Historical perspective published December 22, 2025, at 14:00:02 (UTC+8). Based on commentary by 0xJeff, translated into Chinese by TechFlow and published by PANews. Forecasts below reflect the author’s outlook at that time, not subsequent developments.
Crypto’s next narrative, in 0xJeff’s year-end assessment, would have to answer a harder question than which theme could attract attention: who receives the value when a product or business succeeds?
The commentary connected growing activity in prediction markets and perpetual futures with disputes over token-holder rights, experiments in market-based governance and regulated securities tokenization. Its central argument was that heading into 2026, business fundamentals and ownership structures would matter more than rapidly rotating stories.
That is an investment thesis, not an established outcome. The article also mixed reported activity figures with forecasts, project endorsements and trading suggestions; those categories should be kept separate.
The backdrop: activity and favorable headlines did not lift every token
0xJeff described 2025 as a punishing year despite expectations surrounding a supposedly crypto- and AI-friendly US president. According to the commentary:
- Most altcoins fell by 80%–99%.
- Bitcoin’s market share returned above 60%, comparable with 2019–2020 levels, while it outperformed most other coins.
- ETH traded at roughly its 2022 level.
- An estimated 40 million–50 million tokens fragmented the altcoin market.
- Equities substantially outperformed crypto despite clearer regulatory frameworks, ETF approvals, corporate blockchain adoption and institutional investment.
These are the author’s market characterizations, rather than independently verified findings in this rewrite. They frame the article’s tension: an industry can gain institutional acceptance while many of its tokens perform poorly.
Prediction markets and perpetuals: evidence of trading demand
The commentary identified prediction markets as one of 2025’s fastest-growing sectors, citing weekly notional volume of $3.8 billion and naming Polymarket, Kalshi and Opinion as leading platforms.
It described the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s treatment of these products as event contracts or binary options tied to real-world outcomes, while acknowledging the continuing debate over whether prediction markets constitute gambling.
For 0xJeff, their appeal extended beyond simple forecasts. The article discussed directional yes/no positions, hedging against spot holdings and strategies it described as delta-neutral, alongside potential airdrop incentives. It also acknowledged liquidity limitations. These are the author’s proposed uses, not evidence that every market supports the same execution or risk characteristics.
Perpetual futures supplied another major activity signal. The article cited $340 billion in weekly volume and a record $1.3 trillion in monthly volume, pointing to interest in Hyperliquid, Lighter and Aster, alongside prediction-market platforms.
The author interpreted those figures as evidence of product-market fit. More narrowly, they demonstrate the substantial trading activity reported in the source; they do not by themselves establish durable valuations or future airdrop returns.
Options income: a strategy discussion, not an adoption metric
A separate section promoted cash-secured puts and covered calls as more conservative ways to manage existing assets or stablecoins while collecting option premiums.
The source described capital commitments typically lasting three to five weeks, with premiums received when options are sold. It framed these strategies as a way to pursue a target purchase or sale price rather than immediately trading an altcoin.
Its claims of high annualized yields and capital recovery should not be read as guarantees. This section offered the author’s trading preferences, rather than evidence of a new sector’s adoption or a recommendation suitable for every reader.
Narrative fatigue exposes the equity–token divide
0xJeff argued that narratives once lasting weeks or months were increasingly fading within days. In response, the author saw crypto discussion shifting toward users, revenue, growth and the connection between business success and token value.
Two acquisition examples illustrated the problem as the source presented it:
- Pumpfun and Padre: The commentary said PADRE fell 50%–80% after the acquisition announcement, provoking a community backlash. It reported that Pumpfun subsequently promised PUMP airdrops based on holders’ PADRE positions valued before the announcement.
- Circle and Axelar: The source described Circle as acquiring Axelar and said AXL fell sharply afterward, with token-holder concerns unresolved at publication. That description is the source’s account; it does not establish the transaction’s precise legal scope or token-holder entitlements.
The underlying distinction is important: owning a token is not automatically equivalent to owning equity in the business associated with it. The article’s examples focused on the consequences when those interests diverge.
“Ownership tokens” attempt to make alignment explicit
The commentary presented MetaDAO as an alternative fundraising and governance model. It described launches with high circulating supply, relatively low fully diluted valuations, no venture-capital or private allocations, and mechanisms such as performance-based team unlocks and potential capital recovery.
It also highlighted Colosseum’s STAMP, described as a Simple Token Agreement with Market Protection, intended to combine private venture financing with public MetaDAO ICOs while aligning with onchain governance.
The author grouped projects launched through this model into an “ownership token” category, naming Umbra, Omnipair and Avici as examples that attracted strong fundraising demand and outperformed the market in 2025.
Claims that the model is manipulation-proof, prevents misconduct or guarantees genuine ownership are the author’s favorable assessment, not conclusions established by the supplied article. The proposed narrative is nevertheless distinct: token holders would have a more direct role in governance and in the benefits generated by project revenue and fees.
Tokenized securities: a regulated infrastructure route
The article linked the focus on fundamentals with securities tokenization, but described a different institutional structure from open, decentralized token issuance.
It reported that on December 11, 2025, the US Securities and Exchange Commission issued a no-action letter concerning a securities-tokenization pilot by DTC, a DTCC subsidiary. The stated scope included Russell 1000 constituent stocks, US Treasuries and major ETFs.
According to the source, the pilot was expected to begin in the second half of 2026 and run for three years, using DTC’s regulated, centralized infrastructure.
0xJeff predicted that this would support more tokenized-securities projects, greater demand for tokenized stocks and closer links between traditional and decentralized finance. Those were forward-looking expectations—not adoption outcomes already demonstrated in December 2025.
Consumer crypto: participation is not yet durability
The commentary grouped several products around entertainment and financial participation: Pumpfun, Virtuals’ AI-agent model, Zora’s content tokens, collectibles, fantasy football and prediction markets. It also noted support for Zora from Jesse.
The common thread was consumer engagement, but the author explicitly acknowledged that 2025 had not yet produced a clearly sustainable consumer-crypto product.
Sportsdotfun (SDF) was cited as an early-growth example that was conducting community fundraising through Legion and Kraken at publication. Fundraising and early momentum were not evidence that long-term retention or sustainability had been resolved.
Storytelling still matters—but understanding is the differentiator
Finally, 0xJeff discussed demand for “storytellers” across startups and technology, comparing it with crypto’s established ecosystem of commentators, KOLs and community builders.
The author distinguished informed explanation from repetitive content produced mainly for visibility. The commentary cited Kalshi’s recruitment of crypto-community figures and projects’ use of partnerships and ambassador programs as examples of narrative work supporting brand building and user acquisition.
The broader conclusion was not that narratives would disappear. It was that a compelling story would increasingly need a demonstrable product, a credible business and a clear account of who benefits.
The useful dividing line in this outlook is between attention, trading activity, fundraising and durable ownership. Each can support a crypto narrative, but none should be treated as interchangeable proof of the others.
