Bull run altcoins: utility tokens, meme coins and supply risks

I find the distinction in Crypto Jon's altcoin strategy more useful than the list of tokens: he keeps adding to selected utility positions but wants smaller, mostly one-time purchases of meme coins. Bittensor, Hyperliquid and Aerodrome Finance are his strongest convictions. His reasons for holding them deserve a separate assessment from his forecasts of what they might return.

How he separates bull run altcoins

The creator groups utility tokens around the products, networks or services they are associated with. Meme coins depend more heavily on attention and speculation, often tied to a shared identity. He plans to keep accumulating utility tokens while limiting further meme-coin purchases after his first entry.

For utility tokens, he uses dollar-cost averaging, or DCA, spreading purchases across time rather than committing all the money at once. He also describes "DCAing up," which means buying more after the price rises. Those later purchases increase the position's average cost, even when the original purchase remains profitable.

I think the important decision is which holdings deserve more money after a rally. He believes a useful product can support a longer-lasting investment case, whereas a meme coin needs tighter limits on the amount committed. That belief explains his different treatment of the two groups.

A product can attract users without creating strong demand for its token. Traders can also push a token's price up in anticipation of adoption, then sell when the expected results fail to arrive. For that reason, I would not use the utility label as a substitute for judging the price.

The creator considers this an early accumulation phase before a stronger bull run, a period of broadly rising prices. That is his reading of the market, and it explains his willingness to add after gains. He also argues that buying established projects earlier leaves more flexibility to consider speculative smaller tokens later.

I read that as an order of priorities: start with the ideas he trusts most, then consider more speculative trades. Confidence in a project's quality still needs to be distinguished from confidence in its current valuation. A project he likes can become a less attractive purchase as its price rises.

Meme coins get a tighter budget

Basecat illustrates his revised approach. He says he bought around a penny after the token fell from 7, 8 cents. He had planned to consider it later in the cycle, but the lower price brought the purchase forward.

He wants to keep his average purchase price near that first entry rather than add repeatedly as the price rises. He describes the same approach to Keycat and Turbo: retain the existing entry unless something substantially changes the investment case.

I see discipline in refusing to chase each rise. But an average cost measures what a holder paid, not the strength of future demand or the ability to sell. A meme coin can fall below even a low-looking entry.

The creator initially calls a penny Basecat's floor, then acknowledges that it could fall below a penny. Buyers may have supported that price before, but they need not keep doing so. Selling can overwhelm the demand that made an apparent floor hold.

He partly bases his outlook on earlier rebounds. He recalls Turbo rising, falling back and recovering. He also cites ArcBlock, which fell after a listing before eventually climbing much higher. Those examples explain his expectations; they do not establish that Basecat will follow the same path.

I notice a tension between his preference for a larger first purchase and his later warning against going heavy into a meme coin. Both can fit together if the first purchase is a larger share of a small planned allocation. Otherwise, buying once could concentrate the risk rather than reduce it.

Meme coins are particularly exposed to changing attention. A recognizable character or exchange listing can attract traders without sustaining demand. Thin liquidity, meaning limited buying and selling capacity near the quoted price, can also leave a holder with a much worse exit than the portfolio screen suggests.

His approach limits how often he commits more money to the same speculative idea. I would assess that limit against the total amount exposed, rather than assume a large decline from a previous peak makes the initial purchase safe.

The main tokens and their quoted prices

His central holdings include decentralized exchange tokens, AI-related exposure and broader network positions. Decentralized exchanges, often shortened to DEXs, allow trading through blockchain-based systems. He groups Hyperliquid and Lighter as exchange plays and treats Aerodrome as another major conviction.

The following CoinMarketCap prices are snapshots from the discussion, not live quotes.

For Hyperliquid, he reports buying at 30 or close to it, then at 40 and 59. These are his accounts of his entries, not independently verified portfolio records. He believes the longer-term opportunity justifies buying even after the price has risen.

Aerodrome poses a different entry question. He reports purchases around 27 cents and 37 cents, but prefers a cheaper price for a first purchase after its rally. I think that distinction is useful: adding to an existing holding and starting a new one produce different average costs and leave different room for error.

