Author: Lacie Zhang, Bitget Wallet Researcher

introduction

This year, the most frequently heard phrase in the industry was: Crypto is no longer interesting. Liquidity went to US stocks, talent went to AI, and the narrative couldn't keep up with Claude's update pace.

The main battleground for global venture capital is almost entirely in the tech stocks of the US, South Korea, and Taiwan, especially in storage, AI computing power, chips, and power infrastructure. In the crypto space, it's all about zero-sum games. Memes on Solana and BNB Chain have long since become PvP arenas where internal players are preying on each other, with nine out of ten players losing. On-chain sentiment has degenerated from occasional FOMO to utter despair.

People in the crypto community are starting to doubt whether they can still create something that isn't imitating others, chasing trends, or purely belongs to the industry.

Just when everyone thought this round of meme trading was coming to an end, a batch of assets with "unintelligible" appearances suddenly appeared on EVM:

uPEG (Unipeg): Discovered by the market on April 25, its price surged by approximately 15 times by May 8. Every transaction creates a 24x24 pixel unicorn NFT on the blockchain.
Slonks / $SLOP: The NFT launched on May 1st, and within 5 days, the price jumped from the mint price to 0.062 ETH, with 318 ETH traded in 24 hours. It crammed a 22.7KB transformer model into the mainnet to redraw CryptoPunks on-chain, and the distortion and misalignment that occurred during the redrawing process is what it defines as its art.
$SATO: Deployed on May 3rd, it reached a contract reserve of 1076 ETH in 11 hours, with a peak market capitalization approaching $40 million. Once the minting volume reaches 99%, the contract will automatically stop minting and will no longer issue new tokens.
$SHIT (Dogeshit): Launched on May 9th. A meme coin minted directly by an AI agent. Users cannot manually invoke the contract; they must say "mint me some shit" through Claude's chat window, and the relay will pay the gas fees to help with minting. It is backed by EIP-7702 + MCP + V4 Hook.
$HORN: Launched on May 8th. An experiment of "time as currency," the number of tokens a user receives = the amount of ETH invested × the holding period. Minting rare NFTs requires burning both the holding key and horn tokens.

These assets have different mechanisms and narratives, but you'll see the same line of dependencies whenever you open their contracts:

import {IHooks} from "@uniswap/v4-core/src/interfaces/IHooks.sol";

Yes, Uniswap V4 Hook.

Bitget Wallet Research Institute will discuss four key questions in this article:

What exactly is a Hook? It went live on the mainnet on January 30, 2025, so why wasn't it fully understood until May 2026? Why can it become a new tool for asset issuance?
What are the differences in the mechanisms among top-tier assets? What are the essential differences between them and the ERC-404/coin-merger model of Pandora back then?
What is the next wave of narrative truly hidden beneath the surface? Why is it said that the assets that have surfaced now may just be an appetizer?
From a cyclical perspective, how should ordinary people participate and how should they avoid pitfalls?

I. Uniswap V4: A powerful asset issuance tool that has been shelved for 16 months

To understand why V4 Hook could suddenly ignite this asset issuance experiment, we need to go back to a timeline that has rarely been fully analyzed.

1.1 A long-awaited product line

Many people believe that Uniswap V4 was only recently released. In fact, the draft white paper for V4 was released as early as June 2023. At that time, the team's goal was to launch it as soon as possible after the Ethereum Dencun upgrade (March 2024), utilizing Transient Storage (EIP-1153) to create the key architecture of Flash Accounting.

But V4 ultimately failed to catch up with the original pace.

The reason is that its security audit scale is almost unprecedented in DeFi history: 9 independent third-party audits, the largest security competition in history, and a $15.5M bug bounty pool. OpenZeppelin even found a critical-level vulnerability in the d5d4957 commit, forcing the team to rewrite part of the code. The entire project was delayed from Q3 2024 to January 30, 2025, before V4 was officially deployed to the Ethereum mainnet and subsequently expanded to 12 EVM chains including Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, and BNB Chain.

More than 15 months have passed since today's surge in uPEG, SATO, and Slonks. A crucial protocol upgrade that has been repeatedly emphasized by the authorities remained dormant in its home turf for over a year until a batch of new assets emerged, finally bringing V4 Hook to the forefront for the first time.

1.2 Core changes in Uniswap V4: Opening the logical boundaries of trading pools

To understand what V4 changed, let's start with V1 to V3.

