Conversation approfondie avec le fondateur de Pantera : avoir acheté du BTC à 65 dollars jusqu'à aujourd'hui, la révolution cryptographique n'est accomplie qu'à 15 %
TechFlow SélectionTechFlow Sélection
Conversation approfondie avec le fondateur de Pantera : avoir acheté du BTC à 65 dollars jusqu'à aujourd'hui, la révolution cryptographique n'est accomplie qu'à 15 %
« Nous allons traverser un grand marché haussier, suivi d'un marché baissier, et le pic de ce cycle devrait se situer en août 2025. »
Dédié à des analyses Web3 approfondiesSource : Bankless
Compiled by: Yuliya, PANews
Finding the next "Bitcoin" in the cryptocurrency market is a dream for many investors. As one of the most influential investment firms in the industry, Pantera Capital purchased Bitcoin at $65 back in 2013 and has since generated fund returns exceeding 100x. In this episode of the Bankless podcast, founder Dan Morehead shares how he identifies assets with asymmetric return potential and his deep reflections on the future of the crypto market. PANews has transcribed and translated the podcast content.
Bitcoin Investment in 2013
Bankless: Let's talk about that famous email on July 5, 2013. You suggested buying Bitcoin at $65 and planned to invest in 30,000 BTC. Can you share your thinking at that time?
Dan Morehead: It started in March 2013. Two friends of mine—Pete Briger (co-CEO of Fortress) and Mike Novogratz (founder of Galaxy Digital)—approached me to discuss Bitcoin. (We all came from Goldman Sachs; they later founded Fortress Investment Group.) Actually, my younger brother had introduced Bitcoin to me earlier, but I hadn’t paid much attention.
A short meeting with Pete and Mike unexpectedly turned into a four-hour deep discussion. The concept of Bitcoin truly opened my eyes. Later, I accepted Pete’s invitation and worked at their office for six full years.
Bankless: You mentioned it was an asymmetric trade opportunity. Could you explain that further?
Dan Morehead: During my macro trading days at Tiger Management, I learned one thing: look for opportunities where potential gains far outweigh risks. While investing always involves risk, the key is identifying assets capable of delivering massive returns.
For example, before investing in Bitcoin, we held Tesla stock. Interestingly, in 2013, Tesla and Bitcoin were priced similarly. Eventually, we made a bold decision—to sell all our Tesla shares and go all-in on Bitcoin.
Bankless: You said Bitcoin is like a "serial killer." What do you mean by that?
Dan Morehead: In tech, we often use “category killer” to describe disruptive innovations. Bitcoin goes further—it’s a “serial killer” because it doesn’t disrupt just one sector but reshapes multiple industries. But this process is gradual.
For instance, while blockchain technology already shows advantages in certain areas, truly challenging payment giants like Visa and Mastercard may still take another decade. Just like the internet, which is now 50 years old, Bitcoin is still in its “adolescence.”
Bankless: After so many market cycles, has your view on Bitcoin changed?
Dan Morehead: Despite Bitcoin’s incredible rise, I still see it as an asymmetric opportunity. We’ve experienced three drawdowns of over 85%, yet each time reached new highs. In traditional investing, it’s hard to find such an asset.
This is why, since 2013, I’ve focused almost entirely on the crypto market. We’re still in the early stages of this financial revolution, and future opportunities remain vast.
Asymmetric Investment Opportunities
Bankless: Between 2013 and 2015, you bought 2% of the world’s Bitcoin supply. Many investors wish they’d bought Bitcoin earlier and could identify similar asymmetric return opportunities. How did you build that conviction? Some might say it was just luck—what’s your take?
Dan Morehead: I appreciate your use of the word “pattern,” because it really is pattern recognition. I’ve worked on Wall Street for 36 years, starting in 1987, going through the savings and loan crisis, the financial crisis, investing in commodities in the 80s, emerging markets in the 90s. These experiences gave me an edge when investing in crypto compared to younger investors, because I felt I’d seen something like this before.
