Written by: Doraemon, Deep Tide TechFlow

*This article represents the author's personal views.

On February 5th, a morning that began amidst a major market crash, I was scrolling through Twitter as usual when a notification popped up in my feed: Kyle Samani, a partner at the well-known crypto VC Multicoin, announced his departure. My finger hovered over the screen for a few seconds, and my heart skipped a beat. It was him?

I know Kyle, or more accurately, I only know him from one perspective.

In 2020, during my junior year of college, I read Multicoin's "sales pitch" paper for the first time. It was a refreshing experience, and the concept of "thesis-driven" was imprinted in my mind.

So this is how VCs can write: instead of using PowerPoint-style statements like "We are optimistic about the long-term value of the XX sector" and making ambiguous statements, they write like traders, directly presenting clear bullish and bearish logic, without being vague, and with distinct viewpoints.

Kyle's image on Twitter has always been distinct: aggressive, mean, and has offended countless people.

He dared to publicly criticize Ethereum's scaling path when everyone else was bullish, dared to bet firmly on Solana when others were pessimistic, and dared to disclose losses and review decisions in a transparent manner as soon as possible after FTX collapsed and Multicoin suffered heavy losses.

Many people in the Western crypto community dislike him, thinking he's too arrogant, but I've always felt that the industry needs people like him.

Now he's gone. He's turned to AI, longevity technologies, and robotics. I suddenly feel a little sad: even Kyle doesn't want to be involved anymore, what's wrong with this industry?

When Kyle left

What saddens me is not that yet another VC is turning to AI; who isn't talking about AI these days?

What saddened me was that it was Kyle from Multicoin, a person I considered very determined.

What is the investment logic of most crypto VCs? They cast a wide net, bet on a particular sector, make grand pronouncements but never make judgments, or simply follow suit.

Flip through the investment reports of those well-known institutions, and you'll always find statements like "We believe in the future of decentralization" or "We are optimistic about innovation in the XX field," but you'll never see a single firm statement like "We believe that project A will outperform project B."

This isn't caution, it's worldliness. No matter who wins, they can always say, "Look, we planned this all along."

Kyle, or rather Multicoin, is different; he dares to make "life-or-death decisions."

In 2017, he publicly stated that Ethereum's sharding approach was a dead end. He had previously bet on EOS and failed. In 2018, he placed his bet on Solana. In 2020, he strongly supported Helium, believing that DePIN was the only non-financial application for Crypto.

Yes, he missed out on a lot and made some big mistakes; EOS and FTX are stark lessons. But he never covered it up; he disclosed all the losses he suffered and admitted every wrong he was right to concede.

He wasn't the smartest VC, nor the most gentle evangelist, but he was certainly one of the most "authentic." His departure symbolizes the disappearance of a certain "honesty and sharpness" from this industry.

That tweet that was deleted immediately

What bothers me more is the tweet he posted before he left, even though he deleted it immediately.

He said, "Cryptocurrencies aren't inherently as interesting as many crypto enthusiasts expect. I used to believe in the vision of Web3 and dApps. Now I don't. Blockchain is primarily an asset ledger, and while it can reshape finance, its potential in other areas is limited."

Why delete it immediately? Because saying it aloud would make you a "heretic".

Why couldn't I resist posting this again? This is the conclusion reached by someone trapped between faith and reality, after eight years and an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars.

I understand this feeling all too well, because it's been my own emotional journey this past year.

When we entered the market in 2021, what did we believe in? Decentralized social networking would disrupt Twitter, on-chain identity (DID) would allow users to control their own data, and GameFi would allow players to truly "own their assets." At that time, everyone on Twitter's timeline was discussing "how Web3 will change the world," and every new project seemed like a gateway to the future.

What will the reality be like in 2025? Friend.tech is dead, Lens Protocol is unused, ENS has become a hype tool, and apart from wallet addresses, no one really uses DID. The collapses of Axie and StepN prove that "X to Earn" is just a Ponzi scheme in disguise.

