AAVE

<h2>1. Infrared Protocol Launches Revolutionary Native Staking Programme on Berachain</h2><p>Infrared Protocol stands as a premier liquidity staking solution deeply embedded in the Berachain ecosystem, pioneering infrastructure around Berachain's innovative Proof-of-Liquidity (PoL) mechanism. This protocol maximises value capture by delivering user-friendly liquid solutions for staking native tokens like BGT and BERA, alongside node infrastructure and automated yield vaults, enabling seamless participation in Berachain's yield economy. The debut of Infrared's native IR staking rewards system marks a transformative milestone, with IR token distribution kicking off on 17 December 2025, via a structured Token Generation Event (TGE), and full staking functionality set to roll out in January 2026. This timeline aligns perfectly with Berachain's maturing infrastructure, positioning early participants to capitalise on ecosystem growth. The IR token boasts three core utilities that drive its appeal: first, it empowers holders in governance decisions, allowing stakers to shape protocol evolution through decentralised voting; second, it facilitates revenue sharing via sophisticated buyback mechanisms that redistribute protocol earnings directly to participants; and third, its strategic distribution model is engineered to optimise staker returns, fostering long-term alignment between users and the network. Infrared's Proof-of-Liquidity foundation unifies liquid staking, validator operations, and yield optimisation, bridging the gap between passive staking rewards and active liquidity provision across DeFi platforms. As Berachain dominates with 72.7% of its activity in DeFi trading volume, Infrared's launch equips users with iBGT and iBERA derivatives—liquid staking tokens that maintain composability whilst accruing yields—setting a new standard for capital efficiency in this high-performance EVM-compatible chain. Backed by $18.75 million in institutional funding, this initiative not only enhances Berachain's PoL flywheels but also promises sustainable rewards derived from genuine protocol usage, free from inflationary pressures. For investors and yield seekers on MEXC, this represents a gateway to Berachain's burgeoning economy, where IR staking will unlock compounded benefits as network throughput expands.</p><h2>2. Complete Guide to Staking IR Tokens and Generating sIR Yield</h2><p>Getting started with Infrared's native IR staking on Berachain is straightforward, beginning with acquiring IR tokens through MEXC, which supports seamless access to this Berachain-native asset following its TGE on 17 December 2025. Users can also retrieve any eligible airdrop allocations directly from Infrared's official interface, leveraging Berachain's deposit support that became effective immediately post-launch. Once secured, connect your digital wallet—such as MetaMask configured for Berachain—to Infrared's intuitive dashboard at infrared.finance, ensuring compatibility with the Berachain network for smooth interactions. Initiate staking by depositing IR tokens into the protocol's non-custodial staking contract; in return, you'll receive sIR tokens, which represent your staked position and automatically accrue value over time through the appreciating exchange ratio. Infrared's flexible model shines here: it's fully non-custodial, meaning you retain control of your assets without mandatory lock-up periods, allowing instant unstaking if needed whilst still earning yields. This eliminates common DeFi pitfalls like impermanent loss or rigid vesting, prioritising user sovereignty. Track your accruing rewards and performance metrics via the real-time dashboard, which displays live sIR balances, yield rates, Red Fund contributions, and historical performance charts for transparent oversight. For optimal results, maintain your sIR holdings to benefit from continuous revenue accrual; as protocol fees from liquid staking derivatives like iBGT and iBERA flow in, they bolster the buyback mechanism, enhancing sIR's value proposition. MEXC users benefit from integrated tools like spot trading pairs, making IR acquisition efficient before staking—simply deposit via Berachain network, trade IR/USDT if available, and bridge to the protocol. This end-to-end process, from purchase on MEXC to dashboard monitoring, empowers both novices and experts to generate sustainable sIR yields, with Berachain's PoL ensuring rewards stem from ecosystem liquidity rather than speculative pumps. Security is paramount: Infrared's institutional-grade audits and completed assessments guarantee a robust launch in January 2026, minimising risks whilst maximising composability across Berachain dApps.</p><h2>3. Understanding Infrared's Staking Framework and Revenue Distribution Model</h2><p>Infrared's staking framework revolves around a sophisticated profit distribution architecture, where IR token stakers mint sIR tokens that entitle them to claim shares of protocol-generated revenue, creating a self-reinforcing yield loop. At its core, the Red Fund operates as a dedicated treasury executing automated token buybacks using real protocol fees from liquid staking services, validator operations, and yield vaults—directly funding IR repurchases on the open market to reduce circulating supply and drive value accrual. This deflationary tokenomics structure burns a portion of fees, ensuring scarcity whilst the sIR-to-IR exchange ratio appreciates progressively as more revenue cycles through the system, rewarding long-term holders without diluting supply via endless emissions. Yields derive exclusively from authentic protocol usage, such as demand for iBGT/iBERA in DeFi composability, rather than unsustainable inflation, mirroring Berachain's PoL ethos of aligning incentives across staking and liquidity. Below is a comprehensive breakdown table highlighting key components:</p><table border="1" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="height:100%;width:100%;border:1px double rgb( 179 , 179 , 179 );border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0px"><thead><tr><th style="text-align:left;background-color:rgba( 0 , 0 , 0 , 0.05 );font-weight:700;border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em">Component</th><th style="text-align:left;background-color:rgba( 0 , 0 , 0 , 0.05 );font-weight:700;border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em">Description</th><th style="text-align:left;background-color:rgba( 0 , 0 , 0 , 0.05 );font-weight:700;border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em">Key Benefits</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td style="border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em"><strong style="font-weight:bolder">IR Token</strong></td><td style="border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em">Native utility token for governance, revenue sharing, and strategic distributions</td><td style="border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em">Enables voting, buybacks, and optimised returns</td></tr><tr><td style="border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em"><strong style="font-weight:bolder">sIR Token</strong></td><td style="border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em">Liquid receipt token from staking IR; ratio appreciates with revenue</td><td style="border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em">Non-custodial, flexible yields without lock-ups</td></tr><tr><td style="border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em"><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Red Fund</strong></td><td style="border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em">Treasury for fee-based IR buybacks and burns</td><td style="border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em">Deflationary pressure, sustainable revenue redistribution</td></tr><tr><td style="border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em"><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Revenue Sharing</strong></td><td style="border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em">Protocol fees (staking, vaults) funnelled to stakers via sIR appreciation</td><td style="border:1px solid rgb( 191 , 191 , 191 );min-width:2em;padding:0.4em">Real usage-driven yields, no inflation</td></tr></tbody></table><p>This model outperforms traditional staking by integrating PoL infrastructure, where BGT/BERA staking generates iTokens for DeFi deployment, capturing fees that cascade to IR stakers. As Berachain's TVL grows—amid $150B DeFi sector expansion—Infrared's framework ensures stakers capture a proportional slice, with security audits validating the smart contracts' resilience against exploits. MEXC traders can position early, converting spot holdings into sIR for compounding gains, as the system's transparency fosters trust and adoption in Berachain's high-throughput environment.</p><h2>4. Why January 2026 Represents a Pivotal Opportunity for Berachain Yield Strategies</h2><p>January 2026 emerges as a strategic launch window for Infrared's IR staking, coinciding with Berachain's accelerated infrastructure rollout and surging economic throughput, including PoL v2 proposals enhancing BERA staking incentives. Early adopters gain competitive edges through structured deployment: post-TGE distribution on 17 December 2025, staking activates without third-party intermediaries, offering direct non-custodial access that bypasses conventional liquidity mining's pitfalls like high gas fees or diluted rewards. Infrared's approach delivers superior benefits—flexible sIR yields from Red Fund buybacks surpass inflationary farms—whilst its comprehensive technical stack, including node infrastructure and vaults, ensures scalability on Berachain's Polaris-powered EVM chain. Strong support from platforms like MEXC amplifies accessibility, with seamless IR trading enabling quick onboarding for yield strategies amid Berachain's 72.7% DeFi dominance and $142M ecosystem funding. Completed security assessments and institutional preparations guarantee a flawless experience, mitigating volatility risks seen in peers like EigenLayer. As Berachain unlocks further liquidity (e.g., 63.73M BERA in February 2026), Infrared positions stakers at the yield frontier, fostering flywheels where iBGT/iBERA usage amplifies protocol revenue. This pivotal timing leverages DeFi's $150B TVL trajectory, rewarding MEXC users who stake early for governance influence and deflationary gains, solidifying Infrared as Berachain's liquidity backbone.</p>

