The performance of VC Tokens in recent months has generally been unsatisfactory. Today I want to talk to you about a slightly sensitive topic: Do VC Tokens still have a chance?
Zheng @ZnQ_626
The performance of VC Tokens in recent months has generally been unsatisfactory. Today I want to talk to you about a slightly sensitive topic: Do VC Tokens still have a chance?
I know that all three of them work for relatively good investment institutions in the industry. Today I actually treat this thing as a casual chat between the three of us. If you have some clear opinions in the future, they only represent yourself and do not represent the company. I still hope you can talk some real talk. Before the official start, let the three of you briefly introduce yourself.
Mason @ma_s_on_
Hello everyone, my name is Mason. In the past five years, I have focused on investments in the fields of technology, Internet, software and blockchain, and committed to asset allocation for clients. I hope to discuss relevant viewpoints with you today.
Rui @yeruizhang
My name is Rui. I started working on Crypto in 2017 and have been doing investment-related things. I have basically talked about all the big and small projects in the market. Level 1 experience is pretty good, but I started writing Twitter in 21 and have been writing for a long time.
Jims @jimsyoung_
Hello everyone, my name is Jims. My own experience is that I was the first to invest overseas. I worked on overseas strategies in large companies and also invested in overseas projects. Later, I made primary investments in crypto funds, which basically revolved around primary investments. In this cycle, I started to get more interested in me, and I started to develop some memes. This is generally the case.
Reasons for poor performance of VC Token
Let’s explore the first question first:
What is the underlying reason for the poor performance of VC Token in this cycle? If you can list multiple reasons, how do you rank them?
Mason @ma_s_on_
I think there are four reasons for this current situation:
- Mismatch between primary and secondary markets: This is a long-standing problem in the capital market. Since the primary and secondary market participants are different and their funds and investment areas are limited, this structural problem cannot be solved overnight.
- Characteristics of Crypto: The exit channels and rules of the Crypto market are not as mature as traditional markets. In traditional markets, VCs have relatively clear exit channels, such as mergers and acquisitions or listings. But in Crypto, these rules are constantly being customized, and the terms and circulation rates can be adjusted at will. This flexibility exacerbates the differences between primary and secondary markets.
- Insufficient liquidity: The current overall liquidity is low, and the Tokens held by VCs have insufficient liquidity, which makes the Tokens perform poorly, resulting in a situation where there is more money than enough.
- The negative cycle of wealth effect: The negative cycle of wealth effect is also a reason for the current situation.
If you want to sort, I think the first and second points, especially the second point, are key issues. The industry needs to return to rationality, and the question of custom rules still has no answer. The problem is further aggravated by the situation of too many monks and too few people.
I take the stock market as an example. In the stock market, factors such as the initial circulation rate, the lifting ratio, and the profit multiple of investors in the primary market can all be controlled. Some KOL information shows that the valuation of new projects this year may be several times that of three years ago. Compared with the projects four years ago, the current projects have great changes in terms and rules. These changes can be measured using quantitative indicators. measure.
And in the last cycle (2020-2021), investors were more cautious and valuations were lower. In this round, due to the influx of large amounts of capital, the overall valuation in the primary market was relatively high, and investors expected to obtain higher returns in the secondary market when they exited.
Zheng @ZnQ_626
There is a view that the bear market in 2022 will not be as fierce as previous rounds. Although many projects are difficult, they have not completely collapsed. This may be the reason for the high valuation of the current projects. Do you agree with this view? Are there any other reasons?
Mason @ma_s_on_
I agree with this view, but the more direct reason is that the wealth effect of the last round attracted more investors. Supply and demand determine prices, and capital inflows increase valuations. Even in the bear market of 2022-23, project valuations did not drop as sharply as in the first three rounds.
Jims @jimsyoung_
I think poor liquidity is indeed an important problem in the current market. Liquidity problems can be alleviated during periods of large-scale water releases, but in the current cycle, insufficient liquidity and scarcity of high-quality assets have become the main dilemmas.
