The World Belongs to Chinese People Who Speak English

marsbitPubblicato 2026-02-28Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-02-28

Introduzione

The article argues that the world belongs to Chinese people who speak English, positing that a blend of Eastern and Western cultural values creates a powerful advantage, particularly in entrepreneurship. It contrasts Western "romanticism"—characterized by idealism, risk-taking, and long-term vision—with Chinese pragmatism and structural thinking. The author, educated in a US liberal arts college, credits Western education for fostering trust and ambition, while Chinese upbringing provides crucial grounding in practical business models. This hybrid mindset is presented as ideal for navigating global opportunities, exemplified by ventures like a crypto project that successfully merges centralized efficiency with decentralized security. The core message is an exhortation for Chinese individuals to learn English and engage with the world to leverage this cultural synthesis, asserting that limiting oneself to one hemisphere is a missed opportunity.

Just scroll through Instagram and TikTok, and you'll see all kinds of "chinamaxxing" wellness memes. Adidas' new Tang suit jacket sold out instantly online (all bought by foreigners).

Foreign media likes to attribute this to "the rise of China's soft power," but I tend to believe it's the result of a blend of opposition and fusion between Chinese and Western cultures, a result that is particularly evident among entrepreneurs.

On one hand, there's the pragmatism and structural sense ingrained in our DNA from our ancestors; on the other, there's modern Western thought that strips away the overly pedantic parts of traditional wisdom and reshapes a personal form. This combination is inherently well-suited for entrepreneurship.

Western society allows you to be romantic, to be impulsive, to bet on long-term, irrational things. Even if you fail, it doesn't immediately negate your worth as a person. This is a huge tolerance space granted at the institutional and cultural levels.

I studied at a liberal arts college in the US, majoring in psychology, taking courses like metaphysics and art history. My parents always complained that I was learning a bunch of "useless things." But it was precisely these seemingly useless courses that gave me develop an almost instinctive, even somewhat irrational, trust in human agency and mutual tolerance.

I call this state romantic because it is completely opposite to the cynical attitude of "早就看透了" (having seen through it all) or "一眼望到底" (seeing the end at a glance) that is deeply ingrained in many Chinese people.

It is this romanticism that enables a person to dare to give up a stable, high-paying job to start a business, to dare to invest money in a smart contract that hasn't been thoroughly audited. More importantly, it is a way to reconcile with oneself. When you allow yourself to be impulsive, to get excited, to have expectations for long-term value, you also allow yourself to be happy, allow others to be happy, and allow society to improve together.

Of course, if Western romanticism is taken to the extreme, it can easily become detached from reality, floating in the air and getting nothing done. At this point, the pragmatic educational philosophy inherent in Chinese culture becomes particularly important.

Chinese entrepreneurs often prefer to use the term "做生意 / make business," while in the English-speaking world, entrepreneurship is called "start-up." Chinese entrepreneurship prioritizes the business model first (aka, whose money are you making), while the West focuses on the act of starting up.

The crypto space in recent years has been harshly taught a lesson about "not getting things done." A massive amount of energy was spent on low-level narratives and conceptual packaging, while真正的 applications were few and far between. In the end, it was the most primitive赛道 of "speculating on coins" that was firmly controlled by a group of Asian players.

When I first saw Mega's whitepaper, I almost instinctively thought: "This architecture is so reasonable." Centralized sequencer + Ethereum security = faster chain. The logic was clear and straightforward. But this "Sino-Western hybrid" logic is taboo in the eyes of many foreigners because, in their context, centralization is almost synonymous with original sin.

But in my view, centralization was never the original sin; it's just a tool. Many Western teams, operating in a politically correct environment, could never make a choice like Mega's. Yet we can inherit the思维 of "concentrating resources to accomplish major tasks" while using decentralized security as the ultimate backing, instantly expanding the entire想象空间.

But if I had only received a Chinese education, I also know that at best, I could only run a small workshop or small business. What truly made me believe that this kind of "centralized trade-off" could spawn new applications and scale up the entire ecosystem was the Western education I received. It made me dare to believe in system design, believe in structural choices, believe in the possibility of scaling.

Finally, people often tell me I'm a typical "banana person," yellow on the outside, white on the inside. I beg to differ. The world is never black and white, nor is it strictly East or West. The greatest advantage of someone who has truly experienced multiple cultures is the ability to absorb the strengths of each and then recombine them.

