Foresight published a Q&A-style column in which the author addressed DMT-NAT, short-term market predictions, and the question of why Uniswap has not returned to its record high.
DMT-NAT: the author said a detailed view was already published in April 2026
The piece said many readers had previously raised DMT-NAT in the comment sections of the author’s articles. According to the author, they had looked at the Bitcoin on-chain asset early, studied it, and bought it as well, but before April 27, 2026 they had rarely responded to those comments and had not shared a full explanation of their view.
The reason, the author wrote, was simple. Many comments came in with blunt conclusions from the start or lifted a few lines from the project’s white paper without offering any personal analysis, research process, or interpretation. In that setting, the author said, it was hard to tell whether the comment was trying to sell the asset or discuss it seriously.
That changed after a reader commented under an article published on April 23, 2026. The author said that reader laid out a detailed understanding of DMT-NAT, with arguments that were unusually specific, clear in their stance, and coherent in their logic. The response stood out enough that the author said they were both surprised and moved by it.
In the author’s account, the reader had not only studied DMT-NAT carefully, but had also read many of the author’s earlier articles and compared the author’s past views with the asset’s characteristics. The author said that, regardless of whether they agreed with every point, that kind of serious and grounded effort deserved a thorough reply. That is why they wrote a separate article on April 27, 2026 explaining their view of DMT-NAT in detail.
The column also said that if readers genuinely want to understand an author’s position on a subject, the minimum work is to read that author’s earlier writing and look for clues there. The author added that they themselves often revisit past statements and books by Satoshi Nakamoto and Vitalik.
On price forecasts: most of the content is described as sentiment-driven
The article then turned to market calls centered on Bitcoin reaching 90,000 and even 100,000 by year-end. The author said they now block almost all news items and posts tied to that type of market forecasting because, in their view, very few of them contain information of real substance or value.
The author’s conclusion was blunt: the main effect of those predictions is to trigger emotion. Instead, the piece argued, investors should return to a more basic question — whether they truly understand the assets they hold, and whether they have formed a value judgment through long-term observation and careful research.
If that work has been done, the author wrote, it becomes harder for market headlines to pull investors around and harder for broad sentiment to interfere with decision-making. The article also said that the people most eager to predict short-term market direction in news reports and interviews are often the same people who buy one day, sell the next, and have their floating losses or gains repeatedly exposed. The author questioned how much value that kind of information can really offer.
Why Uniswap may not get back to $42.5
On Uniswap, the author framed the issue directly: why has it not returned to its historical peak of $42.5?
In the author’s view, market sentiment played a major role in pushing Uniswap to that level, while fundamentals played only a small part. Once that mood faded and attention shifted back to fundamentals, the old peak began to look too high, especially when judged against basic business measures and financial revenue.
The article also widened the comparison to other large DeFi protocols. The author said that among the classic top-tier DeFi names they follow, including AAVE, MakerDAO, and Compound, none has exceeded its previous all-time high so far.
The original piece ended with a risk disclaimer stating that markets carry risk and the article does not constitute investment advice. Readers should decide for themselves whether any opinion, view, or conclusion in the article fits their own circumstances and bear responsibility for any investment decisions made on that basis.
