00s post-00s encryption new elite Christian discusses personal experiences: founding Infini, Heavy Position in GBTC and Coinbase made a fortune

Editor: Wu Talks Blockchain

This content comes from an interview with Christian, a post-00s investor and entrepreneur in the crypto field, conducted by “Turtle Talk,” with authorization for editing and reprinting by Wu. Christian is one of the most talked-about Chinese entrepreneurs this cycle, providing an in-depth review of his journey from university to founding the crypto payment project Infini. The interview covers three core sections: first, the transformation of his personal investment path, moving from decentralized allocation to “logic-driven + concentrated holdings” practical experience; second, his judgment on the current market structure and sentiment, including insights on bull and bear cycles, main funds, and the essence of projects. Christian also shares reflections on the gains and losses from heavy investments in cases like Cheems, GMX, and Coinbase, and points out that the current coin selection logic should focus on three major standards: “team structure, token structure, and consensus concentration.”

The content of this article does not represent Wu’s views, but is merely a sharing of the interviewee’s personal investment experiences. Wu does not promote or endorse any investment behavior. Readers are advised to strictly comply with the laws and regulations of their location and not to participate in illegal financial investment activities. Please search for the audio on Wu’s Xiaoyuzhou channel and YouTube channel.

Christian Personal Background Introduction

Christian: Now my identity is the founder of Infini, and we officially launched this project around August or September last year. Essentially, Infini is a New Bank that aims to provide savings, wealth management, and payment services. In the future, it may also expand to include transfers and more banking-level services. It is a Crypto Native project.

Because I am relatively young, my background before was primarily studying while starting a business in school. Later, after joining the Crypto field, I mainly focused on investments and co-founded a fund called NextGen Digital Ventures with two senior colleagues, which was established about two years ago. Our first fund was closed earlier this year, so now I am focusing most of my time on Infini’s products and marketing.

I got into Crypto during my freshman or sophomore year of college, when NFTs were just becoming very popular, and many friends around me were discussing topics related to art. I also really like art history, so I felt that this field was worth paying attention to. In the beginning, I remember it was generative art like Art Blocks, which is a form of art based on code, and I found it particularly innovative.

After entering the crypto space, I initially focused on NFTs and GameFi. In 2021, there were many representative Ponzi design projects, such as Terra and Luna, which were stablecoin projects that I, as a newcomer and a novice, also participated in. Gradually, I found that I was more interested in DeFi, and indeed, there are many real scenarios and real returns in this field. So I dedicated most of my time to this area, until I later founded Infini. Before that, I also invested in quite a few DeFi-related projects, so I can say that I have completed a full cycle in this track, ultimately deciding to do what Infini is doing now.

At that time, we decided to pursue Infini for two main reasons. The first is that our team is very optimistic about the asset management direction, as we found that arbitrage in Crypto is a particularly interesting type, which does not have as many “neutral strategies” or so-called “risk-free return” opportunities in traditional finance. Although there may also be risks associated with smart contracts or theft, the overall investment logic and the excess returns that can be obtained through arbitrage made me feel it is a direction with barriers worth exploring.

Moreover, when you communicate with outsiders, even if they are fund managers or practitioners from traditional finance, they often do not understand this field and therefore develop biases. However, everyone knows that not all Crypto projects are scams or Rug Pulls; projects like Ethereum are still very robust today, capturing yields far higher than traditional assets like U.S. Treasury bonds.

So our goal at that time was to create a “super app” — a truly financial app. Because most DeFi projects are still protocol-driven, targeting only on-chain users, which is relatively niche. We wanted to provide these earning opportunities to a wider user base through a smoother and better user experience.

The second reason is that we found that, especially in the matter of “Crypto Cards”, neither we nor other projects in the industry have done particularly well. However, we see that users do have this demand. From the initial idea to the beta testing, launch, and now, users’ enthusiasm has been very high, and it has helped them solve quite a few practical problems. This is also an important reason for us to decide to co-found Infini.

