Author | Wu Talks Blockchain

*This article was first published in June 2026

This episode of Wu Talks Non-Crypto Podcast features guest Didier Zheng, a frontier technology investor, who discusses the recent decline of Bitcoin, changes in MicroStrategy's financial strategy, the AI-driven rise of the US stock market, cryptocurrency exchanges accessing US stocks, and the macro outlook.

Didier believes that the core reason for Bitcoin’s recent decline is not merely macroeconomic factors or ETF redemptions, but rather the market beginning to reprice expectations for MicroStrategy's potential continued small sales of Bitcoin to pay dividends on preferred stock under the "neutral per share Bitcoin amount" principle. Meanwhile, AI is reshaping the labor structure, with tokens being regarded as a new production factor, propelling continuous gains in the US stock market's AI industrial chain. The cryptocurrency industry may shift from native altcoin speculation to genuine asset onboarding, on-chain machine economies, and a more mature industrial stage.

The guest's statements do not represent Wu Talks' views and do not constitute any investment advice; please strictly adhere to local laws and regulations. Audio transcription and translation were completed by GPT and may contain errors. Please listen to the full podcast:

Small Universe:

https://www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/episode/6a337dbb43a22a695585c365

MicroStrategy's Selling Experiment: Continuous Selling Pressure Expectations and Market Acceptance Game

Cat Brother: Recently, Bitcoin has fallen sharply, and there are many explanations in the market. Some say it is due to MicroStrategy selling, others attribute it to ETF redemptions, and some blame macro changes or leverage liquidations. Which factor do you think is the most critical?

Didier: I believe the core issue is still MicroStrategy, but what truly suppresses the market is not that one-time sale of Bitcoin itself, but the expectation that the market will anticipate continued sales.

MicroStrategy indicated at its earnings meeting in May that it aims to maintain a neutral per share Bitcoin amount. With the continuous increase of preferred stocks and debt instruments such as STRC, STRZ, STRD, STRF, Bitcoin is no longer just an asset for common stockholders but must first cover the rights of creditors and preferred stockholders. Consequently, the cost to maintain BPS neutrality has increased.

In the past, the market believed it mainly paid preferred stock dividends by selling shares, which had minimal pressure on Bitcoin; but now the bar for selling new shares has been raised, and the pressure has begun to shift toward Bitcoin. As long as MMV (Market Matrix Value) continues below the neutral threshold, it is more likely to cover cash flow through small, continuous Bitcoin sales. Especially if the interest payment frequency increases, the market will naturally expect that it is not a one-off sale but might sell a bit periodically.

Thus, the key to this round of decline is not “how much has been sold,” but “will there be continued selling in the future.” In this logic, ETF selling appears more as a result rather than a cause. Because once the market judges that MicroStrategy will continue to sell, relevant funds will tend to withdraw in advance.

Cat Brother: So you just said that Michael Saylor seems to be conducting a financial experiment. What is the purpose of this experiment?

Didier: Essentially, he is testing the market's capacity to absorb continued small sales of Bitcoin.

From a financial perspective, when MMV premiums are not high, small Bitcoin sales hurt the per share Bitcoin amount less than selling stock; this is a first-order optimal solution. The issue is that since the large-scale issuance of STRC since March, the interest and dividend expenses of preferred stocks and perpetual instruments have significantly increased, making cash flow management a problem that must be addressed. Therefore, the key is no longer whether to manage cash flow, but how to manage it.

If the market can absorb this continuous and small selling pressure, then the system can continue to be maintained; but if this approach depresses stock prices, reduces MMV, exacerbates decoupling, and further strengthens the expectation of “continuous selling,” it may have to soften its approach, such as relying more on selling stocks again, or mixing stocks with Bitcoin sales. Although this will sacrifice part of the per share Bitcoin amount, it can alleviate the impact on both Bitcoin price and stock price, representing a second-order optimal solution.

So, essentially, this is a game between Michael Saylor and the market. He is looking for where the market will provide sufficiently strong absorption funds, while the market is also waiting for a lower, more certain price to act.

Cat Brother: Will it evolve into MicroStrategy and Bitcoin entering a "death spiral" together?

Didier: I think, by itself, this situation is not enough. Typically, to reach that point, additional macro negatives or larger systemic shocks need to be layered on top.

As long as there is a soft transition and no more rigid Bitcoin selling, bottom-fishing funds will very likely return. The question is not whether there will be absorption, but at what price. It could be at $62,000 or lower; the market is currently waiting for that position.

So my judgment remains cautiously optimistic: this round of decline is more structural pressure resulting from changes in MicroStrategy's own financial structure rather than being solely triggered by macro liquidity tightening. In the absence of new significant negative news, the situation is likely to reverse and is not easily transformed into a genuine "death spiral."

Tokens Seen as the Labor Force of the New Era

Cat Brother: Although the cryptocurrency industry is currently relatively sluggish, AI is booming, especially in sectors like optical modules, semiconductors, and data centers in the US stock market, which have seen substantial increases. What do you think is the core driving force behind this?

Didier: The core is actually very simple: tokens are essentially becoming the labor force of the new era.

