WuBlockchain

Ethena and digital-asset prime broker FalconX have established a $1 billion secured warehouse facility to deploy assets backing USDe into overcollateralized institutional loans. FalconX will originate, service and manage the collateral for loans used in trading strategies, corporate treasury management and payments. The arrangement gives Ethena an additional source of returns beyond perpetual-futures funding rates. Collateral will be held by qualified third-party custodians, with Ethena holding a first-priority security interest over the facility’s assets.

Editor | WuBlockchain
In December 2022, Core Scientific was one of the most prominent Bitcoin miners to go bankrupt during the crypto winter. Less than four years later, the company had secured more than $24 billion in potential long-term contract revenue, reached a market capitalization of approximately $7 billion, and become a key partner for AI industry participants such as CoreWeave and AMD seeking to lock in power and data center capacity.
At first glance, this looks like a classic story of a bankrupt miner suddenly striking it rich. But Core Scientific did not turn itself around simply by riding a rebound in Bitcoin prices. Instead, it recast the same power, land, and data center resources from relatively volatile Bitcoin mining assets into scarce AI data center infrastructure.
From a Publicly Listed Miner to Just $4 Million in Cash
Core Scientific’s predecessor was incorporated in late 2017, and the company began operating under the Core Scientific name in 2018. In January 2022, it listed on Nasdaq under the ticker CORZ through a merger with special purpose acquisition company Power & Digital Infrastructure Acquisition Corp.
At the time, Core Scientific’s principal businesses included self-mining Bitcoin, providing hosting services to third-party miners, and selling mining equipment. Its business model depended on three critical conditions: Bitcoin prices remaining high, mining machines operating continuously, and power costs remaining stable.
In 2022, all three conditions deteriorated almost simultaneously.
Bitcoin fell steadily from its November 2021 high of nearly $69,000 and briefly dropped to approximately $16,000 in November 2022. Meanwhile, the network hash rate and mining difficulty continued to rise, meaning miners had to deploy more computing power and consume more electricity to produce the same amount of Bitcoin.
Rising energy prices squeezed margins further. Core Scientific stated in its bankruptcy filings that its electricity costs reached approximately $106 million in the first half of 2022. Power prices continued to rise over the summer, while the company was also frequently required to curtail electricity consumption at the request of power suppliers.
Customer default added another layer of pressure. After crypto lender Celsius filed for bankruptcy in 2022, it became embroiled in a dispute with Core Scientific over their hosting agreement. Core Scientific said that Celsius had failed to pay approximately $7 million in accumulated charges and was continuing to cause the company additional losses.
Core Scientific reported a net loss of approximately $434.8 million in the third quarter of 2022. On December 21, 2022, the company formally filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. It had approximately $4 million in cash on the filing date.
Core Scientific’s problem was not a lack of assets. Rather, the company had invested heavily to expand its mining business, using debt to purchase mining machines and build data centers. When Bitcoin prices, power prices, and financing conditions all reversed at once, those fixed assets could not be monetized quickly enough, while the company’s cash flow dried up first.
Bankruptcy Restructuring Preserved the Most Valuable Assets
Chapter 11 restructuring did not require Core Scientific to liquidate all of its assets immediately. The company was able to continue operating during the bankruptcy process while reallocating debt and equity among creditors, equipment financing providers, and existing shareholders.
Core Scientific completed its restructuring and emerged from bankruptcy in January 2024. The company said the restructuring reduced its debt by approximately $400 million while preserving approximately 724 MW of operational capacity, together with data centers, land, grid connections, and supporting infrastructure across several U.S. states.
Existing shareholders were not completely wiped out. Under the restructuring plan, they received common stock and warrants in the reorganized company and were eligible to participate in a related rights offering. Assuming the full exercise of the warrants and including the rights offering, the securities allocated to existing shareholders could represent as much as approximately 60% of the reorganized company’s equity.
The reorganized company’s shares resumed trading on Nasdaq on January 24, 2024. They opened at approximately $5.89 and closed at approximately $3.44 on the first day. Initially, the market still viewed Core Scientific as a Bitcoin miner that had only just emerged from bankruptcy and needed to repair its balance sheet.
However, the data center and power assets preserved through the restructuring later became the foundation for the company’s valuation reversal. Mining machines can depreciate rapidly, and Bitcoin production is affected by both the token’s price and network difficulty. By contrast, data centers that have already secured grid connections, built substations, and assembled large sites are difficult to replicate in the short term.
CoreWeave Gave Mining-Site Power a New Pricing Model
Core Scientific’s partnership with AI cloud infrastructure company CoreWeave became the pivotal event in the shift in its valuation framework.
The two companies had already worked together on an approximately 16 MW project in Austin, Texas. In June 2024, Core Scientific announced a new 12-year agreement with CoreWeave to provide approximately 200 MW of high-performance computing infrastructure. The company estimated that the contract could generate more than $3.5 billion in potential cumulative revenue over its full term.
Under the initial agreement, CoreWeave would fund approximately $300 million in project capital expenditures, which would be credited against future hosting fees. This arrangement reduced Core Scientific’s upfront construction burden and allowed it to gradually convert existing mining sites into high-density data centers suitable for GPU clusters.
