Some quick thoughts on @union_build: From what I've observed with Union yappers, the creator orientation has towards dissecting the whitepaper or sharing testnet guides. Notable creators include @winner_asd @keys0321 @Gen_Okwuchukwu2 @LIMITLESSDAMI @73lV_ I think this is great, but I’ve been thinking more about the economics around Union. Because let’s be honest—PMF and revenue are what matter. Most crypto projects don’t have either, and that’s a problem. I see two potential moats for Union: The Interoperability Protocol The Union Chain To keep this short, I’ll focus on the first one. The Interoperability Protocol At its core, this is Union’s custom-built bridge for moving assets and data across chains. Think LayerZero or Hyperlane. Union on the other hand incorporates connecting Cosmos to EVM with as little friction as possible. So far on testnet, Union’s already integrated with: Sei Xion Corn Osmosis Babylon Stride Stargaze Berachain Arbitrum Union can be like Hyperliquid in that it’s a purpose-built chain with a core product driving revenue—in this case, the Interop Protocol. The problem is Union having to deliver like Hyperliquid. Union needs to integrate with chains that have serious TVL and volume: Solana Sui Base Optimism I’d also love to see MegaETH and Monad. In all honesty, I don't think Union can get Hyperliquid's demand given the nature of the product. What needs to happen next? Union needs to reach a level of abstraction where moving from one chain to another feels invisible—no more asking “is this chain supported?” To get there, Union has to: • Solve the UX layer • Align incentives to users • Secure big chain integrations • Optimize for strategic partnerships • Steal market share from the likes of Hyperlane and LayerZero. If Union can become a revenue-generating protocol, this could echo the Hyperliquid playbook. Still a long way to go, but the foundation is interesting.