Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$6.04
▲ $0.27 (+4.7%)
Market data updated: 09/26 12:13 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/25/2026
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
$187.23M
Day Range
$5.48 - $6.18
52-Week Range
$2.44 - $18.28
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$2.44
Resistance
$6.67
-61.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/33 factors positiveRisk: Medium
This score and all analysis on this page are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Read the full disclaimer
Weighted: Technical 25% · Fundamental 20% · Growth 15% · Valuation 15% · News 10% · Quality 10% · Risk 5%
Overall Score
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 442.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$31.43 vs. price $6.04 (-620.4%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
53
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
Not enough data yet to generate this synthesis.
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
40
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
76
Risk
48
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
35
Institutional
100
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Everyone's writing about DeFi Development Corp.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 10 of the last 18 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
43
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
34
Psychology
48
Fundamentals
35
Technical
76
Valuation
38
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+112%
Market Narrative
57
Fundamental Reality
34
Narrative Gap
+23
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
Signal classification confidence: High (confidence in the behavioral read, not a price prediction). Describes observable market behavior, not what any individual investor thinks, and is not a buy/sell signal.
🏛️ Investor DNA — Historical Investors
A Historical Strategy Simulation: assuming each investor follows their documented principles, how would they rate this stock today? This is not a prediction of what they would actually do.
🟢 Best match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 64/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles, the model estimates that the more value‑oriented frameworks (Graham’s enterprising view, Livermore’s trend analysis, Schwager’s systematic edge) assign only modest scores in the low‑60s, reflecting a slight discount but no strong buying signal. In contrast, broader market‑efficiency and traditional Graham assessments rate the stock in the mid‑50s to high‑40s, indicating mixed evidence and a failure to meet the deeper “net‑net” or intrinsic‑value thresholds. The lowest scores from Smith, Mackay, Bagehot, Fisher, Lynch, Marks and others arise from concerns about stability, liquidity, growth quality, cycle positioning and risk‑return balance, leading these methodologies to flag the stock as overbought, risky, or lacking a quality growth narrative. Consequently, the divergence among the methodologies stems from their differing emphasis—pure value discounts versus growth quality, market cycles, and risk assessment—resulting in a consensus of caution rather than endorsement.
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 64
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 63
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 61
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 56
Mixed case — the evidence for picking this stock over an index is not strong
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 48
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 38
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 37
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 36
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 33
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 33
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 33
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 32
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 30
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 26
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 26
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 284 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (9 bullish · 3 bearish · 1 neutral)
A market-structure read based purely on real price and volume data — not full classic Wyckoff schematic identification (Phase A-E), but a quantitative analysis of what can reliably be computed: trading ranges, "effort vs. result", volume within the range, and Spring/Upthrust detection.
The stock is in a clear uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
High confidence
The Wyckoff Method, developed by Richard Wyckoff in the early 20th century, reads the balance of supply and demand through price and volume, based on the premise that large investors ("smart money") quietly accumulate shares before rallies and quietly distribute them before declines. The read here is based solely on real price and volume data — full, precise identification of classic Wyckoff patterns (such as Phases A-E) requires human chart-reading experience and judgment, so this is an approximate algorithmic read, not a substitute for professional analysis. This should not be considered investment advice.
Gross Margin
97.8%
Operating Margin
-319.7%
Net Margin
-648.1%
EBITDA Margin
-310.5%
ROE
-74.3%
ROA
-24.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$4.00
Cash
$5.92M
Total Debt
$127.47M
Current Ratio
1.51
Debt/Equity
1.28
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$6.04
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$31.43
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-620.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $-22.46M | $-20.61M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-26.81M | $-22.57M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-30.50M | $-23.55M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-32.98M | $-23.36M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-33.80M | $-21.97M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-17.97M
Terminal Value
$-533.04M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-346.44M
Enterprise Value
$-458.50M
Net Debt
$121.55M
Equity Value
$-580.04M
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$5.38
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$5.18
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 4 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 18 articles.
Benzinga · 21.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 22.7.2026
MarketBeat · 10.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 7.7.2026
Proactive · 29.6.2026
IPO-Edge.com · 22.5.2026
GuruFocus.com · 21.5.2026
Exec Edge · 20.5.2026
MarketBeat · 16.5.2026
GlobeNewswire · 15.5.2026
MarketBeat · 14.5.2026
CryptoProwl · 4.5.2026
DeFi Development Corp. (DFDV) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 53/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
DFDV currently scores 53/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, DFDV's estimated fair value is -$31.43, which is 620.4% below the current price of $6.04. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
DFDV's technical score is 76/100, which currently reads as bullish — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Revenue growth (last year): 442.2%; Current ratio: 1.51; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$31.43 vs. price $6.04 (-620.4%); Operating margin: -319.7% (negative); Net margin: -648.1% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for DFDV.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 6 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kang Daniel | Open Market Purchase | 22.9.2026 | 6,900 | +6,900 | $8.84 |
| Kang Daniel | Open Market Purchase | 22.9.2026 | 3,540 | +3,540 | $8.81 |
| Han Fei | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.9.2026 | 354,829 | -2,803 | $5.00 |
| White Parker | Open Market Purchase | 21.8.2026 | 274,944 | +5,069 | $3.93 |
| White Parker | Open Market Purchase | 21.8.2026 | 279,944 | +5,000 | $3.88 |
| Kang Daniel | Open Market Purchase | 20.8.2026 | 18,181 | +11,000 | $3.88 |
| Han Fei | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.8.2026 | 357,632 | -2,803 | $3.16 |
| Kang Daniel | Open Market Purchase | 14.8.2026 | 13,000 | +13,000 | $2.91 |
| Han Fei | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.7.2026 | 360,435 | -2,803 | $2.82 |
| Han Fei | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.6.2026 | 363,238 | -2,803 | $3.09 |
| Han Fei | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.5.2026 | 366,041 | -2,802 | $4.78 |
| Han Fei | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.4.2026 | 368,843 | -2,862 | $4.78 |
| Townsend Adam R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.4.2026 | 28,170 | +28,170 | — |
| JANOVER BLAKE | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.4.2026 | 78,281 | +70,000 | — |
| JANOVER BLAKE | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.4.2026 | 61,236 | -17,045 | $3.45 |
| JANOVER BLAKE | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.4.2026 | 0 | -70,000 | — |
| Caragol William J | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 16,795 | +16,795 | — |
| JANOVER BLAKE | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 6,562 | +6,562 | — |
| Tai Zachary Aris | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 656 | +656 | — |
| Han Fei | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 13,568 | +13,568 | — |
| Kang Daniel | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 11,655 | +11,655 | — |
| Onorati Joseph Mario | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 22,639 | +22,639 | — |
| Perfumo Thomas J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 700 | +700 | — |
| White Parker | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 14,393 | +14,393 | — |
| Han Fei | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.3.2026 | 371,705 | -3,217 | $5.11 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,630,663 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 4,857,782 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
46.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 37.4% the prior week
Based on daily short-sale volume (Reg SHO) — a different metric from the open short interest above: this is daily trading volume, not an open position, so it updates weekly rather than biweekly.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology