Ohio may soon become one of the first states to invest public funds in cryptocurrency, as lawmakers debate House Bill 18—the Ohio Strategic Cryptocurrency Reserve Act.
This proposal would permit the state government and retirement systems to invest in digital assets and related exchange-traded products.
Setting the Stage for State Crypto Investments
House Bill 18 (HB 18), introduced by Representative Steve Demetriou, is drawing attention for its practical steps toward integrating digital assets into the state’s portfolio.
Importantly, the bill avoids specifying any particular cryptocurrencies—such as Bitcoin—in order to keep investment choices flexible. If passed, Ohio’s state Treasurer would oversee these updated investment strategies, providing the state with a modern approach to finance.
The latest developments come as the Ohio House of Representatives recently passed House Bill 116. The bill, titled the Ohio Blockchain Basics Act, received a decisive vote of 68 to 26, highlighting strong bipartisan support. This legislation exempts crypto transactions under $200 from capital gains taxes in Ohio.
Supporters believe HB 18 could lead to stronger returns and better portfolio diversification for Ohio. By not naming certain coins or exchange-traded products, future investments could include a range of digital assets, all subject to market analysis and risk management.
Oversight, Transparency, and Legal Framework
The bill designates Ohio’s state Treasurer as the manager of potential cryptocurrency investments. State retirement systems could also join the program, following their own risk assessments and internal approvals.
Currently, House Bill 18 does not include an official fiscal note or state-issued financial analysis. So questions remain about the amount of public money that may be involved. Oversight rules and transparency requirements are expected before any final vote.
“A state Bitcoin reserve could diversify Ohio’s assets, reduce reliance on fiat, and signal crypto adoption,” a user commented on X.
Rising institutional interest in cryptocurrency is reflected in the bill, as officials seek a balanced approach to investment and risk. Nevertheless, ongoing debate and thorough legislative review will shape the bill’s future.
If enacted, House Bill 18 could give Ohio a pioneering role in state-level crypto investment, setting an example for others.
The metrics used to measure outcomes can be misleading when evaluating blockchain performance. As more blockchain networks emerge, the public needs clear, efficiency-focused metrics, rather than exaggerated claims, to differentiate between them.
In a conversation with BeInCrypto, Taraxa Co-Founder Steven Pu explained that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to compare blockchain performance accurately because many reported metrics rely on overly optimistic assumptions rather than evidence-based results. To combat this wave of misrepresentation, Pu proposes a new metric, which he calls TPS/$.
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.
Back in 2008, Facebook changed the gaming industry overnight. Games like FarmVille and Mafia Wars went from zero to millions of players thanks to frictionless distribution, viral mechanics, and built-in social hooks.
But the window closed quickly, and only a few saw it coming. Today, we’re at a similar inflection point. The platform this time? Telegram.
With nearly 1 billion monthly active users, Telegram is one of the world’s largest messaging platforms, and one of the most underestimated in terms of what it’s becoming.
While known for its privacy-focused features, Telegram is becoming more powerful. It is crypto-native at the infrastructure level and is integrated directly with the TON blockchain.
This integration means Telegram comes pre-equipped with a full-featured, yield-bearing wallet. For millions of users, especially outside the United States, Telegram Wallet already functions much like a bank account. It’s used to store assets, make purchases, and earn passive rewards.
This embedded financial layer opens new possibilities for developers, especially in web3 gaming.
Instead of relying on third-party wallets like MetaMask or explaining complex onboarding flows, developers can launch experiences directly into an ecosystem where users are already transacting with crypto.
At GOAT Gaming, we’ve seen this impact firsthand. Players who spend using TON, Telegram’s on-chain wallet, spend four to ten times more than those who transact through Stars, Telegram’s fiat-linked in-app currency.
These users aren’t just more comfortable with crypto. They’re more committed, more active, and more valuable.
How Telegram Turned Digital Gifts Into Real NFT Volume
Telegram’s transformation accelerated earlier this year with the launch of collectible gifts. These limited-edition digital items can be sent, upgraded, and now traded within a native marketplace. Introduced in January, many of the first collections sold out in minutes.
Creators also gain access to new features through community boosts and audience engagement. Upgraded gifts can be minted and traded as NFTs, allowing users to hold them as assets and participate in secondary markets without leaving the app.
The traction is already visible. As of June 9, 2025, Telegram Collectibles recorded $9.7 million in weekly NFT trading volume, according to a Dune dashboard tracking TON-based assets.
By comparison, Ethereum NFTs saw $3.6 million in volume over the same period. The pace of adoption mirrors the early days of the 2021 NFT boom, but with one key distinction.
There are no wallets to install, no dApps to navigate, and no bridges to cross.
Why We Believe Telegram Collectibles Will Replace Traditional User Acquisition
At GOAT Gaming, we’ve seen firsthand that Telegram Collectibles are far more than aesthetic add-ons. They’re becoming a foundation for community-driven marketing, referral loops, wallet onboarding, and player reactivation.
