Author: Ignas
Compiled by: Felix, PANews
What changes have occurred in cryptocurrency over the years? Crypto KOL Ignas posted about this, asserting that HODLing ETH was the biggest mistake of this cycle, suggesting that 'buy low, sell high' may be the profit rule in crypto, but the only exception to the 'buy low, sell high' strategy is BTC. Additionally, he interprets the macro context and future trajectory of cryptocurrency in the new world order. Here are the details.
The reason for loving cryptocurrency and considering it part of finance and trading is that the market clearly tells you what is right and wrong.
Especially in this dystopian world filled with politics, art, news, and many other industries, the line between truth and lies is blurred, while cryptocurrency is straightforward: if you judge correctly, you can make money; otherwise, you will lose, it's very simple.
However, the traps individuals fall into are also simple: when market conditions change, there is no re-evaluation of the portfolio. When trading altcoins, being too arrogant about one's 'HODL' strategy, especially regarding ETH.
Of course, adapting to the new reality is easier said than done.
The number of variables we need to input is overwhelming, so ultimately we can only adopt simple strategies like 'HODLing' without actively monitoring the market.
But what if the 'hold for the long term' (HODL) strategy is outdated? What role does cryptocurrency play in a constantly changing world? What else are we overlooking?
In this article, significant changes in the market will be shared.
HODL is dead.
Let's go back to early 2022:
After ETH fell sharply from $4800, it is currently trading at around $3000. BTC's price is $42,000. However, due to interest rate hikes, the collapse of CeFi, and the shutdown of FTX, both are likely to fall another 50%.
Nevertheless, ETH enthusiasts remain bullish: ETH is about to migrate to the PoS system, and just months ago, the ETH burn proposal (EIP) was also launched. The narrative of ETH as ultrasound money and environmentally friendly blockchain remains strong.
In the remaining time of 2022, ETH and BTC performed poorly, but SOL was hit hard, plummeting 96% to $8.
Ethereum won the Layer1 competition, while alt Layer1s should migrate to Layer2 or face extinction.
I remember attending some conferences during the bear market. The vast majority believed ETH would rebound the strongest, so they piled into ETH, underestimating BTC and ignoring SOL.
Just hold, and then sell at the top in 2024/2025. It's that simple.
But things didn't go as planned...
Since then, SOL prices have rebounded, while ETH has faced the worst FUD in history. The narrative of ultrasound money is dead (at least for now), and the environmental narrative has never really taken off.
For individuals, HODLing ETH has been the biggest mistake of this cycle. For many, it has been as well.
The bullish rationale at the time was that ETH would become the most value-creating asset in crypto history:
Re-staking will empower ETH, enabling it not only to secure Ethereum but also to protect the entire critical DeFi and crypto infrastructure. The (re)staking rewards for ETH will rise significantly, and as long as ETH is re-staked, airdrop rewards will continue to accumulate.
As yields increase, demand for ETH and its price should rise. In short—prices will soar!
Clearly, this has not happened, as the value proposition of re-staking has never been clear, and Eigenlayer has also made mistakes in token issuance.
So, what does all this have to do with the demise of the HODL philosophy?
For many, ETH is an asset to 'hold and forget.' If BTC surges, ETH will rise faster, so holding BTC is meaningless.
When my bullish argument for ETH based on the re-staking narrative failed to materialize, I should have realized this and made adjustments. However, I became lazy and complacent, unwilling to admit my mistakes. ETH will rebound one day, right?
'HODLing' is bad advice not only for ETH but for all other assets as well, with BTC possibly being the exception (details to follow).
Cryptocurrency changes too quickly; it’s unrealistic to expect to hold for months or years and rely on it for retirement. A look at the charts reveals that most altcoins have given back the gains of this bull market cycle. Clearly, profits come from selling, not holding.
This successful memecoin trader explains that he usually does not 'HODL' but sells memecoins within a minute of holding them.
Some people still try to sell you the dream of 'HODLing', but in reality, this is more like a 'buy low, sell high' cycle rather than long-term holding.
BTC is the only macro cryptocurrency asset.
The only exception to the 'buy low, sell high' strategy is BTC.
Some attribute BTC's strong performance to Saylor's unlimited buy orders, as we successfully promoted the idea of BTC as digital gold to institutions.
