The early opportunities in the next crypto cycle might be hidden in AI-filtered results

Original Author: mo

Original Translation: TechFlow

Preface: The biggest winners of the next cycle might be projects that the majority finds completely incomprehensible—bad names, weak narratives, random communities, yet they experience explosive growth. This is because AI is changing how retail investors discover projects, attention is becoming increasingly fragmented, and projects are optimizing data performance for algorithms rather than humans. This means the next cycle isn't just about finding the best narrative, but understanding how narratives are discovered.

I've been thinking about one thing:

The next cycle will see many winners that most people simply can't understand.

Not the typical crypto kind of incomprehensible. I mean: bad names, weak narratives, random communities, coins with almost no presence on CT, yet they skyrocket. And they might do so very early.

My basic thesis is that much of the next cycle's big moves won't be discoverable just by watching the timeline and following the crowd like before. The market is changing how attention is discovered, how capital flows, and how retail decides what to buy.

This matters because, if I'm right, the next cycle isn't just about finding the best narrative.

It's about understanding how narratives are discovered.

I believe this process is already changing.

1. Discovery Mechanisms Are Changing

In past cycles, crypto attention primarily flowed through a few obvious channels.

CT, Telegram, Discord, KOLs, group chats, local opinion leaders, a few big accounts, a few noisy communities, a few narratives everyone saw simultaneously.

These are still important. I don't think they'll disappear.

But I do believe the next cycle will be different because more retail investors are already starting to rely on AI to help them make decisions. People are asking AI what's trending, what has momentum, what's undervalued, which sectors are heating up, which coins have attention.

This trend is likely to continue growing.

Once this becomes the norm, the rules of the game change. Projects are no longer competing solely for human attention. They also compete to appear in the systems people use to filter the market.

That's a different game.

The question is no longer just "who has the best promoters," but becomes "which projects look best at the machine level that people use to simplify the market."

This is important.

2. Distribution Mechanisms Are Changing

I also think attention in the next cycle will be more fragmented than before.

CT will still matter, but I don't think it will dominate to the same extent, at least not relatively.

What I mean is simple. X's absolute user count might still be growing, but if retail starts spending more time elsewhere, its share of market influence could be shrinking.

This could be social trading apps. It could be AI-assisted discovery tools. It could be people spending more time in local Telegram groups, WeChat circles, or app-based trading communities instead of being glued to CT all day.

If apps like FOMO continue to grow, more retail capital flows could form within these ecosystems long before they become visible on the timeline.

This makes the market much harder to read by social sentiment alone.

In the last cycle, many traders felt that if they were online enough, sufficiently connected, and followed the right people, they could stay close to the flow of attention.

The next cycle might be less forgiving.

You could be very online and still miss what's actually moving.

3. Performance Metrics Are Changing

I find this part more interesting.

If discovery becomes more fragmented and more reliant on AI, and if more assets compete for the same pool of speculative attention, then the market will start rewarding different things.

You might have to be willing to trade or invest in things that feel dumber than the successful ideas from the previous cycle.

Not because the market is broken. Not because fundamentals will never matter again. But because in crypto, attention remains one of the purest drivers of price, especially in the early stages of a move.

Attention doesn't always flow to the smartest thing.

Sometimes it flows to what's easiest to understand, easiest to repeat, easiest to meme, or easiest to surface in a feed, scanner, or AI response.

This means some of the best-performing coins of the next cycle might look absurd.

Bad names. Bad ideas. Bad narratives. Huge returns.

It sounds dumb, but I think it's true.

The AI Layer Creates a New Game

This is what I think most people underestimate.

If more retail uses AI to find opportunities, then teams will eventually try to optimize for it.

Not just for CT mindshare. Not just for KOL influence. Not just for on-chain hype.

They may start trying to look attractive in the data layers that AI tools and scanners depend on.

This could mean better-looking surface metrics, cleaner momentum, clearer capital flows, better engagement signals, better-looking volume, better-looking traction.

And yes, in some cases, it could also mean teams attempting to manufacture the illusion of momentum that isn't easily detectable by the average trader.

The average trader sees the surface and assumes the surface is real.

