Jeonlees
Verified Creator
🍏web3实战派｜主攻币安alpha空投、交易比赛｜分享最新币圈撸毛图文教程、活动资讯 ｜Defi_Ag社区管理员｜欢迎交流一起成长
700 Following
49.0K+ Followers
36.2K+ Liked
2.2K+ Shared
All
Quotes
Videos
Live
PINNED
See original
The era of relying on your mouth has arrived, a nanny-level tutorial for the leading project Kaito 📣
🔥 Yesterday, as $NEWT went live, I believe everyone also saw the strength of $NEWT ! The rewards for relying on your mouth in the airdrop have really come true, with thousands of coins, even tens of thousands of coins directly deposited into wallets, allowing those who previously relied on Kaito to truly feel the charm of relying on your mouth 😋.
I don't know if the people who rely on their mouths are still eagerly waiting for Alpha's entry threshold, trying to grab the 125 coins given in the airdrop.
Meanwhile, some have already obtained several thousand or even tens of thousands of Newton coins qualifications.
Earning 4K daily on Kaito is not a dream; the operation is simple and super suitable for everyone—no trading, no fees, just 'creating content + linking wallets' to complete!
I don't know if the people who rely on their mouths are still eagerly waiting for Alpha's entry threshold, trying to grab the 125 coins given in the airdrop.
Meanwhile, some have already obtained several thousand or even tens of thousands of Newton coins qualifications.
Earning 4K daily on Kaito is not a dream; the operation is simple and super suitable for everyone—no trading, no fees, just 'creating content + linking wallets' to complete!
See original
Apro: The key turning point of on-chain execution from 'result consensus' to 'explanation consensus'
Now, looking at the on-chain ecosystem, one will discover a phenomenon that has never appeared before: protocols are no longer just competing for computing power, bandwidth, users, and capital, but are beginning to compete for the 'right to explain.' In other words, whoever can explain what happens on-chain and off-chain can have the initiative in on-chain execution.
This is not only a change at the application layer, but the entire system architecture itself is being rebuilt. The chain is no longer satisfied with just recording results; it is beginning to need to understand the meaning of the inputs. Applications are no longer satisfied with just executing logic; they are starting to need insights into changes in the environment. The rise of AI and Agents has made 'explaining inputs' a necessity.
This is not only a change at the application layer, but the entire system architecture itself is being rebuilt. The chain is no longer satisfied with just recording results; it is beginning to need to understand the meaning of the inputs. Applications are no longer satisfied with just executing logic; they are starting to need insights into changes in the environment. The rise of AI and Agents has made 'explaining inputs' a necessity.
See original
Falcon Finance: When on-chain funds begin to distinguish between 'assets' and 'liabilities', its advantages become apparent.
Recently, I can increasingly feel that on-chain funds are becoming unprecedentedly 'financialized'.
In the past, when everyone looked at a stablecoin, they focused on whether it was pegged or not, whether the liquidity was sufficient, and whether the returns were high;
But now more and more funds are starting to change their perspective:
Is this system actually creating 'assets', or is it manufacturing 'liabilities'?
The logic of most stablecoin protocols, at first glance, seems like assets, but essentially it is piling up liabilities— they need continuous subsidies to maintain attractiveness, constant expansion to sustain payments, and new collateral to cover old risks.
In the past, when everyone looked at a stablecoin, they focused on whether it was pegged or not, whether the liquidity was sufficient, and whether the returns were high;
But now more and more funds are starting to change their perspective:
Is this system actually creating 'assets', or is it manufacturing 'liabilities'?
The logic of most stablecoin protocols, at first glance, seems like assets, but essentially it is piling up liabilities— they need continuous subsidies to maintain attractiveness, constant expansion to sustain payments, and new collateral to cover old risks.
See original
Kite: When enterprises truly start to entrust key processes to AI, what they lack is not computing power, but controllability
I have been increasingly aware of a trend recently:
Everyone is talking about AI empowering enterprises, automating workflows, and intelligent agents replacing human labor, but those who have truly been involved in enterprise-level implementation know that—whether AI can 'calculate correctly' is not the threshold; whether AI can 'execute effectively' is the decisive factor.
As long as you break down the core processes of a medium-sized enterprise and observe them for a few days, you will realize:
The risk is not in the model, the risk is in execution;
It's not about intelligence, it's about constraints;
It's not about efficiency, it's about convergence.
This is why when I look at Kite again, I feel that its positioning is more fundamental than many people understand:
Everyone is talking about AI empowering enterprises, automating workflows, and intelligent agents replacing human labor, but those who have truly been involved in enterprise-level implementation know that—whether AI can 'calculate correctly' is not the threshold; whether AI can 'execute effectively' is the decisive factor.
