Frontier technology investor Zheng Di, known as didier, said on the Wu Blockchain podcast that the recent slide in Bitcoin is not mainly about macro conditions or ETF redemptions. In his view, the market is repricing the possibility that Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy, may keep selling small amounts of BTC over time to cover preferred-share dividends under its stated goal of maintaining neutrality in BTC per share.
The episode, first released in June 2026, featured host Mao Di and covered Bitcoin’s decline, changes in Strategy’s financing structure, the AI-led rally in U.S. equities, crypto exchanges adding access to U.S. stocks, and the macro outlook for the second half of the year. The original text was credited to Wu Blockchain. It also noted that the guest’s comments do not represent Wu Blockchain’s views, do not constitute investment advice, and that the audio transcription and translation were completed by GPT and may contain errors.
Di says the issue is not one sale, but expectations of recurring sales
Asked what mattered most in the latest Bitcoin drawdown, Di said the core factor was still Strategy. He argued that what is weighing on the market is not the company’s one-time sale itself, but the growing expectation that it could become a recurring seller.
He said Strategy stated at its May earnings meeting that it wants to keep BTC per share neutral. As instruments such as STRC, STRZ, STRD and STRF, along with other preferred shares and debt tools, continue to build up, Bitcoin no longer sits only behind common shareholders. It also has to cover the claims of creditors and preferred shareholders first, which raises the cost of preserving neutrality on a per-share basis.
According to Di, the market had previously assumed the company would mainly pay preferred dividends by selling stock, which meant limited pressure on Bitcoin. That changed as the bar for raising funds through new share sales moved higher. In that setting, pressure shifts toward Bitcoin itself. If MMV remains below the neutrality threshold, he said Strategy becomes more likely to rely on small but continued BTC sales to manage cash flow. If coupon or dividend payments become more frequent, the market is likely to assume the company will not sell once and stop, but may instead sell a little every so often.
That, he said, is the real driver behind the selloff. The key question is not how much has already been sold, but whether the market believes sales will continue. Under that logic, ETF selling looks more like an outcome than the original cause, because once investors expect more sales ahead, capital can leave early.
He sees Michael Saylor testing the market’s ability to absorb steady BTC sales
Di described Michael Saylor’s approach as a kind of financial experiment aimed at testing whether the market can absorb a pattern of small, repeated Bitcoin sales.
From a balance-sheet perspective, he said that when the MMV premium is not high, selling small amounts of BTC does less damage to BTC per share than issuing stock, making it the first-best option. The complication is cash flow. Since the large STRC issuance in March, interest and dividend obligations tied to preferred shares and perpetual-style instruments have risen clearly. In his telling, cash-flow management is no longer optional. The question now is not whether to address it, but how.
If the market can absorb that steady selling, the framework can continue. If not, and if the selling pressure pushes the stock price lower, drags MMV down, widens the dislocation and strengthens expectations of more selling, then Strategy may need a softer turn. Di said that could mean relying more on stock sales again, or using a mix of stock issuance and BTC sales. That would sacrifice part of the BTC-per-share profile, but it could reduce pressure on both the coin price and the stock price. He called that the second-best option.
He framed the current setup as a game between Michael Saylor and the market. Saylor is watching to see at what level strong enough demand appears, while the market is waiting for a lower and more certain price before stepping in.
He does not think this alone creates a death spiral
On whether Strategy and Bitcoin could enter a death spiral together, Di said this factor alone is not enough in his view. A true spiral would usually require an additional macro shock or a larger systemic hit.
He said dip-buying capital would probably return if the company shifts softly and stops treating BTC sales as rigid or unavoidable. The issue is not whether buyers exist, but at what price they show up. He said that level could be $62,000, or lower, and argued that the market is currently waiting to find it.
His overall view was cautious but not outright bearish. He described the latest decline as structural pressure created by changes in Strategy’s own financial setup, rather than a move driven solely by tighter macro liquidity. Without a new major negative catalyst, he said, the situation still looks reversible and is not easy to turn into a real death spiral.
“Token is becoming the labor force of a new era”
Turning to AI and the strong performance of parts of the U.S. stock market, Di offered a blunt explanation: token is becoming the labor force of a new era.
He said that in the past, people were the central productive input for companies, whether in physical or cognitive work. Now, a growing share of execution tasks once carried by people is being replaced by AI and tokenized systems. In the future, he argued, the truly scarce people may be those who can complete the loop themselves: set goals, design the plan, push execution forward and solve the problem at the end. Those people, combined with a large number of tokens, make up a new labor system.
