6MV基金合伙人访谈：零持仓ETH，Hyperliquid是加密世界的新Tether

Organized & Compiled: Odaily

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, 6MV Managing Partner Mike Dudas discusses the recent sharp volatility in the crypto market and the diverging narratives surrounding core assets like Strategy, Ethereum, Solana, and Hyperliquid. He believes Strategy's sale of Bitcoin shattered the "never sell" faith premium Michael Saylor had long cultivated. For Ethereum, the biggest issue is its inability to form a unified, priceable asset narrative, leading him and 6MV to have a zero allocation to ETH. In contrast, Mike favors protocols with clear value capture mechanisms, programmatic buybacks, and sustainable revenue, particularly likening Hyperliquid to the Tether of the DeFi world: capable of growing into a massive network by serving non-KYC, international trading demand without relying on the US market.

Highlights of Key Insights

Strategy and the Rupture of the Bitcoin Faith Premium

• "Strategy is trying to do two things at once: financialize Bitcoin exposure on one hand, and on the other, position it as a quasi-religious meme asset. 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 selling 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 ended up being what many people wanted it to be, but the problem is, the Foundation and many core writers weren't willing to fully embrace ETH as a monetary asset narrative."
• "Look at 100 large stakeholders in the Ethereum ecosystem; each one tells a different story about what this asset is and what the network's long-term mission is. Naturally, the market doesn't know how to value it."
• "We, as a fund, don't hold ETH. I personally don't hold ETH either. Because I can't articulate what its story is today, nor what it will become 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 meme coins and highly speculative on-chain trades. There isn't enough sustainable economic activity yet to fill the gap left by this decline."
• "If Solana can successfully execute in new areas like perpetual contracts, proving L1 performance can approach CEX levels, it could become an undervalued asset at some stage."

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 and can easily 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 sufficiently good liquidity."
• "Its real growth comes from asset quality and liquidity: crude oil, hashrate markets, pre-IPO stocks, prediction markets – these could all become new on-chain asset classes."

Token Value Capture

• "In the crypto world, value capture mechanisms are best when programmatic. The industry inherently distrusts project teams; 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: 'This isn't just for the team; we are building this together.'"
• "100% buybacks aren't always optimal either. Protocols need to convince the market they are 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 great 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 execution venue, but the front-end 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 already moving fast with their customer base, trust, risk control, and compliance capabilities."

Strategy Breaks the 'Never Sell' Promise: Why the Market Premium Vanished

Host Laura Shin: Mike, welcome to Unchained. It's been a rough week in crypto. 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% weekly, nearly 26% monthly, and 40% annually.

The major price-moving news this week seems to be MSTR selling 32 Bitcoin, worth only about $2.5 million, but it seems to have shaken market confidence. We saw Bitcoin drop nearly $10,000 in a few days, and there's ongoing discussion about the various instruments in MSTR's capital structure. How do you see what's happening now?

Mike Dudas:

Saylor and Strategy are doing two things simultaneously. The first, which you mentioned, is the financialization of Bitcoin and Bitcoin exposure. This is what analysts talk about most, whether looking at this week or this year for Strategy.

But the other thing is different from Bitcoin financialization; it's turning it into a meme asset. Saylor frequently posts memes and tells the market, in a quasi-religious way: 'Trust me, this is a messianic asset, a chosen asset.'

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

What happens next is critical. Will they continue to sell? If they do, it could alleviate some market concerns about Strategy and STRC over the next few years, but that itself would be a negative signal. The market probably isn't sure if they are already doing this.

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

Host Laura Shin: If Bitcoin prices continue to trade sideways or drop further, what do you think MSTR should do to continue paying dividends on its preferred stock? Any thoughts?

Mike Dudas:

This isn't simple. Many people might disagree because they hold different assets issued by MicroStrategy for different reasons. But from my perspective, it's 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 predicted this day would come eventually. It just came sooner than expected because they started using leverage and have significant cash flow obligations, and now it's time to repay.

Why the ETH Narrative Remains Ununified and Why Dudas Has 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. Vitalik then responded to criticisms, basically saying the Foundation will shrink and become just one node among many.

We've also seen long-time believers, like David Hoffman from Bankless, at least lose confidence in ETH as an asset. 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 about ETH as an asset. ETH ended up being what many people wanted it to be; it has some monetary properties. But for some reason, the Foundation and a lot of writing around Ethereum aren't really willing to own that narrative.

They talk more about 'credibly neutral layer' narratives, saying it's a multi-decade project and they build in that direction. But look at 100 large stakeholders in the Ethereum ecosystem; each one tells 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 simply hasn't known how to price ETH's future. Therefore, ETH is not an asset our fund holds, and I don't personally hold it either. We have a zero allocation 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 6MV to consider holding ETH, what changes would need to be made to its tokenomics or overall architecture?

Mike Dudas:

Right now, we see financialized assets like HYPE that 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 garner enough stakeholders, sustained capital flows, and holding conviction over the long term, it must have a clean, singular narrative. Ethereum hasn't managed this in the past few years, and frankly, most other general-purpose smart contract L1s haven't either.

Host Laura Shin: Solana is usually the most common comparison to Ethereum. It's also had a tough year. I know you're relatively more optimistic about Solana. There's talk of changing its tokenomics. How do you see why it's down and where it might be headed?

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 a 'North Star.' They are more focused on REV, or real economic value – the fees accumulated by holders and stakers. Solana's problem is mainly a performance issue. On-chain activity and fees probably peaked in early 2025, have been trending down, and Solana's price has followed.

The previous activity was largely driven by meme coins and other highly speculative on-chain activity. There were many different trends, lots of price-insensitive capital flows, and many retail users willing to pay high fees. But now, there isn't enough sustaining other economic activity to replace the gap left by declining meme coin volume.

I still think there's a significant chance we'll see new activity emerge. Solana is embracing many different narratives; its opportunities might be greater than other ecosystems, and it's addressing past weaknesses. Perpetual contracts are a classic example, discussed by the Foundation and other key players.

But the market hasn't yet seen enough evidence that teams on Solana can execute in these directions, or that Solana as an L1 has the performance to support them approaching CEX levels. If this can happen, it could become an undervalued asset at some point. But for now, you need to see the promised activities start to emerge and materialize.

Why Hyperliquid Resembles Tether in DeFi, Not Another L1

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

How do you think Hyperliquid will handle this moment, facing new competition while maintaining its non-KYC model? Can it maintain its dominant position?

Mike Dudas:

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

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

If Hyperliquid can enter the US with some KYC mechanism in the future, that's potential upside not yet priced in. But the people driving capital into HYPE today aren't assuming US users will be trading 50x leveraged 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, perhaps more so than some higher-profile L1s.

The non-KYC or international market in crypto is inherently large. So for me, the bigger question is: Can Hyperliquid consistently add higher quality assets to its platform? Over the past six to nine months, most of its growth has come from this.

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

So for me, the core issue for HYPE is asset quality and liquidity. So far, they have consistently outperformed in this regard. Now they are adding outcome