Exclusive Interview with the "1800 Bitcoin" Rights Defender: The Current State of the Bitcoin Ecosystem

Author: Rhythm BlockBeats

As the cryptocurrency with the strongest consensus, Bitcoin's ecosystem has seen various technological explorations and an influx of capital over the past year, driving a brief prosperity while also exposing the complex interests and potential issues behind it. There are intricate power plays among rule-makers and participants. Last week, the Bitcoin staking protocol Solv Protocol was caught in a media storm after being publicly criticized by major staker AZ and the Bitcoin ecosystem project Nubit, making controversial topics like guaranteed returns and double staking the focus of community attention.

In response, BlockBeats engaged in a dialogue with AZ, who not only shared her operational logic since entering the space but also directly addressed the rumors surrounding Solv, including controversial topics like guaranteed returns and double staking. This article provides us with a unique perspective on the operations of major players in the crypto space and the functioning of project ecosystems, as well as some "dirty plays" in the Bitcoin ecosystem, such as agreement trading between project parties and major players, and gray operations in liquidity management. In this game called consensus, major players with chips are in a tug-of-war with project parties that set the rules, while ordinary investors are often forced to become powerless bystanders.

Here is the complete interview content, organized for easier reading:

BlockBeats: Share your experience in trading cryptocurrencies.

AZ: Let me first address one very strange rumor: I’ve been accused of working at a club in Singapore, helping many big shots manage Bitcoin and acting as a white glove for them to generate profits. If I were really managing money for so many big players, how could I be allowed to speak so openly online? Either they would have solved it through various connections long ago, or they would have silenced me by now; it’s impossible for me to be so active online, right?

BlockBeats: When did you enter the space, and can you briefly share your trading experience?

AZ: I bought my first Bitcoin in 2017. I really didn’t trade much; at most, I used USDT to buy some meme coins or popular altcoins, but I never exchanged my Bitcoin for other coins; I just held onto it.

BlockBeats: Why did you buy Bitcoin in 2017?

AZ: It goes back to 2015 when I caught the first wave of social e-commerce. At that time, the cost of traffic was very low, almost free, and I made some money from it, but that ended in 2019. During that time, I often went to Europe to learn about textile craftsmanship, but due to limited foreign exchange quotas for RMB, the flow of funds was always a headache for me. In 2017, a friend of a friend gifted me a Bitcoin. I remember his surname was Fan. At that time, we were in Shanghai, and after receiving this Bitcoin, I accidentally discovered how convenient it was for capital inflow and outflow. Because of this, I seriously read the Bitcoin white paper and invested most of my profits into it, and I haven’t touched that part since. I really thank Satoshi Nakamoto for leading me to buy it.

Image source: AZ's social account

BlockBeats: So now you mainly earn passive income from Bitcoin, right?

AZ: I also invest in some projects, but overall, I’m still quite cautious. However, I have indeed participated in many projects.

BlockBeats: In your personal capacity?

AZ: I have a fund, and I invest through that fund. There’s a team that helps me manage it, but it’s not very active and hasn’t been PR’d. I not only invest in projects but also in some LPs of funds.

"Guaranteed Return Agreements Are Common"

BlockBeats: As a major BTC holder, can you talk about your Bitcoin earning and investment strategies before and after the Bitcoin ecosystem became popular?

AZ: I’m quite foolish; I don’t have any investment strategies. I just keep my Bitcoin in a cold wallet and never put it in strange places to earn returns. I’ve always been very "traditional," not active, and I don’t actively seek investment opportunities. I don’t deliberately look for projects to stake coins for returns; the risks are too high.

Besides Solv, I’m also involved in some quantitative trading. Babylon also has staking, and I’ve talked to them as well. Then there are various project agreements; I’ve participated in quite a few of them.

BlockBeats: What do you think of the Bitcoin ecosystem?

