To be precise, it is those who can quickly react and understand market trends in advance that profit.

整理 & 编译：深潮TechFlow

Guest: Jademont Zheng (Dashan), CEO and Co-founder of Waterdrip Capital

Host: Bonnie

Podcast Source: Bonnie Blockchain

Original Title: Bitcoin Plummets in 2025! "Who Really Made Money in This Bull Market?" Winners in the Crypto Space: Who Will Laugh Last? Jademont Zheng [Bonnie Blockchain]

Broadcast Date: November 6, 2025

Key Points Summary

This episode of the podcast invites Jademont Zheng (Dashan), CEO and Co-founder of Waterdrip Capital, to discuss the following topics:

• Who made money in this bull market?

• Has the essence of the crypto space in 2025 already reversed?

• Has the era of retail investors exiting and enterprises entering really arrived?

• How long can the Bitcoin ETF craze last?

Highlights of Insights

• It is very difficult for everyone to make money in any market.

• Before 2017, the center of global blockchain was Shanghai, not New York.

• Judging whether someone is an OG is not about the amount of Bitcoin they hold, but about their beliefs and principles.

• As a VC, we still hope to support truly innovative companies; the old model of quickly launching a product on an exchange and cashing out is completely outdated.

• Nowadays, there are significantly fewer startup projects, giving us more time to deeply research and analyze these projects, with larger investment amounts. Past investments tended to cast a wide net, while now the focus is more on quality.

• We boldly predicted ten years ago, or even earlier, that Bitcoin would rise to $100,000.

• People will not publicly disclose how much Bitcoin they hold.

• Those who have held Bitcoin for over ten years are no longer concerned about the price; they believe that Bitcoin reaching $1 million is only a matter of time, and there is no need to discuss the price anymore.

• The reason Bitcoin's price rises is due to the consensus around it, but if Bitcoin is stored in cold wallets for a long time without being used, its social value will greatly diminish.

• For many OGs, Bitcoin rising above $100,000 may not be very meaningful, as an extra zero on their assets does not significantly impact their lives.

• If the entire decentralized economic system can thrive and even replace some functions of traditional finance, that would be truly exciting; it represents the establishment of a new economic order.

• The U.S. may intend to establish a parallel trade and payment system outside of the SWIFT system.

• The original intention of Bitcoin's design is to ensure security through the technology itself, rather than relying on human moral constraints.

Who Made Money in This Bull Market

Bonnie: Jademont, I want to talk to you about who really made money in this bull market. Many people say this bull market is institution-led, especially after the launch of the Bitcoin spot ETF, institutional funds have started to flood into the market. What do you think about the current state of the bull market?

Jademont:

That's a very interesting question. In fact, it is very difficult for everyone to make money in any market. Looking at the situation over the past two to three years, it is indeed the institutions that have made money. More accurately, it is those who can quickly react and understand market trends in advance that have profited. For example, during Trump's administration, the U.S. regulatory policies towards cryptocurrencies became more favorable, and those who seized this trend made money. Conversely, if one continues to follow the old strategy of trading small coins, they may face significant losses.

Bonnie: I heard that venture capital (VC) is not very willing to support new projects now, and first-tier exchanges are more inclined to support mature companies like Bitcoin reserve companies or Ethereum reserve companies. Is that true?

Jademont:

Actually, that's not the case. As VCs, our main goal is not to hold mainstream assets, as these assets are usually held by large institutions or traditional financial institutions. Our responsibility is to support innovative companies and early-stage entrepreneurs. However, the market dynamics have indeed changed. A few years ago, we could see a large number of startups emerging, but now if you walk around the conference exhibition, you will find that there are fewer small companies, and most are more mature companies or traditional enterprises.

Now, companies wanting to enter the crypto space have stronger financial backing, but we as VCs still hope to support truly innovative companies; the old model of quickly launching a product on an exchange and cashing out is completely outdated. The companies we support now have longer-term goals, typically aiming for stable development within three to five years, or to grow into industry leaders within five to ten years. As for whether these companies choose to issue tokens or go public, that is merely a formal choice and does not imply superiority or inferiority.

Bonnie: So can I understand it this way? Many so-called DAT reserve companies actually have growth potential comparable to new projects. Is your support for new projects not just for safer profits, but for other considerations as well?

Jademont:

For VCs, the long-term return on holding DAT may be comparable to mainstream coins. For example, investing in a Bitcoin reserve company, its price increase is usually positively correlated with Bitcoin's price. However, for early-stage projects, we pursue excess returns. We hope to achieve returns several times the increase in Bitcoin, such as five times or even ten times; this is the goal of VCs, but the success rate is relatively low, typically below 20% in the industry.

