Christian, a post-00 cryptocurrency, talks about his personal experience in detail: Founded Infini, with a heavy investment in GBTC and Coinbase, making a big profit

Editor: Wu Shuo Blockchain

This article comes from an exclusive interview with Christian , a crypto-sector and entrepreneur in the post-00s crypto field , and Wu Shuo is authorized to edit and reproduce it. Christian is one of the most popular Chinese-speaking entrepreneurs this cycle. He reviewed in-depth the entire process from entering the university to establishing the crypto payment project Infini . The interview covers three core sectors: one is the transformation of their personal investment path, from diversified allocation to "logical-driven + concentrated holdings"; the other is the judgment of the current market structure and emotions, including the understanding of the bull and bear cycle, the main funds and the nature of the project. Christian also shared his reflection on the gains and losses of heavy holding cases such as Cheems, GMX, and Coinbase, and pointed out that the current logic of coin selection should focus on the three major standards of "team pattern, token structure, and consensus concentration".

The content of this article does not represent Wu Shuo’s views. It is only for the respondents to share their personal investment experience. Wu Shuo does not promote and endorse any investment behavior. Readers are requested to strictly abide by local laws and regulations and do not participate in illegal financial investment activities. Please search for audio on Wu Shuo Xiaoshi Channel and Youtube Channel.

Christian Personal Background Introduction

Christian: Now I am the founder of Infini, and we officially launched this project in August and September last year. In essence, Infini is a New Bank that hopes to provide services such as savings, financial management, payment, etc., and may also expand to transfers and more bank-level businesses in the future. It is a Crypto Native project.

Because I am not old, my previous background was basically studying and starting a business at school. Later, after joining the Crypto field, he mainly invested. He also established a fund called NextGen Digital Ventures with two seniors, which was founded about two years ago. Our first fund was closed at the beginning of this year, so now I spend most of my time focusing on Infini’s products and marketing.

When I came into contact with Crypto in my freshman year or sophomore year, NFT happened to be very popular at that time, and many friends around me were discussing artwork related content. I also like art history very much, but I think this field is worth paying attention to. At the earliest time, I remembered that it was a generative art like Art Blocks , which was a code-based art form, which made me feel particularly novel.

Later, after joining Crypto, the first thing I paid attention to was NFT and GameFi. In 2021, many very representative Ponzi design projects, such as Terra and Luna, were also involved in them as novice and leeks. Gradually, I found that I was more interested in DeFi, and there are indeed many real scenarios and real benefits in this field. So I spent most of my time in this field until I founded Infini and before that I also invested in many DeFi-related projects, so I took the track completely and finally decided to do what Infini is doing now.

There were two main reasons why we decided to do Infini at that time. The first is that our team itself is very optimistic about the direction of asset management, because we found that arbitrage was a particularly interesting type in Crypto. It actually does not have so many "neutral strategies" or so-called "risk-free returns" opportunities in traditional finance. Although there may also be a risk of smart contracts or theft behind it, the overall investment logic and the excess returns that can be obtained from arbitrage make me feel that there are thresholds and are worthy of in-depth research.

Moreover, when you communicate with outsiders, even fund managers or practitioners from traditional finance often do not understand this field, which leads to bias. But we all know that not all Crypto projects are scams or Rug Pulls, and projects like Ethereum are still very stable to this day, capturing returns far higher than traditional assets such as U.S. Treasury bonds.

So our goal at that time was to make a "super application" - a real financial app. Because most DeFi projects are protocol-driven, only target on-chain users and are relatively niche. We hope to provide these revenue opportunities to a wider user base through a silkier and more useful user experience.

The second reason is that we found that, especially in the "Crypto Card", no one has actually done a good job in both us and other projects in the industry. But we see that users do have this need. From the initial idea, to internal testing, online, and today, users are very enthusiastic, which has also helped them solve many practical problems. This is also an important reason why we decided to start Infini together.

I think financial management and payment complement each other, although there are certain differences. Different users use products with different purposes. Some people may care more about financial management and investment returns, while others need more convenience of payment.

As our project progresses, we have indeed observed that many countries around the world have lagged behind in their financial infrastructure, banking systems or Fintech, and they have no easy-to-use products. Crypto has a natural advantage, that is, it can quickly expand the global market and quickly discover which regions users are interested in the product. This positive feedback also brings greater confidence and motivation to our team.

In fact, I personally am quite envious of those who are very good at stir-frying, or are particularly sensitive to Alpha and can be several times more popular. They do have their own talents and points of expertise.

