After watching this episode, I was deeply impressed by the discussions of several guests, especially the comparison made by Jocy, the founder of IOSG, between "cathedrals and casinos," which is thought-provoking.

I have been following the internet and venture capital since the late 1990s, and in my impression, VCs have enjoyed a very high level of prestige and respect over the past two decades.

However, if we look at the global investment landscape, we find that VCs only account for about 1% of it. Like art and real estate, it is classified as "alternative investment."

Why does such a niche investment category enjoy the most respect and prestige?

In my view, it is because VCs are synonymous with the "future." When bankers in the late 1990s were still mocking those "money-burning" websites, it was KPCB that understood Amazon, Sequoia that understood Cisco and Google, and IDG that understood Tencent. They invested not only capital but also their credibility, networks, and strategic wisdom.

This respect is earned by VCs themselves. It embodies humanity's original expectation of "technology driving social progress," includes a romantic admiration for "creation" itself, and recognizes the rarest quality: the courage to take the greatest risks to support those "impossible" dreams and change the world alongside them.

So why has the respected VC model, when it comes to the crypto space, turned into a situation where everyone is shouting against it and it is very weak?

It's simple: too much in crypto lacks the "VC spirit." What they provide is no longer "smart money," but "lazy money." They are no longer "builders," but have become "predators." The model is no longer "growing together," but rather exploiting information asymmetry, creating information asymmetry, and making high profits in a short time.

As a result, crypto VCs have lost their "ecological niche." They can only endure the longest lock-up periods while watching exchanges, market makers, and even project parties cash out early under various pretenses. They have become the last buyers providing "patient capital" for the casino.

The rise of memes and "fair launches" in this cycle is essentially a cultural rebellion by the community against the original sin of "VC coins." This is the price that crypto VCs have to pay for the greed and laziness of the previous cycle.

So, have crypto VCs died?

Many speculative, lazy, "scalper-style" VCs have indeed perished. However, the crypto VC industry has not died; rather, it will undergo some purification as a result.

Just like the internet bubble, the hot money that flooded in has mostly died off, but the true "architects" who firmly believe in the future of the internet have remained—Sequoia did not die, KPCB did not die—leading to the later brilliance of Amazon and Google.

History is repeating itself. The "casino" cannot build the "cathedral" on its own. This industry still urgently needs capital, but it requires capital that is visionary, patient, and truly provides "smart money." This is not the end of crypto VCs, but a brutal "washing out" that will bring more crypto VCs back to the true mission of VCs—

to take risks, support innovation, drive progress in the world, and reap returns from it.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。