Out of 100 projects, about 80 may fail, while the remaining 20 projects may bring several times the return. Overall, the final returns may exceed the increase in Bitcoin's price.

Bonnie: You just mentioned that the way VCs invest has changed. Can you elaborate on the differences between the past and now?

Jademont:

The previous investment approach was relatively casual because there were too many projects in the industry. For example, at last year's Bitcoin Asia Conference, there were four or five dozen very small companies at the booths, with financing amounts of only one or two million dollars. They entered the market too early and should have focused on product development first.

Nowadays, there are significantly fewer startup projects, giving us more time to deeply research and analyze these projects, with larger investment amounts. Past investments tended to cast a wide net, while now the focus is more on quality.

Bonnie: Besides Hyperliquid and Polymarket, what other trends are you paying attention to?

Jademont:

We are particularly optimistic about two directions. The first is innovations around Bitcoin or similar DATs, such as providing value-added services for these reserve assets through DeFi. Mainstream coins like Bitcoin and Ethereum are becoming increasingly connected to traditional capital markets. How to enhance the value of these assets in traditional markets, in addition to natural price increases, and create additional returns is a huge opportunity. This market could reach two to three trillion dollars.

Bonnie: What might the future look like?

Jademont:

Suppose a DAT company reserves $100 million in Bitcoin. If these Bitcoins are simply stored in a custodial wallet, then the resources are wasted. If they can achieve an annual yield of 5% through DeFi while ensuring security, this company could earn an additional $5 million in profit each year, which is already very impressive for a traditional public company.

Additionally, we can tokenize the stock of this company. For example, there are companies that specialize in tokenizing RWA, putting stocks on-chain and integrating them into the DeFi ecosystem. This way, not only can they enjoy the price appreciation of Bitcoin, but they can also gain additional returns through DeFi.

Bonnie: What if a company holds 50,000 Bitcoins? Does it have confidence in putting these assets into DeFi protocols to earn returns?

Jademont:

That's a good question. If it were me, I would be very cautious and would not put all the Bitcoins into DeFi protocols. However, there are already many secure solutions available. For example, Bitcoin's Layer 1 supports script technologies similar to smart contracts, such as Hash Time-Locked Contracts (HTLC), which can securely lock Bitcoin. Historically, there have been no theft incidents.

Jademont:

Of course, there is no absolutely secure system, but the security of these technologies is comparable to custodial wallets. There are also some solutions, such as finding large exchanges or custodians to multi-signature custody your Bitcoin, and then storing them in protocols to increase their TVL. The value of liquidity lies in the fact that I am not simply sending you Bitcoin for you to give me returns. We can ensure through multi-signature that my Bitcoin will not be sold for the next ten years. This is also valuable to the market, so can it also provide me with returns? This kind of BTCFi play ensures the absolute security of Bitcoin while also generating some additional returns.

Did You Predict Bitcoin Would Reach $100,000 Ten Years Ago?

Bonnie: What are OG meetings really like? The outside world imagines that you whales holding large amounts of Bitcoin gather to discuss the future of Bitcoin, and then these discussions become reality. Is that really the case?

Jademont:

It's a bit funny to say, we boldly predicted ten years ago, or even earlier, that Bitcoin would rise to $100,000. At that time, Bitcoin might have only been a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. Although we said it would rise to $100,000, we didn't have much confidence inside. We just dared to say it because there was nothing to lose, right?

As time has passed, now that Bitcoin has really risen to $100,000, you will find that the so-called OG group has begun to differentiate. Some chose to exit when Bitcoin reached $10,000, while others sold their Bitcoin when it hit $100,000. Although they were early users, they may not actually hold much Bitcoin.

As for how much Bitcoin a person holds, this is something that people will not disclose publicly. Staying in this industry for a long time does not mean you own a lot of Bitcoin; in fact, some newcomers with ample funds may buy a large amount of Bitcoin at once. So I think judging whether someone is an OG is not about the amount of Bitcoin they hold, but about their beliefs and principles.

For example, when the price of Bitcoin was $10,000, did you believe it could rise to $100,000? Now that it has reached $100,000, do you think it can rise to $1 million? Or do you see Bitcoin as a tool for quick wealth, or do you believe it embodies the ideals of decentralization? In a corner of this conference, there was a booth selling various souvenirs, including a magazine called the "Freedom Issue." I highly recommend everyone to collect it. The cover of this magazine tells the story of Ross, the founder of the original Silk Road. This reflects the themes discussed in the Bitcoin community ten years ago, when Bitcoin was not worth much, and many believed it could go to zero, but it carried the ideals and values of decentralization, which is very worth reminiscing.

