The so-called "faith" you talk about is just an asset to me.

Interview & Article: Zhou Zhou, Foresight News

"I have no faith in BTC."

"Big brother Ma Ji will definitely go bankrupt, assets will gradually bottom out, and the era of retail investors is over."

"I don't believe Bitcoin will double again."

"The four-year cycle of Bitcoin is gone."

"The so-called 'faith' you talk about is just an asset to me."

"In the next phase, traditional finance and cryptocurrency will not have any difference in research strategies."

"Gold is already highly market-oriented and doesn’t need another set of RWA."

"I am optimistic about today’s young people creating their own hedge funds."

Six months later, after two interviews totaling six hours, I heard a lot of clear and direct judgments in my communications with Fu Peng.

As one of the first economists in China to publicly focus on the cryptocurrency industry, Fu Peng has his own independent understanding of BTC, stablecoins, RWA, and the entire crypto market.

From Lehman Brothers Investment Bank in the UK to Solomon International Investment Group in London, and then to Chief Economist at Northeast Securities and Chief Economist at New Fire Group, Fu Peng has experienced different financial market cycles and has continually changed his professional identity.

But he says he has never changed.

During the interview, he repeatedly emphasized not to pay too much attention to those ever-changing titles. For the past thirty years, he has always done one thing.

What is this thing exactly?

In the interview, we discussed Bitcoin, stablecoins, RWA, Polymarket, AI, the current state of the cryptocurrency industry in Hong Kong, and the future of retail investors. Here is the main text of the interview:

01 | The cryptocurrency circle is not what it used to be

Joe Zhou: I attended the 2026 Hong Kong Fintech Week the day before yesterday and found that crypto companies account for less than one-tenth of the entire fintech industry. Do you think this status will change in the future?

Fu Peng: The proportion of crypto in the entire asset class portfolio, I don't think will have much change. Because its underlying core technology has already begun to integrate with the traditional financial system.

Joe Zhou: Do you think there is still a four-year cycle for Bitcoin?

Fu Peng: It's gone. That was a product of the last era. Moreover, in our analytical framework, there is no so-called four-year cycle.

Joe Zhou: But it should still have some impact, right?

Fu Peng: You have to believe that when a market is still very small, large players selling or buying will definitely affect the price.

But when it enters the era of portfolio management, these factors change. It cannot be said that there is no impact at all, but it is already insufficient to influence market prices.

Joe Zhou: The volatility will decrease.

Fu Peng: Yes, you're right about that. Once institutional forces get involved, volatility will naturally decrease.

Joe Zhou: You previously said that the cryptocurrency circle today is different from the past.

Fu Peng: This statement is likely to make many people uncomfortable. Some will insult it, while others will ponder it. But as for those who insult, to put it bluntly, they may gradually be eliminated by history in a few years; those who think about it, I think that's quite good, as they will seriously consider it, and perhaps find some direction.

Joe Zhou: So, what do you think the old cryptocurrency circle was like, and what form will it take in the future?

Fu Peng: Do I still need to imagine what the old cryptocurrency circle was like?

I just gave you an example. In the period of Fang Zhanbo, the Hong Kong stock market was about shouting orders on location while wearing vests, right? Exactly the same. The proportion of retail investors was extremely high, chip trading, speculative trading, and high volatility were all characteristics of that era.

Fang Zhanbo (left) from "The Great Era", portrayed by Liu Qingyun

When you put it in China, what was it back then? The Hainan Commodity Exchange. Coffee, red beans, green beans, sugar, sorghum... I don't know if you experienced it, but back then we had countless exchanges, each province had them. We had OTC stock trading exchanges, as well as various commodity exchanges. Isn’t it exactly the same as the later cryptocurrency circle? A bunch of exchanges, a bunch of altcoins, various small varieties, no difference at all.

Therefore, we people who have experienced those things do not lack understanding of this circle, but rather understand it very well.

One important reason for not being able to participate is that our equity in traditional assets is already very large. Before you mature, I understand very well what you are doing, but we cannot jump into this.

That is called the early stage. Once the early stage is over and the market matures, everyone will naturally be able to participate.

