Editor: Wu Says Blockchain

This content is derived from an exclusive interview with Christian, a post-00s investor and entrepreneur in the crypto field, conducted by "Turtle Talk." Wu Says has been authorized to edit and republish it. Christian is one of the most talked-about Chinese entrepreneurs this cycle, reflecting deeply on his journey from university to founding the crypto payment project Infini. The interview covers three core sections: first, the transformation of his personal investment path, moving from decentralized allocation to "logic-driven + concentrated holdings" practical experience; second, his judgment on the current market structure and sentiment, including insights on bull and bear cycles, major funds, and the essence of projects. Christian also shares reflections on the gains and losses from heavily invested cases like Cheems, GMX, and Coinbase, pointing out that the current coin selection logic should focus on three major standards: "team structure, tokenomics, and consensus concentration."

The content of this article does not represent Wu Says' views; it is merely a sharing of the interviewee's personal investment experiences. Wu Says does not promote or endorse any investment behavior. Readers are advised to strictly adhere to the laws and regulations of their location and not to participate in illegal financial investment activities. For audio, please search on Wu Says' Xiaoyuzhou channel and YouTube channel.

Christian's Personal Background Introduction

Christian: Currently, I am the founder of Infini, which we officially launched around August or September last year. Essentially, Infini is a New Bank that aims to provide savings, wealth management, payment, and potentially expand into remittances and more banking-level services in the future. It is a Crypto Native project.

Since I am relatively young, my previous background was mainly studying while starting a business in school. After entering the crypto field, I primarily focused on investments and co-founded a fund called NextGen Digital Ventures with two seniors about two years ago. Our first fund was closed earlier this year, so now I dedicate most of my time to Infini's product and market promotion.

I got into crypto during my freshman or sophomore year in college when NFTs were particularly popular, and many friends around me were discussing art-related topics. I have always been interested in art history, so I felt this field was worth paying attention to. I remember being fascinated by generative art like Art Blocks, which is a form of art based on code.

After joining crypto, I initially focused on NFTs and GameFi. In 2021, there were many representative Ponzi design projects, such as Terra and Luna stablecoin projects, which I participated in as a novice. Gradually, I found myself more interested in DeFi, as there are many real scenarios and genuine returns in this field. I invested most of my time in this area until I eventually founded Infini, having also invested in several DeFi-related projects before that, so I have gone through this track completely and ultimately decided to do what Infini is doing now.

There were two main reasons we decided to create Infini. The first is that our team is very optimistic about the asset management direction because we found that arbitrage in crypto is a particularly interesting type. In traditional finance, there aren't as many "neutral strategies" or so-called "risk-free returns." Although there may be risks like smart contract vulnerabilities or theft, the overall investment logic and the excess returns from arbitrage made me feel it was a worthwhile direction with barriers to entry.

Moreover, when communicating with outsiders, even traditional finance fund managers or practitioners, they often do not understand this field and thus develop biases. However, everyone knows that not all crypto projects are scams or rug pulls; projects like Ethereum remain very robust today, capturing returns far exceeding traditional assets like U.S. Treasury bonds.

So our goal at that time was to create a "super app"—a truly financial app. Most DeFi projects are still protocol-driven and target only on-chain users, which is relatively niche. We hope to provide these profit opportunities to a broader user base through a smoother and more user-friendly experience.

The second reason is that we found, especially regarding "crypto cards," that neither we nor other projects in the industry had done particularly well. However, we saw that users indeed had this demand. From the initial idea to internal testing, launch, and now, user enthusiasm has been high, helping them solve many practical problems. This was also an important reason for us to decide to co-found Infini.

I believe that wealth management and payment are complementary, although there are certain differences. Different users have different purposes for using the product; some may care more about wealth management and investment returns, while others may need the convenience of payments.

As our project progresses, we have indeed observed that many countries globally have underdeveloped financial infrastructure, banking systems, or fintech. They lack usable products. Crypto has a natural advantage in that it can quickly expand into global markets and rapidly identify which regions have users interested in the product. This positive feedback has also given our team greater confidence and motivation.

Personally, I admire those who are very skilled at trading meme coins or are particularly sensitive to alpha and can multiply their investments several times. They indeed have their own talents and strengths.

But from my perspective, I believe that so far, two things have helped me the most. The first is that I have always been interested in new things and willing to delve into them. Even if you are good at trading coins or are part of those so-called "conspiracy groups" that issue coins and run projects daily, they essentially master a set of rules and have researched and become more proficient in using them. For example, someone like James, who is quite young but understands this set of rules and knows how to perform in this track. So I can quickly find direction and delve into different tracks and fields.