As long as you break down the core processes of a medium-sized enterprise and observe them for a few days, you will realize:
The risk is not in the model, the risk is in execution;
It's not about intelligence, it's about constraints;
It's not about efficiency, it's about convergence.
This is why when I look at Kite again, I feel that its positioning is more fundamental than many people understand:
See original
Lorenzo Protocol: The 'Battle for Pricing Power' of On-Chain Returns, and Why It Will Ultimately Shift from Product Competition to Structural Competition
In the past on-chain financial system, users would flock to whoever offered high returns; whoever updated incentives quickly saw their TVL soar; whoever could shout out a new APY narrative would dominate liquidity direction in a short time. But this mode of competition essentially belongs to 'price competition,' not 'structural competition.' This situation is destined to be unable to attract long-term funds and is also destined to fail in building a reliable return system.
Now, as capital increasingly values on-chain stable returns, predictability, risk layering, and governance transparency, returns are no longer just 'outcomes' but are starting to become 'structures that need to be priced.' This means that on-chain returns will enter a higher order of competitive dimension in the future: whoever can master the pricing power of returns will be able to control the direction of capital.
Now, as capital increasingly values on-chain stable returns, predictability, risk layering, and governance transparency, returns are no longer just 'outcomes' but are starting to become 'structures that need to be priced.' This means that on-chain returns will enter a higher order of competitive dimension in the future: whoever can master the pricing power of returns will be able to control the direction of capital.
See original
The essence of Injective is to build a 'unified liquidation structure' on-chain rather than a single-point market structure
The core contradictions of the industry have gradually become clear over the past two years
The on-chain market size is rapidly expanding
But the risks on the chain are fragmented
Depth is fragmented
Prices are fragmented
The liquidation path is also fragmented
Each chain, each protocol, and each asset is like an island
There is no unified liquidation framework
There is also no risk alignment mechanism
This means a very dangerous thing
Any pressure from any part of the on-chain will spread into systemic risk
And the system itself has no ability to handle this transmission
That is why the multi-chain ecosystem has frequently appeared in the past year
Price gap
Liquidation congestion
Cross-chain premiums have long existed
The on-chain market size is rapidly expanding
But the risks on the chain are fragmented
Depth is fragmented
Prices are fragmented
The liquidation path is also fragmented
Each chain, each protocol, and each asset is like an island
There is no unified liquidation framework
There is also no risk alignment mechanism
This means a very dangerous thing
Any pressure from any part of the on-chain will spread into systemic risk
And the system itself has no ability to handle this transmission
That is why the multi-chain ecosystem has frequently appeared in the past year
Price gap
Liquidation congestion
Cross-chain premiums have long existed
See original
After half a month, it's finally my turn to enjoy the airdrop 😭
$STABLE I've finally waited for you, good thing I didn't give up
#stable
$STABLE I've finally waited for you, good thing I didn't give up
#stable
See original
📣The biggest scandal this round, everyone has a reward for reporting insider information
Binance's structure is indeed large, giving a reward of 20,000 to the first 5 people who reported, very impressive
Also reminding everyone to report anything you discover, send an email to Binance for feedback at the first opportunity, and then tweet about it, hahaha
There seems to be a big influencer who reported it quite early (forgot who it was), but they reported it on x platform, so they didn't get the reporting reward, so everyone who has the ability must pay attention to this point🌷
#比特币VS代币化黄金
Binance's structure is indeed large, giving a reward of 20,000 to the first 5 people who reported, very impressive
Also reminding everyone to report anything you discover, send an email to Binance for feedback at the first opportunity, and then tweet about it, hahaha
There seems to be a big influencer who reported it quite early (forgot who it was), but they reported it on x platform, so they didn't get the reporting reward, so everyone who has the ability must pay attention to this point🌷
#比特币VS代币化黄金
See original
Today, while browsing the forum, I saw everyone discussing whether to hedge $PIEVERSE , which reminded me of the hedge from back then, $BAS .
For just a few dozen dollars, I lost over 1k dollars in the hedge. 😭
I personally don’t dare to hedge anymore; if I were to, it would be either a couple of days ago or a few hours before the reward. This pieverse seems to unlock only on Saturday...
Is everyone hedging? 👀 Or are they already trapped?
The coin will definitely drop, but a random surge could blow everyone away.
Moreover, if they use funding fees to mess with everyone, like coai, then it would be even worse.
