Connect with us

Crypto World

Are Non-Financial Blockchain Use Cases Dead?

Published

on

Crypto Breaking News

Prominent crypto venture capitalists are locked in a public dispute over whether non-financial use cases in crypto, Web3, and blockchain have stalled due to scarce investor demand and weak product-market fit, or if the best days for these applications—ranging from decentralized social media to digital identity and Web3 gaming—are still ahead. The quarrel began when Chris Dixon, a managing partner at a16z crypto, published an article on Friday arguing that years of scams, regulatory headwinds, and extractive practices have hindered adoption of non-financial use cases. He contends that these obstacles—and not a fundamental lack of interest—have held back breakthroughs in areas like decentralized social platforms, identity management, and onchain content streaming. The piece added a data point that underpins the debate: more than $60.7 million in fees were paid to crypto exchanges and DeFi applications in the last 24 hours, according to DeFiLlama, illustrating how the debate sits atop real market activity.

Key takeaways

  • Public disagreement between a16z crypto and Dragonfly over whether non-financial crypto use cases failed due to demand or due to product-market mismatch, with each side citing different experiences and timelines.
  • The debate foregrounds a core VC tension: patient, multi-year bets on new infrastructure and markets versus the need to demonstrate market traction within a typical 2–3 year fund cycle.
  • DeFiLlama data shows that the most lucrative revenue streams currently come from financial use cases, underscoring a concrete misalignment between investor enthusiasm for non-financial use cases and where the fee revenue actually accrues.
  • VC funding in 2025 surged, with a notable tilt toward tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), signaling a shift in focus that could redefine which on-chain innovations attract capital.
  • Portfolio positioning differs markedly between the two firms: Dragonfly’s bets emphasize financial primitives and onchain value transfer, while a16z’s crypto arm spans broader Web3 sectors, including gaming, media, and community-building.

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The debate emerges as the crypto venture environment shifts toward RWAs and onchain financial architectures, even as activity in non-financial use cases remains mixed amid regulatory scrutiny and macro liquidity considerations.

Why it matters

The exchange highlights a fundamental question facing the crypto ecosystem: can non-financial use cases—such as decentralized social networks, digital identity solutions, and Web3 gaming—achieve sustainable adoption without a parallel surge in consumer demand and robust product-market fit? The argument for patience rests on the belief that new markets require time to mature, network effects to accrue, and users to migrate from legacy platforms to on-chain alternatives. Dixon’s stance reflects a long-horizon venture philosophy that treats crypto infrastructure and ecosystem-building as gradual, capital-intensive endeavors whose payoff is realized over a decade or more.

By contrast, Quereshi’s counterpoint is explicit: the market tests failed, and those failures aren’t merely the result of external shocks from policy makers or high-profile collapses. In his view, the simplest truth is that the products did not meet user needs, and pretending otherwise is a coping mechanism. This framing injects a sense of urgency into the debate, emphasizing that investors cannot rely on luck or timing to vindicate speculative bets; they must back products with demonstrable demand and meaningful utility within the typical funding cycle.

Advertisement

The tug-of-war plays out against a backdrop where the majority of fee-generating activity—while still anchored in DeFi—leans financial. A DeFiLlama visual caption accompanying the discussion notes that the top 10 on-chain applications by fees and revenue are all financial in nature. That reality complicates the narrative around non-financial utility, even as the broader crypto community keeps building toward new forms of ownership and governance that could eventually unlock demand for non-financial use cases at scale.

What to watch next

  • Regulatory clarity and policy direction around non-financial crypto applications, including social media, identity, and content governance, could alter the risk-reward calculus for long-horizon bets.
  • Progress in tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) and related on-chain infrastructure remains a central driver of VC interest; observe funding trends and notable exits or milestones in 2026.
  • Updates on the two firms’ portfolio milestones—Dragonfly’s investments in stablecoins, payments infrastructure, and on-chain governance tools, and a16z’s broader Web3 bets in community platforms, gaming, and media—may signal shifts in where capital believes value will accrue.
  • Specific projects cited in the debate, such as the Agora stablecoin, Rain’s payments infrastructure, Ethena’s synthetic dollar, Monad’s layer-1 ecosystem, and community platforms like Friends With Benefits and Yield Guild Games, could reveal early signs of product-market fit in non-financial areas.

