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

Compiled & Translated by: DeepTech Flow

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 volatile fluctuations in the crypto market and the narrative divergence among core assets like Strategy, Ethereum, Solana, and Hyperliquid. He believes Strategy selling Bitcoin has broken the "never sell" faith premium Michael Saylor cultivated long-term; Ethereum's biggest problem is its inability to form a unified, market-priced asset narrative, leading both him and 6MV to hold a zero allocation to ETH. In contrast, Mike favors protocols with clear value capture mechanisms, programmatic buybacks, and sustainable revenue streams, particularly comparing Hyperliquid to Tether in the DeFi world: it doesn't need to rely on the US market to grow into a massive network within the non-KYC, international trading demand.

Highlights of Key Insights

Strategy and the Fracturing of the Bitcoin Faith Premium

• "Strategy wants to do two things simultaneously: on one hand, financialize Bitcoin exposure, and on the other, turn it into a meme asset with a religious-like aura. The problem is, these two things aren't fully compatible."
• "Saylor's long-standing 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 pulled out."
• "You need the market to fully believe he will perpetually buy this asset. So when the price drops, they must find ways to continue buying Bitcoin."

ETH's Narrative Confusion and Zero Allocation

• "ETH ultimately became what many people wanted it to be, but the problem is the Foundation and many core writers aren't willing to truly embrace the narrative of ETH as a monetary asset."
• "If you look at 100 major stakeholders in the Ethereum ecosystem, each one tells a different story: what this asset is, what the long-term mission of the network is. Of course, the market doesn't know how to value it."
• "We as a fund don't hold ETH, and 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 a narrative confusion, but a performance issue. On-chain activity and fees peaked in early 2025 and have been declining, dragging the price down."
• "Solana's past activity was mainly driven by meme coins and highly speculative on-chain trading, but there aren't enough sustainable economic activities to fill the void left by the decline."
• "If Solana can truly succeed in new directions like perpetual contracts, and prove its L1 performance approaches 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 to Circle. The non-KYC or international market is huge in crypto and can absolutely support a massive network."
• "Hyperliquid's key issue isn't whether it can enter the US, but whether it can continuously 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 preferably programmatic. Because the industry inherently doesn't trust project teams by default, any discretionary mechanism gets discounted by the market."
• "Leadership must consistently, professionally, and clearly articulate the product roadmap, telling investors, stakers, and ecosystem developers: this isn't just serving the team; we are building this together."
• "100% buybacks aren't always optimal either. The protocol needs to convince the market that it is 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 to capture value 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 moving 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. It’s been a tough week in crypto. Bitcoin fell about 12% in the past week, down 22% in the past month, and down 27% year-to-date. ETH is worse, dropping 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, an amount worth only about $2.5 million, but it seems to have shaken market confidence. We not only saw Bitcoin's price drop by nearly $10,000 in a few days, but the market is also increasingly discussing various tools in MSTR's capital structure. What's your take on all this?

Mike Dudas:

Saylor and Strategy are essentially doing two things at once. The first thing, which you just mentioned and Jeff also talked about, is financializing Bitcoin and Bitcoin exposure. This is what analysts mostly discuss, whether looking at what happened in a week or a year.

But the other thing, different from financializing Bitcoin, is turning it into a meme asset. Saylor frequently posts memes and communicates to the market in an almost religious way: trust me, this is a messianic asset, a chosen one.

The problem is, these two things aren't fully compatible. Trying to hold both logics in your head simultaneously creates significant cognitive dissonance. The almost 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 pillar of the Strategy story is pulled out. The market's reaction to the 'never sell' promise being broken is very negative.

What happens next will be critical. Will they continue to sell? If they do, it might alleviate some market concerns about Strategy and STRC in the coming years, but that itself would be a negative signal. Is that what they are doing now? The market probably isn't sure.

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

Host Laura Shin: If Bitcoin price continues to stagnate or even falls further, what do you think MSTR should do to keep paying dividends on its preferred shares? Do you have any ideas?

Mike Dudas:

This isn't a simple question. Many people will disagree with me because they hold different assets issued by MicroStrategy for different reasons. But to me, it's very clear: You need the market to fully believe he will perpetually buy this asset. So when the price drops, they must find ways to continue buying Bitcoin.

I think many observers actually predicted this day would come eventually. It just came earlier than people expected because they started using leverage and had to meet substantial cash flow obligations, and now it's time to pay up.

Why the ETH Narrative Remains Fragmented, and Why Dudas Holds a Zero Allocation

Host Laura Shin: Let's talk about Ethereum. It seems to be in a period of self-reckoning. The latest trigger was some senior members leaving the Ethereum Foundation. Then Vitalik tried to respond to criticism, basically saying the Foundation would shrink, and he sees it becoming just one node among many.

We also saw long-time believers like David Hoffman from Bankless lose faith 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 discussing ETH as an asset. ETH ultimately became what many people wanted it to be; it does have some monetary properties. But for some reason, the Foundation and a lot of writing around Ethereum aren't comfortable fully owning that narrative.

They tend to tell a story of a 'credibly neutral layer', with a multi-decade time horizon. But if you look at 100 major stakeholders in the Ethereum ecosystem, each one tells a different story: what is this asset? What is the long-term mission of the network?

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 held by our fund, 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, embraced by institutions protecting trillions of dollars, and those who see Ethereum as some kind of utopian world computer.

Host Laura Shin: What would Ethereum need to change in its tokenomics or architecture for 6MV to consider holding ETH?

Mike Dudas:

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

For an asset to gain enough long-term stakeholders, sustained capital flows, and holding conviction, it needs a clean, singular narrative. Ethereum hasn't achieved that in the past few 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 having a tough year too. I know you're relatively more optimistic about Solana. There's talk of changing its tokenomics. How do you see its decline and its potential future?

Mike Dudas:

The reasons for Solana's underperformance are clearer. I think the Solana Foundation and key stakeholders have done a better job finding a North Star than the Ethereum ecosystem. They are more focused on REV – real economic value, the fees accruing to token holders and stakers. Solana's problem is mainly one of performance. On-chain activity and fees likely peaked in early 2025 and have been trending downwards, pulling the SOL price down with it.

Previous activity was largely driven by meme coins 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 aren't enough other persistent economic activities to replace the gap left by the decline in meme coin trading volume.

I still think there's a good chance we'll see new activities emerge. Solana is embracing many different narratives. Its opportunities might be broader than other ecosystems, and it's working on areas where it was weak in the past. Perpetual contracts are a classic example, which the Foundation and other key players are discussing.

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 near the level of centralized exchanges. If these things happen, it could become an undervalued asset at some point. But for now, you need to see the promised activity actually emerge and materialize.

Why Hyperliquid Is More Like Tether in DeFi Than Another L1

Host Laura Shin: Let's talk about another L1 that has grabbed almost all the attention this year, HYPE. It's been one of the few crypto assets up year-to-date. But we've also seen news this week suggesting strong competition ahead. Perpetual contracts are entering the US compliant market via Kalshi and Coinbase.

How do you think Hyperliquid navigates this moment? Facing new competition while maintaining its non-KYC model, can it sustain its dominant position?

Mike Dudas:

The non-KYC market is very large. So if you're asking whether 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, but it never truly built a substantial business in the US. A platform can become very, very large operating outside the US.

If Hyperliquid eventually enters the US in some KYC-compliant way, that might be a potential upside not yet priced in. But 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 do you think it can handle the competition, or do you see them as inherently different markets?

Mike Dudas:

My basic analogy is Tether to Circle, and the Tether analogy can be very, very big. The Tron L1 is also very valuable, arguably more valuable than many louder L1s.

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

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