For example, the mobile Internet industry once experienced a huge wave. The market environment at that time was very conducive to investment. No matter which country you invest in, the returns are good. In regions such as Africa and Southeast Asia, while investment opportunities in other areas are relatively limited, investments can still pay off due to market size and intrinsic value.
The phenomenon of illiquidity will vary in different cycles. In the past cycle, the number of assets on the market was relatively small and liquidity was relatively concentrated. Now, as the number of asset classes increases, liquidity is diluted. For example, there are many emerging assets and Tokens on the market now, and the price increases of these assets are smaller, mainly because the liquidity in the market is not concentrated on a few assets.
The high-quality assets are still there, but they behave differently. Assets like Pendle have performed significantly better than the market as a whole over the past year, which shows that there are still some assets in the market that are worth investing in. Although the market no longer has the general rise phenomenon of the past, the performance of high-quality assets is still worthy of attention. The reduction of asset production costs is also an important factor. In the past, the cost of establishing a public chain was high, but now it has become easier to establish Layer 2 solutions. This has increased the types of assets, but the performance of individual assets has been differentiated.
Zheng @ZnQ_626
Regarding your own investment performance in the secondary market this year?
Jims @jimsyoung_
This is the first time I manage my own money. The market performance was strong from the end of last year to the beginning of this year. I added a lot of high-risk investments and tried different strategies.
However, due to the flexibility of funding, I overall did not perform better than expected. In particular, the results of putting large amounts of money into Bitcoin are not as expected. The market experienced some retracements, and I adjusted my strategy and gradually shifted to a timing strategy for large currencies, which became more stable. Overall, performance was average, and learning and judgment skills improved.
Zheng @ZnQ_626
I would like to add that the A-share market has also experienced a similar phenomenon of sector rotation. The sector rotation this year is very fast, and the performance of a sector may only last a week or a few days. This phenomenon is actually very common in the A-share market. Although the difficulty of the market has increased, it is only the basic difficulty, not the extreme difficulty.
In the past 20 and 21 years, many investors have made money in the market, and they can make profits no matter which small currency they invest in. Even in the 16 and 17 year cycle, you can make money by investing in any ICO currency. This phenomenon has led many people to have blind confidence in their ability to choose currencies. But the actual situation is that the current market performance is much duller than in the past, but compared with the traditional market, the difficulty of currency selection in the crypto is still very low.
Mason @ma_s_on_
Regarding the strategies of small and medium-sized currencies in the FOF funds I manage, the overall performance varies greatly. Altcoin tend to underperform mainstream currencies due to their higher risk and difficulty in establishing certainty. In investment allocation, institutions usually pursue certainty. An investment in a large position may obtain a 50% return, which is more valuable than a high multiple return in a small position.
Different strategies also perform differently in the market. For example, some people focus on Bitcoin's swing operations, some invest in a small amount of small coins, and others focus on the top ten coins. Overall, the current cycle is not over yet, and the final performance requires further observation.
Rui @yeruizhang
I would like to discuss why VC coins have not performed as expected this cycle. Although many old coins have performed better since November last year, the money-making effect has weakened compared to the previous cycle. This phenomenon is affected by several factors:
First, market participants generally become wealthier. In the last cycle, having 100K funds was considered a relatively high-net-worth investor, but this year, many people's starting funds are already in the millions. As long as you dare to invest, you can usually get good returns by grabbing a few suitable assets from October last year to March this year.
Secondly, current market currency listing channels are mainly concentrated on platforms such as Binance. There are only a limited number of coins that can arouse the desire to buy, and the prices of many coins have already gone through sufficient competition before being listed on Binance. Some coins have even undergone various airdrops and other operations before going online, and the prices are calculated very clearly. This situation leads to the fact that the price at the opening is often very high, and the subsequent profit-making effect is poor.