The companies subsequently expanded their partnership several times. The long-term capacity contracted in 2024 grew from approximately 200 MW to approximately 502 MW through successive additions of roughly 70 MW, 112 MW, and 120 MW. This figure excluded the earlier approximately 16 MW Austin project.
In February 2025, the companies added another approximately 70 MW at the Denton project in Texas. Core Scientific expected to fund approximately $104 million of capital expenditures for the expansion, with CoreWeave funding the remaining related capital investment.
Including the earlier Austin project, the agreements between the two companies covered approximately 588 MW, which Core Scientific reported as approximately 590 MW. The contracts had 12-year terms and represented approximately $10.2 billion in potential cumulative revenue.
These contracts changed the way capital markets assessed Core Scientific. Investors had previously focused primarily on its Bitcoin output, hash rate, mining-machine efficiency, and BTC holdings. After the pivot, the more important metrics became contracted capacity, the number of megawatts generating billable revenue, the value of long-term contracts, and project delivery timelines.
When one megawatt of power is used for Bitcoin mining, its value depends on the price of Bitcoin, network difficulty, and mining-machine efficiency. When it is used for AI compute hosting, that same power capacity can potentially be converted into comparatively stable revenue through contracts lasting more than a decade. Core Scientific’s assets did not change completely, but their use case and the duration of the resulting cash flows did.
A $9 Billion Acquisition That Never Closed
CoreWeave was not only one of Core Scientific’s largest AI hosting customers; it also tried twice to acquire the company outright.
In 2024, CoreWeave offered to acquire Core Scientific for $5.75 per share in cash, but Core Scientific’s board rejected the proposal. At the time, Core Scientific said the offer significantly undervalued the company and its growth prospects.
The two companies reached another acquisition agreement in July 2025. Under its terms, Core Scientific shareholders would receive 0.1235 shares of CoreWeave Class A common stock for each CORZ share they held.
Based on the transaction terms announced at the time and CoreWeave’s five-day volume-weighted average price, the deal valued Core Scientific’s fully diluted equity at approximately $9 billion. Based on CoreWeave’s closing share price on July 3, 2025, the consideration was worth approximately $20.40 per Core Scientific share.
However, this was a fixed-exchange-ratio transaction with no fixed cash price. As CoreWeave’s share price declined, the implied value of the consideration offered to Core Scientific shareholders fell with it. By September 2, 2025, the implied value had dropped to approximately $11.41 per share.
Some Core Scientific shareholders were also concerned that the transaction would require the company to give up the potential upside from remaining independent in exchange for shares in another AI infrastructure company that likewise faced high capital expenditures, customer concentration, and debt pressures.
On October 30, 2025, Core Scientific shareholders voted against the transaction, and the two companies subsequently terminated the merger agreement. Although the transaction never closed, the approximately $9 billion valuation nevertheless became an important reference point as the market reassessed the value of Core Scientific’s power and data center assets.
From the $5.75-per-share cash offer in 2024 to the approximately $9 billion all-stock transaction in 2025, CoreWeave’s two acquisition attempts showed that Core Scientific’s core value no longer lay only in its mining machines and Bitcoin output. It increasingly lay in power capacity that could be delivered within a relatively short period.
AMD Took the Story Into Its Second Phase
The CoreWeave contracts demonstrated that Bitcoin mining sites could be converted into AI data centers. The AMD-related partnership could also reduce Core Scientific’s dependence on a single customer and a single project.
In 2026, Core Scientific announced a large-scale infrastructure partnership with AMD. According to the disclosures accompanying Core Scientific’s second-quarter 2026 results, the partnership could ultimately support up to approximately 2.5 GW of leasable capacity. Signed 15-year agreements covered five projects and approximately 529 MW, representing more than $14 billion in potential base contract revenue.
In addition to the contracted capacity, AMD received reservation rights for approximately 1.925 GW of additional capacity. If all of these rights are converted into definitive projects, the partnership’s total potential scale could reach approximately 2.5 GW. However, reserved capacity is not the same as revenue under signed contracts. Its eventual conversion will still depend on site selection, grid access, project construction, and end-customer demand.
As part of the partnership, AMD received warrants to purchase up to 30 million shares of Core Scientific common stock at an exercise price of $23.47 per share. Following the execution of the related leases on July 27, 2026, warrants covering approximately 6.5 million shares had vested and become exercisable. The arrangement means AMD is not only an equipment and industry partner but could also participate in the upside from an increase in Core Scientific’s share price.
Of the AMD-related contracted capacity, approximately 152 MW was leased by AI infrastructure operator Neocloud. Core Scientific, Neocloud, and AMD also entered into a tripartite credit support agreement designed primarily to protect AMD equipment deployed at the sites and to give AMD the option to cure certain defaults by Neocloud. The relevant documents, however, did not characterize AMD as an unconditional guarantor of all of Neocloud’s payment obligations.
By July 2026, Core Scientific had contracted approximately 1.1 GW of customer power capacity, representing more than $24 billion in potential contract revenue. Approximately 437 MW had begun generating billable revenue, corresponding to approximately $635 million in annualized GAAP hosting revenue.
From approximately 590 MW under the CoreWeave agreements to approximately 529 MW under the AMD- and Neocloud-related agreements, Core Scientific was beginning to move beyond a model driven by a single customer at the contracted-capacity level and to reposition itself as a data center developer serving multiple AI industry participants.
