To Those Still Holding On in Crypto: What's More Frightening Than a Bear Market is Collective Silence

marsbitPublicado a 2026-06-05Actualizado a 2026-06-05

Resumen

To those still persevering in Crypto: what's more terrifying than a bear market is collective silence. Author: haotian. Key lessons for anyone wishing to remain in Crypto: 1) Looking back at past cycles, the crypto industry almost "dies" once each cycle before rebounding. Plunges of 90%, 80%, 70% followed by V-shaped recoveries are the norm. While extreme volatility is foundational, so is the industry's remarkable resilience—it simply won't die. 2) Centralized exchanges (CEX) are not the saviors of crypto; in many ways, they don't even belong to the industry. Running a platform to collect fees is their perpetual goal, regardless of whether the assets traded are major cryptocurrencies, memecoins, stock futures, oil, or precious metals. 3) While this cycle's on-chain narrative innovation is rife with VC-funded "scams," it will ultimately be grand, sweeping narratives that pull the industry out of stagnation. Examples include DeFi in 2020, NFTs in 2022, inscriptions in 2023, and AI Agents in 2024. The scale and persistence of these narratives determine a bull market's strength and the difficulty of post-bubble recovery. An absence of "innovative narratives" would spell real trouble for crypto. 4) The noisy, often polarized, and conflicting voices on Crypto Twitter (CT)—ranging from FOMO to sharp criticism—are largely a manifestation of poor market conditions. It's fine to observe for entertainment, but remember: if the crypto industry were to collapse catastrophically, no o...

Author: haotian

If you want to keep making a living in Crypto, you must understand these principles:

1) Looking back at past cycles, the crypto industry has nearly died and reborn almost every cycle. It's normal to see crashes of 90%, 80%, or 70% followed by a V-shaped recovery and takeoff. High volatility is indeed a fundamental characteristic of the industry, but don't forget, so is its incredible resilience. It just won't die.

2) CEX exchanges have never been the saviors of the crypto industry; to some extent, they don't even belong to it. For trading platforms, collecting 'fees' is eternal. Whether what's traded on their platform are major cryptocurrencies, meme coins, U.S. stock futures, crude oil, or precious metals doesn't really matter.

3) While this cycle's on-chain narrative innovation indeed contains many VC project 'scams,' what will ultimately pull the crypto industry out of its slump will still be grand narratives. Just like DeFi in 2020, NFTs in 2022, Inscriptions in 2023, and AI Agents in 2024, the sustainability and scale of these narratives determine the depth of a bull market and the difficulty of rebuilding after the bubble bursts. But a crypto industry without 'innovative narratives' is truly unsustainable.

4) Crypto Twitter is flooded with voices—some driven by FOMO, some sharp and critical, some antagonistic—all of which are ultimately manifestations of a poor secondary market. Look at them, use them for entertainment, but that's it. If the crypto industry ever faces a catastrophic collapse, no one will be spared. So, as they say, all you great 'stock traders,' please do respect the path you came from.

5) Some vested interests or early OG beneficiaries have withdrawn into seclusion, some have retreated to the background to cause mischief, and some are still persevering and preaching. This isn't the scariest part. What's more frightening is when the majority chooses 'silence.' The cost of this silence will undoubtedly be the continuous intensification of 'bad money driving out good,' and the damage this inflicts on the industry's 'consensus' is the most fatal blow.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the author's view on the cyclical nature of the crypto industry based on historical cycles?

AThe author believes that the crypto industry nearly dies in every cycle only to be reborn, with sharp drops of 70-90% followed by V-shaped recoveries being the norm. He highlights that while high volatility is fundamental to the industry, its remarkable resilience and ability to survive are equally inherent traits.

QAccording to the article, why are centralized exchanges (CEX) not considered the saviors of the crypto industry?

AThe article argues that CEXes are not saviors and may not even truly belong to the crypto industry. Their primary business model is collecting fees, and it doesn't matter to them whether they are trading mainstream cryptocurrencies, meme coins, or traditional assets like stock futures and commodities.

QWhat role does narrative innovation play in reviving the crypto industry from downturns, according to the text?

AThe text states that while there are many VC-backed project 'scams,' it is ultimately powerful new narratives that pull the crypto industry out of slumps. Past examples include DeFi in 2020, NFTs in 2022, inscriptions in 2023, and AI Agents in 2024. The sustainability and scale of these narratives determine the strength of a bull market and the difficulty of recovery post-bubble, emphasizing that the industry cannot thrive without 'innovative narratives.'

QWhat does the author suggest about the noisy opinions found on Crypto Twitter (CT) during market downturns?

AThe author suggests that the flood of fomo-driven, sharp, or conflicting voices on Crypto Twitter is largely a manifestation of poor secondary market performance. He advises treating them as entertainment. His core warning is that if the crypto industry were to collapse catastrophically, no one would be spared, and he urges those involved to remember and respect their origins in the space.

