Guest: Matt, CEO of JuChain

Interview organized by: momo, ChainCatcher

Nowadays, almost every public chain is shouting "build ecosystems" and launching funds. But the reality is that most public chain ecosystem funds end up leaving behind two things: a series of press releases and a batch of projects that quickly dissipate after the incentives run out.

Performance parameters have reached aesthetic fatigue, and developer incentives increasingly resemble short-term subsidies. The so-called "ecological prosperity" is often built on data manipulation and speculative cycles. The narrative of general-purpose public chains continues, but there are not many infrastructures that can truly support complex businesses and long-term value.

In this context, the cryptocurrency exchange Ju.com has chosen a completely different path: instead of continuing to bet on the performance race of "general-purpose public chains," it has clearly positioned JuChain as a vertical public chain aimed at community growth and incentive-driven business models—attempting to provide a pathway for projects in the crypto industry that have long existed but have always lacked structural exits, moving from short-term models to long-term sustainability and from single incentives to industry integration.

It is under this judgment that Ju.com launched the JuChain industry incubation fund, with a scale of $100 million, to accelerate the formation of this specific ecosystem. But is this really about building a long-term operational infrastructure, or is it just a pure narrative marketing?

With these questions in mind, we attempted to dissect the underlying logic of JuChain through a complete dialogue: Why launch the fund at this time? When general-purpose public chains have reached aesthetic fatigue, what is JuChain's true non-performance moat? And what mechanisms do they intend to use to prevent projects that originally relied heavily on short-term incentives from retracing the well-known old paths of the industry?

1. Why is the $100 million fund not just for storytelling?

1. ChainCatcher: Many people say that the "$100 million fund" is an action taken to boost confidence and continue the narrative during a market downturn. How do you prove that this is not just PR, but a long-term mechanism that can be implemented?

Matt: To be honest, if it were just PR, I wouldn't need to set such specific goals or create such a heavy process.

The launch of the $100 million JuChain industry incubation fund is based on three clear judgments:

First, the industry cycle has changed. After several rounds of deleveraging from 2021 to 2024, most "quick money stories" have been told, but teams with real users, cash flow, and a solid foundation still exist. What they need is a path to "safely land and upgrade their models," not to start another new project.

Second, the infrastructure is ready. After integrating the trading platform + JuChain + wallet + multi-chain asset infrastructure, the Ju ecosystem has the capability to support assets, users, and traffic. We can truly provide projects with a one-stop path of "funding + tools + traffic + mechanisms," rather than just talking about incubation.

Third, the policy and narrative window is opening. On one side, the U.S. is rapidly developing ETFs, asset tokenization, and stablecoins, while on the other side, China is promoting the "14th Five-Year Plan," asset revitalization, and digital infrastructure. What we see is a more long-term structural opportunity, rather than a single bull or bear market.

To prove that this is not just a wave of publicity, we have designed some internal processes that are not very "PR": the fund has a clear operational cycle and project cycle; all projects are managed in tiers (S/A/B/C); funds and resources are released in phases, "only to projects with plans, countervalues, and constraints," preferring to reject more than to waste money. Additionally, we will accept verification in a verifiable manner. The fund will regularly review and disclose project progress and elimination situations, and milestones for support and resource distribution will be traceable within the system.

In summary, we are not using $100 million to tell stories, but to validate a long-term mechanism—transforming many projects from mere short-term schemes into sustainable Web3 assets and businesses.

2. ChainCatcher: Ju.com has shifted from being a "strong entry point" to an "ecosystem builder." What is the most critical underlying logic behind this transformation? What strategic role does JuChain play in the entire JU ecosystem?

Matt: In the past, Ju.com was more like a "strong entry point"—it had traffic, trading, and revenue, but many projects completed a launch with us without truly establishing long-term relationships.

In the past two years, we have gradually recognized two realities: having only a CEX is a "single-point business," project lifecycles are getting shorter, and there is often high-frequency competition between platforms and projects; true long-term value must be built on a complete closed loop of "chain + wallet + exchange + assets."