The Financials Are Beginning to Validate the Pivot, but the “Windfall” Remains a Valuation Narrative
Core Scientific’s revenue mix has changed markedly.
In the second quarter of 2026, the company generated approximately $164.2 million in total revenue. High-density colocation revenue was approximately $136.7 million, or about 83% of the total, while self-mining digital asset revenue was approximately $21.5 million.
The high-density colocation business generated approximately $80 million in quarterly gross profit, with a gross margin of approximately 59%. By contrast, the self-mining business recorded a gross loss of approximately $12.2 million and a gross margin of approximately -56%. The company reported adjusted EBITDA of approximately $41.1 million for the quarter.
This means high-density colocation is no longer merely a future plan. It has become Core Scientific’s largest source of revenue and gross profit. The mining business that once supported the company is becoming a smaller, less profitable residual operation.
There is, however, still a significant gap between contract value and accounting profit.
Core Scientific reported a second-quarter net loss of approximately $1.155 billion, of which approximately $1.046 billion came from fair value changes in warrants and contingent value rights. These losses were driven primarily by the increase in the company’s share price and were non-cash accounting items; they did not mean the company had incurred an equivalent amount of actual cash outflow during the quarter.
Even so, the company still recorded a GAAP operating loss of approximately $78.5 million in the second quarter, indicating that it had not yet achieved stable profitability on an accounting basis.
Core Scientific generated approximately $230.9 million in net cash from operating activities in the first half of 2026, but this figure included approximately $208.2 million in proceeds from the sale of digital assets, as well as customer prepayments and other changes in working capital. Positive operating cash flow therefore cannot be taken to mean that the data center business can already fund all construction and financing expenditures on a standalone basis.
The AI data center pivot also requires enormous capital investment.
In the first half of 2026, Core Scientific spent approximately $954 million in cash on purchases of property, plant, and equipment, of which approximately $181 million was funded by CoreWeave. The company also paid approximately $233 million to acquire land and development rights, bringing the combined cash investment in these two categories to approximately $1.187 billion.
To support project construction, the company issued $3.3 billion of 7.75% senior secured notes due 2031 in May 2026. As of June 30, 2026, Core Scientific’s long-term debt had risen to approximately $4.3 billion from approximately $1.06 billion at the end of 2025.
The more than $24 billion in potential contract revenue therefore should not be interpreted as $24 billion in cash that the company has already secured. This revenue must be recognized gradually over more than a decade and depends on projects being completed on schedule, customers continuing to perform their contractual obligations, and data centers operating reliably.
Core Scientific shares closed at $21.77 on August 5, 2026, ET, up approximately 533% from their $3.44 closing price on the first day of relisting on January 24, 2024. Based on approximately 321.3 million shares outstanding as of July 23, the company’s market capitalization was approximately $7 billion.
This rally reflects capital markets pricing in future cash flows ahead of their realization. Investors are not buying profits that the company has already earned; they are buying the possibility that its power resources can be converted into AI data center revenue in the years ahead.
What Core Scientific Is Really Selling Is “Time to Power”
Core Scientific’s turnaround was not simply the result of a bankrupt miner returning to profitability on the back of a Bitcoin rebound. It was a transformation in both infrastructure use and valuation framework.
In the Bitcoin mining era, the company’s primary assets were mining machines, hash rate, and mining sites capable of securing a continuous supply of low-cost electricity. In the AI data center era, mining machines have become less important, while land, grid access, substations, fiber connectivity, cooling systems, and project execution capabilities have become the core assets.
As demand for AI data centers grows rapidly in the United States and grid interconnection can take years, what customers are actually buying is not merely electricity but the ability to obtain large-scale energized capacity within a defined timeframe. A mining site that has already been selected, secured grid access, and retained room for expansion may be brought online faster than a data center built from scratch.
What Core Scientific sells, therefore, is not merely megawatts. It can also be understood as “time to power.” By securing land and power resources in advance and then signing long-term contracts with AI customers, the company is converting infrastructure once used for Bitcoin mining into longer-duration hosting cash flows.
This model has not eliminated risk; it has changed the source of that risk.
Core Scientific’s primary risks once came from Bitcoin prices, electricity prices, and network mining difficulty. Now, they are more likely to come from capital expenditures, financing costs, customer concentration, construction delays, and contract performance. If projects cannot be delivered on schedule, or if customer demand and financing conditions change, the more than $24 billion in potential contract revenue may still not be fully realized.
From approximately $4 million in cash and Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to a market capitalization of approximately $7 billion and more than $24 billion in potential contract revenue, Core Scientific has unquestionably achieved a dramatic valuation reversal.
But the company’s real transformation is not that it suddenly owns more Bitcoin. It has evolved from a miner dependent on crypto prices into a data center developer whose core products are power capacity and speed to energization. Whether it has truly escaped the high-leverage risks of the previous cycle will ultimately depend on whether these power blueprints can be converted, on schedule, into data centers that generate recurring billable revenue.
Follow us
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WuBlockchain
Telegram: https://t.me/wublockchainenglish

