What's Next For Solana In 2026?

This episode is brought to you by Sablier, the leading onchain solution for token distribution. You'll hear more about them later on in today's episode. Nothing said on Lightseed is a recommendation to buy or sell any investments or products. This podcast is for informational purposes only, and the views expressed by anyone on the show are solely their opinions, not financial advice or necessarily the views of Blockworks. Our hosts, guests, and the Blockworks team may hold positions in the companies, funds, or projects discussed.

Hey guys, welcome back to another episode of Lightseed. Today I am joined by Carlos from the Blockworks research team. We couldn't get Dan and Ryan Connor to make it today. Busy end of the year deadlines, all that fun stuff. So, it's just going to be a one-on-one, me and Carlos. You guys probably used to that by now. But how you doing today, Carlos?

I'm great, Danny. Yeah, it's a two-man episode, but like let's ride it out.

All right. Let's hop into it for today. I guess we've kind of already spoken a little bit on past roundups about kind of views for 2026 for Solana. So it's not going to be entirely like a 2026 kind of prediction episode, but maybe some of that interspersed in. I did want to talk about just to kick things off. I saw recently I was looking at the ETF flow data for the Solana ETFs now that they've been out for maybe six months or so if not more and we've got multiple issuers at this point. I was surprised to see and let me pull up some of this data actually. I was surprised to see that flows for the soul ETFs have remained positive despite kind of negative price action in the past 3 months or so.

You can see kind of the decline in those flows since from early November mid-October to today in magnitude. Maybe just another kind of interesting view here is comparing the flow amounts relative to their market cap and then against the BTC and ETH ETF flows. Interesting to see that there's been a bit more outflows and outflows in size relative to the salon ETFs. I don't know just just an interesting trend here. I think I would generally expect, you know, the majority of these things to kind of move in lock step, right? When risk is on, you kind of we've tended to see like as price is going up, then the inflows look pretty good and then when price goes down, the outflows look pretty bad. And we're not really observing that here for Solana for the past few months. So, sort of an interesting kind of countercurrent trend. You know, it looks very inverted compared to the ETH BTC flows of the past several months. Something interesting.

Yeah, like for me one of the key takeaways is that in terms of institutional flows, you kind of want to look at both ETFs and DATCOs. And for me, there has been a clear divergence since November between the flows from the ETFs and the digital asset treasury companies. So in late October, a second cohort of ETFs joined like Rex, Oxbury, and Bidwise. You can kind of see that on the chart where you have an uptick in ETF flows. November was the strongest month by far for ETF flows. We saw 420 million in net inflows up from $128 million in October. This is excluding the seed amounts. If you include like the seed amounts of the ETFs, that would be even higher. So for me, I agree with you, Danny, this is impressive, especially considering that both BTC and ETH saw sizable outflows during November as we can see on the chart.

And the other side of this is that there was no buying activity for DATCO in November and almost no buying activity in December as well. So we can see like that DATCO capital raising capacity has been limited by discount to market NAVs as well as limited secondary market activity. So I think like what we'll see in 2026 is that ETFs were the best vehicle all along to get like institutional exposure to soul's price and I I think we will see that DATCO continue to bleed out in terms of like liquidity and and and buying pressure for sold the asset.

Yeah, I do think that makes a lot of sense. I I wonder how much, if at all, there's like going to be some ongoing interrelation or correlation between the DAT activity and the ETF activity. Probably hard to say. I mean, I guess it's possible that some DATs could be accumulating some of their assets via ETFs, but from what we've seen, at least from public statements and kind of what's been discussed, that they're sort of tending to be like natively on chain accumulating like spot assets and then like staking them themselves through providers.

But I do think to your point interesting trend here to see for soul specifically I would tend to agree that you know to have exposure to these assets like the more obvious and and more correct way of thinking about it is to just park it into the ETF vehicle that buys the asset and owns the asset as the underlying and you don't have to mess around with this like active management idealism here and price to MNAV ratios that we've seen fluctuate quite wildly over the past 6 to 12 months. Now, that said, if you're interested in kind of playing that kind of premium to MNAV game, then this might be a more opportune time than when many vehicles were trading at, you know, two, three, four, if not higher multiples. Now that we're seeing across the board, you know, BTC, ETH, Soul, and other altcoin DATs trading at significant discounts to their MNAV.

