The Importance of Business Models in Crypto Investment

In a recent article, I quoted a tech blogger commenting on cryptocurrency ecosystem investors, suggesting that he believes the vast majority of players in the crypto ecosystem lack even basic common sense and are purely gamblers.

The common sense emphasized by this blogger refers to some fundamental elements that must be considered in business investment, such as the necessity for a project to have a business model, in other words, it must provide value, be able to generate continuous income, and produce profits.

Applying this understanding to the crypto ecosystem means that, aside from assets considered similar to Bitcoin, other projects should also be evaluated based on their business models.

When I first heard this statement, I felt a bit resistant.

Because over the past few years, at least for myself, I haven't paid much attention to the "business models" of the projects I participated in. What I mainly focused on was the so-called "grand narrative."

Using this approach, I still managed to make money over the years. Why?

Looking back now, I think it was mostly luck.

Duan Yongping once commented on a case.

In that case, a player was flamboyantly making things happen, spouting various glamorous terms. Duan Yongping said that this player must have made quite a bit of money using this method in the past.

After reading this commentary, I felt a chill run down my back.

To continue participating in the investment market, it is impossible to rely on flamboyance and jargon in the long term; one must return to the common sense of investing and the essence of investment.

Duan Yongping provided a very intuitive description of Buffett's investment and venture capital:

Buffett's capital is very large, so his targets are all large companies. For smaller companies, even if he finds them, he often cannot invest because these companies cannot accommodate the volume of funds he wishes to invest heavily in.

For small investors, however, there are more opportunities to find smaller companies in the market, and their returns can be much better than those of large companies; this is venture capital.

Although these two investment methods are different, the companies they seek are essentially the same; they both look for companies that can continuously generate value, with good business models, good corporate cultures, and good prices.

Coincidentally, in the past couple of days, I watched an interview with Zhu Xiaohu, where he particularly emphasized that the companies he invests in must be commercializable and that commercialization must be sustainable.

These are all the essence of business.

In his interview, he talked about a very hot "little dragon," believing that this "little dragon" is likely to go public on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board and perform very well in the current environment.

However, he still prefers companies with good fundamentals.

In the crypto ecosystem, there are countless "little dragons" like this. They have grand narratives, align well with the current trends people are chasing, and fit the hot topics being discussed. We know that once they are listed, their token prices will experience a wave of excitement. We understand that whoever can grab the tokens first can make money from this wave.

Around this idea, guessing market sentiment, analyzing on-chain data, probing insider information, and going long or short naturally became a series of subsequent operations.

However, their business models and whether they can sustain themselves are basically not discussed, let alone explored in depth.

Grand narratives can be imagined, and great stories can be told, but narratives and stories ultimately depend on whether they can be transformed into viable business models. Otherwise, relying solely on storytelling is destined to be unsustainable, inevitably leading to a chaotic aftermath after the excitement fades.