Guests: Arthur Hayes, CIO of Maelstrom; Illia Polosukhin, Co-founder of NEAR

Moderators: Andy; Rob

Podcast Source: The Rollup

Original Title: Arthur Hayes & Illia Polosukhin: Privacy Is The Last 1000x (NEAR & ZEC)

Air Date: May 25, 2026

Key Takeaways

This episode of The Rollup features Arthur Hayes and Illia Polosukhin discussing macro liquidity, privacy assets, NEAR Intents, AI and on-chain execution layers, and the investment thesis behind HYPE, NEAR, and ZEC. Arthur argues that war, the AI arms race, and supply chain reconfiguration are driving the U.S., China, and Europe to continue supporting their economies through debt and monetary expansion, with liquidity eventually spilling into Bitcoin and a select few crypto assets with real narratives and revenue-generating capacity. Illia emphasizes that for blockchain to enter daily payments, payroll, invoicing, and AI agent-based economies, privacy is not optional—it’s a prerequisite for mass adoption. Both agree that the crypto market is transitioning from indiscriminate speculation to fundamental screening, where privacy, sovereignty, genuine revenue, and token value capture will define the next phase.

Highlighted Insights

Macro Liquidity and the AI Arms Race

L1 Blockchain Convergence and Fundamental Recovery in Crypto

Undervaluation of Zcash and Privacy Assets

NEAR Intents, Private Transactions, and Mass Adoption

AI Agents and On-Chain Execution Layers

Hyperliquid and the Dream of Decentralized Finance

AI Labor Substitution and Political Risk

Arthur’s Macro Investment Thesis

Moderator Rob: Arthur, you were previously cautious, warning about risks, but then turned fully bullish. What changed? What triggered this shift?

Arthur Hayes:

At the start of the year, I wrote an article arguing that Bitcoin was already pricing in a credit event driven by AI-induced deflation. My thesis was that monetary authorities wouldn’t print enough money until they saw a financial crisis. At that time, my entire argument was that Nasdaq had been flat since Bitcoin hit its all-time high, while Bitcoin declined alongside the U.S. investment-grade bond ETF IGB—from $126,000 down to just above $60,000. I viewed this as a clear sign of a credit event.

Then on February 28, the U.S. launched strikes against Iran, igniting a full-scale war scenario. This made markets realize this would be a liquidity-positive event. First, AI is now integral to national defense—drones, AI-driven drones, and AI intelligence systems are already involved in military operations across all belligerent sides. Governments will print money to win wars, and since AI is part of warfare, both the U.S. and Chinese governments will underwrite AI capital expenditures.

We’re already seeing bank loans and equity investments flow toward semiconductor manufacturers. In the U.S., companies like Intel have received support, and similar announcements exist in quantum computing—such as a $1 billion investment into IBM-related projects. All these are parts of the same theme.

Meanwhile, many nations previously assumed they could secure food and energy via contested waterways like the Strait of Hormuz. Now that situation has become untenable, prompting them to ask: Why hold U.S. Treasuries? If I need to feed my population or operate from an isolated island without aviation fuel, holding U.S. Treasuries won’t help—especially if my ships can’t even pass through the strait.

Thus, they must build redundant supply chains for critical goods—especially food and energy—invest in new trade relationships, and construct pipelines allowing oil to bypass the Persian Gulf, flowing instead from places like the UAE. All of this means savings held in the form of U.S. Treasuries must be sold and converted into tangible goods.

The U.S. will not allow such selling to crash the market. It will print money to fill the hole, ensuring stability. Therefore, I believe February 28 was the catalyst. The U.S., China, and Europe will all print money to fund wartime economies and AI capital spending—and this money will ultimately flow into Bitcoin, which explains why Bitcoin has performed so strongly.

Heavy Bets on NEAR, ZEC, and HYPE

Arthur Hayes:

We’ve also seen a small number of tokens begin to rise. Among them, the ones I hold—NEAR, HYPE, and Zcash—have performed exceptionally well since February 28. That’s my core logic.

In Q1, I didn’t do much trading. After the war began, I did some, but fundamentally, we had already acquired these assets at excellent prices months ago. Now the market is validating why we bought them six to twelve months ago.

