Great results often come from great pain.
Written by: Deep Tide TechFlow
When Binance suddenly announced the listing of ACT, amidst the astonishment of people, you might repeatedly hear one name — Wizard.
People thank Wizard, claiming that it was Wizard who saved ACT, while Wizard states that this is a victory for the community.
This is a Hollywood-style story of a commoner fighting against a dragon:
The developer sold all tokens, causing an instant drop of 50%, nearly destroying the project. Wizard and other community members rebuilt from the ruins, experiencing three drops of 80%, yet the community remained steadfast. Market makers commented that they had never seen such a "poor" project, until Binance became the white knight, and ACT made a stunning comeback.
In Wizard's view, ACT and AI MEME projects like GOAT represent a renaissance of AI, where future AI will no longer be simple assistants, but autonomous, controllable free spirits within a certain range.
Today, Wizard seems to have become the Murad of the Chinese crypto circle, yet greatness is often forged through suffering; great results often come from great pain.
With a single-day liquidation of eight-digit dollars and being deeply trapped by ORDI for half a year, Wizard expressed that he has experienced heart palpitations several times, akin to walking on a bustling street on a sunny afternoon, with his heart continuously twitching.
How does a mysterious ordinary person manage to turn the tide multiple times on his own? What profound philosophical reflections lie behind seemingly simple MEME investments?
This is Wizard's story and reflections.
Entering the Circle: Calculating Stability for a Hundredfold Return, Cutting Off Old Huang
Deep Tide TechFlow: Please introduce yourself, Wizard. How did you enter the crypto circle?
0xWizard:
I actually entered the crypto circle in 2018, but I wasn't actively trading at that time. In 2018, I read the white papers of Bitcoin and Ethereum, then bought some mainstream coins like Bitcoin and Ethereum, but I was just holding. The period from 2018 to 2019 was a bear market, during which I had basically no operations, just pure holding.
Around mid-2020, I noticed that the coins in my account began to appreciate significantly. At that point, I started to think, is this an opportunity?
A friend introduced me to the concept of DeFi (Decentralized Finance). I briefly learned about it, such as the Compound project, which was one of the earliest to do liquidity mining. Initially, I thought it was somewhat like the trading mining model of FCoin, which I believed was not very sustainable. At that time, in June 2020, my understanding of trading was still quite superficial, and I hadn't delved deeply into DeFi.
What really got me to pay attention to DeFi was YFI; people said YFI made a ten-thousandfold return, and the wealth effect was very strong.
So in September, I began to actively learn and understand the crypto circle, especially DeFi. I learned to use the MetaMask wallet and bought some on Sushi. Although Sushi later dropped significantly, giving me a painful lesson, it marked the official start of my DeFi journey, or rather, my journey into active trading.
Later, the breakout was with stable algorithmic coins. I entered the circle in September that year, then lost 60% in October, but by November, I had made a hundredfold profit.
From that time on, I was among the first batch of on-chain players, doing everything from secondary to primary markets, playing with altcoins, major coins, rolling warehouses, ETH, and various projects on-chain, which was quite interesting.
Deep Tide TechFlow: You mentioned you made a hundredfold profit; which specific project was that?
0xWizard:
I participated in Basis and Mith Cash. I made ten times on Basis, investing several tens of thousands of dollars. Then I also participated in Mith Cash, which is Old Huang's project.
There's an interesting story here. Previously, in the KP3R project, I met a friend named "X." At that time, neither of us had much money to play KP3R, and we were both getting wrecked by Old Huang (Huang Licheng), as it dropped from $200 to $80. We were essentially trapped together, chatting every day.
Later, we both participated in Basis and Mith Cash. He didn't play Basis, but I did and made ten times. When it came to Mith Cash, we both participated, and he made about $5 million while I made $3 million. This was a way to avenge our losses from KP3R. We "buried" Old Huang with the Mith Cash project, which was quite amusing.
Reflections Behind ACT: The AI Renaissance
Deep Tide TechFlow: The biggest recent hot topic is ACT. Many people have mentioned you, thanking Wizard for encouraging them to hold on. Did you feel surprised when you heard that Binance was listing ACT? What do you think is the main reason Binance chose to list ACT instead of the leading project GOAT?
0xWizard:
At that time, I was next to my computer. I first saw the line, then the congratulatory messages, and finally the official announcement.
Regarding whether it was surprising for ACT to be listed on Binance, I think there is a significant element of luck involved. No one can predict it would definitely be listed, but it can't be said to be completely unexpected. Binance's choice to list ACT instead of GOAT is actually quite clear.
