Source:Wu Shuo Blockchain
Frontier tech investor Zheng Di (didier) was a guest on a podcast. The discussion revolved around the recent Bitcoin decline, changes in the financial strategy of MicroStrategy (formerly MicroStrategy), the AI-driven rise in US stocks, the integration of crypto exchanges with US stocks, and the macro outlook.
didier believes the core reason for Bitcoin's recent decline is not purely macro factors or ETF redemptions, but rather the market beginning to reprice expectations that MicroStrategy might continuously sell small amounts of Bitcoin to pay for preferred stock dividends under its "net Bitcoin per share neutrality" principle. Meanwhile, AI is reshaping labor structures, with Tokens being viewed as a new factor of production, driving sustained gains in the US stock AI supply chain. The crypto industry may gradually shift from native altcoin speculation to real-world asset tokenization, on-chain machine economy, and a more mature industrialization stage.
MicroStrategy's Coin Sale Experiment: Expectations of Continuous Selling Pressure and Market Absorption
Catbro: Bitcoin has been falling sharply recently, and there are many explanations in the market. Some say it's due to MicroStrategy selling Bitcoin, others blame ETF redemptions, and some attribute it to macro changes or leverage unwinding. What do you think is the key factor?
didier: I believe the core reason is still MicroStrategy, but what's truly suppressing the market isn't that one sale itself, but the market beginning to expect it to *continuously* sell Bitcoin.
MicroStrategy stated at its May earnings call that it aims to maintain net Bitcoin per share neutrality. As preferred stock and debt instruments like STRC, STRZ, STRD, and STRF continue to increase, Bitcoin is no longer just an asset for common shareholders; it must first cover the rights of creditors and preferred shareholders. This raises the cost of maintaining Bitcoin per share neutrality.
Previously, the market thought it primarily sold stock to pay preferred dividends, putting little pressure on Bitcoin. But now, the threshold for raising capital by issuing new stock is higher, and the pressure is shifting to Bitcoin. As long as MMV (Market Value vs. NAV) remains below the neutrality threshold, it's more likely to cover cash flow by selling small, continuous amounts of Bitcoin. Especially if the dividend payment frequency increases, the market naturally expects not just a one-off sale but potentially regular small sales.
So the key to this decline isn't "how much was sold," but "will it keep selling in the future." Under this logic, ETF outflows look more like a consequence than a cause. Because once the market judges that MicroStrategy will keep selling, related funds will withdraw early.
Catbro: You mentioned earlier that Michael Saylor seems to be conducting a financial experiment. What's the purpose of this experiment?
didier: Essentially, he is testing the market's capacity to absorb continuous, small Bitcoin sales.
From a financial perspective, when the MMV premium is not high, selling small amounts of Bitcoin is less damaging to the net Bitcoin per share than selling stock; this is the first-order optimal solution. The issue is, since the large-scale issuance of STRC in March, interest and dividend payments on preferred stock and perpetual instruments have increased significantly. Cash flow management has become a problem that must be addressed. So the key is no longer whether to manage cash flow, but *how* to manage it.
If the market can absorb the impact of this continuous, small-scale selling, the system can continue. But if this approach instead depresses the stock price, lowers MMV, worsens the peg, and further reinforces the expectation of "continuous selling," then it may be forced into a soft pivot. For example, relying more on stock sales again or using a mix of stock and Bitcoin sales. This would sacrifice some net Bitcoin per share but could reduce the impact on the Bitcoin and stock prices, representing a second-order optimal solution.
So, at its core, this is a game between Michael Saylor and the market. He's watching to see at what price level sufficiently strong buying support emerges, while the market is waiting for lower, more certain prices before stepping in.
Catbro: Could this evolve into a "death spiral" for both MicroStrategy and Bitcoin?
didier: I think this single issue alone is unlikely to reach that point. To truly reach a death spiral, it would likely require new macro headwinds or a larger systemic shock.
As long as a soft pivot happens later—no longer rigidly selling Bitcoin—bottom-fishing funds will likely return. The question isn't whether there is buying support, but at what price it appears. It could be at $62,000 or even lower; the market is currently waiting for that level.
So my judgment remains cautiously optimistic: This decline is more due to structural pressure from changes in MicroStrategy's own financial structure, rather than purely driven by macro liquidity tightening. In the absence of major new negative catalysts, the situation can likely be reversed and is not prone to directly evolving into a true "death spiral."
Token as the New-Age Labor
Catbro: While the crypto industry is relatively sluggish now, AI is hot, especially US stocks related to optical modules, semiconductors, and data centers are rising sharply. What do you think is the core driver behind this?
didier: The core is simple: tokens are essentially becoming the labor force of the new era.
In the past, the core factor of production for businesses was people, whether through physical or mental labor, tasks were completed by humans. But now, many execution tasks originally undertaken by people are being replaced by AI and tokens. In the future, what will truly be scarce might be the few people who can complete closed loops: those who can set goals, design solutions, drive execution, and ultimately solve problems. These individuals, coupled with a large number of tokens, constitute the new labor system.
