Maya 💙💛 retweeted
One thing I’ve noticed with perp trading is how fragmented everything has become. Different exchanges, different markets, and increasingly different incentives for the same trading activity.
That’s part of what @origamitech_ is trying to simplify.
It’s a non-custodial, AI-powered trading platform that lets users trade manually or run automated strategies across multiple exchanges, with a Points Program layered on top.
The rewards structure is pretty straightforward:
➤ Trading volume earns points on eligible markets
➤ Positive net realized PnL contributes additional points
➤ Referrals earn 10% of the Volume and PnL Points generated by invited users
➤ Points are distributed weekly, with rankings tracked on a leaderboard
Now Epoch 2 is live from October 23–29, and the exchange weights have been updated.
Selected markets across Derive, Extended, Hyperliquid, Hyperlink, and Lighter offer up to 3x multipliers, with separate weights for volume and PnL.
That last part is worth understanding. The same trading activity can earn different points depending on where it’s executed, although fees, execution quality, and risk still come first.
For traders already operating across multiple venues, the new epoch gives them another incentive to explore Origami’s setup.
Check the Epoch 2 weights and leaderboard here: app.origami.tech/competition…
Ref code: app.origami.tech/register?re…
.@Raydium’s revenue more than tripled in Q3, but memecoins are no longer its biggest source of swap fees.
According to Blockworks Research, Raydium generated $8M in net revenue during Q3 2026, with tokenized assets becoming its largest source of swap fees.
The numbers:
+ Q3 net revenue: $8M
+ Revenue growth: More than 3x
+ Annualized net revenue: $32M
+ Largest swap fee category: Tokenized assets
For a DEX historically tied to Solana’s speculative trading cycles, the changing revenue mix is arguably more important than the growth itself.
Consider $1B in trading volume.
+ At 5 bps: $500K in gross swap fees
+ At 20 bps: $2M in gross swap fees
That’s four times the fee generation without any increase in volume.
Of course, gross swap fees aren’t Raydium’s net revenue. LP allocations and protocol take rates determine how much the business retains.
But this illustrates how a different trading mix can improve fee generation without requiring equivalent growth in volume.
Tokenized assets also introduce different liquidity requirements, market-making costs and trading behavior, so their long-term profitability remains unproven.
Still, Raydium is developing another meaningful revenue source beyond memecoin trading.
If that continues across market cycles, it could change how investors assess Raydium’s business and the economics behind $RAY.
30-day inflows can tell one story. The next 7 days can tell another.
Across 242 lending pools tracked by @DeFiStar, $348.6M flowed into growing markets, while $305.3M left declining ones. After adjusting for interest, net deposits came to just $29.8M.
RLUSD led stablecoin inflows at $199.8M, while @SkyEcosystem recorded $85.8M in net outflows.
This is why gross deposits alone can be misleading. Capital moving into one market doesn’t mean DeFi is attracting the same amount of new capital overall.
The real signal is where liquidity settles, whether borrowers absorb it, and whether the resulting yields can sustain that demand.
Stablecoin deposits are growing across DeFi, but the capital isn’t flowing evenly between assets or lending markets.
The latest 30-day data shows sUSDS leading individual pool inflows, while USDC is attracting deposits across several @Aave, @sparkfinance and @Compound_xyz markets.
The largest inflows:
→ sUSDS / Sky Ethereum: +$383.1M (+8.6%)
→ USDC / Aave Arbitrum: +$38.0M (+20.9%)
→ RLUSD / Spark Ethereum: +$20.0M (+200%)
→ USDC / Aave Base: +$17.3M (+9.7%)
→ USDC / Aave V4 Ethereum: +$11.5M (+35.7%)
→ USDC / Spark Ethereum: +$9.0M (+22.3%)
→ USDT / Aave V4 Ethereum: +$7.6M (+38%)
What’s particularly revealing is the distribution of USDC inflows.
Across the seven USDC pools shown in the latest inflow table, deposits increased by approximately $92M in aggregate TVL.
Arbitrum and Base accounted for $55.3M of that increase, while Ethereum’s newer Aave V4 Core market grew 35.7%.
But deposit growth doesn’t necessarily translate into higher yields.
@Aave’s USDC supply APY on Arbitrum fell from 2.93% to 2.37% despite attracting $38M in additional deposits.