AZ: I firmly believe that the liquidity of Bitcoin will eventually be fully released. This release is not just about price increases but also about substantial applications, such as staking Bitcoin for lending while ensuring the safety of the principal, or participating in various on-chain yields. This market is enormous and is a problem waiting to be solved.

In this process, we will see many projects emerge. I can’t directly tell you which projects are good or bad because, at present, no solution has truly emerged as an industry standard. What I can say is that I am very much looking forward to this happening, but I also believe that the current solutions are not perfect enough. In the future, there will definitely be more mature and perfect solutions that will push this market further.

BlockBeats: What are the ways to play in the Bitcoin ecosystem?

AZ: I think my approach is definitely different from others. Those truly skilled major players play very smoothly, signing agreements, locking conditions, and then dumping coins after listing. I haven’t engaged in such operations; I just participate simply and haven’t used these so-called rules to increase my returns. That’s probably the biggest difference between me and others.

BlockBeats: Does this set of plays represent a collusion between project parties and major holders?

AZ: I do know some people sign agreements, but I can’t just put the agreements out there; they haven’t signed with me. Many smart major players engage in such deals. After all, where the project party's coins go is completely opaque, and once listed on Binance, so many retail investors are waiting to take over. But I can clearly say that I have never participated in such operations.

If I had really signed an agreement and received money, I wouldn’t be here struggling. It’s precisely because I haven’t participated in these matters, believing that the project party would distribute fairly, and when I found the ratio severely off, I started questioning where the remaining coins of the project party went. That’s why I’m here, hoping to clarify things.

From Good Friends to Rights Protection Objects: AZ's View of the Solv Founder

BlockBeats: How did you get in touch with the Solv Protocol project?

AZ: I’ve known the founder of Solv for quite a while. I met him when I first came to Singapore in 2022. Initially, a friend organized a party, and after that, we often gathered to hang out.

In March last year, we attended a conference in Dubai, where the Merlin project team was also present. They were among the earliest teams deeply involved in the BTC ecosystem and understood the gameplay in this field very well. Solv used to follow the GMX model. During that time, we discussed Solv's transformation, primarily considering whether Solv should enter the BTC ecosystem. If they decided to pivot, we were all willing to support and encourage them to do so.

I remember vividly that Solv’s official account posted many messages thanking the Merlin team for their support. Solv’s successful transformation into the BTC ecosystem and its gradual progress to being listed on Binance is closely tied to the support we provided at that time.

As for why I got involved with Solv, I had already known them before they became Solv BTC. We were among those discussing and planning this direction together. Therefore, I believe that Solv's current success in the BTCFi space is partly due to my contributions.

BlockBeats: Have you signed any guaranteed return agreements as a major holder?

AZ: The situation is that there has never been any agreement signed between him and me. Initially, we were pushing this together, and our relationship was more like partners rather than client and service provider. So naturally, there was no guaranteed return agreement. Our verbal agreement was very simple: we would work on this together, share the profits, and doing a good job was the most important thing. Now it seems I have been completely pua’d, as there’s no sharing at all.

But later, he did sign guaranteed return agreements with many major holders, so he had to dilute the interests of us early participants. After all, initially, we only had a verbal promise to work hard together and share profits, while those who joined later appeared more as clients. As the project party, to pitch these clients' money, he certainly needed to offer more attractive conditions, such as guaranteed return agreements.

BlockBeats: Do other projects also have similar situations?

AZ: I had never done anything like this before Solv, but after Solv, if someone comes to me for funding support today, I would be much more cautious. It’s not just about the guaranteed return agreements; more importantly, I would conduct a very thorough review of the project party’s character, integrity, and background.

BlockBeats: That is indeed very necessary.

AZ: We often hung out together, including going to Dubai and Korea. We would have meals, party, and even fly back together. I trusted him a lot before; I thought we were good friends.

BlockBeats: Starting from March last year, what requirements or specific details did the project party have for major holders during the entire process?

