CoinRank

As we enter early 2026, narratives come and go, but real crypto adoption is quietly moving from price action to institutional-grade infrastructure.

Host | Harry @CoinRank_io
Sponsor | David Strategy Advisor of @aiwayworld

Guest Speakers
JACK | CMO @xone_chain
Austin | Ambassador @Linkr_Web3
Mike | CMO @AllInX_Exchange
Cheeryjoe | Ambassador @CoinMy_Cex

Time: 2026/1/8 20:00 (UTC+8)

X Space: https://x.com/i/spaces/1OyKAjgOlkbGb?s=20
Binance Space: https://app.binance.com/uni-qr/cspa/34753622328090?l=zh-CN&r=HK5DUS2H&uc=web_square_share_link&us=copylink

Tune in and join us live as we discuss where crypto is truly moving from narrative to infrastructure — and how RWA is driving that shift. 🚀
#CoinRank #AMA #Web3 #RWA

Morgan Stanley submits application for Ethereum spot #ETF
Moody's releases 2026 outlook: Stablecoins are moving towards "digital cash"
#a16z : Privacy will be the most important barrier for the crypto industry in 2026
#Bitwise CIO: If the US stock market stabilizes and legislation progresses, the crypto market will continue to rise this year
Rumble and Tether jointly launch non-custodial crypto wallet Rumble Wallet
#CoinRank #GN

Foreign Media: Gold May Have Surpassed US Treasuries to Become the Largest Asset in Official Reserves
Analysts: Bullish Momentum Remains for #Gold Prices; Non-Farm Payrolls and Trump's Tariff Ruling are Key Variables
#OKX Wallet Discovers New Phishing Risk in Solana and Implements Protection
Barclays Invests in Stablecoin Clearing Platform #Ubyx
US Senate Banking Committee Sets January 15th for Review of #Crypto Market Structure Bill

#CoinRank

2025 regulation reshaped crypto investing, improving clarity for stablecoins and market structure while changing how risk and returns are priced.

 

Fundraising diverged from price cycles, with fewer deals but larger checks signaling higher conviction and selective capital deployment.

 

Capital rotated toward infrastructure, prediction markets, AI, and RWA, marking a shift from broad speculation to focused, mature investment.

In 2025, crypto funding shifted from hype to structure as regulation advanced, deal counts fell, capital concentrated, and investors focused on certainty, compliance, and scalable growth.

 

2025 marked a year of substantive breakthroughs for the crypto market at the institutional level, as well as a clear shift away from unchecked expansion toward closer integration with the mainstream financial system. In terms of scale, global crypto market capitalization reached $3.2 trillion, while stablecoin transaction volume exceeded $50 trillion—a figure surpassing traditional payment giants such as Visa and PayPal. Behind these headline numbers lie two pivotal legislative developments. 

 

First, stablecoin legislation was formally enacted, clearly defining issuers, reserve requirements, and supervisory mechanisms. This provided “on-chain dollars” with a concrete legal status, significantly reducing policy uncertainty around stablecoin businesses. As a result, investment activity across stablecoins, payments, and settlement-related sectors accelerated. Second, crypto market structure legislation continued to advance steadily, introducing a classification-based regulatory framework rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. This gave both projects and investors a more predictable and navigable compliance path. 

 

Taken together, these legislative milestones are reshaping how the primary market evaluates risk and return, altering capital allocation logic at a structural level.

 

However, in contrast to the improving institutional backdrop, the secondary market in 2025 failed to deliver equally strong feedback. Bitcoin experienced heightened volatility, while altcoins broadly underperformed. Against this backdrop, the primary market did not enter the kind of indiscriminate frenzy seen in the previous bull cycle. Instead, activity remained cautiously constructive, with clear shifts in fundraising pace and investor preferences. 

A 4-YEAR CYCLE REVIEW: TWO DIVERGENCES BETWEEN DEAL COUNT AND CAPITAL DEPLOYED

 

A review of crypto fundraising trends over the past four years reveals a clear evolution in the relationship between the primary market and secondary market performance.

 

In early 2022, fundraising activity still benefited from the residual momentum of the bull market, with both the number of deals and total capital raised remaining elevated. As Bitcoin entered a sustained downtrend, fundraising gradually contracted. Between 2022 and 2023, investment activity was highly correlated with price performance, and overall sentiment remained subdued under prolonged bear-market pressure.

 

2024 marked a critical inflection point—and the first divergence between deal count and funding volume.

 

As the Bitcoin halving narrative regained prominence, the number of fundraising deals rebounded noticeably. However, the total amount raised remained restrained. Quarterly funding volumes hovered between $1.8 billion and $2.8 billion, levels comparable to the depths of the bear market. The key reason lay in market leadership: unlike the previous cycle, where VC-backed projects sat at the center of market narratives, the 2024 rally was dominated by Bitcoin and the memecoin sector. VC projects, by contrast, struggled to gain traction and exert meaningful influence, limiting the emergence of large-ticket financings.

 

Entering 2025, divergence appeared once again—but with the direction reversed.

 

The number of deals declined sharply, while total funding volumes rebounded. Quarterly fundraising rose to approximately $3.7–$5.1 billion, signaling a meaningful increase in average deal size. This shift suggests that investors are deliberately reducing the frequency of investments, instead concentrating capital into a smaller set of projects viewed as having higher certainty and scalable potential.

 

>>> More to read: Bitcoin Is Rebounding, but the Data Suggests the Recovery Is Still Incomplete

12 SECTORS, $17.89 BILLION: STRUCTURAL SHIFTS IN THE PRIMARY MARKET

 

In 2025, total funding in the crypto primary market reached $17.89 billion, spanning 569 disclosed financing rounds. To better capture changes in investor preferences, all disclosed deals (noting that actual close dates often precede public announcements) were categorized into 12 sectors based on business model, target users, and functional focus. These sectors include CeFi, Infrastructure, RWA, AI, DeFi, SocialFi, Prediction Markets, PayFi, DePIN, BTCFi, L1, and GameFi.

 

✏️ A breakdown by sector reveals several notable structural trends:

 

✅ CeFi and Infrastructure ranked at the top in both capital raised and deal count. Core capabilities—such as trading, custody, clearing, security, and cross-chain infrastructure—remain priority areas for sustained capital deployment. The market consensus around “infrastructure first” has not weakened.

 

✅ DeFi continued to show strong activity. Demand for innovation in DeFi protocols remains resilient, with the success of Hyperliquid serving as a direct proof point that decentralized exchanges can absorb large-scale capital efficiently. As a result, perpetual DEXs emerged as a new fundraising hotspot.

 

✅ AI and RWA became key narrative pillars. AI aligned with the broader global technology cycle, while RWA directly benefited from regulatory progress enabling traditional financial assets to move on-chain. Both sectors share a defining trait: their growth logic no longer relies solely on crypto-native demand, but increasingly extends into the wider technology and traditional financial systems.

 

✅ The most unexpected standout was prediction markets. While the number of projects in this category was not particularly large, the total funding amount surged, making it the second-largest sector by capital raised, behind infrastructure. This indicates a high degree of capital concentration into a small number of leading projects.

 

✅ In contrast, formerly popular sectors such as DePIN and GameFi continued to see new projects emerge, but their ability to attract capital declined sharply. Funding is clearly rotating toward areas perceived to offer greater certainty and stronger scalability.

 

Overall, the primary market is shifting away from a strategy of broad, exploratory deployment toward one of focused, high-conviction investment.

 

>>> More to read: Real Estate “Shorting Tool” Emerges, Polymarket Launches Real Estate Prediction Market

POLYMARKET: SHIFTING CONSENSUS BEHIND 2025’S TOP FUNDRAISING STORY

 

An examination of the Top 10 fundraising deals of 2025 shows that Polymarket and Kalshi together accounted for nearly the entire fundraising narrative of the year.

 

Polymarket has completed multiple funding rounds totaling nearly $2.5 billion, with backing from prominent crypto investors including Polychain, Dragonfly, and Coinbase. Kalshi, by contrast, began accelerating its fundraising efforts in 2025, raising approximately $1.5 billion, supported by Paradigm, a16z, and Coinbase. Unlike Polymarket, Kalshi places stronger emphasis on federal regulatory compliance. What both share, however, is a clear signal: prediction markets are increasingly viewed as a financial primitive with genuine, sustained demand, making the sector one of the most dynamic and positively trending areas in the primary market.

 

In the L1 segment, investor preferences also showed continuity. Aside from the established blockchain Ripple, other projects appearing on the list—such as Tempo and Mond—represent a new generation of Layer 1 networks. Mond has already launched its token, while Tempo has yet to do so. This pattern reflects investors’ ongoing commitment to base-layer infrastructure, with high-performance L1s still regarded as long-term foundations for ecosystem expansion.

