Compiled & Translated by: TechFlow
Guest: Jademont Zheng (Dashan), CEO and Co-founder of Waterdrip Capital
Host: Bonnie
Podcast Source: Bonnie Blockchain
Original Title: Bitcoin Crash in 2025! Who Really Made Money in "This Bull Market"? Crypto Winners Reshuffled: Who Will Have the Last Laugh? Jademont Zheng【Bonnie Blockchain】
Broadcast Date: November 6, 2025
Key Takeaways
This episode features Jademont Zheng (Dashan), CEO and Co-founder of Waterdrip Capital, mainly discussing the following topics:
-
Who actually made money in this bull market?
-
Has the essence of the crypto market fundamentally reversed in 2025?
-
Has the era of retail exit and corporate entry truly arrived?
-
How long can the Bitcoin ETF craze last?
Highlights
-
It is extremely difficult for everyone to make money in any market.
-
Before 2017, the global blockchain center was Shanghai, not New York.
-
Whether someone is an OG is not determined by how much Bitcoin they hold, but by their beliefs and philosophy.
-
As a VC, we still hope to support truly innovative companies. The old model of quickly launching a product, listing it on an exchange, and cashing out is completely outdated.
-
There are far fewer startup projects now, giving us more time to research and analyze them in depth, and the investment amounts are larger. Previously, investments were spread wide; now, quality is prioritized.
-
We boldly predicted Bitcoin would reach $100,000 as early as ten years ago or even earlier.
-
No one will publicly disclose exactly how much Bitcoin they hold.
-
Those who have held Bitcoin for over 10 years are no longer focused on price; they believe Bitcoin reaching $1 million is only a matter of time and see no need to discuss price anymore.
-
The reason Bitcoin's price rises is due to consensus, but if Bitcoin is stored long-term in cold wallets and not used, its social value will be greatly diminished.
-
For many OGs, Bitcoin rising above $100,000 may not mean much, as adding another zero to their assets doesn't significantly impact their lives.
-
If the entire decentralized economic system can flourish and even replace some traditional financial functions, that is truly exciting—a new economic order being established.
-
The US may be intentionally building a parallel trade and payment system outside of SWIFT.
-
Bitcoin was designed to ensure security through technology itself, not by relying on human moral constraints.
Who Actually Made Money in This Bull Market
Bonnie: Jademont, I want to talk with you about who actually made money in this bull market. Many say this bull market is institution-driven, especially after the launch of the Bitcoin spot ETF, with institutional funds pouring in. What’s your view on the current bull market?
Jademont:
This is a very interesting question. In reality, it is extremely difficult for everyone to make money in any market. Looking at the past two or three years, it’s true that institutions have made money. More precisely, it’s those who can react quickly and anticipate market trends who profit. For example, during Trump’s administration, US crypto regulation became more friendly, and those who seized this trend made money. Conversely, if you continued the old strategy of speculating on small coins, you probably suffered significant losses.
Bonnie: I’ve heard that VCs are now less willing to support new projects, and top exchanges prefer to support mature companies like Bitcoin reserve companies or Ethereum reserve companies. Is that true?
Jademont:
That’s not really the case. As a VC, our main goal isn’t to hold mainstream assets, as these are usually held by large institutions or traditional financial firms. Our job is to support innovative companies and early-stage entrepreneurs. However, the market has indeed changed. A few years ago, there were many startups, but now if you walk around a conference expo, you’ll see far fewer small companies—most are mature firms or traditional enterprises.
Today, companies entering the crypto space are much better funded, but as a VC, we still hope to support truly innovative companies. The old model of quickly launching a product, listing it on an exchange, and cashing out is completely outdated. The companies we support now have longer-term goals, aiming for stable development in three to five years, or to become industry leaders in five to ten years. Whether these companies eventually issue a token or go public is just a matter of form, not superiority.
Bonnie: So can I understand it this way: many so-called DAT reserve companies actually have growth potential comparable to new projects. Is your support for new projects not just about making money more safely, but also for other reasons?
