A Century Before Swift and Blockchain, China Built Its Own Cross-Border Financial Network

marsbitPublicado em 2026-05-15Última atualização em 2026-05-15

Resumo

A century before Swift and blockchain, China's cross-border financial miracle: The Qiaopi Network. Driven by the phrase "a promise is greater than life," the Qiaopi (overseas Chinese remittance letter) system was a remarkable, entirely private financial network. Operating for over a hundred years until 1979, it facilitated billions in remittances, at one point constituting over 50% of China's foreign exchange during WWII—all without central banks, official clearing, or government backing. It began with "Shuike" (water guests), couriers who carried cash and letters personally between Southeast Asia and Chinese villages like Chaozhou. Their operation was peer-to-peer, identity-verified through kinship, and had a near-zero default rate, as trust was their sole collateral. This evolved into "Piju" (remittance houses), creating an institutional network. They ingeniously used currencies like the Hong Kong Dollar for settlement and practiced netting clearance, offsetting remittance flows against trade payments to minimize physical cash movement. Its resilience shone in wartime. When Japanese forces cut off main routes, the network forged an underground "Dongxing Remittance Path" through Vietnam. It used coded messages ("a bag of rice" for a sum of silver) to evade interception, reliably delivering funds critical for survival and even clandestine support for the war effort. Unlike Swift (built on state cooperation) or blockchain (relying on cryptography), Qiaopi was founded on cl...

Author: Xiaobing, Deep Tide TechFlow

Recently, I've been swamped by posts about "Letters to A-Ma." With a Douban score of 9.1, it's the highest-rated domestic film of the 21st century, a dark horse at the May Day box office, still gaining momentum even after breaking the 200 million yuan mark.

The film tells the story of a letter delayed by half a century. In the Chaoshan region during the 1940s, a man went to Southeast Asia (Nanyang) to seek a livelihood, leaving behind his young wife and three children. He died in a foreign land, and the daughter of the innkeeper, out of a debt of gratitude, spent 18 years writing letters and sending money to his wife under his name.

The crumpled pieces of paper in the movie are called "Pí" in the Teochew dialect. The letters and money sent home by overseas Chinese together are called "Qiaopi." It sounds rustic, but if you know a bit of financial history, you'll understand:

This thing was one of the most magical cross-border financial networks in human history. It emerged a hundred years before SWIFT and a hundred and fifty years before blockchain. Entirely privately operated, peer-to-peer, without central clearing, and operating across sovereignties, it supported half of China's international balance of payments in modern times.

Its entire credit foundation was based on a Teochew saying: "The letter is bigger than life."

A Forgotten Financial Infrastructure

First, look at a few numbers to understand how remarkable this thing was back in the day.

The origin of Qiaopi can be traced back to the mid-19th century. The earliest surviving physical Qiaopi found so far is from 1881, but its actual operation likely started earlier. It continued functioning until 1979, when this business was fully integrated into the Bank of China system, operating for over a full century.

There are about 170,000 archived items, with Guangdong accounting for 160,000 (over 100,000 from the Chaoshan region) and Fujian around 10,000. And these are just the survivors. At its peak, hundreds of millions of dollars flowed into China annually through Qiaopi channels. During the War of Resistance against Japan from 1937–1945, remittances through Qiaopi accounted for over 50% of China's foreign exchange income, holding up half the sky.

Tan Kah Kee alone, relying on Qiaopi to send money home, founded the Jimei Schools in 1913 and Xiamen University in 1921. A complete modern university was funded by one crumpled letter after another.

What's even more astounding was its operating mechanism.

For most of the time before 1979, the operation of this network almost entirely did not rely on any government endorsement, any central bank, or any official clearing system. No SWIFT, no central bank foreign exchange controls, no cross-border interbank accounts—nothing.

What did it rely on? Three things: Shui Ke (water couriers), Pi Ju (Qiaopi agencies), and something called credit—the very thing most lacking and most precious in today's finance industry.

Shui Ke: The Human Version of On-Chain Nodes

In the earliest days, there were no Pi Ju agencies; it was all handled by "Shui Ke."

