After the waves wash away the sand, crypto VC needs to become the architect of the "cathedral"

After watching this episode, I was deeply impressed by the discussions among the guests, especially IOSG founder Jocy’s thought-provoking comparison between “Cathedrals and Casinos.”

I have been following the internet and venture capital since the late 1990s. In my impression, VC has enjoyed high prestige and respect for over twenty years.

However, when looking at the global investment landscape, you’ll find that VC accounts for only about 1%. Like art and real estate, it is categorized as an “alternative investment.”

Why does such a niche investment category enjoy the most respect and prestige?

From my perspective, it’s because VC is synonymous with “the future.” When late 1990s bankers were mocking those “money-burning” websites, it was KPCB that understood Amazon, Sequoia that saw the potential in Cisco and Google, and IDG that recognized Tencent. They invested not only capital but also their reputation, connections, and strategic wisdom.

This respect is earned by VC itself. It embodies humanity’s primal hope that “technology drives social progress,” romantic admiration for “creation,” and recognition of the most scarce quality: the courage to take the greatest risks, support seemingly “impossible” dreams, and change the world together.

So why, in the crypto space, has the respected VC model become a target for criticism and a very weak position?

It’s simple—too many crypto projects lack the “VC spirit.” They offer no longer “smart money,” but “lazy money.” They are no longer “builders,” but “predators.” The model is no longer about “growing together,” but about exploiting information asymmetry, creating information gaps, and making quick profits in a short time.

Crypto VCs have thus lost their “ecological niche.” They can only bear the longest lock-up periods while watching exchanges, market makers, and even project teams cash out early through various schemes. They have become the last fallback for “patience capital” supporting casino-like ventures.

This cycle meme and the rise of “fair launches” are essentially a cultural rebellion by the community against the original sins of “VC coins.” It’s the price crypto VCs paid for greed and laziness in the previous cycle.

So, are crypto VCs dead?

Many speculative, lazy, “shill-style” VCs have indeed died. But the crypto VC industry itself has not died; instead, it may be undergoing some purification.

Just like during the internet bubble, the hot money that poured in eventually died out, but those true “architects” who believed in the future of the internet stayed—Sequoia didn’t die, KPCB didn’t die—leading to the later successes of Amazon and Google.

History is repeating itself. “Casinos” cannot build “cathedrals” on their own. The industry still desperately needs capital, but what it needs are visionary, patient investors who truly provide “smart money.” This is not the end of crypto VCs but a brutal “big wave washing away the sand,” allowing more crypto VCs to return to their true mission—

Taking risks, supporting innovation, advancing the world, and earning returns from it.