Trending topics
#
Bonk Eco continues to show strength amid $USELESS rally
#
Pump.fun to raise $1B token sale, traders speculating on airdrop
#
Boop.Fun leading the way with a new launchpad on Solana.

Jeff Dorman
CIO @arca - digital assets investing | Former COO of Harvest Exchange | Former Lehman, Merrill, Citadel | Huge Cleveland Sports Fan | CFA charterholder
Hats off to both @CoinMarketCap & @coingecko for listening to users and fixing an obvious flaw in the market cap data. Great day for crypto!
Coinmarketcap - official announcement here
Coingecko - haven't seen an official announcement but have noticed on a few of their token pages they have added a new "Outstanding token value" metric (see $HYPE and $PUMP below)
Huge win for industry transparency and valuations, and hopefully we never have to hear about FDV ever again.



Jeff DormanJul 2, 2025
We need to fix the broken, archaic & inconsistent market cap formulas in order for crypto to thrive!
Arca proposes "Adjusted Market Cap", which we feel more accurately reflects a token's true valuation.
We hope this becomes the new standard.
A thread 👇
2.62K
I'm in the minority on the Axelar / $AXL "tokenholder's have no rights" debate, but I don't think this is a big deal.
Companies finance themselves with different parts of the capital stack, and some are more senior than others.
Secured debt > unsecured senior debt > sub debt > preferred shares > equity > tokens
There are hundreds of examples of one class of investors getting harmed at the expense of others.
In bankruptcy, debt holders win at expense of equities.
In LBOs, equity holders win at expense of debt holders
In take-unders, debt wins at expense of equity holders
In strategic acquisitions, usually both debt and equity holders do well (but not always).
Tokens are often bottom of the cap stack. It doesn't mean they aren't valuable, and it doesn't mean you need "protections" per se. We are simply learning that when you acquire a semi-worthless company with a mostly worthless token, you don't get a magic payout as a token holder. The equity wins at the expense of the token.
We've yet to see an acquisition of a good company where token holders get nothing. I'd imagine if an acquisition happened of a good, growing, successful business with a token that has proven valuable, then there would be some compensation for token holders.
There are lots of assets that do well in good times, but not in bad times. Stocks are great investments when a company is doing well, but they are awful investments when a company is not doing well.
Tokens have little to no value in M&A... ok. Adjust accordingly. Just like equities have little to no value in bankruptcy even if the company was funded via equity.
On the flip side, an equity value can literally go to $0 as dictated by a judge in a bankruptcy, whereas tokens can retain some magical "hopium" social value even if the underlying company goes away (i.e. $FTT still trades) because you can't actually legally kill a token.
So we're leaning that tokens can have tremendous value in a company that is growing and using cash flows to pay down the tokens (i.e. $BNB, $HYPE, $LEO, $OKB, $PUMP), and do horribly when a company struggles and becomes a forced seller to another entity.
You don't need rules and regulations to recognize that. Back good management teams and good projects and this isn't an issue.

Zach Rynes | CLGDec 16, 01:59
Yet another example of the token vs equity conflict of interest problem plaguing crypto
Dev team behind a protocol get successfully acquired, tokenholders who funded that team get nothing
"continue to operate independently under community governance" = dev team rugging you for greener pastures
This is the #1 issue our industry needs to solve if we want to attract serious capital

9.27K
Top
Ranking
Favorites