 

>>> More to read: What is Polymarket? Web3 Prediction Market

CONCLUSION

 

Overall, the primary market in 2025 did not cool down—it consolidated and restructured.

 

Capital continued to flow, but no longer chased volume for its own sake. Instead, it became increasingly concentrated around certainty, regulatory alignment, and scalability. This shift does not necessarily signal a shrinking opportunity set. On the contrary, it suggests that the crypto market may be entering a more rational and mature phase, where capital allocation is driven less by momentum and more by long-term viability.

 

▶ Read the original article

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈Capital After the Reset: A 2025 Review of Crypto Investment Reality〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Lorenzo Protocol abstracts complex financial strategies into on-chain yield pools, enabling structured yield access without managing infrastructure.

 

The Financial Abstraction Layer coordinates capital allocation, strategy execution, and transparent performance tracking.

 

BANK powers governance, staking, and incentives, aligning users and applications within the Lorenzo Protocol ecosystem.

Lorenzo Protocol is an on-chain asset management platform that brings structured yield, quantitative strategies, and portfolio allocation on-chain through yield pools and the BANK token.

 

WHAT IS LORENZO PROTOCOL?

 

Lorenzo Protocol is an on-chain asset management platform designed to bring traditional financial strategies into the blockchain environment through tokenized products. Its core goal is to make structured yield and portfolio-based strategies accessible to both individual users and institutions—without requiring them to build or maintain complex financial infrastructure on their own.

 

In traditional finance, strategies such as quantitative trading or volatility-based portfolios typically rely on specialized tools, proprietary data, and continuous operational management. Lorenzo Protocol simplifies this complexity by introducing a financial abstraction layer that allows applications and users to manage capital allocation, execute strategies, monitor performance, and distribute returns in a more streamlined and standardized way.

 

 

By abstracting these processes, Lorenzo Protocol enables wallets, payment applications, and Real-World Asset (RWA) platforms to integrate yield-focused functionality more easily. This design allows users to access diversified on-chain financial strategies directly, without needing deep technical or operational knowledge of the underlying mechanisms.

 

Within this ecosystem, BANK plays a key role in supporting the functionality and value flow of Lorenzo Protocol, aligning incentives across users, applications, and strategy providers. Rather than positioning itself as a single investment product, Lorenzo Protocol aims to serve as a foundational layer that allows structured financial strategies to be modularly embedded into a wide range of Web3 applications.

 

Overall, Lorenzo Protocol focuses on lowering the barriers between traditional financial strategy design and on-chain execution, enabling more efficient access to structured yield while maintaining transparency and composability in the blockchain environment.

 

>>> More to read: Banks x Blockchain｜Faster. Safer. Smarter.

HOW LORENZO PROTOCOL WORKS

 

📌 Deposits and Capital Allocation

 

Lorenzo Protocol manages user deposits through yield pools, which are smart contracts designed to hold assets and allocate them to predefined financial strategies. When users deposit supported assets into a yield pool, the contract issues Liquidity Provider (LP) tokens that represent the user’s proportional share in the underlying strategy.

 

Capital allocation is then handled by Lorenzo’s Financial Abstraction Layer (FAL). FAL acts as the backend coordination system responsible for custody management, strategy selection, and capital routing. Depending on the configuration of each yield pool, deposited capital may be allocated to a single strategy or distributed across multiple strategies according to predefined allocation targets and risk guidelines.

 

This abstraction allows Lorenzo Protocol to manage complex capital flows without requiring users or integrated applications to interact directly with individual strategies.

📌 Strategy Execution and Performance Tracking

 

Once capital is allocated, returns are generated through approved off-chain trading strategies operated by authorized managers or automated systems. These teams may execute activities such as arbitrage, market making, or volatility-based strategies using permissioned custody wallets and exchange sub-accounts.

 

As strategies generate results, performance data is periodically reported back on-chain. Smart contracts update the yield pool’s Net Asset Value (NAV), portfolio composition, and individual user returns. This mechanism provides transparent and verifiable insights into strategy performance while maintaining an on-chain record of outcomes.

 

Within this structure, BANK supports the broader operational flow of Lorenzo Protocol, aligning incentives across strategy execution, capital management, and user participation.

📌 Yield Distribution and Withdrawals

 

Yield distribution depends on the design of each yield pool or product. Some pools are linked to On-Chain Traded Funds (OTFs), which function similarly to traditional ETFs but operate entirely on-chain as tokenized investment products. Depending on the product structure, returns may be reflected through NAV appreciation, claimable rewards, or fixed payouts at maturity.

 

When a user requests a withdrawal, their LP tokens are burned and the corresponding assets are settled from the yield pool. For strategies executed off-chain, settlement is first completed through custodial partners before funds are returned to the yield pool contract. Once the process is finalized, users receive their initial deposit along with any accumulated yield.

 

>>> More to read: What is Midnight Network & $NIGHT?

WHAT IS BANK?

 

 

 

BANK is the native token of Lorenzo Protocol, with a total supply of 2.1 billion tokens. It is issued on BNB Smart Chain (BSC) and can be locked to create veBANK, unlocking additional utility within the ecosystem.

 

The BANK token plays a central role in the operation and governance of Lorenzo Protocol, with the following primary use cases:

 

✅ Staking

Users can stake BANK to gain protocol-level privileges, including voting rights, access to specific features, and the ability to influence incentive-related parameters within the ecosystem. This staking mechanism aligns long-term participation with protocol development.

 

✅ Governance

BANK functions as the governance token of Lorenzo Protocol. Token holders can vote on proposals related to product upgrades, fee adjustments, ecosystem growth fund allocation, and future issuance or parameter changes, allowing the community to participate directly in protocol decision-making.

 

✅ Rewards

Active users of Lorenzo Protocol may earn BANK as rewards. A portion of the protocol’s ongoing revenue is allocated to a sustainable reward pool, which incentivizes user engagement, governance participation, and broader community involvement.

CONCLUSION

 

Lorenzo Protocol provides a clear and transparent on-chain framework for accessing structured yield strategies. By combining yield pools, the Financial Abstraction Layer, and OTF products, the protocol enables users to participate in staking, quantitative trading, and multi-strategy portfolios in a standardized and accessible manner.

 

Through this architecture, Lorenzo Protocol simplifies exposure to complex financial strategies while maintaining on-chain visibility and verifiable performance. Within this system, BANK supports governance, incentives, and long-term ecosystem alignment, reinforcing the protocol’s role as a foundational layer for structured yield in Web3.

 

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈What is Lorenzo Protocol (BANK)?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Ethereum remains the dominant smart contract platform with the largest DeFi and DApp ecosystem, driven by strong network effects and liquidity.

 

Solana stands out for high throughput and low fees, attracting performance-focused applications, NFTs, and memecoin activity.

 

Choosing between Solana and Ethereum depends on use cases, as both networks serve different technical and ecosystem needs.

Solana vs Ethereum: a deep comparison of performance, fees, scalability, and ecosystems, exploring whether SOL can challenge ETH as blockchain competition intensifies after 2025.

 

Solana (SOL) and Ethereum (ETH) are among the most widely recognized blockchain technologies in the crypto industry, playing central roles in decentralized applications (DApps) and the broader digital asset ecosystem. For years, Ethereum has been regarded as the foundation of smart contracts and DApp development, benefiting from strong network effects and a deeply established ecosystem.

 

At the same time, Solana has emerged as a prominent alternative, positioning itself around scalability and high-performance execution. While Ethereum prioritizes security, decentralization, and ecosystem maturity, Solana focuses on high throughput and low latency, making it particularly attractive for performance-sensitive use cases.

 

✏️ After 2025, this competition has intensified even further.

In 2023, Solana recorded notable growth across several technical metrics, including active addresses and daily transaction volume. Its native token, SOL, also experienced significant price volatility, drawing renewed market attention. Combined with the rapid expansion of the Solana ecosystem in areas such as memecoins and NFTs, these developments reignited community debate over whether Solana could challenge Ethereum’s long-standing dominance.

 

As a result, discussions around Solana as a potential “Ethereum killer” resurfaced, although such narratives remain highly controversial and far from settled.

 

🔍Does this mean Solana is fundamentally better than Ethereum?

Or do these two networks simply follow different technical paths and ecosystem strategies, each serving distinct market needs? Understanding the core differences between Solana and Ethereum remains essential to evaluating their respective roles in the evolving blockchain landscape.

 

>>> More to read: Bitcoin vs. Gold: Which is the Better Investment?

WHAT IS SOLANA (SOL)?

 

Solana is a high-speed, low-cost blockchain platform designed for decentralized applications. It was founded in 2017 by Solana Labs and supported by the Solana Foundation. The network is commonly recognized as a high-performance blockchain, built with a multi-layered consensus structure to reduce bottlenecks and limit reliance on centralized intermediaries.