Joe Zhou: What similarities do you see between traditional finance and cryptocurrency in terms of research strategies?

Fu Peng: If we enter the second stage, it will be completely interconnected. Simply put, there will be no difference at all.

Because digital assets are essentially an asset class; they are not something independent of the traditional system. They will ultimately be incorporated into the traditional system.

For traditional finance, it’s equivalent to adding an asset class, so the research methodology is interconnected. For example, if I engage in FICC + Crypto, then the past experiences can be completely applied to crypto assets. (Note: FICC refers to fixed income, foreign exchange, and commodity business.)

But in the early stage of ten years ago, the large asset trading experiences formed over the last fifty years were meaningless then.

Think about it: if the Hong Kong Stock Exchange were to trade stocks in the 70s or 80s, what would they be talking about in terms of macroeconomics or asset allocation? That would be nonsense.

During that era, it was the style of "Fang Zhanbo": how many chips do you have, how many chips do I have, you hit me, I hit you. In that era, if you went to talk about asset allocation, it would be ridiculous.

So this is actually a choice of era. Now, the time has come.

02 | The ceiling of Bitcoin: limited supply also restricts allocation scale

Joe Zhou: If Bitcoin were placed in an asset portfolio, what assets would come before and after it? For example, arranged by volatility.

Fu Peng: If you want to amplify volatility, choose Ethereum. Further up, choose value assets, such as AI stocks in the US.

These are actually assets on a chain: at the front is Nvidia, in the middle is Bitcoin, and at the back is Ethereum. You can amplify the volatility of the denominator by several times, that’s Ethereum. The largest share of assets is likely still allocated to the front, such as Nvidia.

If you were managing assets, you would definitely place the largest positions in assets with the highest certainty and lowest volatility. And Bitcoin is gradually becoming the most certain asset in the crypto asset space.

Joe Zhou: So will Bitcoin’s proportion in asset portfolios increase in the future? Like Nvidia?

Fu Peng: Let me ask you a question: commodity derivatives have developed for 50 years now. Regardless of futures, options, or ETFs, what proportion can it hold in the whole investment portfolio of Wall Street?

This proportion is indeed growing, but how much can the total proportion reach? To put it bluntly, it's still a scale issue.

Bitcoin maintains value through limited supply. But everything has its duality.

On one hand, controlling quantity can maintain value; on the other hand, it also brings limitations. The stock market is different; the entire stock market can continuously IPO, and the theoretical total market value can continuously expand. As long as humans keep creating wealth, the stock market can absorb new assets.

Bitcoin is not like that. Its quantity is limited, which means that in the future, its scale proportion in the entire asset allocation may be constrained.

Joe Zhou: So can I understand it like this: Bitcoin's current market value is about $1 trillion, while Nvidia is $4 trillion. While you may allocate a smaller share now, if Bitcoin also rises to $4 trillion, you don't think it can continue to rise, do you?

Fu Peng: It's simple, you're going back to the early ten years of fundamentalism talk again.

How is that possible? $4 trillion is actually just two to three times. According to the market value at the time, if Bitcoin rises from over $1 trillion to $4 trillion, that's about two to three times, which translates to about $300,000 to $400,000 per Bitcoin.

So can I also say that, because Bitcoin’s total supply is limited, theoretically all value can concentrate on it, and the price can skyrocket, even to $1 million per coin? Such talk is fine in concept, but fundamentally the underlying logic is wrong.

You can imagine Bitcoin as a stock.

Can Nvidia reach a market value of $50 trillion? Impossible. But can it reach $8 trillion? It's possible.

Assuming Nvidia reaches $8 trillion, if future performance declines, will the stock price drop? Of course. Under what circumstances, even if performance declines, would the stock price not necessarily drop? It can repurchase and cancel stocks to enhance per-share value by reducing the number of stocks. You can understand it this way: Bitcoin is roughly this concept.

Joe Zhou: But isn't Bitcoin's total supply limited? Why won't the price keep rising due to continuous influx of funds and continuous buying?

