• Consider adding to Bitcoin (BTC) on pullbacks: speakers saw its weekly uptrend and relative resilience as constructive, though no price target or near-term rally was assured.
• For tokenized-asset exposure, favor Uniswap (UNI) over Aerodrome (AERO): the panel highlighted UNI’s multi-chain reach and V4 hooks, while AERO faces competition and emissions running at about twice revenue.
• Syrup (SYRUP) stood out as a comparatively inexpensive lending play with growing buybacks; monitor whether new partnerships expand deposits, its key growth constraint.
• Treat Pendle (PENDLE) as a smaller, longer-term position: its 3% portfolio weighting was viewed as reasonable, but current revenue is cyclical and the Boros opportunity remains unproven.

Bitcoin (BTC)

• The speakers described Bitcoin as resilient despite equity-market weakness, a VIX spike, and macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty.
• One speaker viewed Bitcoin as holding a weekly uptrend, with a higher low still to form; the recent price action was characterized as short-term noise. Another said they remained bullish and saw improving crypto fundamentals as supportive.
• A participant said market fear had provided an opportunity to add to coins they liked, but no specific Bitcoin price target or allocation was given.

Takeaways

• The discussion was constructive on Bitcoin’s trend, while acknowledging that a quick return to sharp gains was not assured.
• The speakers pointed to relative strength and improving crypto fundamentals as reasons for optimism, not as guarantees of further gains.

Aerodrome (AERO)

• Aerodrome had a 7% weighting in Citrini’s portfolio. The panel saw potential in its expansion to Ethereum and other EVM chains, as well as its role in trading tokenized equities on Base.
• A speaker noted that Aerodrome’s share of tokenized-equity trading had been increasing. It had also been a leading venue for on-chain foreign-exchange trading, though Uniswap was catching up.
• The panel cautioned that Aerodrome’s apparent valuation discount to Uniswap may be overstated because Aerodrome’s model includes token emissions. One speaker said emissions were running at about twice revenue, making it look unprofitable on that basis.
• Competition from Uniswap could limit Aerodrome’s market-share gains, and the panel expected expansion and integrations to take time to translate into trading volume.
• One speaker viewed AERO more as a short-term trade around catalysts than a long-term holding. Others saw upside from the upcoming upgrade but preferred a larger allocation to Uniswap.

Takeaways

• Aerodrome offers exposure to Base, tokenized-equity trading, and potential expansion across EVM chains, but the discussion emphasized execution, competition, and token emissions as important considerations.
• The panel was not aligned with the portfolio’s 7% weighting; several participants preferred Uniswap for broader exposure to the trading and tokenization themes.

Uniswap (UNI)

• Uniswap had a 4% weighting in Citrini’s portfolio, which several speakers considered too low for a portfolio focused on tokenized assets.
• The panel highlighted Uniswap’s V4 hooks, which can support custom trading and compliance features. They discussed potential uses for both institutional tokenized assets and retail trading activity.
• Uniswap was described as a leader in tokenized-equity trading. One speaker said it had held the lead even after its share of tokenized-equity spot volume fell from a peak of about 64% to roughly 24%.
• Speakers also pointed to Uniswap’s buybacks, saying it had ranked among the top protocols buying back tokens for seven consecutive months. One cited an annualized UNI burn rate of about $100 million.
• The valuation was described as high: about 50x by one speaker. The bullish case was that growth in tokenized-asset trading could justify paying a premium.
• Panelists proposed a 10–15% weighting for UNI in an RWA-focused portfolio; this was their portfolio view, not a formal recommendation.

Takeaways

• The panel was broadly bullish on Uniswap as a way to gain exposure to tokenized-asset trading across multiple chains and to potential activity enabled by V4 hooks.
• The key trade-off discussed was growth potential versus a high valuation. The suggested 10–15% weighting applied specifically to a thematic portfolio.

LayerZero (ZRO)

• LayerZero was presented as a leading interoperability provider, with a large share of cross-chain flows and a notable partnership with Tether for its OFT standard.
• The speakers argued that burn-and-mint cross-chain transfers could suit token issuers that want assets represented across multiple chains.
• They saw the tokenization of real-world assets as a potential tailwind for LayerZero, but questioned whether that opportunity would translate into value for ZRO holders.
• Risks raised included the token’s unlock and supply schedule, emissions, and uncertainty about how value accrues to the token. One participant cited buybacks of about 0.25% of total supply and said unlocks could outweigh buybacks.
• Atlas, described as LayerZero’s own chain, was mentioned as a possible additional catalyst, though its effect on the token was uncertain.