 

Because Solana shares several similarities with Ethereum while introducing improvements focused on scalability, it is often referred to as an “Ethereum killer.” This label mainly reflects Solana’s emphasis on throughput and execution efficiency rather than a direct replacement of Ethereum’s ecosystem.

 

A key innovation behind Solana is Proof of History (PoH), a mechanism designed to verify the ordering and integrity of historical data. By using cryptographic hashing to create unique fingerprints for data—such as past transactions—Solana can process transactions more efficiently. This approach contrasts with early Proof of Work (PoW) systems used by networks like Bitcoin (BTC) and Litecoin (LTC), which rely on energy-intensive mining.

 

Solana is also fully open-source, allowing third-party developers to build applications directly on its infrastructure.

 

>>> More to read: What is Solana? The Ethereum Killer

WHAT IS ETHEREUM (ETH)?

 

Ethereum is an open-source, decentralized blockchain launched in 2015 by Vitalik Buterin and other co-founders. It uses its native cryptocurrency, ETH, for transactions, fees, and interactions with applications on the network.

 

Unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum introduced a decentralized computing platform that enables smart contracts and decentralized applications (DApps). These smart contracts are written in Solidity and support a wide range of use cases, including decentralized finance (DeFi) and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Many Ethereum DApps use ETH or other tokens for lending, borrowing, and yield generation.

 

Ethereum hosts the world’s largest DApp and DeFi ecosystem. While it was originally a Proof of Work (PoW) network, Ethereum transitioned to Proof of Stake (PoS) in 2022 to improve security, energy efficiency, and long-term scalability.

 

It is worth noting that Ethereum refers to the blockchain network itself, while ETH is the native token used to pay for transactions and execute smart contracts. At its core, Ethereum operates as a programmable blockchain powered by the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM).

 

>>> More to read: What Is Ethereum & How Does It Work?

SOLANA VS ETHEREUM

 

Solana (SOL) and Ethereum (ETH) both host a large number of active applications running on their blockchains. However, it is widely acknowledged that Ethereum remains the more popular platform overall, largely due to its more mature, transparent, and complex DApp ecosystem.

 

Although Solana is often described as an “Ethereum killer,” the two networks differ in several important ways. These differences span consensus design, developer experience, decentralization, performance, and ecosystem scale.

 

📌 Key Differences Between Solana & Ethereum

 

✅ Consensus Mechanism

 

Ethereum (ETH) originally relied on the Proof of Work (PoW) consensus mechanism, similar to Bitcoin. Under PoW, miners validate transactions and create new blocks using computational power, which enhances security but limits transaction throughput. After upgrading to Ethereum 2.0, Ethereum transitioned to Proof of Stake (PoS), a change expected to significantly improve network efficiency and performance.

 

Solana (SOL) differs by introducing Proof of History (PoH), a mechanism that cryptographically verifies the order of events by attaching timestamps to transactions. This allows transactions to be processed in a more predictable sequence, unlike Ethereum and Bitcoin, where transactions are not finalized in real time.

 

In addition, a key architectural distinction lies in execution design. Solana follows a more stateless and parallel execution model, reducing memory overhead and allowing transactions to be processed simultaneously. This design choice is one of the main reasons behind Solana’s high scalability.

✅ Transaction Costs

 

Transaction fees represent one of the most noticeable differences between Solana and Ethereum, and are a major reason some users favor SOL.

 

Solana is widely known for its low transaction fees, while Ethereum fees are typically much higher. As of July 2022, the average gas cost on Ethereum was around 3 Gwei (approximately $0.09), whereas Solana transactions cost about 0.0000053 SOL (roughly $0.000014).

 

This gap is largely driven by block design. Ethereum produces blocks every 13 seconds with limited capacity, while Solana produces blocks every 0.4 seconds and can include up to 20,000 transactions per block.

✅ Transaction Speed

 

In terms of raw throughput, Solana is among the fastest blockchains currently in operation. This is primarily due to its network architecture, which prioritizes throughput, while Ethereum historically prioritized decentralization.

 

Ethereum 1.0 processes roughly 30 transactions per second (TPS), whereas Solana (SOL) can process over 50,000 TPS. After upgrades, Ethereum is expected to theoretically support up to 100,000 TPS.

 

For context, Visa’s global payment network is estimated to handle around 65,000 TPS, often used as a benchmark for comparison.

✅ Network Scale

 

Ethereum remains the largest smart contract network by a wide margin. According to DeFiLlama data, Ethereum (ETH) has a Total Value Locked (TVL) of approximately $53.2 billion, while Solana (SOL) has a TVL of about $2.54 billion—a difference of more than 95%.

 

This scale advantage explains why most financial and DeFi applications continue to prioritize Ethereum. While Solana has begun attracting institutional interest, it may take time for its ecosystem to approach Ethereum’s network depth and liquidity.

✅ Market Capitalization

 

Both Ethereum and Solana use native tokens to pay for transaction fees and secure their networks, making them two of the most important assets in the crypto market.

 

Ethereum is currently the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, behind Bitcoin, with a market value of approximately $305 billion. Solana ranks around fifth, with a market capitalization of roughly $43 billion.

 

Solana does not have a fixed maximum supply of SOL. However, its inflation rate decreases over time and is expected to converge toward approximately 1.5% in the long term.

✅ DeFi Ecosystem

 

Due to its longer history, Ethereum hosts a larger and more diverse DeFi ecosystem than Solana. Major protocols such as MakerDAO, Lido, Uniswap, and Aave are all built on Ethereum. The network also played a central role in the 2021 NFT boom, with most major NFT marketplaces launching on Ethereum.

 

By comparison, Solana’s DeFi ecosystem is still in an earlier stage. However, some Solana DApps have begun attracting users, supported in part by ecosystem incentives and hackathon-driven growth. Protocols such as Solend and Raydium currently account for a large share of DeFi activity on Solana (SOL).

 

While blockchain technology continues to evolve, an observable pattern has emerged: when Ethereum gas fees rise, Solana user activity often increases. Although future outcomes remain uncertain, Ethereum currently maintains a broader and more mature DeFi ecosystem with wider application coverage.

 

>>> More to read: Banks x Blockchain｜Faster. Safer. Smarter.

WHICH IS BETTER: SOLANA OR ETHEREUM?

 

From a data-driven perspective, Solana is still trailing behind Ethereum, and whether it can eventually surpass Ethereum will depend on continued functional improvements and ecosystem support.

 

That said, for individual users and investors, deciding which blockchain is “better” ultimately comes down to specific needs and use cases.

 

If you are a developer, underlying technology and network architecture are likely to be key considerations when comparing Ethereum (ETH) and Solana (SOL). Each blockchain follows a distinct design philosophy, with different consensus mechanisms and scalability trade-offs. Solana (SOL) is currently one of the fastest blockchains in terms of transaction throughput, while Ethereum (ETH) handles significantly higher overall transaction volume and remains more deeply integrated into the broader crypto market.

 

Regardless of which project you favor, maintaining an open mindset and actively exploring different blockchain networks and DeFi experiences is essential.

 

As the world continues to move toward greater decentralization, both Solana and Ethereum are likely to play important roles in the future. What ultimately deserves closer attention is not only their technological direction, but also their long-term growth potential and the evolving role of SOL and ETH within the crypto ecosystem.

 

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈Solana vs Ethereum | Which Is the Better Investment?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Gold May Surpass US Treasury Bonds to Become the Largest Official Reserve Asset

Polymarket’s denial of a US invasion of Venezuela sparks strong user discontent.

opBNB mainnet completes Fourier hard fork, reducing block time to 250 milliseconds

Welcome to CoinRank Daily Data Report. In this column series, CoinRank will provide important daily cryptocurrency data news, allowing readers to quickly understand the latest developments in the cryptocurrency market.

Gold May Surpass US Treasury Bonds to Become the Largest Official Reserve Asset 

 

Driven by the surge in gold prices over the past year and active purchases by central banks worldwide, gold is poised to surpass US Treasury bonds to become the largest reserve asset held by US governments overseas.

 

According to data released this month by the World Gold Council, the total amount of official US gold reserves held overseas exceeds 900 million troy ounces (data for most countries is as of the end of November, while data for a few countries is as of the end of October).

 

Based on gold prices on November 30, this is equivalent to $3.82 trillion in gold.

 

In comparison, as of October, the value of long-term and short-term US Treasury bonds held by US governments overseas was close to $3.88 trillion.

 

Assuming that the size of central bank gold reserves remains unchanged by the end of the year, based on year-end prices, the value of US official gold reserves held overseas would be $3.93 trillion, already exceeding the size of US Treasury bonds held by overseas governments.

 

Why Gold Is Surging: Central Banks, Sanctions, and Trust-1

Gold Front-Runs QE as Bitcoin Waits for Liquidity-2

 

Polymarket’s denial of a US invasion of Venezuela sparks strong user discontent.