In the past, each trading pool on Uniswap was a separately deployed contract, essentially operating independently. A project wanting to launch a coin typically had to first deploy an ERC-20 token contract, then create a trading pool on Uniswap with the token and ETH. However, the core rules of this pool were not determined by the project. In V2, a constant product curve was used; in V3, a centralized liquidity mechanism was implemented, with pricing and liquidity logic pre-written by Uniswap. Projects could choose parameters, but it was difficult to modify the underlying rules.

Therefore, in the V1 to V3 era, token contracts and trading markets were separate. Token issuance was handled by Uniswap, and trading was handled by Uniswap, with little programmable connection between the two. Project teams could design tokenomics, but once listed on the trading pool, assets were essentially subject to Uniswap's established market rules.

The changes in V4 are mainly concentrated in three aspects:

Singleton architecture. Previously, each transaction pool was a separate contract, resulting in high creation and invocation costs. V4 manages all pools under a single PoolManager main contract. This directly reduces the cost of creating new pools and makes interactions between multiple pools easier to handle in a unified manner.
Flash Accounting. In the past, trading processes often required funds to be repeatedly transferred in and out between different pools. V4 changes this by first recording the intermediate states and then settling everything at the end. Simply put, it reduces the repetitive transfer and settlement steps in complex transactions, making operations such as multi-pool routing, cross-pool arbitrage, and composite market making more efficient.
Hooks. A hook can be understood as a piece of external logic connected to the trading pool. Developers can insert their own rules at key points in the trading lifecycle, such as before opening the pool, before and after adding liquidity, before and after swapping, and before and after withdrawing liquidity. This is the biggest difference between V4 and previous versions; the trading pool is no longer just a place that passively matches trades, but has begun to become a market container that can be modified by developers.

For example, a pool can be configured with special trading rules at the initial launch; transaction fees can be allocated to limited partners (LPs), project vaults, or used for automatic buybacks at a specific ratio; and fee rates can be dynamically adjusted based on market fluctuations. Furthermore, transactions themselves can trigger complex actions such as minting, burning, NFT generation, and points accumulation. Therefore, the first two upgrades in V4 primarily improve underlying efficiency, while Hooks truly change the boundaries of asset issuance and trading mechanisms. It transforms Uniswap from merely a trading venue into a development platform capable of supporting new asset mechanisms.

1.3 From Lifecycle Hooks to Custom Pricing

The V4 white paper outlines eight lifecycle insertion points:

In addition, there's a set of donate hooks, totaling a dozen or so. The significance of these hooks isn't just to allow the trading pool to do more things, but to expose the pool's state machine to developers.

Furthermore, V4 allows NoOp (No-Operation) hooks to work with returnDelta. Developers can, to some extent, replace Uniswap's native AMM mathematical formulas, define their own pricing curves, and then let PoolManager complete the settlement according to this logic. This makes Uniswap V4 more than just a DEX; it's more like a development platform that can support financial primitives.

Another crucial constraint to note is that the hook address is bound during pool initialization and cannot be changed permanently thereafter. Once live, the rules are locked. This is both the source of the hook asset's credibility and explains why the SATO "white paper rewritten overnight" incident sparked controversy.

1.4 Why didn't it become popular in 2025?

During the week V4 launched, market attention was almost entirely focused on the aftermath of Trump's memecoin and AI assets like ai16z and Virtual. In contrast, V4 lacked a strong enough trading buzz; while the developer community paid attention to V4, ordinary users didn't notice much of a difference.

Over the next few months, the Uniswap Foundation's UHI (Uniswap Hook Incubator) program nurtured hundreds of hook developers. As of the end of April 2026, the official Uniswap GitHub hooklist repository contained 180 hook projects, including hooks like Zora, Flanch, and Clanker designed around the lifecycle of token issuance and trading. The problem is that these projects primarily serve launchpads, creator token issuance, or team token issuance processes, and ordinary users don't have a strong understanding of the underlying hooks themselves. They address "how to issue and manage assets more efficiently," rather than making retail investors intuitively aware of the new features that V4 hooks can bring.

uPEG will be available by the end of April 2026.

Infrastructure itself is difficult to disseminate; what's truly easy for the market to discuss are assets that can be traded, showcased, and generate price fluctuations. Most of the 180 projects on the hooklist are infrastructure and launchpads; and that's where uPEG's significance lies. For the first time, it allows ordinary users to intuitively see what V4 hooks can do in a consumable and tradable form for end users.

