Author: Jocy, Founder of IOSG Ventures
Part 1: Who Stays? More Importantly, Why They Stay
Last year, I wrote a tweet about the flow of talent between AI and crypto. Someone commented: It's good that talented people are going into AI; they are participating in building an inevitable future.
But a recent podcast conversation made me realize that this judgment was not deep enough. The question is not just "who stays," but more fundamentally, "why they stay" and "whether the ecosystem can support a revolution after they stay." Those who remain in the industry to continue building after experiencing bull and bear markets, failures, and the friction between reality and ideals are the ones who can potentially lead the revolution in the crypto space.
In recent months, I have spoken with many crypto entrepreneurs from 2023 to 2025. Many Chinese teams raised only five to seven million USD around 2023. In the current environment, it is very difficult for them to raise the next round. Such a runway barely lasts a little over two years, leading them to list on exchanges with great difficulty. Countless airdrops and distributed tokens flood the market, token prices plummet, and the entrepreneurs' report card shows tokens nearing zero, loss of reputation in the crypto industry, and then they turn and leave.
Looking back at Asia, there are fewer and fewer investors willing to support early-stage entrepreneurs. Without investor support, no determined entrepreneurs are willing to enter the crypto industry again, and the entire industry's ecosystem cannot progress—how can we compete in the crypto war between China and the U.S.?
In April last year, I wrote a tweet mentioning that a core team from our portfolio started an AI application venture. The most prestigious talents in the industry are leaving. Until today, more and more people are making this choice. This is not a coincidence; it reflects a more systemic issue: after making money, Chinese and American crypto OGs have chosen completely different paths.
# Part 2: How American OGs "Feed the Cathedral"
What do American crypto OGs think about after making money?
**Brian Armstrong** took Coinbase public, making it the first mainstream crypto exchange in the U.S., and then founded Research Hub, attempting to fundamentally change the incentive mechanisms of scientific research. **This is not a simple donation; it is a restructuring of the entire knowledge production system.
**Naval Ravikant**, as an early Bitcoin philosopher, not only promoted ICOs through AngelList and positioned Bitcoin as a global crowdfunding tool but also incubated CoinList to provide a compliant framework for token issuance and funded the Zcash team. His thoughts on currency, cryptoeconomics, and decentralization have profoundly influenced the entire industry.
**Chris Dixon** led Coinbase's Series B round as early as 2013, becoming the first mainstream VC to fully bet on crypto. He grew a16z crypto from $300 million in 2018 to over $7 billion, not only investing in projects but also establishing a crypto school to systematically cultivate industry talent.
**Dan Robinson** at Paradigm is not just an investor but also a builder. He participated in the early development of Uniswap, is a co-author of Uniswap V3, promoted the modern MEV auction model in the early stages of Flashbots, participated in Plasma research (the precursor to modern Rollups), and led the seed round for Optimism. This deep technical participation and thought leadership are the true essence of ecosystem building.
**Michael Saylor** transformed MicroStrategy into a Bitcoin strategy company, holding $67 billion worth of Bitcoin (over 3% of the total circulating supply). Through innovative financing methods like issuing stocks and low-interest bonds, he continues to accumulate Bitcoin on a large scale, becoming an iconic figure in Bitcoin institutionalization.
**Barry Silbert** founded DCG and launched the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC), which became the primary channel for traditional investors to gain Bitcoin exposure. Genesis Trading and CoinDesk, under his leadership, became industry infrastructure.
**Sergey Nazarov**, founder of Chainlink, worked as a software engineer at Google and invented the decentralized oracle network in 2017, which has supported over $7 trillion in transaction volume. Having gone through multiple market cycles and achieved financial freedom long ago, he still personally travels to places like Hong Kong to promote the Chainlink standard, committed to unifying DeFi and traditional finance through CRE and building a global "internet of contracts" ecosystem.
**Rune Christensen** encountered Bitcoin in 2011, sold his English teacher recruitment business in China to fully commit to crypto. In 2015, he founded MakerDAO and launched the decentralized stablecoin DAI, which became one of the first and largest DeFi protocols on Ethereum. Over the past decade, he has always been on the front lines of DeFi governance. In recent years, he rebranded MKR to Sky, launched the Spark protocol, and promoted the integration of DAI with U.S. Treasuries, becoming a pioneer in the fusion of crypto and traditional finance.
**Arthur Hayes** founded BitMEX and introduced perpetual contracts, bringing traditional financial derivatives into the crypto market. The funding rate mechanism became an industry standard. In 2022, he was fined for violating the Bank Secrecy Act and later pardoned by Trump. Subsequently, he co-founded the Ethena stablecoin protocol with Guy. Over the past few years, Arthur has continuously shared his crypto insights with the industry, never stopping.
What do these people have in common? After making money, they think not about how to exit but about how to attract the best talent, how to create world-changing applications, and how to build a systematic ecosystem for support. They are not just investors; they are builders, thought leaders, and contributors to public goods.
# Part 3: The Systemic Dilemma of Chinese Crypto OGs
In contrast, the fundamental differences in the policy environment in China's crypto circle have limited the space for long-term commitment. Most OGs, after early success and some wealth accumulation, choose to exit rather than give back.