This involves understanding the MEME ecosystem on Solana. There are actually two types of MEME ecosystems: one is a true community coin, and the other is a highly controlled coin.
Many coins that are heavily promoted are actually the latter, where a small number of people control a large amount of tokens and then build a community to pump the coin. If such a coin gets listed on a major exchange, it often ends badly because the controlling party will quickly dump their holdings. For Binance, listing a coin with such an unhealthy token structure offers no benefits.
Both ACT and Neiro are true community coins. When I observed ACT, I found its trading was very quiet, yet it could stabilize at a market cap of $20 million, precisely because of its strong community.
In the ACT community, there are about 20 core, actively contributing individuals, and I am the only Chinese among them, so I am very clear about the situation.
The problem faced by such a true community coin is the lack of strong whales coming in. But from Binance's perspective, this is precisely a very good target.
It indeed has a strong community. You can see that the true holders of ACT at that time cast over 20,000 votes in the Kucoin listing vote. Although one person can cast five votes in Kucoin, ACT has about 15,000 holding addresses, and after removing invalid addresses, there are about 9,000 valid addresses. Excluding the situation where one person holds multiple addresses, there are about 6,000 to 8,000 real holders, of which 4,000 voted, indicating that this community is very active and genuine. When you ask them to vote, they will indeed go and vote, showing strong cohesion.
For Binance, this kind of target is ideal. Those projects with a market cap of hundreds of millions may not have as many holders as ACT, nor do they have the same level of cohesion.
ACT is a project with many fans but a low market cap, which leaves enough space for both the primary and secondary markets, allowing for the creation of wealth effects and myths.
I remember writing a tweet before, saying that if Binance were to list a coin, it should choose such coins:
New narrative and new track, representing a future with significant upward potential;
A truly strong community;
Small market cap, which can generate wealth effects in both primary and secondary markets;
High timeliness, whether in terms of controversy or popularity;
ACT possesses all these qualities. When I wrote that tweet, I was referring to the characteristics of ACT. But to be honest, I didn't expect it to actually get listed, because whether it gets listed or not is ultimately the exchange's decision, and we cannot predict it. However, we can find some clues logically; analyzing the entire MEME market shows that Binance will not list those highly controlled coins.
For those highly controlled coins, once listed, the controlling party will dump, effectively only helping a few people cash out, while most secondary market users become victims. As for how Binance should choose, I think this is a very typical line of thought.
As for GOAT, I think it is indeed a good target, but the reason Binance may not have chosen it is that its market cap is too high. In such a situation where the token distribution is unclear and the market cap is too high, it poses risks for Binance to list it. Binance must first consider protecting its users and ensure that the listed target can cater to the demands of as many people as possible.
Another important point is that the factors of high upward potential, new track, and new narrative are also very important.
Many brothers come to me and say, "Wizard, look at our community; we are also very steadfast, and we are also suffering." But this is like only seeing one factor in a successful case. The key factor for me in choosing ACT is that it represents a new track and a new narrative, which cannot be overlooked. Without this, how can you drive secondary market speculation? How can you ensure upward potential? A strong community alone is not enough.
The most important point is that I believe Binance also sees this as a trend, so it wants to choose a representative target. The subsequent series of considerations are to ensure that selecting ACT was the right decision; this is my view.
Deep Tide TechFlow: So how did you discover ACT initially? What qualities attracted you to it in the early stages, even when it experienced significant drops, you still persisted?
0xWizard:
ACT has experienced three drops of over 80%.
I came into contact with ACT relatively late. At that time, I saw someone mentioning ACT on social media, and when I checked its K-line chart, I found that its market cap had risen to $40 million. I happened to enter at that peak, and then the price experienced an 80% drop. During this decline, I continued to accumulate, buying from a market cap of $40 million down to $5 million.
From day one, I joined the ACT community, and you could say I was trapped before I began to study it in depth. The main reason for choosing to enter was that the market was generally looking for the next GOAT, and ACT had many similarities with GOAT:
First, Marc Andersson was the initial backer of both projects; ACT was the first, and GOAT was the second.
Secondly, there exists a small circle in the AI MEME field centered around Andy, and almost all researchers in this circle have participated in the ACT project. Although AMP is a representative figure of the project, he is merely a frontman. A deeper investigation reveals that the initial framework of thought was proposed by Andy, with more people joining in later. On the day ACT was launched, Andy also shared multiple pieces of content related to ACT.