In the past, the core production factor of enterprises was people, whether through physical or intellectual labor, which relied on human completion. But now, many execution tasks previously undertaken by people are being replaced by AI and tokens. What may truly be scarce in the future are just a few individuals capable of completing the closed loops: those who can set goals, design plans, drive execution, and ultimately solve problems. This combination of people plus a large number of tokens forms a new labor force system.

This will directly change enterprise organizational structures. Historically, companies have many layers because information had to be passed down through people; but in the AI era, many middle managers, assistants, IT, and execution positions will be compressed. What is genuinely valuable is no longer pure execution but rather influence, decisiveness, and imagination.

Thus, essentially, in the past, companies paid money to employees; in the future, they will increasingly pay money to tokens, models, and computation power. Model companies will invest money upstream to procure chips, energy, optical modules, and data centers. As these upstream expansions are limited, supply cannot keep up with demand, making them the segments of the AI industrial chain that benefit continuously, which is also the core reason for the ongoing rise of related US stocks.

The service industry will be the first to be impacted because accounting, legal, consulting, and data analysis, which are knowledge-based services, are among the easiest to be replaced by AI. In the future, enterprises will become increasingly automated internally, and inter-company collaboration may well form an on-chain machine economy. At that time, many transactions, collaborations, and even payments will be completed by machines.

Cat Brother: Are you saying that this round of increases is not just short-term speculation but has medium to long-term sustainment and may still be in the early stages?

Didier: Yes, I believe the machine economy era has just begun.

Many people's understanding of “one-person companies” is also biased. It is not one individual operating alone but rather one person operating with dozens or even hundreds of intelligent agents—these agents collectively operate at an efficiency comparable to hundreds of past employees. Therefore, the so-called one-person company actually relies on a multitude of intelligent agents providing labor.

This is also why I have consistently emphasized that tokens are the new labor force. In the past, companies spent money hiring people; now they are increasingly shifting budgets towards tokens. As long as tokens can continuously amplify revenue, corporate profit margins will significantly improve, which is the core logic behind the market's bullish outlook on the AI industrial chain.

Thus, the expectations reflected in the current US stock market actually denote that an increasing number of companies will transform into AI-native companies, using tokens to replace labor and enhance automation levels, thereby significantly raising profit margins. This is also the most fundamental and rational driving force behind this round of increases.

Exchanges Turning to US Stocks, Users Need Not Rewrite Trading Logic

Cat Brother: As the US stock market continues to rise, many cryptocurrency exchanges have opened channels to US stocks. What is your take on this? Is it because the cryptocurrency industry itself lacks hotspots, compelling exchanges to create demand, or is there a deeper reason? Additionally, will this further lead to capital outflows from the cryptocurrency industry?

Didier: I have actually long stated that offshore CEXs ultimately have two paths.

The first path is to create prediction markets, but this path is incredibly difficult. The top-tier landscape has essentially been formed, and most existing CEXs find it challenging to truly transform into the next generation of "everything exchanges."

The second path is to turn towards real-world assets as distribution channels, and currently, the most critical real assets are US stocks, US bonds, and gold, which is also an important direction.

The more fundamental reason is that over the years, genuinely valuable native cryptocurrency assets are quite scarce. Bitcoin is one, and a few DeFi infrastructure and public chains count too; however, apart from that, most native assets lack sustainable intrinsic value and cash flow support. Given this, the trading infrastructure built around these assets will inevitably seek new, valuable targets.

Therefore, it is quite natural for CEXs to turn to US stocks. I don't really view this as squeezing crypto assets; it feels more like the industry is returning to reality: truly valuable assets are already few, and exchanges are merely shifting towards more liquid alternatives.

But in the long run, this may not necessarily be a bad thing. The core value of blockchain is not just the issuance of native assets but providing decentralized options and more efficient, lower-cost settlement and trading methods. Onboarding real-world assets onto the blockchain is, in itself, a meaningful direction.

Moreover, from a longer-term perspective, blockchain is actually more of a technology designed for machines. In the next five to ten years, the more likely scenario is that people will interact with agents, and agents will complete payments, transactions, and collaborations on-chain. Consequently, the infrastructure built on these chains today can be directly utilized by machines.

So in the long run, I actually perceive this as a positive for Bitcoin because whether it's more people or more machines, they will ultimately come into contact with on-chain assets.

Cat Brother: For ordinary users, who previously speculated in the crypto market on altcoins, Bitcoin, or public chain assets, now shifting to US stocks, the logic is actually quite different. Whether it’s financial report cycles, valuation systems, or regulatory rules, there are significant differences. If you were to give the most important advice to these long-term users or traders in the cryptocurrency world, what would you say?

Didier: Actually, I don't think they need to change too much deliberately.

Because US stocks and on-chain assets are fundamentally quite similar. In US stocks, there are both value stocks and growth stocks, as well as many assets with meme attributes. One core reason why the on-chain meme market has weakened this round is that the most compelling meme assets have already transferred to US stocks.

