The Mexican Peso (MXN) has shown signs of resilience on Friday, posting modest gains as it turns positive on the daily chart. The US Dollar’s recent reversal has provided some support, keeping the USD/MXN pair relatively flat for the week after fluctuating around the key 20.00 level. The US Dollar itself has benefitted from a sharp recovery in US Treasury yields, adding to the pair’s volatility.
US Economic Data and Fed Rate Cut Expectations
A key catalyst for the recent movement in USD/MXN is US economic data. Thursday’s US Jobless Claims figures reinforced expectations that the Federal Reserve (Fed) may cut rates in their upcoming meeting. However, a higher-than-expected Producer Price Index (PPI) has led traders to speculate that any easing in 2024 will be gradual, limiting the scope for aggressive rate cuts. The US Dollar Index (DXY) has climbed significantly, tracking a 1% weekly increase, driven largely by the uptick in US Treasury yields. The benchmark 10-year yield has surged by 20 basis points, crossing the 4.30% mark for the first time in three weeks.
Despite these US gains, the outlook for the Mexican Peso has been less favorable. Mexican economic data released this week showed weakness in key indicators. Industrial Output for October fell 1.2%, worse than the expected 0.2% decline, while the year-on-year contraction reached 2.2%, well beyond the 0.6% expected. Additionally, November’s consumer inflation eased more than anticipated, adding to concerns that the Bank of Mexico (Banxico) could cut rates for the fourth consecutive time at its next meeting.
USD/MXN Technical Analysis: Resistance at 20.30
From a technical perspective, the USD/MXN pair remains confined below the 20.30 resistance level. After a bounce from the psychological 20.00 support zone, the pair has traded within a tight range, hovering beneath the December 5 and 10 highs. The short-term outlook appears bearish as long as the 20.30 barrier holds. A break above this resistance could shift the focus toward the 20.60 and 20.80 levels. On the downside, the 20.00 level is crucial, with a potential decline toward the 19.75 level if bears regain control.
In summary, while the US Dollar’s strength has kept the USD/MXN pair flat, Mexican economic challenges and the prospect of further rate cuts by Banxico could weigh on the Peso in the near term. Traders will closely monitor both US and Mexican economic data as they navigate the volatility ahead.
The metrics used to measure outcomes can be misleading when evaluating blockchain performance. As more blockchain networks emerge, the public needs clear, efficiency-focused metrics, rather than exaggerated claims, to differentiate between them.
In a conversation with BeInCrypto, Taraxa Co-Founder Steven Pu explained that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to compare blockchain performance accurately because many reported metrics rely on overly optimistic assumptions rather than evidence-based results. To combat this wave of misrepresentation, Pu proposes a new metric, which he calls TPS/$.
Why Does the Industry Lack Reliable Benchmarks?
The need for clear differentiation is growing with the increasing number of Layer-1 blockchain networks. As various developers promote the speed and efficiency of their blockchains, relying on metrics that distinguish their performance becomes indispensable.
However, the industry still lacks reliable benchmarks for real-world efficiency, instead relying on sporadic sentimental waves of hype-driven popularity. According to Pu, misleading performance figures currently saturate the market, obscuring true capabilities.
“It’s easy for opportunists to take advantage by driving up over-simplified and exaggerated narratives to profit themselves. Every single conceivable technical concept and metric has at one time or another been used to hype up many projects that don’t really deserve them: TPS, finality latency, modularity, network node count, execution speed, parallelization, bandwidth utilization, EVM-compatibility, EVM-incompatibility, etc.,” Pu told BeInCrypto.
Pu focused on how some projects exploit TPS metrics, using them as marketing tactics to make blockchain performance sound more appealing than it might be under real-world conditions.
Examining the Misleading Nature of TPS
Transactions per second, more commonly known as TPS, is a metric that refers to the average or sustained number of transactions that a blockchain network can process and finalize per second under normal operating conditions.
However, it often misleadingly hypes projects, offering a skewed view of overall performance.
“Decentralized networks are complex systems that need to be considered as a whole, and in the context of their use cases. But the market has this horrible habit of over-simplifying and over-selling one specific metric or aspect of a project, while ignoring the whole. Perhaps a highly centralized, high-TPS network does have its uses in the right scenarios with specific trust models, but the market really has no appetite for such nuanced descriptions,” Pu explained.
Pu indicates that blockchain projects with extreme claims on single metrics like TPS may have compromised decentralization, security, and accuracy.
“Take TPS, for example. This one metric masks numerous other aspects of the network, for example, how was the TPS achieved? What was sacrificed in the process? If I have 1 node, running a WASM JIT VM, call that a network, that gets you a few hundred thousand TPS right off the bat. I then make 1000 copies of that machine and call it sharding, now you start to get into the hundreds of millions of ‘TPS’. Add in unrealistic assumptions such as non-conflict, and you assume you can parallelize all transactions, then you can get “TPS” into the billions. It’s not that TPS is a bad metric, you just can’t look at any metric in isolation because there’s so much hidden information behind the numbers,” he added.
The Taraxa Co-founder revealed the extent of these inflated metrics in a recent report.
