Unchained Podcast: The Top Things Investors Need to Know Before Buying Crypto Tokens

Host: Laura Shin
Guests: Ryan Yee (Onchain Group), Felipe Montel (Theia)
Date: March 19, 2026

EPISODE OVERVIEW

In this information-rich episode of Unchained, Laura Shin sits down with Ryan Yee, founder at Onchain Group, and Felipe Montel, co-founder and CIO at Theia, to unpack one of the hottest debates in crypto: the evolving relationship—and increased tension—between tokens and equity in decentralized organizations (DAOs). Together, they cover recent headlines, landmark DAO-to-company transitions, the ongoing impact of regulatory change, and what the shifting landscape means for investors, builders, and holders alike. The conversation is packed with real-world examples (Across, UMA, AAVE, Morpho, Uniswap, Axelar, and more) and offers expert insights on governance, accountability, and the future of tokenholder rights.

GUEST INTRODUCTIONS & PERSPECTIVES

[02:19] Ryan Yee:

• Background in crypto VC; extensive experience with both equity and token investments.
• Works with founders to navigate increasingly complex situations around business strategy, tokenization, and capital structure.
• Founded a company to offer financial services guiding founders in these issues.

[02:54] Felipe Montel:

• Chief Investment Officer at Theia, a long-term liquid token fund.
• Focuses on tokens issued by projects with revenue, earnings, and real fundamentals ("investing more like the equity market").
• Observes systemic problems: tokens often lack sufficient rights for holders, and prior equity holders can extract value at the token holders' expense, which he calls “an existential issue for the liquid token space.”
  Quote:

“Tokens did not confer sufficient rights for token holders... It’s frankly been an existential issue for the liquid token space.” – Felipe [03:46]

KEY DISCUSSION POINTS & INSIGHTS

1. The Across Protocol Token-to-Equity Proposal

[04:41] Laura Shin:

• Recaps Across’ proposal to retire the ACX token and offer token holders equity in a traditional company structure.
• Motivation: Institutional partners struggle to interact with DAOs, while a legal entity enables enforceable contracts, revenue agreements, and more business agility.
• Seeks reaction from guests.

[05:51] Ryan Yee:

• Explains token’s original promise: aligning stakeholders and users.
• Points to Hyperliquid as a strong example of token-user alignment; elsewhere, DAOs face uncertainty about who their customer is.
• Highlights complexity for teams juggling multiple products and tokens (e.g., UMA and Across being managed by the same team), which is akin to “going public” for each product—an unsustainable burden for early-stage startups.
• Notes a steep decline in Across’s TVL and relevance within UMA, suggesting the product justifies structural change. Quote:

“Managing the token, managing market makers, managing listings, managing liquidity—this is a huge time suck, especially if you’re an early stage founder still trying to find product-market fit.” – Ryan [07:25]

• Frames the proposal as a “tender offer”—token holders choose between cash or equity; team lowers operational overhead by consolidating.

[09:54] Felipe Montel:

• Points out real-world friction: tokens as liabilities in B2B and institutional deals.
• Praises the fairness of Across’ approach compared to abrupt discontinuations; the market’s positive reaction shows "resolved uncertainty."
• Warns of governance “gaming” where teams might depress token price pre-announcement to frame conversions as a gift. Quote:

“Having multiple tokens… doesn’t make any sense at all. You don’t see it in equity markets… Investors lose all that optionality.” – Felipe [12:12]

2. Token Pricing, Valuation, and Fairness

[13:50] Laura Shin:

• Asks if Across is “undervalued” and whether a private company might be more appropriately valued.

[15:09] Ryan Yee:

• Reluctant to call it under/overvalued without full diligence.
• Suggests Across’s allocation and buyout math is likely tied to treasury needs ("base case scenario") and that the offer gave a premium over the market price.

[17:44] Felipe Montel:

• Cautions against perverse incentives in management, e.g. driving down token price before making a tender offer.

[18:51] Ryan Yee:

• Notes regulatory hurdles: "no details about the equity entity" likely due to solicitation laws; token holders must self-certify to view equity opportunity.
• The process requires a “wait and see” approach for final deal terms.

