- The Breakdown
- Posts
- đȘ Thursday links
đȘ Thursday links
Overconfidence, crypto firsts, DATs and Bullish


Thursday links: Overconfidence, crypto firsts, DATs and Bullish
An academic study flagged by Tyler Cowen might inadvertently explain why the cryptosphere is so male dominated.
The researchers report their findings that the advantage men sometimes have in intelligence testing is eliminated (or reversed) when the tests are adjusted for confidence levels.
Men and women, they find, differ primarily in how sure theyâre right: Men are more likely to act as though theyâre certain, women are more likely to hedge or admit uncertainty.
This maps neatly to investing styles, I think â crypto-investing styles, especially.
Crypto culture often valorizes conviction (âdiamond hands,â âHODLâ) and punishes hesitation.
Men are overrepresented in crypto not because theyâre more willing to take risks, but because the culture and payoff structure reward overconfidence.
Charles Bukowski says overconfidence is the problem with the world, but thereâs something to be said for being irrationally sure that youâre right â if startup founders werenât overconfident in their odds of success, for example, we might not ever have any new companies.
Iâd argue that early Bitcoiners were similarly overconfident. But also that they had to be because youâll never hit a 10,000x investment if you carefully weigh the risk/reward.
Those kinds of returns can only be achieved through belief.
Only a true believer could resist the urge to sell up 10, 100 or a 1,000x.
This, I suspect, is why men are so overrepresented in crypto: Theyâre better at believing theyâre right.
Bringing stocks onchain has been a crypto talking point for years, but the Galaxy shares on Solana as of this week are the first ones to actually get there.
Most âreal-world assetsâ that claim to be onchain are just IOUs for assets that remain off-chain.
Tokenized Galaxy shares, by contrast, are the real thing â holding Galaxy onchain makes you a shareholder in Galaxy, not a creditor to an intermediary that holds them on your behalf.
You can even take Galaxy shares held in your brokerage account and send them to Superstate to be tokenized on Solana.
Thereâs not much reason to do that, because you canât stake, LP or even buy or sell them onchain as of yet.
For now, itâs just a different form of recordkeeping.
But recordkeeping is important.
It means Galaxy could raise capital onchain which is not otherwise possible; or maybe even airdrop shares to incentivize some new behavior.
Superstateâs Robert Leshner says that âmoving the recordkeeping from stacks of middlemen to just the token is going to facilitate all these subtle upgrades to the system.â
Itâs unclear what that means in practice, but Leshner believes it will bring cryptoâs âunbridled innovationâ to traditional assets.
Which sounds terrifying.
But fun.
In addition to the first stock going onchain, we might soon have the first token to go off-chain: âWoodcoinâ is pitched as âthe first cryptocurrency you can carry in your pocket.â
As the name suggests, these are coins made from wood, which sounds like the least crypto thing imaginable.
But they qualify as crypto because âthe images of the coins are secured using cryptographic hash functions and shared via a peer-to-peer network.â
As far as I can tell, no coins have been issued as of yet.
But Woodcoin has big, Bitcoin-like ambitions: âBy replacing trust in fiat issuers with trust in physical uniqueness, Woodcoin provides a foundation for trade that is immune to inflationary abuse, resistant to seizure and adaptable to global economic growth.â
The projectâs white paper makes a convincing case for why it would make a better global currency than either gold (too heavy) or bitcoin (too deflationary).
It also faults Bitcoin for the âvast electricity consumptionâ of its proof-of-work mining process.
Woodcoin, by contrast, is secured by a âshared registry and the physical uniqueness of each coin,â which does not involve burning any energy.
We wood have to cut down some trees, though.
Yueqi Yang reports that would-be digital asset treasury companies (DATs) are facing new obstacles: âNasdaq recently told some publicly listed companies that under certain circumstances, their shareholders would need to approve the plan to raise capital to buy crypto, according to people familiar with the matter.â
That doesnât seem like a lot to ask â shouldnât shareholders get to vote on such a major change of direction?
But slowing the process down even a little might scuttle the whole trade.
Announcing a shareholder vote on a proposal to pivot to crypto is unlikely to elicit the same market enthusiasm as announcing the pivot as a fait accompli.
And without that first pop, whatâs the point? DATs only work if investors are excited about them.
If nothing else, Yangâs reporting is a reminder that exchanges are also regulators â and a warning that theyâre not entirely sold on their listings pivoting to crypto.
They havenât told anyone to stop. But with the DAT trade already stalling, just tapping the brakes might be enough to bring the trade to a standstill.
In a Substack post, David Morris contends that the 24,000 BTC held on the balance sheet of the crypto exchange Bullish was effectively stolen.
He traces the history of Bullish back to 2017, when the corporate entity behind the EOS blockchain, Block.One, raised $4.1 billion in an ICO.
Morris cites an EOS community member, Yves La Rose, who says the proceeds were never used to develop EOS, as token holders must have expected.
Instead, they were used to buy the 24,000 bitcoin that can now be found on the Bullish balance sheet.
âA less diplomatic way of putting it,â Morris writes, âwould be that EOS is a failure because Block.One stole all the investorsâ money.â
âStoleâ sounds too strong to me.
Once EOS investors sent their money to Block.One, Iâm guessing Block.One was not under any legal obligation to employ it to the benefit of EOS token holders.
Diverting it to the balance sheet of an unrelated entity does seem unethical, though, which is Morris' main message. He warns the new holders of Bullish equity that they âshouldnât expect much more ambition or honesty from this team than it has shown at any other moment after a big payout.â
Unlike token holders, however, equity holders have legal rights, so they should be treated more fairly.
But Morris warns theyâre already being misled.
He cites Dave Wang, who says that Bullishâs preferred accounting metric is deliberately misleading: âThe headline 2024 âadjusted transaction revenueâ is ~$158 million whereas core transaction revenue is $2 million,â he wrote on X.
Wang calls Bullish âa meticulously engineered illusionâ that should be valued at âa steep discount to the company's net liquid assetsâ â which is almost the worst possible thing an analyst can say about a company.
Still, I canât imagine this is news to the institutional investors who bought into the Bullish IPO â they tend to be good at accounting, and presumably did their due diligence before sending Bullish $1.1 billion.
But they were probably all TradFi bros, too, so that might have been overconfident.
â Byron Gilliam

Brought to you by:
Arkham is a crypto exchange and a blockchain analytics platform that lets you look inside the wallets of the best crypto traders â and then act on that information.
Arkhamâs Intel Platform has a suite of features including real-time alerts, customizable dashboards, a transaction visualization tool, and advanced transaction filtering â all of which is accessible on all major blockchain networks, and completely free.
Arkhamâs main product is the exchange, where users can express their trade ideas against the market.


By Felix Jauvin |

By Jack Kubinec |

By Blockworks |

By Blockworks |

Sponsored Content |

Brought to you by:
Token.com brings Creator Capital Markets to Solana with a groundbreaking X-integration feature.
Trade the latest tokens and wrapped stocks directly from X posts in our innovative all-in-one app.
Creators monetise content through trading fees while traders access the best crypto Twitter alpha. Learn more at Token.com!

