Generation Z encryption new elite Christian recounts: founded Infini, Heavy Position in GBTC and Coinbase made a fortune

Editor: Wu Says Blockchain

Original title: Post-00s crypto newcomer Christian discusses personal experiences: founded Infini, heavily invested in GBTC and Coinbase to profit greatly.

This content is from an interview with Christian, an investor and entrepreneur in the post-00s crypto field by Turtle Talk, and Wu Shuo is authorized to edit and reprint. Christian, one of the most talked-about Chinese entrepreneurs of the cycle, looks back on his journey from university to founding Infini, a crypto payment project. The interview covered three core sectors: first, the transformation of his personal investment path, from decentralized allocation to "logic-driven + centralized holdings"; The second is the judgment of the current market structure and sentiment, including the cognition of the bull and bear cycle, the main capital and the essence of the project. At the same time, Christian shared his reflections on the gains and losses of Cheems, GMX, Coinbase and other heavy position cases, and pointed out that the current coin selection logic should focus on the three major criteria of "team structure, token structure, and consensus concentration".

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

Christian Personal Background Introduction

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

Because I am relatively young, my previous background was mainly about studying while starting a business in school. Later, after joining the Crypto field, I primarily focused on investment 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 at the beginning of this year, so now I am focusing most of my time on the products and marketing of Infini.

I got into Crypto during my freshman or sophomore year in college, when NFTs were just becoming very popular, and many friends around me were discussing topics related to art. I personally also have a great interest in 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, that I found particularly novel.

After joining Crypto later, I initially focused on NFT and GameFi. In 2021, there were many representative Ponzi design projects at that time, such as the stablecoin projects Terra and Luna, which I also participated in as a beginner and a novice. Gradually, I found that I was more interested in DeFi, and indeed there are many real scenarios and real profits in this field. So I invested most of my time in this area, until I later founded Infini, and before that I had invested in quite a few DeFi-related projects, so I have completed a full circle in this track and ultimately decided to do what Infini is currently doing.

At that time, we decided to pursue Infini for two main reasons. The first is that our team itself is very optimistic about the asset management direction, as we found that arbitrage in Crypto is a particularly interesting type. In traditional finance, there aren't as many opportunities for "neutral strategies" or so-called "risk-free returns." Although there may be risks behind it, such as smart contract risks or theft risks, the overall investment logic and the excess returns that can be obtained from arbitrage make me feel that this is a worthwhile direction to delve into, with certain barriers to entry.

Moreover, when you communicate with outsiders, even if they are fund managers or practitioners from traditional finance, they often do not understand this field, which leads to biases. However, everyone also knows that not all Crypto projects are scams or Rug Pulls. Projects like Ethereum are still very robust today and can capture returns far exceeding those of traditional assets like U.S. Treasury bonds.

So our goal at that time was to create a "super app" — a truly financial app. Most DeFi projects are still protocol-driven, targeting only on-chain users, which is relatively niche. We hope to provide these profit opportunities to a broader user base through a smoother and better user experience.

The second reason is that we have found that, especially in the matter of "Crypto Cards", neither we nor other projects in the industry have actually done a good job. But we see that users do have this need, from the initial idea, to the internal test, the launch, to today, the enthusiasm of users is very high, and it has also helped them solve a lot of practical problems. That's why we decided to start Infini together.

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

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

Actually, I personally admire those who can trade altcoins very well, or those who are particularly sensitive to Alpha and can multiply their investments several times. They truly have their own talents and strengths.

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 coins, or a member of those so-called "conspiracy groups" who issue coins and run projects every day, essentially they have mastered a set of rules and then researched this set of rules thoroughly and used it more skillfully. Like the recently popular James, he is quite young, but I feel he understands this set, knowing how to perform in this track. Therefore, in different tracks and fields, I can also relatively quickly find direction and delve deeper.

The second point, which I now consider very important, is to be grounded, 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 to double their investments in a short time, eager to make 100 times their money in two days. But those who are truly willing to hold Bitcoin for the long term and steadfastly 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 and can invest long-term; others start with little money and hope to catch a thousandfold project. These are all understandable. But the key is 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 their operations became distorted due to changes in mindset or influence from those around them. I believe that whether it is investing or entrepreneurship, it is essentially the same. You need to stay calm, be clear about your rhythm, direction, and style, and stick to your pace.

