Dialogue with SOL Strategies CEO: The first Solana futures ETF is launched, we are not just "the Solana version of MicroStrategy."

Organized & Compiled: Deep Tide TechFlow

Guest: Leah Wald, CEO of SOL Strategies

Host: Jack Kubine

Podcast Source: Lightspeed

Original Title: The Solana Playbook With Leah Wald

Broadcast Date: March 27, 2025

Key Takeaways

In this week's special episode, we invite Leah Wald, who brings exciting insights from the DAS NY 2025 event. This episode will focus on the launch of the Solana futures ETF in 2025, providing an in-depth analysis of SOL Strategies' strategic guide, and exploring Leah's unique perspectives on the current cryptocurrency market. Additionally, we will discuss Solana's long-term vision and its latest industry developments.

Highlights of Insights

• In the early history of cryptocurrency, the largest holders were often individual investors.

• The institutionalization of Solana is still in its early stages, and more discussions are just beginning.

• One of Solana's successes is its ability to engage in dialogue with various institutions, attracting them to consider running blockchain projects on its platform.

• Comparing SOL Strategies to Microstrategy for Solana is actually an incomplete analogy.

• A fairer approach would be to build a real tech company.

• One aspect I really like about the Solana community is that there are various types of startups exploring innovation.

• Like Bitcoin, it took a long time to establish itself as a "store of value." Solana and SOL itself are more speculative, so it will also take time to find their direction.

Launch of the Solana Futures ETF

Jack: We just saw the first Solana ETF in the U.S. start trading. You're an expert in this area, so I want to ask you, what do you think about the first-day performance of the futures ETF for volatile shares? How was the trading volume? What key points should people pay attention to during this release?

Leah Wald:

This is very important. I think we all didn't expect things to develop so quickly. This launch comes right after the release of CME futures products, and the approval process was very fast, while also introducing the A2X leverage mechanism.

I believe it was a very wise strategy for volatile shares to choose to launch futures products. The market performed very strongly on Monday; in any case, this was a successful demonstration showing the existence of the market and the success of trading. Especially for products with 2x leverage, this is undoubtedly a huge victory. From the perspective of institutional adoption and market effectiveness, it is significant for the entire ecosystem.

As for trading volume, I think there is still a lot of room for growth, but after all, this is just the first day. Many market participants typically do not enter on the first day, so it is more important to observe the performance three months later, including trading volume, market participation, and overall interest.

Jack:

If I remember correctly, when you were at Valkyrie, you launched a Bitcoin futures ETF. Can you share your experience from that time? For example, how was the trading volume on the first day? When did you start to see significant capital inflows? Additionally, what lessons from the Bitcoin futures ETF experience can be applied to the Solana futures ETF?

Leah Wald:

We launched the Valkyrie and ProShares Bitcoin futures ETFs in October 2021. ProShares went live two days before us; they chose to list on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), while we opted for the Nasdaq (NASDAQ). ProShares' product surpassed $1 billion in trading volume on the first day, while our first-day trading volume was about $50 million. Nevertheless, this was already a very good achievement, as it was the first Bitcoin ETF in the U.S.

The process of launching a futures ETF is very complex, especially in terms of communicating with market makers and ensuring the normal operation of the entire futures trading ecosystem. Compared to spot ETFs, futures ETFs involve more participants, and since they are based on CME's paper trading, there is a certain separation from spot assets, which requires additional considerations regarding tracking errors and so on.

Although Bitcoin has larger AUM and trading volume, the market conditions are indeed different. People had more preparation time. It seems that the SEC approved it two days after the futures launch. So volatile shares still have the opportunity to start marketing.

Jack:

How long do you think it will take to make a meaningful assessment of the trading volume for CME futures and the volatile shares ETF? After all, first-day trading volumes are usually low; does it require a longer time to observe?

Leah Wald:

Many companies cannot directly purchase futures products due to internal portfolio restrictions. Additionally, the range of participants in futures trading is relatively limited. Therefore, the performance on the first day usually does not fully reflect the product's potential.

I think it takes at least three months to observe the market performance of these ETFs, including changes in trading volume and participation. Generally speaking, trading firms in Chicago are the main participants, and their behavior can significantly impact market performance. Therefore, a three to nine-month timeframe is a reasonable period to assess the success of these products.

Jack:

What do you think about the prospects for spot ETFs in 2025?

Leah Wald:

I think this is a key moment worth looking forward to. Historically, futures ETFs usually launch before spot ETFs. Although we cannot predict accurately, the launch of this futures ETF is undoubtedly a positive signal. Many companies have already submitted applications for spot ETFs, and their product operations are performing well. So, I am optimistic about the prospects for spot ETFs in 2025.

Are Institutions Optimistic?

Jack:

Let's talk more broadly about futures ETFs. We are currently at the DAS conference, which feels more like a gathering of institutional investors. However, you and I have discussed before that many people tend to view "institutions" as a unified whole when talking about cryptocurrency.

