Dialogue with JuChain CEO Matt: The Long-term Commitment Behind the $100 Million Fund and a Public Chain's Choice

Guest: Matt, CEO of JuChain

Interview organized by: momo, ChainCatcher

Nowadays, almost every public chain is shouting "building ecosystems" and launching funds. But the reality is that most public chain ecosystem funds end up leaving behind two things: a series of press releases and a batch of projects that quickly dissipate after the incentives run out.

Performance parameters have become a source of aesthetic fatigue, and developer incentives increasingly resemble short-term subsidies. The so-called "ecological prosperity" is often built on data manipulation and speculative cycles. The narrative of general-purpose public chains continues, but there are few infrastructures that can truly support complex businesses and long-term value.

In this context, the cryptocurrency exchange Ju.com has chosen a completely different path: instead of continuing to bet on the performance race of "general-purpose public chains," it has clearly positioned JuChain as a vertical public chain aimed at community growth and incentive-driven business models—attempting to provide a pathway for projects in the crypto industry that have long existed but have always lacked structural exits, transitioning from short-term models to long-term sustainability and from single incentives to industry integration.

It is under this judgment that Ju.com has launched a $100 million JuChain industry incubation fund to accelerate the formation of this specific ecosystem. But is this really about building a long-term operational infrastructure, or is it just a pure narrative marketing effort?

With these questions in mind, we attempted to unpack the underlying logic of JuChain through a complete dialogue: Why launch the fund at this time? When general-purpose public chains have reached aesthetic fatigue, what is JuChain's real non-performance moat? And what mechanisms do they intend to use to prevent projects that originally relied heavily on short-term incentives from retracing the well-trodden paths familiar to the industry?

1. Why is the $100 million fund not just for storytelling?

1. ChainCatcher: Many people say that the "100 million dollar fund" is an action taken to boost confidence and continue the narrative during market downturns. How do you prove that this is not just PR, but a long-term mechanism that can be implemented?

Matt: To be honest, if it were just PR, I wouldn't need to set such specific goals or create such a heavy process.

We launched the $100 million JuChain industry incubation fund based on three clear judgments:

First, the industry cycle has changed. After several rounds of deleveraging from 2021 to 2024, most "quick money stories" have been told, but teams with real users, cash flow, and a solid foundation still exist. What they need is a path to "safely land and upgrade their models," not to start another new project.

Second, the infrastructure is ready. After integrating the trading platform + JuChain + wallet + multi-chain asset infrastructure, the Ju ecosystem has the capability to support assets, users, and traffic. We can truly provide projects with a one-stop path of "funding + tools + traffic + mechanisms," rather than just talking about incubation.

Third, the policy and narrative window is opening. On one side, the U.S. is seeing rapid development in ETFs, asset tokenization, and stablecoins, while on the other side, China is promoting the "14th Five-Year Plan," asset revitalization, and digital infrastructure. What we see is a more long-term structural opportunity, rather than a single bull or bear market.

To prove this is not just a publicity stunt, we have designed some internal processes that are not very "PR": the fund has a clear operational cycle and project cycle; all projects are managed in grades S/A/B/C; funds and resources are released in phases, "only for projects with plans, countervalues, and constraints," preferring to reject more than to waste money. Additionally, we will accept verification in a verifiable way. The fund will regularly review and disclose project progress and elimination situations, and milestones for support and resource distribution will be traceable within the system.

In summary, we are not using $100 million to tell stories, but to validate a long-term mechanism—allowing many projects to no longer be just short-term plays, but sustainable Web3 assets and businesses.

2. ChainCatcher: Ju.com has shifted from being a "strong entry point" to an "ecosystem builder." What is the key underlying logic behind this transformation? What strategic role does JuChain play in the entire JU ecosystem?

Matt: In the past, Ju.com was more like a "strong entry point"—with traffic, trading, and revenue, but many projects completed a launch with us without truly establishing long-term relationships.

In the past two years, we have gradually recognized two realities: having only a CEX is a "single-point business," project lifecycles are becoming shorter, and there is often high-frequency competition between platforms and projects; true long-term value must be built on a complete closed loop of "chain + wallet + exchange + assets."