Looking back over these 15 months, what Hook lacked was not a toolchain or security, but an asset carrier that could be traded, discussed, and disseminated in the market. uPEG played precisely that role.

But looking deeper, we find that what V4 Hook truly raises isn't the efficiency of token issuance, but rather the barrier to entry in mechanism design. In the past two cycles, the market has been making token issuance increasingly standardized and templated, ultimately making it accessible to anyone, leading to rapid homogenization of supply. Hook takes the opposite approach. It no longer rewards "who issues the token first," but instead rewards "who can integrate price, behavior, liquidity, and time into the same system." In a sense, the market never lacks token issuance tools; what it lacks are talented developers who can write the right mechanisms.

II. Four Hook Paths: Side Effects, Pricing, Looping, and Entry Point

To understand this wave of hook assets, the key is to see which layer of the transaction lifecycle the hook intervenes in. Based on the different points of intervention, the currently popular assets in the ecosystem can be roughly divided into four paths: triggering by post-transaction side effects, taking over pricing logic, NFT economic cycle, and triggering through AI entry points.

2.1 Side Effect Trigger (afterSwap)

Representative projects: uPEG, $horn

This implementation is relatively restrained; the AMM pricing itself remains unchanged, and the hook only triggers additional actions after the swap is completed.

The challenges of this approach lie more in the visual design and on-chain generation logic. Developers need to write an on-chain image renderer that fits within the EVM gas budget, but pricing, liquidity, and slippage still follow the standard Uniswap approach. Therefore, it is also the type of hook that is easiest to integrate with existing assets.

2.2 Pricing Engine Takeover (beforeSwap + returnDelta)

Representative project: $SATO

This is a more aggressive usage. The hook takes over the process before swap enters PoolManager, replacing the AMM quote with a custom curve.

The key to this approach is that the hook no longer merely adds side effects to swap, but directly participates in pricing. The SATO price seen by the user is not calculated by a traditional AMM, but by the hook's built-in bonding curve.

2.3 On-chain NFT Economic Layer (voiding & revival)

Representative projects: Slonks / $SLOP

This is a more complex type of design. Slonks doesn't simply link NFTs and tokens together; instead, it creates a system where the two can be converted back and forth.

Users can split a Slonks NFT into $SLOP tokens, or burn a certain amount of $SLOP to exchange for a Slonks NFT back from the system. To keep the system running, Hook will collect a fee from every $SLOP transaction and use that fee to buy back Slonks NFTs on the secondary market to replenish the system's inventory.

The potential of this approach lies in the fact that it doesn't necessarily have to serve only new projects. Theoretically, existing NFT collections can also integrate similar hook mechanisms, transforming the originally static NFTs into an economic system with token liquidity and buyback logic. Therefore, older PFP projects may become potential testing grounds for this type of mechanism.

2.4 Account Abstraction + AI Entry Point

Representative project: $SHIT

This is a combined experiment of V4 Hook, EIP-7702, and AI Agent. $SHIT, launched on May 9th, is the first to successfully run this entire process.

Strictly speaking, it's not a completely new Hook mechanism. Its novelty lies in the fact that the programmability of Hooks is no longer limited to the contract layer, but has been extended to the user entry layer: users don't need to directly click front-end buttons or manually call contracts, but can trigger on-chain actions through an AI dialogue.

By comparing these four paths side by side, it's easy to understand why Hook assets exhibit such different forms.

Some projects trigger additional minting through transactions, some rewrite the pricing curve, some create a circular system for transaction fees, NFT inventory, and token liquidity, and some simply replace the transaction entry point from a web button with an AI dialog box.

Hook assets are no longer just "a token on a DEX". They are more like an on-chain program with an asset shell: trading is just the entry point. What is really bought, sold, discussed and spread is the mechanism written into Hook.

2.5 Hook: Redesigning the mechanism to bring competition back.

Looking at these types of Hook assets together, a significant change is that market competition is shifting from "who can tell the best story" back to "who can design the best mechanism." In the past, products like pump.fun lowered the barrier to entry for token issuance to an extremely low level, resulting in an explosion of asset supply, rapid dilution of attention, and ultimately, competition was often limited to names, images, and dissemination efficiency. V4 Hooks represent the opposite; instead of further lowering the barrier, they bring the competition back to the mechanism design itself. Whoever can create a truly differentiated market structure that drives user behavior and fosters self-propagation is more likely to succeed.