Fu Peng: The answer is simple: precisely because it is limited, there won’t be a situation where everyone keeps buying. For example, as an asset manager, increasing the allocation by one percentage point is possible, but adding more becomes difficult.

Joe Zhou: So Bitcoin can’t double again?

Fu Peng: Impossible. Because its capacity is limited. Just like copper, which large asset management companies would invest all their billions or hundreds of billions into copper? If they really did that, they would become the biggest factor affecting copper prices themselves.

Bitcoin is the same. Its total supply is limited, and the scale of its possible allocation also has boundaries.

03 | No faith, just asset allocation

Joe Zhou: Do you hold any crypto assets?

Fu Peng: Our "holding" is a different concept than your "holding."

Joe Zhou: So you don’t use centralized or decentralized exchanges?

Fu Peng: We participated early primarily because of compliance issues. The first contact was with Bitcoin futures because they are compliant. The things used in the exchanges you mentioned were not compliant. Products from South China in Hong Kong can be participated in. Another method, for example, is I allocate Bitcoin ETFs.

Joe Zhou: There’s a distinction here. For instance, retail investors would directly go to an exchange to buy coins; but financial institutions may prefer to buy ETFs.

Fu Peng: I think the real distinction is not here. The real distinction is: the so-called "faith" you talk about is just an asset to me.

For example, if I buy an ETF, I can effectively hold this asset. I won't be like many people, insisting on having an address, a wallet, where I have to have coins.

For me, it’s very simple. Let’s say I judge that Bitcoin will rise to $80,000, should I sell? I can just reduce my ETF position, it’s just adjusting the asset portfolio.

I wouldn’t be obsessed with "reducing my position, does it mean I have nothing in my wallet?" Not at all. That's the difference.

For us, this is an increase of an investable asset class in asset allocation. This is entirely different from the kind of "holding" that has faith color in the old cryptocurrency circle.

For traditional finance professionals, Bitcoin does not need to be endowed with any special faith, nor do they have to hold it directly through an on-chain wallet. It is primarily an asset that can be included in the investment portfolio.

If the price rises, you can reduce your position; if your judgment changes, you can adjust the allocation; if better investment opportunities arise, you can also shift funds to other assets.

This logic is not complex. What’s important is not whether you believe in Bitcoin, but how you judge its position in the entire asset portfolio.

Bitcoin can be a kind of faith, but to me, it is primarily an asset.

04 | Why does BTC still drop even when the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates?

Joe Zhou: From your research perspective, what factors have the greatest relationship with the crypto market? Is it profit-related factors?

Fu Peng: It’s very simple. If crypto assets become investable assets and are incorporated into the financial framework that has developed over the past 40 years as an asset class, then they must resonate, which is what we call correlation.

Its entire asset trading framework logic will merge with traditional finance.

For crypto assets, the most significant influences are no longer simple supply-demand relationships, nor are they about how much goods are being thrown from which address or wallet.

Think about the early Hong Kong stock "Great Era." At that time, there was no need to study macroeconomics, because macroeconomics was not the core variable. The core variable was how many circulating shares there were, how many you held, and how many Fang Zhanbo held. Everyone sat in front of a computer, typing away, sniping orders, it was all about who had more chips in hand.

The early Chinese stock market was also the same. When the manipulators were competing within, there was no need to study macroeconomics, as there were no large financial institutions involved at that time. This is the same situation in the early days of the cryptocurrency circle and crypto assets.

But now it's different. Today’s stocks like Alibaba and Tencent, would those stocks still trade in the same way as back then? Of course, there are still some penny stocks, because their scale is too small. But for large assets, that is no longer the case.

At this point, you will find macroeconomics and liquidity are becoming important. These factors influence large asset portfolios, and these asset portfolios further influence specific assets within them.

Today's crypto assets have this characteristic. Many people are beginning to notice that AI stocks, Nvidia, and other AI-related assets are generating resonance with crypto assets. Liquidity’s pressure on valuation, and traditional analytical paths, have started to impact crypto assets.

This is the answer.

Joe Zhou: What is the current macro environment's impact on the crypto market? What is the market's status from a macro perspective?