Take me, for example. I finished high school in Beijing, went to university in the US, graduated and went to Nigeria in Africa, and later settled down in Dubai, the Middle East. You ask me if I'm a banana or a sweet date, I don't know. But I know one thing:

If you are also a Chinese person who speaks English, you must be brave enough to step out and face the clash of Eastern and Western cultures head-on; there will eventually be arbitrage opportunities for you here. If you were born in China and don't speak English, you must learn it, and then go out into the world.

The world is vast, and only playing half of it is such a waste.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat does the author identify as the key advantage of combining Chinese and Eastern cultural perspectives?

AThe author believes the combination of Chinese pragmatism and structural thinking with Western romanticism and tolerance for risk creates a powerful hybrid mindset ideal for entrepreneurship, allowing individuals to leverage the strengths of both cultures—practical business acumen with innovative, long-term vision.

QHow does the author define 'romanticism' in the context of Western education's influence?

AThe author defines this 'romanticism' as a mindset that trusts human subjectivity, embraces impulsiveness, allows for long-term, non-rational bets, and fosters personal and societal happiness—contrasting with a cynical 'seen-it-all' attitude.

QAccording to the author, what is a fundamental difference between Chinese and Western approaches to entrepreneurship?

AThe author states that Chinese entrepreneurship often focuses first on the business model and revenue streams ('make business'), while Western entrepreneurship emphasizes the act of starting up itself and the vision behind it.

QWhy does the author argue that 'centralization is not an original sin' but a tool, using Mega as an example?

AThe author argues that centralization is merely a tool, and Mega's design—a centralized sequencer with Ethereum security for a faster chain—demonstrates a pragmatic, effective hybrid solution that Western 'political correctness' might reject outright, thus creating an advantage.

QWhat is the core advice the author gives to Chinese people regarding English and global engagement?

AThe author's core advice is that Chinese people who speak English should boldly engage with the world to leverage cultural differences for opportunity, and those who don't should learn English and then go global, because 'the world is big, and playing only half of it is a total waste.'

Letture associate

If the AI Bubble Is Already Bursting, Who Will Truly Survive?

If the AI Bubble is Bursting, Who Will Remain? The debate over an AI bubble is intensifying, with figures like Ray Dalio warning of high levels and Jensen Huang seeing immense, early-stage opportunity. Both views hold truth: a speculative bubble in capital markets likely exists, mirroring the dot-com era, but the underlying technological shift is real and transformative. History shows that while bubbles burst—wiping out overvalued companies and speculative capital—they often leave behind critical physical and digital infrastructure. The dot-com bust, for instance, eliminated many firms but left the global fiber optic networks and data centers that enabled the rise of Amazon, Netflix, and cloud computing. Today's massive AI infrastructure investments (projected at trillions by 2030) in data centers, power, cooling, and GPUs may follow a similar path, creating the foundation for future applications. A key divergence from past bubbles is the "Jevons Paradox" effect in AI. As the cost of AI inference has plummeted by over 99.7% since 2023, enterprise spending on AI has skyrocketed. Cheap "tokens" have unlocked vast, previously uneconomical use cases, moving AI from simple chatbots into core business workflows—code generation, legal document review, scientific simulation, and financial analysis. The market is now in a phase of self-correction, weeding out superficial "API-wrapper" startups, but this cleansing process strengthens the ecosystem. The long-term trajectory is clear. The value is gradually shifting from capital expenditure (CapEx) on hardware to operational expenditure (OpEx) on transformative applications. As AI becomes a utility, the winners will be firms that deeply integrate it to solve vertical industry problems in law, healthcare, finance, and manufacturing. The泡沫 will recede, but the foundational shift towards an AI-powered era across all sectors is irreversible. The underlying productive force of AI contains no bubble.

marsbit29 min fa

If the AI Bubble Is Already Bursting, Who Will Truly Survive?

marsbit29 min fa

If the AI Bubble Is Already Bursting, Who Will Truly Remain?

