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

比推Опубліковано о 2026-03-02Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-02

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

human.tech Launches Clean SDK for Privacy-First Web3 Apps

human.tech has launched the Clean SDK, a toolkit enabling developers to build privacy-first Web3 applications with transparent accountability. Released alongside Aztec's version 5, the SDK provides components for integrating zero-knowledge identity verification, sanctions screening, and private transactions, without developers handling sensitive user data or building compliance infrastructure from scratch. It uses zero-knowledge proofs and programmable verification to allow apps to confirm user legitimacy and sanctions compliance while keeping identities confidential. The first application built on the SDK, Shield, a privacy bridge to Aztec, also launched. It allows users to transfer assets privately while proving a unique human is behind each transfer and that funds have passed sanctions checks, as verified by a May 2026 audit. The SDK offers three core verification techniques: Proof of Innocence (sanctions screening against 23 sources), Proof of Personhood (simpler verification via Human Passport), and Proof of Clean Hands (higher-assurance zero-knowledge government ID checks). This allows apps to authenticate users and transactions without exposing personal data. Designed for Aztec builders, the SDK lets developers add programmable privacy to decentralized apps, eliminating the need to create their own verification and ZK infrastructure. Shield demonstrates its practical use for private bridges, but the SDK aims to enable a wider ecosystem of private, accountable financial apps and services. The launch addresses growing demand for infrastructure that balances privacy and accountability. The SDK avoids traditional identity databases, storing encrypted data off-chain, screening at both entry and exit points, and including a gated disclosure mechanism for legal requests. human.tech's products, including the Clean SDK, focus on using zero-knowledge technology to enable verifiable personhood and privacy in digital systems.

TheNewsCrypto4 хв тому

human.tech Launches Clean SDK for Privacy-First Web3 Apps

TheNewsCrypto4 хв тому

Unlocking $100 Million in Liquidity? Pump.fun's New Policy Tests the 5-Minute Pump Technique

Pump.fun, a popular meme coin launchpad, has introduced a new standard mechanism called BOOST. It aims to address a significant capital efficiency issue: when a newly launched token graduates from its initial bonding curve to a liquidity pool (LP), roughly 20% of its liquidity becomes permanently locked as "dead liquidity," estimated to waste over $100 million annually. Instead of locking these funds permanently, BOOST repurposes them. Upon a token's migration, approximately 20% of the settlement funds (e.g., 17.6 SOL or ~$2516 USDC) are used to buy back the token on the open market over a 5-minute period via a Time-Weighted Average Price (TWAP) mechanism. All purchased tokens are immediately burned. This creates a brief, systematic buy pressure immediately after migration, potentially generating a short-term price surge ("pump") while permanently reducing the token's circulating supply. The goal is to enhance the immediate post-launch trading experience, potentially increasing trader retention and sustainable protocol revenue, which funds ongoing token buybacks. However, concerns exist that this artificial 5-minute boost could lower the barrier for launching low-quality tokens and lead to steeper price crashes once the buy pressure stops, if followed by large sell-offs. The feature automatically applies to tokens migrating after July 21, 2024, but not to previously migrated tokens or those launched via the Mayhem AI Agent lab.

marsbit12 хв тому

Unlocking $100 Million in Liquidity? Pump.fun's New Policy Tests the 5-Minute Pump Technique

marsbit12 хв тому

Podcast Notes | Conversation with GSR Asset Management Head: To Determine if This Crypto Rally is Real, Just Watch the Lending Rates on Aave

Podcast Summary: Dialogue with GSR's Head of Asset Management: To Determine if This Crypto Rally is Real, Just Check Lending Rates on Aave Andy Baehr, Managing Director of Asset Management at GSR, discusses the current crypto market, characterizing it as stuck in a state of "ambivalence" with short-lived, unsustainable rallies. He outlines a simple framework: the market moves between "ambivalence" and "conviction" (sustained upward momentum). Currently, every rally resembles a single-stage rocket booster that quickly fizzles out. Baehr identifies three key signals to watch: 1) DeFi lending rates, 2) the potential passage of the CLARITY Act, and 3) the market forming a consensus on the "Fed hawkish peak." He emphasizes that the most immediate indicator for the sustainability of the recent CPI-triggered rally is the USDC borrowing rate on Aave, currently around 3.75%—close to U.S. Treasury yields. The absence of a credit spread indicates low leverage demand and a lack of market energy. He explains that a healthy, sustained rally requires layered buying pressure. Last year's rally progressed from an ETH short squeeze to crypto-native trader influx and finally to ETF inflows. Currently, this structure is missing. Other potential structural buyers like Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) companies are absent, and ETF flows have proven transient. Baehr notes that while small-cap crypto tokens outperformed large caps in Q2—a potential sign of capitation in major assets—capital is also flowing to more exciting opportunities like AI stocks and tech IPOs, leaving crypto sidelined. Regarding DeFi, he highlights that platforms like Aave provide a clear, real-time signal of leverage demand through their supply/demand-driven interest rates. A significant, sustained rate increase would signal genuine market conviction. He also observes the quiet emergence of fixed-income-like products and vaults in DeFi. On regulation, the probability of the CLARITY Act passing before the August 7th deadline has dropped linearly from 75% to below 40% on Polymarket. Baehr suggests its passage would be treated as a bullish surprise, a potent driver for price movement. However, political hurdles, including ethical clause debates and disclosures about the First Family's crypto profits, remain significant obstacles. Ultimately, the market awaits clarity on the Fed's terminal rate under Chair Warsh. Until the "Fed Solstice"—the point where the market collectively understands the peak of hawkish policy—sustained conviction will be difficult to achieve.

marsbit43 хв тому

Podcast Notes | Conversation with GSR Asset Management Head: To Determine if This Crypto Rally is Real, Just Watch the Lending Rates on Aave

marsbit43 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片