Interview with Gate Founder Lin Han: Market Trends, AI, Regulatory Challenges, and Future Plans

In this episode of the WuBlockchain Podcast, Gate founder Lin Han discusses a range of topics, including market cycles, the impact of the US stock market and macroeconomics, AI bubble debates, privacy-focused projects, regulatory compliance, the PoR mechanism for exchanges, the rise of Perp DEXs, stablecoin competition, market making and market manipulation, the challenges of starting a business in the industry, and Gate’s strategic plans.

Lin Han believes that while the market is volatile, it’s unlikely to return to the depth of the previous bear market. Macroeconomics and liquidity policies will continue to influence market trends. He views AI as being in an early growth stage and not just a bubble. Web3 user behavior is shifting significantly to on-chain activity. Privacy and zero-knowledge proof technologies are poised to become important infrastructure in the future. Regulatory intervention in both CEX and DeFi will gradually increase. The rise of Perp DEXs is driven by mature infrastructure, reduced costs, and stronger incentive structures, and he predicts that CEXs will fully integrate with these models moving forward. The stablecoin sector will likely follow a “Matthew effect,” where a few projects dominate. While phenomena like DAT and market manipulation exist, their impact is limited. Gate plans to continue strengthening its compliance framework, expand its Web3 presence, invest in infrastructure, and maintain a long-term, stable talent strategy and working style.

The audio transcription is done by GPT and may contain errors. Please listen to the complete podcast: YouTube：

Spotify：

Is the Bear Market Here?

Colin: The market is at a turning point, and many are questioning whether we’re entering a bull or bear market. Some believe a bear market is approaching, while others argue that the rapid growth of AI could boost the US stock market and, in turn, drive risk assets higher. It seems like everyone is uncertain about the direction. Based on your years of experience, how do you view the current market situation?

Lin Han: We’ve been through the bull-bear cycle many times, and we’ve been running an exchange for nearly 13 years. In the crypto world, we often talk about a four-year cycle (Bitcoin halving), but in my observation, there’s no strict pattern. Early on, the crypto market was small, so it was greatly affected by Bitcoin halving. Before each halving, people would FOMO, expecting reduced supply and lower selling pressure after the halving, which would drive prices up. So back then, halving had a significant impact on the market. But now, things are different. Most of the Bitcoin has already been mined, and the new supply from halvings is minimal, so its impact is negligible.

Now, the crypto market is more integrated into the global macroeconomy and no longer functions as a self-contained ecosystem. It’s more influenced by the US stock market and the global economy. The bull and bear market cycles now resemble macroeconomic cycles rather than being driven solely by crypto itself.

Looking back at the last major bull-bear transition, it was around the DeFi Summer in 2020, which was driven by internal industry factors. But by 2022, the global economy was hit by the pandemic, and the crypto market quickly cooled off. During that time, even internet giants and Web3 companies started laying off employees, and the economy suddenly slowed down.

Both 2022 and 2023 were relatively cold years, but by the end of 2023, the market began to heat up again due to ETF approvals and economic recovery. 2024 was very active, and early 2025 saw Bitcoin prices breaking through $100k, hitting new highs. The return of Trump to power further boosted the economic recovery. Overall, this year has performed well compared to 2024, with solid economic growth. From June to October, the industry remained strong, and while November saw reports of trading volume dropping to a low not seen since June, our platform’s data shows that the drop was minimal, and it’s still much better than during a bear market.

So, I believe it’s unlikely we’ll suddenly see a sharp drop or deep bear market like we did in the past. Even if the price falls from $100–120k to $80–90k, that’s still relatively high.

From a broader perspective, the US economy is still doing well, and the stock market is strong. Many expect new quantitative easing or large-scale capital injections in December or next year, which could weaken the dollar. This would benefit asset prices across the board, including stocks and crypto, and the market is already anticipating this.

An Optimistic Market in the Foreseeable Future?

Colin: So, based on your internal judgment, you believe that in the foreseeable future, including the first and second quarters of next year, the market is likely to remain relatively optimistic due to monetary easing policies, right?