Let me give a few examples:
-
I was involved in the GSCI (Goldman Sachs Commodity Index) at Goldman Sachs; today, commodities are a recognized asset class
-
In the 90s, I invested in emerging markets, which are now a standard asset class
-
In 2006–2007, Pantera launched the first Western fund investing in GCC countries (UAE and Saudi Arabia). At the time, many thought it was crazy, but today the Middle East is a fully normal investment destination
-
I invested in Russia during the Gorbachev era, participating in the privatization of Gazprom
Bankless: So you've consistently sought out these frontier investment opportunities?
Dan Morehead: Yes, we’ve always looked for non-mainstream or unconventional opportunities. In 2000, we even set up a fund investing in farmland in Argentina after its second-to-last crisis.
What’s interesting about blockchain is that it remains a frontier asset class. That’s unusual—a $3 trillion market cap asset still considered frontier. I’ve never seen anything like it.
In an investment memo I wrote over the following months, I listed various blockchain applications:
-
Competing with gold (which is already happening)
-
Eventually competing with Visa and Mastercard
-
Challenging remittance companies that charge high fees to immigrants, while Bitcoin enables low-cost, seamless cross-border transfers
When you add up all these use cases, you realize crypto’s ultimate value will be far higher than today’s level. That’s why we’re so bullish on this space.
The Experience of Buying Bitcoin in 2013
Bankless: Can you describe what it was like to buy large amounts of Bitcoin in 2013? I remember when I first bought crypto in 2014—it felt sketchy, needing accounts across multiple exchanges, websites looking very basic. For many investors, these are major deterrents. How did you gain confidence in such an environment?
Dan Morehead: Trading conditions were indeed primitive then. Platforms like localbitcoins.com required face-to-face transactions, which posed too much risk—we never considered them. Ironically, that was one of the main ways people traded back then.
We initially planned to operate the fund under a large public company. We conducted thorough system testing, but that company eventually pulled out. By then, Bitcoin had already dropped 50%, so we quickly pivoted to operating independently under the Pantera brand.
Bankless: What difficulties did you encounter during actual purchases?
Dan Morehead: I remember starting action over the Independence Day weekend. We first tried a small platform (later known as Coinbase). We found they allowed only $300 worth per day, while we intended to invest millions. Coinbase had just one employee; it took four days to reply to our email. At that pace, completing our plan would have taken nearly 20 years.
Eventually, we turned to Bitstamp in Slovenia. When wiring funds via bank transfer, the branch manager asked detailed questions about Bitcoin, taking a full hour to explain. Honestly, even I was worried about fund security at the time. Ironically, we later became a major shareholder of Bitstamp, and I served as Bitstamp chairman for 6–8 years (PANews note: LinkedIn shows he served as Bitstamp chairman from 2014 to 2018).
Bankless: You mentioned visiting many exchanges, including Mt. Gox?
Dan Morehead: At that time, I believed it was important to personally inspect exchanges. I flew specifically to Tokyo to meet with two Mt. Gox executives. Though I stayed only two days, their behavior made me uneasy. Their explanations lacked logic, giving off either incompetence or fraudulent intent. Ultimately, we decided not to work with them—a choice later proven correct.
Institutional Adoption
Bankless: You mentioned doing 170 investor meetings but only raising $1 million. Back then, Bitcoin was seen as a “mysterious internet currency” or even a tool for drug dealing. How did you pitch it to investors? How did those meetings go?
Dan Morehead: If you want outsized returns, you can’t follow the mainstream, nor invest in projects tracked by 20 analysts at every Wall Street firm. That’s why we emphasized in our investor letters: “Make alternative investments more alternative.”
This philosophy stems from my hedge fund experience starting in 1991. Back then, hedge funds were truly alternative. Now, they’ve become a multi-trillion-dollar mainstream industry with highly similar strategies across firms. This experience reinforced my belief that blockchain should be a core part of portfolios—it still maintains genuine alternative characteristics.
Interestingly, those 170 meetings actually took place in 2016, three years after 2013. That was during crypto’s “winter,” when Bitcoin prices crashed 90%, and the prevailing sentiment was “blockchain matters, not Bitcoin.” Almost no one believed in public blockchains or Bitcoin as an asset.