He describes Aerodrome's proposed change as a merger with Velodrome. In his view, it would increase market share and reduce competition, making this a beneficial change rather than a reason to reject every token migration. His argument depends on the combined arrangement retaining the activity and advantages he expects.

He also suggests that cold-wallet holders may need to convert tokens themselves, while Coinbase may handle conversion for its users. A cold wallet keeps signing credentials offline. The video does not establish the exact conversion procedure or eligibility.

I would separate those operational details from the investment case. Official migration instructions and a custodian's notice should establish whether action is required, which asset is involved and which contract to use. Verify the site address, and never provide a recovery phrase to a migration page.

His Aerodrome bull case is at least 5 bucks this cycle. That target rests on his expectations about competition and the market cycle; it is not a valuation demonstrated by the information presented. I would assess those assumptions before giving the target any weight.

Why TAO carries his strongest conviction

Bittensor is his preferred AI-related position, and he chooses TAO over Render when asked to compare them. He reports purchases at 140, 165 and 175, followed by another near the price under discussion. His decision to keep adding depends on his expectation of a much larger AI-related crypto market.

He predicts that the AI crypto category will eventually reach a 1 trillion market cap and that TAO will take the largest share. Market capitalization multiplies token price by circulating supply, so it compares market values rather than measuring how much cash has entered an asset.

I would examine those as separate assumptions. AI could become more important without every related token benefiting. Even if the category grows, TAO would have to retain an advantage over alternatives to capture the largest share.

He describes TAO as a potential multiple four-figure coin and later says a 10x is reasonable and 15 could happen. He leaves the timing open: the larger AI opportunity might develop this cycle or the next. His conviction is clear, but these remain predictions rather than established future prices.

He also points to an ETF behind TAO as a reason for that conviction. An exchange-traded fund, or ETF, trades through a securities market. I would distinguish access through that investment wrapper from demand for the token's underlying use, because they are different reasons someone might buy.

The creator says he stakes TAO and Solana and prefers what he calls native staking to exposure to alpha tokens. Staking generally commits tokens to a network's participation or security process in exchange for rewards. His preference identifies an additional risk he wants to avoid; it does not make his chosen arrangement risk-free.

Those rewards arrive in an asset whose price can fall. Depending on the network and arrangement, holders may also face restrictions on moving funds, validator risk or penalties. I would examine how rewards are earned alongside when funds can be withdrawn and who holds them, rather than count extra tokens as free profit.

The watchlist has different entry conditions

His other interests come with different levels of conviction and urgency. He remains comfortable adding to Solana and reports entries at 64 bucks and 75. He also favors Quant, calling the 200 to 250 range attractive. These are his entry preferences, not recommendations implied by the price table.

He is more cautious about Venice Token because it has already risen substantially. He describes its market capitalization as 1 to 2 billion, which he considers mid-cap territory. The boundaries of that middle-sized category are subjective.

I find his concern about the rally more useful than the size label. Being smaller than major assets does not establish that a token is cheap relative to its prospects. Market cap offers context, but it does not demonstrate room for a profitable trade.

He says ArcBlock has also risen from his entry, consistent with his preference for buying before a recovery becomes obvious. I would still distinguish the price rebound from any improvement in the investment case. They need not happen together.

Lighter is on his watchlist at 3.64. He considered it around 3.50 and 3.40 but disliked the preceding rally. Since he already holds Hyperliquid, he sees no need to hurry into another exchange position. His existing exposure matters to that decision as much as the entry price.

He says Lighter burns tokens intermittently, describes Hyperliquid's burning arrangement as open-ended and says Pump.fun's arrangement runs until May 2027, with a possible renewal. Burning removes tokens from supply. He prefers a more consistent process, though these descriptions are his claims about the projects.

I would compare the amount burned with new supply entering circulation rather than assess the burn alone. Its effect also depends on continued demand. A process that removes tokens may do little to offset selling pressure elsewhere.

He expects a large Lighter unlock in December and hopes it will offer a lower entry. An unlock makes previously restricted tokens available to sell. It does not establish that recipients will sell immediately, or that traders have failed to anticipate the release.

Dilution can outweigh a good narrative

The creator rates Aethir and peaq neutral because he is concerned about future supply, despite finding parts of their proposed utility interesting. He describes roughly half the supply as circulating and dislikes the dilution risk from the remainder.

