Hunter Dilba

Bitmine Immersion Technologies’ growing Ethereum (ETH) treasury is increasingly focused on staking yield, with on-chain activity now indicating that its staked Ether could generate significant annual revenue — potentially around $160 million per year at current network rates.

Expanding ETH Holdings and Staking Position

Bitmine, one of the largest publicly traded crypto treasury firms led by Tom Lee, has continued to expand its ETH holdings and actively stake a portion of its position on Ethereum’s proof-of-stake network. Recent data shows:

Bitmine’s total ETH holdings are now around 4.24 million ETH, or roughly 3.5% of Ethereum’s circulating supply.

Of that, approximately 2.01 million ETH is currently actively staked, generating yield through the network’s consensus mechanism.

Staking ETH involves locking tokens to support Ethereum’s security and transaction validation, in return for rewards paid in ETH — similar to earning interest.

Annual Revenue Potential from Staking

Based on the Composite Ethereum Staking Rate (CESR) — a benchmark rate of annualized ETH staking rewards — Bitmine’s current staked ETH position translates to roughly $160 million in annual revenue at current Ethereum prices and yield rates.

That estimate reflects only the portion already staked. According to company commentary, if Bitmine were to stake its entire ETH treasury through its planned validator infrastructure — known as the Made in America Validator Network (MAVAN) — annual staking rewards could exceed $370 million, or more than $1 million per day.

This would mark a transition from simply holding a large ETH balance to generating predictable yield through active participation in network consensus.

Strategic Shift Toward Staking Yield

Bitmine’s pivot toward staking reflects a broader trend in the crypto space, where institutional players increasingly seek to monetize large crypto treasuries rather than holding assets passively. By staking, treasury operators can:

✅ Earn recurring rewards based on ETH supply dynamics
✅ Support network security and decentralization
✅ Convert a static asset into a yield-generating income stream

Bitmine’s goal of acquiring 5% of Ethereum’s circulating supply — known internally as the “Alchemy of 5%” target — amplifies the potential scale of this revenue if fully realized.

Industry Context

Ethereum’s staking ecosystem has been growing rapidly, with total staked ETH above historic thresholds as institutional participation increases. This trend reflects confidence in proof-of-stake economics and long-term network fundamentals.

For Bitmine, staking income complements its broader treasury strategy, which also includes holdings of Bitcoin and other digital assets alongside ETH.

Final Thought

Bitmine’s shift from passive ETH accumulation to active yield generation positions it as a key institutional actor within Ethereum’s staking economy. With annualized staking revenue potential now in the hundreds of millions of dollars, this approach illustrates how large treasuries can harness protocol native economics to create sustainable income streams — a model that could influence future institutional capital flows into PoS networks.

I did not come to Plasma from ideology. I came from settlement.
The steady movement of stablecoins across chains shows that most blockchains view money as just another asset. Transfers may be quick and even customizable and expressive, but they do not achieve the finality that financial systems require. Everything shifts, but nothing truly settles. The system is always provisional.
Unlike other blockchains, Plasma does not optimize for motion but for closure.
That subtle difference changes everything, including the architecture.
Most blockchains begin with smart contracts and add money later. Plasma does the opposite. It does not treat stablecoins as applications but as a base layer.
Watching this choice reframe the entire system. In this ecosystem, stablecoins are not a use case; they are the fundamental design principle. Everything from execution to fees, block design and throughput is made subservient to the questions: how do you transfer, net, and settle dollar-denominated value at scale with no ambiguity?
This is not an ideological stance but a financial one.
Plasma presumes a world in which stablecoins have already triumphed: a world where the dollar is more frequently present in on-chain transactions than volatile assets, and where users prioritize reliability over experimentation.

Settlement Is Not The Same As Speed
Many chains confuse settlement with speed, but not Plasma.
Settlement refers to the rules that your balance is now real and cannot be changed. In fintech, this is usually slow, while in crypto, this is usually fast, but there's often a catch.
Plasma's typical priority is a different. With fewer degrees of freedom, edge cases, or surprises. There are fewer paths for execution, and also less complexity.
When Plasma is running, it interacts more like an application platform than an application platform.

Why General-Purpose Chains Struggle Here
General purpose blockchains are great at being flexible. This is especially true when the core payload is currency.
Once more via decisive clarity, stablecoins also seem to suggest, on the whole, that flexibility is not a strength. Yes, on the whole, stablecoins seem to suggest that balance invariance is a virtue.
Internalizing that lesson, or in this case, that complexity seems to be Plasma's strength.
When scope is limited, with it goes risk. With reduced risk, trust is earned and with more trust comes the acceptance of more complex entities like payment processors, treasuries, and eventually, government.

