Why 'cryptocurrencies' is the wrong label: digital assets as an asset class
Quote470 words
Argues the term implies digital fiat competitors when the sector spans commodity-like assets, reserve assets, equity-like tokens with cash flows, memecoins, stablecoins and RWAs. Institutional capital needs a clear taxonomy.
Key claims
Stablecoin market cap almost $300B, up 46% YTD
Hyperliquid buys back HYPE with 99% of revenue
Uniswap activated its fee switch
“Cryptocurrencies” is generally a flawed and outdated terminology imo.
Why?
Because it implies that we're talking about an asset universe that consists of merely "digital FIAT currency competitors", and that the main use case of all these "cryptocurrencies" is serving as some sort of "medium of exchange".
That's not the case, which is why I strongly favor the term "digital assets" or maybe "crypto assets", bc in reality, there is so much more to this industry.
While Bitcoin was described as a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system" in its 2009 whitepaper, being a means of payment never became its primary use case, and the dominant narrative around it today, is BTC being "digital gold", an inflation hedge and store of value for the internet age.
Don't get me wrong though, blockchains definitely are the future of global payment networks/infrastructure. Stablecoins are the evidence to that, with a total market capitalization of almost $300B, up a staggering 46% YTD alone.
But that's exactly the point. Crypto is not about using $BTC, $ETH, $SOL or $HYPE for everyday payments. Crypto is a new, internet-native asset class with many sub-sectors and types of digital assets within it.
And the reality also is, that in many cases, crypto tokens are much closer to equity than you think.
Hyperliquid is a CLOB perpetual futures DEX with a permissionlessly programmable EVM environment. While it might sound complex, it's ultimately nothing but an internet-native business model that mirrors what exchanges like Nasdaq do in TradFi/Web2. HL might not be a "traditional" company, but fundamentally speaking, the paradigm hasn't changed.
There is a business model and a protocol trying to make money. By buying back $HYPE tokens on the open market with 99% of the revenue, and due to in-protocol token utility acting as demand-drivers, there is also value that accrues back to token holders that is not that different from how value accrues to equity holders in the traditional finance world.
The same (now after fee-switch activation) holds true for Uniswap (largest AMM-based spot DEX in crypto), and an increasing number of DeFi protocols out there. The time of "governance-only" (also a parallel to equity, even if legally enforceable shareholder rights don't exist just yet) tokens is coming to an end.
Yet, the kind of asset that is basically "equity in internet-native business models" is also not the only type that exists.
There are commodity-like assets such as Bitcoin (digital gold), assets that act as the reserve currency of programmable finance economies (e.g. $ETH or $SOL), memecoins, stablecoins, and all sorts of tokenized "real world" assets.
Referring to all of this as "cryptocurrencies" doesn't do justice to this emerging industry.
Why I care?
Because getting the terminology right isn't pedantic, it's a prerequisite.
Institutional capital won't flow into an asset class that can't articulate what it actually is.
QUOTING @0xNairolf
do you consider stablecoins as cryptocurrencies? part of me feels like they are a different asset
do you consider stablecoins as cryptocurrencies? part of me feels like they are a different asset
How the covered assets moved · since 28 Dec 2025
Prices as of 23 Oct 2026This piece lays out a thesis on the sector without making a call on the token, so price moves since publication are shown as market context.
Mentioned for context
Since then
Zero has written 1 more piece on Bitcoin since this one.
Daily closes in USD from DefiLlama and Yahoo Finance. Only a bullish or bearish thesis is read as a call; explainers, maps and mentions are context. Not financial advice.