Lin Han: Yes, that’s correct. However, there is one risk to consider: some people are worried whether AI might turn into a bubble and if we might see an AI bubble burst next year. Especially this year, there’s been a massive push into AI infrastructure, with huge investments in data centers and computing clusters. The big question is whether this demand will continue into next year, as the major companies building AI infrastructure haven’t yet shown significant profits.

For example, companies like Nvidia, which focus on underlying infrastructure, have done very well, but others involved in large-scale infrastructure projects haven’t seen clear profitability yet. Even OpenAI’s profitability is still unclear. With such huge investments, people naturally start to wonder, “Is this a bubble?” It’s reminiscent of the internet bubble, where massive investments were made but the actual applications were slow to materialize. But for now, AI’s practical impact is quite evident.

Colin: I saw that Alibaba’s CEO recently refuted the idea of an “AI bubble,” stating that AI won’t have a bubble in the next three years. Do you think the bubble is already large, or is it premature to even talk about a bubble?

Lin Han: I think it’s natural for people to have high expectations for a new technology, believing it will change humanity and the future. The higher the expectations, the more concentrated the short-term investments are, which in turn drives up valuations. This is normal. However, I don’t think that necessarily means it’s a bubble. Even if there’s a correction, it depends on whether these applications will actually enter the market and be widely accepted by users. If they are accepted later on, then it wouldn’t be considered a bubble. But there will likely be some bubble-like elements during the development process.

A familiar example in the crypto world is the NFT boom from 2022–2023, which even extended into Web2. Facebook rebranded as Meta to focus on the Metaverse. Back then, people thought the demand for remote work due to the pandemic would transform life through VR and virtual worlds. But it didn’t meet expectations, so that can be seen as a bubble.

However, AI is clearly different. AI’s practical applications are vast. Previously, people thought it would replace search engines, but now even search engines are fully embracing AI. Many search results are now AI-generated, saving a lot of time. And as AI progresses, humanoid robots and intelligent assistance systems will increasingly be used in both production and daily life, which are very real and practical needs.

How Do You View the 1011 Crash?

Colin: You mentioned earlier that the industry was doing well from June to October, but many see the so-called 1011 event as a turning point. Do you think this event had a big impact on the industry? From what we’ve seen, while liquidations reached historic highs, the market didn’t have a sustained, large-scale reaction. As an observer of exchanges, I felt the same. Do you think it had any significant impact on the industry?

Lin Han: I don’t think the impact was that big. Looking at the data, while the price did drop 20–30% and Bitcoin’s market cap shrank, if we look at the stablecoin market cap, it was around $200 billion at the beginning of the year and is now close to $300 billion. During this downturn, the stablecoin market cap hardly shrank at all.

This suggests that people didn’t withdraw from the market entirely; they just shifted their assets from more volatile assets to stablecoins. Once the right timing comes, this capital will flow back in quickly. So, I think that’s the core reason why this event didn’t have a major impact on the industry overall.

Additionally, Bitcoin’s current price around $80–90k isn’t low. Looking back over the past two years, from mid-2023, it started at just over $20k and has since risen four to five times. That’s already impressive compared to traditional stock markets or other assets. So, even after this correction, it’s still in a relatively high range.

FTX Collapse and the Importance of Proof of Reserves (PoR)

Colin: This recent market downturn was quite volatile, but no exchanges went bankrupt or disappeared, which naturally brings to mind the FTX collapse. Gate was one of the first to emphasize Proof of Reserves (PoR). From my perspective, FTX’s collapse forced exchanges in the industry to implement stricter PoR systems to prove they weren’t misusing user funds. This seems like a significant step forward for the industry. What’s your take on it? Do you think there’s still room for improvement in PoR systems?

Lin Han: You’re absolutely right to point this out, and we’ve thought about it a lot. Back in 2020, we were one of the first exchanges to implement PoR using Merkle trees. At that time, we didn’t use zero-knowledge proofs, but we hired one of the top accounting firms in the US to conduct an audit. They could access our internal data and blockchain data and provided a verification report for users, which was also published on their website. So, we were already doing PoR at that point.

