2024 Crypto Predictions Review

Executive Summary

• Bitcoin Spot ETFs emerged as a transformative force, attracting $87 billion in inflows (509,300 BTC) and accounting for 5.7% of Bitcoin’s total supply, with BlackRock’s iBIT leading at $51.3 billion AUM, marking one of the most successful ETF launches in U.S. history. The traditional impact of the April 2024 Bitcoin halving was overshadowed by ETF dynamics, resulting in a more modest post-halving performance of +45%.
• The Ordinals ecosystem experienced a significant decline despite generating over 75M inscriptions and $800M in fees, with both Ordinals and their evolution into Runes following a similar hype-to-decline trajectory. Related tokens like ORDI and SATS suffered substantial losses (-66% and -77% respectively), while inscription attempts on proof-of-stake chains failed to gain traction.
• NFTs saw a renaissance, particularly on Ethereum, with established projects like Pudgy Penguins and Milady showing strong growth in both volume and floor prices. Blur maintained its market dominance with 63% share, though OpenSea managed to regain some ground, capturing 28% of the market.
• Layer 1 blockchains showed mixed results, with Solana leading the pack (+87%) and becoming the benchmark for high-performance chains, while SUI surprised with a +421% rally. However, other competitors like Aptos and SEI underperformed, suggesting the L1 narrative didn’t fully meet expectations.
• Restaking emerged as a major trend, with EigenLayer dominating the sector (83% of TVL) and total TVL growing 1,140% to $18B. Despite the impressive growth in the underlying technology, proxy trades through tokens like LDO and RPL underperformed significantly.
• Ethereum’s ecosystem saw significant developments with the launch of spot ETFs reaching $12.2B in AUM and the Dencun hard fork reducing fees by 99%. However, ETH’s price performance (+47%) lagged behind competitors, and Layer 2 tokens struggled despite substantial growth in transaction volumes and TVL.
• The intersection of crypto and AI surprised observers by shifting focus from infrastructure plays to consumer-facing applications like AI agents and swarms. Infrastructure tokens like Render and TAO showed decent performance (+42% to +107%), though they weren’t the primary drivers of the narrative.
• Real World Assets (RWA) demonstrated divergent outcomes: while traditional asset tokenization (like real estate) failed to gain traction, financial RWAs flourished, with the market growing 81% to $15.27 billion, driven particularly by tokenized US Treasury Debt (+426%) and innovations like BlackRock’s BUIDL Fund. The stablecoin market also expanded significantly, growing 60% in market cap.

At the start of this year, I published a series of muses outlining my predictions for 2024 — what I thought the year might look like in terms of investment themes and potential value traps. Most people make predictions but rarely revisit them to evaluate their accuracy. That’s exactly what I aim to do here.

Before I share my thoughts on 2025, I want to assess how well my 2024 predictions held up. I’ll grade each prediction on a scale of 1 to 5–5 meaning I was spot on, and 1 meaning I completely missed the mark. Along the way, I’ll also evaluate how well you might have performed had you followed my lead.

Earlier this year, these predictions were published across six separate muses and a final compilation. Now, I’ll consolidate them into one comprehensive article, which means this will be more detailed and extensive than the original pieces.

01/ Bitcoin

A. Spot ETF

Let’s dive right in. Back in Muse 4, I discussed Bitcoin, particularly in relation to Spot ETFs and the halvening event. Unsurprisingly, the ETFs were approved on January 10th, with trading commencing a month later. The halving followed later in the year, but let’s focus on the ETFs first.

Last year, Galaxy Digital released a report estimating $14 billion in inflows for Bitcoin Spot ETFs during their first year. At the time, this seemed ambitious. However, with the benefit of hindsight, their estimate now appears overly conservative. In 2024, Spot ETFs saw $87 billion in inflows (excluding Grayscale), with $38.28 billion in net inflows — 2.7x the initial expectations.

Since their launch, Bitcoin Spot ETFs have collectively recorded net inflows of 509,300 BTC, while total on-chain holdings now stand at 1,129,000 BTC, valued at $106.7 billion (including Grayscale). This accounts for 5.7% of the current BTC supply, with Spot ETFs absorbing 2.3% of the supply since their launch. Remarkably, BTC Spot ETFs now hold more Bitcoin than Satoshi himself.

Key Players in BTC Spot ETFs

• BlackRock’s iBIT: Leads with 542,526 BTC valued at $51.3 billion.
• Grayscale: After converting their closed-end fund into an ETF, they launched with 620,000 BTC but have since halved their holdings to 206,863 BTC, valued at $19.6 billion.
• Fidelity: Close behind Grayscale, with holdings of 205,842 BTC valued at $19.5 billion.

I don’t think anyone was surprised by BlackRock overtaking Grayscale in Bitcoin holdings — it was inevitable. The real shocker, however, is Fidelity surpassing Grayscale. Initially, the battle seemed confined to BlackRock and Grayscale, but Fidelity has emerged as a serious contender.

Beyond the “Big Three” (BlackRock, Grayscale, and Fidelity), the rest of the market is fragmented. Players like 21Shares, Bitwise, and Grayscale’s mini trust all manage less than $10 billion in AUM. These smaller players aren’t serious contenders in the ETF-flipping game. The market, as expected, has coalesced around a few dominant players — a phenomenon we often see in tech, finance, and life in general. There’s always a clear hierarchy: the giants in one league and the smaller players in another. Currently, BlackRock, Grayscale, and Fidelity account for 84.6% of the ETF market share. Including Grayscale’s mini trust, this figure rises to 87.9%.