That change, he said, will reshape corporate organization. Firms historically developed many layers because information had to move through people step by step. In the AI era, many middle-management, assistant, IT and execution roles will be compressed. The traits that become more valuable are influence, judgment and imagination, not just execution alone.
He pushed the point further by saying companies used to pay employees, while more of that spending will now go to tokens, models and computing power. Model companies then send capital upstream to buy chips, energy, optical modules and data-center capacity. Because expansion in those upstream segments is limited and supply cannot keep up with demand, he said they become the most persistent beneficiaries in the AI chain. That, in his view, is the core reason related U.S. stocks keep rising.
Di added that services may be hit first because accounting, legal work, consulting and data analysis are all knowledge services that AI can replace more easily. Companies will become more automated internally, he said, and onchain machine economies may emerge between firms. At that point, many transactions, forms of coordination and even payments could be handled by machines.
He says the machine economy is still in its early phase
Asked whether this AI rally is more than a short-term trade, Di said yes. He believes the era of the machine economy is only beginning.
He said many people misunderstand the idea of a “one-person company.” It does not mean one person working entirely alone. It means one person operating with a dozen or dozens of intelligent agents. Taken together, those agents could deliver the efficiency once associated with hundreds of people. In that sense, the basis of a one-person company is a large set of agents providing labor in the background.
That is why he keeps returning to the idea that token is the new labor force. Companies once spent their budgets on hiring people. Now, in his view, more of those budgets are moving toward tokenized systems. As long as tokens continue to amplify revenue, company profit margins can rise sharply. He said that is the core logic behind the market’s bullish stance on the AI supply chain.
From his perspective, what the U.S. stock market is pricing today is a future in which more and more companies become AI-native businesses, replace labor with tokens, raise automation and materially expand margins. He called that the deepest and most rational driver of the current rally.
Why crypto exchanges are adding U.S. stocks
On the move by more crypto exchanges to open channels for U.S. stocks, Di said he has long believed offshore centralized exchanges face only two real paths.
The first is prediction markets, but he said that route is very difficult. The leaders have largely taken shape already, and most current CEXs will struggle to transform into the next “exchange for everything.”
The second path is to become distribution channels for real-world assets. Right now, he said, the most important real assets are U.S. stocks and U.S. Treasuries, with gold also an important direction.
He tied that view to a broader assessment of crypto. After all these years, he said, there are still very few native crypto assets with lasting value. Bitcoin is one. A small number of DeFi infrastructure projects and public chains also count. Beyond that, he said, most native assets still lack durable intrinsic value and cash-flow support. If that is the case, the trading infrastructure built around them will eventually have to seek new assets that carry clearer value.
That is why he sees the shift into U.S. stocks as natural. He does not view it mainly as a squeeze on crypto assets. Instead, he sees it as the industry returning to reality: truly valuable assets are limited, and exchanges are moving toward instruments that can better support liquidity.
Blockchain, in his view, is increasingly a technology for machines
Di said this transition is not necessarily a bad thing over the long term. The core value of blockchain was never only about issuing native assets. It is also about offering a decentralized option and a more efficient, lower-cost way to settle and trade. Putting real-world assets onchain is meaningful in itself, he said.
He argued that over a longer horizon, blockchain looks increasingly like a technology designed for machines. In the next five to 10 years, he said, a more likely picture is one in which humans interact with agents, while agents handle payments, transactions and coordination with other agents onchain. If that happens, the infrastructure being built onchain today can be used directly by machines.
For that reason, he said he actually sees the shift as positive for Bitcoin over time, because more people and more machines will ultimately come into contact with onchain assets.
Crypto users moving into U.S. stocks do not need to rewrite their playbook
Di said he does not think long-time crypto users or traders need to force major changes to their method just because they move into U.S. equities.
His argument is that U.S. stocks and onchain assets are not that different in structure. U.S. equities include value stocks and growth stocks, but they also include assets with clear meme-like traits. He said one core reason the meme trade onchain has weakened is that the most compelling meme assets have already migrated to the U.S. stock market.
Those assets, he said, still tell the same underlying story: changing the world. In the past, that narrative belonged to blockchain. Now, stronger versions of it appear in U.S. stocks through themes such as quantum computing, nuclear fusion and SMR. In many cases, he said, those themes are also hard to explain through earnings, cash flow or discounted cash-flow models alone, which means they carry a strong meme element too.