The second point, which I now consider very important, is being grounded, not anxious, and willing to focus long-term on one thing. This is actually quite difficult, especially in the trading environment of crypto. People tend to pursue opportunities to double their investments in the short term, eager to make 100 times their money in two days. But those who are truly willing to hold Bitcoin long-term and steadfastly do one thing are actually in the minority, especially among young people.

Of course, everyone's situation is different; some people have more funds and can invest long-term, while others may start with little money and hope to catch a thousand-fold project, which is understandable. But the key is to understand yourself, know what you are good at, what investment style suits you, and stick to it.

In the past two years, I have seen many people who originally had a set of logic or direction but later changed their mindset or were influenced by those around them, leading to distorted operations. I believe that whether in investment or entrepreneurship, the essence is the same. You must remain calm, be clear about your rhythm, direction, and style, and persist in your pace.

How to Judge Market Bull and Bear Cycles

Christian: I am not particularly professional in quantitative indicators. Our fund did use many data-related indicators when making decisions before, but later we found that none of these indicators could consistently apply across all cycles and remain effective.

So I personally tend to judge more from the emotional aspect, including the fact that I have hardly sold any of the coins I hold. I think the core reason is that I feel this bull market has not yet reached its most frenzied stage, and there is still a significant gap compared to the cycles of 2021 and 2022. Therefore, my current judgment on the market is: I am willing to wait a little longer.

Of course, the premise is that my entry cost at the start of this round is relatively low, so even if there is a pullback in profits, it is still acceptable. This is why I prefer to continue holding and am optimistic about the subsequent market development.

As for the significant cognitive differences, I believe many people currently share a similar sentiment, which is that the large-scale altcoin market may be difficult to return. On one hand, the liquidity and narrative logic have fundamentally changed, and people have become smarter, no longer easily swayed by boring, repetitive narratives.

On the other hand, the current listing strategies of exchanges also indicate that liquidity is still relatively dispersed. Therefore, I tend to believe that if there is indeed a wave of altcoin market, it may only concentrate on a few leading projects that can form consensus in their respective tracks and are driven by large holders and institutions.

So from my investment perspective, I will only focus on these two types of targets now.

If I were to make an irresponsible prediction, I still believe in two points.

The first point is that the stability of Bitcoin's price is indeed largely due to the support of many external institutions. This is a very objective reality: even if the original old players holding coins have cleared out, the purchasing power of compliant institutions remains very strong. Some people are starting to mention that these institutions may gradually choose some projects that align with their "aesthetic" as new investment targets, such as the older generation of DeFi projects or some emerging projects like PENDLE and Ether.fi that have appeared in this cycle.

I believe these projects are valid under institutional logic. The core is, if these secondary market institutions really want to look for targets outside of Bitcoin in the future, what kind of projects would make them willing to enter? It certainly wouldn't be memecoins; that's just the narrative logic.

The second point I think is that when selecting projects, it is essential to find coins with clear main forces behind them. The "main force" of a small project could be an individual, an institution, or a group of investors who have reached a consensus. Looking at it on a larger scale, for example, some particularly popular memecoins, their "main force" may be the strong consensus formed by retail communities. But regardless of the level, the core lies in whether this main force is still willing to continuously support and drive the coin's market.

Currently, there is an interesting vicious cycle in the market. Many project parties or so-called market makers find it challenging to cash out smoothly, even if they are listed on top exchanges, due to poor market conditions. Not to mention the subsequent need to maintain coin prices and continue to promote project development; the costs and challenges in this process are indeed significant. This leads many projects to become factory-like outputs without sincerity or long-term planning.

So from my perspective, I will now try to avoid projects that have already been abandoned by their main forces. I prefer to look for coins that still have main forces and driving power. This is my current investment mindset.

New Narrative Opportunities: On-chain US Stocks and Derivatives

Christian: Recently, I have been thinking about a direction where routes like Hyperliquid may be replicated. The idea behind Hyperliquid is quite traditional, but through a very strong product experience and high control, it has successfully replicated an opportunity. I find this model very interesting. To be honest, from the perspective of this product track and fundamentals, there isn't anything particularly eye-catching, so I am more willing to spend time focusing on derivative projects.

Another topic that has been widely discussed is "on-chain US stocks." I believe its core point lies in the fact that after the change of government in the U.S., the SEC's enforcement has relaxed to some extent, which has actually encouraged the development of projects like RWA, synthetic US stock assets, and derivatives—regulation has loosened, and the space has expanded.