Takeaways

• The panel viewed LayerZero as well positioned for the interoperability and tokenization narrative, but less certain about ZRO’s token economics.
• The discussion distinguished confidence in the product and partnerships from confidence in the token’s value accrual.

Chainlink (LINK)

• Chainlink was described as offering a cross-chain solution for asset issuers, but one speaker said it was losing integration share to LayerZero in the flows discussed.
• The panel noted that Chainlink has buybacks through the Chainlink Reserve, but raised concerns about limited transparency on revenue levels and sources.
• Like LayerZero, LINK was seen as having exposure to the interoperability and tokenization narratives. One speaker nevertheless considered it less investable because of limited financial disclosure.

Takeaways

• LINK has potential thematic exposure to cross-chain asset activity, but the discussion identified competitive position and transparency as key issues to assess.
• The speakers did not offer a price target or specific allocation for LINK.

Backpack

• Backpack was discussed as an exchange and financial-services platform tied to Solana, with a focus on tokenized equities that can reportedly move between the traditional financial system and Solana.
• A speaker said this structure could give market makers greater confidence in the assets and support competitive trading spreads. Backpack was also described as gaining activity in tokenized equities.
• The token’s structure was described as allowing roughly 20% of its supply to become equity after an IPO, subject to conditions. The discussion mentioned staking requirements of potentially around four years and jurisdiction restrictions.
• One speaker framed the token as a bet on Backpack growing into a major exchange and cited an implied value of about $4 billion if the token’s equity conversion represented 20% of the company.
• Views differed on the opportunity. One participant was strongly positive and suggested a weighting above 5%; another preferred Robinhood or Coinbase for distribution and Uniswap or Raydium for trading exposure. The portfolio’s cited weighting was 5%.

Takeaways

• Backpack offers a potential combination of exchange growth and tokenized-equity exposure, but the case depends on future business growth, IPO-related terms, and the token’s conversion conditions.
• The panel’s views were mixed, with some preferring more established distribution or direct exposure to trading venues.

Solana (SOL)

• One speaker said they preferred Solana’s market structure and decentralized-exchange activity to Coinbase- and Robinhood-linked exposure.
• Solana was also discussed as a venue for tokenized equities and related trading activity.

Takeaways

• The discussion favored Solana as a potential way to participate in on-chain trading activity, particularly for those who believe its market structure can attract users and volume.
• No price target or specific SOL allocation was given.

Raydium (RAY)

• Raydium was cited as a way to gain exposure to trading activity on Solana.
• One speaker noted that Backpack had more tokenized-equity volume than Raydium in the month discussed, while another participant identified Raydium as a preferred venue for a Solana-focused trading-layer investment.

Takeaways

• RAY was presented as a possible Solana trading-activity play, though the discussion did not provide a valuation, target, or allocation.

Syrup (SYRUP)

• Syrup had a 5% weighting in Citrini’s portfolio. Speakers praised the lending business and its relative strength in deposits and outstanding loans during a difficult market.
• One speaker said Syrup could benefit from rising Bitcoin prices and interest rates, which could support loan growth and lending revenue.
• The panel described Syrup as comparatively inexpensive among lending protocols and noted that it had recently started buybacks, which were reportedly increasing month to month.
• A key challenge identified was distribution: Syrup needs more fintech and exchange partnerships to bring in deposits. The speakers cited Kraken as a partnership and discussed competition from Morpho and Ethena in a Robinhood savings product.

Takeaways

• The panel was positive on Syrup’s business and valuation but saw broader distribution as an important condition for growth.
• The discussion viewed lending as a potentially useful, less speculative part of a crypto portfolio, while noting it may be less reflexive to market rallies than trading-focused assets.

Morpho (MORPHO)

• Morpho was cited as a competitor in lending and as a provider for Robinhood’s savings vault. One speaker said much of the vault’s deposits were allocated to Ethena, with a smaller share allocated to Syrup.
• Morpho was also described as having secured prominent distribution partnerships.

