泡沫之后，何去何从：2026 数字资产市场分析报告

Foreword: The Certainty and Uncertainty of Crypto

As 2026 begins, amidst a new cycle of bull and bear transitions, the entire market is gripped by anxiety. After the 1011 events, market liquidity began to dry up. In the following period, aside from a few top-tier projects and companies that managed to survive, more teams chose to shut down or pivot.

With the sudden emergence of Openclaw and the ensuing wave of new technology, immense uncertainty has only exacerbated the prevailing fear. As market liquidity shrinks, countless crypto workers are pivoting towards AI. Media outlets once solely focused on Crypto have seen their headlines increasingly occupied by AI reports. Even some OG who have been in this space for over a decade are chanting "Crypto is dead."

The crypto bubble has burst. Is Crypto truly dead?

Ask this question to AI, and you'll get countless answers. DeepSeek might tell you that the frothy days of the crypto market are over, and it's now a playground for professional, compliant players, leaving little opportunity for ordinary people. Ask Grok, and it might say it's just a regular crypto cycle transition that will weed out some participants while pushing the industry in a healthier direction. Consult Gemini, and it might suggest that AI development will drive parallel growth in the crypto space.

The noise is too loud. So we wanted to find the answer in our own way. There's nothing new under the sun. We have a vague memory that when the internet bubble burst back in 2001, the market said the same things. In fact, it's what people say about every bubble.

So this time, we chose to study bubbles themselves.

Even if the answer might be wrong, this search represents our own certainty.

I. Exploring Historical Cycles: From Railways to the Internet, How Tech Bubbles Repeat History

The Glory of Railways and the Dawn of Radio: The Rise and Fall of Industrial Revolution Bubbles

On September 27, 1825, the world's first railway built in Britain, the Stockton and Darlington Railway, officially opened. Three years prior, despite opposition from feudal aristocrats and the church, capitalists saw the future value of this steel giant and placed their bets, leading to its eventual completion. They believed this technology would bring them profits, but they didn't realize the full impact it would have on an entire era.

Although the first railway was merely built as a branch line for the canal transport system, its convenience and cost-effectiveness led the industry to blossom rapidly. Investors flocked to participate. Towards the end of the South American mining speculation bubble of 1824-1825, these risk-takers began shifting investments to railway companies. During 1836-1837, as the overall stock market strengthened, railway company share prices doubled. Seeing the opportunity, the British Parliament approved 44 new companies in that single year. Their total capital raised in that year alone easily surpassed the total capital invested in the entire industry up to that point.

The Rise, Fall, and Rise Again of Bubbles

Like countless bubbles throughout history, when a new technology gains market recognition, it rapidly develops into a bubble that soon bursts. Then, as the infrastructure is gradually built, a new, even stronger bubble emerges, eventually leading back onto a sustainable track.

After these 44 companies were established, due to the lack of a comprehensive rail network, railway transport didn't seem as convenient as traditional water transport at the time. The railway stock index began to decline during this period. However, by the early 1840s, valuations rebounded, approaching previous peaks. Before 1843, annual capital investment in railway companies averaged around £1 million (equivalent to about $3.5 billion today). In 1844, this figure jumped to £20 million (20x). In 1845, it neared £60 million (60x). By 1846, the figure had ballooned to £132 million (equivalent to about $120 billion today). That same year, the total length of new railway tracks built reached a record 4,538 miles. Everything seemed prosperous.

The Bursting of the Bubble and the Return of Value

Undeniably, early railways were successful commercial projects. However, due to investor optimism, share prices quickly far exceeded any rational valuation ceiling for railway stocks. The first railways certainly had a first-mover advantage, but without barriers to entry, this advantage would vanish. Abundant market capital combined with relatively low technological/market barriers presented a fantastic opportunity for subsequent competitors. This, however, continuously compressed the profit margins of existing companies, creating an environment of diminishing returns across the industry, commonly referred to as "involution."

For market investors at the time, the first sign that the boom was ending was the disappearance of huge premiums on newly issued stocks; only companies perceived as higher quality could maintain their share prices. For the surviving railway companies, expanding and securing prime land resources seemed the best option to maintain corporate valuation and competitive advantage. Leveraging bank loans could accelerate this advantage. Worse still, being a nascent industry, most railway companies subconsciously underestimated the difficulty of construction, meaning actual costs far exceeded initial estimates in their prospectuses. Over time, these company stocks became a purely financial game: railway dividends were no longer paid from corporate earnings but from capital funds and bank loans.

