【NEAR is down 76%, but this time it may not be the project’s fault】
I recently came across a set of figures: NEAR has fallen nearly 80% from its peak.
What does that look like? From 17 to 5—that’s a steep drop.
But here’s the question: Was it dragged down by the broader market, or is there a fundamental problem with the project itself?
I took a look at the on-chain data and saw what’s happening with Zcash. They plan to use NEAR Intents for privacy swaps, supposedly to guard against quantum computing. People in the industry might see this as tech news, but I see something else: traditional privacy coins are starting to move their core functionality onto NEAR.
What does that tell us? NEAR’s underlying architecture is running real, production-grade applications—not just a story on a pitch deck.
So half of this drop is the market unfairly punishing it on sentiment.
But I’m not here to say “the price will go up.” What I want to talk about is this: Now that this is happening in practice, who stands to be affected?
If NEAR’s cross-chain interoperability and Intents continue to support real-world business, NEAR could capture a significant share of the privacy computing market down the road. This isn’t hype—it’s real enterprise demand migrating over. The fact that an established project like Zcash is willing to integrate its core functionality is an endorsement in itself.
Of course, the risks are still there: liquidity is tightening across the broader market, ETFs continue to see outflows, and macro sentiment hasn’t fully stabilized. I can’t make any guarantees in the short term.
But from a business perspective, NEAR’s current price relative to the progress of its real-world business is starting to look like an attractive risk-reward opportunity.
On-chain data doesn’t lie. How much faith do you put in this kind of “opportunity created by a drop” this time?
I recently came across a set of figures: NEAR has fallen nearly 80% from its peak.
What does that look like? From 17 to 5—that’s a steep drop.
But here’s the question: Was it dragged down by the broader market, or is there a fundamental problem with the project itself?
I took a look at the on-chain data and saw what’s happening with Zcash. They plan to use NEAR Intents for privacy swaps, supposedly to guard against quantum computing. People in the industry might see this as tech news, but I see something else: traditional privacy coins are starting to move their core functionality onto NEAR.
What does that tell us? NEAR’s underlying architecture is running real, production-grade applications—not just a story on a pitch deck.
So half of this drop is the market unfairly punishing it on sentiment.
But I’m not here to say “the price will go up.” What I want to talk about is this: Now that this is happening in practice, who stands to be affected?
If NEAR’s cross-chain interoperability and Intents continue to support real-world business, NEAR could capture a significant share of the privacy computing market down the road. This isn’t hype—it’s real enterprise demand migrating over. The fact that an established project like Zcash is willing to integrate its core functionality is an endorsement in itself.
Of course, the risks are still there: liquidity is tightening across the broader market, ETFs continue to see outflows, and macro sentiment hasn’t fully stabilized. I can’t make any guarantees in the short term.
But from a business perspective, NEAR’s current price relative to the progress of its real-world business is starting to look like an attractive risk-reward opportunity.
On-chain data doesn’t lie. How much faith do you put in this kind of “opportunity created by a drop” this time?