That's the risk.

Something that looks healthy from a distance can be far lower quality than it appears.

That's why I think the next cycle will reward those who can distinguish between genuine traction and machine-readable traction.

These two are not always the same.

Why I Think Traders Will Need Better Tools Next Cycle

If this argument holds, then the edge in the next cycle might not just be "following the right accounts earlier."

It might be more about:

Tracking where attention is actually flowing

Tracking where capital is actually flowing

Distinguishing real engagement from fake strength

Understanding whether a move is supported by genuine demand or just looks good on the metrics

In other words, the market surface could become more deceptive.

If more discovery happens through AI, social trading apps, fragmented communities, and machine-filtered interfaces, then raw opinion itself becomes less useful. You need better systems.

This is where having your own tools might start to matter more.

Not because tools magically make you smarter, but because the next cycle might reward traders who can measure attention and capital flows better than the average person—the average person who relies on timelines, feelings, and KOL posts.

Memecoins May Still Be Growing, But with Diminishing Marginal Returns

I still believe memecoins will remain important in the next cycle.

I don't think this sector will disappear.

But I do believe the shape of upside potential is changing.

The simplest way to put it is:

The memecoin sector as a whole can grow, while the upside potential of individual winners shrinks.

That's the key point.

In 2021, there were far fewer memecoins competing for attention and liquidity. Winners had more room to dominate the market. Doge and Shiba reached absurd market caps because speculative energy was more concentrated.

By 2024 and 2025, the number of memecoins exploded. Supply increased dramatically. New launches were non-stop. Attention was diluted across a much wider surface. Even then, we saw major performers like Pepe, but the broader pattern already felt more fragmented.

This is likely the direction things are heading.

In the next cycle, we might have even more memecoins than in 2024 and 2025. The total market cap of the sector could still grow. There could still be massive trades. There could still be major winners.

But expecting a single memecoin to dominate the market like Doge or Shiba did in 2021 seems unlikely to me.

More supply. More fragmentation. Faster rotation. More competition for the same attention.

This usually means the sector can continue to grow, while fewer individual winners achieve those monster-sized runs.

What This Means for Traders

If I had to boil all this down into one piece of practical advice, it would be:

The next cycle will likely reward adaptability over taste.

Many traders will struggle if they continue trying to force the market to operate the way they want it to.

You might need to adapt to several things.

First, you may have to trade things that feel stupid.

Second, you may need to rely less on obvious CT consensus and more on tools, capital flows, and attention tracking.

Third, you may need to get better at judging whether a move is real or just looks real on the surface.

Fourth, you may need to accept that some of the biggest winners won't come from the cleanest narratives.

They could come from whatever retail can pile into most easily once the attention loop starts reinforcing itself.

This isn't a moral judgment. It's just how these markets operate.

What Could Prove This Wrong

I don't think this is a certainty.

Here are a few ways this thesis could be wrong.

First, CT could be more resilient than I expect, because even if AI aids discovery, narratives might still need human amplification to truly spread.

Second, AI tools might ultimately just reflect the same public information everyone already sees, meaning the discovery layer won't change as much as I think.

Third, even in a more crowded memecoin market, if a coin captures the culture strongly enough and becomes the cycle's obvious protagonist, a super-winner could still emerge.

Fourth, if overall retail participation is weaker than expected, fragmentation might matter less simply because there isn't as much broad speculative energy to disperse.

So I'm not saying this is inevitable.

I'm saying the setup is there, and I think the market is moving in this direction.

Final Thoughts

My core point is simple:

The next bull market surface might feel more random, but the underlying structure will be more competitive.

AI-assisted discovery will likely become more important. Retail attention will likely become more fragmented. Projects will increasingly compete not just for human mindshare, but for machine-readable relevance. Memecoins may still thrive, but with more dilution and less concentrated upside for each winner.

If this happens, then the edge in the next cycle might not come from having the loudest opinions.

It will come from understanding how attention is routed, where capital is actually moving, and which moves are real versus just well-packaged.

The best-performing traders may not be the ones with the best ideas.

They might be the ones with the best systems for tracking when attention translates into actual capital flow.