The bigger the storm, the more expensive the fish; I’ll just focus on safely gathering rewards. Wuwuwuwu
#Pieverse
For just a few dozen dollars, I lost over 1k dollars in the hedge. 😭
I personally don’t dare to hedge anymore; if I were to, it would be either a couple of days ago or a few hours before the reward. This pieverse seems to unlock only on Saturday...
Is everyone hedging? 👀 Or are they already trapped?
The coin will definitely drop, but a random surge could blow everyone away.
Moreover, if they use funding fees to mess with everyone, like coai, then it would be even worse.
The bigger the storm, the more expensive the fish; I’ll just focus on safely gathering rewards. Wuwuwuwu
#Pieverse
See original
The core capability of Injective lies in building the first 'steady market structure' on-chain, which is a fundamental condition for any financial infrastructure to survive in the long term.
The biggest structural flaw in on-chain finance
Not high volatility
Not clearing too much
It is also not liquidity fragmentation.
but rather the market lacks a 'steady state'.
Steady state is the most fundamental system property in financial markets.
This means that when the system is subjected to external disturbances.
Can it naturally return to the operational range?
but rather not diverging infinitely, not detaching infinitely, and not amplifying risks infinitely.
The market structure of traditional public chains does not have a steady state.
They can only operate in low volatility environments.
Once the volume increases
Deep collapse
Clearing accumulation
Price gap
Strategy failure
Cross-chain inconsistency
The system enters an irreversible state.
This is the reason why on-chain markets cannot access institutional-level applications in the long term.
Not high volatility
Not clearing too much
It is also not liquidity fragmentation.
but rather the market lacks a 'steady state'.
Steady state is the most fundamental system property in financial markets.
This means that when the system is subjected to external disturbances.
Can it naturally return to the operational range?
but rather not diverging infinitely, not detaching infinitely, and not amplifying risks infinitely.
The market structure of traditional public chains does not have a steady state.
They can only operate in low volatility environments.
Once the volume increases
Deep collapse
Clearing accumulation
Price gap
Strategy failure
Cross-chain inconsistency
The system enters an irreversible state.
This is the reason why on-chain markets cannot access institutional-level applications in the long term.
See original
Congratulations to Binance users for exceeding 300M
I was wondering why everyone was shouting about 300 million users late at night
It's really here now!!! I hope Binance keeps getting stronger! 🎉
I happened to witness this moment ❤️
Binance is awesome‼️
#比特币VS代币化黄金
I was wondering why everyone was shouting about 300 million users late at night
It's really here now!!! I hope Binance keeps getting stronger! 🎉
I happened to witness this moment ❤️
Binance is awesome‼️
#比特币VS代币化黄金
See original
Apro: When on-chain systems begin to demand 'context', the value of the data infrastructure layer is reassessed
If you consider the current Web3 as a continuously extending timeline, you will find a fascinating phenomenon: the gap between protocols is increasingly determined not by mechanisms, but by the 'ability to understand the world'. The rules on the chain are actually quite similar; the difference lies in whether each chain, each application, and each system can understand the changes in the external world, and whether they can transform complex signals into deterministic logic.
The value of Apro lies precisely in this ability to 'understand the world'.
It is not providing a price, nor is it offering a data source; rather, it is filling the most missing link in the system on the chain—context.
The value of Apro lies precisely in this ability to 'understand the world'.
It is not providing a price, nor is it offering a data source; rather, it is filling the most missing link in the system on the chain—context.
See original
Yield Guild Games: While the industry is still competing for 'active addresses', YGG has already begun to establish a 'player capability system'.
I have recently been pondering a very core question:
Why has the competition for 'active users' in the blockchain gaming industry never stopped, yet every wave of enthusiasm ultimately fizzles out because players cannot stay?
In the end, I realized that the problem is not that there are not enough players, but that players do not possess a 'capability structure that can be used by the industry in the long term'.
In other words—
What the entire blockchain gaming industry lacks is not the number of players, but the 'player capability system'.
And YGG is the only organization that has systematically and structurally advanced this matter.
In this article, I will thoroughly explain the value of YGG from the dimension of 'capability'.
Why has the competition for 'active users' in the blockchain gaming industry never stopped, yet every wave of enthusiasm ultimately fizzles out because players cannot stay?
In the end, I realized that the problem is not that there are not enough players, but that players do not possess a 'capability structure that can be used by the industry in the long term'.
In other words—
What the entire blockchain gaming industry lacks is not the number of players, but the 'player capability system'.
And YGG is the only organization that has systematically and structurally advanced this matter.
In this article, I will thoroughly explain the value of YGG from the dimension of 'capability'.