Bankless: How many times has this kind of market downturn occurred?
Dan Morehead: Bitcoin has gone through three cycles of 85% drawdowns. In the first cycle, we began investing at $65, rose to $1,000, then crashed, remaining depressed from 2014 to 2017.
During that difficult period, despite near-zero interest in the space, our team kept working daily. The 2016 fundraising effort illustrates this well—170 meetings raised only $1 million, resulting in just $170,000 in management fees for the entire year.
Even today, despite improved fundraising, frankly, it feels like we’re still just getting started. Institutional investors remain extremely cautious—most either allocate nothing or only minimal exposure.
Bankless: Has your messaging on crypto and blockchain changed from 2013, 2016, to now?
Dan Morehead: My core views have remained consistent—perhaps because they’ve stood the test of time. When I explain Bitcoin’s fixed supply and immunity to fiat inflation, people often ask, “Isn’t that just like gold?” But I respond: It’s more like investing in gold in 1000 BC. Gold has served humanity for 5,000 years, but in the digital age, we need a new version—digital gold.
This is precisely why I’ve stayed passionate since 2013: I firmly believe Bitcoin will gradually replace physical gold, reform cross-border remittances, and revolutionize the Visa/Mastercard payment system. Of course, this takes time—likely 20 years, not overnight.
I’m so confident because blockchain’s development is an unstoppable trend. While timelines may exceed expectations and some startups may run out of capital, certain changes are inevitable: In five years, migrant workers won’t still pay a month’s salary in remittance fees, and you won’t keep paying 3% credit card swipe fees.
Whether this shift takes 10 years or 1–2 years, I can’t predict exactly. But precisely because I believe this transformation is inevitable, I’ll continue holding and investing in this space.
Global Adoption of Cryptocurrency
Bankless: Many people see Bitcoin doubling this year and think they’ve “missed it,” believing it’s too late to buy. What’s your view on Bitcoin’s upside and the broader crypto asset class? In terms of global adoption, are we at 20% or 50%?
Dan Morehead: For any conventional asset, if it doubles in a year, you probably shouldn’t buy—it might indicate overvaluation. But Bitcoin is different. Pantera’s Bitcoin Fund has delivered an 89% annualized return over 11 years—essentially doubling every year on average. A simple investment logic applies: if it doubles again, you make 100%.
However, there’s a crucial investment principle: your investment size should stay within a range where even an 85% loss wouldn’t destabilize your household. Simply put, don’t bet your marriage on this asset class. As long as you keep your position within that limit, you can hold confidently long-term.
Bankless: So how much upside do you see for Bitcoin?
Dan Morehead: Bitcoin has grown significantly—obviously, we won’t see another 1000x, as that would consume all Earth’s energy. But a 10x increase to a $15 trillion market cap, relative to the global $500 trillion financial asset base, is entirely possible.
I won’t speculate 50 years out, but within our current investment horizon—say 5–10 years—a 10x rise from current levels is perfectly reasonable, not crazy or overvalued.
Bankless: In terms of adoption, where are we now?
Dan Morehead: I believe we’re still in the early stages. Approximately 300 million people globally own crypto. While exact figures are hard to pin down, and many holders haven’t actively used it yet.
From a tech adoption lens: using Bitcoin requires only a smartphone, and 4 billion people already have smartphones. Innovative projects like KaiOS, which we’re engaging with, aim to bring this functionality to feature phones. Assuming smartphone users grow from 4 billion to 5 billion over the next decade, most of these users may end up using digital currencies on their phones.
Consider that half the population uses Facebook to share photos. If photo sharing is that popular, digital currency will be even more so. I believe 3 billion people using crypto within a decade is entirely conceivable. Once they start using it, more applications will emerge, integrating it further into daily life.
Overall, I estimate we’ve completed only about 15% of this blockchain revolution. Not only is participation still limited, but existing users haven’t fully tapped its potential.
Bitcoin’s “Escape Velocity”
Bankless: In 2013, people feared government bans on Bitcoin. In 2024, the situation is completely different. Has Bitcoin reached “escape velocity”?
