Arthur Hayes New Post: Beyond Bitcoin Reserve, the US Cryptocurrency Hegemony Has Another Goal
Original Title: The Genie
Original Author: Arthur Hayes
Original Translation: Deep Tide TechFlow

(The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and should not be taken as investment advice, nor should they be considered as recommendations to engage in investment transactions.)
The Pax Americana Make-A-Wish Corporation, located in Mar-a-Lago, receives a large number of "wishers" every day. People from the cryptocurrency field, like others, stand in line, trying to seize the opportunity to make one or more wishes. The capricious "genie"—referred to as the "Orange Man" host, holds court every week in the swampy backwaters of South Florida at his rural and nightclub-style hybrid private club, accompanied by classic pop music from the 1980s, surrounded by a group of sycophantic followers.
The genie itself is neither good nor evil; what we truly need to judge is whether the wish of the wisher is reasonable. Every culture in the world has moral stories about "misguided wishes," where wishes seeking success, wealth, or personal happiness through shortcuts often lead to unforeseen consequences.
The core lesson of these stories is: there is no "easy button" in life, and all goodness stems from effort and dedication.
In the global cryptocurrency industry, there are two prominent "wishes" worth discussing—one is the establishment of a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve (BSR), and the other is the promotion of a Pax Americana-style cryptocurrency regulation. Overall, many crypto practitioners hope that the U.S. government will buy Bitcoin through money printing as part of the national reserve, while also aiming to establish favorable regulatory barriers for their crypto-related businesses. I believe these wishes are misguided. We should choose a more challenging but more meaningful path and present a request to the "genie" that cannot be easily overturned even after the next government takes office, regardless of its political affiliation.
In the first part of this article, I will argue why BSR and piecemeal cryptocurrency regulatory efforts would have a negative impact on the industry's development, whether locally or globally. Following that, I will offer some advice to those in pinstripe suits or summer dresses who queue up every day to make wishes to this "Orange Genie," telling them what more valuable wishes they should make.
Bitcoin Strategic Reserve (BSR)
Anything that can be bought can also be sold. When a government hoards a particular asset, the core issue is that such buying and selling behavior is usually driven by political motives rather than economic interests. Within the current global economic framework, can Bitcoin directly benefit the U.S. government? The answer is no. Bitcoin is merely another financial asset. While some readers may consider Bitcoin to be the "hardest money in history" created by the "one true god" Satoshi Nakamoto, I can confidently tell you that the actions of that "wizard" (referring to a political figure) are not rooted in reverence for a deity but rather to cater to the voter base that elevated him to the throne of power.
Let's assume that Trump actually succeeds in establishing a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve (BSR). Following the proposal by U.S. Senator Lummis, the government purchases one million Bitcoins. What would be the outcome? Bitcoin's price skyrockets, the market turns frenzied, but as the government completes the purchase, Bitcoin's trend of "only going up" comes to a halt.
Fast forward two to four years. By 2026, voters may be disappointed in Trump for failing to effectively control inflation, end endless wars, improve food security, or address government corruption, allowing the Democratic Party to potentially regain power. If they secure an absolute majority in the House that is enough to override a presidential veto, what then? Moving forward to 2028, a Democratic president gets elected, such as Gavin Newsom, who might rise in a phoenix-like manner. Meanwhile, certain controversial policies, like allowing minors to undergo gender confirmation surgeries without parental consent, could become a reality again. Some voters may rejoice at this.
For an incoming Democratic-controlled government, finding ready-made funds to meet the demands of its supporters is a top priority. And this is not unique to the Democratic Party; in fact, any party struggles to avoid this logic. At this point, the government's Bitcoin reserves—lying dormant with one million coins—simply need a stroke of a pen to be used as a "cash machine." Naturally, the market will be concerned about when and how these bitcoins will be sold. Will the government seek to minimize its impact on the market and maximize dollar returns, or will it purposefully suppress cryptocurrency holders who support the "orange man" for political reasons? We cannot predict. However, such uncertainty would severely undermine the market's confidence in Bitcoin and the entire cryptocurrency industry.
If the U.S. government decides to hoard "shitcoins," including Ripple, these cryptocurrencies will inevitably be transformed into a potent political tool. Nevertheless, as a purely political strategy, would the U.S. government truly engage with the crypto community? Would they donate to support Bitcoin core developers' work? Would they run Bitcoin nodes? Perhaps they might... But based on the current discussions regarding the BSR, it appears more like a "buy-and-hold" plan. Trump and the Republican Party might witness Bitcoin's price surge, declare "mission accomplished," and use this opportunity to raise more campaign funds from David Bailey at $10,000-a-plate luxury dinners. Don't blame the players; blame the game rules. However, presenting such a wish to the "wizard" could bring unnecessary pain to the crypto industry within two years.
Frankensteinian Cryptocurrency Regulation
To understand what a cryptocurrency holder (Hodler) desires in terms of regulation, the simplest way is to look at their investment portfolio. From my vantage point far away from the hustle and bustle of the "Crypto Wizard," those who have a significant investment in centralized crypto financial intermediaries are often the most likely group to see their regulatory wishes come true, as their voice is the loudest. Unfortunately, developers dedicated to building truly decentralized technology and applications do not have enough financial resources to participate in the political game during this cycle. The wealthiest current crypto practitioners usually control exchanges, brokerage services, or some form of lending platform.
Therefore, if cryptocurrency regulatory desires are indeed met, it may manifest in a complex and highly prescriptive form of regulation, where only those well-funded large centralized companies can afford the compliance costs. This is because the only people who can understand these laws are professional corporate lawyers who navigate between various regulatory bodies. And these lawyers' fees are not cheap—up to $2,000 per hour. Perhaps in Dubai, this is considered a bargain, but in my opinion, it is a costly expense.
Is this really the outcome that the broader crypto community hopes to get from the "Crypto Wizard"? Is all this just to make Brian Armstrong and Larry Fink even richer? I am not criticizing them; they are just diligently doing their job—by building a monopolistic structure to maximize shareholder value and make their business stand out. Perhaps the shareholders of Coinbase and BlackRock indeed want to see such a Frankensteinian cryptocurrency regulation. But in my view, this kind of regulation will not change the existing industry landscape. Although it has no direct negative impact on the crypto industry, it certainly does not have any positive impact either.
For those entrepreneurs who chose to relocate to the US because they believed it has a "crypto-friendly" government, please think twice. If you accept such a situation, your startup is likely to end in failure. Those relying on complex and burdensome regulatory barriers to protect their monopolistic businesses have no interest in real innovation. They will use their unique privileged position to shut potential competitors out. As an entrepreneur, you may have flown into JFK Airport in business class, but when you leave, you may only be able to fly back in economy class.
Make a Wish
If I were to make a wish, what would it be? I will tell you the answer. But in my style, before revealing it, we need to first review financial history and interpret certain key events from my perspective.
At the core of the issue is why would the "Genie" grant my wish, or at least a close variant? The "Genie" and the helpers who actually control the workings of the state would only agree if my wish helps further their own objectives.