I think that wealth management and payment complement each other, although there are certain differences. Different users have different purposes for using the products; some may be more concerned about wealth management and investment returns, while others may need the convenience of payment more.

As our project progresses, we have indeed observed that many countries around the world have financial infrastructure, banking systems, or Fintech that are underdeveloped, and they lack usable products. Crypto has a natural advantage in that it can quickly expand into global markets and can rapidly identify which regions have users interested in the products. This positive feedback has also brought greater confidence and motivation to our team.

Actually, personally, I envy those who trade meme coins very successfully or are particularly sensitive to Alpha and can multiply their investments several times. They indeed have their own talents and areas of expertise.

But from my perspective, I think the two points that have helped me the most so far are: the first point is that I have always been quite interested in new things and willing to delve into them. Even if you are someone who is very skilled at trading cryptocurrencies, or a member of those so-called “conspiracy groups” that issue coins and manage projects every day, essentially they all have mastered a set of rules, and then they have researched this set of rules thoroughly and used it more skillfully. Like James, who has been quite popular recently, he is also very young, but I feel that he understands this system and knows how to perform in this field. Therefore, in different tracks and fields, I can relatively quickly find a direction and delve into it.

The second point that I now consider very important is being down-to-earth, not anxious, and willing to focus on one thing for the long term. This is actually quite difficult, especially in the trading environment of Crypto. Everyone tends to pursue opportunities that double in the short term, eager to make 100 times in two days. However, those who are truly willing to hold Bitcoin for the long term and are determined to do one thing are actually in the minority, especially among young people, where they are even more scarce.

Of course, everyone’s situation is different. Some people have more funds, so they can invest long-term; others may start with little money and are more eager to catch a thousand-fold project. This is all understandable. But the key is that you need to understand yourself, know what you are good at, which investment style suits you, and stick to it.

In the past two years, I have seen many people who originally had a set of logic or direction, but later, due to changes in mindset or being influenced by those around them, their operations became distorted. I believe that whether it’s investing or starting a business, the essence is the same. You need to stay calm, be clear about your rhythm, direction, and style, and stick to your pace as you move forward.

How to determine market bull and bear

Christian: I’m actually not particularly professional in quantitative indicators. Our fund did use many data-related indicators when making decisions in the past, but later we found that none of these indicators could consistently apply across all cycles and remain effective.

So I personally judge more from an emotional perspective, and up to now, I basically haven’t sold the coins I hold. I think the core reason is that I feel this round of the bull market hasn’t reached the craziest stage yet, and there is still a noticeable gap compared to the rounds in 2021 and 2022. So my current judgment on the market is: I am willing to wait a little longer.

Of course, the premise is that my initial cost of building a position this round is relatively low, so even if there is a pullback in profits, it is still acceptable. This is also why I am more inclined to continue holding and optimistic about the subsequent market developments.

As for the significant cognitive differences, I believe many people now actually have similar feelings, which is that the market for large-cap altcoins may be difficult to return. On one hand, the liquidity and narrative logic have fundamentally changed a lot, and people have become smarter, no longer easily swayed by those boring and repetitive narratives.

On the other hand, from the current exchange’s listing strategy, it can be seen that liquidity is actually quite dispersed. Therefore, I tend to believe that if there is indeed a wave of altcoin market, it may only focus on a few leading projects that can form consensus in their own track and are jointly promoted by large holders and institutions.

So from my investment perspective, I will only focus on these two types of assets now.

If I were to make an irresponsible prediction, I still believe in two points.

The first point is that the stability of Bitcoin prices is largely due to the support of many external institutions. This is a very objective reality: even if the original holders have already liquidated their positions, the purchasing power of compliant institutions remains very strong. Now, some people are starting to mention that these institutions may gradually choose some projects that align with their ‘aesthetics’ as new investment targets, such as the old generation of DeFi projects, or some emerging projects like PENDLE and Ether.fi that have appeared in this cycle.