Dan Morehead: Yes, Bitcoin has achieved escape velocity and won’t go backward.
In 2013, media coverage was mostly negative, focusing on Silk Road, ignoring positive developments. Although the U.S. once banned gold ownership, now 50 million Americans already hold crypto.
Bankless: How does this shift affect the political landscape?
Dan Morehead: There’s an interesting phenomenon here. Most Americans are under 40, yet over the past three years, 90% of wealth created by Federal Reserve and congressional monetary policy flowed to those over 70. This was effectively a massive wealth transfer from the young to the elderly.
And the young love crypto—and they vote. We’ve observed a striking shift in voting behavior among under-40 voters compared to the 2020 presidential election. The term “young Republican” hasn’t been heard in years—until now.
Trump expressed strong support for crypto in May this year. All his cabinet nominees strongly support crypto, and he even plans to appoint a crypto envoy. I believe when someone writes a PhD thesis on this election, they’ll find crypto was a decisive factor.
Bankless: Is this change reflected in Congress as well?
Dan Morehead: Yes, many anti-crypto senators and congressmen have lost their seats. According to sources I’ve read:
-
House: 274 in favor, 122 opposed
-
Senate: 20 in favor, 12 opposed
I predict that in four years, anti-crypto congressmen may not remain in Congress at all—because it’s simply not a smart stance. They’ll either change views or lose seats in the 2026 midterms or 2028 elections.
It’s strange to see Democrats shifting toward anti-crypto positions. I keep wondering—did I miss some strategic consideration? Because this clearly looks like a losing strategy.
Shift in U.S. Government Attitude Toward Crypto
Bankless: In 2025, we’ll see a pro-crypto executive branch and Congress for the first time. After SEC crackdowns under Biden, what impact will a crypto-friendly White House bring—especially regarding establishing a strategic Bitcoin reserve?
Dan Morehead: The executive branch can directly decide to stop selling seized Bitcoin—that’s within its authority. We participated in the U.S. Marshals’ first Bitcoin auction back in 2013–2014.
The U.S. government now holds 1% of global Bitcoin. Stopping sales would have a major impact, especially since Bitcoin’s circulating supply is limited and many holders never sell.
Bankless: Senator Lummis mentioned accumulating a 1-million-Bitcoin reserve. Do you think retaining the current 200,000 BTC and setting up custodial structures is feasible?
Dan Morehead: That’s very likely. Halting government transfers and sales of Bitcoin would positively impact the market. Removing a seller naturally supports price increases.
As issuer of the world’s reserve currency, the U.S. can’t hold foreign currencies like other nations. Storing gold at Fort Knox feels outdated. The U.S. should increase holdings of digital gold—and could even consider selling physical gold.
Singapore has held crypto for 5–7 years; this isn’t a radical idea.
Bankless: This issue seems increasingly partisan.
Dan Morehead: Yes, it’s strange. As Ro Khanna said, it’s like cell phones—why make it a partisan issue? In fact, Democrats should support Bitcoin more—it embodies progressive ideals.
Global Bitcoin Reserve Race
Bankless: Suppose Trump preserves the U.S.’s existing 200,000 BTC (~1% of global supply) and publicly announces it. China also holds around 200,000 seized BTC. How do you think they’ll respond? Will other nations start secretly stockpiling?
Dan Morehead: A strategic Bitcoin arms race could last 10 years. Both the U.S. and China may maintain 1% of global Bitcoin reserves.
It’s ironic: Why would countries competing with the U.S. store all their wealth in dollars and U.S. Treasuries? Under the U.S. sanctions regime, their transactions can be monitored.
For nations opposed to the West, storing part of their wealth in Bitcoin is an obvious choice. Neutral countries will do the same—just as with gold—because Bitcoin offers an alternative outside the dollar system.
Bankless: Stablecoin legislation has bipartisan support and could help preserve the dollar’s reserve status. Will these bills pass?
Dan Morehead: Like Bismarck said: “There are two things you should never watch being made—laws and sausages.” I don’t follow Congress closely—it’s a machine too complex and hard to influence.