Currently, I see two main implementation paths in the market. One is to map synthetic assets of U.S. stocks onto the blockchain through L2 (Layer 2), allowing users to trade these spot assets directly; the other is Perpetual DEX (decentralized perpetual contract exchanges). In fact, both of these routes were already explored in the last cycle by SNX (Synthetix).

In this cycle, I feel that under the backdrop of more relaxed regulations, some project teams may be bolder and more innovative, attempting some "fancy" or even "flashy" designs, or introducing new liquidity mechanisms to hype these concepts. I think this direction is something I have observed many people trying to pursue.

On the other hand, DeFi payments, like what we are doing with Infini, are more about products truly landing and solving user problems. It does not rely on the economic model of the token to hype itself, nor is it driven by narratives to stimulate buying. You can also feel that even if some projects launch with new narratives, they cannot genuinely convince people to buy. People are more focused on whether it can be practically useful.

Therefore, I believe the trend of this bull market may be somewhat different. The new narratives are more likely to be led by teams that are genuinely building products, infrastructure, and addressing real needs. The information flow that these projects gradually accumulate may bring more sustainable opportunities. This is also why we choose to persist in doing such things.

If you are creating a conventional product, I can't think of any reason why a new crypto project could compete with these traditional platforms in this track. Their products, services, and processes are already very mature.

So for crypto entrepreneurial projects, the only way out is to do things that traditional platforms dare not do, such as some of the fancier derivative designs and structural innovations I just mentioned, like the "three-pool model," which is a complex Ponzi structure. Ultimately, people want two things: first, whether the asset itself is fresh enough, and currently, there aren't many new coins appearing in the market; second, whether this innovation can drive global trading enthusiasm.

For example, on-chain U.S. stocks are relatively fresh for crypto users right now, and if combined with complex but eye-catching structural designs, I believe this may be the only practical path left. If it's just an ordinary trading market that allows people to buy U.S. stocks on-chain, then I think such a project is meaningless.

Evolution of Investment Strategy and Entry/Exit Judgments

Christian: I am actually quite casual now. Initially, about two years ago, I would indeed invest in a more standard way, such as dividing funds into several parts: investing 10% in this track, 20% in that one, and so on. I remember when I was very "naive," I was deeply influenced by Su Zhu and some other KOLs. That cycle coincided with the explosion of various "Ethereum killers," such as NEAR, Cosmos, and Harmony.

So at that time, I would seriously allocate funds according to ratios, based on different tracks, the leaders and non-leaders within the same track, and their cost-effectiveness. But later, I found that this method was quite "retail investor" and too mechanical.

Now, I have significantly fewer investment targets in the secondary market, mainly holding a few mainstream coins like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana. Occasionally, I might allocate some other positions, like Curve. I have never sold Curve, actually due to a coincidence: at that time, Curve experienced some events, and a friend introduced me to Michael, so I bought a bit and have held it ever since.

If I were to choose projects again, I would lean towards this logic—if I discover a project whose price has dropped significantly due to an event, nearing its historical lows, I might look back at those DeFi projects or some Memecoins.

I believe that projects like Memecoins, which have strong consensus, are particularly easy to rebound when market sentiment warms up. As we have seen, these coins performed poorly over the past few months, but since last month, as the market has slightly warmed up, the ones that have rebounded the most are indeed those that had dropped the hardest. So my current strategy is: to allocate the main positions in large projects, while placing some smaller funds in Memecoins or opportunity coins, observing market performance.

For me, I generally do not buy for short-term operations. I am not good at making decisions based on rumors or gossip, although I sometimes listen to friends' news and occasionally follow their lead, but I have also experienced situations where I bought in and got stuck, ultimately having to cut losses. So my overall style is that if I reach a price point or cycle I have set, I will choose to liquidate all at once, rather than frequently selling portions.

Specifically, for example, I would set a rough price range for myself; if Bitcoin starts at $120,000, I would gradually sell in batches. Ethereum is currently around $2,600; if it rises to $4,800 or even breaks $5,000 to set a new high, that would be a very high level for me, and at that time, I might sell off most of my holdings.

I really do not have a particularly strong ability to judge peaks, nor do I engage in swing trading. My main basis is market liquidity and overall sentiment. If the market is particularly hot and liquidity is very good at that time, that is a signal for me to exit. Although it sounds simple, the actual operation does not rely on technical indicators; it is more of a perception.

It is really difficult to sell precisely at the top. For example, I bought quite a bit on Coinbase previously, and during this round, Coinbase rose to over $300 after Trump took office; I sold about a third of my position at that time, which could be considered selling at a relatively high point, and then it dropped by half.

