Zcash and Hyperliquid could face less selling pressure because they have newer, stronger narratives than NEAR and fewer holders waiting to sell at breakeven. Their appeal this cycle rests on narrative and hype; they look like this cycle's Ether and Solana. x.com  x.com  x.com 

NEAR is not private, not secure, centralized and not permissionless, as the $3.8 million exploit of NEAR Intents shows. Its popularity is driven by undisclosed paid marketing pushing people to buy a dinosaur coin and a trash chain. x.com  x.com 

NEAR should be valued as a well-rounded layer-1 rather than for one use case, since its intents do not generate meaningful revenue and their network effects are relatively weak. Judged that way it is strong, with good governance, technology and economics, and it is time for the good L1s to rise. x.com 

NEAR's $2.4 billion market cap already prices it as a major AI and apps layer, so the success of NEAR Intents does not justify the valuation. Intents is a strong bridging product and handled over $200 million of volume in about a day, per @andyyy, but it earns only about $1.5 million in annualized revenue, and valuing NEAR as a bridge is not very bullish. This may be a midcurve take. x.com 

NEAR can never be money, so any monetary or privacy premium ascribed to the token will flow to permissionless neutral protocols like Zcash and, to a lesser degree, Monero. NEAR's freezing of funds from the Bitget hack was the right business decision, but it shows that programmability creates governance surface area that is antithetical to money. The NEAR chain made about $150k in 30 days, Intents $1.7M and perps $61k, an insane multiple for something that isn't money. x.com  x.com  x.com 

NEAR looks headed higher, with quantum-ready accounts adding to its technology case: co-founder Illia Polosukhin says users can update their account keys to be post-quantum today without moving assets. x.com  x.com 

Hyperliquid, Zcash and NEAR would likely drop 20-30% first if bitcoin falls, and bitcoin has 10-20% downside potential. All three are strong coins, but fundamentals do not matter in that kind of sell-off. Arthur Hayes, who called them a holy trinity, picks real projects, but his timing is the issue: his last big Zcash call came near a top. x.com 

Hyperliquid's valuation looks stretched against what serious markets pay for exchanges, and perpetual futures have been, and always will be, a niche product with no real moat. x.com 

NEAR is an AI-native blockchain and a pioneer of chain abstraction, and its run from $1.90 to $4.27 is not done yet. x.com 

Nano does not meet the criteria for investment yet: it needs a Turing-complete virtual machine and a DeFi ecosystem whose use burns supply before it becomes interesting. Its Sybil resistance does involve some work per transaction, but feeless transfers alone, as a post the author replies to touts, are not enough. x.com