Those who have truly held Bitcoin for over ten years are no longer focused on the price; they believe that Bitcoin reaching $1 million is only a matter of time, and there is no need to discuss the price anymore. More discussions are centered around the construction of the Bitcoin ecosystem, such as whether mining is worthwhile and whether it faces risks. With the increase in mining power consumption, new issues have also arisen. Additionally, will the long-term storage of Bitcoin in cold wallets and the decrease in on-chain activity impact the ecosystem? Why has the development of Bitcoin's Lightning Network been so slow? How should technologies like BTC Fi and Layer 2 be advanced next? These are the key points that the OG community is currently discussing.

Why Can't Stablecoins Operate Like Bitcoin?

Bonnie: Why can't stablecoins operate like Bitcoin?

Jademont:

If it is a decentralized stablecoin, it can indeed achieve functions similar to Bitcoin, but centralized stablecoins (like USDT) have some limitations, such as the ability to freeze accounts. This poses a problem for transactions between AI entities, as they do not want to be subject to human intervention and control.

Suppose there is an AI entity that has its own "sovereign consciousness" and aims to make money. For example, if it helps you complete a $1 million transaction today and earns $100, that money will be stored in its own wallet, which could be a Bitcoin address or some stablecoin address. It will use these funds to purchase more data in the AI market, helping itself to continuously evolve and earn more profits, thereby enhancing its competitiveness in the AI world. In this context, Bitcoin and blockchain become the foundational currency and infrastructure of the AI economy.

Bonnie:

This idea is very interesting. How long do you think it will take for these things to happen?

Jademont:

In fact, these things are already happening. The projects we invest in have solved the payment issues between AI entities and are collaborating with several AI companies in Silicon Valley for trials. However, I am not sure about the specific timeline for the widespread adoption of these technologies. But frankly, I hope that day does not come too soon, as the excessive power of AI could threaten the meaning of human existence. However, this trend is unstoppable, and we must be prepared for its arrival.

I cannot predict exactly when it will happen, but we must prepare as much as possible. Just like the birth of Bitcoin after the 2008 financial crisis was to prevent a similar crisis from happening again and to establish a new financial infrastructure. Today, the emergence of blockchain and Bitcoin has significantly improved traditional banking and financial systems.

The Truth About Earning Returns by Holding Bitcoin

Bonnie: If I store Bitcoin on a platform and you give me a 5% return, that sounds a bit strange. Why can I earn returns just by holding Bitcoin? Wasn't the previous method to issue a new coin to achieve this?

Jademont:

Indeed, there were such practices before last year. This method could attract users or market attention in the short term, but it is not sustainable. Why? If you store Bitcoin with me and I give you a coin I issued, I must ensure that this coin has long-term value; otherwise, this model becomes meaningless. But in reality, ensuring that the coin I issued always has value is very difficult, so this method has gradually been phased out.

The mainstream method now is to generate returns through the actual use of the deposited Bitcoin. For example, I can put Bitcoin on an exchange for quantitative trading; this arbitrage strategy is usually stable, as long as the exchange itself has no issues, such as Binance or OKX not going bankrupt or being hacked, my funds will not be at risk. Based on a stable trading strategy, achieving a 5% annual return is not difficult.

Another way is to use your Bitcoin as liquidity support. For example, if I am a new public chain, your Bitcoin can increase my TVL. In return, I will give you some airdrop rewards, which may be multiple tokens. When the variety of tokens increases, even if some tokens have no value, others may have value, and overall you can still earn returns.

Another method is to use your Bitcoin as collateral. I can borrow against this collateral, such as borrowing USDT, and then use the USDT to invest or earn returns. In short, as long as you store Bitcoin with me, I will always find ways to make money from it.

Bonnie: These operations sound easy for native users in the crypto space to understand, but if you were to recommend this to an institution, like if Michael Saylor were sitting here, how would you explain it to him? Would he accept these methods?

Jademont:

In fact, Michael Saylor has already accepted these methods. His company has started exploring BTCFi strategies, such as Marathon Digital even establishing a dedicated team to develop BTCFi products called Lemonade. This is a Bitcoin-based Layer 2 solution, and they are actively participating in it.

Of course, there are still some traditional DAT companies that may not have fully accepted these methods yet. This is a gradual process. For example, if you have 50,000 Bitcoins, you could first take out 5,000 to try it out, and if it works well, gradually increase the amount.