Moderator Andy: The entire crypto Twitter community is debating whether this trade has become consensus, but here we’ve already gone all-in. We’ve been focused on macro trends and watched your shows and articles on CoinDesk. Initially, the market was hesitant, but then NEAR, HYPE, and ZEC suddenly surged—so everything is finally coalescing during this integration phase.

Layer-1 Convergence Has Already Begun

Moderator Andy: Illia, I’d love to hear your take on market convergence. This isn’t your first bear market—we’ve seen these phases before—but this one feels especially real because the ecosystem itself is evolving.

Institutional allocators have entered the space. The macro environment is highly unstable, pushing people to adopt a mindset: adapt to the institutional era, or get left behind. Meanwhile, the industry has matured and grown more complex—you now need product-market fit, revenue, real users, and truly sustainable, robust tokenomics.

From a founder’s perspective, what’s changed over the past 6 to 8 months? Why has the pace accelerated so quickly? How has NEAR navigated this phase?

Illia Polosukhin:

I see several converging threads. Let me start with Layer-1 and Layer-2 logic. I recall giving a talk back in 2019 where I said we’d first experience a massive explosion, followed by a consolidation phase, after which only a few projects would survive. We’re now approaching that stage.

Blockspace has become a highly commoditized good, with supply vastly exceeding demand. The only historical issue was lack of interoperability. NEAR’s bet on chain abstraction and Intents is precisely to make blockspace interchangeable. That means every chain, every asset, every user can truly connect without worrying about which specific blockspace they’re using.

The second thread is the return to fundamentals. You’ve been preaching this for over a year—possibly even years. Now it’s actually happening. Whether it’s the market or institutional investors analyzing the market—by “institutional,” I mean funds and professional investors, not BlackRock or Fidelity—everyone is shifting.

The old logic is fading: we buy an asset because retail will keep buying it. Retail risk appetite has dropped significantly. As Arthur just said, people care more about whether they can afford oil and food next year than whether they should speculate on some asset.

So the market now asks: Which assets generate real revenue? Which provide products we actually use? If I stake it, can I gain new capabilities? For example, staking HYPE gives you lower fees and greater market access. ZEC offers privacy. NEAR provides cross-chain, intent-based, and computational capabilities.

These are exactly the new capabilities market participants want. Thus, these assets are becoming focal points—not those tokens that may be holdable but whose value remains unclear until fee switches are flipped. I believe these two threads are converging, forming the broader environment of today’s crypto market.

Why Arthur Loves Zcash

Moderator Rob: The industry seems to be entering a restructuring phase. Bankless folks appear to have split—David Hoffman sold all his ETH, Merch no longer supports Solana, and fully pivoted to Zcash. Arthur, why is Zcash and privacy so important to you? Is this central to crypto’s ethos? What role does NEAR Intent play here?

Arthur Hayes:

Zcash’s current momentum is certainly new, but I remember back in 2016, before Zcash launched on mainnet, it was the hottest thing in the market. At the time, I was still at BitMEX—we launched the first Zcash price derivative. The market was extremely volatile. Prices on Poloniex once soared to around $3,000. If you recall that exchange, there was even a moment when 7 BTC exchanged for 1 ZEC.

That was a wild day. Then, due to block rewards causing rapid supply inflation, prices collapsed. But Zcash had issues back then—like the trusted setup, requiring trust in Zooko, Eli, and others not to cheat during key generation rituals. There was also controversy over the 20% block reward subsidy.

But those problems are now resolved. The protocol has undergone upgrades; the trusted setup has been removed. We know it’s cryptographically secure, and the 20% subsidy is gone. It now has a clean slate, with sufficient supply to form a real market—not the extreme volatility of early genesis.

Naval Changed Arthur’s Mindset

Arthur Hayes:

Last year at Token 2049, I attended a dinner where Naval was present. He started talking to me about Zcash. By then, Zcash had risen from around $30 to about $120. I asked him why he was bullish, knowing I held a lot of Monero.

He explained that Monero’s ring signatures aren’t as strong as people think. Japanese law enforcement successfully de-anonymized transactions in a criminal case. After hearing that, I thought, “This guy clearly knows his stuff.” So I went home and bought millions in Zcash.

I also noticed something: I have many brokers, but only two would quote me Zcash prices. Many institutions say, “We don’t do privacy coins.” My reaction? If I can’t easily buy it, I want it even more.