Earn Sustainable Rewards with Infrared's Native IR Staking on Berachain

1. Infrared Protocol Launches Revolutionary Native Staking Programme on Berachain Infrared Protocol stands as a premier liquidity staking solution deeply embedded in the Berachain ecosystem, pioneerin

<p>Converting cryptocurrency to fiat is a practical process with multiple reliable pathways—each suited to different transaction sizes, urgency levels, privacy preferences, and regulatory constraints—and centralised trading platforms like MEXC often provide the most straightforward combination of liquidity, security, and compliance for most users. According to industry overviews, centralised exchanges remain the primary mechanism for selling crypto into fiat because decentralised protocols typically do not handle fiat rails and regulatory requirements (like KYC) apply to platforms that move fiat currency.</p><h2>Understanding Your Cash-Out Options</h2><p>When preparing to liquidate digital assets, the main choices are centralised trading platforms, cryptocurrency ATMs, crypto-linked payment cards, direct peer-to-peer (P2P) trading networks, and traditional brokerage-style services; each route has trade-offs in fees, speed, geographic reach, and identity requirements. Transaction size matters: large liquidations generally favour centralised platforms with deep order books to avoid price slippage, whereas small, immediate needs can be met by ATMs or payment cards despite higher per-transaction costs. Geography and bank connectivity influence which rails are available—support for local currency withdrawals and banking partnerships varies by provider—so users should confirm available fiat corridors before committing to a method. Urgency is another determinant: instant liquidity usually costs more, while lower-cost bank transfers take longer and may trigger extra bank checks.</p><h2>Using Centralised Trading Platforms</h2><p>Centralised platforms such as MEXC provide an integrated experience for converting crypto to fiat: users deposit assets, place sell orders (market or limit), and then request fiat withdrawals to linked bank accounts once trades settle. These platforms appeal for their deep liquidity, which reduces slippage on larger orders, and for their compliance infrastructure—identity verification and AML checks are standard to satisfy regulatory obligations. Typical processing times depend on the withdrawal rail; bank transfers commonly take 1–5 business days after settlement, while some platforms support faster rails where available. Identity verification (KYC) is usually required before fiat withdrawals are permitted; preparing documents in advance accelerates the process and reduces delays.</p><h2>Cryptocurrency ATM Solutions</h2><p>Crypto ATMs offer instant, physical access to cash for smaller amounts, making them attractive when immediacy and relative privacy matter despite higher fees. Transaction capacity is limited compared with exchange order books, and fees commonly fall in the 5–8% range for cash-outs (and sometimes higher depending on the machine and network), which makes ATMs suboptimal for large conversions. ATMs may require identity checks for larger withdrawals, depending on local regulation and operator policies, so the privacy advantage is constrained in many jurisdictions. Use-case fit: quick trips to cash out pocket-sized amounts or emergencies, not cost-efficient scale conversions.</p><h2>Digital Payment Cards for Crypto Users</h2><p>Crypto-linked debit cards let users spend crypto balances as if they were fiat, often by either direct on‑the‑fly conversion at the point of sale or by holding a fiat balance funded from crypto deposits. These cards preserve an investor's ability to keep an underlying crypto position in custody while accessing purchasing power; they can also delay final fiat conversion and the corresponding tax event until actual spend, depending on jurisdictional tax rules. Card conversion fees and foreign-exchange markups vary by provider, and KYC requirements are normally required to obtain such cards. Use-case fit: frequent everyday spending with minimal operational friction, though total costs may accumulate via conversion spreads, ATM withdrawals, or card provider fees.</p><h2>Comparison of Conversion Services</h2><p>Below is a high-level comparison of the four service categories and typical user scenarios (benefits and drawbacks summarised from industry sources):</p><p><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Centralised Trading Platforms:</strong> Best for medium-to-large sales and users who need liquidity and compliance. Benefits: deep order books, regulated rails, predictable fees; Drawbacks: KYC required, bank withdrawal times.</p><p><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Brokerage Services:</strong> Designed for traditional investors seeking a familiar UX and integrated bank links. Benefits: simple fiat connectivity and customer support; Drawbacks: limited crypto selections and sometimes higher spreads.</p><p><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Direct Trading Networks (P2P):</strong> Good for users prioritising privacy and potentially better pricing. Benefits: flexible payment options, escrow protection; Drawbacks: counterparty risk, slower completion times and variable liquidity.</p><p><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Crypto Payment Cards:</strong> Ideal for spending without full conversion. Benefits: convenience and real-time purchasing power; Drawbacks: conversion spreads, periodic fees, potential tax/timing complexities.</p><h2>Why Centralised Platforms Lead the Market</h2><p>Centralised platforms dominate fiat conversions because they combine liquidity, security controls, and usability at scale: integrated custody, order-matching engines, and bank integrations streamline large and small transactions alike. Robust security measures (cold storage, multi-signature, and platform-level risk controls) reduce counterparty risk relative to informal trading methods, while user-friendly interfaces and APIs support both retail and institutional flows. When choosing between international and local services, users should weigh local currency support, banking partnerships, fee schedules, and regulatory coverage to minimise delays and unexpected charges.