According to Wifi Dabba CEO and founder Karam Lakshman, India’s rapid digital growth has outpaced its broadband infrastructure, leaving hundreds of millions without stable access. He believes decentralized networks may offer a way to bridge that gap, using global capital, local deployment partners, and tokenized incentives to scale internet access cost-efficiently.
Wifi Dabba is putting that belief into practice. After seven years of operating in India’s broadband space, the Bangalore-based provider is now repositioning itself as a decentralized physical infrastructure network, or DePIN project.
In a recent interview with BeInCrypto, Lakshman discussed the company’s latest initiative to partner with BONK, one of Solana’s most active communities. Through this collaboration, Wifi Dabba aims to deploy 10,000 decentralized Wi-Fi hotspots across underserved regions in India.
A Network Too Big to Scale the Old Way
India is the world’s second-largest telecom market, with more than 800 million 4G and 5G subscribers. Yet when it comes to broadband, the country lags behind. Lakshman points out that while the United States has over 120 million broadband connections and China has more than 600 million, India counts only about 40 million.
“India developed rather quickly in the last 20 years, and we skipped the broadband step,” he said. “So there’s this mad race that’s happening now in India to build broadband networks.”
Wifi Dabba’s early work included powering segments of Google public Wi-Fi programs and helping the Indian government shape national telecom policy. But as the company expanded its own branded network, Lakshman said they discovered just how limited broadband access really was.
“We didn’t realize that the stat was so bad. Only five percent of India has broadband internet. We really thought most people did. So to us, that was the biggest eye-opener,” Lakshman told BeInCrypto.
In response, Dabba restructured its model around a decentralized deployment system powered by tokenized incentives. The premise is straightforward. Anyone in the world can purchase a Dabba Lite hotspot, and instead of receiving the device themselves, the company installs it in a home or office in India where there’s real demand.
“By decoupling the person that owns the hotspot from where the hotspot is going to be deployed, we do two incredibly powerful things. The first is it allows us to match supply and demand more efficiently because we’re deploying only in places where people need it and are willing to pay for it. The second is that the person buying the hotspot, like someone sitting in the US, ends up subsidizing the cost of that internet connection for someone in India,” he explained.
What Crypto Looks Like When the End User Doesn’t Know It’s There
For the person receiving internet access, Dabba’s system doesn’t feel like crypto at all. It’s a standard broadband connection, paid in fiat, installed in their home or business. What stands out to users is the price. Dabba’s service can be three to ten times cheaper than other options.
Some grow curious after noticing the discount. Dabba shares a small portion of its native token with users, which they can use for future discounts or trade on a decentralized exchange. For many, it becomes their first interaction with crypto. This time, it’s tied directly to a useful service.
Lakshman put it simply. “For the people who are curious, they learn what crypto is through a real benefit. For the people who aren’t, they just get a cheap, reliable broadband connection. And they’re happy.”
A Meme Coin Meets a Connectivity Mission
This model, which lets global participants fund local connectivity, is now being tested at scale through a new campaign with BONK. Earlier this month, the company launched a collaboration with BONK, a Solana-based meme coin project with a large and engaged user base.
The campaign will see 10,000 Dabba Lite hotspots reserved for BONK participants. Each device will trigger a $20 burn in BONK tokens at activation, followed by monthly $2 burns over 18 months.
Although the choice to work with BONK might seem unconventional at first glance, Lakshman sees it as a strategic step toward bringing DePIN to a broader audience.
“We took a long look at how to increase awareness of DePIN within the broader crypto community. Most people in the space haven’t even heard of it. Our strategy is to expand to one vertical at a time, and communities were the first,” Lakshman outlined.
According to Lakshman, BONK stood out for its long-term focus and surprising depth of utility. He pointed to existing BONK-backed projects and tools like BONKbot and Bonkler, as well as the community’s role in driving Solana Saga phone adoption. But scale was also a factor.
“BONK has almost a million wallet holders, and they’ve proven they know how to get a message across. If one of the biggest challenges in DePIN is awareness, BONK gives us distribution.”