At that time, the feeling was that the main upward wave was too obvious, so I decisively sold. However, I did not sell Ethereum during this round, and fortunately, the market has been relatively stable recently. Moreover, since I am mainly focused on entrepreneurship now, it allows me to concentrate more on work without having to constantly monitor the market for buying and selling points.

Cheems Investment Review: From Accidental Involvement to Long-term Commitment

Christian: In fact, the Cheems situation has always been a particularly "coincidental" case for me. At that time, I completely did not understand Memecoins and did not realize that I might have some influence. To be honest, back then, we all had no clear understanding of the concept of "liquidity." I was also a novice, and many people initially looked at projects based on market cap, neglecting liquidity, which is a very typical rookie logic.

Cheems is a typical case. At that time, the market was in a rebound phase during a bear market; they issued ZK tokens, and a friend recommended that I participate, so I casually bought some. As a result, I bought quite a bit and then got stuck. Since I was stuck, I could only keep building this project, and later I continued to buy more, ultimately becoming long-term committed.

At that time, there was almost no liquidity, and the result was that you had to be tied to the project. If you did not push it yourself, it would be hard to get it off the ground. Until last year, when Cheems relaunched on the BNB Chain, I still worked hard to promote it, bringing people in, spreading the word, and building the community. I watched it go from launch and locking up to truly integrating into the BNB ecosystem; the process was really tough.

Of course, I still haven't broken even, and I won't sell. So for me, this is not just an investment but a process of participation. I comfort myself by saying that the significance of this matter is no longer about making money but about the experience of participating throughout.

If you just buy low, shout out your calls, and then pump it up to sell, that process is actually quite hollow. But I am willing to see if I can participate across cycles in a long-term manner to help this project go further.

I still believe in this logic. Especially recently, many people have realized that the BNB ecosystem is indeed one of the most dominant in the entire industry. For example, with the recent launch of Binance Alpha, Cheems was the first asset to go live, and it was initially heavily criticized. At that time, I did not think it would become a "great innovation." But now, you see, score farming and point grabbing have become mainstream.

This indicates that if Binance really wants to promote something, it indeed has the capability to make it happen. The success of the BNB Chain is just a matter of time; their strategic direction is clear.

So from this perspective, Cheems occupying a key position on the BNB Chain, with a certain historical accumulation and stable K-line trend, actually lays the foundation for its explosion in a bull market.

Of course, this is different from the short-term explosive rhythm of some Memecoins on Solana. My style is not suited for that kind of short-term, high-volatility, high-operation trading rhythm. I am more accustomed to binding long-term logic and slowly building. So this is the relationship I have with Cheems.

Coinbase and GBTC's Emotional Cycle Decision-Making

Christian: If I really had to mention my major holdings, it would definitely be two well-known assets: one is GBTC, and the other is Coinbase. At that time, whether it was our fund or myself personally, we invested a lot in these two assets. That period coincided with the collapse of FTX, and the entire market sentiment was extremely low; it was also the phase where I spent the most time on investment and trading in those years.

Later, I realized a core logic: to choose larger assets as much as possible. At that time, I hardly touched altcoins, and looking back, this was a relatively wise decision. Because I felt that institutional liquidity on the U.S. stock side was better, and both of these assets had clearly experienced significant overselling.

For example, Coinbase dropped by 90% at its lowest, and GBTC also showed a huge negative premium. We judged that this was actually an irrational mispricing driven by sentiment, rather than a fundamental issue. So we heavily bet that these two would outperform Bitcoin. Looking back, this was one of the few correct decisions I made.

There are also a few typical examples. One is Curve, which I just mentioned. That was because Curve's decline was very severe at the time, but we judged it was due to liquidity and short-term event shocks, rather than a fundamental problem. For GBTC, its underlying asset—Bitcoin—was still there and unchanged, so such a large premium was obviously unreasonable.

At that time, Coinbase's price-to-book ratio was very low, and although the company was in a loss state, making it impossible to look at PE, it had over $5 billion in cash on its balance sheet and had invested in many projects, which were reflected in the valuations of those assets. Yet the company's market value had dropped below $7 billion, which was clearly an example of being mispriced by market sentiment.

The logic for Curve was similar; its position, application, and community holder situation were all relatively stable at that time. We believed the market underestimated its value.

Of course, there are also two counterexamples—Arbitrum's native token and GMX. These two are projects where I have incurred significant losses in my investments, and they can be said to be among the few secondary assets that have actually caused me to lose money and lose quite a bit.

