Author: Ignas
Compiled by: Felix, PANews
What changes have taken place in cryptocurrencies over the years? Crypto KOL Ignas published an article to sort out this. He believes that HODLing ETH is the biggest mistake he made in this cycle. "Quick in and fast out" may be the rule of crypto profit, but the only exception to the "quick in and fast out" strategy is BTC. In addition, in the macro context, the future direction of cryptocurrencies in the new world order is interpreted. The following is the content details.
The reason why we love cryptocurrency and use it as a part of finance and trading is that the market will clearly tell you whether you are right or wrong.
Especially in this dystopian world of politics, art, journalism, and many other industries, where the line between truth and lies is blurred, cryptocurrency is straightforward: if you are right, you make money, otherwise you lose money, it's very simple.
However, the traps that individuals fall into are simple: not re-evaluating the portfolio when market conditions change, and being too complacent with their “HODL” strategy when trading Altcoin, especially ETH.
Of course, adapting to new realities is easier said than done.
The number of variables we need to input is overwhelming, so we end up resorting to simple strategies like “hold for the long term” (HODL) without actively monitoring the market.
But if the HODL strategy is outdated? What role does cryptocurrency play in our changing world? What else are we missing?
In this article, we will share the major changes that have taken place in the market.
HODL is dead
Back to the beginning of 2022:
ETH is currently trading around $3,000 after a sharp drop from $4,800. BTC is priced at $42,000. However, both are set to fall further by 50% due to rate hikes, CeFi’s collapse, and FTX’s closure.
Despite this, ETH enthusiasts remain bullish: ETH is about to migrate to a PoS system, and just a few months ago, the ETH Burn Proposal (EIP) was launched. The narrative of ETH as ultrasonic currency and an environmentally friendly and energy-saving blockchain remains hot.
ETH and BTC underperformed for the rest of 2022, but SOL took a beating, plummeting 96% to $8.
Ethereum has won the competition for Layer 1, and copycat Layer 1 should migrate to Layer 2, otherwise they will face extinction.
I remember attending some meetings during the bear market. The vast majority of people believed that ETH would rebound the strongest, so they bought a lot of ETH, underestimated BTC, and ignored SOL.
Just hold, then sell at the top in 2024/2025. Simple.
But it didn't go as planned...
Since then, SOL has rebounded in price, while ETH has suffered the worst FUD ever. The ultrasonic currency narrative is dead (at least for now), and the environmental narrative never really took off.
HODLing ETH was the biggest mistake I made this cycle for myself. And for many people.
The bullish reason at the time was that ETH would become the most value-creating asset in the history of encryption:
Restaking will give ETH superpowers, enabling it to not only secure Ethereum, but also the entire critical DeFi and crypto infrastructure. The (re)staking yield of ETH will increase significantly, and as long as ETH is re-staked, airdrop rewards will continue to accumulate.
As earnings increase, demand for ETH and its price should rise. In short — prices skyrocket!
Obviously, this did not happen as the value proposition of restaking was never made clear and Eigenlayer made mistakes with its token launch.
So how does all this relate to the demise of the HODL idea?
For many people, ETH is an asset to “hold” and forget. If BTC skyrocketed, ETH would rise even faster, so there is no point in holding BTC.
When the bullish thesis for ETH based on the re-staking narrative failed to materialize, I should have realized this and adjusted. However, I became lazy and complacent and unwilling to admit my mistakes. ETH will rebound one day, right?
“HODL” is bad advice not only for ETH, but for all other assets, with the possible exception of BTC (more on this later).
Cryptocurrencies change too quickly, and it is unrealistic to expect to hold them for months or years and rely on them for retirement. Looking at the charts, we can see that most Altcoin have given back the gains of this bull market cycle. Obviously, profits come from selling, not holding.
The successful memecoin trader explained that he doesn’t typically “HODL” his memecoins, usually holding them for less than a minute before selling them.
Some are still trying to sell you the dream of “HODLing”, but in reality this is more of a “quick in, quick out” cycle than long term holding.
BTC is the only macro crypto asset
The only exception to the “quick in and out” strategy is BTC.
Some attribute BTC’s outstanding performance to Saylor’s unlimited buy orders, as we successfully promoted the concept of BTC as digital gold to institutions.