Institutional Adoption of Crypto
Bankless: 2024 saw major institutional breakthroughs—Larry Fink admitted he was wrong about Bitcoin in 2021. ETFs achieved stunning success. Compared to 2022, when Mike Novogratz predicted a “wave of institutional investors,” that wave has finally arrived. So how advanced is institutional adoption now? Where are we in the process?
Dan Morehead: The industry faced significant setbacks:
-
Collapses of FTX, BlockFi, Celsius, Terra Luna
-
GBTC’s discount issues
-
SEC lawsuits against Coinbase, Ripple, etc.
These events dampened institutional enthusiasm. Imagine a public pension fund manager trying to propose Bitcoin investment to a state legislature under such conditions.
But people may not realize how fast things can change. If by 2025 we have a pro-crypto Congress, president, and at least neutral regulators, everything could transform overnight. That’s why we’re now seeing price surges and massive inflows into ETFs.
Speaking of ETFs, this is a major breakthrough. Eleven years ago, we launched America’s first crypto fund as a Cayman Islands hedge fund, assuming ETF approval might take years. The wait turned out far longer than expected.
Bankless: Can you share specific data on these inflows?
Dan Morehead: Current inflow figures:
-
Bitcoin ETFs: $35 billion net inflow
-
ETF-like products (e.g., MicroStrategy): $18 billion
-
Total inflows into ETFs or ETF-like products exceed $50 billion
An interesting comparison:
-
Net inflow into all global gold ETFs during the same period: zero
-
Capital is shifting from traditional gold to digital gold (Bitcoin)
Bankless: While seeing figures like Larry Fink changing stance is encouraging, institutions like Vanguard still prohibit ETFs or crypto assets in their ecosystem. So what’s the real extent of institutional adoption today?
Dan Morehead: Here’s an interesting point: many say Bitcoin is a bubble, but the median institutional holding is zero—how can it be a bubble? Most institutions—including insurers, pension funds, endowments—have virtually zero direct blockchain investment. They may indirectly hold some blockchain firms via general VC funds, but direct exposure is nearly nonexistent.
That’s precisely why I’m so bullish on the future. We’re just getting started. Seeing giants like BlackRock openly supporting crypto, building excellent blockchain teams, and institutions like Fidelity—which began blockchain efforts in 2014—is incredibly helpful.
Previously, many institutions used compliance as an excuse not to invest. But now, with regulated, high-quality products offered by BlackRock and Fidelity, that excuse no longer holds. Even Vanguard’s position may become unsustainable as the market evolves.
Bankless: So there’s still a chance to get ahead of institutional investors in crypto?
Dan Morehead: Exactly—this still applies. There’s definitely an opportunity to enter before institutions.
Crypto Market Cycles
Bankless: You’ve lived through multiple cycles. Now Bitcoin hits a new high of $100,000—we’re clearly in a bull market. Do you believe the crypto market will continue following the four-year cycle? Conventional wisdom links it to Bitcoin halving, others to global liquidity—bull runs happen when fiat liquidity is ample, then peak and fall. Will this four-year pattern persist?
Dan Morehead: Yes, I believe this cyclical pattern will continue.
Bankless: Is this your base case? Don’t you believe in super-cycle theories or breaking this pattern?
Dan Morehead: Let me explain with an analogy. In college, a professor wrote “A Random Walk Down Wall Street,” arguing markets are always efficient. But Buffett once said something profound: “The difference between ‘always efficient’ and ‘often efficient’ is worth $80 billion.”
My view on halving cycles evolved:
-
Initially, like many, I doubted—if everyone knows the halving is coming, shouldn’t it already be priced in?
-
But after experiencing the 2013 and 2016 halvings, I fully believe in the pattern
Why is halving so important? It starts with miner behavior:
-
Miners sell nearly all Bitcoin earned to cover operational costs
-
Like copper mining—if half the copper mines shut down tomorrow, copper prices would surge
-
Bitcoin halving creates this effect—every four years, supply halves. With steady demand and reduced supply, prices naturally rise
However, the cycle is evolving:
-
Volatility is gradually decreasing. The first halving reduced supply by 15% of circulating amount
-
With larger circulation, the next halving’s impact drops to one-third of prior
-
By 2136’s final halving, the effect will be negligible
Our data analysis reveals a clear pattern:
-
Halving effects begin 400 days before the actual date
-
Peak occurs 480 days after halving
-
This pattern has remained remarkably accurate
Two years ago, when Bitcoin was at $17,700, we predicted it would reach $28,000 at halving and $117,000 480 days later (August next year). Our bottom prediction was almost exact in timing.