We later open-sourced the process and encouraged other exchanges to implement it as well. At the time, however, very few exchanges followed suit. I don’t know if you remember, but back then, no one was willing to voluntarily implement PoR.

It wasn’t until the FTX collapse that, under public pressure and user demand, exchanges were forced to start implementing PoR. From a long-term perspective, this is extremely important for the industry. It sets a foundation: the likelihood of another large-scale disaster like FTX is now much lower. As you said, despite large fluctuations and technical issues in many exchanges during this downturn, user funds were protected, reserves were adequate, and there were no systemic liquidity crises. Exchanges didn’t collapse or freeze because of a surge in withdrawal requests.

Historically, similar crashes have occurred at many exchanges, though on a smaller scale than FTX. But now, such situations are becoming rare, which is a good thing.

Colin: Returning to the earlier question, from a user’s perspective, do you think current PoR systems are sufficient, or are there still gaps or areas for improvement, especially from a technical standpoint?

Lin Han: There’s definitely still room for improvement. Simply relying on Merkle trees isn’t enough. Merkle trees can show users that their assets are included in the platform’s statistics, but they don’t reveal the rules or logic the platform uses to account for those assets. So, the better approach now is to use zero-knowledge proofs as an enhancement.

Zero-knowledge proofs can publicly disclose the methodology and rules behind how assets are accounted for in the system. While they won’t expose individual user balances or violate privacy, the entire accounting method can be formally verified by an external party. Another crucial point is that everything must be open-sourced — the methodology and code need to be made available to the public.

However, just open-sourcing the code isn’t enough. Third-party audits are essential. Professional security institutions need to audit the code and the methodology to prove that the entire proof system is reliable. That’s what makes the system complete. As of now, even though many exchanges claim to have PoR, very few actually implement the full set of “Merkle trees + zero-knowledge proofs + open source + third-party audits.” A lot of platforms claim they have PoR or reserve proofs, but without zero-knowledge proofs or serious audits, there’s a significant grey area.

Privacy Track Revival, Zcash, and the Long-Term Battle with Regulation

Colin: Recently, early privacy protocol tokens like Zcash have been gaining popularity again, and there’s been a lot of external discussion around it. At the same time, Vitalik and the Ethereum Foundation have established a new department dedicated to researching privacy technologies. Do you think privacy-focused projects will become an important area in the near future?

Lin Han: I believe this is a very important track and theme. Privacy coins are not new; they’ve been around for a while, and Zcash has been in existence for many years. I remember when Zcash first launched around 2017, and the excitement when the first block was mined — it really got a lot of attention. The reason this technology is so interesting is that people are seeking freedom — freedom over their assets and the freedom to protect their personal privacy.

Blockchain has certainly enabled asset sovereignty. Bitcoin and Ethereum allow users to self-custody their assets without the need for banks. The problem, though, is that these systems are “too transparent.” All asset movements, every transaction, are recorded on-chain. As you in the media know well, large addresses on-chain can be tracked and analyzed. Once an address is tagged, it’s essentially “transparent.” So, the demand for privacy protection is enormous, and Zcash was created to address this need.

If private transactions could become widespread on-chain, it would definitely attract many users to move from public chains to privacy chains for their transactions. However, the biggest challenge for privacy coins is regulation. While some users seek privacy for legitimate reasons, others might use it for money laundering or hiding the source of funds, which creates a natural conflict with anti-money laundering (AML) regulations.

Colin: In a way, I think privacy coins have gotten hotter this year. Whether it’s Hyperledger or Zcash, they’ve both gained traction. Even OKX is an interesting example — they delisted all privacy coins two years ago, but now they’ve re-listed them. I feel this shift is closely tied to the regulatory attitude under the Trump administration. Under the previous administration, no one would have dared to do this.

Gate’s Strategic Compliance Plan in the U.S.

Colin: Gate has recently been pushing forward with its compliance efforts in the U.S., launching local compliant operations. What is your strategy for the future development in the U.S.? If the political landscape changes and policies tighten again, would that affect your growth in the U.S.?

