tvl

Another metric for assessing a crypto asset's potential is the #TVL (Total Value Locked). It calculates the total cryptocurrency value protected by a token's protocol. You can do your own research on this subject.
🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋
What I'd want to share with you is another of my strategies, which is called #TheCryptocurrencyAssetTVLEvaluationMetric (#CATVLEM ), which utilizes the MC/TVL ratio calculation formula but with the introduced "macro," "micro," and “nano” metrics to compare assets with comparable nominal prices and categories, as given in the table below. 
It's common knowledge that distinct assets cannot be compared and that the best method is to compare assets that are more or less comparable. However, not everyone is aware of it, which in turn could lead to an incorrect crypto asset’s value assessment.

The advantage of using an advanced formula based on the asset's nominal price and category over an existing formula is that it provides a more precise evaluation of the risks while also allowing for the convenient use of a well-known metric to assess the current value and future potential of crypto assets.
Furthermore, because TVL does not distinguish between types of locked assets, it cannot be used directly to analyze an asset's potential and risks. A protocol with $1 billion in Ethereum and Bitcoin $BTC , for instance, has significantly different risk characteristics than one with $1 billion in newly introduced tokens. 
Therefore, it is proposed to use the "macro," "micro," and "nano" metrics in addition when computing the MC/TVL ratio, because it forms an extreme "smoke detector" for identifying hidden gems or pure hype bubbles. 
🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋
Here is an example of Bitcoin versus other coins with the same TVL but with a lower nominal price. As you can see, the MC/TVL ratios of Bitcoin and Stellar $XLM are fairly similar, but there is a significant difference in price and market cap size; that is, Bitcoin is in the large-cap category and Stellar is in the low-cap category.  

Similarly, Cardano $ADA and Stellar have a significant disparity in MC/TVL ratios while having nearly the same MC (#marketcap ) and nominal price. As you can see, even if we compare the same price range, the TVL is greatly impacted; thus, we should evaluate the total market supply and total volume since they affect the Market Cap. Therefore, I propose classifying the crypto asset according to its MC category and nominal price and calculating the MC/TVL ratios with the advanced "macro," "micro," and "nano" metrics introduced in the formula in order to make a more realistic evaluation of the crypto asset's potential. 

Another disadvantage of the MC/TVL ratio is that, in the ever-changing crypto environment, it is only a relative metric and does not provide an absolute number that can be relied upon. Here's another example of an ever-changing market: examine the history of Bitcoin price changes. The MC/TVL ratio of Bitcoin was approximately 1,286 at $20K, and it is currently approximately 145.16 at $74K.

Similarly, the value of any other cryptocurrency may increase dramatically over time; thus, an asset that was once valued at less than $1 could now be worth $1000, and if it was previously classified as micro low TVL or micro high TVL, it will no longer fall within the "micro" category. As a result, it will be contrasted with the assets in the "macro" category, and so on.
🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋
Therefore, in my opinion, the MC/TVL ratio is a highly accurate value to use to assess the potential of a cryptocurrency asset, provided a classification of the "macro," "micro," and "nano" metrics is introduced. For this reason, I propose using the advanced MC/TVL ratio formula when determining the cryptocurrency asset evaluation, i.e. the Cryptocurrency Asset TVL Evaluation Metric. This straightforward classification is a more accurate metric to take into account to calculate the MC/TVL ratio accurately.
🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋
And finally, The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) has studied the TVL value of different types of cryptocurrencies and concluded that the calculation of the TVL itself is not accurate; consequently, it is also impacting the MC/TVL ratio. The researchers proposed to standardize the TVL calculation and assessment, and they provided a thorough study of the importance of implementing the standardized protocols when calculating the TVL itself, as well as the significant impact it has on the overall picture of crypto assets and, consequently, the value assessment of such assets. There is also data demonstrating how the TVL value varies among various cryptocurrency assets. If you're interested, you can read the article "Towards Verifiability of Total Value Locked (TVL) in Decentralized Finance."
#SECClarifiesCryptoClassification
Always "DYOR"

$BTC $HEMI $ETH
@Hemi
There's over $1 trillion sitting in Bitcoin wallets doing absolutely nothing. No yield, no productivity, just sitting there. Meanwhile, Ethereum DeFi offers 5-20% yields across various protocols, and Ethereum's market cap is less than half of Bitcoin's. This massive capital inefficiency is the opportunity HEMI is targeting, and when Bitcoin holders discover they can earn yields without compromising security, the TVL growth will be explosive.
The psychology of Bitcoin holders is different from Ethereum users. Bitcoin people are paranoid about security, distrustful of complex smart contracts, and allergic to anything that feels like excessive risk. This is why wrapped Bitcoin solutions have had limited success - they require trusting custodians, which defeats the purpose of holding Bitcoin in the first place.
HEMI's Proof-of-Proof architecture solves this psychological barrier. You're not trusting some random multisig or bridge operator. You're using infrastructure secured by Bitcoin's own proof-of-work plus Ethereum's economic security. For Bitcoin maxis who won't touch anything unless it has Bitcoin-level security guarantees, this is the first option that actually meets their standards.
The TVL opportunity is enormous even with conservative assumptions. If just 1% of Bitcoin's market cap flows into HEMI-based DeFi protocols seeking yields, that's $10+ billion in TVL. For comparison, current top DeFi protocols have TVLs in the $3-8 billion range. HEMI could reach top-10 DeFi protocol status purely from capturing a small fraction of passive Bitcoin capital.
The yields don't even need to be extreme. Bitcoin holders sitting on zero percent would happily take 5-7% yields if the security model is sound. That spread between zero and 5% represents pure opportunity cost they're currently eating. As lending protocols, DEXs, and yield aggregators launch on HEMI, these yields become accessible without compromise.
Early ecosystem projects will have a massive advantage. The first quality lending protocol on HEMI, the first major DEX with deep liquidity, the first yield aggregator that makes it brain-dead simple to earn - these projects will capture enormous market share from Bitcoin holders who've been waiting years for secure DeFi options.
Current TVL metrics for HEMI are still early, which is exactly why now is the time to pay attention. Once TVL crosses critical thresholds and media attention follows, the opportunity to be early will have passed.
#BitcoinDeFi #TVL #HemiNetwork #HEMI #defi
What yield percentage would make you comfortable putting a portion of your Bitcoin into DeFi protocols - 5%, 10%, or would you need higher returns?