 

The decentralized prediction market Polymarket’s refusal to classify the recent US military raid on Venezuela and the arrest of President Maduro and his wife as an “invasion” has sparked strong user discontent.

 

Despite the US seizing power and taking the head of state to the US, contracts worth millions of dollars related to “invasion” were ruled “not triggered,” drawing criticism from gamblers who see it as “redefining facts.”

 

The platform, founded by crypto entrepreneurs, received approval from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to return to the US market after Donald Trump Jr., son of former President Trump, invested in and joined its board.

 

This incident not only raises questions about the transparency of the judgment criteria but also raises deeper concerns about insider trading and whether the platform is politically influenced.

 

This incident reflects the risks of ambiguity and regulatory vacuum in the definition of real-world political and military events faced by decentralized prediction markets.

 

opBNB mainnet completes Fourier hard fork, reducing block time to 250 milliseconds

 

According to the official BNB Chain announcement, opBNB completed its Fourier mainnet hard fork upgrade on January 7, 2026 at 11:00 (UTC+8). The core change is merging PR #305, reducing the block interval from 500 milliseconds to 250 milliseconds, significantly improving transaction throughput and confirmation speed.

 

CZ encourages developers to continue building and promoting the development of the BNB ecosystem.

 

〈CoinRank Daily Data Report (1/7)｜Gold May Surpass US Treasury Bonds to Become the Largest Official Reserve Asset〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Bitcoin’s recent rebound has improved sentiment, but price strength alone is insufficient to confirm a full recovery without supporting liquidity and macro data.

Stablecoin supply, ETF holdings, and derivatives positioning show limited improvement, suggesting that capital commitment to Bitcoin remains cautious rather than conviction-driven.

Until real rates fall, liquidity expands, and sustained ETF inflows appear, waiting for clearer confirmation may offer better risk control than chasing short-term rallies.

Bitcoin (BTC) has rebounded recently, but macro conditions, ETF flows, stablecoin data, and derivatives positioning suggest the recovery is not yet confirmed.

Over the past few days, Bitcoin (BTC) has shown clear signs of short-term recovery. Prices have moved higher, market discussions have heated up, and overall sentiment has improved rapidly. For many participants, this rebound feels like the long-awaited signal that the market is finally turning bullish again.

 

However, history repeatedly shows that price action alone is rarely sufficient to confirm a true trend reversal. While the recent move in Bitcoin (BTC) is undeniable, a closer look at macro indicators, liquidity conditions, on-chain data, and derivatives positioning suggests that the market may still be in a transitional phase rather than a confirmed recovery.

 

This article first outlines the recent rebound in Bitcoin (BTC) and the reasons commonly cited to support a bullish narrative. It then presents a data-driven counterpoint, explaining why caution remains justified at this stage.

 

 

BITCOIN (BTC) RECENT REBOUND AND MARKET REACTION

 

The most obvious signal of recovery is price behavior. After a prolonged period of weakness, Bitcoin (BTC) has climbed steadily over several sessions, breaking the monotony of downward or sideways movement. This rebound has been fast enough to reignite speculative interest and short-term optimism.

 

At the same time, market sentiment indicators have reacted sharply. The crypto Fear & Greed Index jumped from deeply pessimistic levels to near-neutral territory within a single day. Such rapid shifts tend to amplify confidence, as traders interpret them as evidence that downside risk has already been absorbed.

 

Spot market activity has also picked up modestly. Volumes are higher than during the recent lows, reinforcing the perception that capital is returning. On the surface, these developments paint a convincing picture of recovery. Yet surface-level strength often hides unresolved structural constraints.

 

WHY SOME BELIEVE BITCOIN (BTC) IS RECOVERING

 

One widely cited argument is the macro environment. Nominal interest rates in the United States are declining, which theoretically benefits risk assets like Bitcoin (BTC). Lower nominal yields reduce the opportunity cost of holding assets that do not generate cash flow.

 

Another frequently mentioned factor is ETF activity. Spot Bitcoin ETFs have become a key transmission channel between traditional finance and crypto markets. Even modest changes in ETF flows can influence short-term price action, leading many to attribute the recent rebound in Bitcoin (BTC) to institutional positioning.

 

Finally, sentiment-based indicators reinforce the bullish narrative. As fear levels rise from extreme pessimism toward neutrality, traders often interpret this as confirmation that the worst phase is over. In previous cycles, similar sentiment shifts sometimes preceded broader trend reversals.

 

Despite these arguments, none of them are sufficient on their own to confirm that Bitcoin (BTC) has entered a sustainable recovery phase.

 

MACRO DATA SHOWS BITCOIN (BTC) LIQUIDITY REMAINS CONSTRAINED

 

From a macro perspective, the issue is not whether nominal rates are falling. That development has been well understood for some time. The more critical question is whether liquidity is actually flowing into the financial system.

 

At present, the so-called intermediate layer of liquidity remains blocked. While the U.S. is lowering interest rates, it is simultaneously issuing large amounts of debt, effectively absorbing liquidity. This dynamic limits how much capital can reach risk assets, including Bitcoin (BTC).

 

Conditions in the real economy reinforce this constraint. Bank lending standards remain tight, and corporations are hesitant to borrow. Without credit expansion, monetary easing struggles to translate into broader market liquidity.

 

This situation is reflected in real interest rates. Over the past two weeks, real rates have increased slightly, from around 1.92 to approximately 1.94. Even small increases matter, as rising real rates are inconsistent with the liquidity expansion typically required for a sustained bull market.

 

The U.S. dollar index supports this interpretation. During the same period, DXY has remained largely unchanged, moving only marginally from about 98.4 to 98.2. A stable dollar suggests that global liquidity conditions remain restrictive, offering limited macro support for Bitcoin (BTC).

 

MID-TERM ON-CHAIN AND ETF DATA SIGNAL CAUTION FOR BITCOIN (BTC)

 

Mid-term crypto-native indicators also point to caution. On-chain stablecoin supply, a key proxy for native liquidity, has shown minimal change. Over the past two weeks, total stablecoin market capitalization declined slightly from around 270 to approximately 268.8, indicating that fresh capital inflows remain limited.

 

ETF data tells a similar story. Total spot Bitcoin ETF holdings are effectively unchanged at roughly $118 billion, consistent with levels seen two weeks ago. While short-term fluctuations exist, the overall picture suggests that institutional exposure to Bitcoin (BTC) has not meaningfully increased.

 

Recent price strength appears to be driven primarily by short-term ETF flow dynamics rather than sustained accumulation. Over the past five trading days, Bitcoin ETFs recorded four days of net outflows, including a large single-day outflow of approximately $1.15 billion.

 

Importantly, historical context matters. In early March 2024, the market experienced a structurally similar phase. Despite prolonged net inflows at the time, prices eventually declined and entered a deeper correction lasting more than two weeks. This episode highlights why ETF flows alone cannot confirm a durable recovery in Bitcoin (BTC).

 

 

SENTIMENT VS DERIVATIVES DATA IN BITCOIN (BTC) MARKETS

 

Sentiment indicators have rebounded sharply, but derivatives data remains subdued. The Fear & Greed Index jumped from the mid-20s to around 44 within a day, compared with a two-week average near 23.

 

Such rapid sentiment shifts often reflect emotional relief rather than structural improvement. When sentiment recovers faster than liquidity and positioning, the risk of false signals increases.

 

Derivatives positioning supports this cautious view. Open interest has remained relatively stable around 56, showing no meaningful expansion in leveraged exposure. A genuine trend reversal typically coincides with growing participation, which has yet to materialize in Bitcoin (BTC) markets.

 

In essence, traders feel more optimistic, but they are not yet committing capital aggressively.

 

CONCLUSION: WHY WAITING ON BITCOIN (BTC) STILL MAKES SENSE

 

The recent rebound in Bitcoin (BTC) is real, but the data suggests it is incomplete. Price and sentiment have moved first, while liquidity, macro confirmation, and positioning remain weak.

 

This does not imply an imminent collapse. It does imply that confidence is running ahead of confirmation. Without clear improvements in real rates, dollar weakness, stablecoin expansion, and sustained ETF inflows, the probability of a false recovery remains high.

 

In uncertain conditions, patience is not a missed opportunity but a form of risk management. Markets rarely move in a straight line, and clearer entry points often appear once trends are genuinely established.

 

When prices rise without strong structural support, caution is not pessimism—it is discipline.

 

Read More:

Gold Front-Runs QE as Bitcoin Waits for Liquidity-2

Why Gold Is Surging: Central Banks, Sanctions, and Trust-1

〈Bitcoin Is Rebounding, but the Data Suggests the Recovery Is Still Incomplete〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Polymarket partners with Parcl to integrate daily housing price indices into on-chain prediction markets, letting users trade real-estate price outcomes with USDC on Polygon.