Shui Ke was a profession, specifically those who traveled back and forth between Nanyang (Southeast Asia) and Chaoshan or Southern Fujian on red-headed ships. They would go to mines, rubber plantations, and docks in Nanyang, visiting fellow villagers door-to-door to collect letters and money, which they then tucked into their belts. The money was literally strapped to their bodies, and upon returning to China, they would deliver it door-to-door to the recipients.

It sounds primitive? But this mechanism had several features that would make modern financial experts exclaim:

First, it was peer-to-peer. No intermediary clearing banks. From the moment the sender handed the money to the Shui Ke until the recipient received it, this money did not pass through any bank account or any sovereign monetary system.

Second, it was identity-verified. The Shui Ke were usually fellow villagers who knew both parties. This was a form of identity authentication more reliable than SSL certificates—you could run, but you couldn't hide your temple. A Shui Ke knew everyone in a Teochew village—how many family members, which alley they lived in, the entire kinship network.

Third, its default rate approached zero.

This point deserves special mention. From the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century, Shui Ke had no collateral, no insurance, no legal recourse. They often carried the entire savings of dozens of households from a single village. Converted to today's purchasing power, a single trip could be worth millions of RMB. If a Shui Ke ran away, no one could catch him, let alone make him pay.

But they just didn't run.

Why? Because the essence of this business was credit as the sole collateral. If a Shui Ke ran off just once, all his relationships with fellow villagers on both sides—in Chaoshan and Nanyang—would instantly evaporate. He would be finished in the Chinese community for life. The cost of being permanently ostracized by the entire community was far heavier than any legal punishment.

Pi Ju: From P2P to a Network of Financial Institutions

As the Shui Ke era continued, some people began to professionalize the business, leading to the emergence of Pi Ju—specialized Qiaopi agencies.

The emergence of Pi Ju upgraded Qiaopi from "individual peer-to-peer" to an "institutional network." But unlike modern banks, Pi Ju remained privately owned, family-run, and networked, with one end in Nanyang and the other in the hometowns, woven together by relationships and family credit.

How intricate was its fund flow? Let's break it down:

Step one: Overseas Chinese A walks into a local Pi Ju in Nanyang, hands over 100 Thai baht, and tells the agency to send it to family member B in Chaoshan.

Step two: The Pi Ju immediately issues A a "Pi" (a letter combined with a remittance slip) based on the exchange rate. The amount written on it might be in Hong Kong dollars or silver dollars, but almost never in Thai baht.

Why not Thai baht? This is one of the smartest aspects of Qiaopi. Early transnational Pi Ju agencies long used Hong Kong dollars as the settlement currency, because the Hong Kong dollar was pegged to the British pound, had good liquidity, and was recognized throughout Southeast Asia. This was equivalent to the modern East Asian Chinese community spontaneously choosing a supra-sovereign settlement currency.

It sounds somewhat like the logic behind the demand for USDT/USDC in today's crypto circles—cross-border, avoiding exchange controls, deep liquidity, and recognized by all participants.

Step three: The Nanyang branch of the Pi Ju sends the letter and remittance instructions back to the corresponding Pi Ju in Chaoshan by ship, but the money doesn't necessarily physically travel back.

This is key. A mature Pi Ju would establish long-term relationships with import-export merchants in Nanyang. The money sent by Nanyang Chinese to their hometowns (Nanyang → Chaoshan direction) could be directly used to pay for goods imported from China (Chaoshan → Nanyang direction). The cash flows in the two directions offset each other, meaning only a small portion of the net difference might need to be transported across borders.

This mechanism has a trendy name today: "netting." The SWIFT system handles trillions of dollars in transactions daily, essentially doing this. The Pi Ju were doing it 100 years ago.

Step four: Upon receiving the instructions, the Chaoshan Pi Ju dispatches "Pi Jiao" (couriers) to make door-to-door deliveries. Pi Jiao often walked dozens of kilometers, visiting each household, reading and writing replies for illiterate wives and mothers-in-law, confirming receipt. Then this "return Pi" would travel back along the same route to Nanyang, completing the entire transaction loop.

The entire process involved no bank accounts, no government regulation, and no central clearing system, yet it ran steadily for a century.