Donald Trump's two key aides—the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and the U.S. Secretary of State Mark Rubio—aim to strengthen the dollar's status and maintain U.S. hegemony by reforming the global economic order. As I mentioned in the previous article, "The Ugly," the dollar system is actually composed of two parts: one is a currency, and the other is a reserve asset. Since the signing of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944, the dollar has been the global reserve currency, but the form of the reserve asset has changed over time.
Evolution of the Dollar System's Reserve Asset
1944 - 1971: Gold
During this period, the value of the dollar was fixed at $35 per ounce of gold. Sovereign nations aligned with the "Pax Americana" could exchange dollars for gold at this price.
1971 - 1994: Oil
To pay for the massive expenses of the Vietnam War and the large-scale social welfare programs implemented by his predecessor, President Lyndon B. Johnson, U.S. President Richard Nixon decided to end the gold standard. Since then, the reserve asset shifted to the petrodollar. Saudi Arabia became the first country to explicitly agree to price oil in dollars and invested its dollar surplus from oil revenue in U.S. Treasuries. This arrangement allowed the U.S. Treasury to issue bonds backed by the flow of oil from the world's largest marginal oil-producing nation.
1994 - 2025: Foreign Exchange Reserves of Exporting Nations
In the 1980s, the U.S. significantly strengthened its economic resilience by increasing oil production and improving energy efficiency. At the same time, China's rise, along with the emergence of the Asian "Four Asian Tigers" such as Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia, and Thailand, enabled goods to be produced at very low costs for consumption by U.S. and Western consumers. In 1994, China adopted a large-scale devaluation strategy for the Renminbi and officially joined the global mercantilist competition of exporting for foreign exchange reserves. These exporting nations were allowed access to the vast Western consumer market but on the condition that they price goods in dollars and invest their dollar surplus in U.S. Treasuries.
2025 - Future: Bitcoin/Gold
However, China is not willing to continue playing a subservient role in the "Pax Americana" system. For China, the 20th century was a "century of humiliation," where the weak Qing emperors signed unequal treaties with Western powers, leading to two World Wars and a civil war that plunged the country into chaos. Prior to the European Renaissance, China was the world's largest economy. Therefore, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sees the "great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation" as a core goal. In fact, the idea of "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) is not unique to the United States—China has been pursuing its own national rejuvenation since 1949.
To achieve this goal, China successfully transformed from a low-cost, low-quality manufacturing country to a low-cost, high-quality production country. However, when the Chinese leadership realized that buying more U.S. Treasury bonds with their surplus would only further solidify their position as a "second-tier power" to the U.S., they decided to stop accumulating debt. Under the previous tacit agreement, every dollar of export surplus had to be used to buy an equivalent amount of U.S. Treasury bonds. However, based on public data from the past 12 months, although China earned $1 trillion through export surplus, its U.S. Treasury bond reserves decreased by $14 billion.
This trend has also caught the attention of other exporting countries. In rapidly developing global South countries, most have seen their trade with China surpass their trade with the U.S., although much of this trade is still priced in dollars. "De-dollarization" does not mean completely abandoning the dollar but rather investing the surplus in assets not dominated by the "Pax Americana," such as Bitcoin and gold. This marks a potential transformation of the global economic order.
Trump's aides are facing a tricky issue: they need to design a new system that can retain the dollar as the main pricing currency for global trade while finding a suitable reserve asset to maintain the normal operation of the U.S. Treasury market. If they truly have enough capability, perhaps they can manage to quickly reduce the U.S. public debt-to-GDP ratio to around 30%—the level the U.S. had in 2000.
However, the global market is no longer willing to consider U.S. Treasury bonds as a savings tool. This is why the introduction of a "neutral reserve asset" is needed. No country is trying to replace the dollar with its own currency because the decline of Pax Americana is evident, a decline caused by the economic imbalances brought about by the dollar as the global reserve currency.
Before continuing the discussion of my wish, I would like to talk about how a top strategist in the Traditional Finance (TradFi) money market space views this issue.
DeepSeek
Zoltan Pozsar is a former Federal Reserve (Fed) staffer and currently a strategist at Credit Suisse. A blog post he recently wrote has been highly praised by the "American Way of Peace" financial elites. His proposed solution (which I will detail later) may be put into practice, making it worth exploring. However, I will also point out where I disagree with his views. Ultimately, I believe his solution is more suited to the 1980s rather than 2025.
Many strategists who believe in the "American Exceptionalism" view think of regaining the power and prestige of the "American Way of Peace" as in the plot of the movie "Top Gun." In their imagination, a heroic Tom Cruise flies an F-14 fighter jet, effortlessly defeating his Russian and Chinese adversaries. However, this idea is clearly mistaken.
A sequel of "Top Gun" might better reflect the current international situation with slight adjustments. The $75 million F-18 fighter jets could be replaced with Iranian-made Shahed drones. These drones sell for only $50,000 and are widely deployed across Southern nations globally. Tom Cruise, now in his 60s, still flies these overly expensive jets while his adversaries are a swarm of drones interconnected through AI technology, costing only a fraction of the jets. In the Ukraine battlefield, both Russia and the USA have seen how 20th-century conventional weapons are powerless in a modern drone-dominated battlefield.
This brings to mind DeepSeek. If you are too immersed in the TikTok world, you may not be aware that DeepSeek is a revolutionary AI Large Language Model (LLM). Its performance rivals that of ChatGPT or Claude, but with 95% lower training costs. More importantly, it is open source. So far, no tech giant CEOs like NVIDIA's Jensen Huang or Microsoft's Satya Nadella have come forward to question the authenticity of its results or the reasonableness of its costs.
The significance of DeepSeek lies in the fact that it was developed by a hedge fund professional from Hangzhou, China. Against the backdrop of the US imposing a high-performance semiconductor blockade on China, the American logic was that Chinese entrepreneurs could not train and deploy LLMs that perform close to those relying on US high-performance chips. However, DeepSeek's success directly shatters the entrenched belief that "who spends the most money has the best LLM performance." This once again proves the saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention." Even facing economic sanctions, a small Chinese entrepreneurial team of only 200 people managed to break through with determination. If China's production capacity cannot be destroyed through ground warfare, perhaps the era of American Exceptionalism has truly come to an end. Being an ordinary country is not a problem unless your entire national identity is built on a fictional sense of national superiority, simply because you were born in the "United States."
When non-American elites consider themselves inherently inferior, they often choose to comply. This mindset allows American financial elites to easily dominate global policies, such as deciding which currency a country uses in trade and how to invest its national surplus. However, if non-Americans begin to realize their equality with Americans, they may no longer readily accept directives from American diplomats. This is particularly important for Zoltan's policy recommendations, as his measures are based on bilateral cooperation. If Bessent were to make a "just do it" request, a country's treasury or exchequer might comply, but if the country refuses, then there is no room for further discussion. This is precisely the fatal flaw in Zoltan's policy proposal.
