After Crossing the War-Torn Border, I Had to Reexamine the Entire Crypto World

比推Published on 2026-03-02Last updated on 2026-03-02

Abstract

Author brother bing, co-founder of MegaETH, reflects on the crypto industry after personally witnessing missile defense systems during recent conflict near the UAE-Oman border. He observes that technology acts as an amplifier—enhancing productivity in healthy societies but becoming a weapon of attention or control during downturns. He argues crypto was meant to be a parallel system for borderless finance with lower collaboration costs, but the pursuit of legitimacy led to overemphasis on institutional integration rather than foundational innovation. While blockchain as TradFi middleware has value, it shouldn’t be mistaken for systemic reinvention. Bing calls for a return to crypto’s original vision: building boring but critical infrastructure for real sovereignty, such as cross-border savings, lending experiments, and alternative financial structures. He urges developers and communities to realign with long-term structural goals rather than short-term attention incentives, emphasizing that crypto’s success depends on courage to verify realities firsthand and build independent systems despite broader societal trends.

Author: brother bing (Co-founder of MegaETH)

Compiled and edited by: BitpushNews


I am writing and publishing this article after crossing the border between the UAE and Oman. The border crossing took about an hour and was very smooth.

Over the past 48 hours, I have been completely amazed by the technology involved in this war. This is the first time in my life that I have seen missiles with my own eyes and watched interception systems destroy them. I also came across some surreal, geeky, and even eerie details, such as reports that Israeli hackers infiltrated a prayer app to send messages to Iranians.

I have always worked in the tech industry, but this is truly the first time I have experienced defense systems firsthand. It has given me a whole new perspective on the relationship between technology and civilization.

Technology may create the illusion that it is "upgrading" civilization, but in reality, it only amplifies the original direction of civilization—just like leveraged trading (don’t despair yet!).

Allow me to explain.

In healthy upward cycles of civilization, technology acts as a productivity booster and a tool for collaboration. The early internet felt exactly like that.

I still remember the help I received on various forums 17 years ago when applying to U.S. universities in Beijing: strangers shared advice, essays, and strategies (including how to wisely use early decision admissions). Back then, the concept of closed APIs was unheard of.

But in downward cycles, technology becomes something else. It turns into a weapon for attention (and sometimes even a real weapon!).

My 60-year-old parents are more addicted to doomscrolling than I am (many of my millennial friends are very worried about our parents). The same internet that once brought us open knowledge is now feeding algorithmic addiction.

This framework explains the internal tension felt by most crypto natives today. It feels like cryptocurrency was invented precisely for the world we live in now, yet everyone feels disappointed.

So, what exactly happened?

I don’t want to repeat the clichés that many OGs have already written about "forgetting the cyberpunk spirit" or "getting too close to traditional finance (TradFi)." Instead, I want to offer two ideas:

Cryptocurrency was never meant to be just an asset class. As Evgeny wrote in "The Golden Path," cryptocurrency aims to be a parallel system, a way to restructure finance with fewer boundaries, lower collaboration costs, and flexible exit mechanisms.

Then, things shifted. Legitimacy was placed before us, almost too easily. And once people tasted legitimacy, they wanted more.

Technology, as an amplifier, naturally seeks the path of least resistance, which is: to integrate with existing power structures to further gain this legitimacy.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with bringing institutions into blockchain infrastructure.

But in this process, we quietly abandoned many of the old dreams. I find myself increasingly returning to those early use cases: small-scale experiments with fully collateralized/under-collateralized loans, Tontine-like (pension) structures, and even better cross-border savings and exchange.

These use cases are too boring. They don’t generate headlines, let alone token hype. In the race for attention maximization and valuation, these niche but structurally significant ideas were marginalized.

Stablecoins perfectly embody this paradox. They realize the "internet money" thesis but often only serve as a better "wrapper" for sovereign currencies, rather than a structurally independent monetary system.

