CROUSDT
Crypto.com Coin / Tether USD
cryptoComposite

Defi staking is also below 4% now, dropping 0.01% each day it seems like, so if Supercharger is higher than that its well worth it with the ability to remove your CRO immediately if you want.

That's not really a reason to unburn 70B. You can use the network / burn tokens / make etfs the same way with less max cap, it just means in theory that one token is worth more... The reason for unburn was to steal value from CRO holders to whomever is receiving those unburnt CROs.

I don’t see Satoshi hard-forking bitcoin for Trump, nor the reasoning that increasing the supply of CRO has anything to do with its market cap. What it was, what it remains, is equity transfer from existing holders to CDC. Kris chose not to use exchange revenue or ad money to buy CRO to make the crypto reserve numbers work and unilaterally chose to dilute his entire CRO holding customer base by 233% rather than support his own coin. I hold no animosity for this situation towards Trump, he’s a habitual liar, poor businessman and misogynist to name a few things that won’t get me auto-moderated. It’s the actions of the people controlling CRO that’s ended up being looked like fools and they can’t even come up with a plan for how to rectify the situation. I don’t understand why this is a hill your prepared to die on when you’re just as impacted as the rest of us. Kris doesn’t care about you. What you should be asking for is clarity on the way back to making CRO a serious project and not behaving like a supermarket loyalty rewards program. What ethical guardrails, decision-making frameworks and governance are CDC is putting in place that ensures that future protocol changes are done in a considered and long-term value way. What CDC needs to do is professionalise its own governance and formally appoint a Chair, someone who leads the Board of Directors, which represents the company's shareholders. They do not manage daily operations, but instead focus on long-term strategy, corporate governance, and overseeing the CEO's performance. It’s a way of reigning in Exec behaviour that seeks short-term profitability while destroying long-term value.

The main things to think about from here are: 1. CDC is trying to change the tokenomics from inflationonary to deflationary, hence staking continues to drop from 6% to 3% in Onchain. 2. Card rewards have also been dropped. 3. What do you expect BTC to be in one to two years?? If it's higher, your can expect your CRO to be higher! How much higher is anyones guess 🤔 4 Your rewards from anywhere will be much lower than CRO price increasing! Therefore, collecting rewards for a year or two will provide the best returns, given you need to buy groceries and pay bills regardless whether you have crypto or not. 5 Of course if you're hating on CDC, all the above is irrelevant 🙄 Therefore, it's sell and get out completely, or build your rewards! None of this is relevant to actually buying CRO , it's just some musings from a random Internet stranger on the OP's question.

I used to farm Diamonds for CRO Mystery Boxes, but now it looks like I need to deposit or trade at least US$100 first. Is this a new Missions requirement for everyone, or did it change because CRO has been pumping lately ?

Yea it probably changes from one event to another. For the amount of CRO ive put in, its been worth it. Especially that I can sell whenever I want to

You lad are too emotional for investing. Your analogy was wrong so I gave you a more accurate one and you’re flailing around that everyone would have done the same thing if they had the chance. If I had a privately held business, with over 150m customers, have spent well over 1bn in advertising said over the past few years, my first thought when this administration came in wouldn’t have been to show so publicly how morally bankrupt I’m in by diluting my own token by 233% with no clear plan to use it. I’m not against CRO, how can I, a crypto investor, oppose a network? I can disagree with the actions of CDC in how they are directing the network and how they are harming all of our long term interests. I fundamentally believe that they have elements to be a big part of the future of crypto, the debit/credit card offering is compelling. I also believe that 99.99% of tokens will die out over the long term and the way they are using community votes undermines all their efforts to make CRO a serious project.

SOL and LINK would probably be my strongest holds from that list. I like SUI and PYTH too, but I'd personally add some BTC/ETH as the boring core and maybe ONDO for RWA exposure. I'd probably trim CRO before adding another L1 since you're already pretty heavy there. Category-wise I'm watching RWA, oracles/data and AI/compute the most. I keep most of this kind of mixed bag in Tangem too, mainly because once you're holding across this many ecosystems having it in one place becomes pretty useful. Also 90% guarantee is brave 😂 nothing in crypto gets that percentage from me.

Maybe they had to bring the CRO back because they realized the bigger ecosystem plan needed it. Now instead of just having less supply for the sake of it, they can actually burn it based on real growth and ULT revenue. So yeah, it looks like flip flopping, but there may have been a reason behind it.

I'm tired of the flip flopping. They should never have burned the CRO im the first place and these burn programs are bad in the long term, just means the price will increase which is good for investors, but for the ecosystems that could use the tokens, it just shows there's a shelf life.

What are you smoking?…It is peanuts compared to the unwanted 70b CRO

Until they decide printing new CRO is once again worth the customer backlash. Correcting the issue would be putting forward a proposal and getting the “community” to vote on burning the 70bn and a second proposal to reduce the total amount of CRO at a protocol level to 30bn.

Just made a quick calc of how much CRO I get on avg after each supercharger period divided by how much Ive "staked" then multiply by 100

"Now we just have to wait......" - the way every "big" CRO news ends.