At the last halving, we tweeted monthly price predictions for 2020. We forecast $62,964 on August 15, 2020—and it hit that number exactly that day.
Therefore, I still believe this cycle will continue. We’ll see a big bull run, followed by a bear market. The only difference: after three 85% drawdowns over the past 12 years, the next correction may only be 50–60%, at least for Bitcoin. Smaller coins may still see greater volatility.
Outlook for the 2025 Bull Run
Bankless: If the four-year cycle holds, does that mean 2025 will be a bull year, followed by decline starting in 2026?
Dan Morehead: Yes, that’s my expectation. The halving is April 19 this year; August 2025 should mark the cycle peak.
Bankless: Everything seems to align—does it feel too simple?
Dan Morehead: I know it sounds a bit absurd, but we’ve discussed this for 12 years. We’ve long predicted volatility will gradually decrease—the earlier halvings were more volatile, this one relatively milder. Beyond halving, political and macroeconomic conditions also favor crypto. So I’m quite optimistic about 2025.
Bankless: What’s your view on the macroeconomic environment? Will it positively or negatively impact crypto? Does Bitcoin affect macro, or vice versa?
Dan Morehead: Usually, we discuss macro impacting Bitcoin. From a macro perspective, I’m skeptical of Fed rate cuts. In December 2021, the federal funds rate was zero, and the 10-year yield was 1.3%. I predicted both would rise to 5% and stay there for years. To this day, I stand by that view.
Why? Look at the current economy:
-
The economy is booming—airports packed are proof enough
-
Unemployment is at historic lows
-
Wage inflation remains high
-
Stock markets keep hitting new highs
In such an environment, expecting Fed rate cuts seems unreasonable.
The real federal funds rate is only 80 basis points above core inflation—not tight. Historically, it averages 140 bps higher, so current policy is only slightly restrictive.
More concerning is fiscal health:
-
At peak economic conditions, the U.S. still runs a $2 trillion deficit
-
Despite full employment and record highs, fiscal balance remains unattainable
-
This signals deeper problems when the economy eventually turns
Macro Environment and Crypto
Bankless: Persistent U.S. deficits, money printing, and rate cut expectations—what do these macro signals imply? Do they suggest commodity and digital asset prices will rise?
Dan Morehead: The U.S. has developed a dependency on money printing. This trend existed pre-pandemic, but fiscal constraints vanished afterward. Multiple direct cash handouts to citizens directly fueled inflation and price rises.
Current fiscal conditions are worrying:
-
The U.S. runs record deficits even at peak economic performance
-
Interest payments already exceed military spending
-
The government finances with adjustable-rate instruments, increasing future fiscal risk
-
Interest rates are expected to stay at 5% or higher
This means refinancing all debt at ever-higher rates—costs will be enormous.
While I don’t focus deeply on fiscal or macro research, one thing I’m sure of: I’d rather hold Bitcoin than dollars.
Bankless: You mentioned commodities. Now gold hits new highs, Bitcoin hits new highs, stocks, real estate—all rising. How should we interpret this?
Dan Morehead: The key is shifting perspective:
-
These assets aren’t truly “rising”—fiat is depreciating
-
Focus on Bitcoin’s relative price against gold, stocks, real estate
-
The dollar’s depreciation trend is clear from asset-to-dollar exchange rates
Under current fiscal conditions, holding fiat makes little sense. Even former crypto skeptic Ray Dalio now recommends holding gold and Bitcoin to hedge potential debt crises.
This shift in elite investor views matters—money is a consensus technology. Changing attitudes among top investors signal growing market acceptance of digital assets. Deep liquidity-driven consensus is crucial for a new currency’s development.