The new market provides transparent settlement using publicly verifiable indices, reducing reliance on slow, subjective traditional real estate data.

Traders can express bullish or bearish views on housing prices, effectively creating a “shorting tool” and risk management option for real estate.

Polymarket and Parcl launch a real-estate prediction market using daily housing price indices, enabling on-chain “shorting” and new risk tools for housing prices.

The value proposition of “everything is predictable” continues to rise.

 

On the evening of January 5th, the on-chain real estate platform Parcl announced a partnership with the prediction market Polymarket, aiming to integrate Parcl’s daily housing price indices into Polymarket’s new real estate prediction market. Influenced by this news, Parcl’s native token PRCL surged by over 150% at its peak before retracing. Its current price is approximately $0.042, with a market capitalization of $19 million.

 

PRCL Price Chart

 

Operational Details of Polymarket’s Real Estate Prediction Market Segment

 

Partnership Details:

 

Parcl provides daily housing price indices, serving as an independent, transparent reference data source for market settlement;

Polymarket is responsible for listing and operating the markets, where users can trade using USDC on the Polygon chain;

Market settlements are based on Parcl’s publicly verifiable indices, avoiding the delays (typically monthly) and subjectivity associated with traditional real estate data.

 

Market Types:

 

Predicting whether housing prices will rise or fall within a month, quarter, or year;

Threshold-based markets: e.g., whether prices will exceed a specific level;

Each market links to a dedicated settlement page on Parcl, displaying final values, historical data, and index calculation methodology.

 

Coverage:

 

Initially launching with high-liquidity U.S. cities such as New York, Miami, San Francisco, Austin, etc.;

Plans to expand to more cities and market types based on user demand.

 

Current Status:

 

Currently, this segment has only launched 7 monthly real estate prediction events with relatively low liquidity. The event with the highest trading volume, “Los Angeles, USA – House Median Price on Feb 1st,” has only $3,700 in volume.

 

New Real Estate Prediction Market Segment on Polymarket

 

In traditional real estate markets, whether bullish or bearish, such expectations are difficult to express directly, let alone form continuous market signals. Polymarket’s introduction essentially separates “judgments on housing prices” from asset transactions. As long as there is a clear settlement standard, the expectation itself can be priced independently.

 

Real Estate Markets Finally Have a “Shorting Tool”

 

An easily overlooked fact is that the potential demand for real estate-related markets does not solely originate from native speculators in the crypto world.

 

In the traditional financial system, “falling housing prices” is almost a risk that cannot be directly hedged. Whether holding property or having an asset structure and income source highly dependent on a particular city’s real estate cycle, the practical response is often to continue holding or directly sell the physical asset—both involve high transaction costs, long cycles, and lack flexible intermediate options. As KOL 0xMarioNawfal (@RoundtableSpace) stated: “This is far more than betting; it’s bringing liquidity to one of the world’s most illiquid markets. Imagine housing prices are at historic highs, you expect a crash but can’t sell your house—now you can hedge, short the market.”

 

The introduction of prediction markets abstracts the risk of falling housing prices into a tradable judgment. When prices are high and market expectations begin to weaken, the price trend of real estate itself can be priced separately without having to manage risk by disposing of the underlying asset.

 

Through Polymarket, the downside risk of real estate prices is abstracted into a tradable judgment rather than necessitating the disposal of physical assets. From this perspective, Polymarket’s real estate prediction markets resemble a simplified macro hedging mechanism more than a mere speculative game around price movements. It does not change the liquidity structure of real estate assets themselves but provides a tradable layer for a traditionally low-liquidity market that can reflect expectations in real-time.

 

Polymarket CMO Matthew Modabber stated: “Prediction markets work best for events with clear, verifiable data. Parcl’s daily housing price indices provide us with a transparent, consistent settlement foundation. Real estate should be a first-class category in prediction markets.”

 

This collaboration between Polymarket and Parcl also introduces traditional real estate price signals into the crypto system: Originally low-frequency, closed, and high-barrier-to-entry assets are decomposed into settleable, verifiable, and tradable index outcomes, taking a form closer to stock indices or crypto derivatives. This may represent a more practical and demand-aligned implementation path within the RWA narrative.

 

Read the original text

 

Read More:

Why Gold Is Surging: Central Banks, Sanctions, and Trust-1

Bitwise: Why Crypto Is Moving Beyond the Four-Year Cycle-2

〈Real Estate “Shorting Tool” Emerges, Polymarket Launches Real Estate Prediction Market〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

#Coinbase CEO: The vast majority of his personal net worth remains in Coinbase stock
Tempo releases the TIP-20 token standard designed specifically for stablecoins and payment scenarios
#opBNB mainnet completes Fourier hard fork, reducing block time to 250 milliseconds
#Polymarket denies US invasion of Venezuela, sparking strong user dissatisfaction
Multiple regions warn against "trial card" scams involving virtual currencies, using "free benefits" as a guise to lure victims to telecom fraud.

#CoinRank #GM

Privacy becomes a foundational competitive moat in crypto, with privacy chains creating strong network effects and high migration costs, reshaping value distribution.

Decentralized messaging must eliminate private servers to ensure ownership and resilience, transcending encryption to prioritize open protocols and user-controlled identity.

“Secrets-as-a-service” is proposed as core infrastructure, offering programmable data access, client-side encryption, and decentralized key governance for secure, compliant innovation.

he surge of Zcash in 2025 has reignited the privacy narrative within the crypto industry. Often, we only see rising sentiment and capital inflows, with many likely believing this is just a temporary wave of emotion, lacking conviction in the sustainability of the narrative itself. a16z crypto’s latest report, “Privacy trends for 2026,” attempts to reframe the privacy discussion within the context of infrastructure and long-term evolutionary logic. By gathering collective observations from several seasoned crypto industry practitioners, the article outlines their judgments on “how privacy will shape the next phase of the crypto ecosystem” across multiple dimensions, from decentralized communication and data access control to security engineering methodologies.

1. Privacy Will Become the Most Important “Moat” in Crypto This Year

 

Privacy is one of the key functions for the global financial system’s transition on-chain; simultaneously, it is a function severely lacking in almost all blockchains today. For most chains, privacy has long been an afterthought. But now, “privacy” alone is enough to create a substantial distinction between one chain and all others.

 

Privacy brings an even more important point: chain-level lock-in effects—or, if you prefer, the “privacy network effect.” Especially in a world where competing solely on performance is no longer sufficient to win.

 

Thanks to cross-chain bridge protocols, migrating between different chains is almost costless as long as all data is public. But once privacy is involved, the situation changes completely: Cross-chain token transfers are easy; cross-chain “secret” transfers are extremely difficult. Operating outside the privacy zone always carries the risk of identity inference by monitors through on-chain data, mempool, or network traffic. Whether switching from a privacy chain to a public chain, or between two privacy chains, a large amount of metadata is leaked, such as transaction timing, size correlations, etc., making users easier to track.

 

Compared to new public chains that lack differentiation and whose fees are likely to be compressed to near zero in competition (block space is essentially becoming a commodity), blockchains with privacy capabilities can form stronger network effects. The reality is: If a “general-purpose” blockchain lacks a thriving ecosystem, killer applications, or asymmetric distribution advantages, there is almost no reason for users to use it, let alone build on it and remain loyal.

 

In a public chain environment, users can interact very easily with users on other chains—it doesn’t matter which chain they join. But on a privacy chain, the user’s choice becomes crucial because once they enter a privacy chain, they are less willing to migrate and risk identity exposure. This mechanism creates a winner-takes-all (or at least winner-takes-most) dynamic. And since privacy is necessary for most real-world application scenarios, ultimately, a handful of privacy chains may control the majority of value activity in the crypto world.

 

— Ali Yahya (@alive_eth), General Partner, a16z crypto

 

2. The Key Question for Messaging Apps This Year Isn’t Just Quantum Resistance, But Decentralization

 

As the world prepares for the era of quantum computing, many messaging apps built on encryption (like Apple, Signal, WhatsApp) are already ahead and doing quite well. But the problem is, all mainstream communication tools still rely on private servers run by a single organization. And these servers are the easiest targets for governments to shut down, implant backdoors, or compel to hand over private data.

 

If a country can directly shut down the server; if a company holds the keys to the private server; or simply because a company owns the private server—then what’s the point of even the strongest quantum encryption?

 

Private servers inherently require users to “trust me”; the absence of private servers means “you don’t have to trust me.” Communication doesn’t need a single company in the middle. Messaging systems need open protocols that let us trust no one.

 

The way to achieve this is to decentralize the network entirely: no private servers, no single app, completely open-source code, and top-tier encryption—including encryption resistant to quantum threats. In an open network, no single individual, company, non-profit, or country can deprive us of the ability to communicate. Even if a country or company shuts down one app, 500 new versions will appear the next day. Even if one node is shut down, new nodes will immediately replace it—mechanisms like blockchains provide clear economic incentives.

