DEV Community: MrNasdog

VIRTUAL Inflation Analysis · August 2026 · Supply roughly flat, a vesting drip

MrNasdog — Sun, 02 Aug 2026 08:07:14 +0000

Originally published at mrnasdog.com/research/virtual/inflation by MrNasdog.

VIRTUAL Inflation Analysis · August 2026 · Fixed supply, roughly steady

The MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads Virtuals Protocol (VIRTUAL) at +0.14% net over the last 90 days — roughly neutral. VIRTUAL is capped at 1,000,000,000 with no mint function, and the origin-chain contract held exactly that at both ends of the window. The only new supply reaching the market is a team-and-investor lockup still draining on-chain — about 0.94M VIRTUAL released — while the project's famous buyback-and-burn destroys each AI agent's own token, not VIRTUAL. Our supply monitor reads +0.15%, a gap of just 0.005 percentage points, so this read ships no data-conflict flag.

The verdict, in one paragraph

Over the last 90 days the framework reads VIRTUAL at +0.14% net: about 0.94M VIRTUAL of new float from a draining vesting lockup, against zero buy-side offset that touches VIRTUAL, on a circulating base of about 657.78M VIRTUAL. Our supply monitor reads the same window at +0.15%, a gap of only 0.005 percentage points — well inside tolerance, so no monitor-gap warning ships. The two agree because the single moving bucket is easy to see: an on-chain lockup drawdown of about 939,861 VIRTUAL lines up with the monitor's independent float growth of about 972,704 over the same window. VIRTUAL is a fixed-cap token whose supply is steady by design — no issuance, no burn of VIRTUAL, just a thin vesting drip that is nearly exhausted.

Sell pressure: where new VIRTUAL comes from

Sell #1 — protocol inflation — is zero. VIRTUAL was minted once as a fixed 1,000,000,000 supply with no mint function, no block reward and no staking emission. The origin-chain contract read exactly 1,000,000,000 at both ends of the 90-day window, so not a single new VIRTUAL was created. This is the single most important fact about the token: whatever else happens, Virtuals Protocol cannot dilute its holders by issuance.

Sell #2 — vesting unlocks — is the only non-zero row, and it is small. A team-and-investor lockup contract still drips VIRTUAL to the market on a linear schedule. Its on-chain balance fell from about 2.50M to about 1.56M across the last 90 days — about 0.94M VIRTUAL actually released, the only real supply reaching the float. This matters because every unlock tracker calls VIRTUAL fully unlocked since 2023; the chain refutes them. The framework books what the escrow actually paid out, not the calendar entitlement, so the residual 1.56M still inside the lock — roughly a year and a half at this pace — counts as an overhang, not as supply that has already hit the market.

Sell #3 — Foundation and unscheduled unlocks — is zero. The 35% ecosystem treasury, about 340.7M VIRTUAL in a DAO multisig, held the exact same balance at both ends of the window, so nothing was deployed. A pool that has not moved since May 2024 gives nothing to project forward, so the framework books no value from it and keeps it under watch. Sell #4 — long-term locked or bankruptcy — is zero; Virtuals Protocol is a live AI-agent launchpad with no estate, trustee schedule or court-ordered distribution attaching to VIRTUAL.

Buy pressure: where new VIRTUAL goes

VIRTUAL's buy side is its most misread feature. Buy #1 — programmatic buyback — is zero for VIRTUAL. Virtuals Protocol does run a revenue buyback-and-burn, but it buys and burns each AI agent's own token — GAME, AIXBT and the rest — funded by that agent's inference and trading revenue. The VIRTUAL spent to perform those buybacks is deposited into the agent's liquidity pool and stays in the float, so no VIRTUAL is bought back or removed. There is no VIRTUAL accumulation wallet and no VIRTUAL buyback contract in use.

Buy #2 — protocol fee burn — is zero, and this is the crucial nuance. VIRTUAL is not burned at all: the origin contract held exactly 1,000,000,000 at both ends of the window, proving nothing was destroyed. The deflation the project advertises is real, but it applies to the agent tokens, not to VIRTUAL. Buy #3 — Foundation buy — is zero; the treasury discloses no open-market VIRTUAL accumulation programme. Buy #4 — new long-term lock — is zero: vote-escrow staking lets holders lock VIRTUAL for governance weight, but it is voluntary, it decays over time, and no dated quantum of new lock was announced in the window.

Foundation and overhang

About 342M VIRTUAL — roughly a third of the fixed supply — sits outside the float, and it closes cleanly to two on-chain buckets. The larger is the 35% ecosystem treasury, about 340.7M VIRTUAL held in a DAO multisig, capped at 10% a year and gated on a governance vote; it has been static since May 2024 and did not move this window. The smaller is the vesting lockup residual of about 1.56M VIRTUAL, which is draining into the float and drives Sell #2. On top of these, governance has authorised a couple of discretionary ecosystem grants that remain dormant — including a performance grant gated on VIRTUAL reaching price milestones far above spot — so they sit in scope but contribute nothing today.

Because the treasury and the lockup are both readable on-chain, the framework tracks their balances at both ends of every window and books only what actually reached the market. That is why the trailing read matched the monitor to within a rounding difference. If the treasury multisig's balance falls between refreshes — a governance-approved deployment on top of the vesting drip — the outflow enters Sell #3 at the next refresh rather than being absorbed silently.

How VIRTUAL compares to other fixed-cap tokens

VIRTUAL belongs to the class of hard-capped, fully-minted tokens — the model where the entire supply exists from day one and no protocol issuance can dilute it. In that respect it resembles a fixed-supply governance asset more than an emission chain: there is no inflation curve to model, only a distribution schedule that moves already-minted supply from locked buckets into the float. The distinguishing feature is how little of that distribution is left. Where a young capped token often has years of team and investor cliffs ahead, VIRTUAL's vesting is nearly spent — the lockup that drives its entire sell side holds only about 1.56M, a fraction of a percent of supply.

The sharper contrast is with the buyback-and-burn exchange tokens VIRTUAL is often grouped with. When such a token runs its auto-burn, it destroys units from a largely circulating supply, so the burn genuinely tightens the float and shows up as negative net issuance. VIRTUAL's buyback-and-burn does the opposite for its own token: it operates one level down, on the agent tokens, and the VIRTUAL it consumes stays in circulation. So the correct read is not that VIRTUAL is deflationary — it is that VIRTUAL is flat, a fixed cap whose float creeps up only as the last of the vesting drains. A supply model has to draw that line precisely: a burn only offsets inflation if it destroys the token being measured, and here it does not.

What to watch in the next 90 days

There is no scheduled unlock cliff in the window, so the watch items are structural. First, the vesting lockup: it holds about 1.56M VIRTUAL and drains near 0.9M a quarter, so it is roughly a year and a half from empty — the point at which VIRTUAL's sell side goes to zero entirely. Second, the ecosystem treasury multisig: a governance vote could release up to 10% of supply a year, so any approved deployment is the one event that would move the reading. Third, watch for any change that would give VIRTUAL a real buy-side offset — a switch to burning or locking VIRTUAL itself rather than agent tokens — which is the only route by which VIRTUAL would turn deflationary. Absent those, the next-90-day read stays near +0.14%.

Summary

The MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads VIRTUAL as steady by design: +0.14% net over the last 90 days and about the same forward. The mechanism is a fixed 1B cap with no mint and no VIRTUAL burn, so the only supply reaching the market is a team-and-investor lockup draining about 0.94M a quarter, with roughly 1.56M left. The key nuance is that the project's buyback-and-burn destroys agent tokens, not VIRTUAL — the origin contract held exactly 1B all window — so the advertised deflation does not tighten VIRTUAL's float. The ceiling and the risk are the same lever: the 340.7M governance-gated ecosystem treasury, which is static today but could be deployed by a vote. Until then, VIRTUAL is a capped token whose supply barely moves.

MrNasdog Pressure Framework analysis of Virtuals Protocol (VIRTUAL), Metric 1 — Inflation. Data + explanation only. Not financial advice. Updated August 9 2026.

TRUMP Inflation Analysis · August 2026 · Supply growing on insider vesting

MrNasdog — Sun, 02 Aug 2026 08:06:40 +0000

Originally published at mrnasdog.com/research/trump/inflation by MrNasdog.

Official Trump (TRUMP) is a capped Solana memecoin — its mint authority is renounced on-chain, so the fixed 1B supply can never grow. The pressure comes from distribution, not issuance: 80% of supply is an insider allocation vesting through December 2027, and about 10.5M TRUMP a quarter is actually reaching the market. With a buy side of zero — no buyback, no burn, no lock — that nets to roughly +4.23% over 90 days, and our supply monitor agrees at +4.37%, a gap of only 0.14 percentage points, so no warning chip ships. TRUMP is structurally inflationary on its active float even though its cap is fixed.

The verdict, in one paragraph

For the 90-day window ending Aug 9 2026, the MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads TRUMP at about +4.23% net, both trailing and forward — an empty buy side and a vesting-driven sell side of roughly 10.5M TRUMP reaching the market against a circulating float near 248.3M. Our supply monitor reads +4.37% for the same trailing window, a gap of just 0.14 percentage points — inside the framework's 0.5-point tolerance, so no monitor-gap warning is attached. The two views agree because both measure the same thing: TRUMP's tradable float is growing as insiders distribute vested tokens, even though the token itself is hard-capped at 1B. The cite-able label is simple — TRUMP is structurally inflationary on its active float, an unlock story with no offset.

Sell pressure: where new TRUMP comes from

There is only one source, and it is not issuance. Sell #1 — protocol inflation — is zero: TRUMP has no emission, no staking rewards and no mint path, because the mint authority is renounced on-chain, read null this session. The on-chain supply is a fixed 1B (a trivial ~931 tokens net burned), and it can only fall. Sell #2 — vesting unlocks — is the whole story, at about 10.5M TRUMP reaching the market over the last 90 days. Of the 1B supply, 80% is owned by two Trump-affiliated companies on a three-year linear vest that runs from January 2025 to December 2027; only about 200M was public at launch.

The subtlety in the vesting is why this page books a smaller number than the unlock trackers show. The published calendar releases roughly 28M TRUMP a month, which would imply about 84M over a 90-day window. But that gross release lands in team wallets, not on the market: the classified circulating float has grown only about 10.5M over the last 90 days, and just 200M to 248M across the 19 months since launch — around a third of the scheduled pace. The framework measures supply reaching the market, so it books the realised outflow of about 10.5M a quarter and treats the rest as a held overhang. Sell #3 — foundation and unscheduled unlocks — is therefore zero on value but carries a very large watch item (covered below). Sell #4 — long-term locked or bankruptcy — is zero because no bankruptcy estate, court distribution or trustee schedule applies to TRUMP.

Buy pressure: where new TRUMP goes

This is the shortest section on the page, because there is nothing to offset the vest. Buy #1 — programmatic buyback — is zero: TRUMP has no protocol buyback. One Trump-affiliated entity was reported to be raising between $200M and $1B to build a treasury vehicle that would accumulate TRUMP, but no completed raise or on-market buying was confirmed as of mid-2026, so the framework books nothing. Buy #2 — protocol fee burn — is zero: TRUMP is a bare token with no protocol, no fee switch and no burn sink. Buy #3 — foundation buy — is zero, with no disclosed discretionary open-market buying. Buy #4 — new long-term lock — is zero, because TRUMP has no staking mechanism that removes coins from circulation and no new lockup contract was deployed. The buy ledger is empty in every row, which is why the vest passes straight through to a positive net.

Foundation and overhang

TRUMP's overhang is one of the largest on the site relative to its float. About 752M TRUMP — roughly 75% of the total supply — is non-circulating, and almost all of it is the 80% insider block: the two affiliated allocations plus creator tranches, either still locked in the vest or vested and held off-market. Because the scheduled unlock (~28M a month) runs well ahead of what actually reaches the market (~10.5M a quarter), the held overhang keeps growing even as insiders sell — vested tokens pile up in team custody faster than they are distributed. The framework refreshes this by hand against the vesting calendar and the circulating float. The trigger is simple: if this overhang's balance falls between refreshes as insiders push more tokens onto the market, that outflow enters Sell #3 at the next refresh, and the net would climb above the ~+4.23% booked here.

How TRUMP compares to other memecoins

TRUMP sits in the opposite corner from a fair-launch memecoin. Against a token like BONK or Dogecoin, the contrast is total on the supply axis: BONK is 100% unlocked with a renounced mint and no insider vest, so its inflation is essentially zero; DOGE has no cap but distributes its issuance to miners in the open market. TRUMP shares BONK's renounced mint and hard cap, but almost none of its supply is free — the number that moves the inflation reading is not new issuance, it is the insider unlock. That makes TRUMP behave less like a memecoin and more like a high-FDV, low-float venture token, where a small tradable slice is diluted month after month by a large locked allocation coming unvested.