Fu Peng: Since November last year, liquidity has tightened.

About in November last year, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet shrank to a certain level. Note that it is "shrunk to a certain level," which will bring about pressure on liquidity at the quantity (Q) level.

Ordinary people may feel that the interest rate cut by the US should be a good thing for assets, but everyone overlooks that liquidity is not just a matter of interest rate pricing, but also involves monetary quantity.

When the balance sheet reduction contracts to a certain extent, it will offset the liquidity abundance brought by the interest rate cut (P), and overall liquidity will actually tighten. At this time, all valuation-related assets will be the first to face pressure.

This logic has been validated in traditional assets. Over the past six or seven years, it has happened twice, both impacting crypto assets. Therefore, you can see how the market has changed over the past few years.

Joe Zhou: When do you think this cycle will end? The rather bearish cycle.

Fu Peng: I told you in the first half of the year, it will be by the end of this year.

Think about it: if liquidity gradually becomes the biggest factor affecting the market, then your "timing" has to be chosen at that point. The timing point must be selected correctly.

In Fu Peng's view, understanding today's crypto market cannot just focus on on-chain data, the flow of exchange funds, and large holder positions.

As Bitcoin gradually becomes an asset that can be included in large institutional portfolios, it inevitably becomes influenced by the traditional financial system.

Interest rate cuts do not necessarily mean liquidity expansion, and a decrease in interest rates does not imply that all assets will rise. The relationship between monetary quantity and funding prices is becoming an important variable influencing the valuation of crypto assets.

The cryptocurrency circle is becoming more and more like traditional financial markets. The age of chip speculation has not completely disappeared, but for an increasing number of large assets, macroeconomics and liquidity have already become unavoidable variables.

05 | In the AI era, young people can become one-person hedge funds

Joe Zhou: How will AI trading impact the FICC + Crypto market?

Fu Peng: It is actually the process of AI Trading Agent. It will change the entire investor structure.

Simply put, retail investors will be eliminated more quickly. And one thing is certain: now, these post-00s youngsters, if they work hard, may quickly become "one-person hedge funds" in the future. Because AI as a tool reduces both efficiency and costs to an extremely low level. Previously, it was difficult for retail investors to become professional institutions, but now young people have hope.

On the other hand, another group of people who do not use AI at all will also be rapidly eliminated by the market. So it's a polarization.

AI will definitely lead to one result: a group of young people will become one-person hedge funds, while financial institutions will become stronger.

In the future, when these financial institutions compete in trading, they are not competing in "judgment," but in who has more data, who has rarer data, and who has stronger computing power. If you're willing to spend billions to build back-end servers, data maintenance, and computing power, you will be stronger than other hedge funds.

Do you think the miracle of wealth created by the Grand National Fund back then was based on "judgment"? That was the era of computers.

In the programmed trading era, while you all didn't even know how to use it, I simply came into play—I traded with computers while you were still manually filling out orders, and I could definitely earn from you. That was a different era.

Joe Zhou: Do you think there will be more monopoly by giants?

Fu Peng: Yes. The final result is that the proportion of retail investors directly participating in the market will significantly decrease. In other words, you must become a super low-frequency asset allocation. If you want to do high-frequency trading at all, you're sure to fail. These are historical trends.

Joe Zhou: After the emergence of AI, will your asset allocation or business model change?

Fu Peng: No change. We just have one more asset class; there won’t be changes.

Joe Zhou: What about your research methods?

Fu Peng: This will change. The intermediate-layer researchers will become meaningless, and even the end transaction orders will become meaningless. Your AI Trading Agent has already completed that for you.

Joe Zhou: Will there be any changes for you personally?

Fu Peng: It’s already like that. Don’t think I’m special now; many old funds in London are also laying off people; the intermediate link has lost value. We are analyzing macro industry trends every day. In the past, it relied on people, but now we have 17 AI employees.

Joe Zhou: If you were to give young investors an asset allocation suggestion now, what would you say?

Fu Peng: Oh come on, what asset allocation do young people need? This is like Xiao Deng coming to ask me: "I have $200,000, how should I allocate assets?" I say, don’t you just go all in?