I believe these projects are valid under institutional logic. The core is, if these institutions in the secondary market really want to look for targets outside of Bitcoin in the future, what kind of projects would make them willing to enter the market? It certainly wouldn’t be Memecoin, that’s just the narrative logic.

The second point I think is that when selecting projects, you must find coins that have clear backing from strong players. The “strong player” of a small project might be an individual, an institution, or a group of investors who have reached a consensus. Looking at it broadly, for example, some particularly popular Memecoins may have their “strong players” formed by a strong consensus from retail communities. But regardless of the level, the core issue is whether this strong player is still willing to continue supporting and promoting the market of this coin.

There is a very interesting vicious cycle in the market now. Many project teams or so-called whales find it difficult to cash out smoothly, even after being listed on top exchanges, due to poor market conditions. Not to mention the subsequent need to maintain the coin price and continue to promote project development; the costs and challenges involved are actually quite significant. As a result, many projects have turned into factory-like output with no sincerity or long-term planning.

So from my perspective, I will try to avoid projects that have already been abandoned by the main forces. I prefer to look for coins where there are still main forces and driving power. This is my current investment mindset.

New Narrative Opportunities: On-Chain U.S. Stocks and Derivatives

Christian: Recently, one direction I’ve been thinking about is that routes like Hyperliquid might be replicated. The idea behind Hyperliquid is actually quite traditional, but through a very strong product experience and high control, it has successfully recreated an opportunity. I find this model very interesting. To be honest, from the perspective of this round of product tracks and fundamentals, there isn’t really anything particularly eye-catching, so I am more inclined to spend time focusing on derivative projects.

Another topic that has been widely discussed is “on-chain US stocks.” I believe the core point is that after the change of government in the United States, the enforcement efforts of the SEC have relaxed to some extent, which has actually encouraged the development of projects such as RWA, synthetic assets in US stocks, and derivatives — with looser regulation, there is more room for growth.

Currently, I see two main implementation paths in the market. One is to map synthetic assets of US stocks onto the chain through L2 (Layer 2), allowing users to trade these spot assets directly; the other is the Perpetual DEX (Decentralized Perpetual Contract Exchange). In fact, both of these routes were already explored in the last cycle by SNX (Synthetix).

In this round, I feel that under the broader context of more relaxed regulation, some project teams may be bolder and more innovative in trying out some very “fancy” or even “flashy” designs, or introducing new liquidity mechanisms to hype these concepts. I think this direction is currently something I have observed many people are attempting to do.

In other aspects like DeFi payments, such as what we are doing with Infini, it is actually more about the product truly landing and practically solving user problems. It is not driven by the economic model of the coin for speculation, nor is it driven by narratives to boost buying. You can also feel that now, even if some projects come online with new narratives, they cannot really make everyone pay up. People care more about whether it can be practically useful.

So I think the trend of this bull market may be a bit different. The new narrative is more led by teams that are truly creating products, building infrastructure, and addressing real needs. The information flow gradually accumulated by these projects may instead bring more sustainable opportunities. This is also why we choose to continue doing such things.

If you are making a conventional product, I can’t think of any reason why a new Crypto project could compete with these traditional platforms in this field. Their products, services, and processes are already very mature.

So for Crypto startup projects, the only way out is to do things that traditional platforms dare not do, such as some fancier derivative designs and structural innovations that I just mentioned, like the complex Ponzi structure known as the “three-tier model.” Ultimately, what everyone wants are two things: first, whether the assets themselves are fresh enough, and currently, there aren’t many fresh coins appearing in the market; second, whether this innovation can stimulate global trading enthusiasm.

For example, the underlying assets of US stocks on the blockchain are relatively fresh for Crypto users. If combined with complex yet eye-catching structural designs, I believe this could be the only practical path. If it’s just an ordinary trading market that only allows people to buy US stocks on the blockchain, then I think such a project is meaningless.