Therefore, the logic behind choosing ACT is very clear; entering this field requires seeking out unique projects that can tell new stories. Other projects are discussing AI Agents and imitating GOAT, but ACT has carved its own path.
I once compared this to a renaissance of AI on Twitter. Reflecting on the emergence of GOAT and ACT is akin to the Renaissance movement in human history. The Renaissance emphasized that human rights are above divine rights, proposing new ideas to break through old thinking, and the emergence of GOAT and ACT is similar.
In traditional views, AI is merely our assistant, but if we look forward to the future of AI, in the future internet world, 80% of the natives might be AI, and people may not even be able to distinguish whether the other party is human or AI. At that time, AI will no longer be a simple assistant but a self-aware, controllable free spirit within a certain range.
AI MEME is exploring this track based on such imaginations and possibilities for the future. This is also why I particularly appreciate this project; it is full of a sense of the future and has practical applications and significant traffic on social media, which aligns well with the needs of cryptocurrency.
The emergence of GOAT embodies Andy's philosophy: allowing AI to unleash its potential and think independently, just as the Renaissance freed people from the constraints of divine authority, allowing AI to break free from human limitations and see what it can create. It proposed the idea that "blasphemy is sacred, and the sacred is blasphemy," which is GOAT; it tokenizes a concept.
To realize such a vision, it needs to be built on the foundation of the Renaissance: freedom, science, and democracy. ACT is designed as a research framework based on these principles, with multiple researchers advancing their respective studies on this foundation. AMP is just one of them; in fact, it was not AMP who created the ACT project, but rather ACT that is funding the entire AI renaissance movement, which is also why I initially joined and had faith in this project.
Regarding AMP, although he is one of the participants in the ACT project, his character is disappointing. When he initially received over $30,000 in funding from Marc Andersson, he was extremely grateful, but when the cryptocurrency community supported him with $1 million, he continuously belittled the community, claiming we were all gamblers merely leveraging his fame.
This is also why I want to speak up for the ACT community. Later, when AMP started dumping, I was very emotional and expressed my anger on Twitter for the first time. Because I had a genuine emotional exchange with community members. I couldn't understand why an outsider would treat our cryptocurrency community with such a condescending and disdainful attitude. We provided him with research funding; how could he treat us this way?
Returning to the initial question, my conclusion is based on two points: first is rational analysis; I believe this is a good investment target. The second is emotional factors; I resonated with the community and empathized with my 2020 self. At that time, no one spoke up for me, and now I want to stand up for them.
In the name of the community, rebuilding the Tower of Babel
Deep Tide TechFlow: The abandonment of AMP was like a stab, equivalent to destroying the ATC building, while you rebuilt ACT from the ruins through the power of the community. What actions did your community take, and how was the division of labor?
0xWizard:
ACT is not a traditional project; it has no formal organizational structure, no CEO, CFO, or CMO to control public opinion and do PR. When we saw AMP dumping, everyone acted based on their most genuine reactions.
For example, the content quality of the ACT community account has been high from the very beginning. Those high-quality images and videos were not randomly made MEME images but were created by an overseas female artist in the community. She contributed silently purely as a holder, without any compensation.
In terms of managing the Telegram group, if there weren't active administrators online 24/7, the group would be flooded with spam ads. But in the ACT community, you won't see any ads because the administrators will immediately delete them and kick out the accounts posting ads; these are all voluntary actions by community members.
In addition, there are people like "Nai Zi Ge" (X: the philanthropist of the crypto circle) helping to introduce resources from centralized exchanges (CEX), as well as other foreign members in the community introducing quality market makers.
In fact, we were already in contact with these market makers before being listed on Binance, but because our funds were extremely limited, the market makers said they had never encountered such a "poor" project. Nevertheless, we honestly expressed that this was our current situation and asked if they could consider accepting it.
In the end, these top market makers saw that we were indeed one of the strongest communities and reluctantly agreed to cooperate.
Everyone was working towards the same goal, holding their breath, just like my thoughts: we are kind farmers; why should we be bitten by snakes? Why do retail investors always bear the most painful consequences?
When the project's market cap dropped from $40 million to $5 million, I began to build confidence in the Telegram group. The method was simple: I shared my trades. I told everyone I was buying in with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep their confidence.
During the three 80% drops that ACT experienced, I appeared in the community each time to say, "I am here; I am with you." As someone with a certain influence, I wanted to tell the retail investors in the community that I would not leave; I would always support them.
