Editor | Wu Says Blockchain
This article is based on an interview with Christian, a post-00s crypto investor and entrepreneur, by (Turtle Talk), authorized for editing and reprinting by Wu Says. Christian is one of the most discussed Chinese entrepreneurs in this cycle, deeply reflecting on his journey from university to founding the crypto payment project Infini. The interview covers three core sections: one is the shift in his personal investment path, moving from diversified allocation to 'logic-driven + concentrated positions'; the second is his judgment on the current market structure and sentiment, including the understanding of bull and bear cycles, leading capital, and project essence. Christian also shares reflections on losses and gains from heavy positions like Cheems, GMX, and Coinbase, and points out that the current logic for selecting tokens should focus on three major criteria: 'team structure, token structure, consensus concentration'.
The content of this article does not represent the views of Wu Says, it is merely the interviewee's sharing of his personal investment experiences. Wu Says does not promote or endorse any investment behavior; readers are advised to strictly adhere to the laws and regulations of their location and refrain from participating in illegal financial investment activities. For audio, please search on Wu Says' Xiaoyuzhou Channel and YouTube Channel.
Christian's personal background introduction
Christian: My current identity is the founder of Infini, which we officially launched around August or September last year. Essentially, Infini is a New Bank that aims to provide services like savings, wealth management, and payments, and may eventually expand to transfers and more banking-level services; it is a crypto-native project.
Because I am still young, my previous background was basically studying while starting a business in school. Later, after joining the crypto field, I mainly focused on investments and co-founded a fund called NextGen Digital Ventures with two seniors about two years ago. Our first fund was closed earlier this year, so now I focus most of my time on the product and market promotion of Infini.
I got into crypto during my freshman or sophomore year in college when NFTs were just becoming very popular, and many friends around me were discussing art-related content. I also quite like art history, so I felt this field was worth paying attention to. At first, I remember it was generated art like Art Blocks, which is based on code, that seemed particularly novel to me.
After joining crypto, I initially focused on NFTs and GameFi. In 2021, there were many representative Ponzi design projects like Terra and Luna stablecoin projects, and as a newbie and retail investor, I also participated. Gradually, I found myself more interested in DeFi, and indeed this field has many real scenarios and genuine yields. Thus, I invested most of my time in this area until I later founded Infini, and before that, I invested in quite a few DeFi-related projects, so I have effectively gone through this track completely and ultimately decided to do what Infini is currently doing.
At that time, we decided to create Infini for two main reasons. The first is that our team was very optimistic about the direction of asset management, as we found that arbitrage was a particularly interesting type in crypto, which did not have as many 'neutral strategies' or so-called 'risk-free return' opportunities in traditional finance. Although there may also be smart contract risks or theft risks behind it, the overall investment logic and the excess returns that arbitrage can achieve made me feel it was a direction worth delving into.
Moreover, when you communicate with people outside the circle, even traditional finance fund managers or practitioners, they often do not understand this field, which leads to biases. But everyone also knows that not all crypto projects are scams or rug pulls; projects like Ethereum are still very robust today and can capture returns far exceeding traditional assets like U.S. Treasury bonds.
Therefore, our goal at that time was to create a 'super app'—a truly financial app. Most DeFi projects are still protocol-driven and target only on-chain users, which is relatively niche. We hope to provide these yield opportunities to a broader user base through a smoother and more user-friendly experience.
The second reason is that we found, especially regarding 'Crypto cards', neither we nor other projects in the industry have done particularly well. However, we see that users indeed have this demand; from the initial idea to internal testing, to launch, and now, user enthusiasm has been high and has helped them solve many practical problems. This is also an important reason for our decision to co-found Infini.
I think wealth management and payment are complementary, though there are certain differences. Different users have different purposes for using products; some may care more about wealth management and investment returns, while others may need the convenience of payment.
As our project progresses, we have indeed observed that many countries around the world have very backward financial infrastructure, banking systems, or fintech development; they do not have usable products. Crypto has a natural advantage in that it can quickly expand into global markets and rapidly discover which regions' users are interested in the products. This positive feedback has also given our team greater confidence and motivation.
In fact, personally, compared to those who are very good at trading dog coins or those who are particularly sensitive to Alpha and can multiply their investments, I am quite envious of them. They indeed have their own talents and strengths.
But from my perspective, I believe that up to now, the two points that have helped me the most are: the first point is that I have always been quite interested in new things and willing to study them. Even if you are very skilled at trading tokens, or are part of the so-called 'conspiracy group' members who are always launching tokens and projects, fundamentally they all grasp a set of rules and have thoroughly studied and become more proficient in applying this set of rules. Recently popular figures like James, who is also young, I think he just understands this set and knows how to leverage it in this track. Therefore, I have been relatively quick to find directions and delve into them across different tracks and fields.