Sources & verification

  • Chris Dixon’s X article: https://x.com/cdixon/status/2019837259575607401
  • Haseeb Quereshi’s response on X: https://x.com/hosseeb/status/2020451853633511696
  • DeFiLlama data on activity and fees: https://defillama.com/
  • Cointelegraph Research: crypto VC funding doubled in 2025 as RWA tokenization took the lead: https://cointelegraph.com/research/crypto-vc-funding-doubled-in-2025-as-rwa-tokenization-took-the-lead
  • Cointelegraph explainer on RWAs and why they’re gaining attention: https://cointelegraph.com/learn/articles/why-everyone-in-crypto-is-suddenly-talking-about-rwas-in-2025

Industry debate and key details

Debate on non-financial use cases centers on two divergent philosophies about how crypto ecosystems evolve. On one side, Dixon argues that patient capital is essential to nurture new industries that will take time to develop; the onus is on founders to deliver credible, scalable platforms that can support long-term network effects. He stresses that a16z’s funds operate with at least a decade-long horizon, underscoring that “building new industries takes time.”

On the other side, Quereshi insists that a market-driven approach must take precedence. He asserts that non-financial products failed the market test not because of external catalysts but because they were, in his view, poorly designed or misaligned with user expectations. His blunt assessment challenges the narrative that policy or macro shocks alone explain the slow pace of consumer adoption for decentralized social media, identity solutions, and Web3 entertainment.

The middle ground—articulated in several responses from participants—highlights the practical tension between product feasibility and market readiness. Nic Carter of Castle Island Ventures, for example, cautions against waiting for a theoretical “rightness” before investing. He argues that fund deployment cycles require making educated bets on markets that may prove correct or incorrect within a 2–3 year timeframe, a reality that pressures venture funds to balance risk and potential reward.

Amid the debate, the broader market narrative remains shaped by 2025’s VC dynamics. A surge of capital into crypto projects, particularly RWAs and tokenization schemes, reflects evolving investor appetites and regulatory expectations. While RWAs have attracted attention as a pragmatic pathway to bridging on-chain finance with real-world assets, the execution of non-financial use cases is still in early stages. The DeFiLlama data cited in the discussion illustrates that the most valuable revenue streams today are financial applications, which may inform how new non-financial platforms design sustainable monetization strategies to compete for user attention and retention.

Advertisement

What it means for users, builders, and the market

The exchange of ideas among prominent VC figures matters because it frames how capital allocators evaluate risk, time horizons, and the potential for on-chain ecosystems to reach mainstream adoption. For builders, the debate signals that a viable path to success may require a dual strategy: advancing robust financial primitives that can support a wider ecosystem, while simultaneously delivering non-financial experiences with tangible user value, clear governance mechanisms, and superior UX compared with traditional platforms.

For investors, the dialogue reinforces the importance of due diligence around product-market fit, not just technology credentials. It also highlights the real-world testing ground for non-financial use cases: today’s most successful on-chain applications may still be anchored in finance, but the long-term impact could be measured by the extent to which communities adopt decentralized social, identity, and media platforms. As regulatory environments evolve and macro conditions shift, the trajectory of these projects will be shaped by whether teams can demonstrate repeatable user engagement and meaningful economic activity beyond speculative trading and token launches.

What to watch next

  • Regulatory developments affecting non-financial crypto use cases and consumer-facing Web3 applications.
  • Milestones in RWAs tokenization and related infrastructure that could redirect VC focus toward more tangible on-chain assets.
  • Progress in notable non-financial projects within Dragonfly’s and a16z’s portfolios, including stability, user growth, and governance outcomes.
  • Early product wins from decentralized social platforms, digital identity solutions, and Web3 gaming that demonstrate real consumer demand.

Sources & verification

  • Chris Dixon’s article on X: https://x.com/cdixon/status/2019837259575607401
  • Haseeb Quereshi’s response on X: https://x.com/hosseeb/status/2020451853633511696
  • DeFiLlama data: https://defillama.com/
  • Cointelegraph Research: crypto VC funding doubled in 2025 as RWA tokenization took the lead: https://cointelegraph.com/research/crypto-vc-funding-doubled-in-2025-as-rwa-tokenization-took-the-lead
  • Cointelegraph explainer on RWAs: https://cointelegraph.com/learn/articles/why-everyone-in-crypto-is-suddenly-talking-about-rwas-in-2025

Industry debate and key details

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

Arthur Hayes challenges Multicoin’s Samani to $100K HYPE bet

Published

on

Arthur Hayes challenges Multicoin’s Samani to $100K HYPE bet

A public feud between two high-profile crypto investors has turned into a proposed six-month price wager.

Summary

  • Hayes offered a six-month bet on HYPE’s performance against large-cap altcoins.
  • The challenge followed sharp criticism from Multicoin’s Kyle Samani.
  • The wager highlights growing debate over Hyperliquid’s structure and value.

BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes has challenged Multicoin Capital co-founder Kyle Samani to a $100,000 bet over the future performance of Hyperliquid’s HYPE token. 

The proposal was posted on X on Feb. 8, 2026, after Hayes reposted and responded to Samani’s sharp criticism of the project.

