Dragonfly partner talks in detail: How to succeed in the cryptocurrency field without luck?

Here is the English translation of the text, with the specified terms preserved and not translated: In the Podcast episode of When Shift Happens, Haseeb Qureshi, a managing partner at Dragonfly, shared his legendary journey from a professional poker player to a top-tier crypto investor, and how he has built lasting influence in this rapidly evolving industry. This episode covers the most critical topics in crypto investing: how to make crypto a team sport, why money can't buy happiness, how to deal with imposter syndrome, and common mistakes new investors make. Haseeb: I am Haseeb Qureshi, currently a managing partner at Dragonfly Fund, a global crypto investment firm managing billions of dollars in assets. My career path has been quite dramatic: starting as a professional poker player, transitioning to a software engineer, then becoming an entrepreneur, and finally entering the VC industry for over 6 years. Among all my professional experiences, crypto investing has been the most challenging, but also the most rewarding and meaningful choice. Haseeb: It was a very chaotic period. I had built a decent reputation in the poker world, but it was severely damaged due to an incident involving student cheating. At the same time, I was also growing increasingly tired of poker. I didn't want to look back at my life at 50 and realize that I had just been playing cards and taking other people's money. That was not the meaning of life I wanted. I made a very radical decision: I kept only $10,000 as basic living expenses, and donated or gave the rest to my parents for their retirement. I wanted to force myself to start over. At 23 years old, I went back to school to study non-technical subjects like English and philosophy. As the oldest student in the class, with a resume that only said "professional gambler," I felt quite panicked. This decision gave me a new perspective. Working as a software engineer in Silicon Valley, my annual income was around $100,000, much less than what I made playing poker. But interestingly, my sense of well-being didn't change much. What truly brought me fulfillment was learning new knowledge, achieving personal growth, and building genuine connections with those around me. Host: Going from a professional poker player to a venture capitalist is a huge transition. How do you see the similarities and differences between these two fields? Haseeb: The fundamental difference between VC and poker lies in the feedback cycle. In poker games, the correctness of a decision is verified almost immediately. For example, when you judge that your opponent is bluffing and choose to call, the result is revealed right away. However, in the VC world, the situation is completely different. It often takes 6-7 years to truly understand the merits of an investment decision. We often see a startup company sailing smoothly from seed to Series A, but then suddenly facing a fatal crisis in Series C. This delayed feedback mechanism places extremely high demands on the investor's judgment. It's worth mentioning that it is thanks to our rigorous judgment that we successfully avoided projects like FTX, BlockFi, and LUNA that ultimately collapsed. Host: It sounds like the feeling of making the right call would be quite different as well. Haseeb: That's absolutely true. The difference is very apparent. In poker or trading, the reward for a correct decision is immediate and intense, giving a direct dopamine rush of "I won." That sense of achievement comes very directly. But in VC, success is a gradual process. It's more like nurturing a tree: there are no dramatic high points, but rather a need for continuous patience and dedication. You see the startup company grow step by step: each funding round brings a steady increase in valuation, steady improvement in operating metrics, and joint problem-solving when challenges arise. This process requires investors to have immense patience and perseverance. Unlike the rapid win-or-lose judgments in poker, VC is more like a marathon, testing one's long-term mindset and sustained value creation ability. It is this gradual growth process that makes VC work particularly meaningful. In the VC field, judgment of people is often more critical than analysis of business models. Although investment giants like Naval Ravikant or Chamath Palihapitiya often emphasize the need to break through stereotypes, the actual judgment process is much more complex. As an experienced investor, I've found there to be an important paradox in this. Junior investors usually need to go through a cognitive process: understanding that business models and technological innovations do require continuous learning and in-depth research, often by building a systematic analytical framework through studying business and technological history. But interestingly, the ability to understand human nature is an innate capability we are born with. Our neural system is naturally equipped with the ability to decode others. When you feel a sense of distrust towards someone, even if you can't pinpoint the specific reason, this feeling often stems from the composite of many subtle signals you've received. However, junior investors often overlook this intuitive judgment, and instead overly rely on surface evidence: - "Maybe it's my lack of experience, my judgment is not accurate enough" - "This founder's resume is outstanding, and the business plan is also very comprehensive" - "He has the endorsement of so many well-known partners" With accumulated experience, you'll gradually learn to trust your own instincts. The key is to see through the surface-level social credentials, and sense the essential characteristics of a person, contemplating how they might behave under pressure, uncertainty, and moral dilemmas. In most cases, your first instinct is usually correct. VC is fundamentally an industry about people. Although the field of social psychology is facing a "replicability crisis," the "accuracy of stereotypes" is one of the most robust research findings. For example, when you feel that an extremely aggressive person often lacks reliability, this judgment is usually accurate. The human brain is a constantly statistically learning system. Although contemporary culture tends to negate stereotypes, stereotypes can actually be positive, negative, or neutral. For instance, the stereotype of "Asians prefer rice" is a neutral one, and is statistically accurate. Host: What drives you to keep immersing yourself in these yet-to-be-fully-developed fields?

