points. All of them.") 2. Bilt Card This program is the canary in the coal mine for what to expect. Bilt’s super popular rent rewards worked because Wells Fargo was willing to subsidize them. The card offered 1 point per dollar on rent with no fees because Wells Fargo paid Bilt roughly 0.8 percent (80 bps) of each rent payment to fund rewards... despite earning little or no interchange on those transactions. But that is some actuarial level math with a number of variables at risk that proved wrong/ unsustainable. Wells Fargo was getting hosed $10 million a month on the program, so they exited the partnership years before the original end date and forced Bilt to restructure its rewards with a different bank What does that teach us? - When interest and interchange margins shrink, banks stop tolerating loss-leading reward programs. - Interest income does not fund every reward directly, but it provides the buffer that allows experiments like Bilt to exist at all. - Remove that buffer and rewards must be paid for explicitly. Bilt’s shift to a three-tier lineup with annual fees is not an anomaly. It is the direction rewards go when credit stops quietly absorbing losses. Pay-to-play rewards. What feels like consumer protection will shows up as fewer perks, pay-to-play rewards, and less room for innovation. 3. Credit One & other Subprime Cards Now the least glamorous corner. Subprime cards get criticized for high APRs, annual fees, low limits, minimal rewards. But they exist for a reason. They serve thin-file borrowers, damaged credit, people shut out of conventional loans, households using cards for liquidity not perks... but they charge high APRs because charge-offs exceed 8-10%, fraud and servicing costs are higher, and credit limits are small while fixed costs remain significant. A 10% cap makes these products mathematically impossible. These cards don't become cheaper. They cease to exist. As @sytaylor noted this morning - "You realize this will push many more customers towards loan sharks?" The demand for credit doesn't disappear... it migrates to BNPL with opaque effective APRs, chronic overdraft usage, fee-heavy installment loans, and less regulated lenders like loan sharks/ payday loans. So who WOULD win? Debit-First Fintechs One of the least discussed consequences: where would reward customers migrate? I think 1% cashback programs are an obvious winner. Chime, Varo, Current and niche cards like Greenlight and Privacy. (If you have not worked in a fintech or a bank you probably don't know what the Durbin Amedment is - but the TL;DR is that very large banks (BoA, Wells, JPMC) have capped interchange rates of around 27 bps on debit swipes. Small banks with < $10B AUM, however, do not - they can earn 1-2% on interchange (avg was 160 bps or so last I checked). Which is why all of the debit card fintech companies you've heard of are partnered with these smaller banks - they can offer rewards like 1% cashback programs and still have margin sufficient to build a business around.) In a world where credit rewards shrink, access tightens, and annual fees rise, debit-based fintechs look better by comparison. But consumers lose: credit protections, payment float, stronger dispute rights, credit-building opportunities. TL;DR An APR cap feels like consumer protection. In practice it reshapes the market in ways that are easy to miss: - It will shrink access to credit - Eliminate rewards programs that aren't tied to high annual fees - Force risk into less regulated channels - Unintentionally advantages debit over credit - Help affluent transactors more than vulnerable borrowers Credit doesn't become cheaper. It becomes scarcer, less flexible, less transparent. But banks will adapt. Fintechs will adapt. Consumers caught in the middle do not get protected. They get fewer choices, worse products, and priced out.

给所有空军三条建议，如果你记不住，就打印下来贴电脑前： “永远不要因为价格涨了多少而空，而要因为控筹不好而空” “如果你不确定控筹情况，就不用空” “不要关注价格离你的爆仓价还有几倍，控筹足够好的情况下，这个数字没有任何意义”

We’re thrilled to announce that Voyage has raised $3M in the pre-seed round to build the first GEOFi network, building a fair distribution layer for everyone contributing to Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) as AI reshapes how we search and discover. Backed by a16z @speedrun, @alliancedao, @SolanaVentures, @LECCAVentures, @IOSGVC, @BigBrainVC, @mhventures, @GAM3GIRLVC, @y2z_Ventures, @mablejiang ( @trendsdotfun), @varunsrin (co-founder @farcaster_xyz), @huangkuan (ex @Uniswap).