Or CRO goes up & you get the card benefits. Unfortunately no one has a crystal ball. Want no risk? Get the monthly subscription version

LOL 😆 🤣 😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆 🤣 😂 😹 After injection of 40B CRO , out of nowhere by Kris and the corrupted team Now we see 228M that were APPROVED (like it matters) to be be burned 🔥 Failed project only the insiders earn Crazy commissions and stupid token I got f..d yes, I lam in big loss yes, but we can not ignore the fact that the team pumped it to 37 cents just to send to the market 40B In our face Stupid project of liers

Both CRO burn proposals passed

What's CRO's max allowable supply? BTC is only as valuable as it is because its max is immutably capped at 21 million, and people know their investment won't be diluted by arbitrary increases in the supply. CRO upped its max supply from 30B to 100B a few years back, destroying everyone's confidence in its ability to hold value. Who cares if it's slightly faster if its max supply can be arbitrarily changed whenever CdC needs more tokens? How is it any different than national banks simply printing more fiat money whenever they need it?

i read the leaks and the Q2 data fairly carefully, and the headline story is that Revenue +55%, Net Income +55%, CRO 84% EBITDA. The pixel‑level surprise was just a -$16m miss that cost the market given that, the 35% dip feels a little more reactionary than fundamentals‑driven. The company is cash‑rich (no debt, plenty of free cash flow) and the management guidance is still roughly +30% revenue in the next quarters. If you can shrug off the negative market talking points around competition and ad‑model lag and you’re comfortable with a P/E in the 20s, it might still be a pit‑stop rather than a value trap. That said, the stock is trading at the upper end of the historical multiple range for ad‑tech, so a round‑trip buy‑and‑hold only looks attractive if you’re willing to ride a 20‑30% swing first. Bottom line: it’s not a quick “buy” play for day‑traders, but maybe a long‑horizon “hold” if the 30% revenue + mature margin story keeps going.

I’ve been digging into William Herkelrath since he took over as CEO of the Algorand Foundation, mostly trying to figure out whether this is actually meaningful or just another executive change. The more I look into him, the more I think his background makes a lot of sense for where Algorand is right now. Algorand’s problem has never really been the technology. We’ve spent years talking about finality, low fees, reliability, cryptography, TPS, etc. The tech generally works. The problem has been turning good technology into actual economic activity. We can process tens of millions of transactions and have hundreds of thousands of active wallets while still having relatively tiny TVL and stablecoin liquidity. Validators are also receiving substantially more in rewards than the network generates in fees. That obviously can’t be the model forever. **This is where Herkelrath gets interesting** He isn’t really a protocol guy. His background is much more about taking complicated financial and crypto infrastructure and figuring out how to sell it. He was CRO at Curv before it was acquired by PayPal, spent several years running enterprise efforts at Chainlink, and then co-founded K3 Labs, which works on AI agents and blockchain automation. That’s a pretty interesting combination for Algorand. What I like most so far is that he doesn’t seem obsessed with the idea that Algorand has to win by convincing everyone to build on Algorand. If the technology is actually good, why not sell those capabilities to everyone else too? Post-quantum security is a good example. Algorand has actual Falcon-based PQ accounts running on mainnet now. Instead of waiting around hoping banks or other chains eventually decide to migrate everything to Algorand, could Algorand sell PQ validation or attestation as a service? Same thing with cross-chain messaging, settlement or other infrastructure. That feels very Chainlink-esque to me. Don’t convince everyone to move onto your island. Sell them something useful from the island they’re already on. **The part I’m really watching** Herkelrath keeps talking about network self-sustainability. Basically, Algorand needs products and services people are willing to actually pay for, with that revenue eventually supporting the network rather than relying indefinitely on Foundation resources and token incentives. This is also where I think the biggest risk is. Herkelrath could be great at enterprise business development and Algorand could become genuinely useful infrastructure without ALGO actually capturing much of that value. That’s why I care a lot less about partnership announcements than I do about what happens after them. If an enterprise pays for an Algorand service, where does that money go? Does it create demand for ALGO? Does it improve node economics? Does the Foundation eventually become a net buyer rather than constantly funding the ecosystem? Does it bring more stablecoins and actual capital onto the network? Those are the things that matter. The agentic commerce stuff is another interesting test. Algorand processed around 615k x402 transfers in August, but they represented only about $174k. That’s basically nothing economically. But an average transaction of around 28 cents is also pretty much what I’d expect machine-to-machine payments to look like. AI agents don’t care which blockchain has the biggest community or best marketing. They care if something is cheap, reliable, programmable and settles quickly. Algorand should be good at that. **Still way too early** None of this means Herkelrath has proven anything. TVL is still around $67M. Stablecoins are around $43M. Nodes have declined recently. Validator economics are still heavily subsidized and we don’t have meaningful disclosed enterprise revenue from his tenure yet. What has changed for me is that I can finally see a coherent business strategy around technology Algorand has spent years building. Curv gave him institutional security experience. Chainlink gave him experience selling infrastructure across chains. K3 gave him exposure to AI agents and blockchain automation. Now he’s running a network with strong cryptography, cheap deterministic settlement, native post-quantum capabilities and a serious need to figure out how to monetize all of it. That’s why I’m cautiously interested. Over the next year I care a lot less about ALGO price than whether TVL and stablecoins grow, node economics improve, partnerships become paying deployments, and all of this starts creating an actual economic feedback loop for ALGO. If that starts happening, Herkelrath could end up being a really important hire. If a year from now we’re still celebrating partnerships and transaction counts while TVL is sitting around $50–100M and the Foundation is subsidizing the network, that tells us something too. For the first time in a while, I’m less interested in what Algorand can technically do and more interested in whether somebody can finally figure out how to sell it.