Peter Hans: Partner and Global Business Development Director at Hack VC
Jon Charbonneau: Co-Founder and General Partner of DBA
Host: Laura Shin
About DATs: Trend or Flash in the Pan?
Laura: Everyone is saying that the craze for DAT (Digital Asset Treasury) might be coming to an end, but we still see quite a few new projects, such as Sharps Technology announcing that they will raise $400 million to build Solana DAT. What do you think?
Peter: Before I begin, I would like to clarify that the following represents my personal views and does not constitute investment advice.
As of now, the DAT cycle has not yet ended, and new products are still being launched. However, this is not a phenomenon unique to cryptocurrency. In traditional financial markets, any structured instrument that can make money will be continuously replicated. From mortgage-backed securities to today's digital asset trusts, the logic is similar.
Solana, as the third largest asset after BTC and ETH, naturally launched DAT. However, the problem is that investors already have alternatives such as spot, futures, and ETFs, and do not necessarily need this tool. In the long run, the underlying financial infrastructure will gradually move on-chain, so the ultimate goal of these DATs may not be clear, which itself is a risk. But it is understandable why everyone is willing to issue them.
Jon: I thought that after leaving the banking industry, I wouldn't have to study such complex financial engineering anymore, but recently I've been forced to pay attention again. Although we haven't invested, they are indeed driving the flow of market funds, so it's essential to understand.
Overall, I feel that most DATs are a way to "raise funds": putting assets into a box and selling them at a premium. However, this bubble is deflating, new issuances are becoming difficult, and market acceptance is declining. In the medium term, they do have a role in regulatory arbitrage. For example, many assets do not have ETFs, and if investors want exposure, they can only do so through these tools. Especially for PoS assets like ETH and SOL, if ETFs cannot participate in staking, then DATs have a competitive advantage because they can help investors earn returns.
In a sense, DAT is more like an asset manager: investors hand over their funds to it, expecting to earn risk-adjusted returns through staking or DeFi, which ETFs currently cannot achieve. Therefore, if the manager is reliable, DAT still makes sense at this stage.
Laura: Some have pointed out that certain Solana DATs actually contain locked assets sold by FTX, which were contributed in almost without discount, in exchange for DAT shares, allowing holders to exit early. Is this true?
John: It cannot be generalized. More reputable DATs will focus on cash and design reasonable profit strategies. However, there are indeed some DATs that incorporate locked assets, such as SOL from FTX assets.
This is both a risk and an opportunity. Locking assets should theoretically be at a discount, for example, at 70-80% of the market price, otherwise it would be unfair to investors. If DAT can trade at a reasonable discount in the future, it might instead become an attractive investment method, while also reducing selling pressure in the secondary market.
Peter: The long-term survival of DAT depends on whether it can maintain premium trading. If DAT stocks consistently trade above NAV, they can continuously raise funds and buy more spot assets, creating a positive cycle; however, once it falls below NAV, each round of financing will dilute the book value, leading to a vicious cycle.
The narrative reversal of ETH, will SOL be next?
Laura: We have seen a sudden resurgence in the popularity of Ethereum. The inflows of ETH ETFs have even surpassed those of Bitcoin ETFs. Why?
Jon: This is actually a typical "momentum trading" scenario. ETH was undervalued in the previous phase, and now with narratives supporting stablecoins and Circle, it has become a hotspot for capital chasing. TradFi investors have noticed the proportion of stablecoins on Ethereum, which is a growth pie chart that's easy to understand. Once ETH completes this wave of market action, Solana is likely to replicate the same logic: faster, cheaper, and the next narrative will shift towards it.
Peter: The financial market is narrative-driven. The story of ETH has quickly shifted from "dinosaurs, about to die" to "global settlement layer." Traditional investors cannot analyze Bitcoin in the same way they analyze stocks, but ETH at least provides a framework for "income, fees, and valuation." That's why the narrative shifts so rapidly.
Stablecoin-specific chains: Necessary or redundant construction?
Laura: We see Stripe launching Tempo, Circle pushing Arc, Tether introducing Stable, and Bitfinex supporting Plasma. Why do we need dedicated chains for stablecoins?