Evolution of Investment Strategies and Entry and Exit Judgments

Christian: I am actually more casual now. Initially, about two years ago, I would invest in a more standard way, for example, dividing my funds into several parts: investing 10% in this track, 20% in that one, and so on. I remember when I was very “naive” in the beginning, I was deeply influenced by teachers like Su Zhu and some other KOLs. That particular cycle just happened to coincide with the explosion of various “Ethereum killers” public chains, such as NEAR, Cosmos, Harmony, and the like.

So at that time, I would indeed deploy funds very seriously according to the proportion, configuring based on different tracks, the leaders and non-leaders within the same track, and the cost-effectiveness between them. But later I found that this method is honestly quite “retail investor” and too mechanical.

Now my investment targets in the secondary market have decreased significantly, basically just steadily holding a few mainstream coins like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana. Occasionally, I will allocate some positions in other assets, such as Curve. I have never sold Curve, actually because of a coincidence: at that time, some events occurred with Curve, and just when a friend introduced me to Michael, I happened to buy a little, and I have held it ever since.

If I could choose a project again, I would lean towards this logic — for example, if I discover that a certain project has dropped significantly in price due to an event, close to its historically worst stage, then I might look back at those DeFi projects or some Memecoins.

I think projects like Memecoin, which have strong consensus, are particularly easy to rebound when market sentiment improves. As everyone has seen, these coins have performed poorly over the past few months, but since the slight recovery starting last month, the ones that have rebounded the most are indeed those that fell the hardest. So my current strategy is: to allocate the main position in large projects, while putting some small funds into Memecoin or opportunity coins in smaller positions, and observing the market performance.

For me, when I buy, it’s basically not for short-term operations. I’m not good at making decisions based on rumors or gossip, although I sometimes listen to friends sharing some news and occasionally follow their lead to buy. But there are also situations where I get stuck after buying and end up having to sell at a loss. So my overall style is that if it reaches a point or cycle that I have set, I choose to liquidate all at once and do not frequently sell parts.

Specifically, for example, I will set a rough price range for myself, starting from 120,000 USD for Bitcoin, and I will gradually sell in batches. Ethereum is currently around 2,600 USD, and if it can rise to 4,800 or even break 5,000 to reach a new high, that would be a very high level for me, at which point I might sell off most of my holdings.

I indeed do not have particularly strong peak judgment ability, nor do I really engage in swing trading. My main basis is market liquidity and overall sentiment. If the market is particularly hot and liquidity is especially good at that time, then it is a signal for me to exit. Although it sounds simple, the actual operation does not rely on technical indicators; it is more of a perception.

It’s really hard to sell at the top accurately. For example, I bought quite a bit on Coinbase before, and during this round, Coinbase rose to over three hundred dollars after Trump took office. At that time, I sold about one-third of my position, which could be considered selling at a relatively high point, and then it dropped by half.

At that time, the feeling was that the main upward trend was too obvious, so I decisively sold. As for Ethereum, I didn’t sell this round, and fortunately, the market has been relatively stable recently. Moreover, since I am now mainly focused on starting a business, it allows me to concentrate more on my work without having to keep an eye on the market all day thinking about buy and sell points.

Cheems Investment Review: From Accidental Hits to Long-term Commitment

Christian: Actually, the Cheems situation has always been a particularly “serendipitous” case for me. At that time, I completely didn’t understand Memecoin and didn’t realize that I might have some influence. To be honest, back then, we all didn’t have a clear understanding of the concept of “liquidity”; like me at the time, many people were newcomers and would initially look at the market cap of a project, neglecting liquidity, which is actually a very typical rookie logic.

Cheems is a typical case. At that time, the market was in a rebound phase of a bear market. They issued ZK signals, and a friend recommended me to participate, so I casually bought some. As a result, I ended up buying quite a lot and got stuck. Since I was stuck, I could only keep building this project, and later I bought a lot more, which eventually turned into a long-term commitment.

At that time, there was almost no liquidity, and the result was that you had to tie yourself to the project. If you didn’t push it yourself, it would be hard to get it going. Until last year when Cheems relaunched on the BNB Chain, I was still working very hard to promote it, pulling people in, spreading the word, and building the community. I watched it all the way from launch, locking up, to later truly integrating into the BNB ecosystem; the process was really tough.

