ChainFeeds publishes its July 29 research digest
ChainFeeds released a new edition of its Daily research roundup, combining a news brief with five longer reads covering crypto venture investing, Ethereum’s 2030 roadmap, the fading of the “crypto utopia” thesis, competition in RWA perpetuals, and volatility tied to South Korean equities.
The opening news list included several items flagged as market highlights: Cash Cat launched the community-driven meme launchpad letscash.fun using a Uniswap v4 Hook design; Trade.xyz said it would fully compensate users affected by the abnormal liquidation event in the Hynix contract; Jump Capital raised a $350 million fund focused on AI startups; Visa planned to cut about 2,600 jobs, or around 7% of its workforce; and Changpeng Zhao said he supports a crypto licensing “passport” system across ASEAN.
Haseeb says some crypto VC opportunities may not come back
The first section drew from comments by Dragonfly managing partner Haseeb Qureshi in a July 15, 2026 interview with MAD Society. According to the ChainFeeds summary, Haseeb discussed crypto venture capital, founder judgment, and longer-term industry trends.
He said that if one measures performance by internal rate of return and profit-and-loss generated per dollar invested, Multicoin Capital founder Kyle Samani may be the strongest investor in the sector. Haseeb described Samani as a genuinely non-consensus investor and said the best venture investors are often contrarian rather than followers of whatever other firms are already backing.
That led into a broader point about how difficult venture investing is in crypto. Haseeb said investors can easily talk themselves into a deal because a16z Crypto or Paradigm is also participating, or because a company is suddenly all over Twitter. In crypto, many deals get funded before product-market fit exists. A new Layer 1 may still be preparing to launch, or Bitcoin Layer 2 may be drawing heavy attention through projects such as Babylon and others in the same category, even before the underlying concepts are proven.
He also raised a longer-range structural question. Even if crypto keeps growing, stablecoins keep growing, Bitcoin keeps growing, and Ethereum keeps growing, by 2030 most of the important companies may already be built and the existing platforms may already be very large. If that happens, the room for new entrants to come in and disrupt them could become limited. Haseeb said he does not know whether that outcome is certain or exactly when it would arrive, but he believes something like it will almost certainly happen at some point because many industries eventually settle into structures shaped by economies of scale and network effects. In his view, crypto has both.
He suggested many crypto venture investors have not thought seriously enough about that possibility and may be assuming that because a style of investing worked in the past, it will continue to work indefinitely. Haseeb also named sectors he thinks could fade. He pointed to projects focused on tokenizing single assets, such as a gold mine or a group of cars, and argued those are closer to products than businesses. Unless the tokenized asset is something much larger, such as U.S. Treasuries or stocks, and the project can scale while solving distribution, he said those efforts are likely to disappear and may already be disappearing.
He compared the pattern to recurring “trap” ideas in traditional venture capital, where founders repeatedly build the same products despite investor warnings. He gave dating apps and co-founder matching platforms as examples of ideas that founders often return to because those are problems they are dealing with in their own lives.
Ethereum’s 2030 roadmap points to faster blocks, Gigagas L1 and native privacy
The second piece summarized an English-language thread on Ethereum’s 2030 roadmap. The write-up said the 2026 Strawmap made the vision more concrete: speed up Layer 1, raise mainnet throughput by roughly 200x, sharply expand Layer 2 data capacity, move toward post-quantum security, and add native privacy at the L1 level.
According to the summary of Rejamong’s argument, the roadmap revolves around five “north stars.”
- Fast L1: final confirmation would shrink from roughly 15 minutes today to a matter of seconds, while block time would fall from 12 seconds to 4 seconds. Lean Consensus would use zero-knowledge proofs to compress the votes of hundreds of thousands of validators so all validators can vote on every block and finality can be reached in a single round. The minimum stake to run a validator is also planned to drop from 32 ETH to 1 ETH.
- Gigagas L1: an L1 zkEVM would replace the current model in which all nodes repeatedly execute every transaction. Mainnet throughput would rise from around 5 million gas per second today to 1 billion gas per second, or about 200x.
- Teragas L2: Ethereum would continue increasing blob data capacity, with an eventual target of 1 GB per second to support large numbers of rollups.
- Post-quantum L1: existing ECDSA and BLS signatures would gradually migrate to hash-based cryptography designed to resist quantum attacks.
- Private L1: zero-knowledge proofs would hide the sender, recipient, and amount while still proving the transaction is valid, turning privacy into a native L1 capability.
The Gigagas L1 concept rests on changing the long-standing “re-execution” model of blockchain verification. Under the current approach, when a new block is produced, nodes across the network re-run every transaction in that block to check the result. The article compared this to a classroom where every student re-solves the same problem after one student has already finished it. That preserves decentralization, but it is also a direct limit on scaling because throughput must remain low enough for ordinary people to run nodes.