Peter: To put it simply, since it is a dollar transfer, I hope to pay the "fees" in dollars rather than ETH or TRX. Logically, this makes sense. But the real key is distribution capability. For example, Stripe has a large merchant network, and if they decide to use their own chain as the backend, they could quickly establish a scale advantage.
Jon: Currently, most so-called stablecoin chains are actually EVM chains, with not much technical difference. Arc may leverage Circle's identity to facilitate fiat deposits and withdrawals more smoothly; while Stripe's Tempo is more interesting because it truly masters the ability to distribute to end users. In addition, privacy is also a potential differentiator. Traditional enterprises and users cannot accept a chain where all fund flows are completely public, so whoever can find a balance between privacy and compliance may emerge victorious.
Hyperliquid vs Binance: The Real Challenger of DeFi?
Laura: Hyperliquid's trading volume reached $330.8 billion in July, surpassing Robinhood for the first time. Jon, you even called it "the first DeFi platform that can truly compete with centralized exchanges." Why?
Jon: For the past few years, everyone has been shouting "We need to take down Binance", but that felt more like a meme. It wasn't until Hyperliquid emerged that I actually thought this could really happen. They have been consistently leading in perpetual contracts (perps) and pre-launch markets, with the main price discovery for tokens like Pump, World Liberty, and Plasma happening on Hyperliquid rather than other exchanges.
Even more surprisingly, Hyperliquid briefly surpassed Coinbase and Bybit in the spot market. A whale completed a swap of billions of dollars worth of BTC and ETH directly on the platform through bridging, indicating that it has the depth and stability to support large transactions.
But what is more revolutionary is the potential of permissionless listing. If Hyperliquid aggregates enough liquidity and users, project teams will no longer have to endure Binance's "harsh conditions" to go live. Many teams have complained in the past that listing on CEX often means being forced to give up a large amount of tokens or accepting high hidden costs. This kind of "exploitation" puts startup projects at a disadvantage. In contrast, Hyperliquid's model is completely free: anyone can launch contracts or spot trading pairs without going through centralized review.
This will fundamentally change the market structure, giving project parties more autonomy. Jon believes that this is the first real opportunity for DeFi to "liberate project parties" from the stranglehold of centralized exchanges.
Peter: I completely agree. This is not only a good product but also a healthy addition to the industry. Competition brings vitality. The tokenomics of Hyperliquid is well-designed: fee buybacks and staking incentives provide visible value support for the HYPE token. Binance also succeeded through a similar model back in the day. Now, Hyperliquid is replicating this logic, but it is more aligned with the spirit of Web3.
In Peter's view, this means that Hyperliquid is no longer just "another DEX," but a competitor that can directly challenge the monopoly of Binance.
No KYC Mode: Moat or Regulatory Risk?
Laura: Will the lack of KYC in Hyperliquid become a competitive advantage?
Jon: It depends on how future regulations are implemented. A truly decentralized system may not be able to, nor need to, perform KYC, which in turn serves as a moat. Just like Ethereum doesn't require you to submit an ID to transfer ETH, Hyperliquid may also have institutional advantages due to "non-enforceable KYC." However, at the same time, if you are an institutional investor under SEC regulation, the responsibility for any violations will still fall on you, not the protocol.
Is the four-year cycle dead?
Laura: The last question - does the "Bitcoin halving four-year cycle" still exist in the crypto market?
Peter: In my opinion, cyclical logic is increasingly being replaced by liquidity, narratives, and regulatory events. The crypto market is no longer just a simple "halving bull market - bear market cycle", but rather a multidimensional movement of funds and driven by structured products.
Jon: Yes, the current volatility is more influenced by policy, macro liquidity, and new narrative tools like DATs and Hyperliquid. The certainty of the four-year cycle is fading.
Summary
The views of two VCs on the cryptocurrency market are as follows:
DATs are still a product of financial engineering, but their value lies in short-term regulatory arbitrage.
Ethereum and Solana narratives alternate, stablecoins are the new growth point;
Hyperliquid is no longer just "another DEX"; it is the first true decentralized competitor challenging Binance.
The myth of the four-year cycle has gradually been replaced by new capital logic and product innovation.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
Dialogue VC: The four-year cycle ends, the DATs craze, is Hyperliquid the disruptor of Binance?