But from my point of view, I think the two things that have helped me the most so far are two points. The first point is that I have always been interested in new things and am willing to study them. Even if you are a good person who speculates coins or those so-called "conspiracy groups" who issue coins every day and engage in project trading, they actually have mastered a set of rules, and then studied them thoroughly and used them more skillfully. Like James, who is more popular recently, he is also very young, but I think he just understands this and knows how to play in this track. So I can find the direction and go deeper in different tracks and fields.

The second point, I think it is very important now, to be down-to-earth, not anxious, and to be willing to focus on one thing for a long time. This is actually quite difficult, especially in Crypto's trading environment. Everyone tends to pursue the opportunity to double in the short term and is eager to make 100 times in two days. But people who are truly willing to hold Bitcoin for a long time and do one thing firmly are actually a minority, especially among young people.

Of course, everyone's situation is different. Some people can do long-term projects with more funds; some people don't have much money to start, so they want to catch a thousand times project, which is understandable. But the key is that you have to understand yourself, know what you are good at, what investment style you are suitable for, and keep it.

In the past two years, I have seen many people have a set of logic or direction, but later their operations are deformed due to changes in their mentality or influenced by people around them. I think it's essentially the same whether it's investment or starting a business. You have to stay calm, be clear about your rhythm, direction and style, and stick to your own pace.

How to judge the bull and bear market

Christian: I am not particularly professional in quantitative indicators. Our fund did use a lot of data indicators when making decisions before, but later we found that none of these indicators can be effective throughout all cycles.

So I personally judge it more from the emotional side, including that I have basically not sold the coins I have in my hands so far. I think the core reason is that I feel that this bull market has not reached the craziest stage, and there is still a clear gap compared to the rounds in 2021 and 2022. So my current judgment on the market is: I am willing to continue to wait.

Of course, the premise is that the cost of building a position at the start of this round is relatively low, so it is acceptable even if there is a pullback in profits. This is also why I prefer to continue to hold and be optimistic about the development of subsequent market conditions.

As for the big cognitive differences, I think many people actually have similar feelings now, that is, the large-scale altcoin market may be difficult to come back. On the one hand, liquidity and narrative logic have changed a lot in the fundamentals, and everyone has become smarter and no longer easily moved by boring and repetitive narratives.

On the other hand, it can also be seen from the current exchange listing strategy that liquidity is actually quite scattered. Therefore, I prefer to think that if there is really a wave of altcoin market, it may only focus on the top projects, those projects that can form consensus on their own track and are jointly promoted by big players and institutions.

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

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

The first point is that the stability of Bitcoin prices is indeed largely due to the support of a large number of external institutions. This is a very objective reality: even if the original old players holding coins have cleared it, the purchasing power of compliant institutions is still very strong. Now some people have begun to mention that these institutions may gradually choose projects that meet their "aesthetics" as new investment targets, such as the older generation of DeFi projects, or some emerging projects such as PENDLE and Ether.fi that have emerged in this cycle.

I think these projects are valid under institutional logic. The core is that if these secondary market institutions really want to find targets outside Bitcoin in the future, what kind of projects can make them willing to enter the market? That is definitely not Memecoin, it is that in terms of narrative logic.

The second point I think is that when choosing a project, you must find coins with clear main force behind it. The "main force" of a small project may be a certain individual, an institution, or a group of investors who have reached consensus. To enlarge, for example, some of the particularly popular Memecoin, their "main force" may be the strong consensus formed by the retail investor community. But no matter which level it is, the core lies in whether this main force is still willing to continue to support and promote the market of this coin.

There is a very interesting vicious cycle in the market now. Many project parties or so-called dealers, because the market conditions are not good, it is difficult for them to cash out smoothly even if they go to the top exchanges. Not to mention that we need to maintain the currency price and continue to promote project development in the future. The cost and challenges in the process are actually very great. This has led to many projects becoming assembly line-based factory output without any sincerity or long-term planning.

So from my perspective, I will try my best to avoid projects that have been abandoned by the main force. I prefer to find coins with the main force and the driving force. This is my current investment mentality.

New narrative opportunities: U.S. stocks and derivatives on chain

Christian: One direction I've been thinking about lately is that routes like Hyperliquid may be copied. Hyperliquid's ideas are actually very traditional, but through a very strong product experience and high disk control, it successfully replicates an opportunity. I think this pattern is very interesting. To be honest, from the perspective of this round of product track and fundamentals, there is actually nothing that is particularly eye-catching, so I prefer to spend time paying attention to derivative projects.

