综合影响力
58 / 100
Ray Xiao
@_RayXiaoOKX Ventures 投资总监
Ray Xiao 现任 OKX Ventures 投资总监,兼具 IOSG Ventures 顾问与前高级总监经历,长期聚焦加密原生项目与产业基础设施。其职业路径横跨头部风投与交易所生态,在 Web3 投资圈具备一定辨识度。
从业年限
2 年关联机构
1 家个人投资
--媒体曝光度
68 次 / 月个人净资产
--01
人物档案
Ray Xiao 现任 OKX Ventures 投资总监,兼具 IOSG Ventures 顾问与前高级总监经历,长期聚焦加密原生项目与产业基础设施。其职业路径横跨头部风投与交易所生态,在 Web3 投资圈具备一定辨识度。
偏向以行业认知和生态协同为核心的投资判断,重视基础设施、合规与长期可持续性,风格相对审慎,不追逐短期叙事。
近期公开信息主要仍围绕 OKX Ventures 的投资与行业观察展开,个人层面未见高频新项目披露。整体关注点延续在加密基础设施与生态建设。
出生地--
教育背景--
从业年限2 年
关联机构1 家
个人投资--
媒体曝光度68 次 / 月
AI 风格画像务实派 · 生态型 · 偏稳健
主导特征务实派
更看重项目是否能落地、是否贴合行业真实需求,而不是单纯追逐热度。
比较优势生态型
同时理解交易所、基金与项目方视角,便于判断项目的分发、合作与长期生存能力。
主要争议偏稳健
这种偏稳健的风格可能更适合基础设施与中长期赛道,但在高波动早期机会上的进攻性相对有限。
02
职业履历
OKX Ventures 投资总监
Ray Xiao 是 OKX Ventures 投资总监,也是 IOSG Ventures 的顾问与前高级总监。
03
关联实体

OKX Ventures
加密项目风投部门OKX Ventures 的初始资本为 1 亿美元,是一家专注于探索具有巨大潜力的优质项目的基金。
04
投资偏好
合规基础设施重仓
更可能偏好交易、托管、钱包、结算等基础设施,以及与合规要求相匹配的项目。
生态协同优先
倾向选择能与交易所、基金或开发者生态形成协同的项目,强调网络效应与分发能力。
长期价值看重
关注产品是否具备持续迭代能力和长期商业化路径,而非短期价格表现。
风险控制审慎
对监管、技术和执行风险保持较高敏感度,投资逻辑更偏向可验证、可落地。
05
投资活动
暂无投资活动数据
06
关系网络
现任机构
OKX Ventures
创始人同事
Dora Yue
创始人同事
Jeff Ren
合伙人同事
Benson
前机构
IOSG Ventures
教育背景
University of Sydney Business School
Ray Xiao 的关系网络主要围绕 OKX Ventures 展开,与创始人及合伙人构成核心同事圈;其公开资料还显示他曾任 IOSG Ventures 高级管理层并担任顾问,形成机构型职业脉络。
新闻动态
实时同步加载中...
09
社媒动态
Ray Xiao@_RayXiao · 15 天前观点输出RT @okxchinese: https://t.co/uSCTewJrot
0100
AI:延续个人公开立场,强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。
Ray Xiao@_RayXiao · 15 天前观点输出RT @okxchinese: https://t.co/ButyynZJP2
0804
AI:延续个人公开立场,强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。
Ray Xiao@_RayXiao · 15 天前观点输出@andyyy at least much more people are now seriously thinking about the revenue meta rather than just paying lip service to it.
00018
AI:偏平台经营与生态扩张,强调交易平台和应用入口的长期位置。
Ray Xiao@_RayXiao · 16 天前观点输出Full discussion here: https://t.co/nmvyCtP8Pf
00029
AI:延续个人公开立场,强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。
Ray Xiao@_RayXiao · 16 天前政策影响Crypto regulation is finally moving from enforcement toward market design. At the CFTC Innovation Advisory Committee’s first meeting, Chairman Selig framed the question clearly. Blockchain, AI and prediction markets are reshaping finance. Where will these markets be built, and can U.S. regulation keep pace? People spoke candidly about lawsuits, debanking, conflicting rules, teams moving offshore and no clear path for DeFi. A meaningful change in direction.
