แนวคิด: นักลงทุนทั่วไปไม่สามารถซื้อมูลค่าได้ จะไม่มีรอบ altcoin อีกรอบหนึ่ง

Original Source: 51 Insights | Marc Baumann

Original Translation: TechFlow

TechFlow's Take: For fifteen years, the way to bet on crypto infrastructure was to buy tokens—this was the core promise of the Fat Protocol Thesis: protocols capture value, and tokens are your share. But Marc Baumann argues in this deep dive that this trade is dead. In June, Solana hit an all-time high in tokenized stock trading volume, handling 96% of on-chain stock trades, yet SOL still fell to $77, down 73% from its peak. Robinhood's chain processed $568 million in daily trading volume within two weeks, with Ethereum earning only $1,538 in settlement fees from it. Value creation has fled from the token layer to the equity layer—Stripe acquiring Bridge, Mastercard acquiring BVNK, Kraken acquiring Backed Finance—every value event occurs in equity, not tokens. More brutally: many token projects from the past decade could never have been funded in traditional markets—the problem tokens solved was allowing early investors to exit without the company creating value.

For fifteen years, the way to bet on crypto infrastructure was to buy tokens.

This is the industry's foundational financial promise, formally articulated in 2016 as the Fat Protocol Thesis: applications will be commoditized, protocols will capture value, and tokens are your share in the protocol. If the network wins, you win.

This trade is dead. Today I'll tell you why.

June: The Moment the Promise Should Have Been Kept

In June, a record $3.86 billion worth of tokenized stocks traded on-chain, up 145% month-over-month.

The catalyst was SpaceX's Nasdaq listing on June 12, a $7.5 billion raise, with tokenized SpaceX shares launching on Solana the same day. Tokenized SPCX alone traded $1.19 billion, accounting for roughly 31% of all tokenized stock volume that month. Solana handled about 96% of the volume. On June 23, tokenized assets surpassed meme coins in share of Solana's daily spot trading volume for the first time. Active addresses retested yearly highs, and throughput neared all-time records.

Meanwhile, SOL's price was around $77. Down half over the past year, 73% below its peak, hitting a low in mid-June not seen since December 2023.

Image: Solana price chart. Source: Google

The most used network in crypto's fastest-growing category is being priced like a network in decline.

The mainstream explanation is macro: bear market, ETF outflows, patience.

My interpretation differs. Breaking this cycle is the value link itself. Value creation has left the token layer and moved to the equity layer—the companies building the infrastructure. And these companies don't have tokens. Look at where the money actually flows:

• Stripe acquires Bridge in February 2025 for $1.1 billion
• Mastercard signs a deal in March to acquire BVNK for up to $1.8 billion (Coinbase had previously come close to acquiring it for ~$2 billion, but the deal fell through in November)
• Kraken agrees to acquire Backed Finance (the issuer of xStocks) in December 2025, preparing for its 2026 IPO
• Securitize is listing its common stock on the NYSE and tokenizing it on Solana on the first day of listing

Not one of these value events happened on a token. Every single one happened on equity.

The Reason is Simple: Equity is an Enforceable Claim on Cash Flows

The reason is boring but legal: equity is an enforceable claim on cash flows. Most tokens are not.

When $3.86 billion in tokenized stocks trade on Solana, the network earns fractions of a cent per transaction because near-zero fees are the product itself. Minting and redemption spreads, custody fees, market-making profits—all flow to the income statements of issuers, brokerages, and exchanges. Tokens get the headlines; companies get the revenue.

Ethereum Anatomy: $1,538 vs $816,000

Robinhood launched its own chain on July 1—an Ethereum Layer 2 built on Arbitrum technology, offering tokenized stocks to customers in over 120 countries. Within a week, it processed $568 million in daily trading volume. Then ARK Invest's Lorenzo Valente published a revenue breakdown: of the ~$816,000 in total revenue the chain has generated since launch, Robinhood retains about 89%, Arbitrum takes 10%, and Ethereum earns only $1,538 for settlement.

Fifteen hundred dollars, or 0.15%, for securing the entire system.

The Fat Protocol Thesis says the base layer captures value. Here, the base layer captures $1,538.

And the financial instrument that captures Robinhood chain's success does exist—it trades on Nasdaq as HOOD. There's no Robinhood chain token, and nobody misses it.

The internet has run this experiment before. TCP/IP, HTTP, and SMTP created more value than any technology in history without capturing any of it. Value flowed to what was built on top: Google, Amazon, Netflix, Airbnb. In the late 1990s, carriers laid over 80 million miles of fiber to own the internet's growth, and the era's loudest prophet, George Gilder, promised "no losers" in a trillion-dollar market. Within a year, two of the carriers he championed went bankrupt. Over $500 billion evaporated, 216 telecom companies failed, and 85% of fiber remained dark fiber in 2005. That dark fiber later made bandwidth cheap enough for YouTube to exist. The pipes created value; the companies on top captured it. Crypto's Layer 1s are replaying the telecom trade.