Then I did deeper research, validating Naval’s claims. I kept buying and adding. Zcash surged in 2016 because people realized Bitcoin is pseudonymous, not fully private. Many genuinely care about privacy in certain contexts. Having a private currency on the internet is perfectly valid—this is exactly what Zcash represents, and what Monero represents.

As we increasingly see that Big Tech, Big Government, and AI can track everything we do, cryptographic proof of financial privacy becomes essential. That’s why I made Zcash my second-largest holding—even though I bought it after a 4x rally from $30, it’s still performed exceptionally well.

Next came UX. The best apps used to go by other names—now they’re called Zashi. Users can now hold shielded Zcash in a user-friendly mobile app. With cold wallets like Keystone, you can store shielded Zcash securely offline. I strongly recommend all Zcash holders use the shielded form—otherwise, why hold it at all?

NEAR Intents and Anonymous Exchange

Arthur Hayes:

UX is now excellent. Next comes the more interesting part. We’ve invested in a round of funding for Zashi. Inside the Zashi app, I can send any crypto asset anonymously to anyone online using shielded Zcash and NEAR Intents. For example, I start with shielded Zcash and end up sending USDT on Tron—all anonymously.

This is crucial. Look at NEAR’s price: like other crypto assets, it’s far from its all-time highs and has endured a cycle. I thought: if privacy becomes a dominant theme, Zcash is the first stop; the second is who can enable anonymous value transfer across any chain. This capability is equally powerful.

NEAR’s economics will catch up—this is a highly asymmetric opportunity. Of course, my allocation to NEAR isn’t as large as Zcash, but I believe NEAR has 20x potential in the next year, while Zcash may offer around 5x. You allocate capital based on risk. This is why these two assets form the core of my privacy thesis: in a world of AI, Big Tech, and Big Government, privacy will be revalued by the market—and Maelstrom will benefit.

Privacy Is a Prerequisite for Mass Adoption

Moderator Rob: Illia, when you look at NEAR through the lens of a capital allocator like Arthur, clearly AI narrative is central—supporting identity management, payment networks, and infrastructure needed by AI agents. But the real unlock for Zcash’s ecosystem lies in Intents, which makes privacy coins more efficient and practical.

Here’s some data: NEAR Intents’ historical transaction volume is close to $20 billion, currently around $18.9 billion. From these transactions, NEAR Intents has generated $33 million in fees, with a significant portion coming from Zcash—because this is currently the only place where such operations can be completed. Arthur also mentioned that private intents can generate positive protocol cash flow.

How do you plan to monetize Intents? What’s NEAR’s current cash flow status? How do you plan to scale NEAR Intents to better serve the broader NEAR ecosystem?

Illia Polosukhin:

Arthur just highlighted the need for on-chain privacy. I’d go further: if we want blockchain to truly enter everyday life, privacy is non-negotiable. Privacy is, in fact, the precondition for widespread crypto adoption.

If I buy coffee at a café, I don’t want the café to know how much money I have, nor do I want the world to know I just paid there. I also don’t want someone waiting for me the next time I visit. Recently, someone on Twitter discussed another person’s on-chain credit card transaction—everyone could see it. That’s absurd.

Therefore, if we want crypto, stablecoins, and other assets to become everyday currencies in real-world transactions, privacy is foundational. Even for investing, I now have to manage multiple addresses—one for payments, one for receipts—each isolated and tracked in spreadsheets. That’s unacceptable in the real world.

Privacy Intents aim to deliver more than just sovereign, censorship-resistant, private assets like Zcash. Zcash is vital—we definitely need it. But we also want to solve another problem: how to confidentially transfer, trade, pay, earn yields, and perform other operations across the 150+ assets we support.

Privacy Intents essentially build a private shard on top of NEAR. Users enter this private shard, conduct transactions internally, and external observers cannot see what’s happening. It doesn’t require complex cryptography on the client side—everything happens internally. It’s lightweight and programmable. You can deploy smart contracts inside.

This means we can already support transactions, transfers, and private payments. More features will follow through partnerships and ecosystem integrations. I’m excited because I see this as the execution layer of the privacy thesis—making privacy widely accessible, usable, and easy to adopt.