Another one that has been discussed more by everyone is the "on-chain US stocks". I think its core point is that after the US government's regime changes, the SEC's law enforcement efforts have been relaxed, which actually encourages the development of projects such as RWA, US stock synthetic assets, and derivatives. If supervision is loose, there will be more room.

At present, I see that there are two main implementation paths in the market. One is to map the synthetic assets of the US stock market to the chain through L2 (Layer 2), so that users can directly trade these spots; the other is Perpetual DEX (decentralized perpetual contract exchange). In fact, these two routes have been done as early as the previous cycle SNX (Synthetix).

In this round, I think that in the context of looser supervision, some project parties may be bolder and more ideas, trying some very "fancy" or even "sexy" designs, or introducing new liquidity mechanisms to hype these concepts. I think this direction is what I have observed that more people are trying to do.

In other aspects, such as DeFi payment, such as Infini, we are actually doing, which is more about applications where the products are truly implemented and actually solve user problems. It is not hyped by the economic model of coins, nor is it relying on narrative to drive buying. You can also feel that even if some projects are now online with new narratives, they cannot really make everyone pay. Everyone values ​​whether it can be practical or not.

So I think the trend of this bull market may be a little different. The new narrative is more led by a team that truly makes products, infrastructure, and solves actual needs. The information flow gradually accumulated by these projects may actually bring more sustained opportunities. This is why we choose to insist on doing such things.

If you are making a well-deserved product, I can't think of any reason why a new Crypto project can compete with these traditional platforms in this track. 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 of the more fancy derivative design and structural innovations I just mentioned, such as the complex Ponzi structure such as the " three-disk model ". After all, what everyone wants is two things: one is whether the assets themselves are fresh enough, and there are indeed not many new coins on the market at present; the other is whether this innovation can drive global trading enthusiasm.

For example, the targets of the US stock market on the chain are currently relatively new to Crypto users. If combined with complex but eye-catching structural design, I think this may be the only practical path. If I just build an ordinary trading market and just ask someone to buy US stocks on the chain, then I think such a project is meaningless.

Investment strategy evolution and entry and exit judgment

Christian: I'm actually quite casual now. At the earliest, about two years ago, I did invest in a relatively standard way, for example, I would divide the funds into several parts: 10% of this track, 20% of that track, etc. I remember when I was very "silly and sweet" at the beginning, I was deeply influenced by Teacher Su Zhu and some other KOLs. That cycle happened to be when various "Ethereum killer" public chains broke out, such as NEAR, Cosmos, Harmony and other types.

So at that time, I would indeed deploy funds in proportion and configure them based on the leading and non-leaders in different tracks, the same track, and the cost-effectiveness between them. But later I found out that to be honest, this method is quite "leek" and is too mechanical.

Now I have much fewer investment targets in the secondary market, basically I hold stable holdings of mainstream coins such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana. Occasionally, some other positions will be configured, such as Curve. I haven't sold Curve, but it's actually because of a coincidence: Some incidents happened at Curve at that time. My friend just introduced me to Michael, so I bought a little and held it until now.

If I were asked to re-select projects, I would tend toward this logic - for example, if I found that a project was particularly low due to events, and was close to its worst stage in history, I might look back at those DeFi projects, or some Memecoin.

I think projects like Memecoin with strong consensus are particularly prone to rebound when market sentiment picks up. As you can see, these coins have performed poorly in the past few months, but after recovering slightly since last month, the rebound was indeed the most powerful of these projects that fell the most. So my current strategy is: allocate the main position to large projects, and place some small funds on Memecoin or opportunity coins in other small positions, and wait and see the market performance.

For me, first of all, I basically didn’t buy it for short-term operations. I am not good at the operation method of making decisions based on gossip or gossip. Although I sometimes hear some news from friends and occasionally buy them, there are also cases where I get trapped and finally have to cut my losses. So my overall style is that if I reach a point or cycle I set, I will choose to clear the position at one time and will not do frequent part-selling.

Specifically, for example, I will set a rough price range for myself, such as starting from $120,000 in Bitcoin, I will gradually sell it in batches. Ethereum is now around 2,600 US dollars. If it can rise to 4,800 or even break through 5,000 and hit a new high, it will be a very high level for me. At that time, I may basically sell all my holdings.

