L1 Native Tokens' Final 'Monetary Premium' Is Collapsing!

比推Published on 2025-12-08Last updated on 2025-12-08

Abstract

The monetary premium on Layer 1 (L1) native tokens is rapidly fading as stablecoins increasingly dominate as the preferred medium of exchange (MoE) in on-chain economies. While L1 valuations historically incorporated a monetary premium derived from their use as a store of value (SoV) or MoE, data shows a clear shift. On Ethereum, ETH is no longer the primary MoE; stablecoins like USDC and USDT now lead in on-chain transaction volume and top Uniswap pools. A similar trend is observed on L2s like Arbitrum. On Solana, SOL remains the primary MoE due to platforms like Pumpfun and Raydium using it as a quote currency, but USDC is gaining significant traction, especially with new launchpads like MetaDAO adopting it as the default pairing asset. On BNB Chain, USDT has overtaken BNB in trading volume, which had previously been the dominant MoE. The author argues that the market has chosen stablecoins as the superior on-chain MoE. Attempts by ecosystems to enforce their native token as a quote currency add friction and costs for users with minimal price impact. Improved on-chain UX and liquidity are reducing the historical necessity of using volatile native tokens for transactions. The next wave of users will likely use stablecoins, not native tokens, for everyday exchange, further eroding this monetary premium.

Author: Silvio (@SilvioBusonero)

Original Title: The monetary premium on L1s is fading

Compiled and Edited by: BitpushNews

The valuation of L1 blockchains is a comprehensive reflection of multiple factors: including cultural narrative (Memetics), network fees, security, and the development of upper-layer applications. Among these, the most underestimated is the so-called "Monetary Premium".

The monetary premium stems from the demand of market participants to use assets as a Store of Value (SoV) or a Medium of Exchange (MoE).

Store of Value is directly related to the robustness (lindiness) and degree of decentralization of an asset, so it is not an easy market entry strategy.
In contrast, acting as a Medium of Exchange may be easier to achieve. Tokens can serve as the primary method for value exchange and measurement within the blockchain economy.

This is similar to the role of tokens in the Web2 economy:

Roblox's in-game token Robux, has strong exchange value.
When Meme coins started to grow, people bought SOL to enter and exit Meme trades. As SOL was the default currency on Pump platforms, most traders did not convert assets back to dollars but kept some SOL ready to "ape". A similar situation occurred with ETH during the 2021 NFT boom. A large number of users began using the native asset for transactions, effectively creating the utility of a Medium of Exchange (MoE).

Does the Premium Still Exist?

The answer is: No, this premium is rapidly disappearing. Users are increasingly inclined to use stablecoins for transactions.

Ethereum — Stablecoins Have Become the Medium of Exchange

Judging from the on-chain transaction volume of mainstream tokens, Ethereum's native token ETH is no longer the primary medium of exchange it once was.
ETH's dominance as an MoE is declining, while USDC and USDT are rising in popularity on transaction volume charts and in top Uniswap liquidity pools.

The situation is similar for L2s like Arbitrum.

Solana — SOL Maintains the Lead, but USDC is Catching Up

SOL remains the primary medium of exchange and the highest volume asset on Solana (but USDC is catching up). This is mainly because platforms like Pumpfun and Raydium tend to use SOL as the quote currency, while other platforms (like Meteora) have a mixed situation.
However, new launch platforms like MetaDAO are setting USDC as the default paired trading asset.

BNB and USDT Go Hand in Hand

From 2021 to 2022, BNB absolutely dominated the role of medium of exchange, but then USDT gained market share and surpassed BNB.

The Market Has Chosen the Medium of Exchange — And It's Stablecoins

There is no such thing as "Onchain Legal Tender" in the on-chain market.

Some projects use a "quote asset" strategy, making their native token the medium of exchange, such as Zora and Virtuals. But in reality, this increases transaction costs for both users and projects, while having minimal impact on the token price itself. Ecosystem tokens can attempt a similar strategy through asset issuance platforms, i.e., requiring quotes in a specific token, but this may not be worth it.

The user experience (UX) and liquidity of the on-chain market are improving: the past monetary premium was also partly due to a lack of alternatives and lower liquidity.

The next batch of billions of users will use the same medium of exchange as in real life (USDC, Euros, etc.).

Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

Bitpush TG Discussion Group:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

Bitpush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush

Original article link:https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7594034

The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who is Dividing Up Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

SpaceX's trillion-dollar valuation is built on its three core businesses: Starlink (profitable, 60% of revenue), rockets (driving down launch costs), and AI (a major investment area). This creates a financial cycle: Starlink funds rocket development, which enables low-cost launches for AI hardware, generating future revenue. This cycle fuels annual capital expenditures of tens of billions, flowing to a vast supply chain. Suppliers are categorized by their replaceability. The first group includes irreplaceable players like NVIDIA (GPU/CUDA ecosystem), Eutelsat (critical radio spectrum), Filtronic (specialized amplifiers), Materion (strategic beryllium), and STMicroelectronics (antenna chips). The second group consists of hard-to-replace suppliers due to high switching costs, such as Honeywell (flight control), Carpenter Technology (specialty alloys), Hexcel (carbon fiber), Broadcom (data exchange), and Linde (industrial gases). The third group comprises high-volume, cost-critical suppliers for mass-produced items like Starlink terminals. Key names include Wistron NeWeb (primary manufacturer) and several A-share companies like Shenzhen Sunway (connectors), Pies New Materials (forgings), Western Superconducting (alloys), and Yingliu (castings). Other niche players include Trimble (timing), Astronics (power distribution), and CTS (thermal management). The article argues that investing in these suppliers, rather than SpaceX stock directly, offers an alternative opportunity. The rationale is threefold: procurement is just beginning to scale, SpaceX's IPO brings new transparency to its supply chain, and the situation mirrors early stages of past "super terminal" ecosystems like Apple or Tesla. While risks exist (commodity cycles, geopolitical factors, technology shifts), the core thesis is that SpaceX's massive, ongoing procurement will translate into reliable revenue for its key suppliers, regardless of its own stock price volatility.

marsbit6m ago

The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who is Dividing Up Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

marsbit6m ago

SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation Base: Who's Sharing in Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

**Title: The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who Benefits from Musk's Annual $100 Billion Capital Expenditure?** This article argues that investors seeking to benefit from SpaceX's growth might find greater opportunities in its supply chain rather than directly investing in the company itself, drawing parallels to historical successes with Apple, Tesla, and NVIDIA suppliers. **SpaceX's Business Model & Cash Flow:** SpaceX generates revenue from three main areas: 1. **Starlink:** Its profitable core, earning $11.3B in 2023 (60% of revenue), funding other ventures. 2. **Rockets (Falcon/Starship):** Requires $3B+ in annual R&D but achieves the world's lowest launch costs. 3. **AI:** Currently unprofitable (-$6B+ in 2023), investing heavily in ground-based supercomputers (220,000 GPUs) and future orbital data centers. The cycle is: Starlink profits → fund cheaper rockets → low-cost launches deploy AI hardware → AI compute rentals generate future revenue. This cycle drives annual procurement spending of tens of billions of dollars. **The Supply Chain Beneficiaries:** Suppliers are categorized by their replaceability: **1. Nearly Irreplaceable (High Barriers to Entry):** * **NVIDIA:** Powers the Colossus supercomputer; its CUDA ecosystem creates immense switching costs. * **Eutelsat (SATS):** Controls critical radio spectrum for satellite communications; holds a ~3% stake in SpaceX. * **Filtronic (FTC):** Supplies millimeter-wave signal amplifiers for Starlink satellites; SpaceX constitutes 83% of its revenue. * **Materion (MTRN):** Global leader in beryllium production, a strategic material used in Starship structures. * **STMicroelectronics (STM):** Supplies phased-array antenna chips for Starlink satellites. **2. Replaceable, but Switching Cost is Prohibitively High:** * **Honeywell (HON):** Provides flight control and inertial navigation systems with decades of certification. * **Carpenter Technology (CRS):** Manufactures ultra-pure specialty steel alloys for Raptor engines. * **Hexcel (HXL):** Supplies custom carbon fiber composites developed over a decade with SpaceX. * **Broadcom (AVGO):** Manages high-speed data switching. * **Linde Group:** Supplies industrial gases (liquid oxygen/nitrogen) from facilities built near SpaceX launch sites. **3. High-Volume, Cost-Critical Manufacturing:** Focuses on mass-producing components like Starlink user terminals (target: 30 million units). * **Key Players:** Wistron NeWeb (6285, primary terminal manufacturer), several Chinese A-share companies (e.g., Sunway Communication, PAX New Materials, Western Metal Materials, Yingliu Co.), and smaller US firms like Trimble (TRMB, timing systems). **Why Now?** Three factors make the supply chain opportunity timely: 1. **Volume Ramp-Up:** SpaceX plans 100 launches in 2026, aims for 30 million Starlink terminals, and will deploy AI data centers, meaning procurement will accelerate. 2. **Increased Transparency:** The IPO provides public financial data, allowing investors to track supplier order growth. 3. **Historical Precedent:** The current phase is likened to Tesla's early mass-production stage (circa 2018), suggesting a long growth runway for suppliers. **Conclusion:** The article posits that while investing in SpaceX stock is betting on Elon Musk's ambitious vision at a high valuation, investing in its established suppliers is a bet on the tangible, recurring revenue from its massive procurement budget, which is largely decoupled from day-to-day stock price volatility.