**Summary: If the AI Bubble is Bursting, What Will Remain?** The debate around an AI bubble is intensifying, with figures like Ray Dalio warning of high valuations while Jensen Huang sees immense opportunity. This echoes the dot-com bubble, which saw massive wealth destruction but ultimately left behind critical infrastructure like undersea cables and broadband, enabling future giants like Amazon and Netflix. Similarly, today's AI boom involves trillions invested in data centers, power, cooling, and GPUs, while application-layer revenue remains comparatively modest. This investment-disparity signals a bubble. However, the core technological progress is real and accelerating. AI inference costs have plummeted by over 99.7% since 2023, making intelligence increasingly cheap and accessible. This cost collapse is unlocking vast new demand. Instead of reducing spending, enterprises are tripling their AI cloud expenditure. Cheap "tokens" enable AI to move beyond simple chatbots into complex workflows—automating code writing, legal document review, financial analysis, and scientific research. This follows "Jevons's paradox": improved efficiency leads to greater total consumption. The market is now undergoing a necessary purification, weeding out "API-wrapper" startups with no real moat. The deeper evolution involves a shift from capital expenditure (CapEx) on infrastructure to operational expenditure (OpEx) on value-creation in applications. While hardware vendors currently profit most, long-term value will migrate to AI-native firms solving vertical industry problems. Ultimately, a market correction will cleanse speculative excess but will not reverse the AI+ trend. The massive physical and algorithmic infrastructure being built will endure, becoming a cheap, utility-like foundation. Just as the internet became indispensable to all industries post-2000, AI is poised to empower and redefine every sector, moving society irreversibly toward an intelligence-augmented era. The bubble may burst, but the underlying productive momentum is solid.

链捕手36 min fa

If the AI Bubble Is Already Bursting, Who Will Truly Remain?

链捕手36 min fa

Microsoft CEO: In the AI Era, How Do You Define a Company's Moat?

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella argues that in the AI era, a company's true competitive edge, or "moat," is not determined by choosing the single most powerful model, but by its ability to build a continuous "learning loop." This system integrates and evolves by connecting human workflows, domain expertise, organizational judgment, and employee experience. He posits that future companies will accumulate two types of capital: Human Capital (employee knowledge, judgment, creativity) and "Token Capital" (a firm's own built and owned AI capabilities). Importantly, AI amplifies rather than devalues human capital. Human direction is essential to guide progress, as computational power alone is aimless. The core opportunity lies in creating a closed-loop system where human and token capital reinforce each other in a compound, self-improving cycle. A company must be able to preserve its unique institutional knowledge—its "company veteran" expertise—even if it switches underlying general-purpose AI models. This requires private evaluation benchmarks, reinforcement learning environments based on internal data, and queryable knowledge bases. Nadella warns against a future where economic value is concentrated by a few dominant models that commoditize entire industries' knowledge. Instead, the priority should be building a broad "frontier ecosystem" where every company, industry, and nation can own its learning loop. This allows organizations to retain control of their intellectual property, amplify employee capabilities, and ensure the economic value created by AI is captured within their own businesses and communities. True corporate sovereignty in the AI age comes from turning organizational knowledge into a compounding system that creates enduring, defensible value.

marsbit1 h fa

Microsoft CEO: In the AI Era, How Do You Define a Company's Moat?

marsbit1 h fa

ETFs Are Just the Ticket: The True Institutionalization of Bitcoin Is Happening Where You Can't See It

Beyond the Bitcoin ETF spotlight, a deeper institutionalization is underway, leveraging Bitcoin as a foundational financial primitive. Institutions are using Bitcoin for purposes long reserved for assets like U.S. Treasuries and gold: as collateral for loans, insurance reserves, and the backbone of rated bonds. Examples include a Barbados-based insurer capitalizing with $40M in Bitcoin reserves and Ledn's $188M securitization of Bitcoin-backed loans, which received the first-ever investment-grade rating (BBB-) from S&P for a digital asset-backed security. This structure was stress-tested during a 27% price drop in early 2026, triggering automatic liquidations that functioned as designed but revealed the systemic risk of synchronized selling across leveraged positions. Infrastructure is evolving to support this, with platforms like Anchorage Digital's Atlas network enabling secure, institutional-grade settlement and collateral management. Strategies like basis trades and corporate treasuries (exemplified by companies like MicroStrategy issuing billions in equity and debt to fund Bitcoin acquisitions) further integrate Bitcoin into financial mechanics. While ETFs solved "how to own" Bitcoin, these developments answer "what to do with it," embedding the asset into the working machinery of finance—as collateral upon which loans, derivatives, and structured products are built. The real, enduring institutional shift is happening in these largely invisible plumbing and financing systems.

