Indepth Research

Provide in-depth research reports and independent analysis, leveraging data, technology, and economic insights to deliver a comprehensive examination of the blockchain ecosystem, project potential, and market trends.

The Migration of Settlement Power: B18 and the Institutional Starting Point of On-Chain Banking

The article "The Migration of Settlement Power: B18 and the Institutional Starting Point of On-Chain Banking" discusses how traditional finance relies on settlement—not just transactions—to determine ownership of funds. While transactions are instantaneous, settlement requires time, counterparties, and system confirmation, during which users do not fully control their funds. In contrast, early DeFi (decentralized finance) focused on trading and liquidity while avoiding the fundamental question of who defines settlement in the absence of banks. B18, built on Coinbase’s on-chain infrastructure and operating on Base, aims to address this gap by transforming blockchain into a system that handles time, accounting, clearing order, and finality—functions traditionally managed by banks. B18 is not a typical DeFi protocol but an attempt to decouple banking from institutions and encode it into executable rules. Its capital structure reflects this ambition, with support from Paradigm and Wintermute Ventures at the protocol level, GSR Capital for market liquidity, FuturePay for real-world payment integration, and Base Ecosystem Fund builders who design the rules for fund recording, profit recognition, and liquidation conditions. Together, these layers form a new on-chain financial order where code, not institutions, governs settlement—shifting the power dynamics of finance. B18 represents the starting point of this migration. (Note: This is a submitted article and does not represent the views of ChainCatcher or constitute investment advice.)

marsbit03/21 11:22

The Migration of Settlement Power: B18 and the Institutional Starting Point of On-Chain Banking

marsbit03/21 11:22

Earning Millions Daily in a Sluggish Market: Is Pump.fun's Revenue Real?

Despite a perceived market downturn, pump.fun remains a top revenue-generating crypto-native application, ranking fourth in earnings behind only Tether, Circle, and Hyperliquid across various timeframes. Its daily income consistently exceeds one million USD, derived from three primary sources: a 0.95% protocol fee on bonding curve transactions, a token’s "graduation" fees on Pumpswap, and revenue from its acquired multi-chain trading platform, Terminal (formerly Padre). On-chain analysis confirms the bonding curve revenue is authentic, with no evidence of fake transfers or data manipulation. However, questions arise about the organic nature of this activity. While Solana’s daily active addresses range between 1.2-2.2 million, pump.fun sees about 150,000, with roughly 30,000 new tokens deployed daily. Data suggests a significant portion of tokens are launched by a small group of sophisticated deployers, not organic users. Moreover, research indicates that 98.6% of tokens on pump.fun are pump-and-dump schemes, turning the platform into a low-cost, high-efficiency "casino" where deployers profit at the expense of retail investors. Despite pump.fun using nearly all its income to buy back its native token, $PUMP, the price continues to fall due to a lack of buyer confidence and organic demand. The fundamental issue is not revenue authenticity but the platform's role in facilitating a predatory ecosystem, making it unattractive to long-term institutional investment.

marsbit03/21 03:18

Earning Millions Daily in a Sluggish Market: Is Pump.fun's Revenue Real?

marsbit03/21 03:18

From Singapore to Solana: Rebalancing Efficiency, Prosperity, and Cost

"From Singapore to Solana: Rebalancing Efficiency, Prosperity, and Cost" explores the governance of blockchain ecosystems through the lens of nation-building, drawing parallels between Singapore’s historical development and Solana’s evolution as a public blockchain. The article begins by comparing Singapore’s sudden independence in 1965 to Solana’s crisis following the collapse of FTX in 2022—both faced existential threats but leveraged unique advantages to survive. Singapore relied on its strategic geographic location, while Solana capitalized on its high throughput and low transaction costs. It traces Solana’s early dependence on FTX—akin to Singapore’s reliance on British military spending—and examines how both entities navigated periods of "grey" economic activity. For Solana, the meme coin boom (e.g., Bonk, WIF) served a similar role as Singapore’s early tolerance of ambiguous capital flows: attracting users, testing infrastructure, and sustaining economic activity during a downturn. The piece also analyzes token economics as monetary policy, comparing Singapore’s managed exchange rate system to Solana’s emission and burn mechanisms. It argues that dynamic, responsive monetary governance—rather than fixed tokenomics—is essential for long-term stability. Finally, it discusses community alignment using Singapore’s public housing system (HDB) as a model for incentivizing stakeholder commitment. Solana’s challenge is to unify diverse groups—speculators, developers, validators—by aligning their interests with the chain’s success. The conclusion emphasizes that blockchain competition is ultimately about governance: short-term narratives, mid-term technology, but long-term institutional and economic design. Solana, like Singapore, must transition from survival to sustainable, value-driven growth.

比推03/20 06:48

From Singapore to Solana: Rebalancing Efficiency, Prosperity, and Cost

比推03/20 06:48

活动图片