By any metric, the launch of Bitcoin Spot ETFs has been a resounding success, even in the face of initial skepticism. Many doubted their potential, citing the poor performance of the Canadian Bitcoin Purpose ETF.

In Muse 4, I addressed this skepticism:

“I know there has been a comparison to the Canadian Purpose ETF, which has seen lackluster performance since it went live over 2 years ago. That thought process is half-baked because 1) US financial markets are multiple times bigger than the Canadian market. 2) It’s the United States of America, bro. It’s like comparing USD to CAD, lol.”

Muse #4

The difference in scale, infrastructure, and market dynamics ensured that the U.S. Bitcoin Spot ETFs would outperform their Canadian counterparts. And they’ve done so spectacularly.

Bitcoin ETFs have emerged as some of the best-performing ETFs ever launched. According to a report by ETF.com, BlackRock’s iBIT ETF was ranked the ninth most successful ETF of the last decade. This research, published in October, analyzed ETF launches between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2024. The study covered 3,246 ETFs, including exchange-traded notes (ETNs) and exchange-traded products (ETPs). At the time of the research, iBIT had $24 billion in assets under management (AUM) as of September 2024.

However, adjusting for today’s data — iBIT now holds $51.3 billion in AUM — it becomes clear that iBIT isn’t just one of the most successful ETFs. It’s the most successful ETF launched in the last 10 years, surpassing heavyweights like:

• Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM)
• Vanguard Tax-Exempt Bond ETF (VTEB)
• JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF (JEPI)

And this is just iBIT. When you consider the cumulative success of all Bitcoin ETFs, it’s undeniable: Bitcoin ETFs are the most successful ETF launches in the U.S. over the past decade. To add to its accolades, iBIT also set a record as the fastest ETF to reach $1 billion in AUM, achieving this milestone on its first day of trading. A truly impressive feat, highlighting the strong demand and investor confidence in Bitcoin’s institutional adoption.

To further illustrate the overwhelming success of these ETF launches, let’s look at the ETF Chart of the Year. In less than a year of trading, BlackRock’s iBIT ETF has outpaced its own Gold ETF (IAU) — a product that’s been in the market for two decades. iBIT has amassed an AUM of $57.6 billion, compared to IAU’s $33.2 billion.

This milestone underscores just how transformative Bitcoin Spot ETFs have been — not just within the crypto ecosystem, but across traditional financial markets as well. 2024’s biggest headline in finance? The widespread and unprecedented success of Bitcoin Spot ETFs. They’ve redefined expectations and firmly established Bitcoin as a mainstream investment vehicle, bridging the gap between crypto and traditional finance.

B. The Halvening

The latter half of my discussion on Bitcoin in Muse 4 revolved around the halving. At the time, I argued that even if the ETFs didn’t live up to expectations, the halving would step in as Bitcoin’s primary narrative:

“Okay, so what happens next if an ETF does get approved, buy the “rumor sell the news?” very unlikely, we will just pivot to the next narrative — the halvening. Even if the ETF fails to go through, the halvening narrative will be there to support it. The halvening is guaranteed to happen, so there are no “what ifs” here.”

Muse #4

Well, as it turned out, the ETFs exceeded expectations and dominated Bitcoin’s narrative this year, leaving little room for discussion about the halving.

I also suggested that the halving’s impact would be less pronounced this time due to the law of diminishing returns. While there’s some truth to that, the narrative has shifted. The ETFs, in a sense, have amplified the halving’s impact, acting as a catalyst. This may disrupt the expected diminishing returns cycle, making it less severe — or perhaps even nullifying it altogether.

On the day of the halving, Julia Ofoegbu and I published a research piece outlining why we believed this halving could play out differently. So far, our predictions have held up. The ETF inflows appear to be distorting the traditional halving cycle, setting the stage for a unique trajectory this time around.

Bitcoin is up +102% YoY and +45% since the halving on April 19th. While impressive at first glance, this performance pales in comparison to previous cycles. Historically, Bitcoin’s price increases eight months post-halving were:

• 2012: +672%
• 2016: +85%
• 2020: +318%

This gives an average rally of +358%, based on the three prior halvings. By comparison, this cycle’s +45% is significantly below the historical average — a fair outcome if we consider the law of diminishing returns. Looking back, I believe I got this prediction right. I suggested that ETFs would drive the narrative while the halving played a supporting role, and that’s precisely what happened. Bitcoin’s relatively muted post-halving performance aligns with expectations, given the diminishing returns theory.

Score: 5

02/ Ordinals et. al

A. Ordinals

In Muse #5, the second installment of the series, I shared my thoughts on Ordinals, NFTs, and gaming. Let’s revisit those predictions to assess their outcomes.

First, I discussed the Cambrian explosion Ordinals experienced in 2023 but expressed skepticism about their longevity beyond the hype-driven retail frenzy of that year:

“When there’s a Cambrian explosion of new tech, garnering users’ attention and eyeballs. People think they are cool and want to experiment with it. There’s a small window between this experiment stage and the product providing actual value. If the product is good, it will live on after the experiment stage, if it doesn’t it becomes a fad. A recent example of an experiment stage not providing actual value at the end is Friend. Tech. Product teams have to iterate fast and ship good products during this window to remain relevant. I think that’s the stage where Ordinals are going into 2024. It’s no longer a meme, it’s now a question of “Show me what you got”. Jpegs on the blockchain are not enough use case, neither is minting new shitcoins every day via BRC-20s. If we don’t see more innovative solutions built with inscriptions, we can as well call it a day and add it to the list of fads alongside Friend.tech.”

