DeFi Development Corp (Nevada) (DFDV) 2026 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Welcome to DeFi Development Corp's Q1 2026 earnings conference call. I'm Dan Kang, Chief Strategy Officer and Head of Investor Relations. Joining me today are Joseph Onorati, Chief Executive Officer; John Han, our Chief Financial Officer; and Parker White, our Chief Operating Officer and Chief Investment Officer.

歡迎參加 DeFi Development Corp 2026 年第一季財報電話會議。我是 Dan Kang，首席策略長兼投資人關係主管。今天與我一同出席的有執行長 Joseph Onorati；財務長 John Han；以及營運長兼投資長 Parker White。

As a reminder, we will be making forward-looking statements during this call. Actual results may differ materially due to risks and uncertainties, which are outlined in our filings with the SEC, including our Form 10-K. Our latest shareholder letter was published yesterday, May 13, after market close, and is available on our website.

提醒各位，我們在本次電話會議中將發表前瞻性陳述。由於風險與不確定性，實際結果可能與前述陳述有重大差異；相關內容已在我們向美國證券交易委員會（SEC）提交的文件中揭露，包括 Form 10-K。我們最新的股東信已於昨日 5 月 13 日收盤後發布，並可於我們的網站查閱。

We will begin today by answering questions submitted by retail investors, followed by questions from the sell side.

今天我們將先回答散戶投資人提交的問題，接著再回答賣方分析師的提問。

Joseph, Parker, John, thank you for joining us.

Joseph、Parker、John，感謝你們加入我們。

Happy to be here.

很高興在這裡。

Our first question is from retail. I invested in DeFi Dev Corp because of this mission statement, quote, DeFi Development Corporation is a public company whose core strategy is to hold and grow a large reserve of Solana, SOL. So can you tell me if this is still your core mission? Joseph?

第一個問題來自散戶。我投資 DeFi Dev Corp 是因為這段使命宣言，引用如下：DeFi Development Corporation 是一家上市公司，其核心策略是持有並擴大大量 Solana（SOL）儲備。所以你能告訴我，這是否仍是你們的核心使命嗎？Joseph？

Yeah. The purpose of the company is to offer investors with leveraged Solana exposure. And we see some other DATs in the space, trying to move away from being a DAT. That's not us, we're leaning into it. If you read our investor letter and walked away thinking that we've taken our eye off the ball, then we haven't communicated well.

是的。公司的目的，是為投資人提供槓桿化的 Solana 曝險。我們也看到這個領域裡有一些其他 DAT，正試圖不再把自己定位成 DAT。但我們不是那樣；我們會更堅定地走這條路。如果你讀完我們的投資人信後覺得我們分心、沒有專注在重點上，那代表我們溝通得不夠好。

The reason we dove into experimentation in the letter is because we wanted shareholders to understand that everything we do from running validators to partnerships we make, on-chain deployment of the Treasury Accelerator Program, even ApeX, is ultimately meant to amplify SOL accumulation. And these aren't at odds with stacking more SOL. If anything, they provide a differentiated avenue for accumulation that no other DATs pursuing.

我們在信中談到實驗的原因，是希望股東理解：我們所做的一切——從營運驗證者節點、建立合作夥伴關係、在鏈上部署 Treasury Accelerator Program，甚至 ApeX——最終目的都是為了放大 SOL 的累積。而且這些作法並不與持續累積更多 SOL 相衝突。相反地，它們提供了一條差異化的累積途徑，是其他 DAT 所沒有在追求的。

Our mission is still the same, grow SPS as fast as possible. At the end of the day, SPS, or SOL per share, is still the only number we measure ourselves against. And 108% trailing 12 months of growth is great, but it's just a start and we think we have plenty of SPS growth ahead of us.

我們的使命仍然相同：盡可能快地提升 SPS。歸根結底，SPS（每股 SOL，SOL per share）仍是我們衡量自己的唯一指標。過去 12 個月 108% 的成長很棒，但那只是開始；我們認為未來還有很大的 SPS 成長空間。

All right. Thanks, Joseph. Next question? At current SOL levels and staking revenue, will DFDV sustain two years of runway? How concerned should we be of the OpEx and the DAT service? SOL drops to, say, $60 or $40, will the staking revenue keep the lights on to survive?

好的。謝謝你，Joseph。下一題？以目前的 SOL 水準與質押收入來看，DFDV 能否維持兩年的資金跑道？我們對營運費用（OpEx）與 DAT 服務應該有多擔心？如果 SOL 跌到例如 60 美元或 40 美元，質押收入是否足以維持營運、撐過去？

John, you want to take this?

John，你要回答這題嗎？

Yeah. Sure, happy to. So that's an excellent question and important question. And it's one that's front and center for the entire DFDV team.

好。當然，很樂意。這是個非常好的問題，也是個重要的問題。而且這也是整個 DFDV 團隊最關注的重點之一。

We've lived through -- all of us have lived through multiple bear and bull cycles, especially in crypto. So we treat runway, capital allocation and sustainability as four priorities. We are confident that we have the funds to sustain operations for well over two years at current Solana prices and with the staking revenue.

我們都經歷過多次熊市與牛市循環，尤其是在加密領域。因此我們把資金跑道、資本配置與永續性視為四大優先事項。我們有信心，在目前 Solana 價格與質押收入的情況下，我們的資金足以支撐營運遠超過兩年。

We run detailed periodic runway models specifically for these various scenarios, both for our internal purposes as well as for our auditors. Where -- we are laser focused on reducing OpEx wherever possible to drive greater Solana per share growth. So like Joseph just mentioned, our key KPI there.