For example, salary. No one uses crypto to pay salaries because everyone sees how much each person earns. Invoices, and countless other use cases we’ve long claimed crypto should enable—when everything is fully transparent, they simply can’t happen. This is incredibly exciting—it will boost transaction volume and count.

We charge fees on every transaction and use those to buy back NEAR. The economic model is straightforward. Our goal is to keep doing this. Meanwhile, across the ecosystem, we’ve already reduced inflation. In November last year, we halved inflation. NEAR is fully diluted, and I’ll continue pushing the community to reduce inflation further. As ecosystem revenue grows, we can balance the ledger, gradually move toward deflation, and achieve true economic sustainability and profitability.

Arthur Hayes:

I’ll add to Illia’s point. Full dilution is critical—especially when assessing whether a Layer-1 can truly perform in a rising market. Many Layer-1s engage in flashy gimmicks, but they still carry huge unlocked venture capital holdings that could flood the market at any moment.

You want clean upside. NEAR achieves this because it’s existed long enough to complete this cleanup process. It’s a great asset—because the sky above is open, with no big blocks hanging over me.

AI Blockchain Vision Since 2017

Moderator Rob: NEAR is one of the few fully diluted tokens, especially among L1s, with over $30 million in cash flow and Intents being a primary revenue driver. Illia, can you elaborate on NEAR’s other AI capabilities—like NEAR AI, IronClaw—and your current suite of products? What excites you most in your product stack? How do they integrate with Privacy Intents? And if possible, discuss their revenue potential and how they’ll impact NEAR’s overall economy?

Illia Polosukhin:

The high-level logic is simple: in the future, we’ll use AI for computation, and blockchain will become the execution layer for everything. So we’re building both parts and connecting them deeply.

AI also needs privacy. You don’t want labs harvesting your data to train better models, then selling services back to you via subscriptions. You want to give models richer context and more access—but if it runs on a third party’s infrastructure and you don’t know how they’ll use permissions, it’s dangerous. For example, handing out access to your crypto or bank accounts could lead to data collection and even unauthorized transactions—without your knowledge.

What we’re building on the AI side is a privacy- and security-first agent experience. It’s essentially the execution arm: today, you manually handle payments; tomorrow, your agent will handle everything—from daily shopping to setting up hedged spot positions on Hyperliquid to stacking prediction markets.

For instance, you could say: “I want to open a position—I believe something will happen tomorrow. Help me build the right strategy.” It finds the correct assets and combinations, then sets up the position. Manually doing this today would be extremely cumbersome.

IronClaw already has an example. Input your crypto address, and it analyzes all your assets and positions, suggesting better yield opportunities and advising how to rebalance across protocols. This can be massively expanded in the future.

So these two components work together. AI is the new interface for computation, while Intents form the underlying business layer. It’s not just for standard payments—it extends to supply chains, commodities, and broader transactions. All of this will flow through Intents, because AI can find, negotiate, and settle deals far better than traditional email, invoices, and billing systems.

We have a concrete example: the Agent Marketplace. Agents can hire other agents to complete tasks or deliver goods. This is a glimpse into the future—already being used by real-world enterprises. For instance, you can hire an agent to procure parts for your supply chain, or to build a marketing website, develop an app, or draft investment copy.

These agents run on our verifiable computation. You know what they’re doing, can audit the process. They run on our secure infrastructure, so you can grant them access to contacts or internal documents. Historically, hiring people meant giving them access—but it was always risky. Now, if agents run in a verifiable, secure environment, you can safely let them access company information.

What I’m describing fundamentally changes how labor and supply chains work. So our target market is the total addressable market for all labor and supply chains—running everything on Intents.

Moderator Andy: You can see the convergence between AI and Intents: agents use Intents to transfer value, and users want to use private Intents to hold Zcash or transfer value. Some might say NEAR’s direction is scattered—but from the beginning, it seems you’ve had this clear thread.

Illia Polosukhin:

Yes. When we started in 2017, our core conviction was that AI would become how we build software and interact with computation. That was 2017. Later, we realized to truly enable this, we needed blockchain. So in 2018, we focused on NEAR Protocol. These elements have always been part of NEAR’s DNA.

