DCF’s commentary on Hyperliquid/Berachain felt like it was missing nuance on the HL side, so I feel compelled to fill in the gaps. TLDR: the GTM strategy between BERA and HYPE is black and white. Berachain’s TGE occurred before they captured any meaningful organic usage. Airdrop recipients did not have compelling reasons to hold their BERA. In contrast, Hyperliquid established market dominance in crypto’s most profitable market segment (perps) and the team demonstrated execution excellence leading up to TGE. HYPE airdrop recipients were convinced to believe in something. This is the fundamental difference in mindset between BERA and HYPE holders that contribute to the contrasting charts. Some more detailed comments on the differences: 1) $39m of fees was stockpiled and used to buy HYPE day 1. Since then, HL revenue has averaged ~$1.5m a day, for ~$150m of total buybacks. 2a) HL not having VCs matters. Worst case it means no sell pressure from VCs ever. Best case, it means net buy pressure. 2b) Lack of VC allocation means more generous allocation to the community which increases user loyalty and distribution. 3) The Berachain cofounder that did the tokenomics was caught dumping some of their allo on a public wallet. Hard for the BERA community to convince themselves to hold when the founders can’t. Shoutout @ericonomic for catching this. 4) Locked BERA allo can be staked for unlocked rewards. HYPE’s team allo can also be staked but all rewards are locked. For token holders, the former draws concern while the latter inspires confidence. Lastly, I am NOT advocating for a Hyperliquid vs Berachain debate. It just felt like DCF was oversimplifying things on the Hyperliquid side and if CT is going to have any meaningful discourse on this, HL should be adequately represented.

@cobie Hyperliquid isn’t a playbook that can be easily replicated