Venice (VVV)

Venice in the top 20 startups by web traffic (founded since 2020) Only other “crypto” protocol listed is Polymarket Watching open router closely because of the inference traffic, I’ll link the article on inference below

So VVV went up 20% but then retraced the entire move on news of their equity financing Initially seen as bullish, then the market walked it back as discussions around equity-token conflict popped up GRASS fell a bit after they announced USDC rewards for nodes, but is now up 13% today Grass nodes are pissed at the size of their rewards, but it's actually bullish for the token because it seems there will be much fewer tokens emitted from the "community" bucket Market got both reactions wrong at first before eventually correcting

The man who dissolved his company into a token just sold the company and retained the token Venice just completed the cleanest equity round in the crypto space - no presale, PMF first, VC tokens locked. And once again, it proves the truth about every dual structure out there: the token is the marketing layer. Credit first, since it's the truth. Product-market fit before the $VVV airdrop. 18 months of open trading before any external capital. Investor tokens on a 1-year cliff with 3-year linear vesting. Supply release ~0.2% of daily volume. Company has never sold tokens through a 700% YTD rally. Against the low-float-high-FDV model, this is top-decile behavior. Now the details. 1/ The unicorn numbers require the token to close. $65m for 8.98% prices the equity at at most $724m, not $1b. 8.98% of $1b would give $89.8m; investors paid $65m in cash. The ~$25m difference is essentially the 1.5m VVV grant at spot. Only by valuing the community's token treasury as part of the investment can the headline valuat

The man who dissolved his company into a token just sold the company and retained the token Venice just completed the cleanest equity round in the crypto space - no presale, PMF first, VC tokens locked. And once again, it proves the truth about every dual structure out there: the token is the marketing layer. Credit first, since it's the truth. Product-market fit before the $VVV airdrop. 18 months of open trading before any external capital. Investor tokens on a 1-year cliff with 3-year linear vesting. Supply release ~0.2% of daily volume. Company has never sold tokens through a 700% YTD rally. Against the low-float-high-FDV model, this is top-decile behavior. Now the details. 1/ The unicorn numbers require the token to close. $65m for 8.98% prices the equity at at most $724m, not $1b. 8.98% of $1b would give $89.8m; investors paid $65m in cash. The ~$25m difference is essentially the 1.5m VVV grant at spot. Only by valuing the community's token treasury as part of the investment can the headline valuat

Venice raises a $65M Series A at a $1B valuation

https://t.co/cJ7nT7B6qO

Venice's latest funding has sparked a heated debate across CT, specifically on its dual equities + token structure. The dual-equities-plus-token structure is common in crypto. Most VC-backed projects that operate both a company entity and a launched token run some version of it, and the model spread widely from 2021 onward. The base:0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf debate, summarized: 🔴 The dual structure is seen as fundamentally flawed: - Inherent conflict of interest. Equity shareholders and token holders now have separate claims on value. Equity can capture cash flows, assets, and control, while token holders are left with a burn mechanism that the company controls at its discretion. - Token holders own nothing. The equity company owns and operates all the actual infrastructure, compute, and business. base:0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf is just an ERC-20 that the company can buy back and burn whenever they want. 🟢 On the other hand, supporters counter that Venice sequenced the r