But this battle is not over yet.
Many crypto commentators still view BTC as a risk appetite asset, believing its trading volatility is higher than that of the S&P 500.
This contradicts BlackRock's research, which found that the risk and return drivers of BTC differ from traditional risk assets, thus not fitting the traditional financial frameworks like 'risk appetite' and 'risk aversion' used by some macro commentators.
What do you think the facts are?
I personally believe BTC is shifting from the hands of those who view it as a high-leverage stock to those who see it as a digital safe-haven asset similar to gold. Mexican billionaire Ricardo Salinas, who holds BTC, is an example.
BTC is the only true macro cryptocurrency asset. The valuations of ETH, SOL, and other assets are assessed based on fees, trading volume, and TVL, while BTC has transcended this framework to become a macro asset even recognized by Peter Schiff.
This transition is not over, but this period of transformation from risk assets itself presents an opportunity. Once BTC is widely seen as a safe-haven asset, its price will reach $1 million.
The Decline of the Private Placement Market
When every relatively successful influencer starts to morph into a 'venture capitalist', investing at low prices and then cashing out during token generation events (TGE), I realize something is wrong.
However, Noah's article better reflects the current state of the cryptocurrency private placement market.
I recommend reading the full text, but here are the key points regarding the changes in the private placement market over the years.
In the early days (2015 to 2019), private placement market participants were true believers. They supported Ethereum, funded DeFi pioneer projects like MakerDAO and ETHLend (Aave), and valued long-term holding. Their goal was not just to make quick profits but to create something meaningful.
This is a stage of faith.
The 'DeFi Summer' from 2020 to 2022 was a huge transformation. Suddenly, everyone wanted newer and hotter tokens. Venture capital firms flooded in, funding those tokens with absurd valuations and no practical value.
The rules are simple: buy low in private rounds, hype the project, and then sell to retail investors. When retail crashes, we need to clean up and learn a lesson. But nothing has changed.
This is a stage of greed.
After the FTX incident (2023 to 2025), the private placement market became nihilistic. Venture capitalists now invest in 'soulless token machines' (projects with stale ideas, dubious founder backgrounds, and no real applications).
The pricing of private rounds is 50 times income (if there is income), forcing the public market to bear the losses. As a result, 80% of tokens issued in 2024 fell below their private round prices within six months.
This is a stage of extraction.
Today, retail trusts no longer exist, and venture capital firms have suffered heavy losses.
Many venture capital deals are priced below their seed round valuations, and some KOL friends are also at a loss.
However, there are some signs of improvement in the private placement market:
Movement co-founder and Gabagool (former Aerodrome football team player) faced strong opposition and was expelled. We need further purification.
Valuations in both the private placement market and the public market are declining.
Crypto venture capital is finally showing signs of recovery, reaching $4.8 billion in Q1 2025, the highest level since Q3 2022, with funds flowing into areas with practical use.
Q1 2025 is the strongest quarter since Q3 2022. Binance's $2 billion transaction played a central role, but another 12 large financings exceeding $50 million also indicate renewed interest from institutional investors.
Funds are flowing into areas with practicality and revenue potential, including CeFi, blockchain infrastructure, and services. New focus areas such as AI, DePIN, and RWA are also garnering strong attention. DeFi leads in the number of funding rounds, but the funding size is smaller, reflecting a more conservative valuation. -- CryptoRank Q1 2025 report on the state of venture capital in the crypto space.
We are trying a new token issuance model to reward early supporters rather than insiders.
Echo and Legion are at the forefront, with Base launching a group on Echo. Kaito's InfoFi prospects are optimistic, as even those without financial capital but with social influence can benefit.
The market seems to have received the message, and the ecosystem is reviving (although KOLs are still enjoying the dividends).
Saying goodbye to DeFi, welcoming on-chain finance.
Do you remember the fleeting story of yield aggregators? Yearn Finance pioneered it, followed by numerous forks.
We are now in the era of yield aggregators 2.0. We call it the 'Vault strategy.'
As DeFi protocols multiply, DeFi becomes increasingly complex, and vaults are becoming more attractive: deposit assets to obtain the best risk-adjusted returns.
However, the biggest difference between yield aggregators in the early days and now lies in the increasing centralization of asset management.