marsbit1 h fa

ETFs Are Just the Ticket: The True Institutionalization of Bitcoin Is Happening Where You Can't See It

marsbit1 h fa

ZEC Co-Founder Responds to Orchard Vulnerability: No Signs of Theft, Orchard Pool to Be Sealed

ZEC Co-Founder Addresses Orchard Vulnerability: No Signs of Theft, Plans to Sunset Orchard Pool A security vulnerability was recently discovered in Zcash's Orchard shielded pool, raising key concerns. The primary questions are whether the flaw was exploited, if user funds are safe, whether users can verify the total ZEC supply, and if other similar vulnerabilities exist. Analysis suggests the vulnerability was likely not exploited prior to its discovery. It was found proactively by a researcher using specialized tools, not due to an active breach. The development team and mining pools acted quickly to contain the issue. Typical financially-motivated attacks would likely have left visible on-chain evidence, which has not been observed. User funds in Orchard are considered safe and should be recoverable, assuming no prior exploitation. If the flaw was never used, all legitimate funds can be withdrawn. The article outlines risks associated with moving funds to transparent addresses or other pools, but concludes that leaving assets in place is a reasonable option. Currently, users cannot independently verify that the total ZEC supply hasn't been inflated due to this bug. However, the planned Ironwood network upgrade is designed to resolve this. It will permanently close the Orchard pool to new deposits and internal transfers, allowing only withdrawals. This mechanism will cap total withdrawals at the amount of legitimately deposited funds, enabling anyone to cryptographically verify the supply post-upgrade. Multiple teams, including Shielded Labs, have conducted extensive audits focused on counterfeiting vulnerabilities, assisted by advanced AI tools. No additional flaws of this type have been found so far, increasing confidence that no other similar undisclosed vulnerabilities exist. In summary, evidence indicates the Orchard bug was probably not used, user funds are secure, and no other counterfeiting flaws are currently known. The upcoming Ironwood upgrade will restore users' ability to independently verify the total ZEC supply, closing this chapter.

Foresight News1 h fa

ZEC Co-Founder Responds to Orchard Vulnerability: No Signs of Theft, Orchard Pool to Be Sealed

Foresight News1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures

Articoli Popolari

Come comprare PEOPLE

Benvenuto in HTX.com! Abbiamo reso l'acquisto di ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE) semplice e conveniente. Segui la nostra guida passo passo per intraprendere il tuo viaggio nel mondo delle criptovalute.Step 1: Crea il tuo Account HTXUsa la tua email o numero di telefono per registrarti il tuo account gratuito su HTX. Vivi un'esperienza facile e sblocca tutte le funzionalità,Crea il mio accountStep 2: Vai in Acquista crypto e seleziona il tuo metodo di pagamentoCarta di credito/debito: utilizza la tua Visa o Mastercard per acquistare immediatamente ConstitutionDAOPEOPLE.Bilancio: Usa i fondi dal bilancio del tuo account HTX per fare trading senza problemi.Terze parti: abbiamo aggiunto metodi di pagamento molto utilizzati come Google Pay e Apple Pay per maggiore comodità.P2P: Fai trading direttamente con altri utenti HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): Offriamo servizi su misura e tassi di cambio competitivi per i trader.Step 3: Conserva ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE)Dopo aver acquistato ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE), conserva nel tuo account HTX. In alternativa, puoi inviare tramite trasferimento blockchain o scambiare per altre criptovalute.Step 4: Scambia ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE)Scambia facilmente ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE) nel mercato spot di HTX. Accedi al tuo account, seleziona la tua coppia di trading, esegui le tue operazioni e monitora in tempo reale. Offriamo un'esperienza user-friendly sia per chi ha appena iniziato che per i trader più esperti.

449 Totale visualizzazioniPubblicato il 2024.12.12Aggiornato il 2026.06.02

Come comprare PEOPLE

Discussioni

Benvenuto nella Community HTX. Qui puoi rimanere informato sugli ultimi sviluppi della piattaforma e accedere ad approfondimenti esperti sul mercato. Le opinioni degli utenti sul prezzo di PEOPLE PEOPLE sono presentate come di seguito.

活动图片