It's very simple. Asset allocation must be based on having a certain amount of assets, and then determined according to your risk preference, expected rate of return, etc.

Joe Zhou: Let me draw a user portrait for you: like us who work in first-tier cities and have some assets, how much crypto asset do you think should be allocated?

Fu Peng: First pay off debts, reduce leverage, maintain cash flow from your job, and don’t get replaced by AI. With the remaining money, then consider what to invest in. Absolutely don’t swipe credit cards or take small loans to play with high-volatility assets—I can tell you, that’s super unwise. Don’t do that.

Joe Zhou: But if that’s the case, the market will be very boring. It would turn into a super efficient market.

Fu Peng: But the market itself is also a wave of淘汰. You have to understand, it is also a淘汰.

06 | Where is the real value of Crypto? Fu Peng's view on stablecoins, RWA, and Polymarket

Joe Zhou: I think new things will definitely come out to make the market less boring.

Fu Peng: Right now, Polymarket, don't you think it's quite interesting? It’s the same (laughs).

Joe Zhou: Do you also play it?

Fu Peng: Come on, do I need to play it? When we were in the UK, didn't we also bet? It’s the same. But let me tell you, "our gambling" and "your gambling" are completely different.

Back then, the internet wasn’t that fast. We had landline phones, bought packages, were at the stadium live, and did time differences— that trading platform would lag, and after a minute and a half after a goal, the odds would update. That’s called arbitrage.

Joe Zhou: What’s your view on the future market of stablecoins?

Fu Peng: In the end, the share of stablecoins will be similar to the diversified foreign exchange reserves of various countries you see now—that is, the currencies used within the financial system.

Stablecoins are just a technical means. You can understand that our financial intermediate layer, which is trade, transaction, and payment, is just a transformation from the original financial system and original currency into a stablecoin anchored to various currencies.

Joe Zhou: Between stablecoins and CBDC, which one do you prefer?

Fu Peng: In the end, it will definitely be based on stablecoins.

Joe Zhou: How do you view RWA?

Fu Peng: Just a tool, no big deal. You can add anything to it. Just like blockchain, it’s a tool, and used in the financial field it's a concept. For example, there have been a lot of documents in trade; to prevent fraud, blockchain technology can also be applied.

The technical tools finally formed are called "assets"; RWA is not an asset, it is a tool.

Joe Zhou: What do you think about the RWA innovation in Hong Kong?

Fu Peng: The most effective RWA right now is actually stablecoins.

Many traditional assets want to squeeze in, using RWA to issue those non-standard, long-tail assets. But the question is: what are the advantages of buying these assets compared to buying other assets?

Joe Zhou: What if we use a highly liquid asset like gold for RWA? For example, tokenizing gold?

Fu Peng: It’s meaningless. Gold itself is already a highly market-oriented and highly competitive asset, with good liquidity; there is no need to do another round through RWA.

Technology must find its real application scenario; don't assume existing, mature asset scenarios can naturally fit the RWA shell. What can emerge is often in areas that current financial systems cannot cover.

07 | Why join New Fire now? Digital assets are entering the FICC + C era

Joe Zhou: Why did you choose to join New Fire?

Fu Peng: It’s simple. All the regulations and technological advancements by 2025 declare a moment just like the rise of FICC in the 1980s. After World War II, the first major integration and change of finance and technology happened in the 80s. The second time should be this time.

FICC in that era represented the transition from traditional to a new world. It fully ignited. Both sides are moving towards the center; it's just a matter of breaking through that layer of window paper, needing someone to poke it and ignite this fire.

Joe Zhou: What advantages do you think New Fire Group has during this transition period?

Fu Peng: I think it’s about choosing right.

You see, the first phase is characterized by retail dominance. Early on, we joked that while it couldn't be called "savage," it was indeed a rough development. This phase of rough development has already passed. In the past ten years, with global regulation and compliance advances, that phase has ended.

The second is exchanges. According to historical experience, the path of exchanges is indeed far less than what we are currently doing in asset management.

