• Favor Solana (SOL) over a broad basket of Layer 1 tokens: the discussion showed stronger conviction in Solana’s application activity and questioned whether many rival networks can capture enough fees.
• Consider Hyperliquid (HYPE) as an on-chain trading growth play, and track whether HIP-3 markets—and potential HIP-4 options—deliver sustained users, liquidity, and fees.
• Pump was described as undervalued because it generates substantial fees, but treat it as higher risk: token-launch activity may not create durable user retention or network effects.
• For any crypto investment, prioritize protocols with real users, sustainable revenue, and clear value capture; the discussion provided no specific price targets or entry timeframes.

Crypto investment thesis: revenue and financial applications

• Santos argued that investors should focus on protocols with fees, revenue, and product-market fit, rather than relying on narratives alone.
• He sees crypto’s major opportunity in financial applications, including perpetual futures, options, tokenized stocks, and other assets traded on-chain.
• His long-term bullish case depends on non-crypto-native assets moving on-chain and generating meaningful fees.

Takeaways

• Assess whether a protocol has real users, sustainable fee generation, and a credible way for token holders to benefit.
• The discussion presents on-chain finance and tokenized assets as the core investment themes—not a blanket endorsement of all crypto projects.

Solana (SOL), Ethereum (ETH), Sui, and Layer 1 networks

• Santos said he has strong conviction that Solana is working as a platform for applications and activity.
• He questioned whether enough fees and usage will accrue across many competing Layer 1 networks to support their multibillion-dollar valuations. He suggested activity is likely to concentrate in a smaller number of networks.
• He was skeptical of Ethereum’s roll-up architecture as a way for Ethereum’s base layer to capture fees. As an example, he said that in a Robinhood deployment on Arbitrum, the application captured most of the fees.
• Sui was mentioned as an example of a Layer 1, but Santos did not give a specific view on it.

Takeaways

• Favor evidence of sustained application use, transaction activity, and fee capture over the Layer 1 label alone.
• The discussion is comparatively bullish on Solana and cautious about Ethereum’s ability to capture value from activity on its Layer 2 ecosystem.

Arbitrum (ARB) and MegaETH

• Santos said he had invested in Arbitrum and several other Layer 2 projects.
• He described Arbitrum’s fee capture as a concern, citing a Robinhood example in which the application captured far more fees than the underlying network.
• He also mentioned backing MegaETH. On its prospects, he emphasized that building takes time and urged patience rather than judging projects by short-term crypto attention cycles.

Takeaways

• For Layer 2 investments, examine how much economic value the network itself captures—not just how many applications launch on it.
• MegaETH was discussed with a patient, long-term venture-investing perspective; no specific timeline or return target was given.

Pump (Pump.fun)

• Santos called Pump one of crypto’s most profitable protocols, pointing to its fee generation even during the bear market. He said he believes it is undervalued.
• The discussion contrasted Pump with Hyperliquid: the host argued Hyperliquid benefits from liquidity-driven network effects, while Pump’s growth in token launches may not create the same effect.
• Santos pushed back on treating network effects as easy to measure, arguing that a competitive advantage matters only if it can ultimately be monetized.

Takeaways

• Pump’s case in the discussion rests on observed fees and activity, but its longer-term value may depend on whether it can build durable user retention or additional products.
• The host specifically raised a potential weakness: token-launch activity may not create the same self-reinforcing liquidity as an exchange.

Hyperliquid (HYPE)

• Santos highlighted Hyperliquid’s ability to support around-the-clock trading of assets such as oil, including during a period when traditional markets were closed.
• He said HIP-3 was important to Hyperliquid’s development and expressed interest in the possibility of options through HIP-4.
• He described Hyperliquid as a network where more users can attract more liquidity, which in turn may draw additional users.

Takeaways

• The bullish case presented is based on liquidity, active trading, and expanding the range of tradable assets.
• Watch whether new markets and potential options products add lasting usage and fees; the discussion did not provide a price target.

Backpack

• Santos said he backed Backpack early, at a valuation in the “couple hundred million” range, and described its fully diluted valuation as about $1 billion at the time of the interview.
• He highlighted Backpack’s plans and capabilities around tokenized stocks, other tokenized assets, unified liquidity, and connections to real-world asset on-ramps and off-ramps.
• He compared its potential with established exchanges, mentioning Kraken at a reported $20 billion secondary-market valuation and Coinbase at about $65 billion. He said he sees a path for Backpack to grow substantially if it continues executing.

Takeaways

• Santos’s positive view depends on Backpack delivering on tokenized assets, liquidity, and execution—not just on the size of the potential market.
• The valuations cited are comparisons made in the conversation, not a stated price target or guarantee of future value.

On-chain options and Derive (formerly Lyra)

• Santos called on-chain options a major potential theme, citing the mismatch between the size of options and futures markets in crypto.
• He said investment opportunities in DeFi should be assessed partly on whether they can offer capital efficiency comparable to traditional exchanges.
• He praised the team behind Derive, formerly Lyra, and noted its connection to Synthetix (SNX). He said he did not own Derive.

Takeaways

• On-chain options may offer growth potential if they can provide efficient trading and attract sustained liquidity.
• Santos’s comments on Derive were positive about the team, but were not a personal investment endorsement.