Yeah, I agree. They're like the last thing I'll say here is that when you're buying the ETF, you're just buying exposure to the price movements of the underlying. And basically as an ETF issuer, all you can do is just like stake it and provide staking yield to the ETF investors. The one advantage that probably DATs have is that they can be a bit more creative with the things they do. So as you mentioned a bunch of them have launched their own LSTs for instance via Sanctum and what they're trying to do is just to maximize the souls per share and they can play with onchain strategies for instance listing that LSD on money markets like Aamino and then you can generate yield on that or you can create like looping strategies that generate higher yields that you would otherwise do by natively staking.

So there are some games that you can play for sure, but I I do think that ETFs are have existed for the past like I don't know 20 plus years for a reason and they're probably the most efficient vehicle to get exposure to the underlying price movements.

Yeah, agree there. I think you know depending on an individual's goals what have you if you're just looking to invest in solely the asset for example then the the ETF is providing that to you and what these stats are doing is bit broader in scope and I and I think you know you highlighted the LSTs but I think we've seen I think forward and maybe some others mention building out you know prop AMMs and other tooling like onchain and like kind of various onchain business components or applications alongside what they're doing with the treasury stack. So, it's a bit more of like a diversified business kind of choice rather than just kind of passively investing into an asset.

So, I I do think it's it's been great that the kind of fire around all the DATCO talk has calmed down quite a bit. We were definitely way too over excited about a lot of those things in the middle of this year with all those premiums at multiples to MNAV and the discussion has become quite a bit more moderated as of late. So I think you know potentially we'll see kind of the the few that can effectively like actively manage their stacks and maybe do some interesting things on chain do well from here. But there probably is also a big minefield of firms that sort of jumped into the game expecting, you know, some some quick returns and, you know, with all the pipe deals and things going around like, you know, just sort of hoping for maybe some quick profit and jumping on the on the bandwagon there that are going to, you know, potentially just bleed out or, you know, return capital at at some point and it'll have just been like a bit of a wasted effort. But I think those those few and far between is maybe where you'll have to to look to find, you know, interesting things over the next coming the coming years.

Shout out to Peak for sponsoring today's episode. The machine economy is here. Devices are monetizing data for their users all over the world. Tokenized robots are generating revenue for token holders and the first machine economy free zone is live in the Emirates. And it's all happening on Peak, the machine economy computer. Head to peak.xyz to find out how you can benefit from the age of automation. That's p aq.xyz.

Thanks to Sablier for sponsoring today's episode. Sablier is the leading onchain solution for token distribution. Trusted by teams like Maple, Immutable, and Axi Infinity. The number one distribution protocol on EVM is now live on Solana. Automate your airdrops and token vesting. Streamed by the second, transparently, and trustlessly, secure, audited, and ready for Solana builders. Get started at sablier.com. As always, investments in blockchain technology involve risk. Terms and conditions apply. Do your own research.

Jumping past the DATs though, I think the big topic, big piece we want to talk about today. There was this article report short report article written by BQ Brady. I'm just going to share the whole thing and we'll look at some different parts of it, but talked about payment for order flow on Solana. And the really interesting part, I mean, he's doing some comparison here in terms of PFO in traditional finance to crypto and or at least kind of where we're at today in crypto. And you see this in Solana to some extent as far as we know in terms of charging for market maker access.

The kind of comparison here where if you're a user who's trading on something like Robin Hood, you know, you input your order and then behind the scenes, they'll they'll get a quote from a market maker and have some, you know, revenue profit sharing agreement to place those trades and and take on that flow and and share some of that revenue with, you know, Robin Hood, the broker who ultimately you, the user, are placing the trade directly with. In onchain and on Solana. We're not I think it's not quite so concretely in that form just yet. But he dug into the details here around the transaction fee market on Solana with priority fees and transaction tips.

And it does appear that we're sort of like getting to this place where you know transactions are submitted to you know your Jito, your Nosomi, the and then scheduled via you know Go Harmonic, your your block builder and a lot of the sort of front-end applications if I just move along down here front-end applications basically take these transactions from users. So if I'm trading on Phantom or if I'm trading on Jupiter or Axiom like pick your favorite it's you know the user is placing a transaction there and what we have now with Prop AMM and the way that most kind of orders get filled now is that you place the transaction there's probably some aggregator that's then kind of like deciding whatever the best sort of transaction route is.

Maybe you're getting filled by, you know, Prop AMM, maybe it's Humidify, maybe it's, you know, Sulfi, whoever else. They're ultimately kind of, you know, filling that that order for you. And then there's some a little bit of like game here, gamification in terms of the actual fees you pay from a priority fee perspective on that individual transaction. And the data that he looked into here which is the interesting part is around the priority fee data and the among the different transaction landing services for addresses of you could basically call them like different differently typed addresses right if you've got a wallet with a few TXs versus a wallet with millions you might be pretty confident in saying that one is probably a bit more organic and the other one is a bit more like botlike or running some kind of automated service.