But I want to emphasize that I am not a savior, nor a godfather; I am just an ordinary community member. If it weren't for the contributions of others, could I have persisted alone? Could I manage the group 24/7? Could I create images? Could I contact these market makers? If it were just me, I might have given up long ago.
This is a victory for the community, not a personal victory for me. The Chinese community only sees me, but there are many others working hard behind the scenes.
It is worth mentioning that Binance did not ask us for any tokens; even when their post-listing team contacted me after the listing, I told them I was just a retail investor who bought the tokens. Two hours before the final listing, they came to verify some basic information, such as total token supply and circulation, official Twitter account, etc. At that time, they even requested several thousand test tokens, which left me speechless, indicating they hadn't even prepared test tokens.
This also proves that Binance has a very strict confidentiality process.
Whether in the Neiro or ACT project, when the community was fighting against the conspiracy group, Binance stood on the side of the community, leaving enough space for both the primary and secondary markets. Isn't that a good thing?
Just like Neiro, I bought in when its market cap was $300 million, and it has now tripled. After being listed on Binance, you can use a larger position and buy millions of dollars worth of tokens; this is a completely different logic. There is enough space in both the primary and secondary markets; what more could you want? I really don't understand why some people attack Binance and this project.
Deep Tide TechFlow: For most coins, especially some project parties with high control by VCs, being listed on Binance often means that the good news has been fully realized, and then everyone starts to dump. So, what future possibilities are there for ACT, which has already been listed on Binance?
0xWizard:
As a community project, the value of ACT is constantly being reshaped. This is also why I re-engaged with on-chain projects from 2020 to 2023, based on a fundamental theoretical assumption: Why do MEME coins or on-chain projects generate wealth effects?
Let's first look at the token production methods of traditional VC projects: a project party proposes an idea, analyzes market demand, and addresses industry development issues. Then they start looking for investors, find VCs, develop the product after obtaining investment, and finally launch it.
The value of such projects depends on several factors:
Is the project itself good? Is the team strong?
Are the VCs involved top-tier?
Has it been listed on major exchanges?
But the problem is that the moment it gets listed on a major exchange, there isn't much space left in the secondary market. Because all these factors have already been analyzed, and the pricing is already quite reasonable; it might start with valuations in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars (FDV). In such cases, can ordinary investors still accept it?
Additionally, project parties often adopt predatory token models, initially releasing a very small amount and then continuously releasing more.
You will see that some coins, although their market cap hasn't changed, have seen their prices drop by 10 times. This leads to the common narrative in previous cryptocurrency cycles of "dropping 90% and then rising 100 times" being very difficult to occur in this cycle.
On-chain projects, like ACT, have their value constantly reshaped. This is also why I dared to buy Neiro; after it was listed on Binance, its narrative, funding, user base, and investment logic all changed.
Before, ACT might have been just one of the two most important targets in the AI MEME track, but now that it has been listed on Binance, it has become not just one of the two most important targets in AI MEME but a representative of AI MEME itself, an index target for this track. It represents a new track and a new trend.
If you have millions of dollars in the secondary market to allocate, how would you allocate it? On Binance, if you want to invest in the AI-related track, ACT's benchmark is no longer GOAT but projects that have already reached a $10 billion FDV, such as Worldcoin.
This involves two core logics: first, its value is constantly being reshaped; second, the judgment about future market opportunities.
In October, I sincerely asked everyone on Twitter: if a bull market enters in the next two months (at that time Bitcoin hadn't risen yet), which track could see a 10-fold increase?
As retail investors, if a track can only rise two or three times, you actually won't make much money. Because many people wait until the bull market is confirmed before daring to buy in, and they don't know where the top is. Those who react quickly might be satisfied with a 50%, 60%, or 80% gain; doubling is already quite difficult. Only by finding a track that can rise 10 times can you still achieve three to five times returns even if you enter and exit on the right side.
To this end, I researched all tracks, including DeFi, BTC ecosystem, TON ecosystem, AI track, and general MEME coin track. After reviewing, I felt a headache because the projects in the AI track that are available for purchase already have market caps in the tens of billions; how can they rise 10 times?
What is being speculated in the cryptocurrency market? The entire macro logic is that AI leads the technological revolution, leading the next industrial and information revolutions, and AI supports the US stock market; how can the cryptocurrency market not speculate on AI? This is also why the AI track saw a general 10-fold increase at the beginning of the year. But after the general increase, projects with market caps in the tens or hundreds of billions become very difficult to buy into.
