Data as of 01:59 on October 4, 2026, Beijing time. Valuations below are in U.S. dollars. Trading prices are compared using the approximate parity between USD and USDT; before placing an order, you should still verify the exchange rate, order book, and research conditions.
I’m willing to continue following Kaia, but near its current price of about $0.03716, I wouldn’t take on its execution risk to add to my position. It already has stablecoins, wallets, and Asian payment channels, as well as contribution rewards that are currently running. The issue is that stablecoins remaining on-chain have yet to generate sufficiently strong paid usage or demand for KAIA. Based on three scenarios for the next twelve months, I estimate a probability-weighted fair value of about $0.0173. This figure depends on future adoption and how the market values network assets; it should not be taken as a target price that is certain to be reached by a given date.
This is a research judgment about a project with a product foundation but weak value capture for its token. The current price is about 115% above my weighted valuation; even the optimistic scenario would require funding, fees, security, and governance to all deliver. Whether the price is cheap and whether the fundamentals are sound must be assessed separately, so I am reserving new investment for a three-tranche plan with both low-price and factual conditions.
Access has value; user retention is what creates a moat
Kaia was formed through the merger of Klaytn and Finschia. It is an Ethereum Virtual Machine-compatible layer-one network whose focus has expanded from general-purpose applications to stablecoin settlement, on-chain savings, and asset tokenization in Asia. The Kakao and LINE ecosystems give it wallet access points, regional channels, and accumulated engineering expertise. These resources make it easier for ordinary users to access on-chain products and mean institutions do not have to find local service partners from scratch.
These access advantages are worth noting, but they cannot replace user research. The user base of a messaging platform is not the active user base of Kaia, much less a group of KAIA buyers. Support from investment institutions and businesses is not a price floor for the token either; without complete, public, verifiable information on investment costs and restrictions on selling, it cannot be claimed that investors will not sell. The most useful evidence for assessing the team is the mainnet functionality it has delivered, products that continue to operate, and whether funds and revenue can be retained.
Current offerings include wallet support, travel and shopping access points, stablecoin payment integrations, and native on-chain financial products. They address real needs: cross-border transfers, tourist spending, stablecoin savings, and putting idle funds to work through lending. At the same time, partnerships with Japanese retailers, some real-world asset collaborations, and cross-border settlement still involve memoranda of understanding or proofs of concept. This means the technical or commercial pathways are being established, but these initiatives cannot yet be counted as recurring paying customers or profits attributable to KAIA.
Competitors will not wait for these pathways to mature. Established stablecoin networks already have deep pools of capital and entrenched transaction habits; mobile payment ecosystems can also bring users on-chain, while banks and existing payment providers control redemption, merchant, and compliance access points. Kaia's strengths are local distribution and low friction of use; its weakness is that EVM applications and stablecoin funds can migrate. Users may come for yield and leave as subsidies decline. A genuine moat should show up as repeat usage, capital retention, and paid growth, not a longer list of partnerships.
Three measures of capital should not be treated as the same kind of adoption
As of the latest complete daily data point, the dollar value of stablecoins circulating on Kaia was about $247 million, while DeFi total value locked was about $8.19 million. These figures should not be added together. The former includes substantial funds that can be used for transfers, settlement, or temporary holding; the latter is funds locked in the covered financial protocols, measured on a different basis and carrying different risks. The total on-chain issuance of native dollar stablecoins also differs from the aggregated circulation figure, so I have not combined balances from different dashboards into a larger “total assets” figure.
More telling than these two figures about the current effectiveness of incentives are the results from the first contribution-reward period. Recognized funds eligible for deposit and staking matches averaged only about $730,000, with 708 participating wallets, reaching 1.46% of the initial $50 million target. This shows that people are using the product, but also that capital usage is still far from reaching meaningful scale. The wallet count does not equal 708 unrelated individuals, and recognized funds are not the same as total financial activity; we still need to see whether these funds remain across periods.