Therefore, we have upgraded Ju's positioning to an ecological infrastructure composed of a trading platform + JuChain public chain + wallet + industry incubation fund + industry-level RWA cooperation.

In this system: JuChain serves as the underlying layer, carrying asset and business logic, responsible for "rights confirmation, settlement, governance, and transparency"; the trading platform provides liquidity and user habits; the wallet and task system are responsible for user outreach and growth; the industry incubation fund + partner system attract projects with scale and teams to join, helping them complete model upgrades.

In simple terms, Ju.com is the entry point, JuChain is the underlying rules and asset network, and the fund is the bridge—connecting short-term incentive models, project parties, and industry assets layer by layer into this ecosystem.

2. When performance competition fails, what is JuChain's non-performance moat?

3. ChainCatcher: Given that public chain performance competition has reached aesthetic fatigue, what exactly is JuChain's "non-performance moat"? A year from now, what benchmark case direction do you hope the outside world will see as "only JuChain can run"?

Matt: I respect all exchanges and public chains' attempts, but we must also face a reality: in the past few years, too many public chains have been competing on TPS and performance parameters, and the market has reached aesthetic fatigue. What users and project parties truly care about is whether the money is safe, whether the model is solid, and whether the business can last.

Therefore, JuChain deliberately does not aim to be "another general-purpose public chain." Our core differences are threefold:

First, it lies in the chosen scenarios. We focus on serving teams transitioning from short-term incentive-driven models to long-term sustainable operations. They often already have real cash flow, active communities, and strong viral capabilities, but are constrained by historical logic or opaque structures. JuChain and the industry incubation fund are designed for the path of "short-term incentive projects → on-chain assetization + decentralized governance."

Second, we provide a complete closed-loop capability. Many public chains can only offer contracts and performance, while we can simultaneously provide: listing and market-making support, wallet access, task systems, membership systems, contract templates, risk control rules, and real funding and traffic. This is an ecosystem, not just a chain.

The deeper difference lies in the moat we build, which is rules and mechanisms. What we are truly "competing" on is not performance, but how to enable a project to thrive longer, more transparently, and more securely within the Ju ecosystem—from project grading management to phased release of funds and resources, and strict risk control and exit mechanisms.

A year from now, I hope to see a benchmark case like this: a project that once belonged to a high-yield short-term model has completed model reconstruction, asset on-chainization, and settlement transparency on JuChain; users no longer rely on extreme rhetoric and short-term high returns, but instead gain returns through membership rights, real business, and on-chain profit distribution; ultimately, it is recognized by the industry as "transitioning from a short-term incentive-driven model to a sustainable Web3 asset."

This is precisely the path that only the combination of "exchange + industry incubation fund + vertical public chain aimed at high-yield community projects" has the opportunity to truly run through.

4. ChainCatcher: In the past, public chains had to make trade-offs between performance, cost, and security. How does JuChain balance these core metrics? What level are you currently at?

Matt: In the impossible triangle of public chains, our principle is clear: prioritize security and stability, and under this premise, pursue sufficient performance and cost levels with redundancy.

• In terms of security, we use a mature underlying technology stack and auditing system, strictly controlling the added complexity of the consensus layer and contract layer, avoiding risky innovations.

• In terms of performance, we focus more on throughput efficiency and confirmation times in real business scenarios, rather than pursuing extreme stress test numbers.

• In terms of cost, we ensure that the daily user cost remains within an industry-friendly range by optimizing transaction packaging, batch settlement, and other mechanisms.

I won’t list specific metrics here, but I can say that in high-frequency scenarios such as recharge, withdrawal, internal settlement, and agent profit sharing, JuChain has achieved a practical carrying capacity far exceeding mainstream L1s and approaching leading L2s, all while ensuring security redundancy—this is completely sufficient for the types of projects we are currently taking on.

5. ChainCatcher: Among the core technical modules of JuChain, which do you internally consider to be the most critical breakthroughs? What specific "on-chain difficulties" have they solved?