Third, track changes also affected performance. In the past, the FOMO mentality of the community was very strong, such as in some public chain and stable currency projects. In 2021, the community's support for some projects was very strong, and everyone was willing to work together to promote the projects. However, the community atmosphere of many projects now is not as strong as before, and they lack the sense of joint promotion.
In addition, the revenue models of many new tracks are relatively transparent, and investors can judge the investment value by calculating expected returns, rather than relying on the emotions and imagination of the community. In this case, investors' decisions are more rational and calculated, resulting in the performance of some projects not being as good as expected.
In general, the wealth level of market participants, the concentration of currency listing channels, and changes in the track and community are all key factors affecting the current performance of VC coins.
Zheng @ZnQ_626
So, how is your performance in small currency investments this year?
Rui @yeruizhang
The recent performance has been average, especially since May, when investment income has declined slightly. But before that, things were pretty good. For example, if you invest money in projects such as Eigenlayer and Pendle, the rate of return is relatively high, especially during the high-yield period. After locking in the income, the annualized income can reach more than 50%. Despite this, the losses from buying Altcoin are still quite serious.
Zheng @ZnQ_626
understood. In fact, I would like to add one point about the reason why the VC feature performs poorly. Some of my personal observations are that retail investors in this cycle no longer seem to believe in the Web3 story as much as before. Looking back on 2017 and 2018, when ICOs were at their hottest, many users truly believed in these projects. Even in 2020 and 2021, many people are confident in emerging projects such as NFTs. However, the trust of retail investors seems to have declined significantly during this cycle, which may also explain the poor state of the community mentioned by Rui. This is just my personal feeling, not necessarily rigorous. With this I would like to lead to the next question.
Investment logic sharing
Do you still believe in Web3 now? If you believe it, what is your current investment logic? Why should we participate in primary market investment, especially investing in these projects as a VC?
Mason @ma_s_on_
Indeed, we still believe in the Web3 trend. Although this round of innovation may not be as eye-catching compared to the previous cycle, it does not mean that we have lost confidence in the prospects of Web3. Emotions were very high in the last cycle. For example, Uniswap, which brings breakthrough innovations by simplifying complex problems, is indeed impressive.
However, this round of innovation may not seem so dazzling, but there are still many projects that are solving practical problems and promoting industry progress, which are still worthy of our attention.
However, there are two noteworthy problems with this cycle. The first is the uncertainty of the implementation path. We are not sure what the development path of Web3 or blockchain technology will be, and whether there will be rapid growth and then a trough. This uncertainty may affect investment decisions.
Secondly, there are obvious differences in the narratives of Web3 between the West and the East. In the West, many investors, including some Wall Street institutions, their relatives and people around them are also actively participating in entrepreneurship in the blockchain industry, which shows that they truly believe in the potential of this field.
In terms of investment, Western investors may be more concerned about how to combine blockchain technology with compliance, such as how to implement compliant asset management (RWA) in Web3.
Overall, we still maintain confidence in Web3, but there are some uncertainties about its development path and implementation methods, and these factors will affect investment decisions.
Zheng @ZnQ_626
From your perspective, whether it is the projects you invest in or the primary market funds invested through FOF funds, what percentage of entrepreneurs do you think really hope to change the world or promote Web3 through projects? How much of it is about making money and telling a story in the hope that it will ultimately turn a profit? From an institutional perspective, what kind of value preferences do these two types of entrepreneurs have? For example, is there a higher preference for the first type of entrepreneurs?
Rui @yeruizhang
Let me answer this question. First, the industry is quite mature, so most entrepreneurs are not simply looking to change the world. They play more of a key role in the existing ecology.
For example, many projects on the DA track actually supplement and improve some functions in the existing ecosystem. Today's projects are more about adding some innovations to the existing foundation, rather than simply "subverting" the entire industry.
Compared with the previous cycle, the projects in this cycle are more about making some improvements based on a solid industry foundation. Projects such as Eigenlayer actually fill the gaps in the existing system and provide better solutions. These projects are more about adding a new layer to the existing building blocks, or adding a few bricks.