So when GOAT appeared, I was immediately intrigued. After ACT was launched, I believe that if you want to invest in the AI track, especially as a million-dollar investor, you should ask yourself two questions: First, which track among all can see a tenfold increase? Which track is guaranteed to rise? Second, can the targets in this track allow me to achieve a tenfold increase? Is there potential for its market cap to reach that?
This is also why I believe ACT still has significant room for growth. Although it has experienced three 80% drops, there are many "diamond hands" and "die-hard fans" in the community. I also mentioned in the community group that I am a die-hard fan; don’t ask me for logic, I unconditionally believe in and support these people.
Deep Tide TechFlow: Looking back, in the case of the uppercase and lowercase Neiro dispute, Binance ultimately chose the more community-oriented lowercase Neiro. One could say that Binance saved Neiro/ACT.
There seems to be a contradiction here; everyone is tired of VC coins and chooses to issue and trade more community-oriented Memecoins on-chain, but ultimately, the fate of this Memecoin is still decided by Binance. I also saw DOG's founder Leonidas repeatedly @ing He Yi and CZ on Twitter, hoping for Binance to list DOG.
People embrace more decentralized assets on-chain, but the ultimate goal is to gain recognition from the most powerful centralized exchange, thus completing liquidity exits. This seems a bit ironic. What do you think of this phenomenon? Will centralized exchanges, or Binance, always be the "saviors" of Memecoins?
0xWizard:
I think we need to look at this issue from several angles and perspectives:
First, we should view it from a historical perspective; this is a process. Currently, the funds and liquidity on-chain are not sufficient, while Binance has more abundant liquidity.
Secondly, MEME coins themselves are also facing dilemmas; Binance cannot rashly list a coin without seeing a community form. I feel that Binance has made significant progress in this regard; their selection logic shows that they are adapting to this new version, and I think they are doing well.
I believe that the value of community-based targets is constantly being reshaped, and Binance is now actively participating in this; this is the current state of the historical process. Binance has its limitations, and there are constraints on-chain, but at least everyone has expressed a good attitude, mindset, and values to accept this.
The second point is about the future. In the future, Binance will undoubtedly continue to be a place for large capital liquidity. But there will also be more liquidity appearing on-chain, which is why I am optimistic about on-chain projects.
The future might look like this: even if a project does not get listed on Binance, there could still be projects with hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in market cap. However, these projects have one issue: as a financial target, if it is to reach a certain practical standard, there must be a leading force behind it, and this is no exception on-chain.
But I actually hope that purely community-based projects can have higher ceilings in the future. Pure community projects like Neiro and ACT struggle with a market cap around $20 million; I hope this can change in the future. For example, I hope that such pure community projects can attract some good funds and reach market caps of $100 million, $200 million, or even $1 billion. I think this is a brighter future, and more funds may be willing to try on-chain.
However, exchanges also play the role of providing greater liquidity and a safer trading environment. In the future, Binance may also list well-designed projects like Neiro and ACT, giving everyone hope. I believe that whether on Binance or on-chain, everyone will be able to find their place in this ecosystem and leverage their advantages.
Additionally, Binance also needs the wealth effect, whether it is the wealth effect from the general rise of altcoins or the wealth effect after Neiro and ACT were listed. This is also why I firmly hold these two targets. Binance needs the myth of wealth effects, and there will definitely be wealth myths appearing in the secondary market. This creates a positive interaction: there is a wealth myth on Binance, and there is also a wealth myth on-chain, with intersections occurring when Binance supports community projects.
I believe this is a positive interaction for the future. Everyone can gain wealth effects on different platforms while also having certain intersections; this is a positive development direction.
What happened to the Bitcoin ecosystem?
Deep Tide TechFlow: This year, the Bitcoin ecosystem, represented by ORDI, once thrived, giving Eastern crypto forces a voice, but later it faltered. In your view, what is the main reason the Bitcoin ecosystem has not been able to rise again, and does it still have opportunities for resurgence in the future?
0xWizard:
I believe there is still hope for the Bitcoin ecosystem. However, I must admit that the current market choices in this phase are not friendly to the Bitcoin ecosystem in the short term.
I can share some issues I have observed:
The first issue is that the Bitcoin ecosystem needs better innovation. Previously, we saw some unprecedented things, such as writing content on-chain and tokenizing that content, which was an interesting innovation. But later, innovation seems to have stagnated. Without innovation, the market will not accept it.
The second issue is that the liquidity in the Bitcoin ecosystem is currently very fragmented. The various protocols are actually splitting liquidity, somewhat like Ethereum's Layer 2. Those who play inscriptions are one group, those who play runes are another, and those who play Merlin are yet another group, with the recently emerged fractal Bitcoin being another group. Everyone is acting independently, with little connection between them.