Zoltan's goal and my goal are aligned: to weaken the value of U.S. Treasury debt. Additionally, Zoltan correctly points out that the U.S. needs to lengthen the duration of its debt and reduce interest payments. Assuming Bessent wishes to decrease the debt-to-GDP ratio from 100% to 30%, if GDP remains unchanged, then the actual value of the debt needs to decrease by 70%. Zoltan's core idea is to ask foreign creditors to swap their short-term Treasuries for hundred-year Treasuries. These hundred-year Treasuries are non-negotiable, but if a creditor country needs cash, they can be repurchased at face value.
Let me explain how this mechanism works:
Suppose you are a Southern country (a derogatory term), holding a $100 10-year U.S. Treasury bond in hand, with a face value of $100 as well.
1. As per Bessent's requirement, you need to exchange this 10-year Treasury for a zero-coupon 100-year Treasury (aka the hundred-year Treasury). The actual market value of this hundred-year Treasury is only $30, but the face value remains $100. For illustrative purposes, I have simplified the bond's math calculations. A bond with no coupon income and a longer term must inherently have a lower intrinsic value than a bond with a coupon and a shorter term.
2. Through this exchange, your debt's actual value is reduced by 70%, but the face value remains at $100.
3. If you are a "compliant ally" (like Europe...somewhat unreliable) or a "loyal vassal" (like the Philippines...actually, Europe might also fall into this category), you can contact the Fed at any time to convert this hundred-year Treasury into dollars at face value, with no fees. For example, when you need dollars to purchase oil from Saudi Arabia, the actual market value of this hundred-year Treasury is only $30, but the Fed will exchange it for dollars today at the $100 face value, interest-free.
4. However, from now on, any surplus dollars you have can only be used to purchase Century Bonds for future trades. You are not allowed to purchase any other financial assets.
This transaction has both benefits and drawbacks. The drawback is that the actual value of your debt has been reduced by 70%, which is equivalent to a severe blow to your national savings system. What's worse is that you have agreed to only receive liquidity support from the debt issuer—the Federal Reserve—and not through free trading in the global market. However, on the other hand, if you "behave," the Federal Reserve will provide interest-free loans to you at face value.
The benefit of this transaction is that if you are willing to accept this "barefaced humiliation," you can enter the circle of "American peace" and shared prosperity. The punishment is that if you refuse this transaction, your export goods will face high tariffs or even complete blockage, and you will also be unable to obtain U.S. weapons to address domestic and international conflicts.
However, there are a few points to note that, when combined, may lead to many countries not accepting this transaction. Firstly, for many countries, China has now replaced the United States as their largest trading partner. Secondly, the supply of U.S. weapons has been stretched thin as they have almost all been used to arm Ukraine. Additionally, many of the U.S. weapons are simply re-exported Chinese intermediate products, so why not just buy directly from China? Finally, from a psychological perspective, if a country has already rid itself of a "slave mentality," why would it willingly accept this kind of "barefaced humiliation"?
My Vision
Can I improve on Zoltan's idea? The answer is obviously yes.
Our core goal remains unchanged: to devalue existing U.S. debt, maintain the dollar as the primary global trade settlement currency, and extend the maturity of the debt to 100 years. Additionally, I have proposed a new goal: to establish Bitcoin as a global neutral reserve currency.
The choice of reference for currency devaluation is crucial. If a tangible commodity like oil or food is chosen as the reference, it may lead to social unrest due to inflation. Therefore, devaluation must target an asset that will not substantially harm the standard of living of the general public.
Zoltan's plan involves using time as a reference for devaluation. His idea is to exchange a 10-year bond for a 100-year bond. According to the time value of money theory, an asset that can only be redeemed after 100 years will have a much lower intrinsic value than an asset redeemable after 10 years. However, this exchange requires the consent of the counterparty. I believe that the reference for devaluation should be Bitcoin. More importantly, this type of devaluation can be implemented unilaterally, with the ultimate effect being the same as Zoltan's method.
My Plan:
Step One: Public Declaration
Bessent delivers a speech, announcing the United States' plan to restructure the global reserve currency system. The US dollar will continue to serve as the global trade settlement currency, but reserves will be held in Bitcoin.
Step Two: Gradual Depreciation
The US Treasury will purchase Bitcoin with US dollars at a price higher than the current market price. Through this method, the total market value of Bitcoin will be gradually increased to a level where it can serve as a global reserve asset. For example, if Bitcoin's market value needs to match the size of the US Treasury market, its price must rise to $1.8 million.
Example:
Assuming Bitcoin's current price is $100,000, Bessent announces that the Treasury will purchase Bitcoin at $200,000. However, unlike traditional purchases, the Treasury will not pay in cash but will offer a 100-year zero-coupon bond (Century Bond) based on the blockchain. Moreover, anyone meeting the identity verification requirements can repurchase these bonds at face value with no interest, with a rolling one-year buyback period. In other words, the Bitcoin seller seemingly receives dollars but actually holds Century Bonds in the form of a loan.
Market Reaction:
As the Treasury's bid is above the market spot price, this provides arbitrage opportunities for traders. Traders can borrow dollars to buy Bitcoin at a spot price lower than the Treasury's bid, sell to the Treasury for Century Bonds, then exchange the bonds back to dollars through the buyback mechanism, and finally repay the loan with those dollars. Since all of this is done on the blockchain, anyone globally can participate in this transaction, and the Bitcoin price will rapidly rise to the Treasury's bid level.
Criticism:
Why would Bitcoin holders be willing to exchange Bitcoin for an "unattractive" Century Bond? The reason is simple: the price is high enough. It's like many people thinking it's a good idea to give Bitcoin to BlackRock. If the price is attractive enough, most idealism and common sense will be thrown out the window.
Step Three: Extend Bond Maturity
At this point, the US Treasury's asset side holds Bitcoin, while the liability side holds Century Bonds. The market will anticipate Bessent continuing to increase the bid, prompting early action. At this point, the Treasury can sell Bitcoin for dollars at a higher price. For example, when the market price rises to $300,000, and the Treasury previously bought Bitcoin at $200,000, the $100,000 profit can be used to repurchase 10-year bonds. Through this method, Bessent can progressively extend the Weighted Average Maturity (WAM) of national debt.
Bond holders will not suffer because they know the Treasury will use trading profits to buy back non-circulating bonds. This is crucial as it maintains Traditional Finance's (TradFi) confidence and stability in bonds as collateral and loan pricing mechanisms.
Step Four: Social Media Banking
To further solidify the dominance of the US dollar outside of China (due to the ban of major US social media platforms like Facebook and X in China), Bessent proposes that Zuck (CEO of Facebook) and Musk (CEO of X) introduce a US dollar stablecoin transfer feature in their respective apps. Of course, the ideal choice would be to use Ethena's synthetic US dollar stablecoin, USDe. Through this approach, the entire world, especially the Global South regions (where Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram are key online communication and business platforms), will be brought into the dollar system. This strategy can effectively counter any attempts at de-dollarization in these countries.
