Venice (VVV)

Hi Haseeb, long term listener, first time caller… If VVV’s primary justification at a 1B FDV is a “perpetual pro-rata claim on compute,” the valuation doesn’t hold up. The mechanism gives stakers proportional access to Venice’s daily inference capacity through a credit system (DIEM). In practice, this is a right to draw dollar denom usage credits inside one provider’s platform. Not ownership of GPUs, data centers, or raw compute. The company fully controls the infrastructure, mint rates, credit parameters, and capacity expansion. There is no governance, so holders have no say over how the asset evolves or is priced. This differs sharply from real infrastructure ownership. A perpetual claim on bandwidth or power in traditional markets usually comes with asset ownership, long-term contracts with pricing power, or governance rights. Here, stakers get usage rights in a credit framework from a centralised operator that is still largely leasing GPUs and only now raising capital to build its own capacity. Token h

btw VVV seems more like a bond than equity https://t.co/yF0kdhzJBa

You obviously didn't say it like that, but it's what it comes down to for anyone who can talk freely about it without being afraid of upsetting anyone. What you said is: - that the token exists to hedge out future compute prices => literally no one bought the token with the thesis that its only value was this, and *strictly* this - that the token accrues value through buybacks with every net new subscription => we're talking about $3M worth of buybacks a year for a $1.5bn FDV coin, and the Venice team is completely free to stop these buybacks at any point in time (trust me bro) - that they never said that the token was like equity and that anyone who believed that was stupid But here's the thing, that's not how it works. When a protocol launches a token, the market will tend to automatically assume it's pseudo equity for the project, *especially* when they trust the founder and he's supposed to be super ethical/moral/fair etc. Btw we do now have a crystal clear example of such token with HYPE, meaning i

Basically the same argument as Rob yesterday, which confirms how bad the deal is for $VVV tokenholders. "Oh you thought VVV wasn't just a way to hedge compute costs? Too bad for you! But we have both equity and token, so we're fine hehe" Let's repeat what I said yesterday in a much longer tweet: when a crypto protocol launches a token, it does automatically benefit from the inflows of a ton of buyers who will consider it a "pseudo-equity". Even if the team explains that the token has XYZ utility and doesn't promise that it's like equity, it STILL benefits from this uncertainty + information asymmetry. And teams always makes sure not to be crystal clear about what the token is or isn't, because they want the double dip, they want to keep the optionality to soft rug the tokenholders or not. And that's exactly what Venice did, they perpetuated the problem that is plaguing crypto, which is that the market always has a total uncertainty about what a token exactly is when it's launched.

tldr for people who won't read 3,500 words: • venice is profitable, $70m+ arr, token throughput 10x'd in 6 months — and you can watch the revenue on-chain, every sub burns $vvv • the raise didn't sideline the token: dragonfly took 8-year warrants on 5m $vvv alongside equity. nobody takes 8yr exposure to something "structurally junior" or has no value • venice pays no dividend, no equity buyback, won't sell treasury. the only pipe surplus exits through is the burn. stated endgame, on the record: "buy and burn every last token." float: 15m • the treasury holds ~$480m of $vvv — 7.4x the raise. burning is venice investing in its own biggest asset • and while digging i found more details about "minds" — an unannounced agent product / marketplace sitting in their production javascript, localized into six languages — the bridge from selling inference to taxing an economy of agents selling outcomes i also read 1,900 tweets of fud and answer the three real ones inside. i'm long, not advice.