102137
AI:偏政策推进,强调合规落地与规则明晰,对监管主线更敏感。
Ray Xiao@_RayXiao · 19 天前观点输出What's there to be happy about? https://t.co/EuAZaKaaGl
00492
AI:延续个人公开立场,强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。
Ray Xiao@_RayXiao · 21 天前政策影响A few thoughts on how AI compute finance may develop: AI compute is becoming a productive capital asset. Jensen Huang recently put it more directly: “In AI, compute is revenue.” The next phase is the development of a capital market around that asset—one capable of financing capacity, pricing future compute delivery, and distributing rental rate and residual value risk. • Debt will be the first major catalyst for the global GPU market. As more AI infrastructure is financed with credit, lenders need to underwrite utilization, rental rates, customer concentration, technological obsolescence, and collateral value. The missing layer is a credible term structure for compute. The market has few reliable forward-price benchmarks and almost no instruments for hedging future rental income or GPU residual values. As a result, lenders still depend heavily on sponsor balance sheets, customer guarantees, and bespoke contracts. A functioning forward curve would change the nature of underwriting. Capital providers could begin pricing the cash flows of compute itself, rather than relying primarily on the credit quality of the operator behind it. • Open weight models will be the second catalyst. Until recently, advanced model compute demand was concentrated within hyperscalers and leading AI labs, so much of it never appeared in the merchant market. Open-weight models are beginning to loosen that structure. As more enterprises deploy models independently, a growing share of compute demand is moving into arm’s-length capacity and inference markets. Each route creates compute exposure. Capacity buyers face changing rental prices and availability. Inference providers carry compute costs inside their gross margins. For both groups, compute becomes a variable operating input that must be procured, budgeted, financed, and eventually hedged. • Timing still matters. AI compute finance remains nascent because the physical market is fragmented, heterogeneous, and heavily OTC. A GPU-hour is not yet a fungible commodity. Its economic value depends on the chip generation, cluster configuration, networking, power availability, location, software environment, service level, and counterparty delivering it. Financialization will follow contract standardization. The market is likely to begin with narrowly specified instruments tied to particular hardware, delivery periods, locations, and service levels. Broader benchmarks and derivatives can develop once enough comparable transactions exist around those standardized claims. • Crypto native markets may have some advantages in one specific part of this stack. We think the most credible opportunity lies in what we call Inference Capital Markets: markets for financing, transferring, and settling claims on future compute and inference services. GPU credits and transferable claims on future service are natural starting points. They are digitally deliverable, programmable, divisible, and potentially usable as collateral. Onchain rails could make prepaid capacity easier to distribute, allow service claims to trade before delivery, and open the market to buyers and capital providers outside the hyperscaler ecosystem. The hard problems remain offchain. A viable claim still needs enforceable service rights, standardized delivery terms, credible usage verification, and clear default resolution. Tokenization supplies the financial wrapper; contract standardization and reliable delivery give the asset its value. Our full breakdown below👇
004228
AI:偏政策推进,强调合规落地与规则明晰,对监管主线更敏感。
Ray Xiao@_RayXiao · 2026/08/11观点输出RT @a16zcrypto: First Principles Ep. 6 with Shafi Goldwasser What if you could prove something is true without revealing why it’s true? Tu…
03601
AI:延续个人公开立场,强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。
Ray Xiao@_RayXiao · 2026/08/08政策影响A sharp read on what’s taking shape in the trenches and why it really matters to all of us building here. The regulatory building blocks are stacking up, and we’re getting closer to the point where incremental progress becomes a step change. CLARITY is one piece, parallel work across agencies and growing competition across jurisdictions are adding to the same momentum. That is laying the foundation for the next phase of market evolution. And that next phase is coming into view: internet capital markets bringing capital formation, trading, and new asset creation to internet speed and scale.
004188
AI:偏政策推进,强调合规落地与规则明晰,对监管主线更敏感。
Ray Xiao@_RayXiao · 2026/07/16政策影响A bank runs on three things: a franchise (the brand plus the stack), underwriting authority (which assets to list, what LTVs and caps to run), and capital, the operator's own money that stands junior to depositors. Watch DeFi lending through that lens and the past year gets interesting. Onchain there have always been two ways to run a bank: an integrated shop that handles the stack, the underwriting, and the liquidations, or a platform where the base layer provides the rails and specialist teams operate on top. This year the two converged. The integrated model started renting out the whole franchise, underwriting authority included (EtherFi's whitelabel Aave V4 instance). The platform model started writing rules for its operators (Morpho Vaults V2: role separation, caps, timelocks). Now take stock. The franchise is for rent. Underwriting authority is changing hands. The rulebook keeps getting thicker. The capital line is still not written into any contract. Everyone onchain has opened a bank, and every one of them runs on depositors' money. Nor is the pattern confined to lending protocols. Building out our own chain's ecosystem, we keep catching it in miniature: every listing, every cap, every incentive decision is a quiet underwriting call. Meanwhile the underwriting work itself is losing pricing power. Blue chip parameter management is commoditizing fast, and Wintermute just walked in at 0% management and 0% performance fees. To be fair, capital light and high turnover is exactly why this industry could bootstrap at all. Curator first loss has been tried; it never scaled, never became the standard. But if onchain credit wants to carry real size, that layer gets built eventually. The open question is trade offs and timing, not direction. Top curators are one step from underwriters. Banks, insurers, and RWA shops already run balance sheets, capital charges, and loss management; what they're missing is onchain product and a regulatory path. Step back and the industry structure writes itself. DeFi spent years unbundling the bank: rails from underwriting from capital. The rails commoditized first; the underwriting work is commoditizing now. The one piece nobody has rebuilt is the piece that made a bank a bank: capital standing junior to depositors. That is where the durable fee will sit, because it is the only part of this business that does not scale like software. If you want the underwriting fee, take the first loss.
002159
AI:偏政策推进,强调合规落地与规则明晰,对监管主线更敏感。




评论
暂无评论