QWhat is described as more dangerous than a bear market for the crypto industry in the article?

AThe article posits that collective silence is more dangerous than a bear market. While some early beneficiaries have retreated, turned malicious, or continue to preach, the widespread choice to remain silent leads to the persistent problem of 'bad money driving out good.' This erosion of consensus is described as the most fatal blow to the industry.

Lecturas Relacionadas

The First Case on AI Agents: What Was Adjudicated?

"The First 'Agent' Ruling: What Was Decided?" On April 30, the Guangzhou Internet Court issued a ruling—China's first behavior preservation order in the intelligent agent (AI agent) field. The defendant, an open-source AI agent software, was ordered to stop downloads, cease actions that bypassed a platform's technical protection measures, and delete related tutorials and data. The core issue: the software used the operating system's "accessibility service" permissions to automate user interactions within other apps without those platforms' authorization. This mirrors a recent US case where Amazon sued Perplexity for similar reasons—bypassing Amazon's API to directly scrape and interact with its pages—and won a preliminary injunction. Both rulings establish a crucial legal boundary for the AI agent era: agents cannot operate unchecked. The article argues the fundamental legal principle emerging is one of **dual authorization**. An AI agent requires both **user consent** AND **platform consent** to operate legitimately within that platform's ecosystem. Bypassing platform rules through system-level permissions, even with user permission, undermines platform responsibilities for content moderation, data security, and user privacy, creating liability issues. The piece uses the evolution of "Doubao Phone" (an AI-integrated smartphone) as a case study. Its initial, aggressive version that bypassed platform controls faced roadblocks. Its upcoming 2.0 version is reportedly pivoting to negotiate API access and authorization deals with major platforms (like Alibaba's ecosystem), seen as a strategic adaptation to the new regulatory reality. A global trend is identified: the era of unregulated, "wild west" growth for AI agents is ending, replaced by a **compliance race**. This raises barriers to entry, as securing platform authorizations becomes a new cost. Open-source status is also not a legal shield if the code facilitates bypassing technical protections. In conclusion, these first rulings target not the largest, but the most **aggressive and representative** cases. By setting precedent with them, regulators are efficiently steering the entire industry towards a new, more regulated operating paradigm defined by dual authorization and platform cooperation.

marsbitHace 6 min(s)

The First Case on AI Agents: What Was Adjudicated?

marsbitHace 6 min(s)

Fired by Google Over a 14-Page Paper, Over 4,000 Rallied for Her. 6 Years Later: She Almost Predicted the Entire AI Era Back Then.

In late 2020, Google AI researcher Timnit Gebru was effectively dismissed following a conflict over a 14-page, unpublished research paper she co-authored titled "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots." The paper, which has since been cited over 14,000 times, raised critical early warnings about the risks of large language models (LLMs). It argued that these models, trained on vast, biased internet data, are essentially "stochastic parrots" that mimic language without true understanding, potentially amplifying societal biases, generating plausible but false information (later termed "AI hallucination"), consuming massive energy, and obscuring their training data contents. Gebru's stance led to a clash with Google management, who requested the paper's withdrawal. Her subsequent internal criticism of the company's diversity efforts and handling of the matter culminated in her termination, which sparked protests from over 4,000 Google employees and researchers. Six years later, the paper's predictions have proven remarkably prescient. Issues like AI hallucination, embedded bias (evident in resume screening and healthcare algorithms), soaring energy consumption from AI data centers, unvetted training data containing harmful content, and the risk of "model collapse" from AI-generated internet content have become central industry challenges. The incident also highlighted concerns about AI development being driven primarily by commercial competition within a handful of powerful tech companies, often at the expense of ethical considerations. After leaving Google, Gebru founded the Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR) to explore these issues independently. The controversy underscores how her early, critical insights into the fundamental limitations and societal impacts of LLMs anticipated many of the most pressing dilemmas in today's AI era.

marsbitHace 7 min(s)

Fired by Google Over a 14-Page Paper, Over 4,000 Rallied for Her. 6 Years Later: She Almost Predicted the Entire AI Era Back Then.

marsbitHace 7 min(s)

Elderly Borrow Money to Trade Stocks, Entire Nation Adds Leverage: 'Ant Army' Panics as South Korean Stock Market Plunges

Titled "Panic Among 'Ant Army' as South Korean Stocks Plunge After Elders Borrow to Invest, Everyone Leverages Up," this article details a dramatic reversal in South Korea's red-hot stock market. After a sustained rally toward 9,000 points driven by AI semiconductor hype, the KOSPI index recently crashed, triggering circuit breakers. The sell-off was led by major chipmakers Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, whose combined weight in the index is over 50%. The plunge exposed the extreme leverage and speculative behavior that fueled the boom. Individual investors, dubbed the "ant army," had borrowed heavily or used leverage ETFs to chase gains, with trading accounts outnumbering the population. A significant portion of this leveraged money came from older citizens, some of whom reportedly cashed out insurance policies to invest. ETF trading became dominated (over 90%) by high-risk leveraged and inverse products. The correction was triggered by a pullback in U.S. tech stocks, leading to a foreign capital exodus and a weakening Korean won, creating a vicious cycle. While President Lee Jae-myung attempted to reassure markets and NVIDIA's CEO signaled support during a visit, officials like Finance Minister Ju Yeong-geun expressed concern over the dangerous "herd mentality." The article highlights a pervasive, high-risk investment culture where everyone from office workers to retirees and even parents opening accounts for newborns sought quick profits, largely concentrated in a few tech stocks, setting the stage for a sharp and painful correction.

