To The Moon

1. Gemini — “compliant exchange” vs loss drag

Positioning: Gemini has long leaned into a compliance-first brand (NY BitLicense; global permits). Recent headlines also show a meaningful legal overhang clearing: in Jun 2024, Gemini reached a US$50M settlement with the NY Attorney General over “Earn,” with a ban on lending programmes in New York going forward. This resolves a major reputational and regulatory risk item. 

Financials: The S-1 indicates sizeable red ink—about US$282.5M net loss in 1H25—while targeting a US$17–19 price range and ~US$2.2B valuation. Losses are the near-term constraint; the brand’s “compliance premium” only sustains if volumes/fee take recover and cost discipline tightens. 

Bottom line: Gemini can keep flying the “compliant” flag, but its valuation will trade with crypto turnover and the path to breakeven. With the Earn matter largely ring-fenced, the chief risk now is operating leverage, not litigation. 

2. Figure — will the RWA model be the next trillion-dollar track?

What it is: Figure originates/finances real-world credit (notably HELOCs) and pipes funding/securitisation on-chain (Provenance). It’s an RWA lender first, crypto company second. The IPO filing and coverage highlight resumed profitability in 1H25 and a target US$18–20 range implying up to ~US$4.1B valuation. Figure/Homes & HELOC originations reportedly exceed US$16B to date. 

Market size: Credible estimates for tokenised RWAs span from a cautious ~US$2T by 2030 (McKinsey base case) to more bullish US$16T (BCG/ADDX). “Trillion-dollar” is plausible at the ecosystem level; whether Figure captures outsized share depends on execution in origination quality, funding costs, and secondary market depth. 

Risks: Classic credit-cycle risk (spreads/charge-offs), warehouse/securitisation liquidity, and the still-nascent nature of on-chain infrastructure/settlements. Reward: If Figure can repeatedly originate at scale and prove cheaper/faster capital markets issuance on-chain, operating leverage could be meaningful. 

3. Exchange model vs RWA model in this IPO mini-cycle

Exchanges (e.g., Gemini): Higher beta to crypto prices/volumes; clean product/regulatory posture helps access institutions. But fee compression, intense competition, and operating losses make near-term equity returns more cyclical. Good trading vehicle when the cycle is hot; more volatility on downturns. 

RWA lenders (e.g., Figure): More tied to credit demand and cost of capital than to token prices. If on-chain issuance/settlement keeps compounding, RWA economics are less “speculative-cycle” and more “fintech spread business” with a secular growth tailwind. Execution/credit risk is real, but the prize is structurally larger and better diversified. 

My stance

Near term (tactical): Exchanges can outperform while the IPO window is open and crypto volumes remain elevated.

Medium term (3–5 years): I favour leading RWA platforms over pure exchanges for superior secular upside and more durable economics, provided they maintain credit discipline and keep proving real cost/time advantages in funding and securitisation. 

If you’re asking “who’s next after Circle (CRCL)?” the live pipeline points to Gemini (exchange) and Figure (RWA) as the two marquee names; Kraken appears a 2026 candidate. 

Note: Circle raised ~US$1.05B in June 2025 and traded strongly at debut—an important sentiment marker for the category.