Muse #5

Well, as predicted, Ordinals failed to prove themselves in 2024, to no one’s surprise.

To date, there have been over 75 million inscriptions and more than 7,000 BTC in generated fees, but 70% of that activity occurred in 2023. While there’s been a recent resurgence in daily inscriptions, it’s far from the peak activity seen in April this year. Ordinals lacked the innovation necessary to evolve past their initial hype phase. Though they haven’t entirely disappeared, they’ve performed poorly, cementing their place as a product that couldn’t deliver sustained value.

Despite the recent uptick in daily inscriptions, fees haven’t moved. This indicates that the new inscriptions are of very low quality, lacking the intrigue and value that drove their initial success. To put it into perspective, 75% of Ordinals’ fees to date were generated in 2023, yet the total fees are still approaching $800 million, which is remarkable.

Text remains the dominant type of inscription, holding a 90%+ market share. However, activity has declined sharply. Inscriptions per block now fall below 2,000, a far cry from their peak earlier this year when they accounted for 55% of BTC transactions and 62% of fees. Today, those numbers have dropped to under 10% for both metrics.

On another front, I also discussed the fleeting trend of inscriptions on proof-of-stake (PoS) chains. My position was firm:

“Standing on my two tentacles, Ordinals on PoS-enabled chains are ngmi. Why? They are spammy and there’s no need for it. PoS has smart contracts enabled which can and has been used to create NFTs since their inception. Bitcoin doesn’t have native smart contract capabilities, hence the need for inscriptions.”

Muse #5

As predicted, this trend didn’t last even a month — it died almost as quickly as it emerged. With native smart contracts available on PoS chains, inscriptions there were redundant, serving no real purpose. Today, there’s literally nothing to report on them. Ordinals demonstrated the typical trajectory of hype-driven innovations that fail to sustain value, and their diminishing impact in 2024 underscores this reality.

B. Runes

While I didn’t specifically predict the emergence of Runes, I did state that Ordinals would need to evolve into something else to survive. That’s exactly what happened. Runes can be viewed as a modified iteration of Ordinals. Some even argue that Runes effectively killed Ordinals — a claim with some merit.

At launch, 99% of Runes inscriptions were BRC-20 tokens — essentially building on the same use case that drove Ordinals’ popularity. To date, over 50% of Runes inscriptions remain BRC-20 tokens.

The impact of Runes was immediate. You can observe how BRC-20 (Ordinals) activity collapsed as soon as Runes entered the scene. Runes essentially ate Ordinals’ lunch — and in a big way.

That said, Runes themselves didn’t fare much better. They followed the same trajectory as Ordinals: initial hype, followed by a steep decline. When Runes launched, they accounted for:

• 74% of BTC transactions (now just 9%)
• 62% of BTC fees (now just 2%)

In many ways, you could argue that Runes fared worse than Ordinals in their respective declines.

Regardless of how you slice it, the entire inscriptions family (BRC-20 and Runes) performed poorly in 2024. This aligns with my expectations. I also mentioned inscriptions-affiliated tokens, predicting that they might fare well if the meta held up. Unsurprisingly, they didn’t.

• ORDI is down -66% this year.
• SATS is down -77% this year.

Their underperformance is directly tied to the lackluster showing of both Ordinals and Runes.

I nailed this prediction — the decline of inscriptions and their affiliated tokens was entirely expected. I’ll give myself a solid 5 here.

C. NFTs

In Muse #5, I argued that NFTs were poised for a comeback and that resurgence would primarily occur on Ethereum — a contrarian stance at the time given Solana’s explosive growth the year prior. I also speculated that Profile Picture (PFP) NFTs, despite being declared “dead,” would see a revival. While my broader prediction of an NFT comeback was accurate, I missed the mark in a few details.

I predicted the rise of a new PFP project akin to Pudgy Penguins or Milady. While there were several new PFP launches, none gained significant prominence. Instead, what we saw was the resurgence of Pudgy Penguins and Milady for the second time, following their stellar performance in 2023.

“Moving away from Ordinals to NFTs in general, I think they are going to make a strong comeback, so strong that “NFTs are dead” talking heads are going to have to pivot. No, it’s not going to come back on Solana, it’s going to be on Ethereum. I know this is hard to imagine now, seeing the Solana ecosystem has been on fire lately. Sure, NFTs will still exist on Solana like they already do, but the one that captures all of CT’s attention will be on Ethereum.

Most people think we are done with PFPs. I tend to differ. NFTs’ biggest use case as of today is PFPs and I expect it to remain that way for the foreseeable future. We will see the launch and rise of another PFP project like we saw with Milady and Pudgy Penguins last year.”

Muse #5

Pudgy Penguins saw their volume grow by 89% over the past year, with their floor price more than doubling from 10 ETH to 22 ETH. Similarly, Milady’s volume increased by 92%, and its floor price rose by 62%, from 2.53 ETH to 4.04 ETH. OG NFT collections like Azuki, CryptoPunks, BAYC, and MAYC also experienced volume growth. However, despite the rise in volume, CryptoPunks’ floor price declined by 32.55%.

Although NFTs had a strong year, most of the gains were concentrated in the first few months and the final two months of the year. Azuki led trading volumes early on, but Pudgy Penguins stole the spotlight as the year came to a close.

