- Grass token holders lack an enforceable payout or equity claim, but the foundation has no shareholders or members entitled to residual profits.
- Contracts, IP, and revenue sit within the foundation; the team receives fees and has no equity, aligning its upside with the token rather than a separate shareholder group.
- If the structure is sound, reinvesting capital should maximize value returned over three years rather than three weeks; the author prefers ownership before this is codified but accepts waiting.
Investment pitches
filter:
70 69 - Author is bullish on on-chain options: unlike path-dependent perps, options cap losses upfront; improved models and perp liquidity may unlock retail, institutional, and RWA demand.
- SYN’s Hypercall uses Hyperliquid for hedging and margin, enabling options on any Hyperliquid perp, including majors, altcoins, and tokenized equities; it already offers 24/7 USDC-margined, same-day SpaceX options.
- The token setup is presented as attractive: no equity entity, no VC unlocks, 88% circulating supply, and builder-code frontend revenue sharing.
- A pending DAO proposal would use 70% of collected fees for SYN purchases distributed to stakers and 30% for SLP liquidity; staking discounts would be 5–40%, with no new emissions.
84 - VVV’s differentiated bundle—Anonymous, Private, TEE, and E2EE selectable per request, plus uncensored and frontier models—targets users pushed off default AI by privacy, compliance, or content restrictions.
- Author estimates ~$60M current ARR; subscription additions reached $2.6M weekly, while API token throughput tripled against 50% paid-subscriber growth. Assuming API tracks subscriptions, a conservative $200M annualized addition rate implies ~$260M 12-month forward ARR.
- At $14, VVV’s ~$660M market cap is 11x current ARR versus 2.5x forward ARR. Burns are small and holders lack equity claims; slowing additions or privacy competition from hyperscalers, local AI, or rivals would undermine the thesis.