Lin Han: Before Trump took office, the crypto industry was facing significant pressure. The reason we didn’t launch in the U.S. earlier was because, starting in 2021, we began applying for licenses in the U.S. but hadn’t fully activated operations. It wasn’t due to technical or capability issues; rather, we believed it was essential to ensure that the platform could operate long-term in a stable and compliant manner, especially when the regulatory framework was still unclear.

We consulted with many U.S.-based lawyers and legal advisors, most of whom had deep industry experience, but even they couldn’t give clear guidance. For example, whether certain tokens qualify as securities is still up for debate among different institutions. Regulatory bodies are continuously refining their rules, and in this highly uncertain environment, we chose to remain cautious. While we did obtain some licenses, we didn’t rush to launch operations immediately. Instead, we focused on building a solid compliance foundation.

Since this year, the regulatory landscape in the U.S. for digital assets has become clearer, and the market environment has stabilized. This gave us the confidence to gradually move forward with our operations, and that’s why we officially launched our U.S. platform in August.

Colin: What are your plans for the U.S. business moving forward? If there is a change in leadership, would you be concerned about further tightening of policies?

Lin Han: There may be some adjustments to policies, but it’s hard to see a complete reversal of the overall direction. We have already obtained Money Transmitter Licenses (MTLs) in 31 states, and we also have no-action letters from 10 other states, allowing us to serve 42 states in total. There are still eight or nine states we are working on, but we are nearly covering most of the U.S.

Our next step will be to expand the types of services we offer. With our current licenses, we can provide spot trading, staking, buying and selling crypto, etc. But if you look at the U.S. market, platforms like Coinbase and Kraken are starting to expand into more services, such as prediction markets and on-chain derivatives.

These kinds of services used to be difficult to launch in the U.S., but now some prediction markets are already being deployed, and even platforms like Robinhood and Coinbase are starting to offer similar services.

So, we believe that the U.S. is currently a great environment for Web3 innovation, and we will continue to push forward with expanding our licenses and exploring more areas of business.

Exploring the Rise of Perp DEXs (Hyperliquid, etc.)

Colin: Another important trend this past year has been the surge in Perp DEXs, like Hyperliquid, which are on-chain derivatives platforms. While on-chain derivatives have been around for a while, with platforms like DYDX leading the way, it seems like Hyperliquid’s sudden rise has brought the entire sector to prominence. Even centralized exchanges like Binance, OKX, and Gate have had to invest heavily to compete, or risk losing users. Have you looked into Hyperliquid? What do you think about their rapid rise? It’s impressive that they’ve grown so quickly with a team of just 11 people.

Lin Han: It’s actually quite common in the Web3 world for small teams to build major projects. Early on, Uniswap had a small team, and OpenSea was relatively small when NFTs exploded. Many leading DeFi projects started with small teams.

You’re right, the Perp DEX space had been around since 2022 and 2023, with DYDX already seeing significant trading volumes. We also launched our own Perp DEX, rolling out a ZK-based rollup in June 2023 that bundled trades on-chain so users could verify transactions, much like DYDX’s model. But why didn’t it take off back then, and why is it thriving now?

The key difference is that the industry’s infrastructure has undergone a fundamental transformation over the past two years.

The infrastructure has evolved rapidly, but casual traders may not feel these changes. The improvements are mainly in two areas: capacity and cost. Layer 2 protocols have been continually rolled out with improving performance.

Early on, the DYDX wave was constrained by high on-chain costs. When we implemented ZK rollups, we needed a lot of GPU power for ZK calculations. The performance was only about 100 transactions per second, which wasn’t enough for high-frequency trading, and the cost per transaction was high, limiting growth.

Hyperliquid, however, has benefited from drastically lower on-chain costs and near-centralized exchange-level performance. Now, all orders can be processed on-chain, which is a massive breakthrough.

Another major advantage is the improved wallet experience. Wallets used to be difficult to use, with high risks around private key management, but now custodial wallets and mnemonic phrase management have been simplified significantly. Some even back up to iCloud, making it much easier for users to access.

Furthermore, a key driver of success is incentives, such as reward points. Projects like Lighter and Hyperliquid have seen explosive growth in trading volume because reward points reduce user costs and increase returns, drawing large amounts of quant-driven traffic to Perp DEXs.

