Monad, BSC, MetaDAO, and More | Livestream
Speakers
Danny Knettel
Research Analyst & Co-host of 0xResearch, Blockworks Research
Boccaccio
Analyst, Blockworks Research
- •MetaDAO’s guardrails worked: Umbra’s uncapped ICO demand hit roughly $150M in deposits, but the team capped at $3M at an $8.5M FDV to avoid mispricing, exactly the behavior MetaDAO’s clawbacks and spend-gating are designed to encourage.
- •VC OTC at a discount is controversial in public: A $6M OTC proposal from DBA and Variant at a material discount triggered pushback and a prediction-market priced backlash, highlighting how futarchy surfaces fairness concerns in real time.
- •DoubleZero’s launch overvaluation corrected: The validator-revenue narrative is strong, but near day-one FDVs several times higher than Jito’s looked misaligned with current revenue readiness and Solana-only scope.
- •L1 launch playbook needs an attention engine: Monad appears close to mainnet with an airdrop checker due Oct 14 and markets implying a November TGE; sustained growth will hinge on consistent onchain events, hackathons, liquidity programs, and pipeline coordination.
- •Bundling is the business model to watch: Binance’s Alpha wallet, Meme Rush, and pre-TGE sales tied to in-app points show a loyalty flywheel that compresses distribution, trading, and launch allocation into one experience.
- •Aave’s moat deepened via integrations: Enabling Pendle PT collateral helped drive TVL higher and clawed share from Morpho, whose Base alignment offers upside but still trails heavily on scale.
- •BTCFi on Aptos is a positioning wedge: Sponsored claims of about $400M in BTC assets and products like Echo aBTC and OKX xBTC reflect a push to be the “BTC growth chain,” though traction durability remains to be proven.
On MetaDAO, Umbra, and futarchy-driven financing
dynamics Danny Knettel and Boccaccio unpack why Umbra’s choice to cap its raise at $3M at an $8.5M FDV was the correct response to an uncapped sale that drew roughly $150M in deposits. Danny explains that taking the full amount would have forced an untenable valuation for a pre-product team with modest burn needs, likely leading to poor secondary performance and potential clawback demands. This is precisely where MetaDAO’s design matters. Its model lets investors vote on team spend, and if outcomes disappoint, it allows clawbacks. That threat helps keep issuers from over-raising and spending imprudently. The pair then assess the pending $6M OTC proposal from DBA and Variant to buy newly minted MetaDAO tokens at a sizable discount to market during a rally. Boccaccio notes the optics problem when a public token is pumping. The futarchy market quickly priced higher odds that the community would reject a discounted deal. Danny argues liquidity is thin enough that accumulating $6M on open markets would be slow and price-disruptive, yet he concedes the fairness critique is legitimate. Both suggest a hybrid solution could diffuse tension: mirror terms for a community tranche with equal vesting so public buyers are not boxed out, while the team still strengthens runway.
On DoubleZero, validator revenue capture, and token
design tradeoffs Danny recounts DoubleZero’s day-one pricing running far ahead of fundamentals, with FDV briefly in the mid single-digit billions before correcting. He compares it with Jito’s JTO, near $1.5B FDV, noting both capture validator economics, but DoubleZero is currently Solana-only and has not yet activated all revenue streams. Boccaccio emphasizes the B2B posture and the unusual distribution that avoided a broad airdrop, which may fit a validator-first strategy. Adoption is likely helped by DoubleZero’s large delegation program of roughly 13M SOL, which can offset revenue sharing for validators by providing stake. They flag an enduring risk from DePIN history. Infrastructure tokens rarely capture value smoothly without clear revenue flows to token holders and clean token-versus-equity delineation. The team must show durable, expanding cash flows and transparent token accrual policies to justify premium multiples.
On Monad, MegaETH, and how to launch an L1 in 2025
Danny outlines Monad’s cadence. Cards went out weeks ago, an airdrop checker lands Oct 14, and Polymarket activity implies a token not before Oct 31, which points to a likely November TGE. He frames Monad as a Solana-like high-throughput EVM with consumer-grade validator hardware targets that could support hundreds to thousands of nodes, a middle ground between high performance and broad participation. Boccaccio argues tech alone will not win. Chains now need an attention engine that sequences product launches, liquidity incentives, hackathons, and marketing beats weekly for months. Both note recent playbooks: extensive pre-launch incubation of trading-centric apps, stablecoin and liquidity migrations, and then recurring events to keep capital engaged. MegaETH can time around Monad, but either path needs a drumbeat, not a one-and-done emissions push.
On bundling, the Binance loyalty flywheel, and the
West vs East UX gap Danny highlights Binance’s stack: the Alpha wallet, Meme Rush, and a pre-TGE prime sale gated by in-app points from trading. This creates a closed loop for discovery, farming, allocation, and trading. Boccaccio views it as an “everything app” strategy more common in Asia, where dense UX and multi-program layering drive engagement. In the West, users tend to prefer cleaner, unbundled flows, yet fintechs like Robinhood are slowly rebundling. In crypto, Jupiter is a clear example, folding aggregator, RFQ, and DEX into one venue. The lesson is practical. Distribution wins. TGE access tied to product usage can concentrate volume, fees, and launch upside in a single platform.
On lending share shifts, Aave’s integrations, and
Base-aligned upside Boccaccio notes that Aave’s enablement of Pendle PT tokens as collateral catalyzed TVL growth and undercut Morpho’s early edge in PT leverage. Danny emphasizes the sheer scale gap. Aave’s deposits tower over Morpho and Euler, so even smart product moves by challengers struggle to dent market share. Morpho’s strategic alignment with Base is a meaningful long-term tailwind if Coinbase continues bringing onchain products into the exchange experience, but the current FDV near $1.5B looks rich relative to business scale when compared to Aave’s footprint. They also touch on GHO, which sits near a $350M market cap. It is an incremental product that fits Aave’s core competency, but it has not yet reshaped stablecoin market structure. The larger theme is that integrations and distribution matter more than ever. Being an anointed default in a major ecosystem can outweigh technical parity.
On Base, Zora, Hyperliquid, and the
announcement-cycle economy Danny and Boccaccio observe that ecosystems now ride punctuated hype cycles. Announcements from leaders like Binance or Coinbase, or heavyweight projects like Zora or Hyperliquid, drive short bursts of attention, volume, and prices, which then fade. Chains and apps that can program a reliable cadence of catalysts will retain users and capital. Without it, incentives get farmed and attention moves on.
On Aptos BTCFi positioning
The ad read positions Aptos as a BTC growth chain with roughly $400M of BTC assets and products like Echo aBTC, OKX xBTC, and even references to sBTC. The strategic idea is clear. Offer yield-bearing BTC products in a lower-fee, fast environment to own a defensible wedge. The open question is whether users consider the bridge, custody, and yield stack sufficiently safe and compelling at scale.
- →Watch the MetaDAO vote and market reaction to the OTC runway proposal; the outcome will set a precedent for how futarchy-governed treasuries handle discounted insider financing.
- →Track Monad’s mainnet TGE timing, early app roster, and incentive programs in the first 8 to 12 weeks; sustained sequencing will indicate whether it can convert tech into durable liquidity and users.
- →Monitor bundling-led distribution, especially Binance’s wallet and launch access mechanics, as this model could dominate TGE allocations and in-app volume capture across regions.