Dialogue with VanEck Investment Manager: Copyright season will be triggered by tokenized equity, not driven by traditional hype

Original title: VanEck PM: Tokenized Equities Are The Next Huge Opportunity

Compiled by: TechFlow

Source:The Rollup

Guest: Pranav Kanade, VanEck Investment Manager

Host: Andy; Robbie

Broadcast date: June 2025

Summary of key points

Pranav Kanade, VanEck's portfolio manager, joins this podcast to answer questions about the status quo of institutional investors in cryptocurrency allocation. He will also discuss whether the copycat season is coming and why the development of tokenized stocks has attracted much attention.

(VanEck is a global asset management company headquartered in the United States, founded in 1955. It is known for providing innovative investment products, especially in the ETFs and mutual funds . VanEck is also one of the traditional financial institutions that first entered the cryptocurrency field, providing a variety of investment products related to digital assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.)

The idea that “institutions are entering the market” has become a hot topic in the industry, but the reality behind it is much more complex than most people think. The cryptocurrency industry either legalizes the real business model, or can only stay in a stage of a speculative market and is difficult to achieve long-term development.

In today's show, we will dive into the following topics:

• How exactly did institutional capital enter the cryptocurrency market

• Transformation from traditional venture capital to liquidity token strategy

• Why is there a polarization trend in the focus of income model

• How to compare to traditional IPO models to tokenized stocks

• What is the real driving force behind the next wave of capital

Wonderful view summary

• Tokenized equity will be a future trend.

• 99.9% of tokens on CoinMarketCap are junk.

• Most of the assets that currently constitute the altcoin market of more than $700 billion are not of long-term value, and their valuations are severely overvalued. Our strategy is to maintain investment discipline and not involve these assets. We need to wait for more valuable assets to be put on the chain.

• If the income model cannot become mainstream, cryptocurrencies may only become an accessory to the Internet.

• "Institutional investors are entering this field", which usually has two meanings: one is that capital begins to flow in and buy our assets; the other is that institutions begin to build "on-chain" products, such as tokenization for others to use.

• It is worth noting that these tokenized institutions are not the same group as those allocators who ultimately purchase assets.

• Now the market is getting more crowded, and the gap between well-performing teams and poor-performing teams is widening, while the number of poor-performing teams is increasing. So, I don't think I need to do that many transactions unless it's very select ones.

• There are relatively few outstanding talents entering the field of blockchain application development. Many top founders chose to turn to developing AI projects because AI was easier to obtain financing at that time.

• The industry must focus on things that really matter, such as product market fit, and why the asset is valuable, and funds will flow in only when the answer to this question becomes clear.

• I think the way of rewarding is important, and I think every project should know how to monetize its products. It is only a matter of time whether the proceeds are returned to the token holders.

• The legislation related to stablecoins is about to pass, which may drive a large number of companies to adopt stablecoins to optimize their cost structure. If public companies can increase gross profit margin from 40% to 60% or 70% by using stablecoins, their profitability will be significantly improved, while the market will also give higher valuation multiples.

• If you have user relationships, it is equivalent to controlling the user experience, and everything else can be regarded as a commodity resource.

• Well-designed tokens can be an incremental capital structure tool for companies, and tokens are even better than stocks and bonds in some cases.

Pranav talks about the adoption process of institutional investors

Andy:

I find that many people don’t understand the word “institution” in a consistent way. Generally speaking, this term mainly refers to capital, which means that institutions try to allocate capital in this field. I entered this field in 2017, and we had a joke that when institutional investors came, we sold them. We are early participants, and they are latecomers. However, I feel there are some misunderstandings about how institutions operate in the crypto space.

I would like to know what the current capital deployment status of institutions like VanEck in areas such as venture capital, liquidity and stablecoins? In addition, what does “institutional investors are entering this field” specifically mean? How does this process take place and what is the time frame?