I also predicted that OpenSea was finished and Blur would continue dominating the market. That’s exactly what happened. According to the chart, 6 out of the top 10 collections were traded on Blur, followed by Magic Eden. OpenSea didn’t rank among the top platforms, and Magic Eden appears to be gaining a foothold in the market.

“Opensea is done for, and Blur will be the biggest winner when we get another NFT boom this year. Blur launched at the peak of the bull market back in October 2022 and is yet to experience a proper bull market. They have been building and shipping upgrades since then — they even launched Blend (an NFT peer-to-peer lending platform). Both Blur and Blend have been doing insane numbers since they launched (despite it being in a bear market). What’s commendable is how Blur was able to eat Openseas’s lunch in a bear market and Blend other NFT lending platforms. They are the biggest in their respective categories, and they achieved this in a bear market. Truly, they are a force to be reckoned with, and most of y’all seem to be fading Pacman.”

Muse #5

At the beginning of the year, Blur commanded 78% of all NFT trading volume, while OpenSea held just 15%. Today, Blur’s share has declined slightly to 63.2%, while OpenSea has regained ground at 28%. While OpenSea has clawed back some market share, Blur remains the dominant platform for trading NFTs by volume. However, OpenSea still leads in the number of active traders.

Despite NFTs experiencing a mild resurgence this year and Blur maintaining its position as the market leader for the second consecutive year, the $BLUR token didn’t perform as well as I had anticipated.

“$BLUR will likely do well, as it’s considered an index for the NFT market. We have never had a token worthy of speculation when it comes to NFTs. The only way to gain exposure in the past was to trade the actual NFTs. I think that’s about to change with $BLUR. $RARI, and $X2Y2 both went to zero because the actual platforms themselves went to zero. Blur is currently the leader by volume in marketplaces and the lending space (with Blend), hence $BLUR doesn’t go to zero.”

Muse #5

Unfortunately, $BLUR is down 49% over the past year, even as Blur’s trading volumes grew. I was wrong on this one, and it’s a stark reminder that strong fundamentals don’t always translate into strong price action. It’s important to stay cautious of the bias that “good fundamentals mean token prices will pump.”

D. Gaming

In the final part of Muse #5, I discussed gaming. Historically, gaming as a narrative in crypto has never appealed to me, despite the constant hype around it. You’ll often hear statements like, “The gaming industry is bigger than the music and movie industries combined,” or, “There are 3.5 billion gamers worldwide.” While both are true, I remain skeptical about gaming being the gateway to onboard the next billion crypto users — it’s a claim I find highly doubtful.

“This year is for gaming” — is a long-running meme, you are probably tired of hearing. Gaming as a narrative keeps coming back every cycle. We thought it’d happen last cycle, but that didn’t come to fruition. At least we learned one thing — play-2-earn games don’t work. The games aren’t fun to play and their tokenomics suck. This is not the cycle where crypto onboards the 3.5 billion gamers worldwide, nor is this the cycle where onchain games become a thing. Onchain games are games that have both their logic and state onchain. We will see new crypto games hit it big this year, like Dark Frontier, Shrapnel, Parallel Colony, Illivium, etcetera. $IMX will probably be the biggest winner here, as it’s the go-to chain for game developers. Illivium is currently the biggest crypto game and hence $ILV should do well too. $BEAM, and maybe $PRIME will ride the gaming narrative too.”

Muse #5

As anticipated, 2024 wasn’t the year for gaming. The tokens I mentioned didn’t perform exceptionally well either. $IMX and $ILV are down 38% and 58%, respectively, while $BEAM and $PRIME are up 45% and 37%.

For this section, I was right about the decline of Ordinals — they failed to prove their worth. I correctly predicted the resurgence of NFTs on Ethereum, including PFPs, although I was wrong about the emergence of a breakout PFP project like we’ve seen in previous years. Blur retained its leadership in the NFT category, but I was wrong about $BLUR’s token performance. Lastly, I was spot-on that gaming wouldn’t take off this year, and it didn’t.

Overall, I got more right than wrong here, so I’d rate myself a solid 4/5.

score: 4

03/ Layer 1s (L1s)

In Muse #6, part of the ongoing series about investment themes for 2024, I discussed Layer 1s and how this trade seems to resurface every cycle — or even every year. I argued that the narrative of chains claiming to be “faster than Ethereum” never gets old. That prediction was directionally correct, though with one notable update: Solana has become the new benchmark for “fast chains” comparisons.

In Muse #6, I highlighted that the battleground for this cycle’s L1 trade would revolve around parallelization and local fee markets. I was bullish on any chain incorporating these features or something resembling them.

“What’s the meta this time around for L1s, what’s the stable stake, what’s that thing L1s can point to Ethereum and say “Look, Ethereum doesn’t have this, and we have it, therefore we are better”. Whether they are truly better than Ethereum isn’t the issue here, the crux of the matter here is that there’s something they can point to that Ethereum lacks. It will be even more pronounced if it gives them an edge over Ethereum to an extent. Last time it was high TPS, this time it’s Parallelization and Local Fee Market”

Muse #6

“I’m bullish on any L1 that has PE and LFM.”

Muse #6

I still believe the pattern will persist, with chains now claiming to be faster than Solana instead of Ethereum. This year, we saw this narrative emerge with Aptos, SUI, and SEI. I joked about a potential meme originating from these chains (ASS), but that hasn’t taken off yet — probably because I’m not influential enough to meme it into existence just yet, lol. Performance-wise, Aptos and SEI are down -9% and -33%, respectively, while SUI has surged by +421%.