我們會針對各種情境定期建立詳細的資金跑道模型，這不僅供內部使用，也提供給審計師。同時——我們高度聚焦於在可行之處降低營運費用（OpEx），以推動每股 Solana 的更高成長。正如 Joseph 剛才提到的，這是我們的關鍵 KPI。

As we discussed in our shareholder letter, we do make selective high conviction bets on opportunities where we believe we can create meaningful value for our shareholders. Many of those bets obviously do incur one-time costs. These are bets, but obviously they have costs.

如同我們在股東信中所述，我們確實會在某些機會上做出選擇性的、高信念的押注，因為我們相信能為股東創造具意義的價值。其中許多押注顯然會產生一次性成本。這些是押注，但當然也伴隨成本。

That service, on the other hand, remains very manageable and we maintain a very comfortable runway even if Solana prices were to fall 50% from here. That said, even if that did happen, we wouldn't expect such weakness to happen -- to sustain very long. We remain very bullish on Solana long-term. Thank you.

另一方面，那項服務仍然非常可控；即使 Solana 價格從目前水準下跌 50%，我們仍維持非常充裕的資金跑道。話雖如此，即便真的發生，我們也不預期這種疲弱——會持續很久。我們對 Solana 的長期前景仍非常看多。謝謝。

Thanks, John. Next question. DFDV succeeds if Solana succeeds. What are you doing to incubate, accelerate, and proliferate the expansion and adoption of SOL?

謝謝你，John。下一題。DFDV 的成功取決於 Solana 的成功。你們正在做些什麼來孵化、加速並推動 SOL 的擴張與採用？

Parker, you want to take that?

Parker，你要回答嗎？

Sure. So I think this kind of comes down to two primary areas. The first one is effectively marketing or storytelling, right? So we continue to talk to investors and they understand Bitcoin primarily because of Michael Saylor. And so we want to be, in our own way, the Michael Saylor for Solana telling that story, being the evangelist.

當然。我認為這大致可歸結為兩個主要面向。第一個基本上是行銷或敘事，對吧？我們持續與投資人交流，而他們之所以主要理解比特幣，很大程度是因為 Michael Saylor。因此我們希望以我們自己的方式，成為 Solana 的 Michael Saylor——講好這個故事，成為推廣者。

And so that's something that we've tried to do. We've put out a number of pieces, long form pieces, short form pieces, be our Twitter, our blog, some of the recordings that we host, lots of different avenues there. And we continue to do more of that going forward.

這也是我們一直在嘗試做的事。我們發布了許多內容，有長文也有短文，透過 Twitter、部落格、以及我們主辦的一些錄音內容等多種管道。未來我們也會持續做更多。

The other area is through ecosystem development. So we've historically done partners with all the major players across the ecosystem. We plan to continue to support that kind of initiative over time. So as new entrants come to market, we'll do additional partnerships to help bring focus and a spotlight to those projects.

另一個面向是透過生態系發展。過去我們已與生態系中的主要參與者建立合作。我們計畫隨時間推進持續支持這類倡議。因此當有新進者進入市場時，我們會進一步建立合作夥伴關係，協助把焦點與聚光燈帶到那些專案上。

We may use risk managed portions of our balance sheet to help grow liquidity on some of these platforms and ultimately create an environment that others want to participate in because a regulated public entity is involved on chain. So it's ultimately the marketing and the capital deployment and we plan to continue doing both to help support the ecosystem growth.

我們也可能運用資產負債表中經風險控管的一部分資金，協助提升部分平台的流動性，並最終打造一個讓其他人願意參與的環境，因為有一家受監管的上市公司在鏈上參與其中。因此歸根結底就是行銷與資本部署；我們計畫持續兩者並行，以支持生態系成長。

All right. Thanks, Parker. Next question. In addition to the recent rise of Solana's price, what other activities and/or investments have been made in the Solana ecosystem more broadly? And what positive news can you tell us about them which are actually adding value to the company?

好的。謝謝你，Parker。下一題。除了近期 Solana 價格上漲之外，你們在更廣泛的 Solana 生態系中還進行了哪些其他活動和／或投資？另外，關於這些活動，你們能分享哪些確實正在為公司增加價值的正面消息？

Parker, you want to take that?

Parker，你要回答這題嗎？

Sure. So on our side, we recently announced, excuse me, we recently announced a partnership with Jupiter Lend. That was a month or two ago. But we are working on some additional partnerships. We announced the partnership with Allied Architects in Japan as part of our kind of Treasury Accelerator Program. We continue to make progress on DFDV UK. And so these are a few of the initiatives that we're working on to both directly and indirectly help grow value for the Solana ecosystem and accrue some of that value back to DFDV.

當然。就我們這邊而言，我們最近宣布了——不好意思——我們最近宣布與 Jupiter Lend 建立合作夥伴關係。那是大約一兩個月前。但我們也正在推進一些額外的合作夥伴關係。我們宣布了與日本 Allied Architects 的合作，作為我們某種「Treasury Accelerator Program（財庫加速器計畫）」的一部分。我們也持續在 DFDV UK 方面取得進展。因此，這些是我們正在推動的幾項計畫，旨在直接與間接地協助 Solana 生態系成長價值，並將其中一部分價值回流並累積到 DFDV。

Additionally, and more broadly speaking, there have been a number of positive developments on the Solana front. You saw the recent announcement about Google and the payments API there. And so we're continuing to see more and more activity on the Solana side, both with RWAs and tokenized assets and other large institutions getting involved in the ecosystem. So I think we're going to talk more about that in a little bit, but I think that's also germane here too.