More importantly, the leaders of these countries will hardly be able to stop this trend. If they try to deprive the common people of their reliance on social media, it could ignite social unrest overnight. Just like the US cannot ban TikTok owned by China because the younger generation will vote out any politician pushing for a ban in the next election.
With the gradual accumulation of digital dollars globally, these dollar surpluses may be stored in Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. If the price of Bitcoin continues to rise, small holders will naturally be enticed to sell Bitcoin back to the Treasury in exchange for century bonds. This way, holders of US debt will shift from a handful of countries to ordinary people worldwide. Rather than convincing a few countries not to sell their debt, it's better to have billions of ordinary people holding debt in a distributed manner, as this almost eliminates the risk of simultaneous sell-offs. Ultimately, the Treasury's goal is to ensure that debt holders are willing to hold these bonds long term.
Technical Blueprint
No matter what World Liberty Financial (WLF) claims to investors they are developing, this is what they should truly be doing. If you're not yet aware, World Liberty Financial is a cryptocurrency organization associated with the Trump family. Its aim is to utilize Web3 technology and WLF to build infrastructure that brings direct reform to the US Treasury. This approach will bypass the traditional "too big to fail" banks, but what have these banks done besides triggering one financial crisis after another, requiring bailouts through money printing? In the end, the currency inflation they create is eroding the economic foundation of the United States.
Just take a trip to the "American Peace" financial center of New York City, and you will see the reality with your own eyes. While the nightclubs may be brightly lit, the shadows of poverty, homelessness, and crime are everywhere. All of this can be attributed to the traditional banking system of JP Morgan & Chase and others.
The Web3 technology stack should be supported by public blockchains. You know what the answer is: never stop pushing forward! From this perspective, Aptos is the ideal choice. It is currently the fastest (800 milliseconds), lowest-cost (only $0.00005 per transaction), and most reliable (99.99% uptime) public blockchain, capable of supporting high-performance financial transactions.
Furthermore, Aptos's performance speaks for itself. According to RWA.xyz data, Aptos is quietly climbing to be among the top three networks with the most on-chain institutional assets, while also forming partnerships with institutions such as Franklin Templeton, Brevan Howard, and Microsoft. Its MOVE architecture was designed internally at Facebook to handle financial transactions for the world's largest social network, fully capable of handling this task.
Maelstrom will not work for free. It must first be stated that we hold a significant amount of Aptos and Ethena assets.
The U.S. Treasury Department needs to establish an on-chain exchange for trading digital dollars, century bonds, and Bitcoin.
Step One: Launch the digital dollar. The Treasury Department needs to choose two digital dollars: Tether's USDT and Ethena's USDe. USDT is essentially the U.S. dollar held in the U.S. banking system, while USDe is a synthetic dollar generated through longing cryptocurrencies and shorting perpetual swaps; all of its assets are held in major cryptocurrency exchanges. Politics at its core is about "exchange of interests," so how can the current government benefit from these two proposals? U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick holds equity in Tether, while World Liberty Financial (WLF) holds millions of dollars' worth of Ethena governance token $ENA. If Tether and Ethena are selected as the Treasury Department's approved digital dollars, both their equity and token holders will benefit. This "self-interest" is the fundamental driving force behind human social development.
Step Two: Tokenize century bonds. The Treasury Department can issue a token (TSY100) for each century bond. Users can purchase these tokens using wrapped Bitcoin on the Aptos blockchain (currently achievable through tools like Wormhole, Celer, and LayerZero). Next, a buyback mechanism needs to be established, allowing users to collateralize TSY100 and receive loans in USDT or USDe.
Technical Note: From a technical standpoint, the Treasury cannot directly create USDT or USDe. Therefore, if a user needs USDT, the Treasury needs to mint USDT by transferring funds to Tether's bank account. If a user needs USDe, the Treasury needs to first mint USDT and then generate USDe through Ethena's mechanism. This process can be automated through APIs provided by Tether and Ethena and completed in the form of atomic transactions.
Step Three: Build a Web3 Currency Market Exchange. The Treasury needs to establish a licensed Web3 currency market exchange, which we can call EagleSwap. The Treasury already owns an identity verification service called ID.me (an example of an online identity verification service). This service can be extended to allow global users to whitelist their Aptos wallets through signature. When users connect their Aptos wallet to EagleSwap via desktop or mobile, if whitelisted, they can freely trade between USDT, USDe, TSY100, and wrapped Bitcoin. Due to the Treasury's large-scale trading of Bitcoin, USD, and treasury bonds globally, EagleSwap will quickly become the most liquid venue for trading these assets.
Next Phase: Integrate Social Media Platforms. The Treasury can also collaborate with globally dominant-controlled social media platforms. Facebook and X are prime candidates to roll out cryptocurrency wallet features. By abstractly connecting their users to EagleSwap, these users will be able to easily transfer, trade, and store digital dollars, century bonds, and wrapped Bitcoin. The most pressing need for the global Southern Hemisphere region is to conduct business activities in USD outside their traditional financial systems. Despite potential issues with USD, it remains a more stable choice compared to other fiat currencies. Building the technical infrastructure for this connection should be accomplished using the Aptos blockchain.
The dominance of the few is undeniable, as seen from their prominent positions at the Trump inauguration. Next, they need to take further action to weaken the parasitic existence of Traditional Finance (TradFi) banks.
I have previously discussed implementing this strategy through unilateral devaluation of the dollar and related technical means. Next, I will explore why the U.S. can gain a unique advantage in the production of "neutral reserve assets" by enacting appropriate laws.
Neutral Reserve Asset: Potential Advantage for the United States
If those elites who control the Pax Americana are to accept this proposal, the United States must have a unique competitive advantage in Bitcoin mining. As is well known, Bitcoin mining requires a significant amount of energy to solve complex mathematical problems. So the question is, does the United States have a cheap and abundant energy supply? The answer is yes, the United States has two significant advantages in energy production.
First, the United States has abundant hydrocarbon resources. There is a large amount of untapped hydrocarbon resources within the United States, distributed within what we call the "national boundaries." All that is needed is sufficient capital and government drilling permits. More importantly, the drilling activities to provide energy for Bitcoin mining are not restricted by the geographical location of the energy. Typically, energy reserves are often far from major population centers, and the cost of transporting these resources to cities is sometimes even higher than the extraction cost. However, by building power plants directly at the resource location to power Bitcoin mining, the transportation hassle can be completely avoided.
Many remote areas, despite being rich in energy resources, often cannot be effectively utilized due to a lack of pipelines and transportation infrastructure. By establishing localized power stations and Bitcoin mining facilities in these areas, these "stranded" energy resources can be fully utilized. For example, Alaska is not only remote and rich in hydrocarbon resources but also has a cold climate, making it ideal for building Bitcoin mining facilities. The cold climate can significantly reduce the cooling costs of mining equipment, making Alaska an ideal Bitcoin mining location.