How to Determine Market Bull and Bear

Christian: In terms of quantitative indicators, I am not particularly specialized. Our fund has indeed used many data-related indicators when making decisions in the past, but later we found that none of these indicators can be effective across all cycles.

So personally, I tend to judge more from an emotional perspective. Even now, I haven't really sold any of the coins I hold. I think the core reason is that I feel this bull market hasn't yet reached its craziest stage, and there are still significant differences compared to the rounds in 2021 and 2022. Therefore, my current judgment of the market is: I am willing to wait a little longer.

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

As for the significant cognitive differences, I believe that many people now actually have similar feelings, which is that the market for large-scale 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, repetitive narratives.

On the other hand, from the current listing strategy of exchanges, it can be seen that liquidity is actually quite dispersed. Therefore, I tend to think that if there really is a wave of altcoin market, it may only concentrate on a few leading projects, those 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 targets now.

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

The first point is that the stability of Bitcoin's price is indeed largely due to the support of many external institutions. This is an objective reality: even if the original holders have cleared out, the purchasing power of compliant institutions remains very strong. Some people are now beginning to mention that these institutions may gradually choose some projects that align with their "aesthetics" as new investment targets, such as the older generation of DeFi projects, or emerging projects like PENDLE and Ether.fi that have appeared in this cycle.

I think these projects are valid under institutional logic. The core issue is, if in the future these institutions in the secondary market really want to look for targets beyond Bitcoin, what kind of projects would make them willing to enter the market? It certainly won't be Memecoin, as the narrative logic suggests.

The second point I think is that when selecting projects, it is essential to find coins that have clear backing from strong players. The "strong player" behind a small project could be an individual, an institution, or a group of investors who have reached a consensus. Looking at it on a larger scale, for example, some particularly popular Memecoins, their "strong players" may be the strong consensus formed by retail communities. But regardless of which level, the core issue is whether these strong players are still willing to continuously support and promote the coin's market.

There is a very interesting vicious cycle in the market right now. Many project parties or so-called operators find it very difficult to cash out smoothly even if they are listed on top exchanges due to poor market conditions. Not to mention the subsequent need to maintain the coin price and continue driving project development; the costs and challenges involved are actually quite significant. This has led many projects to become like factories producing on an assembly line, lacking sincerity or long-term planning.

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

New Narrative Opportunities: On-chain US Stocks and Derivatives

Christian: Recently, one direction I've been thinking about is that routes like Hyperliquid might be replicated. The concept of 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 willing to spend time focusing on derivative projects.

Another topic that has been discussed a lot is "on-chain US stocks." I believe its core point lies in the fact that after the change of government in the United States, the SEC's enforcement has relaxed to some extent, which actually encourages the development of projects like RWA, synthetic US stock assets, and derivatives — with relaxed regulation, the space has expanded.

Currently, I see that there are mainly two 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 Perpetual DEX (Decentralized Perpetual Contract Exchange). In fact, these two routes were already explored in the last cycle by SNX (Synthetix).

In this round, I feel that under the backdrop of more relaxed regulations, some project teams may be bolder and more innovative in trying some "fancy" or even "flashy" designs, or introducing new liquidity mechanisms to speculate on these concepts. I think this direction is currently something that I have observed many people trying to pursue.

In other aspects like DeFi payments, such as what we are doing with Infini, it is actually more about the product really landing and practically solving user problems. It is not about speculating based on the economic model of the coin, nor is it driven by narratives to stimulate buying. You can also feel that even though some projects are launching with new narratives, they cannot really convince everyone to buy in. People care more about whether it can be practically useful.

So I think the trend of this bull market might be somewhat different. The new narrative is more led by teams that are really building products, infrastructure, and solving 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 creating 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 entrepreneurial projects, the only way out is to do things that traditional platforms dare not do, such as some fancier derivative designs and structural innovations I just mentioned, like the complex Ponzi structure of the "three-tier model." Ultimately, what everyone wants are two things: first, whether the assets themselves are fresh enough, and currently there are indeed not many fresh coins appearing in the market; second, whether this innovation can drive trading enthusiasm globally.