I also pointed out some coins with elements of parallelization (PE) and local fee markets (LFM), such as NEAR and FTM. NEAR is up +34%, and FTM is up +44%. However, my call on NEON was terrible — it’s down -84%, while SOL itself is up +87%.

As for Eclipse, while it launched, there’s nothing notable to report yet, and Monad is still in pre-launch.

Lastly, I predicted that Solana ecosystem tokens would perform well due to Solana’s strong year, offering beta plays for SOL investors:

“Think the best way to gain exposure is by being long other coins in the ecosystem as beta plays to SOL. $JTO, $PYTH, and $ORCA seem to be the hot things on Solana right now”

Muse #6

Performance-wise, JTO, PYTH, and ORCA had mixed results. ORCA is down -34%, while JTO and PYTH are up +53% and +7%, respectively.

Interestingly, a new player, Hyperliquid, emerged this year, but I’ll save that discussion for my 2025 predictions.

I’ll give myself a 3/5 for this section, as the L1 trade didn’t play out as expected this year. While SUI lived up to the hype with a significant rally, the other L1s either delivered negative or negligible returns. Similarly, Solana ecosystem tokens underperformed and didn’t live up to the expectations I had for them. Overall, it was a mixed bag for this theme.

Score: 3

04/ Restaking

In Muse #7, part 4 of the series, I laid out the bullish case for restaking, predicting it would become one of the biggest trends in 2024, driven by the launch of EigenLayer.

EigenLayer did indeed launch, along with the $EIGEN token, and initially experienced a drop in TVL from $20B to $10B. However, it has since rebounded to $15B, where it stands today. Alongside EigenLayer, other restaking protocols like Symbiotic and Karak also launched, but neither gained traction comparable to EigenLayer. For context, Symbiotic currently has a TVL of $2.1B, and Karak lags behind with $770M. EigenLayer dominates the Ethereum restaking space, accounting for 83% of the sector’s TVL, while Symbiotic holds 12%.

The restaking sector as a whole grew from $1.45B in TVL at the start of the year to $18B by year-end — an incredible 1,140% increase. However, this explosive growth was concentrated in the first half of the year, particularly before the $EIGEN token launch. In contrast, the second half of the year saw more TVL outflows than inflows.

When breaking down EigenLayer’s TVL composition, 63% consists of native ETH and 32% of liquid staking tokens (LSTs), primarily stETH. Symbiotic and Karak, however, display much more diverse TVL profiles. Symbiotic’s TVL comprises 84% LSTs and 8.3% Wrapped BTC, while Karak’s TVL excludes native ETH altogether, with 50% Wrapped BTC, 35% LRTs, and 12% LSTs.

We also witnessed the rise of liquid restaking tokens (LRTs) like Puffer’s pufETH, Renzo’s ezETH, and EtheFi’s eETH. EigenLayer’s LRTs currently dominate the space, with over $12B in TVL, led by eETH, which holds more than $8B in TVL. Symbiotic has a smaller but notable LRT presence, with $2B in TVL, while Karak currently has no LRT presence..

The $EIGEN token, while relatively flat since it began trading in October, is up 77% from its November lows of $2. Although its growth hasn’t paralleled EigenLayer’s TVL expansion, the token’s stability is a positive takeaway. When looking at LRTs and their respective tokens, you might miss the broader context — but restaking and LRTs remain one of the best-performing sectors of 2024.

I had previously suggested LDO and RPL as proxy trades for restaking, back when no dedicated restaking tokens were live.

“There’s no way to speculate on restaking at the moment, other than being long the LSTs themselves ($LIDO, $RPL). Not only are Lido and RPL the biggest providers of LSTs, but stETH (Lido) and rETH (Rocketpool) constitute a large chunk of LSTs in Eigen Layer, being used to secure other blockchains.”

Muse #7

However, this prediction missed the mark on several fronts:

1. Rocket Pool’s rETH no longer ranks second among liquid staking tokens. Binance’s wBETH has overtaken it. Lido’s stETH remains the largest, with a 73% market share, followed by wBETH and rETH with 12% and 4%, respectively.
2. While new restaking platforms like Symbiotic and Karak launched, they diversified beyond just stETH and rETH. Symbiotic’s TVL consists of 65% wstETH, still benefiting Lido indirectly, with rETH at a modest 3.2%. Karak, on the other hand, primarily leans on restaking tokens rather than LSTs — 44% of its TVL is in LBTC, 19% in weETH, and 8% in mETH, with negligible shares for rETH (0.1%) and wstETH (0.9%).
3. Both LDO and RPL performed poorly in 2024. LDO is down 37%, while RPL fared worse with a 60% drop.

Although I was directionally correct about restaking’s rise and the launch of newer protocols, it became clear that LDO and RPL fell out of favor. Despite stETH benefiting, LDO’s performance did not reflect that momentum. On the flip side, $EIGEN, the true sector leader, has maintained stability and performed well recently.

This was a mixed bag of outcomes. Given the broader success of restaking and its associated protocols, I’ll rate myself 4/5 for this section.

Score: 4

05/ Ethereum

A. ETFs

In Muse #8, part 5, I discussed how 2024 was poised to be Ethereum’s year after a lackluster 2023. I highlighted three key drivers: the Ethereum spot ETF, restaking, and L2 growth. Since restaking has already been covered above, I’ll focus on the ETF and L2 ecosystems here, starting with price performance.

