A7L INSIGHTS

Friend works at Wise (formerly TransferWise). $12B valuation. International money transfer company.
Leaked internal competitive analysis document. Title: "Emerging Threats Assessment Q4 2024"
Section on Plasma:
"@undefined represents EXISTENTIAL THREAT to core remittance business.
Current Wise model:
Average fee: 0.5-1.5% of transfer
Settlement time: 1-3 days
Annual revenue: $1.2B from fees
Plasma model:
Fee: Near-zero (gasless USDT)
Settlement time: Sub-second
Annual revenue: Undetermined but devastating to us
Competitive analysis:
We CANNOT compete with gasless transfers. Our business model requires fees. Plasma's business model works without them.
We CANNOT compete on speed. Our banking rails require days. $XPL settles in milliseconds.
We CANNOT compete on coverage. We have 80 countries. Plasma has global stablecoin reach.
Strategic response options:
Acquire Plasma: Not feasible (decentralized protocol)
Build similar tech: Would cannibalize existing revenue
Price matching: Would destroy margins
FUD campaign: Risky and potentially ineffective
Conclusion: No viable competitive response. If Plasma gains mainstream adoption our remittance business faces 60-80% revenue decline.
Recommendation: Explore pivoting to B2B rails using Plasma infrastructure before disrupted entirely."
EXISTENTIAL THREAT from Wise's own analysis.
When $12B company admits they have no competitive response that's white flag.
@Plasma isn't just better. It's STRUCTURALLY better in way that can't be competed against.
Gasless transfers vs 1% fees = no contest
Sub-second vs 3 days = no contest
Global vs 80 countries = no contest
Wise knows they're being disrupted. Looking at pivoting TO Plasma rather than competing against it.
$700B annual remittance market. Average 6-7% fees = $45B+ in fee extraction.
Plasma enables near-zero fees. That's $45B in consumer savings annually.
Companies like Wise built on extracting those fees. Plasma makes fee extraction obsolete.
When enemy's internal assessment says "no viable competitive response" you've won.
Not financial advice but leaked competitive analyses showing existential threat are pretty clear.
Disruption happening. Incumbents know it.
#Plasma

Attended Y Combinator founder dinner last week. Didn't say much. Just listened.
Topic of conversation: Infrastructure costs killing startups.
What I overheard:
Founder 1: "Our AWS bill hit $95K last month. We're running out of money."
Founder 2: "Same. Migrating to Walrus next week. Friend saved $70K monthly."
Founder 3: "Already on @walrusprotocol. Costs dropped 78%. Extended runway by 14 months."
Founder 4: "What's Walrus?"
10 FOUNDERS explained simultaneously.
Everyone knew about it. Most already migrating or migrated. Few holdouts asking questions.
By end of dinner 17 out of 20 founders committed to Walrus migration within 30 days.
This is WAVE happening real-time at YC.
YC is most important startup accelerator. What happens there predicts mainstream 12-18 months later.
When 85% of YC dinner table is migrating to same infrastructure that's not coincidence. That's consensus forming.
Reasons they cited:
"Unit economics finally work"
"VCs asking if we use Walrus during diligence"
"Actually decentralized not just marketing"
"Saves $50-100K monthly depending on scale"
"Can't get shut down by one company"
EVERY REASON makes sense.
Also heard: "YC partners are quietly recommending Walrus to all portfolio companies now."
When YC institutional guidance says use Walrus that's 1000+ startups getting same advice.
$WAL becoming default infrastructure for YC companies. That's how technologies reach critical mass.
@Walrus 🦭/acc isn't alternative anymore. It's STANDARD for cost-conscious well-advised startups.
Not financial advice but YC founder consensus is leading indicator.
What YC does in 2025 everyone else does in 2026.
Position accordingly.
#Walrus