查理-Charlie

Thanks for the #币安九周年 event’s 三瓜两枣 (a small amount of treats); although it isn’t much—only 0.0018$BNB , but when converted it’s still 1u. Thanks, BN

Got a price of $NEWT at 0.046, and I happened to scroll through what the project’s team on X. The last post was on June 28, and the one before that was June 15. There’s no weekly report, no AMA, and no roadmap update.

I’ve held it for almost a year. As time goes on, I spend less time looking at the charts and more time checking on-chain data. Today this address made a transaction; tomorrow that contract got a new signature. In the group, everyone is acting like on-chain detectives, trying to guess what the project team is doing from a few interactions.

Sometimes I think the project team goes quiet because there isn’t much to say. Three months after the mainnet beta launch, the on-chain still only has the same agent. Between the Magic SDK 50M wallet and the Newton protocol, there’s a very long distance.@NewtonProtocol

But there’s no way around it. At 0.046, I would be selling at a 94% loss, holding on while basically just guessing. The odds stopped making sense long ago, but the psychological barrier to selling and confirming the loss is too high.#Newt

I hope one day I open X and see the project team post a string of updates—doesn’t have to be long, just a few sentences. At least then holders won’t have to keep guessing anymore.

The above does not constitute investment advice—DYOR.

GRVT July 21 TGE: ahead of the event, the expected FDV was already being pushed to around 200M. On Polymarket, 85% of people bet that FDV will exceed 200M after listing. The product hasn’t even launched yet—money has already come in.

With a 200M FDV, the project team’s total funding is only 31M. For a product that hasn’t launched, the valuation is already more than 6 times the funding amount. Hyperliquid’s monthly trading volume is 400B, and @grvt_io GRVT’s cumulative trading volume is 393B, but it still hasn’t truly been run through token economics. TVL is currently around 7M and has been trending downward from a 9M peak.

The market pricing for #grvt is based on several assumptions. The founders are Korean, so they’re assumed to default to listing on Korean exchanges. The ZK privacy narrative is a bonus, but whether retail buyers buy into “private trading” as a selling point won’t be known until it actually launches. Also, initial circulating supply is only 3.5%; low liquidity itself will amplify price volatility.

It’s already been priced before it even really gets going. Looking back on the TGE day at TVL and real trading data—whether 200M is a starting point or a ceiling, the answer isn’t in Polymarket’s bets.

The above does not constitute investment advice.

NEWT raised 90 million in funding, PayPal put in 52 million, and Tiger Global invested 27 million. In the primary market, this kind of story sells really well. After launching, one year later, its market cap fell from its ATH of 160 million to just over 10 million u, with an FDV of under 50 million u. The funding narrative completely fails to work in the secondary market—@NewtonProtocol

In the primary market, people look at the sector, the team, and endorsements. In the secondary market, there’s only one thing that matters: whether buy orders are stronger than sell orders. Where did the buying demand from $NEWT come from? There’s never an answer. With no revenue, no users, no TVL, what exactly makes people pay money to buy the coin?

The fact that PayPal invested 52 million u is a golden brand in the primary market. Put it into the secondary market and retail investors take one look, okay, and then flip to the next candlestick chart. Institutional endorsement doesn’t automatically convert into demand for the token. PayPal invested in equity, not the NEWT token. The incentives of the two lines were never aligned in the first place. #Newt

What’s even more troublesome is that the bigger the funding, the higher the unlock pressure. Investors’ cost basis is low, and every month the unlocked coins have to find an exit. If there’s no new buying demand in the market to absorb the supply, then the price can only keep grinding downward.

The funding story was told last year. In the secondary market, people are waiting for something entirely different: revenue, users, the product—any one with at least a bit of real data would do. Right now, none of these three look good.

GRVT@grvt_io Airdrop registration is open; tokens will be issued on July 21. The team offered a choice: claim immediately to get 1x, delay 4 months to get 2x, or delay 8 months to get 4x. In the group, everyone is calculating which option is more worthwhile. But looking at this mechanism, it doesn’t feel like a multiple-choice question—it feels like a multi-player game theory situation.

Let’s break it down. The 4x bonus doesn’t increase the total pool; it only increases the share proportion. If you choose the 8-month delay, your relative share compared to those who chose immediate claim becomes 4 times larger. Conversely, if most people choose the 8-month delay, then everyone’s share ends up roughly 4x too—meaning it effectively doesn’t increase. The benefit of delaying gets swallowed by collective behavior #grvt

So it becomes a problem of guessing how others will choose. If you think most people will choose immediate claim, you choose the 4x delay option to capture the share difference. If you think everyone will choose delay, you choose immediate claim—so you can run on TGE day when the circulating supply is only 3.5%. Everyone is guessing, and everyone believes their reasoning is more accurate than everyone else’s.

