Gasの‌価格GAS

RT @Ahntonee1: Ethereum gas fees power the network, a cost for computation, not just a transaction. And here's the detailed infographic co…

While meme coins dominate headlines and microcaps promise quick flips, some of the most strategic plays this June may be found in battle-tested, underrated altcoins that continue to build behind the scenes. In June 2025, these three altcoins Ethereum (ETH), Binance Coin (BNB), and Bitget Token (BGB) are making quiet but powerful moves that could set the stage for major rallies. 🧠 1. Ethereum (ETH) Current MC: ~$460B Narrative: Layer-1 Smart Contract King Yes, Ethereum is no “hidden” project, but ETH is still dramatically undervalued relative to its dominance in DeFi, NFTs, L2s, RWAs, and enterprise adoption. With Dencun upgrades complete and proto-danksharding live, Ethereum is leaner, faster, and cheaper than ever. Why ETH still deserves your attention: Powering 70%+ of DeFi TVL and all major L2s (Arbitrum, Base, etc.). Massive staking ecosystem with nearly 30M ETH locked. Critical infrastructure for tokenization, CBDCs, and enterprise chains. The next wave of ETFs and institutional adoption could drive a fresh ATH. ETH to $10K? Don’t rule it out in the next major cycle. 🏛 2. Binance Coin (BNB) Current MC: ~$85B Narrative: Utility + Ecosystem Giant Often overshadowed by controversy, BNB remains one of the most powerful utility tokens in crypto powering the Binance Smart Chain (BNB Chain), discounts on Binance exchange, launchpad allocations, and gas fees. Why BNB is primed for a run: BNB Chain continues to host vibrant dApp ecosystems. Consistent quarterly token burns reduce circulating supply. Binance's expansion into Web3 (like opBNB) is gaining traction. Regulatory clarity and Binance's compliance push may re-ignite investor confidence. BNB has been quiet, but that’s often when it grows strongest. 🛡 3. Bitget Token (BGB) Current MC: ~$1.6B Narrative: Utility Token for the Fastest Growing Exchange Bitget’s BGB token has quietly outperformed most exchange tokens, thanks to strong tokenomics, increasing real utility, and Bitget’s aggressive global expansion. Why BGB might be the next breakout CEX token: Exclusive staking, airdrops, copy trading access, and fee discounts. Bitget’s user base continues to expand rapidly, especially in Asia and Latin America. Regular buybacks and burn events to support price growth. Backed by real revenue and platform usage, not hype. If BGB continues to track Bitget’s user growth, it could easily double or triple in 2025. ✅ Conclusion You don’t always need to chase tiny cap coins to make outsized gains. In fact, Ethereum, Binance Coin, and Bitget Token may offer some of the strongest risk-adjusted returns this summer, powered by ecosystem strength, real adoption, and consistent innovation. These aren't just altcoins. They're cornerstones of the future crypto economy. ⚠️ Disclaimer This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry a high level of risk and volatility. Always conduct your own research (DYOR) and consult a professional financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

Appreciate the effort to try to quantify moneyness / SoV, but most of this here is wrong: 1) This idea that you fundamentally can’t do cashflow analysis on L1s because of a circular reference (i.e., that fees are charged in native token) is wrong. I've seen this argument before, but it's simply not true. First of all, there’s no explanation of why this is a problem and why it actually means you can't do a DCF. It’s just repeatedly stated circular reference → therefore can’t do cashflow analysis. It actually doesn’t really matter. You can always look at the spot values of the payment currency and convert to whatever reference asset you want (e.g., looking at $USD values at time of payment) to derive whatever number you want. Additionally, this circular reference isn’t fundamental if we wanted to even change it. Users can pay in tokens other than the base asset, and stakers can obviously always sell the payment currency for whatever they want immediately. In many networks, users can always pay in whatever currency they want. In some other cases, some portion of fees is required by the protocol to be paid in the base asset (e.g., base fees in ETH on Ethereum via EIP-1559), but even this is not fundamental. The podcast cited an example to try to support this idea: “Here's a sort of like mental like quick test you can do to understand whether or not you should be using a DCF model. And that is if one person if one account one bank account one wallet owned the entire supply of shares of Apple like I said it wouldn't change the value of Apple, but if one person one account one wallet owned the entire supply of ETH, of SOL, of BTC, of TON of Bittensor, of whatever, right the value of that would be zero because there's there's no one paying fees there's no doing anything.” However, this example actually demonstrates the exact opposite point! In a PoS network, the owner of all the tokens would receive all REV paid by users. (You could DCF this.) The users don’t even need to own the base asset. They can simply pay the network owner in whatever currency they desire (e.g., USDC). Even if we assume that the network remains unchanged and it has a base fee mechanism that requires spending the native currency, then the token/network owner can simply gas abstract this away from users, sponsoring the requisite gas cost (e.g., sponsoring the minimum ETH base fee which goes back to themself) in return for payment in another currency (e.g., USDC). This isn’t even hypothetical - we’re increasingly seeing gas abstraction remove native assets from the view of normie users, and we’ll continue to see more of this. You can also imagine a simple tradfi analogy to see why it falls apart. Imagine tomorrow, Apple announced you must pay for all Apple products using AAPL shares. Obviously this would be a stupid decision and in practice result in lower sales, but it doesn’t mean investors would throw out the DCFs on Apple and say “AAPL is money.” You’d just convert the AAPL shares to a reference asset (eg $USD) to see user demand and what was paid. What Apple really did here is just streamline a share buyback mechanic where they require users to buyback the shares and pay them in, as opposed to taking in $USD and buying shares themself. They can also obviously change this mechanic at any later date, accepting $USD again. 2) I don’t think RSOV actually measures what it’s purported to, and I generally don’t see it as a particularly meaningful measure in valuing an asset as a SoV. RSOV doesn’t seem to actually measure $ inflows/outflows as it’s described. If I sell my ETH to you at a higher $ price, this isn’t captured here. Conversely, RSOV would go up if I held ETH for a long time, the price went up, then I staked it or put it into some DeFi smart contract (even though no new $ came in). All I did was use/move my assets. No money came in (or out in the example where price dropped in between) Maybe this can measure and understand some usage patterns, but it’s not measuring the strength of a SoV or the $ inflows or anything else of that sort. Putting valuation multiples on this just doesn’t hold. What the price of an asset was at any given time when people last moved it to stake/use in defi provides no intrinsic floor or reason for me to hold the asset at that given price (unlike cashflows which do provide an intrinsic value floor).

对了，提醒大家一下，在以太坊主网的交易失败Gas费可都是要扣除的，按当时的费率，大概率失败一次要扣掉80刀。 所以不是仅仅浪费分数而已，如果你失败几次，那就是大亏。 以后代币发在以太主网的就不去凑热闹了。

RT @themaster_eth: Hot gas incoming 💨🔥