And so he breaks out some wallet co cohorts and then different transaction landing services. And the interesting thing that you find is that it's pretty common for lower transaction count wallets, in sort of the like, you know, if you call them the P99, if you call those like the maybe proumer users, or it's much more likely to find addresses with extremely high priority fees paid on transactions on these lower wallet TX count. see that here addresses versus very high TX count like basically automated addresses and so basically you know these bots or you know sophisticated if it's the market makers themselves that are running a bunch of transactions they're optimizing to not pay a ton of extra priority fee they they understand maybe the limits of how much is actually applicable and you see these sort of lower activity wallets spending a lot more and when you break that out by the actual services there's there's a pretty marked difference in which services see a big increase or like total amount of tips being paid for swaps.

Noomi was basically notated as the kind of highest swap tip receiver especially per swap. So like we look at Jito and they've received 300,000 in tips over 24 million swaps whereas Nomi has received over a million in swap tips over only 2 million swaps. So a pretty substantial difference in the actual like kind of tipto swap count amount. And then finally I think he sort of uses Axiom as a case study here to really make the point that there are some services that are basically overcharging users that are sort of unaware of the fact that they're you know wasting a ton of fees on these very very high priority fees.

So now you see here specifically for Axiom the priority fee units these you know these big numbers are just priority fee units. So you're just kind of getting an an indication of how high of an amplitude of a priority fee they're paying to make a swap for example. And the P99's here for some of what you might assume are just you know if they're using Axiom it's probably like a generally organic user. They do have some automated services within the app, so you could be automating some trades, but you know, if you're doing a few swaps on an individual address in Axiom, you're probably a relatively organic user. And it's interesting to find that one these P50 priority fee units are you know at a million for starters and then the kind of the higher people further up along that curve are paying exorbitantly more in priority fees than what we saw kind of like generally for Solana users.

So basically making the point that users on Axiom and probably other front-end apps are just generally overpaying by like a significant amount when it comes to priority fees.

Yeah. Absolutely. Like just I think summarizing here especially for maybe if someone is listening and not looking at this visually like what Benedict Brady does for Meridian is he's trying to show how wallets and apps monetize swaps not just via visible fees but through routing choices background sales and overtipping right so for this specifically he used only data from December 1 to December 8th from Alium And what he's trying to do is show like three parts of the transaction stack. So if you think about like the the Sena transaction life cycle, you have first the application in this case something like Axiom. You then have something like transaction landing services. So Jito Nosomi, Helios and then you have like the scheduler and the builder right at right at the end.

So the key conclusion in my opinion is that low activity wallets routinely overpay priority fees even when the blocks are not full. So even when there's no like contentious state or whatever like low low activity wallets which are basically normal users like Danny and I are overpaying and the reason for that is that the application is able to doublech charge you in exchange for like the perceived speed that you're getting but in reality you don't need to overpay for that much. So it's sort of like an invisible rent extraction that Sena needs to somehow overcome over the next year. I think like going into the the conclusion of the article like what he concludes is that user and app incentives are badly misaligned with payment for orderflow like practices such as RFQS DEX routing and transaction landing services emerging on Solana and I think like one of the key solutions that he proposes that is actually being worked on right now is multiple concurrent proposers sorry which is like the last part of the transaction stack that we were discussing.

So right now you have like a single leader on Solana but like in 2026 we can expect multiple concurrent proposers and that can significantly improve that side of the like extraction if you want to look at it that way. Another thing you can do is like have priority ordering based on specific rules and that can also help with invisible rent extraction so that can compete with traditional markets while protecting the users. I think we can also look like at Axioms daily revenue so that we can also look at how much actually they're making on a daily basis which is quite impressive.

Yeah, I wanted to pull this up. I know for a while the app was operating in the realm of you know a million a day in in platform revenue. That being said Axiom also does have significant kickbacks for trading volume. So I think their net revenues are you know basically half of their actual total reported revenues just due to all the kickbacks and kind of the referral fee kickbacks and different things that they do to incentivize trading activity. So, you kind of have to take that topline number with a grain of salt. But despite that, they still kind of become and are remain the dominant sort of like, you know, memes have fallen off a little bit, but they they quickly usurped all of the existing like trading bots and trading terminal platforms on Solano over several months at the beginning of this year and continue to do so as evidenced by the chart.