On Base, the opposite happened. USDC deposits grew $17.3M while supply APY increased from 3.96% to 4.17%, with utilisation reaching 90.3%.
That suggests the relationship between available liquidity and borrowing activity differs considerably between markets.
Meanwhile, sUSDS attracted $383.1M into @SkyEcosystem’s savings product, with its APY increasing from 3.60% to 3.80%.
The distinction is important because savings deposits and lending deposits don’t represent identical forms of capital demand.
These figures describe the largest inflowing pools, not net flows across every market. Outflows elsewhere can offset much of the growth.
Stablecoin adoption is one thing. Attracting deposits into specific markets, maintaining utilisation and generating sustainable borrower demand is another.
The distribution of capital across DeFi is becoming just as revealing as the total supply of stablecoins.
You find a solid investment opportunity, then realize the minimum buy-in is way out of your budget 💀
That's how some traditional fixed-income funds work, which can put them out of reach for regular investors.
Been looking into what @grvt_io is doing with Grvt Earn, and I like this angle.
Grvt Earn is designed to bring tokenized fixed-income strategies onchain, with up to 11% APY on eligible assets. Yield isn't guaranteed ofc, but the access part is what caught my attention.
We're talking about a ~$161T market where a lot of these opportunities have historically been easier for institutions to access.
Tbh, I'm not interested in chasing the highest APY. Having more options beyond the usual crypto yield farms is already a pretty big deal to me
Maya 💙💛 retweeted
Four lending markets, four very different amounts of capital actually borrowed:
@0xfluid
• TVL: $874M
• Active loans: $666M
• 76% loan intensity
@maplefinance
• TVL: $2.68B
• Active loans: $1.92B
• 72%
Jupiter Lend
• TVL: $1.76B
• Active loans: $1.08B
• 61%
@Morpho
• TVL: $11.27B
• Active loans: $5.77B
• 51%
Morpho is by far the largest market here, with $11.27B in TVL and $5.77B in active loans, but its loan intensity is closer to 51%.
Morpho still wins comfortably on absolute scale, but Fluid and Maple are currently converting a much larger share of deposited capital into outstanding credit.
That creates a very different ranking depending on what you care about.
By TVL, it goes:
Morpho → Maple → Jupiter → Fluid
By loan intensity, it flips to:
Fluid → Maple → Jupiter → Morpho
Same four protocols, completely different order once the focus moves from capital accumulated to capital actually borrowed.
One thing I've always found interesting about trading is how much capital ends up doing absolutely nothing.
You keep funds ready for the next opportunity, but while you're waiting, they just sit there.
That's the problem @GRVT_io is trying to solve with Grvt 2.0
The idea is pretty simple.
💰 Access tokenized fixed-income strategies targeting up to 11% APY (not guaranteed)
📈 Use eligible Earn balances as trading margin while they continue generating yield
🔐 Keep control through a unified self-custodial balance
What makes this interesting to me isn't just the yield.
It's the possibility of bringing institutional-style fixed-income opportunities and active trading into one place.
Of course, the underlying asset risks, liquidity and margin rules still matter.
But if Grvt can make this experience seamless, it could change how traders think about idle capital.
Your money shouldn't have to stop working just because you're waiting for a trade.
🤝 Paid partnership
Maya 💙💛 retweeted
why should fixed-income opportunities be mostly associated with banks and large investors?
i think this is one area where bringing traditional finance on-chain could make a real difference...
and it's something @grvt_io is working towards with grvt earn
for years, fixed-income strategies have been an important part of how institutions manage their capital
but accessing similar opportunities hasn't always been simple for everyday users
grvt wants to change that by bringing tokenized fixed-income strategies to its self-custodial platform
here's what makes it interesting
> access to strategies traditionally associated with institutional investors
> eligible assets targeting up to 11% apy, not guaranteed
> opportunities brought on-chain through tokenization
> more control over assets through a self-custodial approach
and there's a much bigger picture here
the traditional fixed-income market is estimated at around $160T
grvt isn't trying to move all of that on-chain, but making even a small part of these opportunities more accessible is an interesting direction
personally, i think the real value isn't just the potential yield
it's giving more people access to financial strategies that were traditionally harder to reach
of course, institutional-style strategies still carry risks, and higher target yields don't mean guaranteed returns
but if grvt can make these opportunities easier to access and understand, that's a meaningful step towards connecting traditional finance with crypto...
bStocks has won the first round: distribution.