Jademont:
For VCs, the long-term yield of holding DAT may be similar to mainstream coins. For example, investing in a Bitcoin reserve company, its growth is usually positively correlated with Bitcoin’s price. But for early-stage projects, we seek excess returns—multiples of Bitcoin’s growth, like five or even ten times. That’s the VC’s goal, but the success rate is low, typically under 20% in the industry.
Out of 100 projects, 80 may fail, but the remaining 20 could bring several times the return. Overall, the final yield may exceed Bitcoin’s growth.
Bonnie: You just mentioned that VC investment strategies have changed. Can you elaborate on the differences between before and now?
Jademont:
Previously, investment was more casual because there were so many projects in the industry. For example, at last year’s Bitcoin Asia conference, there were 40 or 50 very small companies at the expo, raising only one or two million dollars. They entered the market too early and should have focused on product development first.
Now there are far fewer startup projects, giving us more time to research and analyze them in depth, and the investment amounts are larger. Previously, investments were spread wide; now, quality is prioritized.
Bonnie: Besides Hyperliquid and Polymarket, what other trends are you watching?
Jademont:
We’re especially optimistic about two directions. The first is innovation around Bitcoin or similar DATs, such as providing value-added services for these reserve assets via DeFi. Mainstream coins like Bitcoin and Ethereum are increasingly linked to traditional capital markets. How to make these assets appreciate in traditional markets, beyond natural price increases, and create additional returns is a huge opportunity. This market could reach $2 to $3 trillions.
Bonnie: What might the future look like?
Jademont:
Suppose a DAT company holds $100 million in Bitcoin. If these Bitcoins are simply stored in a custodial wallet, that’s a waste of resources. If, under secure conditions, DeFi can generate a 5% annualized yield, the company can earn an extra $5 million a year, which is excellent even for a traditional listed company.
In addition, we can tokenize the company’s stock. For example, some companies specialize in RWA tokenization, putting stocks on-chain and integrating them into the DeFi ecosystem. This way, you can enjoy Bitcoin’s price appreciation and also earn extra returns via DeFi.
Bonnie: If a company holds 50,000 Bitcoins, would it be confident enough to put these assets into DeFi protocols to earn yield?
Jademont:
That’s a good question. If it were me, I’d be very cautious and wouldn’t put all my Bitcoins into DeFi protocols. But there are already many secure solutions. For example, Bitcoin Layer 1 supports script technologies similar to smart contracts, such as Hash Time-Locked Contracts (HTLC), which can securely lock Bitcoin. There has been no history of theft.
Jademont:
Of course, no system is absolutely safe, but these technologies are as secure as custodial wallets. There are also solutions like having major exchanges or custodians multi-sign your Bitcoin, then deposit it into protocols to increase their TVL. The value of liquidity is that I’m not simply sending you Bitcoin for yield; we can use multi-signature to ensure my Bitcoin won’t be sold for the next ten years. That’s valuable to the market, so can’t I also get a yield? This kind of BTCFi model ensures Bitcoin’s absolute security while earning extra returns.
Calling for $100,000 Bitcoin 10 Years Ago?
Bonnie: What are OG meetings really like? Outsiders imagine you whales gathering to discuss Bitcoin’s future, and those discussions become reality. Is that true?
Jademont:
It’s kind of funny—we boldly predicted Bitcoin would reach $100,000 as early as ten years ago or even earlier. Back then, Bitcoin was only a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. We said it would reach $100,000, but honestly, we weren’t that confident. We just dared to say it because there was nothing to lose, right?
As time went on and Bitcoin really did reach $100,000, you’ll find the so-called OG group has started to split. Some left when Bitcoin hit $10,000, others sold at $100,000. Although they were early users, they may not actually hold much Bitcoin now.
As for how much Bitcoin someone actually holds, no one will publicly disclose that. Being in the industry for a long time doesn’t mean you have a lot of Bitcoin; some newcomers may have deep pockets and buy a large amount at once. So I think whether someone is an OG is not determined by how much Bitcoin they hold, but by their beliefs and philosophy.