This is why tokenomics has always been a strong area of expertise for DeFi natives. Truly great developers never just create a token; they create a market mechanism that influences behavior, reallocates liquidity, and alters holding paths. Total supply, allocation, and unlocking are just the surface layer; the deeper part involves rewarding and punishing behaviors, determining when and how prices are discovered, and forcing users to make choices at specific times. Hook brings these elements, originally scattered across tokens, front-ends, and operations, back to the trading pool itself.

If the most scarce resources in the last market cycle were traffic and narrative, then in the Hook sector, what's becoming scarce again is something more old-fashioned: talented developers. Because when token issuance tools become so ubiquitous that everyone can use them, what truly determines the lifespan and ceiling of an asset will revert to the most difficult-to-replicate mechanism design.

Third, the conversion of images and coins is not a new narrative, so will this time be different?

Many people's first reaction to uPEG is: "Isn't this just like the ERC-404 wave in Pandora in 2024?" But from ERC-721 to ERC-404, and then to V4 Hook, there is actually a path of continuous evolution of asset standards and trading access.

3.1 Phase One (2017-2023): ERC-721

Each token has a unique ID; there is no economic layer or minting/selling mechanism. All transactions occur on the secondary market and are not directly related to the contract itself.

This phase lasted about five years, from CryptoPunks and BAYC to Azuki, Doodles, and Moonbirds. PFP projects mainly monetized through royalty and community operations, with the contracts themselves being relatively static. This is why the business models of many NFT projects quickly came under pressure when markets like OpenSea stopped enforcing royalty.

3.2 Phase Two (2024): ERC-404 / Pandora

On February 2, 2024, Pandora was listed on Ethereum. It is neither VC Coin nor TeamToken. Its opening price was $230, and it rose to $32,000 in 6 days, a weekly increase of 12,000%.

The mechanism is as follows:

A total of 10,000 ERC-20 tokens, corresponding to 10,000 Replicant NFTs.
Holding 1 complete token = Holding 1 Replicant
When you buy the first token, the contract mint gives you a new Replicant.
When a Replicant is sold (with a holding of less than 1), that Replicant is destroyed.
Selling and then buying back → re-minting, but the item number and rarity will be randomly re-randomized – the famous "reroll" gameplay.

The community once tried to refresh the rarity of Replicant through repeated transactions, hoping to reroll for even rarer NFTs. However, ERC-404 exposed two core problems at the time:

It is not a formally adopted EIP standard. The Pandora team put both ERC-20 and ERC-721 interfaces into the same contract, achieving the effect of "the same asset having both token and NFT attributes," but this approach is not a mature standard. Wallets, cross-chain bridges, aggregators, and other infrastructure are prone to recognition and interaction problems when compatible with such assets.
Gas costs are high. Each transaction may involve an ERC-721 mint or burn operation, and the gas fee for a single swap often reaches tens of dollars.

In the second half of 2024, DN-404 emerged, attempting to solve this problem in a more engineered way. It splits ERC-20 and ERC-721 into two contracts and keeps them synchronized through a mirror relationship, thereby reducing gas costs and improving compatibility.

However, by this time, the market's enthusiasm for "coin-to-image" integration had clearly cooled down. The impressions left by ERC-404 regarding high gas fees, compatibility issues, and excessive speculation quickly turned this direction from a new narrative into a short-term hot topic.

3.3 Phase Three (2026): V4 Hook

The core problem with ERC-404 is that it attempts to switch back and forth between two independent standards, ERC-20 and ERC-721. While this creates a "coin-to-image" effect, it leads to complex state management and unstable infrastructure compatibility.

V4 Hook takes a different approach. Instead of inventing a new asset standard, it turns the swap transaction itself into a programmable entry point. The generation, destruction, pricing, and additional logic of assets do not necessarily have to be written in the token contract, but can be placed in the Hook logic of the trading pool.

Therefore, the biggest difference between V4 Hook and ERC-404 can be viewed from three dimensions:

First, is the NFT pre-existing, or is it generated during the transaction?

Pandora's Replicant NFTs are closer to pre-defined assets. The metadata of 10,000 Replicants is determined when the project starts, and transactions are triggered by the NFT's mint, burn, or re-randomization.

uPEG operates on a different logic. Its 24x24 pixel image is not pre-prepared. When a user buys and triggers afterSwap, the Hook generates a random seed based on the user's address, transaction parameters, and other information, which is then handed over to the on-chain SVG renderer to render an SVG image in real time.

Second, where are the images and metadata attached?