If you thought Ethereum’s price action in 2023 was underwhelming, 2024 wasn’t much better. In 2023, ETH gained +82%, but it managed only +47% in 2024. Despite these gains, ETH has yet to surpass its 2021 all-time high of $4,900, even as Bitcoin achieved new highs. This divergence has dragged ETHBTC to a new cycle low of 0.03187, marking its lowest point in three years and a 34% decline for the year. Meanwhile, SOLETH (Solana-Ethereum pair) rose 26%, further highlighting ETH’s relative underperformance against both BTC and SOL this year.

In Muse #8, I boldly predicted the approval of Ethereum spot ETFs, despite skepticism at the time:

“Firstly, the long-awaited Ethereum spot ETF is poised for imminent approval, following closely on the heels of the Bitcoin equivalent. This institutional gateway will unlock a vast pool of previously inaccessible capital, injecting much-needed stability and legitimacy into the Ethereum ecosystem. The influx of institutional investors represents a paradigm shift, signalling a transition from speculative frenzy to measured, long-term investment.”

Muse #8

The Ethereum spot ETFs were indeed approved in July 2024, making my prediction correct. However, their early performance was disappointing. The ETFs didn’t gain significant traction until November, post-US presidential elections. During their initial launch, Ethereum ETFs experienced substantial outflows, primarily driven by Grayscale’s ETHE conversions. In the first three weeks of trading, ETH ETFs recorded $2.3B in outflows, resulting in a $412M net outflow across all nine ETFs during that period.

The combined Assets Under Management (AUM) in ETH spot ETFs now stand at $12.2 billion, representing 3.54 million ETH, which equates to 2.89% of the current ETH supply. These ETFs absorb 0.3% of the ETH supply annually. Grayscale dominates the market, holding $5 billion or 40% of all ETH in these ETFs. Grayscale Mini and Fidelity follow with $2 billion and $1 billion respectively, representing 13% and 12% of the market share. The remaining providers hold less than $500 million each, with the top four accounting for 95% of the market share.

Since the U.S. presidential election, AUM in ETH spot ETFs has doubled from $6.5 billion to $12.2 billion. This is remarkable considering that AUM had stabilized at under $7 billion in the first four months post-launch. In the past two months alone, over $6 billion was added.

While ETH ETFs haven’t matched the scale of BTC ETFs, the growth is still noteworthy — albeit expected, as ETH typically trails behind BTC in market developments.

B. Layer 2’s (L2s)

Now moving to L2 developments, the most significant event this year was the Dencun hard fork, specifically EIP-4844, which introduced blobs. This innovation created a separate market for Layer 2s to post their data, drastically reducing costs. I discussed this earlier.

The average transaction fees for Layer 2s plummeted from $1.50 to under $0.10, a reduction of over 99%.

These lower fees spurred growth in active addresses and transaction counts, with Base and Arbitrum emerging as the biggest winners. Base’s transaction count skyrocketed from under 400,000 at the start of the year to 8.5 million, peaking at 11 million in November. Arbitrum’s growth was more measured, with transaction counts rising from 1 million pre-Dencun to 2.7 million by year-end.

Layer 2 (L2) revenue declined significantly, dropping from over $3 million pre-Dencun to under $1 million post-Dencun. This also reduced the average L2 on-chain cost from over $1.5 million to under $200,000. Despite the revenue drop, the reduction in costs was even steeper, leading to improved profit margins. L2s now operate with an average margin of 75%.

Total Value Locked (TVL) in rollups increased from $20 billion at the start of the year to $49 billion, marking a 131% rise. Validiums and Optimisms also saw TVL growth, from $2 billion to $4.67 billion, a 134% increase. The average transactions per second (TPS) across all L2s surged from 44 to 231, with transaction counts growing from 3.8 million to 20 million. Rollups now have a scaling factor of 15.36x, collectively offering the equivalent of 16 Ethereum chains in scalability.

EIP-4844 proved to be a game-changer for L2s, driving down costs, increasing transaction counts, and improving margins. However, the performance of L2 tokens like $OP and $ARB didn’t align with this growth. In Muse #8, I predicted these tokens would benefit from the Dencun upgrade:

“Furthermore, the continued maturation and integration of L2 solutions like Optimism and Arbitrum offer a compelling value proposition for developers and users alike. These scaling solutions address Ethereum’s current scalability limitations, enhancing transaction speed and reducing gas fees, ultimately fostering a more user-friendly and cost-effective environment. As L2 adoption continues to rise, we can expect a corresponding increase in demand for $ETH, the key fuel that powers the entire Ethereum ecosystem.

On that note, L2 tokens such as $OP and $ARB should do well.”

Muse #8

Despite the growth of L2s, $OP and $ARB underperformed significantly, ending the year down -52% and -56%, respectively — a sharp contrast to the ecosystem’s expansion.

I’ll rate this prediction a 4. While the analysis of L2 growth was accurate, the token picks did not align with the sector’s broader success.

Score: 4

06/ Value Traps

This brings me to Muse #9, part 6 of the series, where I explored value traps — areas that were widely considered bullish, but where I held a contrarian view, sometimes bordering on bearish. I identified three key areas: Artificial Intelligence (AI), DePIN, and RWAs. At first glance, it might seem obvious that I got these wrong. And while that’s partly true, there are important nuances to consider. Let’s break them down, starting with AI.

A. Artificial Intelligence (AI)

At face value, it might appear that I dismissed AI’s significance in 2024. That’s not entirely accurate. My focus was on the crypto x AI intersection, not the broader AI landscape. Even within that niche, my skepticism was partly validated, though I admit I underestimated the strides made in both the general AI sector and its overlap with crypto.

