This is article is Part II in our research series, "A Comprehensive Overview of the Bitcoin Ecosystem." For Part I, read here.
With the growth of new asset classes in the Bitcoin ecosystem like inscriptions, BRC20, and more, scaling solutions for Bitcoin are receiving significant attention to expand use cases and performance.
While the concept of scaling Bitcoin is not new (multiple projects have attempted solutions in the past), what's different this time around is that Taproot's upgrade enables novel approaches to Bitcoin scaling. Some of the more innovative approaches include Segregated Witness (adding extra segregated witness data up to 4MB to each Bitcoin block), Tapscript (enabling withdrawing and slashing of Layer 2) and Schnorr signature (enabling multi-sig for Layer 2 bridge) in Layer 2 (L2) design that can further leverage Bitcoin's security. Unlike previous sidechain designs, these new techniques utilize "Ethereum-like" rollups that build on Bitcoin's Layer 1 while inheriting its superior security guarantees.
But before we dive into Bitcoin L2 solutions, it is worthwhile to review a few key concepts and differences between L2s, rollups, and sovereign rollups.
Layer 2 Definition
L2 solutions are a broad category of technologies that improve blockchain networks' performance and scalability. It includes rollups as well as Validiums (similar to sovereign rollups with offchain DAs), Optimiums, Volitions, and more. However, technically speaking, Validiums are not considered L2s, since they do not fully inherit the security of the base layer and introduce additional trust assumptions on top of L2s due to having offchain DA.
Rollups as a Type of L2
Rollups are focused on scaling L1s through “rolling up” batched transactions to the base layer. This distributes Layer 1 (L1) transaction fees across all users in the rollup batch, reducing costs for each user. Types of rollups include both Optimistic Rollups and ZK Rollups (e.g. Optimism and Polygon zkEVM).
While transaction execution occurs on the rollup chain separately from the L1, the transaction data is submitted to the L1. By publishing data to the L1, rollups inherit Ethereum's underlying security; reversing a fully finalized rollup transaction would require reversing Ethereum itself.
Secured Rollup vs. Sovereign Rollup
The concept of modular blockchains was introduced by Celestia, which further categorizes rollups into Secured Rollups, Sovereign Rollups, and Settlement Rollups with different properties at the settlement and execution layers, as shown below.
The settlement component is the storage and updates of the global state of a rollup. Optimistic and ZK-rollups on Ethereum belong to "Secured Rollups" since the transactions on rollups are verified by a smart contract on an L1, then its settlement component / layer is at the L1 as the smart contract. Examples of Secured rollups are optimistic rollups (by Optimism and Arbitrum) and zero-knowledge rollups (Polygon zkEVM, Scroll, zkSync).
However, if a rollup uses the L1 solely for data availability and consensus, but not settlement (instead using its own client to compute the global state), then it is considered a Sovereign rollup.
This distinction is important for understanding Bitcoin rollups. Because Bitcoin's L1 cannot host Ethereum-like smart contracts, Bitcoin rollups fall into the Sovereign Rollup category, using the L1 for data availability but handling settlement separately via their own rollup chains.
Bitcoin L2s
a) ZK Sovereign Rollups on Bitcoin
Implementing a ZK Rollup on Bitcoin is one of the holy grails of Bitcoin. Bitcoin-based ZK Rollups do not only allow for scalability and privacy, but are also the most secure form of security aligned to Bitcoin.
The most important feature of a ZK Rollup on Bitcoin is the verification of ZKP within the Bitcoin network. As a matter of fact, Bitcoin's exploration of enshrined ZK Rollups actually predates Ethereum, but one of the main blockers is Bitcoin itself, which does not yet have ZKP verification capabilities (due to the lack of a Turing complete computing environment and potentially the block size limit).
Since ZK-secured rollups are currently not feasible on Bitcoin, a number of sovereign rollups leveraging ZK proof systems on Bitcoin have emerged. These rollups use Bitcoin as the base layer to protect data availability and consensus, while using ZK proofs to guarantee valid execution. However, unlike Ethereum-secured rollups which handle settlement via smart contracts, they do not commit settlements directly to Bitcoin.
To enable quick deployment of Bitcoin-based sovereign rollups, we are seeing the rise of Rollup-as-a-Service frameworks. Two well-known offerings in this area are Rollkit by Celestia and the Sovereign SDK by Sovereign Labs, the latter incorporating a Bitcoin data availability adapter maintained by Chainway. For example, LambdaClass uses Rollkit to construct a proof-of-concept sovereign rollup with Cairo VM as the execution layer and Bitcoin providing data availability. However, these types of rollups are not purely Bitcoin-based - they borrow features related to consensus and security from Bitcoin while relying on third-party systems for valid transaction execution.
