CoinRank

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》。

While crypto prices weaken, Prediction Markets maintain high activity due to event-driven demand rather than price cycles.

 

Leading platforms remain in pre-token or early TGE phases, creating potential early-stage positioning opportunities.

 

Global sports events like the World Cup could trigger the next major growth phase for Prediction Markets.

As crypto sentiment plunges into extreme fear, Prediction Markets are hitting record activity, fueled by real-world events, pre-token momentum, and major global catalysts.

 

CRYPTO MARKET FALLS INTO EXTREME FEAR — BUT PREDICTION MARKETS KEEP SETTING NEW ACTIVITY RECORDS

 

If we look only at price action, there is very little to be excited about in today’s crypto market.

 

After last week’s sharp sell-off, Bitcoin’s rebound has been limited, while altcoins remain broadly weak. Risk appetite has clearly contracted. Market sentiment reflects this shift: according to Alternative.me, the Crypto Fear & Greed Index stood at 25 last month, briefly plunged to 7 yesterday, and despite a mild rebound today, remains firmly in “Extreme Fear” territory.

 

 

Yet against this bleak backdrop, one vertical is moving in the opposite direction — Prediction Markets continue to heat up.

 

On-chain data shows that weekly nominal trading volume in Prediction Markets has risen significantly in recent weeks. Although activity dipped slightly last week, volumes remain near historical highs. This suggests that user demand has not declined with weakening market conditions. Instead, participation has become more stable and resilient.

 

The core reason is simple: Prediction Markets are not driven by crypto price volatility, but by real-world events.

 

From major sports leagues — basketball, football, NFL, tennis, hockey, League of Legends — to macro policy shifts, Fed rate cuts, potential U.S. government shutdowns, and even entertainment topics, new trading opportunities emerge almost every day.

 

(https://dune.com/datadashboards/prediction-markets)

 

As a result, unlike traditional crypto trading that depends heavily on market cycles, Prediction Markets are driven by “event flow.” Their activity is far less sensitive to price trends, allowing them to maintain high engagement even during downturns.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, PREDICTION MARKETS ARE STILL IN THE PRE-TOKEN PHASE

 

Many crypto sectors share a common pattern: by the time most users start paying attention, the token has already been issued, and early-stage returns are largely gone.

 

Prediction Markets, however, are currently in the opposite position.

 

User growth is accelerating, while the token cycle is only just beginning.

 

The strongest signal comes from Polymarket. Its parent company, Blockratize, recently filed a trademark application for “POLY,” covering tokens and related financial services. According to sources, Polymarket’s management has confirmed plans to launch a native POLY token and conduct an airdrop, though the timeline has not yet been announced.

 

This suggests that today’s high levels of trading and interaction may still be occurring in the early phase of a potential airdrop window.

 

Meanwhile, on BNB Chain, Opinion — currently one of the most discussed Prediction Markets platforms — has launched OPN airdrop tasks through Binance Wallet Booster, widely interpreted as a sign that its TGE is approaching.

 

At the same time, Opinion recently completed a $20 million Series A round led by Hack VC, Jump Crypto, Primitive Ventures, and Decasonic, signaling that institutional investors are positioning early in this sector.

 

Market expectations also remain strong. On Polymarket, the probability of “Opinion’s first-day FDV exceeding $500 million” currently stands at 76%, with nearly $4 million in trading volume.

 

 

In a weak altcoin environment, such high probabilities reflect broad expectations that the project may still receive strong price support at launch.

 

Driven partly by Opinion’s upcoming TGE, another BNB Chain platform, predict.fun — which ranks among the leaders in weekly volume — has also seen rising community engagement.

 

Notably, founder dingaling recently stated in Discord that “many things are still in preparation” and hinted at major updates later this month, further boosting market attention.

THE WORLD CUP MAY MARK THE REAL BREAKOUT MOMENT FOR PREDICTION MARKETS

 

This morning’s Super Bowl already provided a clear reference point.

 

On Polymarket alone, trading volume for “Super Bowl Champion” markets exceeded $700 million. A single event generated massive liquidity.

 

However, the Super Bowl is primarily a U.S.-focused event. The World Cup is on an entirely different scale.