The Harsher Truth: Structural Problems of Token Funding

A large number of token projects from the past decade couldn't have raised funds in traditional markets: no revenue, no enforceable claims on future revenue, no credible plan for generating either.

In equity markets, such companies wouldn't get funded. In crypto, they got funded at scale because tokens solved a problem securities never could: they let early investors exit without the company creating value.

Binance Research documented this in 2024. At token launch, only 13% of the supply was in circulation, with roughly $155 billion in locked supply scheduled to flood the market between 2024 and 2030. Venture funds buy at private prices, sell on unregulated secondary markets after a one-year cliff, instead of the 7-10 year wait equity requires. The counterparty? Retail. Even VCs admit it: Dragonfly's Haseeb Qureshi described price discovery at these launches as occurring in private markets that are "manipulated, delusional, or both."

None of this requires fraud. That's the worst part. The structure is disclosed, legal, and it pays people not to build.

Celestia and Polkadot: Fundamentals Improve, Prices Hit New Lows

Celestia (TIA) launched with an 8% annual inflation rate, peaking at nearly $20.85 in February 2024. Then on October 30, 2024, a cliff unlock released 176 million tokens, nearly doubling the circulating supply. Early backers sold OTC, buyers hedged with perpetuals, and about 409 million tokens will continue unlocking into early 2027. The token currently trades below $0.40, down roughly 98% from its high. And the usage this emissions schedule was supposed to be tied to: in a recent 24-hour period, the entire network recorded only $89 in fees. Not $89 million. Eighty-nine dollars, with a market cap near $370 million.

Celestia isn't an exception; it's a pattern. Polkadot was a top-five asset in 2021, valued at over $50 billion, with the same pitch every cycle: one more step up. On June 28, it hit an all-time low of $0.7993, six years after launch. DOT currently trades below $0.90, down roughly 98% from its peak, even below its 2020 launch price. And this happened after the project did everything holders asked: setting a hard supply cap of 2.1 billion DOT in March, slashing issuance by more than half, getting a spot ETF listed on Nasdaq the same month, and still ranking high in developer activity. Fundamentals improved. Prices still hit new lows, because prices were never tied to fundamentals from the start.

Solana is the strongest counterexample, which is precisely why June is so indicative. SOL has real fee capture, real staking economics, the deepest usage in the industry—and it still decoupled. If the best token can't translate record usage into price, weaker tokens have no argument at all.

The Asymmetric Reality: Public Investors Can't Buy the Value Layer

This leaves an uncomfortable asymmetry:

The layer public investors can buy doesn't capture value. The layer that captures value, most public investors can't buy, because it exists in private companies being absorbed by Stripe, Mastercard, and Kraken, before the prospectus is printed.

……unless they IPO, right? Crypto companies raised $3.4 billion through IPOs in 2025, and the 2026 pipeline is forming. Then public market scrutiny swept over them too: Gemini down 89% from its opening price, BitGo down 77%, Bullish down 71%. And companies with sustained, usage-linked revenue held up: Circle still trades around 110% of its issue price, Figure around 24% above. Equity isn't magic wrapping—it's a claim on cash flows, and where cash flows are real, this claim held up even in the worst of crypto conditions.

What the Bear Market is Really Doing: A Full Audit

This is what this bear market is really doing. A downturn is an audit. It separates "claims on something" from "claims on attention," and it respects no asset class boundaries: it has repriced exchange stocks leveraged to trading volume almost as brutally. A decade of crypto capital formation is being marked to market, and the mark lands precisely where there's a legal claim on real cash flow.

Possible Counterarguments

Tokens are programmable claims, and claims can be rewritten. Fee switches, buybacks, and revenue distribution could recouple usage and price; Solana's Alpenglow upgrade combined with a real regulatory framework might just do that. Dragonfly's Haseeb Qureshi also points out that 13% circulating supply at launch was normal in the last cycle too, so the structure isn't new; maybe what's new is that marginal buyers aren't showing up anymore. And this could just be beta. Tokenized RWAs are up 40% year-to-date, while the broader crypto market is down about 20%, so the divergence might compress when macro turns. My bet is it doesn't compress much, because the divergence is contractual, not cyclical.

The Fat Protocol Thesis said value would accrue at the protocol layer, and tokens are your share. This cycle shows: value accrues to entities holding legal claims, and those legal claims were never in tokens—they were always on the cap table.