Looking back, my critique of the crypto x AI vertical at the time wasn’t without merit. My bearish stance stemmed from how this intersection was positioned — centered around infrastructure plays rather than consumer-facing applications, which dominated the AI industry.

I highlighted this contrast in Muse #9:

“When you hear about AI what do you think of? ChatGPT, Bard, MidJourney, CharacterAI etcetera. These are all consumer-facing apps. There was recent research carried out by Writerbuddy where they estimated a total of 24 billion visits to the top 50 AI tools. ChatGPT, CharacterAI, and Bard had 14.6 billion, 3.8 billion, and 241.6 million visits, respectively. Let that sink in for a moment, these aren’t small numbers by any standard. So why aren’t crypto products threading these parts? Why aren’t we building consumer-facing apps? Why are we so hung up with infrastructure play? Trying to decentralize the training of AI models. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying these aren’t important, they just shouldn’t be our focus for now. Guess I’m not speaking for the industry, but if I were a VC, would never fund a team that had a pitch deck with infrastructure play.”

Muse #9

This is where my bearishness for AI stemmed from: the over-indexing on infrastructure plays and the lack of consumer-facing apps. Interestingly, this vertical was eventually relegated in 2024 in favor of consumer-facing applications, particularly AI agents. It started with chatbots, evolved into AI agents, and now has culminated in swarms.

The Terminal of Truth kicked off the whole AI agents meta back in October, and I covered it extensively [here]. Since then, we’ve seen the launch of platforms like Virtuals, frameworks like Eliza, and tools like Cookie for data analysis and indexing. More recently, swarms by VVaifu and G.A.M.E. have emerged. I also wrote about this entire meta and how value accrues in this space.

Many would argue that AI agents were the breakout story for crypto in 2024 (outside of ETFs). In fact, it’s being touted as the most legitimate crypto use case since DeFi summer in 2020. When people discuss the crypto x AI intersection today, they think of projects like AI16z, AIXBT, and ZEREBRO. But just a year ago, the focus was entirely different — centered on AI infrastructure and decentralizing the stack, including training, inference, and data storage. Projects like Render (RENDER), Akash (AKT), and Fetch.ai (FET) dominated the narrative then.

I also shared my thoughts on why the pure infrastructure play was less likely to succeed than consumer-facing apps. The issues were clear: infrastructure tools were difficult to use, had steep learning curves, and lacked excitement. Additionally, most of these products were B2B rather than B2C, which limited their appeal.

“Render, Akash, FET etcetera, all infrastructure plays, aren’t even mainstream in crypto yet. It’s a very subset of crypto users that interfaces with these products as they have a steep learning curve. I’m not surprised by this as infrastructure plays are always B2B rather than B2C. “

Muse #9

In hindsight, it seemed obvious — and was clear to me from the start — that mirroring the success of the broader AI industry required consumer-facing apps like ChatGPT and MidJourney. And in 2024, we got exactly that. However, it’s worth checking in on the pure infrastructure plays to see how they fared.

Render (RENDER) is up +62%, Tao (TAO) is up +107%, and Fetch.ai (FET) is up +98%, Akash (AKT) is up +42%. As I mentioned before, despite being structurally bearish on this vertical, it wouldn’t hurt to buy one of these tokens for speculative purposes. There’s always the possibility of a new vertical emerging within the crypto x AI intersection to speculate on.

“While I’m bearish on the Crypto x AI intersection won’t hurt to buy one of the tokens, just in case. For the record, I’m bearish on the movement, not the tokens themselves. Because I can imagine a scenario where someone will try to call me out in 2025, after the AI tokens 10x this year. It’s also possible that reality begins to set in, and these tokens fail to do well this year, or there’s another angle to speculate on with regards to AI, whatever the outcome is, you have been warned.”

Muse #9

That said, I’ll caveat my observations: these infrastructure products didn’t entirely flop this year. Their growth was modest but fell well short of expectations and greatly underperformed their consumer-facing rivals — AI agents.

Take Akash (AKT) as an example. It continues to facilitate GPU rentals, likely for AI model training, while Render (RENDER) is making GPUs more accessible for artists and other users.

Overall, I think my prediction was on point. The original infrastructure vertical didn’t meet expectations in 2024 when compared to its 2023 performance. However, the tokens themselves performed well (as I expected), and we now have a new vertical to speculate on — one that’s more consumer-facing.

B. Decentralized Physical Infrastructure (DePIN)

DePIN was another sector I wasn’t too bullish on, even though it was a consensus trade at the time. Fast forward to now, and the DePIN narrative has been forgotten. The Only-Possible-On-Solana (OPOS) meme faded just as quickly. The core idea behind OPOS and DePIN — that fast blockchains are all you need for DePIN to succeed — never held up to scrutiny.

I outlined my reservations about DePIN early on:

“I was a critic of the MV movement then, it’s still the same reason I’m sceptical of DePIN today. The tech isn’t just ready yet, and even if it was, it still doesn’t make sense as of today.”

“It’s also part of the Only-Possible-On-Solana (OPOS) meme, which I think is a narrative play and will subsidize as time passes. Not only is believing in the movement wishful thinking, but buying the respective tokens is probably worse.”