Two nodes accounted for about 71.4% of delegated recognized funds in the first period. This is not the concentration of all tokens across the chain, but it shows that rewards and user acquisition are concentrated in a small number of channels. If subsequent growth mainly comes from the same funds participating repeatedly, or if there is a sharp outflow after subsidies are adjusted, I will lower my assessment of adoption durability rather than treating a deposit peak as success.
The most convincing improvement for me would be continuous growth and retention of recognized funds, recurring fees from payments and lending, and users continuing to use the products without high subsidies. High yields from a one-off campaign, registration counts, or stablecoin minting volumes are not enough to establish this.
How growth translates into KAIA—and how issuance offsets it
KAIA is used for transaction fees, staking, delegation, governance, and payments in some applications. Stablecoins can serve as users' unit of account and savings asset, while underlying transactions still require KAIA to pay network costs. Fee abstraction allows users to convert other tokens into KAIA to cover transaction fees, lowering the barrier to use; it also means users do not need to hold a KAIA balance over the long term. Therefore, growth in stablecoin usage can increase demand for fee conversion without necessarily creating an equivalent increase in long-term demand to hold the token.
Contribution rewards provide another link: initially, every $1 of recognized USDT deposits had to be matched with staking 10 KAIA, and the recognized amount was the lower of the deposit and the staking allocation. This ratio is a participation requirement, not a valuation guarantee that $1 of USDT can be exchanged for 10 KAIA. Users may also use existing staking allocations or indirect routes, so an increase in recognized funds cannot be directly translated into an equivalent amount of new market buying.
Under current node parameters, 9.6 KAIA are issued per block. At one block per second, annual gross issuance is about 303 million tokens; against current supply of about 6.435 billion, that is gross issuance of about 4.7%. Issuance is currently allocated among staking, the ecosystem fund, the infrastructure fund, and contribution rewards. Staking yields and contribution rewards are primarily supported by this issuance; they are not reserve interest earned by stablecoin issuers, nor cash dividends that ordinary KAIA holders can claim.
Over the past 30 days, mainnet transaction fees were about $2,233, of which about $1,948 was burned. At the current pace, the former annualizes to about $27,200, while actual fees over the past year were about $58,800. Short-term annualization differs from the past year's actual figure, but both are far below the annual gross issuance value of about $11.25 million at the current price. Fees earned by applications cannot all be counted as mainnet fees, let alone as value accruing entirely to KAIA holders; treasury spending on development and infrastructure is also a cost.
That is why I will not value KAIA like a profitable asset based on staking annual percentage yields. Burns reduce supply, but do not necessarily pay holders; holding value will improve meaningfully only if burns and long-term demand are sufficient to offset ongoing issuance.
The contribution-reward reform replaced unconditional reward distributions with contributions-based allocation, with undistributed tokens planned to be burned in batches. About 2.46 million tokens from the first period have been calculated as pending burn, and the first batch execution is planned for November. They cannot currently be described as already burned or as having already made the token deflationary. It is also important that the proportion unallocated in the first period was high, which means both fewer tokens potentially enter circulation and weak actual participation. A large burn amount does not automatically indicate business success.
Current market data indicate that circulating supply is close to total supply, so a traditional one-time, large investor unlock is not the only focus of analysis. I am more concerned with ongoing issuance, staking withdrawals, treasury payments, and reward releases. Assuming current parameters remain unchanged and not deducting burns that have not yet been executed, the upper bounds for gross issuance over the next 30, 90, 180, and 365 days are about 24.88 million, 74.65 million, 149 million, and 303 million tokens, respectively.
This is not a forecast of net circulating supply. Fee burns, execution of contribution rewards, block-time changes, and parameter adjustments will all affect the outcome. Contribution rewards vest in equal installments over six months, so rewards already earned will gradually become claimable; treasury and staking balances could also enter the market. Some of these are already included in current supply or gross issuance, so the entire balance should not be counted again as additional unlocks. For future outflows without transaction-level execution records, I treat them as selling-pressure risks rather than inventing a fixed sale schedule.