marsbitHace 13 min(s)

Elderly Borrow Money to Trade Stocks, Entire Nation Adds Leverage: 'Ant Army' Panics as South Korean Stock Market Plunges

marsbitHace 13 min(s)

From Hunyuan to WeChat AI: Tencent's Slow Paced Journey Reaches the Delivery Juncture

On June 8, 2026, WeChat's developer platform announced the internal testing of "WeChat AI," an AI assistant integrated into the WeChat ecosystem. It allows users to invoke, access, and operate Mini Programs through natural language conversation. The platform offers two access modes: an "Automatic Mode" where developers authorize platform access to their source code for zero-configuration AI operation, and a "Developer Mode" for building custom skills. While the name "WeChat AI" is provisional, this marks WeChat's first step in opening its vast Mini Program ecosystem—comprising over 400,000 developers and hundreds of millions of daily active users—to AI-driven conversational interaction. This move represents the latest step in Tencent's deliberate AI strategy, moving from technical R&D and standalone product validation to integration within its super-app. The underlying foundation is Tencent's self-developed Hunyuan large language model. Ranked first domestically in application-oriented capabilities like Agent task execution in 2025, Hunyuan's focus on stability and precision over raw parameter count aligns with WeChat AI's need for reliable, low-latency operations involving sensitive tasks like payments and bookings. Prior C-side validation came from "Yuanbao," a standalone AI app whose Monthly Active Users (MAU) surpassed 114 million during the 2026 Chinese New Year红包 campaign, though daily activity later subsided. This "pulse growth" highlighted the challenge of user retention for standalone apps, informing the decision to integrate AI natively into WeChat's high-frequency scenarios. However, WeChat AI's "Automatic Mode," which requires source code access, raises developer concerns about code security, data visibility, and liability for AI errors. A deeper, ecosystem-level tension exists between the efficiency of centralized AI task调度 and the potential "short-circuiting" of merchant pages, which could erode their branding, advertising revenue, and user engagement. As Tencent Chairman Pony Ma noted, balancing centralized AI调度 with the protection of decentralized merchant traffic is a core challenge. In summary, Tencent's AI path—comprising the stable Hunyuan base model, the user-validated Yuanbao app, and the newly testing WeChat AI integration—is logically coherent. The success of WeChat AI now hinges on resolving developer trust, establishing fair ecosystem rules for merchants, and ensuring operational reliability to gain user confidence for deep, transactional use.

marsbitHace 13 min(s)

From Hunyuan to WeChat AI: Tencent's Slow Paced Journey Reaches the Delivery Juncture

marsbitHace 13 min(s)

STRC Briefly Fell Below $91: Will Strategy Be Hunted by 'Market Fear'?

The article draws a parallel between FTX's 2022 collapse and the current situation facing MicroStrategy (Strategy), a major corporate holder of Bitcoin. The author argues that MicroStrategy's financial model, heavily reliant on issuing equity and convertible debt at a premium to its Bitcoin holdings, is under stress. The core issue is the compression of MSTR's stock premium over its Bitcoin holdings (NAV). This erodes the viability of its "flywheel" – using equity sales to buy more Bitcoin. The company has shifted towards preferred shares (like STRC) and debt to raise capital, incurring significant dividend and interest obligations (approximately $1.7 billion annually). With cash reserves dwindling and debt maturities looming, MicroStrategy faces mounting pressure to generate cash. The article outlines three problematic options: 1) cutting preferred dividends, damaging investor confidence; 2) issuing more MSTR stock at low premiums, diluting existing shareholders; or 3) selling Bitcoin, which founder Michael Saylor had vowed against but recently did in a small symbolic transaction. The author suggests that, like FTX, a crisis of confidence could trigger a rapid downward spiral as investors flee. While noting Saylor's actions are legal—unlike SBF's fraud at FTX—the article warns the structural risk born from financial engineering and over-leverage is significant. The preferred path out is a sharp rise in Bitcoin's price to restart the premium flywheel, but this would only create a larger, more complex system vulnerable to future failure. The author concludes by advocating for direct Bitcoin ownership over exposure through MicroStrategy's increasingly risky financial structure.

Foresight NewsHace 28 min(s)

STRC Briefly Fell Below $91: Will Strategy Be Hunted by 'Market Fear'?

Foresight NewsHace 28 min(s)

Trading

Spot

Futuros