In the past year, an important event has occurred in the crypto market that many people have not yet fully recognized: the pricing logic of the market is changing.

Many people are still accustomed to understanding the market using methods from the previous cycle. They focus on TVL, on-chain active addresses, fee income, and the number of ecosystem projects, and then attempt to find so-called "value gaps" from these traditional indicators. However, the current market is increasingly not operating according to this logic. What is truly pursued by capital is not necessarily the projects with the strongest fundamentals, but rather those assets that can simultaneously fulfill "strong narratives, a reduction in circulating supply, institutional endorsement, and user growth imagination."

TON and BIO are the two most typical cases of the current shift in market style.

They represent two entirely different yet highly consistent market logics:

·TON represents "the entry of Web2 super platforms into Web3"

·BIO represents "the financial transformation of high-value industries in the real world by Crypto"

Superficially, one is a social public chain, and the other is a DeSci project, with no connection between them. But upon deeper analysis, one finds that the underlying logic behind their price increases is actually highly similar.

Neither of them is a "value investment target" in the traditional sense, but rather typical "structural narrative assets."

TON: Why Has the Market Started to Believe in Telegram Again?

The story of TON has actually been told for many years.

The earliest TON was a blockchain project promoted by Telegram, personally led by Pavel Durov. At that time, Telegram hoped to establish a super network covering payments, transfers, social interactions, and the digital economy through TON. However, due to regulatory pressure from the US SEC, Telegram was forced to withdraw from the project, and TON was once regarded by the market as "dead."

However, in the past year, TON has re-emerged as one of the strongest Layer1s in the market.

Many people simplify the rise of TON as being due to the "Telegram concept," but in reality, the core of this recent rise is not sentiment but rather that the market is beginning to think seriously about a question for the first time:

What would happen if Telegram's billion-level users truly entered Crypto?

This is the largest area of imagination for TON currently.

All previous public chains have faced the same problem: the user acquisition cost is extremely high.

The issue with Ethereum is complexity, Solana's issue is speculation, and other Layer1s generally lack real user entry points. The vast majority of chains' growth fundamentally still relies on internal circulation among crypto-native users.

But TON is different.

The greatest value of TON has never been TPS or technical performance, but rather the traffic entry that comes naturally with Telegram.

Telegram is already one of the largest instant messaging platforms globally, inherently possessing:

·Global users

·High-frequency social scenarios

·Built-in payment potential

·Strong community propagation capability

Even more importantly, Telegram users are completely different from traditional crypto users.

Most Web3 products assume that users need to:

·Download a wallet

·Save mnemonic phrases

·Learn about gas

·Understand chains and addresses

But the logic of TON is:

Users do not even need to be aware that they are using a blockchain.

This is the real reason why TON is being re-priced.

In the past year, the explosions of projects like Notcoin, DOGS, Hamster Kombat, et al. are fundamentally not because their products are excellent, but because Telegram's social transmission capability is exceptionally strong. Users can directly enter Web3 products in chat windows without undergoing the complex learning paths associated with traditional crypto.

This is the first time the entire industry has come close to "mass migration of Web2 users."

As a result, the market has started to reassess TON.

Many people are still accustomed to horizontally comparing TON with Solana, Sui, Aptos, but in reality, TON's competitors are not these chains.

TON's true competitors might be:

·WeChat Pay

·PayPal

·Cash App

·Grab

·LINE

In other words, TON's valuation logic is gradually shifting from "public chain" to "super traffic entry."

Moreover, the recent re-deep binding between Telegram and TON has further strengthened this expectation.

Including:

·Telegram becoming the largest validator of TON

·Pavel Durov publicly supporting TON again

·TON network fees decreasing

·Telegram Mini Apps further integrating wallet and payment capabilities

These actions collectively signal to the market:

Telegram is no longer merely "supporting TON," but is genuinely driving TON to become the foundation of its economic system.