Pranav Kanade:

This question can be answered from many perspectives. We can start with the premise that “institutional investors are entering this field”. Just like you, I started to be involved in this field in 2017 and have been managing our liquid token fund in 2022 for three years now. When I hear that “institutional investors are entering this field,” there are usually two meanings: one is that capital begins to flow in and buy our assets; the other is that institutions begin to build “on-chain” products, such as tokenization (tokenization, converting traditional assets into digital tokens on the blockchain) for others to use. These two types of institutions may belong to completely different types.

Recently, institutions focusing on building products have mainly been tokenizing some Treasury bond products, such as Treasury bond funds. But in the future, you will see more assets being tokenized, such as stocks. We believe that stock tokenization is an obvious trend and can further discuss the reasons. It is worth noting that these tokenized institutions are not the same group as those allocators who ultimately purchase assets. Because purchasing assets is more of a downstream effect of capital allocation.

The way capital flows usually is like this: there is a group of institutions or individuals who control capital, such as family offices, high net worth individuals, endowments , foundations, pensions, sovereign wealth funds , etc. In most cases, they do not make investment decisions directly, but choose to allocate funds to passive strategies (such as trading open-end index funds , ETFs ) or active strategies (such as handing them over to professional investment companies like us) . They believe in our expertise in a certain field, so they hand over the funds to us for management, and we are responsible for investing in that capital.

At present, these institutions and individuals, such as pensions, sovereign wealth funds, family offices, etc., are entering the crypto field tentatively, but have not yet fully participated. I think family offices are probably the first to enter because they see the return potential of this asset class, especially in terms of liquidity. But there are two main ways of participating: one is to purchase cryptocurrency ETFs , which is a simple way of exposure; the other is to allocate funds to some well-known blue-chip managers through venture capital. However, many people have not entered the liquidity market directly or liquidity agencies like us.

From 2022 to the present, approximately US$60 billion in capital has flowed into seed round venture capital, supporting a large number of founders. Some of these founders hope to exit through tokens, while others plan to go public. However, it usually takes six to eight years to go public, while the token exit may only take 18 months. Tokenization makes more sense for some businesses than public stocks.

Now everyone is gradually realizing that the capital pool has begun to enter the crypto field tentatively. However, many capital allocations are too focused on venture capital, and these tokens invested through managers have generally declined after the launch of the past 12 to 24 months.

This is because there is a lack of a mature takeover market in the liquid token market. In traditional markets, when a venture-backed company is ready to go public, there is a deep public equity market where investors of all kinds are willing to buy these stocks at market prices. However, in the liquid token market, this mechanism does not exist. Therefore, I think that although venture capital has begun to focus on liquidity, there are still some structural problems to truly enter the liquidity market.

Opportunities in the Venture Capital Area

Andy:

My partners Robbie and I manage a fund, and the funds are our own capital. Over the past 18 months to two years, we have made about 40 to 50 deals, investing heavily from the end of 2022 to 2023 and the first half of 2024, and this year we have only made one or two deals. Now we have several projects in front of us, but whenever I see a chart of Bitcoin, Hyperliquid or Ethereum, I ask Robbie, why are we locking $25,000 for four years, hoping to add a lot of value? And now we have a clearer liquidity return opportunity in front of us, and I think the opportunity this year or even early next year is better.

Our way of thinking has shifted from simply allocating seed round funds at the beginning, especially in 2021. If you seize the opportunity of L1 (Layer 1, the basic layer of blockchain), such as Avalanche, Phantom, Near, etc., those returns are unparalleled, and there are still many big winners in venture capital. But now the market is getting more crowded, with the gap between well-performing teams and poor-performing teams widening, while the number of poor-performing teams is increasing. So, back to my framework, I don 't feel like I need to do that many transactions unless it's very select ones. So, as you said, these early capital allocators saw the same situation, but they had some friction when they actually entered. It sounds like this friction is an opportunity for those who are already present or have the ability to enter.

