According to Patrick McCorry, crypto should reward merit over geography and founders must assemble and retain top contributors under libertarian principles, framing why team quality is central to project outcomes that investors monitor. Source: Patrick McCorry (@stonecoldpat0) on X, Oct 18, 2025. He states that good people attract good people, so founders should do everything to help top contributors take an early bet on the project and then be selective to compound the snowball effect. Source: Patrick McCorry (@stonecoldpat0) on X, Oct 18, 2025. He advises cutting rot and toxicity early because strong contributors will not stay in toxic environments, and he recommends observing how others react when someone leaves as a litmus test for hidden toxicity. Source: Patrick McCorry (@stonecoldpat0) on X, Oct 18, 2025. He recommends leveraging limited availability of high-impact contributors rather than letting capacity sit idle, emphasizing process design to make the most of scarce expert time. Source: Patrick McCorry (@stonecoldpat0) on X, Oct 18, 2025. He notes that persistent frustration about direction and pace leads to departures and suggests surrounding the core team with people aligned on the path or willing to disagree and commit. Source: Patrick McCorry (@stonecoldpat0) on X, Oct 18, 2025. He stresses opportunity cost and fairness, warning that underpaying strong contributors leads to outbidding by others and that equitable treatment reduces resentment and attrition. Source: Patrick McCorry (@stonecoldpat0) on X, Oct 18, 2025. For traders and token investors, these governance and retention signals can be monitored as proxies for execution risk and community health during due diligence and position sizing, per McCorry’s guidance. Source: Patrick McCorry (@stonecoldpat0) on X, Oct 18, 2025.

According to @stonecoldpat0, Tempo is assembling a strong team around a stablecoin effort. source: @stonecoldpat0 (Twitter, Oct 17, 2025) According to @stonecoldpat0, the project should avoid Libra’s mistakes by keeping the stablecoin simple, not delaying the go-live date, iterating quickly on the technology, and prioritizing the user interface. source: @stonecoldpat0 (Twitter, Oct 17, 2025) According to @stonecoldpat0, these execution priorities put speed to market and usability at the center of the roadmap. source: @stonecoldpat0 (Twitter, Oct 17, 2025) According to @stonecoldpat0, traders tracking Tempo can focus on whether the team ships quickly, iterates at a high cadence, and delivers a simple, clean UI, as these are explicitly highlighted milestones. source: @stonecoldpat0 (Twitter, Oct 17, 2025)

According to Patrick McCorry, crypto’s publicly verifiable, on-chain design enables market participants to detect and correct transaction mistakes in real time, strengthening transparency and truthfulness for traders (source: https://twitter.com/stonecoldpat0/status/1978705379849883935). He contrasts this with legacy, opaque systems where such errors likely occur and are not immediately visible, emphasizing the trading advantage of open verification for timely risk monitoring (source: https://twitter.com/stonecoldpat0/status/1978705379849883935). McCorry referenced a Whale Alert post as an example of public on-chain monitoring that surfaces anomalies instantly to the market, reinforcing the utility of real-time alerts for trade execution and risk control (source: https://x.com/whale_alert/status/1978539763301744815).

According to @stonecoldpat0, despite claims that stablecoins will force banks to share deposit yield, USDC and USDT holders generally do not receive the underlying reserve yield unless coins are held on custodial exchanges that choose to share it, limiting direct wallet-level income today, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Oct 4, 2025. According to @stonecoldpat0, only when stablecoins rebase on-chain and pass yield directly to user addresses would they exert meaningful pressure on bank deposit pricing, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Oct 4, 2025. According to @stonecoldpat0, the trading takeaway is that until USDC and USDT implement on-chain rebasing or other pass-through mechanisms, stablecoin carry remains issuer- or custodian-captured rather than wallet-native, so DeFi stablecoin APYs and bank-competition catalysts are unlikely to see a structural uplift in the near term, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Oct 4, 2025.

According to @stonecoldpat0, DAO tokenholders may vote to maximize personal profit via token price rather than the ecosystem’s long-term value, creating misaligned incentives; source: @stonecoldpat0, Twitter post dated Sep 10, 2025. The author states that some voters could oppose proposals perceived as positive if rejection leads to a lower token price, enabling cheaper accumulation; source: @stonecoldpat0, Twitter post dated Sep 10, 2025. This implies adversarial voting behavior that can pressure DAO token prices around governance events and elevate short-term volatility, a risk traders should factor into positioning and liquidity management; source: @stonecoldpat0, Twitter post dated Sep 10, 2025.

According to @stonecoldpat0, the US policy appeal of USD stablecoins is to expand the buyer base for US Treasuries rather than to transition everything into stablecoins and then devalue them, which would also devalue USD itself; source: @stonecoldpat0. He calls the devaluation narrative scaremongering and asserts stablecoins are positioned to gain significant market share in coming years, with USD enjoying a head start due to market forces; source: @stonecoldpat0. For traders, his view points to tracking stablecoin market share and demand for T-bills as indicators for on-chain USD liquidity conditions that underpin crypto trading activity; source: @stonecoldpat0.