In addition to the modular Rollup-as-a-Service offerings, some projects are building custom ZK sovereign rollups with their own proprietary technology stacks. These include Sigma0 (created zkBitcoin using MPC wallets for its validator node committee), Merlin Chain (leveraging polygon zkEVM CDK), B^2 Network, Bison Labs, Bnzk, Kasar Labs, Taproot Wizards, etc. These are considered sovereign rollups rather than secured rollups, because their zero-knowledge proofs are validated by their own client software externally from the Bitcoin base layer network.
b) Optimistic Rollups on Bitcoin
Since ZK Sovereign Rollups are not yet Secured Rollups, we need a solution that inherits the security of Bitcoin's L1 in order to achieve a higher level of security.
BitVM by ZeroSync made an attempt to make Bitcoin more Turing-complete. It functions as a computing paradigm to express Turing-complete Bitcoin programs with logical gates. The paper proposed an optimistic rollup approach that inherits more security from the BTC base layer than sovereign rollups. The core idea is to take computation offchain through onchain fraud proofs and a challenge-dispute mechanism, similar to Optimistic Rollups on Ethereum. However, in strict definition, BitVM is different from a traditional Ethereum optimistic rollup as users can’t force exit funds and the multisig bridge issue also exists on BitVM-based rollups.
Following the release of the BitVM paper in December 2023, numerous discussions and projects have leveraged BitVM's approach to build rollups and bridges. One such example is Citrea, incubated by Chainway, which utilizes BitVM to optimistically verify ZK proofs onBitcoin. Citrea's workflow ensures the correctness of the computation through the ZK Verifier running in the BitVM, and the overall mechanism relies on BitVM's challenge optimistic logic.
It is worth pointing out that BitVM has the advantage of not needing any opcode updates to the Bitcoin network. This may enable the faster realization of a secured optimistic rollup compared to a secured ZK rollup, since the latter relies on customized Bitcoin protocol changes that can be time intensive to implement. By leveraging Bitcoin’s existing scripting language, tools like BitVM can focus on building rollup functionality on top of the current base layer, rather than modifying the base layer itself. This demonstrates the potential of L2 solutions to increase Bitcoin's scalability and flexibility without fundamentally altering Bitcoin’s underlying protocol.
c) Inscriptions
In Part 1, we explored BRC20 and several other protocols (Such as Runes, Atomicals) in the inscription landscape. These protocols could be referred to as “Based Sovereign L2s”. Different than classic rollups, Based Sovereign L2s do not have the scaling properties of a rollup (because its TPS maximum is limited to the Base Layer’s TPS).
As shown in the graph below, inscription tokens are sequenced directly by the L1. The sovereign piece means the inscription layer uses Bitcoin as both the data and consensus layer while all of the computation and execution happen in its own layer. However, inscriptions do not possess the scaling properties of other L2 types because one transaction can only contain one inscription (TPS of Inscription = TPS of Bitcoin).
Sidechain Alike
Aside from rollups and inscriptions, sidechain solutions have been implemented for years. Unlike rollups, which use the base layer for validity, data availability, and ordering, sidechains define their own rules and their consensus is external to the L1 blockchain. As a result, their security cannot be guaranteed in the same way as rollups. Here are a few interesting projects in this category:
Stacks, the most notable Bitcoin scaling solution, uses BTC as the token for consensus. However, its consensus mechanism (transferring BTC to other network participants, similar to Proof of Burn) does not inherit the security of Bitcoin.
BEVM has its own substrate-based and separate network architecture. It is less like a traditional Bitcoin Layer 2 and more like an EVM network that uses BTC as a gas token.
Build on Bitcoin (B.O.B) has a core consensus based on merged mining (one node mining multiple networks simultaneously, e.g., Bitcoin and BOB chain). It utilizes OPStack and RISC Zero zkVM for building the client and execution environment.
Sidechains were once the dominant Bitcoin scaling solutions, but as security has become increasingly important and with the advent of technologies like ZK and BitVM, there has been a greater intent to build and use Bitcoin rollups rather than sidechains.
