温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.bee.com/hi/60023.html
点击访问原文链接

Crypto funds have seen their principal halved after four years of investing in top-tier VCs. What’s wrong with crypto funds? | Bee Network

进入原网站 导航首页
Crypto funds have seen their principal halved after four years of investing in top-tier VCs. What’s wrong with crypto funds? | Bee Network Login ट्रेंडिंग न्यूज़ मीम लॉन्चपैड एआई एजेंट डेस्सी टॉपचेनएक्सप्लोरर न्यूबी के लिए 100x सिक्के मधुमक्खी खेल आवश्यक वेबसाइटें एपीपी अवश्य होना चाहिए क्रिप्टो हस्तियाँ डेपिन नौसिखिया आवश्यक ट्रैप डिटेक्टर बुनियादी उपकरण उन्नत वेबसाइटें एक्सचेंजों एनएफटी उपकरण नमस्ते, साइन आउट वेब3 यूनिवर्स खेल डीऐप मधुमुखी का छत्ता बढ़ता हुआ मंच विज्ञापन खोज अंग्रेज़ी रिचार्ज सिक्के लॉग इन करें डाउनलोड करना वेब3 यूनी खेल डीऐप मधुमुखी का छत्ता विज्ञापन घर•विश्लेषण•मुख्य पाठ Crypto funds have seen their principal halved after four years of investing in top-tier VCs. What’s wrong with crypto funds?विश्लेषण4 महीने पहलेहाँव्याट 16,315 1 Recently, Akshat Vaidya, co-founder and head of investment at Arthur Hayes’ family office Maelstrom, publicly disclosed a dismal investment performance on X, sparking widespread discussion in the क्रिप्टो समुदाय।

Vaidya said he invested $100,000 in Pantera Capital’s early-stage token fund (Pantera Early-Stage टोकन Fund LP) four years ago, and now only has $56,000 left, losing almost half of his principal.

In contrast, Vaidya pointed out that during the same period, the price of Bitcoin roughly tripled, while many seed-round crypto projects saw returns soaring by 20–75 times. Vaidya lamented, “While the specific year an investment enters the market is important, losing 50% in any given period is considered the worst possible performance.” This sharp assessment directly questioned the fund’s performance, sparking heated debate within the industry regarding the performance and fee structures of large crypto funds.

The “3/30” of a market boom The “3/30” fee structure that Vaidya specifically mentioned and criticized refers to a 3% annual management fee and a 30% performance fee on investment returns. This is significantly higher than the “2/20” model commonly used by traditional hedge funds and venture capital funds, which consists of a 2% management fee and a 20% performance fee.

At the height of the crypto market frenzy, some well-known institutional funds, leveraging their extensive project channels and past track records, charged investors fees higher than traditional standards, such as 2.5% or 3% management fees and 25% or even 30% of excess returns. Pantera, which Vaidya criticized, is a typical example of a fund with excessively high fees.

As the market has evolved, the fees charged by crypto funds have also been gradually changing in recent years. Having weathered bull and bear market cycles, and influenced by LP bargaining pressures and fundraising difficulties, crypto funds are generally shifting towards lower fees. Newly raised crypto funds in recent years have begun to make concessions on fees, such as reducing management fees to 1-1.5% or only charging higher performance fees on excess returns, attempting to align more closely with the interests of investors.

Currently, cryptocurrency hedge funds typically employ a classic “2% profit sharing and 20% performance fee” structure, but funding pressures have led to a decrease in average fees. Data released by Crypto Insights Group shows that current management fees are close to 1.5%, while performance fees tend to range from 15% to 17.5% depending on the strategy and liquidity conditions.

Crypto funds are difficult to scale Vaidya’s post also sparked a discussion about the size of crypto funds. Vaidya stated bluntly that, with a few exceptions, large cryptocurrency venture capital funds generally have poor returns and are harming their limited partners. He said the purpose of the tweet was to use data to remind/educate people that cryptocurrency venture capital cannot be scaled, even for well-known brands with top investors.

One viewpoint supports his opinion, arguing that the excessive fundraising size of early-stage crypto funds has actually become a drag on performance. Leading institutions like Pantera, a16z Crypto, and Paradigm have raised billions of dollars in crypto funds in recent years, but efficiently deploying such a large amount of capital in the relatively early stages of the crypto market is extremely difficult.

With a limited pool of projects, the National Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund (Big Fund) was forced to invest in numerous startups in a “wide net” manner. As a result, the investment in each project was not high and the quality varied. This excessive diversification made it difficult to obtain excess returns.

In contrast, smaller funds or family offices, with their moderate capital size, can more rigorously screen projects and concentrate their bets on high-quality investments. Some proponents believe that this “small but elite” strategy is more likely to outperform the market. Vaidya himself also commented that he agrees more with the view that “the problem is not with early-stage tokens, but with fund size” and that “ideal early-stage cryptocurrency funds must be small and flexible.”

However, some voices have questioned this radical claim. Their argument is that while large funds may face diminishing marginal returns when pursuing early-stage projects, their value in the industry should not be completely negated by the poor performance of a single investment. Large crypto funds often possess abundant resources, professional teams, and extensive industry networks, enabling them to provide value-added services to projects after investment and drive the development of the entire ecosystem—something individual investors or small funds cannot match.

Furthermore, large funds are typically able to participate in larger funding rounds or infrastructure development, providing the industry with the necessary deep financial support. For example, some public blockchains and trading platforms that require hundreds of millions of dollars in funding rely heavily on the participation of large crypto funds. Therefore, large funds have their place, but it is crucial to control the match between fund size and market opportunities to avoid excessive expansion.

