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

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

China's A-share market recently faced selling pressure, especially in tech sectors, initially triggered by a global tech sell-off that began in South Korea. However, the article argues this is a case of "mistaken injury" and highlights the market's underlying resilience. This resilience stems from three main pillars: **1) Tech Sector Fundamentals:** Unlike Korea's market dominated by a few memory chip stocks, China's tech sector is diversified across computing, communications, electronics, and semiconductors, supported by dual narratives of global AI supply chains and domestic substitution. Core areas like optical modules and fiber optics continue to show strong earnings growth. **2) "National Team" Support:** State-backed institutions and large corporations have made significant market purchases and announced buybacks, providing liquidity and signaling confidence. This is seen as a stabilizing policy signal, often associated with market bottoms. **3) Broader Market Pillars:** Other major sectors are showing endogenous recovery momentum. Consumer stocks benefit from stabilizing CPI and signs of sector recovery (e.g., liquor price hikes). Cyclical sectors like aluminum have high earnings, potential price increases due to tight supply, and low valuations. The financial sector offers stable dividends and low valuations. The conclusion is that the sell-off was driven by external contagion, not a collapse in fundamentals. With strong policy support and recovering momentum across key sectors, the A-share market possesses the toughness to regain stability.

marsbit30m ago

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

marsbit30m ago

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

The U.S. Congress is struggling to advance the crypto market structure bill known as the Clarity Act, with bipartisan compromise proving difficult. Key hurdles include unresolved disputes over "yield" products and, more critically, the inclusion of strong ethics provisions for elected officials—a non-negotiable demand for many Democrats. While a compromise on yield was reached in May, securing only limited Democratic support in committee, the separate Senate Agriculture Committee version later passed with no Democratic votes due to the ethics impasse. As Republicans push for a full Senate vote in July, demands for ethics rules have expanded, and other contentious issues like developer protections and concerns from law enforcement and large banks further complicate negotiations. Despite consensus on the need for legislation, the path forward is unclear. Recent discussions between senators and White House officials aim to find acceptable ethics language. Some lawmakers question whether a compromise text can garner enough bipartisan support, with one Democrat stating the current proposal lacks the strong ethics provisions required for their vote. Potential short-term goals for the crypto community include symbolic Senate action before the August recess, a longer-term aim for passage by 2026, or establishing a detailed framework that addresses ethics and other compromises. The process remains arduous, relying on the traditional, vote-by-vote effort to build bipartisan support.

marsbit50m ago

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

marsbit50m ago

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

"The Rivalry Between Kalshi and Polymarket Founders Turns Bitter and Litigious" The intense feud between Tarek Mansour, CEO of Kalshi, and Shayne Coplan, founder of Polymarket, has escalated far beyond typical business competition into personal animosity and regulatory battles. Both lead billion-dollar prediction market platforms, but their approaches differ sharply. Kalshi positions itself as the compliant operator, securing U.S. regulatory approval before launching. In contrast, Polymarket initially operated offshore, allowing U.S. users to access its platform via VPN, which drew regulatory scrutiny. The conflict reached a peak in November 2024 when FBI agents raided Coplan's New York apartment. While Coplan publicly blamed political motives, his team privately suspected Kalshi was involved. According to sources, Kalshi's lawyers had previously reported Polymarket's operations to federal prosecutors, highlighting its accessibility to U.S. users despite a ban. This incident fueled mutual accusations and underhanded tactics, including social media smear campaigns and attempts to sabotage each other's major business deals. Their rivalry also played out in Washington, influencing regulatory debates. Kalshi actively lobbied against Polymarket's practices, framing them as illegal and unethical. Polymarket, after facing a CFTC fine and investigation, later acquired a licensed U.S. firm to launch a domestic app, regaining a foothold. Despite the hostility, both companies have seen massive growth, with combined trading volumes soaring. However, increased regulatory scrutiny, particularly around insider trading on Polymarket's platform, continues to pose challenges. The founders' deep-seated mutual disdain ensures their battle for market dominance remains as much a personal vendetta as a commercial one.

marsbit58m ago

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

marsbit58m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片