The key mechanism-based difference from the exchange tokens that run quarterly buyback-and-burn is direction. Those tokens use real revenue to shrink their float and can post negative net supply; TRUMP has no revenue and no buy-side mechanism at all, so every vested token that reaches the market is pure one-way dilution of the active float. And unlike a fixed-supply memecoin whose burn is a rounding error, TRUMP's unlock is material — about +4.23% a quarter on the circulating base — which is why, despite the cap, it reads as one of the more inflationary assets the framework tracks on a float basis.

What to watch in the next 90 days

First, the monthly vesting unlock, next dated around Aug 18 2026 and recurring through the window: the scheduled amount is about 28M TRUMP, and what matters is how much of it actually reaches the market versus staying in team custody. Second, the pace of realised selling — if insiders accelerate distribution and the circulating float starts tracking closer to the ~28M-a-month schedule, the net would jump well above +4.23% and the inflation score would stay pinned at the floor. Third, any completion of the reported treasury raise, which would be the first genuine buy-side mechanism TRUMP has ever had and the only thing that could offset the vest. Fourth, the run toward full vesting by December 2027, after which no scheduled supply remains to unlock. Fifth, any disclosure of a burn, lock or utility mechanism, none of which exists today.

Summary

The MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads TRUMP at about +4.23% net over the next 90 days, from a sell side that is entirely an insider vest — roughly 10.5M TRUMP reaching the market a quarter — and a buy side that is zero in every row. The structural mechanism is a fixed, renounced-mint cap of 1B paired with an 80% insider allocation still unlocking through 2027, so the token cannot inflate by issuance but is steadily diluting its active float. Our monitor reads +4.37% for the same window, a 0.14-point gap that leaves the two views in agreement. The key risk is that realised selling accelerates toward the ~28M-a-month scheduled pace, pushing the net higher; the only offset would be a buy-side program that does not yet exist. Capped but not clean — TRUMP's supply story is who is still unlocking, and there is nothing on the other side of the ledger.

MrNasdog Pressure Framework analysis of TRUMP, Metric 1 — Inflation. Data + explanation only. Not financial advice. Updated August 9 2026.

TIA Inflation Analysis · August 2026 · Supply growing on genesis unlocks

MrNasdog — Sun, 02 Aug 2026 08:06:07 +0000

Originally published at mrnasdog.com/research/tia/inflation

Celestia cut its staking mint to about 2.5% a year, but that is not the story: a linear genesis unlock releasing roughly 344,924 TIA a day — about 31.0M over the trailing 90 days — is more than four times the ~7.2M mint. There is nothing on the other side — no buyback, no fee burn, no lockup — so the MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads +4.01% net new supply on a circulating base of 952.96M TIA, and our supply monitor agrees at +4.23%, a gap of just 0.22 percentage points that ships no data-conflict chip. TIA inflates on an uncapped supply with no counterweight.

The verdict, in one paragraph

For the 90-day window to Aug 9 2026, the MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads TIA at +4.01% net for the trailing window and +3.92% for the forward window — the staking mint and the daily unlock both reach the market in full, with nothing to offset them. Our supply monitor reads +4.23% for the trailing window, a gap of only 0.22 percentage points, well inside the framework's 0.5-point tolerance, so no monitor-gap chip appears on the TIA overview and no reconciliation walk is needed. The two agree because both capture the same reality: a small staking mint stacked on a large linear vesting unlock, on a supply with no hard cap. TIA is best characterised as a persistently inflationary uncapped Layer 1 whose vesting unlock dwarfs its already-reduced mint.

Sell pressure: where new TIA comes from

Sell #1 — protocol inflation — is about 7.2M TIA over 90 days, and it is the smaller of Celestia's two supply forces. TIA launched with an 8% annual staking mint, but governance upgrades cut it hard: the v4 "Lotus" upgrade in mid-2025 and the v6 upgrade in November 2025 drove the rate down to about 2.5% a year, and it continues decaying toward a 1.5% floor. On a total supply near 1,174.5M, that is roughly 7.2M TIA minted to stakers over the window, with 2% of every block reward routed to an on-chain community pool.

Sell #2 — vesting unlocks — is the force that makes TIA inflate, at about 31.0M TIA over 90 days, more than four times the mint. Celestia's genesis allocations to Series A&B and seed investors, initial core contributors and the ecosystem reserve vest on a straight-line schedule that runs until October 2027. The live release rate is about 344,924 TIA a day, which holds near 9.7M a month through October 2026 before stepping down to about 5.1M a month — so the next 90 days release roughly 30.2M. This is the single dominant input to the reading: it is the difference between TIA being a mildly inflationary chain and one running near the top of its class.

Sell #3 — foundation and unscheduled unlocks — is zero this window; the community pool and the Celestia Foundation reserve are tracked but neither made an off-schedule distribution to the market. Sell #4 — long-term locked or bankruptcy — is zero and structurally so: no bankruptcy estate, trustee distribution or court-ordered release touches TIA.

Buy pressure: where new TIA goes

Buy #1 — programmatic buyback — is zero. Celestia has never deployed a buyback: the protocol does not use revenue to repurchase TIA, so there is no structural demand pulling supply back in against the mint and the daily unlock. Buy #2 — protocol fee burn — is also zero: Celestia has no EIP-1559-style base-fee destruction, and blob and transaction fees are paid to stakers rather than burned. A future upgrade that would burn fees is discussed but not live.

Buy #3 — foundation buy — is zero: no discretionary open-market TIA buying by the Celestia Foundation or any treasury was disclosed this window. Buy #4 — new long-term lock — is zero as well; no new multi-year TIA lock or escrow contract was announced, and the network's 21-day unbonding period is a withdrawal delay, not a supply lock. With every buy-side row at zero, the full mint and the full unlock reach the market, and the net reading is simply their sum divided by the float.

Foundation and overhang

Two team-controlled overhangs sit behind TIA. The first is the still-locked vesting bucket: about 95.6M TIA remains locked and draining at the daily rate above, the tail of the genesis allocations to investors, core contributors and the ecosystem reserve. That drain is already booked in the vesting row, so it is a scheduled release rather than a discretionary one. The second is the Celestia Foundation ecosystem and R&D reserve together with the on-chain community pool, which is fed by the 2% tax skimmed off every block reward and can be drawn only by a passing governance vote.

The vesting bucket is watched by its published daily schedule, re-fetched each rebuild; the Foundation reserve and community pool are watched independently for any off-calendar move. Both are booked at zero in Sell #3 today because nothing fired outside the linear schedule. If either the Foundation reserve or the community pool makes a large TIA-denominated distribution to the market between refreshes, that outflow enters Sell #3 at the next refresh rather than being absorbed silently into the vesting row.

How TIA compares to other uncapped Layer 1 chains

TIA belongs to the 2023-vintage, VC-backed, uncapped Layer 1 class — chains like Celestia, Sui and Sei that launched with a large private allocation on a multi-year linear vest, layered on top of a continuous staking mint with no hard cap. Within that group, TIA is defined by how lopsided its ledger is: the mint has been cut to about 2.5%, but the genesis unlock is still the dominant force, so the supply story is almost entirely a vesting story rather than an emission story. That is the opposite balance to a chain like Cosmos Hub (ATOM), whose vesting finished years ago and whose entire inflation is now the staking mint alone.

The sharper contrast is with chains that have a burn. A fee-burning Layer 1 leans on transaction volume to claw supply back, and an exchange or DeFi token with a revenue-funded buyback can push net supply flat or negative. Celestia has neither — no burn, no buyback, no lockup — so its buy side is simply zero and its net reading equals its gross mint plus its unlock. Against a hard-capped, halving-model asset the gap is starker still: that asset issues on a fixed, shrinking schedule toward a ceiling, while TIA issues on a floating rate with no ceiling and simultaneously releases a large pre-minted allocation into the float.

The offsetting hope for TIA holders is structural and dated, not mechanical. The vesting unlock steps down from about 9.7M to about 5.1M a month in November 2026 and ends entirely in October 2027, and the mint keeps decaying toward its 1.5% floor. Once the unlock is gone, TIA's inflation collapses toward the mint rate alone — but until then, it inflates near the top of its class.

What to watch in the next 90 days

Watch the daily unlock rate near 344,924 TIA a day: it is the single biggest input to the reading, and it steps down to about 5.1M a month on Nov 1 2026, which will start to cool the net figure. Watch the staking mint near 2.5%, which keeps decaying toward its 1.5% floor and would fall faster under any further governance cut. Watch Celestia governance for the discussed fee-burn and deeper-mint-cut upgrade, which is not yet live but would add the first buy-side force TIA has ever had. And watch the Foundation reserve and community pool near their published balances for any large TIA-denominated distribution, which would register as a discrete Sell #3 release on top of the scheduled vest.

Summary

Celestia is a persistently inflationary uncapped Layer 1. Its staking mint has been cut to about 2.5% a year — roughly 7.2M TIA over 90 days — but a linear genesis unlock releasing about 344,924 TIA a day, some 31.0M over the window, is the dominant force. With no buyback, no fee burn and no lockup anywhere in the design, the buy side is zero and the full mint and unlock reach the market. The framework reads +4.01% net and our monitor +4.23%, a 0.22-point gap inside tolerance. The path to lower inflation is dated: the unlock steps down in November 2026 and ends in October 2027, after which only the shrinking mint remains.

MrNasdog Pressure Framework analysis of Celestia (TIA), Metric 1 — Inflation. Data + explanation only. Not financial advice. Updated August 9, 2026.

ZBCN Inflation Analysis · August 2026 · Nothing can be minted, and the reserve is still being spent

MrNasdog — Tue, 21 Jul 2026 00:09:38 +0000

Originally published at https://mrnasdog.com/research/zbcn/inflation

ZBCN Inflation Analysis · August 2026 · Nothing can be minted, and the reserve is still being spent

The MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads Zebec Network at +0.72% net supply over the last 90 days — not from issuance, but from distribution. ZBCN is hard-capped at 100,000,000,000 and its mint key has been destroyed, so not one new ZBCN can ever exist; the entire figure is 703.1M ZBCN paid out of a Zebec project reserve wallet across 11 dated transfers between May 13 2026 and Jul 26 2026. Buy pressure books zero: the revenue-funded ZBCN buyback is live but publishes no 2026 figure, and the burn mechanism is paused by governance, so bought tokens are held rather than destroyed. Forward, the reserve holds only 571.4M and its feeder is empty, so the framework reads +0.58% next.

The verdict, in one paragraph

For the 90-day window from May 13 2026 to Aug 11 2026, the framework reads ZBCN at +0.72% net: sell pressure of 703.1M ZBCN against buy pressure of zero, on a tradable base of 97.95B ZBCN. Our supply monitor reads +2.01% for the same period — a gap of 1.29 percentage points, which is over tolerance and therefore ships with a monitor-gap note. The deep walk explains both halves of it. The monitor derives supply from market cap divided by price, and that series is a step function on three classification levels, not a growth curve: it sat flat at 96.72B until May 29 2026, stepped to 97.95B, then jumped to 99.9976B on Jul 10 2026 — a level equal to the full on-chain supply, even though the same source's own tradable-supply figure still reads 97.95B today. Separately, the Zebec reserve wallet we track is an ordinary unlocked account that already counts inside that tradable float, so paying out of it cannot move the monitor's reading at all. The two numbers measure different things. ZBCN is best labelled a capped, un-mintable token that still dilutes by spending reserve.

Sell pressure: where new ZBCN comes from

Sell #1 — protocol inflation — is zero, and it can never turn on. ZBCN is a Solana SPL token capped at 100,000,000,000, and reading the token itself this session returns a live supply of 99,998,775,020 ZBCN with the mint authority empty and the freeze authority empty. A destroyed mint key is the strongest form of this row being off: no team decision, no governance vote and no upgrade can create another ZBCN. Zebec Network is a payments network, not a chain — there is no block reward and no staking emission, so there is no emission curve either.

Sell #2 — vesting unlocks — is also zero. The ZBCN vesting calendar ran across Community & Rewards, Contributors, Private Round, Seed Round, Public Sale and Market Making allocations, and its final scheduled cliff released on Mar 16 2026, before this window opened. Every vesting tracker now reads the schedule as complete, and no further unlock is scheduled at any future date, so vesting contributes nothing to the next 90 days.

