Every year, the cryptocurrency market is flooded with countless outlooks and predictions. Most are quickly forgotten. However, a few predictions can truly influence the flow of capital, talent, and attention. Among them is Messari's annual "Crypto Theses" report, which occupies a unique position.

For many institutions, this report is less of a prediction report and more of a strategic memorandum. It not only explores market trends but also implicitly defines… what will happen in the next cycle. The industries emphasized in Messari's theses often become the focal points for venture capitalists and entrepreneurs in the coming year.

The 2026 report revolves around a clear transformation: cryptocurrency is shifting from pure speculation to system-level integration. In the first part of this three-article series, I will focus on several core arguments from the report, combining my personal interpretations and questions, particularly emphasizing the perspective of market participants rather than a purely first-order research viewpoint.

Report Link

---

Valuation Traps of L1 Blockchains

Between 2024 and 2025, a wave of venture capital-backed Layer 1 blockchain projects emerged, often with fully diluted valuations reaching hundreds of billions of dollars. Projects like Monad, Berachain, and Sei appeared with familiar promises: higher TPS, stronger teams, and superior execution environments. The implicit assumption is that every new L1 blockchain has the potential to become the "next Ethereum."

Messari argues that this assumption has now been overturned by real data.

Early valuation logic treated L1 tokens as potential currencies. If a chain could become a settlement layer with sufficient activity, then a massive currency premium seemed reasonable. However, in practice, most such networks eventually turned into highly inflationary systems with negligible self-generated revenue. The token issuance far exceeded on-chain fee income, leading to structural losses for many L1 tokens.

Meanwhile, the market environment has also changed. Ethereum's Layer 2 ecosystem has significantly matured, while Solana has solidified its dominance in the high-performance consumer cryptocurrency space. In this context, new chains struggle to attract loyal long-term token holders. Instead, they attract airdrop farmers and short-term liquidity tourists.

Messari's conclusion is straightforward: aside from BTC and a few truly attractive ecosystems (Solana and Base are the most frequently mentioned examples), most L1 valuations have completely detached from fundamentals.

Looking ahead to 2026, the report expects the market to actively strip L1 tokens of their so-called "currency premium." Simply promoting high throughput is no longer sufficient to support billions of dollars in FDV (Fully Diluted Valuation). At a minimum, a chain's daily gas fee revenue should exceed the amount distributed through inflationary rewards. Otherwise, the consequences could be dire.

In extreme cases, some newly launched parallel EVM chains have transaction prices still reaching $5 billion to $10 billion, while daily gas revenue is less than $10,000. At this rate, it would take thousands of years to offset token issuance costs through fee income. This is not a temporary mismatch, but a structural issue.

Although Messari holds an optimistic view of Solana—perhaps influenced by its own investments—the broader insight is more important: a viable L1 platform must possess genuine "commanding power" or some form of monopolistic position at the application layer. Speed alone is no longer the winning formula.

---

Chain Abstraction as a Survival Strategy

One area highlighted in the report that I believe deserves closer examination is chain abstraction.

The theoretical goal of chain abstraction is simple, but its actual impact is profound. Users do not need to know which chain they are using. With just one wallet, balances denominated in stablecoins allow users to initiate operations, while the system automatically handles all aspects such as bridging, gas conversion, routing, and signing in the background.

If this vision is realized, blockchains will no longer be consumer-facing products but will become backend infrastructure.

Projects like Near and Berachain are attempting different versions of this concept. Near positions itself as an AI-centric distributed platform, while Berachain reinforces capital stickiness through its "liquidity consensus" model, effectively forcing liquidity to remain within its ecosystem.

From an investment perspective, this redefines the evaluation of L1 layers. Blockchains that merely process transactions faster can be replaced, while those that can control user traffic, liquidity routing, or application distribution can maintain their influence. In the post-abstraction era, power no longer depends on execution speed but rather on coordination and control.

---

The Rise of the Agent Economy

Perhaps the most controversial claim in the Messari report is that by 2026, most on-chain activity will no longer be driven by humans.

Instead, AI agents will dominate transaction volumes.