It is not about decentralization maximalism. It is about operational reliability.

The Economics of Boredom
Operating on Plasma feels boring on purpose.
You can always expect fees and throughput. There is no extreme volatility in anything. It is more boring than most things. It appears boring, but it actually serves a purpose.
Surprise in financial infrastructure is unintended and should always be avoided.
Plasma is economically designed in a way that just about every user values and consistently provides operational correctness. There is no experimentation. Validators don’t have any cultural values; they just calculate. Users don’t have any cultural values; they just make financial transactions.
Plasma is not a place that expects to be loved. It is a place that is trusted.

Where Plasma Quietly Fits in the Stack
Plasma values application chains. It does not compete with them.
Most of the advanced and creative things like complex logic and irreversibility of contracts take place on other chains--not on Plasma. Other chains rely on Plasma to do the things that value expression.
Plasma can be viewed and relied on as a central digital utility. It is not a market, it is not a bank, but it is a settlement layer that many systems can depend on without needing to integrate their identities.
When you see systems fail without it, it is easy to underestimate how valuable this is.
The Fluidity of Time as a Design Principle
What Plasma optimizes for is not user excitement, but temporal consistency.
Balances today must mean the same thing tomorrow. Transfers must remain interpret-able years later. Stablecoins must not inherit the complexity of the systems that routed them.
This long-view design choice becomes more important as on-chain finance matures. The more value moves through crypto, the less tolerance there is for ambiguity, forks, or “social recovery” narratives.
Plasma seems to understand this future and build for it quietly.

Conclusion: A Chain That Knows Its Role
Plasma does not promise to change the world. It promises to close the books correctly.
It is not a playground. It is not a laboratory. It is not a cultural layer. It is a system that assumes the experiment is over and the work has begun.
Plasma is not the future of finance. Its power lies in its restraint. Most other systems chase novelty, and in the pursuit, money becomes a form of art instead of a vital tool for exchanging value.
Where the world is increasingly depending on stablecoins to facilitate value transfer, ensuring that system treats money as a tool, not art is a vital act of design.

@Plasma #Plasma $XPL

The first thing I experienced with Vanar Chain was not a headline metric or a not-so-clever marketing gimmick. What stood out to me first was the lack of urgency to build a solution around speed. Most ecosystems tend to focus on incremental advancements in throughput or lowering latency. With Vanar, I felt they were trying to solve a different problem. Most of their focus was on architecture and not transaction speed. Instead it looked like they were trying to determine whether intelligent systems could remain coherent over time. That difference could mean a lot, especially with most of the on-chain participants looking to become most the systems and less the people.
Blockchains I have interfaced with, have been engineered to assume deliberate movements. A user authorizes a transaction, a smart contract triggers, value transfers, and then the system goes back to being a dead tree until a human decides to intervene again. That whole system is built around pauses. Vanar operates on a different wavelength. Its design demonstrates a state of being where activity is the only option. Something that is only much less apparent with a focus on another mechanic with the absence of constraints. Stateless execution, episodic settlement, and human-centric wallets are starting to look less like the system not having constraints and more like the system having constraints.

What is most notable in Vanar is how it handles memory. In most networks, memory is tied to external systems because of how it is designed. A confusing lineup of databases, off-chain storage layers, indexers, and oracles are patched together to create a semblance of persistence. These systems do work, but they come with fragmentation and trust assumptions that smart systems must work to avoid. Vanar handles memory differently. The architecture of Vanar is designed with the understanding that the users will need to remember things. The users will be able to recall the context of a memory, reference what has come before, and reason through the present, and future, without relying on fragile external systems. This design choice is called for because systems designed without a memory are brittle. These design choices change the games of how we view a network. The focus is not about what performance the network can achieve in the moment, it is about what the network can achieve over time.
Reasoning is the next layer that enhances the network. In most Ai-blockchain systems, reasoning is done off-chain and is closed off to inspection. Actions and decisions are made and the outputs are sent. The trust is placed in models and infrastructure that cannot be scrutinized. In contrast, Vanar has designed the infrastructure of the network around the assumption that reasoning itself must be visible.Verifiability on-chain is a practical necessity, as systems must demonstrate the ability to reason to survive framed by the adversarial, the regulated, or the economically critical. Witnessing the way Vanar embeds reason into its execution model feels like it is constructing a network for watching, rather than for 'on-chain' integration.
From this foundation, automation is an obvious addition. In this instance, it is more than just a feature; it is more like a necessity. Agents do not lag in waiting for manual execution; they run autonomously. Vanar’s automation primitives seem to be built to this end. They prioritize safety, composability and persistence, over one-off triggers or brittle scripts. This is important, as unencumbered automated execution becomes dangerous and increases overall systemic risk. The view is that Vanar is not seeking to promote automation for the sake of propelling innovation, but to make it more predictable and, as a consequence, more trustworthy in large, systemic use.
Finally, settlement finishes the overall picture Vanar is painting. Most traditional use of a blockchain settlement is episodic. It is traditionally a case of 'do, balance, act, and move on.' However, in an agent-driven ecosystem, settlement is a case of 'do, balance, act' and repeat, without end.

