reintroducing zerith studio. an AI native product studio turning your ideas into products.

the stablecoin thesis gets much more interesting once you stop looking at stablecoins purely as payment rails. stablecoins put dollars onchain, but tokenized treasuries are beginning to put something arguably more important onchain: the risk-free rate. crypto historically hasn’t had a particularly clean reference price for capital. a protocol offering 8% and another offering 12% could reflect some combination of leverage demand, token incentives, liquidity risk, smart contract risk and temporary market conditions. “yield” existed everywhere, but there wasn’t always a coherent baseline underneath it. once capital can move between idle stablecoins, tokenized treasuries earning something close to the short-term government rate, lending markets, fixed-rate products and progressively riskier credit, that changes. DeFi starts developing an actual term and risk structure for dollar capital. if an onchain treasury yields 4%, lending at 4.5% against meaningfully riskier collateral suddenly has to justify that extra 50bps. an LP position has to compensate you for inventory and smart contract risk relative to simply holding treasuries. liquidity incentives stop being “8% APY” in isolation and start being decomposable into the baseline return on capital + compensation for the risks you’re taking. the second-order effect is that idle liquidity itself becomes expensive. protocols increasingly have an incentive to make yield-bearing assets usable directly as collateral, liquidity and settlement assets rather than forcing capital to become unproductive every time it moves through the system. stablecoins may end up owning transaction settlement while tokenized treasuries and other yield-bearing assets increasingly own capital storage, with DeFi sitting above both and pricing liquidity, duration and credit risk. stablecoins put the dollar onchain. tokenized treasuries put the price of money onchain. the latter might end up changing DeFi market structure even more than the former.

today, we’re finally 4 months into the game. 1st june → 1st october. a lot of emotion attached to these 4 months with the team at @zerithstudio personally, the growth has been insane. individuality, processing, conversations with leads, creative intent, and the sheer zeal to bring the best to the table. on the internet, i might just be another 19 year old creative making videos for founders. but personally, i’m deeply connected with the people, the growth, the numbers, the clients, and this emotionally-driven chase for success with my mentor @cbajpai7 for me, it’s about having an insane creative edge multiplied by skilful engineering founders who give me the opportunity, leverage and liberty to create. if you wanna win, win alone. if you wanna win bigger, win together. that’s exactly what i see happening at zerith. be selfless. give everything you have. take the risk to optimise for a future you never anticipated.

please focus on playing long term games with long term people. i remember the day we had to shoot the launch video for @zerithstudio i had my end semester exam the next day, @cbajpai7 returned to home after a week long trip completely exhausted and tired from the drive. the next morning we set out our studio, called the camera guy, directed the script and shot the entire launch video within a few hours of compatibility. 4 days later. our launch video shook the internet. we went viral. got inbound interaction with folks, connections and turned a few solid conversations into clients. all i could say after a total period of 4 months to this launch is that you gotta show some conviction when you're in a period of drought. play with a long term vision. a flood of opportunities might also be waiting for you.

after building a service business in tech. we learned that understanding people, incentives and trust makes a business a lot more scalable. watch this.

one of crypto’s strongest ideas is atomicity: a transaction either completes entirely or reverts. that property is incredible for swaps, liquidations and settlement because it removes entire classes of counterparty and settlement risk. but somewhere along the way, we started treating atomic execution as though it were the ideal architecture for every financial interaction. i don’t think it is. real financial markets routinely separate decision, execution, clearing and settlement. a large order can be worked over time, routed across venues, partially filled, netted against other obligations and settled later. it sounds less elegant than a single atomic transaction, but it gives the system something extremely valuable: time and flexibility to find liquidity. this becomes particularly important when liquidity is fragmented across chains, pools, order books and market makers. atomic execution doesn’t cause that fragmentation, but it makes fragmented liquidity harder to coordinate because all the state and liquidity required for an operation often needs to exist simultaneously. we’ve built increasingly sophisticated aggregators, solvers, routers and flash-liquidity mechanisms to make that coordination possible. intents are interesting through this lens. their biggest contribution may not ultimately be “users say what they want instead of constructing transactions.” it may be allowing execution itself to become asynchronous. instead of submitting “swap 500 ETH for USDC right now,” a user could authorize something closer to an execution mandate: sell 500 ETH, receive at least X USDC, complete within 20 minutes, use only these venues, never exceed Y slippage or Z intermediate exposure. now the trade doesn’t have to be a transaction. it can be a persistent state machine. orders can be partially filled. liquidity can be sourced when it appears. compatible flows can be netted. execution can survive failures. individual legs can be retried or compensated. the system can move through intermediate states while remaining inside the boundaries the user authorized. that starts looking much closer to how sophisticated execution works in traditional markets, except the mandate itself can be cryptographically constrained and final settlement can still happen onchain. trust minimization moves from “every operation must happen simultaneously” toward “the executor can do whatever is necessary as long as it provably stays inside my authorized state space.” and this becomes much more important as DeFi moves beyond simple swaps into cross-chain trades, basis strategies, structured products, prediction-market hedges and portfolio rebalancing. buying spot on one venue while opening a perp hedge somewhere else isn’t really a transaction. it’s a financial process with intermediate states. pretending otherwise just pushes that complexity into routers, bridges and executors. DeFi has already started abstracting transactions into intents. i think the bigger transition will be abstracting intents into persistent execution mandates. atomic settlement is one of crypto’s superpowers. atomic execution doesn’t have to be. don’t put the entire trade onchain. put the rules of the trade onchain.

