In yesterday's article, I expressed the following viewpoint:

In crypto ecosystem investments, to achieve long-term, continuous, and stable returns

Yesterday, I shared an optimistic outlook on crypto ecosystem investments, highlighting the importance of projects that can consistently generate long-term, continuous, and stable cash flow.

This perspective sparked interesting reactions, leading me to further elaborate on this crucial aspect of crypto investing.

Some investors prefer focusing solely on Bitcoin, an approach that certainly minimizes the need for analyzing cash flow.

However, I personally prefer a more diversified investment strategy, much like comparing investing in gold to investing in stocks or equity.

While both can be viable, I believe a portfolio can benefit from a mix of investment classes.

My primary energy and attention will be directed towards projects capable of yielding continuous returns.

In contrast, investing in Bitcoin requires minimal thought or time, and one could even hold it for a lifetime without management.

This difference in maintenance and attention spans is a significant factor in my preference for projects with ongoing revenue streams.

In the words of Munger and Duan Yongping, they often say that when looking at something, it is often difficult for us to judge what is good or what is right, but conversely, it is relatively easy for us to judge what is bad or what is wrong.

This method can also be used to evaluate crypto projects.

In the crypto ecosystem, we may find it difficult to determine what a project with long-term, continuous, and stable cash flow looks like, but we can see what a project would look like if it lacks long-term, continuous, and stable cash flow.

Take Ethereum as an example. In this market cycle, without a strong new ecosystem emerging, and the existing ecosystem failing to generate sufficiently strong and sustainable returns, Ethereum's price has continued to languish. Even when there is a brief surge, it is purely driven by sentiment, lasting for a short time and lacking strength.

As for Solana, recently, as the sentiment around meme coins gradually fades and no other ecosystems can take over to generate sufficiently strong returns and appeal, its price has also begun to decline.

The main chain is like this, and layer two expansions also struggle to stand alone: Ethereum's once-popular layer two expansion, Scroll, received a total of $1.8 billion in venture capital during its funding phase, but now its token's FDV market cap is less than $400 million.

There are many reasons for their price decline, but in my view, they can ultimately be attributed to one point: the lack of long-term, continuous, and stable ecological returns, which leads to the project tokens' prices either languishing continuously or experiencing only moments of glory.

I remember that in a previous article, I once wrote about analyzing some well-known DeFi projects today using traditional publicly listed company analysis methods, such as AAVE, whose token prices are significantly overvalued.

At that time, some believed that crypto projects should have such high valuations and that traditional analysis methods do not apply to crypto projects.

In fact, I think this is self-deception; analysis methods are not defined by whether they are traditional or not; they should be the same in any field and should return to simple common sense: Can it generate value? Can it produce continuous cash flow?

If investors continue to deceive themselves, believing that emotional value can replace the continuous cash flow value brought by real services and products when evaluating a project token, such "investments" will eventually fall into a pit. Once the tide recedes, they will inevitably be exposed.

Let’s look at these well-known DeFi projects; which of their token prices has reached the historical peak set several years ago? This is the most genuine response from the market.

Now, looking back at these projects, from their inception to now, unless one can accurately judge the ups and downs of emotional value and precisely achieve high selling and low buying, otherwise, they will basically incur losses.

Of course, if these projects find strong profit growth points in the future and can generate real cash flow like Nvidia or Apple, then not only can their token prices reach new highs, but creating miracles is also possible.

However, some projects have already begun to recognize this common-sense issue and are trying various methods to solve it.

The earlier movers were MakerDAO, and recently AAVE has been quite active.

They are doing the same thing: trying to expand their business into the RWA field, striving to substantively increase revenue and generate more value.

Whether their expansion into the RWA field is appropriate and whether their various practices in this process are reasonable is set aside for now.

But their direction of effort is definitely correct.

In Duan Yongping's words, they are "doing the right thing." As for whether they are "doing things right," that remains to be seen.

But I believe that as long as they persist in "doing the right thing," this exploration is valuable.

The project parties are returning to common sense, and as investors, we should also return to common