₿en

CANTON NETWORK ≠ $CC I’m going to say the uncomfortable part. Canton can become one of the most important financial infrastructures in the world. DTCC. Broadridge. Nasdaq. Banks. Funds. Tokenized assets. Trillions. And yet, that does NOT guarantee that $CC holders capture a proportional share of that success. Because we are not buying “Canton Network.” We are buying $CC. And the question that still needs a quantified answer is very simple: HOW MUCH OF CANTON’S SUCCESS ACTUALLY ENDS UP IN THE $CC ECONOMY? Canton does not charge a percentage of the notional value of the assets being settled. The Global Synchronizer primarily charges for traffic/data, denominated in USD, and additional traffic is purchased by burning CC. So: $10T processed ≠ $10T of value captured by $CC. $1B settled ≠ necessarily 1,000x more burn than $1M. Network success ≠ token value capture. And while: MINT > BURN net supply keeps growing. Let’s also stop confusing two fundamentally different things: LOCK ≠ BURN A locked CC still exists. It may delay supply reaching the market. A burned CC is gone. Locks delay supply. Burn eliminates it. The question is no longer whether Canton can attract value. It has already proven that it can. The question is how much of that value $CC actually captures. ⸻ So here are some uncomfortable questions for @YuvalRooz, @ShaulKfir, @CantonNetwork and the Super Validators, whose 2/3 support is required for certain important network decisions. Yuval, Shaul: if increasing burn ultimately proved insufficient for $CC to adequately capture Canton’s success, would you support changes that clearly strengthened $CC economics even if they permanently reduced the rewards of those benefiting from the current system? It is a question about incentives and alignment. Because alignment is easy when improving $CC costs you nothing. Real alignment begins when it costs you. And we need the same clarity around dedicated synchronizers. If DTCC, banks, funds and other institutions eventually process a growing share of their activity through dedicated synchronizers or through workflows that do not consume Global Synchronizer traffic proportionally, simply saying: “Subnets will contribute too” is not enough. I want numbers. What activity will generate burn? How much CC will be burned? What additional realized mint/rewards will be created in return? What will the NET Contribution = burn generated − incremental mint/rewards actually be? When will this data become publicly trackable? Because creating new burn and offsetting it with equivalent new rewards does not necessarily improve net value capture. And now the most uncomfortable question: Yuval, Shaul, Super Validators: If your rewards disappeared tomorrow and your only exposure to Canton’s success was buying $CC on the open market exactly like any other holder… WOULD YOU INCREASE YOUR POSITION UNDER TODAY’S TOKENOMICS? Why? That answer interests me far more than another headline about trillions. I’m not saying Canton is a scam. I’m saying something much harder to dismiss: Canton Network can be extraordinary while $CC remains a mediocre investment if enough of that value does not flow back to the token. Canton is building an extraordinary institutional highway. But holders need to know: how many vehicles actually pay the toll, how much CC that toll burns, how much new CC is issued to those operating the highway, and how much NET value is ultimately left for the token. Until that bridge between adoption and value capture becomes much clearer, I would not buy $CC simply because Canton announces more institutions or more trillions processed. Canton has already proven that institutions want the network. Now prove why investors should want the token. Network success is not $CC value capture until the data proves it. Data first. Narrative second. “More real-world usage only matters to $CC if the value flows back to the token”