此外，更廣泛地來看，Solana 方面也出現了多項正面進展。你們看到最近關於 Google 以及其支付 API 的公告。因此我們持續看到 Solana 端越來越多的活動，包含 RWAs、代幣化資產，以及其他大型機構開始參與這個生態系。我想我們稍後會再多談一些，但我認為這點在這裡也同樣相關。

All right. Thanks, Parker. Next question. Is ApeX related to DFDV or SOL? As I understand, it's only tied to Bitcoin. Do you expect the release of a governance token to be a catalyst for both DFDV and SOL?

好。謝謝你，Parker。下一題。ApeX 與 DFDV 或 SOL 有關嗎？據我了解，它只與比特幣掛鉤。你們是否預期推出治理代幣會成為 DFDV 與 SOL 的催化劑？

Joseph, you want to take this one?

Joseph，你要回答這題嗎？

Yeah, sure. We won't comment on the release of a governance token for ApeX. But as outlined in the shareholder letter, we think ApeX meaningfully improves the cost of capital for a preferred equity fundraise for DFDV.

好，當然。我們不會評論 ApeX 治理代幣的發行。但如股東信所述，我們認為 ApeX 能夠實質改善 DFDV 以優先股進行募資時的資金成本。

All right.. Thanks, Joseph. Let's turn to some sell-side questions. So this question is, at Needham DK, you discussed experimentation as a core part. Of DFDV's playbook. How should we think about the budget for experimentation going forward? Is there a hard cap as a percent of treasury or balance sheet or is it more opportunistic? And when an experiment doesn't work, like DONT, at what point do you decide to cut it versus give it more time?

好。謝謝你，Joseph。我們來看一些賣方的問題。這題是：在 Needham DK，你們談到「實驗」是 DFDV 作戰手冊的核心部分。（作為）DFDV 的 playbook 的一部分。我們應該如何看待未來的實驗預算？是否有一個硬性上限（例如占財庫或資產負債表的百分比），還是更偏機會導向？另外，當某個實驗行不通（例如 DONT）時，你們會在什麼時間點決定砍掉它，而不是再給它更多時間？

I'll take this guys.

我來回答這題，各位。

It's a good question. So I'll start with I guess the budget or call it like capital allocation framework. So there's definitely a waterfall of priorities and any investment we make has to clear the bar of basically the ROI on buying SOL right here, right now, especially since we think SOL is eventually going to 10-K. It's why we've made the, what I would call what we outlined in our letter, the asymmetric bets that we have.

這是個好問題。我先從預算，或稱之為資本配置框架談起。我們確實有一個優先順序的「瀑布」；我們做的任何投資，都必須跨過一個門檻：基本上要優於此時此刻直接買 SOL 的投資報酬率（ROI），尤其是因為我們認為 SOL 最終會到 10-K。這也是為什麼我們做了——我會說，正如我們在信中所概述的——那些非對稱押注。

In each scenario, we model the upside, the downside, and in each of the scenarios that we outlined in the letter, the downside was fairly de minimis, but we believe the opportunities were magnitudes greater than the upfront cost or cash or SOL investment.

在每一種情境下，我們都會建模上行與下行；而在我們信中列出的每個情境裡，下行風險都相當微不足道（de minimis），但我們相信其機會的量級遠大於前期成本、現金或 SOL 的投入。

So zero stack is actually a great example. Had that SOL sat there on our balance sheet, we would have earned the staking rewards and of course generated a return equal to the SOL price action over the last, call it, like eight months or so. But because of the way we structured this deal, we got a return well above our investment, got the staking rewards back as well. So the economic cost of DFDV was effectively zero.

所以 Zero Stack 其實就是一個很好的例子。如果那筆 SOL 只是放在我們的資產負債表上，我們會賺到質押獎勵，當然也會獲得等同於過去——大概八個月左右——SOL 價格走勢的報酬。但因為我們交易結構的設計，我們獲得了遠高於投資額的回報，也把質押獎勵拿回來了。因此，對 DFDV 而言，其經濟成本實際上為零。

And I think there are numerous examples of this kind of playbook really paying dividends to us. ApeX is another fantastic example of us bringing a $400 million project to life in terms of TVL in just a matter of weeks with again a fraction of the balance sheet committed upfront.

我認為有很多例子顯示，這種作戰手冊確實為我們帶來了可觀的回報。ApeX 也是另一個非常棒的例子：我們在短短幾週內讓一個以 TVL 計算達 4 億美元的專案落地，而且前期承諾投入的資產負債表資源只是一小部分。

So these are a few examples. Again, we're going to try to be as transparent as possible with shareholders with respect to both our wins and our losses on experimentation. But again, all of it is geared towards driving SOL-per-share growth in some capacity.

以上是幾個例子。同樣地，我們會盡可能對股東保持透明，無論是實驗的成功或失敗。但再次強調，所有這些都是為了在某種程度上推動每股 SOL（SOL-per-share）的成長。

All right, next question. Can you give us a sense one year later of BONK's actual sold-per-share contribution? What kind of SOL-per-share growth would have occurred had you not announced this partnership?

好，下一題。一年之後，你們能否讓我們了解 BONK 實際對每股 SOL 的貢獻（sold-per-share contribution）？如果你們當初沒有宣布這項合作，每股 SOL 的成長本來會是什麼樣子？

I'll take this one again, guys.

我再回答這題，各位。

So difficult to quantify. Shareholders can see how our equity reacted post-announcement. I really think the attention and volume that, that partnership drove was most key, got us on the radar for crypto native investors, showcased our knowledge of not just crypto, but its culture as well. And it literally tripled our average daily volume in the ensuing weeks.