 

When people control their messages—through private keys—just like they control their money, everything changes. Apps can come and go, but users always hold their messages and identity; even without the app itself, end-users can still own their messages.

 

This goes beyond “quantum resistance” and “encryption”; it’s about ownership and decentralization. Without either, what we’re building is an encryption system that “cannot be cracked, but can still be shut down with one click.”

— Shane Mac (@ShaneMac), Co-founder and CEO, XMTP Labs

 

3. “Secrets-as-a-Service” Will Become Core Privacy Infrastructure

 

Behind every model, agent, and automated system lies a fundamental dependency: data. But most current data pipelines—whether data fed into models or data output by models—are opaque, mutable, and unauditable.

 

This might be acceptable for some consumer applications, but in industries like finance and healthcare, users and institutions often have strong privacy requirements. This is also becoming a major obstacle for institutions currently advancing the tokenization of real-world assets.

 

So, how do we enable secure, compliant, autonomous, and globally interoperable innovation while protecting privacy?

There are many solution paths, but I want to focus on data access control: Who controls sensitive data? How does data flow? And who (or what system) can access this data under what conditions?

 

In the absence of data access control, any entity wishing to maintain data confidentiality currently must rely on centralized services or build custom systems themselves—which is time-consuming, expensive, and severely hinders entities like traditional financial institutions from fully unlocking the potential of on-chain data management. And as autonomous agent systems begin to browse, trade, and make decisions independently, users and institutions across industries need cryptographic-level deterministic guarantees, not “best-effort trust.”

 

This is precisely why I believe we need “secrets-as-a-service”: A new type of technical architecture that provides programmable, native data access rules; client-side encryption; and decentralized key management mechanisms that enforce on-chain “who can decrypt what data, under what conditions, and for how long.”

 

When these mechanisms are combined with verifiable data systems, “secrets” themselves can become part of the internet’s foundational public infrastructure, no longer just an afterthought patched onto the application layer—making privacy truly underlying infrastructure.

 

— Adeniyi Abiodun (@EmanAbio), Co-founder and Chief Product Officer, Mysten Labs

 

4. Security Testing Will Evolve from “Code Is Law” to “Specification Is Law”

 

The multiple DeFi hacks last year did not target new projects, but rather protocols with established teams, multiple rounds of audits, and years of operation. These incidents highlight a troubling reality: Current mainstream security practices still heavily rely on rules of thumb and case-by-case judgment.

 

To achieve true maturity this year, DeFi security must shift from “vulnerability pattern recognition” to “design-level property guarantees,” and from “best-effort” to “principled methodology”:

 

In the static / pre-deployment phase (testing, auditing, formal verification), this means no longer verifying only a few selected local properties, but systematically proving global invariants. Currently, multiple teams are building AI-assisted proof tools that can help write specifications, propose invariant hypotheses, and take on the historically extremely expensive manual proof engineering work.

In the dynamic / post-deployment phase (runtime monitoring, runtime constraints, etc.), these invariants can be transformed into real-time guardrails, serving as a last line of defense. These guardrails will be directly encoded as runtime assertions that every transaction must satisfy.

 

This way, we no longer assume “all vulnerabilities have been found,” but instead enforce critical security properties at the code level, with any transaction violating these properties being automatically rolled back.

 

This is not just theoretical. In fact, almost all attacks to date would have triggered one of these checks during execution, potentially directly aborting the attack. Therefore, the once-popular “code is law” philosophy is evolving into “specification is law”: even novel attack vectors must satisfy the security properties that maintain system integrity, and the final viable attack surface is compressed to a very small or extremely difficult-to-execute space.

 

— Daejun Park (@daejunpark), Engineering Team, a16z

 

Read the original text

 

Read More:

Why Gold Is Surging: Central Banks, Sanctions, and Trust-1

Bitwise: Why Crypto Is Moving Beyond the Four-Year Cycle-2

〈Zcash is Just the Beginning, How Will a16z Redefine the Privacy Narrative in 2026?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Market cap in crypto is calculated as price multiplied by circulating supply, providing a standardized way to compare cryptocurrencies beyond misleading unit prices.

 

Understanding market cap helps investors assess relative size, liquidity, volatility, and risk, while avoiding common misconceptions such as equating low price with undervaluation.

 

Market cap is a foundational but incomplete metric, best used alongside supply dynamics, liquidity, and fundamentals for long-term crypto investment strategies.

What does market cap mean in crypto explains how market capitalization works, why it matters for valuation, risk, and liquidity, and how investors can use it to make more informed crypto investment decisions.

 

Introduction: Understanding what does market cap mean in crypto

 

What does market cap mean in crypto is one of the most frequently asked questions by beginners entering the cryptocurrency market, yet it is also one of the most misunderstood concepts among retail investors. Market capitalization, commonly shortened to market cap, is often treated as a simple ranking metric, but in reality it carries deeper implications about valuation, liquidity, risk perception, and market structure. In crypto, where thousands of digital assets coexist with vastly different supply models and use cases, understanding what does market cap mean in crypto is essential for making informed decisions.

 

At its most basic level, market cap represents the total value of a cryptocurrency’s circulating supply multiplied by its current price. While this definition appears straightforward, its interpretation in crypto markets differs significantly from traditional equities. Crypto assets trade continuously, have transparent on-chain supply data, and often experience extreme volatility. As a result, market cap in crypto is not just a snapshot of value, but a reflection of collective market expectations at a specific moment in time.

 

Many investors mistakenly assume that a low price means a coin is “cheap” or that a high price means it is “expensive.” This misconception arises from ignoring market cap entirely. Understanding what does market cap mean in crypto helps investors avoid these pitfalls by focusing on overall valuation rather than unit price. Whether evaluating Bitcoin, Ethereum, or emerging altcoins, market cap provides a standardized lens for comparison.

 

In this guide, we will explore what does market cap mean in crypto from multiple perspectives, including how it is calculated, how it differs from traditional finance, why it matters for investment decisions, and what its limitations are. By the end, you will have a structured, practical understanding of market cap as a core analytical tool in crypto markets.

 

Figure 1: Top Market Cap Coins

 

How market cap is calculated in crypto markets

 

The basic formula behind crypto market capitalization

 

 

To understand what does market cap mean in crypto, it is essential to start with the calculation itself. The formula is simple:

 

Market Cap = Current Price × Circulating Supply

 

In crypto markets, circulating supply refers to the number of coins or tokens that are currently available and tradable on the market. This excludes locked tokens, unmined coins, or assets held in long-term vesting contracts. Because blockchain data is transparent, circulating supply figures are often more visible than in traditional markets, although interpretation can still vary by data provider.

 

This formula allows investors to compare cryptocurrencies with vastly different price levels. For example, a token priced at $0.10 with a large supply may have a higher market cap than a token priced at $1,000 with a much smaller supply. Understanding what does market cap mean in crypto prevents investors from equating low price with undervaluation or high price with overvaluation.

 

Another important nuance is that crypto prices can change rapidly, causing market cap to fluctuate significantly within short periods. Unlike stock markets with fixed trading hours, crypto markets operate 24/7. As a result, market cap is a dynamic metric that reflects real-time market sentiment rather than a static valuation.

 

Circulating supply vs total supply vs fully diluted value

 

When analyzing what does market cap mean in crypto, investors must distinguish between circulating supply and total or maximum supply. Circulating supply is used in market cap calculations, but many projects have additional tokens scheduled for future release. This introduces the concept of fully diluted valuation (FDV), which estimates market cap if all tokens were in circulation.

 

FDV can provide insight into potential future dilution, but it should not be confused with current market cap. A project may appear small based on market cap but carry significant inflation risk if a large portion of its supply has yet to enter circulation. Understanding these distinctions is critical for interpreting what does market cap mean in crypto beyond surface-level rankings.

 

Why market cap matters for crypto investors

 

Market cap as a tool for comparing cryptocurrencies

 

 

One of the primary reasons investors care about what does market cap mean in crypto is its role as a comparative metric. Market cap allows investors to assess the relative size of different cryptocurrencies regardless of their individual token prices. This is especially important in a market where token denominations vary widely.

 

For example, Bitcoin and Ethereum dominate the market by market cap, reflecting their established networks, liquidity, and adoption. Smaller market cap assets, often referred to as mid-cap or small-cap coins, may offer higher growth potential but also carry greater risk. By understanding market cap categories, investors can align their portfolios with their risk tolerance and investment horizon.

 

Market cap also influences market perception. Assets with higher market caps are generally perceived as more stable and less susceptible to manipulation, while low market cap assets can experience dramatic price swings from relatively small capital inflows. Understanding what does market cap mean in crypto helps investors contextualize volatility rather than reacting emotionally to price movements.