Secret Pi and the Dongxing Remittance Route

The most fantastical stories of Qiaopi occurred during the war years.

In 1939, the Japanese invaders occupied Shantou, completely severing the normal Pi Ju remittance routes. Half a million families in the hometowns faced the imminent cutoff of their livelihood.

At this point, the overseas Chinese did something that would go down in history: they carved out a new underground remittance route.

Goods were shipped from Nanyang by boat to Haiphong, Vietnam, then entered China via the Dongxing checkpoint on the Sino-Vietnamese border. From there, porters carried them basket by basket into Guangxi, eventually making their way back to the hometowns in Guangdong. This route was called the "Dongxing Remittance Route," and at its peak, annual remittances still reached tens of millions of yuan.

While the sovereign financial system collapsed amidst the flames of war, the private financial network temporarily built an entirely new channel.

Even more extreme were the "secret Pi" (An Pi). To evade interception by Japanese troops and later the Kuomintang, overseas Chinese used coded language in their letters to indicate remittance amounts. "One bag of rice" represented a certain number of silver dollars; "five salted fish" represented a certain amount of Hong Kong dollars. This entire coded system operated in the minds of Shui Ke and Pi Jiao; even if the enemy intercepted the letters, they couldn't decipher them.

During the War of Resistance, Zhou Enlai personally wrote a letter of thanks from Wuhan to Tan Yixi, an overseas Chinese in Cuba, because this Chinese compatriot had hidden donations for the anti-Japanese war within Qiaopi and directly delivered them to the Wuhan office of the Eighth Route Army.

What would this be like in today's terms? It's equivalent to a scenario where the US dollar is sanctioned, SWIFT is cut off, and bank accounts are frozen, yet overseas Chinese, relying on a private consensus network, could still deliver tens of millions of dollars worth of funds annually to designated recipients.

Isn't this "censorship-resistant transactions," "off-ledger accounting systems," or "private stablecoin clearing networks"? But its inventors didn't know these terms. They only knew: Grandma at home is waiting for money, the children need to eat, and the country is at war.

A Financial Miracle We May Never See Again

Qiaopi, blockchain, and SWIFT represent different interpretations of credit.

SWIFT is cooperation based on state credit. It is built upon sovereign currencies, central banks, commercial banks, and regulatory coordination. Its strength relies on the stability of the entire international order. Crypto is the credit of mathematics and code, attempting to replace trust in people and institutions with cryptography and consensus algorithms.

And Qiaopi?

The essence of Qiaopi is the credit of clans, hometowns, human connections, and oaths. It had no mathematics, but it had family genealogies, accents, and hometown dialects. Its core engine was a cultural consensus where defaulting meant "social death."

This is what modern finance needs the most: credit itself as collateral.

All so-called "innovations" in today's finance industry essentially aim to compensate for the disappearance of this very thing: collateral, guarantees, regulation, insurance, legal recourse, credit scores, KYC, AML. We use increasingly complex systems in an attempt to recreate that simple state where "a Shui Ke carries a village's money in his belt and still doesn't run."

The weight of this difficulty can only be truly felt through specific people.

During the Guangxu era, Yang Jie, a Chinese immigrant in Thailand, sent a Qiaopi home containing only 10 characters: "Upon receiving this letter, immediately redeem my daughter and bring her home." Remittances had been interrupted at the time, forcing his wife to sell their daughter. After learning this, his heart was torn with grief. He urgently sent 50,000 yuan home, able to write nothing more than "immediately."

Chen Lianyin, a female street vendor in Singapore, struggling to survive herself, heard her mother had injured her foot. She scrimped and saved to send money home: "Mother, due to constant lack of food, you injured your foot, unable to walk without a cane. Hearing this, I cannot help but weep." She called this a sin against familial duty.

The last Qiaopi the grandmother received in the movie reads: "Although Siam (Thailand) is far, the heart has its abode. Even if separated by distance, take care and be safe—that itself is reunion."