AZ: From day one until now, I can clearly say that all the requirements and rules were set by the project party, and I was completely following their requirements. These details can be found clearly in their tweets and on their official website. As for those who question my funding sources or say I’m manipulating TVL, I can only say that all my operations are in accordance with the project party’s rules and requirements, and every transaction is clear and can withstand scrutiny.

The main requirement from the project party was very simple: they wanted me to lock the liquidity of Bitcoin for them. Initially, they told me this was a three-month project, and I only needed to lock the liquidity of Bitcoin for three months. At that time, I knew a bull market was about to come, and I originally planned to put this money into Binance for fixed income, but they strongly insisted that I lock it for them for three months first. I followed their request and provided them with Bitcoin. As a result, three months passed, and they kept dragging their feet, completely failing to fulfill their initial promise. This repeated delay not only violated the initial trust but also left me very disappointed with their operational methods.

BlockBeats: During the staking period, what was the frequency of communication between you and the Solv team, and what topics did you mainly discuss?

AZ: At the beginning of the staking, Ryan was very enthusiastic towards me, frequently contacting me to explain the project’s situation and keep me updated on the progress. After about two or three months of staking, they were supposed to be listed on Binance but delayed for a long time. During that time, he often invited me to dinner and outings, and whenever he treated major clients, he would always include me. On my birthday, he even came to my house to have longevity noodles and gifted me a YSL bag as a birthday present.

Image source: AZ's social account

Before he promised guaranteed returns to other major holders, our relationship was really very good. I even thought he was my best male friend in Singapore and someone I trusted very much. I would tell him everything, including asking for his opinion on projects I was investing in. Then Babylon launched, and I heard he started signing guaranteed return agreements with others. To fulfill these agreements, he naturally had to dilute my share of the profits.

BlockBeats: When did this turning point occur?

AZ: Around October, I suspect he knew he was going to be listed on Binance, and perhaps because he made many promises to others, he basically stopped replying to my messages. I don’t know if he was trying to "wash" me out, but for someone who has supported him for so long and had such a good relationship, there must be some reason for him to ignore me. I felt something was off from that time.

BlockBeats: When did you find out that he had signed guaranteed return agreements with other major holders?

AZ: A little while before the first phase of Babylon launched.

BlockBeats: Before he contacted other major holders, what was your expected return?

AZ: I never thought of myself as his client; I felt we discussed this together, and I supported you from day one. Therefore, my expectation was that no matter how much you give me, at least I should get a fair and just explanation.

I was ranked first on the leaderboard for the first four months, and I was only squeezed out in the last two months. I thought it shouldn’t be just 0.05%. I wouldn’t demand a specific percentage; I just felt that no matter what, you should respond to my questions directly. The returns are no longer important; I don’t expect to keep any for myself.

BlockBeats: You transferred 1800 BTC to Solv using mBTC. What was the situation when you participated in Merlin? Some say you are earning returns from multiple sources.

AZ: I did use mBTC to exchange, and all the funds are very clean and compliant. If someone says I’m not clean, they can provide evidence that my SOLVBTC is fake, while the real BTC exists on Merlin.

Merlin issued coins before Solv. My original plan was to take the coins from Merlin directly to Binance for fixed income, expecting an annualized return of 5% for seven months, which would be $4.75 million. It was precisely because the Solv founder told me how great their project was and that it could yield far more than fixed income that I agreed to keep it for an additional seven months. Now they say they will give me $500,000 worth of SOLV tokens, which is not even enough to cover the fixed income. So, there’s no situation of earning from multiple sources. Moreover, I think it’s normal for DeFi protocols to earn from multiple sources; I just haven’t done that.

BlockBeats: So there is indeed a phenomenon of double staking, right?

AZ: There is indeed a phenomenon in the market where, for example, my BTC is given to Solv, counted once for returns, and then some project parties will want this TVL and count it again for returns. Everyone is colluding, like just giving them this address. But I have never done such things; every transaction record of mine can be shown to them, and all BTC is clean; I have absolutely not engaged in such activities.

