Please don’t turn me into an antagonist. The moment I become an enemy, things will become uncomfortable for both sides.
- Tweets 1,180
- Following 230
- Followers 104
- Likes 3,478
Pinned Tweet
서프의 본질은 사이버 토큰이라고 늘 얘기합니다.
업비트의 KRW마켓 원화상장은 시간이 걸릴뿐 해줄꺼라고 믿고있었습니다.
석우형에서 경석이형으로 바뀌니 다양한 상장포인트가 많아진거같아서 기분이 좋습니다.
토큰은 전부 익절했지만 서프를 계속 이용하여 다음 원화상장코인의 알파를 찾아보고싶습니다
모두들 성투하세요👍🏻
Thank you! $CYBER
@surfai @Official_Upbit
9
1
11
756
$16.07M cumulative revenue. $0 holder revenue.
Yes, $BASED has staking rewards — but staking emissions are not the same as sharing protocol revenue with token holders.
The real question is simple:
After generating $16M+ in revenue, how much of that value has actually flowed back to $BASED holders?
According to DefiLlama: $0.
Emissions can reward staking, but they don't create a direct link between protocol revenue and token value.
Revenue exists. Where is the value accrual for $BASED?
3
158
And Edison’s latest post actually makes this question even more important.
The vision is clear:
Trade everything from one interface.
Mobile-first.
Cross-chain abstraction.
Unified USD balance.
Tokenized equities.
AI agents executing strategies through Based.
All of that may improve the Based product.
But what does any of it do for the $BASED token?
If the mobile app becomes better, users can trade more assets, volume increases, and AI agents eventually execute millions of trades through Based — that could be great for the platform.
But none of those things, by themselves, create a reason to buy or hold $BASED.
This is exactly why the distinction between product growth and token value accrual matters.
If increased users, volume and revenue do not translate into buybacks, burns, revenue-funded staking rewards, direct distributions, or some other mechanism that creates demand for or accrues value to $BASED, then the token can remain economically disconnected from the success of the product.
We already have staking rewards. But if those rewards are primarily emissions, that still doesn't answer the question.
Where is the mechanism that turns Based’s success into value for $BASED?
A great mobile trading app gives people a reason to use Based.
A great AI trading layer gives agents a reason to use Based.
More chains and more assets give traders a reason to use Based.
But what gives anyone a reason to buy and hold $BASED?
That is the missing part I want the team to explain.
A not-so-short summary
Based went from the place where people trade crypto perps to equity perps as well. Personally, I think the tokenized equities market is going to get larger.
Our product vision is that we want people to be able to do everything from one interface without having to switch apps.
Trade Everything on Based: we recently added support to trade not just perps, but also coins on Robinhood, Solana, BSC, and more chains. You can trade not just memecoins, but also equities tokens too.
Cross-chain abstraction is key. We used intents to find the best quote for users across chains.
The Unified USD balance: you could keep all your USDC on Hyperliquid. If you want to swap coins to something on Robinhood, you can. If you want to long or short a coin, it’s also easy to do so.
Based is mobile-first. More than 80% of our daily users/volume comes from the mobile app. The mobile app is now the place that we ship stuff first (used to be the other way).
Agentic trading: we’ve built an intelligence layer, which we have built with Based Infinity. It connects to up to 16 data sources and constructs the best response based on live data, instead of stale data.
The next step is to work on orchestration and execution. We are adding an interface that will let agents run strategies. You can describe your strategies with plain words, and AI agents can use Based to execute trades.
Based = wallets for AI agents. Connect your AI to Based.
3
46
CyberAnti retweeted
디지털자산 과세 논란에 대한 제 생각입니다
저는 소득이 있는 곳에 세금이 있다는 원칙에 동의합니다. 디지털자산도 예외일 수 없습니다. 다만 원칙대로 과세하려면, 공정하게 걷을 수 있는 기반부터 갖춰야 합니다. 지금은 그 기반이 준비되지 않았습니다.
첫째, 해외 거래자료가 들어오기 전에 과세가 시작됩니다.