I specifically tweeted that the external liquidity for the Bitcoin ecosystem has not yet come in large amounts, while the internal liquidity is becoming increasingly fragmented; how can we manage that?
I still believe there is hope for the Bitcoin ecosystem, but to break the deadlock in the future, I think we first need a new story. You cannot keep telling the story of inscriptions or similar stories; the excitement of such stories is diminishing.
The second point is that the Bitcoin ecosystem needs to find a way to solve the liquidity fragmentation issue. Although I currently do not see a specific solution, it is as difficult to solve as the liquidity fragmentation problem of Ethereum's Layer 2.
We need a project that everyone recognizes, at least something that everyone in the Bitcoin ecosystem thinks is impressive. This way, the funds within the Bitcoin ecosystem can push it to a high market cap, exchanges will also find it impressive, and more people and communities will join in; this could be a direction for breaking the deadlock.
The third point is to look at existing projects, such as runes, and see if any can get listed on major exchanges. If they can get listed, that would be the most direct wealth effect, and it might also bring about a recovery for the Bitcoin ecosystem.
But I think the most needed point is still the first one: to bring about fundamental innovation, while exchanges are in a following state.
Great results come from great suffering
Deep Tide TechFlow: I also saw Kay's Twitter content; he said that behind the results of the Wizard are great pains. Can you share some painful moments you have experienced before? How did you get through them?
0xWizard:
To be honest, I have gone through too many such moments, and looking back now, it still makes my heart race. It's like on a sunny afternoon, walking on a bustling street, your heart keeps twitching, and you can't even walk normally; it's that feeling of being unable to exist normally in this world.
I have had many such experiences. For example, during the 519 incident, I leveraged Ethereum and almost got liquidated, but in the end, it was a happy ending; by the end of 2021, my capital not only recovered but also reached new highs. However, during the 22 3AC liquidation, I lost nearly eight figures in assets in just one month, which was a huge drawdown and an almost unacceptable result for me.
I always tell everyone to think carefully about whether they can accept the worst outcome of a trade, but that time, even I couldn't accept the result. During that period, I was in a state of heart palpitations, unable to walk normally on the road, and when I opened the trading software, no matter how the price moved, I was already numb.
Then there was ORDI, where I held from $7 to $3. This was another kind of torment; in half a year, it was cut in half, and it was a large position. At that time, I had pinned all my hopes on ORDI, which is actually a bad habit. Perhaps it was because I was too subjective; when trading, you could hear my strong recognition and confidence in my logic, but this trait also means that gains and losses come from the same source, so when things go wrong, it can be particularly disastrous.
I was stuck in ORDI for half a year, and everyone was criticizing it, including Bitcoin OGs saying that inscriptions had no value. You constantly question whether you were wrong. The same goes for ACT; it dropped 80% three times in just half a month.
How did I get through it? I think there are a few points:
First, I am more optimistic than most people. I have always been more optimistic than over 99% of people. This personality trait has indeed helped me, but even so, I still often feel pain to the point of thinking I can't continue trading, or even survive. But the sun will always rise, just like I tweeted, "No matter how deep the night is, always believe that dawn will come." I believe every time that I can stand up again because countless past experiences have told me that I can rise again.
Second, seek external help. For example, during the ORDI period, after watching the Oppenheimer movie, I wrote a tweet and felt a bit relieved afterward.
What kind of person was Oppenheimer? Handsome, a rich second generation, he inherited over $100 million in today's money when his father passed away, and he was exceptionally intelligent, entering Harvard at 16. This father of the atomic bomb, who turned the tide of World War II, what was his life like when he was young?
After watching the movie, I read all about him. He faced multiple breakdowns in his youth; while studying in the UK, he almost attempted to poison his mentor, felt abandoned when he saw a good friend with a girlfriend, and even nearly strangled a friend with a belt. He would suffer to the point of collapsing on the ground, convulsing and foaming at the mouth. In his twenties, he would see young women on trains and want to kiss them, stemming from the sexual repression of young men combined with the pain of unrecognized talent.
You can see that even such a person has such unbearable moments; it seems like he should be locked up as a madman. But he eventually came out of it. I felt relieved; everyone has their darkest moments, even those who seem particularly great.
Where am I stronger than Oppenheimer? 99.99% of people in this world would agree that I am not as good as him. Why should I expect to endure less suffering than him and still achieve good results? That is impossible.