As for whether those project developers in the market really intend to "cut a wave", the situation is complicated. On the one hand, many project developers really hope to achieve results by solving industry problems, not just for short-term benefits.
For example, all projects listed on Binance need to be reported. Binance has a certain review mechanism, which makes it difficult for projects purely for short-term profits to succeed. On the other hand, there are indeed some project parties who hope to obtain benefits through "cutting leeks", but these cases are relatively rare.
Zheng @ZnQ_626
Got it. Then another question arises. For you, are the logic and necessity of a project a necessary prerequisite for investment?
If a project itself is an important piece of the puzzle, but does not have a good financial return based on the economic model, and may not even be profitable in the short term, will you still invest? Or if you are not satisfied with its economic model and think it may not make money in the next one or two years, will you still consider investing?
Mason @ma_s_on_
This is a very good question. For us, the logic and necessity of the project are really a core part of the investment decision. We will consider whether the project really solves a practical problem and whether it can play an important role in the Web3 ecosystem. This kind of "political correctness" or necessity is the premise for us to judge whether a project is worth investing in.
However, financial returns and economic modeling are also important considerations. If a project has obvious problems with the economic model or has no profit prospects in the short term, this will affect our investment decisions.
We will consider the balance between the long-term potential of the project and the short-term financial return. If the project has strategic value in the long term, we may choose to invest even if the profitability is not strong in the short term. But this usually requires the project to demonstrate its long-term potential and sustainability.
In general, the necessity of the project and the problems it solves are core considerations for investment, but the economic model and financial returns must also be reasonably evaluated. We need to ensure that projects deliver expected returns over the long term while solving real problems.
Rui @yeruizhang
In fact, many of the projects we have invested in continue to build public facilities in the industry. They have not yet made a profit, and there is almost no expectation of profit, but they have still attracted a lot of institutional investment.
I personally believe that as long as a project is truly meaningful and plays a key role in a certain ecosystem, its value will eventually be discovered. Take Pendle, for example. It was not successful initially, but after three years of development, Pendle found its opportunity and achieved success.
This industry is characterized by constant change, with new opportunities and challenges constantly emerging. If the project team can seize the opportunity in this process, it will achieve success. Even if a project doesn't appear to be profitable right now, that doesn't mean it never will be profitable in the future.
For example, Etherscan didn’t make money initially and is now making very good money. They initially made money through tips and advertising, and now earn large fees by receiving new links. This shows that the value and profit potential of a project may take time to emerge.
Therefore, most institutions will have a relatively open attitude towards this situation and are willing to wait patiently. Investment institutions usually focus on the long-term value of the project, rather than just looking at short-term profitability.
Jims @jimsyoung_
I think the concept of Web3 itself is not particularly clearly defined. Since this concept was proposed, various interpretations have emerged one after another, and many problems that cannot be solved by Web2 have been attributed to problems to be solved by Web3. In fact, replacing or extending an existing framework to integrate Web3 does not mean that it will solve all problems. This view is obviously unrealistic.
If we take blockchain as the definition of Web3, then blockchain is actually already being used in many places. For example, cross-border payments and cryptocurrency transactions, these areas have partially realized the concept of Web3.
But there are still many challenges in current Web3 applications. In some places, they look like "Mars Casinos", that is, technologies and models that have not yet been widely accepted and recognized. For some countries with immature financial systems, blockchain technology can provide new solutions, but its practical application still faces many obstacles.
External factors are also crucial to the development of the blockchain industry. For example, advances in hardware technology and the development of artificial intelligence can significantly improve the performance of blockchain technology.
The change in Ethereum's storage method from magnetic disks to hard drives is an example of the advancement of hardware technology on the development of blockchain. These technological advances are not problems solved by blockchain technology itself, but hardware and other external factors promote the development of blockchain technology.