The revenues listed there for for the trading platform revenue. I do think the interesting part of this and I wonder, you know, I I think obviously their ability to just part of the story I think clearly is that the default settings on transactions are probably just with absurdly high priority fee and and tip settings from the get-go. And I wonder to what extent like there may be some path dependency here in the fact that you know I think for a long there's been some back and forth at least around how effective priority fee higher priority fees are for landing transactions on Solana and I think for a long time maybe LA in 2024 I want to say or even even early 25 it was maybe maybe I'm thinking of 24 it was like kind of effectively bugged and it didn't matter how high of a priority fee you placed it it didn't really impact your landing or landing before other transactions on the network. I think that was has been improved to some extent but to the point of this article there there might need to be a little more education around like how meaningful is you know a distribution of priority fees versus your ability to land a transaction.

I I would imagine that paying, you know, a million units over 5,000 units, like you're certainly way beyond the point of of a meaningful like point of of paying a higher priority fee. There is almost certainly to go that high.

Yeah. I mean like something that's interesting that just came to mind is that objectively like Brady is right that Axiom is like double charging the users because it's not really necessary and you could call it like invisible like rent extraction or whatever but like also objectively like this is a case of what Ryan Connor will call uh how is it like pre stated versus reveal preference in the sense that users do not actually care if they are paying like a 50 cent or like a 20 cent or 10 cent priority fee. I mean they demonstratively like are willing to pay that and I don't think it really matters from like a user perspective in sense of if I'm trading on axiom I don't obviously I I'm demonstrating that I don't really care like if I'm overtepipping and it's sort of like the nature of the game of like trading terminals and like applications that are closer to the end user than purely like infrastructure like Sena and I think like a good like a good segue from this topic is like applications like are incre are increasingly earning more than Solana the network because they have all the power in the sense that they they are the ones who ultimately own the end user and they have like the pricing power to charge or overep on transactions.

So I I think we have like a great chart to to show how applications have remained like more resilient in terms of like revenue compared to the network. So yeah, if we look at this chart, I think it's it's pretty impressive, right? Like if you look at rev has declined dramatically since the January peak. If you look at November REV, it was around $27 million. December is on track to be like about $24 million which is like a 90% drop from the Trump's memecoin mania. The the important thing here is to also look at the other side of the equation which is application revenue. Because application revenue serves as an indicator of success for businesses within an ecosystem.

And Solana applications if you look at like the green line on the chart surpassed the network in terms of revenue in June 2024 and they have stayed on top ever since. So if you look back to June 2024, Sena applications were earning combined around $1 in revenue per every dollar in network revenue. today that is closer to almost $3.5 dollars in revenue per every dollar that Sena generates in revenue. So a key a key question for me is in terms of valuation does valuation in the coming year reflect this increasing value capture to the application layer in the sense that do applications outperform or does keep getting like this L1 premium from which other networks such as Ethereum, BMBB or Tron benefit? I don't know. What do you think?

That's a good question. Honestly, I don't know if I have a strong view at this point, directionally one way or the other, especially comparing these networks. Like, I do think I don't know. I I wanted to go back. Sorry, I was I was thinking still about the payment for orderflow thing. And maybe just to go back to that for one second before we jump on. I saw that Kone actually added some comments to BQ Brady's post and I think this is a pretty interesting train of thought here around basically he lays out this this idea of, you know, front ends present users with a transaction to sign.

So, the user is always signing off on the fees they pay, but the users probably don't understand what's reasonable and will probably sign regardless. So, this gives the front end a ton of power to overcharge for priority fees. a lot of which could or maybe is rebated to them if you assume that there's maybe some agreements with these transaction landing services or you know kind of like tipping services that they're operating through or in connection with. Front ends can also add a kind of direct front-end fee, but that's more obvious to the user. And so maybe they are basically disincentivized to increase their sort of native front-end fee and incentivized to increase their sort of backend hidden TXV or priority fee like settings to get, you know, higher hidden fees and and lower front-end fees. I don't know to what extent that's really true today.

If I think about a lot of these apps, you know, I would imagine still that the majority of the revenue is coming directly from the front-end fees, especially with, you know, like Axiom, even with the net kind of kickbacks there. You know, a 1% fee is maybe 50 bips. That's pretty significant given the volume that they process. You know, 50 bips on a couple hundred million in volume a day is is very significant. Whereas, you know, if you're doing a a few pennies on a 10,000, you know, USD total nominal value transaction, that's far smaller. But that could, you know, gradually over time that could become more meaningful. If you see significantly, you know, a significant increase in smaller transactions, and kind of a gradual decrease in in, you know, the relative volume per transaction, for example, that that's a possible future outcome.