The amounts in Qiaopi were mostly 5 HKD, 10 HKD, 50 HKD—just a little bit sent with each letter, but year after year. Over a century, generations of Chinese, tens of thousands of Pi Ju agencies, hundreds of thousands of Shui Ke and Pi Jiao, delivered these small sums and words of peace across wars, revolutions, turmoil, and famines, right on time to the doorsteps of homes in Chaoshan, Southern Fujian, and Wuyi counties that they might never have the chance to return to in their lifetime.

The engineering difficulty of this feat has yet to be replicated by any modern payment system under equivalent conditions.

And its entire tech stack was simply: a red-headed ship, a Shui Ke with a familiar accent, a faded belt, and the words "The letter is bigger than life."

All the grand narratives in the crypto space over the past decade—decentralized cross-border payments, permissionless financial networks, global clearing bypassing SWIFT, private stablecoins, credit as collateral—have already happened in those long-forgotten villages along China's southern coast, in the hands of those illiterate grandmothers and mothers-in-law, around the waists of those uneducated Shui Ke, for a full hundred years.

This is a story about the most simple yet magnificent essence of the word "credit," one we may never see again.

Dedicated to all those who ever wrote a word, signed a name, entrusted a sum, or received a payment on those yellowed pages.

And to all those still trying to rebuild such networks of credit today.

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat was the '侨批' (Qiaopi) system and how did it function as a cross-border financial network?

AThe '侨批' (Qiaopi) system was a private, cross-border financial and communication network operated by Chinese diasporas, primarily from Chaozhou and Fujian, to send letters and remittances back to their families in China from Southeast Asia ('Nanyang'). It functioned for over a century, from the mid-19th century until 1979, without relying on government backing, central banks, or official clearing systems. It operated through 'water travelers' (水客) and specialized private agencies (批局), using social credit, clan relationships, and a cultural consensus where default was akin to social death.

QHow did the 'water traveler' (水客) system demonstrate characteristics of a decentralized network?

AThe 'water traveler' system demonstrated decentralized, peer-to-peer characteristics. It had no central clearinghouse; money passed directly from the sender to the traveler and then to the recipient. Identity verification was based on personal acquaintance and shared village ties, which was more reliable than formal certificates. Remarkably, the default rate was near zero because a traveler's entire livelihood depended on their reputation within the close-knit community—a breach of trust meant permanent social and economic exile, a penalty far heavier than any legal consequence.

QWhat sophisticated financial mechanisms did the specialized agencies (批局) develop, and what modern concepts did they anticipate?

AThe specialized agencies (批局) developed sophisticated mechanisms. They often used the Hong Kong dollar as a de facto settlement currency across borders, anticipating the need for a stable, widely accepted medium like modern stablecoins (USDT/USDC). Crucially, they practiced netting settlement (净额清算), where remittance funds from Southeast Asia to China were offset against payments for goods imported from China to Southeast Asia, minimizing the physical cross-border movement of cash. This is a core function of modern systems like SWIFT.

QHow did the Qiaopi network adapt and prove its resilience during times of war and disruption?

ADuring wars, such as the Japanese invasion which cut off normal routes, the Qiaopi network demonstrated incredible resilience by creating new, underground channels. The most famous was the 'Dongxing Remittance Route' (东兴汇路), which redirected funds through Vietnam and into China via porters. Agents also used coded messages ('暗批'), where phrases like 'a bag of rice' represented specific amounts of money, to evade interception. This allowed millions in remittance equivalents to continue flowing to families and even direct donations to support抗日 efforts, functioning as an anti-censorship, off-ledger network long before such terms existed.

QWhat is the core difference between the credit foundation of the Qiaopi system and modern financial systems like SWIFT or blockchain?

AThe core difference lies in the foundation of credit. SWIFT relies on the cooperation of institutional and sovereign credit, backed by central banks, regulations, and the international financial order. Blockchain/crypto relies on cryptographic and algorithmic trust enforced by code and consensus mechanisms. In contrast, the Qiaopi system's credit was rooted in social, familial, and cultural bonds—clan relationships, shared dialect, hometown ties, and an unwritten code where one's word and reputation were the sole collateral. Its operation was based on a cultural consensus where default meant complete social ostracization, a form of 'social collateral' that modern finance tries to replicate with complex systems of laws, insurance, and collateral.