According to Patrick McCorry, the current Bitcoin OP_RETURN governance dispute has turned toxic despite not involving a consensus rule change, highlighting that the issue is about policy-level standardness rather than base consensus. Source: Patrick McCorry on X. In Bitcoin Core, OP_RETURN handling is governed by standardness policy and not consensus, allowing nodes and miners to independently choose relay and inclusion behavior, which can alter transaction propagation and block composition. Source: Bitcoin Core documentation. Relay and inclusion policies directly affect mempool backlog and fee rates that traders monitor when assessing BTC liquidity and intraday volatility, making mempool size, feerate bands, and miner inclusion patterns key signals around this debate. Source: Bitcoin Core documentation on mempool and fee estimation.

According to @stonecoldpat0, launching a blockchain requires specifying the decision-making quorum, validator uptime targets, per-agent participation costs, and how validators are compensated or can profit, positioning these variables as the core constraints every new network must solve, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Sep 7, 2025. He states that to pay validators purely via fees, average fee multiplied by throughput must exceed per-validator compensation, making the economics challenging at scale, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Sep 7, 2025. He notes that with thousands of validators and monthly validator costs in the range of $10k to $100k, expenses escalate and typically require token inflation that pays validators at the expense of everyone else, implying dilution risk for non-validator stakeholders, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Sep 7, 2025. He adds that only a few networks may eventually earn enough fees to cover costs without inflation, meaning a broad set of L1s is unlikely to be sustainably fee-funded, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Sep 7, 2025. He argues L2s are compelling because fewer than 10 agents can run the network, making it far more likely that fee revenue can cover costs with no token inflation required, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Sep 7, 2025. He also highlights that L2s preserve experimentation with custom VMs and proofs while accessing the soon-to-be greatest liquidity source, enabling neutrality and resilience without massive validator sets, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Sep 7, 2025. These points make validator count, per-node cost, fee-throughput coverage, and reliance on inflation key inputs for assessing network sustainability and dilution dynamics when comparing L1s vs L2s, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Sep 7, 2025.

According to @stonecoldpat0, there has been no Bitcoin spam for a while and he supports Bitcoin Core updating transaction relay rules, citing context from an @ercwl talk and stating it is not 2014 anymore, implying policy modernisation is warranted for the network stack. Source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, 2025-08-28. Relay rules determine which transactions nodes relay and accept into mempools, shaping propagation and standardness policies that directly influence throughput under load and the fee market during congestion. Source: Bitcoin Core policy and relay documentation; Bitcoin.org Developer Guide (Transactions, Mempool, and Fees). For BTC traders, any relay policy change can shift mempool composition and effective minimum fee rates for timely confirmations, so monitor mempool size and median fee-rate changes around implementation windows to manage slippage and settlement risk. Source: Bitcoin.org Developer Guide on fees and confirmation dynamics; Bitcoin Core policy documentation. Tactical takeaway: if mempool backlog rises and fee-rate floors climb following relay-policy adjustments, tighten intraday risk limits on on-chain settlement, widen withdrawal-fee assumptions for arbitrage legs, and prioritize high-fee, child-pays-for-parent strategies to maintain confirmation speed. Source: Bitcoin.org Developer Guide (fee estimation, CPFP mechanics); Bitcoin Core policy documentation.

According to Patrick McCorry, the open question is why Governor Bravo-style governance sets quorum relative to the total votable supply rather than the sum of delegated tokens, and whether this choice was driven by gas constraints around 2021; he raised the issue on X on Aug 23, 2025. Source: https://twitter.com/stonecoldpat0/status/1959147607751790772 In Compound’s Governor Alpha/Bravo, quorum is a fixed absolute threshold (e.g., 400,000 COMP required) while voting power still comes from delegated votes at a snapshot block, meaning the quorum requirement is not tied to the currently delegated supply. Source: https://docs.compound.finance/v2/governance/ Uniswap’s Governor Bravo implementation defines quorum as 4% of UNI total supply at the snapshot block, explicitly anchoring quorum to total supply rather than the amount currently delegated. Source: https://docs.uniswap.org/concepts/governance/overview The design rationale for total-supply-based quorum is to ensure sufficient participation and mitigate governance capture, as the OpenZeppelin Governor framework specifies quorum as a fraction of the token’s past total supply via on-chain snapshots. Source: https://docs.openzeppelin.com/contracts/4.x/governance#quorum For trading, total-supply-anchored or fixed absolute quorums make proposals dependent on broad participation before execution, which can slow or constrain fee or parameter changes that may act as catalysts for COMP and UNI until quorum is reached. Source: https://docs.compound.finance/v2/governance/ and https://docs.uniswap.org/concepts/governance/overview