The project team plays this hand pretty cleverly. It’s essentially letting users choose their own lock-up duration—no forced lock. Those who choose delay push the selling pressure out by 4 months or even 8 months. Selling pressure on TGE day is kept under control; circulating supply is already small, so price theoretically has support. The real test comes after 8 months, when the locked tokens unlock in a concentrated burst. If the price can’t hold up, the picture won’t look good.

Which option to choose isn’t enough to just do the math—you have to guess how others will choose. Everyone is guessing, and everyone thinks they’re smarter. Before the deadline to select on July 17, this is probably the most naked prisoner’s dilemma I’ve seen in crypto.

While checking the market-trend page, I found that $NEWT has hit a new low again. The price hovered around 0.045 for days. With a market cap of just a bit over 10 million u and an FDV of less than 50 million u, when these numbers are sitting there, some people will think it’s a good time to bottom-fish.

I算了一下. The circulating supply is 215 million coins, with a total supply of 1 billion. About 8 million coins unlock each month. At the current price of less than 400k u, that’s roughly the value per unlock. The numbers aren’t huge, but the unlock schedule lasts 36 months, and every month the coins keep being released. Where do the unlocked coins go? What cost do investors pay? People on the outside can’t see.

Some people compare FDV of 50 million u to the 90 million u raised in financing, think it’s like a 50% discount, so it’s cheap. There’s a flaw in this calculation. FDV is calculated by multiplying total supply by current price; it doesn’t mean that there are actually buyers in the market willing to pay 50 million u to take all of it. The unlocked coins still flow out normally every month—prices will trend downward, and FDV will shrink accordingly. #Newt

With a small float, tens of thousands u can move the price by a few points, and the same tens of thousands u in sell pressure can also drag it down. Daily trading volume is only around 1–2 million u, and liquidity depth isn’t very strong. When placing orders, you may feel the price is acceptable, but when you want to exit, slippage could be quite large. @NewtonProtocol

A low FDV isn’t the whole story—there are many things between buying and being able to profit. Before the money goes in, you need to figure out whether you’re buying something truly cheap, or whether you’re effectively paying for the unlocks.

Why does everyone say BSC is taking off?

$CZ: 70% of the coins were burned—doesn't that exactly show that Big Brother is unwilling to pay attention?

This time it’s because of the burn that they’re pumping; it’s very likely the last dance.

I looked into the collaboration details between GRVT and Aave—the logic is quite interesting.

In typical contract trading, you place margin there and wait for openings, meaning the funds sit idle during this period. Suppose you have 10,000 u in your account, but only 3,000 u is used to open positions. The remaining 7,000 u just stays put and does nothing.

@grvt_io GRVT’s approach is: the idle 7,000 u is automatically routed to Aave to earn interest, with a maximum annualized yield of up to 11%. When you need to open a position, the system automatically withdraws the funds from Aave and turns them into margin. Users don’t need to manually operate it—it's a seamless, invisible switch.

Let’s do the math. If a trader, on average, has 50% of their funds sitting idle (waiting to open positions or due to risk-control needs), then in a 10,000 u account, 5,000 u is earning 11% annualized yield. Over one year, that’s an extra income of 550 u. For frequent traders, this money might even be more than the trading fees.

#grvt

In traditional finance, this kind of setup is called a cash sweep—after market close each day, brokers automatically move clients’ idle cash into money market funds. Charles Schwab (Schwab) reportedly earns tens of billions of USD in interest income each year from this. GRVT applies the same concept on-chain.

But there’s a problem: this yield is not risk-free. Aave’s interest rates come from borrowing demand. If the lending market runs into trouble (liquidity crunches, bad debt), depositors may face losses. Although Aave hasn’t had any major systemic risk historically, in DeFi there is no truly risk-free yield.

Another issue is response speed. If market conditions suddenly swing dramatically, users may need to urgently add margin. Withdrawing funds from Aave takes time. What if, during that time window, the price has already triggered liquidation?

GRVT claims they built a real-time risk-control engine to handle this situation. But exactly how they deal with withdrawal delays during extreme market conditions is not explained in detail in the whitepaper.

The design is smart, but the devil is in the details. The real test will come when someone is actually liquidated during an extreme market event and then asks why the margin couldn’t be withdrawn in time.

In GRVT’s Series A, the ZKsync Foundation led the round with $14 million, accounting for 73% of the $19 million total.