Of course, I haven’t broken even yet, and I won’t sell. So for me, this is not just an investment, but a participation in a process. I comfort myself by saying that the significance of this matter is no longer about making money, but about the experience of being involved throughout.

If you only buy at low positions, call out your orders, and then push the price up to sell, this process is actually very hollow. But I am willing to give it a try to see if I can participate through long-term involvement across cycles, letting this project go further.

I still believe in this logic myself. Especially recently, many people have realized that the BNB ecosystem is actually one of the most dominant in the entire industry. For example, with the recent launch of Binance Alpha, Cheems was the first asset to go live, and it was heavily criticized at the time. I also didn’t think it would become a “great innovation”. But now, look, scoring and farming have already become mainstream.

This indicates that if Binance truly wants to promote something, it indeed has the ability to succeed. The success of the BNB Chain is just a matter of time, and their strategic direction is clear.

So from this perspective, Cheems can occupy a key position on the BNB Chain, with a certain historical accumulation and stable K-line trend, which actually lays the foundation for its explosion in a bull market.

Of course, this is quite different from the short-term bursts seen with some Memecoins on Solana. My style doesn’t really suit that kind of short-term, high volatility, high-action trading rhythm. I’m more accustomed to binding long-term logic and slowly building. So this is the relationship between me and Cheems.

Coinbase and GBTC’s sentiment cycle decisions

Christian: If we really have to talk about heavy investments, there are definitely two assets that many people know: one is GBTC, and the other is Coinbase. At that time, both our fund and I personally invested a lot in these two assets. That period happened to coincide with the collapse of FTX, and the overall market sentiment was extremely low; it was also the phase where I spent the most time on investing and trading in those years.

Later, I realized a core logic: to try to choose larger targets. At that time, I hardly touched altcoins, and looking back, this was relatively wise. Because I felt that the liquidity of institutions in the US stock market was better, plus these two targets had shown significant overselling.

For example, Coinbase dropped as low as 90%, and GBTC also experienced a huge negative premium. We judged that this was actually an irrational sell-off driven by emotions, rather than a fundamental issue. So we heavily bet that both would outperform Bitcoin. Looking back, this was one of the few correct decisions.

Then there are a few more typical examples. One is Curve, which I just mentioned. This is because the decline of Curve was very severe at that time, but we judged that it was due to liquidity and short-term event impacts, rather than a fundamental issue. Like GBTC, at that time its underlying asset — Bitcoin was still there, it had not changed.

At that time, Coinbase’s price-to-book ratio was very low. Although the company was in a loss situation and could not be evaluated based on PE, it had more than five billion dollars in cash on its books and had invested in many projects, and the valuations of those targets were reflected in the numbers. The company’s market value had fallen below seven billion dollars, which was clearly an example of being wrongly killed by market sentiment.

The logic of Curve is similar; its status, application, and community holder situation were relatively stable at that time. We believe the market has underestimated its value.

Of course, there are also two counterexamples — the native coin of Arbitrum and GMX. These two are projects where I have lost quite a bit in my investments, and can be said to be among the few secondary assets that have actually caused me significant losses so far.

Looking back, I think the investment logic error of ARB is very obvious. At that time, I was FOMO myself, because the valuation of many public chains was high at that time, I felt that Arbitrum, as a core project in Layer 2, should still have a lot of room for growth, and Solana was also hyped at that time, so I mistakenly thought that Layer 2 would be the next hot spot. But it turned out that this judgment based on superficial consensus and market sentiment is actually very unreliable. What really determines the long-term trend of a project is its actual operation in terms of liquidity arrangement, not how people perceive it.

GMX is also an extreme example. At that time, I felt that GMX was very attractive both in terms of product innovation and valuation model. Especially during the bear market, its cash flow was considered scarce in the entire market. At that time, I indeed felt like I had found the so-called value pit. But the later results were very tragic. A good product does not necessarily mean it can grow in the long term. Long-term growth requires strong go-to-market capabilities, as well as continuous operation and iteration.