 

Compared with a single match, the World Cup lasts longer, features far more games, and attracts global participation. From group stages to knockouts, new markets emerge almost daily: qualification odds, score ranges, matchups, Golden Boot winners, and championship probabilities.

 

This high-frequency event flow over several weeks tends to generate sustained trading activity, rather than short-lived traffic spikes.

 

If the Super Bowl has already proven that major sports events can drive explosive short-term volume, the World Cup is more likely to determine whether Prediction Markets enter their next phase of user growth and liquidity.

 

It is highly likely that many platforms will launch their tokens around the World Cup cycle. From this perspective, the current period may represent one of the best accumulation windows.

 

Personally, in a weak market environment, I would rather place more bets on Prediction Markets than chase underperforming altcoins.

 

 

▶ 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!

〈The Underrated Edge of Prediction Markets: All-Weather Trading Opportunities〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

CZ’s early Bitcoin bet made him wealthy, but crypto’s biggest missed opportunity came later with AI.

 

FTX’s stake in Anthropic could have been worth over $27 billion, reshaping Crypto–AI relations.

 

The failure to retain AI exposure left crypto sidelined as traditional finance captured the upside.

From CZ’s early Bitcoin gamble to FTX’s lost Anthropic stake, this story explores how crypto missed its biggest chance to shape the AI era — and the billions left on the table.

 

In 2014, just 1 year after first encountering the concept of cryptocurrencies, CZ made one of the boldest investments of his life — selling his apartment in Shanghai and going “all in” on around 1,500 BTC at a three-digit price.

 

12 years later, had CZ never sold, this investment would have generated more than $100 million in profits, with peak returns reaching approximately $189 million.

 

Compared with his later achievement of founding Binance and rising to become an industry leader, the financial gains from this early bet may seem insignificant to CZ himself. But from an outside perspective, this idealistic, all-or-nothing decision remains one of his most widely admired moves.

 

Ironically, however, even someone as decisive and conviction-driven as CZ once missed an opportunity — in a highly dramatic way — that could have delivered returns hundreds of times greater than his famous “sell-house-for-Bitcoin” bet.

FROM AN OVERLOOKED SIDE BET TO THE CENTER OF THE AI SPOTLIGHT

 

In April 2022 (the official announcement date; the deal was actually completed in 2021), FTX made its most important investment in the AI sector — leading Anthropic’s $580 million Series B round with a $500 million commitment. At its peak, FTX held a 13.56% stake, later diluted to 7.84% after multiple subsequent funding rounds.

 

At the time, AI’s transformative potential had yet to fully materialize. Just 6 months later, in November 2022 — the same month FTX collapsed — OpenAI launched ChatGPT, marking the irreversible beginning of the AI “Age of Exploration.” Meanwhile, Anthropic, powered by its Claude series (especially the developer-focused Claude Code), repeatedly stunned the world and gradually emerged as one of the brightest stars of the AI era.

 

 

As Claude continued to evolve, Anthropic’s valuation soared. Capital flooded in, with investors eager to secure a seat on its IPO-bound ship. According to the latest market rumors, Anthropic is in the final stage of a massive new funding round, expected to exceed $20 billion (originally planned at $10 billion but potentially doubling due to overwhelming demand), with a valuation reaching as high as $350 billion. The deal may close as early as this week.

 

Based on this valuation, FTX’s former stake in Anthropic would now be worth approximately $27.44 billion — more than enough to cover, several times over, the reserve gap that ultimately led to its bankruptcy. But history cannot be rewritten, and the outcome was long sealed.

 

It is hard not to acknowledge SBF as a rare venture capital talent. Beyond Anthropic, he also invested at the seed stage in today’s rising star, Cursor. Yet he was clearly not a qualified business operator, especially when it came to risk management.

 

CZ, by contrast, represents the opposite profile. He is an exceptional operator, and Binance’s dominance owes much to his repeated strategic successes. Still, CZ has often stated that he is not a traditional return-driven investor — he does not speculate aggressively and sees himself more as an industry builder than a pure profit seeker.