Podcast source: Unchained
Organized by: BitpushNews
Guest:
Peter Hans: Partner and Global Business Development Director at Hack VC
Jon Charbonneau: Co-Founder and General Partner of DBA
Host: Laura Shin
About DATs: Trend or Flash in the Pan?
Laura: Everyone is saying that the craze for DAT (Digital Asset Treasury) might be coming to an end, but we still see quite a few new projects, such as Sharps Technology announcing that they will raise $400 million to build Solana DAT. What do you think?
Peter: Before I begin, I would like to clarify that the following represents my personal views and does not constitute investment advice.
As of now, the DAT cycle has not yet ended, and new products are still being launched. However, this is not a phenomenon unique to cryptocurrency. In traditional financial markets, any structured instrument that can make money will be continuously replicated. From mortgage-backed securities to today's digital asset trusts, the logic is similar.
Solana, as the third largest asset after BTC and ETH, naturally launched DAT. However, the problem is that investors already have alternatives such as spot, futures, and ETFs, and do not necessarily need this tool. In the long run, the underlying financial infrastructure will gradually move on-chain, so the ultimate goal of these DATs may not be clear, which itself is a risk. But it is understandable why everyone is willing to issue them.
Jon: I thought that after leaving the banking industry, I wouldn't have to study such complex financial engineering anymore, but recently I've been forced to pay attention again. Although we haven't invested, they are indeed driving the flow of market funds, so it's essential to understand.
Overall, I feel that most DATs are a way to "raise funds": putting assets into a box and selling them at a premium. However, this bubble is deflating, new issuances are becoming difficult, and market acceptance is declining. In the medium term, they do have a role in regulatory arbitrage. For example, many assets do not have ETFs, and if investors want exposure, they can only do so through these tools. Especially for PoS assets like ETH and SOL, if ETFs cannot participate in staking, then DATs have a competitive advantage because they can help investors earn returns.
In a sense, DAT is more like an asset manager: investors hand over their funds to it, expecting to earn risk-adjusted returns through staking or DeFi, which ETFs currently cannot achieve. Therefore, if the manager is reliable, DAT still makes sense at this stage.
Laura: Some have pointed out that certain Solana DATs actually contain locked assets sold by FTX, which were contributed in almost without discount, in exchange for DAT shares, allowing holders to exit early. Is this true?
John: It cannot be generalized. More reputable DATs will focus on cash and design reasonable profit strategies. However, there are indeed some DATs that incorporate locked assets, such as SOL from FTX assets.
This is both a risk and an opportunity. Locking assets should theoretically be at a discount, for example, at 70-80% of the market price, otherwise it would be unfair to investors. If DAT can trade at a reasonable discount in the future, it might instead become an attractive investment method, while also reducing selling pressure in the secondary market.
Peter: The long-term survival of DAT depends on whether it can maintain premium trading. If DAT stocks consistently trade above NAV, they can continuously raise funds and buy more spot assets, creating a positive cycle; however, once it falls below NAV, each round of financing will dilute the book value, leading to a vicious cycle.
The narrative reversal of ETH, will SOL be next?
Laura: We have seen a sudden resurgence in the popularity of Ethereum. The inflows of ETH ETFs have even surpassed those of Bitcoin ETFs. Why?
Jon: This is actually a typical "momentum trading" scenario. ETH was undervalued in the previous phase, and now with narratives supporting stablecoins and Circle, it has become a hotspot for capital chasing. TradFi investors have noticed the proportion of stablecoins on Ethereum, which is a growth pie chart that's easy to understand. Once ETH completes this wave of market action, Solana is likely to replicate the same logic: faster, cheaper, and the next narrative will shift towards it.
Peter: The financial market is narrative-driven. The story of ETH has quickly shifted from "dinosaurs, about to die" to "global settlement layer." Traditional investors cannot analyze Bitcoin in the same way they analyze stocks, but ETH at least provides a framework for "income, fees, and valuation." That's why the narrative shifts so rapidly.
Stablecoin-specific chains: Necessary or redundant construction?
Laura: We see Stripe launching Tempo, Circle pushing Arc, Tether introducing Stable, and Bitfinex supporting Plasma. Why do we need dedicated chains for stablecoins?
