Wall Street Shorts ETH: Vitalik Knew and Front-Ran, Tom Lee Still Deluded

marsbitPubblicato 2026-03-07Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-07

Introduzione

Culper Research, a Wall Street short-selling firm, has announced a short position on ETH and related securities, including Bitmine (BMNR). The firm argues that Ethereum's token economic model was broken following the Fusaka upgrade in December 2025. They claim that Vitalik Buterin and developers miscalculated Layer 1 demand elasticity using outdated models, leading to a 90% drop in gas fees instead of the predicted 10-30%. This has allegedly enabled a surge in low-value on-chain activity, such as address poisoning and dusting attacks, which now account for 22.5% of all Ethereum transactions. Culper asserts that Vitalik is aware of these issues and is selling his ETH, while prominent bull Tom Lee continues to incorrectly attribute the network's growth to genuine adoption. The report also highlights a decline in validator earnings, a loss of developer talent to Solana, and shrinking market share.

Source:Culper Research

Compiled by: Azuma, Odaily Planet Daily

Editor's Note: On March 6th, Wall Street short-selling firm Culper Research suddenly published an article announcing it is shorting ETH and related securities like BMNR. Culper Research's logic is that Vitalik and other developers miscalculated Ethereum's demand elasticity before the Fusaka upgrade, leading to the upgrade damaging ETH's token economic model. Culper Research also mentioned that Vitalik is well aware of this and is actively front-running with actions, while the deluded Tom Lee is heading towards a dead end.

In response to the firm's massive shorting, Vitalik himself and Tom Lee have not yet responded, but Vitalik's father, Dmitry Buterin (dima.eth), responded by saying: 'When you see the phrase "Vitalik knows this and is selling," you don't need to read further. They are clowns craving attention, not researchers.'

Below is the original content from Culper Research, compiled by Odaily Planet Daily. Compiling this article does not mean we agree with Culper Research's views, but is only to present the perspective and market agitation from some Wall Street institutions regarding ETH.

Latest disclosure: We are shorting ETH and ETH-related stocks, including Bitmine (BMNR).

We believe that after the Fusaka upgrade in December 2025, ETH's token economic model has been broken. Vitalik knows it and is selling; while ETH's staunchest bull, Tom Lee, continues to add ineffective investments. ETH will continue to fall.

Tom Lee's Bitmine has been defending ETH, claiming that "ETH is not in a death spiral because utility is increasing." He cited the surge in active addresses and transaction numbers on Ethereum after the Fusaka upgrade as evidence of so-called "improving fundamentals" and institutional adoption, but he is completely wrong.

By Tom Lee's own logic, if on-chain activity on Ethereum does not reflect real usage growth and fundamental improvement, then ETH is indeed in a death spiral.

And our research shows that this is exactly what is happening.

Our comprehensive analysis of on-chain data from January 2025 to February 2026 shows that what Lee calls "activity growth from institutional adoption" can actually be explained by a large number of low-value address poisoning and wallet dusting activities. These activities were triggered by the excess block space after the Fusaka upgrade.

After the Fusaka upgrade:

95% of new wallet growth came from newly created dust addresses;
Address poisoning attacks increased by more than 3 times;
Poisoning behavior explains over 50% of Ethereum's transaction growth;
Poisoning transactions now account for 22.5% of all Ethereum transactions;

The Fusaka upgrade increased the gas limit from 45M to 60M, aiming to expand Ethereum Layer1 capacity. Vitalik and the protocol team previously预计 gas fees would drop by 10%–30%, but the reality is that gas fees dropped by about 90%.

Vitalik and the validators made a serious miscalculation regarding Layer1 demand elasticity. They used outdated mathematical models (based on assumptions from before EIP-1559 and before the emergence of Layer2), thereby overestimating Layer1 demand by 3 to 9 times. This is also why we believe Vitalik is selling large amounts of ETH. On January 30th, Vitalik事先 announced he would sell 16,384 ETH to fund the Ethereum Foundation's "austerity period," but since then, he has sold over 19,300 ETH and is still selling.

Vitalik understands something Tom Lee does not — ETH's token economic model has been broken.