Colin: Looking to the future, we can classify exchanges into three types: 1. Purely compliant exchanges (like HashKey), 2. Offshore exchanges (Binance, OKX, Gate, etc.), 3. On-chain Perp DEXs (Hyperliquid, Aster, DYDX, etc.).

As Perp DEXs grow, will they face regulatory challenges like anti-money laundering (AML) or KYC requirements? For example, if North Korean users start using them, what happens? How do you see the future structure?

Lin Han: Your classification is spot on. Compliant exchanges must operate fully within local regulations. For example, Gate operates under MiCA in Europe, has a VARA license in Dubai, and is fully licensed in Japan. The third category is Web3/DeFi.

But I believe that DeFi is currently in a regulatory grey area, and it will eventually come under regulation. We’ve already seen news that Dubai is starting to regulate DeFi services, requiring them to be under the supervision of the financial regulator.

When I’ve spoken with European regulators, it’s clear they are working on a DeFi regulatory framework. However, regulating DeFi is much more challenging than regulating centralized exchanges because DeFi operates on smart contracts. It’s not enough to regulate the front-end; the underlying smart contracts are still running.

They’re currently discussing how to effectively regulate DeFi — it’s just a matter of time.

Colin: That’s true. With the Trump administration’s more relaxed approach, people have somewhat overlooked the fact that regulation will inevitably come.

Lin Han: Exactly. From my observation, DeFi regulation is progressing slower than I expected, but it will definitely come. It just won’t be the same as CEX regulation because on-chain regulation is much more complex and will require new technological solutions and regulatory frameworks.

Will Gate Lay Off Employees?

Colin: Many exchanges have been laying off employees recently. Will Gate follow suit?

Lin Han: Gate has always maintained a steady pace. I don’t know if you remember, but in mid-2022, the industry as a whole saw a major round of layoffs. The internet industry was facing a downturn, and the crypto industry followed suit, with many exchanges cutting 20%–30% of their staff. At that time, I calculated that Gate only laid off about 5%. Gate has never been the type of company to make sudden, large-scale hiring or firing decisions.

We’ve always been cautious and gradual with our hiring. Even though the market has slowed down a bit, we don’t believe the overall industry will be significantly impacted, so we won’t be doing mass layoffs. It’s more about maintaining a natural pace of attrition rather than aggressively optimizing our workforce.

We’ve been in this industry for over ten years, and during the past 12 years, we’ve never had dramatic expansions or contractions in staffing. We’ve always believed that a steady, consistent approach is better for the long-term development of an exchange.

Will Gate Go Public?

Colin: Have you considered going public on traditional securities markets?

Lin Han: I’ve actually hoped for this industry to go public for a long time. I started working on exchanges in 2013, and back then, the crypto industry wasn’t widely recognized by the mainstream. A lot of people even viewed Bitcoin negatively, and the media coverage was mostly negative. I remember around 2018, 2019, or 2020, when Coinbase went public, it was a very uplifting moment for me. That was the first time I thought, “Wow, the crypto industry can actually be recognized by mainstream markets and can really go public.”

Now, we’re all used to ETFs being approved and mainstream institutions getting involved, but that moment back then was very different. At that time, I actually hoped we could take the “legitimate, public” path. That’s why, starting from those years, we’ve been systematically pushing for compliance and applying for licenses worldwide. If you look at the top exchanges today, Gate is one of the exchanges with the most licenses. These efforts are all aimed at making sure we’re positioned for the possibility of going public in the future.

If a company operates in a compliant manner over the long term, going public will be smoother. Otherwise, it would require a lot of restructuring. I think OKX is currently going through a similar process, including building out compliance teams, adjusting business structures, improving processes, and standardizing finances — these steps are necessary to move toward an IPO.

Colin: So, from what you’re saying, you’ve always had that “goal” or “vision” in mind, and as the industry becomes more compliant and your company matures, the path to going public will become more feasible?

Lin Han: Yes, exactly.