국가 간 디지털자산 거래정보 교환체계(CARF)의 첫 자료 교환은 2027년에 이뤄집니다. 2027년 1월 과세를 시작하면, 국내 거래소 이용자의 소득만 잡히고 해외 거래소 이용자의 소득은 보이지 않습니다. 사실상 국내에서 성실하게 거래한 사람만 세금을 내는 구조입니다. 이렇게 되면 거래가 해외로 빠져나가고, 디지털자산 소득세뿐 아니라 국내 사업자의 법인세와 거래수수료 부가가치세까지 줄어들 수 있습니다.
둘째, 손실은 외면하고 이익에만 세금을 매겨서는 안 됩니다.
첫해 1,000만 원을 잃고 이듬해 1,000만 원을 벌면 두 해 손익은 0원입니다. 그런데 현행 제도에서는 둘째 해에 165만 원의 세금을 냅니다. 손실 이월공제가 없기 때문입니다. 미국과 영국은 디지털자산에도 자본손익 규칙을 적용해 손실 이월을 허용합니다. 우리도 최소 5년의 손실 이월공제를 도입해야 합니다.
취득가액 산정 기준도 대통령령에 맡겨진 채 확정되지 않았습니다. 제도가 불명확해서 실제보다 많은 세금을 내거나, 신고 오류의 책임을 투자자가 떠안는 일이 생겨서는 안 됩니다.
셋째, 예상 세수 효과와 비용을 공개해야 합니다.
영국은 CARF 도입으로 2030년까지 최대 3억 1,500만 파운드의 세수를 예상하면서, 정부 이행비용 6,900만 파운드와 사업자 부담까지 함께 공개했습니다. 우리 정부도 즉시 시행과 준비 후 시행의 세수 효과를 비교하고, 행정비용과 투자자의 신고 부담을 공개해야 합니다.
그래서 "우리나라가 법은 느리고 과세만 빠르다"라 지적을 벗어나기 위해선 과세 시점은 디지털자산기본법 통과 이후에 할 것을 제안합니다.
제가 발의한 디지털자산기본법으로 스테이킹·렌딩·에어드롭·하드포크의 법적 성격과 투자자 보호, 사업자 책임을 먼저 정비하겠습니다. 해외 거래자료가 실제로 확보되는 시점에 맞춰 과세를 시행하되, 국회와 정부가 과제별 완료 시한과 검증 기준을 함께 제시해 기한 없는 유예가 되지 않도록 하겠습니다.
과세를 피하자는 것이 아닙니다. 제대로 걷자는 것입니다. 준비 기간에도 불공정거래 단속과 투자자 보호는 더 강화하겠습니다.
#민병덕 #디지털자산과세 #디지털자산기본법 #손실이월공제 #CARF #공정과세 #투자자보호
55
83
360
10,303
The official chat keeps price discussion under control.
Meanwhile, $BASED has printed new lows for 5 straight weeks on the Binance chart.
And what’s the team focused on?
No buybacks.
No meaningful support for the token.
Instead, they’re throwing $10K in rewards at short-term campaigns just to pump meaningless metrics.
Is this really how you run a project without getting absolutely roasted by your VC?
$10,000 Reward Pool for Based V3 Users!
To celebrate Based Mobile V3, we’re giving away $10,000 in rewards to users who trade and use the app during launch week.
— Launch window: Sep 14–21
— Download Based V3, trade, swap, and explore to earn your share
Stay Based.
3
549
RT @Official_Upbit: 🚀 업비트 디지털자산 거래지원 신청 플랫폼을 새롭게 오픈했습니다.
이제 거래지원 신청서 작성과 자료 제출부터, 추가 자료 제출 및 검토 과정의 커뮤니케이션까지 하나의 플랫폼에서 편리하게 진행할 수 있습니다.
🔎…
4
1
These are the wallet addresses currently holding 1M+ $BASED after either purchasing or receiving the tokens.
There are likely more wallets that haven't been identified yet, but these are the ones that are publicly visible and traceable so far. I've compiled them in the table below.
The project team may appear to be simply standing by and letting things play out — but what exactly is happening behind the scenes?
I'll keep digging and tracking these wallets.
More to come. 🔍
353
So what exactly is this wallet labeled “Vesting”?
Nearly 19.5M $BASED has already been transferred to the receiving wallet.
Any explanation from the team?
Of course not. At this point, I’d be more surprised if they actually said something.
@BasedOneX
1
319
Bitcoin goes up, this token goes down.