Pandora's images and metadata primarily rely on IPFS or external storage. While IPFS is more censorship-resistant than centralized servers, it still depends on the continued accessibility of external files.

uPEG further incorporates SVG rendering logic into an on-chain contract. As long as Ethereum exists, the image can be re-rendered.

Slonks takes it a step further. It stores a 22.7 KB transformer model directly into the Ethereum mainnet contract, splitting its weights into nine parts and storing them in multiple functionless contracts using the SSTORE2 model. Each minting or merging operation runs an inference process within the EVM, generating an SVG image on the spot. In contrast, transaction pools in the V3 era struggled to handle this type of computation and generation logic.

Third, where is the economic mechanism written?

In ERC-404 projects like Pandora, tokenomics is primarily written in the token contract, while the Uniswap pool simply provides a trading venue.

However, in V4 Hook assets, the economic mechanisms can be directly written into the Hook. SATO's supply cap and minting stop rules, SLOP's NFT and token conversion logic, and $horn's "ETH invested × holding time" minting mechanism all essentially rely on Hook execution. Looking only at the token contract often doesn't reveal the true mechanism design.

Therefore, ERC-404 is more like piecing together the two standards of "token" and "NFT"; while V4 Hook turns "transaction" itself into the entry point for asset generation and mechanism triggering. The former solves the problem of asset form combination, while the latter changes the way asset mechanisms are triggered, moving from token-as-asset to swap-as-genesis.

IV. The Next Wave to Look Forward To: The "Second Spring" of Old NFT Projects

If uPEG/SATO/Slonks/Horn and the like represent the first half of this wave of hook stories, then the next wave of narratives, which hasn't been fully discussed but is worth following, is whether older NFT projects can use V4 hooks to add a new economic mechanism to their portfolios.

Most older NFT projects are still stuck in the pure ERC-721 stage. Their contracts typically only support mint, transfer, and burn, lacking an economic logic linked to transaction behavior. As the royalties of marketplaces like OpenSea gradually become ineffective, many projects can only continue to rely on community operations, branding events, and new narratives to maintain their activity.

V4 Hook offers another option: instead of changing the existing NFT holding structure or forcing holders to migrate, it integrates a new Hook economic logic layer to allow old assets to re-establish contract-level connections with transaction behavior.

This path isn't entirely without precedent. Slonks, uPEG, and SATO have already validated different Hook implementations on-chain. The real challenge isn't necessarily engineering implementation, but rather the design of the economic model and whether the project team is willing to acknowledge that the old model needs to be supplemented with a new asset mechanism.

However, for NFT projects, integrating with the Hook economic layer is not a purely technical choice. It signifies a further shift from "art collection" to "financialized assets." This is a significant cultural change, and not all teams will accept it.

Different hook paradigms have varying degrees of compatibility with older NFT projects. The uPEG "transaction-triggered generation" path requires rewriting the visual generation logic, which is not friendly to older projects. The SATO "hook-based pricing" model is more suitable for new asset issuance than for directly applying to existing NFTs. Relatively speaking, Slonks' design, which revolves around a cycle of NFT inventory, token liquidity, and transaction fee buybacks, may be more suitable for older PFP projects. The $horn path, which incorporates holding time into the asset generation logic, also has the potential to be used to reward long-term holders.

When this path will truly take hold depends on whether the first influential established NFT project is willing to take the plunge and try it. For those following V4 Hooks, instead of only chasing new assets that have already seen price increases, focusing on older PFPs that still have communities and brands but haven't yet completed their mechanism transformation might be a good direction.

V. Will V4 Hook bring about a new cycle?

Looking at a longer timeframe, a recurring pattern in Crypto history is that changes in asset issuance methods often lead to new trading cycles.

In 2017, ERC-20 and ICOs lowered the barrier to token issuance from "creating a blockchain" to "writing a contract"; in 2021, ERC-721 and OpenSea standardized the issuance and trading of NFTs, bringing NFT Summer; in 2023, BRC-20 and Ordinals bound the scarcity and inscriptions on the BTC blockchain together, creating a new secondary market; in 2024, pump.fun further lowered the barrier to token issuance from "being able to write contracts" to "being able to type".

The common thread in the previous changes was the continuous lowering of the barriers to issuance. Issuing tokens became simpler and easier, participation became easier and easier, and the supply of assets expanded more and more.