Of course, exchanges will first see a variety of flowers bloom, followed by a round of major mergers. Personally, I believe the signals of major mergers have already begun to appear. You can see traditional exchanges like the NYSE and NASDAQ have already been onsite. The connection and integration of traditional exchanges have actually started.

Joe Zhou: How do you view the future of the cryptocurrency industry?

Fu Peng: Look, traditional exchanges are also iterating quickly and entering. This has happened in history— a bunch of exchanges that are homogenous end up in a big merger, with only a few remaining as the largest in the world. At the same time, weaker assets slowly disappear.

It’s exactly the same. Don’t think the cryptocurrency sphere has any specialties; it’s no different from the cycle fifty years ago.

Joe Zhou: Will you get a number 9 license in Hong Kong and trade directly?

Fu Peng: I’m getting old. Don’t they all exist here? Just bring up the young people. Why would I, at this age, still be at the market's front line? Isn’t it scary for a brain stroke? At this age, one should be like Dalio—you need to pass on knowledge, let the young people come up, and give them all your experience and everything.

Joe Zhou: Does joining New Fire at this moment signify some significant changes in the industry?

Fu Peng: Finance changes with the changes in technology.

08 | The future of China, Hong Kong, and Crypto: A long new-old transition

Joe Zhou: What do you think of the development trend of China’s economy over the past two years?

Fu Peng: Not only China, but the perspectives of the world are largely the same; to sum it up in one sentence: new and old transitions.

Traditional production relations and traditional industries are facing various issues, while innovative things are very popular now. It’s the same domestically—if you’re doing AI, artificial intelligence, data, computing power, or robotics, you definitely won’t think the current situation is bad. But if you are involved in real estate or in traditional production relations or traditional manufacturing, you might feel it’s very competitive and poor.

Which is right, which is wrong? It doesn't exist. Both coexist.

So now is a stage where "new also exists, old also exists." If you stand from the new perspective, you might say, "We have already completed structural reforms and are moving forward"; from the old perspective, the question will be "Who will save me?" (laughs). This kind of contradiction is inevitable.

In fact, the US back then was similar. By 2015 and 2016, it was also in this state. After the 2008 subprime crisis, the leverage in the financial system had to be removed, and those who deleveraged faltered. However, new industries were being born. In 2015 and 2016, the sectors mentioned by Kathy Wood, regarding "disruptive innovation," were still in their early stages and thriving.

Joe Zhou: Is it hard for China's Crypto and financial industry to break through its innovative culture?

Fu Peng: Financial innovation is also a form of innovation, and technological innovation is also a form of innovation.

In terms of the paths of innovation, the West tends to proceed a bit boldly— if there is no law, you start first, and then fill in later. As for Asian regions, it seems you first have to determine that it’s safe, with someone willing to take on responsibility, and only then follow along once others have traveled a bit.

Joe Zhou: In this kind of cultural difference, how can we better promote the development of the crypto industry?

Fu Peng: Who will promote it?

Joe Zhou: Hong Kong.

Fu Peng: Hong Kong is in the middle. It’s very simple; you can’t not follow. If you don’t follow this thing, the efficiency won't keep up, and you might get left behind. I must follow. But I also can’t be entirely open like the Americans, allowing liberalism to spread entirely without restraint.

So Hong Kong is just right in the middle. Between Eastern and Western civilization, neither as conservative as the inside nor as open as the outside. Its efficiency is neither as high as the outside nor as low as the inside; it’s just right in the middle.

Joe Zhou: Do you think the domestic situation will open up in the future?

Fu Peng: It won’t. I’ve already explained it very systematically. The value systems of Eastern and Western cultures are different; in terms of innovative practices, the paths are entirely different. In the West, if there are no laws, you start first, and after doing it, you supplement it; in Asian regions, you first must ensure that there are no problems, and only follow once others are close to completing.

Joe Zhou: Do you think that RMB stablecoins will eventually be approved for issuance?

Fu Peng: Yes, but it will take a long time. It will certainly be a continuous exploration, watching others step into the pits first, and then we will follow the path.