Here is the English translation of the text, with the specified terms translated as instructed:

Haseeb: Fundamentally, the fields I have been involved in, whether it was early poker or now crypto, have two notable characteristics: a high degree of chaos and creativity. This is fundamentally different from traditional linear development fields. For example, doing quantitative analysis on Wall Street is essentially an intellectual competition, where the one with the higher "score" gets more rewards.

In emerging fields like crypto, it's more like exploring an unknown continent. Here, not only does it require exceptional intelligence, but also the courage to take risks, the ability to continuously innovate, and the insight to integrate multi-dimensional information. It is this challenging environment that keeps me passionately engaged.

The crypto industry has no so-called "aristocracy". Unlike traditional VCs, you don't need a prestigious background or a vast network, nor do you need to have built a billion-dollar company. Genuine dedication and persistent effort are the keys to success.

Bear markets are like a magic mirror, clearly showing who has come with sincere intentions and who has been quietly persisting. Each bull market attracts a batch of successful Web2 entrepreneurs with abundant capital, but those who ultimately stay are often the ones considered "alternative" or "crazy", and they are the ones truly building valuable projects.

Some Thoughts

Structured Learning

Host: Can you talk about your understanding of learning methods?

Haseeb: I believe learning can be divided into two types. The first is structured learning, and the other is unstructured learning.

The hallmark of structured learning is a clear learning path and supporting tools. For example, in the field of chemistry, it has a complete set of teaching materials and supporting learning resources, and learners only need to follow the established path to progress step-by-step. The key to this learning mode is self-discipline and the cultivation of focus. In fact, most of the training we receive in the traditional education system is of this type. However, the real world often doesn't care about your structured learning outcomes. When you graduate from college and start looking for a job, you'll quickly find that almost nothing you learned in school is actually useful. The education system is more like a qualification process, proving that you have the basic qualities to undergo professional training.

In real professional environments, especially for positions that create high added value, there are often no ready-made manuals or training materials. You can't prepare for it systematically like you would for academic exams. This requires practitioners to constantly explore and learn in unknown fields, even if there are experts in the field, they often don't have enough time to provide systematic knowledge transfer.

Host: Can you give an example of how unstructured learning is applied in practice?

Haseeb: I encountered this learning method very early on. In 2006 when I started playing poker, there were very few educational resources in this field. Although there were some books, they weren't good enough. If you wanted to become a world-class poker player, you could only gather scattered information from blogs, forums, and videos. You had to teach yourself, through experimentation and adventure, invest your own money, and learn from failures and iterations.

The crypto currency field was similar six or seven years ago. At that time, there was only the book "Mastering Bitcoin" and a textbook from Princeton (co-authored by the co-founder of Arbitrum), and Ethereum was only briefly mentioned in that book. To learn this content, you could only delve into practice, communicate with those at the forefront, and build your own curriculum system through constant iteration.

This type of unstructured learning is often the most valuable and the most rewarded by the market. People who can master this learning method usually earn the highest compensation, which is precisely what school education has not taught us.

Money Can't Buy Happiness

Host: You've said before that "money can't buy happiness". Can you elaborate on that?

Haseeb: I started playing professional poker at the age of 17, and I knew a lot of young wealthy people back then, but they were all very unhappy. In the poker world, you'll see people in their 20s with net worth of several hundred million, they buy luxury cars and watches, but no one cares. If you buy these things just for status symbols, and not for true enjoyment, then it's meaningless. Money can indeed solve your economic problems, but research shows that after a certain income level (e.g. $50,000-$100,000 per year), the growth of happiness will drop sharply.