Value flows more like a loop where decisions get made rather than something that happens in a final step of a process. Vanar, for example, engages with payments as something that has to be integrated as primary infrastructure rather than a user-facing feature that is superimposed onto the network. This explains the more subtle embedded belief in the system as the design choice, which is that the network expects that sophisticated, intelligent, autonomous agents will interact economically rather than recommend actions for a person to take.
One of the more subtle aspects of Vanar is its approach to isolation. The network does not seem to believe it can be a closed world. The nature of artificial intelligence is that it is cross-domain, meaning it consumes data from different domains, interacts with available liquidity, and executes in the most optimal conditions. When you place walls around a system, you hinder its intelligence. Vanar’s cross-chain focus shows recognition of the fact that, in an AI-based system, worth is derived from being inter-operable as opposed to being self-contained. In contrast to most, Vanar seems to have recognized that a functioning network really has the ability to evolve systems with the genuine systems and not with the isolated systems.
$VANRY tokens have a well-defined purpose. Importantly, the tokens do not promise a speculative future gain. Instead, the tokens are used for coordination and settlement. There are many processes that involve the token, including flowing through memory, reasoning, automation, and payments. The usage of Vanar Tokens is tied to activity instead of attention. This is a significant departure from the rest of the market that relies on speculative narratives for the valuation of a product. There is a great deal of promise in the token, and there is no other token like Vanar Tokens in the entirety of the market.
From a distance, Vanar Chain offers the promise of being the first real infrastructure of an intelligence-native economy. Vanar Chain has the potential to lead the market to an economy less reliant on performance and more on coherence to achieve a desired outcome. The market is beginning to realize that the future will not be reliant on means of production but the intelligent actors that are supported. In this respect, Vanar Chain is leading the market by being patient. The other market players will soon realize the patience Vanar Chain has practiced.

@Vanarchain #vanar $VANRY

I didn’t see Walrus as a product. I saw it as a pattern.
To begin with, it seemed indirect—through apps that manifested atypical. NFTs that didn’t shatter when hosting services altered. AI datasets that flowed immovable, frictionless, and unproven. On-chain systems that tethered large outputs and disregarded external liability. There seemed to be some intellect that sat underneath and held these structures together.
Following that trace, I got to Walrus.
What surprised me known most it’s not the price, it’s the value. Walrus does not frame themselves as a products. It’s more of an ecosystem. One that assumes the data, as applications, will outlive the trends and the chains themselves. That assumption, not externally visible, fundamentally reorients all built on top of it.
Data as a Long-Term Commitment
Most systems treat data as just another thing. You store it somewhere, reference it loosely, and hope to survive the link. In practice, this has made Web3 brittle. Applications decay not because logic fails, but because the data they depend on disappear, mutates, or become unverifiable.
Walrus treats data as an asset.
By breaking data into pieces, encoding it, and distributing it to an incentive-aligned network, it assumes information deserves the same amount of durability as capital. Storage is not cheap because there is a promise of being permanently stored. It is permanently stored because the system is constantly paying for it.
With this in mind, it is obvious Walrus is not about the amount of data it can hold, but rather about how long it can hold data. It is made for a world where data has to be accessible for a long time, and the original creator is no longer around to provide it.
A Substrate, Not a Service
Services compete against each other. Substrates last longer.
Walrus does not attempt to be different by offering user-facing features. It differentiates in how little it asks from applications. Developers can operate with little trust, users can trust the platforms, and the network itself. Walrus ensures availability, integrity, and accountability.
This is important because Web3 is progressing towards a more complex system with flooring dependencies. AI requires datasets with clear and provable history. Digital identity systems need immutable records. Decentralized systems need assets that cannot be changed when incentives shift.
Walrus positions itself beneath this complexity. It is not a marketplace; it is ground truth infrastructure.