The second point, which I now consider very important, is to be grounded, not anxious, and willing to focus on one thing for the long term. This is actually quite difficult, especially in the trading environment of crypto. People tend to chase opportunities for doubling their money in the short term, eager to make 100 times in two days. But those who are truly willing to hold Bitcoin long-term and steadfastly pursue one thing are actually in the minority, and even more scarce among young people.
Of course, everyone's circumstances are different; some people have more funds and can invest long-term; others may start with little money and hope to catch a thousandfold project, which is understandable. But the key is that you must understand yourself, know what you excel at, which investment style suits you, and stick to it.
Over the past two years, I have seen many people who originally had a set logic or direction, but later, due to changes in mindset or being influenced by those around them, caused their operations to become distorted. I think whether it's investing or entrepreneurship, it's essentially the same. You need to stay calm, be clear about your rhythm, direction, and style, and stick to your pace.
How to judge market bull and bear
Christian: In terms of quantitative indicators, I am not particularly professional. Our fund did use many data-based indicators when making decisions, but later we found that none of these indicators were universally effective across all cycles.
So personally, I tend to judge from the emotional aspect, including that I basically haven't sold my tokens much to this day. I think the core reason is that I feel this round of bull market hasn't reached its most frenzied stage yet, and compared to 2021 and 2022, there is still a significant gap. So my current judgment on the market is: I am willing to wait a bit longer.
Of course, the premise is that my initial entry cost in this round was relatively low, so even if profits retract, it is still acceptable. This is also why I am more inclined to continue holding, optimistic about the subsequent market development.
As for the major cognitive differences, I believe that many people now actually share a similar feeling, that is, the large-scale altcoin market may be difficult to return. On one hand, liquidity and narrative logic have fundamentally changed, and people have become smarter, no longer easily swayed by boring, repetitive narratives.
On the other hand, from the current exchange's listing strategy, it can also be seen that liquidity is actually quite dispersed. Therefore, I am more inclined to believe that if there is to be a wave of altcoin markets, it may only concentrate on a few leading projects that can form consensus in their respective fields and have significant players and institutions driving them.
So from my investment perspective, I will now only focus on these two types of targets.
If I were to make an irresponsible prediction, I still believe in two points.
The first point is that the stability of Bitcoin's price is indeed largely due to the support of many external institutions. This is an objective reality: even if the original old players have cleared out their holdings, the purchasing power of compliant institutions remains very strong. Some people are starting to mention that these institutions may gradually choose some projects that align with their 'aesthetic' as new investment targets, such as old-generation DeFi projects or some emerging projects like PENDLE and Ether.fi that have appeared in this cycle.
I believe these projects are valid under institutional logic. The core point is, if these secondary markets' institutions really want to look for targets beyond Bitcoin in the future, what kind of projects will make them willing to enter? Certainly not Memecoins, from a narrative logic perspective.
The second point I think is that when selecting projects, one must find coins that have clear main players behind them. The 'main player' of a small project may be an individual, an institution, or a group of investors who have reached a consensus. Broadly speaking, for example, some particularly popular Memecoins might have their 'main players' formed by a strong consensus of retail communities. But no matter which level it is, the essence lies in whether this main player is still willing to continuously support and drive the market for this coin.
Currently, there is a very interesting vicious cycle in the market. Many project teams or so-called market makers find it very difficult to cash out smoothly, even if they are listed on major exchanges, due to poor market conditions. Let alone maintaining the token price and continuing to promote project development, the costs and challenges involved are indeed very large. This has led many projects to become assembly-line style outputs, lacking sincerity or long-term planning.
Therefore, from my perspective, I will now try to avoid projects that have already been abandoned by major players. I prefer to look for coins that still have major players involved and have momentum. This is my current investment mindset.
New narrative opportunities: on-chain U.S. stocks and derivatives
Christian: Recently, I've been thinking that routes like Hyperliquid might be replicated. The idea of Hyperliquid is actually quite traditional, but through a very strong product experience and highly controlled distribution, it successfully replicated an opportunity. I find this model very interesting. To be honest, from the perspective of this round of product tracks and fundamentals, there isn't anything particularly eye-catching, which is why I am more willing to spend time focusing on derivative projects.
Another topic that has been discussed a lot is 'on-chain U.S. stocks'. I believe its core point is that after the change of government in the U.S., the SEC's enforcement has relaxed to a certain extent, which actually encourages the development of projects like RWA, synthetic assets of U.S. stocks, and derivatives—regulation has relaxed, and space has opened up.
