CoinRank

يرتبط انخفاض سولانا ارتباطًا وثيقًا بتلاشي موجة الميم وانخفاض النشاط على السلسلة.

 

انتقلت المنافسة من السرعة إلى عمق النظام البيئي، مع تعزيز إيثيريوم لمكانته في الأصول الحقيقية والبنية التحتية.

 

قدمت وزارة الأصول الرقمية الدعم في عام 2025 ولكنها لم تتمكن من تعويض الضغط الهبوطي الأوسع في عام 2026.

عندما تتلاشى موجة الميم

 

عندما انخفض سعر SOL لفترة وجيزة إلى 67 دولارًا في أوائل فبراير، تحول شعور السوق من الشك إلى الحذر. منذ الذروة في أكتوبر 2025، انخفض SOL لعدة أشهر متتالية، مع أقصى انخفاض تجاوز 70 في المئة. حتى بعد انتعاش قصير إلى حوالي 80 دولارًا، لم يظهر حجم التداول والنشاط على السلسلة تعافيًا قويًا. مشروع NFT Mad Lads، الذي كان رمزًا لازدهار سولانا، شهد انخفاض سعره من ذروة تعادل أكثر من 40,000 دولار إلى أقل من 2,000 دولار. تأثير الثروة تلاشى بسرعة. سلسلة كانت تُعتبر يومًا واحدة من أكبر الفائزين في سوق الثور تواجه الآن اختبار دورة واضح.

أطلق سوق التنبؤات القصيرة جداً تحول Polymarket من منصة مدفوعة بالسرد إلى ساحة تداول بالهيكل الجزئي.



كانت ميزة المتداول تأتي من استغلال تأخر تسعير قصير الأجل بين الأسواق الفورية وعقود الاحتمالية، وليس من التنبؤات على المدى الطويل.



أ enabledتحديد حجم المراكز بدقة وأخذ الأرباح بشكل منهجي، بدلاً من معدل الفوز البحت، مكّن من تحقيق مكاسب متسقة ضمن نوافذ زمنية مضغوطة.

التنبؤ بتحولات السوق في خمس دقائق يتحول إلى لعبة سرعة



عندما أطلق Polymarket أسواقه القصيرة جداً لمدة 5 دقائق و 15 دقيقة في فبراير 2026، انتقل بهدوء إلى تغيير طبيعة تداول التنبؤات. تدور أسواق التنبؤ التقليدية حول الأحداث الكلية مثل الانتخابات، نتائج السياسات، أو اتجاهات الأصول على المدى الطويل. تعمل كآلات توافق، حيث تعكس الأسعار الاعتقاد الجماعي حول مستقبل بعيد. ولكن بمجرد أن يتقلص الإطار الزمني إلى خمس أو خمس عشرة دقيقة، يتغير الهيكل تمامًا. لم يعد المشاركون يناقشون السرد. إنهم يتفاعلون مع التقلبات الحية. يتوقف المنتج عن كونه سوقًا للآراء ويبدأ في التشبه بمكان تداول مشتقات خفيف.

بينما تضعف أسعار العملات المشفرة، تحافظ أسواق التنبؤ على نشاط عالٍ بسبب الطلب المدفوع بالأحداث بدلاً من دورات الأسعار.

 

تظل المنصات الرائدة في مراحل ما قبل الرمز أو مراحل TGE المبكرة، مما يخلق فرصاً محتملة للتوظيف في المرحلة المبكرة.

 

يمكن أن تؤدي الأحداث الرياضية العالمية مثل كأس العالم إلى تحفيز المرحلة الكبرى التالية من أسواق التنبؤ.

 

 

من 2023 إلى 2026، من هونغ كونغ إلى المسرح العالمي، اجتمعت المؤسسات من جميع أنحاء العالم مرة أخرى. مع تطور العقد المقبل من الأصول الرقمية، تنظر LTP إلى الأمام جنبًا إلى جنب مع الصناعة.

Kyle Samani’s post-exit criticism of crypto appears hypocritical given his past success and influence in the industry.

 

Conflicting signals around Hyperliquid and Multicoin suggest his departure may involve internal tensions rather than pure disillusionment.