Vaults have 'strategists'—usually a team composed of 'institutional investors' who chase the best investment opportunities using your funds. For them, it's a win-win: they use your money and earn fees from it.
These strategists include MEV Capital, Seven Seas, Gauntlet, Veda, and many companies collaborating with protocols such as Etherfi, Upshift, and Mellow Protocol.
Veda is itself the 17th largest 'protocol' in DeFi, surpassing Curve, Pancakeswap, or Compound Finance.
However, Vault is just the tip of the iceberg. The true vision of decentralized finance has long been shattered; it has evolved into on-chain finance.
Think about it: the fastest-growing RWAs in DeFi and crypto, such as Ethena and BlackRock's BUIDL, as well as yield-generating, delta-neutral stablecoins, are far from the initial vision of DeFi.
Or multi-signature contracts like BTCfi (and BTC L2s), where you must trust that the custodian won't run off with your funds.
Note: This is not intended as a jab at Lombard, but is merely an example of the fusion of Vault with the BTCfi trend.
Since Maker shifted from decentralized DAI to yield-generating RWA protocols, this has been the case. True decentralized protocols are few and small in scale (Liquity is an example).
This may not be a bad thing: RWA and tokenization allow us to break free from the cyclical, leveraged DeFi Ponzi scheme era.
This means that risk factors are expanding, making it more complicated to understand where the money is truly going. If you see CeDeFi protocols abusing user funds, don’t be surprised.
Remember: hidden leverage always finds a way to infiltrate the system.
DAOs have become a mere facade.
The same decentralization fantasy is collapsing with DAOs.
Past ideas were based on the 'incremental decentralization' theory promoted by a16z in January 2020.
Protocols first find PMF (Product-Market Fit) → As network effects grow, the community gains more power → The team 'decentralizes to the community,' ultimately achieving full decentralization.
Five years have passed, and we are returning to centralization. Take the Ethereum Foundation as an example; it is becoming more actively involved in scaling L1. The DAO model faces numerous problems:
Voter Apathy
Increasing risks of Lobbying (Bribery)
Execution Paralysis
Both Arbitrum and Lido DAOs are moving towards more centralized control (through more active team involvement or BORGs), while Uniswap is undergoing a major transformation.
The Uniswap Foundation voted to provide $165 million in liquidity mining rewards to promote the development of Uniswap v4 and Unichain. Alternatively, another conspiracy theory claims this is to meet the liquidity threshold required for Optimism OP funding rewards.
In short, DAO representatives are very angry. Why should the foundation pay all $UNI rewards while Uniswap Labs (a centralized entity) can earn millions from Uniswap's front end?
A representative ranked in the top 20 recently resigned from their position as a Uni representative.
It is recommended to read the entire article, but his points are as follows:
Governance theatrics: Uniswap's DAO appears open, yet marginalizes dissent. Proposals follow the process (discussion, voting, forum), but feel predetermined, reducing governance to a mere 'ritual.'
Concentration of power: The Uniswap Foundation rewards loyalty, suppresses criticism, and values appearance over accountability.
The failure of decentralization: If DAOs prioritize branding over substantive content, they may become irrelevant. Without real accountability mechanisms, they risk becoming 'a mere dictatorship.'
Interestingly, a16z is a major token holder of Uniswap, yet Uniswap is far from achieving true decentralization.
It may not be an exaggeration to say that DAOs are just a facade; we need a coherent narrative to circumvent the regulatory scrutiny that centralized cryptocurrency companies may face.
So, tokens that are merely voting tools are no longer worth investing in. True profit-sharing and utility are key.
DEX (Hyperliquid) challenges CEX.
Now, to share my conspiracy theory.
FTX launched Sushiswap out of concern that Uniswap might capture its spot market. Even if they didn't launch it directly, they likely provided close support in development and funding.
Similarly, the Binance team (or BNB, whatever you want to call it) launched PancakeSwap for the same reasons.
Uniswap posed a significant threat to CEX, but that threat has largely been mitigated as Uniswap has not challenged their more lucrative perpetual contract trading business.
How much profit is there? From the comments, it seems hard to say.
Hyperliquid poses another threat. It is not only involved in perpetual contracts but also targets the spot market. Meanwhile, it is also building its own smart contract platform.
