The Metaphor of Crypto Assets Ecosystem: Capital, Innovation, and Future Pathways

In the Crypto Assets ecosystem, we are witnessing a regional evolution. Over time, participants from different regions are exhibiting unique characteristics and roles.

After a well-known investment institution announced the termination of its investment in the second layer network of Bitcoin, it sparked industry discussions about the future direction of Crypto Assets venture capital. This institution has invested a total of $40 million in this field but has not achieved the expected returns. Meanwhile, some venture capital firms with Chinese backgrounds are also beginning to shift towards the secondary market or focus on supporting already invested projects to launch on trading platforms.

In contrast, top venture capital firms in Silicon Valley seem to remain optimistic. Although their absolute returns may not match some Chinese institutions, their fundraising scale and influence continue to expand. The institution's AI fund raised $20 billion, the Crypto Assets fund has a peak scale exceeding $7.6 billion, and even the minimum investment amount for the startup accelerator reaches $500,000.

This differentiated development reflects a rule in the Crypto Assets industry: the West dominates concept innovation and capital accumulation, while the East focuses on project development and providing liquidity. Although exchanges with a Chinese background still have an advantage in liquidity, the entire industry is pursuing "internationalization," viewing the Chinese-speaking market as secondary.

The reasons behind this trend are worth pondering:

1. Western investment institutions naturally possess a global perspective, and their investment targets often have a worldwide impact.
2. Chinese institutions find it difficult to directly embrace the local market and can only rely on Western backgrounds to compete.

In the new wave of global information capitalism, the development path of the crypto industry seems to be reshaping. Some traditional internet giants are taking a wait-and-see approach to Web3, while governments and state-owned enterprises are more focused on underlying blockchain technology, adopting a cautious attitude towards crypto assets themselves.

The future development may require new innovative paths and participants. Which will come first: technological breakthroughs or market shocks? We need to remain vigilant against the negative impacts of technological monopolies while maintaining our innovative vitality.

For Crypto Assets practitioners, building global public products based on the local liquidity market will be an important challenge. In this process, it is necessary to balance short-term speculation and long-termism, while also recognizing one's own positioning and value in the global ecosystem.

As the industry continues to evolve, factors such as cultural traditions and regulatory environments may become the "liabilities" that project parties need to face. How to survive and innovate in such a complex environment will test the wisdom and foresight of every participant.