Takeaways

• The discussion highlighted partnerships and distribution as important advantages in crypto lending.
• MORPHO was mentioned as a competitor and example of fintech distribution, but the panel did not give a valuation, target, or allocation.

Ethena (ENA)

• Ethena was mentioned as a major recipient of deposits through a Robinhood savings vault powered by Morpho.
• A speaker contrasted Ethena’s more growth-oriented appeal with Syrup’s institutional-lending business.

Takeaways

• ENA was discussed as a competitor benefiting from fintech distribution and deposits, rather than as a standalone investment thesis.
• No price target or allocation was provided.

Pendle (PENDLE)

• Pendle had a 3% weighting, which one speaker considered reasonable.
• The bullish case described Pendle as a marketplace for yield-bearing assets, with yield issuers using incentives to build liquidity and money markets using Pendle’s products as collateral.
• A key concern was that activity on Pendle’s V2 can depend on temporary incentives and new asset launches, making some of its revenue cyclical.
• One speaker said Pendle’s annualized revenue had fallen from about $80 million at a prior peak to roughly $10 million amid weak on-chain yields.
• The longer-term opportunity identified was Boros, which could serve markets for hedging the cost of carry on crypto and real-world-asset perpetuals. One speaker described a possible long-term path to nine-figure revenue, while cautioning that current traction did not yet establish a one- or two-year timeline.

Takeaways

• Pendle’s current business was described as sensitive to yield conditions and incentives, while Boros was presented as a potential longer-term growth driver.
• The panel viewed the 3% weighting as fair, balancing the opportunity against cyclical activity and the fact that Boros’s potential had not yet been demonstrated at scale.

Ondo (ONDO)

• Ondo was described as one of the largest tokenized-equity issuers, with significant asset issuance and institutional partners, including BlackRock.
• The panel said Ondo was beginning to build trading products for the assets it issues, including perps and spot trading. Speakers emphasized that these markets were still much less liquid than major crypto venues.
• One speaker saw valuation as the main concern, citing a market capitalization of about $2 billion and fully diluted valuation above $4 billion, with significant unlocks still ahead.
• Another participant noted that Backpack had more tokenized-equity trading volume in the month discussed despite issuing a much smaller amount of assets.

Takeaways

• Ondo has scale in asset issuance, but the discussion focused on whether it can turn that supply into liquid markets and durable revenue.
• The cited 3% weighting was viewed as defensible by one speaker, while others preferred assets with stronger observed trading activity or more attractive valuation.

Coinbase (COIN) and Robinhood (HOOD)

• Coinbase was discussed as a source of distribution for tokenized assets on Base, with Aerodrome identified as one potential beneficiary.
• Robinhood was described as a significant venue for tokenized-equity and meme-coin activity, including activity routed through Uniswap.
• One speaker said they would lean toward Robinhood as a likely winner in integrated exchange and tokenized-equity distribution; Coinbase was also viewed as a leading platform. Backpack was discussed as a possible competitor but with more questions about its business model.

Takeaways

• The discussion emphasized distribution, partnerships, and access to customers as potential advantages for established platforms.
• The speakers were discussing these companies’ roles in the crypto and tokenization ecosystem, not providing stock-specific valuation analysis or price targets.

Hyperliquid (HYPE)

• Hyperliquid was cited as a high-valuation comparison when discussing whether Uniswap’s roughly 50x multiple was justified.
• It was also referenced as a major venue for perpetual trading, against which newer tokenized-equity markets were described as much less liquid.

Takeaways

• HYPE served as a valuation and market-liquidity comparison in the conversation, not as a standalone investment thesis.
• No specific target or allocation was given.

U.S. equities, AI stocks, and bonds

• At the start of the discussion, speakers said Bitcoin was holding up relatively well against equities during a market sell-off.
• One participant cited a research letter arguing that the S&P 500 was only about 2% below its highs, while many constituents were already in bear-market territory and a small group of AI stocks had supported the index.
• The same participant described peak fear and macro headwinds as a potentially constructive setup for accumulating assets ahead of a possible next leg higher.
• The conversation also noted an “anti-AI trade,” with flows into bonds and weakness in some AI-related stocks.

Takeaways

• The discussion presented a mixed macro picture: weakness beneath the headline S&P 500 level and pressure on AI-related stocks, alongside a view that market fear could create opportunities.
• No specific stocks, bond instruments, price targets, or timelines were recommended.