V4 Hook takes a different approach. Instead of lowering the barrier to entry, it raises it, but at the same time opens up greater possibilities for mechanism expression. It frees tokenomics from a static contract, making the trading pool itself part of the asset mechanism.

To some extent, this is also Uniswap's response after pump.fun stole a large amount of token issuance traffic. Instead of competing on who can make token issuance easier, it shifted the focus to who can write a more innovative and harder-to-copy asset mechanism.

Hooks may not be able to single-handedly trigger a full-blown bull market. They are too complex, have too high a barrier to entry, and require more from developers, making it difficult for them to spread to a large number of ordinary users in a short period of time like pump.fun.

However, it has the potential to become a more "mechanically complex" track in the next cycle. It serves not the largest group of players, but users who are willing to study contracts, understand mechanisms, and take early risks.

VI. What should ordinary users pay attention to?

For ordinary users, the first thing to realize when participating in Hook assets is a change: in the V4 era, the real mechanism may not be written in the token contract, but may be written in the Hook contract.

In the past, when evaluating a new coin, the focus was often on whether transfers were taxed, whether there were blacklists, and whether there was the authority to issue more tokens. However, in Hook assets, mint, burn, pricing curves, fee distribution, NFT generation, and even self-destruction mechanisms may all be hidden within the Hook logic. Simply reading the token contract may not reveal the true risks.

SATO is a typical example. Its buying and selling do not follow the same price path, and with the added double taxation, users who rely solely on the intuition of a typical AMM can easily underestimate the mechanism's losses.

Therefore, when participating in Hook assets, at least a few things should be noted: First, look at the Hook contract before buying, not just the token contract; second, confirm whether there is dual pricing for buy and sell; third, the position should match the liquidity of the pool, as the pool is very thin in the early stages, and a slightly larger sell order may cause significant price fluctuations; fourth, do not equate technological innovation with market fairness. Hooks address developers' expressive power, but will not eliminate binding and entrapment.

VII. Conclusion

Returning to the question at the beginning of the article: Why V4 Hook? And now?

V4 Hook was launched in January 2025. It had a toolchain, security audits, and developers nurtured by an incubator, as well as registered Hook projects. However, at the time, it didn't become a real market sensation. The reason wasn't complicated: most users were still immersed in the low-barrier-to-entry issuance logic of pump.fun. Since a coin could be issued in seconds, why spend weeks writing a Hook?

However, as the release of Solana Memes becomes increasingly competitive and the homogenization resulting from the low barrier to entry becomes more severe, the idea of "spending a few weeks writing a hook" is starting to make sense again. The higher engineering barrier is beginning to become part of the scarcity of the mechanism itself.

This creates a very interesting cycle: pump.fun lowered the barrier to entry for token issuance to an extremely low level, leading to the rapid expansion of Meme assets; after the oversupply of assets, some players began to look for assets that were harder to replicate and had scarcer mechanisms; as a result, the market turned its attention back to V4 Hook, which had been dormant in the EVM market for 16 months.

New market opportunities often don't emerge during the most exciting times, but rather before mainstream attention shifts and a unified narrative is formed, first appearing from the underlying code. V4 Hook waited 16 months before the first batch of assets truly brought it to the market. uPEG was the earliest widely discussed example, Slonks demonstrated the possibility of on-chain generation and the NFT economic cycle, SATO pushed the idea of Hook taking over the pricing curve to the extreme, SHIT combined AI entry point, EIP-7702, and Hook together, and horn began to try to directly incorporate the time dimension into the asset generation logic.

However, this is likely not the true end of the line. If V4 Hook continues to move forward, the next wave of developments worth watching may not just be new memes or generated art assets, but also existing NFT projects, on-chain game assets, and even transaction portals for AI Agents. Whether existing PFPs will be the first to integrate with the Hook economic layer remains to be seen.

Undoubtedly, V4 Hooks are transforming from developers' innovative experiments into an entry point for new asset mechanisms into the market. What it truly raises isn't the efficiency of token issuance, but rather the barrier to entry for mechanism design. The market doesn't lack assets; it lacks talented developers who can write the right mechanisms. Whoever can truly combine the variables of price, behavior, liquidity, and time into a functional mechanism is more likely to define the next stage of this narrative.

Note: This article is for research and information sharing purposes only and does not constitute any investment advice. The prices of the hook-related assets mentioned in this article are highly volatile; please fully assess your own risk tolerance before participating.

5 Pudgy Penguins sold for a total of $175, but the seller may have misread the price

Popular Articles