Hyperliquid's share in the perpetual contract market is continuously growing and has increased to 12.5%. (Real-time statistics can be viewed here or here.)
I was shocked to see Binance and OKX openly attack Hyperliquid with JELLYJELLY. Although Hyperliquid survived, investors in HYPE must now take the risk of future attacks very seriously.
This may not be a similar attack but regulatory pressure, as CZ is becoming a 'strategic crypto advisor at the national level.' What do you think he will say to politicians? Oh, those non-KYC compliant criminal exchanges are terrible, maybe?
In any case, I hope Hyperliquid can surpass CEX spot market business and launch more transparent listing services that will not collapse the financial situation of protocols.
There is much more to say about HYPE, as it is the largest altcoin position held personally. However, Hyperliquid has become a movement challenging CEX, especially after the Binance/OKX attack incident.
Protocols → Platforms
You may have already seen my subtle recommendation for Fluid in the context of protocols evolving into platforms. The focus is on the risk of protocols turning into commodified infrastructure, while user-facing applications reap most of the benefits.
Has Ethereum fallen into the trap of commodification?
To escape this predicament, protocols need to become like the Apple Store, allowing third-party developers to build on top of them so that value can remain within the entire ecosystem.
Uniswap v4 and Fluid aim to achieve this via Hooks, while teams like 1inch and Jupiter are building their own mobile wallets. LayerZero has also just announced vApps.
This trend will accelerate. Those who can capture liquidity, attract users, and find ways to monetize liquidity while rewarding token holders will be the biggest winners.
Cryptocurrency in the Changing World Order
I wanted to explore more significant changes in the crypto space, from stablecoins to the increasingly blurred CT (Crypto Twitter) as cryptocurrencies become more complex.
As the crypto industry is no longer as closed as it once was, there are fewer exclusive messages available on Twitter now.
Previously, we could launch Ponzi schemes with simple rules while regulators either misunderstood cryptocurrency or ignored it, hoping it would disappear on its own.
Year after year, discussions about regulation have become increasingly common on CT. Fortunately, the U.S. is gradually supporting cryptocurrency, and due to stablecoins, tokenization, and Bitcoin becoming a store of value, it seems poised for mass adoption.
But this situation may change quickly: the U.S. government may eventually realize that Bitcoin is indeed undermining the dollar's position.
Outside the United States, the regulatory and cultural environment is vastly different. Currently, there are no signs of support for cryptocurrencies in China.
The EU is placing greater emphasis on control, especially as it shifts from a welfare state to a war state, and those controversial decisions may be enforced in the name of 'safety.'
The EU has not prioritized cryptocurrency but rather sees it as a threat:
The European Central Bank warns that the U.S. push for cryptocurrency could trigger financial spillover.
The EU will ban anonymous cryptocurrency accounts and privacy coins by 2027.
If blockchain data cannot be deleted individually, 'this may require deleting the entire blockchain.'
EU regulators will establish punitive capital requirements for insurance companies holding cryptocurrencies.
We need to assess people's attitudes towards cryptocurrency in the current overall political situation. The major trend is de-globalization and countries closing their borders.
The EU is about to implement a visa ban on investment-based citizens.
The European Court has halted the 'Golden Visa' scheme.
The biggest unknown is what role cryptocurrency will play during the transition period and in the new world order.
Will cryptocurrency become a tool for capital freedom, especially as capital controls begin to be implemented? Or will countries attempt to suppress cryptocurrency by enacting increasingly strict regulations?
Vitalik explained in the article 'The Cultural and Political Year Wheel Model' that cryptocurrency is still forming its norms and is not yet as established as banking laws or intellectual property laws.
The internet of the 1990s adhered to the philosophy of 'let it grow!' with almost no rules and high freedom. By the early 21st century and the 2010s, the attitude towards social media shifted to 'this is dangerous. We need to control it!' As we enter the 2020s, cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence are still struggling between openness and regulation.
The government has been slow to act in the past, but is now catching up.
I hope they choose to embrace openness; however, the global trend of closing borders is very concerning.
Related reading: A conversation with Arthur Hayes: The China-U.S. trade war is a long-term trend, and Bitcoin will break through $1 million before 2028.