I really don’t have particularly strong vertex judgment ability, and I don’t know how to operate in bands. The more important basis is market liquidity and overall sentiment. If the market was particularly hot and liquidity was particularly good at that time, it would be a signal of exit for me. Although it sounds simple, the actual operation does not rely on technical indicators, but is more of a perception.

It's really hard to sell accurately on the top. For example, I bought a lot of Coinbase before. This round of Coinbase rose to more than 300 US dollars after Trump took office. I sold about one-third of my position at that time, which was also sold at a relatively high point. Later, it fell by half.

At that time, I felt that the main upward wave was too obvious, so I sold it decisively. I didn’t sell Ethereum in this round, of course, it’s okay, the market has been quite stable recently. And because I am mainly starting a business now, I can focus more on my work and no longer have to focus on the market and think about buying and selling points all day long.

**Cheems Investment Review: From accidental collision with long-term

binding**

Christian: Actually, Cheems has always been a case of a special "coincidence" for me. At that time, I didn't understand Memecoin at all, nor did I realize that I might have some influence. To be honest, at that time, we all didn’t have a clear understanding of the concept of “liquidity”. For example, I was also a novice at that time. Many people first looked at projects and ignored liquidity, which is actually a very typical novices’ logic.

Cheems is such a typical case. At that time, the market was in a rebound period in a bear market. They sent a ZK letter, and then a friend recommended me to participate, so I bought it casually. As a result, I bought a lot and got trapped. Since I was trapped, I could only continue to build this project. I bought a lot of it one after another, and it turned into a long-term binding.

There was almost no liquidity at that time, and the result was that you had to be tied to the project. It will be difficult to get out of the way without pushing it yourself. Until Cheems restarted on BNB Chain last year, I still worked very hard to participate in promotion, attracting people, doing communications, and building the community. Watching it go from going online, locking up positions, and then truly connecting to the BNB ecosystem, the process is really hard.

Of course, I haven't gotten out of the trap yet, so I won't sell it either. So for me, it's not just an investment, but an participation in the process. I comforted myself that the significance of this matter is no longer making money, but the experience of participating in the whole process.

If you just buy at a low level, call yourself, and then pull up to ship, this process is actually very empty. But I am willing to try it out, whether it can make this project go further through long-term participation across cycles.

I still believe in this logic myself. Especially recently, many people have also realized that the BNB ecosystem is actually one of the most dominant in the entire industry. Like the recent launch of Binance Alpha, Cheems, as the first target to launch, was criticized very badly at the beginning. I didn’t think it would become any “great innovation” at that time. But now you see, scoring and scoring have become the mainstream.

This shows that if Binance really wants to promote something, it is indeed capable of accomplishing it. It’s only a matter of time before BNB Chain’s success, their strategic direction is clear.

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

Of course, this is not the same as the short-term burst rhythm of some Memecoin on Solana. My style is not very suitable for short-term, high-volatility, and strong-operating trading rhythms. I am more accustomed to binding long-term logic and slowly building it. So that's the relationship between me and Cheems.

Coinbase and GBTC’s emotional cycle decisions

Christian: If you really want to say that you have a heavy position, there are definitely two targets that many people know: one is GBTC and the other is Coinbase. At that time, both our fund and me personally invested a lot in these two targets. That period happened to be when FTX went bankrupt, and the entire market sentiment was extremely sluggish, and it was also the stage when I invested the most time in investment and trading in those years.

Later I wanted to understand a core logic: try to choose large targets. At that time, I basically didn't touch altcoins, so it was wise to look back. Because I think the liquidity of institutions in the US stock market is better, and these two targets have obvious oversold.

For example, Coinbase fell by 90% at the time, and GBTC also showed a huge negative premium. We judge that this is actually an irrational miskill driven by emotions, rather than a fundamental problem. So he bets heavily on both of these can outperform Bitcoin. Looking back, this is one of the few decisions to make the right one.

Then there are a few more typical examples. One is Curve, which I mentioned just now. That's because Curve's decline was very strong at the time, but we judged it was due to liquidity and short-term event shocks, not fundamental problems. Like GBTC, its underlying assets - Bitcoin were still there, without any change, and it was obviously unreasonable to have such a large price of wealth.

Coinbase's price-to-book ratio was very low at that time. Although the company was in a loss state at that time and could not look at PE, it had more than 5 billion US dollars in cash on its books and invested in many projects. The valuations of those targets were also reflected in the figures. The company's market value fell below 7 billion US dollars at that time, which was obviously an example of being wrongly killed by market sentiment.

Curve's logic is similar, its status, application and community holder status were relatively stable at the time. We think the market underestimates its value.