I have two questions: First, have institutions started entering Solana? Second, what does this mean for the market? Additionally, how should we define "institutions"? Which ones count as institutions, and which do not? From your current observations, which areas or segments of institutional capital are most likely to enter Solana in the short term?

Leah Wald:

This is a very thought-provoking question. We usually categorize ordinary users and institutional investors into two groups based on the size of their capital. But in the history of cryptocurrency, the situation is not that simple. If we view ordinary investors as those managing their own wealth, while institutions are organizations managing others' capital, then these two represent different types of capital flows, not necessarily differences in capital size. In fact, in the early history of cryptocurrency, the largest holders were often individual investors.

As Bitcoin gradually came to be seen as a new store of value asset, the trend of institutionalization began to emerge. For example, financial giants like Blackrock and Fidelity are actively launching Bitcoin ETFs, marking a significant shift in the market. However, for other altcoins (like Solana), the current major holders are still individual investors. Although legally these people are referred to as ordinary investors, their capital size and market influence can actually rival that of institutional investors.

As for your second question, what does institutional entry mean for the market? Have they already participated? For Solana, the current discussions are more focused on how institutions "can" participate in its ecosystem. We can see some signs, such as Franklin Templeton launching blockchain-based funds and trying to operate on the Solana platform. Additionally, the launch of the futures ETF provides institutional investors with new tools, which may attract more capital into the Solana ecosystem. In the Bitcoin market, we have already seen institutions making significant asset allocations through donation funds, pension plans, and sovereign wealth funds. As Solana also acquires similar investment tools, we may see more institutional participation.

However, overall, the institutionalization of Solana is still in its early stages, and more discussions are just beginning.

The Ultimate Vision for Solana

Jack:

A potentially overlooked question is the distinction between institutions purchasing SOL assets and institutions operating money market funds on the Solana platform. Compared to a future on-chain NASDAQ, I think the likelihood of pension funds purchasing SOL assets is clearly more practical.

Leah Wald:

Your point is very valid. Observing the development paths of different projects is indeed very interesting. I believe one of Solana's successes is its ability to engage in dialogue with various institutions, attracting them to consider running blockchain projects on its platform. Solana has shown strong persuasion in this regard, as it possesses many significant advantages. However, how the funds are allocated once they enter the Solana ecosystem, and which areas they flow into, are important questions that need to be explored further. Fortunately, as we discussed two days ago, these topics are beginning to receive more attention.

Jack:

You mentioned the distinction between institutions and ordinary investors, but in reality, capital size is not the main dividing line between the two, as there are also so-called "ordinary whales" (referring to individual investors holding large amounts of assets). Does your SOL Strategies often interact with individuals like Joe, who hold large amounts of Solana for the long term? After all, he may control a considerable amount of assets.

Leah Wald:

Indeed, this is a very interesting phenomenon. One of my jobs is to communicate with investors and share our ideas and stories with them. For investors like Joe, he may be very satisfied with holding SOL long-term, just like many Bitcoin investors who are happy to hold their Bitcoin and may discuss the importance of ETFs with us. This choice itself is good because investors should have diverse investment options.

Currently, we are the only option providing stock investment exposure to ordinary investors through IRAs or similar accounts. This is also a topic worth noting in the development of Bitcoin ETFs. However, I believe investors like Joe may prefer to hold and stake his Solana assets directly rather than immediately purchase our stocks. Unless our stocks become more attractive to them, or they start to participate more actively in stock trading, this shift may take time.

Laine's Acquisition Strategy

Jack:

Speaking of your validators, I recently saw an interesting piece of news about SOL Strategies. You acquired the Laine Solana validator, and I remember his name is Michael, who also operates stakewiz.com. This acquisition is very special. I want to know how you engaged in dialogue with him? Why choose to acquire this specific validator and have Michael serve as Chief Operating Officer ? Can you share this story?

Leah Wald:

To be frank, this acquisition was largely due to Michael's personal capabilities. He is an outstanding and intelligent businessman, and he also has an excellent engineering background; talents like him are indeed very rare. Therefore, discussing the acquisition of the Laine validator, stakewiz.com, and other related assets with him completely aligns with our strategic logic for achieving external expansion in the next phase. This acquisition increased our shares to about 3.3 million.

Jack:

This is almost equivalent to doubling your shares, and it seems to have been completed in a short time.

Leah Wald:

That's right, it indeed is. The effect of Michael joining has been very significant; he is widely respected in the Solana community, not only for his abilities and intelligence but also for his genuine commitment to the community. You can also see this focus on the community from the work of our Chief Technology Officer. For example, we recently supported the SIMD02,2,8 proposal, even though it doesn't completely align with our economic interests as validators, we still chose to support it because it is more beneficial for the overall development of the Solana network.

Our goal is to build a company that is deeply integrated with the Solana ecosystem and contribute to the long-term development of the Solana network in this way. This is also one of the original intentions behind our acquisition of the Laine validator.

