WuBlockchain has republished an interview from Tiger Brokers' "Little Tiger Interview," where host Manlin spoke with Jason Huang, founder and managing partner of NextGen Digital Venture, or NDV, about investing, digital assets, global macro, AI research tools and the pressure that comes with managing capital.
The discussion centered on how Huang forms an investment view and how he changes that view when new evidence appears. Across topics including GBTC, agricultural products, MSTR and AI, he kept returning to three questions: whether price has real support behind it, whether he understands the asset deeply enough, and whether he can afford to wait for the thesis to play out.
From Bitcoin-linked assets to a broader macro framework
Huang said he started in primary-market investing, later managed family office capital, and founded NDV in 2023. After moving into fund management, he said his process changed in two ways. He shifted from a buy-and-hold style to one that also considers short positions, and he expanded beyond Bitcoin-related assets into commodities such as gold and oil.
He gave two reasons for that change. Different assets move through different cycles, which creates more choices and can help smooth volatility. At the same time, as Bitcoin has grown in size, he said the kind of outsized returns seen in earlier periods may take longer to arrive. He said that has not changed his long-term view on Bitcoin, but it has made him compare other opportunities more seriously.
Looking back on his earlier investments, Huang said a meaningful share of his returns came from the market's broader rise. He said tools and active judgment helped, but he does not treat all gains made in favorable conditions as proof of personal skill. What matters more to him is whether the method still works when the market turns against him.
GBTC's discount and the search for support beyond price
After the FTX fallout, Huang noticed that trusts holding Bitcoin, including GBTC, were trading at a clear discount to the value of their underlying assets. Manlin pressed on the key question: was that discount simply panic, or had the market already picked up risks that had not yet fully surfaced?
Huang said his confidence at the time came from factors including third-party audits and his team's verification of wallets linked to Grayscale on-chain. He said he tried to determine whether the underlying assets existed, how much of that could be verified, and whether the market price already left enough room for the uncertainty that remained.
For him, the point was not to call something cheap just because it had fallen hard. The point was to find support that could actually be checked. He tied that to his idea of a "non-consensus" trade: when the market is deeply pessimistic, a different view only makes sense if there is clear evidence behind it. Being obscure or unpopular on its own is not enough.
Extreme relative prices still have to be tested against numbers
When discussing oil and silver, Huang used relative pricing between assets to explain his research process. He said he first looks at whether the price relationship has moved away from its historical norm, then checks whether supply, demand and the market narrative can explain the gap.
He said he is especially cautious when bullish stories multiply after a price surge. Rising usage and strong demand may both be true, but he said those claims still need to be tested against numbers before they can justify a sharp move in a short period. In areas he knows less well, he said he wants to see a more obvious dislocation in price to compensate for weaker understanding.
In that framework, an extreme relative price is a research lead, not a conclusion. A rare historical relationship does not tell investors when a reversal will happen, and it cannot replace asset-level understanding. His experience in agricultural products, which came up later in the interview, showed how difficult the waiting period can be.
Agricultural products: being right on direction is not the same as being able to wait
Huang said he once believed higher oil prices would move through the cost chain and affect agricultural products, and he took positions based on that view. By his own account, he waited for several months, exited the trade, and only then saw the market move in the way he had expected. He described the episode as getting cut out just before dawn.
He did not present that review as a simple lesson that persistence always wins. Instead, he said it made one point clearer: familiarity with an area affects how much adverse price action a person can tolerate. With an unfamiliar asset, a thesis that sounds reasonable may still be too weak to support a long wait.
His adjustment was to think about both price tolerance and time tolerance at the same time. He said a decision should include how much loss would force a reassessment and how long he is willing to wait before exiting if the expected change does not appear. Even if a later move makes an exit look early in hindsight, that does not mean the constraints at the time were not real.
Long-term conviction and trade expression can be separated
On MSTR, Manlin raised a straightforward question: if someone is bullish on Bitcoin over the long run, why would that person ever be bearish on a related stock? Huang said a positive long-term view on an asset does not mean an investor must stay fully allocated at all times. The instrument, the price paid and the decision to hold cash all need to be judged separately.
Looking back at how his view on MSTR changed, he said the evidence he watched also changed. That included signals from the company, cash and payment pressure, and whether the market had already priced those developments in. A situation where risk worsens without showing up in price is different from one where financial conditions improve while the market remains stuck in panic.