The stories behind these assets fundamentally still revolve around "changing the world." In the past, this narrative belonged to blockchain; now a stronger version appears in US stocks, such as quantum computing, nuclear fusion, and SMR. Many of these things are often difficult to explain solely through financial reports, cash flows, or DCF; they too carry a strong meme attribute.

So, for those who once liked chasing altcoins and meme coins, reaching US stocks to chase these long-term concepts is essentially the same logic, and they may not necessarily find it incompatible. Another category of people who originally focused on cash flows, fundamentals, and finding value support can also find corresponding value stocks and growth stocks in US stocks.

So what I mean is, the various styles in the crypto sphere actually have corresponding positions in the US stock market. Most people do not need to forcefully change their trading models but can still find asset types they are familiar with.

If I had to offer one piece of advice, it would be not to change your methods just to shift markets. Those who have survived to this point typically have their own validated survival methods; continuing to adhere to the effective parts is, instead, more crucial.

The 1011 Incident Devastated Crypto Liquidity, Altcoin Markets Hard to Recover

Cat Brother: From your previous analysis, the image that comes to mind is actually quite dramatic. It feels like the altcoin speculation over this period has completely ended, because those originally speculative targets can now almost all be found in US stocks, and even have more realistic significance. Can we understand it this way?

Didier: You can understand it this way.

The core reason the altcoin market has basically ended is that the liquidity in the crypto space has been destroyed too severely. The 1011 incident has severely injured the industry’s vitality. While reports claim $19 billion in liquidations, the actual figure is likely far higher. Rumors suggest $40 to $50 billion, which I think is closer to the actual situation.

Moreover, it’s crucial to note that what is lost here is not just market value but real physical cash. The cryptocurrency industry's total market capitalization has not been large, with a lot tied up or inflated; therefore, the actual liquid assets are much less than they appear. In this context, evaporating hundreds of billions in cash within a day is a heavy blow to the entire industry’s popularity and liquidity.

Thus, I believe the 1011 incident was the last straw that broke the altcoin market.

As for why the "meme assets" in US stocks can continue to be speculative, the reason is also simple: because the US stock market is currently the most liquid market in the world. When your own liquidity fails, it naturally shifts to a more liquid market.

From the perspective of the US, it supports Bitcoin and blockchain and has its strategic considerations. The logic from the US version is to make blockchain, on-chain markets, and CEX channels to attract fundings and hot money aimed at global markets. Therefore, is promoting the look at the US financial system on-chain fundamentally expanding the global financing and distribution capacity of US assets.

Of course, this is merely the understanding and usage of the US government. Regarding whether blockchain and the crypto world will ultimately be entirely shaped by this national will, that's another matter. The more realistic situation might be that the on-chain world and sovereign nations are likely to maintain a complex relationship characterized by cooperation, usage, and mutual gaming.

But at least so far, the US's approach is indeed gradually becoming a reality.

Being More Cautious about Macroeconomics in the Second Half of the Year, but Long-term Still Optimistic about AI and Web3

Cat Brother: What are your macroeconomic judgments for the next six months and by the end of this year? What policies might the newly appointed Federal Reserve Chair Waller implement next, and how will this affect the overall market?

Didier: I think the market's uncertainty is on the rise.

On one hand, the market has risen quite a bit; on the other hand, there may be several giant companies IPOing soon, such as SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic. The real pressure is not just from funding withdrawals but rather that once these trillion-dollar companies are quickly incorporated into the index, with limited liquidity, institutions may be forced to sell other weighted stocks to rebalance, which will create pressure on the market. Therefore, starting in June, I will be more cautious.

Another critical variable is the mid-term elections. If the Democrats win both houses, that could be bearish for Web3 and AI because they emphasize labor rights, regulation, and oversight rather than allowing cutting-edge technologies to continue expanding rapidly.

However, from a fundamental perspective, I believe the market may be underestimating the real economic drive that AI provides. AI has already penetrated many sectors, but existing statistical methods may not adequately reflect this, so in the long term, its contribution to improving production efficiency is still very strong.

The real issue lies not only in growth but also in distribution. If the distribution mechanism is not well adjusted, it may lead to a situation of extreme polarization in the future: a few people who can harness AI will capture most of the benefits, while many in the middle class may be squeezed or even face unemployment. In that case, although productivity increases, overall societal consumption capability may decline, which is why I lean towards long-term deflation rather than long-term inflation.

Therefore, the distribution mechanism will be crucial in the coming years. Things like AI tax are likely to be implemented within the next three to five years, because without new tax sources, many future social arrangements will lack a financial basis.

If we only look at the second half of this year to next year, I don’t want to draw particularly absolute conclusions. Short-term adjustment pressures are indeed increasing, especially around the time of SpaceX's IPO, which may be more evident, but I think this resembles an adjustment rather than an absolute peak. As long as the capital expenditures from major companies can continue, the overall market has not ended.

In the longer term, I remain optimistic about AI and also about the combination of AI and blockchain. The internal automation of enterprises will increase, and inter-company collaborations may form an on-chain machine economy; this overarching direction has not changed.

Thus, I still believe that blockchain and Web3 have great potential, although the approach will become more mature. The phase of blind rushing and mindless gains may have passed; the future looks more like an industrialized and institutionalized era.