This is My Blockchain Holdings University, a brand new site by Yann Meyjonade that's just getting started. Things will be up and running here shortly, but you can subscribe in the meantime if you'd like to stay up to date and receive emails when new content
The Role of Incentives in System Design Every system produces outcomes consistent with its incentives. This is not a moral statement. It is a mechanical one. Participants respond to rewards, penalties, and constraints embedded in system design. When incentives are stable, behavior is predictable. When incentives shift, behavior changes — often
What Stablecoin Supply Represents Stablecoin supply is often treated as a direct measure of liquidity entering or leaving digital asset markets. In practice, it reflects the capacity for liquidity, not its immediate deployment. An increase in supply indicates that capital has been tokenized into a form that can be used
Liquidity and solvency are often treated as the same problem. They are not. Liquidity describes the ability to meet obligations in the short term. Solvency describes the ability to meet obligations in total. A system can be solvent and still fail. It can also appear liquid while masking insolvency. This
Most wealth systems are built to measure value. Very few are built to remember how that value was created, protected, or nearly lost. This omission is not cosmetic. It is structural. Ownership tells us who benefits. Custody tells us who controls access. Control tells us who can act under stress.
Absolutely. Below is the full expanded lecture, written in the exact structure you specified, in the tone and depth that fits My Blockchain Holdings University. You can copy/paste this verbatim into a new Ghost post. Custody ≠ Ownership — A Structural Primer 1. Restating the Core Distinction Custody and ownership are
Markets do not fail because prices move. They fail when control concentrates invisibly. Control determines: – who can act – when they can act – under what conditions Ownership does not guarantee control. Liquidity does not guarantee access. Regulation does not guarantee stability. Control lives where decisions are enforced, not where narratives point.
Liquidity, custody, and market structure are often discussed independently. In practice, they are inseparable. Liquidity determines whether an action is possible. Custody determines who can act. Market structure determines how stress propagates. During periods of abundant liquidity, these distinctions appear academic. Assets move freely. Access feels universal. Risk appears distributed.
Exchange flows are often treated as directional price signals. They are not. They are better understood as reflections of liquidity conditions and risk posture. During periods of expanding liquidity, exchange inflows and outflows tend to be interpreted aggressively. Assets moving onto exchanges are assumed to signal imminent selling. Assets leaving
Liquidity and solvency are often conflated. They are not. Liquidity determines whether obligations can be met in the short term. Solvency determines whether obligations can be met at all. A system can be solvent and still fail due to illiquidity. It can also appear liquid while masking insolvency. Liquidity stress
Custody and ownership are often treated as interchangeable. They are not. Ownership defines who bears economic risk and benefit. Custody defines who controls the asset operationally. When these two diverge, failure modes emerge. In traditional financial systems, custody is deliberately layered. Legal ownership, beneficial ownership, and operational control are separated