3. What Should DAOs Manage vs. Centralized Entities?

[22:50] Laura Shin:

• References Hart Lampert (Across/UMA) on agency, payments innovation, and DAOs’ limitations as business vehicles.
• Asks what activities suit DAOs vs. centralized orgs.

[23:36] Felipe Montel:

• DAOs, as public political entities, struggle to compete with fast-moving, privately-led companies—especially for B2B and contract-based deals.
• DAOs are “good at imposing controls, not at moving quickly.”
• Calls for models that balance clear leadership with accountability to stakeholders. Points to Metadao as an example: CEO/leadership for operations, but key decisions (board-level, major changes) by tokenholder governance. Quote:

“We need some way to have leaders… be accountable to token holders… I think we’ll see more experiences…where the circle of the CEO is left intact, but anything board-level is decided by token holders.” – Felipe [26:06]

[27:10] Ryan Yee:

• DAOs face a trade-off between capital efficiency and oversight.
• When DAOs try to “move fast,” it’s often via up-front budget allocations, but that sacrifices recurring oversight.
• In practice, most DAOs become like token-funded startups—control sits with the core team; broader accountability is inconsistent.

4. Landscape Shifts: AAVE, Morpho, Uniswap, and Regulatory Impact

[33:06] Laura Shin:

• Recaps recent AAVE DAO drama—proposals for AAVE Labs to unify control, consolidate revenue flows, and claim IP.

[33:06] Felipe Montel:

• AAVE and similar leading protocols face the “token vs. equity” problem; recent unification under a single structure solves an existential threat to token value.
• On the specifics (who left, funding levels, etc.), the big-picture win is the consolidation of equity and token rights.

[35:08] Ryan Yee:

• Traces AAVE's evolution from token-only to multiple products/entities, then back to focusing tightly on its core product (prompted by competition from Morpho).
• Consolidation enables faster business development and institutional partnerships.

[39:17] Felipe Montel:

• Morpho exemplifies the new model: single, centralized team, lock equity into a not-for-profit, all value accrues to token holders, and tokenholders “must trust the team.”
• Regulatory changes (Gensler era) forced awkward structures; now, as the climate eases, teams openly embrace unification. Quote:

“The two original sins…were the zero interest rate policy…and Gensler, which created this equity-token split and all this nebulous language around these companies.” – Felipe [41:19]

[41:52] Ryan Yee:

• Regulatory clarity is the key driver of today's restructuring; founders are now more open and involved in tokenholder outcomes as legal risk recedes.

5. Case Studies: Axelar, Tender Offers, and the Spectrum of Fairness

[45:35] Laura Shin:

• Discusses the controversy around Circle’s acquisition of the Axelar dev team, cutting out tokenholder interests.

[46:12] Ryan Yee:

• These “labs vs. token” deals are not new; historically, sellers could get away with it because teams/IP were siloed in equity and tokens in the foundation.
• In the earlier regulatory climate, buyers would explicitly avoid tokens to dodge liabilities, leading to “acqui-hire” style deals.
• In today’s climate, founders should ensure tokenholder rights if they anticipate meaningful asset sales or buyouts; future acquisitions may look more like the Across tender offer.

[49:47] Felipe Montel:

• Draws a sharp contrast: Across is a fair model, Axelar & Tensor negligent (if not outright unethical in the tokenholder context).
  Quote:

“Tokens are held by individuals with savings…most people don’t want to abandon these people…Across is a good case study in what you can do.” – Felipe [50:14]

6. Experimental Models: Backpack’s Hybrid Approach

[51:41] Laura Shin:

• Notes Backpack exchange offering equity to long-term stakers.
• Is this a promising new model?

[52:17] Felipe Montel:

• Dual token-equity models sow mistrust and trade at discounts; prefers clean, unified capital structures.

[52:38] Ryan Yee:

• Sees Backpack as hedging their bets—trying to appeal to both regulated/traditional and retail/token markets—but “eventually one will lose.” Quote:

“Ultimately one person’s going to lose, whether you’re the token holder or the equity holder. And I think those things eventually need to merge into one capital structure.” – Ryan [53:00]

7. The Fate and Future of DAOs

[54:12] Laura Shin:

• Reads Stani’s (AAVE founder) critiques of DAOs: bureaucracy, slowness, “worst parts of corporate bureaucracy without accountability.”
• What future do DAOs have?