Currently, I see that there are mainly two paths to achieve this in the market. One is to map synthetic assets of U.S. stocks onto the chain through Layer 2 (L2), allowing users to trade these spot assets directly; the other is Perpetual DEX (decentralized perpetual contract exchanges). In fact, these two routes were already implemented in the previous cycle by SNX (Synthetix).
In this round, I feel that under the backdrop of more relaxed regulations, some project teams may be bolder and more innovative, trying some very 'fancy' or even 'showy' designs or introducing new liquidity mechanisms to speculate on these concepts. I think this direction is currently being attempted by quite a few people.
In other aspects, like DeFi payments, for example, what we are doing with Infini is actually more about the product truly landing and practically solving user problems. It does not rely on the economic model of tokens to speculate, nor does it rely on narratives to drive buying. You can also feel that now, even if some projects come with new narratives, they cannot truly convince people to buy. People care more about whether it can be practically used.
So I think the trend of this round of bull market may be somewhat different. The new narrative is more likely to be led by teams that genuinely create products, build infrastructure, and solve real needs. As these projects gradually accumulate information flow, it may bring more sustainable opportunities. This is also why we choose to persist in doing such things.
If you are making a conventional product, I cannot think of any reason why a new crypto project could compete in this track against these traditional platforms. Their products, services, and processes are already very mature.
Therefore, for crypto entrepreneurial projects, the only way out is to do things that traditional platforms dare not do, such as some fancier derivative designs, structural innovations, like the 'three-pool model' complex Ponzi structure. At the end of the day, people want two things: one is whether the asset itself is fresh enough, and currently, there are indeed not many fresh tokens appearing in the market; the second is whether this innovation can drive trading enthusiasm on a global scale.
For example, on-chain U.S. stocks are currently relatively new to crypto users, and if combined with complex but eye-catching structural designs, I believe this could be the only practical path left. If it were just an ordinary trading market that allows people to buy U.S. stocks on-chain, I think such a project would be meaningless.
Evolution of investment strategy and entry/exit judgment
Christian: I am actually quite casual now. Initially, about two years ago, I did invest according to a more standard approach, such as dividing funds into several parts: investing 10% in this track, 20% in that, and so on. I remember I was very 'innocent' at first, heavily influenced by Su Zhu and other KOLs. That cycle coincided with the explosion of various 'Ethereum killers' like NEAR, Cosmos, and Harmony.
So at that time, I would indeed deploy funds quite seriously according to proportions, based on different tracks, the leaders and non-leaders within the same track, and their cost-effectiveness. But later I realized that this method is quite 'retail investor'-like, too mechanical.
Currently, I have significantly fewer investment targets in the secondary market, basically just steadily holding mainstream coins like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana. Occasionally, I will allocate some other positions, like Curve. I haven't sold Curve because of a fortunate coincidence: at that time, Curve experienced some events, and a friend introduced me to Michael, so I ended up buying a little and have held it ever since.
If I were to select projects again, I would lean towards this logic—like discovering a project that has fallen to a particularly low price due to events, close to its historically worst phase, then I might look back at those DeFi projects or some Memecoins.
I think projects like Memecoins that possess strong consensus are particularly easy to rebound when market sentiment improves. As we've seen, these tokens have performed poorly in the past few months, but since last month, as sentiment has slightly warmed up, those that rebounded the most are indeed the ones that fell the hardest. So my current strategy is: main allocations in major projects, with smaller positions holding some small funds in Memecoins or opportunity coins, while observing market performance.
For me, first of all, I basically did not buy with the intention of short-term operations. I am not good at making decisions based on rumors or gossip, although sometimes I will listen to friends' news and occasionally follow along to buy, but I have also experienced situations where I bought in and ended up stuck, eventually having to cut losses. So my overall style is that if it reaches a point or cycle I set, I will choose to liquidate all at once, and I do not frequently do partial sell-offs.
Specifically, for example, I would set a rough price range for myself, such as starting to gradually sell when Bitcoin reaches $120,000. Ethereum is currently around $2,600; if it could rise to $4,800 or even break through $5,000 and set a new high, that would already be a very high level for me, and I might then sell most of my holdings.
I indeed do not have particularly strong peak judgment abilities, nor do I usually engage in wave trading. The main basis is market liquidity and overall sentiment. If the market is particularly hot and liquidity is particularly good, then for me, that is a signal to exit. Although it sounds simple, the actual operation does not rely on technical indicators, but rather more of a sense of perception.
