6MV Fund Partner Interview: Zero Holdings in ETH, Hyperliquid is the New Tether of the Crypto World

Edited & Translated by: Odaily TechFlow

Guest: Mike Dudas, Managing Partner at 6MV

Host: Laura Shin

Podcast Source: Unchained

Original Title: Hyperliquid Is About to Face More Competition. Here's Why Mike Dudas Isn't Worried

Release Date: June 5, 2026

Key Takeaways

In this episode, Mike Dudas, Managing Partner at 6MV, discusses the recent violent fluctuations in the crypto market and the narrative divergence of core assets like Strategy, Ethereum, Solana, and Hyperliquid. He believes that Strategy selling Bitcoin destroys the "never sell" faith premium Michael Saylor has long cultivated; Ethereum's biggest problem is its inability to form a unified asset narrative that the market can price, leading both him and 6MV to have a zero allocation to ETH. In contrast, Mike prefers protocols with clear value capture mechanisms, programmatic buybacks, and sustainable revenue, particularly comparing Hyperliquid to Tether in the DeFi world: it can grow into a massive network by catering to non-KYC, international trading demand without relying on the US market.

Highlights and Key Quotes

Strategy and the Breakdown of the Bitcoin Faith Premium

• "Strategy is trying to do two things at once: financialize Bitcoin exposure on one hand, and mythologize it as a religious meme asset on the other. The problem is these two things aren't fully compatible."
• "Saylor’s long-term promise to the market was: I will never sell this asset. I just believe in it. So whether it's a few hundred Bitcoin or tens of thousands, once you start selling, you've pulled out one of the pillars of the story."
• "You need the market to fully believe he will buy the asset forever. So when the price drops, they have to find another way to keep buying Bitcoin."

Ethereum’s Narrative Confusion & Zero Allocation

• "ETH has become what a lot of people want it to be, but the Foundation and many core writers aren't willing to truly embrace the narrative of ETH as a monetary asset."
• "If you look at the 100 largest stakeholders in the Ethereum ecosystem, everyone tells a different story about what this asset is and what the network's long-term mission is. The market, of course, doesn't know how to value it."
• "We as a fund don't hold ETH, and I personally don't hold ETH. I can't tell you what its story is today, and I can't tell you what it will be in three years."

Solana's Opportunities and Shortcomings

• "Solana’s problem is clearer: it’s not narrative confusion, but a performance issue. On-chain activity and fees peaked in early 2025 and have been declining, with the price following suit."
• "Solana’s activity was primarily driven by memecoins and highly speculative on-chain trading. There isn't enough sustainable economic activity yet to fill the gap from this decline."
• "If Solana can truly succeed in new areas like perpetuals, and prove its L1 performance can approach that of centralized exchanges, it could become an undervalued asset at some point."

Hyperliquid and the Non-KYC Market

• "My basic analogy for Hyperliquid is Tether versus Circle. The non-KYC or international market is huge in crypto and can absolutely support a massive network."
• "The key question for Hyperliquid isn't whether it can enter the US, but whether it can continuously list higher quality assets and maintain sufficient liquidity."
• "Its real growth will come from asset quality and liquidity: crude oil, hashrate markets, pre-IPO stocks, prediction markets – these could all become new asset classes for on-chain trading."

Token Value Capture

• "In the crypto world, value capture mechanisms should ideally be programmatic. The industry inherently distrusts project teams, so any discretionary mechanism will be discounted by the market."
• "Leadership must consistently, professionally, and clearly communicate the product roadmap to investors, stakers, and ecosystem developers, conveying that it's not just for the team, but a collective effort."
• "100% buybacks aren't always optimal either. The protocol needs to convince the market that it's both rewarding token holders and continuing to invest in future growth."

AI Agents, Trading, and Payments

• "If these agents generate more volume, trade more frequently, and employ more strategies than humans, that's great for fees. I think in the future, these L1s will primarily be valued this way."
• "Where there's a real opportunity to capture value might not be the pure execution venue, but the frontend that reaches end-users, providing research, strategies, liquidity optimization, and a better trading experience."
• "Agent payments might not be a huge opportunity for new entrants, because giants like Visa, Mastercard, and Stripe are moving fast. They have the customer base, trust, risk management, and compliance capabilities."

Strategy Breaks the 'Never Sell' Promise, Why the Market Premium Disappeared

Host Laura Shin: Mike, welcome to Unchained. It's been a rough week for crypto. Bitcoin is down about 12% over the past week, 22% over the past month, and 27% year-to-date. ETH is worse: down 11% weekly, nearly 26% monthly, and 40% YTD.

The news that seemed to really move the market this week was MSTR selling 32 Bitcoin, an amount of only about $2.5 million, but it seems to have shaken some confidence. Not only did we see Bitcoin drop nearly $10,000 over a few days, but the market is persistently discussing the various instruments in MSTR's capital structure. What's your take on what's happening?

Mike Dudas:

Saylor and Strategy are essentially doing two things at once. The first thing, which you mentioned and Jeff also touched on, is financializing Bitcoin and Bitcoin exposure. That's what analysts talk about most, whether they're looking at what happened with Strategy this week or over the past year.

But the other thing is different from financializing Bitcoin; it's turning it into a meme asset. Saylor constantly posts memes and tells the market in an almost religious way: trust me, this is a messianic asset, a chosen asset.

The problem is that these two things aren't fully compatible. Holding both logics in your head creates a clear sense of dissonance. The almost faith-based promise was always: I will never sell this asset, I just believe in it. So whether it's a few hundred Bitcoin or tens of thousands, once he starts selling, one of the pillars supporting the Strategy story is knocked out. The market's reaction to the broken 'never sell' promise is very negative.