Have you also observed this shift in early capital allocators, similar to what I described, or better yet, can you prove that my thinking process is correct? Am I thinking about this correctly? Are we now in the middle of the cycle, or are we better in venture capital or liquidity investment? Is my opinion correct when investing well in a bear market ?

Pranav Kanade:

I think many aspects of what you are saying make sense. It can be said that there is a clear supply and demand imbalance in liquidity because there is insufficient capital supply and demand is large. Many tokens and projects are looking for, which ones are potential "natural jade". In fact, 99.9% of the tokens on CoinMarketCap are rubbish and are not worth that high market value at all. But there is indeed a small percentage of opportunities to be evaluated, and there is a clear product market fit and fees that will eventually flow to the token. Simply put, if we define the counterfeit market in some way, today’s market capitalization is $75 billion, it could grow several times in the future. This project will benefit directly from this growth, and a lot of value will flow to the tokens. It's a relatively simple investment, and the potential of this investment may be better than most opportunities you see before tokenization.

Liquidity is a very important factor, you can have a return curve similar to venture capital while maintaining liquidity, so that you can easily exit even if you think your assumptions are wrong.

I disagree with your point of view, though, which is actually the opposite direction of my work. I focus on liquidity investment. Since 2022, the previous government has been very unfriendly to the cryptocurrency field, which has led me to notice a problem that worries me: there are relatively few outstanding talents entering the blockchain application development field. Many top founders chose to turn to developing AI projects because AI was easier to obtain financing at that time. However, things have changed since the election, and many interesting and talented founders have begun to return to the crypto field and devote themselves to new project development.

Based on this, I assume that if you are a venture investor who puts all capital into the crypto space between 2022 and 2024, and another investor chooses to invest capital step by step in the next 24 months from now on, the latter may get better returns because they are able to attract better talent.

Especially at the application level, I observed that although some very interesting and talented founders are currently joining, the valuation of application-level projects is still lower than those "following the trend" projects, such as the newly launched L1 blockchain project. Therefore, I think many venture capitalists are still immersed in past success stories and fail to focus on the current potential and future trends.

Sustainability analysis of income model

Andy:

I recently talked to VanEck Ventures' GP about their transactions. This week a16z held an event in the crypto space, attracting many professionals from companies such as Stripe, Visa and PayPal, bringing a wealth of industry experience. Compared with the background of local developers we usually see , these people are more concerned about practical applications such as product market fit and revenue, rather than focusing on technical details of blockchain design, such as the number of validators. It seems that the next generation of founders are not too concerned about these technical issues, and they are more concerned about how to achieve revenue.

I once posted a tweet asking “How long will the income trend last?” The result is interesting, some people think it may last less than three months, while others think it will last more than two years. Many comments believe that this trend will continue. Regarding the impact of the election, I think this is an important turning point, showing that everyone can start building projects that can make profits and create value for shareholders. This is also proven by the emergence of Hyperliquid, who chose to operate their own way rather than relying on venture capital.

These two factors have driven the development of this concept. So, I want to ask you, is this a temporary phenomenon, or is this the ultimate goal? Is cash flow the most important factor? What do you think of this income trend? Will it be a long-term trend?

Pranav Kanade:

I think this is a binary choice. If the income model cannot become mainstream, cryptocurrencies may only become an accessory to the Internet. Most large capital pools want to allocate assets as "store of value" tools such as gold and Bitcoin. Bitcoin has successfully entered this ranks, and other assets have difficulty doing this. It is a miracle that Bitcoin can become a store of value.

In addition to these, other assets will eventually be considered as return-to-capital assets. Investors would ask, “How much return will I get after 25 years of investment?” Just like SpaceX, although no one would ask when it will return capital to shareholders, people believe that SpaceX’s value lies in the potential gains it could achieve in 20 years. While some crazy ideas that change the world can attract investment, ultimately these ideas are tied to investors' returns. This is the type of asset that most people in the world are willing to invest or allocate.

