Cena BlueMoveMOVE

Solana’s treasury firm took a hit this week as shares of Upexi Inc. plunged 62%. This followed a filing that stirred panic among retail investors. The market responded sharply to concerns around insider stock sales, raising fresh questions among participants about the crypto accumulation approach. Upexi Inc., a Tampa-based consumer brand company that recently pivoted to a Solana treasury strategy, saw its stock crash 62% after a new registration statement allowed private investors to sell their shares. It is worth noting that the company clarified that no actual sales had occurred. Nonetheless, the permission to sell was enough to rattle the market. The Securities and Exchange Commission filing, made on Monday, made it possible for investors in Upexi’s April PIPE deal to sell their common shares or pre-funded warrants. Also, these shares, amounting to about 43.9 million, were acquired as part of a $100 million capital raise to support the company’s move into Solana holdings. Chief Executive Officer Allan Marshall downplayed the filing in an interview. He said it does not mean the investors are selling or want to sell, but it means they can. Despite this, the filing triggered immediate fear that institutional holders could dump their shares. This dragged down prices sharply, repeating what happened to SharpLink Gaming Inc. earlier this month. It is worth mentioning that the sharp drop in Upexi’s stock price comes just months after the company began accumulating Solana as part of a new Solana treasury approach. This approach mirrors Michael Saylor’s approach with Bitcoin. As noted in our earlier report, Strategy recently acquired an additional 245 BTC for $26 million to reinforce its Bitcoin accumulation strategy. In April 2025, Upexi made its first digital asset purchase. CNF reported that Upexi raised $100 million to build a Solana-based treasury and staking strategy with backing from GSR and other major firms. In May 2025, Upexi increased its holdings to over 679,000 SOL units. This they acquired mostly through discounted deals. Back in April, Upexi’s market cap stood at just $3 million. It jumped to around $600 million following the fundraising and Solana purchases. However, on Tuesday, it had fallen back to roughly $148 million. Despite the drop, investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald recently placed a $16 price target on Upexi’s shares. They did this by backing its strategy and arguing that Solana offers better long-term growth potential than Ethereum. We also covered in a recent post that Cantor Fitzgerald has shown confidence in Solana. The firm’s analysts called it a smart option for corporate treasuries because of its speed and low fees. They believe that Solana-based treasuries could deliver better performance, making it an alternative to Ethereum. In line with this positive sentiment, real estate technology company Janover Inc. has entered the same space. As mentioned in our previous article, they recently announced the purchase of 80,567 SOL worth around $10.5 million as part of their digital cash strategy.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission delayed its decision on the 21Shares Polkadot Spot ETF . The date was rescheduled and currently stands on November 8, 2025, which was earlier due on June 24, 2025. The delay sets the ETF for Polkadot within a growing line of applications based on cryptocurrency and subject to extended review. The latest delay is consistent with the Commission’s strategy of expanding deadlines for the sake of garnering more public comment and tracking market-linked risks. The ETF in question would track Polkadot (DOT), a blockchain infrastructure network that supports interoperability across various chains. Approval could lead to easier crypto access through traditional investment platforms. Market observers perceive the hold-up as delay and not rejection as part of a broader picture. The SEC also undertook similar actions on existing ETF applications for other digital currencies like XRP, Litecoin, Solana, and Dogecoin. These delays reflect the Commission’s prudent stance on new financial products for digital currencies. Following the delay announcement, the price of Polkadot dropped nearly 2%, reaching $3.41 in the past 24 hours. The analysts point out the dip was a short-term reaction and not the indication of underlying concerns with the blockchain. Many investors appear to be waiting for regulatory clarity before making further commitments. Despite the recent fall in prices, analysts remain confident the ETF will be approved at some point. Bloomberg analyst James Seyffart noted the moves made by the SEC suggest there could be movement on the issue later this year. The SEC is taking a cautious yet engaged approach, which could lead to approval in the final quarter of 2025, he said. Market watchers believe the Commission‘s ongoing activity reveals that it hasn‘t dismissed the application entirely. Instead, the delay might allow the SEC to finish its parameters for digital asset funds, which would lead to more consistent future decision-making. Polkadot is one of the over 70 digital asset ETF applications still waiting for rulings. These include funds from major financial firms such as BlackRock and Grayscale . The Commission also extended deadlines for a few other tokens, including HBAR and memecoins like Dogecoin and Shiba Inu. There is growing speculation that ETFs linked to memecoin may debut in 2026. If the funds receive clearance, it would be a sign for growing adoption of crypto by regulated markets, but the timing remains uncertain. For now, the SEC’s backlog signals a cautious but ongoing review process. Each delay adds to the pressure on regulators to create a clear framework for evaluating crypto-linked financial products. As November approaches, the focus remains on how the SEC chooses to move forward with the 21Shares Polkadot proposal.