A RUSHED ENDING: WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN CRYPTO’S GREATEST LINK TO AI

 

You might wonder: 🔍what ultimately happened to FTX’s equity holdings?

 

The answer is straightforward. After FTX’s bankruptcy, all assets — including the Anthropic stake — were placed under the control of the bankruptcy administration team. In February 2024, the court approved the sale of these shares. In March and June of the same year, the team sold 29.5 million shares and 15 million shares for a combined total of over $1.3 billion.

 

The buyers were primarily Abu Dhabi–based ATIC Third International Investment and Wall Street institutions such as Jane Street and Fidelity. In other words, no crypto-native company ended up sharing in this windfall.

 

Whether these assets were deliberately undervalued, or whether there were hidden interest transfers under the guise of bankruptcy liquidation, is no longer central to the crypto industry.

 

 

What truly matters is this: this could have been the strongest intersection between Crypto and AI.

 

In another timeline, whether these shares were held by SBF or CZ, if a leading crypto institution had maintained meaningful influence in the most successful AI company of this era, the “Crypto + AI” narrative might have produced far more ambitious experiments — and possibly unexpected breakthroughs.

 

Those left slapping their thighs in regret are not only CZ.

 

 

▶ 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!

〈The Day CZ Missed AI — And So Did Crypto〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

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》。

Blockchain’s strongest use case is financial infrastructure, not general consumer applications.

 

Internet Capital Markets enable global, internet native capital formation beyond crypto projects.

 

Long term ecosystem survival depends on real revenue, economic sustainability, and open market liquidity.

At Consensus 2026 in Hong Kong, Solana Foundation President Lily Liu returned to a theme she has repeated many times: Internet Capital Markets. Instead of speaking about token prices or ecosystem statistics, she focused on a deeper question. What is blockchain actually good for?

 

The conversation moved away from short term market cycles. It centered on structure, capital formation, and the long term role of blockchain as financial infrastructure for the internet.

BLOCKCHAIN IS NOT A UTOPIAN TECHNOLOGY

 

When asked to explain Internet Capital Markets, Lily began with a basic point. For more than fifteen years, the industry has been exploring what blockchain is truly useful for. Many people once believed that putting anything on chain would automatically improve it. She disagrees.

 

Blockchain is powerful, but it is not useful for everything.

 

 

In her view, most successful blockchain use cases will relate to finance and markets. This does not mean copying traditional finance. It means embedding capital markets directly into internet applications. If assets can be tokenized, if payments and trading happen on chain, and if financial tools exist natively on the internet, then capital markets become part of the internet itself.

 

She described one of crypto’s strongest value propositions in simple terms. Anyone can access finance. Anyone can access capital markets.

 

That is the foundation of what she calls Internet Capital Markets.

 

FROM ICOS TO INTERNET CAPITAL FORMATION

 

The discussion moved to the ICO era. Many remember 2017 and 2018 as a period of speculation and excess. Lily acknowledged that there were problems. There were few guardrails and too much scale too quickly. But she made an important distinction.

 

The mechanism itself was powerful.

 

For the first time, projects could raise money globally through the internet. Capital formation became native to the online world. Investors from different countries could participate within minutes.

 

 

She pointed to a recent example where a crypto project raised hundreds of millions of dollars in minutes. Her question was direct. If this is possible for a crypto native project, why should it not be possible for other innovative companies around the world?

 

In her view, ICOs were not a failure. They were an early experiment. The idea of internet native capital formation will continue to return in different forms because it is a strong financial primitive.

 

Internet Capital Markets means expanding that mechanism beyond crypto projects. It means allowing more types of assets and companies to access global liquidity through open networks.

 

ASIA IS A CORE MARKET, NOT A FRONTIER

 

When asked about Asia, Lily was clear. She has never seen Asia as a frontier market for crypto. She sees it as a core market.

 

She reminded the audience that early mining hardware production, large scale miner deployment, and some of the first major exchanges emerged from the Asia Pacific region. Infrastructure development in this industry has deep roots in Asia.

 

 

She also highlighted the global language structure. English and Chinese are two of the largest language groups in the world. Each has strong talent networks and capital networks. These systems often operate in parallel.

