Author: Chloe, ChainCatcher
Yesterday, OpenClaw founder Peter Steinberger responded to a user's question on X, 'What advice do you have for people in their 20s?' His answer was just one sentence: 'don't waste time with crypto.' This tweet was subsequently reposted by Solana Foundation President Lily Liu, who also posted the exact same phrase herself.
The two tweets collectively garnered over a million views, and the comment section quickly filled with skepticism. Is Lily Liu hitting back with sarcasm? Or does it mean the crypto industry is dying?
Steinberger Has Reasons to Dislike the Industry, But What About Lily?
OpenClaw, formerly known as Clawdbot and Moltbot, was officially launched under its current name on January 30 this year. The project has already garnered over 200,000 stars on GitHub, becoming a rare viral phenomenon in the open-source community recently.
Following its explosive popularity, a flood of noise unrelated to technical development emerged, with speculators rushing into the community urging the launch of a token, attempting to capitalize on the project's hype for炒作. As a result, Steinberger has developed a strong aversion to the crypto industry. He even implemented a comprehensive ban on Discord, where any mention of 'crypto' or 'bitcoin' would result in an immediate ban (whether it's promotion, spam, or purely technical discussion).
According to CoinDesk, the ban was prompted by an incident in January when the project, then named Clawdbot, decided to rebrand due to a trademark warning from Anthropic. In the brief window between releasing the old GitHub/X account and registering a new one, someone immediately hijacked the account and launched a fake $CLAWD token on Solana.
The fake token's market cap surged to $16 million within hours, then plummeted over 90% after Steinberger publicly denied any association, leaving late entrants with massive losses. He was subsequently harassed by victims, leading him to publicly state: 'Please, crypto community, stop harassing me. I will never issue a token. Any token labeling me as a holder is a scam!'
Against this backdrop, his statement about not wasting time on cryptocurrency is a direct response to the ongoing harassment, with a clear target, and not a comprehensive rejection of cryptocurrency as a technology or asset class itself.
Lily's situation is entirely different. She chose not only to repost but also to personally reiterate the same phrase at a time when market attention on Steinberger's original post was high. External interpretations generally fall into two categories: first, that this is a pessimistic signal about the state of the industry; second, that the phrase itself is ironic, pointing to specific behavioral patterns within the crypto industry rather than the industry as a whole.
Regardless of Lily's original intention, the market reaction to this statement has been largely negative. Several industry figures have publicly criticized it, believing it is clearly inconsistent with her role and responsibilities. 'As the foundation president, it's like telling holders that what they've bet on isn't worth it. Whether it's a joke or not, the signal itself is terrible.'
However, it must be acknowledged that in the current industry narrative, projects that quickly issue tokens, create short-term wealth effects, and lack substantial technical development have long been a core issue discussed within the industry. The long-term透支 of this ecosystem has accelerated the outflow of capital and talent, with AI承接 these resources.
Capital and Talent Are Fleeing—Where Is the Crypto Industry Headed?
Prominent investor Stanley Druckenmiller mentioned in an interview with Morgan Stanley that the interest of the younger generation is shifting from cryptocurrency to the field of artificial intelligence.
This aligns with the current phenomenon in the crypto industry: a significant amount of technical talent and early-stage venture capital is concentrating towards AI, while the narrative heat of the crypto market has frozen.
Upon closer examination, the current AI industry is still in the early stages of infrastructure construction and technological capability expansion, a cycle characterized primarily by value creation. The technological红利 has not yet been fully released, the window for entrepreneurship remains open, and the return expectations for early participants are relatively clear. The flow of young talent in this direction is a rational response to real opportunities, not an active abandonment of cryptocurrency.
Looking at historical references, the development of mobile internet also went through similar stages of evolution. In the later stages of the value creation cycle, when technological红利趋于 saturated and market competition intensified, compressing entrepreneurial returns, capital and attention began to seek new outlets. The concentrated outbreak of the cryptocurrency market in 2017 highly coincided with the mobile internet entering maturity, which to some extent confirms that the opening of a value redistribution cycle is often accompanied by the process of new asset classes承接溢出 capital.
Whether the development cycle of AI will follow a similar path is currently uncertain. But if this is used as a reference, the true cycle of value redistribution will only begin when homogeneous competition in the AI market starts to lower overall entrepreneurial returns and market attention begins to shift away from AI. In that stage, the crypto market, with its low asset barriers and high liquidity, will still hold appeal for the younger generation with limited capital accumulation, and will not be permanently ignored due to today's short-term attention migration.
For the crypto industry, the maturation process of any emerging industry cannot bypass this stage: the loss of attention, the adjustment of valuations, and the clearing out of speculative projects are all part of the industry cycle, not the end.
Ebb and flow are the norm. What is truly worth paying attention to is what remains after the low tide.