 

Despite his exit, major investors remain confident that crypto is entering a new “builder-driven” phase of long-term growth.

An in-depth analysis of Kyle Samani’s controversial exit from crypto, his criticism of the industry, internal speculation, and why leading investors still believe in crypto’s long-term future.

 

“BURNING THE BRIDGE” IS SIMPLY DISGUSTING

 

Objectively speaking, Kyle Samani has made meaningful positive contributions to the crypto industry over the years. Whether through substantial financial support for early-stage projects (regardless of his motives, the impact was real), or through shaping narratives and promoting ideological frameworks, he directly or indirectly influenced the direction of the industry’s development.

 

From a results-oriented perspective, Kyle Samani has also achieved outcomes in crypto that most people could never imagine. On this point alone, it is entirely reasonable for Hasseb Qureshi to call him “one of the best investors in the industry,” or for Mable to describe him as a “top-tier player.”

 

 

Precisely because of this, the “ugly side” he has repeatedly displayed in the days following his exit from crypto feels even more repulsive.

 

On the very day he announced his departure, Kyle Samani replied to Taran, founder of Stix, saying:

 

✏️ “Crypto is nowhere near as interesting as many people (including myself) once thought. I used to believe in the Web3 vision and in dApps, but I don’t anymore. Blockchains are essentially asset ledgers. They will reshape finance, but that’s about it. They won’t have much broader impact.”

 

He deleted the post almost immediately after publishing it.

 

Fine—this was likely his genuine view, one he had never publicly expressed before. But the fact that he deleted it at least suggests he understood that “burning the bridge” was not exactly graceful.

 

Unfortunately, he did not stop there.

 

On February 8, Kyle Samani once again attacked the industry that had helped build his success:

 

✏️ “Hyperliquid reflects almost everything that’s wrong with crypto. Its founders fled their home country to build it, openly facilitate crime and terrorism, run a closed-source system, and still require permission.”

 

While bluntness has always been one of his controversial traits, this time his remarks were illogical and clearly inconsistent with the facts. They were difficult to defend. Coming from someone who now positions himself as an outsider, the comments felt even more jarring.

 

In the past, even his most extreme statements could usually find support within certain communities—for example, his alignment with Solana or his long-standing criticism of Ethereum. This time, however, he spoke from outside the industry, rejecting crypto as a whole.

 

The backlash was inevitable. Kyle Samani successfully provoked widespread outrage.

 

When people who have lost money in crypto complain about the industry, it is understandable. Everyone needs an emotional outlet. But Kyle Samani is someone who made enormous wealth in crypto and achieved significant social mobility through it. For him to turn around and attack the industry immediately after announcing his exit inevitably feels hypocritical and distasteful.

 

To put it bluntly, this is a classic case of “biting the hand that fed you.”

 

He wants to walk away with the wealth and status the industry gave him, while rushing to cut ties and denounce it at the same time. There is no such thing as getting the best of both worlds so easily.

A STRANGE SENSE OF INCONSISTENCY: IS THERE MORE BEHIND HIS EXIT?

 

Another deeply puzzling aspect of Kyle Samani’s departure is his choice of target. This time, he singled out Hyperliquid for criticism—yet on the other hand, Multicoin Capital has been steadily increasing its exposure to Hyperliquid.

 

Crypto Banter founder Ran Neuner also pointed out that in a recent weekend post by Multicoin’s other co-founder, Tushar Jain, outlining the firm’s five-year investment roadmap, Hyperliquid was prominently featured as a core project under the third major theme, “Financial Globalization.” Meanwhile, DePIN—an area Kyle Samani had long been extremely bullish on—was not mentioned at all.

 

 

Based on this, Ran Neuner proposed a hypothesis: that Kyle Samani may not have left voluntarily, but was instead forced out due to internal conflicts with Tushar Jain. Under the constraints of a non-compete agreement, he may then have had no choice but to exit the crypto industry entirely.

 

Although this theory lacks any concrete evidence, it does seem to better explain the inconsistencies mentioned above, as well as Kyle Samani’s sudden shift in attitude.

 

🔍Which is more believable?

 

That a top-tier mind who spent years deeply engaged in crypto suddenly woke up one day and realized the entire industry was hollow and meaningless?