By the way, Mega is also certainly responsible. We still have a long way to go.

In my opinion, many of today’s victories should be called "blockchain" rather than "crypto." If the goal is to become middleware for traditional finance, that’s fine. But let’s name it honestly: backend integration is not equivalent to reinvention.

Enough (Khalas), price was never the reason for everyone’s disappointment. A sad reality is: between what we "can build" and what we "choose to build," we chose the wrong direction.

Back to the original topic: What does this war tell crypto people?

If we zoom out, civilization indeed has its cycles. As a Chinese person, I grew up learning about the rise and fall of dynasties. But in all those stories about emperors, generals, and rebels, what ultimately shines through is individual agency.

I don’t know how else to say it, but crypto natives won’t win by being liked.

We initially achieved some success because we constantly identified the shortcomings of the old systems and openly criticized them. Then, somehow, any voice opposing the establishment was silenced along the way.

In a downward cycle, it’s easy to let technology amplify financialization, manipulation, and superficial growth. It’s harder to use it to quietly build boring infrastructure that can scale real sovereignty.

But developers can still choose which incentive mechanisms to code. Founders can still decide which use cases to prioritize. More importantly, communities can still choose which values to defend.

If societal sentiment drifts toward insecurity and the pursuit of validation, technology will amplify that insecurity. But if enough people consciously anchor themselves to long-term structures, to collaboration tools rather than attention traps, then perhaps leverage can still work in our favor.

Many friends disapproved of me crossing the border to Oman, saying the border opens and closes chaotically and that I should stay in Dubai. Dubai is indeed comfortable. But without verifying, I would never know whether those claims were true or false. As it turned out, the border was quiet, with few people, and the process was smooth.

The broader world is not in our favor, but in the long run, it might be.

For us in the crypto world, it’s never too late to reposition ourselves, verify things firsthand, choose the right things, and, in the most clichéd way, carve out a parallel path.

As my favorite YouTuber says: You can have a very sharp knife, but if the person holding it is a coward, nothing will happen. Let’s sharpen the blade. Let’s not be cowards.

QED.


Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

BitPush TG Discussion Group:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

BitPush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush

Original link:https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7616009

Related Questions

QWhat is the main perspective the author gained after witnessing the defense systems during the recent conflict?

AThe author realized that technology does not inherently upgrade civilization but rather amplifies its existing trajectory, acting like leverage—enhancing productivity and collaboration in healthy cycles, but becoming a weapon or tool for attention and control in downturns.

QAccording to the author, what was the original purpose of cryptocurrency as envisioned in its early days?

ACryptocurrency was intended to be a parallel system for rearchitecting finance with fewer borders, lower collaboration costs, and flexible exit mechanisms, rather than merely being an asset class or traditional financial middleware.

QWhy does the author believe the crypto community has felt disappointed despite some successes?

AThe community prioritized seeking legitimacy and integration with existing power structures, which led to abandoning early transformative dreams like decentralized lending experiments and structural monetary independence, focusing instead on attention-driven trends and valuations.

QWhat does the author suggest about stablecoins in the current crypto ecosystem?

AStablecoins, while fulfilling the 'internet money' thesis, often act as better wrappers for sovereign currencies rather than structurally independent monetary systems, reflecting a compromise in innovation for convenience.

QWhat lesson does the author draw from personally crossing the UAE-Oman border despite warnings?

AThe experience reinforced the importance of verifying information firsthand and taking initiative to explore alternative paths, symbolizing the need for the crypto community to reanchor itself in long-term structural building rather than comfort or mainstream acceptance.