Sell #3 — Foundation and unscheduled unlocks — is 703.1M ZBCN, and it is the entire supply story of this page. The Zebec project distribution wallet 71LxiE4P…HodV paid out ZBCN on eleven dated transfers inside the window: 55.0M on May 13, 185.0M on May 20, 57.1M on May 22, 15.0M on Jun 2, 151.5M and 55.0M on Jun 15, 58.8M on Jun 21, 30.7M on Jun 25, 30.0M on Jul 15, 40.0M on Jul 20 and 25.0M on Jul 26. These are already-created coins reaching real holders on no published release plan, which is precisely what this row exists to catch — a token can be perfectly capped and still dilute, because dilution is about what reaches the market, not about what is minted. The destination check confirms the coins left Zebec: the two payout routers those transfers feed end the window holding 0 and 7.3M ZBCN respectively, and the smaller one was observed dispersing to dozens of unrelated wallets.

Sell #4 — long-term locked or bankruptcy — is zero: Zebec Network is a going concern, with no estate, trustee schedule or court-ordered distribution touching ZBCN.

Buy pressure: where new ZBCN goes

Buy #1 — programmatic buyback — books zero, and the reason matters: the mechanism is real, but it is opaque, not absent. Zebec buys ZBCN on the open market out of operating revenue from enterprise payroll, the Zebec Card and stablecoin payments, and the company states that the programme continues through 2026. What it does not publish is a number. There is no 2026 purchase figure, the Buyback Treasury Wallet has no published address, and part of the position is held with an outside institutional custodian we cannot read on-chain. The last dated purchases were 244.2M ZBCN in late 2024 and 15.2M ZBCN across July and August 2025 — both outside this window, and two orders of magnitude apart, so no run rate can honestly be projected from them. The framework carries an unverifiable mechanism at zero rather than invent a figure for it.

Buy #2 — protocol fee burn — is zero, and this is the single most under-appreciated fact about ZBCN tokenomics. A governance proposal paused the ZBCN burn mechanism while keeping the buybacks running, so bought-back tokens accumulate in treasury instead of being destroyed. The chain agrees: against the 100,000,000,000 cap, live supply is 99,998,775,020, meaning roughly 1.2M ZBCN has ever been burned — a rounding error over the token's whole life. The Zebec DAO has said it will evaluate by the end of 2026 whether to propose reintroducing a burn, so this row can return, and it is the one change that would move ZBCN from held-float reduction to real supply reduction.

Buy #3 — Foundation buy — is zero, because the revenue buyback is the only entity purchase and is already carried in Buy #1. Buy #4 — new long-term lock — is zero: ZBCN staking exists and moved into the Zebec SuperApp in January 2026, but it is an existing product, and no new lockup contract or announced lock quantum appeared in the window.

Foundation and overhang

Four Zebec-controlled overhangs are tracked. First, the distribution wallet 71LxiE4P…HodV, holding 571.4M ZBCN at Aug 11 2026 — the source of every transfer in Sell #3, read on-chain at each rebuild. Second, its upstream feeder GXD2FnXi…jm5J, which pushed roughly 24.3B ZBCN downstream over the token's life and now holds 0, with its last top-up on Mar 17 2026 — the ~monthly billion-token refills stopped when vesting ended, which is why the forward row is capped rather than extrapolated. Third, the smaller payout router 9Sq2nZ48…TEine, holding 7.3M ZBCN. Fourth, two large program-controlled balances read fresh on-chain: a pool holding 6,000.0M ZBCN and the Zebec staking vault holding 4,619.0M ZBCN, neither of which sent anything to market this window. Fifth, a residual 2,047.1M ZBCN — the difference between the full on-chain supply and the counted tradable float — which sits outside the market with no published release plan at all. Alongside them sits the buyback treasury, which is genuinely opaque: no address is disclosed and part of it is custodied off-chain, so it is monitored through Zebec's own disclosures rather than by reading a wallet. If any of these balances falls between refreshes, the outflow enters Sell #3 at the next refresh.

How ZBCN compares to other payment-token treasuries

ZBCN's mechanism set is unusual among revenue-linked payment tokens. Exchange and payments tokens that run quarterly buyback-and-burn — the model most readers assume when they hear "revenue buyback" — permanently destroy what they purchase, so total supply falls and the buy row is a true supply reduction. Zebec runs the first half of that model and not the second: buybacks continue, burning is paused, so purchased ZBCN moves from public float into treasury custody and could in principle come back. That is a weaker form of scarcity than a burn, and the framework treats it as such.

Against fixed-cap tokens with a destroyed mint — the fair-launch and capped-memecoin class — ZBCN shares the strongest possible ceiling and none of the calm. A capped token with no reserve, no vesting and no treasury reads flat at 0.00%, because there is nothing to release. ZBCN reads +0.72% despite the same ceiling, because a large pre-minted reserve is still being spent into the market. The lesson generalises: a hard cap tells you the maximum that will ever exist, not how much of it is still waiting to arrive. Against continuously-emitting Layer-1 tokens, ZBCN is the opposite shape — an L1 dilutes forever at a rate set in code, while ZBCN dilutes on a finite, visible, draining balance. That is the key asymmetry for a reader: this pressure has an end date, and it is legible on-chain.

What to watch in the next 90 days

First, the distribution wallet balance. It stands at 571.4M ZBCN and the pace is already decaying — 297.1M in May, 256.0M in June, 95.0M in July and nothing so far in August — so the realised forward figure may land well below the 571.4M ceiling this page books. Second, any refill of that wallet: a new top-up from a Zebec source would reset the ceiling and is the single event that would push this reading materially higher. Third, the Zebec DAO's promised burn review, due by the end of 2026; a proposal to reinstate burning would convert Buy #2 from a paused row into the token's first real deflationary force. Fourth, any published 2026 buyback figure or a disclosed treasury address — either would let Buy #1 carry a real number instead of a zero. Fifth, Zebec SuperApp volume following its July 2026 iOS and Android launch, since the company ties buyback size directly to product revenue.

Summary

Zebec Network's ZBCN is a capped, un-mintable Solana payments token that is nonetheless diluting: the mint key is destroyed and vesting ended in March 2026, yet 703.1M ZBCN was paid out of a project reserve wallet over the trailing 90 days, giving a framework reading of +0.72% against our monitor's +2.01%. The structural mechanism is reserve distribution, not issuance, and the offsetting buyback cannot be counted because it publishes no figure and — with burning paused by governance — removes float without removing supply. The key risk is a refill of that reserve wallet, which would extend a pressure that currently has a visible floor. The ceiling is absolute at 100,000,000,000 ZBCN, and the near-term ceiling is tighter still: 571.4M is all the distribution wallet has left, with its feeder empty since March 2026.

MrNasdog Pressure Framework analysis of ZBCN, Metric 1 — Inflation. Data + explanation only. Not financial advice. Updated Aug 11 2026.

XTZ Inflation Analysis · August 2026 · Supply growing slowly, the chain sets its own rate

MrNasdog — Tue, 21 Jul 2026 00:06:21 +0000

Originally published at mrnasdog.com/research/tezos/inflation.

TL;DR. Tezos is an uncapped proof-of-stake chain, and XTZ is the rare coin whose issuance rate is chosen by the protocol itself: adaptive issuance re-tunes the staking-reward rate every cycle from how much XTZ is staked, anywhere inside a 0.25% to 10% band. Read live on Aug 10 2026 that rate is 3.02% a year, and the chain minted 8.63M XTZ over the last 90 days against a circulating base of 1.09B. Burns are almost nothing — 94K XTZ across storage fees and voluntary sends — and Tezos runs no buyback at all, so the MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads +0.78% net for the window and +0.75% for the next one. Our supply monitor reads +0.65%, a gap of 0.13 percentage points, comfortably inside tolerance.

The verdict, in one paragraph

For the 90-day window ending Aug 9 2026, the Pressure Framework reads XTZ at +0.78% net. Sell pressure is 8.64M XTZ, almost entirely adaptive-issuance staking rewards, and buy pressure is 0.09M XTZ of burns, against a circulating base of 1,093.03M XTZ. Our supply monitor reads the realised change at +0.65%, a gap of only 0.13 percentage points, which is inside the framework's tolerance — no data-conflict flag, and no deep walk required. The chain's own arithmetic corroborates it independently: created minus burned minus destroyed equals the change in total supply exactly, to the mutez. Tezos is best characterised as a structurally inflationary chain with a self-regulating dial — dilution that is mild, predictable, and slowly easing as staking grows.

Sell pressure: where new XTZ comes from

Sell #1, protocol inflation, is effectively the whole story: 8.63M XTZ minted over 90 days as baking and attesting rewards. What makes Tezos unusual is that the emission is not a fixed schedule and not a halving — it is adaptive issuance, a protocol mechanism that recomputes the yearly reward rate every cycle and steers it toward a target of roughly half the supply being staked. Read straight from a node this session, the live rate is 3.023% a year, bounded by protocol constants at a floor of 0.25% and a ceiling of 10%. The staked ratio climbed from 26.5% to 31.4% across this window, and issuance responded exactly as designed — weekly annualised minting ran 3.5% to 3.7% in early May and 2.9% to 3.1% through July and August. Because that early-May rate has already been retired by the mechanism, the forward column uses the live run rate rather than the trailing blend, projecting 8.25M XTZ for the next 90 days.

Sell #2, vesting unlocks, is zero, and permanently so. All 32 on-chain vesting contracts from the 2018 Tezos fundraiser read a balance of zero this session — the schedule is physically spent, there is no unlock calendar, and there is no cliff to arrive. Sell #3, Foundation and unscheduled unlocks, is 4.6K XTZ: the labelled Tezos Foundation baker and delegator wallets actually grew from 72.1M to 82.9M XTZ over the window, so they contributed no sell pressure whatsoever, and the only genuine inflow to the tradable float from this family is old 2017 fundraiser commitments being activated. Sell #4, long-term locked or bankruptcy, is zero: Tezos launched from a public fundraiser, has never been through an insolvency, and has no estate or trustee distribution to book.

Buy pressure: where new XTZ goes

The buy side of the Tezos ledger is thin by design. Buy #1, programmatic buyback, is zero: transaction fees on Tezos go to bakers as income, not to a contract that buys XTZ on the open market, and no governance proposal has sought to change that — there is no buyback engine and no accumulation wallet to track. Buy #2, protocol fee burn, is 17.5K XTZ. Tezos does destroy XTZ, but only as a storage charge: 250 mutez per byte written to the chain, plus a fixed charge for creating a new account or contract. Over 90 days that burn came to roughly a five-hundredth of what the same window minted, and it is flat enough that the forward column projects the same figure.

Buy #3, Foundation buy, is zero — the Foundation wallets grew, but from internal transfers and baking rewards, not from open-market purchases, and no Foundation or Labs entity has disclosed an XTZ buying programme. Buy #4, new long-term lock, is zero: staking on Tezos finalises an unstake in a few days, so staked XTZ is functionally liquid and removes no float, and the protocol-native liquid staking token that shipped in the Jun 30 2026 upgrade sits behind a feature flag pending a separate vote. One extra mechanism earns its own row. Buy #5, voluntary burns to the dead address, is 76.8K XTZ — anyone can destroy XTZ by sending it to the chain's null address, and its balance matches the chain's destruction counter exactly. It is kept separate from the storage burn because it is a different mechanism, and 60.3K of the 90-day total arrived in a single transfer on May 15 2026, so the forward column uses the ongoing pace of about 13K instead.

Foundation and overhang

Two team-controlled overhangs are tracked on Tezos. The first is the Tezos Foundation treasury, read this session across 25 labelled baker and delegator wallets: 72,142,207 XTZ at the start of the window and 82,920,330 XTZ now, a gain of 10.8M XTZ. That direction matters — the largest identified holder on the chain accumulated rather than distributed across the whole window, which is why Sell #3 books no Foundation outflow. These wallets are read on-chain at every rebuild. The second is the unactivated 2017 fundraiser commitments: 20.0M XTZ that were committed but never claimed, sitting outside circulating supply with no schedule and no deadline, of which only 4,588 XTZ were claimed in 90 days. There is no separate DAO treasury on Tezos — governance decides protocol upgrades, not spending — and no buyback wallet, because there is no buyback. If either of these balances falls between refreshes, the outflow enters Sell #3 at the next refresh.