The Significant Discrepancy Between Theoretical and Real-World TPS
Pu sought to prove his point by determining the difference between the maximum historical TPS realized on a blockchain’s mainnet and the maximum theoretical TPS.
Of the 22 permissionless and single-shard networks observed, Pu found that, on average, there was a 20-fold gap between theory and reality. In other words, the theoretical metric was 20 times higher than the maximum observed mainnet TPS.
Taraxa Co-founder finds 20x difference between the Theoretical TPS and the Max Observed Mainnet TPS. Source: Taraxa.
“Metric overestimations (such as in the case of TPS) are a response to the highly speculative and narrative-driven crypto market. Everyone wants to position their project and technologies in the best possible light, so they come up with theoretical estimates, or conduct tests with wildly unrealistic assumptions, to arrive at inflated metrics. It’s dishonest advertising. Nothing more, nothing less,” Pu told BeInCrypto.
Looking to counter these exaggerated metrics, Pu developed his own performance measure.
Introducing TPS/$: A More Balanced Metric?
Pu and his team developed the following: TPS realized on mainnet / monthly $ cost of a single validator node, or TPS/$ for short, to fulfill the need for better performance metrics.
This metric assesses performance based on verifiable TPS achieved on a network’s live mainnet while also considering hardware efficiency.
The significant 20-fold gap between theoretical and actual throughput convinced Pu to exclude metrics based solely on assumptions or lab conditions. He also aimed to illustrate how some blockchain projects inflate performance metrics by relying on costly infrastructure.
“Published network performance claims are often inflated by extremely expensive hardware. This is especially true for networks with highly centralized consensus mechanisms, where the throughput bottleneck shifts away from networking latency and into single-machine hardware performance. Requiring extremely expensive hardware for validators not only betrays a centralized consensus algorithm and inefficient engineering, it also prevents the vast majority of the world from potentially participating in consensus by pricing them out,” Pu explained.
Pu’s team located each network’s minimum validator hardware requirements to determine the cost per validator node. They later estimated their monthly cost, paying particular attention to their relative sizing when used to compute the TPS per dollar ratios.
“So the TPS/$ metric tries to correct two of the perhaps most egregious categories of misinformation, by forcing the TPS performance to be on mainnet, and revealing the inherent tradeoffs of extremely expensive hardware,” Pu added.
Pu stressed considering two simple, identifiable characteristics: whether a network is permissionless and single-sharded.
Permissioned vs. Permissionless Networks: Which Fosters Decentralization?
A blockchain’s degree of security can be unveiled by whether it operates under a permissioned or permissionless network.
Permissioned blockchains refer to closed networks where access and participation are restricted to a predefined group of users, requiring permission from a central authority or trusted group to join. In permissionless blockchains, anyone is allowed to participate.
According to Pu, the former model is at odds with the philosophy of decentralization.
“A permissioned network, where network validation membership is controlled by a single entity, or if there is just a single entity (every Layer-2s), is another excellent metric. This tells you whether or not the network is indeed decentralized. A hallmark of decentralization is its ability to bridge trust gaps. Take decentralization away, then the network is nothing more than a cloud service,” Pu told BeInCrypto.
Attention to these metrics will prove vital over time, as networks with centralized authorities tend to be more vulnerable to certain weaknesses.
“In the long term, what we really need is a battery of standardized attack vectors for L1 infrastructure that can help to reveal weaknesses and tradeoffs for any given architectural design. Much of the problems in today’s mainstream L1 are that they make unreasonable sacrifices in security and decentralization. These characteristics are invisible and extremely hard to observe, until a disaster strikes. My hope is that as the industry matures, such a battery of tests will begin to organically emerge into an industry-wide standard,” Pu added.
Meanwhile, understanding whether a network employs state-sharding versus maintaining a single, sharded state reveals how unified its data management is.
State-Sharding vs. Single-State: Understanding Data Unity
In blockchain performance, latency refers to the time delay between submitting a transaction to the network, confirming it, and including it in a block on the blockchain. It measures how long it takes for a transaction to be processed and become a permanent part of the distributed ledger.
Identifying whether a network employs state-sharding or a single-sharded state can reveal much about its latency efficiency.
State-sharded networks divide the blockchain’s data into multiple independent parts called shards. Each shard operates somewhat independently and doesn’t have direct, real-time access to the complete state of the entire network.
By contrast, a non-state-sharded network has a single, shared state across the entire network. All nodes can access and process the same complete data set in this case.
Pu noted that state-sharded networks aim to increase storage and transaction capacity. However, they often face longer finality latencies due to a need to process transactions across multiple independent shards.
He added that many projects adopting a sharding approach inflate throughput by simply replicating their network rather than building a truly integrated and scalable architecture.
“A state-sharded network that doesn’t share state, is simply making unconnected copies of a network. If I take a L1 network and just make 1000 copies of it running independently, it’s clearly dishonest to claim that I can add up all the throughput across the copies together and represent it as a single network. There are architectures that actually synchronize the states as well as shuffle the validators across shards, but more often than not, projects making outlandish claims on throughput are just making independent copies,” Pu said.