People's happiness comes more from personal progress, growth, and connections with others - friends, family, and interpersonal relationships. This may sound like a cliché, but it's true.

Effective Altruism

Host: What are your thoughts on the Effective Altruism (EA) movement?

Haseeb: I started getting involved in EA after quitting poker, around 2012-2013, when the movement was just getting started. During the FTX era, EA became very "cool", which made me a bit uncomfortable, because EA is essentially a very alternative idea. Now with the collapse of FTX, the situation is completely reversed.

Now is the bear market for EA, which is healthy to some extent. When EA was "cool", people would be suspicious of the motivations of those who joined. But now, people who claim to be EA are more likely to be questioned, which actually tests the sincerity of people's beliefs in these ideas. Just like with crypto, the failure of FTX doesn't affect my belief in crypto, because FTX represented centralization and third-party trust, which is completely opposite to the core values of crypto.

Host: How do you deal with the public's misunderstandings of these fields?

Haseeb: This involves the distinction between philosophy and politics. Most ordinary people may not delve into the details and are prone to misunderstandings. This does make the work in EA or crypto more difficult, but the key is to persist in the core ideas and values.

Thoughts on Crypto

Host: What unique insights do you have on the essence of crypto?

Haseeb: The core of crypto is a philosophical question: should the flow of value and funds be freely controlled by individuals, or should it be controlled by the state? This question goes far deeper than the behavior of some Bahamian businessman.

I didn't join this field out of a libertarian belief. In fact, I'm not even sure if crypto will ultimately benefit the world. It may bring more chaos: weakening state control over monetary policy, increasing the risk of hacker attacks, and in the age of AI, uncensored, unstoppable fund flows could have terrible consequences.

But the key is that the development of crypto is inevitable. Just like social media, regardless of whether people think it's good or bad, it has become a part of reality.

Host: You mentioned that cryptocurrencies are very different from other technologies?

Haseeb: Yes, this is the most unique aspect of cryptocurrencies. Over the past 50 years, most technological innovations have been strengthening state power. Think about the internet, AI, they have to some extent enhanced the control capabilities of governments.

But cryptocurrencies are inherently disruptive. Just as YouTube disrupted the monopoly of traditional TV stations, cryptocurrencies are creating "user-generated money". If money was already free and programmable, we wouldn't need cryptocurrencies. Its very existence is a response to government restrictions.

Most people believe that technology should ultimately be "tamed" by the government. But the unique thing about cryptocurrencies is that their core value lies in not being tamed. This makes many people uncomfortable, which is why some try to discuss blockchain technology separately from cryptocurrencies.

If we look at the Snowden revelations, we'll find that the internet has actually strengthened the government's surveillance capabilities. In comparison, cryptocurrencies may be the only major technological innovation in the past 50 years that truly serves the individual rather than the state.

Keys to Success

Host: Can you share some key principles for achieving success in the crypto space?

Haseeb: The primary principle is to enhance your technical understanding. Although everyone has different technical levels, cryptocurrencies are essentially a technological innovation. Without understanding the technology, it's impossible to build a robust mental model to predict the industry's development direction. You don't need to become a top-notch smart contract developer, but you should at least understand the basic principles of programming and computers. This will allow you to judge what is feasible and what are false promises. In this field, improving your technical understanding is always the right choice.

The second important principle is to start writing and sharing publicly. Many people feel they don't have new ideas and want to wait until they've accumulated enough knowledge before starting to share, which is a huge mistake. When I first got into cryptocurrencies, I started writing a blog. Looking back at those early articles, they were certainly naive, but that doesn't matter. Because:

• No matter what stage of learning you're at, there are always people who need more basic knowledge than you
• Being ignored early on is actually a good thing, as it gives you space to practice
• Improving 1% every day can lead to amazing accumulation over a year

Advice for Newcomers

Host: What is the most counterintuitive fact for new investors?

Haseeb: The most important thing to recognize is that almost all major crypto projects are built by crypto natives, not elites from Google or Harvard. Whether it's Ethereum, Uniswap, or other important projects, they were built by "weird" people deeply immersed in cryptocurrencies. These people may appear "too obsessed with the internet", but it is precisely they who have built the most important projects.