How XTZ compares to other uncapped proof-of-stake chains

The first comparison is against fixed-schedule emission. A hard-capped chain like Bitcoin settles its issuance in code once and lets a halving cut it in half on a calendar; the holder knows the sell pressure years in advance and it only ever falls. Tezos gives up that certainty deliberately. Adaptive issuance means XTZ has no cap and no halving, and the rate can move up as well as down inside its 0.25% to 10% band. What the holder gets in exchange is a rate that self-corrects: as more of the supply gets staked, dilution falls automatically, and the framework can watch the staked ratio as a leading indicator of the next quarter's issuance.

The second comparison is against the burn-offset chains. Ethereum issues to validators too, but its base-fee burn scales with demand and can push net supply negative in busy periods; BNB runs a quarterly buyback that ends in a burn address. Tezos has neither. Its only burn is a storage charge that comes to 17.5K XTZ a quarter against 8.63M minted — an offset of roughly one part in five hundred, which rounds to nothing at the ledger level. That is the structural point: on Tezos, network usage does not push back on supply, so the mint rate is the whole equation and the buy side can be treated as a rounding error.

The third comparison is against the uncapped peers that Tezos most resembles — Solana, Polkadot, Cosmos. Those chains also mint continuously to stakers, but on a schedule set by a disinflation curve or a bonded-ratio rule. Tezos sits closest to the bonded-ratio model, and its current 3.02% a year is mid-pack: higher than a mature chain running a tapered curve, lower than a young chain bootstrapping validators. The distinguishing feature is not the level but the governance path — the mechanism itself can be replaced by an on-chain protocol vote, without a hard fork.

What to watch in the next 90 days

First, the staked ratio, now 31.4% against a protocol target near 50% — every point it climbs pulls the issuance rate down, and it is the single cleanest leading indicator of the next quarter's Sell #1. Second, the Protocol V vote that would activate sTEZ, the protocol-native liquid staking token that shipped switched off in the Jun 30 2026 Ushuaia upgrade; if it passes, staking participation could step up sharply and pull issuance down with it. Third, the live adaptive issuance rate itself, re-read from a node at every rebuild — it was 3.02% on Aug 10 2026 and has been falling. Fourth, the Tezos Foundation wallets, which accumulated 10.8M XTZ this window and would turn into real sell pressure the moment that direction reverses. Fifth, any governance proposal touching the issuance curve or introducing a fee burn, since either would be the first structural change to this ledger in two years.

Summary

Tezos has no supply cap, no halving and no buyback, so XTZ dilutes its holders every quarter by design — 8.63M XTZ minted over the last 90 days against 94K burned, which the Pressure Framework reads as +0.78% net and projects at +0.75% for the next window. What separates it from an ordinary inflationary chain is adaptive issuance: the protocol sets its own reward rate from the staked ratio inside a 0.25% to 10% band, so dilution is self-regulating and has been easing steadily, from a rate near 3.7% a year in May to 3.02% today. The key risk is that the burn side is a rounding error, meaning network usage never pushes back on supply and the mint rate is the entire equation. The key thing that would change the reading is the staked ratio continuing toward the 50% target, which mechanically lowers issuance without any governance action at all.

MrNasdog Pressure Framework analysis of Tezos (XTZ), Metric 1 — Inflation. Data + explanation only. Not financial advice. Updated Aug 10 2026.

ZRO Inflation Analysis · August 2026 · The calendar the lock contracts ignore

MrNasdog — Tue, 21 Jul 2026 00:04:41 +0000

Originally published at mrnasdog.com/research/zro/inflation by MrNasdog.

ZRO, the token of the LayerZero messaging protocol, is permanently capped at 1,000,000,000 — and this build proved the cap rather than quoting it, by reading the token contract on all seven networks the token lives on and finding the balances sum to exactly that number, with no mint and no burn anywhere in the window. Against that fixed ceiling, the vesting calendar released roughly 74.1M ZRO across three monthly cliffs in the last 90 days, but the readable lock contracts gave up only 4.07M ZRO. Set against 0.43M ZRO of revenue-funded buyback, the MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads +1.03% net supply growth on a circulating base of 353.3M ZRO. Our supply monitor reads the same window at +40.07% — a 39.04 percentage point gap that resolves to a single-day bookkeeping restatement, not to real supply.

The verdict, in one paragraph

Over the 90 days to Aug 10 2026, the framework reads LayerZero at +1.03% net supply growth — 4.07M ZRO of realised vesting outflow against 0.43M ZRO of buyback — and projects the same +1.03% forward, because the same three-cliff cadence and the same buyback rate carry into the next quarter. Our supply monitor reads +40.07%, so the gap is 39.04 percentage points and the page carries a monitor-gap flag. The deep walk found the cause and dated it: the monitor's classified circulating figure sat flat near 252.3M ZRO from Apr 25 2026 through Jul 7 2026, jumped +100.9M in a single day on Jul 8 2026, and has been flat near 353.3M ever since — a one-off catch-up to the published unlock calendar with no matching on-chain event. LayerZero is structurally inflationary on paper and quiet in practice: a hard-capped token whose calendar promises far more supply than its lock contracts actually deliver.

Sell pressure: where new ZRO comes from

Sell #1, protocol inflation, is zero, and this is one of the few coins where that zero is provable in a single arithmetic step. ZRO is an omnichain token: the same contract address is deployed on Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon and Avalanche, and moving ZRO between them burns on one side and mints on the other, so the sum across all seven is invariant. Read live for this build, that sum is 1,000,000,000.00 ZRO exactly — 951.07M on Ethereum plus 26.20M on Arbitrum, 7.79M on BNB Chain, 6.58M on Base, 4.80M on Optimism, 2.49M on Polygon and 1.07M on Avalanche. An exact cap total proves both directions at once: no mint has ever run, and no net burn has ever landed. There is no staking emission either, because the Zero blockchain LayerZero is building has not launched.

Sell #2, vesting unlocks, carries 4.07M ZRO — and the distance between that number and the headline calendar is the single most important fact on this page. LayerZero's vesting releases on the 20th of every month, so three cliffs fell inside this window: May 20 2026, Jun 20 2026 and Jul 20 2026. Each is worth roughly 24.7M ZRO on the published schedule — the project's own tokenomics disclosure puts the gross monthly Strategic Partners tranche at 12.7M after its September 2025 repurchase, and an itemised breakdown of the next cliff adds Core Contributors at 10.20M and repurchased tokens at 1.60M on top. That is 74.1M ZRO of calendar entitlement for the quarter.

The lock contracts disagree. Enumerating every contract inside the top hundred ZRO holders and reading their aggregate balance at both ends of the window gives 464.58M ZRO at the open and 460.51M ZRO on Aug 10 2026 — a realised outflow of 4.07M, roughly 18 times below the calendar. Vested ZRO that nobody claims stays inside the lock, where it cannot trade, so the framework books what actually left. LayerZero corroborates the pattern from the other direction: it reports 134.7M ZRO unlocked to investors since launch as of May 31 2026, of which 85.9M — 63.8% — is still held.

Sell #3, foundation and unscheduled unlocks, is zero because nothing was observed leaving a team-controlled wallet inside the window, not because the capacity is small — it is enormous, and the overhang section walks it. Sell #4, long-term locked or bankruptcy, is also zero. LayerZero's only bankruptcy-adjacent exposure was the 40M ZRO the Foundation repurchased from the FTX and Alameda estate; those tokens were returned to strategic partners as part of a legal settlement in 2025 and folded into the ordinary vesting schedule, so no trustee is selling ZRO into this market.

Buy pressure: where new ZRO goes

Buy #1, the programmatic buyback, removes 0.43M ZRO over 90 days, and it is the only live buy-side mechanism LayerZero has. Stargate, the cross-chain transfer protocol LayerZero acquired in August 2025, sends its revenue to open-market ZRO purchases — split with veSTG holders for the first six months, then 100% to ZRO from April 2026. The Foundation's buyback disclosure lists 2,191,453 ZRO purchased to date at a cost of $3,135,814, with monthly rows of 124,574 in May, 141,557 in June and 160,271 in July. Reading the accumulation wallet directly confirms it to within two tokens: the wallet held 1.77M ZRO at the window open and 2.19M ZRO on Aug 10 2026. The critical detail for a supply framework is what happens next: nothing. The bought-back ZRO is held, not burned — the exact 1B cross-chain total is the proof — so it leaves the tradable float without leaving the token's supply, and it re-enters the ledger as an overhang the moment that wallet spends.

Buy #2, the protocol fee burn, is zero, and this is the most consequential zero on the page. LayerZero has a designed burn: an optional protocol fee on every cross-chain message whose proceeds would buy back and burn ZRO. It has never been switched on. Four referendums have now closed with the fee off — Dec 27 2024, Jun 27 2025, Dec 27 2025 and Jun 27 2026 — and the reason is not opposition but apathy. Approval exceeded 96% in every vote; turnout came in at 10.96%, 13.01% and 3.71%, never clearing a quorum floor now set at 20%. The next referendum is due around Dec 20 2026, outside the forward window. Until it passes, LayerZero has a burn mechanism on paper and none in the supply arithmetic.

Buy #3, foundation buy, is zero: the Foundation's 50M ZRO repurchase from strategic partners in September 2025 and the labs arm's $10M open-market purchase in November 2025 were both one-off, and the project states future deployments follow no fixed schedule. Buy #4, new long-term lock, is zero: the lead investor's voluntary three-year lockup and the Foundation's own re-lock were both agreed before this window opened.

Foundation and overhang

About 646.7M ZRO — two thirds of the entire supply — sits outside the circulating figure, and it resolves into three identified blocks that this build reads on-chain. The largest is the lock contract layer: 36 vesting and custody contracts holding 460.51M ZRO on Aug 10 2026. Its unclaimed backlog is not draining, it is accumulating — this quarter drew 4.07M against a 74.1M entitlement, so roughly 70M of fresh claimable ZRO joined a queue that was already deep. The second is the Foundation custody: two safes holding 106.06M and 69.55M ZRO, about 175.61M together, both flat across the whole window. LayerZero states that 183M of the Foundation's original 383M allocation is re-locked until the Zero blockchain reaches mainnet, which the project has guided to Fall 2026 without a dated commitment. The third is the buyback accumulation wallet at 2.19M ZRO, which has only ever received.

All three are tracked by address and re-read at every rebuild. If any of these balances falls between refreshes, the outflow enters Sell #3 at the next refresh rather than being smoothed into a forecast — which matters most for the Foundation safes, because a Zero mainnet launch would convert a dated-nothing overhang into a dated event overnight.

How ZRO compares to other capped infrastructure tokens

ZRO belongs to the hard-capped, fully-minted infrastructure-token class — tokens like UNI, ARB and OP, where the entire supply exists on day one and the only supply question is how fast custody converts into float. That class behaves nothing like an uncapped proof-of-stake layer-1. On a chain that mints per block, sell pressure is a machine you cannot switch off; on a fully-minted token, sell pressure is a calendar plus a set of human decisions about whether to claim. ZRO is an unusually pure case of the second, because the escrow layer is readable and the divergence is measurable: an 18-fold gap between calendar and claim is not something a per-block emission curve can produce.

Against fee-burn chains the contrast is structural rather than a matter of degree. Ethereum burns base fees automatically, so demand for blockspace mechanically shrinks supply with no vote required. LayerZero built the same idea as a governance switch instead of a protocol constant, and the switch has failed four times on turnout — the mechanism exists, the arithmetic does not. Against exchange tokens with quarterly buy-and-burn programmes, the difference is destination rather than size: those programmes destroy what they buy, so the supply reduction is permanent, whereas LayerZero's Stargate-funded buyback moves ZRO into a wallet that could spend it. A framework that measures supply reaching the market has to treat a held buyback as reversible and a burn as final.

The closest structural analogue is a fully-minted governance token in the middle of a multi-year investor unlock, where the honest reading depends entirely on whether you count the entitlement or the claim. Counting the entitlement, ZRO looks like one of the most inflationary large tokens in the market at more than 20% per quarter on its circulating base. Counting the claim, it reads +1.03%. Both numbers are true about different things, and the backlog between them is the risk this page tracks.

What to watch in the next 90 days

The three monthly vesting cliffs on Aug 20 2026, Sep 20 2026 and Oct 20 2026 each add roughly 24.7M ZRO of entitlement; what matters is not the cliff but the lock-contract balance a week later, because that is where a change in claim behaviour would show up first. A Zero blockchain mainnet launch — guided to Fall 2026, so plausibly inside this window — would release the Foundation's 183M ZRO from its re-lock and would be the single largest supply event in ZRO's history. The monthly Stargate buyback disclosure is worth reading in the other direction: the last three months ran 124,574, 141,557 and 160,271 ZRO, a rising trend that would need to grow by more than an order of magnitude to offset the claims. Fee-switch referendum #5 is due around Dec 20 2026 — just past this window, but a fifth quorum failure would confirm the burn as structurally unreachable rather than merely delayed. Finally, the monitor's Jul 8 2026 restatement ages out of the trailing 90-day window around Oct 6 2026, at which point the monitor should collapse toward the framework's reading and the gap flag should clear on its own.

