6MV基金合伙人インタビュー：ETHをゼロ保有、Hyperliquidは暗号世界の新たなTether

Arranged & Translated by: Odaily TechFlow

Guest: Mike Dudas, Managing Partner at 6MV

Host: Laura Shin

Podcast: 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, 6MV Managing Partner Mike Dudas discussed the recent volatile fluctuations in the crypto market and the narrative divergence among core assets like Strategy, Ethereum, Solana, and Hyperliquid. He believes that Strategy selling Bitcoin undermined the "never sell" faith premium that Michael Saylor had long cultivated. Ethereum's biggest problem, however, is its inability to form a unified asset narrative that the market can price effectively, which is why both he and 6MV hold a zero allocation to ETH. In contrast, Mike is more optimistic about protocols with clear value capture mechanisms, programmatic buybacks, and sustained revenue. He particularly likens Hyperliquid to Tether in the DeFi world: it doesn't need to rely on the US market to grow into a massive network through non-KYC, international trading demand.

Key Insights Summary

Strategy and the Breakdown of the Bitcoin Faith Premium

• "Strategy is trying to do two things at once: financialize Bitcoin exposure on one hand, while on the other, turn it into a meme asset with a quasi-religious aura. The problem is, these two things aren't entirely compatible."
• "Saylor's long-standing promise to the market was: I will never sell this asset. I just believe in it. So whether he sells a few hundred Bitcoin or tens of thousands, once the selling starts, one leg of the story is kicked out."
• "You need the market to fully believe he will buy this asset forever. So when the price drops, they have to find new ways to keep buying Bitcoin."

ETH's Narrative Confusion and Zero Allocation

• "ETH has become what many people wanted it to be, but the problem is that the Foundation and many core writers are not truly willing to embrace the narrative of ETH as a monetary asset."
• "If you look at the 100 largest stakeholders in the Ethereum ecosystem, everyone is telling a different story: what this asset is, what the network's long-term mission is. The market, of course, doesn't know how to value it."
• "As a fund, we don't hold ETH, and I don't hold it personally either. Because I can't articulate what its story is today, or what it will become in three years."

Solana's Opportunities and Shortcomings

• "Solana's problem is clearer: it's not a narrative confusion, but a performance issue. On-chain activity and fees peaked in early 2025 and have been in a downtrend, with the price weakening as well."
• "Much of Solana's previous activity came from meme coins and highly speculative on-chain trading. Currently, there isn't enough durable economic activity to fill the gap left by that decline."
• "If Solana can truly succeed in new areas like perpetual futures and prove its L1 performance is close to that of centralized exchanges, it might become an undervalued asset at some point."

Hyperliquid and the Non-KYC Market

• "My basic analogy for Hyperliquid is Tether vs. Circle. The non-KYC or international market is huge in crypto, large enough to support a massive network."
• "The key issue for Hyperliquid isn't whether it can enter the US, but whether it can consistently list higher quality assets and maintain good enough liquidity."
• "Its real growth comes from asset quality and liquidity: crude oil, computing power 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 are best when programmatic. Because the industry inherently doesn't trust project teams by default; any discretionary mechanism will be discounted by the market."
• "Leadership must consistently, professionally, and clearly communicate the product roadmap, telling investors, stakers, and ecosystem developers: this isn't just for the team, but something we're building together."
• "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 surpass humans in trading volume, frequency, and strategy count, that's certainly good for fees. I think in the future, these L1s will primarily be valued this way."
• "The real opportunity for value capture might not be the pure trading execution venue, but the frontend that reaches end users, providing research, strategy, liquidity optimization, and a better trading experience."
• "Agent payments might not be a huge opportunity for new entrants, as giants like Visa, Mastercard, and Stripe are moving very quickly, with established customer bases, trust, risk control, and compliance capabilities."

Strategy Breaks the "Never Sell" Promise, Why the Market Premium Vanished

Host Laura Shin: Mike, welcome to Unchained. The crypto market has been quite brutal this week. Bitcoin is down about 12% over the past week, 22% over the past month, and 27% year-to-date. ETH's numbers are worse: down 11% in a week, nearly 26% in a month, and 40% year-to-date.

The news that seemed to really impact prices this week was MSTR selling 32 Bitcoin, which is actually only about $2.5 million, but the market seemed to lose some confidence because of it. Not only did we see Bitcoin's price drop by nearly $10,000 in a few days, but the market also started an ongoing discussion about the various tools in MSTR's capital structure. How do you see what's happening now?

Mike Dudas:

Saylor and Strategy are trying to do two things simultaneously. First, as you and Jeff mentioned, is financializing Bitcoin and Bitcoin exposure. This is what analysts mostly talk about, whether looking at what happened to 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 frequently posts memes and almost religiously tells the market: trust me, this is a messianic asset, a chosen asset.

The problem is, these two things aren't entirely compatible. Holding both logics in your mind creates a clear dissonance. The quasi-religious promise has always been: I will never sell this asset. I just believe in it. So whether it's selling a few hundred Bitcoin or tens of thousands of Bitcoin, once he starts selling, one of the pillars of Strategy's story is pulled out. The market's reaction to the broken 'never sell' promise has been very negative.