That makes the transition more familiar than many assume. Traders who used to chase altcoins and meme coins may find that chasing long-duration concept names in U.S. stocks relies on a similar instinct. At the same time, investors who already focused on cash flow, fundamentals and valuation support can also find corresponding value and growth names in the U.S. market.
His practical advice was simple: do not force yourself to change a method that already works just because you changed venues. People who have survived this long usually have a tested way to stay alive in markets, and the useful parts of that approach remain important.
The “1011 incident” and the end of the altcoin cycle
Di said it is fair to say the old phase of altcoin speculation is basically over. The main reason, in his telling, is that crypto-sector liquidity has been damaged too severely, and the “1011 incident” hit the industry’s vitality especially hard.
He noted that public reporting cited $19 billion in liquidations, but said the actual number was probably far higher. Market rumors put it at $40 billion to $50 billion, and he said that range may be closer to reality.
He stressed that what was lost was not paper market cap, but hard cash. Crypto’s total market value was never that large to begin with, and much of it was locked up or artificially inflated. The truly liquid float was smaller than headline numbers suggested. Under those conditions, seeing hundreds of billions of dollars in liquidity disappear in a single day would be devastating, and even hundreds of millions would matter. In the figures he cited, the damage was measured in tens of billions of dollars in cash, which he said hit both liquidity and market sentiment across the sector.
For him, that made the “1011 incident” the final straw that broke the altcoin cycle.
As for why “meme assets” in U.S. equities can still attract speculation, his answer was straightforward: U.S. stocks remain the most liquid market in the world. When crypto’s own liquidity weakens, capital naturally shifts toward the deeper market.
He says the U.S. is turning onchain markets and CEXs into distribution channels for American assets
Di also argued that U.S. support for Bitcoin and blockchain has a strategic side. In his framing, the American version of the story is to use blockchain, onchain markets and CEXs as channels through which U.S. assets can attract global capital and draw in hot money.
He said the push to put parts of the financial system onchain is, at its core, an effort to expand the global financing and distribution capacity of U.S. assets.
At the same time, he cautioned that this is only how the U.S. government currently understands and uses the technology. Whether blockchain and crypto will ultimately be fully shaped by that national agenda is a separate question. A more realistic outcome, he said, is a long period in which the onchain world and sovereign states cooperate, use one another and compete at the same time.
Still, in his view, the U.S. approach is already moving step by step from concept to reality.
More caution on the second half, but still constructive on AI and Web3 over time
Looking to the next six months and the rest of the year, including the possible market effects of newly installed Federal Reserve Chair Warsh, Di said uncertainty is rising.
One reason is that markets have already climbed a lot. Another is that several giant companies may still come to market, including SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic. He said the real pressure is not just liquidity being absorbed by fundraising. If trillion-dollar companies are quickly added to major indexes while market liquidity is limited, institutions may have to sell other heavyweight names to rebalance. That could create fresh pressure, which is why he said he would turn more cautious after June.
He also pointed to the midterm elections as another major variable. If Democrats ultimately win both chambers of Congress, he said, that could lean negative for both Web3 and AI because Democrats put more emphasis on labor protections, regulation and oversight instead of allowing frontier technologies to keep expanding at high speed.
Even so, he believes the market may still be underestimating AI’s real contribution to the economy. AI has already penetrated many parts of the system, he said, even if current statistical methods do not fully capture it. Over the longer run, he still expects a strong boost to productivity.
The harder issue, in his view, is not only growth but distribution. If the adjustment in distribution mechanisms goes badly, the result could be an extremely polarized economy in which a small number of people who can command AI take most of the gains while a large middle class gets squeezed or pushed out of work. In that case, productivity rises, but aggregate consumption power could fall. That is why he said he leans toward long-term disinflation or deflation rather than long-term inflation.
He added that distribution mechanisms will be critical over the coming years, and said measures such as an AI tax will probably be put in place within three to five years because many future social arrangements will need a new tax base.
For the second half of this year into next year, he said he does not want to make an overly absolute call. Short-term correction pressure is clearly building, especially around a possible SpaceX listing, but he sees that more as a correction than a full market top. As long as capital expenditure by large companies continues, he said, the broader run is not finished.
Over a longer horizon, he said he remains bullish on AI and on the combination of AI and blockchain. Companies will become more automated internally, and machine economies may emerge onchain between firms. That larger direction, he said, has not changed.
His closing view was that blockchain and Web3 still have strong prospects, but the way the sector operates is maturing. The old phase of blindly chasing gains may be over. What comes next looks more industrialized and more institutional.