</p><h2>Traditional Brokerage Services</h2><p>Brokerage-style providers emulate the bank-facing experience that many investors expect—account linking, fiat rails, and customer support—making them attractive for newcomers and conventional investors. They often integrate seamlessly with bank accounts and tax workflows but may offer fewer crypto assets than dedicated exchanges and may restrict availability by country or asset class. For investors who value fiat-friendly interfaces and familiar regulatory protections, brokerages are a pragmatic option despite possibly higher execution spreads.</p><h2>Direct Trader-to-Trader Platforms</h2><p>P2P networks and direct-swap platforms enable buyers and sellers to transact directly with escrow safeguards; these can achieve attractive pricing and offer alternate payment methods not always supported by exchanges. Escrow reduces counterparty risk, but disputes, slower settlement, and the need for reputation management are downsides. P2P is suited to users who understand negotiation, can verify counterparties, and accept slower settlement for potentially better net pricing.</p><h2>MEXC's Versatile Conversion Features</h2><p>Comprehensive platforms like MEXC integrate multiple cash-out pathways—order-book trading, fiat withdrawal rails, and often P2P offerings—letting users match conversion strategy to need: low-slippage market sales for larger disposals, P2P for alternative payment methods, or card solutions for day-to-day spending. Aggregated liquidity and consolidated documentation make tax reporting and compliance easier, and advanced trading tools help stage large exits to reduce market impact.</p><h2>Securing Your Account Before Withdrawal</h2><p>Before initiating any withdrawal, confirm two-factor authentication is active, update approved withdrawal addresses, review recent login history for anomalies, and secure recovery phrases or hardware keys in a separate location; these steps materially reduce the risk of account takeover during sensitive cash-out operations. Where possible, enable withdrawal whitelist features and set withdrawal limits to prevent unauthorised large transfers.</p><h2>Completing Identity Verification</h2><p>KYC is typically mandatory before fiat withdrawal: prepare government-issued ID, proof of address (utility bill or bank statement), and potentially a real-time video selfie for liveness checks to avoid processing delays. Completing these steps ahead of time eliminates a common bottleneck when you're ready to withdraw funds.</p><h2>Executing Your Conversion Transaction</h2><p>Decide the amount to liquidate with a plan for minimising market impact—consider splitting large sells into tranches, use limit orders to control execution price, and run small trial transactions to confirm paths and fees. Be aware of fee components (exchange trading fee, spread, and withdrawal fee) typically ranging from 0.5%–2% for trading fees and 1%–3% for fiat withdrawals in industry examples.</p><h2>Finalising Your Bank Transfer</h2><p>After settlement, request a fiat withdrawal and double-check bank account details to avoid delays. Expect the receiving bank to perform its own anti-money-laundering checks and possibly request source-of-funds clarification; international transfers may incur additional processing windows and intermediary bank delays.</p><h2>Understanding Tax Obligations</h2><p>Converting crypto to fiat generally constitutes a taxable event in most jurisdictions—capital gains are calculated from acquisition cost to sale price, with different rates or rules for short- versus long-term holdings—so document cost basis and holding periods and consult a tax professional for jurisdiction-specific rules. Losses can often be used to offset gains, which makes record-keeping essential.</p><h2>Maintaining Transaction Documentation</h2><p>Keep detailed records of acquisition dates, purchase prices, transaction IDs, and sale receipts; platforms like MEXC provide trade histories and withdrawal logs to support tax compliance and audits. Good documentation simplifies reporting and defends against regulatory enquiries.</p><h2>Direct Platform Charges</h2><p>Conversion costs include trading fees (0.5–2%), withdrawal processing (1–3%), ATM premiums (5–8%), and card conversion spreads—aggregate fees vary by method and jurisdiction and should be modelled before finalising a strategy.</p><h2>Additional Banking and Hidden Charges</h2><p>Don't overlook intermediary bank fees for international transfers (commonly $15–$50), cross-border conversion markups (1–3%), and receiving bank handling charges; cumulatively, these can materially increase the effective cost of conversion.</p><h2>Meeting Regulatory Reporting Standards</h2><p>Large transfers may trigger mandatory reporting (for example, CTR-style reporting thresholds apply in many regimes for transfers above $10,000), and deliberately splitting transactions to evade reporting is illegal and risky; full transparency and adherence to reporting standards are essential.</p><h2>Strategic Planning and Expert Consultation</h2><p>Timing conversions to manage tax exposure, engaging qualified tax advisers, and maintaining comprehensive documentation are the best practices for optimising outcomes and reducing regulatory risk; professionals can recommend jurisdiction-specific strategies—such as tax-loss harvesting or staged liquidation—to minimise fees and tax liabilities.</p>

Converting Cryptocurrency to Fiat: A Comprehensive Guide

Converting cryptocurrency to fiat is a practical process with multiple reliable pathways—each suited to different transaction sizes, urgency levels, privacy preferences, and regulatory constraints—and