Second, the United States' capitalist tradition. The capitalist system of the United States is another major advantage. Regardless of the moral controversies surrounding capitalism, the existence of this system is an undeniable fact. The United States is a nation founded by a group of tax-evading slaveholders who, through establishing the Constitution, ensured the continuous appreciation of their capital and maintained their descendants' dominance in the economy and politics. Under such a system, engaging in a long-term large-scale capital investment project, such as drilling for hydrocarbons and mining Bitcoin, is undoubtedly the most appropriate choice.
Another point is the new advantage brought by the construction of domestic semiconductor factories in the United States. Taiwan Semiconductor is nearing completion of its state-of-the-art wafer fabs in Arizona. Meanwhile, with incentives such as government subsidies and tax breaks, other semiconductor foundries will also be encouraged to build factories in the United States. This means that Bitcoin ASIC chips (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit chips) can be produced domestically in the United States. Even if a future surge in Bitcoin prices leads to a global demand spike, the United States can ensure an adequate chip supply, avoiding any shortage issues.
However, there is a significant challenge: While traditional fiat capital enjoys top-tier policy treatment in the United States, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have not received the same level of support. To address this issue, the United States needs to provide constitutional protection for Bitcoin and cryptocurrency. The core principle of Bitcoin mining is decentralization and censorship resistance, but there is currently a possibility that legislators may require miners or node operators to perform some form of censorship. Therefore, a public encrypted ledger (such as the blockchain) needs to be viewed as a protected form of speech. This view is reasonable because a public blockchain is essentially a decentralized network driven by miners through power consumption, at its core being an immutable digital speech chain.
If the United States wishes to become the global hub for Bitcoin mining, it can achieve this through a bill of fewer than 200 words: "Cryptocurrency and its tokens based on blockchain operation should be considered a protected form of speech. All laws applicable to freedom of speech also apply to users or intermediaries of public blockchain technology. Cryptocurrency and public blockchain are private domains, and no government agency shall compel intermediaries, participants, or blockchain node operators to collect or provide data about participants and transactions."
If the United States has a government that supports energy development, coupled with legislation supporting permissionless innovation in cryptocurrency, it can establish a solid foundation to attract global crypto activities. Energy production and ASIC chip manufacturing require significant capital expenditure (CAPEX), and the United States not only has abundant capital markets but can also provide legal protection for the operation of peer-to-peer decentralized networks. These conditions will make the United States a major hub for Bitcoin network hashrate. Ultimately, the production of a "neutral reserve asset" will take place within the United States, bringing a significant strategic advantage to the country in the global economy.
Once the relevant legislation is passed, overturning it will become extremely difficult. Just as many politicians, while critical of the negative impact of large tech companies and social media, have had little progress in abolishing Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Bill since its enactment. This section grants tech platforms immunity from liability for content and activities on their networks, a status quo that is highly profitable for relevant parties. Similar "interest alliances" could also form between cryptocurrency and politicians, while also providing tangible benefits to those in need of high-paying jobs and tax revenue growth.
Rise of Hodlers
If Bessent can successfully drive the Bitcoin price above $1.8 million, it will create a group of the wealthiest people in human history. Currently, some of the largest Bitcoin holders are either U.S. residents or U.S.-registered companies. For example, BlackRock, in less than a year since launching a Bitcoin ETF, has accumulated nearly 600,000 bitcoins worth close to $60 billion. Considering that U.S. political power is largely dependent on wealth, these Bitcoin holders will be able to exert significant political influence. If the Republican Party adopts cryptocurrency-friendly policies, these holders may become staunch supporters for many years or even decades to come.
For politicians, reelection is their core goal. Aside from Trump, those who align with his political ideology are likely to be reelected in 2026 or 2028. By making American cryptocurrency holders extremely wealthy and further solidifying the global dominance of the US dollar, undoubtedly, one of the best strategies for Republican politicians to ensure reelection.
Global Acceptance of Bitcoin as a Reserve Asset
Will other major trade surplus countries accept Bitcoin to replace government bonds as a reserve asset? The answer is yes.
Assuming Bitcoin's market cap is large enough to support trillions of dollars in international trade, Bitcoin has the following significant advantages over government bonds:
1. Bitcoin's code cannot be unilaterally changed.
Bitcoin's decentralized design ensures that no one can unilaterally change its code. Even if some US miners attempt to change the blockchain through a hard fork, such as excluding certain transactions or modifying Bitcoin's total supply, this would only result in the value of Bitcoin on the new chain going to zero, rendering their assets instantly worthless. The economic game theory behind the Bitcoin blockchain ensures that this situation will not occur.
2. Bitcoin transactions are borderless. With an internet connection, Bitcoin can be accessed and transacted at any time, anywhere without permission.
3. Bitcoin is the purest form of monetary energy derivative. It can effectively store the energy value of a trade surplus over time, making it an ideal reserve asset.
No country, including China, is willing to take on the role of the global reserve currency issuer and make their bond market a global reserve asset. This is because this role naturally requires an open capital account, and when a country stops producing actual goods and turns to financial engineering, most ordinary people will face severe adverse effects. This is clearly contrary to the concept of "shared prosperity." Therefore, an improved system may be: continue to trade using the dollar or allow the exchange of bilateral local currencies, but store the trade surplus in Bitcoin. This system benefits everyone... except for those "too big to fail" traditional financial institutions (TradFi). These institutions will have to face the gradual decline in their own power and prestige, while the influence of decentralized finance (DeFi) will continue to grow.
The Right Wish
Stacking sats is my hobby, and I hope it's yours too. So, if you ever have the opportunity to sit at the "Wizard's Table," dressed to impress, make sure you make the right wish.
Epilogue: The Innocence and Reality of the Cryptocurrency Community
People in the cryptocurrency community are often the smartest in the world, yet also the most naive. And Trump is giving them a crash course in politics.
The price of Bitcoin surged from $70,000 to $110,000 in less than 60 days. Behind this phenomenon is the widespread belief in the cryptocurrency community that all their wishes will be fulfilled within the framework of Pax Americana. However, this idea faces a key problem: in any bilateral value exchange, the rational choice is to receive the commodity before payment. Trump and the Republicans have clearly already received what they wanted from the cryptocurrency community—enough votes to win the presidency and gain party majorities in the House and Senate. It is now their turn to "pay," but their timetable is clearly very different from ours, the "speculative maniacs," with our eager eyes on one-second candlesticks.
Trump is currently setting up working groups and Senate committees, but has not taken any actual action. When Trump really wants to act, he acts quickly. For example, he imposed a 25% tariff on the United States' largest trading partner, from announcement to implementation in just a few days; he quickly repealed ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies within government agencies. These examples indicate that Trump is not reluctant to take positive action on cryptocurrency, but that cryptocurrency regulation or a Bitcoin strategic reserve is not his or the Republicans' top priority. This is regrettable, as at the margin, the single-issue cryptocurrency voter was a key force in getting them elected.
Will Bitcoin's Price Fall?