CryptoSlate reported that Bitcoin fell 14.2% in Q2 2026, while institutional Bitcoin ETF holdings rose 7.5% from 498,389 BTC to 535,723 BTC. The number of institutions reporting Bitcoin positions through 13F filings fell from around 2,000 to approximately 1,900. Banks and quant funds increased exposure, while sovereign wealth funds and endowments largely held steady. Hedge funds reduced some ordinary ETF shares, although options positions make their actual exposure difficult to assess.

Hyperliquid core contributor Xulian requested feedback on the latest HIP-4 templates, which are now available onchain and via API. The latest template in each family will undergo validator review and an onchain vote for potential inclusion as a mainnet template. Mainnet deployment remains conditional on HIP-4 activation.

Binance announced that Binance Blockchain Week 2026 will be held from November 28 to 29 at the Queen Sirikit National Convention Center (QSNCC) in Bangkok, Thailand. The event, themed “EVOLVE,” will cover topics including Bitcoin institutionalization, stablecoin payments, institutional DeFi, RWA tokenization, tokenized stocks, cross-border payments, AI and crypto integration, and regulatory frameworks.

The digital asset platform announced its appointment as an authorized Credit Representative in Australia, launching its regulated crypto-backed Credit Lines under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. Nexo Australia is a member of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). Alongside Credit Lines, Nexo is also introducing its Nexo Booster, rebranded Nexo Growth yield product, and its tiered Wealth Club loyalty program.
This post is sponsored by Nexo.