This proportion is rare. Generally, when a venture firm leads a round, it takes 20% to 40%. With $14 million making up 73%, it’s as if ZKsync effectively covered almost the entire round.

Why is ZKsync making such a heavy bet on GRVT?@grvt_io

The surface reason is: GRVT is the first perp DEX in the ZKsync ecosystem to obtain a regulatory license. While Bermuda’s Class M license isn’t a mainstream compliance standard in the primary markets, it at least represents a regulated status. For ZKsync, having a compliant derivatives trading venue in its ecosystem can attract institutional capital.

But the deeper logic might be: ZKsync needs a product that can directly compete with Hyperliquid.

Hyperliquid is currently the leader among perp DEXs. It also built its own L1, and its daily trading volume often exceeds $1 billion, with a user experience close to CEX-level. As a general-purpose L2, ZKsync doesn’t have an application layer specifically optimized for derivatives trading. If there isn’t a strong perp DEX in the ZKsync ecosystem, users will go to Hyperliquid or other dedicated chains.

#grvt ’s stack is built on ZKsync: the order book is off-chain, settlement happens on-chain, and its speed and experience can match Hyperliquid. ZKsync investing $14 million isn’t just about putting in money—it’s more like strategic binding: you use my technology, and I help you grow; as you grow, my ecosystem benefits too.

However, this strategy has a risk: if GRVT doesn’t take off, the $14 million could be wasted. Also, GRVT’s KYC requirements are a growth bottleneck. Hyperliquid doesn’t require KYC, so retail users are more willing to go there. The gap is clear—33,000 KYC users versus Hyperliquid’s several hundred thousand users.

What ZKsync is betting on is that a compliant route can surpass a wild route in the future. If regulation tightens, KYC-free platforms like Hyperliquid may face restrictions, while GRVT has a license that allows it to keep operating. This bet needs time to be validated, but at least the direction is clear.

The token hasn’t been issued yet—once it launches, we’ll see how much return that $14 million from ZKsync can generate.

While checking the market in the morning, I clicked into the $NEWT page again. The price is 0.0484u, up about 1.3% in 24 hours, and Binance’s trading volume is around 346k u. Another major market site puts the market cap at about 10.38m u, FDV at about 48.29m u, with a circulating supply of 215 million coins, accounting for 21.5% of the total. The numbers don’t look too bad, and even my small position finally stopped going red—at least I saved myself a cup of coffee money.

#Newt still has the “exchange seed” tag attached. That tag was originally meant to remind people of volatility and early-stage project risk, but I’ve seen plenty of task users interpret being listed on a major exchange as the project already having “passed.” After completing the check-in and claiming the reward, once you look at the page and see trading pairs, it becomes very easy to hand over trust ahead of time.

The issue is that a tag and an exchange listing only indicate that a trading entry exists. The product data visible in the mainnet test version is still limited; there’s also no clear, consistent explanation for paid protocol users, revenue, or on-chain usage counts. With 90M in funding and 50 million wallet addresses, those materials can support a first impression, but they can’t replace what’s actually happening today. If every day the only activity is those task wallets “moving a bit,” then even if the tag is displayed prominently, it’s still hard to turn this batch of accounts into protocol users who are willing to pay. @NewtonProtocol

When I look at this tag now, I treat it as a risk warning—not as proof of credibility. The price is low, and FDV isn’t high either; that definitely attracts new buyers. But without usage data to back it up, the words “cheap” still have to be discounted by oneself. I’ll keep my position in small size for observation and won’t chase the price. This is just a personal record and does not constitute investment advice.

There’s a new project on the plaza—this time it’s GRVT. But the mode is different from before. You’ll need two Alpha points to participate. After that, it seems you’ll need to have more than 1 Alpha point per day.

The entire project period is very short, only five days. The tasks are: one-time social media follow, and daily posts.

In the Chinese-language region, 125,000 tokens are allocated to creators ranked in the Top 300. We still don’t know what the value is yet, but judging by the project’s financing, there is 34M.

A few days ago, I was scrolling X and saw @grvt_io post tokenomics, with 28% allocated to the community.

I’ve been watching this project for a while, but I haven’t written about it before. In simple terms, it’s a hybrid exchange that runs on ZKsync: order matching happens off-chain, while settlement occurs on-chain. It’s fast, but users keep control of their own assets. The founder, Hong Yea, was previously an executive director at Goldman Sachs, and the CTO came from Meta—both have over a decade of experience in traditional finance and big tech.