 

Or that Kyle Samani, driven by resentment and unable to continue profiting from the industry, chose to turn against it?

 

Whether out of faith in the industry’s future, or out of residual respect for Kyle Samani’s past achievements, emotionally I am more inclined toward the second explanation.

 

As for the truth, it may only be revealed someday in the future—probably at a time when no one cares about this story anymore.

DOES CRYPTO STILL HAVE A FUTURE?

 

Over the past few years, we have seen a steady flow of talent migrating from crypto to AI. But when a symbolic figure like Kyle Samani chooses to leave the space entirely, it inevitably delivers a heavy blow to confidence across the industry.

 

So, does crypto really have no future?

 

This is clearly not a question that can be answered by any single individual’s opinion. After Kyle Samani’s departure, several influential leaders of comparable stature have articulated—through their own reasoning—why they remain optimistic about the industry’s long-term prospects.

 

Tushar Jain has maintained his conviction. The eight major investment themes recently released by Multicoin Capital remain firmly centered on the crypto ecosystem.

 

Haseeb Qureshi, meanwhile, views Kyle Samani’s exit as a genuine sign of the industry’s maturation. In his view, pioneers and long-term settlers are rarely the same group—this is simply human nature. As he put it:

 

✏️ “I’m still very bullish on crypto. I know it sounds strange to say this in a volatile market, because people have little patience for dreams that may take ten years to realize. The era of dreamers is ending, and the era of builders is beginning. That is neither inherently good nor bad.”

 

From another perspective, a16z Crypto partner and Web3 pioneer Chris Dixon rejected Kyle Samani’s view that crypto can only reshape finance by drawing an analogy to the early internet:

 

✏️ “Infrastructure and distribution networks usually emerge before new application categories. The internet didn’t start with social media, streaming, or online communities. It started with packet switching, TCP/IP, and basic connectivity. Only after hundreds of millions of people got online did entirely new cultural and economic categories emerge. Crypto is likely similar. A reasonable hypothesis is that we first need to onboard hundreds of millions of users through payments, stablecoins, savings, and DeFi before we see meaningful adoption in media, gaming, AI, or other more distant domains.”

 

Ultimately, the future is shaped by people.

 

As long as enough individuals continue to share this belief, the narrative flame of crypto can still be reignited.

 

 

▶ Read the original article

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈Is Kyle Samani’s Exit From the Crypto Scene Hiding a Deeper Story?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

بينما تضعف أسعار التشفير، تحافظ أسواق التنبؤ على نشاط عالٍ بسبب الطلب المدفوع بالأحداث بدلاً من دورات الأسعار.

 

تظل المنصات الرائدة في مراحل ما قبل الرمز أو مراحل TGE المبكرة، مما يخلق فرص وضع مبكر محتملة.

 

يمكن أن تؤدي الأحداث الرياضية العالمية مثل كأس العالم إلى تحفيز المرحلة التالية من النمو الكبير لأسواق التنبؤ.

بينما تتدهور مشاعر التشفير إلى خوف شديد، تصل أسواق التنبؤ إلى نشاط قياسي، مدفوعة بالأحداث الواقعية، وزخم ما قبل الرمز، ومحركات عالمية رئيسية.

المراهنة المبكرة لـ CZ على بيتكوين جعلته ثريًا، لكن أكبر فرصة ضائعة للعملات المشفرة جاءت لاحقًا مع الذكاء الاصطناعي.

 

كان من الممكن أن تبلغ حصة FTX في Anthropic أكثر من 27 مليار دولار، مما يعيد تشكيل علاقات العملات المشفرة مع الذكاء الاصطناعي.

 

الفشل في الاحتفاظ بالتعرض للذكاء الاصطناعي ترك العملات المشفرة على الهامش بينما استحوذت المالية التقليدية على الجانب الإيجابي.

من مقام CZ المبكر في بيتكوين إلى حصة FTX المفقودة في Anthropic، تستكشف هذه القصة كيف فاتت العملات المشفرة أكبر فرصة لها لتشكيل عصر الذكاء الاصطناعي — والمليارات المتروكة على الطاولة.