Based on his research into the efficiency of blockchain metrics, Pu highlighted the need for fundamental shifts in how projects are evaluated, funded, and ultimately succeed.
What Fundamental Shifts Does Blockchain Evaluation Need?
Pu’s insights present a notable alternative in a Layer-1 blockchain space where misleading performance metrics increasingly compete for attention. Reliable and effective benchmarks are essential to counter these false representations.
“You only know what you can measure, and right now in crypto, the numbers look more like hype-narratives than objective measurements. Having standardized, transparent measurements allows simple comparisons across product options so developers and users understand what it is they’re using, and what tradeoffs they’re making. This is a hallmark of any mature industry, and we still have a long way to go in crypto,” Pu concluded.
Adopting standardized and transparent benchmarks will foster informed decision-making and drive genuine progress beyond merely promotional claims as the industry matures.
DWF Labs announced today that it invested $25 million into Trump Family-backed World Liberty Financial and is planning to open an office in New York City. It hopes to use this office to drive new relationships with regulators, financial institutions, and more.
Although this partnership would potentially create more liquidity opportunities for the US crypto market, previous allegations against DWF have raised some concerns about political misconduct.
“The US is the world’s largest single market for digital asset innovation. Our physical presence reflects our confidence in America’s role as the next growth region for institutional crypto adoption. Moreover, the USD1 stablecoin and forthcoming global DeFi solutions align with our broader mission to improve financial services,” claimed Managing Partner Andrei Grachev.
DWF’s statement includes a few key details about its new relationship with WLFI. It essentially boils down to two key points: the firm has already purchased $25 million in WLFI tokens, and it plans to open a physical office in New York City.
On a positive note, this partnership could be significant for the overall US crypto market. DWF Labs has a portfolio of over 700 crypto projects.
So, physically setting up a hub in New York will give me regulatory freedom and the opportunity to invest directly in the local crypto market. This would potentially open up more liquidity for upcoming Web3 projects and startups in the US
DWF Labs just dropped $25M on World Liberty Financial!@worldlibertyfi is a DeFi platform with ties to Trump and this marks DWF’s first major move into the U.S., with a new NYC office on the way.
Although DWF Labs is a popular market maker, it has been at the center of major controversies. Last year, it was accused of wash trading and market manipulation, and Binance allegedly shut down its internal investigation due to financial incentives.
Also, one of its partners was dismissed back in October over allegations of drugging a job applicant. So, the firm’s credibility and reputation have been shaky in recent times.
This is to say that the crypto community has reasons to worry about a deal between DWF and World Liberty Financial. A report from late March determined that most WLFI revenues go directly to Trump’s family.
WLFI owners are unable to actually trade their tokens, and the stated governance use of the assets seems unclear. In other words, there isn’t a clear reason why anyone would invest.
Altcoins like AIXBT, Echelon Prime (PRIME), and Balancer (BAL) have posted massive gains heading into the first week of May, but key technical indicators now suggest all three may be overbought. AIXBT is up nearly 95% on the week with strong price momentum, yet it still lags the broader market with a low relative strength.
PRIME and BAL have both surged over 30% in the last 24 hours, but each shows extreme RSI readings above 70 while also underperforming in relative strength—raising red flags about sustainability. While the rallies have drawn short-term attention, traders should be cautious as these tokens show signs of overheating without broader market confirmation.
AIXBT
AIXBT, one of the most recognized crypto AI agents tokens, has emerged as a top performer, surging nearly 40% in the last 24 hours and over 95% in the past seven days.
The Relative Strength Index (RSI) is a momentum indicator that moves from 0 to 100. Values above 70 mean the asset is overbought and may pull back. Values below 30 suggest it’s oversold and could rebound.
Relative Strength (RS) compares a token’s performance to a benchmark. RS above 1.0 means outperformance. Below 1.0 means underperformance. AIXBT has an RSI of 73.92 and an RS of 0.69. That technically makes it overbought, but still lagging behind the broader market.
This shows that AIXBT’s rally has been sharp, but not strong relative to other assets. The surge may be driven more by short-term speculation than sustained market strength.
Echelon Prime (PRIME)
Echelon Prime has surged 33% in the last 24 hours, making it one of the day’s top-performing altcoins.
Its trading volume has exploded by 276%, reaching nearly $16 million—an indication of heightened trader interest and momentum.
However, while the price action is impressive, technical indicators are flashing caution in the short term.
PRIME’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) currently sits at 74, firmly in overbought territory. At the same time, its Relative Strength (RS) is just 0.124.
This combination—high RSI and low RS—suggests the recent rally may be unsustainable.
While there’s strong short-term demand, the token lacks confirmation from relative market strength, making PRIME vulnerable to a sharp correction if buying pressure fades.
Balancer (BAL)
Balancer has jumped over 41% in the last 24 hours, supported by a sharp rise in trading activity, with volume climbing to $53 million.
BAL’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) is at 79.33, signaling extreme overbought conditions. Meanwhile, its Relative Strength (RS) stands at just 0.27, indicating it is still underperforming relative to the broader market.
