Today in the group, I saw someone say that after the Midnight mainnet goes live, $NIGHT will rise because "institutions are entering the market." I went to check the original information and ended up feeling a bit amused and frustrated. The so-called institutional entry refers to Google Cloud, Blockdaemon, eToro, MoneyGram, and Worldpay joining the federated nodes. However, "joining the nodes" and "institutional funds buying $NIGHT" are two completely different things. That statement in the group subtly mixed these two matters together. I have a very positive outlook on the long-term direction of this project, but I do not want to support it with inaccurate reasons.
In plain terms: the institutions joining the federated nodes are taking on operational costs and technical responsibilities, not buying $NIGHT. Whether they hold $NIGHT or not has no direct relation to operating the node. Worldpay can run a node with its own tech resources without holding a single $NIGHT on its balance sheet. This might sound a bit disappointing, but it's the reality. I'm not saying that institutions joining nodes is meaningless—of course it has significance—it shows that these institutions' compliance teams have assessed the structure of @MidnightNetwork and deemed the risk to be within acceptable limits.
But from 'compliance assessment passed' to 'institutional fund allocation of $NIGHT', there's still a gap, which we call 'investment committee approval'. In traditional financial institutions, this can take anywhere from six to twelve months. So my judgment is simple: node collaboration is good news, it's real tech backing, not proof of 'institutional buy-in'. We need to separate these two aspects, analyze them independently, and price them accordingly. Clearly marking the pitfalls is more useful than just shouting for a price increase. This is a responsible attitude towards the brothers.
This morning I checked my friend's wallet address, and last night he made $4,944 from meme coins. Why can we all see his profits? I suspect this is the reason why I can't make money; it's too transparent. When I first entered the space, I thought blockchain was absolutely secure and private, but later realized that just giving an address can reveal what you bought three years ago. It's clearly a huge 'Truman Show'! It wasn't until a friend recommended @MidnightNetwork that I realized we’ve been fooled by the false premise of 'transparency'. What we need is 'trusted transparency', not 'privacy transparency'.
I believe the value of $NIGHT lies in finally putting the phrase 'user sovereignty' into practice. On Midnight, your wallet address, transaction amount, and timestamp are all protected by default. This isn’t to let you do bad things, but to prevent you from being 'doxxed'. You can proudly showcase your contributions while participating in on-chain governance or staking, but there's no need for the whole world to know your coffee purchase history. This kind of 'selective disclosure' is true freedom, and it’s the core strength of Midnight’s ecosystem expansion.
Now that $NIGHT is so hot and has been listed on so many major exchanges, it’s for a good reason. Its token model is simply brilliant—NIGHT creates DUST, separating assets from consumable value. I no longer have to worry about the gas fees becoming unaffordable just because the coin price has gone up. This level of design security is what lays the foundation for large-scale commercial applications. I applaud this team's foresight; they truly understand what Web3 should look like.
Let’s not just keep staring at those useless MEME coins; take a look at $NIGHT, this is what Web3 should look like. The mainnet launch is just the beginning; the subsequent ecosystem expansion and strategic support are what we should really be looking forward to. Clearly marking the pitfalls and understanding the value, the rest can be left to time.
@MidnightNetwork
#night
$NIGHT