The Road Ahead
Looking ahead, it would be fair to draw an analogy between the development of Ethereum's scaling solutions and Bitcoin's, where security inheritance has been a leading factor. The ranking of Ethereum's scaling solutions, based on their security, would be as follows (1 being the highest secured solution):
- Secured ZK Rollup
- Secured Optimistic Rollup
- Sovereign Rollup
- Sidechain
Bitcoin’s scaling started with sidechains and is now dominated by sovereign rollups. However, the holy grail of Bitcoin Rollups is not yet available due to the difficulty of modifying Bitcoin itself. Even adding a simple OP_CAT opcode requires significant lobbying and effort.
In the short term, the most viable solution for Bitcoin's L2 ecosystem is the emergence of fully operational and smooth-running Sovereign Rollups. These Sovereign Rollups, although not as secure as true ZK Rollups, can provide immediate improvements in scalability and functionality compared to the current Bitcoin network.
For the mid-term, Optimistic Rollups based on BitVM are being explored as a potential solution. Despite being both in the early stages of development and challenging to implement (BitVM is in a state similar to the early ZK space, lacking the necessary underlying libraries and "proof systems" to support the application layer), BitVM Optimistic Rollups present a seemingly feasible option that can be experimented with in the Bitcoin environment without requiring updates to Bitcoin's opcodes. The BitVM ecosystem has also already established a solid foundation, with various underlying tools and applications to support developers.
As for the long term, secured ZK Rollups, while not currently practical on Bitcoin, represent an endgame solution. The implementation of ZK Rollups has been well explored and unlocking their full potential on the Bitcoin network only requires time and updates to the core Bitcoin protocol.
As the Bitcoin community continues to prioritize security and decentralization, finding a balance between short-term scalability solutions and long-term goals is essential. Sovereign Rollups and BitVM Optimistic Rollups may not represent the ideal end-state for Bitcoin's L2 ecosystem, but they serve as crucial stepping stones, enabling experimentation, growth, and the development of more robust solutions over time. ✦
Legal Disclosure: This document, and the information contained herein, has been provided to you by Hyperedge Technology LP and its affiliates (“Symbolic Capital”) solely for informational purposes. This document may not be reproduced or redistributed in whole or in part, in any format, without the express written approval of Symbolic Capital. Neither the information, nor any opinion contained in this document, constitutes an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, any advisory services, securities, futures, options or other financial instruments or to participate in any advisory services or trading strategy. Nothing contained in this document constitutes investment, legal or tax advice or is an endorsement of any of the digital assets or companies mentioned herein. You should make your own investigations and evaluations of the information herein. Any decisions based on information contained in this document are the sole responsibility of the reader. Certain statements in this document reflect Symbolic Capital’s views, estimates, opinions or predictions (which may be based on proprietary models and assumptions, including, in particular, Symbolic Capital’s views on the current and future market for certain digital assets), and there is no guarantee that these views, estimates, opinions or predictions are currently accurate or that they will be ultimately realized. To the extent these assumptions or models are not correct or circumstances change, the actual performance may vary substantially from, and be less than, the estimates included herein. None of Symbolic Capital nor any of its affiliates, shareholders, partners, members, directors, officers, management, employees or representatives makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of any of the information or any other information (whether communicated in written or oral form) transmitted or made available to you. Each of the aforementioned parties expressly disclaims any and all liability relating to or resulting from the use of this information. Certain information contained herein (including financial information) has been obtained from published and non-published sources. Such information has not been independently verified by Symbolic Capital and, Symbolic Capital, does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such information. Affiliates of Symbolic Capital may have owned or may own investments in some of the digital assets and protocols discussed in this document. Except where otherwise indicated, the information in this document is based on matters as they exist as of the date of preparation and not as of any future date, and will not be updated or otherwise revised to reflect information that subsequently becomes available, or circumstances existing or changes occurring after the date hereof. This document provides links to other websites that we think might be of interest to you. Please note that when you click on one of these links, you may be moving to a provider’s website that is not associated with Symbolic Capital. These linked sites and their providers are not controlled by us, and we are not responsible for the contents or the proper operation of any linked site. The inclusion of any link does not imply our endorsement or our adoption of the statements therein. We encourage you to read the terms of use and privacy statements of these linked sites as their policies may differ from ours. The foregoing does not constitute a “research report” as defined by FINRA Rule 2241 or a “debt research report” as defined by FINRA Rule 2242 and was not prepared by Symbolic Capital Partners LLC. For all inquiries, please email info@symbolic.capital. © Copyright Hyperedge Capital LP 2024. All rights reserved.