Therefore, we have upgraded Ju's positioning to an ecosystem infrastructure composed of a trading platform + JuChain public chain + wallet + industry incubation fund + industry-level RWA cooperation.

In this system: JuChain serves as the underlying layer, carrying asset and business logic, responsible for "rights confirmation, settlement, governance, and transparency"; the trading platform provides liquidity and user habits; the wallet and task system are responsible for user outreach and growth; the industry incubation fund + partner system attract projects with scale and teams to join, helping them complete model upgrades.

In simple terms, Ju.com is the entry point, JuChain is the underlying rules and asset network, and the fund is the bridge—connecting short-term incentive models, project parties, and industry assets layer by layer into this ecosystem.

2. When performance competition fails, JuChain's non-performance moat

3. ChainCatcher: Given that public chain performance competition has reached aesthetic fatigue, what exactly is JuChain's "non-performance moat"? A year from now, what benchmark case direction do you hope the outside world will see as "only JuChain can run successfully"?

Matt: I respect all exchanges and public chains' attempts, but we must also face a reality: in recent years, too many public chains have been competing on TPS and performance parameters, and the market has reached aesthetic fatigue. What users and project parties truly care about is whether the money is safe, whether the model is solid, and whether the business can last.

Therefore, JuChain deliberately does not aim to be "another general-purpose public chain." Our core differences are threefold:

First, it lies in the chosen scenarios. We focus on serving teams transitioning from short-term incentive-driven models to long-term sustainable operations. They often already have real cash flow, active communities, and strong viral capabilities, but are constrained by historical logic or opaque structures. JuChain and the industry incubation fund are designed for the path of "short-term incentive projects → on-chain assetization + decentralized governance."

Second, we provide a complete closed-loop capability. Many public chains can only offer contracts and performance; we can simultaneously provide: listing and market-making support, wallet access, task systems, membership systems, contract templates, risk control rules, and real funding and traffic. This is an ecosystem, not just a chain.

The deeper difference lies in the rules and mechanisms we build as a moat. What we are truly "competing" on is not performance, but how to help a project thrive longer, more transparently, and more securely within the Ju ecosystem—from project tiered management to phased release of funds and resources, to strict risk control and exit mechanisms.

A year from now, I hope to see a benchmark case like this: a project that once belonged to a high-yield short-term model has completed model reconstruction, asset on-chain integration, and settlement transparency on JuChain; users no longer rely on extreme rhetoric and short-term high interest, but instead gain returns through membership rights, real business, and on-chain profit distribution; ultimately, it is recognized by the industry as "transitioning from a short-term incentive-driven model to a sustainable Web3 asset."

This is precisely the path that only the combination of "exchange + industry incubation fund + vertical public chain aimed at high-yield community projects" has the opportunity to truly run through.

4. ChainCatcher: In the past, public chains had to make trade-offs between performance, cost, and security. How does JuChain balance these core metrics? What level are you currently at?

Matt: In the impossible triangle of public chains, our principle is clear: prioritize security and stability, and under this premise, pursue sufficient and redundant levels of performance and cost.

• In terms of security, we use a mature underlying technology stack and auditing system, strictly controlling the added complexity of the consensus layer and contract layer, avoiding risky innovations.

• In terms of performance, we focus more on throughput efficiency and confirmation time in real business scenarios, rather than pursuing extreme stress test numbers.

• In terms of cost, we ensure that the daily user cost remains within an industry-friendly range by optimizing transaction packaging, batch settlement, and other mechanisms.

I won't list specific metrics here, but I can say that in scenarios most concerned by short-term incentive projects, such as high-frequency recharges, withdrawals, internal settlements, and agent profit sharing, JuChain has achieved a practical carrying capacity far exceeding mainstream L1 and approaching top L2, all while ensuring security redundancy—this is completely sufficient for the types of projects we are currently taking on.

5. ChainCatcher: Among the core technology modules of JuChain, which do you internally consider to be the most critical breakthroughs? What specific "on-chain pain points" have you solved?