Zero-knowledge proofs are meant to break that tradeoff. In the model described by the article, the block producer would submit a mathematical proof showing that all transactions in the block were executed correctly. Other nodes would only need to verify the proof rather than recompute everything. The report said proof verification could be lightweight enough to run on a phone.
Under the Strawmap, Ethereum is expected to enter a “mandatory proof” phase around 2028 to 2029. After that, the verification burden would no longer grow together with the number of transactions inside a block. That would provide the basis for a sustained increase in the gas limit, with the long-term objective of reaching 1 billion gas per second on L1. For users, the article said this could mean wallets eventually validating the full chain directly in a browser or on a phone instead of trusting external RPC providers.
The same roadmap also sharpens the division of labor between L1 and L2. Ethereum would not try to compete with high-performance chains such as Solana simply by pushing raw L1 throughput. Instead, it would increasingly act as the base layer for final settlement, security, and verification, while applications that need much higher performance would connect through their own L2s. The article cited Robinhood Chain, an Ethereum L2 for tokenized stocks, as one example of an application-specific setup that keeps Ethereum security while handling regulatory compliance on a separate chain.
On data availability, the piece said the Fusaka upgrade introduces PeerDAS, allowing each node to verify only part of the blob data and laying the groundwork for a large increase in L2 data capacity. Strawmap’s end target is 1 GB per second. At the same time, Ethereum plans to write quantum resistance and privacy directly into L1 by replacing ECDSA and BLS with hash-based cryptography over time and using Shielded Transfer to hide counterparties and amounts while proving rule compliance through ZK proofs.
After the “crypto utopia,” what is left?
The third article summarized an English-language essay by Matti. The piece argued that crypto is still changing how value is stored and transferred, but is also becoming a business that increasingly operates under the rules of the existing financial system.
Matti wrote that more people now see crypto as a “pressure valve for excess liquidity,” and that many are leaving because the economic returns available today are far below the expectations built over the last decade. In that framing, the current bear market marks the end of an era. The author said the sector needs to ask what, exactly, it is mourning.
Looking back, the essay said 2021 turned out to be a mirage. Using the Gartner hype cycle as an analogy, crypto in 2021 sat at the peak of inflated expectations, while today the sector is reaching a clearer moment of recognition. That shift forces the industry back to first principles: rethink the role of tokens, harden DeFi protocols, and search for use cases that generate real value.
The piece argued that since the early validation waves of 2017 and 2021, crypto slipped into a “hammer looking for nails” mentality. Excess capital turned the sector into a solution in search of a problem. Early token liquidity was the foundation of that financial mania, and overuse of the mechanism later helped end the period.
The essay said crypto’s central challenge has never really changed: it is trying to rebuild finance from scratch. That is not a simple task and inevitably requires iteration, failure, and repeated collisions with reality. In that sense, the sector is now back at the drawing board. Even so, the author argued that the previous years were not worthless. Asymmetric investment opportunities still exist, and individuals still have room to shape what comes next. The bigger risk is throwing away the valuable pieces out of disappointment.
The article also said the sector was once promised a $100 trillion future and ended up with 200 DATs. Crypto had been packaged as a revolution: a new asset class, a market still in formation, and one rapidly flooded with more capital than it could productively absorb. That frenzy peaked in 2021, and what followed was a long clearing process dominated by short-term speculation. The industry is now in a new stage: consolidation.
Matti concluded that crypto has given up its earlier utopian vision. The revolution did not happen. Instead, the sector was absorbed by the existing system, or, from another ideological angle, corrupted by it. Compromise became the only credible path away from the casino-like market structure that formed after 2021. Crypto is no longer a true frontier in the same sense; it is becoming a business. The article said new projects are now mostly concentrated in five areas: stablecoins, prediction markets, tokenization and RWA, perpetuals, and AI plus agents. Apart from stablecoins, the sector is still searching for the next killer application within what regulation allows, but the author said meaningful companies and strong founders can still emerge in the years ahead.
trade.xyz’s growing weight inside Hyperliquid’s RWA market
The fourth item looked at whether trade.xyz has become Hyperliquid’s biggest challenger in RWA-linked perpetuals. Foresight News, citing a July 24 post from ARK Invest head of crypto research Lorenzo Valente, said Hyperliquid saw RWA trading account for more than crypto asset trading for the first time in one week, reaching 54% of total volume.
Total weekly volume on Hyperliquid was about $50 billion, and RWA trading under HIP-3 contributed $26 billion, more than all other DEX crypto perpetual volume combined over the same period. Since June, single-stock perpetuals have also overtaken indices and commodities and now represent 61% of RWA volume.
Lorenzo said he is no longer sure RWA trading will naturally aggregate in the same venue as crypto assets and suggested the category may produce its own standalone leader. Two days later, investor @0xCryptoSam pushed the question further: if trade.xyz left Hyperliquid and launched its own exchange, where would traders go for RWA perpetuals, and if trade.xyz issued equity or a token, how would that change the valuation logic for HYPE? The article said he claimed confidence in the direction of those answers but admitted uncertainty about the probability of such an outcome, adding that the point was not to diminish either side but to state a fact: trade.xyz now has increasing leverage over Hyperliquid.