Matt: We have built several key modules internally, specifically designed for projects that are "short-term incentive-driven, high-yield models, and industry assets":

Among them, the asset and settlement reconstruction module can assist projects in breaking down their original centralized ledgers into on-chain assets and settlement logic, completing the substantial upgrade from "Excel bookkeeping" to "on-chain clearing."

The integrated module for wallets, tasks, and memberships allows users to have both an on-chain address and a membership identity within the same wallet. Task incentives, referral commissions, tiered rights, and even airdrop distributions can be directly linked to on-chain behaviors and assets.

At the same time, we provide standardized tools for funding transparency and operational dashboards, allowing project parties to choose to publicly disclose funding flows, pool sizes, and release rhythms to the community—this is a crucial step for short-term incentive models that have long lacked trust due to "opacity."

Additionally, deep collaborative interfaces with CEX/DEX allow projects to introduce some liquidity into the secondary market without sacrificing user experience, while retaining on-chain governance and profit distribution logic.

The common goal of these modules is to fundamentally change the source of trust for projects: from relying on rhetoric and short-term promises to relying on sustainable mechanisms and verifiable data.

6. ChainCatcher: User growth in Web3 has become an industry bottleneck. What technical or product designs does JuChain have to lower the on-chain entry barrier, enhance wallet experience, compatibility, and usability? What height do you hope to push the user growth curve to in the future?

Matt: Our user growth approach is quite pragmatic: first, we will onboard existing users from high-yield community projects and partners, and then retain them through better product experiences and ecological value. Specific paths include:

• On the wallet side, we support quick wallet creation via phone numbers, emails, or third-party accounts, significantly lowering the entry barrier to Web3. The wallet directly integrates a task center, project plaza, and agent tools, seamlessly migrating the interactive methods familiar to users of short-term incentive projects onto the chain.

• In terms of compatibility, for developers, we strive to be compatible with mainstream EVM toolchains; for users, they do not need to worry about which underlying chain it is— all daily operations can be completed within our wallet.

• Regarding growth targets, we will not promise exaggerated numbers here, but JuChain's design goal is clear: first convert "millions to tens of millions" of highly active users from high-yield community projects into real on-chain users, and then gradually extend to a broader Web3 user base.

In simple terms, our strategy is: convert from the existing user base, retain through experience, and expand from vertical to universal.

7. ChainCatcher: There is often skepticism that "exchange-based public chains are inherently more centralized." How do you view this controversy? How do you address users' concerns?

Matt: I admit that any public chain originating from an exchange will inevitably face questions about "centralization." This is a question that must be addressed head-on.

However, we believe that whether something is centralized or not does not depend on its origin, but rather on whether checks and balances and transparency are embedded in its architecture, governance, and daily operations. To this end, we are advancing several initiatives:

• In terms of architecture, verification nodes are not solely controlled by the exchange but are gradually opened to ecological partners; key components such as cross-chain bridges and asset custody also adopt multi-signature and threshold signature mechanisms, with external institutions involved in supervision.

• In terms of governance, the industry incubation fund has an independent review and risk control committee, and the allocation of funds and resources follows a clear process with a veto power—not solely decided by the exchange internally.

• In terms of transparency, our support for projects is more reflected in measurable assets such as "services, resources, and contract countervalues," rather than simple cash grants, and all processes are traceable on-chain or within the system.

From a roadmap perspective, as the ecosystem develops, we will introduce multi-party co-governance mechanisms in more modules, incorporating node parties, strategic partners, and community representatives, gradually pushing governance towards greater openness.

We do not shy away from controversy; rather, we hope to gradually transform "centralization concerns" into "visible checks and balances" through a verifiable and binding mechanism. This path requires time, but we are already taking action.

3. Ecosystem support is not about throwing money around; how to establish hard thresholds?

8. ChainCatcher: Which projects will the $100 million fund prioritize? How do you determine whether a project has a "natural coupling" with JuChain's capabilities?