It’s worth noting that, amidst this controversy, some commentators believe that Vaidya’s public attack on his peers has a strong “marketing” element—as the head of Arthur Hayes’ family office, he has recently been developing a differentiated strategy and raising funds for his own fund—Maelstrom is preparing a new fund of over $250 million, planning to acquire mid-sized crypto infrastructure and data companies.

Therefore, Vaidya’s criticism of competitors is suspected of highlighting Maelstrom’s differentiated positioning based on value investing and cash flow. Mike Dudas, co-founder of 6th Man Ventures, stated that if he wanted to promote the performance of his family office’s new fund, he should let his own achievements speak for themselves, rather than trying to attract attention by attacking others.

“No strategy is better than buying BTC.” Vaidya compared fund returns with a simple Bitcoin holding strategy based on her own experience, raising a well-worn question: for investors, is it better to just buy Bitcoin instead of entrusting money to a crypto fund?

This question may have different answers at different times.

In earlier bull market cycles, some top crypto funds significantly outperformed Bitcoin. For example, during the market frenzy of 2017 and 2020–2021, astute fund managers achieved returns far exceeding Bitcoin’s gains by positioning themselves early in emerging projects or using leverage strategies.

Excellent funds can also provide professional risk management and downside protection: In a bear market, when the price of Bitcoin is halved or even falls further, some hedge funds have successfully avoided huge losses and even achieved positive returns by using short selling and quantitative hedging strategies, thereby relatively reducing volatility risk.

Secondly, for many institutions and high-net-worth investors, crypto funds offer diversified exposure and professional access. Funds can venture into areas that are difficult for individual investors to access, such as privately funded token projects, early-stage equity investments, and DeFi yields. Those seed projects mentioned by Vaidya that have seen 20-75x growth would be difficult for individual investors to participate in at early valuations without the channels and professional judgment of funds—provided that the fund managers truly possess exceptional project selection and execution capabilities.

From a long-term perspective, the crypto market is constantly changing, and professional investment and passive holding each have their own applicable scenarios.

For practitioners and investors in the crypto space, the turmoil surrounding the Pantera fund presents an opportunity—in the ever-changing crypto market, rationally assessing and choosing investment methods that suit one’s own strategy is the key to maximizing wealth growth.

यह लेख इंटरनेट से लिया गया है: Crypto funds have seen their principal halved after four years of investing in top-tier VCs. What’s wrong with crypto funds?Recommended Articles

Related: MSX Points Season 1 Complete Guide: How to Obtain “Double Alpha” Through RWA US Stock TradingRecommended Articles With the Nasdaq, S&P 500, and Dow Jones all hitting record highs, global investors’ enthusiasm for allocating US stock assets continues to rise. Under such a cyclical window, RWA (Real World Asset) trading has become one of the more stable and certain value pillars on the blockchain. At the same time, MSX, a leading global RWA trading platform, officially launched its S1 points season program today. This program aims to reward loyal users who have made positive contributions to the development of the MSX ecosystem, allowing users to earn M-Beans by participating in the RWA ecosystem (including US stock spot, futures, and spot trading products) and use them directly for future MSX token allocations. This plan marks MSX’s entry into a new phase of “trading is participation, participation is profit,”…

# विश्लेषण# बिटकॉइन# क्रिप्टो# डेफी# मार्केट# स्टार्टअप# टोकन© 版权声明सरणी 上一篇 What is RaveDAO? Why are we doing this? 下一篇 Saying goodbye to the 1% allocation: Bitcoin is experiencing its "IPO moment". 相关文章 Only when the tide recedes can we see the future. 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 13,769 1 Aethir: Reshaping DePIN’s computing infrastructure with enterprise-level growth and real revenue. 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 16,295 Understand how the “market makers” in the cryptocurrency circle work in one article? 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 18,609 Breakpoint Abu Dhabi in Review: 49 Key Developments in the Solana Ecosystem 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 16,896 Invisible Hand: A Brief Discussion on the Cryptographic Order under Metaphysics 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 37,238 4 Funding Rates Finally Become a Tradable Asset: How Will Pendle’s Sub-Platform Boros Disrupt the Arbitrage Market?Recomme 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 26,986 2 कोई टिप्पणी नहीं टिप्पणी करने के लिए आपको लॉगिन होना होगा! तुरंत लॉगइन करें कोई टिप्पणी नहीं... Bee.com दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा Web3 पोर्टल भागीदारों कॉइनकार्प बिनेंस कॉइनमार्केटकैप कॉइनगेको कॉइनलाइव कवच बी नेटवर्क ऐप डाउनलोड करें और वेब3 यात्रा शुरू करें सफेद कागज भूमिकाएँ सामान्य प्रश्न © 2021-2026. सर्वाधिकार सुरक्षित।. गोपनीयता नीति | सेवाओं की शर्तें बी नेटवर्क ऐप डाउनलोड करें और वेब3 यात्रा शुरू करें दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा Web3 पोर्टल भागीदारों CoinCarp Binance CoinMarketCap CoinGecko Coinlive Armors सफेद कागज भूमिकाएँ सामान्य प्रश्न © 2021-2026. सर्वाधिकार सुरक्षित।. गोपनीयता नीति | सेवाओं की शर्तें खोज खोजइनसाइटऑनचेनसामाजिकसमाचार उत्तर: एयरड्रॉप शिकारी डेटा विश्लेषण क्रिप्टो हस्तियाँ ट्रैप डिटेक्टर हिन्दी English 繁體中文 简体中文 日本語 Tiếng Việt العربية 한국어 Bahasa Indonesia اردو Русский हिन्दी

智能索引记录