In addition, changes in policies and regulations may also have a significant impact on the blockchain industry. If certain countries relax regulations on blockchain, it may prompt traditional businesses to enter this field, thereby promoting the development of the industry. For example, the Singapore government’s initiative to promote blockchain technology is a positive example.
In general, the development of blockchain technology not only relies on innovation within the industry, but also requires the promotion of external factors. Although there may not be fully mature applications yet, as external conditions change and technology advances, the blockchain industry may usher in new development opportunities. We need to be patient and actively explore these new opportunities while paying attention to the impact of external factors on the industry.
What are the necessary conditions for restarting VC token?
What do you think are the necessary conditions for restarting VC token? In addition to "the macroeconomic liquidity has become better" and "the early project valuation has become lower", are there any other answers?
Mason @ma_s_on_
Well, I think first of all, changes in the market environment, including the improvement of the macroeconomics, are necessary conditions for restarting VC tokens. In addition to these, I also think there are several aspects that can promote the restart of VC token:
- Market game: Market game plays an important role in determining the value and performance of VC tokens. For example, if the market experiences greater volatility, investors may adopt different strategies to achieve returns. Recently, people have joked that "if meme coins are very expensive, then value coins may also become meme coins", indicating that the market's gaming strategy may affect the attitude towards VC tokens. This kind of game is not only reflected in the rise and fall of prices, but also includes investors' reactions to market dynamics.
- Game on capital structure: If VC tokens perform poorly, the overall performance of the VC fund may be affected. In this case, VC funds may face a decline in market enthusiasm, thereby promoting valuation retracement and market revaluation. This adjustment helps the market re-evaluate investment opportunities and risks, which may lead to re-evaluation and opportunities for VC tokens.
- Emergence of innovation: Markets are highly receptive to truly disruptive innovations. If a new, disruptive technology or project emerges that can attract widespread attention and demand, then this innovation may become the driving force for the restart of VC tokens. Innovation is not just a technological breakthrough, it can also be a major improvement in business models, market needs or operating methods.
- Changes in the regulatory environment: The attitude of the government and regulatory agencies will also have an impact on the VC token market. If the regulatory environment becomes more friendly or transparent, it may stimulate more investment and market activity, thus having a positive impact on the performance of VC tokens.
- Changes in market sentiment: Investor sentiment and market psychology will also affect the performance of VC tokens. If market sentiment becomes more optimistic, or acceptance of risky assets increases, then VC tokens may receive more attention and investment.
Taken together, restarting VC tokens not only depends on the improvement of the macroeconomic and market environment, but also requires market gaming, capital structure adjustment, innovation drive, and support from supervision and market sentiment. The combined effect of various factors will determine whether VC token can usher in a new growth cycle.
Rui @yeruizhang
I think so, how should I put it? What everyone criticizes is actually the unlocking period. During the unlocking period, there will always be selling pressure. Some projects are unlocked in batches every six months, which is actually fine. What is more troublesome are those that are unlocked once a month, such as OP and ARB. It's expensive, it can go down, but you can choose not to buy it. But everyone knows OP, ARB will be unlocked, you have to buy it, this is unnecessary.
What are the pros and cons? Compared with the previous cycle, there are indeed many traps in this cycle, but as long as these traps are avoided, it will not be a big problem. For example, Starnet's performance in April is an obvious example. In the past, only investors who were very familiar with and optimistic about technology would invest in such projects, while ordinary retail traders generally would not get involved.
Therefore, a distinctive feature of this cycle is that much information is not made public and the game tends to be rational.
My point is, whether the value of a coin can rise depends on the unlocking plan. If the project team delays the unlocking time, it may avoid selling pressure in the market. The valuation levels and liquidity issues Mason mentioned are also common. Basically, as long as there is no unlocking period, the market will not face large-scale selling problems, so the risk is controllable.