[55:27] Felipe Montel:

• Agrees: DAOs are inherently political, often “governments in miniature” with all their flaws.
• The metaDAO model may offer a solution: let markets (not politicians) decide through on-chain trading and signals, allowing investors with skin-in-the-game to drive decisions. Quote:

“You don’t have politicians…You have invest communications where you’re pitching your strategy to investors.” – Felipe [56:18]

[58:57] Ryan Yee:

• The “DAO” vs. “team” debate is overblown; the real focus must be on tokenholder rights and investor trust.
• DAOs may be most useful at scale, for capital allocation and budget approvals; right now, centralizing core operational decisions is likely best.
• Ultimate evolution: tokens become like public company shares, and mature projects will gravitate toward this model as their organizational structure grows.

8. Optimal Token/Equity Outcome and The Bigger Vision

[62:32] Laura Shin:

• Asks guests for their vision of the optimal token vs. equity solution for the industry.

[62:40] Felipe Montel:

• Stresses that accountability must come “from day one.”
• “Giving people money on the Internet will lead to theft unless you have accountability.”
• Centralized execution + decentralized accountability (as in metaDAO or similar) is vital.
• The true vision is global tokenized capital markets—currently stymied by the “token problem,” but worth striving for.

[65:43] Ryan Yee:

• The "token is the new share" thesis will win for many high-growth, on-chain businesses.
• As ETFs and asset wrappers normalize tokens, on-chain models and traditional models may co-exist, preserving the original promise of open, global fundraising and transparency.

MEMORABLE MOMENTS & QUOTES

• “Tokens did not confer sufficient rights for token holders...It’s frankly been an existential issue for the liquid token space.” – Felipe [03:46]
• “Managing the token...is a huge time suck, especially if you’re an early stage founder still trying to find product-market fit.” – Ryan [07:25]
• “Having multiple tokens…doesn’t make any sense at all. You don’t see it in equity markets.” – Felipe [12:12]
• “You don’t have politicians…You have invest communications where you’re pitching your strategy to investors.” – Felipe [56:18]
• “Ultimately one person’s going to lose, whether you’re the token holder or the equity holder. And I think those things eventually need to merge into one capital structure.” – Ryan [53:00]
• “Giving people money on the Internet will lead to theft unless you have accountability.” – Felipe [62:42]

TIMESTAMPS OF IMPORTANT SEGMENTS

• [02:19] – Ryan Yee on navigating token/equity structures
• [03:46] – Felipe Montel on existential token rights crisis
• [05:51] – Ryan on token prematurity vs. product maturity (Across/UMA)
• [09:54] – Felipe on fairness, B2B friction, and the problem with token abundance
• [15:09] – Ryan on treasury math and token buyouts
• [17:44] – Felipe on management’s “perverse incentive” to minimize token price
• [23:36] – Felipe: What DAOs are (and are not) good at
• [33:06] – Felipe & Ryan on AAVE, Morpho, and the industry’s shift under new regulation
• [45:35] – Circle/Axelar: where tokenholders get left out, and why that model is fading
• [51:41] – Backpack’s experiment, why hybrid models rarely work
• [54:12] – Stani’s DAO critique and vision for future governance
• [62:40] – Felipe & Ryan on “optimal" token/equity structures and moving the industry forward

FINAL NOTES

Closing Thoughts:

• Core message: The convergence of centralized efficiency and decentralized accountability is essential for crypto protocols to attract capital and innovate for the long-term.
• Regulatory clarity is unlocking experiments in governance and value capture, while the legacy of the “token problem” continues to be unraveled by bold new organizational models.
• No matter which way projects go, the rights and voice of token holders—and the transparency around those rights—are now front and center.

Social Handles:

• Felipe Montel: @felipenmontel
• Ryan Yee: @elonelon

This summary brings together the episode’s most important moments, arguments, and practical lessons for anyone navigating the future of investment, governance, or product building in the blockchain and crypto ecosystem.