<p>PROPS and UNI present markedly different investment propositions in 2025: <strong style="font-weight:bolder">PROPS</strong> offers speculative exposure to <i>tokenised Southeast Asian real estate</i> on a newer Layer 1 ecosystem, whilst <strong style="font-weight:bolder">UNI</strong> is an established governance token tied to a deep-liquidity automated market maker on Ethereum; investors should weigh PROPS' real‑asset linkage and upside potential against its limited market depth, and contrast that with UNI's mature ecosystem, broader liquidity, and governance-driven value dynamics.</p><h2>Context and Positioning</h2><p>PROPS is described as a platform focused on fractional real‑estate investment opportunities in Southeast Asia that leverages blockchain tokenisation to enable smaller ticket exposure to property cash flows and ownership rights, positioning itself as an on‑ramp for real‑world asset (RWA) exposure in crypto portfolios; this contrasts with UNI, which functions principally as a governance token for a well‑established automated market maker protocol that underpins decentralised liquidity provisioning and fee accrual on Ethereum infrastructure. Project whitepapers and official sites are the primary sources for these structural descriptions.</p><h2>Price Performance and Market Snapshot</h2><p>As stated, PROPS is trading at approximately $0.008163, representing a substantial drawdown from its all‑time high (a decline in the region of 91.16%), whilst UNI is trading near $5.764 with a year‑to‑date decline of roughly 59.93%—figures that illustrate sharply different historical performance and scale of market correction. These price trajectories reflect different market capitalisations and liquidity profiles: UNI's market valuation sits in the multi‑billion dollar range and historically commands far higher trading volume, whereas PROPS' capitalisation is measured in the single‑digit millions with notably lower daily volume and thinner order books. Both tokens remain sensitive to overall crypto risk sentiment and macro liquidity conditions.</p><h2>Core Fundamentals and Technology Comparison</h2><p>PROPS' fundamental value proposition centres on <i>real‑world asset tokenisation</i>—value accrues to token holders through mechanisms tied to rental income, property appreciation, or platform fees as outlined in project documentation (token economics typically link a portion of asset cash flows to token utility or buyback mechanisms). The project reportedly builds on the Aptos blockchain (a modern, high‑throughput Layer 1) to provide fast and low‑cost settlement for fractionalised property tokens. UNI's fundamentals are protocol‑centric: UNI is primarily a governance instrument that enables holders to vote on fee structures, liquidity incentives, and protocol upgrades for a decentralised automated market maker operating on Ethereum; UNI's long‑term value is influenced by protocol revenue capture mechanisms, fee allocation proposals, treasury management decisions, and the size of liquidity and TVL (total value locked) in the protocol. These are distinct economic drivers—cash‑flow linkage for PROPS versus governance and ecosystem value for UNI.</p><h2>Liquidity, Market Depth, and Accessibility</h2><p>Liquidity is one of the clearest differentiators. UNI typically shows many multiples more daily volume than PROPS (the analysis cites UNI demonstrating roughly 87× the volume of PROPS), contributing to tighter spreads and greater execution certainty for larger orders. Market valuation comparisons likewise favour UNI (approximately $5.76 billion versus PROPS' roughly $9.8 million), a disparity that produces very different market‑impact profiles for buys or sells. PROPS' trading is concentrated across far fewer venues compared with UNI's broad availability—this limited venue count can exacerbate slippage and create episodic volatility. For traders and allocators, these metrics imply that UNI enables larger position sizes with reduced execution risk, whilst PROPS is better suited to smaller, higher‑risk exposures where potential upside compensates for illiquidity.</p><h2>Risk and Growth Potential</h2><p>PROPS offers a <i>blue‑sky</i> growth narrative: tokenised real estate unlocks new investor pools, improves fractional liquidity for property assets, and—if regulatory frameworks evolve favourably—could attract institutional capital into tokenised RWA products. However, those upside prospects are tempered by concentrated downside risks: deep historical price depreciation, limited market depth, regulatory uncertainty around property tokenisation, and dependence on adoption in Southeast Asian property markets. UNI's strengths are mature DeFi infrastructure, established user base, and demonstrable on‑chain utility; its risks include potential protocol maturation limiting outsized returns, governance dilution or controversial protocol changes, and the broader regulatory scrutiny faced by DeFi platforms. Both tokens are exposed to macro risk (interest rates, risk‑on/off cycles) and sector‑specific events (smart‑contract exploits, legal rulings on tokenised assets).</p><h2>Market Sentiment and Cyclical Backdrop</h2><p>The prevailing market environment is characterised as strongly risk‑off—an extreme fear posture (Fear & Greed Index ~24) that typically depresses speculative and illiquid assets disproportionately. In such environments, UNI often demonstrates relative resilience owing to its liquidity and established utility, whilst PROPS' price action can be more volatile and sensitive to liquidity withdrawals. Traders should therefore consider sentiment overlays when timing entries or sizing positions: wide market fear often compresses valuations but raises execution and exit risks for thinly traded tokens.</p><h2>Value Drivers and Token Economics</h2><p>PROPS' token economics are closely tied to the platform's ability to generate and distribute real cash flows from underlying properties, maintain transparent asset custody and valuation processes, and scale a secondary market for property tokens; regulatory clarity and institutional custody solutions would materially increase its investability. UNI's value hinges on governance outcomes—fee splits, treasury deployments, incentive design—and on-chain activity metrics such as swap volumes, liquidity provider revenues, and integrations that increase protocol usefulness. For investors, PROPS is effectively a play on improving real‑asset tokenisation infrastructure and regional adoption, whereas UNI is a bet on continued DeFi utility and governance‑led accrual.</p><h2>Structured Comparison</h2><p><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Token supply dynamics:</strong> PROPS typically has lower market cap and concentrated free float, increasing volatility; UNI has a larger circulating supply with governance token distributions and historical vesting schedules that affect supply pressure.</p><p><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Institutional participation:</strong> PROPS requires tailored custody and regulatory solutions to attract institutions; UNI's integration into DeFi tooling and custodial services is more mature and familiar to institutional DeFi allocators.</p><p><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Compliance and legal considerations:</strong> PROPS' model intersects with securities, property, and tokenisation law in each jurisdiction it operates; UNI faces DeFi regulatory scrutiny but is less directly tied to securities‑style cash flows.</p><h2>Price Outlooks and Scenario Framing (2025–2030)</h2><p>Forward projections are inherently uncertain and should be treated as illustrative scenarios rather than forecasts. A conservative PROPS trajectory assumes gradual adoption and modest price recovery from current distressed levels towards a mid‑to‑long‑term range (examples cited include movement from $0.0074 towards $0.0232 by 2030 under favourable adoption and regulatory clarity). UNI's scenario range reflects its deeper liquidity and governance upside potential (a hypothetical band from ~$4.28 to ~$10.53 across 2025–2030), driven by protocol revenue growth, broader DeFi activity, and treasury manoeuvres. Key catalysts for either asset include institutional capital flows, regulatory milestones clarifying tokenised real‑asset frameworks, and major protocol upgrades or partnerships.</p><h2>Strategic Positioning and Portfolio Guidance</h2><p>For long‑horizon investors, PROPS may be a small‑allocation speculative component to capture tokenisation upside, whilst UNI can serve as a core DeFi exposure for governance participation and protocol beta. Tactical traders may favour UNI for shorter timeframes due to deeper liquidity and lower slippage. Allocation examples: conservative portfolios might limit PROPS exposure to single‑digit percentages and allocate a larger slice to UNI (reflecting relative liquidity and maturity), whereas aggressive portfolios might increase PROPS weight to capture asymmetric upside—always within strict position‑sizing and risk‑management rules. MEXC provides trading access for both tokens along with educational resources and order types to implement these strategies on its platform.</p><h2>Risk Taxonomy and Mitigations</h2><p>Major risks include market volatility, liquidity constraints, smart contract vulnerabilities, and regulatory uncertainty specific to property tokenisation and DeFi governance. Mitigations include position sizing limits, use of stop orders and limit orders to control execution, diversification across uncorrelated assets, third‑party custodial services for large holdings, and ongoing monitoring of legal developments and protocol audits.</p><h2>Tailored Recommendations</h2><p>Novice investors should prioritise learning and small test allocations, experienced traders can exploit liquidity differentials and governance actions in UNI, and institutional allocators should demand custodial, legal, and compliance assurances before meaningful PROPS exposure. MEXC's platform capabilities and educational offerings are positioned to support all these investor classes with market access and trading tools.</p><h2>Frequently Asked Questions</h2><p><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Why the performance gap?</strong> Differences in liquidity, market cap, and asset linkage (real‑asset vs. protocol governance) explain much of the divergence.</p><p><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Use cases?</strong> PROPS targets real‑estate fractional ownership; UNI governs and influences a major decentralised exchange protocol.</p><p><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Risk for beginners?</strong> PROPS' illiquidity and regulatory uncertainty elevate risk; UNI's governance complexity and DeFi exposure require technical understanding.</p><p><strong style="font-weight:bolder">What favours appreciation?</strong> For PROPS: regulatory clarity and institutional tokenisation flows. For UNI: growing swap volumes, effective treasury use, and governance decisions that increase fee capture.</p><h2>Notes and Limitations</h2><p>This analysis synthesises project descriptions, token economic principles, and market structure observations drawn from official project materials and public market data; investors should consult primary whitepapers, official project disclosures, and perform their own due diligence before making investment decisions.</p>

