There are so many things popping up on my timeline that I rarely get enough time to dig into all of them properly. And now, the bull is roaring back and there’s going to be lots of shiny objects to chase. I know from experience, it can be hard to sit in good names and not chase too many things for “the man who chases two rabbits, catches neither” sort of thing.

So this week, I’m taking a first pass at three names that keep showing up in my feed.

The goal is simple: figure out whether there’s actually a there there. If one or two stand out, I may come back with a deeper dive.

This is really just my first pass on these names. Think of it as some high level diligence to see whether there’s enough there for me to scoop a small bag and keep digging.

It’s an approach I first heard Stanley Druckenmiller describe as “invest and then investigate.” When an idea makes sense, he’ll take a meaningful, but not too crazy, position before completing all the research. Then he does his research. If the thesis falls apart, he sells. If it gets stronger, he adds.

That idea has always stuck with me. Sometimes owning a small position is exactly what gets you to pay closer attention. Also, psychologically, if it rips at least you bought some and feel like you caught the move. If it rips and you were looking at it and didn’t pull the trigger I feel like it’s so much harder mentally to still buy in. You can feel like you missed it.

So with that said, here’s what I’m looking at this week:

Just before we dive in, I think there’s a broader trend forming around this newer cohort of proof of work (POW) L1s. They all seem to be competing for the same ultimate designation: money.

I noticed this while doing my recent deep dive on Bittensor. Strip everything else away and the TAO thesis eventually boils down to “AI money.” That is until of course revenues start to become material. However, when that happens you start to cap the upside in my opinion and then a price ceiling starts to come into view.

But of course every new token wants to be treated like money.

Why?

Because money offers the largest possible upside. Once an asset is valued as money rather than a business, its potential price becomes much harder to anchor to revenue, cash flow or any sensible valuation metric. That’s clearly where these teams and their holders want the conversation to live.

That doesn’t necessarily make the thesis wrong. It’s just worth remembering that these teams are painting the most charitable possible picture of themselves. As they should, I guess.

Lastly, I don’t think I’m particularly early to any of these. They’re just names I’ve seen around and kept putting off looking into properly.

Alright, let’s get into it.

Two reasons. The first time I heard of NOCK was over a year ago. I believe Cobie was referencing it in some way back in 2025, but I can’t seem to find the exact tweet. Also don’t quote me on that, but that’s what I recall and it was my first touch point.

It’s popped up here and there again, but the latest touch point was from my smart friend Rob:

When I see people like Rob talking about it I want to pay more attention.

Nockchain is a POW L1 built around verifiable computation.

The basic idea is that miners aren’t just burning energy on arbitrary hashes. They’re generating zero knowledge proofs that can eventually be used to verify useful computation performed elsewhere.

Nockchain is built around Nock, which from my understanding is an extremely minimalist programming language, and NockVM, the virtual machine used to execute it.

Essentially, Nockchain lets applications do the heavy lifting offchain and then submit proof that the work was done correctly. Instead of every node running the computation again, they only need to verify the proof.

Nockchain is trying to combine some of Bitcoin’s monetary properties with a form of proof of work that does something useful.

From my understanding, Nockchain already supports two types of mining: one based on generating ZK proofs and another tied to AI workloads. The longer term goal is to let customers bring their own compute jobs to the network.

I think that’s interesting. But the real test is whether meaningful demand shows up for the compute. If I were seriously looking into this I’d want to look at who’s using it and what growth looks like.

NOCK is the native asset of the network. It pays miners, secures Nockchain and acts as money inside the ecosystem.

You aren’t buying a claim on revenue or equity in a traditional business. This is closer to buying a monetary asset tied to the adoption and security of a new POW network.

NOCK Token:

MCAP: $88M

FDV: $163M

The easiest route is to buy wrapped NOCK on Base.

Make sure you understand that you’re buying wrapped NOCK on Base, not native NOCK on Nockchain. Bridge withdrawals back to Nockchain are still on the roadmap, so it isn’t yet a fully functioning two way bridge.

This is probably the most technically interesting name on the list.

The valuation isn’t tiny, but it also isn’t pricing Nockchain as an established L1. If the AI compute network starts processing meaningful workloads, I could see the thesis becoming much clearer.

For now, it still feels like you’re betting on the architecture and the team successfully creating demand around it. But with all of these names, narrative and memetics could really make them run.

I watched a recent Threadguy and Tulipking podcast and despite all the flack Tulipking has been getting, I personally think he has some very coherent thesis building chops. I also thought they were funny even though an old “plumber” unc like me doesn’t get all the jokes from these broccoli heads.

That said, I don’t agree with a lot of what they say, but I also don’t let it enrage me like it seems to do to others. Everyone’s entitled to a point of view, even if you think it’s retarded.

I had seen Pearl mentioned on the CT timeline, but had no idea what it was.

Tulip talks PRL at 38:28 mark:

Pearl is another POW L1 trying to connect blockchain mining with useful AI computation.

If this sounds a bit like Nockchain, it should. My understanding is that Pearl is more focused on AI computation, while Nockchain is making a broader verifiable compute pitch.

Pearl’s POW system is built around matrix multiplication, one of the core operations performed by GPUs during AI inference. Its “2 for 1” thesis is that the same GPU workload can produce AI output and secure the Pearl network at the same time.

Rather than asking miners to perform separate work, Pearl wants PRL mining to become a byproduct of computation that was already economically useful.