See original
The value of Falcon Finance lies not in what it does, but in what it 'refuses to do'
After mixing in the on-chain space for a long time, I can increasingly distinguish between two types of projects:
One approach is to be busy piling up functions, wanting to do everything, but in the end, not doing anything deeply;
Another way is to focus on the underlying logic, not following trends, not making gimmicks, completing the necessary structures, and isolating the risks that need to be isolated.
Falcon Finance obviously belongs to the second category.
If you only look at its surface, its update rhythm is not fast, there is not much promotion, and there is no fancy product packaging.
But every time you look down a layer, you will find that its structure has almost no weaknesses, which is very rare in today's on-chain finance.
One approach is to be busy piling up functions, wanting to do everything, but in the end, not doing anything deeply;
Another way is to focus on the underlying logic, not following trends, not making gimmicks, completing the necessary structures, and isolating the risks that need to be isolated.
Falcon Finance obviously belongs to the second category.
If you only look at its surface, its update rhythm is not fast, there is not much promotion, and there is no fancy product packaging.
But every time you look down a layer, you will find that its structure has almost no weaknesses, which is very rare in today's on-chain finance.
See original
Lorenzo Protocol: As the on-chain yield system enters the 'structure-dominated' era, BTC assets begin to exhibit institutional-level configurability
One thing that has been most overlooked in the market these past few months is that the underlying logic of on-chain yields is undergoing a structural reversal. For the past decade, on-chain yields have never been a 'system,' but rather an 'opportunity': where sentiment is hot, where TVL rises, and where incentives are abundant, funds flow there. Yields are a form of short-term stimulus, a market event, rather than a resource that can be planned, designed, or governed.
But recently, the behavior of capital has changed. Institutions have begun to demand net worth, vaults are starting to look at volatility, RWA platforms are beginning to require income entry, wallets are starting to automate savings, and BTC L2 is starting to introduce PoS-like yields. These signs indicate one thing: on-chain yields are being viewed for the first time as 'asset allocation units' rather than 'mining rewards.'
But recently, the behavior of capital has changed. Institutions have begun to demand net worth, vaults are starting to look at volatility, RWA platforms are beginning to require income entry, wallets are starting to automate savings, and BTC L2 is starting to introduce PoS-like yields. These signs indicate one thing: on-chain yields are being viewed for the first time as 'asset allocation units' rather than 'mining rewards.'
See original
The strategic value of Injective lies in its reconstruction of the on-chain 'market infrastructure layer', rather than expanding traditional DeFi models
When the industry discusses public chains
Usually focuses on the ecological growth speed, TVL expansion, and new narrative coverage
But these indicators essentially belong to 'application layer competition'
They cannot determine whether a chain can become a long-term financial infrastructure
What truly determines the on-chain market pattern
There is only one thing
Does this chain have the ability to build a 'market infrastructure layer'
The market infrastructure layer is not trading depth
Not the scale of stablecoins
Not the number of EVM applications
But the most fundamental logic of how the market operates on-chain
Where does the price come from
How is liquidity formed
How is risk absorbed
Usually focuses on the ecological growth speed, TVL expansion, and new narrative coverage
But these indicators essentially belong to 'application layer competition'
They cannot determine whether a chain can become a long-term financial infrastructure
What truly determines the on-chain market pattern
There is only one thing
Does this chain have the ability to build a 'market infrastructure layer'
The market infrastructure layer is not trading depth
Not the scale of stablecoins
Not the number of EVM applications
But the most fundamental logic of how the market operates on-chain
Where does the price come from
How is liquidity formed
How is risk absorbed
See original
Kite: Providing the underlying structure for 'decision consistency' in AI execution systems
In the past six months, while observing the implementation of various Agent systems, I have discovered an increasingly prominent core contradiction:
The decision chain of AI is too decentralized, while the execution chain of the enterprise must be highly consistent.
AI will dynamically choose paths during execution:
which service to call, which set of rules to adopt, which settlement method to route to, and when to execute a rollback.
This dynamic decision-making is essentially distributed, probabilistic, and context-driven.
But the business requirements of the enterprise are:
Same input → Same strategy → Same result.
This creates a structural conflict.
The decision chain of AI is too decentralized, while the execution chain of the enterprise must be highly consistent.
AI will dynamically choose paths during execution:
which service to call, which set of rules to adopt, which settlement method to route to, and when to execute a rollback.
This dynamic decision-making is essentially distributed, probabilistic, and context-driven.
But the business requirements of the enterprise are:
Same input → Same strategy → Same result.