What happens next will be critical. Will they continue selling? If they do, it can alleviate some market concerns about Strategy and STRC over the next few years, but that itself is a negative signal. Is that what they are already doing? The market might not be sure either.

I think the religious fervor and faith in Strategy's story have been punctured. I don't know how you put that genie back in the bottle, and the market clearly doesn't like it at all.

Host Laura Shin: If the Bitcoin price continues to trade sideways or even falls further, what do you think MSTR should do to continue paying dividends on its preferred stock? Do you have any ideas?

Mike Dudas:

It's not a simple question. Many will disagree with me because they hold different MicroStrategy-issued assets for reasons different from mine. But to me, it's very clear: You need the market to fully believe he will buy this asset forever. So when the price drops, they have to find new ways to keep buying Bitcoin.

I think many observers actually expected this day to come sooner or later. It just came earlier than many imagined because they started taking on leverage and had to pay out so much cash flow, and now it's time to repay.

Why ETH's Narrative Remains Inconsistent and Dunn Has Zero Allocation

Host Laura Shin: Let's talk about Ethereum. It's also going through a period of self-re-evaluation. The latest round of discussion was sparked by some senior members leaving the Ethereum Foundation. Then Vitalik tried to respond to the criticism, essentially saying the Foundation would scale down and he sees it becoming one of many nodes.

We've also seen long-time believers, like David Hoffman from Bankless, lose faith in ETH as an asset, at least. Are you bullish or bearish on ETH or Ethereum now? How do you see what's happening in the ecosystem?

Mike Dudas:

David from Bankless wrote a very good article discussing ETH as an asset. ETH has become what many people wanted it to be; it does have some monetary properties. But for some reason, the Foundation and a lot of Ethereum-focused writing aren't willing to truly own that narrative.

They talk more about a "credibly neutral layer" story, saying it has a multi-decade time horizon and they're building towards that. But if you look at the 100 largest stakeholders in the Ethereum ecosystem, everyone is telling a different story: what is this asset? What is the network's long-term mission?

So, the answer is obvious. Over the past five years, the market has had no idea how to price the future of ETH. Consequently, ETH is not an asset our fund holds, and I don't hold it personally either. We have a zero allocation to it 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 some kind of utopian world computer.

Host Laura Shin: If Ethereum wanted you and 6MV to feel you should hold ETH, what changes would it need to make in its tokenomics or some aspect of its overall architecture?

Mike Dudas:

We are now seeing financialized assets like HYPE, which the market seems to understand more easily. It has a very clear, singular story. The market knows what it's buying.

If an asset wants to attract enough stakeholders, sustained capital flow, and holding confidence over the long term, it must have a clean, singular narrative. Ethereum hasn't done that in recent years, and frankly, most other general-purpose smart contract L1s haven't either.

Host Laura Shin: The asset most commonly compared to Ethereum is Solana. It's also had a tough year. I know you are relatively more optimistic about Solana. Now, Solana is also discussing changing its tokenomics model. How do you see why it's been declining and where it might go in the future?

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 clearly focused on REV, or real economic value – the fees accrued to holders and stakers. Solana's main issue is a performance problem. On-chain activity and fees probably peaked in early 2025 and have been in a downtrend since, and Solana's price has followed.

Previous activity was mainly driven by meme coins and other highly speculative on-chain activities. There were many different trends, a lot of price-insensitive capital flows, and many retail users willing to pay high fees. But now, there isn't enough durable other economic activity to fill the gap left by the decline in meme coin trading volume.

I think there's still a good chance to see new activity emerge in the future. Solana is embracing many different narratives. Its opportunities might be more numerous than other ecosystems, and it's also shoring up areas where it was weak before. Perpetual futures are a classic example, something the Foundation and other key players are talking about.

But today, the market hasn't seen enough evidence that teams on Solana can truly execute in these directions, nor that the performance of the Solana L1 is sufficient to support them to a level close to centralized exchanges. If all this can happen, then at some point it could become an undervalued asset. But for now, you need to first see the promised activity actually start to appear and materialize.

Why Hyperliquid is More Like Tether in DeFi than Another L1

Host Laura Shin: Let's move on to another L1 that has captured almost all the attention this year, HYPE. It's been one of the few crypto assets to be up year-to-date. But this past week, we also saw news that it will face intense competition. Perpetual futures are entering the US regulated market, with news from Kalshi and Coinbase.

How do you think Hyperliquid will handle this moment? It faces new competition while maintaining its non-KYC model. Do you think it can maintain its dominant position?

Mike Dudas:

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

Look at Binance. It remains the world's largest exchange, but it has never built a truly substantial business in the US. A platform can become very, very large even operating outside of the US.

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

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

Mike Dudas:

My basic analogy is Tether vs. Circle. The Tether analogy can be very, very large. The Tron L1 is also very valuable, arguably more so than many higher-profile L1s