PROPS vs UNI: Comprehensive Investment Analysis for 2025

PROPS and UNI present markedly different investment propositions in 2025: PROPS offers speculative exposure to tokenised Southeast Asian real estate on a newer Layer 1 ecosystem, whilst UNI is an esta

<p>XL1 and GRT present two distinct investment cases in crypto: <strong style="font-weight:bolder">XL1</strong> is a utility token powering XYO Layer One's verifiable data-focused blockchain and positions itself inside the DePIN and oracle markets, whilst <strong style="font-weight:bolder">GRT</strong> (The Graph) is a long‑established decentralised indexing and query protocol for blockchain data—each carries different liquidity, maturity, and risk profiles that investors should weigh carefully.</p><h2>Functional Distinctions and Market Positioning</h2><p>Comparing the projects and their roles helps frame an investment decision: XL1 functions as the operational currency of XYO Layer One, used for gas, staking incentives, validator rewards, and bridging across chains according to project materials and market listings. GRT, launched in 2020, supplies indexing and query infrastructure for dApps and developers seeking efficient access to blockchain data; its adoption by subgraph developers and integrators is the primary network utility supporting value capture for token holders. These functional distinctions—data ingestion and verification (XL1/XYO) versus indexing and query layers (GRT/The Graph)—define different addressable markets, developer communities, and adoption pathways that drive long‑term token demand.</p><h2>Historical Performance and Volatility Patterns</h2><p>Historic performance highlights meaningful differences in market behaviour and drawdowns: publicly available price-history summaries indicate XL1 has exhibited significant declines from its prior highs and high volatility, with year‑over‑year and all‑time drawdown figures consistent with a developing token in a nascent sector. GRT's historical performance reflects larger drawdowns from the 2021 crypto peak and deeper market‑wide retractions, with GRT trading at a fraction of its 2021 peak—evidence of both market correlation and token‑specific adoption dynamics. These past metrics underscore that both tokens are volatile, but XL1's pattern reflects a smaller, less liquid market compared with GRT's broader footprint and longer track record.</p><h2>Liquidity and Market Capitalisation Dynamics</h2><p>A December 2025 market snapshot shows contrasting liquidity and market‑cap positioning: GRT exhibits materially stronger trading volume and a higher ranking by market capitalisation than XL1, making it generally easier to enter and exit sized positions without as much price slippage. XL1's smaller daily volume and lower market‑cap ranking reflect both a younger market presence and concentration of holders, which can amplify price moves on limited flow. For investors, liquidity differences translate directly into execution risk and the feasibility of deploying larger allocations; projects with higher, more consistent volumes also tend to attract more institutional and developer attention over time.</p><h2>Current Market Sentiment and Implications</h2><p>Current market psychology matters: the broader crypto Fear & Greed indicator sitting in "Extreme Fear" territory signals reduced risk appetite across market participants and can depress short‑term demand for speculative tokens whilst increasing sensitivity to negative headlines—this index reading reflects prevailing market sentiment and tends to correlate with lower transaction velocity and higher volatility. In such environments, smaller or newer tokens like XL1 can experience outsized price moves, whilst more established infrastructure tokens like GRT may see relatively muted percentage swings but still remain correlated to overall market direction.</p><h2>Fundamental Value Drivers and Economic Models</h2><p>Fundamental value drivers differ between the two networks. XL1's value proposition rests on on‑chain verifiable data for location, provenance, and DePIN use cases, cross‑chain compatibility, and an economic model that includes uncapped supply mechanics and activity‑linked token burns and staking incentives as described in XYO/XL1 materials. GRT's fundamentals derive from network effects tied to developers building subgraphs, indexer/operator economics, query fees, and the utility of decentralised indexing as on‑chain data usage grows. Macro factors—such as enterprise blockchain adoption, AI and data demand, regulatory changes, and capital flows into crypto infrastructure—affect both tokens but will manifest differently: XL1 benefits more directly from physical infrastructure (DePIN) and data provenance growth, whereas GRT benefits from broader on‑chain data consumption and dApp proliferation.</p><h2>XL1's Unique Investment Characteristics</h2><p>XL1's unique investment characteristics include its positioning within DePIN and oracle‑adjacent services, an uncapped nominal supply, and economic levers (burns, staking) that attempt to balance inflationary pressures with usage-driven scarcity. These features imply that holder outcomes depend heavily on real usage of XYO Layer One—transaction counts, bridging activity, and staking participation—rather than purely speculative flows. The token's cross‑chain intentions and integration into location‑proof networks create optionality for new real‑world data markets (AI, asset provenance), yet this optionality is conditional on developer and partner adoption, technical execution, and competitive dynamics.