We personally recorded address poisoning on the Ethereum network. We created two new addresses and transferred between them. Within 5 minutes, we were subjected to an address poisoning attack. We encourage readers to verify this phenomenon themselves. Currently, the rate of loss due to poisoning attacks is more than 8 times higher than before the Fusaka upgrade.

Furthermore, the increase in the gas limit has hit Ethereum's validators群体, whose tip income per unit of gas has now decreased by 40%–50%. Falling yields will weaken staking demand and high-value transaction activity, further undermining institutional adoption. This flywheel has now started to reverse.

Meanwhile, Ethereum continues to lose market share to Solana and its own Layer2 networks.

Solana developer count grew by 29% in 2025;
Ethereum developer growth was only 6%;
Talent is leaving the Ethereum ecosystem;
Institutions like Visa and Citigroup have chosen Solana for DeFi applications;
Solana DEX trading volume is already more than 2 times that of Ethereum.

During the dot-com bubble era, Netscape and Nokia dominated the market for over 10 years, but the real winners were Google and Apple. We believe Ethereum's situation is similar — we think Ethereum's token economic model has collapsed, Tom Lee is trapped in his own position, and the price of ETH will continue to fall.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the main argument presented by Culper Research for shorting ETH?

ACulper Research argues that the Fusaka upgrade in December 2025 broke Ethereum's token economic model. They claim the upgrade created a massive oversupply of block space, leading to a 90% drop in gas prices. This, in turn, has incentivized a surge in low-value, spam-like activity such as address poisoning and dusting attacks, which artificially inflate on-chain metrics. They conclude that the fundamental value of ETH is deteriorating, leading to their short position.

QAccording to the report, what specific on-chain activity does Culper Research claim is responsible for the perceived growth in Ethereum transactions?

ACulper Research claims that a significant portion of the post-Fusaka transaction growth is not genuine organic activity but is instead driven by malicious or spam-like behavior. They specifically cite address poisoning and wallet dusting attacks, which they say account for over 50% of the transaction growth and now represent 22.5% of all Ethereum transactions.

QWhat does the article claim about Vitalik Buterin's actions and his awareness of the situation?

AThe article claims that Vitalik Buterin is aware that the token economic model is broken and is 'front-running' the market by selling his ETH holdings. It states that after announcing a sale of 16,384 ETH to fund the Ethereum Foundation, he has actually sold over 19,300 ETH and continues to sell.

QHow does Culper Research counter Tom Lee's bullish argument about Ethereum's fundamentals?

ACulper Research counters Tom Lee's argument by asserting that the increased on-chain activity he points to as evidence of improved fundamentals and adoption is largely artificial. They argue that the data shows this growth is primarily from spam attacks (address poisoning and dusting) rather than legitimate use cases or institutional adoption, meaning the network's health is not actually improving.

QWhat negative consequences does the report attribute to the increased gas limit from the Fusaka upgrade?

AThe report attributes several negative consequences to the increased gas limit: a dramatic 90% drop in gas fees (far more than the predicted 10-30%), a severe reduction in validator tip income (down 40-50%), which disincentivizes staking, and the enabling of a massive increase in spam attacks that clog the network and distort metrics.

Letture associate

Borrowing Money from a Hundred Years Later, Building Incomprehensible AI

Tech giants like Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft are undergoing a radical financial transformation due to AI. Their traditional "light-asset, high-free-cash-flow" model is being dismantled by staggering capital expenditures on AI infrastructure—data centers, GPUs, and power. Combined 2026 guidance exceeds $700 billion, a 4.5x increase from 2022, causing free cash flow to plummet (e.g., Amazon's fell 95%). To fund this, they are borrowing unprecedented sums through long-dated, multi-currency bonds (e.g., Alphabet's 100-year bond). The world's most conservative capital—pensions, insurers—is now funding Silicon Valley's most speculative bet. This shift makes these companies resemble heavy-asset industrials (railroads, utilities) rather than software firms, threatening their premium valuations. Historically, such infrastructure booms (railroads, fiber optics) followed a pattern: genuine technology, overbuilding fueled by competitive frenzy, aggressive debt financing, and a crash triggered by financial conditions—not technology failure. The infrastructure remained, but many original builders and financiers did not survive. The core gamble is a "time arbitrage": using cheap debt today to build scale and lock in customers before AI capabilities commoditize. They are betting that AI revenue will materialize before debt comes due. Their positions vary: Amazon is under immediate cash pressure; Meta's path to monetization is unclear; Alphabet has a robust core business buffer; Microsoft has the shortest path from infrastructure to revenue. The contract is set: the most risk-averse global capital has lent its time to Silicon Valley, awaiting a future that is promised but uncertain.