Related Reads

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

The era of fragmented AI agents is ending. Over the past month, China's tech giants—Tencent, Alibaba, and ByteDance—have simultaneously shifted strategy: instead of launching new, standalone AI agents, they are consolidating their various agent projects into unified "super workbenches." Tencent integrated its QClaw teams into WorkBuddy, a strategic product hailed as a potential third flagship after QQ and WeChat. Alibaba is merging its QoderWork, Wukong, and MuleRun agents into a new "Qianwen Office" platform under DingTalk's leadership. ByteDance rebranded its TRAE SOLO coding agent to TRAE Work, signaling a broader focus on workflow collaboration. This convergence marks a pivotal industry consensus. The initial exploration phase, where companies rapidly built numerous overlapping agents for different scenarios, proved costly and inefficient. With open-source tools eroding technical barriers, competition has shifted from agent creation to resource consolidation and cost control. Historically, platform wars are won not by creating more products, but by simplifying them—as seen with browsers unifying web access and super-apps consolidating services. Now, the "super workbench" aims to become the unified AI entry point for work. This reflects a deeper market realization: the primary audience for AI is no longer just programmers (a market in the tens of millions) but all knowledge workers (a market of billions). The real opportunity lies in augmenting everyday tasks—managing emails, documents, data, and meetings—across the entire workday. The core battleground is becoming control over the primary AI entry point that employees use daily. Tencent's WorkBuddy leverages WeChat and Tencent Docs; Alibaba's Qianwen Office taps into DingTalk's organizational data; ByteDance's TRAE Work integrates with Feishu's workflows. Whoever owns this "super workbench" gains strategic control over orchestrating enterprise data and APIs. This shift is redefining enterprise software. Traditional SaaS applications, valued for their user interfaces, will recede into the background. Their core functionalities will be exposed as standardized "Skills" or APIs for the super workbench's agents to invoke. Software value will shift from selling user seats to charging based on API calls and outcomes delivered. The evolution of agents is moving through clear stages: first as novel standalone products, then as consolidated primary work entry points, and finally as pervasive, invisible capabilities embedded into the digital fabric. The recent moves by major tech firms signal the transition from the first stage into the second, accelerating toward the third. In the end, the most successful agent technology may become invisible—like electricity or the HTTP protocol—a fundamental, unnamed infrastructure powering work itself.

marsbit16m ago

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

marsbit16m ago

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

Michael Saylor presents 110 arguments against Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, a soft fork aimed at restricting certain non-monetary data storage uses (like inscriptions) on the Bitcoin blockchain. He acknowledges the proponents' valid concerns—such as node costs, fee pressure, and preserving Bitcoin's monetary focus—but fundamentally disagrees with the proposed solution. Saylor argues that BIP 110 represents a dangerous precedent of using consensus rules to enforce value judgments on transaction validity, moving away from Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and permissionless innovation. His key objections are organized into eleven categories: 1) It violates neutrality and hard consensus by banning currently valid transactions. 2) It fails to meet the high burden of proof required for a consensus change, lacking concrete data on the alleged crisis. 3) Its seven bundled technical restrictions are overly broad, targeting generic script functionalities and blocking future upgrade paths. 4) It sacrifices compatibility and future optionality by closing off designed upgrade hooks. 5) Its temporary rules add significant complexity (grandfathering, expiry states) without sufficient justification. 6) The economic and security impacts, particularly on miner revenue and fee markets, are uncertain and unmodeled. 7) Superior, market-based tools (fee markets, relay/mining policies) already exist to manage blockchain load. 8) It stifles innovation by creating a chilling effect for developers. 9) Its modified activation mechanism (55% threshold, forced signaling) is aggressive and risks network splits. 10) The precedent it sets—using consensus to suppress disliked but legal uses—is more dangerous than the problem it aims to solve. 11) A better path exists: improving measurements, refining resource-based policies, and allowing market forces to work. Saylor concludes that Bitcoin's strength lies in its neutral rules, open markets, and hard consensus. Changing these foundational elements to target specific use cases is an unnecessary and risky "iatrogenic" intervention. He advocates for guarding Bitcoin's neutrality rather than acting as its redeemer.

marsbit31m ago

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

marsbit31m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片