這很難量化。股東可以看到我們在公告後股價的反應。我認為最關鍵的是，那項合作帶來的關注度與交易量，讓我們進入加密原生投資人的視野，也展現了我們不僅懂加密，也懂其文化。而且在接下來的幾週內，我們的日均成交量實際上增加到原來的三倍。

So it's difficult to pinpoint an exact SOL-per-share number, let's call it like pro forma for that. But I think investors can do some back of the envelope math on the impact, just looking at what happened to DFDV equity in the ensuing days and weeks following that announcement.

所以很難精確指出一個每股 SOL 的數字，我們姑且稱之為該合作的備考（pro forma）影響。但我認為投資人可以做一些粗略估算，只要看看在那次公告後的幾天與幾週內，DFDV 股票發生了什麼變化。

All right, next question. The letter mentions you intend to keep experimenting and that some DATs won't work. How are you thinking about the threshold for disclosure? Will we hear about every miss the size of DONT or only the ones above a certain materiality threshold?

好，下一題。信中提到你們打算持續實驗，而且有些 DAT 不會成功。你們如何思考揭露門檻？我們會聽到每一次像 DONT 規模的失誤，還是只會聽到超過某個重大性（materiality）門檻的項目？

Joseph, you want to take that?

Joseph，你要回答嗎？

Yeah, sure. Yeah, I think the materiality threshold is just a legal question. So we check with our lawyers if something's material. If it's material, we disclose it. If it's not and we think it's creative to the business, then we'll disclose it.

好，當然。我想重大性門檻基本上是法律問題。所以我們會跟律師確認某件事是否具重大性。如果具重大性，我們就揭露。如果不具重大性，但我們認為它對業務有創造性（具正向貢獻），那我們也會揭露。

We put DONT down as an example miss because it was very public, but it wasn't very expensive to launch the token, actually. From a pure-dollar-cost perspective, it was just a legal cost. And then outside the dollar cost, it was the team's time to get it out there.

我們把 DONT 當作一次失誤的例子，是因為它非常公開，但實際上發行該代幣的成本並不高。就純美元成本角度來看，主要只是法律費用。而除了美元成本之外，還有團隊投入的時間，把它推出去。

But the upside potential when we modeled it was significant. So even if the company never intended to sell any DONT, the potential benefit to the business was, in our view, massive in comparison to the cost. And that goes to the point on asymmetric bets that DK has mentioned a couple of times now.

但當我們建模時，上行潛力相當可觀。因此，即使公司從未打算出售任何 DONT，相較於成本，對業務的潛在益處在我們看來也是巨大的。這也呼應了 DK 目前已提過幾次的「非對稱押注」觀點。

Also, I guess, reflecting a little more on threshold for disclosure and what counts as like a win or a loss, want to bet and whether to disclose it or not. Maybe this answer is not very direct, but quantifying some of these misses might not be straightforward.

另外，我想再多反思一下揭露門檻，以及什麼算是贏或輸、是否要下注、以及要不要揭露。也許這個回答不夠直接，但要量化其中一些「落空」可能並不容易。

For example, in the BONK validator partnership, if it hadn't moved the stock price, would it have been a miss? And I doubt it. I mean, setting up the validator was relatively low cost. Yeah, we probably actually generated revenue on the partnership, not much, but some. So even if the stock price didn't move, I don't know if that one would be a failure, maybe overusing there.

例如，在 BONK 驗證者合作夥伴關係中，如果它沒有帶動股價，那會算是一次落空嗎？我想不會。我的意思是，建立驗證者的成本相對低。是的，我們其實可能還從這個合作中產生了收入，不多，但有一些。所以即使股價沒有變動，我也不確定這算不算失敗，可能我在這裡用詞過重了。

Thanks, Joseph. Next question. Thanks for the framing around Treasury Accelerator. Can you walk through some of the key milestones you're looking for on Allied Architects and DFDV UK and when we might see the SOL-per-share contribution? Is this a next six months or next three to four years kind of thing?

謝謝你，Joseph。下一題。謝謝你對 Treasury Accelerator 的框架說明。你能否說明一下你們在 Allied Architects 與 DFDV UK 上所關注的一些關鍵里程碑，以及我們何時可能看到每股 SOL（SOL-per-share）的貢獻？這會是接下來六個月內的事，還是接下來三到四年的事？

Parker, you want to take that?

Parker，你要回答嗎？

Yeah. It's a good question. I think, it's a little bit of both. So on an unrealized basis, you may see an impact in the next six months. But the intention for us is not to wrap up these deals in six months, sell all the stock, get out, right? The intention is for these to be long-term partnerships and growth opportunities for us.

好。這是個好問題。我認為兩者都有一點。因此，在未實現（unrealized）的層面，你可能在接下來六個月內就會看到一些影響。但我們的意圖不是在六個月內把這些交易收尾、把股票全賣掉、然後退出，對吧？我們的意圖是把這些視為長期合作夥伴關係，以及我們的成長機會。

We think that every major capital market in the world should have exposure to enhanced Solana as DFDV provides in the US. And so that also may take some slightly different flavors in each market, but ultimately we're here for the long-term with these partners.

我們認為，全球每一個主要資本市場都應該像 DFDV 在美國所提供的那樣，能夠接觸到強化版的 Solana 曝險。因此，各市場可能會有一些不同的呈現方式，但最終我們會與這些夥伴長期合作。

So I think you may start to see some benefit in the short-term, but I think it will be tough to evaluate the full success. On any month denominated basis, it'll likely be many, many years. Who knows, maybe a decade before we fully understand the totality of the impact here. So we're playing for the long-term.