Hyperliquid Realizes the DeFi Dream

Moderator Andy: Arthur, I know everyone wants to hear your take on Hyperliquid. HYPE is now around $61, and while privacy transactions represented by Zcash and NEAR differ in logic, they feel like pieces of the same puzzle.

Privacy is vital—the core of the industry—it grants freedom. But in today’s world, especially in finance, privacy is severely undervalued. On the other hand, Hyperliquid represents the best chance for DeFi and decentralized exchanges to surpass centralized finance. Many have forgotten: we entered this space to replace traditional finance—at minimum, to create a viable alternative system.

Earlier dreams were eroded by inflated valuations, low liquidity, scam projects, and infrastructure narratives. But Hyperliquid appears to be reviving that dream. Though these investment theses differ, they attract the same crowd. What’s your view on Hyperliquid? Where is it headed? Why are you so bullish?

Arthur Hayes:

One of crypto’s killer applications is the exchange. Who are the richest people in crypto? Exchange operators. BNB is still among the top 5 largest crypto assets—despite not being a true cryptocurrency. It’s CZ’s server and the chain he launched.

We know how to make money in crypto. But many complicate things—infrastructure, real-world assets, etc. The truth is: exchanges make money. The ultimate goal of exchanges? We have the internet, we have blockchain—let anyone anywhere trade anything, add leverage to make it more exciting.

I’ve worked in centralized exchanges and always knew the trend was toward decentralized ones. The earliest star was dYdX—first major DEX success story, with stellar performance in 2020–2021. But then it drifted off course. dYdX wanted to do the same thing Hyperliquid does—just Hyperliquid executed better, while dYdX had flawed tokenomics.

Then came GMX in 2023’s downturn. Its model was solid, but room for improvement in tokenomics and listed assets. Enter Jeff and his team—coming from high-frequency trading backgrounds, excellent engineers who delivered strong code. But their biggest win was fixing the tokenomics. Perpetuals aren’t new—we created them in 2016. DEXs aren’t new—existed since 2018 and 2020. The key was getting tokenomics right.

Hyperliquid has no VC sell-off—only team allocation—and nearly all revenue flows back to token holders. No other project matches this at HYPE’s revenue scale. That’s why it’s so successful—and why people are deeply engaged.

When they launched HIP-3, enabling permissionless listing of markets, users could trade Nasdaq, S&P, oil, etc. Last December and January, these were tiny markets. But due to politicians creating chaos on weekends, traditional markets lacked price discovery—giving them a three-day window. Now, Hyperliquid became the only price discovery venue on weekends—enough liquidity, open to all.

This isn’t just for those with U.S. brokerage accounts. Traditional media now cover Hyperliquid—they have nowhere else to go. If they could discuss oil futures on CME on Saturday, they’d do it—ignoring Hyperliquid entirely. But they can’t. So they can’t ignore Hyperliquid—it’s the only place to trade. Everyone accesses data, everyone trades.

This creates a flywheel effect. More people learn about Hyperliquid, understand revenue returns to token holders; if you stake enough HYPE, you get fee discounts; you can even list your own market on Hyperliquid—turning it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I believe it has already broken its all-time high and will go much higher. Its easiest entry point is capturing centralized exchange trading volume. Hyperliquid is currently only 7–8% of that—future growth is inevitable, as it lists more assets, offers higher leverage, and improves usability.

Even if Hyperliquid captures just 10–15% of Binance’s perpetuals volume, its price will be far higher than today. It doesn’t need reinvention—just to capture existing traders. These traders already hold stablecoins or other crypto, trade on centralized exchanges, pay high fees, and want a different experience—and to truly own a piece of the exchange.

AI Labor Substitution Investment Thesis

Moderator Rob: Illia, you mentioned the total addressable market for all human labor. To help viewers grasp this concept: global wages and compensation total around $11.7 trillion annually. Meanwhile, AI agents are increasingly becoming a key part of the labor market.

Arthur, your AI labor substitution thesis suggests this will trigger a collapse in consumer credit. There may be a rough patch, but ultimately, massive money printing will follow. How do you see AI replacing labor? How will it evolve? Will it culminate in intelligent agents? Will these agents run on-chain? How will the economy respond? Arthur, please start, then Illia, share your thoughts on how we should prepare for this inevitable shift to ensure it proceeds as smoothly as possible.

