jpmorgan

been thinking about who actually uses blockchain and honestly? we've been building for the wrong users 😂
why agents need different infrastructure?:
every chain optimized for humans. wallet UX, seed phrases, manual signing. makes sense when humans click buttons.
AI agents don't click. can't solve captchas. won't manually approve transactions.
if agents handle economic activity, they need different architecture. not better UX. different infrastructure.

how VAnRY built for this?:
most chains retrofit AI onto human-first infrastructure. Vanar went opposite - built for agents from day one.
myNeutron: persistent memory, agents remember context
Kayon: on-chain reasoning, decisions explainable
Flows: automated execution, no human approval
Payment rails: settlement without wallet popups
full loop agents need: memory → reasoning → action → settlement

what this means for Vanry #Tokenomics ???
if agents transact, every interaction touches Vanry. not governance where you vote and hold. mechanical demand.
agent uses memory? vANRY. reasons? VaNRY. executes and settles? VAnRY.
more agents = more protocol usage = more token throughput.
assumes agents exist at scale and need blockchain. both big assumptions.
my concern though:
building agent infrastructure before agents exist? most "AI agents" are API wrappers that don't need blockchain.
infrastructure arriving too early - sometimes works (AWS), usually doesn't (VR).
also: what if agents use traditional fintech instead? faster, cheaper, compliant. blockchain might be solution looking for problem.

what they get right:
if agents become economic actors, native infrastructure wins over retrofitted. can't bolt agent capabilities onto human-first chains.
products live, not vaporware. #JPMorgan ,Jump Crypto backgrounds.

what worries me:
timing is everything. great tech, wrong timing = burning runway waiting.
66% token to team/foundation. concentrated even with vesting.
honestly don't know if VANrY is 6 months early or 6 years early. building for agents makes sense IF agents become real. massive if.
what's your thinking - are agents ready for blockchain or pricing in future that doesn't exist?? 🤔
#vanar @Vanarchain $VANRY

been watching this Fogo launch. everyone's calling it the "fastest L1" with 40ms block times. impresive numbers. but honestly? makes me wonder if we're solvng a real problem or just flexing tech.

here's what's interesting:
Fogo isn't another general-purpose chain. they're building specifically for one thing: making on-chain trading feel like a centralized exchange.
they're using Solana's SVM but optimized for speed. Firedancer client, multi-local consensus with validators clustered geographicaly to cut delays to microseconds, embedded Pyth oracles for real-time pricing.
on paper? it's everything high-frequency traders said DeFi couldn't do.
#Tokenomics nobody discuses:
$FOGO sits underneath all of this. every trade on Valiant, every borrow on Pyron, every stake on Brasa flows through Fogo. not just gas fees - actual protocol usage.

if trading volume scales, demand is mechanical. more speed-critical apps = more token throughput. 10 billion supply, stakeable for yield, loopable for leverage.
my concerns:
are we solving a problem traders actually have?
most DeFi users aren't doing high-frequency trading. they're aping memecoins, farming yields, maybe swing trading. does someone LPing on a DEX really care if blocks finalize in 40ms vs 400ms?

Solana bet on speed and it worked because apps needed it. ICP bet on speeed and nobody cared. Fogo's makiing the same gamble.
what they get right:
if institutional capital flows on-chain, lattency matters. the team is legit - #JPMorgan , Jump Crypto backgrounds. $13.5M raised. ecosystem already live with real protocols.
SVM compatibility means Solana devs can port over easily.
what worries me:
66% token allocation to team/foundation. long vesting doesn't change concentration risk.
"curated validators" for performence = decentrallization tradeoff nobody wants to admit.
fastest chain only metters if people use it. ecosystem is maybe 5-6 protcols. speed doesn't guarantee adoption.
honestly don't know if this is infrastructure ahead of its time or just overengineered for a market that doesn't exist yet.
what's your thinking?? - does on-chain trading need 40ms blocks, or is Solana's 400ms already fast enough?
#Fogo @Fogo Official $RIVER

JPMorgan estimates that the average production cost of Bitcoin — long viewed as a “soft floor” for price support — has declined to approximately $77,000, down from around $90,000 earlier this year. The adjustment reflects a recent drop in network hashrate and mining difficulty.
In a new research note, analysts led by Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou argue that the decline in mining difficulty is likely temporary and may reverse in the coming adjustment cycles.
Mining Difficulty Drops, But Not a Structural Collapse
Bitcoin’s mining difficulty has fallen roughly 15% year-to-date, marking the sharpest cumulative decline since the aftermath of China’s 2021 mining ban. That earlier episode saw difficulty plunge nearly 45% between May and July before recovering later in the year.
Mining difficulty adjusts approximately every two weeks to maintain Bitcoin’s average 10-minute block time. When hashrate declines — meaning fewer machines are competing to mine blocks — the protocol automatically lowers difficulty to rebalance the network.
According to JPMorgan, two main factors drove the recent drop:
Price Weakness: Lower Bitcoin prices earlier this year compressed miner margins, especially for operators with high electricity costs or older hardware. Some were forced to shut down operations.
Weather Disruptions: Severe winter storms in parts of the United States, particularly Texas, temporarily constrained electricity supply. Several large mining facilities reportedly scaled back operations to stabilize grid demand.
However, early data suggests that hashrate is beginning to recover. If that trend continues, mining difficulty — and therefore production costs — could rise again in upcoming adjustments.
Miner Capitulation Nearing Completion?
Historically, sharp difficulty reductions often coincide with periods of “miner capitulation,” when higher-cost operators are forced to liquidate Bitcoin holdings to cover expenses.
JPMorgan notes that some higher-cost miners in the current cycle have indeed sold BTC reserves to fund operations, restructure debt, or pivot into adjacent sectors such as AI infrastructure. This additional supply may have contributed to price pressure earlier in the year.
However, the bank believes that much of this forced selling phase is nearing completion. As inefficient miners exit, the remaining operators benefit from reduced competition.
With lower difficulty:
Each unit of hashpower has a higher probability of earning block rewards.
Margins improve for efficient miners.
Market share consolidates among lower-cost producers.
This dynamic can help stabilize the production cost floor and prevent a prolonged downward spiral.
Production Cost as a “Soft Floor”
Bitcoin’s production cost is not a guaranteed price floor, but historically it has acted as a key reference point for long-term valuation.
When prices fall significantly below production cost, miner stress intensifies. When prices remain above it, mining activity tends to expand.
At approximately $77,000, JPMorgan sees the current production cost as a meaningful support zone, assuming network conditions normalize and hashrate recovery continues.
Constructive Outlook for 2026
Beyond mining dynamics, JPMorgan maintains a broadly constructive stance on the crypto market in 2026.
The bank expects capital inflows into digital assets to continue rising, driven primarily by institutional investors rather than retail participants or corporate treasury buyers.
Potential catalysts include:
Additional U.S. regulatory clarity for digital assets
Expanded institutional infrastructure
Growing acceptance of crypto as a portfolio allocation tool
JPMorgan also reiterated its long-term Bitcoin price target of $266,000, based on a volatility-adjusted comparison with gold. The framework assumes that as negative sentiment reverses, Bitcoin could increasingly be perceived as a hedge against systemic risk, similar to gold.
While short-term volatility remains elevated, the bank’s analysis suggests structural forces supporting Bitcoin may strengthen over time as weaker participants exit and institutional participation deepens.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Readers should conduct independent research and carefully assess risks before making any financial decisions.
Follow for more institutional crypto insights and macro-driven market analysis.
#BTC #CryptoNews #JPMorgan