Although GMX’s user numbers and trading volume are even higher than in previous years, the currency price has been declining. I later realized that the product fundamentals are fine, but there may be two reasons for the poor market performance: first, its business model cannot sustain expansion, as its funding fee structure seems more expensive to traders compared to Hyperliquid; second, there are issues within the team itself.

Looking back now, I feel that the success or failure of a project heavily depends on the team’s and founders’ mindset. The founding team of GMX clearly did not intend to create a long-term project; their iteration speed and operational capabilities have basically stagnated. They seem to be working on a one-time product rather than continuously pushing the project toward higher goals. Although I haven’t sold my GMX yet, I clearly see this as a typical case of a project losing momentum due to the team’s lack of initiative.

So these experiences make me more inclined to bet on those truly outstanding and ambitious founders and teams. The fundamentals of the project itself are certainly important, but the human factor may be even more critical.

Investment Logic Summary

Christian: I think if I were to summarize the logic behind my project selection, it could actually be distilled into three points.

The first point is the team’s vision. The potential scale of the project largely depends on whether the team has the vision and capability to drive it forward. If the founding team is only focused on cashing out quickly, then the project is destined not to go far. Teams with a broader vision are often able to invest more sustainably, making the project bigger and stronger. Of course, whether the project can succeed also depends on the team’s attitude towards the tokens; they need to realize that the success of token prices can, in turn, drive user growth and market expansion for the product.

Jeff from Hyperliquid is a very typical example. He is not the kind of founder with a short-term mindset, but rather very intelligently uses tokens to gain attention, treating the token price as a tool for user growth. After they issued the token, the project’s fundamentals experienced a qualitative leap, which is a very rare phenomenon; usually, there is a product first and then a token, but they are driving product popularity with the token, somewhat similar to the logic of some exchange platform tokens in the past.

The second point is continuous iteration and market strategy. If the team only wants to issue the tokens and then stop, the project is basically doomed to fail. It is necessary to continuously refine the product and keep investing in market operations and marketing to maintain the project’s popularity and competitiveness.

The third point is the concentration of the token structure. In the current market environment, a decentralized token structure is no longer applicable. In the past, people could naturally form consensus based on market sentiment, but now the market must artificially create consensus. For example, GMX has a token structure that is too decentralized, making it difficult for the community to unite. In contrast, Hyperliquid is clearly different; it has achieved a high degree of concentration in its token holding structure, allowing large holders, small investors, and institutions to participate in forming a united front, which is more likely to drive the explosion of market capitalization.

So to summarize, in the future, if I seriously invest time in researching and investing in new projects, these three factors — team dynamics, token structure control, and consensus building on centralization — will be my main judgment framework.

Investment mindset advice: Position control and logical belief outweigh emotional anxiety.

Christian: Regarding investment mindset, I can summarize it in two sentences.

The first sentence is: Never let your position exceed the limits you can bear. The limit here is not just a matter of leverage, but the proportion of your overall investment to your personal assets. From my own experience, keeping the investment position within 30% to 50% of total assets is a relatively comfortable state. As long as the position is not too large, even if the price of the coin fluctuates wildly, it will not have too much impact on my life. A collapse in mentality is often not due to market fluctuations, but because you have placed too many bets, resulting in unbearable pressure.

The second sentence is: Trust logic, not emotions or beliefs. Even if your position is not heavy, it is inevitable to doubt yourself and the market when encountering significant losses. But at this time, the most important thing is to repeatedly review the logic behind your investment decision. If you find that the logic itself is wrong, you should cut your losses in a timely manner; but if the logic still holds, then you should stick with it and not be shaken by short-term market fluctuations. Just like when I invested in Coinbase, even though I suffered serious losses, I believe that its fundamental logic has not changed, so the more it falls, the more I want to increase my position.

In simple terms, controlling position size is a manifestation of self-discipline, while adhering to logic is the foundation of a stable mindset. Investment does not require blind faith, but rather rational judgment.