 

If blockchain aims to become neutral global financial infrastructure, it must operate across both of these systems. For that reason, Asia is not an expansion target. It is part of the foundation.

 

REVENUE AND ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY

 

One of the strongest parts of the interview focused on revenue. Lily argued that if a layer one blockchain wants to be a platform, it must demonstrate real revenue.

 

She questioned the long term logic of governance tokens. Voting rights alone do not create value. Community participation is important, but it does not automatically produce economic returns.

 

In a proof of stake network, the model is clearer. Users generate activity. Activity creates fees. Validators earn revenue. Stakers receive a portion of that revenue. This creates a logical value flow. But it only works if there is real usage.

 

She separated two levels of sustainability. The network must generate revenue. Applications built on top of the network must also be economically viable. If developers cannot earn money, they will not stay. If networks do not generate income, token value becomes difficult to justify.

 

She summarized the lesson from previous cycles in one short sentence. Vibes do not pay.

 

Community energy and culture are powerful, but without an economy they cannot last.

 

BLOCKCHAIN AS FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY

 

The most debated part of the discussion was her claim that blockchain’s true product market fit lies in financial applications.

 

She did not step back from that claim. In her view, blockchain was designed as financial technology. Bitcoin introduced digital scarcity. Public blockchains extended that idea into a broader financial system.

 

She questioned the idea that putting social media or games on chain automatically makes them better. She asked a simple question. How does being on chain make a social network more engaging? How does it make a game more fun?

 

She clarified that digital ownership is valuable. However, ownership alone does not create price. She made a clear distinction between value and price. An asset may have value, but without market structure it has no price discovery. On the other hand, crypto markets often show price without clear value.

 

Tokenization does not create value by itself. Market liquidity, trading infrastructure, and financial tools create price formation.

 

She also reflected on the era of private and permissioned blockchains. Many institutions once believed private systems would dominate. Over time, they realized that assets inside closed systems lacked open liquidity and price discovery. As a result, more institutions began connecting to public blockchain infrastructure.

 

Liquidity on the open internet is what creates real market value.

 

DEFINING THE DIRECTION

 

In the final question, she was asked about a view others might consider contrarian. She responded by saying that the industry often mixes terms such as Web3, crypto, blockchain, and digital assets. These words come from different perspectives, yet they are used as if they mean the same thing.

 

For her, the goal has always been consistent. It is about building financial infrastructure that is accessible to everyone on the internet.

 

She compared today’s financial systems to traditional postal systems. Blockchain, in contrast, functions like an internet protocol. If the internet transformed how information moves, blockchain aims to transform how value moves.

 

Economic sovereignty and individual sovereignty depend on access to financial systems. Internet Capital Markets is not a marketing phrase. It is her way of describing the long term direction of blockchain.

 

The debate will continue. But in her framework, the path forward is economic, structural, and global.

〈Internet Capital Markets: Lily Liu Redefines the Core Use of Blockchain at Consensus 2026〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Gold’s recent outperformance reflects late-cycle capital concentration, not a permanent shift away from Bitcoin’s store of value thesis.

 

Bitcoin’s recovery depends on macro capital rotation, while Ethereum’s long-term growth is tied to institutional adoption, AI integration, and on-chain finance.

 

Dominant digital asset treasury structures may amplify upside exposure by combining staking yield, balance sheet strength, and capital market access.

At Consensus Hong Kong 2026, Tom Lee delivered a clear and disciplined message. The crypto market is not facing structural decline. It is experiencing a temporary dislocation. Gold has outperformed over the past year, while Bitcoin and Ethereum have struggled. However, this divergence does not signal the end of the digital asset thesis. Instead, it may mark the late stage of a capital rotation cycle.

GOLD’S SURGE AND THE LIQUIDITY DISTORTION

 

Gold delivered strong gains in 2025, while Bitcoin corrected sharply. This contrast led many investors to question the store of value narrative. Tom Lee broke the rally into several drivers. Geopolitical uncertainty increased demand for safe assets. Central banks shifted toward easier policy. Currency debasement concerns remained elevated. Precious metals developed strong price momentum. In addition, some investors lost confidence in parts of the fiat system.

