A Deal In Crypto

Ambassador Program Alert ❗❗ Hey, Become an Ambassador with @quantarcai and position to earn massive rewards. Click here to start forms.gle/78JUDYvSrcvVuCfy8

Quant finance needs more than content creators. It needs people who can explain strategies, test assumptions, analyse markets, and make complex ideas easier to understand. The focus on backtesting, original research, and direct collaboration with the team makes this program worth looking at. Quality over follower count is the right approach. 👀

Putting an asset onchain solves custody and settlement. It does not tell you how risky the asset is or where the capital will come from. Tokenized assets other than stablecoins stood at $46.1B on 4 November. The layer that connects them to capital is still needed. GSR (@GSR_io ) launched Hare (@hare_xyz ) alongside @turtledotxyz on 7 October, just after Q3 closed. It calls itself a credit desk for onchain finance. Hare looks at the risk under an asset, including market, asset and counterparty risk, the way a bank credit desk would, and publishes what it finds. It lists on Turtle on the same terms as any other issuer, with the same front end and the same distribution network. That pairing is what interests me. One layer judges the risk. Another puts the opportunity in front of depositors. Turtle’s Q3 group revenue was $1.04M across Turtle and Lunar Strategy, on a cash in basis, rounded and net of intercompany. It came from services and distribution, which is the part of this gap Turtle already works on. Once an asset is onchain, which problem takes longer to solve, assessing the risk or finding the capital? xitter.gq/turtledotxyz/status/21…

Where does a distribution protocol’s revenue come from before the product is finished? In Turtle’s Q3 update, group revenue was $1.04M across Turtle and Lunar Strategy, on a cash in basis, rounded and net of intercompany. It came from services and distribution while the tools were still being built out. The update does not split revenue by product, and I am not going to guess at one. What it does show is the distribution side filling up. Creator Wire (@creator_wire), built by the @LunarStrategy and Turtle teams, shipped in late August. By 23 September more than 5,000 creators had connected and demand ran ahead of onboarding. The update now puts it at more than 7,100 onboard. An issuer picks the creators it wants to back, the creators post, and the path ends in a deposit. I watch this number because distribution is hard to fake. A creator either posts or does not. @turtledotxyz sits where that audience meets the vaults. If you run a community, what would make you route it to a protocol? xitter.gq/turtledotxyz/status/21…

Revenue and a token answer two different questions, and the Turtle Q3 update is easier to read when you keep them apart. Revenue is what was earned. The update reports group revenue of $1.04M for Q3, across Turtle and Lunar Strategy, on a cash in basis, rounded and net of intercompany. The token is a separate matter. $TURTLE is the single instrument tied to coordination access on Turtle. Network activity is what happens on the rails: issuers finding capital, agencies running campaigns, creators routing audiences. The token is tied to access to that coordination. This post is about the revenue line, and I am not suggesting that revenue is passed on to tokenholders. The Q3 update from @turtledotxyz treats the two as separate topics, and I find a young protocol easier to assess when it does that. Revenue shows what was earned. The token shows what access means. Each deserves to be read on its own terms. xitter.gq/turtledotxyz/status/21…

A roadmap tells you what a team plans. Revenue tells you what someone paid for. Turtle’s Q3 update names two businesses outside Turtle that now run on its rails: Hare and Lunar Strategy. Lunar Strategy runs its client campaigns on Turtle’s tools, and each campaign brings another issuer and another audience. Hare lists on Turtle on the same terms as any other issuer, with the same front end and the same distribution network. That is how the quarter’s services and distribution connect to the teams now building on top. The update states the aim plainly, which is the next hundred teams listing and distributing on Turtle without Turtle sourcing the deal. @turtledotxyz is early on that, and the Q3 update is honest about where it stands. If you were judging a young protocol, would you count the teams running on it before anything else? xitter.gq/turtledotxyz/status/21…