For example, when Bitcoin was $10,000, did you believe it could reach $100,000? Now that it’s $100,000, do you think it can go to $1 million? Or do you see Bitcoin as a get-rich-quick tool, or as something that carries the ideal of decentralization? At this conference, there was a booth selling various souvenirs, including a magazine called “Freedom Issue.” I highly recommend collecting it. The cover tells the story of Ross, founder of the original Silk Road. This reflects the topics discussed in the Bitcoin community 10 years ago, when Bitcoin was worthless and many thought it might go to zero, but it carried the ideals and values of decentralization, which is worth remembering.
Those who have held Bitcoin for over 10 years are no longer focused on price; they believe Bitcoin reaching $1 million is only a matter of time and see no need to discuss price anymore. More discussion is focused on building the Bitcoin ecosystem, such as whether mining is worthwhile and whether there are risks. As mining power consumption increases, new issues arise. There’s also the question of whether long-term storage in cold wallets and declining on-chain activity will impact the ecosystem. Why is the Lightning Network’s development so slow? What’s next for BTCFi and Layer 2 technologies? These are the topics OGs are now discussing.
Why Can’t Stablecoins Operate Like Bitcoin?
Bonnie: Why can’t stablecoins operate like Bitcoin?
Jademont:
If it’s a decentralized stablecoin, it can indeed function similarly to Bitcoin. But centralized stablecoins (like USDT) have limitations, such as the ability to freeze accounts. This is a problem for AI agents, as they don’t want human intervention or control.
Imagine an AI agent with its own “sovereign consciousness,” aiming to make money. For example, it helps you complete a $1 million transaction today and earns $100. This money goes into its own wallet, maybe a Bitcoin address or a stablecoin address. It uses these funds to buy more data in the AI market, helping itself evolve and earn more, increasing its competitiveness in the AI world. In this context, Bitcoin and blockchain become the base currency and infrastructure for the AI economy.
Bonnie:
This is an interesting idea. How soon might we see this happen?
Jademont:
Actually, it’s already happening. Projects we’ve invested in have solved the payment problem between AI agents and are working with several AI companies in Silicon Valley to test it. However, I’m not sure when these technologies will be widely adopted. Frankly, I hope that day doesn’t come too soon, because overly powerful AI could threaten human existence. Still, the trend is unstoppable, and we must prepare for its arrival.
I can’t predict exactly when, but we must prepare as best we can. Just as Bitcoin was born after the 2008 financial crisis to prevent similar crises and build a new financial infrastructure, blockchain and Bitcoin have now significantly improved the traditional banking and financial system.
The Truth About Earning Yield by Depositing Bitcoin
Bonnie: If I deposit Bitcoin on a platform and you give me 5% yield, that sounds odd. Why do I earn yield just by depositing Bitcoin? Wasn’t the old way to issue a new coin?
Jademont:
Indeed, that was the way before last year. This approach can attract users or market attention in the short term, but it’s unsustainable. Why? If you deposit Bitcoin with me and I give you a coin I issued, I must ensure that coin has long-term value, or the model is meaningless. In reality, it’s very hard to guarantee your own coin’s value, so this approach has gradually been phased out.
The mainstream method now is to generate yield through actual use of the deposited Bitcoin. For example, I can put Bitcoin on an exchange for quantitative trading. This arbitrage strategy is usually stable, as long as the exchange itself—like Binance or OKX—doesn’t go bankrupt or get hacked, my funds are safe. With a stable trading strategy, earning a 5% annualized yield isn’t difficult.
Another way is to use your Bitcoin as liquidity support. For example, I’m a new public chain, and your Bitcoin increases my TVL. In return, I give you airdrop rewards, which may be multiple tokens. As the number of tokens increases, even if some are worthless, others may have value, so overall you still earn yield.
Another way is to use your Bitcoin as collateral. I can use this collateral to borrow, say, USDT, then invest or earn yield with the USDT. In short, as long as you deposit Bitcoin with me, I can always find a way to make money with it.
Bonnie: This sounds easy to understand for crypto-native users, but if you were pitching to institutions—say, Michael Saylor sitting here—how would you explain it? Would he accept these methods?
Jademont:
Actually, Michael Saylor has already accepted these methods. His company has started exploring BTCFi, and Marathon Digital even set up a dedicated team to develop BTCFi products called Lemonade. It’s a Bitcoin Layer 2 solution, and they’re actively involved.