Host: So how does one become a crypto native?

Haseeb: The key is to find your unique strengths. Don't try to completely reinvent yourself to become another Vitalik, or learn complex zero-knowledge proofs. Instead, you should:

• Identify the areas you are most skilled in
• Hone that advantage to the fullest
• Find the crypto projects or people who need that skill the most
• Prove your value through concrete actions

It's like entrepreneurship - don't try to imitate someone else's path, but find a unique position based on your own strengths. Don't think "how do I get that cool person's job", but rather "what value can I bring to this industry".

Host: This sounds a lot like an entrepreneurial mindset?

Haseeb: Exactly, it's completely the same as entrepreneurship. When starting a business, you ask yourself: what am I good at? What problem can this skill solve? You choose the field you're passionate about and skilled in, rather than blindly doing the next Uber. Similarly, in career development, don't try to copy someone else's path, but plan your own based on your strengths and weaknesses.

Followers ≠ Influence

Host: When I first started operating on Twitter, I thought follower count equaled influence. But later I found that many high-follower accounts are actually "content farms" - although the interaction volume is high, the actual influence is quite small. Interestingly, the true industry leaders often have relatively few followers. This is a phenomenon known as the "Buton Paradox": in extreme cases, the two originally related factors (follower count and influence) can become divergent. Can you explain this in more detail?

Haseeb: This is a phenomenon that many people can intuitively feel. Those accounts with millions of followers may indeed be good at producing content and entertainment, but when they really want to drive something to happen, they often fail. For example, an account with 5 million followers trying to pump a coin price, but no one responds.

In contrast, some accounts with relatively few followers, once they speak up, can attract the attention of the entire industry. For example, Bow, a partner at Dragonfly, is very low-key on Twitter and doesn't even have social media accounts, but he is a highly influential figure in the industry.

The Curve of Influence

This phenomenon tells us two things:

1. You can't judge influence by social media following

• Many people worship high-follower accounts, thinking they must be very influential
• But in reality, the actual influence of many high-follower accounts is limited
• This often leads these account owners to experience a "wake-up call"

2. The relationship between follower growth and influence is non-linear

• From 200 to 2,000 followers, you can indeed feel a noticeable change
• But from 50,000 to 100,000, the actual influence may not change much
• This shows that after reaching a certain critical point, continuing to invest in follower growth has diminishing returns

Host: So how does one truly build influence?

Haseeb: Many people think that building influence in the crypto space is through self-promotion, flaunting connections, or quickly cashing out pre-sale projects. But the actual method is:

• Creating value for the industry
• Helping founders solve problems
• Doing meaningful things behind the scenes
• Providing value in every interaction

This is indeed much more difficult than just posting, which is why most people cannot truly build influence - because most people are takers, not givers.

VC Experiences and Reflections

Here is the English translation:

The crypto industry has attracted all kinds of participants, from short-term traders seeking quick profits, to professional hedge fund practitioners, to innovative project founders and venture capitalists supporting innovation. This industry often exhibits the characteristics of a zero-sum game, like a "player-versus-player" (PVP) game. Long-term participants may face psychological challenges, easily developing a cynical attitude, falling into nihilistic thinking, wandering in cyclical false prosperity, and bearing the psychological pressure of rapid liquidation.

However, venture capital plays a unique role in this industry, which is essentially a zero-sum game. VCs, by discovering talented teams and providing necessary support, drive the teams to succeed. The success of VCs is entirely dependent on the success of the startup teams, and this close alignment of interests transforms the "single-player game" into a "multiplayer game". This not only creates greater value, but also provides practitioners with a healthier mindset and development model. This collaborative approach may be the best way to participate in this disruptive and significant industry.

Imposter Syndrome and Self-Perception

Host: During the transition process, have you experienced imposter syndrome?

Haseeb: Yes, this feeling has always been there. I feel that if a person has no such feeling at all, either they haven't thought deeply enough, or they lack self-reflection. The key is not to overcome this feeling, but to learn to live with it. When I first became an investor, this feeling was particularly strong - "I've never built a successful company, what qualifies me to advise others?" But interestingly, it is this "outsider" perspective that allows me to see problems that the founders may not see.