However, Kyle did not completely dismiss the idea. He remains optimistic about stablecoins, DeFi, RWA and other financial applications, as well as DePIN projects like Helium, and continues to bet on Zama's fully homomorphic encryption technology.

The question is: Do these things still require "faith," or do they only require rational calculation?

Kyle's departure has been described by some as a betrayal, but in my eyes it's more like a "demystification," transforming him from a Crypto Evangelist into a Crypto Realist. This transformation may be the rite of passage that the entire industry must undergo.

Last time we lost money, this time we lost confidence.

When FTX collapsed in 2022, the entire industry plummeted. Luna went to zero, Three Arrows went bankrupt, and the market crashed by half and then by another half. But at that time, everyone held onto one belief: the market may have collapsed, but we were right. As long as we persevered, the bull market would prove everything.

At that time, we still believed in Ethereum's "endgame narrative," from PoW to PoS, from single chain to modularity, believing that this was the only way to become a "world computer."

We also believe in Solana's "performance revolution" and that high-performance blockchains will win as long as the bear market is weathered.

We also believe in the "paradigm shift" of Web3, and that the next chapter of the Internet will inevitably be decentralization.

What about now in 2025?

The objective data is actually much better than the previous trough. BTC once broke through $100,000, ETFs were approved, and Crypto has closer ties with Wall Street.

But the subjective feeling is quite the opposite: the price is higher, but confidence is lower.

The culprit, or the "truth-revealing mirror," is AI.

When ChatGPT was launched in 2023, everyone was discussing "how AI will change the world." Meanwhile, what was Crypto discussing? "Should L2 sorters be decentralized?" One was talking about a productivity revolution, the other was debating technical details.

In the two years that followed, the progress of AI was simply dazzling: Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT were vying for supremacy, with something new every day, and recently everyone has been obsessed with OpenClaw.

What about Crypto? There are more and more L2 blockchains and chains, but no one can explain "why 100 L2 blockchains are needed," and even Vitalik Buterin has reflected on his past strategic mistakes. NFTs, GameFi, and SocialFi have all taken turns appearing, but they have all been short-lived.

Today, the biggest innovation of this cycle is surprisingly Meme Coin and "reinventing gambling".

I often ask myself late at night: AI is redefining productivity with technology, while crypto is redistributing wealth through financial games. The former creates, the latter transfers. What are we really building?

Kyle's departure is essentially a "value choice".

He chose to pursue AI, longevity technologies, and robotics—fields that truly "expand the frontiers of humanity." Crypto, at least for now, is more like a high-end casino.

But I don't want to leave yet.

At this point, you might think I'm about to announce my retirement.

But no, I want to take another gamble.

Kyle can leave because he's already financially independent and can pursue bigger dreams. But for young people like me, Crypto still means: a relatively fair channel for "social mobility," a "permissionless" testing ground that doesn't require education, background, or connections, only cognition and courage; and an emerging industry that hasn't been completely monopolized by the elite.

More importantly, while the grand narrative of Web3 may have failed, that doesn't mean Crypto is worthless.

A revolution in financial infrastructure has already taken place, with stablecoins now surpassing Visa in daily settlement volume, and DeFi enabling people worldwide to access financial services and RWA 24/7.

Most importantly, I haven't figured out my answer yet.

Kyle spent eight years concluding that "Crypto is just an asset ledger."

But I'm just a greenhorn, what right do I have to make a judgment now?

Maybe in a few years, I'll leave like him. But at least for now, I want to stay at the poker table and see if there are any unseen possibilities hidden in this industry.

Years from now, Crypto may no longer be a revolutionary force that "disrupts everything," but rather a value settlement layer in the AI era.

At that time, I'll order a coffee and we'll chat about the scenery we see along the way.

Alameda Research-related wallet deposited 3.36 million FTT into Binance

Popular Articles