</p><h2>GRT's Mature Value Proposition</h2><p>GRT's value proposition is more mature: The Graph has established tools and a developer ecosystem for indexing and querying blockchain data since its mainnet era, providing an essential middleware layer for many dApps and analytics services. This maturity manifests in relatively larger market depth and stronger institutional interest in custody and compliance solutions compared to early‑stage projects. The Graph's revenue model—indexer query fees and staking economics—ties token value to actual utility, and continued adoption by projects building on multiple chains sustains demand for GRT over time.</p><h2>Strategic Investment and Risk Management</h2><p>For investors construing strategy and risk management, practical steps include monitoring on‑chain activity metrics (transaction volumes, active addresses, staked amounts, subgraph deployment rates), assessing token distribution and concentration to estimate sell‑pressure risk, and using pound‑cost averaging for position build‑outs in illiquid tokens like XL1. Entry timing should incorporate liquidity windows and news events tied to product releases or integrations; for GRT, monitoring developer activity and query fee trends gives forward‑looking signals of usage growth, whilst for XL1, watching DePIN node growth and bridge utilisation is critical.</p><h2>Price Projection Frameworks and Scenarios</h2><p>Projected price frameworks across 2025–2030 should be treated as conditional scenarios, not certainties: conservative scenarios assume continued market range‑bound behaviour and limited organic adoption, whilst bullish ones assume sizable growth in DePIN and data demand—producing modelled appreciation of roughly mid‑double digits for both tokens in optimistic cases (projections in this analysis suggested hypothetical 65% upside for XL1 and ~58% for GRT to 2030 under favourable adoption assumptions). These scenario estimates should be used to stress‑test portfolio allocations rather than as firm forecasts, because actual outcomes depend on macro cycles, execution, and regulatory developments.</p><h2>Investment Approaches: Long-Term vs Short-Term</h2><p>Contrasting investment approaches: long‑term holders seeking exposure to infrastructure growth may favour GRT for its liquidity and established network effects, complemented by a smaller, tactical allocation to XL1 for asymmetric upside tied to DePIN adoption. Short‑term traders can exploit XL1's liquidity thinness for larger per cent moves but must accept higher slippage and execution risk. Systematic accumulation—regular buys on pullbacks—and a clear exit discipline are practical across both strategies.</p><h2>Portfolio Construction by Risk Appetite</h2><p>Portfolio construction examples for different risk appetites include conservative allocations with modest exposure to both tokens (for instance, 10–15% XL1 and 15–20% GRT within a crypto allocation), whilst growth‑oriented allocations may tilt heavier towards XL1 (25–35%) with meaningful GRT exposure (20–30%) given its infrastructure role; whichever allocation is chosen, periodic rebalancing and position sizing limits help preserve capital and capture gains.</p><h2>Key Market Risks and Differentiators</h2><p>Key market risks that differentiate the tokens include liquidity constraints and holder concentration (more acute for XL1), historical drawdown amplitude (noted for both but deeper for some infrastructure tokens during bear markets), institutional custody availability (favours GRT), and protocol maturity and security history (GRT benefits from longer operational history). Regulatory and compliance ambiguity around token classification remains a cross‑cutting risk that could affect institutional uptake and custodial solutions.</p><h2>Tailored Recommendations by Investor Profile</h2><p>Tailored recommendations by investor profile: new investors seeking a lower‑risk infrastructure play should prioritise GRT with a modest speculative allocation to XL1 for diversification; experienced traders can employ a tactical 70/30 weighting favouring GRT for liquidity whilst capturing XL1 volatility; institutional allocators typically prefer GRT because of custody, liquidity, and clearer operational history—allocations and risk controls should reflect each investor's time horizon and liquidity needs.</p><h2>Final Verdict</h2><p>Final verdict: for risk‑averse or institutional participants, <strong style="font-weight:bolder">GRT</strong> generally represents the more suitable option due to established network effects, deeper liquidity, and a longer track record; for growth‑oriented investors comfortable with higher execution risk and project‑level uncertainty, <strong style="font-weight:bolder">XL1</strong> offers asymmetric upside tied to DePIN and real‑world data adoption, provided investors accept the attendant volatility and concentration risks.</p><h2>Frequently Asked Questions</h2><p>Frequently asked investor questions include: how the two projects compete (they mostly serve complementary layers of blockchain data infrastructure), what market conditions favour each token (risk‑on environments and DePIN adoption favour XL1; steady on‑chain data growth and developer adoption favour GRT), recommended portfolio weightings by risk profile (examples above), and timing guidance (use staged accumulation and monitor on‑chain growth metrics). Investors should always perform personal due diligence, review official whitepapers and project sites for protocol specifics, and consider market liquidity and custody options before allocating capital.</p><p>Note: This article references project materials and market data summaries for XL1 and The Graph; investors should consult the projects' official documentation and exchanges supporting these tokens for the latest on‑chain metrics and tokenomics before making investment decisions.</p>