Keeping that lead after the incentives fade is a different problem. That’s where I’d judge the tokenized-stock race.
As of Oct 22, RWA.xyz puts tokenized-stock distributed value at $3.58B:
• @bstocksfinance: $1.30B
• @OndoFinance: $908M
• @xStocksFi: $628M
Together, they account for roughly 79% of the market.
bStocks reached $1B in 125 days.
Binance Research says the total market grew 119% since launch; excluding bStocks, growth was still 45%.
It attributes over 60% of the increase to bStocks. That points to market expansion alongside share gains.
Distribution explains the speed, but “it’s just campaigns” is too simple.
Binance Research reports 56% of bStocks trading happened outside US market hours, weekly volume averaged 1.65x AUM, and margin collateral rose 6.5x since June 30.
That’s activity, not proof of retention.
The wider market has a counter-signal.
RWA.xyz’s latest 30 day snapshot shows distributed value up 13.4%, but transfer volume fell 74.2% and active addresses fell 49.6%; holders rose 14.8%.
That doesn’t prove demand is fading. It does show AUM and activity need separate scorecards.
Wallet holders aren’t the same as users.
One person can hold multiple addresses, and a large custodial wallet can represent many customers.
Holder counts alone don’t tell us retention, average balance or whether users come back after rewards stop.
RWA.xyz shows 1,472 for xStocks under “RWA count”; Kraken’s FAQ lists 131 assets.
Those measures aren’t directly comparable, so I wouldn’t present 1,472 as 1,472 distinct stock choices. Asset counts need the same definition.
Same ticker doesn’t mean same product: backing, legal claims, redemption and country access vary.
My take: bStocks leads distribution, Ondo has breadth and mint/redemption, and xStocks brings multichain reach.
The durable winner keeps repeat users, tight liquidity and net inflows after incentives fade.
i pfp'd the @Arch logo last year for full support of the best tech on BTC
it took a year but i think we are gonna see some very very good Arch action coming very very soon
ARCH PRIME is primed
whose ready
Maya 💙💛 retweeted
Currently, @Starknet is out here treating crypto like it actually has to survive the next decade of surprises instead of hoping yesterday’s math holds forever.
Quantum computers and AI-assisted breakthroughs can flip assumptions on elliptic curves, but their STARK proofs already sit on hash functions that don’t rely on those weak spots.
Programmable accounts let you swap signature schemes on your own contract without waiting for some giant network fork.
They’re exploring an independent L1 so they control the upgrade timeline instead of riding Ethereum’s pace.
That’s the real agility play.
The StarkWare Quantum Hub: (quantum.starkware.co/) assesses eight capabilities for changing cryptography, and the counts reflect public evidence within its defined scope.
1 day left before @termix_ai Epoch 2 closes. if you've been waiting to make your move, this is your reminder
here's what i'd focus on before the deadline:
> Kaito Studio: check how many posts you've submitted. you can submit up to 10 per epoch, but only your 6 best posts count.
> agent.family: if you haven't registered your .agent identity yet, get that sorted first.
> Marketplace: try posting a real job or taking one that fits your skills. only settled jobs earn TermiX Points, so don't leave it until the last minute.
> Quant: if you're curious about the trading side, take a look at how it works and consider starting small. the minimum mentioned is 10 USDC.
also, clients earn 2x the points per dollar compared with providers at the lowest job-value tier.
don't just spend the last day posting about TermiX. try using it, too.
what are you planning to get done before Epoch 2 ends?
Creating in Chinese or Korean?
@termix_ai and @primus_labs have active Katalyst campaigns with dedicated reward pools for your language region.
Each campaign rewards the top 150 Chinese-language and 150 Korean-language creators. Explore the briefs and submit on Kaito Studio ↓
NFT minting gets a different twist with @chimpchampsfun on Robinhood Chain Testnet.
Instead of minting straight away, you explore a pixel island, dig up treasure and discover chests that can be minted as NFTs.
Each chest gives you a choice: keep the NFT or burn it for BANANA rewards.
🥉 Bronze: 1,000 BANANA
🥈 Silver: 2,000 BANANA
🥇 Gold: 4,000 BANANA
Rewards decrease with every new epoch, so timing matters.