But the battle is not over yet.
Many crypto commentators still view BTC as a risk-on asset, arguing that it trades with higher volatility than the S&P 500.
This contradicts BlackRock’s research, which found that the risk and return drivers of BTC differ from traditional risk assets and therefore do not fit into traditional financial frameworks such as “risk on” versus “risk off” as employed by some macro commentators.
What do you think is the truth?
I personally think that BTC is moving from those who view it as a highly leveraged stock bet to those who view it as a digital safe-haven asset similar to gold. Mexican billionaire Ricardo Salinas, who holds BTC, is an example.
BTC is the only true macro crypto asset. ETH, SOL, and other assets are valued based on fees, trading volume, and TVL, but BTC has surpassed this framework and become a macro asset recognized by even Peter Schiff.
This shift is not over yet, but this period of transition away from risk assets is an opportunity in itself. Once BTC is widely viewed as a safe haven asset, its price will reach $1 million.
The decline of private equity markets
When every relatively successful influencer started to turn into a “VC”, investing at low prices and then selling out to cash out at the Token Generation Event (TGE), I realized something was wrong.
However, Noah's article better reflects the current state of the private cryptocurrency market.
It is recommended that you read the entire article, but here are the key points of how the private equity market has changed over the years.
In the early days (2015-2019), private market participants were true believers. They supported Ethereum, funded DeFi pioneers like MakerDAO and ETHLend (Aave), and valued long-term holding. Their goal was not just to make a quick profit, but to create something meaningful.
This is a believer stage.
The “Summer of DeFi” of 2020-2022 was a massive transformation. Suddenly, everyone wanted the newer, hotter tokens. VCs poured money into backing tokens with ridiculous valuations and no practical value.
The rules of the game are simple: buy low in the private round, hype the project, and then sell it to retail investors. When the retail investors crash, we need to clean up and learn lessons. But nothing has changed.
This is a greedy phase.
After the FTX incident (2023-2025), the private equity market has become nihilistic. VCs now invest in "soulless token machines" (projects with outdated ideas, questionable founders and no real use cases).
Private rounds were priced at 50x revenue (if there was any revenue), forcing the public market to take the loss. The result was that 80% of tokens issued in 2024 fell below the private price within six months.
This is an extraction phase.
Today, retail trusts no longer exist and venture capital firms have suffered heavy losses.
Many venture capital deals are trading at prices lower than the valuations during the seed round of financing, and some KOL friends are also in a loss-making state.
However, there are some signs of improvement in the private equity market:
- Movement co-founder and Gabagool (former Aerodrome rugby player) faced backlash and were expelled. We need further purification.
- Valuations are falling in both private and public markets.
- Crypto venture capital funding is finally picking up, reaching $4.8 billion in the first quarter of 2025, the highest level since the third quarter of 2022, and funds are flowing into areas with practical uses.
The first quarter of 2025 was the strongest since the third quarter of 2022. Binance ’s $ 2 billion deal played a central role, but 12 other large financings of more than $ 50 million also pointed to renewed interest from institutional investors.
Funds flowed into areas with practicality and revenue potential, including CeFi , blockchain infrastructure and services. New focus areas such as AI , DePIN and RWA also attracted strong attention. DeFi leads in the number of financing rounds, but the scale of financing is smaller, reflecting more conservative valuations. —— CryptoRank Q1 2025 Crypto Field Venture Capital Status Report
We are experimenting with new token issuance models that reward early supporters rather than insiders.
Echo and Legion are at the forefront, with Base launching a group on Echo. Kaito’s InfoFi (Information Finance) is promising because even those without financial capital but with social influence can benefit.
The market seems to have received the message and the ecosystem is recovering (although KOLs are still reaping the benefits).
Farewell DeFi , hello on-chain finance
Remember the short-lived story of Yield Aggregator? Yearn Finance pioneered it, and then there were multiple forks.
We are now in the era of Yield Aggregator 2.0. We call it the “Vault Strategy”.
As the number of DeFi protocols increases and DeFi becomes more and more complex, vaults are becoming more and more attractive: deposit assets and get the best risk-adjusted returns.
However, the biggest difference between the early days of yield aggregators and today is the increasing centralization of asset management.