Within this vicious flywheel, interest rates were continuously raised. Eventually, hitting a critical point, railway companies could no longer sustain this capital cycle. The glorious capital fueled by technology suddenly dissipated. Overnight, countless investors went bankrupt, and public praise for railway companies turned into widespread condemnation.

Facing this situation, the British government was forced to pass an act of Parliament allowing for industry consolidation and abandoning nearly 20% of the newly approved railway construction projects. As surviving companies regained profitability, a wave of mergers and acquisitions began. After this, the glory of British railways was no longer a dazzling spectacle but more like the gentle, warming morning sun slowly spreading across the land. While the crazy capital bubbles were unlikely to reappear, they truly nourished the growth of the Industrial Revolution.

Ultimately, the same story unfolded again, a little later, on the American continent.

Marconi and the Radio

As a footnote to the era, the railway story pauses here. With the continuous development of transportation, the world was shrinking. People could travel further using these vehicles, or communicate across distances instantly via wired telephones and telegraphs without leaving their homes.

Of course, the limits of information transmission speed were likely beyond this.

In 1865, after Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell systematically proposed the theory of electromagnetic waves, some inventors began experimenting with radio waves. Eventually, in 1895, luck favored the Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi. When he successfully used his self-developed signal transmitter to ring a bell on a receiver ten yards away, he believed this distance could be extended much further.

Marconi keenly perceived the future commercial value of this technology. He applied for a patent in 1896 and began pitching his technology to government agencies. Soon after, he founded the Wireless Telegraph and Signal Company to develop and sell this wireless telegraphy equipment. As compensation for waiving his patent rights, Marconi received £15,000 cash (equivalent to about $6 million today) and £60,000 in shares (equivalent to about $28 million today), freeing him from financial worries. That year, Marconi was only 22 years old.

From Warfare to the Marketplace

As a rising star, Marconi quickly attracted attention from all sectors of society. In the company's early days, Marconi identified the communication needs of the British Navy, which were global in scope. In 1899, he signed contracts to provide wireless equipment sales and consulting services to both the British and Italian navies. The first order was worth £6,000 (equivalent to about $2.5 million today), with subsequent annual revenues exceeding £3,000 (equivalent to about $1.25 million today).

Despite securing endorsements and support from national-level partnerships, the market remained skeptical about the technology's potential for regular commercial value. After several years of trial and error, Marconi adjusted his business model, shifting his sales strategy from direct sales to leasing. The key feature of this approach, compared to traditional paths, was ecosystem building. Through partnerships, he allowed any company or product to use his wireless technology simply by paying a rental fee. The only restriction was that all customers could only communicate with other Marconi customers.

It was this strategy that sparked the birth of countless radio stations and similar competitors.

The Birth of the 'Radio' Concept Stock

With the entry of Marconi and other technological competitors, the entire radio industry began to thrive, with vast amounts of capital flooding in. In Marconi's early days, despite the company showing losses in its financial reports, this did not dampen investor enthusiasm: the technology and business model were still in their early stages, making losses acceptable. Later, Marconi's company was renamed RCA. The technical advantages and business network cultivated in the US began to pay off. RCA consolidated the patents of AT&T, GE, RCA itself, and Westinghouse Electric into an impenetrable commercial fortress, leading to explosive growth in both revenue and profits.

When one rises, all benefit. Upstream and downstream companies associated with RCA also enjoyed this technological dividend. At the market's most absurd peak, simply registering a 'radio'-related company was enough to easily secure financing and list its shares. The story from here on is identical to the previous railway dividend cycle: massive capital and companies flooded in, and as the dividends dissipated, bank loans were used for dividend payouts, eventually leading to market collapse and the disappearance of profits. However, unlike railways, the commercial value of radio technology was so epoch-making that this technological boom lasted for nearly two decades. Once the radio infrastructure was complete—encompassing radio receivers, broadcast stations, television, and radio-based media—the potential for imagination was vast enough to keep the market prosperous for a long time.

Ultimately, the Great Depression arrived. The capital game could no longer be sustained. People had to seek more difficult but practical means to improve the actual sales revenue and net profit of their companies and products.

At the Peak of the Internet Wave: A New Technological Social Experiment

After IBM ventured into personal computing and Apple propelled its adoption, PC penetration in the mass market reached new heights. This brought technologies previously confined to research labs, particularly the Internet, into the spotlight.

From the Ivory Tower to the Business Arena

The origin and birth of the Internet is a well-worn topic, so we won't elaborate here. More worthy of study than its creation is the path the Internet took towards commercialization.