 

في عام 2014، وبعد عام واحد فقط من أول تفاعل له مع مفهوم العملات المشفرة، قام CZ بأحد أكثر الاستثمارات جرأة في حياته — حيث باع شقته في شنغهاي واستثمر بكل ما لديه في حوالي 1,500 BTC بسعر ثلاثي الأرقام.

Market maturity shifts focus from speculation to infrastructure, with stablecoins and real world assets becoming foundational.

 

Web3 adoption requires abstraction layers that remove friction around accounts, chains, gas, and data for mainstream users.

 

The Stellar and Topnod partnership highlights how secure distribution and RWA depth can drive the next phase of global Web3 growth.

WHEN NARRATIVES FADE, INFRASTRUCTURE REMAINS

 

On stage at Consensus 2026 Hong Kong, the conversation between Raja Chakravorti and Antonio Liu was not about price targets or market timing. There was no attempt to energize the room with bullish sentiment. Instead, they focused on a deeper question. When markets truly mature, what actually stays?

 

This is a question that goes beyond cycles.

 

 

Over the past decade, Web3 has grown through narratives. Digital gold. DeFi summer. NFTs. Metaverse. Restaking. Modular chains. Each wave brought new users and strong momentum. Each wave also left noise behind. The industry expanded quickly, but it also corrected itself again and again.

 

In Hong Kong, a global financial hub, the tone felt different. The focus shifted from price performance to structure. From tokens to assets. From chain speed to what chains can support.

 

Raja pointed out a clear trend. Stablecoins and real world assets are becoming the foundation. Tokenized US Treasuries are now common among institutions. Money market funds on chain are no longer experiments. RWA is no longer a demo. It represents real capital moving on chain.

 

Antonio added another key point. Asia is not simply copying the West. Asia has its own asset structure and regional liquidity dynamics. Many local assets were once limited to local markets. Tokenization changes that. Once these assets move on chain, they gain global distribution.

 

The real shift is not that assets are on chain. The real shift is that assets can now travel across borders.

 

When markets mature, speculation fades. Infrastructure remains.

 

FROM BUILDING FOR WEB3 TO PREPARING FOR WEB2

 

Antonio made an important observation. For more than ten years, Web3 has been building mainly for itself.

 

Infrastructure, protocols, bridges, DeFi strategies, staking models. Most products were designed for native Web3 users. These are users who understand seed phrases, gas fees, and cross chain mechanics.

 

But that situation is changing.

 

 

Web3 is no longer limited to crypto native communities. Ordinary Web2 users now talk about stablecoins, tokenized stocks, and on chain yield. These topics appear in social conversations and online discussions far beyond technical circles.

 

This means Web3 narratives are expanding outside their original audience.

 

The challenge is no longer technical readiness. Infrastructure is complex and mature. The question is whether it is ready for non technical users.

 

Antonio compared today’s Web3 to the early internet. Decades ago, people needed to understand DNS, HTTP, and dial up modems. The technical barrier stopped many from participating.

 

Web3 feels similar today.

 

Seed phrases, gas fees, multiple chains, bridges, swaps, staking, restaking. For professionals, these are tools. For average users, they are obstacles.

 

Mass adoption will not come from teaching Web2 users to become Web3 experts. It will come from hiding Web3 complexity behind familiar experiences.

 

When technology becomes invisible, the market is truly mature.

 

FOUR LAYERS OF ABSTRACTION: MAKING THE CHAIN INVISIBLE

 

Topnod’s approach is not to build a flashier wallet. It is to build a smoother entry point.

 

Antonio described four layers of abstraction.

 

The first is account abstraction. Seed phrases are powerful for security, but they create stress. Topnod allows users to register with social accounts or email. Private keys are protected through trusted execution environments and device level security modules. The wallet remains non custodial. Only users control their assets. But users no longer need to remember complex phrases.

 

The second is chain abstraction. Users should not need to see the blockchain. They should see what they can do. Trade assets. Invest in RWA. Explore yield strategies. View their portfolio performance. Stellar operates underneath, but it does not need to appear in the user interface.

 

The third is gas abstraction. For Web2 users, paying a transaction fee in a different token makes little sense. Topnod handles gas in the background. The system can manage costs and adjust later within the flow. Users do not need to understand gas at all.