MSTR Shareholder Questions Strategy: I Bought $73K MSTR for My Kids. Now It’s Worth $20K
At Strategy's Q2 2026 investor Q&A, livestreamed on Aug. 17, a shareholder said he had invested $73,000 in MSTR for each of his three children, that each investment is now worth only about $20,000, and asked whether the company would consider paying a dividend to common shareholders. CEO Phong Le responded that the company will not pay a common-stock dividend on MSTR, saying it is not the best use of capital. Executive Chairman Michael Saylor said MSTR is essentially an amplified Bitcoin exposure with volatility likely well above Bitcoin itself, and that common-stock investors should have at least a four-year holding horizon — ideally seven to ten years.

According to SoSoValue, spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $189 million in net inflows on August 18 (ET). Hashdex’s DEFI spot Bitcoin ETF has begun liquidation due to factors including assets under management, trading liquidity, and operating costs. It ceased trading on NYSE Arca on August 17 and will subsequently be delisted. Spot Ethereum ETFs recorded $71.468 million in net inflows, led by BlackRock’s ETHA with $64.6814 million in net inflows.

Binance released its 45th Proof of Reserves report, based on an August 1 snapshot. User BTC holdings stood at approximately 657,000 BTC, up 2.55% from the previous snapshot on July 1, an increase of 16,349 BTC. User ETH holdings stood at approximately 3.98 million ETH, down 2.57%, a decrease of 105,154 ETH. User USDT holdings stood at approximately 32.9 billion USDT, down 2.57%, a decrease of about 870 million USDT.

According to Bitcoin Magazine, investigations by Block and Galaxy Research indicate that the FBI may have identified the attackers behind the first wave of the July 2026 Coldcard hardware wallet exploit, in which 1,082.65 BTC worth approximately $11.8 million was stolen. Block’s investigation found that the attackers used an account with a paid blockchain data provider while sweeping funds onchain, and the provider’s internal logs closely matched the hackers’ request patterns. Coldcard was previously found to have a random number generator vulnerability caused by the libngu library introduced in 2021, potentially allowing the private keys generated by a large number of devices to be cracked. Officials are still tracking multiple waves of attacks.

VanEck’s latest report shows that 8 of its 12 tracked Bitcoin market capitulation signals were triggering as of August 12, while all 12 had entered capitulation territory at some point over the past three months. VanEck said Bitcoin’s drawdown from its October 2025 peak has entered its 10th month, suggesting the market may be nearing or already in an accumulation phase; based on historical cycles, a potential turning point could come between September and November.
However, historical backtests show that Bitcoin did not generate significant excess returns in the 3–6 months after similar capitulation signals, outperforming the benchmark only over a one-year horizon, with a limited sample size. Over the past 30 days, BTC held for more than one year fell by about 357,000 BTC to 11.84 million BTC, representing 59.1% of circulating supply; meanwhile, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETPs recorded about $663 million in net inflows, while 30-day realized volatility fell to 27.2%.

BlackRock said in its latest report that Bitcoin fell more than 50% from its October 2025 all-time high, driven mainly by deleveraging, weaker capital flows, and slower buying from digital asset treasuries, rather than a change in its long-term investment case. At the time, open interest in crypto futures exceeded $90 billion, with about 80% coming from perpetual futures outside the CME; subsequent tariff shocks triggered multiple waves of liquidations, pushing Bitcoin below $60,000 in June 2026.
Meanwhile, spot Bitcoin ETPs attracted about $60 billion in cumulative inflows from January 2024 to October 2025, followed by about $5 billion in net outflows, while AI-focused funds saw more than $46 billion in inflows over the same period. Selling by Strategy and other digital asset treasuries and large holders also added to market pressure. BlackRock continues to view a small Bitcoin allocation as a potential portfolio diversification tool and a potential hedge against declining fiat purchasing power.