A decisive factor in this transformation was the US National Science Foundation (NSF) deciding to relinquish control over the National Research and Education Network (NREN), opting instead for privatization and self-sustaining for-profit operation. During this process, numerous key elements emerged to make widespread societal use of the Internet possible: Apple PCs provided the hardware foundation, the World Wide Web provided the framework, and Mosaic provided the entry point. Coupled with the commercialization of the NREN, a giant industry began its magnificent journey.

In the early days of commercialization and open source, not everyone saw the opportunity. Many related companies chose conservative approaches. On one hand, their knowledge and insight didn't make them aware of the potential the Internet held. On the other hand, within the prevailing business environment, industry giants were more accustomed to generating revenue through land grabs and building their own walled gardens. Facing this extremely open new environment, their resistance was natural. Nevertheless, this wasn't necessarily bad for industry development: the resistance of the giants created ample market space and opportunities for new entrants.

Netscape: The First to Benefit

As one of the very first companies to seize the opportunity, Netscape's peak performance stunned the entire market. At the end of 1994, Mosaic Communications found itself in a legal dispute due to its name's similarity to Mosaic. It eventually changed its name to Netscape Communications Corporation.

Although the company still had $12 million in the bank at this point, a monthly cash burn of $1 million forced Netscape to consider pivoting its business model. After some adjustments, it changed its service model, offering a 30-day free trial followed by a $49 service fee. Coupled with the overwhelming performance advantages of its product, it quickly captured a large market share. Its initial intention was merely to make its market valuation look better by securing high market share. Unexpectedly, this strategy was exceptionally effective. In its August 1995 IPO, Netscape raised $140 million, catapulting the company straight to the top.

However, the success of this sales strategy also proved to be its Achilles' heel. Intoxicated by the joy of its IPO, Netscape didn't consider how to build a durable moat. It neither secured its upstream/downstream moat through acquisitions, nor deepened its product to make it better, nor even bothered with industry partnerships. Instead, it chose the most foolish option: doing nothing.

Its ultimate fate was clear: once the market discovered this massive cake and had its deliciousness confirmed by the pioneer Netscape, a flood of competitors rushed in. Netscape was eventually acquired by AOL.

Netscape's Fall, The Ecosystem's Rise

Netscape's story is poignant, but overall, it was a meaningful development for the market. Countless profit-seekers and innovators joined the adventure, spawning a dizzying array of projects. Around the same year as Netscape's success, Jerry Yang and David Filo spent considerable time studying browser needs and eventually created a highly efficient information indexing system, which they named "Yahoo." Meanwhile, at Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page were exploring how to find desired information content faster on the Internet via search engines. When these ideas crossed the ocean, an inspired Jack Ma in China began preparing the development of "China Pages."

The Extreme of the Concept Bubble

Compared to past railway and radio technologies, the entry barrier for Internet technology was significantly lower. It didn't require hiring workers to build railroads or string cables, nor did it need government-granted licenses. As long as you understood the relevant Internet knowledge, you could do whatever you wanted. The immense wealth effect combined with low barriers to entry ignited a capital market carnival.

At the very beginning of the bubble, the capital market maintained some caution. However, when they saw crude products born in 'garages' like Yahoo and Google making huge profits through innovative business models, they realized the old market valuation logic seemed to be failing. Coupled with the rapid price surge of various internet tech stocks, investors quickly abandoned any lingering skepticism. Ultimately, for fundamental investors, valuations in the TMT sector were being carelessly and indiscriminately inflated, and almost everyone thought this was perfectly fine.

As valuations became increasingly audacious, professional analysis standards also began to warp. Typically, the higher the stock price, the higher the valuation derived by analysts using profit metrics. To justify these valuations, when profit anchors could no longer support the current price, the valuation benchmark gradually shifted from profitability to revenue, and then further decomposed into concepts like "click-through rates" and "retention rates" to analyze a company's market prospects for the next few years. The logic seemed sound, but the fatal flaw was: in the absence of historical precedents, how could the validity of the business model analysis be ensured? The only way was to trust the founding team's narrative— "storytelling."

Ultimately, people stopped paying for technological utility and started paying for stories. The company whose business story was more convincing and had broader prospects could raise more funds. A true FOMO began. Initially, people put effort into designing sound business models, but as the market grew more frenzied, some realized they could simply register a website, even if their original business had nothing to do with the internet, and be classified under TMT to enjoy the market dividends