• Prioritize Hyperliquid (HYPE) as a higher-conviction crypto application play: monitor whether its liquidity and trading in assets beyond crypto continue to grow.
• Favor Solana (SOL) over less-used L1s, but require sustained application activity and fee generation to support the thesis.
• For crypto exposure, focus on protocols handling tokenized assets, derivatives, and on-chain trading; verify that fees accrue to the protocol or token, not just the application.
• Treat Pump.fun (PUMP) as a higher-risk, fee-driven opportunity, and Backpack as an execution-dependent private investment—noting its 10x potential was an investor’s estimate, not a guaranteed return.

Crypto investment thesis: revenue-producing financial applications

• Santiago Santos argued that crypto investing should increasingly focus on fees, revenue, and product-market fit, rather than narratives alone.
• He sees on-chain perpetuals, options, tokenized stocks, and other financial applications as crypto’s most promising use cases.
• His broader bullish case depends on substantially more non-crypto-native assets being traded on-chain and generating fees.

Takeaways

• Look for evidence of real usage and revenue, and consider whether a protocol’s fees benefit its token holders.
• The discussion’s bullish outlook for crypto is conditional: it depends on growth in on-chain financial activity, not simply on the technology’s potential.

Solana (SOL)

• Santos expressed conviction that Solana is attracting meaningful activity and could be among the L1 networks where users, transactions, and stablecoins concentrate.
• He expects consolidation among L1s and doubts that a large number of networks will all support multi-billion-dollar valuations.

Takeaways

• The discussion is bullish on Solana relative to many other L1s, but the case depends on sustained application growth and fee generation.

Ethereum (ETH)

• Santos was critical of Ethereum’s rollup-centered architecture, arguing that activity on L2s may not translate into enough fee capture for Ethereum L1.
• He questioned whether Ethereum’s network effects are valuable if they do not ultimately produce monetization.
• He also acknowledged that applications built on top of Ethereum could support value in L1 protocols.

Takeaways

• The key issue raised was value capture: assess whether activity in Ethereum’s ecosystem generates meaningful revenue for ETH, rather than assuming network effects automatically translate into token value.

Arbitrum (ARB) and Ethereum L2s

• Santos cited Robinhood’s deployment on Arbitrum as an example in which, according to his account, the application captured substantially more fees than Arbitrum itself.
• He said he had invested in Arbitrum and other L2 projects, including MegaETH, and encouraged patience while teams build.
• He views fee capture as an important test of whether L2 activity creates value for the underlying protocol.

Takeaways

• The discussion was selectively positive on L2 builders, but it highlighted a risk: applications may capture most of the economics while the L2 captures relatively little.
• Evaluate each L2’s actual fee and revenue model rather than treating ecosystem growth as proof of token value.

Sui (SUI)

• Sui was named among the L1s being considered, but Santos did not give a specific investment thesis or express a clear view on its prospects.

Takeaways

• No specific bullish or bearish case for Sui was established in the discussion.

Hyperliquid (HYPE)

• Santos described Hyperliquid as a network with potential liquidity-driven network effects: more users can attract more liquidity, which may attract further users.
• He pointed to its around-the-clock trading of assets such as oil as evidence that users want to trade beyond crypto-native markets.
• He also mentioned options and further development through HIP-3 and HIP-4 as areas to watch.

Takeaways

• The discussion was positive on Hyperliquid’s market structure and expanding asset coverage.
• Important questions include whether it can sustain liquidity and extend trading beyond crypto-native assets. No specific price target was given.

Pump.fun (PUMP)

• Santos, an early investor, described Pump as one of crypto’s more profitable protocols and emphasized its substantial fee generation, even for investors who are skeptical of meme coins.
• He viewed Pump as potentially undervalued relative to its fee generation.
• The hosts questioned whether Pump has the network effects of a trading network. Santos pushed back, while the conversation also raised the possibility that social features could help strengthen Pump’s network.

Takeaways

• The discussion was positive on Pump’s current fee generation, but its long-term case may depend on sustaining user activity and building stronger network effects.
• The speakers acknowledged that meme coins have a narrower investment narrative than broader financial applications.

Backpack

• Santos said he had backed Backpack early and described it as a way to trade tokenized stocks and other assets through a unified liquidity layer.
• He argued that unified liquidity and integrations for real-world-asset access could make trading more efficient.
• He cited an early investment at a valuation of a few hundred million dollars and a later valuation around $1 billion. He said he saw a path to at least a 10x return if the company executed, comparing it with larger exchanges.

Takeaways

• The discussion was bullish, but execution-dependent: the opportunity rests on Backpack expanding tokenized-asset trading, liquidity, and access.
• The 10x figure was Santos’s venture-investment expectation, not a guaranteed outcome or a public-market price target.

Derive (formerly Lyra) and on-chain options

• Derive was discussed as an options protocol that originated from the Synthetix ecosystem. Santos praised the team but said he did not own it.
• He viewed on-chain options as a potentially major opportunity, citing a mismatch between options and futures activity in crypto and the importance of capital efficiency.