Skeptical About DAT: Low Sustainability

Colin: Have you been involved in DAT, which has been quite popular in the past six months? What’s your take on their rapid rise and quick fall into trouble?

Lin Han: We haven’t been involved in DAT, and we won’t be seeking partners to put tokens into shell companies for operations. Personally, I’m skeptical about this direction because the technical barriers are low. It’s basically buying a shell company and claiming to be a “token management company” — that model is too shallow.

What’s the real purpose of simply holding tokens? This model is somewhat similar to an ETF. ETFs also manage a basket of assets, and the concept is already well established. DAT and ETFs aren’t that different. Some DATs claim their differentiator is that “we buy tokens for you,” but after buying them, they don’t sell — just holding them indefinitely. A slightly more complex version might involve staking, like Solana or Ethereum staking rewards, but there aren’t many other innovative strategies.

So, I see DAT as more of a short-term way for people in certain regions, who can’t directly buy tokens, to indirectly gain exposure to digital assets via the stock market. The reason it was popular for a while is that it met the demand from people who couldn’t directly buy tokens, and there were even high premiums as a result.

Colin: It also has a bit of a market manipulation feel to it — finding a shell with a very small market cap, stuffing tokens into it, and then quickly pumping the price.

Lin Han: Yes, that’s definitely happening. So, I think the sustainability of DAT is quite weak, and the space for growth is limited. That’s why we’ve essentially avoided getting involved.

Key Goals for Gate in 2026: Web3 and Compliance

Colin: With the end of the year approaching, what are Gate’s main goals and plans for next year? Any key issues you aim to address?

Lin Han: There are a few key goals. First, in Web3, our internal direction is “All in Web3,” and we’ll be investing more resources into this next year. From the data, we can clearly see that user behavior is shifting significantly towards Web3. As I mentioned earlier, the infrastructure has matured — wallets are easier to use, on-chain performance is improving, and costs are decreasing.

Looking at trading volume, over 25% of our spot trading volume now happens on DEXs. I think the real number might be closer to 50%. This is because the cost of wash trading on CEXs is nearly zero, which inflates the volume, whereas wash trading on DEXs is more expensive, so the volume there is more authentic. Overall, the actual share of DEXs is much larger than people think.

As users gain the ability to manage their assets themselves and the experience improves, they naturally prefer self-custody over entrusting funds to centralized institutions. Therefore, more users will continue to migrate to on-chain solutions. We have to align with this trend and increase our investment — not just for next year, but for the long-term.

The second focus is our local compliance stations. We currently have local offices in places like Dubai, Australia, Japan, and Europe. Once a compliance station is operational, we can fully engage in local market promotion, brand marketing, advertisements, customer meetups, and community events. So, in these compliant markets, we’ll be putting significant effort into expanding our local user base next year.

Colin: Got it — Web3 and compliance stations are the focus. I also feel that different regions’ users’ willingness to use DEXs is partly related to tax regulations. For example, Korean users don’t use DEXs much due to tax delays, but in the U.S. and Europe, with higher taxes, the usage habits are different.

Lin Han: Exactly, many users consider tax factors when choosing platforms.

Colin: I also noticed that Gate has made some investments or acquisitions this year. Moving forward with Web3, will you focus on building in-house, or could acquisitions of mature protocols be part of your strategy? Especially when the market is down, centralized exchanges, with their stronger capital reserves, can acquire products with existing user bases at lower prices.

Lin Han: We’re focused on two areas. First, infrastructure — things like base layer chains, on-chain deposit/withdrawal systems, cross-chain bridges, and foundational protocols. These are essential industry tools that we also need to use, so we’re definitely considering investments or acquisitions in these areas.

The second category is more directly related to our business, such as the product-focused direction you mentioned. We’ve invested in and are working closely with ADEN. ADEN is a leading example in the industry for on-chain derivatives platforms that focus on product and trading experience, driving high trading volume without relying on incentives or wash trading. We see them as a key partner for the future.

Colin: It feels like, in the next year, every centralized exchange will deeply support one or more Perp DEXs.

Lin Han: I think that’s inevitable. It may not always be through incubation; exchanges might directly build their own. CEXs already have complete infrastructure and large user bases, so it’s not difficult to migrate those capabilities to the chain, and user habits are easy to shift.