Again, this ages well.

跟大家说一下发生什么了，导致了什么连锁反应【100亿美元的清算规模】🧐 一、起因：Trump 的一条帖子引发的暴跌【图一】 总结： 1️⃣ 中美关系已恶化到“无需会面”的地步 2️⃣ 美国准备在金融和贸易上进行报复 3️⃣ 他将利用“稀土垄断”这一点来正当化关税升级 二、这导致几个事件发生： 1️⃣ 美股崩了，很久很久很久纳斯达克指数没有日内暴跌 3.56% 的跌幅了 2️⃣ 币圈一开始没有反应过来，过了好久才开始暴跌（大概率是做市商的风控策略没有生效？） 3️⃣ 美元跌 0.57%、油价跌 4%、最近炒作的铜也跌了 三、币圈的戏剧性时刻 一家欢喜一家忧愁 我知道大多数人不会那么多的杠杆，但是有些人是被动参与这场赌局的 说一些大家没有注意到的 1️⃣ HLP 的持有者一夜暴赚 40% 盈利从 8000w 暴涨至 1.2亿美元 HLP 就是 Hyperliquid 的金库，可以当成上面散户的对手盘，说明 Hyperliquid 非常多的人爆仓了 2️⃣ USDC 套利者无风险赚了上千万美金 这个是大资金经常干的事，无风险收益，资金容量几乎无上限 这个不是接针，而是恐慌后的逐步恢复 3️⃣ 套利者的噩梦 - 又是套利 我们跑的套利程序在 Binance、OKX、Bybit 都爆仓了😂 但是杠杆高的亏了【爆亏】，杠杆低了赚了【暴赚】 所以大家看到 100亿美金爆仓，大部分都是对冲的仓位 4️⃣ DEX 的局限性 这一次是 DEX 的大考，真的遇到极端行情这些 DEX 表现如何呢？ - Aster、Lighter 直接摆烂无法提现 - Dydx 估计死了，一点反应没有 - Hyperliquid 真正的王者，提现丝滑无比 四、后续如何？ 1️⃣ 大概率还是 Trump 的 “Taco” 式交易 2️⃣ 清理杠杆，给了大家重新的入场机会

无监管时代需要自监管，为有源头活水来 币安人生，欧易人生充斥着整个推特，无数的造富神话让社区用户们激情澎湃，行业又进入了一种快钱模式。 Alpha的成功背后是326个上线的项目仅有不到10%只有32个项目上线spot，这意味着这一年90%上线alpha的项目最后都变成了平台燃料。在没有监管的行业，交易所话语权强，并且主导性高，项目的失败似乎和交易所也没什么必然的联系，只是缺乏监管的行业如果平台不能更好的自监管，那相当于给整个行业上了猛药，流动性的成功和溃败都是在一瞬间，造富神话快速闪现，快速陨落。 Hyperliquid借助着链上币安的概念大获成功，Aster通过再造交易量，分得Perpdex市场的份额，似乎整个行业都在向着去中心化和更有前景的方向迈进，但是事实上呢，期货和衍生品一直以来是这个行业交易所盈利能力最强的工具，无数交易所用尽各种方法让平台的用户开始用他们的Perp产品，但是期货衍生品其实是一个零和博弈的游戏，散户在这个市场可以用数十倍到上百倍杠杆放大收益和亏损，因此强如Hyperliquid和Aster的疯狂补贴，让过去从来不玩衍生品和期货的用户开始上手期货，借助着刷取空投，大量从来没有做过杠杆交易的人疯狂入市，哪怕最终用户转化率只有10%，那这些用户在这个周期的后面六个月也很可能染上期货的赌瘾无法自拔。PerpDex特别好，但是过度的激励和干预来让更多人成为期货赌徒，这个事情就丧失了初衷，未来也容易被反噬。 加密行业特别是交易所之间的竞争和博弈应该倡导什么价值观优先？许多交易所控制了资金流动性和平台流量，所以开启meme造富神话可以更好的得到领先段位，让无数人为之趋之若鹜。竞争一定是残酷的，但是在一个缺乏监管的行业中，作为业内领先者是否应该长足考虑重新思考为行业建立一套什么样的赛马机制，引领一种什么风向的散户投资浪潮。作为加密从业者，我们见证了过去几个周期泡沫的起落，也看到了DeFi/稳定币/基础设施的成熟，头部玩家如果可以想办法发力一些长远的价值赛道，做更多难而正确且长期的事情，多年之后无数的行业从业者都将之奉为推动力量和被铭记人士。 我们在特朗普的周期内加密行业无数利好并且监管无限宽松，但是就是这样的无监管时代更加要求一些顶级创业者的行业责任心，帮助这个行业在这个周期取得更多突破，吸引更多更强大的创业者加入，让加密行业出现无数比肩字节跳动/拼多多这样的公司。我呼吁交易所的竞争在内部的项目创新和流量流动性方面，应该更为克制并且需要多问自己一个问题，目前做的事情三年五年之后在行业还有什么价值吗？最优秀的创业者，往往不止着眼于眼前，他们在一起创造加密行业更广阔的未来。 Tips：当然对很多人很难拒绝这样扑面而来的赚钱机会，并且无数快速造富的神话让每个人向往，但是请记住投资有三个原则：保住不死之身，在无数的机会中尽量少参与和少亏钱，在自己的专业领域中或者擅长方向中下大注赚大钱（有感于和巫师新加坡交流）