Economic Gravity Without Spectacle
The WAL token does not try to tell a story about a potential future. It enforces one.
Incentives are structured for uptime, correctness, and continuity. Validators are rewarded for consistency, not volume. Stakers do not speculate on attention, they back stability. Governance is slow and careful, knowing that a system on top of a storage infrastructure cannot sustain volatility disguised as innovation.
When looking at this system, its economics feel less like crypto and more like the funding of a public infrastructure, expressed as programmable logic. A set of roads does not need to be marketed. A set of power lines does not chase narratives. They endure because they are paid to endure.
Walrus adopts that philosophy unapologetically.
Where AI and Decentralization Quietly Converge
The more intriguing aspect of Walrus is visible when AI-native workflows are examined in conjunction with Walrus.

Datasets on Walrus store availability and integrity proofs. These can be referenced on-chain, programmatically monetized, and audited, earning new formats of AI coordination over time where models can be trained on data proven to be persistent and economically safe.
This is not a feature to put in a headline. This is a value of the system that, when looking ahead a sufficiently long timeframe, will be apparent.
Commercial Persistence
What Walrus ultimately optimizes for is the persistence, not just of data, but of meaning.
In decentralized systems, meaning is eroded when records disappear, links break, or contexts are lost. Walrus is one of the few systems where the persistence of meaning is treated as a moral constraint. If something is referenced, it must be available. If it is available, it must be persistent. If it is persistent, it can be verifiable, and if it is verifiable, it can be trusted over time.
This creates a strong feedback loop where the applications on Walrus are built with a long-term mindset because the infrastructure anticipates long-term scrutiny.
Few systems attempt to do this and even fewer do this as a deliberate goal.

The Calm Foresight It Provides
In this case Walrus, provides an option to not focus on al one direction.
This includes futures such as:
knowledge systems which are permanently unmodifyable,
systems of identity that contain information that cannot be changed.
digital environments whose records are never lost,
AI ecosystems that can clarify when and what it was trained on.
None of these possibilities need Walrus to capture attention. They need it to be consistent, unexciting, and unimaginative.
In the case of Walrus, this is possibly its greatest positive aspect.
Conclusion: Systems That Do Not Vanish
Most crypto systems are built for events, whereas Walrus is built for what comes after.
After the launch.
After the hype.
After the creators leave.
After the applications are upgraded.
After the ecosystem alters its direction.
After the data loses its relevance.
Considering Walrus from this viewpoint, it is apparent that its primary merit is not the most recent tech. It is the most recent alignment with waiting periods. It doesn't demand trust. It builds itself to be present when trust is required.
In an industry obsessed with velocity, that lack of trust is the most significant concern with Walrus.

@Walrus 🦭/acc #walrus $WAL

For a long time, crypto enthusiasts believed that real-world assets would someday be tokenized through the same general-purpose blockchains that power the majority of decentralized finance (DeFi) applications today. It felt logical; the infrastructure that powered the blockchain protocols was layered with services that gave enhanced abilities for building new services. Why build new services when the blockchain was incredibly cheap? Why not use that space?
However, the assumption got weaker when faced with the actual functioning of the regulated finance industry. The public blockchain platforms are built for the most open of financial applications. They have a transparent state, public mempools, probabilistic stability, and have the most ability to build new structures. These components work well when the financial instrument being traded is meant for speculation. But when it's a regulated security, the use of the platform is limited. They cannot trade the identity of the holder. They cannot trade the audit of the instrument. They cannot trade the legal resolution of the instrument. The settlement for the bond cannot be left unsettled. The right to receive a dividend cannot be publicly listed. The people who maintain the ledger cannot be holding a target for an attack.
These constraints made with maintaining legality are what explain the slow progression of real-world assets on blockchain technology. They also explain the slow growth of applications on open blockchains. When institutions initiate a blockchain project, they usually stop when they cannot be certain of an outcome. Not a problem of yield, a problem of certainty.
Dusk Network didn't go around these constraints; it embraced them.
Real DeFi is Still To Come