Peter: To put it simply, since it is a dollar transfer, I hope to pay the "fees" in dollars rather than ETH or TRX. Logically, this makes sense. But the real key is distribution capability. For example, Stripe has a large merchant network, and if they decide to use their own chain as the backend, they could quickly establish a scale advantage.
Jon: Currently, most so-called stablecoin chains are actually EVM chains, with not much technical difference. Arc may leverage Circle's identity to facilitate fiat deposits and withdrawals more smoothly; while Stripe's Tempo is more interesting because it truly masters the ability to distribute to end users. In addition, privacy is also a potential differentiator. Traditional enterprises and users cannot accept a chain where all fund flows are completely public, so whoever can find a balance between privacy and compliance may emerge victorious.
Hyperliquid vs Binance: The Real Challenger of DeFi?
Laura: Hyperliquid's trading volume reached $330.8 billion in July, surpassing Robinhood for the first time. Jon, you even called it "the first DeFi platform that can truly compete with centralized exchanges." Why?
Jon: For the past few years, everyone has been shouting "We need to take down Binance", but that felt more like a meme. It wasn't until Hyperliquid emerged that I actually thought this could really happen. They have been consistently leading in perpetual contracts (perps) and pre-launch markets, with the main price discovery for tokens like Pump, World Liberty, and Plasma happening on Hyperliquid rather than other exchanges.
Even more surprisingly, Hyperliquid briefly surpassed Coinbase and Bybit in the spot market. A whale completed a swap of billions of dollars worth of BTC and ETH directly on the platform through bridging, indicating that it has the depth and stability to support large transactions.
But what is more revolutionary is the potential of permissionless listing. If Hyperliquid aggregates enough liquidity and users, project teams will no longer have to endure Binance's "harsh conditions" to go live. Many teams have complained in the past that listing on CEX often means being forced to give up a large amount of tokens or accepting high hidden costs. This kind of "exploitation" puts startup projects at a disadvantage. In contrast, Hyperliquid's model is completely free: anyone can launch contracts or spot trading pairs without going through centralized review.
This will fundamentally change the market structure, giving project parties more autonomy. Jon believes that this is the first real opportunity for DeFi to "liberate project parties" from the stranglehold of centralized exchanges.
Peter: I completely agree. This is not only a good product but also a healthy addition to the industry. Competition brings vitality. The tokenomics of Hyperliquid is well-designed: fee buybacks and staking incentives provide visible value support for the HYPE token. Binance also succeeded through a similar model back in the day. Now, Hyperliquid is replicating this logic, but it is more aligned with the spirit of Web3.
In Peter's view, this means that Hyperliquid is no longer just "another DEX," but a competitor that can directly challenge the monopoly of Binance.
No KYC Mode: Moat or Regulatory Risk?
Laura: Will the lack of KYC in Hyperliquid become a competitive advantage?
Jon: It depends on how future regulations are implemented. A truly decentralized system may not be able to, nor need to, perform KYC, which in turn serves as a moat. Just like Ethereum doesn't require you to submit an ID to transfer ETH, Hyperliquid may also have institutional advantages due to "non-enforceable KYC." However, at the same time, if you are an institutional investor under SEC regulation, the responsibility for any violations will still fall on you, not the protocol.
Is the four-year cycle dead?
Laura: The last question - does the "Bitcoin halving four-year cycle" still exist in the crypto market?
Peter: In my opinion, cyclical logic is increasingly being replaced by liquidity, narratives, and regulatory events. The crypto market is no longer just a simple "halving bull market - bear market cycle", but rather a multidimensional movement of funds and driven by structured products.
Jon: Yes, the current volatility is more influenced by policy, macro liquidity, and new narrative tools like DATs and Hyperliquid. The certainty of the four-year cycle is fading.
Summary
The views of two VCs on the cryptocurrency market are as follows:
DATs are still a product of financial engineering, but their value lies in short-term regulatory arbitrage.
Ethereum and Solana narratives alternate, stablecoins are the new growth point;
Hyperliquid is no longer just "another DEX"; it is the first true decentralized competitor challenging Binance.
The myth of the four-year cycle has gradually been replaced by new capital logic and product innovation.