This creates a structural conflict.
See original
Yield Guild Games: While Web3 games are still entangled in 'how to retain users', YGG has already begun to build the 'motivation system for players.'
I have recently become increasingly aware of a key point—
Chain games do not fail to retain players, but have never truly understood 'why players want to stay.'
The traditional mindset of chain games is:
Giving rewards, tasks, airdrops, and qualifications can make users stay.
But players are not machines; motivation is always more important than incentives.
If an ecosystem cannot explain 'why I should continue to exist here,' then it is bound to be short-lived.
The uniqueness of YGG lies in the fact that it is not about piling up incentives, but rather about rebuilding the 'motivation structure' of players.
In this article, I will delve into the value of YGG starting from the root of 'motivation.'
Chain games do not fail to retain players, but have never truly understood 'why players want to stay.'
The traditional mindset of chain games is:
Giving rewards, tasks, airdrops, and qualifications can make users stay.
But players are not machines; motivation is always more important than incentives.
If an ecosystem cannot explain 'why I should continue to exist here,' then it is bound to be short-lived.
The uniqueness of YGG lies in the fact that it is not about piling up incentives, but rather about rebuilding the 'motivation structure' of players.
In this article, I will delve into the value of YGG starting from the root of 'motivation.'
See original
Good good good
Jeonlees
--
How much will Bitcoin be this year?🤔
Long-term trend of Bitcoin prices
• 2009: $0.0008 (starting point)
• 2010: $0.10 (still no market)
• 2011: $4 (first rise)
• 2012: $13 (first halving)
• 2013: $750 (first time breaking a thousand cycle)
• 2014: $320 (bubble burst)
• 2015: $430 (bottoming out)
• 2016: $960 (second halving)
• 2017: $14,000 (epic bull market)
• 2018: $3,700 (crash)
• 2019: $7,200 (rebound)
• 2020: $29,000 (institutional entry + third halving)
• 2021: $47,000 (historical high cycle)
• 2022: $16,500 (macro cooling + FTX collapse)
• 2023: $42,000 (ETF expectation reversal)
• 2024: $67,000 (new high driven by ETF funds)
#bitcoin
Long-term trend of Bitcoin prices
• 2009: $0.0008 (starting point)
• 2010: $0.10 (still no market)
• 2011: $4 (first rise)
• 2012: $13 (first halving)
• 2013: $750 (first time breaking a thousand cycle)
• 2014: $320 (bubble burst)
• 2015: $430 (bottoming out)
• 2016: $960 (second halving)
• 2017: $14,000 (epic bull market)
• 2018: $3,700 (crash)
• 2019: $7,200 (rebound)
• 2020: $29,000 (institutional entry + third halving)
• 2021: $47,000 (historical high cycle)
• 2022: $16,500 (macro cooling + FTX collapse)
• 2023: $42,000 (ETF expectation reversal)
• 2024: $67,000 (new high driven by ETF funds)
#bitcoin
See original
How much will Bitcoin be this year?🤔
Long-term trend of Bitcoin prices
• 2009: $0.0008 (starting point)
• 2010: $0.10 (still no market)
• 2011: $4 (first rise)
• 2012: $13 (first halving)
• 2013: $750 (first time breaking a thousand cycle)
• 2014: $320 (bubble burst)
• 2015: $430 (bottoming out)
• 2016: $960 (second halving)
• 2017: $14,000 (epic bull market)
• 2018: $3,700 (crash)
• 2019: $7,200 (rebound)
• 2020: $29,000 (institutional entry + third halving)
• 2021: $47,000 (historical high cycle)
• 2022: $16,500 (macro cooling + FTX collapse)
• 2023: $42,000 (ETF expectation reversal)
• 2024: $67,000 (new high driven by ETF funds)
#bitcoin
Long-term trend of Bitcoin prices
• 2009: $0.0008 (starting point)
• 2010: $0.10 (still no market)
• 2011: $4 (first rise)
• 2012: $13 (first halving)
• 2013: $750 (first time breaking a thousand cycle)
• 2014: $320 (bubble burst)
• 2015: $430 (bottoming out)
• 2016: $960 (second halving)
• 2017: $14,000 (epic bull market)
• 2018: $3,700 (crash)
• 2019: $7,200 (rebound)
• 2020: $29,000 (institutional entry + third halving)
• 2021: $47,000 (historical high cycle)
• 2022: $16,500 (macro cooling + FTX collapse)
• 2023: $42,000 (ETF expectation reversal)
• 2024: $67,000 (new high driven by ETF funds)
#bitcoin
Login to explore more contents