Written by Dora B Dream, Deep Tide TechFlow
*This article expresses personal views.
On February 5th, a morning that opened with a big drop, I was scrolling through Twitter as usual when suddenly a resignation statement from Kyle Samani, a partner at the well-known crypto VC Multicoin, popped up in my feed. My fingers paused on the screen for a few seconds, and my heart skipped a beat. How could it be him?
I know Kyle, to be exact, it's a "one-way acquaintance."
In my third year of university in 2020, I first read Multicoin's "order-taking" paper, which was refreshing, and the concept of Thesis-Driven was imprinted in my mind.
I never realized that venture capital could be written like this, without using vague PPT-style statements like "we believe in the long-term value of the XX track," but instead thinking like a trader, directly presenting clear long and short logic, not hedging, with clear and distinct viewpoints.
Kyle's image on Twitter has always been distinct: aggressive, mean, and has offended countless people.
He dared to publicly short Ethereum's scaling roadmap when everyone was bullish on it, confidently bet on Solana when others were bearish, and after FTX's collapse and Multicoin's heavy losses, he was the first to publicly and transparently disclose the losses and review the decision-making process.
Many people in the Western crypto community hate him, thinking he is too arrogant, but I have always felt that this industry also needs people like him.
Now he's gone. Turning to AI, longevity technology, robotics. I suddenly feel a bit sad: not even Kyle wants to play anymore. What's wrong with this industry?
When Kyle left
What hurts me is not another VC turning to AI. In these days, who isn't talking about AI?
What hurts me is that it's precisely Multicoin's Kyle, someone who I thought was very principled.
What is the investment logic of most crypto VCs? Casting a wide net, betting on industries, talking big but never making judgments, or just following others to invest.
Open the investment reports of those well-known institutions, and you will always see statements like "We believe in the future of decentralization" or "We are optimistic about innovation in the XX field," but you will never see a firm statement like "We believe Project A will outperform Project B."
This is not prudence, it's being worldly-wise. Either way, whoever wins, they can always say, "See, we had planned this all along."
Kyle, or rather Multicoin, is not like that; he dares to make "life-and-death judgments."
In 2017, openly stated that Ethereum's sharding roadmap was a dead end, once bet on EOS and failed, in 2018 placed the bet on Solana, in 2020 strongly supported Helium and believed DePIN was the only non-financial scenario in crypto that could be implemented.
Yes, he missed a lot and made big mistakes, with EOS and FTX being bloody lessons. But he never conceals anything, disclosing exactly how much he lost and never avoiding any responsibility he should take.
He is not the smartest VC, not the gentlest evangelist, but he is among the most "authentic" ones. His departure symbolizes that a certain kind of "honesty and sharpness" is disappearing from this industry.
That tweet deleted in seconds
What concerns me more is the tweet he posted before leaving, although he deleted it immediately.
He said, "Cryptocurrencies are not as interesting as many crypto enthusiasts hope. I once believed in the vision of Web3, believed in dApps. Now I don't. Blockchains are mainly asset ledgers, which can reshape finance, but have limited potential in other areas."
Why delete it immediately? Because saying it out loud makes you a "heretic."
Why can't you help but post again? This is a conclusion reached by someone trapped between faith and reality, who spent 8 years and invested hundreds of millions of dollars.
I understand this feeling too well, because this has also been the emotional journey of my past year.
What did we believe in when we entered in 2021? Decentralized social media would disrupt Twitter, on-chain identity (DID) would let users take control of their data, and GameFi would let players truly "own their assets." Back then, on Twitter timelines, everyone was discussing "how Web3 would change the world," and every new project seemed like a gateway to the future.
The reality of 2025? Friend.tech is dead, Lens Protocol is unused. ENS has become a hype tool, and no one really uses DID except for wallet addresses. The collapses of Axie and StepN proved that "X to Earn" is just a Ponzi scheme in disguise.
But Kyle didn't completely reject it. He still has confidence in financial applications like stablecoins, DeFi, RWA, and DePIN projects like Helium, and continues to bet on Zama's fully homomorphic encryption technology.
The question is: Do these things still require "faith," or is rational calculation sufficient?
Kyle's departure is evaluated by some as betrayal, but in my eyes, it is a "disenchantment," transforming from a crypto evangelist into a crypto realist. This transition might precisely be the coming-of-age ceremony the entire industry must undergo.
Last time we lost money, this time we lost confidence.
When FTX collapsed in 2022, the entire industry hit rock bottom. Luna went to zero, Three Arrows went bankrupt, and the market was halved again and again. But at that time, people still had one belief in their hearts:The market crashed, but we are not wrong. As long as we hold on, the bull market will prove everything.
At that time, we still believed in Ethereum's "endgame narrative," from PoW to PoS, from a single chain to modular architecture, thinking it was the inevitable path toward the "world computer."
We also believe in Solana's "performance revolution," thinking that as long as we can survive the bear market, high-performance chains will definitely win.
We also believe in the "paradigm shift" of Web3, considering the next chapter of the internet to inevitably be decentralized.
What about now in 2025?
The objective data is actually much better than the previous trough. BTC once broke through 100,000 USD, ETFs were approved, and the connection between crypto and Wall Street has become closer.
But the subjective feeling is exactly the opposite: prices are higher, but confidence is lower.
The main culprit or the "mirror to reveal demons" is AI.
When ChatGPT was released in 2023, everyone was discussing "How will AI change the world?" At the same time, what was Crypto discussing? "Should L2's sequencer be decentralized?" One was talking about a productivity revolution, the other was arguing over technical details.
The past two years have seen AI progress that is simply breathtaking: Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT in a three-way competition, with something new every day, and recently everyone has been obsessed with OpenClaw.
What about crypto? There are more and more L2s and chains, but no one can clearly explain "why we need 100 L2s," not even Vitalik, who has reflected on past strategic mistakes. NFTs, GameFi, and SocialFi have taken turns making appearances, but they all turned out to be nothing more than fleeting trends.
The biggest innovation of this cycle has turned out to be Meme Coins and "reinventing gambling."
I often ask myself in the dead of night: AI is redefining productivity with technology, and Crypto is redistributing wealth through financial games. The former is creation, the latter is transfer. What exactly are we building?
Kyle's departure, essentially, is a "value choice."
He chose to pursue AI, longevity technology, robotics—those fields that are truly "expanding the human frontier." As for crypto, at least for now, it seems more like a high-end casino.
But I'm not ready to leave yet.
Up to this point, you might think that I'm also going to announce my withdrawal.
But no, I still want to take another "chance."
Kyle can leave because he has already achieved financial freedom and can pursue grander dreams. But for young people like me, crypto still means: a relatively fair "ladder of upward mobility," a "permissionless" experimental field that doesn't require education, background, or connections, but only insight and courage, a new industry that hasn't been completely monopolized by the elite class yet.
More importantly, perhaps the grand narrative of Web3 has failed, but that doesn't mean Crypto is worthless.
The revolution of financial infrastructure has already happened, with stablecoin daily settlement volumes surpassing Visa, and DeFi enabling 7x24 financial services and RWA for people around the world.
The most important thing is: I haven't figured out my own answer yet.
Kyle spent 8 years coming to the conclusion that "Crypto is just an asset ledger,"
But I'm still just a new recruit, what right do I have to make judgments now?
Maybe in a few more years, I will leave just like him. But at least for now, I still want to stay at the table and see if this industry still holds some possibilities we haven't seen yet.
After several years, crypto may no longer be a "disrupt everything" revolution, but rather the value settlement layer of the AI era.
At that time, I will order a cup of coffee and chat a bit more about the scenery I saw along the way.