CZ: Stablecoins could reduce cross-border remittance fees to near zero
On July 31, 2026, Binance founder CZ said in an interview at the ASEAN Tech Summit that stablecoins and blockchain technology could potentially reduce cross-border remittance fees in the Philippines to nearly zero. The Philippines receives around $35 billion in remittances annually, while traditional remittance fees generally range from 5% to 7%, and can reach as high as 10%. He believes reducing fees should be the top priority for stablecoin adoption, while blockchain can also significantly improve transfer speeds and enable more efficient cross-border payments.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proposed “Regulation Crypto Assets,” a tailored securities offering framework for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets. The proposal would create two exemptions from Securities Act registration: a one-time exemption allowing offerings of up to $5 million over a four-year period, and another allowing offerings of up to $75 million in any 12-month period. Both would require investor disclosures, while the larger exemption would also require financial statements and ongoing reporting.
The proposal would also establish a conditional safe harbor under which a crypto asset could cease to be subject to an investment contract if specified conditions are met, including after an issuer has completed or permanently ceased the essential managerial efforts it had promised to undertake. The SEC will accept public comments for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Japan-listed Bitcoin treasury company Metaplanet (TSE: 3350) and Nasdaq-listed Super League Enterprise (Nasdaq: SLE) have entered into a definitive agreement under which Metaplanet, through its U.S. subsidiary, will contribute 2,100 BTC worth about $132.1 million and $2.5 million in cash to Super League in exchange for common stock, preferred stock and warrants, for an initial investment of about $134.6 million. Upon closing, Super League will be renamed Superplanet, Inc., with its ticker expected to change to SUPA. Metaplanet is expected to own approximately 95.7% of Superplanet’s common stock, which will serve as its U.S. Bitcoin treasury platform.

Nasdaq-listed Zcash treasury company Cypherpunk Technologies (CYPH) has launched ZEC mining operations through its subsidiary Cypherpunk Mining, deploying approximately 4.2 GSol/s of Equihash hashrate across the U.S., representing about 18% of the Zcash network. The company said the fleet is currently the largest active mining fleet on Zcash. The mining rigs were funded through a $33.33 million equity transaction with Winklevoss Capital, while mining industry veteran Kevin Zhang was appointed head of mining. Cypherpunk currently holds 323,394 ZEC, or about 1.92% of circulating supply, and plans to use mining and further accumulation to advance its goal of holding 5% of ZEC’s total supply.

Arthur Hayes said he is “coming out of retirement” to lead Flop Labs. Flop Network is designed for the AI agent economy, with its native token FLOP serving as a payment asset for AI agents to access compute and other network services. FLOP will launch with no presale, no VC allocation and a 100% fair-launch model. The project expects a large-scale airdrop in Q4 2026, followed by the genesis block in Q1 2027.

Falcon Finance announced a regulated RWA tokenization pipeline in El Salvador, starting with a tokenized GPU forward financing instrument. NEAR AI will serve as anchor buyer of the GPU compute capacity and technology partner, while vGPU will handle equipment supply, installation and maintenance. The asset will be issued by licensed Salvadoran entity NOTA S.A.S. de C.V. and designed to trade on permissionless venues including Uniswap. Once sufficient volume and market depth are established, it may become eligible as collateral for minting USDf on Falcon Finance.
Sponsored by Falcon Finance

Hyperliquid Policy Center and trade[XYZ], a Hyperliquid perpetual markets deployer, jointly submitted a comment letter to the U.S. SEC proposing a regulatory framework for pre-IPO perpetual contracts, or IPOPs. They recommend eventually allowing U.S. investors, including retail participants, to access such products. IPOPs would not represent shares, voting rights, or IPO allocation rights, but would provide pre-listing price exposure and price discovery. The two parties also urged the SEC and CFTC to clarify whether equity-linked perpetuals are security futures or security-based swaps, and establish rules on disclosures, listing standards, leverage, position limits, and market manipulation.

Pump fun Co-founder: I genuinely don't believe in decentralization
On August 8, 2026, Pump fun co-founder Noah Tweedale stated in an interview with Crypto Insider that he is a massive bear on decentralization. He believes that looking back at internet history, the ultimate winners were companies that controlled the full stack and provided excellent user experiences, rather than underlying infrastructure.
He genuinely does not believe in decentralization, stating that the Pump Foundation solely cares about user experience. Using Solana as an example, he believes on-chain activity has migrated to the relatively centralized Solana because the user experience on Ethereum is poor. As long as the end-user experience is optimal, users do not care if the underlying chain is decentralized.