It's really hard to sell precisely at the top. For example, I bought quite a bit of Coinbase before; this round, after Trump took office, it rose to over $300, and I sold about a third of my position then, which could be considered selling at a relatively high point, and later it fell by half.
At that time, the feeling was that the main upward wave was too obvious, so I sold decisively. As for Ethereum, I didn’t sell this round, but fortunately, the recent market has been relatively stable. And since I am currently focused on entrepreneurship, it allows me to concentrate more on work and not have to stare at the market all day thinking about buy and sell points.
Cheems Investment Review: From Accidental Success to Long-term Commitment
Christian: In fact, the Cheems case has always been a particularly 'coincidental' case for me. At that time, I completely didn’t understand Memecoins and didn’t realize that I might have some influence. To be honest, at that time, we all had a vague understanding of the concept of 'liquidity'; like me, I was also a novice, and many people initially looked at projects based on market capitalization, neglecting liquidity, which is a very typical novice logic.
Cheems is such a typical case. At that time, the market was in a rebound period during the bear market; they issued ZK tokens, and a friend recommended that I participate, so I casually bought some. As a result, I bought quite a bit and then got stuck. Since I was stuck, I could only keep building the project; later, I bought a lot more, and it eventually became a long-term commitment.
At that time, there was almost no liquidity, and such a result meant that you had to be tied to the project. If you don’t push it yourself, it is also hard for it to rise. Until last year when Cheems restarted on the BNB Chain, I still worked hard to promote it, bringing in people, spreading the word, and building the community. I watched it progress from launch, to locking liquidity, to truly integrating into the BNB ecosystem; the process was really tough.
Of course, I haven't sold yet, so I won't. Therefore, for me, this is not just an investment, but a participation in a process. I console myself that the meaning of this matter is no longer about making money, but rather about the experience of participating throughout.
If you simply buy low and shout orders, then push it up to sell, this process is actually very empty. But I am willing to see if I can participate long-term across cycles, allowing this project to go further.
I still believe in this logic. Especially recently, many people have also realized that the BNB ecosystem is indeed one of the most dominant in the entire industry. For example, with the recent launch of Binance Alpha, Cheems was the first asset to go live; it was heavily criticized at first, and I didn't think it would become a 'great innovation'. But now, look, scoring and farming have become mainstream.
This indicates that if Binance really wants to push something, it indeed has the power to make it happen. The success of the BNB Chain is just a matter of time; their strategic direction is clear.
So from this perspective, Cheems occupying a key position on the BNB Chain, with a certain historical accumulation and stable K-line trend, actually laid the foundation for its explosion in a bull market.
Of course, this is quite different from the short-term explosive rhythm of some Memecoins on Solana. My style also does not quite fit that kind of short-term, high-volatility, high-operation trading rhythm. I am more accustomed to binding long-term logic and slowly building.
Coinbase and GBTC's emotional cycle decision-making
Christian: If we are to talk about heavy positions, it must be the two targets many people know: one is GBTC, and the other is Coinbase. At that time, both our fund and I personally invested heavily in these two targets. That period coincided with the collapse of FTX, when the entire market sentiment was extremely low, and it was also the phase where I invested the most time in trading and investment over the years.
Later, I figured out a core logic: to try to choose larger targets. At that time, I hardly touched altcoins, and looking back, this was quite wise. Because I felt that the liquidity on the U.S. stock side was better, plus these two targets had experienced significant overselling.
For example, at one point Coinbase fell by 90%, and GBTC also had a huge negative premium. We judged this to be an irrational sell-off driven by emotions, rather than a fundamental issue. So we heavily bet that these two would outperform Bitcoin. Looking back, this was one of the few correct decisions we made.
Then there are a few more typical examples. One is Curve, which I just mentioned. That was because Curve's decline was very severe at the time, but we determined it was due to liquidity and short-term event shocks, rather than fundamental issues. Like GBTC, at that time its underlying asset—Bitcoin—had not changed, and having such a large gap in price was clearly unreasonable.
At that time, Coinbase's price-to-book ratio was very low, even though the company was in a loss state, making it impossible to look at the PE ratio; however, it had over $5 billion in cash on its books and had invested in many projects, which were reflected in the numerical valuations of those targets. At that time, the company's market value had fallen below $7 billion, clearly an example of being irrationally killed off by market sentiment.
The logic of Curve is also similar; its status, application, and community holder situation at that time were relatively stable. We believed the market underestimated its value.
Of course, there are also two counterexamples—Arbitrum's native token and GMX. These two are projects where I lost quite a bit of money on my investments and can be said to be among the few that have actually caused me significant losses so far.
