Author: Jocy , Founder of IOSG Ventures
Part 1: Who stayed? More importantly, why did they stay?
Last year, I wrote a tweet about the flow of AI and crypto talent, and someone commented: It's good for talented people to go into AI, to participate in building an inevitable future.
But a recent podcast conversation made me realize that this judgment wasn't profound enough. The question isn't just "who stays," but more fundamentally, "why stays" and "whether the ecosystem can support the revolution after they stay." Only those who have weathered bull and bear markets, failures, and the friction between reality and ideals, and still remain in the industry to continue building, have the potential to lead the cryptocurrency revolution.
In recent months, I've spoken extensively with crypto entrepreneurs from 2023 to 2025. Many Chinese teams only raised five to seven million dollars around 2023, and in the current environment, it's difficult to secure another round of funding. These runways have survived for just over two years, then struggled to list on exchanges. Countless airdrops and tokens have flooded the market, causing token prices to plummet. The entrepreneurs' answer is tokens nearing zero, a loss of reputation in the crypto industry, and then they simply walk away.
Looking back at Asia, fewer and fewer investors are willing to support early-stage startups. Without investor support, no determined entrepreneurs will be willing to enter the crypto industry, and the entire industry ecosystem cannot continue to progress—how can the crypto war between China and the US even begin?
Last April, I tweeted about a portfolio team starting an AI application startup, highlighting how the most prestigious talent in the industry was leaving. Even today, more and more people are making this choice. This isn't accidental; it reflects a more systemic problem: after making money, crypto OGs in China and the US have chosen completely different paths.
# Part 2: How American OGs "Support the Cathedral"
What are American crypto OGs thinking about after they make money?
After leading Coinbase to a public listing and making it the first mainstream crypto exchange in the US, Brian Armstrong founded Research Hub, attempting to fundamentally change the incentive mechanisms for scientific research. This is not simply about donations; it's about reconstructing the entire knowledge production system.
**Naval Ravikant**, an early Bitcoin philosopher, not only promoted ICOs and used Bitcoin as a global crowdfunding tool through AngelList, but also incubated CoinList to provide a compliance framework for token issuance and funded the Zcash team. His ideas on currency, cryptoeconomics, and decentralization have profoundly influenced the entire industry.
Chris Dixon led Coinbase's Series B funding round in 2013, becoming the first mainstream VC to publicly and fully commit to 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** is not only an investor at Paradigm, but also a builder. He participated in the early development of Uniswap, is a co-author of Uniswap V3, promoted the development of the modern MEV auction model in the early stages of Flashbots, participated in Plasma research (the predecessor of modern Rollups), and led the seed round of Optimism. This kind of deep technical involvement and intellectual output is true ecosystem building.
Michael Saylor transformed MicroStrategy into Strategy, holding $67 billion worth of Bitcoin (more than 3% of the total circulating supply). He continued to accumulate Bitcoin on a massive scale through innovative financing methods such as issuing stocks and low-interest bonds, becoming a landmark figure in the institutionalization of Bitcoin.
Barry Silbert founded DCG and launched the GBTC Grayscale Bitcoin Trust, becoming a major channel for traditional investors to gain exposure to Bitcoin. His Genesis Trading and CoinDesk have become industry infrastructure.
Chainlink founder Sergey Nazarov, a former software engineer at Google, invented the decentralized oracle network in 2017, which has supported over $7 trillion in transaction volume. Having weathered multiple bull and bear market cycles and already financially independent, he still personally travels to Hong Kong and other places to promote the Chainlink standard, aiming to unify DeFi and traditional finance through CRE and build a global "Internet contract" ecosystem.
**Rune Christensen** sold his English teacher recruitment business in China after being introduced to Bitcoin in 2011 to fully dedicate himself to crypto. In 2015, he founded MakerDAO and launched the decentralized stablecoin DAI, becoming one of the first and largest DeFi protocols on Ethereum. For over a decade, he has been at the forefront of DeFi governance. In recent years, he rebranded MKR as Sky, launched the Spark protocol, and promoted the integration of DAI with US Treasury bonds, becoming a pioneer in the integration of crypto and traditional finance.
Arthur Hayes founded BitMEX, introducing perpetual contracts and bringing traditional financial derivatives to the crypto market; his funding rate mechanism became the industry standard. In 2022, he was convicted of violating the Bank Secrecy Act but was later pardoned by Trump. He subsequently co-founded the Ethena stablecoin protocol with Guy. For the past few years, Arthur has consistently shared his crypto insights with the industry.
What do these people have in common? After making money, they don't think about how to exit; instead, they think about how to attract the best talent, how to create world-changing applications, and how to build a systemic ecosystem. They are not only investors, but also builders, thought leaders, and contributors to public goods.
# Part 3: The Systemic Dilemma of China's Crypto OG
In contrast, the fundamental difference in the policy environment in China's crypto community limits the scope for long-term investment. Most OGs choose to exit rather than give back after achieving early success and accumulating a certain amount of wealth.