所以我認為你可能會在短期開始看到一些好處，但要評估全面的成功會很困難。若以任何按月計價的基礎來看，可能需要很多很多年。誰知道呢，也許要十年，我們才會完全理解這裡影響的全貌。所以我們是在做長期布局。

I'd like to add to that. The way I think about these deals for the Treasury Accelerator is in a bear market or a flat market, we're not going to see a lot of significant SOL-per-share growth at the DFDV side for these relationships. But in a bull market, when there's demand for SOL, SOL's ripping, because of these partnerships, we're able to offer additional leveraged exposure to Solana. So to maybe tighten it up, I think these deals have potential for outsized upside with limited or no downside.

我想補充一下。我看待 Treasury Accelerator 這些交易的方式是：在熊市或盤整市場中，我們不會在 DFDV 端從這些關係看到很多顯著的每股 SOL 成長。但在牛市、當市場對 SOL 有需求、SOL 大漲時，因為這些合作夥伴關係，我們能提供對 Solana 的額外槓桿曝險。所以簡單說，我認為這些交易具有上行潛力不成比例、且下行有限或沒有下行的特性。

Awesome. Thanks guys.

太棒了。謝謝各位。

Expanding that on that a little bit further, going some doing some back and forth. The way I think about all of our experimentation is accumulating call options. And so I think in this case, we now have a call option on Solana DATs in Japan, for example, or Solana DATs in the UK. And so if we can acquire these call options for fairly minimal cost, of course, call options aren't great in sideways markets or down markets, but in up markets, they have levered upside payoff.

再把這點延伸一下，來回補充一下。我看待我們所有的實驗方式，是在累積買權（call options）。因此在這個案例中，例如我們現在等於擁有了日本的 Solana DATs 的買權，或英國的 Solana DATs 的買權。如果我們能以相當低的成本取得這些買權，當然，買權在盤整或下跌市場表現不佳，但在上漲市場，它們會帶來具槓桿的上行報酬。

So that's essentially how we look at the accelerator program and also kind of most of our bets in general.

這基本上就是我們看待加速器計畫的方式，也大致是我們多數押注的一般思維。

Awesome. Thanks, guys. One more on Treasury Accelerator, specifically as it relates to Allied Architects. So you mentioned Allied Architects has limited operating commitments. How should we think about what limited means in practice? Is there a potential asset management agreement coming? And would that change the economics of the deal materially?

太棒了。謝謝各位。再問一題關於 Treasury Accelerator，特別是與 Allied Architects 相關。你提到 Allied Architects 的營運承諾有限。我們在實務上應該如何理解「有限」的意思？未來是否可能會有資產管理協議？那會在實質上改變這筆交易的經濟性嗎？

Parker, you want to take that?

Parker，你要回答嗎？

Sure. So today there's no operating agreement in place. We don't have operating commitments that would create ongoing costs.

當然。所以目前沒有任何營運協議。我們也沒有會產生持續性成本的營運承諾。

I can't discuss any future asset management agreements that may be implemented. However, of course, if we were to sign on for additional costs, that would come with commensurate additional revenue and upside there. So I'll leave it at that.

我無法討論未來可能會實施的任何資產管理協議。不過，當然，如果我們要承擔額外成本，那也會伴隨相應的額外收入與上行空間。我就先說到這裡。

Thanks, Parker. All right, next question. Would you consider running your ATM or selling SOL to repurchase any convertible debt? Is this philosophy around convertible debt repurchase similar to the MSTR playbook, or are there different ways you're thinking about convert retirement? And are converts completely off the table as a future funding source?

謝謝你，Parker。好，下一題。你們會考慮啟動 ATM（按市價發行）或出售 SOL 來回購任何可轉換債嗎？你們對可轉債回購的理念是否類似 MSTR 的操作手冊，還是你們對可轉債退場（retirement）有不同的思路？另外，可轉債是否在未來作為資金來源已完全不考慮？

Parker?

Parker？

Sure. So ultimately, we want to maintain our flexibility. This is a very dynamic space. MicroStrategy has not been around for that long, and they've changed the playbook several times already. Just recently, Saylor starting to discuss potentially selling some Bitcoin. And so I don't want to paint ourselves into a corner by saying we will never do something or we will always do something. So we evaluate these opportunities as they come along and look at the economics.

好的。最終，我們希望維持彈性。這是一個非常動態的領域。MicroStrategy 也不是一直都照同一套做法，他們已經多次改變操作手冊。就在最近，Saylor 開始討論可能出售一些比特幣。因此，我不想把自己逼進死角，說我們永遠不會做某件事，或我們永遠都會做某件事。所以我們會在機會出現時評估，並檢視其經濟性。

Maybe an example, if the convert was trading at $0.05 -- this is hyperbole, if the convert was trading at $0.05 and we could retire all of our debt for $6 million, yeah, maybe we'd sell a little bit of SOL if it was trading at $100 a coin to retire all of our debt. Again, hyperbole, but we kind of look at all the opportunities as they present themselves and as the market creates opportunities. And if we feel that something is mispriced, we may take advantage of that.

舉個例子，如果可轉債交易在 0.05 美元——這只是誇張的說法——如果可轉債交易在 0.05 美元，而我們可以用 600 萬美元就把所有債務退掉，那是的，也許如果 SOL 交易在每枚 100 美元，我們會賣出一點 SOL 來清償全部債務。再次強調，這是誇張的例子，但我們會在各種機會出現時、以及市場創造機會時，逐一評估。如果我們覺得某個東西被錯誤定價，我們可能會加以利用。

We do really prefer not to sell SOL to buy back debt. There may be some situations where it makes sense on a SOL-per-share growth perspective because these are convertible notes. So when there's a buyback, it also does retire that future conversion. But, this is not the base case. This is more of an exception.