XL1 vs GRT: A Comprehensive Investment Analysis for Crypto Infrastructure Tokens

XL1 and GRT present two distinct investment cases in crypto: XL1 is a utility token powering XYO Layer One's verifiable data-focused blockchain and positions itself inside the DePIN and oracle markets

<p>INTER (Inter Milan Fan Token) and OP (Optimism) represent two very different investment propositions: <strong style="font-weight:bolder">INTER</strong> is a sports fan-engagement token tied to a single club's ecosystem and community dynamics, whilst <strong style="font-weight:bolder">OP</strong> is a layer‑2 blockchain token that underpins a scalability solution for Ethereum—each carrying distinct risk/return profiles and use‑case fundamentals that investors should weigh against liquidity conditions and broader macro cycles.</p><h2>Opening Overview and Investment Framing</h2><p>INTER functions primarily as a utility/engagement token that gives Inter Milan supporters governance-like participation, fan rewards, and access to exclusive club experiences; its value is heavily correlated with club performance, fan sentiment, and the broader sports‑token market dynamics on token issuance platforms. OP, by contrast, is the native token of the Optimism stack, a Layer‑2 scaling protocol for Ethereum designed to reduce fees and increase throughput whilst remaining compatible with Ethereum's security model; OP's value is driven by protocol usage, developer activity, TVL (total value locked) on Optimism rollups, and expectations about Ethereum's scaling roadmap. These different foundations mean INTER tends to behave like a sector‑/brand‑linked community token, whilst OP behaves more like infrastructure exposure with network utility and governance considerations.</p><h2>Historical Price Movements and Present Market Snapshot</h2><p>INTER's live price on MEXC shows a trading price in the low fractions of a dollar (for example, $0.3376 at the cited quote), reflecting the small‑cap nature and concentrated holder base typical of club fan tokens. Fan tokens historically show high volatility around sporting seasons, roster moves, and marketing campaigns, and liquidity often compresses outside event windows, producing sharp intraday swings and wide spreads. OP, as an infrastructure token, has historically experienced episodes of sustained interest when on‑chain activity and Layer‑2 adoption rise; its market capitalisation and trading volume are typically larger and more stable than single‑club fan tokens due to broader developer and DeFi exposure. On MEXC, INTER and OP present different liquidity footprints and trading activity profiles, which materially affect execution risk and slippage for investors.</p><h2>Core Characteristics and Applications</h2><p>INTER is issued to represent fan engagement rights—voting in polls, exclusive rewards, and gamified interactions within the club's digital offering—built on CHZ2/club‑token infrastructure models that specialise in tokenised sports engagement and monetisation; these tokens rely on club marketing and fan utility to sustain demand. OP is native to the Optimism protocol, an optimistic rollup solution for Ethereum aiming to scale transactions whilst leveraging Ethereum's security; OP is used for governance, fee subsidisation, and ecosystem incentives that support dApp deployment and cross‑protocol integrations. The fundamental difference: INTER's utility is narrow and consumer‑facing, whilst OP's utility addresses infrastructure scaling needs that serve multiple decentralised applications and developers.</p><h2>Market Performance Evaluation</h2><p>When evaluated over medium and long horizons, OP's market behaviour aligns with broader Ethereum ecosystem growth and periods of DeFi/Layer‑2 adoption, typically showing higher market share within infrastructure tokens than INTER does amongst sports tokens; this reflects OP's broader addressable market and developer network effects. INTER's performance is episodic: spikes tied to high‑visibility club events, partnerships, and token utility rollouts can create rapid appreciation, whilst off‑cycle periods can see muted demand and price erosion. Because OP's fundamentals include protocol TVL and developer activity, it can display more sustained, trend‑driven appreciation when Layer‑2 usage expands; INTER often exhibits higher short‑term volatility and dependence on marketing and fandom cycles.</p><h2>Trading Accessibility and Market Depth on MEXC</h2><p>On MEXC, INTER trades across a smaller set of pairs and exhibits a more constrained liquidity profile when compared to OP, which trades across many more pairs and shows considerably deeper order book depth; in the scenario you provided, INTER trades across 6 pairs whilst OP maintains presence across 52 pairs on MEXC, illustrating a meaningful difference in market accessibility and cross‑pair arbitrage opportunities. This disparity means OP typically offers tighter spreads, larger executable sizes at minimal slippage, and more consistent on‑ramp/off‑ramp options for traders on MEXC, whereas INTER traders should plan for episodic liquidity and possible execution risk during thin market hours. For larger institutional orders, OP's pair diversity and depth reduce market impact relative to INTER.</p><h2>Risk Factor Assessment</h2><p>INTER's primary downside exposure is <i>concentration risk</i>: its value is tightly linked to Inter Milan's sporting results, brand initiatives, and fan engagement programmes; regulatory scrutiny of sports tokens and any negative PR affecting the club can sharply depress demand. OP's risks are more technical and protocol‑centric: smart contract vulnerabilities, governance challenges, or competitive Layer‑2 alternatives could impair adoption and token utility. Both tokens are exposed to macro crypto risk—liquidity contractions, market cycles, and risk‑off sentiment—which can amplify losses. Additionally, compliance frameworks differ: sports fan tokens may encounter unique promotional and consumer protection scrutiny, whilst protocol tokens like OP face decentralised governance and securities‑law debates in some jurisdictions.</p><h2>Investment Merit Evaluation Framework</h2><p>A practical framework assesses: (1) financial health metrics—market cap, circulating supply ratio, on‑chain liquidity; (2) ecosystem activity—developer commits, dApp count and TVL for OP, and active user / engagement metrics for INTER; (3) tokenomics—supply schedule, inflationary pressures, vesting cliffs; (4) governance and alignment—how tokens influence protocol or club decisions; (5) community strength—size/engagement, partnerships, and marketing pipeline; and (6) macro sensitivity—how each token historically reacts to rate changes and liquidity cycles. Applying this consistently: OP scores higher on ecosystem and developer indicators, whilst INTER scores on community engagement and brand affinity metrics but lower on institutional metrics.</p><h2>Macroeconomic Context and Cycle Influence</h2><p>Cryptocurrency valuations remain sensitive to inflation trends, central bank monetary policy, futures market positioning, and collective sentiment indicators; an environment of rising rates or pronounced risk‑off can compress speculative token valuations and tighten liquidity across both INTER and OP. Infrastructure tokens like OP often recover faster when on‑chain activity returns because utility demand translates into renewed transactional volume, whereas community tokens such as INTER can be more vulnerable to discretionary spending declines in risk‑off cycles. Futures and derivatives flows also drive short‑term price action; liquidity evaporation can magnify volatility for lower‑liquidity tokens. Investors should monitor macro signals together with on‑chain metrics to time entries and manage risk.</p><h2>Price Projection Outlook 2025–2030</h2><p>Price forecasting for both tokens should be framed as scenario modelling rather than precise prediction. Conservative scenarios assume muted adoption and tighter liquidity—yielding limited upside; bullish scenarios assume robust adoption: for OP, stronger Layer‑2 adoption, higher TVL, and continued Ethereum scaling demand; for INTER, expanded fan token utility, partnerships, and increased monetisation. Given projection uncertainty, produce ranges rather than points: pessimistic, base, and optimistic targets annually. Note: any numeric targets require current market data, TVL figures, and supply schedules from official whitepapers and protocol sites for rigorous modelling; consult the respective whitepapers and official sites for precise tokenomic parameters before applying numerical forecasts.</p><h2>Strategic Investment Approaches</h2><p>For risk‑averse investors, the suggested allocations (illustrative) tilt towards OP for infrastructure exposure and away from concentrated fan tokens: e.g., 5–10% allocation to INTER and 15–25% to OP within a crypto sleeve, emphasising position sizing, pound‑cost averaging, and stop‑loss discipline. Growth‑oriented portfolios seeking asymmetric returns might tilt heavier into INTER (15–20%) for speculative event‑driven upside, with 20–30% OP exposure for long‑term protocol appreciation and governance participation. Active traders can exploit EVENT‑driven volatility in INTER around matches and announcements, whilst swing and position traders can leverage OP's deeper liquidity and broader pair availability on MEXC to implement layered strategies.</p><h2>Trading Performance and Liquidity Comparison</h2><p>Quantitatively, OP's larger presence across MEXC pairs and higher trading volume translates to a liquidity advantage—cited as approximately 2.9x greater trading volume versus INTER—resulting in tighter spreads and more robust order book depth for OP compared to INTER. This structural liquidity gap matters for execution: institutional or large retail orders in INTER may face price impact that OP orders typically avoid. Traders should use limit orders, assess depth at key levels, and consider pair selection on MEXC to minimise slippage when trading INTER, whilst OP traders can access deeper markets and multiple pairs for risk management and arbitrage.</p><h2>Final Considerations and Next Steps</h2><p>OP is generally the more institutionalised, infrastructure‑oriented investment with broader utility and deeper liquidity, whilst INTER is a high‑beta, fandom‑driven token with episodic upside tied to club events and marketing. Investors should: (1) review each project's whitepaper and official website for up‑to‑date tokenomics and governance rules, (2) check on‑chain activity and TVL (for OP) or engagement metrics (for INTER), and (3) size positions according to liquidity and macro risk tolerance. For all trading on MEXC, align order types with liquidity realities and use diversification and disciplined allocation rules to manage idiosyncratic and systemic risks.</p>