Bitcoin goes down, this token goes down even harder.
Does the team even realize what’s happening to their own token?
$BASED
1
1
2
273
Ethena:
Revenue → ENA buybacks.
Based:
Revenue → “keep building.”
Ethena reduces VC sell pressure, aligns equity with token holders, and creates a direct economic link between ecosystem success and ENA.
Now look at Based's products on public dashboards like DefiLlama or HyperTracker.
Don't highlight a few days of temporary volume and revenue spikes and call it sustainable growth. Look at the long-term numbers.
The same goes for HyENA. Built alongside Ethena, but what does sustained usage and revenue actually look like?
Ethena and Hyperliquid already have deep liquidity and products users will keep using.
Smaller ecosystems don't have that luxury.
If $BASED is your ecosystem token, strengthening it isn't just about making holders happy. A stronger token can attract attention, liquidity, and users back into the ecosystem.
You can't just keep saying “build” and expect token value to magically follow.
And if ecosystem success has no structural path back to $BASED, what exactly are token holders investing in?
I've already seen critical voices removed from official Telegram discussions. Maybe I'll get blocked here too.
Either way, I'll keep raising these questions until the team starts taking token alignment seriously.
@BasedOneX
We are excited to announce four updates regarding the Ethena ecosystem, further details on each point are provided in the blog linked below:
1. Buyout of early investors:
The Ethena Foundation executed a buyout of all locked tokens from certain major seed investors that sold any ENA within the last 9 months.
2. Alignment of Token & Equity:
The Ethena Foundation and Ethena Labs have reached agreement on a Master Framework Agreement, whereby IP and ownership of value accrued by the protocol is assigned to the Foundation exclusively and governed by token holders with no residual cash flow due to equity investors in the Labs entity.
3. Revenue Buybacks:
Governance proposal now live for the implementation of the fee switch whereby net revenue accrued across all business lines under the Ethena brand will be used to programmatically buy back the ENA token.
The vote for revenue buyback fee switch implementation is now here, and has already been approved by the Risk Committee:
snapshot.box/#/s:ethenagover…
4. Removal of monthly VC unlocks:
The Ethena Foundation and lead investors have agreed to eliminate future overhang associated with monthly VC investor unlocks by releasing unvested tokens. All team tokens remain locked per the original vesting schedules.
Further details and documentation is provided in the blog linked below:
1
70
세카르 | Sekhar
The team keeps saying they’re working hard to increase the project’s value. But if nearly every major initiative ends in failure, can that still be called progress?
And when the community repeatedly raises legitimate concerns, avoiding the questions isn’t a solution. Transparency builds trust. Silence only creates more doubt.
$BASED @BasedOneX
2
3
47
Why are tokens being moved from a vesting-labeled wallet to pay out bug bounty rewards?
Isn’t that wallet officially designated as one of the team’s wallets?
If not, could you explain what that wallet actually is and why those funds are being used for bug bounty payments?
If there’s no clarification, I guess this question will be ignored like the others.
I’ll keep tracking these wallets on-chain.
$BASED @BasedOneX
1
51
"You keep asking holders to accept lower staking yields while allocating more incentives to bootstrap new products. If holders earn less every month, when exactly do they start sharing in the value they're helping create?"
$BASED @BasedOneX
1
2
4
418
You seem very responsive to praise, but completely silent when it comes to criticism. Honest feedback only works if you engage with both.
$BASED
2
150
I still don’t understand the value accrual here.
If Based Alpha succeeds and generates significant protocol revenue, why isn’t there a direct mechanism that creates demand for $BASED?
The questions many token holders care about are simple:
• Will protocol revenue be used to buy back $BASED?
• Will any bought-back tokens be burned?
• Will users need to acquire $BASED to pay for any core product or launchpad fees?
A future “fee switch” is not the same thing as value accrual.
Whether rewards are distributed in stablecoins or even in $BASED, that alone doesn’t necessarily create sustained buying pressure for the token.
It also raises another question: how long will it realistically take before protocol revenue is large enough to justify turning the fee switch on?
Building great products is important, but product success doesn’t automatically translate into token value. The link between protocol growth and token demand needs to be much clearer.
1
1
246
@0xfishylosopher @PanteraCapital
What is VC's investment perspective like?
64