Matt: When selecting projects, we prioritize not "how well the story is told," but three things:

• First, we look at the team and values. We hope the core team is stable, not short-term speculators; they should be responsible to users, willing to reduce extreme rhetoric and excessive promises; and genuinely want to complete model upgrades and on-chain transitions, rather than just wanting to cash out.

• Second, we look at the community and scale. Projects need to have real users and a certain amount of capital accumulation; they cannot be in a state of empty circulation; the community should have the ability to generate viral growth and education, capable of continuously supporting the extension of the product matrix.

• Finally, we look at the willingness to transform and the degree of ecological coupling. Projects should be willing to prioritize the layout of their main business in the Ju ecosystem during this new development phase and be willing to cooperate with us on contract modifications, funding transparency, and risk control rules.

Projects that are "naturally coupled" with JuChain typically have the following characteristics: their business requires strong settlement, a robust membership system, and strong viral mechanisms—this is precisely what we excel at in the "wallet + chain + trading platform" closed loop; at the same time, they also hope to break away from the old model of completely centralized bookkeeping, rebuilding trust through on-chain assets and governance—this is also the original intention behind the creation of JuChain.

9. ChainCatcher: In the past few months, what types of projects have you explicitly rejected? What are the rejection criteria? What do you least want the JuChain ecosystem to become? To avoid short-term data manipulation/speculative plays, what hard thresholds or mechanisms will you set?

Matt: In the process of engaging with numerous projects, there are two types of teams that resonate most with us:

One type is projects willing to "break down and redo." They do not shy away from historical burdens and are willing to cooperate with us to reconstruct their original rebate, dividend, and lock-up logic on-chain, facing old users with new transparent mechanisms; they can also accept stricter risk control and transparency requirements, even if it means facing greater pressure in the short term.

The other type is teams that simultaneously layout short-term incentive-driven high-yield models and real business. They typically operate cash flow businesses while also laying out real tracks such as mining machines, education, offline industries, or urban assets. They are more inclined to view "the play" as an entry point and starter for traffic, rather than the endpoint of the business.

At the same time, we have also clearly rejected several types:

Those that view "funding support" as unconditional blood transfusion and refuse to make substantial upgrades to their models; those with obvious malicious exit or fraud histories, or those that refuse to cooperate with basic due diligence; those insisting on extreme leverage, high promises, and intending to raise money in the short term and exit.

To eliminate data manipulation and pure speculative behavior, we have established clear hard thresholds:

All projects must go through a complete process and graded review, with no private channels open; funds and resources are released in phases and tied to verifiable progress and risk control indicators; for high-risk projects, the risk control and legal teams have veto power and can initiate user warning mechanisms when necessary.

We believe that rigorous screening and institutional constraints are the true responsibility for the long-term value of the ecosystem.

10. ChainCatcher: Besides funding, what unique "non-financial value" can JuChain provide to projects? For example, what are the advantages in terms of traffic entry, user growth, compliance capabilities, product synergy, etc.?

Matt: Money has never been the hardest part; what is truly critical is "the capabilities behind the money."

For different tiers of partners, the "non-financial value" we can provide mainly includes:

• In terms of brand and endorsement, strategic partners can jointly issue cooperation announcements with us and continuously appear as "strategic partners" on our official website, app, and ecological events; flagship projects have the opportunity to become key cases in AMAs, ecological conferences, and media interviews.

• In terms of technology and systems, we provide standardized support for contract, settlement, rebate, task, and membership system integration, and assist in designing more reasonable lock-up releases, user tiers, and profit structures, helping projects upgrade from traditional bookkeeping models to on-chain asset logic.

• In terms of traffic and growth, we can leverage the exchange's operational positions, activities, and push resources, open wallet entry points and task systems, and collaborate with leading nodes and KOLs for joint promotions and community building.

• In terms of compliance and risk control frameworks, while we do not promise so-called "compliance endorsements," we will share our risk control rules and user protection frameworks, assisting teams in avoiding obvious violations and extreme risk behaviors.

Ultimately, funding can only meet immediate needs, while tools, systems, brands, and mechanisms can truly help a project transition from "a quick play" to "a long-term business."