This will directly change corporate organizational structures. In the past, companies had many hierarchical layers because information had to be relayed step by step through people. But in the AI era, many middle-management, assistant, IT, and execution roles will be compressed. What becomes truly valuable is no longer mere execution ability, but influence, decision-making power, and imagination.
So essentially, where businesses used to pay money to employees, in the future, they will increasingly pay money to tokens, to models and computing power. Model companies will then invest that money upstream to purchase chips, energy, optical modules, and data centers. These upstream sectors have limited capacity expansion, and supply cannot keep up with demand, making them the most persistently benefiting segments within the AI supply chain. This is the core reason behind the continuous rise of related US stocks.
The service industry will be the first to be impacted because knowledge-based services like accounting, law, consulting, and data analysis are the most easily replaceable by AI. In the future, corporate internal operations will become increasingly automated, and inter-corporate relationships may also form an on-chain machine economy. At that point, many transactions, collaborations, and even payments will be completed by machines.
Catbro: Are you saying this round of gains isn't just short-term speculation but has medium to long-term sustainability, and we might still be in the very early stages?
didier: Yes, I believe the machine economy era has just begun.
Many people also misunderstand "one-person companies." It's not about one person working alone, but one person operating with dozens or even dozens of intelligent agents. These agents combined might achieve the efficiency of hundreds of people in the past. So the premise of a one-person company is actually having a large number of agents providing labor.
This is why I've always emphasized that tokens are the new labor. Where businesses used to spend money hiring people, they are now increasingly shifting budgets toward tokens. As long as tokens can continuously amplify revenue, corporate profit margins will significantly improve, which is the core logic behind the market's bullishness on the AI supply chain.
So the expectation currently reflected in the US stock market is essentially: more and more companies will become AI-native, replacing labor with tokens, increasing automation levels, and thereby significantly raising profit margins. This is the most fundamental and reasonable driving force behind this rally.
Exchanges Pivot to US Stocks, Users Don't Need to Rewrite Their Trading Logic
Catbro: With US stocks continuing to rise, many crypto exchanges have also opened access to US stock trading. What's your take on this? Is it because the crypto industry itself lacks hot topics, forcing exchanges to create demand, or are there deeper reasons? Also, could this further lead to capital outflows from the crypto industry?
didier: I've actually said before that offshore CEXs ultimately have only two paths.
The first is to become prediction markets, but this path is extremely difficult. The top-tier landscape is largely set, and most existing CEXs will find it hard to truly transform into the next-generation "exchange of everything."
The second is to pivot toward being distribution channels for real-world assets (RWA), and currently, the most important RWAs are US stocks and US bonds. Gold is another significant direction.
The more fundamental reason is that after all these years, there are actually very few truly valuable crypto-native assets. Bitcoin is one, a handful of DeFi infrastructure and public chains count, but beyond that, most native assets lack sustained intrinsic value and cash flow support. Given this, the trading infrastructure built around these assets will inevitably seek new, valuable targets.
So CEXs pivoting to US stocks is essentially a natural progression. I don't really see it as a squeeze on crypto assets; it's more like the industry returning to reality: truly valuable assets were never that plentiful, and exchanges are just pivoting to things that can better support liquidity.
But in the long run, this might not be a bad thing. The core value of blockchain was never just about issuing native assets, but providing decentralized options and more efficient, lower-cost settlement and trading methods. Bringing real-world assets on-chain is a meaningful direction in itself.
Moreover, from an even longer-term perspective, blockchain technology is more akin to technology designed for machines. In the next five to ten years, a more likely scenario is: humans interacting with agents, and agents completing payments, transactions, and collaborations with other agents on-chain. In this case, the on-chain infrastructure being built today can be directly utilized by machines.
So in the long term, I actually see this as beneficial for Bitcoin. Because whether it's more people or more machines, they will ultimately interact with on-chain assets.
Catbro: For ordinary users who previously focused on trading altcoins, Bitcoin, or public chain assets in the crypto market, switching to US stocks involves a different logic. Whether it's earnings cycles, valuation frameworks, or regulatory rules, there are significant differences. If you had to give one key piece of advice to these long-time crypto users or traders, what would it be?
didier: Actually, I don't think they need to deliberately change much.
Because US stocks and on-chain assets are quite similar in essence. US stocks have value stocks, growth stocks, and many assets with meme-like attributes. One core reason for the weakness in the recent on-chain meme trend is that the most compelling "meme assets" have actually migrated to US stocks.
The stories these assets tell are essentially about "changing the world." This narrative used to belong to blockchain, but now a stronger version appears in US stocks—think quantum computing, nuclear fusion, SMR. These things are often also hard to explain solely by earnings reports, cash flows, or DCF models; they inherently carry strong meme-like attributes.
So, those who liked chasing altcoins and meme coins in the past can, in the US stock market, chase these long-term concepts; the logic is largely the same, and they might not necessarily feel out of place. Another group, who originally looked at cash flow, fundamentals, and sought value support, can also find corresponding value and growth stocks in the US market.