Matt: We have built several key modules internally, specifically designed for projects characterized by "short-term incentives, high-yield models, and industry assets":

Among them, the asset and settlement reconstruction module can assist projects in breaking down their original centralized ledgers into on-chain assets and settlement logic, completing the substantial upgrade from "Excel bookkeeping" to "on-chain clearing."

The integrated module for wallets, tasks, and memberships allows users to have both an on-chain address and a membership identity within the same wallet. Task incentives, referral commissions, tiered rights, and even airdrop distributions can be directly linked to on-chain behaviors and assets.

At the same time, we provide standardized tools for funding transparency and operational dashboards, allowing project parties to choose to publicly disclose funding flows, pool sizes, and release rhythms to the community—this is a crucial step for short-term incentive models that have long lacked trust due to "opacity."

Additionally, the deep collaborative interfaces with CEX/DEX allow projects to introduce some liquidity into the secondary market without sacrificing user experience, while retaining on-chain governance and profit distribution logic.

The common goal of these modules is to fundamentally change the source of trust for projects: from relying on rhetoric and short-term promises to relying on sustainable mechanisms and verifiable data.

6. ChainCatcher: User growth in Web3 has become a bottleneck for the industry. What technical or product designs does JuChain have in place to lower the on-chain entry barrier, enhance wallet experience, compatibility, and usability? What heights do you hope to push the user growth curve towards in the future?

Matt: Our user growth strategy is quite pragmatic: first, we will onboard existing users from high-yield community projects and partners, and then retain them through better product experiences and ecological value. The specific path includes:

• On the wallet side, we support quick wallet creation through phone numbers, emails, or third-party accounts, significantly lowering the entry barrier to Web3. The wallet directly integrates a task center, project plaza, and agency tools, seamlessly migrating the interactive methods familiar to users of short-term incentive projects onto the chain.

• In terms of compatibility, for developers, we strive to be compatible with mainstream EVM toolchains; for users, there is no need to worry about which underlying chain is being used—all daily operations can be completed within our wallet.

• Regarding growth targets, we will not promise exaggerated numbers here, but JuChain's design goal is clear: first, convert the "millions to tens of millions" of highly active users from high-yield community projects into real on-chain users, and then gradually extend to a broader Web3 user base.

In simple terms, our strategy is: convert from existing users, retain through experience, and expand from vertical to universal.

7. ChainCatcher: There is often skepticism about "exchange-based public chains being inherently more centralized." How do you view this controversy? How do you address users' concerns?

Matt: I admit that any public chain originating from an exchange will inevitably face questions about "centralization." This is a question that must be addressed head-on.

However, we believe that whether something is centralized or not is not determined by its origin, but by whether checks and balances and transparency are embedded in its architecture, governance, and daily operations. To this end, we are advancing several initiatives:

• In terms of architecture, verification nodes are not solely controlled by the exchange but are gradually opened to ecological partners; key components such as cross-chain bridges and asset custody also adopt multi-signature and threshold signature mechanisms, with external institutions involved in supervision.

• In governance, the industry incubation fund has an independent review and risk control committee, and the allocation of funds and resources follows a clear process, with a veto power in place—not decided solely by the exchange internally.

• In terms of transparency, our support for projects is more reflected in measurable assets such as "services, resources, and contract countervalues," rather than simple cash grants, with all processes traceable on-chain or within the system.

From the roadmap perspective, as the ecosystem develops, we will introduce multi-party co-governance mechanisms in more modules, incorporating node parties, strategic partners, and community representatives, gradually pushing governance towards greater openness.

We do not shy away from controversy; rather, we hope to gradually transform "questions of centralization" into "visible checks and balances" through a verifiable and binding mechanism. This path takes time, but we are already in action.

3. Ecological support is not about throwing money around; how to establish hard thresholds?

8. ChainCatcher: Which projects will the $100 million fund prioritize? How do you determine whether a project has a "natural coupling" with JuChain's capabilities?

Matt: When selecting projects, we prioritize not "how well the story is told," but three things:

• First, we look at the team and values. We hope the core team is stable, not short-term speculators; they should be responsible to users, willing to reduce extreme rhetoric and excessive promises; and genuinely wish to complete model upgrades and on-chain integration, rather than just wanting to cash out and leave.