In the entire Bitcoin ecosystem, or rather, the vision of these OGs is to ultimately have 10% of Bitcoin actively used, rather than just stored in cold wallets waiting for appreciation. If Bitcoin can be used more widely, its value will be greater, such as being applied to the second-layer Lightning Network. The Lightning Network is mainly used for payments; if all 21 million Bitcoins can participate in the Lightning Network, its payment processing capability will be very powerful. In short, Bitcoin can enter DeFi through Layer 2 applications or participate in transactions through mapping, allowing this largest crypto asset to truly become active and promote the prosperity of the entire crypto ecosystem.

What Are the Risks of Storing Bitcoin in Cold Wallets?

Bonnie: You just mentioned that storing Bitcoin in cold wallets may carry risks. What are those specific risks?

Jademont:

If Bitcoin is stored in cold wallets for a long time without being used, its social value will greatly diminish. The reason Bitcoin's price rises is due to the consensus around it, but if it is merely stored without actual application, it seems somewhat "hollow." In fact, if 10% of Bitcoin could become active, it could solve many real-world problems, such as cross-border transactions, cross-border trade, and even serve as collateral for assets integrated into DeFi, providing ample liquidity for the Ethereum ecosystem or EVM ecosystem. This would not only promote the development of the entire industry but also allow Bitcoin to truly play a role, rather than just remaining at the level of a digital game.

For many OGs, Bitcoin rising above $100,000 may not be very meaningful, as an extra zero on their assets does not significantly impact their lives. But if the entire decentralized economic system can thrive and even replace some functions of traditional finance, that would be truly exciting. This is not just about wealth growth; it is about establishing a new economic order.

Bonnie: **You just mentioned gold and Bitcoin as underlying assets. Bitcoin stored in cold wallets as a store of value does not need to participate in transactions. Cross-border payments can use USDT, and *DeFi* can use Ethereum, so why is Bitcoin necessary?**

Jademont:

In fact, the trading volume of gold has always been large. If in the future every issued dollar stablecoin needs to be backed by Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will have an important application scenario and will need to participate frequently in on-chain transactions. For example, in the future, Bitcoin may be used as collateral to issue stablecoins, which would significantly increase Bitcoin's on-chain activity.

As for why Ethereum or other assets cannot be used as collateral, this is indeed difficult to explain clearly. But just like central banks reserve gold instead of silver or copper, this is a global consensus. Bitcoin is widely regarded as the most reliable underlying asset.

Bonnie: **If payment scenarios really become widespread, that would bypass the *SWIFT* system. Would Visa and Mastercard feel nervous about this? How is their current business situation? Is it declining, or are they starting to collaborate with stablecoin payment providers?**

Jademont:

Visa and Mastercard are certainly facing competitive pressure. My view is that the U.S. may intend to establish a parallel trade and payment system outside of the SWIFT system. The SWIFT system relies on banks for settlement, but there are issues with efficiency and high risks of sanctions. For example, during the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia was kicked out of the SWIFT system, preventing it from spending abroad, which exposed the limitations of the SWIFT system.

However, because the SWIFT system is too dominant and sanctions certain countries at will, many countries are beginning to seek alternatives. For example, China and Russia conduct trade through goods exchanges to bypass the banking system. The U.S. has realized that the usage of SWIFT is declining, and even some countries are starting to guard against this system, so it is eager to establish a new system to maintain its leading position.

In some famous tourist spots, many Russians are no longer using bank cards for payments but are turning to virtual currencies. Countries like Iran, Turkey, and Russia also commonly use USDT in international trade. Although the U.S. cannot completely ban the use of USDT, it can ensure that they remain under control in the U.S. by regulating stablecoins. This is also one of the reasons the U.S. supports the development of stablecoins; another reason is to further consolidate the global hegemony of the dollar through stablecoins.

Which Countries Use Virtual Currencies for Transactions

Bonnie: Do you think other countries still have a chance to catch up? Is it feasible to issue their own local stablecoins?

Jademont:

This question is quite complex. In 2017, mainland China attempted to issue a RMB stablecoin when regulations were not yet strict. We have a project called Bitshares, which supports issuing stablecoins backed by collateralized virtual currencies, such as bitUSD and bitCNY. At that time, the scale of bitCNY once reached several billion RMB.

But starting in 2017, China's regulations gradually tightened, and we received warnings that we could no longer issue RMB stablecoins, as this was inconsistent with national strategy. Therefore, we had to stop this project, and subsequently, many exchanges delisted RMB trading pairs. It can be said that since 2017, the RMB has lost its influence in the pricing power of virtual currencies and Bitcoin, which is indeed regrettable.