Leituras Relacionadas

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

In a landscape dominated by power and profit motives, the author argues that decentralization is not merely one desirable feature among many in blockchain design—it is the singular, non-negotiable defense against corporate and capital capture. The article adopts a Machiavellian, realist perspective on human institutions, positing that businesses will inevitably attempt to co-opt any valuable network to protect their profits and dominance. While external attacks like 51% forks are often discussed, the greater existential risk is internal capture—the gradual erosion of a protocol’s neutrality by vested interests, as seen historically with platforms like Visa and Google. The piece critiques permissioned chains, highly centralized “permissionless” layer-1s, and layer-2s without sufficient decentralization (e.g., single sequencers) as inherently vulnerable. These compromised systems, promoted by established financial players, are framed as delaying tactics to stifle truly open networks that threaten existing high-fee, inefficient business models. Real-world examples, such as closed enterprise consortiums that exclude competitors, illustrate how such systems cement oligopolies rather than foster innovation. The author concludes that while decentralized protocols like Ethereum are imperfect and costly to operate, they represent the only viable long-term equilibrium. In a market where value naturally flows to the most secure and neutral settlement layer, only maximally decentralized public blockchains can resist being subsumed by capital and powerful incumbents.

Foresight NewsHá 10m

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

Foresight NewsHá 10m

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbitHá 27m

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbitHá 27m

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Title: Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate A new technical proposal, BIP-110 (Reduced Data Temporary Softfork), has sparked a fundamental governance debate within the Bitcoin community. It aims to impose new consensus rules for one year to limit non-financial data (like inscriptions and Runes) on-chain, moving beyond simple node and miner policy filters to invalidate currently valid transactions. Supporters argue that default policies have failed due to workarounds, necessitating consensus-layer changes to protect Bitcoin's core monetary function from data spam. Critics, including Michael Saylor and Adam Back, contend this dangerously centralizes judgment, undermines permissionlessness, and sets a risky governance precedent. They advocate for market-based solutions like fees or Layer 2s instead. The debate exposes deeper tensions: miners are divided on activation; node operators assert their sovereignty; Bitcoin Core developers influence defaults without direct accountability; and large corporate holders like MicroStrategy now wield narrative influence. Technically, BIP-110 may not fully block data and carries a disclosed consensus bug risk. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a stress test, forcing the community to confront the unresolved question: who legitimately decides what Bitcoin is and how it evolves, amidst competing claims from miners, nodes, developers, and capital holders.

链捕手Há 39m

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

链捕手Há 39m

Zcash's New Node Zakura Goes Live: Privacy Payments Can Reach 50,000 TPS, Aiming to Rival Visa and Mastercard

Zcash, a privacy-focused cryptocurrency, has launched a new full node software called Zakura version 1.0.0. Developed by Zcash co-founder Sean Bowe and Dev Ojha, with private ZEC donations, its goal is to enable Zcash to process over 50,000 transactions per second (TPS)—matching the scale of Visa and Mastercard—while maintaining full transaction privacy and verifiability. This addresses a key bottleneck, as Zcash currently handles only about 1 private transaction per second. Zakura is a fork of the Zcash Foundation's Zebra node. It features chain pruning and snapshots, reducing disk usage and allowing new nodes to sync in under two minutes. It also offers compatibility with the legacy `zcashd` client interface. The scalability challenge stems from the large data size of privacy proofs. Bowe's Tachyon project aims to use recursive proofs to reduce consensus-layer data needs from ~500 MB/s to ~100 MB/s. For wallet scalability, Valar Group is researching Private Information Retrieval (PIR) tech to allow wallets to fetch their data privately. Zakura supports fast block propagation and the upcoming "Ironwood" network upgrade (NU6.3), scheduled for activation around July 28th. Ironwood was created to contain a critical inflation bug discovered in the Orchard shielded pool in May 2024. The fix uses "turnstiles" to trap any counterfeit ZEC created during the vulnerability period within the shielded pool, preventing it from entering circulation and restoring supply integrity.

marsbitHá 54m

Zcash's New Node Zakura Goes Live: Privacy Payments Can Reach 50,000 TPS, Aiming to Rival Visa and Mastercard

marsbitHá 54m

Trading

Spot
活动图片