 

The fourth is data abstraction. Different chains and DeFi protocols present information in technical formats. Topnod converts these into clear portfolio views and simple reports. Users see gains, losses, and allocations. They do not see contract logic.

 

Together, these layers reduce friction.

 

The blockchain does not disappear technically. It disappears from the user’s awareness.

 

When users no longer talk about the chain, the infrastructure has succeeded.

 

SECURITY, EXPERIENCE, AND THE ROLE OF STELLAR

 

Raja raised a long standing issue in the industry. There is often a trade off between security and usability.

 

The traditional view treats this as a zero sum choice. Improve security and you reduce convenience. Improve convenience and you weaken security.

 

Antonio offered a different perspective. If technology does not improve, resources are fixed. But when technology advances, total capacity grows. It becomes possible to improve both security and user experience at the same time.

 

Account abstraction, mobile hardware security, and trusted execution environments are examples of this shift.

 

In this context, choosing the right blockchain matters.

 

Topnod selected Stellar not because of marketing claims about speed, but because of asset depth. Stellar already hosts a wide range of real world assets and stablecoins. It has a complete ecosystem with DeFi protocols, bridges, and swap infrastructure.

 

For a wallet targeting Web2 users, the key question is simple. Are there meaningful assets available? Are there real opportunities to invest and trade?

 

Distribution unlocks value, but it must be built on secure and reliable infrastructure.

 

At Consensus 2026 Hong Kong, the message was clear. The next phase of Web3 will not be defined by more complex protocols or faster chains.

 

It will be defined by simplicity.

 

When users only see assets and results, and no longer see the complexity behind them, that is when markets have truly matured.

〈Consensus 2026 Hong Kong: What Endures When Markets Mature? The Answer from Stellar and Topnod〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

أقوى استخدامات البلوك تشين هي البنية التحتية المالية، وليس التطبيقات الاستهلاكية العامة.

 

تمكن أسواق رأس المال عبر الإنترنت تشكيل رأس المال العالمي الأصلي على الإنترنت بما يتجاوز مشاريع التشفير.

 

تعتمد بقاء النظام البيئي على المدى الطويل على الإيرادات الحقيقية، والاستدامة الاقتصادية، وسيولة السوق المفتوحة.

في مؤتمر Consensus 2026 في هونغ كونغ، عادت رئيسة مؤسسة سولانا ليلي ليو إلى موضوع كررته عدة مرات: أسواق رأس المال عبر الإنترنت. بدلاً من التحدث عن أسعار الرموز أو إحصائيات النظام البيئي، ركزت على سؤال أعمق. ما هو الغرض الفعلي من البلوك تشين؟

تعكس الأداء المتفوق الأخير للذهب تركيز رأس المال في أواخر الدورة، وليس تحولًا دائمًا بعيدًا عن فرضية قيمة البيتكوين.



تعتمد انتعاشة البيتكوين على دوران رأس المال الكلي، بينما يرتبط النمو الطويل الأمد للإيثيريوم بتبني المؤسسات، ودمج الذكاء الاصطناعي، والتمويل على السلسلة.



قد تعزز الهياكل السائدة لخزينة الأصول الرقمية التعرض للأرباح من خلال الجمع بين عائدات الستاكينغ، وقوة الميزانية العمومية، والوصول إلى أسواق رأس المال.

في مؤتمر كونسيستنس هونغ كونغ 2026، قدم توم لي رسالة واضحة ومنضبطة. سوق العملات المشفرة لا يواجه تراجعًا هيكليًا. إنه يعاني من انقطاع مؤقت. لقد تفوق الذهب على مدار العام الماضي، بينما كافح البيتكوين والإيثيريوم. ومع ذلك، فإن هذا التباين لا يشير إلى نهاية فرضية الأصول الرقمية. بدلاً من ذلك، قد يمثل المرحلة المتأخرة من دورة دوران رأس المال.

 On-chain identity shifts risk from collateral-driven assumptions to behavior-driven evaluation, allowing protocols to distinguish reliable users from high-risk participants.

 

AI and zero-knowledge proofs will work together to interpret fragmented on-chain behavior while preserving privacy, forming the technical backbone of credit identity.