As for other countries, due to their smaller currency volumes, the significance of issuing local stablecoins may not be great. However, I have heard that there may be an offshore RMB stablecoin issued in Hong Kong, but this has not been officially confirmed.

Bonnie: **The story you mentioned reminds me of this Bitcoin conference. We invited Eric Trump, the son of Trump, who asked the conference if there is a Bitcoin community in Asia. I was shocked when I heard this question because Bitcoin's *hash power* was once over 70% concentrated in China.**

Jademont:

That's right; at its peak, it reached 76%. However, after China implemented the ban in 2021, Bitcoin's hash power temporarily dropped to 5%. But now it has rebounded to over 20%. In fact, before 2017, the global blockchain center was Shanghai, not New York. Many well-known project founders would come to Shanghai seeking investment, such as Ethereum, ICP, and others.

Bonnie: Now everyone is talking about Wall Street in the U.S., as if all major events are happening in the U.S. How do you think Asia should respond next?

Jademont:

This is a very interesting question. The future development direction of Asia is not something I can decide; I certainly hope to return to the prosperous times we had before. However, I was somewhat dissatisfied with China's policies because we once had a very good development environment in Shanghai, but now we have to move our operations to Hong Kong. Later, I discussed this with an American friend, and his perspective was quite enlightening. He believes that if the Chinese government had continuously supported Bitcoin since 2017, the U.S. might not have fully promoted Bitcoin's development, and the price of Bitcoin might not have risen to its current level.

The U.S. has indeed accelerated the rise and development of Bitcoin. If China had 70% of Bitcoin's hash power, the U.S. might have had concerns and would not dare to fully support Bitcoin. Although history cannot be hypothesized, China's policies have objectively promoted the decentralization of Bitcoin. However, now Bitcoin is showing another trend, gradually becoming more centralized in the U.S.

This trend has caused some OGs to feel worried, especially with the rapid growth of hash power in Texas, where many mainstream mining companies are based in the U.S. However, Bitcoin uses a POW mechanism, and holding more Bitcoin does not directly threaten network security. Moreover, many miners in Texas are actually Chinese, and they will not completely obey the U.S. government.

In contrast, Ethereum faces greater security risks because it uses a POS mechanism. If a government regulates companies holding large amounts of ETH, the network security of Ethereum could be threatened.

The Hidden Crisis of Ethereum and the Concept of Decentralization

Bonnie: Can you explain the security issues of Ethereum in a simple and understandable way? What problems could arise in the worst-case scenario?

Jademont:

Ethereum uses a POS mechanism, which maintains network security through the voting of those who hold Ethereum. In other words, the more Ethereum one holds, the greater their influence on the network. If a proposal receives enough support, it can change the operation of the entire network.

Assuming an extreme situation where 99% of Ethereum is concentrated in a few large companies, such as certain publicly listed companies, these companies would have the ability to control the network. If they were to act maliciously, it could theoretically threaten network security. Although the likelihood of these companies acting maliciously is low, as it would harm their own interests, this risk of centralization still worries those who support decentralization. They hope to establish a system where the possibility of wrongdoing is eliminated, rather than relying on certain "good people" to maintain security.

This is actually also the original intention of Bitcoin's design: to ensure security through the technology itself, rather than relying on human moral constraints.

Bonnie: It sounds like you have a cautious attitude towards Ethereum's treasury companies?

Jademont:

I can't say I completely oppose them, as I hold both Bitcoin and Ethereum, with a ratio of about 8:2. The treasury has indeed driven up the price of Ethereum, and I certainly welcome that. But as an early blockchain participant, I am more concerned about the concept of decentralization and hope to reduce the possibility of wrongdoing to establish a fairer system.

In the West, especially in Silicon Valley, there is a view that blockchain and Bitcoin are actually serving the future of AI. AI cannot use government-issued currencies, such as RMB or USD, because these currencies are controlled by central authorities. But Bitcoin is decentralized, and it can serve as a payment tool for AI, developing alongside AI networks.

Bonnie: So in the future AI world, my AI entity and your AI entity might trade using Bitcoin, while we humans are completely unaware of it?

Jademont:

That's right. We have invested in a project that uses the Lightning Network to facilitate payments between AI entities. For example, my AI assistant needs to book a ticket, but it does not have the authority to complete the booking task directly. It may need to contact another AI entity for assistance, and to complete this task, it needs to pay a service fee. This fee could be settled using Bitcoin.

In this way, transactions between AIs are completely independent of human intervention, and we might not even know that such transactions are happening. This scenario is one of the potential futures of the combination of blockchain and AI.

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。