The 12% upfront fee made me pause the first time I saw it. Then I looked at what the alternative actually costs. Remember the Circle IPO? It opened and roughly doubled almost immediately. Most people who missed the allocation ended up chasing the top. That is the real cost. After years of trading, I have learned the expensive part is rarely the fee. It is missing the allocation. Here is how I read the VIP round. You are paying for priority access. Historical fill rates through top tier channels have run 40% to 80%, so a $100k subscription could land somewhere between $40k and $80k of exposure. Not a promise, but a far better shot than the public round, which behaves more like a lottery. I ran the numbers. If Anthropic pops 20% to 30% on Day 1, the cost of chasing it sits well above 12%. Seen that way, the fee is the price of securing a seat before the bell. The tradeoffs are real. rANT arrives T+3 to T+5 after allocation, so you watch listing day with empty hands. I am not trading this one for a quick flip. I want an actual position in what could be the first public AI benchmark stock, so a few days of waiting is fine by me. Also worth noting: unallocated capital routes to Earn at 7% APR with hourly payouts and can be redeemed anytime, so a partial fill is not dead money. Bottom line: the VIP round is not for everyone. If you have conviction in Anthropic and you are tired of buying tops, the 12% buys a better shot at an allocation without fighting for retail scraps. Do your own research and size accordingly, since fill rates are historical, not guaranteed. VIP subscription is now open. Subscribe here: bitget.com/spotlight/ipo-pri… A few notes on what I changed. I softened "guaranteed seat" and "certainty" to match your research first style, since a 40% to 80% historical fill rate is not a guarantee, and I added a short risk line. If this is a referral or sponsored post, it is worth disclosing that to your audience as well. @bitget @BitgetWallet

Turtle was shipping product and earning revenue in the same quarter. Creator Wire went live in late August, built with Lunar Strategy. By 23 September, more than 5,000 creators had connected, and demand ran ahead of onboarding. Turtle Streams went self serve, so anyone can create a stream without talking to the team. On 7 October, Hare by GSR launched in Singapore. The revenue arrived from services and distribution while all of that was still being built. That order matters for a young infrastructure protocol. Earning during the build means the work can keep going from its own results. I read the Q3 update from @turtledotxyz as a record of that order of operations. Would you rather see a big launch from a young protocol, or a quiet quarter of paid work? xitter.gq/turtledotxyz/status/21…

A protocol that pays for its own build is a different kind of early story. Turtle’s Q3 update puts group revenue at $1.04M. That is across Turtle and Lunar Strategy, on a cash in basis, rounded and net of intercompany. Infrastructure usually asks you to wait while it builds. Turtle was earning while it built. That revenue came from services and distribution, in the same months that Creator Wire shipped and Streams went self serve. It also sits next to a bigger gap. Tokenized assets other than stablecoins stood at $46.1B on 4 November, and the layer that connects them to capital is still needed. @turtledotxyz is building in that layer as a liquidity distribution protocol, and this quarter shows it can fund the work. When you read an infrastructure update, which line do you trust first, the roadmap or the revenue? xitter.gq/turtledotxyz/status/21…

I’ve been looking into DualMint, and the idea is pretty simple. PLAY is built around 200 real claw machines that generate revenue from actual users. That revenue is then brought onchain through Solana. They’re targeting a 12–15% annual yield, with distributions planned monthly. What I find interesting is that the model is connected to something physical that already generates revenue, instead of relying only on token activity. Would you be interested in an RWA like this if the machine revenue can be properly verified? @DualMintRWA

$750M of fresh stablecoin liquidity hit Solana in a single session. Tether minted $500M USDT and Circle minted $250M USDC on September 19. That’s more interesting to me than another token launch. Stablecoins are becoming the actual liquidity layer for onchain markets. What do you think is driving this demand on @solana ?

The SEC just opened a temporary path for certain U.S. stocks to trade onchain. The interesting part isn't simply “stocks on blockchain.” The approved model requires tokenized stocks to preserve the same rights as the underlying shares, including voting and dividends. The exemption runs for 5 years. This looks less like crypto replacing stocks and more like traditional markets testing blockchain rails. Would you actually use tokenized stocks if the ownership rights were the same?