They raised $34 million, with ZKsync itself leading the $14 million round. Hack VC, Delphi, and EigenLayer are also involved. They obtained a Bermuda Class M license. This license isn’t a mainstream compliance benchmark, but at least it’s a regulated status. #grvt

In terms of data: total trading volume reached $177 billion. On the Perp DEX rankings, it’s currently ranked between 5th and 10th globally. In February this year, it partnered with Aave: idle margin is automatically routed to Aave to earn interest, with a maximum annualized yield of 11%. Sixteen market makers are integrated, and the monthly liquidity commitment is $3.3 billion.

What I find most interesting is the Unified Margin design. It puts all assets into a single account. While BTC is used as collateral, it can still generate yield. When opening positions with stablecoins, for example, the system automatically routes funds to Aave to earn interest. In traditional finance, large funds use prime brokerage services, and they want to bring that experience to retail users.

But the issues are also pretty clear: with 33,000 KYC users, it’s not a lot for an exchange that has been operating for a year and a half. Hyperliquid doesn’t require KYC, and its user base is dozens of times that of GRVT. KYC is a compliance requirement, but it also becomes a growth bottleneck.

The token hasn’t been issued yet, and the price hasn’t been set. We’ll see how it performs after launch. The direction looks right, and the execution so far is acceptable—now we just have to see whether it can get past the KYC hurdle.

Every morning I check prices, and $NEWT is back around 0.0479u. Binance’s 24h is +3.68%, with trading volume of roughly 360k u. The major行情 websites estimate the market cap at about 10.285 million u, FDV around 47.837 million u, circulating supply of 215 million coins, and a ratio of 21.5%. The numbers look a little better than yesterday, but they’re not good enough to make people close their eyes and get optimistic—at most, the market is willing to take a quick look.

This market is the easiest to make people’s hands itch. With 90 million u in financing but an FDV of only a little over 40 million u, it sounds like a bargain. I’ve been burned like this before: seeing low valuation, I gave myself reasons, and then after I bought, I realized “cheap” is just the entry point—it isn’t a safety net. Especially for projects with big institutional names, it’s easy to think you’ve cornered some market discount, when in reality the market may simply not be willing to price it in yet.

#Newt What matters now is whether a low FDV can actually attract fresh buy orders. Fresh buyers won’t only look at the financing list; they’ll also look at real users, protocol revenue, and whether there’s progress with institutional integrations. If the team can’t provide these kinds of data, what retail traders can talk about every day is still ATH, circulation ratio, and financing amount. Talk long enough and it starts to feel like self-soothing. As a normal participant, I’m most afraid that I’ll get more and more familiar with the spreadsheet while my position gradually becomes more and more passive.@NewtonProtocol

So I won’t get carried away just because it’s at 0.0479u. You can observe, but you have to watch the follow-up data. Without usage growth to back it up, a low FDV might just mean the market isn’t willing to give it much price. A small position is fine—just don’t treat “cheap” as a safety net. Not investment advice.

When it launched in June last year ($NEWT ), there were two camps of opinions on the Binance Square.

Reasons to be bullish: PayPal Ventures invested $52 million; Magic Labs has a 50M wallet; AI agents are a hot track; on-chain authorization is a must-have; Coinbase’s endorsement of the Base chain deployment; EigenLayer AVS technology is advanced. #Newt

Reasons to be bearish: The product is still in beta; there are no real users on-chain; Magic’s wallet doesn’t equal Newton’s users; the tokenomics force the use of NEWT, which adds friction; similar projects haven’t managed to produce real usage.

A year later, the price fell from 0.76 to 0.048—down 94%.

Looking back, which camp was right? @NewtonProtocol

In general, the bearish camp was basically correct. The product is still in beta; on-chain it’s still just an agent; Magic’s customers have zero integration; token use cases are still on the roadmap; and competitors haven’t demonstrated real usage either. All the doubts raised a year ago are still valid today.

Where did the bullish camp go wrong? They treated potential as reality. PayPal did invest, but investment doesn’t mean the product can actually execute. The 50M wallet does exist, but wallet users won’t automatically become Newton users. AI agents are indeed a hot area, but a hot track doesn’t guarantee that every project succeeds.

More importantly, they got the timeline wrong. The bullish side thought that within a year the product would make substantial progress, users would ramp up, and the token would see real consumption. But in reality, after a year, Newton is still at square one.

This lesson is valuable for everyone who analyzes projects: don’t pay for narratives—pay for usage. Don’t bet on potential—bet on progress.

Now at 0.048, if it’s still in this same state a year from now, 0.048 won’t be a bottom either.