RWA Tokenization Trend
Bankless: RWA tokenization seems mainly aimed at institutions. Will all assets eventually go on-chain? Are we riding an S-curve from stablecoins to Treasuries, then equities and bonds?
Dan Morehead: This is indeed the long-awaited “killer app” in blockchain. Early investments were premature, but now results are emerging. Stablecoins, for example, unlock new value for ordinary financial tools on blockchain. Projects like Ondo are opening U.S. financial markets to more people.
Moving Treasuries onto blockchain is more impactful than it appears. Most of the world’s 8 billion people live outside the U.S. and crave access to dollar assets and U.S. Treasuries—but traditional channels make this hard.
Even for U.S. citizens, the current system has clear flaws. Transferring from a Treasury Direct account to a brokerage can take up to a year—an inefficient process proving exactly why we need blockchain and RWA tokenization.
Bankless: Wait, really? I didn’t know that.
Dan Morehead: Yes, piles of withdrawal requests sit at a government office, taking a year to move your 90-day T-bill from the government to Merrill Lynch. If anything proves the need for blockchain and RWA tokenization, this is it. You think buying directly from the government is smarter, but your funds get locked for a year.
Another great example is Figure Markets—they’ve already processed $10 billion in mortgages on blockchain. Traditional mortgage markets take 55 days from loan to settlement, with numerous intermediaries adding cost at each step. Blockchain can dramatically improve efficiency.
But not all assets suit tokenization. Hedge funds and private equity funds for accredited investors already function well and don’t urgently need to go on-chain.
For assets like Treasuries, however, blockchain offers an ideal solution. It allows broader investment participation and gives the U.S. government a chance to expand funding channels. Via blockchain, they can easily promote Treasuries to billions of smartphone users worldwide—benefiting all parties.
AI and Crypto Convergence
Bankless: AI and crypto are intersecting in unique ways. What’s your view on the intersection of crypto and AI? Are you watching AI-related projects?
Dan Morehead: The convergence of blockchain and AI is inevitable. Fundamentally, AI’s societal impact is huge—decentralized, open AI benefits everyone more than privately controlled systems. We’ve already invested in such projects, like Sahara and other decentralized AI initiatives.
A notable trend: existing AI models have already consumed nearly all free internet content. Next-gen models need paid data—and blockchain excels at providing incentive mechanisms, solving this problem well.
Regarding AI agents using money: they clearly can’t open traditional bank accounts. For machine agents interacting with each other, some form of digital currency is essential. Programmable money (like Ethereum) seems the most natural choice. While alternatives outside blockchain may exist, blockchain offers the most complete solution.
Long-term, AI may struggle to operate independently of blockchain. These fields are already converging meaningfully, and over the next 5–10 years, we’ll likely see deeper integration.
Finding the Next Bitcoin
Bankless: Pantera’s original Bitcoin fund returned 130,000%. Was that a once-in-a-generation return? Do you think investors will see similar opportunities in the coming decades?
Dan Morehead: Blockchain technology is at a pivotal stage of development—offering immense potential as a career path for young people. Even if they later transition to traditional sectors, the experience gained in blockchain will be a valuable professional asset. This career choice has asymmetric payoff: high upside, manageable downside.
Current monetary and regulatory environments disadvantage younger generations. High barriers in real estate, inflation pressures, and other factors make traditional wealth-building paths increasingly difficult. In contrast, blockchain offers a relatively fair competitive arena for the young.
For young investors, consider these strategies:
-
Diversify portfolios—avoid over-concentrating in a single crypto asset
-
Emphasize risk management—adjust allocations based on personal financial situations
-
Leverage generational differences in perception for investment opportunities
-
Adopt disciplined approaches like dollar-cost averaging
Note that investment strategies should evolve with life stages. When married, with a mortgage, etc., reduce allocation to high-risk assets to ensure portfolio alignment with personal risk tolerance.
Bienvenue dans la communauté officielle TechFlow
Groupe Telegram :https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
Compte Twitter officiel :https://x.com/TechFlowPost
Compte Twitter anglais :https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
Bankless