Jims @jimsyoung_
Yes, I think it’s basically very clear. Mason might say something more macro or long-term, while Rui would say something more micro, focusing on the core. Then from a macro perspective, there is actually another issue about the best quality assets, that is, what are high-quality assets and what can be agreed upon.
In this cycle, our current price, technology and various indicators have actually been fully integrated. I know a lot of project developers. In fact, everyone probably already knows how much goods they have.
In this case, what exactly is a quality asset? If there is no threshold for technology, if you do ZK, others can do it, if you do AI, others can do it. In fact, everyone knows the price. What exactly can form a barrier? Where is the information gap and where is the non-consensus value? I think this is a relatively core question to answer.
People say that VC coins are not good because VC coins don’t rise. They just don’t rise as much as before. If we adopt non-consensus logic, then which ones may still be non-consensus. When this kind of non-consensus appears, there is a big opportunity hidden behind it. If others don't find it, you will find it. This is an opportunity.
Just like what Rui just mentioned in the previous question, more and more projects in this cycle can be settled. Once the accounts are settled clearly, the story is set, and everyone will work hard towards that point. This matter Not much room for imagination.
But there are some things that cannot be clearly calculated, and they may become non-consensus things. I think this is a place where big opportunities may arise from the perspective of a single currency or a single track.
Zheng @ZnQ_626
I have observed that former Level 1 participants around me are participating in Level 2 more and more. In response to this phenomenon, I have a few points that I would like to discuss with you.
The difference between primary and secondary markets
Do you think primary market institutions participate in the secondary market because the primary market does not make money? If these institutions participate in the secondary market, how do your methodologies differ between primary and secondary investments? What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of participating in the secondary market?
Mason @ma_s_on_
This question can be answered together. First of all, it is very common for primary market funds to enter the secondary market, because places where money is made will naturally attract everyone. As for the advantages and disadvantages of primary VC participating in the secondary market:
Advantages: Investors in the primary market usually have more inside information and resources, such as in-depth knowledge of team capabilities and industry trends. This can help them make more confident investment decisions in the secondary market, information that is often not available to ordinary retail investors.
Disadvantages: Investors in the primary market may face difficulties in the secondary market because they are used to investing for the long term. The secondary market is highly volatile and may have many challenges in the short term, which does not fully match their long-term investment strategy in the primary market. In addition, the investment methods of investors in the primary market may not be applicable to the secondary market, because the secondary market has more quantitative information for analysis, while the primary market relies more on qualitative judgments.
Rui @yeruizhang
Basically, if you believe in the project, you must persist even if you lose a lot. In this case, losses are inevitable.
Zheng @ZnQ_626
So, do you think the participation of primary institutions in the secondary market is a short-term strategy or a long-term plan? If the primary market improves, will they stop investing in secondary markets?
Rui @yeruizhang
It depends on the situation. If a project performs well in the primary market, institutions may continue to add positions in the secondary market. This behavior is more based on confidence in the project than a complete transformation.
Zheng @ZnQ_626
In my eyes this is level one behavior.
Rui @yeruizhang
Primary institutions' participation in the secondary market is not for short-term operations, such as looking at the 5-day moving average or the 10-day moving average. This type of participation is more based on long-term optimism about the project rather than a complete transformation. Institutions still use their original investment logic, but shift from non-current assets to liquid assets.
Jims @jimsyoung_
Got it, Mason’s point is very comprehensive. As for the reason why primary institutions participate in the secondary market, it is mainly because primary investors have a lot of coins in their hands that need to be processed.
For example, when a previously invested project reaches the currency listing and unlocking stage, investors may get a currency that performs poorly. At this time, they need to consider several questions: Should they buy these coins? When to reduce holdings? How to explain it to the community? This also involves the situation where funds need to achieve DPI. Dealing with these issues is an important reason for primary investors to participate in the secondary market.
Zheng @ZnQ_626
I may not have clearly defined what participation in Level 2 is before. In my opinion, projects discussed in the primary market are not included in the scope of participation in the secondary market. True secondary participation refers to direct buying and selling in the secondary market, which has nothing to do with the primary market discussion, including OTC transactions.