Vault has “strategists” — usually a team of “institutional investors” — who use your money to chase the best investment opportunities. For them, it’s a win-win: they use your money and earn fees from it.
These strategists include MEV Capital, Seven Seas, Gauntlet, Veda, and many firms that work with protocols like Etherfi, Upshift, and Mellow Protocol.
Veda itself is the 17th largest “protocol” in DeFi, surpassing Curve, Pancakeswap, or Compound Finance.
However, Vault is just the tip of the iceberg. The true decentralized vision of DeFi has long been shattered; it has evolved into on-chain finance.
Think about it: the fastest growing RWAs in DeFi and crypto, yield-generating, delta-neutral stablecoins like Ethena, BlackRock’s BUIDL, are a far cry from the original vision of DeFi.
Or with multi-signature contracts like BTCfi (and BTC L2s), you have to trust the custodian not to run away with your funds.
Note: This is not meant to target Lombard , but is just an example of Vault and BTCfi trend converging
This has been the case ever since Maker pivoted from decentralized DAI to a yield-generating RWA protocol. Truly decentralized protocols are few and far between (Liquity being one example).
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing: RWAs and tokenization allow us to move beyond the era of circular, leverage-based DeFi Ponzi schemes.
This means that the risk factors are expanding, making it more complicated to understand where the funds are really going. Don’t be surprised if you see CeDeFi protocols misusing user funds.
Remember: hidden levers always find a way into the system.
DAO is a dead end
The same decentralization fantasy is being shattered with The DAO.
The past philosophy is based on the theory of “progressive decentralization” popularized by a16z in January 2020.
The protocol first finds PMF (Product Market Fit) → As the network effect grows, the community gains more power → the team “exits to the community” and ultimately achieves full decentralization.
Five years later, we are returning to centralization. Take the Ethereum Foundation, for example, which is getting more involved to scale L1. The DAO model faces many problems:
- Voter apathy
- The risk of lobbying (vote buying) is increasing
- Execution Paralysis
While two DAOs, Arbitrum and Lido, are moving toward more centralized control (through more active team participation or BORGs), Uniswap is undergoing a major transformation.
The Uniswap Foundation voted to provide $165 million in liquidity mining rewards to drive the development of Uniswap v4 and Unichain. Or another conspiracy theory claims that this is to reach the liquidity threshold required to receive Optimism OP funding rewards.
In short, DAO delegates are angry. Why should the foundation pay all $UNI rewards while Uniswap Labs (a centralized entity) gets to make millions of dollars in fees from the Uniswap frontend?
One of the top 20 representatives recently resigned as Uni representative.
It is recommended to read the article in full, but his points are as follows:
- Governance show: Uniswap’s DAO appears open, but marginalizes dissenting opinions. Proposals follow the process (discussion, voting, forum), but it feels like it was predetermined, reducing governance to a “ritual.”
- Concentration of power: The Uniswap Foundation rewards loyalty, suppresses criticism, and values appearance over accountability.
- Failure of decentralization: If a DAO prioritizes branding over substance, it risks becoming irrelevant. If it lacks real accountability mechanisms, it degenerates into a “dictatorship without purpose.”
Interestingly, a16z is a major token holder of Uniswap, but Uniswap is far from being truly decentralized.
Perhaps it’s fair to say that the DAO was just a cover; we needed a coherent story to circumvent the regulatory scrutiny that centralized cryptocurrency companies might face.
Therefore, tokens that are only used as voting tools are no longer worth investing in. Real revenue sharing and practicality are the key.
DEX ( Hyperliquid ) Challenges CEX
Now, to share my conspiracy theory.
FTX launched Sushiswap because they were concerned that Uniswap might take over their spot market. Even if they didn’t launch it directly, they probably supported it closely in terms of development and funding.
Likewise, the Binance team (or BNB, whatever you want to call it) launched PancakeSwap for the same reason.
Uniswap once posed a significant threat to CEXs, but this threat has been largely neutralized as Uniswap has not challenged their more lucrative perpetual contract trading business.
How big is the profit? From the comments, it's hard to say.
Hyperliquid poses another threat. It is not only involved in the perpetual contract business, but also targets the spot market. At the same time, it is also building its own smart contract platform.