But then the last thing that he adds is it's much easier for front ends to do this with centralized landing services compared to if they had to arrange this with each validator. So it it kind of it creates some some perverse incentives here where there you know a an axiom or similar is basically incentivized to play or play around a little bit behind the scenes to optimize for some additional fee revenue that they're getting that the user probably doesn't really notice. Like I don't think I mean the numbers stated on this report are some of the highest transaction fees for like Axium tips from Nomi for example at the at this sort of like P99 the 99th percentile are like $3. But if you're a user who maybe did a 10,000 notional transaction you probably still don't really notice the $3, especially when you paid 50 bits on the volume.

So you know, I I do think in terms of volume, like it's it's c certainly something meaningful they can augment their bottom line there, but it's probably not meaningful enough for the consumer to really care. But is probably meaningful from a like a competitive standpoint for you know, maybe these different apps and and service providers to to be thinking about.

Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head there. I think this is mostly an issue that very technical people see, but like neither the consumer nor the apps who is providing the service kind of sees it as an issue. Like the app is simply monetizing the best way they can and the user is like obviously happy with the product experience that they're receiving otherwise they will simply change apps. It's not like Axiom is making users stay on their application in one way or another, right? I think you see this like in all of finance honestly not just in like trading terminals like if you think for instance for people who don't live in a country like is USD denominated and then then they've ever had to exchange dollars for the local currency like maybe the application or like the bank will tell you that they're not charging you any fees when you exchange dollars for the local currency but they're like eating you up on the on the on the FX rate, Right?

So, it's kind of similar here where they're not explicitly saying like we're charging UX amount for the trading, but like obviously they're hiding that somewhere. They have to they have to earn at the end of the day. They're a business and they they'll do it like the most UXfriendly way possible and like the the the way that the consumer thinks that they're paying the the less or the least amount, right? Like at the end of the day, it's also like kind of like a behavioral economics thing where the where the user wants to think or maybe do doesn't want to think they're paying a lot, but at the end of the day, they're they're still like paying to the application.

Yeah, I I agree with a lot of that and and maybe actually for a prediction for for for 2026 for Solana generally. I I think we we're seeing this in a lot of different ways in this kind of convergence of the way onchain transactions or trading is kind of converging to tradi sort of retail brokerage trading for large part at least for these like front-end kind of retail app app experiences. I I would expect and I think this is sort of what we're seeing and what this piece is sort of is starting to get at at least with some of this data is you know these front ends still charge meaningful fees on volume. My expectation is that maybe it won't happen next year. I I doubt that Axiom is going to go from 50 BIPS to zero overnight and then, you know, start making all of their money through agreements with you know, their whoever they're using to land transactions or kind of other behind the scenes agreements.

You could make an individual agreement with Prop AMM for example to route all your flow. I don't know that they'll necessarily make that in one step, but continuing to see this transition where the front-end fees decrease kind of closer and closer towards potentially zero. And we see these arrangements become more common where, you know, maybe you have an Axiom and they partner with Nomi and humidify or sulfi or pick your favorite propm for example. And then they route all their flow through them and then they have some agreement where they do a revenue share on the on the trades that are passed to them and they take a kickback of of the kind of the earned profit from those from that non-toxic flow that they feed them. I wouldn't be surprised to see that become kind of like the general reality for a lot of these front-end apps which is sort of slowly stepping there but is not quite the true state today.

Yeah, absolutely. Like I agree with your prediction and like further expanding on it, I think it's a skill issue on the side of crypto applications and wallets that they still charge you like gas fees to transact. I think like going back to your prediction, we'll see more applications like abstract gas fees away from the end user and sort of like cover them like for the end user because they can monetize in other ways like a a a really funny story is like do you remember Argent wallet on Ethereum? It was like sort of like this smart wallet. they initially covered your transactions, but the problem is that like like your transaction fees, but the problem is that it was on Ethereum and when the 2021 mania hit and fees were exorbitant, they lost like millions of dollars and they had to shut down that service.