This is article is Part II in our research series, "A Comprehensive Overview of the Bitcoin Ecosystem." For Part I, read here.
With the growth of new asset classes in the Bitcoin ecosystem like inscriptions, BRC20, and more, scaling solutions for Bitcoin are receiving significant attention to expand use cases and performance.
While the concept of scaling Bitcoin is not new (multiple projects have attempted solutions in the past), what's different this time around is that Taproot's upgrade enables novel approaches to Bitcoin scaling. Some of the more innovative approaches include Segregated Witness (adding extra segregated witness data up to 4MB to each Bitcoin block), Tapscript (enabling withdrawing and slashing of Layer 2) and Schnorr signature (enabling multi-sig for Layer 2 bridge) in Layer 2 (L2) design that can further leverage Bitcoin's security. Unlike previous sidechain designs, these new techniques utilize "Ethereum-like" rollups that build on Bitcoin's Layer 1 while inheriting its superior security guarantees.
But before we dive into Bitcoin L2 solutions, it is worthwhile to review a few key concepts and differences between L2s, rollups, and sovereign rollups.
Layer 2 Definition
L2 solutions are a broad category of technologies that improve blockchain networks' performance and scalability. It includes rollups as well as Validiums (similar to sovereign rollups with offchain DAs), Optimiums, Volitions, and more. However, technically speaking, Validiums are not considered L2s, since they do not fully inherit the security of the base layer and introduce additional trust assumptions on top of L2s due to having offchain DA.
Rollups as a Type of L2
Rollups are focused on scaling L1s through “rolling up” batched transactions to the base layer. This distributes Layer 1 (L1) transaction fees across all users in the rollup batch, reducing costs for each user. Types of rollups include both Optimistic Rollups and ZK Rollups (e.g. Optimism and Polygon zkEVM).
While transaction execution occurs on the rollup chain separately from the L1, the transaction data is submitted to the L1. By publishing data to the L1, rollups inherit Ethereum's underlying security; reversing a fully finalized rollup transaction would require reversing Ethereum itself.
Secured Rollup vs. Sovereign Rollup
The concept of modular blockchains was introduced by Celestia, which further categorizes rollups into Secured Rollups, Sovereign Rollups, and Settlement Rollups with different properties at the settlement and execution layers, as shown below.
The settlement component is the storage and updates of the global state of a rollup. Optimistic and ZK-rollups on Ethereum belong to "Secured Rollups" since the transactions on rollups are verified by a smart contract on an L1, then its settlement component / layer is at the L1 as the smart contract. Examples of Secured rollups are optimistic rollups (by Optimism and Arbitrum) and zero-knowledge rollups (Polygon zkEVM, Scroll, zkSync).
However, if a rollup uses the L1 solely for data availability and consensus, but not settlement (instead using its own client to compute the global state), then it is considered a Sovereign rollup.
This distinction is important for understanding Bitcoin rollups. Because Bitcoin's L1 cannot host Ethereum-like smart contracts, Bitcoin rollups fall into the Sovereign Rollup category, using the L1 for data availability but handling settlement separately via their own rollup chains.
Bitcoin L2s
a) ZK Sovereign Rollups on Bitcoin
Implementing a ZK Rollup on Bitcoin is one of the holy grails of Bitcoin. Bitcoin-based ZK Rollups do not only allow for scalability and privacy, but are also the most secure form of security aligned to Bitcoin.
The most important feature of a ZK Rollup on Bitcoin is the verification of ZKP within the Bitcoin network. As a matter of fact, Bitcoin's exploration of enshrined ZK Rollups actually predates Ethereum, but one of the main blockers is Bitcoin itself, which does not yet have ZKP verification capabilities (due to the lack of a Turing complete computing environment and potentially the block size limit).
Since ZK-secured rollups are currently not feasible on Bitcoin, a number of sovereign rollups leveraging ZK proof systems on Bitcoin have emerged. These rollups use Bitcoin as the base layer to protect data availability and consensus, while using ZK proofs to guarantee valid execution. However, unlike Ethereum-secured rollups which handle settlement via smart contracts, they do not commit settlements directly to Bitcoin.
To enable quick deployment of Bitcoin-based sovereign rollups, we are seeing the rise of Rollup-as-a-Service frameworks. Two well-known offerings in this area are Rollkit by Celestia and the Sovereign SDK by Sovereign Labs, the latter incorporating a Bitcoin data availability adapter maintained by Chainway. For example, LambdaClass uses Rollkit to construct a proof-of-concept sovereign rollup with Cairo VM as the execution layer and Bitcoin providing data availability. However, these types of rollups are not purely Bitcoin-based - they borrow features related to consensus and security from Bitcoin while relying on third-party systems for valid transaction execution.