我們確實比較不傾向賣出 SOL 來回購債務。在某些情況下，從每股 SOL（SOL-per-share）成長的角度來看，這樣做可能是合理的，因為這些是可轉換公司債。因此當進行回購時，也等同於消除未來可能的轉換。但這不是我們的基本情境。這更像是一種例外。

So I'll kind of close out with that and just really highlight that optionality that we want to maintain because this is such a changing environment and all of these things are common stock, SOL, convertible debt. Everything else has a market price and those are always in flux. So saying we will or won't do something today is tough to predict for the future.

所以我就以此作結，並再次強調我們希望保留的那種選擇權，因為這是一個變動非常快的環境，而這些項目——普通股、SOL、可轉換債——其他所有東西都有市場價格，而市場價格永遠在波動。因此，今天說我們會或不會做某件事，很難去預測未來。

Awesome. Thanks, Parker. Next question. Your leverage ratios are high given the pullback in SOL price. As you simplify the capital stack and lean into different issuances like preferred equity, what's the target leverage profile we should model? And how does that change in a downside SOL scenario?

太棒了。謝謝你，Parker。下一題。在 SOL 價格回落的情況下，你們的槓桿比率偏高。當你們簡化資本結構並轉向不同的發行方式（例如優先股權）時，我們應該建模的目標槓桿輪廓是什麼？而在 SOL 下行情境下，這會如何改變？

Parker, you want to take that?

Parker，你要回答這題嗎？

Sure. So our long-term leverage target, we do want to target somewhere around 30%. Now, of course, that's going to move around quite a bit as the price of SOL moves and we really don't want to effectively be forced rebalancers to that 30% target because that would require us to lever up in bull markets and delever in bear markets, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do for long-term SPS growth.

當然。我們的長期目標槓桿，我們希望大約落在 30% 左右。當然，這會隨著 SOL 價格波動而大幅變動，而我們也不希望自己實質上被迫為了達到 30% 目標而進行再平衡，因為那會要求我們在牛市加槓桿、在熊市去槓桿，這正好與長期每股 SOL（SPS）成長所應做的相反。

So again, we kind of have this long-term target. And this should roughly be maintained in, I would call it the midpoint, if you will, of market environments in the overly bullish environments. You would expect our leverage ratio to decline. And in the overly bearish markets, you would expect our leverage ratio to increase.

所以再說一次，我們有這個長期目標。而在我所稱的市場環境「中段」大致上應可維持。在過度偏多的環境下，你會預期我們的槓桿比率下降。而在過度偏空的市場中，你會預期我們的槓桿比率上升。

Now that may be slightly due to our own actions, but largely it's going to be due to the market. So if the value of the balance sheet gets cut in half because SOL has a 50% pullback, well, the leverage ratio doubles without us doing anything directly there to contribute to that.

這可能有一小部分來自我們自己的行動，但主要還是由市場所驅動。所以如果資產負債表的價值因為 SOL 回撤 50% 而被砍半，那麼在我們沒有做任何事情的情況下，槓桿比率就會翻倍，並不是我們直接做了什麼去造成它。

So we do want to target a prudent level of leverage, maintain some cash reserves to cover coupon payments or dividend payments on preferreds, that kind of thing. And there may be opportunities to slightly add some leverage in a bear market and slightly delever in a bull market. But generally speaking, we want to maintain that rough 30% target and allow the market to kind of change our leverage ratio for us.

因此我們確實希望把槓桿維持在審慎的水準，保留一些現金準備以支付票息或優先股股息之類的款項。而在熊市中可能會有機會小幅增加槓桿，在牛市中小幅去槓桿。但整體而言，我們希望維持大約 30% 的目標，並讓市場在某種程度上替我們改變槓桿比率。

Awesome. All right. Next question comes from George over at Craig-Hallum. Could you give us your updated thoughts on the key use cases for SOL, particularly any recent wins that embolden your conviction in the asset?

太棒了。好。下一題來自 Craig-Hallum 的 George。你能否分享你們對 SOL 主要使用案例的最新看法，特別是近期有哪些勝利讓你們對這項資產的信心更強？

Parker, you want to take that?

Parker，你要回答這題嗎？

Sure. So there's a lot of things here, and interestingly enough, with the team launching a project on Ethereum, it's actually crystallized our bullishness on Solana from both a technology perspective and candidly, a liquidity perspective. If you look across the Ethereum ecosystem outside of Ethereum Layer 1 or the base layer, SOL is a clear second place on liquidity. None of the L2s on the Ethereum side really come close.

當然。這裡有很多面向；有趣的是，隨著團隊在以太坊上推出一個專案，反而從技術面以及坦白說從流動性面，讓我們對 Solana 的看多觀點更加明確。如果你觀察以太坊生態系（不含以太坊 Layer 1 或基礎層本身），SOL 在流動性方面明顯是第二名。以太坊側的各個 L2 都遠遠比不上。

There's some activity on, say, Hyperliquid. But Solana has a dominant number two position on the liquidity front and on a technology front, Solana is a very clear winner. It's much easier to launch projects, to manage projects. It's just a better UX on Solana all around.

例如 Hyperliquid 上有一些活動。但在流動性方面，Solana 穩居強勢的第二名；而在技術面，Solana 也是非常明確的贏家。在 Solana 上更容易啟動專案、管理專案。整體而言，在 Solana 上的使用者體驗（UX）就是更好。

So a few key themes that we're watching on the Solana front that are really exciting. First one is stablecoin growth. We're seeing pretty meaningful growth on that front and not just in TVL numbers and transaction volume numbers, which on the transaction volume side outpace all other chains.