Of course, some traditional DAT companies may not have fully accepted these methods yet. It’s a gradual process. For example, if you have 50,000 Bitcoins, you might start by trying 5,000, and if it works well, gradually increase the amount.
In the entire Bitcoin ecosystem, or in the vision of these OGs, the goal is to have 10% of Bitcoin actually used, not just stored in cold wallets waiting to appreciate. If Bitcoin can be more widely used, its value will be greater, such as being applied to Layer 2 Lightning Network. The Lightning Network is mainly for payments; if all 21 million Bitcoins participate, its payment processing power will be immense. In short, Bitcoin can enter DeFi via Layer 2 applications or participate in trading through mapping, making the largest crypto asset truly active and driving the prosperity of the entire crypto ecosystem.
What Are the Risks of Keeping Bitcoin in Cold Wallets?
Bonnie: You just mentioned that keeping Bitcoin in cold wallets may pose risks. What exactly are those risks?
Jademont:
If Bitcoin is stored long-term in cold wallets and not used, its social value will be greatly diminished. The reason Bitcoin’s price rises is due to consensus, but if it’s only stored and not actually used, it seems a bit “hollow.” In fact, if 10% of Bitcoin could become active, many real-world problems could be solved, such as cross-border transactions and trade, or being used as collateral to enter DeFi, providing ample liquidity for the Ethereum or EVM ecosystem. This would not only drive industry development but also allow Bitcoin to truly play a role, rather than just being a numbers game.
For many OGs, Bitcoin rising above $100,000 may not mean much, as adding another zero to their assets doesn’t significantly impact their lives. But if the entire decentralized economic system can flourish and even replace some traditional financial functions, that is truly exciting. It’s not just about wealth growth, but the establishment of a whole new economic order.
Bonnie: You just mentioned gold and Bitcoin as underlying assets. If Bitcoin is stored in cold wallets as a store of value, it doesn’t need to participate in transactions. Cross-border payments can use USDT, DeFi can use Ethereum, so why does it have to be Bitcoin?
Jademont:
Actually, gold’s trading volume has always been large. If, in the future, every issued dollar stablecoin needs to be collateralized by Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will have an important use case and need to participate frequently in on-chain transactions. For example, in the future, Bitcoin may be used as collateral to issue stablecoins, which would significantly increase its on-chain activity.
As for why not use Ethereum or other assets as collateral, that’s hard to explain clearly. But just as central banks reserve gold instead of silver or copper, it’s a matter of global consensus. Bitcoin is widely seen as the most reliable underlying asset.
Bonnie: If payment scenarios really become widespread, that would bypass the SWIFT system. Would Visa and Mastercard feel threatened? How are their businesses now? Are they declining or starting to cooperate with stablecoin payment providers?
Jademont:
Visa and Mastercard definitely face competitive pressure. In my view, the US may be intentionally building a parallel trade and payment system outside of SWIFT. SWIFT relies on banks for settlement, but it’s inefficient and has high sanctions risk. For example, during the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia was kicked out of SWIFT and couldn’t spend abroad, exposing SWIFT’s limitations.
Because SWIFT is so dominant and sanctions countries at will, many countries are seeking alternatives. For example, China and Russia use barter to bypass the banking system for trade. The US realizes SWIFT usage is declining, and some countries are even wary of it, so it’s eager to build a new system to stay ahead.
At some famous tourist spots, many Russians no longer use bank cards but turn to virtual currencies, and countries like Iran, Turkey, and Russia often use USDT in international trade. The US can’t completely ban USDT, but it can regulate stablecoins to keep them within its control. This is one reason the US supports stablecoin development; another is to further consolidate the dollar’s global hegemony through stablecoins.
Which Countries Use Virtual Currency for Transactions
Bonnie: Do you think other countries still have a chance to catch up? Is it feasible to issue their own local stablecoins?
Jademont:
This is a complex issue. In 2017, mainland China tried to issue a RMB stablecoin, as regulation was still lax. We had a project called Bitshares, which supported issuing stablecoins like bitUSD and bitCNY backed by crypto collateral. At one point, bitCNY reached a scale of over 1 billion RMB.