Muse #9

Throughout 2024, we’ve seen no groundbreaking progress for DePIN. What’s left to benchmark their success is the performance of their tokens — and the numbers don’t paint a rosy picture:

• Helium (HNT): -7%
• Hivemapper (HONEY): -29%
• Helium Mobile (MOBILE): -71%

“I get it, the tokens have been pumping in recent weeks. That’s how it works, you see token prices going up, you get sucked in, believing the hype, and the rest is history. That’s how it played out with MV tokens, and I expect a similar trajectory for DePIN-related tokens. We will look back from 2025, and laugh at ourselves for thinking that DePIN would be a force to be reckoned with in 2024.”

Muse #9

And now, here we are. Permission granted to laugh at ourselves for ever believing DePIN would be a significant narrative in 2024.

Bullseye for me on this prediction — I nailed it.

C. Real World Assets (RWA)

When discussing RWAs, it’s important to differentiate between two categories:

1. Financial RWAs: These include tokenized assets like US Treasury Debt and stablecoins.
2. Everything Else: This covers tokenizing real-world assets like real estate on the blockchain. Some DePIN projects, such as Hivemapper, could also fall under this category.

In Muse #9, I argued that 2024 wouldn’t be the year for the “putting houses on blockchains” version of RWA:

“Real Estate has failed to work since the “let’s put houses on the Blockchain’’ era back in 2017. It keeps coming back every cycle (but under different names). It’s going to come back again, and when your favourite influencers start shilling you real estate on the blockchain, tell them that you have seen this movie before. There are lots of reasons why this doesn’t work today, one of them being no standard. Houses are non-fungible to start with, unlike equities or debts that can be easily tokenized and traded. To know more about the hurdles this movement will face, you can read the recent Arthur Hayes piece. Buying any token in this category will be a surefire way to lose money in 2024.”

Muse #9

While real estate tokenization didn’t gain traction, 2024 was undeniably the year for financial RWAs. Private credit and US Treasury Debt took center stage, driving the RWA market’s growth from $8.4 billion at the start of the year to $15.27 billion by year-end.

• Private Credit: Grew from $6.47 billion to $9.6 billion, marking a 48% increase.
• US Treasury Debt: Exploded from $760 million to $4 billion, a staggering 426% growth — becoming the breakout RWA use case of the year.

In March, BlackRock launched its BUIDL Fund on Ethereum, reshaping the US Treasury Debt landscape. Here’s how the market evolved over the year:

At the start of 2024, Franklin Templeton’s FOBXX dominated with 42.33% market share, followed by OUSG (16.39%) and STBT (12.50%).

By year-end, the landscape shifted significantly:

• USYC grew from 5.77% to 41.97%, becoming the largest US Treasury Debt fund.
• BlackRock’s BUIDL Fund captured 16.22% of the market, with $650 million AUM.
• FOBXX, OUSG, and STBT shares declined to 13.98%, 4.25%, and 0.16%, respectively.
• USDY rose from 8.53% to 11.27%, maintaining its relevance.

The transition highlights how much can change in a single year. The biggest players at the start — FOBXX, OUSG, STBT, and USDY — gave way to a new hierarchy: USYC, BUIDL, FOBXX, and USDY.

Stablecoins experienced significant growth this year, with their total market capitalization increasing from $126.47 billion at the start of the year to $202.24 billion by year-end — a +60% increase.

One of the standout developments was the rise of a new stablecoin, USDe from Ethena. It went from a negligible 0.08% market share to an impressive 2.89%, with a market cap of $5.85 billion.

• Tether’s USDT retained its position as the dominant stablecoin issuer, though its market share declined from 72.49% to 67.37%.
• USDC from Circle saw a slight increase in market share, rising from 19.65% to 21.44%.

Reflections on Value Traps

1. RWAs: RWAs proved to be a value trap if you bought into the “putting houses on the blockchain” hype. I predicted that this narrative wouldn’t take off in 2024, and I was right. However, the growth in private credit, US Treasuries, and stablecoins demonstrated that the broader RWA sector still delivered significant value in other areas.
2. AI: On the AI front, I was partially wrong. While I labeled the pure infrastructure play as a value trap, the respective tokens performed well this year, and the project fundamentals improved. Additionally, I correctly predicted the emergence of a new speculative bubble in another AI vertical. I’d call this one a tie overall.
3. DePINs: For DePINs, I was spot on. The narrative didn’t take off, and the associated tokens underperformed, as expected.overall will give myself a 3 in this section.

For this section, I’ll give myself a 3 out of 5.

Score: 3

Conclusion

Most people make predictions but rarely revisit them to assess their accuracy. Occasionally, you’ll see someone highlight their successful calls while ignoring their misses. I wanted to do the opposite here — revisit my 2024 predictions, evaluate how they turned out, and assign myself a grade.

I made predictions across six key themes and graded them as follows:

1. Bitcoin: 5
2. Ordinals et al.: 4
3. Layer 1s (L1s): 3
4. Restaking: 4
5. Ethereum: 4
6. Value Traps: 3

This totals 23/30, which equates to a 76% accuracy rate — an A by most academic grading standards (typically 75% and above).

Key Takeaways

• Strengths: I nailed most of the overarching theses and macro-level predictions, particularly around fundamentals.
• Misses: My main misses were on the micro-level predictions, especially those tied to token price movements. While I got the fundamentals right, I occasionally missed on technical aspects, reflecting the common disconnect in crypto where fundamentals don’t always align with price action.

The speculative nature of crypto remains a challenge. In a market still driven largely by speculation, getting the fundamentals right while missing the technicals doesn’t always translate to successful trades or investments. Moving forward, I’ll focus on improving my accuracy in technical predictions, aiming to align them more closely with my strong grasp of fundamentals.

My 2025 predictions will be out soon. Until then, peace.