Summary

The MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads ZRO at +1.03% net supply growth over the 90 days to Aug 10 2026 and projects the same forward. LayerZero's supply is permanently capped at 1,000,000,000 ZRO across seven networks with no mint and no burn, so every unit of pressure is redistribution rather than issuance: 4.07M ZRO actually left the lock contracts against a 74.1M calendar, and 0.43M ZRO of revenue-funded buyback was held rather than burned. The key risk is that the gap between calendar and claim is a backlog, not a discount — roughly 460.5M ZRO sits in readable lock contracts and the queue is growing, so a shift in claim behaviour, or a Zero mainnet launch releasing the Foundation's 183M, would move this reading sharply without any change in tokenomics. The ceiling is fixed and cannot rise; the float can, and has a long way it could go.

MrNasdog Pressure Framework analysis of ZRO, Metric 1 — Inflation. Data + explanation only. Not financial advice. Updated Aug 10 2026.

Your AI Coin Watcher: One Copy-Paste, Then It Checks Every Day

MrNasdog — Sat, 18 Jul 2026 19:28:02 +0000

Originally published at mrnasdog.com/analysis/ai-coin-watcher by MrNasdog.

I opened my research to your own AI. Copy one instruction from your profile, paste it into Claude or ChatGPT, and it watches your coins every morning.

What this is

Every coin I research has one number I care about most: how much new supply is coming in the next 90 days. When that number moves, something real happened — an unlock, a burn, an emission change, a governance vote.

Until now you had two ways to hear about it: visit the coin page, or wait for a coin alert email. Both work. Both are me talking to you on my schedule.

This is the third way, and it's different: your own AI can now read my numbers directly. You give it one instruction once. Every morning it checks your coins, and if something moved, it goes and finds out why — then hands you a short briefing in your own chat.

You don't need to be a developer. There is no code to write. It is one button and one paste.

How to set it up (about 30 seconds)

Step 1 — log in and open your Profile. Find the card called "Your AI coin watcher".
Step 2 — under Your setup, type the coins you want watched (btc, eth, sol — as many as you like), and press Generate my API key once.
Step 3 — press the big amber "Copy my daily watcher instruction" button, and paste it into your AI.

Claude — paste it into the Claude desktop app and say "run this as a daily scheduled task every morning."

ChatGPT — paste it into a new scheduled Task, set to daily.

That's the whole setup. Change your coin list later? Just re-copy the instruction and paste it in again.

What you get back

On a quiet day — almost every day — one line:

No changes in your coins today.

On a day something moved, your AI takes the new number, goes and searches the news itself, and writes you the reason:

SUI — next 90 days: 4.1% → 5.6%

A scheduled investor unlock lands next month, adding tokens the earlier read didn't cover. Staking rewards are unchanged, so the whole move is the unlock. Worth checking whether the market has already priced it in.

Example only — a shape, not a real reading.

The important part is what it doesn't send. Silence means nothing moved. No daily digest of nothing, no dashboard to check, no habit to build.

Who gets it

Tier	What you get
Free	Every number stays readable on the coin pages — and free coin-alert emails
Member	A key, and the watcher — 100 checks a day
Founding Member	A key, and the watcher — 100 checks a day

The pages stay open to everyone — that never changes. The key is the members-only part. See the plans →

If you write code

The watcher is just a friendly wrapper around a plain JSON API. If you'd rather call it yourself, it's in the same card under "For developers":

GET /api/v1/inflation — every coin I research. Narrow it with ?coins=sol,trx or ?changed_within=1d.
GET /api/v1/inflation/{coin} — one coin.
Auth with Authorization: Bearer <key>. 100 calls a day. A watcher needs one.
My promise on v1: I will add fields, never rename or remove them. Anything you build today keeps working.

Two honest notes

This is a beta, and I'm calling it one on purpose. I use it myself every morning — that's how it got built — but you're early, and early things have rough edges. If yours behaves strangely, tell me and I'll fix it.

Your key is private. It sits inside the instruction you copy, so paste that into your own AI and nowhere else — not a public chat, not a shared document. If it ever gets out, press Regenerate in your profile and the old key dies instantly.

And the number itself is my researched reading, not a live market feed — it moves when I find something that changes the supply outlook. Your AI tells you that it moved; the coin page tells you what I think about it.

My own research and opinion. Not financial advice.

VET Inflation Analysis · August 2026 · Supply flat, projected to stay flat

MrNasdog — Thu, 16 Jul 2026 09:52:06 +0000

Originally published at mrnasdog.com/research/vet/inflation by MrNasdog.

VET Inflation Analysis · August 2026 · Supply flat, projected to stay flat

VeChain is one of the few large chains whose inflation question has a one-word answer: none. VET is capped at 86.71B coins and every unit was minted at genesis in 2017, so no new VET is ever created. The network does issue and burn tokens constantly — but those are VTHO, a separate gas token on its own ledger, and the 100% gas-fee burn destroys VTHO, never VET. Over the 90 days to Aug 6 2026 the Pressure Framework reads 0 VET of sell pressure and 0 VET of buy pressure, a net of 0.00%. Our supply monitor reads the realised change at +0.076% — a gap of just 0.08 percentage points, so no monitor-gap chip ships. VET is a purely fixed supply.

The verdict, in one paragraph

For the 90-day window ending Aug 6 2026, the Pressure Framework reads VET at 0.00% net for both the trailing and forward windows — nothing adds VET and nothing removes it. Sell pressure is 0, buy pressure is 0, against a circulating base of roughly 85.99B VET below a hard 86.71B cap. Our supply monitor reads the realised 90-day change at +0.076%, a gap of just 0.08 percentage points — well inside the framework's half-point tolerance, so no monitor-gap chip appears on the VET overview. That tiny reading is rounding noise around a fixed cap, not real issuance: the monitor's market-cap-over-price series simply wobbles day to day on a constant supply. VET is best characterised as a hard-capped, fixed-supply token whose inflation lives entirely in a second gas token.

Sell pressure: where new VET comes from

The honest answer is that no new VET comes from anywhere. Sell #1, protocol inflation, is 0. The full 86.71B VET was created at genesis in 2017, the cap can never rise, and VeChainThor mints no VET as a block or staking reward. This is the point most often misread about VeChain: the December 2025 Hayabusa upgrade introduced staking, but stakers earn VTHO, the network's gas token, not fresh VET. Hayabusa cut VTHO generation by roughly half and tied it to actively staked VET, yet it left the VET supply itself untouched. VET has no mint function, and that single fact governs the whole page.

Sell #2, vesting unlocks, is 0. The 2017 genesis allocations for the public sale, team, foundation and ecosystem were distributed and their lock-ups expired years ago, leaving no live vesting cliff still releasing VET into the market. Sell #3, foundation and unscheduled unlocks, is 0 this window: the VeChain Foundation holds VET, but disclosed no sale or distribution, and the roughly 728M VET that sits outside the circulating float as an undistributed reserve showed no observed outflow. Sell #4, long-term locked or bankruptcy, is 0: there is no estate, no trustee and no court-ordered VET tranche anywhere in VeChain's history.

Buy pressure: where new VET goes

The buy side is just as empty, and for the same two-token reason. Buy #2, protocol fee burn, is 0 in VET terms even though VeChain burns 100% of the gas paid on every transaction — because the gas is denominated in VTHO, not VET. Every transaction on VeChainThor is paid for in VTHO, and 100% of the VTHO consumed is burned; but VET is never spent on fees and never destroyed, so that burn removes no VET at all. The deflationary pressure real users create lands entirely on VTHO, which is why the VET float does not shrink even as network usage rises. Counting that burn as a VET buy would be a category error.

The other three buy rows are 0 as well. Buy #1, programmatic buyback, is zero because VeChain runs none — the protocol never repurchases VET off the market, so there is no buy-and-hold or buy-and-burn program pulling VET out of supply. Buy #3, foundation buy, is zero: no VeChain entity disclosed an open-market VET purchase this window, and no accumulation wallet has been identified. Buy #4, new long-term lock, is zero, and this one needs the closest look: VET staked on the StarGate platform grew sharply after Hayabusa, but that stake is voluntary, reversible, and still counted as circulating supply, so it earns VTHO rather than removing VET from the float. With nothing minting and nothing burning, VET's net reading is simply zero.

Foundation and overhang

Two team-controlled overhangs sit behind VET, and both are watched rather than active. The first is about 728M VET — roughly 0.84% of the 86.71B cap — that sits outside the circulating float as an undistributed reserve, with no published release schedule and no observed outflow over the trailing year. The second is the VeChain Foundation treasury, which holds VET inside a mixed asset base; the Foundation does not itemise a single liquid VET balance on-chain, so it is tracked through its disclosures rather than a live figure. Neither fired in the window. There is no separate DAO treasury and no bankruptcy residual. The large StarGate staking balance is explicitly not an overhang — it is user-owned VET in free-exit custody that stays circulating-classified. If the reserve or the Foundation's VET balance falls between refreshes through a distribution or sale, that outflow enters Sell #3 at the next refresh.

How VET compares to other fixed-cap and dual-token chains

VET belongs to a small class of chains that split value and gas into two tokens, and to the broader class of hard-capped tokens whose supply is set once and never expands. In these dual-token systems the coin you buy is deliberately not the coin the network spends, and the inflation you would expect on the main asset is exported onto the gas token. That is why VET reads flat while VTHO is where all the monetary action lives: dynamic issuance tied to staking, a roughly fifty-percent issuance cut under Hayabusa, and a full fee burn. Judging VET by VTHO's mechanics is the most common mistake made about this coin, and it is the mistake this page exists to prevent.

Against ordinary single-token proof-of-stake layer ones, VET looks unusually clean. An uncapped continuous-emission chain mints new coins to pay stakers, so its supply grows every block; VeChain pays stakers in VTHO instead, so VET issuance is zero by design. Against capped-and-halving chains like Bitcoin, VET is stricter in one sense — there is no ongoing subsidy at all, because distribution finished at genesis, so its issuance is not merely low but exactly zero — yet weaker in another, since VET has no VET-denominated burn of its own to make the fixed supply actively shrink. Against burn-driven chains or an exchange token with quarterly buybacks, VET looks different again: those assets can tip net-deflationary when their burn or buyback outruns issuance, whereas VET has no VET burn to lean on. The honest label is fixed-and-flat: nothing is being added, but nothing is being removed either, which is exactly why the framework's inflation reading sits at the flat middle of the band rather than at the deflationary end.

The practical takeaway is that VET carries none of the dilution risk that drives most inflation analysis. There is no unlock calendar to fear and no emission curve to model. The only supply questions worth watching are discretionary ones — whether the reserve or the Foundation ever moves VET into the market — rather than anything the protocol does on its own.

What to watch in the next 90 days

Watch the VeChain Foundation treasury for any single large VET distribution or open-market sale, which would register as a discrete Sell #3 release — the only realistic way VET supply pressure changes. Watch the roughly 728M VET undistributed reserve for any first movement out of its wallet. Watch StarGate staking totals, not because staking removes VET, but because a very large migration into stake could change how much VET is practically available to trade even while it still counts as circulating. And watch VeChain's roadmap upgrades for any future proposal that would issue VET directly — none exists today, and Hayabusa deliberately kept rewards in VTHO, but a fixed cap is only as durable as the governance that guards it. There is no dated unlock, burn or cliff to watch, because VET has none.

Summary

VeChain's VET is a hard-capped, fixed-supply token: all 86.71B VET were minted at genesis, no new VET is ever created, and no VET is ever burned because the network runs its rewards and fees through the separate VTHO gas token. The Pressure Framework reads net new supply of 0.00% over 90 days, and our monitor confirms it at +0.076%, a 0.08-point gap inside tolerance. The one fact that resolves almost every question about this coin is the dual-token split — VeChain's heavy, 100% fee burn destroys VTHO and never touches VET. The key risk for holders is not dilution but discretion — a future Foundation or reserve release — while the structural strength is that VET's float simply cannot inflate on its own.

MrNasdog Pressure Framework analysis of VeChain (VET), Metric 1 — Inflation. Data + explanation only. Not financial advice. Updated August 6, 2026.