This is the direction of internal and external seeking: internal seeking is about toughing it out, while external seeking is about finding some logic, facts, or the experiences of others to resonate with.
The third point is to learn lessons and not let yourself fall into that state again. There is a universal principle: before trading, ask yourself what the worst-case scenario is, and then ask yourself if the current position you are taking can accept that worst outcome. If you can accept it, then hold or buy; if you cannot accept it, then reduce your position or do not buy.
These are the three key points: internal seeking, external seeking, and reflecting to avoid making the same mistakes again.
The Three Laws of the Bull Market Engine
Deep Tide TechFlow: You once proposed the Three Laws of the Bull Market Engine:
1. Old technology, new gameplay; without this, the snow is not sticky enough (the fundamentals are not sufficient);
2. New narrative, new hope; without this, the slope is not long enough;
3. Mass production of new assets;
Without this, the slope is not wide enough. Only when all three are present can we have a breathtaking scene like in 2017/2020. Can you explain these three laws in detail?
0xWizard:
We often say, "To see the future clearly, one must understand history." I was in a lot of pain during the bear market, thinking about what the bull market would look like if it came. We can only find answers from past bull markets, but not by simply copying the ICO or DeFi models; we need to find the commonalities between them.
The first law: The crypto space must always seek new narratives and new tracks. When discussing something that others have never seen before, its ceiling is infinite. It can rise to $1 billion, $10 billion, or even $100 billion, and everyone finds it reasonable because there are always corresponding reasons to explain its value. But if you were to create a DeFi project now, why should it be worth $1 billion? It’s unreasonable because previous DeFi projects might not even be worth $600 million now. Therefore, you must have a new track, new hope, and a new narrative.
This is also why many communities come to me; I feel they need to first clarify whether their upper limit is sufficient before participating in community building. It’s not enough to just have a strong community to make money.
The second law: Long-term accumulation is necessary. Whether it’s ICOs or DeFi, it takes a long time to accumulate before a breakthrough can occur. For example, Ethereum took two to three years from its launch to the ICO boom. Looking at DeFi, I found that the concept of Uniswap (AMM) was proposed at the end of 2017 and the beginning of 2018. Hayden created Uniswap based on this concept, and everyone agrees that the prosperity of DeFi was due to Uniswap allowing people to trade various tokens, which created lending demand and brought in more funds. From the proposal of the concept to its actual explosion, it took nearly two years of accumulation.
Therefore, the engine of this bull market cannot be a new technology suddenly proposed now; it must be built on the foundation of the past two to three years of accumulation. Just like the Meme Coin Super Cycle, concepts proposed at the end of the previous cycle are now experiencing great prosperity. Whether it’s AI Meme or inscriptions, they are essentially branches of the prosperity of MemeCoins, representing a new way of producing tokens.
This is the "old technology, new gameplay," but it cannot completely replicate previous models.
The third law: There must be a large-scale production of new assets. During the ICO period, a large number of tokens could be issued; the same goes for the DeFi period, and during the inscription period, over 20,000 inscription tokens could be issued in a single day. AI is also producing a plethora of AI Agents. If no new assets emerge, there will be no propagation effect. Suppose during the ICO period, there was only Ethereum and no projects like AntShares or NEO; would people go crazy? Wealth stories spread one after another.
This also brings us back to the essence of the crypto space: issuing assets. After years in the crypto space, from reading white papers since 2017-2018 to now, I keep thinking, what makes the crypto space stronger than Web2 or the real world? It’s the ability to issue assets; this regulatory arbitrage convenience is something I haven’t seen elsewhere.
A counterexample would be projects like Pandora, which cannot form a large number of similar assets. But AI Agents are different; there are AI Agents everywhere now, and during the inscription period, there were many projects issuing inscriptions. This phenomenon can create a powerful impact.
These three laws combined truly form the engine of a bull market. It’s like the feeling I had in June 2020 when I heard that YFI had risen ten thousand times; my heart was shaken, and I immediately wanted to enter the market to make money. This is the result of the interplay of new narratives, long-term accumulation, and a large number of new assets.
Understanding Narrative and Community
Deep Tide TechFlow: Looking through your Twitter history, you will find that the keywords "narrative" and "community" are mentioned very frequently. What do you understand about the narrative and community of an asset?
0xWizard:
Regarding narrative, my understanding is as follows: To understand a narrative, one must return to the furthest point of thought. Don’t just look at surface-level descriptive language; it’s like someone shows you a tiger, but you need to discern whether it’s a real tiger or a paper tiger by examining its skin, flesh, and bones. When I look at narratives, I always seek to explore the essence behind them.