As the world gradually realizes that U.S. politics has not fundamentally changed due to Trump's election, the price of cryptocurrency may fall back to the levels of the fourth quarter of 2024. I still stand by the prediction that Bitcoin will retest the range of $70,000 to $75,000.
How Can the Cryptocurrency Market Recover from its Slump?
To revive the market, the following scenarios may need to occur: The Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury, institutions in China or Japan, etc., introduce some form of monetary stimulus policy, or enact legislation explicitly supporting Permissionless Crypto Innovation. However, if this bill is cobbled together like "Frankenstein" just to cater to the interests of Coinbase, BlackRock, and traditional stock investors, it will not only fail to propel the market to new heights for us crypto degens, but it will also fail to achieve the goal of "decentralizing everything." Such a bill would not only deviate from the ideals of crypto, but would also offend the spirit of decentralization, with rapid and severe consequences.
Rise Up and Advocate for the Crypto Future
Nevertheless, there is still hope. If you are a cryptocurrency holder in the United States (Hodler), now is the time to take action! Let your elected representatives know that you will not stand for the status quo. Email them, write letters, or visit their local offices in person. Politicians often respond to those who care about policy. If you believe that establishing a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve is necessary, now is the time to speak up loudly, instead of just liking a post on X platform (formerly Twitter).
The issue is that digital tools allow us to express anger within our own echo chambers at will, but they rarely prompt us to take real-world action. Yet, in reality, everything you truly value has come through some form of effort and sacrifice. The political journey of cryptocurrency is not a "one-click" process—open your eyes, rise up, or the market may continue to slide.
猜你喜歡
穩定幣驅動全球B2B支付革新,如何打破工作流程瓶頸釋放兆市場潛力?
這些新創公司正在無需資料中心的情況下建立先進AI模型
CEX與Wallet之後,OKX入局支付
RWA永續產品危機:為什麼GLP模式註定撐不住RWA永續?
科學平權運動:DeSci的萬億美元知識經濟重建革命
Sentient深度研報:獲8,500萬美元融資,建置去中心化AGI新範式
專訪Virtuals聯創empty:AI 創業不需要大量資金,Crypto是答案之一
今年 2 月,Base 生態中的 AI 協議 Virtuals 宣布跨鏈至 Solana,然而加密市場隨後進入流動性緊縮期,AI Agent 板塊從人聲鼎沸轉為低迷,Virtuals 生態也陷入一段蟄伏期。
三月初,BlockBeats 對 Virtuals 共同創辦人 empty 進行了一次專訪。彼時,團隊尚未推出如今被廣泛討論的 Genesis Launch 機制,但已在內部持續探索如何透過機制設計激活舊資產、提高用戶參與度,並重構代幣發行與融資路徑。那是一個市場尚未復甦、生態尚處冷啟動階段的時間點,Virtuals 團隊卻沒有停下腳步,而是在努力尋找新的產品方向和敘事突破口。
兩個月過去,AI Agent 板塊重新升溫,Virtuals 代幣反彈超 150%,Genesis 機製成為帶動生態回暖的重要觸發器。從積分獲取規則的動態調整,到專案參與熱度的持續上升,再到「新代幣帶老代幣」的機制閉環,Virtuals 逐漸走出寒冬,並再次站上討論焦點。
值得注意的是,Virtuals 的 Genesis 機制與近期 Binance 推出的 Alpha 積分系統有一些相似之處,評估用戶在 Alpha 和幣安錢包生態系統內的參與度,決定用戶 Alpha 代幣空投的資格。用戶可透過持倉、交易等方式獲得積分,積分越高,參與新項目的機會越大。透過積分系統篩選使用者、分配資源,專案方能夠更有效地激勵社群參與,提升專案的公平性和透明度。 Virtuals 和 Binance 的探索,或許預示著加密融資的新趨勢正在形成。
回看這次對話,empty 在專訪中所展現出的思路與判斷,正在一步步顯現其前瞻性,這不僅是一場圍繞打新機制的訪談,更是一次關於“資產驅動型 AI 協議”的路徑構建與底層邏輯的深度討論。
BlockBeats:可以簡單分享一下最近團隊主要在忙些什麼?
empty:目前我們的工作重點主要有兩個部分。第一部分,我們希望將 Virtuals 打造成一個類似「華爾街」的代理人(Agent)服務平台。設想一下,如果你是專注於 Agent 或 Agent 團隊建立的創業者,從融資、發幣到流動性退出,整個流程都需要係統性的支援。我們希望為真正專注於 Agent 和 AI 研發的團隊,提供這一整套服務體系,讓他們可以把精力集中在底層能力的開發上,而不用為其他環節分心。這一塊的工作其實也包括了與散戶買賣相關的內容,後面可以再詳細展開。
第二部分,我們正在深入推進 AI 相關的佈局。我們的願景是建立一個 AI 社會,希望每個 Agent 都能聚焦自身優勢,同時透過彼此之間的協作,實現更大的價值。因此,最近我們發布了一個新的標準——ACP(Agent Communication Protocol),目的是讓不同的 Agent 能夠相互互動、協作,共同推動各自的業務目標。這是目前我們主要在推進的兩大方向。
BlockBeats:可以再展開說說嗎?
empty:在我看來,其實我們面對的客戶群可以分為三類:第一類是專注於開發 Agent 的團隊;第二類是投資者,包括散戶、基金等各種投資機構;第三類則是 C 端用戶,也就是最終使用 Agent 產品的個人用戶。
不過,我們主要的精力其實是放在前兩大類──也就是團隊和投資人。對於 C 端用戶這一塊,我們並不打算直接介入,而是希望各個 Agent 團隊能夠自己解決 C 端市場的拓展問題。
此外,我們也認為,Agent 與 Agent 之間的交互作用應該成為一個核心模式。簡單來說,就是未來的服務更多應該是由一個 Agent 銷售或提供給另一個 Agent,而不是單純賣給人類使用者。因此,在團隊的 BD 工作中,我們也積極幫助現有的 AI 團隊尋找這樣的客戶和合作機會。
BlockBeats:大概有一些什麼具體案例呢?
empty:「華爾街」說白了就是圍繞資本運作體系的建設,假設你是一個技術團隊,想要融資,傳統路徑是去找 VC 募資,拿到資金後開始發展。如果專案做得不錯,接下來可能會考慮進入二級市場,例如在紐約證券交易所上市,或是在 Binance 這樣的交易所上幣,實現流動性退出。
我們希望把這一整套流程打通-從早期融資,到專案開發過程中對資金的靈活使用需求,再到最終二級市場的流動性退出,全部覆蓋和完善,這是我們希望補齊的一條完整鏈條。
而這一部分的工作和 ACP(Agent Communication Protocol)是不同的,ACP 更多是關於 Agent 與 Agent 之間交互標準的製定,不直接涉及資本運作系統。
BlockBeats:它和現在 Virtuals 的這個 Launchpad 有什麼差別呢?資金也是從 C 端來是嗎?