The partnership ties token burns directly to real-world usage. BONK is only burned when a hotspot is deployed and data is consumed. This mechanism, Lakshman said, creates a clear link between network activity and token utility.
“We wanted to attract people who care about long-term utility. When a BONK holder sees tokens being burned only when the internet is being used, it shows that real work is being done. It connects utility with belief.”
Bitcoin has posted seven consecutive weeks of gains, pushing its price above $100,000. However, new signals suggest this bullish streak might soon end.
Identifying the precise moment of a price reversal is challenging. However, certain signs may indicate rising risks, particularly for investors who have not established strong positions yet.
Two Signs Indicate Profit-Taking May End the 7-Week Rally
The first notable sign is that wallets with large balances have stopped accumulating and have started distributing their coins.
Glassnode data confirms this trend. In May, the accumulation score for wallets holding over 10,000 BTC dropped from around 0.8 to below 0.5. This shift is visually represented by a change in color from blue to orange.
“The group of wallets holding the most BTC has started distributing,” Thuan Capital stated.
Bitcoin Trend Accumulation Score by Cohort. Source: Glassnode
Additionally, wallets between 1 BTC and 10,000 BTC show weaker accumulation behavior, as seen through gradually fading blue tones. Only wallets with less than 1 BTC are showing a clear shift from distribution to strong accumulation, triggered by Bitcoin reaching a new all-time high.
These data points reflect a profit-taking tendency among large investors. At the same time, smaller retail investors appear driven by FOMO (fear of missing out) as they chase short-term opportunities.
Another warning sign comes from Unspent Transaction Outputs (UTXOs). UTXOs are a technical mechanism that ensures each individual BTC can only be spent once on the blockchain. They also provide a way to evaluate unrealized profit across all unspent BTC.
Bitcoin Euphoria Phase at 99% UTXOs in Profit. Source: CryptoQuant
CryptoQuant data shows that when 99% of UTXOs are in profit, it usually signals a market overheating phase. Historically, such phases often precede price corrections. Whether the correction is short- or long-term, this signal still highlights a growing risk for buyers.
“Right now, it’s hard to say we’re in a euphoric phase. The broader macroeconomic context and the uncertainty surrounding the Trump administration’s policy direction make it difficult for investors to flip fully risk-on. When this 99% signal drops, unrealized profits shrink and can trigger more profit-taking and push latecomers to capitulate and sell at a loss,” analyst Darkfost said.
As of now, Bitcoin’s rally has paused around $108,000. There are no clear signs of a correction yet. BeInCrypto reports a strong wave of Bitcoin accumulation among corporations worldwide. Many experts remain optimistic about Bitcoin’s future price.
“A tidal wave of institutional demand is reshaping bitcoin’s market dynamics: Wealth‐management platforms poised to roll out access to bitcoin ETFs, corporate treasuries adding bitcoin to boost shareholder returns, and sovereigns diversifying reserves into bitcoin to hedge geopolitical risk. Together, these forces are creating a structural supply/demand imbalance—and over the next 18 months, bitcoin is set to cement its role as a global store of value,” Juan Leon, Senior Investment Strategist at Bitwise Asset Management, told BeInCrypto.
Therefore, while these short-term indicators could hint at a pullback from current highs, they don’t seem to affect analysts’ broader expectations for this year and next.
The metrics used to measure outcomes can be misleading when evaluating blockchain performance. As more blockchain networks emerge, the public needs clear, efficiency-focused metrics, rather than exaggerated claims, to differentiate between them.
In a conversation with BeInCrypto, Taraxa Co-Founder Steven Pu explained that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to compare blockchain performance accurately because many reported metrics rely on overly optimistic assumptions rather than evidence-based results. To combat this wave of misrepresentation, Pu proposes a new metric, which he calls TPS/$.
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.
Made in USA Coins are gaining traction heading into the final week of May, with AVA, Solana (SOL), Pi Network (PI), Uniswap (UNI), and Worldcoin (WLD) all drawing attention. AVA surged nearly 10% amid renewed AI interest, while SOL saw rising institutional accumulation despite ETF delays.