11. ChainCatcher: Among the three directions of AI, RWA, and DeFi, which track do you think is most likely to become the core driving force for the next round of large-scale user growth? Why is JuChain betting on these directions?

Matt: In my view, these three directions are not parallel tracks, but three links in the same value chain:

RWA (Real World Assets) is a direction we focus on with partners like Zhongju Investment, covering everything from the digitization of city-level and national-level assets to building asset trading infrastructure akin to a "digital Nasdaq." Its essence is to transform real assets into on-chain tradable capital.

DeFi provides transparent and efficient liquidity and pricing mechanisms for these assets and short-term incentive-driven projects, allowing previously closed value to be discovered and traded in a more open market.

AI is applied at both ends: one end drives user growth and intelligent investment advisory, while the other strengthens risk identification and compliance assistance, helping projects achieve smarter operations and risk control.

If I had to choose one core long-term driving force, I would choose "RWA + industry assets." Because this represents "real productivity on-chain," and JuChain starts from short-term incentive-driven projects, gradually extending to the digitization of industrial and urban-level assets, forming a complete closed loop from traffic to assets.

4. Exchange maximum innovation leverage for minimal risk

12. ChainCatcher: Since JuChain's mainnet launch in May 2025, what are the three most critical milestones? How does the team internally evaluate the achievements of these four months?

Matt: If we only look at the progress of the past few months, we would give ourselves a score of 7, leaving the remaining 3 points for the future.

During this time, we have achieved three key milestones:

The mainnet has achieved stable operation, and basic tools are fully online. We have successfully completed a smooth transition from the testing environment to the mainnet, with core capabilities such as wallets, task systems, and contract templates truly running on-chain, no longer remaining in the conceptual stage.

The industry incubation fund and process framework have been practically implemented. Not only have we issued announcements, but we have also clearly solidified the S/A/B/C grading standards for projects, the review committee mechanism, phased resource allocation rules, and exit mechanisms, and have begun screening and advancing projects according to this process.

We have initiated pilot collaborations with the first batch of projects and partners. Several types of projects have begun using our tools and mechanisms for model upgrade attempts. Although the scale is not yet large, the direction of validation is correct.

Internally, we have formed a consensus: at this stage, it is more important to get the "road" right and solid than to rush for superficial TVL or address numbers. We believe that a solid foundation will enable us to go further in the future.

13. ChainCatcher: In the next 12 months, what are JuChain's three main priorities? If a year from now the outside world has one comment about JuChain, what do you hope it will be?

Matt: In the coming year, we will focus on three core directions:

First, to ensure that the industry incubation fund truly operates effectively. The measure is not how many projects have been signed, but how many teams have completed model upgrades and achieved on-chain and transparency through our support.

Second, to continuously refine the infrastructure that adapts to "scenarios." From wallets, contract templates, task systems to data dashboards and risk control tools, everything will be optimized to meet the daily operational needs of short-term incentive-driven project teams.

Third, to connect the path from short-term incentive-driven project ecological traffic to industrial assets. Through cooperation with partners like Zhongju Investment, we will promote pilots in the digitization of urban and national-level assets, truly connecting on-chain funds with real assets.

A year from now, if the outside world can only use one sentence to evaluate JuChain, I hope it will be: "This is the first public chain that truly captures the short-term incentive-driven ecosystem, project parties, and industrial assets."

14. ChainCatcher: In the face of the uncertainty of the global regulatory environment (such as the EU's MiCA regulations or the SEC's scrutiny of public chains), how does JuChain find a balance between compliance and innovation?

Matt: First, we will not gamble on the future with the belief that "regulation will definitely relax."

Our compliance strategy is divided into three levels:

In structural design, we implement layered business processing. We strictly operate high-regulation businesses (such as KYC and certain derivatives) within a licensed entity framework; at the same time, we separate the technology-neutral protocol layer and decentralized asset layer, using open-source contracts and transparent mechanisms to bear the main business risks.