 

Portable reputation across chains and applications unlocks higher capital efficiency, sustainable GameFi economies, institutional participation, and more accurate cross-chain risk pricing.

IDENTITY AS THE FIRST LAYER OF RISK

 

In a recent AMA hosted by CoinRank, the discussion opened not with price targets or short-term market commentary but with a more foundational question: if Web3 truly intends to operate as a next-generation financial system, what is it missing at its core? Capital is abundant, users continue to grow, yet something deeper limits the system’s ability to function like mature financial markets. The moderator suggested that the missing layer might be identity — not in the traditional sense of personal information, but as a mechanism that allows risk to be understood, priced, and distributed. This framing quickly shifted the tone of the conversation. Instead of discussing markets asset by asset, speakers examined how uncertainty, behavior, and trust are absorbed across different parts of the crypto ecosystem. As soon as identity entered the conversation, it became clear that markets are not only repricing volatility; they are also reconsidering who carries risk, why they carry it, and how systems allocate it.

 

The moderator emphasized that a wallet starting from zero history may fit early ideals of decentralization but introduces significant inefficiency. Financial systems cannot operate without context. When every user is treated as identical, protocols must assume worst-case scenarios, lending pools set conservative parameters, and markets lose the ability to distinguish reliable participants from opportunistic ones. In this sense, the absence of identity is not a design feature but a systemic cost. It forces DeFi into a low-resolution model of risk where nuance is impossible. The opening segment made clear that on-chain credit identity is less about classification and more about eliminating structural ignorance, allowing risk to attach to the right places rather than being averaged across an undifferentiated pool of users.

 

BEHAVIOR OVER KYC

 

Co-host CreditLink reinforced this by drawing a critical distinction between KYC and credit identity. KYC answers who you are. On-chain identity answers what you have done. It is a record of behavior, consistency, reliability, and participation. Crypto markets already generate an enormous amount of behavioral data — transaction history, borrowing patterns, governance engagement, staking timelines — but without interpretation this data remains inert. CreditLink argued that meaningful identity in Web3 must transform fragmented actions into verifiable behavioral signals that protocols can use to price risk. That does not require exposing sensitive information. Instead, it requires a framework where users carry portable, privacy-preserving proof of their past reliability.

 

The co-host noted that the future of Web3 lending will not be defined solely by collateral but by a combination of collateral and demonstrated behavior. High-quality users should not bear the same cost of capital as unknown or high-risk participants. Similarly, protocols should not need to limit capital efficiency because they lack tools to evaluate borrower quality. The argument landed clearly: the relationship between users and networks changes once behavior becomes interpretable. And to interpret behavior at scale, the system will rely on AI. In CreditLink’s view, AI models are not about scoring users but about reading risk in real time — identifying patterns that signal stability or instability long before traditional indicators surface. This shifts identity from a static classification to a living, evolving representation of how a user behaves in the ecosystem.

 

CAPITAL EFFICIENCY AND STRUCTURAL LIMITATIONS

 

From Pindex, Mia expanded the conversation by examining the economic consequences of lacking identity. She argued that DeFi today is structurally trapped in a high-collateral, low-efficiency regime. The reason is straightforward: when a protocol cannot distinguish between user types, it prices risk as if everyone were equally risky. This forces responsible users to pay an inflated premium and prevents lending markets from maturing into more efficient models. Mia emphasized that this is not a theoretical limitation; it is a practical one. Without credit-based differentiation, the cost of uncertainty becomes embedded into every parameter — interest rates, loan-to-value ratios, liquidation thresholds. As a result, many promising lending markets operate far below their potential capacity.

 

Her argument positioned on-chain identity not as an add-on but as the mechanism that allows DeFi to evolve beyond its current constraints. Once a protocol can observe and verify consistent positive behavior, it can extend more favorable terms. The broader implication is that DeFi could finally serve long-term participants without forcing them into the same risk bucket as opportunistic actors. Mia was direct in her assessment: on-chain credit is the dividing line between a system that merely functions and one that can scale into a true financial layer.