因此，在 Solana 這邊我們正在關注幾個非常令人興奮的關鍵主題。第一個是穩定幣成長。我們看到這方面相當顯著的成長，而且不只是 TVL 數據與交易量數據；在交易量方面，Solana 的表現超過所有其他鏈。

The types of entities getting involved are pretty spectacular. So we saw quite a while back, Western Union, but there's a number of other large entities that are issuing stablecoins, sometimes first and foremost and even only on Solana. And so I think you're going to see that continue to happen. And people in DeFi like to look at the total stables TVL of 300 billion or so and say, wow, that's so big.

參與進來的機構類型也相當驚人。我們在更早之前看到西聯匯款（Western Union），但還有許多其他大型機構正在發行穩定幣，有時甚至是優先、乃至於只在 Solana 上發行。因此我認為你會看到這種情況持續發生。而 DeFi 圈的人喜歡看大約 3,000 億美元的穩定幣總 TVL，然後說，哇，這很大。

But in the grand scheme of global credit markets or global money markets, it's tiny. And so I think, as global stables, TVL grows to, let's call, it 3 trillion, 5 trillion, 10 trillion, the 300 billion that we're at today is a drop in the bucket. And I think Solana is best positioned to capture the lion's share of that big, let's say, $10 trillion TAM for money on chain.

但放在全球信貸市場或全球貨幣市場的大格局裡，它其實很小。因此我認為，隨著全球穩定幣 TVL 成長到——姑且說——3 兆、5 兆、10 兆美元，今天的 3,000 億美元只是九牛一毛。而我認為 Solana 最有能力去捕捉這個龐大、例如 10 兆美元「鏈上貨幣」總可服務市場（TAM）中的最大份額。

Now, a key reason for that is agentic AI and the X402 standard. So what we're seeing is the number of machine-generated payments and payments using X402 on Solana outpacing all other chains. And that's just because it's just easier to send money on Solana. It's cheaper to send money on Solana.

其中一個關鍵原因是代理式 AI（agentic AI）以及 X402 標準。我們看到在 Solana 上，機器生成的支付數量，以及使用 X402 的支付數量，正在超越所有其他鏈。這就是因為在 Solana 上匯款更容易。在 Solana 上匯款更便宜。

Machines can pay, I like to say, token for tokens on the agentic AI side. Agents can pay for LLM tokens with crypto tokens, with stablecoins, and you can send pennies for -- and it still makes economic sense to send those small amounts. They settle instantly and there's no permission required for an AI to have a wallet to send assets around.

我喜歡說，在代理式 AI 這邊，機器可以用「代幣換代幣」的方式付款。代理可以用加密代幣、用穩定幣去支付 LLM 的 tokens，而且你可以匯出幾分錢——匯這種小額在經濟上仍然合理。它們能即時結算，而且 AI 要擁有一個錢包並用它來轉移資產，不需要任何許可。

Another really big unlock that we're excited about is the Alpenglow upgrade. So the key change here is going to be finality times, bringing finality down to about 100 to 150 milliseconds. And just last week, I believe it was -- there were some tests that show that it's actually working. So gearing up for the Mainnet release, hopefully here in Q3.

另一個我們非常期待、能帶來重大突破的，是 Alpenglow 升級。這裡的關鍵改變將是最終確認（finality）時間，把 finality 降到大約 100 到 150 毫秒。而就在上週，我相信——有一些測試顯示它確實在運作。因此正為主網（Mainnet）發布做準備，希望能在第三季推出。

And I think that'll be a real stepwise improvement because what that does is it moves Solana out of the realm of competing with other Web3 platforms and saying, well, Solana is the best blockchain. It's like, yeah, but blockchains are all kind of slow. Actually, what it does is it brings Solana on par with Web2 platforms.

而我認為那將會是一個真正的階梯式改善，因為它所做的，是把 Solana 從與其他 Web3 平台競爭、並宣稱「Solana 是最好的區塊鏈」的範疇中拉出來。就像，對啊，但區塊鏈其實都算慢。實際上，它讓 Solana 與 Web2 平台達到同等水準。

So now you might say, well, I could run my application using, say, an RDS instance on AWS, or I could run my application using the Solana blockchain, and they actually have about the same speed. In fact, the Solana blockchain in some cases may be faster. And so all of the Web2 applications that we're used to, snappy apps, immediate page transitions and button clicks just working, that all is coming to Solana.

所以現在你可能會說，好吧，我可以用例如 AWS 上的一個 RDS 執行個體來跑我的應用程式，或者我也可以用 Solana 區塊鏈來跑我的應用程式，而它們的速度其實差不多。事實上，在某些情況下 Solana 區塊鏈可能更快。因此，我們習慣的所有 Web2 應用——反應俐落的 App、即時的頁面切換、按鈕點擊立刻生效——這些都將來到 Solana。

It's already great, but there's that kind of last little improvement that I think surprisingly actually is a stepwise function. And this also opens up a whole host of additional applications on chain. So the one that everyone likes to talk about is, of course, on chain perpetual swaps. So something like a Hyperliquid, but on Solana, because now it becomes -- Solana will start to compete with the centralized exchanges in terms of speed for a central limit order book.

它已經很棒了，但我認為還有最後一點點的提升，而令人意外的是，這其實是一個階梯式函數般的躍升。而這也會在鏈上開啟一大批額外的應用。大家最愛談的那個，當然就是鏈上永續合約交換（perpetual swaps）。也就是像 Hyperliquid 那樣的東西，但在 Solana 上，因為現在它變得可行——Solana 將開始在中央限價訂單簿（CLOB）的速度方面，與中心化交易所競爭。

And so there's a whole host of these new applications that are unlocked with Alpenglow. And I think Alpenglow happens, say, in Q3. You'll start to see some of these applications be developed or migrated or upgraded, say, in Q4 and then into 2027. But I think 2027 is going to be a real catalyst time for Solana from a technology perspective. Price may or may not kind of front run that, but on the technology side, we're very excited for the next, let's call it two years.