• Second, we look at the community and scale. Projects need to have real users and a certain amount of capital accumulation; they cannot be in a state of empty circulation; the community should have the ability to create viral growth and educate, capable of continuously supporting the extension of the product matrix.

• Finally, we look at the willingness to transform and the degree of ecological coupling. Projects should be willing to prioritize laying out their main business in the Ju ecosystem during this new development phase and be willing to cooperate with us on contract modifications, funding transparency, and risk control rules.

Projects that are "naturally coupled" with JuChain typically have the following characteristics: their business requires strong settlement, a robust membership system, and strong viral mechanisms—which is precisely what we excel at in the "wallet + chain + trading platform" closed loop; at the same time, they also wish to break free from the old model of completely centralized bookkeeping, rebuilding trust through on-chain assets and governance—this is also the original intention behind the creation of JuChain.

9. ChainCatcher: In the past few months, what types of projects have you explicitly rejected? What are the criteria for rejection? What do you least want the JuChain ecosystem to become? To avoid short-term data manipulation/speculative schemes, what hard thresholds or mechanisms will you set?

Matt: In the process of engaging with numerous projects, there are two types of teams that resonate most with us:

One type is projects willing to "break down and redo." They do not shy away from historical burdens and are willing to cooperate with us to completely reconstruct their original rebate, dividend, and lock-up logic on-chain, facing old users with new transparent mechanisms; they can also accept stricter risk control and transparency requirements, even if it means facing greater pressure in the short term.

The other type is teams that simultaneously lay out short-term incentive-driven high-yield models and real business. They typically operate cash flow businesses while also laying out real tracks such as mining machines, education, offline industries, or urban assets. They are more inclined to view "the scheme" as an entry point and starter for traffic, rather than the endpoint of the business.

At the same time, we have also explicitly rejected several types:

Those that view "funding support" as unconditional blood transfusion and refuse to make substantial upgrades to their models; those with obvious malicious exit or fraud histories, or who refuse to cooperate with basic due diligence; those insisting on extreme leverage, high commitments, and intending to cash out in the short term.

To eliminate data manipulation and pure speculative behavior, we have established clear hard thresholds:

All projects must go through a complete process and tiered review, with no private channels open; funds and resources are released in phases and tied to verifiable progress and risk control indicators; for high-risk projects, the risk control and legal teams have veto power and can activate user warning mechanisms when necessary.

We believe that rigorous screening and institutional constraints are the true responsibility for the long-term value of the ecosystem.

10. ChainCatcher: Besides funding, what unique "non-financial value" can JuChain provide to projects? What advantages do you have in terms of traffic access, user growth, compliance capabilities, product synergy, etc.?

Matt: Money has never been the hardest part; the truly critical aspect is "the capabilities behind the money."

For different tiers of partners, the "non-financial value" we can provide mainly includes:

• In terms of branding and endorsement, strategic partners can jointly release cooperation announcements with us and continuously appear as "strategic partners" on our official website, app, and ecosystem events; flagship projects have the opportunity to become key cases in AMAs, ecosystem conferences, and media interviews.

• In terms of technology and systems, we provide standardized support for contract, settlement, rebate, task, and membership system integration, and assist in designing more reasonable lock-up releases, user levels, and profit structures, helping projects upgrade from traditional bookkeeping models to on-chain asset logic.

• In terms of traffic and growth, we can leverage the exchange's operational positions, activities, and push resources, open wallet access and task systems, and collaborate with leading nodes and KOLs for joint promotion and community building.

• In terms of compliance and risk control frameworks, while we do not promise so-called "compliance endorsements," we will share our risk control rules and user protection frameworks, assisting teams in avoiding obvious violations and extreme risk behaviors.

Ultimately, funding can only solve immediate needs, while tools, systems, brands, and mechanisms can truly help a project transition from "making a quick profit" to "building a long-term business."

