$NET is definitely one of the more interesting DeFi experiments right now. Major DeFi summer vibes. But if you’re trying to decide whether to buy it, ignore the headline APY for a second and read this 👇 The entire trade comes down to one question: Can treasury value per NET grow faster than NET supply? Think of NET like a tiny country with its own currency. Say the protocol owns $10m of assets and there are 1m NET. That means NAV = $10/NET. If NET trades at $100, you’re paying $10 for the assets and $90 for future growth. Why would anyone do that? Because the premium itself helps the protocol grow. When NET trades far above NAV, the protocol can sell/mint NET in exchange for real assets. So the loop looks like: price goes up → protocol raises assets cheaply → treasury grows → backing grows → narrative gets stronger → price goes up Then add the 5% trading tax. Every buy and sell pushes value into the treasury. So: hype → volume → fees → treasury growth → more hype Now, that's reflexivity 🤌. Then you see the giant staking APY and think: “great, I’m earning 0.45% every 8 hours.” Not really. Most of that is newly minted NET. If everyone doubles their token balance while total supply also doubles, nobody became 2x richer. The number that actually matters is: TREASURY RFV / FULLY DILUTED NET SUPPLY If treasury grows 5% but token supply grows 10%, your wallet may show more NET while your economic ownership is getting diluted. Now add Morpho. $NET holders can take their staked NET, wrap it into wsNET, post that as collateral, and borrow USDG. The loop: $1,000 NET → stake/wrap → deposit wsNET → borrow $500 USDG → buy $500 more NET → stake/wrap again You started with $1,000. Now you have ~$1,500 of NET exposure, thanks to good old leverage. And the degen version keeps going: NET → wsNET collateral → borrow USDG → buy NET → wsNET → borrow more USDG → buy more NET As long as NET goes up, this is gasoline on the flywheel. Your collateral rises in value, your borrowing capacity rises, and you can keep levering. But when NET falls, the exact same mechanism runs in reverse. Example: You have $1,000 of wsNET collateral and $500 of debt. If NET falls 20%, your collateral is now worth $800. Your debt is still $500. Suddenly your LTV has gone from 50% to 62.5%. If that hits the liquidation threshold: liquidator repays your USDG debt → receives your wsNET collateral → sells/unwinds it → more NET hits the market So the downside loop becomes: NET falls → LTV rises → liquidations → collateral gets sold → NET falls more → more liquidations gg looopors. Important: this does NOT affect someone simply holding or staking NET. You only get liquidated if you borrow against it. And today the looped market is still small enough that I wouldn’t call this the core risk. But if Loopback becomes popular, it can materially increase both upside reflexivity and downside violence. This is why I don’t think NET is simply “a Ponzi.” There are real treasury assets and real value-capture mechanisms. But its market price can still behave like a Ponzi-style reflexive asset. The protocol could survive perfectly while the token falls 80-90%. If NAV is $10 and you bought at $100, “backing” does not protect your $100. It protects the first $10. The other $90 is the growth premium, and premiums can disappear very quickly. There’s also the pTEAM question. Management appears to have the ability to acquire NET at a very low strike relative to market price/NAV. If that entitlement expands with supply, it becomes a meaningful dilution overhang. So would I buy NET here? Not because of the APY. Not because “treasury is growing.” I’d buy only if I believed: treasury value PER fully diluted NET can compound fast enough to justify the premium I’m paying today. My rough mental model: - Near NAV: interesting asymmetry. - 3-5x NAV: paying for serious future growth. - 10x+ NAV: making a venture-style bet that hypergrowth + reflexivity keep working. And that’s really the trade. NET can be a very good protocol and still be a very bad buy at the wrong price. The question isn’t: “Is NET backed?” It’s “What am I paying today for every $1 of underlying value, and how fast can that $1 actually compound?”

Looks like rupee has lost 42% of it's purchasing power since 2014 One basically lost money to inflation and countless taxes if they didn't save in gold

"Indians have accumulated huge wealth in gold which stores value rather than funding businesses or infrastructure. Need to Shift more household gold into productive assets." — Uday kotak, CEO Kotak

BREAKING: Indian Stocks Hit a New All Time Low Against the World