Curve (CRV) and stablecoin trading

• The host said he holds Curve based on a thesis that many stablecoins will need a low-slippage venue for trading between them.
• Santos said he could not comment on Curve specifically for legal reasons. He then questioned how much value stablecoin-to-stablecoin exchange venues can capture, given intense competition and the possibility that platforms subsidize trading to attract liquidity.
• He said stablecoin issuers face significant competition to gain liquidity and challenge established providers such as Tether.

Takeaways

• The host’s Curve thesis depends on growth in the number of stablecoins and continued demand for a dedicated, low-slippage trading venue.
• The counterpoint raised is that competition and subsidized trading could limit the fees such venues can earn. Santos did not give a direct view on CRV.

Bitcoin (BTC) and Zcash (ZEC)

• Santos said Bitcoin’s scarcity narrative is one possible basis for value, but he is concerned about the long-term security budget and the need to address cryptographic risks before they become urgent.
• He sees Zcash as increasingly relevant because of its privacy and security focus. He said it had risen from roughly $50 to $1,300 and was still a fraction of Bitcoin’s market capitalization at the time of the conversation.
• Asked whether Zcash could become larger than Bitcoin, he said it could in some scenario, but did not expect it to exceed Bitcoin’s market capitalization. He described a possible shift of flows from Bitcoin toward Zcash.

Takeaways

• The discussion presents Zcash as a possible beneficiary of interest in privacy and cryptographic security, while raising longer-term security questions for Bitcoin.
• The price figures and potential flow shift are observations and speculation from the conversation, not a specific buy recommendation.

Cryptographic security and wallet practices

• The speakers discussed a warning from Ethereum researcher Justin Drake about the possibility that advances in computing could threaten cryptographic systems sooner than expected, potentially without waiting for quantum computers.
• They said that, according to their understanding of the warning, previously signed transactions could create a risk of exposing private keys. The suggested precaution was to move funds to a new address that has not signed a transaction.
• They also noted that cryptography and security are evolving, and that teams—including those associated with Zcash—are working on the issue. They cautioned against panic while encouraging the industry to plan.

Takeaways

• Treat this as a security concern raised in the discussion, not as a confirmed claim that wallets are currently compromised.
• Anyone concerned should verify the original technical guidance and rely on reputable wallet and protocol security advice before moving funds.

Toncoin (TON)

• The host said he bought TON based on Telegram’s distribution and large user base.
• Santos acknowledged those advantages but said he had heard that building on TON had historically been difficult.
• The host also raised concerns that the foundation owns tokens and that tokens are being sold regularly. Santos did not independently confirm those claims.

Takeaways

• The potential case described rests on Telegram’s distribution, but execution and the ability for developers to build on the network were raised as concerns.
• Investigate token supply, foundation holdings, and ecosystem activity rather than relying on user-base size alone.

Qantas and Perl tokens

• The speakers said they had each bought a small amount of Qantas and Perl, while acknowledging that they had not yet completed their research.
• One speaker described the approach as buying first and researching later, partly as a way to motivate further investigation. The discussion contrasted this with meme coins, which it characterized as difficult and risky for most participants.
• The transcript does not provide enough detail to establish the tokens’ exact names, tickers, or investment theses.

Takeaways

• These were described as small, exploratory positions—not researched recommendations.
• Verify the assets’ identities, use cases, token supply, and risks before treating them as investment opportunities.

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

• Robinhood was mentioned in connection with deploying on Arbitrum and capturing a large share of fees in the example Santos cited.
• Coinbase and Kraken were used as valuation comparables in the discussion of Backpack; no direct investment recommendation was made about either company.
• Cloudflare was mentioned as an example of conventional infrastructure that could support transactions. Santos said whether AI agents use crypto rails or traditional rails depends on the application.

Takeaways

• These companies were discussed as examples or comparables, not as specific stock picks.
• The broader theme is competition between crypto infrastructure and established financial or technology rails; the speakers did not make a stock-level valuation case.

AI agents, stablecoins, and payments

• The speakers discussed whether AI agents might use stablecoins for transactions. Santos said crypto rails could make sense for financial trading, where fast settlement and capital efficiency matter.
• He cautioned that instant settlement is not necessarily the most important feature for everyday commerce: consumers may value credit-card rewards and other benefits, while merchants may tolerate delayed settlement.
• He also raised the possibility that cryptographic risks could affect stablecoin use.

Takeaways

• The opportunity is most persuasive in use cases where always-on trading, rapid settlement, or capital efficiency offers a clear advantage.
• Do not assume that AI-driven payments will automatically shift to stablecoins; the discussion explicitly noted competing benefits of traditional payment systems.

Other protocols mentioned

• Uniswap (UNI), Near (NEAR), Lido (LDO), and Venice were named among projects viewed as prominent in the market, but the speakers did not give detailed investment theses for them.
• FOMO was mentioned as an example of a social product that could help create network effects around token launches.
• Amazon and Facebook were used as comparisons for how network effects can differ across businesses; they were not presented as investment recommendations.

Takeaways

• These names were mentioned as examples or market references, not as explicit buy or sell recommendations.
• The strongest general investing point from the discussion is to look for demonstrable usage, fee generation, and a credible way for a project to capture value.