What happens next will be critical. Will they continue selling? If they do, it might alleviate some market concerns about Strategy and STRC in the coming years, but it's a negative signal in itself. Are they already doing it? The market might be unsure.

I think the religious fervor and faith in the Strategy story have been punctured. I don't know how you put that genie back in the bottle. The market clearly dislikes it.

Host Laura Shin: If the Bitcoin price continues to trade sideways or even drops further, what could MSTR do to continue paying dividends on its preferred stock? Any ideas?

Mike Dudas:

This is not a simple question. Many people will disagree with me because they hold different MicroStrategy-issued assets for different reasons. But to me, it's clear: You need the market to fully believe he will buy the asset forever. So when the price drops, they have to find another way to keep buying Bitcoin.

I think many observers expected this day would come eventually. It just came sooner than many thought because they started using more leverage, had to service those cash flows, and now face repayment time.

Why ETH's Narrative Can't Unify, and Why Dudas Has a Zero Allocation

Host Laura Shin: Let's talk about Ethereum. It's also going through a period of self-reflection. The latest trigger was some senior members leaving the Ethereum Foundation. Then Vitalik tried to respond to the criticism, roughly stating the Foundation would become smaller and function as one node among many.

We're also seeing long-time believers, like Bankless's David Hoffman, lose faith in the ETH asset itself. Are you bullish or bearish on ETH or Ethereum now? How do you see the ecosystem evolving?

Mike Dudas:

David from Bankless wrote an excellent piece on ETH as an asset. ETH has become what a lot of people wanted it to be; it has some monetary properties. But for some reason, the Foundation and a lot of the writing around Ethereum aren't really willing to own that narrative.

They talk more about a "credible neutral layer" story, with a multi-decade timescale, building in that direction. But if you look at the 100 largest stakeholders in the Ethereum ecosystem, everyone tells a different story about what this asset is and what the network's long-term mission is.

The answer is clear. Over the past five years, the market simply hasn't known how to price ETH's future. Consequently, ETH is not a held asset for our fund, nor do I personally hold it. Our allocation is zero, because I can't tell you what its story is today, nor what it will be in three years.

I also don't know who will win the tug-of-war between those who want ETH to be a monetary asset, embrace institutions, and protect trillions of dollars in value, and those who want Ethereum to be a utopian world computer.

Host Laura Shin: What would Ethereum need to change, in terms of tokenomics or overall architecture, for you and 6MV to consider holding ETH?

Mike Dudas:

We see assets like HYPE, which are financialized, and the market seems to understand them better. It has a very clear, singular story. The market knows what it's buying.

If an asset wants to attract enough stakeholders, sustained capital flows, and holding conviction long-term, it needs a clean, single narrative. Ethereum hasn't achieved that in recent years, and frankly, most other general-purpose smart contract L1s haven't either.

Host Laura Shin: The most common comparison to Ethereum is Solana. It's also having a tough year. I know you're relatively more optimistic on Solana. There's talk about changing its tokenomics. Why do you think it's down, and where could it go?

Mike Dudas:

The reason for Solana's underperformance is clearer. I think the Solana Foundation and key stakeholders have done a better job than the Ethereum ecosystem in finding their 'North Star'. They are more explicitly focused on REV, Real Economic Value, the fees accrued to holders and stakers. Solana's problem is mainly one of performance. On-chain activity and fees probably peaked in early 2025 and have been trending down since, and the price has followed.

The prior activity was largely driven by memecoins and other highly speculative on-chain activity. There were many different trends, a lot of price-insensitive capital, and many retail users willing to pay high fees. But now, there isn't enough durable economic activity to replace the gap left by the decline in memecoin volume.

I still think there's a great chance new activity emerges. Solana is embracing many different narratives. Its opportunity might be greater than other ecosystems, and it's addressing past weaknesses. Perpetual futures are a classic example the Foundation and other key players are talking about.

But the market hasn't yet seen enough evidence that teams on Solana can truly execute in these areas, or that Solana's L1 performance is sufficient to support them to near-CEX levels. If these things happen, it could become an undervalued asset at some point. Right now, you need to see the promised activity start appearing and actually being delivered.

Why Hyperliquid is More Like Tether in DeFi Than Another L1

Host Laura Shin: Let's talk about the L1 that has stolen almost all the attention this year, HYPE. It's been one of the few crypto assets to appreciate YTD. But this past week we also saw news that it faces intense competition soon. Perpetuals are entering the US regulated market, with news involving Kalshi and Coinbase.

How do you think Hyperliquid navigates this moment? Facing new competition while maintaining its no-KYC model, can it retain its dominant position?

Mike Dudas:

The non-KYC market is massive. So if you're asking if it can continue to grow, the answer is clearly yes. As for "dominant," I'm not sure.

Look at Binance. It's the world's largest exchange by far, yet never built a truly scaled business in the US. A platform can become incredibly large operating outside the US.

If Hyperliquid could eventually enter the US in some KYC-compliant way, that's potential upside not priced in today. But the people driving capital into HYPE today aren't assuming US users will be trading 50x leverage perpetuals on Hyperliquid next year.

Host Laura Shin: So you think it can handle the competition? Or do you see them as different markets?

Mike Dudas:

My base analogy is Tether versus Circle. The Tether analogy can be very, very big. The Tron L1 is also very valuable, even more so than some more hyped L1s.

In crypto, the non-KYC or international market is inherently huge. So for me, the bigger question is: can Hyperliquid continuously add higher and higher quality assets to the platform? Most of its growth over the past six to nine months has come from this.

Can it list the next crude oil market? Can it become the home for the largest hashrate market? Can it add more pre-IPO stocks? These assets have started taking off recently.

So for me, the core issue for HYPE