Takeaways

• The broader on-chain options theme was bullish, but the discussion did not establish a specific recommendation for Derive.
• Compare on-chain options platforms with traditional exchanges on capital efficiency and usability.

Synthetix (SNX)

• Synthetix was mentioned as the ecosystem from which Lyra—now Derive—emerged. No direct investment view on SNX was offered.

Takeaways

• The transcript provided background context, not a standalone bullish or bearish thesis for SNX.

Curve (CRV)

• The host said he held Curve based on the thesis that more stablecoins would create demand for a venue to exchange them with low slippage.
• Santos could not comment directly for legal reasons, but questioned whether stablecoin swaps would generate much value given intense competition and the possibility that venues subsidize trading.
• He said he could be wrong about that assessment.

Takeaways

• The discussion raised a cautious question about Curve’s stablecoin-swap economics: demand for low-slippage swaps may not necessarily translate into durable revenue.
• Revisit whether the growth of stablecoins would benefit Curve specifically, rather than assuming the whole category will.

TON (Toncoin)

• The host said he held TON based on Telegram’s distribution and user base.
• Santos acknowledged those potential advantages but said TON had, in his view, “fumbled” some of its opportunity. He also cited reports that building on TON had been difficult.
• The host raised concerns about token sales by the foundation and Pavel Durov; the conversation did not independently verify those claims.

Takeaways

• The discussion was mixed to cautious: distribution is an advantage, but developer experience and token supply or selling activity were raised as concerns.
• Review current ecosystem development and token flows before relying on Telegram’s user base as an investment thesis.

Bitcoin (BTC)

• Bitcoin was discussed in the context of a possible cryptographic-security risk. A tweet by Justin Drake warned that mathematical advances could threaten cryptographic systems, potentially even before practical quantum computing.
• The speakers said that, according to their understanding of the warning, funds linked to addresses that have signed transactions could be at risk, and they described moving funds to a fresh address as a possible precaution.
• Santos said Bitcoin’s security budget should be considered now rather than dismissed as a distant issue. He did not provide a price outlook.

Takeaways

• The discussion raised a security risk, not a price forecast. The claim was presented as an emerging concern, not as a confirmed break of Bitcoin’s cryptography.
• Treat the proposed wallet precaution as the speakers’ interpretation of the tweet, and seek reliable technical guidance before moving funds.

Zcash (ZEC)

• Santos said Zcash was working on cryptographic-security issues and described it as increasingly relevant to the discussion of possible future security risks.
• He noted that Zcash had risen from roughly $50 to $1,300 in the period he referenced, while remaining a fraction of Bitcoin’s market capitalization.
• He said Zcash could benefit if flows moved away from Bitcoin, but did not expect it to exceed Bitcoin’s market capitalization.

Takeaways

• The discussion was constructive on Zcash’s relevance, especially in light of the security debate, but did not provide a price target.
• The quoted historical price move should not be treated as a forecast or an indication of future returns.

Near (NEAR), Uniswap (UNI), Lido, Venice (VVV), and other tokens

• These projects were mentioned as examples of where crypto returns or investor attention may be concentrated, alongside Zcash, Hyperliquid, and Pump.
• The transcript did not provide detailed investment theses for Near, Uniswap, or Lido. Venice was referenced in the same list, without further analysis.

Takeaways

• These mentions were examples, not recommendations. The discussion offered no asset-specific outlook, valuation, or catalyst for them.

Qantas and Perl

• The speakers mentioned “Qantas” and “Perl” as tokens they had each bought in small amounts to learn more about. The transcript did not clearly establish the exact project names or tickers.
• They described this as an exploratory approach, while contrasting it with the difficulty of making money in meme-coin trading.

Takeaways

• No investment thesis or endorsement was provided. The speakers’ small purchases were described as a way to motivate further research, not as a recommendation.

Coinbase (COIN), Kraken, and Robinhood (HOOD)

• These companies were discussed as exchange comparables for Backpack, not as direct stock recommendations.
• Santos cited Coinbase at about $65 billion and Kraken secondary-market trading at about $20 billion. He also referred to Robinhood’s use of Arbitrum.
• The valuations were used to illustrate the potential scale of exchange businesses, not to assess the stocks’ fair value.

Takeaways

• The conversation points to potential competition between crypto exchanges and on-chain trading platforms, but did not give a buy or sell view on these stocks.
• Kraken was described as trading in secondary markets; the transcript did not identify a public ticker for it.

Stablecoins, tokenized assets, and on-chain trading

• Santos’s central long-term investment case is that more stocks and other non-crypto assets will trade on-chain and generate protocol fees.
• The conversation also discussed stablecoins as a possible payment and settlement tool for AI agents. The speakers noted that instant settlement may matter more for financial trading than for everyday commerce, where credit-card rewards and other features remain valuable.
• They also raised potential cryptographic risks as a consideration for using stablecoins and other on-chain systems.

Takeaways

• The strongest theme in the discussion was on-chain financial infrastructure, particularly tokenized assets, derivatives, and efficient trading.
• Track whether these products attract real users and non-crypto-native volume, and whether the resulting fees accrue to the protocols or their tokens.