Is SOL Strategies the Microstrategy of Solana?

Jack:

Has the development plan for SOL Strategies always been to achieve growth through acquisitions? When I first heard about SOL Strategies, it was described as "the Microstrategy of Solana." I thought you would follow a similar path as Microstrategy, issuing debt to purchase large amounts of SOL, possibly also utilizing staking to gain additional returns, like staking SOL on platforms like Jito or Helius. This is what I heard on the Lightspeed podcast. However, it seems that you have now delved into the validator space, not only acquiring validators, but Max also frequently shares his views on SIMD proposals on Twitter. And Michael, as a well-known figure in the Solana validator community, has joined your team. So, did you plan this development direction from the beginning, or did this strategy gradually form over time?

Leah Wald:

Comparing SOL Strategies to Microstrategy for Solana is actually an incomplete analogy. In my view, the limitation of this model is that it simply plays the "net asset value (NAV) game," which is to enhance company value by accumulating assets, but that alone is not enough. I need to consider how to operate a real business while creating long-term value for the company's shareholders. If the market thinks we are just waiting for SOL to appreciate, that would be unfair to shareholders. I believe a fairer approach is to build a real tech company.

Our strategy is to achieve growth in a slower but steadier manner. Initially, we relied mainly on external acquisitions (inorganic growth) to expand our business, such as acquiring validators and related assets. Over time, we will gradually shift towards relying on our own capabilities for organic growth. Our ultimate goal is to become an infrastructure company for Solana.

In this process, we are indeed accumulating SOL as much as possible and staking it to our validator nodes. But this is just part of the overall strategy, similar to Bitcoin miners increasing the Bitcoin on their balance sheets through financing while operating mining businesses. I believe this model is more powerful and meaningful because we are not just "buying SOL," but playing a practical role in the Solana infrastructure ecosystem. With the help of Max and Michael, we are also actively engaging in dialogue with institutional investors to promote this vision.

Jack:

Besides operating validators, are you considering expanding into other infrastructure businesses? Is your goal limited to validators, or are there broader technological directions to explore?

Leah Wald:

We are indeed considering more opportunities beyond the validator business, especially in the auxiliary technology areas that support the Solana ecosystem. Currently, we are in discussions with multiple parties to explore more possibilities.

Solana's Investment Philosophy

Jack:

What is Solana's current investment philosophy? You seem to maintain some connection with Microstrategy. Michael Saylor has played an important role in the Bitcoin space and can be seen as a "spokesperson" for Bitcoin. I feel you are also trying to do something similar. It seems like a turning point; recently, we have seen some fading interest in meme coins, such as the once very popular Fire Dancer, which now seems to be losing attention. So, what is your investment philosophy for the remainder of 2025? How do you view the Solana network, and how are you currently promoting Solana?

Leah Wald:

This is a deep question, and I will answer it in three parts. I believe Solana is currently searching for its positioning. As a blockchain still in its early stages, it is striving to clarify its role and value proposition. Solana has its advantages and core pillars, which prove that it is more efficient than some other blockchains. But the key question is, who finds these advantages attractive? Who will choose to build on it? Who will become its users?

In the Solana ecosystem, discussions around products are very active, such as the concept of "structured products." So, will Solana become a platform supporting on-chain mutual funds? Or will it evolve into a payment system? These are all possible directions. One aspect I really like about the Solana community is that there are various types of startups exploring innovation. This year, I hope to see Solana further clarify its niche market. Although it has established core advantages, it has not yet fully found its unique positioning.

This process takes time. Just like Bitcoin, it took a long time to establish itself as a "store of value." Solana and SOL itself are more speculative, so it will also take time to find their direction. In 2025, I will closely monitor Solana's development and hope to see it find its unique niche market.

Final Thoughts

Jack:

Regarding other ecosystems, such as Sui, other Layer 1 blockchains, and Ethereum. Honestly, I think there are also investment opportunities similar to SOL Strategies in these ecosystems. Why haven't we seen more holding companies adopting similar investment strategies? Do you think such companies will emerge in the next year and a half?

Leah Wald:

I believe such companies will indeed emerge, and I have already communicated with some interested firms. Overall, I expect to see many companies in the U.S. going public through IPOs, possibly in the form of special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). In Canada, I think some companies may try to utilize real-time operating systems (RTOS).

However, as the number of such companies increases, I think the key question is how to define success; merely going public does not mean success. True success depends on multiple factors, such as market participation, investor interest, and trading volume support within the stock ecosystem. This support may come from token communities or the capital market ecosystem. Therefore, I believe we will see more companies going public, but they need to have a more comprehensive strategic thinking, rather than just going public for the sake of it.

I hope to see companies with broader thinking, not just focused on going public, but with long-term considerations. I welcome competition. I believe we will see this situation and look forward to these companies actively participating in ecosystem building. Only in this way can we truly promote the healthy development of the industry.