More importantly, users are already migrating to Web3. If CEXs don’t prepare on-chain products in advance, they won’t be able to retain those users in the future.

That’s why we must push forward in both Web3 and compliance.

Talent Flow to AI: What’s the Impact on Crypto?

Colin: It seems like a lot of developers are moving toward AI these days. In the early days of crypto and DeFi, there were a lot of entrepreneurs, but now most new startups in California are focused on AI. Crypto entrepreneurs seem to be moving toward teams in New York working on stablecoins, funds, and financial services. It’s even becoming harder to find young people at events. Does this concern you? Does it mean that starting a business in crypto is becoming harder, especially with the high security costs now?

For example, in AI, a few college students can quickly create a product since it doesn’t involve assets. But in crypto, a small team of students faces huge risks, whether it’s compliance or security issues. Could this weaken the industry’s innovative energy?

Lin Han: I do think that’s true. AI and blockchain are currently the two hottest industries. From our long-term observation in blockchain, there are still many people entering the space, but it’s not as easy as it used to be. AI is more tech-focused, so it has a strong appeal, while blockchain combines both technology and finance. That’s why you see more activity in New York — it has a deep-rooted financial tradition, which aligns with blockchain’s positioning.

I still believe that blockchain will ultimately change almost every financial sector globally — banks, consumer finance, wealth management, investment, and so on — because its efficiency is so high and its costs are so low. Traditional finance will eventually be disrupted by it. So, there are still many opportunities.

However, the phenomenon you’re describing is real: more large companies, institutions, and big players are entering the space, which makes it much harder for individual entrepreneurs compared to a few years ago. Early on, when blockchain was less mature, there were opportunities everywhere, and a small team could get things done. But now, the competition is much fiercer.

That said, I still believe blockchain is a great field for entrepreneurship. Compared to traditional industries, the barriers to entry are much lower:

In Web2 or traditional finance, starting a company, raising funds, and eventually going public is extremely difficult. Investors are very cautious because exit strategies are limited.

But in crypto, going public is much easier, and exits are more straightforward, so investors are more willing to back you. Even if no one is investing, you can still launch an IDO through Web3 or even create a meme coin to raise initial funding.

So, compared to traditional industries, starting a business in blockchain is still easier with more opportunities, though it’s a bit more challenging than the “golden age” a few years ago.

Would Gate Consider Acquiring a Bank or Issuing a Stablecoin?

Colin: In the future, would Gate consider acquiring a bank or issuing its own stablecoin?

Lin Han: We have previously invested in a few crypto-related banks, though not as majority stakeholders. We tend to invest in infrastructure companies closely related to our business, as these are strategic assets that are crucial for the industry’s development. From what we’ve seen so far, these banks are starting to play a more important role and are developing well.

As for stablecoins, we are certainly very interested. However, the issue with stablecoins is that there is too much homogeneity. Why has USDT been able to dominate? Tether’s size far exceeds that of other issuers. Even though Circle has strong compliance and influence in the U.S., it still falls short in scale.

This is a classic example of the “Matthew Effect.” The differences between stablecoins are not significant, and the larger the supply, the better the liquidity and on-chain yield, which only makes the stablecoin grow more. So, creating a new stablecoin that breaks through the Matthew Effect and gains large-scale user adoption is very difficult.

Our current strategy is to launch GUSD, but we’re not trying to mimic USDT or USDC by simply creating a “USD-backed stablecoin.” Instead, we’re positioning it as a wrapper for a diversified basket of assets. The underlying assets will still be other stablecoins, but we will also incorporate RWA (Real-World Assets), such as U.S. Treasury bonds and government securities, to create a comprehensive and optimized product.

There are so many stablecoins that users face a challenge in choosing. By offering a diversified solution, we can help users optimize their assets, somewhat like an RWA-backed stablecoin, rather than directly competing with USDT. This approach seems more practical.

Of course, stablecoins are a huge market. If you succeed in this space, it’s almost like “easy money.” Look at Tether — it could earn tens of billions to over a hundred billion dollars a year, yet its actual operating team is relatively small, and its business model is quite lightweight. That’s why so many people are rushing into this space.