BlockBeats: After you learned about your return distribution situation, did you communicate with other major holders?

AZ: Yes, another major holder who supports Solv came to me and asked how the 0.05% was calculated.

BlockBeats: How do you evaluate the Solv project?

AZ: When looking at a project, the character of the founding team is really crucial. This project has been around for four years, constantly changing directions, and finally able to be listed on Binance. But what’s disappointing is that they chose not to share the profits with those who supported them from the beginning.

BlockBeats: Why did you choose to protect your rights on Twitter?

AZ: I spent nearly two months contacting everyone I could find around him—his investors, very good friends, and even anyone with any connection to him. I relayed messages hoping he would contact me. But the result was that he never replied, not even a word. In this situation, I really had no other choice. I could only choose to go online and make this matter public.

BlockBeats: So far, has your rights protection on social media achieved the effect you initially wanted?

AZ: If my initial goal was to get the founder to respond to me, then I indeed seem to have not achieved that, as he still ignores me, and the whole team ignores me. However, if we frame it as preventing others from being scammed by such project parties, then I think it has been achieved because I launched an AI rights protection agent. There are so many scams in blockchain projects; today it’s him, tomorrow it’s someone else, and everyone is deceiving others. So I think creating a fraud prevention agent is very necessary.

BlockBeats: After a series of events in the past few days, has the other party responded to your previous demands or shown any change in attitude?

AZ: We had a phone call on January 3rd. It seemed like we talked a lot, but also like we talked about nothing. He asked me how to compensate now and how much I wanted. I clearly told him that I wouldn’t ask him for a single cent. Because I have doubts about his character, I even recorded the conversation. If he spreads rumors about me outside, I can release it at any time.

My exact words were: "I won’t actively ask you for a single cent. I have contributed so much to this project; it’s wrong for you to burn bridges at this time. You should propose a compensation plan, and then I will decide whether to accept it."

Later, one of his investors acted as an intermediary to communicate and suggested giving me an extra 1% FDV directly from the team’s share. This investor asked me if I thought it was reasonable, and I thought it was reasonable. After all, my funds occupied 10% of your TVL for a long time, and at certain stages, it even accounted for several tens of percent. According to the 9% ratio for airdrops, giving me 1/9 of the FDV is a very normal ratio.

But I also made it clear that I wouldn’t actively ask you for this return. If you genuinely want to give it to me, then we can discuss it. That’s the entirety of our conversation. He also promised to call me again the next morning, but until now, I haven’t received his call. What’s even more outrageous is that he actually spread rumors outside, saying that I asked him for $20 million.

BlockBeats: How do you view the community's opinion on your token issuance?

AZ: First of all, the returns from staking 1800 Bitcoin for seven months are all donated to the community. From the first day I spoke out, it has been transparent. Now I just don’t want any returns. If I’m pushed too hard, I just want to spend money to have netizens criticize them, unlike the Solv team, who operates in the shadows.

Moreover, I think the AI rights protection agent is a very necessary existence, especially in the crypto space where scams are rampant. I think we should create a dedicated rights protection track to provide support for more deceived individuals. AIXBT only talks about how good the project is; it’s a project-friendly AI, so I want to create a retail-friendly AI. As for this return, I never intended to keep it; I have to find a way to give it to the netizens who helped me voice out, so I can only achieve it in this way.

I also clearly told everyone that I do not encourage anyone to buy this token. Because you can earn airdrops just by completing tasks, there’s no need to buy it. I will buy it myself, and after buying it, you can sell it directly after receiving the airdrop, right? There’s no need to take on more risks.

And I only have 1% of the tokens. Initially, I reserved 4%, of which 3% has already been transferred to ZachXBT, the Twitter account that inspired me to do this. I have also publicly @ed him; you can check the transfer address; all records are clear and transparent.