But on Solana where fees are so insignificant, like even during periods of congestion, applications could actually do that and like wallets like Fuse already do that, right? like they cover your gas fees for you and like you're you're not saving that much but it's nice from the end user perspective to not have to pay for transaction fees and fuse can monetize in other ways like I don't know taking a taking a fee from like the bolts they have on chamino for instance and that is way more significant that what they pay on transaction fees for users so I think like applications and like builders will get smarter and they'll like ract this from the end user and try to monetize by owning it and and providing services that are way more valuable on top of it. So yeah, I agree with your like 2026 prediction. I think we'll see like fees abstracted away as much as possible from end users.

Yeah, I think I totally agree with that point around the actual TX fees themselves. Kind of another maybe another piece to add to that at least around a lot of these like trading applications. We Block Research did just put out a 2026 thesis report and in that in that piece I did talk about this concept of like all-in-one trading apps or like super terminals whatever you want to call them. But I think that as well is going to become a more prevalent thing where we we've seen a lot of at least in the past like it was very common to see you know a trading app that is specific to memecoins and then a trading app that is specific to per trading app that is specific to prediction markets and it's very common to like okay we'll make this app and it's for trading this thing.

And I think more and more we're seeing this realization that you know these teams are sort of you know in some ways consolidating in other ways kind of like branching out and horizontalizing and vert verticalizing in a lot of different ways. And so you've seen wallets like Phantom for example on board per on board prediction markets on board various other services DeFi related things. Same goes for Rabby. And at the same time you've seen you know these terminal what used to be like memecoin trading bots basically. The axioms have gone in the opposite direction where they went from memecoins only to now it's memecoins and it's per and you earn yield on your stables and xyz. And I think kind of basically the big takeaway for me is that uh you know I expect that a lot of these like singular function trading apps and singular function apps basically just disappear and you you start to lose really any meaningful edge or advantage at this point.

And the real value comes from building like this kind of horizontal platform for a user where they can do any of the potential things financial things that are available to them all in one place. whether you want to call it like the Robin Hood thesis or just kind of like an extension of where things kind of have gradually been coming in this space I think that's that's something we've been seeing like slow steps towards and then recently here at the back half of 2025 kind of an all at once moment I would say happened like a lot of the wallets very quickly onboarded a bunch of these things and a lot of the per exchanges u very quickly like okay let's do let's do equity per let's do commodities let's do forex I think a lot of this stuff's happening very quickly and I I would expect maybe to see a little bit more even more consolidation and more of these like broad platforms potentially see more success and you might see them take advantage of it in the ways that you described around you know we can maybe abstract away transaction fees entirely make it all free and then we'll monetize you in other ways right we'll take we'll take a little bip here on this service we'll take a few bips on that service rather than having some of the like traditional kind of front-end fees that people are maybe used to in this industry.

Yeah. Absolutely. Now that you mentioned like the 2026 thesis around like this super trading app, I think another thing you'll see like take off is like the stable coin playbook, but not for like cryptonative users who are used to speculation, but more for like neo banking. If you think about like the fintech playbook over the past like 15 years, the main edge has been like banking relationships and like regulatory licenses. With stable coins, like you still kind of need that because you still need to touch fiat at some point, but when you're only like staying in stable coins, you don't really need like these banking relationships and and and regulatory licenses aren't as important.

So I I think we'll see a lot of like neo banks use Sena as back backend infrastructure and like sort of like leverage the power of smart contracts and stable coins to provide like an all-in-one uh neo bank experience where you can like spend via your stable coins via like a Visa issued card or whatever and like just be 100 times or 1,000 times more efficient than a traditional fintech which is still building on like legacy rails whereas with a stable coin native uh neo bank you're building on like internet rails so I think like apps like aichi or or like other apps on sena or like uh fuse which are already mentioned are very well positioned uh in this vertical and I think it will be one of the standout performers in 2026 especially because it doesn't require like crypto markets to do well because it's it's kind of uncorrelated from like spec speculative activity. It's more of like they're venturing into the fintech side of things more than just depending on like memecoin volumes trading uh up again and stuff like that.

Yeah, I think Fuse is a great example where I think they've really nailed that like kind of blurring the line between dollar and stable. where it's very convenient to go from one to the other and like go from cash in a bank account to onchain stable coins and earning yield in kind of like either direction, right? Like you might have cash in a savings account that's earning yield versus a stable coin on chain that's earning yield from like whatever DeFi rate maybe that they're feeding you. I think they've done a really good job at that. I'm less familiar if they've like expanded out into like more features as we've seen with other wallets. you know the rabbies, the soul soul flares, the phantoms where it's become much more common to like product ties all these different kind of like typical DeFi apps like basically natively into the wallet now. But I'd expect that that's probably a kind of a logical direction for them to continue on as with with many of these