But from 2017, China’s regulation tightened. We were warned not to issue RMB stablecoins, as it conflicted with national strategy. So we had to stop the project, and many exchanges delisted RMB trading pairs. Since 2017, RMB has lost its pricing power in crypto and Bitcoin, which is a pity.
As for other countries, since their currencies are much smaller, issuing local stablecoins may not be meaningful. However, I’ve heard there may be an offshore RMB stablecoin issued in Hong Kong, but there’s no official confirmation yet.
Bonnie: Your story reminds me of this Bitcoin conference. We invited Trump’s son, Eric Trump, who asked whether there’s a Bitcoin community in Asia. I was shocked, because Bitcoin’s hash rate was once over 70% concentrated in China.
Jademont:
That’s right, it peaked at 76%. But after China’s 2021 ban, Bitcoin’s hash rate dropped to 5%. Now it’s bounced back above 20%. In fact, before 2017, the global blockchain center was Shanghai, not New York. Many famous project founders came to Shanghai for investment, like Ethereum and ICP.
Bonnie: Now everyone talks about Wall Street in the US, as if all major events happen there. How do you think Asia should respond?
Jademont:
That’s an interesting question. Asia’s future isn’t up to me, though I hope we can return to previous prosperity. I used to be dissatisfied with China’s policies, as we had a great environment in Shanghai but had to move to Hong Kong. Later, I discussed this with an American friend, whose view inspired me. He thought that if China had supported Bitcoin since 2017, the US might not have fully promoted Bitcoin, and its price might not have reached today’s level.
The US did accelerate Bitcoin’s rise and development. If China had 70% of Bitcoin’s hash rate, the US might have hesitated to support Bitcoin fully. Although history can’t be rewritten, China’s policies did objectively promote Bitcoin’s decentralization. But now, Bitcoin is trending toward being more US-centric.
This trend worries some OGs, especially as Texas’s hash rate grows rapidly and many major mining companies are American. However, Bitcoin uses POW, so holding more Bitcoin doesn’t directly threaten network security. Also, many miners in Texas are Chinese and won’t fully obey the US government.
In contrast, Ethereum faces greater security risks due to its POS mechanism. If a government regulates companies holding large amounts of ETH, Ethereum’s network security could be threatened.
Ethereum’s Hidden Crisis and the Decentralization Ideal
Bonnie: Can you explain Ethereum’s security issues in simple terms? What’s the worst that could happen?
Jademont:
Ethereum uses POS, where those holding Ethereum vote to maintain network security. The more Ethereum you hold, the greater your influence. If a proposal gets enough support, it can change the network’s operation.
In an extreme case, if 99% of Ethereum is held by a few large companies, such as listed firms, they could control the network. If they act maliciously, they could theoretically threaten network security. While it’s unlikely these companies would act against their own interests, this centralization risk worries decentralization advocates. They want a system where wrongdoing is impossible, not one that relies on “good people” for security.
This is also Bitcoin’s original design: to ensure security through technology itself, not by relying on human moral constraints.
Bonnie: It sounds like you’re cautious about Ethereum treasury companies?
Jademont:
I can’t say I don’t support them at all, since I hold both Bitcoin and Ethereum, about 8:2. Treasuries have indeed pushed up Ethereum’s price, which I welcome. But as an early blockchain participant, I care more about decentralization and want to minimize the possibility of wrongdoing, building a fairer system.
In the West, especially Silicon Valley, there’s a view that blockchain and Bitcoin are actually for the future of AI. AI can’t use government-issued currencies like RMB or USD, as they’re controlled by central authorities. But Bitcoin is decentralized and can serve as a payment tool for AI, developing alongside AI networks.
Bonnie: So in the future AI world, my AI agent and your AI agent might transact in Bitcoin, and we humans would know nothing about it?
Jademont:
Exactly. We invested in a project that uses the Lightning Network for payments between AI agents. For example, my AI assistant needs to book a ticket but lacks permission to do so directly. It might contact another AI agent for help, and to complete the task, it needs to pay a service fee—settled in Bitcoin.
This way, AI-to-AI transactions are completely independent of human intervention, and we might not even know they’re happening. This is one of the possible futures for blockchain and AI integration.