marsbit25 min fa

Borrowing Money from a Hundred Years Later, Building Incomprehensible AI

marsbit25 min fa

The 'VVV' Concept Soars 9x in Half a Year, The New AI Narrative on Base Chain

"The article explores the 'VVV' concept as the new AI-focused narrative within the Base ecosystem, centered around the token $VVV of the privacy-focused, uncensored generative AI platform Venice, led by crypto veteran Erik Voorhees. Venice has seen significant growth in 2026, with its API users surging, partly attributed to exposure from OpenClaw. The platform now boasts over 2 million total users and 55,000 paid subscribers. Correspondingly, the $VVV token price has risen over 9x this year. Key to its performance are tokenomics designed for value accrual: reduced annual emissions, subscription revenue used for buyback-and-burn, and a unique staking mechanism. Staking $VVV yields $sVVV, which can be used to mint $DIEM tokens. Each staked $DIEM provides a daily $1 credit for using Venice's API services, creating tangible utility. The article also highlights other tokens associated with the 'VVV' narrative. $POD, the token of distributed AI network Dolphin (which co-developed Venice's default AI model), saw a massive price surge. $cyb3rwr3n, a project for a Venice credit auction market, gained attention due to perceived connections to Venice's team despite official denials. Finally, $SR of robotics platform STRIKEROBOT.AI rose after announcing a partnership with Venice for robot vision-language model development. Overall, the 'VVV' ecosystem combines AI platform growth, deflationary tokenomics, and innovative utility mechanisms, driving significant investor interest and price action in related tokens."

marsbit33 min fa

The 'VVV' Concept Soars 9x in Half a Year, The New AI Narrative on Base Chain

marsbit33 min fa

Anthropic and OpenAI Have Single-Handedly Severed the Logic of Pre-IPO Stock Tokenization

The pre-IPO stock token market is experiencing significant turmoil following strong statements from AI giants Anthropic and OpenAI. Both companies have updated their official policies, declaring that any transfer of their company shares—including sales, transfers, or assignments of share interests—without prior board approval is "invalid" and will not be recognized in their corporate records. This means buyers in such unauthorized transactions would not be recognized as shareholders and would have no shareholder rights. A major point of contention is the use of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), which are legal entities commonly used by pre-IPO token platforms to pool investor funds and indirectly acquire shares from employees or early investors. The companies explicitly state they do not permit SPVs to acquire their shares, and any such transfer violates their restrictions. They warn that third parties selling shares through SPVs, direct sales, forward contracts, or stock tokens are likely engaged in fraud or are offering worthless investments due to these transfer limits. This stance directly threatens the core model of many pre-IPO token platforms, which rely on SPV structures. The announcement revealed additional risks within this model, such as complex "SPV-within-SPV" layering that obscures legal transparency, increases management fees, and creates a chain reaction risk of invalidation. Following the news, tokens like ANTHROPIC and OPENAI on platforms like PreStocks fell sharply (over 20%). The market reaction highlights a divergence: while asset-backed pre-IPO tokens plummeted, purely speculative pre-IPO futures contracts, which are bilateral bets on future IPO prices with no claim to actual shares, remained relatively stable as they are unaffected by the transfer restrictions. The industry is split on the implications. Some believe the fundamental logic of pre-IPO token trading is broken if leading companies reject SPV-held shares, potentially causing a domino effect. Others, like Rivet founder Nick Abouzeid, argue that buyers of such unofficial tokens always knowingly accepted the risk of non-recognition by the company. The statements serve as a stark risk warning and a corrective measure for a market where valuations for some AI-related pre-IPO tokens had soared to irrational levels, far exceeding recent funding round valuations.