去有鱼的地方捕鱼。叙事每周在变，跟着钱走，敬畏市场 两个要命的错误： 1. 没把握的事情押太重 2. 有把握的事情押太轻 等你的王牌，能空仓就空仓。大部分人被垃圾项目耗光注意力，真机会来了反而看不见 敢砍仓/敢重仓，这是两种胆色 波动是常态，趋势才赚钱 人生收益符合幂律分布，少数几次下对注比什么都重要 近期体悟： 何德何能身边有这么多贵人，感谢宇宙安排，继续保持善循环

📢 Request for Startups: Under-Collateralized Lending On-Chain with KYC Most DeFi lending today requires you to lock up more than you borrow. It protects lenders but does not reflect real world behavior. Retail users want to borrow assets they do not fully have, whether to spend, invest, or smooth cash flow. This is why credit cards, personal loans, and mortgages exist. Onchain activity has expanded beyond trading into staking, payments, and consumer apps. The TAM is much larger now, and the demand for credit is broader. The opportunity is to build the onchain equivalent of a neobank, where borrowing happens against a mix of assets and identity. KYC can anchor this process and evolve into onchain creditworthiness. There are already early attempts in this direction. Neobank style protocols combine custody, staking, and lending but remain close to traditional rails. Projects like 3Jane utilizing zkTLS point to the next layer, enabling borrowers to prove attributes such as income, residency, or repayment history in zero-knowledge. This unlocks privacy preserving credit that lenders can trust. Crucially, defaults need to matter. If a borrower fails to repay, there should be consequences that extend beyond losing onchain collateral, such as negatively impacting their real world credit profile. Without this linkage, lenders will hesitate to take under collateralized risk. The design space is wide: > What level of KYC is sufficient: simple ID checks, zk proofs of attributes, or hybrid models > Should on-chain credit scores evolve dynamically from repayment history > How should lenders take exposure: pooled risk tranches, peer to peer agreements, or sponsor backed vaults > What kind of interface makes this feel accessible to retail while remaining composable in DeFi With this, it is clear that if onchain borrowing can become both safe for lenders and accessible for users, under collateralized lending with KYC could grow into one of the largest verticals in crypto.