A token's supply and distribution rules, often called tokenomics, matter because additional circulating tokens reduce existing holders' share of the circulating total. An unlock need not cause a price decline, but buyers must absorb any resulting selling for the market to hold firm.

I find this the clearest counterweight to his enthusiasm for utility tokens. A project can fit an attractive theme while its supply schedule works against holders. The useful question is whether the product's progress creates enough token demand to meet that supply.

For Aethir, he also reads a figure stating that the top 10 holders control 80%. The risk depends partly on who controls those addresses. Exchange custody, project reserves and individual holdings do not have the same implications, even when each appears as a large balance.

His concern is that large holders could sell substantial amounts as more tokens become available. I would treat an address ranking as a reason to examine ownership and restrictions, not as evidence of intent. The potential pressure may be difficult to judge from a price chart alone.

He uses Sei as a warning, recalling a purchase at 15 cents and a rise to $1.15 when only 20% was circulating. He attributes its later decline to unlocks. That is his explanation of the history; a chart cannot isolate supply releases from every other influence on demand.

A rally can also arrive before the stage of the cycle a holder expects. Assuming every altcoin will peak together risks overlooking a particular token's supply pressure or changes within its project. His Sei example is a reason to examine individual schedules rather than rely entirely on a market-wide timetable.

I would look at the recipients as well as the release dates. Team members and early investors may have different incentives from people receiving tokens through network participation. A schedule establishes when tokens become available; recipients' incentives help explain whether that availability might turn into selling.

His cycle forecast is a view, not a timetable

The creator rejects rigid use of the four-year crypto cycle as a reason to remain out of the market. He criticizes technical analysis, which studies price and volume patterns, when its users ignore other information. He also argues that large holders influence prices and capital rotation, causing crowded expectations to fail.

I agree with the narrower point that a popular timetable is no guarantee. His stronger claim, that large holders will prevent whatever the majority expects, is harder to establish. A market can disappoint a consensus without anyone coordinating the outcome, and a contrarian position can still be wrong.

He describes money rotating from meme coins toward utility tokens. He argues that large holders often move existing capital between assets rather than add new money. That interpretation helps explain his outlook, although it does not establish who is responsible for the movement.

A displayed headline reported Bitcoin briefly reclaiming $81,000 as liquidations topped $1 billion. Liquidation happens when a leveraged position loses enough collateral that a trading platform closes it. Forced closures can intensify a price move, helping explain why a relatively small change in sentiment can cause a sharp reaction.

He raises the possibility of Bitcoin revisiting the 70s, while forecasting a break above 90K this year and 100K in 2027. He expects 2027 to be better than this year but declines to identify it confidently as the bull-market peak. His outlook therefore includes near-term downside as well as longer-term optimism.

I would not turn those Bitcoin forecasts into a schedule for altcoin returns. Money could remain concentrated in larger assets. Problems with a particular token can also outweigh favorable conditions in the wider market.

He connects a stronger dollar and possible interest-rate increases with pressure on crypto. Tighter financial conditions can reduce appetite for risky assets, but that relationship is not mechanical. Markets respond to the difference between expected and actual outcomes as well as to the event itself.

Build a test for each thesis

I would treat these tokens as separate research cases rather than one shopping list. Each case needs an explanation of what creates demand for the token and an observable development that would weaken it. An AI label, merger announcement or low-looking chart can prompt investigation, but none answers those questions alone.

For a utility token, examine whether progress in the product reaches token holders. For a meme position, distinguish the appeal of the first entry from the reason to commit more later. That makes it easier to assess a new claim without adopting the creator's confidence along with it.

I would also keep price expectations separate from actions involving funds. A forecast can fail without requiring a holder to do anything; a mistaken migration instruction can put assets at immediate risk. Official notices and verified destinations take priority when moving or converting tokens.

Write a failure condition in plain words: demand fails to develop, supply arrives faster than buyers can absorb it, or a proposed project change fails to deliver its expected benefit. If every setback becomes another reason for optimism, there is no remaining way to test the case.

I would compare new information with that written condition before letting price movements dictate my judgment. Rising prices can make a weak argument feel persuasive, just as falling prices can make a sound one uncomfortable. For Lighter, the specific question is whether the expected December unlock creates selling that demand cannot absorb.