Investment circle celebrity Dovey Wan's AMA controversy: support and skepticism coexist

Mysterious Revelations Trigger Chain Reactions

Recently, the industry has been stirred up by an anonymous article accusing a major exchange and its subsidiary investment department of issues such as利益輸送 (interest transfer) and internal corruption. Although the exchange’s co-founders have publicly responded multiple times, the crypto community continues to focus on another sensitive figure—Primitive Ventures partner Dovey Wan.

The public labels her as the “operator” of the investment department, and some imply she has close private ties with the exchange management, leading to a series of questions about利益輸送 (interest transfer).

Dovey Wan Speaks Out for the First Time: Clarifying Misunderstandings and Explaining Investment Logic

In response to the doubts, Dovey Wan addressed them directly for the first time during an AMA hosted by a well-known blockchain media. She emphasized that she has no close private relationship with the exchange management, and the so-called “close friendship” is fabricated. The roles of investors and entrepreneurs are simply separated, with no direct利益衝突 (conflict of interest).

Regarding the sensitive project Hooked Protocol($HOOK), Dovey Wan provided detailed investment data: Primitive Ventures entered at a $30 million valuation, with an unlock schedule consistent with other venture capital firms, starting release at the end of 2023, and no preferential treatment was received.

She also candidly mentioned that she had a private relationship with Jason, the founder of Hooked Protocol, and therefore deliberately reduced her involvement with the project to avoid allegations of利益衝突 (conflict of interest). When a certain exchange announced the listing of $HOOK, she was also surprised and openly questioned in the AMA: “Why list such an early-stage product?”

Community Reactions Split: Trust and Suspicion Coexist

Dovey Wan’s response sparked polarized reactions within the community. Supporters believe she has a good reputation in the industry, with transparent investment conditions, and criticize her opponents as overly judgmental; opponents, on the other hand, focus on her past project experiences.

Some users dug up her past role as an advisor for a StepN-style sneaker app, which was ultimately accused of a rug pull, causing many investors to lose money. She is also a supporter of the NFT marketplace LooksRare, having endorsed the anonymous team at the time, promising that transaction fees would be shared with token holders. However, the team was later exposed for transferring funds to Tornado Cash for concealment.

These past cases have led skeptics to raise new points: Dovey Wan often endorses projects while emphasizing DYOR (do your own research), causing many trusting investors to ultimately lose their entire investment.

The Logical Trap of “Anonymous = Risk”

In another highlight of the AMA, Dovey Wan was asked whether projects she invests in are more likely to be adopted by certain exchanges. She did not give a direct answer, only stating that she has not compiled relevant data.

Regarding the sensitive topic of “anonymous token issuance,” her stance was: “Satoshi Nakamoto also issued tokens anonymously,” emphasizing that anonymous teams do not necessarily lead to Rug Pulls; the key depends on the project’s sustainable business model.

This response sparked in-depth discussion: in the crypto industry, should anonymous identities be considered an important risk factor in investment evaluation? Dovey Wan defended anonymous projects with historical precedents, but her past cases seem to imply that anonymity and low transparency indeed increase the probability of project failure.

The Event Is Not Over Yet

Although this AMA provided Dovey Wan with a platform for public clarification, the community’s suspicions have not truly dissipated. As internal turmoil within a certain exchange continues to ferment, market supervision of the investment department and its key figures is likely to intensify. This also reflects the deep anxiety within the crypto industry regarding investment transparency and利益迴避 (interest avoidance) mechanisms.