For example, the underlying assets of US stocks on the chain are relatively new 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 about creating an ordinary trading market that only lets people buy US stocks on the chain, then I think such a project is meaningless.

Evolution of Investment Strategies and Entry and Exit Judgments

Christian: I'm actually more laid-back now. In the beginning, about two years ago, I did invest in a more standard way, for example, I would divide the funds into several parts: investing 10% in this sector, 20% in that one, and so on. I remember when I was very "naive" at first, I was deeply influenced by Teacher Su Zhu and some other KOLs. That round of cycles coincided with the outbreak of various "Ethereum killers" public chains, such as NEAR, Cosmos, Harmony, and so on.

So at that time, I would indeed seriously allocate funds according to the proportions, based on different tracks, the leaders and non-leaders within the same track, and the cost-performance ratio between them. But later I found that this method, to be honest, is quite "retail investor", too mechanical.

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

If I were to choose a project again, I would lean towards this logic — for example, if I find a certain project that has dropped in price due to events, approaching its historically worst phase, I might look back at those DeFi projects or some Memecoins.

I think projects like Memecoin that have strong consensus are particularly easy to rebound when market sentiment improves. As we have seen, these coins have performed poorly over the past few months, but since the slight improvement starting last month, the ones that have rebounded the most are indeed those that had the steepest declines. So my current strategy is: to allocate the main investment in large projects, while putting some smaller amounts into Memecoin or opportunity coins and observing the market performance.

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

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 rises to 4,800 or even breaks 5,000 to set a new high, that would already be a very high level for me, and at that time I might sell off most of my holdings.

I really don't have a strong ability to judge peaks, nor do I tend to operate in waves. My main basis is market liquidity and overall sentiment. If the market is particularly hot and liquidity is particularly good at that time, it serves as an exit signal for me. Although it sounds simple, the actual operation doesn't rely on technical indicators; it's more about perception.

It's really hard to sell precisely at the top. 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 can be considered selling at a relatively high point, but later 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, but fortunately, the market has been relatively stable recently. Moreover, since I am mainly focused on starting a business now, it allows me to concentrate more on work without having to watch the market all day for buying and selling points.

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

Christian: In fact, the Cheems thing has always been a particularly "serendipitous" case for me. At that time, I had no understanding of 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"; I was also a beginner at the time, and many people initially looked at projects based on market capitalization, ignoring 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 tokens, and a friend recommended that I participate, so I bought some casually. As a result, I ended up buying quite a lot, and then I 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 be tied to the project. If you didn’t push it yourself, it would be hard to get it off the ground. It wasn't until last year that Cheems relaunched on the BNB Chain, and I was still working very hard to promote it, bringing people in, doing outreach, and building the community. I watched it go from launch, to locking up funds, and then finally integrating into the BNB ecosystem; the process was really tough.

Of course, I still haven't broken even, 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 no longer lies in making money, but in the experience of being involved throughout.

If you only buy at low positions, call your own shots, and then push it 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 to make this project go further.

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. For example, with the recent launch of Binance Alpha, Cheems was the first asset to go live and was initially heavily criticized. At that time, I didn't think it would become any "great innovation." But now, as you can see, point farming and earning points have already become mainstream.

This indicates that if Binance truly wants to promote something, it indeed has the capability to make it happen. The success of 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 outbreak 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 Cheems and me.

Sentiment Cycle Decision Between Coinbase and GBTC

Christian: If we really have to talk about heavy positions, there are definitely two targets that many people know about: one is GBTC, and the other is Coinbase. At that time, both our fund and I personally invested a lot in these two targets. 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 investment and trading in those years.

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

For example, Coinbase dropped by as much as 90% at the time, 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 these two would outperform Bitcoin. Looking back, this was one of the few correct decisions made.

Then there are a few more typical examples. One is Curve, which I just mentioned. That's because the decline of Curve was very severe at that time, but we judged it to be due to liquidity and short-term event shocks, rather than a fundamental issue. Like GBTC, its underlying asset - Bitcoin was still there, unchanged, and such a large premium was clearly unreasonable.