Within this framework, investors want to see how their funds generate returns, yet the crypto industry seems to have tried to avoid that. This is partly due to regulatory concerns, and everyone is trying to avoid being classified as securities, so they have to wander between concepts such as Ultrasound Money.

If we look at this issue honestly, the industry must focus on things that really matter, such as product market fit, and why this asset is valuable . When I introduce people to our fund business, the most common question everyone asks is, “Why is this thing valuable?” They are used to the investment framework of stocks and bonds. Therefore, funds will flow in when the answer to this question becomes clear. Only then will this asset class be further expanded; otherwise, we may only stay on trading some meaningless tokens.

Forecast of future cash flow

Andy:

If we focus on companies that can generate revenue in the current sector, this will help us narrow down the potential holdings of assets. However, if we take into account future cash flow forecasts, this will bring us more investment possibilities.

Pranav Kanade:

I usually tell people that our strategy allows us to invest in tokens and listed stocks at the same time, so we have the flexibility to choose the best investment opportunities. If I don't want to hold certain altcoins, I can absolutely choose not to hold them. In the current market, we find that truly attractive altcoins are very limited. But if we can find a project with excellent products, even if the token does not have any clear value accumulation characteristics at the moment, it would be OK, because these characteristics are programmable and the way in which their value accumulation can be determined in subsequent development. As long as the team is excellent and can properly manage the products they are developing, we can accept such investments.

Of course, there are also some teams that build excellent products, but in the end most of the value may flow to equity, and the tokens may lose their investment value in the long run. This situation is obviously something we need to avoid. However, if a team develops excellent products, and the value accumulation of tokens and the way products are monetized is not yet clear, but we can reasonably foresee how these mechanisms work in the future, then this is also an opportunity worth paying attention to. Because if this product can be successfully monetized and allows value to flow to the token, then this token may grow from its current insignificance to the top 30 tokens, thereby greatly increasing the returns of the entire fund.

Exploration of treating agreements as a business model

Andy:

This idea is different from what has been implemented in the past. In the past we usually developed an infrastructure product that was better than other products and then considered how to deal with the token. But your point of view seems to be different. You mentioned that this should be a product that is continuously effective in the market, rather than just staying in the early financing stage, we can find ways to give back value to the tokens.

Going back to the binary perspective you mentioned, how do you think about when you start charging when you start charging and how do you get the agreement commercialized when you analyze these revenue-oriented companies? Obviously, you look at this from an investor's perspective, not from a founder's perspective. But every agreement faces competitive pressure, and there will always be others to attract customers through lower prices. So, how do you view the timing of charging and the user adoption curve? For example, when to start generating income is obviously a practical question, because you don’t want to hinder the development of network effects.

Pranav Kanade:

This is a very worthy question. When investing in a project, we will pay attention to whether the project has a moat (Moat, refers to the competitive barriers of enterprises in the market) . For most crypto projects, the answer may be no. If you ask, “What happens if I start charging for the product?”, then the most likely result is that you lose customers immediately because others are willing to provide services at a lower price. This shows that your product has no moat and is easily replaced. Therefore, we usually avoid these items, although we may use them as consumers. In fact, many excellent products are not necessarily good investment targets, and this is also applicable in the field of encryption.

So, if you worry about charging fees causing customer churn, this may not be a worthwhile project. But more importantly, charging and returning fees to token holders are two separate things. I think the decisions of the two should be separated. When a product starts to charge, if the decision is driven by a foundation or development team, ideally the product should have a moat that can accumulate income through charges and use some of the income to support the team in developing better products or new products. This practice is similar to traditional businesses, such as Amazon. They accumulated cash flow through the e-commerce platform, then used these resources to develop AWS, and then used AWS's profits to build Amazon advertising services. This shows that Amazon's management team is more effective in capital allocation than simply returning funds to shareholders. If the return on investment of R&D is higher than direct return to shareholders, then this approach is reasonable. I hope the best crypto projects can adopt a similar strategy. If a founder can develop excellent products and earn considerable income through fees instead of returning those income directly to token holders, I would think this is an efficient way to allocate capital. So, what kind of products can this founder continue to develop?