Advertisement

Under the terms outlined by Hayes, the bet would run from 00:00 UTC on Feb. 10 through 00:00 UTC on July 31, 2026. During that period, Hyperliquid (HYPE) would need to outperform any altcoin with a market capitalization above $1 billion on CoinGecko. 

Samani would be allowed to select the comparison token. The loser would donate $100,000 to a charity chosen by the winner. The exchange comes as Hyperliquid and its token remain in focus among derivatives traders, even as the wider market trades under pressure.

Dispute over Hyperliquid’s structure and leadership

The bet follows weeks of criticism from Samani, who has repeatedly questioned Hyperliquid’s design and governance.

In recent posts, Samani said the platform’s code is not fully open-source, relies on a permissioned distribution model, and is led by a founder who left his home country to launch the business. He also accused the project of enabling criminal activity and described it as fundamentally flawed.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Hayes rejected those claims and framed the debate in market terms. He argued that if HYPE is truly a weak asset, it should fail to outperform other large-cap tokens over time. If it succeeds, he said, critics should reconsider their views.

The dispute gained traction after analyst Jon Charbonneau praised Hyperliquid’s trading execution, comparing it favorably with traditional venues such as CME. That commentary helped re-ignite debate over whether newer on-chain derivatives platforms can compete with established exchanges.

As of press time, Samani had not publicly confirmed whether he would accept the wager.

Hayes’ purchases and Multicoin-linked accumulation

The wager has drawn attention partly because of Hayes’ recent buying activity. According to on-chain data, Hayes spent approximately $1.91 million in early February 2026 to acquire 57,881 HYPE tokens. His entire holdings increased to about 131,807 tokens, which at the time was worth about $4.3 million. 

Advertisement

These acquisitions, which came after the sales of PENDLE, ENA, and LDO, indicate a deliberate shift toward Hyperliquid. In September 2025, Hayes had sold about 96,600 HYPE tokens for roughly $5.1 million, locking in profits amid concerns about token unlocks and competition. His recent accumulation marks a renewed vote of confidence in the project.

Additionally, wallet data indicates that in late January 2026, addresses linked with Multicoin began accumulating HYPE. Reports indicate that more than 87,100 ETH was swapped for around 1.35 million HYPE tokens, worth over $40 million at the time, through intermediaries such as Galaxy Digital.

This accumulation took place while Samani continued to take a critical public stand, which complicated the ongoing discussion. However, in early February, Samani transitioned into an advisory position at Multicoin, resigning from daily management. Some observers believe this transition may have influenced the fund’s recent positioning.

For now, Hayes’ proposed bet stands as a rare public test of conviction in a market where opinions and capital flows often move in different directions. Whether Samani accepts the bet or not, the episode has placed renewed focus on Hyperliquid’s role in the evolving crypto derivatives landscape.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Only 10K Bitcoin is Quantum-Vulnerable and Worth Attacking

Published

on

Only 10K Bitcoin is Quantum-Vulnerable and Worth Attacking

Digital asset manager CoinShares has brushed aside concerns that quantum computers could soon shake up the Bitcoin market, arguing that only a fraction of coins are held in wallets worth attacking.

In a post on Friday, CoinShares Bitcoin research lead Christopher Bendiksen argued that just 10,230 Bitcoin (BTC) of 1.63 million Bitcoin sit in wallet addresses with publicly visible cryptographic keys that are vulnerable to a quantum computing attack.

A little over 7,000 Bitcoin are held in wallets with between 100 and 1,000 BTC, while roughly 3,230 Bitcoin are held in wallets with 1,000 to 10,000 BTC, equating to $719.1 million at current market prices, which Bendiksen said could even resemble a routine trade.

The remaining 1.62 million Bitcoin are held in wallets with holdings under 100 BTC, which Bendiksen claimed would each take a millennium to unlock, even in the “most outlandishly optimistic scenario of technological progression in quantum computing.”

Advertisement
Split of quantum-vulnerable Bitcoin across various holding sizes. Source: CoinShares

The CoinShares researcher said these “theoretical risks” stem from quantum algorithms such as Shor’s, which could break Bitcoin’s elliptic-curve signatures, and Grover’s, which could weaken the Secure Hash Algorithm 256-bit (SHA-256).

However, he argued neither quantum algorithm could alter Bitcoin’s 21 million supply cap or bypass proof-of-work, two of the Bitcoin network’s most foundational features.

Quantum fears have been among the many drivers of Bitcoin FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) in recent months, with critics warning that any compromise of its cryptography could threaten a network that currently secures $1.4 trillion in value.

The Bitcoin at risk are unspent transaction output (UTXO) wallets, which are chunks of Bitcoin tied to wallet addresses that have not been spent. Many of these Bitcoin wallets at risk date back to the Satoshi era.