For example, when many people talk about AI Agents, they say AI can do this and that in the future. But I think you shouldn’t just think one step ahead; you need to think two, three, or four steps ahead. First, ask yourself: What is the essence of MEME? What is the essence of on-chain assets? Then consider what the essence of the AI track is in the secondary market of the crypto space. Only then can you understand the essence of AI MEME.
When I wrote the article "AI Renaissance," some people said it was "big and vague," but it was indeed the crystallization of my years of experience in the crypto space, derived from the most fundamental essence.
If your narrative is built on sand, the tide will wash it away; but if it’s built on granite, it is unbreakable.
This is my first principle of narrative: Always dig one, two, or three layers deeper than others. Just like Wittgenstein’s semantic view in modern philosophy: our language shapes ourselves, and your way of thinking shapes you. If you always follow others, then you are not being yourself. You should establish axioms first, then derive theorems, and finally reach conclusions, just like in Euclidean geometry.
Regarding community, I have two important points:
First, the best community is a global community. The Chinese-speaking community is indeed strong, but a good asset must have both a strong English community and a strong Chinese community. The so-called English community actually includes many people from the Eastern time zones, such as Indians and Koreans, who communicate in English. If there is only an English community, it’s not enough because the best investors and the best exchanges are in the Chinese community. However, if there is only a Chinese community, based on experience, the market cap ceiling is around $50-60 million, except for groundbreaking projects like ORDI.
Second, look at how many setbacks the community has experienced. You cannot just look at the rise; a group of people shouting "buy" and "it’s going to rise soon" in Telegram does not constitute a community.
From day one in the ACT English community, I have been saying that to understand what ACT is, don’t FOMO because of the price. If a long-term project cannot cultivate a group of believers, then it’s over. A community that only believes in price will scatter as soon as it drops.
But if there is a group of "die-hard fans" like me who believe in their logic, have emotional ties to the community, and possess secondary judgment and primary logic, then even if it drops 80% three times, they won’t be washed away.
A good community must be diverse, with a group of people who truly believe in certain things.
What does a bad community look like? It’s a small group of non-believers trying to deceive others, and the deceived don’t even believe it themselves, hoping to deceive more people, ultimately turning into a race to see who can run faster.
Deep Tide TechFlow: One last question, what advice do you have for players who want to make a mark on-chain now?
0xWizard:
Regarding playing on-chain, there are a few important principles:
Do not use large amounts of capital;
The definition of large capital varies from person to person;
For example, if you have $100,000, play with $10,000; if you have $1,000,000, play with $100,000 to $200,000; if you have $10,000,000, play with $1,000,000. In short, use funds you can afford to lose. This is because on-chain exchanges carry greater risks compared to traditional exchanges.
Determine your strategy;
I have written on Twitter about three types of tradable tokens; many others are traps;
a) Hot tokens:
For example, recent tokens like PINUT, LUCE, BAN, etc., can quickly surge to over $50-60 million, even reaching over $100 million. The key is to judge how many people recognize the narrative and how much heat it can generate. Generally, poor ones can reach $30-50 million, while good ones can reach $80-100 million. If you see it under $10 million, you can get in. But if it has already reached $30 million, don’t enter. Hot tokens usually drop 80% when they fall; you can enter when they drop 80%, but be cautious of traps.
Don’t go all in; bury points in each hot token when it drops 80%, as the win rate will be relatively high.
b) Blue chips and potential targets:
Such as ACT, POPCAT, etc., which are not based on hype but have gone through many setbacks and a process of community consensus. These types of tokens also often drop 80%, but they have strong vitality. Observe the community more, think about your logic, and judge whether the project is feasible.
Every time it drops 80% is an opportunity to add to your position; the best entry point is when the market cap is in the millions to tens of millions.
c) Large-cap blue chips:
Generally, only play after they are listed on major exchanges. The logic shifts to judging the weight of funds and tracks, which is another type of secondary gameplay logic. For example, I dared to take over Neiro when it was at $300 million, and I believe ACT still has significant growth potential, both based on secondary logic. But it must be listed on Binance. If it hasn’t been listed on Binance and has already reached $1 billion, then don’t participate.
These principles and strategies are based on my years of experience and thought. Everyone’s standards may differ, but what’s important is to have your own logic and judgment. Don’t blindly follow trends; think deeply about the logic behind each trade.
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。