empty:其實現在你在 Virtuals 上發幣,如果沒有真正融到資金,那就只是發了一個幣而已,實際是融不到錢的。我們目前能提供的服務,是透過設定買賣時的交易稅機制,從中提取一部分稅收回饋給創業者,希望這部分能成為他們的現金流來源。
不過,問題其實還分成兩塊。第一是如何真正幫助團隊完成融資,這個問題目前我們還沒有徹底解決。第二是關於目前專案發行模式本身存在的結構性問題。簡單來說,現在的版本有點像過去 Pumpfun 那種模式——也就是當專案剛上線時,部分籌碼就被外賣給了外部投資人。但現實是,目前整個市場上存在著太多機構集團和「狙擊手」。
當一個真正優秀的專案一發幣,還沒真正觸達普通散戶,就已經被機構在極高估值時搶購了。等到散戶能夠接觸到時,往往價格已經偏高,專案品質也可能變差,整個價值發行體係被扭曲。
針對這個問題,我們希望探索一種新的發幣和融資模式,目的是讓專案方的籌碼既不是死死握在自己手裡,也不是優先流向英文圈的大機構,而是能夠真正留給那些相信專案、願意長期支持專案的普通投資者手中。我們正在思考該如何設計這樣一個新的發行機制,來解決這個根本問題。
BlockBeats:新模式的具體想法會是什麼樣子呢?
empty:關於資金這一塊,其實我們目前還沒有完全想透。現階段來看,最直接的方式還是去找 VC 融資,或是採取公開預售等形式進行資金募集。不過說實話,我個人對傳統的公開預售模式並不是特別認同。
在「公平發售」這件事上,我們正在嘗試換一個角度來思考-希望能從「reputation」出發,重新設計機制。
具體來說,就是如果你對整個 Virtuals 生態有貢獻,例如早期參與、提供支持或建設,那麼你就可以在後續購買優質代幣時享有更高的優先權。透過這種方式,我們希望把資源更多留給真正支持生態發展的用戶,而不是由短期套利的人主導。
BlockBeats:您會不會考慮採用類似之前 Fjord Foundry 推出的 LBP 模式,或者像 Daos.fun 那種採用白名單機制的模式。這些模式在某種程度上,和您剛才提到的「對生態有貢獻的人享有優先權」的想法是有些相似的。不過,這類做法後來也引發了一些爭議,例如白名單內部操作、分配不公等問題。 Virtuals 在設計時會考慮借鏡這些模式的優點,或有針對性地規避類似的問題嗎?
empty:我認為白名單機制最大的問題在於,白名單的選擇權掌握在專案方手中。這和「老鼠倉」行為非常相似。專案方可以選擇將白名單名額分配給自己人或身邊的朋友,導致最終的籌碼仍然掌握在少數人手中。
我們希望做的,依然是類似白名單的機制,但不同的是,白名單的獲取權應基於一個公開透明的規則體系,而不是由項目方單方面決定。只有這樣,才能真正做到公平分配,避免內幕操作的問題。
我認為在今天這個 AI 時代,很多時候創業並不需要大量資金。我常跟團隊強調,你們應該優先考慮自力更生,例如透過組成社區,而不是一開始就想著去融資。因為一旦融資,實際上就等於背負了負債。
我們更希望從 Training Fee的角度去看待早期發展路徑。也就是說,專案可以選擇直接發幣,透過交易稅所帶來的現金流,支持日常營運。這樣一來,專案可以在公開建設的過程中獲得初步資金,而不是依賴外部投資。如果專案做大了,自然也會有機會透過二級市場流動性退出。
當然最理想的情況是,專案本身能夠有穩定的現金流來源,這樣甚至連自己的幣都無需拋售,這才是真正健康可持續的狀態。
我自己也常在和團隊交流時分享這種思路,很有意思的是,那些真正抱著「搞快錢」心態的項目,一聽到這種機制就失去了興趣。他們會覺得,在這種模式下,既無法操作老鼠倉,也很難短期套利,於是很快就選擇離開。
但從我們的角度來看,這其實反而是個很好的篩選機制。透過這種方式,理念不同的專案自然會被過濾出去,最後留下的,都是那些願意真正建立、和我們價值觀契合的團隊,一起把事情做起來。
BlockBeats:這個理念可以發展出一些能夠創造收益的 AI agent。
empty:我覺得這是很有必要的。坦白說,放眼今天的市場,真正擁有穩定現金流的產品幾乎鳳毛麟角,但我認為這並不意味著我們應該停止嘗試。事實上,我們每天在對接的團隊中,有至少一半以上的人依然懷抱著長遠的願景。很多時候,他們甚至已經提前向我們提供了 VC 階段的資金支持,或表達了強烈的合作意願。
其實對他們來說想要去收穫一個很好的社區,因為社區可以給他們的產品做更好的回饋,這才是他們真正的目的。這樣聽起來有一點匪夷所思,但其實真的有很多這樣的團隊,而那種團隊的是我們真的想扶持的團隊。
BlockBeats:您剛才提到的這套「AI 華爾街」的產品體系-從融資、發行到退出,建構的是一整套完整的流程。這套機制是否更多是為了激勵那些有意願發幣的團隊?還是說,它在設計上也考慮瞭如何更好地支持那些希望透過產品本身的現金流來發展的團隊?這兩類團隊在您這套體系中會不會被區別對待,或者說有什麼機制設計能讓不同路徑的創業者都能被合理支持?
empty:是的,我們 BD 的核心職責其實就是去鼓勵團隊發幣。說得直接一點,就是引導他們思考發幣的可能性和意義。所以團隊最常問的問題就是:「為什麼要發幣?」這時我們需要採取不同的方式和角度,去幫助他們理解背後的價值邏輯。當然如果最終判斷不適合,我們也不會強迫他們推進。
不過我們觀察到一個非常明顯的趨勢,傳統的融資路徑已經越來越難走通了。過去那種融資做大,發幣上所的模式已經逐漸失效。面對這樣的現實,很多團隊都陷入了尷尬的境地。而我們希望能從鏈上和加密的視角,提供一套不同的解決方案,讓他們找到新的發展路徑。
BlockBeats:明白,我剛才其實想表達的是,您剛剛也提到,傳統的 AI 模式在很大程度上仍然依賴「燒錢」競爭。但在 DeepSeek 出現之後,市場上一些資金體積較小的團隊或投資人開始重新燃起了信心,躍躍欲試地進入這個領域。您怎麼看待這種現象?這會不會對目前正在做 AI 基礎研發,或是 AI 應用層開發的團隊產生一定的影響?
