"A Casual Chat About Investment, Funds, and Crypto" #Funds #curator Let's start this morning with a casual chat about funds. x.com/taresky/status/202648031...… In my pinned post, I mentioned that in 2021 I was a product manager, then I got involved in DeFi and became an institutional fund manager, and later I went solo (you could call it an independent investor). Later, in the last two years, I've also made some other attempts, such as being an on-chain fund manager (DeFi Curator). However, all of these were basically finished by the end of 2025; I'll explain why later. --- Let's go back to the original topic about funds. A mentor who helped me early on often sends me fund fundraising deck files. Of course, there are also various deck files from other channels. Unfortunately, out of the nearly one hundred documents I've reviewed over the years, they're all obviously fraudulent; not a single one has provided reliable investment advice. I can draw a rather arbitrary conclusion: by my standards, all funds that require public fundraising are fraudulent. How can a layperson easily understand financial institutions? There are essentially only two roles. One role is to seek funding. Brands, star fund managers, institutions—everything you see, the high-end, the external aspects, is all for the purpose of raising more money. The other role is to manage this money, the so-called "fake" financial institutions mentioned above. Their strategies are copied from others, choosing a favorable timeframe, producing good simulated data, and then letting the funding seekers generate the funds. It's not that they lack their own capabilities, but these are things that aren't visible in the documentation and can't be correlated. Especially the most crucial risk control capability. Even with these "fake" operations, there are information and technical barriers, making this seem like a reasonable model. In reality, it's not. Active financial institutions are easy to understand: gamblers. They use investors' money to gamble; if they win, they get a share; if they lose, they don't lose their principal. This is human nature. When the main source of profit comes from a share and there's no guarantee of returns, it's impossible not to gamble—there are no exceptions. Passive, arbitrage-based financial institutions earn management fees. However, the risks remain enormous because most arbitrage teams can't avoid black swan events; their skill level isn't high enough, and black swan events happen every year. I've invested in others myself, and the result was the same—overconfidence led to losses. It's kind of funny now 😂 --- Let's talk about DeFi Curator. There are two motivations for this side hustle: one is to increase passive income, and the other is to see if there's an opportunity to scale up during a bull market. We have an advantage in doing this. Because we are one of the most knowledgeable teams in DeFi and risk control (let's add "one of the best"), we know the specific details of the risks, so every black swan event is profitable. Plus, friends were willing to help with this, so it was set up quickly. Initially, I had a beautiful vision: we would record all the details of our decisions, avoid any collusion, and publicly review the code from multiple parties, so that even if something went wrong, we would have a clear conscience. Before 10/11, our portfolio was among the highest-performing. If something went wrong, we would definitely be faster than our competitors and suffer the least loss. After 10/11, I felt the market was unfavorable, so I reviewed the portfolio again. We removed assets that everyone was investing in, but whose risks we couldn't practically and immediately control through the code. What happened quickly afterwards is well-known: the stablecoins invested in by DeFi Curators collapsed, but we were unaffected. So-called established institutions were nothing but dregs. At the same time, I realized that my lofty vision was wishful thinking, and a clear conscience is worthless—others won't understand you just because you're fair, transparent, or without fault. They invest in you simply because you haven't lost money. Conversely, as long as you don't lose money, even evil, corruption, or fraud are irrelevant. The potential for others to lose money is a risk I don't want to bear. Even if you're legally innocent, there are risks beyond the law. Maintaining a loose structure, with less pressure when the market is bad, is also good. --- A few related thoughts: 1. I think non-professionals' understanding of investment should not exceed 10% of their own money and energy; it's better to keep that energy in their main profession. Or if you intend to specialize in this field, then you need to understand every detail. Looking back on your academic career, do you have the experience or talent for this? 2. As I've said many times, one of Crypto's greatest values is demystifying investing. Every aspect, inside and out. No other industry allows you to understand, engage with, and practically operate at the underlying levels of things so deeply. 3. I love reading the post-mortem analyses of industry experts; this is another great value of Crypto. Some outsiders don't understand what's so interesting about this boasting. What I don't understand is that this stuff is available for free—what a philanthropist! (Including this article)

Thank you so much, kind philanthropist!