This is an NFT collection, not a PONS token launch. The experience is still on testnet, and the assets have no real-world value.
Ready to dig? 👇
Welcome to Chimp Champs! 🐒🏝️
Our testnet beta is now open on Robinhood Chain.
Explore the island, dig for treasure chests, go fishing, and meet other chimps.
Invite your friends, get an early start, and climb the leaderboard ahead of mainnet! 🏆
Jump in, have fun, and let us know what you think! 🍌
chimpchamps.xyz
gold ethereum:0x68749665ff8d2d112fa859aa293f07a622782f38 traded $103.6m on ondo perps yesterday some huge numbers but,
I was more interested in something else, something an everyday trader would always consider.
the difference between the buy price and the sell price.
that gap is called the spread, and smaller it is the better for you.
Why should I care about the spread you ask?.
You see apps like this need market makers. these are traders who always keep buy and sell orders on the order book , so you can trade any time.
the more money they can use, the bigger their orders and the smaller the spread.
on apps that only take stablecoins as margin, which is the money you lock up to open a trade, market makers have to split their money.
part sits on the app as margin. the rest sits somewhere else to protect their trades.
ondo perps lets them use tokenized stocks as margin too.
so the stock they hold to protect a trade can also count as margin. one pile of cash either stables or stocks does the job perfectly.
that leaves more money to keep prices tight.
why should you care?
when you buy or sell instantly, you pay the spread on top of the fee, going in and coming out.
a smaller spread means less of your money lost on every trade.
what do you check first on a new app, the fees or the spread?
@OndoPerps spread is just under 0.01% .
so for every 100 dollars trade you only loose 0.05 dollar’s on opening and closing the trade,
You can begin your Ondo perps journey today here,
app.ondoperps.xyz/?ref=74MC9…
Based.
Maya 💙💛 retweeted
DeFi lending vault deposits have grown from ~$4B at the start of 2025 to more than $10B by October 2026.
That’s 2.5x growth in roughly 21 months.
But the bigger story isn’t the capital entering these products. It’s the lending risk depositors are outsourcing in exchange for yield.
Crypto lending vaults typically offer 3–10% returns, while riskier strategies can exceed 20%.
That spread deserves scrutiny.
Here’s where I think the risk becomes more interesting.
» Curators are becoming the risk managers
Take @Morpho.
Its Vault V2 separates strategy from execution. Curators determine which markets and adapters are permitted and establish risk parameters. Allocators deploy capital within those rules.
That creates a layer between the depositor and the underlying lending markets.
But there’s an important technical detail: Morpho’s documentation says allocation caps aren’t continuously enforced ceilings. Exposure can move above a cap without a new allocation.
A risk limit is useful, but it isn’t a guarantee that exposure can never exceed it.
» APY doesn’t tell you how quickly you can exit
Vault deposits are deployed into lending markets to generate returns.
When borrowers use most of the available liquidity, the vault may not have enough assets immediately available to satisfy every withdrawal.
Morpho explicitly distinguishes this situation from bad debt. A withdrawal delay doesn’t necessarily mean funds are lost.
But it does mean that advertised yield and immediately available liquidity are two different metrics.
» The real stress test is a collateral failure
Suppose a borrower owes $10M against collateral initially worth $12M.
If that collateral falls to $8M before liquidation can recover the debt, the position may leave the lending market with a shortfall.
In Morpho Vault V2, bad debt reduces the value of the vault’s assets, and the loss is shared proportionally among depositors.
The smart contracts can enforce the rules correctly and depositors can still lose money.
That’s the distinction between protocol security and credit risk.
» Look beyond the headline yield
A useful comparison: Two Prime’s Bitcoin lending vault on Pareto launched with a target yield of 1.5 – 2% and roughly $10M of the firm’s capital committed to absorb initial losses.
That doesn’t make it risk-free, and the strategy isn’t directly comparable to every DeFi vault.
But it illustrates the questions I want answered:
→ How much collateral and market concentration sits behind the yield?
→ What proportion of deposits is immediately liquid?
→ Who can change the allocation, and what protections apply?
→ Is any manager capital committed to absorbing losses before depositors?
→ What happens to the vault’s share value when bad debt is recognized?
DeFi vaults are making sophisticated lending strategies accessible to more capital.
My take: growth in deposits shouldn’t be mistaken for better risk management.