Andy:

I think people often have misunderstandings about repurchase. They believe that repurchase is an efficient way to use capital. As a token holder of the protocol, you might think this is a good approach, but it is not necessarily efficient in reality. Using profits to repurchase does cost, but token holders still want to see the repurchase happen.

Pranav Kanade:

I think we may have different opinions in some ways. I don't mean that income generation is wrong. I think the way of rewarding is important, and I think every project should know how to monetize its products. However, it is only a matter of time whether the proceeds are returned to token holders. Because we are currently living in a scarce market.

In the current market, the size of the capital pool is limited. For example, large capital such as pensions have not yet entered the token market, but is mainly concentrated on Bitcoin and some listed stocks related to crypto businesses. In this case, despite the increasing supply of tokens, market demand is limited. I often tell people that removing Bitcoin, Ethereum and stablecoins, the total market value of other tokens was about $1 trillion at the peak of the previous cycle, and now it is about $700 billion. The market has not grown significantly. Therefore, we live in a scarce environment. In this scarce market, everyone is looking for ways to be the exception. Currently, capital returns (such as repurchase) are the mainstream method. But I think regulators may allow the launch of multi-token ETFs over the next 24 to 36 months, similar to the S&P 500 product. With such passive investment products, some capital pools may enter the market just as they invest through Bitcoin ETFs, thus gaining wide exposure to the crypto space. This will create a new channel for capital inflows for the market, thereby changing the current scarcity situation.

Distract attention from Bitcoin (BTC) and short-term market hype

Andy:

People often say where is the copycat season now? I personally believe that market hype and lowering entry threshold have completely changed people's traditional ways of distribution of attention and capital allocation. In the past, we would do our due diligence seriously, study those undervalued assets, and then allocate funds and wait patiently. But now the market dynamics are more about who can buy the first token faster or capture liquidity quickly. Therefore, fundamental research has been replaced by speed. I think this leads to a huge misalignment in the way the market works.

Pranav Kanade:

Bitcoin’s current market structure is completely different from the past, and this is no longer the classic pattern between Bitcoin, Ethereum and other altcoins we are familiar with. The focus of the market is still Bitcoin. But despite this, Ethereum may have a chance to rebound, and we may also see some altcoins moves. So, what factors trigger a larger scale copycat season?

Andy:

For example, like in the summer to fall of 2017, you will see the prices of various tokens on CoinMarketCap rising by 100%. What can prevent this rise from eventually turning into a decline? The situation is almost completely collapsed. Will this market trend change? Will Bitcoin’s dominance continue to rise? And what will really change the market structure, not just the dominance of Bitcoin and short-term speculation?

Pranav Kanade:

I think this is a matter of time and there may be changes in the future. As for how the market evolves, I think there may be two scenarios. The first scenario is that the total market value of altcoins has grown from the current $700 billion to a higher level, which may be due to the development of " Tokenized Equity" (Tokenized Equity) through blockchain technology . I'm not saying that it must be those assets that are traded on Nasdaq, but that they are put on the chain so that investors around the world can access it. This may drive market growth.

I would like to see more traditional businesses, especially those backed by venture capital, choose to exit in tokens rather than in equity. All functions of equity are realized through tokens, while adding programmable features. For example, a few weeks ago, there was a news mentioning that OnlyFans is on sale. It would be very interesting if OnlyFans issued a token and that token represents equity in the company. This token can also be used to reward creators who attract more audiences. In this way, these tokens are both valuable and allow companies to allocate resources more flexibly. In this way, the total market value can grow through tokenized exits of more real enterprises, rather than relying on traditional listing methods, such as the Nasdaq IPO.

The second scenario is to return to the copycat season you mentioned, and the prices of existing assets began to rise generally. If we go back to something like the environment that is issued cash checks during the pandemic, people tend to take risks and speculate. In this case, assets that have not yet risen will also be pushed up due to increased risk appetite.