Lack of historical narrative. American crypto has always had a grand narrative of "changing the world." The tradition of building public goods, dating back to the Carnegie and Rockefeller eras, continues in the crypto field. China has a relatively weaker cultural accumulation in this regard.
We lack systematic talent cultivation mechanisms (compared to crypto schools in the U.S.), lack long-term investment in crypto talent and infrastructure (compared to projects like YC/AllianceDao and Research Hub), and lack continuous thought leadership and industry discourse (compared to Paradigm's research-driven approach and Naval's philosophical influence).
This is not a matter of personal morality but a systemic issue caused by multiple factors, including the lack of historical narrative, policy uncertainty, and differences in cultural DNA.
What does this difference lead to?
Many entrepreneurs and developers aim not only to get rich but also to create world-changing applications and leave a mark on history that is recognized. All the most talented people, if they observe carefully, will not return.
When Web3 is simplified into a big casino, and when the mainstream narrative of the industry regresses from "changing the world" to a pure wealth game, the best talent will vote with their feet. This is not because they don't want to make money, but because they want to "make money meaningfully"—gaining returns in the process of creating value, not harvesting others in a zero-sum game.
When everyone in the environment stops pursuing true ideals and value, these people will leave. Narrative is not abstract; it directly affects the talent structure. When an industry cannot provide a compelling vision and value recognition, no amount of monetary incentive can retain those value-driven talents.
The vicious cycle we see now:
Lack of new value creation → The market can only game within the existing pie →存量博弈强化投机心态存量 gaming reinforces speculative mentality → Drives away those who want to make incremental innovations → Even less value creation → The market relies even more on存量 gaming
This is a microcosm of the speculative era in China's crypto circle.
# Part 4: Even Under Constraints, A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire
Some might say: The environments are different, so we cannot simply compare. This is true. I am not asking Chinese OGs to do exactly the same things as American OGs.
Others might say: Even if we want to do it, we can't do much, so why bother? But I believe that even in a constrained environment, small actions like supporting open-source developers, organizing technical community events, and investing in early-stage startup technical teams are still meaningful. Systematic efforts will have a compound effect.
Still others might say: Overemphasizing idealism is hypocritical; crypto is financial innovation. But this is not an either-or choice. A healthy ecosystem needs a sufficient proportion of value-driven people. If it is entirely dominated by purely financially-driven people, it will fall into a zero-sum game in the long run, ultimately harming everyone's interests. **This is not a moral lecture but enlightened self-interest.
IOSG's past investors include exchanges, miners, early crypto OGs, and traditional funds. I believe many Chinese OGs are believers in idealism and heroism and are willing to push the industry forward. *It is precisely because the crypto industry, especially in China, is so challenging that they are still willing to continue supporting and helping this industry.
A single spark can start a prairie fire. We can also build a crypto positive feedback ecosystem as strong as America's.
# Part 5: The Cathedral and the Casino: Buffett's Warning
Warren Buffett used this metaphor to describe American capitalism: In the next hundred years, make sure that the cathedral is not overtaken by the casino. This metaphor is equally applicable to the crypto market:
Cryptocurrency and blockchain have achieved unprecedented success. It is a combination of a grand cathedral—this cathedral has created an economic system the world has never seen before. At the same time, it comes with a huge casino attached.
The temptation is enormous, especially now. The temptation is to walk into that casino. In the casino, everyone has a great time, money flows frequently, but you must also ensure that the cathedral is fed.
In the next hundred years, Crypto must ensure that this cathedral is not overtaken by the casino.
The cathedrals of Bitcoin and Ethereum are still magnificent and majestic, while the big casinos of certain exchanges party every night. But if the prosperity of the casino does not feed back to the cathedral, that building creating real value will gradually fall into disrepair, and eventually, the entire ecosystem will lose its foundation.
What Brian Armstrong, Vitalik, Chris Dixon, and others are doing is essentially feeding the cathedral. They are ensuring that the prosperity of the casino does not devour the cathedral.
# Part 6: The Only Path of Long-Termism
Returning to my judgment from a few months ago, it now needs a deeper layer of understanding:
Those who stay after experiencing bull and bear markets may indeed lead the revolution, but simply "staying" is not enough. More importantly, it's "why they stay" and "whether the ecosystem can support the revolution."
Revolution requires the support of the entire ecosystem. The sustained development of American crypto is not because people are more enduring, but because they have established a feedback mechanism that allows the ecosystem to renew and evolve itself.
As an institutional investor, IOSG will also continue to actively take on the responsibility for change:
* Systematically invest in more early-stage startup teams, even if short-term returns are not obvious
* IOSG EIR will support and fund more entrepreneurs currently facing financing difficulties, establishing a stronger talent cultivation mechanism
* Continuously output and share frontline industry research and thoughts
* Focus on long-term value creation rather than short-term speculation in project investment selection
⠀We need to redefine success. Wealth transfer in a zero-sum game vs. wealth creation in the process of creating real value—the numbers might be the same, but the meaning is completely different.
If Chinese crypto institutions and capable participants can make breakthroughs in the feedback mechanism, it could become a key force in changing the ecosystem. This is not only a moral responsibility but also a rational choice for long-term interests—only a healthy ecosystem can incubate great projects, attract excellent talent, and create sustainable value.
This is the true path of long-termism and the only way to ensure that the cathedral is not devoured by the casino.
