识破币圈投资陷阱:10类「毒瘤VC」图鉴

Odaily星球日报Publicado em 2025-05-12Última atualização em 2025-05-12

Resumo

选择合适的投资伙伴能决定项目的成败。

原文作者:@therosieum

原文编译:zhouzhou,BlockBeats

编者按:这篇文章通过讽刺的方式描绘了 10 种常见的加密货币风险投资类型,分别是那些看似支持但实际上只图利益的 VC 们。比如,表面上强调「长期持有」,但在市场下跌时却抛售;或是通过「营销公司」收回投资,甚至强迫项目团队按他们的要求运作。文章强调,真正的投资者应当具备技术能力、理解项目愿景、提供超越资本的价值。

以下为原文内容(为便于阅读理解,原内容有所整编):

在这个行业里,我们都曾与 VC 打过交道。有些是贵人,而大多数则不是。这里有一份指南,帮你在野外识别他们,趁早避开。

免责声明:这篇文章是讽刺。也许。如果你感到被冒犯,那你可能属于第 1-9 类,本文创作过程中没有 VC 受伤。

1.「我们不支持空投」的 VC

他们会宣扬建立「真实价值」,但在解锁配额的那一刻,他们会立刻抛售自己的代币。他们的意思其实是:「我们不支持你们做空投,但我们很乐意收取我们的空投。」这些人会在你面前讲述代币经济学,而他们的投资组合已经缩水了 80% 。VC 倾销俱乐部的第一条规则是:你不能谈论 VC 倾销俱乐部。

2.「请和我的营销公司合作」的 VC

他们投资了 50 万美元,现在想通过强迫你聘用他们表兄妹的营销公司来回收这些钱,费用是 60 万美元。这个营销公司只有三个客户:你和这家 VC 旗下的另外两个投资公司。他们的营销策略?用购买了相同 JPEG 的影响者发付费推文。

识破币圈投资陷阱:10类「毒瘤VC」图鉴

3 「以投资理论为驱动」的 VC

他们自 2021 年以来就没更新过他们的投资理论。仍然在谈论「Web3 社交」和「元宇宙基础设施」,但在你做演示时,偷偷在桌下搜索「什么是 TEE 技术」。不过,现在如果项目介绍中提到「AI」,他们绝对会投资。

4.「创始人友好型」的「幽灵」VC

他们会花三周时间深入了解你的项目,要求你填写 17 份表格,介绍你认识他们整个团队,然后在该是汇款的时候彻底消失。六个月后,他们会在推特上祝贺你从别人那里融资成功。

5.「我曾在 [插入传统金融公司] 工作」的 VC

2022 年加入加密行业,但不会让你忘记他们曾在高盛工作。现在可能活跃在加密推特,但依然通过他们的 LinkedIn 经历过活。唯一能提供的价值是「专业电子邮件模板」和「股东表最佳实践」。从未使用过硬件钱包,还在问什么是矿工费。

6.「我需要 24 小时内答复」的 FOMO VC

几个月来完全忽视你的提案,直到他们看到另一个 VC 在推特上谈论你的领域。突然间,他们出现在你的私信里,要求进行一个「紧急电话」。会提供糟糕的条款,并设有 24 小时的爆炸性截止期限。如果你接受了,他们还是会拖延三周才发相关文件。

识破币圈投资陷阱:10类「毒瘤VC」图鉴

7.「我们是长期持有者」的纸手

他们看了一次 Cathie Wood 在 CNBC 的采访,听她说比特币到 2030 年会涨到 150 万美元——现在他们一直重复自己是「长期持有者」,并且「与创始人对五年愿景一致」。但在遇到 30% 的跌幅时,他们会惊慌抛售,并怪你「市场条件」不可控。即使如此,他们仍然会要求自己的董事会席位。

8.「思想领袖」,但什么都没做过

有 50 k 粉丝,全靠转发别人观点积累的。他们的置顶推文是关于「创始人文化」,尽管自己从未真正创造过任何东西。他们会提出「为你的项目提供建议,换取 2% 的代币」这样的提议。他们的建议通常是:「你有没有试过让匿名推特网红谈谈它?」

识破币圈投资陷阱:10类「毒瘤VC」图鉴

9.「我们通常不在这么早阶段投资」的 VC

他们会表现得像是在为你提供帮助,通过种子轮投资来帮你,接着却要求获得 B 轮的待遇。你需要提供每日更新、董事会控制权以及直接与开发团队的联系。他们会在周日晚上 11 点发消息问你:「快速问一下——什么时候能买兰博基尼?」

10. 了解行业的真正建设者

他们会问对的技术问题,经历过多个周期。不会浪费你的时间,提供的价值不仅仅是资本。他们理解你的愿景,因为他们自己也曾在这个行业摸爬滚打过。

他们就像独角兽——你可能觉得他们不存在,但当你找到一个时,你再也不会回头去接触其他类型的投资者。

不要妥协,选择让谁投资你的项目。合适的伙伴能决定你的成功与否,而不是「我们六个月后决定转型,做一个 AI 驱动的 Web3 社交层,面向 DeFi 用户」这样的改变。

Leituras Relacionadas

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbitHá 21m

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbitHá 21m

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbitHá 25m

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbitHá 25m

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbitHá 1h

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbitHá 1h

Trading

Spot
活动图片