This is very similar to the post-epidemic market. At that time, the government issued cash checks, market liquidity increased, and the central bank also adopted a loose policy. Initially, funds flowed to credit assets, such as investment-grade debt and high-yield debt. Then, big tech stocks began to rise, followed by unprofitable tech stocks, such as those in the ARK ETF. Afterwards, people began to look for more risks, such as focusing on SPAC (special purpose acquisition companies). Bitcoin and altcoins also began to enter a bull market when SPAC performed well and market sentiment reached its peak. Therefore, when risk appetite is high enough, those assets that have not yet risen will also be pushed up. But I think the premise of all this is that interest rates are falling and market liquidity is getting more abundant again.

Pranav's macroeconomic perspective

Andy:

Yours doesn't seem to think that the current market position will perform well, but rather that the non-bitcoin market may grow significantly as more assets are on the chain, forming a huge market. These assets may include businesses like OnlyFans, or even actual equity. This extension is achieved through the introduction of new mechanisms and users. So, how does this market change support your current liquidity position and investment strategy? In addition, from an industry perspective, what upside opportunities do you think are worth paying attention to in the third and fourth quarters?

A few weeks ago we invited Selini's Jordi, who believes the market will be relatively flat this summer , citing that there is not enough economic pressure to allow the Fed to take stimulus measures and the market has rebounded from recent tariff problems. Do you agree with this view? If so, how would you adjust your investment strategy to deal with these two possible market outcomes?

Pranav Kanade:

I won't make any macroeconomic forecasts, and there will be headlines about the recession every month, but the reality is that the economy seems to be working pretty well. My overall view is that most of the assets currently forming the $700 billion altcoin market do not have long-term value and their valuations are severely overvalued. If we list all L1 blockchains and analyze the actual expenses incurred by each chain, we will find that only three to four chains generate significant revenue, while the other six to ten chains have little revenue, but their market capitalization is high. The valuation of these chains is usually based on the “optionality” (Optionality, referring to potential future value) in which they may seize market share from the top three or four in the future. However, this possibility is less likely, because the market does not operate in this way. Therefore, I think most assets in the altcoin market are lacking in value. Our strategy is to maintain investment discipline and not involve these assets. We need to wait for more valuable assets to be put on the chain.

So what else can we invest in besides holding cash while waiting for better assets? Where can I find the best opportunity to pay for it?

I think Bitcoin is an opportunity to watch. In addition, I think the relevant legislation for stablecoins is about to pass, which may drive a large number of companies to adopt stablecoins to optimize their cost structure . At the beginning of this year, especially after the election, we studied some public companies, such as Internet stocks, e-commerce companies, gig economy companies and sports bookmakers, and analyzed how much of their cost structure is paid to the banking system. We ask ourselves, can these companies reduce costs by using stablecoins ? If so, how much can they save? How should they be implemented? Finally, we also evaluate whether the founders, CEOs and management teams of these companies are motivated to achieve these changes or are simply content to maintain the status quo. After screening, we selected a few companies worth paying attention to and made related investments. While I can't reveal the specifics, I think this is an area that has not been fully focused yet. Cryptocurrency investors often focus on obvious opportunities in public stock markets, while traditional stock market investors rarely consider the potential of stablecoins because this is far from their focus.

I see this as a potential option. If the public companies we are following can increase gross profit margins from 40% to 60% or 70% by using stablecoins, their profitability will be significantly improved, while the market will also give higher valuation multiples. This is exactly what we are currently focusing on. We think this is an asymmetric investment opportunity. However, if there are truly valuable token assets in the future and in line with the investment logic we mentioned earlier, we can also quickly adjust our investment strategy, as the returns there may be higher.