11. ChainCatcher: Among the three major directions of AI, RWA, and DeFi, which track do you think is most likely to become the core driving force for the next round of large-scale user growth? Why is JuChain betting on these directions?

Matt: In my view, these three directions are not parallel tracks but rather three links in the same value chain:

RWA (Real World Assets) is a direction we are focusing on with partners like Zhongju Investment, covering everything from the digitization of city-level and national-level assets to building asset trading infrastructure akin to a "digital Nasdaq." Its essence is to transform real assets into on-chain tradable capital.

DeFi provides transparent and efficient liquidity and pricing mechanisms for these assets and short-term incentive-driven projects, allowing the originally closed value to be discovered and traded in a more open market.

AI is applied on both ends: one end drives user growth and smart investment advisory, while the other strengthens risk identification and compliance assistance, helping projects achieve smarter operations and risk control.

If I had to choose one core long-term driving force, I would select "RWA + industry assets." Because this represents "real productivity on-chain," and JuChain starts from the entry of short-term incentive-driven projects, gradually extending to the digitization of industrial and city-level assets, forming a complete closed loop from traffic to assets.

4. Maximize innovation leverage with minimal risk

12. ChainCatcher: Since JuChain's mainnet launch in May 2025, what are the three key milestones? How does the team internally evaluate the achievements of these four months?

Matt: If we only look at the progress of the past few months, we would give ourselves a score of 7, leaving the remaining 3 points for the future.

During this time, we have achieved three key milestones:

The mainnet has achieved stable operation, and basic tools are fully online. We have successfully completed a smooth transition from the testing environment to the mainnet, with core capabilities such as wallets, task systems, and contract templates truly running on-chain, no longer remaining in the conceptual stage.

The industry incubation fund and process framework have been practically implemented. Not only have we released announcements, but we have also clearly solidified the project's S/A/B/C tier standards, review committee mechanisms, phased resource allocation rules, and exit mechanisms, and have begun to screen and advance projects according to this process.

We have initiated pilot collaborations with the first batch of projects and partners. Several types of projects have begun using our tools and mechanisms for model upgrade attempts. Although the scale is not yet large, the direction of validation is correct.

Internally, we have formed a consensus: at this stage, it is more important to "fix the road" correctly and solidly, rather than rushing to pursue superficial TVL or address numbers. We believe that a solid foundation will allow us to go further in the future.

13. ChainCatcher: In the next 12 months, what are JuChain's three priorities? If, a year from now, the outside world could only give JuChain one evaluation, what would you hope it to be?

Matt: In the coming year, we will focus on three core directions:

First, to ensure that the industry incubation fund truly operates effectively. The measure of success will not be how many projects are signed, but how many teams have completed model upgrades and achieved on-chain integration and transparency through our support.

Second, to continuously refine the infrastructure that adapts to "scenarios." From wallets, contract templates, task systems to data dashboards and risk control tools, everything will be optimized to meet the daily operational needs of short-term incentive-driven project teams.

Third, to connect the path from the traffic of short-term incentive-driven project ecosystems to industrial assets. Through collaboration with partners like Zhongju Investment, we will promote pilot projects in the digitization of city and national-level assets, truly connecting on-chain funds with real assets.

A year from now, if the outside world could only evaluate JuChain in one sentence, I hope it would be: "This is the first public chain that truly connects short-term incentive-driven ecosystems, project parties, and industrial assets."

14. ChainCatcher: In the face of the uncertainty of the global regulatory environment (such as the EU's MiCA regulations or the SEC's scrutiny of public chains in the U.S.), how does JuChain find a balance between compliance and innovation?

Matt: First, we will not bet on the future with the belief that "regulation will definitely relax."

Our compliance strategy is divided into three levels:

In terms of structural design, we implement a layered approach to business processing. We strictly operate high-regulation businesses (such as KYC and certain derivatives) within a licensed entity framework; at the same time, we separate the technology-neutral protocol layer from the decentralized asset layer, using open-source contracts and transparent mechanisms to bear the main business risks.