The top ten addresses hold about 66.34% of supply, including staking contracts, exchange custodial wallets, addresses with unknown labels, and treasury accounts. This does not mean ten people control two-thirds of the tokens. Custodial accounts may represent many users, and staking contracts may include delegated tokens; however, large transfers and node concentration can still affect liquidity and governance. Two labeled ecosystem and infrastructure fund addresses hold about 160 million and 58.96 million tokens, respectively. Use of these funds needs ongoing verification; they should not be treated as net assets that holders can redeem at any time.
In governance, GC voting and the execution of node parameters are two distinct layers. Recent votes involved 31 eligible GCs, while the current client still retains designated governance nodes and parameter contracts. The open-validator policy has passed, but automated validator lifecycle management, staking policy, and system-contract specifications are still in progress. It would be premature to treat foundation execution authority and concentration risks as having disappeared. Two infrastructure and service expenditures approved on October 2 totaled the equivalent of $300,000. I record them as approved expenses, but do not infer from the approval page that the funds have already been transferred.
One technical detail is easy to misread: the fee-abstraction-related specification still has a review status, while the mainnet upgrade block, current node configuration, and feature documentation provide evidence that it has been implemented. Proposal-document labels and the actual operation of a feature must be assessed separately. Reforms without complete evidence of implementation should not receive a valuation premium in advance.
Security risks cannot be brushed aside with “it’s been audited.” Audits of the historical mainnet and contracts covered specific code versions; newer versions and audit work are now in progress, so this does not prove that every latest deployment is byte-for-byte identical to an audited version. The administrator of the fee-conversion router also has authority over the token whitelist, commission adjustments, and withdrawals. Normal mainnet operation does not guarantee the safety of cross-chain systems, yield strategies, stablecoin redemptions, or lending contracts. I will not claim that all past incidents or potential vulnerabilities have been ruled out; confirming that the latest deployments match their audits is a prerequisite for entering the core tranche.
Valuation reflects an option, not ownership of stablecoin reserves
Without mature cash returns to holders, using a current profit multiple would produce a seemingly precise but unsuitable price. I use the stablecoin business's scale over the next twelve months as an anchor for valuing the network's assets, multiply it by a ratio discounted for execution and value capture, then divide by future supply. This method expresses only how much value the market might assign to network usage and growth opportunities; it does not mean KAIA holders own on-chain stablecoin reserves.
For comparison, the ratio of TRON's market capitalization to its stablecoin circulation is about 0.34, while Celo's is about 0.43; KAIA's is currently close to 0.97. Their network structures, fee systems, and token value capture differ, so these figures cannot be copied mechanically. Kaia's mainnet fees over the past 30 days are also far below those of these two comparables, so even assuming future adoption growth, I use a lower ratio. The ratios and scenario probabilities are my professional judgment, not conclusions established by historical frequencies or statistical models.
The denominator is consistently set at about 6.738 billion tokens: current supply of about 6.435 billion, plus gross issuance of about 303 million over the next 365 days. To be conservative, I have not deducted the planned burn of contribution rewards in advance, nor excluded currently staked tokens from the circulating-supply denominator. The three mutually exclusive scenarios are:
- Bear case, 50% probability: stablecoin circulation of about $200 million, recognized funds remaining at or below $1 million, and no significant improvement in fees or retention. At a network valuation ratio of 0.20x, this implies a target market capitalization of $40 million, or about $0.0059 per token. This still includes value from the network continuing to exist; a major security or redemption loss could make the outcome worse.
- Base case, 35% probability: stablecoin circulation rises to $500 million, recognized funds rise to $10 million and remain for two consecutive periods, and annualized future mainnet fees reach at least $500,000. At a ratio of 0.25x, this implies a target market capitalization of $125 million, or about $0.0186 per token. This already requires a substantial improvement in the business; it is not simply an extrapolation of current data.
- Bull case, 15% probability: stablecoin circulation reaches $1 billion, recognized funds reach at least $50 million and remain after subsidy adjustments, annualized future mainnet fees reach at least $5 million, and burns, governance reforms, and paid adoption are verified. At a ratio of 0.35x, this implies a target market capitalization of $350 million, or about $0.0519 per token. If any key milestone fails, the scenario should be downgraded.