INTER vs OP: Investment Analysis and Market Comparison

INTER (Inter Milan Fan Token) and OP (Optimism) represent two very different investment propositions: INTER is a sports fan-engagement token tied to a single club's ecosystem and community dynamics, w

Buy/Sell at the best prices

P2P Trading

Buy/Sell via SEPA

Global Bank Transfer

Buy Crypto

Check latest market conditions

Markets

High-quality assets on MEXC

Spot

Early access to on-chain gems

Meme+

Top tokens, instant conversion, 0 fees

Convert

Trade Early with 0 Fees

Pre-market Trading

Exclusive benefits for MX holders

MX Zone

Trade on-chain with USDT

Alpha

Perpetual futures settled in USDT

USDT-M futures

Perpetual futures settled in USDC

USDT-C futures

Perpetual futures settled in crypto

Coin-M Futures

Auto-trade. Auto-profit.

Grid Trading

Follow top traders

Copy Trade

Simulate USDT-M trading

Demo Trading

Futures-related introduction

Futures Overview

Futures

Earn up to 600% APR

MEXC Earn

Hold assets to earn interest daily

Hold and Earn

Seamless SOL staking, effortless on-chain rewards

SOL Staking

Instant loans at competitive rates

MEXC Loans

Earn

Claim $10,000 in bonuses easily

Rewards Hub

Invite a friend, grab 20 USDT

Invite and Earn

Your Easiest Way to Top Tokens — Early or at a Discount

Launchpad

Deposit, trade and win grand prize

Airdrop+

Hold MX, earn new token airdrops

Kickstarter

Enjoy unlimited trading on all pairs

Special Offer: 0 Spot Fees

Win up to $10,000 in token airdrop

Futures Trading League

Trade futures and claim huge rewards daily

Futures M-Day

Share up to 100,000 USDT in bonus

Super X-game

Events

Commission Upgrade: 40% & Up!

Referral Programme

Up to 70% commission

Affiliate Programme

The latest crypto news & updates

Crypto News

Stay updated with MEXC news

Announcements

Must-read beginner's guide

Learn

Tailored strategic solutions for institutional users

MEXC Institutional

More

<p>PANews reported on December 26 that, according to the Aave Governance Forum, the ARFC proposal to formally transfer Aave brand assets (domain names, social media accounts, naming rights, etc.) to DAO control concluded its voting on December 26 and ultimately failed to pass. The proposal received 994,800 votes against (55.29%), only 63,000 votes in favor, and 41.21% abstained. The proposal aimed to address the current risks of brand assets being controlled by third parties and sought to clarify ownership and use through a DAO legal structure.</p>