In terms of regional layout, we adopt a zoned adaptation strategy. We respect the regulatory differences of different jurisdictions, making product adjustments and risk control settings based on the characteristics of each market, and avoid engaging in aggressive market activities in high-risk regulatory areas.

In terms of ecological cooperation, we actively collaborate with compliant partners. We establish partnerships with licensed custodians, compliant wallets, traditional financial institutions, and local governments, all of which are regulatory-friendly partners, allowing innovation to advance within a clear and controllable framework.

We do not promise "complete compliance," but we do commit to one thing: JuChain will use the least amount of risk space to exchange for the greatest innovation leverage.

5. More important than "who is faster" is "who lasts longer"

15. ChainCatcher: Why should developers move from Ethereum/L2, Solana, Base, etc., to your platform? What are the "hard reasons" you provide to builders?

Matt: If JuChain's goal is to be "another general-purpose public chain," then I completely agree with the assessment that "this track is already saturated." But we did not choose this path. We are entering a more vertical, yet deeper vertical track:

We are targeting short-term incentive models, high-yield projects, and the future digitization of industrial and city-level assets; what we hold are exchange entry points, wallets, task systems, industry incubation funds, and a complete set of project screening and management mechanisms.

For builders, there are at least three concrete reasons to choose to build on JuChain:

First, you are facing ready-made users and cash flow scenarios. You do not have to wait for users on an empty chain; instead, you directly enter an ecosystem with real users, active projects, and clear funding needs.

Second, you can directly utilize a complete set of ready-made business modules. Standard contract templates, membership systems, task systems, settlement tools, and data dashboards—you do not need to reinvent the wheel from scratch but can quickly build products based on these modules.

Third, your project can access a closed loop of resources and revenue. What you are building is no longer just an on-chain experiment, but can gain real traffic and commercialization paths through exchange exposure, wallet entry, and industry fund support.

In simple terms: If you want to truly create a sustainable business in the vertical field of "short-term incentive models + industrial assets," JuChain offers not a general chain, but an application platform with a real market, complete tools, and a resource closed loop.

16. ChainCatcher: In recent years, there has been a debate in the industry about the "meaninglessness of performance involution." Do you think performance improvement is still important? How does JuChain avoid blind involution?

Matt: I completely understand the fatigue behind this statement. Performance is certainly important, but more crucial is: the value of performance depends on what problem you are trying to solve.

JuChain's choice is to focus performance optimization on specific business scenarios—such as high-frequency settlement, real-time profit distribution, agent profit sharing, and on-chain task processing—rather than pursuing a generic, extreme TPS number.

On the basis of ensuring sufficient performance, we invest our main energy in rule design, asset structure, risk control mechanisms, and developer tools. These are far more valuable for the long-term survival of short-term incentive projects and real asset projects than simply increasing block speed.

Therefore, we do not participate in the marketing competition of "who is faster." What we engage in is the survival competition of "who can make more projects truly run and last longer."

17. ChainCatcher: Public chain ecological incentives are often criticized as "short-term speculation, long-term lack of stickiness." How does JuChain balance the incentive mechanism with the long-term healthy development of the ecosystem?

Matt: Precisely because I have personally experienced the problems brought by "digging and leaving," we are particularly cautious in designing the incentive system and have established the following principles:

First, we promote incentives from "one-time airdrops" to "long-term rights." We prefer to design incentives that are tied to long-term behaviors, such as staking, participating in governance, and continuously holding project tickets or assets, rather than relying on one-time candy airdrops.

Second, we deeply link incentives with real business metrics. For project parties, we no longer only look at short-term TVL but focus more on user retention, real transaction volume, and on-chain activity; for users, we reward those who genuinely participate in the long-term construction of the project, rather than simply task spamming.

In addition, we strictly enforce the phased release of fund resources. All funding and resource support are tied to phased goals; achieving a milestone releases a portion of resources; if the project's development deviates from expectations, we reserve the right to slow down or suspend subsequent support.

Ultimately, we hope to achieve a state where project parties, operators, and users participating in the JuChain ecosystem reduce their reliance on short-term speculation and instead obtain long-term returns through real business and sustainable mechanisms.

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。