Probability-weighting the three scenarios gives a fair value of about $0.0173. Relative to the current price, the bear, base, and bull outcomes imply declines of about 84% and 50%, and an increase of about 40%, respectively; the weighted outcome is a decline of about 54%. These are scenario calculations, not promises of future returns, and the weighted average should not be treated as the single most likely path.
The most sensitive variables are the scale of fund adoption and the network valuation ratio: a 20% decline in either would reduce the corresponding valuation by 20%. By comparison, adding another 30 million tokens to supply would reduce the valuation by about 0.44%. This does not mean supply is irrelevant; it shows that the main risks in this valuation are business scale and value capture, not estimating to extra decimal places the impact of burns that have not yet been executed.
The strongest counterargument is that low-fee networks may first gain value through payment volume, stablecoin retention, and staking demand, then gradually generate revenue. The LINE ecosystem could indeed trigger a step-change in growth. I have retained this upside scenario, but there is not enough evidence to make it my central case today.
What price and what evidence would justify taking the risk?
New investment is on hold for now. If readers choose to set a separate planned total investment amount for KAIA, my three-tranche plan is fixed at 20%, 50%, and 30%. Each percentage is based on the planned total for this token, not the entire account or allocations to other tokens.
The watch zone is $0.013–$0.015, with 20% invested. Reaching the price range is not enough: the first batch burn of contribution rewards must have on-chain execution evidence, recognized funds must exceed $1 million, and there must be no major security or governance failure. If the price reaches this zone before the factual conditions are met, I will still wait.
The core zone is $0.009–$0.011, with an additional 50%, bringing the cumulative allocation to 70%. I require recognized funds of at least $5 million for two consecutive periods, with verifiable retention; mainnet fees of more than $5,000 over the past 30 days; and verification that the latest core-contract deployments match their audits. The price discount is deeper here, so the evidence should be stronger too. Lower prices are no reason to relax the requirements.
The panic zone is $0.004–$0.006, with an additional 30%, bringing the cumulative allocation to 100%. This tranche only makes sense if mainnet security, native stablecoin redemptions, and staking rules remain intact, and the adoption conditions have not reversed. If the price decline is caused by irrecoverable losses, abuse of permissions, or the disappearance of real demand, cancel the remaining tranches; do not mistake a decline that damages the fundamentals for a bargain.
Funds for which the price or factual conditions have not been met remain uninvested, and missed tranches should not be chased. On a single spot venue, the order book within 1% of the midpoint is only on the order of $10,000–$20,000, so total trading volume does not mean that any amount can enter or exit safely. Recheck the spread, bids, and actual slippage before each execution, and split orders into limit trades; pause if market depth deteriorates.
If you already hold a position, first review why you hold it. If you previously treated staking rewards as cash dividends, assumed pending burns had already made the token deflationary, or cannot tolerate the bear case, reduce the position to an amount you can afford to lose permanently. A small exposure held while waiting for adoption to materialize can remain under observation, but do not automatically add to it just because the price falls, and do not infer from this plan that any purchases or orders were previously made or executed.
The most important upcoming milestones are the results of subsequent contribution-reward periods after October and the first batch burn planned for November. I will look at retention, concentration, claims, and execution transactions, not just the number of tokens pending burn. After that, I will verify mainnet fees, stablecoin circulation, treasury outflows, and changes in large addresses each month. The open-validator reform will be assessed based on execution evidence for each component; its final completion date cannot currently be specified.
If recognized funds remain below $1 million for two consecutive subsequent periods, fees fail to improve, and stablecoin funds decline by more than 20% within 90 days, the adoption option should be marked down. If there is an irrecoverable loss of funds in a core contract, a major disruption to stablecoin redemptions, the withdrawal of a key channel, or an unexplained change to issuance and value-capture rules, cancel all remaining investment and reassess. My current judgment depends on these observable facts for validation; a rising price or project promotion cannot substitute for them.
$KAIA