Analyzing the Transformation of the Encryption Investment Landscape and the Differences Between the East and the West

The investment landscape in the field of encryption currency is undergoing significant changes. Some well-known encryption currency venture capital firms are facing challenges, while others continue to maintain strong momentum. This change reflects broader market trends and regional differences.

A certain cryptocurrency venture capital firm has halted new investments due to the low return rate of BTC Layer 2 network projects and has shifted to the post-investment management phase. The firm invested $40 million over three years but failed to achieve the expected returns. This decision highlights the challenges in the cryptocurrency investment sector.

At the same time, some venture capital firms with a Chinese background have also begun to shift towards investing in the secondary market or focus on helping their invested projects get listed on mainstream trading platforms. This strategy aims to minimize losses as much as possible, but also reflects a certain degree of short-term thinking.

In contrast, a well-known venture capital firm in Silicon Valley is still maintaining strong momentum. The firm is not only active in the encryption currency sector but is also making significant investments in areas such as artificial intelligence. Its encryption currency fund has reached a scale of $7.6 billion, with a minimum investment of $500,000 in its startup accelerator program. This scale and diversified strategy highlight its dominant position in the industry.

This difference reflects a broader trend: Western institutions tend to dominate conceptual innovation and capital concentration, while Eastern participants focus more on project development and providing liquidity. Although some Asian exchanges still have advantages in liquidity, the entire industry seems to be increasingly leaning towards "internationalization."

The reasons behind this trend are multifaceted. Firstly, Western institutions inherently possess a global perspective, and the companies in their investment portfolios often have international influence. In contrast, Asian institutions face more geographical restrictions, making it difficult to directly enter local markets and only able to participate in global competition by providing liquidity and other means.

In addition, the differences in the policy environment are also an important factor. In certain Asian regions, governments and businesses have a cautious attitude towards encryption and are more inclined to explore the underlying blockchain technology. This attitude limits the participation of local institutions in the global encryption market.

However, this pattern is not set in stone. Some Asian financial groups are experimenting with cryptocurrency investments in places like Hong Kong and Singapore, although currently it is more for strategic defensive reasons.

The future direction of development remains unclear. Some viewpoints suggest that the encryption currency industry needs new innovative paths and participants. Technological innovation and regulatory changes may reshape the industry landscape. At the same time, others warn against mistaking short-term speculative behavior for long-termism.

Overall, the cryptocurrency investment sector is at a turning point. The differences between Eastern and Western institutions in terms of strategies, scale, and influence reflect broader market dynamics and geopolitical factors. In the future, whether it is possible to build global public goods from local liquidity markets may be one of the key factors determining the success or failure of industry participants.