Looking back, I feel that the investment logic behind ARB is very obviously flawed. At that time, I was also caught up in FOMO, because many public chain valuations were high, and I thought Arbitrum, being a core project among Layer 2s, should have significant growth potential, especially since Solana was also being heated. But later I found that this kind of judgment based on superficial consensus and market sentiment is actually very unreliable. What truly determines a project's long-term trajectory is its actual operations regarding liquidity arrangements, not how everyone perceives it.
GMX is also an extreme example. At that time, I found GMX very attractive in terms of product innovation and valuation model. Especially during the bear market, its cash flow was considered scarce in the entire market. At that time, I indeed felt that I had found a so-called value trap. However, the results later were disastrous. A good product does not equate to its ability to grow long-term. Long-term growth requires strong go-to-market capabilities, as well as continuous operation and iteration.
Although GMX's user numbers and trading volume are now even higher than in previous years, the token price has been on a downward trend. I later realized that while the product fundamentals are fine, there might be two reasons for the poor market performance: first, its business model cannot sustain expansion; for example, its funding fee structure seems more expensive to traders compared to Hyperliquid; second, there are issues within the team itself.
Looking back now, I feel that the success or failure of a project is very crucially dependent on the spirit and mindset of the team and founders. The GMX founding team clearly did not plan to create a long-term project; their iteration speed and operational capabilities have basically stagnated. They seem more like they are making a one-time product, without continuously pushing the project toward higher goals. Although I haven't sold GMX yet, I am very clear that this is a typical case of a project losing momentum due to the team's lack of initiative.
So these experiences have made me more inclined to bet on truly outstanding and ambitious founders and teams. The fundamentals of the project are undoubtedly important, but the human factor may be more crucial.
Investment logic summary
Christian: I think if I were to summarize the logic behind my project selection now, it could be reduced to three points.
The first point is the team's vision. How large a project can grow largely depends on whether the team has the vision and capability to push it forward. If the founding team is only thinking about cashing out quickly, then the project is doomed to go nowhere. Large-vision teams are often able to invest more durably and grow the project stronger. Of course, whether a project can succeed also depends on the team's attitude towards the token and whether they realize that the success of the token price can, in turn, drive user growth and market expansion for the product.
A typical example is Jeff from Hyperliquid. He is not the kind of founder with a short-term mindset, but rather very cleverly utilizes tokens to gain attention, treating token price as a tool for user growth. After they issued their tokens, the project's fundamentals underwent a qualitative leap, which is a very rare phenomenon; usually, a product comes before a token, but they used the token to drive the product's popularity, somewhat similar to the logic of some exchange platform tokens in the past.
The second point is continuous iteration and market strategy. If a team only wants to issue tokens and then stop, the project is basically doomed to fail. They must continuously refine the product, keep investing in market operations and marketing, to maintain the project's heat and competitiveness.
The third point is the concentration of token structure. In the current market environment, a dispersed token structure is no longer applicable. In the past, everyone could rely on market sentiment to form consensus; now the market must artificially create consensus. For instance, GMX has too dispersed a token structure, making it difficult for the community to form a united front. In contrast, Hyperliquid is clearly different; it has achieved a high degree of concentration in its token holding structure, allowing large holders, small holders, and institutions to participate and form a united front, which is more likely to drive a market cap explosion.
So to summarize, if I seriously invest time in researching and investing in new projects in the future, these three factors—team structure, token structure control, and consensus building—will be my main judgment framework.
Investment mindset advice: Position control and logical faith are more important than emotional anxiety.
Christian: Regarding investment mindset, I can sum it up in two sentences.
The first sentence is: Never let your position exceed your limit. This limit is not just about leverage, but rather the proportion of your total investment to your personal assets. My personal experience is to keep my investment position within 30% to 50% of my total assets, which is a relatively comfortable state. As long as the position is not too large, even if the token price fluctuates violently, it will not have a significant impact on my life. Mental breakdown often comes not from market fluctuations but from having too many bets placed, leading to unbearable pressure.
The second sentence is: Trust in logic, not in emotions or beliefs. Even if the positions are not heavy, encountering significant losses will inevitably lead to self-doubt and market doubt. But at that moment, the most important thing is to repeatedly review the logic behind your investment decision. If you find the logic itself is wrong, then you should stop-loss timely; but if the logic still holds, then you should persevere and not be shaken by short-term market fluctuations. Like when I invested in Coinbase, even if suffering severe losses, I believed that its fundamental logic hadn’t changed, so I actually wanted to add to my position more the lower it went.
In simple terms, controlling positions is a reflection of self-discipline, while sticking to logic is the foundation for a stable mindset. Investment does not require blind faith but rather rational judgment.