 

 

The key issue is scale. Gold’s total market value is now around forty one trillion dollars. That size changes market behavior. When an asset of that magnitude moves quickly, it affects global liquidity conditions. Margin requirements and portfolio rebalancing can force selling in other assets. Bitcoin’s weakness cannot be viewed in isolation. It occurred in an environment where gold absorbed large pools of capital.

 

Yet history tells a more complex story. Over the past fifty years, gold has underperformed inflation nearly half the time. Since Bitcoin was created, it has rarely lost purchasing power relative to inflation. The long term data suggests that Bitcoin has been more consistent as a store of value, even if short term performance differs. Tom Lee’s argument is that gold’s strength may represent a late cycle premium rather than a permanent shift in value perception.

 

BITCOIN’S RESET AND CAPITAL ROTATION

 

For the crypto market to recover, Bitcoin must stabilize first. Tom Lee believes that Bitcoin’s rebound is closely linked to gold’s momentum cooling. These two assets do not operate as simple substitutes. They respond differently across macro cycles. In defensive phases, gold absorbs fear. In expansion phases, capital searches for growth and asymmetry. That is where Bitcoin becomes attractive again.

 

 

From a relative valuation perspective, Bitcoin’s market value compared with gold remains historically low. If macro stability improves and liquidity pressures ease, asset allocators may rebalance toward higher beta exposures. The store of value narrative for Bitcoin has not disappeared. It has been overshadowed by capital flows. When long term hedging demand returns, scarcity and programmability will matter again.

 

Tom Lee does not anchor his thesis to a single date. Instead, he highlights structural conditions that are beginning to align. Policy uncertainty is gradually narrowing. Institutional investors are reassessing portfolio construction. As that process unfolds, Bitcoin may reenter the center of the allocation discussion.

 

ETHEREUM’S CYCLICAL RESILIENCE AND WALL STREET’S SHIFT

 

If Bitcoin represents macro positioning, Ethereum represents infrastructure and utility. Since 2018, Ethereum has experienced multiple drawdowns greater than fifty percent. Each time, it eventually recovered. That pattern reflects strong network fundamentals rather than speculative noise.

 

Stablecoin growth continues to expand on chain settlement activity. Large financial institutions are exploring public blockchain integration, even if internal debates remain. Public chains offer security, neutrality, and network effects that private systems struggle to replicate. Ethereum remains the most credible candidate for large scale institutional deployment.

 

Artificial intelligence introduces another structural driver. Decentralized execution combined with smart contracts can create economic layers for AI coordination. In parallel, the creator economy is shifting toward direct digital ownership. Blockchain infrastructure ensures transparent compensation and programmable royalties. These developments reinforce Ethereum’s long term positioning.

 

THE RISE OF DOMINANT DATS AND MARKET MULTIPLIERS

 

Tom Lee also discussed the emergence of dominant digital asset treasury structures. These entities hold and actively manage crypto assets within public market vehicles. The model focuses on optimizing staking yield, expanding asset per share exposure, and accessing capital markets efficiently.

 

Ethereum staking provides recurring yield. As price appreciation compounds with staking rewards, returns can accelerate. Historical ratios between Bitcoin and Ethereum offer a framework for valuation scenarios. If Bitcoin reaches higher price ranges, Ethereum’s implied valuation rises accordingly. Public market exposure vehicles may amplify that movement through capital structure dynamics.

 

 

The effectiveness of this model depends on financial discipline. Strong balance sheets, transparent holdings, and consistent yield generation are critical. As digital assets mature, these treasury structures may become bridges between traditional finance and decentralized networks.

 

Tom Lee’s central conclusion remains straightforward. The market is undergoing reallocation, not collapse. Gold’s dominance may be closer to its peak than many assume. Bitcoin and Ethereum continue to hold structural advantages. In periods of pessimism, long term positioning often begins. Digital assets remain early in their lifecycle, and the next expansion phase is already forming beneath the surface.

 

〈Tom Lee at Consensus Hong Kong 2026: As Gold Nears a Peak, the Next Bitcoin and Ethereum Cycle Is Taking Shape〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

 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》。