Canton Network is real. DTCC. Broadridge. Nasdaq. Tier-one institutions. Trillions in assets and hundreds of thousands of transactions. Nobody is disputing that. But there is something we need to start saying much more clearly: $CC is not Canton Network. And for holders, that distinction is almost everything. BME still has not remained structurally above 100%. We’ve seen days approaching 90%, extraordinary hourly spikes… and then we fall back to 60–70%. That is not structural deflation yet. As long as Mint > Burn, net supply continues to increase. And this is where the uncomfortable questions begin. Broadridge, one of Canton’s flagship examples of institutional adoption, states in its own SEC filing that it began converting the CC it received into cash almost immediately after receiving it. At the same time, the model itself allows a Featured App to earn rewards of up to 170% of the traffic fees it generates, depending on its business model. And a portion of Canton’s enormous institutional activity can take place on private synchronizers while avoiding the Global Synchronizer traffic fees that currently feed directly into $CC burn. So the next time someone says: “Canton moves hundreds of billions of dollars every day.” My question will remain exactly the same: How much of that pays fees? How much CC does it burn? How much CC is minted at the same time? If we don’t know those three numbers, we are talking about the success of Canton Network. Not necessarily the value capture of $CC. And frankly, I believe holders deserve to hear about this with the same clarity used to promote the network’s achievements. I’m not asking for a pump. I’m not asking for the rules to be changed to favor retail. I’m asking for something much simpler: Transparency about where and how $CC captures value. If the priority is to build the institutional infrastructure first and token value capture comes later, say it clearly. If the design deliberately intends to keep $CC appreciation closely tied to utility, say it clearly. If a significant part of institutional activity still does not feed into the token economy, say it clearly. Don’t give us only the beautiful half of the story. Because many of us are here precisely to understand whether the enormous success Canton may achieve will also belong economically to $CC holders. The next few months may start answering that question: DTCC. Global Synchronizer. The CIP for dedicated synchronizers. And above all: BME >100%. Not for an hour. Not for a day. Sustainably. Canton can win. Now $CC has to prove that it wins with it. Data first. Narrative second. “More real-world usage only matters to $CC if the value flows back to the token”

WILL THIS CIP BE THE TURNING POINT FOR $CC? Canton wants to extend $CC burning to every synchronizer. On paper, this could be the most important change to the token economy since Canton launched. But a proposal is not an economic improvement. Markets don’t price intentions. They price results. The only question that really matters is: Will this CIP finally solve $CC’s biggest economic challenge: value capture for holders? Good intentions aren’t enough. Announcements aren’t enough. Saying that every synchronizer will participate in the same economy isn’t enough. What matters is whether this CIP moves these four metrics: • More burn. • A BME steadily moving toward equilibrium. • Lower net issuance. • Slower supply growth. If those metrics don’t improve, this isn’t an economic reform. It’s an incremental improvement. And an incremental improvement doesn’t change the investment thesis. ⸻ Canton is building one of the world’s leading institutional infrastructures. Very few people would argue with that anymore. But building the best highway in the world isn’t enough. What matters is who collects the tolls. And, more importantly, whether those tolls create real economic value for $CC. If burn continues to lag far behind mint, holders will continue absorbing the imbalance. If BME doesn’t improve sustainably, the narrative won’t change the math. A token economy isn’t measured by what a CIP promises. It’s measured by what happens to burn, BME, and net issuance after it’s implemented. BME will be the CIP’s lie detector. ⸻ The uncomfortable question remains exactly the same: Will this CIP genuinely improve value capture for $CC… or will it simply show that the direction is right without creating a meaningful economic shift? Because the story over the past few months has been pretty clear: • More infrastructure. • More institutions. • More activity. • More announcements. • Too many “soon.” • And still very limited measurable improvement in the token’s economics. ⸻ Nothing would make me happier than having to eat my own words. Seriously. I hope this becomes the turning point. I hope burn increases significantly. I hope BME steadily moves closer to equilibrium. I hope net issuance falls. I hope the market proves me wrong. But that won’t be decided by hope. It will be decided by data. ⸻ That’s why every Friday I’ll keep tracking the exact same metrics: • Mint. • Burn. • BME. • Net Issuance. • Public and private activity. • Circulating supply. • Price. No hype. No slogans. No PR spin. Because investors don’t buy CIPs. They buy an expectation of value creation. ⸻ If this CIP works, the numbers will prove it. And I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong. If it doesn’t, I hope the team is equally willing to acknowledge that more work is still needed. Because in the end… Data has no agenda. Data has no narrative. Data has no PR department. Data simply tells the truth. And we’ll see that truth every Friday. ⸻ Canton has already proven it can build one of the world’s leading institutional infrastructures. Now it has to prove something even harder: That the success of its infrastructure can also translate into a strong token economy and real value capture for $CC holders. I’m not asking for price guarantees. I’m asking for something much more reasonable: That the token economy evolves at the same pace as the infrastructure. Until then, I won’t change my thesis. The data will. Data—not promises—will deliver the verdict. “More real-world usage on the public network, more value for $CC.”