BTC Inflation Analysis · July 2026 · Mixed flows, supply roughly steady

MrNasdog — Thu, 16 Jul 2026 09:51:31 +0000

Originally published at mrnasdog.com/research/btc/inflation by MrNasdog.

Bitcoin has exactly one source of new BTC — the block subsidy — and nothing at all on the other side of the ledger. Over the 90 days to Jul 16 2026 the network mined 40.05K BTC at 3.125 BTC per block, while buyback, burn, foundation buying and locking all read zero, because Bitcoin has no such mechanism to run. Against a 20.06M circulating supply that is +0.20% net, and our supply monitor independently reads +0.25% — a gap of just 0.05 percentage points, so the two agree and no data-conflict chip ships. BTC is the slowest-inflating major asset on the framework, and its cap of 21M is now roughly 95% spent.

The verdict, in one paragraph

For the 90-day window ending Jul 16 2026 the MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads BTC at +0.20% net — the entire figure produced by proof-of-work block subsidy, with an empty buy ledger beneath it. Our supply monitor reads the realized last-90-day change in circulating Bitcoin at +0.25%, so the gap is 0.05 percentage points — the two readings agree, and no monitor-gap chip ships. They agree because Bitcoin is the one asset where nothing is hidden: circulating supply equals total mined supply, so there is no classification argument to have. The small residual is measurement noise on the monitor side, which infers supply from market cap and price, while the coinbase issuance is exact to the satoshi. BTC is a quiet chain with a decaying mint and no offsetting sink — mildly inflationary by arithmetic, and the tightest supply schedule in the framework.

Sell pressure: where new BTC comes from

The whole sell side of Bitcoin is Sell #1 — protocol inflation — at 40.05K BTC over 90 days. Every new BTC in existence arrives in the coinbase transaction of a mined block, paid to the miner who found it. Since the April 2024 halving that block subsidy has been 3.125 BTC, and it will stay there until block 1,050,000, around April 2028, when the halving schedule cuts it to 1.5625 BTC. The figure above is measured rather than assumed: Bitcoin's own supply record moved from 20,016,872 BTC on Apr 17 2026 to 20,056,925 BTC on Jul 15 2026, a difference of exactly 12,817 blocks of subsidy. That is about 142 blocks a day, not the textbook 144 — the network has been running a touch slow against rising difficulty, so the common shortcut of 450 BTC a day overstates the real mint by roughly a percent. Miners sell a large share of that subsidy to pay for power and hardware, which is why the framework books it as genuine sell pressure rather than a paper number.

The other three sell rows are zero, and each for a reason rooted in Bitcoin's design rather than a quiet window. Sell #2 — vesting unlocks — is zero because Bitcoin was a fair launch: no premine, no ICO, no investor or team allocation, and so no vesting schedule that could ever cliff. Sell #3 — Foundation and unscheduled unlocks — is zero because there is no foundation allocation, no DAO treasury and no reserve pool anywhere in the protocol; the mined total and the circulating count are the same number, which means there is no held-back bucket left to release. Sell #4 — long-term locked or bankruptcy — is zero in supply terms even though the Mt. Gox estate still holds roughly 34.5K BTC, because those coins were mined years ago and are already counted as circulating. Bitcoin, uniquely, cannot surprise the market with supply that was minted but never counted.

Buy pressure: where new BTC goes

Nowhere — and that is the honest structural answer, not a gap in the research. Buy #1 — programmatic buyback — is zero: Bitcoin has no treasury and no contract that could bid for its own coin. Buy #2 — protocol fee burn — is zero: transaction fees are paid to the miner inside the same coinbase as the subsidy, never destroyed, so Bitcoin has no equivalent of a base-fee burn to offset issuance. Coins sent to unspendable addresses, and the millions lost to discarded keys, are losses suffered by their owners, not a burn performed by the protocol, and the framework refuses to book them as buy pressure.

Buy #3 — Foundation buy — is zero because no foundation, company or protocol entity holds a Bitcoin budget with a mandate to buy. Buy #4 — new long-term lock — is zero because Bitcoin has no staking, no escrow and no lockup primitive; a coin in a corporate treasury, an ETF or a government reserve remains freely spendable and stays inside circulating supply, so the framework does not credit it as removed. The result is a ledger with a single live row. Every point of BTC inflation is the mint, and the only thing that ever reduces it is the halving.

Foundation and overhang

Bitcoin has no team-controlled overhang to enumerate, and the proof is arithmetic rather than assertion: total supply and circulating supply are both 20.06M, so the headroom between them is zero. There is no wallet holding minted-but-uncounted BTC that could be released, because no such allocation was ever created. The large balances people watch are third-party, not protocol: the dormant early-mining coins from 2009 to 2011, roughly 1.1M BTC that have not moved in over a decade; government-seized coins; exchange custody holding depositor funds; and the Mt. Gox estate's remaining 34.5K BTC, whose trustee has until Oct 31 2026 to finish repaying creditors. None of these are a foundation or team, and each of them already sits inside circulating supply.

That matters for how the Mt. Gox distribution should be read. When the estate pays a creditor, an already-counted coin moves from one wallet to another; supply does not grow by a single satoshi. The framework still tracks the estate as an overhang because a creditor who receives BTC may choose to sell it, and its largest recent move — 10,422 BTC in June 2026 — went to the estate's own wallets and reached no exchange. If that balance drains toward an exchange or custodian between refreshes, the framework surfaces the outflow in Sell #3 at the next refresh, as a market event rather than as new supply.

How BTC compares to other hard-capped proof-of-work chains

BTC is the original of the class it defines: hard-capped proof-of-work with a halving schedule. Its peers in structure — Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, and newer halving assets like Bittensor's TAO — share the shape of a block reward that halves on a fixed rule toward a permanent ceiling. Against those, Bitcoin is simply further along the curve. At roughly 95% of the 21M cap mined, its remaining issuance is under 1M BTC spread across the next century, which is why a 90-day mint of 40.05K reads as only +0.20% where a younger halving chain still prints multiples of that.

The sharper contrast is with everything that has a buy side. An uncapped proof-of-stake L1 mints continuously to pay validators with no ceiling to stop it, so its inflation is a policy choice that governance can revisit. A fee-burning chain destroys part of every transaction fee, so heavy usage can push it net-deflationary — Bitcoin cannot do that, because its fees pay miners rather than the fire. An exchange token that buys back and burns from quarterly profit can drive supply down by several percent a year, but only for as long as the issuer chooses to keep doing it. Bitcoin's answer to all three is that it does nothing at all: no burn to raise, no buyback to cancel, no emission vote to lose. The 21M cap is enforced by every node independently, and this year's failed BIP-110 fight — a soft fork that never cleared 1% miner signalling — is a reminder of how little the network changes even on rules far less sacred than supply.

What to watch in the next 90 days

Watch the block rate, because it is the only thing that moves Sell #1 before 2028. At 142 blocks a day the mint is running below the nominal 144; a hashrate surge pulls it back toward 40.5K BTC a quarter, while further slowing trims it. Watch the Mt. Gox trustee ahead of the Oct 31 2026 deadline — the deadline itself falls just outside this window, which closes Oct 14 2026, but a transfer of the remaining 34.5K BTC toward an exchange or custodian would be a real market event even though it creates no supply. Watch the US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve legislation, where a mandate to buy or a decision to sell seized coins would move demand, never issuance. And watch the countdown to block 1,050,000 around April 2028, the next halving, which mechanically halves the framework's only sell row to roughly +0.10% a quarter.

Summary

The MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads BTC at +0.20% net over the 90 days to Jul 16 2026, matching our supply monitor's +0.25% within 0.05 percentage points — no data conflict, no chip. The structure is the simplest in the framework: 40.05K BTC of block subsidy at 3.125 per block is the entire sell ledger, and the buy ledger is empty by design, because Bitcoin has no buyback, no fee burn, no treasury and no lock. The key risk is not dilution but demand — with no mechanism absorbing supply, every BTC miners sell must be bought by someone at the price, and the estate and government balances that overhang the market are all coins already counted. The ceiling is 21M, about 95% of it already mined, and the next halving in April 2028 cuts the last live row in half again.

MrNasdog Pressure Framework analysis of BTC, Metric 1 — Inflation. Data + explanation only. Not financial advice. Updated Jul 16 2026.

AKT Inflation Analysis · August 2026 · The mint shrank, the treasury didn't

MrNasdog — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 19:07:24 +0000

Originally published at mrnasdog.com/research/akt/inflation by MrNasdog.

Akash Network halved its AKT staking mint to 4% a year in May 2026 and simultaneously raised the skim into its own community pool to 70%, so only about 0.90M AKT of the mint actually reached the market over the trailing 90 days. The pressure came from the other direction: five governance votes released ~4.43M AKT out of that same community pool, making the MrNasdog Pressure Framework read +1.82% net new supply against our supply monitor's +1.21% — a 0.61 percentage point gap that ships a data-conflict flag, because the monitor watches total minted AKT and cannot see a treasury drawdown. Akash's inflation is a treasury story, not an emission story.

The verdict, in one paragraph

For the 90-day window to Aug 11 2026, the MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads AKT at +1.82% net on the trailing window and +1.17% on the forward window. Our supply monitor reads +1.21% for the same trailing window, a gap of 0.61 percentage points — over the framework's 0.5-point tolerance, so the AKT overview carries a data-conflict chip. The gap is mechanical rather than contradictory: the monitor measures total minted AKT, which grew only about 3.00M (roughly 1.03% of the float) under the new 4% mint, while the framework measures what reaches the tradable float, where 70% of that mint never arrives and 4.43M AKT of already-minted treasury supply did. AKT is best characterised as a low-emission compute chain whose inflation is set by its DAO treasury's spending rate, not by its mint.

Sell pressure: where new AKT comes from

Sell #1 — protocol inflation — is about 0.90M AKT over the trailing 90 days, and it is the smaller force despite being the only one most trackers count. Akash Network is a Cosmos-SDK proof-of-stake chain, so AKT is minted every block to pay validators and delegators. Governance proposal 322, which closed on May 15 2026, cut the maximum inflation rate from 8% to 4% and the floor from 4% to 3%; with only 30.8% of AKT bonded against a 67% target, the mint sits pinned at the 4% ceiling, worth 11.87M AKT a year. The same proposal raised the community-pool tax from 50% to 70%, so seven of every ten newly minted AKT are diverted into a non-circulating pool before any staker sees them. Of roughly 3.00M AKT minted in the window, only about 0.90M reached the float; the next 90 days add about 0.88M at the post-change rate.

Sell #2 — vesting unlocks — is zero, permanently. AKT's genesis allocations to investors, team and advisors, the foundation, vendors and the public sale finished releasing on Mar 25 2023; there is no cliff left anywhere on the AKT calendar. The gap between the circulating float and Akash's 388,539,008 AKT whitepaper ceiling is unminted future issuance headroom, not a locked bucket waiting to be dumped. Sell #4 — long-term locked or bankruptcy — is likewise zero: no bankruptcy estate, trustee schedule or court-ordered distribution touches AKT.

Sell #3 — foundation and unscheduled unlocks — is the dominant force of this window at 4.43M AKT, and every unit of it is an executed on-chain governance decision rather than an estimate. Five community-pool spend proposals passed and executed between May 18 2026 and Jul 30 2026: a support-services funding round for 845,889 AKT, the 2026 Akash conference and hackathon budget for 1,055,737 AKT, and the Q2 2026 engineering trio — support services at 1,197,340 AKT, client engineering at 763,968 AKT and core engineering at 564,719 AKT. These proposals openly budget a volatility buffer to cover AKT price movement during liquidation, so the AKT is expected to be sold for dollars. The community pool now holds 3.90M AKT, down from roughly 6.23M ninety days ago even after taking in the 70% skim. The next quarterly round is projected at about 2.53M AKT around Oct 30 2026.

Buy pressure: where new AKT goes

Buy #1 — programmatic buyback — is zero. Akash Network deliberately removed the mechanism that used to look like one: the March 2026 tokenomics rewrite retired the marketplace take-rate that had routed a slice of every lease payment back into the protocol. No revenue stream repurchases AKT off the market today. Buy #3 — foundation buy — is also zero; no open-market AKT accumulation by Akash's core entity or any treasury was disclosed in the window. Buy #4 — new long-term lock — is zero as well: no new lockup, escrow or staking-cap programme was announced, and the network's 21-day unbonding period is a withdrawal delay rather than a supply lock.

