Catrina Wang

Catrina Wang@dotcuriouscat · 12 天前政策影响

Is a generalizable L1 still investable in 2026? Moderated a debate at the @SeliniCapital Summit on one of the most contentious topics in crypto. Proposition for “L1s are still investable” are @PrimordialAA of @L1Fxyz and @zaheerebtikar of @Plasma; opposition are @santiagoroel and @YanLiberman of @Delphi_Digital. The opposition team won by just a smidge - but the topic prob deserves much deeper mindshare. If I were to architect a longer session, it’d be to answer each of the questions 1. Do L1s deserve a different valuation rubric from DeFi (mostly on financials) to capture “qualitative” fundamentals such as security, culture/community, privacy, censorship resistance, etc.? 2. Does a chain have value if it’s widely used but practically free? Sure, TCP/IP never had a value accrual mechanism — but if there were a TCP/IP token, would it trade at 0? 3. Do we still have a revenue hockey-stick story for L1s? Are we still early or at this point it's hopium 4. Is the “crypto premium” here to stay, or valuation converging with public equities? If so, let alone L1s, what else are investable in crypto outside of high-velocity defi? 5. Will generalizable L1s survive the increasing app-chain / verticalized-chain meta? 6. Who and where are the net-new buyers of L1 tokens? And of course, a phenomenal summit as usual ⚡️

AI：偏政策推进，强调合规落地与规则明晰，对监管主线更敏感。

Catrina Wang@dotcuriouscat · 22 天前赛道影响

RT @nobrainflip: $BTC had +20% July pumps in every bear market Are you ready for another bear market rally? https://t.co/n83N0x37M9

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Catrina Wang@dotcuriouscat · 2026/06/19赛道影响

@Web3Marmot Yup

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Catrina Wang@dotcuriouscat · 2026/06/12观点输出

Ouch

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

Catrina Wang@dotcuriouscat · 2026/06/10观点输出

@QinRuixian 👀

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

Catrina Wang@dotcuriouscat · 2026/06/09赛道影响

Basic body language reading is perhaps one of the highest-leverage skills in biz for conversion - or at the very minimum, make sure your arent annoying your investor/customer/partner. It amazes me how oblivious people are to the most obvious signs from their audience that they're talking TOO MUCH. Some of the easiest tells on zoom calls: /They get it — move on to your next point -> A short "yup" before you finish your sentence. -> Fast nods. Not slow nods—fast ones usually mean you're belaboring the point. /They want you to stop talking -> Fast blinking. You are boring them. They want to get out but cant. When people are focused, their blink slow way down -> Lip compression / pressed lips. They want to react to what you just said but you're not giving them the chance. -> The gasp "O" — mouth slightly open, ready to speak means they want the floor now. You're welcome.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Catrina Wang@dotcuriouscat · 2026/06/08赛道影响

The biggest mistake first-time founders make is wasting first impressions too early. What do I mean by that? I had a pre-seed portfolio company ask for an intro to QED during their pre-seed round because they thought it'd be helpful to have them as a potential Series A lead. This is just wrong. You are wasting your first impression and it's very hard to reverse. The expectations of a Series A investor are night and day from where you are at pre-seed, with far less tolerance for "we're still figuring it out" compared to 1st-check writer like myself. You're raising a pre-seed round for a reason: you need time, reps, and trial-and-error to grow into a more mature company. Sure, you can argue that you can follow up later and show your growth. But why start from a deficit? Here are your two options: Option A (I always advise against): -> Meet your headline-name/mega VC (think Ribbit a16z) too early -> They're underwhelmed because they're used to the quality and maturity of founders at Series A+ -> You are now stuck with a mediocre impression that you need to reverse -> It's an uphill battle—you may not even get a follow-up call because 1. They are no longer as curious because they've met you (prematurely) and werent impressed. 2. There are infinite other founders they could be "first-time curious" to give time to instead. I've just seen too many "oh ya I've met this founder before - will pass" Option B: Just wait. Grow into your Series A maturity. Then meet them for the first time. You pick.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Catrina Wang@dotcuriouscat · 2026/05/30赛道影响

@klimonchain AB testing 2.0

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Catrina Wang@dotcuriouscat · 2026/05/30政策影响

Here's a question I get a lot: how I filter signal from the noise as an investor in crypto. This clip covers my mental model - TLDR: think about why anyone uses anything in CRYPTO. A. Because it makes them money B. Because it's useful Of course, A and B are not mutually exclusive and will become intertwined as a company grows. To HYPE's credit, it actually is a quintessential example of a company that makes users money AND is better than the alternatives. My personal preference is always to back type B businesses - they just have so much more "internal" locus of control over their success - hear me out. When you are building in A, you'd be benchmarked against very QUANTITATIVE measures like: - Who generates the highest yield (what happened to USDe) - Who offers the widest array of assets (these "trade everything" apps) - Who can give the highest notional airdrop (how Lighter poached users) - Who has the deepest liquidity (Jupiter vs. other DEX on SOL) Inevitably, your users will be mercenary and will pull their liquidity once you fall short on the above quantitative measures. A classic Bertrand-style market. Of course there are still sustainable moats to be had, like trust, lindyness, culture/cultship, and UX to help retain users. But ultimately, no matter how sleek your UI is or how over-the-top your branding is, your TVL will fall off a cliff if you fail to meet the high-yield expectations of your users (think USDe). When you are building in B, there are two paths: 1. Make it new: create a new market/product by using crypto as a technological catalyst. Example here are - @Polymarket @Kalshi as new categories - What we call "latent market play" like @uraniumdigital_ building a tokenized spot market and enabling derivatives for uranium that just didn't exist before - Perps as a financial product that wasn't possible before 2. Make it better: build an alternative to what's dysfunctional today. Think stablecoins (a better alternative to fiat), DePIN (a cheaper alternative to centralized providers), etc. Instead of A businesses spending their time begging whales to supply TVL and worrying about competitors vampire attacking them, B businesses tend to have much higher pricing power and durability because they compete on superior functionality and product merit. Their success drivers are much more QUALITATIVE (functionality, novelty, GTM & distribution, and user experience) than QUANTITATIVE (yield, incentives, and economic optimization for much more mercenary customers). To know if you are building in A vs. B, just ask yourself this question: If financial incentives disappeared tomorrow, would users still show up?

AI：偏政策推进，强调合规落地与规则明晰，对监管主线更敏感。

Catrina Wang@dotcuriouscat · 2026/05/26观点输出

@milesgr_ Maybe it’s just me but whether someone follow up has little to zero bearing on how much I like a deal But speed matters in DD process

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。