Why I think robinhood:0xca9c78dd337a67f6e0077f65f5e9218719d30edf is interesting here:
NET went from ~2k to ~400, but the protocol itself did not round trip. The important variable is NAV per robinhood:0xca9c78dd337a67f6e0077f65f5e9218719d30edf, not just spot price.
The clean way to think about it is:
P_NET = NAV × mNAV
NAV is the reserve value backing each NET. mNAV is the premium the market is willing to pay for future treasury growth, fee capture, staking economics and ecosystem optionality.
At ~$450, with backing around ~$175 per NET, NET trades around 2.6x NAV.
The interesting part is that NET is designed to monetize that premium.
When NET trades above NAV, the protocol can issue bonds and sell NET into premium while converting that demand into reserve assets. Bond issuance cannot clear below NAV, and below NAV the inverse bond mechanism can buy NET back and burn it.
So the flywheel is basically:
premium → capital inflow → RFV growth → higher NAV per NET → lower effective premium at the same price → capacity for another expansion
The only question that matters is whether RFV per NET keeps growing despite supply expansion.
If: RFV / NET supply ↑
then the protocol is actually creating more backing per unit even while issuing more NET.
That is the KPI.
The 5% trading levy also matters because turnover itself becomes reserve growth. Speculation is partially converted into treasury assets instead of being pure trader vs trader churn.
This is why sideways price action would actually be interesting.
If NET stays at $450 while NAV grows from $175 to $225, mNAV compresses from ~2.6x to 2x without price moving at all.
Price compressed much faster than NAV/share, so what was previously mostly a reflexivity trade is slowly becoming a balance sheet trade.
If NAV keeps chasing price from below while the protocol continues to capture fees and issue above NAV, I think the current zone starts looking much more attractive.
The whole bet is whether NAV/share can keep compounding without the flywheel breaking.