链捕手10m ago

SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation Base: Who's Sharing in Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

链捕手10m ago

World Cup Upset! Polymarket User Loses Nearly $1 Million

A prediction market trader lost nearly $1 million after underdog Cape Verde held soccer powerhouse Spain to a 0-0 draw in their World Cup group stage match. On Polymarket, a user named "betoor619" had built a roughly $1.1 million position when Spain's implied win probability was around 92%, a low-risk, low-return strategy that backfired spectacularly. The result defied models like Goldman Sachs', which gave Spain a 25% championship probability. Cape Verde's 40-year-old goalkeeper, Vozinha, was the hero with seven key saves. The event highlights the growing scale of crypto-based prediction markets like Polymarket, where total trading volume for this single match reached $64 million.

marsbit10m ago

World Cup Upset! Polymarket User Loses Nearly $1 Million

marsbit10m ago

The U.S. Government Blocked the Anthropic Model. It Wasn't About 'Jailbreaking' at All.

Last Friday, the U.S. Commerce Department issued an enforcement letter that forced Anthropic to take its two most advanced AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, offline. The stated reason was unspecified national security concerns, initially linked to potential "jailbreaks" of the models' safeguards. However, new details suggest the action stemmed more from a deteriorating relationship between the Trump administration and Anthropic, rather than a genuine technical threat. According to reports, the government cited a little-known export control regulation, compelling Anthropic to block access for all non-U.S. persons, including its own international employees. The company complied, shutting down the models without a court order or specific technical details from the government. Cybersecurity expert Katie Moussouris revealed she was privately shown a research paper detailing a potential safeguard bypass in Fable 5. She argued the described method was minor and did not warrant an export ban, stating that attempts to "fix" it would only weaken the model's defensive capabilities. Moussouris and other experts have since called for the order to be revoked, warning it dangerously removes advanced cybersecurity tools from U.S. defenders. Analysts like Justin Hendrix suggest the move appears retaliatory and sets a dangerous precedent, signaling that the U.S. government can unilaterally shut down a tech company's products. The incident has raised concerns about the reliability of American AI and the potential for political interference in the tech industry, serving as a warning to the broader sector.

marsbit13m ago

The U.S. Government Blocked the Anthropic Model. It Wasn't About 'Jailbreaking' at All.

marsbit13m ago

Ray Dalio: AI Bull Market Continues to Soar, Should Investors Go All In or Cash Out and Leave the Field?

In his latest notes, Ray Dalio addresses a critical question for investors amid the AI-driven stock market surge: how should one allocate assets during a transformative technological revolution? Dalio emphasizes that technological advancement does not automatically make related stocks attractive. Historical tech cycles—marked by excitement, crowding, volatility, and eventual shakeouts—show that even long-term winners like Microsoft and Apple experienced severe drawdowns. Today's AI sector faces similar uncertainties: overinvestment, intensifying competition, geopolitical tensions (e.g., Taiwan's chip supply), tax policy shifts, anti-AI sentiment, and potential disruption from future technologies like quantum computing. Dalio's core argument focuses on the highly concentrated market structure, where a few tech giants dominate major indices. He warns investors against unknowingly holding concentrated, correlated exposures. Instead of chasing a handful of AI leaders, he advocates for a robust, diversified portfolio of 15 or more high-quality, uncorrelated investments, risk-balanced to match an investor's volatility tolerance. Mathematically, such diversification significantly improves the risk-return ratio—for example, holding 15 uncorrelated assets can boost the ratio by over four times compared to a single concentrated bet. Dalio cautions that future equity returns appear low, with his bubble indicator suggesting real returns could be negative over the next 5-10 years. He stresses that knowing what you don't know is as important as knowing what you do. In an environment of high uncertainty and concentration, avoiding large, concentrated bets on AI stocks is prudent. The optimal strategy is disciplined diversification—the "holy grail" of investing—to navigate this technologically driven cycle with lower risk and comparable or better returns.

marsbit17m ago