These collectibles create both emotional and economic hooks. When a gift carries real value, users are more likely to engage.
This shift points to something bigger: a move away from performance marketing toward gameplay that drives acquisition and retention on its own.
Collectibles do the heavy lifting, building connections, signaling status, and encouraging spending behavior in ways ads rarely achieve.
Together, these elements create a seamless environment for digital commerce, social interaction, and ownership. They also make Telegram an increasingly viable platform for Web3 gaming to scale.
Game studios like GOAT Gaming are already experimenting with gifting mechanics that drive referral loops, reactivations, and real-time campaigns.
In one recent example, we launched a Telegram-native raffle that offered gift rewards tied to gameplay actions.
Within two weeks, the campaign had onboarded hundreds of thousands of players, driven tens of thousands of completed wallet connections, and created what would have cost hundreds of thousands in user acquisition spend through traditional channels.
This shift toward community-gated gameplay is already unfolding. We’re building new experiences that treat collectibles not as cosmetic profile flexes but as core infrastructure.
What Telegram Collectibles Are Really Unlocking for Game Developers
In our upcoming game, Underground Pepe, we’re giving real utility, from unlocking progression rewards to enabling gameplay features and signaling in-game status.
Players join Pepe as he builds a chaotic underground empire, scheming, and stacking NFTs and Telegram Collectibles.
They earn by operating their rug factory, reinvesting into more collectibles, and unlocking new gameplay loops that mirror Telegram’s trading, gifting, and meme-driven energy.
Ultimately, we believe Telegram has already laid the groundwork for what Web3 infrastructure should look like.
For developers paying attention, Telegram already offers the infrastructure, reach, and engagement that most platforms are still trying to build. Ignore it, and you’ll miss Web3 gaming’s biggest player acquisition funnel in years.
In the minds of many investors, Bitcoin (BTC) is like a dream of wealth—a magical asset capable of growing hundreds of percent annually and sending its value “to the moon” with million-dollar price tags.
Analyst Willy Woo believes that Bitcoin’s boom times may be over. However, not everyone agrees.
Willy Woo predicts Bitcoin’s CAGR will decline and stabilize at 8%
Woo shared a chart titled “Bitcoin Annualised Returns,” showing that Bitcoin’s compound annual growth rate (CAGR) has dropped sharply, from over 100% in 2017 to around 30–40% after 2020.
That was the period when major institutions, including corporations and governments, began accumulating Bitcoin.
“People think BTC is like a magical unicorn that climbs to infinity on moonbeams. Here’s the actual CAGR chart. We are well past the 2017 year where we’d see many 100s of percent growth,” Willy Woo said.
Woo forecasts that Bitcoin’s CAGR will continue to decline over the next 15–20 years and eventually stabilize around 8%. This rate aligns with long-term monetary growth (5%) and GDP growth (3%). He emphasized that even with a lower CAGR, Bitcoin will still outperform most other publicly traded assets.
However, investor and author Fred Krueger disagreed. He pointed out that Bitcoin has already increased 7x from its December 2022 low, now trading at $103,000 as of May 2025.
Additionally, in a recent interview, Arthur Hayes went even further. He predicted that Bitcoin would reach $1 million before the end of Donald Trump’s current term. He expects the price to hit $250,000 by the end of 2025, representing a 1,000% increase in just four years.
GDP and liquidity growth seen as key drivers of Bitcoin’s future gains
Woo’s prediction is largely based on GDP expansion and monetary growth. Meanwhile, Paul Guerra, Head of Social at RealVision, offered deeper insights on the matter.
Discussing liquidity, he argued that traditional diversification strategies may no longer work in today’s market environment. That’s because assets like stocks, bonds, Bitcoin, and real estate now tend to move together, driven by a single key factor: liquidity.
“The true driver of markets is liquidity — the amount of money flowing through the system,” Paul said.
The Global Liquidity Index is currently growing at 8% annually. To understand liquidity, Paul suggested that we must first understand GDP. He presented a formula for GDP growth: GDP Growth = Population Growth + Productivity Growth + Debt Growth.
But today, population growth and productivity are declining worldwide. As a result, governments are being forced to inject liquidity to sustain GDP and support rising debt.
“Populations are AGING. Productivity gains are FLAT. Debt is EXPLODING. To keep GDP alive and service people’s debt, governments have only one tool: Pump liquidity,” Paul explained.
Bitcoin Price And GMI Total Liquidity Index. Source: Paul Guerra.
As a result, liquidity is expected to increase at an even faster rate. Paul predicted that Bitcoin could reach $300,000 by the end of 2025 and enter what he calls the “Banana Zone.” This term describes periods of massive asset price increases fueled by abundant liquidity.
Historical examples include Bitcoin’s 19,900% gain from 2013–2017, and Ethereum’s 699,900% surge in previous cycles.
Still, these analyses focus heavily on macroeconomic factors while overlooking potential technical risks. For instance, concerns are growing that advancements in quantum computing could threaten trust in Bitcoin’s long-term viability.
