jakiro
An article titled “VCs in the currency circle are almost gone” published a bunch of VCs showing off their transcripts, saying that they are still alive and well, but looking at the portfolios they displayed, I couldn’t laugh.These words of encouragement are more like the last struggles of a drowning person:
1) The mainstream investment form of VC has changed from equity investment to stock-currency equal rights, to complete currency rights, and now has no choice but to return to the equity stage.
The equity investment cycle is too long, and LPs cannot afford to wait; the market does not buy into currency rights because of the risk of unlocking the market; the return to equity is to cater to Wall Street’s compliance narrative, and the future is unknown.
For four years, VCs have not even found a sustainable investment model.
2) The names of the head VC a16z, Paradigm, YZI, etc. are golden signs.
They can get the best terms, lowest prices, and early exit opportunities.Most small and medium-sized VCs rely on follow-up investments and are regarded as takeovers by large institutions.
so,Decentralized VC organizations have instead evolved a centralized power structure, the emergence of the so-called game development where Eastern and Western VCs are not connected to each other and the solidification of hierarchies.
The ensuing problems of helpless “exit” such as group building, high FDV, and the peak at the opening, have ruined reputation and…
3) Most VCs are like “large leeks” who are rough-minded and not rough-minded. They basically rely on the diversity of their portfolios to bet on probabilities.
If 1-2 out of 10 projects can be successful, it is considered a success? This is not an investment strategy, this is gambling.
Even if you win, the long unlocking time will almost wipe out the income, so you have to combine market makers and rely on secondary market trading to survive;
But, is this still an “investment”?
4) VC should help the project complete the cold start from 0 to 1, providing funds, resources and endorsement.
But now, the internalization of exchanges, the industrial assembly line of on-chain launchpads, and the marginalization of technical narratives are all diluting the value of VC.
The trend is already clear, the market is looking for a possibility that does not require VC.The question is, without the cold start support provided by VCs, how many truly valuable, iterative, and high-growth blue-chip projects can be brought about by a swarm of community hot starts.
In the short term, VC cannot leave the stage of history.
5) In the past, VCs used funds to accompany project parties, but found that they were too slow and did not know how to play; later, VCs planned narratives, provided post-investment services, and ran with project parties, and were scolded for teaming up to build a game; but even so, we still saw some portfolios rug and turned to the AI trenches. The reason was that the Crypto bubble was too big. Is this tenable?
There is no way, there is no mature business model that can be implemented, and there are no positive externalities. The meaning of VC’s existence in Crypto may be to take over, and retail investors also like to see this.
The rules of the game in this market are changing dramatically. VC, which pushed the industry to the peak of the bull market last cycle, is the biggest original sin this cycle.
above.
Is VC in the currency circle gone?
Also, the golden age of making money while lying down and getting rich by just investing is indeed gone forever.