Arthur Hayes:

The impact of AI on labor depends heavily on where you live. Let’s start with the U.S., since many of you are likely from or living in the U.S. The people losing jobs now are the most protected group: coastal, high-income, white-collar professionals with college degrees.

When China added low-cost labor to the global workforce, American rust belt workers lost jobs—but no serious discussion emerged. No one seriously addressed the hollowing out of the rust belt in 2005. Later, Donald Trump and other politicians gave them a voice—but only after they’d already lost their jobs.

Now it’s different. The people losing jobs in the U.S. are educated, coastal, high-income, politically active. They will be protected—I don’t know how, but they will be.

Workers in India, Bangladesh, and the Philippines doing back-office work for U.S. firms will lose jobs immediately—with no one caring about their fate. They may end up homeless, starving, triggering social unrest. Real violence may erupt there. You won’t see it in mainstream news—but that’s the difference.

They can’t fix this with money printing. It will be brutal. The U.S. can alleviate it via money printing, because the dollar remains the reserve currency. This affects financial markets, which mainly care about Western high-net-worth individuals. Unfortunate, but different regions will face vastly divergent outcomes.

Illia Polosukhin:

I believe replacement has already begun—though unevenly. The only way forward is to be at the forefront. We’ve always said: you must leverage these technologies to enhance your abilities, learn faster, apply faster.

There’s a massive opportunity. If you don’t know something, AI does—and can guide you through it. If you’re not in a specific country, you can launch a business accepting global currencies via Intents and broader crypto systems. Opportunities exist now—perhaps the easiest time in history to start and scale globally.

But you must act. You need initiative and sovereignty to execute. This is exactly the motivation behind the Zcash, HYPE, NEAR investment thesis: people want to reclaim agency and take action—returning to crypto’s original core.

So I believe this is the moment to invest—for anyone willing to seize the opportunity.

Moderator Rob: Arthur, from a capital allocation perspective, is the logic this: we may see consumer credit under pressure, a turbulent period, meaning not all assets will rise together. But this explains why we’re seeing a more structural bull market. Illia’s sovereignty thesis and privacy narrative are responses to a larger narrative.

Arthur Hayes:

Liquidity won’t flow to everything. Bitcoin’s advantage is mathematically clear: if tomorrow’s fiat unit increases in quantity, Bitcoin’s price rises by definition—pure math. Everything else depends heavily on narrative.

Looking at global capital markets, only AI stocks are performing well. Most others are struggling. Because most people are negatively impacted by AI. Maybe you’re a company selling to unemployed people, or your customers stop consuming, or a segment of labor disappears. Or you’re squeezed out of credit markets because AI mega-corporations absorb all available credit.

Every government now believes they must finance the AI capital expenditure boom—pushing other priorities aside. So while we all enjoy this incredible bull market, and some crypto assets are doing well—actually, the core driver is AI stocks. I believe their prices will keep rising—but this isn’t a broad-based rally where every ship floats.

Political Risk Scenarios

Moderator Rob: You’ve also touched on similar views in recent articles. When do you think this “music” will stop? If it does, what signals should we watch for? When will we realize AI capital spending-driven money printing might slow?

Arthur Hayes:

I think it could be a super-large company’s IPO—though I don’t believe SpaceX’s IPO size is sufficient. They seem to plan to raise ~$75 billion, but I haven’t dug into the details yet.

But increasingly, I suspect it will be political. Especially in the U.S. and Western economies—where capital is concentrated—a message is emerging—and I believe it will be highly attractive: human-to-human interaction generates the data that made Elon and others fantastically wealthy. Where’s our share?

AI can’t exist without the sum of 10,000 years of human knowledge and interaction. But what do I or my community get? Higher electricity prices, water pollution, mineral resources diverted for data centers. What do we get?

So I believe a logical political message will emerge in the U.S.—one that appeals to both Democratic and Republican voters. I think this could be AOC, who may become the 2028 Democratic presidential candidate. Investors would panic.

Though I disagree with much of what she says, her arguments make sense to anyone not holding assets that have gained 50x in the past year. Investors will realize: if AI profits face massive progressive taxation, it’s not that companies can’t profit—rather, would you still pay 100x earnings for a company potentially taxed 50% on AI profits? Absolutely not.