Of course, there are two negative cases - Arbitrum's native currency and GMX. These two are the projects that I have lost a lot in my investment. They can be said to be the few second-level targets that have actually caused me to lose a lot so far.

Looking back, I think the investment logic error of ARB is very obvious. At that time, I had FOMO myself, because the valuations of many public chains were relatively high at that time, I felt that Arbitrum, as a relatively core project in Layer 2, should still have a lot of room for growth. In addition, Solana was also hyping at that time, so I mistakenly thought that Layer 2 would be the next hot topic. But later it was discovered that this judgment based on superficial consensus and market sentiment was actually very unreliable. What really determines the long-term trend of a project is its actual operation in liquidity arrangements, not how everyone understands it.

GMX is also an extreme example. At that time, I thought GMX was very attractive in terms of product innovation and valuation model. Especially during bear markets, its cash flow is scarce throughout the market. At that time, I did feel that I had found the so-called value depression. But the result was tragic. A good product does not mean that it will definitely grow in the long term. Long-term growth requires strong go-to-market capabilities, as well as continuous operations and iteration.

Although the number of users and transaction volume of GMX is even higher now than it was back then, the price of the currency has been declining. I later realized that the product fundamentals are fine, but there may be two reasons for poor market performance: one is that its business model cannot continue to expand, for example, its capital fee structure seems to be more expensive than Hyperliquid in Trader's opinion; the other is the problem with the team itself.

Looking back now, I feel that the team and founder's spirit is very important whether the project is successful or not. The founding team of GMX obviously did not intend to do a long-term project, and their iteration speed and operational capabilities were basically stagnant. They are more like making a one-time product and are not continuing to advance the project to a higher goal. Although I haven't sold GMX yet, I know it's a typical case of a lack of subjective initiative in the team that leads to a project stall.

So these experiences make me more inclined to bet on those really good, ambitious founders and teams now. The fundamentals of the project itself are of course important, but the human factors may be more critical.

Summary of investment logic

Christian: I think if I summarize the logic of my current options, it can actually be attributed to three points.

The first point is the team structure. How big a project can be done depends largely on whether the team has the vision and ability to drive it. If the founding team just wants to cash out as soon as possible, then the project is destined to go far. Teams with large structures can often invest more sustainably and make the project bigger and stronger. Of course, whether the project can be successful depends on the team's attitude towards the token, and whether they realize that the success of token prices can in turn drive product user growth and market expansion.

Jeff like Hyperliquid is a very typical example. He is not the founder of short-term thinking, but he is very smart to use tokens to gain attention and treats the price of the coin as a tool for user growth. After they issued coins, the fundamentals of the project made a qualitative leap, which is a very rare phenomenon. Generally speaking, there is a product first and then a currency, and they use coins to drive the popularity of products, which is a bit like the logic of some previous exchange platform coins.

The second point is continuous iteration and market strategy. If the team just wants to send the coins and stop, the project is basically doomed to fail. We must constantly polish our products and continue to put them into market operations and marketing to keep the project hot and competitive.

The third point is the concentration of the token structure. In the current market environment, the decentralized token structure is no longer applicable. In the past, people could naturally form consensus based on market sentiment, but now the market must build consensus through artificial means. Like GMX, its token structure is too fragmented and it is difficult for the community to form a synergy. Hyperliquid is obviously different. It achieves a high degree of concentration in the token holding structure, and large investors, small scattered institutions and institutions can participate in forming a joint force, which is more likely to promote the explosion of market value.

So in summary, if I seriously invest my time in researching and investing in new projects in the future, these three factors - team structure, token structure control, and concentration consensus construction - will be my main judgment framework.

**Investment mentality suggestions: Position control and logical beliefs

are better than emotional anxiety**

Christian: Regarding investment mentality, I can summarize it into two sentences.

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

The second sentence is: believe in logic, not emotions or beliefs. Even if your position is not heavy, you will inevitably doubt yourself and the market when you suffer a huge loss. But the most important thing at this time is to repeatedly review the logic of the investment decisions made. If you find that the logic itself is wrong, you should stop the loss in time; but if the logic is still valid, you must persist and not be shaken by short-term market fluctuations. Like when I invested in Coinbase, even though the losses were serious, I believe that its fundamental logic had not changed, so the more I fell, the more I wanted to increase my position.

Simply put, controlling positions is a reflection of self-discipline, and sticking to logic is the basis for a stable mentality. Investing does not require blind beliefs, but also requires rational judgment.