marsbit1 h fa

Anthropic and OpenAI Have Single-Handedly Severed the Logic of Pre-IPO Stock Tokenization

marsbit1 h fa

Anthropic and OpenAI Personally Sever the Logic of Pre-IPO Crypto-Stocks

The pre-IPO token market has been rocked by strong statements from Anthropic and OpenAI. Both AI giants have updated official warnings, declaring that any sale or transfer of their company shares without explicit board approval is "invalid" and will not be recognized on their corporate records. This directly targets Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), the common legal structure used by pre-IPO token platforms. These platforms typically use an SPV to acquire shares from employees or early investors, then issue blockchain-based tokens representing a claim on the SPV's economic benefits. Anthropic and OpenAI's position means that if an SPV's share purchase lacked authorization, the underlying asset could be deemed worthless, nullifying the token's value. Anthropic explicitly warned that any third party selling its shares—via direct sales, forwards, or tokens—is likely fraudulent or offering a valueless investment. The crackdown highlights risks in the popular SPV model, including complex multi-layered "Russian doll" SPV structures that obscure legal ownership, add fees, and concentrate risk. If one layer is invalidated, the entire chain could collapse. Following the announcements, tokens like ANTHROPIC and OPENAI on platforms like PreStocks fell sharply (over 20%). In contrast, purely speculative pre-IPO prediction contracts remained stable, as they involve no actual share ownership. The move is seen as a corrective measure amid a market frenzy where some pre-IPO token valuations (e.g., Anthropic's token hitting a $1.4 trillion implied valuation) far exceeded recent official funding rounds. Opinions are split: some believe this undermines the core logic of pre-IPO token trading if top companies reject SPVs, while others argue buyers always assumed this legal risk when accessing unofficial channels. The statements serve as a stark warning and a potential catalyst for market de-leveraging and clearer boundaries.

Odaily星球日报1 h fa

Anthropic and OpenAI Personally Sever the Logic of Pre-IPO Crypto-Stocks

Odaily星球日报1 h fa

The Waged Worker Driven to Poverty by AI Subscriptions

"AI Membership: The Hidden Cost Pushing Workers Toward 'Poverty'" The widespread corporate push for AI adoption is creating a hidden financial burden for employees. Companies, from giants like Alibaba to small firms, are mandating AI use, often tying token consumption to KPIs, but frequently refuse to cover the costs. Workers are forced to pay for subscriptions out of pocket to stay competitive and avoid being replaced. Front-end developer Long Shen spends up to 2000 RMB monthly on tools like Cursor and ChatGPT Plus, seeing it as a necessary 3% salary investment to handle 90% of his coding tasks. While it boosted his performance and led to promotions, he now faces idle time at work, pretending to be busy. Designer Peng Peng navigates strict company firewalls by using personal devices and accounts for AI image generation tools like Midjourney, spending hundreds monthly without reimbursement, while her boss demands faster, more numerous revisions. The pressure creates workplace anxiety and suspicion. Programmer Li Huahua, after a friend's experience of raised KPIs following AI success, fears being branded a "traitor" for using it yet worries about falling behind if she doesn't. The dynamic allows management to demand results without understanding the tools or covering expenses, treating employees like AI "agents." While some, like entrepreneur Jin Tu, find high value in paid AI, building entire systems and winning competitions, for most, it's a trap. Free tools like Kimi and Doubao are introducing fees, closing off alternatives. The initial efficiency gains individual advantage, but as AI becomes ubiquitous, the personal edge disappears, workloads increase, and a cycle of dependency begins. Workers like Long Shen realize they cannot maintain AI-generated code without AI, making stopping harder than continuing to pay. The tool promising liberation is instead becoming a compulsory, costly chain in the modern workplace.

marsbit2 h fa

The Waged Worker Driven to Poverty by AI Subscriptions

marsbit2 h fa

Trading

Spot

Futures