Most of the privacy used in DeFi today is unsophisticated.
While mixing services and wallet rotation can hide blockchain activities for a moment, transaction graphs will still link activities. The same thing can be said for timing correlations, and analysis companies will nearly always re-identify users as activities increase. This makes it impossible for institutions handling even small nine-figure portfolios to use these systems.
With Dusk, things are different. Protocol-level, zero-knowledge proofed privacy can be used, but that can be scoped. Auditing can still be done on confidential transactions through selective disclosure. Regulator and auditor view keys can be given access to transaction activities without public revealing sensitive information. This design addresses the misconception that says “transparency is a must” for compliance, as that is not correct—compliance requires visibility and discretion.
The reason for this is that regulated finance does not want to be opaque, but it also wants to be accountable without the loss of data. This is the reason Dusk’s privacy model is suitable under this requirement.
The Legal Reality of Settlement and Deterministic Finality
In traditional securities markets, settlement finality is a legal construct, not a probabilistic one. There is no possibility for revising trades due to forks or reorganizations days after. That makes many of the popular consensus mechanisms incompatible with RWAs.Dusk uses a more decentralized Byzantine agreement (SBA) method to achieve this, boosted by cryptographic sortition. While validator selection is random, some positions can be described as "invisible validators." This approach reduces potential attack vectors and supports decentralization. More importantly, progress towards instant finality occurs: once a block is produced, it is final.
This is important, as it means that without this finality, tokenized securities cannot comply with legal standards for clearing and settlement. With this finality, on-chain infrastructure is beginning to resemble an automated clearinghouse, as opposed to a speculative ledger.
Here, $DUSK is critical, not as a standard utility token, but an anchor token, meaning it is collateral that secures the behavior of the validators, the privacy computation, and the settlement of the network.

Infrastructural Challenges and Compliance by Design
The 2018 wave of STOs failed, but there was still demand. Less infrastructure was not the issue. The problem lay with the forced approach to securities on the standard ERC-20 that failed to adequately and self-contained balance compliance with privacy. The outcome was a token that operated off-chain, dependent on centralized databases.
Dusk's XSC = Confidential Security Contract standard turns this approach on its head. The logic of compliance, with respect to whitelists, lock up, investor caps, voting rights, dividends, and so forth, is embedded and self-contained to the asset.Due to ‘Zero Knowledge Proofs’ technologies, issuers can fully comply while distributing dividends or facilitating governance without knowing the individual identities of the holders.
This means the assets are fully ‘self-compliant’ and retain compliance wherever the assets move, which is a unique and necessary feature for a fully operational global securities market that is open 24/7 and does not require fragmented intermediaries.
‘
Privacy-Centric Execution Environment
Dusk does not reach this bottleneck since Piecrust is the only WASM-based zero-knowledge virtual machine, especially designed for computational privacy.
Piecrust is unique in that it allows for the creative balancing of compliance and performance within complex architectures for the compliance and selective disclosure logic layers. Paired with Hedger, the tool for selective disclosure, this system is uniquely positioned for complex compliance requirements and does not allow privacy to compromise settlement speed.
DuskEVM is now live and allows for the use of all privacy and finality layers of Dusk to be used while remaining within the accepted operational frameworks of the Solidi y virtual machine. This is a significant contributor to optimizing frameworks for enterprise grade systems. It is now possible to deploy privacy-compliant systems with only seconds of settlement time.

Loss of Compliance. Remaining Cross-Chain Liquidity
Liquidity fragmentation is, in many ways, a cause for concern.Dusk does this with Chainlink CCIP, allowing tokenized assets like those in NPEX’s €300 million regulated portfolio, to transfer via public chains while still being compliant and private.
This is important because institutions operate in ecosystems that aren’t isolated. They need cross-chain interoperability, and the regulatory requirements are still in place. Because of this, Dusk is the self-proclaimed “first of its kind” to offer privacy, and cross-chain settlement to provide a bridge between regulated finance and crypto liquidity.
Why Dusk’s “Boring” Architecture Wins
Dusk wins by not marketing themselves by speed, or over exaggerating themselves by composability like the other chains. They keep a smart design, which is confident, and is predictable, with a focus on being “not boring” while securing the chain. Those in the institution are excited by this “not boring” design.
“Boring” design is the most responsible design, and responsible design is what wins when the market faces audits, a tough cycle, and regulations.
As DeFi becomes stagnant and investors pull back, responsible design will become more prevalent over the speculative design. Every “real world” tokenized asset does not need a loud chain that reflects constant activity. They need the silent chains that meet the legal requirements.
That is the layer Dusk chose to build—and why its relevance increases as the RWA narrative matures beyond experimentation into deployment.

@Dusk #Dusk $DUSK