Jims @jimsyoung_
Understood. Participating in the secondary market is often a natural transition. For example, when you decide to sell a certain project, you will compare other similar projects on the market, you may find an undervalued currency, and then choose to invest.
This decision-making process is coherent. Primary investors will continue similar operations in the secondary market due to their habitual thinking. This is a natural phenomenon.
The future development of Crypto funds
The last question is about the future development form and business lines of Crypto funds. What will the Crypto Foundation evolve into in the future? How will their business lines develop, and what are the logical relationships between these business lines?
Mason @ma_s_on_
I think the first thing to ask is, what will be the source of funds for the future Crypto Fund? Also, what will the future Crypto fund manager look like? The current debate is whether the fund should take the compliance path or maintain the original direction, which affects the future shape of Crypto funds.
The compliance path may appeal to investors interested in deterministic assets such as Treasury bonds, while the other path may focus more on micro-innovation.
As for the specific form of the fund, how to make money is the key. At present, except for crypto-specific funding rate arbitrage, other fund models are basically the same as traditional models.
Most of the models in the Crypto field can be found in similar forms from traditional finance, such as VC, hedge funds and platform funds. Therefore, the evolution of Crypto funds is likely to follow the model of traditional finance.
Rui @yeruizhang
I think the final shape of the Crypto fund mainly depends on whether it can attract LP funds.
No matter how the fund operates, LPs must first be convinced. Future Crypto funds may have multiple models, but the core lies in responding flexibly to market changes. Many large funds have recently launched various special purpose funds, which are not much different from traditional finance. Ultimately, the fund's performance and capital raising must follow the market's pace.
The key to convincing LPs is to show your return on investment. Most LPs in the Chinese-speaking area have experienced the fluctuations of Crypto, and they mainly focus on actual returns. Trial investors have already invested before, and now the most important thing is to attract new LPs through returns.
Jims @jimsyoung_
In conclusion:
Mason and Rui have laid out the problem very well. From a macro perspective, Mason mentioned that the Crypto Foundation draws on traditional models, while Rui emphasized the importance of yield. Let me add some new trends that may emerge in this cycle:
- The rise of special funds: There are many special funds in the United States, such as biomedicine, new energy, etc. This model may be introduced into the Crypto field. In the past, one fund might cover all tracks. Now, with the development of blockchain technology, there are more subdivided tracks, and funds focusing on specific fields have emerged, such as DePIN Fund or GameFi Fund. There is an increasing degree of specialization.
- Refined management: Fund management in the past may not have been detailed enough, but now more precise fund management and income calculations are required. Every use of funds, timing of buying and selling, and rate of return need to be clearly recorded and analyzed. This kind of refinement and specialization improves the ability to grasp market dynamics.
These two trends reflect the evolution of the Crypto fund industry in terms of specialization and refinement, and institutional investors also need to improve related capabilities.
Guest
Zheng @ZnQ_626
- LUCIDA Founder
- 2019 Bgain Digital Asset Trading League Season 1 Mixed Strategy Group Champion;
- 2020 TokenInsight Global Asset Quantification Competition, the Composite Strategy Group was the runner-up in April, the champion in May, and the third runner-up in the season;
- 2021 TokenInsight x KuCoin Global Asset Quantification Competition, third place in the Composite Strategy Group;
Jims @jimsyoung_
- Youbi Capital Investor
- Invest level 1 in both traditional finance and Crypto
- Focus on Web3 application layer track
Rui @yeruizhang
- KOL
- Joined in 2017
- Invest in the first level for the main business and the second level for the side business.
Mason @ma_s_on_
- Crypto/Tech FoF Investors
- 5 years of FoF experience in blockchain, Internet, and technology fields
- Researched hundreds of VC, secondary, quantitative and other funds
- Have a unique perspective on cycles, asset classes, and fund strategies