Looking back on the review, I think the investment logic behind ARB was very clearly flawed. At that time, I also FOMOed because many public chains were overvalued, and I thought that Arbitrum, as a core project in Layer 2, should have significant growth potential. Coupled with the hype around Solana at the time, I mistakenly believed that Layer 2 would be the next hotspot. However, I later realized that such judgments based on surface consensus and market sentiment are actually very unreliable. What truly determines a project's long-term trajectory is its actual operations in liquidity arrangements, not how people perceive it.

GMX is also an extreme example. I thought GMX was very attractive in terms of product innovation and valuation model. Especially during the bear market, its cash flow was considered scarce in the entire market. At that time, I genuinely felt I had found a so-called value pit. But the outcome was quite tragic. A good product does not necessarily mean it can grow in the long term. Long-term growth requires strong go-to-market capabilities, as well as continuous operations and iterations.

Although GMX's user numbers and trading volume are even higher now than they were back then, the price of the token has been on a downward trend. I later realized that while the product fundamentals were sound, the reasons for poor market performance could be twofold: first, its business model cannot sustain expansion; for example, its funding fee structure appears more expensive to traders compared to Hyperliquid; second, there are issues with the team itself.

Looking back now, I feel that the success of a project is heavily dependent on the mindset of the team and the founders. The GMX founding team clearly did not intend to create a long-term project; their iteration speed and operational capabilities have essentially stagnated. They seem more like they are creating a one-time product, without continuously pushing the project towards higher goals. Although I have not sold GMX yet, I am very clear that this is a typical case of a project losing momentum due to insufficient initiative from the team.

These experiences have led me to be more inclined to bet on truly outstanding and ambitious founders and teams. The fundamentals of the project itself are certainly important, but the human factor may be even more critical.

Investment Logic Summary

Christian: I think if I were to summarize the logic I use to select projects now, it can be distilled into three points.

The first point is the vision of the team. How big a project can become largely depends on whether the team has the vision and capability to drive it forward. If the founding team is only thinking about cashing out quickly, then the project is destined to go nowhere. Teams with a larger vision are often able to invest more sustainably and grow the project stronger. Of course, whether a project can succeed also depends on the team's attitude towards the token and whether they realize that the success of the token price can, in turn, drive user growth and market expansion for the product.

Jeff from Hyperliquid is a very typical example. He is not the kind of short-term thinking founder; instead, he cleverly uses the token to gain attention, treating the token price as a tool for user growth. After they issued the token, the project's fundamentals experienced a qualitative leap, which is a very rare phenomenon. Generally, there is a product first and then a token, but they used the token to drive the product's popularity, somewhat like the logic of some exchange platform tokens in the past.

The second point is continuous iteration and market strategy. If the team only wants to issue the token and then stop, the project is basically doomed to fail. It is essential to continuously refine the product and invest in market operations and marketing to keep the project hot and competitive.

The third point is the concentration of the token structure. In the current market environment, a decentralized token structure is no longer applicable. In the past, people could rely on market sentiment to naturally form consensus; now, the market must artificially create consensus. For example, GMX has a token structure that is too decentralized, making it difficult for the community to form a united front. In contrast, Hyperliquid is clearly different; it has achieved a high degree of concentration in its token holding structure, allowing large holders, small retail investors, and institutions to participate and form a collective force. This structure is more likely to drive a market cap explosion.

In summary, if I were to seriously invest time in researching and investing in new projects in the future, these three factors—team vision, token structure control, and concentrated consensus building—would be my main judgment framework.

Investment Mindset Advice: Position Control and Logical Belief Over Emotional Anxiety

Christian: Regarding investment mindset, I can summarize it in two sentences.

The first sentence is: Never let your position exceed your bearable limit. This limit is not just about leverage; it is also about the proportion of your overall investment to your personal assets. My own experience is that keeping the investment position within 30% to 50% of total assets is a relatively comfortable state. As long as the position is not too large, even if the token price fluctuates wildly, it will not have a significant impact on my life. A collapse in mindset often does not stem from market fluctuations but from having too much at stake, leading to unbearable pressure.

The second sentence is: Trust logic, not emotions or beliefs. Even if the position is not heavy, it is inevitable to doubt oneself and the market when facing significant losses. But at this time, the most important thing is to repeatedly review the logic behind the initial investment decision. If you find that the logic itself is wrong, then you should cut losses in a timely manner; but if the logic still holds, then you should stick with it and not be swayed by short-term market fluctuations. Just like when I invested in Coinbase, even though I faced severe losses, I believed that its fundamental logic had not changed, so the more it dropped, the more I wanted to increase my position.

In simple terms, controlling your position is a manifestation of discipline, while adhering to logic is the foundation of a stable mindset. Investment does not require blind faith; it requires rational judgment.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。