The report stressed that trade.xyz is not an independent chain and does not run its own matching engine. It is the first, and currently dominant, deployer using Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 framework. That framework, launched around October 2025, allows independent teams to deploy perpetual markets on top of Hyperliquid’s infrastructure. trade.xyz decides what assets to list, which oracle to use, and how leverage caps and risk parameters are set, while matching, liquidation, margin calculation, and on-chain settlement are all handled by Hyperliquid’s HyperCore.
Users can post USDC as collateral and trade 24/7 perpetuals tied to stocks, indices, commodities, foreign exchange, and pre-IPO assets. The article noted that trade.xyz’s own documentation makes clear that all of its markets run on Hyperliquid and that trade.xyz is only one interface, not the exclusive gateway. Since becoming the first HIP-3 deployer in October 2025, it has expanded the number of markets to nearly 100.
The core dispute, the article said, is not whether trade.xyz will leave right now but whether the balance of power has already shifted. The argument for a possible move centers on concentration: if one deployer all but dominates a fast-growing RWA perpetual segment and that segment has already overtaken crypto-native volume, then that deployer naturally gains bargaining power. The opposing view focuses on structure and incentives. trade.xyz’s main moat today, including user access, liquidity networks, market-maker relationships, and cross-margin composability, is deeply embedded in the Hyperliquid ecosystem. Leaving would require rebuilding the matching layer, depth, and user positioning from scratch.
The piece said a full breakaway appears less likely for now, while a gradual divergence of interests looks more plausible. It added that trade.xyz would not need to leave Hyperliquid entirely to weaken Hyperliquid’s exclusivity premium. If it deployed the same front end and risk engine on derivatives protocols built on Monad or Solana and diverted even 20% of flow, that premium could be broken.
Korean equity stress spills into the SK Hynix-linked perpetual market
The fifth piece, sourced to PANews, examined South Korea’s difficult summer in equities and a sudden drop in the SKHX perpetual contract on Hyperliquid.
The article said the biggest force behind Korea’s stock-market rise had been the AI boom, and the market is now dealing with the backlash from cooling AI expectations. Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix were singled out as the main drags. At one point, the two semiconductor companies together accounted for more than 60% of the KOSPI index weighting, helping drive Korea into the ranks of the world’s strongest equity markets while also making it more fragile through concentration.
Over the past month, Samsung Electronics fell about 31.2%, while SK Hynix dropped more than 14.8%. SK Hynix’s ADR also fell below its issue price less than a month after listing. The article framed the situation as Korea being lifted by semiconductors and then hurt by semiconductors.
According to HyperInsight monitoring cited by the report, the SKHX perpetual on Hyperliquid plunged from $1,128.2 to $927 at 7:00 a.m. Beijing time, a drop of 17.9% in a short period that triggered heavy liquidations of leveraged long positions. Open interest in notional terms fell from about $508 million to $388 million, and long liquidations over four hours approached $80 million, exceeding Binance over the same period.
The direct trigger, the report said, was an abnormal order worth only about $867 on Korea’s NXT premarket. Because premarket liquidity was thin, that small trade, though compliant with market rules, became a meaningful external price input and was picked up by the Trade.XYZ oracle system. Hyperliquid’s mark price for the SK Hynix perpetual then adjusted in line with that signal. In a highly leveraged derivatives market, even a brief mark-price distortion can trigger large-scale liquidations. Once long positions began closing by force, selling pressure intensified and a chain reaction followed. The article explicitly said the event was not market manipulation but a butterfly effect created by low liquidity, external price-input mechanics, and leverage.
Korean retail investors’ long-standing use of leverage was identified as another amplifier. Official Korean data cited in the article showed that by July 13, forced liquidations in July had reached KRW 344.2 billion. More than 1.2 million leveraged retail accounts had hit margin-call thresholds, and about 320,000 to 360,000 of them had already been forcibly liquidated by brokers. Some investors were left owing money to their brokerages.
Regulators have begun tightening the rules around single-stock leveraged products. Under new rules cited by the article, starting July 31, 2026, the basic initial margin threshold for ordinary retail investors will rise from KRW 10 million to KRW 30 million, while margin-calculation rules will also be refined to reduce the market impact of leveraged momentum trading by retail participants.
The piece also said foreign capital has accelerated its exit as Korean equities have turned more volatile. A recent Korea strategy report from JPMorgan said net foreign outflows from South Korean equities had exceeded $110 billion this year, the largest outflow ever recorded for a single Asian market, with about 90% concentrated in Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix. Over the period from the 1st to the 27th of the month, Korean domestic investors bought nearly $3.59 billion of U.S. stocks on a net basis, about 5.5 times the net buying recorded in all of June.
The Daily research digest was presented by ChainFeeds as a mix of editorial selection and AI-assisted curation, with links back to its chainfeeds.me research brief product.