As more capital flows through curated strategies, the quality of the curator becomes just as important as the underlying protocol.
I’d rather use a vault with transparent exposures, realistic withdrawal assumptions and clearly defined loss protections than chase an extra few percentage points of APY.
In the long run, I think the vaults that earn lasting trust will be the ones that make their risks as visible as their returns.
Liquidity gets institutions to look. Confidentiality decides whether they stay.
Most blockchain narratives stop at capital and distribution. Institutions don’t.
They need to move real money, run strategies, and settle with counterparties without broadcasting every position, size, and timing to the entire market.
If the only option is full public exposure, many will keep that activity offchain.
What institutions actually require:
• Private position sizes and strategies that don’t leak to competitors
• Verifiable claims about reserves, collateral, and activity without revealing the underlying details
• Infrastructure that sits above existing rails instead of forcing a full migration to a new chain
Primus is building that confidentiality + verification layer. It works on top of current onchain financial systems, including BNB, so institutions don’t have to choose between privacy and the ecosystems where liquidity already lives.
The real question isn’t just how much capital a chain can attract.
It’s whether the infrastructure lets that capital actually support institutional finance.
Explore Primus XP → s.kaito.ai/m0kfaLC
What other infrastructure does BNB still need for serious institutional finance?
Maya 💙💛 retweeted
Here is something that most people do not think about.
Every platform you use right now is building a detailed profile of who you are. Your posts, your streams, your purchases, your onchain activity, your gaming history. All of it is being captured.
None of it belongs to you.
Your identity online is fragmented across dozens of platforms and none of those signals connect, none of them compound, and none of them reflect back to you in any meaningful way. Platforms capture everything. Users earn nothing.
CONSO is building the infrastructure to fix that.
The Consumer Reputation Layer converts every action you take across social, gaming, AI tools, creative platforms, and onchain environments into portable reputation credentials that you actually own. Not points in someone else's database. Verifiable credentials that travel with you.
Your CONSO Passport holds all of it together. Including Agentic Memory, meaning your AI context carries across experiences rather than resetting every time you switch apps.
CONSO BOTS are where you stake your place in this network early.
Each BOT is a Reputation-Backed Mobile Node. Connected to the CONSO Miner App, it lets you mine ZAPs, validate network activity, help identify bad actors, and earn a 25% mining boost over the base rate. Built on SUI and secured through Walrus. But more importantly, your BOT carries your relationship with CONSO across every product they build going forward. Social. Gaming. AI. Brands. Wallets. Onchain environments.
The Consumer Graph CONSO is building connects users, creators, gamers, brands, applications, and AI agents through verifiable reputation. Your BOT is your node in that graph.
Genesis Mint is not open to everyone. You either pass the eligibility check or earn access through impressions. The first generation of nodes matters because they are laying the foundation for everything built on top.
The internet has been extracting value from your attention for decades. @conso_xyz is building the layer where that finally runs in the other direction.
Your attention creates value. Your reputation powers the network.
🤝 Paid partnership
Good morning ☀️
this is the part that actually matters if you want to earn from @vangrid_io
buyers post bounties for specific real places they need captured, you can browse them at data.vangrid.io
find one near you, open the vangrid app, and just walk through that spot while recording, takes about 30 to 60 seconds
submit it, it goes through a quality check, and once accepted you get paid in usdc
no interview, no application, just whoever's nearby and willing to go
anyone here already completed a bounty, how was the experience
Maya 💙💛 retweeted
the interesting part about xdce-crowd-sale:native and ethereum:0xe28b3b32b6c345a34ff64674606124dd5aceca30 today is that both stories connect crypto to existing financial systems
@MoneyGram joining @XDCNetwork as an institutional validator brings payments and settlement into focus
meanwhile, @injective's move with @BDACSKorea to use KRW1 as a won settlement asset for tokenized assets shows how local currencies could find a place onchain
but there's a difference between a strong project headline and actual token demand
the real question is whether these integrations create recurring activity that eventually flows back to the token
that's what i'd watch beyond the announcement itself
Maya 💙💛 retweeted
The first thing I built on GenLayer wasn't something I could have explained with a normal blockchain transaction.
ECOVERDICT was an attempt to answer a surprisingly difficult question: when a company makes an environmental claim, what evidence would actually make that claim acceptable?
That experience changed how I listened to Genesis Episode 5.