According to @stonecoldpat0, the key question is whether Stripe and Circle are holding back potential L2 launches because they want stablecoin-denominated gas, but neither company has publicly announced an L2 or cited stablecoin gas as a blocker, per Stripe’s 2024 stablecoin payments announcement and Circle’s product documentation that focus on USDC, CCTP, and Programmable Wallets rather than an L2. On current major Ethereum L2s, gas is paid in ETH, per Optimism and Arbitrum documentation, reinforcing ETH’s role as the native L2 fee asset. Stablecoin-fee user experience is already possible via account abstraction and paymasters that let users pay fees in USDC while the protocol settles gas in ETH, per the ERC‑4337 specification, Circle Programmable Wallets gas abstraction docs, and zkSync Era documentation on paymasters. Some networks natively allow multi-currency gas, such as Celo which supports fees in cUSD, showing stablecoin gas is technically feasible without launching a new L2, per Celo documentation. Trading takeaway: until an official L2 plan is disclosed by either firm, ETH remains the dominant L2 gas asset while USDC utility expands through mainstream integrations like Stripe’s stablecoin payments, per Stripe’s announcement and L2 documentation.

According to @stonecoldpat0, concerns about ETH performance are noise, citing the crypto industry’s survival from the period when BTC traded near $30 and through multiple black swans and nation-state attacks as the key signal, source: @stonecoldpat0. He emphasizes industry resilience as the foundation for long-term conviction in ETH and the broader crypto market, which communicates a bullish stance rather than short-term fear, source: @stonecoldpat0. The statement was posted on Aug 8, 2025 on X and serves as a real-time sentiment data point for traders monitoring ETH and BTC narratives, source: @stonecoldpat0.

According to Patrick McCorry, the Entropy Advisors proposal has officially reached quorum and passed the vote, ensuring continued exclusive collaboration with ArbitrumDAO for the next two years. This development means Entropy Advisors will receive funding to remain dedicated to ArbitrumDAO, potentially enhancing the protocol’s strategic planning and governance stability. Traders should monitor ARB token activity for potential market movements as on-chain governance contracts execute this decision, indicating strengthened ecosystem support and long-term commitment. Source: Patrick McCorry

According to Patrick McCorry, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are facing criticism due to concerns that they grant central banks extensive access to individual transaction data and the ability to restrict payments for specific activities. McCorry notes that while there are arguments against CBDCs due to these privacy and control issues, he does not fully agree that they should be outright banned. For cryptocurrency traders, ongoing debates about CBDC implementation highlight the growing interest in decentralized alternatives like BTC and ETH, as investors may seek greater privacy and autonomy than CBDCs can offer (source: Patrick McCorry).

According to Patrick McCorry, clarity is emerging around the differences between tokenized bank deposits and stablecoins. McCorry highlights that stablecoins give users a claim on a counterparty expected to hold a full reserve of the asset, while tokenized deposits provide users with a claim directly on their bank's balance sheet. This structural distinction affects asset security, risk, and liquidity, which are crucial considerations for traders evaluating on-chain assets and DeFi integrations. The evolving understanding of these instruments could influence both trading strategies and the broader adoption of tokenized assets in the crypto market (source: Patrick McCorry).

According to Patrick McCorry, there is a significant friction between the deployment of immutable smart contracts and effective user protection in the crypto market. McCorry warns that if regulations focus solely on encouraging developers to create truly immutable smart contracts, it could undermine long-term user safety. For crypto traders, this highlights a potential risk: once an immutable contract is deployed, vulnerabilities or unforeseen issues cannot be patched, increasing the exposure to permanent losses and exploitation. This regulatory approach could affect the security landscape of DeFi protocols and alter risk assessment strategies for active traders. Source: Patrick McCorry

According to Patrick McCorry, there is still no definitive regulatory guidance on whether crypto front-ends or user interfaces will be required to perform Know Your Customer (KYC) checks on users transacting through their platforms. McCorry argues that requiring KYC at the UI level is unreasonable since front-ends primarily facilitate the creation of transaction payloads. This ongoing uncertainty may impact trading operations and compliance strategies for decentralized exchanges and other Web3 projects, potentially influencing user onboarding flows and market liquidity (source: Patrick McCorry).

According to Patrick McCorry, the SEC has the ability to establish a framework that exempts tokenized securities from certain existing rules and oversight requirements. This regulatory flexibility could have major implications for decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and similar platforms aiming to enable the trading of tokenized securities. The potential for clear exemption pathways increases the feasibility and attractiveness of DEXs supporting these assets, potentially accelerating the adoption of compliant tokenized securities trading in crypto markets. Source: Patrick McCorry

According to Patrick McCorry, both the SEC and CFTC are now aligning their efforts not only to work with the cryptocurrency industry but also to concentrate on fighting fraud and assisting victims. This regulatory coordination is expected to create a safer trading environment and may reduce criminal activity in crypto markets, making it significant for traders monitoring BTC and ETH price movements. Source: Patrick McCorry.

According to @stonecoldpat0, the latest White House report on cryptocurrency does not distinguish between decentralized networks and non-custodial operators, focusing solely on smart contracts while overlooking services built on top of blockchains. This lack of differentiation could create regulatory uncertainty for various DeFi platforms, impacting trader decision-making and risk assessment in the crypto market. Source: @stonecoldpat0