Coinbase's price-to-book ratio was very low at that time, although the company was in a loss-making state and could not be evaluated by PE. However, it had over five billion dollars in cash on its balance sheet and had invested in many projects, which were also reflected in their valuations. At that time, the company's market capitalization had dropped below seven billion dollars, clearly an example of being wrongfully punished by market sentiment.

The logic of Curve is also similar; its position, application, and community holder status 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 are two projects where I have lost quite a bit in my investments, and I can say they are among the few secondary assets that have actually caused me a significant loss so far.

Looking back, I think the investment logic for ARB is very flawed. At that time, I also FOMOed because many public chains were overvalued. I thought that Arbitrum, being one of the core projects in Layer 2, should have a lot of growth potential. Coupled with the hype around Solana at the time, I mistakenly believed that Layer 2 would be the next hotspot. But later I realized that such judgments based on superficial consensus and market sentiment are actually very unreliable. What truly determines a project's long-term trajectory is its actual operations in liquidity arrangements, not how people perceive it.

GMX is also an extreme example. At that time, I felt that GMX was very attractive 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 really felt that I had found the so-called value pit. But the later results were tragic. A good product does not mean it can necessarily grow in the long term. Long-term growth requires strong go-to-market capabilities, as well as ongoing operations and iterations.

Although the number of users and trading volume of GMX is even higher now than in previous years, the price of the coin has been declining. I later realized that the fundamentals of the product are sound, but there may be two reasons for the poor market performance: first, its business model cannot sustain expansion, for example, its funding fee structure appears 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 is very crucially dependent on the team's and founders' mindset. The founder team of GMX clearly did not intend to create a long-term project, as their iteration speed and operational capability have basically stagnated. They seem more like they are creating a one-off product, without continuously pushing the project towards higher goals. Although I haven't sold my GMX yet, I am very clear that this is 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 summarize the logic behind my project selection, it can actually be boiled down to three points.

The first point is the team's vision. How large a project can grow largely depends on whether the team has the vision and ability to drive it forward. If the founding team is only thinking about cashing out quickly, then this project is destined to go nowhere. A team with a broad vision is often able to invest more sustainably and make the project bigger and stronger. Of course, whether the project can succeed also depends on the team's attitude towards the tokens, whether they realize that the success of the token price can in turn drive user growth and market expansion for the product.

Jeff from Hyperliquid is a typical example. He is not the type of founder with a short-term mindset, but rather cleverly uses tokens to gain attention, treating the token price as a tool for user growth. After they launched their token, there was a qualitative leap in the project's fundamentals, which is a very rare phenomenon; usually, there is a product first and then a token, but they are using the token to drive the product's popularity, 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 coins and then stop, the project is basically doomed to fail. It is necessary to constantly refine the product and continuously invest in market operations and marketing to keep the project relevant and competitive.

The third point is the concentration of the token structure. In the current market environment, a decentralized token structure is no longer suitable. In the past, everyone could naturally form a consensus based on market sentiment, but now the market must artificially build consensus. Like GMX, its token structure is too fragmented for the community to form synergies. Hyperliquid, on the other hand, is significantly different in that it achieves a high degree of concentration in the token holding structure, where large investors, small scatters and institutions can participate to form a synergy, 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 structure, token structure control, and consensus building — will be my main judgment framework.

Investment Mindset Advice: Position Control and Logical Belief are Superior to Emotional Anxiety

Christian: Regarding the investment mindset, I can sum it up in two sentences.

The first sentence is: Never let your position exceed the limit you can bear. The limit here is not just about leverage, but rather the proportion of your overall investment to your personal assets. From my own experience, keeping the investment position within 30% to 50% of the 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 breakdown in mentality is often not due to market fluctuations, but because you have bet too much, thus feeling unbearable pressure.

The second sentence is: trust logic, not emotions or beliefs. Even if the position is not heavy, it is inevitable that you will doubt yourself and the market when you encounter a large loss. But the most important thing at this time is to repeatedly review the logic of the investment decision in the first place. If you find that the logic itself is wrong, then you should stop the loss in time; But if the logic still holds, stick to it and not be swayed by short-term market fluctuations. Like when I invested in Coinbase, even though I lost a lot of money, I believe that its fundamental logic has not changed, so the more I fall, 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.