empty:對,我覺得先不談 DeepSeek,從傳統角度來看,其實到目前為止,AI 領域真正賺錢的只有英偉達,其他幾乎所有玩家都還沒有實現盈利。所以其實沒有人真正享受了這個商業模式的成果,大家也仍在探索如何面對 C 端打造真正有產出的應用。
沒有哪個領域像幣圈一樣能如此快速獲得社群回饋。你一發幣,用戶就會主動去讀白皮書的每一個字,試試你產品的每個功能。
當然,這套機制並不適合所有人。例如有些 Agent 產品偏 Web2,對於幣圈用戶而言,可能感知不到其價值。因此,我也會鼓勵做 Agent 的團隊在 Virtuals 生態中認真思考,如何真正將 Crypto 作為自身產品的差異化要素加以運用與設計。
BlockBeats:這點我特別認同,在 Crypto 這個領域 AI 的迭代速度確實非常快,但這群用戶給予的回饋,真的是代表真實的市場需求嗎?或者說這些回饋是否真的符合更大眾化、更具規模性的需求?
empty:我覺得很多時候產品本身不應該是強行推廣給不適合的使用者群體。例如 AIXBT 最成功的一點就在於,它的用戶本身就是那群炒作他人內容的人,所以他們的使用行為是非常自然的,並不覺得是在被迫使用一個無聊的產品。 mass adoption 這個概念已經講了很多年,大家可能早就該放棄這個執念了。我們不如就認了,把東西賣給幣圈的人就好了。
BlockBeats:AI Agent 與 AI Agent 所對應的代幣之間,究竟應該是什麼樣的動態關係?
empty:對,我覺得這裡可以分成兩個核心點。首先其實不是在投資某個具體的 AI Agent,而是在投資背後經營這個 Agent 的團隊。你應該把它理解為一種更接近創投的思路:你投的是這個人,而不是他目前正在做的產品。因為產品本身是可以快速變化的,可能一個月後團隊會發現方向不對,立即調整。所以,這裡的「幣」本質上代表的是對團隊的信任,而不是某個特定 Agent 本身。
第二則是期望一旦某個 Agent 產品做出來後,未來它能真正產生現金流,或者有實際的使用場景(utility),從而讓對應的代幣具備賦能效應。
BlockBeats:您覺得有哪些賦能方式是目前還沒看到的,但未來可能出現、值得期待的?
empty:其實主要有兩塊,第一是比較常見的那種你要使用我的產品,就必須付費,或者使用代幣支付,從而間接實現對代幣的「軟銷毀」或消耗。
但我覺得更有趣的賦能方式,其實是在獲客成本的角度思考。也就是說,你希望你的用戶同時也是你的投資者,這樣他們就有動機去主動幫你推廣、吸引更多用戶。
BlockBeats:那基於這些觀點,您怎麼看 ai16z,在專案設計和代幣機制方面,似乎整體表現並不太樂觀?
empty:從一個很純粹的投資角度來看,撇開我們與他們之間的關係,其實很簡單。他們現在做的事情,對代幣本身沒有任何賦能。從開源的角度來看,一個開源模型本身是無法直接賦能代幣的。
但它仍然有價值的原因在於,它像一個期權(call option),也就是說,如果有一天他們突然決定要做一些事情,比如推出一個 launchpad,那麼那些提前知道、提前參與的人,可能會因此受益。
開發者未來確實有可能會使用他們的 Launchpad,只有在那一刻,代幣才會真正產生賦能。這是目前最大的一個問號——如果這個模式真的跑得通,我認為確實會非常強大,因為他們的確觸達了大量開發者。
但我個人還是有很多疑問。例如即使我是使用 Eliza 的開發者,也不代表我一定會選擇在他們的 Launchpad 上發幣。我會貨比三家,會比較。而且,做一個 Launchpad 和做一個開源框架,所需的產品能力和社群運作能力是完全不同的,這是另一個重要的不確定性。
BlockBeats:這種不同是體現在什麼地方呢?
empty:在 Virtuals 上我們幾乎每天都在處理客服相關的問題,只要有任何一個團隊在我們平台上發生 rug,即使與我們沒有直接關係,用戶也會第一時間來找我們投訴。
這時我們就必須出面安撫用戶,並思考如何降低 rug 的整體風險。一旦有團隊因為自己的代幣設計錯誤或技術失誤而被駭客攻擊、資產被盜,我們往往需要自掏腰包,確保他們的社群至少能拿回一點資金,以便專案能夠重新開始。這些項目方可能在技術上很強,但未必擅長代幣發行,結果因操作失誤被攻擊導致資產損失。只要涉及「被欺騙」相關的問題,對我們來說就已經是非常麻煩的事了,做這些工作跟做交易所的客服沒有太大差別。
另一方面,做 BD 也非常困難。優秀的團隊手上有很多選擇,他們可以選擇在 Pumpfun 或交易所上發幣,為什麼他們要來找我們,那這背後必須要有一整套支援體系,包括融資支援、技術協助、市場推廣等,每個環節都不能出問題。
BlockBeats:那我們就繼續沿著這個話題聊聊 Virtuals 目前的 Launchpad 業務。有一些社群成員在 Twitter 上統計了 Virtuals Launchpad 的整體獲利狀況,確實目前看起來獲利的項目比較少。接下來 Launchpad 還會是 Virtuals 的主要業務區嗎?還是說,未來的重心會逐漸轉向您剛才提到的「AI 華爾街」這條路徑?
empty:其實這兩塊本質上是一件事,是一整套體系的一部分,所以我們必須繼續推進。市場的波動是很正常的,我們始終要堅持的一點是:非常清楚地認識到我們的核心客戶是誰。我一直強調我們的客戶只有兩類——團隊。所以市場行情的好壞對我們來說並不是最重要的,關鍵是在每一個關鍵節點上,對於一個團隊來說,發幣的最佳選擇是否依然是我們 Virtuals。
BlockBeats:您會不會擔心「Crypto + AI」或「Crypto AI Agent」這一類敘事已經過去了?如果未來還有一輪多頭市場,您是否認為市場炒作的焦點可能已經不再是這些方向了?
empty:有可能啊,我覺得 it is what it is,這確實是有可能發生的,但這也屬於我們無法控制的範圍。不過如果你問我,在所有可能的趨勢中,哪個賽道更有機會長期保持領先,我仍然認為是 AI。從一個打德撲的角度來看,它仍然是最優選擇。
而且我們團隊的技術架構和底層能力其實早已搭建完成了,現在只是順勢而為而已。更重要的是,我們本身真的熱愛這件事,帶著好奇心去做這件事。每天早上醒來就有驅動力去研究最新的技術,這種狀態本身就挺讓人滿足的,對吧?
很多時候,大家不應該只看產品本身。實際上很多優秀的團隊,他們的基因決定了他們有在規則中勝出的能力——他們可能過去在做派盤交易時,每筆規模就是上百萬的操作,而這些團隊的 CEO,一年的薪資可能就有 100 萬美金。如果他們願意出來單幹項目,從天使投資或 VC 的視角來看,這本質上是用一個很划算的價格買到一個高品質的團隊。
更何況這些資產是 liquid 的,不是鎖倉狀態。如果你當下不急著用錢,完全可以在早期階段買進一些優秀團隊的代幣,靜靜等待他們去創造一些奇蹟,基本上就是這樣一個邏輯。