I was wrong about @LidoFinance I used to believe Lido would be the biggest winner once ETH staking got ETF approval. But I was wrong, completely wrong. It turns out Lido’s market share is quietly shrinking. ETFs aren't choosing decentralized staking like $LDO. They’re choosing centralized options to stay compliant with SEC regulations. That’s a major blow to platforms like Lido. I thought institutional adoption of ETH staking would push Lido higher. But the institutions went the other way: 🔸BlackRock → offline staking 🔸BMNR → Anchorage 🔸SBET → Coinbase Custody They want legal entities, compliance pipelines, clear accountability, not decentralized networks with DAO votes and dispersed validators. The truth is simple: 🔸Decentralized staking is hard to audit 🔸KYC is nearly impossible across global nodes 🔸Nobody’s directly liable when a node fails 🔸DAO votes = instability for risk managers 🔸Fee-based protocol revenue = weak business model against subsidized staking Meanwhile, the flow of #ETH tells the story: #ETH being unstaked from Lido is rising. Institutions like @BitMNR and @sharplink are buying hundreds of thousands of ETH. BlackRock is buying too. Retail is slowly being replaced by institutional capital. This isn’t 2020 anymore. #DeFi isn’t the default. The core value of decentralization isn’t compelling to funds managing billions. They want yield, liquidity, and clean reports, things centralized staking can offer better. I don’t think Lido is dead. But they’re definitely being forced into a defensive position. When #TradFi steps onto the field, it stops being a fair fight. So the question is what will Lido do to defend its market share?

交易的难点从来不是“每一笔都对”，而是允许自己有大量错误还能赚钱。 盈亏比越高，允许出错的空间越大，策略的生存能力也越强。 你追求高胜率，但市场真正奖赏的是高容错—只要你在对的地方下大注，在错的地方肯认输。 这是策略设计的底层逻辑，不是心态问题，是结构优势。 没有结构优势的高胜率，只是更接近下一次爆仓。

Launching tokens is brutal - sharing the exact pre‑TGE moves that put you on every serious trader’s radar. Join pre-TGE summit by @GainVentures and @IOSGVC online this Friday at noon New York time. Speakers: @Personacult @OneCryptoNomad Join: lu.ma/6vdf909c

有钱人和穷人都穿优衣库，有钱人和穷人都用 iphone，所以迅销和 apple 是伟大的公司，它们向大众平等兜售美好生活的门票。

🎙️老友记圆桌EP01：美股上链和稳定币超级周期，新周期下做“币东”还是股东？ 👥IOSG Ventures 创始人 @jocyiosg 对话多位行业大咖，本末社区创始人 @Super4DeFi、资深创业者 @forgivenever 以及区块链媒体人 @colinwu, 他们会带来哪些观点碰撞？ 🔥本期话题 1. #Circle vs #Tether：稳定币盈利的商业模式秘密是什么？美债收益、支付场景如何助力？ 2. #稳定币 如何连接传统金融与Web3？PayPal、阿里、京东等巨头入局的潜力与挑战。 3. 加密概念股崛起！MicroStrategy、“链上美股”会重塑全球流动性吗？ 4. 交易所上币乱象：#Binance Alpha 策略与行业自监管的未来。 📺音频、视频版均已上线，收听/观看完整节目： Youtube: youtube.com/@OFRHouse B站: space.bilibili.com/354693669… 小宇宙: xiaoyuzhoufm.com/podcast/686… Apple: podcasts.apple.com/hk/podcas…

Byreal alternative to Binance Alpha by Bybit team? @fragmetric $FRAG showed an alternative listing strategy without @binance Alpha. Win or Lose? Main Points: 1. No Binance Alpha campaign -> Projects are looking for new ways to attract attention on the Launch, like @byreal_io by @Bybit_Official or @okx campaign for @saharaai 2. Byreal by Bybit might be solid competitor to Binance Alpha -> Less media coverage of the Launch as result for now 3. Project should prepare their own KOL campaign 4. $100M FDV is hard to reach for big tech projects (Current is $60M FDV) 5. DEX still showed $5M 1st day volume, that’s close to Binance Alpha metrics. (So Binance Alpha effect is not that big?) 6. Gate chart is weird due to wrong opening price. Lets have a closer look.

I’m thinking about writing another research piece on market makers. Any thoughts on the focus or content?