 

Liquidity, risk, and market cap dynamics

 

Market cap is closely linked to liquidity, although the two are not identical. Higher market cap cryptocurrencies tend to have deeper order books, higher trading volumes, and more active markets. This reduces slippage and allows investors to enter or exit positions more efficiently.

 

However, market cap alone does not guarantee liquidity. Some assets may have inflated market caps due to thin trading or concentrated ownership. Therefore, understanding what does market cap mean in crypto requires combining it with other metrics such as volume, distribution, and on-chain activity.

 

From a risk perspective, market cap can act as a proxy for maturity. Large-cap cryptocurrencies are often considered lower risk relative to small-cap assets, but they may also offer lower upside potential. Smaller market cap projects may deliver outsized returns but carry higher probabilities of failure. Market cap thus becomes a foundational tool for portfolio construction and risk management.

 

Common misconceptions about market cap in crypto

 

Why a low token price does not mean a crypto is undervalued

 

One of the most persistent misunderstandings around what does market cap mean in crypto is the belief that a low-priced token is inherently undervalued. This misconception ignores the role of supply. A token with billions of units in circulation can have a low unit price while still carrying a high market cap.

 

This misunderstanding often leads investors to chase “cheap” coins without considering total valuation. Market cap corrects this bias by shifting focus from unit price to aggregate value. Understanding what does market cap mean in crypto helps investors avoid narratives driven by psychological price anchors rather than fundamentals.

 

Another related misconception is assuming that a coin can easily reach the price level of another asset without accounting for market cap implications. For example, expecting a low-cap token to reach the same price as Bitcoin often implies an unrealistic total valuation. Market cap analysis grounds expectations in mathematical reality.

 

Market cap manipulation and its limitations

 

While market cap is useful, it is not immune to manipulation. In crypto markets, low liquidity assets can experience sharp price increases from relatively small trades, temporarily inflating market cap. This can create misleading impressions of value or adoption.

 

Therefore, understanding what does market cap mean in crypto also involves recognizing its limitations. Market cap reflects price multiplied by supply, not necessarily real capital invested or sustainable value. Investors should treat market cap as a starting point for analysis rather than a definitive measure of worth.

 

Featured Table: Market Cap Categories in Crypto

 

 

what does market cap mean in crypto for long-term strategy

 

Understanding what does market cap mean in crypto is especially important for long-term investors. Market cap influences how much capital is required to move an asset’s price and shapes expectations around growth potential. Large-cap assets may grow steadily as adoption increases, while smaller-cap assets may experience exponential growth or collapse entirely.

 

For long-term strategies, market cap should be evaluated alongside fundamentals such as network usage, developer activity, token economics, and regulatory positioning. Market cap alone does not determine success, but it provides context for interpreting these factors. Investors who understand what does market cap mean in crypto are better equipped to build balanced portfolios and avoid speculative traps.

 

Market cap also evolves over time. Assets can move between categories as networks grow or decline. Tracking market cap trends rather than static rankings allows investors to identify emerging leaders and fading projects. In this sense, market cap is both a snapshot and a narrative tool that reflects the evolving structure of the crypto market.

 

Conclusion: what does market cap mean in crypto as an investment framework

 

What does market cap mean in crypto is not simply a definition, but a framework for understanding value, risk, and market behavior in digital asset markets. Market cap provides a standardized way to compare cryptocurrencies, cut through misleading price narratives, and anchor expectations in economic reality. It helps investors distinguish between perceived affordability and actual valuation, and between speculative excitement and structural growth.

 

At the same time, market cap should never be used in isolation. It is most powerful when combined with liquidity metrics, supply dynamics, and fundamental analysis. Understanding what does market cap mean in crypto allows investors to contextualize volatility, assess risk more accurately, and construct portfolios aligned with their long-term goals.

 

As crypto markets continue to mature, market cap will remain one of the most widely referenced metrics. However, its true value lies not in rankings alone, but in the insight it provides into how markets collectively price belief, utility, and future potential. For anyone serious about navigating crypto markets, mastering what does market cap mean in crypto is a foundational step toward informed and disciplined investing.

〈what does market cap mean in crypto: A Complete Guide for Beginners and Investors〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

DePINSim represents a shift in DePIN design from hardware deployment to software defined connectivity, using eSIM and protocol coordination to scale global access without building new physical infrastructure.

 

By combining decentralized connectivity with an agent based simulation engine, DePINSim addresses one of the biggest historical risks in DePIN and GameFi projects: poorly tested token economics that fail under real demand conditions.

 

DePINSim positions itself between Web2 eSIM providers and hardware based DePIN networks, trading full infrastructure sovereignty for faster expansion, lower user friction, and a globally scalable incentive model.

For decades, global mobile connectivity has followed the same logic. Physical infrastructure comes first. Regulation follows. Users pay the cost.

 

Mobile network operators invest billions in spectrum and base stations. Coverage expands slowly. International roaming remains expensive and opaque. Identity and usage data stay under operator control. Innovation happens at the edge, not at the core.

 

Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks, or DePIN, emerged as an attempt to break this structure. Early projects focused on ownership. If users owned the hardware, they could also own the network.

 

The results were mixed.

 

Hardware based DePIN networks struggled with cold start problems, uneven coverage, and high capital requirements. Growth depended on shipping devices, not software adoption. Incentives worked, but scalability lagged.

 

 

DePINSim enters the sector with a different assumption. Infrastructure does not have to be rebuilt to be decentralized. It can be abstracted.

 

Instead of deploying new towers or routers, DePINSim treats existing mobile networks as a substrate and focuses on coordination, incentives, and settlement at the software layer. This shift defines its entire strategy.

 

FROM HARDWARE FIRST TO SOFTWARE DEFINED DEPIN

 

The first generation of decentralized wireless networks tied participation to physical deployment. Users bought devices, installed them, and earned rewards for coverage. This model aligned incentives, but it also limited reach.

 

Hardware is expensive. Distribution is slow. Coverage clusters in urban areas while rural gaps remain. Most importantly, network growth depends on logistics rather than demand.

 

DePINSim moves away from this constraint by building around eSIM technology.

 

Any smartphone that supports eSIM can become a network participant. There is no dedicated device. No upfront hardware cost. No shipping delay. The existing global base of mobile phones becomes the potential infrastructure layer.

 

This choice changes the economics of participation. Joining the network becomes a software action, not a capital decision. Scale depends on downloads and usage, not manufacturing capacity.

 

The project positions itself as a decentralized mobile virtual network operator, but the label understates the ambition. DePINSim is not only reselling connectivity. It is redefining how connectivity is measured, rewarded, and settled in a decentralized context.

 

FMIP AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF DECENTRALIZED ROAMING

 

At the core of DePINSim sits the Free Mobile Internet Protocol, or FMIP. It is designed to abstract the complexity of traditional telecom systems and expose connectivity as a programmable service.

 

FMIP is structured across three layers.

 

The first is the mining layer, which runs directly on user devices. Mining in this context does not mean cryptographic hashing. It refers to verifying real network conditions. Signal strength, latency, throughput, and handover success are continuously measured. These metrics form a proof of connection that represents actual network contribution.

 

The second is the network layer, which handles routing and roaming. FMIP maintains a global pool of eSIM profiles sourced from licensed operators. When a user changes location, the protocol dynamically selects the most efficient local carrier profile. Data no longer routes back to a home network, reducing latency and cost.

 

The third is the value layer, where blockchain infrastructure handles settlement, incentives, and identity. Payments, rewards, and staking logic operate onchain, while sensitive usage data remains abstracted.

 

This layered design allows DePINSim to decentralize coordination without rebuilding physical networks. It also avoids direct confrontation with spectrum regulation, since the protocol works through compliant wholesale partners.

 

The result is a system where global roaming behaves like a software service rather than a negotiated exception.

 

CONNECTION AS VALUE AND THE ROLE OF SIMULATION

 

The name DePINSim carries a second meaning. Beyond SIM cards, it refers to simulation.

 

One of the recurring failures in token driven infrastructure projects has been economic fragility. Incentives attract users quickly, but collapse once emissions outweigh real demand. Many projects discover this only after launch.

 

DePINSim attempts to address this upfront by embedding an agent based simulation engine into its platform.

 

The simulation models different participant types. Providers decide whether to stay online based on expected rewards versus data costs. Users generate demand across multiple behavioral curves, ranging from steady usage to hype driven spikes. The protocol adjusts parameters such as emissions, pricing, and burn rates.

 

These simulations allow stress testing before changes are deployed. Developers can observe how the system behaves under growth, decay, or volatility scenarios. This does not guarantee success, but it reduces blind risk.

 

Strategically, this tool positions DePINSim as more than a consumer product. It becomes a modeling platform for DePIN economics. Other projects can use the simulation framework to design and test their own incentive structures.

 

This dual role, operator and simulator, is unusual in the sector and may become one of the project’s strongest differentiators.