So my point is, the various styles present in the crypto space all have their counterparts in the US stock market. Most people don't need to force a change in their trading patterns; they can find asset types they are familiar with.
If I had to give one piece of advice, it's not to hard-change your methods just because you're switching markets. Those who have survived until now usually have a proven survival strategy of their own. Sticking to what has worked for you is actually more important.
The 10/11 Event Devastated Crypto Liquidity, Altcoin Rally Unlikely to Fully Recover
Catbro: Listening to your analysis, a rather dramatic picture comes to my mind. It feels like the recent altcoin speculation frenzy is completely over, because almost all those previous speculative targets can now be found in US stocks, with even stronger real-world relevance. Is that a fair understanding?
didier: That's a fair way to put it.
The core reason the altcoin rally is essentially over is that crypto liquidity has been devastated too severely. The 10/11 event dealt a very heavy blow to the industry's vitality. The surface reports mention $19 billion in liquidations, but the actual number is likely far higher. Rumors of $40-$50 billion are circulating, which I think are closer to the truth.
And it's important to note, what was lost here wasn't just market cap, but real cash. The total crypto market cap isn't that large to begin with, and a significant portion is locked up or inflated. The actual amount of liquid筹码 is much smaller than it appears. In such a context, evaporating tens of billions of dollars in cash in a single day is a heavy blow to the industry's sentiment and liquidity.
Therefore, I believe the 10/11 event was the last straw that broke the altcoin rally's back.
As for why "meme assets" in the US stock market can continue to be hyped, the reason is simple: the US stock market is currently the most liquid market globally. When your own liquidity dries up, capital naturally flows toward markets with stronger liquidity.
From the US perspective, its support for Bitcoin and blockchain also has its own strategic considerations. The US version of the logic is to turn blockchain, on-chain markets, and CEXs into channels for attracting global capital and hot money toward US assets. So promoting the on-chain integration of the US financial system is essentially about expanding the global fundraising and distribution capabilities of US assets.
Of course, this is just the US government's understanding and approach. Whether the blockchain and crypto world will ultimately be completely shaped by this kind of national will is another matter. A more realistic scenario might be a long-term, complex relationship of cooperation, utilization, and mutual博弈 between the on-chain world and sovereign states.
But at least so far, the US's line of thinking is indeed gradually becoming a reality.
More Cautious on H2 Macro, But Long-Term Bullish on AI and Web3
Catbro: What's your macro judgment for the next six months, through the end of the year? What policies might the newly appointed Fed Chair (Note: Likely referring to a hypothetical scenario or a specific name mentioned in the conversation; the text says "沃什" which might be a name or typo. Given context, I'll treat it as referring to the Fed Chair generally) adopt, and how would that affect the overall market?
didier: I think market uncertainty is rising going forward.
On one hand, the market has already risen significantly. On the other hand, several巨型 companies like SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic might go public later. The real pressure isn't just the fundraising抽水, but the fact that if these trillion-dollar companies are quickly included in indices, in a market with limited liquidity, institutions might be forced to sell other index权重 stocks for rebalancing, creating pressure on the market. So, I would be more cautious after June.
Another key variable is the midterm elections. If the Democrats ultimately secure both chambers of Congress, that could be somewhat bearish for both Web3 and AI, as they tend to emphasize labor rights, regulation, and oversight more than allowing frontier technologies to continue rapid, unchecked expansion.
But from a fundamental perspective, I believe the market might be underestimating the real economic push from AI. AI has already penetrated many sectors, just that existing statistical methods may not fully reflect it. So in the long run, its boost to production efficiency remains very strong.
The real problem lies not only in growth but also in distribution. If the distribution mechanism isn't adjusted properly, we might face an extremely polarized situation in the future: a small number of people who can驾驭 AI earn most of the profits, while a large portion of the middle class gets squeezed or even becomes unemployed. In that case, although productivity increases, overall societal consumption capacity could decline. This is also why I lean more toward long-term deflation rather than long-term inflation.
So, in the coming years, the distribution mechanism will be crucial. Things like an "AI tax"—I think it's highly likely to be implemented within three to five years, because without new sources of tax revenue, many future social arrangements will lack a funding base.
If we're just looking at the second half of this year into next, I don't want to make any absolute conclusions. Short-term adjustment pressures are indeed increasing, especially potentially around the time of SpaceX's IPO. But I see this more as an adjustment, not a definitive peak. As long as capital expenditure from major tech companies can continue, the overall trend isn't over yet.
Looking longer-term, I remain bullish on AI and also on the convergence of AI and blockchain. The broad direction remains unchanged: corporate内部 operations will become increasingly automated, and inter-corporate relationships may form an on-chain machine economy.
So I still believe blockchain and Web3 have promising prospects; it's just that the playbook will become more mature. The era of mindlessly rushing in and making easy money is probably over. The future looks more like an era of industrialization and institutionalization.