The logic is simple. Traditional banking systems cannot open accounts for autonomous software agents. However, AI systems increasingly require 24/7 access to payment, hedging tools, and yield optimization capabilities. Crypto-native assets, especially stablecoins, are well-suited to play this role.

If AI agents achieve economic autonomy, they will be able to pay each other, rebalance portfolios, and seek optimal execution paths without human intervention. Messari estimates that up to 80% of on-chain transactions in the next cycle could be machine-generated.

This shift is significant. The importance of user interfaces, dashboards, and retail-friendly designs diminishes. The combination of APIs, smart contract composability, and machine-readable financial primitives becomes the real battleground.

Protocols like Virtuals and Wayfinder are early attempts to build the infrastructure for this world. Virtuals positions itself as a platform where AI agents can have autonomous identities and control over funds. Wayfinder focuses on handling complex on-chain operations on behalf of agents.

However, the real opportunity may lie elsewhere. Rather than speculating on abstract "AI tokens," Messari is actually encouraging people to focus on the consumables of AI: such as gas optimization layers, agent authentication systems, and the infrastructure that AI must possess. Paying for the use of these works is more about tools than narrative drama.

---

Equity Perpetual Contracts and New Frontiers in Derivatives

Another important theme is the emergence of equity perpetual contracts.

Following the success of protocols like Hyperliquid, DeFi is expanding from crypto-native assets to global stock price exposure. Equity perpetual contracts are synthetic derivatives whose prices are anchored by oracles and funding rates, rather than ownership.

This distinction is crucial. Trading Nvidia stock options does not involve dividends or shareholder rights. It is purely a bet on price movements, realized through a financing rate mechanism. If the underlying stock rises, the shorts benefit from the longs; if it falls, the situation is reversed.

Messari compares this model to tokenized stocks. Tokenized stocks theoretically represent ownership, but in practice, they face issues such as liquidity shortages, opaque custody, and platform risks. For now, the equity incentive model seems more scalable.

Messari believes that if the Hyperliquid market truly expands in 2026, its surrounding ecosystem could experience exponential growth. Of course, there are other competing models. Aster is often seen as closely related to the Binance ecosystem, using cross-chain liquidity aggregation rather than building vertically integrated L1 services.

Hyperliquid prioritizes on-chain transparency and performance by owning the entire blockchain technology stack. Aster, on the other hand, prioritizes capital efficiency and convenience, allowing users to deploy leverage across chains with minimal friction. In a bull market, the latter's appeal is evident. However, the complexity of its architecture also brings higher systemic risks.

---

Decentralization and the Shift to Real Revenue

Finally, Messari points out that DePIN is the only industry it expects to generate hundreds of millions of verifiable revenue by 2026.

This claim is not without controversy. The concept of DePIN was once popular but mostly ended in failure due to a lack of genuine demand amid one-sided supply growth. Many early projects encouraged hardware deployment but overlooked the question of who would pay for the service.

The report argues that this landscape is changing. Infrastructure has been deployed. What follows is demand—primarily driven by a shortage of AI computing power.

Projects like io.net focus on GPU aggregation rather than speculative data collection. The key metric is external revenue: is the token buyback funding sourced from real enterprise contracts, or merely from new participants purchasing equipment?

Messari points to Aethir as an example, with its annual recurring revenue exceeding $160 million in the third quarter, primarily due to users unable to afford AI computing services due to high-end hardware acquisition costs. Whether this growth momentum can be sustained remains to be seen, but its model is already clear.

For DePIN, the quality of revenue (rather than network scale) will determine its viability.

---

Final Notes

Although Messari's report is detailed, it primarily reflects a first-hand market perspective. For retail investors, fundamentals rarely drive price movements. Liquidity and market narratives still dominate returns.

Usage does not equate to revenue; marginal capital flows equate to revenue.

This tension—between what should be important and what actually drives market direction—will determine the next cycle. And this is where critical interpretations of reports like Messari's become most valuable.

To be continued (Part Two).

The above views are referenced from @Web3___Ace

Read the original article