This is also why TON's rate of increase far exceeds that of many traditional Layer1s.

Because what capital is really trading is not the current data, but rather the future user scale.

But TON's Biggest Problem Also Comes from Its Biggest Advantage

The most core risk of TON currently also arises from Telegram.

Specifically, it comes from Pavel Durov.

The degree of binding between TON and Telegram is too high.

The reason the market is willing to give TON a high valuation is essentially based on the belief that:

·Telegram will continue to open up to Crypto

·Telegram will continue to promote the on-chain economy

·Durov will persistently adhere to privacy and decentralization routes

However, the issue lies in the fact that Durov himself is always at the center of global regulatory pressure.

Including:

·Pressure from Europe regarding content censorship

·French regulatory incidents

·Controversies over anonymous social networking and privacy protection

·Sensitivity of various countries regarding crypto payments

These problems imply that:

TON's systemic risk is actually higher than that of ordinary public chains.

Because TON is not an entirely independent Crypto network; it heavily relies on the Telegram ecosystem.

If Telegram were to change direction due to regulatory pressure in the future, then TON's long-term narrative could be significantly affected.

Therefore, while TON has the strongest user entry narrative in the current market, it is also a highly centralized narrative-driven asset.

BIO: Why Has Crypto Started to Enter the Research Field?

Compared to TON, the logic of BIO is completely different.

TON is a story of "user entry."

BIO is a story of "reorganizing research through capital."

The track that BIO belongs to is called DeSci (Decentralized Science).

This is one of the most special, and also easily underestimated, new directions in the crypto market in the past year.

In the past decade, Crypto has attempted to transform:

·Finance

·Gaming

·Social

·Art

·Payments

Now, the market is beginning to try to enter a larger field:

Research and intellectual property.

The problem that BIO seeks to solve is actually very straightforward:

Traditional research financing efficiency is too low.

A large number of early-stage research projects struggle to obtain traditional capital support due to their long cycles and high risks. Especially in:

·Biotechnology

·Longevity research

·AI pharmaceuticals

·Genetic engineering

These fields often require several years or even over a decade to see results.

Traditional VCs find it difficult to endure such cycles.

But the crypto market is precisely best at:

Financing high-risk, high-imagination, long-term projects.

Thus, DeSci began to emerge.

The uniqueness of BIO lies in the fact that it is not just a "research DAO."

It is more like:

A launchpad for research assets.

The most important current design of BIO is BioXP and Ignition Sale.

In simple terms, it hopes to establish a mechanism where:

·Users hold and stake BIO

·Obtain qualifications for future research project financing

·Participate early in the issuance of new research assets

·Form an on-chain research capital market

This is not traditional DeFi.

It resembles more of a:

"Research IPO platform."

Because of this, the rise logic of BIO is completely different from traditional research projects.

The market is not trading based on how much income BIO has already generated, but rather:

·AI biotechnological boom

·Longevity economy

·Decentralized research

·Tokenization of research assets

These massive long-term narratives.

Especially after institutions like Arthur Hayes, Binance Labs began to publicly support DeSci, the market began to realize that:

DeSci is likely to become a new capital theme in the AI era.

Because after the combination of AI and biotechnology, the research industry itself could undergo tremendous changes.

The role of Crypto is to become:

·A global financing layer

·An asset trading layer

·A community governance layer

Thus, BIO is being re-priced.

BIO's Issue: It Still Feels More Like a "Dream"

However, BIO currently also faces very obvious problems.

Unlike TON, which at least has a real user entry point.

But the majority of BIO's current value still remains at the narrative stage.

Because the research industry itself is extremely complex.

The biggest challenge is:

How to price research results?

This is a question that the entire DeSci industry has yet to resolve.

Whether a research project is valuable often requires:

·Years of validation

·Clinical testing

·Academic consensus

·Commercial transformation

Even traditional VCs often fail in this regard.

Whether on-chain community governance can really operate more efficiently remains unanswered.