Hyperliquid’s share of the perpetual contract market continues to grow, having grown to 12.5%. (Real-time statistics can be viewed here or here .)
Shocked to see Binance and OKX blatantly attack Hyperliquid with JELLYJELLY. Although Hyperliquid survived, HYPE investors must now take the risk of future attacks very seriously.
This may not be an attack like that, but regulatory pressure, as CZ is becoming a "strategic crypto advisor at the national level." What do you think he's telling politicians? Oh, too bad about those criminal exchanges that don't do KYC, maybe?
Regardless, I hope Hyperliquid can move beyond the CEX spot market business and launch a more transparent listing service that does not collapse the protocol’s financial situation.
There is a lot more to say about HYPE, as this is the largest Altcoin position held by an individual. But Hyperliquid has become a movement to challenge CEXs, especially after the Binance/OKX hack.
Protocol → Platform
You may have seen me recommend Fluid in the context of the evolution of protocols into platforms here on X. The point is that protocols are at risk of becoming commoditized infrastructure, while user-facing applications reap most of the benefits.
Is Ethereum Falling into the Commoditization Trap?
To get out of this dilemma, protocols need to become like the Apple Store, allowing third-party developers to build on top of them so that value can remain in the entire ecosystem.
Uniswap v4 and Fluid are trying to do this with Hooks, while teams like 1inch and Jupiter have built their own mobile wallets. LayerZero just announced vApps as well.
This trend will accelerate. Those who can capture liquidity, attract users, and find ways to monetize liquidity while rewarding token holders will be the biggest winners.
Cryptocurrency in the Changing World Order
I wanted to discuss more major changes in the crypto space, from stablecoins to CT (Crypto Twitter) which is becoming increasingly vague as cryptocurrencies become increasingly complex.
Twitter now offers fewer exclusives as the crypto industry is less closed than it once was.
Previously, we were able to launch Ponzi schemes with simple game rules, while regulators either misunderstood crypto or ignored it, hoping it would go away.
Year after year, discussions about regulation become more common on CT. Fortunately, the US is gradually becoming supportive of cryptocurrencies, and mass adoption seems to be on the horizon thanks to stablecoins, tokenization, and Bitcoin becoming a store of value.
But that could change quickly: the U.S. government may finally realize that Bitcoin is indeed undermining the dollar.
Outside of the U.S., the regulatory and cultural environment is very different. China currently shows no signs of supporting cryptocurrencies.
As the EU becomes increasingly control-focused, especially as it moves from a welfare state to a war state, controversial decisions may be forced through in the name of “security”.
Rather than making cryptocurrencies a priority, the EU sees them as a threat:
- ECB warns US push for cryptocurrencies could spark financial contagion
- The EU will ban anonymous cryptocurrency accounts and privacy coins in 2027.
- If blockchain data cannot be deleted individually, "this may require deleting the entire blockchain."
- EU regulators to impose punitive capital rules on insurers holding cryptocurrencies
We need to assess the attitude towards cryptocurrencies in the current overall political situation. The general trend is deglobalization and countries closing their doors to the outside world.
- The EU is about to impose a visa-free ban on citizens of investment-oriented countries.
- European Court halts 'golden visa' scheme
The big unknown is what role cryptocurrencies will play in the new world order and during the transition.
Will cryptocurrencies become a tool for capital freedom, especially as capital controls begin to be implemented, or will countries try to suppress cryptocurrencies by enacting increasingly stringent regulations?
In his article “The Tree Ring Model of Culture and Politics,” Vitalik explains that cryptocurrencies are still forming their norms and are not as set in stone as banking law or intellectual property law.
The Internet in the 1990s was based on the philosophy of “Let it be!” with few rules and high freedom. In the early 2000s and 2010s, people’s attitude towards social media changed to “This is dangerous. Control it!” And in the 2020s, cryptocurrencies and artificial intelligence are still struggling between openness and regulation.
The government was slow to act in the past but is now catching up.
Hopefully they choose to embrace openness, however, the global trend toward closing borders is very worrying.
Related reading: Dialogue with Arthur Hayes: The Sino-US trade war is a long-term trend, and Bitcoin will exceed $1 million by 2028