In addition to the modular Rollup-as-a-Service offerings, some projects are building custom ZK sovereign rollups with their own proprietary technology stacks. These include Sigma0 (created zkBitcoin using MPC wallets for its validator node committee), Merlin Chain (leveraging polygon zkEVM CDK), B^2 Network, Bison Labs, Bnzk, Kasar Labs, Taproot Wizards, etc. These are considered sovereign rollups rather than secured rollups, because their zero-knowledge proofs are validated by their own client software externally from the Bitcoin base layer network.
b) Optimistic Rollups on Bitcoin
Since ZK Sovereign Rollups are not yet Secured Rollups, we need a solution that inherits the security of Bitcoin's L1 in order to achieve a higher level of security.
BitVM by ZeroSync made an attempt to make Bitcoin more Turing-complete. It functions as a computing paradigm to express Turing-complete Bitcoin programs with logical gates. The paper proposed an optimistic rollup approach that inherits more security from the BTC base layer than sovereign rollups. The core idea is to take computation offchain through onchain fraud proofs and a challenge-dispute mechanism, similar to Optimistic Rollups on Ethereum. However, in strict definition, BitVM is different from a traditional Ethereum optimistic rollup as users can’t force exit funds and the multisig bridge issue also exists on BitVM-based rollups.
Following the release of the BitVM paper in December 2023, numerous discussions and projects have leveraged BitVM's approach to build rollups and bridges. One such example is Citrea, incubated by Chainway, which utilizes BitVM to optimistically verify ZK proofs onBitcoin. Citrea's workflow ensures the correctness of the computation through the ZK Verifier running in the BitVM, and the overall mechanism relies on BitVM's challenge optimistic logic.
It is worth pointing out that BitVM has the advantage of not needing any opcode updates to the Bitcoin network. This may enable the faster realization of a secured optimistic rollup compared to a secured ZK rollup, since the latter relies on customized Bitcoin protocol changes that can be time intensive to implement. By leveraging Bitcoin’s existing scripting language, tools like BitVM can focus on building rollup functionality on top of the current base layer, rather than modifying the base layer itself. This demonstrates the potential of L2 solutions to increase Bitcoin's scalability and flexibility without fundamentally altering Bitcoin’s underlying protocol.
c) Inscriptions
In Part 1, we explored BRC20 and several other protocols (Such as Runes, Atomicals) in the inscription landscape. These protocols could be referred to as “Based Sovereign L2s”. Different than classic rollups, Based Sovereign L2s do not have the scaling properties of a rollup (because its TPS maximum is limited to the Base Layer’s TPS).
As shown in the graph below, inscription tokens are sequenced directly by the L1. The sovereign piece means the inscription layer uses Bitcoin as both the data and consensus layer while all of the computation and execution happen in its own layer. However, inscriptions do not possess the scaling properties of other L2 types because one transaction can only contain one inscription (TPS of Inscription = TPS of Bitcoin).
Sidechain Alike
Aside from rollups and inscriptions, sidechain solutions have been implemented for years. Unlike rollups, which use the base layer for validity, data availability, and ordering, sidechains define their own rules and their consensus is external to the L1 blockchain. As a result, their security cannot be guaranteed in the same way as rollups. Here are a few interesting projects in this category:
Stacks, the most notable Bitcoin scaling solution, uses BTC as the token for consensus. However, its consensus mechanism (transferring BTC to other network participants, similar to Proof of Burn) does not inherit the security of Bitcoin.
BEVM has its own substrate-based and separate network architecture. It is less like a traditional Bitcoin Layer 2 and more like an EVM network that uses BTC as a gas token.
Build on Bitcoin (B.O.B) has a core consensus based on merged mining (one node mining multiple networks simultaneously, e.g., Bitcoin and BOB chain). It utilizes OPStack and RISC Zero zkVM for building the client and execution environment.
Sidechains were once the dominant Bitcoin scaling solutions, but as security has become increasingly important and with the advent of technologies like ZK and BitVM, there has been a greater intent to build and use Bitcoin rollups rather than sidechains.