He said the larger point is to keep the ability to revise a view even when the underlying asset remains a long-term favorite. The republished text also noted that the historical examples in the interview describe his decision-making process and are not a call on the stock's current direction.
Bitcoin research now puts more weight on demand
Manlin noted that Huang used to talk more about the halving and the four-year cycle, but has increasingly focused on ETFs, institutional capital and U.S. dollar liquidity. Huang said that shift reflects changes in supply and demand.
In his view, as Bitcoin's outstanding supply has grown, new issuance has less relative impact on the overall market. At the same time, vehicles such as ETFs have opened the door to more traditional financial capital, making changes on the demand side more important. He said that has led him to study Bitcoin within a broader framework that includes global assets, money and capital flows.
He did not say the interview proves the four-year cycle is dead. What he described was a change in research emphasis and a view that Bitcoin is becoming more integrated with traditional finance. Broader capital participation, institutional buildout and trust in the sector, he said, still take time.
Stablecoin utility and shareholder returns are different questions
Beyond Bitcoin, Huang said he is positive on the use of stablecoins in transfers and settlement. He focuses on whether transactions can become faster and cheaper, whether they can support around-the-clock settlement, and whether they can connect more directly with tokenized asset trading. Lowering the real cost of transactions is one of the main tests he uses when judging whether a technology can gain wider adoption.
But when Manlin asked where long-term profits would ultimately sit, his answer was more cautious. He said the way revenue is split among issuers, banks and other participants will depend on regulation and commercial relationships. Growth in an industry does not automatically translate into returns for the shareholders of any one company.
That is why, in his view, stocks still need to be analyzed as companies: where revenue and profit come from, whether future growth is reasonable, and whether the current price makes sense. Bitcoin and similar assets, by contrast, are something he tends to analyze more through supply and demand, relative scale and the pool of potential buyers. Assets that look similar on the surface can sit on top of very different businesses.
After the headline hits, watch what price does next
When the conversation turned to regulatory news, Huang said he pays close attention to how the market reacts after an event. If discussion is intense but price barely moves, he keeps asking whether the news was already priced in and whether the real impact matches the story being told.
That follows the same habit seen throughout the interview: understand the event first, then check what price the market has attached to it. A story can make sense and still offer no usable pricing gap. A long-term positive view on an industry also does not remove the need to compare instruments and valuations.
AI speeds up research, but judgment still has to face the result
Huang said his team does not currently have dedicated research staff, and that he already uses AI to help track multiple commodities, screen for extreme relative-price setups, organize information and analyze options risk. He said that lets him cover more assets at lower cost and spend more time on questions that deserve deeper work.
As information becomes easier to gather and process, he said the edge still comes from judgment and selection: whether a story is already reflected in price, what capital and time constraints different investors face, and whether he truly understands the reasons behind a move.
On specific tools, he said he alternates between Claude Code and Codex, using a "liberal arts student" versus "science student" analogy to describe the difference. The republished piece framed that as a personal user impression. Huang said he cares more about whether a tool solves a real problem in writing, research or risk analysis than about using a new tool for its own sake.
He also said that despite being a heavy AI user, he has not participated fully in related investment opportunities. Limited understanding of hardware and manufacturing, along with concerns about the prices of popular assets, affected how much exposure he took. He added that success in Bitcoin can create path dependence and make it harder to recognize new opportunities or personal limits.
Public expression as self-supervision, and the pressure of managing other people's money
Huang spoke about moving from the multi-host podcast The Wanderers to his own program, "20 Minutes of Non-Consensus." He said he wants to leave a record of his views and revisit them later: why he thought a certain way at the time, what happened afterward, and what needs to be corrected. Writing regularly, speaking with investors and expressing views in public all serve that purpose for him.
He also said negative comments can be painful. Public expression helps him, but it still carries an emotional cost. In terms of time allocation, he said he now values high-quality information and conversations more, cuts back on meetings that are not necessary, and puts energy into what he sees as more valuable work.
On managing capital, Huang said the pressure includes both protecting investors during drawdowns and keeping up with opportunities during rallies. Compared with managing his own money, he said the responsibility amplifies emotional stress while also forcing stronger discipline.
In a quick-fire segment, he chose Bitcoin over gold on a 10-year horizon and said he also watches U.S. Treasury issuance. The republished article described those answers as personal views. The sharper self-reminder running through the interview was this: do not treat yourself like a god when you are making money. Past success can offer experience, but it can also make it harder to admit new opportunities and personal limitations.