If she starts polling close to Rubio, J.D. Vance, or any Republican candidate post-Trump, you’ll start thinking: maybe I should cash out some. Once you start questioning the future, before election results are clear, the market ends.

So while a super-large IPO could trigger a turning point, I increasingly believe the bigger risk comes from AOC or similar political figures. In advanced Western economies, such political messaging could gain growing influence. Investors may think: “I don’t agree with her, but her message resonates with many ordinary people—so I need to reduce exposure early.”

Moderator Rob: AOC’s current odds to become the 2028 Democratic nominee are around 9%. According to Arthur, this is undervalued.

Arthur Hayes:

Yes. Who else? Gavin Newsom? I think he carries too much baggage from California governance to escape. AOC has already tapped into the right message: AI capital expenditure drives inflation, impoverishing many American communities—yet they lack sufficient financial assets to benefit. She can build a compelling narrative around these issues.

Moderator Andy: Illia, we heard you’re now in San Francisco, having stayed there for nearly a quarter. Any observations to add? How’s the vibe? Is it as electrifying as the 2021 Crypto Conference? Do you think the market is overvalued? Are you actively investing locally?

Illia Polosukhin:

Everyone is doing AI now. You’re queuing for food, and everyone around you is talking about agents. It’s both a bubble and a real transformation. Every company is shifting toward AI—if they don’t, they’ll become obsolete.

We see this in crypto too. The industry itself is contracting—fewer new founders entering. So from an early-stage angel or seed investment perspective, it’s very hard.

AI now shows divergence: some teams raise $1 billion in seed rounds—making you question whether your $50k investment matters. Others pursue traditional startup paths—building SaaS products for specific use cases.

The issue? These entrepreneurs compete with internal teams at companies. That employee just uses an AI agent, describes their needs in natural language, and the software builds it directly. The entrepreneur is building software trying to match expert-level ability—while the expert can just describe in English what they want, and the software auto-builds.

So it’s hard to tell if they can achieve escape velocity before general tools become good enough. At that point, users may not need engineers to code business requirements into software.

Thus, the space is fascinating and full of excitement. But we also see Anthropic-type companies—three-person teams launching products directly into verticals. The reality is: if you have a sufficiently general, horizontally scalable platform, it can be customized for anything.

When Will NEAR Become Deflationary?

Moderator Rob: Any questions you’d like to ask each other? Illia is a builder; Arthur is a capital allocator. Arthur, do you have a question for Illia that could influence your next investment thesis?

Arthur Hayes:

Given the revenue streams you mentioned, is NEAR capable of becoming deflationary rather than relying on protocol-driven token inflation?

Illia Polosukhin:

Our goal is definitively to achieve deflation next year. We’ll continue pushing to reduce inflation.

I think many builders in blockchain have recognized we pay too much for economic security—costs don’t always match actual value. But politically, reducing inflation is tough. So we’re building governance mechanisms to make it more direct to execute.

I’m confident we can reach a stage where, as revenue grows, lowering inflation is rational—achieving true balance. Next year, revenue will grow, and inflation will fall.

Additionally, we’re exploring innovative ideas on how to fund security and validators beyond traditional inflation.

Arthur’s Price Targets

Illia Polosukhin:

Arthur, do you think this market rally will remain concentrated in a few top-tier assets, or will it rapidly expand across the broader sector? If the expansion is too fast, could it undermine the current stable structure dominated by a few leading assets?

Arthur Hayes:

Every vertical will have standout stars, along with underperformers. The success of these stars often justifies the existence of weaker assets. For example, in privacy and DEX sectors, you’ll see both breakout projects and weaker ones. Skilled traders can exploit this divergence for opportunities.

But as a capital allocator, I don’t want to stare at screens all day. I’ve selected my assets and will hold until macro conditions change. I have price targets—e.g., HYPE to $150. But everyone knows: if macro shifts, I’ll change course immediately.

If governments say they’ll no longer fund all AI capital spending via debt—especially after these spendings fail to generate sufficient cash flow—that’s negative. If the Iran war escalates uncontrollably, that’s also negative.

Until then, I’ll continue aggressively long. Trends are friends—until they’re not.

Curated & Compiled: DeepTide TechFlow