Perspectives on high-valuation assets

Andy:

Back to L1, there are a lot of discussions about indicators such as Rev and SOV (store of value). When we look at markets outside of Bitcoin, is there a way to judge which top assets may survive in the long run in the future? For example, Ethereum, Solana, Chainlink or BNB, these assets are often considered overvalued. Do you think they are really overestimated? Is it because we use fees to evaluate them, or do they also have the potential to be similar to Bitcoin’s “monetary premium” (the additional valuation obtained by being considered currency)?

Pranav Kanade:

Regarding the question of currency premium, I think it is difficult to have a clear answer. I might be wrong, but there are some people who hold top 10 assets that have little or no other practical use just because they think they are stores of value. I think there are some rational factors in the market, but more people may regard these L1 tokens as representatives of cash flow multiples (GCF, Gross Cash Flow, the ratio of asset valuation to cash flow). From this perspective, some assets appear undervalued, some are overvalued, and some are reasonably valued.

Perhaps a better approach is not to evaluate these assets based solely on data from last month or last week. Of course, many people like to use data from the past month to annualize and infer whether the assets are expensive or cheap. But the more important question is: What will these chains look like in two, three or five years? Each chain has its own specific user block space. For example, Ethereum's L2 solution, or some consumer-oriented applications on Solana. So the question is, if the projects built on these chains today expand in the future, how much impact will they have on the demand for block space? At the same time, these chains are also expanding their supply capacity. So, if demand and supply are growing, what will be the future revenue? What will be the valuation of these assets at that time?

Andy:

I think this sounds a bit worrying because if we use these methods to evaluate these assets do look overvalued on cash flow multiples (GCF).

Pranav Kanade:

I think this is a complex question, how do you view these assets? I think we should focus on their possible performance in three years. By my best estimate, the United States currently has about 50 million cryptocurrency holders, and there may be around 400 million worldwide. If we look at active users on the chain, this number may be only between 10 million and 30 million, depending on the statistical method.

If we assume that on-chain users grow at a rate of 5% per year, the industry as a whole may indeed be overvalued. But if the on-chain user base can experience explosive growth like ChatGPT, from zero users to hundreds of millions of users, showing a "hockey stick" growth curve, then the situation is completely different. If you believe that on-chain wealth and user base can reach this level, then in three years we may see 500 million users directly using on-chain applications, or at least participating in some on-chain operations. In this case, I think some blockchains are actually undervalued.

Problems with ownership of user relationships

Andy:

在关于顶级区块链的讨论中，我们经常聚焦于基础设施，但民意调查的重点似乎更多集中在应用程序上。从没有收入到有收入，从基础设施到应用程序，这种转变发生得非常快。人们开始提出“肥应用程序论点”（Fat Application Thesis，指价值更多集中在应用程序层而非协议层的观点），甚至进一步演变为“肥钱包论点”。

我很好奇，从基础设施的角度来看，拥有用户关系到底有多重要？ 比如Solana 和以太坊，它们吸引了许多开发者在其上构建应用程序，比如Solana 的Phantom 钱包和以太坊的MetaMask，但这些应用并不属于基础设施层本身，而是由第三方公司开发的。 在这种基础设施与应用程序的转变以及用户关系的变化中，你认为这对基础设施团队的重要性如何？如果我们想达到类似 ChatGPT 那样的爆发式增长时刻，你认为这里是否有很大的增长空间？

Pranav Kanade:

我会从另一个角度来看这个问题，可能我的回答会有些模糊。目前我们还没有看到任何真正的杀手级应用选择离开它所依赖的区块链，去创建自己的链并完全掌控技术栈。因为如果他们这样做，实际上是在说“我拥有用户关系”，那么底层的基础设施就变成了可以随时替换的商品化资源，同时他们可以完全掌控利润流，而不影响用户关系。到目前为止，这种情况还没有发生。但如果未来真的出现这样的情况，我们需要观察它对用户体验的影响：是会导致用户流失，还是会提升用户体验？如果应用程序不再泄漏价值，它们的盈利能力可能会显著增强。