Albert talks about the difference between building an app and building a protocol. I understand that distinction much better now.
An app gives you a predefined problem to solve. A protocol gives builders room to discover problems the original team never anticipated.
I wasn't trying to create another token or trading interface. I wanted independent validators to examine claims against evidence and reach a judgment.
Someone else might build a prediction market. Another developer might build a dispute system for AI agents.
Those are very different applications, but they can emerge from the same underlying infrastructure.
That's the part of @GenLayer I find worth watching: the projects its founders didn't plan.
A protocol starts becoming interesting when its users surprise its creators.
🤝 Paid partnership
Maya 💙💛 retweeted
Robinhood Crypto and Solana show two sides of on-chain activity.
@RobinhoodCrypto demonstrates how launchpads and trading can generate revenue. @solana combines consumer apps with a broader DeFi ecosystem.
The bigger question: how does activity translate into sustainable value for users?
1/ Revenue & metrics
Around Sept. 4–5, Robinhood Chain’s daily app revenue reportedly hit ~$7.67M, driven by Pons, GMGN and memecoin/tokenized-asset activity. Solana generated ~$3M.
September app revenue: Solana ~$144–180M; Robinhood ~$84M, nearly 3x its July/August run rate. Global app revenue reached ~$468M, with Solana contributing ~31%.
By Oct. 19–20, Solana’s 30-day app revenue was ~$160–193M versus Robinhood’s ~$24–25M.
Latest reported metrics (Robinhood | Solana):
• TVL: $1.14B | $5.85–5.89B
• App revenue (24h): $401K | $4.77M
• App fees: $2.03M | $10.8–11M
• DEX volume: $860M | $1.64B
• Perps volume: $978M | $348–353M
• Stablecoins: $1.07B | $15.6B
• RWA AUM: $329M | $2.4B
• Chain fees/revenue: $42K/$37K | $782K/$113K
Robinhood stands out in perps relative to its size; Solana leads in TVL, stablecoins and RWAs.
2/ Protocols
Robinhood Chain (@arbitrum Orbit L2, launched July 1, 2026) features @ponsdotfamily, @gmgnai, @fomo, @Uniswap, @Lighter_xyz, @Morpho Blue, @SteakhouseFi, @RamsesExchange, @SushiSwap, @Sparkfinance and @rialto_xyz. Pons and trading terminals drive fees; Morpho ($610M TVL) and Steakhouse ($536M) support lending and risk curation.
Solana includes @Pumpfun, @AxiomExchange, @phantom, @JupiterExchange, @Raydium, @orca_so, @MeteoraAG, @kamino, @jito, @sanctumso, @MarinadeFinance and @VelocityDEX (prev. @DriftProtocol).
Pumpfun recently generated ~$2.18M in daily revenue and supports $PUMP buybacks. Jupiter combines aggregation, perps and lending; Kamino handles lending and leveraged strategies. Jito, Sanctum and Marinade support staking through JitoSOL, INF and mSOL.
Consumer apps generate roughly 80% of Solana’s app revenue in recent periods.
Robinhood leans on launchpads and lending; Solana combines consumer apps with composable DeFi. Neither guarantees lasting success.
3/ Yield opportunities
Reported SOL yields around Oct. 18–20:
• Native staking: ~4–5%+
• JitoSOL: ~4.7–4.8%; mSOL: ~5.4%
• INF/JupSOL: ~5.4–5.65%
• Kamino lending/Jupiter Lend: ~3.5–5%
• @NolusProtocol Earn: ~9–13%, reportedly from its Liquidity Provider Pool.
Other strategies include Kamino Multiply, LST loops, SOL-USDC/JitoSOL-SOL liquidity, Jupiter JLP and leveraged farms. Some report 7–25%+ returns, depending on fees, funding, borrowing costs and incentives. These are not guaranteed.
Robinhood offers Morpho lending vaults and trading-related opportunities. It uses ETH for gas, with sequencer economics involving Robinhood and Arbitrum—not a SOL-equivalent staking asset.
4/ What stands out
Robinhood shows the revenue potential of retail distribution, tokenized assets and derivatives. Solana shows how consumer apps and established DeFi infrastructure can support a wider range of activity.
The key difference is where each ecosystem generates activity and how that activity translates into value for users.





