Buy #2 — protocol fee burn — is the interesting zero. Akash Network activated burn-mint equilibrium on Mar 23 2026 with the Mainnet 17 upgrade, and it genuinely burns AKT: when a tenant funds compute credits, AKT is destroyed and a non-transferable, dollar-denominated compute credit is minted in its place. But the loop closes in the other direction — when a lease settles, that credit is burned and AKT is re-minted to the compute provider at the oracle price. Gross burn and gross re-issue are two halves of one engine, and the net is only the float of unsettled credits plus whatever the AKT price did in between. Over this window Akash settled $642,573 of compute while AKT fell from $0.902 to $0.493, which pushes the balance toward re-issue rather than retirement, and only 202,557 credits sat outstanding at the check. The framework could not separate that net to its two-source tolerance this window, so it books both halves at zero together rather than crediting a gross burn figure it would have to invent a matching sell row to offset.

What changed since the last read

This is a large revision, and the reason is worth stating plainly. The prior build read AKT at roughly +0.02% net — essentially flat — and it got there by making two mistakes that pointed the same way. First, it booked the community-pool spending at zero while also excluding the pool inflow from the mint, so 70% of every block reward simply disappeared from the ledger: supply went into a bucket nobody counted and came out of a bucket nobody counted. Second, it credited the burn-mint engine's gross burn as a genuine retirement of about 0.81M AKT, when the specification re-mints AKT to compute providers at settlement — so that row is not a buy-side offset at all, and it now books at 0.

The correction is anchored by a denominator proof rather than a judgement call. Total minted AKT stands at 296.681M; the classified circulating float is 292.079M. The difference, 4.602M, matches the community pool plus the burn-mint vault plus the escrow balance almost exactly. That arithmetic positively shows the pool sits outside circulating supply — which means money leaving it is new supply hitting the float, and the 4.43M released between May and July is real sell pressure that the flat reading had erased.

Foundation and overhang

Akash Network has no foundation treasury in the usual sense — no multi-year investor lock, no team custody wallet, no bankruptcy residual. What it has instead is a single, unusually large, fully on-chain DAO treasury: the community pool, holding 3.90M AKT and refilled continuously by the 70% skim off every block reward. It is the only meaningful team-controlled overhang on AKT, it is readable by anyone at the chain's governance module address, and it is spent exclusively by passing votes with published quanta — which is why the framework can book its releases as hard numbers rather than estimates. A second, much smaller overhang sits in the burn-mint equilibrium vault, which holds 0.59M AKT as a price buffer for the compute-credit engine, alongside a small escrow balance. If either the community pool or the burn-mint vault sees its balance fall between refreshes, that outflow enters Sell #3 at the next refresh.

How AKT compares to other Cosmos-SDK app-chains

AKT belongs to the Cosmos-SDK app-chain class — sovereign proof-of-stake chains whose supply is governed by an x/mint module targeting a bonded ratio, with a community-pool tax skimmed off the top and a DAO that spends it. Against its closest structural peers, Akash Network is unusual in two directions at once. Its headline mint of 4% is low for the class, well under the double-digit rates several Cosmos hubs still run and half what Akash itself ran until May 2026. But its community-pool tax of 70% is extraordinarily high; most Cosmos chains skim 2% to 10%, and even Akash's own prior 50% was an outlier. The consequence is that the usual shortcut — read the inflation parameter, multiply by supply, call it the sell pressure — overstates AKT's market-reaching issuance by more than three times, and simultaneously misses the far bigger flow coming out of the treasury.

Compared with a hard-capped, halving-model asset, Akash Network sits in a different world: those chains issue on a fixed, shrinking schedule toward a ceiling nobody can vote to change, whereas AKT's issuance is a governance parameter that has been rewritten four times since 2020 and could be rewritten again next quarter. Compared with an uncapped, VC-backed Layer 1 still working through a linear genesis vest, AKT is far cleaner — its vesting ended in 2023 and cannot restart — but it substitutes a different, more discretionary overhang in the community pool.

The comparison that matters most is with fee-burning and buyback chains, because that is the class Akash Network is trying to join. A base-fee-burning Layer 1 or a revenue-funded buyback token pulls supply back mechanically as usage rises, and can push net issuance flat or negative. Akash's burn-mint equilibrium is designed to do the same thing, but it only bites when compute spend is large relative to issuance. At $642,573 of settled compute over 90 days against an 11.87M AKT annual mint, the demand side is roughly an order of magnitude short of the point where the burn would visibly bend the supply curve. The mechanism is real; the volume is not yet.

What to watch in the next 90 days

Watch for the Q3 2026 funding round around Oct 30 2026: the last three quarterly rounds landed roughly one month after each quarter closed, and a repeat of the Q2 size would release about 2.53M AKT from the community pool — the single largest input to the forward reading. Watch the community-pool balance near 3.90M AKT; it is now being drawn down faster than the 70% skim refills it, and a pool that runs thin either forces smaller funding rounds or a governance vote to raise the tax again. Watch the bonded ratio near 30.8% against Akash's 67% target — as long as it stays far below, the mint stays pinned at the 4% ceiling rather than drifting toward the 3% floor. Watch Akash Network governance for any further inflation or community-tax parameter change, since proposal 322 on May 15 2026 proved both are live levers. And watch settled compute spend, running about $7,100 a day: burn-mint equilibrium only becomes a visible buy-side force if that number grows by roughly an order of magnitude.

Summary

The MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads Akash Network (AKT) at +1.82% net new supply over the 90 days to Aug 11 2026, cooling to +1.17% over the next 90 days. The structural mechanism is a Cosmos-SDK staking mint pinned at 4% a year with 70% of it diverted into a non-circulating community pool — a genuinely low market-reaching emission of about 0.90M AKT per quarter — sitting underneath a DAO treasury that released 4.43M AKT to contributors in the same window. The key risk is that this second flow is discretionary and quarterly rather than fixed: nothing caps how fast Akash Network's governance can spend its pool, and the pool is being drained faster than it refills. The ceiling is real but distant — AKT's whitepaper cap of 388,539,008 leaves roughly 96M of unminted headroom above today's float, and vesting ended for good in 2023, so every future AKT that reaches the market must come from either the mint or a governance vote.

MrNasdog Pressure Framework analysis of Akash Network (AKT), Metric 1 — Inflation. Data + explanation only. Not financial advice. Updated Aug 11 2026.

BGB Inflation Analysis · August 2026 · The burn is real, and it never touches the float

MrNasdog — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 08:29:54 +0000

Originally published at mrnasdog.com/research/bgb/inflation by MrNasdog.

Bitget Token has burned 1.09B BGB — more than half of its original 2B — and it burns again every quarter, yet the MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads BGB at 0.00% net supply over the last 90 days: flat, not deflationary. The reason is where the burn is funded from. The 3,010,400 BGB destroyed on Jul 14 2026 came out of a locked 220M Morph Foundation vault the tradable count already excludes, so total supply fell to 910.92M while the 699.99M BGB people can actually sell did not move by a single token. Nothing can create BGB either: the contract has no mint function. Our supply monitor reads −0.09% over the same window, a gap of 0.09 percentage points — the two agree. BGB is a fixed-supply exchange token whose burn eats reserve, not float.

The verdict, in one paragraph

For the 90-day window from May 13 2026 to Aug 11 2026, the framework reads BGB at 0.00% net: sell pressure of zero against buy pressure of zero on the tradable float, over a base of 699.99M BGB. Our supply monitor reads −0.09% for the same period, a gap of 0.09 percentage points — comfortably inside the framework's half-point tolerance, so the page ships clean with no data-conflict flag. That agreement matters, because BGB is the case where a genuinely large burn and a genuinely still float sit side by side: the quarterly burn is real and verifiable on-chain, and completely invisible to anyone holding BGB, because the tokens it destroys were locked in a vault rather than sitting on an order book. Nothing minted, nothing unlocked, nothing absorbed. BGB is best labelled a hard-capped exchange token, deflationary in total supply and exactly flat on the tradable float.

Sell pressure: where new BGB comes from

Sell #1 — protocol inflation — is zero, and BGB proves it more cleanly than almost any token we track. The Bitget Token contract on Ethereum is a stock ERC-20 whose entire logic is a constructor that created 2,000,000,000 BGB once and handed them to a vault. No mint function, no owner privileged to add one, no upgrade path — the on-chain supply figure read for this build is still exactly 2,000,000,000 and cannot rise. What Bitget and the Morph Foundation call a burn is a one-way transfer into a dead address, which now holds 1,089,079,125 BGB; subtract that and 910.92M BGB remain. No emission curve, no staking reward, no block subsidy: BGB has no mechanism that creates supply.

Sell #2 — vesting unlocks — is zero, and this is the row where the reading could most easily have gone wrong. When Bitget handed BGB to the Morph Foundation in September 2025, it burned 220M BGB immediately and locked the other 220M in a Foundation vault, releasable at up to 2% a month for approved ecosystem programmes. Read as a vesting schedule, that is roughly 12.7M BGB of unlock across a 90-day window. But the 2% is a ceiling, not an automatic vest — unused tokens stay locked — and the vault is readable on-chain, so the framework measures what actually left rather than what was permitted. Its complete outflow history is four transfers, all into the burn address. Over this window it released 3,010,400 BGB, every one of them destroyed. Reaching the market: nothing. Sell #3 — Foundation and unscheduled unlocks — is zero on observed behaviour, with two holdings enumerated below. Sell #4 — long-term locked or bankruptcy — is zero: Bitget is a going concern, and no estate, trustee schedule or court order touches BGB. The whole sell side is empty, each row for a different and verifiable reason.

Buy pressure: where new BGB goes

Buy #2 — protocol fee burn — is the mechanism BGB is famous for, and it reads zero on the float, which needs explaining because the burn is completely real. The Morph Foundation sizes each quarterly burn off network usage: for Q2 2026 the ecosystem fee of $4,071, divided by an average BGB price of $1.92 and multiplied by a growth-phase booster of 1,420, produced 3,010,400 BGB — and that exact quantity moved into the dead address on Jul 14 2026. The catch is the funding leg. Those tokens came out of the locked Foundation vault, and that vault is precisely the gap between the 910.92M BGB that exist and the 699.99M BGB counted as tradable: it holds 210,928,845 BGB, matching that difference to the token. The burn cut total supply and the excluded reserve by the same number and left the float untouched. Booking it as absorbed float would have printed a −0.43% deflation reading no BGB holder experienced on any order book.

The rest of the buy ledger is empty for related reasons. Buy #1 — programmatic buyback — is zero, because BGB is burned but never bought: the vault funding the burns has received no BGB at all since it was filled on Sep 4 2025, so not one destroyed token was purchased off an order book. That is the structural difference between BGB today and the profit-funded model Bitget ran in 2025, when quarterly burns of about 30M BGB were sized off exchange profit. Buy #3 — Foundation buy — is zero, with no disclosed Bitget or Foundation purchase of BGB into a tracked wallet. Buy #4 — new long-term lock — is zero: the cross-chain lock pool that took 20.0M BGB on May 28 2026 is a bridge mirror, locking BGB on Ethereum so the same BGB can exist on Morph, not fresh escrow. Nothing on the buy side absorbed float.

Foundation and overhang

BGB carries two identified company-controlled holdings, both read on-chain for this build, and the distinction between them is the whole risk picture. The first is the Morph Foundation vault holding 210,928,845 BGB — the entire non-circulating bucket, filled once with 220M BGB in September 2025 and drawn down only into the burn address ever since, at roughly 3M BGB a quarter. At that rate it is less an overhang than a fuel tank: it shrinks, it does not sell. Its 2% monthly ceiling is what to watch, because that permission has never once been used toward a market. The second holding matters more — a Bitget corporate wallet holding 227,596,749 BGB, roughly 32% of the tradable count, sitting inside the float and needing no unlock to reach an order book. Its only move this window, 20,000,100 BGB on May 28 2026, traced hop by hop into the cross-chain lock pool: a bridge deposit to Morph, supply-neutral, not a distribution. If either balance falls toward an order book instead of the burn address or the bridge, it enters Sell #3 at the next refresh — and on the corporate wallet it would be the largest single supply event this ledger could record.

How BGB compares to other exchange tokens

Within the exchange-token class the dividing line is mechanism, not marketing. The classic model — run by Bitget itself until 2025 — sizes a quarterly burn off exchange profit and executes it against the open market: profit buys tokens from traders, and those tokens are destroyed. That genuinely removes float, and this framework records it as buy pressure. BGB no longer works that way. Since the Morph agreement of September 2025 the burn is sized off network usage and funded from a pre-locked vault, so the buy leg does not exist. The result is a burn arithmetically larger in headline terms than most competitors' and yet with zero effect on what a holder can sell into.