当我们能够回答这些问题时，就可以更清晰地判断行业的未来发展方向。目前，我的直觉是， 如果你拥有用户关系，就等于掌控了用户体验，而其他一切都可以视为商品化资源。 这种模式在其他行业中也曾出现过。但另一方面，我们也看到云计算领域的巨头，比如亚马逊、谷歌和微软，它们占据了市场的绝大部分份额。基础设施层的区块链（L1）可能也会以类似的方式发展，形成一个由三家公司主导的市场，并在它们之间进行切换。然而，从经济规模的角度来看，完全自建可能并不划算。这种可能性需要进一步验证。这也是流动性价值主张的一部分：我们会持续观察这些问题，并根据答案迅速调整投资策略。如果最终证明杀手级应用可以完全取代底层基础设施并独立运作，那么可能持有L1 就不是最佳选择了。

Andy:

没错，我认为流动性确实是一个关键因素。我也同意关于用户关系、数据和品牌认知的重要性，但在这个领域，基础设施似乎占据了所有品牌的主导地位。以太坊是一个品牌，但用户实际上并不直接使用以太坊，而是通过其他工具和应用程序来间接使用，这种模式一直存在。

Pranav Kanade:

我觉得有趣的是，这里可能还涉及另一个问题： 加密货币的主流化是因为现有的 Web2 公司决定在这些链上构建和利用 区块链技术 ，还是因为某些由风险投资支持的 初创公司 创造了杀手级应用？ 如果是后者，那么这些初创公司最终的决策路径是：我应该选择哪条链来尽早展示吸引力，从而筹集下一轮资金继续构建？两年前，大部分人会选择在以太坊或其L2 解决方案上构建，因为这些平台更容易展示吸引力并获得融资。而现在，这种情况已经发生了变化。

如今，在Solana 上展示吸引力变得更加容易。但即便如此， 目前在比特币和稳定币之外，还没有出现真正的杀手级应用。 因此，我们无法确定当前支持的项目是否是正确的选择。如果未来某个应用，比如WhatsApp 增加了稳定币功能，成为下一个爆款应用，那么它们是否会选择利用这些区块链技术呢？

如何构建吸引人的项目

Andy:

你们是否能够自己开发应用？ 比如你已经开发了一个L2 网络，但接下来的问题是，应该构建什么样的应用？存在理由是什么？需要深入思考如何创造一些能够真正吸引用户的东西。我觉得这和你提到的内容很相关：如果能开发出一些几乎与区块链无关的应用，比如典型的应用商店应用或Web 应用，然后再将这些应用与区块链连接起来，或者找到某种方式重新整合……不过，我不确定我们如何从当前的用户体验和应用开发者生态，走向下一个杀手级应用，而不需要在产品设计思维上倒退几步。因此，我认为很多L2 的开发者目前都在经历这样一个现实困境。比如你看看以太坊上一些L2 的TPS（Transactions Per Second，每秒处理的交易数量），确实让人感到失望。

Pranav Kanade:

每个人进入加密货币领域的原因都不尽相同。我之所以投身这个领域，是因为我相信 设计良好的代币可以成为公司的一种增量资本结构工具，而代币在某些情况下甚至优于股票和 债券 。 这是我的核心论点。举个例子，如果亚马逊的股票被代币化，亚马逊可能能够更快地发展其核心业务，比如Prime 会员服务，而不需要花费14 年的时间，因为他们可以通过代币作为奖励来推动业务增长。因此，我进入这个领域是因为 我认为代币化股权会是一种未来趋势 。那么问题来了：实现这一目标需要什么条件？是否需要一个完全去中心化的区块链？我不确定，我认为更重要的是拥有能够提供良好用户体验的技术和工具。

在我提到的代币化股权的例子中，客户其实是代币的发行者，比如我假设的例子中的亚马逊。那么问题是，这些发行者真正需要的是什么？我们需要从他们的需求出发，倒推设计出最合适的解决方案。