In regional layout, we adopt a zoned adaptation strategy. We respect the regulatory differences of different jurisdictions, making product adjustments and risk control settings based on the characteristics of each market, and avoid engaging in aggressive market activities in high-risk regulatory areas.

In ecological cooperation, we actively collaborate with compliant partners. We have established partnerships with licensed custodians, compliant wallets, traditional financial institutions, and local governments to ensure that innovation can be advanced within a clear and controllable framework.

We do not promise "complete compliance," but we do promise one thing: JuChain will use the least amount of risk space to exchange for the greatest innovation leverage.

5. More important than "who is faster" is "who lasts longer"

15. ChainCatcher: Why should developers move from Ethereum/L2, Solana, Base, etc., to you? What are the "hard reasons" you provide to builders?

Matt: If JuChain's goal is to be "another general-purpose public chain," then I completely agree with the assessment that "this track is already saturated." But we did not choose this path. We are entering a more vertical, but also deeper, vertical track:

We are targeting short-term incentive-driven models, high-yield model projects, and the future digitization of industrial and urban-level assets; what we hold is the exchange entry point, wallet, task system, industry incubation fund, and a complete set of project screening and management mechanisms.

For builders, choosing to build on JuChain provides at least three tangible reasons:

First, you are facing ready-made user and cash flow scenarios. You do not have to wait for users on an empty chain; instead, you directly enter an ecosystem with real users, active projects, and clear funding needs.

Second, you can directly utilize a complete set of ready-made business modules. Standard contract templates, membership systems, task systems, settlement tools, and data dashboards—you do not need to reinvent the wheel from scratch; instead, you can quickly build products based on these modules.

Third, your project can access a closed loop of resources and income. What you build is no longer just an on-chain experiment, but can gain real traffic and commercialization paths through exchange exposure, wallet entry, and industry fund support.

In simple terms: If you want to truly create a sustainable business in the vertical field of "short-term incentive-driven models + industrial assets," JuChain provides not a general chain, but an application platform with real markets, complete tools, and resource closed loops.

16. ChainCatcher: In recent years, there has been controversy over "the meaninglessness of performance competition." Do you think performance improvement is still important? How does JuChain avoid blind competition?

Matt: I completely understand the fatigue behind this statement. Performance is certainly important, but the more critical question is: the value of performance depends on what problem you are trying to solve.

JuChain's choice is to focus performance optimization on specific business scenarios—such as high-frequency settlements, real-time profit distribution, agent profit sharing, and on-chain task processing—rather than pursuing a generic, extreme TPS number.

On the basis of ensuring sufficient performance, we invest our main energy in rule design, asset structure, risk control mechanisms, and developer tools. These are far more valuable for the long-term survival of short-term incentive-driven projects and real asset projects than simply improving block speed.

Therefore, we do not participate in the marketing competition of "who is faster." What we participate in is the survival competition of "who can make more projects truly run and last longer."

17. ChainCatcher: Public chain ecosystem incentives are often criticized as "short-term speculation, long-term lack of stickiness." How does JuChain balance the incentive mechanism with the long-term healthy development of the ecosystem?

Matt: Precisely because I have personally experienced the problems brought by "digging and leaving," we are particularly cautious in designing the incentive system and have established the following principles:

First, we promote incentives from "one-time airdrops" to "long-term rights." We prefer to design incentives that are tied to long-term behaviors, such as staking, participating in governance, and continuously holding project tickets or assets, rather than relying on one-time candy airdrops.

Second, we deeply link incentives with real business metrics. For project parties, we no longer only look at short-term TVL, but focus more on user retention, real transaction volume, and on-chain activity; for users, we reward those who truly participate in the long-term construction of projects, rather than simply task volume.

Additionally, we strictly enforce the phased release of fund resources. All funding and resource support are tied to phased goals; achieving a milestone releases a portion of resources; if a project's development deviates from expectations, we reserve the right to slow down or suspend subsequent support.

The state we ultimately hope to achieve is to reduce the dependence of project parties, operators, and users participating in the JuChain ecosystem on short-term speculation, and instead gain long-term returns through real business and sustainable mechanisms.