Against hard-capped proof-of-work assets, BGB is the stricter cap and the weaker sink: a halving-model chain keeps issuing coins to miners, so its float grows daily even under a fixed terminal supply, while BGB issues nothing at all — no mint function is a stronger guarantee than a scheduled cap, because it removes even the possibility of a policy change. But that chain's issuance reaches the market and BGB's burn never leaves it, so the two land in similar places from opposite directions. Against fee-burn networks that destroy a base fee paid by live users, BGB is the weaker structure: a base-fee burn consumes tokens that were circulating a block earlier, a vault burn consumes tokens already sidelined. The honest question for any issuer holding a large uncounted reserve is not how much has been burned cumulatively, but whether the burn eats supply the market owns — and whether the issuer's float-side wallet is bigger than the reserve. On BGB it is: 227.6M BGB against a 210.9M BGB reserve. That is why a heavily-burned token reads flat rather than deflationary.

What to watch in the next 90 days

The Q3 2026 quarterly burn is the one scheduled event, expected in early Oct 2026 on the rhythm of the last three (Jan 23 2026, Apr 9 2026, Jul 14 2026); the number to check is not its size but its funding wallet, because a burn sourced from anywhere other than the Foundation vault would make Buy #2 non-zero on the float for the first time. Second, the vault's 2% monthly ceiling: any transfer out of it not ending at the burn address would be the first realised ecosystem release since September 2025, and lands in Sell #2. Third, the corporate wallet at 227.6M BGB — already inside the tradable count — where a move toward an exchange rather than the bridge would be the largest supply event on this ledger. Fourth, network usage, since burn size is now a direct function of ecosystem fees; the Q2 2026 fee base of $4,071 is small enough that the growth-phase booster does nearly all the work, so any change to that booster changes the burn. Fifth, the stated ambition to grind BGB toward 100M tokens — on current quanta a multi-decade path that would eventually have to touch float rather than reserve.

Summary

The MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads BGB at 0.00% net supply over the 90 days to Aug 11 2026 — flat, not deflationary — against a monitor reading of −0.09%, a gap of 0.09 percentage points that needs no flag. The mechanism is a hard-capped ERC-20 with no mint function paired with a quarterly burn funded from a locked 220M Morph Foundation vault: 3,010,400 BGB were genuinely destroyed on Jul 14 2026 while the 699.99M BGB float stayed exactly where it was. The key risk is not inflation, which cannot happen, but concentration — a Bitget corporate wallet holds 227.6M BGB inside the float already and needs no unlock to sell. The ceiling is absolute: 2,000,000,000 BGB is all that will ever exist, 1.09B are already gone, and the remaining 210.9M reserve can only shrink toward the burn address.

MrNasdog Pressure Framework analysis of BGB, Metric 1 — Inflation. Data + explanation only. Not financial advice. Updated Aug 11 2026.

AVAX Inflation Analysis · August 2026 · The cap is real, the dilution is now

MrNasdog — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 08:29:20 +0000

Originally published at mrnasdog.com/research/avax/inflation by MrNasdog.

Avalanche is capped at 720,000,000 AVAX, and that cap does almost nothing for holders today, because 246.44M of it is still an unpaid staking-reward budget. The MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads AVAX at +1.07% net supply for the last 90 days and projects the same for the next 90: 2.96M AVAX minted for the 212.97M AVAX staked on the Avalanche primary network, plus a 1.67M AVAX Avalanche Foundation vesting cliff, against a C-Chain base-fee burn of roughly 3K AVAX for the entire quarter. Our supply monitor reads -0.11%, a gap of 1.18 percentage points that comes from a stalled reference figure rather than from the Avalanche chain, so the page ships with a data-conflict flag. AVAX is structurally inflationary with an intact hard cap and a fee burn that has stopped mattering.

The verdict, in one paragraph

For the 90-day window from May 13 2026 to Aug 11 2026, the framework reads AVAX at +1.07% net: sell pressure of 4.63M AVAX against buy pressure of 0.003M AVAX, over a tradable base of 431.77M AVAX. Our supply monitor reads -0.11% for the same period, a gap of 1.18 percentage points, well past the framework's half-point tolerance, so the reading carries a flag. The gap is not a disagreement about Avalanche. The reference supply figure the monitor divides has been pinned at exactly 431,771,961 AVAX every single day since Feb 6 2026 — 186 days without a change — while the Avalanche P-Chain kept issuing. Read straight off the chain on Aug 11 2026, the staking ledger at height 25,345,040 shows 473,559,685 AVAX issued. A frozen denominator cannot see a live mint, so the framework keeps its own read. AVAX is a capped chain that is still in the middle of spending its cap.

Sell pressure: where new AVAX comes from

Sell #1 — protocol inflation — is 2.96M AVAX and it is effectively the entire sell side of Avalanche. AVAX validators are paid in newly created AVAX, and the payout rule is protocol code rather than policy: the reward budget remaining under the 720M cap, multiplied by the share of AVAX staked, multiplied by a rate that rises linearly with how long a validator commits, between a floor of 10% and a ceiling of 12% over a 365-day minting period. Reading the live Avalanche primary-network validator set for this build — 600 validators, 174.71M AVAX of own stake and 38.26M AVAX delegated, a stake-weighted average staking term of 151 days — that rule pays about 12.00M AVAX a year, an effective staking rate of 5.63%, which is 2.96M AVAX across 90 days. A second, independent check on the same validator set agrees: the staking rewards already accrued and waiting to be paid annualise to 12.1M AVAX. These coins arrive liquid, in reward addresses, with nothing to unlock.

Sell #2 — vesting unlocks — is 1.67M AVAX, and it is the row most readings of Avalanche get wrong, because most of the genesis vesting really is finished. The AVAX team allocation and the strategic-partner allocation both paid their final quarterly instalments on Oct 25 2024; the community and development endowment finished in 2021. What still runs is the Avalanche Foundation's own 66.68M AVAX allocation, released as forty quarterly cliffs of 1.667M AVAX on a late-January, late-April, late-July, late-October rhythm that continues to Oct 25 2030, with 38.34M AVAX delivered so far. One cliff fired inside this window on Jul 26 2026 and the next falls on Oct 25 2026, inside the coming one. These AVAX already exist, so the unlock does not raise total supply — it moves supply from locked to spendable, which is exactly what this ledger measures.

Sell #3 — Foundation and unscheduled unlocks — is zero, because holding coins is not the same as releasing them: the overhangs are large, but none of them shows a dated release into the market, and they are enumerated below. Sell #4 — long-term locked or bankruptcy — is zero: there is no bankruptcy estate, trustee schedule or court-ordered distribution anywhere in AVAX, so this row cannot turn on.

Buy pressure: where new AVAX goes

Buy #2 — protocol fee burn — is 3K AVAX for the whole quarter, and that number is the most surprising thing on this page. The Avalanche C-Chain destroys the entire base fee of every transaction rather than paying it to a validator, the same design Ethereum adopted, and for years that burn was a real counterweight. It is not one now. Measuring it directly for this build — base fee multiplied by gas used, sampled across 4,000 blocks spread over the 7.23M C-Chain blocks in the window — the burn totals about 3,159 AVAX; a second, smaller sample of the same window returned 2,314 AVAX. Either way it is around 0.0007% of supply. The cause is the chain's own success at making itself cheap: after the dynamic-block-time upgrade, Avalanche C-Chain blocks arrive about every 1.07 seconds and the base fee sits at the protocol floor. It would take a hundredfold rise in C-Chain demand for this row to offset even a tenth of what staking mints.

Buy #1 — programmatic buyback — is zero, and structurally so: Avalanche routes no fees to a purchase contract, holds no revenue pool for repurchases, and has never announced a buyback programme. Fees on this chain are destroyed, not recycled into bids. Buy #3 — Foundation buy — is zero, with no disclosed Avalanche Foundation open-market purchase in the window; the Foundation is a net receiver of AVAX through its quarterly cliff, not a buyer. Buy #4 — new long-term lock — is zero, and deliberately: staking does lock 212.97M AVAX, about 45% of everything issued, but staked AVAX already sits inside the tradable count, terms run as short as two weeks, and staking is the very mechanism producing Sell #1. Counting it as absorption would credit Avalanche twice for the same coins.

Foundation and overhang

Three team-controlled overhangs are tracked on AVAX, and none of them is selling. The first is the Avalanche Foundation's undelivered genesis balance — roughly 28.3M AVAX of its 66.68M allocation, which reaches the market only through the quarterly vesting cliff already booked in Sell #2, on a published calendar running to Oct 25 2030. The second is the wider locked genesis pool: 31.67M AVAX sits between the 463.44M AVAX that exist off-chain records and the 431.77M AVAX counted as tradable, and the Foundation's remainder is the bulk of it. The third is the reward budget itself — 246.44M AVAX still unminted under the 720M cap, which is not discretionary at all: it is drawn down only by validator pay, block by block, and it is noted for scope rather than as a decision anyone can make. Each is re-read on every rebuild at the source, the P-Chain for issuance and the published vesting calendar for the cliff. If any of these balances falls toward the open market between refreshes, that outflow enters Sell #3 at the next refresh.

How AVAX compares to other capped proof-of-stake chains

The instinct with Avalanche is to file AVAX beside Bitcoin because both have a hard cap, and that is the wrong shelf. A halving-model chain issues on a schedule that shrinks by rule regardless of participation, and its cap is mostly spent — the remaining subsidy is a thin tail. Avalanche has spent only 473.56M of its 720M AVAX, so a third of the cap is still ahead of holders, and the pace it gets spent at is not a calendar: it is a function of how much AVAX is staked and for how long. More staking means more issuance. The cap is genuine and it will bind eventually, but it constrains Avalanche's issuance in the 2030s, not in this quarter.

Against uncapped continuous-emission proof-of-stake L1s, AVAX looks better than the label suggests. Its effective staking rate of 5.63% is paid on staked AVAX, not on the whole float, so the dilution that reaches a non-staking holder is the +1.07% a quarter this ledger measures rather than the headline yield — and unlike a chain with no ceiling, every AVAX minted permanently reduces what can ever be minted again. Against fee-burn chains, though, AVAX has lost the offset it used to share with them. On a burn chain, cheap blocks and heavy usage still retire circulating supply; on Avalanche today, cheap blocks retire 3K AVAX a quarter against 2.96M minted, a ratio of about one to a thousand. Avalanche's own governance has noticed: a live proposal would cut the staking reward floor from 10% to 7.5% on a 90-day ramp, which its authors project would trim annual AVAX inflation by 0.5 to 1 percentage points. That is a real fix aimed at exactly this reading, and it is not live on the Avalanche mainnet yet.

What to watch in the next 90 days

First, mainnet activation of the staking-reward-floor cut. It shipped in a test-network node release that activated Jul 28 2026 and it carries no Avalanche mainnet date; the moment one is scheduled, the forward column on this page has to be re-based from the post-change rate, not the trailing one. Second, the Avalanche Foundation vesting cliff on Oct 25 2026, worth 1.67M AVAX — the one dated supply event inside the window. Third, total AVAX staked, currently 212.97M: because issuance scales with the staked share, a move toward 250M would push the mint above 3.4M a quarter with no governance decision at all. Fourth, the stake-weighted average staking term, 151 days today — two companion proposals shorten the minimum term to 48 hours and add auto-renewal, and shorter terms pay a lower rate under the current curve. Fifth, C-Chain base-fee revenue, which needs a change of magnitude, not a change of trend, before Buy #2 matters again.

Summary

The MrNasdog Pressure Framework reads AVAX at +1.07% net supply growth over the last 90 days and projects +1.07% for the next 90 — mild, steady dilution rather than a cliff. Avalanche mints 2.96M AVAX a quarter to pay the 212.97M AVAX staked on its primary network, and adds a 1.67M AVAX Avalanche Foundation vesting cliff on Oct 25 2026, while the C-Chain base-fee burn retires about 3K AVAX — roughly one coin destroyed for every thousand created. The key risk is not a hidden unlock: it is that the 720M AVAX hard cap is only two-thirds spent, so the reward budget of 246.44M AVAX keeps paying out on a curve nobody has to vote on. The fix already exists as a proposal to cut the reward floor, and until it reaches the Avalanche mainnet, the cap is a promise about the 2030s rather than a constraint on this year.

MrNasdog Pressure Framework analysis of AVAX, Metric 1 — Inflation. Data + explanation only. Not financial advice. Updated Aug 11 2026.