PI rebounded above $0.80 as momentum builds despite lingering ecosystem concerns. Meanwhile, UNI faces legal pressure from Bancor, and WLD remains in the spotlight following regulatory challenges and a U.S. expansion push.
AVA
AVA is the native token of Holoworld, an AI-powered storytelling platform designed for creators, brands, and developers.
The ecosystem enables users to craft immersive experiences using customizable AI avatars, lifelike animations, and voice-based interactions. It claims to have over 1 million users and tens of millions of interactions.
Originally launched on Solana’s PumpFun launchpad, AVA currently holds a market cap of around $65 million and has climbed nearly 10% in the last 24 hours amid renewed interest in AI-themed tokens.
Technical indicators are turning bullish, with AVA’s EMA lines suggesting a golden cross could form soon. If this momentum holds, the token could rise to challenge resistance at $0.069, and a breakout may open the path toward $0.0919 and even $0.015.
However, if bullish momentum fades and the $0.060 support level fails, the token could retrace to $0.0519, and potentially fall to $0.047 or even $0.0417 if the downtrend intensifies.
Solana (SOL)
Solana is seeing increased accumulation from institutional investors in May 2025. Whales have staked large amounts, and some have invested millions into Solana-based assets.
Over 65% of SOL’s supply is now staked. Q1 app revenue reached $1.2 billion, the highest in the past year, showing strong ecosystem growth.
Despite a quiet altcoin market, analysts are comparing Solana’s structure to Ethereum’s in early 2021. On-chain inflows and developer activity continue to rise.
Meanwhile, the SEC delayed its decision on five Solana ETF proposals, pushing the timeline to mid-2025. Still, SOL rose 2.7%, showing resilience.
Technically, SOL is holding support at $164. If this holds, it could test $176.83 and $184.86. If $164 fails, the next supports are $159.48, $154, and $141.
Pi Network (PI)
Pi Network has faced several major setbacks since its mainnet launch in February 2025, quickly becoming one of the most hyped Made in USA coins. These include a lack of Binance or Coinbase listings, poor price performance, and unfulfilled ecosystem promises. Despite 86% of the community voting for a Binance listing, no listing has occurred.
Still, PI is showing signs of short-term strength. It’s up nearly 10% in the past 24 hours, breaking above the $0.80 mark. Its market cap is nearing $6 billion again, and EMA lines suggest a golden cross could form soon.
If the momentum holds, PI could test resistance at $0.96. A breakout could open room for rallies toward $1.30 and $1.67.
However, if the uptrend fades, PI could retrace to $0.66. If that level fails, the next supports are $0.57 and lower.
Uniswap (UNI)
Bancor has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Uniswap, claiming that the leading DEX used its patented automated market maker (AMM) technology without permission.
Bancor says it developed and patented the constant product AMM model back in 2017, a structure Uniswap later adopted for its own protocol. The lawsuit, filed in New York, seeks compensation from both Uniswap Labs and the Uniswap Foundation, making UNI one of the most interesting Made in USA coins to watch next week.
Meanwhile, UNI is trading near a key support level at $5.94.
If this level fails, it could drop to $5.649 and even $5.43. On the upside, a momentum recovery could send UNI back to test $6.329. If broken, further resistance lies at $6.52 and $7.36.
Worldcoin (WLD)
AI-related tokens have been attempting a broader recovery in recent weeks, and Worldcoin (WLD) has remained a focal point during this period. The project has faced both regulatory setbacks and notable expansion efforts, keeping it in the spotlight in the last weeks.
Around the same time, Indonesia suspended its operations over regulatory and certification concerns. Despite these headwinds, Worldcoin recently launched in six major U.S. cities and revealed plans to distribute 7,500 biometric verification devices across the country.
WLD is up 6.8% in the past 24 hours, showing signs of a short-term rebound. Its EMA lines suggest a golden cross could form soon, which would be a bullish technical signal.
If momentum holds, WLD could climb toward $1.19, and if that resistance breaks, extend gains to $1.36. However, if the token fails to hold above $1.11, it could slide to $1.05—and possibly dip below $1 if bearish pressure accelerates.