When you give advice as an investor, you often get special attention. For example, a company may have obvious problems, such as a poor marketing strategy or product positioning, which the insiders can see, but the founders may overlook. But when an investor - even a relatively inexperienced one - makes the same suggestion, the founders are often more receptive.

This "magic" partly comes from the investor's external perspective, unaffected by the "gravitational field" within the company. For example, Polygon was operating six different product lines at one point, and I told the founders: "You have too many product lines, the market will find it confusing, you need to simplify the product line and make the story clearer." This suggestion was positively received, even though I may not have been the only one to make this suggestion.

Success vs. Failure

Host: In venture capital, what is the biggest "moment of success"?

Haseeb: To be honest, there is no such thing as a "big breakthrough moment". VC is a day-by-day, continuous accumulation process. Even when receiving a check for a project exit, the feeling is more like "finally" rather than "wow, unbelievable". This characteristic makes VC healthier than other investment methods.

Host: How does it feel to make mistakes? Can you share a specific example?

Haseeb: In the VC industry, the biggest mistakes are often not making bad investments, but missing good projects. Because VCs follow a power-law distribution, missed opportunities are more fatal than failed investments.

For example, my biggest regret is missing Uniswap's Series A funding round. At the time, we analyzed all the data:

• Profitability of the liquidity pool
• Trading volume
• Pros and cons of the pricing mechanism

Our analysis was all "smart" and "correct", but we completely missed the most important point: the revolutionary innovation brought by Uniswap - a fully automated system where anyone can list and trade any asset.

The Eternal Dilemma of Investing

Haseeb: As an investor, you will never be fully satisfied, because:

• Either you regret missing good projects
• Or you regret not investing more
• Or you worry about selling too early or too late

But this discomfort is normal, and even a good thing. If you're too comfortable, that might actually be a dangerous signal.

As a VC, I'm relatively at ease with the timing of market exits. The key is to understand:

• Don't pursue the perfect exit timing
• Set reasonable goals: for example, exiting within 40% of the peak is already very successful
• Excessive pursuit of precision is dangerous and may cause you to miss the entire cycle
• It's impossible to precisely time the bottom or top

Maintaining Public Image

Host: As a public figure, how do you deal with the dramatic changes in external evaluations?

Haseeb: This is indeed very challenging. Take 2021-2022 as an example, the overall image of the crypto industry has undergone a huge transformation. Especially after the FTX collapse, the entire industry was affected. Due to my association with effective altruism, I was also impacted after the FTX debacle. Suddenly, you're no longer invited to parties, and people are less willing to have much contact with you.

As a venture capitalist, how others perceive you is indeed important, as that is your business. But I've found the best way to deal with this is to:

• Maintain transparency
• Express your true thoughts
• Continuously create value

In this industry, you're bound to offend some people. I've angered the Solana community, the Cardano community, and other major project communities. But this industry has a characteristic: short memory. For example, I once wrote a critical article about the EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine), and the Ethereum community was very angry with me at the time. But now, many people actually see me as a big Ethereum maximalist.

When facing controversies, you can ask yourself: "Is this a fight I truly care about?" If not, just delete the controversial content and move on. In this rapidly evolving industry, you don't need to be right on every controversy.

Future Outlook

Host: Looking ahead to the next 12 months, what are you most focused on?

Haseeb: From a macro perspective, the market direction will largely depend on the policy moves of the Federal Reserve. The institutionalization of crypto is an irreversible trend, but the process will be relatively gradual, and is unlikely to see dramatic volatility.

Worth noting is the shift in institutional attitudes. Take BlackRock as an example, from 2019 when we were still struggling to seek their recognition, to now they have become an active proponent of Bitcoin ETFs - this change is quite significant. The progress the crypto industry has made in institutional acceptance over the past five years has far exceeded the perception of many market participants.

Based on the current market environment, I expect the growth trend in the next two to three years to be more rational. However, it is necessary to point out that the market has its own uniqueness, and once it enters a new market cycle, the market trend may break through the conventional expectations. This change may be due to adjustments in risk preferences or changes in the interest rate environment. In general, I am cautiously optimistic about the market, but I expect the volatility to be lower than the 2021 cycle.