Treat PriceTREAT

Vitalik: The quality of the underlying proof system of the L2 network is equally important and should gradually enter the second stage as it develops. In response to community member Daniel Wang's suggestion of #BattleTested for the naming of Stage 2 of the L2 network, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik responded on X Platform: "This is a good reminder that Stage 2 is not the only factor that affects security, the quality of the underlying proof system is equally important. Here is a simplified mathematical model that shows when to enter Stage 2: Each Security Council member has a 10% independent chance of "breaking"; we treat activity failures (refusal to sign or inaccessible keys) and security failures (signing the wrong thing or keys being hacked) as equally likely; goal: minimize the probability of protocol collapse under the above assumptions. *Stage 0 Security Council is 4/7, Stage 1 is 6/8; note that these assumptions are very imperfect. In reality, members of the Security Council have "common mode failures": they may collude, or they may all be coerced or hacked in the same way, etc. This makes both Stage 0 and Stage 1 less secure than the model shows, so entering Stage 2 earlier than the model implies is the best option. Also, note that the probability of a proving system crashing is greatly reduced by turning the proving system itself into a multisig of multiple independent systems (this is what I advocated for in my previous proposal). I suspect that all phase 2 deployments in the first few years will be like this. With that in mind, here is the chart. The X-axis is the probability of a proving system crashing. The Y-axis is the probability of a protocol crashing. As the quality of the proving system improves, the best phases move from phase 0 to phase 1, and then from phase 1 to phase 2. Doing phase 2 with a phase 0 quality proving system is the worst. In short, @l2beat should ideally show proving system audits and maturity metrics (preferably of proving system implementations rather than entire rollups so we can reuse) as well as phases. ”

The HAEDAL Protocol is currently experiencing a surge in market attention, but its economic structure paints a more complex picture. While the token trades at a modest $36.91 million market cap, its fully diluted market cap (FDV)—which considers the value if the total supply were in circulation—stands significantly higher at $189.28 million. This sharp contrast raises a critical question: Is HAEDAL undervalued today, or is the market ignoring major dilution risk on the horizon? Understanding the Market Cap Gap The circulating supply of HAEDAL is 195 million tokens, which is only 19.50% of its 1 billion maximum supply. This limited circulating volume creates scarcity, enabling large price swings with relatively low capital inflows. However, the remaining 805 million tokens could enter the market over time—likely through unlocks, staking rewards, or team allocations. This massive gap between circulating and total supply has major implications: Short-term valuation may appear undervalued, attracting traders. Long-term outlook could face inflation pressure, depending on how new tokens are introduced. A token with a 5x higher FDV than market cap often triggers investor caution, especially if there’s no clear emission schedule or lockup strategy publicly communicated. Bull Case: Room to Grow Supporters argue that a low market cap paired with a high FDV offers early investors a rare opportunity. If HAEDAL’s ecosystem gains adoption, and new tokens are introduced slowly with corresponding demand, the project can scale into its FDV valuation organically. Additionally, as HAEDAL gains trading volume and visibility (as shown by its 525.41% 24h volume-to-market-cap ratio), investor confidence and exchange interest may grow—potentially propelling it to a higher market cap without immediately triggering dilution. Bear Case: Dilution Risk Critics highlight the dilution threat. If HAEDAL begins releasing large portions of the remaining 805 million tokens, price pressure is inevitable unless met with equal or greater buying interest. Investors burned by similar tokenomics in past cycles (e.g., during heavy unlock seasons) may see HAEDAL as a high-risk asset unless transparent vesting and utility measures are disclosed. Without sufficient utility or lock mechanisms, the token’s current price could prove fragile, with speculative holders exiting ahead of perceived unlock windows. Investor Takeaway HAEDAL sits at a crossroads: With its low circulating supply, it offers short-term volatility and breakout potential. With its high FDV, it carries long-term supply-side risks that could challenge price stability. Whether HAEDAL is undervalued or overhyped will depend on its execution strategy—particularly how it rolls out the remaining tokens and sustains network demand. Until then, traders should treat it as a high-reward, high-risk opportunity rooted more in momentum than fundamentals. $HAEDAL

Here are two sayings that we hear dayly but should be reconsidered: 1) Stay the way you are. why would you want to stagnate ever? Treat life like a game where you need to level up constantly. 2) Be sure to not work too much. Choose the work that brings you closer to your vision

Compared to Eastern players who view Meme as high-leverage trading, Western players treat it more like an emotionally-driven "esports game"—fast-paced and thrilling, centered on "fun" and "engagement." They prioritize whether the narrative is entertaining and emotionally resonant, with common aesthetic preferences including absurdism, nihilism, black humor, human care, and nostalgia. Understanding these cultural dimensions and viral contexts, especially the aesthetic preferences in TikTok and Western Asian cultural circles, can help better identify which Memes will explode and which are destined to zero

Divisions within the digital asset industry are creating uncertainty as the U.S. Congress aims to introduce a crypto market structure bill before its August recess. Despite months of industry proposals to policymakers, a lack of consensus on key regulatory frameworks now threatens to complicate the legislative process. A core disagreement centers on the applicability of the Howey Test—a legal standard from 1946 used to define securities—to digital assets. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has frequently used the Howey Test in enforcement actions against crypto firms, drawing criticism from many in the industry who argue it’s an outdated or inappropriate standard for this asset class. Related: Is the Howey Test Still Relevant? Ripple’s Alderoty Questions SEC’s Approach Four main legal approaches have surfaced. One perspective favors retaining the Howey Test for case-by-case assessments, supported by current SEC Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw and former SEC Internet Enforcement Chief John Reed Stark. Conversely, figures like newly appointed SEC Chairman Paul Atkins and several Republican lawmakers have criticized the existing framework, pushing for significant regulatory updates and a more innovation-friendly approach. Gaining traction among some crypto lawyers is the argument that digital asset transactions should only qualify as securities if explicitly tied to a written investment contract. This view often references arguments made during the Ripple legal case beginning in 2020, even though Ripple’s specific contract-based defense wasn’t fully adopted by the court. Another proposal, advocated by lawyers like Lewis Cohen of Cahill Gordon & Reindel, suggests a split approach using the “ancillary asset” framework. This model, sometimes leveraging existing legislative proposals like the Responsible Financial Innovation Act (RFIA), would treat initial token sales like securities offerings but potentially exempt subsequent secondary market trading from certain securities laws. A final viewpoint, backed by major players like a16z Crypto, Coinbase, and Optimism, argues that transactions occurring on sufficiently decentralized networks should be entirely excluded from securities regulations. This approach draws heavily on a 2018 speech by former SEC Director William Hinman regarding Ethereum’s status (often called the “Hinman Test” standard) and has been supported by Commissioner Hester Peirce. Proponents advocate for a formal “decentralization test” to distinguish public blockchain infrastructure from centrally managed token offerings. Related: US Congress Targets Crypto Bill by 2025: Pro-Crypto Senator Cynthia Lummis Drives Senate Agenda The House Financial Services Committee and the House Agriculture Committee are anticipated to release a draft market structure bill—potentially resembling last year’s FIT21 Act—imminently, ahead of a planned joint hearing on May 6th. Following its release, regulatory bodies like the SEC and CFTC would likely begin formal rulemaking procedures. Legal experts and industry groups across the crypto sector are already preparing extensive feedback through comment letters and public testimony. Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.