I actually think this is a pretty inventive way to compound the productivity of the typical “mining” function in these POW coins.

Pearl may have the clearest AI framing of the projects here.

The team has already demonstrated Pearl powered inference through Together AI. In that setup, PRL mined during the inference process helps subsidize the cost of serving the model.

That’s cool and all, and it seems like there is real potential demand here, but I still find valuing this type of thing nearly impossible.

PRL is the native asset of the Pearl network. It’s issued to miners and used as the monetary asset securing the chain.

Like NOCK, this isn’t a direct claim on Pearl Research’s inference revenue. You’re betting that Pearl becomes an economically important network and that PRL captures value as its native currency.

PRL Token:

MCAP: ~$375M

FDV: ~$3B

Note: PRL actually went up by 50% since I started writing this article lol

This is a pretty rich FDV, but I personally think the people buying this aren’t looking at that at all.

This seems accurate IMO:

And this type of narrative is infectious:

Getting PRL isn’t super straightforward unless you want to use SafeTrade, which personally I don’t know much about and am not sure I trust.

I have this theory that anything named like this is actually the opposite. So when I read “SafeTrade,” I see “NotSafeTrade” lol.

I think that’s just a byproduct of needing to be skeptical in crypto for all these years.

So how else do you get it?

Well, I don’t know that I trust this route either. But instead of explaining it myself, there’s a great article that walks you through it:

You can also get PRL through Pearl Compute. You pay to use its cloud GPUs and earn any PRL mined while they run.

Pearl might have the easiest product thesis to understand here. AI inference costs money, GPUs perform the work and, in theory, that same work can also generate PRL.

But the token is already carrying a much larger valuation than some of the other names on this list, and actually acquiring it isn’t particularly straightforward (which can be part of the appeal).

Before buying a meaningful position, I’d want to better understand the emission schedule, the economics for miners and whether inference customers actually need to hold or use PRL.

I personally still think there’s alpha on X if you look in the right places. One of those places has been zeroxkyle for me.

Of course he’s probably shilling his bags, but I don’t care, this guy has led me to a few nice ideas/trades over time and I always take note of what he’s talking about. In this case it was VVV and ORBIO. ORBIO is the one I’m more interested in here:

From my understanding, Orbio is building a marketplace for discounted AI credits.

Users can purchase credits and spend them across hundreds of AI models through an OpenAI compatible API. On the other side, ORBIO holders participate in an economic system that directs trading fees toward generating AI credits.

The simplest way I’d describe it is an AI API business wrapped inside an onchain token marketplace if that makes sense 😅

And to allude to Kyle’s barbell mention above, the whole thing does remind me a bit of Venice AI

There does appear to be a real product behind the token. People need AI inference, Orbio sells access to it and ORBIO is worked into how that marketplace is financed.

Every ORBIO trade charges a fee, with those proceeds settling onchain and helping fund AI credits. At least in theory, that creates a strong connection between token activity and the product.

But the setup also appears highly reflexive. Trading activity helps generate AI credits, while some of that activity may only exist because people expect the token and its rewards to appreciate. If I have all this right (and I may not).

So the big question for me is how much demand eventually comes from real API customers versus token traders.

ORBIO gives you exposure to the growth of Orbio’s AI credit economy.

ORBIO Token:

MCAP: $51.8M

FDV: $51.8M

Lots of volatility here, this one has been bouncing around a lot. Also not sure why MCAP and FDV are the same? Is the token fully emitted?

The best place to buy ORBIO is on Robinhood Chain.

From what I can tell, most of the trading currently happens in ORBIO/USDG pools on Uniswap V4. Liquidity may still be relatively thin, so I’d check the expected output and price impact before confirming a larger swap. You can also use limit orders to get better fills.

I think Orbio is interesting because the token appears to connect to a product people can already use. I also like that the full supply appears to be circulating, although I’d need to dig deeper to confirm what’s actually going on there.

The overlap with Venice is interesting too. Orbio might be able to draft off some of the growing interest in private AI. It’s also part of the emerging Robinhood Chain meta, which could give it another tailwind if that ecosystem continues attracting attention.

I kind of like all three of these.

Damn.

Pearl has a rich FDV, but probably makes the most sense to me. However, at $3B that’s steep. What are we hoping for? For it to go to $10B or $100B? Is that really on the table?

My problem is this. Whenever I try to step outside the bounds of fundamentals, I feel utterly lost.

Why?

Because then you’re completely untethered from reality. Then you have to ask yourself: are you trading or investing? If you’re investing, what’s the thesis for when to buy or sell things that don’t really trade on fundamentals? If you’re trading, I can see this making more sense. Get in, play the meta and get out with profits.

This was a fun experiment for me, but I’m probably not buying any of these at the moment. I thought there could be potential here to “invest then investigate” but these names are a bit too far outside my comfort zone.

I think I need to stick to protocols generating revenue, that’s more my sweet spot.

Thanks for reading!

DISCLAIMER: Nothing written in The Edge Newsletter or said on The Edge Podcast is a recommendation to buy or sell tokens or securities. This content is for educational and entertainment purposes only. Nothing shared here is financial advice. Any views expressed in our content are solely the opinion of that writer, host, or guest. Always do your own research. DeFi Dad, Nomatic, and guests may have positions in the assets or other matters discussed in this content.