因此，Alpenglow 解鎖了一整套全新的應用。我認為 Alpenglow 可能會在第三季發生。你會開始看到其中一些應用在第四季以及一路到 2027 年被開發、遷移或升級。但我認為從技術角度來看，2027 年將會是 Solana 的一個真正催化時點。價格可能會、也可能不會提前反映（front run）這件事，但在技術面，我們對接下來——就稱之為兩年——非常興奮。

And the last thing I'd say that's very exciting is the RWA growth. So we're seeing X stocks and some of the other equity issuance platforms really start to have legs. And you're seeing people trading metals on chain. You're seeing people trade commodities on chain. There's just a bunch of exciting things that are happening there that I think we're just in the very, very early innings.

最後我想說的另一個非常令人興奮的點，是 RWA 的成長。我們看到 X stocks 以及其他一些股權發行平台真的開始站穩腳步。你也看到有人在鏈上交易金屬。你看到有人在鏈上交易大宗商品。那邊正在發生一堆令人振奮的事情，而我認為我們才剛剛進入非常、非常早期的階段。

And I think, people like Larry Fink at BlackRock say this, that ultimately all assets are going to be tokenized. And so when we're sitting here saying, well, there's a couple hundred billion of tokenized RWAs if you include stablecoins and there's maybe like less than a billion of non-stablecoin RWAs out there, like true RWAs and like tokenized stocks. This is just a tiny, tiny, tiny rounding error to zero relative to global assets.

而且我認為，像貝萊德（BlackRock）的 Larry Fink 這樣的人也說過，最終所有資產都會被代幣化。所以當我們坐在這裡說，如果把穩定幣也算進去，代幣化 RWA 大概有幾千億美元，而非穩定幣的 RWA 可能不到十億美元——像是真正的 RWA、以及代幣化股票——相對於全球資產而言，這只是非常非常非常小、幾乎可忽略不計、趨近於零的四捨五入誤差。

And so I think you're going to see massive growth in assets being issued on chain. And Solana is candidly the best place for it and is already winning that race. And so I think you're going to continue to see that happen.

因此我認為，你會看到在鏈上發行的資產出現巨大的成長。坦白說，Solana 是最適合的地方，而且已經在那場競賽中領先。所以我認為你會持續看到這件事發生。

Yeah, I'll add, as we highlighted in the letter, 94% of all tokenized equity spot volume has settled on Solana, which is a pretty staggering figure.

是的，我補充一下，正如我們在信中強調的，所有代幣化股權現貨成交量中有 94% 都在 Solana 上完成結算，這是一個相當驚人的數字。

Parker, I'll note you missed a good chance to say if stablecoins are the ChatGPT of crypto, then Solana is NVIDIA. And I saw a funny article the other day and it actually showed Claude had a price target for Solana of $350 by the end of this year. I don't know if that's too bearish, but won't comment any further than that.

Parker，我得說你錯過了一個很好的機會：如果穩定幣是加密世界的 ChatGPT，那 Solana 就是 NVIDIA。而且我前幾天看到一篇有趣的文章，裡面其實顯示 Claude 給 Solana 的目標價是今年年底 350 美元。我不知道那是不是太偏空了，但我就不再多評論了。

Is this the secret mythos model giving us some price targets early?

這是那個祕密的 mythos 模型在提前給我們一些目標價嗎？

All right, guys, we are at our last question. This one is for Joseph. Could you please address the increased focus on privacy networks like Canton, Zcash? How do you -- do you feel Solana loses any mandates given its transparency?

好，各位，我們來到最後一個問題。這題是問 Joseph 的。你能否談談市場對 Canton、Zcash 這類隱私網路日益增加的關注？你怎麼看——鑑於 Solana 的透明性，你覺得 Solana 會因此失去任何委託（mandates）嗎？

Yeah, thanks. I'm pretty bullish on privacy personally. So yes, I think non-privacy focused blockchains are disadvantaged. But I think that's probably in the extreme long-term. And on a long enough timeframe or even maybe a medium timeframe for Solana, I expect there to be privacy layers or tools built on top of the chain.

好的，謝謝。我個人其實相當看多隱私。所以是的，我認為不以隱私為重點的區塊鏈是處於劣勢的。但我覺得那可能是在極端長期的情境下。而在對 Solana 來說足夠長的時間尺度、甚至可能是中期的時間尺度上，我預期會有隱私層或工具建構在這條鏈之上。

And Solana's got a great community of developers, problem solvers, and if the market demands privacy on Solana, then Solana is going to find a way to deliver it at scale. So while I'm bullish on privacy, I'm not worried about this for or from Solana's perspective in the short-term, certainly.

而 Solana 擁有很棒的開發者社群與問題解決者；如果市場在 Solana 上需要隱私，那 Solana 會找到方法以可擴展的方式把它交付出來。所以雖然我看多隱私，但至少在短期內，從 Solana 的角度來看，我並不擔心這件事。

All right. And that brings us to the end of our Q&A. Thank you, Joseph, John, and Parker for your thoughtful responses as always. We thank all the listeners for tuning in to our earnings call. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us if you have any additional questions.

好。這也帶我們來到本次問答的尾聲。一如既往，感謝 Joseph、John 和 Parker 的深思熟慮回覆。也感謝所有聽眾收聽我們的財報電話會議。如果你有任何其他問題，請隨時與我們聯繫。

With that, in service of SOL-per-share growth, we will see you all next quarter.

最後，為了推動每股 SOL（SOL-per-share）的成長，我們下個季度再見。