The Road Ahead
Looking ahead, it would be fair to draw an analogy between the development of Ethereum's scaling solutions and Bitcoin's, where security inheritance has been a leading factor. The ranking of Ethereum's scaling solutions, based on their security, would be as follows (1 being the highest secured solution):
- Secured ZK Rollup
- Secured Optimistic Rollup
- Sovereign Rollup
- Sidechain
Bitcoin’s scaling started with sidechains and is now dominated by sovereign rollups. However, the holy grail of Bitcoin Rollups is not yet available due to the difficulty of modifying Bitcoin itself. Even adding a simple OP_CAT opcode requires significant lobbying and effort.
In the short term, the most viable solution for Bitcoin's L2 ecosystem is the emergence of fully operational and smooth-running Sovereign Rollups. These Sovereign Rollups, although not as secure as true ZK Rollups, can provide immediate improvements in scalability and functionality compared to the current Bitcoin network.
For the mid-term, Optimistic Rollups based on BitVM are being explored as a potential solution. Despite being both in the early stages of development and challenging to implement (BitVM is in a state similar to the early ZK space, lacking the necessary underlying libraries and "proof systems" to support the application layer), BitVM Optimistic Rollups present a seemingly feasible option that can be experimented with in the Bitcoin environment without requiring updates to Bitcoin's opcodes. The BitVM ecosystem has also already established a solid foundation, with various underlying tools and applications to support developers.
As for the long term, secured ZK Rollups, while not currently practical on Bitcoin, represent an endgame solution. The implementation of ZK Rollups has been well explored and unlocking their full potential on the Bitcoin network only requires time and updates to the core Bitcoin protocol.
As the Bitcoin community continues to prioritize security and decentralization, finding a balance between short-term scalability solutions and long-term goals is essential. Sovereign Rollups and BitVM Optimistic Rollups may not represent the ideal end-state for Bitcoin's L2 ecosystem, but they serve as crucial stepping stones, enabling experimentation, growth, and the development of more robust solutions over time. ✦
Legal Disclosure: This document, and the information contained herein, has been provided to you by Hyperedge Technology LP and its affiliates (“Symbolic Capital”) solely for informational purposes. This document may not be reproduced or redistributed in whole or in part, in any format, without the express written approval of Symbolic Capital. Neither the information, nor any opinion contained in this document, constitutes an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, any advisory services, securities, futures, options or other financial instruments or to participate in any advisory services or trading strategy. Nothing contained in this document constitutes investment, legal or tax advice or is an endorsement of any of the digital assets or companies mentioned herein. You should make your own investigations and evaluations of the information herein. Any decisions based on information contained in this document are the sole responsibility of the reader. Certain statements in this document reflect Symbolic Capital’s views, estimates, opinions or predictions (which may be based on proprietary models and assumptions, including, in particular, Symbolic Capital’s views on the current and future market for certain digital assets), and there is no guarantee that these views, estimates, opinions or predictions are currently accurate or that they will be ultimately realized. To the extent these assumptions or models are not correct or circumstances change, the actual performance may vary substantially from, and be less than, the estimates included herein. None of Symbolic Capital nor any of its affiliates, shareholders, partners, members, directors, officers, management, employees or representatives makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of any of the information or any other information (whether communicated in written or oral form) transmitted or made available to you. Each of the aforementioned parties expressly disclaims any and all liability relating to or resulting from the use of this information. Certain information contained herein (including financial information) has been obtained from published and non-published sources. Such information has not been independently verified by Symbolic Capital and, Symbolic Capital, does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such information. Affiliates of Symbolic Capital may have owned or may own investments in some of the digital assets and protocols discussed in this document. Except where otherwise indicated, the information in this document is based on matters as they exist as of the date of preparation and not as of any future date, and will not be updated or otherwise revised to reflect information that subsequently becomes available, or circumstances existing or changes occurring after the date hereof. This document provides links to other websites that we think might be of interest to you. Please note that when you click on one of these links, you may be moving to a provider’s website that is not associated with Symbolic Capital. These linked sites and their providers are not controlled by us, and we are not responsible for the contents or the proper operation of any linked site. The inclusion of any link does not imply our endorsement or our adoption of the statements therein. We encourage you to read the terms of use and privacy statements of these linked sites as their policies may differ from ours. The foregoing does not constitute a “research report” as defined by FINRA Rule 2241 or a “debt research report” as defined by FINRA Rule 2242 and was not prepared by Symbolic Capital Partners LLC. For all inquiries, please email info@symbolic.capital. © Copyright Hyperedge Capital LP 2024. All rights reserved.