Yesterday I moderated a panel about growth at the Arbitrum Day during @eth_milano. Featuring @DanDeFiEd, @francescoweb3, @ClBlockchain, and @DarrenCamas, we shared thoughts on how to grow a protocol and its community. Key highlights from the conversation: 1. There Is Las Vegas and There Is Wall Street. While Solana gets most of the hype, Arbitrum is quietly building the infrastructure that’s onboarding institutional players. Projects like @plumenetwork, @convergeonchain, and @RaylsLabs, three of the most promising RWA-focused chains, are all building on Arbitrum. That says a lot about where it's headed. There isn't going to be a winner-takes-all, but different ecosystems for different use cases. You can frame it this way: • Solana = Las Vegas • Arbitrum = Wall Street 2. Telegram vs Discord After discussing and sharing personal opinions about both Telegram and Discord, we came up with this take: For early-stage protocols, Telegram tends to work better, as it requires less overhead and is "leaner". Discord makes more sense once your community grows and you need a structured approach. @ClBlockchain explained how @pear_protocol uses Discord to share trade setups, alpha, and more, which naturally requires organized spaces beyond a single chat. 3. Founder-Led Marketing Still Wins. @DanDeFiEd shared how just being vocal (sharing wins, struggles, and thoughts) brought more attention and users to Rysk. I added how I ignored @megaeth_labs for months, thinking it was “just another L2.” But once @0xBreadguy joined and started posting consistently, I've not only dived into MegaETH but into the whole ecosystem. Moreover, having a personal brand nowadays helps you, in any industry, to make new connections, find jobs and opportunities, and open almost any door. Founder-led marketing might be the best strategy in terms of ROI you can adopt. 4. Kaito: From Net-Positive to Net-Negative. The conversation around this topic lasted quite a bit. @DanDeFiEd said how, initially, as with every new thing in the space, Kaito brought a lot of enthusiasm and pushed founders, KOLs, and even smaller accounts to share their thoughts. That was great. But once leaderboards were added, mercenaries have taken over with thousands of new "writers" farming with low-quality posts. Somehow, as it happens with liquidity across DeFi, which tends to move wherever the incentives are higher. @DarrenCamas highlighted how projects should see Kaito as any other strategy rather than the ultimate solution to acquire mindshare. Analyze the cost, KPIs, potential return, and all other variables like they would for anything else. We also noted how top protocols like Pendle, @HyperliquidX, @aave, @maplefinance, and others aren't even using Kaito. Yet, they have more mindshare than the majority of projects that paid to launch their leaderboard. 5. VCs & Community Inclusion This topic started with @DerrenCamas saying how happy he is that ICOs are back and community members can have an upside to the protocol. On that (and after other considerations), I've ironically said "So in the end, the root cause of everything is VCs". @DanDeFiEd and @DerrenCamas replied saying that bad VCs are the issue of everything, not all VCs. VCs are necessary. Bad VCs are the problem. @DarrenCamas was very honest about this and told us his startup got more value from angels than VCs. @DanDeFiEd added that Hyperliquid, which everyone in the space praises for how it built itself from the ground with no external support, is a 1-in-10,000 story. Most startups need funding to scale. However, one key concept is that everyone wants to make money. Hyperliquid made users rich. By doing so, users remained loyal to the platform and invested back part of the airdrop into the ecosystem. In this regard, for projects, it makes sense to not announce an airdrop, which tends to attract mercenary capital, but rather do it suddenly and reward their users (not those who sometimes talk about it) as Hyperliquid did. If you reward the community, they'll likely remain loyal to you. Ultimately, you can't change human nature. There will always be bad actors, as it happens in all industries. But you can adopt strategies to reduce such behavior. 6. Too Much Supply, Not Enough Demand Related to the point above, there is too much supply and not enough demand. Supply = protocols Demand = users Builders keep building, but the user pool isn't scaling. This imbalance hurts everyone. Projects have more difficulty in acquiring users and finding PMF quickly, thus having to rely on VC to expand their runway. This dynamic makes it easier for bad VCs and actors to exploit founders with bad terms and predatory behavior. 7. Will Regulation Save Us? Not Exactly. When I asked @DanDeFiEd if regulation could help by unlocking institutional distribution, his answer was nuanced. Yes, distribution helps. But what matters more is the social layer. Filtering out bad actors, not just onboarding more players. @francescoweb3 brought up @ethos_network as a promising model, which paired with things like Kaito, could help build better filters for credibility in crypto. That’s a wrap. I might have forgotten some other interesting points. It is what it is. Shoutout again to the panelists for the insights, to the audience for listening to this long-ass panel, and to everyone who organized Arbitrum Day at @eth_milano and the entire conference. P.S. The location was astonishing.

Take the pile of money millionaires bring into a country when they move and divide it by the taxes they pay. The result tells you how many dollars of new capital the country gets for each tax dollar collected.

This is the path of a new crypto user: - Has 500 USDT on Arbitrum in a wallet - Wants to move these funds to Solana - Can't bridge, needs ETH for gas - Can't swap to ETH, needs ETH for gas - Has to buy ETH with fiat with huge fees - Finally bridges to Solana and loses 2% on fees