 

TOKEN DESIGN AND ECONOMIC ALIGNMENT

 

DePINSim uses a dual asset structure to separate user experience from market volatility.

 

The ESIM token functions as the network’s utility and governance asset. It is used for staking, rewards, and protocol level settlement. A secondary internal unit represents mined connectivity value and is used for service consumption.

 

This structure mirrors approaches used in other DePIN networks. The goal is to shield everyday users from price swings while still allowing the protocol to capture value from usage.

 

The economic core follows a burn and mint equilibrium model. When users purchase data services, part of the revenue is used to buy and burn ESIM tokens. At the same time, new tokens are minted to reward verified network contribution.

 

In theory, usage growth offsets emissions. In practice, sustainability depends on real demand.

 

Early data shows strong engagement and high transaction volume, but also significant volatility. This is expected in early phases, especially with aggressive airdrop strategies and active market making.

 

The critical metric moving forward is not price, but burn rate. If service usage grows faster than token issuance, the model tightens. If not, incentives weaken.

 

COMPETITION AND STRATEGIC POSITIONING

 

DePINSim sits between two competitive fronts.

 

On one side are traditional eSIM providers. They offer simplicity and reliability, but no ownership or upside for users. Consumption is purely a cost.

 

On the other side are hardware based DePIN networks. They offer ownership and rewards, but require physical deployment and operate with geographic limits.

 

DePINSim chooses a middle path. It offers global coverage through existing networks, while layering incentives and ownership through crypto primitives.

 

This creates asymmetrical competition. Against Web2 providers, DePINSim competes on economics and community. Against hardware based DePINs, it competes on speed and scalability.

 

The tradeoff is dependency. DePINSim does not control base stations. It relies on wholesale agreements and regulatory tolerance. This limits sovereignty but accelerates expansion.

 

Whether this balance holds depends on execution and regulatory navigation.

 

THE BET AHEAD

 

DePINSim is ultimately making a bet on abstraction.

 

It assumes that decentralization does not require replacing physical infrastructure. It requires redefining how infrastructure is accessed, measured, and rewarded.

 

If connectivity can be treated as a software defined resource, then global networks can scale through coordination rather than construction.

 

The challenge is durability. Incentives must outlast speculation. Regulation must be navigated without compromise. Real users must value the service beyond rewards.

 

If DePINSim succeeds, it offers a template for a new class of DePIN projects. Lightweight, software driven, and economically modeled before deployment.

 

If it fails, it will still leave behind an important lesson. Infrastructure decentralization is not only about who owns the hardware. It is about who controls the rules.

〈DePINSim and the Shift Toward Software Defined Connectivity〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Brevis Network reframes blockchain scalability by separating execution from verification, allowing smart contracts to rely on complex offchain computation while preserving onchain trust through zero knowledge proofs.

 

By combining a hybrid zkVM architecture with a decentralized proving marketplace, Brevis turns proof generation into an open, market driven infrastructure rather than a closed or centralized service.

 

Brevis enables a new class of data driven onchain applications, from behavior based DeFi logic and trust minimized crosschain security to verifiable AI outputs that balance correctness and privacy.

Smart contracts have always had a structural weakness. They are good at the present, but bad at memory.

 

On most blockchains, contracts can read current state with little friction. The moment they need to reason about history, costs rise sharply. Checking long term user behavior, aggregating activity across months, or referencing past states from other chains quickly becomes impractical.

 

Developers adapted by moving computation offchain. Indexers, servers, and private databases filled the gap. Results were pushed back onchain, and most users accepted the trust assumptions behind them.

 

Brevis Network enters with a different approach. Heavy computation does not need to live onchain, but trust still must. Zero knowledge proofs make this separation possible. Instead of re executing work, the chain verifies that the work was done correctly.

 

This is not a small optimization. It changes what blockchains are designed to do.

 

FROM RE EXECUTION TO VERIFIABLE COMPUTE

 

Blockchain security has long depended on repetition. Every node re executes every transaction. This redundancy creates trust, but it also imposes hard limits.

 

 

As applications mature, those limits become more visible. DeFi products no longer only move assets. They price risk, adjust parameters, and react to behavior over time. These functions depend on historical data and complex computation.

 

Onchain execution struggles with this load. Offchain execution introduces trust.

 

Brevis proposes a third path. Computation happens offchain. Verification stays onchain. Zero knowledge proofs connect the two.

 

In this model, the blockchain focuses on consensus and finality. External systems handle data intensive work. Contracts receive results together with proofs they can verify cheaply.

 

Brevis refers to this as an infinite compute layer. The phrase does not suggest unlimited resources. It describes a system where application complexity no longer scales directly with chain congestion.

 

Developers stop asking what fits onchain. They start asking what can be proven.

 

WHY HISTORICAL DATA MATTERS MORE THAN THROUGHPUT

 

Throughput is easy to measure. Utility is harder.

 

Many applications care less about how many transactions a chain processes per second and more about what those transactions reveal over time. Risk engines depend on behavior. Markets depend on participation patterns. Governance depends on activity history.

 

Smart contracts do not handle these needs well. Storing large datasets onchain is expensive. Processing them repeatedly is worse.

 

As a result, most protocols rely on offchain pipelines. Data is collected elsewhere, processed privately, and reflected onchain through trusted updates.

 

Brevis changes this workflow.

 

A developer submits a query through the Brevis system. Relevant blockchain data is retrieved and verified against the canonical chain. The requested computation runs offchain. A proof is generated and sent back to the contract.

 

The contract never sees raw data. It only verifies the proof and accepts the result.

 

 

This makes historical data usable again, without reintroducing centralized trust.

 

THE ROLE OF PICO zkVM IN MAKING PROOFS PRACTICAL

 

Verifiable compute only works if proofs are fast enough to sit in real user flows.

 

Brevis built Pico zkVM with this constraint in mind. Instead of relying on a purely general virtual machine, it uses a hybrid design. General logic runs in the zkVM. Heavy operations move to specialized coprocessors.

 

This approach keeps development flexible while lowering proving cost. Expensive primitives no longer dominate performance.

 

The result is a system optimized for production workloads rather than theoretical purity.

 

In testing focused on Ethereum block proving, Brevis demonstrated proof generation within real time constraints. This matters because latency determines relevance. If proofs arrive too late, applications cannot depend on them.

 

Brevis also treats proving as a distributed problem. Pico Prism supports cluster level proving, allowing workloads to scale horizontally instead of depending on single machine performance.

 

This design aligns with how proving will operate at infrastructure scale.

 

PROVERNET AND THE ECONOMICS OF PROOF GENERATION

 

Even the best proving system fails if supply is fragile.

 

If applications depend on a single prover, they inherit downtime risk and unpredictable pricing. Brevis addresses this with ProverNet, a decentralized proving marketplace.

 

Applications submit proving tasks with budget and latency preferences. Provers submit offers based on cost and capacity. The network matches supply and demand dynamically.

 

Not all proofs are equal. Some require low latency. Others prioritize cost efficiency. ProverNet allows provers to specialize instead of forcing uniform performance.

 

The system uses a market design that rewards honest pricing. Participants benefit from reporting real costs rather than gaming the system. This helps maintain long term stability.

 

BREV underpins this economy. Applications pay fees in the token. Provers stake it to participate. Failure to deliver valid proofs leads to penalties.

 

This creates a direct link between usage and value. It also introduces accountability at the infrastructure level.

 

Hardware concentration remains a challenge. High performance proving requires capital investment. Whether ProverNet can broaden participation without losing reliability will be a key test.

 

WHAT BREVIS ENABLES ACROSS APPLICATIONS

 

Brevis matters when it changes how applications behave.

 

In DeFi, it enables behavior based logic. Protocols can adjust fees or rewards using provable user history. Loyalty systems become verifiable rather than discretionary.

 

In crosschain systems, Brevis supports trust minimized state verification. Assets do not need to move across bridges. Only state proofs do. This reduces risk while preserving interoperability.

 

In AI driven workflows, Brevis enables verifiable outputs. Models can produce results that contracts can trust without exposing sensitive inputs. This supports reputation systems and automated decision making.

 

Across these use cases, the pattern remains consistent. Compute offchain. Verify onchain.

 

THE STRATEGIC BET AHEAD

 

Brevis is not competing on narrative. It is competing on necessity.

 

Its success depends on whether verifiable compute becomes a default expectation rather than a specialized feature. If applications embed proofs into normal flows, Brevis occupies a critical position in the stack.

 

The roadmap focuses on migrating real traffic into ProverNet, expanding proving capacity, and reducing coordination costs through dedicated execution layers.

 

If this works, blockchains stop trying to compute everything themselves.

 

They become systems that verify the work of an external compute economy.

 

That is the future Brevis is building toward.

〈Why Brevis Network Matters in a World That Needs Verifiable Compute〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。