The lack of historical narrative. From its inception, American crypto has been driven by a grand narrative of "changing the world," and the tradition of public goods construction dating back to the Carnegie and Rockefeller era has been continued in the crypto space. China's cultural accumulation in this regard is relatively weak.
We lack a systematic talent development mechanism (compared to crypto schools in the United States), lack long-term investment in crypto talent and infrastructure (compared to projects like YC/AllianceDao and Research Hub), and lack continuous intellectual output and industry influence (compared to Paradigm's research-driven approach and Naval's philosophical influence).
This is not a matter of personal morality, but a systemic problem caused by a combination of factors, including a lack of historical narrative, policy uncertainty, and differences in cultural genes.
What did this difference lead to?
Many entrepreneurs and developers aim for more than just wealth; they want to create world-changing applications, to leave their mark on history and be recognized. All the best talent, if observed carefully, will never return.
When Web3 is reduced to a giant casino, and when the industry's mainstream narrative degenerates from "changing the world" to a pure wealth game, the best talent will vote with their feet. It's not that they don't want to make money, but rather that they want to "make money meaningfully"—rewarded in the process of creating value, not in a zero-sum game of exploiting others.
When everyone in an environment stops pursuing true ideals and values, those people will leave. Narratives are not abstract; they directly impact talent structure. When an industry cannot provide compelling visions and shared values, no amount of monetary incentives can retain value-driven talent.
The vicious cycle we are now witnessing:
Lack of new value creation → The market can only compete within existing resources → Competition within existing resources strengthens speculative mentality → Drives away those who want to create incremental innovation → Less value creation → The market becomes more reliant on competition within existing resources
This is a microcosm of the speculative era in China's cryptocurrency world.
# Part 4: Even under constraints, a single spark can start a prairie fire.
Some might say: the environments are different, so a simple comparison isn't appropriate. That's true. I'm not asking Chinese OGs to do the exact same things as their American counterparts.
Some might argue that even if one wanted to, the amount of effort would be limited, making it futile. However, I believe that even under constraints, supporting open-source developers, organizing technical community events, and investing in early-stage tech startups are still meaningful small actions. Systematic efforts will have a compound effect.
Some might argue that overemphasizing idealism is hypocritical, and that crypto is simply financial innovation. However, this isn't an either-or choice. A healthy ecosystem requires a sufficient proportion of people to be value-driven. If it's entirely dominated by purely financially driven individuals, it will eventually become a zero-sum game, harming everyone's interests. **This isn't moralizing, but rather about enlightened self-interest.**
IOSG's past investors include exchanges, miners, early crypto OGs, and traditional funds. I believe many Chinese OGs are idealistic and heroic, and willing to push the industry forward. *It is precisely because of the challenging environment in the crypto industry, especially in China, that they are still willing to continue supporting and helping the industry.
A single spark can start a prairie fire. We too can build a crypto-positive feedback ecosystem as powerful as the United States.
# Part 5: Cathedrals and Casinos: 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 also applies to the crypto market.
Cryptocurrency and blockchain have achieved unprecedented success. It's a combination of a magnificent cathedral that created an economic system never before seen in the world. And, adjacent to it, a massive casino.
The temptation is immense, especially now; the temptation is to walk into that casino. Inside, everyone is having a blast, money is flowing freely, but you also have to ensure the cathedral is properly maintained.
Over the next 100 years, Crypto must ensure that this cathedral is not swallowed up by casinos.
The cathedral of Bitcoin and Ethereum remains magnificent, and the casinos of some exchanges revel every night. But if the prosperity of the casinos doesn't return to the cathedral, the building that creates real value will gradually fall into disrepair, and ultimately the entire ecosystem will lose its foundation.
What Brian Armstrong, Vitalik, Chris Dixon, and others are doing is essentially supporting the cathedral. They are ensuring that the casino's prosperity doesn't devour that cathedral.
# Part 6: The Only Path of Long-Termism
Returning to my assessment from a few months ago, a deeper understanding is now needed:
Those who survive bull and bear markets may indeed lead a revolution, but simply "staying behind" is not enough. More important are "why they stayed" and "whether the ecosystem can support the revolution."
Revolution requires the support of the entire ecosystem. The continued development of the US crypto space is not because people are more resilient, but because it has established a systematic feedback mechanism that allows the ecosystem to self-renew and self-evolve.
As an institutional investor, IOSG will continue to proactively take responsibility for change:
* Systematically invest in more Tier 1 startups, even if the short-term returns are not obvious.
* IOSG EIR will support and fund more entrepreneurs currently facing startup financing difficulties and establish a stronger talent development mechanism.
* Continuously output and share firsthand industry research and insights.
* In selecting projects for investment, we should focus on long-term value creation rather than short-term speculation.
We need to redefine success. The transfer of wealth in a zero-sum game versus the creation of wealth in the process of creating real value—the numbers may be the same, but the meanings are completely different.
If Chinese crypto organizations and capable participants can make breakthroughs in feedback mechanisms, they 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 top talent, and create sustainable value.
This is true long-termism, and the only way to ensure the cathedral is not swallowed up by casinos.