But to truly become one of the leading stablecoin issuers is incredibly challenging.

Thoughts on Market Makers

Colin: Over the past six months to a year, there’s been a lot of controversy surrounding “active market makers.” There’s been plenty of discussion about things like market manipulation, pump-and-dump schemes, and other forms of money extraction. I’m sure you’re aware of many of these issues. What’s your take on this?

Lin Han: We see this issue falling into two main categories.

The first category is quantitative institutions that use neutral strategies. These larger quantitative teams typically employ neutral strategies and also take on market-making roles. They use passive strategies to provide depth and improve liquidity. These institutions are large and have stable strategies, and they don’t engage in market manipulation. While their trading volumes may be high, they’re generally just participating in regular market-making activities.

The second category involves intentional actions like pumping and dumping, and extracting money from the market. This behavior was more common in the early days of exchanges when risk management systems were not as advanced.

However, over the past year or two, the industry’s risk management capabilities have improved significantly, and detection technologies are much more mature. Although there are still people attempting to manipulate the market, the success rate has dropped dramatically. Based on the data we have at Gate, over 90% of market manipulation attempts are identified and blocked by our risk control systems before or during the attempt. So, the space for such teams to operate has become very limited.

Responding to Criticism About Company Culture

Colin: Exchanges often face issues with remote management, and former employees sometimes vent their frustrations online. Do you pay attention to these criticisms, and how do you view them?

Lin Han: We do receive some feedback, and we can sense these discussions. I think it’s important to approach this from two angles: one is the objective facts, and the other is the unique characteristics of the crypto industry.

The objective fact is that the blockchain industry is essentially FinTech — technology + finance. The tech industry itself is one of the fastest-paced industries, and AI is a prime example. To keep up with the pace, the work rhythm naturally has to be fast.

The finance industry is already incredibly demanding and competitive. When you combine tech and finance, it’s easy to imagine the intensity. Especially at a trading platform, where the workload is even more intense because it operates 24/7. You have to constantly engage with users and handle unexpected situations. You must respond quickly to rapid price swings and market changes, so the work intensity is undeniably high. That’s a fact.

The second point is that the work style in the crypto industry is very unique. Like Binance, almost everyone at Gate works remotely. Some local offices may have small teams, but there’s no strict requirement to come into the office every day. People can choose freely — some prefer to meet in the office regularly, but most of the time, work is done from home.

This approach breaks the traditional “nine-to-five” model. So, discussions around 996 or working weekends don’t really apply to the crypto world. Some might even say it’s more like “007” because it’s hard to define when work starts or ends when you’re remote. As long as you’re online and collaborating, you’re working.

This mode of work requires a different kind of discipline. People who can manage their own schedule well tend to love this freedom — they don’t need to take leave to pick up kids, and they’re not restricted by personal issues. But others may prefer a clear distinction between work and personal life, and this mode might not suit them. I think more and more companies will adopt remote work in the future.

Recently, I gave a talk at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and a student asked whether they should enter the crypto space. I encouraged them to try it because the opportunities are immense. If you can join early and adapt to the work rhythm and lifestyle, it can be very rewarding.

For Gate, we aim to find like-minded people — those who truly love blockchain and believe in its potential to change the world. I remember when we launched Gate in 2013, our slogan was “Come with us, change the world.” We want to work with partners who share this vision.

Of course, we do need to invest more in our human resources. It’s important to explain the unique characteristics of the industry and the work style to newcomers and assess whether they’re comfortable with this pace.

As for external voices, I think it’s normal. Every industry faces criticism, and it’s common for people to express dissatisfaction after leaving a company. What we can do is ensure the company fulfills its promises — clearly communicating at the time of hiring, compensating employees fairly upon departure, and honoring bonus and stock options. You rarely see negative feedback about these aspects online, so I don’t see it as a major issue. It’s more about the adaptability challenges brought by industry characteristics and remote work culture.

Follow us
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WuBlockchain
Telegram: https://t.me/wublockchainenglish