The Albatross

What if trillions DO settle on $CC in a year or two? DTCC full launch in October. One of many catalysts. How high would the floor price rise based on that level of utility? Would it be the most utilized chain in existence? Maybe, just maybe.

Canton Network benefits most directly through its existing partnership to mint tokenized Treasuries and assets on Canton, plus DTCC co-chairing the Canton Foundation for huge institutional scale. Ondo gains major validation and adoption by helping shape the standards in the working group, boosting its RWA products ahead of July live trades. Circle wins from rising USDC demand for on-chain settlements, collateral and liquidity across the new platform. $CC $ONDO $CRCL

Canton $CC vs $ONDO $SUI $LINK $PLUME $SEI $XRP $XLM on institutional adoption and token value accrual: $XRP - Most RippleNet partnerships use the messaging software without touching XRP. No burn mechanism, no fee accrual, and Ripple still holds billions of XRP it sells into the market. $195B ATH built entirely on narrative with almost zero proportional settlement flowing through the token. $XLM - Same thesis as XRP. MoneyGram partnership was real but limited. The token is almost entirely irrelevant to the use case. You can build payment rails on Stellar without creating meaningful demand for XLM. Fees are fractions of a cent by design. No burn, no revenue sharing. $ONDO - Real products (USDY, OUSG), real TVL. But Ondo is a front-end issuer, not infrastructure. The token is governance only. No fee sharing, no burn, no revenue accrual. You’re buying a governance token for a company that could just as easily be a fintech with no token at all. $SUI - Good tech, fast L1. But it’s competing with Solana and Ethereum for DeFi and consumer apps. No institutional settlement thesis. Fees designed to be cheap means tiny value accrual per transaction. Massive token unlocks are persistent sell pressure. $LINK - Critical infrastructure, terrible token economics. Oracle fees are negligible relative to its $8-10B market cap. No burn mechanism. Years of staking revenue promises that have barely materialized. The actual revenue generated is pennies. $PLUME - RWA-focused L1 with almost no adoption yet. No major institutional validators. No live settlement of meaningful volume. If institutions want RWA infrastructure they’re going to Canton where DTCC and Goldman already are. $SEI - Another general purpose L1 in a crowded field. No institutional settlement thesis. No meaningful differentiation in value accrual. Just another chain competing in a race to the bottom on fees. The common thread: none of these have a structural mechanism where usage drives token scarcity. $CC is the only token where the institutions themselves are the validators, fees are meaningful because the transactions are institutional settlements, and the tokenomics create a direct feedback loop between usage and supply reduction. Everyone else is either selling narrative or competing to make their token as cheap to use as possible.

Future top 5 $BTC $ETH $CC $XRP $SOL

Canton Network burn/mint dynamics are going parabolic. Daily burns: 15M+ $CC (up from 5M in July) Burn/mint ratio: 0.65 (up from 0.15 six months ago) For context: • 1.0 ratio = neutral (deflationary equilibrium) • We’re at 0.65 and climbing vertically • This is BEFORE DTCC launches by EOY Canton burns are MANDATORY for institutional cross-institution settlement. You cannot use the Global Synchronizer without burning $CC. 700K+ daily transactions requiring burns. Currently burning ~14% of market cap annually. When DTCC launches and potentially 5-10x’s this activity, the burn rate could exceed 50-100% of market cap. This isn’t DeFi TVL. This is Goldman, BNP Paribas, DTCC routing production infrastructure through a mandatory burn mechanism approaching deflationary equilibrium. BlackRock’s 2.2% position in Tharimmune (Canton treasury company) starting to make sense.