 

RISK FILTERING IN GAME ECONOMIES

 

From the perspective of GamePad, Myo approached identity through the lens of GameFi — a sector that has seen explosive cycles of growth and collapse. He argued that most GameFi failures were not driven by tokenomics flaws but by the absence of a mechanism to distinguish long-term players from speculative inflows. When every account is treated equally, bots, exploiters, and opportunistic players receive the same economic benefits as genuine users. This creates a feedback loop that destabilizes the entire in-game economy. Myo explained that if games could recognize patterns such as DAO participation, asset retention, consistent in-game engagement, or long-term wallet behaviors, they could construct reward systems that support sustainable growth rather than rapid extraction.

 

In his view, credit identity acts not as a reward mechanism but as a filter. Games do not need to know the real-world identities of their participants; they need to understand which behaviors align with economic stability. By filtering participants based on trustworthy on-chain patterns, Web3 games can transition away from unsustainable emission-driven models and toward ecosystems where value is created rather than drained. This perspective extended the discussion beyond finance and illustrated how identity becomes foundational even in sectors where it is rarely acknowledged.

 

AI, PRIVACY, AND THE INTERPRETATION OF BEHAVIOR

 

From AIW3, Cedar offered a technical perspective that grounded the discussion in infrastructure realities. He described on-chain behavior as abundant but structurally fragmented. Wallet actions occur across many chains, formats, and contexts, making human interpretation impossible at scale. According to Cedar, AI is not optional but essential. Only AI models — particularly those built with graph analysis, sequence modeling, and semantic understanding — can convert scattered actions into coherent risk narratives. At the same time, identity systems must be privacy-preserving from the start. Cedar emphasized that the purpose of credit identity is not to expose information, but to allow users to prove reliability without revealing personal data. This requires a deep integration between AI-driven behavioral models and zero-knowledge cryptography.

 

His argument reframed identity as a multidisciplinary system rather than a single protocol feature. It must combine machine intelligence, cryptographic guarantees, and behavioral analysis to function properly. When these components align, identity becomes a powerful tool for risk interpretation rather than an intrusive form of surveillance.

 

INTEROPERABILITY AS AN IDENTITY PROBLEM

 

From Unibase, Valerio shifted the conversation toward the cross-chain environment. He argued that the largest inefficiency in cross-chain finance is not technical but informational. When a user moves from one chain to another, their entire behavioral history is lost. A wallet with years of positive engagement on Chain A appears as an empty newcomer on Chain B. This creates unnecessary friction and forces protocols to disregard valuable historical context. Valerio described this as a core identity failure. Interoperability, he argued, does not actually require faster bridges or cheaper transactions. What it requires is portable identity — the ability for users to carry their behavioral credibility across ecosystems without compromising privacy.

 

His position highlighted a key limitation in today’s multi-chain world: liquidity can move freely, but trust cannot. And until trust becomes portable, cross-chain finance will remain structurally constrained.

 

CREDIT AS A COORDINATION MECHANISM

 

The final perspective came from MetaSoil, where Dr. NFY analyzed identity through the lens of economic coordination. He argued that credit is not fundamentally about scoring users or rewarding good behavior. Its deeper purpose is to reduce friction. Markets become more efficient when participants can form reliable expectations about counterparties. Without identity-linked behavioral signals, every transaction carries hidden uncertainty. Dr. NFY described credit identity as a way to align incentives across participants, enabling capital to flow more predictably and reducing the need for redundant safeguards. He concluded with a striking point: risk does not disappear, but it can finally settle in the right places once identity exists.

 

WHEN RISK FINALLY FINDS ITS OWNER

 

The AMA closed without price predictions or market calls. Instead, it delivered a structural insight: Web3 does not need more liquidity — it needs a framework that understands how to hold and distribute risk. On-chain credit identity provides this framework. It allows DeFi to escape over-collateralization, enables GameFi to filter meaningful participants, gives cross-chain ecosystems continuity, unlocks institutional participation, and provides AI models with interpretable behavioral data. In other words, identity is not a feature but the next foundational layer of Web3. It turns scattered actions into coherent signals, reduces systemic uncertainty, and gives the market a way to assign risk to those who generate it. Once this shift happens, the Web3 financial system gains the clarity and precision it has lacked since inception.

〈CoinRank AMA: Why On-Chain Credit Identity Matters〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。