twitter is becoming less of a social network and more of a high-density graph of founders, capital, operators, talent and decision-makers. we’ve started treating it as an infrastructure layer for zerith not just a place to publish content since we're a service based startup. every project gives us new technical knowledge, every client interaction expands the relationship graph, and every piece of research, technical article or build becomes a public proof-of-work that compounds distribution. some clients come inbound, some come through warm introductions, and some come from us initiating the relationship ourselves. the interesting part is that content and consulting reinforce each other: distribution creates conversations, conversations create relationships, relationships create opportunities, and the work itself generates more knowledge to distribute. we’re building across domains while documenting the process in public.

prediction markets being reduced to “betting apps” is probably the least interesting way to understand them. at their core, they’re markets for pricing uncertainty. spot markets price assets, derivatives price exposure to future prices, volatility, rates and credit, while prediction markets let you price exposure to specific future states of the world. the underlying financial concept isn’t new either. state-contingent claims are a very real thing in financial markets: securities whose payoff depends on a particular state occurring. prediction markets just make that primitive extremely intuitive. a contract trades somewhere between $0 and $1 and settles at $1 if a defined outcome occurs and $0 otherwise. that’s also why i think calling them “truth engines” slightly misses the point. they’re closer to expectation oracles. a contract trading at 63¢ doesn’t mean reality has declared something 63% likely; it means that, given the information, models, positioning, incentives and capital of everyone willing to trade, the market currently clears at a price implying roughly that probability. as new information arrives, that expectation gets repriced continuously. and their utility doesn’t stop at speculation. prediction markets can become instruments for actually managing risk. if you own an asset whose value is exposed to a regulatory decision, macro event, election outcome or commodity threshold, you can potentially take the opposite side of that state through a prediction contract without necessarily removing your underlying exposure. traders can use these markets to hedge event risk, use their implied probabilities as signals for positions elsewhere, or trade discrepancies between what prediction markets imply and what spot, futures, options or rates markets appear to be pricing. i think that financial use case is where the much larger unlock eventually sits. getting there requires deeper liquidity, better market structure, reliable settlement and infrastructure designed around traders managing exposure rather than users browsing things to bet on. but once those pieces exist, prediction markets can start moving from a product people occasionally speculate on to financial infrastructure people actually use. that’s the much more interesting framing to me. the question isn’t “what else can we let people bet on?” it’s “what kinds of uncertainty can we make priceable, tradeable and hedgeable?” once you look at prediction markets as markets for state-contingent claims and continuously updating expectations, they start looking a lot less like sportsbooks and a lot more like another layer of financial market infrastructure.

you cannot build the future by averaging yourself against the present.

here's a raw clip from the podcast i shot with @cbajpai7 on 31st of january, 2026. we had no idea what 2026 would become when we recorded this. you can just do things, and we exactly did them. numbers, money, distribution and opportunities with good deeds and intentions.

I was on a call today with a person building stablecoin payments on Solana, and I ended up giving him this advice. He wanted feedback on his infra and the product. My answer to most of it was some version of "don't build that yet". - You don't need to host all that infrastructure bare metal on your own end right now, lean on API providers and put the time into the core product - Ship a focused version instead of sitting on features - Start getting users, and start reaching out to people who are willing to take a bet on you - Take social media seriously, people stick with products they're emotionally invested in, and that comes from having a storyline around what you're building Building has gotten a lot easier in the last year or two with Claude and everything. Distribution is where the game is now, whether that comes from content, your personal reach or the product itself getting big. The reason I kept pushing this is that I know the other side of it pretty well. I can keep building projects forever. But if I never put it out there nobody uses it, if nobody uses it it never gets battle-tested, and if it never gets battle-tested I have no metric or proof of anything. It just stays a side project. That's a big part of why Zerith Studio runs a consultancy alongside a product studio, and why Proof of Profit only started feeling like a real product once people were actually paying for it during the FIFA World Cup. So, what's the one thing you've been building for too long without putting it out?

start working on that damn dream. at zerith studio we went from 0 to 1. and now we're somewhere significant. the next step is to go from 1 to 100.

Giving everyone an AI coding assistant doesn’t make a company AI-native. We think the bar should be considerably higher. @zerithstudio

Zerith Studio but from iPhone Duo's POV.

founder diaries episode 4 the wins, the lessons and the clients we've been working with. last fortnight has been an absolute movie for each individual working in this company.

zerith studio : from an idea to 3 months stronger. you can just do things and always remember. first it's gradual. then it happens, all at once.